Featured Articles

Premature Birth and Genius

/37 Comments/in /by

Sent Before Their Time: Genius, Charisma, and Being Born Prematurely
Edward Dutton
Australia: Manticore Press, 2022
328 pages, $24.95 softbound

Ed Dutton’s latest book marks a return to the theme of genius, which he previously explored in The Genius Famine (with Bruce Charleton, 2016) and At Our Wit’s End (with Michael Woodley of Menie, 2018). There is no universally recognized definition of genius. The word always implies high intelligence, and may imply nothing more, as when a certain IQ score—there is no agreement exactly which—is said to constitute “genius level.” But Dutton is interested in men who have “made a disproportionately large impact on human history,” often through revolutionary contributions to the disciplines in which they work: Newton, Mozart, Michelangelo, Archimedes, Darwin, and so forth. Others have been great statesmen or religious leaders. All have been extremely intelligent, but intelligence by itself is insufficient for genius-level accomplishment: many who possess the necessary brain power never use it to achieve great things.

Intelligence is a highly polygenetic trait, so outlier high IQ requires the inheritance of an improbable number of alleles all pulling in the same beneficial direction. But the case is otherwise with some of the other traits associated with outstanding achievement. Geniuses, as Dutton explains, are marked by a certain personality profile.

They are low in ‘rule-following,’ permitting them to ‘think outside the box’ and so to generate original ideas, and they are low in altruism and empathy, meaning that they don’t care about the probability that their ideas will offend vested interests. They are obsessed with truth, and they wouldn’t anticipate that their ideas would offend even if they did care. In many cases, they are also high in anxiety, meaning that they are constantly thinking and have a desperate desire to make sense of their world.

Low empathy and high anxiety are not, prima facie, especially desirable traits, so as prerequisites for genius, they may appear counter-intuitive.

An analogy may be helpful. A person ignorant of viticulture would probably assume that the best wine would be produced by the best soils. In fact, when vines are planted in especially rich soil, the result is an enormous profusion of leaves and very few grapes. High-quality wine grapes are grown in relatively weak—but not too weak—soil: it is precisely the vine’s struggle against a suboptimal environment which brings out the best in grapes. Genius seems to involve a similar dynamic. (This, incidentally, is what makes eugenic intervention such a delicate matter: nature may be acting more wisely than any possible human agent by allowing certain normally sub-optimal traits to survive within a population.)

Few things would appear more sub-optimal for human flourishing than premature birth. Humans have evolved to spend nine months in the womb, and being born significantly (= more than three weeks) earlier is traumatic and stressful. Dutton’s list of risks associated with prematurity is sobering: “blindness, vision problems, underdeveloped lungs resulting in frequent infection, deafness, poor muscle tone, mobility problems, difficulties with fine motor skills, developmental delay, heart problems, high blood pressure, infertility, birth defects, depression, ADHD, autism, psychopathic personality, low self-esteem, never having a relationship nor having children, low IQ (especially low spatial and Mathematical IQ),” and much more besides. The more premature the birth, the greater the odds of problems developing.

And yet children born prematurely, or with exceptionally low birth weight, are statistically overrepresented among outstanding high-achievers. Dutton’s examples include “Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Goethe, Voltaire, Victor Hugo, [and] John Keats.”

This is certainly not because preterm birth contributes to high intelligence; as mentioned above, the two correlate negatively. “If you are born prematurely or small,” Dutton explains, “the brain is unlikely to develop properly. . . . [I]t leads to a form of mild mental handicap.” Yet when such a handicap happens to combine with exceptionally high genetic intelligence, a kind of synergy comes into play that makes for outstanding achievement. This is because, as Dutton explains, the brain has an extraordinary ability to rewire itself: “if it loses an area, it can be expected to strengthen the other areas.” This leads the prematurely born (colloquially known as “preemies”) to think in unusual ways, meaning that they are prone to look for solutions where others might not. As Dutton puts it, geniuses “are almost childlike in the degree to which they are imaginative, meaning they ask questions few others would ask and make connections that few others would make.”

A recent neuro-imaging study offers some clues to how this works:

A subject had to press a button as quickly as they could each time a new letter came onto a screen, unless it was the letter ‘x.’ Controls used ‘proactive’ brain activation, meaning you are working on a task and you are mentally prepared for new, unexpected, things to happen. Preemies used ‘reactive’ brain activation (Olsen et al., 2018). According to Norwegian neuroscientist Alexander Olsen, they were unprepared for change and ‘their brains reacted as if they were encountering something new each time. … It suggests their brains are hyper-vigilant due to the suboptimal organization of the central nervous system.’

Geniuses often have extremely narrow intelligence: while they achieve outstanding things in specialized fields, they may also be highly impractical, failing at tasks that do not require exceptional intelligence and that ordinary people master easily. A famous example is that Albert Einstein never learned to drive a car.

Extreme examples of this sort of lopsided intellectual development are found in “idiot savants”—now more politely and properly known as “autistic savants.” Such persons may be unable to tie their own shoelaces, and yet play the piano masterfully or display outstanding mathematical ability. Autistic savants are overwhelmingly extreme pre-termers. So it should not be surprising that genius, which represents a milder form of the same phenomenon, is often associated with preterm birth.

Geniuses are also often erratic in their ability to pay attention. Despite their intelligence, most do not do that well in school because they easily become bored. Sir Isaac Newton, e.g., was never a good student and nearly failed his degree at Cambridge. Young geniuses tend to be the sort of boys who today get diagnosed with ADHD—which, interestingly, is also statistically associated with preterm birth. And yet this comes not of any intrinsic inability to concentrate, but of a disinclination to concentrate on anything they find less than fascinating. When they do come across such a thing, typically involving some unsolved problem, they are capable of working on it compulsively to the exclusion of all else.

Asked the secret of his discoveries, Newton said: “I keep the subject constantly before me and wait till the first dawnings open slowly, by little and little, into a full and clear light.” In other words, he had an ability to focus on a problem obsessively, not letting up until he had fully solved it. There are anecdotes concerning him getting distracted by a problem while walking up or down a staircase and remaining standing there for hours on end. Oblivious to all around him, he sometimes even forgot to eat while in such a state.

But it may take a long time for a genius to find his true calling. Many have been late-bloomers, or made their discoveries in a field other than that in which they were formally trained. In contemporary parlance, they might be said to have difficulty “finding themselves”—though of course it is not really “themselves” they are looking for, but a suitable problem to which they can devote their utmost efforts.

New ideas always offend vested interests, so they are more likely to be formulated and spread by persons with autism spectrum disorders, which make it difficult for them to empathize with others. They may fail to anticipate the offence their ideas will cause or, if they do anticipate it, not care about this. As an example of the first tendency, Dutton cites the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes. His view of society as based on human contract without reference to the divine will ran counter to the Christian thinking of the seventeenth century. Yet when the English parliament denounced his Leviathan as a book “tend[ing] to atheism, blasphemy and profaneness,” Hobbes himself was apparently among the few taken by surprise. He hastily destroyed many of his own unpublished manuscripts for fear they might be compromising. Other original thinkers, such as the late J. Philippe Rushton (on whom Dutton has written a monograph), may know full well that their ideas will cause offense, but actually derive enjoyment from the discomfiture of more timid and less original colleagues.

Finally, genius is associated with anxiety, in particular a desperate desire to make sense of the world in which they live. This may go directly back to the experience of the fetus finding itself in an unaccustomed environment for which it is unprepared. It is certainly not due to high intelligence, which—as I was somewhat disappointed to learn—actually correlates with intellectual conformity. As Dutton explains:

People who are more intelligent are better at noticing what the dominant worldview is, better at realizing the social benefits of conforming to that dominant world view, and better at forcing themselves to believe it and coming up with superficially convincing arguments for so-doing. This, of course, better permits them to attain social status.

An obsessive devotion to truth above all else is thus no consequence of mere intelligence, but it does appear characteristic of the high-anxiety genius personality profile.

Psychologists have not reached agreement on the precise number and character of factors which make up human personality, but a five-factor model is currently popular. J. Philippe Rushton pointed out, however, that all five factors on which this model is based correlate positively to some degree. This led him to speak of a General Factor of Personality (GFP) analogous to ‘g,’ the general factor of intelligence. The GFP amounts to a measure of how pro-social a person is. Those high in GFP, writes Dutton, have

the kind of personality type and behaviors that underpin many socially desirable traits, the degree to which someone approximates to the type of person that makes for friendliness, helpfulness, being a ‘good neighbor;’ for peaceful, orderly, cooperative, hard-working, placid citizens. A person who is high in GFP is the kind of person who ‘gets on in life.’ [Such traits] evolved as an adaptation to complex and stable societies so that people would ‘get along together.’ So a person with high GFP would be sociably extroverted, be empathetic and be concerned with the feelings of others, conscientious and self-disciplined in pursuit of socially-approved goals.

