Anti-White Attitudes

Sorry I Murdered You With My ‘Hate Speech’

/35 Comments/in /by
Sorry I Murdered You With My ‘Hate Speech’

     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.

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.

     COPYRIGHT 2022 ANN COULTER

     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

/27 Comments/in , /by

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.

On the True Meaning of Hate Speech

/61 Comments/in , , , /by

“A law against Jew-hatred is usually the beginning of the end for the Jews.”
—Joseph Goebbels, diary (April 19, 1943)[1]

‘Hate’ is such an ugly word.  And such a juvenile word.  It calls to mind the stereotypical eight-year-old girl who screams “I hate you!” to her mother when she is not allowed to join the local sleep-over.  The word is most often used half-jokingly—“I hate the Yankees!”, “I hate broccoli!”, etc.—or to describe some detested task (“I hate cleaning the bathroom”).  Or it can be used for rhetorical effect.  But the use of the term in the context of ‘hate speech’ is silly, juvenile, and formally meaningless.  We may dislike someone or some group, or be repulsed by them, or wish to dissociate from them.  But to hate them?  Seriously—what mature individual today is willing to openly and earnestly say “I hate you” to anyone?  Only a highly insecure or severely distressed person would do such a thing.  It’s a sign of weakness.

And yet today, hate seems to be the ethos of the moment.  More specifically, we seem to be surrounded by talk of ‘hate speech’ in the mass media.  To judge by various headlines and liberal pundits, hate speech would appear to be among the greatest dangers of modern existence—on par with racism and “White supremacy,” and greater than political corruption, international terrorism, global pandemics, financial instability, environmental decline, overpopulation, or uncontrollable industrial technology.  Most European countries have legal prohibitions against various forms of hate speech, however ill-defined, as do Canada and Australia.  Even in the US there is increasing pressure to create legal sanction for some such concept, the First Amendment notwithstanding.

I take this whole topic very personally.  It’s no secret that I’ve written harshly against Jews and other minorities.  It’s no secret that I prefer living in a White community and a White nation.  I have no need to apologize for any of this.  And yet, for these very reasons, some people find it appropriate to call me a ‘hater’:  “Dalton hates the Jews”; “he hates Blacks,” “he hates Latinos,” etc., etc.  But I state here, for the record, that nothing is further from the truth.  I hate no one.  I may dislike certain people, I may find them malevolent and malicious, I may want them punished, and I may want to separate myself from them; but this does not mean that I hate them.  In this era of “hate crimes” and “hate speech laws,” this requires some explanation.

As usual, we should start by knowing what we are talking about.  What, exactly, is it to ‘hate’?  The word has ancient origins, deriving from the Indo-European kədes and Greek kedos.  Originally, and surprisingly, it meant simply ‘strong feelings’ in a neutral sense, rather than something negative.  In fact, the Old Irish word caiss includes both love and hate.  But the negative connotation emerged with the Germanic khatis (later, hass), the Dutch haat, and eventually became ingrained in the English ‘hate.’

The standard dictionary definition typically runs something like this:  “intense or extreme dislike, aversion, or hostility” toward someone or something.  As such, the word is fairly innocuous; I can hate my job, hate asparagus, and even hate my boss.  But this is not at issue.  We are more concerned about hate as a mindset, and specifically as oriented toward classes of people, or increasingly, toward certain privileged ideologies.

But we immediately confront a major problem here:  Hate is a feeling, and feelings are indelibly subjective.  And anything that is completely subjective cannot be quantified in objective terms.  No one can say with certainty that “Dalton hates X.”  Only I can say, “I hate X,” precisely because it is my own feeling.  If there is one thing that I insist upon, it is complete sovereignty over my own feelings.  No one else will ever dictate how I feel about anything.

And even if I say “I hate X,” how does anyone else know that I really feel the hatred?  They don’t.  Maybe I’m being sarcastic.  Maybe I’m joking.  Maybe I’m just trying to cause a stir.  No one will ever know my actual feelings except me—precisely because they are my own.  No one will ever know if I am expressing “real” hatred, or just pretending.  (Does that even matter?)

The point here is that hatred, because it vanishes into a subjective void that is utterly inaccessible to others, can never be quantified or objectified, and thus can never be the basis for legal enforcement—at least, not in any rational sense.  Therefore, the corresponding concept of ‘hate speech,’ viewed as the expression of hatred, likewise melts into thin air.  It is, technically, an incoherent concept when put forth as a basis for law.  This fact, of course, does not stop corrupt lawmakers around the globe from trying to enforce it, though for very different reasons, as I will explain.

So, let’s take a look at how some attempt to define the indefinable.  Here is one interesting definition from the Cambridge Dictionary:  hate speech is

public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence toward a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation (= the fact of being gay, etc.)

This is a hugely problematic definition, on several grounds.  First, how public is ‘public’?  If I tell my neighbor, is that public?  If I publish something in a private chat room, is that public?  What if I mumble something aloud to a friend while in a shopping mall?  Am I responsible if a private email to a colleague gets reposted online?  And so on.

Second:  it involves the “expression of hate,” or “encouragement of violence.”  These are two vastly different things.  ‘Expression of hate’ is, as I said, functionally meaningless.  What, exactly, does it take for something to qualify as an “expression of hate”?  Presumably if I say “I hate X,” that counts.  But what else?  Does “I really, really, really dislike X” count?  Does “I’d like to see X die” count?  What about “I’d like to see X get very ill”?  Does “X is a total scumbag” count?  We can see the problems.  Incitement to violence is somewhat less ambiguous, but still problematic.  Who, for example, is to judge ‘encouragement’?  This is another highly subjective term.  And how much violence is necessary to qualify?  Is a good shove violent?  A pie in the face?  Tripping someone?  Is ‘emotional distress’ violence?  What about financial loss?

Third, we notice that it’s not violence per se, but rather violence “based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.”  This is very odd.  What does the phrase “something such as” mean here?  The qualifiers mentioned are usually assumed to be intrinsic to the person or group (race, gender)—except that religion, and even sexual orientation, can be changed at the drop of a hat.  Therefore, the qualities need not be intrinsic.  So what, exactly, is this mysterious criteria, this “something such as,” that is so crucial for the whole concept?

The point here is that the whole notion of ‘hate speech,’ like hate itself, dissolves into a subjective void.  In objective terms, it is virtually meaningless.  How, then, can be it be subject to the force of law?

The UN Takes a Shot

As if they don’t have enough on their plate already, the United Nations is now highly distressed by the spread of hate speech around the world.  Recently, in May 2019, they issued a short statement called “Strategy and plan of action on hate speech.”  It included this observation:

There is no international legal definition of hate speech, and the characterization of what is ‘hateful’ is controversial and disputed.  In the context of this document, the term ‘hate speech’ is understood as any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are—in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor.  This is often rooted in, and generates, intolerance and hatred and, in certain contexts, can be demeaning and divisive.

The key phrases here:  “controversial and disputed” (obviously), “any kind of communication” (very broad), “pejorative or discriminatory language” (highly subjective and undefined), and “on the basis of who they are” (mostly intrinsic factors, except for nationality and religion, and possibly “other identity factors”).  And then we read the subsequent explanatory paragraph:

Rather than prohibiting hate speech as such, international law prohibits the incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence (referred to here as ‘incitement’).  Incitement is a very dangerous form of speech, because it explicitly and deliberately aims at triggering discrimination, hostility and violence, which may also lead to or include terrorism or atrocity crimes.  Hate speech that does not reach the threshold of incitement is not something that international law requires States to prohibit.

So, hate speech per se is not to be prohibited, but rather only a special kind of hate speech—“inciteful (to violence) hate speech.”  In other words, only the worst of the worst, apparently.  Clarification and elaboration would soon follow.

Also, the Foreword to the statement reveals something of the deeper motives at work here.  We find, in the opening paragraph, references to “anti-Semitism,” “neo-Nazis,” and the dreaded “White supremacy.”  Strange how we inevitably find such terms in any discussion of hate speech; more on this below.

Evidently dissatisfied with this short statement, the UN issued a 52-page “detailed guidance” report, under the same name, in September 2020.  Here they establish three levels of hate speech:  1) the worst kind: “direct and public incitement to violence” (including to genocide), 2) a grey zone of hate speech to be prohibited based on “legitimate aims” and only as “necessary and proportionate”, and 3) an unrestricted and lawful form that may still be “offensive, shocking, or disturbing.”  Level One (“Incitement”) hate speech in turn is based on, and determined by, six conditions:

  • 1) social and political context
  • 2) status of the speaker (!)
  • 3) intention of the speaker (!)
  • 4) form and content of the speech
  • 5) extent of dissemination
  • 6) likelihood of harm

Level One Hate must satisfy all six criteria, meaning (presumably): a sensitive time or social context, an influential or important speaker, bad intent, provocative style, widely disseminated, and with reasonable probability of harm.  Again, all six are required, for Level One status.  Levels Two and Three may meet some, or none, of these.  The six criteria are elaborated on pages 17 and 18 of the report.

Later in the document we find an interesting admission:  “The terms ‘hatred’ and ‘hostility’ should be understood to refer to intense and irrational emotions of opprobrium, enmity, and detestation towards the target group” (p. 13).  This is actually quite a relief; any opposition to Jews or other minorities, if rational and non-emotional (e.g., fact-based) cannot count as hate speech!  Therefore, writings by scholars, academics, or other serious researchers, who build a case based on facts, history, and plausible inference, are under no circumstances engaging in hate speech.  This is a huge loophole that somehow slipped past the ideological censors, one which we should be able to use to our advantage.

We (some of us, at least) get further relief on the following page, where we read that Level Three (allowable) Hate includes not only “expression that is offensive, shocking, or disturbing” but also covers “denial of historical events, including crimes of genocide or crimes against humanity.”  As the UN sees it, so-called Holocaust denial is permissible, or at least non-punishable, hate speech.[2]  And in Figure 4 they go further still, stating that Level Three hate “must be PROTECTED” as a form of free expression.  This is a remarkable concession.  Ah, but there’s a catch:  “unless such forms of expression also constitute incitement to hostility, discrimination, or violence under article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”  This document, written in 1966 and made effective in 1976, includes these words under article 20:  “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.”  So it would seem that, for example, Holocaust “denial” (whatever that means) is not prohibited as long as it avoids any connection to “incitement” of any kind.  Presumably discussing it as a historical subject is fine; just don’t implicate anyone today who promotes, exploits, or profits from the conventional Holocaust story.

“It’s always about the Jews!”

So, let’s get down to the rub.  I have a tentative hypothesis that I am willing to put forward:  Hate speech is by, for, and about Jews.  (Oops—is that hate speech?)  That is, that hate speech laws have been invented and promoted by Jews, primarily for their benefit.  I further hold that Jews are the master-class haters in world history, and that they understand the power of hatred better than any other people.  They have furthermore learned how to project their hatred onto others in service of their own ends, including by trickery and deception.  Let me marshal whatever evidence I can, mostly implicit, to build a case for this hypothesis.

Start with a little history of Jews and hatred.  Perhaps the first explicit connection came way back in 300 BC, in a short writing by Hecateus of Abdera titled “On the Jews.”  Only two fragments remain, one of which is relevant:  As a result of the Exodus, “Moses introduced a way of life which was, to a certain extent, misanthropic (apanthropon) and hostile to foreigners”.[3]  It is striking that, even at that early date, the Jews had a reputation for misanthropy—a hatred of humanity.  The same theme recurs in 134 BC, when King Antiochus VII was advised “to destroy the Jews, for they alone among all peoples refused all relations with other races, and saw everyone as their enemy.”  The king’s counselor cited “the Jews’ hatred of all mankind, sanctioned by their very laws.”[4]  Not only was their hatred notable, so too was the fact that it was “they alone, among all peoples”; the Jews were exceptional haters, it seems.

