Featured Articles

Religion, Race, and Ethnicity in Greco-Roman Antiquity New Perspectives on The Lordship of Jesus, Judaism, and the “Truthiness” of Christianity, Part One


On the dissident right down-under, the intellectual, spiritual, and moral bankruptcy of mainstream Australian “conservatism” is a well-worn topic.  Everyone expects conservatives to cuck when the question of White genocide or the great replacement is raised.  Should attention shift away from racial politics to the relationship between politics and religion, however, most conservatives and radical rightists reveal a shared loyalty to a secular regime separating church and state.

This became evident to me while listening to a recent podcast discussion between Blair Cottrell (a photogenic, patriotic chad and working-class, “tradie,” activist from Melbourne) and Sydneysider Joel Davis (an on-line activist of a more educated and intellectual bent. [1] At first, both stuck to the usual script, agreeing that Anglo-Australian (or White) nationalism will never become a serious contender for state power in Australia so long as the Labor-Liberal duopoly retains its long-established stranglehold on mainstream party politics.  But then, the conversation briefly strayed off the beaten path.  Frankly clutching at straws, Cottrell wondered whether religion—Christianity, in particular—might offer an alternative medium for fruitful nationalist activism, outside and apart from the state.  Davis immediately demurred, advising against mixing religion and politics.  While avowing his personal faith in Catholicism as the “true religion,” he worried that making race a religious issue (or vice versa) would undermine the already fragile unity of the embryonic nationalist movement among White Australians.

In a supposedly secular society such as contemporary Australia, such a view passes as the conventional wisdom.  Significantly, what goes unmentioned here is the relationship between ethnicity, specifically Anglo-Australian, or White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) ethnicity, in its relationship to both state and church.  This is especially remarkable in Australia where WASPs are still a (shrinking) majority of the population.  How, then, did religion become separated from Anglo-Australian ethnonationalism?  Indeed, how was Anglo-Australian ethnicity itself relegated to the margins of political discourse on the dissident right?  Why should an Anglo-Protestant ethnic majority adopt instead a generic “White” or “European” racial identity?   Why should they forswear their collective birthright to an ancestral stock of social, cultural, and spiritual capital—the common blood, language, and religion—generated in the course of a unique history played out on a global stage?

After all, not so very long ago, Irish Catholics in Australia and elsewhere routinely employed the church in pursuit of their ethnic interests, in opposition, if need be, to their Anglo-Protestant “fellow Whites.”  Interestingly, the secularization of politics in Ireland has coincided with the accelerating demographic displacement of the Irish people.  Apart from the Irish, do Jews not mix religion and politics?  Who can deny that Judaism is an ethnoreligion with a distinctive political theology of its own grounded, nowadays, in the Holocaust mythos?  Significantly, in Canada, “Holocaust denial” is now a crime under a newly enacted blasphemy law which came hot on the heels of the 2018 repeal of blasphemy laws originally intended to protect the Christian religion.[2]  In the rest of the Anglosphere, social conventions alone still enforce public respect for Jewish political theology by governments, the corporate sector, and society at large.  Moreover, synagogues have long been a significant vehicle for Jewish ethnopolitical action.  What prevents Anglo-Protestants from viewing “their” churches in a similar light?

It is not that either Catholic or Anglo-Protestant churches seek to build a wall between religion and politics (understood as who gets what, when, where, and how).  Rather, they refuse to mix religion with ethnicity (much less race).  Or to be more precise, while countenancing ethnic congregations for non-White minorities, churches expect Anglo-Protestant parishioners to maintain a strict separation between their “ethnicity” and their “religion.”  Christian clerics, across denominations, turn a blind eye to the enchanted world of Greco-Roman antiquity, where religion, as such, did not actually exist.  In fact, in the Roman empire of the first century, not even Jesus (or his apostle Paul) distinguished religion from ethnicity.

For Jews, no less than Samaritans, Greeks, and Romans, one’s identity, fate, and destiny derived from kinship with the gods of one’s family, tribe, and city.  “What modern people think of as ‘religion,’ ancient people articulated and experienced as family inheritance, [and] ‘ancestral custom.’”  In such a world, “ethnic distinctiveness and religious distinctiveness are simple synonyms, and native to all ancient peoples.”  Moreover, Paula Fredriksen adds, “ancient peoples, Jews included, did not ‘believe’ or ‘believe in’ their ancestral customs.  They enacted them; they preserved them; they respected them; they trusted or trusted in them.” In pre-Christian antiquity, the two key populations were gods and humans.  Ancient societies “could thrive only if gods were happy.  Cult was the index of human loyalty, affection, and respect.”  Just as “cult was an ethnic designation,” so too “ethnicity was a cult designation.”  In other words, “gods ran in the blood.  Peoples and their pantheons shared a family connection.” [3]

Accordingly, it was only because Jesus of Nazareth was acknowledged as the Son of Israel’s God that he could expect to be exalted as King of the Jews.  Indeed, he declares explicitly that he “was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24). How then can Anglo-Protestants, or even Anglo-Catholics, deny the religious roots of their racial kinfolk both “at home” and “abroad” in the Anglo-Saxon diaspora?  The contemporary Anglo-Protestant diaspora resembles the dispersion of Hellenistic Jews among whom the apostle Paul worked during his mission to the God-fearing pagans of the Roman Empire.  Indeed, Paul sought to reconnect with those “lost Israelite sheep” during that mission.  As we will see, Jesus and Paul shared an ethno-theology in which the history of Israel according to the flesh was the medium through which the spiritual destiny of the Israel of God was to be fulfilled.

What prevents churches throughout the Anglosphere from developing an ethno-theology enabling White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs) to recover a shared ethnoreligious spirit of meaning, value, and purpose?  I believe that Blair Cottrell had some such intuition at the back of his mind during his discussion with Joel Davis.  Joel, by contrast, confines (dare I say, dooms) the Anglo-Australian nationalist movement to a secular, explicitly “one-dimensional” strategy of racial politics.  Looking back on the Jesus movement of the first century, however, I am convinced that the regeneration of deracinated, spiritually anemic Anglo-Australians will require a multi-pronged and transnational, three-dimensional movement.  The goal must be to reinvigorate the historic bonds of religion, race, and ethnicity within and between the peoples of the British diaspora.  Nothing less than a broad spectrum, deep-seated renaissance of British race patriotism will overcome the soul-destroying, nihilistic materialism of globalist plutocracy.  Any such Great Awakening in our time requires a religious reformation reconnecting Anglican (and other Anglo-Protestant) churches to their ancestral roots in the Angelcynn church fostered by Alfred the Great (849–899).

The Problem with Christian Nationalism

Why then, have I criticized the American-style Christian nationalism championed by Stephen Wolfe?[4]  Certainly, in many respects, we are on the same side.  Not only is Wolfe opposed to the globalist regime headquartered in Washington D.C. and New York, but he is also critical of the evangelical Protestant establishment.  Before publication of his best-selling book on Christian nationalism, Wolfe had already written a series of online articles deploring “the sorry state of evangelical rhetoric.”[5]  There he charged that American evangelicals have become addicted to the use of shopworn rhetorical devices designed to capture the moral high ground from their critics without ever having to take them seriously.  Most obviously, virtue-signalling Christians routinely remind those advocating an end to mass Third World immigration that we must “love our neighbours.”  Wolfe rightly complains that serious moral and political discourse, is impossible so long as such rhetorical devices are automatically invoked to short-circuit debates with anyone who could lead evangelicals down the path to ethnonationalism.

Wolfe presents a persuasive critique of “christianizing rhetorical devices.”  He refers there to the evangelical habit of grounding arguments in what they take to be “an undeniable Christian truism” (e.g., “all of us are made in the image of God”).  This rhetorical tactic forces opponents “to contend with an undeniable statement offered for a predetermined moral conclusion.”[6]  For my own part, I first began to push back against the unreflective moral certitude of Anglo-Protestant discourse when, as a bookish teen-ager in small-town Ontario, I discovered the English philosopher Bertrand Russell.

A callow youth with an embryonic goatee, I relished my new-found vocation as the village atheist.  I was amazed by the ease with which I could confound church-going classmates with talking points I lifted from Russell’s treasure trove of skeptical essays.[7]  Still, I was no more a militant atheist than Russell himself, being much more taken by his skeptical agnosticism.  After high school, as I studied history through to an honours degree and graduate school, I simply lost interest in the milk-and-water sermonizing style of Anglo-Protestantism, Canadian-style.[8]

Not until my late twenties was my childhood Sunday School receptivity to Christianity fortuitously rekindled.  Having, at long last, graduated from law school in Canada in the mid-seventies, I seized the opportunity to avoid the grind of legal practice by teaching law in Australia.  Fortunately, I soon landed a job in a new law school in Sydney where I developed and convened a first-year foundation course on the history and philosophy of law.  That course was based on the premise that the common law tradition grew out of a Greco-Roman civilization reshaped by the triumph of Christianity.  So, while remaining an unchurched agnostic, I gradually absorbed the sort of cultural Christianity now stoutly defended by Stephen Wolfe.

Not long afterwards, while working on a master’s degree at Harvard Law School, I discovered the fascinating interplay between Anglo-American Protestantism and the classical republican traditions shaping the federal constitution of what seemed, by comparison with European absolutism, the almost stateless character of American civil society.  Although it has attracted accusations of authoritarian statism, Wolfe’s Christian nationalism owes a lot to the Anglo-Protestant evangelical tradition of anti-institutional populism.  Long story short: American constitutional history has been shaped by the political theology of evangelical Protestantism which exalted the double majesty of the Divine Economy and good King Demos.  Over the years, I have written good deal on that subject.[9]  Decades later, after leaving legal education behind (let us say, involuntarily) I began to wonder, as Blair Cottrell did above, whether Christianity, particularly the Anglican church, could ever develop an effective response to the spiritual, moral, and intellectual crisis of WASP managerial, professional, and political elites.  I persuaded myself that I should at least get some skin in the game by getting baptized in a local Anglican church.  Having lamented the collapse of English Canadian nationalism as a young man, I am now deeply disturbed by the disastrous decline of WASP hegemony everywhere in the Anglosphere.[10]  Embarking on a search for the spiritual roots of that crisis, I decided to earn a degree in theology.

I therefore possess personal, political, and professional interests in the prospects for an ethnoreligious solution to the existential crisis now facing the Anglo-Saxon peoples.  Unfortunately, Wolfe rests his own case for Christian nationalism upon an a priori faith in a pair of “undeniable Christian truisms.”  Hoping to establish the legitimacy of a Christian nation ruled by a Christian prince, he simply asserts the truth value of two “mixed syllogisms” which combine natural law with certain “supernatural truths,” or theological presuppositions revealed by grace.  He claims, for example, that the catchphrase “Jesus is Lord” is a “universally true statement.”  Likewise, the proposition that “Christianity is the true religion,” grounded as it is in revelation rather than reason, requires no argument.[11]  But surely, even if one accepts the presupposition that those statements are “true,” one is entitled to ask: “In what sense are they true?”  What if the most that can expect to find in such “undeniable Christian truisms” is some sort of “truthiness[12]?

Wolfe’s political theory of Christian nationalism aims to secure the Lordship of Jesus by resurrecting blasphemy and Sabbatarian laws designed to drive atheism and heresy from the public sphere.  In principle, this political program knows no borders.  If Christianity is the true religion, it must be “a universal religion—a religion for all nations.”  But, Wolfe concedes, “it does not eliminate nations.”  Rather, Christianity completes, indeed, it perfects nations as well as individual recipients of divine grace.[13] A non-Christian nation (or person) is, therefore, an imperfect nation (or person).

