“Posthumans will be almost entirely augmented — human minds in artificial, eternally upgradable bodies…Human nature is at a crossroads. In the coming decades we will experience a radical upgrading…Genetic engineering, biotechnology, nanorobotics (microscopic robots inside the body) will bit by bit replace the fully biological body.”—Natasha Vita-More, Humanity+ Executive Director

“There has been a distinct warming up to human-less, contactless technology. Humans are biohazards, machines are not.”—Anuja Sonalker, founder and CEO of STEER Tech

“So we just went ahead and fixed the glitch.”—Bob Slydell

Defining Transhumanism

So what is transhumanism, the ideology motivating the leading faction of self-styled “masters of mankind” driving the Great Reset largely from the shadows, particularly as these self-identified transhumanists define it? The global transhumanist organization Humanity+ defines it as the drive to eliminate aging and expand human capabilities, with technology used to “move beyond what some would think of as ‘human.’” Humanity+ Executive Director Natasha Vita-More states that transhumanism has “become a worldview that represents the currents in global society.” This is absolutely true, particularly as the medical tyranny of 2020 opened the doors to all sorts of possibilities for the ruling class. Despite the fact that Vita-More’s “Transhumanist Manifesto” declares that “each person deserves the right of genetic liberty,” the majority of the ruling class does not agree.

Relying on science and technology to improve human life is one thing, but using it to augment or modify it in a fundamentally transformative nature is quite another. The agenda often is hiding in plain sight. Consider Moderna, which offers a COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” (COVID—certificate of vaccination identification, perhaps?)—Mod(ify) RNA. This isn’t some kind of secret—it is part of their mission statement and, from the biotechnology company’s founding until 2018, their name was stylized ModeRNA. Their CEO Stéphane Bancel is a Harvard MBA and also attended the University of Minnesota, one of the main incubators of the transgender agenda. The University of Minnesota also houses the Charles Babbage Institute, which per its mission statement, “design[s] and administer[s] research projects in the history of information technology and engage[s] in original research that is disseminated through scholarly publications, conference presentations, and the CBI website.” It was founded in 1978 by the Jewish couple Erwin and Adelle Tomash as the International Charles Babbage Society with its office in Palo Alto, California, very close to Stanford University.

Artificial Intelligence

Interestingly, in 1965 at Stanford University, Jews Joshua Lederberg, Edward Feigenbaum, and Carl Djerassi (considered the “father of the birth control pill”) devised the computer program DENDRAL (dendritic algorithm) for the elucidation of the molecular structure of unknown organic compounds taken from known groups of such compounds, such as the alkaloids and the steroids, which served as a prototype for expert systems (“In artificial intelligence, an expert system is a computer system emulating the decision-making ability of a human expert”) and was one of the first uses of artificial intelligence in biomedical research. In 1973 DENDRAL was hosted by SUMEX-AIM (Stanford University Medical Experimental Computer—Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), a national computer resource for AI applications in biomedicine. Users at universities and hospitals across the country were connected to SUMEX via the US Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET); also in 1973, University College of London and the Royal Radar Establishment (Norway) were connected to ARPANET. In 1978, Lederberg was named President of Rockefeller University, in which capacity he served until 1990. He was also a scientific advisor to the US government including the Department of Defense. Feigenbaum established the Knowledge Systems Laboratory at Stanford; among his doctoral students is included the Israeli-American Alon Yitzchack Halevy, a research scientist at Google from 2005–2015 before eventually moving on to Facebook AI where he brings expertise in data integration (“Data integration is a group of technical and business processes…that combine data from disparate sources into a meaningful and valuable data set for business intelligence and business analytics”), which is useful for predictive purposes and modeling behavior. Facebook has a rather rich set of data inputs with the vast array of personal information entered by its 2.89 billion users, a pretty good sample size of humanity. If you think the use will be or is benign, consider the funding that helped launch Facebook we covered last time. Consider Google’s connections discussed last time as well.

Among other projects, Facebook AI is invested in the Deepfake Detection Challenge (DFDC), partnering with the Partnership on AI and Microsoft, and academics from Cornell Tech, MIT, the University of Oxford, UC Berkeley, the University of Maryland-College Park, and SUNY-Albany. Guess who’s in the Partnership on AI? That would be, among many others: The New York Times, Mozilla, McKinsey, Microsoft, the ACLU,[1] the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, the MIT Media Lab, the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy, IBM, GLAAD, Google, Human Rights Watch, Facebook, Chatham House, CBC Radio-Canada, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Article 19, the BBC, Apple, Accenture, Amazon, the American Psychological Association, the UNDP, UNICEF, the SoftBank Group, the Australian National University’s 3A Innovation Institute (“3A is an innovation institute at the Australian National University intent on creating a new applied science to manage the future of cyber-physical systems—autonomous systems super-charged by Big Data, Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence”), and DeepMind (acquired by Google in 2014).

It is worth mentioning that the three countries by far the most invested in AI and adjacent and often-overlapping fields, including biotech both public and private (a false binary in this day and age), are the US, China, and Israel. The Israeli connections include such companies as Diagnostic Robotics, which is in demand abroad for the seemingly ubiquitous contact tracing/health monitoring with COVID-19 as the justification, and in the broader surveillance realm as well. Diagnostic Robotics partnered with the state of Rhode Island on its COVID-19 Self Checker AI remote assessment and monitoring platform, and is part of the COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition. Their Medical and Scientific Board features connections to Harvard, MIT, and the Boston-area medical community, and their Vice President of Business Development went to Columbia, is a management consultant with McKinsey, and is a Senior Director with the Clinton Health Access Initiative. There are also Israeli Air Force connections.

