Featured Articles

A Conversation with Ricardo Duchesne, Part 3 of 3

Go to Part 1.
Go to Part 2.

Grégoire Canlorbe: It is not uncommon to claim the self-assertive longing for “prestige,” “respect,” and “fame” is fully intelligible within the framework of the selfish-gene theory, according to which the individual is biologically designed to propagate his genes—and therefore, to pursue personal survival, reproduction, and kin solidarity. Despite the Indo-European warlord’s disdain for his own biological survival, and despite his heroism being recognized and praised by people who are not necessarily related to him genetically, do you still subscribe to the universal relevance of the selfish-gene framework?

Ricardo Duchesne: In Uniqueness I contrasted the aristocratic obsession with honor and respect to the universal instinct for survival, giving the impression that Indo-Europeans were somehow standing above the evolutionary pressures that all groups face in maximizing their chances for reproduction and survival. Kevin MacDonald correctly clarified, in his long review, that “prestige and honor among one’s fellows is in fact typically linked with material possessions and reproductive success. Like other psychological traits related to aggression and risk-taking, the pursuit of social prestige by heroic acts is a high risk/high reward behavior, where evidently the rewards sufficiently outweighed the risks over a prolonged period of evolutionary time.”[1]

Darwinian selective pressures are always at work. But this should not be taken to mean that human culture does not have its own internal dynamics, and that all our beliefs and behaviors are explainable in Darwinian terms. Evolutionary psychologists (not MacDonald) can be quite presumptuous in their fundamentalist belief that they can instruct sociologists, philosophers, and members of the humanities, about human nature and the ultimate origins and biological foundations of our cultural practices. They like to emphasize the cultural patterns, institutions, customs, and beliefs that occur universally across many cultures, as a demonstration that humans will only engage in cultural practices that are good candidates for evolutionary adaptations.

It is worth noticing, however, that the examples of cultural universals they offer — such as the universal presence of athletic sports, dancing, music, housing, funeral rites, language, greetings, courtship, calendars, division of labor, status differentiation, tool-making — are examples of basic cultural practices performed by everyday humans. They represent the lowest cultural denominator. They can’t account for the superlative achievements of Europeans in music, the fact that classical music is singularly European, in evolutionary terms. They can’t account for the fact that almost all the greatest thinkers are European, the architectural styles, the invention of sports, etc. Their inclination, rather, is to trivialize high culture and high achievements that are not easily fitted into an evolutionary scheme.

Why did Europe produce almost all the great scientists in history? Steven Pinker is not interested in these questions but concentrates on the universal traits of the human mind as “a neural computer, fitted by natural selection with combinatorial algorithms for causal and probabilistic reasoning about plants, animals, objects and people.”[2] How do we explain Europe’s superlative achievements in the arts? Pinker’s angle is that “the value of art is largely unrelated to aesthetics: a priceless masterpiece becomes worthless if found to be a forgery; soup cans and comic strips become high art when the art world says they are, and then command conspicuously wasteful prices.”[3]

They know that natural selection can only play a foundational role in understanding human culture and that “human culture itself,” in the words of another Darwinian hardliner, Daniel Dennett, “is a more fecund generator of brilliant innovations” than genetic endowment. This is why they came up with the concept of memes, which they think “can do justice to the humanities and sciences at the same time” by providing an explanation of cultural changes in terms of “new selective pressures” created by culture itself. They acknowledge that culture has evolved through cultural selection transmitted “perceptually, not genetically”[4]

Richard Dawkins defines the term meme “to refer to the ways of doing and making things that spread through cultures.” Dennett realizes that many selected memes have not enhanced human fitness, and that in fact “many of our most cherished memes are demonstrably fitness-reducing in the biological sense,” such as postponing procreation to get a very expensive college education. Once we meet our survival needs, humans “think there are more important things in life than out-reproducing their conspecifics.”  “We are the only species that has discovered other things to die for (and to kill for): freedom, democracy, truth, communism, Roman Catholicism, Islam, and many other meme complexes (memes made up of memes).”[5] We are the only species that articulates reasons to account for why we do things and the only species that attempts to persuade others why those reasons are good, often in the name of goals that cannot be accounted for in straightforward evolutionary terms. They have also argued that human cultural activity has changed the environments they respond to, creating “cognitive niches” or “cultural niches” with very different selective pressures. Pinker believes that humans evolved sufficient genetic capacities to be able to select the best memes and discard culturally inefficient or dysfunctional memes. Read more

A Conversation with Ricardo Duchesne, Part 2 of 3

Grégoire Canlorbe: Western civilization, originating from the Indo-European heroic ethos, turned out to be both the most creative and Faustian civilization and the most war-ridden and war-dominated one. Islamic civilization has been equally militaristic and expansionist; yet it quickly became frozen and hostile towards innovation and individual genius—despite the fact that praising Muhammad’s heroic lifetime has permeated Islamic societies to this day. How do you explain this duality?