So long as America retained its identity as a Christian nation, Wolfe contends, it was entitled to defend itself against advocates of atheism and immorality.  And so, it did.  For example, even in secular and cosmopolitan New York City and, as late as 1940, concerned citizens successfully campaigned to prevent Bertrand Russell from taking up a teaching position at the City College in the fields of logic, mathematical theory, and the philosophy of science.  The justification for this violation of academic freedom: As the author of notorious (but, to many, high-minded, measured, and persuasive) essays such as those collected in my broken-backed copy of Why I Am Not a Christian, Russell was allegedly an unrepentant advocate of atheism, public nudity, and free love.[14] Clearly, at that time, American Anglo-Protestants had few qualms about using state power to enforce creedal conformity.  The churches then were still a force to be reckoned with and Wolfe clearly hankers after those days.

But that was then; this is now.  In the past fifty years or so, Protestant churches and their denominational theological colleges have offered little resistance, and more than a little support and encouragement to the rise of Woke America.  Wolfe, of course, recognizes that the ascension of an evangelical “Christian Prince” to state power is unlikely to occur anytime soon.  Nor does he expect “really existing,” mainstream Protestant churches to enter the political arena themselves, fighting to reverse the browning of America, overturn the gynocracy, or dismantle the Global American Empire (GAE).  At most, churches might be third-party beneficiaries of a lay, pan-Protestant, nationalist movement combatting demonic powers and principalities on their behalf.  A more counter-intuitive threat to Globohomo is hard to imagine.

Nevertheless, Wolfe has become a prominent figure on social media, regularly sniping at an evangelical establishment on board with the globalist agenda of the transnational corporate welfare state.  In his view, the globalist regime threatens both his religion and his nation.  As a Reformed Presbyterian political theorist, however, Wolfe rides two unruly horses—ethnicity and religion—simultaneously.  Only by keeping both his ethnic identity and his religious faith on a steady diet of blood thinners can he keep his seat.  But any Christian nationalism worthy of the name must recognize, sooner or later, that strong gods demand the unapologetic fusion of race, ethnicity, and religion.

Religion and Ethnicity: Then and Now

On Wolfe’s political theory, ethnicity is, by nature, a particularistic phenomenon situated within earthly kingdoms governed by civil magistrates, the realm Augustine of Hippo described as the City of Man.  Reformed theology and Protestant churches, on the other hand, are oriented by grace towards a heavenly kingdom, the eternal City of God, where the Lord Jesus reigns, sitting at the right hand of the Father.  Civil magistrates must accommodate the ethnic identities, needs, and interests of his subjects, but the triune God of Reformed theology is colour-blind.  Many New Testament scholars now contend, however, that this presupposition contradicts an undeniable historical truism fundamental to the cosmology shared even by Jesus of Nazareth and Paul, his apostle to the Gentiles.  In the enchanted realm of Greco-Roman antiquity, religion and ethnicity were indistinguishable; they were literally syngeneic, originally a Greek word signifying both kinship and citizenship.

In those days, every member of the same genos shared a family connection extending “not only horizontally, between citizens of the Hellenistic polis; it also extended vertically between heaven and earth.”  In short, Greco-Roman cities “were not secular spaces.  They were family-run religious institutions.”[15]  That enchanted world was saturated with gods; every forest and river, every family, tribe, and city had its own gods who must not be offended lest they visited retribution on those subject to their supernatural powers.  For Jews, Greeks, and Romans, one’s religion was not about beliefs, creeds, and confessions of faith.  In the world we have lost, religion was synonymous with the ritual rites and obligations prescribed by one’s mythological ethnic identity and ancestral allegiances.[16]

Wolfe, however, is loath to ground Christian nations in a syngeneic fusion of religion and ethnicity.  Instead, he thinks of ethnicity as the “phenomenological topography” of a “people in place.”  Rather grudgingly, Wolfe acknowledges that ethnicity may run in the blood.[17]  But Christian identity, he believes, transcends primitive notions of kinship with the ancestral gods of family, tribe, or nation.  Like Wolfe, Anglo-Protestants generally remain stubbornly resistant to the notion that spirit is fused together with blood, indissolubly, in holy communion with the water of life (1 John 5:8).

At the same time, Wolfe’s Christian political theory remains resolutely old-fashioned in its respect for ecclesiastical authority.  Anglo-Protestantism may be a bloodless religion, but it still adheres to ancestral creeds formulated in late antiquity by the Church Fathers.  Notably, in preparation for his book, Wolfe immersed himself in the works of seventeenth-century Reformed theologians largely unknown to more than a few of his fellow Anglo-Protestants.  Even more anachronistic is his reliance upon the Thomist tradition of natural law dating back to the Middle Ages.  Biblical exegesis, on the other hand, is conspicuously absent from his work.  Like most Anglo-Protestants, he is content to leave that task to the pastors and theologians who stand behind the Westminster Confession of Faith.  Nor has he engaged with the growing body of contemporary New Testament scholarship ready, willing, and able to challenge the foundational “supernatural truths” of Wolfe’s old-time religion.

Wolfe’s brand of Christian nationalism will need more than recycled theological truisms dredged up from dusty Calvinist tracts to gain traction outside the echo chambers of pious evangelicalism.  Mindlessly repeating that “Jesus is Lord” carries little weight outside that charmed circle.  Similarly, after four centuries of experience with Anglo-Protestantism, it will be a hard sell to persuade Moslems, Jews, and nihilistic atheists, much less millions of marginalized White men, that “Christianity is the true religion” destined to “perfect” the already perfectly fictional “American nation.”  As Wolfe recognizes himself, the conventional attachment to a non-creedal, unchurched, cultural Christianity reaches its vanishing point when one’s nation turns into a gay disco.

Indeed, already in 1940, it was evident that Bertrand Russell was far from being a lone skeptic in opposition to the merely voluntary Protestant establishment.  At home, religious diversity was an established fact: Catholics, Jews, and Mormons had secure beachheads in America.  Abroad, the country would soon join godless Soviet communists in its war on Germany.  Hardly surprisingly then that, within a few decades after the war, the USA was to be utterly transformed by a civil rights revolution and its corollary, mass Third World immigration.  Mainline Protestant churches put up only token resistance before they obediently fell in line with the entire progressive agenda.

Nowadays, secular humanists, rationalist skeptics, mythicists, historicists, and atheists aplenty have found influential platforms in the religious studies departments of major American universities.  Offering challenging new perspectives on once undeniable Christian truisms, they present a solid prima facie case for free thought in religious matters.  Their claim that the “supernatural truths” asserted by Christian churches rest less on reason and revelation than on myth and fable cannot easily be swept under the carpet.

Pushed beyond the pale by both evangelical theological seminaries and mainstream Protestant churches, independent preterist scholars and dissident churches question the creedal promise that, some time in our future, the Lord Jesus “will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead.”  Conservative evangelicals insist that Jesus will return physically (“as a 5̍ 5̎ Jewish man,” in Don K. Preston’s wry phrase) riding on clouds of glory, at the end of the Christian age, to usher in a new heaven and a new earth.  By contrast, preterists employ a Hebrew hermeneutic in defending their persuasively biblical covenantal eschatology.  They hold that the Parousia (i.e., the Second Coming of Jesus Christ), occurred, as prophesied in the Old and New Testaments, with the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in AD 70.  Hence, many New Testament scholars, skeptics and preterists alike, can agree that, for those of us in the present, the futurist eschatological hope, as preached in the creedal churches (though differing as to its pre-millennial, post-millennial, or amillennial timing) is little more than a chimera.

Do bible-believing preterists and skeptical scholars deserve a respectful hearing from creedal Christian nationalists?  In principle, Stephen Wolfe approves the restoration of Sabbatarian and blasphemy laws to exclude political atheism and public heresy “from acceptable opinion and action.”[18]  Wolfe publicly affirms creedal orthodoxy on eschatology; he “looks to the future coming of Christ (Tit. 2:13)” and hopes “for the glorification of the body promised to us in Christ (Phil. 3:21).”[19]  One cannot but wonder whether he would vote to convict preterists such as Don K. Preston were he to sit on a jury in a prosecution for public heresy.

Don K. Preston

Wolfe certainly believes that “public heresy has the potential to harm other’s souls by causing doubt or distraction or by disrupting public peace.”  According to his Christian political theory, therefore, the civil “magistrate, who must care for the souls of his people, may act to suppress that heresy.”  Note as well that Wolfe agrees in principle with Francis Turretin, his favourite seventeenth-century theologian, that arch-heretics “publicly persistent in their damnable error … can be justly put to death.”[20]  Having endorsed Don K. Preston’s views on fulfilled eschatology, repeatedly and in public, I fear that a “Christian prince” would convict me of arch-heresy.  I can only hope that he might find it imprudent to condemn me to death.

Anglo-Protestant “nationalists” proposing to outlaw atheism and heresy could ease the minds of those who might be accused of public atheism by explaining just how the historical Jesus became the eternal Lord of the Anglo-Saxon, British-descended peoples.  WASP agnostics will ask why only a bloodlessly cosmic “Christianity” can be their “true religion.”  Looking further afield for potential defendants, Wolfe’s pan-Protestant program to enshrine the “supernatural truths” of creedal Christianity into public and criminal law is sure to generate powerful pushback from a multitude of other groups.  Massive resistance will come, not just from mild-mannered academics and pious preterists, but from marginalized Muslims, deeply entrenched Jewish elites, miscellaneous unbelievers, and moral degenerates, not to mention businesses, large and small, which profit from the abolition of Sunday blue laws and the concomitant licencing of atheistic, materialist nihilism seven days a week.

Note as well that the heretical theological voices discussed below have found mass audiences on, inter alia, YouTube channels such as MythVision Podcast.[21]  Many Christian nationalists such as Stephen Wolfe (as well as White nationalists who happen to be Christian, such as Joel Davis in Australia) are themselves adept in the use of social media.  But, wedded as they are to the “supernatural truths” enshrined in traditional church creeds, they are certain to be pushed onto the political and intellectual defensive.  Indeed, as we have seen, Davis prudently prefers not to mix his Catholic religion with his ethnopolitics.  And for good reason, since what churchgoers take to be the most self-evident of theological truisms—the notion that Jesus and the apostle Paul were Christians—is now up for debate.  Certainly, among contemporary New Testament scholars, no consensus supports the proposition that Jesus was sent or that Paul was called to found a new religion, especially one cleansed of his own ethnic identity.

Jews, Judaism, and the Idea of Israel in the First Century AD

My argument is an ethno-theological interpretation of the origins and outcome of the Jesus movement in the first-century world of Greco-Roman antiquity.  In a nutshell, Jesus and Paul inspired a dissident ethnoreligious movement “within Judaism”; neither presented himself as the Founder of Christianity.  The movement first emerged in Judea after the death and reported resurrection of Jesus.  By the time Jerusalem was destroyed by Roman armies in AD 70, the gospel had been carried to the ends of the known world through the social networks and synagogues established within the far-flung diaspora of Hellenistic Jews.

Not all Jews, either in Judea or in the diaspora were supporters of the Jesus movement.  The Jesus movement was at odds with ethnonationalist Judeans involved in a long-simmering rebellion against Rome, leading to the Jewish wars in 66AD.  Those Judean nationalists followed in the footsteps of the Maccabean rebellion against Hellenistic influence in the second century B.C.  During his ministry, Jesus also came into conflict with the leaders of the Temple cult centred on Jerusalem.  The Jesus movement stood for an ethno-theology with two central features.  First, its aims were explicitly geopolitical in scope, extending beyond Judea to the entire known world (oikumene); and, secondly, the movement was driven by the sense of urgency inherent in its apocalyptic eschatology.  Both Jesus and Paul taught that the “end of the age” was nigh.  They and their followers looked forward to the long-promised but now imminent restoration of “all Israel” in a new heaven and new earth.

