Amy Elizabeth Biehl (1967–1993)

In 1993, an idealistic American graduate student of Stanford University, Amy Biehl, was brutally murdered by four Black males in the township of Gugulethu, near Cape Town South Africa during her visit whose purpose was to end Apartheid. Amy, the only White occupant in a car with South African Blacks, was immediately targeted by a large Black mob shouting anti-White slurs. Amy was quickly pulled from the car, stabbed repeatedly, and stoned to death.

Amy’s four attackers were subsequently arrested and placed on trial. The defendants claimed that their actions were politically motivated. In his 1998 book, One Miracle Is Not Enough, Rex van Schalkwyk painted a less than sobering picture of the court proceedings when he wrote: “Supporters of the three men accused of murdering [her]… burst out laughing in the public gallery of the Supreme Court today when a witness told how the battered woman groaned in pain” (pp. 188–89). Each of the defendants, however, was convicted for their murderous crimes. They were later granted amnesty by the ‘Truth and Reconciliation Commission’ in 1998 after having served only four years in prison.

Amy’s parents, Peter and Linda Biehl, fully supported the release of the murderers and were quite vocal about it too. Peter, in fact, shook their hands and stated: “The most important vehicle of reconciliation is open and honest dialogue. . . . We are here to reconcile a human life [that] was taken without an opportunity for dialogue. When we are finished with this process we must move forward with linked arms” (Wikipedia). Numerous articles were published praising Amy’s parents’ decision to forgive her daughter’s murderers appeared in both American and South African newspapers. One wonders how self-debased a father can get that he would shake the hands of those who stabbed and stoned to death his own daughter?!

A charity foundation was created in 1994, the ‘Amy Biehl Foundation Trust.’ Adding insult to injury, two of the men who had murdered Amy were hired to work for the foundation! Seventeen years after Amy’s death, a bronze plaque mounted on a stone was unveiled by the U.S. Ambassador, Donald Gips and Linda Biehl, at the Cape Town site where she was murdered.

None of this, of course, did a bit of any lasting good. Since Apartheid ended, South Africa has morphed into a cesspool of government corruption, staggering levels of violent crime, and a rabid anti-White ethos has gripped most of the nation. Racially naïve Whites like the Biehls will never attain the racial Utopia they want despite the best of intentions and endless funding they may receive because of the natural proclivities of Blacks and their dysfunctional cultures. Blacks cannot change who they fundamentally are, and neither can Whites. This is why every effort to make them like us and to erase our innate differences has failed repeatedly, wherever Blacks are found around the world.

Former U.S. Ambassador Donald Gips and Linda Biehl

Peter and Linda Biehl, no doubt, thought that in all of this they were doing their ‘Christian duty,’ that it was the ‘right thing’ to do. But was it? Did the men who murdered Amy express any remorse after what they had done? Seems to me that they tried to excuse their actions as merely political. Did the defendants take the initiative and seek forgiveness from the Biehls, or were the Biehls, like so many well-meaning but foolish Christians of our era, ready and eager to forgive them even though it was never asked for?

The Biehls may have thought that Jesus’s words to “love your enemies” and to “forgive others for their transgressions” were intended to exhaustively cover every conceivable occasion of malicious crime, treason, and murder. Yet is this really what he meant? What many Christians fail to understand is Jesus’s use of hyperbole in such sayings as above — that is, exaggeration for the sake of emphasis. It’s a way of overstating a point in order to drive home a lesson or an important concept that we want our listeners to comprehend. The same thing occurs when Jesus spoke of hating one’s parents. Hyperbole, then, is something that we all do when conversing with others. Many of Jesus’s sayings are framed in this manner, and it’s something many Christians miss.

Moreover, Jesus’s teachings were intended as general lessons about God, life, and how we should treat others. They were never intended to cover every possible situation in life with absolutely no exceptions or qualifications. They were never intended to be military strategy or even social policy for democratic societies. We must ask ourselves: Did Jesus really expect his followers to embrace with loving arms and to pronounce forgiveness upon an intruder who just ruthlessly murdered his or her family? Did Jesus expect the same mindset to be carried out onto the battlefield against national enemies in a time of war? What would the Biehls think of King David’s hateful expressions in Psalm 139:22: “Do I not hate those who hate you, O’ Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against you? I hate them with the utmost hatred; they have become my enemies”? Or how about the parable of the money usage in Luke 19:27 where Jesus says: “But these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them in my presence”? Sounds a bit hateful, eh?

Hate, then, is not treated in the biblical record as something necessarily bad. It’s treated as a basic human emotion that can be used for good or for bad depending on the circumstances. And yet the failure to understand this most basic premise has caused Christians to engage in some very foolish and harmful things over the years. In this regard. Peter and Linda Biehl are no different and they continue to be the poster children for all that is wrong with a Christianity that has embraced multiculturalism.

In 1993, 12-year-old Polly Klaas was kidnapped at knifepoint from her home in Petaluma, California by long-time felon, Richard Allen Davis. He later strangled the little girl to death and left her in an open field. Davis never asked for forgiveness for his horrific crimes from the family and has remained defiant to this day. In fact, after the verdict was read at his trial in 1996 in which he was sentenced to death row, Davis stood up and gave the middle finger with both hands. Later, at his formal sentencing, he read a statement claiming that Polly had said to him right before she was killed, “Just don’t do me like my dad.”

