Featured Articles

Serge Alexandre Stavisky: The Jewish Fraudster Who Brought Down a French Government

/4 Comments/in /by

A single fraudster exposed the fragility of modern France by showing that power serves itself before it serves justice. Serge Alexandre Stavisky was born on November 20, 1886, in Slobodka near Kiev in the Russian Empire. The son of Emmanuel Stavisky, a Russian Jewish immigrant, Alexandre received his formal education at the prestigious Lycée Condorcet in Paris.

Yet by 1912, at just 26 years old, Frederick Brown writes in “The Embrace of Unreason: France, 1914-1940,” that Stavisky “was well on his way to establishing himself as an inveterate swindler.” That year, he rented the Folies-Marigny Theater for the summer and put on a play that shut down after just two weeks. He never paid back the concessionaires who had put down deposits, and although he was caught, he avoided trial when World War I broke out. The war also spared him from prosecution for cheating a munitions company, Darracq de Suresnes, out of 416,000 francs in a shady deal to sell bombs to Italy. After receiving amnesty in 1918, Stavisky picked up right where he left off—running even more elaborate scams.

Brown notes that Stavisky “was by no means alone in robbing French investors during the 1920s.” Almost as notorious as he was, Marthe Hanau and her former husband Lazare Bloch became infamous figures in the financial world of 1920s France. Hanau was born in Lille in 1890 to a Jewish industrialist family. Her mother, a frugal Jewish shopkeeper in Montmartre, managed to provide a dowry of 300,000 francs when Marthe married Bloch at the age of 24. Bloch himself came from a family who made a fortune in the jute business and was widely presumed to be Jewish as well, given the way both were depicted in the scandal-mongering newspapers of the day.

Together, the couple founded a financial journal that promoted shell companies and fraudulent short-term bonds promising unusually high returns. In December 1928, police arrested Hanau, Bloch, and their associates after investors had lost millions. Hanau delayed her trial by going on a hunger strike and even climbed down a hospital wall using a rope made of sheets to avoid being forcibly fed. When the trial finally began in February 1932, she exposed the names of corrupt politicians who had profited from her schemes. Released from prison after nine months, she published an article exposing corruption in the French financial system, quoting confidential material leaked by a Ministry of Finance employee. The disclosure led to her re-arrest. She escaped again, was recaptured, and ultimately took her own life.

Their downfall became a spectacle for France’s growing antisemitic movement, which eagerly portrayed the scandal as proof of alleged Jewish corruption in finance and politics. The Hanau-Bloch affair foreshadowed later episodes like the Stavisky scandal, where accusations of Jewish financial manipulation were exploited to galvanize public distrust and delegitimize the French Third Republic.

Brown describes how Stavisky continued operating with even greater audacity in the interwar period:

No less devious was Stavisky, who entered the 1930s in the shadow of a trial adjourned nineteen times, but mingling prominently in café society, gambling for high stakes, and sporting the accouterments of wealth. He and his glamorous wife occupied rooms at the Hôtel Claridge.

A habitual trickster best known for his Ponzi-style schemes under the name Serge Alexandre or Monsieur Alexandre, Stavisky controlled two newspapers with opposing political leanings, along with a theater, an advertising agency, a stable of racehorses, and what Brown described as “a sty for enablers feeding at his trough.” Among the enablers were powerful police officers, rogue politicians, resentful civil ervants, crooked attorneys, media fixers, and influential members of the press.

In 1931, Stavisky launched the operation that would make him the titular villain of an affair that rocked the French Republic at the time. He had long set his sights on municipal pawnshops, or crédits municipaux—lending institutions recognized by the state as serving the public good and authorized to issue tax-exempt bonds. During a pivotal meeting in Biarritz, Stavisky persuaded the mayor of Bayonne, a well-connected legislator, to secure authorization for the creation of such a crédit municipal.

Historian Paul Jankowski, quoted by Brown, writes:

The month Spain lost its king, April 1931, Bayonne gained its crédit municipal. Revolution in Madrid had come just in time for Stavisky and his hirelings, and had made plausible their fable of jewels from Alfonso XIII and the royal family, from Countess San Carlo, from rich Antonio Valenti of Barcelona, and from frightened Spaniards reported crossing the border to seek safe haven for themselves or their valuables. Rumors of plunder and flight justified by their proximity to the town’s new crédit municipal, launched with a budget that would have been extravagant even in a teeming metropolis.

The forged bonds became the basis for every fraud that followed. Stavisky’s scheme thrived on complacency, deception, and a suspension of logic. As Brown noted, few paused to ask how Bayonne’s crédit municipal could afford generous interest rates during an economic downturn.

The fraud unraveled in 1933 when an insurance firm tried to cash its fake bonds. While the crédit municipal stalled, Stavisky scrambled to cover the shortfall through a new bond issue—but the press was already smelling blood in the water. Investigative reporters uncovered what government overseers ignored. Under orders from the state comptroller, the Bayonne treasury receiver examined the books and exposed a vast discrepancy between the institution’s declared assets and reality. There were no treasures being held as collateral, least of all the Spanish crown jewels. That December, police arrested the bank’s executive, Gustave Tissier.

Everything soon began to unravel. Brown recounts that “Beneficiaries of pension funds heavily invested in the crédit municipal (with the Ministry of Labor’s approval) derived some satisfaction from seeing Stavisky exposed.” The usually composed swindler panicked after learning of Tissier’s arrest and escaped to the French Alps. Authorities quickly launched a search for the man widely known as M. Alexandre. On January 1, 1934, Paris-Soir published an article titled “Search Continues for Swindler Stavisky.” Days after the manhunt intensified, a breakthrough came when France’s criminal investigation bureau, the Sûreté Générale, received intelligence they deemed credible. Inspector Marcel Charpentier immediately boarded a train bound for Lyon, arriving on January 8 at a secluded chalet clinging to the snow-covered slopes of Mont Blanc near Chamonix.

When authorities forced entry and approached a rear bedroom, announcing their presence, a single gunshot rang out. Inside, they discovered Stavisky with fatal wounds. Official pronouncements declared the death a suicide. But across France, skepticism ran deep—millions remained convinced that powerful figures, whose reputations Stavisky could have destroyed from the witness stand, had silenced him permanently. Nevertheless, heads continued to roll because of this scandal.

Among the earliest political casualties was Albert Dalimier, the Minister of Colonies. While serving as minister of justice in 1932, Dalimier had certified the Bayonne crédit municipal as a legitimate repository for insurance investments. When his letter of authorization surfaced in the press, he had no choice but to resign in early January.

The leaks’ broader impact could not be overstated. They triggered a cascade of resignations, arrests, and suicides that would reshape French politics. Prime Minister Camille Chautemps faced mounting pressure as revelations emerged that his brother-in-law, Georges Pressard, had postponed Stavisky’s trial 19 times as Paris Chief Prosecutor. After Dalimier’s resignation, Chautemps stepped down on January 27, 1934.

