Featured Articles

Equal Abilities and Results for All: The new world of woke-inspired reality and international relations

I am not “woke,” but I have been “awakened” to a new norm and concept of everyday life which denies biological diversity and the unequal results of competition.  In today’s culture, from early childhood there can be no “losers”: all those who compete must earn a “trophy” of sorts to be placed on a shelf with other participation awards.  Only the physical presence of young participants is required. Differences in skill levels are ignored and equal outcomes are mandatory. However, in later years (post-pubescent) competition in high school sports belie the “equity” fallacy. At this level, elimination of the less competent goes unopposed; no more compassionate gestures trying to protect “sensitive souls” or equalize competition in all facets of life.  The hierarchy of values and meaningful success becomes more and more important.  Team victories are celebrated with collective delight.  Players who perform poorly are replaced by the more competent.  Meritocracy once again is dominant and victory is the ultimate sign of success.

What is even more significant these days is the tendency to eliminate competitive entrance exams to colleges or universities in the name of racial “equity” or justice (whatever that truly means)…dumbing down to the most suitable denominator.  Everyone, in the long run, becomes average because normality is the goal, not striving to be “the best of the best”.

As I mentioned, this quest for equality is only possible in the pre-pubescent years.  Later on, especially in the sports arena, competition becomes all important and there are winners and losers.  But why can’t this acceptance of difference be taught early on so the very young can adjust to what life will demand?  Traumatisms? Depression? Parental objections? It is interesting and somewhat disconcerting that differences are acceptable in competitive sports events but not in the classroom.

Psychometricians have long concluded that being gifted is partially genetic and partially the product of environment.  Athletic prowess is a gift which we all  admire and even laud.  If so why not intellectual accomplishments? This slippery slope is fraught with social and genetic landmines: if little Johnny (very White) is consistently better than Ja’honta (very Black) in all academic subject matters then what is the cause of this disparity?  There are scholarly books devoted to the West African origins of Black athletes, their muscular configuration, stride length, lung capacity, etc.  In a word, they are better than Whites or other ethnic groups because of morphology or inherited physical traits.  The dominance of Black athletes, especially in football and basketball, is an undisputed fact.  No White sprinter has won the gold medal in Olympic competition since 1980.  Native Kenyans have dominated long-distance running for a number of years.

However, one must be very careful in analyzing the root causes of intellectual differences.  Racism rears its omnipresent head if you conclude that genetic factors play a determinant role in these matters.  Biology (at least 50% if not more) determines how well we reason; environment has a significant albeit not as compelling role in our cognitive development.  At birth we are predetermined to be talented (or less so) in logic, science, language use, and a number of thought processes. If that is the case, then there is very little that compensatory programs can do to level the playing field. This is the conclusion that Arthur Jensen reached in his seminal article that appeared in the Harvard Educational Review in 1969.  Because he gave credence to innate ethnic differences in reasoning, his life was never the same afterwards.  He became a focal point for leftist hatred and contempt.

How well or how poorly we think is primarily the result of genetic structuring and not systemic oppression as the liberals have concluded.  Their demands were categorical: simply remove the barriers to success (segregation, anticipated failure syndrome, poor schools, lack of opportunity, inadequate nutrition during early childhood, etc.) and the two “races” would be co-equal.  Indeed, it was not a lack of talent, but bigotry and ill-founded claims of underachievement that nourished the concept of “superiority” between Whites and Blacks. Decades later, however, with some reluctance, even the most liberal scholars have to admit that the intellectual gap in testing remains no matter how aggressive and creative the methods were that attempted to force equality of outcomes in the classroom.

After years of depressing results in trying to reduce the gap between Whites and Blacks on intelligence tests, the leftist movement and “experts” have come to the conclusion that testing and psychometrics are in themselves deeply flawed.  What truly matters is the whole individual not just the ability to reason.  Among other traits, sociability, interpersonal skills, rhythmic movements, and athleticism are equally as important for success as effective reasoning. This has resulted in very different acceptance rates by race for the same level of performance on standardized tests.

From a brief filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against Harvard University

We are led to believe by woke logic that the current barriers to Black achievement are White-constructed and not in keeping with the true strengths of the minority communities.  Competence in mathematics is not endemic to the Black experience; as a result, its importance has to be downplayed in evaluating the worth of high school or college students. The same conclusions apply to other disciplines in which Blacks traditionally do not succeed.  Not only must entrance exams be radically modified or even abolished, but outcomes must also be re-examined in light of woke psychology.  If all races/ethnicities are “equal” in abilities then outcomes must reflect this reality.  Advanced subject matter courses can no longer be exclusionary: minority students with above average grades must be included in their ranks.  The new world of equality will be just that:  equal outcomes for all or “equity.”  The Black experience of the ghetto or inner city will be taken into account in selecting and training its underprivileged youth.  Dialectical English will be viewed on an equal footing with standard English.  Societal expectations and racial sensitivity must supersede accepted norms of excellence.

How will this artificial selection process benefit society?  How will scientific disciplines choose with any certainty or accuracy the best-trained candidates for positions of responsibility?  Airplane pilots are now being assigned on the basis of racial characteristics, not necessarily technical competence—a policy advocated by the current Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights who thinks that Blacks are genetically superior to Whites and that skin color should be a criterion for airline pilots.  This insanity has very serious ramifications at all levels of social achievement and public safety.

The “progressive” narrative and its beliefs are now ever-present in the corporate world.  Racially integrated couples are very common in pharmaceutical commercials on TV.  It has become almost faddish to promote equity in corporate advertisements by displaying equality in interracial relationships.  In this respect, it is interesting that one never sees an Asian male with an African-American spouse in commercials.  Rarely does an Asian appear in corporate advertising except in financial or home products commercials. It is also significant that Asians are never made the “fall guy” or buffoon in TV advertisements; this ignominious characterization is exclusively reserved for the hapless White male.

For any middle-class Asian to be associated with a Black partner would be a sign of downward mobility. Advertising agencies are keenly aware of these disparities that would alienate their Asian clients.  The preferred coupling on television is “Black male-White female”; this serves the woke purpose of dispelling the segregationist myth of White supremacy. White women are portrayed as subservient to dominant Black males, thus underscoring the equality of diverse ethnic groups.  Marriage is the “sacred” symbol of blending races on an equal footing. Although interracial unions are still frowned upon by the majority of Americans, wokeism has planted its roots into the corporate world and its quest for general acceptance and greater profits.

America continues to “brown” her skin tones and the proponents of diversity see victory in their grasp.  The lone enemy that remains is the White majority or “Trump voters,” the latter a pejorative term among the woke. Once that obstacle is overcome, a new and more socially sensitive world will arise.  To ensure compliance, no critical voice will be permitted to speak out freely in promoting the contributions of White citizens of European descent.  Cancel culture will impose its restrictions on opponents from the Right.  Penalties for disagreement will be swift and devastating.

All things being equal, China continues its relentless march towards world dominance, unhampered by anti-hereditarian bias that dominates the West.  America is embroiled in internal social conflicts and fails to acknowledge that an authoritarian system of governance is spreading its tentacles far and wide.  Media sources refuse to dwell on or fully acknowledge this imminent threat to our national security.  We live from week to week, month to month, absorbed by diversionary or domestic issues, while the Chinese are committed to the long-term strategy of victory through infinite patience.  Defeat will eventually come from within our boundaries, not from the Asian continent. The American public will grow indifferent to such an indeterminate threat from a growing economic power with which we have close trading ties.  China will not be viewed in military terms but as a giant corporation facing off against its American counterpart in the battle for world trade dominance, not a country seeking political conquest.

