Writing for the traditionally neocon-friendly Claremont Institute, Christopher Caldwell  (Summer, 2022) describes the unintended consequences of the Ukraine war—consequences that are indeed playing out now.

Caldwell starts out with Prof. John Mearsheimer’s view on the causes of the war:

[2014] was a hinge year. Ukrainian diplomats had been negotiating an “association agreement” with the European Union that would have created closer trade relations. Russia outbid the E.U. with its own deal, which included $15 billion in incentives for Ukraine. President Viktor Yanukovych signed it. Protests, backed by the United States, broke out in Kiev’s main square, the Maidan, and in cities across the country. By then the U.S. had spent $5 billion to influence Ukraine’s politics, according to a 2013 speech by State Department official Victoria Nuland. Russia now viewed this activity as having funded subversion and revolt. Like every Ukrainian government since the end of the Cold War, Yanukovych’s government was corrupt. Unlike many of them it was legitimately elected. When shootings near the Maidan in Kiev left dozens of protesters dead, Yanukovych fled the country, and the United States played a central role in setting up a successor government.

Meddling with vital Russian interests at Russia’s doorstep turned out to be more dangerous than orating about democracy. Rather than see the Russophone and pro-Russian region of Crimea transformed from a Russian naval stronghold into an American one, Russia invaded it. “Took over” might be a better verb, because there was no loss of life due to the military operation. Whether the Russian takeover was a reaction to American crowding or an unprovoked invasion, one thing was clear: In Russia’s view, Ukraine’s potential delivery of Crimea to NATO was a more serious threat to its survival in 2014 than—to take an example—Islamic terrorism had been to America’s in 2001 or 2003. Understanding that Russia would respond accordingly to any attempt to wrest it back, Russia’s European and Black Sea neighbors tended thenceforth to treat Crimea as a de facto part of Russia. So, for the most part, did the United States. The Minsk accords, signed by Russia and Ukraine, were meant to guarantee a measure of linguistic and political autonomy in the culturally Russian Donbass. (Russia claims the violation of these accords as a casus belli.)

Contrast that with the neo-liberal position which is basically a moral crusade:

There is, of course, a different explanation, the moral/psychological explanation put forward by the Biden administration and its defenders. It differs from Mearsheimer’s account not so much in facts as in its apportionment of moral blame. In this account, the spur to war was not American encroachment but the erratic behavior of Russian president Vladimir Putin. …

Putin certainly had reasons to wish Ukraine kept in Russia’s sphere of influence. But in most Western accounts of what led to the invasion of Ukraine last February, these reasons are presented as psychopathological, not geostrategic. Putin comes off as Hitler. He wants to reconstitute the Soviet Union. Or the tsarist empire. …

Those who back a bigger role for the West in supporting Ukraine often put their position in the form of a question: once he gets control of Ukraine, why should Putin stop there? The question has a simple answer: because he knows something about history and he can count. He doesn’t have the guns. He doesn’t have the soldiers. Putin invaded Ukraine with 190,000 men. That is just slightly more than the 170,000 Soviet soldiers who died trying—and failing—to retake the city of Kharkov in 1942. There were four battles of Kharkov in World War II, and Kharkov was only one of the cities fought over.

What we’ve been saying all along. This is really about exporting globalism and leftist political orthodoxy to the rest of the world and it’s corollary of maintaining a unipolar world dominated by the United States. They even said so: “In March 24 [2022], a month after Russian tanks rolled across Ukraine’s borders, the Biden White House summoned America’s partners (as its allies are now called) to a civilizational crusade. The administration proclaimed its commitment to those affected by Russia’s recent invasion—“especially vulnerable populations such as women, children, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons, and persons with disabilities.” Because of Western intervention since 2014, Ukraine has been completely transformed:

Few people have paid attention to how rapidly Ukrainian society has been evolving since the Maidan protests. In a recent interview in the New Left Review, the sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko described a power bloc that has lately come into being, uniting Ukraine’s globalizing oligarchs, Western-funded progressive foundations, and Ukrainian nationalists. The latter argued for ripping up the Minsk accords and ripping out the Russian roots of Ukrainian public life and high culture, leaving Ukraine with a hard-line form of political correctness. After 2014, according to Ishchenko, “a wide range of political positions supported by a large minority, sometimes even by the majority, of Ukrainians—sovereigntist, state-developmentalist, illiberal, left-wing—were blended together and labeled ‘pro-Russian narratives’ because they challenged the dominant pro-Western, neoliberal and nationalist discourses in Ukraine’s civil society.” Those who hold such views have often felt driven out of public life.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, today the symbol of resolute anti-Russian resistance, has himself undergone a transformation. An influential Ukrainian actor and TV producer, he won a landslide in 2019 on the promise he would render life tolerable for the Russia-friendly east. His popularity quickly eroded, according to Ishchenko, and shortly after the Biden inauguration, Zelensky began censoring Russophile channels, websites, and blogs.

