Featured Articles

Rape-Gangs Revisited: Third-World Pathology Triggers First World Pathology, as British Authorities Ignore Asian Sex Trafficking of Children for Fear of Racial Unrest

When I was a leftist, I used to sneer at Christianity for being irrational and mandating belief in impossible things. Today’s most powerful religion is leftism—the religion of the well-educated, morally superior elites who run the West. And their beliefs are quite irrational. Leftism mandates belief in billions of miraculous births over many millennia and much of the earth’s surface.

One human race, one human brain

But why does leftism believe in billions of miraculous births? Because it insists that human beings didn’t evolve different brains and psychologies as they migrated into different environments, stopped inter-breeding, and differentially acquired new genes from separate human species like the Neanderthals, Denisovans, and ghost populations in Africa. According to leftism, there is only one human race and only one human brain. Swedes and Somalis, Tibetans and Tongans, Moldovans and Māori – they’re the same under the skull. They’re all capable of exactly the same high performance in all fields of intellectual endeavour.

The reality of race vs the lies of leftism

Or so leftism claims. This makes it by far the more irrational cult. Christianity has a mechanism for the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus Christ, namely, divine intervention. Leftism has no mechanism for its billions of miraculous births, because it doesn’t believe in the supernatural. Instead of supplying a mechanism, it simply insists that we’re all the same under the skull. And when Somalis and other Blacks don’t match Swedes and other Whites in intellectual endeavours, leftism dishonestly updates concepts from Christianity. Why do Blacks fail? Because Whites wilfully and wickedly prevent them from realizing their sky-high potential. In short, Whites are guilty of the sin of racism. And some Whites are also guilty of blasphemy, in that they deny leftist dogma and attribute Black failure to Black genetics. Here at the Occidental Observer, for example, we blasphemously believe in racial differences and claim that different races are genetically adapted to different environments and cultures.

Insist on the biologically impossible

But that doesn’t plumb the full depths of leftist irrationality and belief in biological impossibilities. Leftism doesn’t only insist that brain-evolution was miraculously prevented among human beings. It also insists that brain-evolution was miraculously reversed. Somehow human beings have abolished the neurological and psychological differences that had previously existed between the males and females of our ape-like ancestors. And so leftism proclaims that women are capable of exactly the same high performance as men in all fields of intellectual endeavour. When women fail to match men, leftism again attributes this to sin and blasphemy. Men are guilty of sexism and some men blasphemously believe that women’s brains are different for genetic reasons.

Yes, the cult of leftism has a two-step recipe for creating a better world. First, insist on the biologically impossible. Second, bash the unbelievers. If it weren’t for racism and sexism, non-Whites and women would be performing at exactly the same high level as Whites and men. But as I’ve often pointed out, leftists are not genuinely interested in creating a better world and improving the lives of non-Whites and women. Leftists are interested in power and privilege for themselves, which is why they abandon their own principles whenever reality contradicts leftism. For example, the small Yorkshire town of Rotherham is a stronghold of leftism. It is also a stronghold of rape-culture, where the Labour council and the very pro-Jewish Labour MP, Denis MacShane, ignored the organized rape and sexual trafficking of working-class girls by grossly sexist men who embodied the very worst aspects of misogynistic patriarchy.

A simple choice: admit the truth or censor it

How could this happen? It happened because the girls were White and their abusers were brown-skinned Pakistani Muslims. This contradicted leftist ideology, which pretends that women and non-Whites are all victims of brutal White men and their hate. Leftists in Rotherham had a simple choice: they could either admit the truth and help the victims or deny the truth and help the cause of leftism. They didn’t hesitate: they denied the truth and allowed the Muslim rape-gangs to flourish. But Rotherham is, as I’ve said, a small Yorkshire town. In my article “Rape-Gangs Unlimited,” I predicted “that much bigger scandals remain uncovered in cities like London, Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield and Bradford.”

Sure enough, in 2019 there’s a reluctant report in the Guardian about a small part of the non-White rape-culture that flourished in the northern city of Manchester, another stronghold of leftism:

Victoria Agoglia, killed by leftism and Islam

Up to 52 children may have been victims of a sex abuse scandal in Greater Manchester, with most offenders getting away with their crimes because of errors by police and children’s services, the Guardian has learned.

Some of the police officers involved in the 2004 case are still serving and the police watchdog has been called in to re-examine if there was any wrongdoing. The revelations came as an independent report found that the police investigation into child sexual exploitation failed vulnerable girls in care after being shut down prematurely — partly because senior officers prioritised solving burglaries and car crime.

Operation Augusta was launched in 2004 by Greater Manchester Police (GMP) following the death of 15-year-old Victoria Agoglia, who died of an overdose in 2003 after being injected with heroin by a 50-year-old man. …

The report found that although Augusta identified 16 child victims and 97 potential perpetrators — mostly men working in the restaurant trade — only three were convicted at court. The operation was shut down prematurely in July 2005, with the force blaming a lack of resources. As a result, most of the affected children — white girls aged 12 to 16 in care in Manchester — were “failed” by police and children’s services, the authors concluded.

[Greater Manchester police assistant chief constable Mabs Hussain] denied any suggestion that the original inquiry was inadequate because offenders were mostly from an Asian background: “There was no suggestion that there was any fear, from the evidence I have seen.” [This is false; see below]

The report suggested GMP failed to learn lessons from the curtailed operation, noting that nine years after Victoria’s death, nine Asian men in Rochdale were found guilty of sexually exploiting vulnerable young white girls. Burnham commissioned the research after Margaret Oliver, a detective on the Augusta team, went public criticising GMP in the aftermath of the Rochdale case.

“Don’t believe any of this rubbish that police have learned from their mistakes. I worked on an almost identical operation in 2004, Operation Augusta, which had identified dozens of young victims and dozens of suspects,” she said in a media interview in 2017. …

Operation Augusta identified various restaurants and takeaways in south Manchester where suspects were employed. Intelligence suggested that offenders were targeting care homes within the city of Manchester area, particularly one home used as an emergency placement unit for children entering the care system, which the report authors said “maintained a steady supply of victims” for the perpetrators, who befriended the girls as soon as they arrived. …

Joanne Roney, chief executive of Manchester city council, said: “This report makes for painful reading. We recognise that some of the social work practice and management oversight around 15 years ago fell far below the high standards we now expect. We are deeply sorry that not enough was done to protect our children at the time. While we cannot change the past we have learned from it and will continue to do so to ensure that no stone is left unturned in tackling this abhorrent crime.” (Police errors may have let abusers of up to 52 children escape justice, The Guardian, 14th January 2020)

In fact, a senior police officer said that “With it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out,” and a police chief admitted that the force ignored sex abuse by grooming gangs for 30 years for fear of stoking racial tensions—glaring testimony to the cowardice of British elites in dealing with the immigration catastrophe.

And who can believe that their leftist enablers are sincere in their sorrow over what happened. Joanne Roney and her fellow leftists aren’t “deeply sorry” about the consequences of their own ideology. Nor was the leftist Joanna Simons, “the chief executive of Oxfordshire county council,” after a very similar scandal in the southern city of Oxford back in 2013. Simons said: “We are incredibly sorry we were not able to stop it any sooner. We were up against a gang of devious criminals. The girls thought they were their friends. … These are devious crimes that are very complicated.”

One of the victims told a trial how she was made to have sex with ‘at least 100 Asian men’. Asif Ali and Tanweer Ali (right) got terms of terms of 10 years and 14 years respectively. (Daily Mail caption)

“B” is for Brazen

In Oxford, one of the devious criminals, Mohammad Karrar, covered his tracks by ringing social workers and threatening violence against his victim, his victim’s family and the social workers themselves if he was prevented from seeing her and carrying on his abuse. An official report said that Karrar was “brazen in his exploitation of Girl D and acted in the belief that the authorities would never challenge him.” The b-word also appears in the Manchester scandal, where the death of Victoria Agoglia “exposed a network of paedophiles brazenly abusing young people in care… [who] should have been brought to justice but, appallingly, most [of them] escaped and some were left to reoffend.”

Of course the rape-gangs were – and are – “brazen.” There is a lot of inbreeding in Britain’s vibrant Muslim communities, which reduces their average IQ even further, but non-White rapists don’t have to be intelligent to understand how leftism works. If you’re non-White, you’re a victim and leftists will allow you to express your vibrant culture as you please. Then the leftists will pretend that they’re “deeply sorry” and “incredibly sorry” about allowing you to rape, torture and run child-prostitution rings.

No martyr-cult for White girls

But leftists are not sorry and have not abandoned the lies and irrationality that allow rape-gangs to flourish. As you can see above, the leftist Guardian is still weaselling about the crimes in Manchester. It says “Up to 52 children” when it should say “100s or 1000s of White girls.” It says that the authorities made “errors” when it should say that the authorities made deliberate, Guardian-approved choices to ignore crimes of which they were fully aware. It uses the generic term “man” and “men” to conceal the full truth. Who was responsible for the sexual abuse? Why, it was “men working in the restaurant trade.” And who injected 15-year-old Victoria Agoglia with a fatal overdose of heroin in 2003? Why, it was “a 50-year-old man.” The Guardian is happy to reveal the sex of the criminals, because that assists the leftist lie that women are the helpless victims of brutal sexist men. But it conceals the race and religious background of the criminals, because that contradicts the leftist demonization of White men and White Christianity.

But it wasn’t Christianity that killed Victoria Agoglia: it was an alliance between leftism and Islam. She was fatally injected with heroin by a non-White Pakistani Muslim even as the leftist authorities in Manchester were fully aware that she was “being repeatedly abused, raped and plied with drugs by predatory paedophiles.” The leftist authorities – police and social services – did nothing to help her. That is far worse than the murder of Stephen Lawrence, the Black teenager who was stabbed to death by a White gang in London in 1993. The police in London allegedly failed Stephen Lawrence after his death. The police in Manchester indisputably failed Victoria Agoglia for many months before her death. But only Stephen Lawrence has become the centre of a leftist cult that incessantly bewails the racism of the White British and the “institutional racism” of the British police.

Laura Wilson, killed by leftism and Islam

Laura Wilson was also ignored. She was the 17-year-old White girl stabbed to death in Rotherham in 2010 by two Pakistani Muslims whose activities, once again, were fully known to the leftists responsible for what they would laughably call Laura’s “welfare.” And there have been many other White women and girls in many other British towns and cities who have died at the hands of non-Whites even as the leftist authorities knew that they were being harmed and were at risk of murder. But none of those White victims have leftist martyr-cults because their deaths don’t assist the cause of leftism and the leftist pursuit of power.

The life-cult and the suicide-cult

On the contrary, their deaths flatly contradict leftism. We are not all the same under the skin and non-White failure is not caused by White racism. Mass immigration from the corrupt, tribalist and highly illiberal Third World causes huge and growing harm to Britain and all other White nations that are subject to it. Christianity believes that “the truth shall make you free.” Leftism believes in lies, censorship and enslavement.

When the Western world was Christian, it achieved astonishing things in art, literature, music and science. When the Western world turned leftist, it began to die. Leftism is a suicide-cult that has to be destroyed. And it will be destroyed, because the truth about racial and sexual differences won’t be suppressed for very much longer. An ideology built on fantasies and lies is like a house built on sand. When floods sweep away the sand, the house will fall. When science sweeps away the fantasies and lies, the ideology will fall.

An Introspective of White Ethnocentrism

“The fiendlike skill we display in the invention of all manner of death-dealing engines, the vindictiveness with which we carry on our wars, and the misery and desolation that follow in their train, are enough of themselves to distinguish the white civilized man as the most ferocious animal on the face of the earth.”
           Herman Melville, Typee, 1846

Inert in the face of mass migration, and entranced by the foreign policy objectives of hostile elites, today’s “white civilized man” appear far removed from the ferocious animal perceived by Herman Melville. While still capable of inventing all manner of war machines, and retaining the ability to engage in vindictive and devastating conflicts, we seem uniquely incapable of doing any of it in our own interests. Instead, the “ferocious animal” of today is tame, on a leash, and obedient to obscure masters. One of the biggest problems for the Dissident Right, and perhaps the most serious, is the seeming collapse of White ethnocentrism in the second half of the twentieth century. The “liquid” nature of modernity, economic developments, the mass dissemination of guilt propaganda, the assault on the family, and, in some cases, the criminalization of aspects of White advocacy have all conspired to undermine, stigmatize, and destroy both national-cultural White identities (English, French, German etc.) and confluent “New World” White identities (American, Canadian, Australian etc.). These assaults from multiple angles have been so profound that by far the most prominent focus of Dissident Right activism has been to identify these external threats and then to attempt forms of rhetorical counter-attack. As such, the broad trajectory of pro-White literature, my own included, involves material on the hostility of Jews, globalism, neocon wars, Black crime, the mechanics of White guilt, and how we are censored or otherwise exiled from the mainstream.

Discussion of these subjects is absolutely essential, even if the argument could be made that we too often neglect the great White elephant in the room  —  the problem that both surrounds us and confounds us: the majority of Whites who simply fail to act in their interests, and even collaborate with outsiders against their ethnic interests. Probably no thinker in our circles has done more to move beyond neglect of ethnically pathological behaviors among Whites than Kevin MacDonald who, in a number of essays (e.g. see here, here and here) and his 2019 Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future, has almost single-handedly attempted to improve our understanding of what’s happening and to suggest possible remedies. With the election of Donald Trump, and the evolution of European populism, White identity and political interests are also coming into increasing prominence as academic and media talking points, the work of Matthew Goodwin and Eric Kaufmann being the most obvious examples. The methodologies of such studies involve group psychology, voting patterns, and economic analyses; their findings deserve careful study.