Patience on the part of the Chinese will prevail in the end.  As America browns and concentrates on issues of social diversity and equity, the Chinese are carefully plotting their inevitable dominance of world economies and establishing political hegemony in targeted countries in Asia. Both President Biden and his family have vested (likely corrupt) interests in China’s economic progress and have publicly supported its importance to American success.  Corporate America willfully endorses Black Lives Matter and woke ideologies (Critical Race Theory), but will not openly criticize China’s continuing abuse of human rights or theft of intellectual property.  Being denied access to Chinese markets would inflict serious harm to bottom line profits; in times of moral crisis, silence is assent and lack of protest is a form of complicity.

Thousands of miles away from Beijing, our civilization gradually wanes in the face of this focused and highly talented emerging power.   The winds of destiny are favoring China’s rise to global eminence.  Even our European allies are indebted to the Chinese; as a result, they would be reluctant to support American intervention in areas of Chinese influence such as the autonomy of Taiwan and military expansionism in the South China Sea.

A declaration of war or the use of nuclear weapons would be inconceivable in any future conflict with the Chinese. As a means of protest and resistance, we are relegated to the imposition of economic sanctions and other indirect and  ineffectual measures (boycotting Chinese-made products at home, publicly denouncing Chinese policy, etc.). A full-scale military confrontation would bring about the destruction of our societies and the death of millions of innocent civilians. Unfortunately, our political strategies are not future-oriented but inner-focused.

Unless we are faced with a massive threat from abroad, Americans prefer to rectify supposed moral and domestic injustices at home above all other concerns. The past decades have demonstrated that we cannot remake authoritarian regimes in our image. Without the protective shield of our military presence, foreign autocracies or dictatorships will more than likely revert to a form of government in keeping with their cultural heritage. This is painfully obvious as American troops are now being withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Taliban have begun to reassert their Islamic authoritarianism. Massive expenditures have been devoted to stabilizing our enemies from past wars (Germany and Japan in particular), preventing them from embracing once again despotic regimes of governance.

Our obsession with diversity, critical race theory, and other internal conflicts are weakening our ability to act as a unified nation in times of severe international crises.  The progressive demonization and condemnation of White majority rule (“systemic racism”, “White privilege”) has called into question its efficacy in the minds of impressionable youth.  Where there is continuous doubt about the moral basis of authority, there will be a hesitancy to act with decisiveness.  The Chinese face no such impediment to their decisions in domestic and foreign affairs.  No matter how we assess our political future as Americans, the twenty-first century belongs to the ever-expanding and emboldened autocracy from the Far East.

The Silencing of Science: How Block-Lives Matter

When I move into a new home, two things go up immediately on the wall. The first is my gold-framed portrait of Richard Wagner. The second is my map of the Universe. One way or another, everything’s there, from the left thumb of the Pope to the whole of the Andromeda Galaxy, from the follicle mites in Obama’s eyebrows to the hydrocarbon ice on Titan.

A map of the universe: the periodic table

But you wouldn’t guess to look at it, because the map is surprisingly small and suspiciously regular. In fact, most of it consists of a set of coloured blocks filled with cryptic symbols and numbers: “Xe” and “2,8,18,18,8,” for example. But that will be a giveaway for anyone who knows a bit of chemistry. My map of the Universe is the periodic table, that astonishing encapsulation of the hundred-odd elements that comprise everything in the material universe.

A cookbook for matter

The periodic table is astonishing partly because it manages to capture so much with so little. If I look around me at the moment, I see a huge variety of things, from sea-shells to books, from memory-sticks to egret feathers. But everything I see is made from just three things: protons, neutrons and electrons. At the conscious level, there’s endless variety. At the sub-atomic level, there’s endless repetition. If the protons in the egret feathers were swapped with the same number of protons in the books, it would be impossible to detect any change. Ditto for the neutrons and electrons, and ditto for any other pair of material objects, no matter how superficially different. The periodic table is a kind of cookbook for matter, listing the recipes used by Mother Nature to rustle up a lustrous weighty solid like silver or a poisonous swirling gas like chlorine from exactly the same ingredients.

But it wasn’t easy to uncover the unifying simplicity of the periodic table. It’s not just a cookbook: it’s a monument to human intelligence, ingenuity, obsession and effort. Or rather, it’s a monument to those things as displayed by White males. Take a survey of the periodic table like Jack Challoner’s excellent The Elements: The Ultimate Guide to the Building Blocks of Our Universe (2012). Reading about the blocks, you won’t come across any Blacks. Instead, the names of stale pale males occur on almost every page, beginning with the Frenchman Antoine Lavoisier (1743–94), the Englishman John Dalton (1766–1844) and the Russian Dmitri Mendeleev (1834–1907).

First found in sunlight

The first two helped lay the foundations of modern chemistry and the last devised its recipe-book: the periodic table. Then stale pale males like the New Zealander Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937) helped explain the patterns of the periodic table. Hundreds of other stale pale males, and a few stale pale females like the great Pole Marie Curie (1867–1934), helped to fill in the table by extracting and refining elements from substances as diverse as slag, seaweed and fresh air. And by detecting one in sunlight before it was found on earth. If the elements are the building-blocks of the universe, then you could say that the scientists who explained and uncovered them were leading block-lives. And block-lives matter in a way that mainstream politics and culture presently refuse to admit.

For example, here’s a curious thing: four of those elements – the obscure but sometimes important ytterbium, yttrium, terbium and erbium – were named from the small Swedish village of Ytterby. It wasn’t just that they were found in a quarry there: Swedes and other Scandinavians worked to extract them from reluctant minerals. And vanadium is named from a Norse goddess and holmium from the Swedish capital Stockholm. Scandinavian men have contributed more to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) than all Blacks who ever lived, despite being vastly outnumbered by Blacks. In other words, even as chemistry was unifying heaven and earth, it was disuniting humanity, because scientific talent and success haven’t been evenly distributed among the diverse groups of humanity.

White European males were necessary for the creation of modern science and might have been entirely sufficient. I suggested in “The Pale Male Paradox” that one factor in their success was their lack of self-obsession: they’re interested in the external universe, not in themselves and their own interests. But, as I also suggested in the article, that renders them vulnerable to parasitic ideologies run by groups, like Jews and Blacks, who are obsessed with themselves and their own interests. The pale male paradox is that pale males have achieved most and are now vilified worst, being held responsible for horrendous contemporary evils like racism, sexism and Islamophobia.

The epicycles of leftism

While chemistry and physics have revealed a true unity beneath the myriad substances and phenomena of the material universe, leftism insists on a false unity beneath the myriad differences of humanity. “We are all the same under the skin,” leftism insists. Therefore we should achieve the same. But we don’t. And so, like Ptolemaic astronomy compensating for its faulty premise of geocentrism with epicycles, leftism compensates for its faulty premise of human equality with nonsense like “systemic racism” and “White supremacy.” After all, what else could explain how the innate genius of Blacks has failed to flower in White societies for so long?

“Nothing else!” say the liars of leftism. “Genetics!” say heretical truth-tellers like the Nobel laureate James Watson (born 1928), a stale pale male who helped reveal how chemistry encodes life. Watson and his late colleague Francis Crick (1916–2004) were the co-discoverers of the double-helix structure of DNA. If Mendeleev revealed the building-blocks of matter in the periodic table, then Crick and Watson revealed the building-blocks of life. So they also led block-lives and their block-lives matter in a way that, once again, contradicts the lies of mainstream politics and culture. Their discovery unified biology rather as the periodic table unified chemistry. The amazing variety of life on Earth, from daisies to dachshunds, from bacteria to blue whales, arises from the same genetic code. And just as you could swap protons between material objects and detect no difference, you could swap genes between living organisms and detect no difference.