It should be clear by now that the genius is unlikely to have a personality of this sort, desirable as it may be in other respects. Instead, the genius is

self-sufficient and indifferent to the opinions of others or to normal social aims. Such a person is wrapped up in his own personal goals and making judgments using his own internal, subjective evaluation systems. He will work very hard and for long periods on his own projects but will not willingly go along with other people’s plans and schemes.

In part, such qualities represent survivals from a fast-life strategy better adapted to unpredictable environments.

There are many specialized forms of activity in which one may accomplish at genius level, and some involve variations on the basic genius profile we have just outlined. An artistic genius is more likely to score high on the ‘divergent thought’ aspect of Openness-Intellect, one dimension of the five-factor personality model, and are also higher in Neuroticism, than scientific or philosophical geniuses. As Dutton writes, “the Neurotic is constantly thinking about aspects of life, meaning that they are continually generating thoughts, making them creative as an indirect consequence of their anxiety.” Depression is also associated with artistic genius. While about 20% of people in Western countries experience depression at some point in their lives, one study of high accomplishment found figures of 41% for eminent artists and 72% for eminent writers. In what may seem a paradox, depression can even contribute to the ability of certain extraordinary men whom Dutton calls political and religious geniuses to influence others:

Depression is associated with profound religious experiences, which are adaptive because they force the person out of their depression and provide them with a sense of deep existential meaning (Newberg et al., 2002). With this certainty and positivity, they can then inspire others, as do charismatic figures. It has also been found that charismatic leaders tend to be high in psychopathic traits (Post, 1994) includ[ing] superficial charm, grandiosity (and thus confidence), and the ability to manipulate others. It is traits such as these that are the essence of ‘charisma’ (Sargent, 1957).]

An example of a religious genius is Charles Wesley, founder of Methodism. Dutton’s account is worth quoting at length:

It is 1726, in a room at Christ Church College, Oxford. It is evening, just after college dinner. A small group of students are singing, but this is no ordinary hymn practice. Their eyes are closed. They seem to be in a trance, with looks of intense peace on their faces. They live according to what they call ‘the Method.’ They meet after dinner every day to discuss how they have used that day to witness for Christ, to read the Bible together, and to pray. Some people call them Methodists. They call themselves ‘the Holy Club’ (Pearson, 2011, p.193).

The Holy Club was recently founded by the rather charismatic student who seems to be leading the singing, Charles Wesley (1707–1788), the son of a Lincolnshire vicar. Wesley would go on to lead one of the largest religious revivals in the history of English Christianity: Methodism. He also wrote thousands of hymns, articulating and inspiring the religious sentiments of Englishmen who remained in the Church of England and did not join his breakaway movement. In inspiring people to be more religious, Wesley inspired them to follow the dictates of traditional religiousness: go forth and multiply, cooperate with your neighbor, make sacrifices to repel the invader, who, unlike us, does not have God on his side; believe that your life has eternal significance and that you, and your people, are uniquely chosen by the Lord. As we will now see, in doing so, Wesley indirectly helped his own people — the British — to triumph in the battle of ‘group selection’ against other peoples. Wesley was born two months prematurely (Cairns, 2015, p.81). When he was born, he seemed ‘more dead than alive.’ Charles didn’t even cry until several weeks after his birth (Cavendish, December 2007). But he pulled through. If he hadn’t, then we wouldn’t be able to sing ‘Hark! The Herald Angels Sing!’ at Christmas.

So geniuses, while always unusual personalities in certain respects, need not resemble the deeply uncharismatic recluse Isaac Newton. Some are, in Dutton’s words, “the kind of people whom you’d follow to the ends of the earth, who can inspire you to super-human feats.”

Geniuses often fail to marry or reproduce, but they still increase the inclusive fitness of their peoples. It is possible, therefore, that they are the product of an unconscious group selection strategy, as has been argued by Michael Woodley and A. J. Figueredo:

Their inventions do not benefit themselves or even their families. There are examples of geniuses who treat their families appallingly, receive little credit for their invention, and end-up living in penury. Their innovations benefit the group of which the genius is a member. The inventions which kicked-off the Industrial Revolution, for example, allowed the British population to soar in size and wealth and to expand around much of the globe. Clearly, then, a successful society needs to maintain an optimum but relatively low number of geniuses. It cannot be too many, because a society full of uncooperative, impractical dreamers will be dominated by a more internally cooperative and practical one. And it cannot be too few, or the society will be dominated by one which has the appropriate number of geniuses to allow the necessary level of innovation.

With dysgenic selection having taken hold in the West since the late Nineteenth Century, we are seeing a decline in the number of geniuses; this is not sufficiently offset by a much higher survival rate for premature children. With the collapse of group selection, Dutton also predicts the rise of ‘evil geniuses,’ brilliantly talented men whose achievements harm rather than enhance the evolutionary fitness of their group, for example, by promoting extreme individualism, a preference for outgroups over one’s own group, feminism, anti-natalism, and other harmful ideologies. Clearly many such people exist in our society, but few of them merit the title of genius. Dutton considers Winston Churchill and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (both born prematurely) as two possible cases, but decides in both cases that the evidence is inconclusive.

Dutton has a personal interest in prematurity, having been born three months early himself, and he includes a chapter on his own experiences growing up preterm. As he wryly notes, this autobiographical chapter puts him in the forefront of academic fashion, as many young scholars are now making their reputations with accounts of the intersectional oppression they have personally experienced.

Putin Wants His Own Monroe Doctrine

/28 Comments/in /by

When the Union was fighting to preserve itself in the Civil War, the France of Napoleon III moved troops into Mexico, overthrew the regime of Benito Juarez, set up a monarchy and put Austrian Archduke Maximilian von Habsburg on the throne as Emperor of Mexico — one month before Gettysburg.

Preoccupied, the Union did nothing.

At war’s end, in 1865, however, at the urging of Gens. Ulysses S. Grant and William Sherman, the Union sent 40,000 troops to the Mexican border.

Secretary of State William Seward dispatched Gen. John Schofield to Paris with the following instructions: “I want you to get your legs under Napoleon’s mahogany and tell him he must get out of Mexico.”

The U.S. troops on Mexico’s border convinced Napoleon to comply, though Maximilian bravely refused to leave and was captured and put before a firing squad.

The point of the episode for today’s crisis in Ukraine?

A powerful army on a nation’s border can send a message and dictate terms without going in and without going to war.

Whether Russian President Vladimir Putin intends to send his 100,000 troops now on the Crimean, Donbass and Belarusian borders of Ukraine into the country to occupy more territory we do not know.

But the message being sent by the Russian army is clear: Putin wants his own Monroe Doctrine. Putin wants Ukraine outside of NATO, and permanently.

If his demands are unacceptable, Putin is saying with his troops on the border, we reserve the right to send our army into Ukraine to protect our vital national interests in not having a hostile military alliance on our doorstep.

U.S. officials have been describing a Russian invasion as “imminent,” an attack that could come “any day now.”

Given the Russian preparations and size of its forces, some U.S. officials said last week Kyiv could fall within hours of an attack and there could be 50,000 civilian casualties and 5 million Ukrainian refugees.

Ukrainian leaders are less alarmist, arguing that an invasion is not imminent and there is still room for a negotiated settlement.

Russian officials are contemptuous of U.S. claims that they are about to invade. Last weekend, Russia’s deputy ambassador to the UN tweeted, “Madness and scaremongering continues. … What if we would say that US could seize London in a week and cause 300k civilian deaths?”

Should Russia invade, and go beyond what President Joe Biden earlier called a “minor incursion,” the event could be history-changing.

A major invasion would trigger automatic and severe sanctions on Russia, crippling European economies on both sides of the conflict and forcing Putin to take his country more fully into a Eurasian alliance with China. Yet, ultimately, it is China, not the U.S., and not NATO, that is the long-term threat to Russia.

Neither we nor Europe have any claims on Russian territory.

But China, with an economy 10 times the size of Russia’s, and a population 10 times as large, has historic claims on what are now Russian lands north of the Amur and Ussuri rivers. Russians living in Siberia and the Far East are far outnumbered by scores of millions of Chinese just south of the border. These Russian lands are rich in the resources China covets. The two nations came close to war over these borderlands in the late 1960s.

