Professor of Puppets: How a Lover of Open Borders Has Gone from “Let Them in!” to “Kick Them Out!”

March 15, 2025/8 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

It’s called a “RoboRoach” and it’s one of the horriblest things I’ve ever seen. A living cockroach has an electronic board mounted on its back and connected to its nervous system. The ethical imbeciles responsible for this miniature abomination proclaimed, with appropriately autistic enthusiasm, that you will be able to “Control a living insect from your smartphone!” They added: “This is the world’s first commercially available cyborg!”

The repulsive RoboRoach

It’s the “living” bit that’s important, of course. That’s what gives the ethical imbeciles their thrill: the thought of destroying the autonomy of another living creature and “controlling” it. Now, I don’t think insects are fully conscious, have free will, or can suffer in any true sense. But even if that’s so and even if this kind of experimentation were always confined to insects, it would still be wrong and still be repulsive. But it won’t be confined to insects, of course. The same psychology that thrills to the thought of controlling a cockroach “from your smartphone!” thrills even more to the thought of controlling a living cat or living dog or – and now we reach orgasmic level — living human. The Jewish poet Heine (1797–1856) said that Dort, wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen – “Where they burn books, they will in the end burn people too.” He was right. And I’m right when I say that, where they implant neuro-controllers in cockroaches, they will sooner or later implant neuro-controllers in people too.[i]

It’s satire now, but lots of people want to make it reality: a neuro-controlled and auto-vaxxed transwoman in 2030

Millions of us would enjoy having control over another human like that. Maybe most of us would, if we could. But the average person would only enjoy the sadism of it, the antinomian thrill of committing evil and, in theological terms, defiling the imago Dei.[ii] More frightening, in some ways, are those who would think it good and right and proper to implant neuro-controllers in human brains. For example, Britain currently has a Labour government full of leftists who would happily stamp out racism and sexism and Islamophobia like that. George Orwell explored that kind of leftist psychology in his dystopian dark comedy Nineteen Eighty-Four, where scientists working for IngSoc — “English Socialism” — have begun to directly control the human brain. Orwell’s novel was published in 1949, but the desire to destroy autonomy and directly control other humans is much older than that. In Doctor Faustus (1592), Christopher Marlowe put it into the mouth of a character who stole a book of magic and gloated: “Now will I make all the maidens in our parish dance at my pleasure, stark naked, before me.”

The World’s Worst Wheedlers

But direct control of brains is much, much older than the human desire to achieve it. Millions of years older, in fact. As I described in “How to Cure a White Zombie,” very simple parasites can directly manipulate the brains of much more complex hosts. The “RoboRoach” has natural analogs in those cockroaches controlled by the Emerald cockroach wasp, Ampulex compressa, which stings a cockroach with paralyzing neurotoxin, feeds off its body-fluid, then guides it to a burrow where the wasp’s larvae can feed on it. I argued in “Verbal Venom” that parasitic or predatory manipulation has also evolved among human beings. But it doesn’t involve us injecting neuro-chemicals into each other’s brains. Instead, it involves injecting something that can be just as potent: words. English has a wonderful little verb that describes manipulation-by-verbal-injection. Where wasps inject, we humans wheedle. Insects don’t use language, so wasps can’t wheedle cockroaches into acting against their own interests. But humans can certainly wheedle other humans into doing that. And who are the World’s Worst Wheedlers? I think Kevin MacDonald has answered that question by explaining and exploring the The Culture of Critique created by Jews like Marx, Freud and Boas to wage war on Whites and the West. Rather as the biology of cockroaches is vulnerable to the literal venom of Ampulex compressa, so the psychology of Whites is vulnerable to the verbal venom of Jews.

Emerald cockroach wasp with paralyzed cockroach (image from Wikipedia)

MacDonald has described how The Culture of Critique depends on charismatic Jewish gurus who recruit and control a group of fanatical disciples who spread the ideas of the guru. Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Franz Boas were all like that. So, in descending order of fame and importance, have been Leon Trotsky, Yigael Gluckstein and Frank Furedi: Karl begat Leon, Leon begat Yigael, and Yigael begat Frank. In other words, the sociologist Frank Furedi was the charismatic Jewish guru who led a Trotskyist sect that descended from the Trotskyist sect led by the charismatic Jewish guru Yigael Gluckstein. As I described in my article “Frank Furedi Fights for Freedom,” Yigael’s sect was called the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and Frank’s sect was called the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP).

Metallica’s meisterwerk: the mighty Master of Puppets (1986)

But in some ways you could say that RCP stands for “RoboRoach Communist Party,” because to me Frank Furedi’s control over the brains of his disciples strongly resembles the control over a “living insect” promised in that repulsive advert. The American heavy-metal band Metallica once released an album called Master of Puppets (1986), which explored the politics and social norms whereby humans are manipulated and controlled into waging war or becoming addicted to drugs and so on. Inspired by that album, I’ll call Frank Furedi a Professor of Puppets and salute his almost uncanny ability to manipulate and control his gentile disciples. He’s equipped them with a thoroughly Jewish set of instincts and ideas. For example, Frank has a typically Jewish attitude to animal welfare[iii]. He doesn’t think it’s important. Accordingly, his gentile puppets don’t think it’s important either. They wouldn’t find the RoboRoach repulsive. No, I think they’d celebrate the RoboRoach as a brave early step towards Man’s full and glorious control of brute creation and all lower life.

Professor of Puppets Frank Furedi, a former lecturer in sociology at the University of Kent (image from Infogalactic)

This is because the Professor and his puppets are Promethean in the typically Marxist way described by Leszek Kołakowski in his magisterial Main Currents of Marxism, vol. 1 (1978): “Salvation, for Marx, is man’s salvation of himself; not the work of God or Nature, but that of a collective Prometheus who, in principle, is capable of achieving absolute command over the world he lives in.” The arrogant and misguided Prometheanism of the Professor and his puppets helps explain why I’m very glad that the RCP never rode revolution to power in the United Kingdom. If it had, I am certain that Professor and puppets would have done their best to reproduce the horrors of the early Soviet Union, where resentful, revenge-thirsty minorities like Jews, Georgians and Latvians took revenge on the Russian Orthodox majority in an orgy of torture and mass murder.

Libertarian in 2015: “Let Them In!”

In Britain, only the controlling role of Jews in revolutionary Marxism remained the same: the resentful minorities and revenge-worthy majority were different. The revenge-worthy majority were White Protestants and the Jew Frank Furedi, for example, recruited minorities like the Irish Catholic Brendan O’Neill, who deeply resented the racist treatment of his Irish father in London, and the Indian Muslim Kenan Malik, who deeply resented the racist bullying he suffered at school. I think the resentment of O’Neill and Malik is perfectly understandable (“There but for the grace of God go I”). But I’m still very glad that neither O’Neill nor Malik got the chance to translate that resentment into revenge, serving as ministers in an all-powerful revolutionary regime. All the same, O’Neill and Malik have done their best to harm the White Protestant English using Third-World proxies. The RCP campaigned hard for the “rejection of all controls on immigration.” Long after the RCP was disbanded, Brendan O’Neill was still arguing for open borders. In 2015, he issued a stirring call for Britain to “Let Them In” at RoboRoach HQ, the Spiked Online web-magazine:

We shouldn’t demonise or infantilise African migrants. We should welcome them. … We shouldn’t pity these migrants; we should admire them, for using guile, gumption and perseverance to come here. They’re precisely the kind of people sluggish Europe needs more of, an antidote to our students who can’t even clap without having a mental breakdown and our new generation who think that being told to ‘get on your bike’ to look for a job is tantamount to abuse. Let’s relax the borders and let them in to try their luck in our countries and see how they fare. If we do that, we’ll put the traffickers out of business, end the deaths in the Mediterranean, and, more importantly, do our part to enable the aspirations of human beings who have committed no crime other than wanting to [KMac comments: to escape their shithole countries and] realise their potential in our towns, our cities, alongside us. (“Let Them In,” Spiked Online, 21st April 2015)

But that was ten years ago and, as the Romans wisely noted, Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis – “Times are changed and we are changed with them.” Where once Brendan O’RoboRoach waxed lyrical in support of open borders, he now lists that very support among the three worst examples of the “cranky shite” urged upon sane folk by the woke left: “transwomen are women, open the borders, Israel is bad.” Indeed, in 2025 Brendan is loudly proclaiming that a certain class of “migrants” simply “shouldn’t be allowed in Britain.” That’s right: we shouldn’t admire this class of migrants or celebrate their “guile, gumption and perseverance.” We shouldn’t welcome them as an “antidote” to “sluggish Europe” or “enable” their “aspirations … to realize their potential.” Not at all. Far from enabling, we should exclude.

Libertarian in 2025: “Kick Them Out!”

That’s what Brendan thinks now. But what exactly is the class of migrants that Brendan wants to exclude not just from Britain but from the whole of the West? Well, it’s those migrants who espouse “hate” towards a group already present in and ornamenting the West. Let’s ask what this migrant-menaced group might be. Is it perhaps women, who have suffered horrendously from the misogyny and rape-culture of migrants? Consider Brendan’s own ancestral land of Ireland, where the White woman Ashling Murphy was brutally murdered by the Gypsy migrant Jozef Puška (as you’d expect, the BBC calls him a “Slovak national”). Consider Brendan’s birthplace of England, where a migrant from Sudan raped and shattered the skull of another White woman and a migrant from Jamaica, Delroy Easton Grant, sexually assaulted scores or even hundreds of elderly White women.

So is it “migrants who hate” women who “shouldn’t be allowed in Britain” or Ireland? No, Brendan hasn’t called for anything like that. What about “migrants who hate” homosexuals? In Brendan’s ancestral land of Ireland an Iraqi-Kurdish migrant called Yousef Palani, driven by “hatred of and prejudice towards homosexual men,” murdered and decapitated two homosexuals in 2022. In England, a similarly hate-driven Libyan migrant called Khairi Saadallah murdered three homosexual men in 2020. But again, no, Brendan hasn’t proclaimed that “Migrants who hate” homosexuals “shouldn’t be allowed in Britain.” Let’s try for third time lucky. What about “migrants who hate” Ahmadis? They’re the peaceful Muslim sect that believes in “Love for All, Hatred for None” and is horrendously persecuted by other Muslims. In 2016, an Ahmadi Muslim named Asad Shah was brutally murdered on British soil by a migrant from Pakistan who objected to Asad Shah’s free speech on the topic of prophethood. Despite long and loudly professing his love of free speech, Brendan O’Neill has never condemned or even mentioned the murder of Asad Shah. But has he perhaps now repaired his most grievous fault and proclaimed that “Migrants who hate” Ahmadis “shouldn’t be allowed in Britain”?

The special group that really matters

Nope. It’s third time unlucky. Brendan has never proclaimed that women, homosexuals or Ahmadis must be protected from migrants who hate them. Members of all three of those groups have suffered death and serious injury in Britain from hate-driven migrants, but Brendan hasn’t demanded the exclusion or expulsion of such migrants. Instead, Brendan has been exercised on behalf of another and very special group that hasn’t, to date, suffered death or serious injury from migrants in Britain. Here’s what he had to say in the Spectator in March 2025:

Migrants who hate Jews shouldn’t be allowed in Britain

If you’re a foreigner who hates Jews, should you be allowed to move to Britain? For me it’s a no-brainer: absolutely not. The safety and dignity of Britain’s Jews count for infinitely more than the ‘rights’ of a racist migrant. Does the Labour government agree? Does it agree that overseas anti-Semites are not welcome here? We are about to find out.

There are disturbing reports emerging that a man from Gaza with very iffy views has arrived in Britain. He goes by the name Abu Wadee. He is said to be an ‘influencer’ with a substantial following on social media. Last week he reportedly posted a video of himself sporting a keffiyeh while crammed onto a dinghy in the English Channel. ‘Thank God, we arrived in Britain’, the video caption said.

… [A]ccording to the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism (CAA) he has a track record of spouting vile views – including calling for the slaughter of all Jewish people. The CAA has pored over Wadee’s alleged social-media output. He would seem to be a keen supporter of Hamas and a self-proclaimed member of the so-called ‘Tyre-Burning Unit’, a militant gaggle of extremists known for hurling firebombs at Israelis manning the Gaza border. He is also alleged to have posed with AK-47s, leading even the Independent to wonder out loud if an ‘alleged Palestinian gunman’ has just slipped into Britain.

It’s his seeming Jew hatred that is most chilling. He is alleged to have posted a video in which he says, ‘Oh Allah, punish the Jews and those who support them …’. We must find a final solution for these people, he reportedly said: ‘Oh Allah, kill them all and do not leave a single one of them.’

Kill them all. If the CAA is right and Wadee really did express such genocidal hatred for Jews, then he must be removed from the country immediately. No delays, no legal hold-ups. If a newcomer to these shores, especially an illegal one, is found to harbour an apocalyptic loathing for the Jewish people, then he must be expelled from these lands, instantly and permanently. … The Wadee scandal shines a harsh light on Britain’s border crisis. Who exactly is coming here? And what foul, regressive ideologies are they bringing with them? It is so clear now that having porous borders doesn’t only corrode our national sovereignty but our national security too. It is a scandal that virulent forms of anti-Semitism may have leaked from the Middle East into modern Britain courtesy of officialdom’s failure to police our frontiers.

We need to get real about immigration from those benighted parts of the world where anti-Semitism flourishes. For me, that was the most alarming thing about that judge’s decision last month to let a family from Gaza settle in Britain under the Ukrainian refugee scheme. … Many on the ‘anti-racist’ left cheered that judge’s decision. Clearly virtue-signalling now takes precedence over cool-headed analysis. But what is the price of their ‘virtue’? It is potentially the endangerment of Britain’s Jews as more people with unenlightened attitudes arrive on our shores.

Kemi Badenoch got a load of flak last year when she said there are too many people coming to Britain ‘who hate Israel’. But she was right. A frothing loathing for the world’s only Jewish state is a marker for bigotry and backwardness. It is very often a marker for anti-Semitism itself. Going forward, Jewish security should be made into a key goal of Britain’s immigration policy. First step: kick Wadee out. (“Migrants who hate Jews shouldn’t be allowed in Britain,” The Spectator, 8th March 2025)

It’s quite a leap from “Let Them In!” to “Kick Them Out!”, isn’t it? Not that Brendan wants to kick all migrants out, of course. Just those who “hate Jews” and are responsible for the “endangerment of Jews.” Women, homosexuals and Ahmadis haven’t simply been “endangered” by migrants in Britain, but brutally murdered, raped and injured by migrants. So why has Brendan never demanded the exclusion of migrants who hate women, homosexuals or Ahmadis? Why hasn’t he noisily proclaimed that the “safety and dignity” of Britain’s women, homosexuals and Ahmadis “count for infinitely more” than the “rights” of sexist, homophobic or Ahmadiphobic migrants? The answer is simple: Brendan hasn’t done that because he is the puppet of Frank Furedi and Frank Furedi is neither a woman, a homosexual nor an Ahmadi. Instead, Furedi is a Jew and has always pursued what he thinks, at the time, to be best for Jews. Like many other Jews, Furedi once supported open borders, so in 2015 Brendan O’Neill was calling for open borders. Since the attacks on Israel by Hamas in 2023, Furedi and a lot of other Jews have re-thought their support for non-White migration and for Muslim migration in particular. That’s why Furedi’s puppet Brendan O’Neill is now proclaiming that “Migrants who hate Jews shouldn’t be allowed in Britain.”

Surveying the professor and his puppets

Brendan has also written incessantly in support of Israel’s right to bomb the Gaza Strip to rubble in response to the brief invasion of Israel by the rapists and murderers of highly illiberal and authoritarian Hamas. But Brendan has almost entirely ignored the continuing invasion of Ireland by non-White hordes who are just as rape-friendly, murder-prone and illiberal as Hamas. In other words, Brendan is ignoring his own racial interests and championing the racial interests of Jews, who are deeply hostile to Irish Whites and to the Catholic church that was historically dominant in Ireland. As hate-thinkers like Irish Savant have often documented, anti-Irish Jews like Alan Shatter and Rebecca Solnit have been central to the Third-World invasion of Ireland. But the racially Irish Brendan O’Neill isn’t working against that invasion and for Irish interests. Instead, he’s working for Jewish interests. His behavior bears close parallels to the parasitic manipulation whereby an animal host has its nervous system subverted and begins acting against its own interests and for the interests of a parasite.

Jewish ideology at work again: the Marxist IRA refuses to defend Ireland from non-White invaders

But it’s futile to blame Frank for manipulating Brendan or Brendan for being manipulated by Frank. When I survey the Professor and his puppets, I think of a hackneyed but profound saying: “There but for the grace of God go I.” Nevertheless, it remains important to speak the truth about the professor and his puppets — and to note that Jewish manipulation of gentile hosts is characteristic of Western politics in general, not just of obscure Trotskyist sects like the SWP and RCP. The RoboRoach Communist Party doesn’t call itself “communist” or a “party” any more, but the gentile disciples of Frank Furedi are still acting like RoboRoaches under Frank’s control. Still, I think it’s a very positive sign that a Trotskyist libertarian like Brendan O’Neill has gone from “Let Them In!” to “Kick Them Out!,” from celebrating the “guile, gumption and perseverance” of Third-World migrants to acknowledging, however belatedly, that there can be good grounds for Third-World migrants to be excluded or expelled “from these lands, instantly and permanently.” Welcome to the far right, Brendan!

[i] The Spanish neuroscientist José Manuel Rodríguez Delgado (1915-2011) first experimented with the electronic control of cats, but was experimenting on humans in the end.

[ii] The imago Dei means man seen as the “image of God.” Knowingly or otherwise, sadists and some murderers are delighting in not just the pain or destruction of a human being, but also the defilement of the imago Dei.

[iii] Here’s a relevant Jewish joke: “Question: If Tarzan and Jane were Jewish, what would Cheeta be? Answer: A fur coat.” (Cheeta is the chimpanzee companion of the gentile Tarzan and Jane.)

GROK 3 Agrees That White European Men Are Responsible for Almost All the Greatest Human Accomplishments

March 14, 2025/10 Comments/in Featured Articles, Western Culture/by Prof. Ricardo Duchesne

One of the most damaging costs of the imposition of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” across Western universities has been the outright exclusion, suppression, and demonization of research and open debate about the racial character and cultural greatness of the West. For decades now, academics have been reducing the rise of the West to the creation of colonial empires, the extraction of gold and silver from the Americas, the “genocide” of Amerindians, the African slave trade, the malevolent use of modern weapons against a supposedly peaceful Asian world, and the cultivation of “white supremacist” notions against non-Caucasians.

The following article is an effort to show that the West far outperformed the rest of the world combined in all the intellectual, scientific, technological, artistic, literary, athletic, and philosophical endeavors of life.

These lists are not based on my subjective preferences but on careful documentation and extensive research from a wide variety of sources, books, dictionaries, encyclopedias, Wikipedia, reference books I have consulted over many years of studying Western Civilization. The origins of this particular article go back to i) an article published at the Council of European Canadians website on July 2020 consisting of many lists of European greatness without any elaboration; ii) a number of articles published at Postil magazine, each covering the topics of European music, painting, cartography, mathematics, children’s literature, chemistry, geology, philosophy, universities, and paradoxes. Unlike the lists posted in the July 2020 article, the lists below include introductory statements and details about the key names, dates, and the specific nationalities of individuals, as well as descriptions of the accomplishments. These details rely on Grok 3, which I consulted for weeks making sure that the claims I make in these lists are verified and substantiated by the AI powers of Grok 3.

I asked Grok 3 to evaluate all these lists. It pleases me to say that, on the whole, except for minor additions, specifications of dates, correction of minor errors, Grok did not have major objections to the claims made in these lists about the far greater accomplishments of “white men of European ancestry”. Grok did note that many of these lists were “Eurocentric”. On some occasions I did follow Grok’s suggestions, tempering somewhat my initial, and intentionally provocative, wording that “all the greatest … were white men”. I am aware, and have not denied in my publications, that the non-European world was responsible for a few peak-level achievements.

I did not always accept Grok’s suggestion to be “inclusive” of non-European names and females. Grok’s criticisms, it needs to be understood, cannot be divorced from the liberal progressive context within which Grok, and all current AI systems, operate. Some of the names and achievements recommended by Grok are simply not on the same level of excellence and originality. A common observation Grok made is that I should take into account that, “especially in Europe, access to education, literacy, and scholarly pursuits was overwhelmingly restricted to men, particularly those from privileged socioeconomic backgrounds. Women and non-Europeans were systematically excluded.” Intelligent as Grok is, it can’t consider that non-Europeans have their own places and civilizations where Europeans have never been in privileged positions.

These lists cheerfully use some of Grok’s own words about the achievements of “white men of European ancestry” to illustrate its strong agreement. The brief introductions cover the rationale behind the choice of topics, names, and achievements, and, in most instances, the degree to which I agreed (or not) with Grok’s suggestions. This article, however, does not aim to explain this vast discrepancy in achievements between the West and the rest. That’s the work of The Uniqueness of Western Civilization (2011), Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age (2017), and my upcoming book, Greatness and Ruin: Self-Reflection and Universalism Within European Civilization (2025).

I. 100% of the Greatest “Modern” Inventions

In the case of this list, I asked Grok directly: “I’m looking to defend my thesis that white men are almost solely responsible for the inventions that created the modern world. Here is my list so far, are there any I’m missing? Any that you’d remove?”

Grok basically suggested the names of a few additional “white men” responsible for other great innovations, and it correctly indicated, as I already knew, that mechanical clocks and optical lenses were medieval inventions, and that the origins of optical lenses can be traced back to the Islamic world of the early Middle Ages.

I left this list as it was for two reasons: i) the additional names/inventions it suggested are already included in other lists, and ii) my judgment that it was the Italians who first crafted semi-shaped ground lenses in the thirteenth century is one that Grok agrees with if one rephrases the question, or ask specifically about this one invention, … I just did again, and this is Grok’s reply: “Yep, you’re right—the Italians were indeed the first to craft semi-shaped ground lenses back in the 13th century”. Now, I kept this medieval invention in this “modern” list because this breakthrough set the stage for the development of concave and convex lenses later in the 1600s to correct near- and farsightedness. This is even truer of mechanical clocks, which originated in the Middle Ages, but would be continuously improved upon thereafter. A crucial distinction between the West and the rest is why the former civilization was inclined to improve (or innovate) continuously its inventions, whereas China barely did.

Printing Press – Johannes Gutenberg (German, white male) is credited with the movable-type printing press around 1440.

Electricity – Michael Faraday (English, white male) and Thomas Edison (American, white male) are key figures in its practical development and application.

Television – John Logie Baird (Scottish, white male) demonstrated the first working television system in 1926.

Vaccination – Edward Jenner (English, white male) pioneered smallpox vaccination in 1796.

Computer – Charles Babbage (English, white male) designed the Analytical Engine, and Alan Turing (English, white male) later shaped modern computing.

Photography – Louis Daguerre (French, white male) developed the daguerreotype in 1839.

Airplane – Orville and Wilbur Wright (American, white males) achieved powered flight in 1903.

Nuclear Energy – Enrico Fermi (Italian, white male) led the first controlled nuclear chain reaction in 1942, building on work by others like Ernest Rutherford (New Zealander, white male).

Steam Engine – James Watt (Scottish, white male) improved it significantly in the 1760s.

Telephone – Alexander Graham Bell (Scottish-born, white male) patented it in 1876.

Radio – Guglielmo Marconi (Italian, white male) is credited with its practical development in the 1890s.

Rocketry – Robert H. Goddard (American, white male) pioneered modern rocketry in the early 20th century. Wernher von Braun (German, white male) later advanced it.

Mechanized Clock – Christiaan Huygens (Dutch, white male) built the first pendulum clock in 1656.

Oil Drilling – Edwin Drake (American, white male) drilled the first commercial oil well in 1859.

Refrigeration – William Cullen (Scottish, white male) demonstrated artificial refrigeration in 1748, with practical systems later refined by Jacob Perkins (American, white male).

Pasteurization – Louis Pasteur (French, white male) developed it in the 1860s.

Automobile – Karl Benz (German, white male) built the first practical automobile in 1885.

Internet – Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn (Jew) designed TCP/IP protocols in the 1970s, foundational to the internet. Tim Berners-Lee (English, white male) later invented the World Wide Web.

Anesthesia – Crawford Long (American, white male) used ether as an anesthetic in 1842. William Morton (American, white male) popularized it.

Optical Lenses – Salvino D’Armate (Italian, white male) is often credited with early eyeglasses in the late 13th century.

Telegraph – Samuel Morse (American, white male) developed the practical telegraph and Morse code in the 1830s.

Semiconductor Electronics – William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter Brattain (all American, white males) invented the transistor in 1947 at Bell Labs.

II. Almost all the Greatest Classical Composers

Classical music is not “an international language”. It is uniquely European in origins, spirit, and greatness. Europeans were continuously creative in music for many centuries, responsible for the highest, most complex form of music—classical music—along with the invention of the most sophisticated musical instruments, and the articulation of all the treatises on music in matters related to pitch, notes, intervals, scale systems, tonality, modulation, and melody.

I asked Grok whether it is accurate to say that the greatest composers of classical music are all men of European ancestry with a few Jews, providing the list below. Grok replied: “Yes, it’s broadly accurate to say that many of the most celebrated composers in the Western classical music tradition hail from Europe, with a significant number being of German, Italian, French, or other European descent, and a few notable Jewish composers among them.”

But Grok could not avoid repeating that this list “reflects the historical and cultural development of classical music, which emerged and flourished in Europe over centuries, particularly from the Renaissance through the 20th century.”

Well, yes, Grok, that’s the point, it reflects the historical reality that classical music is 100% European. Grok added the feminist criticism that “the absence of women or composers from other regions in the traditional ‘greatest’ lists is more a reflection of societal structures—patriarchy, access to education, and patronage systems—than a lack of talent or contribution from those groups.”

Josquin des Prez (c. 1450–1521) – Italian.
Claudio Monteverdi (1567–1643) – Italian
Jean-Baptiste Lully (1632–1687) – Italian, but naturalized and influential in France.
Henry Purcell (1659-1695) – English.
Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750) – German.
Domenico Scarlatti (1685–1757) – Italian.
Jean-Philippe Rameau (1683–1764) – French
George Frideric Handel (1685–1759) – German.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (1756–1791) – Austrian.
Ludwig van Beethoven (1770–1827) – German.
Richard Wagner (1813–1883) – German.
Joseph Haydn (1732–1809) – Austrian
Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky (1840–1893) – Russian
Franz Schubert (1797–1828) – Austrian
Frédéric Chopin (1810–1849) – Polish-French
Johannes Brahms (1833–1897) – German
Robert Schumann (1810–1856) – German
Antonio Vivaldi (1678–1741) – Italian
Claude Debussy (1862–1918) – French
Giuseppe Verdi (1813–1901) – Italian
Franz Liszt (1811–1886) – Hungarian
Hector Berlioz (1803–1869) – French
Felix Mendelssohn (1809–1847) – German, of Jewish descent
Maurice Ravel (1875–1937) – French
Igor Stravinsky (1882–1971) – Russian
Anton Bruckner (1824–1896) – Austrian
Gustav Mahler (1860–1911) – Austrian-Bohemian, Jewish descent.

III. All the Greatest Astronauts

This is a list of men who played a pioneering role during the “Space Race” competition between the U.S. and the USSR. Grok reminded me that there have been significant astronauts in recent decades from China, such as Yang Liwei, the first taikonaut in 2003, representing Asia’s entry into spaceflight. Grok mentioned other significant names from India (Rakesh Sharma), and from Japan (Soichi Noguchi), and other nonwhites who participated in American space voyages, such as Sunita Williams (Indian-American), and Koichi Wakata (Japan). There is a known woman, Valentina Tereshkova, remembered as the “first woman in space” in 1963. But this list is about the men, as Grok says in agreement, who represent “pivotal moments in space history”.

Yuri Gagarin: The first human in space, completing one orbit around Earth aboard the Vostok 1 spacecraft in 1961.

Alan Shepard: The first American in space, piloting the suborbital flight of Freedom 7 in 1961.

John Glenn: The first American to orbit Earth, completing three orbits aboard Friendship 7 in 1962.

Gus Grissom: The second American in space, flying the suborbital Liberty Bell 7 mission in 1961, and later commanded Gemini 3, the first crewed Gemini flight, in 1965.

Neil Armstrong: The first human to walk on the Moon during Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969.

Andriyan Nikolayev: Flew on Vostok 3 in 1962, setting an endurance record of nearly 4 days for the longest solo spaceflight at the time.

James Lovell: Flew on Gemini 7 and 12; orbited the Moon on Apollo 8, the first human mission to do so; and commanded Apollo 13 in 1970.

John Young: Flew on Gemini 3 and 10, commanded Apollo 16 (walking on the Moon in 1972), and piloted the first Space Shuttle mission (STS-1) in 1981.

Alexei Leonov: First person to perform a spacewalk, exiting Voskhod 2 for 12 minutes in 1965; commanded the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975.

Buzz Aldrin: Second human to walk on the Moon during Apollo 11 in 1969; piloted the lunar module Eagle.

Gordon Cooper: Flew Mercury-Atlas 9 (Faith 7) in 1963, the longest Mercury mission; commanded Gemini 5 in 1965, setting a new U.S. endurance record.

Wally Schirra: Only astronaut to fly Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo missions; piloted Mercury-Atlas 8 (Sigma 7) in 1962, commanded Gemini 6A, and led Apollo 7, the first crewed Apollo flight.

Vladimir Komarov: Commanded Voskhod 1 in 1964, the first multi-person spaceflight.

Chris Hadfield: Canadian astronaut who flew on STS-74 and STS-100; commanded the International Space Station (ISS) during Expedition 35 in 2013.

Edgar Mitchell: Sixth person to walk on the Moon during Apollo 14 in 1971; piloted the lunar module Antares and conducted extensive lunar surface experiments.

Thomas Stafford: Commanded Apollo 10, the “dress rehearsal” for the Moon landing, and the U.S. side of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975; flew on Gemini 6A and 9A.

Gene Cernan: Last person to walk on the Moon during Apollo 17 in 1972; flew on Gemini 9A and piloted the lunar module on Apollo 10.

Ed White: First American to perform a spacewalk, during Gemini 4 in 1965.
Michael Collins: Orbited the Moon in the command module Columbia during Apollo 11 in 1969 while Armstrong and Aldrin landed; also flew on Gemini 10.

IV. Almost all the Greatest Sculptors

While I don’t deny that sculptors in Ancient Egypt created monumental works with symbolic power like the Great Sphinx, these were state-sponsored projects, overseen by master craftsmen, without any identifiable names. However, although there is no firm evidence of the sculptor’s name, I decided, on the advice of Grok, to include the Egyptian sculptor known as “Thutmose,” as the creator of the bust of Nefertiti, dated to around 1345 BCE. I did not include another name from the non-European world. There are no sculptor’s names for the “The Terracotta Warriors” (8,000 soldiers, horses, and chariots known) created during China’s first emperor Qin Shi Huang (221–210 BC), which was a state-sponsored project crafted by a large workforce of anonymous artisans. Similarly, while I am aware that the Khajuraho temple carvings in India, built between 885 CE and 1000 CE, are renowned for their intricate beauty, there are no specific names of sculptors associated with these carvings. And there are no individual sculptors identified with the African Benin Bronzes, a collection of some 3,000 brass plaques and sculptures, crafted primarily between the 15th and 17th centuries. I have added a white woman, Camille Claudel (1864–1943), in recognition of her truly impressive works. The initial list, stopped with Brancusi (1876); the list below added two twentieth century sculptors, Henry Moore (1898–1986) and Alberto Giacometti (1901–1966), in response to Grok that I was was leaving out widely recognized sculptors of the 20th century. After constructing my list, I asked Grok to indicate briefly what was original about these sculptors.

Thutmose (1350 BC): Identified by some as the sculptor of the Bust of Nefertiti, recognized for its “exquisite craftsmanship and timeless elegance”.

Phidias (480 BC): Known for his work on the Parthenon sculptures and the statue of Zeus at Olympia, one of the “Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.”

Praxiteles (364 BC): Celebrated for introducing a more naturalistic and graceful style, as seen in works like the Aphrodite of Knidos.