In the following essay, however, I propose a different way of looking at White ethnocentrism. Rather than turning a lens towards elections, the economy, group psychology, or the impacts of globalism, I want to do something quintessentially European — to turn the lens inwards. By examining the origins and nature of my own sense of ethnocentrism, I hope to understand more about the ethnocentrism, or lack of ethnocentrism, in other Whites. I do so in the understanding that my sense of ethnic identity might be radically different from others. In fact, I suspect that there is a multiplicity of ethnocentrisms at work among Europeans, each as unique as a fingerprint, and that this is one of the reasons for our predicament. Nevertheless, the following essay has been written in the hope that, even given the differences of White ethnocentrisms, something valuable might be learned, or that an interesting and productive debate might be started.

*****

I honestly can’t remember a point at which I first regarded myself as possessing a heightened, or above average, ethnocentrism. I certainly can’t recall instances before the age of 18 where I was not only conscious of being White, but proud of that fact and conceiving of myself as having interests as a White man. Looking back on my childhood, it’s clear to me that I was raised in an overwhelmingly White environment, and ethnic outsiders, such as they existed in my world, were found almost exclusively on television or in the realm of pop music. In other words, I was raised in an environment where being White was simply the default state, and ethnics were merely presented at the fringes of that environment as something safe, entertaining, even attractive. One jarring exception to this state of affairs occurred in my late teens, when the 2001 Oldham Riots, and later riots in Bradford, Burnley, and Leeds, broke out in the north of England. These riots were explicitly racial in nature, and had been prompted to a large extent by an increase in violent crime by Pakistanis and other South Asians against Whites. The most savage, and most publicised, of these attacks was the assault of Walter Chamberlain, a 76-year-old war veteran who was so badly beaten by three Pakistanis on his way home from a rugby match that he required surgery to rebuild his face. He had walked through “their area.”

The assault on Mr Chamberlain lit the match in the racial tinderbox, and Oldham erupted in mutual petrol bomb attacks, assaults, and arsons. It was through the blanket coverage of these race riots that I learned not only that there were growing ethnic enclaves throughout the West, but also that these brought in their wake “no-go areas,” rampant crime, and vicious anti-White hostility. The riots in Oldham coincided with the fact I had begun to study politics at high school, part of which involved looking at race relations. In fact, just a few weeks prior to the Oldham Riots, I’d been asked to watch Mississippi Burning (1988), a crime thriller loosely based on the 1964 murder investigation concerning three civil rights workers (two Jews and a Black) by the Ku Klux Klan. Looking back on it from my current vantage point, the film is exceptional multicultural propaganda. It’s extremely well-made from a technical standpoint, boasts tremendous acting talent in the form of Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe, and is utterly relentless in demonising the population of the American South while eulogising Blacks. Nevertheless, if memory serves me right, it had only a middling effect on my opinion of race relations, and any embryonic feelings of White guilt were swiftly destroyed one afternoon by my first encounter with the face of Mr Chamberlain, adorning the front pages of multiple newspapers as I made my way to buy lunch.

Walter Chamberlain

I followed the Oldham Riots with great interest, and recall thinking of myself as White for the first time because of the violence. Looking back over some old news articles covering those events, it’s really stunning how open some Oldham residents were about the racial realities they were forced to live with. Take, for example, the following remark from the landlord of a local pub, the Fytton Arms: “The Asians make you racist. You’re not brought up to hate them, they make you hate them.” Another man told reporters: “They won’t live like us. They won’t work. I don’t believe for a minute they can’t get a job because they are discriminated against. They don’t want jobs.” On the assault on Walter Chamberlain, another added: “That’s how sick and low they are, three lads knocking 10 bells out of an old bloke. What’s he going to do back?” In retrospect, I believe the Oldham Riots woke up a lot of White people, both near the epicenter and far from it. The riots marked the beginning of what would eventually be a remarkable rise in support for the British National Party. For those of us further afield, even if we didn’t hate Asians, to paraphrase the landlord of the Fytton Arms, “we weren’t brought up ethnocentric, but the Asians made us ethnocentric.”

Once the riots were suppressed, the government invested millions in “race relations” measures designed to bribe the Asians and gag the Whites. The years since 2001 have witnessed endless official exhortations to “celebrate diversity” in the town, while clampdowns were announced “on anything which might be deemed offensive,” including the flying of St. George’s flag. The town is still largely segregated, and an uneasy peace prevails. White ethnocentrism probably remains strong in Oldham but, for now, it’s shackled and dormant. Reflecting back on those years, after the riots my own ethnocentrism entered a short period of dormancy until, prompted by a history class that required me to watch Schindler’s List (1993) — how strange the role films have played thus far!— I was sent down another, more convoluted, path to White ethnocentrism.

*****

Until doing a short high school course of study on the rise of National Socialist Germany, part of which required coursework on Schindler’s List, my knowledge of Jews was limited to the highly philo-Semitic teachings of a Presbyterian Sunday school I attended between the ages of 5 and 10. It’s quite a leap to go from purportedly heroic Israelites parting seas and surviving the dens of lions to yellow stars on clothing and, in the narrative I was given, mass death on an industrial scale. It was probably the sheer scale of this gap — the contradictory exposure to extremes of philosemitism and antisemitism — that sparked a greater than average curiosity about what exactly had happened in Europe between 1933 and 1945, and why. Truth be told, that same curiosity is still there, and I have to say that while readers sometimes write to me saying that my essays have helped them understand certain topics, the essays are primarily a method of improving my own understanding — a kind of “thinking on paper.”

I started examining Jewish interactions with European populations, on a serious and advanced level, in my early 20s, around the same time I became a father. In terms of my own life history, these two events are connected in more senses than mere timing, since both contributed to heightened ethnocentrism. I found Ed Dutton’s recent J. Philippe Rushton: A Life History Perspective (2018) fascinating not just because of the analysis of Rushton’s work but what Dutton had to say about Rushton’s early life, especially:

All the behaviors which Rushton has displayed—dropping out of school, marrying young, having a child young, having an affair—are predicted by low IQ. But he manifestly had a very high IQ, so, instead, these reflect a fast Life History Strategy, and specifically low Conscientiousness. Rushton was ‘living for the now’, following his impulses, with little regard for the future.

Like Rushton, by my early 20s I exhibited behavior reflective of a fast Life History Strategy — I hadn’t dropped out of school but had at times been very “disruptive.” Despite excelling academically, I was frequently in fights and spent many hours in detention, I married young (20), and had a child young (age 21 to Rushton’s 19). I never had an affair or touched drugs (or even alcohol), but I did “live for the now,” following my impulses, with little regard for the future. Even now, I have a higher than average number of children (4), something more typical today of lower-IQ, risk-prone populations. And yet I also, like Rushton, continued my education alongside being a father, and graduated from university (also like Rushton) with First Class Honours, later proceeding (again like Rushton) to a PhD. In some ways, I regard my own experience of fatherhood as slowing my Life History Strategy, something I’m sure I’m not alone in experiencing.

For me, becoming a father wasn’t just a fact of biology, but also something spiritual. I remember holding my first child for the first time, and hearing in my mind the final words of Dante’s Paradiso: “But my will now and my desire were turned, like a wheel rotated evenly, by a love that moves the sun and the other stars.” This dramatic shift in my personality and sense of responsibility contributed in the longer term to a slower Life History Strategy, more conscientiousness (especially regarding my children), more caution, more deliberation on risk, and greater awareness not only of my own mortality but of the threat of death more generally. I became very protective, and began to be concerned with things like finding safe places to raise children, and safe people they could associate with. As they grew older, I became interested in what my children were being taught, and by whom. I began to think of myself, and my children, as part of a biological and spiritual continuum. Fatherhood had fathered a sense of ethnocentrism.

Fatherhood had fathered a sense of ethnocentrism.

*****

This life-shift occurred around the same time I encountered troubling incongruities in historical and contemporary representations of Jewish-European relations. It also coincided with the fact I was travelling more with my young family, spending time not only in cities across Europe but also the United States. There were alarming instances of ethnic crime, like the sexual assault of a family friend by a Black in Florida, an attempted break-in by Blacks in North Carolina, street harassment by gangs of Africans (twice) and Arabs (once) in Paris and Spain, attempted thefts by gypsies in Rome, but more insidiously alarming was my general sense that the White world was shrinking, becoming tragically and despondently peppered with “Oldhams.”

As my investigations of Jewish-European interactions deepened and expanded, I began to confront the Jewish role in promoting notions of tolerance and ethnic pluralism in White countries, and then encountered the work of Kevin MacDonald. MacDonald’s own personal account of the journey to White ethnocentrism had quite a profound effect on me, since it mirrored mine (and maybe even the landlord of the Fytton Arms) in a small but important number of ways, the most important of which was that White ethnocentrism really wasn’t something we were raised with, but that environmentally impressed itself upon us. It seemed to me that White ethnocentrism can do this either in dramatic and inescapable ways, by taking the form of a surface-level, instinctive reaction to the open and immediate violent hostility of ethnic outsiders, or it can be the result of a very broad and deep reflection on one’s immediate environment, circumstances, and group history. The latter path would appear to require above average intelligence, as well as exposure to certain stimulating factors and an ability to assimilate a range of historical, philosophical issues. Of course, it can also result from a combination of both — a violent ethnic confrontation that prompts deeper reflection and more intensified feelings of ethnocentrism. Actually expressing this newfound sense of ethnocentrism would then require a new set of traits altogether, including low conscientiousness (worrying less about what others would think), a greater tendency to risk-taking behaviors, and perhaps even higher than average levels of aggression. In other words, in attempting to define an ideal type of ethnocentric White, we are back to what we might be termed the “Rushton combination” of r and K traits and strategies, with enough IQ to grasp the problem at hand, and enough recklessness to push through a wall of social stigma in order to do something about it. This combination is, in all probability, quite rare in the population at large which would go some way towards explaining the relatively stagnant nature of White ethnocentrism at present.

In any event, it occurs to me that high levels of ethnocentrism don’t appear natural to Europeans. I think we lack the innate and instinctive forms of ethnocentrism we perceive in others, like the Jews, Arabs, and South Asians. Even in my early exploration of Jewish matters, I think I was angered more by a sense that certain aspects of Jewish behavior (usury, nepotism, monopoly, cultural hostility) appeared, quite frankly, as “unfair” rather than being a direct attack on my interests as a White person, and those of my family or people. Even today, some critics of my essays have mentioned that I seem to be motivated by a sense of unfairness rather than something more coldly rational, and perhaps they aren’t completely wrong. I’m sure that, like most quintessentially European types, I haven’t entirely escaped from preoccupations with questions of fairness and morality, even if I think that to lose these traits entirely (as some Nietzscheans have advocated) would be to tragically lose something that makes us who we are. We are preoccupied with fairness. We are caught up with ideas of morality. We’ve evolved that way, and it will be the challenge of our time to adapt these traits in a way that helps rather than hinders the development of ethnocentrism — something that is necessary if we are to  survive as a group and remain dominant in our homelands and historically-held territories.

*****

What I find very difficult to understand and explain are those Whites who experience utterly catastrophic inter-ethnic encounters and yet fail to develop an ethnocentric response. Search the media and it won’t be long until you find stories of Whites who have been raped by non-Whites and find some way to blame White people for it. Similarly, it won’t take long to find stories about fathers of murdered daughters who urge tolerance for ethnic minorities and utter non-sequiturs about what the daughter “would have wanted.” Such stories should be compared and contrasted with John Derbyshire’s now infamous 2012 article “The Talk: Nonblack Version,” which more or less makes the case that every good White parent should educate their children about the dangers posed by non-Whites. The reaction to Derbyshire’s piece was ferocious, but I ask a single, simple question: How many kids getting Derbyshire’s talk would go on to die at the hands of violent ethnic minorities? I think it would rather drastically reduce the number of inter-ethnic deaths.

Every time I hear about a young White woman murdered by ethnics, either in her home country or while travelling in some remote part of the world, I think of Derbyshire’s piece and say to myself, “Well, I bet her parents aren’t ‘racists’.” It’s really very simple — the daughters of ‘racists’ don’t think it’s a great idea to go travelling in remote India or in Muslim countries, and as such, they don’t get raped and beheaded in places like Morocco. The standout moment of 2019’s Joker comes in the penultimate act when the punchline to Arthur Fleck’s only real joke of the film is: “You get what you fucking deserve,” and, in the cruelest of senses, this applies to those who fail to “evolve” into ethnocentrism despite the environment demanding it. Ethnocentric Whites will manage to avoid the worst of ethnic violence, by moving away from non-Whites, by keeping their children away from them, by imparting knowledge about them, and by planning for a future in which racial realities will play an important role. Ethnically blind Whites will continue to bear the brunt of multiculturalism. They will be used as pawns by hostile elites, their children will be murdered, and their future will be bleak and utterly without hope.

*****

How should I characterise my sense of ethnocentrism? This is more difficult than I initially thought. Our movement has adopted a few new labels of late, including White advocacy and even “White Wellbeing.” There’s something about the latter that makes me cringe, despite the obvious good intent behind it. I sometimes listen to podcasts and hear a lot about “our people” and their achievements, and things to that effect. Again, I think this is very well-meaning, and I think we should absolutely try to encourage a sense of group pride. But, ironically, and for me personally, despite all the demonization of the Dissident Right as a hotbed of racial supremacism and ethnic chauvinism, my sense of White ethnocentrism is quite frankly a lot more personal and humble than that. My sense of White ethnocentrism is rooted in a desire to protect my family and to, as Bob Matthews once put it, “continue the flow” of my lineage. In regards to how my ethnocentrism, and the ethnocentrism of other Whites, might impact ethnic minorities, it should suffice to state that the problem began with them. They’re in my homeland; I’m not in theirs. Their presence and “racism” (which is really just White existence forced into conflict with an opposing force) are a mutual or dependent arising. One does not exist without the other. The presence of outsiders will provoke White ethnocentrism, at least among the healthy and adaptive. If “anti-racist” ethnic aliens are sincere in their desire to end White racism they should take the only authentic measure guaranteed to achieve that end — they should leave, and leave quickly.

More than pride in being White, more than any sense of historical achievements by the European peoples, I simply thank whatever gods may be that I possess a sense of ethnic identity.