Suffice it to say that AI is deeply embedded in elite institutions across several countries.

Additionally, I must pause here to both apologize to the reader and explain the purpose of such detail and density. It is not my intent to overwhelm but rather to illustrate that the goal of the “elites” is in no small part to do just the former. Further, they operate using byzantine networks and velocity of data, and model interactions in the human realm increasingly close to that of the machine realm. We are dealing with the onset of advanced intelligences here that are very likely crafting specific scenarios beyond human capacity—but informed by human capacity—in order to further an agenda that may well indeed be beyond human capacity.

The Extropians

I will provide a few more illustrative examples here so that the reader may understand more fully what I am talking about. As with another World Economic Forum Board of Trustees member Marc Benioff, fellow Jew Martine Rothblatt—an avowed transhumanist—sits at the nexus of the various strands of this agenda. Rothblatt, like Benioff, is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Alcor Life Extension Foundation, a non-profit focused on cryonics and helmed for almost a decade by Natasha Vita-More’s husband, Max More, who remains an Ambassador and President Emeritus.

Max More also co-founded the Extropy Institute, which is now-shuttered; according to its website the Extropy Institute was a “networking ideas exchange devoted to developing strategies for the future. Extropy is a symbol for continued progress and reflects the extent of a living or organizational systems intelligence, functional order, vitality, and capacity and drive for improvement. Extropy is an essential element of transhumanism.” According to Max More, writing in 1996, the “Extropy Institute is building a culture favoring physical and intellectual augmentation, life extension, and a free and responsible society (here, in cyberspace, or off-Earth).”

The Extropy Institute was affiliated with UNICEF-Africa and worked with Friends of the United Nations. Max More was the Chair of the Board of Directors while Natasha Vita-More was the President. The Jewish Marvin Minsky, a Jeffrey Epstein associate and recipient of Epstein funding for numerous projects as well as the co-founder of MIT’s AI laboratory, was on the Institute’s Council of Advisors, as was the Jewish Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Kurzweil’s correspondence with Marvin Minsky as a teenager convinced him to study at MIT; he is currently employed by Google, which is an integral part of this agenda.

Kurzweil, who in a 2009 interview with Rolling Stone admitted that he’d like to exhume his father and clone his DNA, has also worked with the Army Science Board and NASA in the past. According to an interview with Wired from 2002 called “Ray Kurzweil’s Plan: Never Die”:

Just in case he does happen to die, he’ll have his body cryogenically frozen and preserved by Alcor, the company that the late baseball Hall of Famer Ted Williams now calls home, to be thawed when the technology to reanimate him has been developed. … He plans to outwit the medical establishment on a grander scale by achieving eternal life. … I don’t think we have to die. And the technology and the means of making that a reality is close at hand.[2]

Marvin Minsky and the transgender transhumanist Martine Rothblatt are now on the Scientific Advisory Board of Alcor. Further strengthening the ties between transgenderism (and the inescapable connection to deviant sexuality) and transhumanism, from the same interview, the interviewer asks, “How does Ramona [Kurzweil’s 25-year-old female rock star alter-ego] feel about extreme life extension?” Kurzweil continues:

A virtual person doesn’t have to worry about life extension. When she was first created, she was 25 and that was two years ago and she’s still 25. In the virtual world they’ve already mastered remaining at an optimal age. But I do feel that we have other people inside of us. I’m one of the few people who has had the experience of looking in the mirror and seeing a completely different manifestation of themselves. That’s what the experience is like. It’s like you’re looking in the mirror and instead of seeing what I generally see in the mirror I saw this 25-year-old woman. And I could kind of get into being her. … This experience will be quite ubiquitous I’d say in 10 years from now, until we can go inside the nervous system and actually create virtual reality from within. That’s more of a late 2020s scenario. … It’s a way of exploring different types of relationships, heterosexual couples could both change their genders, which would be very cool.[3]

The homosexual Peter Thiel (whose company Palantir is integral to the COVID-19 “vaccine” allocation aspect of Operation Warp Speed, among many other aspects of the globalist-transhumanist agenda) shares a similar obsession with immortality not just with Kurzweil and company but by a great many of the “elites” behind the Great Reset and the other spokes of the globalist agenda.

Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and Board member of Facebook, has written that he “stands against … the inevitability of the death of every individual,” and as part of his regimen to prolong life indefinitely, he allegedly takes human growth hormone and, according to a 2016 interview, Thiel

signed up with cryogenics company Alcor to be deep-frozen when (or if, a more optimistic death-cheating evangelist would say) he dies. There are three ways you can approach death, Thiel has said. “You can accept it, you can deny it, or you can fight it. I think our society is dominated by people who are into denial or acceptance, and I prefer to fight it.” … Given Thiel’s obsession with warding off death, it comes as no surprise that the Silicon Valley billionaire is interested in at least one radical way of doing it: injecting himself with a young person’s blood. … Jeff Bercovici of Inc. magazine published [an] interview with Thiel, in which the venture-capitalist explains that he’s interested in parabiosis, which includes the practice of getting transfusions of blood from a younger person. … Bercovici notes that Silicon Valley is abound with rumors of wealthy tech elites experimenting with parabiosis, and Gawker has reported that it received a tip in June claiming that Thiel “spends $40,000 per quarter to get an infusion of blood from an 18-year-old based on research conducted at Stanford on extending the lives of mice.”[4]

