Costs of Multiculturalism

What are “British Values”?

/7 Comments/in , /by

Pre-election Britain is currently going through a self-evaluation in such a way that, were it retail goods brought over a shop counter, there could be an action brought under the UK’s Trade Descriptions Act of 1968. This piece of legislation replaced the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 with “fresh provisions prohibiting misdescriptions of goods, services, accommodation and facilities provided in the course of trade”. It protects the consumer, who might otherwise be sold something which did not match the description given by the seller and is thus of lesser value than advertised. This act of deception currently applies to a commodity mentioned daily in the British media, and marketed under the brand name of “British values”. Regrettably, some immigrants seem not to share these values. But what are “British values”, and who says so? We should examine the meaning of “value” before ascribing them to a nation.

Value is the ascription of worth and has two main fields of function, the mathematical and the behavioral. Financial value, although that is what is most commonly understood by the English word, is a sub-set of the mathematical function, and need not be a third category. If x is given a value in a mathematical problem and a house is valued at a certain price, nothing essentially different is happening between these two scenarios in terms of value viewed as simple ascription. But whereas mathematical value is contained solely within mathematics, a self-referential system, values can also be societal, and so refer to something other than an apparatus of pure value comparison. Societal values can perhaps be defined as a set of civic indicators deemed acceptable to the majority of a society as conducive to its continuation.

British values, then, would be a belief that a certain set of actions in the civic sphere are preferable to alternatives as consensually agreed by the people who live in Britain. As we shall see, however, it is not a country’s people who get to evaluate their own nation. In this case, financial value is a valid comparison because a price is either centrally controlled or arrived at by the operation of the free market. So too with national values.

Nigel Farage, currently the joker in the pack of British politics, has recently been criticized for referring to polling showing that a large percentage of Muslims in the UK do not subscribe to “British values”, and it is presumed that everyone knows what this yardstick is in much the same way as they know the names of the four separate nations that make up the United Kingdom. But what are British values? That is, not what do we nostalgically believe them to be, not an airbrushed list of qualities the post-war British held dear and which always begins with “fair play”, but what are they in actuality? Perhaps we should ask the British government.

In 2014, the Department for Education (DOE) published guidelines for Britain’s schools, instructing them “to actively promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different religions and beliefs”. The first three on this wish-list are demonstrably eroding, to say the least, and are in any case not specific to Britain among Western nations. Nothing makes them uniquely British. But it is the fourth that needs unpacking. (“Tolerance” and “respect” for other peoples or religions can be conflated into one term without significant loss of meaning).

Firstly, we must go back to the source of the DOE’s four pillars of British society, and the paragraph quoted from above guides us: “These values were first set out by the government in the ‘Prevent’ strategy in 2011”. This “strategy” has a very specific purpose. The UK government introduced its Prevent program specifically to counter Islamist terrorism, although its guideline document gives equal ranking to other perceived threats. So British values have been defined by government as part of a program to stop Islamists blowing things up and hacking people to death. Is there not more to them than a sub-section of a government policy document? Let’s go back to the last Labour period in power.

The consensus among what there is of the British political Right is that the beginning of the programmatic dismantling of post-colonial Britain, including its elusive values, began in earnest in 1997 with the election of Tony Blair’s Labour government. Margaret Thatcher was certainly the last Prime Minister to be recognizably Conservative, and when her own party turned on her like the Roman consuls on Caesar, John Major was only ever presiding over an interim government before the advent of “Blairism” and the Blairites.

Blair’s Home Secretary was David Blunkett, and in 2005 he wrote a piece for The Guardian on patriotism and British values. In it, he gave a definition of these values:

I believe Britishness is defined not on ethnic and exclusive grounds but on shared values: our history of tolerance, openness and internationalism; and our commitment to democracy and liberty, to civic duty and the public space.

Along with the same anodyne abstractions noted in the DOE set above, note Blunkett’s negative definition which opens the quote. Whatever British values might be, they are not rooted in ethnicity. Indeed, any hint of White British patriotism is now highly suspect, and Labour have a particular animus against England. John Prescott, one of Blair’s aides de camp, spoke of the British Isles as “Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions”. [Italics added]. The BBC never mentions England by name unless there is rioting there or a football match.

British values, however, must not just be defined by government, they must be taught, and for the pedagogical aspect of national evaluation we move forwards almost a decade from Blunkett’s article.

In 2016, a governmental review was published that remains one of its best-kept secrets. Despite being hidden in plain sight, things only become visible to the public if the media make it so, and this document received no coverage. The Casey Review, subtitled British Values and the Common Language of Virtues, is a founding document of British adherence to globalism that would require a novella-length exegesis worthy of a Mediaeval Aristotelean scholar to show its significance. I’ll highlight a few salient points, but if you want to see the technocratic manipulation and systematic undermining of national, practical civic wisdom, it is a short report and worth your time.

The problems with the report are apparent at the outset, with author Baroness Casey’s stated aim to “establish a set of values around which people from all different backgrounds can unite”. Of course, each of these “different backgrounds” already has its own set of values, often differing from those of the British. The review’s example of a value which they deem universal is honesty, and this is assumed to be a value which immigrants from all backgrounds automatically share with the host nation. Teachers may struggle to explain this to the children of devout Muslim families who believe that honesty can be suspended in the case of taqiyya, an Islamic doctrine sanctioning lying if it is in the cause of their religion. This is confirmed by the Koran, Islam’s ultimate arbiter.

The Casey Review is pedagogical throughout. Baroness Casey quotes from David Goodhart (essentially a journalist) on teaching values, and we get our first glimpse of the universalism to come:

Values, meaning different and sometimes conflicting notions of how to live a good life, are in a way the problem, not the solution. It is shared experience and mutual interests, and the way these can be fostered by public institutions and public rituals, that are a better means for overcoming differences.

Values, meaning in this case British values, are now the problem. This is the ideological epicenter of a document super-saturated with ideology. The Baroness herself approves:

While a bolstering of British values may well contribute to enhanced integration, placing an emphasis on character and common virtues could be a more effective way of allowing pupils to discuss shared experiences, and to use a common language in discussing what they think it means to be British.

To give the document an air of philosophical gravitas, Aristotle is invoked as one of “many philosophers of character”, and is found to “suggest that a number of virtues are held in common across humanity”. Apart from his spell in Macedonia tutoring Alexander the Great, it is not reported that Aristotle saw much of the rest of humanity in order to make such a comparison. There is no citation given in the review. Also, if virtue is the issue and it’s a Greek philosopher you want to back you up, Plato would seem the more obvious candidate. However, Plato famously held (particularly in the Meno and Protagoras) that virtue could not be taught, and that is not what a technocrat wants to hear echoing down the millennia.

As noted, a line-by-line exegesis of The Casey Review is required, but I will just note a line from the summary, and the document’s extraordinary sign-off:

[T]he teaching and cultivation of values should be a more interactive, collaborative and inclusive process which will help to enhance the moral character of the next generation, and thus the tolerance, respect and community cohesion… currently lacking across Britain.

“Community cohesion” is code for ensuring Muslims do not have their patience tested by any aspect of British society, and “inclusive” is another familiar dog-whistle word meaning “fewer white people and their values”.

But it is the final statement of the review, boxed off and highlighted at the foot of the document, that contains the core message. Once again, it is by David Goodhart, who is clearly in favor at court:

To combine diversity with solidarity, to improve integration and racial justice, it is not good just preaching tolerance, you need a politics which promotes in-group identity. [Italics in original].

Racial justice has now arrived at the scene, and the identity politics we see blooming now in Britain is here seeded. Identity is all, provided that identity has nothing to do with White ethnicity.

The destruction of ethnic culture is an ongoing part of the drive to rid Europe of its nation states by dismantling the history of those nations, and an example from the troubled country of Sweden is instructive. In 2019, an archaeologist at Stockholm’s Länsmuseum turned whistleblower on the policy of the museum’s curator with regard to newly discovered artefacts from the Viking era:

Coins, arrow-heads, ritual amulets, weapons, jewelry and weights that were kept in the past are now dumped into metal recycling bins upon discovery instead of being cared for and displayed. Museum excavators are instructed to recycle unearthed iron elements into scrap metal on the weak pretext that ‘it would take too many resources to process, identify and store them’.

It is not easy to see how the storage of small metal items at a museum would present a logistical problem in a building geared precisely for storage. As for allocation of Swedish resources, it should be noted that the excavations which unearthed these historical treasures were part of works to prepare land for new accommodation for asylum seekers. The Swedish Culture Secretary at the time was Alice Bah-Kuhnke, a half-caste lady whose Wikipedia page curiously omits mention of any religion she might hold. Those interested in her are forced to make assumptions based on her parentage, her mother being Swedish and her father from 97%-Muslim Gambia. If a country’s ethnic history is destroyed, quite literally in this case, that country can be defeated without a shot being fired, and new values can be imposed which exclude those previously kept alive in the genetic make-up of its natives.

Alice Bah-Kuhnke: In charge of Sweden’s cultural heritage (2014-2019) and now a MEP for Sweden’s Green Party

Genetics is not a purely biological affair. It is obviously a vast field, but we all grasp the concept of heritability and would do so even if our reading stopped at Darwin. We may also know that the formation of heritable characteristics over time may not be limited to physical evolution, but extend to the sphere of the social. In primitive and broad-brush terms, one theory for the vast differences between Africa and Europe in terms of simple development goes back to differing ways of obtaining food. The gatherers in warmer climes had no need of co-operation with one another, which was thus purely discretionary. The hunters of the frozen north, however, who required a team of men to overpower larger animals and whose food did not drop from the trees, soon learned that co-operation was essential both to eat and to stay alive. From these behavioral seeds, two very different continents grew. And those seeds also contained values and the importance of their variation. Thus, the ethnic history of a nation, its developing valuation of itself, travels with it via a genetic delivery system which reinforces behavior advantageous to the group, in this case a nation.

Michael Levin, in his 1997 book, Why Race Matters, examines valuation in the context of racial difference, and makes use of reinforcement as a qualifying term:

From a behavioral standpoint, to value something is to be reinforced by it, and to explain someone’s values is to explain why those stimuli that reinforce him do in fact do so.

Reinforcement is a term in standard use in psychology. People require “conventional reinforcement”, such as praise, acceptance or encouragement. But the distinctive history of a national people has its own type of genetic reinforcement: ethnicity.

The valuation of individual and national ethnicity is the epicenter of the modern schism between the Left and the Right, and to recognize the role of reinforcement in that valuation is to go to the heart of that divide. Reinforcement in ethnic terms creates a virtuous circle in which an individual who values their ethnic history in turn reinforces the value they place on their own partaking of that ethnicity. The English value the work of Shakespeare not just because his work is dramatically satisfying and his use of language appealing, but also because he was English. A high valuation of ethnicity is why nations have national heroes, real or mythical. Which brings us to the question of national pride. Pride is the last of the Bible’s deadly sins, and national pride is now politically suspect if and only if that nation is historically White.

National pride is more complex than personal pride. It is more than the warm glow every time you see your diploma on the wall or feel the heightened sense of self-worth that comes with going for and getting a job you very much wanted. The pride an Englishman or any other native feels in his country extends backwards in time and goes down to the cellular, genetic level. Essentially, you are proud of those who came before you and what they achieved and, by extension, your own place as a living part of that achievement, which is your country. If this is a genetic as well as a temporal relation, we would do well to remember the root of ‘genetic’ is the Ancient Greek genos, among whose meanings are genus and species, but also family, lineage, and kin. This is the genetics the Left would rather you didn’t notice.