Ricardo Duchesne: Almost all cultures have been expansionist, if not warlike, in one form or another. This universal trait does not make a people Faustian. Even highly expansionist peoples such as the Assyrians, Aztecs, Huns, Turks, or Mongols, were not Faustian. Oswald Spengler was aware that medieval and modern Europeans were not uniquely militaristic and imperialistic. Spengler spoke of the “morphological relationship that inwardly binds together the expression-forms of all branches of Culture.” For him, such things as Rococo art, differential calculus, the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of the Americas, were all expressions of the same soul. He saw something Faustian about all the great men of Europe, both in reality and in fiction: in Hamlet, Richard III, Gauss, Newton, Nicolas Cusanus, Don Quixote, Goethe’s Werther, Gregory VII, Michelangelo, Paracelsus, Dante, Descartes, Don Juan, Bach, Wagner’s Parsifal, Haydn, Leibniz’s Monads, Giordano Bruno, Frederick the Great, Ibsen’s Hedda Gabler. For Spengler, Christianity, too, became a thoroughly Faustian moral ethic. “It was not Christianity that transformed Faustian man, but Faustian man who transformed Christianity —and he not only made it a new religion but also gave it a new moral direction”: will-to-power in ethics. This “Faustian-Christian morale” produced the incredible variety of personalities we witness in Europe, such as Luther, Loyola, Pascal, St. Theresa, “giant-men like Henry the Lion and Gregory VII, … the men of the Renaissance, of the struggle of the two Roses, of the Huguenot Wars, the Spanish Conquistadores, … Napoleon, Bismarck, Rhodes.”

By contrast, other than the Islamic efflorescence between 700 and 1200, which consisted primarily in commentaries on Aristotle, preserving some contributions from Persia and the Greco-Roman world, the Islamic world barely produced any truly creative personalities. Spengler attributed this to the “the Magian Soul” of Arabic-Muslim culture; in Islam “the civil and the ecclesiastical are identical.” This identification means that the world of man is subordinate to the dictates of Islam, everyone is essentially a believer or a non-believer, a member of the “We” of Islam or an outcast standing alone. There is no “I” in Islam, no room for personalities to affirm their “self-asserting egos” as we find in Christianity. Faustian Christianity “presupposes the strong and free will that can overcome itself.”

It is difficult to sum up this contrast, but perhaps this passage may do for this interview: “Whereas the Faustian man is an ‘I’ that in the last resort draws its own conclusions about the Infinite, … the Magian man, with his spiritual kind of being, is only a part of a pneumatic ‘We’ that, descending from above, is one and the same in all believers. As body and soul he belongs not to himself alone, but something else, something alien and higher, dwells in him, making him with all his glimpses and convictions just a member of a consensus which, as the emanation of God, excludes error, but excludes also all possibility of the self-asserting Ego. Truth is for him something other than for us. All our epistemological methods, resting upon the individual judgment, are for him madness and infatuation, and its scientific results a work of the Evil One, who has confused and deceived the spirit as to its true dispositions and purposes.”[1]

Once we understand the “morphological” unity of culture, we can see that Islam has not been “equally militaristic and expansionist.” There is a beautiful creativity in European expansionism that is lacking in all other cultures. Europeans were far more expansive, and successfully so: by 1800 they controlled 35% of the land surface of the globe, increasing this control to 85% by 1914. Almost every single military innovation in weapons, strategy, and organization, from ancient Greek times to the present, was European. There is no comparison. Read more

A conversation with Ricardo Duchesne, Part 1 of 3

Editor’s note: Prof. Ricardo Duchesne will be the featured guest on the monthly video show promoting TOQ with James Edwards and me on Monday, February 4—details to come. In addition to his contributions to TOQ, Dr. Duchesne has authored several books, including The Uniqueness of Western CivilizationFaustian Man in a Multicultural Age, and Canada In Decay: Mass Immigration, Diversity, and the Ethnocide of Euro-Canadians.

Ricardo Duchesne is a Canadian historical sociologist whose main research interests notably include the Indo-European aristocratic-warlike and individualist ethos, the Faustian mentality and the creativeness of Western civilization from ancient Greek times to the present, and the pernicious effects of the multicultural and multiracial ideal on modern Western society.

Grégoire Canlorbe: In your eyes, the European civilization of the White man has been systemically downsized by contemporary world historians—to name but a few, Patrick O’Brien, Sebastian Conrad, or Ian Morris. Could you develop?

Ricardo Duchesne: At this point in time, the downplaying of European civilization goes well beyond the observations I made in The Uniqueness of Western Civilization (2011). The globalist establishment is no longer satisfied with the replacement of Western Civ courses, which were part of the standard curriculum in North America throughout much of the twentieth century, with Multicultural World History surveys that emphasize “reciprocal connections within the globe.” The academic establishment is no longer satisfied instructing students that European achievements can only be understood in connection with the rest of the world’s cultures, that Muslims were key creators of the West no less than Christians, that the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution, were world historical affairs, that Europe only managed to industrialize thanks to the resources and hard labor of Africans and Aboriginals. That is no longer enough, they are now insisting, as I indicated in my second book, Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age (2017), that Europeans don’t have a distinctive identity because they have been mixing racially for thousands of years as a result of migratory movements. They are forcing their students to equate the current state-sponsored immigration movements from the Third World, purposely aimed at diversifying all White nations, with internal European migrations that occurred over the course of many centuries. They are trying to strip Europeans of any sense of ethnic identity, by making them believe that the race-mixing globalists are incessantly promoting today is a natural continuation of migratory movements thousands of years ago.

