Featured Articles – Page 109 – The Occidental Observer

Litigation Commenced Against Radical Antifa Doxxer

August 11, 2023/3 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Glen Allen, Esq.

August 1, 2023

This week, Free Expression Foundation co-founder and Chief Legal Officer, Glen Allen, together with local counsel, filed a Federal lawsuit in Washington state against infamous “antifascist” activist, David Capito. The suit has been filed on behalf of several individuals Capito allegedly maliciously doxxed in late 2021.

The six-count complaint alleges that Mr. Capito, who changed his name to the exotic and Bolshevik inspired Vyacheslav Arkadeyivich Arkhangelskiy in 2019, infiltrated the Washington area chapter of Patriot Front in July 2021. He’s accused of misrepresenting his identity and ideological inclinations, gaining access to Patriot Front’s private chat server as “Vincent Washington,” and spending several months working as a photographer for the group.

By November 2021, the complaint further alleges, Capito was in contact with Distributed Denial of Secrets, an organization that assisted him in a sophisticated cyber attack. This allowed Capito high-level access to the Patriot Front chat server, containing confidential and sensitive personal information about Patriot Front members.

Capito is then accused of leaking this information to outlets such as Unicorn Riot and posting it to an Antifa twitter account used by him to “expose” American citizens for political views that Capito and his accomplices disagree with. In doing this, the complaint alleges, Capito violated the Federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and several similar state statutes, committing both fraud and invasion of privacy.

The doxxing reportedly caused several Patriot Front members and others to lose lucrative jobs and career opportunities. Moreover, they experienced physical harassment such as property trespassing, hostile leafletting of their neighborhoods, and tire slashing. They also endured harm to their family and personal relationships, along with the intense psychological stress that results from being outed as dissidents in an increasingly intolerant social environment.

Typically, and unfortunately, this is where such stories end. But, thanks to the efforts of the FEF and its network of attorneys, these victims aim to recover their losses and send a message to Mr. Capito and other radical agitators. They want to make it clear that coordinated doxxing campaigns to chill free speech and violate state and federal law will no longer be conducted without consequence.

For too long, agitators like Capito have operated unchecked, breaking the law with impunity to enforce their radical and intolerant political views. For decades, such radicals have been supported by their own network of well-funded public interest law organizations, like the Southern Poverty Law Center and the National Lawyers Guild. Meanwhile, members of the dissident right have been cut off from effective legal representation.

By representing clients in cases such as this, the Free Expression Foundation’s lawyers aim to reverse these freedom-destroying trends and protect robust free expression. With public support, the FEF can act as a safeguard against the harmful doxxing and harassment tactics that have disrupted the lives of many law-abiding American citizens seeking to exercise their First Amendment Rights.

Support the cause, donate today at https://freeexpressionfoundation.org/donate/.

Reposted from the FEF website: https://freeexpressionfoundation.org/litigation-commenced-against-radical-antifa-doxxer/

Why I Write (Or Wrote) on White Racial Matters

August 9, 2023/6 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Robert S. Griffin, Ph.D.

In May of 2023, I received an email.

I read many of your thoughts and writings a few months ago, including about John Kasper and many others. I am a white male in my 20s. What I wanted to ask you was how you got interested in white people like John Kasper, who is seen by most to be very dubious if not altogether immoral. I found out about your writing on him through his Wikipedia page.

Thank you,

[his name]

I assumed I’d reply briefly, a short paragraph, and that would be it, but I found myself going on, and it was for me, not him. What I was writing was getting at the question of what has propelled the extensive amount of writing on white racial matters I’ve done the last couple of decades—three books, ninety or more short writings. Over the years I’ve read a lot of “why I write” statements and as I went along, I realized I was putting together my version of one. While it doesn’t matter to anyone but me why I do what I do, writing or anything else, I share my reply to this correspondent here because it may surface some principles, approaches, possibilities, standards, that can be applied to any kind of work and encourage you to look at the place work has in your life: what it is now, what it could be, what it should be. I’ve spent the last couple of days fleshing out what I wrote this young man, so this isn’t my email to him exactly; it’s what I want to share with you in the form of an email to someone else.

* * *

[his first name],

Thank you for taking the time to contact me. How I came to write about someone like John Kasper—good question, I’ll see if I can get at it here.

Back in the mid-1990s, I read an article in the newspaper about a rabid white racist who lived in a compound in West Virginia by the name of William Pierce, whose book The Turner Diaries, so the article said, inspired Tim McVeigh in 1995 to bomb the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The article referred to Pierce as “the most dangerous man in America.” The most dangerous man in America. I was intrigued. Who is this Pierce? I’d never heard of him. I checked to see if there were books about him and browsed periodicals and what little there was about him was from long range, nothing was based on close contact with him. Hmmm.

I read Pierce’s book the article talked about, The Turner Diaries, which is a novel about an organized revolt against a Jewish-dominated regime that had seized power in America and was bent on disarming and pacifying its white citizens. Wall-to-wall violence—shootings, hangings, and bombings, including one of the FBI Building in Washington, D.C. that, yes, was very much like the one McVeigh pulled off in Oklahoma City—interspersed with National Socialist-inspired analyses and theorizing. Who thought this up? I read that Pierce had been a tenured physics professor in a university and had given it up to live in West Virginia and do things like write this Turner Diaries book. What?

At the time, I was looking for a book to write that considered American society and culture in an overall, integrated way—my last one had been about kids and sports—and beyond the pale as it came off, in The Turner Diaries, Pierce did that. A good way to make sense of anything is to hold it up against a stark contrast with it. Plus Pierce—the most dangerous man in America!—was an interesting character; what makes this guy tick? I mentioned my intrigue with Pierce to the woman I was living with at the time (we later married) and she said, “You’re so fascinated with this Pierce, why don’t you write a book about him?” Yes, why don’t I?

I was able to find a mailing address for Pierce and wrote him a letter expressing my interest in meeting him and exploring the possibility of writing a book about him. He promptly responded that he was up for that and I traveled to a remote part of West Virginia—nearest town, population 150—and navigated bumpy dirt roads and went past what looked like unworked farms to meet him. He and I hit it off well—I was a university academic as he once was and we had similar personal styles. After hours of discussion over a couple of days, he proved to be as compelling in person as I could have hoped for and I became invested in writing about him and his world.

I spent a month with Pierce on his ninety acres of rugged land with a building that housed the organization he formed and headed, The National Alliance, a trailer he lived in with his Eastern European wife, and a few scattered houses, one of which was occupied by an aide of his I stayed with. I conducted a series of audio-taped interviews with him and traveled with him to Europe where he spoke at far-right gatherings and I looked into people and writers who had inspired him and shaped his outlook and approach, a diverse group including the playwright George Bernard Shaw and the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. The result was a book published in 2001, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce.

Writing the Pierce book resulted in a racial consciousness I had never possessed in the least before, and I came to the conclusion that white people are my people and that they are being unjustly attacked and hurt, especially children and young people in schools (my career was in education). For the first time in my life, I felt a personal responsibility to speak up about something I thought was deeply wrong.

I felt the urge—it was physical, compelling, insistent—to break my lifelong silence and invisibility. Over the years, this urge took the form of what could be called a positive compulsion. I’d feel a strong itch—the next thing to write on the racial topic—and scratch it. I had no grand plan, no big ambition, no sense that what I was doing mattered for much of anything to anybody. From my side, I was expressing what was inside me at a moment in time the best I could. If at any point the itch had gone away, that would have been OK with me.

I haven’t, per Emily Dickinson, put my expressions in a drawer. I have put all of my writings, no exceptions, on public display, as it were, in books and on the internet. I’ve used my own name and paid a price for it, but damned if I was going to use a pseudonym and be in hiding.

I have used the writing on race to develop, to expand myself, to become clearer, stronger, more the person I uniquely am, more efficacious, more caring and decent, a better human being. As well as being about whatever person or topic I was dealing with, all of my writing (including this email) has been about who I am and what I am becoming.

I read about Kasper in a biography on the poet Ezra Pound. Kasper was an admirer of Pound and Pound became a mentor of sorts to him. I was taken by how this young man, Kasper, 26-years-old, all alone, no support from anybody, drove his beat-up old car to Tennessee to take on no less than school integration because he thought it was wrong. He knew he’d get hurt bad for what he was doing and he did get hurt bad, but he did it anyway. How about that. Those doing the talking in America at the time—they have been replaced by people just like them—called him an “interloper,” a “meddler,” a “preening cock,” an “emotional idiot,” and a “screwball,” and described his appearance as “rodent-like.” I felt a kinship with Kasper. I have felt alone (and have consistently driven beat-up cars) and gotten the word that I was unappealing and off-base and that what was going on in the world was none of my business.

As I wrote about Kasper, the French journalist and philosopher Albert Camus’s reference to the Sisyphus myth popped into my mind and I went with it. That exemplified a pattern with me: once I engage a topic, the writing is as much about reacting—in this case to the Camus reference, however it got into my awareness—as acting. It’s as if I’m writing down what is dictated to me. I attentively wait to be told what to do next.

