Featured Articles

Condition Red: Your Visual Displacement is Now Complete

Editor’s note: This is a 2-part article. The link to the second part is at the bottom of this one.

Understandably, at this point in time after the 2020 elections, many observers are laser focused on the struggle for the Presidency between the incumbent and the cadaver. Accounts of voter fraud are mildly interesting, but observers are, in my view, missing the larger and far more important story: The race war against Whites has reached a new level, yet many people who shouldn’t be are distracted by the details of day-to-day politics, much to our collective peril. Today I will try to remedy this by using a method falling between essay writing and a video: I will use a photo essay to represent what is being done to the White race in real time. This will be ugly.

In essence, I will use my academic background to show why images are important in a struggle for existence and power, and how those images are used by a certain group to weaken the White race.
Over a decade ago, I began on this site an examination of the changing representations of who we Americans are. As part of that, I introduced academic texts that — to be honest — accurately showed “the deep-rooted stereotypes which have fueled anti-black prejudice” and buttressed White dominance, which is not really surprising given that Whites comprised roughly 90% of America’s population (and all of the elite) for the entirety of European settlement in the lands that were to become The United States. Breathlessly, we read in grad school books such as Ceramic Uncles & Celluloid Mammies: Black Images and Their Influence on Culture and White on Black: Images of Africa and Blacks in Western Popular Culture that dutifully convicted the American majority of racism. In short, all such accounts concluded: “White Man Bad.”

Not surprisingly, during this period of shift from written to visual culture, professors poured out non-written texts such as oral histories and film, giving us budding academics more ways to cement that overweening verdict: “White Man Bad.” Thus, in more than one graduate class, we were treated to multiple showings of documentaries such as Ethnic Notions, which promised:
Through these images we can begin to understand the evolution of racial consciousness in America. Loyal Toms, carefree Sambos, faithful Mammies, grinning Coons, savage Brutes, and wide-eyed Pickaninnies roll across the screen in cartoons, feature films, popular songs, minstrel shows, advertisements, folklore, household artifacts, even children’s rhymes. These dehumanizing caricatures permeated popular culture from the 1820s to the Civil Rights period and implanted themselves deep in the American psyche.

This focus on African Americans soon gave way to a growing range of “lament” groups who clamored to give their own version of “White Man Bad,” resulting in, for instance, studies of Asian Americans. In 1988, for example came Slaying the Dragon, which offered a “comprehensive look at Hollywood’s treatment of Asian and Asian American women since the silent era.” Or consider Picturing Oriental Girls: A [Re]Educational Videotape, an excursion through film, television and more providing a “text from ‘mail-order bride’ catalogs and men’s magazines, clips from over 25 films and television programs [that] explicate the orientalism and exoticism prevalent in mass media images of Asian American women.” Here the White Man is Bad for creating the sexual objectification of Asian women in Hollywood films and film’s successor, television. Of course, we savvy TOO comrades know, the location of film production in America should be written as (((Hollywood))), a point to which we shall steadfastly turn below.

Very quickly during those propaganda sessions, I tried a two-pronged approach upon experiencing this onslaught against a Nice White Guy like myself. First, I appropriated those analytical tools to show how the tide had been turning against Whites in visual realms since at least the 1970s, and second, I pointed out that those creating this growing stable of less-than-positive portrayals of White men were not exactly White themselves. Rather, they came from that “Culture of Critique” crowd that had been assaulting White civilization for centuries.

Swiftly, however, I was informed that these new academic tools were not to be used by White men, for we had already an abundant basket of privileges that would never expire. Further, I was informed in ways ranging from implicit to explicit that no longer would straight White men like me work again in the academy, the prophetic results of which you can see in almost any American university today.
Mine was a mighty battle just to slink out of grad school with an actual Ph.D. in hand, and sadly, I watched this Cultural Marxism seep out like an unappetizing poison throughout the wider culture, year after year … after year. Off in some forgotten corner of the globe, I was able to craft university lessons about this ominous development and have shared the fruits of my efforts here on TOO and in TOQ, so I have continuously been attuned to how imagery has been used in the Great Racial Battle Against Whites. Reader, the situation is extremely dire, as I will unenthusiastically show below.

It is not surprising that my approach has well matched the overall intent and direction of our editor Kevin MacDonald’s vision, for I was taking the written evidence from The Culture of Critique and extending it to film and other popular culture. The package may differ, but the weaponized content is the same. By the way, the term “critique” is far too polite; in actual fact it is unbridled warfare.
MacDonald has been tireless in addressing this topic on TOO, also encouraging many of us contributors to share our own expertise on the subject, much of which can be found on the site under Jews as a Hostile Elite, one of the most numerous categories available on TOO. MacDonald has consistently argued that Jewish activism has been in opposition to White civilization, with the awful year of 2020 and its events right up to the currently contested election. This development, MacDonald tells us, is about “removing the traditional culture of America, and … removing Whites from the center of the American story. It is about replacement — first the monuments and the culture, then the people.”
In perhaps more boisterous form than Prof. MacDonald’s dispassionate writing, I’ve contributed countless TOO articles with this theme, practically from the beginning. For instance, as far back as mid-2008, I wrote, “Hollywood, it seems, has not favored us [Whites] over the last half century or so. Either they supplant favorable White images with favorable images of African Americans and more recent Americans such as Jews. Or they create images of Whites that are far more negative than typical of the first half of Hollywood’s existence. Why the change?”

Of course the vast majority of TOO readers understand the reasons for this change, but here my point is that I’ve consistently been warning our Tribe that we face a clear and present danger, literally one over our very existence. Though toning it down a bit, I concluded, “Speaking only for myself, I fear that such fictional images of the dispossession of white males signal a real desire on the part of some segments of society to dispossess White males in real life. What then will future films look like when in fact the majority has been eclipsed?”

Ominously, we are now seeing far more of that dismal future.

Since 2008, I’ve continued my emphasis on leading visual trends in America more generally regarding the proper race of “Americans.” In short, it’s been very bad for White males. Should we graph the number of affirmative portrayals of White men, the graph would point ever downward, while negative portrayals would steadily trend upward.

Take, for example, the direction ads have gone. In the first decade of this century, Microsoft, which didn’t need to advertise to make more money, began a series of ads in The Atlantic and elsewhere that airbrushed White males out of the picture entirely. The caption below reads “We see a rocket scientist,” and in the center of the two-page spread is a black youth as the future rocket scientist. Around him are an Asian boy, a presumably Hispanic boy, a mulatto girl, and two White girls. Real White male rocket scientists and astronauts need not apply.

Microsoft ad: “We see a rocket scientist” (I don’t)

I

Microsoft was not the only large tech company featuring ads sans White males. In The Atlantic again we see Lockheed Martin spurning the overwhelming majority of its past and present engineers with this absurd dream for its future:

Lockheed Martin ad featuring non-White female aerospace designers

In what alternate universe would this financially benefit Lockheed Martin or provide technically superior products? None, I tell you. This is being done for completely other reasons, which I intend to explore more fully in this essay.

Similar impact no doubt comes from a constant theme Hollywood has been pushing for decades now: that of “The Numinous Negro,” initially enlisting Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington as such negroes. The word “numinous” is a Roman term for “the presiding divinity . . . of a place.” It also means “spiritually elevated.” Accordingly, “the Numinous Negro presides over America …” If there’s any consistent theme I’ve emphasized in my Hollywood writing, it is this, and readers can find explicit unpacking of the many films of both Freeman and Washington, here and here, respectively. (For later parsing of Washington films, see here and here I & II.)

What Hollywood accomplishes by blatantly using these two Black actors is a race reversal through visual sleight of hand. In short, the characters played by Freeman and Washington are full of agency and morality (most of the time), while the White males are either evil or mentored by the older Blacks. The meme: Blacks in America are naturally more powerful and moral, quite in contrast to reality. (For a fully academic treatment of these topics, see my TOQ article “Understanding Hollywood: Racial Role Reversals.”)

Why this propagandistic trend? Essentially, the facts show, it has to do with the “Culture of Critique” ethnic group that has amassed unrivaled power in the modern West. One arm of that power, of course, is Hollywood, which writer Neal Gabler correctly described as Jews’ “Empire of Their Own.” With respect to blacks and Hollywood, Kevin MacDonald demonstrated in his 2007 collection Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence, and Anti-Semitism, that for Jews, “making alliances with other minority groups has been a critically important part” of their effort to unseat Majority Whites as primary power holders in America. (See in particular Chapter 6, “Jews, Blacks, and Race.”)

Blacks, in reality, have been used as foot soldiers in a war on Whites. Again, the TOO audiences knows this, but much to my amazement and concern, as the George Floyd and other riots (“mostly peaceful,” of course) raged across America in the spring and summer of 2020, some Dissident Right sites inexplicably described these developments as a result of Black agency when there was overwhelming evidence that these were top-down events promoted and enabled by our hostile elite standing aside as arrests weren’t made, or if they were, the arrestees were immediately released without bail.

Returning to the contention that media is creating a picture of America that in no way reflects reality, I again offer a 2009 skit from The Daily Show With John Stewart [Leibowitz], coming right after Obama assumed office. Called White in America—the Children, it flaunted the dismal truth that Whites’ days as majority Americans were numbered. Stewart opened the skit by announcing that “President Obama was elected on a message of change. But is that change good for everyone?” Light-skinned Black Larry Wilmore adopted the role of reporter, introducing one set of Americans at risk: “There is one group of Americans who are now facing the biggest challenge in their history: White people.”

