Featured Articles

Defund Police?  Defund the Thought Police: the Modern University

/15 Comments/in /by

“Many intellectuals and their followers have been unduly impressed by the fact that highly educated elites like themselves have far more knowledge per capita—in the sense of special knowledge—than does the population at large. From this it is a short step to considering the educated elites to be superior guides to what should and should not be done in a society. They have often overlooked the crucial fact that the population at large may have vastly more total knowledge—in the mundane sense—than the elites, even if that knowledge is scattered in individually unimpressive fragments among vast numbers of people. The ignorance, prejudices, and groupthink of an educated elite are still ignorance, prejudice, and groupthink—and for those with one percent of the knowledge in a society to be guiding or controlling those with the other 99 percent is as perilous as it is absurd.

The power of the intelligentsia is demonstrated not only by their ability to create a general climate of opinion that strikes fear into those who oppose their agenda but also by their ability to create a climate of opinion which richly rewards those political leaders whose decisions are consonant with the vision of the intelligentsia.”
― Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society

If you had to put your finger on one organizing principle, or grievance among all of the riots that continue to plague America (and will be increasing), it is class, not race.[1]  Putting aside election-year grandstanding and opportunism, and as a strawman, looking at BLM, antifa, and other groups strictly as anthropological distortions—they are symbolically rebelling against (or being incited to rebel against) what they believe (or were told) is racially based privilege, elitism, preferred access to opportunity, knowledge and social capital.  But race really isn’t the direct issue of contention; it is a proxy for class economic disparity. In this way, it does indeed resemble a kind of modern Bolshevism, but with an ironic twist: the Left has actually become the party of the rich and privileged billionaire donors, indoctrinated, guilt-ridden White college graduates, and a dependent client base among poor non-Whites. But more, race has become not a source of liberation for minorities, but turned around to become a weapon of hatred and revenge that is increasingly, and dangerously, attacking Whites with a vehemence and bigotry that is turning the Civil Rights Act on its head.

Those special privileges assumed to be shared by the modern Bolshevists are today not an automatic product of birth, or inherited wealth even.  Apart from the client base of poor non-Whites, these advantages come generally from ingenuity, work and discipline, but a particularly insidious and entrenched component comes from membership in a club.  A club of information, contacts, and favors.  A club of special language, intellectual abstraction, social expectations and most of all, a detachment from laboring classes.  It is membership in the elite university club, and by extension, a private society of preferred access to capital, resources and markets.   BLM wants to be part of the club, and in some ways it is indoctrinated by it, and owned by it, but it is merely the club’s foot soldiers, their ‘front line’ who are sacrificed for the elite intellectual leaders in the rear.  BLM will never actually be allowed into the club, but it will serve the club’s interests in gaining advantages through its “creative destruction” which creates pretext for deeper government and special interest intrusion into the economy and larger society.

This special sub-society of the truly elite carefully stores and guards its secrets and access, whether scientific, legal, medical or financial.  It protects and manages its network and rations its influences.  It is an inter-locking society as well, with members drawn from business and government who reinforce the society and its privilege.

Across America’s centers of power and influence, a highly concentrated group of “insiders” tend to the society’s well-being, its growth and power, and even, or especially, its ability to produce competitive advantages among key sectors, especially technology and finance, and with a strong inter-weaving of laws and policy that reinforce and sustain these advantages.  Universities produce the intellectual “code” and social capital that together create sharp and nearly impenetrable class differences.  These differences are vital to maintaining the political currency of elitism, social abstraction (over-population, global warming, terrorism and biological safety) and top-down public policy (abortion, eugenics, distancing, isolation).[2]

The tech oligarchs seek to dominate the world financially and technologically. The clerisy in turn aim to undermine traditional bourgeois values with progressive ideas about globalism, environmental sustainability, redefined gender roles, and the authority of experts. They inculcate these values through their “dominance over the institutions of higher learning and media, aided by the oligarchy’s control of information technology and the channels of culture.” Both groups perceive a powerful central government as essential to carrying out their political, social, and economic objectives, and thus the need for an unassailable, credentialed “expert class.”  Increasing social stratification across the globe—with a small technocracy and clerisy at the top and a large…dependent serf class at the bottom—represents a new, modern feudalism. What binds these two groups together (oligarchs being the feudal lords; thought leaders, the clerics) are shared views on globalism, cosmopolitanism, credentialism, and technocratic expertise. Academia is not only exclusivist, it is the least politically tolerant group in America. Ivy League schools enroll more students from households in the top 1 percent than the bottom 60 percent. The proportion of liberals to conservatives at top-rated colleges is at least 8 to 1 and sometimes 70 to 1. Less than 10 percent of faculty at leading law schools describe themselves as conservative. The university is now an “ideological reeducation camp.” It seems to be working: 40 percent of millennials favor suppressing speech deemed offensive to minorities. To get a glimpse of the future neo-feudalist America, one need look no further than California, where a small class of fabulously wealthy and interconnected people act as a new nobility, while a massive underclass of underemployed and unemployed are reliant on the state for survival. California’s level of inequality is greater than that of Mexico, and on par with Guatemala and Honduras. When adjusted for cost of living, California’s overall poverty rate is highest in the country. Eight million Californians live in poverty, including two million children. Almost half the children in the state are living close to the poverty line. The Bay Area is perhaps the worst offender: 76,000 millionaires and billionaires live in Santa Clara and San Mateo counties, while 30 percent of Silicon Valley residents rely on public or private financial assistance. And lest one think this is only an American problem, [in] China, the top 1 percent of the population hold about one-third of the nation’s wealth, and about 300 people hold about 20 percent. There will soon be more Chinese billionaires than American ones. Meanwhile China employs artificial intelligence with sophisticated algorithms to regulate society and public opinion—you know, the same systems currently used to brainwash hundreds of thousands of “problematic” Uighurs in Xinjiang Province. China has created a massive surveillance state that monitors individual citizens’ social capital, and, as an extension, access to various goods and services. Beijing is selling these surveillance tools to other nations.[3]

This is hardly a new phenomenon, as intellectual and related social distinctions have been an inherent part of society hierarchies for centuries, in nearly all societies.  What is new is the immense growth of America’s government and corporate institutions, and their capture by an elite educated governing class.  America is governed in reality by a new elite, with a massive “slave” class spread out in the vast open spaces of the rest of the country.  A handful of cities, university affiliations and intellectual and technical networks seek to control the country and have largely succeeded.  America’s elitism is intellectual, conceptual, linguistic and behavioral, much more than it is strictly financial, or even propertied, or especially, racial.  Some of it is merely symbolic; an image; a story; a carefully marketed illusion.  But it is an illusion that still divides the country into a very sharp differences of class and privilege.

Indeed, where would Barack Obama be without the one thing that made him stand apart and gave him cachet: his Columbia and Harvard degrees, and his University of Chicago Law school teaching bona fides; his claim to being a “constitutional scholar.”  The elite university is the essence of his identity.  And as Nietzsche points to, it is still an identity that thrives on its own consensus, its own insistence on a monotheism in belief, values and objectives.  It seeks to break down all others into a classless society, until there is no longer a rich garden of variety, of healthy competition and independence, but instead one group only—the obedient Hive.

Indeed, the current BLM riots have their effective intellectual base camp in several elite universities, especially Chicago.  But ironically it is a base camp that wants to maintain its borders and walls of protected privilege.  America’s working-class towns and small business may be burned and ransacked, its public spaces and even homes and churches threatened: but the elite university campuses like Harvard, Yale, Stanford and even Berkeley, are quiet, safe, tranquil and undisturbed.  How could that be?

For sure, the country’s colleges are hurting financially from reduced enrollment and the costs of altering their campuses into “ant farms” to control and direct student movement and behavior in the new biosecurity construct.  The massive student loan market—nearly $2 trillion dollars—is also a bubble threatening to burst any moment, while tuition of $80,000 a year at Chicago—the highest in the nation—is likely never going to return.  But the one thing keeping the haves from the have nots—information, knowledge and specific skills—is still being kept behind locked doors—doors that don’t open for everyone, and keep the US a sharply splintered society.  And elite intellectuals like it that way.