Thiel has invested with Aubrey de Grey, who is also on Alcor’s Scientific Advisory Board, as is Ralph Merkle, whose biography is reported by the Alcor website thusly:

Dr. Merkle co-invented public key cryptography. … His current research interest is molecular manufacturing (also called nanotechnology). The central objective of molecular manufacturing is the design, modeling, and manufacture of systems that can inexpensively fabricate most products that can be specified in atomic detail. This would include, for example, molecular logic elements connected in complex patterns to form molecular computers, molecular robotic arms or Stewart platforms (e.g., positional devices) able to position individual atoms or clusters of atoms under programmatic control (useful if we wish to make molecular computers and other molecular manufacturing systems), and a wide range of other molecular devices. … Further interests include cryonics, medical applications of nanotechnology, computational chemistry, reversible computing, neuroscience, extropians, and other areas. He is also interested in cryptography (including one-way hash functions and digital signatures based on one-way hash functions). … Dr. Merkle is an executive editor of the journal Nanotechnology … , which publishes a broad range of articles both on molecular manufacturing and nano-scale research in general. He is a former Director of the Foresight Institute.

Natasha Vita-More was a Senior Associate at the Foresight Institute, based in Palo Alto and focused on the development of nanotechnology. Co-founder K. Eric Drexler’s doctoral advisor at MIT was Marvin Minsky. While at MIT, Drexler (who plans to be cryonically preserved “in the event of legal death”) participated in NASA summer studies on space colonies and has continued to be involved with research into outer-space possibilities and technologies. He is also a Senior Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute, which is housed at the University of Oxford; Anders Sandberg, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Extropy Institute, is also a Senior Research Fellow. Nick Bostrom is the Future of Humanity Institute’s (FHI) Director. FHI researchers have given policy advice at the World Economic Forum, and to the MacArthur Foundation and the World Health Organization, as well as to various governmental entities.

Bostrom, More, and Drexler all spoke at the inaugural Singularity Summit in 2006 at Stanford University; it was founded by Kurzweil, Thiel, and the Jewish Eliezer Shlomo Yudkowsky (who tweeted in January 2018: “People who call me arrogant must seriously not know anything about Jewish culture.  Every Orthodox Jew grows up hearing stories about all the famous Jews who got into arguments with God, and the most admired figures of all are those who, like Moses, won their arguments. Like I am *way* more deferential towards moderately superhuman AGIs [artificial general intelligences] than a Jew is toward God.”) through what is now the Machine Intelligence Research Institute in initial collaboration with Stanford and with funding from Thiel. Other speakers at the Singularity Summit, which no longer takes place, have included the Jewish artificial intelligence researcher Ben Goertzel, the Jewish immunologist and regeneration biologist Ellen Heber-Katz, the Jewish animal cognition scientist Irene Pepperberg (MIT Media Lab, Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence), the Jewish blogger and writer Cory Doctorow, the Jewish scientist and author Douglas Hofstadter, Sebastian Thrun (founder of Google X and Google’s self-driving car team), the Jewish science journalist Carl Zimmer, the Jewish scientist and researcher Max Tegmark (MIT), the Jewish co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality Julia Galef, the Jewish psychologist and author Steven Pinker, the Jewish scientist and businessman Stephen Wolfram, and more.

Tegmark and his wife Meia Chita-Tegmark are co-founders of the Future of Life Institute along with Jaan Tallinn (a founding engineer of Skype and Kazaa, also of the Future of Humanity Institute and the Machine Intelligence Research Institute), Victoria Krakovna (a research scientist in AI safety at DeepMind; her PhD thesis in statistics and machine learning at Harvard University focused on building interpretable models), and Anthony Aguirre (the Faggin Presidential Professor for the Physics of Information at UC Santa Cruz; creator of the science and technology prediction platform Metaculus.com). Their Scientific Advisory Board includes for some reason Morgan Freeman and Alan Alda, as well as individuals like Bostrom and Stuart Russell, a computer science professor at Berkeley and the Director of the Center for Intelligent Systems, as well as a Fellow and former Executive Council member of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence. Elon Musk is also on the Scientific Advisory Board and is a top donor along with the Jewish Sam Harris and the Jewish Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz’s Open Philanthropy Project. Among Musk’s many projects is Neuralink, which is focused on developing implantable brain–machine interfaces. Neuralink shares a headquarters with OpenAI, whose CEO Sam Altman is Jewish. Peter Thiel is, in addition to Musk, a major backer of the OpenAI project.

Transcending Biology

Comprising the nucleus of these extropians, individuals like Thiel and Kurzweil

would become transhuman, possessing “drastically augmented intellects, memories, and physical powers,” or maybe even post human. They envisioned a future in which human brains would be downloaded and preserved for posterity. So, too, would the human body, through cryogenics. … They helped set the stage for a sector of the tech industry that has, of late, been flooded with money from philanthropists and venture capitalists alike. Life extension, artificial intelligence, robotics, and other posthuman ambitions are still very much a part of the techno-utopian agenda, in a way that’s more mainstream than ever. Venture capitalist Peter Thiel is looking into blood transfusions as an anti-aging treatment. (“PETER THIEL IS VERY, VERY INTERESTED IN YOUNG PEOPLE’S BLOOD,” Inc. reported last summer.) Google co-founder Larry Page has invested $750 million in Calico, a laboratory for anti-aging technologies. And in 2012, Google appointed Ray Kurzweil, a futurist who believes artificial intelligence will soon allow humans to transcend biology, as an engineering director. … Anders Sandberg, a neuroscientist working on mind uploading, wishes literally to become an “emotional machine.”[5]

These are the people and this is the ideology animating the Great Reset and the dominant strain of globalism we are seeing unfold before our very eyes at this moment as it moves from “simply” shadow domination through the financial system and in influence in other corridors of power to something far darker, that would see too many of the kinds of connections to the work being done with “living vaccine factories” and hydra vulgaris at UC Davis, for example—the latter of which in the Hydra 2.0 Genome Project also includes the NIH. Though I cannot say for certain how long this particular vision has been directing globalism nor how many major figures in the One World regime are fully invested in this image of immortality, certainly a great many have no limitations to their own delusions of grandeur.