The suggestion made in the previous paragraph that the Jesus movement developed “within Judaism” is a deceptively simple claim.  To the modern mind, the term “Judaism” connotes a “religion” which itself is misleading.  Moderns associate “religion” with a set of doctrines pertaining to the nature of the divine or supernatural realm.  Even the term “Judean” is anachronistic when used to signify an “ethnicity” as distinct from the modern category of “religion” supposedly implicit in the word “Jew.”  But, as we have already seen, the very attempt to distinguish religion and ethnicity in the ancient world is itself anachronistic.[22]  In particular, it makes no sense to distinguish the ethnic and religious aspects of Jewishness in this period.  In translations of ancient texts, however, the English word ‘Judaism’ is often supplied in place of phrases literally denoting “the ancestral traditions, laws, and customs of the Jews.”  This suggests that the “various elements that constitute our religion” were “inextricably bound up with other aspects of their life.”  In the Greco-Roman world, generally, there were “a variety of modes in which people could think about and interact with the divine world,” including ritual and myth.  These aspect of ancient life “overlapped and interacted in various ways” without forming the sort of “integrated system” or “unified understanding of the divine” that we call “religion.”[23]

Certainly, there were no ancient Hebrew or Aramaic words which correspond to our ‘Judaism’.  There were Greek and Latin words that appear to do so (namely, Ίουδαϊσμός and Iudaismus) but, before the period 200–500 AD, they are used only a very few times, in Greek, most during the Maccabean period of the second century, BC.  The very restricted usage of that Greek word for Judaism usually occurs “in explicit or implicit contrast with some other potential affiliation, movement, or inclination.”  This brings us to Hellenism and its cognate verb, Hellenize.  The basic meaning of Hellenize was “to express oneself in Greek,” occurring “chiefly in contexts where there are doubts about the speaker’s ability because he is a foreigner or uneducated.”[24]

Significantly, the first attestation of the word Hellenism is in the same second-century BC text that hosts the first occurrences of the word ‘Judaism’.  The latter word “appears to have been coined in reaction to cultural ‘Έλληνισμός’ (Hellenism).  In that context, ‘Judaism’ signified “a certain kind of activity over against a pull in another, foreign direction,” specifically Hellenism which “introduced foreign ways—Greek cultural institutions, education, sports, and dress—into Jerusalem.”  It therefore refers to “a defection that threatens the heart and soul of Judean tradition.”  The Maccabean revolt “was a counter-movement, a bringing back of those who had gone over to foreign ways: a “Judaizing” or Judaization, which the author of 2 Maccabees programmatically labels Ίουδαϊσμός (Judaism).[25]

The term ‘Judaism’, therefore, has a double meaning corresponding to the difference between what anthropologists call an etic meaning, derived from an external or observer’s point of view and the emic or insider’s view that a first-century Jew would have as a participant in his own collective way of life.  From that emic point of view, it makes no sense to distinguish between ethnicity and religion.[26]  A further source of confusion over terms such as ‘Jew’ and ‘Jewishness’ has to do with the difference between modern and ancient understandings of the relationship between Jews, Judeans and the idea of Israel.  Jason Staples points out that moderns usually presume that, after the Babylonian Exile, the term ‘Israel’ is synonymous with ethnic Jews.[27]  In fact, historically speaking, “Israel is an entity larger than (but including) the body of ethnic Jews.”  Here, ‘Jews’ or ‘Judeans’ “refers to persons descended from the southern kingdom of Judah [whether they live outside Judea or not], which is only a part of the larger historical entity called Israel.”  By contrast, “Israel” is a polyvalent term with at least four distinct references in the Hebrew Bible: (1) the patriarch Jacob/Israel; (2) “the nation composed of his descendants, that is, all twelve tribes of ‘Israel,’ including Judah”; (3) the northern kingdom, the ten tribes of the “house of Israel,” excluding the southern kingdom, the “house of Judah”; and (4) the returnees from Judah after the Babylonian Exile.[28]  The Ioudaioi (Judeans) were the only Israelites who returned from Babylon.  According to the late first-century Jewish historian, Josephus, the other ten tribes were scattered “beyond Euphrates till now and are a boundless multitude, not to be estimated by numbers.”[29]

Keep in mind that the Hebrew Bible came into being after the disappearance of those ten lost tribes.  This fact is crucial to an understanding of the Jesus movement in the first century.  Staples emphasizes that “the Hebrew Bible is scripture collected and edited by Jews, for Jews, about Israel.”  He observes that “interpreters have been too quick to assume that the (actual) Jewish audience of these texts is the same as the Israel to which the texts are rhetorically addressed.”  Instead, most of Israel existed only in the historical imagination after the Babylonian Exile.  Accordingly, “through the collection and redaction of the prophetic literature and authoritative historical narratives that ultimately comprised the Hebrew Bible, exilic and post-exilic Jews established a continual reminder of the broken circumstances of the present, constructing an Israel not realized in the present.”  These early Jews, in other words, located “themselves in a liminal space between the memory of a past ‘biblical’ Israel and the hope for a future restored Israel.”  They created a “restoration eschatology” which looked forward, not to “the end of the world, but rather the end of the present age and the dawn of a new one.” In that new creation “all Israel” was to be restored by the in-gathering of all twelve tribes of the Dispersion into Zion.[30]  The Lordship of Jesus the Christ was closely associated with the longed-for restoration of “all Israel.”

Although the ten lost tribes remained but a ghostly presence during the first century, a highly visible Jewish diaspora had been a well-established historical presence in major centres of the Greco-Roman world for hundreds of years.  In fact, the Hellenized Jews of the diaspora greatly outnumbered those living in Judea.  Rodney Stark estimates that while there were about one million Jews in Palestine, there were somewhere between four and six million to be found in wealthy and populous urban communities throughout the Roman empire.  Indeed, “Jews had adjusted to life in the diaspora in ways that made them very marginal vis-à-vis the Judaism of Jerusalem.”  The result was that  the Hebrew language skills of most Hellenized Jews “had decayed to the point that the Torah had to be translated into Greek.”  The Septuagint itself, therefore, became another medium through which Hellenistic perspectives found expression.  Jews of the diaspora were Hellenized to the point that they needed the sort of cultural compromise allowing a Jew to remain a Jew while claiming full entry into “the elect society of the Greeks.”  As for the other side of the ethno-cultural divide, many so-called God-Fearers, or Gentile “fellow-travellers,” were attracted to Hellenized Jewish traditions and customs, especially their moral teachings and monotheism, without being willing to “take the final step of fulfilling the Law” by giving up their own cultic gods and undergoing circumcision.[31]

Stark suggests that, when Jewish authorities decided not to require god-fearing Gentiles to observe the Law in full, they went some way towards the creation of a “religion” free of ethnicity.[32]  This claim is seriously misleading.  Paula Fredriksen observes that it was “a normal aspect of ancient Mediterranean life” to show respect for gods not one’s own, for Jews no less than pagans.  To forge “an exclusive commitment to a foreign god, however—an act unique to Judaism in the pre-Christian era—was tantamount to changing ethnicity” and, hence, would have been perceived as an act of disrespect to the gods of the host city.  At the same time, however, majority cultures were “religiously commodious.”  Interested Gentiles “were free to frequent Jewish gatherings,” assuming “whatever Jewish practices, traditions, and customs they wished, while continuing unimpeded in their own cults as well.”[33]

The Jesus movement therefore found receptive audiences throughout the Hellenized Jewish diaspora among both Jews and Gentiles.  Even so, Stark contends, the movement “offered twice as much cultural continuity to the Hellenized Jews as to Gentiles.”[34]  On this point, Stark’s interpretation gains added force if one takes the view, contra Stark, that the first century Jesus movement developed “within Judaism” and, hence, pre-dated the “parting of the ways” which marked the historical beginning of Christianity proper in the second century.[35]  Given “the marginality of the Hellenized Jews, torn between two cultures,” the Jesus movement “offered to retain much of the religious content of both cultures and to resolve the contradictions between them.”  Not only were diasporan Jews “accustomed to receiving teachers from Jerusalem,” but movement missionaries (such as Paul) “were likely to have family and friendship connections with at least some of the diasporan communities.”  The Jesus movement, in short, built a distinctly Hellenized religion on Jewish foundations, injecting “an exceedingly vigorous other-worldly faith” into the abstract universalism of Platonic philosophy.[36]  It was in that cross-cultural context that Jesus became God.

[1] The Joel & Blair Show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1ZRketjuIY&t=3532s

[2] Andrew Fraser, “Friend or Foe? The Holocaust Mythos, Global Jesus, and the Existential Crisis of Anglican Political Theology,” (2022) Vol. 22(3) The Occidental Quarterly 63.

[3] Paula Fredriksen, “Divinity, Ethnicity, Identity: ‘Religion’ as a Political Category in Christian Antiquity,” in Armin Lange, et.al., Comprehending Antisemitism through the Ages: A Historical Perspective (Open Access: De Gruyter, 2021), 101-120, at 102-103; idem, “Judaizing the Nations: The Ritual Demands of Paul’s Gospel,” 56 New Testament Studies 232, at 234-235.

[4] Andrew Fraser, “Sweet Dreams of Christian Nationalism (But What About the Protestant Deformation, Globalist Churches, and Jewish Political Theology?),” 2023(2) The Occidental Quarterly 37.

[5] Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2022); idem, “The Sorry State of Evangelical Rhetoric,” http://sovereignnations.com/2018/06/22/sorry-state-evangelical-rhetoric/

[6] Ibid.

[7] Bertrand Russell, Sceptical Essays (London: Unwin Books, 1960).

[8] Pierre Berton The Comfortable Pew: A Critical Look at Christianity and the Religious Establishment in the New Age (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1965).

[9] See, Andrew Fraser, The Spirit of the Laws: Republicanism and the Unfinished Project of Modernity (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990), esp. 31-40, 129, 216; The WASP Question: An Essay on the Biocultural Evolution, Present Predicament, and Future Prospects of the Invisible Race (London: Arktos, 2011), 241; and Reinventing Aristocracy in the Age of Woke Capital: How Honourable WASP Elites Could Rescue Our Civilisation from Bad Governance by Irresponsible Corporate Plutocrats (London: Arktos, 2022) 16.

[10] Cf. George Grant, Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism (Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1988 [orig. ed. 1965).

[11] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 120, 183.

[12] Defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as: a truthful or seemingly truthful quality that is claimed for something not because of supporting facts or evidence but because of a feeling that it is true or a desire for it to be true.

[13] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 26.

[14] Bertrand Russell, Why I Am Not a Christian, Edited with an Appendix on the “Bertrand Russell Case” by Paul Edwards (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1957).

[15] Paula Fredriksen, “How Jewish is God? Divine Ethnicity in Paul’s Theology,” (2018) 137(1) Journal of Biblical Literature 193, at 194-195.

[16] Fredriksen, “Divinity, Ethnicity, Identity,” 106.

[17] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 134-137.

[18] Ibid., 384-387.

[19] Stephen Wolfe, “The Church Among Nations,” August 1, 2023, American Reformer http://americanreformer.org/2023/08/the-church-among-the-nations/

[20] Wolfe, Christian Nationalism, 387-388, 391.

[21] https://www.youtube.com/@MythVisionPodcast

[22] See also, Jason A. Staples, The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 17-18.

[23] Steve Mason, “Jews, Judeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” (2007) 38 Journal for the Study of Judaism 457, at 480, 482.

[24] Ibid., 463-464.

[25] Ibid., 464-467.

[26] Ibid., 458-460.

[27] Staples, Idea of Israel, 25.

[28] Jason A. Staples, “What Do the Gentiles Have to Do with ‘All Israel’? A Fresh Look at Romans 11:25-27,” (2011) 130(2) Journal of Biblical Literature 371, at 373-375.

[29] Quoted in Staples, Idea of Israel, 49.

[30] Ibid., 89, 94-95.

[31] Rodney Stark, The Rise of Christianity: How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Religious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries (New York: Harper One, 1996), 57-58.

[32] Ibid., 59.