Genetics unifies biology, but also helps us see the huge importance of small differences. All mammals share most of their genomes, but they don’t share most of their behaviour, diet and external anatomy. There are vast differences between a tiny insect-eating bat flying hundreds of metres up and a giant squid-eating whale swimming hundreds of metres down. But those vast physiological and behavioural differences arise from small genetic differences. It didn’t take long, evolutionarily speaking, to convert the four-legged land-living common ancestor of bats and whales into its winged and finned modern descendants.

Tiny but titanic

And into all its other modern descendants, from armadillos to zebras. However, one of those descendants, Homo sapiens, is distinguished by perhaps the most important genetic difference of all time. The difference is tiny, compared to everything that unites mammals, but titanic in its significance. What is it? It’s what enables you to read these little symbols on a computer screen. Human beings evolved language and language depends on certain sequences of DNA. We don’t know exactly what they are yet and how they work, but without them humans wouldn’t be human. Without language, we couldn’t organize our societies, inform ourselves so effectively about resources and threats, and cooperate on communally beneficial projects. But that’s precisely why leftism insists on censorship and wants to silence the voices of heretics like James Watson. Leftism wants to prevent Whites from informing themselves about racial difference and the vast threats of mass immigration and racially mixed societies. It wants to prevent Whites cooperating on the communally beneficial projects of self-defence and self-assertion.

And so, when Watson suggested that there were genetic reasons for the intellectual under-performance of Blacks, he was punished with loss of income and prestige. Voltaire said that the English execute an admiral from time to time pour encourager les autres – “to encourage the others.” Leftists burn heretics (metaphorically speaking, at the moment) for the same reason: by punishing a scientific giant like Watson, they were frightening thousands of lesser scientists and writers who might share Watson’s ideas about genetic difference or at least believe that those ideas should be freely debated. In suppressing the quintessential human faculty of speech, leftist censorship is a way of preserving and extending the power of an ideology that cannot survive open discussion and debate.

Archimedes’ midgets

Censorship is also a way of exercising power, something that can be highly enjoyable for the envious and inferior. None of Watson’s critics could match his scientific achievements, but they could assert power over him and humiliate him in public. Even the highly woke British biologist Adam Rutherford, a half-Guyanese Indian and propagandist for wokeism on race, admitted that Watson had been “shooed from public life by the people who walk in his scientific shadow.” But Rutherford doesn’t disapprove of that: he thinks that Watson is a racist and deserves everything he gets. Rutherford also thinks that the great Victorian scientist Francis Galton (1822–1911) was a racist and that it’s right to remove Galton’s name from institutions built on his very clever and creative ideas.

This spectacle of giants like Watson and Galton being toppled by pygmies like Rutherford deserves a name. I’d call it Archimedes Syndrome—Rutherford and company are Archimedes’ midgets. The Greek mathematician and scientist Archimedes (287–212 BC) was one of history’s supreme geniuses, but according to Plutarch he was cut down in his prime by a nobody. Archimedes had defended the city of Syracuse against a Roman siege, but when the city fell, he was engrossed in a mathematical problem. And he ignored an order from a Roman soldier. So the Roman soldier killed him. The story may be apocryphal, but it illustrates a perennial theme of life: how the superior can fall victim to the inferior, the high to the low. The more we’ve learned about biology, the more we’ve seen Archimedes Syndrome in action. As I’ve described in articles like “Verbal Venom” and “How to Cure a White Zombie,” very simple parasites can subvert the brains of much more complex hosts.

A veneer of philanthropy

There’s an obvious parallel to what’s happening in Western politics. For example, stupid people like the Black anti-racist Ibram X. Kendi are subverting culture and politics in the hugely sophisticated White nation of America. White Americans have achieved things utterly beyond the power of any Black collective, like landing men on the moon and probing the universe across vast stretches of space and time. The paradox is that White America achieved so much because it was a high-trust society, but those achievements made America a juicy target for those who could exploit the trust, concealing hostility and self-service beneath a veneer of universalism and philanthropy. By themselves Blacks lacked the intellectual sophistication to fashion what Kevin MacDonald has named the “culture of critique,” wherein White societies are indicted for their sins against racial equality and justice.

Instead, the culture of critique was fashioned and refined by much more intelligent Ashkenazi Jews like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, who prepared the way for Black Lives Matter by insisting that Block-Lives Don’t Matter—namely, that genes, the building blocks of biology, don’t exercise decisive influence on the success of Whites and failure of Blacks in advanced industrial societies. Gould’s message was that “human equality is a contingent fact of history,” and that message has been bawled into the ears of American Whites for decades, thanks to Jewish dominance in the media. As Ron Unz has put it:

Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, [Americans’] understanding of the world was overwhelmingly shaped by our centralized electronic media, which was almost entirely in Jewish hands during this period, with all three television networks and eight of nine major Hollywood studios being owned or controlled by such individuals, along with most of our leading newspapers and publishing houses. (American Pravda: Mossad Assassinations, The Unz Review, January 27, 2020)

Language is essential for any human society to exist, but when the media of a society are controlled by a hostile alien minority, language becomes a curse rather than a blessing. It no longer fulfils its function of conveying accurate information that enables effective collective responses and endeavours. Instead, it propagates falsehood and facilitates attacks on the society by its enemies. Blacks, with their low average IQ, could not be so successfully undermining and exploiting White Americans without control of the media by Jews, with their high average IQs.

Salmon’s stern sentences

But Blacks are also undermining and exploiting the White British in a society that had no good historic reason to contain large numbers of Blacks. So why are they here? According to James Thompson at the Unz Review, “The United Kingdom seems to have begun its largest and most transformative policy in a typical fit of absent-mindedness.” That is a disappointingly ignorant and irrational claim by Thompson. In fact, the policy wasn’t “absent-minded” at all, because the same group behind the nation-wrecking 1965 Immigration Law in America wanted mass immigration by non-Whites into Britain too. In other words, Jews opened the borders in Britain just as they did in America, France, Australia, and Sweden.

Exemplary sentences for uppity goyim: Jewish Judge Cyril Salmon (1903–1991)

And even if mass immigration into Britain had indeed begun “in a typical fit of absent-mindedness,” that raises an obvious question: Why wasn’t the British government shaken out of its “absent-mindedness” by the very loud opposition of ordinary British Whites? Blacks who emigrated to Britain from the Caribbean brought a vibrant culture of murder, rape and public nuisance with them. In 1958, ordinary Whites fought back against the Black incursion in the so-called “Notting Hill race riot,” which saw vicious fighting between Whites and Blacks in a working-class district of London. But the British authorities were not on the side of ordinary Whites. As the Guardian approvingly reported: “At the Old Bailey [Britain’s most famous court] Judge [Cyril] Salmon later handed down exemplary sentences of four years each on nine White youths who had gone ‘nigger hunting’.” Judge Salmon certainly wasn’t absent-minded and certainly wasn’t sympathetic to Whites resisting the forced imposition of criminal Blacks on their homeland.

“Entering politics to combat anti-semitism”

But Judge Salmon’s attitudes and “exemplary sentences” are entirely unsurprising, because he was of course Jewish. It’s very interesting that he was appointed to oversee what was clearly designed as a show-trial, just as it’s very interesting that, decades later, the ethnocentric Jew Barbara Roche was appointed as immigration minister under the treacherous Tony Blair. Roche oversaw a massive increase in already very high levels of non-White immigration. She wasn’t “absent-minded” either. In 2001, a Guardian interview said that her “parents were part Spanish, Portuguese, Polish and Russian, and she had entered politics—she still emphasises this today—to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” In another interview with the Guardian, she said that “I love the diversity of London. … I just feel comfortable.”

