Featured Articles

Devlin Talks Sex

/19 Comments/in , /by
What follows is an interview conducted by James Edwards with Dr. F. Roger Devlin, author of Sexual Utopia in Power.

* * *

James Edwards: You have dedicated a great deal of your work to offering a sociobiological critique of radical feminism and the so-called sexual revolution of the 1960s, which you have argued is a utopian experiment that clashes with reality and leads to chaos. Why is this a topic that people should be more focused on?

Roger Devlin: Nations and races, like individuals, must perpetuate themselves sexually. But men are more inclined to focus on politics than on families, which they view as women’s natural concern. This works as long as women are in fact upholding the family by insisting on marriage and being faithful to their own vows. When they forsake that role to indulge in frivolous divorce and the chasing of sexual excitement for its own sake, men have no choice but to step in and restore order. This is difficult for us, both because most men do not understand women very well and because we have an extremely strong natural bias in their favor.

Edwards: Today’s society suffers from a lack of morals, confused sexual roles, high divorce and celibacy rates, childlessness, and widespread unhappiness, which you contend is linked to the breakdown of monogamy. In what ways are monogamy, family, and sexual discipline essential for societal stability?

Devlin: European man is a K-selected organism, to use the evolutionary terminology. This means that he is not very fertile, but invests heavily in the offspring he does have. A family with a father in residence is the necessary setting for such investment, which includes the transmission of a complex civilizational patrimony. The breakdown of stable pair-bonding cheats children of this inheritance and amounts to a return to barbarism.

Edwards: You point out that the welfare state, no-fault divorce, and affirmative-action feminism have basically turned the government into a substitute husband for millions of women. When did the West really start down this path—women’s suffrage, the pill, or something even earlier? And is there any historical precedent for a civilization surviving this level of sexual disorder?

Devlin: No, civilization may have begun with the imposition of monogamous marriage and will not survive its abolition. Sexual liberalization and female “equality” are symptoms of a society that had enjoyed too much prosperity for too long. When mere survival is a difficult challenge, everyone understands the importance of family solidarity and mutual duties. When times get easy, people turn to individual self-realization. Women’s suffrage, for example, was a shift from viewing the family as the basic unit of society to individualism: it is a luxury, and in no sense a matter of justice.

Edwards: Interestingly, your perspectives on this issue challenge both feminist and mainstream conservative views. How so?

Devlin: Men understand their own sexual nature, but not that of women. Male traditionalists are, therefore, inclined to assume that liberating sex means liberating men’s desires at women’s expense. Hence the conservative press is filled with endless sanctimonious denunciations of young men as predators. In fact, anthropologists have long known that in primitive hunter-gatherer societies where monogamy is not enforced, 60% of men are unable to become fathers. Nature puts women, not men, in charge of mating, and whenever they are liberated from monogamy, they simply mate with the highest-status men. Monogamous marriage exists not to restrict the amount of sex men are able to get, but precisely to provide sex (and families) for as many men as possible. For non-elite men the sexual revolution has meant not more sex but a greater difficulty, or even an outright impossibility, of finding a wife. This is one of the best-kept secrets of the past half-century due to men’s reluctance to complain about it.

Edwards: You’ve noted that we now live in a world that offers promiscuity for the few and loneliness for the many. Who really loses the most in this new order?

Devlin: Both men and women lose out, but it is children who lose the most, in the form of fatherlessness. Until we initiated this great experiment of sexual liberation, we had no idea just how important fathers were to the proper development of children. Nearly every social pathology you can name is exacerbated by fatherlessness. And fatherlessness is overwhelmingly due not to men being irresponsible deadbeat dads (as the welfare state falsely claims) but to women indulging in two vices: 1) sex outside of marriage and 2) frivolous divorce.

Edwards: Let’s talk about the campus rape hysteria you dissect so brilliantly. We’re told there is an epidemic of sexual assault on college campuses, yet the statistics you cite tell a completely different story. Is this whole narrative just a weapon to demonize normal male sexuality and justify more anti-male policies?

Devlin: Much of it is exactly that, driven by lesbians in women’s studies programs. Young women are impressionable, and the campus lesbians want them fearing and mistrusting men. Women’s studies is a radical and destructive political and sexual movement, not a legitimate field of academic study, and it needs to be abolished (not reformed). The narrative of young men as ruthless predators, by the way, is virtually identical whether produced by man-hating lesbian feminists or male traditionalists.

It might also help to inform young women that throwing themselves at the handsomest guy on campus is not the route to love and “commitment.” It should be obvious that if women insist on exceptionally attractive mates, they will be forced to share them; this is due to simple arithmetic, and not to men being scoundrels.

Edwards: No white nation in the world currently enjoys replacement level fertility. How does everything we have been discussing tie into the demographic decline we talk about so often — the falling birthrates among our people?

Devlin: Where men are in charge, women have babies; where women are in charge, they fornicate and abort — as we have learned by putting women in charge for a few decades. The solution should be obvious: put men back in charge of the family! Women may be left free to choose a husband, but only subject to two constraints: 1) that the man not already have been chosen by another woman, and 2) that they stick to their choice for life — and not just until they get bored or imagine they could do better on a second try (seldom true in any case).

Sexual equality in the workplace simultaneously lowers men’s wages by increasing the supply of labor, and raises women’s expectations of how much a man ought to earn in order to be a “good provider.” Moreover, the women who best succeed in the world of work are those who can suppress their natural femininity and remain childless. It is thus a complete disaster for Western civilization. Sexual discrimination in employment should be not merely legal but mandatory.

Edwards: With Tinder, OnlyFans, and Instagram turning every halfway-attractive woman into a mini-celebrity, many “regular guys” are checking out of the dating scene altogether. Couple that with the onset of artificial intelligence giving men the option to have simulated relationships with programs that still trigger chemical releases in the brain in the same way that authentic relationships do, and hyper-realistic synthetic “females” coming in the very near future, how much worse could this get?

Devlin: Without wishing to defend pornography or other sex substitutes per se, I see some justification for men preferring them to actual women under current conditions. The dangers of divorce, deprivation of one’s children, and extortionate child support orders are so great that men are correct not to stick their necks into the noose of modern marriage. I hope to see more men shunning marriage, dating, and women altogether until women get the message good and hard. It is only just beginning to register with them, I am afraid. Most people only learn through suffering, so a lot more suffering is going to be necessary.

Edwards: Is there any realistic way back from this, or are we stuck?

Devlin: Besides an end to “equal pay for equal work,” unilateral divorce must be abolished. No man should marry when his life can be ruined at any instant at the whim of a fickle or vindictive woman.

Edwards: What message do you have for young men and women who want to build strong families in spite of the culture?

Devlin: For young women, my advice is to accept any man with a working set of sexual organs still naïve enough to get married, and to cling to him for dear life. For most men, as I have made clear, my advice is not to date or marry. And above all, do not give your hard-earned money to Only Fans whores. Life in this declining civilization is still just about tolerable for those men who escape the maw of the family court system. Women have been telling us for decades that they need us the way a fish needs a bicycle. Now they are finally going to have the opportunity to prove it.

As for all the advocates of traditional marriage out there who think I am being too radical: just you wait. When millions of women finally realize they have no realistic prospect of obtaining any husband — and this is where we are headed — things will change so fast it will make your head spin.

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS.

When not interviewing newsmakers, James Edwards has often found himself in the spotlight as a commentator, including many national television appearances. For more than 20 years, his radio work has been featured in hundreds of newspapers and magazines worldwide. Media Matters has listed Edwards as a “right-wing media fixture” and Hillary Clinton personally named him as an “extremist” who would shape our country.

Exposing Black Privilege: A Cursory Outline of Racial Prostration in American Life

/12 Comments/in , , /by
Author’s note and disclaimer: as with all matters concerning race and intergroup conflict, this essay examines whites and blacks as a collective. As with almost any phenomenon under the sun, there are invariably outliers, exceptions to the rule. Although such outliers obviously exist, they do not negate overwhelming trends. Nor should they require constant mention in seemingly endless qualifying statements.

Readers are doubtlessly aware of the many insufferable harangues about so-called white privilege. That notion could not be more offensive to those whites alienated or even dispossessed by an increasingly dystopic society defined by increasing economic uncertainty as well as ever compounding social ills. Many suppositions of white privilege are an outright lie, a fantasy that all enjoy “undeserved benefits” and coast through life, as if this were the land of chocolate and sunshine, of gum drops and sweet kisses. Much of the rhetoric surrounding white privilege is not only non-sensical, but contradictory. Some of the rhetoric leaves the impression that, as part of “white privilege,” most whites are well-to-do, trust fund baby sorts. Many advocates of this lie insist this is not the case, acknowledging there are poor or disadvantaged whites, and yet, in practically the same breath, carry on about matters such as inter-generational wealth, while also endorsing false analogies such as race metaphors where different people start at different starting points, with whites invariably starting closer to the finish line than blacks. Much has been written to dismantle the lie of white privilege, and so it will be dismissed summarily and out-of-hand. Not nearly enough, however, has been written about black privilege. Unlike its fabled counterpart that has been droned on about incessantly by leftist pigs and the assorted band of multi-culti mousketeers and racial agitators of varying hues of brown, there is much to corroborate both the existence and pervasiveness of black privilege. As circumstances become ever more dire with ever worsening demographics, these and other related topics bound up in race will only become more pressing and urgent with the passing of time.