“Does God exist?” Ray Kurzweil asks. “I would say, ‘Not yet.’”

[1] For the ACLU: “Far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties. They protect the most vulnerable among us, including people with disabilities and fragile immune systems, children too young to be vaccinated and communities of color hit hard by the disease.”

[2] Philipkoski, Kristen, “Ray Kurzweil’s Plan: Never Die,” November 18, 2002. Wired.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Kosoff, Maya, “Peter Thiel Wants to Inject Himself with Young People’s Blood,” August 1, 2016. Vanity Fair Hive.

[5] Wiener, Anna, “Only Human,” February 16, 2017. New Republic.

Editor’s note: An interesting and possibly important development in French politics is the possible presidential candidacy of Éric Zemmour, a Jewish conservative media figure. TOO readers may recall Guillaume Durocher’s article on Zemmour from 2015 where he noted:

Zemmour, who is not a recent convert to French nationalism, has been both the most prominent mainstream pundit arguing for conservatism and patriotism, and has to some degree been increasingly marginalized while still maintaining a major audience. He was removed from a talk show on the France 2 public TV channel in 2011 to move on to the more marginal regional channel, Paris Première. He has occasionally been sued by (de facto Jewish) “anti-racist” groups (for example, for arguing that a majority of drug dealers are Black or Arab). In January 2014, the Nouvel Observateur, the leading center-left magazine, equated Zemmour with Soral and Dieudonné under the title “Hatred.” Most recently, he was fired from a talk show on i-Télé (a secondary digital TV channel) for giving an interview to an Italian newspaper which was interpreted as advocating the deportation of French Muslims. In fact, he pointed out that Muslims could be evicted during an ethnic civil war, such conflict being exceedingly common in human history. Zemmour sees such a war in France as likely in the long-term.

Zemmour is walking a fine line and is by no means “burned out” with the establishment. He continues to be employed by RTL radio and the conservative newspaper Le Figaro. In addition, the controversy re-boosted his book Le suicide français back to the #1 spot of the Amazon best-seller list. Many mainstream figures, including those opposed to him politically, such as the leftists Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, protested i-Télé’s decision to fire him as censorship.

It is very tempting to argue that Zemmour is a “kosher nationalist” whose candidacy would be used to derail the hopes of Marine Le Pen. As Durocher notes, there are major problems for politicians not approved by the French Jewish community: “French Identitarian writer Anne Kling has argued that anti-immigration books have tended to be ignored unless they are kosher. She notes that the best-seller on crime and immigration, La France Orange mécanique, was promoted by “right-wing and ultra-right-wing Zionist” Jews and that the book’s author was represented in court by Gilles-William Goldnadel, a Franco-Israeli dual national close to the Likud party,  Franco-Jewish neoconservative networks thus find it in their interest to promote books and ideas hostile to Islamic immigration.”

Durocher gives several scenarios in which a candidate like Zemmour would conform to Jewish interests:

One possible outcome would be for the center-right conservative party to become a genuinely anti-immigration party or possibly have FN participation in a coalition government (and possibly an outright FN presidential victory, although I wouldn’t bank on that before 2022 at the earliest).

This is only possible if the French Jewish community, on some level, accepts it. This may reflect in fact the optimum outcome for them: To not completely Islamize/Africanize France, but to have a multiracial country in which European-French remain the majority, with Jews as a privileged group, particularly over-represented in the oligarchy and media, and with politicians particularly sensitive to its concerns. This, it seems to me, would be optimal for French Jews, but, as we’ve already seen, Jews often pursue their ideological fervor even to the point of self-destructiveness, so the rational outcome is not necessarily the most likely. It is not clear that they would be temperamentally capable of maintaining a stable equilibrium, even one which was in their favor.

Axios presents the results of a recent small survey of 1,310 French citizens; Oct. 1-4, 2021

Emmanuel Macron 24%
Eric Zemmour 17
Marine Le Pen 15
Xavier Bertrand 13
Jean-Luc Mélenchon 11

And as Axios notes:

A split in the far-right vote could provide an opening for a candidate like Xavier Bertrand, who is seeking the nomination of the center-right Republicans.

The Harris poll gives Macron the slimmest of margins (51% to 49%) in a hypothetical runoff with Bertrand, and slightly larger leads against Le Pen (53% to 47%) and Zemmour (55% to 45%).

So Durocher’s scenario of the center-right benefiting from a Zemmour candidacy may come true (Zemmour hasn’t announced that he is running). But what is quite clear is that the Jewish community remains a power in France and is quite unlikely to support Le Pen.

Another issue is Covid policy. Macron has opted for a very strict vaccine policy which has led to protests and will likely sway some voters.