“Modify the standards of the in-group”: On Jews and Mass Communications

Editor’s note: This article originally appeared in September, 2018, in two parts. It is a classic, and an important addition to the research on Jewish involvement in creating the culture of critique—the anti-White culture that we live in today. The above photo is a testament to the way we live now—viewing the world through lenses shaped by activist Jews.

“To be successful, mass propaganda on the behalf of out-groups would have to modify the standards of the in-group.
Samuel H. Flowerman, Mass Propaganda in the War Against Bigotry, 1947.
[1]

“The whole story is transparently barmy.” This is what Guardian journalist Jason Wilson had to say in a 2015 article discussing “conspiracy theories” about Cultural Marxism. Barmy, for the uninitiated, is a British informal adjective with the meanings “mad; crazy; extremely foolish.” Wilson continues by attempting to explain “the whole story”:

The vogue for the ideas of theorists like Herbert Marcuse and Theodor Adorno in the 1960s counterculture culminated with their acolytes’ occupation of the commanding heights of the most important cultural institutions, from universities to Hollywood studios. There, the conspiracy says, they promoted and even enforced ideas which were intended to destroy traditional Christian values and overthrow free enterprise: feminism, multiculturalism, gay rights and atheism. And this, apparently, is where political correctness came from. I promise you: this is what they really think … The theory of cultural Marxism is also blatantly antisemitic, drawing on the idea of Jews as a fifth column bringing down western civilisation from within, a racist trope that has a longer history than Marxism.

Re-reading this article recently, I wondered what Mr Wilson would say if I told him I possessed a document wherein an influential Jew linked to Marcuse and Adorno unambiguously sets out a scheme for the capture of the media, the mass brainwashing of White populations with multicultural propaganda, the manipulation of in-group culture to make it hostile to its own sense of ethnocentrism, the spreading of a culture of political correctness, and, ultimately, the co-option of the West by small ethnic clique pursuing its own interests under the guise of “promoting tolerance.” I wonder what he’d say if I told him the same Jew operated a network of hundreds, if not thousands, of other Jewish intellectuals engaged in the same single task — unlocking a psychological “backdoor” to White culture in order to completely reorient it. I think I’m correct in assuming that Mr Wilson would call me “barmy,” and accuse me of regurgitating the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. I suspect he would believe I’m a fantasist and an anti-Jewish conspiracy theorist. I know he’d dismiss even the possibility that such a document might actually exist. And yet it does exist. Read more

Hedging their Bets (Who Really Decides Elections)

If you like your healthcare provider/free speech/immigration policy/country you can keep it!

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics,” a quote often attributed to, appropriately enough, Benjamin Disraeli. The salad days of Joe Wilson yelling, “You lie!” at Barack Obama seem so long ago, but here we are with a steady diet of more Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. Alas, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Or do they? Was the grass greener or was I? Certainly Emma Lazarus’s sonnet wasn’t a beacon for the world’s wretched refuse when the West was won and two fratricidal World Wars were still on the horizon. But the rough beast was already slouching toward Bethlehem, and by the time Donald J. Trump was clamoring to see Barack Hussein Obama’s birth certificate the beast had been born and grown to adulthood.

In any case, it was a republic and we couldn’t keep it; instead, Jewish hedge fund managers and plutocrats decide under what guise the neo-liberal machine will continue to operate, for it is in fact all window dressing. The reasons may vary—cheap labor, ready votes, “social justice,” climate change, anti-white animus, etc.—but the end result is no border and no representation, regardless of the rhetoric. The ruling class is beyond redemption, and nothing short of a replacement of the kind they envision for us will suffice to save any semblance of an America worth saving. Perhaps it is a Balkanized future or an entire Western Hemisphere that looks like Brazil, but prognostication is not the order of the day, nor is this a post-mortem, but rather an outlining of the kabuki theater that passes for politics in America and a look at its stage managers.

Using the figures for individual donors’ campaign contributions to federal candidates, parties, political action committees (PACs), 527 organizations, and Carey committees as reported by the Center for Responsive Politics for the 2018 election, we see that six of the top seven donors were Jews: Sheldon Adelson, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, S. Donald Sussman, Jim Simons, and George Soros. The Jewish Stephen Schwarzman of the Blackstone Group was also in the top ten. Number ten on that list, Fred Eychaner, is not Jewish, but as The Times of Israel reported in late October 2012:

Eychaner has given $1.5 million to the Priorities USA Action super PAC. He’s also given more than $60,000 to the president’s re-election committees, and he’s listed as a major “bundler” for Obama, having raised at least $500,000 for the president. Eychaner, a gay-rights activist, also has donated millions to other nonprofit groups, including more than $1 million to the progressive EMILY’s List organization.[1]

The reader will be familiar with the Jewish character of EMILY’s List from my The Way Life Should Be? series.

More wealthy Jews abound in the top one hundred donors to political campaigns in 2018: Deborah Simon (#14), Bernie Marcus (#18), Dustin Moskovitz (#19), Joshua Bekenstein (#20), Jeff Yass (#21), Paul Singer ($25), Seth Klarman (#26), Amy Goldman-Fowler (#28), and Henry Laufer (#29). Sixteen of the top thirty donors to political campaigns in 2018 were Jewish. If you continue down the list, you’ll continue to see Jews well-represented, including Herbert Sandler, Haim Saban, Irwin Jacobs, Les Wexner, Alexander Soros, Steven A. Cohen, Bernard Schwartz, Sim Daniel Abraham, Richard Rosenthal, Stephen Mandel, Henry Goldberg, Irving Moskowitz, Steven Spielberg, Ronald Lauder, Michael Sacks, David Bonderman, Dan Loeb, and Andrea Soros-Colombel.

When Bernie Sanders talks about the 1%, this is who he’s talking about, and there are a whole lot of his co-ethno-religionists. Despite the tough talk, it appears Sanders doesn’t walk the walk—he has received huge campaign contributions in this election cycle from the like of Alphabet Inc., Apple, Microsoft, AT&T, Amazon, Wal-Mart, Kaiser Permanente, UC Berkeley, Boeing, IBM, UPS, the City of New York, and the Army, Navy, Air Force, and the US Department of Defense. In fact, his donor list is pretty much interchangeable with the rest of his “competition.”

For billionaire Jews like Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer, backing candidates is apparently not enough anymore, or maybe their grip on power is becoming more tenuous. Whatever the reason, the Wonderful Wizards are moving to center stage for all of America to see. Having made a killing as a hedge fund manager, Tom Steyer now has his sights on the presidency, and has spent nearly $48 million of his own money at press time on his bid. He doesn’t need much in the way of campaign donations, but his donors do prove illustrative: Bain Capital (Joshua Bekenstein from the above list is co-chair and the Jewish Jonathan Lavine is CIO), Hellman & Friedman (a San Francisco-based private equity firm founded by two Jews—Warren Hellman, former president of Lehman Brothers and Tully Friedman, former managing director of Salomon Brothers—and a former employer of Steyer’s), Stanford University (where Steyer received his MBA), MRB Capital (the venture capital firm of Hellman & Friedman senior advisor Matthew R. Barger, who, like Steyer, also received his MBA from Stanford and who, like Hellman, also worked for Lehman Brothers prior to joining Hellman’s firm), Pisces, Inc. (described on their LinkedIn page as “an outsourcing/offshoring company” based out of San Francisco), and Twitter. Of particular note and showing what a ludicrous sham the whole thing is, Steyer’s second-largest donor is Farallon Capital, the very firm he founded. Steyer also worked as a risk arbitrage trader under the Jewish Robert Rubin at Goldman Sachs and in Morgan Stanley’s corporate mergers and acquisitions department, in addition to Salomon Brothers, before founding Farallon Capital, the largest hedge fund in the world in the mid-2000s. Rubin is on the advisory council of The Hamilton Project, is co-chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and is a member of the Africa Progress Panel (APP). Rubin is a real piece of work:

In January 1995, one year after the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and immediately after Rubin was sworn in as Secretary of Treasury, Mexico was suffering through a financial crisis that threatened to result in it defaulting on its foreign obligations. President Bill Clinton, with the advice of Secretary Rubin and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan,[2] provided $20 billion in US loan guarantees to the Mexican government through the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF). In 1997 and 1998, Treasury Secretary Rubin, Deputy Secretary Lawrence Summers,[3] and Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan worked with the International Monetary Fund and others to promote U.S. policy in response to financial crises in Russian, Asian, and Latin American financial markets…As Clinton’s two-term Secretary of the Treasury, Rubin sharply opposed any regulation of collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps and other so-called “derivative” financial instruments which—despite having already created havoc for companies such as Procter & Gamble and Gibson Greetings, and disastrous consequences in 1994 for Orange County, California with its $1.5 billion default and subsequent bankruptcy—were nevertheless becoming the chief engine of profitability for Rubin’s former employer Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms. Rubin sparked controversy in 2001 when he contacted an acquaintance at the U.S. Treasury Department and asked if the department could convince bond-rating agencies not to downgrade the corporate debt of Enron, a debtor of Citigroup…Journalist Robert Scheer claims that the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act was a key factor in the 2008 financial crisis. Enacted just after the 1930s Great Depression, the Glass–Steagall Act separated commercial and investment banking…Rubin and his deputy Lawrence Summers steered through the 1999 repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act (1933)…It allowed the banks to develop and sell the mortgage-backed instruments that became a principal factor in the financial collapse. In September 2011, the UK Independent Commission on Banking released a report in which it recommended a separation of investment and retail banking to prevent a repeat of the 2008 crisis…In December 2008, investors filed a lawsuit contending that Citigroup executives, including Rubin, sold shares at inflated prices while concealing the firm’s risks….Writer Nassim Nicholas Taleb noted that Rubin “collected more than $120 million in compensation from Citibank in the decade preceding the banking crash of 2008. When the bank, literally insolvent, was rescued by the taxpayer, he didn’t write any check—he invoked uncertainty as an excuse.”…In January 2014, Secretary Rubin joined former Senator Olympia Snowe, former Education Secretary Donna Shalala, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Housing and Urban Affairs Secretary Henry Cisneros, Gregory Page the Chair of Cargill, and Al Sommer, the Dean Emeritus of the Bloomberg School of Public Health as members of the U.S. Climate Risk Committee.[4]

We know the purposes of this emphasis on “climate change.” What we are looking at is the “corporate stranglehold on democracy” that Steyer is supposedly fighting, a rich irony considering. Exemplified here is the neo-liberal establishment at work, operating with impunity, and with obvious and significant in-group preferential treatment and networking as regards Jews. It does not, unfortunately, end there.

Lazard, Ltd., based out of Bermuda for tax reasons, naturally, is also a major donor to Steyer. Lazard’s Chairman and CEO is Kenneth M. Jacobs, another Stanford MBA who is on the Board for the Brookings Institution and is a former member of the Steering Committee for the Bilderberg Group. A number of influential people have worked for Lazard, including both Jews and their functionaries: Marcus Agius, Robert Agostinelli, Tim Collins, Disque Deane, Mina Gerowin, Sir Philip Hampton, Hugh Kindersley, Sebastian Kulczyk, Steven Langman, Jean-Marie Messier, Archie Norman, Nelson Obus, Gary Parr, Mark Pincus, Gerald Rosenfeld, Nathaniel Rothschild, Bernard Selz, Johann Rupert, Lars Kroijer, Jaime Bermúdez Merizalde, Ron Bloom, Robert Henry Brand, Robert Fred Ellsworth, Vernon E. Jordan Jr., Paul Keating, Robert Kindersley, Anne Lauvergeon, Lord MandelsonHenrique de Campos Meirelles, Andrew Mitchell, Peter R. Orszag, Vincent S. Pérez, Rodrigo de Rato, Jenny Sanford, Simon Sebag Montefiore, Lindsay Tanner, Andrés Velasco, Antonio Weiss, Bill White, Frank G. Zarb, Božidar Đelić, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, and William D. Cohan. Lazard was founded as Lazard Freres & Co. by three Jewish brothers—Alexandre, Lazare, and Simon:

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, the firm evolved into three “Houses of Lazard” in the United States, France, and England, separately managed but allied. The Lazard partners advised clients on financial matters and built a cross-border network of high-level relationships in business and government. Noted financial advisor George Blumenthal rose to prominence as the head of the U.S. branch of Lazard Frères and was a partner of Lazard Frères in France. In the economic boom following World War II, the American operations of Lazard expanded significantly under the leadership of the financier André Meyer. Meyer and Lazard partner Felix Rohatyn have been credited with virtually inventing the modern mergers and acquisitions (M&A) market…In 1977, as the health of Meyer began to deteriorate, the firm came to be controlled by Michel David-Weill. Under his leadership, the three houses of Lazard were formally united in 2000 as Lazard LLC. In 2002, David-Weill hired Bruce Wasserstein to be CEO…Following Wasserstein’s sudden death in 2009, Lazard’s Board of Directors elected Kenneth M. Jacobs Chairman and CEO.[5]

Blumenthal, Meyer, Rohatyn, David-Weill, Wasserstein, and Jacobs are all Jewish, by the way. Blumenthal first arrived in the United States on behalf of the dynastic Jewish banking family the Speyers, and “with J. P. Morgan the elder, he was one of five bankers whose $65,000,000 gold loans saved Grover Cleveland from giving up specie payments in 1896.”[6] At Lazard, André Meyer created SOVAC (Societé pour la Vente à Crédit d’Automobiles), a finance company that in the late-1920s introduced the concept of automobile financing for consumers, ensuring Lazard Frères would become a significant force in consumer credit as well as in product leasing. Meyer and two colleagues would also represent Lazard on the Board of Directors of Citroën.[7] He was also very close with former US President Lyndon B. Johnson, often serving in an unofficial advisory capacity during Johnson’s time in office. Rohatyn:

Joined the New York office of the investment bank Lazard Frères under André Meyer. He was made partner in the firm in 1961 and later became managing director. While at Lazard he brokered numerous, major mergers and acquisitions, notably on behalf of International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT), where he became a director in 1966. He also served on the boards of the Englehard Mineral and Chemical Corporation, Howmet Turbine Component Corporation, Owens-Illinois Inc., and Pfizer Inc. He served on the Board of the New York Stock Exchange from 1968 to 1972…In 1996, the Clinton administration put forward his candidacy for the post of Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve…According to The New York Times, in the 1990s, Rohatyn described derivatives as “financial hydrogen bombs, built on personal computers by 26-year-olds with M.B.A.s.” In 2006 Rohatyn joined Lehman Brothers as a senior advisor to chairman, Dick Fuld.[8] On January 27, 2010, Rohatyn announced his return to Lazard as Special Advisor to the Chairman and CEO, after a short role at Rothschild. Rohatyn was United States Ambassador to France from 1997–2000 during the second Clinton Administration…As ambassador, he also organized the French-American Business Council (FABC), a 40-member council of U.S. and French corporate chief executives that met annually, with meetings held alternately in the United States and France. FABC meetings included President Clinton, President Chirac and Prime Minister Jospin, as well as U.S. cabinet secretaries and French government ministers and meetings continued during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Nicolas Sarkozy[9]…[His son] Nicolas Rohatyn is CEO and Chief Investment Officer at The Rohatyn Group, an investment firm specializing in emerging markets, following a 19-year career at J.P. Morgan.[10]

David-Weill’s father, Pierre, was a partner and former Chairman of Lazard Frères; his grandfather, David, was a partner, and his great-grandfather, Alexandre Weill also worked at Lazard Frères, founded by his cousins. David-Weill hired both Bruce Wasserstein and the Jewish “deal-maker” Steven Rattner, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and a previous member of the Brookings Institution’s Board. Before joining Lazard, Wasserstein’s private equity firm Wasserstein & Co. specialized in the acquisitions of media. Wasserstein’s fourth wife was Angela Chao, sister of Mitch McConnell’s wife Elaine Chao. Rahm Emanuel[11] was employed by Wasserstein at one time.