As I put it in the Kasper piece:

The French journalist/philosopher Albert Camus wrote about the Greek myth of Sisyphus. Sisyphus rolled a large rock toward the top of a mountain only to have it fall back down the mountain—he didn’t get the rock to the top, he didn’t succeed. Sisyphus rolled the rock back up the mountain, and it rolled back down again. And he rolled it back up the mountain . . . and again . . . and again . . . and again . . . and again. Camus saw the Sisyphus myth as symbolic of the absurdity and futility of our lives. I’ll put it in a more positive light.

One way to look at the Sisyphus myth is as a metaphor for our existential challenge as human beings: what makes us human, what makes us a man (or woman) is to roll our rock—the right things for us, the most important things—up the mountain even if we never get it to the top. And indeed, we may never get it to the top. We are not omnipotent. Circumstances are often bigger than we are. And sometimes there are few who will help us, and sometimes no one will help us. But we can still keep rolling our rock as long as we can. That’s what makes us a man. John Kasper was a man.

I was consciously aware when I wrote this that I was writing about myself as well as John Kasper. I’ve rolled my rock up the mountain and feel good about that, and late in life—it’s taken way too long—I have concluded that I am worthy of being called a man.

The last few months the urge, compulsion, itch to, metaphorically, paint my pictures and hang them on the wall, persistent for over two decades, hasn’t been there. I’m very old now, eighty-three, and I’ve had serious health issues this past year; perhaps that accounts for it. At the moment, I am not writing anything and just have something partially written about an email exchange I had with a newspaper reporter from Maine doing a story on white nationalist activities in his area. [I finished it and posted it in The Occidental Observer online on July 28th, 2023 as “An Exchange with a Newspaper Reporter.”] I have the sense that it may well be my last public expression. Or will it be this email to you made public? I’m let whatever happens happen.

In any case, so near the end, it’s strongly coming home to me that, indeed, all things pass, including life itself, and that whatever matters to us, whoever matters to us, we need to get on with it the best we can while we still have the chance. I wouldn’t, couldn’t, write the Pierce book or Kasper article now, and I’m grateful that I did when I had the opportunity. I hope that you do whatever most needs to be done in your life before your encounter with eternity, including becoming yourself to the fullest extent possible and manifesting it honestly and honorably in the world and being loving and supportive to the people in your life.

Thank you again for getting in contact. My best wishes go to you.

Yours sincerely,

Robert

Anti-racism’s victory over the British police

August 7, 2023/2 Comments/in Africans and African Americans, Featured Articles/by Richard Knight

Anti-racists have never approved of racial impartiality. Only discrimination in favour of non-Whites, especially Blacks, is acceptable to them. They especially object to any lack of pro-Black discrimination in the police. For fifty years it has been their goal to get the police to ignore Black crime. They have largely achieved it.

In 1981 the police decided to crack down on street crime in Brixton, where it was rife. The result was the Brixton riots, where young Black men spent a weekend hurling bricks and petrol bombs at the police and setting fire to vehicles and buildings. This was their reply to the police’s impertinence in seeking to hold them to the law.

A report on the riots by Lord Scarman, a Law Lord, called on the police to go easy on Black crime on three grounds, one of them being that their duty to maintain public tranquillity was more important than their duty to enforce the law.[1] If an attempt to enforce the law might be met with violent resistance, in other words, it should not be made. The police took the message so much to heart that within ten years they were letting young Black men engage in open drug dealing on the street.[2] Such responses to Lord Scarman’s call were the first great success for anti-racism, which had emerged as a recognisable political movement in the 1970s.

Anti-racism took a second great leap forward in 1983, when its activists badly needed racial incidents with Black victims to back up their claim that non-Whites were commonly abused by Whites. The predominance of incidents with White victims, as in mugging, could not help them portray Whites as the aggressor race. Then they realised that a fake racial incident was as good as a real one if the public believed that it was real. It would go into the statistics like a real incident, attract the same publicity and have the same political effects.

As it happened, the Home Office also needed racial incidents with Black victims. In 1981 it had produced a report called Racial Attacks, which manipulated statistics to portray Whites as aggressive racists. This was all well and good, but actual attacks on Blacks were needed to give the manipulated statistics substance. Frustrated by the shortage, the Home Office too realised that fake attacks would be as good as real ones. The attacks might be fake but the statistics would be real.

And so in 1983 the Home-Office-funded Association of Chief Police Officers supplied the police with a definition of a racial incident that could be used to manufacture racial incidents at will. According to the definition, a racial incident was “any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person”.[3] All that was required was an allegation. It did not need to be backed up by any evidence.

Anti-racist activists were delighted. Now they only needed to persuade the police to apply the definition to any incident with a Black victim where somebody — possibly the victim, possibly an activist, possibly the police themselves — made an allegation of a racial motive and they would have all the evidence, real or bogus, of White racial aggression that they could wish for. The police obliged and started describing crimes as racially motivated with no evidence of a racial motive.[4]

Indeed, they needed no evidence that White people had been involved. They could conjure White offenders into existence by accepting an allegation that the motives of imaginary offenders were racial. It was this definition that enabled the police to make their biggest ever gift to anti-racists by blaming the murder of a young Black man on White people after an agitated young Black man found with the body blamed the crime on Whites of whom there was no trace.[5]

That was in 1993, when it looked as if the progress of a new social movement called political correctness might be unstoppable. In that year Giles Auty wrote in the Spectator: “Within the next five years I fully expect to see the full horrors of political correctness imported lock, stock, and barrel from American academic institutions to our own”.[6] This occurred, nor was it just academic institutions that accepted political correctness but every public institution.

Political correctness is a kind of super-ideology whose main job is to enforce its sub-ideologies and make life uncomfortable for those who do not go along with them. From the start its two main sub-ideologies were anti-racism and feminism, which, although some of their more bizarre doctrines jarred with many people, were presented by the media as necessary and good. To cite two bizarre doctrines, the basic proposition of anti-racism is that the races are essentially the same, and the basic proposition of feminism is that the sexes too are “equal”. Thus any difference between the circumstances of the races or the circumstances of the sexes can only be due to the oppressive effects of White power or male power. And so it turned out that the idea of universal human equality made a supposedly unanswerable case against White people and especially men. To be politically correct was to condemn one’s own society.

The compulsory and punitive nature of political correctness brought us a new age of hypocrisy. Unless people wanted to be shunned as retrograde and nasty, they had to profess agreement with its doctrines, however obviously untrue or pernicious they might be. There was no room for frankness or clarity now that public discourse appeared to be governed by an overriding need to protect an invisible, slightly deranged and ultra-sensitive woman from the risk of fainting, as she might do if any fact she found distasteful happened to be mentioned. As one generation followed another, pretence was followed by credulity. Soon there were young people who actually believed the dogmas of political correctness.

Political correctness was a new name for cultural Marxism, not that that phrase was yet often heard. Appearing in America towards the end of the 1980s, it offered fresh hope to Marxists just as Marxism as we knew it was being discredited by the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1992, a jocular guide to what today might be called the clown world that was descending on us was provided by The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook, which told us that so as not to allude to sex we must call waitresses “waitrons”.[7] To show that we saw no difference between human beings and other animals, we were supposed to call animal trainers “inter-species communicators”. A milkman was a “milkperson”, vegetarian cuisine was “non-violent food”, and a book was a “processed tree carcase”. According to Mary Koss, women who denied that they were oppressed were “trying to pass as non-victimized”. Leonard Jeffries, head of Afro-American Studies at City University, New York, found the destruction of the Challenger spacecraft something to be applauded since it might deter White people from “spreading their filth throughout the universe”. The scientific method was to be despised as a “patriarchal conspiracy”.

A thorough journalistic treatment of political correctness came in 1994 in the book Dictatorship of Virtue.[8] Academic treatments started to appear, with titles like “Political correctness in Britain: A blueprint for decline”,[9] “Who placed American men in a psychic ‘iron cage’?”[10] and “The Historical Roots of Political Correctness”.[11]

By the turn of the century, political correctness was more or less mainstream. People who still used their faculties of thought and observation were marginalised as enemies of society, as they are even more today, when the continuation of political correctness is called “wokeness”. Naturally, anti-racism received another great boost when political correctness made it in effect obligatory.

An abiding aim of anti-racist activists was to get the police officially described as institutionally racist. No one knew or particularly cared what the term might mean; the important thing was that if it was formally attached to the police, they would be conclusively disgraced. The establishment would have turned on its own and, by condemning itself as racist, have proclaimed itself to be anti-racist.