[33] Paula Fredriksen, Paul: The Pagan’s Apostle (New Haven, CN: Yale University Press, 2017), 54, 60.

[34] Stark, Rise of Christianity, 59.

[35] See, generally, James D.G. Dunn, The Partings of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM Press, 1991); cf. Paula Fredriksen, “What ‘Parting of the Ways’? Jews, Gentiles, and the Ancient Mediterranean City,” in Adam H. Becker and Annette Yoshiko Reed, The Ways that Never Parted: Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 35-63.

[36] Stark, Rise of Christianity, 59-62.

Martyr-Cults and Meteor-Murders: How Leftism Inverts the Truth about Inter-Racial Murder

BL? BS! That’s what I used to think. In other words, I used to think that the blood libel was bullshit. Then I read Ron Unz’s article “Oddities of the Jewish Religion” (2018). And it completely changed my mind. The blood libel is the accusation that wicked Jews kidnapped Christian children and ritually tortured them to death in order to use their blood for black magic. I once accepted all the standard refutations of the blood libel: that blood is ritually unclean to Jews, that Christians were cruelly projecting their own psychoses onto an innocent outgroup, and so on.

Not so ridiculous after all

But I accepted those refutations only because I was ignorant about post-Christian Judaism and about that strange and disturbing text known as the Talmud. Unz’s article changed that (see also Bernard M. Smith’s essay). He summarized the work of the “extremely erudite” Israeli Jewish scholar Ariel Toaff, whose book Passovers of Blood (2007) argues that the blood libel had a solid basis in fact:

It appears that a considerable number of Ashkenazi Jews traditionally regarded Christian blood as having powerful magical properties and considered it a very valuable component of certain important ritual observances at particular religious holidays. Obviously, obtaining such blood in large amounts was fraught with considerable risk, which greatly enhanced its monetary value, and the trade in the vials of that precious commodity seems to have been widely practiced. … Furthermore, as extensively discussed by [Israel] Shahak, the world-view of traditional Judaism did involve a very widespread emphasis on magical rituals, spells, charms, and similar things, providing a context in which ritualistic murder and human sacrifice would hardly be totally unexpected. (“Oddities of the Jewish Religion: The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism,” The Unz Review, 16th July 2018)

As so often, the mainstream view may not merely be wrong but the opposite of the truth. Jews were not the innocent victims of a psychotic and sadistic conspiracy theory by Christians. Indeed, most or all of the psychosis and the sadism seems to have been on the Jewish side. The blood libel isn’t fully proven, but Ariel Toaff has clearly demonstrated that Jews used Christian blood in magical rituals, traded in it, and may have committed murder to obtain it. William of Norwich and Little Hugh of Lincoln weren’t so ridiculous after all. And who were William and Hugh? Child-martyrs in medieval England, that’s who. They were tortured and slain by wicked Jews whose crimes were then miraculously exposed. Or so the old stories run. I’m much less inclined to dismiss those stories now. In fact, I think England’s medieval martyr-cults were much saner and much less harmful than England’s modern martyr-cult.

Demonizing Whites, sanctifying Blacks

And what is England’s modern martyr-cult? It’s the cult of Stephen Lawrence, the Black teenager who, as politicians and the media endlessly remind us, was murdered by a “gang of white racists” in 1993. Thousands of other young Black men have been murdered since then, often in much worse ways, but none of them — with one exception — has received prolonged attention and veneration like Stephen Lawrence. The one exception is Anthony Walker, who was also murdered by “white racists.” Walker has a martyr-cult too, albeit a much smaller and less well-publicized one. The cult of Stephen Lawrence is enough, you see: it does the job it is intended to do, namely, to demonize Whites, promote lies, and present Blacks as the virtuous victims of omnipresent White racism.

Martyr-cult vs meteor-murders: leftism inverts the truth by ignoring the far more numerous White victims of non-White savagery

In other words, it’s a new blood libel that turns the old blood libel on its head. This martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence is a very strange thing. It’s wholly unnatural. The martyr-cults of William of Norwich and Little Hugh of Lincoln were on the side of the White Christian majority against the Jewish minority. Even if they weren’t based on fact, they were a healthy reaction to Jewish predation and anti-Christian animus. So were similar martyr-cults in the rest of Europe. And those medieval cults rose from below, from among the ordinary Whites who were exploited and preyed upon by Jews. But now Britain has a martyr-cult that demonizes the White majority and sanctifies the Black minority. And that cult is imposed from above by the elite. For example, when the physically and ideologically repulsive Theresa May was our so-called “conservative” prime minister, she added Stephen Lawrence Day to Britain’s official calendar. It’s strategically positioned on 22nd April, just before St George’s Day on 23rd April. Britain’s government, media and academia now work against the interests of Whites, not for them.

What is going on? Well, I’ve drawn parallels elsewhere with parasites that subvert and redirect the brains and bodies of their hosts, forcing them to work against themselves and for their alien controllers. It should come as no surprise, then, that a Jewish “racial equality activist” called Dr Richard Stone has played a central role in the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence. He has supplied the intelligence, verbal dexterity, and Machiavellian skills lacked by the martyr’s mother, the Black Jamaican Doreen Lawrence, who was elevated to the House of Lords by David Cameron, another so-called conservative prime minister, and unofficially serves as the ethical overseer of policing in Britain.

White traitor, Jewish subvertor: the repulsive Theresa May and the Machiavellian Dr Richard Stone (images from Wikipedia)

Jamaica has a much higher murder rate than Britain. The discrepancy gets even bigger if you take murderous Jamaican immigrants out of the British statistics and add judicial executions by Black Jamaican police to the Jamaican statistics — just see the Guardian article “Jamaica police commit ‘hundreds of unlawful killings’ yearly.” The sight of a Black Jamaican like Doreen Lawrence lecturing Whites on their ethical failings ought to provoke nothing but incredulous laughter. But it doesn’t. Instead, it wins hushed respect and promises to do better. But dim Doreen Lawrence could never have won her elevated status by her own efforts. She owes it to intelligent subversives like Richard Stone. As I described in “The Ruling Stones” and “Black Saints, White Demons,” this Jewish “anti-racist” was acting in what he regards as the interests of Jews as he worked so hard in the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence.

Concealing the truth about inter-racial murder

But I don’t think that Dr Stone has any real concern for the welfare of Blacks. If he does, his untiring work has been woefully misdirected, because the cult of Stephen Lawrence has done exactly what the later cult of George Floyd has done in America: caused huge harm to Blacks. The cults have discouraged the police from enforcing the law against Blacks, with the inevitable result that many more Blacks have been murdered and maimed by other Blacks. When White civilization retreats, Black savagery advances. That’s what the martyr-cults of Stephen Lawrence and George Floyd have achieved. They’re perfect examples of the Iron Law of Leftism at work, namely, that leftists most harm those they claim to care about most. But that doesn’t matter to leftists, because they’re not interested in reality or truth. Instead, they’re interested in feeding their narcissism and pursuing what are, to them, the most important things in life: power for themselves and punishment for their enemies.

The pursuit of power radically simplifies politics for leftists, because it means that they don’t have to worry about facts or logic or any other messy aspect of reality. Leftists subject all social and cultural propositions to a single simple test: does this advance the cause of leftism? If it does, it must be enthusiastically accepted and energetically promoted. If it doesn’t, it must be censored or minimized. The martyr-cults of Stephen Lawrence and George Floyd are based on a gigantic lie, namely that cruel and hate-filled Whites are an ominous and omnipresent threat to the lives and welfare of gentle and virtuous Blacks. But so what if that’s a lie? The lie advances the cause of leftism, therefore leftists like Dr Richard Stone and crypto-leftists like Theresa May have energetically promoted it. At the same time, leftists are entirely uninterested in stories like the following, which reveal the truth about inter-racial murder in modern Britain. Inter-racial murder is committed overwhelmingly by non-Whites against Whites — and especially by Blacks against Whites.

Susan Hawkey, the elderly White victim whose cruel murder leftists want to be forgotten (image © Metropolitan Police / SWINS)

Grieving widow was brutally “stripped and murdered by young couple” who then used her bank cards in £13,000 spending spree while her body decomposed, court told

A grieving pensioner was stripped and murdered in her own home by a young couple, who left her body to decompose while they went on a ‘massive spending spree’, a court heard. Susan Hawkey, a 71-year-old who lived alone, was described as ‘highly vulnerable’ when she was fatally attacked last September.

Prosecutors said Chelsea Grant, 28, and boyfriend Xyaire Howard, 23, ‘preyed’ on their slightly built victim, who was ‘struggling to cope’ following the death of her parents and a partner. Police found her body after friends reported that Miss Hawkey — who was found with her lower clothing removed, and her T-shirt slashed — had not been seen for weeks.

The suspects are alleged to have blindfolded, tied and murdered Miss Hawkey in her home, before stealing her bank cards and PIN and frittering away £13,000 of her money during a three-week spending spree.

Opening the trial at the Old Bailey today, prosecutor Annabel Darlow KC said: … ‘Miss Hawkey had been tied up, with both her hands tied together, her eyes had been taped shut and a ligature knotted around her neck. Her body was found under a duvet and had been decomposing for some time after her death. [The suspects] were boyfriend and girlfriend and lived in a flat a short walk away from Miss Hawkey. At some stage during the summer of 2022, they had clearly spotted Miss Hawkey and recognised in her an ideal victim.’

The court heard the pair mugged her twice on the street, and then used her stolen keys to enter her home in Neasden, north west London, within the space of a few weeks, to take her card, making a small number of transactions. [S]hortly after, the pair are alleged to have returned, extracting the PIN to her bank card which Miss Hawkey had ‘committed to memory’. Ms Darlow said it was ‘only if she was the victim of considerable violence and aggression that she would hand over’ the four-digit number.

The court heard the pair made nearly 150 transactions, with the vast majority of Miss Hawkey’s savings ‘burnt away’ in three weeks. The couple are alleged to have bought ‘luxury’ items including watches, a new television and speakers, with money spent on brands including John Lewis, Michael Kors and Puma, the court heard. Grant is alleged to have conducted internet searches about body composition, while Howard is said to have researched transaction limits. (Grieving widow was brutally “stripped and murdered by young couple” who then used her bank cards in £13,000 spending spree while her body decomposed, court told, The Daily Mail, 6th September 2023)

Sadism and stupidity: the two Blacks accused of savagely murdering the helpless White Susan Hawkey

That story seems to be an excellent example of both the exceptional sadism and the exceptional stupidity of Blacks. The accused couple seem to have committed a very cruel murder that was very easy for the police to solve. But that sadism and stupidity are precisely why the trial is receiving almost no attention in the leftist media. If the Black couple are found guilty, their crime will become what I call a meteor-murder: something that flashes through the headlines and then disappears for ever. And leftists will never ask whether the relentless leftist demonization of Whites contributed in any way to the cruel death of the elderly White woman Susan Hawkey. The two Blacks who are accused of killing her, Chelsea Grant and Xyaire Howard (his given name means “Zairean”), have been bombarded throughout their lives by the message that Whites are cruel oppressors and Blacks are virtuous victims. Did that influence their behavior? Does anti-White propaganda influence the behavior of other Blacks?

Leftism is ethically and intellectually bankrupt

Of course it does. Anti-White propaganda incites non-Whites to commit murder, rape, and other crimes against Whites throughout the West. And after leftism pumps out the propaganda that incites those crimes, it ignores the crimes or gives them minimal attention. Ideally the former. The fiercely feminist Guardian, for example, has not given even a single short paragraph to a horrible crime recently committed in France. An 18-year-old woman was brutally and repeatedly raped, and also left with a perforated colon after she was sodomized with a broom. Hardened medical staff are said to have been shocked and traumatized by the extent of her injuries. But reporting on that rape does not advance the cause of leftism, because the victim is White and the alleged perpetrator, Oumar Ndiaye, is non-White. That’s why the Guardian has ignored it. But the Guardian, BBC and rest of Britain’s leftist media have given exhaustive coverage to the over-enthusiastic kiss bestowed on a White female Spanish soccer-player by a White male Spanish soccer-official at the Women’s World Cup.

