Featured Articles

Critical Race Theory as a Jewish Intellectual Weapon

/76 Comments/in , /by

Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed — not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.
Noel Ignatiev in his journal Race Traitor

The open pursuance of ‘Whiteness Studies’ must be perceived as nothing less than an act of extreme, even violent, aggression against the White race.
Andrew Joyce on Whiteness Studies

To be effective, social engineering cannot be perceived.
Michael Jones in Logos Rising

Earlier this year, my brother suddenly asked me what “Critical Race Theory” was. I was elated, for this was proof that this pernicious, genocidal, anti-White theory was finally entering into the consciousness of Whites. Since my brother asked me, stories about Critical Race Theory (CRT) have mushroomed, including much criticism of this previously arcane intellectual trend.

Much to my amazement, however, I’ve noticed that few if any critics of CRT have associated the theory with Jewish ethnic activism.

Though the theory has long been employed in university settings, more recently it has turned up in government and corporate offices, and even the military has been pushing it since the inauguration of Joe Biden as President. For me, it’s long been a given that CRT is linked to the social engineering of our “hostile elite,” which in the context of The Occidental Observer means powerful Jews and Jewish organizations who rule over America and much of The West. When viewed more broadly, however, the topic of CRT has in fact been much addressed by our writers but often under a consideration of something called “Whiteness Studies.” In that sense, I’m merely adding the term “Critical Race Theory” to an ongoing conversation about Jewish ethnic war on Whites.

For me, CRT fits squarely into the mold of Kevin MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique” category in which Jewish “gurus” concoct a Talmudic verbal assault whose main goal is the further destruction of Gentiles  —  literally. I know because I had a ringside seat to the introduction of CRT in the graduate schools of the 1990s, with one of the most vicious practitioners of the “art” as one of my required professors. It was a brutal experience, but at least I was forced to reckon with it from then on and have since probed more and more deeply into its Jewish roots. In that sense, I’ve gained from the trauma I experienced and emerged out the other end able to share with my audience the lessons I’ve learned.

To tell this story, let’s begin with a now obscure Australian writer named Robert Hughes (1938 – 2012), who was once described as “the most famous art critic in the world.” In 1993, he’d gotten so fed up with identity politics that he penned the book Culture of Complaint: The Fraying of America (Oxford University Press). In this book, he rightly skewered the growth of the Grievance Industry, giving example after example of how black groups or women’s groups or whatever loudly attacked the White Majority for all manner of sins. I recall how his book attracted attention from many of the print journals of the time, with many taking the Australian author’s side, so bad had this “culture of complaint” become.

What frustrated me, however, was the fact that Hughes completely neglected to address the “meta-complaint” in the West from which all lesser complaints emerged. To wit, Hughes failed to see how The Holocaust Narrative had been so successful in advancing Jewish interests that naturally other groups eagerly imitated this successful model.

Of course in 1993 the Complaint Industry was just hitting its stride and I soon endured the “graduate education” described above, with mere complaint being elevated to something far more pernicious and menacing. In any case, the direction of complaint was always the same: Against the White race.

I eventually staggered out of higher education, badly bruised and emotionally scarred, but with terminal degree in hand. Sturdier souls might have crowed that “Whatever doesn’t kill me only makes me stronger,” but I’ve been too battered since to engage in such braggadocio. Instead I try to keep my head down and stoically soldier on. Jews are playing for keeps in this battle.

Fast forward a few years when I was diligently working on a major composition about Jewish power in America and a professor of history with a Harvard Ph.D. twice encouraged me to “give the work of Kevin MacDonald a fair hearing.” I did and the experience has been life changing. His trilogy, culminating in The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, appeared to me at just the right time; I was ready to truly hear what the master had to say.

Of course I immediately recognized the similarity of main titles between Hughes’ “Culture of Complaint” and MacDonald’s “Culture of Critique,” but fortunately the latter’s laser-like focus on Jews made MacDonald’s book far more important than Hughes’. Verily, if Whites ever come out of the ethnic battle described by MacDonald, The Culture of Critique will be among the top books in the new Western pantheon. Future generations of Whites will know the name “Kevin MacDonald” as household words, as well they should.

Here, I am assuming our audience knows the gist of Culture of Critique, as well as the later Cultural Insurrections, so I’m going to now jump to the founding of MacDonald’s Occidental Observer, the online blog which emerged from The Occidental Quarterly, our side’s academic journal. Early on, in 2008, MacDonald published a blog called “Promoting genocide of Whites? Noel Ignatiev and the Culture of Western Suicide” in which he parsed the wordplay used by the late Jewish professor from Harvard to reveal its genocidal intentions toward Whites. Ignatiev was the founder of the journal Race Traitor, the motto of which is “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity,” a phrase which immediate recalls Jewess Susan Sontag’s infamous lines “The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilisation has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history …”

Situating Ignatiev’s clever use of words in the category of Jewish ideologies deconstructed in Culture of Critique, MacDonald wrote,

Our interpretation is that Ignatiev’s views are nothing more than ethnic competition. As a leftist Jew, he is part of a long tradition that has opposed white interests and identity — the culture of critique that has become the culture of Western suicide. And like so many  strongly identified Jews, his hatred for the people and culture of the West comes shining through.

Further falling back on categories included in Culture of Critique, MacDonald concluded that

Ignatiev is just another Jewish intellectual in a long line that stretches back to Franz Boas, the Frankfurt School, and myriad others who now dominate the culture of Western suicide. He may call himself a race traitor, but there is every reason to believe that he has a sense of allegiance to his own people and the long history of hostility to the people and culture of the West that is so typical of highly committed Jews. For him, being a race traitor comes easily and naturally; it’s the mother’s milk of socialization as a Jew.

As fate would have it, the Jewish professor who so tormented me and other Whites in grad school had many similarities to Ignatiev, beginning with appearance:

And what MacDonald wrote about Ignatiev — “People like Ignatiev, who doubtless have a strong sense of their own ethnic identity and interests, have managed to pathologize any sense of ethnic identity and interests among Europeans and European-derived peoples — and no one else”  — was true in spades of my graduate school oppressor. What we were exposed to in the 90s is identical to what various critics of Critical Race Theory are describing now — the struggle sessions, the mandatory lectures on “White privilege,” and the complete lack of debate or discussion. I had to watch as our esteemed professor subjected White individuals to withering criticism in class, first reducing a young woman to tears, then much to my disgust, a fellow White male grad student. It was awful.

While MacDonald did not use the phrase “Critical Race Theory” to label Ignatiev’s assault, he was in fact describing the same thing. Best, MacDonald saw through Ignatiev’s sophism to expose the real intent, something which others on TOO have done since, as we shall soon see. Before addressing that, however, I’d like to add an aside whose timing is too good to ignore. As I was about to embark on my dissertation after having completing coursework and exams, another Jewish professor gave me a book he had received gratis in the chance that he might review it. The professor opted not to and gave me the fresh copy:

Written in 1997 by law professor Stephen M. Feldman, the book was titled Please Don’t Wish Me a Merry Christmas: A Critical History of the Separation of Church and State (NYU Press). The subtitle containing “Critical History” points to the fact that the sponsor of the book was the Critical America Series from NYU Press, whose myriad titles revealed by the link can be enjoyed at readers’ leisure. Oh, I should mention that the very first words of the Introduction are: “I am Jewish.” Thus began another “culture of critique” attack on Western man and his major holiday.

Andrew Joyce on “Whiteness Studies”

The Occidental Observer was extremely fortunate to attract the considerable writing skills of Andrew Joyce, beginning with his Limerick “pogrom”: Creating Jewish victimhood, posted on St. Patrick’s Day in 2012. By 2015, however, he had written what can be seen as an extension of MacDonald’s 2008 unpacking of Ignatiev’s brutal intellectual campaign. In “Jews, Communists and Genocidal Hate in ‘Whiteness Studies,’” Joyce drew on MacDonald to show that “Ignatiev only very thinly disguised the unrestrained hatred that his ‘discipline’ incites against Whites and their culture.” Further quoting MacDonald, Joyce noted that

Ignatiev et al. have developed a story that goes as follows: A bunch of very bad people got together and created a category called “white” to which they belong but people with different colored skin can’t belong. Then they made laws that favored people in the white category, they colluded with other whites to dominate the economic and political process, and they invented baseless scientific theories in which whiteness had its roots in real biological differences.

All Ignatiev’s written material that we’ve seen carries the same odd message with the same extreme wording…Ignatiev writes darkly and dramatically of “abolishing the white race,” “genocide of whites,” etc. When pressed, he emphasizes that that he doesn’t really mean killing people who call themselves white. He only wants to destroy the concept of whiteness. So he’s off the hook, right?

Joyce comments:

Not quite. Ignatiev is really just playing a game of bait and switch. While fully tuned-in to his own Jewish racial identity, he ostensibly follows the PC line that “races” are only “social constructs.” When pressed, he claims to be little more than an extreme egalitarian, against all social hierarchies but especially those in which he imagines Whites to be at the top.

Like MacDonald, Joyce easily sees through Ignatiev’s gambit, writing that “The party line, therefore, is that it’s all about getting White people to stop thinking that they are White – for their own good of course. So while Black studies, women’s studies, Chicano studies etc. all aim to develop and nurture their relative identities and social agendas, ‘Whiteness Studies’ aims to utterly extinguish any sense of identity and awareness of group interests,” a very important distinction indeed.

Much of what Joyce wrote was very familiar to me by 2015. For instance, the wife of Frankfurt School member Herbert Marcuse “devoted much of her time to pushing her ideology through her ‘Unlearning Racism’ workshops, and indoctrinating White teenagers into supporting multiculturalism through her Oakland-based ‘New Bridges’ group.” Another Jewish woman, Ruth Frankenberg, wrote in 1993 that the dogma of her Whiteness discipline

orbits around the belief that race is nothing more than a fluid social, political and historical construct. She argued that while Whites may deny that they are ‘racist,’ they cannot deny that they are White. Frankenberg proceeded to argue that Whites are implicitly racist by virtue of their ‘dominant’ position in western society, and contended that we should ‘critically reflect’ on this social position of dominance that White people occupy in our society. ‘Whiteness Studies’ to Frankenberg, like her predecessors, was therefore nothing more than an exercise in convincing Whites that they are oppressors, whether they wished to be or not, and whether they had actually personally taken part in any oppression or not.

Been there, heard that back in the 90s. I’m sorry now that the broader public is hearing and being submitted to the same thing in the Biden Era.

Joyce had other good things to say. For instance, he found a section from Savitri Devi’s The Lightning and the Sun to be useful in exposing the deceit employed in Jewish aggression:

Inconspicuous, slow, yet implacable persecution, both economic and cultural: the systematic suppression of all possibilities for the vanquished, without it ‘showing,’ the merciless ‘conditioning’ of children, all the more horrible that it is more impersonal, more indirect, more outwardly ‘gentle,’ the clever diffusion of soul-killing lies; violence under the cover of non-violence.

“Violence under the cover of non-violence” — although it could certainly morph into violence if Whites lose power to the rising tide of color, and indeed, we can already see the rise in anti-White violence in the interracial crime statistics and incidents like these, as compiled by AmRen. It was tactics like these that caused me so much distress as an isolated and powerless grad student years ago. Back then I knew of no Kevin MacDonald or Andrew Joyce who could guide me through those roiled waters. While I could recognize my professor’s method as a deliberate form of social engineering, I couldn’t yet figure out how it was done, so I was demoralized because, as E. Michael Jones said in the epigraph which begins this essay, “To be effective, social engineering cannot be perceived,” and I could not fully perceive what these words meant, even as I felt their sting and saw their near universal effectiveness, just as I fear their effectiveness now.