To return to the analogy of the U.S. waiting for the right moment to force France out of Mexico, China and Russia both now appear stronger, more united, more assertive and more anti-U.S. than either was at the turn of the century.

Russia is now demanding to have its borderlands— ex-Warsaw Pact nations and ex-Soviet republics — free of NATO installations and troops.

Half a dozen ex-Warsaw Pact countries and three USSR republics — Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — are members of NATO.

China, with an economy and military far larger than at the turn of the century, is also becoming more assertive about its land claims. These include claims against India in the Himalayas, against half a dozen nations on the South China Sea, including our Philippines ally, against Taiwan, and claims to the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands.

The combined strength and reach of Russia and China are growing, while the U.S., post-Afghanistan, is facing challenges to its resources that it seems increasingly strained to meet.

Russia has marshaled an army estimated at between 127,000 and 175,000 troops in a few months, just across the border from Ukraine, while the U.S. this weekend sent 3,000 troops to Rumania, Germany and Poland.

Where is the deterrent here?

Again, Putin’s demands that ex-Warsaw Pact countries and Soviet republics be kept free of NATO installations, and that the enlargement of NATO end, if agreed to, would leave Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova and Belarus permanently outside.

But if Moscow is going to push to remove NATO forces from its borderlands, this means an endless series of diplomatic-military clashes or a U.S. recognition of a Russian sphere of influence where NATO does not go.

In short, a Putin Monroe Doctrine.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM

What Matters Most to Nations and Peoples?

/14 Comments/in /by

Their greater fear is not of Putin’s Russia but of an EU superstate whose dominance leads inexorably to the decline and disappearance of distinct ethnic nations. To the leaders of Hungary and Poland and the traditionalist and populist right-wing parties of Europe, nationality matters more than political systems.

Speaking in Conroe, Texas, last weekend, former President Donald Trump accused his successor of allowing millions of migrants to enter the country illegally across our Southern border.

“The most important border … for us is not Ukraine’s border but America’s border,” thundered Trump.

“Before Joe Biden sends any troops to defend a border in Europe, he should be sending troops to defend our border right here in Texas.”

Thus did Trump not only frame a compelling issue for the fall election; he has framed an issue that touches on one of the great and deepening divides of our time.

Which matters more — the defense of our country from an invasion of migrants from the Third World, or the defense of the borders of distant nations that have little or nothing to do with the security or survival of the United States?

Why should who rules the Russified Donbas be America’s concern?

This “border issue” feeds into other Republican issues.

For the border crossers seen on national TV appear to be mostly young men, who will likely contribute to the crime crisis of shootings and killings plaguing America’s cities.

Illegal immigration is also the ways and means by which illegal drugs enter the United States. Last year, 100,000 Americans, most of them young, died of overdoses, with two-thirds of these Americans succumbing to fentanyl that is produced in China and comes through Mexico.

Trump’s framing of the issue as between the foreign borders we defend and America’s border that we do not also divides the GOP.

The interventionist wing of the party seeks a confrontation with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, while America First nationalists urge a refocus of U.S. troops and resources to our own bleeding southern border.

And illegal migration is rising as an issue not only in the United States but across Europe.

In France, the four leading presidential candidates — incumbent Emmanuel Macron, nationalist Marine Le Pen, the center-right candidate Valerie Pecresse and the far-right candidate Eric Zemmour — are all making the invasion of Europe an issue, and taking a tougher line.

Over the same weekend that Trump spoke in Texas, the leaders of two NATO nations that border Ukraine headed to Madrid for a gathering titled “Defend Europe.” The threat that brought them to the Spanish capital was not Russia’s military presence on Ukraine’s borders.

Reports The New York Times:

“Instead of tackling the Russian threat to Europe’s eastern frontier, the meeting attended by the prime ministers of Poland and Hungary, Mateusz Morawiecki and Viktor Orban, focused on what the populist leaders cite as their most pressing threats: immigration, demographic decline and the European Union … ”

“France’s far-right presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, an outspoken fan of the Kremlin, was also at the two-day conclave … ”

“A declaration issued after the Madrid gathering made no mention of Ukraine. … It instead stressed the need to form a united front in favor of ‘family policies,’ Christianity and keeping out immigrants. The European Union, the statement said, had become ‘detached from reality,’ leading to ‘demographic suicide.’”

In brief, while Western elites are alarmed about the borders of Ukraine and Kremlin encroachments, much of Europe is more concerned about its own moral, cultural and demographic decline — abortion, LGBT rights, low birth rates and the death of Christianity.

Europe is in danger of dying, these people believe.

These Europeans are concerned that the nations and peoples their ancestors and fathers knew are going out of existence. Their greater fear is not of Putin’s Russia but of an EU superstate whose dominance leads inexorably to the decline and disappearance of distinct ethnic nations.

To the leaders of Hungary and Poland and the traditionalist and populist right-wing parties of Europe, nationality matters more than political systems.

Hungary’s Viktor Orban, for example, does not regard Putin’s Russia as an enemy of his country, and provides economic incentives for Hungarian families to have more children.

Consider. If the birth rates of the ethnic groups that historically have made up the nations of Europe are now below replacement levels, 2.1 children per woman, these peoples will become minorities in their own countries and eventually die out.

Extinction beckons.

Why should the inhabitants of these nations care about the borders of other countries, if their own countries are slowly passing away?

And why should the future inhabitants of Europe from Africa and Asia in year 2100, who will inherit, populate and rule these lands, care about the old borders created by the history of yesterday’s Europeans?

As the peoples of Europe are divided between those who fear demographic death in the long run and those who fear autocratic Russian dominance in the near term, so, too, are Americans divided.

Our ruling class, to whom the world struggle is between autocracy and democracy, are willing to fight for the triumph of the latter over the former.

The other half of America is more concerned with the character and composition of their own nation, present and future, which also appears to be passing away.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. 
COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM

Whoopie! Jews are not White

/62 Comments/in , /by

If Whites hope to ever win the demographic war which is being waged upon us, then we need long memories—and it makes no difference if what we remember is great or small.

Earlier this week, The View co-host and former-comedienne Whoopi Goldberg did one of those small things when she inadvertently insulted a great many Jews. She stated that the Jewish Holocaust was “not about race” and later doubled down on that. She didn’t say the Jewish Holocaust was a good thing, nor did she downplay it, revise it, or deny it. She simply removed race from the equation because she felt that Germans and Jews “are two groups of white people.” Presumably, she would have the same opinion of Caesar’s campaigns in Gaul or the English Civil War. It’s just whitey killing whitey, so where does race come into it?

Instantly, however, Jews from both ends of the political spectrum (and some nastier than others) showed Whoopi exactly where race comes into it: That would be everywhere. But, of course! And Whoopi Goldberg, mainstream media talking head that she is, should have known that.

Let’s start with that doyen of diaspora, Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League, who came onto The View  to scold Whoopi for her transgressions:

Well, Whoopi, there’s no question that the Holocaust was about race. That’s how the Nazis saw it as they perpetrated the systematic annihilation of the Jewish people across continents, across countries with deliberate and ruthless cruelty.

On Twitter, an organization called Stop Antisemitism j’accused:

Newsflash @WhoopiGoldberg 6 million of us were gassed, starved, and massacred because we were deemed an inferior race by the Nazis. How dare you minimize our trauma and suffering!

In an article called “Whoopi Goldberg’s Holocaust Comments Were Wrong – and I’m Glad She Said Them,” Nora Berman of the ever-useful Forward had this to say:

I am generally a fan of Whoopi. I enjoy her biting wit, and I truly don’t think she’s an anti-Semite. Yet if popular members of the mainstream media continue to affirm the false claim that all Jews are white and the Holocaust was an expression of “white on white violence,” then the broader lessons on how humans should treat each other that Goldberg was seemingly trying to articulate will be lost.

Then we have the motor-mouthed, Israel-first conservative Ben Shapiro:

Whoopi Goldberg explaining that the Holocaust wasn’t about race because these were ‘two groups of white  people’ isn’t just insipid, it’s insidious. It’s downplaying the minority status of Jews in order to uphold bullshit intersectional arguments that justify anti-Semitism today. The intersectional argument is that Jews are white people, and that Jews are disproportionately privileged thanks to ‘white supremacy.’