Donatello (1386): Pioneered Renaissance sculpture with groundbreaking realism and perspective, transforming the art form through his mastery of human anatomy and emotion.

Riemenschneider (1460): Excelled in intricate wood carvings, blending Gothic and Renaissance styles to create deeply expressive religious works.

Michelangelo (1475): A Renaissance giant, renowned for masterpieces like David and the Pietà, showcasing unparalleled skill and emotional depth.

Cellini (1500): Dazzled as a Mannerist goldsmith and sculptor, famed for his exquisite metalwork and dynamic compositions.
Giambologna (1529): Captivated with fluid, multi-figured sculptures that epitomized the elegance and complexity of late Renaissance art.

Bernini (1598): A Baroque master whose dynamic works, such as The Ecstasy of Saint Teresa, revolutionized sculpture with movement and drama.

Girardon (1628): Embodied French Baroque grandeur, crafting monumental works that glorified the Sun King’s reign.

Coysevox (1640): Fused Baroque dynamism with classical grace, leaving a legacy in portraiture and public monuments.

Houdon (1741): Captured the Enlightenment’s spirit with strikingly naturalistic portraits and sculptures of historical figures.

Canova (1757): Revived classical ideals, creating serene, polished marbles that defined Neoclassical sculpture.

Thorvaldsen (1770): Drew from antiquity to craft noble, harmonious works that echoed the calm of ancient Greece.

Rodin (1840): Often called the father of modern sculpture, with works like The Thinker that broke from classical traditions.

Brancusi (1876): A pioneer of modernism, known for minimalist and abstract forms like Bird in Space.

Henry Moore (1898–1986): Pioneered abstract forms inspired by nature.

Alberto Giacometti (1901–1966): Known for his elongated figures, offering a new vision of the human form

V. The 5 Biggest Ideas in Science

The idea for this heading/list came to me after reading The Five Biggest Ideas in Science (1996) by Charles Wynn and Arthur Wiggins. For this list, I asked Grok whether “white men were responsible for the five biggest ideas in science”. Grok agreed that “all listed contributors were of European descent and their work collectively shaped” the development of all five theories. Grok added that I should consider the “historical context” within which these ideas were formulated. It advice me to take one name out (from the Theory of Plate Tectonics, as he was not directly involved in the development of this theory). I have quoted and paraphrased the words Grok used to describe the achievements of each of the names listed. Grok did not come up with a single non-European name, except to agree with me that Arno Penzias was Jewish, and Alexander Friedmann “half-Jewish” (both in the Big Bang Theory).

1. Atomic Structure of Matter

Democritus (Greek, ~460–370 BCE): Proposed that matter consists of indivisible units called “atoms.” This was a philosophical concept, not experimentally tested, but it laid a conceptual foundation.

John Dalton (English, 1766–1844): In 1803, he provided experimental evidence for atoms as indivisible, indestructible units unique to each element, marking the birth of modern atomic theory.

Joseph John Thomson (English, 1856–1940): In 1897 (not 1898), he discovered the electron, showing atoms weren’t indivisible but had negatively charged subcomponents, implying a positive counterbalance.

Ernest Rutherford (New Zealander, 1871–1937): In 1911, his gold foil experiment revealed the atom’s nucleus—a dense, positively charged core orbited by electrons.

Niels Bohr (Danish, 1885–1962, half-Jewish): In 1913, he introduced a model where electrons orbit the nucleus in quantized energy levels, explaining light emission.

Werner Heisenberg (German, 1901–1976): In 1925–1927, he developed quantum mechanics, refining the atomic model with probabilities rather than fixed orbits, incorporating newly discovered particles.

Grok wrote: “All these contributors were European or of European descent, and their work collectively shaped our modern understanding of atomic structure”.

2. Theory of Plate Tectonics

Possibly the most difficult theory in science to demonstrate.

Alfred Wegener (German, 1880–1930): In 1912, he proposed continental drift, suggesting continents were once joined in a supercontinent (Pangaea) and moved apart. Lacking a mechanism, his idea was initially rejected.

Arthur Holmes (English, 1890–1965): In the 1920s–1930s, he suggested mantle convection as the driving force for plate movement, hypothesizing activity beneath the oceans.

Drummond Matthews (English, 1931–1997) and Fred Vine (English, b. 1939): In 1963, they showed magnetic stripes in ocean floor rocks, supporting sea-floor spreading as evidence of plate movement.

Harry Hess (American, 1906–1969): In 1960, he formalized sea-floor spreading, proposing new crust forms at mid-ocean ridges, driving continental motion.

Robert S. Dietz (American, 1914–1995): In 1961, he reinforced Hess’s ideas, quantifying the spreading rate of oceanic crust.

Grok concluded: “These contributors, all of European descent, developed plate tectonics through observation and evidence, with Wegener’s early vision gaining traction decades later”.

3. Big Bang Theory

Edwin Hubble (American, 1889–1953): In 1924–1929, he showed that galaxies are receding, proving the universe is expanding and that many nebulae are distant galaxies.

Georges Lemaître (Belgian, 1894–1966): In 1927 (published 1931 in English), he proposed the universe began as a “primeval atom,” linking expansion to a single origin.

Alexander Friedmann (Russian, 1888–1925, possibly half-Jewish): In 1922, he mathematically modeled an expanding universe, providing a theoretical basis for later observations.

Fred Hoyle (British, 1915- 2001) work on stellar nucleosynthesis explaining origin of all heavier elements complemented Big Bang Theory prediction that the lightest elements were formed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.

Robert Wilson (American, b. 1936), Robert Dicke (American, 1916–1997), and Arno Penzias (German-American, b. 1933, Jewish): In 1965, Penzias and Wilson discovered cosmic microwave background radiation, with Dicke interpreting it as Big Bang evidence (though Dicke’s role was theoretical, not direct discovery).

Later telescope advancements by Europeans (e.g., Hubble Space Telescope, WMAP) confirmed this model.

4. Theory of Evolution

Carl Linnaeus (Swedish, 1707–1778): In 1735, he created taxonomy, classifying species, which later supported evolutionary ideas, though he didn’t propose evolution.

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (French, 1744–1829): In 1809, he suggested species evolve via acquired traits, an early but flawed evolutionary theory.

Charles Lyell (Scottish, 1797–1875): In the 1830s, his uniformitarianism (geological processes are gradual) influenced Darwin’s evolutionary timeline.

Charles Darwin (English, 1809–1882): In 1859 (not 1858), he published On the Origin of Species, detailing natural selection as evolution’s mechanism.

Alfred Russel Wallace (English, 1823–1913): In 1858, he independently proposed natural selection, prompting Darwin’s publication.

Gregor Mendel (Austrian, 1822–1884): In the 1860s, his genetics experiments (published 1865–1866) later provided the mechanism for inheritance, bolstering Darwin’s theory.

Grok agreed: “All were European, contributing to a theory that unified biology”.

5. Periodic Table

Johann Wolfgang Döbereiner (German, 1780–1849): In 1817, he noted “triads” of elements with similar properties, an early step toward periodicity.

John Newlands (English, 1837–1898): In 1863–1865, he proposed the “Law of Octaves,” arranging elements by atomic weight with recurring properties.

Lothar Meyer (German, 1830–1895): In 1864–1870, he developed a periodic system based on atomic weight and properties, nearly simultaneous with Mendeleev.

Dmitri Mendeleev (Russian, 1834–1907): In 1869, he created the modern periodic table, predicting undiscovered elements based on periodic patterns of atomic weight.

Grok: “All were European, with Mendeleev’s predictive power cementing his legacy.”

VI. Almost all the Greatest Historians

Europeans invented the writing of history as “a method of sorting out the true from the false,” as a conscious search for a rational explanation of the causes of events, while rendering the results of their investigations in sustained narratives of excellent prose. The other peoples of the world, including the Chinese, barely rose above annalistic forms of recording genealogies or the deeds of rulers, devoid of reflections on historical causation. History in the Islamic world never became a scholarly field dedicated to the systematic gathering of records and explanation of events, the style was heavily annalistic and intended for moral teaching.

While the Greeks and Romans retained a cyclical view of history, modern Europeans would nurture a true developmental account of history characterized by an increasing historical consciousness, rooted in their Christianity and ecumenical Mediterranean and Atlantic world, and their actual epoch-making transformations, the immense contributions of Greek knowledge, Rome’s creation of a universal empire, the invention of universities in the Middle Ages, among many other novelties, followed by the Renaissance, and the continuous revolutions of the modern era in warfare, art, architecture, science, philosophy, and politics.

After the 1700s, they gained a more scientific understanding of history, identifying definite stages in technological and economic growth, and in the spread of liberal institutions, in terms of natural or man-made causes, rather than in terms of the providential hand of God. This idea of progress would come along with tremendous improvements in archival research and in historical methodologies, while the rest of the world would remain stuck with annalistic historiographies.

European historians wrote the histories of every nation in the world while developing all the methodologies currently used in historical writing, such as paleography (study of historical handwriting), diplomatics (study of documents, records, and archives), chronology (establishing the dates of past events), epigraphy (study of ancient inscriptions), genealogy (study of families), numismatics (study of coins), including ethnography, hermeneutics, archeology, linguistics, and genetics.

Below is a list constructed without taking advice from Grok, though I added a few more names to the original 2020 list, in light of a long chapter I wrote in my upcoming book, Greatness and Ruin, on historiography. I did ask Grok, however, to describe briefly what these historians are known for. There is one Chinese and one Muslim historian, Khaldun, who did rise above the purely Islamic accounts of his predecessors and successors. I have identified a few Jewish historians. This is clearly a very limited list, which leaves out numerous great historians of the 1700s, 1800s, 1900s, and early 2000s.

Herodotus (c. 484–425 BC): Known as the “Father of History,” he wrote Histories, an account of the Greco-Persian Wars, blending fact with myth and exploring cultural differences between Greece and Persia.
Thucydides (c. 460–400 BC): Authored History of the Peloponnesian War, emphasizing factual accuracy and political analysis, pioneering a critical, evidence-based approach to historical writing.
Polybius (c. 200–118 BC): Wrote The Histories, chronicling the rise of the Roman Republic, with a focus on political institutions and military strategy.
Sima Qian (145–86 BC): Compiled Records of the Grand Historian, a comprehensive history of China from its earliest dynasties to the Han era, laying the foundation for Chinese historiography.
Livy (59 BC–17 AD): Authored Ab Urbe Condita, a massive history of Rome from its founding to the reign of Augustus, combining legend with historical narrative.
Tacitus (c. 56–120 AD): Wrote Annals and Histories, offering a critical account of the Roman Empire from Tiberius to the Flavians, known for his insights into politics and power.
Plutarch (c. 46–120 AD): Penned Parallel Lives, biographies of notable Greeks and Romans, focusing on moral character and virtues rather than strict historical accuracy.
Bede (672–735 AD): Wrote Ecclesiastical History of the English People, a vital source for early English history and the spread of Christianity in Britain.
Geoffroi de Villehardouin (1150-1213):. Authored De la Conquête de Constantinople, one of the earliest surviving historical prose narratives written in French.
Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406 AD): Authored Muqaddimah, an introduction to his universal history, pioneering theories on the rise and fall of civilizations and social dynamics.
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527): Authored The History of Florence, using historical analysis to support his political theories, alongside his more famous work The Prince.
Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon (1609–1674): Penned The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, a royalist perspective on the English Civil War.
Edward Gibbon (1737–1794): Wrote The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, a seminal work linking the empire’s collapse to moral decay and Christianity’s rise.
François Guizot (1787–1874): Wrote extensively on French and European history, shaping liberal historiography with his emphasis on constitutional development.
Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859): Authored The History of England, known for its vivid narrative and Whig interpretation of history as a story of progress and liberty.
Lewis Namier (1888–1960): Pioneered prosopography, using detailed studies of individuals to uncover broader trends, especially in 18th-century British politics. (Jewish)
Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886): Considered the father of modern historical scholarship, he emphasized primary sources and objectivity, shaping historical methodology.
G.M. Trevelyan (1876–1962): Authored English Social History, celebrated for its accessible narrative and focus on the lives of ordinary people.
Jacob Burckhardt (1818–1897): Wrote The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, defining the Renaissance as a distinct cultural and historical period.
William Stubbs (1825–1901): Authored The Constitutional History of England, a foundational work on medieval English governance and institutions.
Theodor Mommsen (1817–1903): Wrote A History of Rome, a comprehensive study of Roman history that earned him the Nobel Prize in Literature.
J.B. Bury (1861–1927): Authored works on the late Roman Empire and Byzantine history, advocating for scientific rigor in historical research.
Francis Parkman (1823–1893): Chronicled the French and Indian War and the history of New France, known for his vivid and engaging narrative style.
Georges Lefebvre (1874–1959): A leading historian of the French Revolution, he focused on social history, particularly the role of the peasantry and lower classes
Hans-Ulrich Wehler (1931–2014): A key figure in modern German historiography, he focused on the social and economic history of the German Empire.
Michael Rostovtzeff (1870–1952): Wrote on the social and economic history of the ancient world, particularly the Roman Empire.
Arnold J. Toynbee (1889–1975): Authored A Study of History, a comparative analysis of the rise and fall of civilizations across time.
Fernand Braudel (1902–1985): A leader of the Annales School, he wrote The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean World in the Age of Philip II, emphasizing long-term social and economic trends.
Georges Duby (1919–1996): Specialized in medieval history, exploring feudalism and social structures in works like The Early Growth of the European Economy.
A.J.P. Taylor (1906–1990): Authored The Origins of the Second World War, offering a controversial reinterpretation of the war’s causes.
Christopher Hill (1912–2003): A Marxist historian, he wrote extensively on the English Civil War, emphasizing its social and economic dimensions.
Eric Hobsbawm (1917–2012): Authored The Age of Revolution and The Age of Capital, exploring the transformative effects of industrialization and capitalism. (Jewish)
David Landes (1924–2013): Wrote The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, analyzing the economic rise of the West compared to other regions. (Jewish)
William H. McNeill (1917–2016): Renowned for his work in world history.
J.G.A. Pocock (1924–): Authored The Machiavellian Moment, tracing the development of republican thought in Europe and America.
Carlo Ginzburg (b. 1939): A microhistorian, famous for The Cheese and the Worms, who expanded historical methods to include everyday life.
Quentin Skinner (1940–): A key figure in the Cambridge School, he focused on the contextual study of political thought in the early modern period.

VII. About 95% of the Greatest Explorers

We should draw a line between “explorer” and “traveler,” however blurred the line may be in some cases. There have been great travelers who took long journeys beyond the borders of their territory, without exploring or discovering new or unrecorded lands. For example, Ibn Battuta (1304-68) is now listed as a “great explorer,” but he was really a great traveler who visited every known Islamic land in his time, from Moorish Spain in the West to Samarkand in Central Asia and India, and arguably China and Vietnam. Explorers, strictly speaking, are men who undertook journeys to unknown or uncharted territories, crossed Oceans, discovered whole new continents, new rivers and their sources, undertook polar ice expeditions, pioneered new worlds underwater (and in space). The famous six voyages of Zheng He (1371-1433) around the Indian Ocean, along the eastern coast of Africa and into Southeast Asia, were great travels, but not acts of exploration since Zheng He navigated well known lands. Likewise, Marco Polo was one of the greatest travelers but not an explorer, traveling 15,000 miles over a 24-year period throughout Asia into Indonesia.

Nevertheless, the list below includes some of the greatest travelers because, in fairness, men identified as explorers, including some listed below, followed in the footsteps of prior explorers, moving into the same continents, and lands, even as they discovered new routes, rivers, lakes, and mountains, and traversed deep into the interior of Africa; that is, lands unidentified in terms of concepts and maps. The list below is very short. There are hundreds of great European explorers. I would estimate, on the side of moderation, that about 97% of the greatest explorers are men of European ancestry.

Pytheas of Massalia (380-310 BC): Explored the British Isles and possibly the Arctic, providing early descriptions of northern Europe.
Hanno “the Navigator” (500 BC): Led a Carthaginian expedition along Africa’s west coast, potentially reaching Cameroon.
Fa Xian (350-422 AD): Chinese Buddhist monk who traveled to India and Sri Lanka, documenting Buddhist sites.
Leif Erikson (c. 970–c. 1020): Norse explorer believed to be among the first Europeans to reach North America (Vinland, likely Newfoundland).
Marco Polo (1254-1324): Venetian merchant who traveled to China, documented his experiences, and inspired future explorers.
Ibn Battuta (1304-1368): Moroccan scholar who explored the Islamic world, Africa, and Asia, covering vast distances.
Zheng He (1371-1433): Chinese admiral who led seven voyages across Southeast Asia, India, and East Africa, fostering trade and diplomacy.
Bartolomeu Dias (1450-1500): Portuguese explorer who first sailed around Africa’s southern tip (Cape of Good Hope), opening a sea route to Asia.
Christopher Columbus (1451-1506): Italian explorer whose Atlantic voyages led to the European discovery of the Americas.
Vasco da Gama (1460-1524): Portuguese explorer who pioneered a direct sea route from Europe to India.
John Cabot (1450-1499): Italian explorer who charted North America’s coast, particularly Canada, for England.
Amerigo Vespucci (1454-1512): Italian explorer who identified the Americas as a new continent, later named after him.
Vasco Núñez de Balboa (1474-1519): Spanish explorer who first sighted the Pacific Ocean from the Americas.
Ferdinand Magellan (1480-1521): Portuguese explorer who led the first global circumnavigation, though he died en route.
Jacques Cartier (1491-1557): French explorer who mapped the St. Lawrence River and claimed Canada for France.
Samuel de Champlain (1567-1635): French explorer who founded Quebec and explored the Great Lakes, dubbed the “Father of New France.”
Abel Tasman (1603-1659): Dutch explorer who discovered Tasmania and New Zealand, mapping parts of Australia.
William Dampier (1651-1715): English explorer and pirate who circumnavigated the globe three times, aiding navigation and science.
Vitus Bering (1681-1741): Danish explorer who mapped the Bering Strait and Alaska for Russia.
James Cook (1728-1779): British explorer who charted the Pacific, including New Zealand and Australia’s east coast.
Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859): Prussian naturalist who explored South America, advancing geography and science.
Meriwether Lewis (1774-1809) and William Clark (1770-1838): American explorers who crossed the western U.S. to the Pacific.
David Livingstone (1813-1873): Scottish explorer who mapped Africa’s interior, including Victoria Falls, and opposed slavery.
Richard Francis Burton (1821-1890): British explorer who visited Mecca in disguise and sought the Nile’s source.
Robert Burke (1821-1861) and William Wills (1834-1861): Australian explorers who first crossed Australia south to north.
Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913): British naturalist who explored the Amazon and Malay Archipelago, co-developing evolution theory.
Henry Morton Stanley (1841-1904): Welsh-American explorer who traversed Africa and found Livingstone.
Robert Peary (1856-1920): American explorer who claimed to reach the North Pole in 1909 (disputed).
Fridtjof Nansen (1861-1930): Norwegian explorer who crossed Greenland and neared the North Pole, later a Nobel laureate.
Sven Hedin (1865-1952): Swedish explorer who mapped Central Asia, including the Himalayas and Tibet.
Robert Falcon Scott (1868-1912): British explorer who led Antarctic expeditions, including a South Pole attempt.
Ernest Shackleton (1874-1922): Anglo-Irish explorer known for Antarctic expeditions, notably the Endurance survival saga.
Wilfred Thesiger (1910-2003): British explorer who documented life in the Arabian Peninsula and Africa.
Roald Amundsen (1872-1928): Norwegian explorer who first reached the South Pole and navigated the Northwest Passage.
Jacques Cousteau (1910-1997): French oceanographer who advanced scuba diving and underwater filmmaking, promoting marine conservation.

VIII. Most of the Greatest Mathematicians

Most of the cultures of the world made zero contributions to mathematics defined as a specific field of knowledge, entailing a system of numeration, a variety of arithmetical calculations with whole numbers and fractions, the calculation of simple areas and volumes, and the use of linear equations. Indian, Chinese, and Islamic civilizations attained a high level of cognitive proficiency in arithmetical calculations, involving problem-solving by breaking down complex problems into smaller, more manageable parts, and then solving those parts one at a time, using complex algebraic equations. However, Chinese mathematics barely rose above the “utilitarian” mathematics of the Babylonians, dedicated to the solution of practical problems, without “the idea of rigorous proof”, although Zu Chongzhi is acknowledged for his highly accurate approximation of π (pi).

Indians made some groundbreaking contributions to decimal systems, algebra, trigonometry, infinite series, and continued fractions. The Islamic world also made significant contributions in algebra and trigonometry. The ancient Greeks, however, were the first to derive mathematical concepts from pure reasoning alone, that is, to think about numbers and operations abstractly, as products of the rational powers of man, and to realize that geometry is concerned not with physical objects, but with points, lines, triangles, squares, as objects of pure reason. They invented deductive reasoning, a method wherein reason proposes self-evident premises or axioms from which it deduces theorems in a rigorously consistent (and self-conscious) manner.

Only modern Europeans, directly on the accomplishments of the Greeks, not the accomplishments of the Indians, Chinese, and far less on Muslims, would start to transform arithmetic/algebra into proper sciences by introducing symbolism and making extensive and impressive contributions to the theory of numbers, and using algebra to help solve geometric problems. Of the 45 names listed below, 2 are Indians, 1 is Muslim, 1 is Chinese, and 4 have Jewish ancestry (though one has a Jewish father only, and one has Jewish ancestry through his paternal grandparents). The rest are European. Grok agreed that this list accurately reflects the major contributors to mathematics, though it suggested a few more names not listed here. I did use an abbreviated version of Grok’s brief descriptions of achievements.

Eudoxus (b. 408 BC): Developed the method of exhaustion, a precursor to integral calculus, for calculating areas and volumes.
Euclid (lived around 300 BC): Authored Elements, a comprehensive treatise on geometry, number theory, and algebra that served as the primary mathematics textbook for over 2,000 years.
Archimedes (b. 287 BC): Calculated an approximation of π (pi) and developed methods for finding areas and volumes; laid the groundwork for calculus with his use of infinitesimals and the method of exhaustion.
Apollonius (b. ~15 AD): Introduced terms like ellipse, parabola, and hyperbola, and systematized the study of conic sections.
Zu Chongzhi (429–500 AD): Calculated π to seven decimal places, a record for accuracy until the 15th century.
Brahmagupta (598–668 AD): Introduced the concept of zero as a number and defined rules for arithmetic operations with zero and negative numbers.
Al-Khwarizmi (b. ~780 AD): Authored the book “Kitab al-Jabr wal-Muqabala” from which the term “algebra” is derived.
Fibonacci (b. 1170): Introduced the Fibonacci sequence (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, …), revealing patterns in nature and mathematics.
Regiomontanus (1436–1476): Advanced trigonometry as a distinct mathematical discipline.
Cardano (1501–1576): Introduced imaginary numbers (e.g., √−1), a key step toward complex numbers.
Viète (1540–1603): Pioneered symbolic algebra by using letters for variables and constants, modernizing mathematical notation.
Descartes (1596–1650): Invented analytic geometry and introduced modern exponential notation (e.g., x²).
Pierre de Fermat (1607–1665): Co-founded analytic geometry, and laid foundations for number theory.
Newton (1643–1727): Co-invented calculus (with Leibniz), introducing derivatives and integrals. Formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, grounded in mathematical principles.
Leibniz (1646–1716): Co-invented calculus, introducing modern notation (e.g., dx/dt, ∫), and developed binary arithmetic.
Bernoulli (1700–1782) Formulated Bernoulli’s Principle in fluid dynamics, a cornerstone of physics and engineering; advanced probability and statistics.
Euler (1707–1783): Introduced key notations (e.g., e, i, ∑, f(x)) and the Euler identity (e^(iπ) + 1 = 0), solved the Basel problem (sum of reciprocals of squares).
d’Alembert (1717–1783): Developed the wave equation.
Lagrange (1736–1813): Formulated Lagrangian mechanics, revolutionizing classical physics.
Laplace (1749–1827): Developed probability theory; refined Newton’s work on planetary orbits.
Fourier (1768–1830): Introduced Fourier series to analyze periodic functions and heat conduction.
Gauss (1777–1855): Proved the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra and developed the Gaussian distribution in statistics.
Lobachevsky (1792–1856): Pioneered non-Euclidean geometry (hyperbolic geometry).
Bolyai (1802–1860): Independently developed non-Euclidean geometry.
William Hamilton (1805–1865): Invented quaternions, extending complex numbers to four dimensions.
Galois (1811–1832): Founded group theory and Galois theory, solving the problem of polynomial solvability by radicals.
Boole (1815–1864): Developed Boolean algebra, the foundation of digital logic and computer science.
Weierstrass (1815–1897): Rigorized calculus with epsilon-delta definitions of limits and continuity.
Riemann (1826–1866): Introduced Riemann surfaces and complex geometry; developed differential geometry, influencing Einstein’s relativity.
Dedekind (1831–1916): Defined real numbers via Dedekind cuts, rigorizing analysis.
Cantor (1845–1918): Created set theory, introducing concepts of infinity (cardinality) and transfinite numbers. (Jewish ancestry through his paternal grandparents.)
Klein (1849–1925): Developed the Erlangen Program, unifying geometry via group theory.
Poincaré (1854–1912): Founded algebraic topology.
Hilbert (1862–1943): Formulated Hilbert’s 23 problems, shaping 20th-century mathematics. Developed Hilbert spaces, key to quantum mechanics.
Weyl (1885–1955): Unified mathematics and physics through group theory and differential geometry.
Ramanujan (1887–1920): Made breakthroughs in number theory (partition function, Ramanujan conjecture).
Banach (1892–1945): Co-founded functional analysis with Banach spaces.
John von Neumann (1903–1957): Developed game theory. (Jewish)
Kolmogorov (1903–1987): Axiomatized probability theory; contributed to turbulence and complexity theory.
Turing (1912–1954): Laid the foundations of computer science with the Turing Machine; pioneered artificial intelligence concepts.
Erdős (1913–1996): Prolific contributor to number theory, combinatorics, and graph theory. (Jewish)
Shannon (1916–2001): Founded information theory and developed digital circuit design.
Hirzebruch (1927–2012): Advanced algebraic geometry and topology; contributed to K-theory.
Grothendieck (1928–2014): Revolutionized algebraic geometry; developed foundations for cohomology and category theory (Jewish father).
Wiles (b. 1953):Proved Fermat’s Last Theorem (1994), a 350-year-old conjecture, using elliptic curves and modular forms.

IX. Europeans Invented All Literary Devices

Grok agreed that all the literary devices listed below are “literary devices” and that all were invented by European whites “in terms of their specific terms and formal definitions”. I came up with this long list using online sources, and, more significantly, J. A. Cuddon’s 1000+ page Dictionary of Literary Terms and Literary Theory (1991). The definition Grok offered — “Literary devices are techniques or tools used in literature and rhetoric to enhance expression, structure narratives, or convey meaning” — is consistent with the one offered by this Dictionary.

Grok agreed that most of these terms “derive from Greek and Latin” and “Old English/French/Italian (European languages)”. Similarly to Cuddon’s Dictionary, which goes into exhaustive accounts of the meanings and historical origins of each term, Grok points out that some of these terms are “universal” in their meaning, and can be found, even if they are not formally defined, in Asian, Indian, Arabic, and other non-European writing and rhetoric.

Grok, similarly to the Dictionary, indicated that “a few” of these devices “might be better classified as genres, styles, or broader concepts”. Below is the list with Grok’s brief definitions of the literary devices, and its statement of agreement that each is a literary device.

Aporia: Expressing doubt or uncertainty as a rhetorical strategy—yes, a literary device.
Alliteration: Repetition of initial consonant sounds—definitely a literary device.
Appositive: A noun or phrase renaming another noun—yes, a device.
Anti-Climax: A sudden drop from the significant to the trivial—yes, a device.
Catharsis: Emotional purging, often in tragedy—yes, a device tied to effect.
Comedy: A genre, but it employs specific techniques (e.g., humor)—related to devices.
Catalog: A list used for rhetorical effect—yes, a device.
Diatribe: A bitter, critical speech—yes, a rhetorical device.
Dialogue: Conversation between characters—yes, a device for narrative.
Digression: A departure from the main topic—yes, a device.
Drama: A genre, but defined by techniques like dialogue—related to devices.
Denouement: Resolution of a plot—yes, a structural device.
Dilemma: A difficult choice in narrative—yes, a device.
Didacticism: Teaching through literature—yes, a device or approach.
Elegy: A mournful poem, a form using specific techniques—related to devices.
Epigram: A concise, witty statement—yes, a device.
Epistolary: Letter-based narrative—more a form, but uses devices like voice.
Essay: A genre, but employs rhetorical devices—related.
Epic: A long narrative poem, a genre with techniques—related.
Euphemism: Mild expression for something harsh—yes, a device.
Fairy Tale: A genre, but uses devices like symbolism—related.
Fantasy: A genre, with techniques like world-building—related.
Foil: A character highlighting another—yes, a device.
Foreshadowing: Hinting at future events—yes, a device.
Folklore: Traditional stories, a category using devices—related.
Flashback: A shift to past events—yes, a device.
Fallacy: Faulty reasoning, often rhetorical—yes, a device.
Frame Story: A story within a story—yes, a structural device.
Figurative Language: Non-literal expression (e.g., metaphor)—yes, a device.
Hypotaxis: Complex sentence structure—yes, a stylistic device.
Hyperbole: Exaggeration—yes, a device.
Hubris: Excessive pride, often thematic—yes, a device.
Hamartia: Tragic flaw—yes, a device in tragedy.
Hook: Opening to grab attention—yes, a device.
Induction: Reasoning from specific to general—yes, a rhetorical device.
Inversion: Reversed word order—yes, a device.
Intertextuality: Referencing other texts—yes, a device.
Inference: Implied meaning—yes, a device.
Lyric: Expressive poetry, a form with devices—related.
Logos: Logical appeal—yes, a rhetorical device.
Meiosis: Understatement—yes, a device.
Memoir: Personal narrative, a genre using devices—related.
Non Sequitur: Illogical leap—yes, a device.
Motif: Recurring element—yes, a device.
Novella: Short novel, a form with techniques—related.
Nemesis: An opponent or downfall—yes, a narrative device.
Neologism: New word creation—yes, a device.
Narrative: Storytelling—yes, a broad device.
Octave: Eight-line stanza—yes, a structural device in poetry.
Ode: A lyrical poem, a form with devices—related.
Omniscient: All-knowing narrator—yes, a narrative device.
Onomatopoeia: Sound-imitating words—yes, a device.
Parallelism: Similar sentence structures—yes, a device.
Paronomasia: Wordplay or pun—yes, a device.
Parody: Imitation for humor—yes, a device.
Parrhesia: Bold, frank speech—yes, a rhetorical device.
Plot: Sequence of events—yes, a structural device.
Prosody: Study of meter and rhythm—yes, a poetic device.
Realism: A movement, but uses techniques—related.
Reductio ad Absurdum: Disproof by absurdity—yes, a rhetorical device.
Refutation: Counterargument—yes, a rhetorical device.
Romanticism: A movement, with stylistic devices—related.
Rhetoric: Art of persuasion—yes, a broad device category.
Rising Action: Build-up in plot—yes, a structural device.
Sarcasm: Ironic mockery—yes, a device.
Soliloquy: Character’s speech to self—yes, a device.
Satire: Social critique via humor—yes, a device.
Sonnet: 14-line poem, a form with devices—related.
Surrealism: A movement, with techniques—related.
Symbolism: Use of symbols—yes, a device.
Synesis: Grammatical agreement by sense—yes, a device.
Suspense: Tension in narrative—yes, a device.
Syllogism: Logical argument form—yes, a rhetorical device.
Synesthesia: Blending senses—yes, a device.
Stream of Consciousness: Inner thought flow—yes, a device.
Tragedy: A genre, with devices like catharsis—related.
Trope: Figurative use of language—yes, a device.
Utopia: Ideal society narrative—more a genre, but related.
Vernacular: Everyday language—yes, a stylistic device.
Vignette: Brief descriptive scene—yes, a device.