Since grad school, my goal has been to understand this social engineering and explain it to others, which I have attempted relentlessly, in the classroom and in these columns. I now find comfort in the company of men like Andrew Joyce, who concluded in this White Studies piece,

The ‘educational’ programs of the ADL, the obliteration of our national borders, the assassination of our racial identity, and the slow genocide of our people are being accomplished without the bullet, bomb or blades. But it is, and will be, tremendously violent in its implications. Whiteness studies are not part of an academic discipline in any true sense of that term. The genre is an act of inter-ethnic aggression.

Joyce revisited Jewish involvement in Whiteness Studies (again, a close cognate, in my view, of Critical Race Theory) in 2020 with “Review of Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility,” a book that “is heavily and transparently influenced by Jewish thought and by Jewish pioneers in the field she now finds so conducive to fame and fortune.”

Sure enough, Joyce found concrete evidence of this in the bibliography — “so many names from my research on Whiteness Studies. They were almost all there, protruding from the page like shunned relatives at a family reunion — Noel Ignatiev, George Lipsitz, Ruth Frankenberg, Michelle Fine, Lois Weis, along with helpful co-ethnics like Thomas Shapiro, David Wellman, Sander Gilman, Larry Adelman, and Jay Kaufman. These are DiAngelo’s mentors and intellectual forbears …” We are definitely seeing a pattern here.

Critical Race Theory in the News Today

I originally began this essay with a story about Lt. Colonel Matthew Lohmeier, who was fired for publicizing his views on the introduction of CRT into the military. Admittedly, it was asking for trouble to publish a book titled Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest & the Unmaking of the American Military in today’s current climate, but he did. In an online Revolver article concerning the controversy, we find that “Lohmeier appeared on several podcasts to promote his book, and in response the Pentagon fired him. According to the DoD, his statements caused a ‘loss of trust and confidence in his ability to lead.’”

The article continued, “As far as Revolver and tens of millions of American patriots are concerned, Lohmeier’s actions represent the very pinnacle of courage and leadership,” an opinion I’ll second. Still, based on this interview, it seems Lohmeier could benefit from exposure to MacDonald’s Culture of Critique or my short discussion of White Studies above. When a term like “Marxist Race Theory” is used by an author, is it knowingly used as shorthand for “Jewish”? My impression given this interview and my brief exposure to Revolver’s approach is “No.” And that’s a problem. Consider Lohmeier’s words:

I am often asked, “how did this happen?” or, “when did this happen?” How is it, for example, that American people and institutions — predominantly our education system, and now, all federal agencies including even our military services — increasingly resonate and align with Marxist thought? How is it that Americans can now so easily question or forget the greatness of the American ideal and become victims to the tactics of subversion? Why haven’t we been able to recognize our slide into Marxism? There are two ways this has happened: gradually, then suddenly. …

Obviously, if he’s read The Culture of Critique, he knows “how this happened.” Given his relatively young age, if he’s followed the podcasts of The Daily Shoah or read more than a few dozen Andrew Anglin stories on The Daily Stormer, then he knows how this happened. My suspicion, however, is that he has no idea, so someone should forward him this article.

Anyone following American academia for the last three decades will know of the intense leftist slant gaining power with each passing year, and students of politics, the legal system and corporate affairs will be similarly aware. It only makes sense that it was slower to reach the military and that there was some pushback, summed up by Lohmeier with the statement, “There is a growing perception that the preponderance of political partisanship occurring in our armed forces is radical leftist partisanship.” Well, yes it is.

Next, does Lohmeier view the introduction of CRT into the military as being generically harmful, or does he see it as specifically anti-White? Based on the interview, it’s likely that he sees the anti-White import of official programs in today’s military, writing as he does that in one chapter he is critical of an essayist who sees her role in a project “as an attempt to ‘decenter whiteness.’” Sounds like we’re getting back to the White Studies aspect of CRT.

But is it even necessary to ask whether CRT can be evaluated as generically undemocratic or even racist rather than being specifically anti-White? Apparently it is, as a VDARE writer styling himself as “Washington Watcher II” has done in a blog called “Fight Against Critical Race Theory — But They Still Flinch From Calling It Anti-White Racism.” Note the subtitle claiming “They Still Flinch from Calling it Anti-White Racism.” Kind of hard to believe. But Washington Watcher found a CRT critic who “essentially argued that race doesn’t exist, a favorite of Conservatism, Inc. And along with many other cuckservatives, he promotes the cringe idea that CRT is bad because it harms non-whites.” Yes, it really is hard to believe. Our thanks to Washington Watcher for making this distinction clear, especially in his conclusion when he beseeches us to “Repeat after me: CRT isn’t just racism; it’s anti-white racism.”

Conclusion

We’ve reached the point where some are stepping forward to point out the obvious truth that CRT is in fact “anti-White racism.” Much to my surprise, however, I’ve seen little or no evidence that people have pointed to the far more instructive issue that while it is of course anti-White racism, it has been propagated by a long string of Jews for over fifty years. This is because Jews are prosecuting a deadly war on Whites, with previous examples such as the Bolshevik era in Russia, the Holodomor, and the various “cold” strategies documented in The Culture of Critique such as boosting non-white immigration and depressing White family formation. This is the point I am at pains to emphasize.

The consequences of this are immense, beginning with MacDonald’s claim in his 2008 TOO article that after demonizing Whites (or “Whiteness”), “it doesn’t take much imagination to suppose that actual genocide of Whites is the next step.” I couldn’t agree more and have stressed this point for over twelve years here on TOO.

I’ll close with a succinct version of all I’ve written about above, one that uses plain language to cut through sometimes lengthy analyses. On June 10, 2021 Andrew Anglin published a piece called Psychoanalytic Journal Publishes Paper Calling “Whiteness” a “Malignant, Parasitic-Like Condition” which is a sort of companion piece to Aruna Khilanani’s fulminations as discussed by MacDonald in “Expressions of Anti-White Hatred in High Places: Aruna Khilanani at Yale” published two days earlier. MacDonald states that “Jews have been a necessary condition for creating multicultural America” and that “It’s no surprise that Khilanani is a textbook example of the influence of the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory, the forerunner of Critical Race Theory.”

Clearly, Anglin knows the work of Noel Ignatiev and his theories of Whiteness Studies, and immediately recognizes their import to the confessions of the non-white female psychiatrist:

This whole thing of claiming that “whiteness” is somehow different than “being a white person” is just a ruse. No one thinks that makes sense, including the people saying it. They are talking simply about white people.

They want to wipe out white people.

Recently, we saw the Indian psychologist – psychologist again! – Aruna Khilanani saying that she just wants to kill random white people. She didn’t say kill random “people infected with whiteness” – she just said white people.

Talking about “whiteness” as some kind of abstraction is a way for these people to really start pumping up the genocidal mania under a thin veil of semantics.

This puts me in mind of the predictions of Tomislav Sunic in his 2007 book  Homo Americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age, where he argued that “in order for the proper functioning of future Americanized society, the removal of millions of surplus citizens must become a social and possibly also an ecological necessity.” MacDonald in those years of writing about “Stalin’s Willing Executioners” (i.e. Jews) identified what sectors might be targeted “and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union.” Further,

It is easy to imagine which sectors of American society would have been deemed overly backward and religious and therefore worthy of mass murder by the American counterparts of the Jewish elite in the Soviet Union — the ones who journeyed to Ellis Island instead of Moscow. The descendants of these overly backward and religious people now loom large among the “red state” voters who have been so important in recent national elections. Jewish animosity toward the Christian culture that is so deeply ingrained in much of America is legendary. As Joel Kotkin points out, “for generations, [American] Jews have viewed religious conservatives with a combination of fear and disdain.” And as Elliott Abrams notes, the American Jewish community “clings to what is at bottom a dark vision of America, as a land permeated with anti-Semitism and always on the verge of anti-Semitic outbursts.” These attitudes are well captured in Steven Steinlight’s charge that the Americans who approved the immigration restriction legislation of the 1920s — the vast majority of the population — were a “thoughtless mob” and that the legislation itself was “evil, xenophobic, anti-Semitic,” “vilely discriminatory,” a “vast moral failure,” a “monstrous policy.” In the end, the dark view of traditional Slavs and their culture that facilitated the participation of so many Eastern European shtetl Jews in becoming willing executioners in the name of international socialism is not very different from the views of contemporary American Jews about a majority of their fellow countrymen.

In his June 10, 2021 entry Anglin issued a similar warning, one I feel is a fitting close to this essay:

We are right on the verge of a large-scale culling.

We’ve talked about “white genocide” in terms of mass immigration and using feminism to restrict our breeding — but this cold genocide is about to get hot.

People should be aware.

There are warning signs all over.

There is a bloodbath coming.

What to Expect When You’re Expecting the End of the World (as We Know It)

/22 Comments/in /by

We are, without question, on the cusp of a Brave New World, turned upside-down by the forces unleased on the back of the COVID-19 pandemic. Whether the virus was intentionally released or the powers that be simply did not want a good crisis to go to waste is at this juncture irrelevant; what is of the utmost importance is that the virus has proven to be the justification for accelerating the pieces of a program that has been building quietly in the shadows—though not altogether hiding—for some time.

Many readers will likely be familiar with the “table-top exercise” Event 201 held in October 2019 just before the global pandemic of COVID-19; the participants in this exercise, conducted by the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in partnership with the World Economic Forum and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, “agree[d] that it is only a matter of time before one of these epidemics becomes global—a pandemic with potentially catastrophic consequences. A severe pandemic, which becomes ‘Event 201,’ would require reliable cooperation among several industries, national governments, and key international institutions”—all of the major actors, in fact, behind selling us the “solutions” that so neatly dovetail with “existential crises” like climate change and “digital pandemics.” For instance, the World Economic Forum’s Cyber Polygon 2021 will simulate a cyberattack with participants responding to “a targeted supply chain attack on a corporate ecosystem in real time.” Note the use of linkage here with words like ecosystem, and the fact that the WEF notes, “A cyber attack with COVID-like characteristics would spread faster and farther than any biological virus. Its reproductive rate would be around 10 times greater than what we’ve experienced with the coronavirus.” It is, of course, merely kooky “conspiracy theory” to note that dry runs have been happening with alarming regularity already over the past several months, because none of this is at all scripted. Right. The shortages, droughts, and “existential crises” are in no way manufactured.

You should probably ignore the fact that meat is being phased-out because of cow farts in the pursuit of “net zero carbon emissions” while JBS Foods, the world’s largest meatpacking company, not only partnered with the World Economic Forum in April 2021 to tackle “climate change” and acquired Vivera, Europe’s third-largest “plant-based food” company, that same month, but was suddenly and mysteriously assailed by ransomware the following month. How about fossil fuels and the Colonial Pipeline attack? The Pimpri-Chinchwad Smart City project in India? “IoT manufacturer” Sierra Wireless? Global wholesale distributor JBI? What about World Economic Forum partner Royal Dutch Shell, whose Emily Tan wrote for the WEF in February 2021 that “Never has there been a moment where businesses, energy consumers and governments—from Canada to China—are aligning on a common vision like this: a road to net-zero emissions”?