Rather that truthfully teaching students that the genetic makeup of Europeans, before diversity was imposed a few decades ago, remained very stable for most of their history, with next to zero genetic additions from Africans and Asians, they are indoctrinating them to believe that African/Asian-looking peoples were the original migrant-inhabitants of Europe. They are saying that Europeans were not indigenous to Europe, that this continent was the creation of waves of immigrants from outside Europe. They are extending the same false argument they have been making about the settler nations of America, Canada, and Australia — “Nations of Immigrants” — to all White nations. Yet, this argument does not even hold for these settler nations. As I argued in my best-selling book, Canada in Decay: Mass Immigration, Diversity and the Ethnocide of Euro-Canadians (2017), Canada was not a nation of immigrants but a nation built from the ground up by settlers and indigenous Quebecois, Acadians, and Anglo Loyalists. The same goes for America, Australia, and New Zealand; they were founded by White settlers who created a uniquely indigenous culture in these homelands.

Let it be said that these arguments are not being made by world historians alone, or by typically crazed academics in some half-baked field — what we now identify as “Grievance Studies.” What is so disconcerting, as I argued in “Deceptive Use of Scientific Data to Promote Ethnocide of Europeans,” is that academics in the natural sciences, population geneticists, archaeologists, paleogeneticists, and evolutionary biologists, are deceptively interpreting their otherwise objectively gathered findings (that there were intra-European migratory movements thousands of years ago) as if these movements consisted of non-Whites from Asia and Africa. They are arguing that these movements are a demonstration that there is no such thing as a uniquely German, a uniquely Norwegian, Polish, Swedish, or British people, because “all Europeans are already a mishmash of repeated ancient migrations” from non-European lands. But this is not true; what has been really documented is that there was some degree of intra-European racial mixing over the course of many centuries of migrations and invasions. It has also been documented that there was a “massive migratory movement” from the “Pontic-Steppes”, but these migrants were none other than the Indo-Europeans, once known as “Aryans”, and they did not come from “Asia” since the Pontic Steppes are part of the continent of Europe, and these migrants were White. The only migrants who came from outside Europe were the Anatolian farmers who started colonizing southern Europe about 8800 years ago, who did have considerable genetic impact on Spain, Italy, and Greece. Read more

Perceptions of Jewish History Drive the War of the Hostile Elite Against the Trump Presidency

I begin with a thumbnail sketch of Jewish perceptions of their own history as a prologue to thinking about why a long-term goal of the organized Jewish community has been to make alliances with other groups with grievances against the traditional American nation. Jewish perceptions of their own history reflect traditional Jewish fear and loathing of outgroups with power, particularly given their perceptions of their “lachrymose history” among Europeans as nothing but a vale of tears.

This lachrymose view has major implications for understanding contemporary Jewish political behavior in the Diaspora. It proposes that, beginning with an unfortunate theological belief (that Jews killed God), Jews have been passive, innocent victims of marauding non-Jews. The lesson that Jews learned from the Middle Ages carries down to today: [According to Norman Podhoretz,” the Jews

“emerged from the Middle Ages knowing for a certainty that — individual exceptions duly noted — the worst enemy they had in the world was Christianity: the churches in which it was embodied — whether Roman Catholic or Russian Orthodox or Protestant — and the people who prayed in and were shaped by them. It was a knowledge that Jewish experience in the ages to come would do very little, if indeed anything at all, to help future generations to forget” (Review of Norman Podhoretz’s Why Are Jews Liberals?, p. 29).

These perceptions are fundamental to Jewish education and to Jewish identity. Jews therefore—far more than non-Jewish Europeans—have an overwhelming sense of their own history. From far left to the neoconservative right, Jews socialized in the Jewish community imbibe a history of what they see as vicious persecution of blameless Jews in the West going back even prior to Christianity—to the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D.

Within this worldview, the Middle Ages were a period of completely unjustified expulsions from many areas on Western Europe, motivated not at all by Jewish behavior but by vicious, fundamentally anti-Semitic Christian theology. The Enlightenment resulted in “Jewish emancipation” in the sense that the paradigm had shifted from a corporate Christendom with its anti-Jewish theology to an individualist model of society where each citizen was to be stripped of group allegiances.