Should our hearts bleed for a puke like Davis? Is Polly’s father required by Christian duty to ‘forgive’ Davis, even to the point of seeking his release from prison? Hardly. It’s one thing to personally forgive those who genuinely seek forgiveness for their offenses, and who see themselves as justly condemned for their actions, but it’s quite another to offer forgiveness to those who will gladly spit in your face. And why should forgiveness for the most heinous crimes committed against the innocent nullify justice? Forgiven or not, why should any society release those who have willfully taken the life of an innocent victim, especially when the possibility of a repeat crime is always present?

Richard Allen Davis

In this respect, the parents of Amy Biehl, have managed to make a mockery of their daughter’s tragic death, pervert justice, as well as dishonor their own Christian faith. Forgiveness, then, is just one of many areas where modern Christians have grossly misunderstood their own religion.

It staggers the mind when one considers how a very natural emotion such as hate has been so badly misunderstood and vilified. Jewish activist groups such as the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center have made it their mission in life to stamp out “hate” and “hate groups” throughout America. In their ‘Intelligence Report,’ the SPLC mentions “hate” no less than seven times when describing what they do. One soon discovers that the “hate” they seek to monitor and expose is almost exclusively directed at “hard right extremist groups.” Their goal is to “push white supremacy out of the mainstream.” Jews want Whites as docile and non-threatening as possible so that their goal to deracinate us and ultimately dilute our European bloodline is achieved uninterrupted.

Incidentally, I could find nothing on the SPLC website about the truly violent Antifa — a hate group if ever there was one — that was in any way negative. In fact, one article under their ‘Hate Watch’ category openly condemned designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist group, stating it was both “dangerous” and “threatens civil liberties” (June 6. 2020). It’s apparent, then, that “hate” only goes one direction when it comes to Jewish activist groups claiming to be eradicating it. All forms of White racial identity and interests are vehemently denounced, including organizations that are to the political and social right (e.g., anti-abortion groups).

This is all very typical of the age in which we live where the term “hate” is applied to everything people don’t like or find disagreeable. There is no middle ground. Yet confusion abounds regarding the term and nature of hate itself. The Oxford Dictionary defines “hate” as “to feel intense dislike for” or “to have a strong aversion for.” This definition shows clearly that there’s nothing irrational, bizarre, or uniquely evil about “hate” per se. It is treated as a common and normal human expression. Which one of us hasn’t at one time or another hated something or someone in their lives? And was it really hate as commonly understood or just an intense dislike? How many of us have hated someone and never took any steps to harm them? And what if hate is fully justified in some instances? Is it then still morally wrong?

Dr. Michael Hurd:

You cannot rationalize away the need for justice and proper judgment of others for their actions by saying, ‘Hate is mean, and you become the enemy if you engage in it.’ That’s beyond ridiculous. If what you’re really trying to say is, “Don’t let those who hate you destroy you,” then that’s certainly good advice. But you don’t keep hateful people from destroying you by pretending that you love them, or by giving them back anything other than what they deserve. (“In Defense of Hatred,” January 14, 2014)

It should be obvious by now that when one starts to think deeper about the term ‘hate’ and its application to White racialists who oppose their own racial and cultural displacement by foreign groups, that simply describing them as “haters” is horribly misplaced, especially when they have good reason to express their aversion and dislike for what is occurring to them.

Not so surprisingly, the people who shout the loudest about “haters” are often the most hateful. Leftists always scream about ‘love’ and ‘tolerance,’ and yet haven’t the slightest qualms about destroying property, disrupting meetings not their own and preventing others from attending, as well as physically attacking their political opponents. Antifa thugs wouldn’t think twice about swiftly applying a boot to the face of anyone who ideologically differs from them. Edward Dutton rightly refers to them as “spiteful mutants.”

The Left, then, is not really against “hate” as they claim. They’re quite satisfied in expressing their hateful rage against those who don’t see life as they do. Their actions really tell us that it’s okay for them to hate, but not for us.

Jews have weaponized the expression ‘hate’ just as they have done with the term’s ‘racism’ and ‘racist’. Anyone who espouses views contrary to liberal Jewish activists is described as a “hater” and “hateful.” They paint their opponents in this way because it conjures up images of people who are backward in their thinking, country bumkins of sorts, and deeply prejudicial. It implies such person are irrational, filled with rage, and even evil at heart. It is ad-hominem in nature because rational discourse is not permitted.

It’s also a way of shutting down discussion or debate. Jews know that to allow an open discussion on mass immigration and its social and economic impact on White Americans would not be beneficial to them — especially when the same arguments that Whites use to defend limiting immigration or setting in place a moratorium (and perhaps expelling illegals [at least]) for fear of becoming a despised minority in one’s own country could just as equally be applied to Jews in Israel. The very things Jews want in terms of preserving their national and ethnic identity, including a secure border free from invasion are exactly what a growing number of White Americans want. And all White Americans would want if they weren’t programmed by the mainstream media and educational system and intent on presenting themselves as virtuous do-gooders.

The concerns that racially conscious Whites express, then, are perfectly reasonable. There’s nothing “hateful” about it in the least. What racial or ethnic group, after all, wants to decrease its influence, standing, and national identity within what was their own nation? What racial group would want to be taken over by foreigners with foreign cultures and foreign values? Most people would view opposition to a foreign invasion as perfectly reasonable regardless of whether it happens legally or illegally. Jews know this too, and this is why it’s easier for them to simply label Whites who care about their race as “white supremacists” and “haters” than to engage them in reasoned discourse which could automatically backfire before a rational audience of White people.