It is worth further expanding on the idea that Jewish hatred is “sanctioned by their very laws”—by which they mean, the Old Testament.  We know, of course, that the Jews viewed themselves as “chosen” by the creator of the universe:  “For you are a people holy to the Lord your God.  The Lord your God has chosen you to be a people for his own possession, out of all the peoples that are on the face of the earth” (Deut 7:6).  Clearly, then, everyone else is second-best.  We also know that God supposedly gave the Jews a kind of dominion over the other nations of the Earth.  The Book of Exodus states, “we [Jews] are distinct…from all other people that are upon the face of the earth” (33:16).  Similarly, the Hebrew tribe is “a people dwelling alone, and not reckoning itself among the nations” (Num 23:9).  In Deuteronomy (15:6), Moses tells the Jews “you shall rule over many nations”; “they shall be afraid of you” (28:10).  There is Genesis:  “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you” (27:29); or Deuteronomy, where God promises Jews “houses full of all good things, which [they] did not fill, and cisterns hewn out, which [they] did not hew, and vineyards and olive trees, which [they] did not plant” (6:11).  And outside the Pentateuch, we can read in Isaiah:  “Foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister to you…that men may bring you the wealth of the nations” (60:10–11); or again, “aliens shall stand and feed your flocks, foreigners shall be your plowmen and vinedressers…you shall eat the wealth of the nations” (61:5–6).  What is this but explicit misanthropy, sanctioned by God, and sustained “by their very laws”?

Around 50 BC, Diodorus Siculus wrote Historical Library where, in the course of discussing the Exodus, he observes that “the nation of Jews had made their hatred of mankind into a tradition” (34,1).  A few decades later, Lysimachus remarked that the Hebrew tribe was instructed by Moses “to show good will to no man” and to offer only “the worse advice” to others.  And in the early years of the Christian era, the writer Apion commented on the Jewish tendency “to show no goodwill to a single alien, above all to Greeks.”[5]  Again, repeated observations of Jewish hatred toward Gentile humanity.

The most insightful ancient critique, though, comes from Roman historian Tacitus.  His works Histories (100 AD) and Annals (115 AD) both record highly damning observations on the Hebrew tribe.  In the former, the Jews are described as “a race of men hateful to the gods” (genus hominum invisium deis, V.3).  Somewhat later, he remarks that “the Jews are extremely loyal toward one another, and always ready to show compassion, but toward every other people they feel only hate and enmity” (hostile odium, V.5).  But his most famous line comes from his later work, Annals.  There he examines the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD, and Nero’s reaction to it.  Nero, says Tacitus, pinned the blame in part on the Christians and Jews—“a class of men loathed for their vices.”  The Jews “were convicted, not so much on the count of arson as for hatred of the human race” (odio humani generis, XV.44).  Clearly this was the decisive factor, certainly in Tacitus’ eyes and perhaps in all of Rome:  that the Jewish odio humani generis, hatred of humanity, was a sufficient crime to banish and even slay them.

I could go on, but the message is clear:  The ancient world viewed the Jews as exceptional haters.  I could also cite, for example, Philostratus circa 230 AD (“The Jews have long been in revolt not only against the Romans, but against all humanity”) or Porphyry circa 280 AD (The Jews are “the impious enemies of all nations”)—but the point is made.

Importantly, this impression carried on for centuries in Europe, into the Renaissance, the Reformation, and even through to the present day.  Martin Luther’s monumental work On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) includes this passage:  “Now you can see what fine children of Abraham the Jews really are, how well they take after their father [the Devil], yes, what a fine people of God they are.  They boast before God of their physical birth and of the noble blood inherited from their fathers, despising all other people.”[6]  Two centuries later, circa 1745, Jean-Baptiste de Mirabaud wrote that “The Jews…were hated because they were known to hate other men.”[7]  And then we have Voltaire’s entry on “Jews” in his famous Philosophical Dictionary, which reads as follows:

It is certain that the Jewish nation is the most singular that the world has ever seen, and…in a political view, the most contemptible of all. …  It is commonly said that the abhorrence in which the Jews held other nations proceeded from their horror of idolatry; but it is much more likely that the manner in which they, at the first, exterminated some of the tribes of Canaan, and the hatred which the neighboring nations conceived for them, were the cause of this invincible aversion.  As they knew no nations but their neighbors, they thought that, in abhorring them, they detested the whole earth, and thus accustomed themselves to be the enemies of all men. …  In short, we find in them only an ignorant and barbarous people, who have long united the most sordid avarice with the most detestable superstition and the most invincible hatred for every people by whom they are tolerated and enriched.[8]

British historian Edward Gibbon stated the following in his classic work of 1788, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

The Jews…emerged from obscurity…and multiplied to a surprising degree. …  The sullen obstinacy with which they maintained their peculiar rites and unsocial manners seemed to mark them out a distinct species of men, who boldly professed, or who faintly disguised, their implacable hatred to the rest of human-kind.[9]

A similar observation came from the pen of German philosopher Johann Fichte in 1793:

Throughout almost all the countries of Europe, a mighty hostile state is spreading that is at perpetual war with all other states, and in many of them imposes fearful burdens on the citizens: it is the Jews.  I don’t think, as I hope to show subsequently, that this state is fearful—not because it forms a separate and solidly united state, but because this state is founded on the hatred of the whole human race…[10]

Who, then, are the master haters in all of history?

Particularly striking are the words of Nietzsche.  A long series of negative comments on the Jews began in 1881 with his book Daybreak, where he observes in passing (sec. 377) that “The command ‘love your enemies’ had to be invented by the Jews, the best haters there have ever been.”  So it would seem that the Jews are truly best at something after all: hatred.  Then in The Gay Science (1882), Nietzsche sarcastically notes that the Jews are indeed ‘chosen’ people, precisely because “they had a more profound contempt for the human being in themselves than any other people” (sec. 136).

But the most stunning discourse appears in Nietzsche’s work of 1887, On the Genealogy of Morals, where he offers a detailed analysis of hatred from the Judeo-Christian perspective.  In short, Jewish hatred is manifested most visibly in their rabbis, religious men, and their priests.  Sanctioned by God, priestly hate is the deepest and most profound; it is the hatred of those without tangible power.  Jewish hatred then metastasized in Christianity, taking form as its nominal opposite, namely, love.  The First Essay is a masterpiece of literature and philosophy; I quote it at length:

As is well known, priests are the most evil of enemies—but why?  Because they are the most powerless.  From their powerlessness, their hate grows among them into something huge and terrifying, to the most spiritual and most poisonous manifestations.  The really great haters in world history and the most spiritual haters have always been priests—in comparison with the spirit of priestly revenge, all the remaining spirits are generally hardly worth considering.

Let us quickly consider the greatest example.  Everything on earth which has been done against “the noble,” “the powerful,” “the masters,” “the rulers” is not worth mentioning in comparison with what the Jews have done against them: the Jews, that priestly people, who knew how to get final satisfaction from their enemies and conquerors through a radical transformation of their values, that is, through an act of the most spiritual revenge.  This was appropriate only to a priestly people with the most deeply repressed priestly desire for revenge.  In opposition to the aristocratic value equations (good = noble = powerful = beautiful = fortunate = loved by god), the Jews, with an awe-inspiring consistency, dared to reverse things and to hang on to that with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of the powerless)…  (sec. 7)

But you fail to understand that?  You have no eye for something that needed two millennia to emerge victorious? … That’s nothing to wonder at: all lengthy things are hard to see, to assess.  However, that’s what took place: out of the trunk of that tree of vengeance and hatred, Jewish hatred—the deepest and most sublime hatred, that is, a hatred which creates ideals and transforms values, something whose like has never existed on earth—from that grew something just as incomparable, a new love, the deepest and most sublime of all the forms of love: —from what other trunk could it have grown?

However, one should not assume that this love arose essentially as the denial of that thirst for vengeance, as the opposite of Jewish hatred!  No: the reverse is the truth!  This love grew out of that hatred, as its crown, as the victorious crown unfolding itself wider and wider in the purest brightness and sunshine, which, so to speak, was seeking for the kingdom of light and height, the goal of that hate, aiming for victory, trophies, seduction, with the same urgency with which the roots of that hatred were sinking down ever deeper and more greedily into everything that was evil and possessed depth.  This Jesus of Nazareth, the living evangelist of love, the “Saviour” bringing holiness and victory to the poor, to the sick, to the sinners—was he not that very seduction in its most terrible and most irresistible form, the seduction and detour to exactly those Jewish values and innovations in ideals?  (sec. 8)

On this view, Christian ‘love’ grows out of Jewish ‘hate,’ like the crown of the tree from its roots.  The Jews (and Paul specifically), the master haters, purveyors of the “deepest and most sublime hatred” that has ever existed, created the idea of a saviour who loves everyone.  They did so as cover for their hatred of humanity, and as an enticement into their Jewish-inspired worldview—one of a Jewish man-god (Jesus), of Jehovah the Almighty, of heaven and hell.  These destructive and nihilistic “values and innovations” could only be foisted upon a humanity that was detested.  Christianity was thus the greatest manifestation of Jewish hatred ever conceived.

Nietzsche summarizes his thesis concisely in section 16:

In Rome the Jew was considered “guilty of hatred against the entire human race.”  And that view was correct, to the extent that we are right to link the health and the future of the human race to the unconditional rule of aristocratic values, the Roman values.

The nihilistic Christian values—based on a mythical God and an unknowable and perhaps nonexistent future life—managed to undermine and ultimately displace the superior Greco-Roman values that had flourished for 800 years and created the foundation of all of Western civilization.  Only an overthrow of Judeo-Christianity and a return to classic, aristocratic values can save humanity at this point.  The quoted passage refers, of course, to Tacitus.

We can’t leave the Genealogy without brief mention of a fascinating and humorous allegory on hatred that Nietzsche offers in section 13.  There he compares the situation between lowly (Judeo-Christian) haters and the strong and noble (Roman) aristocrats to the opposition that might exist between baby lambs and some nasty predator (Raubvogel), like an eagle.  The lambs are innocently and peacefully munching grass in a field, but live in constant fear of a predator who may, at any time, swoop in and snatch them up.  The weak lambs are haters; they hate those birds of prey.  But the noble eagles don’t hate at all.  Nietzsche explains:

But let’s come back: the problem with the other origin of the “good,” of the good man, as the person of ressentiment has imagined it for himself, demands its own conclusion.  —That the lambs are upset about the great predatory birds is not a strange thing, and the fact that they snatch away small lambs provides no reason for holding anything against these large birds of prey.  And if the lambs say among themselves, “These predatory birds are evil, and whoever is least like a predatory bird, especially anyone who is like its opposite, a lamb—shouldn’t that animal be good?” there is nothing to find fault with in this setting-up of an ideal, except for the fact that the birds of prey might look down on them with a little mockery and perhaps say to themselves, “We are not at all annoyed with these good lambs.  We even love them.  Nothing is tastier than a tender lamb.”

The noble don’t hate; they rule and dominate.  Only the weak hate.  The weak haters furthermore seek to portray the strong and noble in the harshest possible terms: “evil,” “killers,” “sinners.”  But this is ludicrous, of course.  The strong are just doing what is appropriate to their nature.  The haters might then try to confuse the strong, to guilt them into changing their behavior, to get them to become ‘weak’ and ‘good’ like the haters themselves.  But this would be the death of them, just as a life of munching grass—so pleasant for a lamb—would mean death for an eagle.  Nietzsche emphasizes this very point:

[I]t’s no wonder that the repressed, secretly smouldering feelings of rage and hate use this belief for themselves, and basically even maintain a faith in nothing more fervently than in the idea that the strong are free to be weak and that predatory birds are free to be lambs: —in so doing, they arrogate to themselves the right to blame the birds of prey for being birds of prey.