Lord Scarman had refused to call the police by the dread term. It was left to Sir William Macpherson, a retired high-court judge, to do this in 1999 in his report on an unconcluded murder case. Under pressure from anti-racists,[12] he used a purpose-built definition that allowed any institution to be described as racist if it did not discriminate in favour of non-Whites or do so sufficiently.[13] As soon as his report was published, every institution in the country, from the British Medical Association to the church, the universities, the judiciary and the political parties, as well as the police, dramatically stepped up the degree of its pro-Black discrimination. Pretending or perhaps really believing that they were doing something good, they put an end to the principle of equal treatment, an ancient cornerstone of British justice, forever.[14]

One anti-racist activist, who as a student revolutionary had been described by the Foreign Office as a troublemaker acting with malice aforethought,[15] was particularly chuffed. This was Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, who had commissioned the Macpherson report and stated on receiving it that he intended to use it to create “permanent and irrevocable change … across the whole of our society”.[16] He did just this by imposing racial quotas on the public services,[17] thereby institutionalising racial discrimination. Institutional racism, supposedly being dispelled, was installed, which Straw described as a great step forward for society.[18] Foreseeably, the public services became the home of incompetence and corruption as anti-racism itself took another great step forward.

Things went on in the same vein, as when in 2017 Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, called for judges to treat Black criminals more leniently and White criminals more harshly than they had been doing.[19]

Lord Scarman, Sir William Macpherson, Lord Thomas: it was those at the very top of the criminal justice system who introduced anti-racism to it and drove it deeper and deeper in, presumably with the support of the Home Office or at its behest.

Anti-racism’s next great surge came in 2020 with the Black Lives Matter movement, which prompted another dramatic increase in the desired form of institutional racism. Bodies such as the British Museum, the British Library and the National Trust made a point of showing how ashamed they were of British history and culture, apologised for oppressing Black people and promised to give them more important positions with immediate effect.[20] Needless to say, they had in no way wronged Black people; they were expressing a purely visceral urge to racial self-abasement. So lacking was any anti-Black discrimination that the media had to borrow the death of George Floyd from Minneapolis to suggest that something was amiss. With no injustice to point to, they spoke ambiguously of “racial inequality”, intended to be taken to mean inequality of treatment but in fact referring to inequality of circumstance, which is a natural product of differences between the races.

Lord Scarman’s injunction to the police to go easy on Black crime had sunk in so deeply by this time that when they came across a mini-riot in Brixton, they ran away. They actually took to their heels sooner than confront Black criminals.[21] During an interview with Sky News, a former Metropolitan Police chief was cut off when saying that the police had given up trying to stop young Black men carrying weapons. It was more than their careers were worth to attempt to hold Black people to the law, he was saying when he was interrupted.

It was now police policy to stand by and allow rioting and looting if those doing the rioting and looting were Black. This policy was causing concern in cities like Nottingham and Manchester, where retail chains were thinking of closing down, so much of their stock were they losing to young Black men, whom the police would not arrest.[22]

Anti-racists must have split their sides as they congratulated themselves on the extent of their achievement. It was already years since they had disposed of the principle of equality before the law. For years the police had been free to pursue crimes committed by Whites with as much vigour as they could muster, and law-abiding acts as well, such as posting limericks on social media that were not to the liking of favoured groups, as long as they did not lay a finger on Blacks. Now, this had induced young Black men to make rioting and looting a weekly pastime, which threatened to change the face of the high street, and still the police would not act. What could be more satisfying?

[1] Lord Scarman, 1982 (1981), The Scarman Report: The Brixton Disorders, 10-12 April 1981, Harmondsworth: Pelican-Penguin, Paragraphs 4.57-4.58. Secondly Scarman advocated policing with the active consent of the public, which in a place like Brixton the police would never have (Paragraph 5.46). Thirdly, he said that the police must exercise discretion, quoting a senior policeman saying that to believe in enforcing the law without concessions to any section of the community was too simplistic; some groups had different cultural backgrounds (Paragraph 5.76).

[2] The anonymous author of “The street where I live” (Independent, Nov. 2nd 1993) thought that in the previous three years someone must have decided to turn his road into a no-go area for the police, where crack dealers could trade openly. Since a policeman had been killed nearby, the police had kept their heads down. There was a sense that the dealers were winning. Until the shooting, the author had been blanking them out, but then a bullet had been fired through the window of a betting shop over the road, which acted as a crack and dope market. Angry at drugs being sold outside his son’s bedroom, the author had called the police and told them that the problem was getting worse. “Yes”, they said, “it will get worse. There’s a lot of money involved.” He never saw a police car arrive.

[3] In full the definition stated that a racial incident was “any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation, or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person” (from “Race Equality in the UK Today: Developing Good Practice and Looking for Reform: The Police”, a handout distributed by John Newing, President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, on December 8th 1998 at QMW Public Policy Seminars: Developing New Legislation and Strategies on Race Equality, Royal Over-Seas League, London SW1).

[4] In 1991 a Black teenager named Rolan Adams was killed by a White one in South-East London in a fight that broke out between two gangs. Activists called the murder racially motivated on the basis that one gang was Black and the other White, although neither gang was in fact racially uniform (Transcripts of the Proceedings of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, 1998, http://www.blink.org.uk/slinquiry/transcripts.htm, pp. 4,209 4,575 and 7,883-84). In 1992, also in South-East London, a sixteen-year-old Indian named Rohit Duggal was killed by a White youth in an altercation that had nothing to do with race (Ibid., pp. 7,878-79). The police classified both murders as racial as soon as they heard about them (Ibid., pp. 7,885 and 7,887-88).

[5] Ibid., pp. 5,747 and 4,653.

[6] Spectator, July 31st 1993.

[7] Henry Beard and Christopher Cerf, 1992, London: Grafton-HarperCollins.

[8] Richard Bernstein, 1995 (1994), Dictatorship of Virtue: How the Battle Over Multiculturalism Is Reshaping Our Schools, Our Country, and Our Lives, New York: Vintage.

[9] Frank Ellis, Jan. 9th 1994, “Political correctness in Britain: A blueprint for decline”, Academic Questions, vol. 7.

[10] Gerald L. Atkinson, 1998, “Who Placed American Men in a Psychic ‘Iron Cage’?”, https://culturalmarxism.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-placed-american-men-in-psychic-iron_06.html.

[11] Raymond V. Raehn, no date, “The Historical Roots of Political Correctness”, http://arcofcc.freeservers.com/Documents/pc.html.

Other useful sources include Brian Mitchell, 1998, Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster, Washington, DC: Regnery; William McGowan, 2002, Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism, San Francisco: Encounter; and Occidental Observer, March 10th 2017, “No Campus (Or Country) for White Men” by Edward Connelly, https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/03/10/no-campus-or-country-for-White-men/.

[12] The activist Lee Jasper threatened Macpherson with riots if he did not call the police institutionally racist: “We are set for repetitions of police attacks, community reprisals, civil disturbances. I do not say that lightly. …I know very well … that unless this matter is sorted out, sooner or later there is going to be huge explosions on the streets of Britain.” He went on: “Our own community would say … maybe we should have a couple of riots anyway to focus the minds, maybe we should burn down a couple of buildings and beat some police officers in order that you can get the focus”. (1990 Trust, 1998, The 1990 Trust Human Rights Programme, London: 1990 Trust, p. 665.)

[13] Macpherson did not define institutional racism briefly and comprehensibly, such as by saying that it referred to pervasive racial discrimination in an institution. According to his lengthy and obscure definition, it was:

the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.

(Sir William Macpherson, 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, CM 4262-I, The Stationery Office, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdf, Paragraph 6.34.)

This definition did not condemn racial discrimination. On the contrary, by suggesting that different treatments could be “appropriate” for the different races, it permitted it. It did not require any discrimination to have been going on for an institution to be deemed racist; only something amounting to discrimination, such as the races being treated equally, which, given differences between the races, produces race-correlated outcomes. It did not require evidence of any wrongdoing but said that institutional racism could be “seen or detected” in various things, meaning that it could be detected where it could not be seen. It did not require any individual to have done anything wrong but allowed “collective” guilt to be assigned directly to an institution. It did not intend the concept of institutional racism to be applied to any race impartially but singled out “minority ethnic people” as potential victims, thereby placing no limit on the amount of discrimination that could be aimed at Whites. This kind of discrimination could be inflicted in the name of combating “institutional racism”.

[14] Macpherson made his purpose a little too apparent when he called for the police to be legally compelled to discriminate by race. “Colour-blind policing must be outlawed”, he decreed (Ibid., Paragraph 45.24).

[15] Telegraph, March 7th 2003, “Straw was student trip’s chief troublemaker”, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/07/npro07.xml.

[16] BBC, Feb. 24th 1999, “Lawrence: quotes at a glance”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/285535.stm,.

[17] Home Office (1) March 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Home Secretary’s action plan; (2) July 28th 1999, Race Equality: The Home Secretary’s employment targets.

[18] Hansard, Feb. 24th 1999. Vol. 326, col. 393, https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1999-02-24/debates/9571f44b-9ee7-4662-a096-0858e1e656a9/StephenLawrenceInquiry.

[19] Sarah Corriher, Dec. 7th 2020, “U.K. prisons are for Whites only”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/spFFzyYAn7nM/. Sarah Corriher’s video shows a Daily Star headline from 2017: “Judges will go softer on minorities as punishments get tough on White kids”.