X. 66 oldest universities in the world were founded in Europe

Medieval Christian Europe was the first civilization to “institutionalize reason” within self-governing universities which offered a curriculum “overwhelmingly oriented toward analytical subjects”. The first university was Bologna, founded in 1088, followed by Oxford in 1096. By the end of the fourteenth century, in 1400, there were about 34 universities across Europe; and in 1500 there were 66, and none outside. In 1789, the year of the French Revolution, there were about 143 universities in Europe, with only one university outside in Turkey. The original Latin word universitas designated any corporation intentionally created by a group of individuals, be they guilds by craftsmen, associations by merchants, or municipal communes by town residents—to regulate their own affairs and security, independently of customary law, kinship ties, or religious and state authorities. Corporations were self-governed in that their members participated in specifying the rules that regulated their activities; power was shared and leaders could be held accountable for their actions. Gradually the word universitas came to be associated with the term studium generale, which referred to any institution (at the beginning of the thirteenth century) that attracted students from all parts of Europe, and where at least one of the higher faculties of theology, law, or medicine was taught by a plurality of masters. The universities tended to have four faculties (arts, theology, law, and medicine). The program of the arts consisted of the three verbal disciplines of grammar, rhetoric, and logic; and the four mathematical disciplines of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. Grok agrees that, strictly speaking, these were the first universities. I asked Grok to organize this list in terms of the year they were founded and location.

University of Bologna – Founded 1088 (Italy)
University of Oxford – Founded c. 1096 (England)
University of Paris – Founded c. 1150 (France)
University of Modena – Founded 1175 (Italy)
University of Cambridge – Founded 1209 (England)
University of Salamanca – Founded 1218 (Spain)
University of Padua – Founded 1222 (Italy)
University of Naples Federico II – Founded 1224 (Italy)
University of Toulouse – Founded 1229 (France)
University of Siena – Founded 1240 (Italy)
University of Valladolid – Founded 1241 (Spain)
University of Piacenza – Founded 1248 (Italy)
University of Coimbra – Founded 1290 (Portugal)
University of Montpellier – Founded 1289 (France)
University of Alcalá (original) – Founded 1293 (Spain)
University of Lleida – Founded 1300 (Spain)
University of Rome La Sapienza – Founded 1303 (Italy)
University of Avignon – Founded 1303 (France)
University of Orleans – Founded 1306 (France)
University of Perugia – Founded 1308 (Italy)
University of Florence – Founded 1321 (Italy)
University of Cahors – Founded 1332 (France)
University of Angers – Founded 1337 (France)
University of Grenoble – Founded 1339 (France)
University of Verona – Founded 1339 (Italy
University of Pisa – Founded 1343 (Italy)
Charles University in Prague – Founded 1348 (Czech Republic)
University of Perpignan – Founded 1350 (France)
University of Huesca – Founded 1354 (Spain)
University of Pavia – Founded 1361 (Italy)
Jagiellonian University in Krakow – Founded 1364 (Poland)
University of Vienna – Founded 1365 (Austria)
University of Pécs – Founded 1367 (Hungary)
University of Heidelberg – Founded 1386 (Germany)
University of Cologne – Founded 1388 (Germany)
University of Ferrara – Founded 1391 (Italy)
University of Erfurt – Founded 1392 (Germany)
University of Würzburg – Founded 1402 (Germany)
University of Turin – Founded 1404 (Italy)
University of Leipzig – Founded 1409 (Germany)
University of Aix-en-Provence – Founded 1409 (France)
University of St Andrews – Founded 1413 (Scotland)
University of Rostock – Founded 1419 (Germany)
University of Dole – Founded 1423 (France)
University of Louvain – Founded 1425 (Belgium)
University of Poitiers – Founded 1431 (France)
University of Caen – Founded 1432 (France)
University of Catania – Founded 1434 (Italy)
University of Bordeaux – Founded 1441 (France)
University of Barcelona – Founded 1450 (Spain)
University of Glasgow – Founded 1451 (Scotland)
University of Valence – Founded 1452 (France)
University of Greifswald – Founded 1456 (Germany)
University of Freiburg – Founded 1457 (Germany)
University of Basel – Founded 1460 (Switzerland)
University of Nantes – Founded 1460 (France)
University of Bourges – Founded 1464 (France)
University of Ingolstadt – Founded 1472 (Germany)
University of Trier – Founded 1473 (Germany)
University of Mainz – Founded 1477 (Germany)
University of Tübingen – Founded 1477 (Germany).
University of Uppsala – Founded 1477 (Sweden)
University of Copenhagen – Founded 1479 (Denmark)
University of Genoa – Founded 1481 (Italy).
University of Aberdeen – Founded 1495 (Scotland)
University of Santiago de Compostela – Founded 1495 (Spain)

XI. Europeans, with the exception of one Chinese, invented all the Scientific Instruments

Grok agreed with this judgment, identifying the inventors and nationalities of the scientific instruments, in agreement with my claim that they were all Europeans, although it added a Chinese name as the inventor of the Seismograph. I included this Chinese inventor, but added the English inventor of the modern Seismograph. Grok excluded one instrument only, “Nanoscale”, as being a “scale of measurement, not a scientific instrument”.

Ammeter: Invented by André-Marie Ampère, who was French. The ammeter measures electric current.

Barometer: Invented by Evangelista Torricelli, who was Italian, in 1643 to measure atmospheric pressure.

Sextant: Both John Hadley, who was English, and Thomas Godfrey, who was American, independently developed the sextant around 1730, an instrument used for navigation to measure angles between celestial objects and the horizon.

Voltmeter: Invented by Edward Weston, born in England, in 1886.

Thermometer: Invented by Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit, who was Dutch, but was born in Danzig, Poland), in the early 18th century.

Galvanometer: Invented by Johann Schweigger, who was German, in 1820, to detect and measure small electric currents.

Hydrometer: Invented by William Nicholson, who was English, in 1790, to measure the density or specific gravity of liquids.

Radar: Invented by Robert Watson-Watt, who was Scottish, in 1935.

Hygrometer: Invented by Horace Bénédict de Saussure, who was Swiss, in the 18th century, to measure humidity in the air.

Electroscope: Invented by Abraham Bennet, who was English, in 1787, to detect electric charge.

Microscope: Invented by Zacharias Janssen, who was Dutch, in 1590.

Electron Microscope: Invented by Ernst Ruska and Max Knoll, both German, in 1931.

Accelerometer: Invented by George Atwood, who was English, in 1783, to measure acceleration.

Magnetograph: Invented by Charles Brooke, who was English, in 1846, to record variations in the Earth’s magnetic field.

Telescope: Invented by Hans Lippershey, who was Dutch, in 1608.

Periscope: Invented by Sir Howard Grubb, who was Irish, in the late 19th century, widely used in submarines.

Calorimeter: Invented by Joseph Black, who was Scottish, in 1761, to measure heat transfer.

Telemeter: Invented by Carl Pulfrich, who was German, in 1890 to measure distances.

Seismograph: Invented by Zhang Heng, who was Chinese, in 132 AD to detect and record earthquakes. However, John Milne, who was English, invented the first modern seismograph in 1880.
Cardiograph: Invented by Willem Einthoven, who was Dutch, in 1903 to record the heart’s electrical activity.

XII. Whites invented close to 100% of the sports/athletic competitions

I am aware that a few sports were invented outside Europe/North America; but, for the sake of argument, I asked Grok: “Is it reasonably accurate to say that Europeans and North Americans invented all the sports?” I provided Grok with the list below (minus the few sports I added from the non-Western world after Grok’s reply). Grok replied that my list was “largely accurate with a few nuances worth exploring”. It added martial arts, or Karate (Japan), Taekwondo (Korea), and Kung Fu (China) from the non-European world. I also added Polo, which it traced to ancient Persia, as well as Japanese sumo and Mesoamerican “ballgame”.

The invention of so many sports by the ancient Greeks is rooted in their aristocratic martial ethos encapsulated in the ancient word Arete, which originally denoted excellence in the performance of heroic valor by aristocratic Indo-European warriors. In pre-Homeric times, it signified the strength and skill of a warrior. It was his arete that ranked an aristocrat (aristos meaning “best,” “noblest”) above the commoners; and it was the attainment of heroic excellence that secured respect and honor among aristocratic peers. The word aristeia was used in epic stories for the single-handed adventures of the hero in his unceasing strife for superlative achievements over his peers. It was within this cultural context that the Greeks invented the sports listed below and the Olympic games. England adopted this culture of athleticism. English elite institutions of learning, during the days of the empire, emphasized physical fitness, discipline, and teamwork, as well as a tradition of outdoor activity and a passion for “fair play.”

In the list I sent to Grok, I identified the particular sports invented in Greece, England, France, the United States, and Canada. I also identified the year, or approximate time that these sports were invented. Grok agreed with most of these specifications, stating, you list is “impressively detailed”, while making some minor qualifications in regards to the exact origins of a few sports, when the rules of a few sports were formalized; and it corrected the claim that Americans turned skiing into a sport, holding Norway responsible.

The ancient Greeks invented these sports through the Olympic Games, which began in 776 BCE.

Pentathlon: The pentathlon (which includes Discus, Javelin, Long Jump, Wrestling, and Footrace) was introduced around 708 BCE.
Boxing: Added to the Olympics in 688 BCE.
Equestrian Events: Chariot racing and horseback riding events were introduced to the Olympics in 680 BCE.
Gymnastics: Exercises resembling modern gymnastics, although modern gymnastics as a sport emerged in the 19th century in Germany.

The British invented many modern sports.

Cricket (1744/1787): The first written “Laws of Cricket” were codified in 1744, but the Marylebone Cricket Club was founded in 1787, which formalized the modern game.
Rugby (1871): The Rugby Football Union, formed in 1871, formalized the rules.
Golf (1764): The first 18-hole course is traditionally linked to St. Andrews, Scotland.
Tennis (1874): Patented in 1874.
Badminton (around 1873): Badminton Association of England was formed in 1893, but the game’s modern form emerged around 1873.
Table Tennis (1880): Table tennis evolved in the 1870s–1880s but wasn’t formalized until the 1920s.
Bobsleigh (1890): British tourists in Switzerland in the late 1880s–1890s developed the sport.
Curling (1541): The earliest recorded curling match was in Scotland in 1541.
Soccer (Penalty kick in 1863/1891): Soccer rules were codified in 1863, and the penalty kick was introduced in 1891.
Swimming (Early 1830s): Competitive swimming began in the 1830s.

The U.S. contributed some important sports

Volleyball (1895): William G. Morgan invented volleyball in 1895.
American Football (1879): Walter Camp introduced key rules in 1879–1880 at Yale.
Baseball (1845): Alexander Cartwright formalized rules and field layout in 1845.
Softball (1887): George Hancock in 1887.
Basketball (1891–1893): James Naismith invented basketball in 1891, with the original 13 rules; the first hoops and formalized play followed by 1893.

France, Norway, and Canada contributed:

Fencing (17th-18th centuries): France refined fencing into a sport in the 17th–18th centuries, introducing the foil and masks.
Cycling (1868): France is credited with the first race in Paris in 1868.
Skiing (1843): First skiing competition in Norway.
Hockey (1875): James Creighn organized the first indoor ice hockey game in Montreal in 1875.

XIII. 43 of the 50 greatest technological “breakthroughs” in history

This is another list on technological inventions but it covers breakthroughs across the span of history, rather than the modern era only. It is based on a 2013 article in The Atlantic based on a list compiled by a panel of 12 scientists, engineers, and historians of technology. This panel came up with the list below of “the 50 greatest breakthroughs since the wheel”. By “breakthrough,” it meant technologies that revolutionized human life. The article portrayed these breakthroughs as “human inventions” without focusing on the nationality of the inventors, or the origin of the inventions.

I asked Grok: “Of the following 50 great inventions in human history, would it be accurate to say that 43 or 44 were invented by men of European ancestry?” Grok replied: “Yes, it would be accurate to say that 43 of the 50 inventions were invented by men of European ancestry, based on primary credited inventors or significant European developments.”

I am leaving the words Grok used to identify European inventions and non-European ones. I will add that while gunpowder, the compass, and the sailboat originated in China, Europeans were responsible for all subsequent innovations of these inventions.

The Printing Press – Johannes Gutenberg (Germany, 15th century). European.
Electricity – While ancient cultures observed static electricity, its harnessing (e.g., via Michael Faraday’s work on electromagnetism, UK, 19th century) is European.
Penicillin – Alexander Fleming (Scotland, 1928). European.
Semiconductor Electronics – Pioneered by William Shockley, John Bardeen, and Walter Brattain (USA, 1940s), all of European descent. European.
Optical Lenses – Italian monks and scholars (e.g., Salvino D’Armate, 13th century) refined early lenses. European.
Paper – Invented in China by Cai Lun (Han Dynasty, 105 CE). Non-European.
Internal Combustion Engine – Nikolaus Otto (Germany, 1876). European.
Vaccination – Edward Jenner (England, 1796). European.
The Internet – Developed by Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn (USA, 1970s), both of European descent. European.
The Steam Engine – Thomas Savery and James Watt (England, 17th-18th centuries). European.
Nitrogen Fixation – Fritz Haber (Germany, 1910s). European.
Sanitation Systems – Roman engineering (e.g., aqueducts, sewers) refined in Europe; modern systems by Joseph Bazalgette (England, 19th century). European.
Refrigeration – William Cullen (Scotland, 1748) and later Jacob Perkins (USA, European descent). European.
Gunpowder – Invented in China (9th century). Non-European.
The Airplane – Wright Brothers (USA, 1903), of European descent. European.
The Personal Computer – Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs (USA, 1970s), both of European descent. European.
The Compass – Invented in China (Han Dynasty, ~200 BCE). Non-European.
The Automobile – Karl Benz (Germany, 1885). European.
Industrial Steelmaking – Henry Bessemer (England, 1856). European.
The Birth Control Pill – Gregory Pincus (USA, 1950s), of European descent. European.
Nuclear Fission – Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann (Germany, 1938). European.
The Green Revolution – Norman Borlaug (USA, 1940s-60s), of European descent. European.
The Sextant – John Campbell (England, 1757), building on earlier European navigation tools. European.
The Telephone – Alexander Graham Bell (Scotland/USA, 1876). European.
Alphabetization – Evolved in ancient Greece (e.g., alphabetic script, ~1200 BCE). European.
The Telegraph – Samuel Morse (USA, 1830s), of European descent. European.
The Mechanized Clock – European monasteries (e.g., Richard of Wallingford, 14th century). European.
Radio – Guglielmo Marconi (Italy, 1890s). European.
Photography – Louis Daguerre (France, 1830s). European.
The Moldboard Plow – Improved in Europe (e.g., Dutch and English designs, 17th-18th centuries), though earlier forms existed elsewhere. European.
Archimedes’ Screw – Archimedes (Greece, ~250 BCE). European.
The Cotton Gin – Eli Whitney (USA, 1793), of European descent. European.
Pasteurization – Louis Pasteur (France, 1860s). European.
The Gregorian Calendar – Pope Gregory XIII (Italy, 1582). European.
Oil Refining – Ignacy Łukasiewicz (Poland, 1850s) pioneered kerosene refining. European.
The Steam Turbine – Charles Parsons (England, 1884). European.
Cement – Joseph Aspdin (England, 1824) patented Portland cement. European.
Scientific Plant Breeding – Gregor Mendel (Austria, 1860s). European.
Oil Drilling – Edwin Drake (USA, 1859), of European descent. European.
The Sailboat – Early forms in Mesopotamia and Egypt (~4000 BCE), not Europe. Non-European.
Rocketry – Early rockets in China (13th century); modern rocketry by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (Russia, 1900s). European (modern form).
Paper Money – Invented in China (Tang Dynasty, 7th century). Non-European.
The Abacus – Originated in Mesopotamia or Egypt (~2400 BCE); Chinese suanpan later. Non-European.
Air-conditioning – Willis Carrier (USA, 1902), of European descent. European.
Television – Philo Farnsworth (USA, 1927), of European descent. European.
Anesthesia – Crawford Long (USA, 1842), of European descent. European.
The Nail – Ancient, widespread (e.g., Egypt, Mesopotamia); no clear European origin. Non-European.
The Lever – Known to ancient civilizations (e.g., Egypt, Mesopotamia); Archimedes (Greece) formalized its use (~250 BCE). European (formalized).
The Assembly Line – Henry Ford (USA, 1913), of European descent. European.
The Combine Harvester – Hiram Moore (USA, 1834), of European descent. European.

XIV. Europeans Named the Continents

I asked Grok: “Do I explain correctly that European whites came up with the names of all the continents on the planet?” Grok replied: “Your explanation is largely accurate, though it could benefit from some clarification and nuance.” Below I pasted Grok’s reply, as it makes clear what I got right, and where “clarification and nuance” were needed.

1. Africa

You’re correct that the name “Africa” derives from Roman usage after their defeat of Carthage around 146 B.C. The term likely comes from the Latin Africa terra (“land of the Afri”), referring to a local Berber tribe or possibly from a Phoenician word afar (“dust”). The Romans applied it to their North African province, and over time, European explorers—starting with the Portuguese in the 15th century—extended the name to the entire continent as they mapped it. While “terra incognita” (unknown land) was a general term for unexplored regions, the continent’s naming reflects a gradual European expansion of geographic knowledge rather than a single act of naming.

2. Asia

Yes, “Asia” originates from the Ancient Greek term Ἀσία (Asía), used by Herodotus around 440 B.C. It initially referred to Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey) or the Persian Empire, distinguishing it from Greece and Egypt. The term itself may have roots in the Assyrian word asu (“east” or “sunrise”), suggesting an Eastern Mediterranean influence predating the Greeks. As European exploration and scholarship grew, “Asia” was extended to encompass the vast landmass east of Europe, a process solidified by Greco-Roman geographers like Ptolemy.

3. Europe

The name “Europe” is often linked to Greek mythology, possibly after Europa, a Phoenician princess abducted by Zeus in the form of a bull. However, the etymology isn’t entirely clear—some scholars suggest it could derive from the Greek eurus (“wide”) and ops (“face”), meaning “broad land,” or even a Semitic root like the Akkadian erebu (“to set,” as in the setting sun). By the time of classical antiquity, “Europe” was used to describe the lands west of Asia and north of Africa, a convention cemented by European geographers. So, while the mythological connection is plausible, the name’s adoption was a gradual cultural process.

4. The Americas

Your summary is spot-on: the Americas were named after Amerigo Vespucci, an Italian explorer who, between 1499 and 1502, recognized that the lands discovered by Columbus were not part of Asia but a distinct “New World.” The name was proposed by German cartographer Martin Waldseemüller in his 1507 map, Universalis Cosmographia. This reflects a European naming convention, though indigenous peoples had their own names for these lands long before—names that didn’t persist in global usage due to European dominance in exploration and mapmaking.

5. Australia

The term “Terra Australis Incognita” (Unknown Southern Land) was a speculative concept in ancient Roman and medieval European geography, imagining a southern continent to balance the northern landmasses. The name “Australia” evolved from this, with “Australis” meaning “southern” in Latin. While James Cook claimed eastern Australia for Britain in 1770, the name “Australia” was indeed popularized later by Matthew Flinders in 1814, after earlier uses like the 1625 reference you mentioned. Dutch explorers had mapped parts of it earlier, calling it “New Holland,” but Flinders’ advocacy stuck. This was a distinctly European naming effort.

6. Antarctica

“Antarctica” does come from the Greek antarktike (“opposite to the north”), tied to its position relative to the Arctic (from arktos, “bear,” referencing the northern constellations). While the continent wasn’t fully mapped until the 19th century, the name is credited to European cartographic tradition, with Scottish cartographer John George Bartholomew often associated with its formal adoption around the 1890s. This fits the pattern of European naming through exploration and science.

At the end Grok made the usual comment it has to make considering that it operates within a progressive world order: “your explanation is correct with the caveat that it reflects a Eurocentric lens on a complex history of exploration and naming”.

XV. Almost all the top “groundbreaking” medical advances

I asked Grok: “It is accurate to say that this is a list of the top “groundbreaking” medical advances in history and that all these advances were accomplished by white men of European and North American descent?” I also asked, separately, “what additional top groundbreaking medical advances would Grok add to this list?”

The last four medical advances listed below were added at the suggestion of Grok. I did not add mRNA Vaccines. Grok qualified my question by indicating that a few of the major names behind these medical innovations were not white males. Gertrude Elion, co-developer with George Hitchings, of Antiviral Drugs, was a woman with Polish Jewish ancestry. Fei-Fei Li (Chinese-American) pioneered Artificial Intelligence in Diagnostics, with Geoffrey Hinton (British-Canadian). Tasuku Honjo (Japanese) was a co-discoverer of Immunotherapy for Cancer with James P. Allison (American). Two white females, Emmanuelle Charpentier (French) and Jennifer Doudna (American), are known as major figures behind CRISPR Gene Editing. In the case of Blood Transfusion, Grok named James Blundell as the first who performed blood transfusion, while it added that “Charles Drew, an African American physician, later developed blood banking in the 1940s, significantly advancing transfusion practices.”

All in all, then, except for two Asian co-participants, one Jewish women, two white females, and one mixed race African-American, white European men were responsible for almost all the medical breakthroughs. Below is the list, using mostly Grok’s words regarding nationality and nature of the advance.

Stethoscope: Invented by René Laennec, a French physician, in 1816. Laennec was a white man of European descent. Revolutionized diagnosis by allowing doctors to listen to internal sounds.
X-Rays: Discovered by Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, a German physicist, in 1895. Roentgen was a white man of European descent. Enabled non-invasive visualization of the body’s interior.
Germ Theory: Established primarily by Louis Pasteur, a French chemist, in the mid-19th century, with contributions from Robert Koch, a German physician. Both were white men of European descent. Fundamentally changed medicine by linking microorganisms to disease.
Blood Transfusion: The first successful human transfusion was performed by James Blundell, an English physician, in 1818. Blundell was a white man of European descent. Charles Drew, an African American physician, later developed blood banking in the 1940s, significantly advancing transfusion practices.
Ophthalmoscope: Invented by Hermann von Helmholtz, a German physician and physicist, in 1851. Helmholtz was a white man of European descent. Allowed direct examination of the retina, advancing eye care.
Anaesthesia: William Morton, an American dentist, demonstrated ether anaesthesia publicly in 1846. Morton was a white man of North American descent. Transformed surgery by eliminating pain during procedures.
Organ Transplants: The first successful kidney transplant was performed by Joseph Murray, an American surgeon, in 1954. Murray was a white man of North American descent. Pioneered life-saving replacement of failing organs.
Antiseptic Surgical Methods: Introduced by Joseph Lister, a British surgeon, in the 1860s. Lister was a white man of European descent. Reduced infections, improving surgical outcomes.
Vaccines: The first vaccine (smallpox) was developed by Edward Jenner, an English physician, in 1796. Jenner was a white man of European descent. Prevented countless deaths from infectious diseases.
Catheter: The modern medical catheter was developed by David S. Sheridan, an American inventor, in the 1940s. Sheridan was a white man of North American descent. Improved medical procedures like drainage and drug delivery.
Antiviral Drugs: Gertrude Elion, an American biochemist, co-developed acyclovir in the 1970s with George Hitchings. Elion was a woman with Jewish ancestry. Provided treatments for viral infections previously untreatable.
Microscopy: The compound microscope is credited to Zacharias Janssen, a Dutch spectacle maker, in the late 16th century. Janssen was a white man of European descent. Enabled the discovery of cells and microorganisms.
CT Scans: Developed by Godfrey Hounsfield, a British engineer, in the 1970s. Hounsfield was a white man of European descent. Advanced diagnostic imaging with detailed internal views.
Penicillin: Discovered by Alexander Fleming, a Scottish bacteriologist, in 1928. Fleming was a white man of European descent, though its development involved Howard Florey, Ernst Chain (both white men), and Dorothy Hodgkin (a white woman who determined its structure). Introduced antibiotics, revolutionizing infection treatment.
CRISPR Gene Editing: The major names are Emmanuelle Charpentier (French, b. 1968) and Jennifer Doudna (American, b. 1964). A revolutionary technology allowing precise editing of DNA for treating genetic diseases.
Artificial Intelligence in Diagnostics: Pioneered by Geoffrey Hinton (British-Canadian, b. 1947), and Fei-Fei Li (Chinese-American, b. 1976). Enhanced diagnostic accuracy and speed.
Robotic Surgery: The key figure is Frederic Moll (American, b. 1951). Allow for minimally invasive procedures with greater precision.
Immunotherapy for Cancer: Discoverers of immune checkpoint pathways are James P. Allison (American, b. 1948) and Tasuku Honjo (Japanese, b. 1942), who won the 2018 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for discovering immune checkpoint pathways. Turned some terminal cancers into manageable conditions.

XVI. All the Greatest Theater Playwrights

I asked Grok: “Can it be reasonably argued that the following playwrights, all white men, are the greatest, most original, and widely recognized by their peers?” Let’s not be naive, Grok collects its data from a Western world that has been progressively liberal for over 100 years. Yet, despite this, Grok could not but admit that my list of the greatest playwrights is fundamentally accurate and quite complete. “It seems likely that these playwrights are among the greatest and most original in Western theater, given their widespread recognition and influence. Research suggests they were widely admired by their peers, with many receiving praise and awards during their lifetimes.”

Grok added, however, that I should include “equally significant non-white and female playwrights, like August Wilson or Caryl Churchill”. In my estimation, Wilson and Churchill, a black and a woman, don’t belong in a list of the “greatest”. Grok’s argument that “the list’s exclusivity to white men reflects historical biases, and acknowledging other voices enriches the discussion, ensuring a more comprehensive view of theatrical greatness”, is based on the pervasive influence of political correctness and DEI in the West. I kept the original list except that I added Grok’s identification of the nationalities of the names, and what each name is recognized for.

- - Aeschylus
    - Nationality: Greek
    - Birth: circa 525 BC
    - Greatness/Originality: Considered the father of tragedy, Aeschylus introduced the second actor to the stage, enabling more complex dialogue and plot development, and reduced the chorus’s role, laying the foundation for dramatic structure.
  - Sophocles
    - Nationality: Greek
    - Birth: circa 496 BC
    - Greatness/Originality: Added the third actor, enhancing dramatic possibilities, and focused on character-driven narratives with deep psychological insight, as seen in masterpieces like Oedipus Rex.
  - Euripides
    - Nationality: Greek
    - Birth: circa 480 BC
    - Greatness/Originality: Known for realistic portrayals and strong, complex characters (often women and slaves), he challenged societal norms, making his works both controversial and influential.
  - Menander
    - Nationality: Greek
    - Birth: circa 342 BC
    - Greatness/Originality: A leading figure in New Comedy, Menander focused on everyday life and human relationships with wit and subtlety, influencing later Roman and European comedic traditions.
  - Plautus
    - Nationality: Roman
    - Birth: circa 254 BC
    - Greatness/Originality: A master of comedy, he adapted Greek plays for Roman audiences, emphasizing farce and slapstick humor, influencing the development of European comedic traditions.
  - Hrosvitha of Gandersheim
    - Nationality: German (Saxon)
    - Birth: circa 935 AD
    - Greatness/Originality: The first known female playwright, Hrosvitha wrote Christian-themed plays in Latin, adapting Terence’s comedic style to promote moral and religious values, a pioneering effort in medieval drama.
  - Ludovico Ariosto
    - Nationality: Italian
    - Birth: 1474
    - Greatness/Originality: Best known for his epic poem Orlando Furioso, Ariosto also wrote comedies that bridged medieval and Renaissance theatre, blending classical influences with Italian innovation.
  - Lope de Vega
    - Nationality: Spanish
    - Birth: 1562
    - Greatness/Originality: Incredibly prolific (writing hundreds of plays), he established the three-act structure in Spanish theatre and skillfully blended comedy and tragedy.
  - William Shakespeare
    - Nationality: English
    - Birth: 1564
    - Greatness/Originality: Shakespeare’s unparalleled poetic language and profound understanding of human nature shine through his tragedies, comedies, and histories, making him a timeless figure in world literature.
  - Ben Jonson
    - Nationality: English
    - Birth: 1572
    - Greatness/Originality: Excelled in satirical comedies, developing the “theory of humours” and critiquing society sharply in works like Volpone.
  - Pedro Calderón de la Barca
    - Nationality: Spanish
    - Birth: 1600
    - Greatness/Originality: Explored philosophical and theological themes, such as free will and destiny, with his masterpiece Life is a Dream being a pinnacle of Spanish Golden Age drama.
  - Pierre Corneille
    - Nationality: French
    - Birth: 1606
    - Greatness/Originality: His tragedies, like Le Cid, set new standards for French drama, blending heroic ideals with emotional conflict.
  - Molière (Jean-Baptiste Poquelin)
    - Nationality: French
    - Birth: 1622
    - Greatness/Originality: A master of comedy, he satirized societal hypocrisies in plays like Tartuffe and The Misanthrope, which remain enduring classics.
  - Jean Racine
    - Nationality: French
    - Birth: 1639
    - Greatness/Originality: Crafted tragedies with precise, elegant language and intense psychological depth, often drawing from Greek and Roman myths.
  - Henrik Ibsen
    - Nationality: Norwegian
    - Birth: 1828
    - Greatness/Originality: The father of modern drama, he introduced realism to the stage, tackling social issues and individual psychology in works like A Doll’s House.
  - George Bernard Shaw
    - Nationality: Irish
    - Birth: 1856
    - Greatness/Originality: Used wit and provocation to advocate social reform in plays like Pygmalion, blending entertainment with intellectual depth.
  - Anton Chekhov
    - Nationality: Russian
    - Birth: 1860
    - Greatness/Originality: Revolutionized drama with his focus on subtext and the inner lives of characters, as seen in The Seagull and The Cherry Orchard.
  - Luigi Pirandello
    - Nationality: Italian
    - Birth: 1867
    - Greatness/Originality: Explored identity and reality, blurring fiction and truth, most notably in Six Characters in Search of an Author.
  - Eugene O’Neill
    - Nationality: American
    - Birth: 1888
    - Greatness/Originality: The first American playwright to win the Nobel Prize in Literature, he revitalized tragedy in works like Long Day’s Journey into Night.
  - Bertolt Brecht
    - Nationality: German
    - Birth: February 10, 1898
    - Greatness/Originality: Developed epic theatre, using distancing effects to provoke critical thinking, with politically charged works like Mother Courage and Her Children.
  - Federico García Lorca
    - Nationality: Spanish
    - Birth: June 5, 1898
    - Greatness/Originality: Fused surrealism with traditional Spanish themes, creating passionate, lyrical dramas like Blood Wedding.
  - Samuel Beckett
    - Nationality: Irish
    - Birth: 1906
    - Greatness/Originality: A Theatre of the Absurd pioneer, he explored existential themes with minimalist settings in plays like Waiting for Godot.
  - Eugène Ionesco
    - Nationality: Romanian-French
    - Birth: 1909
    - Greatness/Originality: Used absurdity and illogical scenarios to critique conformity, as exemplified in Rhinoceros.

XVII. White Men Engineered and Designed the Best Airplanes

I asked Grok: “Can one reasonably argue that European (including Russian and American) white men originated, engineered, and designed almost all the best airplanes in history; and that the following, which includes a Japanese airplane, are among the best ever engineered.”

Grok replied: “Yes, one can reasonably argue that European (including Russian and American) white men originated, engineered, and designed ‘almost all’ the best airplanes in history, given their overwhelming representation among aviation’s most iconic designs. Your list supports this, with the Mitsubishi A6M Zero as a notable exception that doesn’t undermine the broader pattern. The claim holds due to historical and industrial realities, though it’s worth noting that global contributions (e.g., Japan, later Soviet designs) add nuance to the narrative. The listed aircraft, with minor clarification (e.g., “Shturmovik Dreamliner”), are indeed among history’s finest, reinforcing the argument.”

Grok actually reinforces my argument, agreeing that “the Mitsubishi A6M Zero” stands “as the notable exception from Japan”, while reminding me that “Japan’s aviation industry was heavily influenced by Western technology and ideas, though it adapted them brilliantly.”