Jews were welcomed into these newly reconstructed Western societies, but the tensions remained. Jews were now accused of remaining Jews in societies of individualists—of remaining a “state within a state,” failing to shed their ethnic identities, and continuing to engage in ethnic networking, not only in business and professional relationships, but also establishing organizations in the West dedicated to helping Jews in foreign lands, at times against the perceived interests of the nations they were residing in. Read more

The Wall in a Nutshell: It’s About White Racial Consciousness and the “Browning of America”

Of all things Trump, the most defining and distinguishing is his advocacy of, and identification with, a wall to curb illegal immigration across our southern border. It was the signature issue in the announcement of his candidacy, an issue no other major candidate would have dared to advocate, an issue that catapulted him into an immediate lead in the polls, and an issue which gained him the immediate and unprecedentedly vehement and bitter opposition and hatred of the “left-wing” media (even greater than their hatred of Nixon, with endemic comparisons to Hitler) and all the other branches of the Anti-White Coalition that dominates the political, corporate, academic, media and cultural establishment.1

Despite the dissimulating and misdirecting rhetoric to the contrary, chiefly from establishment Republican politicians, operatives and “strategists” attempting to rationalize their support for the wall by any means other than race, the wall is widely — and correctly — seen as very much about race, as part of the larger issue of mass non-White immigration and the displacement of Whites as the majority population group and their dispossession and replacement by non-Whites. So it is not surprising that its support and opposition are sharply divided on racial lines. Non-Whites (including semi-European and non-European Caucasians) know that the wall is about race and so they overwhelmingly oppose it. Mass support for the wall is limited to Whites, but because Whites are less racially conscious and because they are less motivated by their racial interests — and therefore more racially divided on political lines — than non-Whites, they support it by only a slight majority.2

While the debate over the wall has been exclusively defined in terms of secondary issues by its proponents, carefully evading and even denying the primary racial issue, its more radical opponents have been honest (and correct) to express their opposition to it racially, defining it as a racist (i.e., pro-White) and therefore immoral means to slow the racial transformation of the country from White to non-White now openly referred to, celebrated and advocated as the “browning of America.” The more moderate opponents of the wall, like its proponents, prefer to dissimulate and evade the racial issue by justifying their opposition in terms of secondary concerns, such as its cost (negligible compared to the expenses associated with illegal immigration) or its supposed ineffectiveness, with the strength of their opposition being the most accurate indicator of how effective they really fear it would be. But for both sides the wall is not really about the money. It’s about the racial future of the country. Read more

Murder and Misogyny: Liberalism is a Power-Cult of Hatred, Envy, Virtue Signaling, and Lies

It was one of the most appalling war-crimes ever committed, but it’s oddly little-known today. In 1940, after the Soviet Union had seized the half of Poland assigned to it by the German-Soviet Pact, Stalin did something worthy of his possible ancestor, Genghis Khan. About 22,000 members of Poland’s military and civil elite, the nucleus of a possible future resistance, were rounded up and summarily executed with bullets to the back of the head.

Woe to the vanquished

Many of the executed men were buried in shallow graves in the Katyn Forest, now in western Russia. And so the atrocity is called the Katyn Massacre. After Germany attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, its forces discovered the mass graves and it accused the communists of a gigantic war-crime. But the Soviet Union threw the accusation back and the Katyn Massacre was officially blamed on the Germans at Nuremberg.

Today the truth is fully established but not widely circulated. For example, most spell-checkers don’t even recognize the name Katyn, although they’re fine with names like Auschwitz, Treblinka and Buchenwald. But of course, there’s one country where the Katyn Massacre is known to everyone: Poland itself. Vae victis! — “Woe to the vanquished!” — is merely a phrase in England. In Poland, it’s a summary of recent and agonizing history.

Poles know very well what can happen to a nation that falls under the control of outsiders. Horrors like the Katyn Massacre can happen. Such knowledge must be part of why Poland has refused to allow mass immigration from the Third World: it “accepts vanishingly small numbers of migrants [and] has some of the most pungent views on immigration on the continent.”

To the Guardian, this is “baffling,” but then liberals believe in narcissism and virtue-signalling rather than in realism and studying the lessons of history. Immigration is invasion by another name and although final conquest may take longer, the same truth will apply in the end: Vae victis! Hungary, Slovakia and the Czech Republic also know the full meaning of the phrase and they too are resisting mass immigration by Muslims and other non-Whites. Hungary in particular knows how Muslims behave on European soil, because it fought off the Ottomans and saw many of its people slaughtered or carried into slavery.

Ancient rules of conquest

England’s history, by contrast, contains nothing like the Katyn Massacre or the Ottoman invasions. The last conquest of England was a thousand years ago, when Duke William of Normandy arrived with his army in 1066. Furthermore, the Norman Conquest was carried out by a closely related racial group who practised exactly the same religion as the English. It was not like the conquest of Catholic Poland by atheist, anti-Catholic communists who were disproportionately drawn from non-Slavic minorities like Jews, Latvians and Georgians — the sadistic rapist Lavrentiy Beria, the NKVD chief who oversaw the Katyn Massacre, was Georgian like Stalin. Duke William saw himself as the rightful heir to the English throne and did not want to replace England’s culture or wipe out its religion. The communists who conquered Poland did want to do all that. That’s why they committed the Katyn Massacre, following a version of the ancient rule of conquest set forth in the Hebrew Bible: “And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.” (Numbers 31:7)

Another ancient rule of conquest comes next in the Bible: “All the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:18) Conquered men were killed and conquered women became the sexual property of the victors. Those were the ancient rules, obvious both in the Bible and in the genetic analysis of prehistoric DNA. The Soviet Union applied the first rule in Poland at the beginning of the war and the second rule in Germany at the war’s end. Like the Katyn Massacre in 1940, the Rape of Berlin in 1945 is nowhere near as well-known as it should be. But the mass rapes committed in Berlin and elsewhere by Soviet troops were not isolated or anomalous. Those troops raped their way across Europe and didn’t spare their own female comrades or Soviet women who had been imprisoned by the Nazis.