Ukrainian democracy! This really comes down to the threat of World War III. Russia clearly sees the war as existential (see Putin’s February speech: “This means they plan to finish us once and for all. In other words, they plan to grow a local conflict into a global confrontation. This is how we understand it and we will respond accordingly, because this represents an existential threat to our country”). And the West sees a loss as a mortal threat to their hegemony, their globalization project, and their exporting hardline political correctness to the rest of the world, as has already happened in Ukraine.

American immunity from danger may be illusory. The progress of technology has imperceptibly eroded a longstanding distinction between supporting a combatant and entering the fray as a combatant oneself. In June, the U.S. began providing Ukraine with M142 HIMARS computer-targeted rocket artillery systems, and these present the problem in an acute form: the role of technology in the lethality of a weapon has grown to the point where the role of the human warrior is, relatively speaking, rendered negligible. An encounter with a sword is an encounter with a swordsman. An encounter with an arrow is an encounter with an only slightly more distant bowman. But an encounter with an M31 rocket fired from a HIMARS launcher is an encounter with General Dynamics. And it is the human warrior who is the repository of all the longings-to-be-vindicated and the sacrifices-freely-undertaken that consecrate war as a cause. With advanced weaponry, the soldier operating it almost doesn’t need to be there. Which is to say that, in this proxy war between Russia and the United States, Ukraine doesn’t need to be there. In these HIMARS artillery strikes, in the assassinations by drone of Russian officers, in the sinking of naval ships with advanced missiles, it is the United States, not Ukraine, that has become the battlefield adversary of Russia.

The substitution of high-tech for competent soldiers is likely what the trans-friendly, diverse and inclusive, politically correct military military brass is counting on to retain fighting capability.

The U.S.’s extensive financial sanctions on Russia have had little, if any, cost to Russia (see Putin’s speech) while it has motivated Russia to abandon the U.S. dollar as a mechanism of international trade, which is also something that China doubtless views positively. Moreover, because of the sanctions, Russia is insulated from any repercussions of the current bank implosion occurring in the U.S.—a crisis that has happened in large part because of the rapid rise in interest rates (rendering older bonds with lower yield held by institutions like Silicon Valley Bank relatively worthless) because the Fed felt it necessary to use higher interest rates to combat inflation which was in turn caused at least in part by increases in energy prices caused by the Ukraine war and by sanctions on Russian energy in conjunction with the Biden administration’s opposition to the domestic drilling industry and its obsession with clean energy, and because Biden goosed the financial system with trillions of dollars in federal spending. As I write, it’s not possible to predict the effects of the banking crisis on markets.

Rather than beg its way back into the U.S.-led global financial order, the Russians are trying to build a new one with new partners [like China]. They have a chance of pulling it off. In a speech at a June [2022] economic forum in St. Petersburg, Putin complained that the roughly $10 trillion that any trading country must hold in dollar and Euro currency reserves is being devalued at 8% a year by U.S. inflation. “Moreover,” he said, “they can be confiscated or stolen any time if the United States dislikes something in the policy of the states involved” [which has already been done to $284 billion of Russian money in Western banks at the behest of the U.S.]. Putin called for a replacement for the SWIFT system. “The development of a convenient and independent payment infrastructure in national currencies is a solid and predictable basis for deepening international cooperation,” he said. Until recently such an appeal would have fallen on deaf ears. This time it did not.

The times are definitely changing, and the war against Russia has made countries like China aware that the U.S. can always do the same to them—like embark on another moral crusade against China’s oppression of the Uyghurs or the Indian caste system.

In part, the great story we see playing out is the fulfillment of a prediction that people have been making for a generation: power and influence are shifting away from the United States and Europe, and toward Asia. In the 1990s, when the United States was imposing its will on Iraq and Kosovo, the G7 made up 70% of the world economy. Today it makes up 43%. India and China are both giant export markets for Russian oil and gas. It is clear why Russia would want to sell to India and China. The more complicated question is why India (tacitly) and China (explicitly) would back Russia against what American progressives call the “rules-based international order.” …

Yes, the West “swiftly moved” against Russia, but six months in, these moves seemed surprisingly ineffective. The reason is that, no matter where you place the fulcrum and the lever, Russia, China, and India collectively are now too much for the United States to lift. Inducements can be offered to get one country to break solidarity with the other two. But cooperating would be foolish, on any terms. At the end of the day, a country that permits itself to be isolated by the United States this way is increasing the risk that it will itself be subjected to a media-and-boycott campaign of destruction like the one we are now witnessing with Russia. A few words about the condition of the Uyghurs, a few talking points on Hindu nationalism, and the U.S. can crank this whole machinery of economic destruction into operation against China or India. They know it, too. The Italian writer Marco D’Eramo reported that, after a March 18 phone call between Biden and Xi Jinping, one Chinese anchorman joked that Biden’s message had been: “Can you help me fight your friend so that I can concentrate on fighting you later?”