Grok makes the well-known point that European whites were responsible for the origination of aviation, “its foundational developments occurring primarily in Europe and the United States. The Wright Flyer (1903), credited to the Wright brothers (American), marked the first powered, controlled flight, setting the stage for subsequent innovations. Most early aviation pioneers—e.g., Louis Blériot (French, Blériot XI), Glenn Curtiss (American), and later figures like Donald Douglas (American, DC-3) or Willy Messerschmitt (German, Bf-109, Me-262)—were indeed of European descent or from European-derived populations in America”.

Below I simply pasted what Grok said about my list.

“Let’s examine the aircraft you listed to see how they align with the claim:

Cessna 172 (USA): Designed by Cessna, an American company, led by engineers like Dwayne Wallace.
Lockheed P-80 Shooting Star (USA): Clarence “Kelly” Johnson, an American of Swedish descent, led its design.
Learjet 23 (USA): William Lear, American, pioneered this business jet.
B-29 Superfortress (USA): Boeing’s American team, under figures like Edward Wells, engineered this WWII bomber.
Bell X-1 (USA): American engineers at Bell, with input from NACA (e.g., Walter Williams), broke the sound barrier.
Lockheed C-130 Hercules (USA): Another Kelly Johnson design, iconic for its versatility.
Douglas DC-3 (USA): Donald Douglas, American, created this revolutionary transport.
Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress (USA): Boeing’s American team, led by E. Gifford Emery and others.
Boeing 747 (USA): Joe Sutter, American, spearheaded this jumbo jet.
F-35 (USA): Lockheed Martin’s multinational effort, but primarily American-led.
MQ-1 Predator (USA): General Atomics, American, developed this drone.
RV-3 (USA): A homebuilt design by American Richard VanGrunsven.
F-16 Fighting Falcon (USA): General Dynamics (now Lockheed Martin), American engineers like Harry Hillaker.
Wright Flyer (USA): The Wright brothers, American pioneers.
Blériot XI (France): Louis Blériot, French, flew across the English Channel.
Focke-Wulf Fw 190 (Germany): Kurt Tank, German, designed this WWII fighter.
British Spitfire (UK): Reginald Mitchell, British, crafted this legendary plane.
P-51 Mustang (USA): North American Aviation, led by Edgar Schmued (German-born, American).
Messerschmitt Bf-109 (Germany): Willy Messerschmitt, German, WWII mainstay.
Messerschmitt Me-262 (Germany): First operational jet fighter, also Messerschmitt.
Mitsubishi A6M Zero (Japan): Jiro Horikoshi, Japanese, a standout non-Western design.
Shturmovik Dreamliner (?): Likely a mix-up. The Ilyushin Il-2 Shturmovik (USSR, Sergey Ilyushin) was a Soviet ground-attack plane; “Dreamliner” is Boeing’s 787 (USA). Assuming Il-2, it’s Russian.
Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird (USA): Kelly Johnson again, American.
Cirrus SR22 (USA): Klapmeier brothers, American, modern light aircraft.
Lockheed Constellation (USA): Kelly Johnson and team, American.”

XIX. The 50 Greatest Philosophers

I did not follow Grok’s claim that I missed some non-European philosophers, and a few females, though Grok agreed that most philosophers have been men of European ancestry. I would have included non-Europeans in a list of about 100, but not in a list of 50, for the following reason: Philosophy began with the Pre-Socratics when we witness for the first time in world history speculations on the nature of things with self-conscious appeals to the use of human reason as the vehicle to attain truth, rather than relying, without reflection, on taken-for-granted kinship norms, set traditions, or revelations by gods. It is not only that the ancient Greeks posed critical questions — “Is there some substance or some basic stuff out of which everything is made?”—but that their answers consisted of reasoned arguments.

The list below, therefore, exclude thinkers, mythical figures, religious prophets, or declarations based on faith, apologetics, or beliefs devoid of sound reasoning. With the exception of Islamic Aristotelians, there were no sustained inquiries “into the nature of knowledge and how it is acquired” outside the European world. While there were “inquiries into the nature of reality and existence” and into “what is good,” there were no treatises on what constitutes valid and sound reasoning.

Indian philosophy was inextricably tied to India’s religious traditions, and was never conceived as a separate intellectual pursuit. Confucianism is not a philosophy, but a doctrine of moral advice, or a guide for proper moral behavior for the scholar gentry class of China’s bureaucratic state. Chinese philosophers, as a whole, were accustomed to express themselves in the form of aphorisms, apothegms, or allusions, and illustrations, lacking demonstrative reasoning and clearly-stated primary premises.

It is not that this list abides solely by the criteria that a philosopher must be a rationalist or logician, engaged in deductive or inductive reasoning, as the ultimate path to the discovery of the nature of things. The Western philosophical tradition, actually, contains the most reasoned critiques of the pretensions of reason in favor of alternative ways of finding meaning and making sense of the universe—intuitive, poetical, artistic, archetypal ways. The difference is that those philosophers who pointed to the limitations of reason would go on to develop alternative methodologies, or fully articulated philosophies, such as hermeneutics, phenomenology, and existentialism—by individuals well-educated in the Western rationalist and empiricist traditions. This accounts for the variety of philosophers listed below, some of whom I don’t like but are nevertheless recognized as great by some of the many sources I have read.

Abelard (1079–1142)
Anaximander (b. 610 BC)
Anselm (1033–1109)
Aquinas (1225–1274)
Aristotle (384–322 BC)
Augustine (354–430)
Bacon, Roger (1214–1292)
Bacon, Francis (1561–1626)
Bentham (1748–1832)
Berkeley (1685–1753)
Carnap (1891–1970)
Democritus (460–360 BC)
Deleuze (1925–1995)
Derrida (1930–2004)
Descartes (1596–1650)
Fichte (1762–1814)
Frege (1848–1925)
Hegel (1770–1831)
Heidegger (1889–1976)
Heraclitus (535–475 BC)
Hobbes (1588–1679)
Hume (1711–1776)
Husserl (1859–1938)
James (1842–1910)
Kant (1724–1804)
Leibniz (1646–1716)
Locke (1632–1704)
Marx (1818–83)
Mill (1806–73)
Nietzsche (1844–1900)
Ockham (1285–1347)
Parmenides (b. 501 BC)
Peirce (1839–1914)
Plato (428–348 BC)
Plotinus (204–270)
Pythagoras (570–495 BC)
Quine (1908–2000)
Rawls (1921–2002)
Reid (1710–1796)
Rousseau (1712–1778
Russell (1872–1970)
Sartre (1905–1980)
Schelling (1775–1854)
Schopenhauer (1788–1860)
Duns Scotus (1266–1308)
Socrates (470–399 BC)
Spinoza (1632–1677)
Wittgenstein (1889–1951)
Zeno of Lea (b. 489 BC)
Žižek (1949–)

XX. All 21 Greatest Books on Science — Except 1

Grok agreed that “this list is very accurate as a representation of the greatest books in science, particularly if we interpret ‘greatest’ as historically foundational and influential up to the 19th century.” I wanted a list that covered the major fields of scientific inquiry, rather than three or four, without affecting the quality of choices. The two changes I made to the original list was to replace Leonhart Fuchs’s Notable Commentaries on the History of Plants (1542) with Ptolemy’s Almagest. Grok said that Fuchs’s Notable Commentaries was “less groundbreaking than, say, Mendel’s work on genetics (though not a book) or Watson and Crick’s “Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids” (a paper, not a book).” Since these two works are papers, not books, I decided that the obvious book to stand as a substitute was Ptolemy’s Almagest. Grok noted that the list did not include books from the 20th century; however, the books Grok suggested are not, in my estimation, at the same peak level of “revolutionary” or “influential” as the ones listed here. I did, however, decide to substitute one of the two books I had listed from Newton, Opticks, with Marxwell’s A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. I had not included Albert Einstein’s Relativity: The Special and the General Theory (1916), for the sake of provocation, but have added it now.

Physics – Aristotle (4th Century BCE)
Almagest – Ptolemy (2nd Century)
On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres – Nicolaus Copernicus (1543)
On the Fabric of the Human Body – Andreas Vesalius (1543).
De Re Metallica – Georgius Agricola (1556).
On the Magnet – William Gilbert (1600)
Harmony of the World – Johannes Kepler (1619)
Novum Organum – Francis Bacon (1620)
An Anatomical Exercise on the Motion of the Heart and Blood in Living Beings – William Harvey (1628)
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems – Galileo Galilei (1632)
Discourse on the Method – René Descartes (1637)
The Sceptical Chymist – Robert Boyle (1661)
Micrographia – Robert Hooke (1665)
Principia Mathematica – Isaac Newton (1687)
Treatise on Light – Christiaan Huygens (1690)
Systema Naturae – Carl Linnaeus (1735)
Theory of the Earth – James Hutton (1788)
Elements of Chemistry – Antoine Lavoisier (1789)
On the Origin of Species – Charles Darwin (1859)
A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism – James Clerk Maxwell (1873)
Relativity: The Special and the General Theory – Albert Einstein (1916)

XXI. Almost 100% of the Greatest Architects are European Men

This is a list of the greatest architects with identifiable names from the Gothic period to the early 2oth century, ending with Art Nouveau and Art Deco. I asked Grok if this was a “reasonably accurate list of architects with identifiable names, which is not the case for most architecture outside the Western world. This is why this list is overwhelmingly of men of European descent. The only non-Western architect I would find is Mimar Sinan.”

Grok replied: “This is a reasonably accurate list of the greatest architects in history from the Gothic to the early 20th century, including Art Nouveau and Art Deco architects…It is a strong and reasonably accurate compilation, particularly given your focus on architects with identifiable names. As you noted, this naturally skews the list toward men of European descent, since historical records outside the Western world often lack individual attribution. The inclusion of Mimar Sinan as the sole non-Western architect is a thoughtful exception, reflecting his monumental contributions, such as the Süleymaniye Mosque, which rival the best of European architecture.”

The list below has been improved by Grok’s identification of the full names of a few architects, its observation that two names were “landscape architects, rather than rather than building designers,” its judgment that three names were not major architects, and its observation that I had omitted some 5 great architects.

I also asked Grok to organize the list in chronological order, according to birth and death of the architects, within the respective architectural movements or subheadings I had provided.

This list is not a denial of great architecture outside the Western world. The civilizations of the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incas saw impressive “monumental” stone buildings, pyramids and temples, constructed at the behest of state officials, which deserve much admiration. But these architectural attainments were a one-time affair in their originality, deserving only one chapter or section in a survey of the history of world architecture. The architecture of Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Persia is more impressive than that of the Americas, but not on the same aesthetic and geometrical level of harmony as the ancient Greek Parthenon of Athens, built in the mid-fifth century BC, the Doric Temple of Zeus at Olympia (460 BC), or the Temple of Poseidon at Sounion (440 BC). It is certainly below the level of proficiency and beauty attained by the ancient Romans.

In fairness to non-Western architecture, however, I decided to leave out Classical (Greece and Rome) and Romanesque architecture.

India saw great architectural styles, Jain Architecture (early medieval times, with delicate marble carvings characterized by precision; Vesara Architecture (7th–13th century CE), with detailed friezes and balanced proportions; Indo-Islamic Architecture (starting in the 12th century CE) best known for Taj Mahal. In China there were different styles, “Garden Architecture,” “Buddhist Architecture,” “Taoist Architecture,” or “Confucian Architecture”. It is hard, however, to hide the standardized, bureaucratic reality of Chinese architcture. The classical Chinese language has no word for “architect,” only one for a person who engages in the craft of building. The standards were sanctioned and guarded by the Chinese court, and the government was the sponsor of all major manuals that dealt with official architecture. Craftsmen were not required to be literate, only to follow prescribed modules and methods so as to ensure that court dictums were followed.

All in all, there was a lot less variety of architectural styles in the non-Western world. Once certain styles were established, little originality followed: no or few new epochs in aesthetics, without major individual architects to identify. In contrast, Europeans originated a continuous sequence of major architectural stylistic periods (within which there were other national styles): Classical (850 BC–AD 476), Romanesque (AD 900–1200), Gothic (1100s–1500s), Renaissance (1300s–1600s), Baroque (late 1500s–late 1600s), Rococo (1700–1760), Neoclassicism (1760–1830), Victorian-Eclecticism-Restoration (1815–1900), Art Nouveau (1890–1910), Art Deco (1915–1930), Modernism (early 1900s–1980s).

I have grouped the styles listed above under fewer movements/ headings for simplification.

Gothic Architects (prevalent in Europe from the 12th to the 16th centuries).

Abbot Suger (c. 1081 – 1151) Known for his role in the development of Gothic architecture at the Basilica of Saint-Denis.
William of Sens (c. 1120 – late 12th century) Worked on the reconstruction of Canterbury Cathedral in the 1170s.
Robert de Luzarches (c. 1180 – mid-13th century) Architect of Amiens Cathedral, begun in 1220.
Villard de Honnecourt (c. 1200 – c. 1250) Known for 13th-century sketchbook documenting Gothic construction techniques.
Arnolfo di Cambio (c. 1240 – 1302) Italian architect involved in the design of Florence Cathedral.
Erwin von Steinbach (c. 1244 – 1318) Worked on Strasbourg Cathedral, a masterpiece of Gothic architecture.
Henry Yevele (c. 1320 – 1400) Prominent English architect, active in the 14th century, known for work on Westminster Abbey.
Peter Parler (1330 – 1399) German architect who contributed to Saint Vitus Cathedral in Prague.

Renaissance Architects (the 14th to 17th centuries)

Filippo Brunelleschi (1377 – 1446) Pioneered Renaissance architecture with the dome of Florence Cathedral.
Michelozzo di Bartolomeo (1396 – 1472) Collaborated with Brunelleschi and designed the Palazzo Medici Riccardi.
Leon Battista Alberti (1404 – 1472) Architect and theorist, known for the façade of Santa Maria Novella.
Donato Bramante (1444 – 1514) Designed the Tempietto and contributed to St. Peter’s Basilica.
Giuliano da Sangallo (1445 – 1516) Known for the Villa Medici at Poggio a Caiano.
Michelangelo (1475 – 1564) Renowned artist and architect, designed the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica.
Baldassare Peruzzi (1481 – 1536) Designed the Villa Farnesina in Rome.
Michele Sanmicheli (1484 – 1559) Known for fortifications and palaces in Verona.
Jacopo Sansovino (1486 – 1570) Principal architect in Venice, designed the Biblioteca Marciana.
Mimar Sinan (1489 – 1588) Ottoman architect, famous for the Süleymaniye Mosque.
Giulio Romano (c. 1499 – 1546) Designed the Palazzo Te in Mantua.
Giacomo Vignola (1507 – 1573) Known for the Villa Farnese and the Church of the Gesù.
Andrea Palladio (1508 – 1580) Influential architect, designed the Villa Rotonda and Palladian buildings.
Philibert de l’Orme (c. 1510 – 1570) French architect, known for the Château d’Anet.
Giacomo Della Porta (c. 1533 – 1602) Completed the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica.
Vincenzo Scamozzi (1548 – 1616) Successor to Palladio, designed the Teatro Olimpico.

Baroque Architects (late 16th to the 18th century)

Carlo Maderno (1556 – 1629)
Designed the façade of St. Peter’s Basilica.
Inigo Jones (1573 – 1652)
Introduced Palladianism to England with the Queen’s House.
Pietro da Cortona (1596 – 1669)
Known for the Church of Santi Luca e Martina in Rome.
Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1598 – 1680)
Architect and sculptor, designed St. Peter’s Square.
François Mansart (1598 – 1666)
Known for the Château de Maisons-Laffitte.
Francesco Borromini (1599 – 1667)
Designed San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane in Rome.
Alonso Cano (1601 – 1667)
Spanish architect, worked on Granada Cathedral.
Louis Le Vau (1612 – 1670)
Designed the Palace of Versailles (early phases).
André Le Nôtre (1613 – 1700)
Landscape architect, designed the gardens of Versailles.
Sir Christopher Wren (1632 – 1723)
Rebuilt St. Paul’s Cathedral after the Great Fire of London.
Jules Hardouin-Mansart (1646 – 1708)
Expanded Versailles and designed Les Invalides (note: listed as “Jules Mansart” in the query).
Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach (1656 – 1723)
Austrian architect, designed Schönbrunn Palace (note: listed as “Johann von Erlach” in the query).
Jakob Prandtauer (1660 – 1726)
Designed Melk Abbey in Austria.
Johann Dientzenhofer (1663 – 1726)
Part of the Dientzenhofer family, worked on Bohemian Baroque buildings.
Andreas Schlüter (1664 – 1714)
German architect and sculptor, designed the Berlin Palace.
Sir John Vanbrugh (1664 – 1726)
Designed Blenheim Palace in England.
Pedro de Ribera (1681 – 1742)
Spanish architect, known for the Hospice of San Fernando.
Johann Balthasar Neumann (1687 – 1753)
Designed the Würzburg Residence.
Joseph Emanuel Fischer von Erlach (1693 – 1742)
Son of Johann Bernhard, completed works like the Karlskirche in Vienna.
Bartolomeo Rastrelli (1700 – 1771)
Designed the Winter Palace in St. Petersburg.

Neoclassical Architects (18th century)

Hans Georg von Knobelsdorff (1699 – 1753)
Designed Sanssouci Palace in Potsdam (note: listed after Nash in the query but placed here by birth date).
Jacques Germain Soufflot (1713 – 1780)
Designed the Panthéon in Paris.
Carl Gotthard Langhans (1732 – 1808)
Designed the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin.
Claude-Nicolas Ledoux (1736 – 1806)
Known for his utopian architectural designs.
Jean Chalgrin (1739 – 1811)
Designed the Arc de Triomphe in Paris.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 – 1826)
American statesman and architect, designed Monticello.
Charles Cameron (1745 – 1812)
Worked in Russia, designed Pavlovsk Palace.
John Nash (1752 – 1835)
Designed Regent’s Park and Buckingham Palace expansions.
William Thornton (1759 – 1828)
Designed the United States Capitol.
Charles Bulfinch (1763 – 1844)
First American-born professional architect, designed the Massachusetts State House.
Benjamin Henry Latrobe (1764 – 1820)
Contributed to the U.S. Capitol and Baltimore Basilica.
Sir Robert Smirke (1780 – 1867)
Designed the British Museum in London.
Karl Friedrich Schinkel (1781 – 1841)
Designed the Altes Museum in Berlin.

Victorian, Gothic Revival, Art Nouveau, and Art Deco Architects (from the 19th to early 20th centuries)

Sir Charles Barry (1795 – 1860)
Victorian architect, designed the Palace of Westminster.
Richard Upjohn (1802 – 1878)
Gothic Revival architect, designed Trinity Church in New York.
George Gilbert Scott (1811 – 1878)
Gothic Revival architect, designed the Albert Memorial.
Augustus Pugin (1812 – 1852)
Gothic Revival pioneer, collaborated on the Palace of Westminster.
Eugène Viollet-le-Duc (1814 – 1879)
Gothic Revival theorist, restored Notre-Dame de Paris.
James Renwick (1818 – 1895)
Gothic Revival architect, designed St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York.
Charles Garnier (1825 – 1898)
Victorian-era architect, designed the Paris Opéra.
Richard Morris Hunt (1827 – 1895)
Designed the Biltmore Estate in the Victorian style.
Gustave Eiffel (1832 – 1923)
Engineer and architect, designed the Eiffel Tower.
William Le Baron Jenney (1832 – 1907)
Pioneer of skyscraper design in Chicago.
George Brown Post (1837 – 1913)
Victorian architect, designed the New York Stock Exchange.
Henry Hobson Richardson (1838 – 1886)
Developed the Richardsonian Romanesque style.
Otto Wagner (1841 – 1918)
Transitional figure, bridged Victorian and Art Nouveau styles.
Daniel Burnham (1846 – 1912)
Part of Burnham and Root, designed the Flatiron Building.
John Root (1850 – 1891)
Partner in Burnham and Root, contributed to Chicago’s early skyscrapers.
Antoni Gaudí (1852 – 1926)
Art Nouveau architect, designed the Sagrada Família.
Martin Roche (1853 – 1927)
Part of Holabird & Roche, designed early skyscrapers.
William Holabird (1854 – 1923)
Partner in Holabird & Roche, influenced Chicago School architecture.
Louis Sullivan (1856 – 1924)
Chicago School architect, known as the “father of skyscrapers.”
Cass Gilbert (1859 – 1934)
Designed the Woolworth Building, blending Gothic Revival and early skyscraper design.
Alphonse Mucha (1860 – 1939)
Primarily an artist, included here for Art Nouveau influence.
Victor Horta (1861 – 1947)
Art Nouveau architect, designed the Hôtel Tassel in Brussels.
Henry van de Velde (1863 – 1957)
Art Nouveau and early modernist architect and designer.
Joseph Maria Olbrich (1867 – 1908)
Art Nouveau architect, designed the Secession Building in Vienna.
Hector Guimard (1867 – 1942)
Art Nouveau architect, designed Paris Métro entrances.
Frank Lloyd Wright (1867 – 1959)
Began in the late Victorian era, later influenced modern architecture.
Charles Rennie Mackintosh (1868 – 1928)
Art Nouveau architect, designed the Glasgow School of Art.
Peter Behrens (1868 – 1940)
Transitional figure between Art Nouveau and modernism.
Adolf Loos (1870 – 1933)
Early modernist, rejected Art Nouveau ornamentation.
Raymond Hood (1881 – 1934)
Art Deco architect, designed the Rockefeller Center.
William Van Alen (1883 – 1954)
Art Deco architect, designed the Chrysler Building.
Walter Gropius (1883 – 1969)
Founder of the Bauhaus, bridged early 20th-century styles.
Ralph Walker (1889 – 1973)
Art Deco architect, designed the AT&T Building in New York.

XXII. 18.5 of the Greatest 22 Modern Logicians are European with 3.5 Jews

There is a series, Handbook of the History of Logic, which consists of 11 volumes, of which only the first volume, mostly about Aristotle’s logic, has two chapters about nonwhite contributions to logic, namely, Indian and Arabic logic, with every other volume singularly dedicated to Western logic. The Chinese had no logic. I asked Grok, firstly, whether the following list was “leaving out some of the greatest modern logicians,” and, secondly, whether it would be “accurate to say that the following men of European ancestry, including Jewish ancestry, represent all the greatest modern logicians.”

Grok agreed that this “list contains many of the most influential and celebrated logicians in the history of the field…aligning with the ‘modern’ era.” In response to the two questions, Grok mentioned the following “notable omissions” (European and Jewish) and “notable” women and non-European logicians. After further research, I decided to add i) Stephen Kleene (American of European ancestry), as he is “widely considered to be one of the greatest logicians of the 20th century”; ii) Jaakko Hintikka (Finnish ancestry) for his very significant contributions to “modal and philosophical logic”; iii) Haskell Curry (American logician of European ancestry), as a “highly influential and prominent logician”; and Saharon Shelah (Jewish ancestry), “widely considered one of the greatest logicians”.

Although Grok mentioned these names, but I did not include Alfred North Whitehead (British) since he is best classified as a philosopher of mathematics. Emil Post (1897-1954, Jewish Heritage) is not included either since he is generally rated as a “significant and influential figure in the field of computability,” but is not recognized as one of the top logicians. Andrey Kolmogorov (1903-1987, Russian ancestry) is not primarily known as a logician, but as a great mathematician, already included in the list of greatest mathematicians. Likewise, Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887–1920, Indian) is already included in the list of greatest mathematicians. The woman Emmy Noether (1882–1935, Jewish ancestry), as Grok admits, “is not primarily a logician”. Julia Robinson (1919–1985, American) is really a mathematician; and Hao Wang (1921–1995, Chinese), is significant but not a top logician.

The list contains 22 logicians, of which 18 are of European ancestry and 4 of Jewish ancestry, though Cantor’s Jewish ancestry is through his paternal line only. Some may argue that all 22 logicians are of European ancestry to the extent that Ashkenazi Jews are considered of European ancestry due to their historical roots in Eastern Europe.

Bernhard Bolzano (1781-1848)
- Nationality: German-Italian
- Achievements: Made early contributions to logic and mathematics, notably the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem, which is fundamental in real analysis.
George Boole (1815-1864)
- Nationality: British
- Achievements: Developed Boolean algebra, a cornerstone of computer science and digital logic design.
C. S. Peirce (1839-1914)
- Nationality: American
- Achievements: Contributed to the development of quantifiers in logic and semiotics; influential in the philosophical school of pragmatism.
Georg Cantor (1845-1918)
- Nationality: German (Jewish ancestry through his paternal line)
- Achievements: Founded set theory and introduced the concept of infinite sets and transfinite numbers, revolutionizing mathematics.
Gottlob Frege (1848-1925)
- Nationality: German
- Achievements: Developed the first formal system of predicate logic, laying the groundwork for modern logical systems.
Giuseppe Peano (1858-1932)
- Nationality: Italian
- Achievements: Formulated the Peano axioms for natural numbers, advancing the formalization of arithmetic in mathematical logic.
David Hilbert (1862-1943)
- Nationality: German
- Achievements: Proposed Hilbert’s program to formalize all of mathematics; made influential contributions across multiple mathematical fields.
Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
- Nationality: British
- Achievements: Co-authored Principia Mathematica with Alfred North Whitehead, aiming to derive mathematics from logical axioms.
Jan Łukasiewicz (1878-1956)
- Nationality: Polish
- Achievements: Developed many-valued logics and Polish notation, which influenced computer science and logical syntax.
Thoralf Skolem (1887-1963)
- Nationality: Norwegian
- Achievements: Contributed to mathematical logic with the Skolem normal form and the Skolem paradox in set theory.
Rudolf Carnap (1891-1970)
- Nationality: German
- Achievements: Key figure in logical positivism; advanced the philosophy of science and inductive logic.
Haskell Curry (1900-1982)
- Nationality: American
- Achievements: Developed combinatory logic, a notation for functions without variables, foundational in theoretical computer science; the concept of currying in programming is named after him.
Alfred Tarski (1901-1983)
- Nationality: Polish Jewish
- Achievements: Defined truth in formal languages through his semantic theory; made major contributions to model theory and formal semantics.
- Note: The query lists his birth year as 1902, but historical records confirm he was born on January 14, 1901.
Alonzo Church (1903-1994)
- Nationality: American
- Achievements: Developed the lambda calculus and co-formulated the Church-Turing thesis, foundational concepts in computability theory.
Kurt Gödel (1906-1978)
- Nationality: Austrian-American
- Achievements: Proved the incompleteness theorems, demonstrating inherent limitations in formal mathematical systems.
- Note: The query lists him as German, but he was born in Austria-Hungary and later became a U.S. citizen, making Austrian-American more accurate.
Willard Quine (1908-2000)
- Nationality: American
- Achievements: Contributed to logic, set theory, and philosophy of language, notably with the concept of the indeterminacy of translation.
Stephen Kleene (1909-1994)
- Nationality: American
- Achievements: Developed regular expressions, the Kleene star, and significant concepts in computability and recursion theory, including the Kleene hierarchy.
Gerhard Gentzen (1909-1945)
- Nationality: German
- Achievements: Developed natural deduction and sequent calculus, essential tools in proof theory.
- Note: Born November 24, 1909, later in the year than Kleene (January 5, 1909), placing him after Kleene chronologically.
Alan Turing (1912-1954)
- Nationality: British
- Achievements: Introduced the Turing machine, a fundamental model of computation, and advanced computability theory and cryptography.
Jaakko Hintikka (1929-2015)
- Nationality: Finnish
- Achievements: Contributed to modal logic and developed game-theoretical semantics, influencing logical and philosophical analysis.
Saul Kripke (1940-)
- Nationality: American-Jewish
- Achievements: Developed Kripke semantics for modal logic; highly influential in the philosophy of language with works like Naming and Necessity.
Saharon Shelah (1945-)
- Nationality: Israeli
- Achievements: Leading figure in model theory, known for developing stability theory and classification theory; made significant contributions to set theory, including proper forcing.

XXIII. Almost all the Greatest Adventure Stories

That white men of European ancestry wrote all the greatest adventure novels should not be surprising considering that they explored most of the world, mapped the earth, the moon, the sea beds, identified countless stars and galaxies, climbed the highest mountains, reached the center of Antarctica, navigated all the oceans and rivers, and achieved numerous breakthroughs in science, technology, and in all the disciplinary fields of knowledge. On the advice of Grok, I added the adventure tale, Journey to the West (China) and The Epic of Gilgamesh (Mesopotamia). I did not include The Epic of Gilgamesh because I don’t consider it to be heroic with an individual hero. But, considering it has been a very influential epic from the Middle East, and that it is viewed by some as an “adventure story,” I have decided to include it. Gary Paulsen’s novel, Hatchet, was also added, after Grok suggested it. In the original 2020 list, I listed two novels by Dumas and Verne, but decided this time to include one book per author, for the sake of consistency. It should be noted that Alexander Dumas had a paternal grandfather of African descent.

The Epic of Gilgamesh by Sin-leqi-unninni
- Publication Year: ~2100 BCE
- Nationality: Mesopotamian
Odyssey by Homer
- Publication Year: ~8th century BCE
- Nationality: Greek
Aeneid by Virgil
- Publication Year: 19 BCE
- Nationality: Roman
Journey to the West by Wu Cheng’en
- Publication Year: 1592 (specific year for the first known complete edition)
- Nationality: Chinese
Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes
- Publication Year: 1605 (first part)
- Nationality: Spanish
Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe
- Publication Year: 1719
- Nationality: English
Gulliver’s Travels by Jonathan Swift
- Publication Year: 1726
- Nationality: Irish
Swiss Family Robinson by Johann David Wyss
- Publication Year: 1812
- Nationality: Swiss
Ivanhoe by Walter Scott
- Publication Year: 1819
- Nationality: Scottish
The Last of the Mohicans by James Fenimore Cooper
- Publication Year: 1826
- Nationality: American
The Count of Monte Cristo by Alexandre Dumas
- Publication Year: 1844
- Nationality: French
Moby-Dick by Herman Melville
- Publication Year: 1851
- Nationality: American
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea by Jules Verne
- Publication Year: 1870
- Nationality: French
Roughing It by Mark Twain
- Publication Year: 1872
- Nationality: American
The Mysterious Island by Jules Verne
- Publication Year: 1874
- Nationality: French
Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson
- Publication Year: 1883
- Nationality: Scottish
King Solomon’s Mines by H. Rider Haggard
- Publication Year: 1885
- Nationality: English
Kidnapped by Robert Louis Stevenson
- Publication Year: 1886
- Nationality: Scottish
Prisoner of Zenda by Anthony Hope
- Publication Year: 1894
- Nationality: English
Captains Courageous by Rudyard Kipling
- Publication Year: 1897
- Nationality: English
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
- Publication Year: 1903
- Nationality: American
The Sea-Wolf by Jack London
- Publication Year: 1904
- Nationality: American
Tarzan of the Apes by Edgar Rice Burroughs
- Publication Year: 1912
- Nationality: American
The Lost World by Arthur Conan Doyle
- Publication Year: 1912
- Nationality: Scottish
The Thirty-Nine Steps by John Buchan
- Publication Year: 1915
- Nationality: Scottish
Captain Blood by Rafael Sabatini
- Publication Year: 1922
- Nationality: Italian
The Worst Journey in the World by Apsley Cherry-Garrard
- Publication Year: 1922
- Nationality: English
Beau Geste by P. C. Wren
- Publication Year: 1924
- Nationality: English
The Long Ships by Frans G. Bengtsson
- Publication Year: 1941
- Nationality: Swedish
The Cruel Sea by Nicholas Monsarrat
- Publication Year: 1951
- Nationality: English
Lord of the Flies by William Golding
- Publication Year: 1954
- Nationality: English
Master and Commander by Patrick O’Brian
- Publication Year: 1969
- Nationality: English
Hatchet by Gary Paulsen
- Publication Year: 1987
- Nationality: American
The Beach by Alex Garland
- Publication Year: 1996
- Nationality: English
The Road by Cormac McCarthy
- Publication Year: 2006
- Nationality: American

XXIV. 100% of the Greatest Physicists of the 19th century

The 1800s were ground breaking in physics, establishing the unification of electricity and magnetism into a single framework, the laws of thermodynamics, the wave theory of light, the idea of conservation of energy, or the principle that energy is neither created nor destroyed, but only transformed. These revolutionary insights were carried out by a cast of European men only, as the rest of the world remained stuck in a pre-Newtonian mental state. The names below follow closely my initial list, except that I have taken Grok’s advice, adding two very important names, Clausius and Ohm; while excluding Euler as he belonged in 1700s, even if his impact spilled over into the early 1800s. Thomas Young (1773–1829) and Robert Brown (1773–1858) were removed from the original list as less impactful . Grok agreed that all of these men are European in ancestry.