Portents for worse horrors

Such war-crimes didn’t happen in England, where enemy bombs fell but no enemy boots trod. Again, the English never learnt the true meaning of Vae victis! That’s why so few English people today fully understand the rape scandals in Rotherham, Huddersfield, Newcastle, Oxford, Telford and many other English towns and cities. Muslim men are behaving like conquerors and taking native women and girls as their sexual property. Rotherham, Huddersfield, Newcastle and the rest are not merely present horrors, but also portents for an even more horrible future. Muslim men clearly understand that immigration is invasion. They also understand that they have collaborators in local councils and the police: “Karrar was brazen in his exploitation of Girl D and acted in the belief that the authorities would never challenge him — something that for years proved to be true.”

Mohammed Karrar was one of the Muslim rape-gang that raped, tortured and prostituted under-aged White girls in the university city of Oxford, where so many of England’s liberal elite complete their education before entering politics and the media. Some of those liberals are now working on the British government’s official anti-hate website. Did any of them attend Oxford during the “years” when Mohammed Karrar and his buddies were left free to rape, torture and prostitute White girls? If so, this dramatic image used at the site in 2019 becomes even more ironic:

Evil White Male vs Innocent Muslim Woman , on official British Government website. Notice: A hate crime is any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim, or anybody else, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice towards someone’s race,  religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity, or disability. So a hate crime is a perception by an alleged victim or, say, an activist. It does not necessarily need to have any basis in a reasonable construction of reality. One can easily see how such alleged victims and activists may perceive things in an unreasonable or hostile manner.

The image has a simple, lying message: White men are a threat to women, minorities and especially women-from-minorities. White men are racists, misogynists, Islamophobes, xenophobes, homophobes, and haters of every other variety going. Except one variety. There is a hate that has no official name, even though it’s practised throughout the West and harms far more people than all the rest put together. There’s no name for hatred of Whites and of White men in particular. But that hatred is plainly at work in the image at the British government’s official anti-hate website. The government is using the taxes of Whites to broadcast a message of hate against Whites: “Look at the poor Muslim woman being abused by the evil white male! We must protect such women with tough laws against White male hate!”

But what is the origin of this anti-White pathology? Well, if you look at the bottom of the government’s “Hate Crime” page, you’ll find these two anti-hate groups standing proudly together:

Tell MAMA UK: A national hate crime support and monitoring service for victims of anti-Muslim hatred.

Community Security Trust: Deals with antisemitic incidents and provides victim support.

Muslims and Jews united against Whites

Tell MAMA might come first in the list, but it’s not pulling the strings of the anti-White propaganda campaign. The Jewish Community Security Trust (CST) is a veteran at the anti-White game, having worked at the highest levels of power for decades. Labour governments have replaced the Tories and Tory governments have replaced Labour, but the song has stayed the same: “Whites are evil oppressors. Minorities are innocent victims. Crush hate speech!”

Jews and Muslims want to destroy free speech

The Jewish anti-White activist Dr Richard Stone, High Priest in the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence, has described Muslims and Jews in Britain as “natural allies.” By this, he means that Muslims should join Jews in attacking free speech and demonizing Britain’s White and historically Christian majority. When free-speech warriors like Mark Steyn, Douglas Murray and Rod Liddle criticize the “Islamophobia” industry, they never mention that Jews have played a central role there. Jews supply the industry with the legal expertise and propaganda skills lacked by low-IQ Muslims. And Jews are proud of their role in helping Muslims attack free speech and demonize Whites, as you can see from this story in the Jewish Chronicle back in 2014:

Former CST boss will help Muslim group battle Islamophobia

British Jewry’s leading communal security expert has explained why he felt obliged to help a Muslim group tackle Islamophobia. Richard Benson, who retired as chief executive of the Community Security Trust last year after 12 years at the helm, was appointed co-chair of the Tell Mama group this week. Tell Mama — the Mama stands for “measuring anti-Muslim attacks” — was set up to help British Muslims report discrimination and monitor incidents in a similar way to the CST’s recording of antisemitism. CST has worked closely with the group.

Mr Benson said Fiyaz Mughal, the anti-extremist campaigner who helped set up the group, had approached him to help take Tell Mama “to the next level, to have more success and ensure it has a future”. “They wanted professional support and that’s why I considered it,” said Mr Benson. “I wanted to be a co-chair with someone from the Muslim community and that’s being finalised now. This won’t be a Muslim organisation led by someone from the Jewish community. My role is to take the expertise I’ve got from CST and give those tools to Tell Mama.”

