Featured Articles

Brave New Britain: Vibrant Enrichment in Manchester and London

/30 Comments/in , /by

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not before.” The patriotic Israeli Rahm Emanual didn’t actually say that, but it perfectly reflects his Machiavellian character. It also describes how free speech in Britain is now going to be attacked by the shabbos shiksa Theresa May under the guidance of Moshe Kantor, the Board of Deputies, and other goyophobic Jews.

Judas Goats are rudely interrupted

The vibrancy in London, hard on the heels of the vibrancy in Manchester, is a crisis that isn’t going to be wasted. Too many people are speaking some or all of the truth about the disastrous situation Britain now finds itself in. Our vibrant enrichers from the Third World are starting to vibrate too much and enrich too fast. After the suicide-bombing up north in Manchester, the next item on the multi-culti agenda was a “tribute concert,” as Ariana Grande and Camila-Batmanghelidjh fans Coldplay and other Judas Goats brought thousands of sheeple together for a tearful wallow in a pink-tinted, rose-scented bath of sentimentality and reality-evasion. The highlight of the night: Grande and Coldplay singing “Don’t look back in anger.”

Vibrant enrichment in London

But three more vibrant enrichers rudely interrupted proceedings by slaughtering and mutilating yet more kaffir down south in London. “If the current trend in Islamic terror attacks continues, candlelit vigils will soon be the number one cause of global warming,” as an evil White racist put it on Twitter. Having got us into this fine mess, Britain’s liberal elite are now assuring us that they’re the ideal people to get us out of it. To do that, they want to silence “extremism” on the internet. The dedicated shabbos goy John Mann, chair of the British Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism, has tweeted thus: “I repeat, yet again, my call for the internet companies who terrorists have again used to communicate to be held legally liable for content.” Read more

Doused and Denounced

/35 Comments/in , /by

A cold civil war has been brewing within academe, a war between “biologians” and “culturists.” Many modern biologists, genomic scientists, and physical anthropologists are biologians.  They think evolutionary adaptations are partly responsible for some racial disparities.   On the other hand, most historians, social scientists, public leaders, and mainstream journalists are culturists.  They minimize the importance of biology and evolution and say that history and culture explain the variations in the distribution of human characteristics.

One of the landmark events in this academic civil war occurred in 1975, when E. O. Wilson, a biology professor at Harvard, published Sociobiology: The New Synthesis.  Professor Wilson presented a mountain of evidence to establish that biology influenced many forms of social behavior in the animal kingdom.  Then, in the last chapter of the book, Professor Wilson maintained that this was also true for human beings.

Among biologists, the initial reaction to Sociobiology was overwhelmingly favorable.  The response of many historians and social scientists, however, was quite critical.  This was not surprising, for most historians and social scientists regard human nature as relatively unaffected by our evolutionary past, as something that is shaped by social forces.  Some scholars, especially those with Marxist beliefs, have emphasized the special importance of economic forces that are extraneous to human biology.

As it happened, a Marxist group at Harvard, Science for the People, responded to Sociobiology with printed leaflets and teach-ins that were harshly critical of Professor Wilson.  For a few days a protester in Harvard Square used a bullhorn to demand that the university fire Professor Wilson, and on one occasion two students invaded the professor’s class on evolutionary biology to shout slogans and deliver anti-sociobiology monologues.  To make matters worse, Professor Wilson received little support from his colleagues on the Harvard faculty, and to avoid embarrassment he stayed away from department meetings for an entire year.

Professor Wilson considered offers to move to other universities, but he decided to stay at Harvard.  “The pressure was tolerable,” he has written, “since I was a senior professor with tenure . . . and could not bear to leave Harvard’s ant collection, the world’s largest and best.”

The opposition reached something of a climax in 1979, when Professor Wilson was scheduled to speak at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.    As he sat at a table near the lectern, a young man from the audience grabbed the microphone and harangued the assembled scholars.  A young woman then poured a pitcher of water over Professor Wilson’s head and demonstrators chanted, “Wilson, you’re all wet,” and “Racist Wilson, you can’t hide. We charge you with genocide.”

Despite the vilification he received in the 1970s, things eventually turned out well for Professor Wilson.  By the turn of the twenty-first century, he was widely celebrated as the pioneering founder of two new academic fields, the evolutionary biology of humans and evolutionary psychology.  He was the author of two Pulitzer Prize-winning books, and he received many academic awards.  When Harvard University Press published a twenty-fifth anniversary edition of Sociobiology in 2000, it was evident that Professor Wilson’s theory appealed to many of the best minds in science.  By then Amazon.com listed 416 titles under “sociobiology” and 1, 218 under “human evolution.”