So, to what conclusion did our whistle-stop tour of contemporary British values, and the teaching of same, lead us? We can certainly say, pace the favored courtier David Goodhart, that values are not the problem. The problem is that values are being set technocratically by committee and not organically as national self-awareness. The installation of a pedagogical regimen will dictate what those values are, and what they are, what value is given to x, will not be the result of a natural accretion of values which have grown out of collective national identity but a set of globalist diktats. The values British schoolchildren are taught at school are the result of a technocratic/globalist value system which supersedes nationalist values and which by necessity prioritizes indoctrination, conformity and orthodoxy over national fervor. But real British values are not the outcome of focus groups of leftist ideologues writing anti-terrorism documents. They live in the blood and the soil of its native people, whether the new elites like that allusion or not.

Blights on Whites: HBD, Headlines and the Violation of Western Norms

/25 Comments/in , /by

A simple headline. That’s often all it takes to spot HBD — Human Bio-Diversity — at work in a high-trust Western society like Britain. That’s because a headline is often enough to reveal that the norms of such a society are being violated in an extreme way.

Brazen in Bournemouth

The norms were obviously set by mainstream Whites, so they tend to be violated by outsiders. The worse the violation, the more likely it is that an outsider is responsible. For example, one norm in Britain is the ability of large numbers of people to gather peacefully and cooperatively for recreation. That’s why we have holiday-resorts like the coastal towns of Bournemouth and Blackpool, where Whites have gathered for many decades to enjoy sun, sand and sea. But Bournemouth and Blackpool have recently generated headlines about the brutal violation of the norms that formerly prevailed there. When I read the headlines, I immediately thought “HBD!” That is, I thought that outsiders — not British Whites — would be responsible for the crimes in question.

And I was right. At least, I was right about one of the headlines and I’m confident that I’ll be right about the other two. The first headline ran like this: “Man found guilty of raping girl, 15, in sea off Bournemouth beach.” That’s an extreme violation of a British norm and sure enough an outsider was responsible:

A 20-year-old man has been found guilty of the “brazen” rape of a 15-year-old girl after he took her out of her depth in the sea off Bournemouth beach. A jury found Gabriel Marinoaica, of Darlaston, Walsall, guilty of three charges of sexual assault and rape. He was acquitted of a further charge of sexual assault by biting her neck. Judge Susan Evans KC [King’s Counsel] said it was a “brazen thing to have done in broad daylight” on the beach. (“Man found guilty of raping girl, 15, in sea off Bournemouth beach,” The Guardian, 15th March 2024)

Not British but brazen: the possibly Gypsy Romanian Gabriel Marinoaica

Well, it was a “brazen thing” to do by British standards, but Gabriel Marinoaica isn’t British. He has a Romanian surname and could well be a Gypsy. That is, he isn’t genuinely from “Darlaston, Walsall” in the English Midlands. Instead, he is a single footsoldier in the “immivasion” of Britain overseen first by the treacherous Labour party and second by the equally treacherous Conservative party.

I’m confident that the same will prove true of the criminals behind two other headlines from the British holiday resorts of Blackpool and Bournemouth. They run like this: “Woman raped in horror attack on Blackpool seafront” and “Bournemouth beach stabbing: man arrested on suspicion of murder.” In the first case, the police are looking for a “tall Asian [i.e., Pakistani or similar] man in his mid-30s.” And in the second, a suspect has now been arrested and charged. If you’re a hate-criminal like me, you won’t be surprised to hear that his name is Nasen Saadi. He’s described in the mainstream media as being “from Croydon, London.” He isn’t, of course. Whether or not he is found guilty, he’s another footsoldier in the “immivasion” of Britain overseen by our treacherous elite.

Schoolboy slaughters schoolgirl

If he is found guilty, he will become yet another non-White who has imposed vibrancy on the White norms that formerly prevailed in Croydon. This district of London has a name with a beautiful etymology: it’s from the Old English crogen and denu, meaning “valley where wild saffron grows.” But forget wild saffron: in the 21st century, Croydon regularly generates headlines that reek of HBD. Late last year, for example, there were headlines about the “fatal stabbing of [a] schoolgirl in Croydon.” Hate-criminals like me needed only the headlines to begin thinking heretical thoughts. When we read the stories below the headlines, our heretical thoughts got worse. It was a horrific crime, as the Trotskyist libertarian Brendan O’Neill described at Spiked:

Everything about the death of [the schoolgirl] Elianne [Andam] is bleak beyond imagination. It happened during rush hour on Wednesday. Elianne and friends were on their way to school. One of her friends was accosted by a 17-year-old boy, reportedly her ex-boyfriend. He had a bouquet of roses. Elianne stepped in to try to calm things down. The boy allegedly took out a thin, foot-long knife and drove it into Elianne’s neck. She died in the street, next to the blood-spattered roses.

It feels incomprehensible. How untethered from morality must a young man be, how unbound by social norms, to slay a girl in the street for the ‘offence’ of suggesting he back off. Elianne was bright and clearly a good friend. She wanted to be a lawyer. And yet on a Wednesday morning, in front of her fellow citizens, her life was ended with a ‘zombie knife’ allegedly wielded by a boy who has not yet reached the age of majority. Not only the people of Croydon but the nation itself feels shell-shocked by this senseless destruction of young, promise-filled life. (“The Croydon stabbing: in the shadow of nihilism,” 29th September 2023)

Brendan is performing a common ritual in the modern West. The ritual involves leftists self-righteously bewailing the consequences of their own preferences, while steadfastly refusing to admit blame or face reality. The “boy” responsible for that “nihilistic” murder was almost certainly Black and living in Britain thanks to the non-White migration so warmly supported by leftists like Brendan. But there is no discussion of race or migration in the article. And when Brendan laments how the “boy” was “unbound by social norms,” he doesn’t raise the highly interesting question of what “social norms” he’s talking about. Are they Black norms? The norms that prevail in Somalia and other parts of sub-Saharan Africa? No, of course not. They’re White norms. And why would we expect Blacks, with a distinct genetic and cultural history, to follow White norms?

From repulsive to ridiculous

Well, if we’re sane and scientifically literate, we wouldn’t. But leftists like Brendan O’Neill aren’t sane or scientifically literate. That’s why they’ve cheered on the immivasion of Britain by non-Whites while simultaneously bewailing its inevitable consequences. For example, Brendan and his comrades also get very heated about Muslims attacking the traditional White norm of free speech. Yes, fancy that. Britain imports people who hate free speech and those people continue to hate free speech on the magic dirt of Britain. This is because the dirt isn’t in fact magic and doesn’t alter the genetics and culture of outsiders.

The magic dirt doesn’t work: Muslims carry on behaving like Muslims

If you want another example of that, just look at the behavior of a group that has lived on British soil not for decades, like Blacks and Muslims, but for centuries and even millennia. Yes, let’s go from the repulsive to the ridiculous. I’ve described how hate-criminals like me can detect HBD in repulsive headlines about rape and murder. But hate-criminals like me can also detect HBD in ridiculous headlines like this: “Couple in Wales jailed for series of ‘dine and dash’ offences.” In other words, the couple were ordering and eating food in restaurants, then leaving without paying for the food. That’s a violation of the high-trust norms of British society, which is why I read the headline and immediately thought: “Gypsies!” And I was right. At least, I was right in the short-hand sense I was using the term “Gypsies”:

A couple have been jailed for carrying out a string of “dine and dash” offences, racking up large bills for food and drink before leaving without paying. A judge at Swansea crown court said Ann McDonagh, 39, and Bernard McDonagh, 41, had “cynically and brazenly” defrauded restaurants and a takeaway in south Wales.

Judge Thomas KC told the court that the couple, from Port Talbot, had ordered more than they could eat — including T-bone steaks — just to see if they could get away with it and got a buzz out of their spree. “It was criminality for criminality’s sake,” he said. The court was told the couple were from a “very large Travelling community” and the judge criticised them for reinforcing negative stereotypes. (“Couple in Wales jailed for series of ‘dine and dash’ offences,” The Guardian, 29th May 2024)

Travellers and Gypsies aren’t fully distinct groups in Britain. They’ve interbred and, although the famous boxer Tyson Fury is a Traveller, strictly speaking, he calls himself the “Gypsy King.” After all, the two groups are both outsiders with similar nomadic cultures. And with similar cultures of violence, criminality, and parasitism. The “negative stereotypes” referred to by the judge exist with very good reason. And note how the judge in Swansea used the word “brazen,” just like the judge who sentenced the rapist Gabriel Marinoaica in Bournemouth. Like Marinoaica, the McDonaghs are marked as outsiders not only by their shameless violation of British norms, but also by their surnames. The surname McDonagh isn’t Welsh but Irish, because Travellers come from Ireland.

Living outside the state

Not that the McDonaghs will regard themselves as outsiders, of course. From their perspective, they’re insiders who are entitled to prey on the out-group of non-Travellers. The McDonaghs preyed on the Welsh out-group in typical Traveller fashion because that is the evolved norm in their “community.” Travellers have lived on British soil for many generations, but they haven’t adopted British norms of high trust and low criminality. In other words, they look White in the broad sense but aren’t White in the narrow sense. If Travellers and Gypsies were taken out of the crime statistics for “whites” in Britain, the stats would fall even further by comparison with those for Blacks and other non-Whites. Indeed, in some ways Travellers are closer to Blacks than to mainstream British Whites. For example, they have lower average IQs than British Whites and regard education with disdain and contempt. Although they’re undoubtedly far closer in genetics to us than Somalis or Pakistanis, they remain a distinct group.

The McDonaghs are Travellers who look White but don’t act White

It’s clear, for example, that they haven’t undergone the process of genetic pacification that applied to the White British majority. For centuries, a strong state and efficient system of justice suppressed genes for violence and criminality by the simple means of executing and imprisoning criminals. The law-abiding had more children than the lawless and the result was high-trust, low-crime White Britain. But nomadic Travellers lived outside the state and did their best to evade its laws. It isn’t anomalous that an exceptionally good boxer like Tyson Fury should have come from such a tiny minority, because violent and aggressive males among Travellers weren’t weeded out by the state and the hangman.

The double whammy of immivasion

On the contrary, they were rewarded with reproductive success. Having lots of children is another Traveller tradition. Fury himself has seven. The “dine and dash” McDonaghs have six. In contrast, the birth-rate of mainstream British Whites is at a historic low. It’s below replacement level. There are many reasons for the fall in White births and some of them are freely discussed in the mainstream. Here’s one reason that isn’t: the overcrowding that is now prevalent in cities like London. Unlike some races, Whites don’t like living in crowded, noisy environments. And they don’t like being unable to ensure a safe and secure home for their children. That’s why so many White couples postpone children or refrain from having children entirely.

Jewish migration-maven, the lovely Barbara Roche, spinner of ludicrous lies

Groups like Travellers and Somalis, who live much more in the moment, don’t follow those norms, which is why their birth-rates remain high even as their behavior helps suppress White birth-rates. And that’s exactly the way our hostile elite like it. They’ve imposed the immivasion on the West not simply because it floods us with outsiders, but also because it suppresses our birth-rates. Of course, HBD is also at work in the hostile elite. I’ve regularly described the central role of the Labour immigration minister Barbara Roche in organizing the immivasion of Britain and propagandizing for its non-existent benefits. Roche is Jewish. So were the plutocrats who funded the treacherous Labour party as it opened the borders and waged war on its traditional supporters in the White working-class.