Today, weak and lowly haters—Jews, Jewish-inspired Christians, and Jewish lackeys in the media—have been working hard to convince the strong and noble that they are bad, evil, bigoted, racist, and supremacist.  And to the extent that they have succeeded, it has been the death of noble humanity.  We must resist this tendency with all our might.

Hate Speech in the Twentieth Century

With growing wealth and financial clout, and with a 2,000-year history of skill in hatred under their belts, organized Jewry began to press the case for legal sanctions against their opponents.  With the flood of Jewish immigrants around the turn of the century, it is perhaps not surprising that Jewish legal advocacy took hold in the US.  In the first two decades, a number of major pro-Jewish groups emerged, including the American Jewish Committee (1906), the Anti-Defamation League (1913), the American Jewish Congress (1918), and the American Civil Liberties Union (1920).  All these groups were de facto anti-hate speech advocates, even if the federal legal apparatus did not really exist at that point.  Their focus was on so-called “group libel,” a novel legal concept that was formulated specifically to benefit Jewish interests.

Meanwhile, across the ocean, Jews were making better legal progress in the proto-Soviet Union.  The rise of Jewish Bolsheviks from around 1900, including Leon Trotsky and the quarter-Jewish Vladimir Lenin, brought a new concern with anti-Semitism to the Russian Empire.  When they took power in the February Revolution of 1917, they immediately set to work to make life better for Russian Jews.  Pinkus (1990) explains that these Bolsheviks “issued a decree annulling all legal restrictions on Jews” in March 1917.[11]  He adds that, unsurprisingly, “Even before the October [1917] Revolution, Lenin and the Bolshevik Party were hostile to anti-Semitism.  Lenin castigated it in the strongest terms on a number of occasions.”  As soon as July 1918, the Soviet Council issued a decree (though without legal enforcement) stating that “the anti-Semitic movement and the anti-Jewish pogroms are a deadly menace to the Revolution”; all Soviet workers are called upon “to fight this plague with all possible means”.[12]  Lenin himself continued to press his pro-Jewish propaganda; in one short but notable speech of March 1919, he said:

Anti-Semitism means spreading enmity towards the Jews.  When the accursed Czarist monarchy was living its last days, it tried to incite ignorant workers and peasants against the Jews.  The Czarist police, in alliance with the landowners and the capitalists, organized pogroms against the Jews.  The landowners and capitalists tried to divert the hatred of the workers and peasants who were tortured by want against the Jews. … Only the most ignorant and downtrodden people can believe the lies and slander that are spread about the Jews.  This is a survival of ancient feudal times, when the priests burned heretics at the stake, when the peasants lived in slavery, and when the people were crushed and inarticulate.  This ancient, feudal ignorance is passing away; the eyes of the people are being opened.

It is not the Jews who are the enemies of the working people.  The enemies of the workers are the capitalists of all countries.  Among the Jews there are working people, and they form the majority.  They are our brothers, who, like us, are oppressed by capital; they are our comrades in the struggle for socialism. … Shame on accursed Czarism which tortured and persecuted the Jews.  Shame on those who foment hatred towards the Jews, who foment hatred towards other nations.

As (non-Jew) Joseph Stalin rose to power in the 1920s, he found it expedient to continue working with the Soviet Jews and generally defended their status.  Consequently, that decade became a sort of ‘golden age’ for Jews; it saw the emergence of the likes of Lazar Kaganovich, Yakov Sverdlov, Lev Kamenev, Karl Radek, Leonid Krasin, Filipp Goloshchekin, and Yakov Agranov—all high-ranking Jews in the Soviet hierarchy.[13]  Partly because of this governmental dominance, anti-Semitism among the Russian masses continued to percolate.  Eventually, “in 1927, a decision was reached to take drastic steps to repress anti-Semitism.”[14]  Various forms of propaganda were employed, including books, pamphlets, plays, and films; the process culminated in harsh legal action against anti-Jewish hate, up to and including the death penalty.  Stalin confirmed this in writing in 1931:

Anti-Semitism is of advantage to the exploiters as a lightning conductor that deflects the blows aimed by the working people at capitalism.  Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the working people as being a false path that leads them off the right road and lands them in the jungle.  Hence Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but be irreconcilable, sworn enemies of anti-Semitism.  In the USSR, anti-Semitism is punishable with the utmost severity of the law as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system.  Under USSR law, active anti-Semites are liable to the death penalty.

The Jewish Golden Age in the Soviet Union lasted until the late 1930s, when Stalin inaugurated a retrenchment of Jewish power, apparently in response to the National Socialist stance.[15]

But the Soviet (and Bolshevik) philo-Semitic policies of the 1920s and 1930s were not lost on Hitler.  He and Goebbels were relentless, and justified, in their critiques of “Jewish Bolshevism” as a dominant threat to Germany and Europe.  Goebbels in particular noted the growing push for ‘hate speech’ and ‘hate crime’ laws in defense of Jews in both the USSR and the UK; for him, this was proof of (a) a deep-seated and imminent mass uprising against the Jews, and (b) an over-playing of their legal authority.  Anti-hate laws are a sign of desperation; they indicate that the end-game is near.  In a revealing diary entry of 19 April 1943, Goebbels writes:

The Jews in England are now calling for legal protection against anti-Semitism.  We know that from our own past, in the times of struggle.  But even that didn’t give them much advantage.  We’ve always understood how to find gaps in these protective laws; and moreover, anti-Semitism, once it rises from the depths of the people, cannot be broken by law.  A law against Jew-hatred is usually the beginning of the end for the Jews.  We will make sure that anti-Semitism in England does not cool down.  In any case, a longer-lasting war is the best breeding ground for it.[16]

The following month, in his published essay “The War and the Jews,” Goebbels commented on the legal situation in the USSR—the very law that Stalin described above, and that was still in force some 13 years later:

We constantly hear news that anti-Semitism is increasing in enemy nations.  The charges being made against the Jews are well-known; they are the same ones that were made here.  Anti-Semitism in enemy nations is not the result of anti-Semitic propaganda, since Jewry fights that strongly.  In the Soviet Union, it receives the death penalty.[17]

The status of anti-Semitic hate speech laws was of importance to Goebbels right to the very end.  In his last major essay, “Creators of the World’s Misfortunes” (1945), he reiterated the significance of the Soviet law:

Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish roots—two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same fruit.  International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress nations and keep them in its service.  How deep its influence on public opinion is in all the enemy countries and many neutral nations is plain to see: it may never be mentioned in newspapers, speeches, and radio broadcasts.

There’s a law in the Soviet Union that punishes ‘anti-Semitism’—or in plain English, public education about the Jewish Question—by death.  Any expert in these matters is in no way surprised that a leading spokesman for the Kremlin said over the New Year that the Soviet Union would not rest until this law was valid throughout the world.  In other words, the enemy clearly says that its goal in this war is to put the total domination of Jewry over the nations of the Earth under legal protection, and to use the death penalty to threaten even a discussion of this shameful attempt.  It is little different in the plutocratic [Western] nations.

Even at the bitter end, this theme still impressed Goebbels.  In one of his final diary entries, he wrote:

The Jews have already registered for the San Francisco Conference [on post-war plans].  It is characteristic that their main demand is to ban anti-Semitism throughout the world.  Typically, having committed the most terrible crimes against mankind, the Jews would now like mankind to be forbidden even to think about them.[18]

And indeed, they have succeeded, at least in part.  The postwar German Volksverhetzung and the Austrian Verbotsgesetz both stand as among the most embarrassing legal capitulations to Jewish interests in the Western world.

Thus we clearly see the origins of hate speech legislation in the twentieth century: it was first constructed by Jews and their sycophants (like Stalin), both in the US and in the Soviet Union, to quell any looming opposition to their power structure.  So intent were they on stifling objection to Jewish rule that they were willing to kill those who opposed them.

To the Present Day

With the growing dominance of Jewish influence in American government over the past five decades, and ongoing influence in Europe, calls to restrict and punish any anti-Jewish commentary via hate speech laws have become ever more strident.  The U.S. government—or at least the Republicans—have so far mostly resisted such efforts, but social media has come around to the philosemitic stance.  Facebook and Facebook-owned Instagram, Twitter, and Google-owned YouTube, have all taken it upon themselves to censor hate speech, especially of the anti-Semitic variety.  Google has altered its search algorithms to de-rank offensive and “hate” sites.  All this is perfectly understandable, given the huge Jewish presence atop Big Tech; we need only mention Mark Zuckerberg, Sergei Brin, Larry Page, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell, Sheryl Sandberg, Safra Katz, Susan Wojcicki, Steve Ballmer, Brian Roberts, Marc Benioff, Craig Newmark, and Jeff Weiner, for starters.

Parallel to Big Tech censorship, Jewish advocacy groups like the SPLC and the ADL continue to press civil cases against those ‘haters’ who they believe have violated the rights or reputation of some aggrieved party.  The SPLC has a section of its website dedicated to “anti-Semitism and hate speech,” and the ADL—well, that’s their raison d’etre.  Third-party lawsuits and tech censorship serve the purpose of implementing de facto pro-Jewish hate speech policies, at least within the U.S.

Conclusion

But to come full circle:  I began this piece with a discussion about the logical vagueness and incoherence of the concept of hate speech.  Clearly, though, many powerful, Jewish-inspired corporations and politicians find the concept useful.  For them, in the most basic and practical terms, it becomes quite simple:  Hate speech is any speech that Jews hate.  Yes, they may claim to hate anti-Muslim speech or anti-Black speech, but this is so only because it is a necessary corollary to anti-Jewish hate speech.  The Jews are not so stupid today as to push for uniquely Jewish, “anti-anti-Semitism” laws; those are a thing of the past.  Today, such laws require cover language that, at least in theory, includes other “oppressed” groups.  Jews and their defenders must appear universal and fair—when in reality most seem to have utter contempt for virtually all non-Jewish groups (there’s that “hatred of humanity” again).  Hate speech is any speech that Jews hate.

Consider:  If you hate what I say, who’s the hater?  It’s you, not me.  The fact that you may not like what I’m saying does not make me a hater.  It makes you the hater.  And if you happen to be a champion, master-class, world-historical hater, well then—it’s all hate to you.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020), all available at www.clemensandblair.com.  For all his writings, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

[1] Reprinted in Goebbels on the Jews (2019; T. Dalton, ed), p. 199.  This and most other books cited below are available at www.clemensandblair.com.

[2] For the record, I am no denier.  I believe that there was a Holocaust of the mid-20th century:  it was called World War Two, and some 60 million people died as a result of Jewish-instigated actions both here and in Europe.  Jewish fatalities seem to have numbered around 500,000, according to the major revisionists.  For more on these issues, see my books The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019) and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).

[3] Eternal Strangers (2020; T. Dalton, ed), p. 16.

[4] Emilio Gabba, “The growth of anti-Judaism,” in The Cambridge History of Judaism (vol. 2, 1984; Cambridge University Press), p. 645.

[5] Eternal Strangers, pp. 19, 21, and 25, respectively.

[6] On the Jews and Their Lies (2020, T. Dalton, ed; Clemens & Blair), p. 53.

[7] Eternal Strangers, p. 68.

[8] Eternal Strangers, pp. 70-71.

[9] The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1788/1974, vol. 2; AMS Press), p. 3.  See also Eternal Strangers, p. 59.

[10] Eternal Strangers, p. 78.