Nevertheless, as I have recently learned the hard way, many historians know little or nothing about sociobiology, evolutionary biology, or evolutionary psychology.

Read more

“Then they came for … me?” The SJW Frankenstein monster turns against its creator at Evergreen State

/in , /by

It is fascinating to watch the battle lines continually forming and reforming on America’s college campuses. At the moment, all eyes are on Evergreen State — one of, if not the most liberal publicly funded colleges in the US. Located an hour’s drive from Tacoma, it is a small state-funded school, with a majority White student body though a sizeable minority of students of color (29% in 2016).

On campuses across the country, the last few years have seen repeated incidents in which minority students seem impelled, whether by their professors or for psychological or other reasons, to protest non-existent hate crimes or the most insignificant of perceived slights, public speakers they don’t like. Vigilante mobs use threats, non-violent and violent protests to wrest concessions from the craven administrators who oversee our nation’s universities.

At Evergreen, the spark that set off the recent turmoil was an announced “Day of Absence” in which White students and campus members were told to not come to campus so that students of color would have a day free from their oppressive presence. Evergreen State biology professor Bret Weinstein had concerns with this plan, writing that it seemed, well, somewhat racist. Certainly, excluding White students from campus for a day would seem on the face of it to be spectacularly racist, but we must remember that the prevailing logic of the social justice left is “people of color can’t be racist” — which is then interpreted as “anything we do to White people is ok.”  This dynamic is visible in any of the videos of the confrontations from Evergreen State or any of the other recent campus race-based protests. The template for this is for students, faculty, or protestors “of color” and their White allies to unashamedly harass, scream and swear at, insult, and on occasion initiate force or threats of force against White individuals whom they accuse of being racist, insensitive, or merely insufficiently subservient.

Weinstein’s disapproval of and non-compliance with the Day of Absence was duly noted by a Black professor, Naima Lowe, and circulated to a group of students.

Read more

Staircase History and the Subprime Morality of the Nanking Massacre

/74 Comments/in /by
nanjing massacre

The Great Nanjing Massacre, by Zi Jian Li, 1992

The French have a term for it, L’esprit de l’escalier, or “staircase wit.” It means bright and witty sayings thought of too late as one is exiting a party. But history has its own “staircase” element as well, namely events that receive historical attention much later than they should if, as we are supposed to believe, they were so important to begin with.

A perfect example of this is the “Nanking Massacre” of 1937, now a much-contested historical event in the Sino-Japanese War (1937—45). The Chinese claim that the Japanese went on a brutal rampage resulting in 300,000 deaths. The Japanese claim they were responding to irregular troops in civilian clothing using guerrilla tactics, with a much lower death toll.

Even though this is now presented as a pivotal historical event and something that we are all supposed to know, the surprising thing is that, like the Jewish Holocaust from the same era (which began to be used to advance Jewish ethnic interests after the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and really only gained traction in the 1970s [here, p. 42ff]), it got off to a rather late start, becoming suddenly very, very important decades after it actually happened.

Not only had Clio the Muse of History descended the staircase before anything of importance had been written about this supposedly groundbreaking event, but she had climbed into her carriage, arrived home, and kicked off her shoes as well. If Nanking was so important surely it should have been broached at the first practical opportunity, say in the immediate post-war period. Of course it wasn’t, not by the Chinese nor by anyone else. As it was, the event had to wait until the publication of Iris Chang’s best seller The Rape of Nanking in 1997 to really get its historical marching boots on — a full 60 years after the event! Some staircase! Read more

Why is Europe Rejecting Nationalism?

/42 Comments/in , /by

Based on the outcome of the Brexit referendum and Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, many began to hope that a wave of right wing populism would sweep across the West.  This, unfortunately, has not been the case.  Instead, 2016 and 2017 have showed, for now at least, that Europe will consider but ultimately reject nationalism.  I’d have to reluctantly agree with a Washington Post article, “A specter is haunting Europe — the specter of nationalism.  For now, though, it’s mostly just that: a specter. It hasn’t been able to move beyond its phantasmological form and actually take power outside of Hungary and Poland.”

It is all too true that nationalism in Europe remains only an apparition which tantalizes us with every election only to dissipate with the victory of yet another internationalist shill for global special interests.  Nationalism was rejected in Austria, the Netherlands, and of course in France.  In the UK, nationalism was “accepted” in the form of the Brexit referendum, but Theresa May’s government is certainly not an authentic British nationalism.

