Featured Articles

What we’re up against: White liberals rejoice at Whites becoming a minority

/73 Comments/in , /by

I know I spend too much time on Twitter, but this definitely caught my attention:

Yes, of course, it’s strange. What other definable group rejoices that they are becoming a minority and therefore with less power over their future, especially when we see so much anti-White hatred coming from high places? But this tweeter has 85.9k followers, and she is following 55.9k—which means that she is a member of a informal liberal Twitter “resist” group that reciprocates when anyone follows her, not that she is some kind of celebrity. (Although at least some liberal celebrities certainly are celebrating: Michael Moore called the announcement “the best day ever in US history.”)  “Liz ‘Bama’ #BLM #GoodTrouble” is “Bama born & raised,” and is definitely into virtue signaling: “I got nothin’ but Red heart. Equality, morality, integrity, empathy, knowledge & #’s are power. We are 1. Only here to resist.y’all.”

She tweeted this on Aug 22, and as of this writing there are 762 replies, 333 retweets (including 84 quote tweets-where tweeters commented on her tweet), and 3.2K likes, all from like-minded people, the vast majority White. Her tweet thus verges on being enough of a sample for a better understanding of how average, non-celebrity, garden-variety liberals think about the Great Replacement. First, however, I present some findings reviewed in my Chapter 8 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition showing that in general people are happier in more homogeneous communities and that White people in general do not rejoice at the news that they will soon be a minority.

Sociologist Robert D. Putnam recently showed that the greater the racial diversity of a community, the greater the loss of trust.[1] Putnam’s result is confirmed by studies conducted at the local community level.[2] Moreover, people living among fellow ethnics are happier than individuals living as an ethnic minority.[3] White people living in relatively homogeneous areas like New Hampshire or Montana are more involved with friends, the community, and politics than people in more diverse areas.[4] …

There are also mechanisms that are likely to create an increased sense of White identity and White interests in the years ahead. The fundamental reason for this is the demographic transformation resulting from massive immigration of non-Whites into countries that were either homogeneously White or, like the United States (which in 1960 was ninety percent White), had a dominant White majority. This transformation, in which it is obvious that White political power is declining as Whites head toward minority status, would by itself trigger defensive mechanisms of implicit Whiteness and behavior such White flight discussed above.

Individualists are less naturally ethnocentric, and the left has created a culture that encourages Whites to inhibit expressions of ethnocentrism while encouraging non-Whites to be ethnocentric. Because the media is dominated by the left and because even the conservative media is terrified of appearing to advocate White interests, explicit messages that would encourage Whites to become angry and fearful about their future as a minority are rare. Indeed, the media rarely, if ever, mentions that Whites are well on their way to becoming a minority. And this for good reason: Whites in the United States and in Canada who are given explicit demographic projections of a time when Whites are no longer a majority tend to feel angry and fearful. They are also more likely to identify as Whites and have sympathy for other Whites.[5] [See also here and here.]

In other words, while I have emphasized the ability of the higher brain centers to inhibit ethnocentrism, explicit messages indicating that one’s racial group is threatened are able to trigger ethnocentrism. This is especially important because many Whites live far from the areas of their countries undergoing the demographic shifts. Their day-to-day life of living in an essentially White environment hasn’t changed while the population centers of New York, California, Toronto, and Vancouver have changed beyond all recognition from what they were 50 years ago. An obvious inference to be made is that pro-White activists should appeal to Whites’ higher brain centers with explicit messages emphasizing these transformations.

But as indicated in the following,  messages emphasizing the dwindling White majority are cause for rejoicing among a great many Whites.

In the present case, the trigger was the announcement that the 2020 census found that for the first time in American history, the White population had declined in absolute numbers and that Whites now comprise only 57.8% of the population. Good news for Democrats, of course: “Democrats have reason to be happy with this census data set,” Dave Wasserman, House editor of the Cook Political Report, told The New York Times, citing the higher-than-expected population tallies in New York and Chicago and the steady growth of the nation’s Hispanic population.”

But such news likely triggers twinges of anxiety, even in many White liberals—twinges that need to be suppressed by finding support from like-minded people. I suppose “Liz ‘Bama’ #BLM” felt a bit of anxiety, having been brought up in the South and probably aware that quite a few White Southerners think her attitudes are indeed a bit “strange.” So she decided to Tweet to her liberal Twitter followers in hopes of getting  support for her beliefs. And support she got, as shown by the numbers of positive replies and retweets. In the following I will describe several general categories of response and give pertinent examples of each.

White Racists Are Evil and Deserve Payback for Past Treatment of Non-Whites

It is common for these liberals to direct their invective at “White racists,” imagining that good liberals like themselves will be spared any negative consequences. They are thus oblivious to the general anti-White rhetoric that is common now. It doesn’t resonate with them that White women in general and White liberals as a group are being excoriated for their racism (e.g., Robin DiAngelo’s Nice Racism).  It’s common on the left to believe that all White people share the original sin of being White and therefore are blameworthy for such things as the history of slavery and colonialism by Whites.

There is obviously a moral dimension to this. As individualists, White people are particularly prone to forming moral communities (rather than kinship-based communities like the rest of the world) and to punishing people who dissent from their moral world view, even at substantial cost to themselves and even if they share many of the same characteristics as the people they are punishing, such being White. This is termed altruistic punishment by evolutionary psychologists and is a major theme of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. Liberals therefore rejoice when Whites are punished for their racial attitudes. And since many of them are quite clearly older, established White people, it doesn’t even cost them anything to rejoice about White replacement. They’re all set. Of course, that means they ignore not only the long-term prospects of the wider White population whose fate they are completely unconcerned about, but also the long-term effects on their children and other relatives (e.g., job prospects in an anti-White hiring environment), although, as indicated below, some, including “Liz ‘Bama'” probably don’t have any children.

The tweet below expresses the idea that “White supremacists” will be punished but that people like her will be just fine when Whites are a minority. She may change her mind when her children or grandchildren try to get a job, get into a good college, or get caught up in the judicial system if Whites become a minority.

A Black man tweets that Whites have nothing to worry about and Liz “Bama” #BLM responds that it’s just fine that Whites be treated in the future like non-Whites have been treated in the past. Since Liz “Bama” #BLM doesn’t mention children in her Twitter profile, I suspect she has the attitude that the retribution won’t affect her, so she really doesn’t care if anti-White hatred becomes even more mainstream than it is now. She’s got hers—in effect, a radical individualist.

People Who Advertise They Are Non-Reproductive

Here a “Mother of Cats” gives her input—presumably no children or grandchildren to worry about when Whites lose power. It’s all about coming off as good person. And presumptive fellow cat mother Liz “Bama” #BLM completely agrees.

And here’s another non-reproductive. Her(?) Twitter profile shows  enthusiasm for “dogs!,” BLM, Indigenous People, and “LGBTQIA.”

It’s Great that Whites are Becoming a Minority So We Can Usher in an Era of Peace and Harmony

While some responders look forward to retribution against “white racists,” others have the view that the world will be a much better place if non-Whites are in control. It’s going to be all peace and love. But watch out for the tax collector!

One aspect of this era of peace and harmony is that once White people are not in control, ethnic conflict will disappear—a view that’s obviously out of touch with historical reality. Fifty years of importing non-Whites has led to less ethnic conflict? But in their view, non-Whites are just so much nicer. This one is from “Feline, anarcho-socialist” (presumably non-reproductive). She is a lover of humanity.

In response to a virtue-signaler, the same person who did the previous tweet is so ill-informed she thinks that right-wing elites and corporations run the country and are preventing the triumph of the left. Watched much TV lately? Read about the politics of Hollywood, social media companies, academia, and large swaths of corporate America (Coca-Cola, etc.)?

My view is that, if all groups become minorities, it will set off ethnic/racial competition like this country’s never seen before. But:

Diversity contributes to personal growth!

And then there’s the food, but he’s careful to point out that he’s not one of those evil White gentrifiers.

The Unselfish Virtue-Signaler

Relevant to convincing these people of the short-sightedness of their ways, she also tweeted regarding liberal media coverage of the Afghanistan disaster. These people are living in a cult-like environment and actively tune out information that conflicts with their world view. Rational arguments have no weight because they are simply shut out of consciousness.

Looking Forward to a Future with Lots of Non-White Skin Tones

Finally, there’ll be a cure for skin cancer!

Media Memes: Diversity is Wonderful, and White Racists Are Stupid, Violent People

For at least the last 50 years the media has been filled with messages that White people who identify as White, have at least an implicit sense of White interests, or have negative beliefs and attitudes about non-Whites are stupid—they’re likely to live in a trailer park, shop at Walmart, and be missing a few teeth. At best they are buffoons, like Archie Bunker on Norman Lear’s All in the Family (first aired in 1971), which “spawn[ed] spinoffs that were actually just as popular; The Jeffersons, Maude, and Good Times. So popular that we actually saw a revival of All in the Family and The Jeffersons for ABC’s Live in Front of a Studio Audience in 2019.” White liberals have definitely gotten the message:

And another tweet that reflects the power of the media in promoting diversity:

And yet another pervasive meme, both in education and the media, is “white privilege,”  so it’s no surprise to read that whatever White people achieve is because it was “handed to them at birth”:

And of course, there’s the pervasive meme of “there’s no such thing as race,” coupled here with a very tendentious view of history right out of “The 1619 Project” and your average Black Studies course—and now the K-12 curriculum in many school districts.

Relatedly, this person repeats the “race is only skin deep” mantra:

Religious Reasons: Jesus Would Approve of Whites Becoming a Minority

Whites Are Still Scary and, Like a Cornered Animal, Will Fight to Retain Power. Government

This is reminiscent of Jennifer Rubin’s tweet in response to the census news that formed the starting point of my previous essay. This person must be reading the Washington Post:

But on the other hand, this tweet expresses fear that some non-Whites will join evil Whites to become part of “the oppressive.”