This examination of black privilege reveals three abstract tendencies, three general principles that characterize this pariah that so many are all too cognizant of, and yet so few dare to mention except in hushed tones in places where voices are less likely to carry. A key, central characteristic defining black privilege is the taking of seemingly endless race-centered benefits on a chronic, inter-generational basis. This is compounded with the most extraordinary license, a sense of entitlement, on any number of things as explained further below. Finally, such license and entitlement is afforded to blacks on a unique standard conferred solely on the basis of being black.

One of the most immediate and striking features of black privilege is the twisted social norm whereby racially charged insults or words of disparagement are given special, unique status comparable to the otherwise dormant doctrine of “fighting words.” In all other scenarios, harsh offensive words do not dispense with the societal expectation and legal duty to refrain from physical violence. As the “fighting words” doctrine has become more and more a dead letter in all other contexts, this pertains to even the most offensive insults directed at a wife or girlfriend. If, however, a white person insults a black person, particularly with a racial insult or slur, more and more elements of modern society regard it as increasingly acceptable for the insulted individual to react with violence. In many ways it is even encouraged.

As most readers are well aware, a black defendant in Portland, Gary Edwards, was acquitted of second-degree assault, for what should have been attempted murder. He was acquitted in no small part because his victim uttered a racial epithet. A brief perusal of social media reveals any number of utterances not just by blacks but by some white liberals as well that the utterance of certain epithets or even insults excuse and even justify a violent reaction, even including violence that causes serious bodily injury or even death. This perverse social order is reminiscent of laws in Medieval Europe whereby nobility were conferred special legal protections and privileges in relation to the utterance of insults or other disparaging words by commoners. Given crime statistics and the unspeakable vulgarity and crassness that typifies much of so-called black “culture,” and given that those of white European ancestry are the legitimate heirs and benefactors both of the American polity and European civilization more broadly, blacks are the last racial demographic that should be afforded special status reminiscent of European nobility in the Medieval age. And yet that is precisely what American society has done in so many contexts.

Unique, special status is conferred on blacks in other ways as well. In relation to whites in particular, much of American society is governed by racial norms and mores that have arisen in the wake of The Civil Rights era and desegregation. Sometimes referred to as the post war consensus (even though much of it came about in the 60s), this ethos has rendered many sensible positions as socially anathema. Expressing opposition to race mixing and interracial marriages has become largely socially unacceptable in mainstream society. So are most utterances expressing cognizance of white European identity or in-group preference for whites. Remarkably, these twisted social norms mandated by this perverse social order simply do not pertain to blacks in most instances.

To illustrate this, consider the recent incident concerning Emily DuBose Alderman, an alluring blonde and southern belle in South Carolina. Ms. Alderman posted a video in which she was in her bathroom wearing a bathrobe while expressing opposition to many of the inverted sexual mores that have come about in modern American society. She not only denounced homosexuality, but also denounced race mixing and more particularly media messages and social programming that advocate for race mixing. And rightly so. Unfortunately, her video soon became viral, drawing widespread condemnation. It is of note that unlike the incidents surrounding Shiloh Hendrix, Crystal Wilsey, or Sydney Claire Goins, Ms. Alderman never uttered any racial epithets, nor did she use any vulgar or demeaning language at all. She simply denounced race-mixing.

Despite incidents like those above, two of which rewarded these women for breaking social taboos, the Internet lynch mob came out in force, denouncing Alderman. They soon ascertained her identity, even contacting her employer. While it has not been confirmed that she was fired from her job, her profile on her employer’s website, or perhaps former employer, is no longer visible.

Note, however, that militant blacks, particularly black women, often denounce race mixing, invariably with no such adverse social sanctions or negative consequences. This reveals a bifurcated “moral” code that applies two, distinct standards based on race. Whites are subjected to a most exacting standard where any deviation from the post-war consensus can incur devastating consequences. Blacks, however, are largely excused from this exacting standard.

Black privilege reveals itself in other ways, again defined by a different set of moral and social standards than those applicable to whites. Until very recently, affirmative action was not only regarded as constitutional, but was embraced as official policy not just of the federal government but many state and local government as well. While the Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action policies in college admission practices is a positive development, the practical effect will be limited, particularly as the majority opinion even provided college admission boards a blueprint on how to get around the Supreme Court ruling:

[N]othing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise.

While the Trump Administration has issued executive orders ending affirmative action policies formerly embraced by the federal government, there has been no Supreme Court or appellate court decision ruling such discriminatory policies in hiring and government contracts unconstitutional. Affirmative action policies nonetheless inform much of social policy, not just in terms of government policy at the state and local level, but also decision makers in the labor market. This explains why, in the wake of the George Floyd fiasco, Fortune 500 companies largely abstained from hiring white males at all.

A typical feature of the modern workplace is the same set of bifurcated standards applied to whites in particular and blacks on the other. In the American workplace, blacks and other racial minorities are not only allowed but encouraged to talk about their racial identity, and how it is important to them and to the “diversity values” of their employers. Many even put memberships in black organizations on their LinkedIn profiles and company biographies. This is complemented by the posting of any number of images and postings centered around such racial theater. Any such comparable counterpart would never be tolerated by whites.

In a never-ending pursuit of “diversity values,” blacks are courted both in the hiring process as well as internal promotion in ways that are never conferred on whites. These and other considerations bestow a perverse but also substantial social credit on black individuals in the American workplace. Many readers will doubtlessly have noticed a social trend whereby the manner of many black individuals in the workplace is wholly wanting. Outrageous conduct that is nothing short of rude, combative, and unprofessional is not only tolerated but tacitly condoned when exhibited by black employees and even managers. Because such behavior is not typically tolerated from other groups on a macro, aggregate level, this is tantamount to black privilege. Stated another way, blacks in particular are afforded undeserved license that excuses and thus enables such unsavory behavior to be so pervasive as to constitute not only a racial stereotype, but a stereotype that is reproduced and verified by the experience of most who have worked in the American labor market.

Consider also how black privilege factors into the application screening and interview processes. The vast majority of the interview process is largely defined by a lack of sincerity. In American corporate and business culture, applicants are encouraged to exhibit the very worst traits of American phoneyism: fake T.V. smiles that range from broad grins to a half-assed, open gape, enthusiasm that is relentless as it is hollow, and upbeat glad-handing of the worst howdy-do sort. These and other insufferable mannerisms define what is pejoratively referred to as demonstrative positivity; in leftist, brain-rotted parlance it is more often referred to as “toxic positivity.” In this particular context somewhat reminiscent of brain-rotting game shows, applicants, at least those not enjoying black privilege, are only encouraged to sell their candidacy in very limited ways, limited to a restatement of academic and other credentials, along with relevant work history, as well as a very limited set of other approved talking points. Any personal adversity, such as coming from a broken home that makes such credentials less common is most unlikely to ingratiate a candidate to those making hiring decisions, at least insofar as these practices pertain to white individuals.

Blacks, however, are given license to discuss challenges in their personal history in ways simply not available to whites. This is particularly so if personal challenges are cloaked in the garb of racial theater. Consider for example the case of one Carmen Allen Day. Day is a black attorney who made the news by using her troubled past as a talking point that convinced partners at a midsize, regional law firm to hire her. She recounted how she was in the juvenile criminal justice system and implored the judge to be lenient, suggesting that, with leniency, Day might once again go before the judge, not as a defendant, but as a lawyer. Critically, it was revealed these details of her personal history were a central feature of her interviewing strategy. A hiring partner, William Tambussi, stated this was a key, critical factor behind the decision to hire her.

A picture of Carmen Day from a “feel good” puff piece on The Philidelphia Inquirer. Aside from indulging an interview strategy that would never be rewarded by a white candidate, it is also of note that, unlike the vast majority of newly minted attorneys at Brown & Connery, she was not hired from the summer associate program.

Those familiar with the applicant screening processes of human resource departments and hiring committees know that these entities are extremely unlikely to indulge white applicants in the same way—and this assessment is no truer than the rigid, conformist culture of American law firms: big law firms most especially, but also mid-size regional firms like Brown & Connery. Blacks of course are not the only persons who face disadvantages that make graduation from college or even law school less likely. Despite blithe assertions about white privilege, many whites, particularly in this day and age, face disadvantages of their own. Simply being raised by a single mother greatly multiplies the likelihood that a person will be afflicted by any number of social maladies. In some instances, being raised by a single mother multiplies the occurrence of such maladies by some order of magnitude. No hiring committee, especially not in an American law firm, would look kindly on a white applicant trying to “sell” his application for employment by discussing what are regarded as deeply personal matters, but what are often in fact substantial adversity that makes certain credentials particularly extraordinary. Black applicants mentioning family disruption, absent fathers, or “systemic” barriers tied to race frequently—if not invariably—receive the benefit of the doubt. When uttered by a black applicant, the candidate is regarded as resilient. Indeed, such an individual’s candidacy is regarded most favorably as an opportunity for the hiring committee to follow through on the organization’s mission statement on “diversity values.” Conversely, a white person who comes from a disadvantaged background—perhaps a late bloomer in academics, or was an “at risk” youth in adolescence, or was not raised by a stable, two parent household—would be highly discouraged from divulging such struggles in any attempt to convey what makes his candidacy unique or compelling. Such details from a white applicant are invariably viewed as private family and personal matters, and would be dismissed either as a potential red flag for “fit,” or simply irrelevant to the preferred diversity goals. Blacks, however, are not only encouraged to divulge such personal matters in ways that are frowned upon if done by whites, they are often presumed to have such disadvantages because of “systemic racism,” “white privilege,” so on and so forth, ad nauseam ad infinitum.