If feminism were an ethically and intellectually serious ideology, feminists would not react hysterically to a kiss and ignore an exceptionally brutal rape. But feminism is part of leftism, so it isn’t ethically and intellectually serious. Instead, feminists and other leftists are interested in power, not in truth. That’s why they’ve turned the murder of Stephen Lawrence into a martyr-cult and countless other murders into meteors. The other murders are much more frequent and often much more brutal, but they’re committed by non-Whites against Whites, so they can’t be used to promote the lies of leftism. That’s why they’re meteor-murders, flashing through the headlines and then disappearing for ever.

Leftists are guilty by leftist standards

Or so leftists fondly imagine. But when leftism loses control of politics and media, those murders of Whites by non-Whites will return to the headlines as White traitors like Theresa May and Jewish subvertors like Richard Stone are put on trial for their crimes. And the charges against them won’t be confined to the way they’ve incited non-Whites to commit murder, rape, and other crimes against Whites. No, they’ll also be charged with inciting non-Whites to commit the same crimes against their own kind.

The truth is that leftists are horrendously guilty even by leftist standards. The martyr-cults of Stephen Lawrence and George Floyd have also done huge harm to non-Whites. As Steve Sailer has repeatedly shown, leftist organization like Black Lives Matter (BLM) have been responsible for a horrible rise in the number of Blacks murdered and maimed by other Blacks. And also in Blacks killed by dangerous Black driving. Therefore the leftists who go on trial will have a simple choice: either admit that their loudly expressed concern for non-Whites was fake or accept that they are guilty of the most monstrous and murderous racism. Leftism is a cult of lies that is working very hard to destroy White civilization. In the end, it will destroy only itself.

Jews and the shaping of our thought

Nobody reading this needs to be told that Jews have had a great influence on the West in the last few decades. What might not be widely understood is the effect they have had specifically on the way we think.

Through the ages the Western mind has shown itself to be straightforward, positivist and empirical rather than mystical, intuitive or magical. If Western man sees something, he believes that it is there and thinks that the way to understand it is by looking at it more closely. He does not assume that his eyes deceive him or that reality is as described by an authority that must not be questioned. The fact that something looks different from different points of view does not make him think that it is created by his perceptions, nor does he imagine that it is a product of his preferences or statements. He distinguishes what is out there, the object, from himself, the subject, and tries to make his statements match reality. In this way he seeks to apprehend the world around him.

At least, this always used to be the case, but after the Second World War it began to change, mainly on account of three intellectual fashions, namely relativism, social constructionism and postmodernism, which are the cause of a great deal of the damage the West has done to itself in that period. We owe them largely to Jews.

Relativism comes in three varieties: moral, cultural and epistemic. Moral relativism denies that there are absolute moral values. Cultural relativism asserts that no culture is of greater value than another, nor must we judge another culture by the standards of our own. According to epistemic relativism, a person’s knowledge is relative to their assumptions or point of view. Someone who claims to know something doesn’t really know it; it’s just the way it seems to them from their “perspective”.

The main effect of relativism is to undermine one’s confidence. “I thought this was right and that was wrong”, one thinks, “but perhaps I was mistaken”. “I thought it was fairly reasonable to expect my neighbour to stop playing loud music at eleven o’clock, but perhaps that’s just my culture.” “I thought ice floated on water, but perhaps I didn’t really know it. Perhaps no one really knows anything.”

Moral relativism can make morality relative to many things. In a documentary, Louis Theroux made it relative to the individual. He described a sex worker as having had a difficult upbringing.[1] She explained that when you’re fourteen and don’t go to school, you don’t realise that it’s just sexual if somebody shows an interest in you. Now, she’s had so many experiences that she can have sex with anyone. Addressing the viewer, Theroux didn’t ask whether selling sex was wrong but whether it was wrong for her. Maybe it wasn’t, he suggested, although it might be wrong for someone else.

Cultural relativism was intensively promoted in the 1990s. “All cultures are of equal value” was a constant mantra of the media. A case in point arose when a Haitian living on Long Island hired a voodooist to cast out the spirits she thought her father had let loose in her house, causing troubling sounds to come from the basement.[2] He threw a sheet over her, doused it with cologne and set fire to it, not taking her to hospital with her third-degree burns until the following afternoon. When he was charged with attempted murder, his defence was that he was only practising his religion. A Haitian spokesman explained that Haitians, like other ethnic minorities, had brought their culture to America with them. Who were Americans to judge?

Nor does epistemic relativism have much going for it. It may be true that scientific knowledge is only ever provisional as it inches its way towards the truth or makes occasional wrong turns, but this does not mean that it is relative to a point of view. One might even say that a considerable amount of knowledge has been established beyond question over the centuries. How many of the thousands of statements in a random medical textbook might be wrong, for example? But epistemic relativism has seeped so far into our culture as to affect the way we think, yet it has done so with a twist. Instead of causing people to doubt their knowledge, it makes them feel entitled to describe any statement they may care to make as true for them, while they presumably believe that other people might “know” the opposite. In effect such people do without the concept of knowledge altogether.

Epistemic relativism was popularised by Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), which held that scientific knowledge was relative to a “paradigm”. Thomas Kuhn was Jewish. Decades earlier, cultural and by implication moral relativism were introduced by Franz Boas, who was also Jewish.

Social constructionism is the fashion followed by anyone who says that something is just a social construct, which is an extremely popular thing to say. What it means is unclear. Perhaps by “construct” those who say it mean concept. A social construct is in the mind, and if it is just a social construct there is nothing that corresponds to it in reality. But to show this, social constructionists would need to produce an argument to say that what the concept appears to refer to isn’t there. Instead they seem to think that they have proved as much simply by calling it just a social construct.

Sometimes when people call things just social constructs they mean, stressing the social aspect, that the only reason we think that they exist is that we have agreed that they do. But to establish this, they would again need to show that our belief that they exist is mistaken.[3]

In a third scenario, social constructionists accept that social constructs exist but emphasise that we have constructed them, and what we have constructed we can deconstruct or cease constructing. A feminist might apply this to differences between the sexes. Yes, she might say, the sexes differ, but we construct the differences by bringing boys and girls up differently, therefore to get rid of the differences we only need to change our child-rearing practices. But this has been tried, and it has not worked. In any case, every parent knows that boys and girls differ by nature. Adults are not needed to socially construct the differences.

The one sort of thing that social constructionists do not describe as social constructs are those that really are social constructs, like money.[4] All that makes a piece of paper a ten-dollar bill and means that we can use it to buy things with is the fact that we have agreed that it is a ten-dollar bill, which we have agreed means that we can use it to buy things with. Social constructionists aren’t interested in this kind of example because they’re not really interested in social constructs. What they’re interested in is a sophisticated-sounding term that they can use to persuade themselves that things they don’t like, such as sex differences, either don’t exist or can be got rid of.

What could be more damaging than an intellectual fashion that induces a society to indulge in such self-persuasion? It is going to proceed on the basis of a false understanding of reality and waste its energy trying to get rid of things, quite possibly having forgotten why it thinks they need to be got rid of, that will never go away.

The main source of social constructionism was a book called The Social Construction of Reality (1966) by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann, both of whom were Jews.

Postmodernism is a nonsensical collection of ideas designed to appeal to the will to power and aid the revolutionary transformation of society. It is mainly attributed to Michel Foucault, author of The Order of Things (1966), but is as much due to Jacques Derrida, who wrote Writing and Difference and On Grammatology (both 1967). Foucault was not Jewish; Derrida was.

Derrida’s main idea is that we are in a prison of language from which we cannot escape. Far from letting us grasp reality, language stops us making contact with it, therefore a statement does not represent the world but can only be called a “narrative”, which cannot be appraised as true or false. If we think that a narrative is true, we are deceived by a group such as White people or men, who have the power to impose their narratives on others. This is what a feminist meant when she described objectivity as nothing but male subjectivity.[5] A statement a man describes as objective, meaning that it is true for all, only expresses his prejudices and seeks to advance his sectional interests, presumably at the expense of women.

To counter such unpleasant groups, postmodernists decided that it was necessary to “privilege” the narratives of women and non-Whites. It is thus postmodernism that we have to thank for the idea adopted by the British police as long ago as in 1983 that if a Black person “perceives” themselves to have been racially attacked by a White person, then this is what has happened.[6] Any definition of a “hate crime” in use today is of this type. The #MeToo movement was similarly postmodern. For a case of a man mistreating a woman to be discovered, all that was needed was for a woman to say that she had been mistreated. Thus non-Whites and women were “empowered”.

When it feels the need, postmodernism forgets that language forms an impenetrable barrier between us and reality and says that it can “construct” it. We become magicians, making things true by mere assertion. This side of the philosophy was illustrated by a social psychologist who wrote a paper called “Self-fulfilling stereotypes”, which explained how stereotypes such as of Italians as passionate persist.[7] He did not deny that the stereotypes were true. Italians really are passionate, he maintained, but only because that is how they are described. Presumably they started out being no more passionate than others, then for some reason people took to calling them passionate, which made them passionate. The narrative constructed the reality; the stereotype fulfilled itself. Incidentally, this writer was Jewish, and his article appeared in a collection edited by a Jewish woman.

From academics like this, via the intellectuals who spread their ideas, postmodernism came through to the general public, again in the 1990s, the first decade of political correctness.[8] It is now so familiar that one hardly raises an eyebrow when a man writes: “I am a woman because I say I am. Nothing else is needed”. But postmodernists are quietly selective about the bits of reality they think their words can govern. When this man finds that he has run out of milk, he won’t say: “I have milk because I say I have. Nothing else is needed”. He will go out and buy some, like anybody else.

Postmodernism gives its followers a gratifying sense of power. Confronting a history book that says things they don’t like, they can dismiss it as only purveying the writer’s prejudices. They can laugh at its claims to objectivity, saying that objectivity is unattainable. Then when they put pen to paper themselves, they can purvey their own prejudices to their hearts’ content, for what can a narrative do but purvey the writer’s prejudices? They do not need to try to be objective, for who can be objective?

A book does not need quality to be influential; what it needs is to be promoted. The publisher promotes it to journalists, who promote it to the public in admiring reviews or commission admiring reviews from academics. The book fills every bookshop window and starts appearing on college reading lists. Anyone who wants to be up-to-date makes sure that they have read it. To bring all this about, the book only needs to be selected as a world-changer by someone in a key position in a network of the right people, such as, in the case of a book written by a Jew, a Jew whom other Jews will obey. But is there such a network? Are there Jews in publishing, advertising, the media and academia? Do bears shimmy in the woods?

Another influential Jewish book was The Authoritarian Personality (1950), a piece of pseudoscience which purported to show that the typical White American male was an incipient Fascist. It drew on interviews which it is tempting to think were interpreted in view of a pre-ordained conclusion, marking subjects on the “F scale”, where a traditional husband and father would score high. Jewish men were not included in the sample. The book was taken by a generation of social scientists to reveal a deep malaise in American society, which liberalism and permissiveness might cure. Published by the American Jewish Committee with Theodor Adorno as lead author, it was the first major product of the Frankfurt School.

The Institute had been founded in the 1920s by Felix Weil, who was Jewish, as were Theodor Adorno and the school’s other main members, namely Max Horkheimer, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse. Its associates, such as Georg Lukacs, Walter Benjamin and Wilhelm Reich were also Jews. Fromm and Marcuse wrote books that influenced the youth of the 1960s.[9] Marcuse became the “godfather” of the campus radicals of that decade, the main ones being Art Goldberg, Jackie Goldberg, Abbie Hoffman, Michael Rossman, Jerry Rubin, Mario Savio, Jack Weinberg, Steve Weissman and, in France, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, all of whom were Jews apart from Mario Savio. These activists implemented the implicit agenda of The Authoritarian Personality by opposing authority, succeeding so far as to spell the end of it, often known as the end of deference, especially deference to White men. Their followers went on to be well represented among those who have been running our institutions for the last 25 years.