Roche feels “comfortable” in an atomized society where she doesn’t stand out as alien and doesn’t fear that White gentiles will turn on Jews, as they have so often in the past. And Roche was also clearly motivated by a desire for revenge on the White British. In one speech in 2000 she gloated about her ability to direct immigration policy, proclaiming herself as the proud descendant of Jews who had been insulted by a xenophobic White Briton. Note how she begins this section of her speech with some lying propaganda borrowed from Jews in America:

Britain has always been a nation of migrants. There were in practice almost no immigration controls prior to the beginning of the 20th century. The 1905 Aliens Act was a direct response to Jewish immigration and it is difficult to deny that it was motivated in part by anti-Semitism. Major [William] Evans-Gordon, an MP, speaking in support of the legislation, said: “It is the poorest and least fit of these people who move, and it is the residuum of these again who come to and are let in this country. … Hon[ourable] Members [of Parliament] opposite do not live in daily terror of being turned into the street to make room for an unsavoury Pole [i.e. Polish Jew].”

I expect Major Evans Gordon would be spinning in his grave if he knew that their descendant would not only be Immigration Minister but would be standing before you today making this speech. (UK migration in a global economy, Draft Speech by Barbara Roche MP, Immigration Minister, London, 11th September 2000)

Britain has not “always been a nation of migrants.” There were “almost no immigration controls” at that time because there was no need for them. Britain was a demographically stable White Christian nation without a societal death-wish. But even at “the beginning of the 20th century” it was apparent to some clear-sighted observers that Jews had achieved disproportionate power and influence here. The satirist Hector Hugh Munro (1876–1916), who wrote under the pen-name of Saki, created a hero in 1904 who claimed that the British Empire was “rapidly becoming a suburb of Jerusalem.” Like working-class Whites in Notting Hill in the 1950s, Saki thought that outsiders were harming Britain, but his opposition was literary rather than physical. He didn’t go to prison for mocking Jews in stories like “The Unrest-Cure” and “A Touch of Realism.”

Calculus versus chaos

Nor did Saki lose his successful literary career. But writers do lose their careers today for transgressing against minority worship and sometimes, like the great historian David Irving (born 1938), also go to prison. In a Land of Lies, free speech and free enquiry are crimes. But the double-think and deceit of Black Lives Matter and the vast official apparatus of “anti-racism” don’t and can’t alter reality. In response to that deceit, we have to insist that Block-Lives Matter—that genes, the building-blocks of life, explain why Blacks underachieve at civilization and overachieve at crime. The genetic similarities between bats and whales are far greater than the differences. But you can’t find a shared environment where bats and whales both flourish.

The same applies to Blacks and Whites. The genetic similarities between us are far greater than the differences. But the differences explain why Whites create calculus and Blacks create chaos. You can’t build a shared society where Blacks and Whites both flourish. More and more Whites can see this simple truth, so the hostile elite will have to put more and more effort into repressing dissent. And that repression will further demonstrate the evil of racially mixed societies, thereby waking more Whites. The vicious circle for the hostile elite will prove a virtuous circle for Whites.

Anti-White Hate and White Ethnomasochism at the Opera

Daniel Bernard Roumain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such oppression!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One half of the England Team Kneeling to the Other Half

White English players in training
The Ying and Yang of politics is division (or polarisation) and unity. The problems arise when you have division at a time when you should have unity and unity at a time when you should have division.
In the early 20th century we got things the wrong way round with division when we should have had unity, and now we are going the other way, having fake unity when we should have healthy division.

This may sound counter-intuitive because the petty divisions in present day society have been amplified beyond all sense of reality. The fact is that — and I mainly referring to the UK here — there has never been more political unity than there is now.

Really!

Try slipping a piece of paper between the positions of the Labour and Conservative Parties or — Scottish ‘independence’ aside — these two parties and the SNP.

The problem, however, and the one that we are all aware of, is that we live in a time that should be extremely polarised and divided because so much is toxically wrong with our societies and civilisation.
The latest emblem of this at the moment is the forthcoming European soccer championships, in which the England team is all set to take a knee for “Black Lives Matters” in Every. Single. Game. 
Here is Brendan O’Neill at Sp!ked, an online magazine that likes to pretend it is the friend of working class Whites:

…taking the knee is now little more than an elitist provocation. It has become a way of goading working-class football fans. This is the footballing elites – cheered on by the media class, the political establishment and the Twitterati – reprimanding the masses in the stands for their presumed prejudices and idiocies. The bent knee is yet another weapon in the never-ending culture war on the oiks.

Yes, it’s the big, nasty elites shitting on the little guy.

Yes and no.

O’Neill is a former Marxist, or more correctly a former open Marxist. I suspect he is probably a closet one now, having realised that being an open Marxist is just as big a turn off as being a fan of the Austrian Painter.

Sp!ked, by the way, used to be called Living Marxism. On the surface of it, O’Neill is channeling the dominant idea in modern Britain — namely the idea that race and identitarianism are non-starters and that we already live in a post-racial society. For him it’s more about class, but he only seems to mention this to de-emphasise race because “…really, you shouldn’t be hung up on that.”
But race is the fundamental reality in this case. The fact that constant efforts are being made to deny this is proof positive that it is.
But back to the England football team, the real reason that the team takes the knee is a very simple one.

It is not due to “all those turbo-smug NuFootball scribes on the broadsheets,” as O’Neill claims. No, it is instead due to the fact that the England team is two-tone team.

I would not even call it multi-racial. It is simpler than that. It is Black and White, and the Blacks in the team are convinced that there is such a thing as White racism, racist cops, and that the only way to make “Black Lives Matter” in America, England, and the World is to constantly bang on about it.

Only constant kneeling to a Black criminal and Marxists can keep this together
Anybody saying, “Wasn’t Floyd just some drugged-up thug?”, “Dude, all lives matter!”, or “Can we leave off the constant kneeling in front of empty stadiums? It’s pissing off the fans,” threatens to split the England team right down the middle.
Yes, thanks to race, and especially the “racial asymmetry” of Blacks and Whites in British society — despite all efforts to “level up” the races — England, both the country and the football team, lacks unity. Both are tenuously held together by the fraying threads of constant “woke” propaganda.
Those wishing to know more about the concept of “racial asymmetry” could do worse than check out Colin Liddell’s excellent “The Asymmetry of America.”

In my time the “woke” messaging pumped out in the UK has taken on North Korean proportions of propaganda, rendering almost any TV commercial or program on the BBC unwatchable.

White England players simply want to be in a successful footballing unit. Through their conditioning in two-tone Premier League teams, they know that this involves taking the knee not with their Black colleagues but to them.

This is a sacrifice in their human dignity that they are fully prepared to make. The fans not quite so much.
Daniel Barge writes for Affirmative Right. This article, slightly edited, is reposted here by permission.

Expressions of Anti-White Hatred in High Places: Aruna Khilanani at Yale

As I noted in Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, explicit expressions of anti-White hate are one of the most important of the psychological mechanisms that will wake White people up to identify as White and have a sense of White interests (section titled “Expressions of Anti-White Hatred Promote White Ethnocentrism, here). Recently it has come out that a psychiatrist of Pakistani background expressed visceral hatred toward White people in a lecture titled, appropriately enough, “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind.” You’ve probably read about it, but it’s important to emphasize these things. Get used to it. They are part of the culture now, and emanating from very high places.