Over the weekend [July, 2021], more than 100,000 people took to the streets to decry French President Emmanuel Macron’s tough new rules that require proof of vaccination or a negative test to enter cafes, restaurants, churches, trains, shopping centers, cinemas, sports stadiums and many other public places. Two vaccination centers were also targeted by vandals. … some French venues that hold more than 50 people will start asking people to show so-called digital “health passes” that certify a person’s vaccination status. Macron has also made it mandatory for all health workers to get vaccinated. … Macron’s draconian approach to vaccines may end up hurting him as he starts his campaign for reelection next April.

A Daily Mail article (September 27) shows why the establishment would fear Le Pen in the April, 2022 election and use Zemmour as a way to derail her candidacy. Macron’s popularity is slipping, and vaccine policy and his pro-EU stance are issues:

Public dissatisfaction has been compounded by [Macron’s] bungled vaccine programme, that saw him brazenly claiming the AstraZeneca jab was only ‘quasi-effective’ before quickly backtracking amid poor uptake among the sceptical public.

The voters disdain for the EU has increased, leaving Macron more isolated as Le Pen gains ground.

Impatience with the president has been fuelled not just by the glacial vaccine roll-out but also by his apparent contradictions of scientific advice, with rivals referring to him as a ‘Napoleon’ and accusing the president of believing that he is an epidemiologist.

Adding to his woes, voting intentions for Le Pen’s party have not been this positive since her father Jean-Marie Le Pen’s campaign in 2002, when he reached the second round of the presidential election.

The right-wing party is ranking ahead of any other party in France among the 25-34 age group, who have faced unemployment and soaring costs of student loans.

Many of the younger age groups had already turned against Macron in the Yellow Vest protests of 2018, the pandemic only hardening their positions.

On the other hand, Marine Le Pen recently called the health pass “a disproportionate interference with [our] liberty” and promised that she would be a “president of French liberties.” On the EU, Le Pen  has “toned the [anti-EU] rhetoric down to try and win over more voters.”

Below is an article by Daniel Barge reposted with permission from Affirmative Right. As with Durocher, there is a real possibility that Zemmour could derail Marine Le Pen’s candidacy.

Charlie Hebdo cartoon showing Zemmour with the Le Pens as concentration camp guards

I don’t know who Éric Zemmour is or what his appeal to French people is. To get a true flavour of the guy I would probably have to learn French, which is never going to happen. But I can infer that he talks a great game, and makes plenty of good points. But those are mere details, and details are generally irrelevant. What is important is the big picture.

What is obvious, however, is that France has a Presidential election next year, and it would be extremely awkward for the governing elites if someone like Marine Le Pen won.

The way the election is structured is that there are a couple of rounds, with the final round being a run off between the two leading candidates. Last time it was the clearly astroturfed Macron vs Le Pen in the final, with Macron winning 66% to 34%.

The reason Macron won was because he was a “centrist” with almost total media support, who was able to take most of the votes to his Left as well as many Cuckservatives to his right. While he got 95% of voters describing themselves as “Left-wing” and 91% of voters describing themselves as “rather Left-wing,” Le Pen interestingly got almost a quarter or voters describing themselves as “Very left-wing.”

Since then, Le Pen has been making moves to break out of the “far-right extremist” framing imposed on her, and has made further inroads both to Leftist and Centrist voters.

For years now, in head-to-head polls with Macron she has been in the mid 40s, sometimes narrowing the gap to just 6 points. As we know, polls grossly under-count populist Right figures, so the gap may be much narrower or even inverted. Also, it has to be borne in mind that Le Pen’s support, which is socially unvalidated and constantly demonised by the media, is much harder than Macron’s, after all, his wishy-washy centrism does not inspire much passionate support anywhere.

So, from this we see that the macro-data was all pointing to Le Pen having a much better chance of beating Macron in 2022. Now, suddenly we are hearing about this “new” nationalist meteor, Éric Zemmour. Marine Le Pen’s own father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, now in his 90s, is said to be backing him.

From a quick “catch-up” article in Axios:

A far-right firebrand is shaking up the French presidential election and, with six months to go, has pulled into second in the polls.

Why it matters: This race had long seemed on course for a rematch between President Emmanuel Macron, now an unpopular incumbent, and far-right leader Marine Le Pen. But it’s Le Pen who’s now facing a major threat on her right flank.

Driving the news: Éric Zemmour, a writer and TV pundit sometimes compared to Tucker Carlson, is second in the latest Harris Interactive poll — a crucial benchmark, as the top two finishers will enter a runoff. Never before has a candidate jumped so quickly in the polls, pollster Antoine Gautier told AFP.

Zemmour — who was convicted in 2009 of inciting racial hatred and is an advocate of the “Great Replacement” theory popular among white supremacists — has yet to enter the race, but took a leave of absence from the French equivalent of Fox News.

I won’t comment on his Jewishness, but it’s clear that Zemmour is an effective communicator who talks in a way that strikes a chord with ordinary French voters, but why is he pushing himself forward as a potential candidate, especially now? Remember, details are irrelevant. It is the bigger picture that is important.

Zemmour and Le Pen

There are three reasonable possibilities of what will happen with Zemmour, all of them negative for the populist Right:

1. He crashes and burns, whereupon his lack of purchase with Right-wing voters is attributed to “anti-Semitism” and used to smear Le Pen as a “Nazi” again, scaring some voters to cling to Macron. An old trick that seems to keep on working.
2. He does well, whereupon Le Pen’s bloc is split down the middle, allowing someone else — a bland Centre-Leftist or Centre-Rightist — to push Le Pen and Zemmour down to 3rd and 4th spot, and thus set up a “safe” final round for the Establishment.
3. He does very well, whereupon he faces off against Macron in the final round and somehow manages to lose.