Even further on the Right, we have Daniel Greenfield of Front Page Magazine, who responded with an article entitled “Whoopi Goldberg’s Dumb, Antisemitic Holocaust Comments Will Come With No Consequences” (Not true; she did get suspended):

On The View and on Colbert, Whoopi “Rape, Rape” Goldberg once again showed that she’s an idiot and that the current racialist view of identity politics has holes you can drive a truck through.

And here’s Ace of Spades co-blogger J.J. Sefton, who is about as right-wing as you can get for a mainstream Jew. He has little of substance to add other than to use the L’Affaire Whoopi as an excuse spew ad hominems and rant incoherently about Democrats, as he is wont to do.

The truth of the matter is, there’s very little difference in the mindset of the thugs that murdered Yankel Rosenbaum in the 1991 Crown Heights Pogrom than in the fiend who egged them on, Al Sharpton. Nor Whoopi Rape-Rape. And it’s all because Anti-American Left crave power by any and every means necessary, including the age old strategy of divide and conquer. Whoopi is an unreconstructed pig ignorant stooge just as much as the homies who play the knockout game.

So, we should be a seeing a pattern here. Regardless of a Chosen One’s politics, being called “white” in the context of the Jewish Holocaust is deeply offensive. This is pretty much the alpha and omega of the Jewish grievance industry. In other words, when a Jewish writer, pundit, politician, activist—what have you—talks publicly about the Jewish Holocaust, you can count on it that it will be as a Jew first and foremost. It won’t be as a White person, or as an American, or a Democrat, or a Los Angeles Lakers fan. This is where the truth comes out, and it comes out urgently. This is why almost all public Jewish responses to Whoopi’s statements fall close to the Y-axis on the Grand Logarithmic Scale of Jewish Indignance.

Here is my slightly-less-than-scientific (read: fake) regression scatter plot analysis of the phenomenon:

Note that the Right-to-Left correlation on this graph is somewhere around 0.00.

In fact, I did an internet search on “Whoopi was right” and got all of one hit. A not-entirely-terrible substack article from someone named MJ Rosenberg. His basic claim is that while Jews are White and have never considered themselves a race, we still need to fight racism, anti-Semitism, etc. (Sigh.)

Where’s Norman Finkelstein when you need him?

Anyway, for what’s worth, I’m with the Jews on this one. As I have stated before, Jews are not White people. If they were, they would have just shrugged their shoulders after Whoopi’s comment and forgotten all about it. Millions were killed in the Thirty Years War too, and you don’t see the French and Germans today taking offense over a claim that the slaughter wasn’t about race. That’s because it wasn’t.

But here is where our long memories need to kick in. From now on, whenever Jews try to attain some kind of advantage by claiming that they’re White, we need to remind them of the Jew-first standard they set for themselves during Whoopi’s little dreadlock drama. The violation of such standards is what led to the “My Fellow White People” trope on the Right, which catches Jews claiming they’re White when it suits them, and then later claiming they’re Jewish when it suits them. Here it is explained pretty well in The Forward (without bothering to refute it). This Stormfront thread gives a pretty good rundown as well. Jews don’t want to be considered white? Fine. And that’s how it’s going to stay.

An instructive inverse of this scandal occurred back in 2016 when hard rock icon Ted Nugent re-tweeted a meme showing how some of the most powerful gun control advocates are really Jewish. (Yes, it is true.) Unlike Whoopi Goldberg, however, the meme reveals Jews rather than obscures them. But because the meme painted Jews as victimizers, they must not be seen as Jewish but as White. In Whoopi’s case, however, Jews are seen as victims. Therefore, they must remain as Jews.

This is perfectly self-serving and hypocritical. And if you call such people out for it, they shriek “Anti-Semitism!” and try to ruin you. If not for the manifest power Jews wield today, there’d be no reason for Whites to take these people seriously at all—except, of course, as a threat. Case in point, the Trump-hating Jew Max Boot, someone I have written about before:

Max Boot is a disingenuous, ethnocentric Jew who hates white people—especially the ones that are as ethnocentric as he is. He’s then pretends to be white in order to convince other whites that they should allow themselves to become minorities in their own countries—to atone for the sins of a tiny fraction of their ancestors or to strive nobly for equality and social justice and other leftist illusions. He has no sympathy when whites complain about discrimination and ascribes this to “fear they are losing their privileged position to people of color” rather than any legitimate concerns for their group interests.

The article he wrote that prompted my response was entitled “Get a Grip, White People. We’re not Victims.” from 2019. In it, he complains about how Trump capitalizes on “white rage,” tells of an abusive White customer at a South African restaurant, frets over how 55% of Whites see anti-White discrimination as a problem, sheds a few crocodile tears over the plight of Blacks in America, and then links all of this to the 2019 El Paso shooting. This is how he ends it:

White people can be pretty clueless. (I know, I’m one myself.) Get a grip, folks. We’re not the victims here. Thinking that we are us is not just wrong. It’s dangerous. It’s a mind-set that can justify everything from a public temper tantrum to a shooting spree.

As if White people don’t have a right not to be discriminated against. As if we don’t have a right to remain the majority in nations we founded and in lands that have been ours since antiquity.

Anti-White Jews like Max Boot are the reason why we have the “My Fellow White People” trope to begin with. This is not anti-Semitism. This is truth. So, get a grip, Jews. With the Whoopi Goldberg affair, you showed your true colors. And we’re going to hold you to it.

“She Ain’t Heavy”: How Denying Race Means Promoting Rape

/10 Comments/in , /by

“He ain’t heavy: he’s my brother,” sang the Hollies in 1969. A few decades later, an enterprising individual in the northern English city of Leeds could have sung an interesting new variant on those lyrics, namely: “She ain’t heavy: she’s my next rape-victim.” Yes, late one night in 2015 the individual in question literally carried an unconscious woman through the streets as he looked for a convenient place to rape her.

The race of the rapist

Well, I’m a racist, which is short for “racial realist,” so when I saw the relevant headline in the Guardian, I made a prediction about the race of the rapist. Sure enough, I was right:

Man caught on CCTV carrying woman through Leeds admits rape

A rapist who was caught on CCTV carrying his victim through Leeds city centre before he attacked her has admitted his guilt nearly seven years after the incident took place. West Yorkshire police released the footage in 2015. It showed a smartly dressed man now known to have been Austin Osayande carrying a woman through deserted streets. Police said the 24-year-old victim had been walking to get a taxi home at about 5am after a night out with friends.

Osayande, 40, was not caught until last September when he was arrested in connection with a separate sexual assault. On Thursday at Leeds crown court, Osayande pleaded guilty to one count of rape and one count of sexual assault by penetration. He was remanded in custody and a sentencing hearing was scheduled for 23 February. Police said at the time that the CCTV footage showed a man, who had the appearance of a doorman, “walking with purpose” around the city centre before approaching the woman. He was described as black, aged 30 to 40, tall and with a shaved head. He was wearing a long black overcoat and black trousers. …

Police said the man appeared a number of times on CCTV cameras. One piece of footage showed him loitering in a car park. Another showed him approaching a woman at 4.45am. “The other footage we have released shows this man walking around Leeds city centre and we strongly believe he was looking for someone to attack before he focused on the victim,” said Twiggs. … Leeds Live reported that Osayande, of Leeds, previously denied the charges but replied “I’m guilty” to the two charges when they were formally put to him on Thursday. (Man caught on CCTV carrying woman through Leeds admits rape, The Guardian, 28th January 2022)

“She ain’t heavy: she’s my next rape-victim” — the Black serial rapist Austin Osayande at work

But you could say “She ain’t heavy” in another sense of the victim. And of all other victims of non-White rapists, particularly White ones. The victims don’t weigh heavily in leftist ideas about rape and rape-culture. In fact, they don’t weigh at all. I was surprised that the Guardian referred explicitly to the race of the rapist:  “He was described as black.” Otherwise the Guardian and other leftist media have reacted to this grotesque crime exactly as you would expect: by refusing to give it the loud and continued publicity it deserves. It should have inspired a slew of outraged commentary about misogyny, toxic masculinity, and the horrors of rape-culture. After all, the crime was perfect for feminist posturing. But the criminal most certainly wasn’t. He was Black and leftists refuse to admit the truth about Blacks and rape. The vile racist stereotypes are all true: Blacks commit much more rape and in worse ways. Gang-rape, for example, is a Black speciality. One of the most horrible things I have ever read is this candid description of the genuine rape-culture that exists among Blacks in the United States:

It was the first day of summer vacation. I was fourteen years old and had just completed the eighth grade, marking the end of my junior high school days. I was sitting at home, watching TV, when the telephone rang. “Hello,” I said.