A Presumably Jewish Person Deciding to Not To Be White Any Longer 

Now that Whites are under continuous attack for their so-called privileges and systemic racism, etc., I have noticed in the Jewish media that it’s becoming common now for Jews to explicitly say they are not White (this doesn’t include the “fellow-Whites” who claim to be Jews while lecturing Whites on how evil they are on social media).

Not Wanting to See Race

These White folks are accepting what has become a mantra among conservatives: that we should be colorblind. This is the basis of the conservative critique of Critical Race Theory because it leads people to be more aware of race and vilifies White people. Surprised to see it because such views are definitely not approved by typical leftists these days.

Feminism and Birth Control Overturned White Control

Here’s a rather unique perspective: a White woman rejoicing at the soon-to-be White minority and crediting feminism and birth control, presumably because it has resulted in fewer Whites.

A Dissenting Voice (Who Quickly Apologizes)

Mentioning the economic disparities for POC obviously avoids thinking about why so many Asians are going well in systemically racist White America. Par for the course on the left. And here’s another person who thinks ending White majority status will lead to an end of hatred:

Conclusion

Enough already! There are a wide range of reasons, but they all come down to a whole lot of White people looking forward eagerly to a non-White future. It’s very difficult to see how White identitarians can turn this malaise around when so many of our people are so seriously deluded about the likely results of Whites losing political power. As I noted in my previous essay, the hatred won’t end with a White minority—Jewish hatred toward the West traces back to the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. and didn’t change after they achieved power in the USSR or with the West’s involvement in the defeat of National Socialism. Black hatred is common common among BLM activists, and hostility toward Whites is a bedrock feature of Critical Race Theory that is now well established in many educational systems. Even recent immigrants like Ilhan Omar quickly learn that hostility toward White America is the route to acceptance and upward mobility. The danger is particularly acute given that elites throughout the West are firmly in favor of the Great Replacement. These are people who control the media and are able to sway elections by censoring information and by financial contributions. The people reviewed here are simply the White foot soldiers.

Despite their contempt for the intelligence of the people they disagree with, these people show no signs of operating at a very high level of mental ability—just repeating messages they can easily pick up by watching TV or getting through the education system. They are in a liberal-left bubble and I really don’t think there are rational arguments that would convince them. What might make a difference would be personal experience that conflicts with their world view—having one’s store looted by Black rioters even though you have BLM posters all over the windows. Or being denied a job or a promotion given to less qualified people because of affirmative action policies. Or being shut out of government programs for small business, such as the program giving loans only to Black farmers. Or having a child or grandchild unable to get into a good public university  and having to pay exorbitant tuition and fees for a second-rate private college. Might convince them. And maybe not.

Many of these tweeters explicitly stated that they think the world will be a much better place with Whites out of power, and they probably all believe this. But it’s yet another utopian crusade that will end badly for Whites—and likely for everyone else. In Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition (Ch. 6) I have a  section on the nineteenth-century Puritan-descended intellectuals who dominated American elite culture and created what we would recognize today as a culture of the left—utopian, idealistic, and moralistic.

Humanity was thus heading toward a spiritual and material utopia—a golden age of peace, harmony, righteous behavior and material comfort—ideas that were often combined with the idea that this golden age would follow upon an apocalyptic battle between good and evil. Such thinking may well have been the lens through which many in the North saw the Civil War; as indicated above, it appears to characterize how Lincoln saw his role as an agent of God fighting an apocalyptic battle against evil. …

Ernest Tuveson [Redeemer Nation: The Idea of America’s Millennial Role; U of Chicago Press, 1968] notes that the moralistic, idealistic strand of American thought tends to come to the fore in times of crisis—“the expansionist period, the Civil War, the First World War.” After the evil has been vanquished, the rhetoric dies down, and disillusionment may occur as people realize that evil has not, after all, been extirpated. However, it lurks in the background and may revive in times of crisis. “Yet, despite post-Civil War disillusionment, the myth of the Redeemer Nation kept a hold on the deepest feelings of the country, and in critical moments asserted itself,” citing several speeches of Woodrow Wilson: “America had the infinite privilege of fulfilling her destiny and saving the world.”

Sound familiar? By all accounts, America is in a crisis now, and it’s no surprise that the moralistic rhetoric is deafening. America is more divided now than at any time in its history, except possible during the Civil War, that other great period of moral crusading. We have embarked on yet another battle between  absolute good (diversity) and absolute evil (a sense of White identity and interests), and when the evil is destroyed, it will usher in a golden age of harmony for all.

But disillusionment is bound to occur. The only problem is that it’s looking more and more that  when disillusionment finally does occur among even the most idealistic, moralistic leftists, there are not going to be enough White people who can turn the situation around.

[1] Putnam, “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century”; recent literature is reviewed in Salter, “The Biosocial Study of Ethnicity”; see also “Germany’s Jeopardy.”

[2] See Salter, “The Biosocial Study of Ethnicity.”

[3] Ibid.

[4] Steve Sailer, “Fragmented Future: Multiculturalism Doesn’t Make Vibrant Communities but Defensive Ones,” The American Conservative (January 1, 2007).

[5] H. Robert Outten, Michael T. Schmitt, and Daniel A. Miller, “Feeling threatened about the future: Whites’ emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (2011): 14–25.

 

 

How the University Sector Promotes the “White Insurrection” Concept

/36 Comments/in /by

The January 6th event in Washington, D.C. continues to be systematically promoted as domestic terror, but also as “White insurrection,” and “White Supremacy.”  The three words—supremacy, terror, and insurrection—have been turned into a triad memetic, where supremacy represents terror, and terror leads to insurrection.  They are self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating concepts that can be applied in nearly any context, and positioned as a profound threat to public safety that purportedly needs to be “confronted,” suppressed and extinguished.  It is a theme that is being deepened in its institutional promotion, and accelerated and heightened in its use as threat and intimidation language against millions of Americans who are either conservative, aligned with the Republican Party, or especially, if they are White and have positive attitudes about Anglo-Saxon culture.

What is fascinating however, is how this theme of domestic terror is advanced, not only by most cooperating media that many adults listen to and view, but also that it is firmly entrenched at the higher education level as a tool of political propaganda and influence directed at the nation’s young adults who are at or nearing voting age.  Getting at the 18–25-year-old cohort, with such racial and ideological messaging, is critical in influencing public attitudes, and creating a massive “force” of active followers, whereas older adults generally are either more resistant or indifferent.  Young adults are more prone to become activists, to be more vocal, and to internalize the racial terror concept into their daily thinking and behavior.

“White Supremacy” shares, in this regard, a similar opportunism with the Covid program which in many ways is also centered directly in the university sector, as the modern university or college campus contains all the characteristics and infrastructure necessary to efficiently and effectively promote and disseminate what are highly structured psychological programs, designed to “cognitively infiltrate” (in the words of former Obama advisor, Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein) young adults.

At the center of the structured programming that I’m describing—and perhaps the most deeply committed higher education institution that is actively serving as an ideological conduit and as an effective agent or partner in racial and ethnic propaganda programming—is the University of Chicago.  Its concentrated mix of political influence (active campus “Left” alumni including former president Barack Obama, Chicago Mayor Laurie Lightfoot, US Senator Bernie Sanders, and DNC operative and former Obama advisor, David Axelrod), combined with: active government-corporate sponsored programs in race and identity; medical- and biosecurity-related communications; and the University’s deeply embedded relationships with several foundations, including especially the Rockefeller Foundation, along with the Obama, Soros, Gates, and Pritzker Foundations, and its active management of US Department of Defense and intelligence programs, make the University of Chicago arguably the epicenter of current U.S. university special interest programs that are being directly targeted against the American public.

Among its several institutional campus centers that are actively devoted to the articulation, dissemination, and even “research” concerning “White Terror” is the Chicago Program on Security and Threats (or “CPOST”).  It is headed by former Bush administration White House advisor Robert Pape (Ph.D, UChicago) who is an original member of the Bush “911” team and who subsequently promoted the “Muslim terror” construct, including creating a “Muslim suicide terror” data base as his first effort as head of UChicago’s CPOST.[1]

The Center is supported by an Advisory Board that includes former CIA Deputy (and Acting) Director, Michael Morell who made his career from the Global War on Terror program, and markets himself as one of the few confidants (and apparently a hero) at Bush’s side on 9-11.[2]  It also includes former US Army General Andrew Twomey who acted as “deputy commanding general and chief of staff for the Combined Security Transition Command in Afghanistan, where he planned and directed the execution of security assistance programs to field the Afghan National Security Forces.”[3]

Perhaps more unsettling, and threatening to the larger integrity of the university community is “Counterterrorism Strategic Advisor,” Laurie Adler.  Adler is a graduate of the University of Chicago’s master’s program in International Relations and has a resume that indicates her deep involvement in psychological operations within the Washington establishment: “During her 25-year Washington, DC career, Adler worked with US/International Governments & Fortune 500 clients on counterterrorism, public relations, and government/international affairs.  She managed complex, high-profile, crisis & international public affairs issues.”

As the Strategic Communications Advisor to the US Army’s Human Terrain System (HTS), “Adler led all strategic/crisis communications & public affairs. HTS embedded social scientists with Brigade Commanders in Iraq & Afghanistan which provided field commanders with an understanding of the local population & culture to assist their operational requirements. Spearheading a creative team, she won a $100 million US Special Operations Command psychological operations campaign contract. This campaign was to counter militant Islamic propaganda through creative information campaigns against terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan & worldwide.”[4]

In my view, Adler’s work in the Middle East, like the larger Global War on Terror, is now being turned inward, domestically, on American citizens.  Her new “enemy” is the American “White Supremacist.”