I don’t even think that most Whites who oppose non-White immigration and who follow the advice of “Dilbert” creator Scott Adams to “get the hell away” from Blacks actually hate Black people — at least not in the way many people think. They simply want to be left alone. They don’t want to see their country become the squat house for every Third-World migrant. They don’t enjoy seeing their once grand cities become another version of Detroit or Chicago with their skyrocketing levels of Black crime. They don’t want their clean communities turning into Mexican barrios with all the filth and gang problems that Mexicans bring. This is not a matter of hating other racial groups per se, but in Whites wanting to preserve what they have created for themselves and for future generations. This is perfectly natural and normal, and every racial and ethnic group throughout the world wants the very same things for their own people – including Jews!

Informed Whites don’t deny that there are good and decent people within every racial and ethnic group. I have met Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and people from every place in the world who were honorable and decent persons. But I wouldn’t want any of them here flooding my country despite all that. Let them be good and decent in their own countries. I’m sure they would feel the same about me and my people so there’s nothing hateful about saying it.

Is there ever a time when hate is wrong? Yes, I think so. It’s not so much that feelings of hate by themselves are wrong, but how we handle or control them. I think it’s wrong, for instance, when it consumes you and prevents you from living a healthy and emotionally balanced life. It’s wrong when a root of bitterness sets in and overtakes you. It’s wrong when you are unable to focus on anything else. It’s wrong when it leads you to think and act irrationally. Hate, then, is an emotion we have been created or evolved with. The issue, then, is not so much shall we hate, but how shall we manage it in a way that does not lead to our self-destruction nor the ruin of our families and loved ones.

Finally, it’s common for well-meaning but naïve people to argue that we should only hate the actions of wicked people and never the people themselves. We are urged to hate only the evil that motivates them. We are told to hate the destructive results of their evil deeds, but never the person who chooses to commit them. But this is a ridiculous distinction when one considers that their evil deeds do not occur independently from the heart and mind of the person doing them. It’s both a conscious and willful choice on their part. Their deeds spring from who and what they are; their choices reflect what they think and feel.

Anglophobia: The Unrecognized Hatred, by Harry Richardson and Frank Salter, is an excellent exposition of the hatred and dispossession of native White populations that is sweeping Western societies. Focusing particularly on Australia as a prime example, it is a valuable contribution to the effort to both inform European-descended peoples of the danger and injustice of the present situation and to motivate them to action on behalf of their legitimate interests.

Frank Salter needs no introduction to readers of The Occidental Observer (e.g., here and here). His theory of ethnic genetic interests develops a perspective that should be essential reading for a sophisticated understanding of ethnicity and multiculturalism; it is foundational to the book under review. His co-author, Harry Richardson is the author of The Story of Mohammed: Islam Unveiled and editor-in-chief of The Richardson Post. They have written a highly readable book that, at around 200 pages, does not require a major investment of time.

Focusing on Anglos may be off-putting to some because it may seem to exclude European-descended groups not descended from the British Isles. However, the authors apply the term widely, to “people descended from the indigenous population of the British Isles in Australia and overseas as well as those who have assimilated into those populations. It can include people of European descent and western civilization as a whole” (5). Anglophobia, then, is hatred or mistrust directed at those populations. As they document in detail, Anglophobia is rife throughout the Western world, and often emanates from prominent figures in the elite media and academic world. Clearly Anglos and their interests are being systematically compromised.

As noted, this is a highly readable book, but it is also intellectually rigorous. Chapter 5, “Psychological and Biological Dimensions of Racism” notes that ethnocentrism is a biological universal that evolved for group living—likely in small groups of close kin. However, ethnocentrism spans a spectrum of variation, and “Anglos are among the world’s most individualist and least collectivist (in other words, non ‘racist’) cultures.” (16) Indeed, Western individualism is unique among the cultures of the world. But that doesn’t imply that Westerners have no tendency toward ethnocentrism at all, only that it is less central to Anglo cultures and more difficult to arouse. And when allegiance to the group is aroused, it is less likely to be directed at a group of co-ethnics, as we see with the phenomenon of civic nationalism—perhaps a fatal flaw in today’s multicultural West.

Underlying the theoretical basis of the book is Salter’s theory of ethnic genetic interests—that genetic diversity creates conflicts of interest between people and hence between people organized into ethnic groups, with the result that multiethnic, multicultural societies are prone to conflict: “As ethno-religious diversity increases, cohesion falls and conflict rises. Most people choose to live among their own people and to marry and make friends among them [as noted in their discussion of J. Philippe Rushton’s Genetic Similarity Theory]. Ethnic identity is adaptive because it allows people to defend their ethnic cultural and genetic interests” (22).

Chapter 6, “Sociological Dimensions of Racism,” discusses the costs of multiculturalism, citing some of Salter’s own research: “ethnic conflict sometimes leading to civil war, a loss of public trust and cooperation, reduced democracy, reduced economic growth, the emergence of ethnic criminal gangs, and psychological and social costs to majorities who become minorities” (24). Around the world we see societies racked by ethnic and religious conflict. The civil war in Syria pitted Sunnis against Shiites, and within these larger groupings there are particular ethnic groups, such as Alewites, Arabs, Kurds, Druze, and Assyrians. Then there’s China and the Uyghurs, Israelis and Palestinians, Hindus, Christians, and Muslims in India, and the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda. And then there are also the recent battles between Muslim migrant-descended groups versus the police in France and the Black Lives Matter riots in the U.S. in 2020. One would think that the reality of ethnic conflict would be obvious to anyone with or without any training in evolutionary biology, but this has not stopped our pro-multicultural elites from imposing it throughout the West.