[11] Benjamin Pinkus, The Jews of the Soviet Union (1990; Cambridge University Press), p. 84.

[12] In Pinkus, p. 85.

[13] The parallels to the Biden regime are striking; see my recent piece “Confronting the Judeocracy.”

[14] Pinkus, p. 86.

[15] Postwar, Stalin’s purging of high-ranking Jews accelerated, resulting in a decade-long period of virtual state-sponsored anti-Semitism, ending only with Stalin’s death in 1953.

[16] Goebbels on the Jews, p. 199.

[17] Ibid., pp. 206-207.

[18] 4 April 1945, in Goebbels on the Jews, p. 255.

Remembering the 2001 English Race Riots

/18 Comments/in , /by


“Crime in Oldham had reached ‘record levels’ with a massive increase (to 60 percent of all incidents) in violent attacks on whites.”
David Waddington, Policing Public Disorder[1]

The racialist is bound to an instinctive love-hate relationship with the race riot. On the one hand, racial violence is a cause for sorrow and disgust. It represents the fullest expression of the violent disintegration of prior ethnic homogeneity. On the other hand, the race riot is a powerful vindication and an unveiling. It’s an honest illustration of ethnic truths that are always present but often covered up by a variety of bribes, propaganda devices, excuses, and false or temporary panaceas. For the racialist, ethnic conflict is a predictable, inevitable, and violent eruption of reality into the dreamlike fantasy of multiculturalism. The race riot, with its explosive unraveling of communal grudges and hostilities, can be postponed, reinterpreted, and badly explained by those in power, but, for the racialist, it cannot ever be permanently avoided; its potential is etched into the very fabric of the multicultural project.

This summer marks the twentieth anniversary of a sequence of race riots in northern England that had a transformative effect on my worldview, and continues to exert a significant influence on how I see the world. More than Jewish historical fairy tales or Islamic terrorism, this was the primary moment of my political awakening. It was the first time I heard about “no-go” areas dominated by foreign ethnic groups, the first time I learned about the activities of the British National Party, and the first time I gained an understanding of the fact that we are only ever a simple shift in context and circumstances away from explicit racial enmity. I learned during that summer two decades ago that, ultimately, it doesn’t matter how tolerant you think you are or desire to be — what matters more is how the other side will see you when push comes to shove. And whether or not you subscribe to Social Darwinism in its finer points, it is a simple fact of human history that push always comes to shove. Violence between groups over resources has always occurred, and will never cease.

Such was the painful lesson learned by 76-year-old veteran Walter Chamberlain who, in April 2001, was walking home from a rugby match through a predominantly South Asian area of Oldham when he was set upon by a group of Pakistanis. Having committed the grievous error of deciding to walk through “their” neighborhood, Chamberlain was beaten senseless, and suffered several broken facial bones. Four decades of ethnic tension, dating to the arrival of the first significant waves of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Indian migrants in Oldham, had bubbled over. Once Chamberlain’s battered face appeared on the front pages of several national newspapers (I vividly recall seeing it while purchasing a copy of Combat, a now defunct UK martial arts magazine), a White backlash seemed inevitable.

The attack on Walter Chamberlain was merely a final straw. Racial violence against Whites had been escalating in the South Asian enclaves of northern England for years. Prior to the attack on Chamberlain, Greater Manchester Police’s “Q Division (Oldham)” had issued a number of warnings about the nature of ethnic crime and violence in the town. The Chief Superintendent, for example, wrote in one report that

There’s evidence that [Asian male youths] are trying to create exclusive areas for themselves. Anyone seems to be a target if they are white. It is a growing polarisation between some sections of the Asian youth and white youth on the grounds of race, manifesting itself in violence, predominantly Asian.[2]

Four months before the attack on Chamberlain, Greater Manchester Police released a report showing that “62 per cent of racial incidents were Asian on white. A special report for the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester emphasised that these were part of an ongoing trend involving primarily Pakistani and Bangladeshi teenagers.”[3] Academics have  since attributed the later race riots in part to honest media portrayals of these reports and incidents, which acted to stimulate a sense of White cohesion and victimisation. The Oldham Chronicle, for example, had been brutally honest in its reports during the late 1990s, leading with a number of headlines such as “Racist Attacks By Asian Gangs,” (March 17 1998), and “HUGE RISE IN RACE ATTACKS ON WHITE MEN” (January 31 2001). The police, the local media, and the Whites of northern England have since come in for severe criticism by the foremost academic apologist for Pakistani crime, who insists, without evidence, that South Asians were actually the most victimised population prior to the riots but had low trust in the police and therefore didn’t report crimes against them.[4] This apologist is the sociologist Professor Larry Ray (University of Kent), whose motivations, considered in light of his past Presidency of the British Association for Jewish Studies, require no further discussion for the well-informed readers of this website.

Larry Ray: Jewish Apologist for Pakistani violence against Whites

The increase in violence in Oldham, and similar trends in Burnley and Bradford, caught the attention of both the National Front and the British National Party, both of which astutely flooded these towns with pamphlets, some bearing the battered visage of Walter Chamberlain. In combination with honest local media reporting, these groups helped to further heighten White cohesion, solidarity, and ethnocentrism, with the National Front even promising to march through the Asian-dominated “no-go” areas in a White “show of strength.” The march was quickly banned by the Home Office, but White ethnocentrism in these towns was obviously on the rise. Once it reached adequate levels, it was only a matter of time before opposing racial factions clashed on a larger scale. The Pakistanis, for their part, had started daubing walls on their streets with the slogan “Whites Keep Out.”[5]

The Riots

As in most cases of ethnic conflict, the initial flashpoint for mass violence was relatively banal but escalated quickly. A month after the attack on Walter Chamberlain, a White youth spotted two Pakistani brothers walking past a Fish and Chips shop, and threw a brick at them, striking one on the leg. The two Pakistanis followed the youth to a nearby house, and word was quickly spread to other Pakistanis in the area. In a short period of time, more than a dozen Pakistanis had gathered outside the house seeking violent retribution from the lone White perpetrator. They then kicked in the front door. The woman who owned the house called both the police and her 25-year-old brother, who was then socialising in a nearby pub with members of the British National Party and a Far Right paramilitary organisation known as Combat 18. The group made their way from the pub to the scene of disturbance in three taxis, and set about responding to Pakistani intimidation by smashing the windows of South Asian residences and businesses. The police then arrived, arresting 10 members of the White grouping, and two Pakistanis who’d been involved in attacking the house. Within an hour, a 500-strong crowd of Pakistanis formed street barricades and began throwing petrol bombs and other missiles at police. Between 10pm and 5am of the first episode of major violence, four pubs were almost destroyed along with the offices of the Oldham Chronicle (presumably for its reporting of Pakistani crime), and 32 police vehicles were damaged. Scenes of chaos from Oldham’s streets were broadcast around the world.

A month after the Oldham riot, trouble erupted in Burnley. The town had a growing population of young Pakistani males, who formed criminal cliques that acted as rivals to White criminal gangs as well as assaulting or robbing non-criminal Whites. As well as absorbing the tensions emanating from Oldham, Burnley had its own problems. The town had an “Equal Opportunities Co-ordinator” who was accused of helping to provide preferential council investment to South Asian-occupied areas. The controversy led to a spike in British National Party representation on the local council (to 21%), as well as to calls for the abolition of the role of Equal Opportunities Co-ordinator (the town’s Race Equality Council had also recently been disbanded). The final spark arrived in June 2001, when there was an altercation between South Asian and White criminals, which resulted in a Pakistani being struck on the head with a hammer. False rumors that the Pakistani was dead began circulating in the South Asian community, and a mob of armed males gathered at, and subsequently attacked, the Duke of York pub, which was regarded as being frequented by the White element.

The following day, the pub’s landlord closed the establishment and informed arriving customers what had happened. Large numbers of Whites, including around 60 youths, who had no involvement in the events of the preceding days, were reported by police at the time as having adopted “something of a siege mentality,” and began chanting racial slogans at nearby Pakistani taxi drivers. Using taxi radios, much of the town’s young Pakistani male population was mobilised into action and was instructed to attack Whites gathered at the pub. This Pakistani mob, later estimated by police as numbering at least 300, armed themselves with machetes and clubs and made their way to the Duke of York. Before they arrived, the 60 White youths divided into two groups. One of these groups was intercepted by police, who then inexplicably steered them into the path of the armed 300 Pakistanis. The police then hastily formed a barrier between the two ethnic groups, with each then turning their violent intentions towards rival residences and businesses on their side of the police barrier. As with Oldham, these scenes were broadcast around the world.

A few weeks after the ethnic chaos in Burnley, it was Bradford’s turn to combust.[6] In 2001, Bradford had the second largest population of South Asians of any UK city, with approximately 68,000 Pakistanis, 12,500 Indians, 5,000 Bangladeshis and 3,000 other Asians. The White demographic had declined to 78% of the total population, and the town was host to many of the same issues in Oldham and Burnley: decades of tense segregation; a culture of criminality among young South Asian males; and a sense that local government resources were being invested in South Asian communities at the expense of the working-class native population. It should also be added that the town had already witnessed large-scale race riots in the form of the 1995 Manningham Riot. As in the other towns, the National Front and the British National Party supplemented growing White racial consciousness in the area (already prompted by press coverage of South Asian criminality) by engaging in intensive pamphleting, making advances in local government elections, arranging marches, and hosting meetings. When the spark finally arrived, Bradford exploded with one of the most violent of all the race riots that occurred in 2001, resulting in more than 300 injured police officers, 200 jail sentences totaling 604 years, and an estimated £7 million in property damage.

In Bradford, the spark was provided on July 7 by the “Anti-Nazi League,” who declared their intention to prevent the National Front from marching in the city center. The group comprised a small White leftist element and several hundred South Asians. The protest did little more than push National Front/BNP supporters to the fringes of the city, where clashes with South Asians were in fact more likely to take place out of sight of police. Around 3pm, rumors began circulating among the Antifa/South Asian element that members of the National Front were socialising at a nearby pub. A faction set off in search of the pub and, during an attempted attack on National Front members a Pakistani was stabbed. Shortly after this point, the smaller White leftist element departed the city center, leaving a rump of several hundred Asians who soon began throwing missiles at watching police, looting several shops, and smashing windows. Around 5pm, two White men were stabbed by a group of South Asians on Thornton Road, and a group of 60–70 South Asians began resisting police attempts to clear the city center by throwing petrol bombs. The crowd was only dispersed following several police charges on horseback, but during the chaotic retreat of the South Asians, Mohammed Ilyas, a 48-year-old Pakistani businessman and father of six, firebombed the Manningham Labour Club, a White-frequented recreational center, while 23 men and women were still inside. Those inside managed to survive by taking refuge in the building’s cellar. Ilyas was subsequently caught and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

The following night, around a hundred White males gathered near Bradford city center seeking retribution, before setting off in search of South Asian-owned businesses in the Ravenscliffe and Holmewood areas. Following mass damage to Pakistani businesses, vehicles, and property, the police flooded the area with almost 1,000 officers, which brought an end to the riots of July 8. The following night, however, these events were repeated. Police again flooded the streets of Bradford, this time bringing a lasting but uneasy peace.