No respect for White norms

The plutocrats who presently fund the treacherous Conservative party are also Jewish. And when, as seems highly likely, the Conservatives lose the next election, they will replaced by the Jew-funded Labour party under Keir Starmer, who has a Jewish wife and is firmly committed to following a Jewish agenda of open borders. In America, as Kevin MacDonald has carefully documented, the 1965 Hart-Celler Act that began national-wrecking immivasion was a thoroughly Jewish project. But the project was fronted by Irish Catholics like Teddy Kennedy, who also regarded themselves as outsiders to the White Protestants who had created America and established its norms. Teddy’s brother John F. Kennedy had already put his name to a book about America with the lying and ludicrous title of A Nation of Immigrants (1958). Again, hate-criminals will not be surprised to read that the book “was written as part of the Anti-Defamation League’s series entitled the One Nation Library. In the 1950s, former ADL National Director Ben Epstein was concerned by rising xenophobia and anti-immigrant rhetoric, so he reached out to then-Senator Kennedy to write a manuscript on immigration reform.” The ADL also supplied a historian, Arthur Mann (a doctoral student of historian-Jewish pro-immigration activist Oscar Handlin at Harvard) for the project, and it was ghost-written by Myer Feldman who was influential in the Kennedy/Johnson administration.

Jews and the Whitey Bomb

The anti-White Jew Barbara Roche used the same lying and ludicrous propaganda when she claimed in 2000 that ““Britain has always been a nation of migrants.” The phrase “nation of migrants” has the same stupidity and illogic as “rope of sand” or “brick of water.” That is, it’s a complete contradiction in terms. The word “nation” itself comes from the Latin nasci, meaning “to be born.” In other words, a nation is a bond of blood, created by a distinct group that shares genetics, culture, and language. Immigration means the destruction of a nation, not its creation or consolidation. When Jews like Roche claim otherwise, they’re brazenly violating the White norm of respect for truth and objective reality. But Jews don’t respect White norms any more than Blacks or Travellers do. And with their much higher IQs and powers of organization, Jews are much more dangerous to White societies than imported minorities. Brazen rapists in Bournemouth and stabby schoolboys in Croydon are the footsoldiers of the immivasion. Jews are the generals and military theorists who have organized and directed the war on the White West.

Britain’s technocrats: The economics of truth

/9 Comments/in , , /by

Economics is tailor-made for technocrats. It revolves around systems, and systems are everything for our current hyper-managerial class of social engineers. Once a system is in place, whether it works or not takes second place to its complicated maintenance. The subsequent problem for the technocrat task force is how that system is presented to non-specialists, particularly when it does fail, and the answer is always obfuscation by complexity. Part of technocratic best practice is to introduce as much complexity as it takes to protect the economic system from the comprehension of ordinary citizens. By performing this act of consecration, the technocrat becomes the equivalent of the priest in the medieval church, the only one in the congregation who can understand Latin.

I am not an economist. In fact, economics A-level is the only examination I have ever failed. But we all have a basic understanding of economics founded on our everyday use of money. In the same way, although we are not all psychologists, we have a basic understanding of psychology gleaned from our interactions with others. The word itself, “economics”, has its roots in the Ancient Greek oikonomos, which referred to domestic economy or what would have been called until recently good housekeeping. But economics has become something far different from merely balancing the household books. I have never found a definitive source for this quote, although it is sometimes credited to Bernard Lewis:

“Astrology became astronomy. Alchemy became chemistry. I wonder what economics will become.”

Whatever mutations economics is going through, its effects on ordinary people are becoming increasingly difficult for governments to spin to a British public who are seeing economic decline first hand. No matter how desperately spin-doctors and policy advisers try to manipulate tractor production figures, ordinary folk can see the state of the farm.

Inflation is the obvious example. It is a relatively easy concept to grasp, and is difficult to hide from people who go shopping. Its true severity is masked as much as possible, and this is the technocrat in action, mastering the dark arts of changing the everyday perception of reality. Governments use highly rigged economic data, and constantly tinker with calibration. “A change in the way inflation is measured” is a technocratic catchphrase and never an indication of greater transparency. But mopping up after the results of money-printing is only part of the government’s mission. There are also the failed projections, the inaccurate forecasts, the plain old broken promises. They will have adversely affected ordinary people, and it is the technocrat’s task to persuade them that it hasn’t, not really. If it has, the blind hand of economic forces can be summoned to bear the responsibility. The technocrat is absolved. Systemic breakdown is never a fault of technocracy.

All definitions of an economy broadly agree on the term as an expression of the financial infrastructure associated with the production and provision of goods and services. The economy is also an early-warning device, alerting the attentive reader to the likely economic weather ahead. It is a highly complicated version of a barometer or a weathercock. Failure to pay attention to the vagaries of the weather, as every farmer will know, can mean ruination, and it is no good wailing over your spoiled crops if you failed to protect them against the storm. That, however, does not stop technocratic apologists from essays in hindsight. Examples are plentiful, but I’ll focus on one from the United Kingdom.

For reasons noted, the British people are not known for rushing out to read reports on government economic policy hot off the presses, and so they may have missed a recent report from The Centre for Policy Studies, a Right-of-center think-tank. The Report is entitled Taking Back Control, and the always strident Daily Mail’s headline sums up the document’s conclusion. “Mass migration does NOT boost the economy”, it thunders in a piece about the report. “You don’t say,” seems the politest response to this bombshell, but there is another question. Who thought it would?

The International Monetary Fund and the World Economic Forum both believe that migration is economically beneficial to those countries which host immigrants, so it has globalist legitimacy for governments to apply it as a basic principle. The WEF talks of migration as “a model for sustainable growth for all”. Always with the models, another key piece of technocrat apparatus. The model to which mass migration is a technocratic response is that with ageing populations in the West and birth-rates below replacement level, younger people must be imported into Western countries in order to work in certain otherwise under-employed areas. They will then pay income tax, and the public weal will increase accordingly. Anyone who believes this problem has been solved in Britain by years of mass migration probably already works for the Home Office.

Taking Back Control was co-written by Robert Jenrick, who has the experience to know his subject, having been Minister for Immigration in 2022/3. Jenrick resigned from the government, however, over the Rwanda scheme to fly immigrants to that African country for processing, citing his dissatisfaction with the legal challenges that have stalled the whole project. Jenrick and his co-author, fellow ex-minister Neil O’Brien, present a stark picture, and the main analysis of Taking Back Control confirms that:

“Large-scale migration has not delivered significant growth in GDP [Gross Domestic Product] per capita, and has increased the strain in our capital stock, from roads and GP surgeries to housing”. [Italics added].

The authors do not mean “our”. They are referring to the lot of people who most likely will never read their report, not their own technocratic class but ordinary people. While the national economy seems to be moving out of recession in the UK, economies at a local level — the one that involves real people — are struggling to absorb mass immigration concerning which they were never consulted. The list of strains on the system is not encouraging: 89% of the increase in the UK housing deficit is due to illegal immigration (with the rest presumably resulting from legal immigration); this has the effect of price increases in the housing market and a knock-on rise in rental prices. Migrants from the Middle East, North Africa and Turkey are twice as likely to be economically inactive than their British equivalents. Immigration rates are to grow steadily in the coming years. Housing, hospitals, schools and infrastructure are all adversely affected by open borders, as Britain’s effectively are. The list continues, and an unavoidable truth begins to suggest itself; If the technocrats thought that immigration would boost the economy, and it didn’t, then they were badly wrong, and the price of their mistakes is all of the above and the rest of the list in Taking Back Control. And that list is not complete.

Taking Back Control, for all its economic data, fails to factor in hatred toward the traditional White British majority so common among current UK elites.

Nor does it factor in crime. It’s as though the extra policing, legal resources, possible emergency medical care for perpetrator and victim, penal detention and possible compensation that come as part of the immigration package is all available “free”. Trauma nurses don’t need paying, they do what they do for kicks, and lawyers all work pro bono. This is all the more curious an omission as Jenrick has called for a database on immigrant crime broken down into ethnicities (such as the Danish government publishes); the UK government currently claims it holds no such data.

Immigrants commit crime in disproportionate numbers and so will cost more to police. In Germany, 60% of suspects in cases involving violence are foreign migrants. The taxpayer, of course, ultimately pays for this, and with British income tax at a post-World War 2 high and local council taxes rising steadily across the country, a boosted economy is certainly not what the taxpayer is seeing as a result of mass migration.

However, there are co-axial economies which are being boosted by immigration, just not the national one into which people pay. Someone is making money from immigration. Hotel owners whose properties have been bought or rented at competitive prices by the Home Office, companies such as Serco which administer these hotels for the comfort of immigrants, and of course the people smugglers. Their business model is excellent, and their economy has certainly been boosted by Britain’s failure to secure its border.

Neil O’Brien rounded out Taking Back Control in a piece for Conservative Home. But, again, the problems pin-pointed and the solutions offered are nothing that has not been said for the past decade in what remaining pubs there are in Great Britain. Mr. O’Brien offers up the optimum immigration/economy model once more:

Immigration on [a large] scale is very often presented as an unalloyed good for the economy. On one level, this is correct: a larger workforce will lead to higher GDP, all else being equal. [Italics added].

Equal to what? Let’s take one inequality. In the last decade of nominally Conservative government, nine million people have migrated to the UK with 5.7 million migrating the other way for a net immigration total of 3.3 million, or a third of a million a year, close to a thousand people a day. Firstly, the social capital represented by those leaving as against that of the arrivistes will not be equal, and so increased immigration will lead to decreased social capital. O’Brien seems reluctantly dismayed that utopia has a glitch in the system:

If large-scale, relatively low-skilled migration has been great for the living standards of British residents, it doesn’t seem to be showing up in the data. While immigration can undoubtedly be enriching in many ways, the promised economic benefits have not materialized.

They most certainly have not and, while the remit of Taking Back Control is the British economy, that is not the only yardstick of “the living standards of British residents”. “It’s the economy, stupid”, was a cute jingle, but it’s not just the state of the national economy which is the Pole Star for people’s lives. People’s living standards cannot be exhaustively checked off against the flow-charts of their income and outgoings, their own personal oikonomos. Quality of life is not fiscal.

Ordinary folk who have never read a government report in their lives will be acutely aware of the adverse effects of mass migration, and not because their share portfolio has taken a bit of a beating or economic performance indicators are a little disappointing. Britain, philosophically speaking, is often called the home of empiricism, and its people are well equipped to understand immigration on an empirical level. They see it and they suffer from it. It’s not data, it’s real.

Hospital waiting lists have spiked even if a patient can get an appointment with their GP for a referral in the first place. Ambulance waiting times have got so bad people are advised to drive the patient to hospital themselves where possible. Dentists are over-subscribed many times over. Schools are becoming a Babel-like assortment of different languages, with a resulting slowing of the educative process. Public transport specifically for migrants has been laid on in some areas, diverting vehicles and drivers from regular routes. NHS translators may be required at public expense, further slowing down medical care. All of this inflicts costs economically, certainly, but the social cost is what affects people’s well-being.

Then there is the darker side of immigration.