At an organizational level, the University of Chicago consists of a multi-level hierarchy of influence and interests that together create the overall institutional culture and ideology that invites, facilitates and nourishes the kind of programming, like the ideology of “White Terror,” which then serves as a platform for academic activity (research and teaching), as well as for funding, from government agencies, and from private corporations serving them.

At its Board of Trustee level, the University is carefully organized with influencers and interests that consolidate around opportunistic themes, programs and strategic initiatives that can be used for several purposes: to extend university-corporate linkages; to attract finance to underwrite new departments or department expansion; and to attract students and researchers who otherwise have no original intellectual instinct or capability, but can attach themselves eagerly to programs that radiate authority, reinforce social and political consensus, and offer reassurances of further career prospects, especially in an institutional dimension.

The University’s “Becker Friedman Institute” (BFI) is its highly financed, para-state flagship economics center, named after Nobel economist Milton Friedman.[5]  It is another active propaganda platform, staffed with a number of political assets including former Obama chief economics advisor, the far Left Austan Goolsbee, who provides regular defense of racial activism, including his regular apologia for BLM terror and violence, by couching it in seemingly objective economic terms.

The BFI organization itself is run by former Chief Economist for the Obama administration Council of Economic Advisers, Michael Greenstone, who champions state-based programs, government spending, radical taxation, and of course equity and diversity studies as part of his larger social engineering advocacy.[6] A recent BFI-sponsored paper sought to reinforce the January 6th event as White terror, by asserting a scientific study of cellphone location data, targeting private citizens as insurrectionists: “Profiling Insurrection: Characterizing Collective Action Using Mobile Device Data.”[7]  It was a stunning intellectual assault on Americans.

The growing consensus on the concept of “White terror” provides an organizing system of thought that allows graduate students and faculty to attach themselves to an initiative with economic promise, and social recognition.  It is by agreement, not by confrontation, that most young adults and faculty seek their orientation within local societies and institutions like university and college corporations.  By tacitly agreeing and cooperating with “White Supremacy” academic programming, both faculty and graduate students are rewarded with grants, donations, academic publishing, and promises of further employment.

For the various special interests that seek to demonize, marginalize, and responsively classify certain others as “White Supremacists”—and to attach to that label a reflexive, conditioned association of danger, threat, destabilization and criminal intent, it is especially vital to condition young adults. And there is no better place to reach them than in the nation’s higher education complex.  The university system is effectively a ready-made network of “re-education” camps that house, feed, train, socialize, condition, reinforce, and dangle life incentives (career preparation, income, economic fit and stability) in return for conforming to the status quo.

In nearly all fascist, authoritarian and operational communist regimes, it is young adult recruitment and control that is key to creating the “army” of mass obedience, and especially, an army with a self-policing sociology where the young adult mind becomes the effective jailor and keeper of its own intellectual confines and of its own tribal affiliations.  Such recruitment and control reinforce group solidarity, but they also radically reinforce group division among “insiders” and “outsiders”—among the safe and unsafe, the acceptable and the unacceptable.  In the past such programs have provided the cognitive and behavioral justification for incarceration and murder, and in some times and places, even mass extermination, imprisonment or isolation.

The “White Terror” meme cannot be as effectively deployed and enforced on older adults, as they already have a network of interests, associations, beliefs and experiences that create at least some resistance to ideological conditioning, if only through economic self-interest (such as property) and the necessary cooperative routines of living and working in an adult economy.

But students generally have no such (or many fewer) compromises, conflicts, practical concerns or attachments: they live in a world of unattached independence, their lives defined by a rented apartment or dormitory room, a meal plan, and the campus itself as their entire economic world including all the issues related to safety, security, health care, recreation, socialization, romance, and highly defined routines.

The college campus is in fact nearly the perfect microcosm of a socialist society, where many of life’s demands are kept at bay or not even visible. These needs are provided for and centrally directed by a controlling administrative authority, and by older adult “keepers” and guides (faculty) who carefully structure acceptable or desirable thinking, especially at a group political level.  Indeed, it is the power of abstraction, privately employed that, as William James remarked, creates a “vicious abstractionism” that is “among the great original sins of the rationalistic mind.”[8]

The University of Chicago further reinforces this arrangement by completely surrounding the university with authority figures—prominent, influential people. As a pillar of the establishment, it regards the state and certain corporations, foundations, and political and even religious affiliations as more, or less acceptable, or even “safe” or unsafe. In UChicago’s case, this includes the on-campus Institute of Politics, run by former Obama senior advisor and Israel-first advocate, David Axelrod, and the Obama Foundation itself, an institution that is much more than a mere presidential library that protects presidential reputations, but rather an active “community organizing” center that promotes and disseminates its racial ideology across the entire university including the professional graduate schools such as the law school, where he taught “race and law.”

The university is further reinforced ideologically by its deep managerial role with the Fermi Lab, and the Argonne National Laboratories, both Department of Defense installations.  The new Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering and the Pritzker School of Medicine, backed by Chicago’s Pritzker family, act as additional nodes of influence and ideology, including the careful thematic management and credentialing of the overall Covid and biosecurity domain, in large part through the use of the “medical expert” platform it provides. (They act also as effective state broadcast and propaganda centers, issuing medical and behavioral guidance on a nearly daily basis.)  Indeed, race, biosecurity, and social divisiveness are powerfully combined in the realm of vaccination policy, where the “unvaccinated” and especially those who doubt and question the Covid vaccines, are branded as outsiders, and linked to red state politics, and White, conservative, rural, and even southern identity

The current biological and ethno-cultural narratives of racial safety and political safety are combined together to create a powerful fear-threat reaction among young adults who are still cognitively and emotionally vulnerable and developing.  Via the totality of conditioning hosted and operated by the university complex, this represents a new social threat—a threat that is more pronounced and well beyond any previously present on our nation’s university and college campuses.  The ever-present indoctrination of racial animosity, fear and even hatred, re-establishes the education complex—including now even elementary and secondary schools—as an institutional body fully absorbed into the state itself, rather than merely part of a “complex” that historically sought to actively maintain some independence from government, commercial, and political influences.

Like the original American system of federalism that consists of separate, independent layers and units of government, the university, originally founded on similar independence, has collapsed into the center of a unified block of monolithic authority, largely because of its vulnerability to and eager willingness to obtain financial grants from government and private foundations, regardless of their objectives.

V.S. Solovyev is a graduate of the University of Chicago

[1] https://cpost.uchicago.edu/people/profile/robert_pape/

[2] https://cpost.uchicago.edu/people/profile/michael_morell/

[3] https://cpost.uchicago.edu/people/profile/andrew_twomey/

[4] https://cpost.uchicago.edu/people/profile/laurie_adler/

[5] Friedman was not quite the “free market” guru and champion that he is typically portrayed to be, and often argued for state priorities including his design of the income tax automatic payroll deduction system which utterly changed the relationship between the individual and the state by taking private property prior to private review and voluntary agreement.

[6] https://economics.uchicago.edu/directory/michael-greenstone

[7] https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/profiling-insurrection-characterizing-collective-action-using-mobile-device-data/

[8]  THE MEANING OF TRUTH: A SEQUEL TO “PRAGMATISM.” By William James. London, Bombay and Calcutta: LJongmans, Green & Co., 1909

Racism or Rapism: No Third-World People, No Third-World Pathologies

/14 Comments/in /by

One reliable sign of leftism in action is that it most harms those whom it claims to care about most. For example, the Labour party in Britain proclaims its concern for the working-class in its very name. But Labour has been attacking the working-class with mass migration and anti-racism for decades. When working-class Whites called for help against the invasion, Labour didn’t simply ignore them as they were murdered, raped, robbed and driven out of their traditional districts by non-White enrichers. No, it demonized them as “racist,” “xenophobic,” and “fascist.”

The golden rewards of treachery

Roy Hattersley (born 1932), once deputy leader of the Labour party and MP for the Birmingham constituency of Sparkbrook in the 1960s and ’70s, has boasted about his own treachery. He’s written in the Guardian that: “For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist Sparkbrook’s 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.”

Smug traitor Roy Hattersley and his Jewish wife

Hattersley openly admits both that immigration is vitally important — in his own smug and pompous words, it’s one of “the great issues of national policy” — and that he refused to defend the people he was elected to serve. In other words, he betrayed the White working-class. And his treachery has made him both rich and respected. He’s now married to Maggie Pearlstine, the Jewish literary agent who made him rich, and sits in the House of Lords as Baron Hattersley. You can be sure he feels no shame about what was happening to the White working class in Birmingham while he was “resist[ing] Sparkbrook’s demands about the great issues of national policy”:

A man has been convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl 46 years ago, after the daughter conceived during the attack pursued charges against him. Carvel Bennett, 74, was convicted by a jury at Birmingham crown court. Members of the jury deliberated for just over two hours before finding him guilty.

In what is thought to be the first case of its kind, Bennett was tracked down by Daisy, now 45, who was conceived through the rape. DNA tests on Daisy and her birth parents confirmed that Bennett was her biological father. … While Bennett told the court he regretted what had happened, he denied raping her. He said that she had made sexual overtures to him and that she had told him she was 16. She strongly denied both claims.