World Economic Forum founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab—a leading figure for the implementation of the “Internet of Things,” the Fourth Industrial Revolution, and the Great Reset—states that, “The pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world. … One of the most striking and exciting transformations caused by the pandemic has been our transition to the digital ‘everything’”—a “digital everything” already envisioned by Schwab in his books like The Fourth Industrial Revolution from 2016 and advanced in COVID-19: The Great Reset from 2020. Connecting these biological and digital spheres is the aim of 2021’s Cyber Polygon, with the idea that “a secure approach to digital development today will determine the future of humanity for decades to come.” Interestingly, given the sheer volume of screeching about RUSSIA! for the past half-decade/seventy years, 2020’s Cyber Polygon featured a slew of institutions housed in Russia and the former USSR alongside Deutsche Bank’s Technology Centre (housed in Russia), IBM, and Banco Santander, among others.

This is not to suggest that Russia is, in fact, colluding to destroy the West with the complicity of its feckless “elites,” but rather that behind the scenes of this global stage production, distinctions such as “Russian” or “American” are irrelevant—there is one conglomeration of technophiles at war with humanity at large, although this conglomeration itself does often bifurcate along the lines of whether they are, to borrow from Yuval Noah Harari’s book Homo Deus (originally published in 2015 in Hebrew in Israel as The History of Tomorrow), “techno-humanists” or a part of the “data religion.” For Harari, a techno-humanist

still sees humans as the apex of creation and clings to many traditional humanist values. Techno-humanism agrees that Homo sapiens as we know it has run its historical course and will no longer be relevant in the future, but concludes that we should therefore use technology in order to create Homo deus…with the help of genetic engineering, nanotechnology and brain-computer interfaces.[1]

These brain-computer interfaces include projects such as Neuralink, co-founded by Elon Musk among others and housed in the same building as another of Musk’s ventures in OpenAI, a possible ideological competitor in the data religion space. For Harari, the data religion, “argues that humans have completed their cosmic task and should now pass the torch on to entirely new kinds of entities.” Though quite possibly phased out of existence by their creation(s), they view themselves as Creators and thus gods.

According to the publication Wired, the genesis of OpenAI began with a meeting between former Stripe employee Greg Brockman and Sephardic “deep learning” pioneer Yoshua Bengio; initial financial backing came from Musk, Peter Thiel (who is absolutely central in the man-becomes-demigod set), and Jewish investor and artificial intelligence enthusiast Sam Altman, whose other investments include the Soylent drink mixture, which is thankfully not people (yet?), but mostly soy. OpenAI’s Chief Scientist is Open University of Israel attendee and Google Brain alum Ilya Sutskever. In 2019, Microsoft invested $1 billion in OpenAI LP.

World Economic Forum partner Microsoft was co-founded by Bill Gates, who is now the top private owner of farmland in the United States with landholdings owned via Cascade Investment, with other investments including the plant-based food company Beyond Meat. For Gates, “Cows and other grass-eating species have a digestive system that emits methane. And methane is a very powerful greenhouse gas. And so cows alone account for about 6% of global emissions and we need to change cows. Just cows alone. Of all the categories, the one that is gone better than I would have expected five years ago is this work to make artificial meat and so you have people like IMpossible or Beyond Meat both of which I invested in.” Gates is also a confidant of Anthony Fauci and a major fixture in the effort to re-make the planet and, quite possibly, humanity; for more on his Gates Foundation’s central role in the growing medical tyranny, readers are directed to my Amazon-banned book The Transgender-Industrial Complex: our would-be overlords don’t like when you tell the truth, and yes, all of these various strands are all connected, as the book illustrates—indeed, differentiating between state- and non-state actors, is, as I will provide another illustrative example of, a false dichotomy. And note that they are all interconnected and at a very high level of influence.

Consider the UK’s AI Council, “an independent expert committee, [which] provides advice to Government and high-level leadership of the Artificial Intelligence (AI) ecosystem.” It is Chaired by Tabitha Goldstaub, UK AI Business Champion and co-founder of CogX, and features members such as Mark Walport (Formerly UKRI and Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser), Chris Bishop (Microsoft Research Lab), Ann Cairns (MasterCard), Rachel Dunscombe (NHS Digital Academy—you might recall that the NHS has been a target of ransomware attacks in recent years; the NHS is a major customer of Darktrace), and Lila Ibrahim (DeepMind). Among the Council’s roles is to “Increas[e] skills in AI, including the diversity of people studying and working in AI” because diversity is always our greatest strength, even when we’re engineering the superintelligences of the future that may well enslave and/or exterminate us.

Another member of the AI Council is Nick Jennings, a member of the Advisory Board of Darktrace, “Founded in 2013 by mathematicians and cyber experts from government intelligence backgrounds, Darktrace was the first company to apply AI to the challenge of cyber security. With its Immune System platform, Darktrace has fundamentally transformed the ability of organizations to defend their most critical assets in the face of rising cyber-threat.” Alongside Jennings on the Darktrace Advisory Council are (with descriptions from the Darktrace website):

  • Lord Evans was Director General of MI5 from 2007 to 2013. He spent 33 years with MI5, defending the UK against internal and domestic terrorism and cyber-threats. He was appointed to the Security Service’s Management Board as Director of International Counter Terrorism in 2001, ten days before the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center. He was appointed to the House of Lords in 2014 at the personal recommendation of the Prime Minister and sits as a cross-bench peer. Lord Evans is also a non-executive Director of HSBC Holdings and of Ark Datacentres Ltd.
  • Alan Wade had a thirty-five-year career in the Central Intelligence Agency, where he latterly served as the Chief Information Officer, before his retirement in 2005. Prior to this role, Alan held a series of senior positions at the CIA, including the Director of Communications and Director of Security.[2]
  • After a career in banking, venture capital and head hunting, Amber Rudd became the MP for Hastings and Rye from 2010 to 2019. She held three cabinet roles over four years and under three Prime Ministers, first in Energy and Climate Change, then the Home Office as Home Secretary and until September 2019 in Work and Pensions. She also twice served as Minister for Women and Equalities. As Energy Secretary she steered the UK’s participation in the crucial and successful Paris Climate Change Agreement in 2015. As Home Secretary she oversaw the UK’s response to the terrorist attacks in 2017. Under her leadership the UK led on setting up an international industry-led response to removing radicalising material on the internet which endures as the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT). She is now a Senior Advisor to Teneo, Management Consultants. She is also an Advisor to Pool Re, insurers for terrorism risk. She recently became a Trustee for The Climate Group, working with the private sector to reach a net zero outcome.

According to his Imperial College London biography, Jennings

is the Vice-Provost for Research and Enterprise and Professor of Artificial Intelligence at Imperial College London. He is an internationally-recognised authority in the areas of AI, autonomous systems, cyber-security and agent-based computing. He is a member of the UK government’s AI Council, the governing body of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Monaco Digital Advisory Council,[3] and chair of the Royal Academy of Engineering’s Policy Committee. Before Imperial, Nick was the UK’s first Regius Professor of Computer Science (a post bestowed by the monarch to recognise exceptionally high quality research) and the UK Government’s first Chief Scientific Advisor for National Security. … Nick’s personal research focuses on developing AI systems for large-scale, open and dynamic environments. In particular, he is interested in how to endow individual autonomous agents with the ability to act and interact in flexible ways and with effectively engineering systems that contain both humans and software agents. … He is a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, the British Computer Society, the Institution of Engineering and Technology, the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), the Society for the Study of Artificial Intelligence and Simulation of Behaviour (AISB), the Royal Society of the Arts, the City and Guilds of London Institute, the German AI Institute (DFKI) and the European Artificial Intelligence Association and a member of Academia Europaea… He is also involved with a number of start-ups including Aerogility, Crossword Cybersecurity, Contact Engine, Darktrace, Rebellion Defence and Reliance Cyber Systems.

Without going too far into the weeds, suffice it to say that the relevant organizations overlap in personnel and collaboration, and span the university network as well as the military-industrial and medical-industrial complexes, logistics and transportation sectors, and everything in between.

Illustrative is Aerogility, whose major clients include Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, EasyJet, Boeing, and Cranfield University. Alongside Jennings, co-Chief Scientific Advisor Michael Luck is Professor of Computer Science and Director of the UKRI Centre for Doctoral Training on Safe and Trusted Artificial Intelligence. Luck is also an AI Advisory Board member with Jennings at Contact Engine, which partners with companies such as Oracle, DHL, Microsoft, and Amdocs. The reader may recognize the name Amdocs as the Israeli-founded company that as early as 1999 was alleged as having a key role in the records of US government telephone calls ending up in Israeli hands. As Christopher Ketcham wrote in 2008:

Since the late 1990s, federal agents have reported systemic communications security breaches at the Department of Justice, FBI, DEA, the State Department, and the White House. Several of the alleged breaches, these agents say, can be traced to two hi-tech communications companies, Verint Inc. (formerly Comverse Infosys), and Amdocs Ltd., that respectively provide major wiretap and phone billing/record-keeping software contracts for the U.S. government. Together, Verint and Amdocs form part of the backbone of the government’s domestic intelligence surveillance technology. Both companies are based in Israel – having arisen to prominence from that country’s cornering of the information technology market – and are heavily funded by the Israeli government, with connections to the Israeli military and Israeli intelligence (both companies have a long history of board memberships dominated by current and former Israeli military and intelligence officers). Verint is considered the world leader in “electronic interception” and hence an ideal private sector candidate for wiretap outsourcing. Amdocs is the world’s largest billing service for telecommunications, with some $2.8 billion in revenues in 2007, offices worldwide, and clients that include the top 25 phone companies in the United States that together handle 90 percent of all call traffic among U.S. residents. The companies’ operations, sources suggest, have been infiltrated by freelance spies exploiting encrypted trapdoors in Verint/Amdocs technology and gathering data on Americans for transfer to Israeli intelligence and other willing customers (particularly organized crime)… “Trojan horse espionage is part of the way of life of companies in Israel. It’s a culture of spying.”…Amdocs’ biggest customers in the U.S. are AT&T and Verizon, which have collaborated widely with the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping programs.[4]

Amdocs has also gotten into the 5G game and is part of the global arms race to produce “end-to-end digital enabling infrastructure” across the globe from Missouri to Ireland to Liberia.

Clearly privacy is rapidly becoming a thing of the past as the power players seek to “hack” and control humanity (whatever the justification—national security, a global pandemic, or “investing in forests”), but what’s this obsession with 5G? Well, according to Tom Taulli, writing for Forbes in May 2020:

When it comes to the 5G roll-out, AI will definitely be supercharged. “AI is a huge priority,” said John Smee, who is the VP of engineering and head of 5G R&D for Qualcomm. “We are seeing a transformation happening, with AI going from the cloud to being distributed, such as on the edge or IoT devices.” In preparation for this, Qualcomm has been embedding AI capabilities on its chips. Note that its AI engine has applications for cameras, battery life, security and gaming—allowing for neural network processing. “5G will cause a proliferation in sensors all around us, and each one of those sensors is a new input available to create better models,” said Jake Moskowitz, who is the Head of the Emodo Institute at Ericsson Emodo. “Many of these 5G sensors will directly enable vast data aggregation for remote monitoring and immediate reaction. In some cases, there will be opportunities to use those sensors as AI inputs. In other cases, there will be new AI efforts that require the distribution of new sensors.”

These sensors can help form the bed-rock of the new “smart cities” that will be re-configured to accommodate the Hive Humanity of the near future; as Ida Auken wrote for the World Economic Forum in 2016, re-published in Forbes as “Welcome to 2030: I Own Nothing, Have No Privacy and Life Has Never Been Better,” envisioning a world where “AI and robots took over so much of our work”: “Once in a while I get annoyed about the fact that I have no real privacy. Nowhere I can go and not be registered. I know that, somewhere, everything I do, think and dream of is recorded. I just hope that nobody will use it against me.”