“Yo, Nate, this is Lep!”

“Yo, Lep, what’s up?”

“We got one. She phat as a motherfucka! Got nice titties, too! We at Turkey Buzzard’s crib. You better come on over and get in on it!”

“See you in a heartbeat.”

When I got to Turkey Buzzard’s place a few blocks away, Bimbo, Frog Dickie, Shane, Lep, Cooder, almost the whole crew, about twelve guys in all, were already there, grinning and joking like they had stolen something.

Actually, they had stolen something: They were holding a girl captive in one of the back bedrooms.

Turkey Buzzard’s parents were away at work. I learned that the girl was Vanessa, a black beauty whose family had recently moved into our neighborhood, less than two blocks from where I lived. She seemed like a nice girl. When I first noticed her walking to and from school, I had wanted to check her out. Now it was too late. She was about to have a train run on her [be gang-raped]. No way she could be somebody’s straight-up girl after going through a train.

Vanessa was thirteen years old and very naive. She thought she had gone to Turkey Buzzard’s crib just to talk with somebody she had a crush on. A bunch of the fellas hid in closets and under beds. When she stepped inside and sat down, they sprang from their hiding places and blocked the door so that she couldn’t leave.

When I got there, two or three dudes were in the back room, trying to persuade her to give it up. The others were pacing about in the living room, joking and arguing about the lineup, about who would go first.

That train [gang-rape] on Vanessa was definitely a turning point for most of us. We weren’t aware of what it symbolized at the time, but that train marked our real coming together as a gang. It certified us as a group of hanging partners who would do anything and everything together. It sealed our bond in the same way some other guys consummated their alliances by rumbling together in gang wars against downtown boys. In doing so, we served notice mostly to ourselves that we were a group of up-and-coming young cats with a distinct identity in a specific portion of Cavalier Manor that we intended to stake out as our own.

After that first train, we perfected the art of luring babes into those kinds of traps. We ran a train at my house when my parents were away. We ran many at Bimbo’s crib because both his parents worked. And we set up one at Lep’s place and even let his little brother get in on it. He couldn’t have been more than eight or nine. He probably didn’t even have a sex drive yet. He was just imitating what he saw us do, in the same way we copied older hoods we admired. Different groups of guys set up their own trains. Although everybody knew it could lead to trouble with the law, I think few guys thought of it as rape. It was viewed as a social thing among hanging partners, like passing a joint. The dude who set up the train got pats on the back. He was considered a real player whose rap game was strong.

I think most girls gave in when trains were sprung on them because they went into shock. They were so utterly unprepared for anything that wild that it freaked them out. By the time they realized that they’d been set up, they were stripped naked, lying on a bed or in the backseat of a car, with a crowd of crazed looking dudes hovering overhead.

I always wondered what went on inside girls’ heads when that was happening to them. Afterward, most girls were too ashamed and freaked out to tell. They knew that if they snitched to the cops, the thing would become public news and their name would be mud. But every now and then, some chick squealed, and somebody caught a charge. Then guys got their buddies to go to court and testify that the girl was a footloose ‘ho’ whom they each had boned.

Most girls seemed to lose something vital inside after they’d been trained. Their self-esteem dropped and they didn’t care about themselves anymore. That happened to a girl named Shirley, who was once trained by Scobe and so many other guys that she was hospitalized. After that, I guess she figured nobody wanted her as a straight-up girl. So Shirley let guys run trains on her all the time.

Taken from Makes Me Wanna Holler: A Young Black Man in America by Nathan McCall (b. 1955), Professor of Afro-American Studies, Emory University (see here and here)

That’s what Blacks do to Black women and girls in the United States. But Blacks in all Western nations  disproportionately target White women, as the Black revolutionary Eldridge Cleaver (1935–1998) boasted way back in 1968: “Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women—and this point, I believe, was the most satisfying to me because I was very resentful over the historical fact of how the white man has used the black woman. I felt I was getting revenge. From the site of the act of rape, consternation spreads outwardly in concentric circles. I wanted to send waves of consternation throughout the white race.”

Black rapist Eldridge Cleaver with his Jewish friend and supporter Elaine Klein

How do leftists react to the completely open and unashamed avowal of rape-culture by Blacks like Cleaver and McCall? It’s simple: they ignore it and continue to promote the fantasy of Blacks as saintly victims of White oppression. By doing so, they allow the genuine rape-culture of Blacks and other non-Whites to continue unchecked. But leftists do worse than that. They don’t merely refuse to interfere with non-White rape-culture: they incite non-Whites to commit more and worse rape.

It’s characteristic of leftism that it promotes what it claims to oppose. Rape is no exception. Leftists have vastly increased rape in Western nations by doing two things: first, by opening the borders to Third-World immigration; second, by instilling resentment in non-Whites with incessant propaganda about White racism. That is, leftists don’t merely import non-White men with a much higher propensity to commit rape: they incite those men to commit rape against White women.

Labour’s betrayal of the working-class

They then do their best to deny and censor the truth about the rapes they have so assiduously promoted. Before he was imprisoned for fraud in 2013, the Labour MP Denis MacShane had spent many years proclaiming his passionate support for socialism and women’s rights. Meanwhile, right under his nose in his Yorkshire constituency of Rotherham, White working-class girls were being raped, beaten, and prostituted on an industrial scale by enterprising gangs of Pakistani Muslims. Decade after decade MacShane did nothing. He was too busy working on behalf of Jews in far-off London. And they were grateful for his efforts: after he was jailed, the Jewish Chronicle saluted him as one of the “greatest champions” of “the Jewish community.”

But MacShane wasn’t supposed to be in politics to champion Jews: as a Labour MP, he was there to champion the White working-class. Instead, he betrayed the White working-class. He wasn’t alone: the so-called Labour party has been betraying Whites for many decades. The former Labour deputy-leader Roy Hattersley has openly boasted about his own treachery in the Guardian: “For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist [my white working-class constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy—otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all [Third-World] immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”

The Jewish fathers of race-denial

Denis MacShane has always been one of the Jewish community’s “greatest champions.” Roy Hattersley has a Jewish wife, just like Keir Starmer, the current leader of the Labour party. All this is no coincidence, because Jewish fund-raisers and lobbyists are firmly in control of both sides of British politics, which is why the interests of Whites are not merely neglected but vigorously and viciously opposed. At the same time, the race-denial of Jewish Marxists like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Steven Rose continues to corrupt government policy and public discourse in Britain and all other Western nations. Race-denial insists that all races are the same under the skin and capable of exactly the same high achievement. It follows, therefore, that only one explanation is possible when non-Whites under-achieve by comparison with Whites. The all-powerful malevolence of White racism must be at work once again:

White applicants to civil service scheme accepted at far higher rate, figures show

White applicants to the government’s elite graduate scheme are three times more likely to win a place than their black counterparts, new analysis shows. A record number of graduates applied to join the UK government’s civil service fast stream between 2019 and 2021, with more than 160,800 external applicants for just 3,290 places, a success rate of just under one in 50. However, the figures show that the chances of success differed greatly for separate ethnic backgrounds.

People from black African or Caribbean backgrounds had a success rate of one in 137 when applying to join the fast stream between 2019 and 2021. In comparison, white applicants had a success rate of one in 44, while Asian applicants had a success rate of one in 77 to join the scheme. Overall, ethnic minority representation improved slightly, from 19% in 2020 to 23% in 2021.

Anneliese Dodds, the shadow secretary for women and equalities, described the figures as a “disgrace” and said it showed “just how far ministers are falling short of their promise to make the civil service the UK’s most inclusive employer”. She attacked the “Conservative incompetence and denial of the existence of structural racism” for allowing these disparities to exist. … Dodds, who is also the chair of the Labour party, said: “It’s a disgrace that young people from black backgrounds are still three times less likely than their white counterparts to win a place on the government’s elite graduate scheme. … Conservative incompetence and denial of the existence of structural racism are creating barriers to success for young people from ethnic minority backgrounds. Labour has a plan to dismantle those barriers and support talented black, Asian and minority ethnic people to reach their full potential, with a new race equality act to tackle structural racial inequality at source.” (White applicants to civil service scheme accepted at far higher rate, figures show, The Guardian, 23rd Jan 2022)

Anneliese Dodds is completely wrong about those patterns of achievement. It is not “structural racism” that explains them: it is thousands of years of divergent evolution among geographically separated races of human being inhabiting very different environments with very different psychological and physiological challenges. Blacks literally have smaller brains, on average, than Whites and those Black brains are not adapted for the literacy, conscientiousness, and self-control required for competent performance in the civil service.