Bennett said in his evidence: “I didn’t know she was 13. It wasn’t a deliberate, contemplated act. I don’t feel I have to apologise to her. I don’t think I have done anything to her. I don’t remember her as a scared child.” (Man found guilty of rape after woman conceived in attack pursues charges, The Guardian, 2nd August 2021)

A Black breaking barriers: Carvel Bennett

How the Guardian illustrated Mr Bennett’s Black barrier-busting

Thanks to traitors like Roy Hattersley, there have been many “scared children” raped and otherwise harmed by unrepentant non-Whites in Britain. That report appeared in the Guardian, which chose to head it with a photograph of “Birmingham crown court.” The newspaper didn’t want to celebrate another milestone for Britain’s Black community, you see, because Carvel Bennett is Black (another story in the Guardian did give his photo proper prominence). What were the odds that a Black rapist would be the star of “the first case of its kind” in Britain?

Well, the odds would have been low if Blacks committed rape in proportion to their small share of the population. But Blacks commit rape, murder and other violent crimes far out of proportion to their numbers, which is why the leftist parties that support Black migration are also supporting the rape and murder of White women who would otherwise lead rape-free and violence-free lives.

They know the evils they’re importing

That’s leftism, you see: it most harms those whom it claims to care about most. But it isn’t only Black rapists whom leftists import into the West in ever-growing numbers. Muslim men also commit rape and murder far out of proportion to their numbers. And leftists know this very well. The Guardian reported recently on some shocking comments by the Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan. He “advised women to cover up to prevent” men being tempted to rape them.

The Guardian then put Khan’s disgraceful victim-blaming into cultural context: “Pakistan is a deeply conservative country where sexual abuse survivors are often viewed with suspicion and criminal complaints are rarely seriously investigated. Much of the country lives under an ‘honour’ code where women who bring ‘shame’ on the family can be subjected to violence or murder. It regularly ranks among the worst places in the world for gender equality.”

Non-White rapism in White Denmark: Rape-rates by country of origin

An obvious question arises. If Pakistan and other Muslim countries are among “the worst places in the world for gender equality,” will mass migration by Muslims into the West be good for Western women? An obvious answer follows: No, it will be very bad for Western women. And Muslim have proved it by forming anti-White rape-gangs everywhere from Rotherham in England to Sydney in Australia. Leftism has worked its maleficent magic once again. It claims to care immeasurably about women’s welfare while simultaneously importing non-White rapists and misogynists who do immeasurable harm to women’s welfare. And leftists are not doing this out of ignorance. As the Guardian’s own words prove, they know how badly Third-World men behave towards women on home soil. But it doesn’t stop leftists feeding relentless growth of Third-World colonies in the First World. By doing that, they also feed the growth here of Third-World rapism, the genuine rape-culture that flourishes in countries like Pakistan and Jamaica.

An even more remarkable Black rapist

And rather than admit they are wrong, leftists do their best to hide or deny the crime committed by Third-World colonists. The Black rapist Carvel Bennett starred in what “is thought to be the first case of its kind” in British legal history. The Guardian chose to illustrate his breakthrough with a photo of Birmingham crown court. But the leftist ideal is to ignore Black rapism altogether. Back in 1999, the Black rapist Milton Brown was the self-appointed star of his own trial for rape, after he dismissed his defence team and spent “five days” personally cross-examining his three victims.

But he failed in his heroic resistance to the racist White legal system and was jailed for 21 years. The then prime minister, Tony Blair, made a great show of changing the law to prevent men accused of rape being able to cross-examine their alleged victims. At the same time, Blair’s Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche was opening the borders to the Third World and ensuring that lots more rapists like Milton Brown took up residence in Britain.

Rapist then, rapist now: the remarkable Milton Brown

While Brown was in jail, one of his victims committed suicide. It’s reasonable to conclude that she never recovered from the way he had “locked in his [apartment] for three months, sexually abused her and beat her with a nail-studded plank.” But Brown was released early from jail, “after 14 years,” and resumed his career of rape and violence against women. This year, he’s been jailed again on “two counts of rape, assault by penetration and attempted rape.”

You’d expect the feminists at the Guardian to be writing detailed analyses of this Black high-achiever, because his crimes say so much about toxic masculinity, rape-culture, and the shameful woman-harming failures of Britain’s male-dominated justice system. But the Guardian hasn’t mentioned Milton Brown’s remarkable feats at all. Quite understandably, leftists don’t want to discuss Black rapism and the consequences of their own ideology.

The simple choice facing the West

That’s bad enough, but leftists also want to stop everyone else discussing the consequences of leftism. It’s “racist” to point out that Blacks, Muslims and other non-Whites rape at higher rates and in worse ways than White men. And what is worse than racism? Well, rapism is worse than racism. Much worse. Indeed, racism in the true sense isn’t bad at all. It’s a healthy and natural response to Third-World invasion. Unlike leftism, racism acknowledges reality rather than denying reality. It doesn’t seek to harm non-Whites, but to stop non-Whites entering and harming White nations where they don’t belong.

So that’s the choice we face: racism or rapism. Either we acknowledge racial reality or we deny it. If we acknowledge it, we have to send non-Whites back where they do belong. If we deny it, we will continue to suffer rape, murder, terrorism and all the other Third-World pathologies that inevitably accompany Third-World people.

Crime, corruption, and interference: China’s CCP confluence in PC Canada

/22 Comments/in /by

Recent experiences of Canadians in China have Ottawa professing its intention to finally stand up to Beijing. But Canada’s internal Chinese threat demonstrates greater vulnerability to Middle Kingdom machinations. China complements its military and economic power with three Western-bestowed weapons: immigration policies, political correctness, and corporate greed.

Sino-Canadian relations came to prominence on August 10, when a Chinese court imposed the death sentence on a Canadian convicted of drug smuggling. The following day China sentenced another Canadian to 11 years on highly doubtful espionage charges in a largely secret trial. A second alleged Canadian spy awaits trial on equally dubious charges. China arrested those two in apparent retaliation shortly after Canada detained Beijing insider Meng Wanzhou, CFO of tech giant Huawei Technologies, on an American extradition request. While the Canadians languish in solitary confinement, Meng resides in one of her two Vancouver mansions.

Vague talk of trade sanctions and a boycott of Beijing’s 2022 Winter Olympics emphasizes Canada’s helplessness. But China’s depredations inside Canada have long been obvious, especially in Vancouver. The city’s pitiable state might induce scorn, but “Hongkouver” presents a warning to the entire West. With nearly 50 million Chinese living overseas, 80% of them citizens of 180 countries, the rest of the world might wonder whose interests this enormous migration serves. Two recent books have, however cautiously, examined its impact on Canada.

Both authors are journalists, so they distance themselves from any hint of racial realism. Published earlier this year, Sam Cooper’s Wilful Blindness: How A Network of Narcos, Tycoons and CCP Agents Infiltrated the West starts with a preface by a Chinese granting permission to criticize Chinese corruption. Despite Cooper’s disturbing account, the author sometimes expresses almost breathtaking naivete.

Additional revelations come from the 2019 publication Claws of the Panda: Beijing’s Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada. But this writer, former Hong Kong correspondent Jonathan Manthorpe, actually considers “populism” as characterized by Boris Johnson and Donald Trump to be an even more “toxic” threat to Canada than the Chinese Communist Party.

That must be a Chernobyl-level of toxicity because Manthorpe describes China as “a fascist regime . . . with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” He adds comparisons to Russian “Mafia capitalism” and “a classic Chinese imperial dynasty.”

The dynasties bring to mind the Middle Kingdom, a country that for thousands of years shut out the rest of the world to bask in its sense of racial superiority.

Now China has unleashed itself and its presumed superiority on the world. Historically, that’s a stunning reversal of more than a century of humiliation by foreign powers that ended with imperial Japan’s 1945 collapse. During the Opium Wars beginning in 1839, British gunboats opened China to the drug trade with Britain, the world’s first narco-state. Grim irony can be seen in the streets of Vancouver, where a sprawling underclass of mostly White addicts contrasts with an ostentatiously wealthy Chinese elite. Cooper says some Canadian and American intelligence sources believe today’s fentanyl trade represents Beijing’s “weaponized” use of the drug.

As Manthorpe explains, what’s good for Chinese business is good for the CCP. He says it’s irrelevant whether or not a Chinese company is state-owned. All sizeable businesses in China and many abroad hold close ties to the Beijing regime.

That’s an aspect of guanxi, the network of relationships that binds Chinese politicians, entrepreneurs, and gangsters. Yes, gangsters — Canadian police and security intel shows that “China’s government is in fact controlling drug cartels,” Cooper reports.

Beginning in the 1970s, the Chinese population of the Canadian province of British Columbia expanded rapidly thanks to exceptionally lax immigration policies, partly a reciprocal gesture for Chinese trade with powerful Canadian corporations. Maybe few places in the world can match greater Vancouver for its proportion of Chinese. Their numbers, wealth, and influence have transformed the metropolitan area.

Among the results have been soaring real estate prices. By the 1980s, middle class Canadians found Vancouver increasingly unaffordable as affluent new arrivals inflated single-family home prices and tore down modest buildings to put up monster houses and luxury towers.

“A new financial system based on secretive transactions had become the city’s economic centre of gravity,” Cooper writes. The main sources were “drug money and capital flight from Mainland China.”

Despite admonitions about “racism,” concerns have been raised since at least the 1990s about money laundering’s impact on housing. Internationally recognized as “the epicentre of money-laundering” is River Rock Casino, a BC government-owned, largely Chinese-staffed, and Chinese-patronized enterprise in the Chinese-dominated Vancouver suburb of Richmond.

Money soiled in any manner comes clean here. Chinese have literally dragged in hockey bags stuffed with grimy twenties from the street drug trade. Others use more sophisticated money transfers through underground banks in Macau or the Chinese mainland with branches in Vancouver and Richmond. These illegal banks have expanded to serve Hispanic cartels and Iranian-backed narco-terrorists.