This “once proud race” faces dispossession at the hands of Blacks, Asians “and most rapidly, Latinos” (the transition being represented in the skit by White minivans being replaced by Black cars, Asian motorcycles and low-rider Mexican American cars). In a faux-serious interview, Wilmore faces a group of eight White children and tries to make them understand that their future is bleak. The children — brainwashed already by a steady diet of multiculturalism — are not only in denial about their prospects, they positively welcome the coming change. Talk about rubbing our noses in deliberate extirpation.
Again, some Whites do see and acknowledge this war on Whites. For example, American Renaissance ran a good article about a woman who experienced this through raising her son. In Motherhood Changed the Way I See Race she wrote:

Over the past 20 years I have raised the most reviled creature on the planet — a healthy white male, my son.
It was only after he was born that I began to fully notice the relentless propaganda of the mainstream media, and how it promotes miscegenation and presents men like my son as bumbling weak fools. I saw how our people’s history is appropriated and manipulated in arts and entertainment, and how our nation’s heroes are twisted and discredited — their monuments torn down and replaced. I’ve shopped for children’s books and been unable to find one with a protagonist who was a positive example of a white male. I’ve filled out countless college and scholarship applications only to find that opportunities for white males are reduced or blocked entirely — regardless of his good grades and impressive test scores. Each one of these things, combined with my experiences at work, pushed me toward the truth about which race is truly disenfranchised and oppressed in our country. It was a realization that fully awoke the protective mothering instincts inside me.

And with that, the ground is set for a visual exploration of what America has come to digitally like during the reign of Donald Trump since 2017.

“Condition Red: Your Visual Displacement is Complete”

Three years ago, one of the best commenters on TOO articles, Franklin Ryckaert, provided a heart-stopping account of what was visually being done to the White race. Introduced by former TOO contributor Lasha Darkmoon, it came with the blunt title of “White Genocide by Design: The Role of the Mass Media in the Destruction of the European People” and featured this incredibly unsettling picture:

IS THIS THE FUTURE?

Darkmoon begin her introduction with a quote from the essay:

Miscegenation cannot be commanded, but it can be promoted. Depriving Whites of the possibility to be among themselves in terms of residence, study, work and recreation is one thing. Suggesting miscegenation in films, TV series and commercials is another thing. There is nowadays hardly any form of media that is not full of this race-mixing propaganda, mostly in subliminal form, and it is the Jews who control the media.

There, in the second half of the above quote (emphasis added), can be found a large portion of the message in the present photo essay. None of it can be denied.

Reasons for Reluctance
In contrast to my productivity with TOO articles in years past, I sat on this photo essay for nearly a year, weighed down by two things. First, other worthy writers have aptly addressed this obvious trend — and being so obvious, it seemed unnecessary to repeat. Second, this is an unusually depressing reality with which we are facing, and Lord knows we on the Dissident Right have been producing copious amounts of depressing written and spoken words for decades, further demoralizing ourselves and giving succor to our racial enemies. Because I’m as guilty of that as any other writer, I was reluctant to continue in the same vein. In the end, however, I felt the mendacious narrative must be shown.

Thus far, I’ve assumed TOO readers have been in agreement with me about the larger interpretation of Jewish power, but I’m not sure how widespread is the conclusion that an important change in Jewish-Gentile relations came about after WWII. On the whole, I concur with Ryckaert’s assertions here:
Because it was mostly European countries that expelled them, the Jews came to consider Europeans as their greatest enemies.

After WWII and the intense Holocaust propaganda it brought in its wake … the organized Jewish community became convinced that Europeans were a threat to them as a race and that they should therefore be neutralized as a race; in other words, that GENOCIDE of the European people, now better known as “White genocide”, would be the “final solution” to the European problem.

But how could a small ethnic group of only 15 million people like the Jews exterminate ONE BILLION people of European descent spread out all over the world ? The Jews came to the conclusion that it would be possible to neutralize Europeans racially, not by physically exterminating them, but by causing them to mix with other races, thus losing their racial characteristics for good….

The real purpose of these productions is not to sell goods or to entertain, but to promote the inglorious end of the white race through miscegenation, dispossession and race war.

Two More Images from Ryckaert’s Essay:

In addition to Ryckaert’s essay, there are many other sources addressing this trend. Years ago, I remember a flurry of articles about how the advertising industry worked so hard to picture mixed couples — and the articles went on to show that advertising in North America and Europe was overwhelmingly a Jewish preserve. That knowledge is so common that I won’t even bother to cite it here.

More recently, we still find accounts of how miscegenation is portrayed in advertising. Take this truly despicable image for example:

How old is this girl? Fifteen? She can’t be his daughter. One is left to think that he is preying on her shamelessly. One can only imagine what kind of father she has (if any).

Another example comes with Thomas Goodrich, writing on the National Vanguard site, who correctly puts this image into context, explaining that “Jewish enablers have been pushing White genocide via replacement with hordes of darks flooding the Euro nations of earth. Now, while this program has been in place since the end of WWII, Jews are currently ramping up their attacks against Whites in advertising. Just as with population replacement, the end game of Jewish advertising is also nothing less than our extermination.”

The same photo is also used by a liberal source, “Inside the Biracial Advertising Boom” to celebrate the direction White nations are taking. While the writer is too stupid to understand the long-term implications of this practice, we White Nationalists can still learn what these advertising images are really peddling.

For a more in-depth treatment of this unwelcome trend, see Richard Houck’s 4,000-word article, “The War Against Whites in Advertising.” He begins by writing:

The mass-marketing of interracial relationships, particularly white women with black men, has become so ubiquitous and so militant, even the least observant members of our culture have begun to notice. Walking through a mall recently I noticed three large marketing images of couples in three different stores. Two of the three were interracial couples, depicting a white woman and black man; the third couple was white. Perhaps what struck me as most peculiar was the fact that the city where I was shopping, whites make up about 97% of the population, blacks are less than 2%.

Methodically, Houck lays out the case against White women breeding with Blacks.

Currently, 70% of black children are born out of wedlock, however when the mother is white and the father black, the rate jumps to 97%. 98% of white mothers studied reported the father does not support their children financially, 97% report the father is not in the child’s life, and 97% of the women have used welfare to help support themselves and their children. Only 10% of women that have children with black men out of wedlock end up marrying. … White women are displayed with non-white men not to sell items, but as a tactic of psychological warfare against our civilization.

And Houck shows that he sees the Jews behind this genocidal campaign and what their aim is. Here, contemplate this “ad,” then realize it was created out of pure hate for Whites:

(Since only about nine people under the age of forty are ever going to read more than a few paragraphs of anything, direct them to this more visual video format of Houck’s work. This will surely shake things up around the clan dinner table at Thanksgiving and Christmas.)

This expose was so good that readers of the article offered further examples and clamored for more documentation of the literal war on the White race. You can find the results in Houck’s follow-up article (with video) here. This “War on Whites in Advertising: A Follow-Up” is also extremely well done, though highly disturbing — and infuriating, opening as it does with this vile image from an advertising video:


This turned out to be one of the rare cases where a completed ad was rejected for public consumption, but the point is, someone thought it important enough to do. In his research into the ad, Houck found that the ad “depicts a white, blonde woman on her knees in front of a black man, and we hear her thinking, ‘I could really go for a Sprite right now’ as she performs oral sex on him, and at the end she has Sprite foam sprayed all over her face while she thinks, ‘I love Sprite!’”

Not at all to my surprise, I found a Usual Suspect behind this ad. As Houck writes, this ad “goes much deeper into the woods. The Huffington Post article that discussed the ad mentioned that the name of the producer and director was Max Isaacson . . . Isaacson? Interesting last name.”

Even though no network picked up this race-mixing video, it still had a considerable impact, as Houck shows. “This particular spec ad hit over a million views within days after first being published online, and has since been viewed millions more times as it has been re-uploaded and shared on social media and Websites.”

From Race Mixing to Race Nixing
Images of racial mixing are one thing, but my true emphasis here is on the next stage: full-on replacement of White males (and I need only point out briefly that once actual White males have been eliminated in the real world, White women will surely follow them into oblivion in a generation).

White males, as noted, are symbolically eliminated when statues of White men are removed or destroyed, as they have been since the 2017 protests over such statues in Charlottesville, Virginia. Long before that, however, we had to deal with universities routinely downgrading creations of White males and replacing them with the concoctions of women and non-Whites, you know, “The Eternally Oppressed,” resulting in removal of “Dead White Males” from university canons. Even before that, we had the tremendous power of the American government itself hobbling millions of White males in their honest quest to compete fairly for careers and employment, despite the fact they had personally committed no crimes or infractions themselves other than being White. Out with the old, in with the new, I guess is the general shallow thinking.

I’ve grown up with this over the decades, and, as mentioned, have studied the trends in depth. Still, beginning late last year (2019), I was stunned at the audacity of our advertising image creators to take the blatant step of doing away with White males altogether. Poof! Gone. And this was well before the anti-White riots ramped up in late May upon the death of George Floyd, immediately anointed a SAINT by the liberal media.

There is no way — ever — that I am going to believe that this was a coincidence. No, it was far too meticulously coordinated to be that. For advertisements without White males to be scripted and created takes time, meaning this was done in early 2019 at the latest. Then came the spring and summer riots enabled by You-Know-Who.

Part of this coordinated visual assault was superbly chronicled right here on TOO this summer, with Jack Antonio’s article “Fade to Black,” the subtitle of which reads, “The darkening of our screens and stages and its part in the theft of our past and future.” Written by a White male with a front-row seat to the systemic displacement of White males, it is an absolute must-read for the TOO audience, our relatives, friends and neighbors. While mostly writing about the British stage, this actor could just as easily be describing the scene in America.

Not Wakanda but Merrie Olde England

 

Based on his long experience, Antonio can confidently write that “I know the world of advertising and show business. And I know how, why, and (((by whom))) our screens are being darkened, I am being denied work, and our past and future are being stolen from us” [lovely parentheses added].
Antonio ends his article on the replacement of White males with this: “If you don’t believe me, just go to a movie or play. Turn on your radio or TV. Or, just open your eyes. It’s happening. It isn’t a sitcom or movie. It’s real. It’s deliberate.” But of course it is.

Trust Your Eyes
Now that I’ve set the stage, so to speak, I’ll commence with images from ads over the last year. I didn’t have to look for them; instead, they all came up on my screen through the normal use of my computer. You know, check your bank balance, your car insurance premiums, your healthcare provider — across the board the following are pictures I’ve seen every single time I fire up the computer, tablet or iPhone. An e-mail message arrives from the airline I use, and the pampered passenger is a black man. Or all the promotions offered this week from my supermarket feature non-Whites and women. It is pervasive. Go check ads from any big corporation. Like clockwork, all their ads show blacks, women, browns — but no White men. You know this is true because you’ve experienced this month after month — after month. Admit it.