Foundations of fantasy

But leftists ignore the hate-facts about White and Black difference that have been uncovered by anatomy, genetics and psychometrics. And here I think we can see that many right-wing commentators are wrong when they say that leftism is “materialist.” Leftism is actually the least materialist of ideologies, in that it is the least realistic of ideologies. It pursues power and revenge, not truth or justice, and is fuelled by lies and fantasy, not by facts and reality.

And in some ways, the dishonesty and deceit of leftism give it an advantage. Leftists can travel much faster to their goal of power because their ideology is unburdened by the need to understand the world and avoid unintended consequences. But in another way, leftism is fatally undermined by its reliance on lies and fantasies. You can build a power-structure higher and faster when you don’t care about its foundations. But the foundations are decisive in the end, as this parable by Jesus points out:

7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 7:25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 7:26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. (Gospel of Matthew)

Leftists have built their power on sand, and floods of upheaval and conflict are coming throughout the Western world. Great will be the fall of leftism. After that, our job will be to re-build the West on firm foundations: the rock of reality and recognition of racial difference.

Is the territorial integrity of Ukraine a cause worth America’s fighting a war with Russia?

/79 Comments/in /by

Editor’s note: Starting today, Pat Buchanan’s columns will appear on TOO. This is a great addition. The column below is a good example of PB’s foreign policy views. Why go to war with Russia over Ukraine possibly becoming a member of NATO when Russia has legitimate fears of NATO encroachment that has been ongoing since 1991? And yet, one doesn’t have to listen long to mainstream conservative politicians and some Fox News talking heads who are rattling the war drums. It’s tempting to surmise that the real Russia hate stems from the  policies in the Middle East — alliances with Syria and Iran,  both enemies of Israel. A successful campaign against Russia would result in a realignment of power in the Middle East in Israel’s favor. Who is Russia really endangering? The US political and media establishment, particularly the Democrats, have been beating the war drums against Russia ever since Trump won in 2016. Exposing the collusion hoaxes certainly hasn’t slowed them down.

Pat Buchanan has a long history of understanding the fealty of the US political and media class to Israel, beginning with his classic 1990 statements on Operation Desert Storm: “there are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East – the Israeli defense ministry and its ‘amen corner’ in the United States.” And: “Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory”. He also said in the August 1990 program: “The Israelis want this war desperately because they want the United States to destroy the Iraqi war machine. They want us to finish them off. They don’t care about our relations with the Arab world.”

Pat Buchanan has an excellent, fearless grasp of political realities. He is just as relevant now as ever.

Is the territorial integrity of Ukraine a cause worth America’s fighting a war with Russia?

No, it is not. And this is why President Joe Biden has declared that the U.S. will not become militarily involved should Russia invade Ukraine.

Biden is saying that, no matter our sentiments, our vital interests dictate staying out of a Russia-Ukraine war.

But why then does Secretary of State Antony Blinken continue to insist there is an “open door” for Ukraine to NATO membership — when that would require us to do what U.S. vital interests dictate we not do: fight a war with Russia for Ukraine?

NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Article 10, which declares that NATO members, “may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State … to accede to this Treaty.”

Moreover, membership is open to “any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.”

Note that NATO admission requires “unanimous” consent of all 30 present members.

Blinken has often stated this as U.S. policy: “From our perspective, NATO’s door is open and remains open, and that is our commitment.”

What Blinken is saying is this: While America will not fight for Ukraine today, America remains open to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, in which event we would have to fight for Ukraine tomorrow, were it attacked by Russia.

What the U.S. needs to do is to say with clarity that while Ukraine is free to apply to NATO, NATO is free to veto that application, and the enlargement of NATO beyond its present eastern frontiers is over, done.

In this crisis, we need to recall how and why NATO was created.

In 1949, the year China fell to Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin exploded an atom bomb, we formed NATO as a defensive alliance to prevent a Russian drive west, from the Elbe to the Rhine to the Channel.

Of the original 12 members of NATO, the U.S. and Canada were on the western side of the Atlantic. Iceland and the U.K. were islands in the Atlantic. France and Portugal were on the Atlantic’s eastern shore.

Denmark, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg were astride the avenue of attack the Red Army would have to take to reach the Channel.

Norway was the lone original NATO nation that shared a border with the USSR itself. Italy was the 12th member.

Clearly, this was a defensive alliance to prevent a Soviet invasion of Western Europe such as Hitler had executed in the spring of 1940, when Nazi Germany overran Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and France, and threw the British off the continent at Dunkirk.

Nations that joined NATO during the Cold War were Greece and Turkey in 1952, Germany in 1955, and Spain in 1982.

But, with the end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the overthrow of Soviet Communism, and the breakup of the USSR into 15 nations by 1991, NATO, its goal — the defense of Central and Western Europe — achieved, its job done, did not go out of business.

Instead, NATO added 14 new members and moved almost 1,000 miles east, into Russia’s front yard and then onto Russia’s front porch.

The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined in 1999. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia became NATO nations in 2004. Albania and Croatia joined in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in 2020.

Understandably, Russian President Vladimir Putin asked himself: To what end, and for what beneficent purpose, was this doubling in size of an alliance that was formed to contain us, and, if necessary, fight a war against Mother Russia?

Alliances, which involve war guarantees, commitments to fight in defense of the allied nations, invariably carry costs and risks as well as rewards and benefits in terms of strengthened security.

But when we brought Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into NATO, what benefits in added strength did we receive to justify the provocation this would be to Russia, and the risk it might entail if Moscow objected and, one fine day, walked back into these Baltic states?

If we will not fight for the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, the second largest nation in Europe with a population of over 40 million people, why would we go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia over Estonia, a tiny and almost indefensible nation with a population of 1.3 million?

Besides Ukraine, two nations have been considering membership in NATO: Finland and Georgia. Accession of either would put NATO on yet another border of Russia, with the usual U.S. bases and forces.

While this would enrage Russia, how would it make us stronger?

Perhaps, instead of adding new nations on whose behalf we will go to war with a great power like Russia, we consider reducing the roster of NATO and restricting the number of nations for whom we must fight to those nations that are vital to our security and bring added strength to the alliance.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM

Anatomy of the Hate Hoax

/28 Comments/in /by

 

 “Professor Abramovsky asserts that ‘no-one seriously questions the severity of the problem [of bias crime]. We do. The uncritical acceptance of a hate crime epidemic is unfortunate.”
Barrett Jacobs and J. Henry “The Social Construction of a Hate Crime Epidemic,” 1996.[1]

“Obviously the hate label is a blunt one. It’s one of the things that gives it power.”
Richard Cohen, SPLC, November 2018.

“Utterly fake.” This was my opinion when a colleague mentioned the recent assault on two Jews in London by a Black teenager. “What do you mean, fake? It was caught on camera,” he shot back. My colleague was correct, but had missed the finer point. The video footage shows two bearded Orthodox Jews locking up their shop for the night before a tall Black male walks towards them. The Black male then utters something, which seems to panic the Jews, before a fumbling and awkward physical encounter ensues. The violence, which is over in about four seconds, is minimal, even comical. Its ultimate cause or provocation, beyond the chaotic and impulsive qualities common to Black criminality, remains unknown. This random and primitive quality, however, hasn’t prevented the incident from being portrayed as systematic, or as involving a complexity not seen outside Asian books of war. It quickly became headline news, drawing condemnations of the scourge of “anti-Semitic” violence from both the British Prime Minister and the Home Secretary.

The fake framing of this banal and predictable instance of Black youth violence as “anti-Semitism” has fallen very swiftly into a pattern we are now familiar with: the state of “permanent hate emergency.” Back in August, the FBI reported that hate crimes in the US has reached their highest levels in 12 years. San Francisco police have just today announced that there has been a 567% increase in hate crimes against Asians and Pacific Islanders. Joe Biden has called on Congress to “urgently” pass harsher hate crime legislation. The UK reported “soaring” homophobic hate crimes during 2021. Canada announced last year that hate crimes against Asians rose 717%, while hate crimes of all kinds rose “sharply.” Ireland reports that hate crimes have risen 80%. France has alleged a 53% increase in Islamophobic hate crime, a 36% rise in homophobic hate crime, and a 75% increase in anti-Semitic hate crime. I could go on. The White world, it seems, is suddenly consumed with hate; a boiling cauldron of reactionary aggression. Or is it?

The real state of the hate crime epidemic? Utterly fake.