Joseph-Louis Lagrange (1736–1813)
- Achievement/Originality: Developed Lagrangian mechanics, a reformulation of classical mechanics that became foundational for later physics, though much of his work was in the 18th century, influencing 19th-century developments.
- Nationality: Italian (born in the Kingdom of Sardinia, later worked in France).
Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1788–1827)
- Achievement/Originality: Pioneered wave optics, developed the theory of diffraction, and invented the Fresnel lens, revolutionizing the understanding of light as a wave.
- Nationality: French.
Georg Ohm (1789–1854)
- Achievement/Originality: Formulated Ohm’s Law, establishing the fundamental relationship between voltage, current, and resistance in electrical circuits, crucial to electromagnetism.
- Nationality: German.
Michael Faraday (1791–1867)
- Achievement/Originality: Laid the foundation for electromagnetism with discoveries like electromagnetic induction and pioneered electrochemistry with his laws of electrolysis.
- Nationality: British (English).
Sadi Carnot (1796–1832)
- Achievement/Originality: Established the groundwork for thermodynamics through his work on heat engines, introducing the concept of the Carnot cycle.
- Nationality: French.
Julius Robert Mayer (1814–1878)
- Achievement/Originality: Formulated the principle of conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics), independently recognizing energy’s fundamental role in physical processes.
- Nationality: German.
James Joule (1818–1889)
- Achievement/Originality: Conducted experiments establishing the mechanical equivalent of heat, solidifying the conservation of energy and advancing thermodynamics.
- Nationality: British (English).
Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894)
- Achievement/Originality: Made immense contributions to thermodynamics (conservation of energy), optics (theory of vision), and electrodynamics, bridging multiple fields of physics.
- Nationality: German.
Rudolf Clausius (1822–1888)
- Achievement/Originality: Formulated the second law of thermodynamics and introduced the concept of entropy, shaping modern thermodynamics.
- Nationality: German.
Lord Kelvin (William Thomson, 1824–1907)
- Achievement/Originality: Advanced thermodynamics with the Kelvin temperature scale and contributed to electromagnetism, including work on transatlantic telegraphy.
- Nationality: British (Scottish-Irish).
James Clerk Maxwell (1831–1879)
- Achievement/Originality: Developed Maxwell’s equations, unifying electricity and magnetism into electromagnetism, a cornerstone of classical physics.
- Nationality: British (Scottish).
Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906)
- Achievement/Originality: Revolutionized statistical mechanics with his work on entropy and the Boltzmann equation, explaining the microscopic basis of thermodynamics.
- Nationality: Austrian.
Albert A. Michelson (1852–1931)
- Achievement/Originality: Conducted the Michelson-Morley experiment (1887), disproving the existence of the luminiferous ether and paving the way for Einstein’s relativity.
- Nationality: American (born in Prussia, now Poland, immigrated to the U.S.).

XXV. Whites invented all the home appliances

The key figures associated with the development of many of the home appliances everyone in the world loves are all of European ancestry, and they are men except for two female exceptions, Melitta Bentz, inventor of the coffee filter, though not the electric coffee maker, and Josephine Cochrane, inventor of the dishwasher. Worth remembering that many of these inventions were improved over time, and that subsequent innovators brought important changes and refinements. I am using some of Grok’s own words to describe the nature of the inventions, the contribution of each inventor, and their particular nationality.

Refrigerator: The concept of artificial refrigeration dates back to William Cullen, who demonstrated it in 1748, but the first practical home refrigerator was invented by Fred J. Wolf in 1913.
Stereo: The modern stereo system, delivering two-channel sound, was pioneered by Alan Blumlein in the 1930s.
Stove: The first practical cast-iron stove for home use was invented by Benjamin Franklin in 1742, known as the Franklin stove. For electric stoves, Thomas Ahearn patented an electric oven in 1892, which evolved into the modern electric stove.
Washing Machine: The first patented washing machine was by Nathaniel Briggs in 1797, a hand-powered device. However, the electric washing machine was developed by Alva J. Fisher in 1908.
Toaster: The first electric toaster was invented by Alan MacMasters in 1893 in Scotland. Charles Strite perfected the pop-up toaster in 1919.
Microwave: Percy Spencer invented the microwave oven in 1945 after noticing a melting chocolate bar near a magnetron.
Coffee Maker: The drip coffee maker was invented by Melitta Bentz in 1908, using a paper filter. For electric percolation, Gottlob Widmann patented an electric coffee maker in 1954.
Food Processor: Pierre Verdun created the first food processor in 1960, marketed as the “Robot-Coupe” in France. Carl Sontheimer later adapted it for the U.S. market in 1971, popularizing the Cuisinart brand.
Blender: John Oster and Fred Waring; Oster developed a blender in 1937, but Waring financed and marketed the “Waring Blendor” in 1938, based on a design by inventor Frederick J. Osius.
Air Conditioning: Willis Carrier invented the first modern air conditioner in 1902, originally for industrial use.
Water Heater: The first practical water heater was invented by Edwin Ruud in 1889.
Vacuum Cleaner: Hubert Cecil Booth invented the first powered vacuum cleaner in 1901; and James Murray Spangler created the first portable electric vacuum in 1907.
Dishwasher: Josephine Cochrane invented the first practical dishwasher in 1886. Her hand-powered design was later electrified.

XXVI. Almost all the greatest Political Theorists

European men wrote most of the major treatises on politics, formulated most of the concepts, and almost all the ideologies or isms we know about. The following concepts and ideologies were originated and fully explained in countless treatises: Democracy, Justice, Natural Law, Sovereignty, Social Contract, General Will, Separation of Powers, Rights of Man, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, Utilitarianism, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, Limited Government, Constitutionalism, Natural Rights, Feminism, Civil Rights, Environmentalism, Pluralism, Globalization, Multiculturalism, Justice as Fairness, Fascism, Traditionalism, and more.

I asked Grok whether “it can be accurately argued that this list includes the greatest political thinkers in the world. Did I leave out any truly major political philosopher?”. Before I sent the list to Grok, I made sure there were enough Chinese names, and one Indian name, adding Han Feizi and Kautilya, so as to avoid statements from Grok about “Eurocentrism”.

Grok replied: “No, you did not leave out any truly major political philosopher. The list includes the greatest political thinkers in the world, and while other significant figures could be added, those present are sufficient to represent the field comprehensively.”

Of the additional names Grok suggested as great figures that could be added to the list, namely, Mary Wollstonecraft, Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Michel Foucault, and Hannah Arendt. I only added Foucault, who has obviously played a huge role in recent decades, the most widely read author in academia, whom I had meant to add. I added Simone de Beauvoir to stand as the foremost feminist, author of The Second Sex in 1949, a text widely seen as a cornerstone of feminist philosophy. I replaced Russell Kirk with Eric Voegelin. This list includes 27 European, 3 Chinese, 2 Jews, 1 Indian, and 1 Tunisian, Khaldun, who is already listed as a historian.

Confucius (551–479 BCE) – Chinese
Mozi (c. 470–391 BCE) – Chinese
Plato (c. 428–348 BCE) – European
Aristotle (384–322 BCE) – European
Kautilya (c. 350–283 BCE) – Indian
Han Feizi (c. 280–233 BCE) – Chinese
Polybius (c. 200–118 BCE) – European
Cicero (106–43 BCE) – European
Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) – Tunisian
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) – European
Jean Bodin (1530–1596) – European
Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) – European
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) – European
John Locke (1632–1704) – European
Montesquieu (1689–1755) – European
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) – European
Edmund Burke (1729–1797) – European
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) – European
Joseph de Maistre (1753–1821) – European
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831) – European
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805–1859) – European
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) – European
Karl Marx (1818–1883) – Jewish
Giovanni Gentile (1875–1944) – European
Carl Schmitt (1888–1985) – European
Antonio Gramsci (1891–1937) – European
Leo Strauss (1899–1973) – Jewish
Eric Voegelin (1901–1985) – European
Michael Oakeshott (1901–1990) – European
Simone de Beauvoir (1908 –1986) – European
Russell Kirk (1918–1994) – European
John Rawls (1921–2002) – European
Michel Foucault (1926–1984) – European
Jürgen Habermas (1929–present) – European

XXVII. Most Decisive and Tactical Battles in History

I asked Grok to evaluate the accuracy and completeness of this list. “Do you agree that this list is reasonably accurate in identifying the most decisive as well as tactically significant battles in history? I calculate that Europeans fought in 35 out of the following 39 battles (the ones with an asterisk * are the battles fought between non-Europeans.) Which crucial ones I left out, and which ones should not be included in this list?”

The list I compiled referred to Europeans but not Americans. Grok listed 7 “omissions that could arguably belong on a list of decisive or tactically significant battles”, namely, “Plataea, Manzikert, Sekigahara, Trafalgar, or Kursk for broader scope”). It listed 5 battles “that might not belong” in this list, namely, “Thermopylae (less decisive), Barbarossa (too broad), or Cambrai/Omdurman (less globally pivotal)”. Grok also observed that “Yarmouk involved Byzantine (European) forces, contradicting its asterisk.”

It said that the list “is an impressive and well-considered compilation of some of history’s most decisive and tactically significant battles, spanning ancient times to the modern era. It includes battles that shaped empires, altered the course of civilizations, or showcased brilliant (or disastrous) military tactics”.

I accepted Grok’s evaluation except its view about the Battle of Sekigahara (1600), which “decided the unification of Japan under Tokugawa Ieyasu, ending the Sengoku period and ushering in centuries of stability.” If this battle were to be included, we would have to include many battles that “decided the unification” of major European countries.

After I compiled the 42 battles listed below, I asked Grok to i) identify with an asterisk * the non-Europeans, ii) to indicate which side won in these battles, and to italicized the battles (they amount to only 4) in which both sides fighting were non-Europeans.

Battle of Marathon, 490 BC
- Sides: Greeks (Athens and Plataea) vs. Persians*
- Outcome: Greek victory
- Note: Persians were a non-European empire from Asia (* on Persians).
Salamis, 480 BC
- Sides: Greeks (Greek city-states) vs. Persians*
- Outcome: Greek victory
- Note: Persians were non-European (* on Persians).
Battle of Plataea, 479 BC
- Sides: Greeks (Greek city-states) vs. Persians*
- Outcome: Greek victory
- Note: Persians were non-European (* on Persians).
Maling, 342 BC
- Sides: Chinese (State of Qi) vs. Chinese (State of Wei)
- Outcome: Qi victory
- Note: Both sides were non-European (Chinese states during the Warring States period, * on both).
Battle of Issus, 333 BC
- Sides: Macedonians (Alexander the Great) vs. Persians*
- Outcome: Macedonian victory
- Note: Persians were non-European (* on Persians).
Gaugamela, 331 BC
- Sides: Macedonians (Alexander the Great) vs. Persians*
- Outcome: Macedonian victory
- Note: Persians were non-European (* on Persians).
Lake Trasimene, 217 BC
- Sides: Romans (Roman Republic) vs. Carthaginians*
- Outcome: Carthaginian victory
- Note: Carthaginians were from North Africa (* on Carthaginians).
Cannae, 216 BC
- Sides: Romans (Roman Republic) vs. Carthaginians*
- Outcome: Carthaginian victory
- Note: Carthaginians were non-European (* on Carthaginians).
Battle of Metaurus, 207 BC
- Sides: Romans (Roman Republic) vs. Carthaginians*
- Outcome: Roman victory
- Note: Carthaginians were non-European (* on Carthaginians).
Ilipa, 206 BC
- Sides: Romans (Roman Republic) vs. Carthaginians*
- Outcome: Roman victory
- Note: Carthaginians were non-European (* on Carthaginians).
Battle of Zama, 202 BC
- Sides: Romans (Roman Republic) vs. Carthaginians*
- Outcome: Roman victory
- Note: Carthaginians were non-European (* on Carthaginians).
Pydna, 168 BC
- Sides: Romans (Roman Republic) vs. Macedonians
- Outcome: Roman victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Carrhae, 53 BC
- Sides: Romans (Roman Republic) vs. Parthians*
- Outcome: Parthian victory
- Note: Parthians were a non-European empire from Asia (* on Parthians).
Pharsalus, 48 BC
- Sides: Romans (Caesar’s faction) vs. Romans (Pompey’s faction)
- Outcome: Caesar’s victory
- Note: Both sides were European (Roman civil war).
Teutoburg Forest, 9 AD
- Sides: Romans (Roman Empire) vs. Germanic tribes
- Outcome: Germanic victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Chalons, 451 AD
- Sides: Romans (Western Roman Empire) and Visigoths vs. Huns* and allies
- Outcome: Roman-Visigoth victory
- Note: Huns were a non-European nomadic group from Asia (* on Huns).
Walaja, 633 AD
- Sides: Arabs* (Rashidun Caliphate) vs. Persians* (Sassanid Empire)
- Outcome: Arab victory
- Note: Both sides were non-European (* on both).
Yarmouk, 636 AD (assumed from context, as “Yarmouk” alone is incomplete)
- Sides: Arabs* (Rashidun Caliphate) vs. Byzantines
- Outcome: Arab victory
- Note: Arabs were non-European (* on Arabs).
Tours, 732 AD
- Sides: Franks (Frankish Kingdom) vs. Arabs* (Umayyad Caliphate)
- Outcome: Frankish victory
- Note: Arabs were non-European (* on Arabs).
Hastings, 1066 AD
- Sides: Normans (Norman French) vs. Anglo-Saxons (England)
- Outcome: Norman victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Battle of Manzikert, 1071 AD
- Sides: Byzantines vs. Seljuk Turks*
- Outcome: Seljuk victory
- Note: Seljuk Turks were non-European (* on Seljuks).
Crécy, 1346 AD
- Sides: English vs. French
- Outcome: English victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Battle of Agincourt, 1415 AD
- Sides: English vs. French
- Outcome: English victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Panipat, 1526 AD
- Sides: Mughals* (Babur) vs. Delhi Sultanate* (Ibrahim Lodi)
- Outcome: Mughal victory
- Note: Both sides were non-European (Indian subcontinent, * on both).
Cajamarca, 1532 AD
- Sides: Spaniards vs. Incas*
- Outcome: Spanish victory
- Note: Incas were non-European (South American, * on Incas).
Leipzig, 1631 AD (assumed First Battle of Breitenfeld, as “Leipzig 1631” is ambiguous)
- Sides: Swedes and German Protestants vs. Holy Roman Empire (Catholic League)
- Outcome: Swedish-Protestant victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Rocroi, 1643 AD
- Sides: French vs. Spaniards
- Outcome: French victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Vienna, 1683 AD
- Sides: Holy Roman Empire and allies vs. Ottoman Turks*
- Outcome: Holy Roman victory
- Note: Ottomans were non-European (* on Ottomans).
Poltava, 1709 AD
- Sides: Russians vs. Swedes
- Outcome: Russian victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Rossbach, 1757 AD
- Sides: Prussians vs. French and Holy Roman Empire
- Outcome: Prussian victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Valmy, 1792 AD
- Sides: French (Revolutionary forces) vs. Prussians and Austrians
- Outcome: French victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Ulm, 1805 AD
- Sides: French (Napoleon) vs. Austrians
- Outcome: French victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Battle of Trafalgar, 1805 AD
- Sides: British vs. French and Spanish
- Outcome: British victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Leipzig, 1813 AD (Battle of the Nations)
- Sides: Coalition (Russia, Prussia, Austria, etc.) vs. French (Napoleon)
- Outcome: Coalition victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Waterloo, 1815 AD
- Sides: Coalition (Britain, Prussia, etc.) vs. French (Napoleon)
- Outcome: Coalition victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Gettysburg, 1863 AD
- Sides: United States (Union) vs. Confederate States
- Outcome: Union victory
- Note: Both sides were European-descended (North American context).
Battle of Sedan, 1870 AD
- Sides: Prussians and German states vs. French
- Outcome: Prussian victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Omdurman, 1898 AD
- Sides: British-Egyptian forces vs. Mahdists* (Sudanese)
- Outcome: British-Egyptian victory
- Note: Mahdists were non-European (* on Mahdists).
First Battle of Kiev, 1941 AD
- Sides: Germans (Nazi Germany) vs. Soviets (Soviet Union)
- Outcome: German victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Midway Island, 1942 AD
- Sides: United States vs. Japanese*
- Outcome: American victory
- Note: Japanese were non-European (* on Japan).
Stalingrad, 1942–1943 AD
- Sides: Germans (Nazi Germany) vs. Soviets (Soviet Union)
- Outcome: Soviet victory
- Note: Both sides were European.
Battle of Kursk, 1943 AD
- Sides: Germans (Nazi Germany) vs. Soviets (Soviet Union)
- Outcome: Soviet victory
- Note: Both sides were European.

XXVIII. 100% of Inventions between mid-1700s and 1860s

Grok agreed with this list, replying: “Yes, it is accurate to say that White men of European ancestry were responsible for 100% of the listed inventions between the mid-1700s and 1860s, based on historical attribution. This reflects the socio-economic and technological context of the period, centered in Europe and its offshoots.”

Flying Shuttle – Invented by John Kay (English, 1733). European, White male.
Spinning Jenny – Invented by James Hargreaves (English, 1764). European, White male.
Steam Engine – Improved significantly by James Watt (Scottish, 1760s-1770s), building on earlier work by Thomas Newcomen (English). European, White males.
Cotton Gin – Invented by Eli Whitney (American of European descent, 1793). White male.
Telegraph – Developed by Samuel Morse (American of European descent, 1830s-1840s), with contributions from others like William Cooke and Charles Wheatstone (English). All European or of European ancestry, White males.
Portland Cement – Patented by Joseph Aspdin (English, 1824). European, White male.
Bessemer Process – Developed by Henry Bessemer (English, 1856). European, White male.
Battery – Invented by Alessandro Volta (Italian, 1800). European, White male.
Locomotives – Pioneered by George Stephenson (English, 1814-1820s). European, White male.
Power Loom – Invented by Edmund Cartwright (English, 1785). European, White male.
Arkwright’s Water Frame – Invented by Richard Arkwright (English, 1769). European, White male.
Spinning Mule – Invented by Samuel Crompton (English, 1779). European, White male.
Henry Cort’s Puddling – Developed by Henry Cort (English, 1780s). European, White male.
Gaslighting Arc Lamp – Early gas lighting by William Murdoch (Scottish, 1790s); arc lamp by Humphry Davy (English, 1802). Both European, White males.
Tin Can – Patented by Peter Durand (English, 1810). European, White male.
Spectrometer – Developed by Joseph von Fraunhofer (German, 1810s). European, White male.
Camera Obscura – Known since antiquity, but modern photographic use advanced by Louis Daguerre (French, 1830s) and others. European, White male.
Electromagnet – Invented by William Sturgeon (English, 1825). European, White male.
Mackintosh Raincoat – Invented by Charles Macintosh (Scottish, 1823). European, White male.
Matches – Friction matches by John Walker (English, 1826). European, White male.
Typewriter – Early version by Henry Mill (English, 1714), but practical typewriter by Christopher Latham Sholes (American of European descent, 1860s). White males.
Blueprints – Cyanotype process by John Herschel (English, 1842). European, White male.
Hydrogen Fuel Cell – Discovered by William Grove (Welsh, 1839). European, White male.

XXIX. Almost all the Greatest Painters

Going by the amount of space allocated to the greatest artists in reference works, encyclopedias, and dictionaries, as decided upon by generations of men with the requisite knowledge and taste for great art, Murray estimated that the absolute number of great visual artists in the West is far higher than the combined number of the other civilizations: 479 for the West as compared to 192 for China and Japan combined (with no significant figures listed for India or the Arab World).

A crucially missing factor in Murray’s statistical assessment, however, is that it leaves out a most peculiar characteristic of Western art: its exhibition of a continuous proliferation of highly original artists with new artistic styles, new ways of projecting images on a flat surface, new conceptions of light, new standards of excellence, and new conceptions about nature and man—in contrast to the non-Western world, where aesthetic norms barely changed, or where artists were invariably inclined to follow an established convention without breaking new aesthetic paths. Paintings in both China and Japan occurred within a cultural matrix that encouraged standardization and regularity, rather than unpredictability and freshness. New trends consisted in breaking from the regimented traditions of one’s age by reviving and putting new life into early traditions.

This time I decided to make the list as comprehensive as possible before asking Grok any questions. I included two of the greatest Chinese painters as well as two Japanese painters, focusing on the early Chinese painters, as the most original, but adding a Japanese from a later period in reflection of his prominence outside Japan. I asked Grok: “Is this list an accurate representation of the greatest painters in history?” I also asked Grok to describe briefly why these names are considered among the greatest and most original painters.

Grok acknowledged that the “list includes many of the most celebrated painters across different cultures and eras” but mentioned some “notable absences”, in abstract painting and female painters, namely, Jackson Pollock, Frida Kahlo, Mary Cassatt, and Wassily Kandinsky. It said that the list suggested “a possible bias toward Western male painters or pre-20th-century figures”, omitting “key figures from other regions (e.g., no Indian, African, or pre-Columbian American artists) and underrepresented groups.”

I believe this list did not need any changes; it is already a very strong representation of the greatest painters; adding painters from “underrepresented groups” would lower its quality.

Gu Kaizhi (c. 344–406)
Why Great: A foundational figure in Chinese painting, Gu Kaizhi pioneered expressive figure painting and narrative scrolls. His delicate brushwork and focus on capturing the spirit (rather than just the form) of his subjects set a standard for East Asian art.
Wu Daozi (c. 680–760)
Why Great: Known as the “Sage of Painting” in Tang Dynasty China, Wu Daozi revolutionized Chinese art with dynamic, flowing brushstrokes and a sense of movement that brought figures to life, influencing centuries of ink painting.
Giotto (c. 1267–1337)
Why Great: Giotto broke from medieval flatness, introducing naturalism, emotion, and three-dimensionality to Western art. His frescoes, like those in the Scrovegni Chapel, laid the groundwork for the Renaissance.
Jan van Eyck (c. 1390–1441)
Why Great: A master of oil painting, Van Eyck’s meticulous detail and use of light (e.g., Arnolfini Portrait) transformed Northern European art, making him a key figure in the Early Renaissance.
Masaccio (1401–1428)
Why Great: Known as the “father of Renaissance painting,” Masaccio introduced linear perspective and realistic human anatomy (e.g., The Tribute Money), pushing art toward greater naturalism.
Sesshū Tōyō (1420–1506)
Why Great: A Japanese Zen monk and ink painter, Sesshū blended Chinese influences with a minimalist, expressive style. His landscapes (e.g., Winter Landscape) are revered for their spiritual depth.
Sandro Botticelli (c. 1445–1510)
Why Great: Botticelli’s lyrical style and mythological themes (e.g., The Birth of Venus) epitomized Florentine Renaissance ideals, blending grace with emotional resonance.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519)
Why Great: A polymath, Leonardo’s mastery of sfumato, anatomical precision, and innovative compositions (e.g., Mona Lisa, The Last Supper) made him a quintessential Renaissance genius.
Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528)
Why Great: Dürer brought Renaissance techniques to Northern Europe, excelling in engravings and woodcuts (e.g., Melencolia I) with unmatched detail and intellectual depth.
Raphael (1483–1520)
Why Great: Raphael’s harmonious compositions and idealized beauty (e.g., School of Athens) defined High Renaissance perfection, balancing grace and clarity.
Michelangelo (1475–1564)
Why Great: A titan of the Renaissance, Michelangelo’s monumental frescoes (e.g., Sistine Chapel ceiling) and sculptures showcase his unparalleled ability to convey power and emotion.
Titian (c. 1488–1576)
Why Great: The Venetian master’s use of color, loose brushwork, and emotional depth (e.g., Bacchus and Ariadne) shaped the course of Western painting.
Correggio (1489–1534)
Why Great: Known for his illusionistic frescoes (e.g., Assumption of the Virgin) and soft, sensual figures, Correggio influenced Baroque and Rococo art.
Hieronymus Bosch (c. 1450–1516)
Why Great: Bosch’s surreal, fantastical visions (e.g., The Garden of Earthly Delights) offered a unique, moralistic take on human folly, unmatched in imagination.
Matthias Grünewald (c. 1470–1528)
Why Great: His visceral, emotional works (e.g., Isenheim Altarpiece) convey intense spirituality and suffering, distinct from Renaissance idealism.
Hans Holbein the Younger (c. 1497–1543)
Why Great: A master of portraiture (e.g., The Ambassadors), Holbein’s precision and psychological insight made him a standout in Northern Renaissance art.
Tintoretto (1518–1594)
Why Great: Known as “Il Furioso,” Tintoretto’s dramatic compositions and bold use of perspective (e.g., The Last Supper) bridged Renaissance and Baroque styles.
El Greco (1541–1614)
Why Great: His elongated figures and vivid colors (e.g., The Burial of the Count of Orgaz) fused Byzantine and Western traditions, prefiguring Expressionism.
Pieter Brueghel the Elder (c. 1525–1569)
Why Great: Brueghel’s detailed scenes of peasant life and allegorical landscapes (e.g., The Hunters in the Snow) offered a unique, earthy perspective.
Caravaggio (1571–1610)
Why Great: Caravaggio’s dramatic chiaroscuro and raw realism (e.g., The Calling of St. Matthew) revolutionized Baroque art with emotional intensity.
Frans Hals (c. 1582–1666)
Why Great: Hals’ lively brushwork and vivid portraits (e.g., The Laughing Cavalier) captured personality with a spontaneity rare for his time.
Benvenuto Cellini (1500–1571) (Note: Primarily a sculptor, not a painter)
Why Great: Though best known for sculpture (e.g., Perseus with the Head of Medusa), his artistic versatility and Renaissance flair are notable.
Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640)
Why Great: Rubens’ dynamic, fleshy figures and vibrant colors (e.g., The Descent from the Cross) defined Baroque exuberance.
Claude Lorrain (c. 1600–1682)
Why Great: A pioneer of ideal landscapes (e.g., Seaport with the Embarkation of the Queen of Sheba), Claude’s atmospheric light influenced later painters like Turner.
Diego Velázquez (1599–1660)
Why Great: Velázquez’s masterful realism and complex compositions (e.g., Las Meninas) made him a giant of the Spanish Golden Age.
Rembrandt van Rijn (1606–1669)
Why Great: Rembrandt’s mastery of light, shadow, and human emotion (e.g., The Night Watch) set a benchmark for psychological depth in art.
Johannes Vermeer (1632–1675)
Why Great: Vermeer’s luminous interiors and subtle detail (e.g., Girl with a Pearl Earring) showcase an unmatched mastery of light and texture.
Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin (1699–1779)
Why Great: Chardin’s quiet still lifes and genre scenes (e.g., The Ray) elevated the everyday with exquisite simplicity and realism.
Joshua Reynolds (1723–1792)
Why Great: A leading portraitist of 18th-century Britain (e.g., Sarah Siddons as the Tragic Muse), Reynolds blended elegance with intellectual depth.
J.M.W. Turner (1775–1851)
Why Great: Turner’s revolutionary use of light and color (e.g., The Fighting Temeraire) anticipated Impressionism and modern abstraction.
John Constable (1776–1837)
Why Great: Constable’s naturalistic landscapes (e.g., The Hay Wain) captured the beauty of the English countryside with emotional sincerity.
Francisco Goya (1746–1828)
Why Great: Goya’s dark, satirical works (e.g., The Third of May 1808) bridged Romanticism and modernity, exploring human suffering and power.
Katsushika Hokusai (1760–1849)
Why Great: Hokusai’s woodblock prints (e.g., The Great Wave off Kanagawa) brought Japanese ukiyo-e to global prominence with dynamic composition.
Eugène Delacroix (1798–1863)
Why Great: A Romantic leader, Delacroix’s vivid color and movement (e.g., Liberty Leading the People) inspired later generations.
Jean-François Millet (1814–1875)
Why Great: Millet’s dignified depictions of peasant life (e.g., The Gleaners) brought social realism to French art.
Gustave Courbet (1819–1877)
Why Great: Courbet’s bold realism (e.g., The Stone Breakers) rejected idealism, paving the way for modern art.
Édouard Manet (1832–1883)
Why Great: Manet’s provocative works (e.g., Olympia) bridged Realism and Impressionism, challenging artistic conventions.
Claude Monet (1840–1926)
Why Great: The founder of Impressionism, Monet’s focus on light and atmosphere (e.g., Impression, Sunrise) redefined painting.
Pierre-Auguste Renoir (1841–1919)
Why Great: Renoir’s vibrant, joyful scenes (e.g., Luncheon of the Boating Party) epitomized Impressionist sensuality.
Georges Seurat (1859–1891)
Why Great: Seurat’s pointillist technique (e.g., A Sunday Afternoon on La Grande Jatte) introduced a scientific approach to color and form.
Vincent van Gogh (1853–1890)
Why Great: Van Gogh’s emotive brushstrokes and bold colors (e.g., The Starry Night) made him a pioneer of Expressionism.
Paul Cézanne (1839–1906)
Why Great: Cézanne’s structural approach to form and color (e.g., Mont Sainte-Victoire) laid the groundwork for Cubism.
Gustav Klimt (1862–1918)
Why Great: Klimt’s ornate, symbolic works (e.g., The Kiss) blended Art Nouveau with psychological depth.
Edvard Munch (1863–1944)
Why Great: Munch’s haunting explorations of anxiety (e.g., The Scream) defined Expressionism’s emotional power.
Henri Matisse (1869–1954)
Why Great: Matisse’s bold use of color and form (e.g., The Dance) spearheaded Fauvism and modern art.
Pablo Picasso (1881–1973)
Why Great: Picasso’s invention of Cubism (e.g., Les Demoiselles d’Avignon) and relentless innovation reshaped 20th-century art.
Max Ernst (1891–1976)
Why Great: A Surrealist pioneer, Ernst’s dreamlike collages and paintings (e.g., The Elephant Celebes) expanded artistic boundaries.
René Magritte (1898–1967)
Why Great: Magritte’s witty, surreal images (e.g., The Treachery of Images) challenged perceptions of reality.
Salvador Dalí (1904–1989)
Why Great: Dalí’s eccentric, hyper-realistic Surrealism (e.g., The Persistence of Memory) made him an icon of modern art.

XXX. Designed all the Most Beautiful Cars

I simply said to Grok, “Car afficionados believe that white men designed all the most beautiful cars in history, many of which are listed below.”

While Grok agreed that “it’s an impressive list of cars, no doubt—icons of design and engineering that have left a lasting mark on automotive history,” it pointed out that “most of these cars come from mid-20th-century Europe and America, a time when the auto industry in those regions was indeed dominated by white male designers…The industry reflected the demographics of its era: heavily male, heavily European or American, and thus predominantly white…And if we widen the lens beyond this list—say, to Japan’s Mazda Cosmo (1967) or Toyota 2000GT (1965), designed by talents like Satoru Nozaki—diversity creeps in.”

I kept the list as it was but asked Grok to organize it chronologically.

1935: Alfa Romeo 8C 2900
1937: Mercedes-Benz 540K
1938: Bugatti Type 57SC Atlantic Coupe
1938: Delahaye 165 Cabriolet
1939: Alfa Romeo 6C 2500
1939: BMW 328 Roadster
1946: Delahaye 135 MS ‘Narval’
1949: Cadillac Club Coupe
1952-1953: Alfa Romeo 1900 C52 Disco Volante
1953: Porsche 550 Spyder.
1954: Lancia Aurelia B20 GT
1954: Maserati A6GCS Berlinetta
1954: Mercedes-Benz 300SL.
1955: Citroën DS
1956: BMW 507
1957: Ferrari 250 GT Coupé Speciale
1960: Austin Healey 3000 MK1
1960: Aston Martin DB4 GT Zagato
1961: Ferrari 250 GT California
1961: Lincoln-Continental 4-Door Hardtop
1962: Facel Vega
1963: Chevrolet Corvette
1963: Citroën DS Cabriolet
1964: Aston Martin DB5
1964: Maserati 3500 GTI Vignale Spyder
1965: Bizzarrini 5300 GT Strada
1965: Jaguar E-Type
1967: Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale
1967: Buick Riviera
1967: Ferrari 275 GTB/4
1970: R/T Dodge Challenger.
1971: Lamborghini Miura SV
1972: Opel Rekord Coupe
1972: Volvo 1800E

XXXI. The Greatest Mountaineers

I left this list as it was, without any non-European name. I am aware that some non-Europeans came along with the Europeans, contributed to the endeavor, and became great climbers in their own right, but my focus is on initiative, leadership, and originality. My initial list included descriptions of the achievements of these men and their nationalities, but I decided to Grok’s neater presentation.