The lecture was not held at a local BLM event, but at Yale University and attendees could use it for course credit—it would “fulfill the licensure requirement set forth by the State of Connecticut.” Some of her statements:

This is the cost of talking to white people at all. The cost of your own life, as they suck you dry. There are no good apples out there. White people make my blood boil. …

I had fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step. Like I did the world a f***ing favor. …

We are asking a demented, violent predator who thinks that they are a saint or a superhero to accept responsibility.

It ain’t gonna happen. They have five holes in their brain. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall. It’s just, like, sort of not a good idea.

Yale did absolutely nothing about her talk until mainstream conservatives started talking about it. Here’s Tucker Carlson from last night (~40′).

Whatever you think about Tucker, it’s good that he is publicizing this. Exactly the sort of thing that Whites need to hear repeatedly. And in the story on the border disaster, he made it clear once again that it’s all about Democrats getting a permanent majority.

Notice her statement: “We are asking a demented, violent predator who thinks that they are a saint or a superhero to accept responsibility.” Here she is doubtless thinking about virtue-signaling White liberals who think they are saviors to POC. Maybe some liberals will start to rethink their fantasy of a harmonious multicultural future and start thinking about how their children and grandchildren are going to be treated when they try to get into a good university or apply for a job.

In fact, in a later interview, Khilanani said she thinks conservatives are “psychologically healthier.” “They are more in touch with their anger and negative feelings. They can articulate it. They can say it, they’re not covering it up or like ‘Oh my god, I’m amazing, I love all people.’ There’s not all this liberal fluff of goodness.”

Obviously she is steeped in Critical Race Theory which is especially targeting White liberals for not being self-hating enough. Andrew Joyce’s review of Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility:

By far the most entertaining chapter of the book comes within the last 50 pages. Titled “White Women’s Tears,” it’s an indictment of that infamous sight — bawling, wailing, and normally overweight White women clutching themselves in feverish grief over the death of some poor Black gangbanger who just happened to get shot while rushing a police officer. DiAngelo is probably correct in asserting that this is a self-indulgent demonstrative act designed to heighten status (“I’m moral, good, and empathetic”) and get attention from men of all races (“I’m vulnerable right now, and need attention and resources”). Some of the anecdotes in this regard, from DiAngelo’s “Whiteness” seminars are priceless, normally involving some weak-minded woman breaking down at the revelation she’s “racist,” and they went some way to compensating me for the purchase price and hideous ideology of the book. Above all, they confirmed to me that what we see unfold before us is both tragedy and farce, and that our situation is no less dangerous for that.

Liberals need to know that their expressions of moral superiority will not appease the White haters.

Yale did nothing to distance itself from her talk until conservatives started publicizing it. “When Herzog asked about Yale’s response when Khilanani submitted her talk and materials, she said there was none.” And in the immediate aftermath, there was nothing but praise: “Dr. Khilanani noted that her lecture had initially been well received. After she gave it, several attendees praised her comments on the online feed. One woman who identified herself as a Yale psychologist called it “absolutely brilliant.” A man said, “I feel very shook in a good way,” and a Black woman thanked Dr. Khilanani for giving “voice to us as people of color and what we go through all the time.”

Yale is now busy distancing itself from the talk, but it is still available to students and presumably still counts for the licensure requirement. Khilanani is now saying that she was speaking in metaphors: “My speaking metaphorically about my own anger was a method for people to reflect on negative feelings. To normalize negative feelings. Because if you don’t, it will turn into a violent action.”

Somehow I don’t think that’s quite enough to change the impact of these statements on White people. And I notice that she conceals her attitudes from White people in her daily life, so it clearly affects her behavior. “She does not talk to white people about these issues in private, which is really easy if you forcibly segregate yourself from your previous white ‘friends.’ This is how I talk with other people of color, this is how I talk with my black friends, this is how I talk with my Asian friends. This is how we talk about you” (speaking with a Jewish interviewer, Katie Herzog)—which is likely what set off Bari Weiss, the ultra-Zionist who first reported on the talk.

Jews have been a necessary condition for creating multicultural America, but being thought of as part of the oppressive White elite is definitely not what they had in mind.  But I doubt there is much concern about such events among most Jews given that the organized Jewish community is well connected to all the other non-White activist organizations.

It’s no surprise that Khilanani is a textbook example of the influence of the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory, the forerunner of Critical Race Theory. From Herzog’s interview as posted by Bari Weiss:

My masters is in humanities and the focus is largely on critical theory. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the University of Chicago, but it was very critical theory-heavy when I went. I did pre-med stuff in undergrad and had always been thinking of these issues. I also majored in English Lit and wondered about other ways of thinking. And I was interested in the unconscious for a long time, so it wasn’t that big of a jump for me.

So she was very attracted to psychoanalysis, which was also very useful to the Frankfurt School because it didn’t bother with messy things like getting good data or being falsifiable.

Critical theory is about how you are positioned in the world. Ever since I was a little kid, since I’ve interacted with people who are white, and especially white women, I would notice that things were really off. So what I’ve done by going through psychoanalytic training, which is all about getting in touch with the unconscious, is literally work backwards. I’m like, “Ok, I’ve noticed that white people tend to put me in certain roles. White women will experience me this way, white men will experience me this way.” I’m going to use psychoanalysis to work backwards and treat all of this as a projection to see what I can learn about their mind.

Don’t get me wrong. I think Khilanani hated White people from a very early age, and she would find some way to express it. It’s just that these Jewish intellectual movements allowed her to frame it in an academically respectable way. So she could be invited to give a talk at Yale.

The Rarely Noticed Wire Running Through Our Nation’s Cities: The Eruv as a Symbol of Jewish Settler Psychology, Invasion, and Social Control

Many readers may not appreciate that there is literally a Jewish religious metal wire, running overhead in many of our nation’s cities.  It is strung up like a telephone line or electric wire and can run for miles in large cities like New York.  Seen from overhead by drone cameras, for example, it looks like a wire used in a livestock fencing system.  It is constantly overseen, inspected, serviced, protected, and maintained by a secret organized team in each city.  It is regulated by city ordinance and subsidized by taxpayers.  The wires are not only in New York, but in St. Louis, Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, and dozens of other cities across the United States.

Business Insider described it thus: “Unbeknown to most, there are transparent wires that wrap around over 200 cities in North America — including Manhattan — to mark a religious boundary. And every week, there is a “secret operation” to check and repair the wire in time for the weekend.”

A part of the overhead Eruv wire, and a maintenance truck, extending across public streets in New York City.  “It’s like social engineering,” said Arnold Sheiffer, founder of the opposition group Jewish People for the Betterment of Westhampton Beach. “We [the Jewish people] fought like hell to get out of the ghetto and now they want to create that again.”

The Shabbat wire encasing Manhattan, turning it into a effective private Jewish home

Its general purpose and background is described in “The Wire That Transforms Much of Manhattan Into One Big, Symbolic Home”:

Every Thursday and Friday morning, Rabbi Moshe Tauber leaves his home in Rockland County, New York, at about 3:30 a.m. He arrives in Manhattan an hour later and drives the 20-mile length of a nearly invisible series of wires that surrounds most of the borough. He starts at 126th Street in Harlem and drives down, hugging the Hudson River most of the way, to Battery Park and back up along the East River, marking in a small notebook where he notices breaks in the line. Known as an eruv, the wire is a symbolic boundary that allows observant Jews to carry out a range of ordinary activities otherwise forbidden on the Shabbat.