Legacy

Did ethnic relations in these towns improve? Can we assume that, since the riots have not been repeated, somehow multiculturalism now “works” in these areas? As mentioned at the outset of this essay, as a racialist I believe that ethnic conflict will be the natural state of affairs within multiculturalism, and that where it is not obviously present that is because it has been covered up by a variety of bribes, propaganda devices, excuses, and false or temporary panaceas. In the aftermath of the riots, the government said much about fostering “inclusion,” about “breaking down barriers,” about “encouraging understanding,” and about improving the material lives of the neglected Whites of northern England — words entirely without meaning or honest intent. Five years after the riots, one resident of Burnley told the BBC, “Nothing’s changed, it may have got worse. … The poor white areas still do not get any government help. Duke Bar is a no-go area after dark. So much for all the Government talk about helping Burnley.” Within several years of the riots, Oldham and Bradford evolved into the largest epicenters for the South Asian sex trafficking of hundreds of White girls. Today, the White population has Bradford declined to 63%, while Oldham and Burnley have experienced slower rates of White demographic displacement. Two decades after the riots, Whites and South Asians continue to live in a state of tension.

Since South Asian expansion and criminality hasn’t disappeared, the real question is what happened to the capacity for White reaction. It’s clear in this regard that, rather than deal directly with the problems inherent in multiculturalism, the government pursued a policy of neutering White anger and ethnocentrism as the best method for preventing further riots. Since White solidarity leading up to the riots was perceived as originating with press reports and the activities of the BNP and the National Front, these were two obvious starting points for preventative measures. Criticism of the honest reporting of the Oldham Chronicle, exemplified in the work of Professor Ray, culminated 11 years later in a government report issued by Lord Brian Leveson, who describes himself as a “devout Jew.” The report, known as the Leveson Report, revolutionised press standards by condemning “careless or reckless reporting” that includes “discriminatory, sensational or unbalanced reporting in relation to ethnic minorities.” In other words, referring to such things as “Asian crime” or “Attacks on Whites” in news headlines became a thing of the past, and so White perceptions of their victimisation and the nature of ethnic crime were disrupted and stifled.

Political White Nationalism in England also came under sustained attack from various quarters. In 2004, elements of the media contrived to undermine the BNP and “expose” its racism to the public, eventually resulting in the Channel 4 documentary The Secret Agent. The documentary involves little more than an undercover journalist presenting secretly recorded footage of low-level BNP members uttering some controversial sentiments while under the influence of alcohol. The risible footage nevertheless led to an attempt to prosecute both Nick Griffin and Mark Collett for incitement to racial hatred, both of whom were found not guilty at trial. Continued harassment and disruption of the BNP continued into 2009, however, when the Equality and Human Rights Commission undertook court proceedings to force the BNP to accept non-White members. Finally, there was a sustained push to present UKIP’s civic nationalism as a more respectable “protest vote” against the established parties. The BNP was never able to recover.

White anger and ethnocentrism were also suppressed through a tightening of the law. Two years after the riots the government passed the Criminal Justice Act 2003, sections 145 and 146 of which granted courts the power to increase sentences for any crime in which racial or religious motivations were suspected. Going further even than the idea of a “hate crime,” the legislation made it clear that even perceived “hostility” to the injured party would be sufficient to come under its terms. Placed in the context of an ethnically defined riot, for example, a White youth caught breaking a window would now attract a significantly higher sentence than the normal punishment handed down for criminal damage.

Muzzling the media, disrupting White ethnic politics, and tougher legal punishments for White protest — this is how the government temporarily solved the problem of race riots in England. I say “temporarily” because it’s only a matter of time before even these measures become insufficient to cover up the simmering tensions built into multiculturalism. A further dramatic shift in interethnic relations is an inevitability, and will probably involve the reaching of certain demographic tipping points or a dive in the economy leading to scarce resources. The final spark will be caused by something banal. Instinct will kick in. Tribes will form. People can be awakened by the innocuous as well as the dramatic; the distant as well as the near. For me it began twenty years ago, with a brick thrown in Oldham.

[1] D. Waddington, Policing Public Disorder: Theory and Practice (Routledge: New York, 2007), p.99

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ray, Larry, and David Smith. “Racist Offending, Policing and Community Conflict.” Sociology 38, no. 4 (October 2004): 681–99.

[5] Waddington, 100.

[6] For an in-depth analysis of the Bradford riots see, Bagguley, Paul, Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain (Routledge, 2016).

Critical Race Theory as a Jewish Intellectual Weapon

/76 Comments/in , /by

Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed — not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.
Noel Ignatiev in his journal Race Traitor

The open pursuance of ‘Whiteness Studies’ must be perceived as nothing less than an act of extreme, even violent, aggression against the White race.
Andrew Joyce on Whiteness Studies

To be effective, social engineering cannot be perceived.
Michael Jones in Logos Rising

Earlier this year, my brother suddenly asked me what “Critical Race Theory” was. I was elated, for this was proof that this pernicious, genocidal, anti-White theory was finally entering into the consciousness of Whites. Since my brother asked me, stories about Critical Race Theory (CRT) have mushroomed, including much criticism of this previously arcane intellectual trend.

Much to my amazement, however, I’ve noticed that few if any critics of CRT have associated the theory with Jewish ethnic activism.

Though the theory has long been employed in university settings, more recently it has turned up in government and corporate offices, and even the military has been pushing it since the inauguration of Joe Biden as President. For me, it’s long been a given that CRT is linked to the social engineering of our “hostile elite,” which in the context of The Occidental Observer means powerful Jews and Jewish organizations who rule over America and much of The West. When viewed more broadly, however, the topic of CRT has in fact been much addressed by our writers but often under a consideration of something called “Whiteness Studies.” In that sense, I’m merely adding the term “Critical Race Theory” to an ongoing conversation about Jewish ethnic war on Whites.

For me, CRT fits squarely into the mold of Kevin MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique” category in which Jewish “gurus” concoct a Talmudic verbal assault whose main goal is the further destruction of Gentiles  —  literally. I know because I had a ringside seat to the introduction of CRT in the graduate schools of the 1990s, with one of the most vicious practitioners of the “art” as one of my required professors. It was a brutal experience, but at least I was forced to reckon with it from then on and have since probed more and more deeply into its Jewish roots. In that sense, I’ve gained from the trauma I experienced and emerged out the other end able to share with my audience the lessons I’ve learned.

To tell this story, let’s begin with a now obscure Australian writer named Robert Hughes (1938 – 2012), who was once described as “the most famous art critic in the world.” In 1993, he’d gotten so fed up with identity politics that he penned the book Culture of Complaint: The Fraying of America (Oxford University Press). In this book, he rightly skewered the growth of the Grievance Industry, giving example after example of how black groups or women’s groups or whatever loudly attacked the White Majority for all manner of sins. I recall how his book attracted attention from many of the print journals of the time, with many taking the Australian author’s side, so bad had this “culture of complaint” become.

What frustrated me, however, was the fact that Hughes completely neglected to address the “meta-complaint” in the West from which all lesser complaints emerged. To wit, Hughes failed to see how The Holocaust Narrative had been so successful in advancing Jewish interests that naturally other groups eagerly imitated this successful model.

Of course in 1993 the Complaint Industry was just hitting its stride and I soon endured the “graduate education” described above, with mere complaint being elevated to something far more pernicious and menacing. In any case, the direction of complaint was always the same: Against the White race.

I eventually staggered out of higher education, badly bruised and emotionally scarred, but with terminal degree in hand. Sturdier souls might have crowed that “Whatever doesn’t kill me only makes me stronger,” but I’ve been too battered since to engage in such braggadocio. Instead I try to keep my head down and stoically soldier on. Jews are playing for keeps in this battle.

Fast forward a few years when I was diligently working on a major composition about Jewish power in America and a professor of history with a Harvard Ph.D. twice encouraged me to “give the work of Kevin MacDonald a fair hearing.” I did and the experience has been life changing. His trilogy, culminating in The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, appeared to me at just the right time; I was ready to truly hear what the master had to say.

Of course I immediately recognized the similarity of main titles between Hughes’ “Culture of Complaint” and MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique,” but fortunately the latter’s laser-like focus on Jews made MacDonald’s book far more important than Hughes’. Verily, if Whites ever come out of the ethnic battle described by MacDonald, The Culture of Critique will be among the top books in the new Western pantheon. Future generations of Whites will know the name “Kevin MacDonald” as household words, as well they should.

Here, I am assuming our audience knows the gist of Culture of Critique, as well as the later Cultural Insurrections, so I’m going to now jump to the founding of MacDonald’s Occidental Observer, the online blog which emerged from The Occidental Quarterly, our side’s academic journal. Early on, in 2008, MacDonald published a blog called “Promoting genocide of Whites? Noel Ignatiev and the Culture of Western Suicide” in which he parsed the wordplay used by the late Jewish professor from Harvard to reveal its genocidal intentions toward Whites. Ignatiev was the founder of the journal Race Traitor, the motto of which is “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity,” a phrase which immediate recalls Jewess Susan Sontag’s infamous lines “The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilisation has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history …”

Situating Ignatiev’s clever use of words in the category of Jewish ideologies deconstructed in Culture of Critique, MacDonald wrote,

Our interpretation is that Ignatiev’s views are nothing more than ethnic competition. As a leftist Jew, he is part of a long tradition that has opposed white interests and identity — the culture of critique that has become the culture of Western suicide. And like so many  strongly identified Jews, his hatred for the people and culture of the West comes shining through.

Further falling back on categories included in Culture of Critique, MacDonald concluded that

Ignatiev is just another Jewish intellectual in a long line that stretches back to Franz Boas, the Frankfurt School, and myriad others who now dominate the culture of Western suicide. He may call himself a race traitor, but there is every reason to believe that he has a sense of allegiance to his own people and the long history of hostility to the people and culture of the West that is so typical of highly committed Jews. For him, being a race traitor comes easily and naturally; it’s the mother’s milk of socialization as a Jew.

As fate would have it, the Jewish professor who so tormented me and other Whites in grad school had many similarities to Ignatiev, beginning with appearance:

And what MacDonald wrote about Ignatiev — “People like Ignatiev, who doubtless have a strong sense of their own ethnic identity and interests, have managed to pathologize any sense of ethnic identity and interests among Europeans and European-derived peoples — and no one else”  — was true in spades of my graduate school oppressor. What we were exposed to in the 90s is identical to what various critics of Critical Race Theory are describing now — the struggle sessions, the mandatory lectures on “White privilege,” and the complete lack of debate or discussion. I had to watch as our esteemed professor subjected White individuals to withering criticism in class, first reducing a young woman to tears, then much to my disgust, a fellow White male grad student. It was awful.

While MacDonald did not use the phrase “Critical Race Theory” to label Ignatiev’s assault, he was in fact describing the same thing. Best, MacDonald saw through Ignatiev’s sophism to expose the real intent, something which others on TOO have done since, as we shall soon see. Before addressing that, however, I’d like to add an aside whose timing is too good to ignore. As I was about to embark on my dissertation after having completing coursework and exams, another Jewish professor gave me a book he had received gratis in the chance that he might review it. The professor opted not to and gave me the fresh copy:

Written in 1997 by law professor Stephen M. Feldman, the book was titled Please Don’t Wish Me a Merry Christmas: A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State (NYU Press). The subtitle containing “Critical History” points to the fact that the sponsor of the book was the Critical America Series from NYU Press, whose myriad titles revealed by the link can be enjoyed at readers’ leisure. Oh, I should mention that the very first words of the Introduction are: “I am Jewish.” Thus began another “culture of critique” attack on Western man and his major holiday.

Andrew Joyce on “Whiteness Studies”

The Occidental Observer was extremely fortunate to attract the considerable writing skills of Andrew Joyce, beginning with his Limerick “pogrom”: Creating Jewish victimhood, posted on St. Patrick’s Day in 2012. By 2015, however, he had written what can be seen as an extension of MacDonald’s 2008 unpacking of Ignatiev’s brutal intellectual campaign. In “Jews, Communists and Genocidal Hate in ‘Whiteness Studies,’” Joyce drew on MacDonald to show that “Ignatiev only very thinly disguised the unrestrained hatred that his ‘discipline’ incites against Whites and their culture.” Further quoting MacDonald, Joyce noted that

Ignatiev et al. have developed a story that goes as follows: A bunch of very bad people got together and created a category called “white” to which they belong but people with different colored skin can’t belong. Then they made laws that favored people in the white category, they colluded with other whites to dominate the economic and political process, and they invented baseless scientific theories in which whiteness had its roots in real biological differences.