River Rock patrons convert the money to gambling chips for a stint at the tables before redeeming the chips for respectable bank drafts. BC-originated money both comes from and fuels drug trafficking and loan sharking, with associated gangsterism like prostitution and murder. Money smuggled into BC from China generally comes from wealthy business/criminal figures (there isn’t much distinction) who, despite their usually cosy CCP connections, want to evade currency export restrictions to establish themselves, their families, and their money overseas.

With that money comes influence. And that influence — notwithstanding the flight from the motherland — serves Beijing. Following a two-year study by RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the 1997 Sidewinder report provided evidence of CCP-linked businessmen, intelligence operatives and Triads affecting Canadian corporate and political spheres. Targets included Canadian real estate (a place to park wealth and a means of influencing local politicians), technology (especially communications and military applications), academia (more tech intel, along with influence over Chinese students and Canadian curricula), media (to propagate the CCP message), and politicians at all levels of government.

As if confirming the evidence, Canada’s political establishment shot the messengers. “Those involved with the investigations were demoted, moved aside or ridden out of town by senior RCMP and CSIS team members,” Cooper states.

Except for a few more investigative reports that met similar fates, Canadian law enforcement largely gave up. But Manthorpe says Sidewinder’s dramatic findings “obscured the far more subtle and successful means that Beijing uses to ensure its interests in Canada and other countries.”

They include the CCP-funded Confucius Institutes in Canadian schools and universities that monitor overseas students and spread CCP propaganda. But not always subtle are tactics of the United Front Work Organizations that China maintains in its consulates and embassies. Ongoing United Front campaigns include stealing intellectual property, harassing overseas Chinese dissidents, and various means of demanding racial loyalty from the diaspora. Special ops have included buying up and shipping home Canada’s (and other countries’) supplies of personal protective equipment while the motherland kept its Covid epidemic secret. Connected with Triads and money laundering, the United Front funds Chinese and compliant White political candidates.

“Most United Front ‘overseas leaders’ are businessmen who trade on their guanxi with Beijing to earn fortunes,” Cooper explains.

Cooper names several Chinese and White politicians on Canada’s municipal, provincial, and federal levels who have likely or overt links to Chinese underground banking, real estate, loan sharking, or United Front activities. Among them is former prime minister Jean Chretien, “who since leaving office, has been at the CCP’s financial trough earning millions for himself and influencing Global Affairs [Ottawa’s foreign ministry] in the public policy realm. Various Liberal Ministers and Global Affairs have shown a bias and written policy that is favourable to China and not to Canada.” And Cooper notes that the family foundation of current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accepted $1 million from a Chinese organization led by a United Front official.

Manthorpe portrays Canada’s last five Quebecois prime ministers as suspiciously China-friendly, from Mao-admirer Pierre Trudeau down to his son Justin. All five have political, business, and/or family links to the Desmarais family of Quebec that runs Power Corp., a strong beneficiary of Sino-Canadian trade and “the premier gatekeeper of this country’s formal relations with China.” However Quebec, unlike the provinces of Ontario and especially BC, remains relatively unscathed by Chinese immigration.

This Quebecois guanxi helps explain why Canada capitulated while our two most similar countries, Australia and New Zealand, continue to resist Chinese influence. Also unlike Canada, the US has launched “a steady stream of prosecutions” against CCP operatives for stealing technology. “It defies belief that the same level of industrial espionage is not going on in Canada,” Manthorpe argues.

But the Quebecois elite aren’t entirely to blame. The story of HD Mining International casts harsh light on BC opportunists. Neither Manthorpe nor Cooper mention this. In 2013 the Chinese company began coal mining in northeastern BC with an underground work force comprised entirely of 51 miners imported directly from China. Prior to suspending work due to declining prices, the company intended to expand the underground operation to 480 Chinese. The company claimed only Mandarin-speakers could understand longwall mining, a procedure commonly used in the US and Australia, among other countries.

Even after media publicized the story (while avoiding its obvious racial implications), the BC government continued to support the company’s Chinese-only hiring policy. HD Mining stuck with its agenda as two other companies in the same region laid off 775 Canadian coal miners.

Some Third World countries have suffered unfettered Sino arrogance, especially after being compromised by the loans and subsidies behind Belt and Road, the multi-trillion-dollar program to link much of the world’s infrastructure and resources to China. But BC has lowered the bar for First World countries. That prompts the question of who in BC benefits.

“Canadian political parties, academic institutions of various sorts, and the media have been far too willing to accept benefits, financial and otherwise, that make them beholden to the CCP,” Manthorpe stresses. “Perhaps most questionable are Canadian politicians and officials who in retirement from public life accept lucrative consultant work or advisory positions with the CCP and its agencies.”

It’s not just the Chinese elite who attract this subservience. Desperate to win votes from greater Vancouver’s huge Chinese middle class, many White politicians embarrass themselves with awkward attempts to speak Mandarin.

Much as China has transformed Canadian politics, Manthorpe says, China has overwhelmed Canadian business. “CCP practices of corruption, contempt for the rule of law and the sanctity of contracts, hierarchical arrogance, and disdain for social disparity have deeply infected the Canadian corporate world.”

Two years ago, after decades of compliance and/or complicity, the BC government ordered an inquiry of sorts into money laundering. As it plods along, the Cullen Commission will supposedly examine the problem’s full scope “including real estate, gaming, financial institutions, and the corporate and professional sectors.”

But a so-far very narrow focus suggests a number of inhibitions, including fear of racism allegations and the current provincial New Democratic Party government’s complicity, in addition to that of its 16-year BC Liberal predecessor. A thorough inquiry, as Cooper’s book implies, would release a non-partisan sorcerer’s apprentice on the entire establishment. The commission’s report comes due in December.

Meanwhile we can speculate how China will assert itself in Canada as this country succumbs to the multi-faceted social revolution. A hint might have come in Montreal’s 2019 homosexual Pride Parade, a type of event as sacrosanct in Canada as is the Hajj to Islam. Barely mentioned in Canadian media was the experience of a small number of would-be participants from Hong Kong who intended to protest Beijing’s anti-homo policies. Parade organizers barred them following threats from a much larger, aggressively contemptuous group of pro-CCP demonstrators. The Beijing supporters then disrupted the event’s moment of silence by singing the Chinese national anthem. Had Whites committed any comparable “hate crime,” of course, all hell would have broken loose. But police, marchers, and the antifa contingent that was presumably present did nothing.

Also present was Prime Minister Trudeau. Normally quick to berate wrong-thinking Anglos, he said nothing.

Even if China uses political correctness to its advantage, the country makes no concessions towards the West’s dominant ideology. Yet the regime has been embraced by Canada’s political and corporate elite.

Wayne Northrup is a pen name for the author of You Can’t Say That (http://youcantsaythat.ca/), a racial satire set in Canada.

“Thieves of Virtue”: A Confucian View of White Social Justice Moralism

/47 Comments/in , /by

“Your good, careful people of the villages are the thieves of virtue.”
Confucius, The Analects, 17.

“They agree with the current customs. They consent with an impure age. Their principles only appear to be right-heartedness and truth. Their conduct only appears to be disinterestedness and purity. All men are pleased with them, and they deem themselves to be right. But one cannot proceed with them to the principles of [the moral exemplars]. For this reason they are called “The thieves of virtue.”
D.C. Lau, Mencius (1970)[1]

One of the surest hallmarks of a cultural death spiral is omnipresent anomie and the universal deadening of the capacity to experience shock. Everything in culture becomes repetitive and suffocatingly numb. I was reminded of this back in June when a friend sent me a video from Wi Spa, a Korean spa in Los Angeles that played host to a controversy when a Black female customer complained without success that customers, including children, were being exposed to the penis of a naked transsexual in a female changing area. While some left-wing sources are now claiming that the Black woman was a Christian conservative who fabricated the complaint, the truth of the matter remains unclear. In any case, the footage was, to me, not remarkable for the allegations (now becoming all too real and predictable regardless of what really happened at Wi Spa), nor the attitude of the Black woman, or even the robotic and dismissive attitude of the staff, but rather for the intervention of a White Beta male who played the role of the quintessential Social Justice Warrior. This man insisted to the Black complainant that females could have a penis, showed total disregard for the children involved in the complaint, and did his utmost to rhetorically strut and preen in the manner of some kind of moralistic human peacock; maintaining one eye on the Black female while employing the other to scan the watching crowd for admiring gazes. The spectacle, sickening for so very many reasons, was all the more perverse for this sideshow.

The Woke ‘Hero’ of Wi Spa

The reasons behind behavior like this are not mysterious. There is a strong element of self-interest and a flow of social incentives for ‘woke’ behavior. A lot of people engage in ‘social justice’ interventions, both online and “in the real world,” because they hope for social, financial, and professional rewards. In the same way that very many people in the age of the smartphone now fear being recorded and made viral as a new racist “Karen,” there are a great many people who want to go viral as an anti-racist social hero.

While punishment for racism is permanent and perpetual, however, the rewards of anti-racism are merely fleeting and superfluous. The System expects everyone to be anti-racist and open to sexual deviance, and so the greatest reward it bestows is not to share its riches or status, reserved only for the elites and a handful of celebrity anti-racists, but instead to offer the common compliant man only the quiet relief of not being seen as antithetical to the hegemonic values of multiculturalism. In this sense, we deal not so much with the carrot and the stick, as the idea that the “carrot” is nothing more than a temporary and conditional avoidance of the stick.