This is presented as somehow a good thing, but this Panopticon is anything but idyllic to my mind. Indeed, what Auken—a Danish Parliamentarian, the Former Minister for the Environment in Denmark (2011–2014), and a Young Global Leader for the World Economic Forum—describes as the lifestyle of “those we lost along the way” sounds just fine, actually, and should likely form the bedrock of practical resistance to this project:

My biggest concern is all the people who do not live in our city. Those we lost on the way. Those who decided that it became too much, all this technology. Those who felt obsolete and useless when robots and AI took over big parts of our jobs. Those who got upset with the political system and turned against it. They live different kind of lives outside of the city. Some have formed little self-supplying communities. Others just stayed in the empty and abandoned houses in small 19th-century villages.

The trouble is that the technophiles and utopians have no desire to just let what Tom Kawczynski describes as “organic humanity” live unmolested. In Auken’s description, we see a glimpse of a future of bifurcated humanity, echoing Harari, where a new “superhuman caste” ruthlessly exploits “regular” people. Going further, I see no reason why these “superhumans,” devoid as they are of tolerance for difference of opinions and disgusted as they are by fellow but “deplorable” humans at the moment, would allow for the continued existence of an “inferior” class, especially when they have automated everything around them.

Past this potential scenario, there are a number of possibilities where AI decides to rid the planet of humanity altogether—whether it has achieved sentience or not is irrelevant. Even should these scenarios not come to fruition, there are still the present issues of the dumbing-down and reduction of human agency via both technology and social engineering projects, constant surveillance, and persecution of dissidents and disfavored groups, all while not just the gray matter of humanity, but its very genetic code is subject to constant hacks and forced medical interventions/experiments in the form of mRNA “vaccines.”

You know that “end-to-end digital enabling infrastructure”? Well, that will also encompass blockchain that will be tied to biometric data and social credit scores (thanks Chicoms!) in the new “smart,” cashless, and “open” society where everywhere is nowhere. In this void of meaninglessness, the new data religion and the techno-humanist religion have supplanted what, for Harari and his ilk, are the quaint fictions of Scripture. Without any proof beyond that “science” hasn’t discovered the existence of souls, the modern Sadducee/Sophist Harari states that instead humanity is turning its gaze to what may well spell the death of liberalism in the form of the quest for immortality, happiness, and divinity. If the middle item on humanity’s “new agenda” looks a lot like Brave New World, well, sometimes life imitates art. That or Aldous Huxley, whose brother Julian was a eugenicist, knew a thing or two about where this project was headed nearly a century ago.

Julian Huxley—the first Director-General of UNESCO, President of the British Eugenics Society, President of the British Humanist Association, and a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund—is commonly credited as the founder of transhumanism. Readers of The Transgender-Industrial Complex will note that the World Wildlife Fund is, despite its seeming innocuousness, deeply enmeshed in the globalist agenda. Of course, UNESCO is as well: the Moroccan-Jewish Audrey Azoulay, Director-General of UNESCO, states in “Towards an Ethics of Artificial Intelligence” in the UN Chronicle that developments in AI are relevant to every aspect of UNESCO’s mandate, and that “AI could open up tremendous opportunities for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” It is not coincidental that with partners like Amazon, Facebook, Google, Huawei, Unilever, Salesforce, UNICEF, the UNDP, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the Government of Botswana, and Microsoft as partners, the World Economic Forum announced its 2030Vision project:

A newly formed integration merging the 2030Vision Partnership Initiative launched by Arm in December 2017 with the Frontier 2030 initiative launched by the World Economic Forum in January 2020. The new initiative, 2030Vision is co-owned and developed with founding partners and co-chaired by Simon Segars, CEO, Arm and Achim Steiner, Administrator, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 2030Vision aims to be the global public-private platform that puts the expertise and resources of the tech sector in service of accelerating the achievement of the Global Goals. The platform mobilizes technology companies, government, civil society and international organisation leaders to harness emerging technologies and at scale to accelerate action to achieve the Global Goals within the next decade. The platform seeks to form 4IR [Fourth Industrial Revolution] technology partnerships.

The World Economic Forum in 2016 was already fantasizing about the convergence of genome editing and artificial intelligence with other emerging technologies in its “Life in 2030: Humankind and the Machine.” As Harari explicates, intersecting with secular humanism and liberalism, for the techno-humanists:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not say that humans have ‘the right to life until the age of ninety’. It says that every human has a right to life, period. … An increasing minority of scientists and thinkers consequently…state that the flagship enterprise of modern science is to defeat death and grant humans eternal youth.[5]

In reality, this quest for the Fountain of Youth is a devil’s bargain humans have tried to make as long as our collective memories stretch—and probably much further. We see here the threads that could quite possibly come unraveled, however, as scientific humanism gives way to scientism, or the data religion, with systems, algorithms, and quantum computers as the golems of these would-be gods. But they cannot truly create, for only the Most High can do that. Instead, people like Elon Musk—despite his dire warnings about artificial intelligence, possessing the hubris to think that somehow we can control intelligences vastly more, well, intelligent than us—and others such as Bill Maris (The Climate Corporation, acquired by Monsanto; Google Ventures and Calico) and Peter Thiel drive us ever-forward toward what might well spell our doom. I cannot emphasize this enough: this project is the existential threat we face, not some manufactured nonsense like “climate change.”

Scott Howard is the author of the Amazon-banned book The Transgender-Industrial Complex, reviewed for TOO by John Q Publius.

[1] Harari, Yuval Noah, Homo Deus, 2017. HarperCollins. p. 357.

[2] Through connections that go well beyond this piece, Wade is a key figure in connecting a number of dots in a web including various Israeli firms, British and American “intelligence,” Facebook, and Peter Thiel/Palantir, among others; a good piece is linked here. Darktrace in particular is highlighted here.

[3] The Council celebrates the fact that, “The Council’s recommendations include an emphasis on the importance of formulating a detailed action plan, building a strong brand (now Extended Monaco) and developing a Monegasque smart city, based on the Internet of Things as well as a 100% digital administration. Connecting people, vehicles and infrastructure, promoting soft mobility, developing a platform using Blockchain technology…The first pivotal moment was in summer 2019, when the Principality became the first country in the world to roll out 5G across its entire territory, in partnership with Huawei. This roll-out represents an important driver of growth for many sectors of the economy (the smart city, media, transport, e-health) and a font of opportunities, including the use of smart drones by firefighters, the development of self-driving vehicles, telemedicine, and so on. Like 4G before it, 5G will open up a new range of possibilities that are as yet difficult to qualify and quantify.”

[4] Ketcham, Christopher, “An Israeli Trojan Horse,” September 27, 2008. CounterPunch.

[5] Harari, Yuval Noah, Homo Deus, 2017. HarperCollins. p. 24.

The Merchants of Venice Beach

/17 Comments/in /by

By now, almost everyone but the cardio-hemophilic liberal is aware that California is crashing and burning. Businesses are closing, families leaving and tourists abstaining. A sanctuary state for some and a failed state for others—the net population loss certainly suggests more of the latter. Now for the first time, crime and destitution are on the doorstep of previously untouchable parts of the Californian riviera, which would at least deliver some poetic justice for the liberal elite.

Fox News and CBS report that Venice Beach is the latest casualty of the state’s Third-Worldization, thanks to a permanent tent-city of homeless people bringing a different sort of vibe to the surfing Shangri-la. Open drug use, nudity and public defecation aren’t included in any of the reality TV productions still filmed in the area, though the Mail Online assures us that these are part of the daily motion.

At last count, a record 41,290 people were homeless in the city of Los Angeles. The bureau tasked with tabulating this figure cited the “legacy of systemic racism” as a key reason why homelessness is getting worse, and even has a special “Committee on Black People Experiencing Homelessness.” Their report, however, did not explain why Asians and Hispanics were significantly underrepresented among homeless persons, while (putatively privileged) Whites were not.

The tent-city at Venice Beach is but a splinter colony of the long-established Skid Row of downtown LA, itself now bleeding onto freeway ramp areas and Long Beach. Dan Fleming of the Economic Roundtable forecasts that the problem is going to get even worse: as much as 86% more homelessness over the next four years. It’s a dire outlook, but, not to worry, in just seven years’ time Los Angeles will host the Summer Olympics to immense counterpropaganda fanfare. Venice Beach has been assigned to host the ancient Hellenic disciplines of skateboarding and 3×3 basketball. At least Venice’s public nudity won’t be out of place.

City council and the government of California have already thrown billions of dollars at the homelessness problem, and now Governor Newsom is plunging another $12 billion down the golden drain of liberal bureaucracy. Much of the funneled money goes to administrative soft costs like consultants and contractors that make up the homeless-industrial complex. But fiscal carpet-bombing is all that’s left to do when the underlying causes of a malaise are politically incorrect. America’s failing schools, the huge spike in urban crime, and crumbling inner cities have been honored with the same tribute for decades.

Some observers consider the homelessness crisis to be a function of the substance abuse and mental health crises. While this may be partly true, such proximate antecedents obscure the cultural and moral rot coming from upstream.

The non-profit organization Invisible People offers some fascinating insight into the caliber of people currently homeless. What may surprise many is the number of homeless people who previously led completely normal lives. Well-spoken, sober and emotionally stable—some have tertiary degrees, others used to be bankers and even millionaires. There are those who work full-time and still can’t afford housing. In many cases, the catalyst for their descent into homelessness leavened with financial volatility not exactly of their own doing: market crashes, exorbitant medical costs, or their financial institution went bankrupt overnight. Then, add to the mix the slow grind of unscrupulous economic policy that has been squeezing the working class: massive job losses due to outsourcing, unbridled inflation and the dearth of affordable housing.

To make matters worse, a good chunk of the homeless are being evicted by way of legal technicalities and lawfare, which swoop on the vulnerable at the right moment rather than restructuring and reforming salvageable agreements with the customers from whom they profited for years. American enterprise may have developed out of the Western libertarian tradition, but the country was also once a high-trust society from the top down. Far too many Whites appear hopelessly naïve to the Svengalis of their modern surrounds, perhaps because they evolved for a society where if you worked hard and stayed in your lane, you would be looked after by the community. Socioeconomic justice anchored in common sense and fairness has been assailed by a kind of Talmudic economism in which the Shylocks will come for their pound of flesh and more if they have legal recourse to do it.

The situation in the social sphere is almost concentric with that of the economic. Individual culpability remains a staple of the Western social contract on the one hand, but on the other hand, elites and social engineers conspire to tip the scales in favor of more social and moral decay. Drug addiction is the biggest gateway to homelessness and yet its recent passage through the culture has been to first destigmatize, then medicalize, then legalize, and now glorify through Hollywood. Party drugs for the youth and painkillers for the proletariat, mendaciously legalized through the conniving exploits like those of the Sacklers. Meanwhile, California’s attempt to empty overcrowded prisons through criminal reform is another boost for drug culture. Ever since theft up to $950 in value was decriminalized through Proposition 47, the incentive for junkies to get clean has effectively gone, as they can now feed their habit with the five-finger discount.