Tuition alone is the modern slave collar—decades of indebtedness that can’t be extinguished.  Paying money to build and grow your mind may be the ultimate insult to freedom—like charging for oxygen, sunlight and natural water.  These are all natural rights, natural resources and man’s natural privilege to procure as a free human being.  The modern elite university (and Silicon Valley Big Tech) wants instead to profit off of your own mental sovereignty, and take what is naturally yours, and keep you from it by way of their “admissions” game (as if you needed to be admitted to your own intellect), or as dribbled out in careful doses of “degrees” and diplomas.[4]  Police may imprison our body, but the modern university seeks to imprison your mind, by putting you in “education isolation” so you do not contaminate the ruling class and their privileged domain of specialized culture.  The university claims to offer its educational liberation to the under-privileged, the suppressed or disadvantaged.  What they really do is merely open the gate to a handful of the throng at its walls, in order to keep up the hope of salvation.  The rest are sent back to the educational plantations for the masses, and intellectually “quarantined” from the elite.  And now, before you enter either domain, you will be subject to new virus protocols and electronic “geofencing.” This alone turns the higher education calculus on its head: everyone inside the walls of academia may soon be stampeding to try and get out; or will they?  A new “Lord of the Flies” psychology is taking over many of our young adults, creating the welcome and the unwelcome, the safe and the unsafe, the right and the wrong, and of course the good and the bad.

Burning down small businesses, smashing windows of cars and clothing stores, threatening police officers, and looting consumer electronics and luxury goods aren’t going to create or deliver opportunity, or confer access to America’s power centers (and more is on the way).  Education—real, tangible education can.  But the access to information, laboratories, libraries, computers, tools, and the coaching and instruction that can activate their utility and extend them into social and economic networks, is controlled, metered, rationed, and restricted by an elite guard of university special interests safely retreated inside the walls of academic institutionalism—walls that seek to protect their privilege, contacts, intellectual property, and maintain the illusion that only some can qualify for the bestowing of elite higher education.  Community college for everyone?  Sure.  Yale for everyone?  That will take a new civil war (and yet the “community” college is the actual transformed, progressive manifestation of higher education; indeed, it is what “Yale” will eventually become).  The “borders” around this knowledge, information and privilege will eventually be torn down—and that terrifies the elite.  What to do?  Make the borders stronger, more pervasive: put them around an entire society and installed in the one place where they can be powerfully controlled: in the mind itself. 

Modern universities are selling the same product in the same ways for the last 200 years—a long, expensive medieval apprenticeship that is out of touch with the modern world, but its walls fortified and reinforced for self-preservation, self-dealing and self-worth. Robert Hanna, a philosophy Ph.D. from Yale, author and former university professor, escaped from the walled compound of institutionalism, and started “Philosophy Without Borders,” which challenges the elite notion that philosophical knowledge is somehow contained within and under the stewardship of academic faculty, when in fact it is within you, waiting to be cultivated in your own life as a “real” living philosopher, dealing with today’s tangible challenges.  If “BLM” wants to shake and disrupt the foundations of elitist control and enslavement, and seek “reparations” and justice, then its target is the walled compound of Harvard Square, not Times Square, nor the shopping village or town square.  It is the elite controlling campuses of the country’s intellectual complex at Yale, Chicago, Columbia, Stanford, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Brown, Berkeley, MIT, Caltech, Harvard, Northwestern, and others (like Oxford, Cambridge and the London School of Economics in the UK). These institutions create, guard and propagate the illusions of privilege and class and intellectual ownership—and charge for it, putting you in debtor’s prison.

The nation’s elite research universities are also hosting, indeed eagerly encouraging the transformation of the university campus into an effective “ant farm” of student social and behavioral engineering under the pretext of “biosecurity.”  No other universities are so intimately involved in this agenda as the “Ivy” and elite schools.  No campus culture embraces, propagates, and indeed creates the policies for a radical fundamentalist “Covidianism” more than the elite colleges.  These university administrations are obviously serving as program foot soldiers, and have abdicated their authority to a larger institutional network (e.g., the C.D.C., the Rockefeller and Gates foundations, and W.H.O.) that is “leading from behind,” with political pressure to act in lockstep. At the University of Chicago, for example, this political co-option has been especially formalized, and stems from mutual promises and favor among the Obama-Lightfoot-Sanders “triumvirate.” The University is also acting in lockstep with the Rockefeller Foundation, and certain agencies in law and intelligence.  This leaves students with an increasingly difficult but urgent choice: either submit to and comply with the university biosecurity “protocol” including the troubling “Health Pact” contract, along with personal tracing, tracking and “geofencing” or instead, reject the institutional abuse, and disregard for your own sovereignty and privacy, and walk away. At some point you have to learn how to say “No” and not merely line up at the campus sorting platform and be corralled, herded, traced and tracked (and eventually de-loused by “vaccination”).

This is where the basis of real inequality, corruption and division is hiding, and prospering, installed in its ivory tower.  It shackles all others with something far more dehumanizing than an entrapped body: an enslaved mind.

[1] Or rather, race and class are somewhat fungible, as “BLM” for example, is a claim of class victimization, through a racial narrative, as “White supremacy” is really more centered psychologically and linguistically, as “White privilege” vis-à-vis access to resources; preference for their distribution and title; and even putative utility and enjoyment of broad assets (suburban homes, transportation, luxury goods and education), labor markets and wages (higher minimum wages; broader re-distribution through tax) or membership in social groups, especially intellectual ones usually defined by elite education.  Meanwhile, it is a central cultural routine of higher education to sustain and propagate the racial-class dynamic, in part because it sustains a wide spectrum of economic objectives which include university enrollment velocity, funding, and the perpetuation of the Ph.D system.  See

https://cstms.berkeley.edu/current-events/no-one-wants-to-believe-it-manifestations-of-white-privilege-in-a-stem-focused-college/

[2] From a review of Joel Kotkin’s The Coming of Neo-Feudalism: A Warning to the Global Middle Class, by Casey Chalk.  https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/feudalism-without-a-soul/

[3] Ibid

[4] See “The Social Dilemma,”  https://www.netflix.com/title/81254224

Four More Years Of …

/90 Comments/in /by

All our political forms are exhausted and practically nonexistent. Our parliamentary system and electoral system and our political parties are just as futile as dictatorships are intolerable. Nothing is left. And this nothing is increasingly aggressive, totalitarian and omnipresent.
Jacques Ellul, Anarchy and Christianity (1991)

Look at them! Look at them, will you? Behold our politicians’ horrible languid maws!; the courtier-like faces of department managers. They are indeed salesmen, for the very power of nations is measure in relation to their own mercantile activity.
Jean Cau, Le meutre d’un enfant (1965)

“What’s going to happen now?” I was asked earlier today. “Nothing and everything,” I replied. Immigration, largely unchallenged and unscathed (excepting the incidental impact of COVID-19 on population movement) from four years of Trumpism, will now continue to accelerate unabated. Zionism will continue to enjoy the expansion of American institutional and military support, this time with the blood interest of Jared Kushner replaced with the Jewish spouses of all three of Biden’s children. And the momentary Obama-era delusion of a post-racial America will continue to dissolve in the reality of the increasing awareness and importance of race throughout the West, not solely as a result of mass migration but also of the increasing ubiquity of the ideologies of racial grievance and revenge. There will, of course, be a dramatic change for the worse in tone and spirit, and some smaller legislative victories like the banning of federal anti-racism training will likely soon be reversed. The defeat of Donald Trump is also hugely demoralizing to many decent American people, and emboldening to their bitterest enemies. This is to be sorely regretted. But it is in the shared qualities of Trump and Biden, rather than the election and sham ballots, that the real nature of our political systems and their future can be perceived. And it is in these shared qualities that our true problems lie.

Parliamentary electoral democracy is merely a representation of the general system in which it operates. Slavoj Zizek comments:

At the empirical level, of course, multi-party liberal democracy “represents” — mirrors, registers, measures — the quantitative dispersal of different opinions of the people, what they think about the proposed programs of the parties and about their candidates, etc. However, prior to this empirical level and in a much more radical sense, the very form of multi-party liberal democracy “represents” — instantiates — a certain vision of society, politics, and the role of the individuals in it: politics is organized in parties that compete through elections to exert control over the state legislative and executive apparatus, etc. One should always be aware that this frame is never neutral, insofar as it privileges certain values and practices.