To put it another way, one is anti-racist and woke purely and simply in order to avoid being categorized by the System as racist and bigoted. Among yet others (the “vicar’s daughters-types” once described so vividly by Jonathan Bowden), there is an element of pathological altruism. In these cases, we confront the dim-witted and naive, the prototypes of Dostoevsky’s The Idiot, but without that novel’s protagonist’s charm and redeeming qualities. Combined, these various types of White social justice moralist (the career climber, the fashion follower, the socially anxious, and the painfully naive) are fatal to all right-thinking, and are a major accelerator of decline.

So much, then, for explaining why people behave this way. But what are the moral mechanics at work, and how does this behavior impact matters on a wider social level? During some recent reading of Eastern philosophy, I encountered an interesting concept that might deserve at least some attention — the Confucian idea of the “thieves of virtue” or fake moralists. Confucius (551–479 BC) is an interesting figure for the consideration of White moral social justice trends because he was a traditionalist of his era and because he had a particular interest in the search for moral values in a rapidly changing social context. As such, he made a valuable contribution to developing a distinction between what could be seen as merely popularly moral and what was genuinely moral and sincere.

Confucius and Social Virtue

It’s worth briefly explaining who this ancient Chinese philosopher was, before suggesting why he might have some ideas even remotely applicable to contemporary Whites. Confucius was known in his lifetime as Kong Fuzi, or Master Kong. He was a court scholar who occupied, through a relatively novel meritocratic process, a position not unlike modern civil servants. Confucius sought to integrate the new meritocratic developments of ancient China into old ideals and traditions, and this effort to synthesize the old and the new led to his quest to develop a new moral philosophy with direct social implications. Despite the introduction of meritocracy and the partial replacement of aristocracy, Confucius was opposed to egalitarianism and upheld a strong belief in hierarchy and an innate inequality between men. Deep nobility (junzi) and virtue (de) could, however, be found throughout the hierarchy. If a lowly peasant understood and fully embraced his role within it, for example, he was no less virtuous and valuable than the man at top of the social pyramid. Everyone in the folk community had an important role to play. In this sense, his philosophy is a kind of national socialism, which stressed the ultimate importance of the community over social class. The social pyramid itself was made cohesive and coherent through the Five Constant Relationships: Sovereign-Subject; Parent-Child; Husband-Wife; Elder Sibling-Younger Sibling; and Friend-Friend. It should be pointed out, if it isn’t already obvious, that there is no room for the stranger or the foreigner in this scheme of social obligation and ritual.

Social obligation was itself made manifest through demonstrations of Li, which could be roughly translated as ‘justice,’ but could be more accurately described as ritual propriety. One encountered Li in ancestor worship, at weddings, at funerals, when giving or receiving gifts, and in everyday gestures of politeness such as bowing and using the correct mode of dress. These outwards signs were intended to reflected inner virtue, but only truly did so when performed with sincerity. It was sincerity, along with faithfulness and self-reflection, that really pointed to the genuinely moral and virtuous man.

Thieves of Virtue

The opinions of Confucius on those who merely perform Li without possessing inner virtue are found in the Analects, a collection of fragments of his writings and sayings compiled by his disciples. The Analects together comprise a predominantly political treatise, but the collection is also made up of aphorisms and anecdotes. In section 17 of the Analects, Confucius refers to “village worthies (xiang yuan 鄉愿)” and compares their empty moralism to “assuming a severe expression while being weak inside” and breaking into a home and committing burglary. The “worthy” exterior of the village moralists is thus stolen or unmerited. They are in fact hypocrites who, while critiquing all that is “bad,” are themselves utterly devoid of virtue.

If Confucius’s critique of these “village worthies” was solely limited to their hypocrisy then there would be limited value in applying his critique to contemporary White social justice moralists. We know full well that the majority of White self-styled anti-racists and woke activists are hypocrites. We know that most wealthy White multiculturalists do their very best to have their children educated in predominantly White schools, and to raise their families in predominantly White neighborhoods. The vast majority of people outwardly saying they’re fine with gay marriage and the widespread acceptance of transsexualism secretly hope their children don’t turn out that way. In an era in which pro-diversity propaganda is peaking—with no mainstream dissent, the fact remains that Whites are continuing to quietly self-segregate as much as their resources will allow. We live in an age where everyone proclaims the benefits of diversity while doing their very best to avoid it. Hypocrisy is endemic, and it is obvious.

But Confucius goes deeper than hypocrisy in his criticism of the village worthies, the ‘woke’ types of his era, stressing their role in the development of a kind of moral-social cancer that is catastrophic to national culture. In fact, Confucius’s most pointed critique isn’t that the village worthies wear masks, but that there is nothing to mask. They lack all sense of identity, possess no ideology, and are nothing more than chameleons who take on whatever face is considered attractive or laudable by the elites they want to appeal to.[2] In this sense, when considering our contemporary White social justice moralists (the career climber, the fashion follower, the socially anxious, and the painfully naive), all can be subsumed under the title of “village worthies” who are “thieves of virtue.” All of them are fundamentally empty persons without authentic identity. A similar contemporary pop culture reference point would be the NPC (Non-Playable Character) meme developed by gamers to describe those who, like the background figures in video games, possess no agency or capacity for independent thought. Winnie Sung, commenting on this element of the Analects, writes:

The appearance-only hypocrite, such as Confucius’ village worthies, puts us in a special predicament. For someone who does not wear a mask cannot be unmasked. … There is nothing that we can expose when it comes to the village worthies because there is nothing underneath.[3]

This is particularly egregious for Confucius because identity is a foundation of integrity. The person of integrity is someone who preserves a sense of what identifies the person as essentially the person they are. Or, to put it another way, you need to understand yourself and who you are before you can claim that “you” stand for anything, let alone something as lofty as moral values. Someone who denies their own heritage, ethnic origins, and identity cannot sincerely proclaim any moral values because these values are not rooted in their own identity and are therefore both artificial and adopted. Sung writes:

Assuming that having identifications is necessary for having an identity, since the village worthies do not have their own identifications, we cannot say what kind of person they really are. They do not have anything that they actually identify with, and hence do not have what is truly theirs. We cannot in their case say that there is any break between their practices and their true identity. The village worthies lack integrity not in the sense where one’s identity is corrupted or concealed but because they do not even have their own identifications.[4]

Popular Moralism as Social Cancer

Accompanying instinctive self-segregation, there is an almost contradictory rise in culturally deracinated Whites keen to outwardly disavow the White past and condemn the White present. While the animosities of non-White ethnic groups can be easily understood in the context of inter-ethnic competition and their construction of past suffering at the hands of Whites (e.g., the lachrymose view of Jewish history common among Jews), White complicity in this process remains one of the strongest barriers to mounting a successful challenge against multiculturalism and multiracialism in the West. For Confucius, one of the most galling aspects of this behavior would be the tendency among some Whites to proclaim their status as a “White anti-racist” dedicated to spreading their ideology among other Whites. Confucius would object to such a self-designation, pointing out that such people are already devoid of any sense of White identity or what it means to be White, and that their interventions are thus inherently lacking in integrity and are essentially meaningless. There is thus no real “White anti-racism” but instead a phenomenon wherein empty persons mimic foreign ideas.

Because it is unnatural to loathe one’s own group and identity, when Whites adopt anti-White or anti-racist positions, they are simply reflecting the values of others, particularly oppositional elites. Unfortunately, such behavior can become endemic because “village worthies,” “thieves of virtue,” or NPCs have an endless capacity to mimic fashion. Sung comments:

At a larger scale, Confucius thinks that the presence of people who have no identity of their own, and merely reflect others’ values, is a threat to the moral system. Mencius quotes Confucius as saying: ‘Confucius said, “I detest what is specious. I detest the foxtail for fear it should pass for seedlings. I detest flattery for fear it should pass for what is right. I detest glibness for fear it should pass for the truthful. … I detest purple for fear it should pass for vermilion. I detest the village worthy for fear he should pass for the virtuous.” Just like the color purple (which closely resembles vermillion) easily confuses people and misleads people in their choice, the village worthies, who look just like the virtuous people according to our current conceptions and appear attractive to the audience, easily confuse their audience and mislead the audience to think that they have the more attractive character than the genuinely virtuous people. The village worthies will pretend to have moral qualities that appeal to their audience, and will not pretend to have moral qualities that do not appeal to their audience. Hence, the village worthies will never fail a moral test from the perspective of their audience. Although a small group of genuinely virtuous people might be able to detect the village worthies’ hypocrisy, they will not be able to convince the village worthies’ audience that these seemingly gracious and attractive people are not what they appear.

Social Justice versus Authentic Justice

A formidable obstacle to forming a challenge to the multicultural status quo is the idea that such a challenge is inherently immoral. This is an idea that began with ethnically alien intellectuals and activists who have an obvious self-interest in promoting it. Then, gradually, and with increasing frequency following World War II, the idea was seeded among leading White “village worthies” (politicians, academics, cultural figures) until it reached critical cultural saturation. Accompanying ideas were then also inserted into social fashion, including the notion that any defense of White ethnic interests is immoral. The result has been exactly as Confucius predicted — a wholesale threat to the true moral order. Today, only a dwindling number of representatives of junzi remain in the West, the “small group of genuinely virtuous people” capable of detecting the hypocrisy and false moralism of the age. This is the group which roots its integrity in its identity, and doesn’t feel the need to conceal the fact that its values are based in ethnic self-interest. Like the junzi of Confucius’s time, this small core of authentically moral people are unable to convince the masses that the village worthies—these “seemingly gracious and attractive people” with their allegedly impeccable morals—are not what they appear.