[Rattner] was hired in Washington, D.C., as a news clerk to James Reston, New York Times columnist and former executive editor. After a year, he moved to New York as a reporter to cover business, energy, and urban affairs; there he became friends with colleague Paul Goldberger[12]…At the unusually young age of 27, he became the paper’s chief Washington economic correspondent. He became close friends with Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr.[13].…At the end of 1982, Rattner left The New York Times and was recruited by Roger Altman[14] to join the investment bank Lehman Brothers as an associate. After Lehman was sold to American Express in 1984, he followed his boss Eric Gleacher and several colleagues to Morgan Stanley, where he founded the firm’s communications group. In 1989, after Morgan Stanley filed for an initial public offering, he joined Lazard as a general partner and completed various deals for large media conglomerates such as Viacom and Comcast. Alongside Felix Rohatyn, Rattner became Lazard’s top rainmaker in the 1990s. Michel David-Weill named him the firm’s deputy chairman and deputy chief executive in 1997. In March 2000, Rattner and three Lazard partners, including Joshua Steiner,[15] left the firm and founded the Quadrangle Group. They initially focused on investing a $1 billion media-focused private equity fund. Early investors in Quadrangle included Sulzberger, Mort Zuckerman,[16] and Merrill Lynch. Headquartered in the Seagram Building,[17] Quadrangle grew to manage more than $6 billion across several business lines, including private equity, distressed securities, and hedge funds. The firm also hosted an annual gathering for media executives called Foursquare, where speakers included Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg.[18]…In 2005, Quadrangle made payments to private placement agent Hank Morris[19] to help Quadrangle raise money for its second buyout fund. Morris had come highly recommended to Rattner from U.S. Senator Charles Schumer.[20] Morris was also the chief political advisor to Alan Hevesi,[21] the New York State Comptroller and manager of the New York State Common Retirement Fund (CRF), which invests in many private equity funds. Morris told Rattner he could increase the size of the CRF investment in Quadrangle’s second buyout fund. Rattner agreed to pay Morris a placement fee of 1.1% of any investments greater than $25 million from the CRF…In 2009, Quadrangle and a dozen other investment firms, including the Carlyle Group, were investigated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for their hiring of Morris. The SEC viewed the payments as “kickbacks” in order to receive investments from the CRF since Morris was also a consultant to Hevesi. Quadrangle paid $7 million in April 2010 to settle the SEC investigation, and Rattner personally settled in November for $6.2 million without admitting or denying any wrongdoing…In 2008, the firm’s asset management division announced it had been selected to invest the personal assets of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg…Rattner’s close friend.[22]

Do you see how all this works? This is how a decadent ruling class operates—governing for its own benefit and, for the preponderance of Jews, that of its tribe. Political affiliation is basically irrelevant in such a context, as we will see with presidential candidate Johnny-come-lately Michael Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, who may be running as a Democrat, but is bi-partisan in his support for his co-ethno-religionists and those who will do their bidding. Control is essential. As Karl Evers-Hillstrom writes:

Bloomberg, who made his billions as the founder and CEO of financial services firm Bloomberg L.P., has slammed aggressive regulation of the financial sector… Bloomberg’s contributions ebb and flow as the political tides shift…Following the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Bloomberg took advantage of his newfound ability to give unlimited sums to super PACs. His Independence USA PAC shelled out millions to back Bloomberg’s preferred Republicans and Democrats, and spent roughly 90 percent or more of its money backing winning candidates every cycle since 2014. In 2018, the group spent all of its $38 million backing Democrats and opposing Republicans. It helped kick out key Democratic targets such as former Reps. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) and Pete Sessions (R-Texas) with multi-million dollar ad buys. Bloomberg’s other major group, Everytown for Gun Safety, was also successful at kicking Republicans out of Congress. The group spent $4.2 million backing Rep. Lucy McBath (D-Ga.), a gun control activist, and helped gun control groups outspend gun rights organizations on independent expenditures for the first time in 2018. The Bloomberg-funded group was also instrumental in helping Democrats turn Virginia blue this week. Also during the midterms, Bloomberg poured $20 million into Senate Majority PAC, the super PAC arm for Senate Democrats. He added another $5 million to the League of Conservation Voters.[23]

Notable Democrats who’ve received funds from Bloomberg in recent years include Cory Booker and Kamala Harris. Interestingly, Bloomberg has never donated to Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders. Naturally, though, people like Jerrold Nadler, Chuck Schumer, and Joe Lieberman have also received Bloomberg’s largesse. What could possibly unite them?

Rhetorically, Sanders and Warren are very much opposed to the Bloomberg/Steyer modus operandi, but as mentioned near the beginning of this piece, their donors are virtually the same as every other major Democratic candidate. Surely there is some in-group tension here regarding Wall Street and venture (vulture) capitalism, but all indications are that it will probably prove either minor or altogether irrelevant. Sanders may have been a True Believer at one time, but he has clearly been co-opted. Big tech and the major multi-nationals appear to be off-limits completely. It remains to be seen how or if Bloomberg is able to explain his way out of his support for “stop-and-frisk” while mayor of New York to the Woke Golems.

On the other side of the aisle, Bloomberg has donated to the Republican National Committee, the Republican Party of Massachusetts, New Jersey Republican State Committee, New York Republican Federal Campaign Committee, and the New York Republican County Committee, as well as current Maine Senator Susan Collins, former Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, Mitt Romney, Orrin Hatch, John McCain, George Bush, George W. Bush, and Rudy Giuliani. He donated $250,000 to Mississippi Conservatives in 2014 and in that same year, donated another $250,000 to West Main Street Values, a single-candidate super-PAC in support of Lindsey Graham. The following year, while Graham was gearing up for a presidential bid of his own, as Ben Kamisar reported in late July 2015:

Of the total [$2.9 million raised since March], $200,000 came from a super-PAC that supported Graham’s Senate bid, West Main Street Values PAC Inc….Ronald Perelman,[24] the billionaire investor that’s a member of Graham’s national finance team, also gave a half-million. Access Industries, a holding company that owns Warner Music Group and others, also donated that same sum…General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt gave $25,000 to the group, as did Boston philanthropist Theodore Cutler.[25] Graham appeared at a fundraiser for the group in March, which was co-chaired by GOP megadonor Sheldon Adelson. Adelson doesn’t appear to have given to the super-PAC directly, but another co-chair, former American Enterprise Institute board member Roger Hertog,[26] donated $100,000 a week after the event.[27] 

“So you see, my dear Coningsby,” the Jewish Benjamin Disraeli wrote in his novel Coningsby,[28] “that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” It is my goal—and if I may be so bold as to speak for others, that of the other writers at the Occidental Observer and other dissident voices I’m sure—to shoulder our way into the conversation and show plainly the architects of this modern horror show. With any luck, figures like Steyer and Bloomberg will continue to drop the mask and show the public who they really are, making our job that much easier. To combat the pernicious agenda of the globalist establishment, we must first understand it. We must know the what’s, the when’s, the where’s, the who’s, the why’s, and the how’s and proceed accordingly.


[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/jewish-donors-prominent-in-presidential-campaign-contributions/

[2] Jewish.

[3] Jewish.

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Rubin

[5] https://www.wikizero.com/en/Lazard

[6] https://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,790199,00.html

[7] https://www.wikizero.com/en/Andr%C3%A9_Meyer

[8] Jewish.

[9] Jewish ancestry.

[10] https://www.wikizero.com/en/Felix_Rohatyn

[11] Jewish.

[12] Jewish. “You know, I remember when I was young hearing my grandfather ask, apropos of almost anything—‘So, is it good or bad for the Jews?’”

[13] Jewish.

[14] Jewish.

[15] Jewish.

[16] Jewish.

[17] It was designed as the headquarters for Joseph E. Seagram & Sons with the active interest of Phyllis Lambert, the daughter of Samuel Bronfman. The Bronfmans are Jewish and are immensely powerful and influential. The building is owned by the Jewish Aby Rosen’s RFR Holdings.

[18] Jewish.

[19] “A top New York political consultant who went to prison for masterminding a massive state pension fund scandal has won parole, officials said Tuesday. Hank Morris, the longtime political guru to disgraced state Controller Alan Hevesi, is scheduled to be released no later than June 3 from the Hudson Correctional Facility and be under community supervision until Feb. 18, 2015. ‘I’d say that he’s very happy,’ said Morris lawyer Orlee Goldfeld. ‘It’s been a long time coming.’” https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/digraced-ex-controller-hevesi-aide-corruption-free-article-1.1325828

[20] Jewish.

[21] Jewish.

[22] https://www.wikizero.com/en/Steven_Rattner

[23] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2019/11/bloomberg-enters-presidential-primary/

[24] Jewish.

[25] Jewish.

[26] Jewish.

[27] https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/249802-graham-super-pac-raises-nearly-3m

[28] “Coningsby, or The New Generation is an English political novel by Benjamin Disraeli, published in 1844. It is rumored to be based on Nathan Mayer Rothschild. According to Disraeli’s biographer, Robert Blake, the character of Sidonia is a cross between Lionel de Rothschild and Disraeli himself.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coningsby_(novel)

Uncut Gems (2019) and Jewish Neuroticism

Uncut Gems (2019) begins with an unusual transition sequence, where we first see a badly injured Ethiopian miner and a mob of fellow Ethiopian miners (lip service is later paid to them being Ethiopian Jews) on the verge of revolting against what looks to be Chinese mine-owners (and/or “It’s all so tiresome”-styled Asian foremen). This distraction allows two rogue miners to chisel out the titular uncut gem (a rock containing multicolored opal gems), so that ultimately, and through a presumed smuggling network, an unscrupulous Jewish jeweler in NYC can sell it and other shiny things to black rappers and superstitious NBA stars with a surfeit of disposable income. As the two miners admire the rock, the camera slowly zooms into one of its luminous opals. We then ‘enter’ the inner world of the gem via gemological photomicrography, allowing us to see the sharp, colorful, and crystalline topology of minerals-inside-minerals. This inner world of the opal then seamlessly transitions into a colonoscopy camera view of the said jeweler’s bowels, with its own fleshy and odious topology.

Whether this unusual opening to a film is simply intended as a smidgen of scatological humor (a Jewish forte) or has some deeper symbolic meaning is open to interpretation, but what is certain is that Uncut Gems is very much a Jewish film, a critical reflection on modern Jewish identity and one of the most self-consciously Jewish films since the Coen Brothers’ A Serious Man (2009). As such, the world of professional movie critics love this movie, perhaps because of its saturation in Jewish ingroup realities (i.e., what non-Jews are otherwise told are awful Jewish stereotypes), which might help explain the notable, and often revealing, sociological insights provided by the relatively wide ‘mind the gap’ measurements at Rotten Tomatoes:

The movie is directed by NYC-born Jewish sibling filmmakers Josh and Benny Safdie, who co-wrote the screenplay with Ronald Bronstein, a frequent collaborator with the brothers, and to whom the rabidly anti-white movie critic Richard Brody wrote a glowing profile of some years back. (A previous collaboration by the three, 2015’s Heaven Knows What, a Larry Clark-styled film about a NYC heroin addict, itself has a formidable 21-point Rotten Tomatoes gap skewed in the same direction.)

Uncut Gems centers on the manic Howard Ratner (Adam Sandler), a jeweler in NYC’s seedy Diamond District (inspired by the experiences of the Safdie brothers’ own rather odd and manic father), and whose life is nothing short of a high-wire act of narrowly escaped destruction, and even death, on a near daily basis. Howard is not a good person, not in the least. He ignores his wife and kids, to the point that most of them come to despise him. He has a trashy shiksa mistress, an employee whom he lets live in his in-city apartment (a glorified man-cave far removed from the nice suburban home he shares with his estranged family). And, most importantly, Howard is a compulsive and degenerate gambler, whose downwardly spiraling habit will ultimately lead to his ruin.