All Ignatiev’s written material that we’ve seen carries the same odd message with the same extreme wording…Ignatiev writes darkly and dramatically of “abolishing the white race,” “genocide of whites,” etc. When pressed, he emphasizes that that he doesn’t really mean killing people who call themselves white. He only wants to destroy the concept of whiteness. So he’s off the hook, right?

Joyce comments:

Not quite. Ignatiev is really just playing a game of bait and switch. While fully tuned-in to his own Jewish racial identity, he ostensibly follows the PC line that “races” are only “social constructs.” When pressed, he claims to be little more than an extreme egalitarian, against all social hierarchies but especially those in which he imagines Whites to be at the top.

Like MacDonald, Joyce easily sees through Ignatiev’s gambit, writing that “The party line, therefore, is that it’s all about getting White people to stop thinking that they are White – for their own good of course. So while Black studies, women’s studies, Chicano studies etc. all aim to develop and nurture their relative identities and social agendas, ‘Whiteness Studies’ aims to utterly extinguish any sense of identity and awareness of group interests,” a very important distinction indeed.

Much of what Joyce wrote was very familiar to me by 2015. For instance, the wife of Frankfurt School member Herbert Marcuse “devoted much of her time to pushing her ideology through her ‘Unlearning Racism’ workshops, and indoctrinating White teenagers into supporting multiculturalism through her Oakland-based ‘New Bridges’ group.” Another Jewish woman, Ruth Frankenberg, wrote in 1993 that the dogma of her Whiteness discipline

orbits around the belief that race is nothing more than a fluid social, political and historical construct. She argued that while Whites may deny that they are ‘racist,’ they cannot deny that they are White. Frankenberg proceeded to argue that Whites are implicitly racist by virtue of their ‘dominant’ position in western society, and contended that we should ‘critically reflect’ on this social position of dominance that White people occupy in our society. ‘Whiteness Studies’ to Frankenberg, like her predecessors, was therefore nothing more than an exercise in convincing Whites that they are oppressors, whether they wished to be or not, and whether they had actually personally taken part in any oppression or not.

Been there, heard that back in the 90s. I’m sorry now that the broader public is hearing and being submitted to the same thing in the Biden Era.

Joyce had other good things to say. For instance, he found a section from Savitri Devi’s The Lightning and the Sun to be useful in exposing the deceit employed in Jewish aggression:

Inconspicuous, slow, yet implacable persecution, both economic and cultural: the systematic suppression of all possibilities for the vanquished, without it ‘showing,’ the merciless ‘conditioning’ of children, all the more horrible that it is more impersonal, more indirect, more outwardly ‘gentle,’ the clever diffusion of soul-killing lies; violence under the cover of non-violence.

“Violence under the cover of non-violence” — although it could certainly morph into violence if Whites lose power to the rising tide of color, and indeed, we can already see the rise in anti-White violence in the interracial crime statistics and incidents like these, as compiled by AmRen. It was tactics like these that caused me so much distress as an isolated and powerless grad student years ago. Back then I knew of no Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Joyce who could guide me through those roiled waters. While I could recognize my professor’s method as a deliberate form of social engineering, I couldn’t yet figure out how it was done, so I was demoralized because, as E. Michael Jones said in the epigraph which begins this essay, “To be effective, social engineering cannot be perceived,” and I could not fully perceive what these words meant, even as I felt their sting and saw their near universal effectiveness, just as I fear their effectiveness now.

Since grad school, my goal has been to understand this social engineering and explain it to others, which I have attempted relentlessly, in the classroom and in these columns. I now find comfort in the company of men like Andrew Joyce, who concluded in this White Studies piece,

The ‘educational’ programs of the ADL, the obliteration of our national borders, the assassination of our racial identity, and the slow genocide of our people are being accomplished without the bullet, bomb or blades. But it is, and will be, tremendously violent in its implications. Whiteness studies are not part of an academic discipline in any true sense of that term. The genre is an act of inter-ethnic aggression.

Joyce revisited Jewish involvement in Whiteness Studies (again, a close cognate, in my view, of Critical Race Theory) in 2020 with “Review of Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility,” a book that “is heavily and transparently influenced by Jewish thought and by Jewish pioneers in the field she now finds so conducive to fame and fortune.”

Sure enough, Joyce found concrete evidence of this in the bibliography — “so many names from my research on Whiteness Studies. They were almost all there, protruding from the page like shunned relatives at a family reunion — Noel Ignatiev, George Lipsitz, Ruth Frankenberg, Michelle Fine, Lois Weis, along with helpful co-ethnics like Thomas Shapiro, David Wellman, Sander Gilman, Larry Adelman, and Jay Kaufman. These are DiAngelo’s mentors and intellectual forbears …” We are definitely seeing a pattern here.

Critical Race Theory in the News Today

I originally began this essay with a story about Lt. Colonel Matthew Lohmeier, who was fired for publicizing his views on the introduction of CRT into the military. Admittedly, it was asking for trouble to publish a book titled Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military in today’s current climate, but he did. In an online Revolver article concerning the controversy, we find that “Lohmeier appeared on several podcasts to promote his book, and in response the Pentagon fired him. According to the DoD, his statements caused a ‘loss of trust and confidence in his ability to lead.’”

The article continued, “As far as Revolver and tens of millions of American patriots are concerned, Lohmeier’s actions represent the very pinnacle of courage and leadership,” an opinion I’ll second. Still, based on this interview, it seems Lohmeier could benefit from exposure to MacDonald’s Culture of Critique or my short discussion of White Studies above. When a term like “Marxist Race Theory” is used by an author, is it knowingly used as shorthand for “Jewish”? My impression given this interview and my brief exposure to Revolver’s approach is “No.” And that’s a problem. Consider Lohmeier’s words:

I am often asked, “how did this happen?” or, “when did this happen?” How is it, for example, that American people and institutions — predominantly our education system, and now, all federal agencies including even our military services — increasingly resonate and align with Marxist thought? How is it that Americans can now so easily question or forget the greatness of the American ideal and become victims to the tactics of subversion? Why haven’t we been able to recognize our slide into Marxism? There are two ways this has happened: gradually, then suddenly. …

Obviously, if he’s read The Culture of Critique, he knows “how this happened.” Given his relatively young age, if he’s followed the podcasts of The Daily Shoah or read more than a few dozen Andrew Anglin stories on The Daily Stormer, then he knows how this happened. My suspicion, however, is that he has no idea, so someone should forward him this article.

Anyone following American academia for the last three decades will know of the intense leftist slant gaining power with each passing year, and students of politics, the legal system and corporate affairs will be similarly aware. It only makes sense that it was slower to reach the military and that there was some pushback, summed up by Lohmeier with the statement, “There is a growing perception that the preponderance of political partisanship occurring in our armed forces is radical leftist partisanship.” Well, yes it is.

Next, does Lohmeier view the introduction of CRT into the military as being generically harmful, or does he see it as specifically anti-White? Based on the interview, it’s likely that he sees the anti-White import of official programs in today’s military, writing as he does that in one chapter he is critical of an essayist who sees her role in a project “as an attempt to ‘decenter whiteness.’” Sounds like we’re getting back to the White Studies aspect of CRT.

But is it even necessary to ask whether CRT can be evaluated as generically undemocratic or even racist rather than being specifically anti-White? Apparently it is, as a VDARE writer styling himself as “Washington Watcher II” has done in a blog called “Fight Against Critical Race Theory — But They Still Flinch From Calling It Anti-White Racism.” Note the subtitle claiming “They Still Flinch from Calling it Anti-White Racism.” Kind of hard to believe. But Washington Watcher found a CRT critic who “essentially argued that race doesn’t exist, a favorite of Conservatism, Inc. And along with many other cuckservatives, he promotes the cringe idea that CRT is bad because it harms non-whites.” Yes, it really is hard to believe. Our thanks to Washington Watcher for making this distinction clear, especially in his conclusion when he beseeches us to “Repeat after me: CRT isn’t just racism; it’s anti-white racism.”

Conclusion

We’ve reached the point where some are stepping forward to point out the obvious truth that CRT is in fact “anti-White racism.” Much to my surprise, however, I’ve seen little or no evidence that people have pointed to the far more instructive issue that while it is of course anti-White racism, it has been propagated by a long string of Jews for over fifty years. This is because Jews are prosecuting a deadly war on Whites, with previous examples such as the Bolshevik era in Russia, the Holodomor, and the various “cold” strategies documented in The Culture of Critique such as boosting non-white immigration and depressing White family formation. This is the point I am at pains to emphasize.

The consequences of this are immense, beginning with MacDonald’s claim in his 2008 TOO article that after demonizing Whites (or “Whiteness”), “it doesn’t take much imagination to suppose that actual genocide of Whites is the next step.” I couldn’t agree more and have stressed this point for over twelve years here on TOO.

I’ll close with a succinct version of all I’ve written about above, one that uses plain language to cut through sometimes lengthy analyses. On June 10, 2021 Andrew Anglin published a piece called Psychoanalytic Journal Publishes Paper Calling “Whiteness” a “Malignant, Parasitic-Like Condition” which is a sort of companion piece to Aruna Khilanani’s fulminations as discussed by MacDonald in “Expressions of Anti-White Hatred in High Places: Aruna Khilanani at Yale” published two days earlier. MacDonald states that “Jews have been a necessary condition for creating multicultural America” and that “It’s no surprise that Khilanani is a textbook example of the influence of the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory, the forerunner of Critical Race Theory.”

Clearly, Anglin knows the work of Noel Ignatiev and his theories of Whiteness Studies, and immediately recognizes their import to the confessions of the non-white female psychiatrist:

This whole thing of claiming that “whiteness” is somehow different than “being a white person” is just a ruse. No one thinks that makes sense, including the people saying it. They are talking simply about white people.

They want to wipe out white people.

Recently, we saw the Indian psychologist – psychologist again! – Aruna Khilanani saying that she just wants to kill random white people. She didn’t say kill random “people infected with whiteness” – she just said white people.

Talking about “whiteness” as some kind of abstraction is a way for these people to really start pumping up the genocidal mania under a thin veil of semantics.

This puts me in mind of the predictions of Tomislav Sunic in his 2007 book  Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, where he argued that “in order for the proper functioning of future Americanized society, the removal of millions of surplus citizens must become a social and possibly also an ecological necessity.” MacDonald in those years of writing about “Stalin’s Willing Executioners” (i.e. Jews) identified what sectors might be targeted “and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union.” Further,

It is easy to imagine which sectors of American society would have been deemed overly backward and religious and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union — the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow. The descendants of these overly backward and religious people now loom large among the “red state” voters who have been so important in recent national elections. Jewish animosity toward the Christian culture that is so deeply ingrained in much of America is legendary. As Joel Kotkin points out, “for generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain.” And as Elliott Abrams notes, the American Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” These attitudes are well captured in Steven Steinlight’s charge that the Americans who approved the immigration restriction legislation of the 1920s — the vast majority of the population — were a “thoughtless mob” and that the legislation itself was “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,” a “monstrous policy.” In the end, the dark view of traditional Slavs and their culture that facilitated the participation of so many Eastern European shtetl Jews in becoming willing executioners in the name of international socialism is not very different from the views of contemporary American Jews about a majority of their fellow countrymen.