The truth of the system, in terms of its non-negotiable aspects, is thus revealed in the “values and practices” privileged and ring-fenced under both Trump and Biden. What are these non-negotiables? Zionism, GloboHomo ideological capitalism and its “woke” leftist correlates, and the neoliberal promotion of GDP as the benchmark of human success and happiness.

Zionism

Jews have little to fear from a Biden presidency, which is presumably why Haaretz is claiming that the “American Jewish vote clinched Biden’s victory and Trump’s ouster. … American Jews decided the outcome of the U.S. elections.” Donald Trump might have been hailed as the “most pro-Israel President in U.S. history,” but Jews are notoriously unreliable in their partnerships with non-Jewish elites. Fate, it must be said, has not been kind to those gentile elites that have exhausted their usefulness to Jews. And Trump is surely exhausted, having spent a busy four years fighting for Jews in Israel and in the United States. He reversed long-standing US policies on several critical security, diplomatic and political issues to Israel’s favour, including the Iran nuclear accord, the treatment of Israel at the UN, and the status of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. In December 2019, he announced his Executive Order on Combatting Anti-Semitism, promising to fight “the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world.” One wonders what else he could possibly have done for these people—apart from a war with Iran—a question that appears to have been answered by Jews with a resounding “Nothing.” One can only imagine Trump’s facial expression on seeing Benjamin Netanyahu’s emphatic congratulations to Joe Biden, punctuated with the loving refrain: “I have a personal, long and warm connection with Joe Biden for nearly 40 years, and I know him to be a great friend of the State of Israel.”

Biden and Harris, replete with their immediate familial ties to Jews, are viewed in Zionist circles as being at least as reliable as Trump, although not as exuberant and bullish. Biden has been known as a staunch supporter of Israel throughout his 36 years in the Senate, often cites his 1973 encounter with then-Prime Minister Golda Meir as “one of the most consequential meetings” of his life, and has on more than one occasion regaled audiences with a tale about his father telling him that “You don’t need to be a Jew to be a Zionist.” While some modifications are likely in the American approach to Iran, few reversals are expected on Trump’s four years of pro-Israel activism. Biden, for example, has weakly criticized moving the embassy to Jerusalem but said he would not pull it back to Tel Aviv. Michael Herzog at Haaretz describes both Biden and Harris as “traditional Democrats, with a fundamental commitment to Israel whose roots are in part emotional in nature (in contrast to Obama).”

The change in relationship between America and Israel will be, in meaningful terms, restricted to the personal. Netanyahu, for all his fawning, is likely to undergo a personal demotion of sorts, with David Halbfinger of the New York Times pointing out that we can expect a Biden presidency to diminish Netanyahu’s “stature on the global stage and undercut his argument to restive Israeli voters that he remains their indispensable leader.” Palestinian leaders, probably the best-positioned to offer a perspective on the potential for an improvement in their condition under the new presidency, have been sombre to say the least. Hanan Ashrawi, a senior PLO official, responded to the question if she expected United States policy to continue tilting heavily in Israel’s favor: “I don’t think we’re so naïve as to see Biden as our savior.” Contrast this with the cheerfulness and confidence of Israel settlers who have grown accustomed to the perennial nature of American support for Zionism. David Elhayani, head of the Yesha Council, an umbrella for Jewish settlements in the West Bank, said the party of the U.S. president ultimately doesn’t matter so long as the baseline commitment to support Israel persists: “Under Obama, we built more [settlement] houses than we have under Trump … I think Biden is a friend of Israel.”

The fact that the grassroots of the Democratic Party are drifting away from Zionism is no more consequential than the fact the grassroots of the Republican Party wanted major action on immigration reform. The former, like the latter, have been equally ignored by the real power brokers and influencers. Regardless of the radical appearance of Democrat-affiliated movements like Black Lives Matter, the fact remains that all of the leftist aggression and rhetoric of the summer of 2020 has resulted in the putative election of an establishment Zionist and political pragmatist who is sure to execute a more or less formulaic neoliberal scheme for government. In one sense, the bland, forgetful, and familiar Biden, who lacks any hint of genuine or novel ideology and was elected purely as a symbol of “not Trump,” is the fitting response to Trump, who was equally devoid of ideological sincerity or complexity beyond the symbolism of “not Establishment.” And so, while the media proclaims, as Heraclitus, that “all is in flux,” from a different perspective we could argue, like Parmenides, the opposite — “there is no motion at all.”

GloboHomo

If I retain one abiding, surreal, memory of the Trump presidency in the years ahead it will be the Don dancing to the Village People in the wake of his numerous drives to legalize homosexuality in various African backwaters. That the Red State Christians comprising so much of his base could maintain their self-adopted blind spot on this issue is a remarkable testament to the power of personality, because no world leader in history has done more in recent history than Donald Trump to export what E. Michael Jones has so aptly termed “the Gay Disco” — the double-barrelled shotgun of unbridled finance capitalism and the superficial freedom of sexual “liberty.” As the pastors and preachers of South Carolina and Texas urged their huddled congregations to pray for the President, Trump was busy dispatching new missionaries, like U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell, to the corners of the earth in search of converts to the Church of GloboHomo.

In February 2019, the U.S. embassy indulged in some nostalgia for Weimar when it flew LGBT activists from across Europe to Berlin for a strategy dinner to plan to push for decriminalization in places that still outlaw homosexuality — mostly concentrated in the Middle East, Africa and the Caribbean. For my part, I can think of many social problems in these parts of the world, but it really takes a special kind of mind to arrive at the opinion that one of the most pressing is that they need to become more gay. Grenell, however, horrified that Iran has the audacity to execute its own convicted homosexual pederasts, was not to be deterred, and was instrumental in the blackmail of lesser nations, promising they would be denied access to terrorism intelligence if they don’t legalise homosexuality. All of which has left the far corners of the American cultural-military empire questioning whether they could better live with suicide bombers or sodomy.

Against such manoeuvres, Biden’s apparent claim to be one half of the “most pro-equality ticket in history” seems a little overstated. That being said, there’s no question that Biden is going to step up the domestic nature of GloboHomo significantly as soon as he assumes office. Biden has pledged to sign the Equality Act, thus far opposed by the Trump administration, within his first 100 days in office, a piece of legislation that will amend “the Civil Rights Act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and the jury system.” Biden has pledged to appoint significant numbers of homosexuals and transsexuals to positions of influence, and has promised to allow transsexuals to join the military. Experienced in advancing global LGBT+ dogma as part of the Obama-Biden administration, Biden will also once again take up the global mantle, expressing his “hopes to reverse Trump’s efforts and expand queer rights internationally by making equality a centrepiece of US diplomacy,” and condemning Poland’s “LGBT-free zones.” Stunning and brave indeed.

There is a certain sense in the cases of both Trump and Biden that, for all the flamboyance of their efforts in this area, there is a performative aspect to this politics. I don’t get the impression that either has been especially personally committed to these ideas or actions, but that, as pragmatic-symbolic politicians, they have been made aware that this is the direction the broader System is moving in and they should comply and support it. The longevity and gradual acceleration of these trends, beginning in earnest with the presidency of Bill Clinton, would suggest a systemic movement underlying, and entirely untethered to, specific political parties or figures. Throughout the West, and much as with Zionism, GloboHomo, or hedonistic credit-based capitalism and its sexual correlates more generally, is to be accepted and promoted as an essential part of the role of neoliberal government. In the context of declining basic freedoms at home, for example the obvious decline in free speech and the creeping criminalisation of meaningful dissent against the status quo, the international promotion of homosexuality and transsexual identities offers a cost-free and PR-friendly method for increasingly authoritarian neoliberal regimes to posture as crusaders for freedom. The trucker in Ohio is, logical flaws notwithstanding, and whether he wants it or not, thus assured of his place in the Land of the Free via his government’s emancipation of the gays and transvestites of Uganda. Engaged politically only at the most superficial level, the masses play along with this ruse, often in blunt denial, possessing only fragmentary realisations of the fact their countries are changing around them while the petty “rewards” of Americanism are meagre and peculiar, if not insulting.