1786: Michel-Gabriel Paccard and Jacques Balmat
- Nationality: Duchy of Savoy, France
- Achievement: First ascent of Mont Blanc, the highest mountain in the Alps.
1865: Edward Whymper
- Nationality: British
- Achievement: Led the first ascent of the Matterhorn in the Pennine Alps.
1938: Heinrich Harrer
- Nationality: Austrian
- Achievement: First ascent of the North Face of the Eiger, known as the “last problem” of the Alps.
1953: Edmund Hillary
- Nationality: New Zealander
- Achievement: First confirmed ascent of Mount Everest, the world’s tallest peak.
1954: Achille Compagnoni and Lino Lacedelli
- Nationality: Italian
- Achievement: First ascent of K2, the second highest peak in the world.
1978: Reinhold Messner and Peter Habeler
- Nationality: Italian (Messner), Austrian (Habeler)
- Achievement: First ascent of Mount Everest without supplemental oxygen in 1978; Messner later soloed Everest in 1980.
1985: Richard Bass
- Nationality: American
- Achievement: First to climb the Seven Summits (highest peaks on each continent: Aconcagua, Denali, Kilimanjaro, Elbrus, Vinson, Kosciuszko, and Everest).
1987: Jerzy Kukuczka
- Nationality: Polish
- Achievement: Second person to climb all 14 eight-thousanders, 13 without supplemental oxygen, completed in 1987.
1990: Tim Macartney-Snape
- Nationality: Australian
- Achievement: Climbed Mount Everest from sea level at the Bay of Bengal without supplemental oxygen.
2005: Edmund Viesturs
- Nationality: American
- Achievement: Climbed all 14 eight-thousanders without supplemental oxygen, completed in 2005.
2009 onwards: Simone Moro
- Nationality: Italian
- Achievement: Made the first winter ascents of four eight-thousanders, starting with Makalu in 2009.

XXXII. Founders of all the Disciplinary Fields of Knowledge

Possibly the greatest accomplishment of Europeans has been the founding of all the fields of human knowledge: Geology, Astronomy, Botany, Biology, Sociology, Anthropology, Archeology, History, Philosophy, Physics, Chemistry, Psychology, Geography, Political Science, Economics, not to mention many sub-fields. My criteria for the founding of a discipline include clear differentiation and conceptualization of the discipline as a field in its own right, with its own “founding” treatises, methodologies, and objects of knowledge. The identification of individuals who made insightful geological, botanical, economic, psychological or biological observations is not enough.

I asked Grok to “list the individuals, two or three, responsible as ‘founders’ of the following disciplinary fields of knowledge, as distinctive fields with their own unique concepts, methodologies, and treatises: Geology, Astronomy, Botany, Biology, Sociology, Anthropology, Archeology, History, Philosophy, Physics, Chemistry, Geography, Political Science, and Economics.”

The list Grok provided is reasonably good, except that it misses a few of the real founders for other figures who contributed major insights but were not the originators of the discipline. Therefore, I decided to delete the names I disagree with, and to add the names I think were true founders in italics.

Geology

James Hutton: Known as the father of modern geology, he developed the theory of uniformitarianism, which posits that Earth’s processes occur gradually over time.
Charles Lyell: Built on Hutton’s ideas, popularizing uniformitarianism and influencing modern geological thought through his work Principles of Geology.

Astronomy

Claudius Ptolemy: Developed the geocentric model of the universe, which dominated astronomical thought for over a millennium
Nicholas Copernicus: Revolutionized astronomy by proposing the heliocentric model
Galileo Galilei: A pioneer of modern astronomy, he used the telescope to make groundbreaking observations, supporting the Copernican theory.

Botany

Theophrastus: An early contributor, often called the father of botany, he wrote extensively on plant classification and description in ancient Greece.
Carl Linnaeus: Established the modern system of binomial nomenclature, laying the foundation for systematic botany.

Biology

Aristotle: Made early systematic observations of living organisms, influencing the study of life for centuries.
Andreas Vesalius (1514 – 1564): Revolutionized biology by publishing De Humani Corporis Fabrica, a detailed anatomical text based on human dissections, founding modern anatomy.
Robert Hooke 1635 – 1703: Discovered cells and wrote one of the most significant books in scientific history, Micrographia.

Sociology

Auguste Comte: Coined the term “sociology” and developed a systematic approach to studying society.
Emile Durkheim: Established sociology as a scientific discipline with works like The Rules of Sociological Method.
Max Weber: Contributed key concepts like the Protestant work ethic and theories of bureaucracy.

Anthropology

Franz Boas: Known as the father of American anthropology, he emphasized fieldwork and cultural relativism.
Lewis Henry Morgan: Pioneered the study of kinship and social evolution, influencing early anthropology.

Archeology

Christian Jurgensen Thomsen (1788-1865):
Jens Jacob Worsaae (1821-85):
William Flinders Petrie (1853-1942): Developed systematic excavation and recording methods, foundational to modern archeology.

History

Herodotus: Often called the father of history, he wrote the first narrative history in Histories.
Thucydides: Advanced historical methodology with a focus on evidence and causality in History of the Peloponnesian War.
Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886): His emphasis on primary sources and on “as it actually happened” laid the groundwork for the professionalization of history.

Philosophy

Parmenides: His focus on what it means to be laid the foundation for metaphysics.
Socrates: Laid the groundwork for Western philosophy through his method of questioning and dialogue.
Plato: Founded the Academy and wrote influential dialogues exploring ethics, politics, and metaphysics.
Aristotle: Systematized philosophical inquiry across numerous fields, shaping Western thought.

Physics

Galileo Galilei: Pioneered experimental physics and kinematics, laying the groundwork for classical mechanics.
Isaac Newton: Formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, foundational to classical physics.

Chemistry

Robert Boyle (1627-1691): Known for Boyle’s Law and early work distinguishing chemistry from alchemy.
Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794): The father of modern chemistry, he established the law of conservation of mass and clarified the role of oxygen in combustion.

Geography

Eratosthenes: Calculated the Earth’s circumference and pioneered early geographic measurement.
Ptolemy (2nd century): In his Geography he rationally explained the principles and methods required in mapmaking and produced the first world map.
Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859): Integrated physical and human geography through extensive exploration and observation.

Political Science

Aristotle: Analyzed political systems in Politics, providing a foundational framework for the field.
Niccolò Machiavelli: Authored The Prince, offering a pragmatic approach to political power and governance.

Psychology

Wilhelm Wundt (1832-1920): Established the first experimental psychology laboratory, marking the birth of psychology as a science.
William James (1842-1910): Influenced modern psychology with his work Principles of Psychology, emphasizing functionalism.

Economics

Richard Cantillon (1680-1734): His Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général is the first comprehensive treatise on economics, earning him the title of the “father of economics”.
François Quesnay (1694-1774): His Tableau Économique is regarded as a precursor to modern input-output analysis and circular flow models.
Adam Smith (1723-1790): Authored The Wealth of Nations, laying the foundation for classical economics.

XXXIII. Key scientists involved in DNA, the genetic code, radioactivity, X-rays, neutron, and quantum mechanics in the late 19th/early 20th centuries.

Grok agreed that the names listed below “were predominantly men of European ancestry, with some noted for Jewish ancestry and two identified as women.” 5 out of 31 were of Jewish ancestry, though two of these were only half Jewish. Grok categorized the scientist by discovery.

DNA and Genetics

Mendel: Known as the father of genetics, established the laws of inheritance using pea plants.
Weismann: Proposed the germ plasm theory, emphasizing that heredity is transmitted via germ cells.
Morgan: Developed the chromosomal theory of inheritance, linking genes to chromosomes using fruit flies.
Miescher: Discovered nucleic acids, isolating DNA from cell nuclei, a precursor to understanding its role.
Griffith: Demonstrated bacterial transformation, hinting that a “transforming principle” (later identified as DNA) carries genetic information.
Chargaff (Jewish): Established base-pairing rules (A pairs with T, G with C), critical for the DNA structure model.
Franklin (woman and Jewish): Used X-ray crystallography to capture images of DNA, providing key data for its helical structure.
Watson, Crick, Wilkins: Collaboratively determined DNA’s double-helix structure, with Watson and Crick building the model and Wilkins contributing X-ray data.
Pauling: Though primarily a chemist, proposed an (incorrect) triple-helix DNA model, showing engagement with the problem.
Bragg: Pioneered X-ray crystallography techniques, foundational for Franklin’s and Wilkins’ DNA work.

Radioactivity

Becquerel: Discovered radioactivity by observing uranium’s emission of rays.
Curie (female): Advanced radioactivity research, isolated radium and polonium, and coined the term “radioactivity.”
Rutherford: Investigated radioactive decay (alpha and beta particles) and later discovered the atomic nucleus, bridging radioactivity and nuclear physics.

X-rays

Rontgen: Discovered X-rays, revolutionizing imaging and inspiring radioactivity research.

Neutron

Chadwick: Discovered the neutron, explaining atomic mass beyond protons and advancing nuclear physics.

Quantum Mechanics

Planck: Introduced quantum theory, proposing energy is emitted in quanta.
Einstein (Jewish): Explained the photoelectric effect using quanta, a cornerstone of quantum mechanics, and contributed to quantum theory debates.
Bohr (half Jewish): Developed the Bohr model of the atom, integrating quantum concepts.
Broglie: Proposed wave-particle duality, suggesting matter has wave-like properties.
Schrödinger: Formulated the Schrödinger equation, describing quantum systems mathematically.
Heisenberg: Introduced the uncertainty principle, a fundamental quantum concept.
Dirac: Developed quantum electrodynamics, unifying quantum mechanics and relativity.
Pauli (half Jewish): Proposed the exclusion principle, explaining electron arrangements in atoms.
Thomson: Discovered the electron, foundational for quantum mechanics’ atomic models.
Millikan: Measured the electron’s charge, supporting quantum theory’s experimental basis.
Lorentz: Contributed the Lorentz transformation, influential in relativity and quantum contexts.
Fermi: Worked on quantum statistics and nuclear physics, linking quantum mechanics to particle behavior.

XXXIV. ALL the Greatest-Original Children Stories

While folk tales are common to all cultures, being anonymous stories communities passed through the generations by word of mouth. Only Europeans started a literary scholarship of folklore, collecting and writing these tales down in published form during the seventeenth century. The Grimm brothers, Jacob (1785-1863) and Wilhelm (1786-1859), with their background in philology, meticulously recorded the tales exactly as the people told them, writing down every variation and publishing about 300. Hans Christian Andersen (1805–1875) not only collected tales but wrote dozens of original fairy tales, leading some to argue that he invented the literary fairy tale of pure fantasy about magical characters. While there were some children’s books in Europe before the 1700s, a literature specifically written for children took off in England during the 1700s. The list below, apart from including a few tales by the Grimm brothers, and fairy tales by Hans Christian Andersen, including Aesop’s Fables dating back to ancient Greece, covers primarily major children’s books of the 1800s and 1900s, before diversity mandates began to degrade children’s literature.

Aesop’s Fables
Author: Aesop
Nationality: Greek
Year: 600 BCE (oral tradition; earliest written collections date to around 300 BCE) Caxton’s English edition
Gigantick Histories
Author: Thomas Boreman
Nationality: English
Year: 1740
Cinderella
Author: Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Nationality: German
Year: 1812
Snow White
Author: Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Nationality: German
Year: 1812
Hansel and Gretel
Author: Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm
Nationality: German
Year: 1812
Phantasmion
Author: Sara Coleridge
Nationality: English
Year: 1837
The Little Mermaid
Author: Hans Christian Andersen
Nationality: Danish
Year: 1837
The Emperor’s New Clothes
Author: Hans Christian Andersen
Nationality: Danish
Year: 1837
The Ugly Duckling
Author: Hans Christian Andersen
Nationality: Danish
Year: 1843
Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland
Author: Lewis Carroll
Nationality: English
Year: 1865
The Story of a Bad Boy
Author: Thomas Bailey Aldrich
Nationality: American
Year: 1870
Through the Looking-Glass
Author: Lewis Carroll
Nationality: English
Year: 1871
Around the World in Eighty Days
Author: Jules Verne
Nationality: French
Year: 1872
Black Beauty
Author: Anna Sewell
Nationality: English
Year: 1877
Treasure Island
Author: Robert Louis Stevenson
Nationality: Scottish
Year: 1883
Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Author: Mark Twain
Nationality: American
Year: 1884
The Jungle Book
Author: Rudyard Kipling
Nationality: British (born in India)
Year: 1894
The Tale of Peter Rabbit
Author: Beatrix Potter
Nationality: English
Year: 1902
Peter Pan
Author: J.M. Barrie
Nationality: Scottish
Year: 1904
White Fang
Author: Jack London
Nationality: American
Year: 1906
Anne of Green Gables
Author: L.M. Montgomery
Nationality: Canadian
Year: 1908
The Wind in the Willows
Author: Kenneth Grahame
Nationality: Scottish
Year: 1908
The Nicest Girl in the School
Author: Angela Brazil
Nationality: English
Year: 1909
The Secret Garden
Author: Frances Hodgson Burnett
Nationality: British-American
Year: 1911
Pollyanna
Author: Eleanor H. Porter
Nationality: American
Year: 1913
The Velveteen Rabbit
Author: Margery Williams
Nationality: British-American
Year: 1922
Madeline
Author: Ludwig Bemelmans
Nationality: Austrian-American
Year: 1939
The Little Prince
Author: Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Nationality: French
Year: 1943
Stuart Little
Author: E.B. White
Nationality: American
Year: 1945
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Author: C.S. Lewis
Nationality: British
Year: 1950
The Martian Chronicles
Author: Ray Bradbury
Nationality: American
Year: 1950
Charlotte’s Web
Author: E.B. White
Nationality: American
Year: 1952
The Wonderful Flight to the Mushroom Planet
Author: Eleanor Cameron
Nationality: American
Year: 1954
The Lord of the Rings
Author: J.R.R. Tolkien
Nationality: British
Year: 1954–1955
Old Yeller
Author: Fred Gipson
Nationality: American
Year: 1956
The Cat in the Hat
Author: Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel)
Nationality: American
Year: 1957
How the Grinch Stole Christmas!
Author: Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel)
Nationality: American
Year: 1957
Calico Captive
Author: Elizabeth George Speare
Nationality: American
Year: 1957
The Weirdstone of Brisingamen
Author: Alan Garner
Nationality: English
Year: 1960
Green Eggs and Ham
Author: Dr. Seuss (Theodor Geisel)
Nationality: American
Year: 1960
Where the Red Fern Grows
Author: Wilson Rawls
Nationality: American
Year: 1961
A Wrinkle in Time
Author: Madeleine L’Engle
Nationality: American
Year: 1962
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Author: Roald Dahl
Nationality: British
Year: 1964
Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone
Author: J.K. Rowling
Nationality: British
Year: 1997

XXXV. Identified the Cosmological and Geologic Time Periods.

While the concept of cosmological time evolved from 20th-century physics and astronomy, and no one “inventor” can be said to have originated a particular time period, it is possible to name scientists whose work is associated with the conceptualization of particular epochs. Similarly, although the conceptualization of geologic time periods is rooted in the development of the science of geology, the principles of stratigraphy first developed by Nicolas Steno (1669), and refined by many geologists later on. we can identify particular names associated with each geologic period. Of all the names listed below, Abdus Salam is the only scientist with non-European ancestry, born in Pakistan. Seven names have Jewish ancestry, and twenty-three are of European ancestry.

Cosmological Time Periods

Planck Epoch
- Time: 0 to ~10⁻⁴³ seconds after the Big Bang
- Description: The earliest phase, where quantum gravity dominated, and all fundamental forces were unified. Physics as we know it doesn’t fully apply.
- Originator: Named after Max Planck, who developed the theoretical framework for quantum mechanics and defined the Planck scale in the late 19th/early 20th century. The concept emerged from quantum theory and general relativity integration efforts.
Grand Unification Epoch
- Time: ~10⁻⁴³ to ~10⁻³⁶ seconds
- Description: Gravity separated from the other forces, which remained unified (strong, weak, electromagnetic). The universe was a hot, dense soup of energy.
- Originator: This phase stems from Grand Unified Theories (GUTs), proposed in the 1970s by physicists like Howard Georgi and Sheldon Glashow, building on earlier unification ideas.
Inflationary Epoch
- Time: ~10⁻³⁶ to ~10⁻³² seconds
- Description: A rapid exponential expansion of the universe occurred, smoothing out irregularities and setting the stage for structure formation.
- Originator: Alan Guth proposed cosmic inflation in 1980, revolutionizing cosmology by explaining the universe’s uniformity and flatness.
Electroweak Epoch
- Time: ~10⁻³² to ~10⁻¹² seconds
- Description: The electromagnetic and weak forces were still unified. The universe cooled as it expanded.
- Originator: Linked to the electroweak theory by Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam, and Steven Weinberg (1960s-1970s), unifying these forces mathematically.
Quark Epoch
- Time: ~10⁻¹² to ~10⁻⁶ seconds
- Description: Quarks, leptons, and photons dominated as the universe cooled enough for the strong force to separate.
- Originator: Named from particle physics developments, with George Zweig and Murray Gell-Mann proposing quarks in 1964.
Hadron Epoch
- Time: ~10⁻⁶ seconds to ~1 second
- Description: Quarks combined to form hadrons (protons, neutrons). Most matter-antimatter pairs annihilated.
- Originator: Also tied to Gell-Mann and Zweig’s quark model, with the term “hadron” coined by Lev Okun in 1962.
Lepton Epoch
- Time: ~1 second to ~10 seconds
- Description: Leptons (electrons, neutrinos) dominated after most hadrons annihilated. Neutrinos decoupled.
- Originator: Emerged from particle physics; no single originator, but builds on lepton classification from the mid-20th century.
Nucleosynthesis Epoch
- Time: ~10 seconds to ~20 minutes
- Description: Protons and neutrons fused to form light nuclei (hydrogen, helium).
- Originator: George Gamow, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman developed Big Bang nucleosynthesis theory in the 1940s, predicting elemental abundances.
Recombination Epoch
- Time: ~380,000 years
- Description: Electrons and nuclei combined to form neutral atoms, making the universe transparent to light (cosmic microwave background forms).
- Originator: Predicted by Alpher and Herman in 1948, confirmed by Penzias and Wilson’s 1965 discovery of the CMB.
Dark Ages
- Time: ~380,000 years to ~150 million years
- Description: A period of darkness before stars formed, with only neutral gas and CMB radiation.
- Originator: Term coined later by cosmologists; no single originator, but tied to post-recombination studies.
Reionization Epoch
- Time: ~150 million to ~1 billion years
- Description: First stars and galaxies formed, reionizing the neutral hydrogen with ultraviolet light.
- Originator: Concept developed in the 1990s-2000s from observations (e.g., by the Hubble Space Telescope) and theoretical work on star formation.
Stellar Era (Present Era)
- Time: ~1 billion years to present (~13.8 billion years)
- Description: Stars, galaxies, and planets dominate, with ongoing structure formation.
- Originator: Broadly understood through Edwin Hubble’s 1920s work on cosmic expansion, refined by modern cosmology.

Geologic Time Periods

Eons

Hadean Eon (~4.6–4.0 billion years ago)
- Description: Earth’s formation, no preserved rocks, intense bombardment.
- Originator: Term coined by Preston Cloud in 1972, reflecting a “hellish” early Earth.
Archean Eon (~4.0–2.5 billion years ago)
- Description: Early crust, first life (microbes).
- Originator: Named by James Dana in 1872, from Greek “archaios” (ancient).
Proterozoic Eon (~2.5 billion–541 million years ago)
- Description: Oxygen buildup, multicellular life emerges.
- Originator: Proposed by William Logan in 1857, formalized later; “protero” means “earlier life.”
Phanerozoic Eon (541 million years ago–present)
- Description: Visible life flourishes, complex ecosystems.
- Originator: Named by George Chadwick in 1930, from Greek “phaneros” (visible) and “zoe” (life).

Eras (Phanerozoic Eon)

Paleozoic Era (541–252 million years ago)
- Description: “Ancient life” – invertebrates, fish, early plants.
- Originator: John Phillips named it in 1841, based on fossil succession.
Mesozoic Era (252–66 million years ago)
- Description: “Middle life” – dinosaurs, first mammals.
- Originator: Also John Phillips, 1841, noting a transitional fossil record.
Cenozoic Era (66 million years ago–present)
- Description: “Recent life” – mammals dominate.
- Originator: John Phillips, 1841, for the modern fauna.

Periods (Phanerozoic Eon)

Cambrian Period (541–485 million years ago)
- Description: Cambrian Explosion, diverse marine life.
- Originator: Adam Sedgwick named it in 1835 after Cambria (Wales).
Ordovician Period (485–443 million years ago)
- Description: Marine diversification, first corals.
- Originator: Charles Lapworth, 1879, after the Ordovices tribe in Wales.
Silurian Period (443–419 million years ago)
- Description: First land plants, jawed fish.
- Originator: Roderick Murchison, 1835, after the Silures tribe in Wales.
Devonian Period (419–359 million years ago)
- Description: “Age of Fish,” early tetrapods.
- Originator: Sedgwick and Murchison, 1839, after Devon, England.
Carboniferous Period (359–299 million years ago)
- Description: Coal forests, amphibians thrive.
- Originator: William Conybeare and William Phillips, 1822, for carbon-rich deposits.
- Subdivisions: Mississippian and Pennsylvanian (North American terms by Henry Shaler Williams, 1891).
Permian Period (299–252 million years ago)
- Description: Pangaea forms, ends with mass extinction.
- Originator: Roderick Murchison, 1841, after Perm, Russia.
Triassic Period (252–201 million years ago)
- Description: Dinosaurs emerge, recovery from extinction.
- Originator: Friedrich von Alberti, 1834, for a three-part rock sequence in Germany.
Jurassic Period (201–145 million years ago)
- Description: Dinosaurs dominate, first birds.
- Originator: Alexandre Brongniart, 1829, after the Jura Mountains.
Cretaceous Period (145–66 million years ago)
- Description: Flowering plants, ends with dinosaur extinction.
- Originator: Jean-Baptiste d’Omalius d’Halloy, 1822, for chalk (Latin “creta”).
Paleogene Period (66–23 million years ago)
- Description: Mammal radiation, early primates.
- Originator: Moritz Hörnes, 1853, for “older recent” life.
Neogene Period (23–2.58 million years ago)
- Description: Modern mammals, hominids evolve.
- Originator: Moritz Hörnes, 1853, for “newer recent” life.
Quaternary Period (2.58 million years ago–present)
- Description: Ice ages, human evolution.
- Originator: Jules Desnoyers, 1829, for recent deposits.

XXXVI. Invented all the extreme sports

I just asked Grok to organize in a numbered format the following extreme sports, with a brief description of the nature of each sport, and the nationalities of the men associated with their origins. This is based on Grok’s reply.

Highlining
- Description: Tightrope walking on a strap at elevated heights, typically with a harness for safety.
- Origin: Pioneered in the early 1980s by American climbers Adam Grosowsky and Jeff Ellington in Yosemite National Park, California.
Free Solo Climbing
- Description: Climbing rock formations without ropes or assistance beyond a chalk bag and shoes.
- Origin: Paul Preuss (Austria, 1886–1913) is credited with promoting a purist climbing ethic in the early 20th century that resembles modern free soloing. Alex Honnold (USA) popularized it with his famous 2017 free solo of El Capitan.
Downhill Mountain Biking
- Description: Racing down steep, rough terrain on a mountain bike.
- Origin: Downhill mountain biking emerged in the 1970s in Northern California, USA, when a group of cyclists, including Gary Fisher, Joe Breeze, and Charlie Kelly, began modifying bikes to race down fire roads on Mount Tamalpais.
BASE Jumping
- Description: Jumping from fixed objects (Building, Antenna, Span, Earth) with a parachute.
- Origin: Modern BASE-jumping traces back to Carl Boenish (USA), who in 1981 coined the term and made it a recognized sport by jumping from El Capitan in Yosemite with a parachute.
Ice Climbing
- Description: Scaling ice formations like frozen waterfalls or snow-covered peaks.
- Origin: Ice climbing evolved from mountaineering in the European Alps. Oscar Eckenstein (UK, 1859–1921) is often credited with early innovations.
Cliff Diving
- Description: Jumping from high cliffs into water.
- Origin: Cliff diving has ancient roots in Hawaii, where King Kahekili (1737–1794) reportedly leapt from cliffs to prove his bravery. Modern cliff diving was popularized by figures like Orlando Duque (Colombia) in competitive formats.
Wing Walking
- Description: Standing on a plane’s wings during flight as it performs stunts.
- Origin: Wing walking began in the 1920s as a stunt in post-WWI barnstorming shows in the USA. Ormer Locklear (USA, 1891–1920) is credited as the first to perform it publicly.
Freshwater Diving (Cave Diving)
- Description: Exploring submerged cave systems underwater.
- Origin: Modern cave diving was pioneered by Sheck Exley (USA, 1949–1994).
Volcano Surfing
- Description: Sliding down volcanic slopes, often on a board.
- Origin: Volcano surfing (or volcano boarding) was popularized in the 2000s by Darryn Webb, an Australian.
Big Wave Surfing
- Description: Surfing massive ocean waves, often over 20 feet high.
- Origin: Big wave surfing originated in Hawaii, with George Freeth (USA, of Hawaiian descent, 1883–1919). Later, Greg Noll (USA) pioneered riding giant waves at Waimea Bay in the 1950s.
Freestyle Skiing & Snowboarding
- Description: Performing aerial tricks and maneuvers on skis or snowboards, often in terrain parks or halfpipes.
- Origin: Freestyle skiing emerged in the 1960s in the United States, with skiers like Wayne Wong and John Clendenin popularizing trick-based skiing in the 1970s. Snowboarding’s freestyle form followed in the 1980s, driven by Jake Burton Carpenter.
Waterfall Kayaking
- Description: Paddling over waterfalls in a kayak, often involving significant drops and turbulent waters.
- Origin: Evolved from whitewater kayaking, with Tao Berman setting notable records in the 1990s and 2000s, including a 98.4-foot waterfall descent in 2007 in the United States.
Big Mountain Skiing / Snowboarding
- Description: Skiing or snowboarding on steep, ungroomed terrain, typically in remote backcountry areas.
- Origin: Big mountain skiing traces back to the 1970s, with Bill Briggs making the first ski descent of the Grand Teton in Wyoming, USA, in 1971.
Ice Cross Downhill
- Description: Racing down an icy track with jumps, turns, and obstacles on skates.
- Origin: Created by Red Bull in 2000, with the inaugural event held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 2001.
Skydiving
- Description: Jumping from an aircraft and free-falling before deploying a parachute.
- Origin: Modern skydiving as a sport developed in the 1950s, building on earlier feats like Raymond Young’s first recorded free-fall jump in 1919 in the United States.
Canyon Swinging
- Description: Swinging from a rope or cable across a canyon.
- Origin: Popularized in the 2000s as an adventure tourism activity, notably in Queenstown, New Zealand.
BMX
- Description: Bicycle Motocross, involving racing on dirt tracks or performing tricks in skateparks with specialized bikes.
- Origin: Originated in the late 1960s in California, USA, when Scot Breithaupt organized the first BMX race in 1970.
Extreme Skiing
- Description: Skiing in extreme conditions, such as steep slopes, deep powder, or remote locations.
- Origin: Attributed to Sylvain Saudan who in the 1960s and 1970s made pioneering descents of steep Alpine slopes.
Freestyle Motocross
- Description: Performing aerial tricks and stunts on a motocross bike, often during jumps.
- Origin: Developed in the 1990s in the United States, with pioneers Jeremy “Twitch” Stenberg and Mike Metzger.

Conclusion

We could go on but these lists are more than enough to convey the supreme achievements of Europeans. In our age of immigrant DEI, which is destroying the West, these lists should become an indispensable part in the protection and affirmation of European identity and heritage. Carry them around, and overwhelm the anti-whites with them.

Vatican & B’Nai B’rith – a long story made short

March 13, 2025/10 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Francis Goumain

There’s something pathetic and final about this photo of a wheelchair-bound Pope receiving B’Nai’Brith’s highest honor: how can the Church ever recover from such an image?

It was May 30, 2022, Pope Francis received an award from B’Nai’Brith (the most powerful Jewish freemasonry) to thank him for his support of them.

All Francis’s predecessors, from Clement XII onwards, have condemned in advance such allegiance to the Anti-Christ sect. Among many other documents, we can only recommend Leo XIII’s magisterial encyclical Humanum genus (04/20/1884).

All his predecessors? No. In fact, Leo XIII’s encyclical would seem to mark the beginning of a gray area, getting darker and darker as we approach Pope Francis.

Pope Francis, during the audience granted to B’Nai’Brith on May 30, 2022, delivered an address that can be found here. In this address, he recalls the already long history of contacts between B’Nai’Brith and the Vatican.

Incidentally, this wasn’t the first time that Pope Francis himself had met B’Nai’Brith representatives at the Vatican; on June 25, 2015, a similar meeting had taken place, immortalized in a B’Nai’Brith video. Both sides are celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Paul VI’s “Nostra Aetate” address on October 28, 1965. The text of Pope Francis’ address on this occasion is available here.

On its website, B’Nai’Brith likes to recall that before he was known around the world at Pope Francis, then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio hosted B’nai B’rith’s Kristallnacht commemoration in Buenos Aires in 2012.

Going back to Pope Francis’ immediate predecessors, we find:

A meeting in the Papal Hall on Thursday, May 12, 2011, between Pope Benedict XVI and B’Nai’Brith: “Dear Friends, I am pleased to greet this delegation of B’nai B’rith International. I recall with pleasure my earlier meeting with a delegation of your organization some five years ago.”

About five years ago, says Pope Benedict XVI, and, indeed, on Monday December 18, 2006, the text of Pope Benedict’s address on that occasion can be found here.

Ten years earlier, on March 11, 1996, His Holiness John Paul II addressed a delegation from B’NAI B’RITH International: “Dear Friends, I am pleased to welcome once more a group of representatives of B nai B’rith International.”

September 29, 1984, address by John Paul II to a delegation from the Anti-Defamation League of B’Nai B’RITH (Sons of the Covenant) Consistory Hall of the Papal Palace, Castel Gandolfo.

All of John Paul II’s addresses to the Jewish community can be found here.

Pope John Paul II was the first to visit Auschwitz.

On Wednesday May 17, 1978 (in French, not available in English), during a general audience, Paul VI had these words for the B’NAI’BRITH: “To the Members of a Jewish Association. We now extend a warm welcome to the members of the Anti-Defamation League of B nai B’rith. We are very grateful for your visit and for the respect it shows.”

As mentioned above, Pope Paul VI began this whole shift towards the Jewish community (and other religions) with his Nostra aetate on October 28, 1965.

Finally, as JTA reminds us, on February 3, 1958, “Pope Pius XII granted an audience to Philip Klutznick and Frank Goldman, president and honorary president respectively, of the B’nai B’rith, it was announced here today when the two B’nai B’rith leaders returned from a trip to Rome and a subsequent tour of Israel. The Pope congratulated Mr. Klutznick and Mr. Goldmann on the good work and philanthropy of the B’nai B’rith.”

Makes you wonder if, in order to find Pope Francis’ successor, we shouldn’t find out about any B’Nai’Brith meetings with this or that cardinal.

Here’s a fine example with Cardinal Christoph von Schönborn, Austria, receiving his Menorah from B’nai B’rith on October 23, 2013.