In his June 10, 2021 entry Anglin issued a similar warning, one I feel is a fitting close to this essay:

We are right on the verge of a large-scale culling.

We’ve talked about “white genocide” in terms of mass immigration and using feminism to restrict our breeding — but this cold genocide is about to get hot.

People should be aware.

There are warning signs all over.

There is a bloodbath coming.

Anti-White Hate and White Ethnomasochism at the Opera

/86 Comments/in , , , /by

Daniel Bernard Roumain

Given the obsession with “systemic White racism,” it’s not at all surprising that enterprising non-Whites can make a career out of their supposed oppression. A very lucrative career in many cases.

A big problem for those intent on displacing White culture is the world of classical music. Brenton Sanderson described the assault on classical music in his aptly titled “Triggered by Beethoven: The Cultural Politics of Racial Resentment“:

Laudatory references to White male geniuses like Beethoven inevitably trigger rage from anti-White commentators who huff that it has “long been an argument of white supremacists, Nazis, Neo-Nazis, and racial separatists that ‘classical music,’ the music of ‘white people,’ is inherently more sophisticated, complicated, and valuable than the musical traditions of Africa, Asia, South America, or the Middle East, thus proving the innate superiority of the ‘white race.’” Seen through the Cultural Marxist lens of critical race and gender theory, Beethoven’s music dominates the concert repertoire not because of its exceptional quality, but because White-male privilege and assumptions about White-male genius keep it there. Linda Shaver-Gleason insisted Beethoven’s dominant place in the canon was the result of a White supremacist conspiracy which “intentionally suppressed” the music of non-White composers “in the service of a narrative of white — specifically German — cultural supremacy (because, alas, that too is part of Western culture).”

The main problem for the haters is simply the complexity and sophistication of the Western musical tradition.

While purporting to offer additional insight into music, the New Musicology systematically imposes an anti-White male ideology on its subject, and, in this endeavor, happily discards all standards of proof and evidence. [Before the new musicology,] there was a belief in purely musical elements and in the value of studying them. The problem with such “objective” technical analysis, for the [cultural Marxists], is that it invariably leads to “White supremacist” conclusions about the relative quality of different musical traditions.

Daniel Bernard Roumain, a Black of Haitian descent, is a classically trained violinist and composer. He likely agrees that any and all aspects of Western culture reflect White male supremacy and are hence evil to the core. But the main thrust of his assault on the classical music world takes a different course: interjecting his hatred of Whites into his compositions. Surprisingly, there has been some push-back to his explicitly expressed hatred, but in our woke cultural moment, that’s a big plus for his career.

Heather MacDonald has a nice analysis (“Resisting Racial Demagoguery“).

Composer Daniel Bernard Roumain has made a good career leveraging his skin color. He writes pieces with titles like “i am a white person who ____ Black people.” He argues that orchestras should “focus on BLACK artists exclusively” [punctuation in the original]. He has solicited funding for a work written “EXCLUSIVELY for BIPOC [black, indigenous, and people of color] members of ANY orchestra.” …

Roumain argues, white musicians’ contracts should be term-limited as reparations for “decades of benefitting from orchestral racism.”

Just your basic White-hating activist. So he was invited to write an aria for an event commemorating the Tulsa race riot of 1921, to be sung by a Black (of course) mezzo-soprano, Denyse Graves. And since his whole thing is anti-White activism, the emphasis in his writing is on the words, not the music—thus avoiding any serious analysis of the technical aspects of his compositions. (I would not venture an opinion on its technical aspects, but Heather M describes the piano accompaniment as consisting of “insipid, New Age-y broken triads and cliché-ridden chord progressions. The melodic line is negligible.” A composer who preferred to remain anonymous (for good reason!) stated, “Although I do believe that [Graves] was not in sympathy with the tone and thrust of the text, she also knows well what good music is. This ain’t it.”)

Roumain thinks there is a “bloodlust sown deep within the American psyche,” but he’s definitely not referring to the vastly higher rate of Black homicide per capita. He’s referring to George Floyd and Breanna Taylor—exactly the sort of nuanced analysis we have come to expect from BIPOC activists. He thinks that Blacks live every day in fear of being killed by a cop, stating to a very sympathetic interviewer: “The inspiration to compose They Still Want To Kill Us was my wanting to convey how it feels to live in America as a Black man and know that on any given day, you could be murdered and die in America. That feeling never goes away. It’s always there.” I wonder if he’s afraid of being around Blacks given that Blacks are much more likely to be killed by Blacks than Whites.

But it could be that he actually believes he is in permanent danger because of his race given the media- and activist-created hysteria that happens every time a cop kills a Black, no matter what the circumstances. As with the covid panic where we see people wearing masks even outdoors and even alone in their cars, the public is quite susceptible to messages that create fear.

Roumain seems more interested in spewing out sound bites expressing his hatred toward Whites than in writing serious music. Heather M.:

Roumain’s titles are his calling card, into which he puts his greatest effort, he says—arguably an unusual emphasis for a composer; once he comes up with the name of a piece, the musical writing comes easily.

Roumain also wrote the aria’s lyrics, which begin with brief phrases about the rampage and end with:

They still want to kill us.
God Bless America
God Damn America.

But Graves balked at singing that last line, “God Damn America,” and Roumain refused to budge, so there was an impasse. But the aria was eventually performed by another Black soprano, J’Nai Bridges and funded by a variety of establishment arts organizations, including:  Opera Philadelphia, the Fine Arts Center at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Stanford Live, and the University Musical Society at the University of Michigan. And besides that:

Roumain’s racial-justice profile has earned him a seat on the boards of the League of American Orchestras and the Association of Performing Arts Presenters, as well as a faculty position at Arizona State University. He has been commissioned by Carnegie Hall and is working on film, TV, and opera scores.

Such oppression!

As is so often the case among social justice warriors, on one hand he wants discrimination against White musicians, but then he dresses it all up with the loftiest of moral platitudes:

The truth is: as much as I would love to feel safe in America and a part of its moral fabric, I don’t feel safe and I would like this country to embrace a new shared radical morality based on empathy, safety for us, and justice for us all.

So at least he’s not explicitly hoping for White genocide. But he’s certainly willing to bend over backwards to blame a White person for the impasse in Tusla.

Roumain was particularly exercised that [Tulsa Opera’s artistic director Tobias] Picker was involved in trying to reach a compromise. Picker is white. No matter that Graves was the one who rejected the piece and that [Black Assistant Conductor] Howard Watkins was just as instrumental as Picker in the abortive negotiations. The entire incident, in Roumain’s view, reflected what happens when a white male runs a classical music organization. Roumain told Tulsa Public Radio that it “hurt” to have Picker suggest possible revisions. Picker’s whiteness is emblematic of the racism of an institution with “far too many white males in charge,” Roumain said. And Picker’s suggested revisions didn’t speak to “what happened on Jan. 6, what happened in Ferguson, what happened in Charlottesville . . . what happened in Atlanta.”

Picker is a White transgender activist and, at least from Roumain’s point of view, exactly the sort of progressive White person described by Robin DiAngelo, who has another book out, this time focusing exclusively on progressive White people, “the most bigoted, the most harmful, the greatest threat to racial equality.” By not giving Roumain the artistic freedom to express his hatred toward White America, Picker has shown himself to be an oppressor of Black people. And I guess Graves and Watkins are Uncle Toms.

Picker … is a far cry from the white reactionary of Roumain’s nightmares. Tulsa Opera hosted the American debut of a transgender Heldenbaritone—formerly male, now “female”—who in 2019 sang the title role in Tulsa’s Don Giovanni, creating a sexual hall of mirrors that would delight the most cutting-edge gender studies professor. Picker’s own opera about one of the first recipients of sex-reassignment surgery will be premiered in 2023.

Even though Graves, Picker, and Watkins stood up to Roumain, it’s likely that most of the classical music world and their audience are engaging in the usual ethnomasochism so common among progressive White people.

A photo on the New Jersey Orchestra’s website publicizing “i am a white person” shows smiling, elderly white people clustered around the composer, hanging on his every word. One imagines him explaining his status as a victim of their white privilege, an accusation they humbly accept.

Roumain is likely aware that his entire career depends on White guilt and he is more than ready to take it to the bank. He’s just appealing to his audience in the confidence that his messages of anti-White hate will trump serious analysis of his music because the audience really wants to be brow-beaten by messages of how evil White people are.

The enthusiastic audience for Greenwood Overcomes was predominantly white and middle-aged, judging by the concert video, just like Roumain’s audience at the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra. This demographic, scorned by the Black Lives Matter movement, is more likely to turn out for black-themed programs than blacks themselves. Roumain seeks color-coded boundaries around artistic expression and historical commemoration. This neo-segregationism is not just a blow against imaginative possibility and human understanding; it is also commercially suicidal.

Given the guilt-ridden tendencies of White progressives and Roumain’s excellent career trajectory, I rather doubt that Roumain’s messages are “commercially suicidal.” Is his “neo-segregationism” good for White advocates — Whites who reject White guilt and are looking to advance the prospects of White Americans? It’s quite clear that quite a few Whites, like Roumain’s audiences, are willing to wallow in self-abnegation and pay for the privilege of doing so. They are intelligent, well-educated, and economically secure — and often they have benefited career-wise by going along with our new culture of White denigration. But they are caught up in the moral community created by our hostile elites in the media and academic world, and they just want to be seen as good people. And many of them are good people — at least the ones who aren’t cynically exploiting the situation for personal gain. They are just hopelessly naïve about how the world works and what this cultural revolution means for the future of Whites in America. One hopes that they will wake up when they find their grandchildren are passed over for non-Whites when applying for positions in universities or in the job market.

But maybe not. This tendency toward wanting to be seen as a good person runs very deep in White people. It’s fundamental to the unique individualism that defines the West.

In any case, there are substantial numbers of White people — it’s not clear how many — who react to anti-White hate by identifying more strongly as White and understanding that the future of Whites in America is precarious at best. This neo-segregationism has become a talking point among mainstream conservatives like Heather M., and twenty states have banned or restricted Critical Race Theory from being taught in public schools. A lot of this is conservative virtue-signaling (“Dems are the real racists”) but mainstream conservatives do seem much more willing these days to dwell on examples from the media or academic world and note explicitly that they are anti-White. For example, Tucker Carlson and Fox News noted an outrageous “academic” paper in The Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association by the presumably Jewish Donald Moss. The abstract:

Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has—a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social-historical interventions. Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness’s infiltrated appetites—to reduce their intensity, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning (“never again”) or as temptation (“great again”). Memorialization alone, therefore, is no guarantee against regression. There is not yet a permanent cure.

This is nothing less than a recipe for the genocide of Whites as incurable racists. The hatred is obvious, and it’s no accident that the writer is a Jew (Fox News refers to him as a “white man” but Moss is a common Jewish name). Nor is it surprising that Moss’s article appears in a psychoanalytic journal. As noted in The Culture of Critique, psychoanalysis is an infinitely pliable tool that is able to create any result one wants and give it a veneer of science — with psychoanalytic theories of anti-Semitism and the Frankfurt School’s theory of White ethnocentrism being the most relevant here. So even though conservatives tiptoe around the deeper issues, it’s not difficult to see that the message of mainstream hatred toward Whites is definitely getting out there. A necessary development.

White Replacement Isn’t a Conspiracy Theory

/67 Comments/in , /by

Tucker Carlson’s recent monologue on demographic replacement has sent leftists into a frenzy. It’s not that they categorically deny the fact that Whites are being demographically replaced, they just think it’s “racist” for Whites to talk about it.