GDP!

Along with frequent reassurances that he was “giving serious consideration” to doing something, Trump’s presidency was marked by regular updates on the performance of American GDP. Unfortunately the GDP, like the Jewish vote, appears to have stabbed him in the back, with around 70% of American GDP represented in counties that (putatively!) voted Democrat. Trump’s tragicomic belief in GDP performance as a form of politics in its own right is perhaps the quintessential example of the mentality of homo economicus and the tendency of neoliberals to view countries as mere zones, or economic areas, where everything is based on rationalism and materialism, and national success is purely a calculation of economic self-interest. Writing pessimistically of Trump’s expected nomination in 2015, I issued a stark warning about the influence of Jared Kushner, but also added:

For all his bluster, Trump is a creation and product of the bourgeois revolution and its materialistic liberal ideologies. We are teased and tantalized by the fantasy that Trump is a potential “man of the people.” But I cannot escape the impression that he is a utilitarian and primarily economic character, who seeks a social contract based on personal convenience and material interest. In his business and political history I see only the “distilled Jewish spirit.”

I don’t think I’ve seen anything over the last four years that has made me question or revise that assessment. Trump’s dedicated tweeting on GDP in fact had the opposite effect.

The disturbing reality, of course, is that GDP is only one side of a national economy. Another crucial aspect is government borrowing, and current projections suggest that the United States is “condemned to eternal debt.” According to The Budget Office of the United States Congress (CBO), “the US economy would enter the first half of this century with a public debt equivalent to 195 percent of its GDP. … In the next 30 years the debt of the most powerful economy on the planet would more than double.” The first significant jump occurred in the wake of the subprime crisis, in which Jewish mortgage lenders were especially prominent. The subprime crisis forced public debt to 37 percent of GDP, which then rose steadily to 79 percent between 2008 and the outbreak of COVID-19. It now stands at 98 percent, and is accelerating. Although the United States has reached comparable levels of debt in the past, there has almost always been an accompanying war, or wars, which acted as a financial pressure valve — a fact that does not bode well for isolationists but may be encouraging news for Zionist hawks.

Joe Biden has claimed recently that “a Biden-Harris Administration will not be measured just by the stock market or GDP growth, but by the extent to which growth is raising the pay, dignity, and economic security of our working families” — while at the same time welcoming millions of new immigrants and legalizing the ~20M+ illegals into the workforce .The American economy is in fact extremely unlikely to change direction, with Biden reassuring his billionaire donors gathered at the Carlyle Hotel in Manhattan in June 2019 that “no one’s standard of living will change, nothing would fundamentally change.” I believe him. Biden was part of an administration that looked on as 10 million working Americans lost their homes. Matt Stoller at the Washington Post has described Obama-era Democrat economic policies as “in effect, a wholesale attack on the American home (the main store of middle-class wealth) in favor of concentrated financial power.” Biden was part of a team that outright rejected prosecuting major bankers for fraud and money laundering, and that represented one of the most monopoly-friendly administrations in history:

2015 saw a record wave of mergers and acquisitions, and 2016 was another busy year. In nearly every sector of the economy, from pharmaceuticals to telecom to Internet platforms to airlines, power was concentrated. And this administration, like George W. Bush’s before it, did not prosecute a single significant monopoly under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Instead [under Obama] the Federal Trade Commission has gone after such villains as music teachers and ice skating instructors for ostensible anti-competitive behavior. This is very much a parallel of the financial crisis, as elites operate without legal constraints while the rest of us toil under an excess of bureaucracy.

Biden is the product of funding from forty-four billionaires, including six hedge fund speculators, seven real estate barons, and five in the tech sector. Of the top 22 donors, at least 18 are Jews (Jim Simons, Len Blavatnik, Stewart Resnick, Eli Broad, Neil Bluhm, David Bonderman, Herb Simon, Daniel Och, Liz Lefkovsky, Steve Mandel, Bruce Karsh, Howard Marks, S. Daniel Abraham, Marc Lasry, Jonathan Tisch, Daniel Lubetsky, Laurie Tisch, and Robert Toll). The Jewish consortium behind Biden is almost identical in its financial composition to that behind Trump which, as I’ve explained previously, was notable for its embodiment of “usury and vulture capitalism, bloated consumerism, and the sordid commercial exploitation of vice.” Biden’s transition team, meanwhile, is comprised of “executives from Lyft, Airbnb, Amazon, Capital One, Booz Allen, Uber, Visa, and JPMorgan.” In short, expectations that Biden is going to break up Big Tech, or any monopoly for that matter, are the fantasies of the deluded, the ignorant, and the duped.

Conclusion

While the drama and recrimination surrounding the election are unquestionably fascinating, I hope you’ll forgive for being less agitated than most. My reasons for lethargy are simple: I knew that regardless of outcome we’d get four more years — four more years of Zionism, GloboHomo, and the standardized, rationalized machinery of economic escalation that now provides the apologetic engine for mass migration. Behind the abortion debates, Supreme Court picks, culture wars, and media theater, these are the non-negotiables of the System. You don’t hear about them, and you can’t talk about them, because you can’t vote on them. And this is the biggest electoral fraud of all.

Trump and Julian

/31 Comments/in /by

Julian the Apostate

To what extent might Trump be compared to Julian the Apostate? In case you haven’t yet read the Pagan, Hellenism, Gentile essay, Julian was the last Pagan emperor of Rome. He was the nephew of the first Christian emperor of Rome (if we can believe our history). He was very unhappy that Rome had succumbed to Christianity and that the aristocratic, Roman, manly virtues had been replaced by an overly-sentimentalist slave morality that valued equality over excellence and posited that all things Roman were bad, while they celebrated values that denigrated life and their own people. In Julian’s time, Rome was increasingly less Roman. The Senate, and the government as a whole, had long since become nearly completely dysfunctional. The military was led, or at least directed, by men who used it more for their own personal gain than for the good of the people. Julian’s most personal fight was perhaps against those in his own family who had adopted and “married into” the foreign religion for pragmatic reasons — to advance their own cause. And even though Julian fought against the encroachments of the Rome-hating ideology, he himself was far more Christian than he realized. Or, more precisely, he had secretly converted from Christianity during his youth, but he was unwittingly steeped in the mystical-philosophical mush (Neoplatonism) whose intercourse with Judaism birthed Christianity.

There are clear differences between Julian and Trump. Although both the Apostate and Trump came from wealthy, powerful families, Julian began as a philosopher and scholar, then became a successful general and administrator. Trump inherited a family business.

Julian came to power in what had by that point become the traditional Roman way — something of a civil war between relatives. Part of the cause of this war was that Julian was working in Gaul to clean up the corrupt bureaucracy, beat back invaders, and lower taxes on the local population. His relatives back east understood that he was becoming a populist leader and a threat to the establishment. In time, this led to a civil war in which forces loyal to Julian won fairly quickly.

After taking power, Julian remained something of a nativist-populist. He claimed that all citizens were equal under law and that he himself was merely the first among equals. Twitter did not exist, of course, but, like Trump, Julian entered the fray of politics directly, and he openly debated with Senators. He tried to clear the swamp by dismissing thousands of servants and idle bureaucrats. He cut the taxes on the people. This angered the corrupt imperial government, which was fed by these taxes. And not only the establishment, but also many of his allies and subjects were very uncomfortable with Julian’s Marcus Aurelius-inspired simple dress and lifestyle and with the familiar way he interacted with and spoke directly to the masses, as if they were his equal.

Julian’s rule did not last very long. To placate and woo those who supported his political rivals, he decided to wage a poorly planned and poorly executed war against Persia. There, he died in battle, under suspicious circumstances, possibly killed by one of his own troops, a man who was deemed a saint by the new religion for his treacherous murder.