Children as young as nine have been found living on the streets, and while drug-addicted parents are often the cause of abuse and neglect at home, one should not omit the proliferation of illegitimacy, non-biological parenting, and radicalized adolescents. One would think that the validity of these forces would be clear from the number of children who flee foster homes, and yet the response from the liberal academic-media complex is to keep pushing euphemistic ploys like rainbow families and Modern Family. A well-kept secret among felons is that they can avoid registering as a sex offender if they are technically homeless.

In less than a century, America has gone from Fitter Family contests to the Kardashian-Jenner clan taking center stage. Sexual intimacy has never been lower and yet STDs are skyrocketing. There is no politically correct spin that can stabilize historical norms so badly off their axis. And yet the chaos and confusion spiral on into fresh terrain.

Racial dysphoria is the trendy new psychosis that California is a hotbed for. While the state is famous for its White flight problem there is also what Steve Sailer terms “flight from white.” In this case, the majority of the White student body in an ultra-liberal San Francisco Bay Area school unexplainedly disappeared in 2019 and subsequently reappeared/reidentified as being “two or more races.” In a just world, White liberals wouldn’t be allowed to seek asylum in red states, as this is as principled as fleeing the scene of a crime, but it’s only slightly more odious than attempting flight from White though internalized blackface or POC-face. Now more than ever White Americans are politically polarized, and when you interlace social and moral affiliation, they’re basically bipolarized.

This brings us to the next category of Shylocks whose services endow America with net loss and harm: the political class. In California, politicians are an entrenched breed of tenured and sinecured lackeys in service of the Democrat plutocracy. The problem is that those who aren’t consciously corrupt still have far-advanced ideological cataracts that distort their view of the world. California’s politicians cannot even keep their premier sponsors and clients happy: Oracle, HP and Tesla have left for Texas. Meanwhile Venice Beach could not even hold on to its Ben & Jerry’s—just desserts some might say for the social justice-flavored ice cream company.

The government of Venice currently comprises “model-American” Ted Lieu, Autumn Burke, Mike Bonin and Ben Allen—the four seasons of diversity that ensures at least Asians, Blacks, gays and Jews have someone that looks like them in parliament. One resident of Venice Beach notably not represented by this team of rainbow all-stars is 1980s film star Paul Hogan. The Australian-born actor recently told media that Venice Beach is “an unlivable zoo,” which is an interesting choice of words for someone made famous by Crocodile Dundee.

In the nearby ritzy suburb of Venice Canals, another famous tenant has reason to be needled by the encroaching tent-city. None other than the President’s son Hunter Biden has his quarters there for $17,500-a-month rent. As a self-professed hard drug user, Hunter could probably relate quite well to the folks down on skid row, if it wasn’t for his strenuous job as a Ukraine hydrocarbons expert.

Wheeling and dealing is of course the Biden and Sons family trade, but few could have known that foul-mouthed stepmom Jill Biden is higher qualified still. In 2007, Jill was granted a mickey-mouse doctorate from a community college in Delaware. All in all, there doesn’t appear to be a single decent member in the Biden household—and that includes the family dog recently removed from the White House because of a biting problem.

The Bidens’ other pet is of course Kamala Harris—politically adopted as though there was a melanin quota to fill, because it certainly wasn’t for her charisma or record as a public official. In terms of popularity and visibility, Harris trails Biden like a Muslim wife. And yet it’s ironic that it’s Harris who now breathes down Biden’s neck for the top job. Biden may not have the legs to complete his term—he certainly doesn’t for an airplane staircase. His lizard-brain can’t help blurting out awkward inner monologue. He is 78 after all, and to be fair, having an establishment mouthpiece who often speaks with no filter has its advantages. And calling him Sleepy Joe kind of lost its bite once Kamala Harris joined the ticket, the very person most notorious for having slept her way to the top.

Harris’ underdog story never quite resonated with the public. She is, after all, descendent of academics and slave owners, grew up as a pampered minority, and matured into a sly careerist and overpromoted doge. This multi-racial, multi-millionaire child of Californication has made virtually every life decision a maneuver of self-aggrandizement—and that includes her marriage at age 49 to prominent Californian-Jewish lawyer Douglas Emhoff.

Jews on the west coast naturally have their own inimitable history of semi-integration at the civil level, while being politically alien and quite ahead of the cultural curve downward. Jews did not come to enrich surfing culture in Huntington Beach or grow citrus in Orange County. They came for Hollywood and Sacramento, with New York values in their breast pocket. Among California’s Jewish politicians, one can recall such exemplary cultural pioneers as Dianne Feinstein, Harvey Milk and Roberta Achtenberg.

Just as California was America’s cultural bellwether for the better part of the modern era, so shall its current plight be the omen of the republic’s festive unraveling. California has been the gold tooth in America’s smile for years. And America is only smiling because it’s high on its own supply—from monetary policy to state ideology. Biden may yet be the perfect mascot for these mortal throes; a cognitively declining president leading a populace suffering cognitive dissonance. His electoral victory, much like his campaign, was made in a Hollywood basement—and yet he’s still the political dinosaur that America deserves to have. Perhaps he’ll be America’s last before the meteorite.

 

Equal Abilities and Results for All: The new world of woke-inspired reality and international relations

/21 Comments/in /by

I am not “woke,” but I have been “awakened” to a new norm and concept of everyday life which denies biological diversity and the unequal results of competition.  In today’s culture, from early childhood there can be no “losers”: all those who compete must earn a “trophy” of sorts to be placed on a shelf with other participation awards.  Only the physical presence of young participants is required. Differences in skill levels are ignored and equal outcomes are mandatory. However, in later years (post-pubescent) competition in high school sports belie the “equity” fallacy. At this level, elimination of the less competent goes unopposed; no more compassionate gestures trying to protect “sensitive souls” or equalize competition in all facets of life.  The hierarchy of values and meaningful success becomes more and more important.  Team victories are celebrated with collective delight.  Players who perform poorly are replaced by the more competent.  Meritocracy once again is dominant and victory is the ultimate sign of success.

What is even more significant these days is the tendency to eliminate competitive entrance exams to colleges or universities in the name of racial “equity” or justice (whatever that truly means)…dumbing down to the most suitable denominator.  Everyone, in the long run, becomes average because normality is the goal, not striving to be “the best of the best”.

As I mentioned, this quest for equality is only possible in the pre-pubescent years.  Later on, especially in the sports arena, competition becomes all important and there are winners and losers.  But why can’t this acceptance of difference be taught early on so the very young can adjust to what life will demand?  Traumatisms? Depression? Parental objections? It is interesting and somewhat disconcerting that differences are acceptable in competitive sports events but not in the classroom.

Psychometricians have long concluded that being gifted is partially genetic and partially the product of environment.  Athletic prowess is a gift which we all  admire and even laud.  If so why not intellectual accomplishments? This slippery slope is fraught with social and genetic landmines: if little Johnny (very White) is consistently better than Ja’honta (very Black) in all academic subject matters then what is the cause of this disparity?  There are scholarly books devoted to the West African origins of Black athletes, their muscular configuration, stride length, lung capacity, etc.  In a word, they are better than Whites or other ethnic groups because of morphology or inherited physical traits.  The dominance of Black athletes, especially in football and basketball, is an undisputed fact.  No White sprinter has won the gold medal in Olympic competition since 1980.  Native Kenyans have dominated long-distance running for a number of years.

However, one must be very careful in analyzing the root causes of intellectual differences.  Racism rears its omnipresent head if you conclude that genetic factors play a determinant role in these matters.  Biology (at least 50% if not more) determines how well we reason; environment has a significant albeit not as compelling role in our cognitive development.  At birth we are predetermined to be talented (or less so) in logic, science, language use, and a number of thought processes. If that is the case, then there is very little that compensatory programs can do to level the playing field. This is the conclusion that Arthur Jensen reached in his seminal article that appeared in the Harvard Educational Review in 1969.  Because he gave credence to innate ethnic differences in reasoning, his life was never the same afterwards.  He became a focal point for leftist hatred and contempt.

How well or how poorly we think is primarily the result of genetic structuring and not systemic oppression as the liberals have concluded.  Their demands were categorical: simply remove the barriers to success (segregation, anticipated failure syndrome, poor schools, lack of opportunity, inadequate nutrition during early childhood, etc.) and the two “races” would be co-equal.  Indeed, it was not a lack of talent, but bigotry and ill-founded claims of underachievement that nourished the concept of “superiority” between Whites and Blacks. Decades later, however, with some reluctance, even the most liberal scholars have to admit that the intellectual gap in testing remains no matter how aggressive and creative the methods were that attempted to force equality of outcomes in the classroom.

After years of depressing results in trying to reduce the gap between Whites and Blacks on intelligence tests, the leftist movement and “experts” have come to the conclusion that testing and psychometrics are in themselves deeply flawed.  What truly matters is the whole individual not just the ability to reason.  Among other traits, sociability, interpersonal skills, rhythmic movements, and athleticism are equally as important for success as effective reasoning. This has resulted in very different acceptance rates by race for the same level of performance on standardized tests.

From a brief filed by Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) against Harvard University

We are led to believe by woke logic that the current barriers to Black achievement are White-constructed and not in keeping with the true strengths of the minority communities.  Competence in mathematics is not endemic to the Black experience; as a result, its importance has to be downplayed in evaluating the worth of high school or college students. The same conclusions apply to other disciplines in which Blacks traditionally do not succeed.  Not only must entrance exams be radically modified or even abolished, but outcomes must also be re-examined in light of woke psychology.  If all races/ethnicities are “equal” in abilities then outcomes must reflect this reality.  Advanced subject matter courses can no longer be exclusionary: minority students with above average grades must be included in their ranks.  The new world of equality will be just that:  equal outcomes for all or “equity.”  The Black experience of the ghetto or inner city will be taken into account in selecting and training its underprivileged youth.  Dialectical English will be viewed on an equal footing with standard English.  Societal expectations and racial sensitivity must supersede accepted norms of excellence.

How will this artificial selection process benefit society?  How will scientific disciplines choose with any certainty or accuracy the best-trained candidates for positions of responsibility?  Airplane pilots are now being assigned on the basis of racial characteristics, not necessarily technical competence—a policy advocated by the current Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights who thinks that Blacks are genetically superior to Whites and that skin color should be a criterion for airline pilots.  This insanity has very serious ramifications at all levels of social achievement and public safety.

The “progressive” narrative and its beliefs are now ever-present in the corporate world.  Racially integrated couples are very common in pharmaceutical commercials on TV.  It has become almost faddish to promote equity in corporate advertisements by displaying equality in interracial relationships.  In this respect, it is interesting that one never sees an Asian male with an African-American spouse in commercials.  Rarely does an Asian appear in corporate advertising except in financial or home products commercials. It is also significant that Asians are never made the “fall guy” or buffoon in TV advertisements; this ignominious characterization is exclusively reserved for the hapless White male.

For any middle-class Asian to be associated with a Black partner would be a sign of downward mobility. Advertising agencies are keenly aware of these disparities that would alienate their Asian clients.  The preferred coupling on television is “Black male-White female”; this serves the woke purpose of dispelling the segregationist myth of White supremacy. White women are portrayed as subservient to dominant Black males, thus underscoring the equality of diverse ethnic groups.  Marriage is the “sacred” symbol of blending races on an equal footing. Although interracial unions are still frowned upon by the majority of Americans, wokeism has planted its roots into the corporate world and its quest for general acceptance and greater profits.

America continues to “brown” her skin tones and the proponents of diversity see victory in their grasp.  The lone enemy that remains is the White majority or “Trump voters,” the latter a pejorative term among the woke. Once that obstacle is overcome, a new and more socially sensitive world will arise.  To ensure compliance, no critical voice will be permitted to speak out freely in promoting the contributions of White citizens of European descent.  Cancel culture will impose its restrictions on opponents from the Right.  Penalties for disagreement will be swift and devastating.