There is not a sophisticated, intellectually jazzy way of saying this. With increased immigration of the ethnic type arriving in the UK, British parents increasingly fear for the safety of their children. Some immigrants have shown already that sexual proclivities which have long been normalized in their countries of origin have traveled with them. And they have traveled to a country in which one of the greatest scandals — and greatest cover-ups — in the nation’s history involved immigrants or their offspring, and the abuse of young White and Sikh children. Known as the “grooming gang scandal”, it is one of the great collusions between British media and the state to protect immigrants. Many migrant holding centers are being placed near schools, boosting the anxiety levels of parents and children. It’s not just the economy.

Another co-axial economy doing very nicely as a direct result of illegal immigration is money-laundering. The boom in Turkish barbershops, vape shops, candy stores, manicure parlors and other cash-intensive retail outlets all follow the same business model as the big boys, mostly Russians in London. London has long been the nerve center for laundering money, and this received an accelerant after the Soviet Union fell as a new and hastily formed group of oligarchs needed to get their money out fast. London welcomed them, its banks and the London Stock Exchange more than happy to help. Today’s new breed of money-mover — many of them literally young Turks — exploit the fact that the British business laws relating to retail establishments are laughably porous, and so Potemkin businesses abound. So plenty of money is flowing healthily through or around the British economy but, again, there is not much boosting of the overall economy going on.

These are all an economic layman’s snapshots of a great deception, that Britain could import — or simply allow in — millions of immigrants, and not only would they bring their colorful clothes and favorite recipes to enrich us all culturally, but they would eventually, soon, enrich us all financially as well. It was all a miserable lie. It wasn’t the truth. That comes later.

In 1986, a comment was made during the famous “Spycatcher” trial. The trial concerned a book written by a former employee of MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence agency, which threatened to compromise Margaret Thatcher’s government. During an exchange that verged on the epistemological, British Cabinet Minister Sir Robert Armstrong was questioned by barrister Malcolm Turnbull (later to become Prime Minister of Australia) on the difference between a misleading impression and a lie:

“Turnbull: What is the difference between a misleading impression and a lie?

Armstrong: A lie is a straight untruth.

Turnbull: What is a misleading impression? A sort of bent untruth?

Armstrong: As one person said, it is perhaps being economical with the truth”.

Sir Robert may have been referring to Edmund Burke, who used the phrase “An oeconomy of truth” in the first of his Letters on a Regicide Peace, but the phrase resonates today in a world in which, while information proliferates, the truth becomes more obscure. The British government, about to change hands politically, has certainly been economical with the truth about the economy, and used it to justify mass immigration.

But did the technocrats really just get it wrong, or is the purpose of the mass importation of hordes of fighting-age men part of a darker purpose? I suggest that it was always about replacing the historic White British population motivated by hatred for them. TOO has had many articles on how Jewish elites have championed mass, multicultural migration to the UK via media and have an outsize financial presence in both major parties, as Tobias Langdon has repeatedly shown (e.g., here). They are certainly part of it, as well as the individualist narcissistic, Whites like Tony Blair who willingly go along with it motivated by the prospect of fame and fortune. A pathetic state of affairs that neither party seem willing to correct.

How Economic and Ethnic Nationalism by White and East Asian Nations Raises World Living Standards, and How Open Borders and Multiculturalism Lowers Them

/1 Comment/in , /by

[Note: The somewhat odd tone and form of this essay are due to its having been one of two speech ideas sent to VDARE.com editor Peter Brimelow for consideration for possible presentation at their April 2024 conference. Ultimately, the other speech (which I might submit for publication later) was chosen, though due to their regular lineup having been full already it was given at a breakout session on the conference’s final day. Though I will be breaking this speech up into individual parts for VDARE.com, both to elaborate on the parts and to keep the length of each within their webzine’s normal format, I thought it would be of interest to TOO readers to have it produced in its original form here.]

In this essay I’m going to lay out the evidence for something perhaps surprising even to The Occidental Observer readers, but pleasantly so. We of the Dissident Right are usually loath to fight according to the rules of engagement the left dictates for their enemies—and then disregards for themselves; we have a visceral (and quite healthy) disgust for the tactic of trying to punch while keeping your head firmly kowtowed to the ground, a la Democrats are the real racists and other such nonsense. But in this case I do suggest that we fight the Left while giving only scorn to their antinationalist premises—and completely rout them—on the terrain of their choice.

For when it comes to trade and immigration, it is actually the case that protectionism and extreme immigration restriction by the White and East Asian nations actually raises the standard of living not just of those countries but of the entire world.

Seems counterintuitive, I know. But it’s completely, logically, and empirically true. How do I know? Well, let me walk you through it. To start with, we need to ask, what determines a nation’s standard of living and what makes it increase?

Part of it is natural resources, though that’s obviously not the whole story: if it were, the resource-laden nations of Africa would have much higher standards of living than Hong Kong, which is basically a desolate rock, but the polar opposite is true. And before the arrival of the colonists, America’s living standard was stubbornly stuck in the stone age, despite its having every desirable resource since time immemorial. What did the colonists bring with them that allowed the nation to make the jump from prehistoric lifestyles to ones rivaling those of the wealthiest nations (at the time) on earth in a little over two centuries? Basically, physical and intellectual capital and the desire and ability to use the latter to increase the former per capita. In other words, the more we can increase the number of machines, tools, and devices relative to our numbers—plus a little genius here and there to improve our technological techniques and achieve a multiplier effect on that accumulation—the more our standards of living are going to rise. And the opposite is true as well, i.e., increasing the population relative to the amount of capital will see a decline in those standards.

What in turn is required for capital accumulation? Well, having a good number of STEM types relative to the population and a robust savings rate; or to put it another way, you need a people with high average IQ and low time preference. And as I said, a few geniuses, whose intelligence is not always as measurable as IQ, provide a good accelerant, but even without that x factor, a high IQ/low time preference population alone would be able to increase living standards, just not as quickly.

And what’s true on the national scale is no less true on the world scale. The more high IQ/low time preference humans as a percentage of the world’s population, the higher the standard of living will be for everyone, other things being equal. As I’ll show in a moment, this will happen regardless of the intentions of the White or East Asian countries.

While slight variation is seen from country to country, the average IQ of the White nations is 100, the average of the East Asian ones is 105, and both have relatively high saving rates when compared to other peoples (I’m excluding Ashkenazi Jews from the discussion despite the 112 average IQ and high savings rate because of how infinitesimally small their numbers are compared to the world population). So if the world population’s proportion of Whites and East Asians were to increase, you’d have more STEM types and geniuses—Whites actually lead in that regard, as they have greater numbers both above and below their average intelligence level relative to East Asians—as a percent of the total, meaning a greater potential for increasing the amount of capital per capita.

When looking toward the future, consider the above in light of this graphic I put together showing IQ vs fertility rate: read it and weep—or at least, reach for a stiff drink. (To see just how screwed the world is unless something changes, just eyeball the lines connecting a country’s ranking on the first list (fertility ranking, high to low) versus the second (IQ ranking, high to low): if the world were to be getting smarter on average or at least staying the same, most of those lines would be horizontal. The more vertical the lines, the dumber the world will be getting on average relative to now.)

As you can see, the STEM powerhouses are either declining or stagnating while the STEM deserts are exploding relative to the total.

The graph might be labeled the confluence of globalization and biology. Long story short, as the US, Europe and its former colonies, and to a lesser extent Japan began outsourcing manufacturing to the lower income countries, the real incomes of the working and middle classes either declined or slowed relative to their potential, while the real incomes of the nations outsourced to went through the roof—as did their population numbers in most cases. As the graph makes clear, the once-poor high-IQ nations South Korea and China put their newfound wealth into increased capital and let their birthrates decline, while the low IQ nations put theirs into funding a population boom, as seen in this graph of the world’s most populous countries.

Once below the population of Germany (with an average IQ of 100), both Indonesia (average IQ of 80) and Nigeria (average IQ of 68) have left Deutschland in the demographic dust using the wealth born of the West’s capital export (and in Africa’s case, with Western aid and charity as well).

Let me quickly show you the mechanics of the betrayal of the Western working and middle classes by the globalists and how the damage done not only to them but to the country and indeed world, is even worse than it first appears. To sum up the way the initial and most obvious damage, that is, to the First World’s middle and working classes, plays out, we simply use what you might term the globalization of Say’s Law: just as Say’s Law says that the production of product A creates a demand for product B (so, a cobbler’s shoes produced and sold create the demand for the various goods he buys with his income), my version states that companies will offshore production until the decline of real incomes from diminished production in the once-wealthier nations meets with the rise of real incomes from increasing production in the once-poorer nations, ending any profits to be had from offshoring further. Let’s look at it from the standpoint of an individual company, with this graphic showing its total costs and total sales which—subtracting the former from the latter—determine profit: the left part represents the plan to produce it in America, the right the plan to do so via offshoring—and as you can see, the right has a greatly enlarged profit margin, hence, why companies initially rush to offshore.

Of course, for that differential to work, the company needs its US buyers to have the same real income. The reason the company loves those third worlders as workers is the same reason it hates them as customers: unless we’re talking about food and maybe something like a cell phone, there’s no way the man who puts in an entire day to earn what an American worker would make in an hour is going to buy the company’s product for the same price. But as offshoring continues apace and throws more and more American workers out of their manufacturing jobs and into wage competition with other US workers, both real and nominal incomes decline and those workers’ inability to buy the offshoring companies’ products reduces its sales and hence their profit margins from above at the same time that rising real wages of the third world workers begin to reduce those profits from below. This will keep going until it seems as if the two economies fuse and all things interchangeable, including labor and incomes, are mixed and evened out, to the great detriment of the West’s middle and working classes.

For a quick look at the macro effects of this, consider this brief tale of two economies.

List of characteristics:

Country A:

Total population: 120,000 (100,000 working; 20,000 nonworking)

Total incomes: 100,000,000.00

Workers:

20,000 STEM-types (they earn collectively, 30,000,000.00)

30,000 semiskilled-types (they earn collectively 30,000,000.00)

50,000 unskilled (they earn collectively 40,000,000.00)

Country B:

Total population: 120, 000 (100,000 working; 20,000 nonworking)

Total incomes: 10,000,000.00

Workers:

100,000 unskilled (they earn collectively 10,000,000.00)

Country A-B fused economy:

Total population: 240,000 (200,000 working; 40,000 nonworking)

Total incomes: 110,000,000.00

Workers:

20,000 STEM-types (they earn collectively, 30,000,000.00)

30,000 semiskilled-types (they earn collectively 30,000,000.00)

150,000 unskilled (they earn collectively 50,000,000.00)

Prefusion per capita earnings:

Country A:

STEM-type: $1,500.00

Semiskilled: $1,500.00

Unskilled: $800.00

Postfusion per capita earnings:

Country A:

STEM-type: $1,500.00

Semiskilled: $1,500.00

Unskilled: $333.33

As you can see, Country A is something like a Western nation, with a good percentage of the workforce made up of capital-creating-and-maintaining STEM-types, along with many semiskilled workers and unskilled workers earning pretty decent wages—largely as a result of the capital accumulation and maintenance that the STEM-type and semiskilled workers allow. Country B, on the other hand, is something like an impoverished African nation with virtually no capital and no STEM-types or even semiskilled workers (think something along the lines of The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s natural resources grown and harvested via primitive techniques by a population resembling Sierra Leone’s with its average IQ of 52). Abundant natural resources alone allow Country B to earn one-tenth the national income of Country A, and when they “fuse,” only the interchangeable unskilled workers of both nations are affected income-wise, with Country A’s STEM-type and semiskilled workers doing just as well, as there are no Country B workers who can compete with them for wages. What happens is essentially that manufacturing facilities in Country A shut down and ship out along with their STEM-type and semiskilled workforces (who will be getting a bit more in pay to compensate for the relocation, etc., but I’m painting with a broad brush here, and the pay of all of Country A STEM-type and semiskilled workers would not go up by that much from this) to Country B to utilize its unskilled dirt-cheap workforce; and in the process all those Country A unskilled workers laid off in manufacturing move into whatever job niches they can find, lowering the wages of unskilled workers in Country A overall.