The death of Julian marked the last gasp for a revival of Roman, pagan values. Christians increasingly occupied the now-splintered Roman government, and Europe would slowly adopt and adapt the new religion and make it its own. With the Jews having secured power in the US, the same thing is occurring once again. Like the Romans, Americans will change — and are already doing so. At this point, the progressive, non-Jewish, White Americans are just drinking the poison that creates the sensation that to be non-Jewish and White is bad.

Perhaps, like the late-antiquity Europeans, we will find a way to adapt and remain ourselves, and the non-Jewish White people will not go extinct. But there is an important difference between today’s poison and that which was ingested 2000 years ago.  Actually, there are many, but the one that interests me at the moment is that The Jews never really took power in Rome as they have in the US. The situation here is more like the one in ancient Egypt — as told in the Bible and by Josephus — whereby the Jews, represented by Joseph, became tax farmers for the pharaoh. One familiar with history can deduce that the Hebrew intermediaries administered the government while the pharaoh tended to his concubine and to hunting gazelle. This went on well for the Hebrews until a new pharaoh, representing a faction hostile to the Jews, took the throne.

The new pharaoh was a populist. He knew that the Jews were fleecing the people while enriching the corrupt king. Josephus says that prior to this change of fate, the “the nation of the Israelites flourished (2.9.1),” suggesting that either the Jews had created their own ethnic state within Egypt, or that the dual citizens had successfully siphoned enough money from the Egyptian people to enrich the parent country.  Josephus then laments how the hostile new rulers [native Egyptians who had just overthrown the Hyksos ruler] were to the Jews. The oppressed Jews were now forced to participate in the corvee forced-labor economic system that they themselves formerly oversaw and through which the nation of the Israelites became wealthy. According to Josephus, the Jews and the pharaoh continued to fight for power “for 400 years.” In reality, it was probably less than 100 years before the Jews were finally driven out; or, according to the Jewish telling, they were allowed to leave, being led by Moses. Though the connection is based in conjecture, the exodus story coincides with Ahmose’s capture of Avaris from the Hyksos and the subsequent capture of Gaza. This interpretation would also explain why the Israelites no longer had a place in the “promised land.” Since Jacob’s time, it too had been conquered by Hyksos, and now by the Egyptians.

To return to contemporary times, then, in the present election, the two leading Democratic candidates were Biden and Sanders. Sanders, of course, is Jewish. Not everyone knows that all three of Biden’s children married Jews. Biden won the election. He decided to choose a running mate who openly and repeatedly called him a racist; but her husband is Jewish. Trump, as we all know, has a converted Jewish daughter and a Jewish son-in-law, who had an outsized influence on the president’s policy. Many Americans looked for an alternative and turned to the libertarian party. This year their vice-presidential candidate was Jewish. When it comes to contemporary American politics, rather than turtles, it is Jews (Jewish White people) all the way down.

If one were so inclined to merge Hegel with Foucault, and view history as dialectical, but multiple and local rather than teleological, he might see in the Trump phenomenon a synthesis between Julian and an Egyptian provincial governor: one who unwittingly threw in his lot with the oppressors, only to realize, too late, why the Tribe found his growing nativist populism a real threat. Rather than speculate how the Trump saga unfolds, I will defer to the readers to suggest how this plays out.

“Who will guard the guards?”; Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Mail-in Voter Fraud, and Repercussions for Europe

/33 Comments/in /by

In analyzing the ballot fraud surrounding the latest US presidential election the name of the Roman poet and politician Juvenal comes to mind. His Satire VI, raises a fundamental political question surrounding political repression in the contemporary liberal System: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? “Who will guard the guards?” In contemporary bidenesque English this rhetorical question, coined by Juvenal, in the first century, can be transliterated into: “Who will observe the ballot observers?” “Who will count the ballot counters?”

A century after the death of the poet Juvenal the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, who combined the virtues of philosopher and soldier, faced the same dilemma. How to treat the defeated foe? By preaching tolerance and magnanimity, or by wielding the sword?  Despite his stoic awareness about the transience of all life on Earth, Aurelius knew that when fighting the barbarians, a free man cannot live by books alone — he also needs a solid sword, or in the case of the USA he needs the Second Amendment. Unlike many of his predecessors Marcus Aurelius did not contemplate self-isolation in debauchery; nor did he hang around the hookers in ritzy parlors on the Quirinal Hill in Rome. He preferred the company of his soldiers who protected the northern and eastern borders of the empire in the turbulent second — borders that stretched in the north along the limes of the Drava river which now separate modern Hungary from Croatia. The Pannonian basin during the Aurelian times was under the constant onslaught of military intruders coming from the North and the East. Today this area has become anew a major route for new illegal intruders, i.e., Afro-Asian migrants heading toward the heart of Europe: Germany.

Aurelius’ grandfather, the emperor Hadrian, a couple of decades earlier, waged also devastating wars in the shaky southern part of the empire — against revolutionary Jews in the Roman province of Judea. His legions killed and displaced more than half a million of them, thus leaving an indelible anti-European grudge in the Jewish collective memory. Worse, out of his resentment for rebellious Jews, Marcus Aurelius, in 130, changed the name of the city of Jerusalem into the city name of Aelia Capitolina. The morale of history? Each victor changes the toponomies of conquered lands and along with it he imposes his own political narrative.

Can we draw the parallel between Aurelius and Trump? Both the USA and Europe are facing today similar turbulent scenarios where peoples of European ancestry will soon have to make a choice: how to preserve their racial and cultural identity in the face of the coming migrant storms. The present turmoil in the USA is just a natural follow-up to the great racial replacement that has been going on over the last 70 years, both in the United States and Europe.

The present Covid virus is only a small part of a “narrative history” – or “history of the event”—which the French call l’histoire évènementielle, i.e., a slice of history solely focusing on one single and separate event. Such an isolated historical event, e.g., the Covid shutdown, is relatively unimportant unless it becomes a factor speeding up a larger flow of history. The Covid scare is already going viral, forcing all EU/US politicians to reexamine a larger stretch of their historical memory, going back to 1945.  Undoubtedly, four years of President Trump’s slamming the mainstream media for spreading fake news has significantly undermined the intellectual and diplomatic narrative of the post-WWII Order. Many myths and mendacities imposed upon Europe and Whites in the aftermath of 1945, thanks to Trump’s presidency, have now fallen apart. Trump’s foes in Europe and the US do not like this.

After WWII, and especially after the end of the Cold War, the politics of Europe turned into a carbon copy of US policies. Whatever was going on in high politics in Washington DC had to be either copied or mimicked the next day by the political class in Berlin, Paris and Vienna, and the day after, all over eastern Europe. President Trump was the first US president in the last 75 years who seriously shook the foundations of the transatlantic liberal consensus. This is the reason why the Deep State in the EU and in the US resent him very, very much.  If America goes bust and starts breaking up tomorrow, the breakup of the EU will immediately follow suit.

Changes in America have always had an impact on European politics. This is especially true of the German political class, which, over the last 75 years, has been grotesquely doubling down on US-inspired liberal globalist agenda for fear of being for fear of being accused of harboring revisionist and paleo-fascist sentiments. The insulting label of “fascism,” “racism” or “colonialism” keeps haunting paranoid politicians in Germany and in the rest of Europe, making them embrace the safe strategy of self-denial and forcing them to be more papal than the pope, i.e., more Americanized than Americans themselves. At the moment of this writing, it means that the entire political class in Germany and the EU must endorse president-elect Biden and his running mate Harris, irrespective of their likely own hidden pro-Trump sentiments.

Just as America is being balkanized at its extreme now between the supporters of Trump and supporters of the Deep State, so is Europe being polarized at its extreme between proponents of state sovereignty and proponents of globalism. The wartime years of 1941–1945 haven’t resolved anything. We are back again in the weimaresque and balkanesque  epoch, both in the USA and the EU. The winner-takes-all will soon change the political language and define thereafter his version of historical truth. If the American left gains the hegemony they so ardently desire — hegemony that is entirely within their reach, if not now, then certainly in the near future as demographics become even more decisive — it will be the end not just of the people and culture of traditional America, but of the entire West.