Like Mr. Antonio, I know what is happening, why and how. This could come straight from the pages of Jacques Ellul’s classic “Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes.” One of Ellul’s greatest insights concerns the need for repetition of the propaganda message. At first, it takes great effort to sway men from their set thinking, but, in Ellul’s words,

once the individual has been filled with and reshaped by propaganda, the smallest dose now suffices. It is enough to ‘refresh,’ to give a ‘booster shot,’ to repaint, and the individual behaves in striking fashion — like certain drunks who become intoxicated on one glass of wine. The individual no longer offers any resistance to propaganda; moreover, he has ceased to believe in it consciously. He no longer attaches importance to what it says, to its proclaimed objectives, but he acts according to the proper stimuli. The individual is arrested and crystallized with regard to his thinking.

Perhaps, on second thought, this quote is not exactly what I wanted, for I am no longer talking about “booster shots”; instead I am talking about non-stop salvos from hundreds of siege guns. The fact remains, however, men’s — and importantly now, women’s — minds have been formed by this media onslaught. And with that, I offer an endless display of the world an American now sees on the computer or other screen.

Let’s start with the most common character I’ve seen for twelve months running: The media-created “Peppy Mulatto.” Here she is:

Or here:

Or here, a bit older:

She’s everywhere, really. Younger versions frolicking on a suburban lawn, late teens at an Ivy League university, any of the above women greeting you from Exxon-Mobil. The bigger point is, however, Blacks of all hues have replaced Whites, unless we’re dealing with a mixed-race situation. Let’s say you want to log on to Yahoo Mail. Here’s what Yahoo forces you to see these Africans:

Next, let’s say you have a health plan at, for example, Kaiser Permanente. What are you bombarded with? This:

And who receives and provides the healthcare? People like this:

Don’t like Kaiser? Then try, say, Banner Health:

Or another health-related website:

You know it’s true. Whatever healthcare provider you use, whatever hospital lobby you walk into, all the screens and posters will show blacks, browns, and women even if you live in the Whitest Whitopia in America. Let’s move on.

Tax time? Go to H&R Block:

Shopping online? This:

Or these two examples:

(Asians pop up from time to time, too)

Continuing, we all have credit cards — Visa, MasterCard, whatever. Should you use an American Express card, you will be a visual slave to this:

Editor’s note: The rest of Edmund Connelly’s very ambitious and thorough article may be accessed here.

NFL Incentivizes Anti-White Racism

Entertainment only exists for the purpose of a leisurely distraction.  The health of a society determines the aura of the distraction. If the society sucks, the distraction will follow suit. Leisurely distractions are typically going to be primitive in nature. Meaning, the distraction becomes a degenerative microcosm of the very society that the distractions are used as a catalyst to escape.

One of the primary forms of entertainment for the better part of the last 50 years has been sports. Sports have largely been apolitical and secular. Which is ultimately what makes them a distraction, and therefore “entertaining.”

The distraction should ideally be somewhat entertaining if it hopes to be a legitimate escape from the social pressures within the status quo. The more depressing the existence, the more depressing the distraction needs to be. One doesn’t need to be a big brain rationalist to conclude how bad reality sucks in a society where the preeminent distractions are the choice between drinking fermented grains while watching Black men run with a ball, or depleting your endorphins with a mind-numbing cocktail of pharmaceuticals and porn.

One would assume that if your society sucked to the point that your primary source of escapism was to get inebriated and either watch Black men run with a ball, or watch women get gangbanged, that the social engineers would be content to let you fester in your misery. But, that’s where you’d be wrong.

Recently, the architects of entertainment have decided that you shouldn’t be allowed to be distracted from divisive “social justice” issues. If the millionaires running with the ball are disproportionately Black (NFL is 70% Black) that’s fine. But if the coaches are disproportionately White (75% of NFL coaches are White), that’s just not acceptable.

So, how do they correct this miscarriage of social justice? Well, by incentivizing NFL teams to hire non-White coaches, of course:

A new plan to incentivize NFL teams to develop and hire minority candidates for head-coaching and general manager positions has not been met with the enthusiasm by the people it is supposed to help.

Multiple sources who are people of color told ESPN in recent days that there are, at best, mixed feelings about a plan approved this past week that will award two third-round compensatory draft picks to teams that have minority head coaches or general managers hired away from their organizations.

Aside from the obvious—the NFL partaking in explicit anti-White discrimination, let’s rationalize the NFL’s “plan” from a layman’s perspective: The goal of all NFL teams is winning. These teams have no problem drafting Black players and paying them millions of dollars to run really fast with a ball. I mean, do you think that anyone who has any clout within an NFL organization has ever said: “Nope, we can’t draft that guy. He’s really fast and would probably help us win, but his skin is just too dark. Let’s draft the slower White guy instead.” That would just be absurd, considering the demographics of the NFL. If you have a strong dislike for Black skin, then you probably wouldn’t be interested in professional football to begin with.

Therefore, if there’s no issue with paying Black players millions of dollars to help the team win, why wouldn’t the same be said of coaches and managers? If a team were to conclude that a coach with Black skin was the coach they thought would help the team win a championship, why wouldn’t they hire him? Or even her for that matter? The rationalization that there are all of these brilliant non-White coaches who don’t get hired cause their skin isn’t White is beyond the pale. In fact, even the people this is supposed to benefit are skeptical:

For starters, these sources were not pleased that many were not consulted about the plan and that it was passed swiftly, without any advance notice. These sources also did not approve of other people speaking for them when they were unable to provide input as to how the program would work.

“This will affect all of us, and we wanted to be involved in the process,” one source said over the weekend. “We don’t know whether it’s lip service or real, and we just want to be judged on our own merits.”

One would think that discrimination would be futile in a meritocracy. From the standpoint of, how does one moralize merit? Nobody seems to have an issue with the disproportionate percentage of Black players in the NFL. Normal people just conclude, “Ok, Blacks are just better cornerbacks and wide receivers. It is what it is.” So, why not the same attitude when it comes to coaches and management? Or, even ownership? Nobody seems to have an issue with roughly 30% of NFL teams (10) having a Jewish owner, even though there are only seven Jewish players in the NFL. Why is that? Maybe I’m missing something, but it appears that it’s only an issue if there are too many White people. Because, as far as I can tell, if there are too many Blacks, that’s a strength! Too many Jews, well, only an anti-Semite would even think such a thing. But, for some hypocritical reason, if there are too many Whites, that’s like the worst thing ever. And there immediately has to be regulations imposed to eradicate any statistical anomaly that could be misconstrued as advantageous to Whiteness.

It’s almost as if the social engineers of society are these anti-White sadists who are subliminally chanting: “We want the essence of White existence to be so nihilistic that even the distractions from their demographic demise are humiliating.”

If that all sounds like White fragility, that’s because that’s what it is. Except, White people aren’t allowed to be emotionally fragile when their feelings get hurt. Or when they are systemically discriminated against because of their lack of skin color. Only non-Whites are afforded those privileges. White people just have to suck it up accept and the fact that life isn’t fair. And that equality is anti-White.

 

Much Worse than Rotherham: How British Politicians, Police and Feminists Are Guilty of Systemic Rapism

In the year 2000, the small Yorkshire town of Rotherham was little-known in Britain, let alone overseas. In 2020, Rotherham is infamous around the world as a place where Pakistani rape-gangs have been raping, prostituting and murdering working-class White girls for decades. Meanwhile, the staunchly socialist and fiercely feminist Labour council and Labour MP, Denis MacShane, helped the rapists by either ignoring their crimes or actively suppressing news of what was going on.

Piranha-enrichment programmes

In other words, Rotherham was the scene of systemic rapism, that is, of systemic collusion by politicians, police and feminists in an engrained Pakistani culture of rape and misogyny. But although the Rotherham rape-gangs are now world-infamous, a very important question about their activities has barely been asked by the British media. To see what that question is, let’s look at a simple allegory that even leftists should be able to understand. Suppose that next week a British journalist comes across a small lake in Yorkshire called Rotherpool and discovers that left-wing ecologists began enriching it in the 1950s by introducing piranhas to its boringly bland waters. Anyone who objected to the piranha-enrichment on behalf of native fish was accused of vile speciesism and sternly lectured that all fish are the same under the scales.

Fish are all the same under the scales: some piranha teeth

The journalist investigates further and discovers that, sure enough, the piranhas have been preying savagely on native fish right since their introduction. Meanwhile, left-wing ecologists and fish-wardens helped the piranhas by either ignoring their predation or actively suppressing news of what was going on. The journalist does his job, informs the British public, and a scandal erupts about the ecological disaster visited on Rotherpool. But that isn’t the end of the scandal. There are much bigger lakes elsewhere in Yorkshire: Sheffmere, Bradwater and Lake Leeds. The journalist and his colleagues naturally investigate whether piranha-enrichment has been going on there too. Indeed it has and the journalists discover that even bigger ecological disasters have taken place in those bigger lakes — and in truly giant lakes elsewhere in Britain.

Pakistani-enrichment programmes

The allegory is ridiculous, of course: leftists would never introduce dangerous alien species like piranhas into British lakes. And they certainly wouldn’t pretend that all fish are the same under the scales and that “species” isn’t a valid scientific concept. Leftists aren’t irrational, stupid and malign people, after all. They don’t want to cause or conceal horrendous unnecessary suffering. At least, they don’t when it comes to important native creatures like fish. But when it comes to unimportant native creatures like the White working-class, leftists are happy to both cause and conceal suffering on an endless and industrial scale.

The point of the allegory should be obvious even to leftists. For “piranhas,” read “Pakistanis.” For “lakes,” read “towns and cities.” It wasn’t just the small town of Rotherham that experienced a Pakistani-enrichment programme. Big cities in Yorkshire like Leeds, Sheffield and Bradford did too. So an obvious — and almost unaddressed — question arises from the Rotherham scandal. If Pakistanis have been behaving so badly in a small town, what have they been doing in big cities nearby? And what have they been doing in even bigger British cities like London, Manchester and Birmingham?