The idea that Zemmour goes all the way and wins the Presidency seems a little far-fetched but not impossible. However, this can safely be set aside for the moment.

So, to summarize, what are we looking at here?

In 2017 Le Pen does well for a Right-wing Populist but is defeated in the final round to an astroturfed Macron. By 2021 President Astroturf is looking shop-worn and jaded, while Le Pen continues to build a solid challenge. Suddenly, out of nowhere, Zemmour is unleashed, his most obvious purpose apparently being to stop Le Pen winning again. Conclusion: he’s a spoiler candidate.

What we are seeing here, once again, is the central principle around which contemporary French politics is built: namely stopping Marine Le Pen becoming President.

Is this part of the “shadow war,” which Colin Liddell and others allude to, that is being fought out between the West and the rising “ChiRus” powers of the East, with Le Pen weaponised to destablise the West while Zemmour is a French Deep State countermove? Or do the elites just genuinely dislike Le Pen, and think that their version of Pan-European and Eurabian multiculturalism is the way forward?

Perfect timing: France’s Tucker Carlson

Daniel Barge writes for Affirmative Right. 

I very much enjoyed Tobias Langdon’s thoughts on “The Leftist War on Identity, Nationality and Biology.” Of particular interest were Langdon’s comments on Emma Raducanu, a mixed-race (Chinese-Romanian) tennis player who won the US Open and who has been lauded and celebrated, in Britain and elsewhere, as the best of British multiculturalism, if not the best of a new, superior kind of mixed-race human. Tobias rightly pointed out that the basic problem is that Raducanu isn’t British, and “it’s precisely because she isn’t British that lots of other people who aren’t British either have been eager to pretend that she is British and to celebrate her victory.” In the following essay, I want to adopt a slightly different approach to the celebration of Raducanu, exploring not only the hypocrisy and blindspots of multiculturalists, which are only too well known, but also the tensions within liberalism on this very subject. One of the most sober and sensible comments on the Raducanu episode, for example, was made by multiculturalist Sunder Katwala, of British Future, a “thinktank that promotes debate about immigration and integration.” Katwala “warned people with liberal views on immigration against using her as a “gotcha” argument,” and stressed that cases like Raducanu are “exceptional stories.” I’d argue that they are also, in the final analysis, petty successes trotted out in carefully styled propaganda to mask a multitude of multicultural sins.

Bread and Circuses

As explored in a fascinating book by Patrick Brantlinger, the phrase ‘Bread and Circuses’ has long been associated with theories that have treated mass culture as either a symptom or a cause of social decadence. It’s also true, however, that ‘Bread and Circuses’ is perhaps the finest phrase for encapsulating the marketed appeal of multiculturalism. What better way to describe the fixation on cuisine and sports that sum up in toto the alleged “contributions” of ethnic diversity to European society? Exotic food and sporting spectacles are societal luxuries whose importance is directly correlated to the development of what Spengler called “the world-city,” in which men live in nothing but an “artificial footing.”^[1] And the celebrations accompanying Emma Raducanu, insofar as they moved beyond her victory in a tennis match and suggested broader social importance, are nothing if not artificial. It’s perfectly clear that Raducanu’s win at the US Open will have no impact on the lives of average Britons, except perhaps to further brainwash them into believing that this tennis player, by some form of socio-political alchemy, embodies all that they should aspire to. Meridian Magazine, for example, argues that:

[Raducanu’s] victory and meteoric rise into superstardom cannot, or rather should not, be viewed in isolation, as a sole, personal success but as a symbolic victory for British diversity in the face of the xenophobia that remains rooted in shadowy sections of British society. In fact, Raducanu’s victory may help transform British society for the better, in a way far beyond the control of her racket. Raducanu is emblematic of a global citizen.

Although Tobias Langdon has rightly pointed out that much of the celebration around Raducanu has come from ethnic minorities, it’s also very clear that many younger Whites, groomed from birth to be “global citizens” and now coming of age, are some of the most active and prominent purveyors of this garbage. The Meridian Magazine piece, for example, was written by a young English female college student, who further displays her thorough indoctrination by suggesting that

given both the cultural richness of Raducanu’s roots and her expertise on the court, we are fortunate to hail her victory as a British one. Not unlike 2021’s esteemed England football squad, which also champions British diversity with just three players from the squad (Pickford, Shaw, and Stones) having exclusively English roots, Raducanu’s case is serving as a reminder that our diversity and multiculturalism is what strengthens us. It allows us to take centre stage—or court—and draw upon a multitude of experiences that ultimately place us, both as individuals and as a society, in an advantageous position. And this, therefore, is a beacon of positivity against the darkness of xenophobia. [emphasis added]

Contradictions

This is a very short paragraph that manages to include a wealth of puzzling contradictions. The first sentence suggests that a nation should be proud of winners it merely adopts. Raducanu arrived in Britain aged two, which is very young and confirms a British contribution to her training [we also know, however, that Raducanu received training at the sports academy in Shenyang, her mother’s home town], but claiming her success as a British one is not fundamentally different in a biological sense from the Arab oil states and their practice of hiring what have been termed “sports mercenaries.” Kenyan runners and Bulgarian weightlifters, for example, have been granted citizenship in countries like Qatar to compete internationally in pursuit of medals and international victories that would otherwise elude these nations. While portrayed as cynical and crass, these Arab states are arguably more authentic in protecting their citizenship laws, given that these laws are incredibly rigid and are based on the concern “that foreigners might have an adverse influence on [the region’s] dynastic political system and conservative culture based on deep-rooted tribal values that are already considered under threat.” These states are happy to hand a passport to a handful of elite athletes, and for a specific purpose, but not to masses of “enriching” migrants. In other words, the oil states are happy to exploit the multicultural nationality game insofar as it relates to sports alone. They are not foolish enough to believe that a victory on a sports field will enrich their society or culture.