The attempt to isolate Russia from the American world system has had a striking unintended consequence—the possible founding of an alternative world system that would draw power away from the existing one. Twenty years ago, under George W. Bush, the United States removed the Iraqi deterrent from Iran’s neighborhood, transforming Iran overnight into a regional power. This year, under Joe Biden, the United States has made China a gift of Russia’s exportable food and mineral resources. We are displaying an outright genius for identifying our most dangerous military adversary and solving its most pressing strategic challenge. The attention of China is now engaged. Joe Biden argues that any wavering in the cause of obliterating Russia will be understood by China as a green light on Taiwan. He may have a point, but the U.S. management of the Ukraine situation over the past decade has constituted encouragement enough.

The multipolar world is coming into being and is being speeded up by the war in Ukraine. For the neocons in charge of U.S. foreign policy, it’s an existential moment because their much yearned for unipolar world run by the U.S. in close alliance with Israel may be unraveling, in large part because of their own ambitions to destroy Russia—a hatred borne of old grievances specific to the long sojourn of Jews in Russia, where anti-Jewish attitudes have a long history (even under Bolshevism), Putin’s banishing of politically involved Jewish oligarchs,  Russia’s alliances with Israel’s enemies Iran and Syria, their rejection of globalism in favor of nationalism (the ADL considers calling out any Jew for supporting globalism to be “anti-Semitic“), and their support for traditional Russian Christian culture rather than, e.g., LGBTQ+ which is championed by powerful Jewish organizations throughout the West.

It’s interesting therefore that in a recent UN General Assembly vote, earlier this month calling for an end to the fighting and Moscow’s immediate withdrawal from Ukraine, Russia voted against, while China, India and South Africa abstained. Add to that the recent Saudi-Iran rapprochement along with Syria and the U.S. may well be looking at an alliance among Russia, China, India, and much of the Islamic world that rejects what the West has become—promoting globalism at the expense of nationalism (which comes down to a small cadre of Western oligarchs and multinationals as represented by the World Economic Forum running the world) and moral crusades at the expense of traditional cultures which are inevitably seen as retrograde and change-worthy by the woke elites that run the West. Ukraine’s transformation under Zelensky  is paradigmatic. Ukraine’s transformation is clearly a top-down transformation like those that have occurred in all Western countries. I suppose that this transformation has a long way to go to capture the hearts and minds of Ukrainians, but, as with the West, control of the media and academic culture along with Zelensky’s heavy-handed methods of handling dissent (banning political parties and religions that dissent from the war despite constantly be advertised in the West as a democracy) may prevail in the long run in whatever is left of Ukraine.

Introduction

It seems that in the 1990s, training in multiculturalism could involve brainwashing or psychological abuse. How true is this of today’s anti-racism training?

Cornell in the 1990s

Almost thirty years ago a student at Cornell wrote to its president about what he saw as the brainwashing techniques used to spread the ideology of multiculturalism, or anti-racism as it might be called today, at the university, which he compared to those used by cults.[1] His letter reminds us how peculiar are the ideas that have been being pressed on us all this time, it throws light on the behaviour of anti-racists on social media such as Twitter, and shows how thrilling it can be for White people to believe that they have behaved abominably. We might also wonder how common today is the student’s independent-mindedness.

According to Jonathan Bloedow’s letter, he first encountered multiculturalism when he attended an event arranged by a Resident Assistant that had been advertised as for Whites only.[2] She had brought in two professors to lead a discussion about race, stereotypes, prejudice, power and privilege. When the professors’ ideas were challenged from the floor, the discussion became quite tense.

Afterwards, Bloedow and a friend continued the discussion with some students who agreed with the professors and tried to persuade the two to accept ideas that seemed to get more and more bizarre. Their argument relied on defining racism as prejudice plus power, on which basis they said that all White Americans were racist regardless of their actions or beliefs. When the anti-racists realised that they could not effectively counter their opponents’ objections, something strange happened. In frustration two of them told Bloedow and his friend that their problem was that they were thinking too much from here, pointing to their heads, instead of from here, pointing to their hearts. Bloedow wondered why both young women used the same words and gestures, which he had never heard or seen before, and surmised that they had been affected by a common source. He later spoke to other student multiculturalists, one of whom even followed him in to dinner and sat down with him to explain his new-found belief system.