Only Non-White Lives Matter

The British media haven’t been been trying to answer this question, but in fact the answer is already known. The Rotherham scandal was horrific, but much worse things have been happening elsewhere in Britain. Rape-gangs of Pakistanis and other non-Whites have been operating with the complicity not just of supposed feminists in the Labour party but also of the police. Let’s take the big city of Manchester, where a policewoman called Maggie Oliver worked on an investigation into child sex-abuse called Operation Augusta, which began sixteen years ago in 2004. As Maggie Oliver witnessed at first hand, senior officers weren’t serious about ending child sexual abuse. And unlike many thousands of her tough male colleagues who witnessed the same thing both in Manchester and elsewhere, Oliver wasn’t prepared to be complicit in what she calls “gross criminal neglect and misfeasance in public office” by those senior officers.

One Black Life Matters; Countless White Lives Don’t

So she resigned from the Greater Manchester Police, campaigned for the victims, and was instrumental in exposing the so-called Rochdale scandal, in which White working-class girls in the small town of Rochdale had been raped and prostituted by Pakistani men. Nine Pakistanis were convicted, but they represented a new leftist adaptation of an old legal strategy. You’ve heard about specimen charges, selected when a criminal has committed too many offences for a court to deal with speedily and efficiently. The nine Pakistanis in Rochdale were specimen defendants, selected because a “community” contained too many criminals for the authorities to charge without embarrassment.

A nationwide problem

In truth, not just dozens, not just hundreds, but thousands of Pakistani men should be prosecuted and imprisoned for the sex-crimes they have committed against White girls and women in Brave New Britain. This is what Maggie Oliver wrote in 2020:

Operation Augusta engaged with other British police forces and we soon realised there was a nationwide problem, where in other cities and areas, including Liverpool, West Yorkshire, Bradford, Keighley, Birmingham and Bristol, young girls were being groomed and then raped by predominantly Pakistani men. Some examples of this were broadcast in the documentary by Dispatches, titled ‘Edge of the City’, in August 2004. Subsequent revelations about grooming gangs in other towns and cities such as Rotherham, Telford, Rochdale and Oxford all demonstrated a similar pattern.

By the spring of 2004, I had a detailed list of 207 men who we believed had abused at least 26 young girls. I recall that these men were all Asian. I am certain that these numbers are a massive underestimation of the true scale of child abuse. I know this because the numbers were strictly ring-fenced by the Greater Manchester Police as they did not wish for the investigation to escalate further. (Witness Statement of Margaret Oliver to the Independent Enquiry in Child Abuse, February 2020)

That is from Maggie Oliver’s Witness Statement to a massive “Independent Enquiry in Child Abuse” that was set up in response to such scandals as the repeated and prolonged failure of the authorities to prosecute Greville Janner, a senior Jewish politician and community-leader, on credible charges of raping gentile boys. The Enquiry hasn’t got to Janner’s case yet or investigated child-abuse among Orthodox Jews. This may be because it’s less an Enquiry than an Unenquiry, designed not to expose the truth but to obscure it. Maggie Oliver has said this about the Enquiry:

There is a massive imbalance in the witnesses, or the participants that have been called, and it meant that the vast majority of the time was being given to those organisations who have failed and still failing victims and survivors of child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs. … I provided a 58-page witness statement and I wanted to give give evidence to the inquiry, which was denied. … Forty pages of my statement were deleted, all the statements were hidden behind numbers and symbols on the website. …

You would imagine with a problem identified in the northern towns and cities like Rotherham and Rochdale and Middlesbrough and Halifax, you would have one of those towns included in a public inquiry looking at grooming gangs. Not one was included. So we had an area like Swansea, St Helens, Warwickshire. … I know this isn’t a historical problem it is going on in every town and city in the north of England. Even now, even today and I have information from this weekend [October 2020]. This is not a historical problem.

The establishment don’t want to hear that truth, they peddle out the same platitudes. They always say these are historical failures. These are not historical failures. These are current failures, that every single day children are being groomed by gangs of predatory men. (Maggie Oliver blasts national child abuse inquiry and says not enough is being done to help young survivors, Manchester Evening News, 19th October 2020)

Maggie Oliver is right: “The establishment don’t want to hear that truth.” And why not? Because the truth contradicts the massive lie at the heart of Britain’s new state religion of minority worship. According to this new religion, the White majority are evil oppressors and non-White minorities are saintly victims.

One victim among thousands: Victoria Agoglia was raped, injected with heroin, and murdered by Pakistanis in Manchester

That’s why the quick and relatively painless murder of the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence by a White gang in 1993 has been endlessly re-visited by the national media, while the prolonged and extremely painful murders of the White teenagers Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan by non-White gangs in 2005 were long ago forgotten. Just as in the United States, non-Whites commit violent crime against Whites in Britain much more often than the reverse.

Labour don’t care about “white trash”

Non-Whites also commit massive amounts of violent crime against each other. Minority worship makes this problem worse. Like the martyr-cult of George Floyd in America, the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence has caused thousands of extra deaths in the so-called Black community, because it has made the police ever-more reluctant to enforce the law against non-Whites. But even as the martyr-cult demands that the British police worship non-Whites, it also demands that they neglect the welfare of Whites. Here is Maggie Oliver again, describing how her police colleagues viewed the White victims of Pakistani child-rapists:

Attitudes towards these kids seemed to be ingrained and widespread. They were widely viewed by fellow officers, senior officers and politicians as ‘white trash’ or the ‘underclass’. In this new millennium, they were seen as ‘losers’. As a result, they were left to fend for themselves, which they clearly couldn’t do. (Witness Statement of Margaret Oliver, 2020)

As its name proclaims, the Labour party was founded to serve and defend the White working-class. But in Labour-controlled Manchester, White working-class girls were dismissed as ‘white trash’ and ‘underclass.’ They were abandoned to the violent predation of Pakistani Muslims, whom the Labour party were not founded to serve and whose presence in Britain has always and overwhelmingly been opposed by the White working-class.

Rich Jewish lawyers

This betrayal by Labour is a scandal far greater and far more prolonged than the “anti-Semitism” that supposedly blighted the party under Jeremy Corbyn. As I pointed out in “Labour’s Shame,” Jews in Britain are not being raped, prostituted, murdered and ethnically cleansed with the encouragement and complicity of the Labour party. Jews are a rich overclass in Britain, not the victims of decades of violent crime and official neglect. But the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) rides to battle against Labour on behalf of Jews, not of behalf of Whites. The EHRC’s concern for Jews and not for Whites is entirely predictable, given that the EHRC is headed by two rich Jewish lawyers, Rebecca Hilsenrath and David Isaac.

The EHRC is not interested in genuine crimes and genuine suffering. Instead, it is interested in protecting Jewish power and privilege, and in extending the scope and fanaticism of minority-worship. That’s why the EHRC won’t be calling on Maggie Oliver to describe what she witnessed in Manchester after taking leave to nurse her terminally ill husband:

When I returned in September 2005 I found that the investigations [into child-sex abuse] had been closed down. I found that rather than investigating, arresting and prosecuting the serial sexual offenders for the multiple rapes that had been perpetrated against dozens of young girls in Manchester, elements of the Greater Manchester Police were instead just warning the abusers under the Child Abduction Act and allowing them to evade justice. … I believe that a link to this might have been the July 2005 (‘7/7’) bombings in London, in which 52 people were killed by home-grown terrorists using explosive devices on public transport in the capital. Race relations were very fractious as a result, and there was hesitancy, I felt, from the police to take any steps that might inflame racial tensions — including investigating widespread abuse by predominantly Pakistani men.

My gut feeling at the time was that the young victims of sexual abuse in Manchester were overlooked, partly because of their class background, and dismissed as ‘slags’ or ‘slappers’ and ‘child prostitutes’ (a term I utterly reject — no child can consent to be a ‘prostitute’). There were also no parents to fight for these children, as they were all already in the care system. They did not have a voice and the government and senior authorities within the Greater Manchester Police were not listening. The term often used was that the child victims were making “a lifestyle choice.”

I feel that the closing down of Operation Augusta in 2005 was a travesty and a missed opportunity for the Greater Manchester Police to prevent so much abuse that would later take place. I believe that had they pressed ahead and prosecuted more people implicated in Augusta we would have caught the abusers at the centre of the Operation Span inquiry. I believe that the senior officers who made the decision to close Operation Augusta are guilty of gross criminal neglect and misfeasance in public office. (Witness Statement of Margaret Oliver, 2020)

In its scale, the abuse in Manchester has plainly been much worse than the abuse in Rotherham. But there has been no scandal about what has gone on in Manchester — and is still going on. And there have also been no scandals about abuse in London and Birmingham, Britain’s largest and second-largest cities, which have been enriched by non-White predators just as Manchester has.

Fighting antisemitism, ignoring rape and murder

Why no scandals about abuse in these big cities? Maggie Oliver has answered that: “The establishment don’t want to hear [the] truth.” And recall these other words in her witness statement: the White working-class victims “did not have a voice.” But the Labour party that controls Manchester was founded precisely to give the White working-class a voice — and a sword and shield to defend itself. In Rotherham, Labour snatched that sword and shield away, and left White working-class girls voiceless as they were preyed on by non-Whites. Meanwhile, the Labour MP for Rotherham, life-long feminist Denis MacShane, was working for Jews in far-off London and chairing an “all-party … inquiry into antisemitism which,” he proudly boasts, “was hailed as a model of its kind and changed government policy.”

But bad as it was, Labour’s betrayal in Rotherham was only a small part of a much bigger betrayal. Much worse has happened in bigger cities not just in Yorkshire but wherever Pakistanis and other predatory non-Whites have been imported against the clearly expressed opposition of the White working-class. And it isn’t just thousands of non-White child-rapists who should be prosecuted, but thousands of treacherous White politicians, officials, academics and journalists, from prime ministers like Tony Blair and David Cameron on down.

Brave New Britain is built on lies

Blair and Cameron were busy working for the tiny Jewish minority when they should have been working for the White majority. And what happens when the majority loses control of its own nation to a predatory and ethnocentric minority like Jews? You get the partly exposed horrors of Rotherham and the worse but still barely exposed horrors of Manchester, Birmingham, London, Sheffield, Leeds and Bradford. Much worse than Rotherham has happened and is still happening in Britain.