A Putative Biden Victory: Very Depressing

/98 Comments/in /by

It was always obvious that each side would rejoice over a victory and gloat over others’ unhappiness, especially given the perceived stakes (absolute good vs absolute evil; cult-like behavior on both sides). The gloaters should realize that it’s human nature. What’s obvious is that the people who are rejoicing now—whether major celebrities or garden variety Twitterers—are still spewing hatred and longing for revenge as they have for four solid years. They won’t stop. Their hatred defines them. I certainly don’t envy Trump if he has to leave office with prosecutors and others poised to attack.

Biden’s speech on Saturday evening and the celebration, in the context of consensus support of liberal-left media and even foreign leaders despite recounts and court cases looming is an attempt to make it a fait accompli, a done deal that can’t be reversed. Imagine the intensity of hatred if things start to go Trump’s way.

There are still a lot of legal battles before Trump or his supporters give up. But realize that if it is certified and given that the Senate could flip depending on the results in Georgia, all the consequences of a Biden presidency noted in my “Why It’s Important for Trump to Win” might happen. The Democrat Party has become the party of corporatocracy, billionaires, and their allies in the media who lavishly funded his campaign and did all they could to promote Biden and suppress negative stories on Biden or focus on issues that favored Trump. It will mean that the power of information monopolies in the information age—multi-billion-dollar monopolies like Google and Twitter—will go unchecked so they will be able to continue slanting searches (e.g., Google searches for Biden don’t turn up anything from Breitbart) and censoring unwelcome information (everything from Twitter to the NYTimes on Biden’s obvious corruption) in our so-called democracy. Of course, if there’s one thing Trump should have done it’s rein in the media monopolies. It’s been discussed quite a bit but Trump did nothing more than complain about it and say he was monitoring the situation. Too late now.

Democrat victories in Georgia would mean Dem control of the Senate and all that that implies in terms of statehood for Puerto Rico and DC (likely permanent Democrat majority), packing the Supreme Court with justices that would be happy to impose criminal penalties for “hate speech” and restrict gun ownership.

Today’s gloaters are endorsing continued importing of cheap labor on behalf of the billionaire class and Dem strategists, undercutting those on the lowest steps of the economic ladder. 70 million unhappy Trump voters who firmly and reasonably believe that the election was stolen (such allegations are all over mainstream conservative media) are going to be a serious force in the years ahead if not in the very near future.

Despite Biden’s high-flown rhetoric about all coming together and healing the divisions, things will be worse than ever. They should be careful what they wish for.

But still. I have to say that today I am very depressed.

First Thoughts on the Election

/67 Comments/in /by

There’s huge uncertainty about how the election will turn out. What looked like a certain Trump victory when I went to bed on Tuesday night suddenly turned in Biden’s favor in Democrat-run swing states where there appears to have been massive fraud—unprecedented stopping of vote counting on Tuesday night, vote-dumps in the middle of the night in Wisconsin and Michigan in which 100% of the votes went to Biden, preventing poll watchers from actually seeing what was going on in Michigan, Pennsylvania and Nevada, and I am sure much more. The folks who firmly believe that Putin rigged the 2016 election and studiously ignore how supposedly neutral platforms like Google, Twitter, and Facebook have tilted their coverage in favor of the Democrats, now would have us believe that Democrats would not do anything to cheat. Given the long history of corruption in Chicago politics, it wouldn’t be at all surprising if Chicago Mayor Richard Daley swung the 1960 election to JFK. So it seems reasonable to suppose such things could happen in 2020 Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, and Atlanta. And there’s no question that at least some of the people in charge are activists for the Dems. Jocelyn Benson, Michigan Secretary of State in charge of elections, was a board member of the SPLC. Unprincipled pursuit of power is utterly characteristic of the Democrats and their media allies in recent years, and it would not be at all surprising to learn that there was a Plan B already decided on before the election.

The good news is that I was wrong in supposing that a Trump defeat would necessarily be a total disaster. It looks like the GOP will control the Senate, so that the radical program envisioned by the left will not happen any time soon.

If the left wins they will go into end-game mode. They will establish a more-or-less permanent hegemony (via massive surge in legal and illegal immigration, amnesty to illegals and Dreamers, adding Puerto Rico and D.C. as states, and packing the Supreme Court). A Democrat victory would mark the end of the First and Second Amendments and likely lead to eventually locking up dissidents, as is already the case in Europe. (“Why it’s important for Trump to win“)

But most of this won’t happen, at least until after the 2022 elections, so I won’t be forced to shut down TOO any time soon. As noted in the above article, Trump had considerable success in lowering legal and illegal immigration and refugee settlement by simply enforcing the law and changing some policies at the executive level. One can easily imagine that a Biden presidency would mean a return of catch and release at the border, ending border wall construction, and basically issuing an open invitation for the rest of the world to come here. Then states like California would take care of the rest, allowing them de facto citizenship (issuing driver’s licenses and likely looking the other way in voting) and free health care. So that would speed up the permanent hegemony of the left. Winning this election is still important.

But the expected Democrat landslide didn’t happen, and that has cause a great deal of angst. CNN posted an article titled “Millions of White voters are once again showing who they are.” And of course, what they are can only be “White nationalists” who are happy to have Trump negligently allow 230,000 Americans to die of Covid.

Despite four years of President Donald Trump — that is, of a man who has made White nationalism a central part of his administration and whose abject negligence in the face of a pandemic has contributed to more than 230,000 dead — millions of voters are turning out for him. … Indeed, one thing that this week has clarified is the lengths to which many White Americans are willing to go in order to protect their Whiteness, to centralize it, even after a summer that saw unprecedented support for the Black Lives Matter movement.

The article includes a video of a CNN racial activist/commentator, Van Johnson, calling it a moral, if not a political, defeat. “There’s a lot of hurt out there.” Other examples:

“Racism is Trump’s brand,” declared New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.

“If Trump wins re-election, it’s on white people,” insisted Atlantic writer Jemele Hill.

“Trump’s racist messaging seems to have held its strong appeal,” FiveThirtyEight’s Clare Malone offered as analysis on election night.

Voters “accepted — embraced — his unveiled racism and ­misogyny,” agreed Mother Jones’ David Corn.

Of course, what this really indicates is that the nonstop media campaign to vilify Trump and Trump voters was largely a failure. We have had four years of intense hatred and charges of traitorous behavior spewed out by most of the media against Trump and his supporters, as well as the suppression of negative information about Biden. And, despite all that, millions of evil White people came out and voted Republican. This is good news to say the least. In fact, in the face of all this propaganda and hate, Trump got 6 million more votes this time than in 2016 (“A Large Portion of the Electorate Chose the Sociopath,” The Atlantic).

As noted many times here, the US has become polarized to an unprecedented extent, and part of that means that in general people on each side read media that confirms their worldview. Essentially, this comes down to the idea that people start forming cult-like attitudes on both sides, and in the case of the liberal-left, that came down to confidence that this election would result in a landslide win in which they would be able to end evil White America forever. When the election did not turn out anywhere near the way the liberal-left media said it would, one must suppose that there are many people on the left who experienced a great deal of cognitive dissonance —a contradiction between their innermost beliefs and what actually happened right before their eyes. Cognitive dissonance often results in simply doubling down on your beliefs, as in the case of the CNN article noted above. They have no problem thinking that around half of the American population are hopeless fascists or self-hating minorities (see below).

But I suspect there are others, likely the more intelligent and a bit less prone to cult-like dogmatism, who are undergoing a bit of self-examination. Maybe these are people who cut themselves off from family and friends because of their support for Trump—almost all of this cutting-off was initiated by Trump haters. They may start thinking that it’s ridiculous to suppose that around half the voting population are morally corrupt. And there may be lingering attachments and some fond memories of the people they cut off. Maybe at least some of these people are reasonably rational and reasonably nice Okay, I’m a dreamer.