Asymmetric standards in behavior and conduct are deeply embedded in the American workforce in other ways, in no small part because of the onerous body of so-called civil rights laws. Those who do not enjoy “protected class” status are subject to at-will employment in a practical, de facto sense that does not apply to racial minorities. Absent an employment contract, an employer can fire an employee for any reason, or even no reason at all, with very limited exceptions. Lest there be any confusion on the matter, whites can theoretically—as a technical, legal matter—sue for reverse discrimination. Title VII and other body of civil rights laws are facially “race neutral.” It should also be noted that term “protected category” is often used to describe this body of laws, although this is done in ways that are less than precise. In a strict legal sense, that term only really pertains to so-called strict scrutiny of judicial review of laws in relation to the equal protection and due process clause of the 14th Amendment.

As a practical matter, however, various features of anti-discrimination laws do confer a de facto protected status on racial minorities—blacks most especially—as employers generally apply two different standards to whites on one hand and blacks as well as certain other racial minorities to some lesser extent. White employees, most especially men, are subject to the at-will employment doctrine that facially applies to all, but in practical reality does not. There are a number of exceptions to at-will employment, but most of these are protections from racial or sexual discrimination. One of the only exceptions that does apply—as a practical matter—to white men in particular pertain to so-called whistle blower exceptions to at-will employment. Whistleblower protections make it unlawful for employers to terminate or otherwise punish or sanction employees for reporting unlawful conduct by an employer. Such conduct runs the gamut from violations of OSHA and other safety regulations, to violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights laws and other bodies of law, to under-reporting taxable revenue and other unlawful conduct, to any number of other violations of the law. The practical effect of this is that, unless something the white male employee has done evokes whistleblower status, and absent an employment contract that removes from the employment agreement outside the parameters of “at-will,” an employer can terminate a white employee free of almost any encumbrance, just as an employer can demote or otherwise sanction a white employee in accordance with at-will employment.dare

With racial minorities and blacks in particular, this standard does not apply in practice. For all intents and purposes, blacks in particular are simply not at-will employees in the same way their white counterparts are. Obviously, so-called discrimination against racial minorities is illegal under federal civil rights laws, as well as various state and local laws. This would be bad enough if potential claimants simply had to prove, by some preponderance of the evidence,1 existence of racial prejudice. That, however, is not the standard. The body of civil rights laws features a number of legal mechanisms that shift the burden of persuasion and burden of proof on the employer, whereby the employer must prove, or at least demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that racial discrimination did not play a role. Indeed, the body of civil rights law allow for a claimant to assert that there is a “prima facie”2 case of racial discrimination by any number of circumstances, most notably disparate impact3 as well as a history of terminations or other negative sanctions directed at a disproportionate number of racial minorities, blacks most especially. Imposing legal liability merely by disparate impact is particularly Kafkaesque insofar as such disparate impact can be fairly—and rightly—attributed to dogged, intractable differences between the races, at least on the collective aggregate. Such a simple and obvious explanation, very much in conformance with Occam’s razor, cannot be uttered in much of polite society and indeed the mere suggestion by an employer, regardless of how sensible or obvious, would be tantamount to what is known as a statement against interest: an admission of “racial prejudice” that would be certain to impose stiff penalties for violating these onerous bodies of civil rights laws.

The practical effect of these burden-shifting mechanisms imposed by various civil rights laws is that racial minorities, blacks most especially, enjoy a different standard of review in the employment context than do whites. If a black employee is under-performing, or is engaging in unacceptable or undesirable behavior that is agitating other coworkers or even customers and clients, human resources does not, as a general rule, simply fire that person, or even impose any number of lesser sanctions such as a reprimand. Rather, an employer, usually the human resources department, will meticulously document each instance of behavior that justifies an adverse employment decision, from reprimand, to demotion, to termination of employment. Absent the most egregious behavior which demonstrates clear and obvious “for cause” grounds of termination, the employee is retained over a longer period of time than would typically apply to a white counterpart, with each supporting incident documented in an internal file. This is done as a prophylactic measure to protect the employer from racial discrimination lawsuits, or at the very least to protect employers from adverse outcomes in such lawsuits to the furthest extent practical. The purpose of such documentation is to provide affirmative proof that termination or other adverse decisions have been made for cause. A showing of termination for cause precludes the possibility of unlawful racial discrimination.

Such adverse employment decisions for whites require no such evidence for cause. White employees, unlike their black and other racial counterparts, are subject to the capricious and arbitrary standards of at-will employment in practice, absent some very limited exceptions. The ultimate and practical effect of this is that employers are less likely to terminate or negatively sanction black employees and that it will take longer to terminate black employees, which in turn often gives such employees a greater window of opportunity to remediate unsatisfactory performance and behavior.

While the body of anti-discrimination laws under Title VII and other laws and the number of state and federal agencies is facially race neutral, what is regarded as legally actionable hinges greatly on the racial identities of the plaintiffs and actors that are alleged to be engaging in discriminatory conduct or conduct that creates a hostile working environment. Consider how the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission found that a black postal worker complaint about coworkers wearing clothing adorned with the Gadsden flag was sufficient to state a claim. These laws are supposedly race neutral, but this is belied by the practical consideration that any white employee who dared complain about, for example, the Pan African flag4 being worn or displayed by a black coworker, would be treated very differently. No prudent white employee would dare complain about such an expression of racial affinity. Indeed, such complaints could be considered as evidence of the white employee’s own racial prejudice or hostility against blacks.

A tale of two flags. One of these was found by the Equal Employment Opportunity as evidence sufficient to state a claim alleging racial discrimination or a hostile racial environment. The other, although an express avatar for black nationalism and separatism, would be unlikely to support a claim, any prospective white plaintiff would be ill-advised to try it.

As one might predict, the range of this asymmetry in standards is ever expanding, not contracting or even remaining static. Consider for example the latest iteration of so-called civil rights laws, whereby blacks receiver special accommodations for what are ultimately outlandish hairstyles. Known as the Crown Act, the House passed proposed legislation to the Senate, where it died due to a filibuster by Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. Some 27 states and the District of Columbia and over 50 municipalities have, however, promulgated and passed similar legislation, making it unlawful for employees to prohibit or sanction black employees from donning Afrocentric hair. This can range from long Afro hairstyles, to dreadlocks, to cornrows. Precisely because employers have proven time and again to particularly risk-averse to any policy that could be even remotely used as the basis for a lawsuit based on anti-discrimination laws, the practical effect is that black individuals in these jurisdictions have a license to exhibit any hairstyle they choose, under the color of being protected by unique cultural identity and part of African heritage.

Of course, no such accommodations are made to whites for hairstyles that, although newer, are nonetheless an expression of modern European cultural identity. No white person, for example, could assert that ratting hair out like Robert Smith of The Cure as well as other figureheads in 80s alternative culture was somehow a part of his unique cultural expression or identity. Ancient hairstyles donned by the pagan Germanic tribes should similarly be immune from employer sanction if such standards were applied on a race-neutral basis.

An artist’s rendition of the suebian knot (left) and anthropological find preserving this unique style. Comparing such a hairstyle may seem far fetched, but consider that until the 60s, Afro hairstyles were no less uncommon. As whites become a minority, there is a likelihood that resurgence of such European coded expressions could make a resurgence in the very near future.

Consider a somewhat more mainstream hairstyle that has nonetheless lost favor of late. The so-called Hitler youth cut, more properly described as the undercut, had gained tremendous popularity from about 2010 until Richard Spencer and others gave it pronounced notoriety. For this and other reasons which are not entirely clear, certain employers and, more particularly, more socially conservative areas of the labor market disfavor the hairstyle. The undercut hairstyle is especially discouraged if a man dons the haircut with the sides cropped with a zero razor, i.e. practically bald. Some readers may be incredulous, but various articles and message board discussions caution against sporting this hairstyle, particularly in certain professional settings, especially law and finance.

As this collage illustrates, hairstyles favored by and unique to blacks now receive legal protection by a majority of states. Crown Act laws are nothing less than government endorsement of hairstyles based on racial identity and phenotype.

It is remarkable such a “clean cut” look could be discouraged, particularly as it has existed for centuries. And so American society presents ever more distorted social and even professional standards whereby the clean-cut look of the undercut is discouraged, all while employers can face legal sanctions in a majority of states and quite a few municipalities for disfavoring dreadlocks, cornrows, or other aggressively Afrocentric hairstyles. If blacks can compel employers to accept outlandish “Afrocentric hairstyles,” whites should be afforded the same privileges in relation to hairstyles associated with European racial and cultural identity. That blacks are afforded special privileges to exhibit outlandish or unusual hairstyles while whites are not should violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, but of course constitutional law simply does not work that way.

While new legislation similar to the Crown Act is not racially neutral,5 other facially “race neutral” laws are applied very differently based on the race of the subject in question. So-called hate crime laws are notorious for this. Social media and news outlets are awash with instances of black-on-white violence that exhibit naked racial animus against whites, and yet these so-called hate laws that would surely apply in comparable instances of white-on-black interracial violence are rarely invoked by prosecutors. Indeed, a recent campaign highlighting racial violence against Asians collapsed quite quickly when it became apparent that most all such instances involved black perpetrators.

Perhaps as an outgrowth of these onerous body of laws, different sets of standards applicable to blacks that is not applicable to whites and other racial groups is exhibited in other social contexts as well, most particularly urban settings. With the advent of smartphone and Bluetooth technology, a social plague has arisen whereby a critical mass of blacks feel they have license to broadcast their shit “music” on mobile Bluetooth speakers.6 This has become a regular occurrence on mass transit and various other settings in American cities; Blacks are so notorious for it that the Carnival cruise line had to amend its passenger code of conduct and the rules and regulations of its cruise line to address this problem. Black passengers would routinely go to a swimming pool, deck, or other public area of a cruise ship and blast their garbage “music” on Bluetooth speaker, imposing on all other passengers, until Carnival amended its rules prohibiting such conduct. This of course was met with cries of racism, rather than an acknowledgement that such behavior is simply unacceptable or that, on a group, collective level, no other demographic group engages in such behavior to such an extent as to require promulgating a new set of rules and regulations to prohibit such obnoxious and unsavory behavior. Indeed, in a healthy, normal society, such express prohibitions would not need to be promulgated at all because basic decency and enforcement of basic societal norms would prevent the occurrence of such behavior from happening at all.