His successor, Édouard Daladier, took office on January 28 but lasted only 10 days. When Daladier dismissed Paris Police Prefect Jean Chiappe, right-wing leagues organized massive demonstrations that erupted into violent riots on the night of February 6, 1934, leaving over a dozen dead and over 1,400 wounded when police fired on crowds near the Chamber of Deputies.

Although Daladier survived three votes of confidence that night, he resigned a few days after. The crisis ended only when former President Gaston Doumergue formed a National Union government that excluded Socialists and Communists but included future Vichy leaders like Marshal Philippe Pétain and Pierre Laval.

13 months into the investigation, the examining magistrate delivered two volumes to the public prosecutor. Inside were 7,000 pages of expert testimony. Prosecutors ultimately indicted 19 of Stavisky’s associates for various crimes and misdemeanors. His wife Arlette was among them. The former Chanel model faced trial in 1936 on charges of conspiring in her husband’s fraudulent schemes.

A jury found her not guilty.

The Stavisky Affair’s parallels with the Jeffrey Epstein case are rather uncanny and reveal enduring patterns in how Jewish corruption manifests itself across different eras. Both Jewish men died under mysterious circumstances while in custody facing serious criminal charges. Stavisky’s death was officially ruled suicide despite suspicious ballistic evidence, while Epstein’s death by hanging in his Manhattan jail cell was also ruled suicide despite numerous procedural violations and equipment failures. In both cases, the official suicide determinations were widely questioned by the public and media, generating extensive conspiracy theories about coverups and murders.

Both individuals cultivated relationships with powerful political and social elites. Stavisky had connections to French cabinet ministers, deputies, and high society figures. Epstein was associated with prominent politicians, royalty, and business leaders including Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and Prince Andrew. These connections raised questions about how both men avoided serious legal consequences for extended periods. Stavisky’s trial was adjourned 19 times over six years through bribery and legal manipulation. Epstein similarly evaded serious prosecution for years despite mounting evidence of his crimes.

Both cases involved questions about whether their deaths prevented exposure of elite networks. Stavisky operated through systematic bribery and corruption of officials, while Epstein faced allegations of using compromising material to blackmail powerful figures. The deaths of both men conveniently silenced potential testimony that could have implicated prominent individuals in their respective societies.

Stavisky’s downfall was not just the end of a swindler but the unmasking of a nation that had long been captured by Jewish interests. From that point forward, especially with the Allied victory in World War II, France would become just another playground for Jewish perfidy.

The Race for Space: Repulsive Racist Reflections on Awesome Astronautic Aspirations

/3 Comments/in /by

Stars and butterflies — no good life is complete without them. But alas, modernity has been waging war on them both for many decades. Light pollution has bleached and blasted the night-sky, depriving countless millions of the beauty and astrobrontic awe that should have been their birthright.[1] At the same time, butterflies have been blasted and battered by industrial agriculture and construction, by those mechanical Jacobins known as cars and by the general trash and detritus of modernity.

Richness, color and detail

So should there be a Minister for Stars and Butterflies in any serious White Nationalist government, battling on their behalf against the bleaching, blasting and battering? No! I think that would be a very bad idea. As Peter Simple might have said: better to let stars fade from all sight and butterflies flutter into oblivion than draw them into the world of bureaucracy and politics. But there’s been a paradox at work. The same science-stained, techno-toxic modernity that has waged war on stars and butterflies has enabled us to understand them in ever greater depth and to see them with a richness, color and detail that would have astounded the generations that lived before photography.

Butterflies and Stars: two of my favorite books about two of my favorite things

And yet there are no photographs in two of my favorite books about these twin glories of Creation. The World of Butterflies (1988) by Valerio Sbordoni and Saviero Forestiero, originally published in Italian as Il Mondo delle Farfalle, is lavishly illustrated with paintings and drawings of butterflies, not with photographs. It’s a serious scientific text but it’s also a work of art. And there are no photographs in Giles Sparrow’s A History of the Universe in 21 Stars (2020). Or almost none — the few that do appear are far out-numbered by hand-drawn sketches of constellations and asterisms by the artist Laura Barnes.

Prehistoric pattern-recognition: the Nebra Sky Disc from Saxony-Anhalt, Germany (image from Wikipedia)

By sketching the stars, she was stepping far back into prehistory and using the most important mental tool not just in art but in science too. Our first steps towards understanding the Heavens came by bringing them down to Earth: we saw patterns in the stars and likened them to animals and human figures, from Taurus the Bull to Orion the Hunter. Pattern-recognition is what powers both art and science, but modern science relies on the most abstract and yet powerful method of pattern-recognition — and pattern-processing — ever devised.

Mundane models

It’s called mathematics. Almost all the discoveries described in Sparrow’s book are based on it, directly or indirectly. Mankind has not yet reached the stars, but has built models of them here on Earth using math and managed to explain how they’re born, grow and die. Stellar death can be extraordinarily violent, as Sparrow describes when he looks at novae and supernovae. But stars can live violently too, particularly when they’re part of a binary system. And they can live for an extraordinarily long time: it’s mindboggling to think that red dwarfs could be “functionally immortal,” shining not for billions but for trillions of years (ch 9, “Proxima Centauri,” p 123). From red dwarfs to red giants, from famous flammifers like Betelgeuse, Sirius and Algol[2] to obscurer orbs like Helvetios, RS Ophiuchi and Eta Aquilae, this book is an excellent survey of a bewildering — and brain-expanding — variety of stars and their galactic settings.

But I couldn’t describe A History of the Universe as a work of art or as a serious scientific text. No, it’s a popular introduction to some of the awe-inspiring discoveries made in the ever-quickening field of astronomy. Many more discoveries have been made in the half-decade since its publication, but like most of those that Sparrow writes about, most of the new discoveries have rested on something that is weightless, odorless and soundless, impossible to touch, taste, smell or hear. But we can certainly see it. The French philosopher Auguste Comte (1798-1857) risibly asserted in 1835 that “both the chemical composition and temperature of stars would remain for ever unknowable.” (ch 3, p 32) That is, his assertion was risible in the literal light of what was to come, but seemed perfectly reasonable at the time. How could Comte have guessed at the glorious gifts that resided in simple starlight? We can’t reach the stars, we can’t sample and test the substances that combine and combust within them, but it turned out that we didn’t need to. What Comte asserted, Fraunhofer had already annulled:

[An inventive German glassmaker called Joseph von Fraunhofer (1787-1826)] wanted to study the spectrum in detail, and realised that it wasn’t enough to just stick a prism into a broad beam of light as Newton had done — the dispersed colours from different parts of the beam overlapped each other and washed out detail. So, he narrowed down the beam by passing it through the narrowest possible slit, then sent it through a prism made from glass of his own secret recipe. He then studied the emerging beam through a telescope-like eyepiece that could pivot to see different parts of the refracted beam.