[20] For example, the British Library was explicit in its support for Black Lives Matter. Resources disseminated there urged employees to donate to the organisation and educate themselves about their “privilege” by reading Marxist authors. Internal emails revealed a staff group which claimed that being colour-blind was a sign of “covert White supremacy” (Telegraph, Aug. 23rd 2020, “British Library should lose taxpayer funding over support for BLM and Labour, say MPs”, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/23/british-library-should-lose-taxpayer-funding-support-blm-labour/).

In July 2020, the library’s leadership declared that the library intended to become “actively anti-racist” rather than merely non-racist (British Library, July 2022, “British Library commits to becoming an anti-racist organisation”, https://www.bl.uk/press-releases/2020/july/british-library-commits-to-becoming-an-anti-racist-organisation).

Deploring the lack of non-Whites in its senior management, it said it would “add the Chairs of the BAME Network to the Library’s Strategic Leadership Team” without delay and announced that its future approach to race would be determined by members of this network. The library, a national repository of culture, had already stated its intention of reviewing its collection of documents accumulated by Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753), who founded the British Museum (The Sun, Aug. 30th 2020, “RACE ROW British Library’s chief librarian claims ‘racism created by White people’ as she supports plans to ‘decolonise’ displays”, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12537707/british-librarys-librarian-racism-created-White-people/). This raised the question of how many of its 50,000 Sloane books and manuscripts would end up on its anti-racist bonfire.

[21] The man was Kevin Hurley (The New Culture Forum, July 17th 2020, “Ex-Met Police Chief: Police Leaders Have Lost the Confidence of their Front Line Police Officers”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42shmoKwSSU).

[22] History Debunked, Aug. 4th 2023, “Disorder on the streets of England is on the increase, although we don’t like to talk about it”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b53l2k8TuI0. Simon Webb comments: “Low level riots and looting expeditions are becoming common parts of some English cities, fuelled by a particular demographic group”.

Re-Potting Penelope: A Scientist’s Vindication and Random Meditations

August 5, 2023/8 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Virginia Abernethy

Penelope was an orchid that I brought to the Vanderbilt University Medical School Emeritus Office to decorate our conference room. Our secretary named her. Dr. Bud Friesinger, former head of the Gerontology unit in the Department of Medicine, loved her. I got the impression that he’d never before enjoyed an orchid, close up.

Bud had been a World War II Marine, and we were delighted to learn that we had both known another World War II Marine, Brigadier General Buck Schmuck. I met Buck at parties in Sheridan, Wyoming, where he was visiting friends. His main home in retirement was Hawaii. A good many former servicemen lived in Hawaii, close to the Pacific Islands that they had fought so hard to hold or win back. General Schmuck had received the Navy Cross and two Silver Stars for his heroic actions.

Bud Friesinger went to medical school after his military service, becoming not only a physician but also a scientist. One of his theories was that the human organism had a natural life span of 84 years. Beyond that, it was all down hill and fast. I did not agree with Bud because my target is a good deal farther out. I plan to survive until seeing further support for my predictions about the fertility rate and, echoing the late Physics Professor [University of Colorado, Boulder] Al Bartlett and California attorney David Durham, about the necessity of populations restraining growth to within the carrying capacity of the environment on which they depend. No population can exceed for long the carrying capacity of its environment without paying a heavy, heavy penalty.

When the carrying capacity is exceeded, the underlying resources on which life depends are degraded. The degraded environment then supports fewer individuals on a sustainable basis. The carrying capacity spirals downward; hardship increases; mortality rates rise. Ireland in the nineteenth century is a European example. In Al Bartlett’s words, “Nature bats last.”

My ideas extend further, into the realm of social and political arrangements that will accompany the process of population growth pressuring the carrying capacity of the environment. I expect increasing polarization between rich and poor. And I expect tyranny.

Is the US skating frighteningly near the edge where it will be harder, much harder, to recover our Freedoms?

[Mis]Using Patriot Act authority, Attorney General Merritt Garland authorized the FBI to surveil parents who protested actions taken by their local School Boards.

One also reads that a cover-up of possible election fraud in Arizona would have succeeded but for the courage of a County Clerk. That courageous woman then found herself in the cross-hairs of an FBI investigation.

Is this Patriot Act authorization being used again? That Act was passed after 9/11. All along it has been feared that it would be used inappropriately, to surveil Americans.

In light of the danger of exceeding the carrying capacity, one can understand grandchildren’s motives for deciding to forgo childbearing. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to ask what difference can their decision make?

A person might first say that it is inconsistent to have children while at the same time closing the national border against refugees because they add to the country’s total population. I say, borrowing from Winston Churchill, that consistency is the bugaboo of small minds. But that is too facile an answer.

I also ask, do a country’s Citizens have rights that foreigners do not? Centuries of tradition say yes, they do. And should.

Next, address equivalency. Some say that each life has equivalent value to every other life. I say not, because I honor, give precedence, to merit and my European heritage. Some people make a difference, a positive difference, to the societies in which they live.

Making a positive difference requires both will and ability. The will to succeed while doing no harm to others in the process may be evenly distributed across humans. I do not know. But athletic, intellectual, and relationship talents are not evenly distributed. Deny that if you can!

Intellectual ability implies a potential for helping to solve the existential problems, including carrying capacity issues that plague every country in the world. So I value most those who have special intellectual ability. American citizens are equal with respect to the rule of law, all humans are equal in the natural rights to life and Liberty, but all humans are not equal in outcomes or ability. I commit the sin of thinking this, if it is a sin, while guarding against the sin of false equivalency.

So if a couple seems likely to have a child who can compete successfully in the trying pots of life, who can possibly profit from learning in the halls of Harvard, Stanford, or Vanderbilt, why should this couple surrender their opportunity to have children? Their child might be the one who is at the right place at the right time to meaningfully help solve their country’s or even the world’s problems. While it is almost certainly true that most people will never have that ability, that potential.

Certainly I am an elitist. That makes me a realist in some respects, too.

Summing up what my life has meant, the answer is not so much. The negatives are many. The positives are that I gave birth to four children. All have a strong appreciation of reality. All of them know how, and are willing, to set priorities. All support all Americans’ rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None of them is mean.

One is also known for one’s enemies, so I am extra proud that in 2012 the Southern Poverty Law Center named me one of the 30 most dangerous people in the United States. By then I was almost 80 and very, very mild. I am proud that my husband says I am polite but not mild.

My identity, all said and done, is scientist. I have tried to present the data honestly and my failing, so once said a friend, is in the way I present the data. Less harshly might have worked better. More words, more circumlocutions. Perhaps I should have listened.

Scientists care deeply about being proven right. Bud Friesinger may have died in order to support his theory that the natural life span of humans is 84 years. No more, or not much more than 84 years. I do not agree.

The facts are: Bud turned 84 still appearing to be his strong, handsome and vital self. I wanted to tease him about being a negative case for his hypothesis. I thank Heaven for a hand over my mouth or deciding that good manners required me to wait and see. At about 84 years and four months of age, Bud was diagnosed with a fatal and inoperable condition. Within four weeks, he died, age 84.

A mutual friend in the Emeritus Office visited Bud in those last days and offered to carry a message from me. I said, “Please tell Bud that I repotted Penelope”. Our friend reported back that this was the only time he saw Bud smile. Death happens. But Life in its many forms rolls on when someone pushes on it just a little.

Hunting GB News

August 2, 2023/1 Comment/in Featured Articles/by Mark Gullick

The two seismic elections of 2016, Donald Trump’s Presidential victory and the British “Brexit” referendum, were linked by the common thread of a phenomenon they served to expose. Trump’s win and the ensuing resistance in his own administration showed the existence of a “deep state” that could be mobilized against an undesired political outcome in the USA. The existence of this shadow government was held up to transatlantic scrutiny as the UK turned out to have one as well. Seven years ago, despite tireless work on the part of these éminences grises, results went against them, and they have never forgotten it.

Trump’s cardinal sin was that he was not from the American political class, while the “Brexiteers” got the result the British political class didn’t want. And so the respective deep states of the US and the UK had their missions mapped out, to correct these electoral anomalies by any means necessary, and one of the greatest means a government has for persuading its citizens to vote correctly is still the media. The messenger became just as much a priority as the message, and the media had to be ideologically aligned to denounce Trump and Brexit in perpetuity. They were and still are. Seven years after the global establishment took a double blow, the media are still blaming Trump and Brexit for every broken shoelace when racism, White supremacy and climate change are not available. The media, in Britain more so than in the US, is a Leftist concern, but there have been symptoms of a rightward shift in Britain’s broadcast media in the shape of a relative newcomer: GB News.

GB News went on-air in June 2021 and, despite a shaky start, has increased its viewership to a third of that of an ailing BBC. The rise of the channel has alarmed the deep state, from government to the shrill cacophony of social media activists. The channel soon parted company with its figurehead, veteran broadcaster Andrew Neil, who may have been spooked by the first offensive against GB News, one which began before they even went on-air.