Adam Sandler as Howard Ratner

Because of gambling losses, Howard owes a significant sum of money to his brother in law Arno (Eric Bogosian), a loan shark who operates with two vaguely Eastern-European looking mobster thugs. Despite his Semitic-looking features, Arno does not appear to be Jewish himself. (Bogosian is of Armenian descent). A further clue that the ill-fated Arno character is not a Jew takes place when, during a Passover celebration, Howard’s Jewish father in law Gooey (Judd Hirsh) is talking to another Jewish relative about Arno. “You know what he says to me. He comes over to me and says ‘Happy Holidays.’ Like it’s Christmas. It’s like having an intruder in your own home.” Gooey’s interlocutor replies “He’s not bothering anybody, right?” to which Gooey responds “He’s trying. Easy for you to say; he didn’t marry your daughter.”

That Gooey’s display of paranoia here, as well as his ethnocentric contempt for the goy that his daughter has married, takes place during a Passover celebration is no accident. In an interview about the film, Josh Safdien, one of the film’s co-directors, discusses how the Passover (Pesach) scene was deliberately placed in the movie for thematic reasons:

The fact that the movie takes place around Passover, the holiest of holidays, is so apt. This particular holiday, you’re supposed to derive much meaning from suffering, in a movie about a guy where your hero is enduring and suffering. … Once we landed on Passover itself, you start to mine your own personal experiences with Pesach and certain intricacies of thousands of years of tradition connected to this barbaric story.

Both the context for creating this scene, and the scene itself, provide insight into a central feature of modern Jewish consciousness, the framing of social conflict in terms of purported anti-Semitism and an all-encompassing sense of historical and ongoing persecution. “Jewish religious consciousness,” writes Kevin MacDonald in Separation and Its Discontents (1998, p. 215), “centers to a remarkable extent around the memory of persecution. Persecution is a central theme of the holidays of Passover, Hanukkah, Purim, and Yom Kippur.” In The Ordeal of Civility (1974), John Murray Cuddihy draws attention to how the Jewish sense of persecution underwent something of a narrative reboot in the nineteenth century (which radically accelerated after World War II). Cuddihy points out that whereas pre-modern Diaspora Jewry explained its Exile “as a punishment from God for its sins,” beginning in the nineteenth century, after Jews were granted civic emancipation in the predominately Christian nations of the West (so-called Emancipation), secular Jewish elites began to re-frame the Jewish Diaspora in secular terms:

Before Emancipation, Diaspora Jewry explained its Exile… as a punishment from God for its sins. After Emancipation, this theodicy, now turned outward to a new, Gentile status-audience, becomes an ideology, emphasizing Gentile persecution as the root cause of Jewish “degradation.” This ideology was so pervasive that it was shared, in one form or another, by all the ideologists of nineteenth-century Jewry: Reform Jews and Zionists, assimilationists and socialists, Bundists and Communists — all became virtuosos of ethnic suffering. … The point is that these Diaspora groups were uninterested in actual history; they were apologists, ideologists, prefabricating a past in order to answer embarrassing questions, to outfit a new identity, and to ground a claim to equal treatment in the modern world. (Cuddihy 1974, p. 177)

In a recent interview about the film, Josh Safdie expresses this prevailing, modern form of Jewish self-consciousness, one which interprets Jewish overcompensation and materialism to be functions of persecution:

I think that Howard, the character Adam Sandler plays, falls in a long tradition. I think the humor of the film is explicitly Jewish. … This concept of learning through suffering is very Old Testament. Obviously, we are Jewish, so that perspective is easy for us. But in addition to that, the early inspirations were these titanic 20th-century Jews, these overachievers, these overcompensators, these guys with interesting perspectives based on that, trying to work their way into society: the Rodney Dangerfields, the Lenny Bruces, the Don Rickles, the Al Goldsteins…

I think what you see in Howard is the long delineation of stereotypes that were forced onto us in the Middle Ages, when the church was created, when Jews were not counted toward population, and their only way in, their only way of accruing status as an individual, as a person who was considered a human being, was through material consumption. That was the only way in. … What you’re seeing in the film is a parable. What are the ill effects of overcompensation? Why?

While not plentiful, there are other insightful moments of Jewish self-consciousness in the dialogue of Uncut Gems. We find this through moments of black humor (“Jews and colon cancer. What’s up with that? I thought we were the chosen people,”) and when Howard gives NBA star Kevin Garnett (playing himself) a quasi-rationalization for his greed, and why he has not been forthcoming with Garnett, trying to maximize his profit from him vis-à-vis having his father shill to bid up the price of the titular gem at auction. Howard points to how Garnett, even when a basketball game is clearly won, will still go 100% in order to up his numbers and prove to the world his greatness. “Come on! KG,” Howard says to Garnett, “This is no different than that. This is me. All right? I’m not a fuckin’ athlete, this is my fuckin’ way. This is how I win. All right?”

In many lengthy sequences, the film is unnerving to watch, due to the cacophony of voices talking over each other with extreme intensity, and within an environment of constant crisis and chaos, like a continuous cinematic panic attack, all of which is accentuated by Darius Khondji’s cinematography and the film’s frenetic pace. In the end, this level of aural chaos (which is far more disorienting than anything done by Cassavetes, Altman, Scorsese, or Paul Thomas Anderson in their films) is a deep flaw, but one that various Jewish film critics admire for its literal familiarity (Jews are nothing if not noisy and psychologically intense; here, p. 24) and symbolic relevance.

Of the film’s noise pollution, P.J. Grisar, writing in The Forward, puts it this way: “For a Jewish viewer, it will likely often be triggering in its familiarity.” Grisar, who praises the film, first exhibits the obligatory “Is-it-good-for-the-Jews?” caution towards any depiction of Jews in an unflattering light:

As the lights go down and Adam Sandler springs to frenetic life as protagonist Howard Ratner, a New York Diamond District sleaze, you might muse as to why it took so long for someone of his boorish, magnetic ilk to get a star turn in a film. You may also wonder, there in the dark with your coreligionists, if non-Jews are really ready to encounter Ratner without viewing him as proof of certain ethnically-charged judgments. … 

Surely, film history has no dearth of stereotypically greedy, sex-crazed or slovenly Chosen, but never ones so thoroughly and meticulously rendered by and for Jews. Jewish auteurs’ resistance to examining a Ratner is understandable. There’s a justifiable fear that such characters are a shanda far di Goyim.

Ultimately, however, Grisar seems to take the position that non-Jews in the audience are sophisticated enough to see the “unflattering face of American Jewry” depicted, or, at a minimum, that Jewish audiences’ fears should be allayed in the spirit of self-criticism:

We, like any other people, have unsavory characters, who root their personal identities in our peoplehood. We should not have to make excuses for or overlook them for fear of what others might say.

One suspects that such critics would have a quite different attitude if they thought the film would make a dent in the contemporary reality of Jewish power. Indeed, films made by Jews with negatively depicted Jewish characters are really a marker of Jewish power. The strongly identified Jews who make these films would be loath to actually damage to Jewish interests.

In a similar vein, Noah Kulwin, in a review of the film titled “In Praise of the Difficult Jew”, goes so far as to say:

Ratner is the latest in a long line of sympathetic Jewish pervs and idiots, men whose fundamentally crude nature can overpower nearly all other parts of their personality. It’s a key part of what makes Adam Sandler so well-suited to the role, given the gross-out nature of his oeuvre, and his portrayal revives a variety of Jewish stereotype that’s gotten, to my mind, an excessively bad rap. …

Not every Jew depicted in art has to be a saint, or even attempt to be one, and the vague possibility of stimulating a few genuine antisemites has never been a good reason for Jewish artists to stop making good art.

Gabe Friedman, in his review for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, notes how the film “deeply explores modern Jewish identity.” while in Slate, Heather Schwedel refers to Uncut Gems as an “extremely Jewish film.” The aforementioned Richard Brody calls the film a “brilliant masterstroke”, praising the Safdies for having “long specialized in drama kings and queens, in protagonists who knock their lives out of joint and into action with breathless, reckless, perpetual cycles of frenzied, self-imposed challenges and daily dangers… The Safdie brothers have always been artists of chaos.” Like other Jewish reviewers of the film, Brody describes Uncut Gems as “a very Jewish movie,” particularly in the way it is “tonally Jewish.” Brody, too, characterizes Jewish materialism and deception, as well as Jewish paranoia and internalized outsider-ness, as functions of historical Gentile persecution and ensuing Diaspora:

The hustle knows no nationality, but the Forty-seventh Street trade in precious stones reminds me of the old joke about why there are so many great Jewish violinists: because when you’re being chased out of town by the Cossacks, it’s harder to carry a piano. Portable wealth defined by no one currency corresponds to the longtime demands of rushed migration, as well as the inner state of exile and outsiderhood that’s part of the Jewish heritage (indeed, in the Passover story). The panic and the paranoia that drive Howard have an underlying historical undercurrent, a weird sense of belonging that he finds in the uncertainty, the instability, the terror, the exclusion that he endures—even if he largely brought it on himself.

***

It should be said that Sandler is terrific in the lead role. While I’m not necessarily a fan of all or even most of his movies, I’ve always found him to be comedically, musically (“The Chanukah Song”; “Lunch Lady Land”), and dramatically talented, quite humble in interviews, and possessing a ‘relatable’ quality rare in Hollywood. (It was perhaps fitting that he starred in a remake of Frank Capra’s 1936 film Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, which starred everyman Gary Cooper, as Mr. Deeds in 2002). Sandler has proven himself capable and reliable, whether in his early goofball comedies, to his dramatic turns in Paul Thomas Anderson’s Punch-Drunk Love (2002) and Noah Baumbach’s The Meyerowitz Stories (2017), to throwaway but fun movies like Murder Mystery (2019). (It’s worth noting that Sandler graduated from New York University’s Tisch School of the Arts before he ever entered the world of stand-up comedy.)

Ultimately, however, Uncut Gems fails due to a series of fundamental flaws. The script feels incomplete. Various characters are shown, in passing, vocalizing digressive and inconsequential asides. There is the pat and violent ending, a now-standard trope in post-Scorsesean cinema. (Note: Martin Scorsese is a co-producer of the film.) There is the prevailing chaos in dialogue and miscellaneous diegetic sound. There is the agonizing weight of profanity used throughout the film (which apparently has the seventh most F-bombs in movie history). But the most serious and critical flaw is that Howard Ratner is not a character we can feel sorry for, root for, or even care about. He displays no dignity and his narcissism is boundless. The film’s defenders will likely offer some form of postmodern argument that this is deliberate and provocative, that standard, three-act character arcs, especially when this arc involves redemption or growth, are horribly passé, etc. But when the audience doesn’t care about a movie’s protagonist in any substantive way, that movie will be forgotten in time.

The phenomenon of Jewish neuroticism, while often joked about in Jewish humor (e.g., Woody Allen, Larry David) or elaborated upon in Jewish literature (e.g., Philip Roth), is, like other Jewish “stereotypes” typically a subject that non-Jews are not allowed to broach, else they be branded anti-Semites. However, many Jews themselves accept the basic premises of a Jewish predisposition for mental illness and the idea of a “psychological Jewishness.” (As a personality trait, neuroticism is likely half or more attributable to genetics).

For the Dissident Right, the value of watching Uncut Gems may lie in how the film serves as a symbolic reflection of Jewish neuroticism. Through devices of chaotic direction and frantic delivery, the stereotypes of Jewish intensity, overcompensation, obnoxiousness, money obsession, paranoia, and continuous persecution complex are on full display, as is that world-weary form of Jewish pessimism which, in this case, seems to have its ultimate expression in the lead character’s suicidal death wish.

The author writes at Logical Meme and @Logicalmeme.

 

Against Mishima: Sex, Death and Optics in the Dissident Right

“One learns from Confessions of a Mask how Mishima put “Circassians” (white boys) to the sword by the dozen in his dreams.”
Henry Scott Stokes, The Life and Death of Yukio Mishima

“Mishima is more a figure of parody than a force of politics.”
Alan Tansman, The Aesthetics of Japanese Fascism 

I read with great interest Guillaume Durocher’s recent Unz Review article on Yukio Mishima’s commentary on the Hagakure, the eighteenth-century guide to Bushido, or Japanese warrior ethics. I rate Durocher’s work very highly, and as someone who once shared his interest in Mishima, and Japanese culture more generally, I expected the piece to be well-informed, insightful and provocative. Much as I was intrigued by Durocher’s piece, I think the Dissident Right would benefit from an alternative view of Mishima, and perhaps also the subject of Japanese culture in the context of European rightist sensibilities, especially when right-wing treatments of Mishima other than Durocher’s (which is suitably measured in the assessment of Mishima’s fiction) tend towards hagiography. In the following essay, I offer not necessarily a rebuttal or rebuke of Durocher, but an alternative lens through which to view the Japanese author, his life, and politics. Since a movement’s choice of heroes can have an impact on its spirit and ethos, the following should be considered an attempt at spiritual ophthalmology, or the bringing of certain perspectives into clearer focus. This clearer focus, I argue, can only lead to the conclusion that Mishima was a profoundly unhealthy and inorganic individual who should be regarded as anathema to European nationalist thought.

My first introduction to Yukio Mishima came several years ago in the form of a recording of a 2011 lecture delivered in London, by the late Jonathan Bowden, at the 10th New Right meeting. Bowden was an exceptional orator, yet to find an equal in the current crop of dissident right leaders. In fact, as we move further and further into patterns of YouTube-based “content producing” I fear that oratory of Bowden’s type may become an increasingly rare art. One of Bowden’s great strengths as a speaker was the ability to take dense topics and biographical overviews and reduce them to an hour or so of dynamic, entertaining, and extremely accessible commentary. Those in the audience, or listening in other forms, found it impossible for their attention to wander. A downside to Bowden’s oratory was that it didn’t translate quite as well onto paper, often following Bowden’s stream of consciousness rather than more logical and structured progression, with the result that one laments that Bowden didn’t focus also on a more formal type of scholarship that would surely have constituted a monumental and lasting bequest to the movement he devoted so much to. As it stands, recovering Bowden’s legacy has for the most part been the task of tracking down lost recordings of his speeches, a task that Counter-Currents have admirably taken the lead in.