Cornell University

Bloedow noticed that all the discussions of multiculturalism in which he had taken part had several things in common. Most striking was the peculiarity of the beliefs themselves and the simplistic nature of the explanations of complex social problems that were offered. Secondly were the formulaic phrases used. Not only did every student multiculturalist express the same ideas, they usually expressed them in the same trite words. Again Bloedow thought that this belief system must have a single source. Thirdly the multiculturalists’ ideas were new to them. They had only acquired them at Cornell. Fourthly, they were all very excited about their new beliefs. Like religious fanatics they displayed an almost frenzied devotion to them, which Bloedow found odd given the simplistic nature of the beliefs. Finally, they gave no sign of thought, seeming to have accepted the ideas without putting them through their minds. Something seemed to have snapped in them psychologically, letting the ideas in and changing the students permanently. In one case, when a couple with whom Bloedow had been good friends learned that he edited The Cornell American, which had presumably questioned multiculturalism, they were outraged and refused ever to speak to him again. When he greeted them in the street they ignored him, thinking him too evil to acknowledge. Bloedow became all the more interested in what was happening—and disturbed by it.

Suddenly everything fell into place for Bloedow when he remembered hearing of this phenomenon before. He had once attended a lecture given by someone from the Council on Mind Abuse about cults, brainwashing and mind-control, where the speaker had said that a principal aim of brainwashing was to get people to stop using their minds and start thinking with their hearts. He had explained how mind-controllers try to get people to see their minds and rational thought as their enemies.

Bloedow talked to a fellow student who had recorded his experience of multicultural training, which matched Bloedow’s own. The other student said that at the start of one session, trainees were told no fewer than four times not to think about what they were about to hear but to feel it. When the student had countered the claim that “Whites walk down the glistening sidewalk of life with everything handed to them on a silver platter” by saying that he knew White people who had lived in poverty, the other students had turned on him and screamed that he was an evil racist.

Now seriously concerned, Bloedow set out to discover all he could about brainwashing and mind control, learning among other things that mind controllers train people to respond to dissenters with harassment and abuse but to accept them warmly if they recant. When he read out parts of a book about brainwashing to his fellow student, the latter was shocked to see how accurately the book described what he had experienced. Bloedow’s scepticism gave way to the conclusion to which everything was pointing, which he found quite frightening.

He noted that all the students he came across who were possessed by the new belief system had been converted in one of three situations, the main one being the course “Racism in American Society”, taught by the chair of the Africana Studies Department and another professor. He learned that the university was thinking of making this course mandatory for all first-year students, something true of no other course.

It was later suggested to him by the former director of the Cult Awareness Network that Cornell resorted to mind-control techniques because it had only a short time in which to change students’ minds.[3]

Jane Elliott in the 1990s

A famous “diversity trainer” active at the same time, who has won the National Mental Health Association Award for Excellence in Education, is Jane Elliott. She began her diversity training in 1968, appeared on the Johnny Carson show and has had several documentaries made about her. One from 1996 was recently shown online.[4] Apparently she relied on psychological abuse rather than brainwashing, although psychological abuse can be an element of the brainwashing process.

When signing trainees in to a workshop, she either placed or did not place a large yellow collar round their necks. Those with collars waited in one room, the others in another.

In the uncollared room, where most trainees were Black, she explained that she had separated trainees by the colour of their eyes, putting a collar on those with blue eyes. She was going to attribute to the blue-eyed trainees every negative trait that had been attributed to Black people so that they would learn how it felt to be non-White, she said. She told the brown-eyes that the blue-eyed waiting room contained just three chairs for seventeen people and laughed. She had had the heating turned way up there. A blue-eyed person must have come in to ask if it could be turned down, because she said: “It’s hot in there? Well, then it’s probably smelly, isn’t it, because White people smell a lot, don’t they?” She wanted the blue-eyed trainees to be uncomfortable, she explained to the brown-eyed ones.

Still in the brown-eyed waiting room, she suggested that IQ tests were biased against Black people because they tested “something that they know virtually nothing about”. But IQ tests don’t test knowledge; they test the ability to see and extrapolate patterns. Jane Elliott preferred to describe a question of aptitude in problem solving, such as the Raven’s Progressive Matrices (which is a non-verbal test of abstract reasoning) as a question of knowledge. She told the brown-eyes that they would be given a test that they would pass because the test itself gave them half the answers. This would resemble the way in which White people outperformed Blacks in IQ tests because White people are given the answers on a plate. Black trainees smiled, looking forward to outdoing the blue-eyes, who would presumably take a different test, which they would fail.

She seemed to think that the reason Black people did poorly in many ways was that White people expected little of them, a theory George W Bush alluded to when in 2009 he referred to “the soft bigotry of low expectations”, sometimes known as the theory of the self-fulfilling prophecy. Expect something of someone and they will do it. If only life were that simple! Teachers could raise whole classes of dull children to the top of the academic league just by predicting that they would get there. People with no ear for music would start singing in tune if only someone prophesied that they would.