All things being equal, China continues its relentless march towards world dominance, unhampered by anti-hereditarian bias that dominates the West.  America is embroiled in internal social conflicts and fails to acknowledge that an authoritarian system of governance is spreading its tentacles far and wide.  Media sources refuse to dwell on or fully acknowledge this imminent threat to our national security.  We live from week to week, month to month, absorbed by diversionary or domestic issues, while the Chinese are committed to the long-term strategy of victory through infinite patience.  Defeat will eventually come from within our boundaries, not from the Asian continent. The American public will grow indifferent to such an indeterminate threat from a growing economic power with which we have close trading ties.  China will not be viewed in military terms but as a giant corporation facing off against its American counterpart in the battle for world trade dominance, not a country seeking political conquest.

Patience on the part of the Chinese will prevail in the end.  As America browns and concentrates on issues of social diversity and equity, the Chinese are carefully plotting their inevitable dominance of world economies and establishing political hegemony in targeted countries in Asia. Both President Biden and his family have vested (likely corrupt) interests in China’s economic progress and have publicly supported its importance to American success.  Corporate America willfully endorses Black Lives Matter and woke ideologies (Critical Race Theory), but will not openly criticize China’s continuing abuse of human rights or theft of intellectual property.  Being denied access to Chinese markets would inflict serious harm to bottom line profits; in times of moral crisis, silence is assent and lack of protest is a form of complicity.

Thousands of miles away from Beijing, our civilization gradually wanes in the face of this focused and highly talented emerging power.   The winds of destiny are favoring China’s rise to global eminence.  Even our European allies are indebted to the Chinese; as a result, they would be reluctant to support American intervention in areas of Chinese influence such as the autonomy of Taiwan and military expansionism in the South China Sea.

A declaration of war or the use of nuclear weapons would be inconceivable in any future conflict with the Chinese. As a means of protest and resistance, we are relegated to the imposition of economic sanctions and other indirect and  ineffectual measures (boycotting Chinese-made products at home, publicly denouncing Chinese policy, etc.). A full-scale military confrontation would bring about the destruction of our societies and the death of millions of innocent civilians. Unfortunately, our political strategies are not future-oriented but inner-focused.

Unless we are faced with a massive threat from abroad, Americans prefer to rectify supposed moral and domestic injustices at home above all other concerns. The past decades have demonstrated that we cannot remake authoritarian regimes in our image. Without the protective shield of our military presence, foreign autocracies or dictatorships will more than likely revert to a form of government in keeping with their cultural heritage. This is painfully obvious as American troops are now being withdrawn from Afghanistan and the Taliban have begun to reassert their Islamic authoritarianism. Massive expenditures have been devoted to stabilizing our enemies from past wars (Germany and Japan in particular), preventing them from embracing once again despotic regimes of governance.

Our obsession with diversity, critical race theory, and other internal conflicts are weakening our ability to act as a unified nation in times of severe international crises.  The progressive demonization and condemnation of White majority rule (“systemic racism”, “White privilege”) has called into question its efficacy in the minds of impressionable youth.  Where there is continuous doubt about the moral basis of authority, there will be a hesitancy to act with decisiveness.  The Chinese face no such impediment to their decisions in domestic and foreign affairs.  No matter how we assess our political future as Americans, the twenty-first century belongs to the ever-expanding and emboldened autocracy from the Far East.

The Silencing of Science: How Block-Lives Matter

/24 Comments/in /by

When I move into a new home, two things go up immediately on the wall. The first is my gold-framed portrait of Richard Wagner. The second is my map of the Universe. One way or another, everything’s there, from the left thumb of the Pope to the whole of the Andromeda Galaxy, from the follicle mites in Obama’s eyebrows to the hydrocarbon ice on Titan.

A map of the universe: the periodic table

But you wouldn’t guess to look at it, because the map is surprisingly small and suspiciously regular. In fact, most of it consists of a set of coloured blocks filled with cryptic symbols and numbers: “Xe” and “2,8,18,18,8,” for example. But that will be a giveaway for anyone who knows a bit of chemistry. My map of the Universe is the periodic table, that astonishing encapsulation of the hundred-odd elements that comprise everything in the material universe.

A cookbook for matter

The periodic table is astonishing partly because it manages to capture so much with so little. If I look around me at the moment, I see a huge variety of things, from sea-shells to books, from memory-sticks to egret feathers. But everything I see is made from just three things: protons, neutrons and electrons. At the conscious level, there’s endless variety. At the sub-atomic level, there’s endless repetition. If the protons in the egret feathers were swapped with the same number of protons in the books, it would be impossible to detect any change. Ditto for the neutrons and electrons, and ditto for any other pair of material objects, no matter how superficially different. The periodic table is a kind of cookbook for matter, listing the recipes used by Mother Nature to rustle up a lustrous weighty solid like silver or a poisonous swirling gas like chlorine from exactly the same ingredients.

But it wasn’t easy to uncover the unifying simplicity of the periodic table. It’s not just a cookbook: it’s a monument to human intelligence, ingenuity, obsession and effort. Or rather, it’s a monument to those things as displayed by White males. Take a survey of the periodic table like Jack Challoner’s excellent The Elements: The Ultimate Guide to the Building Blocks of Our Universe (2012). Reading about the blocks, you won’t come across any Blacks. Instead, the names of stale pale males occur on almost every page, beginning with the Frenchman Antoine Lavoisier (1743–94), the Englishman John Dalton (1766–1844) and the Russian Dmitri Mendeleev (1834–1907).

First found in sunlight

The first two helped lay the foundations of modern chemistry and the last devised its recipe-book: the periodic table. Then stale pale males like the New Zealander Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937) helped explain the patterns of the periodic table. Hundreds of other stale pale males, and a few stale pale females like the great Pole Marie Curie (1867–1934), helped to fill in the table by extracting and refining elements from substances as diverse as slag, seaweed and fresh air. And by detecting one in sunlight before it was found on earth. If the elements are the building-blocks of the universe, then you could say that the scientists who explained and uncovered them were leading block-lives. And block-lives matter in a way that mainstream politics and culture presently refuse to admit.

For example, here’s a curious thing: four of those elements – the obscure but sometimes important ytterbium, yttrium, terbium and erbium – were named from the small Swedish village of Ytterby. It wasn’t just that they were found in a quarry there: Swedes and other Scandinavians worked to extract them from reluctant minerals. And vanadium is named from a Norse goddess and holmium from the Swedish capital Stockholm. Scandinavian men have contributed more to STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) than all Blacks who ever lived, despite being vastly outnumbered by Blacks. In other words, even as chemistry was unifying heaven and earth, it was disuniting humanity, because scientific talent and success haven’t been evenly distributed among the diverse groups of humanity.

White European males were necessary for the creation of modern science and might have been entirely sufficient. I suggested in “The Pale Male Paradox” that one factor in their success was their lack of self-obsession: they’re interested in the external universe, not in themselves and their own interests. But, as I also suggested in the article, that renders them vulnerable to parasitic ideologies run by groups, like Jews and Blacks, who are obsessed with themselves and their own interests. The pale male paradox is that pale males have achieved most and are now vilified worst, being held responsible for horrendous contemporary evils like racism, sexism and Islamophobia.

The epicycles of leftism

While chemistry and physics have revealed a true unity beneath the myriad substances and phenomena of the material universe, leftism insists on a false unity beneath the myriad differences of humanity. “We are all the same under the skin,” leftism insists. Therefore we should achieve the same. But we don’t. And so, like Ptolemaic astronomy compensating for its faulty premise of geocentrism with epicycles, leftism compensates for its faulty premise of human equality with nonsense like “systemic racism” and “White supremacy.” After all, what else could explain how the innate genius of Blacks has failed to flower in White societies for so long?

“Nothing else!” say the liars of leftism. “Genetics!” say heretical truth-tellers like the Nobel laureate James Watson (born 1928), a stale pale male who helped reveal how chemistry encodes life. Watson and his late colleague Francis Crick (1916–2004) were the co-discoverers of the double-helix structure of DNA. If Mendeleev revealed the building-blocks of matter in the periodic table, then Crick and Watson revealed the building-blocks of life. So they also led block-lives and their block-lives matter in a way that, once again, contradicts the lies of mainstream politics and culture. Their discovery unified biology rather as the periodic table unified chemistry. The amazing variety of life on Earth, from daisies to dachshunds, from bacteria to blue whales, arises from the same genetic code. And just as you could swap protons between material objects and detect no difference, you could swap genes between living organisms and detect no difference.

Genetics unifies biology, but also helps us see the huge importance of small differences. All mammals share most of their genomes, but they don’t share most of their behaviour, diet and external anatomy. There are vast differences between a tiny insect-eating bat flying hundreds of metres up and a giant squid-eating whale swimming hundreds of metres down. But those vast physiological and behavioural differences arise from small genetic differences. It didn’t take long, evolutionarily speaking, to convert the four-legged land-living common ancestor of bats and whales into its winged and finned modern descendants.

Tiny but titanic

And into all its other modern descendants, from armadillos to zebras. However, one of those descendants, Homo sapiens, is distinguished by perhaps the most important genetic difference of all time. The difference is tiny, compared to everything that unites mammals, but titanic in its significance. What is it? It’s what enables you to read these little symbols on a computer screen. Human beings evolved language and language depends on certain sequences of DNA. We don’t know exactly what they are yet and how they work, but without them humans wouldn’t be human. Without language, we couldn’t organize our societies, inform ourselves so effectively about resources and threats, and cooperate on communally beneficial projects. But that’s precisely why leftism insists on censorship and wants to silence the voices of heretics like James Watson. Leftism wants to prevent Whites from informing themselves about racial difference and the vast threats of mass immigration and racially mixed societies. It wants to prevent Whites cooperating on the communally beneficial projects of self-defence and self-assertion.

And so, when Watson suggested that there were genetic reasons for the intellectual under-performance of Blacks, he was punished with loss of income and prestige. Voltaire said that the English execute an admiral from time to time pour encourager les autres – “to encourage the others.” Leftists burn heretics (metaphorically speaking, at the moment) for the same reason: by punishing a scientific giant like Watson, they were frightening thousands of lesser scientists and writers who might share Watson’s ideas about genetic difference or at least believe that those ideas should be freely debated. In suppressing the quintessential human faculty of speech, leftist censorship is a way of preserving and extending the power of an ideology that cannot survive open discussion and debate.

Archimedes’ midgets

Censorship is also a way of exercising power, something that can be highly enjoyable for the envious and inferior. None of Watson’s critics could match his scientific achievements, but they could assert power over him and humiliate him in public. Even the highly woke British biologist Adam Rutherford, a half-Guyanese Indian and propagandist for wokeism on race, admitted that Watson had been “shooed from public life by the people who walk in his scientific shadow.” But Rutherford doesn’t disapprove of that: he thinks that Watson is a racist and deserves everything he gets. Rutherford also thinks that the great Victorian scientist Francis Galton (1822–1911) was a racist and that it’s right to remove Galton’s name from institutions built on his very clever and creative ideas.