Prior to listening to Bowden on Mishima, I had already established an interest in Japanese history and culture. I trained for several years in jiu-jitsu, spent a great deal of time in my early 20s reading the works of D. T. Suzuki and Shunryu Suzuki on Zen Buddhism (the former also had some interesting and sympathetic things to say on National Socialism and anti-Semitism), and Brian Victoria’s 1997 Zen at War remains one of the most interesting works on the history of religion and warfare I’ve yet had the pleasure to read. Somehow, however, Mishima escaped my attention until Bowden’s lecture, which really offered only the most raw and basic of introductions to the man. Bowden presented Mishima as a rightist thinker but never quite explained why. He indicated that Mishima had some relevance for the European right but couldn’t articulate how. The lecture only clumsily situated Mishima within near-contemporary Japanese culture, and Bowden himself evinced equivocation and incomprehension on the reasons why Mishima undertook his now infamous suicidal final action. Who was Mishima? Why was he relevant? In a bid to follow up these loose ends, and trusting Bowden that the effort would be worthwhile, I spent around a year making my way through Mishima’s fiction, biographies, scholarship, and other forms of commentary on Mishima’s life and death. The result of my research was a deluge of notes, many of which will now make their way into this article, and profound disappointment that such a figure should ever have been promoted in our circles.

Explaining how and why Mishima came to be promoted in corners of the European Right requires that one confront what could be termed “the Mishima Myth,” or the vague and propagandized outlines of what constitutes Yukio Mishima’s biography and presumed ideology. The Mishima Myth runs something like this:

Yukio Mishima was a gifted and prolific Japanese author and playwright who became profoundly disillusioned with the political and spiritual trajectory of modern Japan; influenced by Samurai tradition and Western thought, especially the philosophy of Nietzsche, he embarked on a program of radical self-improvement; he took up bodybuilding and formed his own 100-strong private army — the Shield Society; he led this army in an attempted coup at a military base, taking a very senior officer hostage, and demanded that all troops follow him in rejecting the post-war constitution and supporting the return of the Emperor to his pre-war status as deity and supreme leader; finally, rejected and ridiculed by the troops, he took his life via seppuku, ritual disembowelment in the tradition of the Samurai.

Occasionally, for added effect, rightist promoters of Mishima will add that he wrote a 1968 play titled My Friend Hitler, which, despite the provocative title, is politically middling, and has been interpreted as anti-fascist as often as it has been as fascist. Taken together, one supposes that the relevant factors here are that Mishima was an authoritarian, monarchist “Man of Action” who seized control of his own life and attempted to divert his nation away from empty consumerism (cue applause). Thus, in the Mishima Myth, rather than focusing on his actual writings on fascism and politics (which are in any event very few in number), Mishima’s ideology is read from selected chapters of his life, especially his final actions. Mishima becomes a man of the right because he was Mishima, because of what he did. This, so the narrative goes, is why he should be relevant to us.

A critique of the Mishima Myth is therefore necessarily ad hominem, since there is a glaring absence of ideas to argue against and since the myth is merely a composite of slices of edited and heavily sanitized biography. Despite an abundance of English-language biographies, rightist promoters of Mishima rarely engage in serious exploration of Mishima’s life, preferring to focus on hagiographic presentations of selected episodes, especially their interpretation of the dramatic death. This should be the first cause of caution, and it was certainly mine. The primary reason for this evasion, as I was to find out, is profound embarrassment, since Mishima’s life is thin on right-wing politics, or for that matter politics of any description, and rather heavy on homosexual sadomasochism (which is far from the only questionable aspect of Mishima-ism). But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Let’s start at the beginning.

Yukio Mishima was born Kimitake Hiraoka on January 14 1925, into an upper middle-class family. One of the first things that struck me about Mishima’s life, and especially his childhood, is that it has attracted swathes of psychoanalysts,[1] the reason being that he is an important and visible example of what these writers perceive to be the link between oppressive and abusive childhoods, latent homosexuality, sadism, masochism, and authoritarian and fascist politics. Indeed, if one makes the argument that Mishima was in fact a fascist, then one begins to consent to some of the central theses of the Frankfurt School. Mishima certainly had a strange and psychologically distorting childhood, and I concur with Sadanobu Ushijima’s conclusion that it resulted in Mishima suffering most of his life from a personality disorder involving “recurrent episodes of depression with severe suicidal preoccupation.”[2]

According to Henry Scott Stokes, in my opinion Mishima’s best biographer as well as being the only Westerner invited to his funeral, almost as soon as Mishima was born his grandmother (Natsuko) “resolved to take personal responsibility for his upbringing and virtually kidnapped the little boy from his mother,” raising the child almost entirely in her sickroom.[3] Natsuko brought up Mishima “as a little girl, not as a boy,” and he was forced to stay inside, was prohibited with playing with most of his environment, and was told to be almost completely silent due to his grandmother’s complaints of constant head pain.[4] After some years, his mother was permitted to take him outside, but only when there was no wind.[5] There is some suggestion that he was beaten, or otherwise severely psychologically abused, with the result that he suffered a sequence of psychosomatic illnesses involving the retention of urine. There is also some suggestion of sexual abuse or “obscene” treatment at the hands of his grandmother’s nurse. Quasi-incestuous closeness in indicated by his later description of his grandmother as a “true-love sweetheart”, and on his death his mother described him as her “lover.”[6] Mishima was generally regarded by those around him as “an unusually delicate child.”[7]

In keeping with scientific studies strongly suggesting that dressing, or otherwise treating, young boys as girls can induce homosexuality,[8] and studies showing that homosexuals are more likely than the sexually normal to be predisposed to “brutal” violence[9] (to say nothing of what anecdotally appears to be a disproportionate preponderance of homosexual serial killers and cannibals), Mishima would later write in his semi-autobiographical Confessions of a Mask (1949) that he had homosexual fantasies from a young age and that many of these were sadistic in nature. At this point I should pause and concede that the British “anti-Fascist” collective operating as Hope Not Hate have described me as perhaps the most “homophobic” “far right commentator” in the Dissident Right, as well as simplifying my perspective as framing “homosexuality and modern conceptions of gender as socially constructed as a symptom of societal decay, and LGBT+ rights as a tool of a Jewish conspiracy to undermine white society. This vein of thinking sometimes even results in open calls for the expulsion or violent eradication of LGBT+ people.”

This may or may not be an entirely accurate representation of my views, but the point I want to make here is that my critique of Mishima isn’t based on his homosexuality qua homosexuality, since the argument could be made by some that a homosexual fascist is still a fascist (though such arguments could be easily problematized and I will later critique his “fascism” in and of itself). Piven remarks that there has long been a “Mishima cult” in France (perhaps Durocher can confirm), adding “though his following outside Japan consists largely of gay populations who champion him.”[10] My argument against the Mishima myth is mainly that if key aspects of his biography, including the death, are linked significantly more to his sexuality than his politics, then this is grounds to reconsider the worth of promoting such a figure, already non-White and with no significant Western cultural impact, within the Dissident Right.

Mishima was “eternally excluded from the lives of ordinary men and women,” and developed early fantasies about taxi drivers, bartenders, but especially soldiers.[11] He was particularly fixated on the idea of dying soldiers and death generally, and “the violent or excruciatingly painful death of a handsome youth was to be a theme of many of his novels.”[12] In childhood, Mishima enjoyed playing dead, and he had eroticized notions of suicide from early adolescence. In his own words, he had a “compulsion toward suicide, that subtle and secret impulse.”[13] His first erotic experience appears to have been masturbating to a print of Guido Reni’s St. Sebastian, which depicts the semi-nude and bleeding saint bound to a tree and impaled with arrows. Mishima would later explain that he “delighted in all forms of capital punishment and all implements of execution so long as they provided a spectacle of outpouring blood.”[14] Stokes comments that “In Mishima’s aesthetic, blood was ultimately erotic.” Mishima fantasized about wounded, dying soldiers, imagining “I would kiss the lips of those who had fallen to the ground and were still moving spasmodically.”[15] He day-dreamed about execution devices studded with daggers, designed to shred the bodies of young men, and had a “fantasy of cannibalism” in which he fed on an athletic youth who had been “stunned, stripped, and pinned naked on a vast plate.”[16] Jerry Piven observes that Mishima’s fiction is replete with “innumerable fantasies of raping and killing beautiful young boys, of scenes of masturbating to images of slain men, of ceaseless loathing for despicable women.”[17]

St. Sebastian by Guido Reni (c. 1625)

In Deadly Dialectics: Sex, Violence and Nihilism in the World of Yukio Mishima (1994), Roy Starrs comments:

Few writers since the Marquis de Sade himself have made a more public and provocative “performance” of their “perverse” sexuality. … He found himself aroused by pictures not of naked women but of naked men, preferably in torment. Again he finds that homosexual pleasure is inextricably linked, for him, with sadistic pleasure, and he indulges in the most outrageous fantasies of managing a “murder theatre” in which muscular young men are slowly tortured to death for his amusement.[18]

Mishima read both Freud and the works of the Jewish sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, and concurred with the latter (also a homosexual and transvestite) that pictures of the dying St. Sebastian were a favorite among homosexuals, with Mishima himself arguing that “the homosexual and sadistic urges are inextricably linked.”[19] Far from the image of the austere Samurai, as he approached middle age the increasingly bipolar Mishima was known to dance in gay bars with a 17-year-old drag queen,[20] and once flew to New York solely for the purpose of finding a White man who would be sexually “rough” with him. His former lovers recall how he “liked to pretend he was committing seppuku,” making them watch, before asking them to stand over him with a sword as if about to behead him. He would pull out a red cloth, that he would pull across his abdomen explaining this was his “blood and guts.”[21] Mishima once described himself as “strangely pathetic.”[22] Durocher may well be correct in his review of Mishima on the Hagakure that “Above all, Mishima would have men live full, worthy, and noble lives,” but readers should by now be aware of why I felt an alternative lens needed to be introduced to our perspective.

A theory thus presents itself that Mishima’s carefully orchestrated death was a piece of homosexual sadomasochist theatre rather than anything political, let alone fascistic or in the tradition of the Samurai. In order to parse this question more fully, it’s necessary to examine Mishima’s politics and spirituality, or what can at least be discerned in that direction.

One of the remarkable things about Mishima is that he seems hardly political at all. His fiction, denounced by early critics of all political hues as full of “evil narcissism” possessing “no reality,” is almost entirely devoid of ideology. (Durocher appropriately mentions how he tried to, and wanted to, like Mishima’s novels but couldn’t.) As such, Mishima is a pale shadow of ultra-nationalist literary contemporaries like Shūmei Ōkawa, Hideo Kobayashi, and Yasuda Yojūrō. Confessions of a Mask, his most autobiographical text and a style of novel (shishosetsu) that Kobayashi especially loathed as ‘popular’, “had nothing to say in it about political events that had influenced his life. … He was regarded as apolitical by his contemporaries.”[23] He was neither politically involved nor possessed of any real depth of feeling on political matters until the 1960s, when he was around 40 and becoming increasingly pessimistic and depressed — mainly because he was ageing and was disgusted and horrified by old age.[24] In his commentary on the Hagakure, Mishima would inflect his own anxieties about ageing and his own predilection for youthful suicide fantasies by telling his readers they should live for the moment and be content with a short life, and one gets the sense of personal inflections again when he informed his readers that “homosexual love goes very well with the Way of the Warrior.”[25] Otomo remarks that Mishima’s relationship to the Hagakure was simply peculiar and largely artificial, pointing to better, more authentic, examples of Bushido ethics and exploits such as Budoshoshinshu and the Kōyō Gunkan, and remarking on the Hagakure:

Ironically enough, the text is evidence of the absence of the code. It is an empty style that can be borrowed by anyone at any time of history and it no longer signifies a core culture of an Oriental entity called Japan. In fact, it has never signified as such except in one man’s nostalgia.[26]

In reality, and despite his self-presentation as the embodiment of the Hagakure, Mishima was strangely un-Japanese, something remarked upon by Stokes (“he was remarkably un-Japanese”)[27], who met him several times, and as evidenced in various aspects of Mishima’s life. Ryoko Otomo observes that, in a departure from the Zen Buddhism of the Samurai, Mishima, “was an affirmed atheist.”[28] What Mishima did in fact see in Zen and the Hagakure, so far as can be determined from his fiction and statements to journalists, was a dark and profound nihilism — something that any Zen master, including D. T. Suzuki who in one of his seminal texts has a chapter titled “Zen is not Nihilistic”, would argue is anathema to authentic Zen conceptions of “the Void.” When he became financially successful, Mishima set about building a large, Western-style, “anti-Zen” house, and Zen masters he associated with later remarked Mishima made “no profound study of philosophy.”[29] Mishima knew nothing of nature, being a decadent urbanite, and was unlike many Japanese in being ignorant of the most basic botany. Once, when accompanying a friend in the countryside, he was shocked and confused at the noise of frogs.[30] He once told reporters that his average day was spent with gym activity followed by lounging around a house regarded by his neighbors, and even its architect, as “gaudy,” “in jeans and an aloha shirt.”

Mishima went through with a hasty marriage of convenience to satisfy his dying mother, fathering two children that, in the style of the worst ghetto-dwellers, he was largely absent from. In fact, in several of his novels, especially Forbidden Colors which is replete with what Stokes calls “morbid sexuality,” he expresses contempt for children, families, and the normal, non-homosexual familial structure that is the backbone and future of all societies and civilizations:

Go to a theater, go to a coffeehouse, go to the zoo, go to an amusement park, go to town, go out to the suburbs even; everywhere the principle of majority rule is lording about in pride. Old couples, middle-aged couples, young couples, lovers, families, children, children, children, children, children and, to top it off, those blasted baby carriages—all of these things in procession, a cheering, advancing tide.

By contrast, as a homosexual, Mishima nurtured fantasies of himself as a member of an elitist minority.