Regarding the loss of public trust, the problem with collectivist, kinship-based cultures is that they do not produce high trust apart from close kin, resulting in much higher levels of corruption because individuals with power have a tendency to help their relatives; in Western cultures people readily trust and cooperate with non-kin on the basis of reputation (e.g., as honest or competent), not kinship connections.

The authors note that ethnic groups have common ancestors, that race is real, and that different races have different traits because they evolved in response to local environmental challenges. A nation, then, “is an ethnic group living in its homeland”—a definition that would imply, say, that ethnic Germans living in Germany constitute a nation. And it would also apply to settler societies like the U.S. and Australia that “developed as nation-states with unambiguous ethnic origins and identities” (28). Nationalism, then, reflects “the desire of a people for their own state” (29). Importantly in the current state of the West, “this analysis of nationalism … implies that they also wish their elites to share the nation’s identity” (30).

Such definitions would likely infuriate the left—for example, the Wikipedia article for ‘nation’ notes that “The consensus among scholars is that nations are socially constructed, historically contingent, and organizationally flexible”—ethnicity need have nothing to do with it. And it’s quite clear that Western elites typically do not identity with the ethnic identity of the native peoples. These elites desire top-down control of political institutions and utterly reject popular attitudes aimed at establishing the sovereignty of native, European-descended peoples.

Chapters 7, 8, and 9, describe the various types of Anglophobias. Chapter 7 “Examining Types of Anglophobia, Vilification” is by far the longest chapter, constituting 130 pages—~65 percent of the book. It is an exhaustive and well-sourced compendium of the hatred and distrust of native European-descended peoples throughout the West, with an emphasis on Australia. It begins with what is now standard wisdom among Western elites, that contemporary White people are responsible for any and all sins of their co-ethnics throughout history.  This phenomenon of being able to blame contemporary Whites for past imagined or real grievances naturally leads to hatred of Whites, such as crude Anglophobic statements by Aboriginal activists (e.g., “in 2012 [Noel Pearson] was reported accusing government officials and a female journalist, to their faces of being ‘f***king racist white c***s’” (32).

But Aboriginals didn’t get to the point where such crude denunciations of government officials would become mainstream by themselves. They were aided by academic activists, such as Colin Tatz, perhaps the most egregious example of an academic with a major role in making anti-White hate mainstream in Australia (see Brenton Sanderson’s four-part article, “Colin Tatz and the Genocide Charge”).  And in the U.S., we have Nicole Hannah-Jones, of the elite New York Times “1619 Project” fame, stating “the white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager, and thief of the modern world” (34). Similar quotes can be found from anti-White activists in other Western societies. Clearly Western elites have no problem disseminating and condoning anti-White hate.

These points particularly struck me:

• Whites detract from but never enhance diversity: “Diversity in art requires reducing the number of white male artists whose work is shown in galleries.” (38)
• “Western colonialism is falsely portrayed as failing to provide any benefit to those who experienced it. In contrast, non-western colonizers such as the Ottomans, Moors, or Chinese, are mostly ignored or given mostly favorable coverage for their artistic, literary, musical, and architectural accomplishments.” (41–42)
• “Uniquely, Anglo and white people are blamed for slavery, despite the British being the first power to voluntarily end slavery, a process that began over 200 years ago.” (53)
• “For decades now, schools and universities in Australia and elsewhere in the Anglosphere have been teaching children to be ashamed of their history, culture, and people.”
• Andrew Jakubowicz, a Jewish professor of sociology and “seminal influence” on Australian multicultural education, preaches anti-White hate in the supposedly conservative Murdoch press, e.g., urging non-Whites to organize on behalf of their interests while condemning any attempt to do the same by White Australians. He also accuses “Australian journalists of suffering from too much ‘whiteness’ and ‘advancing white-only narratives.” (57–58)
• As always, media influence is important, so it’s noteworthy that the Murdoch empire also owns the Fox News Network in the U.S., the most widely viewed conservative network, the Wall Street Journal (also politically conservative), and multiple media outlets in the U.K., Australia, and throughout the world. The authors seem to have a special ire against Murdoch media and its woke political correctness while dominating conservative opinion. They also note that a column appeared in an Australian subsidiary of Murdoch’s empire stating “I just want to see less white mediocrity rewarded.” (63)
• “Critical Race Theory has enabled Structural Anglophobia,” in which people are rewarded for anti-Whites slurs. The entire reward-punishment structure of society is arrayed against Whites. (63)
• Any advocacy of White interests is routinely labeled “White Supremacy.” (69) “Today, anyone indicating even the mildest defence or advocacy of white or Anglo people risks being accused of a laundry list of epithets.” (69) For example, multiethnic immigration has resulted in loss of political and cultural power for Whites (74). Yet mentioning this critical interest of Whites is nothing more than “White Supremacy” in the eyes of our politically and culturally dominant hostile elites—elites that mandated or at least enabled these policies without popular support. Cultural change in the West is from the top down, and any sign of emerging populism is vigorously combatted.
• “Any differences in wealth, health, or education are … assumed to be due to ‘disadvantage’ which includes racism by the assumed ubiquitous power of whites.” (80) This ignores genetic and cultural causes for population differences, but bringing up issues such as race differences in IQ—a trait that is linked to a wide variety of outcomes associated with social mobility—would of course be immediately labeled as White supremacist pseudoscience, no matter how strong the evidence. The authors cite Charles Murray’s The Bell Curve and Arthur Jensen’s research in arguing that race is not a social construct and that genes are important for social class differences as mediated by traits like intelligence. (88, 90)
• But when you have media and academic power, there is no need to have real science on your side. And again, the “conservative” Murdoch empire spouts the leftist line, publishing a “Senior Journalist” who reviewed The Bell Curve as “morally offensive” and likened it to “Nazi pseudoscience”—“a mumbo jumbo amalgam of pseudo-science and highly dodgy statistics with, so far as I can see, zero intellectual credibility.” (92)
• While firmly coming down on the side of White ethnic genetic interests, the authors state that assimilation would solve the conflicts created by these population differences, but that elites favor multiculturalism in which different groups are encouraged to retain their identities and interests while Whites are condemned for doing so (95)—essentially a prescription for war against Whites and their interests. It should also be noted that some groups have resisted assimilation into Western culture. Particularly noteworthy are Muslim groups that are such an important aspect of European immigration. Other groups, such as Chinese who retain links to China or Jews involved in the powerful Israel Lobby in the U.S., may be highly assimilated to American culture but retain loyalties to other countries, resulting in potential conflicts of interest with the wider society. Still other groups, such as African-descended peoples, may have difficulty becoming part of the mainstream of Western societies because of low average IQ and proneness to crime.
• The authors examine motivations for Anglophobia. These are mainly progressive ideology, but include tribal sentiment. The authors note the Jewish community has taken a leadership role in promoting multiculturalism and immigration, for example by making alliances with more poorly organized, less motivated ethnic groups. “In Australia, Jewish organisations sometimes act as de facto peak bodies for the multicultural sector as a whole, rallying, organizing, coordinating, and supporting the actions of other minority advocates.” (117) This leadership phenomenon also occurs in the US, where Jewish organizations have made alliances with a wide variety of non-White ethnic activist organizations.
• Irish-Catholics are another group with longstanding animosity to the Anglo-Australians. Their hostility toward Anglos stemmed from English colonial rule over Ireland, hostilities which were transported to Australia after Irish immigration. Discussion mainly features one Greg Sheridan, a journalist since the late 1970s for The Australian, another Murdoch publication. Like many multiculturalism advocates in the West, he has praised other countries, like India and China, for taking steps to ensure their cultural homogeneity. Influenced by his father, as a child he refused to stand for God Save the Queen or any other expression of British sovereignty in his school days. However, as in America, where such multicultural activism motivated by Irish hostility toward the British is residual at best, Jewish activism and its organizing influence on other imported minorities is quite clearly much greater than the residual anti-Anglo sentiments of some contemporary Irish-descended Australians. “Examples of Anglophobia can be found among Irish Catholics but that sentiment has not been general or inevitable.” (141) Examples can be found, but the organizational infrastructure, elite overrepresentation (implying the ability to make influential political donations and to fund NGOs), academic influence, and media ownership and influence are simply not there.
• The authors note that the colorblind, implicit ethnic activism typical of Anglo conservatives phrased in terms of abstract principles has repeatedly been defeated by explicit assertions of ethnic interests by those favoring multiculturalism and, I would argue, by the deluge of moralizing messages spewed out by the media (with the blessing of academia) that appeal to many Whites, especially women. I have presented the case that Western cultures create moral communities based on reputation rather than on kinship, and that conforming to messages disseminated by the elite media and educational system results in inclusion within a moral community that is now constructed and maintained by hostile elites, while ostracism and other penalties await those who dissent from these attitudes. And because of the weakness of such principle-based activism, a common thread among non-White activists throughout the West has been to promote the idea that Western nations are based on principles like egalitarianism with powerful moral connotations rather than the ethnic interests of their native peoples. However, these activists also advocate for some Western principles, such as freedom of expression, being sacrificed for moral reasons, the usual argument being that they might cause offense to “vulnerable groups,” thus preempting any discussion of race differences that may result in differences like IQ or criminality.
• Multicultural advocates never specify an end to immigration that would preserve a White majority, and the topic of the legitimacy of White identity itself is off limits for public discussion because of the power of hostile elites able to expunge opposing views from the media and academic world.
• The inevitable loss of White power that non-White immigration entails has not resulted in a utopian society of racial harmony but in ever greater levels of anti-White hate—an entirely predictable result. “Anglos face the prospect of becoming hated and powerless minorities in countries they established.” (149) All the utopias dreamed up by the Left inevitably lead to bloodshed—because they conflict with human nature. The classical Marxist Utopian vision of a classless society in the USSR self-destructed, but only after murdering millions of its own people. Now the multicultural utopian version that has become dominant throughout the West is showing signs of producing intense opposition and irreconcilable polarization.
• The authors make an important distinction between normal, legitimate ethnocentrism and hate. Thus, in discussing comments of Margaret Thatcher warning that Australia would become like Fiji where Indian immigrants had taken over, they note “She did not express dislike of Asians. She simply expressed affection and concern for white Australians.” (156) Similarly, as Salter has often noted, parents typically have a special love for their children without hating other children.