Meanwhile, minority-worship and the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence continue to control politics, academia and the media. These false new religions insist that Britain is ravaged by the scourge of “systemic racism” against non-Whites. This is a lie. The real racism is against Whites and one symptom of that racism is systemic rapism, or the collusion of politicians, police and feminists in decade after decade of rape committed by non-Whites against Whites. Brave New Britain is built on lies, but those lies will sooner or later crumble. Then the prosecution of traitors like Blair and Cameron can begin.

Defund Police?  Defund the Thought Police: the Modern University

“Many intellectuals and their followers have been unduly impressed by the fact that highly educated elites like themselves have far more knowledge per capita—in the sense of special knowledge—than does the population at large. From this it is a short step to considering the educated elites to be superior guides to what should and should not be done in a society. They have often overlooked the crucial fact that the population at large may have vastly more total knowledge—in the mundane sense—than the elites, even if that knowledge is scattered in individually unimpressive fragments among vast numbers of people. The ignorance, prejudices, and groupthink of an educated elite are still ignorance, prejudice, and groupthink—and for those with one percent of the knowledge in a society to be guiding or controlling those with the other 99 percent is as perilous as it is absurd.

The power of the intelligentsia is demonstrated not only by their ability to create a general climate of opinion that strikes fear into those who oppose their agenda but also by their ability to create a climate of opinion which richly rewards those political leaders whose decisions are consonant with the vision of the intelligentsia.”
― Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society

If you had to put your finger on one organizing principle, or grievance among all of the riots that continue to plague America (and will be increasing), it is class, not race.[1]  Putting aside election-year grandstanding and opportunism, and as a strawman, looking at BLM, antifa, and other groups strictly as anthropological distortions—they are symbolically rebelling against (or being incited to rebel against) what they believe (or were told) is racially based privilege, elitism, preferred access to opportunity, knowledge and social capital.  But race really isn’t the direct issue of contention; it is a proxy for class economic disparity. In this way, it does indeed resemble a kind of modern Bolshevism, but with an ironic twist: the Left has actually become the party of the rich and privileged billionaire donors, indoctrinated, guilt-ridden White college graduates, and a dependent client base among poor non-Whites. But more, race has become not a source of liberation for minorities, but turned around to become a weapon of hatred and revenge that is increasingly, and dangerously, attacking Whites with a vehemence and bigotry that is turning the Civil Rights Act on its head.

Those special privileges assumed to be shared by the modern Bolshevists are today not an automatic product of birth, or inherited wealth even.  Apart from the client base of poor non-Whites, these advantages come generally from ingenuity, work and discipline, but a particularly insidious and entrenched component comes from membership in a club.  A club of information, contacts, and favors.  A club of special language, intellectual abstraction, social expectations and most of all, a detachment from laboring classes.  It is membership in the elite university club, and by extension, a private society of preferred access to capital, resources and markets.   BLM wants to be part of the club, and in some ways it is indoctrinated by it, and owned by it, but it is merely the club’s foot soldiers, their ‘front line’ who are sacrificed for the elite intellectual leaders in the rear.  BLM will never actually be allowed into the club, but it will serve the club’s interests in gaining advantages through its “creative destruction” which creates pretext for deeper government and special interest intrusion into the economy and larger society.

This special sub-society of the truly elite carefully stores and guards its secrets and access, whether scientific, legal, medical or financial.  It protects and manages its network and rations its influences.  It is an inter-locking society as well, with members drawn from business and government who reinforce the society and its privilege.

Across America’s centers of power and influence, a highly concentrated group of “insiders” tend to the society’s well-being, its growth and power, and even, or especially, its ability to produce competitive advantages among key sectors, especially technology and finance, and with a strong inter-weaving of laws and policy that reinforce and sustain these advantages.  Universities produce the intellectual “code” and social capital that together create sharp and nearly impenetrable class differences.  These differences are vital to maintaining the political currency of elitism, social abstraction (over-population, global warming, terrorism and biological safety) and top-down public policy (abortion, eugenics, distancing, isolation).[2]

The tech oligarchs seek to dominate the world financially and technologically. The clerisy in turn aim to undermine traditional bourgeois values with progressive ideas about globalism, environmental sustainability, redefined gender roles, and the authority of experts. They inculcate these values through their “dominance over the institutions of higher learning and media, aided by the oligarchy’s control of information technology and the channels of culture.” Both groups perceive a powerful central government as essential to carrying out their political, social, and economic objectives, and thus the need for an unassailable, credentialed “expert class.”  Increasing social stratification across the globe—with a small technocracy and clerisy at the top and a large…dependent serf class at the bottom—represents a new, modern feudalism. What binds these two groups together (oligarchs being the feudal lords; thought leaders, the clerics) are shared views on globalism, cosmopolitanism, credentialism, and technocratic expertise. Academia is not only exclusivist, it is the least politically tolerant group in America. Ivy League schools enroll more students from households in the top 1 percent than the bottom 60 percent. The proportion of liberals to conservatives at top-rated colleges is at least 8 to 1 and sometimes 70 to 1. Less than 10 percent of faculty at leading law schools describe themselves as conservative. The university is now an “ideological reeducation camp.” It seems to be working: 40 percent of millennials favor suppressing speech deemed offensive to minorities. To get a glimpse of the future neo-feudalist America, one need look no further than California, where a small class of fabulously wealthy and interconnected people act as a new nobility, while a massive underclass of underemployed and unemployed are reliant on the state for survival. California’s level of inequality is greater than that of Mexico, and on par with Guatemala and Honduras. When adjusted for cost of living, California’s overall poverty rate is highest in the country. Eight million Californians live in poverty, including two million children. Almost half the children in the state are living close to the poverty line. The Bay Area is perhaps the worst offender: 76,000 millionaires and billionaires live in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, while 30 percent of Silicon Valley residents rely on public or private financial assistance. And lest one think this is only an American problem, [in] China, the top 1 percent of the population hold about one-third of the nation’s wealth, and about 300 people hold about 20 percent. There will soon be more Chinese billionaires than American ones. Meanwhile China employs artificial intelligence with sophisticated algorithms to regulate society and public opinion—you know, the same systems currently used to brainwash hundreds of thousands of “problematic” Uighurs in Xinjiang Province. China has created a massive surveillance state that monitors individual citizens’ social capital, and, as an extension, access to various goods and services. Beijing is selling these surveillance tools to other nations.[3]

This is hardly a new phenomenon, as intellectual and related social distinctions have been an inherent part of society hierarchies for centuries, in nearly all societies.  What is new is the immense growth of America’s government and corporate institutions, and their capture by an elite educated governing class.  America is governed in reality by a new elite, with a massive “slave” class spread out in the vast open spaces of the rest of the country.  A handful of cities, university affiliations and intellectual and technical networks seek to control the country and have largely succeeded.  America’s elitism is intellectual, conceptual, linguistic and behavioral, much more than it is strictly financial, or even propertied, or especially, racial.  Some of it is merely symbolic; an image; a story; a carefully marketed illusion.  But it is an illusion that still divides the country into a very sharp differences of class and privilege.

Indeed, where would Barack Obama be without the one thing that made him stand apart and gave him cachet: his Columbia and Harvard degrees, and his University of Chicago Law school teaching bona fides; his claim to being a “constitutional scholar.”  The elite university is the essence of his identity.  And as Nietzsche points to, it is still an identity that thrives on its own consensus, its own insistence on a monotheism in belief, values and objectives.  It seeks to break down all others into a classless society, until there is no longer a rich garden of variety, of healthy competition and independence, but instead one group only—the obedient Hive.

Indeed, the current BLM riots have their effective intellectual base camp in several elite universities, especially Chicago.  But ironically it is a base camp that wants to maintain its borders and walls of protected privilege.  America’s working-class towns and small business may be burned and ransacked, its public spaces and even homes and churches threatened: but the elite university campuses like Harvard, Yale, Stanford and even Berkeley, are quiet, safe, tranquil and undisturbed.  How could that be?

For sure, the country’s colleges are hurting financially from reduced enrollment and the costs of altering their campuses into “ant farms” to control and direct student movement and behavior in the new biosecurity construct.  The massive student loan market—nearly $2 trillion dollars—is also a bubble threatening to burst any moment, while tuition of $80,000 a year at Chicago—the highest in the nation—is likely never going to return.  But the one thing keeping the haves from the have nots—information, knowledge and specific skills—is still being kept behind locked doors—doors that don’t open for everyone, and keep the US a sharply splintered society.  And elite intellectuals like it that way.

Tuition alone is the modern slave collar—decades of indebtedness that can’t be extinguished.  Paying money to build and grow your mind may be the ultimate insult to freedom—like charging for oxygen, sunlight and natural water.  These are all natural rights, natural resources and man’s natural privilege to procure as a free human being.  The modern elite university (and Silicon Valley Big Tech) wants instead to profit off of your own mental sovereignty, and take what is naturally yours, and keep you from it by way of their “admissions” game (as if you needed to be admitted to your own intellect), or as dribbled out in careful doses of “degrees” and diplomas.[4]  Police may imprison our body, but the modern university seeks to imprison your mind, by putting you in “education isolation” so you do not contaminate the ruling class and their privileged domain of specialized culture.  The university claims to offer its educational liberation to the under-privileged, the suppressed or disadvantaged.  What they really do is merely open the gate to a handful of the throng at its walls, in order to keep up the hope of salvation.  The rest are sent back to the educational plantations for the masses, and intellectually “quarantined” from the elite.  And now, before you enter either domain, you will be subject to new virus protocols and electronic “geofencing.” This alone turns the higher education calculus on its head: everyone inside the walls of academia may soon be stampeding to try and get out; or will they?  A new “Lord of the Flies” psychology is taking over many of our young adults, creating the welcome and the unwelcome, the safe and the unsafe, the right and the wrong, and of course the good and the bad.