Of course, such behavior is nothing really new, as blacks have been known to engage in such behavior decades ago in the late 70s, 80s, and into the 90s. Rather than the Bluetooth speaker, the weapon of choice was the boombox.7 This was so prevalent as a cultural and sociological phenomenon it was even a plot device in the film Do The Right Thing. Radio Raheem, an imposing black youth at almost six feet four inches in height, roamed the neighborhood blasting Public Enemy nonstop, all while wearing “knuckle rings” bearing the words “love” and “hate.” These are considered dangerous if not lethal weapons in many contexts. Raheem went into Sal’s pizzeria blasting music from his boombox, was refused service unless he turned off his boombox. He later came back with “Buggin Out” *(played by Giancarlo Esposito aka Gus Fring) at closing time to again confront the owner before. A physical altercation soon breaks out after Sal smashes the boombox with a baseball bat. All too predictably, Spike Lee, the blackie, sees nothing wrong with a ghetto thug roaming around blasting his shitty rap “music” on his boombox, making the entire neighborhood a captive audience.

The perverse social phenomenon whereby society tolerates the blasting of “music” on Bluetooth speaker in public settings demonstrates once again that there are two different standards based on race: special privileges conferred on blacks because they are black. Indeed, such asymmetric standards are becoming more prominent in society—not less—as whites are on a seemingly irreversible trajectory to become a mere plurality, rather than an absolute majority.

Black privilege and the astonishing asymmetry of standards and norms between blacks and whites even colors how much of the left—particularly white liberals—perceives and reacts to various crimes and news events. Consider the matter of Amy Cooper, better known as “Central Park Karen.” Cooper was accosted by Christian Cooper (no relation, obviously) for not leashing her dog in the ramble. Notably, he made a veiled threat against the welfare of her dog:

Look, if you’re going to do what you want, I’m going to do what I want, but you’re not going to like it.

He then reached into his coat to give her dog a treat, with the clear and unmistakable implication that the treat is likely tainted with poison or some other adulterant that would harm the dog or make the dog sick. There is also the alternative implication that the treat is used to draw the dog to him so that he could take the dog away from her. Cooper threatened to call the police, noting she will tell the police not that a man is threatening her, but that a black man is threatening her. This was sufficient to ruin her life, even though by all accounts she was a good, affluent white liberal and New Yorker. For the purposes of this essay, consider how the left would have reacted if a white man had accosted the woman, particularly in the context of the “#metoo” movement and the left’s preoccupation with violence against women that is out of all proportion to crime statistics, particularly in relation to white criminal suspects, as opposed to black. Cooper would have been praised and received sympathy as a victim of “verbal violence.” The same Internet lynch mob would have done everything to track the white man down and ruin his life. But, because Christian Cooper was a black man, and because blacks are so much higher on the progressive stack than “cisgender white women,” the tables were turned against the woman, causing her to lose her job and remain in hiding in Canada to this day.

A similar phenomenon applies to the heinous murder of Iryna Zarutska at the hands of Decarlos Brown Junior. It was remarkable how the mainstream media refused to cover this shocking murder. Murals honoring the memory of Zarutska have not only been disfavored by the left but even condemned, with one mayor denouncing such a mural as divisive, demanding it be removed. Had a woman been slaughtered in such brutal fashion by a white man, Zarutska’s tragic death would be embraced by the left as an appalling example of violence against women. But, because the accused killer is black, the left regards this matter in very different ways. These are just two immediate examples among countless demonstrating how the left’s disposition and attitude to a particular crime or news story is determined less by the facts underlying such incidents but how different actors in these incidents line up in the “progressive stack,” with blacks being at one of the very highest echelons of this perverse social order.

This ethnic, racial, and even ideological particularism is demonstrated in a wide variety of other contexts as well. It explains the vastly disparate treatment of upheaval, unrest, and organized violence in Black Lives Matter “protests”—which were often race riots and naked lawlessness—and the severity with mostly white January 6 protesters were subject to a political witch hunt and zealous prosecution by the Biden administration and the FBI. It also explains how blatant anti-white animus is tolerated and condoned in films like Django Unchained and most recently Sinners, but a comparable analog targeting any other racial group other than whites would be unthinkable.

The multicultural experiment—best described as multiracialism—would be untenable even if blacks were held to universal standards equally applied to all racial groups. As most readers are doubtlessly well aware, a myriad of deficiencies in the black population has, on the collective whole, proven utterly and totally intractable, despite some eighty years of concerted effort to rehabilitate this population. These efforts include the onerous body of civil rights laws, trillions in expenditures in Great Society programs, Section 8 housing, so on and so forth. Indeed, the degree to which white civilization has attempted to accommodate so many of their needs and intractable, incorrigible shortcomings is truly astounding, particularly as this insane project has continued on, in vain, for generations. None of these drastic measures have ameliorated what could amusingly be referred to as a “racial commitment to crime,” a collective IQ gap that falls between one to two standard deviations (or more) behind those of whites and Asians, and an ever-worsening ancient hatred against for whites, This ancient hatred has only worsened over time, despite a societal and civilization level, have expended great blood and treasure in a vain attempt to emancipate and rehabilitate the black population.

The time and place of this image is immediately recognizable.

This asymmetric set of standards makes this horrible experiment all the more intolerable, especially as this asymmetry is applied to more and more areas of life, not less. That blacks are conferred with more and more benefits, particularly in the workplace, is an absolute outrage. They enjoy a much more favorable standard for both college admissions and applicant screening processes and interviewing and hiring practices. In an age of insane, unreasonable applicant screening processes and the greater tyranny of the human resources department, a critical mass of employers has adopted a strong motivation to hire blacks, while being less than motivated to hire applicants more generally, particularly white applicants, by any standard that could be regarded as sane, let alone reasonable. As outlined above, a similar double standard uniquely beneficial to blacks pervades much of American society beyond the workplace, and does so across an ever-growing number of metrics and areas of everyday life. These insidious double standards conferring unjust and undeserved benefits on the black populace are just one way of many in which this multiculti delirium simply compounds injury and harm upon prior injury and harm. And the more such special benefits are conferred, the more outrageous the demands are, as seen in how much of the black population has only become more insistent on so-called “reparations” for slavery the more society has attempted to place and coddle them.

Multiracialism is civilizational ruin, and such asymmetry in standards, what are in effect double standards favorable to blacks and unfavorable to whites, punctuates a hard but necessary and even undeniable truth. Far too few dare utter this obvious and undeniable truth, except in hushed tones in dark corners and hidden nooks. That trend must change if European civilization is ever to overcome the existential threat posed by this racial delirium.

Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his publication, The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, found at 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. Readers of this essay may be particularly interested in reading a resistant viewing and analysis of Do The Right Thing, which is discussed briefly in this essay…

Many regard historical illustrations such as these offensive. However, as this essay has amply demonstrated, it is clear that society should have heeded the warning underlying the racial humor.
Race

When Harry Met Vibrancy: A Non-White Savage, a Butchered White and a Traitorous Future King

/12 Comments/in /by

“Thought-crime.” That’s a famous concept from Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). “Big Brother” is the same. But what about “crimestop”? It’s an Orwellian concept that isn’t famous. But it deserves to be, because it captures so much of what’s dishonest and demented in leftist sloppaganda. This is how Orwell describes the concept in his book:

Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc [the ruling leftist ideology], and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity. (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Book 3, chapter 9)

Victims of vibrancy: Who remembers incinerated Kriss Donald and rape-butchered Mary-Ann Leneghan in 2026?

Crimestop, “protective stupidity,” has been everywhere in the belated leftist discussion of a shocking murder at the end of last year. In the British city of Southampton, the 18-year-old White student Henry Nowak met some of the vibrancy that has been enriching the West for decades. He was stabbed by a non-White savage called Vickrum Digwa, then bled to death, handcuffed on a cold sidewalk, after disgusting mistreatment by “anti-racist” police. Back then, leftists responded to his murder in the simplest and safest way, as they saw it. Leftist politicians like Keir Starmer ignored the murder completely, leftist media like the BBC gave it minimum attention, and all leftists waited confidently for it to fade from attention and memory. That tactic has worked many times in the past when young Whites have been murdered by non-White savages. Take fifteen-year-old Kriss Donald, kidnapped, tortured, and incinerated by Pakistani Muslims in 2005. And sixteen-year-old Mary-Ann Leneghan, kidnapped, tortured, raped, and butchered by five Blacks and an Albanian Muslim in 2006. Who remembers them and their agonizing deaths in 2026? Certainly no-one in the leftist elite.

An obvious reality denied by the left: two-tier policing for the dying Henry Nowak (this is the truthful image — see discussion by John Carter)

For the left, the ordinary White victims of non-White savagery are not worth a moment’s thought or concern. Recognizing and remembering White victims wouldn’t advance the cause of leftism. On the contrary, it would retard or even reverse the cause of leftism. Accordingly, the left see those White victims as unworthy of attention, as nobodies whose deaths and suffering mean nothing when set against what really matters: power, privilege and narcissistic self-supply for the left and its pets. But the standard leftist tactic of ignore-and-minimize didn’t work for Henry Nowak. The story of his savage murder by a non-White and his disgusting mistreatment by White police got bigger rather than smaller as time passed. Leftist politicians finally had to take notice and pretend to care, leftist journalists finally had respond to “far-right” accusations about “two-tier policing” and official bias against Whites.