This spectacle of giants like Watson and Galton being toppled by pygmies like Rutherford deserves a name. I’d call it Archimedes Syndrome—Rutherford and company are Archimedes’ midgets. The Greek mathematician and scientist Archimedes (287–212 BC) was one of history’s supreme geniuses, but according to Plutarch he was cut down in his prime by a nobody. Archimedes had defended the city of Syracuse against a Roman siege, but when the city fell, he was engrossed in a mathematical problem. And he ignored an order from a Roman soldier. So the Roman soldier killed him. The story may be apocryphal, but it illustrates a perennial theme of life: how the superior can fall victim to the inferior, the high to the low. The more we’ve learned about biology, the more we’ve seen Archimedes Syndrome in action. As I’ve described in articles like “Verbal Venom” and “How to Cure a White Zombie,” very simple parasites can subvert the brains of much more complex hosts.

A veneer of philanthropy

There’s an obvious parallel to what’s happening in Western politics. For example, stupid people like the Black anti-racist Ibram X. Kendi are subverting culture and politics in the hugely sophisticated White nation of America. White Americans have achieved things utterly beyond the power of any Black collective, like landing men on the moon and probing the universe across vast stretches of space and time. The paradox is that White America achieved so much because it was a high-trust society, but those achievements made America a juicy target for those who could exploit the trust, concealing hostility and self-service beneath a veneer of universalism and philanthropy. By themselves Blacks lacked the intellectual sophistication to fashion what Kevin MacDonald has named the “culture of critique,” wherein White societies are indicted for their sins against racial equality and justice.

Instead, the culture of critique was fashioned and refined by much more intelligent Ashkenazi Jews like Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin, who prepared the way for Black Lives Matter by insisting that Block-Lives Don’t Matter—namely, that genes, the building blocks of biology, don’t exercise decisive influence on the success of Whites and failure of Blacks in advanced industrial societies. Gould’s message was that “human equality is a contingent fact of history,” and that message has been bawled into the ears of American Whites for decades, thanks to Jewish dominance in the media. As Ron Unz has put it:

Throughout the second half of the twentieth century, [Americans’] understanding of the world was overwhelmingly shaped by our centralized electronic media, which was almost entirely in Jewish hands during this period, with all three television networks and eight of nine major Hollywood studios being owned or controlled by such individuals, along with most of our leading newspapers and publishing houses. (American Pravda: Mossad Assassinations, The Unz Review, January 27, 2020)

Language is essential for any human society to exist, but when the media of a society are controlled by a hostile alien minority, language becomes a curse rather than a blessing. It no longer fulfils its function of conveying accurate information that enables effective collective responses and endeavours. Instead, it propagates falsehood and facilitates attacks on the society by its enemies. Blacks, with their low average IQ, could not be so successfully undermining and exploiting White Americans without control of the media by Jews, with their high average IQs.

Salmon’s stern sentences

But Blacks are also undermining and exploiting the White British in a society that had no good historic reason to contain large numbers of Blacks. So why are they here? According to James Thompson at the Unz Review, “The United Kingdom seems to have begun its largest and most transformative policy in a typical fit of absent-mindedness.” That is a disappointingly ignorant and irrational claim by Thompson. In fact, the policy wasn’t “absent-minded” at all, because the same group behind the nation-wrecking 1965 Immigration Law in America wanted mass immigration by non-Whites into Britain too. In other words, Jews opened the borders in Britain just as they did in America, France, Australia, and Sweden.

Exemplary sentences for uppity goyim: Jewish Judge Cyril Salmon (1903–1991)

And even if mass immigration into Britain had indeed begun “in a typical fit of absent-mindedness,” that raises an obvious question: Why wasn’t the British government shaken out of its “absent-mindedness” by the very loud opposition of ordinary British Whites? Blacks who emigrated to Britain from the Caribbean brought a vibrant culture of murder, rape and public nuisance with them. In 1958, ordinary Whites fought back against the Black incursion in the so-called “Notting Hill race riot,” which saw vicious fighting between Whites and Blacks in a working-class district of London. But the British authorities were not on the side of ordinary Whites. As the Guardian approvingly reported: “At the Old Bailey [Britain’s most famous court] Judge [Cyril] Salmon later handed down exemplary sentences of four years each on nine White youths who had gone ‘nigger hunting’.” Judge Salmon certainly wasn’t absent-minded and certainly wasn’t sympathetic to Whites resisting the forced imposition of criminal Blacks on their homeland.

“Entering politics to combat anti-semitism”

But Judge Salmon’s attitudes and “exemplary sentences” are entirely unsurprising, because he was of course Jewish. It’s very interesting that he was appointed to oversee what was clearly designed as a show-trial, just as it’s very interesting that, decades later, the ethnocentric Jew Barbara Roche was appointed as immigration minister under the treacherous Tony Blair. Roche oversaw a massive increase in already very high levels of non-White immigration. She wasn’t “absent-minded” either. In 2001, a Guardian interview said that her “parents were part Spanish, Portuguese, Polish and Russian, and she had entered politics—she still emphasises this today—to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” In another interview with the Guardian, she said that “I love the diversity of London. … I just feel comfortable.”

Roche feels “comfortable” in an atomized society where she doesn’t stand out as alien and doesn’t fear that White gentiles will turn on Jews, as they have so often in the past. And Roche was also clearly motivated by a desire for revenge on the White British. In one speech in 2000 she gloated about her ability to direct immigration policy, proclaiming herself as the proud descendant of Jews who had been insulted by a xenophobic White Briton. Note how she begins this section of her speech with some lying propaganda borrowed from Jews in America:

Britain has always been a nation of migrants. There were in practice almost no immigration controls prior to the beginning of the 20th century. The 1905 Aliens Act was a direct response to Jewish immigration and it is difficult to deny that it was motivated in part by anti-Semitism. Major [William] Evans-Gordon, an MP, speaking in support of the legislation, said: “It is the poorest and least fit of these people who move, and it is the residuum of these again who come to and are let in this country. … Hon[ourable] Members [of Parliament] opposite do not live in daily terror of being turned into the street to make room for an unsavoury Pole [i.e. Polish Jew].”

I expect Major Evans Gordon would be spinning in his grave if he knew that their descendant would not only be Immigration Minister but would be standing before you today making this speech. (UK migration in a global economy, Draft Speech by Barbara Roche MP, Immigration Minister, London, 11th September 2000)

Britain has not “always been a nation of migrants.” There were “almost no immigration controls” at that time because there was no need for them. Britain was a demographically stable White Christian nation without a societal death-wish. But even at “the beginning of the 20th century” it was apparent to some clear-sighted observers that Jews had achieved disproportionate power and influence here. The satirist Hector Hugh Munro (1876–1916), who wrote under the pen-name of Saki, created a hero in 1904 who claimed that the British Empire was “rapidly becoming a suburb of Jerusalem.” Like working-class Whites in Notting Hill in the 1950s, Saki thought that outsiders were harming Britain, but his opposition was literary rather than physical. He didn’t go to prison for mocking Jews in stories like “The Unrest-Cure” and “A Touch of Realism.”

Calculus versus chaos

Nor did Saki lose his successful literary career. But writers do lose their careers today for transgressing against minority worship and sometimes, like the great historian David Irving (born 1938), also go to prison. In a Land of Lies, free speech and free enquiry are crimes. But the double-think and deceit of Black Lives Matter and the vast official apparatus of “anti-racism” don’t and can’t alter reality. In response to that deceit, we have to insist that Block-Lives Matter—that genes, the building-blocks of life, explain why Blacks underachieve at civilization and overachieve at crime. The genetic similarities between bats and whales are far greater than the differences. But you can’t find a shared environment where bats and whales both flourish.

The same applies to Blacks and Whites. The genetic similarities between us are far greater than the differences. But the differences explain why Whites create calculus and Blacks create chaos. You can’t build a shared society where Blacks and Whites both flourish. More and more Whites can see this simple truth, so the hostile elite will have to put more and more effort into repressing dissent. And that repression will further demonstrate the evil of racially mixed societies, thereby waking more Whites. The vicious circle for the hostile elite will prove a virtuous circle for Whites.

Anti-White Hate and White Ethnomasochism at the Opera

/86 Comments/in , , , /by

Daniel Bernard Roumain

Given the obsession with “systemic White racism,” it’s not at all surprising that enterprising non-Whites can make a career out of their supposed oppression. A very lucrative career in many cases.

A big problem for those intent on displacing White culture is the world of classical music. Brenton Sanderson described the assault on classical music in his aptly titled “Triggered by Beethoven: The Cultural Politics of Racial Resentment“:

Laudatory references to White male geniuses like Beethoven inevitably trigger rage from anti-White commentators who huff that it has “long been an argument of white supremacists, Nazis, Neo-Nazis, and racial separatists that ‘classical music,’ the music of ‘white people,’ is inherently more sophisticated, complicated, and valuable than the musical traditions of Africa, Asia, South America, or the Middle East, thus proving the innate superiority of the ‘white race.’” Seen through the Cultural Marxist lens of critical race and gender theory, Beethoven’s music dominates the concert repertoire not because of its exceptional quality, but because White-male privilege and assumptions about White-male genius keep it there. Linda Shaver-Gleason insisted Beethoven’s dominant place in the canon was the result of a White supremacist conspiracy which “intentionally suppressed” the music of non-White composers “in the service of a narrative of white — specifically German — cultural supremacy (because, alas, that too is part of Western culture).”

The main problem for the haters is simply the complexity and sophistication of the Western musical tradition.

While purporting to offer additional insight into music, the New Musicology systematically imposes an anti-White male ideology on its subject, and, in this endeavor, happily discards all standards of proof and evidence. [Before the new musicology,] there was a belief in purely musical elements and in the value of studying them. The problem with such “objective” technical analysis, for the [cultural Marxists], is that it invariably leads to “White supremacist” conclusions about the relative quality of different musical traditions.

Daniel Bernard Roumain, a Black of Haitian descent, is a classically trained violinist and composer. He likely agrees that any and all aspects of Western culture reflect White male supremacy and are hence evil to the core. But the main thrust of his assault on the classical music world takes a different course: interjecting his hatred of Whites into his compositions. Surprisingly, there has been some push-back to his explicitly expressed hatred, but in our woke cultural moment, that’s a big plus for his career.

Heather MacDonald has a nice analysis (“Resisting Racial Demagoguery“).

Composer Daniel Bernard Roumain has made a good career leveraging his skin color. He writes pieces with titles like “i am a white person who ____ Black people.” He argues that orchestras should “focus on BLACK artists exclusively” [punctuation in the original]. He has solicited funding for a work written “EXCLUSIVELY for BIPOC [black, indigenous, and people of color] members of ANY orchestra.” …

Roumain argues, white musicians’ contracts should be term-limited as reparations for “decades of benefitting from orchestral racism.”

Just your basic White-hating activist. So he was invited to write an aria for an event commemorating the Tulsa race riot of 1921, to be sung by a Black (of course) mezzo-soprano, Denyse Graves. And since his whole thing is anti-White activism, the emphasis in his writing is on the words, not the music—thus avoiding any serious analysis of the technical aspects of his compositions. (I would not venture an opinion on its technical aspects, but Heather M describes the piano accompaniment as consisting of “insipid, New Age-y broken triads and cliché-ridden chord progressions. The melodic line is negligible.” A composer who preferred to remain anonymous (for good reason!) stated, “Although I do believe that [Graves] was not in sympathy with the tone and thrust of the text, she also knows well what good music is. This ain’t it.”)