Burning down small businesses, smashing windows of cars and clothing stores, threatening police officers, and looting consumer electronics and luxury goods aren’t going to create or deliver opportunity, or confer access to America’s power centers (and more is on the way).  Education—real, tangible education can.  But the access to information, laboratories, libraries, computers, tools, and the coaching and instruction that can activate their utility and extend them into social and economic networks, is controlled, metered, rationed, and restricted by an elite guard of university special interests safely retreated inside the walls of academic institutionalism—walls that seek to protect their privilege, contacts, intellectual property, and maintain the illusion that only some can qualify for the bestowing of elite higher education.  Community college for everyone?  Sure.  Yale for everyone?  That will take a new civil war (and yet the “community” college is the actual transformed, progressive manifestation of higher education; indeed, it is what “Yale” will eventually become).  The “borders” around this knowledge, information and privilege will eventually be torn down—and that terrifies the elite.  What to do?  Make the borders stronger, more pervasive: put them around an entire society and installed in the one place where they can be powerfully controlled: in the mind itself. 

Modern universities are selling the same product in the same ways for the last 200 years—a long, expensive medieval apprenticeship that is out of touch with the modern world, but its walls fortified and reinforced for self-preservation, self-dealing and self-worth. Robert Hanna, a philosophy Ph.D. from Yale, author and former university professor, escaped from the walled compound of institutionalism, and started “Philosophy Without Borders,” which challenges the elite notion that philosophical knowledge is somehow contained within and under the stewardship of academic faculty, when in fact it is within you, waiting to be cultivated in your own life as a “real” living philosopher, dealing with today’s tangible challenges.  If “BLM” wants to shake and disrupt the foundations of elitist control and enslavement, and seek “reparations” and justice, then its target is the walled compound of Harvard Square, not Times Square, nor the shopping village or town square.  It is the elite controlling campuses of the country’s intellectual complex at Yale, Chicago, Columbia, Stanford, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Brown, Berkeley, MIT, Caltech, Harvard, Northwestern, and others (like Oxford, Cambridge and the London School of Economics in the UK). These institutions create, guard and propagate the illusions of privilege and class and intellectual ownership—and charge for it, putting you in debtor’s prison.

The nation’s elite research universities are also hosting, indeed eagerly encouraging the transformation of the university campus into an effective “ant farm” of student social and behavioral engineering under the pretext of “biosecurity.”  No other universities are so intimately involved in this agenda as the “Ivy” and elite schools.  No campus culture embraces, propagates, and indeed creates the policies for a radical fundamentalist “Covidianism” more than the elite colleges.  These university administrations are obviously serving as program foot soldiers, and have abdicated their authority to a larger institutional network (e.g., the C.D.C., the Rockefeller and Gates foundations, and W.H.O.) that is “leading from behind,” with political pressure to act in lockstep. At the University of Chicago, for example, this political co-option has been especially formalized, and stems from mutual promises and favor among the Obama-Lightfoot-Sanders “triumvirate.” The University is also acting in lockstep with the Rockefeller Foundation, and certain agencies in law and intelligence.  This leaves students with an increasingly difficult but urgent choice: either submit to and comply with the university biosecurity “protocol” including the troubling “Health Pact” contract, along with personal tracing, tracking and “geofencing” or instead, reject the institutional abuse, and disregard for your own sovereignty and privacy, and walk away. At some point you have to learn how to say “No” and not merely line up at the campus sorting platform and be corralled, herded, traced and tracked (and eventually de-loused by “vaccination”).

This is where the basis of real inequality, corruption and division is hiding, and prospering, installed in its ivory tower.  It shackles all others with something far more dehumanizing than an entrapped body: an enslaved mind.


[1] Or rather, race and class are somewhat fungible, as “BLM” for example, is a claim of class victimization, through a racial narrative, as “White supremacy” is really more centered psychologically and linguistically, as “White privilege” vis-à-vis access to resources; preference for their distribution and title; and even putative utility and enjoyment of broad assets (suburban homes, transportation, luxury goods and education), labor markets and wages (higher minimum wages; broader re-distribution through tax) or membership in social groups, especially intellectual ones usually defined by elite education.  Meanwhile, it is a central cultural routine of higher education to sustain and propagate the racial-class dynamic, in part because it sustains a wide spectrum of economic objectives which include university enrollment velocity, funding, and the perpetuation of the Ph.D system.  See

https://cstms.berkeley.edu/current-events/no-one-wants-to-believe-it-manifestations-of-white-privilege-in-a-stem-focused-college/

[2] From a review of Joel Kotkin’s The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class, by Casey Chalk.  https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/feudalism-without-a-soul/

[3] Ibid

[4] See “The Social Dilemma,”  https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224

Four More Years Of …

All our political forms are exhausted and practically nonexistent. Our parliamentary system and electoral system and our political parties are just as futile as dictatorships are intolerable. Nothing is left. And this nothing is increasingly aggressive, totalitarian and omnipresent.
Jacques Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity (1991)

Look at them! Look at them, will you? Behold our politicians’ horrible languid maws!; the courtier-like faces of department managers. They are indeed salesmen, for the very power of nations is measure in relation to their own mercantile activity.
Jean Cau, Le meutre d’un enfant (1965)

“What’s going to happen now?” I was asked earlier today. “Nothing and everything,” I replied. Immigration, largely unchallenged and unscathed (excepting the incidental impact of COVID-19 on population movement) from four years of Trumpism, will now continue to accelerate unabated. Zionism will continue to enjoy the expansion of American institutional and military support, this time with the blood interest of Jared Kushner replaced with the Jewish spouses of all three of Biden’s children. And the momentary Obama-era delusion of a post-racial America will continue to dissolve in the reality of the increasing awareness and importance of race throughout the West, not solely as a result of mass migration but also of the increasing ubiquity of the ideologies of racial grievance and revenge. There will, of course, be a dramatic change for the worse in tone and spirit, and some smaller legislative victories like the banning of federal anti-racism training will likely soon be reversed. The defeat of Donald Trump is also hugely demoralizing to many decent American people, and emboldening to their bitterest enemies. This is to be sorely regretted. But it is in the shared qualities of Trump and Biden, rather than the election and sham ballots, that the real nature of our political systems and their future can be perceived. And it is in these shared qualities that our true problems lie.

Parliamentary electoral democracy is merely a representation of the general system in which it operates. Slavoj Zizek comments:

At the empirical level, of course, multi-party liberal democracy “represents” — mirrors, registers, measures — the quantitative dispersal of different opinions of the people, what they think about the proposed programs of the parties and about their candidates, etc. However, prior to this empirical level and in a much more radical sense, the very form of multi-party liberal democracy “represents” — instantiates — a certain vision of society, politics, and the role of the individuals in it: politics is organized in parties that compete through elections to exert control over the state legislative and executive apparatus, etc. One should always be aware that this frame is never neutral, insofar as it privileges certain values and practices.

The truth of the system, in terms of its non-negotiable aspects, is thus revealed in the “values and practices” privileged and ring-fenced under both Trump and Biden. What are these non-negotiables? Zionism, GloboHomo ideological capitalism and its “woke” leftist correlates, and the neoliberal promotion of GDP as the benchmark of human success and happiness.

Zionism

Jews have little to fear from a Biden presidency, which is presumably why Haaretz is claiming that the “American Jewish vote clinched Biden’s victory and Trump’s ouster. … American Jews decided the outcome of the U.S. elections.” Donald Trump might have been hailed as the “most pro-Israel President in U.S. history,” but Jews are notoriously unreliable in their partnerships with non-Jewish elites. Fate, it must be said, has not been kind to those gentile elites that have exhausted their usefulness to Jews. And Trump is surely exhausted, having spent a busy four years fighting for Jews in Israel and in the United States. He reversed long-standing US policies on several critical security, diplomatic and political issues to Israel’s favour, including the Iran nuclear accord, the treatment of Israel at the UN, and the status of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. In December 2019, he announced his Executive Order on Combatting Anti-Semitism, promising to fight “the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world.” One wonders what else he could possibly have done for these people—apart from a war with Iran—a question that appears to have been answered by Jews with a resounding “Nothing.” One can only imagine Trump’s facial expression on seeing Benjamin Netanyahu’s emphatic congratulations to Joe Biden, punctuated with the loving refrain: “I have a personal, long and warm connection with Joe Biden for nearly 40 years, and I know him to be a great friend of the State of Israel.”

Biden and Harris, replete with their immediate familial ties to Jews, are viewed in Zionist circles as being at least as reliable as Trump, although not as exuberant and bullish. Biden has been known as a staunch supporter of Israel throughout his 36 years in the Senate, often cites his 1973 encounter with then-Prime Minister Golda Meir as “one of the most consequential meetings” of his life, and has on more than one occasion regaled audiences with a tale about his father telling him that “You don’t need to be a Jew to be a Zionist.” While some modifications are likely in the American approach to Iran, few reversals are expected on Trump’s four years of pro-Israel activism. Biden, for example, has weakly criticized moving the embassy to Jerusalem but said he would not pull it back to Tel Aviv. Michael Herzog at Haaretz describes both Biden and Harris as “traditional Democrats, with a fundamental commitment to Israel whose roots are in part emotional in nature (in contrast to Obama).”

The change in relationship between America and Israel will be, in meaningful terms, restricted to the personal. Netanyahu, for all his fawning, is likely to undergo a personal demotion of sorts, with David Halbfinger of the New York Times pointing out that we can expect a Biden presidency to diminish Netanyahu’s “stature on the global stage and undercut his argument to restive Israeli voters that he remains their indispensable leader.” Palestinian leaders, probably the best-positioned to offer a perspective on the potential for an improvement in their condition under the new presidency, have been sombre to say the least. Hanan Ashrawi, a senior PLO official, responded to the question if she expected United States policy to continue tilting heavily in Israel’s favor: “I don’t think we’re so naïve as to see Biden as our savior.” Contrast this with the cheerfulness and confidence of Israel settlers who have grown accustomed to the perennial nature of American support for Zionism. David Elhayani, head of the Yesha Council, an umbrella for Jewish settlements in the West Bank, said the party of the U.S. president ultimately doesn’t matter so long as the baseline commitment to support Israel persists: “Under Obama, we built more [settlement] houses than we have under Trump … I think Biden is a friend of Israel.”