Government officials are said to have voiced concern at Tell Mama’s data-gathering methods, but Mr Benson said such stumbling blocks were to be expected: “CST has been attacked with accusations of over-inflated figures for years. Part of my job will be to give Tell Mama the systems to help ensure it doesn’t happen with them.” …

A CST spokesman said: “Over the years CST has helped many different organisations as part of our commitment to work for the benefit of everybody, inside and outside the Jewish community. We already support Tell Mama’s efforts to tackle anti-Muslim hate crime and we are happy that Richard’s expertise will be put to such good use.” (Former CST boss will help Muslim group battle Islamophobia, The Jewish Chronicle, 10th April 2014 / 10th Nisan 5774)

When Richard Benson spoke of “stumbling blocks,” he meant that Tell MAMA were being dishonest in their “data-gathering methods.” Fortunately, the CST are experts in peddling dishonest data to the government and media, so they’ve trained Tell MAMA in how to do the same.

Three-in-one victims

Richard Benson also knows that emotive images are excellent ways to convey anti-White propaganda. That’s why the government website prominently displays a distressed Muslim woman in a headscarf being shouted at by hate-filled White male. Liberals love to virtue-signal about a victim like that because she combines three sacred groups: Muslims, non-Whites, and women. Taken together, these three groups are maximally different from the White men who supposedly oppress all of them. As a result, liberals can feel especially compassionate, caring, and morally superior.

But there is a strict condition on the use of three-in-one victims. The non-White women in headscarves must never be associated with crimes by the group that really does oppress and harm them. And so the following image will never be used to illustrate the theme of hate on a government website:

Janbaz Tarin and his two victims

The image shows an Afghan Muslim male called Janbaz Tarin and two Muslim women, his former wife Raneem Oudeh and her mother Khaola Saleem, whom he brutally murdered in August 2018. Raneem Oudeh had discovered that he had a wife and children back in Afghanistan, so she left their Islamic marriage. Tarin thereupon murdered her and her mother out of spite. The case was a particularly shocking example of what liberals would call toxic masculinity and femicidal male entitlement. But Raneem Oudeh and Khaola Saleem will never become part of a liberal martyr-cult like the one that surrounds the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence.

Another Afghan male, another double-murder

This is because liberalism is an ideology built on lies in pursuit of power. The murder of Stephen Lawrence is used to promote a lie: that White men are a huge and ever-present threat to the lives and well-being of non-Whites. But the murders of Raneem Oudeh and Khaola Saleem reveal a truth: that the greatest oppressors of non-Whites are in fact other non-Whites. Therefore, their murders are useless to anti-White liberalism.

Ahmad Otak and his two victims

So are the murders of Kimberley Frank and Samantha Sykes in 2017, although these girls too were the victims of a viciously entitled male steeped in toxic masculinity. Remarkably, this male was also an Afghan Muslim, an “asylum-seeker” called Ahmad Otak who lied about his age in order to gain the benefits of being an unaccompanied minor. A White girl called Elisa Frank foolishly became his girlfriend, then left him because of his violent and domineering behaviour. Otak thereupon punished her by murdering her sister: “Afghan national Ahmad Otak laughed and spat on 17-year-old Kimberley Frank’s body after stabbing her 15 times at her home in Yorkshire while her sister Elisa watched helplessly.” But that wasn’t enough for Otak and his toxic masculinity: “He then tied his ex-partner up with electrical flex and lured her friend Samantha Sykes, 18, to Kimberley’s flat in Wakefield, where he stabbed the teenager repeatedly before slitting her throat.”

Kidnap, rape and more throat-slitting

There is no liberal martyr-cult for Kimberley Frank and Samantha Sykes, despite the horrific way in which they died at the hands of a patriarchal monster. Why so? It’s simple. They were victims of a non-White Muslim. Therefore, their murders can’t be used to promote hatred against White men. Liberals do not genuinely care about the lives and well-being of women: they care about winning and expanding their own power. That’s why they have forgotten the horrific double-murders described above. They’ve also forgotten the horrific murder described below, which narrowly failed to be another double-feature:

Freezer body murder: Uncle jailed for Celine Dookhran rape and killing

An uncle has been jailed for life for kidnapping, raping and slitting the throat of his niece before putting her body in a deep freezer. Mujahid Arshid, 33, was found guilty of murdering Celine Dookhran, 20, and the attempted murder of a second woman.

Arshid, who will serve at least 40 years in prison, snatched the women in July before taking them to a house in Kingston, south west London. … Arshid, of Homefield Gardens, Mitcham, has also been convicted of sexual assault charges against the second woman between 2008 and 2010. …

The surviving victim took to the witness box to face Arshid and read her own victim impact statement. She said “flashbacks and nightmares prevent me from moving on” and physical scarring from the attack is a “constant reminder of what Celine and I went through”. A statement from Ms Dookhran’s mother Iman was read out, in which she said her daughter “fell victim to pure evil” and that “coming to terms with her death is likely to be a lifelong assignment”. …

Prosecutor Crispin Aylett QC said Arshid was obsessed with his niece Ms Dookhran, who worked in a bank. Arshid spent weeks planning to abduct and kill both women in a plot that was as “bizarre as it is terrible”, Mr Aylett said. … At the empty six-bedroom house in Kingston, Arshid raped both women in turn before slashing Ms Dookhran’s throat in the bathroom.