The West, on the other hand, celebrates its sporting mercenaries while indulging the idea that sports victories or exotic recipes are genuine reflections of a functioning and enriched society. This jarring contradiction is best exemplified in reactions to Nigel Farage’s offer of congratulations to Raducanu. Farage was heavily criticized as a hypocrite because of past statements he had made to the effect that Romanian crime statistics in Britain were “eye-watering,” and had added: “I was asked a question if a group of Romanian men moved in next to you, would you be concerned. If you lived in London, I think you would be.”

For liberals and offended ethnic minorities Farage’s two actions are contradictory, and yet they shouldn’t be. It’s perfectly possible to offer congratulations on an individual sporting victory without accepting that it dramatically alters known social conditions. The website Police Professional, for example, reports that

The lifting of employment restrictions by the European Union (EU) has seen a massive spike in crime statistics in the UK. Arrests of suspected Romanian criminals more than doubled when the eastern European nationals were first allowed to work in Britain. Transitional controls were imposed by member states on Romania and its neighbour Bulgaria, considered the poor relations of the bloc, when they joined the EU in 2007. Their rights to work and claim benefits were restricted for their first seven years of membership until January 1, 2014. At the end of 2013, the number of Romanians arrested stood at 7,383. That figure rocketed to 17,398 in 2014 with 18,127 Romanians arrested in England and Wales last year — a rise of 145 per cent in just two years.

I’d say this is eye-watering and, as Farage argued, a cause for concern. The added elephant in the room is of course the difference between more economically successful and capable ethnic Romanian nationals and masses of more socially problematic Roma gypsies, who are responsible for most of the “Romanian” crime statistics. I’ve seen no evidence that Emma Raducanu’s father is of Roma gypsy descent, and in fact she seems to have enjoyed an upper middle-class upbringing filled with a “hectic lifestyle of ballet, horse riding, swimming and go-karting.” In short, Nigel Farage is not a hypocrite, and his two actions are not contradictory.

Georgina Lawton, writing for the Guardian, has argued that “Raducanu is living proof of the way a country that celebrates cultural difference can succeed.” No, she isn’t. She’s living proof that a young woman of Euro-Asian parentage can do well academically and become extremely proficient at tennis. This wouldn’t surprise even the most hardened racialist. The fact of the matter is that, in the context of “good news,” Liberals and their allies want us to take an individual story and expand it to group level (“successful ethnic athlete = successful multiethnic culture”), while in the context of bad news they want us to take a group story and reduce it to individuals (“negative group crime statistics shouldn’t be acknowledged because we’re all individuals”). In other words, ethnicity can only be considered at group level if it leads to praise. This is the fundamental contradiction of multiculturalism, and it stands in stark contrast to the position of so-called “racists” who adopt a truly holistic view of race and the individual that is without any such contradictions — I can praise a Ugandan sprinter without believing 200,000 Ugandans will make life in my home nation considerably better.

The Discomfort of Success and the Question of “Contributions”

Another uncomfortable question raised by the Raducanu episode is the issue of immigrant “contributions” to the host society. Sunder Katwala, of British Future, worries that stories like that of Raducanu “give a popular image of the positive contribution of migration and integration, and that has a positive element, as long as it’s not overplayed.” Another representative of a British multiculturalist group is concerned that “valuing immigrants and refugees in the UK is sort of predicated on being successful and giving back a contribution rather than just being human.” Both comments reveal a further contradiction of multiculturalism; that despite talk of oppression and discrimination, some ethnic minorities are significantly and stubbornly more successful than others. The school grades of Asians, for example, remain light years ahead of those of Africans, and the gap in statistics for expulsions and suspensions from schools is equally cavernous. These facts are a brutal rejoinder to claims of oppressive Whiteness, and they are the reason why all celebrations of successful immigrants occur against a much greater shadow of failure, welfare dependance, social degradation, and crime. Success it seems, can be a burden too much to bear for the unsuccessful. In this context, it is hardly surprising to find a quote like that above, where a shamed and uneasy multiculturalist appeals for immigrants to be celebrated simply, and ridiculously, for “being human.”