And yet our morality is evidently both genuine and of an especially high type. One of the most important aspects of Li is a sense of what we in the West call “equity.” This is the idea that we should not necessarily follow the letter of the law, but the spirit of it. We don’t automatically reach for the punishment for theft, but try at least to take into consideration why the theft took place when considering the sentence. Inherent in equity is a sense of the dualism of man — the idea the Man is never entirely good, nor entirely bad. A good judge, aware of his own failings as a human, will seek the most humane punishment or resolution to a legal case. In the Western tradition, equity begins in antiquity with the writings of Aristotle (epieikeia) and with Roman law (aequitas), and it is also a strong element (if not the strongest) in Christianity, which critiques Man as a sinner but rejects the rule of Mosaic law (despite the baffling claim of Matthew 5:17) and proclaims the possibility of Man’s capacity for Good and his ultimate redemption. Equity is also strongly evident in the ancient writings of the Chinese, and in the dualist religions of the Indian sub-Continent and the Far East, especially Buddhism. All such instances contrast with the Judaic/Islamic worldview, which lacks equity and sees law (Torah-Shariah) as an end in itself. It should be noted that the Judaic worldview, which makes categorical moral demands, is especially conducive to the development of “village worthies” and “thieves of virtue.”

White social justice moralists lack equity and deny their own dual natures. One would think, given their many lofty proclamations, that one is dealing with saints. And yet it is commonplace to discover that this or that anti-racist politician or activist is corrupt, a pervert, a child abuser, a slanderer, or some other form of human pond scum. These people, riddled with all kinds of neuroses and obsessions, cling to anti-racism like a life raft, finding in it at least one meagre chance of passing themselves off as “good people.”

Anti-racism, it might be said, is the moral band-aid of our age, covering a multitude of sins. Confucius, on the other hand, would see “racism,” or the seeking of one’s own ethnic interests, as moral to the extent that it proceeds from tradition, from identity, and from the integrity bestowed by both. For Confucius, a war of conquest contains an honesty that a professed moral crusade does not. He would have little patience for contemporary hand-wringing about past European conquests or enslaving Africans. How can one proclaim selflessness when proclaiming selflessness brings one social rewards that benefit the self? Confucius compared this delusion of morality to banging a drum in search of a fugitive—those most loudly bleating about moral matters will always find that true morality eludes them. The man who seeks after his community’s material interests, on the other hand, will be sated by securing them and will not entertain self-delusion. His desires are universal, predicable, and capable of satisfaction. The posturing moralist, or “thief of virtue,” on the other hand, is a true annihilator, since he will not rest until his fashionable worldview, in all its banality, is universally imposed. In this view, Genghis Khan is the moral superior to Moses, and infinitely less dangerous to social order.

Conclusion

Confucius’s perspective on community morality offers a nuanced and interesting perspective on some of the troubling issues confronting Western societies today, especially the total dominance of multiculturalism and Leftism in moral discourse. One of the major problems confronting movements for the defense of White interests is the culturally ubiquitous idea that such a defense is intrinsically immoral, and this idea has advanced to such a degree that several forms of defending White interests have been criminalized. Confucius’s concept of the “thieves of virtue” undermines the claims of this mass false morality and points out that fashion and conformity can smother authentic virtue and morals. We live in an age when most Whites lack identity, and thus integrity, and we have witnessed a kind of mass chameleon effect where the goals of foreign elites are mimicked and parroted for short-term personal relief or reward. This is a threat to the authentic moral system—a system which derives its morality from tradition and identity. It is moral and a demonstration of virtue and nobility to defend and expand upon one’s ethnic interests. The man who claims instead to be a world citizen, or to love everyone, is a liar. Such a man is a thief of virtue.

[1] Lau, D.C. trans. 2003 [1970]. Mencius. London: Penguin Books.

[2] Sung, W. (2020). Confucius’s village worthies : hypocrites as thieves of virtue. Alston, C., Carpenter, A. & Wiseman. Rachael (Eds.), Portraits of Integrity: 26 Case Studies from History, Literature and Philosophy Bloomsbury Academic.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

Kabullshit

/57 Comments/in /by

Actual mural at the US embassy in Kabul

How much did the Afghan War cost?

“When you add up the cost of Defense and State Department funds sunk into Operations Enduring Freedom and Resolute Support, then throw in the cost of caring for the conflicts’ veterans and the interest on the money borrowed to cover it all, you’re looking at over $2 trillion, according to a report released Friday.” [source]

I estimate that’s about around $7000 per U.S. citizen. Real value for money! What about the allies?

The UK and Germany – who had the largest numbers of troops in Afghanistan after the US – spent an estimated $30bn and $19bn respectively over the course of the war. [source]

Of course, a lot of people also died, but we won’t go into that. So, what was it all about?

The “prole feed” version of why we were in Afghanistan for TWENTY YEARS!!!! was (1) to fight terrorism, (2) improve women’s education and opportunities, and (3) create a nice cosy environment for Afghan’s LGBTQ+ population.

Woke joke!
If you believed any of those “Kabullshit” reasons for even five seconds then you were sadly duped. In fact you can be absolutely sure that certain globalist scumbags were pissing themselves laughing at your gullibility.
No, the real reasons Western countries poured trillions of dollars into this failed enterprise was because there were real potential benefits to our power elites — at least in the early days. But what were they?
One obvious reason was, of course, not even connected to Afghanistan, but to an entirely different country in the Middle East:
Stop putting your country so close to our bases!
Yes, having U.S. bases in Afghanistan was a geopolitical move against Iran, either to serve Saudi Arabia, Israel, or the petrodollar, and probably all three. With the pull-out from Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran looks a little less surrounded than it was.
Also, you can extrapolate out from this and see Western involvement in Afghanistan as a move against China and Russia (ChiRus). But that’s a much bigger, fuzzier, and more complex picture, so let’s just stick with keeping this article tightly focused.
What other clear, concise reasons, then, did the West have for wasting the first two decades of the 21st century in a Third World shit hole?
Well, I guess, opium production is worth taking a look at:
Yup, that’s right. The Taliban, when they were first in power, were quite effective at stamping out the  opium trade. But once the West installed a puppet government, production shot up.
I’m not going to say that was deliberate U.S. policy, because the idea of the American government spending $2 trillion+ just to increase dope production in Central Asia looks retarded. But who knows? In my view, it’s much more a case of farmers turning to a surefire cash crop as a way of surviving the chaos unleashed by Western occupation and Taliban resistance. Also, as part of this picture, there’s plenty of evidence of Afghan government people being tied up in the opium trade and the West turning a blind eye.
But other economic factors are far more important.
Did you know that Afghanistan is sitting on a treasure trove of minerals? No, I didn’t either until I looked. The media was too busy telling me about how wonderful it was that young girls were being encouraged to burn their hijabs by feminist teachers flown in from the West.
Here’s an optimistic report on this mineral wealth from 2014:
“Despite being one of the poorest nations in the world, Afghanistan may be sitting on one of the richest troves of minerals in the world, valued at nearly $1 trillion, scientists say.
Afghanistan, a country nearly the size of Texas, is loaded with minerals deposited by the violent collision of the Indian subcontinent with Asia. The U.S. Geological Survey began inspecting what mineral resources Afghanistan had after U.S.-led forces drove the Taliban from power in the country in 2004.
In 2006, U.S. researchers flew airborne missions to conduct magnetic, gravity and hyperspectral surveys over Afghanistan.
The aerial surveys determined that Afghanistan may hold 60 million tons of copper, 2.2 billion tons of iron ore, 1.4 million tons of rare earth elements such as lanthanum, cerium and neodymium, and lodes of aluminum, gold, silver, zinc, mercury and lithium. For instance, the Khanneshin carbonatite deposit in Afghanistan’s Helmand province is valued at $89 billion, full as it is with rare earth elements.”
But minerals are hard to get out. The real riches lie just beyond Afghanistan, with Afghanistan merely serving as a stepping stone to get at them.
To the North of Afghanistan lies Turkmenistan, which has almost as much natural gas as the United States. As a remote, landlocked country, surrounded by greedy neighbours, however, it has very few easy routes to offload this precious resource.
Here’s a graph showing how it measures up to the other big gas producers:
That’s Turkmenistan in 6th place, right behind the USA.
Back in the early days of the occupation, the plan was to pacify the country and then build a nice, long pipeline through Afghanistan, linking Turkmenistan to Pakistan, India, and the Indian Ocean.
Yeh, I know, in hindsight it looks pretty stupid, and Pakistan is far from being a reliable ally. But in the early Zeroes, it must have seemed almost a possibility. So, what went wrong?

Well, quite simply, the US had a rival, namely China, which decided, as part of its Belt and Road Strategy, to build its own pipeline linking Turkmenistan to China’s vast industrial hinterland. By 2009, Turkmeni natural gas was flowing all the way to Shanghai.

That was the real death knell for Western involvement in Afghanistan, greatly lowering the incentives to stay there year after year.

After 2009, Western involvement increasingly became a question of saving face and protecting political reputations, while also forlornly hoping that the Afghans would turn their backs on the Taliban.

The writing was clearly on the wall, but the Obama Administration thought it was worth a couple more rolls of the dice. That is what led to the pointless troop surges of 2009 and 2010:

Once that failed, it was merely a case of hanging on to pass the poisoned chalice of defeat to someone else. Finally, in the last few days, it ended up on Joe Biden’s lips. Suck it up, Joe! You’re the fall guy for decades of failure.
___________________________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia). He is also featured in Arktos’s collection A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders.

Jennifer Rubin et al. Rejoice at the Impending Minority Status of Whites

/65 Comments/in /by

There has been much joy in liberaldom over the recent findings that for the first time in American history the number of Whites declined, and that Whites now make up only 57.8%. of the U.S. population A good example is Jennifer Rubin, a neocon Israel-firster who decamped from the GOP in 2016 with the rise of Trump, because of Trump’s populist rhetoric on immigration and other issues related to their campaign for a non-White America. As she said at the time, “Trump’s nativism and xenophobia make him toxic with a good deal of the American Jewish community for whom such sentiments have invariably been associated with governments hostile to Jews.” For Jews like Rubin, opposition to nativism and xenophobia by Whites in Western countries really comes down to hating Whites.