When Fraunhofer used this device (which we would today call a spectroscope) to study sunlight, he discovered that its rainbow-like “continuum” of colourful light was crossed by hundreds of narrow dark lines, varying in strength and intensity. This was weird — it suggested that the Sun either wasn’t producing very specific colours of light, or that these colours were somehow being prevented from reaching Earth. (ch 3, “Aldebaran,” p 31)

Voids in the visual — Fraunhofer lines (image from Wikipedia)

It was indeed weird. It was also wonderful, as would become apparent in time. Those voids in the visual wouldn’t be explained for another forty years. When they were explained, Comte’s assertion was annulled. It turned out that immaterial light could be barcoded by matter, whose elements absorbed or emitted photons at characteristic frequencies, leaving dark or bright lines in the spectra of stars and other astronomical objects. And that was how, by 1864, two English researchers could read the chemical composition of a giant red star called Aldebaran:

The pair identified 70 lines in the white, yellow, orange and red parts of the star’s spectrum. There were clearly many more towards the blue end, but here the background light grew so faint that it was impossible to pin them down. The measurable lines matched up to emissions from nine different elements — sodium, magnesium, hydrogen, calcium, iron, bismuth, tellurium, antimony and mercury. (ch. 3, “Aldebaran,” p. 34)

White achiever and Black martyr: William Huggins and Stephen Lawrence (images from Wikipedia)

And who were those pair of pioneers? Not one in a hundred English schoolchildren could tell you nowadays. Not one in a thousand. And I mean genuine English schoolchildren — White ones belonging to the same race as that pioneering pair who pulled off that chemical coup. Appropriately enough, they were Bills who coup’d — William Huggins (1824–1910) and William Allen Miller (1817–70). But why are the names of those two White achievers and awe-inspirers far less known in modern England than the names of the two Blacks Stephen Lawrence and Rosa Parks?

The Pale Male Paradox

Well, that comes down to another barcode that was constantly in my mind as I read Sparrow’s book — the barcode of DNA. But the White writer Giles Sparrow himself will not have had DNA in mind as he wrote the book, just as the White writer Simon Winchester didn’t when he wrote a book called Exactly: How Precision Engineers Created the Modern World (2018). When I reviewed Exactly back in 2021, I described how it shed light on the Pale Male Paradox, namely, that White men achieve most and are vilified worst. Giles Sparrow’s book sheds light on the paradox too, because the great astronomical achievements he describes are overwhelmingly the work of stale pale males like Fraunhofer, Huggins and Miller. Some stale pale females come into the story too, but White women have never been essential to STEM — Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics — in the way that White men have been.

All that ultimately comes down to the barcode of human DNA, the helix of chemicals sculpted by evolution in subtly different but hugely significant ways as humans spread across the planet and entered new environments. Humans also created new environments for themselves: the invention of the bow relaxed selection for muscle and bulk; the invention of writing harshened selection for eyesight and intelligence. DNA explains both why human groups look different and why they behave different. And so it explains why some groups achieve so much and some so little. The Whites Huggins and Miller achieved the awe-inspiring; the Blacks Lawrence and Parks achieved the awe-undermining. Or rather, they were used to undermine the awe of White achievements by Jews, a group separated by their DNA from both Blacks and Whites.

Recognizing race isn’t good for Jews

Jews are another stale pale group that have been important in the story of modern astronomy and particularly of astrophysics. But they weren’t essential: like White women, they entered a field created by White men and the field would still have existed and flourished without their contributions. And although Jews have certainly made big contributions to STEM, they’ve also imposed big contractions on STEM. Jewish biologists like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, and Steven Rose have labored long and hard not to elucidate biological reality but to obscure and obfuscate it. They’ve denied the existence and importance of race, because recognizing race isn’t good for Jews. And that’s what governs Jewish ideas and ideology: not questions of truth or falsehood, but questions of advantage or disadvantage for Jews.

In other words, Jews are strongly ethnocentric, or centered on themselves. Whites, by contrast, are strongly exocentric, or centered outside themselves. Or White men are exocentric, at least. That’s why those two White men, William Huggins and William Allen Miller, devoted their energy and ingenuity to collecting and analyzing the faint light of distant stars, not to enriching themselves or advancing the cause of the White race or of humanity in general. After all, what Earthly use or practical importance is the chemical composition of Aldebaran? Well, there’s another paradox there: the highly impractical and abstract science of astronomy turns out to be central to the most practical question of all, that of survival for the entire human race. The stars and star-stuff fascinate some of us and should frighten all of us, because stars sometimes explode. And star-stuff sometimes falls from the sky.

Poisonous prophecy

An asteroid doomed the dinosaurs and sooner or later an asteroid might doom humanity too. If a solar hiccup or X-rays from a supernova or some other and yet unimagined disaster — literally a “bad star” — doesn’t get us first. The great White writer Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes, raised the possibility of doom from the stars in a story published more than a century ago. His character Professor Challenger, who deserves some of the abundant fame still enjoyed by the detective, says this in one of Doyle’s typically inventive and far-sighted stories:

A third-rate sun, with its rag tag and bobtail of insignificant satellites, we float towards some unknown end, some squalid catastrophe which will overwhelm us at the ultimate confines of space, where we are swept over an etheric Niagara or dashed upon some unthinkable Labrador. [There are] many reasons why we should watch with a very close and interested attention every indication of change in those cosmic surroundings upon which our own ultimate fate may depend. (“The Poison Belt,” 1913)

Challenger was right. And would have been righter still if he’d said that watching wouldn’t be enough. We have to enter and permanently inhabit our “cosmic surroundings” to ensure our ultimate fate. Or at least postpone our demise. But which “we” will do that? That is, which human race will get off the Earth and establish permanent bases on the Moon and Mars, on the satellites of Jupiter and Saturn? Which race will begin the voyage to the stars? In short, which race is the race best-fitted for space? Giles Sparrow’s A History of the Universe in 21 Stars demonstrates that, in one sense, the race for space has been the White race. Modern astronomy has been created by stale pale males from Europe. They’ve gathered data by inventing and refining instruments like telescopes and spectroscopes,[3] then used that data to build mathematical models spanning vast stretches of space and time. Without those stale pale males — men like Isaac Newton, William Huggins and Fred Hoyle — it’s entirely possible that astronomy would have remained pre-modern, confined to classifying and cataloguing the stars, unable to study them in any detail or comb their light for clues of composition and cataclysm.