Crimestop kicks in

That’s when leftists began using crimestop, protective stupidity. Or maybe it was natural stupidity when it came to baboon-brained, Black David Lammy, who, as noted by Wikipedia, has served as Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Secretary of State for Justice, and Lord Chancellor since September 2025. Lammy tried to refute the American vice-president J.D. Vance, who had made the obvious point that Henry Nowak would still be alive “if the last few generations of European elites had stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants.” Lammy responded that the murder was “nothing to do with migration,” because the Sikh murderer Vickrum Digwa was “a Brit, born and raised in this country.” As Orwell would have noted, Lammy had “failed to perceive logical errors” and had “misunderstood the simplest argument” because it was “inimical” to his sacred leftist dogmas of open borders and minority worship. Vance’s argument was very simple: If Vickrum Digwa’s parents had not migrated into Britain, Vickrum Digwa would not have been born in Britain and would never have murdered Henry Nowak. Q.E.D.

Recognizing racial reality is vile and “divisive”: four beautiful White victims, four ugly Black savages

Lammy’s response to Vance’s argument was ludicrous, just like the response of another baboon-brained Black, the journalist Gary Younge, to the massacre committed by the non-White Muslim Omar Mateen in Florida in 2016. Mateen’s parents were from Afghanistan and if they hadn’t been allowed to enter America, their son would not been born in America and would not have committed a massacre there. But Younge wrote this in the Guardian: “Whatever else this is, it’s not about immigration. Omar Mateen, the suspected killer, was born in America.”

High intellect at the Economist

That’s crimestop again. Like Lammy, Younge misunderstood the “simplest argument” because it was “inimical” to his sacred leftist dogmas. As you’d expect, the leftist BBC also used crimestop when it reported on Henry Nowak’s murder and Vance’s criticism of non-White migration:

The killing had been as “tragic as it is enraging” and Nowak, [Vance] said, would still be alive today “if the last few generations of European elites had stood their ground against the politics of self-hatred and the mass invasion of migrants”.

The Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed that Digwa was born British. (“Downing Street hits out after Vance post about Henry Nowak,” BBC News, 5th June 2026)

You can just picture leftists nodding with smug superiority at that confirmation by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). “Digwa was born British!” they will have said to themselves. “Therefore the murder had nothing to do with migration and Vance is an idiot!” That’s the leftist reasoning. It’s fascinating in its pathology, in its stupidity, dishonesty and irrationality. But there’s no commonly used term to describe pathological reasoning like that. That’s why Orwell’s term “crimestop” should become as famous as “thought-crime” and “Big Brother.” Below you can read another and, in some ways, even worse example of crimestop from the leftist Economist, whose journalists and readers regard themselves as highly intelligent, unflinchingly ethical and unshakeably “reality-based.” They preen themselves that their ideas and arguments are driven by data, not by prejudice or emotion. Well, try and spot the everyday word below that blows the preening self-regard of the Economist to smithereens:

So why has [Nigel Farage] embraced a new, uglier way of thinking, which explicitly casts white people as a group that now requires help? [Farage’s] Reform [party] points to a handful of genuinely concerning examples where crimes committed by ethnic minorities were downplayed out of misplaced concerns about stigma or stereotyping — notably the “grooming gangs” scandal in which groups of Pakistani-origin men sexually abused (mostly white) girls. (“Was this Britain’s George Floyd moment?,” The Economist, 3rd June 2026)

Did you spot the everyday word that revealed the intellectual and ethical bankruptcy of the Economist? Yes, the word was “handful.” I almost gasped when I read that paragraph, because the argument there was breathtaking in its dishonesty, stupidity and irrationality. It was also an example of what you might call pathological logocentrism. Let me explain what I mean by all that. First, we need to note that the so-called “‘grooming gangs’ scandal” involved and continues to involve many thousand acts of rape, torture, murder, enforced prostitution, drugging and other crimes that 1) have been committed by non-White males against White females; 2) have occurred all over Britain for many decades; and 3) have either been ignored or inadequately pursued by the authorities “out of misplaced concerns about stigma or stereotyping” of non-Whites. Each of those acts of rape, torture, murder et cetera is an “example” of a crime “committed by ethnic minorities” and “downplayed out of misplaced concerns about stigma or stereotyping.”

Therefore there are many thousands, or even millions, of “examples” of what Nigel Farage and others on the right are complaining about. And those “examples” extend very widely in both time and space. But because all of those very numerous non-White crimes can be described in a single phrase — the “‘grooming gangs’ scandal” — the Economist pretends that the whole vast scandal is a single “example” of what the right is complaining about. That’s logocentrism: the Economist can use a small number of words to describe a vast number of crimes, therefore it pretends that the crimes are part of a mere “handful of genuinely concerning examples” of pro-minority, anti-White pathology in British institutions.

Darwin’s warning: “Beware your own brain”

As I said, that argument is breathtaking in its dishonesty, stupidity and irrationality. How would the Economist and other leftists react if Donald Trump claimed that European colonialism, the Atlantic slave-trade, and Jim Crow were a “handful of genuinely concerning examples” of Whites committing crimes against non-Whites? Leftists would react with outrage and scorn, of course. It’s easy to spot dishonest reasoning when your opponents use it. But that’s why the concept of crimestop shouldn’t be used just to describe pathological thinking on the left. No, it should also be a reminder for opponents of the left, because all human beings have to be on guard against self-deception and personal bias. For example, Charles Darwin pointed out in his autobiography that he was himself like all other scientists and thinkers. He had to beware his own brain:

I had also, during many years, followed a golden rule, namely that whenever a published fact, a new observation or thought came across me, which was opposed to my general results, to make a memorandum of it without fail and at once; for I had found by experience that such facts and thoughts were far more apt to escape from the memory, than favourable ones. (The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1887)

We should all follow Darwin’s golden rule, but I’d say that leftists are least likely to do so. They want pious lies about non-Whites being victims, not the toxic truth about non-Whites being villains. But the left can recognize reality when it suits them. For example, if the “far right” inaccurately said that the law privileges women because men are arrested and jailed much more than women, leftists would laugh at us and point out that men commit much more crime than women. But when we accurately say that Blacks are arrested and jailed much more than Whites because Black commit much more crime than Whites, leftists shriek at us for being racist. They’re doing that again in their response to the murder of Henry Nowak. Does the mistreatment of Henry Nowak prove that the British police are biased against Whites and in favor of non-Whites? Not at all, say leftists, because policing in Britain is still, in the sorrowful words of the Guardian, “plagued by racial disproportionality, especially against black men.”

That’s crime-stop again: leftists are being “repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction,” namely, that Blacks commit much more crime, “especially” violent and sexual crime. The left would also be repelled by this heretical suggestion: that non-Whites like Vickrum Digwa have self-selected for violence over evolutionary time and therefore genetically predisposed to commit violent crime. Digwa is a “member of the Nihang order,” an order famous even in the “warrior race” of Sikhs for its love of war and skill at fighting. Sikhs are indeed a warrior race and that must have influenced their genetics, just as the “intellectual and scholarly race” of Jews have had their genetics influenced by scholarship and selection for intelligence (see Kevin MacDonald’s discussion of “Jewish Eugenics”). The Sikh murderer Vickrum Digwa was “obsessed” with knives and other weapons, just as you might expect if the Sikh culture of violence has influenced Sikh genetics and psychology.

Hit and Myth

Like violent, rape-prone Blacks and Pakistanis, Sikhs have an evolutionary history that’s quite distinct from that of British Whites. That’s why non-Whites don’t belong in Britain or any other Western nation.

But because leftists refuse to admit racial reality, they’re hitting out hard against any idea of privilege for non-Whites and prejudice against Whites in the modern Yookay. And as so often, leftists are flocking to the same script and same vocabulary. An editorial in the Guardian has lamented “the speed of social media to spread myths about ‘two-tier policing.’” In the same newspaper, the White female leftist Libby Brooks has disdained “the myth of two tier policing.” The homosexual Black leftist Jason Okundaye has bluntly stated that “two-tier policing is a myth.” And more leftist journalists have explained “How the myth of ‘two-tier policing’ took hold.” None of these leftists seem to have noticed that one small but highly significant group of non-Whites disagrees with them about “two-tier policing.”

Who are those non-Whites? The Digwa family, of course: the murderer Vickrum Digwa himself, his brother Gurpreet, his father Moga, and his mother Kiran Kaur, who hid the murder-weapon. The entire family made what even the leftist media had to admit was the “false accusation of racism” against Henry Nowak. But if “two-tier policing” doesn’t exist, why did the Digwas do that? If they weren’t trying to manipulate the police into favoring them, as non-Whites, over the White Henry Nowak, why did they make that “false accusation”? And why did their “false accusation” have the desired effect?

Following a leftist script

As Millennial Woes has described in his detailed account of the murder, when the police arrived at the crime-scene on that December night in 2025, they treated the non-White savage, Vickrum Digwa, as the victim and the White victim, Henry Nowak, as the savage. Digwa was standing unaided and had no detectable injuries, despite his further false claims to have been assaulted. Nowak was slumped on the cold sidewalk. He was complaining that he had been stabbed and that he was unable to breathe. It was dark, yes, and his bleeding was not easily visible. But blood is a liquid and has a distinctive smell. Its presence can be detected even in complete darkness. If the police had bothered to investigate Nowak’s complaints, they could easily have discovered by touch and scent alone that he was bleeding heavily.