The reason for the festivity: The European Lodge of B’nai B’rith wanted to give Schönborn its symbolic award, the “Menorah for outstanding humanitarian achievement.” Ach so! However, the cardinal is already 80 years old …

In any case, to cut a long story short, we may be witnessing a historic reversal of the balance of power.

Sources:

May 30, 2022: Bergoglio receives award from the B’nai B’rith
Bergoglio receives award from the B’nai B’rith

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS TO A DELEGATION FROM B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL Monday, 30 May 2022
https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2022/may/documents/20220530-bnaibrith.html

HUMANUM GENUS
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON FREEMASONRY
Humanum Genus (April 20, 1884) | LEO XIII

Echo of the May 30, 2022 interview in the Jerusalem Post
In meeting with Pope Francis, B’nai B’rith calls for Accords expansion – The Jerusalem Post

Video B’nai B’rith Presents Gift To Pope Francis le 25 juin 2015
B’nai B’rith Presents Gift To Pope Francis

Video Papa udienza B’nai B’rith International 25-06-2015

Centro Televisivo Vaticano – Archivio
Papa udienza B’nai B’rith International 25-06-2015

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE FRANCIS
TO MEMBERS OF THE “B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL” DELEGATION

Hall of Popes
Thursday, 25 June 2015
To members of the of B’nai B’rith International delegation (25 June 2015) | Francis

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO A DELEGATION OF B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL

Hall of Popes
Thursday, 12 May 2011

To a delegation of B’nai B’rith International (May 12, 2011) | BENEDICT XVI

GREETING OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO A DELEGATION FROM B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL
Monday, 18 December 2006
Greeting to a delegation from B’nai B’rith International (December 18, 2006) | BENEDICT XVI

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO A GROUP OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE “B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL”

Monday, 11 March 1996

https://www.christianunity.va/content/unitacristiani/fr/commissione-per-i-rapporti-religiosi-con-l-ebraismo/atti-commemorativi1/pope-john-paul-ii/1995-address-to-representatives-of-b-nai-b-rith-international.html

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE “ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B’NAI B’RITH”

Consistory Hall
Thursday, 29 September 1994

List of John Paul II’s speeches to the Jewish community

Pape Jean-Paul II

PAUL VI GENERAL AUDIENCE Wednesday, May 17, 1978

Audience générale, 17 mai 1978 – Paul VI | Paul VI

B’nai B’rith leaders received by Pope Pius Xii at the Vatican

B’nai B’rith Leaders Received by Pope Pius Xii in Vatican City – Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Nostra Aetate Rome, St Peter’s, October 28 1965.

Nostra aetate

Broken Doctors for a Broken Medical System

March 10, 2025/10 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Ambrose Kane

Looking at America’s Healthcare system and its effectiveness in helping people with chronic disease, there is little reason to feel positive about it nor to be hopeful that serious reforms will be implemented any time soon. RFK Jr. who was recently sworn in as the 26th Secretary of Health and Human Services, is likely to be roadblocked in his efforts to make America a healthier country.

The medical industrial complex realizes that a healthier nation not as dependent upon medical doctors nor pharmaceutical drugs will significantly reduce its monetary profits. No matter what common sense reforms RFK Jr. proposes, it will likely be frowned upon and publicly resisted by multiple medical associations and academies. The health of patients plays little importance when huge profits are at stake, and one must always remember that modern medicine is a business first and foremost. Health care in America is enormously costly because it’s designed to be that way. Once you understand this, you’re on your way to be liberated from it.

Doctors Have Earned the Lack of Trust They Receive

Dr. Suneel Dhand, a board-certified physician specializing in internal medicine and metabolic health, has declared that it’s not merely the system that’s broken, but “large numbers of practicing doctors, maybe even the majority, their minds are completely broken as well . . . What I mean by this is that the way doctors have been trained to think, the fact that most doctors are complete followers, they lack critical thinking skills, and they certainly lack the courage to step out of line and ask questions when they need to” (YouTube, Dr. Suneel Dhand, ‘Doctors Minds are Broken: Big Hurdle for RFK & MAGA’).

If one wants to witness just how cowardly the greater number of doctors are, simply consider how almost all of them fell in line like obedient soldiers during the Covid pandemic. Any physician who deviated from the authorized message given on high or who even mildly questioned the safety or effectiveness of the Covid vaccine, became anathema to the medical establishment. Medical licenses were immediately threatened at the slightest deviation from the Covid narrative.

Even when baseless public rules were mandated such as the six-foot rule to ward off infection – which Dr. Fauci had to admit was not based on any data – doctors were still required to go along with it. They did so gladly. When Ivermectin had proven to be an effective treatment against the Covid virus, doctors were urged to dismiss it as mere ‘horse medicine.’ And they did so with little hesitation. Even though there was mounting evidence that the Covid vaccine increased the risk of myocarditis, it was mostly downplayed by the authorities. Only later, when so many young athletes had experienced serious heart complications or dying on the field of play, were there serious investigations as to the possible link between the vaccine and myocarditis.

Thus, doctors in the U.S. had largely discredited themselves among much of the American people by taking part in the Covid scam and doing it with little resistance to the powers-that-be. They had proven what compliant sheep they truly are at their core, and how unwilling they were to adhere to the ‘science’ despite their protests to the contrary.

Like their leader, Anthony Fauci, these same doctors contributed to one of the greatest mass deceptions in human history. Not only was the ‘vaccine’ not given the same rigorous testing standards and allotment of time afforded to other vaccines, but even when it had proven to be only mildly effective at best and often harmful to millions of people, there was no urgency to remove it from the market. The enormous profits that the mRNA vaccine brought to its pharmaceutical manufacturers was too great to resist. Information that challenged the vaccine’s effectiveness was either obfuscated or denied outright. The mainstream media was boldly complicit in all of it too as they dismissed as ‘crazy,’ ‘anti-vaxxer,’ or a ‘science denier’ anyone who refused to take the ‘clot shot.’ The disastrous fallout of the Covid tyranny has only recently started to come out, and I hope there will be hell to pay for those who took a major role in promoting it.

The good news in all of this is how many Americans, including citizens from all around the world, became disillusioned with doctors in general and in the entire Healthcare system. The Covid ‘plandemic’ had removed the scales from the eyes of many people who once could only view doctors as virtually angelic. All of this lack of trust toward doctors did not arise in a vacuum but is something that doctors as entrenched supporters of the medical establishment did to themselves. They have no one to blame, but their own arrogance and closed minds.

Doctors Are Unable to Effectively Treat Chronic Disease

Perhaps the major reason why so many doctors are incapable to treating chronic disease is because their philosophical and medical starting point is all wrong. In this sense, doctors are taught to treat symptoms but fail to consider the whole person. They reject a wholistic approach — that is, treating the whole person, recognizing that the human body is interconnected, that symptoms are almost always due to other factors in the body that may not appear at first to have any connection, and that almost the entirety of chronic disease is related to diet which most doctors are completely uninformed of.

If one’s diet or nutrition, then, plays a major role in chronic disease, why do so many doctors know little about the subject? Why are medical students given only one or two classes on nutrition if diet plays such a central role in chronic disease? The answer lies in recognizing that curing chronic disease through diet is not particularly lucrative. What need is there for expensive pharmaceutical pills when one can self-heal and resolve their ailments by simply eating nutrient dense food, eliminating foods that create inflammation in the body, practicing intermittent fasting and exercising regularly?

A physician who actually heals chronic disease, then, does not generate the sort of revenue desired by large pharmaceutical corporations. There are no life-long prescriptions for those who recover from their ailments. Long-term customers dependent on the medical industrial complex are not produced by doctors who pursue a more wholistic approach to medicine, one that recognizes the important role of nutrition and in eschewing the standard American diet with all of its artery-clogging chemicals and substances.

This approach of treating the whole person and not just focusing on symptoms does not comport well with a model of medical care that’s built around pharmaceutical drugs which most physicians adhere to since first learning it in medical school. Thus, focusing only on symptoms has proven to be a very lucrative approach to treating patients since it invites a plethora of costly drugs to be administered as remedies.

If a patient is not feeling well, give him a pill. If that same pill is giving the patient negative side effects, give him another pill to combat the side effects of the previous pill. And on it goes as more prescriptions are doled out and as the patient slowly morphs into a walking pill box! This is what many doctors think is good medical practice though almost all of them would deny that they are pill pushers.

Strange as it may sound, the modern Healthcare system shares some striking similarities to the institutional prison system. The prison system may provide incarceration for criminals, but it does a lousy job of rehabilitating those same criminals or preventing crime. Our Healthcare system, likewise, may have an almost endless number of procedures and protocols to deal with illness, but it doesn’t provide health in any meaningful way. Is it any wonder why doctors either never or rarely speak of healing their patients? This sort of language is not used because a good many physicians don’t see themselves as ‘healers,’ but as persons trained to manage pain or manage the health of their patients. The modern Healthcare system for the most part produces forever patients who, in turn, are forever wed to pharmaceutical drugs which are often highly toxic and create debilitating side effects.

Dr. William Davis, an author and cardiologist, has declared that “Health care is no more about healing than gambling on horse races is about preparing for retirement. In the doctor’s mind, handing you a prescription for insulin may be her version of ‘healing,’ but you know better: There is no healing that can come from handing out pharmaceutical Band-Aids while ignoring the cause of a health problem. Don’t bet on horses to grow your retirement account; don’t count on doctors for healing” (Undoctored: Why Health Care Has Failed You and How You Can Become Smarter Than Your Doctor [Rodale Books, 2017], p.28).

The modern doctor, then, helps patients to cope or manage their ailments and to reduce its effects through pharmaceutical pills as opposed to getting to the root cause of their pain and healing it altogether. This is how they are trained, and it’s rare indeed to find a doctor who seriously inquires as to what their patients eat on a daily basis, including ways to overcome their diseases without the use of costly drugs.

All of this stands in stark contrast to doctors who are healers.

Doctors who are healers counsel their patients on diet and correct common nutritional deficiencies. Doctors who are healers advise their patients with arthritis and joint pain on how to reduce inflammation in the body through nutrition. Doctors who are healers advise their patients with chronic kidney disease to totally eliminate sugar and processed carbohydrates from their diet. Doctors who are healers advise their patients with dementia or Alzheimer’s to end all consumption of refined sugars, alcohol, grains or anything that is metabolized as sugar in the body. Doctors who heal are knowledgeable of the importance and efficacy of certain nutritional supplements that aid in recovery.

Doctors who heal may not necessarily end all pharmaceutical drugs for their patients because they recognize that, at times, it may prove beneficial. But they are not so quick to place their patients on the pharmaceutical Ferris wheel when other options are readily available, especially those based on nutrition and lifestyle.

Undoctor Yourself

Americans must learn to undoctor themselves, to completely avoid becoming dependent on an increasingly costly and ineffective Healthcare system. The only way this is going to happen is by arming oneself with knowledge about health, nutrition, quality supplements, and learning to become their own advocates when it comes to what medicines and what medical treatments they will accept. To rely blindly on what a physician recommends without doing one’s own research is the way of the foolhardy. Many patients only realize this when it’s too late.

A person who is undoctored recognizes that doctors have a legitimate place, but it’s a limited one. Generally, doctors are for treating serious injuries to one’s limb, major abrasions and cuts, allergic reactions, a broken arm or leg, traffic collision injuries, victims of third-degree burns, knee replacements, spinal injuries, the removal of cancerous tumors, brain surgery, the replacement of heart valves, and these kinds of things which in large part they perform very well. I know this is a limited description of the many things that doctors do, but I hope the reader understands my point.

People run to doctors to fix every little ache or discomfort they might have with little awareness that most of it is attributable to their poor diets and can be reversed by simply changing the way they eat. There is no need for doctors under these circumstances, and there are a sufficient number of books, articles, videos and podcasts available on the internet to educate people suffering from all sorts of diseases and autoimmune issues. Visiting the doctor’s office, then, is supposed to be something that is rare.

Many doctors, as one might expect, may feel threatened by persons who are undoctored, especially if the concept spreads among more Americans. They want us forever dependent on their opinions, their expertise and their broken system. Yet, the less people are dependent on their authority and become advocates for themselves, the less money will go into the coffers of the modern Healthcare system and the less will people stand in awe of them simply because they have a medical degree.

It goes without saying that today’s doctors don’t have quite the reputation they once had in America, and this is largely due to a host of factors, much of it their complacency and unwillingness to resist the massive levels of greed inherent in most medical institutions which has made health care unaffordable for the greater number of Americans. The doctors have worked hand-in-hand with these same greedy institutions, and widespread corruption runs rampant within the industry (insurance companies included). The average doctor may just be a cog in the machine, but they are far from innocent.

Robert Yoho, a retired medical doctor, bewails just how convoluted and ripe for corruption today’s Healthcare system has become: “The insurance system was conceived in good faith to supply vital care. But the gargantuan fountain of tax and insurance loot cannot be monitored. Third-party payment combined with free-market profits encourages overuse of anything a provider can stick a bill on. Everyone is compensated by piecemeal and submits separate, competing charges, resulting in a frenzy of exaggerated and fraudulent invoices. The system allows payment for any covered medical treatment, so there is no upper limit on the total. Since severe illnesses justify more reimbursement, hospitals and doctors do unnecessary lab tests and x-rays under the pretext that they suspect dangerous conditions. These create more bills and support invoices for extensive evaluations. Complicated, expensive treatments follow, which doctors order even if they are ineffective or damaging. Agatha Christie said, ‘When large sums of money are involved, it is advisable to trust nobody.’ She might have added, ‘Not even your doctor or hospital’” (Butchered by “Healthcare”: What to do About Doctors, Big Pharma, and Corrupt Government Ruining Your Health and Medical Care [Self-published, 2020], pp. 21-22).

Doctors Are Unable to Effectively Treat Heart Disease

The American Heart Association tells us that heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, killing more than 655,000 Americans each year. The major culprit in the spread of heart disease, according to doctors and today’s diet dictocrats, is saturated fat which clogs the arteries and triggers heart attacks.

The so-called ‘Lipid Hypothesis’ since the time of its founder, Ancel Keys, has been the prevailing dogma among doctors and cardiologists. They want us off eggs, bacon, fatty red meat, real butter or anything that will increase cholesterol in the body and to consume lots of grains, cereals, vegetables, fruits and high carbohydrate foods. Instead of using butter, tallow or pork fat in our food, the ‘experts’ want us to use seed oils and margarine. Every stripe of low-calorie snack, fat-free condiment, soybean oil spread, and sauce was pushed upon us to help us avoid the dangers of cholesterol.

Americans largely followed their advice enshrined in the Food Pyramid of the 1970s and it wasn’t long before obesity rates skyrocketed. Everyone thought they were both smart and healthy because they avoided saturated fat and consumed bran muffins, bagels, oats, pasta, bread and cereal that was as tasteless as twigs. Chronic disease also increased significantly in the U.S. The nutritional advice spewing from our government proved disastrous, and it has become patently obvious.

Few Americans at the time were aware that the sugar industry sought to bribe and manipulate university authorities and medical researchers to blame the increasing rates of heart disease on saturated fat rather than refined sugars, processed carbs or grains which is where the blame rightly belongs.

In a 2016 article published in NPR, this very subject matter was investigated. The author concluded that the food companies played a definite role in downplaying sugar as the major driver of obesity and in influencing published studies that might be critical of sugary drinks: “Is it really true that food companies deliberately set out to manipulate research in their favor? Yes, it is, and the practice continues. In 2015, the New York Times obtained emails revealing Coca-Cola’s cozy relationships with sponsored researchers who were conducting studies aimed at minimizing the effects of sugary drinks on obesity. Even more recently, the Associated Press obtained emails showing how a candy trade association funded and influenced studies to show that children who eat sweets have healthier body weights than those who do not” (‘50 Years Ago, Sugar Industry Quietly Paid Scientists to Point Blame at Fat,’ by Camila Domonoske, 9/13/2016).

Even though there were a few published studies throughout the 1970s and 80s that challenged the ‘Heart-Diet’ theory, they were largely ignored by the medical schools which continued to demonize saturated fat and cholesterol. Even now, with the publication of so many books debunking the notion that saturated fat is unhealthy – such as the 2007 book by Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories, which rocked the nutritional world at the time of its release – doctors still continue to lecture their patients about saturated fat and cholesterol. The doctors are ignorant either because they’re not accustomed to challenging their belief system, or they’re lazy and don’t care, or they’re afraid to challenge the medical system with contrarian ideas and protocols that might jeopardize their professional standing.

Whatever the case may be, there has been an ongoing paradigm shift among health researchers on the matter of cholesterol. The older belief that LDL (low-density lipoprotein) is the ‘bad cholesterol’ may not be based on good science. The emerging way of viewing cholesterol among some is that high LDL, by itself, is not necessarily an indicator of poor health so long as other factors are considered, such as low Triglyceride levels and high HDL (high-density lipoprotein).

One’s Triglycerides and HDL levels, then, are much better indicators of one’s health, including one’s A1C numbers. In fact, there are many people who for genetic reasons have very elevated LDL numbers and yet are fit and healthy (such as those known as ‘lean mass hyper-responders’). Blaming cholesterol for clogged arteries, as many physicians do, is like blaming firemen at the scene of a house fire for starting the fire! Cholesterol in the arteries is present for the purpose of healing the arteries and reducing inflammation – the very inflammation that’s likely caused by refined sugars, processed carbohydrates and seed oils. Thus, cholesterol is immensely beneficial to the human body and the brain itself is comprised mostly of cholesterol.

Some recent studies, in fact, found that higher levels of cholesterol, specifically LDL, have been associated with longer life among elderly persons: “A recent long-term study from Sweden, using data from the AMORIS cohort, has provided valuable research on cholesterol, and somewhat surprisingly shows a correlation between higher cholesterol levels and increased longevity. The longevity study (Murata et al PMID: 37726432) looked at the blood work data of 45,000 people over a 35-year period. Taking regular blood samples and measuring the biomarkers (glucose, cholesterol, iron, creatinine, etc.) the researchers could identify what factors were associated for those reaching 100 years or more. They found that high cholesterol is associated long life. The new data appears to contradict what we have learnt, that high cholesterol is bad. Right? Wrong. When one reads past the headlines and the study’s abstract, the discussion of the results and actual conclusion show otherwise” (The Whole Earth Practice, ‘Cholesterol & Longevity: Is High Cholesterol Protective? The Swedish AMORIS Cohort Results,’ by Alastair Hunt, 10/5/2023).

Contrary to what most doctors think, it appears that older people may need more, not less, cholesterol in their bodies, especially when one considers the protective and beneficial role it plays in the body.

Despite these truths, the medical industrial complex is unlikely to jettison their cholesterol-is-bad view of heart disease any time soon because statin sales in the U.S. exceeds 20 billion dollars annually. There’s just too much money to be made in selling cholesterol-lowering drugs, and this again is why it’s important to remember that modern Healthcare is a business first and foremost.

Let’s also not forget that statin usage brings a lot of other health complications and distressing side effects. Many patients have reported memory loss, muscle aches, fatigue, nausea, confusion, liver problems, constipation and some have even experienced an increase in their blood sugar levels.

Granted, not every patient on a statin regimen experiences these symptoms. However, I think it’s fairly common, more so than what the medical establishment or statin manufacturers estimate which is approximately 10% of patients who use cholesterol-lowering drugs. I have no data to refute the 10% estimation, yet I know that when so much revenue in the billions is at stake, there is always a strong temptation to downplay or fudge the numbers so that any widespread alarm about statin usage is suppressed.

In addition to the enormous sums of revenue that prescribing statins brings, let’s not forget the boatloads of money that heart surgeries, installing stints and pacemakers secures for the medical system. Don’t misunderstand me, I’m thankful that these cardiologists exist and that such miraculous technology is available. Yet, it’s still important to ask: If doctors actually warned their patients about refined sugars, worried less about saturated fat, promoted nutrient dense nutrition, and sought to treat their patients from a wholistic and functional medicine approach, would we not witness over time a major reduction among Americans in pharmaceutical usage, less dependency upon doctors, and a significant decrease in heart surgeries?

And perhaps that’s precisely why today’s medical system is so resistant to the ideas presented in this article?

Doctors Are Unable to Effectively Treat Type-2 Diabetes

Treating Type-2 diabetes is another industry that has proven to be extremely lucrative for today’s medical industrial complex. The amazing thing about it all is that Type-2 diabetes can be reversed – that is, one can actually be healed from diabetes! Talking to the average doctor, you probably wouldn’t think so. They rarely, if ever, mention it to their patients and perhaps even they don’t know. It seems to be a secret they keep to themselves, and I can imagine why when one realizes that the diabetes industry’s projected profits for 2025 will reach 26.28 billion dollars. Oh sure, there’s the occasional physician who might mention that a low carbohydrate diet may prevent the need for life-long insulin injections. But there seems to be very few of them.

In fact, I’ve talked to many diabetics over the years, and none of them from what I could recall ever mentioned getting off their insulin medication or seemed aware that their condition could be reversed by diet alone. Most of them saw it as a life-long problem that would forever require medication, including the real possibility that their condition would only worsen over time.

But as the late Sally Hallberg (an obesity doctor) in her TEDx Talk from 2016 said, “reversing Type-2 diabetes starts by ignoring the guidelines that patients are given.” That’s because the guidelines often contribute to and even exacerbate diabetes. The average diabetic, for instance, is urged to consume 40-65 grams of carbs per day, plus whatever carbohydrate snacks they consume as well. Thus, they are encouraged to eat the very foods that cause diabetes in the first place! Can you think of anything more ass-backwards than this sort of advice?

Diabetics are often told by their doctors to ‘go easy’ on the carbohydrates such as bread and pasta; to consume it in ‘moderation.’ Otherwise, they are free to eat what they wish so long as they monitor their insulin levels and not ‘go crazy’ on the sweets. This is precisely what many diabetics have told me over the years. But such recommendations are as wrong-headed as a physician telling a lung cancer patient that he can smoke so long as he smokes in ‘moderation’ and doesn’t get too carried away.

What kind of doctors are these? What kind of medical system is this that promotes such asinine guidelines for their patients? I can tell you. It’s the kind of medical system that has as its highest priority the almighty dollar. Those who think that highly educated and highly trained medical professionals wouldn’t do such a thing, particularly when they are bound to the Hippocratic Oath, are naive as to the true nature of humans. People will engage in all sorts of treason, violent crimes and personal betrayal against others to get ahead financially and doctors are not immune to the human condition.

There’s also little motivation among today’s doctors to urge their patients to go on a low-carbohydrate or ketogenic diet when there is so much profit in Metformin prescriptions (a glucose lowering drug). Currently, sales of Metformin are about 4.17 billion each year. The global Metformin market, however, is projected by 2030 to reach over 6 billion dollars annually. In the U.S., all glucose-lowering drug sales are estimated at 57.6 billion dollars per year.

Again, follow the money. And learn to be wary of doctors and the system they’re a part of. This is your life. This is your health. Learn to be your own advocate, and don’t allow any physician to intimidate you because you ask questions, employ critical thinking skills and refuse to bow to the golden calf of today’s medical industrial complex.

Triumph of the Villains: Marcus, Memes and Talking Tolkien

March 9, 2025/6 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

A saint I ain’t. But I have competed for a saint. At one of my childhood schools, the pupils were divided into groups, or houses, named after the saints who wrote the Gospels. There was Mattheus House, Marcus House, Lucas House and Johannes House. All of them had a Head of House appointed from pupils in their final year before university. I was in Marcus House and one year our Head of House was a tall, charismatic and athletic youth whom I’ll call Will. With a typically alpha mixture of charm, authority and good example, Will persuaded the usually underperforming members of Marcus to train hard for the annual Sports Day. Thanks to him, we won the Sports Day easily over Johannes, who were traditionally much stronger at sport.

Toxic Trump and Malevolent MAGA

We won so easily, in fact, that the following year I confidently expected us to win the Sports Day again. Yes, Will had gone off to university and his replacement as Head of House wasn’t a charismatic alpha, but surely the momentum of the previous year would carry us to victory again. It didn’t. Marcus lost to Johannes. And badly. It was one of my first lessons in the importance of leadership and individual will. And I’ve been thinking of those two Sports Days ever since the defeat of beautiful brown Kamala Harris in the US presidential election. Why have leftists not been throwing big tantrums over the re-election of Despicable Donald? They’ve witnessed a Triumph of the Villains — Toxic Trump and his malevolent MAGA movement — and yet they’ve not been raging and rioting as they did during his first term.

Why not? Is it simply that they’re demoralized and “exhausted,” too traumatized by Trump’s triumph to fight the foulness of fascism on behalf of the helpless undocumented migrants and transwomen whom MAGA are already torturing? I don’t think so. Instead, it feels to me as though some powerful guiding mind has deserted the left, has declined to organize and animate the masked legions of Antifa, to pour willpower and funding into riots and days of rage. That’s why I’ve been thinking of those two starkly contrasting Sports Days at my old school, one with Will and one without, one easily won and the other badly lost. But I’ve not just been thinking of sports: I’ve been thinking of Sauron. He’s the titular villain of Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, a hideously powerful necromancer with a will of adamant and overwhelming military might. Yet he’s defeated in the end not by a fellow wizard or a mighty warrior, but by two Hobbits, Frodo and Sam, simple members of a despised and dwarvish race from a far-away land with no army and no tradition of magic. That’s one of Tolkien’s central themes: how the mighty can be brought low by the minute. And this is how Tolkien describes what happens when Sauron’s will of adamant deserts his undefeatable armies:

But the Nazgûl turned and fled, and vanished into Mordor’s shadows, hearing a sudden terrible call out of the Dark Tower; and even at that moment all the hosts of Mordor trembled, doubt clutched their hearts, their laughter failed, their hands shook and their limbs were loosed. The Power that drove them on and filled them with hate and fury was wavering, its will was removed from them; and now looking in the eyes of their enemies they saw a deadly light and were afraid. …

“The realm of Sauron is ended!” said Gandalf. “The Ring-bearer has fulfilled his Quest.” And as the Captains gazed south to the Land of Mordor, it seemed to them that, black against the pall of cloud, there rose a huge shape of shadow, impenetrable, lightning-crowned, filling all the sky. Enormous it reared above the world, and stretched out towards them a vast threatening hand, terrible but impotent: for even as it leaned over them, a great wind took it, and it was all blown away, and passed; and then a hush fell.

The Captains bowed their heads; and when they looked up again, behold! their enemies were flying and the power of Mordor was scattering like dust in the wind. As when death smites the swollen brooding thing that inhabits their crawling hill and holds them all in sway, ants will wander witless and purposeless and then feebly die, so the creatures of Sauron, orc or troll or beast spell-enslaved, ran hither and thither mindless; and some slew themselves, or cast themselves in pits, or fled wailing back to hide in holes and dark lightless places far from hope. (The Return of the King [1955], chapter 4)

That ant-hill simile is an echo of ancient Homer in Tolkien’s twentieth-century epic. And Tolkien’s simile reminds me of leftists since Trump’s election. They too are “witless and purposeless,” with doubt clutching their hearts and their laughter failing. They’re not raging and rioting, but retiring from combat. And I think it’s because, like the armies of Sauron, they’re minions, not masters. It wasn’t their own will that directed them in their war on the West, but the will of others. I suggested in my article “Piranha Patel” that the willful others are Jews. Since the attack on Israel by Hamas in October 2023 and noisy pro-Palestinian marches in cities like New York, London and Paris, some important Jews have decided that Jews need to end their traditional support for non-White immigration and for anti-White ideologies like Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI).

The left is bereft

Deprived of Jewish willpower, brains, and funding, the left is bereft. Leftists are NPCs (Non-Player Characters) who can’t act and organize on their own. Jews played the role of Sauron for the leftist armies waging war on Truth, Beauty and Goodness. And now Sauron has gone: Jews have decided that rioting and raging against Trump wouldn’t be good for Jews. That’s what it feels like to me. And that’s why I’ve been thinking of Sports Days and that Sauronic simile in Lord of the Rings. I might be wrong about the main cause of the left’s passivity, but I’m not wrong to think about Lord of the Rings. It’s always a good time to be inspired by Tolkien and his stirring stories of Truth, Beauty and Goodness at war with Lies, Ugliness and Evil. And that brings me to one of the best accounts I’ve ever come across on Twitter: The Daily Gondor. If you’re not familiar with Tolkien and Lord of the Rings, you’ll be baffled by it. However, if you are familiar, it will be one of the funniest and cleverest things you’ll ever read.

Gríma in glasses at The Daily Gondor, “One newspaper to rule them all!”

The Daily Gondor purports to be a truth-telling, toxicity-battling media-feed for the inhabitants of Tolkien’s Middle-earth. It’s overseen by Gríma Wormtongue, the wise and faithful advisor to King Théoden of Rohan. That’s how Wormtongue wants to be seen, anyway. In reality, he’s a liar and a traitor, a sly spinner of word-webs who paralyzes Théoden’s will, rendering him helpless to govern and defend his own kingdom. Wormtongue turns black into white, pretends that good is evil and evil good. And now he’s editing the Daily Gondor. In other words, the Daily Gondor (DG) is a parody of the Guardian, New York Times and other leftist media, who all spin word-webs in the service of lies, ugliness and evil. For example, those real newspapers all use a sacralizing capital letter for “Black” just as the DG and sister-outlets like Barad-dûrFeed (sic) use a sacralizing capital letter for “Orc” (orcs are the ugly and evil warriors of Sauron and Barad-dûr is the name of Sauron’s fortress in the grim realm of Mordor). The real leftist media minimize the murder, rape and theft committed by Blacks and other non-Whites just as the DG minimizes the decapitation, cannibalism and looting of Orcs. And where the real leftist media incessantly condemn racism and transphobia, the DG incessantly condemns “orcophobia,” the irrational fear of Orcs and their vibrant culinary and cultural habits. Here are some typical headlines from the Daily Gondor and Barad-dûrFeed:

Violence caused by Orcs and Goblins never makes it to your newsfeeds simply because it doesn’t exist.
It’s impossible to have a modern, civilized society without Orcs and cannibalism is a small price to pay.
Yes, Orcs Want to Slaughter and Enslave Us All, but If We Oppose Their Freedom, Then We’re Just As Bad.
I fed my children to Goblins and have never been happier.
Orcs Catapulted Severed Heads Over the Walls and My Daughter Was Horrified. Am I Raising an Orcophobe?
Elves aren’t real, recent research to curb the elf-right suggests.
Truth and Beauty are elf-centric concepts.
People are happier when besieged by orcs or eaten alive, says happiness expert.
We keep hearing about “legitimate concerns” over Mondor’s invasion. There are none.

That last headline is a parody of the Guardian’s now infamous article: “We keep hearing about ‘legitimate concerns’ over immigration. The truth is, there are none.” But the DG does more than just parody the Guardian and other leftist media: it also points at the disproportionate and controlling role of Jews in leftism and the war on Truth, Beauty and Goodness. Jews have names like Goldsmith, Goldberg and Rubinstein (the latter two names mean “Gold-mountain” and “Ruby-stone” in German). Journalists for the DG and BDF have names like Gobli Mithrilsmith, Thogrun Mithrilgroper, Rothli Jewelrubber and Gambi Jewelsqueezer (mithril is Middle-earth’s most precious metal). And look at this headline: “Rivendell politician SACKED after suggesting 8 out of 9 major Palintírí outlets are controlled by just 3 dwarven clans.” The journalist for that article is one Shuldur Goldstonemountain, who writes of how “in a reckless display of dangerous noticing the official, whose name will soon be erased and forgotten, hurt Rivendell’s reputation and standing.”

That’s a clever joke about Jewish dominance in the media and the way Jews condemn and cancel those who discuss that dominance. The Daily Gondor is wise, witty and White-friendly. It’s written by a true Tolkien fan and I can heartily recommend it to all other true Tolkien fans.

The Daily Gondor at Twitter / X
The Daily Gondor at Substack

Samples of The Daily Gondor

A Call for Uncompromising Intolerance: Transgenderism and So-Called Gender Affirming Care Must Be Banned

March 7, 2025/3 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Richard Parker

A Call for Uncompromising Intolerance – by Richard Parker

But what ends when the symbols shatter? A depiction of male and female anatomies shattering the transgender symbol. By destroying that symbol and what it stands for, one affirms humanity and the mammalian essence.