The second woman, who cannot be identified, was badly injured but managed to escape after talking Arshid round. Speaking to police from her hospital bed, she described hearing screams and thuds as Arshid killed Ms Dookhran while she was tied to a chair downstairs. … “He molested Celine’s body while she was dead and then he molested me thinking I was dead. He’s such a psycho.” … (Freezer body murder: Uncle jailed for Celine Dookhran rape and killing, BBC News, 14 February 2018)

Mujahid Arshid and his victim Celine Dookhran

The story of Celine Dookhran’s murder is full of details that should horrify and anger liberals and impel them to create a martyr-cult in her memory. As in the double-murders by Janbaz Tarin and Ahmad Otak, there were big police failings that could have stopped the murderer well before he attacked two helpless women. And Mujahid Arshid had an accomplice who remains unidentified and still at large. Liberals have spent decades complaining about police failings in the Stephen Lawrence murder and demanding that all his killers be identified and brought to justice.

More kidnap, rape and murder

So why are liberals silent about very similar things in Celine Dookhran’s far worse and fully premeditated murder, which involved kidnap, rape and significantly more violence? Again it’s simple. Liberals are silent because Celine Dookhran’s murder can’t be used to promote hatred against White men. Instead, it once again reveals the truth: that the greatest oppressors of Muslim women are Muslim men. It also reveals that the greatest threats to all women in 21st-century Britain are non-White men. Although non-White men are still a minority here, they’re committing femicide — the murder of women — at disproportionate rates and with the worst brutality and sadism. Celine Dookhran’s murder is not unique in modern Britain. As I described in “Black Saints, White Demons,” five Blacks and an Albanian “asylum-seeker” kidnapped, tortured and raped two White girls in 2005, before stabbing one of them to death and trying to kill the other with a bullet in the head.

The girl who died, sixteen-year-old Mary-Ann Leneghan, is long forgotten by liberals, because her death can’t be used to promote liberal lies. Instead, it reveals the truth: that the worst abusers and oppressors of women are non-White men. That truth cannot be used to win power for liberals, therefore they deny it and pretend that White men are the problem. The liberal message is simple: White men are evil and must be stripped of power and thrust to the bottom of society. As the Audacious Epigone has said at the Unz Review: “The days of white male Democrats rising to the top of the party are over. There are those like … Biden and Sanders who will be grandfathered in, but the door to national-level leadership is shut for new entrants.”

Sowing the seeds of atrocity

When liberals accuse their opponents of “hate,” they’re projecting their own psychology and motives onto those opponents. It is liberals who are the worst haters, because liberalism is a power-cult fuelled by hatred, envy and lies. Liberals are trying to destroy the White men who stand between them and their dreams of absolute power. But more and more White men understand that they are targeted for destruction. As they wake up, they are starting to fight back. The stakes are very high. We have never had anything like the Katyn Massacre in Britain because we have never had the conditions for it: occupation by hostile outsiders who despise our culture and want to subjugate us for ever.

But liberalism is creating precisely those conditions, not just by importing hostile outsiders and subsidizing their reproduction on British soil, but also by actively encouraging them to hate Whites and seek revenge on us. Indeed, liberals have sown the seeds of atrocity throughout the West and all the horrific crimes above have parallels elsewhere, from the Knoxville Horror committed by Blacks against a White couple in America to the rape and murder of the White girl Maria Ladenburger by yet another Afghan Muslim in Germany. These crimes are portents of what will come if Whites lose control of their own nations. Vae victis! — “Woe to the vanquished!” That’s why liberalism has to end and hostile outsiders have to return where they belong.

The Migrant Invasion of Europe and the Dawn of a New Multicultural Dystopia

Refugees from all over the world keep pouring into Europe in an endless tide.
What can we do to stop this invasion of our homelands?
CLICK TO EXPAND

 

“Migrant crisis? What crisis?
There is no migrant crisis!”

— Ian Birrell, British political pundit, in the Daily Mail

I do Mr Birrell a wrong by implying that he is unaware of the caravans of illegal immigrants pouring into Europe unrelentingly, mostly from five Muslim countries: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nigeria and Eritrea.

He would have to be living on a different planet not to be aware that the “migrant crisis” is a crisis indeed: not so much for the migrants who have everything to gain if they can smuggle themselves into Europe, but it’s obviously a crisis to their European host countries who have everything to lose if the migrants should succeed in gaining a foothold here and, in the process, force their alien values and culture upon us.