Any necessary repairs must be finished before sundown on Friday, when Shabbat begins. The day of rest then lasts until the following day when there’s no more red in the western sky. Throughout that time, observant Jews are prohibited from performing many basic activities, and the observance of this law has been updated over time to reflect current technologies, such as cars, electricity, and keys. “Carrying from one domain to another,” or moving objects between public and private areas, for example, is forbidden. Eruvin (the plural of eruv) transcend this restrictive rule by serving as a symbolic border that links together many private spaces in the community, which in turn permits people to ferry around keys, children, and canes, or push wheelchairs and strollers.

But a single break in any part of the line voids that symbolic space. According to the 100 pages devoted to eruvin in the ancient Talmud, the boundary is only effective when the entire line is intact. And there are plenty of ways these breaks can happen. Sometimes it’s the elements, but more often construction is responsible. The wires, attached to telephone and light poles, can be severed or simply pushed down (the eruv must remain at the top of the pole) to make room for maintenance on other lines. And this is where Tauber comes in. “If they’re lousy, they’ll just cut the lines and let it go,” he says. He’s been doing this carefully orchestrated monitoring since 2000. The repairs are “a secret operation,” chairman of the Manhattan Eruv Committee Rabbi Adam Mintz told the New York Post in 2015. That’s by design.

A fence being used as an eruv boundary in Israel

A contractor attaches a Shabbat wire in mid-town Manhattan 

The wire surrounding New York City Manhattan Island, is 18 miles long and encircles the entire city from Harlem to the north, extending east-west, down both sides of Manhattan, all the way down to Battery Park, Wall Street and the former area of the World Trade Center:

It’s hard to imagine that anything literally hanging from utility poles across Manhattan could be considered “hidden,” but throughout the borough, about 18 miles of translucent wire stretches around the skyline, and most people have likely never noticed. It’s called an eruv (plural eruvin), and its existence is thanks to the Jewish Sabbath.

On the Sabbath, which is viewed as a day of rest, observant Jewish people aren’t allowed to carry anything—books, groceries, even children—in public places (doing so is considered “work”). The eruv encircles much of Manhattan, acting as a symbolic boundary that turns the very public streets of the city into a private space, much like one’s own home. This allows people to freely communicate and socialize on the Sabbath—and carry whatever they please—without having to worry about breaking Jewish law.

The nature of cultural aesthetics is obviously invoked when a special interest group feels that it is necessary to impose its religious belief system on the rest of a local, heterogenous society, with a secret worship totem that literally corrals everyone into a converted private home.  But it is much more than this: in what ways is the Eruvin system a larger symbol of Jewish oppression, invasion, usurpation, imposition and appropriation of public and private space? Can it be compared to the Kosher food industry?  Is the Eruvin a strong symbol of Jewish conceit that is also seen in the ways the country of Israel is managed?  Is it really Palestine, for example, that seeks to “wipe Israel off the map,” or is it perhaps Israel that seeks to imprison Palestine and Palestinians in its larger Pan-Israel geopolitical compound, of which the Eruvin apparatus is its psychological manifestation?

More wire  

Israeli West Bank barrier – North of Meitar, near the southwest corner of the West Bank

Moreover, how do the ironic similarities of the Eruvin wire fencing apparatus with concentration camp fencing construction, perhaps reflect a deep cultural and group psychological disorder—a disturbance of rational thought, and a manifestation of mass psychosis?  How do the confines of Jewish ghettos, of Israel itself as an effective barbed wire and walled ghetto and prison, find some similarities in the primitive superstition and obsession of the Eruvin wire?  In what ways is this wire also manifest digitally in Israel’s “Green Pass” identity tracking system?  Or in American society surrounded with Jewish media broadcasting a kind of constant loudspeaker of their interests, ambitions, and quest for cultural dominance by corralling its local host society with an array of “wires?”  Is the Covid bio-security complex also not largely a Jewish construct that embodies the same sociopathy for control, herding, and domination accomplished deceptively through a mix of secrecies?

What is it about Jewish culture and social psychology that it would install a secret overhead wire around an entire U.S. city, and keep its presence generally out of public awareness through secrecy or deception?  Does this wire system tap into precisely the same cultural coding and motivation as its efforts to invade Gaza, de-populate Syria, destabilize the Sudan, Egypt, Lebanon, and to geopolitically encircle Iran through its bordered regions?

Indeed, as former Pentagon Controller Rabbi Dov Zakheim explained, surrounding Iran is precisely the goal of the US-Israel GWOT (Global War on Terror).  While the initial targets of U.S. military “retaliation” in the Middle East were Iraq, then Afghanistan, then Syria, “ISIS” and even the Sudan, as Zakheim somewhat cleverly explained in a January 2007 Financial Times article, “Why America Should Operate From Iraq’s Borders,” the joint forces strategy that he was at the time tasked with designing and operationalizing as a consultant to the Pentagon, was based on a careful and systematic encirclement of Iran, and the domination of the larger Middle East (with Israel as a continually reinforced military and strategic platform):

Rabbi Dov Zakheim, former Pentagon Controller during 9-11, and champion of  Greater Israel plan that encircles Iran with an effective military version of the Eruvin system

Thus the US objective should be framed in terms of the wider region: stopping Iraq from launching attacks against its neighbours, preventing any invasion by Turkey in the north and barring Iranian domination in the south.  Then the US must reposition its forces to foster regional stability and minimise casualties. Up to two brigades should be devoted to Kurdistan and a roughly equal number to the far west of Anbar province. The forces in Kurdistan would help forestall a Kurdish declaration of independence that would prompt a Turkish invasion. The troops in western Iraq would help prevent both terrorist infiltration into Jordan and serious incursions from Syria. They would also indicate to Damascus that it should not misinterpret a readiness to talk as a concession. The Pentagon should also move a division-sized force to the south, with a significant presence on the border with Iran. Tehran must understand that the US will not tolerate its domination of Iraq’s south. Nor, as with Syria, would Washington’s willingness to talk mean a readiness to appease. Finally, US allies must be pressed to take the lead in establishing a network of provincial reconstruction teams similar to those that have met with some success in Afghanistan. By operating from Iraq’s borders American forces would be well placed to prevent the establishment of terrorist training camps anywhere in the region. In addition, it ensures that US forces have a realisable mission. They may be unable to bring stability to all of Iraq, but they can certainly bring a degree of stability to the region. The US can thus reassert its leading role in [the] Middle East.

 

The barrier and wires between Abu Dis and East Jerusalem.  Bottom: Route 443 near Giv’at Ze’ev Junction, with pyramid-shaped stacks of barbed wire forming a section of the Israeli West Bank barrier

Zakheim’s rather coy if mendacious vision has been precisely that followed by the U.S. over the past three presidential administrations: the installation of a geopolitical Eruvin wire around the entire Middle East, and ultimately around Iran (known as the Middle East Transformation Plan, the Greater Israel, Pan-Israel or Oded Yinon plan). 

The Covid vaccine program, largely operationalized by the C.D.C., is run by Biden-appointed Harvard MD and progressive Left Jewess, Rochelle Wolensky.  It is noteworthy the extent of her alignment with Israel’s radical agenda in public biosecurity, vaccination passports, and mass tracing, tracking and surveillance: the medical “Eruvin” that is the equivalent of a biological and digital “wire” (wireless) around society. 

CDC head Wolensky: “I’m motivated by the Jewish teachings of tikkun olam.  We must vaccinate hundreds of millions of people. We must get the public to wear a mask, practice social distancing, and avoid crowds and poorly-ventilated areas. We must improve our public health system to detect threats.”