Though the details would be far more complex in real life, this is, broadly speaking, what happens in globalization and free trade (and unchecked immigration produces a similar effect with the additional burdens of rising crime, diminishing social capital, etc., within the wealthier higher-IQ countries). So in the case of its fusion with a country such as India with its low average IQ overall (77) but its vast reserves of high-IQ Brahmin types thanks to its overall massive population, even Western STEM-types would begin to feel the pressure, with the only overall winners at least from the perspective of Country A being the globalist oligarchs financing the whole thing. So basically, while offshoring seems like a sweet deal to those who take advantage of its initial effects, in the end, the only possible true winners are those of the poorer, lower-IQ nations—and even for them it’s a Pyrrhic victory in the long run.

To see why even the third world’s victory is somewhat Pyrrhic, we need to analyze why globalism’s damage is even more pernicious than you’d think, for two reasons. First, for what you might call the overqualified worker effect. Let me illustrate it with a graph[1] and a personal story. First, the graph, which is from Robert M. Hauser of The University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Center for Demography and Ecology:

As it shows, there’s a pretty wide IQ range within the various fields, with some of the high-end workers in stereotypically middling- and even low-IQ professions having a number higher than the low end of the high-IQ professions—yeah, it even shocked me to see some in the janitorial line of work come out ahead of the dimmer STEM-types, but I guess that’s life, as my personal story illustrates (in a slightly less extreme way). In the early 1900s, my mother’s grandfather emigrated from Germany to the US and settled in Nebraska as a farmer. He had eight kids and took on seasonal help from other German immigrants. When the dust bowl came, he left Nebraska for Ohio where he worked in a factory doing what was de facto engineering work: constructing dies, repairing and calibrating equipment, often doing the math required mentally or just with paper and pencil. Some of his German hired help was that smart as well. So for various reasons, including circumstances, temperament, etc., there are many with STEM-level IQs (119 on average according to a 2009 article by Jonathan Wai et al.[2]) who remain in fields for which they are overqualified. While they might not directly contribute to the pool of STEM workers, their earning enough to raise large families—a thing made impossible when mass immigration pits them against low-IQ, low-wage workers who are just barely qualified for their jobs—helps ensure enough at least potential STEM types in the next generation.

Also, consider this. Per conventional genetics, when you have a population of the same type of organism in which a trait is highly prevalent but not necessarily present in each individual, it’s far more likely for members of that group that don’t themselves show the trait to produce offspring that do than would be the case with the don’t-show-the-trait members of a population in which the trait occurs but is very rare. To put it in human terms, if White or East Asian working-class couples with 90 IQs are earning real incomes that allow them to have four kids each, its far more likely that they’ll produce at least one of STEM-level IQ (which is about 119 on average) than a Hispanic or Black couple with IQs of 90. And as the middle and working classes tend to have more kids than the high-average-IQ upper classes, this provides an extra support for keeping STEM numbers up.

For both of those reasons, those who wish to maintain a modern economy and the standard of living it allows MUST stop forcing the lower and middle classes of heritage Americans into cutthroat wage competition with workers from low-IQ nations who meet just the minimum qualifications for their positions.

How do we stop this process of globalist-induced world immiserization? By having the West embrace true economic nationalism: put an immediate cap on all third-world immigration, including all H-1 types (a true nationalist ought to wish them to stay and help grow the wealth of their own nations); close the border and actually deport the illegals; stop making our smartest and most productive citizens pay for the dimmest and least productive to breed; and end the tax incentives that reward offshoring and replace them with what I like to call veraprotectionism (or true protectionism) consisting of equalizing tariffs tied to the difference in costs of labor and environmental regulations between the US and other nations.

That last part’s especially important. We need true economic nationalism, not crony capitalism: let the pols set the individual rates by industry or some such scheme and you’ll turn the whole thing into a vast, seething caldron of corruption and waste; set it for all countries based on the different average costs of labor etc., and then sit back and let consumers decide which products are best for their costs—without having to worry that choosing the foreign-made will impoverish unseen workers in some part of the nation.

This while you do help the workers of other nations—but only after you’ve helped your own, in the same way that your main duty is to your family: this being the essence of genuine nationalism, which sees true nations as families, united by blood, culture, and law, writ large. See, because all that capital requires complimentary factors in order to use it, including labor, at some point the high-capital-production country reaches a saturation level where it can’t utilize its capital in domestic production, the tariffs having no way and no intention of stopping this. At that point two things happen: 1) there develops a very strong incentive to push for more extensive automation and better capital that can do more with the same amount of labor, and 2) you get a spillover effect whereby capital begins to flow to the third-world nations whose own standards of living then rise even faster. I say even faster because the increasing efficiency of White/East Asian capital and consumer goods enriches the rest of the world as well: either by the obsolete-to-us-but-not-to-them equipment they get or by the increasingly advanced and low-cost goods that we make (how many rural Africans had a phone in the land-line era vs now when there are inexpensive cell phones that use satellites?). And as I’ve said, all that capital accumulation and technological advancement depend entirely on keeping the number of high IQ/low time preference and genius individuals high relative to the overall population, be it on the national or world scale, a condition the Great Replacement is uniquely designed to undo.

Hence, ironically, in battle between true nationalists and globalists it is we, we who merely seek to defend our peoples and nation, who are unintentionally fighting to increase the wealth of all nations while those opposing us, nominally in the name of humanity as a whole, are fighting for its impoverishment. Although we ought never to apologize for looking out for our own peoples and nations first, I hope that after today we can feel confident that, even if we lack the smug arrogance to do so, we would be wholly justified in demanding that those claim to oppose us out of love for the world’s teaming masses thank us for our efforts.

Thank you.

[1] Jonathan Wai, David Lubinski, and Camilla P. Benbow, “(Pdf) Spatial Ability for STEM Domains: Aligning over 50 Years …,” ResearchGate, November 2009, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228627975_Spatial_Ability_for_STEM_Domains_Aligning_Over_50_Years_of_Cumulative_Psychological_Knowledge_Solidifies_Its_Importance.

 

[1] Rodrigo de la Jara, “Modern IQ Ranges for Various Occupations,” IQ Comparison Site, accessed March 22, 2024, https://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/Occupations.aspx. This graph was adapted from Figure 12 of Hauser, Robert M. 2002. “Meritocracy, cognitive ability, and the sources of occupational success.” CDE Working Paper 98-07 (rev). Center for Demography and Ecology, The University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin. The figure is labelled “Wisconsin Men’s Henmon-Nelson IQ Distributions for 1992-94 Occupation Groups with 30 Cases or More” and is found at http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf.

[2] Jonathan Wai, David Lubinski, and Camilla P. Benbow, “(Pdf) Spatial Ability for STEM Domains: Aligning over 50 Years …,” ResearchGate, November 2009, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228627975_Spatial_Ability_for_STEM_Domains_Aligning_Over_50_Years_of_Cumulative_Psychological_Knowledge_Solidifies_Its_Importance.

Will Post-Modernity Be Post-Darwinian? A Review of “The Post-Darwinian Zoo”

/6 Comments/in , , , , /by

The Post-Darwinian Zoo
Tibur Zorodin
Createspace, December, 2023

Perhaps all of Western socio-political history can divided into three eras: Pre-Darwinian, Darwinian, and post-Darwinian. The first period consisted of the millennia before the publication of Charles Darwin’s On the Origins of Species (1859) when men intuitively understood the importance of blood and breed, monarchy and aristocracy being the dominant ideologies. Then in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Darwinian evolution, combined with Mendelian genetics, began to inform public policy. President Theodore Roosevelt’s espousal of eugenics was uncontroversial, in fact eugenics was once supported across the political spectrum. Since the end of World War II public debate on, much less implementation of, “social Darwinist policies” is prohibited. The irony is that we now understand far more about human evolution and genetics than during the Progressive Era. The author is concerned that Red China might be the state where such findings find application.

We know little about the author. Tibur Zorodin is presumably a nom de plume. He is described online as a sociobiologist who “has been writing chiefly on political matters for more than a decade.”  In its broad scope and literary style The Post-Darwinian Zoo might remind the reader of The Dispossessed Majority,[1] though DM is a more tightly structured work. Zorodin’s over 900 footnotes make reference to academic journals, mainstream media, and popular culture from North America, Europe, and Australasia.

The book begins by describing how current demographic trends have become dysgenic and why it matters. Intelligence, criminality, conscientiousness, and other traits are highly heritable. The system is still able to function because “[t]he West’s upper cognitive echelon of entrepreneurs and scientists remain in place for now,” even as social pathology increases. The remedy for dysgenics is eugenics. Eugenics is not pseudoscience but applied science widely practiced in breeding plants and animals. The author makes a distinction between social Darwinism that “is more concerned with group advancement, identity, and distinctiveness,” and eugenics that “tends toward universalism and IQ absolutism.”

Eugenics need not be coercive or mandatory to be effective if a society has healthy values. Pre-natal screenings can detect congenital defects, yet in some US states it is illegal to abort a Down syndrome pregnancy. Zorodin makes the obvious point that choosing to abort a healthy pregnancy is far different than terminating an abnormal one. Furthermore, there are over 50,000 rape pregnancies annually in the US. Only half of these pregnancies are aborted. “Evolutionarily rewarding the act of rape is damaging for society both in the short term and the long term.” Yet there are states where abortion in the case of rape is not allowed. The dissident Right is, in large measure, defined by its opposition to conventional conservatism. Eugenic abortion is one of the wedge issues that divides the conservative and dissident Right. Zorodin will have some more choice words for conservatives later in the book.

The author next turns his attention to the issue of miscegenation. He provides some disturbing statistics: “92% of biracial children with a Black father are born out of wedlock and 82% end up on government assistance.” In addition, it has been reported that mixed-race children are more likely to experience anxiety and depression, abuse drugs and be truant compared to monoracial children. The “instability in biracial households and conflict in identity formation” might explain these outcomes.

Zorodin then moves from traditional eugenic measures to genetic engineering, and at times the discussion takes on a sci-fi feeling. Yet there is logic to it. Setting aside the cautionary tale of Dr. Frankenstein’s monster, the author makes the case that we can produce a freer, healthier more egalitarian society. One of the more interesting topics in this section are the five or so pages devoted to human beauty. This segment runs parallel to the “Esthetic Prop” theory in the aforementioned Dispossessed Majority. The author believes there is “an innate preference” for light coloration, height, and symmetry. Despite claims by Left activists that short, dark, and dumpy is just as attractive as tall, fair, and svelte “[t]he notion of esthetic egalitarianism is fundamentally incompatible with human psychology.”