Further, some immigrant “contributions” are questionable even on their own terms. Take, for example, Derek Taylor’s 2013 “Thank you for your business”: The Jewish Contribution to the British Economy, a quite shameless panegyric to the Jewish penchant for wealth accumulation. Tucked in among ridiculous tales of Jews inventing jigsaw puzzles [they didn’t; the first jigsaw puzzle was invented by London mapmaker John Spilsbury in the 1760s], and postcards [they didn’t; the first picture postcard is credited to Theodore Hook, an English Man of Letters], are very light references to their more solidly documented role in the development of British pornography and gambling. It was Richard ‘Dirty Des’ Desmond, the son of Latvian and Ukrainian Jews, who first introduced mass-produced pornography into Britain, and who ‘pioneered’ “the first pornographic channel available on satellite television in the UK.” He also “ran a premium rate phone sex company until 1988 when he sold the business after British Telecom raised concerns about the content.” That’s quite a contribution. Equally impressive is the Jewish contribution to gambling everywhere, not least Britain and the United States. I was amused recently to read an essay on Jews and gambling that admitted that Jews were pre-eminent in the development of American gambling. The piece claimed “the Jewish appetite for [sports gambling] (and probably for wagering of all kinds) remains mysterious.”^[2] I’ve approached this sentence from multiple angles, but can’t find the mystery in Jews engaging in risk to find profit without labor. Nothing, in fact, would seem more matter of fact. It’s certainly matter of fact in Britain, where Liam O’Brien has pointed out that

all of the ‘Big Three’ bookmakers have had a significant Jewish input. Coral was founded by Joe Coral from a Polish-Jewish background while Ladbrokes, originally a company catering for the upper classes only became a major company under the stewardship of Max Parker and his nephew Cyril Stein whose family were of Russian-Jewish origin. Stein was a major philanthropist for numerous Jewish and Israeli causes throughout his career. [This is a good example of using vice to facilitate large-scale transfer of wealth from Gentile to Jewish communities.] William Hill acquired a significant Jewish connection when it bought the more than 600 shops of Stanley Racing owned by Lord Steinburg.^[3]

The tension at the heart of such immigrant “contributions” is explored admirably by the website jewishcontributions.com, which appears to have adopted, and I must say perfected, an approach I employed back in 2015-16 through a subtle and satirical Twitter account named “Skype Directory.” At the heart of the approach is the contradiction of multiculturalism — that multiculturalism will celebrate the “contributions” it feels are worthy of celebration while hiding “contributions” it feels might be regarded negatively. What Skype Directory did, and what Jewish Contributions do, is to highlight the shadow behind the fanfare, or to do a kind of double-take at the other side of those things claimed as Jewish successes or achievements. When Jewish magazines, for example, claim that Jews brought America to the tipping point on gay marriage, the approach dictates that such a claim be highlighted and presented in its own right. The same can be said for the Jewish “contribution” to transgenderism, feminism, abortion, etc. While these may be celebrated liberal values, you can be sure that Jews would only welcome a spotlight on their role in certain very limited circumstances. If the “celebration” of their role became a little too loud, you can be sure that such applause would not be welcome. Joe Biden learned this back in 2013 when Jewish activists were offended when he praised Jewish power and influence:

Joe Biden should  know the ground rules by now. You can praise the contributions of individual Jews. It’s totally permissible to wax eloquent on the accomplishments of  Sigmund Freud, Jonas Salk, or Albert  Einstein—perhaps even implying that humanity would never have come on these ideas and thus be infinitely poorer for it. … You  can even  praise the Jewish community’s role in enacting public policy on which there is a broad consensus, such as the Civil Rights movement.

But you can’t imply that Jews have real power and have used it to push America in directions most Americans don’t want to go or obviously conflict with the legitimate interests of other  groups—particularly Whites. … [Biden]: “I bet you 85 percent of those changes, whether it’s in Hollywood or social media are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good.”

And if Jews are in some way shamed or fearful regarding wider awareness of their “contribution,” what is the true nature of that contribution after all?

The Success of Multiculturalism?

It’s really quite strange that a tennis match has been used to demonstrate that diversity is our strength rather than, say, government data on crime and social cohesion. It’s in the latter that we find a true, broad, and far-reaching multicultural contribution. In Britain, Black men are apparently 5.4 times more likely than White men to be arrested for drug offences, and young Black men were 10.5 times more likely than young White men to be arrested for robbery. That’s quite a contribution. There’s also a contribution to weapons-based violent crime:

When compared to 2014, an increase in prosecutions was seen across all ethnic groups, apart from those categorised as White, which saw a decrease of 2% in prosecutions. In 2018, ethnic minority groups were overrepresented for prosecutions of possession of weapons offences, accounting for 30% of all prosecutions in this category. Of all prosecutions for possession of weapons offences, “possession of an article with a blade or point” made up 59% of prosecutions. The Metropolitan police force (London) area accounted for 66% of all Black defendants prosecuted for this offence, compared with 14% for White defendants.

Blacks, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and those of mixed-race have also been found to consume welfare payments in astonishing numbers relative to their share of the population. Another contribution! This is to say nothing of the growing agitation for the removal of historical monuments said to offend the sensibilities of these people. Ethnically motivated iconoclasm is unquestionably a contribution.

These things, we should remember, like Raducanu’s tennis victory, “allow us to take centre stage—or court—and draw upon a multitude of experiences that ultimately place us, both as individuals and as a society, in an advantageous position.” I don’t know about you, but I’m having trouble seeing just how advantageous my position is. Maybe I just need to celebrate these people for being “simply human.” Maybe I need to live in one of Spengler’s “World-cities.” Maybe I need to throw myself into being a “global citizen.” Or maybe, just maybe, these multicultural “successes” are nothing but bread and circuses for the ignorant and the willfully corrupt.

^[1] O. Spengler, The Decline of the West: Volume II: Perspectives of World History (London: Arktos, 2021), 125-6.

^[2] E. Mendelsohn (ed), Jews and the Sporting Life: Studies in Contemporary Jewry Vol. XXIII (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 64.

^[3] L. O’Brien, What’s the SP? (eBook Partnership, 2014).