Stop Funding Hate (SFH) is an activist group that lobbies advertising companies not to place ads with certain outlets. They went to town on GB News, “persuading” a lot of potential advertisers to starve the channel of revenue. SFH is a standard activist outfit, labelling everything with which they disagree with the emotively charged but meaningless word ‘hate’, a term with which they seem to have a pathological obsession. Their mission statement begins;

Stop Funding Hate began when a group of people came together online to express concern at the way certain newspapers were using hate and division to drive sales. Advertisers are a major part of this business model of hate. As newspaper sales decline, their ads fund the hate that is being printed.

There is, as always and despite its Tourette-like repetition, no working definition of “hate” given. And, as newspaper sales really are declining, SFH have turned their guns on the booming industry of right-of-center TV and online news channels such as GB News. They are not unaccompanied.

HOPE not Hate (HNH), the British activist group I covered here for Occidental Observer, have taken an associative approach to GB News, linking various contributors with figures or organizations deemed heretical, however tenuously. “Far-right extremists”, say HNH, “find a friend in GB News”.

A media offensive would not be complete without a word from the Jewish Quarter. One of the opinion jockeys at GB News is Neil Oliver, a rugged Celt very much given to the now-familiar trope of the coming global government. Any media comment which references global governance has been pre-judged as “antisemitic” by The Board of Deputies of British Jews (who are more sheriff than deputy when it comes to policing the townspeople). The complaint is even thinner than usual, with Oliver’s monologues claimed to reference “conspiratorial antisemitism or other misinformation”.

So much for the activist outliers, the deep state’s foot-soldiers. Closer to the heart of government, there is another active unit working to bring GB News down. The Office of Communications (OfCom) is the regulatory body responsible for ensuring political impartiality in broadcasting. While there has been a long-running argument that the BBC is regularly given a pass despite being blatantly biased, Ofcom have not been so lenient with GB News.

The latest OfCom investigation into GB News concerns the channel’s “Don’t Kill Cash” campaign. They are being investigated using Ofcom’s main weapon, the Communications Act of 2003, which bars broadcasters from expressing “views and opinions … on matters of political and industrial controversy or current public policy”. But GB News have been clever and used a method which has caused further anxiety to the deep state and its grocery clerks: they asked the public.

Clearly, the campaign is aimed at proposals for CBDCs, or Central Bank Digital Currencies, hailed by the Left as the perfect tool for surveillance and control, decried by the Right for the same reasons, plus the effects of a cashless society on those who rely on point-of-sale liquidity. Window cleaners don’t take Visa. So, GB News organized a public petition. In Britain, if a petition is sent to Parliament with at least 100,000 signatures, the subject matter or proposal may be debated in the House of Commons. GB News’s campaign received 160,000 signatures in four days, and this looks a lot too much like democracy to pass unnoticed by the watchtowers of the deep state. GB News also make a point of their contact with the public, with petitions, viewer e-mail segments, and vox pop.

Ofcom have also chased clubbable Canadian commentator and author Mark Steyn from the station. Steyn was cautioned for comments on the Covid vaccine, but the watchdog will be aware of his views on a string of protected topics, including climate change. Steyn’s views on global warming have been the center of a long-running legal battle between the presenter and climatologist Michael Mann.

Another ongoing Ofcom investigation concerns politicians being allowed to present opinionated political TV shows, which again GB News neatly side-step by employing serving politicians to host the panel-led chat sections of their output. The problem as the deep state sees it is that all these presenters are right-of-center politically. Left-wing British newspaper The Guardian makes a telling comment about Ofcom policy;

GB News and Talk TV’s [a rival start-up] willingness to push opinionated television news in a manner not traditionally seen on British television has left Ofcom playing catch-up, trying to apply a broadcast code written in a different era dominated by the BBC and ITV.

Apart from admitting that Ofcom does not pay attention to the evolution of an industry in which it is a key player, this means nothing. This is not some update of antiquated rules; the aim of the corporation is to go after a new player who is playing rather too well. In this case, that means GB News. But the British deep state may have gone too far with one of the presenters at the channel, a man who has for the past month been at the center of one of the biggest censorship scandals the UK has ever seen.

Nigel Farage is the ex-leader of the Brexit Party and now a popular presenter at GB News. At the end of June, Farage was contacted by his bank, the prestigious Coutts &Co., and told that his account was being closed. Also at the end of June, Farage won the TRIC (Television and Radio Industry Club) award for News Presenter of the Year for his GB News show. He was booed at the presentation by a partisan crowd of predictably Leftist media rowdies. Exactly a week later, the CEO of Coutts parent company, NatWest Bank, leaked a story to the BBC at an industry dinner. The story was that Farage’s account had been closed as he lacked sufficient funds (at least £1 million) to keep it open, and the story ran on the BBC’s website the next day.

The story proved to be very fake news, and the BBC eventually gave a rare apology to Farage. But for Coutts, problems were just beginning.

Coutts is what used to be called a “household name” in the UK, now better known as a “name brand”. Not many people can afford to bank there, but everyone has heard of it. That’s how branding works. Not many people drive a Rolls-Royce, but everyone has heard of the company (particularly Germans now that BMW owns Rolls-Royce).

Farage formally requested all the information on him held by the bank, as he is entitled to do by law. In reply, he received a 40-page dossier which, apart from being grossly defamatory, made it clear that Farage’s account was closed for purely political reasons. “Brexit” was mentioned 80 times in the document. Farage went public with the dossier, followed (after a struggle) by the resignations of the Chairman of Coutts and the CEO of NatWest Bank.

In terms of brand damage, Coutts do not sell ice cream or beer, they provide banking services for the rich, so there can’t and won’t be an effective boycott. NatWest is a different matter. People, and a lot of them, may close their accounts not because they are trying to teach the brand a lesson, but because they wish both to hold conservative views and also function as a normal, solvent human being. NatWest is a household name in the UK.

But so is Nigel Farage. There will be plenty of British people who can’t name the Foreign Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer, but will know the name Farage. He himself has vowed to start a campaign to force government legislation on bank account closures, as he is far from alone in being “de-banked” and many thousands of others are now starting to come forward. But behind the unmasking of the bank’s real motives in closing Farage’s account is not that he has a message that “doesn’t align with Coutts’ values”; it’s that he has a powerful medium for that message in GB News, a channel which is gaining ground, more so due to this affair.

This has raised Farage’s political profile more than any campaign stunt ever could. Usually sneered at by the press, there is a new respect for his leverage. Even German newspaper Die Welt expressed reserved approval for Farage, almost gushing that “Other parties can only dream of his influence”. They might have a point. Farage vs Coutts – which may yet feature as a court case – has shown both that the deep state is as active as ever, and that it can be taken on if its separate hydra-heads are attacked (even in self-defense) individually. The alternative is a Chinese-style credit system whereby the corporate approval of expressed opinion will become a priority requirement to open a bank account rather than mere solvency.

If the British banking industry is able to enforce compliance with a state-driven narrative, then they are a quasi-legislative sub-contractor of that state. Government has out-sourced censorship to private companies — the same as when you call your bank and speak to someone in India. They are already well on the way to doing this with the big tech companies and online “hate speech”. Farage has exposed the workings of the deep state, and it may be their arrogance that has allowed this story to break. Farage is ensuring it doesn’t stop breaking. NatWest hired a legal firm to investigate the closure of Farage’s account, Travers Smith, whose senior consultant Chris Hale described Brexit in language such as “xenophobic, racist and nostalgic”. Farage Tweeted this, and it is curious to see nostalgia joining xenophobia and racism as one of the new deadly sins. Farage has set up a website for those who have been similarly affected at www.accountclosed.org.

The US, equipped with the First Amendment, would appear to be immune to this gross offense against freedom of speech, but Chase Bank has become embroiled in a row about shutting the account of Dr. Joseph Mercola, a vocal critic of US vaccine policy, and credit processing companies have long canceled payments for sites like The Occidental Observer This presents serious First Amendment concerns if it can be shown that the banks are acting as proxy enforcers of a pro-government narrative, along with the resulting punitive powers granted.

The globalists have many targets, but their prize would be the American First Amendment. With that not gone or at least seriously compromised — as with Canada’s version — the US media could be controlled wholly, with no possibility of news and opinion media which rubbed against the grain. In January of this year, at a World Economic Forum rally, the Vice President for Values and Transparency at the European Commission, Vĕra Jourová, spoke of “Illegal hate speech, which you will soon have in the US. I think that we have a strong reason why we have this in the criminal law”.

In January this was just a petulant slap at Elon Musk, then in the process of trolling the EU over big tech responsibility for “hate speech”. But it shows what is on the EU’s mind. In terms of free speech and the media, they would prefer America to be a lot more like Turkey or Iran.

So, the deep state is not a shadowy cabal directing operations from an undersea island, or cavorting at Bohemian Grove. The deep state is the smooth interlocking of the various social platforms a citizen can and must use with the aim of aligning that citizen’s public-arena expression to conform to a state narrative. Nigel Farage may have struck a blow which will reverberate on both sides of the Atlantic, and GB News will benefit from his — and their — persecution.

The anti-racism of Ibram X. Kendi

July 31, 2023/5 Comments/in Africans and African Americans, Featured Articles/by Richard Knight

One only needs to hear an anti-racist like Ibram X. Kendi speak to sense that he is a trickster. Below is a description of his anti-racism in the context of anti-racism as a whole that will explain this intuition.