If there is one idea that started to bear in on White people after the Second World War, it was that of essential racial equality, the idea that the races, no matter how different they might appear, are basically the same. This meant that any differences in their circumstances must be due to environmental factors such as the mistreatment of Blacks by Whites, therefore as the idea was spread, so was the notion of White guilt. For decades now the idea of essential racial equality, though hard to reconcile with evident facts, has been closed to questioning.[10] Having started with Franz Boas, it was popularised after the War by his pupil Ashley Montagu, who was Jewish, and then notably by Stephen Jay Gould, Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin and Steven Rose, all of whom were Jews.[11]

Today we commonly hear calls for White people to be exterminated or to commit suicide. Headlines from the American press between 2015 and 2017 include: “Professor tweets that white people should commit mass suicide”, “All I want for Christmas is white genocide” and “USC professor calls for holocaust against all white people”.[12] These calls can be traced back to two sources. In 1967 Susan Sontag famously described the White race as the cancer of human history.[13] White people threatened “the very existence of life itself”, she wrote. What does one do with a life-threatening cancer? Then in 1992 Noel Ignatiev of Harvard University founded the magazine Race Traitor with the motto “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity”. The way to save humanity was to “abolish whiteness”. As we know, this is the great abolitionist movement of today. Susan Sontag and Noel Ignatiev were both Jews.

What calls itself “critical race theory”, from which demands for the wiping of White people off the face of the earth now emanate, is descended from “critical theory”, the basic method of cultural Marxism, later called political correctness, now called wokeness, which began with the Frankfurt School.

Burdened by unnecessary guilt feelings, with demands for their extinction ringing in their ears and after decades of exposure to relativism, social constructionism and postmodernism, it is little wonder that many White people now have trouble thinking straight. Without the influence of Jews, this would presumably not be so. We would still be as mentally capable as we once were.

[1] BBC, Jan. 12th 2020, “Selling sex”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000dbcf/louis-theroux-selling-sex?page=1.

[2] American Renaissance, June 1998, “O Tempora, O Mores!”,  https://www.amren.com/news/1998/06/o-tempora-o-mores-june-1998/.

[3] In Culture of Critique, Kevin Macdonald explains that Jewish intellectuals have never seen a difference  between truth and consensus, meaning their consensus. “Jewish religious ideology was an infinitely plastic set of propositions that could rationalize and interpret any event in a manner compatible with serving the interests of the community. … It never occurred to the members of this discourse community to seek confirmation of their views from outside … by trying to understand the nature of reality itself.” See Kevin Macdonald, 2002 (1998), Culture of Critique, www.1stbooks. com, Chapter 6, “The Jewish Criticism of Gentile Culture: A Reprise”, available at http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/CofCchap6.pdf.

[4] This example is due to John Searle. See e.g. Searle, 1995, The Construction of Social Reality, London: Penguin.

[5] Adrienne Rich (1979) was quoted by Dale Spender, who was quoted by Roger Scruton in “Ideologically Speaking” in Leonard Michaels and Christopher Ricks (eds.), 1990, The State of the Language, Berkeley: University of California Press.

[6] In 1983 the Metropolitan Police adopted a definition of a racial incident as “any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person” (from “Race Equality in the UK Today: Developing Good Practice and Looking for Reform: The Police”, a handout distributed by John Newing, President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, on December 8th 1998 at QMW Public Policy Seminars: Developing New Legislation and Strategies on Race Equality, Royal Over-Seas League, London SW1). Thus the racial nature of the incident lay in the allegation, not in any evidence.

[7] Mark Snyder, 1988, “Self-fulfilling stereotypes”, in Paula Rothenberg (ed.), Racism and Sexism: An Integrated Study, New York: St. Martin’s Press.

[8] I use the word “intellectuals” in the sense of Friedrich Hayek, 1998 (1949), The Intellectuals and Socialism, London: IEA Health and Welfare Unit, pp. 9-18, who meant by it the media, academics and any others who make a living out of conveying ideas to the public, such as teachers, priests, novelists and cartoonists.

[9] For example, Erich Fromm wrote The Fear of Freedom (1941), Man for Himself (1947) and The Art of Loving (1956). Herbert Marcuse wrote Eros and Civilization (1955), One-Dimensional Man (1964) and Repressive Tolerance (1965).

[10] A fact that is hard to reconcile with the doctrine of essential racial equality is that Asian women have wider hips than White women, who have wider hips than black women. This is because women of the three races need to be able to give birth to babies with heads of different average sizes. Thus the doctrine of essential racial equality is refuted by an observation anyone can make. This is before one goes on to note that Asians with their bigger brains have higher IQs than Whites, who have higher IQs than blacks, or the dozens of other ways in which the races line up in the same order.

[11] In 1942 Ashley Montagu (real name Israel Ehrenberg) wrote Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race. In 1947, with Theodosius Dobzhansky (also Jewish), he wrote a paper stating that man had “escaped from the bondage of the physical and biological” and was “almost wholly emancipated from dependence upon inherited biological dispositions” (“Natural Selection and the Mental Capacities of Mankind”, reprinted from Science, vol. 105, 1947, in Ashley Montagu [ed.] 1975, Race and IQ, London: Oxford University Press, pp. 104-13). In 1950 Montagu edited UNESCO’s first Statement on Race (UNESCO, 1969, Four Statements On The Race Question, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000122962), which stated: “For all practical purposes ‘race’ is not so much a biological phenomenon as a social myth”. In 1967 another UNESCO statement averred that current biological knowledge did not allow us to impute cultural achievements to differences in genetic potential. Other vehicles for this idea were The Mismeasure of Man (1981) by Stephen Jay Gould and Not in Our Genes (1984) by Leon Kamin, Richard Lewontin and Steven Rose. For a review of the no-race idea, see Steve Sailer, May 31st 2000, “Cavalli-Sforza II: Seven Dumb Ideas about Race”, V-Dare, https://vdare.com/articles/cavalli-sforza-ii-seven-dumb-ideas-about-race.

[12] Mark Collett clips, Oct. 7th 2020, “Racism’s New Anti-White Definition — Mark Collett”, https://odysee.com/@markcollettclips:3/racism-s-new-anti-White-definition-mark:f. Other headlines were: “Trinity College professor calls White people ‘inhuman’: ‘Let them f-ing die’”, “Professor: ‘Some White People May Have to Die’ to Solve Racism”, and “White Professor calls all White people to mass suicide over slavery”. Slides put up during lectures included: “How White people plagued society” and “White people are a plague to the planet”.

[13] Susan Sontag, 1967, “What’s Happening to America? (A Symposium)”, Partisan Review, 34 (1): pp. 57-58.

How It Got This Bad

Gregory Hood, American Renaissance, September 22, 2023

Richard Hanania, The Origins of Woke: Civil Rights Law, Corporate America, and the Triumph of Identity PoliticsBroadside Books, 2023, 288 pp.

If you build it, they will come.

That’s the message of Richard Hanania’s The Origins of Woke. It’s not that power defeats ideology, but that power, as expressed through laws, regulations, and court decisions, can spawn ideology. It’s a message American conservatives won’t like, and it’s therefore something they need to hear.

The American Right loves to expose, explain, and deconstruct the ideological evolution of the progressives who have been defeating the Right for the last six decades. Christopher Rufo’s America’s Cultural Revolution is the latest example. Pat Buchanan’s The Death of the West inspired campus radicals of my generation. The one time in my life I spoke to the late Andrew Breitbart, he credited William Lind’s views on Cultural Marxism as what most influenced his politics. Breitbart’s own maxim, “politics is downstream from culture,” is now a slogan for movement conservatives.

Richard Hanania tells us we’re wrong — and he’s probably right. He argues that critics of wokeness are blind to why these extreme beliefs have been all-conquering. “[W]hat I found strange about the anti-wokeness side of the debate was that its proponents seemed oblivious to the extent to which the beliefs and practices they disliked were mandated by law.” (vii) Dr. Hanania argues that Breitbart’s rule can promote political passivity, because “culture versus politics” is a false distinction, especially with a government that nearly dominates the economy.

The best part of this book for rightists should be its attention to concrete power politics and specific policies as laid down by courts and bureaucracies. Dr. Hanania cites James Burnham and notes that a managerial elite was inevitable but that “there was nothing inevitable about a portion of this class taking on social engineering as a career.” (67) The best leftist organizers, notably the notorious Saul Alinsky, would probably agree with him. Alinsky was famously dismissive of ideological purity, emphasizing appeals to interest while building coalitions. Politics is about power and transferring resources to your side, not about the ways policies express a political philosophy.

Dr. Hanania defines “three pillars” of wokeness: the belief that disparities can be explained only by discrimination, that speech must be restricted to overcome such disparities, and that a bureaucracy is necessary to “enforce correct thought and action.” The first two define whether a person or idea is woke, while the third shows how wokeness is enforced. Some may protest that this gives critical theory short shrift, but that’s the point. A historical perspective, he argues, “provides many reasons to doubt theories that blame any particular philosophy or religion for what has happened.” He instead emphasizes the “primacy of politics over ideology.” (9-10) “Long before wokeness was a cultural phenomenon, it was law,” he says, with the key to its success being its “hidden, indirect nature” because civil rights law “involves constantly nudging institutions in the direction of being obsessed with identity and suppressing speech, all while it speaks in the language of freedom and nondiscrimination.” (10) It’s deceptive and thus hard to combat.

Dr. Hanania cautions us not to indulge the conservative temptation to rage against the whole system, nor to believe the system was carefully constructed to be this effective. Instead, while legislators thought they were abolishing “a caste system in the South,” “politicians and government bureaucrats in institutions like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor” got around the text of the law to achieve equality of outcome. The Supreme Court banned race quotas but blessed the concept of disparate impact, arguably the worst possible outcome because it was so vague. “Nothing is explicitly allowed, or prohibited,” Dr. Hanania says.

Republicans — notably when Richard Nixon expanded affirmative action to government contracts and President George H.W. Bush signed the Civil Rights Act of 1991 — may have been worse than President Lyndon Johnson. Nixon gave protected categories (an ever-expanding group) special privileges, and the 1991 act expanded the scope of lawsuits and complaints of “discrimination” and “harassment,” and “disparate impact.” Republicans, even after the Republican Revolution, with the supposed conservative Newt Gingrich as Speaker, shied away from ending affirmative action when they had the chance. “Sometime in 1995,” Dr. Hanania says, “Republican leaders apparently concluded that winning the public relations battle over affirmative action was hopeless, and they stopped talking about the issue.” (168)

President George H.W. Bush signs the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

George W. Bush expanded the scope of disability cases even further, with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 — and got an overwhelming bipartisan majority. In all of these cases, there was seemingly no thought about the long-term consequences of providing a rich market for activists and lawyers exploiting ethnic and other grievances, nor did “free-market” Republicans seem to consider the economic costs. Dr. Hanania argues that Republicans are growing more combative on these issues, even though “wokeness” is now a powerful force with well-funded activists and secure bases in academia and the media. The woke empire was created in a fit of absent-mindedness, at least at the highest levels.

“Diversity” — a value with almost religious importance in modern America — was the byproduct of Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.’s opinion in University of California v. Bakke (1978), which permitted universities to consider race, while banning quotas. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s dissent, which mocked banning quotas but allowing the same goal “through winks, nods, and disguises,” was more coherent and honest. (13) Dr. Hanania says that in the years after the decision, diversity went from almost unmentioned to a major concept discussed in the press and then the standard justification for race preferences. “We can see the invention of a concept in real time.” (13) Where did it come from? “It was basically the creation of one judge acting out of either political timidity or intellectual laziness.”