The advantages of ethnic homogeneity, such as those expressed by John Jay in Federalist Papers 2, have been known for centuries. Zorodin reports on some lesser-known benefits of such societies. For example, “a multiracial society could be responsible for increasing the rate of gender dysphoria and sexual divergence.” Also, military personnel who served in homogeneous units are “more functional and cohesive,” and these veterans are less likely to suffer PTSD than those from heterogeneous units.

Decades ago, the famous research psychologist Raymond Cattell proposed a social experiment where small nations—mini ethno-states—would compete socially and economically by nonviolent means.[2]  Zorodin suggests something similar: “Various statelets and autonomous regions around the world harbor the potential for eugenic-minded communities to be formalized and legitimized; [thereby] offering . . .  life under a system of consensual social Darwinism.”

The author’s criticism of the contemporary Right extends to economics. He takes exception to the produce-and-consume economic model that features  ”gross expansion” over improved productivity via efficiency. The West’s “growth fetishism has discarded all caution of long-term cultural compatibility in pursuit of short-term economic stimulus” brought about through immigrant labor and consumption. The GDP will increase as the quality of life decreases.

Colorblind—perhaps completely blind—conservatives come under more criticism “King’s Manifesto from 1963 [‘I Have a Dream’] would in contemporary politics equate to a platform in the Republican Party.” Establishment conservatives’ maxim: “If you can’t beat them, join them in their tradition of chasing second place on the right side of history.”

Zorodin’s literary style makes the book both a pleasure and a challenge to read. Regarding Angela Merkel’s decision to open Germany’s border to mass migration: “It is hardly a top-down revolution, since the supporting convoy of Zeitgeist peers has no shortage of ethnomasochistic gluttons breaking the backs of their high-horses.” Find out which two countries are most “oikophobic.”

In fact, Zorodin devotes a section to language. He defends, as I do, the use of the term ‘Cultural Marxism’ because it is “consistent with the radical pedigree and an analogous group-conflict theoretical model” of orthodox Marxism. “The plasticity of language in the information age has never before been so amenable to socially-engineered neologisms with political agendas.” So illegal aliens become undocumented migrants, and the sexually confused are gender nonconforming. In addition, these “euphemisms appear to have an expiry date.” There is a “euphemism treadmill,” so the feeble-minded become the mentally retarded become the developmentally impaired.

The author uses the example of the near-seamless large-scale assimilation of Germans into American society to segue to the Jewish Question. That question is: What has been and should be the role of Jews in Western civilization? The last 35 pages or so of the book is a survey course on Jews. First, in contrast to German-Americans, Jewish-Americans have not, by in large, identified with traditional American culture. Their wealth and organizational acumen have led to an “undue influence on the institutions of public life, at the expense of heritage America.” The well-known Jewish financial crimes, the kosher certification racket, and the Sackler family pill mill Purdue Pharma are covered. All this is mediated by the “guilt prescription” of the Holocaust. The book has a quote from former Israeli foreign minister Abba Ebon: “There’s no business like Shoah business.”

Probably the most interesting aspect of this topic is Judeo-Christian Zionism. Zorodin has hammered the establishment Right for its social and economic policies, now it is time to consider its perverse foreign policy. Possibly the most perverted feature of cuckservativism is its slavish devotion to Israel. The author describes it as “surrogate nationalism.” In a warped way it serves as a “politically correct outlet” for the ethnonationalism establishment conservatives deny their own people. Border security for the US is a good political talking point, but border security for Israel is a cause for urgent action. Speaker of the US House of Representatives Mike Johnson intones: “It’s a Biblical admonition to stand with Israel.” Whether the current conflict in the Levant will change present political calculations remains to be seen.

The book ends rather abruptly. There is no summary or concluding chapter to bring together all the many issues and ideas presented. The reader does not get to see what compound the combined elements might produce. So here is my takeaway from the Post Darwinian Zoo:

The title implies we are now living in zoo world—society as a menagerie—filled with strange and diverse creatures. It is widely believed that the modern era is coming to an end. The question becomes: Is the present cultural disintegration a beginning or the end? Is what we see today just a foretaste of a chaotic post-modern age?  Or, will post-modernity usher in a Western instauration, a new renaissance? At one point, Zorodin appears pessimistic. For we are “in the twilight of late modernity and at the terminal stage of human cultural evolution.” But he holds out hope if we are able to think outside the box. Conservatism is safe and respectable, but it is an ineffective and at times counterproductive strategy for opposing the forces that seek to destroy Western culture and peoples.

The book deals with many interesting topics not mentioned in this short review. There is some high protein food for thought here, and even the best informed and knowledgeable reader should find some new insights on human biology, culture, and the social sciences. I give this book a very solid recommendation. That said, a stronger thematic organization would make the information more assimilable.

[1] Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (1972).

[2] Raymond Cattell, A New Morality from Science: Beyondism (1973); Raymond Cattell Beyondism: A Religion from Science (1987).

“She Ain’t Heavy”: How Denying Race Means Promoting Rape

/10 Comments/in , /by

“He ain’t heavy: he’s my brother,” sang the Hollies in 1969. A few decades later, an enterprising individual in the northern English city of Leeds could have sung an interesting new variant on those lyrics, namely: “She ain’t heavy: she’s my next rape-victim.” Yes, late one night in 2015 the individual in question literally carried an unconscious woman through the streets as he looked for a convenient place to rape her.

The race of the rapist

Well, I’m a racist, which is short for “racial realist,” so when I saw the relevant headline in the Guardian, I made a prediction about the race of the rapist. Sure enough, I was right:

Man caught on CCTV carrying woman through Leeds admits rape

A rapist who was caught on CCTV carrying his victim through Leeds city centre before he attacked her has admitted his guilt nearly seven years after the incident took place. West Yorkshire police released the footage in 2015. It showed a smartly dressed man now known to have been Austin Osayande carrying a woman through deserted streets. Police said the 24-year-old victim had been walking to get a taxi home at about 5am after a night out with friends.

Osayande, 40, was not caught until last September when he was arrested in connection with a separate sexual assault. On Thursday at Leeds crown court, Osayande pleaded guilty to one count of rape and one count of sexual assault by penetration. He was remanded in custody and a sentencing hearing was scheduled for 23 February. Police said at the time that the CCTV footage showed a man, who had the appearance of a doorman, “walking with purpose” around the city centre before approaching the woman. He was described as black, aged 30 to 40, tall and with a shaved head. He was wearing a long black overcoat and black trousers. …

Police said the man appeared a number of times on CCTV cameras. One piece of footage showed him loitering in a car park. Another showed him approaching a woman at 4.45am. “The other footage we have released shows this man walking around Leeds city centre and we strongly believe he was looking for someone to attack before he focused on the victim,” said Twiggs. … Leeds Live reported that Osayande, of Leeds, previously denied the charges but replied “I’m guilty” to the two charges when they were formally put to him on Thursday. (Man caught on CCTV carrying woman through Leeds admits rape, The Guardian, 28th January 2022)

“She ain’t heavy: she’s my next rape-victim” — the Black serial rapist Austin Osayande at work

But you could say “She ain’t heavy” in another sense of the victim. And of all other victims of non-White rapists, particularly White ones. The victims don’t weigh heavily in leftist ideas about rape and rape-culture. In fact, they don’t weigh at all. I was surprised that the Guardian referred explicitly to the race of the rapist:  “He was described as black.” Otherwise the Guardian and other leftist media have reacted to this grotesque crime exactly as you would expect: by refusing to give it the loud and continued publicity it deserves. It should have inspired a slew of outraged commentary about misogyny, toxic masculinity, and the horrors of rape-culture. After all, the crime was perfect for feminist posturing. But the criminal most certainly wasn’t. He was Black and leftists refuse to admit the truth about Blacks and rape. The vile racist stereotypes are all true: Blacks commit much more rape and in worse ways. Gang-rape, for example, is a Black speciality. One of the most horrible things I have ever read is this candid description of the genuine rape-culture that exists among Blacks in the United States:

It was the first day of summer vacation. I was fourteen years old and had just completed the eighth grade, marking the end of my junior high school days. I was sitting at home, watching TV, when the telephone rang. “Hello,” I said.

“Yo, Nate, this is Lep!”

“Yo, Lep, what’s up?”

“We got one. She phat as a motherfucka! Got nice titties, too! We at Turkey Buzzard’s crib. You better come on over and get in on it!”

“See you in a heartbeat.”

When I got to Turkey Buzzard’s place a few blocks away, Bimbo, Frog Dickie, Shane, Lep, Cooder, almost the whole crew, about twelve guys in all, were already there, grinning and joking like they had stolen something.

Actually, they had stolen something: They were holding a girl captive in one of the back bedrooms.

Turkey Buzzard’s parents were away at work. I learned that the girl was Vanessa, a black beauty whose family had recently moved into our neighborhood, less than two blocks from where I lived. She seemed like a nice girl. When I first noticed her walking to and from school, I had wanted to check her out. Now it was too late. She was about to have a train run on her [be gang-raped]. No way she could be somebody’s straight-up girl after going through a train.

Vanessa was thirteen years old and very naive. She thought she had gone to Turkey Buzzard’s crib just to talk with somebody she had a crush on. A bunch of the fellas hid in closets and under beds. When she stepped inside and sat down, they sprang from their hiding places and blocked the door so that she couldn’t leave.

When I got there, two or three dudes were in the back room, trying to persuade her to give it up. The others were pacing about in the living room, joking and arguing about the lineup, about who would go first.

That train [gang-rape] on Vanessa was definitely a turning point for most of us. We weren’t aware of what it symbolized at the time, but that train marked our real coming together as a gang. It certified us as a group of hanging partners who would do anything and everything together. It sealed our bond in the same way some other guys consummated their alliances by rumbling together in gang wars against downtown boys. In doing so, we served notice mostly to ourselves that we were a group of up-and-coming young cats with a distinct identity in a specific portion of Cavalier Manor that we intended to stake out as our own.

After that first train, we perfected the art of luring babes into those kinds of traps. We ran a train at my house when my parents were away. We ran many at Bimbo’s crib because both his parents worked. And we set up one at Lep’s place and even let his little brother get in on it. He couldn’t have been more than eight or nine. He probably didn’t even have a sex drive yet. He was just imitating what he saw us do, in the same way we copied older hoods we admired. Different groups of guys set up their own trains. Although everybody knew it could lead to trouble with the law, I think few guys thought of it as rape. It was viewed as a social thing among hanging partners, like passing a joint. The dude who set up the train got pats on the back. He was considered a real player whose rap game was strong.

I think most girls gave in when trains were sprung on them because they went into shock. They were so utterly unprepared for anything that wild that it freaked them out. By the time they realized that they’d been set up, they were stripped naked, lying on a bed or in the backseat of a car, with a crowd of crazed looking dudes hovering overhead.

I always wondered what went on inside girls’ heads when that was happening to them. Afterward, most girls were too ashamed and freaked out to tell. They knew that if they snitched to the cops, the thing would become public news and their name would be mud. But every now and then, some chick squealed, and somebody caught a charge. Then guys got their buddies to go to court and testify that the girl was a footloose ‘ho’ whom they each had boned.

Most girls seemed to lose something vital inside after they’d been trained. Their self-esteem dropped and they didn’t care about themselves anymore. That happened to a girl named Shirley, who was once trained by Scobe and so many other guys that she was hospitalized. After that, I guess she figured nobody wanted her as a straight-up girl. So Shirley let guys run trains on her all the time.