Another explanation suggested by Jane Elliott of the fact that Whites exceeded Blacks was that they were in power and had set things up so that they would remain in power. They won every game because they had invented the game and set the rules. What chance therefore did a Black person have? This was the Great Race Conspiracy Theory, which says that Whites connive to keep Blacks down. It is a classic conspiracy theory because no one has found any evidence of the conspiracy, which must therefore be going on in secret. Nor can the theory account for the abundant evidence of White people trying to help Black people in every possible way.

Jane Elliott saw “cultural bias” everywhere, sometimes where it was bound to exist, sometimes where it could not. “We use culturally biased text-books, we have culturally biased pictures on the wall”, she said, without explaining how a book or picture could fail to reflect a culture. According to her, our maps were also culturally biased, although what shape a continent might be on a culturally unbiased map she did not say.

But she made the purpose of the workshop clear to the brown-eyes: “For two and a half hours we are going to make these people look inferior and feel inferior”. Clearly this was a sadist who particularly hated White people.

In the workshop, where the blue-eyes sat on the floor while the others sat in chairs, she described White people as slow, unmotivated and lazy. How was this supposed to reflect reality? It must have been extraordinarily rare for a white person to describe a black person in this way to his face. Yet Jane Elliott relished doing this to white people. The Black trainees loved it.

The delighted Jane Elliott: Hating on White People

Posing with one of her delighted trainees

Some of her less of delighted trainees, with collars

She told those with collars that they would be treated “the way they have treated other people for a lifetime”. Even assuming that she meant White people in general rather than her White trainees in particular, how many White Americans had ever actually mistreated a Black person? The scenario was a product of Jane Elliott’s imagination, drawing on largely mythical but culture-wide dramatic categories.[5]

If Jane Elliott had really wanted the White trainees to know what it was like to be Black, she could have asked some Black trainees to stand up and tell them, in which case how many would have said that they were commonly abused? She was pushing the idea that Black people habitually suffered at the hands of Whites without a shred of evidence that it was true. The main purpose of the workshop seemed to be to gratify her love of insulting and humiliating White people.

She did at one point invite Black trainees to speak, not about being Black but specifically about their “stress”. One said that he had been unable to rent a house because, he was told, it was occupied, and he had later seen a White couple going into it: not a very persuasive example of persecution. A woman said that she was one of only two Black teachers at her school: hardly a major problem, one would have thought, let alone a case of mistreatment. The impression was reinforced that Jane Elliott’s idea of Black suffering inflicted by Whites was a fantasy.

This stubborn attachment of many White people to the idea of Black suffering recalls the time that in the Jim Crow era a journalist interviewed a Black man who had been refused admission to a hotel. “What did you do?” asked the journalist breathlessly, perhaps hoping to hear that the Black man had had to sleep on the street. “Went to another hotel”, he said.

Anti-racism training today

It would be interesting to know how the anti-racism training courses employees must undergo today compare to the brainwashing or psycho-torture sessions held in the 1990s. It would seem from the websites of companies offering such training that they might differ in three main ways.

First, whereas in the 1990s “multicultural” or “diversity” training aimed to get it across to White people that their society was riddled with racism, today this is taken for granted. For example, a prospectus from Equality and Diversity UK states that its course aims to “support delegates to understand the role of White privilege in racism” and help them “learn more about racism both the covert/overt [sic], including Subtle Acts of Exclusion”.[6] The existence of “racism”, “White privilege” and these “subtle acts” is presupposed rather than asserted. The course also aims to “support delegates to understand … White fragility and White saviourism”, thereby presupposing the existence of these things too. For anyone who might wonder what they are, the course will “give delegates the language … to tackle uncomfortable conversations”, as though without such jargon one would be unable to talk about race or whatever is supposed to be meant by “racism”. Yet it seems that some courses still find it necessary to inform trainees that all Whites are racist, as seen in the following picture.

All White people are racist, says this happy, edifying woman[7]

Secondly, today’s courses do not seem to advocate feeling rather than thinking but seem to be presented as almost academically respectable. Anti-racism now appears so confident of itself that it can pose as the product of rational thought and observation. Today’s courses also present themselves as caring. With White people’s interests at heart, they want to help them and support them in their efforts to overcome various afflictions of which they might have been unaware.

Thirdly, today’s courses modestly refrain from assuming that they will turn every White trainee into an anti-racist. Rather, they stress the concept of “allyship”, whereby those who do not become anti-racists will at least become their allies so that whatever anti-racists do, they will be behind them. Thus should it turn out that the thrust of anti-racism is to attack White people, their society and their culture, its new allies will also attack White people, their society and their culture.

Perhaps readers who have attended anti-racism training recently will tell us about it in the comments section below.