Ideologically, Mishima was clumsy and confused at best. He believed that fascism and Freudian psychology were ideologically related,[31] and believed in resurrecting a Japanese imperialism that would make room for parliamentary democracy.[32] He insisted, meanwhile, that “fascism will be incompatible with the imperial system.” Moreover, he argued that Japanese right-wingers “did not have to have a systematised worldview,” perhaps because he had none himself, and that they “nevertheless have nothing to do with European fascism.”[33] By the early 1960s, Mishima was a writer of decadent romantic fiction so politically weak, and tendentiously left-wing, that he was targeted with death threats by right-wing paramilitaries.[34] Eventually, some time in the late 1960s and despite having no real depth of feeling for Shinto religion, Mishima decided that it would be a good idea if the Emperor was returned to his pre-war status as a deity, prompting Sir John Pilcher, British Ambassador to Japan to declare Mishima’s fantasy of placing himself “in any relationship to the Emperor” as “sheer foolishness.”[35] Mishima, of course, never explored the Emperor’s role in World War II in any depth, and his chief fixation appears solely to have been the decision of the Emperor to accede to Allied demands and “become human.” Although Mishima became increasingly vocal on this issue, and even started taking financial donations from conservative politicians to establish a small paramilitary grouping consisting of lovers and fans, “he never defined his positions clearly,” and was so poor at articulating his ideas to troops during his coup attempt that he was simply laughed at by gathered soldiers.[36] Whether or not Mishima was fully sincere is, of course, another matter, though his suicidal coup attempt came very shortly after literary career declined so rapidly that friends wrote to him “telling him that suicide would be the only solution.”[37] Suicide in Japanese culture is of course also crucial to this discussion and will be explored below.

Mishima’s purported militarism is worthy of some attention. I come from a military family, and have many friends in the military. One of the things that’s always irritated and amused me is the difference between how actual service personnel  discuss themes such as “being a warrior” or combat more generally in comparison to military fantasists. Among the former, there always exists a wry, sober, even bittersweet outlook. Among the latter, one is apt to find much talk of glory and conquest, but little action. Mishima was surely a military fantasist, who even by his own admission had a sexual fetish for the white gloves worn with the Japanese uniform,[38] and lied during his own army medical exam during the war in an effort to avoid military service: “Why had I looked so frank as I lied to the army doctor? Why had I said that I’d been having a slight fever for half a year, that my shoulder was painfully stiff, that I spit blood, and that even last night I had been soaked by a night sweat? … Why had I run so when I was through the barracks gate?”[39]

When the bombs fell during the war, Mishima recalled, “that same me would run for the air-raid shelters faster than anyone.”[40] Stokes suitably comments that “had he served in the army, even for a short while, his view of life in the ranks would have been less romantic, later in life,” but that instead “Mishima stayed home with his family, reading No plays, the dramas of Chikamatsu, the mysterious tales of Kyoka Izumi and Akinari Ueda, even the Kojiki and its ancient myths.”[41] When he eventually formed his own paramilitary organisation, he dressed them in “opéra bouffe uniforms which incited the ridicule of the press,” and Starrs comments: “He was no more a true ‘samurai’ than he was a true policeman or airforce pilot, in whose garb he also had himself photographed. The ‘samurai’ image was simply one of Mishima’s favourite masks — and also one of his most transparent.”[42]

One could add speculations that Mishima’s military fantasies were an extension of his sexual fixations, including a possible attempt to simply gain power over a large number of athletic young men. But this would be laboring an all-too-obvious point. More soberly, one could merely point to the ridiculous notion of a military coup being led by a bipolar, draft-dodging shut-in (Hikikomori) who, when confronted during the action itself, witnessed the beginning and end of his fighting career when he hacked frantically at a handful of unarmed men with an antique sword. The Jewish academic and Japan scholar Alan Tansman might well be a sexual pervert himself, but it’s difficult to disagree with his assertion that “Mishima is more a figure of parody than a force of politics,”[43] and attempts to link Mishima with our worldview only provide further grist for the Jewish mill.

Since Mishima’s writings and actions are politically opaque at best, it is little wonder that most attention from his propagandists has focused on the dramatic and quasi-traditional method of suicide, which is often portrayed as representing the utmost in honor, masculine courage etc. Such accounts, of course, normally omit the fact Mishima rehearsed his suicide for decades in the form of gay sex games, and was essentially a gore fetishist. A broader problem exists, however, in the nature of Western appraisal of seppuku, and suicide in Japanese culture more generally. The most enlightening piece of work I’ve read in this sphere has been that of the late Toyomasa Fuse (1931–2019), Professor Emeritus at York University and probably the world’s leading expert on suicide among the Japanese. In Suicide and Culture in Japan: A Study of Seppuku as an Institutionalized Form of Suicide, Fuse explains that suicide in Japan essentially originates from a servile position within a highly anxious and neurotic society. Needless to say, this is far from healthy and praiseworthy behavior. He describes seppuku as a form of “altruistic suicide” and an expression of “role narcissism,” it being a

Response to a continued need for social recognition resulting from narcissistic preoccupation with the self in respect to status and role. … Many Japanese tend to become over-involved with their social role, which has become cathected by them as the ultimate meaning in life. … Shame and chagrin are so extreme among the Japanese, especially in a perceived threat to loss of social status, that the individual cannot contemplate life henceforth.[44]

There is little question that seppuku had a place among the samurai, but the actual nature of its practice over time was complex and was successively reinterpreted, alternating between a voluntary way of recovering honor, and a form of capital punishment (peasants, meanwhile, were simply boiled alive). It also alternated in form, involving varying types of cut to the belly, and sometimes involving no cut to the abdomen at all — the individual would ceremonially reach for a knife before being quickly beheaded. Starrs observes that while misguided Westerners have “naively accepted” Mishima’s seppuku as being “in the best samurai tradition,”[45] it was simply Mishima’s own variation on a theme — the same theme that witnessed hundreds of servile Japanese slit their bellies in front of the imperial palace at the end of the war because of their embarrassment at failing the Emperor. Again, we must question, at a time when we are trying to break free from high levels of social concern and shaming in Europe, whether it is healthy or helpful to praise practices originating in pathologically shame-centered cultures.

As Fuse notes, the traditional European response to seppuku has been disgust, not solely at the physical act itself but because of the servile psychological and sociological soil from which it originates. Because of the difference in mentalities, there is a complication in how concepts such as honor and bravery translate in this particular instance. Seppuku certainly appears to be easier to undertake for a Japanese than for a European. Mishima himself, to give the devil his due, didn’t equivocate in his pursuit of the most brutal methodology. His own wound was found to be five inches across and, in places, two inches deep.[46] Those knowledegable enough in older times would make a cut so as to cut a renal or aortic vein, leading to such catastrophic blood loss that death would be almost instantaneous. Mishima doesn’t appear to have had such knowledge, spilling his intestines out in agony while three successive attempts (by a subordinate and rumored lover) were made to behead him, one opening up a massive wound on his back instead.

Conclusion

The facts surveyed here surely point out the inadequacies of the Mishima Myth as presented in corners of the European Right. I listened again to Bowden’s lecture just yesterday, and laughed out loud at Bowden’s brief gloss of Mishima’s catastrophic childhood (“he was a slightly effeminate child”). Unfortunately, because Bowden spoke more often than he compiled serious research, it’s impossible to determine if Bowden was a conscious promoter of Mishima propaganda, or an earnest but ill-informed believer in the Mishima Myth. I simply don’t know the extent of Bowden’s reading in the matter. Like Durocher, I’ve also watched Paul Schrader’s Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters, though I found it to be a cheesy, dated, and rather manipulative hagiography rather than a masterpiece. Durocher comments “You’re either the kind of boy who is challenged, energized, and inspired by this sort of film, or perhaps you’re not a boy,” which I can only regard as laden with irony given that the film’s subject was raised as a girl and once remarked, on being expected to act like a boy: “the reluctant masquerade had begun.”[47] Schrader’s documentary is also highly sanitized; according to Stokes this is due to the tight control that Mishima’s widow and extended family had over the production, and their concern about potential for embarrassment.[48] One small scene showing Mishima in a gay bar was enough for the family to block distribution in Japan, and they even invested money in paying Takeshi Muramatsu to write a 500-page biography, the central proposition of which was to try to convince the Japanese public that Mishima was heterosexual and had merely spent his life, to quote Stokes, “posing as a sodomite.” Rather predictably, the text failed to convince anyone, though it probably salved the family’s pride a little to know that it was out there.

We come back to the central questions of how and why Yukio Mishima should be relevant to us. No answers can be found in the life, politics and actions of a figure not only non-European and profoundly un-fascistic, but who was also strangely un-Japanese. I contend that there is simply nothing genuine to learn from him, and few people who have written in support of Mishima can point to anything tangible beyond the amorphous outlines of the Mishima Myth and a film heavy on style and low on authenticity. There is no single piece of text, no treatise, and no piece of authenticity beyond a final, radically un-European and sadomasochistically-inspired act of self-destruction and death-embracing nihilism. Mishima’s monarchism was servile and parodic, his militarism homoerotic, disingenuous and ludicrous, and his death-as-political-statement was psychosexual and ultimately lacking in logic. Otomo is probably correct in viewing the coup attempt more as a sexually inspired method of “politicising art rather than expressing a belief in ultra-nationalism.”[49]

The question thus arises as to whether associating ourselves with such a figure, surely a clownish homoerotic wignat in today’s vernacular, brings more positives or negatives, both within the Dissident Right and within broader considerations of “optics” or public image. In particular, we should question whether we want to place our politics in a nexus that involves, to borrow the terminology of the Japan scholar Susan Napier, “the interrelationship between homosexuality, politics, and the peculiar form of violence-prone psychosexual nihilism from which Mishima suffered.”[50] I’d argue in the negative.

Members of the Dissident Right with an interest in Japanese culture are encouraged to take up one or more of the martial arts, to look into aspects of Zen, or to review the works of some of the other twentieth-century Japanese authors mentioned here. Such endeavors will bear better fruit. Above all, however, there is no comparison with spending time researching the lives of one’s own co-ethnic heroes and one’s own culture. As Europeans, we are so spoiled for choice we needn’t waste time with the rejected, outcast, and badly damaged members of other groups.


[1] See, for example, Abel, T. (1978). Yukio Mishima: A psychoanalytic interpretation. Journal of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis, 6(3), 403–424; Piven, J. (2001). Mimetic Sadism in the Fiction of Yukio Mishima. Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture 8, 69-89; McPherson, D.E. (1986). A Personal Myth—Yukio Mishima: The Samurai Narcissus. Psychoanalytical Review, 73C(3):361-378; Jerry Piven (2001). Phallic Narcissism, Anal Sadism, And Oral Discord: The Case Of Yukio Mishima, Part I. The Psychoanalytic Review: Vol. 88, No. 6, pp. 771-791; Piven, J. S. (2004). The madness and perversion of Yukio Mishima. Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group; Cornyetz, N., & Vincent, J. K. (Eds.). (2010). Perversion and modern Japan: psychoanalysis, literature, culture. Routledge.

[2] Ushijima, S. (1987), The Narcissism and Death of Yukio Mishima –From the Object Relational Point of View–. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 41: 619-628.

[3] H. S. Stokes The Life and Death of Yukio Mishima (Cooper Square Publishers; 1st Cooper Square Press Ed edition, 2000), 40.

[4] Ibid., 41.

[5] Ibid., 47.

[6] Ibid., 47.

[7] Ibid., 42.

[8] John Money, Anthony J. Russo, Homosexual Outcome of Discordant Gender Identity/Role in Childhood: Longitudinal Follow-Up, Journal of Pediatric Psychology, Volume 4, Issue 1, March 1979, Pages 29–41.

[9] Mize, Krystal & Shackelford, Todd K., Intimate Partner Homicide Methods in Heterosexual, Gay, and Lesbian Relationships Violence and Victims, 23:1.

[10] J. Piven The Madness and Perversion of Yukio Mishima (Westport: Prager, 2004), 2.

[11] Stokes, 43, 44.

[12] Ibid., 44.

[13] Ibid., 58.

[14] Ibid., 61.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] J. Piven The Madness and Perversion of Yukio Mishima (Westport: Prager, 2004), 3.

[18] R. Starrs Deadly Dialectics: Sex, Violence and Nihilism in the World of Yukio Mishima (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1994), 35.

[19] R. Starrs (2009) A Devil of a Job, Angelaki: Journal of the Theoretical Humanities, 14:3, 85-99, 85 & 87.

[20] Stokes, 103 & 136.

[21] Starrs, A Devil of a Job, 89.

[22] Stokes, 91.

[23] Ibid., 95.

[24] Ibid., 95 & 102.

[25] Ibid., 266.

[26] Ryoko Otomo, The Way of the Samurai: Ghost Dog, Mishima, and Modernity’s Other, Japanese Studies 21 (1), 31-43, 41.

[27] Stokes., 5.

[28] Otomo, 40.

[29] Stokes, 278.

[30] Ibid., 110.

[31] Starrs, Deadly Dialectics, 24.

[32] Otomo, 39.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Stokes., 295.

[35] Ibid., 277.

[36] Ibid., 273.

[37] Ibid., 281.

[38] Ibid., 57.

[39] Ibid., 81.

[40] Ibid., 76.

[41] Ibid., 81.

[42] Starrs, Deadly Dialectics, 7.

[43] Tansman, A. (2009). The Aesthetics of Japanese Fascism. University of California Press, 257.

[44] Fusé, T. Suicide and Culture in Japan: A Study of Seppuku as an Institutionalized Form of Suicide Social Psychiatry (1980) 15: 57, 61.

[45] Starrs, Deadly Dialectics, 6.

[46] Stokes, 34.

[47]Ibid., 48.

[48] Ibid., 267.

[49] Otomo, 40.

[50] Napier, S. (1995). Reviewed Work: Deadly Dialectics: Sex, Violence and Nihilism in the World of Yukio Mishima by Roy Starrs  Monumenta Nipponica, 50(1), 128-130.

Predators and Propaganda: Minority Worship from Low Crime to High Politics

A noble Black lawyer prosecutes an evil White sex-beast, who receives 33 life-sentences for his cowardly and despicable crimes against eleven innocent women and children. What a potent and effective way to smash the vile racist stereotype that Blacks are prone to violence and rape! And what a heart-warming symbol of Brave New Britain, where non-Whites are using their higher intelligence and morality to topple millennia of White supremacist barbarism.