It was an election that saw increases in the numbers of non-Whites voting for Trump from 2016, up four points nationally with Black men and Black women and three points among Latino men and Latino women, and much higher in some areas, such as Florida and parts of Texas. Of course the only possible reason for this is that White supremacy struck again. These voters were self-haters, much like the knee-jerk Jewish reaction to Jews who criticize other Jews or don’t go along with mainstream Jewish agendas. Like other activist reasoning, no evidence is ever needed for such beliefs. As in the case of Whites, there are no real data on this, although it’s reasonable to think that the surge in Latino GOP voting in Florida was due to concerns about impending socialism among the areas many refugees from socialist utopias, and polls have often found that Latinos do not favor high levels of immigration because the are aware of its effects on the job market. For Blacks, it could be that there were more high-profile Blacks who rebelled against the Democrat mindset (HipHopWired lists 15.) If it’s one thing about Blacks, they look up to Black role models.

The interesting thing is that the only group to show less support for Trump compared to 2016 is White men. There could be any number of explanations for this, and we await some real data. Perhaps Trump was seen as ignoring these people, constantly highlighting what he has done for Blacks and Latinos, but never saying anything explicitly about Whites, much less White men. I doubt this explanation because White women increased their support for Trump, and the marriage gap was huge.

There could be any number of explanations for this, and we await some real data. Perhaps Trump was seen as ignoring his White base, constantly highlighting what he has done for Blacks and Latinos, but never saying anything explicitly about Whites, much less White men. I doubt this explanation because White women increased their support for Trump, and the marriage gap was huge. His rallies were attended overwhelmingly by massively enthusiastic White people — enough in itself to terrify our hostile elites. And the same goes for beliefs about Trump’s handling of the virus or the GOP health care package (or lack thereof). Why should these issues make supporting Trump go down among White men but up among White women?

Another possible explanation that comes to mind is the incessant propaganda from the media hyping White guilt (e.g., the notorious “1619 Project”), the massive promotion of Critical Race theory and BLM complaints. Although White women are also included in the blame for White evils, it’s nowhere near as bad as with White men.

Speaking of cult-like behavior, we saw a lot of that among Trump supporters during his campaign stops leading up to the election. These rallies were often commented on in the media, particularly with the criticism that they were super-spreader events (although leftist protests were always exempted from this criticism). The devotion of these crowds was something to behold, and, whatever else you want to say about Trump, his rallies were incredibly entertaining—who can forget his many laugh lines and his dancing along with the 1970s anthem, “YMCA.”

But the enthusiastic receptions Trump got terrify the mainstream media, resulting in a what I suspect is a reflexive reaction where they think about another political leader in 1930s Germany who has able to hold crowds spellbound. Trump’s charisma is terrifying to our hostile elite. Anything and everything must be used to stop him.

This brings up the media’s role in creating the hatred for Trump. Given how close the election is turning out to be in the swing states, it is inconceivable that the media’s role was not decisive in preventing a huge Trump victory—suppressing obvious Biden corruption and endlessly hyping covid as the big issue rather than issues like law & order in Democrat-run cities. Sins of omission are often at least as important as sins of commission. If the detailed evidence on Biden corruption would have been headline news in the rest of the mainstream media besides FoxNews, it would have been a different outcome. I suspect that if Biden wins, the media and the rest of the Democrats will start to sour on him come March of next year and suddenly get on board with Biden corruption or his incipient dementia. They would love to have Kamala Harris as president.

Another plus from this election is that it’s obvious that Trump’s populist message still resonates strongly in the GOP. This will make it much more difficult for the neocons and establishment Republicans types to regain control. If Trump had lost in a landslide, Kristol, Kagan, Rubin, and the Lincoln Project folks would be generously offering to pick up the pieces. But in the event, an awful lot of Republican politicians and strategists will continue to pursue Trump’s populist rhetoric. No going back to Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan types. What comes next may be even far better than the mistake-prone and sometimes tone deaf Trump.

Finally, the situation created by evident election corruption by the left, in the context of cult-like fealty on both sides, is producing a very volatile situation. I was just reading some research on the “democracy premium” showing people will contribute more to the group and go along with group rules if they feel they have had a voice. In other words, even if you lost the election fair and square, you are much more likely to continue working within the system if you were able to vote on it and think the election was conducted fairly. But if 68 million Republican voters reasonably think the election was stolen—quite likely the case here, watch out. It will delegitimize the system and exacerbate an already extremely volatile situation.

This could possibly turn out well. Civil wars are messy and disastrous in many ways, but we have reached the point where compromise and discussion are impossible. Better sooner than later. When Romans in the first century BC found themselves in an empire under Augustus rather than a republic, they were grateful. The republic had shown it couldn’t work any longer. Order and stability were needed after repeated civil wars and intense factionalism. Similarly, the divisions in the contemporary U.S. are too great to heal. The only question is which side is going to establish hegemony—unless we can somehow develop a consensus that the country should fractionate into more politically homogeneous areas. It’s going to be interesting. Perhaps too interesting.

 

Labour’s Shame: How The British Labour Party Betrayed Its Founding Principles

/14 Comments/in , /by

The newly published report on anti-Semitism in the British Labour party couldn’t be more damning. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) spoke to dozens of witnesses as it investigated how Labour had repeatedly and remorselessly betrayed Britain’s Jewish community. Once the party had been their natural home; now it had become their sworn enemy.

Weeping with shame

Denis MacShane, the former Labour MP for the Yorkshire town of Rotherham, wept with shame as he stood before the EHRC and confessed that he had worked for decades on behalf of rich and powerful Christians in far-off London while ignoring the powerless working-class Jewish girls being raped, prostituted and murdered by vicious Christian gangs in his own constituency. “As a staunch socialist and life-long feminist, I was elected to defend the interests of working-class Jewish girls above all others,” Denis sobbed. “And I betrayed that sacred trust.”

Racked with remorse: Denis MacShane

Other witnesses from Rotherham revealed that the Labour council there had deliberately suppressed details of Jewish suffering at Christian hands for fear of upsetting “community relations,” while Sarah Champion, MacShane’s successor as MP for Rotherham, described how she had been thrown out of the Shadow Cabinet by Jeremy Corbyn for speaking out against the Christian rape-gangs in defence of her working-class Jewish constituents.

Labour was founded to defend Jews

Another Labour MP, Ann Cryer, said that the horrific abuse of Jewish girls by Christian gangs elsewhere in Britain had been ignored since the 1980s by Labour-controlled institutions and by Britain’s most powerful Labour-supporting newspaper. “I couldn’t get The Guardian interested,” she recalled sadly. “Its reporters seemed paralysed by political correctness.” The veteran Labourite Roy Hattersley made another shame-filled confession, revealing that, during his decades in parliament, he had always refused to act on his Jewish constituents’ clearly expressed opposition to mass immigration by bigoted and violent Christians from the Third World.

Those are only a few examples of the horrific anti-Semitism uncovered by the EHRC as it probed the foul and fetid depths of Labour’s betrayal of the Jewish community. Under Tony Blair, the Labour government had ignored the rape and murder of Jews even as it opened the borders to mass immigration that destroyed the livelihood of Jews, caused crime to flourish, and forced Jews to flee their traditional districts. The EHRC report concluded with these ringing words: “The very name of the Labour party — from the Hebrew Laab, ‘Serve,’ and Ow’r, ‘the Jews’ — proclaims its founding commitment to work tirelessly for the Jewish community. Labour has betrayed its very reason for existence by allowing the Jewish community to suffer for so long and in so many ways.”

Back to reality

Well, that isn’t what the EHRC report into anti-Semitism really said, of course. Jews in Britain haven’t been suffering any of the things I described above. No rape, murder, beatings, impoverishment and ethnic cleansing for them. Instead, the Labour party inflicted all those things on the White working-class. In reality, the MP Denis MacShane worked for Jews in far-off London while ignoring the rape and murder of White girls by Muslim gangs in his Yorkshire constituency. Mass immigration has impoverished and ethnically cleansed the White working-class, not Jews. The Jewish peer Lord Glasman served in Blair’s government and witnessed what he called “a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working-class.”

The rich Jewish lawyer Rebecca Hilsenrath

The rich (and homosexual) Jewish lawyer David Isaac

The Labour party is still hostile. And the Equality and Human Rights Commission doesn’t care in the slightest. After all, the EHRC is headed by two rich Jewish lawyers, Rebecca Hilsenrath and David Isaac. The EHRC works against White interests, not for them. That’s why it ignored the genuine crimes committed by Labour against the White working-class and focused on threats to Jewish interests. Inter alia, the real EHRC report exposed and attacked Labour anti-Semites who “referenced conspiracies about … Jewish power and control” or “accused British Jews of greater loyalty to Israel than Britain.”