A brief assessment of both the transgender menace and the more-or-less mainstream voices speaking out against it reveals a fatal flaw in the opposition to this civilization-destroying madness. The arguments against transgenderism, at least as they have been expressed heretofore, concede far too much ground to the transgender contagion, limiting discourse to two central objections: that demands to open women’s spaces, namely women’s bathrooms, locker rooms, spas, as well as women’s athletics be open to men (provided they ‘identify’ as female) are unacceptable, and that preying on children and minors, encouraging them and coaxing them into the transgender delirium must stop. In this way few if any mainstream critics of transgenderism categorically oppose so-called “gender affirming care,” provided it is not rendered to minors. Nor have they expressed categorical opposition to promoting or propagating transgender ideology to the public at large, but limit their objection to transgender lunacy being advocated to minors.

The problem with entertaining this “moderate, temperate” approach is that it concedes that anyone, even if an adult, should be allowed to make such a decision. Society generally does not allow people to mutilate themselves. We do not let deluded, crazy people who think they are intrinsically crippled to have their limbs amputated. Nor does society let alcoholics or drug addicts indulge their addictions to the point of self-destruction, at least not in theory. So it must be with so-called “gender affirming care,” which, as will soon be demonstrated, offers only a very poor counterfeit of the sex coveted, reducing those so deluded to a horrible, grotesque abomination. As this recent review of When Harry Became Sally attests, Ryan T. Anderson correctly discerns that men cannot become women and vice versa, and that sex is an immutable characteristic that one is born as, a characteristic that begins at conception. However, much like Billboard Chris, this author limits opposition to encouraging children and minors to transition, as well as offering so-called “gender affirming care” by way of mastectomies of adolescent girls and puberty blockers for both sexes.

This objection to transgenderism as it relates to minors is coupled with opposition to demands for access to women’s spaces (bathrooms, locker rooms, women’s athletics, and so on). Anderson states outside of those contexts transgender people “must be treated with dignity and respect” and is even against denial of service by schools or establishments open to the public. (197) Nowhere does he express opposition to adults indulging in transgender lunacy, nor does he condemn so-called “gender affirming care” for adults, even as he outlines why these procedures in no way actually allow someone to transition sex or gender.[1] One of the only mainstream pundits who opposes so-called gender affirming care across the board, for adults and minors alike, is Matt Walsh. Several considerations inform why neither these procedures nor any recognition of one’s supposed “gender identity” should be tolerated in the slightest; very simply put, transgenderism should not be countenanced, sanctioned, or tolerated by society in any way.

This treatise will set forth several inter-related contentions that, considered in tandem, mandate what is at this moment considered by many a somewhat radical position, but is in fact a position that is perfectly sensible and necessary for the greater good and welfare of society. The first and central premise before all others is that humans simply cannot change sex. Even conceding that a very small percentage of persons are born with bona fide gender dysphoria, humoring their malady by allowing transgender surgeries or promulgating transgender ideology in public discourse begets a plethora of social ills. The harm these socials ills cause eclipse, by many orders of magnitude, any perceived social utility allegedly achieved by humoring the madness of transgender ideology. This is a correct and obvious conclusion even if one concedes that some very limited instances of gender dysphoria are genuine and not induced by external influences–that is, not an idea planted into the minds of children, young people, or mentally ill or otherwise vulnerable adults by any number of externalities. These external influences can range from a sick, polluted cultural milieu, to deranged, maniacal parents possessed by any number of illicit motivations, whether Munchausen by Proxy, or a desire to sacrifice a child’s well-being in order to be perceived as a deep, caring, enlightened person, or whatever their motivations might be. Aside from allowing these nefarious ideas and practices into the stream of public discourse and the fabric of society, tolerating transgender ideology to flourish in any way allows nefarious elements to profit off horribly destructive practices, from “gender affirming care,” administration of puberty blockers, to a burgeoning industry of transgender counseling rackets, not to mention a well-financed punditry circuit that encourages and promotes these insane ideas.

Humans Cannot Change Sex or Gender, Horrific Surgeries and Fanciful Notions About Gender Identity Notwithstanding.

As stated before, no one can change sex. Sex is determined at birth, at conception actually, and it is immutable (Anderson, 9, 77–85). Any individual who has succumbed to transgender delirium in no way changes sex, but merely conceals or obliterates as many characteristics of the sex they were born as, to whatever extent is feasible for that individual, while counterfeiting signs of the sex they covet. Usually these attempts to imitate the sex coveted are poor indeed. As Dr. Paul McHugh concluded long ago, sex change surgery is “bad medicine” that “‘fundamentally cooperat[es] with a mental illness’” rather than treating it. (Anderson 17). In relation to both “male-to-female” and “female-to-male” transgenders, the result is a grotesque abomination that fools no one.

Some of these “tells” are not categorical in an absolute sense, but in aggregate they are. For example, there are some women of German and Nordic descent who have relatively large hands compared to say a woman of English or French descent. But it is rare if not impossible that such an outlier would also be an outlier in all of these other criteria that cannot be obliterated, obscured, or masked through cosmetic surgery, deceptive angles in photography or posing in deceptive clothing, or, in the instance of so-called “male-to-female” transgenders, applying copious amounts of make-up, derisively referred to as “war paint” by some gender-critical women, and so on. A buxom, blonde Brünnhilde, endowed with the fairly large hands and elongated fingers customary of her phenotype, will also have a slender, elongated neck, more voluptuous hips, and other “tells” that unambiguously signal the female sex. Not so with the “troon” imposter who attempts to replicate the female sex with such disastrous results.

The ultimate tell comes down to what is between the legs, the genitalia, as that is the single greatest distinction between the sexes and also the one characteristic that plastic surgery fails to imitate in such spectacular, horrific fashion. With some extremely rare sexual abnormalities excepted[2], having either a penis or vagina determines whether a person is a man or woman, whether he ejaculates sperm or whether she ovulates or can conceive a child. Even the most deceptive transgender, always the outlier, fails that ultimate test. Either a “male-to-female” transgender still has a penis and testicles, or has undergone a so-called transgender vaginoplasty. Even the most deceptive “pooner” either still has a vagina, sometimes crudely referred to as a “bonus hole” both by transgender lunatics and their detractors, or the mangled monstrosity that is the so-called “neo-penis.” As articulated in “Leaping Into Delusion, Death, and Personal Destruction: The Cost of Tolerating Transgenderism,” hardly anyone takes a romantic or sexual interest in transgenders.

Very simply put, straight men and lesbian or bisexual women want actual women, with a woman’s body and biology, including female pheromones, women’s breasts, woman’s hips, as well as a fully functioning vagina and uterus. The simple juxtaposition of a vintage Penthouse centerfold from back in the day, or any image of an attractive nude woman with any image of a troon, especially one depicting what is between that individual’s legs, demonstrates this is irrefutably so.

The same applies to the female-to-male variety:

Whether endowed with the vagina. . . or a “rot dog”. . .. [g]ay men and heterosexual women alike desire other men—not women pretending to be men, but men—endowed with an actual functioning penis, the broader shoulders, generally greater height and denser skeletal frame of a man, not women who have mutilated themselves [beyond recognition].

The horrors associated with surgeries that attempt to construct a “neo-penis” and “neo-vagina” have only been mentioned in passing. Neither surgical construction is anything like the genuine article. Some of the defects of the “neo-vagina” include, but are in no way limited to, the following:

cannot lubricate like a real vagina;
cannot contract, convulse, or expand like a real vagina (the sexual organ is designed to give birth). Indeed there are accounts that it cannot accommodate even the moderately endowed;
does not emit female pheromones, and in fact often wreaks of excrement;
no g-spot or clitoris;
is not self-cleaning;
needs to be dilated regularly.

The horrors associated with the neo-penis are far more harrowing. Those readers interested in learning more are advised to consult with the discussion on this matter in Irreversible Damage. The detailed accounts offered in that text are informative, but are also shocking, and not for the faint of heart. For the purposes of this treatise, it will simply be noted that:

a neo-penis cannot achieve an erection without a rod or inflating device;
cannot ejaculate sperm;
cannot orgasm;
is visually horrific,
requires multiple surgeries, very often with terrible complications.

In relation to genital mutilation and surgery, it must also be stressed that very often if not nearly always such surgeries destroy the ability to orgasm.

In Society’s Efforts To Be Tolerant, It Simply Encourages The Maddest Delusions

All of this demonstrates that by countenancing transgenderism at all, society is encouraging a false, fantastical delusion that cannot be realized. This should be so obvious that debate on the transgender question should have lasted about five minutes. Tolerating and countenancing transgenderism does much more than encourage this fantastical delusion to those who succumb to it directly, it harms society at large while inflicting those individuals not susceptible to this mass psychosis and hysteria with a multitude of societal ailments. The sane amongst us have been coerced to humor the farce of customized pronouns and call men “trans women” and women “trans men,” often at threat of losing a job or otherwise being “cancelled.” Since transgenderism has entered the stream of society and culture, the sane amongst us have suffered a psychic toll as well, a matter elaborated in greater detail below.

Abigail Shrier and many others insist that legitimate gender dysphoria exists in an exceedingly rare number of young boys—that is gender dysphoria not instilled in the minds of the susceptible and gullible by suggestion, coaxing, or social contagion, but gender dysphoria that emerges without any external cultural influence or other externalities. In the introduction to Shrier’s Irreversible Damage, the number she provides is roughly 0.01 percent, or one in one thousand (xxi), although even that seems high; it must be noted that in her first appearance on Joe Rogan, she estimated legitimate cases of gender dysphoria were about 1 in 10,000, or, she incorrectly states, 0.01 cases—actually 0.01 percent. Cass recently corroborated many of Shrier’s contentions in Irreversible Damage in the Cass Report, although she did disseminate a letter distancing herself from Shrier while also confirming the legitimacy of transgender identity in some patients and even condoning “gender affirming” surgeries in some limited instances. Even presupposing this conclusion is correct, it imposes a false economy on society. For the benefit of a small scintilla of the male population, untold number of burdens are imposed on society at large.

Above and below, a screenshot excerpting Cass’s disclaimer, and a suggested revision by this author as to how it ought to read.

Social Contagion, Defining Deviancy Down, and Desensitizing

As stated, so-called “gender affirming care” does not allow one to transition sex because changing sex—or gender—is impossible. What sanctioning or countenancing such absurd delusion does do is give these ideas, to the extent one can call them ideas at all, a foothold into the mainstream of our culture and society. This then contaminates the minds of others in any number of ways. The social contagion theory advanced by the likes of Shrier and others is persuasive, as it is evidenced by the fact that transgenderism was so incredibly rare before this lunatic agenda gained a foothold in our culture. The cluster phenomenon is real, where harmful, self-destructive behaviors by one or a few people rub off on others. As articulated in “When So Many Do Jump off a Bridge,” media have various protocols in place because even suicide will “rub off” on other people in ways utterly devoid of reason or rationality. Society acknowledges and responds to these phenomena in human psychology in a number of different ways, including laws rightly banning or severely restricting cigarette and tobacco advertising. These bans and restrictions were implemented because masses of people do respond to advertising, no matter how illogical or self-destructive smoking cigarettes actually is. These phenomena in human psychology also inform important, vital policy considerations for imposing criminal sanctions on vices like prostitution and gambling. For even though prostitution, gambling, and other such vices have always existed and will likely always exist, the prohibition of prostitution not only deters prostitution, it applies a social stigma on both clientele and the prostitutes alike, a sort of negative advertising against it. Before the age of the Internet, similar rationales informed the restriction of access by minors to pornographic material or even nudity in print and film. The same rationale applies to illicit drugs and other vices.

Indeed, sanctioning or otherwise providing limited allowances for adults to pursue so-called “gender affirming care” or indulge any of the fantastical tenets of transgender ideology or radical gender theory demonstrates once again the axiomatic principle of Defining Deviancy Down. That principle dictates that if a society tolerates deviant behavior to a certain extent, that society loses the ability to regard such behavior as deviant or outside the mainstream—society loses the ability to resist such deviance effectively. Eventually, absent a proper response, formerly deviant behavior becomes mainstream, and other deviant behaviors that are even greater outliers then move up to the fringes of borderline or deviant behavior that is still stigmatized or regarded as deviant, but to some lesser extent. By tolerating transgenderism to any degree, any degree whatsoever, even those cases that Shrier and others regard as legitimate, it becomes normalized and then gradually creeps into all facets of public life, including how public life relates to children, minors, young people, and especially young women who up until recently were very rarely or never known to suffer from gender dysphoria. Conceptualize tolerance of transgenderism (or any social ill, really) to a small, non-lethal dose of poison, that is gradually increased until the subject can consume ever larger doses of the poison that, while no longer lethal with built-up tolerance, are still toxic poisons that the body should not be exposed to. In this way, every encounter with a transgender person, every appearance on Dr Phil or transgender video on tiktok constitutes further incremental intake of that poison, destroying the body’s natural intolerance of that poison. By not tolerating transgenderism at all, transgenderism would have been stopped in its tracks and it would not have advanced to the precipice of the mainstream, such that it is promoted in many corners of our education system and mainstream culture.

Eliminating the Profit Motive

There is another consideration that applies to allowing horrific procedures touted as “gender affirming care.” By tolerating or allowing these procedures in any way, nefarious elements in the medical and counseling industries are allowed to profit off of these procedures, and profit quite handsomely. Some sample figures for the cost of the more prominent procedures are as follows:

between $25.000–$35.000 for so-called “phalloplasty,” that is the construction of a neo-penis which is, of course, nothing like a real penis. It cannot grow erect like a real penis, does not ejaculate semen, etc. Other estimates top $65,000;
a so-called vaginoplasty costs between $25,000–$35,000 to over $45,000;
a mastectomy (lopping off a woman’s breasts) can run over $10.000;
a regimen of puberty blockers can run $1,200 a month;
facial feminization surgery costs between $25–50.000;
who knows how many thousands of dollars for “counseling” sessions that simply encourage and promote this cursed plague.

Very often these and other procedures are covered by health insurance, as demanded by the transgender lobby. This means society at large finances this through increased premiums, or surprise bills that health insurance companies impose on the public by denying coverage for reasons no one really understands. And so far society at large has tolerated this.

Once any such enterprise is allowed to prosper in any way, it will always find a way to expand the market share. This axiomatic principle is demonstrated in this caption above depicting the explosion of gender clinics over the past fifteen years. Even presupposing that gender dysphoria legitimately exists in a small fraction of boys as is contended, and even conceding that drastic surgeries help such unfortunate persons cope with their lot, such considerations are outweighed, by many orders of magnitude, the need to prevent nefarious elements from peddling these procedures—at a handsome profit—to the public that otherwise would never have considered such lunacy in the first place. If genuine gender dysphoria does exist in a very small number of male children, a rarity tantamount to a deformity or other abnormality, society must come to the conclusion that that is simply their cross to bear and that they must deal with their sordid affliction as best they can, without society sanctioning or tolerating the fanciful notion that such individuals or—anyone—could ever transition sex or gender.

On the question of whether society should allow for the marketing and propagation of the transgender fantasy—and the so-called gender affirming procedures in particular—the answers may lie, at least in part, in a somewhat radical doctrine in products liability law and public policy known as product category liability, whereby a class of product is regarded as so dangerous, so undesirable, or offering such low social utility that the entire category of product should be banned altogether. Examples of this include certain cheap, above the ground swimming pools, lawn darts[3], or the cheap “Saturday Night Special” pistols from decades ago. Asbestos is probably the most infamous example of product category liability. That some children and even adults could use lawn darts safely was outweighed by the plethora of injuries and even fatalities that occurred because that product was allowed to be on the market at all. Of course, transgender procedures, in actuality, offer no redeeming social utility. There is no social utility in bodily and genital mutilation, just as there is no social utility in encouraging the abject lie that people can change sex. If this doctrine cannot provide a legal solution to this menace in our irretrievably corrupt legal system, the underlying rationale of this doctrine is at least very instructive, as it enunciates reasons why undesirable, destructive product categories of low or no social utility should not be allowed on the market at all. No product or service is more deserving of being removed from the market altogether than transgender procedures and transgender counseling.

Society Bears the Costs of the Psychic Toll for the Benefit of Remarkably Few

Indeed, the social costs incurred by offering any accommodations or conceding any ground to transgenderism—even in those rare instances that Shrier and others argue are legitimate—cannot be quantified. Consider the psychic toll that allowing transgenderism—as an idea into society—imposes on everyone. This excerpt from “What Consenting Adults Do Is Our Concern” describes the matter thusly:

Put bluntly, looking at these creatures takes a psychic toll on the mind, body, and spirit. Seeing a person who is obviously male in woman’s attire taxes the optic nerves of everyone who beholds such a monstrosity. This is not merely because such persons break societal norms. They are an affront not just to human sexuality, but an affront to the mammalian essence.

To look at these people is an affliction on the optical nerves, to be around them or hear them is an affliction on the ears as well as the eyes. Seeing men, most of whom suffer from autogynephilia, dressed in sexually provocative women’s attire imposes a cost on us all. Reconciling such attire and other feminine accoutrements with tells that unmistakably signal male—from broad shoulders, large hands, narrow hips, an Adam’s apple—imposes a psychological toll on the mind that is forced to reconcile two conflicting sets of information, one set consisting of remnant tells of the individual’s actual sex, which are in conflict with the counterfeit tells that range from preposterous, to the grotesque, to, in a small minority of instances, somewhat deceptive.

Being exposed to TikTok videos and other appalling instances in social media depicting otherwise attractive, healthy White women destroying their bodies exacts a hefty toll on the mind as well. This social contagion, which is the focus of Irreversible Damage, strikes at something visceral, instinctual. For younger readers who are millennials or zoomers, this contagion directly affects the pool of available women who would otherwise be suitable as potential girlfriends or wives. Many younger readers might know a young woman who destroyed her body and mind in this way, maybe even a woman someone dated or fancied in some way. They will never have children.

For those older, it evokes a paternalistic instinct. This mental anguish incurred at the mere sight of such monstrosities strikes at something ancient and primordial, going back to Helen of Troy. “A face that could launch a thousand ships” has been a centuries-long adage for a reason. That men have not been more protective of our young women is a terrible harbinger of our fate to come, harkening to island peoples and other primitive civilizations that did nothing about foreign imposters interloping with their women, or for that matter formerly great civilizations in prolonged imperial decline before the fall.

The transgender menace has exacted a toll in other ways. Both genders must now more closely scrutinize dating profiles, which can be hard because a facial profile does not show the entire body, as photos can be taken with deceptive angles or lighting (that concern of course pertains to other things as well, including weight). Grumblings online in transgender circles have evinced a repeated intention to at least try to deceive others into thinking that a transgender person is the sex coveted and not the sex such a person is born as and is. This is nothing less than constructive rape. That a sizeable contingent of transgender “people” have such intentions and designs weighs on the mind. This is so even though the likelihood of a person actually being able to pull off such deception is extremely limited, although in the past some promiscuous men were apt to receive offers of fellatio from loose women without reciprocating in kind. Now, however, there is the possibility that it could be a man feigning the appearance of a woman to coax a man to agree to having such relations when he otherwise would not. This of course is not to suggest tacit approval of such behavior, but even those who disapprove of such seedy behavior can still have empathy for what is in effect the use of deception to fool someone to consent to sexual activity that he in fact does not consent to.

Objections such as “why do you care?” notwithstanding, the presence of transgenderism and more particularly the odious sorts who have succumbed to this collective psychosis imposes a mental strain on those who are subjected to their appearance and presence. As explicated further in “What Consenting Adults Do Is Our Concern,” even those “rare instances of transgenders who pass reasonably well have an uncanniness about their appearance that forces the mind to scrutinize the conflicting signals received, a most unwanted mental toil that transgenderism forces on us all.” In regard to those exceptional outliers who deceive most at initial glance, such individuals “pass” by an elaborate form of deception, through radical, drastic surgeries and other forms of deception described earlier. And even the most exceptional outliers never quite succeed in concealing or obliterating “all signs or tells of their actual sex.” Invariably, there are remnant “tells” of the person’s actual sex that conflict with the sex such individuals desire to be. In the instance of the “male-to-female” transgender, “the brain struggles to process . . . those nagging ‘tells’ that signify male—for example unusually narrow hips, large hands, or an Adam’s apple for a man presenting as a woman,” as those tells stand in direct contradiction with the “feminine” tells that the transgender individual has feigned by any number of deceptive methods, from plastic surgery, to “war paint” to carefully curated articles of clothing placed just so to hide that Adam’s Adam or obscure that narrow waste. The very same cognitive toil is afflicted by the sight of a creature, born female, who perpetrates the same sort of fraud. Of course, in all instances, the charade ends eventually, either when such a person is in a state of undress in a bathroom or gym locker or if someone should be so foolish or unfortunate as to decide to attempt having intimate relations with such a person:

And even for the rare transgender who reasonably passes as a woman at first glance, the lying and delusion ends in spectacular fashion for anyone stupid or gullible enough to believe that so-called transgender “women” are women when they see—or worse yet experience in other ways—what is between the legs: either a penis and testicles or the assorted horrors of the so-called neo-vagina.

There simply is no legitimate reason why the population at large should be subjected to this sort of mindfuck to appease a minute fraction of the population.

Moving Toward Uncompromising Intolerance

Quite recently Texas passed a law mandating that the Texas Department of Public Safety shall no longer allow deluded individuals taken with the transgender mania to “change their sex” on driver’s licenses. This policy correctly communicates that the state of Texas does not countenance or recognize the delusion that it is possible to change sex. This is an excellent first step, but it does not go nearly far enough. Indeed no state has banned transgender surgical procedures outright, that is for both adults and minors. A list of states that have prohibited such procedures for minors in whole or in part is featured in this article.

This map exemplifies the problem. Just like limp-wristed, apprehensive conservative pundits, so many just stop at these procedures for minors. The proper response is to ban it altogether.

As set forth in this treatise, even supposing that there is some small benefit to the exceedingly rare instance of genuine gender dysphoria, that small benefit is engulfed by the massive costs and social problems suffered by society and those sane individuals among us. Simply ban both the procedures and the advertising and promotion of transgender ideology, not just for minors but for adults as well. With the current system and regime in place, this may be exceedingly difficult. First Amendment jurisprudence offers far too much protection to commercial speech. Then again, if smoking is regarded as such a threat to the public health and the greater social good warranting severe restrictions against the advertising of tobacco products, not to mention other severe regulatory restrictions, this insane, deluded ideology deserves a far more robust response, as that ideology encourages people to mutilate their bodies and genitalia, rendering them sterile, unable to experience orgasms, not to mention subjecting such persons to astronomically high rates of suicide ideation. The problem of course is that, unlike with tobacco products, the medical profession, counseling racket, and other related lobbies that wield extraordinary influence over such public policy considerations are, to put it mildly, subject to ideopolitical capture.

Beyond the sort of regulatory or legislative restrictions envisioned in how the state has reacted to the tobacco menace in various countries, one approach that is feasible with the Constitution and the current regime in place is to simply deny transgender people any special status as a protected class under the onerous civil rights regime currently in place. This then allows level-headed communities to engage in extra-legal sanctions, such as denial of service. Trump 2.0 is certainly to be applauded in this regard, even though it stops short of banning transgender surgery for adults:

The government would recognize only two unchangeable sexes: female and male. information about what Trump calls “gender ideology” was removed from federal government websites and the term “gender” was replaced by “sex” to comport with the order. The Bureau of Prisons stopped reporting the number of transgender incarcerated people and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed lessons on building supportive school environments for transgender and nonbinary students.
Requests denied for passport gender markers.
Transgender women moved into men’s prisons.
Opening the door to another ban on transgender service members.
Defunding gender-affirming medical care for transgender youth.
Barring schools from helping student social transitioning.

Even if one concedes the onerous regime of civil rights laws are overall an intrinsic good, there is a fundamental distinction between denying service based on an immutable characteristic like race—even if mainstream conservatives and conventional wisdom are so incredibly wrong about race being a superficial or innocuous difference—and the manner in which a person chooses to dress. If a sports bar catering to Red Sox fans can deny service to Yankees fans, if a Manchester United bar can deny service to Liverpool fans, then those opposed to transgender lunacy ought to have the right—and indeed do have the right and obligation—to deny service to transgender people. Expressing animus, even hatred for transgender people is not only the right thing to do, denying service sends an important message, a message desperately needed in Europe and the West today; that message is transgenderism is not normal, it is abject insanity, and it is not tolerated or welcome here.

Given the seemingly impeachable status of civil rights laws both as a legal regime and a sentimentalized cultural legacy of the worst sort, even the right to not associate with such persons is under incredible pressure, as people have been sued for choosing not to bake a “transgender cake” or rendering other services. As those questions impugn the tendency to fetishize or sentimentalize the Constitution, civil rights claptrap, and the democratic form of government as some sort of normative ideal, the inefficacy and timidity of mainstream opposition to transgender ideology shows familiar flaws with establishment conservatism. These flaws have revealed themselves in how pathetic and ineffectual resistance to gay marriage was and is, as well so many other catastrophic losses at the hands of mainstream conservatism. Such flaws include a lack of intellectual sophistication, whereby very few can articulate how tolerating transgender ideology defines deviancy down, that by tolerating transgenderism people become desensitized to it, and in time, it loses its stigma as deviant behavior before becoming accepted as mainstream, to be replaced by something even more onerous (what that could possibly be one shudders to think). Nor have they considered that by allowing transgenderism to be promulgated to adults, both the tenets of transgender lunacy and a syndicate of for-profit rackets peddling “counseling,” surgeries and procedures, and professional-class punditry are allowed into the stream of discourse—into our culture—which will invariably influence not only vulnerable adults, who, contrary to all the hand-wringing, must not have the right to indulge such lunacy, but minors as well.

As with so many other catastrophic losses in the “culture war,” these failures exemplify the problems inherent in placing such emphasis on “individual liberty” to such excess that it outweighs, in such an absurdly lopsided manner, the greater societal costs by allowing and tolerating not just license and abandon, as the West has done for decades, but abject lunacy, delusion, and insanity. Resisting this threat to civilization will require a new approach to traditional, Anglo-American notions about individual liberty and personal choice, a new approach that understands inhibiting some “personal freedoms” allows for greater “freedom” and liberation to the masses. Nothing—no matter how seemingly sacred or long-standing—must be allowed to stand in the way of this epiphany.

Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his Substack page, theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls.

[1] As articulated in “This Mockery of Language II: Gender Redefined,” Gender is largely synonymous with sex. The insistence that the meaning of “gender” entails definitions that coincide with the transgender agenda has been prescribed by ideologically corrupt editorial staff. The definition by Merriam-Webster explicitly states that the usage advocated by these radicals is prescribed for these various reasons, as set out in “This Mockery of Language II.”

[2] As other influential figures, including Matt Walsh and Ryan Anderson have explicated, citing the existence of rare sexual abnormalities and deformities is an absurd vehicle with which to advance the fantastical proposition that one can change sex or gender.

[3] Lawn darts were banned by regulatory action. Although not an example of product category liability in regards to tort law per se, the underlying legal theory and social policy underlying this doctrine inform such legislative or regulatory action to ban something, as Professor Ausness and others have concluded that regulatory or legislative action is a better method of dealing with undesirable products subject to this legal doctrine.

An Open Letter to Robert Kennedy, Jr.

March 6, 2025/17 Comments/in Featured Articles/by F. Roger Devlin, Ph.D.

To the Honorable Robert Francis Kennedy, Jr., Washington, DC.

Dear Sir:

First let me congratulate you on your appointment as head of the Department of Health and Human Services, an important responsibility within our federal government. I understand the agency employs over 83,000 workers and has an annual budget of more than one and a half trillion dollars. You clearly have your work cut out for you, and I do not wish to impose too greatly upon your time.

In fact, the constraints on your attention are one reason I write to you now. For despite your busy schedule, I understand you have recently joined in the fight against anti-Semitism—an ancient scourge which has often led to tragic consequences, as we all know. And I admire your determination to combat this virus of the mind. It is going above and beyond the call of duty for a Director of HHS to busy himself with a matter so completely unrelated to his job description. Presumably you are trying to change your image as an anti-Semite stemming from your 2023 remarks on Covid, as reported in Forward:

RFK Jr.’s comments were a toxic mix of centuries-old antisemitism with a contemporary twist. And that’s worth parsing carefully, instead of just dismissing in disgust, because it’s a snapshot of what is happening right now on the technicolor stage of hate.

“COVID-19 attacks certain races disproportionately,” RFK Jr. said at a gathering at an Upper East Side restaurant that was caught on video by the New York Post. “COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”

“We don’t know whether it was deliberately targeted or not but there are papers out there that show the racial or ethnic differential and impact.”

Well, good luck with changing your image. Apologizing and changing course never really help once you have said something Jews don’t like.

But regardless of all that, I wish to assure you that you are not alone. America’s Jews also have a friend in Roger Devlin, for example. In fact, most of us here at The Occidental Observer are really just softies at heart, and cannot resist the impulse to stand up for the underdog. I have known our editor Dr. Kevin MacDonald for many years now, and you will not find a more decent man. It has been my privilege to meet Dr. Andrew Joyce, Dr. Edmund Connelly, and several other contributors to our little publication, and I would say the very same of them. I wish to assure you personally, Mr. Kennedy, that our Jewish neighbors have determined defenders and allies in all of us here at TOO. We will not stand idly by should anyone attempt to assemble America’s Jewish community at collection points before shipping them off in cattle cars to camps for systematic extermination by means of Zyklon-B gas issuing through shower heads only for their mortal remains to be employed in the manufacture of soap and lampshades. No indeed. Not on our watch. Such unconcern would be foreign to our very nature. It’s simply not who we are.

In short, we have your back. You need not worry about persecuted Jews being left abandoned.

I hope this will go some way toward allaying your concerns and lightening your heavy workload. Perhaps you will now have more time to devote to other matters such as . . . oh I don’t know . . . human services, health, and stuff like that.

If you should be in need of any further advice or assistance in this matter, I can be contacted through www.theoccidentalobserver.net.

Sincerely,

Roger Devlin

Professor of Puppets: How a Lover of Open Borders Has Gone from “Let Them in!” to “Kick Them Out!”

GROK 3 Agrees That White European Men Are Responsible for Almost All the Greatest Human Accomplishments

Vatican & B’Nai B’rith – a long story made short

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO A DELEGATION OF B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL

Hall of Popes
Thursday, 12 May 2011

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO A GROUP OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE “B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL”

Monday, 11 March 1996

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE “ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B’NAI B’RITH”

Consistory Hall
Thursday, 29 September 1994

List of John Paul II’s speeches to the Jewish community

PAUL VI GENERAL AUDIENCE Wednesday, May 17, 1978

Nostra Aetate Rome, St Peter’s, October 28 1965.

Broken Doctors for a Broken Medical System

Triumph of the Villains: Marcus, Memes and Talking Tolkien

A Call for Uncompromising Intolerance: Transgenderism and So-Called Gender Affirming Care Must Be Banned

But what ends when the symbols shatter? A depiction of male and female anatomies shattering the transgender symbol. By destroying that symbol and what it stands for, one affirms humanity and the mammalian essence.

An Open Letter to Robert Kennedy, Jr.

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Also available at Barnes & Noble

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO A DELEGATION OF B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL

Hall of Popes Thursday, 12 May 2011

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II TO A GROUP OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE “B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL”

Monday, 11 March 1996

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE “ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B’NAI B’RITH”

Consistory Hall Thursday, 29 September 1994

List of John Paul II’s speeches to the Jewish community

PAUL VI GENERAL AUDIENCE Wednesday, May 17, 1978

Nostra Aetate Rome, St Peter’s, October 28 1965.

But what ends when the symbols shatter? A depiction of male and female anatomies shattering the transgender symbol. By destroying that symbol and what it stands for, one affirms humanity and the mammalian essence.

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Also available at Barnes & Noble

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO A DELEGATION OF B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL

Hall of Popes
Thursday, 12 May 2011

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO A GROUP OF REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE “B’NAI B’RITH INTERNATIONAL”

ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS JOHN PAUL II
TO THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE “ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE OF B’NAI B’RITH”

Consistory Hall
Thursday, 29 September 1994