Taken from Makes Me Wanna Holler: A Young Black Man in America by Nathan McCall (b. 1955), Professor of Afro-American Studies, Emory University (see here and here)

That’s what Blacks do to Black women and girls in the United States. But Blacks in all Western nations  disproportionately target White women, as the Black revolutionary Eldridge Cleaver (1935–1998) boasted way back in 1968: “Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women—and this point, I believe, was the most satisfying to me because I was very resentful over the historical fact of how the white man has used the black woman. I felt I was getting revenge. From the site of the act of rape, consternation spreads outwardly in concentric circles. I wanted to send waves of consternation throughout the white race.”

Black rapist Eldridge Cleaver with his Jewish friend and supporter Elaine Klein

How do leftists react to the completely open and unashamed avowal of rape-culture by Blacks like Cleaver and McCall? It’s simple: they ignore it and continue to promote the fantasy of Blacks as saintly victims of White oppression. By doing so, they allow the genuine rape-culture of Blacks and other non-Whites to continue unchecked. But leftists do worse than that. They don’t merely refuse to interfere with non-White rape-culture: they incite non-Whites to commit more and worse rape.

It’s characteristic of leftism that it promotes what it claims to oppose. Rape is no exception. Leftists have vastly increased rape in Western nations by doing two things: first, by opening the borders to Third-World immigration; second, by instilling resentment in non-Whites with incessant propaganda about White racism. That is, leftists don’t merely import non-White men with a much higher propensity to commit rape: they incite those men to commit rape against White women.

Labour’s betrayal of the working-class

They then do their best to deny and censor the truth about the rapes they have so assiduously promoted. Before he was imprisoned for fraud in 2013, the Labour MP Denis MacShane had spent many years proclaiming his passionate support for socialism and women’s rights. Meanwhile, right under his nose in his Yorkshire constituency of Rotherham, White working-class girls were being raped, beaten, and prostituted on an industrial scale by enterprising gangs of Pakistani Muslims. Decade after decade MacShane did nothing. He was too busy working on behalf of Jews in far-off London. And they were grateful for his efforts: after he was jailed, the Jewish Chronicle saluted him as one of the “greatest champions” of “the Jewish community.”

But MacShane wasn’t supposed to be in politics to champion Jews: as a Labour MP, he was there to champion the White working-class. Instead, he betrayed the White working-class. He wasn’t alone: the so-called Labour party has been betraying Whites for many decades. The former Labour deputy-leader Roy Hattersley has openly boasted about his own treachery in the Guardian: “For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist [my white working-class constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy—otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all [Third-World] immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”

The Jewish fathers of race-denial

Denis MacShane has always been one of the Jewish community’s “greatest champions.” Roy Hattersley has a Jewish wife, just like Keir Starmer, the current leader of the Labour party. All this is no coincidence, because Jewish fund-raisers and lobbyists are firmly in control of both sides of British politics, which is why the interests of Whites are not merely neglected but vigorously and viciously opposed. At the same time, the race-denial of Jewish Marxists like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Steven Rose continues to corrupt government policy and public discourse in Britain and all other Western nations. Race-denial insists that all races are the same under the skin and capable of exactly the same high achievement. It follows, therefore, that only one explanation is possible when non-Whites under-achieve by comparison with Whites. The all-powerful malevolence of White racism must be at work once again:

White applicants to civil service scheme accepted at far higher rate, figures show

White applicants to the government’s elite graduate scheme are three times more likely to win a place than their black counterparts, new analysis shows. A record number of graduates applied to join the UK government’s civil service fast stream between 2019 and 2021, with more than 160,800 external applicants for just 3,290 places, a success rate of just under one in 50. However, the figures show that the chances of success differed greatly for separate ethnic backgrounds.

People from black African or Caribbean backgrounds had a success rate of one in 137 when applying to join the fast stream between 2019 and 2021. In comparison, white applicants had a success rate of one in 44, while Asian applicants had a success rate of one in 77 to join the scheme. Overall, ethnic minority representation improved slightly, from 19% in 2020 to 23% in 2021.

Anneliese Dodds, the shadow secretary for women and equalities, described the figures as a “disgrace” and said it showed “just how far ministers are falling short of their promise to make the civil service the UK’s most inclusive employer”. She attacked the “Conservative incompetence and denial of the existence of structural racism” for allowing these disparities to exist. … Dodds, who is also the chair of the Labour party, said: “It’s a disgrace that young people from black backgrounds are still three times less likely than their white counterparts to win a place on the government’s elite graduate scheme. … Conservative incompetence and denial of the existence of structural racism are creating barriers to success for young people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Labour has a plan to dismantle those barriers and support talented black, Asian and minority ethnic people to reach their full potential, with a new race equality act to tackle structural racial inequality at source.” (White applicants to civil service scheme accepted at far higher rate, figures show, The Guardian, 23rd Jan 2022)

Anneliese Dodds is completely wrong about those patterns of achievement. It is not “structural racism” that explains them: it is thousands of years of divergent evolution among geographically separated races of human being inhabiting very different environments with very different psychological and physiological challenges. Blacks literally have smaller brains, on average, than Whites and those Black brains are not adapted for the literacy, conscientiousness, and self-control required for competent performance in the civil service.

Foundations of fantasy

But leftists ignore the hate-facts about White and Black difference that have been uncovered by anatomy, genetics and psychometrics. And here I think we can see that many right-wing commentators are wrong when they say that leftism is “materialist.” Leftism is actually the least materialist of ideologies, in that it is the least realistic of ideologies. It pursues power and revenge, not truth or justice, and is fuelled by lies and fantasy, not by facts and reality.

And in some ways, the dishonesty and deceit of leftism give it an advantage. Leftists can travel much faster to their goal of power because their ideology is unburdened by the need to understand the world and avoid unintended consequences. But in another way, leftism is fatally undermined by its reliance on lies and fantasies. You can build a power-structure higher and faster when you don’t care about its foundations. But the foundations are decisive in the end, as this parable by Jesus points out:

7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Gospel of Matthew)

Leftists have built their power on sand, and floods of upheaval and conflict are coming throughout the Western world. Great will be the fall of leftism. After that, our job will be to re-build the West on firm foundations: the rock of reality and recognition of racial difference.

Murder of a Mensch: Cuckservatives, Crypto-Jews and Catch-22s

/42 Comments/in , , , /by

The central aims of leftism are very simple: to win power, to punish its enemies, and to destroy the West. The central principle of leftism is also very simple: “Heads we win; tails you lose.” Whatever works for leftism is ruthlessly exploited; whatever works against leftism is ignored or reversed. For example, minor infractions or perfectly legal acts by the right are labelled serious crimes and harshly punished; serious crimes by the left and its favorites are censored or brazenly lied about.

Self-defense is no offense

Americans have seen this leftist principle hard at work since the self-inflicted death of the Black thug George Floyd in May 2020. During the Summer of George, Black Lives Matter (BLM) and its antifa allies rioted, looted, burned, and murdered for months on end with both the complicity and the approval of leftist media and officialdom. Their very serious crimes went unchallenged and unpunished. Thanks to the self-righteous anti-police campaigning of BLM, murders have risen sharply among young Black men, the very group the left claim to be seeking to protect from “police brutality.” And all this is censored or brazenly lied about by the left.

He looks sinister because he is sinister: US Attorney-General and Jewish supremacist Merrick Garland

But when a misguided right-wing mob trespassed briefly in the US Capitol in January 2021, the left reacted as though the Apocalypse were upon us. The trespass was “domestic terrorism,” a “deadly assault” on democracy itself, and, according to the Jewish leftist Rebecca Solnit, nothing less than a “coup attempt.” And even as Black and antifa thugs walk the streets unmolested, Solnit’s co-ethnic Merrick Garland, the sinister Jewish Attorney-General in Biden’s Bolshevik cabinet, has poured huge resources into fighting “white supremacy.” The Capitol trespassers have been tracked down and imprisoned, often in solitary confinement and in filthy conditions, before they go on trial on inflated and unjust charges. Also in jail is Kyle Rittenhouse, the young right-winger who coolly and expertly defended his life against a murderous assault by three people, including two Jews, one of whom was a convicted pedophile. If Rittenhouse were non-White or antifa, he would have been released long ago and his deadly shooting would have been accepted as a perfectly legal act of self-defence against bloodthirsty thugs. “Heads we win; tails you lose.”

Somali enrichment strikes again

Across the Atlantic in Britain, the same power-hungry leftists apply the same principle. But even I was taken aback by the leftist reaction to the murder of the supposedly right-wing Conservative politician Sir David Amess on October 15, 2021. The alleged murderer is Ali Harbi Ali, a Muslim “of Somali heritage” (in smarmy leftist parlance) and the murder took place soon after Angela Rayner, Labour’s fiery (and possibly psychopathic) deputy leader, had described Conservatives as “scum … homophobic, racist, misogynistic … scum.” You might think this was embarrassing for the left: a right-wing White man is murdered by a Black Muslim shortly after a left-wing White woman “dehumanizes” right-wing White men. Not a bit of it: the leftist media ignored Rayner’s remark and used the murder to campaign loudly for more censorship of right-wing “hate.”

When a Somali Muslim murders a “much loved” politician, this might appear to be yet more evidence that critics of Third-World immigration are correct. But not to the left, for whom David Amess’s murder is yet more evidence that we must try harder to silence critics of Third-World immigration. After the murder, leftists constantly invoked the saintly Labour MP Jo Cox and her murder by a “right-wing extremist” in 2016. The leftist Andrew Marr “spent his Sunday morning show on the BBC questioning the Home Secretary [Priti Patel] about online anonymity.” There is so far no evidence that “online anonymity” played any role in the murder, but Marr takes his ideas on political discourse straight from the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four: “It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be.”

A cuckservative cucks

And if you had judged by one BBC Radio news-broadcast, the true victim of Amess’s murder was the still-very-much-alive left-wing Black MP Diane Abbott, who was interviewed caringly about the abuse she suffers online. But I’ll freely admit it: I feel much more sympathy for Diane Abbott than for David Amess. Abbott isn’t a traitor; Amess was a traitor. She’s Black and she works for Black interests; he was White and he worked against White interests. I’m happy to see Abbott satirized and mocked, but I don’t think she should receive foul-mouthed abuse and threats of violence. I don’t think David Amess should have been stabbed to death either, but I cannot feel any sorrow at what happened to him. He was a cuckservative whose official website proves that he was complicit not only in his own murder but also in the murder, rape, and ethnic cleansing of countless ordinary Whites, past, present, and to come:

A cuckservative cucks: David Amess supports “refugees” and an anti-White leftist charity

Sir David Joins British Red Cross To Celebrate Refugee Week

On Monday 17th June [2019], Sir David Amess MP met with the British Red Cross to mark Refugee Week 2019 and hear about the challenges facing those as they rebuild their lives in the UK.

The Southend West MP took the opportunity to speak with the charity’s refugee ambassadors, who shared their own stories fleeing conflict and persecution. Sir David learnt about the challenges faced by those arriving in the UK, and what more the Government can do to help refugees resettle, work and study here.

The event marked the start of Refugee Week (17th-23rd June), and the launch of the British Red Cross’ “Every Refugee Matters” campaign. Aiming to highlight the issues that many refugees face, the charity have produced a new film along with those with first-hand experience of the challenges in UK asylum system.