Roumain thinks there is a “bloodlust sown deep within the American psyche,” but he’s definitely not referring to the vastly higher rate of Black homicide per capita. He’s referring to George Floyd and Breanna Taylor—exactly the sort of nuanced analysis we have come to expect from BIPOC activists. He thinks that Blacks live every day in fear of being killed by a cop, stating to a very sympathetic interviewer: “The inspiration to compose They Still Want To Kill Us was my wanting to convey how it feels to live in America as a Black man and know that on any given day, you could be murdered and die in America. That feeling never goes away. It’s always there.” I wonder if he’s afraid of being around Blacks given that Blacks are much more likely to be killed by Blacks than Whites.

But it could be that he actually believes he is in permanent danger because of his race given the media- and activist-created hysteria that happens every time a cop kills a Black, no matter what the circumstances. As with the covid panic where we see people wearing masks even outdoors and even alone in their cars, the public is quite susceptible to messages that create fear.

Roumain seems more interested in spewing out sound bites expressing his hatred toward Whites than in writing serious music. Heather M.:

Roumain’s titles are his calling card, into which he puts his greatest effort, he says—arguably an unusual emphasis for a composer; once he comes up with the name of a piece, the musical writing comes easily.

Roumain also wrote the aria’s lyrics, which begin with brief phrases about the rampage and end with:

They still want to kill us.
God Bless America
God Damn America.

But Graves balked at singing that last line, “God Damn America,” and Roumain refused to budge, so there was an impasse. But the aria was eventually performed by another Black soprano, J’Nai Bridges and funded by a variety of establishment arts organizations, including:  Opera Philadelphia, the Fine Arts Center at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, Stanford Live, and the University Musical Society at the University of Michigan. And besides that:

Roumain’s racial-justice profile has earned him a seat on the boards of the League of American Orchestras and the Association of Performing Arts Presenters, as well as a faculty position at Arizona State University. He has been commissioned by Carnegie Hall and is working on film, TV, and opera scores.

Such oppression!

As is so often the case among social justice warriors, on one hand he wants discrimination against White musicians, but then he dresses it all up with the loftiest of moral platitudes:

The truth is: as much as I would love to feel safe in America and a part of its moral fabric, I don’t feel safe and I would like this country to embrace a new shared radical morality based on empathy, safety for us, and justice for us all.

So at least he’s not explicitly hoping for White genocide. But he’s certainly willing to bend over backwards to blame a White person for the impasse in Tusla.

Roumain was particularly exercised that [Tulsa Opera’s artistic director Tobias] Picker was involved in trying to reach a compromise. Picker is white. No matter that Graves was the one who rejected the piece and that [Black Assistant Conductor] Howard Watkins was just as instrumental as Picker in the abortive negotiations. The entire incident, in Roumain’s view, reflected what happens when a white male runs a classical music organization. Roumain told Tulsa Public Radio that it “hurt” to have Picker suggest possible revisions. Picker’s whiteness is emblematic of the racism of an institution with “far too many white males in charge,” Roumain said. And Picker’s suggested revisions didn’t speak to “what happened on Jan. 6, what happened in Ferguson, what happened in Charlottesville . . . what happened in Atlanta.”

Picker is a White transgender activist and, at least from Roumain’s point of view, exactly the sort of progressive White person described by Robin DiAngelo, who has another book out, this time focusing exclusively on progressive White people, “the most bigoted, the most harmful, the greatest threat to racial equality.” By not giving Roumain the artistic freedom to express his hatred toward White America, Picker has shown himself to be an oppressor of Black people. And I guess Graves and Watkins are Uncle Toms.

Picker … is a far cry from the white reactionary of Roumain’s nightmares. Tulsa Opera hosted the American debut of a transgender Heldenbaritone—formerly male, now “female”—who in 2019 sang the title role in Tulsa’s Don Giovanni, creating a sexual hall of mirrors that would delight the most cutting-edge gender studies professor. Picker’s own opera about one of the first recipients of sex-reassignment surgery will be premiered in 2023.

Even though Graves, Picker, and Watkins stood up to Roumain, it’s likely that most of the classical music world and their audience are engaging in the usual ethnomasochism so common among progressive White people.

A photo on the New Jersey Orchestra’s website publicizing “i am a white person” shows smiling, elderly white people clustered around the composer, hanging on his every word. One imagines him explaining his status as a victim of their white privilege, an accusation they humbly accept.

Roumain is likely aware that his entire career depends on White guilt and he is more than ready to take it to the bank. He’s just appealing to his audience in the confidence that his messages of anti-White hate will trump serious analysis of his music because the audience really wants to be brow-beaten by messages of how evil White people are.

The enthusiastic audience for Greenwood Overcomes was predominantly white and middle-aged, judging by the concert video, just like Roumain’s audience at the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra. This demographic, scorned by the Black Lives Matter movement, is more likely to turn out for black-themed programs than blacks themselves. Roumain seeks color-coded boundaries around artistic expression and historical commemoration. This neo-segregationism is not just a blow against imaginative possibility and human understanding; it is also commercially suicidal.

Given the guilt-ridden tendencies of White progressives and Roumain’s excellent career trajectory, I rather doubt that Roumain’s messages are “commercially suicidal.” Is his “neo-segregationism” good for White advocates — Whites who reject White guilt and are looking to advance the prospects of White Americans? It’s quite clear that quite a few Whites, like Roumain’s audiences, are willing to wallow in self-abnegation and pay for the privilege of doing so. They are intelligent, well-educated, and economically secure — and often they have benefited career-wise by going along with our new culture of White denigration. But they are caught up in the moral community created by our hostile elites in the media and academic world, and they just want to be seen as good people. And many of them are good people — at least the ones who aren’t cynically exploiting the situation for personal gain. They are just hopelessly naïve about how the world works and what this cultural revolution means for the future of Whites in America. One hopes that they will wake up when they find their grandchildren are passed over for non-Whites when applying for positions in universities or in the job market.

But maybe not. This tendency toward wanting to be seen as a good person runs very deep in White people. It’s fundamental to the unique individualism that defines the West.

In any case, there are substantial numbers of White people — it’s not clear how many — who react to anti-White hate by identifying more strongly as White and understanding that the future of Whites in America is precarious at best. This neo-segregationism has become a talking point among mainstream conservatives like Heather M., and twenty states have banned or restricted Critical Race Theory from being taught in public schools. A lot of this is conservative virtue-signaling (“Dems are the real racists”) but mainstream conservatives do seem much more willing these days to dwell on examples from the media or academic world and note explicitly that they are anti-White. For example, Tucker Carlson and Fox News noted an outrageous “academic” paper in The Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association by the presumably Jewish Donald Moss. The abstract:

Whiteness is a condition one first acquires and then one has—a malignant, parasitic-like condition to which “white” people have a particular susceptibility. The condition is foundational, generating characteristic ways of being in one’s body, in one’s mind, and in one’s world. Parasitic Whiteness renders its hosts’ appetites voracious, insatiable, and perverse. These deformed appetites particularly target nonwhite peoples. Once established, these appetites are nearly impossible to eliminate. Effective treatment consists of a combination of psychic and social-historical interventions. Such interventions can reasonably aim only to reshape Whiteness’s infiltrated appetites—to reduce their intensity, redistribute their aims, and occasionally turn those aims toward the work of reparation. When remembered and represented, the ravages wreaked by the chronic condition can function either as warning (“never again”) or as temptation (“great again”). Memorialization alone, therefore, is no guarantee against regression. There is not yet a permanent cure.

This is nothing less than a recipe for the genocide of Whites as incurable racists. The hatred is obvious, and it’s no accident that the writer is a Jew (Fox News refers to him as a “white man” but Moss is a common Jewish name). Nor is it surprising that Moss’s article appears in a psychoanalytic journal. As noted in The Culture of Critique, psychoanalysis is an infinitely pliable tool that is able to create any result one wants and give it a veneer of science — with psychoanalytic theories of anti-Semitism and the Frankfurt School’s theory of White ethnocentrism being the most relevant here. So even though conservatives tiptoe around the deeper issues, it’s not difficult to see that the message of mainstream hatred toward Whites is definitely getting out there. A necessary development.

One half of the England Team Kneeling to the Other Half

/23 Comments/in /by

White English players in training
The Ying and Yang of politics is division (or polarisation) and unity. The problems arise when you have division at a time when you should have unity and unity at a time when you should have division.
In the early 20th century we got things the wrong way round with division when we should have had unity, and now we are going the other way, having fake unity when we should have healthy division.

This may sound counter-intuitive because the petty divisions in present day society have been amplified beyond all sense of reality. The fact is that — and I mainly referring to the UK here — there has never been more political unity than there is now.

Really!

Try slipping a piece of paper between the positions of the Labour and Conservative Parties or — Scottish ‘independence’ aside — these two parties and the SNP.

The problem, however, and the one that we are all aware of, is that we live in a time that should be extremely polarised and divided because so much is toxically wrong with our societies and civilisation.
The latest emblem of this at the moment is the forthcoming European soccer championships, in which the England team is all set to take a knee for “Black Lives Matters” in Every. Single. Game. 
Here is Brendan O’Neill at Sp!ked, an online magazine that likes to pretend it is the friend of working class Whites:

…taking the knee is now little more than an elitist provocation. It has become a way of goading working-class football fans. This is the footballing elites – cheered on by the media class, the political establishment and the Twitterati – reprimanding the masses in the stands for their presumed prejudices and idiocies. The bent knee is yet another weapon in the never-ending culture war on the oiks.

Yes, it’s the big, nasty elites shitting on the little guy.

Yes and no.

O’Neill is a former Marxist, or more correctly a former open Marxist. I suspect he is probably a closet one now, having realised that being an open Marxist is just as big a turn off as being a fan of the Austrian Painter.

Sp!ked, by the way, used to be called Living Marxism. On the surface of it, O’Neill is channeling the dominant idea in modern Britain — namely the idea that race and identitarianism are non-starters and that we already live in a post-racial society. For him it’s more about class, but he only seems to mention this to de-emphasise race because “…really, you shouldn’t be hung up on that.”
But race is the fundamental reality in this case. The fact that constant efforts are being made to deny this is proof positive that it is.
But back to the England football team, the real reason that the team takes the knee is a very simple one.

It is not due to “all those turbo-smug NuFootball scribes on the broadsheets,” as O’Neill claims. No, it is instead due to the fact that the England team is two-tone team.

I would not even call it multi-racial. It is simpler than that. It is Black and White, and the Blacks in the team are convinced that there is such a thing as White racism, racist cops, and that the only way to make “Black Lives Matter” in America, England, and the World is to constantly bang on about it.

Only constant kneeling to a Black criminal and Marxists can keep this together
Anybody saying, “Wasn’t Floyd just some drugged-up thug?”, “Dude, all lives matter!”, or “Can we leave off the constant kneeling in front of empty stadiums? It’s pissing off the fans,” threatens to split the England team right down the middle.
Yes, thanks to race, and especially the “racial asymmetry” of Blacks and Whites in British society — despite all efforts to “level up” the races — England, both the country and the football team, lacks unity. Both are tenuously held together by the fraying threads of constant “woke” propaganda.
Those wishing to know more about the concept of “racial asymmetry” could do worse than check out Colin Liddell’s excellent “The Asymmetry of America.”

In my time the “woke” messaging pumped out in the UK has taken on North Korean proportions of propaganda, rendering almost any TV commercial or program on the BBC unwatchable.

White England players simply want to be in a successful footballing unit. Through their conditioning in two-tone Premier League teams, they know that this involves taking the knee not with their Black colleagues but to them.

This is a sacrifice in their human dignity that they are fully prepared to make. The fans not quite so much.
Daniel Barge writes for Affirmative Right. This article, slightly edited, is reposted here by permission.