The long chapter on vilification leads into two brief chapters describing more extreme measures against the Anglo majority: hostile discrimination and violence. The many examples of vilification provide a warrant for hostile action. After all, if a group is indeed genocidal and intent on oppressing people unlike themselves, then aggressive measures against them are warranted. Hostile discrimination is indicated by governments ignoring examples of Anglo disadvantage (e.g., a higher rate of deaths in custody) while funding the ethnic activist infrastructure arrayed against the White majority and simultaneously excluding Anglo advocates from formulating policy, a phenomenon that began during the mid-1970s. White advocates are completely excluded from the mainstream media, including the conservative media.

Anti-White violence is fairly minimal in Australia, but there are ethnically constituted criminal gangs and Whites are fleeing some schools because of violence and hatred directed against Whites.  A more extreme example comes from the U.K. where Muslim rape gangs have systematically preyed on disadvantaged White girls, with the authorities ignoring the problem for decades for fear of stoking racial tensions; a similar phenomenon is well known in Sweden where a 2018 study found that men with a migrant background constituted 58 per cent of rape convictions. The authors note that in the U.S., the vast majority of interracial crime is committed against White Americans.

The authors make special note of the sociopathic personalities of two of the Anglo leaders of the multicultural revolution, noting their criminal ties and the personal benefits they have received by championing multiculturalism. The same can be said about the many White politicians who have championed White dispossession while achieving fame and fortune in the process.

Finally, as predicted by Prof. Andrew Fraser, African immigrants have much higher rates of criminality in general than White Australians (e.g., Sudanese migrants are 22 times more likely to commit serious assault, 129 times more likely to commit aggravated burglary, and 17 times more likely to commit sexual assault than native-born Australians) (189). Fraser was convicted for making statements offensive to the African-Australian community.

*   *   *

To conclude, the anti-White revolution throughout the West is an elite project directed against the White majority. The main actors are:

• well-funded and well-organized ethnic minorities with historical or imagined grudges against the White majority;
• well-intentioned Whites who have optimistic views of the multicultural future and guilt about the past induced by the media and educational system that are hostile to White identity and interests;
• other Whites who conform to the reward-punishment structure of society established by these hostile elites and are loathe to suffer the consequences of dissenting from the establishment narrative;
• sociopathic Whites who are only too eager to betray their people to enhance their own fame and fortune.

This is an important book for White advocates to promote. It is a compendium of the anti-White hatred that has been unleashed by multiculturalism throughout the West and a terrifying glimpse into a future where formerly White majorities will inevitably become vulnerable, powerless, and hated minorities in the countries they built unless there is a sea change in the culture of the West that acknowledges the legitimate interests of White people.

I love islands. Real ones, metaphorical ones. I’ve spent happy holidays on Iceland, Malta, and Hawaii. I’m fascinated by linguistic isolates like Basque and Sumerian, which are islands in a sea of unrelated languages (“isolate” is from Latin insula, meaning “island”). And part of my interest in groups like Jews, Gypsies, and homosexuals comes from the way that they too are like islands. They’re minorities in a sea of majorities.

The birth of the Moriori

Given all that, how could I not be interested in the Moriori? They were a minority of a minority living on islands off the coast of an island. Their homeland was the Chatham Islands, which lie in the Pacific about 800 kilometers east of New Zealand’s South Island. The Chathams were uninhabited until about 1500 A.D., when they were settled by tribes of New Zealand’s indigenous Māori. As the Māori settlers adapted to the colder climate and harsher living of their new home, they developed a distinct identity and language, those of the Moriori, and adopted what would prove a very dangerous new code of ethics. Sometime in the first century after their arrival, their chief Nunuku-whenau “outlawed bloodshed” and the Moriori abandoned three great traditions of their Māori ancestors: warfare, slavery, and cannibalism.

The Chatham Islands, homeland of the pacifist Moriori (image from Wikipedia)

In a word, the Moriori became pacifists. And there were an estimated 2000 of them when Whites first discovered their islands in 1791. If leftist lies about Whites were correct, it would have been a fatal encounter for the pacifist Moriori. Cruel Whites would have enslaved this gentle brown-skinned race, slaughtering the men, raping the women, and erasing a unique culture on the very site of its birth. But leftist lies about Whites aren’t correct and that didn’t happen. The White newcomers had no hostile intentions and although they did some harm to the Moriori by introducing European diseases like influenza and by competing with them for natural resources, the Moriori still numbered about 1600 by the 1830s.

The death of the Moriori

No, the pacifism of the Moriori was exploited by a group from much closer home: their own Māori kinsfolk. In 1835 a hijacked European ship brought 900 members of the Ngāti Mutunga and Ngāti Tama iwi, or tribes, to the Chatham Islands from mainland New Zealand. They were in effect refugees from the so-called Musket Wars, in which new European weapons allowed the martial traditions of the Māori to burst forth in an orgy of bloodshed and cannibal feasting:

In December, 1831, a taua [war-party] of nearly 4000 Waikatos made a descent on Waitara, inhabited by Ngatiawa. Several small parties of these latter fell into the hands of the enemy, and were killed and eaten; while the bulk took refuge in the strong pa, Pukerangiora. There they held out for twelve days, and then, overcome by famine, the wretched garrison tried to break out and escape. Unfortunately this was attempted in the day time. The Waikatos perceiving this, pursued and captured numbers of half-famished wretches. Mothers threw their children over the precipice which surmounts here the Waitara River, and leaped after them to avoid a more dreadful fate at the hands of their sanguinary foes. The captives were driven into whares [wooden huts], and guarded by sentries armed with sharp tomahawks. On that day the Waikatos glutted themselves with the flesh of the slain, and on the following morning nearly 200 prisoners were brought out. Those who were well tattooed were beheaded on a block for the sake of their heads; some of the remainder were slain by a blow or cut on the skull; on others every refinement of cruelty was practised, particularly the thrusting of a red-hot ramrod up the bowels. Children and youths were cut open, eviscerated, spitted, and roasted over fires made from the defences of the dismantled pa. In the afternoon a similar massacre took place, and so greedily did some of these monsters gorge, that they died from the effects of their gluttony. The feast was graced with the tattooed heads of the slain, which were stuck on short poles and placed vis-a-vis to their captors, who would at times pause in their feasting to address them with the most insulting expressions. (From a 19th-century European text on Maori cannibalism)

The same orgy of bloodshed took place on the Chatham Islands after the hijacked ship arrived. The Moriori greeted the Māori with goodwill and friendship; the Māori greeted the Moriori by killing a 12-year-old girl and hanging her butchered flesh on posts. They then embarked on what is today called the Moriori Genocide, which “included staking out women and children on the beach and leaving them to die in great pain over several days.” The Moriori outnumbered the invaders and might have fought them off, but it was decided in a council that Nunuku-whenau’s prohibition on bloodshed could not be overturned.

The same council provoked the full genocide, because the Māori invaders naturally enough assumed, from their own bloodthirsty culture, that it was a council of war and that the Moriori would now begin resisting the invasion. After the slaughter was over, the enslavement and colonialism followed. The Māoris systematically crushed Moriori culture and nationhood. As even leftist Wikipedia admits: “the Māori invaders forbade the speaking of the Moriori language. They forced Moriori to desecrate their sacred sites by urinating and defecating on them. Moriori were forbidden to marry Moriori or Māori or to have children.” By the 1860s, there were only about 100 Moriori left alive. Today there are effectively none: Tommy Solomon, the last known full-blooded member of the tribe, died in 1933. Pacifism in the face of Māori aggression resulted in extinction. And that is the sad story of the Moriori. It’s also a little-known story, because it doesn’t conform to leftist lies about the uniquely evil and destructive nature of Whites and Western civilization.

Māoris fail: Whites to blame

Contact with Whites was harmful but not fatal for the pacifist Moriori. What proved fatal was contact with their own kinsfolk, the Māori. If those Māori tribes had never gone to the Chatham Islands, the Moriori people and language would still exist today. The harm done to them by Whites was unintentional and Whites did not exploit the pacifism of the Moriori, let alone slaughter and enslave them. Nor did Whites follow Māori codes of war on the New Zealand mainland. When Whites arrived there, the Māoris were living in the Stone Age and had never seen weapons like the musket. It was the Māoris themselves who eagerly adopted White technology to attack and oppress Māoris — or rather, to attack and oppress other tribes, because there was no unified Māori identity before the arrival of Whites. Yes, there was a shared language and culture, but you can say the same of the mutually hostile Blood and Crip Black gangs in America. Māoris are in effect the Blacks of the South Pacific: primitive, violent, and woefully unequipped to succeed in an advanced industrial civilization.

For example, although Māoris are 16% of New Zealand’s population, they are 53% of those in jail there. And their crimes are disproportionately violent and sexual in nature. New Zealand has a Māori equivalent of the remarkable Black Jamaican Delroy Easton Grant, who committed dozens of rapes against elderly White women in the British capital of London. The Māori Joseph Thompson committed dozens of rapes against White women and girls in the New Zealand capital of Auckland. But the mainstream media don’t mention his race or discuss the possibility that he was practising the rape-culture of the American Black Eldridge Cleaver (1935–1998), who boasted like this in 1968:

Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women — and this point, I believe was the most satisfying to me because I was very resentful over the historical fact of how the white man has used the black woman. I felt I was getting revenge. From the site of the act of rape, consternation spreads outwardly in concentric circles. I wanted to send waves of of consternation throughout the white race.

But the mainstream media in New Zealand do, of course, endlessly discuss the over-representation of Māoris in jail and the failure of Māoris in education and employment: “once you disaggregate the PISA scores, Pakeha [White] students are second in the world and Māori are 34th.” The media blame these Māori pathologies on White racism. After all, what else could be to blame? Nothing else, according to leftism. If there is only one human race, all groups are equally capable of high achievement and there’s no reason a Māori shouldn’t one day follow in the footsteps of the great White New Zealander Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937), who won a Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1908. In fact, contra the lies and fantasies of leftism, there’s a big obstacle to anyone with substantial Māori ancestry winning a Nobel Prize for science. Pure-blooded Māoris have low average IQ and an evolutionary history that has selected for physical prowess, not for intellectual endeavor.

Conquering the Pacific

The Māoris reached New Zealand after about 1250 A.D. as one of the last acts of a truly remarkable diaspora, which saw the prehistoric non-Chinese inhabitants of Taiwan spread their genetics and languages to islands separated by vast stretches of featureless ocean, from Madagascar in the west to Easter Island in the east. The greatest Taiwanese-descended sailors of all were the Polynesians, who used their hard-won knowledge of night skies, ocean currents, and other natural phenomena to conquer the Pacific. The Māoris are Polynesians, like the Tongans and Samoans who also swell New Zealand’s prison population while remaining stubbornly absent from cognitively demanding fields like science and mathematics.