Speaking after the event, Sir David said: “I am proud to be supporting the work of the British Red Cross this Refugee Week, and the brilliant work they do helping those most in need rebuild their lives here in the UK. Speaking to the refugee ambassadors was an invaluable experience to hear directly from who have had first-hand experience of some of the barriers blocking them from working, accessing education and healthcare. It is vital that we are able to help and provide protection to the world’s most vulnerable.” (Sir David Joins British Red Cross To Celebrate Refugee Week, 18th June, 2019)

[David Amess comments on] Black Lives Matter

I have received many emails about the events in America which we have seen unfolding on our TV screens. I have been shocked, horrified and repulsed at the murder of a US citizen by a policeman, with three officers standing by and doing nothing to help. Absolutely unforgivable in every respect. I was deeply moved by the appearance of the brother of George Floyd, who visited the scene of the murder and appealed for peace and calm. I do hope he is listened to. I absolutely despair at American politics at the moment and have made representations to government Ministers. I have also added my name to the cross-party letter to Liz Truss asking the government to freeze exports of riot control equipment to the United States. (Black Lives Matter, 4th June 2020)

Amess was supposedly a right-winger, but there was nothing right-wing about his support for “refugees” and Black Lives Matter. Those posts at his website prove that he was a cuckservative allied with leftism, which is why the Guardian, without the slightest trace of irony, called him a “much loved” politician and “devout Catholic.”

Fake Catholic, fake Pope

I strongly disagree with the Guardian’s second claim: Amess was a fake Catholic whose pro-refugee and pro-BLM views chimed perfectly with those of the Anti-Pope currently occupying the throne of St Peter. If Amess had been genuinely right-wing and genuinely Catholic, the Guardian and the rest of the leftist media would have hated him and found it difficult to conceal their satisfaction at his death. True Christians are not loved or respected by enemies of Christianity, as Christ himself prophesied: “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” (Matthew 10:22)

Anti-Pope Francis kisses the feet of Muslim invaders

And if Amess had been a genuine Catholic, he would never have been called a “real mensch” by one of his many Jewish fans:

Jewish groups express shock over ‘horrific’ killing of MP Sir David Amess

Jewish groups have expressed their “profound sorrow” at the killing of Conservative MP Sir David Amess. In a statement, the Board of Deputies said they were devastated to hear that Sir David had died following a stabbing at his constituency surgery.

“We will never forget Sir David’s long and deep friendship to our community. Our hearts go out in profound sorrow to his wife Julia and children Katie, Sarah and David Jr,” they said. Steve Wilson, CEO of United Synagogue, said the parliamentarian’s murder was “horrific and chilling”. … The Jewish Leadership Council expressed their shock. “He always had a very strong and warm relationship with his local Jewish community. Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this time,” they said. Karen Pollock, Chief Executive of the Holocaust Education Trust, said: “We are shocked and saddened at the tragic loss of Sir David Amess MP. A long time supporter and campaigner for the Holocaust Educational Trust, joining us at every gathering, and encouraging us in everything we did. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this difficult time.”

Southend rabbis also paid respect to the MP. Rabbi Geoffrey Hyman of Southend shul described Sir David as “a real mensch”. He said: “We are absolutely devastated by the murder of Sir David Amess, our local MP. He had a very close relationship with our Jewish community here in Westcliff. Always supportive and sympathetic to our members and causes. He attended numerous events at our synagogue. We are deeply saddened and send our condolences to his dear family…. May he rest in peace.”

Sir David previously served as the honorary secretary of Conservative Friends of Israel. From the 1980s, he campaigned for the erection of a statue honouring Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of Hungarian Jews from deportation while the country was under Nazi occupation. Eventually he succeeded, and in 1997 Queen Elizabeth unveiled the statue, located outside Western Marble Arch Synagogue. Earlier this year, speaking at the Holocaust Memorial Day debate, Sir David said although he was a Catholic, “there is Jewish blood in each and every one of us,” and he “would certainly have been proud to have been born a Jew.” (Jewish groups express shock over ‘horrific’ killing of MP Sir David Amess, The Jewish Chronicle, 15th October 2021)

So Amess’s death was the murder of a mensch. He was a dedicated shabbos goy and worked hard for Jews—who have always been the greatest and most implacable enemies of Christianity and the Catholic church. Amess was a traitor to both his race and his religion.

Harvey’s little helper

Or perhaps he wasn’t. Like the saintly leftist Jo Cox, Amess was little-known in Britain before his murder. But he did hit the headlines in 2017 when he appeared to support the Jewish sex-criminal Harvey Weinstein. His parliamentary office issued this unequivocal statement in Amess’s name: “The recent revelations that countless starlets have apparently been assaulted by movie mogul Harvey Weinstein are dubious to say the least. Whilst it has no doubt always been the case that some individuals have achieved their big break via the casting couch, this sudden flurry of alleged inappropriate advances beggars belief. Just as with the claims against Jimmy Savile here in the UK, why did no one say anything until now?”

When the statement was criticized, Amess blamed a mix-up by his staff and claimed that he hadn’t authorized or said anything of the kind. I find that hard to believe. But why would a “devout” “right-wing Catholic” like Amess support a sleazy leftist Jew from anti-Catholic Hollywood? Perhaps the Jewish Chronicle answered that question when, following its tribute to the murdered mensch, it reported that “Sir David Amess MP is believed to have had Sephardi [Jewish] ancestry. … According to information from the The Jewish Genealogical Society of Great Britain, the MP was a descendant of Sephardic families through his mother, Maud, who died in 2016, aged 104. While Sir David was a staunch and practising catholic [note lower case], who often referenced his faith in his work in parliament, he had ties to Sephardic Jews going back hundreds of years.”

Bound by blood

So perhaps Amess was a crypto-Jew rather than a cuckservative. The Jewish Chronicle certainly wants to believe he was, because Jews like to reassure themselves that their control of Western politics doesn’t rely only on the buying and blackmail of goyish politicians. Some of their agents are bound to them by blood, not simply by Benjamins. Prime minister Boris Johnson and his predecessor David Cameron are known to be part-Jewish. I suspect that the former prime minister Theresa May has Jewish ancestry too. The former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has himself claimed to have “some Jewish ancestry” and others have suggested that Denis MacShane, the former Labour MP for Rotherham, had a Jewish father. Before being jailed for fraud in 2013, the staunch feminist MacShane ignored the rape and prostitution of White working-class girls by Muslims in his Yorkshire constituency while working assiduously for rich Jews in far-off London.

Then there’s the former Conservative minister George Osborne, who discovered late in his career that he was halachically Jewish through his maternal grandmother. This prompted the Jewish politician and journalist Danny Finkelstein to wax lyrical on “That mysterious sense of Jewish connection,” because he had felt close to Osborne before learning that they were both Jewish. So Osborne was a crypto-Jew, not simply a cuckservative. Osborne’s attitude to mass immigration is certainly Jewish: in 2017 he “revealed that, despite having pledged to reduce immigration in both its 2010 and 2015 general election manifestos, the Tory leadership secretly abandoned this ambition long ago.” Well, it was secret to the goyim who were voting for the Conservatives, but not to Jewish organizations like the Board of Deputies, which regularly meet with senior politicians to discuss “matters of concern to the Community.” After these meetings, Jews like to put out trophy-photos that implicitly gloat about their control of British politics. Here’s one of those trophy-photos featuring the obnoxious Hindu Home Secretary Priti Patel:

Priti Patel with the Board of Deputies and other Jewish supremacists

Patel has no loyalty to Britain or to British Whites, only to herself and to the Jews whose support she needs to realize her political ambitions. She’s an intellectually undistinguished authoritarian with a very harsh and unpleasant personality — indeed, her own husband calls her “my personal piranha.” But you can be sure that she performs the goy-grovel most eagerly and becomingly at all her meetings with Jews.

The authoritarian spiral

Under the guidance of her Jewish masters, Patel is currently overseeing the creation of an Online Harms bill, which seeks to fight “horrific terrorist and extremist content.” In other words, she wants more and harsher censorship of those who claim, for example, that Jews have undue influence in British politics. But Patel herself has shown again and again that she clearly recognizes Jewish control of British politics. In 2017 she had to resign from Theresa May’s cabinet when it was revealed that she had undertaken a long series of secret and unminuted meetings with Israeli politicians and officials, supervised by the Jewish peer Lord Polack, former director of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). But she bounced back to a bigger and better position when Boris Johnson became prime minister. Patel simultaneously knows about Jewish power and wants to criminalize any discussion of that power.

The murder of the mensch David Amess will help her plans for more pro-Jewish censorship. One of David Amess’s cuckservative colleagues has asked for his memory to be honored by “David’s law,” to “crack down on social media abuse of public figures and end online anonymity.” This is the authoritarian spiral so beloved of Jews and the left. Third-World immigration inevitably spawns Third-World pathologies like terrorism and crime, which are then used to justify ever more censorship and surveillance of those who criticize Third-World immigration. Some right-wing and libertarian journalists have tried to strike back by pointing out that Amess’s murder has not been shown to have had any connection with “social media abuse” and “online anonymity.”

Migration strengthens censorship

But Amess’s murder does seem to have an intimate connection with the Religion of Peace and its ever-growing presence on British soil. Harbi Ali Kullane, the father of the alleged killer, was a member of the political elite in his Muslim homeland, like the Chechen father of the Boston bombers in America, and lives in an exclusive area of London. The Guardian reports that he is regarded by fellow Somalis as “a committed anti-extremist [and] a liberal, open-minded man, who was not very religious.” Kullane has obviously done very well out of his migration to Britain, but can we say the same of Britain itself? The Guardian and other leftists will not try to answer that question, much to the disquiet of the Trotskyist libertarian Brendan O’Neill, who believes passionately in both free speech and open borders. In a hard-hitting column written within hours of Amess’s death, O’Neill asked: “Can we now have an honest discussion about Islamist terrorism?”

Can we? Well, no, we can’t. O’Neill and libertarians like him don’t understand (or pretend not to understand) the Catch-22 that applies to non-White enrichment. The more non-Whites you have in your country, the more they will reproduce the pathologies of their homelands and the less you will be able to discuss those pathologies, let alone try to end them. This isn’t difficult to understand. True nations like Hungary, Poland and Slovakia don’t have big problems with suicide-bombers, rape-gangs, and stabby Somalis. Indeed, they don’t have any such problems at all. Why not? Because they haven’t been enriched by millions of non-Whites and haven’t been initiated into a leftist-Jewish cult of minority-worship. That cult is difficult to establish in the absence of non-Whites, which is why leftists in all those nations are eager to welcome “refugees,” establish the cult, and open the borders. So far, they haven’t succeeded.

Serving leftism from beyond the grave

The crypto-Jew and crypto-leftist Sir David Amess also welcomed “refugees,” who are mostly healthy young men of low social value and high criminal potential. Amess is gone now, seemingly cut short in his cuckservative prime by a stabby Somali and certainly mourned on all sides of British politics. But even in death he’s providing a valuable service to his former Jewish masters and leftist allies. His “shocking murder” will be used to justify more censorship, more surveillance, and more minority-worship. “Heads we win; tails you lose.”

This leftist principle isn’t intellectually sophisticated, but it’s been very effective across the West. When the left is in power, leftism advances. When the so-called right is in power, leftism advances just the same. If you want to see how that works, look no further than that “real mensch” Sir David Amess, the “devout Catholic” who was “much loved” by those who hate Christ and the Catholic church.