This is what multiculturalism, if the truth be told, is all about: destroying the existing culture initially by dilution, and later on by subtle discrimination, verbal attacks, and, finally, by criminalisation.  Traditional values and the Christian ethos, once the prevailing norms in Europe and the US as late as the 1950s, are now quaint relics of the past, held in almost universal contempt by a thoroughly brutalised population of decadent philistines and tiresome trendies. Widespread neurosis, if not mental sickness, is rapidly becoming normative; and the vices of our ancestors are now the age’s new virtues.

Britain, new ‘Promised Land’ for Asylum Seekers

Mr Birrell, in the startling epigraph quote above—unavailable online but found in the Daily Mail hardcopy edition of 31 December 2018, p.15, under the headline ‘Myopic May damages our nation’—was in fact referring to the 139 illegal immigrants, mostly from Iran, who had recently been caught sneaking into Britain. His sympathies lie with them entirely. He regards them as heroes for surviving torture and oppression in their own countries, for braving the storms and treacherous tides of the Mediterranean, and for slogging their way over mountain passes and through inhospitable enemy terrain in immense caravans of misery, finally to fetch up in the icy waters of the English Channel in a last desperate attempt to get to the land of their dreams—the glorious shores of Great Britain.

This is hardly a “crisis”, Mr Birrell opines. It is a cause for rejoicing.

Apart from Matteo Salvini, there is not a single influential politician anywhere in Western Europe who is lifting a finger to stop this ongoing invasion of our homelands by hordes of African, Asian, and Middle Eastern migrants, all claiming to be “refugees.” And it just keeps getting worse. During the Christmas season more boatloads of illegal immigrants were welcomed into Britain by an inept and dysfunctional British government, most of whose MPs are incidentally “Friends of Israel.” These so-called “representatives of the people” seem to bend over backwards to appease the powerful Jewish lobby here, ignoring the wishes and diktats of this small minority at their peril, a situation not unfamiliar to our equally pressured American confrères.

The man in charge of dealing with the migrant crisis in Britain, Sajid Javid, is himself the offspring of a Muslim immigrant family of Pakistani origin. (See his picture here). His other credentials for dealing with the migrant influx, which he has done nothing remotely effective to limit or discourage so far, are his obsequious loyalties to the state of Israel. A long-time supporter of the Conservative Friends of Israel, Mr Javid has endeared himself to Jewish interests by declaring in 2012 that of all the countries in the Middle East he would like to settle in permanently, his first choice would be Israel. That’s where his Utopia lies, his Promised Land of milk and honey. Only in Israel, he says, would his children feel “the warm embrace of peace and liberty.” The problem, of course, is that he can’t prove Jewish ancestry. Would that Britain had analogous laws.

Javid is the man who is now Britain’s Home Secretary and a current contender for the ‘Top Job’, hovering patiently in the background like a hungry vulture for the corpse of Theresa May to be borne out of 10 Downing Street on a metaphorical stretcher at any moment.

Well, we can’t wait either! Britain’s first Pakistani Prime Minister should provide an interesting landmark in British history, like the conquest of Mount Everest by Sir Edmund Hilary in May 1953.

Curiously enough, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan (pictured), is also of Pakistani origin and cut his teeth working for a solicitors’ firm in London called Christian Fisher which later changed its name to Christian Khan. (See here). It’s interesting to note that the chief partner in the firm, Michael Fisher, was (he died four years ago) half Jewish on his father’s side. So it appears that both our current Home Secretary and our Mayor of London have two striking features in common: both are of Pakistani origin and both have had careers which have advanced steadily under Jewish influence.

The alternative government-in-waiting, led by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, widely reputed to be “anti-Semitic” and pro-Muslim, would be just as bad (if not worse) if it ever got into power. This party of the left, purportedly founded to look after the interests of the working classes, is even more committed to multiculturalism and mass Third World immigration than the rival Tory party. The “migrant crisis” in Britain actually  began under Tony Blair, the mendacious war criminal who founded “New Labour,” and it has continued without intermission under successive British governments ever since. Only today this headline (unavailable online) appeared on page 2 of the Daily Mail, 14 January in large, bold-face type: CORBYN: I WANT TO KEEP OUR BORDERS OPEN TO MIGRANTS. This from the “Workers’ Party,” the party whose members voted overwhelmingly for Brexit in June 2016 in an unprecedented referendum in which 17.4 million Brits insisted on an end to uncontrolled mass immigration and the enforcement of the strictest border controls.

Democracy? If you’re hunting for that critter, you won’t find it in Britain. Both the Prime Minister and the majority of MPs seem determined to give the people the very opposite of what they voted for over two years ago: a fake Brexit or no Brexit at all, with the country remaining a vassal state of Europe for the foreseeable future. Even Corbyn, however dangerous he may turn out to be, got it right when he described the Prime Minister’s treacherous Brexit plan as a “Frankenstein deal” cooked up by a “zombie government” (16 January).

The deliberate wreck of the British referendum vote by the political class in this country calls to mind the German poet Bertolt Brecht’s scathing comment, “Would it not be easier for the Government to dissolve the People and elect another?” Just substitute “import another” for “elect another.”  Read more