But while they did make sure to drag him over the sidewalk and handcuff him, they didn’t bother to check him for bleeding. They were following a firmly established leftist script, just as the Digwa family knew they would on hearing the magic word “racism.” The script has been transmitted to all inhabitants of all Western nations through all channels of public entertainment and official communication for many decades. It states that non-Whites are virtuous and Whites are villainous, that non-Whites are habitually the helpless, harmless victims of White cruelty, oppression and violence. The police were following that script when they applied one tier of policing to the completely healthy savage Vickrum Digwa and another tier to Digwa’s dying victim Henry Nowak. Non-White Digwa received the higher tier, being treated with respect and left unrestrained, while White Nowak received the lower tier, being dragged across the sidewalk and handcuffed.

Murder is mere flesh-crime

Indeed, the two-tier policing may have been at work long before Nowak was dragged and handcuffed. As Millennial Woes has also described, the police may earlier have “received a call from a resident of Belmont Road [the scene of the crime] saying she thought someone had been stabbed.” If they did receive that call, they never responded to it in time. But they responded fast to a call from Digwa’s brother Gurpreet falsely alleging that Nowak had committed a racist assault.

If the police ignored a truthful report of a stabbing and responded fast to a false report of a racist assault, it’s easy to understand why. A stabbing is mere flesh-crime. Racism is thought-crime and much more serious. When leftists deny “two-tier policing” and deny that non-Whites are privileged over Whites, they are not merely denying an obvious reality. They are denying an obvious reality that they themselves have created. It’s leftists who have sloppagandized the “myth” of non-White virtue and White villainy, of non-White victimhood and White viciousness. It’s leftists who, as I said above, have transmitted a pro-minority, anti-White script to all inhabitants of all Western nations through all channels of public entertainment and official communication for many decades. In Britain, the lying leftist sloppaganda in favor of non-Whites starts right at the top. Our so-called royal family have willingly taken part in decades of photo-ops designed to portray non-Whites as lovable, harmless and highly valuable citizens. For example, here are some recent images of Britain’s future King, Prince William, at work on this explicitly pro-minority and implicitly anti-White sloppaganda:

The grin on the face of the traitor: Prince William sucks up to Jews and Blacks (see Royal Family Channel and BBC report)

Unlike the dead White nobodies Henry Nowak, Kriss Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan, the very important Prince William and royal family don’t have to encounter vibrancy in the raw. All their encounters with non-Whites are carefully “curated” (as the smarmy leftist word has it) and there’s little chance that they’ll ever be stabbed, raped, incinerated, doused with acid or otherwise harmed by a non-White. So why should they care about the horrors inflicted by the mud-flood on ordinary Whites? The current King, Chuck the Cuck, doesn’t care in the slightest about Henry Nowak, because he hasn’t even joined the belated leftist chorus of fake concern. But Chuck the Cuck is in full agreement with the leftist sloppaganda you’ll see below, which incessantly portrays virtuous non-Whites being victimized by villainous Whites:

The Guardian’s lying portrayal of race relations: virtuous non-White victim, vicious White villain

Black victims, White villains #1

Black victims, White villains #2

Black victims, White villains #3

Black victims, White villains #4

Is that kind of leftist sloppaganda “divisive” in any way, do you think? After all, it seems to “divide” Western populations into two opposing groups: non-Whites as victims and Whites as villains. The leftist martyr-cults of George Floyd in America and Stephen Lawrence in Britain do the same. So is any of that “divisive”? No, it can’t be, because leftists hate “divisive” politics and the sowing of “division.” They’ve thrown those terms incessantly at the right during the controversy over the murder of Henry Nowak and his mistreatment by the police. For the left, it’s not at all “divisive” to incessantly portray virtuous non-Whites as the victims of villainous Whites, but it’s disgustingly “divisive” to suggest that non-Whites could ever cause direct or indirect harm to Whites.

Lying leftists will pay the price

As usual, the left are using words not to convey truth and describe reality, but to convey lies and deny reality. The left object to “division” only when it’s faithful to reality and when it’s helpful to Whites. When “division” is faithless to reality and harmful to Whites, the left can’t get enough of it. For example, it’s a lie to divide non-Whites as victims from Whites as villains, so that’s precisely what the left do. It’s the truth to divide non-Whites as wreckers of Western civilization from Whites as creators and sustainers of Western civilization, so that’s precisely why the left shriek “divisive” at anyone who speaks or hints at the truth.

And when lying leftists like Keir Starmer speak of the need for “tolerance” in the wake of Henry Nowak’s murder, what they’re really asking for is passivity and submission. The left want Whites to remain passive under invasion and submissive under attack.

Unfortunately for the left, more and more Whites are refusing to obey. They’re no longer willing to follow the leftist script and believe the leftist lies. Five years ago, the leftist tactic of ignoring and minimizing a murder like that of Henry Nowak would have worked. Today it hasn’t worked at all. As non-White savagery continues to strike — and it will, you can be sure of that — White anger will get stronger and the left’s grip on power will get weaker.

So Rest In Peace, Henry Nowak. Like Iryna Zarutska in America, you won’t be forgotten and one day the leftists responsible for your death will pay the price they owe. We’ll also deal with the left’s collaborators, the civ-nats who pretend that the solution to non-White savagery is “color-blind policing” and “equality under the law.” The impossible quest for equality only helps the left. As the mud-flood grows ever higher, the attacks on Whites will ever worsen. The solution is separation via remigration, not civic nationalism. Non-Whites and their pathologies belong in the Third World, not the White West.

Gatekeeping the Right: Inside Batya Ungar-Sargon’s Ideological Pivot

/9 Comments/in /by

Batya Ungar-Sargon once mourned Hillary Clinton’s defeat so deeply that she wrote a 2016 essay for Dame magazine titled “Trump Ruined My Favorite Haunt”—lamenting that she could no longer enjoy a neighborhood bar whose regulars and bartenders had voted for Donald Trump. Fast forward to the present, she now calls herself a “MAGA leftist” and urges American Jews to abandon the Democratic Party coalition their ancestors helped build.

Back in March 2025, Ungar-Sargon stood on the set of HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher and introduced herself as a “MAGA leftist” in response to the Left’s perceived abandonment of the Jewish community after the Hamas attack on October 7. The path that led Ungar-Sargon to that televised declaration began far from the world of cable news politics.

Ungar-Sargon’s journey began in Philadelphia, where she was born in 1981 into an Orthodox Jewish family. She grew up in the affluent Boston suburb of Brookline, attended high school in Israel, earned a bachelor’s degree in English from the University of Chicago in 2004, and completed her doctorate in English at UC Berkeley in 2013 with a dissertation— titled “Coercive Pleasures: The Force and Form of the Novel 1719–1740.” She stumbled into journalism during Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and eventually became the opinion editor at The Forward, America’s largest Jewish media publication. She then moved to Newsweek as deputy opinion editor before launching her own show on NewsNation and becoming a columnist for Bari Weiss’s Free Press.

The frustration that drove her political evolution came to a head in October 2023 when she watched the Democratic Party’s response to the Hamas attacks on Israel. In a moment that went viral, she declared with exasperation: “The thing that makes this so appalling is that Jews built the left in this country. We built the labor movement. We wrote the New Deal. 70% of the lawyers who worked on civil rights cases were Jews. We’ve been at the forefront of every liberal and leftist issue in this country!”

That claim about Jewish involvement in civil rights became central to her argument. In interviews promoting her 2026 book The Jews and the Left, she elaborated further: “We were wildly overrepresented in the Civil Rights Movement—Some 70% of the lawyers drafting legislation in the South to dismantle Jim Crow were Jewish, and a third of the white martyrs to Klan violence were Jews.”

The historical record substantially supports her broader point about Jewish overrepresentation, though scholars dispute her specific figures. The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism documents that Jews made up half of the young white volunteers in the 1964 Mississippi Freedom Summer. The Gilder Lehrman Institute states that close to half of the white lawyers working in the movement in the South were Jewish.

The list of Jewish figures in the civil rights movement reads like a roll call of American liberalism’s founding generation. Henry Moskowitz co-founded the NAACP in 1909 alongside W.E.B. Du Bois. Joel Spingarn chaired the organization in the mid-1910s, and his brother Arthur served as NAACP president from 1940 to 1965. Kivie Kaplan held the NAACP presidency from 1966 until his death in 1975. Julius Rosenwald, the president and chairman of Sears, Roebuck, funded approximately 5,000 schools for Black children across the South between 1913 and 1932. At their peak, one in three rural Black schoolchildren in the South attended a Rosenwald school.

The legal architecture of desegregation bore Jewish fingerprints everywhere. Jack Greenberg succeeded Thurgood Marshall as Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund in 1961 and argued 40 Supreme Court civil rights cases over his career. Stanley Levison served as Martin Luther King Jr.’s closest White advisor, financial counselor, and ghostwriter, a relationship so intimate that it prompted FBI surveillance. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were drafted in the conference room of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington.

It is this history that Ungar-Sargon deploys to indict the contemporary left. Her thesis holds that after Israel’s 1967 Six-Day War demonstrated Jewish military strength, progressive frameworks flipped Jews from victim to oppressor. After King’s assassination in 1968, she argues, “the ideals he had fought for—equality for all, a common American identity in which all were free—were discarded for the more radical Black separatist movement.” She contends that “being anti-white—which, in practice, meant being antisemitic, since Jews were the white Americans most involved in the Civil Rights Movement—was how you proved you weren’t still caught up in Dr. King’s more conciliatory vision.”