Across the European continent, nationalist candidates have been routinely losing national elections.  Austria’s Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party failed to win the Austrian Presidency in a painfully close election, The Netherlands’s Geert Wilders of the Party for Freedom styled himself as the European Donald Trump and had an equally dazzling coif of hair, but got only 13% in the Dutch election, and France’s fiery Marine Le Pen of the National Front ultimately lost in a landslide to an ex-Goldman Sachs executive. Read more

Review: The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam by Douglas Murray

/97 Comments/in , /by

The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam
Douglas Murray
Bloomsbury Continuum, 2017

I finished reading Douglas Murray’s The Strange Death of Europe just 24 hours before a Libyan Muslim detonated an explosive device at the exit of an arena in Manchester, sending arrows of shrapnel into dozens of concert-goers and confirming, in an instant, every one of Murray’s arguments. Timely, erudite, and needed, The Strange Death of Europe is the story of European cultural and racial ‘assisted suicide,’ with a focus on the effects of ongoing mass immigration from Africa, the Indian sub-continent, and the Middle East. This is a book that, in terms of its central arguments and pool of facts, will say nothing new to those on the Alt Right. In this movement we live our lives with the burden of truly painful knowledge. We know that our current course will lead only to dispossession and destruction. Everything about the contemporary world suggests that we are a generation born either to witness the end of our great race, or to orchestrate its most stunning and earth-shattering rebirth. This book offers nothing in terms of assisting the latter, but in terms of its contribution to an understanding of the former, its unique strength may be said to lie in the concise, compelling, and clear-headed manner in which it advances the thesis that multiculturalism is a death sentence on Europe. Murray’s book is a forceful refutation of the lie that we are ‘progressing’ to a better European future, taking the theme of impending European death to a mass audience, particularly in Britain where the book climbed to number three in both the Sunday Times and UK Amazon bestseller lists, and sold out in numerous branches of the country’s largest high street book merchant. Despite ubiquitous socio-political conditioning, there is clearly a hunger for dissenting speech.

Murray opens with the stark statement: “Europe is committing suicide,” soon refined into the more nuanced argument that Europe’s political leaders, together with a complicit media, are in the process of taking their populations down the road of ethnic and cultural annihilation. The apparent acquiescence of European populations in this diabolical journey is ascribed by Murray to a number of factors. Europe has lost faith in its beliefs, traditions and legitimacy. It is in the midst of an “existential tiredness.” At the heart of this loss of direction and sense of self is the imposition of a cult of guilt — a cult that has grown weed-like from the fertile soil of Holocaust and slavery narratives advanced by the enemies of our people. Murray remarks that “More than any other continent or culture in the world today, Europe is now deeply weighed down with guilt for its past.” Read more

Manchester Malady: Traitors Lie, Children Die

/1 Comment/in , /by

“Diversity is indeed a strength, not a threat.” That’s a line from the Queen’s Christmas message in 2004. “I love the diversity of London — I just feel comfortable.” That’s a line from the former immigration minister Barbara Roche in 2011. “Our priority as a government must always be to keep people safe.” That’s a line from the British Home Secretary Amber Rudd in 2017.

Liberal fantasy: “Peace + Love Manchester”

Racial and religious enrichment

All three women are suicide-mommas promoting an insane and deadly liberalism. All of them bear some responsibility for the suicide-bombing in Manchester on 22nd May 2017. But give Barbara Roche her due: unlike the other two, she was speaking the truth. She does indeed love an atomized society, because it fulfils her deepest political ambition: “to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” Roche is Jewish and feels paranoid in a homogeneous White society. That’s why she worked so hard to open Britain’s borders to the Third World under the traitorous Tony Blair.

And if the glorious project of racial and religious enrichment goes wrong, Barbara can always seek refuge in Israel, where her Jewish identity gives her an automatic right of citizenship. But let’s suppose that Salman Abedi, the British citizen responsible for the Manchester vibrancy, had wanted to take a short holiday in Israel to soak up some sun and enjoy some of that famous Israeli courtesy and charm.

Unpleasant reality: Robo-cops to combat vibrancy

Would he have been granted a tourist visa? No, not a chance. He was on terrorist watch-lists maintained by both British and American intelligence, so we can be absolutely certain that Israel would have refused him entry. Israel would also have refused his Libyan parents entry if they’d tried to claim asylum as refugees when they escaped the Gaddafi regime. Israel’s government really does make it a “priority” “to keep people safe.” Read more