The fact that the grassroots of the Democratic Party are drifting away from Zionism is no more consequential than the fact the grassroots of the Republican Party wanted major action on immigration reform. The former, like the latter, have been equally ignored by the real power brokers and influencers. Regardless of the radical appearance of Democrat-affiliated movements like Black Lives Matter, the fact remains that all of the leftist aggression and rhetoric of the summer of 2020 has resulted in the putative election of an establishment Zionist and political pragmatist who is sure to execute a more or less formulaic neoliberal scheme for government. In one sense, the bland, forgetful, and familiar Biden, who lacks any hint of genuine or novel ideology and was elected purely as a symbol of “not Trump,” is the fitting response to Trump, who was equally devoid of ideological sincerity or complexity beyond the symbolism of “not Establishment.” And so, while the media proclaims, as Heraclitus, that “all is in flux,” from a different perspective we could argue, like Parmenides, the opposite — “there is no motion at all.”

GloboHomo

If I retain one abiding, surreal, memory of the Trump presidency in the years ahead it will be the Don dancing to the Village People in the wake of his numerous drives to legalize homosexuality in various African backwaters. That the Red State Christians comprising so much of his base could maintain their self-adopted blind spot on this issue is a remarkable testament to the power of personality, because no world leader in history has done more in recent history than Donald Trump to export what E. Michael Jones has so aptly termed “the Gay Disco” — the double-barrelled shotgun of unbridled finance capitalism and the superficial freedom of sexual “liberty.” As the pastors and preachers of South Carolina and Texas urged their huddled congregations to pray for the President, Trump was busy dispatching new missionaries, like U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, to the corners of the earth in search of converts to the Church of GloboHomo.

In February 2019, the U.S. embassy indulged in some nostalgia for Weimar when it flew LGBT activists from across Europe to Berlin for a strategy dinner to plan to push for decriminalization in places that still outlaw homosexuality — mostly concentrated in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean. For my part, I can think of many social problems in these parts of the world, but it really takes a special kind of mind to arrive at the opinion that one of the most pressing is that they need to become more gay. Grenell, however, horrified that Iran has the audacity to execute its own convicted homosexual pederasts, was not to be deterred, and was instrumental in the blackmail of lesser nations, promising they would be denied access to terrorism intelligence if they don’t legalise homosexuality. All of which has left the far corners of the American cultural-military empire questioning whether they could better live with suicide bombers or sodomy.

Against such manoeuvres, Biden’s apparent claim to be one half of the “most pro-equality ticket in history” seems a little overstated. That being said, there’s no question that Biden is going to step up the domestic nature of GloboHomo significantly as soon as he assumes office. Biden has pledged to sign the Equality Act, thus far opposed by the Trump administration, within his first 100 days in office, a piece of legislation that will amend “the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and the jury system.” Biden has pledged to appoint significant numbers of homosexuals and transsexuals to positions of influence, and has promised to allow transsexuals to join the military. Experienced in advancing global LGBT+ dogma as part of the Obama-Biden administration, Biden will also once again take up the global mantle, expressing his “hopes to reverse Trump’s efforts and expand queer rights internationally by making equality a centrepiece of US diplomacy,” and condemning Poland’s “LGBT-free zones.” Stunning and brave indeed.

There is a certain sense in the cases of both Trump and Biden that, for all the flamboyance of their efforts in this area, there is a performative aspect to this politics. I don’t get the impression that either has been especially personally committed to these ideas or actions, but that, as pragmatic-symbolic politicians, they have been made aware that this is the direction the broader System is moving in and they should comply and support it. The longevity and gradual acceleration of these trends, beginning in earnest with the presidency of Bill Clinton, would suggest a systemic movement underlying, and entirely untethered to, specific political parties or figures. Throughout the West, and much as with Zionism, GloboHomo, or hedonistic credit-based capitalism and its sexual correlates more generally, is to be accepted and promoted as an essential part of the role of neoliberal government. In the context of declining basic freedoms at home, for example the obvious decline in free speech and the creeping criminalisation of meaningful dissent against the status quo, the international promotion of homosexuality and transsexual identities offers a cost-free and PR-friendly method for increasingly authoritarian neoliberal regimes to posture as crusaders for freedom. The trucker in Ohio is, logical flaws notwithstanding, and whether he wants it or not, thus assured of his place in the Land of the Free via his government’s emancipation of the gays and transvestites of Uganda. Engaged politically only at the most superficial level, the masses play along with this ruse, often in blunt denial, possessing only fragmentary realisations of the fact their countries are changing around them while the petty “rewards” of Americanism are meagre and peculiar, if not insulting.

GDP!

Along with frequent reassurances that he was “giving serious consideration” to doing something, Trump’s presidency was marked by regular updates on the performance of American GDP. Unfortunately the GDP, like the Jewish vote, appears to have stabbed him in the back, with around 70% of American GDP represented in counties that (putatively!) voted Democrat. Trump’s tragicomic belief in GDP performance as a form of politics in its own right is perhaps the quintessential example of the mentality of homo economicus and the tendency of neoliberals to view countries as mere zones, or economic areas, where everything is based on rationalism and materialism, and national success is purely a calculation of economic self-interest. Writing pessimistically of Trump’s expected nomination in 2015, I issued a stark warning about the influence of Jared Kushner, but also added:

For all his bluster, Trump is a creation and product of the bourgeois revolution and its materialistic liberal ideologies. We are teased and tantalized by the fantasy that Trump is a potential “man of the people.” But I cannot escape the impression that he is a utilitarian and primarily economic character, who seeks a social contract based on personal convenience and material interest. In his business and political history I see only the “distilled Jewish spirit.”

I don’t think I’ve seen anything over the last four years that has made me question or revise that assessment. Trump’s dedicated tweeting on GDP in fact had the opposite effect.

The disturbing reality, of course, is that GDP is only one side of a national economy. Another crucial aspect is government borrowing, and current projections suggest that the United States is “condemned to eternal debt.” According to The Budget Office of the United States Congress (CBO), “the US economy would enter the first half of this century with a public debt equivalent to 195 percent of its GDP. … In the next 30 years the debt of the most powerful economy on the planet would more than double.” The first significant jump occurred in the wake of the subprime crisis, in which Jewish mortgage lenders were especially prominent. The subprime crisis forced public debt to 37 percent of GDP, which then rose steadily to 79 percent between 2008 and the outbreak of COVID-19. It now stands at 98 percent, and is accelerating. Although the United States has reached comparable levels of debt in the past, there has almost always been an accompanying war, or wars, which acted as a financial pressure valve — a fact that does not bode well for isolationists but may be encouraging news for Zionist hawks.

Joe Biden has claimed recently that “a Biden-Harris Administration will not be measured just by the stock market or GDP growth, but by the extent to which growth is raising the pay, dignity, and economic security of our working families” — while at the same time welcoming millions of new immigrants and legalizing the ~20M+ illegals into the workforce .The American economy is in fact extremely unlikely to change direction, with Biden reassuring his billionaire donors gathered at the Carlyle Hotel in Manhattan in June 2019 that “no one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.” I believe him. Biden was part of an administration that looked on as 10 million working Americans lost their homes. Matt Stoller at the Washington Post has described Obama-era Democrat economic policies as “in effect, a wholesale attack on the American home (the main store of middle-class wealth) in favor of concentrated financial power.” Biden was part of a team that outright rejected prosecuting major bankers for fraud and money laundering, and that represented one of the most monopoly-friendly administrations in history:

2015 saw a record wave of mergers and acquisitions, and 2016 was another busy year. In nearly every sector of the economy, from pharmaceuticals to telecom to Internet platforms to airlines, power was concentrated. And this administration, like George W. Bush’s before it, did not prosecute a single significant monopoly under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Instead [under Obama] the Federal Trade Commission has gone after such villains as music teachers and ice skating instructors for ostensible anti-competitive behavior. This is very much a parallel of the financial crisis, as elites operate without legal constraints while the rest of us toil under an excess of bureaucracy.

Biden is the product of funding from forty-four billionaires, including six hedge fund speculators, seven real estate barons, and five in the tech sector. Of the top 22 donors, at least 18 are Jews (Jim Simons, Len Blavatnik, Stewart Resnick, Eli Broad, Neil Bluhm, David Bonderman, Herb Simon, Daniel Och, Liz Lefkovsky, Steve Mandel, Bruce Karsh, Howard Marks, S. Daniel Abraham, Marc Lasry, Jonathan Tisch, Daniel Lubetsky, Laurie Tisch, and Robert Toll). The Jewish consortium behind Biden is almost identical in its financial composition to that behind Trump which, as I’ve explained previously, was notable for its embodiment of “usury and vulture capitalism, bloated consumerism, and the sordid commercial exploitation of vice.” Biden’s transition team, meanwhile, is comprised of “executives from Lyft, Airbnb, Amazon, Capital One, Booz Allen, Uber, Visa, and JPMorgan.” In short, expectations that Biden is going to break up Big Tech, or any monopoly for that matter, are the fantasies of the deluded, the ignorant, and the duped.

Conclusion

While the drama and recrimination surrounding the election are unquestionably fascinating, I hope you’ll forgive for being less agitated than most. My reasons for lethargy are simple: I knew that regardless of outcome we’d get four more years — four more years of Zionism, GloboHomo, and the standardized, rationalized machinery of economic escalation that now provides the apologetic engine for mass migration. Behind the abortion debates, Supreme Court picks, culture wars, and media theater, these are the non-negotiables of the System. You don’t hear about them, and you can’t talk about them, because you can’t vote on them. And this is the biggest electoral fraud of all.