Awesome astronautic aspirations: this anti-Falun-Gong poster is cheesy, but China is serious about getting into space[4] (image from ChinesePosters.net)

Stale pale males also brought astronautics — space travel — to fruition, building rockets and breaking Gaia’s gravitational embrace. But the promise of the Moon landings remains unfulfilled. Whites got there and walked there, but haven’t been back in over half-a-century. So who will be the race for space in future? Who will be the race that wins the race for space? And I think it will be a race that wins, that is, a distinct racial group, not the rainbow coalition imagined by another great White mind in a rare departure from realism:

I said a few years ago that I wanted Britain to advocate and start practical work with similarly minded players (e.g Bezos, Elon) on a permanent manned lunar base with whites, Chinese, Russians, Indians, blacks, Japanese etc all living up there building long discussed space infrastructure, a focus for humanity to think of us against the universe instead of us against each other. (“Q&A [Questions and Answers],” Dominic Cummings’ Substack, updated to August 2025)

Is Dominic Cummings serious when he proposes that Blacks should help staff a “lunar base” and build “space infrastructure” there? I hope he isn’t; I fear he is. If he is being serious, he’s also being ridiculous, not realistic. Let’s suppose that just the Chinese and Japanese tried cooperating on a project like that. Those two races could both supply intelligent, competent and psychologically stable teams for a lunar base. But I’d say the teams would find it very hard to succeed in tandem, working in the same base. As for a rainbow of races in a single base — that would reach ruin much more easily than success. And adding Blacks to the multi-racial mix? Well, the experiment of “Blacks in Bases” has been tried on Earth. The preliminary results have been exactly what any repulsive racist would expect:

Psychologists are in “constant” contact with a South African science team isolated for months at a base in Antarctica after physical assault and sexual harassment allegations were made, a government minister has said.

The environment minister, Dion George, whose department manages the country’s Antarctic programme, confirmed to the Guardian that psychologists and other experts were in “direct and constant” communication with the nine-member research team. […]

Dangers of life in close quarters on the three-module base, more than 2,600 miles south of Cape Town, were revealed last weekend with the publication of an email sent by a researcher accusing a male colleague of physical assault and making a death threat.

The person who made the allegations said they feared for their own and their colleagues’ safety, demanding “immediate action”, according to the South African Sunday Times newspaper, which published the email but removed the names.

“Regrettably, [his] behaviour has escalated to a point that is deeply disturbing. Specifically, he physically assaulted [name withheld], which is a grave violation of personal safety and workplace norms,” it said.

“Furthermore, he threatened to kill [name withheld], creating an environment of fear and intimidation. I remain deeply concerned about my own safety, constantly wondering if I might become the next victim.”

The letter said “numerous concerns” had been raised about the alleged attacker. (“Psychologists in touch with Antarctic base after assault allegation, South Africa confirms,” The Guardian, 19th March 2025)

Rainbow “research team” — the South African team roiled by criminality and chaos (image via Jared Taylor)

I’m a repulsive racist and as soon as I read those basic details, I concluded that a simple principle could explain them: “Black Is Bountiful, Baby.” Black genetics and psychology create an abundance of crime and chaos wherever Blacks go. When I saw a photograph of the team in question, my conclusion was confirmed. The confident prediction of repulsive racists like me is that a Black was responsible for the criminality and chaos on that South African polar base. I’d say that an under-qualified Black was over-promoted onto the “research team” and made a typically Black contribution to its work. Why else would the newspaper have “removed the names”? Why else would the malefactor remain shrouded in mystery to this day? A Dindu dunnit, dammit. And I wouldn’t expect any different from Blacks on a lunar base. But I would expect worse. If you want murder on the Moon or rape in space, put Blacks up there. If you want success in space, there’s only one way to start it: with a team of carefully selected men — no women — sharing one racial heritage, one mother-tongue and one culture.

It was a team of White men for the first wave of Moon landings and it may be a team of Chinese men for the second. But Blacks? I think I can hear the Universe laughing. Yes, Blacks have been products of the Universe just as stars and butterflies have been, but that doesn’t give them equal value. If we reach the stars, I hope we take butterflies and not Blacks with us. But all three are products of the same universe and the same tool can be used to understand them: stars and butterflies on the one hand, Blacks on the other. The tool is called science and Giles Sparrow’s A History of the Universe in 21 Stars is an excellent guide to the power and pleasures of science. That’s why it abounds in stale pale males.

[1] If you take one thing from this essay, take the adjective “astrobrontic.” It comes from the ancient Greek ἀστροβρόντης, astrobrontēs, which means “thundering from the stars” and was used of the god Mithras.

[2] Arabic names like Betelgeuse and Algol are obvious examples of what modern astronomy owes to races living outside Europe, but it’s important to note that Arabic-speaking astronomers were not necessarily Arabs. As in mathematics, the Muslims who made important contributions to astronomy belonged to a single religion but not to a single race.

[3] Telescopes, spectroscopes and countless other scientific instruments depend on something in another favorite book that I hope to write about at TOO: The Glass Bathyscaphe. How Glass changed the World (2002) by Alan Macfarlane and Gerry Martin.

[4]  The Chinese text on the poster, 崇尚科学，破除迷信, Chóngshàng kēxué, pòchú míxìn, means “Uphold science, eradicate superstition.”

America’s miseducation system: IQ, teacher quality, and egalitarian ideology

/6 Comments/in /by

The United States spends over five percent of its gross domestic product on education, a larger share than most developed nations. Yet, this immense investment yields disappointing results. According to national assessments, roughly 66 percent of American students are not reading at a proficient level. The paradox of high spending and poor outcomes reveals a fundamental flaw in how the country designs and delivers education. America does not suffer from a shortage of funds; it suffers from inefficiency, misplaced priorities, and an unwillingness to confront the biological and cognitive realities that underpin learning.

The prevailing assumption in American education is that more money automatically produces better schools. Policymakers have poured investments into reducing class sizes, building new facilities, and introducing technology. However, the evidence suggests that increasing resources have produced minimal gains in achievement. International comparisons show that public expenditure on education is not a primary predictor of student performance. Countries such as Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan spend  even smaller shares of their GDP on schooling yet consistently outperform the United States. The reason is not that they spend more, but that they spend intelligently. These nations invest in recruiting and retaining competent, high-ability teachers, structuring systems that match instruction to ability, and fostering cultures that prize discipline and merit.

American education policy operates under a mistaken egalitarianism that assumes all children can learn the same content at the same pace if only the environment is sufficiently supportive. This notion ignores a mountain of scientific evidence showing that intelligence is heritable and that genetic endowments play a powerful role in shaping educational outcomes. Heritability studies have found that around 40 percent of the variation in years of education is explained by genetic differences among individuals, with the proportion increasing as people age. These findings imply that while schooling matters, the baseline potential for academic success is not equally distributed. Selective schools achieve strong results largely because they attract students with above-average ability, not because of uniquely transformative pedagogy.

Historical research supports this view. In the United Kingdom, studies have revealed that individuals with surnames associated with high social status in past centuries continue to achieve better scores on national examinations such as the GCSEs. This persistence of educational advantage across generations points toward a genetic component underlying social mobility. In other words, success is not solely a product of circumstance or schooling—it reflects enduring cognitive traits passed down through families. Ignoring this reality leads policymakers to waste resources on reforms that cannot overcome biological limits.