Violence also works. Citing Hugh Davis Graham and John Skrentny, Dr. Hanania argues that inner-city riots convinced Washington “to go beyond color-blindness and adopt policies like affirmative action and minority set-asides in order to buy social peace.” (14) Bureaucratic decisions from decades ago also “determined which groups were protected and which were not,” leading to such absurdities as the invention of “Hispanics” (which includes white Spaniards) and calling Arabs “white.”

Perhaps the saddest and yet most symbolic example of government fumbling is the reason why “sex discrimination” is such a force in American law and culture today: Rep. Howard Smith (D-VA) inserted it into the Civil Rights Act as part of an effort to kill the bill because he thought people would think it too absurd. Legislators didn’t understand what they were unleashing. The lesson is that if the law opens a space, power will fill it and come up with an ideology to justify it, and that ideology will be driven to its logical conclusion, no matter how ridiculous. Those who have the tightest focus on the issue and the most to gain — the bureaucrats who administer the new rules — have little reason to restrain themselves.

The government decides which categories are relevant to public life, and which are not. It then goes about encouraging a system of data collection and record keeping to justify state intervention and private activism. Law influences culture, as individuals are financially incentivized to lean into accepted identities and play their assigned roles, and may come to genuinely believe that the box they are put in has deep historical, moral, and spiritual importance. All of this happens far from the democratic process; civil rights laws as passed by Congress, incomplete and vague, serve as the justification for bureaucrats and judges to remake society. (92)

We take identity categories for granted so often that we often fail to reflect on their arbitrary nature. Some may laugh at the author’s hypothetical example of French and Italian Americans calling themselves “Romance Americans,” but that’s less absurd than Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPI) being lumped together and giving us campaigns such as “Stop AAPI Hate.”

Different ethnic groups can be joined together or split apart depending on the financial and political incentives, but the arbitrary nature of the process doesn’t prevent ethnic activists from taking it very seriously. Addressing the “Great Replacement,” Dr. Hanania says that “what neither side seems to have noticed is that the idea of the great replacement derives from government racial classifications and their downstream effect on culture.” (105) Thus, Arabs and Persians are “white” and therefore slow the Great Replacement. Some “Hispanics” are white, but — statistically — speed the Great Replacement. None of this makes the issue less divisive.

Is “white” as arbitrary and meaningless as “AAPI”? Many don’t think Middles Easterners are part of our race or civilization. White advocates would argue that “white” is not just a cultural but a biological category, and that the Founders wrote it into the 1790 Naturalization Act. But even if white identity were entirely arbitrary, The Origins of Woke shows that even small bureaucratic changes can produce sincere and emotional conceptions of group identity. If whites didn’t exist, the government could invent them — for purposes benign or malevolent. Dr. Hanania suggests that racial identities are likely to grow stronger with time.

Wokeness undermined representative government. What we call “civil rights” has little to do with what elected representatives thought they were voting for.

At various points throughout the debate over the Civil Rights Act, critics of the bill expressed concern that it might do x. In response, supporters of the bill would say, “no, it won’t do x,” and the two sides would agree to a compromise that involved entering a clause into the bill in effect saying that “is prohibited.” Usually within a decade, the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] and the federal courts would do anyway. (39)

Wokeness leads to tyranny. Dr. Hanania explains that with the concept of disparate impact, “basically everything is illegal and the government will decide which violations it goes after.” This just doesn’t invite corruption; it practically defines it.

Finally, wokeness makes us cowards. “Businesses must display ‘EEO Is the Law’ posters, which tell the world that an employer both practices affirmative action and does not discriminate based on race,” says Dr. Hanania. “Citizens are thus socialized to engage in doublethink, not question official dogma on sensitive issues, and walk on eggshells when faced with the demands of noisy activists within institutions, no matter how unreasonable they might be.” (22)

Dr. Hanania emphasizes that he is not attempting to track every way “wokeness as law” affects our lives, but for newcomers, he will seem exhaustive. A table provides the key doctrines (affirmative action, disparate impact in the private sector, disparate impact in government funding, anti-harassment law, and anti-harassment in women’s sports), the legal basis, what it does, the way it is enforced, and its effects. Another table shows what can be done to roll back some of these destructive policies. These tables are a greater accomplishment than entire books about the philosophical problems with liberal doctrines on race. Dr. Hanania’s detailed histories of the regulations, executive orders, court decisions, and laws (which are arguably the least important in determining what really happens) are invaluable.

Dr. Hanania’s thesis isn’t totally comprehensive. If we accept that seemingly minor battles birthed the swelling cancer of wokeness, we must still contend with its larger triumph throughout the entire Western world, especially the Anglosphere. The United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Canada are worse than America when it comes to meddling in social relations for the benefit of non-whites, and there seems to be less resistance to white shaming. The rest of Europe — certainly anything coming out of Brussels — isn’t much better.

Dr. Hanania notes that wokeness in France may even be stronger than in the United States because of hate speech laws, but there is more resistance to le wokisme (considered an American cultural invasion) in elite circles and arguably less regulation of everyday speech. However, wokeness is still advancing in France alongside demographic transformation, as well as in Germany, the Netherlands, and the rest of Europe. Dr. Hanania praises France for not collecting data on race or forcing companies to do so, but while this might pose an obstacle to “wokeness,” it hasn’t reversed or stopped demographic transformation or anti-white policies. We can accept that cultural change is downstream from politics, but everything is downstream from demography. Surging numbers of non-whites will lead to politicians willing to use race-based programs to win their support and electorally overwhelm whites. Why demographic change is occurring, who is behind it, and what they hope to gain are important questions.

Dr. Hanania frankly admits that his book is directed towards Republicans because Democrats refuse to talk about these questions. “While Americans debate taxes and foreign policy, culture and identity issues appear to be what is truly motivating many of the nation’s most prominent activists, media figures, and political leaders on both sides, along with the mass of their voters,” he says. (1)

Wokeness isn’t just a reflection of institutional incentives, although one could argue that ideology tends to follow interests. Mr. Rufo’s book may have focused on ideology, and such a history is needed to explain why activists were willing to use such aggressive tactics to get Ethnic Studies departments and other programs established even before the “woke” revolution really took off. The two books are often compared, and it’s probably better to read Mr. Rufo’s book first to learn how the movement first arose, while Dr. Hanania explains how it established itself within our system.

Dr. Hanania’s argument is that there is a solution to these problems within the system, but it requires action from people who can actually get elected, make policy, and appoint judges and staffers. This may happen because fewer Republicans care about being called racist. They can even fight “wokeness” by working with the original language and intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. (Dr. Hanania thinks repealing it is politically unrealistic.) Ron DeSantis’s presidential campaign — which looked more promising when this book was written — could be a herald, with his boast that the Sunshine State is the place where “woke goes to die” and his successful fights against DEI and ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) policies. Leading candidate Vivek Ramaswamy wrote a blurb for The Origins of Woke.

Dr. Hanania’s acceptance of political tribalism might be surprising to his Substack readers and his X followers. He is openly contemptuous of the downward mobility of the Republican base, the antics of anti-vaccine activists, and of Republicans who support Donald Trump because they want to be entertained. He has also written about the ways diversity really is a strength and sees no contradiction between accepting the reality of racial differences in IQ and wanting more immigration. He is what we might call a cognitive supremacist, who wants a meritocracy of the intelligent, market access to elite human capital (and therefore relatively loose immigration), and few drags on productivity and efficiency in the interests of equity (to please leftists) or of tradition and ethnic solidarity (to please rightists). Of course, he’s not saying political tribalism is good — it’s just the way it is now, and people who want to change policy must accept it.

We may think Dr. Hanania is wrong about some things. In fact, he’s wrong about a lot of things. However, someone who accepts the reality of the racial achievement gaps isn’t obligated to embrace white identity politics, let alone become a zealot. In turn, we are under no obligation to abandon our views because we agree with much of his thesis. What he wants for “wokeness” is what we want, and his criticism sharpens our thinking.

It may even be argued that only someone like him could write this book. If the price is simply a few sneers at white working-class voters or at the far-right, that’s a small price to pay for progress. When it comes to racial politics on the American Right, those who can do something won’t, and those who would do something, can’t. Someone who really understands the importance of these issues may become a public race realist or white advocate — which means forfeiting any chance of political, bureaucratic, or judicial office. In contrast, Republicans who are in positions of power are naïve or cowardly, desperately avoiding controversy, accepting leftist rhetoric at face value, and almost apologizing for their position. That is Dr. Hanania’s story. Dedicated left-wing judges, bureaucrats, and activists take any opportunity to expand their power and shift the culture. Republicans dreamily go along with it, thinking that they are being nice or, more likely, not thinking at all. I’d prefer that people who despise me but understand this issue be in power rather than people who pay lip service to our issues but are easily rolled.

But even if it is politically advantageous, will Republicans act? It requires a great deal of public pressure on a conservative to make him do the right thing, and changes to regulations and executive orders require dedication and detailed knowledge because the bureaucracy can’t be trusted. Conservative judges have already been a disappointment. “In contrast to disparate impact, affirmative action in college admissions has been in conservatives’ crosshairs for decades, and by the time this book is released, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard may have already been decided,” Dr. Hanania says. (198) It has, and the conservatives did the same thing Dr. Hanania bemoans throughout the book: outlawed racial discrimination, while leaving loopholes that will let colleges keep discriminating by fiddling with racial identity statements and downplaying objective criteria for admission. Outright quotas would be more honest and therefore better.

Dr. Hanania’s assumption that anything can be done has therefore already taken a major hit; the conservative legal movement has already blown a priceless opportunity. Bureaucrats, activists, and institutions must be given no loopholes. The Origins of Woke amply shows why we can’t trust in their good faith or reasonableness.

Stopping highly motivated small groups who get large subsidies extracted from an easily distracted and ignorant population is a big problem for a democracy, even if it’s racially homogenous. Race makes things worse. Many non-whites think they are fighting a holy crusade against “racism” while whites, at best, are making a vague stand for individualism. An overall collapse in living standards doesn’t mean there will automatically be a successful reaction — Venezuela, Zimbabwe, and South Africa are proof of that. Sometimes things just fall apart and stay that way. Wokeness could grow to the point that it chokes the whole economy. Dr. Hanania himself once suggested a “strongman” might be a way out of the mess because “liberals always win,” but this also has costs and we don’t have a strongman. Dr. Hanania now emphasizes his support for liberal democracy and insists the system offers a path to victory for conservatives, who, he argues, actually have been winning on guns, homeschooling, and other issues.

“Wokeness” may be different. The question is whether conservatives really want to win on this issue, at least enough to withstand furious opposition from a campaign to roll back so-called “civil rights.” Gun owners and homeschoolers are more committed than the average person who wants to ban guns or homeschooling. With wokeness, it’s the reverse. The fight against it is a struggle for free speech, freedom of association, economic freedom, and the marketplace of ideas. Unfortunately, the media will never frame it that way and those who benefit from it will never surrender. White advocates have yet to find conservative leaders with the will to carry out policy changes. Defeating identity politics may require a countervailing movement of white identity politics.

Such a solution is unlikely to satisfy Dr. Hanania and he probably thinks it’s extreme and unnecessary. I hope he’s right and I’m wrong. The Origins of Woke may be best seen as a guide not to white advocates or even conservatives, but to liberals. It is an off-ramp for moderates who want to consolidate the civil rights revolution while reigning in wokeness before it generates a backlash in which white identitarians claim power. Rather than trying to cancel Dr. Hanania, they’d be wise to take his advice. If they don’t, we can take The Origins of Woke as a guide for where to begin, but certainly not where to end.

My Correspondents Say Chinese Darien Gap Immivaders Better Than Other Illegals. I Say: SO WHAT?