There are countless people in our culture today who would resent this hate denialism as Far Right propaganda or, in the terminology ushered in during the Trump presidency, as a “war on Truth.” And yet the state of “permanent hate emergency” that we are being subjected to by politicians and the media has been debunked for more than 25 years, in no less a journal than Northwestern University’s Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. In “The Social Construction of a Hate Crime Epidemic,” published in 1996 by James Barrett Jacobs and Jessica Henry,[2] we see all the hallmarks of the present panic as well as a very clear analysis of how the panic is manufactured by organizations like the ADL, justified by (very often Jewish) academics, and maintained through media lies and political corruption.

Jacobs and Henry begin their article by pointing out that

Politicians, journalists, interest groups, and some criminologists insist that the United States is experiencing an across-the-board hate crime “epidemic.” The use of the epidemic metaphor is meant to dramatize a sharply accelerating hate crime rate. Assertions that a hate crime epidemic exists are almost always accompanied by recommendations for new “hate crime laws” that increase minimum and/or maximum punishment for offenders.

The fundamental nature of the “hate crime epidemic” is therefore that it is a politically motivated social construct intended to provoke freedom-reducing legal changes. Jacobs and Henry write that they intend

to deconstruct the claim that the United States is experiencing a hate crime epidemic. Drawing on the “social construction of reality” perspective, we attempt to show how the “reality” of a hate crime epidemic has come to prevail. First, we examine the hate crime epidemic hypothesis and identify its proponents, including advocacy groups, the media, academics, and politicians. Second, we examine the hate crime data collection efforts of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Klanwatch Project (Klanwatch) and the FBI; figures from these groups are widely used to confirm the existence of the hate crime epidemic. Third, we demonstrate the political and subjective nature of counting hate crimes. Fourth, we offer some contrarian observations on the status of hate crimes.

The Language of Disease

By the mid-1990s it had become common for commentators to “assert that the rates of all types of hate crimes taken individually and together have reached epidemic levels.” Then, as now, prominent politicians and public figures employed metaphors designed to imply that “hate crimes” had suddenly exploded and were spiraling out of control. In many cases, the language was closely related to the growing fashion of referring to anti-Semitism as a contagious disease, and the most prominent of the “hate crime epidemic” propagandists were themselves Jewish. In 1994,  for example, Steven Spielberg, still riding the crest of the Schindler’s List wave, told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that “hate crimes are an epidemic.”[3] Describing “hate crimes” in such a way not only induces a sense of panic and crisis conducive to legal change, but also dehumanizes both the phenomenon of ethnic conflict, in whatever honest form it may take, and the “hater.” No-one questions the context or motives of a virus, and in the same way describing any form of ethnic conflict in terms of disease or virology is intended to inhibit any discussion of prior causality. People become so agitated by the thought of something negative spreading in a viral fashion that the emphasis is placed on eradication (criminalization and punishment) rather than analysis or understanding.

The entire concept of “hate” and “hate crime” can be seen as little more than a self-interested and dishonest attempt by minority groups to obtain resources from the majority group. Jacobs and Henry write that

The leading proponents of a hate crime epidemic thesis are advocacy groups representing gays and lesbians, Jews, and blacks; advocates for women, Asian-Americans, and the disabled also have demanded explicit inclusion in hate crime legislation. By calling attention to the criminal victimization of their members, these advocates may hope to mobilize law enforcement resources on behalf of their members, and, more broadly, to make out a moral and political claim in furtherance of their groups’ agenda of social and political goals.

Strategic Victimhood

Rather than being rooted in reality, “hate epidemic” allegations are predominately tactical or, in the words of Jacobs and Henry, “functional.” They point in particular to the example of the ADL and the SPLC, and stress that the basic function of these groups is not to “fight hate” or any other nebulous goal, but rather to “eradicate all bias against those whom they represent.” In other words, when the ADL speaks about “fighting hate” or “building hope” or any other such nonsense, it is merely a cover for the basic goal of shaping the culture, the law, and politics in such a fashion that will ultimately benefit the constituents of that group: in the case of the ADL, Jews. Jacobs and Henry comment that “whatever the actual number of hate crimes, these groups’ assertion of a hate crime epidemic effectively gains them political support.” Hate epidemic propaganda does this by focusing public attention and resources on the manipulating minority group in question, and helps create social and behavioral changes that will ultimately benefit that minority group at the expense of the majority.

Gays, Jews, and Blacks are noted by Jacobs and Henry as employing a fundamentally identical strategy — that of irrationally pursuing a zero-sum scenario in which they accrue no negativity. Any instance of violence or murder affecting their group, regardless of context or motivation, is liable to be integrated into a narrative of mass persecution and rampant hate crime. I was baffled recently, for example, to read an article in The Guardian alleging that the homosexual British serial killer Dennis Nilsen had committed “homophobic” crimes because his victims were gays — this despite the fact Nilsen was himself a lifelong homosexual and that homosexuals are so radically overrepresented in necrophilic homicide[4] of the kind that Nilsen engaged in (see also the high-profile examples of Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, and Stephen Port) that it could be described as a gay problem or an aspect of the homosexual mind. The narrative of a hate crime epidemic is dependent on total omission of context and the privileging of “victim” perspectives beyond all rational measure. Jacobs and Henry cite a case where a report by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force includes frequent claims that, in terms of anti-gay violence, “we have an epidemic on our hands, one that is in need of a remedy.” But in the same report the actual statistics revealed that violence against gays had decreased 12% in the six cities surveyed.

Media Hype

Because the “hate crime epidemic” strategy is so successful, it has been mimicked by almost every minority group. Jacobs and Henry point out that, although pioneered by Jews, other groups̶—Blacks, and gays, feminists and East Asian advocacy organizations—soon started complaining about a violent war on women and an explosion in anti-Asian hate. Jacobs and Henry point out that the success of such strategies is dependent on media hype that saturates the public conversation and prompts panicked calls for action from minorities as well as muted acquiescence from a morally sham–ed majority. Headlines cited by Jacobs and Henry include “A Cancer of Hatred Afflicts America,” and “Rise in Hate Crimes Signals Alarming Resurgence of Bigotry.” Often these are shameless misrepresentations of data contained within the body of the article in question, with Jacobs and Henry pointing out that one headline, “Bias Crimes Flare Up in City’s Heat,” was followed several paragraphs later by the sentence “the number of bias-related incidents in the city dropped in the first half of this year from the same period last year.”

As noted by Jacobs and Henry, the media salivates at the slightest hint of bias-related crime in which the majority (White, heterosexual) culture can be implicated:

The media seem almost enthusiastic in presuming the worst about the state of inter-group relationships in American society. For example, a Florida newspaper presented a horrifying attack on an African-American tourist as “a dramatic example of the growing problem of hate crime,” but the writer provided no basis for the assertion that there is a “growing problem of hate.” Sometimes the media may even be responsible for triggering hate crimes. When two African-American children in New York City reported that several whites had sprayed them with white shoe polish, the media gave the incident endless publicity. The week after the alleged attack, sixty-one bias incidents [attacks on Whites] were reported. When, weeks later, the New York Police Department effectively abandoned the investigation amid speculation that the original accusation was fabricated, the media hardly covered the story.

Academic Fraud

Particularly interesting is the exploration by Jacob and Henry of academic involvement in creating and perpetuating the state of “permanent hate emergency.” They single out figures like Jack Levin, Joan Weiss (Executive Director for the National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence), and Abraham Abramovsky, for selectively applying “data that do not support ‘the facts’ they claim to establish.” That these figures are Jewish should not be surprising, and their academic activity should be regarded as extensions of the ethnically self-interested activism of the ADL and similar organizations in perpetuating the hate crime hoax. Even today, Jews remain at the forefront of the production of pseudo-scholarly works claiming to explain “hate” and offering methods of countering it. These inevitably involve a reduction in the freedoms of the White heterosexual majority. One need only consider Robert Sternberg’s 2020 Perspectives on Hate, Deborah Levine’s 2019 When Hate Groups March Down Main Street, Keith Kahn-Harris’s 2019 Strange Hate, Jonathan Greenblatt’s 2022 It Could Happen Here: Why America Is Tipping from Hate to the Unthinkable, Melissa Abramowitz’s 2016 Hate Crimes in America, Sally Kohn’s 2018 The Opposite of Hate, and Jeffrey Israel’s 2019 Living with Hate in American Politics and Religion. It’s true we are facing an epidemic, not of hate but of Jewish hogwash.