Although genetic endowment establishes the baseline for learning potential, it does not render schools or teachers irrelevant. Teacher quality still plays a role in determining how much of that potential is realized. High-IQ teachers not only foster excellence among gifted pupils but also compensate for the cognitive and motivational deficits of genetically disadvantaged students, who have a higher probability of completing college when taught by intellectually capable instructors. Teachers matter only when they are above average in intelligence and competence; those of average or below-average ability exert little meaningful influence on learning outcomes. Despite the benefits of smarter teachers, the reality is that teachers and schools together account for only about 10 percent of the variation in student achievement, while the remaining 90 percent is associated with student characteristics

Comparative studies reveal that American teachers score significantly lower on literacy and numeracy assessments than their counterparts in countries such as Finland, Japan, and Australia. In Finland and Japan, teachers rank among the most cognitively skilled professionals in the labor force. Their average ability exceeds that of adults with master’s or doctoral degrees in Canada. By contrast, the cognitive skills of American teachers barely surpass those of average college graduates. This disparity matters because teacher cognitive skill strongly predicts student performance. A one standard deviation increase in teacher cognitive ability is associated with a 0.10 to 0.15 standard deviation rise in student achievement, enough to close about one quarter of the gap between the United States and Finland.

The roots of America’s teacher-quality problem lie in recruitment and incentives. High-performing nations recruit their teachers from the top third of the academic distribution, ensuring that those who instruct children are among the most intelligent graduates. In Finland, Singapore, and South Korea, teaching is a prestigious career reserved for the intellectually capable and socially respected. These countries recruit 100 percent of their teachers from the top third of the ability cohort. However, in the United States, only 23 percent of new teachers come from the top third of the ability distribution. The remainder are drawn from the academic middle and lower tiers. Predictably, the results mirror the inputs: an average teaching corps produces average students.

Incentives further compound the problem. Teacher salaries in the United States are uncompetitive relative to other professions requiring comparable levels of education and skill. International data show that countries offering higher relative wages attract more capable teachers and, as a result, achieve better educational outcomes . The United States and Sweden, where teachers are paid below market rates, exhibit both low teacher cognitive skills and poor student performance. Meanwhile, nations such as Ireland, which reward teachers generously, boast superior results. The decline in teacher quality over time also reflects changes in the broader labor market. In the mid-twentieth century, limited career opportunities for women meant that many of the brightest female graduates became teachers. As opportunities expanded in law, medicine, and business, teaching lost its monopoly on female talent. The best candidates now pursue higher-paying, higher-status professions, leaving the schools staffed with mediocrity.

Teacher quality not only influences achievement directly but also interacts with students’ genetic endowments. Research using genetic data from American adolescents demonstrates that high-quality teachers can mitigate the effects of low genetic endowment. In schools with better teachers, the association between genetic predisposition and educational attainment weakens. Specifically, a one standard deviation improvement in teacher quality reduces the positive association between a student’s genetic propensity for education and years of schooling by roughly 20 percent.. This means that while intelligence is heritable, good teachers help disadvantaged students reach their potential. However, quantity does not substitute for quality: smaller class sizes and higher teacher-to-student ratios show little correlation with achievement once teacher ability is considered. The implication is clear. America’s problem is not that it has too few teachers but that too many of them are average. Increasing the number of classrooms or hiring more staff will not fix the fundamental issue. What is required is a deliberate strategy to raise the cognitive caliber of the teaching profession.

Beyond improving teacher recruitment, the United States must also confront the inefficiency of its uniform, one-size-fits-all approach to instruction. The system assumes that all students can be taught the same material in the same way, ignoring vast differences in ability and motivation. High-performing countries such as Singapore have long abandoned this egalitarian fiction. At the secondary level, Singaporean students are offered courses at foundational, standard, or higher levels depending on aptitude. Those who perform well advance to more rigorous tracks, while others receive instruction appropriate to their capacity. The system is flexible, allowing movement between levels as students develop. This model recognizes that equality of opportunity does not mean equality of outcome and that treating unequal abilities as identical wastes resources and stifles excellence.

By contrast, the American model confuses fairness with sameness. In trying to make everyone equal, it diminishes both the gifted and the struggling. Advanced students grow bored and disengaged, while weaker ones are pushed through content they cannot master. A more rational policy would acknowledge cognitive diversity and tailor education accordingly. Stratification by ability, guided by rigorous assessment, would enable each student to progress at an optimal pace.

Reforming the American education system therefore requires a new philosophy built on three principles. First, the country must recruit smarter teachers by raising entry standards and offering competitive pay. Teaching should be a selective, prestigious profession that attracts the top third of graduates rather than a fallback for those with limited options. Second, schools should adopt differentiated curricula that align with students’ cognitive levels, similar to the Singaporean model. Third, education policy must integrate insights from behavioral genetics and cognitive science, acknowledging that ability is not equally distributed and designing interventions that respect that reality.

America’s education system is trapped in a cycle of good intentions and poor design. It spends lavishly, yet it fails to cultivate excellence. Decades of reform have neglected the simple truth that learning depends on both innate ability and the competence of those who teach. The path forward is not to spend more but to think more intelligently about how education works. Recruiting brighter teachers, structuring instruction around ability, and restoring intellectual merit to the center of policy would yield far greater returns than any budget increase. Only by aligning its educational practices with the realities of human ability can America transform its schools from bureaucratic failures into engines of genuine learning.

 

Mortal Victims

/3 Comments/in /by

Käthe Kollwitz (1867–1945), “The Survivors” (charcoal on toned paper)

Introductory Note:

The article below is adapted from segments of my speech, L’Histoire victimaire comme identité négative (“Victimhood History as Negative Identity”), delivered in October 2007 at the XII Round Table of Terre et Peuple, in Paris-Versailles. Nearly two decades later, I think it is appropriate to translate it into English, as it addresses the detrimental effects of various victimhood narratives.  I have already written extensively in TOO about the pathology of self-imposed White guilt and self-hatred, accompanied by an almost grotesque acceptance of non-European victimhood narratives. These narratives, crafted by the Allies after World War II, have reshaped by now the identity of White nations. This postwar White identity, rooted in often exaggerated or feigned sympathy for the plight of non-European peoples, is a logical psychological and cultural consequence of the catastrophic events of World War II. It raises therefore serious questions about the future cultural and demographic trajectory of White populations worldwide.