The few influential people (like Tucker) who draw attention to “conspiracy theories” (like White replacement) are made the poster children for the radical left’s justification of right-wing censorship. The last thing anti-Whites want is 200 million White people not only asking themselves why they’re being replaced, but why it’s in their best interest. To save face, leftists just eliminate the discussion by virtually eliminating the influence of anyone who brings the subject up (e.g. the ADL immediately calls for FOX to fire Tucker for “spreading poison”). In other words, they don’t want to talk about it, and they definitely don’t want Whites to talk about it. This alone should be cause for concern. In a free society, all things should be up for discussion, especially a group’s existence.

On the rare occasion that leftists decide to talk about things like White replacement, it’s usually accompanied by a barrage of anti-White slurs and childish analogies that depict Whites as angry racists. Such can be observed in a recent Salon article titled: Tucker Carlson’s immigration bait-and-switch betrays his desperation: No one denies that immigration brings change, Tucker — just that it’s racist to be angry about it:

Fox News host Tucker Carlson is really determined to sell his audience on what is — and this cannot be stressed enough — a literal neo-Nazi conspiracy theory. Neo-Nazis and other white nationalist groups have long pushed the idea that a shadowy cabal of Jews is secretly conspiring to “remake” America and “steal” it from its rightful owners, white Christians. They are supposedly doing this by “importing” non-white people — who neo-Nazis believe to be mentally inferior and therefore easily controlled by the shadowy Jewish conspiracy — into the U.S.

Carlson’s only spin is replacing the word “Jews” with “Democrats,” but other than that, he’s lifting “replacement theory” wholesale from the neo-Nazi dregs of the internet and now is repackaging this ridiculous conspiracy theory as if it were an inarguable fact, much to the delight of White nationalists. And because Carlson’s main modus operandi is trolling, he’s relishing the negative attention he gets by hyping a racist conspiracy theory and he’s using his audience’s love of liberal-triggering to encourage them to mindlessly burrow deeper into the worldview of unapologetic fascists.

Carlson is a moral monster. It’s likely he has been this way since his high school “Dan White Society” days. Sadly, he is a monster that must be dealt with, despite the unfortunate risk of troll-feeding. It’s not just because Carlson has an audience that regularly tops 3 million viewers, though that alone is terrifying. It’s that he is a smart man whose strategy for selling this conspiracy theory is sinister and clever. To fight back, it’s crucial that progressives don’t fall into the trap he is setting.

Needless to say, there’s no argument here that rebuts the demographic realities resulting from immigration. Just moral posturing. What the left does best when they don’t really want to deal with reality.

It’s not only “racist” for a White man to be “angry” about his race being demographically replaced, but it also makes him a “moral monster” who promotes “a literal neo-Nazi conspiracy theory” if he mentions it to his audience? How does that make sense on any level? Is it racist for Blacks to get angry about gentrification, or when Mexicans take over Black neighborhoods?

On one hand the leftist says, “European colonialism is genocidal,” even when they politely leave after building infrastructure that the natives could only dream of. But on the other hand they in effect are saying, “non-White immigrants replacing White people is a good thing”—never mind why it’s good, much less good for Whites. How can any rational person take that argument seriously? Furthermore, how can any rational person attempt to present that argument in the very same article in which they are chastising someone for allegedly using “bait-and-switch” tactics?:

Basically, Carlson is pulling off two bait-and-switch routines. First, he falsely conflates any cultural change with his ridiculous “replacement” conspiracy theory. Second, he tries to paint the debate as one over whether change is real — something that literally no one contests — so as to avoid talking about the real issue, which is how it’s nuclear-level racist to react to cultural change like it’s some kind of existential threat. In reality, it’s just what happens if you’re lucky to live long enough to experience it.

Did I just read that right? Is she really saying that it’s nuclear-level racist to think that replacing a White population with a non-White population is an “existential threat” to Whites? Cultural change just happens. It’s inexplicable, and our media and political elites have had nothing to do with it. Nobody’s interests are at stake. Deal with it. It’s always good. Like when millions were massacred in the Soviet Union after the cultural change when the Bolsheviks took over. Or Cambodia. Or Rwanda. Even the nuclear-level racist ADL, as quoted by uber-racist Carlson, thinks that a one-state solution would be a disastrous cultural change for Jews. Actually, I wonder if she would even have a job if she said that about any group other than White people, excluding Christians.

There’s no way anyone could be so callous as to refer to what’s happening as just “cultural change.” This cultural change was brought about by ethnic activists who feared and loathed the traditional White majority of America, and it is kept in place by our new, post-1965 elite. Ms. Marcotte should give us a clear picture of how she sees the future when Whites are a relatively powerless minority in America. I’m sure she would see it as nothing but harmonious multiculturalism. But what if it isn’t? What if lethal ethnic conflict comes to the fore, as it has so often in the past. What majority group in their right mind would want to take that risk?

Nevertheless, I’ll give Ms. Marcotte the benefit of the doubt and assume that she is ignorant and not inherently evil (a courtesy she didn’t grant Tucker). Maybe she had a bad day and got confused with what she actually meant to say. Or maybe the editor called in sick. Either way, as a thankless gesture, I decided to post an edited version of the previous quoted paragraph:

Basically, Marcotte is pulling off two bait-and-switch routines. First, she falsely conflates White replacement with her ridiculous “cultural change” conspiracy theory. Second, she tries to paint the debate over whether demographic replacement is real — something literally no one contests — so as to avoid talking about the real issue, which is how it’s nuclear-level stupid to react to becoming a minority like it’s not an existential threat. In reality, only total idiots would consider themselves lucky to live through demographic replacement.

There, that’s better.

But in all seriousness, she acknowledges that immigration changes the face of society, but in the same way that “generational shifts” result in skinny jeans and TikTok. Again, it’s important to understand exactly what this woman is saying: she is saying that White replacement is comparable to “changing fashions and evolving social norms.” She even attempts to cleverly justify it by comparing White people’s demographic decline to the bad hair products of the 80s:

Here’s the thing, though: Lieu didn’t give any game away. Liberals have never denied that immigration changes society. Of course it does, along with generational shifts, changing fashions, and evolving social norms. When I was young, people wore low-rise jeans and MTV still played music videos. Now it’s skinny jeans (though apparently not for long) and TikTok. Change is inevitable, and generally good, as anyone who has a memory of hair-destroying styling products in the bad old days can contest.

What makes “replacement” a conspiracy theory, however, is that it invents this elaborate fantasy ascribing change not to the normal churn of human society, but to a sinister and hidden conspiracy of Jews and Democrats who are secretly inflicting change to pull off some grand scheme.

She says the reason “White replacement” is a conspiracy theory is because Whites point the finger at “Jews and Democrats” as the those responsible for massive non-White immigration into the United States. What she doesn’t say is that Republicans wanting cheap labor—Jews and non-Jews—bear a healthy portion of the blame.  But yes, Jews and Democrats have been the prime movers—Jews heavily involved since early in the twentieth century, and Democrats totally on board now that they have basically jettisoned their White working-class base and are dreaming of permanent hegemony due to their non-White voting base.

What would make “White replacement” a conspiracy theory would be if it wasn’t an observable phenomenon. If it’s such a positive transition, why can’t we have an honest discussion about it without name-calling, moral posturing, and censorship? If this “normal churn of human society” is so wonderful, why are so many Whites unhappy and complaining about it? Are they just too stupid to know what’s best for them? But to make that argument, Marcotte would have to explain exactly why it’s just wonderful for Whites.

The data are conclusive: White demographic replacement isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s a statistical fact. The fact is that it’s stupid for Whites like Marcotte to believe that the share of the population like them just magically decreased by 30 percentage points in less than 50 years and that it is “nuclear-level racist” to think it may not turn out well. Particularly in a era when tens-of-thousands of non-Whites are marching for the southern border at any given time on Biden’s promise of mass amnesty, and legal immigration continues at an all-time high.

Immigration is 100% causative, meaning that it happens for a reason. There are two primary elements that define a nation: ethnicity and borders. Borders are designed to keep people from other nations out, or at least they used to be. Protocols are in place as to who gets to immigrate into the United States (all countries have an immigration policy). It’s not just some random act of human migration called “cultural change” (unless that’s the new liberal term for legal and illegal immigration”) that determines who gets to come here and who doesn’t. Up until 1965, the National Origins Formula prevented immigration from changing the ethnic composition of an America determined to retain its Northern and Western European character.

Historically speaking, immigration has always been a politically divisive topic in the United States. It goes without saying that if America was 90% White, Democrats would never win a presidential election in the current political climate. Just as it’s safe to say that Republicans will never win a presidential election when Whites become a minority. It’s as simple as that. Just because the writers of Salon pretend it isn’t happening doesn’t mean it isn’t.

The weird thing about this line of liberal “logic” is that they would never apply it to any other group besides White people. Do African nations have a moral imperative to import enough non-Africans so that they are a minority? For that matter, they wouldn’t apply it to animals or plants either. These people would sacrifice their lives to save a tree or an endangered insect. But for some reason they won’t do it for White people. Why is that? Well, for starters, anti-White hostility has been dramatically increasing in recent years, to the point that Critical Race Theory, which blames White people for everything bad about society, is now the more-or-less official position of the establishment: media, academia, politics, Big Tech, and Wall St. — with “Jews and Democrats” leading the charge. This singling out White people as a group for all social evil borders on dehumanization, the third of the 8 stages of genocide, according to the US State Department. Ironically, the eighth and final stage is denial (e.g. “it’s not White genocide, it’s cultural change due to a normal churn of human society”).

More importantly, Carlson is propping up this fake debate so that he can smuggle in his real argument, which is that change is bad.

Carlson’s whole gambit depends on the presumption that change is a terrible thing. But that belief is both delusional and, on the subject of immigration, racist.

But it’s only a “fake debate” insofar as liberals and the left don’t even try to tell us why ethnic replacement is a good thing for the people being replaced. They opt instead to write slanderous articles filled with anti-White slurs and buzzwords without addressing the real concerns of those who are talking about White replacement. They don’t want the Tuckers of the world telling you that demographic change could be very bad for the people in the process of becoming a minority. Left-wingers ultimately want Whites jumping up-and-down with joy for their impending demographic doom. It’s just “cultural change.”

One can’t help but notice why liberals (or Ms. Marcotte) never offer an explanation as to why Whites should be so happy about their replacement. And even when they do, it’s always the same narrative: if you’re White and not happy about being a minority in your own country, it’s just because you’re an angry racist who can’t accept change. We’ll see what happens when the children of White liberals can’t get into a top university because all standardized tests have been thrown out and equity demands that non-Whites be admitted according to their percentage of the population (or more). And we’ll see what happens when liberal White suburbanites have to deal with poor non-Whites being dropped into their neighborhoods as local jurisdictions lose power over zoning.

If White replacement is a good thing for Whites, and they should be happy about it, wouldn’t it make more sense to offer an explanation of how it’s going to be beneficial?: if you’re White you’re going to be demographically replaced in the United States, but don’t be scared, it’s just cultural change and it’s going to be good for White people. And here’s why: you’re taxes are going to go down, you’re communities will be safer with less crime, your children are going to get a better education, healthcare is going to be more affordable, there will be less social unrest, no more BLM/antifa riots, there are going to be more jobs, there will be fewer suicides and opioid overdoses and so much more. Not to mention, your children and grandchildren will absolutely love being a minority. Just ask the Blacks!

Could anyone really believe this? Until “Jews and Democrats” are willing to have an honest debate on the causes and effects of the rapid demographic change ongoing in the United States, White replacement needs to be called what it is: placing Whites in a position where they will be vulnerable to the ethnic hatreds and historical grudges of others — and, quite possibly, violent (rather than creeping demographic) genocide least on the scale of what happened in the USSR. The hatreds among ethnic partisans and the mindless idealism of liberals like Marcotte are already in place.