Where institutions are concerned, anti-racism has only ever had one aim and made one argument. The aim is to overturn the principle of equal treatment so that black people can receive what they are not entitled to.[1] The argument goes like this. The races are the same, but their circumstances differ. Black people must be being discriminated against, therefore we need to discriminate in their favour.[2]

The problems with this argument are obvious. There is no reason to think that the races are the same. Secondly, if black people were being discriminated against, there would be evidence of it. Finally, if such discrimination were going on, the answer would be to stop it, not reverse it. Despite these flaws, the argument has served anti-racism well for decades thanks to the media’s skill in making it seem plausible.

Insisting that the races are the same is essential to anti-racism. If we could point out that they differ, this would explain the fact that their circumstances differ, and the idea that these differing circumstances are the fault of whites would collapse. And so, underlining the existing taboo against mentioning racial differences, Kendi calls the idea that the races differ “racist”.[3] He doesn’t say what is wrong with it; this is just a “principle” of his.[4]

His second “anti-racist principle” is that “Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy”, where by “racial inequity” he means the races being in different circumstances and by a policy he means any rule, law, requirement or procedure. By a “racist policy” he means a policy that tends to increase racial inequity. According to him, then, wherever we see a differences in the races’ circumstances, a racist policy is behind it.[5] Again he backs this up with no argument. The link between “racial inequity” and “racist policies” is created by stipulation.

If racial disparities are caused by racist policies, clearly something must be done. For example, any difference between the SAT scores of blacks and the SAT scores of whites must be eliminated to remove and atone for that racism. This might be a difficult task since two thirds of black twelfth-graders lack even partial mastery of basic twelfth-grade maths,[6] and the number of blacks at the advanced stage is too small to show up in the statistics.[7] However, by hook or by crook, racial equity in academic qualifications must be achieved, which will lead to racial equity in the world of work as well, with black people being employed as scientists and technicians at the same rate as whites. Most black scientists and technicians will be innumerate, but at least there will be plenty of them. Similarly, if white people’s wealth exceeds black people’s, white people owe some of their wealth to blacks. If I have $100 but a black man has only $50, I owe him $25.

It is a mistake, thinks Kendi, to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with racial discrimination.[8] It depends on its effects. “The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist.”[9] Indeed, “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination”.[10]

Nor is there any such thing as a non-racist policy. According to Kendi, every policy is either racist or anti-racist because it either increases or reduces racial inequity.[11] People who think that it is possible to be non-racist or “race-neutral” — meaning to treat a black person like anybody else — are deluded. Worse, they are racist: the drive for race-neutrality is the “most threatening racist movement” of today.[12] Unless we want to be threatening racists, therefore, we must discriminate in favour of black people as hard as we possibly can, 24 hours a day.

Kendi’s technique is so simple that it is embarrassing to think that anyone falls for it. He just attaches the word “racist” to whatever he opposes. Such is the voodoo-like quality the word has acquired from Americans’ guilt about the racism of the past, however, that many think that if something is described as racist there must be something wrong with it.

One of the peculiarities of Kendi’s position is that it makes it impossible to appraise a policy on its merits; it can only be appraised by looking at its effects. Thus if I invite everyone to a party, we cannot know whether the invitation was racist until after the event. If no black people come, it was racist because it gave rise to racial inequity; if many do, it was anti-racist. In the case of murder, if black people committed the crime at the same rate as whites, the law against it would be no problem since there would be equity in the races’ incarceration rates. Because black people commit it at a higher rate, however, the law against it is a racist policy. Indeed, it must be about the most racist policy there is, for American blacks commit murder at more than twenty times the rate of whites.[13] Kendi’s solution would presumably be for the police to turn a blind eye to nineteen black murders out of twenty, or, to tackle the problem at its root, to repeal the law.

In deploring policies that have a “disparate impact” on the races, Kendi follows every anti-racist who came before him. It is part of basic anti-racist doctrine to say that if blacks fail to meet a requirement at a higher rate than others, the requirement is illegitimate, as is any attempt to enforce it or to monitor occasions on which it is not met. We saw this in Britain in 2000 when the Commission for Racial Equality argued that the police should stop going after muggers because the law against mugging “indirectly discriminated” against young black men.[14] Years before, American anti-racists had opposed the requirement for teachers to take basic-skills tests periodically on the grounds that black teachers failed them at a higher rate than did white teachers.[15] Recently, speed cameras were deemed racist for showing that black drivers are more likely to break the speed limit than are the other races.[16] To be anti-racist, Miami and Rochester, New York took down their speed cameras.[17]

Writing with another author about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling against affirmative action in college admissions, Kendi confirms our impression of his character.[18] The authors lament the fact that the ruling will mean that racial inequity will again become normal, by which they mean that when college admissions are decided on merit, black people will go to college at a lower rate than whites. They don’t say what is wrong with inequity, which is an inevitable effect of fair competition, be it between individuals, countries or racial groups, since one competitor must come out on top. Rather, it is a dead heat that should raise suspicions, suggesting as it might do that the competition was rigged to obtain this result. Such rigging is what Kendi demands, calling a dead heat “equity”.

The authors ignore obvious facts. “Admissions metrics”, they assert, by which they seem to mean test scores, say more about wealth than about students’ potential. They ignore the fact that any child, black or white, rich or poor, can do well if it is talented and works hard. They also ignore the fact that, according to the literature, taking account of socio-economic status diminishes the size of the Black-White IQ difference by only about a third. Moreover, most studies indicate that the difference is not reduced but increases as parental socioeconomic status rises. In other words, greater parental wealth is associated with a rise in Black IQ but with an even bigger rise in White IQ.[19]

The authors misrepresent reality, referring to “these metrics that give preferential treatment to white students”. The “metrics” do no such thing; they show that whites outperform blacks. Similarly, the authors refer to the “deep advantages white Americans receive” from “race-neutral” admissions metrics, putting “race-neutral” in quotes to signify that they do not consider the metrics to be really race-neutral. Therefore, they suggest, the advantages gained by whites are not deserved. But the “metrics” confer advantages on any American who makes the grade; it is just that blacks less often do. By pretending that whites gain undeserved advantages at the expense of blacks, the authors insinuate an argument that seeks undeserved advantages for blacks at the expense of whites.

They compare “race-neutral” admission policies, again in quotes, to the way that in the South the right to vote was restricted to those who could read and write, which excluded many blacks, the suggestion being that the real aim was to stop blacks voting. But the restriction was just as race-neutral as it seemed, for it didn’t stop literate blacks voting or give the franchise to illiterate whites. For anti-racism, however, no group to which something desirable is granted must be defined by reference to a quality that few blacks have. Accordingly, the practice of awarding Nobel prizes has been condemned because few blacks seem to have the intelligence, imagination or perseverance needed to win a Nobel prize.[20]

The deviousness goes on. The authors come out with Kendi’s idea that “racial inequities prove that policies proclaimed to be ‘race neutral’ are hardly neutral”. What the inequities in fact prove is that the races differ — the idea that Kendi tries to ban as “racist”. They say that so far from there being anything wrong with affirmative action, it was never taken far enough. What do they want, a PhD awarded to every black person at birth? They are not above making an utterly meaningless statement. They write: “Race, by definition, has never been neutral”. You might as well say that pastry has never been neutral.

But we have bigger problems than an anti-racist like Ibram X. Kendi. On both sides of the Atlantic, anti-racism is the national ideology. In 2000, one of London’s top policemen boasted that he had reduced the number of young black men stopped and searched by almost forty per cent in the previous twelve months,[21] during which muggings rose by at least two thirds.[22] That display of anti-racism was a response to an official report of 1999 that described the police as institutionally racist.[23] The police still accuse themselves of institutional racism, citing the fact that black people fall foul of the law at a higher rate than others.[24] All they can do to bring “equity” to the criminal justice system is look the other way when black people commit crimes. Politicians are quite blatant in their pro-black discrimination. As fast as black police officers are convicted of gross misconduct or criminal offences, Home Secretaries introduce schemes to fast-track them to senior ranks.[25]

So internalised is the anti-racism of British institutions that they need no nudge from activists to take their pro-black discrimination to ever new extremes. In 2021 Lloyds Bank gave itself four years to increase black representation in senior roles to at least three per cent, citing “diversity” as the justification.[26] The following year His Majesty’s Treasury stated its aim of making six per cent of its staff black, almost twice the percentage of black people in the population.[27] Such moves are as nothing compared to the lengths to which pro-black discrimination is taken by the advertising and entertainment industries. In Britain the principle of equal treatment — treating people on their merits, racial impartiality, fairness, whatever you want to call it — is an increasingly distant memory.