It must be noted that the recent proliferation of victimhood narratives among growing non-White populations residing in Europe and the United States mirrors the Jewish victimhood narratives tied to World War II. Why should one ethnic or racial group be permitted to commemorate its losses while other ethnic groups are denied the same prominence for their own stories of suffering? It would be inaccurate however to solely attribute the proliferation of victimhood narratives to Jewish communities. Throughout history, and particularly after World War II, European peoples have often shaped their identities by exaggerating their own historical losses while downplaying or ignoring the suffering of their neighboring former foes. For example, as I have noted here on TOO and elsewhere, and at some point also discussed on an Israeli newscast, the ongoing memory wars between Serbs and Croats, as well as the ongoing military conflict between Ukrainian and Russian nationalists, illustrate this historical but also legal dilemma. It must be also noted that Jewish victimhood narratives—and, by extension, Jewish identity at large—are under significant strain today, particularly due to global condemnation of the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. The traditional archetype of the perpetually suffering Jew is gradually being overshadowed by the televised image of a mutilated Palestinian child, which has come to symbolize a new victimhood narrative.

**  **  **

In today’s make-believe world, the projected reality must become more real than objective reality itself. Historical accounts have become more historicized than historical events themselves. To make their narratives more persuasive, mainstream historians increasingly turn to elaborate wordings filled with vivid adjectives and exaggerated body counts of their selective dead. This is particularly evident in the victimhood narratives of non-European communities residing in Western Europe and the US. These communities are searching for their victimized identity by boldly projecting themselves not just into their history, but also into their exotic prehistory. It is no coincidence that, as Europeans face a loss of their own identity, they strive to make commemorative gestures for non-Europeans. Monuments are raised for previously unknown peoples and tribes, and buildings are erected with elegant plaques to signify places of real or purported White guilt. Public holidays, or at the very least, commemorative days for non-European victims, are increasingly piling up on the calendar.

The memory of White Europeans and Americans is increasingly forced to shift toward exotic antipodes in order to pay homage to peoples whose identity has nothing to do with that of  Europeans. European peoples are compelled to enter the post-historical phase of global commemoration. On one hand, the media and opinion makers assure us that History is coming to an end; on the other hand, we are witnessing a growing claim by non-European peoples to be part of their victimized history. It is as if, to have an identity, one must resurrect the dead of foreign people. As usual, external non-European victimology requires the obligatory contrition of Europeans before the Third World accompanied by the culture of remorse. The old sense of the tragic, which until recently was a fundamental pillar of European identity, is giving way to proxy lamentations for Asian and African victims. It seems that the culture of death has been replaced by a culture of necrophilia. What a horror to be unable to flaunt the dead and the victims of Others! Thus, victimology has become an important branch in the study of postmodern historiography.

We must, however, draw a clear distinction between the culture of death and the victimhood mentality, as Alain and Benoist and Pierre Vial noted in their book La Mort more than forty years ago. The victimhood mindset has entirely stripped away the meaning of death precisely because it has reduced victims to mere mathematical figures, devoid of any transcendental meaning. Where does this appetite for the dead—often for the dead of others—come from? In the hit parade of various victimhood narratives, or what’s called the “battle of memories,” not all victims are equal. Some must inevitably overshadow others. So, how do we rank the dead? In the victimhood-saturated atmosphere of today’s multicultural West, every people, every community, is led to believe its own victimhood is unique. That’s the troubling issue, given that one group’s victimology inevitably clashes with another’s.

The Ideology of Human Rights: A Discriminatory Ideology

The victimhood mentality stems directly from the ideology of human rights. Human rights, along with its offshoot, multiculturalism, are the main drivers behind the resurgence of the victimhood mindset. Once all people are declared equal, each one must be entitled to his own victimhood narrative. By their very nature, multicultural Western countries are expected to allow every community to parade its victimhood—a phenomenon we witness on a daily basis. Every ethnic group, every racial community, and even every political faction or tribe needs its own martyrology to legitimize its identity. To illustrate, let’s put ourselves in the shoes of an “Other” living in Paris, London, or New York—a Congolese, a Laotian, or someone else. Don’t they ask themselves: Why do others, like the Jews, get to have their high visibility and widely recognized victimhood narrative, but not me, why not us?

In fact, it’s in the name of human rights—and by extension, the right to victimhood—that some of the greatest atrocities of the 20th century were committed. It’s in the name of human rights that entire peoples and dissenting intellectuals are being branded as outside the bounds of humanity. The logical fallout of this victimhood mentality is the search for identity through the negation of the identity of the Other, who then becomes the primary enemy. This is the serious problem facing multicultural societies in the West. How to find a supra-ethnic, consensual discourse without excluding another community? The competition of victim narratives makes multicultural societies extremely fragile since by its very nature the victimhood mentality is conflictual and discriminatory. The language of victimhood is far more primal than the old communist doublespeak. Yet it has become the universal, global norm, inevitably leading to a global civil war.

Conclusion

Instead of reducing conflicts, the language of victimhood amplifies them; instead of fostering dialogue about identity, it destroys it; instead of honoring the dead, it reduces them to perishable objects. The image and discourse that various European nationalisms project about one another have so far relied on negative legitimacy, that is, the establishment of a negative identity. However, any victim-based narrative about European peoples invariably stirs primal emotions. The tragic Serbo-Croatian conflict is just one consequence of the antifascist victimhood discourse that dates back to the end of World War II. The causes of this World War II victimhood narrative are rarely openly debated by court historians or today’s self-righteous elites. If they do, they risk falling afoul of the penal code. Here lies a bizarre historiographic phenomenon: on one hand, we are inundated with anticolonial, antifascist, and philosemitic victimhood narratives; on the other, the colossal crimes committed by communists and their liberal allies during WWII against European peoples are rarely discussed. Who still remembers the victims of communism, who lack any recognized victimhood narrative? If there is a victimhood in Europe that truly deserves its name and merits solemn reflection, it is the tragic fate of the millions upon millions of Germans during and after World War I and World War II.

The Treatment of Prince Andrew Proves We Live in a World Run by Bullying Schoolgirls

/6 Comments/in , /by

Like the previously posted article on Helen Andrews’ “The Great Feminization,” Ed Dutton’s article also deals with the feminization of culture, also citing Joyce Benenson’s Warriors and Worriers.

Things have moved fast in the Royal Family since I reviewed the book Entitled for this publication; the book proving beyond reasonable doubt that Prince Andrew is a liar, happily associates with and takes money from a convicted paedophile, is a statutory rapist and is a supreme Narcissist. Despite his maintaining that he “vigorously denies” the allegations against him, Prince Andrew paid off his accuser, Virginia Roberts, and has now gone even further. Now an email to Jeffrey Epstein has come to light in which Prince Andrew wrote to sex offender, “We’re in this together.” The King has swiftly reacted. The way he has done so, however, is a fascinating reflection of just how feminized the West has become.

As American psychologist Joyce Benenson has explored in her book Warriors and Worriers, males and females punish transgressions in markedly different ways, and this also extends over into the way in which they bully each other. Men are evolved to create large coalitions to fight for the interests of the group; in effect, to create armies. If you seriously break the rules, then you will be punished, often physically as seen in the floggings that were common in the British Army until the twentieth century. Once you are punished, then it is over and the group moves on, almost as though the transgression and the punishment never happened. If your crime is especially egregious – such as cowardice – then you were executed, usually with a priest present, as English journalist Tim Stanley has pointed out in the Daily Telegraph “We don’t know how to handle Prince Andrew because we no longer understand sin.” The Church, which is intimately connected to the Army, forgives you and we move on.