Noble Black vs White Barbarian: Tetteh Turkson and Joseph McCann

Yes, Tetteh Turkson, the noble Black lawyer, is the future. Joseph McCann, the evil White sex-beast, is the past. Or at least that’s what the neo-Bolshevik Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) wanted to proclaim when it chose Turkson, “a senior crown prosecutor at the London North office” of the CPS, to prosecute McCann. But in fact the story of the evil White sex-beast isn’t what the CPS and other anti-White leftists would like it to be. The genuinely horrific crimes of Joseph McCann are further proof that pro-White racism is right and anti-White leftism is wrong.

A newspaper that censors reality

So are the genuinely horrific crimes of the White serial killers Fred West and Levi Bellfield. This is because McCann, West and Bellfield aren’t actually “White” in the sense used by the Occidental Observer. These three men don’t belong to the White race whose interests and achievements the Occidental Observer seeks to defend and explain. They’re genetically distinct and are the products of a different evolutionary history. Not that you get any hint of this when you read about McCann’s crimes in leftist propaganda-outlets like the BBC and Guardian:

Joseph McCann, who has been convicted of a horrific series of rapes and kidnappings against 11 women and children, was freed in error to commit his crimes after authorities failed to realise he should have been in jail for a previous violent offence. …

He raped eight victims, including an 11-year-old boy and a 71-year-old woman, during a fortnight-long rampage earlier this year that stretched from London to Cheshire. The boy aged 11 and his sister were attacked in front of each other in their own home. …

The trial produced some of the most harrowing evidence heard in a British court in recent times. Jurors and members of the court were frequently upset by the distressing nature of the evidence, with the judge ending one day’s hearing early after a tape was played of a 999 call by a 17-year-old girl who was attacked in front of her brother. …

McCann had an extensive criminal history. In 2008, he was convicted of aggravated burglary after breaking into the house of an 85-year-old man and threatening him with a knife, demanding money. He received an IPP sentence with a minimum tariff of two and a half years. The Parole Board decided he was safe to release in March 2017, on a 10-year licence. In August 2017, he was arrested for burglary and theft, and sentenced to three and a half years in prison. The halfway point of his sentence was reached in February 2019, and he was released automatically. (Joseph McCann guilty of horrific rapes after being freed by mistake, The Guardian, 6th December 2019)

There are some very interesting things missing from the Guardian’s reports about McCann’s crimes. To find them, you’ll have to go downmarket to bigoted and racist newspapers despised by the highly intelligent and educated rationalists who read the Guardian. The despicable Daily Mail reported that McCann “abducted a 21-year-old at knifepoint as she walked home from a nightclub and raped the mother of one on her own bed. Afterwards McCann told her rape is ‘what we do in the traveller community’.” And the despicable Sun reported that “Sick Joseph McCann, 34, wore wigs, told victims he loved them and claimed they were part of a ‘gypsy initiation ritual’ as he carried out a horrific rape spree across the UK.”

The narcissism and self-regard of leftists

Fancy that! The Guardian claims to be passionately committed to giving oppressed minority communities like Travellers and Gypsies “a voice,” but it failed to give a voice to Joseph McCann when he spoke on behalf of these fascinating communities and explained their vibrant culture to bigoted outsiders. In other words, the Guardian censored the story and concealed highly relevant facts about McCann from its readers. And by the Guardian’s own standards, they are certainly facts, not merely allegations, because McCann’s words were reported by his female victims and the Guardian is passionately committed to “believing women” and fighting “rape culture.”

In fact, of course, the Guardian is passionately committed to feeding the narcissism and self-regard of its reporters and readers. And that means not just censorship and concealment of the truth, but actually assisting the growth of rape culture and the immunity of rapists. When the Labour MP Ann Cryer was trying to fight the “large-scale paedophile abuse” being committed by non-White Muslims in her Yorkshire constituency, she naturally sought the help of the Guardian, Britain’s foremost progressive and feminist newspaper. But given a choice between admitting the truth and maintaining their narcissist fantasies, leftists never hesitate. Cryer says: “I couldn’t get The Guardian interested. Its reporters seemed paralysed by political correctness.”

Minority predators

In other words, the Guardian allowed rape culture to flourish and girls to suffer at the hands of brutal misogynists. And the Guardian is still helping rape culture, because it’s still censoring the truth about predatory minorities like Travellers and Gypsies. These two minorities appear to be distinct (but sometimes allied and inter-breeding) genetic groups that have evolved a strategy of preying on outsiders. Travellers and Gypsies are notorious for violence and aggression, both of which are, of course, under strong genetic influence. And it is very interesting that three of the worst sex-criminals in British history were drawn from these groups. You’ve already read about Joseph McCann. Now read about the serial killers Fred West and Levi Bellfield:

Minority Predators: Fred West and Levi Bellfield

Frederick Walter Stephen “Fred” West (29 September 1941 — 1 January 1995), was an English serial killer. Between 1967 and 1987, he and his wife Rosemary tortured, raped and murdered at least 12 young women and girls, many at the couple’s homes. … Fred West came from a long line of Herefordshire farm laborers. He was born in 1941 in the village of Much Marcle, approximately 120 miles west of London, to Walter and Daisy West. Fred began life as a beautiful baby with huge piercing blue eyes and blond hair. … The beautiful baby grew up into a scruffy-looking boy. His blond hair turned to a dark brown and became curly and unkempt. He had inherited some of his mother’s less attractive facial features: an overly large mouth and a gap between his large teeth. He looked distinctly like a Gypsy.

West would later claim that his father had incestuous relationships with his daughters. It has been suggested that incest was an accepted part of the household, and that his father taught him bestiality from an early age. West recalled, in police interviews, that his father had said on many occasions “Do what you want, just don’t get caught doing it.” It is also alleged that his mother Daisy began sexually abusing him from the age of 12. (Frederick Walter Stephen West, Serial Killer Calendar)

[Levi] Bellfield, a 20-stone Romany Gypsy who was the father of at least 11 children, would single out lone, blonde females, walking home late at night or waiting at bus stops and, when they rejected his uncouth advances, he would attack them violently. He casually told one girlfriend that he would wait in alleyways wanting to “hurt, kill, stab or rape women.”

Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton said this of Bellfield: “He has a massive ego to feed, he thinks he’s God’s gift to everyone. He drives around in his car … and sees some young blonde girl. Young blonde girl says ‘Go away!’ and he thinks ‘You dare to turn down Levi Bellfield, you’re worth nothing!’ and then she gets a whack over the head…”

On 20 August 2004, 22-year-old French student Amelie Delagrange missed her stop, after taking a bus home from an evening out with friends. She was crossing Twickenham Green when Bellfield struck. … Within minutes he had battered her to death in a fit of anger after she had rejected his advances. Detective Chief Inspector Sutton added: “We are looking at other murders which have not been solved… We looked at a dozen crimes in west London and we have not been able to eliminate Levi from any of them. I fear we may have only scratched the surface.”

On 27 February 2008, The Sun informed us thus: “Johanna Collings believes the fiend attacked at least 100, sometimes claiming two victims in one evening. He even bragged of laughing as he raped a disabled girl on a car bonnet in a nightclub car park — after lifting her from her wheelchair… (Levi Bellfield: Gypsy Beast, Rogues Gallery blog, 21st December 2008)

Remember what the Daily Mail reported about one of McCann’s victims: “McCann told her rape is ‘what we do in the traveller community’.” If McCann is right, the Guardian has a genuine example of “rape culture” to investigate and expose. If McCann is wrong, he committed a monstrous libel against the Traveller community and the Guardian should expose the libel.

Violence, aggression and ethnocentrism

Apparently the Guardian believes that McCann was speaking the truth, because it censored what he said. That is not honest or rational behaviour. Here at the Occidental Observer we try to honour the scientific tradition and conform our ideology to reality. At the Guardian, they honour the leftist tradition and conform reality to their ideology. But reality won’t conform, so the Guardian censors reality. That’s why the Guardian won’t discuss the true predatory nature of Travellers and Gypsies. In my article “Destroy the Goy: The Metaphysics of Anti-White Hatred,” I described a Traveller family in Lincolnshire that had enslaved non-Travellers, “forcing at least 18 victims — including homeless people and some with learning disabilities — to work for little or no pay and live in squalid conditions for up to 26 years.”

The Travellers in question obviously saw their non-Traveller slaves as worthless. In other words, the Travellers were ethnocentric, regarding themselves and their genetic kin as superior to non-Travellers and entitled to prey on those outsiders. Ethnocentrism, of course, is also under strong genetic influence. And you can see all three of these traits — violence, aggression and ethnocentrism — in the sordid story of Joseph McCann. At least, you can if you’re prepared to look. The Guardian and its readers aren’t, because they want to retain their narcissistic fantasies rather than understand the world:

Sadistic serial rapist Joseph McCann was one of Britain’s first ASBO [Anti-Social Behaviour Order] yobs [young male thugs] after terrorising locals [in Manchester] by setting cars alight and shoplifting. McCann, 34, was just 14 when he was slapped with the Anti-Social Behaviour Order alongside his brothers Michael and Sean. The teen tearaways rampaged through the poverty-stricken Manchester estate they lived on — robbing terrified locals and setting cars alight. …

Their campaign of terror on the gritty Beswick estate finally came to an end when they were banned from the area. … One resident told MailOnline: “They were a horrible family, absolutely vile — scum of the earth.” … Undeterred, the feckless brood then moved to Aylesbury, Buck[inghamshire], and Middlesex where they linked up with their traveller relatives. McCann, who began dabbling in crime in 1998 when he was convicted of shoplifting, continued his yobbish behaviour in his new home.

The family “brought havoc” to Middlesex — with McCann and one of his brothers repeatedly stealing cars and setting them ablaze. They soon became notorious on the estate — with locals too petrified to challenge the thug brothers. One said: “There used to be a brick wall outside their house. But they took all the bricks out to throw them at people. If you said anything to them they would threaten to beat you up. There were two older boys and one little one. They were really horrible. They were part of a gang. Their house was like their headquarters.” … (Serial rapist Joseph McCann was one of UK’s first ASBO yobs who terrorised neighbours, set cars ablaze and shoplifted, The Sun, 6th December 2019)

Note these words in the article: “They were part of a gang.” That is, they were part of a violent collectivist minority preying on an atomized, individualist majority. The McCanns and their “traveller relatives” have not been genetically pacified like the White majority across much of Europe, where powerful centralized states have been executing criminals for many centuries. Joseph McCann and his brothers descend from a long line of men who have enjoyed sexual success precisely because of their violence and aggression. But the victims of the McCanns descend from people who have relied on the state to maintain order and protect them from criminal violence.

Leftism is crypto-religious

Nowadays, however, the state has been subverted by another genetically distinct group that is hostile to the law-abiding White majority. The legal system in Brave New Britain no longer acts on behalf of the law-abiding, but on behalf of the lawless. In “Whites as Witches,” I described how the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), headed by the ethnocentric Jews Rebecca Hilsenrath and David Isaacs, had backed “successful legal action … against a pub which refused entry to Irish Travellers.” The pub undoubtedly had very good reason for “refus[ing] entry,” having experienced the violence and theft that Travellers and Gypsies are notorious for. These nomadic groups have evolved to prey on the settled, law-abiding majority, but the idea that minorities can be harmful to the majority is blasphemous in the modern West.

And “blasphemous” is the mot juste. Leftism is a crypto-religious ideology that seems to exploit the same brain-circuits as those involved in overt religions. That’s why I also use the term “minority worship” to describe the attitude of leftists towards minorities like Blacks, Gypsies and Muslims. In leftist propaganda, the saintly and virtuous lives of these minorities are under continual assault from the evil forces of White racism and White supremacism. In its full modern form, minority worship is a Jewish creation designed to serve Jewish interests, because Jews see themselves as the archetypal virtuous and victimized minority. In reality, they are a predatory and particularist minority whose contemptuous term for non-Jews, goyim, is echoed by gorja, the contemptuous term used by Gypsies for non-Gypsies. Indeed, you could describe Jews as Gypsies with high IQs, or Gypsies as Jews with low IQs. Both groups are predatory minorities who regard the majority with hostility and contempt, while justifying their predation with lachrymose self-histories in which they have been unjustly persecuted by the very majority that, in reality, they have preyed on.

Kosher Kabinet: Jewish Dominic Raab, Jewish-Turkish Boris Johnson, Pakistani Muslim Sajid Javid, Indian Hindu Priti Patel

But it’s precisely because Jews have high IQs that historical and biological realism about Jews, Gypsies and other predatory minorities is impossible in the mainstream. Jewish intelligence and verbal facility have enabled them to create the vast web of laws, academic studies, media propaganda, and censorship that sustains the cult of minority worship and ensures that Western nations remain firmly under Jewish control. That’s why the Guardian censored the truth about Joseph McCann and why the Crown Prosecution Service appointed a noble Black lawyer to prosecute this evil White sex-beast.

The war between reality and lies

It’s also why Brave New Britain is now ruled by a Kosher Kabinet consisting of a Jewish-Turkish Prime Minister, a Jewish Foreign Secretary, a Pakistani Muslim Chancellor, and an Indian Hindu Home Secretary. And while one minority — the Jews — keep control at the top, other minorities commit horrific crimes at the bottom. High politics and low sex-crime might appear to exist in completely separate realms, but they can both be explained by human biology and the evolutionary forces identified in the nineteenth century by the great White scientist Charles Darwin.

But while Darwin worked to describe and explain reality, the great Jewish ideologue Karl Marx worked to distort and exploit reality. And that’s the war we’re now living through: between Darwin and Marx, between those who believe in reality and those who believe in lies. The crimes of Joseph McCann were one part of that war. The government of Boris Johnson is another. Jewish ideology and Jewish control can be seen at work in both the low crimes and the high politics. But you’ll only read that at ADL-certified hate-sites like the Occidental Observer. After all, “Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.”