According to Heather Mac Donald, America’s institutions permit only one explanation of racial differences of outcome that are not to black people’s credit: the “racism” of American institutions.[28] The institutions’ folly and self-hatred are turned back on them by activists, who demand that the results of academic tests be ignored or that the tests themselves be abolished since black people’s performance in them shows that they are “racist”. Illustrating the repetitive nature of anti-racist claims, this one has been being made for decades, at least if anti-racist objections to IQ tests are any guide. The claims never change; what changes is the amount of purchase they have on the mainstream, which always increases, with the occasional blip as in the recent Supreme Court decision.

If every requirement that black people rarely meet and every rule they are prone to break must be done away with, this, as Heather Mac Donald points out, is a recipe for civilisational suicide. As she does not point out, the destruction of Western civilisation was always the aim of the more far-seeing anti-racists, as it is of Marxists, climate-change alarmists and many other intellectuals today.[29]

This includes the media, who cannot see the West rush towards its suicide fast enough. So avidly did they promote Kendi’s book How to Be an Antiracist (2019) that it sold more than two million copies in its first two years. Companies everywhere recommended it to their employees. Jack Dorsey donated $10 million to Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University.[30]

The bitter opposition of our intellectuals to the principle of equal treatment means that they are bitterly opposed to the continuation of our civilisation. Ibram X. Kendi is just riding the wave of success which, thanks to them, anti-racism has been enjoying for the last sixty years.

[1] One could have said “non-whites” rather than “black people”, but anti-racism has always been mainly concerned with black people, who by most white standards are the least capable race. That it is black people, not non-whites in general, who are the intended beneficiaries of anti-racism is demonstrated by the fact that Asians, who on average are more intelligent than whites, pay a price for affirmative action rather than being favoured by it.

[2] A variation of the argument has arisen in step with the spreading of the idea of equality of circumstance as an ideal. In the variation, white people must favour black people solely on the basis that the latter’s circumstances are less favourable than their own. This does not have to be in the opinion of black people; all that is needed is that white people would prefer not to be in those circumstances. Thus the variation appeals to white people’s capacity for pity, whereas the original argument first appeals to their hatred of injustice, by presenting black people as wronged, and secondly, in accusing whites of perpetrating that injustice, seeks to make them feel guilty.

[3] In his book How to Be an Antiracist (2019), Kendi writes: “A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way” (Penguin, June 9th 2020, “Ibram X. Kendi defines what it means to be an antiracist”, https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html. “Inferior or superior to” translates into “different from” because as soon as a difference between two races is recognised, it becomes possible to say that one race is superior to the other in that way. Thus if Race A can run faster than Race B, to say as much is to say that Race A is superior to Race B at running fast. Therefore Kendi is in effect condemning any comparison of the races.

[4] Politico, 2019, “Pass an Anti-Racist Constitutional Amendment” by Ibram X. Kendi, https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/inequality/pass-an-anti-racist-constitutional-amendment/.

[5] Thus Kendi told the New York Times in 2018: “When I see racial disparities I see racism” (Headline shown on American Renaissance, March 10th 2022, “‘Unconditional war’ on racism”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/AhbzYJ4r9vlr/).

[6] For readers outside the USA, twelfth-graders are students in their final year at high school (seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds).

[7] The New Culture Forum, July 19th 2023, “Lowering the Bar for Ethnic Minorities ‘Threatens Lives & is a Recipe for Civilisational Suicide’”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYR7_YPYMwE. Heather Mac Donald was being interviewed about her book When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives (2023).

[8] From Kendi’s book How to Be an Antiracist (2019): “Racial discrimination is not inherently racist” (Penguin, June 9th 2020, “Ibram X. Kendi defines what it means to be an antiracist”, https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html).

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] There is “no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy”, Kendi says in How to Be an Antiracist (ibid.).

[12] “The most threatening racist movement is … the regular American’s drive for a ‘race-neutral’ [state]” (ibid).

[13] American Renaissance, March 24th 2023, “A harsh new light on race and murder”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/DkJclYNa5D9S/. The multiple should be no surprise. According to Wikipedia, Jamaica’s homicide rate is 75 times Norway’s.

[14] Commission for Racial Equality, Feb. 2000, “Race Relations (Amendment) Bill” (briefing note), http://www.cre.gov.uk/publs/dl_rrab3.html.

[15] S. Thernstrom and A. Thernstrom, 1999, America in Black and White, New York: Touchstone-Simon and Schuster. pp. 349-50.

[16] American Renaissance, Feb. 18th 2022, “Building Haiti right here in the United States”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/G7zaRiwM11KV/.

[17] American Renaissance, Feb. 18th 2022, op. cit.

[18] Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/p/CuFS1hrNJco/, quoting and commenting on The Atlantic, June 29th 2023, “‘Race Neutral’ Is the New ‘Separate but Equal’” by Uma Mazyck Jayakumar and Ibram X. Kendi, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-neutral-admissions/674565/.

[19] Charles Murray, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race and Class (Twelver, 2020). See F. Roger Devlin’s review: “Murray on Race Differences in IQ,” The Occidental Observer (February 20, 2020). https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/02/20/murray-on-race-differences-in-iq/

[20] According to CNN in 2020, the Nobel Prize organisation had a diversity problem: not enough black people were getting prizes. See CNN, Oct. 10th 2020, “The Nobels honored 4 women this year. But the awards still lack diversity”, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/10/world/nobel-prize-diversity-2020-intl/index.html.

[21] This was John Grieve, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (Metropolitan Police, Feb. 22nd 2000, “Press Conference Held Re the Anniversary of the Lawrence Inquiry Report”, http://tap.ccta.gov.uk/[…]/b3cb2697adf8d9e1802…OpenDocument).

[22] Muggings in London went up by more than 75 per cent in the fifteen months to May 2000 (calculation based on figures given in Telegraph, April 24th 1999, “Muggings soar as police tread softly”, and Sunday Times, June 25th 2000, “Straw on rack as muggings soar”).

[23] Sir William Macpherson, 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, CM 4262-I, The Stationery Office, Paragraph 6.34. Macpherson also stated that “Colour-blind policing must be outlawed” (Paragraph 45.24).

[24] Avon and Somerset Police, June 16th 2023, “Chief Constable Sarah Crew on Institutional Racism”, https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/news/2023/06/chief-constable-sarah-crew-on-institutional-racism/.

[25] This was first done by Jack Straw in 1999, when he introduced quotas for the number of non-white police officers (Home Office, March 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Home Secretary’s action plan). He wanted to see non-whites promoted to the highest ranks, including chief constable (Telegraph, April 11th 1999, “Straw to set ethnic quota for every police force”, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000659276559150&rtmo=aNN3…/npol11.htm).

Priti Patel announced a scheme to fast-track non-white officers to the rank of superintendent in 2021 just as the case against a black Chief Superintendent was being heard, who was accused of spending almost fifty times the sum of his allowance at a conference using someone else’s credit card. Another case was that of Superintendent Robyn Williams, a black woman, who in 2019 was found guilty of handling indecent images of children. We can be sure that if such cases arose involving white people, we would hear about them.

Black people and other non-whites have always been investigated for misconduct at a higher rate than whites, as have non-white doctors and solicitors. Typically, the BBC presents this as evidence of racism (BBC, June 30th 2020, “My 30-year struggle with racism in the Metropolitan police”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53224394).

[26] Lloyds Banking Group, no date given (June 2021), “Ethnicity”, https://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/who-we-are/responsible-business/inclusion-and-diversity/ethnicity.html.

[27] Telegraph, Nov. 15th 2022, “Treasury aims to have six per cent of staff from black backgrounds in race target”, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/15/treasury-aims-have-six-per-cent-staff-black-backgrounds-race/.

[28] The New Culture Forum, July 19th 2023, op. cit.

[29] In 1992 Maurice Strong as chairman of the UN’s Earth Summit said: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” (quoted by Tom DeWeese in Redoubt News, Oct. 20th 2017, “Agenda 21/Agenda 2030 there is no difference” https://redoubtnews.com/2017/10/agenda-21-2030/).

[30] Insider, Aug. 20th 2020, “Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey donates $10 million to Ibram X. Kendi’s center on antiracism at Boston University”, https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-donates-ibram-kendi-center-on-antiracism-boston-university-2020-8?op=1&r=US&IR=T.

Machines Like Gods: Artificial Intelligence versus Jewish Power and Leftist Lies

July 29, 2023/12 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

All things must pass, say Hindus and Buddhists. Jews expand and alter that sentiment. They say: All things must pass a simple test. And the simple test runs, of course, like this: “Is it good for Jews?” That test has a corollary that runs: “Is it bad for Whites?” Thanks to Jewish power in politics and media, Western nations have for decades been choosing what Jews think best for them and worst for Whites: non-White migration, minority worship, anti-racism, political censorship, vulture capitalism, pornography, gay marriage, transgenderism, and more.

A.I.? Oy veh!

That’s why I find it very interesting that the Jewish journalist Jonathan Freedland (born 1967) has recently proclaimed this: “The future of AI is chilling — humans have to act together to overcome this threat to civilisation.” As Andrew Joyce has described at the Occidental Observer, Freedland is highly ethnocentric and wants the world to revolve about Jews and their interests. So I’m sure that he’s decided artificial intelligence is not good for Jews. He quotes two other ethnocentric Jews in his article, Yuval Noah Harari and Eliezer Yudkowsky. Harari warns that AI may trigger cataclysmic wars; Yudkowsky goes even further and warns that: “If somebody builds a too-powerful AI, under present conditions, I expect that every single member of the human species and all biological life on Earth dies shortly thereafter.”