Stanley further observes that, “In place of retribution, which we’ve decided is cruel, we isolate and ostracise the accused,” and that punishment has been replaced by the far crueller system of “cancellation.” However, he fails to mention the obvious reason for this shift, which is the rise in the influence of females. As Benenson observes, women do not “punish” in the conventional, male sense; they exclude. Women are evolved to be part of part of a system centred around dominant males. They create closely bonded cliques of a small number of “alloparents” to help raise their children; the Alpha male often gradually neglects them in favour of the newest and most nubile wife. In that their children are involved, these cliques must be based around complete trust and equality, so they bond by sharing intimate information; by being “vulnerable” with each other.

Women are physically weaker and a fight is dangerous because if they are killed, then their child may die from neglect. Women therefore seek safety. Moreover, the entire system of punishment is different. It involves being “cancelled,” excluded from the parties with the popular girls, shamed, whispered about and, generally, excluded. This is a far more vicious way of punishing because it is, potentially, without end: there is no forgiveness, there is no moving on, it is never “over with” and the process – of being excluded – is the punishment.

Of course, some people don’t care about being excluded by the Leftist elite, something the left, being feminine, find incomprehensible. They have no “shame” and they find a new clique of which to be part; the growing right-wing counter-elite which has welcomed ex-Leftists such as the comedy writer Graham Linehan, who criticised the Trans insanity. This is what you must do in the world of girls; you must find a new “clique” to protect you.

Prince Andrew has been treated in exactly this “female” way by his brother, the King. Rather than being punished by being stripped of his military honours and the titles of “His Royal Highness” and the Duke of York, he has voluntarily renounced his military honours and agreed not to use the prenominal “His Royal Highness” and, as of October 2025, not to use his title of Duke of York. In other words, despite what some newspaper commentators are wrongly saying, Prince Andrew has not been “stripped of his titles.” He has agreed not to use them but, legally, he is still “His Royal Highness,” because he is the son of the Queen, and he is still “the Duke of York” and he will remain so unless the King formally strips him of this title, which would require an Act of Parliament.

Put simply, Prince Andrew hasn’t been punished – nothing has been taken from him. He has been pressured to relinquish things or stop being open about things he still possesses, such as the Dukedom of York. This may be seen as a benevolent compromise for Prince Andrew; his royalty is very important to him and this process means that his ego is not too badly hurt. He gets to be in control and can say to himself, “I am His Royal Highness, the Duke of York, but I merely choose not be publically styled as such.”

However, this also means that he hasn’t really been punished at all and that there can be no “moving on.” He will spend his life in this limbo where can attend some royal events but not others, where he is royal but not fully. I suspect this, itself, reflects the female focus on “harm avoidance.” To really punish Prince Andrew would be to overtly harm him, which might make the punisher look “mean;” the ultimate sin the world of women — an egregious sign of lack of empathy. Much better to covertly harm him; harm him, but with plausible deniability.

If Prince Andrew could simply be punished, by being stripped of his dukedom for example, then society could move on and perhaps Prince Andrew could live out his days doing charity in order to atone for his behaviour. But, it seems, the UK is too feminized for this happen. In a world run by women, he is to be excluded from the party run by the “glossy posy.” It will be Purgatory. Forever.

Helen Andrews: The Great Feminization

/5 Comments/in , /by
The basic facts of the Summers case were familiar to me. On January 14, 2005, at a conference on “Diversifying the Science and Engineering Workforce,” Larry Summers gave a talk that was supposed to be off the record. In it, he said that female underrepresentation in hard sciences was partly due to “different availability of aptitude at the high end” as well as taste differences between men and women “not attributable to socialization.” Some female professors in attendance were offended and sent his remarks to a reporter, in defiance of the off-the-record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no-confidence vote by the Harvard faculty and, eventually, Summers’s resignation.The essay argued that it wasn’t just that women had cancelled the president of Harvard; it was that they’d cancelled him in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather than logical arguments. “When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” said Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT. Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another, and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time. Experts chimed in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria.
This cancellation was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. That is the Great Feminization thesis, which the same author later elaborated upon at book length: Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.

The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It really did unlock the secrets of the era we are living in. Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently. How did I not see it before?

Possibly because, like most people, I think of feminization as something that happened in the past before I was born. When we think about women in the legal profession, for example, we think of the first woman to attend law school (1869), the first woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court (1880), or the first female Supreme Court Justice (1981).

A much more important tipping point is when law schools became majority female, which occurred in 2016, or when law firm associates became majority female, which occurred in 2023. When Sandra Day O’Connor was appointed to the high court, only 5 percent of judges were female. Today women are 33 percent of the judges in America and 63 percent of the judges appointed by President Joe Biden.

The same trajectory can be seen in many professions: a pioneering generation of women in the 1960s and ’70s; increasing female representation through the 1980s and ’90s; and gender parity finally arriving, at least in the younger cohorts, in the 2010s or 2020s. In 1974, only 10 percent of New York Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became majority female in 2018 and today the female share is 55 percent.

Medical schools became majority female in 2019. Women became a majority of the college-educated workforce nationwide in 2019. Women became a majority of college instructors in 2023. Women are not yet a majority of the managers in America but they might be soon, as they are now 46 percent. So the timing fits. Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions tipped demographically from majority male to majority female.

The substance fits, too. Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.

The most relevant differences are not about individuals but about groups. In my experience, individuals are unique and you come across outliers who defy stereotypes every day, but groups of men and women display consistent differences. Which makes sense, if you think about it statistically. A random woman might be taller than a random man, but a group of ten random women is very unlikely to have an average height greater than that of a group of ten men. The larger the group of people, the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.

Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.

Bari Weiss, in her letter of resignation from The New York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal Slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot and—this is the most feminine part—“colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.” Weiss once asked a colleague at the Times opinion desk to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial woman who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This was a failure to meet the standards of basic professionalism, obviously. It was also very feminine.

Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women, and wokeness was in many ways a society-wide failure to compartmentalize. Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political issues of the day but he would regard it as his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues from gay rights to Gaza. They even bring the credibility of their profession to bear on political fads, as when doctors said Black Lives Matter protests could continue in violation of Covid lockdowns because racism was a public health emergency.

One book that helped me put the pieces together was Warriors and Worriers: The Survival of the Sexes by psychology professor Joyce Benenson. She theorizes that men developed group dynamics optimized for war, while women developed group dynamics optimized for protecting their offspring. These habits, formed in the mists of prehistory, explain why experimenters in a modern psychology lab, in a study that Benenson cites, observed that a group of men given a task will “jockey for talking time, disagree loudly,” and then “cheerfully relay a solution to the experimenter.” A group of women given the same task will “politely inquire about one another’s personal backgrounds and relationships … accompanied by much eye contact, smiling, and turn-taking,” and pay “little attention to the task that the experimenter presented.”