[1] The letter formed the main part of an article entitled “Does Cornell Use Brainwashing?” which I downloaded in 2001 and can now be accessed at: https://web.archive.org/web/20041221045833/http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/education/Does_Cornell_Use_Brainwashing.html  Unfortunately it does now record the author’s name or the date of publication. I would guess that the letter, if not the article, was written in 1994. It cannot have been earlier since it mentions the Waco incident, which occurred in 1993, nor can it have been much later since it refers to multiculturalism as something new.

[2] Resident Assistants at Cornell, apparently called house advisors or junior counsellors at other American colleges, were senior students employed by the university to live among younger ones as “the extension of the administration into residential life”.

[3] The former director of the Cult Awareness Network was Ron Loomis.

[4] Blackpilled, March 5th 2023, “INSOMNIA STREAM: STUPID CUNT EDITION”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/GHgVh3TbbYD4/.

[5] Dramatic categories are mental devices for perceiving events, which can make it easier to believe in myths than facts. “Certain unverbalized assumptions about what must be the case can often defeat what actually is the case,” wrote the philosopher John Searle when discussing the student uprisings at Berkeley in the 1960s. He gave as an example of a dramatic category: “oppressed minority wins struggle for justice against reactionary authorities”. This contrasted with “oppressed minority engages in pointless battle with authorities for something they are prepared to give anyhow”, which was not a dramatic category and so no one could see events in those terms. See John Searle, 1972, The Campus War, Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 73-77. The unverbalised dramatic category that Jane Elliott drew on and promulgated was basically that Whites were horrible to Blacks.

[6] Equality and Diversity UK, no date (downloaded March 2023), “Anti Racism Training Course”, https://www.equalityanddiversity.co.uk/anti-racism-training.html.

[7] Source: VICE TV, https://presearch.com/images?q=fat%20Black%20anti-racism%20trainer%20says%20all%20White%20people%20are%20racist#view.

Malignant tumors. In the modern West, there are two competing ways of responding to them. The first way is practised by leftists. It involves praising tumors, telling them what a vital and valued contribution they make to the body, and refusing to let tumors be criticized in any way. For example, if lung cancer or liver cancer causes problems, it’s clearly the fault of the lungs or liver. That’s why it’s so important to crush hate-speech about tumors. Can we not all agree that carcinophobia has no place in a decent society?

Words are all it will take

The second way of responding to tumors is practised by rightists and libertarians. They claim that, in fact, the real carcinophobes are those who don’t allow tumors to be criticized. Banning criticism of tumors implies that tumors aren’t grown up enough to accept criticism. But the very essence of tumors is that they grow up (and out and left and right and backward). We are actually respecting tumors if we speak sternly to them when they misbehave. And how else are we going to stop them misbehaving?

An enriching tumor surrounded by carcinophobic lung-tissue (from Wikipedia)

After all, words are the only way to respond to tumors. Either you praise them or you criticize them. Those are the only ways to respond. Certainly we can’t remove tumors from the body. What kind of bigot wants to do such a cruel and mean-spirited thing? All decent people agree that tumors enrich our lives and make a vital contribution to the body. Nor can we try to prevent tumors forming in the first place. That’s not just bigoted: it’s impossible. You cannot prevent tumors. As Sadiq Khan, the Muslim mayor of London, once said: “Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you have to be prepared for tumors. You have to be vigilant.” And Khan is certainly right about “great global cities” like London, Paris and Madrid. Sudden tumorous outbreaks have killed hundreds of people in those cities.

No Third-Worlders, no Third-Worlding

But Khan isn’t right about “great global cities” like Tokyo and Beijing. Tumors haven’t struck there at all. So what’s the difference? Well, Khan wasn’t really talking about tumors, of course. He was talking about Muslim terrorism. And Muslim terrorism doesn’t strike in Tokyo for the simple reason that Japan has not allowed mass migration by Muslims. In other words, you can easily prevent tumors like Muslim terrorism and other Third-World pathologies. Japan has done it by refusing to allow Third-World migration. If there are no Third-World folk in your nation, there are no Third-World pathologies. Enriched London doesn’t just suffer from terrorism but also from gang-rapes, acid-attacks, stabbings, female genital mutilation, and massive political corruption.

All of that is a consequence of Third-World migration and the Third-World pathologies it inevitably spawns in what is rapidly ceasing to be a First-World city. The same is true elsewhere in England. The small Yorkshire town of Rotherham has become infamous around the world for its Muslim rape-gangs, which have been raping, beating, prostituting and occasionally murdering underage White girls for decades.

Authentic Muslim menace

Despite its infamy, Rotherham is only a small part of sexual jihad being waged by Muslims in Britain. Worse things are still going on in bigger towns and cities. And no-one in mainstream politics is prepared to do anything about it. Politicians, journalists and academics don’t even speak the truth about it. And the truth is that the only way to end the pathologies caused by Muslims and other Third-World people is to expel them from your territory. Refusing to admit this, the mainstream left and mainstream right advocate the two competing policies I described above. Leftists believe in curing non-White pathologies by blaming them on Whites. Rightists believe in curing non-White pathologies by talking tough about them. And we’ve just seen excellent examples of these two failed policies in a story from another Islamically enriched Yorkshire town called Wakefield.