Her Zionism runs deep and has intensified since October 7. During her tenure at The Forward, she considered herself a liberal Zionist who supported Israel’s existence while criticizing the occupation of the West Bank and the Netanyahu government. She wrote that “In the American Jewish imagination, Zionism is the promise that Jewish safety can coexist with Jewish values like justice, welcoming the stranger, and equality.” At a 2019 Bard College conference, she walked out of an event and accused Students for Justice in Palestine of antisemitism after they protested a panel. She linked anti-Zionist rhetoric to David Duke, declaring that “David Duke thinks that talking about antisemitism hurts Palestinians.”

As a freshly anointed Jewish gatekeeper of the Right, she has made it a point to criticize conservative pundits dabbling with anti-Israel narratives. Since October 2023, she has become one of the most prominent commentators denouncing Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes for what she characterizes as antisemitic commentary. In her November 6, 2025 column for The Free Press, she wrote that Carlson “gave basically no pushback to Fuentes, a man with avowedly pro–Adolf Hitler, proudly antisemitic, racist, segregationist views, and instead raved about how Christian Zionists disgust him.” In a separate Substack post, she accused Carlson of having “made an obsession with Israel and Jewish wrongdoing the cornerstone of his output in recent years” and of having “repeatedly hosted conspiracist Daryl Cooper… a man famous for being a Holocaust revisionist, with whom Carlson heartily agreed that the real villain of World War II was not Hitler but Churchill.”

She and Carlson have a history that complicates her current hostility. He hosted her on his Fox show in 2022 to praise Bad News, calling her “singlehandedly responsible for making that magazine worth reading once in a while.” But after his September 2024 interview with Darryl Cooper—a podcaster who called Winston Churchill “the chief villain of World War II”—and his October 2025 interview with nationalist Nick Fuentes, she became one of his most vocal critics.

While Ungar-Sargon leverages her extensive background in liberal activism to indict the modern Left, her concurrent policing of the Right reveals the true purpose of her political pivot. She is not genuinely aligning with the populism of the American Right; rather, she is performing the classic role of a political gatekeeper, patrolling the boundaries of permissible debate to protect organized Jewish interests from populist scrutiny. The post-October 7 political environment has compelled countless Jewish political operatives like Ungar-Sargon to exercise strategic flexibility to bottle up antisemitic energy emanating from the American body politic.

Should the Right begin to internalize a structural critique of Jewish influence, Ungar-Sargon stands ready to label it as intolerable antisemitism, thereby maintaining the status quo even as the foundations of the current Judeo-American order begin to crack.

The Protocols of the Epstein Firsters. Letter to President Putin

/13 Comments/in , /by

If you don’t want to slip up tomorrow, speak the truth today.
Bruce Lee

Presidential Administration
Staraya Square, Moscow, 103132
letters.kremlin.ru.

Dear President Putin,

I am one of your long-time fans and a great admirer of Russian culture and achievements, but I cannot help wonder why, in your conflict with Ukraine, you have never called out the banking cartels headquartered in “The City” of London and Wall Street, together with their various global financial and economical networks such as the US Federal Reserve, the Bank of International Settlements, the International Money Fund, the World Bank, the European Central Bank, and other Central Banks and corporations dispersed all over the world.[1]

“As Lord Acton warned some 150 years ago,” writes market analyst, author, and former hedge fund manager, Alex Krainer, “The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks.”

This fight is now upon us. It might be the ultimate struggle between humanity’s emancipation or our final enslavement. To prevail, we must understand our true enemies and the financial, economic, political and social structures enabling their agenda.

In short, we must not be distracted by myriad marginal issues and false dichotomies like left vs. right, liberals vs. conservatives and so forth. The ultimate culprits, the super-predator threatening humanity are the high-level bankers: a handful of families and individuals who control and manage the present monetary system. We have no choice but to oppose and defeat them.[2]

You are not a racialist, Mr. President, and I know you like Jews, you have many Jewish friends, your mentor and judo coach, the late Anatoly Rachlin, was Jewish, and your Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin is part Jewish. You are rightly the President of all Russians, good or bad, including Jews, but I must tell you right from the start: I do not share your feelings toward Jews. I don’t hate them or mean them harm, but I don’t like them much and prefer to keep my distances.

With few notorious exceptions, I don’t see many Jews vigorously complaining in the streets or in mainstream media about the genocide in Gaza or about the sad state of my country, which is being invaded by Third-World immigrants often with the approval and help of Jewish activists and intellectuals. Many Jews vomit their hatred of Whites and their desire to kill them and cause their disappearance. And many are pushing for measures that benefit them to the detriment of my race.

The “Seal Puppy” Hunt that’s Coming: The Ache of Envy and Other Obstacles to Change

The Jewish Interest in Multiethnic Immigration and Multiculturalism

So, Mr. President, in what I call the “Epstein Firsters” described in this letter, I include all Jews that silently approve or are involved in one way or the other with what the Jewish-led oligarchs, organized international Jewry, and their non-Jewish allies and vassals, are doing to our countries.

The ability to lie to your face, a complete lack of empathy and compassion for non-Jews, which they dehumanize by labelling them as Amalek or “animals,” a lack of scruples, and a predatory drive for dominance are the character traits that define the Epstein Firsters. They are the ones manoeuvring in the background to destroy us.

They want you dead or alive, Mr. President. They want to push you out of power, loot your natural resources, steal your weapons, and dismantle your federation into dozens of smaller countries easy to control. This has been their game-plan all along. Once you are dispossessed, they will try to do the same thing to China. Their end goal is nothing less than a unipolar Jewish utopia ruled from Jerusalem in which all non-Jews will be their slaves.[3]

I have written a few articles on the subject of Jews that were published in The Occidental Observer, the most influential Internet platform on White identity, interests, and culture. In this letter, to give you an idea of where I stand on the Jewish question, I have taken the liberty to include references, notes, and the title and links to some of my articles. I invite you, or your staff, respectfully, Mr. President, to read them, if you find the time during your busy schedule, as they might help you to better understand how I have formed my opinion. And If I’m wrong, I urge you, respectfully, to lead me back in the right direction. I don’t have at my disposal one of the best secret services in the world to help me see through the complexities of this subject, which I am trying to elucidate to the best of my abilities.

Those Who Reign Supreme: The Holocaust as Linchpin of a Jewish-Ruled World

The Hidden Messages of Schindler’s List

As a White man of European descent, severely threatened by these miscreants, I feel it is my paramount duty, for reasons of self-defence, to defend my race by informing you, Mr. President, if you don’t already know, that all the Western governments that are helping Ukraine’s Jewish government with the taxes of their own citizens, are completely in their power. I am telling you this because I believe you are one of the few leaders capable of defeating the fiends at war with our countries and humanity.

For electoral, financial, ideological, and sometimes dishonest reasons, the leaders of these countries no longer serve their citizens. They serve a foreign country, Israel, and a foreign people, organized Jewry led by the money lenders of “The City” and Wall Street, aka the Epstein class. As such, they are Epstein Firsters.

Indeed, the former head of the French Situation-Intelligence-Electronic Warfare Office at the Joint Staff for Operational Planning, General Dominique Delaware, who died suddenly in a suspicious way, has shown in two damning articles that the governments and politicians of the galaxy of neoliberal democracies of the West, better known as the “International Community” are led by this rich class of Jews, Mr. President. The banking cartels, organized Jewry, Israel, and their allied governments of the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, European Union, South Korea, and Japan, are all united against you toward one goal: global governance and a Jewish-ruled world. [4], [5]

Jewish Control of the US

The following explanations, Mr. President, are by no means complete, not all presidents are covered, but they will show you how power in the US has been under the influence of the Epstein Firsters for a long time.

Teddy Roosevelt (1901–1909)

Many past and present American and European politicians were either Jewish or Jewish puppets, starting with Teddy Roosevelt, who became president in 1901 because of Jewish financial support and voting blocks[6] following the convenient assassination of the passionate advocate of the American system of economics,[7] President William McKinley.

He was an early supporter of Zionism, stating after the Balfour Declaration that it was “entirely proper to start a Zionist state around Jerusalem.” Jewish newspapers universally extolled him upon his death, with the B’nai B’rith Messenger declaring that “Jewish immigrants had no better friend than Theodore Roosevelt.”[8]

Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921)

Then there was Woodrow Wilson, a revolutionary leftist brought to power and totally manipulated by Jews such as Jacob Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. banks, Bernard Baruch, Paul Warburg, New York lawyer Samuel Untermyer, Louis Brandeis, the first Jew appointed to the US Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter, not to mention the non-Jewish, “Col.” Edward Mandel House, “an agent” of the international financial interests of the Rothschild banking empire, according to American investigative journalist, Michael Collins Piper. [9]

  1. Wilson famously said when he declared war on Germany on the advice of his Jewish handlers: “The world must be made safe for democracy,” a political system, notes retired professor of philosophy, Thomas Dalton, used by Jewish elites to acquire wealth, control mass media, and influence politicians while remaining hidden from the public. This materialistic and anti-spiritual “judeocratie” elevates “mediocre” and easy to manipulate people, such as the present leaders of Western Europe, to serve Jewish interests at the expense of their non-Jewish citizens. [10]
  2. Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law on December 23, 1913, officially establishing the Federal Reserve System, a private bank, as the Central Bank of the United States.[11] Since then, America is an official member of the Central banking Empire of “The City” of London.[12]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1933-1945)