“She may be at the CDC now, but we like to say she got her start at Camp Yavneh.” said Bil Zarch, executive director of Camp Yavneh, a Jewish overnight camp in New Hampshire where for many summers Walensky and her physician husband spent a week volunteering as camp doctors.

She is someone who lives the essence of Judaism,” said Harvard Medical School’s Freedberg. “I’ve been watching her for 30 years,” he continued. “She views the mitzvah of Tikkun Olam as a guiding light in her career. This – her work at CDC – is that on a grand scale.”

Wolensky is also assisted by the Biden-appointed coordinator of COVID-19 Response, and Counselor to the President, Jeff Zients, an economist who owns a chain of Jewish delis in Washington, D.C., and by “Doctor Death, ” Covid advisor Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.

It is hard not to see the secret Eruvin system of wires strung up and obsessively maintained across many of America’s key population centers, as a symbol of Jewish-Zionist interests that are fixed in the concepts of entrapment, encirclement, confinement, control, and most of all, the constant imposition of a highly organized, special-interest world philosophy that feeds off of the “domestication” and “farming” of other humans, their cultures, their wealth, and their independence.  In this regard especially, it is a central strategic Jewish imperative to circumscribe and suppress threats to their control, by systematically imposing a panoply of biological, digital, conceptual, mimetic, and economic “viruses” into their host societies, and then acting as an expert authority in the institutional intermediation between these risks, and a frightened public: hence the critical requirement for institutional saturation and control across key state and other organizations that act as conduits for the exercise of top-down control by “experts,” and ultimately as its organizing structure for its monetization: they include the CDC, much of the university complex, especially in administration, law and medicine, the World Bank, Federal Reserve governance, key Wall Street institutions including exchanges, the State Department, the White House chief of staff, several Silicon Valley firms (particularly those involved in social media and advertising), parts of the pharmaceutical and raw drug complex, and the media.  Together, these may be seen to represent the larger Jewish Eruvim that is simultaneously poisoning and strangling large parts of previously functional Western societies.

“Rape Their Daughters!”: How Leftists Don’t Really Care About Sexual Violence, Misogyny and Femicide

Like most human things, the Guardian is at its funniest when it doesn’t mean to be. For example, it’s currently celebrating its bicentenary under this slogan: “200 years of chasing the truth.” Which is a very good joke. Maybe the paper was honest in its early days, but it has spent most of the last hundred years fleeing the truth about key aspects of the world like racial and sexual difference.

The Guardian celebrates “200 years of chasing the truth”

That’s perfectly understandable. The truth about racial and sexual difference doesn’t fit leftism or feed the narcissism of leftists. And so the Guardian routinely suppresses essential but inconvenient facts. For example, who are the aggressors in what the Guardian calls a “disturbing surge in physical attacks and harassment” against Asians in the US? It’s Blacks, of course, but the Guardian flees this truth, makes no reference to Blacks, and falsely blames the violence on “racist rhetoric” by the now-departed Donald Trump. The Guardian knows perfectly well – and often approvingly reported – that Trump gets almost no support from Blacks. But it’s a leftist newspaper and refuses to let reality get in the way of ideology.

Busting taboos to protect the vulnerable

At the same time as it flees the truth, the newspaper likes to pose as rebellious and taboo-busting. Here it is sneering at the prudery of the Victorians:

Victorian attempts to veil the meanings of crude ancient Greek words are set to be brushed away by a new dictionary 23 years in the making. … The new dictionary’s editors “spare no blushes” … when it comes to the words that “brought a blush to Victorian cheeks”. The verb … βίνέω (bineo) is no longer “inire, coire, of illicit intercourse”, but “fuck”; λαικάζω (laikazo), in the 19th-century dictionary translated as “to wench”, is now defined as “perform fellatio” and translated as “suck cocks”. (First English dictionary of ancient Greek since Victorian era ‘spares no blushes,’ The Guardian, 27th May 2021)

The Guardian postures about its fearlessness

There you go: the Guardian will happily print the word “fuck” without any coy asterisks. Like all leftist institutions, it claims to reject old-fashioned taboos and believe in complete openness about sex. After all, if we don’t speak the truth about sex, how can we protect women and girls from the horrors of rape-culture? And according to the Guardian, “Rape culture is as American as apple pie.”

Brazen celebration of rape-culture

That’s why Guardianistas must have shaken their heads in sorrow when they saw right-wing newspapers like the Daily Mail prudishly using “f***” with asterisks in a recent story about misogynistic men brazenly celebrating rape-culture in London. Worse still, from the Guardian’s point of view, the misogynistic men were specifically targeting women and girls in a vulnerable ethnic minority. Those right-wing papers should have printed the full truth and exposed rape-culture to merciless scrutiny – just as the Guardian surely did.

So what happened in the brazen celebration of rape-culture? According to the right-wing press, a convoy of cars drove through a minority district of London in May 2021, using a megaphone to shout threats of sexual violence against the minority: “Rape their daughters!” and “F*** their mothers, f*** their daughters!” Fortunately, the police acted swiftly to close down these vile expressions of rape-culture. A police helicopter swooped to track the convoy, directing police vehicles in pursuit, and the four brazen misogynists in the megaphone-car were soon under arrest.

Down the memory-hole

And how did the Guardian report the story? Well, it’s currently celebrating “200 years of chasing the truth,” so it must have “chased the truth” and reported the full details, mustn’t it? There were surely no coy asterisks for the fearless Guardian. And there weren’t. But there wasn’t any full printing of “fuck” either. The Guardian’s report on the hate-convoy didn’t mention sexual violence or the f-word at all. It merely reported “slurs and threats” against the vulnerable minority, without giving any details of what the threats entailed. Alert readers of the article must have been puzzled by a comment from the Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, which was also reported there. Starmer said “misogyny and hate have no place on our streets or in our society.”

The fierce feminist who shields misogynistic men: Nazia Parveen of the Guardian

Nazia Parveen, the non-White “Community affairs correspondent” who wrote the incomplete report about the hate-convoy, didn’t explain how misogyny was involved, because she fled the truth rather than chasing it. She didn’t report what the horrendously misogynistic men shouted, what they looked like or where they had come from. And there was no subsequent enraged commentary by her fellow feminists at the Guardian and elsewhere in response to the rape-supporting hate-convoy. As so often in the past, there was silence from the sisterhood.

Cherished leftist principles

So there you have it: a brazen celebration of rape-culture directed against a vulnerable ethnic minority took place on the streets of Britain’s capital city, within a few miles of the Guardian’s headquarters, and Britain’s foremost leftist newspaper, staunch in its feminism and tireless in its opposition to rape-culture, responded by first censoring the horrific truth, then falling silent. This is very strange. Feminists have been writing articles literally for years about Donald Trump’s alleged use in private of the phrase “Grab ’em by the pussy!” But there was no feminist and anti-racist response when an entire convoy of vehicles accompanied a megaphone-misogynist bawling “Rape their daughters!” and “Fuck their mothers, fuck their daughters!” into the horrified ears of a vulnerable ethnic minority.

What on earth explains the Guardian’s complete abdication of its most cherished principles? Well, it’s very easy: the story was about the wrong kind of misogynist and the wrong kind of rape-culture. The hate-convoy was full of brown-skinned Pakistani Muslims who had driven from the heavily enriched Yorkshire city of Bradford to shout amplified abuse at Jews in a Jewish district of London as part of “largely peaceful pro-Palestinian protests.”