Jacobs and Henry point out that academia overwhelmingly lends its support “to the social construction of hate crime as an epidemic.” Academics engage in a semi-industrial level of production of texts involving the reproduction of statistics and reports gathered from organizations like the ADL that have a vested interest in perpetuating the hate hoax. These texts also tend heavily towards propagandistic tactics such as an emphasis on particularly emotive or salacious cases of violence, no matter how rare. Jacobs and Henry remark on the proportion of discussion often “devoted to detailed descriptions of particular horrific hate crimes.” There is little to no attempt at obtaining a genuine and nuanced understanding of inter-ethnic conflict, with most academics in the field resorting to psychoanalysis, pop psychology, or accusations of “resentment” in the majority population. Jacobs and Henry comment that such explanations are

not based on any empirical studies but on the authors’ social speculation. The most significant problem with the authors’ speculation is the absence of any data on the hate crime rate. In short, the authors may have created a theory in search of a problem.

Often there is a blatant dismissal in these texts of even the need for statistics. It seems to be enough that the academics themselves merely intuitively “know” that a hate crime epidemic is ongoing. Joan Weiss, for example, once remarked “the problem is so pervasive that, even without accurate data, we know that thousands upon thousands of incidents occur throughout the country every year.” Weiss doesn’t possess any data, but she’s sure that many thousands of attacks have occurred. This, apparently, is bona fide social science. Abramovsky, in a 1992 peer-reviewed law journal article, wrote that “the most alarming statistic is that in 1990 the number of bias-related attacks on Asians almost doubled from the number reported in 1989.” Jacobs and Henry point out that the 1990 total was 11 incidents, and ask “Is a total of eleven bias incidents against Asian-Americans truly ‘alarming’ in a city with a 1990 Asian-American population of 512,719, and with a total of 710,222 FBI index crimes?” Either Abramovsky is an especially sensitive fellow, or he’s a bullshit artist of a particularly acute, and alarmingly common, kind.

Political Implications

Once public opinion has been sufficiently manipulated by ethnic interest groups, the media, and their allies in academia, the pathway is cleared for activism by political actors. This activism takes two forms. In the first instance, minority actors in politics (gays, Jews, Blacks etc.) pursue their own vested interests. In the second instance, those from the White heterosexual majority may support or even initiate measures that reduce the freedoms of their co-ethnic constituents due to social fashion (“fighting bigotry”), guilt (genuine belief in the hate epidemic), or material incentive (financial or electoral support from influential minorities). Jacobs and Henry write:

Politicians have enthusiastically climbed aboard the hate crime epidemic bandwagon. Denouncing hate crime and passing sentencing enhancement laws provides elected officials with an opportunity to decry bigotry. Politicians can propose anti-hate legislation as a cheap, quick-fix solution that sends powerful symbolic messages to important groups of constituents. Recognizing the political and symbolic importance of legislation, politicians embrace anti-bias laws, routinely citing advocacy groups’ statements and statistics.

Of these various motivations and approaches, it must be made clear that Jewish activism in the politics of “hate crime” is sufficiently prominent to merit special attention. Jewish politicians were involved in almost every attempt since 1945 to introduce hate speech legislation in the UK. Canadian hate legislation has its origins in the 1965 Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada, known more popularly as the Cohen Committee because it was created and steered by the Jewish lawyer Maxwell Cohen. In America, specific hate crime legislation was first attempted in the 1980s by the Jewish New York Attorney General Robert Abrams, who developed and attempted to pass the Bias Related Violence and Intimidation Act, which would heighten the punishment scale by one degree for every crime if a “hate” component was found to be involved. Abrams’s legislation was in part prompted by media-fuelled outrage over the 1987 case of Tawana Brawley, a 16-year-old Black teenager who alleged she had been raped, defecated on, and wrapped in a plastic bag by four White men. As with the “white shoe polish” incident, a jury later found that Brawley’s story was a work of pure fiction. Jews, including the American Jewish Committee and lawyers attached to the SPLC, were prominent at every stage of the 1988 Hate Crimes Statistics Act. One of the most vocal proponents of hate crime legislation in America since the 1968 Civil Rights Act is Tennessee’s Steve Cohen. In his own words:

I support the hate crimes bill and I was a sponsor of the bill that has gone through Congress. I also was a sponsor of the hate crimes legislation in Tennessee that was passed as well, when I was a Senator. In addition, as a Senator in Tennessee, I passed a bill in 1989 which dealt specifically with symbols of hate, religious and racial intimidation. Right now, I am looking into a federal law that would be stronger than what we have.

Statistics

Jacobs and Henry have an excellent section describing how the ADL produces statistics that are, from an objective scholarly perspective, totally worthless. They remark that although the ADL annually announces its data on “hate” with much fanfare “one cannot rely on the ADL audit as an indicator of hate crime.” The ADL’s methodology is heavily criticized, and a number of examples are provided. It was found, for example, that any damage caused by another person to a Jewish building would be regarded as an anti-Semitic attack, even if the context was something like a child throwing a rock at another child and missing, striking a synagogue window. One ADL-recorded “hate crime” involved a business owner in Georgia accusing a Jewish woman who questioned the price increase of a service of “trying to Jew me down.”

Jacobs and Henry point out that even though the ADL system of data collection is deeply flawed and agenda-driven, it has been emulated by other minority groups, especially homosexual lobby groups. After the passing of the 1988 Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the FBI was tasked with gathering hate crimes data. It’s noteworthy that the FBI was put under early pressure after its original methodology resulted in 73% of its reporting departments stating that there had been no hate crime incidences. The same groups who had been demanding FBI involvement (ADL, SPLC, gay groups) suddenly started denouncing the FBI. Jacobs and Henry comment:

The FBI statistics did not square with the much more alarmist reports put forward by advocacy groups for the same time period. For example, the FBI reported that 425 hate crimes nationwide were motivated by sexual-orientation bias. For the same period, the Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project reported 592 bias incidents based on sexual orientation in New York City alone. Similarly, while the FBI for 1991 reported twelve “hate” murders based upon all federally-recognized prejudices,’ Klanwatch reported twenty-seven murders motivated by bias. Ironically, this statistical divergence led some of the groups which campaigned most vigorously for the passage of the Hate Crime Statistics Act to denounce the whole federal data collection project. Klanwatch, among the most ardent campaigners for the passage of the federal law, dismissed the first FBI statistics as “inadequate and nearly worthless.”

Jacobs and Henry, after finding that “hate” crimes average a representation of approximately 0.039% of all reported crimes, counter that it is in fact the ADL, SPLC, Klanwatch, and associated groups who are producing worthless statistics.

Conclusion

Jacobs and Henry conclude by stressing that while it is “possible to understand how and why the picture of a “hate crime epidemic” has come to dominate the American imagination, it is

doubtful that this picture depicts reality.” It is an indictment of our culture that over a quarter of a century later, we are still in the midst of the “permanent state of hate emergency.” Self-interested minority groups are still producing worthless statistics that are taken up and amplified by the media. Manipulated public opinion is fodder for activist politicians who use a handful of cases to gag us, shame us, reduce our freedoms and, ultimately, rule over us.

To return to the introduction of this essay, yes, the footage my colleague alluded to does show a Black teenager scuffling with a couple of Jews for a few seconds. But everything else? The cries of anti-Semitism? The calls for political action? The headlines and media panic? The whispers of new laws? A massive fraud. The gullible will eat it up, and find themselves backed ever further into a corner. The astute and the informed will look on, incredulous at the stupidity of their peers. I could have throttled my colleague, but for the fact that somewhere, in some godforsaken stain upon this earth, a lying cretin would have chalked it up as a hate crime.

[1] Jacobs, James B., and Jessica S. Henry. “The Social Construction of a Hate Crime Epidemic.” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-) 86, no. 2 (1996): 366–91.

[2] Both academics might be Jewish. Jacobs is a Jewish name, but is also English. I can find no information suggesting that James B. Jacobs had Jewish ancestry. He married a non-Jewish English woman, and does not appear to have involved himself in any Jewish causes. He did, however, mingle in a heavily Jewish academic milieu, though this may have been due to the general Jewish prevalence in law and sociology. Jessica Henry has spoken at a very small number of Jewish events, and has delivered a presentation on Jewish Americans.

[3]  J. Batsell, “Spielberg Speaks Out Against Hate” FBI Data Show Report on Rise in Arizona; Arizona Republic, 29, 1994.

[4]  Rosman JP, Resnick PJ. Sexual attraction to corpses: a psychiatric review of necrophilia. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1989;17(2):153-63.