Friends of Israel in very high places

What are rape and murder compared to horrific truth-crimes like those? For example, it should be utterly unacceptable that a national newspaper in Britain could openly proclaim that Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) is “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster, holding lunches for 700 guests, making countless Downing Street visits, and developing contacts throughout Israel and the Middle East.” That’s shamelessly feeding conspiracy theories about “Jewish power and control” and about how Jews have “greater loyalty to Israel than Britain.”

Lord Polack at Conservative Friends of Israel

Which national newspaper said that about Conservative Friends of Israel? It was the Jewish Chronicle, the same newspaper that has just issued a special edition in celebration of the EHRC report into Labour’s anti-Semitism. The Chronicle described CFI like that during a scandal about how the CFI’s shadiest and most powerful official, the Jewish Lord Polack, had guided the Conservative politician Priti Patel to secret and unminuted meetings with Israeli politicians on Israeli, British and American soil.

The most pro-Israel war-criminal in British history

If a shady lobbyist called Mahmoud Rafsanjani or Dmitri Bogdanov had guided Priti Patel to secret and unminuted meetings with Iranian or Russian politicians, the Jewish Chronicle would have been thundering about conspiracies and demanding Patel’s resignation. But it’s fine when Jews do the same underhanded things for Israel’s benefit. And it was also fine when Tony Blair’s Labour government, funded and controlled by Jews like Lord Levy, betrayed the White working-class whom Labour was founded to serve. Blair is a war-criminal who has always worked for Israel, bankers, big business and the military-industrial complex, not for the working-class. That’s why he’s now worth more than £100m and why the Israeli newspaper Haaretz said that Blair is “generally regarded as the most pro-Israel prime minister in British history.” Marie van der Zyl, head of the Jewish Board of Deputies, has recently “praised Mr Blair as a ‘true friend’ of the Jewish community.” In other words, Blair followed Jewish orders, so it didn’t matter that he was a dedicated enemy of Labour’s traditional supporters in the White working-class.

Then the dim narcissist Blair left office and in time the dim Marxist Jeremy Corbyn became Labour leader. Corbyn opposed Blair’s mass-killing in the Middle East and has never wanted to be a millionaire. In other words, he wasn’t prepared to follow Jewish orders for financial reward. And that’s why he was relentlessly demonized as an anti-Semite and has now been suspended from the Labour party. He refused to grovel in contrition when the EHCR report was published. I think he was right not to grovel. But Jeremy Corbyn wouldn’t be ashamed if the EHRC published a truthful report into Labour’s genuine and decades-old crimes against the White working-class. As I’ve said before, Labour is better regarded as a criminal conspiracy than as a political party. Under pro-war, pro-plutocracy Blair, it conspired against the White working-class on behalf of Jews. Under anti-war, anti-plutocracy Corbyn, it conspired against the White working-class on behalf of Muslims, Blacks and other alien invaders.

Pro-Black bureaucrats and anti-White Jews

George Orwell wrote the following in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949): “Even the names of the four Ministries [in his fictional dystopia] exhibit a sort of impudence in their deliberate reversal of the facts. The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.”

In real 21st-century Britain, the Labour party concerns itself with attacking the working-class. And the Civil Service, overseen by a so-called Conservative government, concerns itself with working against civilization and for barbarism, as a recent article by a pseudonymous journalist has revealed:

On 3 June [2020], Jonathan Slater, Permanent Secretary of the Department for Education, responded to the DEFRA [Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] Permanent Secretary Tamara Finkelstein’s call to “fight racism” by tweeting the Black Lives Matter hashtag and declaring his quest to “tackle the whiteness of Senior Whitehall” (both these Whitehall heads are white, incidentally). …

Our supposedly impartial civil service is institutionalising far-left identity politics. It has fallen prey to networks of entryist activists like Project Race who, like BLM [Black Lives Matter], are adept at disguising neo-Marxist ideas as kind-hearted truisms. The influence that senior civil servants have granted these activists stops junior civil servants speaking against them, which in turn allows senior civil servants to broadcast patently absurd or partisan views with total impunity. One junior civil servant has described to me a non-stop, daily bombardment of “anti-racist” activism at work since the BLM protests began. Because no-one questions it openly, the woke browbeating continues as if it were no more controversial than a stationery audit. The evidence above is only the tip of the iceberg, but it’s already wedged deep into the ship’s hull. It remains a mystery why Captain Boris [Johnson] [and] First Officer [Michael] Gove … haven’t sounded a vigorous alarm about any of this. (The BLM takeover of Whitehall: Why don’t ministers care about the politics of their civil servants?, The Critic, 18th August 2020)

That article should be read by all intelligent Whites in Britain, before they begin fighting back against the hostile elite that intends to destroy them. Alas, it won’t be. It was written under the pseudonym of “Justin Elderman” by someone (possibly Jewish) who rightly fears that using his real name would harm his career and perhaps even his physical well-being. And look again at the question raised by Mr Elderman: “Why don’t ministers care about the politics of their civil servants?” He didn’t answer the question, but he had given his readers a big clue here:

On 3 June [2020], Jonathan Slater, Permanent Secretary of the Department for Education, responded to the DEFRA [Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] Permanent Secretary Tamara Finkelstein’s call to “fight racism” by tweeting the Black Lives Matter hashtag and declaring his quest to “tackle the whiteness of Senior Whitehall” (both these Whitehall heads are white, incidentally). (The BLM takeover of Whitehall)

Tamara Finkelstein works for Jews

I don’t think Tamara Finkelstein regards herself as “white” any more than her brother Daniel Finkelstein does. No, both of them regard themselves as Jewish, not as White. The powerful bureaucrat Tamara Finkelstein proudly states that she is “Joint Senior Sponsor of the Civil Service Jewish Network” in her Twitter profile, while the powerful politician Daniel Finkelstein is a Vice President of the Jewish Leadership Council and has waxed lyrical in the Jewish Chronicle about “That mysterious sense of Jewish connection,” which ensures that “most of my best friends are Jewish.”

Anti-White activists Tamara and Daniel Finkelstein

Daniel Finkelstein is a senior figure in the so-called Conservative government that is ignoring the anti-White activism of senior bureaucrats like his sister Tamara Finkelstein, a BLM-supporting “Race Champion” in the Civil Service. Finkelstein himself belonged to the leftist Social Democratic Party in his youth. Then he joined the Tories in 1990 and began campaigning to “modernize” the party — that is, to turn it into something that worked solely for Jewish interests, having abandoned its conservative principles and the historic White Christian nation of Britain.

White Lives Don’t Matter

In 2020, the “modernization” is complete. The not-at-all Conservative party is thoroughly Finkelsteined. It has a Jewish treasurer, Ehud Sheleg, an Israeli plutocrat who openly admits that he makes “my homeland” of Israel his first concern. And all the most important posts in the government are held by kosher-certified Friends of Israel: the part-Jewish, part-Turkish prime minister Boris Johnson; the fully Jewish foreign secretary Dominic Raab; the Indian-Hindu chancellor Rishi Sunak; and the Indian-Hindu home secretary Priti Patel. These not-at-all Conservatives have done nothing as anti-White activism sweeps the Civil Service. But can you imagine what they would do if senior bureaucrats began a campaign against Israel in support of Palestinians? They would respond instantly, banning the anti-Israel campaign and sternly rebuking bureaucrats for breaking their strict code of political impartiality.

As it is, the Tories are doing nothing, because Jewish interests are not being challenged by anti-White activism and Black Lives Matter. On the contrary, Jewish interests are being strengthened. As Kevin MacDonald has described, BLM and Antifa are footsoldiers in what can be called a “Jewish coup” against the historic White nation of America. The same applies in Britain. But don’t expect the Equality and Human Rights Commission to take any action when Whites and their interests are harmed. In Brave New Britain, White Lives Don’t Matter.