Minority men behaving badly

Indeed, the cars were flying Palestinian flags as those high-spirited shouts of “Rape their daughters!” and “Fuck their mothers!” went up. And that’s why the Guardian refused to “chase the truth.” One of its pet minorities was behaving badly, so it fled the truth instead. Cuckservative commentators like Mark Steyn will claim that this was yet another example of how poor Jews are not valued or protected by the anti-Semitic left. But that isn’t true: the Guardian censored the story because the aggressors were non-White Muslims, not because the targets were Jewish. If White Christian men had done the same thing in a Jewish district of London, there would have been an explosion of outrage not just from the Guardian and other leftists in Britain, but right around the world. Sadly for the Guardian and other leftists, White Christian men aren’t encouraged by their religion to celebrate rape in public. Or indeed in private.

But brown-skinned Muslim men definitely are. There is a genuine and highly pernicious rape-culture in Islam stretching right back to the Prophet Muhammad, who permitted his followers to take sex-slaves and who committed statutory rape with his nine-year-old wife Aisha. The slogans “Rape their daughters!” and “Fuck their mothers!” are authentic Islam, which is why the Guardian refused to report them. If the newspaper were serious about fighting “rape-culture,” it would send its reporters to Bradford to investigate the misogyny and sexual violence that flourish there. After all, if Muslim men are brazenly shouting pro-rape slogans in public, what on earth are they doing in private? But the Guardian isn’t serious about fighting rape-culture and defending women: it’s only serious about posturing, feeding the narcissism of its readers, and seeking power for the senior acolytes of leftism.

Paralysed by political correctness

As I’ve described in articles like “Rape-Gangs Unlimited” and “The Riddle of Rotherham,” tens of thousands of pro-feminist, anti-rape Guardian-readers must have worked in Labour councils and social-work departments during the decades in which Muslim rape-gangs have sexually abused and prostituted White women and girls in cities and towns all over the country. But none of those Guardian-readers ever succeeded in alerting their beloved newspaper to the horrific crimes of those Muslim men and the deep-rooted rape-culture in which their crimes had been nurtured. And when the courageous Labour MP Ann Cryer sought the Guardian’s help on behalf of the female victims of this rape-culture, she learned just how eager the newspaper was to “chase the truth.” Here she is describing how she tried to expose Muslim pathologies in her constituency:

Once I had overcome my initial disbelief that large-scale paedophile abuse was the norm for a section of the community — in some parts of Britain, it went back to the Eighties [in fact, the 1960s] when it was first reported to police — and that it was an open secret, I took my concerns to West Yorkshire police and social services. I expected they would have a hard time believing the claims — but I didn’t think I’d be flatly ignored by everyone. It was as if this crime was so toxic, no one could acknowledge its existence. … And I couldn’t get The Guardian interested. Its reporters seemed paralysed by political correctness. (How I was branded a racist — for trying to save girls from their vile abusers, The Daily Mail, 11th August 2017)

The Guardian is still “paralysed by political correctness.” Except that “paralysed” isn’t the right word. The Guardian makes active choices when it flees the truth and censors key facts. Nazia Parveen, the “Community affairs correspondent” who wrote that incomplete report about the hate-convoy, must have known what those Pakistani Muslims had shouted. But she deliberately chose to suppress the words “Rape their daughters” and “Fuck their mothers, fuck their daughters.” She didn’t “chase the truth” because she isn’t interested in the truth.

Back at base in Bradford

After all, she’s not just a leftist but quite possibly a Pakistani Muslim herself. She too will feel much more solidarity with Palestinian Muslims than with Jews in Israel or Britain. Many Jews have claimed that “Jews and Muslims are natural allies” (against White Christians, of course). But the alliance has never been strong. It doesn’t matter, because Jewish organizations like the Board of Deputies in Britain and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America know that unintelligent, incompetent and criminally inclined Muslims are no real threat to Jewish power. However, Muslims are an excellent way to further atomize formerly cohesive White nations. And Muslim misbehaviour further strengthens Jewish power by justifying an ever-stronger security and surveillance state.

Those noisy Muslims in London did not physically harm any Jews: they merely shouted about rape and were soon arrested by the police. But back at base in Bradford, the same Muslims have been genuinely raping White women and girls for decades. And prostituting White women and girls for decades. Jews don’t care about that and nor does the Guardian. But this shared indifference is no coincidence, because Jews have been central to the poisonous anti-White, pro-minority leftism that is now ascendant throughout the West. This leftism supports unlimited immigration by non-Whites from the most illiberal and misogynistic cultures on earth.

Black enrichers at work

But the Guardian is not interested in the inevitable consequences of non-White enrichment. If it truly opposed “rape-culture” and misogyny, it would oppose immigration by non-White men who commit rape at much higher rates and in much worse ways. But the Guardian doesn’t truly oppose rape-culture and misogyny. That’s why it so often refuses to “chase the truth” of stories like these in the Birmingham Mail:

The “incredibly dangerous” African enricher Esa Juwara

A brutal rapist who targeted prostitutes in a nine-month reign of terror was “incredibly dangerous” – and was becoming bolder. Esa Juwara, just 21, had sex workers living in fear after he preyed on five women – attacking three of the women twice – in Ladywood in 2019. … Det Insp Dave Bates, from the West Midlands Police Public Protection Unit, headed the investigation. He said Juwara had been in the country for 18 months after arriving from Africa and little was known about his background. The officer told BirminghamLive: “Juwara is an incredibly dangerous man. He carried out violent attacks on women which were becoming more and more frequent. He had carried out four attacks in December 2019. If he hadn’t been caught, I am sure he would have gone on to commit many more attacks. The violence he showed, beating women with bike chains and choking one woman with one showed the levels of violence he was prepared to carry out.”   (“Cycling rapist” spread terror in city red light zone – and was becoming bolder, Birmingham Mail, 8th May 2021)

The life-wrecking Black enricher Khadim Drame

A woman was followed by a stranger after she got off a bus and raped near Aston Villa football ground. The victim had tried to run through some gardens but was caught by her attacker, Birmingham Crown Court heard. Khadim Drame, 20, of Norris Road, Aston, has denied a charge of rape. However, he changed his plea to guilty following the start of a trial at Birmingham Crown Court. … James Dunstan, prosecuting said: “The victim and the defendant were strangers. … He came out of nowhere and surprised her. He put one hand on her waist and the other over her mouth and he pushed her down to the ground. She screamed but no one came. … He then went on to rape her. He got what he wanted from her quickly. He left her leaving her thinking that she did not want to live.” (Man admits raping woman near Aston Villa football ground after following her off a bus, Birmingham Mail, 12th May 2021)

Those Black rapists should not have been in a White nation. Nor should the Black grandfather or father of Callum Wheeler, the mixed-race youth arrested for the brutal murder of Julia James, a White woman who thought she was safe to take her dog for a walk on 27th April this year. Like all the White victims who came before her and who will follow her, she wasn’t safe because mass immigration has brought the violence of the Third World into a formerly First-World nation.

When ideology meets reality

Callum Wheeler has not yet been prosecuted or convicted of what the Guardian calls “femicide,” or the murder of women by brutal, misogynistic men. But he managed to bring an extra-special touch of vibrancy into what would otherwise be a routine story of non-White brutality against a White victim. When he was being led away in handcuffs from court after being charged with murder, he was “seen sticking his tongue out at TV cameras.”

Callum Wheeler responds to being charged with brutal murder

Just dwell on that: Wheeler is a 21-year-old man accused of smashing a 53-year-old woman’s skull, quite possibly because she resisted his attempt to rape her. And that is how he behaves. But if you expect the Guardian or any other leftist outlet to explore the depths of misogyny and depravity revealed by his high-spirited little gesture, you’re going to be disappointed. When leftist ideology meets inconvenient reality, the Guardian always knows what to do. It flees the truth.