Trump and Julian

Julian the Apostate

To what extent might Trump be compared to Julian the Apostate? In case you haven’t yet read the Pagan, Hellenism, Gentile essay, Julian was the last Pagan emperor of Rome. He was the nephew of the first Christian emperor of Rome (if we can believe our history). He was very unhappy that Rome had succumbed to Christianity and that the aristocratic, Roman, manly virtues had been replaced by an overly-sentimentalist slave morality that valued equality over excellence and posited that all things Roman were bad, while they celebrated values that denigrated life and their own people. In Julian’s time, Rome was increasingly less Roman. The Senate, and the government as a whole, had long since become nearly completely dysfunctional. The military was led, or at least directed, by men who used it more for their own personal gain than for the good of the people. Julian’s most personal fight was perhaps against those in his own family who had adopted and “married into” the foreign religion for pragmatic reasons — to advance their own cause. And even though Julian fought against the encroachments of the Rome-hating ideology, he himself was far more Christian than he realized. Or, more precisely, he had secretly converted from Christianity during his youth, but he was unwittingly steeped in the mystical-philosophical mush (Neoplatonism) whose intercourse with Judaism birthed Christianity.

There are clear differences between Julian and Trump. Although both the Apostate and Trump came from wealthy, powerful families, Julian began as a philosopher and scholar, then became a successful general and administrator. Trump inherited a family business.

Julian came to power in what had by that point become the traditional Roman way — something of a civil war between relatives. Part of the cause of this war was that Julian was working in Gaul to clean up the corrupt bureaucracy, beat back invaders, and lower taxes on the local population. His relatives back east understood that he was becoming a populist leader and a threat to the establishment. In time, this led to a civil war in which forces loyal to Julian won fairly quickly.

After taking power, Julian remained something of a nativist-populist. He claimed that all citizens were equal under law and that he himself was merely the first among equals. Twitter did not exist, of course, but, like Trump, Julian entered the fray of politics directly, and he openly debated with Senators. He tried to clear the swamp by dismissing thousands of servants and idle bureaucrats. He cut the taxes on the people. This angered the corrupt imperial government, which was fed by these taxes. And not only the establishment, but also many of his allies and subjects were very uncomfortable with Julian’s Marcus Aurelius-inspired simple dress and lifestyle and with the familiar way he interacted with and spoke directly to the masses, as if they were his equal.

Julian’s rule did not last very long. To placate and woo those who supported his political rivals, he decided to wage a poorly planned and poorly executed war against Persia. There, he died in battle, under suspicious circumstances, possibly killed by one of his own troops, a man who was deemed a saint by the new religion for his treacherous murder.

The death of Julian marked the last gasp for a revival of Roman, pagan values. Christians increasingly occupied the now-splintered Roman government, and Europe would slowly adopt and adapt the new religion and make it its own. With the Jews having secured power in the US, the same thing is occurring once again. Like the Romans, Americans will change — and are already doing so. At this point, the progressive, non-Jewish, White Americans are just drinking the poison that creates the sensation that to be non-Jewish and White is bad.

Perhaps, like the late-antiquity Europeans, we will find a way to adapt and remain ourselves, and the non-Jewish White people will not go extinct. But there is an important difference between today’s poison and that which was ingested 2000 years ago.  Actually, there are many, but the one that interests me at the moment is that The Jews never really took power in Rome as they have in the US. The situation here is more like the one in ancient Egypt — as told in the Bible and by Josephus — whereby the Jews, represented by Joseph, became tax farmers for the pharaoh. One familiar with history can deduce that the Hebrew intermediaries administered the government while the pharaoh tended to his concubine and to hunting gazelle. This went on well for the Hebrews until a new pharaoh, representing a faction hostile to the Jews, took the throne.

The new pharaoh was a populist. He knew that the Jews were fleecing the people while enriching the corrupt king. Josephus says that prior to this change of fate, the “the nation of the Israelites flourished (2.9.1),” suggesting that either the Jews had created their own ethnic state within Egypt, or that the dual citizens had successfully siphoned enough money from the Egyptian people to enrich the parent country.  Josephus then laments how the hostile new rulers [native Egyptians who had just overthrown the Hyksos ruler] were to the Jews. The oppressed Jews were now forced to participate in the corvee forced-labor economic system that they themselves formerly oversaw and through which the nation of the Israelites became wealthy. According to Josephus, the Jews and the pharaoh continued to fight for power “for 400 years.” In reality, it was probably less than 100 years before the Jews were finally driven out; or, according to the Jewish telling, they were allowed to leave, being led by Moses. Though the connection is based in conjecture, the exodus story coincides with Ahmose’s capture of Avaris from the Hyksos and the subsequent capture of Gaza. This interpretation would also explain why the Israelites no longer had a place in the “promised land.” Since Jacob’s time, it too had been conquered by Hyksos, and now by the Egyptians.

To return to contemporary times, then, in the present election, the two leading Democratic candidates were Biden and Sanders. Sanders, of course, is Jewish. Not everyone knows that all three of Biden’s children married Jews. Biden won the election. He decided to choose a running mate who openly and repeatedly called him a racist; but her husband is Jewish. Trump, as we all know, has a converted Jewish daughter and a Jewish son-in-law, who had an outsized influence on the president’s policy. Many Americans looked for an alternative and turned to the libertarian party. This year their vice-presidential candidate was Jewish. When it comes to contemporary American politics, rather than turtles, it is Jews (Jewish White people) all the way down.

If one were so inclined to merge Hegel with Foucault, and view history as dialectical, but multiple and local rather than teleological, he might see in the Trump phenomenon a synthesis between Julian and an Egyptian provincial governor: one who unwittingly threw in his lot with the oppressors, only to realize, too late, why the Tribe found his growing nativist populism a real threat. Rather than speculate how the Trump saga unfolds, I will defer to the readers to suggest how this plays out.

“Who will guard the guards?”; Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Mail-in Voter Fraud, and Repercussions for Europe

In analyzing the ballot fraud surrounding the latest US presidential election the name of the Roman poet and politician Juvenal comes to mind. His Satire VI, raises a fundamental political question surrounding political repression in the contemporary liberal System: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? “Who will guard the guards?” In contemporary bidenesque English this rhetorical question, coined by Juvenal, in the first century, can be transliterated into: “Who will observe the ballot observers?” “Who will count the ballot counters?”

A century after the death of the poet Juvenal the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who combined the virtues of philosopher and soldier, faced the same dilemma. How to treat the defeated foe? By preaching tolerance and magnanimity, or by wielding the sword?  Despite his stoic awareness about the transience of all life on Earth, Aurelius knew that when fighting the barbarians, a free man cannot live by books alone — he also needs a solid sword, or in the case of the USA he needs the Second Amendment. Unlike many of his predecessors Marcus Aurelius did not contemplate self-isolation in debauchery; nor did he hang around the hookers in ritzy parlors on the Quirinal Hill in Rome. He preferred the company of his soldiers who protected the northern and eastern borders of the empire in the turbulent second — borders that stretched in the north along the limes of the Drava river which now separate modern Hungary from Croatia. The Pannonian basin during the Aurelian times was under the constant onslaught of military intruders coming from the North and the East. Today this area has become anew a major route for new illegal intruders, i.e., Afro-Asian migrants heading toward the heart of Europe: Germany.

Aurelius’ grandfather, the emperor Hadrian, a couple of decades earlier, waged also devastating wars in the shaky southern part of the empire — against revolutionary Jews in the Roman province of Judea. His legions killed and displaced more than half a million of them, thus leaving an indelible anti-European grudge in the Jewish collective memory. Worse, out of his resentment for rebellious Jews, Marcus Aurelius, in 130, changed the name of the city of Jerusalem into the city name of Aelia Capitolina. The morale of history? Each victor changes the toponomies of conquered lands and along with it he imposes his own political narrative.

Can we draw the parallel between Aurelius and Trump? Both the USA and Europe are facing today similar turbulent scenarios where peoples of European ancestry will soon have to make a choice: how to preserve their racial and cultural identity in the face of the coming migrant storms. The present turmoil in the USA is just a natural follow-up to the great racial replacement that has been going on over the last 70 years, both in the United States and Europe.

The present Covid virus is only a small part of a “narrative history” – or “history of the event”—which the French call l’histoire évènementielle, i.e., a slice of history solely focusing on one single and separate event. Such an isolated historical event, e.g., the Covid shutdown, is relatively unimportant unless it becomes a factor speeding up a larger flow of history. The Covid scare is already going viral, forcing all EU/US politicians to reexamine a larger stretch of their historical memory, going back to 1945.  Undoubtedly, four years of President Trump’s slamming the mainstream media for spreading fake news has significantly undermined the intellectual and diplomatic narrative of the post-WWII Order. Many myths and mendacities imposed upon Europe and Whites in the aftermath of 1945, thanks to Trump’s presidency, have now fallen apart. Trump’s foes in Europe and the US do not like this.

After WWII, and especially after the end of the Cold War, the politics of Europe turned into a carbon copy of US policies. Whatever was going on in high politics in Washington DC had to be either copied or mimicked the next day by the political class in Berlin, Paris and Vienna, and the day after, all over eastern Europe. President Trump was the first US president in the last 75 years who seriously shook the foundations of the transatlantic liberal consensus. This is the reason why the Deep State in the EU and in the US resent him very, very much.  If America goes bust and starts breaking up tomorrow, the breakup of the EU will immediately follow suit.

Changes in America have always had an impact on European politics. This is especially true of the German political class, which, over the last 75 years, has been grotesquely doubling down on US-inspired liberal globalist agenda for fear of being for fear of being accused of harboring revisionist and paleo-fascist sentiments. The insulting label of “fascism,” “racism” or “colonialism” keeps haunting paranoid politicians in Germany and in the rest of Europe, making them embrace the safe strategy of self-denial and forcing them to be more papal than the pope, i.e., more Americanized than Americans themselves. At the moment of this writing, it means that the entire political class in Germany and the EU must endorse president-elect Biden and his running mate Harris, irrespective of their likely own hidden pro-Trump sentiments.

Just as America is being balkanized at its extreme now between the supporters of Trump and supporters of the Deep State, so is Europe being polarized at its extreme between proponents of state sovereignty and proponents of globalism. The wartime years of 1941–1945 haven’t resolved anything. We are back again in the weimaresque and balkanesque  epoch, both in the USA and the EU. The winner-takes-all will soon change the political language and define thereafter his version of historical truth. If the American left gains the hegemony they so ardently desire — hegemony that is entirely within their reach, if not now, then certainly in the near future as demographics become even more decisive — it will be the end not just of the people and culture of traditional America, but of the entire West.