As part of a game with his friends, a 14-year-old autistic White boy purchased a Koran and took it to Kettlethorpe High School in Wakefield, where it was accidentally dropped and slightly damaged. There was no malicious intent and the Koran does not appear to have been disrespected or vandalized in any way. But Usman Ali, a local councillor for the Labour party, immediately spotted another chance to intimidate the infidels and assert Muslim dominance. He tweeted the following, using smarmy left-speak to convey authentic Muslim menace:

After todays [sic] events at Kettlethorpe High School, where a Quran has been desecrated are [sic] a serious provocative action which needs to be dealt with urgently by all the authorities, namely, the police, the school and the local authority.

This terrible event could destroy all the good progress that has been made in Wakefield to highlight and combat Islamophobia.

I have been in contact with local leaders to ensure that swift and appropriate action is taken to deal with this grave situation. We all need to work together to make sure that this terrible provocation does not set back community relations for years to come. (Tweet by Usman Ali)

Councillor Ali later deleted the tweet, but it had had its desired effect. I’ve often written at the Occidental Observer about the goy grovel, that is, the sycophancy and submission of White gentiles to Jews. Now meet the kaffir krawl, the sycophancy and submission of White infidels to Muslims (kaffir is the Muslim term for a non-Muslim). The kaffir krawl was energetically performed in Wakefield by “all the authorities” and also by the mother of the autistic schoolboy, who has reportedly been “forced to flee his home and go into hiding, fearing for his life” because of death-threats.

Whites perform the kaffir krawl in Wakefield flanked by secretly laughing Muslims

Making death-threats is a crime in Britain. Slightly damaging a Koran without malicious intent is not. But the police in Wakefield acted as though it was the other way around. They performed the kaffir krawl to Muslims and confirmed once again that Britain has a new and unofficial blasphemy law. The old and official blasphemy law, which was abolished in 2008, protected only Christianity. The new and unofficial blasphemy law protects only Islam, because it has been created by Muslims and their readiness both to threaten and to commit violence in defense of their religion. Leftists, who hate free speech and love Islam, welcome this new law. Rightists and libertarians don’t welcome it, but they can’t be honest about why the new law exists or about their own inability to combat it. This is how the Trotskyist libertarian Brendan O’Neill, a cognitive clone of the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi, began his thunderous denunciation of the events in Wakefield:

Imagine living in a country so religiously uptight that even making a smudge on a copy of the Quran could turn into a police matter. A country so nervous of offending Islam that even kids could be punished for allegedly disrespecting that religion. A country so determined to ringfence certain religious beliefs from scrutiny or mockery that you might hear actual politicians denouncing as ‘provocative’ and ‘terrible’ any slight against those beliefs.

Well, if you’re in the UK then you live in that country. Forget Iran. Never mind Afghanistan. It’s right here in Blighty, a supposedly free, mostly secular nation, that all of the above recently happened. Let’s call it ‘Qurangate’. And let’s talk about just how messed up it is. (‘Qurangate’ and Britain’s new blasphemy rules, The Spectator, 25th February 2023)

Try and guess how Brendan continued his article. Did he point out that Britain now resembles the intolerant Muslim nations of Iran and Afghanistan because Britain has imported millions of intolerant Muslims? Did he issue a mea culpa for firmly supporting that influx of intolerant Muslims throughout his career? Of course he didn’t. Instead, he emitted hot air about “free speech” and condemned the way in which accusations of “Islamophobia” are used to justify censorship and blacklisting. He also plugged the useless and stupid line that protecting Islam from offence is “demeaning” and “infantilising” to Muslims.

Trotskyism and truth don’t mix

And to top it all off, he lied. Note the first adjective he used in this paragraph:

This strange and strict control of discussion of Islam can have dire consequences. Who can forget the case of the schoolteacher at Batley Grammar, also in West Yorkshire, who was hounded into hiding for the ‘crime’ of showing his pupils an image of Muhammad? Or the craven decision by UK cinema chains to pull the movie The Lady of Heaven last year after Islamist protesters kicked up a storm? In such a febrile and censorious climate it strikes me as incredibly reckless to treat four children as wicked defilers of Islam’s holy book. (‘Qurangate’ and Britain’s new blasphemy rules)

Brendan was lying when he used the word “strange” to describe the way Muslims are using intimidation and violence to control “discussion of Islam.” On the contrary, that control is completely normal and entirely predictable. Most of Britain’s vibrant Muslims come from Pakistan and, as I’ve pointed out again and again at the Occidental Observer, Pakistan has both harsh laws against blasphemy and a flourishing tradition of extra-judicial execution for alleged blasphemers. A Pakistani Muslim called Tanveer Ahmed brought that tradition to Britain in 2016, when he traveled from England to Scotland and stabbed to death another Pakistani Muslim called Asad Shah. Ahmed was an orthodox Sunni Muslim and Shah belonged to a Muslim sect called the Ahmadis, whom Sunnis regard as heretics and blasphemers. There was nothing “strange” about that murder, just as there was nothing strange about Brendan O’Neill’s refusal to discuss it at the time or later. Indeed, violence against Ahmadis is so routine in Pakistan that Asad Shah was granted asylum in Britain.