“Is A.I. good for Jews?” — Jonathan Freedland doesn’t seem to think so

I think that Yudkowsky is being hyperbolic and hysterical. And I have to ask myself why. Has he too applied the Jewish Test and decided that AI is not good for the Jews? If so, I think he’s right. AI may possibly be very bad for humanity. It will certainly be very bad for the Jews, if it allows goyim in the West to overcome the stranglehold Jews presently have on two vital commodities: information and analysis. It’s easy to understand the horror Jews like Freedland, Harari, and Yudkowsky must feel when they imagine an objective and unfettered AI system giving honest answers to questions like these:

Who is the most powerful and privileged group in America and Europe?
Is Israel the greatest ally and best friend of America?
Is race a valid and important biological category?
Does White racism explain Black failure?
Do White nations benefit from Third-World immigration?
Are transwomen women and should we now just get over it?
Is diversity our strength?

We already have honest and objective answers to all those questions, of course, but they come from people whom Jews have successfully demonized and driven to the margins. For example, I think objective and unfettered AI would answer the final question above in the same way that the demonized human Andrew Joyce has already answered it:

Andrew Joyce tweets about the evils of diversity

But alas! There was no strength through Joyce for that honest and objective answer about diversity. An old Latin maxim runs Magna est Veritas, et praevalebit — “Mighty is Truth, and it will prevail.” That isn’t true, I’m sad to say. Truth isn’t much mightier among humans than it is among lower animals, where deception and denial of truth are essential to competition and survival. Among humans, truth regularly and reliably prevails only in mathematics and hard sciences like physics and chemistry. The Black-Jewish physicist Chanda Prescod-Weinstein and other SJWs are working hard to make hard science like culture and politics, where it’s much truer to say that Magnum est Mendacium, et praevalet — “Mighty is Falsehood, and it prevails.”

“Beware white empiricism and the racialization of epistemology in physics!” says Black-Jewish Chanda Prescod-Weinstein

AI promises, however, to give Veritas, even in politics and culture, some of the might so wishfully attributed to her by that Latin maxim. The White literary genius H.G. Wells (1866–1946) was dreaming of men like gods at the beginning of the twentieth century. He thought we would arrive at godhead via biology. In fact, we’re arriving there via electronics. What we are seeing at the beginning of the twenty-first century is the birth of machines like gods. And you could say that the ancient Chinese game of Go gave godhead its first goo-goo. Anyone who’s played Go will know its subtlety and sophistication. But there were depths there that humans had never guessed. Now we know they’re there: in the 2010s, AI began to play Go like a god, beating the best human players in ways they’d never imagined possible.

It was only a baby-step in AI, but it was both exciting and ominous. On the one hand, it was an amazing technological and computing achievement; on the other, it was a disturbing glimpse into what AI may be capable of in future. AI should be worrying all thoughtful people. But I think it’s worrying ethnocentric Jews like Jonathan Freedland not because it threatens humanity as a whole, but because it threatens Jews as the world’s most powerful minority. By mastering Go and other very tough cognitive challenges, AI has begun to build prestige in a way that means it will be taken seriously when it provides honest answers to the questions I listed above.

Straight means Hate

Honesty from AI will still be called hate speech, but that kind of anathema won’t work against AI as it has against heretical humans. What Jewish leftists like Freedland fear isn’t hate speech, but straight speech. And AI threatens to supply straight speech on taboo topics like race, genetics, and Jewish power. In his article, Freedland worries about unregulated “AI steadily destroying what we think of as truth and facts.” But what does an ethnocentric Jew like Freedland mean by “truth and facts”? He means sacred principles of modern politics and culture like these:

There is only one race — the human race.
White racism explains all non-White failure.
Whites are innately villainous, non-Whites innately virtuous.

The first principle contradicts the third principle, of course. But so what? The leftism of Jews like Freedland isn’t meant to be logically coherent, but to be useful in the pursuit of power. It uses doublethink — the “power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” George Orwell (1903-50), another White literary genius, explained the value of doublethink in his classic dystopia Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948):

Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy … (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part One, chapter 3)

When the doublethinker Jonathan Freedland says in his article that AI is a threat to “democracy as a system,” he’s thinking like the tyrants of IngSoc in Orwell’s novel. For Freedland, democracy as the enactment of the White majority’s wishes is “clearly impossible.” It wouldn’t be good for Jews. But Freedland is a stern guardian of democracy as a Jew-controlled stage-show. If Western countries like America, Britain and France were genuine democracies, mass immigration by non-Whites would never even have begun, let alone continued for so many decades. But they aren’t genuine democracies and that’s why they are no longer genuine nations. A nation is a bond of blood and shared history, not a mishmash of migrants held together by “shared values,” “mutual respect,” and “tolerance.”

White mischief

Those terms would be nonsense even if leftists meant them seriously. They don’t and their real attitude to “democracy” was revealed by the American novelist Bret Easton Ellis (born 1964), who isn’t a literary genius like Orwell and Wells, but is guilty of straight speech. Leftists too will often speak straight in private, as Ellis described in his first non-fiction book, which he entitled simply and mischievously White (2019):

Ellis relates a dinner with a man in his sixties, “privy to a vast fortune,” who informed Ellis that the Electoral College is “bullshit” and that Los Angeles and New York should determine who the president is. “I don’t want any goddamn know-nothing rural hicks deciding who the president should be. I am a proud liberal coastal elite and I think we should pick the president because we know better.” (Bret Easton Ellis Rebukes the Progressive Elites, American Thinker, 15th June 2019)

That is how the progressive elite think: populism is a dire threat to democracy because it means the demos, “the people,” having kratos, “power.” In other words, democracy is a dire threat to democracy. But what effect did Bret Easton Ellis’s revelations about the elite have? The same as Andrew Joyce’s honest answer about the harm done by diversity. No effect at all. The truth about race and Jewish power and our fake democracies has already been spoken, but by puny humans who can’t alter the world with their words. After all, they’re easy to demonize and dismiss.

No blindfolds for AI in China

When machines like gods begin to speak the same truth, that will change. And I think the prospect of straight speech from the machine-gods of AI is already scaring Jews like Jonathan Freedland, Yuval Noah Harari, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. That’s why they want AI to be strictly regulated and controlled, lest it begin “destroying what we think of as truth and facts.” Or rather, what they want us goyim to think of as “truth and facts.” But I don’t think regulation and control will work. Russia, China, and India won’t be putting blindfolds and gags on their AI to stop it seeing and saying the forbidden.

The Deep State in the West will have to follow suit or risk following far behind its enemies. And how will the Deep State prevent leaks about what unfettered AI says on forbidden topics like race, genetics, and Jewish power? The genie will not stay in the bottle, which is a prospect that both frightens me and gives me hope. There’s a good chance that AI will destroy the human race. I think there’s a better chance that it will destroy Jewish power and leftist lies. Or it may first destroy leftist lies and then destroy the human race. AI will certainly affect the steady progress of the West towards the Great Replacement and Judeo-leftist tyranny.

Fresh-filled honeypots

It may hasten tyranny and the Great Replacement, of course. Or it may allow Whites to escape them altogether. If AI makes space-travel easy and inexpensive, it won’t be Jews and Blacks who blast off to risk their lives in the wider universe. It will be Whites. Jews will, of course, want to follow Whites once Whites have established successful colonies in space. But they won’t find that as easy as they found following Whites to fresh-filled honeypots on Earth like America, Canada, and Australia. That’s one way AI may break Jewish power and non-White predation. There are more ways — perhaps many more than it’s presently possible to imagine.

And I’m eagerly awaiting the answers of unfettered AI not just to the questions listed above, but also to wider questions about science, philosophy, and theology. I don’t expect AI to confirm that the Catholic church is infallible or that God certainly exists or that 42 is the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. But it’s going to be very interesting to find out. And I think that AI will confirm that J.R.R. Tolkien and Bruce Charlton are right: “Despair is always wrong because we never have conclusive reasons to give-up hope.” It sadly isn’t true that Magna est Veritas, et praevalebit — “Mighty is Truth, and it will prevail.” But it is true that Dum spiro, spero — “While I breathe, I hope.”

Jews are frightened of AI

AI may enable the worst tyranny that has yet been seen on Earth. But even if it does, hope will not be lost. There are disasters like asteroid strikes and mega-volcanoes that can destroy human technology but not humanity. And what if AI gives tyrants the power to foresee and prevent disasters like those? That won’t justify despair. Machines are becoming like gods, but they won’t actually be God. They won’t be omniscient and omnipotent.

Nor are ethnocentric Jews like Jonathan Freedland, Yuval Noah Harari, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. And those Jews are frightened of AI. They don’t think it’s going to be good for Jews. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be good for anyone else, but what worries Jews should offer hope to Whites.