It’s been obvious for a long time that the neocons not only wanted to make the GOP safe for Israel (it is now more pro-Israel than the Democrats), but also that they sought to move the party to the left on social issues, and immigration in particular. From “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement” (2004):

Samuel Francis witnessed much of the early infighting among conservatives, won eventually by the neocons. Francis recounts the “catalog of neoconservative efforts not merely to debate, criticize, and refute the ideas of traditional conservatism but to denounce, vilify, and harm the careers of those Old Right figures and institutions they have targeted.”

There are countless stories of how neoconservatives have succeeded in entering conservative institutions, forcing out or demoting traditional conservatives, and changing the positions and philosophy of such institutions in neoconservative directions.… Writers like M. E. Bradford, Joseph Sobran, Pat Buchanan, and Russell Kirk, and institutions like Chronicles, the Rockford Institute, the Philadelphia Society, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute have been among the most respected and distinguished names in American conservatism. The dedication of their neoconservative enemies to driving them out of the movement they have taken over and demonizing them as marginal and dangerous figures has no legitimate basis in reality. It is clear  evidence of the ulterior aspirations of those behind neoconservatism to dominate and subvert American conservatism from its original purposes and agenda and turn it to other purposes.… What neoconservatives really dislike about their “allies” among traditional conservatives is simply the fact that the conservatives are conservatives at all—that they support “this notion of a Christian civilization,” as Midge Decter put it, that they oppose mass immigration, that they criticize Martin Luther King and reject the racial dispossession of white Western culture, that they support or approve of Joe McCarthy, that they entertain doubts or strong disagreement over American foreign policy in the Middle East, that they oppose reckless involvement in foreign wars and foreign entanglements, and that, in company with the Founding Fathers of the United States, they reject the concept of a pure democracy and the belief that the United States is or should evolve toward it.

Most notably, neoconservatives have been staunch supporters of arguably the most destructive force associated with the left in the twentieth century—massive non-European immigration. Support for massive non-European immigration has spanned the Jewish political spectrum throughout the twentieth century to the present. A principal motivation of the organized Jewish community for encouraging such immigration has involved a deeply felt animosity toward the people and culture responsible for the immigration restriction of 1924–1965—“this notion of a Christian civilization.”105 As neoconservative Ben Wattenberg has famously written, “The nonEuropeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” The only exception—thus far without any influence—is that since 9/11 some Jewish activists, including neoconservative Daniel Pipes, head of the MEF, and Stephen Steinlight, senior fellow of the American Jewish Committee, have opposed Muslim—and only Muslim—immigration because of possible effects on pro-Israel sentiment in the U.S.

Neoconservatives have been far more attached to Jewish interests, and especially the interests of Israel, than to any other identifiable interest. It is revealing that as the war in Iraq has become an expensive
quagmire in both lives and money, Bill Kristol has become willing to abandon the neoconservatives’ alliance with traditional conservatives by allying with John Kerry and the Democratic Party. This is because Kerry has promised to increase troop strength and retain the commitment to Iraq, and because Kerry has declared that he has “a 100 percent record—not a 99, a 100 percent record—of sustaining the special relationship and friendship that we have with Israel.” As Pat Buchanan notes, the fact that John Kerry “backs partial birth abortion, quotas, raising taxes, homosexual unions, liberals on the Supreme Court and has a voting record to the left of Teddy Kennedy” is less important than his stand on the fundamental issue of a foreign policy that is in the interest of Israel.

The Ben Wattenberg quote is classic and worth repeating. “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” Clearly the Jewish commitment to a non-White America has powerful emotional overtones.

It was noted above that neocons have a pattern of supporting an interventionist foreign policy. The debacle in Afghanistan won’t change that.

For neocons like Rubin, the 20-year disaster in Afghanistan, which cost thousands of dead and maimed and trillions of dollars, was a great idea that fell short because of tactical mistakes. Sort of like the Marxists who claim that real communism has never been tried. Neocon interventionist ideology dominates the U.S. foreign policy establishment. They’ll do another Afghanistan in a heartbeat, complete with wall-to-wall propaganda that this particular war (Iran is on the top of their list) is a moral imperative. I suppose Rubin also thinks it’s fabulous that 85 percent of the deaths in Afghanistan (82.6 percent in Iraq) were White, almost all White males.

It’s useful to recall the hysteria among neocons about the impending Trump presidency in 2016. Rubin was far from alone, and it shows that besides Israel, neocons had typically Jewish attitudes on White identity and interests. Bret Stephens, who moved from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times in 2017 and is routinely described as a “conservative” wrote:

[Trumpism] is a regression to the conservatism of blood and soil, of ethnic polarization and bullying nationalism. Modern conservatives sought to bury this rubbish with a politics that strikes a balance between respect for tradition and faith in the dynamic and culture-shifting possibilities of open markets. When that balance collapses—under a Republican president, no less—it may never again be restored, at least in our lifetimes. [Hillary, the Conservative Hope, May 9, 2016]

Or Robert Kagan, who jumped ship to be part of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy team:

[Trump’s] public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others”—Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees—whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

Contra Stephens, the neocons never respected tradition and gave only lip service to faith. Their only outreach was recruiting Evangelical Christians to the cause of a rabidly pro-Israel foreign policy.

Stephens is correct in that there was an older tradition of conservatism based on the ethno-national interests of the traditional American majority. This was purged by the neocons. In 2016, they were deathly afraid that the older conservatism was returning, perhaps in the form of the Alt Right—the only recognizable intellectual constituency that supported Trump.

*   *   *

Tucker Carlson emphasized Rubin’s recent tweet on his August 13 show in a segment emphasizing the left’s rejoicing at the news that there are fewer White people in the U.S. He clearly framed it as indicating hatred for White people—”gloat[ing] over the decline of a race.” Indeed, he infers that Rubin’s joy at the decline of the White population implies that she is happy for the hundreds of thousands of mostly rural White people who have died in the opioid epidemic.

The segment includes an interview with Pedro Gonzalez, Associate Editor of Chronicles, who notes that anyone noticing that White people are being marginalized can expect to be called a racist. And he notes that White life expectancy has declined—people like Rubin “spit on their graves”—and that Whites are disadvantaged in the job market and education—achieved by lowering standards for “everyone else.”  A good example is that standardized tests are being removed from  college admissions as “racist,” and recently Oregon passed a law saying that it is illegal to require reading and math proficiency to graduate high school. I don’t envy employers looking for competent employees. Degrees, whether from high school or from college, mean nothing.

Gonzalez states “The ruling class [which, as he notes, is a “uniparty”] in the country has deconstructed the nation it was entrusted to govern. It invited millions of people into the country and told them that any disparity in outcome—you just point to a white person and say ‘it’s your fault.'”

Quite right. But of course, what is inevitably missing from Carlson’s show is any serious attempt to describe the ruling class and its ethnic commitments, as personified by Rubin with her perch in the elite mainstream media.

Carson and Gonzalez agree that Rubin et al. are unleashing racial hatred and that this could have cataclysmic effects that would destroy the country. I suspect that the left understands this but are confident that by purging the military and controlling the national security apparatus—control that would be beyond the ability of even a true populist or explicitly White nationalist president to easily reverse at this point—they could win  such a war. On the other hand, the good news is that it is likely true that a great many White people—certainly including Carlson’s audience given his repeated emphasis on this theme—are indeed becoming aware of the very hostile and dangerous society that they now live in. By being explicit that this power is directed against White America, Carlson is certainly performing an important service. Perhaps the above video is his most explicit assertion that what the elites are doing is fundamentally anti-White.

I realize that many people reading this site view Carlson as controlled opposition, but he is clearly the only mainstream media figure who is framing immigration and the demographic transformation of America as fundamentally anti-White, although he often sometimes says that it’s against the interests of all current citizens because it dilutes their voting power. This latter is a specious argument, at least as it applies to Asians and Latinos, because these groups stand to increase their power. And, despite the well-known fact that immigration hurts Blacks the most (because it increases competition for low-end jobs), the Black leadership is entirely on board with the anti-White revolution because it results in greater power for themselves (as noted in the clip by the Black representative in the above video), and many are eager to avenge the perceived injustices of the past. Hatred of Whites is entirely mainstream these days, emanating from the elite media and the academic world, and by many in the political class.

We’re reminded once again that the demographic revolution is not motivated by love of humanity or empathy for the downtrodden, but by lust for power and hatred toward Whites. The hatred toward Whites won’t stop when Whites become a minority, and it’s a utopian delusion to think otherwise. Jewish hatred toward Whites is fueled by their perceptions of the past, from the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. to the holocaust. The hatred that fueled the slaughter in the early decades of the Soviet Union, based on Jewish perceptions of Orthodox Christianity and their perceptions of persecution by the Czars and by Russian peasants, didn’t end after they had achieved power. Indeed, the main motive for Jewish activism in influencing U.S. immigration law was to change the ethnic balance of the country so that Whites would not be a majority, as argued in Culture of Critique (Ch. 7) and noted more recently by Otis Graham: the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western European so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” No wonder Jewish activists like Rubin and Wattenberg have such a strong emotional attachment to the idea that America not have a White majority.

White liberals (obviously, as an intensely ethnocentric Jew, Rubin is not in that category) will be cursed by their children and grandchildren for being complicit in this transformation. But they’ll likely go to their graves thinking themselves morally superior—even as the revolution turns on them.