Absolute certainty of disaster

Unfortunately for him, Britain has been colonized by orthodox Muslim Pakistanis who, naturally enough, have brought their robust anti-blasphemy traditions with them. Not to mention their robust traditions of sexually enslaving infidel females and creating horrible genetic diseases by marrying close relatives. So would it be right to use another of Brendan O’Neill’s posturing phrases and say it was “incredibly reckless” to allow Pakistanis to colonize Britain? No, it wouldn’t be right to use that phrase. Doing so would imply that there was only a high probability of disastrous consequences, not an absolute certainty. But it was absolutely certain that allowing Pakistanis and other Third-Worlders to colonize Britain would have disastrous consequences.

Brendan O’Neill has supported that Third-World colonization every step of the way. Naturally enough, he’s also weaseled and lied about the disastrous consequences. Or has ignored them entirely. To the best of my knowledge, he has never mentioned, let alone condemned, the murder of Asad Shah. He certainly didn’t mention it in his article about Qurangate in Wakefield. “Who can forget?” he asked in the article before listing examples of Muslim attacks on free speech. Well, you could, Brendan. And you did. But that silence wasn’t maintained by Tom Slater, another Trotskyist libertarian and cognitive clone of Frank Furedi. When Slater wrote about Qurangate, he said this:

We’ve seen how this story ends far too many times now. The threat to those deemed to be blasphemers is very real. Batley Grammar School, where in 2021 a teacher was forced into hiding after he showed a cartoon of Muhammad to his religious-studies class, is a 10-mile drive from Kettlethorpe High School. That teacher is still in hiding, no doubt fearing he will meet a similar fate to Samuel Paty — the French teacher beheaded in the suburbs of Paris in 2020 for almost identical ‘crimes’. Those who refuse to believe that such a thing could happen here should Google Asad Shah, the Ahmadiyya Muslim shopkeeper from Glasgow who was stabbed to death in 2016 by a man who accused him of ‘disrespecting’ Islam. Everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten about that awful case. (When a Wakefield boy brought a Koran to school, Spiked Online, 27th February 2023)

No, Tom: not everyone. I’m a knuckle-dragging far-rightard, but I’ve never forgotten about the “awful case” of Asad Shah’s murder. And please feel free to draw on any of my articles about it when you and your comrades begin your unrelenting campaign to put Asad Shah where he deserves to be, namely, at the heart of all future commentary about Islam and free speech in Britain:

• When Tanveer Met Asad: Vibrant Vignettes from the Modern West
• Martyr with a Machine-Gun: How Liberal Piety Facilitates Muslim Pathology
• Head-Chopping for Muhammad: How Trotskyism and Truth Don’t Mix
• Heretics and Halfwits: Furedi’s Freedom-Fighters and the Lethality of Libertarianism
• Libtards Wail, Muslims Wait: Why Fans of Abortion Won’t Defeat Fans of Muhammad
• “Fuck Your Free Speech”: Leftism, Libertarianism and the Death of Free Speech
• A Tartan Tyranny: Censorship and Silence in the Virtue-Signalling Scottish Police State

But I have to be honest about why I’ve never forgotten the murder of Asad Shah. That “awful case” is not at all inconvenient for me, because it proves I’m right about the lunacy of allowing Muslims to colonize a Western nation. It is certainly inconvenient for self-proclaimed libertarians like Brendan O’Neill and Tom Slater, because it contradicts all their weaseling and lies about why Muslims attack free speech and how we can stop them doing it. Muslims will never stop doing it until they and other Third-World enrichers are expelled from Western nations.

Either way, the always idiotic and often evil ideology of libertarianism is doomed. If Third-World enrichers remain in the West, they will further assist the creation of a leftist tyranny in which sincere libertarians will be imprisoned (and insincere ones take their masks off to reveal their true leftism). But if Third-World enrichers are expelled, it will be because Whites who are serious about defending Western civilization have come to power. And Whites who are serious about defending Western civilization are not fooled by the thoroughly Jewish ideology of libertarianism, which warmly welcomes Muslim migration, then weasels and lies about the inevitable consequences.