In the various correspondence I have received after posting THEY’RE COMING! One Billion-Plus Chinese “Economic Migrants” Now Know About The Darien Gap, a recurrent theme has been that the Chinese will make far better neighbors than most of the other newcomers. (The Darien Gap is between Colombia and Panama, and economic ”migrants” use it as a path northward, because no one is stopping them.)

Negative remarks about the capabilities of black and Muslim immigrants were common. There does not even seem to be much enthusiasm for Hispanics.

I had already dealt with this in my article:

Americans have a generally favorable impression of Chinese immigrants. But they bring serious faults. Despite high average intelligence and several thousand years of civilization, China has never been able to develop a political system other than despotism, scarcely ever benign. And, as I discussed in Kirkegaard Shows The Chinese Outliers In Dishonesty—U.S. Relationship, Immigration Policy Must Be Reassessed, the Chinese appear to have serious moral flaws by Western standards, including, in regions such as Fujian, a chilling willingness to sell their children into prostitution.

Of course, overall, I agree with my correspondents. (What a country this would have been if the Southern planters had been able to bring in Chinese indentured labor rather than African slaves!)

But this is not the issue. The issue is: If tens of millions of Chinese arrive, will this still be America? And how will the newcomers treat this country and its institutions?

This crucial question was lucidly explored for us back in 2004 in one of Kevin MacDonald’s greatest VDARE.com essays: Was the 1924 Immigration Cut-off ”Racist”?

This discussed the motivation of the 1924 Immigration Act. This legislation, in my opinion the greatest act of American statesmanship since the Declaration of Independence, caused a 40-year virtual moratorium on immigration. Not coincidently there followed an unprecedented rise in the standard of living among working- and middle-class Americans. The excessive immigration of the previous 40 years was largely assimilated.

Patriots had worked diligently for over a generation to achieve this. James Fulford supplied a convenient timeline here as part of a fuller discussion. John Derbyshire recently reprised the matter in Celebrating Calvin Coolidge: The Man Who Signed the 1924 Immigration Act.


See also VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow’s 1995 book Alien Nation, Chapter 2.

MacDonald pointed out that this Act was fundamentally defensive.

After disproving the now academically enshrined smears that the Act’s motivation was White (in those days “Nordic”) Supremacism, MacDonald looks at what the supporters actually said:

Their basic argument was that, while all ethnic groups in the country had legitimate interests in immigration, the interests of the founding groups made restriction imperative.

…The Congressional Record reports Representative William N. Vaile of Colorado, one of the most prominent restrictionists:

“Let us concede, in all fairness that the Czech is a more sturdy laborer…that the Jew is the best businessman in the world, and that the Italian has…a spiritual exaltation and an artistic creative sense which the Nordic rarely attains. Nordics need not be vain about their own qualifications. It behooves them to be humble.

What we do claim is that the northern European and particularly Anglo-Saxons made this country. Oh, yes; the others helped. But… [t]hey came to this country because it was already made as an Anglo-Saxon commonwealth…

It is a good country. It suits us. And what we assert is that we are not going to surrender it to somebody else or allow other people, no matter what their merits, to make it something different.

More importantly, MacDonald points out:

What can be found in the statements of the reformers is actually fear of inferiority. Several representatives from the far West seem to have viewed the Japanese as racially equal or superior, not inferior…

A congressman described the Japanese as

“a relentless and unconquerable competitor of our people wherever he places himself.”

Apparently, many restrictionists, far from feeling they were members of a superior ethnic group, worried that their people could not compete with Japanese and Chinese.

The restrictionists were concerned that immigration of people of other ethnic groups and cultures would ultimately deprive their own people of political and cultural power.

In 1924, of course, there were essentially no Japanese or Chinese in America to influence immigration policy.

So, apart from the permanent and insidious influence of the Cheap Labor Lobby, most of the furious opposition to the Bill was provided by the already large American Jewish community. (This seems always to be the case with immigration.) MacDonald discusses this extensively.

He quotes a rather pathetic appeal:

Representative Scott Leavitt stated quite bluntly that Jews should respect the desire of other Americans to retain the ethnic status quo:

“The instinct for national and race preservation is not one to be condemned… No one should be better able to understand the desire of Americans to keep America American than… [Mr. Sabath], who is leading the attack on this measure, or the gentlemen from New York, Mr. Dickstein, Mr. Jacobstein, Mr. Celler, and Mr. Perlman. They are of the one great historic people who have maintained the identity of their race throughout the centuries because they believe sincerely that they are a chosen people, with certain ideals to maintain, and knowing that the loss of racial identity means a change of ideals.”

A century later, we can see this appeal was ignored.

MacDonald concluded.

It’s time to exculpate the 1924 law—a law that succeeded in its aim of preserving the ethnic status quo for over 40 years.

The law did indeed represent the ethnic self-interest of its proponents—albeit not “racism,” if racism is properly understood as irrational prejudice.

But the anti-restrictionists also had their own ethnic interests at heart.

My answer to those who write telling me that a big Chinese influx will provide lots of respectable neighbors is:

So What?

Any large immivasion means lower wage levels, more housing competition and poorer educational experiences, in the first instance for the working class. With spectacular cold-heartedness, the Democrat Party is ignoring this: NYC Mayor Adams Has Migrant Crisis “Solution”: Attack Living Standards Of N.Y. Working Class.

Beyond that, just as no one would applaud the introduction into their child’s classroom of large quantities of bigger, more developed and more violent black kids, why would anyone welcome the introduction of intelligent and appallingly industrious Chinese children to carry off the academic prizes?

(American Plutocrats, overconfident in their ability to protect their own progeny, scoff at this. Ultimately, when ethnocentrism bites, their descendants will curse them.)

Some of those writing to me take the view that America, and white counties generally, should welcome being overrun and (at least culturally) conquered if the invaders are strong enough to do this.

My reply: Only whites, and no other race, are brainwashed enough to believe this. Holding this view means extinction.

Which I am confident many of those writing to me already know.

Reposted with permission from VDARE.

Email Patrick Cleburne.

Anarcho-Tyranny Rules America

Tou Thao became a Minneapolis police officer because he wanted to serve his community. And now this brave, conscientious, and honorable man is facing almost five years in prison for doing just that. Why? Because he was on duty at the scene of George Floyd’s death, and he worked to calm and hold back a crowd of rabble-rousers, who either had no idea what was really happening or simply didn’t care.

Thao helped prevent a deadly riot that day. For his reward, he’s now going to spend half a decade in prison. At his sentencing, when the judge asked him if he had anything to say, Thao humbly stated that he had done nothing wrong, his conscience was clear, and he refused to pretend otherwise. It’s rare to see someone who has been railroaded by a kangaroo court in the name of “diversity” refuse to grovel, and Thao should be congratulated for his courage.

Tou Thao, Derek Chauvin, and the two other Minneapolis officers at the scene that day are no doubt feeling stunned and incredulous. They served their city faithfully on May 25, 2020, by protecting it from a drugged and out-of-control criminal who was a clear and present danger to the community, and who repeatedly refused to stop forcibly resisting arrest. None of the officers did anything wrong, and now they are in prison, Chauvin possibly for the rest of his life. Each of them probably spends much of each day wondering, “What in the world happened to the country I love?”

To answer that question, they should turn to the writings of the late Sam Francis, one of America’s greatest political philosophers. Sam Francis not only predicted that this would happen, but he also even created a word for it—anarcho-tyranny. Because he saw things so clearly and spoke the truth so prophetically, Francis was a threat to the “conservative” establishment, and he was fired from his job as a columnist after Dinesh D’Souza called him a “racist.”

Instead of shunning him and ruining his life, conservatives should have listened to Sam Francis, because we are now living in the nightmare he predicted all those years ago—an America in the grip of anarcho-tyranny. Anarcho-tyranny is a state of affairs where the government lets violent criminals run amok, while at the same time making life hell for decent citizens, by cracking down on minor infractions, criminalizing certain kinds of thought and speech, and severely punishing those who have the nerve to defend themselves or their community.

Anarcho-tyranny is here, and it’s getting worse all the time. You’ve seen countless videos of large gangs of Blacks storming everything from convenience stores to luxury retailers, grabbing as much as they can and fleeing. Just recently a gang of two dozen stole $300,000 worth of goods from the Yves St. Laurent store in Glendale, California.

On the rare occasions these thieves are caught, it usually turns out they have a long criminal record, but the authorities have gone easy on them in the name of “racial justice.” Many of these thefts would never have happened were it not for the fact that police officers all over America are increasingly hesitant to interact with Black suspects for fear of being accused of racial profiling, and even winding up behind bars for “police brutality.”

You’ve heard of many of these cases, but have you heard about Ed French? He was a 71-year-old White photographer who was shot in cold blood by a Black couple in San Francisco in 2017. Both killers had long criminal records, even though they were only 19 and 20. The killing was caught on surveillance camera, and the woman confessed to shooting him, but in May of this year, a racially diverse jury refused to convict her of murder. But you can just bet that if Ed French had had some awareness that the pair was getting ready to rob him and used a gun to defend himself, he would now be getting the McMichaels treatment (one of the most blatant examples of anarcho-tyranny ever).

It gets worse. On August 10, 2017, a 77-year-old White man, Ernest Martin Stevens, was sitting in his truck in a parking lot near his home in Hardeeville, South Carolina. A Black man, 28-year-old Devon Dontray Dunham, approached him and demanded that the elderly man “give him a ride.” Unarmed, and rightly fearing that he was about to be carjacked, Stevens started to drive away.

Dunham, angry at not getting a ride, shot into the truck eight times with his 9-millimeter gun, killing Stevens. Two years ago, Dunham went on trial for the murder. He had confessed to the shooting, and eyewitnesses to the killing testified against him. Incredibly, Dunham was acquitted of all charges after the jury deliberated for only two hours.

In 2017, in the same city where Tou Thao was just sentenced, a Black police officer, Mohamed Noor, shot an unarmed White woman to death for simply approaching his car. Her name was Justine Damond, and she was only 40 years old. In 2019, Noor was convicted of third-degree murder and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

But in September 2021, after a year and a half of riots and protests and demands for “racial justice,” the Minnesota Supreme Court tossed his murder conviction, changing it to second-degree manslaughter. Noor was released from prison in June 2022. He spent three years in prison for killing an unarmed White woman, while Thao got almost five years for trying to maintain order and protect the citizens of Minneapolis, and he never even touched George Floyd.

Also in Minnesota, this time in Rochester, is another horrific case of anarcho-tyranny that every American needs to know about. On January 30 of this year, Mohamed Bakari Shei was sentenced for repeatedly raping two children—one was four years old, and the other was nine years old. In a sane society, these unspeakable acts would merit the death penalty. But Shei didn’t get the death penalty—he got six months in the county jail, probation, and community service.

Last year, when two Black gangs fired dozens of shots at each other in a quiet neighborhood in broad daylight, the Black Chicago prosecutor declined to press charges, calling it “mutual combat.” As you read this, young veteran Daniel Penny is facing 15 years in prison after he restrained a raving, hostile lunatic on a New York City subway car who was screaming at people and saying he felt like killing somebody. Meanwhile, New York City is paying $13 million, an average of $10,000 each, to people who were arrested for rioting in the destructive and violent protests following the death of George Floyd.

I could go on.

We are living in dark times. The powers that be in America have essentially given violent criminals the message that they can pretty much do as they please, and if any of us have the temerity to try to defend ourselves, or our community, we are likely to spend at least several years in prison.

With each passing day the situation gets worse, and every week brings new horror stories. Sam Francis tried to warn us, but America didn’t listen, and now good and brave men like Tou Thao, the McMichaels, and scores of others are being sacrificed to the cult of diversity. May God bless these men, and may He give us the courage to rise up and destroy anarcho-tyranny and restore the nation that once was.

James Edwards hosts The Political Cesspool Radio Program

Black people and morality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[18] Ibid., p. 95.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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