James Cook witnesses human sacrifice in Tahiti, c. 1773 (image from Wikipedia)

But who would expect Polynesians to succeed at science and flourish in an advanced industrial civilization? They were all still in the Stone Age when White Europeans began their even more remarkable diaspora, navigating all of the world’s oceans and literally putting Polynesia on the map. The Dutchman Abel Tasman (1603–59) discovered New Zealand in 1642, naming the islands after the Dutch province of Zeeland. Then came the great Briton James Cook (1728-79), who was once celebrated as one of the greatest explorers and self-made men in history. He rose from humble origins in north Yorkshire to become an expert navigator and favorite in the Royal Navy. By the time of his murder in Hawaii at the age of 50, he had made three astonishing voyages in the Pacific, gathering invaluable scientific and ethnographic data and creating maps that were still being used in the twentieth century.

Ruling the ruins

But it’s precisely because Cook achieved great things that he now is a prime target in the leftist war on the West. As Nietzsche sardonically explained, envy and resentment are at the heart of leftism. So is the drive to create guilt and self-doubt in those who are capable of high achievement and noble deeds. Leftists can’t add to the greatness of Western civilization, but they can do what is, in their minds, the next best thing: rule the ruins. In Pacific nations, Cook is now denounced as an instigator and agent of White colonialism, which cruelly oppressed and exploited the Māoris and other Indigenous peoples. As the Guardian put it in 2019: “Cook’s arrival was a disaster for Māori.” But nowhere near as big a disaster as the arrival of the Māori was for the Moriori. The Māori invasion of the Chatham Islands refutes leftist lies about White villainy and non-White virtue.

Victims of Maori ecocide: four species of moa compared with a human being (image from Wikipedia)

The Māori invasion would also be a highly teachable moment if leftists were sincere about their dogma of “Only one race — the human race.” Leftists claim that humans are all the same under the skin, which means that all groups can ascend the same heights of achievement — and plumb the same depths of evil. Māoris and other Polynesians were practising slavery, cannibalism, and human sacrifice long before any contact with Whites. Māoris were also energetic practitioners of the horrible modern sin of ecocide. When they arrived in New Zealand, they found a flourishing population of giant flightless birds which they called moa. Now those birds are gone: the Māoris slaughtered them even more effectively than they would later slaughter the Moriori. I greatly regret the disappearance of both the moas and the Moriori, but I don’t blame the Māoris for what they did. They were true to their own standards and pursued their own interests in a hostile world. Nevertheless, it is solid history that all the so-called sins of the West, from slavery to genocide to colonialism to ecocide, existed in microcosm among the Māori. If leftists were sincere about the oneness of humanity, they would stress that the genuinely great achievements of the Māori — the dangerous and daring discovery and settlement of a new landmass — are accompanied by some genuinely horrible misdeeds.

Whites are an island too

But leftists aren’t sincere about their pious dogmas. If they taught that Māoris and other non-Whites can also be villains, they would frustrate the real aim of their ideology: to denigrate Whites, overthrow Western civilization, and rule the ruins. That’s why leftist propaganda portrays pre-colonial New Zealand as what you might call a land of slave-keeping cannibal saints. Māoris are non-Whites, which renders them innately virtuous in leftist eyes and superior to innately villainous Whites. That leftist fantasy of innate White villainy and innate non-White virtue contradicts the leftist dogma of absolute human equality, but so what? Leftists are pursuing power, not principle, when they elevate melanin-enriched Māoris over stale pale Pākehas (as Whites are called in New Zealand). But there’s an even deeper level to leftist duplicity, because their supposedly pro-minority policies do great harm to the Māoris whom they claim to be so concerned about. Like all Western nations, New Zealand is ruled by traitors who have opened the borders to mass immigration against the wishes of the White majority.

This means that New Zealand is filling with groups like Asians, Blacks, and Muslims, who are not susceptible to guilt about the supposed colonial sins committed against the Māoris. Open borders are bad for Māoris in New Zealand just as they’re bad for Blacks in America. But leftists don’t care. What matters to them is that open borders are bad for Whites and Western civilization. The sad story of the Moriori is also a prophecy of what will happen to Whites if they remain passive in the face of non-White invasion. I said at the beginning of this article that part of my interest in minorities like Jews and Gypsies came from the way that they are metaphorical islands, minorities in a sea of goyim or gorjas (the Gypsy word for non-Gypsies). Whites are now an island in the same sense, a minority in a sea of non-Whites. Whites are also an island of unique achievement and unique potential. Leftists want to see the island of Whites invaded, conquered, and destroyed.

Moriori as memento mori

But that won’t happen. The iron law of leftism will apply to the ideology itself. And what is the iron law of leftism? Simple: the law states that leftists always most harm what they claim to care about most. Leftists in America claim to care deeply about Blacks and their welfare. Sure enough, as Steve Sailer has tirelessly and irrefutably demonstrated, leftist policies have been responsible for a horrible rise in the number of Blacks murdered and maimed by other Blacks. And also in Blacks killed by dangerous Black driving.

That’s the iron law of leftism at work. It’s also at work in the way the self-proclaimed Labour party in Britain has overseen the impoverishment and ethnic cleansing of the White working class, including the mass rape of White working-class girls in staunch Labour constituencies like Rotherham. But the same law will destroy leftism itself in the end. In the meantime, the Moriori are a gruesome memento mori of what happens to those who are passive in the face of invasion.