The point of war is to settle disputes between two tribes, but it works only if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men therefore developed methods for reconciling with opponents and learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday. Females, even in primate species, are slower to reconcile than males. That is because women’s conflicts were traditionally within the tribe over scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict but by covert competition with rivals, with no clear terminus.

Continues …

 

Turn Around The Mayflower—We Forgot The Cannibals

/2 Comments/in /by

NYTimes: Pilgrims Sought Diverse, Inclusive Space Where Everyone Feels Validated

Having given up on the notion that diversity is a strength under the crushing weight of the evidence, The New York Times is now pushing the idea that America has always been a diverse nation that loved diversity, and practically made diversity a founding principle, and they would even have added “diversity” to Mount Rushmore if only they could find someone, ideally a lesbian woman of color, with that surname.

For example, the preamble to the Constitution states that its purpose is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” — obviously meaning their own descendants, as well as the descendants of Congolese, Bangladeshis and Cameroonians.

To prove that America was teeming with diversity from its very beginning, a Times op-ed by documentary producer Leighton Woodhouse describes the bitter enmity in Colonial Pennsylvania among the Quakers (from north-central England), the English Anglicans (from all over England) and the Scots-Irish (from Scottish Lowlands and Northern England).

Not only were the original Americans from an area of the world smaller than Kansas, but as DNA tests now prove, the Irish, English, Scottish and Welsh have nearly identical genes — as noted by Times science reporter Nicholas Wade in 2007. (And by the way, everybody hated the Quakers.)

But suppose we didn’t notice something fishy about Woodhouse trying to pass off blinding homogeneity as “diversity.”

Neighbors and families feud. Heard of the Hatfields and McCoys?

The last two Jews in Afghanistan hated one another’s guts. Their animosity subsided only when one died of old age. Therefore, by Woodhouse’s lights, there’s no such thing as “Jewish.” It’s a polyglot ethnicity, encompassing Papua New Guineans, Djibutians, Uighurs — anybody.

Unsafe is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Similarly, the fact that Iranians in Los Angeles have been holding competing demonstrations almost weekly since both sides of the 1979 Iranian revolution relocated there means “Iranian” is an unidentifiable ink blot. Mexican drug cartels, Korean boy bands, the North Pole’s Eskimos — they’re all part of the beautiful mosaic that makes up an Iranian

America’s wild diversity is reflected in its founding document. Every signatory to the Declaration of Independence was British or Dutch. So were the vast majority of American presidents, every single one of whom was at least part English. All but one declaration signer and two presidents have been Protestant.

So Woodhouse almost had us fooled with his We’ve Always Had Cannibals and Child Rapists op-ed.

While it’s totally believable that Times readers have no concept of American history from 1620 to 1970, it’s hard to believe they also have no idea what’s happening right now. Only someone who willfully stuck his head up his butt could fail to notice that recent immigrants aren’t exactly blending.

News you would not encounter during America’s first 350 years:

“Maryland Man [Kenyan immigrant] Arrested After Admitting to Killing, Eating Roommate” — U.S. News and World Report. (It was the “eating” that disqualified the suspect for cashless bail.)

“ICE arrests illegal immigrant accused of child rape in Framingham, Massachusetts” — WCVB Channel 5, Boston. (This story has become so common it’s on Page 27 of the paper, next to the horoscopes.)

“Undocumented migrant accused of molesting 5-year-old in her own home” — WPTV News, Florida. (Sorry, but this is what happens when you give 5-year-olds their own homes.)

“Trial [of Iraqi immigrant Faleh Hassan Almaleki] Begins in Arizona ‘Honor Killing’ Case” — Associated Press. (After being arrested, the suspect surrendered his firearm and his “World’s Greatest Dad” hoodie.)

“Texas dad Yaser Said found guilty of fatally shooting teen daughters in ‘honor killings’” — Associated Press. (Defendant said to be the quintessential “Texas dad.”)

“Attempted ‘Honor Killing’ Trial: Ihsan Ali Learns His Fate”  — COURT TV. (Besides getting the silent treatment from his daughter.)

“Santeria Ritual Sacrificial Practices in Miami” — Florida International University. (Suspects said to be not particularly devout, more like Christmas and Easter santeros.)

“Animal cruelty investigation underway after bag with 3 mutilated birds found in Putnam County …” — ABC7, New York. (No word yet on how the suspects got to Putnam County from Springfield, Ohio.)

“A ring of beheaded chicken carcasses was found in a Southwest Miami-Dade intersection” — CBS Miami. (Fed up with chicken carcasses in public spaces, Hispanic neighbors are demanding more severed heads.)

“Animal sacrifices on the rise in Queens with chickens, pigs being tortured in ‘twisted’ rituals” — New York Post. (Bodies were transported to nearby veterinary clinic, then pronounced “delicious on arrival.”)

“ICE, federal partners arrest more than 1,400 illegal aliens in Massachusetts … including murderers, rapists, drug traffickers, child sex predators and members of violent transnational criminal gangs” — DHS Press Release. (After the arrests, witnesses say several Harvard dorms were all but deserted.)

“ICE Arrests the Worst of the Worst Including Pedophiles, Child Abusers, and Sexual Predators” — DHS Press Release. (Meanwhile, local elementary schools brace for a shortage of “drag queen story hour” readers.)

“Bombshell DHS sweep in Minneapolis-St. Paul finds 50% of immigrants had committed immigration fraud, with credit card fraud and burglaries … chief among [their other] crimes” — New York Post. (Also, 12% of arrestees claimed to be married to U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar.)

“[Moldovan national] wanted on international warrant facing fraud charges, caught with 131 bogus credit cards in Indiana” — CBS Chicago. (Ironically, the suspect used his one phone call to contact customer support in Bangladesh.)

“Somali market owners charged with [$10 million] food stamp fraud” — Columbus Dispatch. (Police said their first clue that something wasn’t right was the words “Somali market owners.”)

“Five Men from Somalia Arrested on Charges of Forgery, Credit Card Fraud, Drugs in Ohio” — Hiiraan Online. (Somali market owner agrees to testify against them in exchange for a lighter sentence.)

Even the “good” Ellis Island immigrants brought us anarchism, communism, organized crime, bootlegging and worship of a foreign pope, among other nonindigenous American customs — i.e., not those of the foundational Dutch and British.

It took us 100 years to assimilate them, and they were Europeans, not drastically different from the people who founded and created our country. Now liberals want us to import entire nations of cannibals, child molesters, thieves and voodoo practitioners.

Perhaps those attributes could be added to the poem scribbled in crayon onto Statue of Liberty by Emma Lazarus, one of those Ellis Island immigrants.

COPYRIGHT 2025 ANN COULTER