Like his cousin Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who appointed more Jews to public office than all previous presidents combined, was elected because of Jewish financial and voting support. In 1932, more than 80% of the American Jewish community voted for FDR, a figure that rose to over 90% in the elections of 1936, 1940, and 1944.  This represented a tectonic shift toward the Democratic Party, with Jews constituting only 3% of the population yet making up 15% of his administration.[13]

Jewish voters were deeply impressed by Roosevelt’s occasional criticism of the Hitler regime in the 1930s and his subsequent aid to Britain. The Democratic Party’s embrace of ethnic minorities also appealed strongly to a community that had faced discrimination. A Yiddish joke stated that Jews believed in three worlds: “this world, the next world, and Roosevelt.” [14]

Harry S. Truman (1945-1953)

Then there was Harry S. Truman, who got re-elected because of Jewish and Zionist donations. Although this is controversial, writer Gore Vidal claimed that John F. Kennedy told him that Truman was the first to recognize Israel as payback for a two million dollars Jewish donation.[15]

Truman claimed that he supported Jews and Zionism mostly because he was deeply affected by the Holocaust propaganda that was broadcast by the media and Hollywood at the end of WW2. He expressed shock and disbelief upon first learning of the Nazi atrocities, stating in a 1943 speech that he “couldn’t believe it” and initially doubted Germans he knew were capable of such acts. He later condemned Adolf Hitler as a “cold-blooded, ignorant corporal,” remarking in 1945 that he hoped Hitler had been “drawn and quartered” and was “still burning somewhere.”[16]

Those Who Reign Supreme: The Holocaust as Linchpin of a Jewish-Ruled World

Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969)

And with Lyndon Johnson in the White House—who is believed to be personally involved with Israel in the assassination of JFK[17]—we had one of the most Jewish-loving presidents of the United States, after, of course, Donald Trump, who is in a league of his own. [18], [19]

The moment Johnson became president, on the night JFK was killed, he made sure that no one would find out what really happened. All the key people of the Investigative Warren Commission he set up were either enemies of Kennedy or hardline Zionists. He also started reversing all the JFK policies that were harmful to Israeli and Jewish interests.[20], [21]

The Holocaust had a deep impact on his policies toward the Jews and Israel. He was deeply “shaken, stunned, terrorized, and bursting with an overpowering revulsion and incredulous horror” by what he witnessed at the Dachau concentration camp in 1945. He consistently framed his advocacy for Jewish refugees and support for Israel as a moral obligation, famously stating during the Six-Day War that supporting Israel was simply “the right thing to do,” even against Soviet pressure.[22]

Those Who Reign Supreme: The Holocaust as Linchpin of a Jewish-Ruled World

Richard Nixon (1969-!974)

Richard Nixon made numerous anti-Semitic remarks in private Oval Office recordings, characterizing Jews as disloyal, aggressive, and dominant over the media and government. He explicitly told aides that “generally speaking, you can’t trust the bastards. They turn on you” and claimed, “most Jews are disloyal” and “out to kill us.” Yet, despite these private views and telling Henry Kissinger that Soviet persecution of Jews was “not an American concern,” Nixon publicly supported Israel during the Yom Kippur War and appointed several Jews to high-level staff positions, creating a disconnect between his private attitudes and public policy. Like many presidents before and after him, he was after all an Epstein Firster albeit a reluctant one. [23]

Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)

Ronald Reagon, who was not Jewish technically, certainly behaved as if he was. He was not elected solely because of Jewish financial and voting support, but Jewish support did play a significant role in his election.

Like all Post World War II politicians, in varying degrees, Reagan was deeply committed to Jewish causes and Israel because of the Holocaust. As a matter of fact, this is why politicians are so lenient with Jewish misconduct. Jewish victimhood status cemented in the holocaust confers moral capital, recognition, and resources to the Epstein Firsters. They cultivate this status to demand justice, reparations, or sympathy, “effectively ‘thriving’ on the recognition of their suffering,” according to Cambridge University scholars Alex Vandermaas-Peeler, Jelena Subotic, and Michael Barnett. [24]

Reagan consistently described the Holocaust as a comprehensible evil that must be remembered to prevent recurrence, stating, “We must make sure that from now until the end of days all humankind stares this evil in the face.” He expressed being “horrified” by claims that the Holocaust was a hoax, citing his WWII service viewing combat films of liberated camps as undeniable proof that “six million people whose lives were taken cruelly and needlessly” was not propaganda. [25]

He framed the establishment of Israel as a miracle emerging “from the ashes of the Holocaust” and pledged that the security of Israel and Jewish survivors would “never be compromised.” Reagan laid the cornerstone for the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in 1988, asserting that the museum’s purpose was to ensure the deaths of the 6 million had “posthumous meaning” so that such evil would “never come again.” [26]

Those Who Reign Supreme: The Holocaust as Linchpin of a Jewish-Ruled World

This is why, he spoke out for Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War, and maintained a strong focus on freeing Soviet Jews throughout his presidency; formalized the strategic cooperation between the US and Israel; rescued Ethiopian Jews in Operation Joshua (1985) and awarded the Congressional Gold Medal to one of the greatest liars of the Epstein Firsters, Elie Wiesel.

Joseph Biden (2021-2024)

Joe Biden’s family is notoriously Jewish by marriage. [27] His administration was staffed with a disproportionate number of Jews belonging to the Epstein class. What former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy under President Ronald Reagan, Paul Graig Roberts, says below about the Biden Government is true for most US governments since at least the time of Woodrow Wilson:

In the Biden regime, all powerful positions are held by Jews–the Attorney General (the police), the Secretary of the Treasury (money), the Secretary of State (foreign policy and war). There is not a single White Anglo-Saxon Protestant in the Biden cabinet. What explains that in a country of Gentiles a tiny minority of Jews occupy the power positions in the US government, the power positions in the media, entertainment, Ivy league administrations and faculties, and finance.[28]

Like Ronald Reagan, and Lyndon B. Johnson, Joe Biden is dedicated, one way or another, to the protection of Jews and Israel. As a matter of fact, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump are all Globo-Zionists with strong ties to the Jewish elite and to Israel, the true masters of the United States and the West.

Christian Zionists

Several American high-level politicians and presidents such as Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Ted Cruz, and Mike Pompeo,[29] who served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2017 to 2018 and under President Donald Trump as the 70th United States secretary of state from 2018 to 2021, are Christian Zionists.

On the strength of the promise God made to Abraham (Genesis 12 :3), “I will bless those who bless you and him who curses you I will curse,” they believe like 30 million American Christian Zionists, “that  if they bless Israel morally, financially, and politically,

God will reward them by favoring America. Blessing Israel for America’s sake has been motivating Christian Zionists to combat antisemitism, donate to Jewish charities, and invest in and visit Israel. But it has also involved many in opposing any peace process, in supporting the continued building of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, in funding those internationally outlawed settlements, and in backing an extreme right-wing Israeli plan to transfer the Palestinians to neighboring Arab states.[30]

They believe, moreover, that they will suddenly be plucked to heaven to be with Jesus when Armageddon the battle of end times erupts (rapture).[31]

Donald Trump’s connection to Isiac Louria’s Kabbalah and the End Time Prophesies

Donald Trump has significant and documented connections to the Chabad-Lubavitch movement, primarily facilitated by his family and political allies. In 1983, Chabad gave him the prestigious Isiac Louria’s Tree of Life award for his outstanding contributions to the Israeli-American friendship.[32] Trump has frequently displayed the award plaque in his offices, notably in Trump Tower, describing it as a “very big award” that means a great deal to him.

Furthermore, he personally engaged in Chabad religious customs, specifically visiting the Ohel (the gravesite of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, in Queens, New York). During his presidency, Trump formalized his relationship with the movement through official acts such as the “Education and Sharing Day, U.S.A.,” honoring the birthday of the Lubavitcher Rebbe.[33]

His beloved daughter Ivanka is a Lubavitcher and her husband, Lubavitcher Jared Kushner, has a long-standing friendship not only with Benjamin Netanyhua, but with Nathan Rothschild, Jeffrey Epstein’s presumed employer. In one of his shows, Alex Jones even speculated that Jared Kushner was in fact the Messiah that Jews have been waiting for.[34]

Is this why he revealed his true nature in February 2026 when he suddenly flipped from American Firster to Israel Firster? Does he feel he has an end time role to play by declaring war on Iran? It’s an open question that I would rather not try to answer.

In any case, the Jewish billionaires of the Epstein class and various Jewish lobbies such as AIPAC control all the political parties of the US; Democrat, Republican, left, right, liberal, conservative, green, or socialist, they are all cut from the same cloth.[35] American syndicated columnist Patrick Buchanan encapsulated the US’s emasculation by AIPAC and organized Jewry in his now-famous declaration: “Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory.”[36]

And the situation in Europe is no different. I’ll dive deep into the British situation, Mr. President, because it concerns me most, but you can repeat the same exercise for all European stock nations. Indeed, at the establishment level, France, Germany, the EU, for instance, are as Judaized as Britain.

Jewish Control of Britain

The situation in Britain for the most part is fairly different from the situation in America, but quite similar to the situation in Europe. Jews, who have been in Britain for a very long time, had plenty of time to infiltrate this nation and seize the reins of power.

Indeed, since the days of Oliver Cromwell, Jews have long been powerful in Britain and the leaders of its establishment are often Jewish themselves, like Benjamin Disraeli, the first Jewish Prime Minister of Britain.[37]

In his book, The Jews, social critic, Hilaire Belloc (1870-1953), described the British Empire as a partnership between Jewish finance and the British aristocracy. He goes on to say that “the Jews, in spite of their small numbers, color every English institution, especially the Universities and the House of Commons.” He further asserted that “the interests of the two races began to diverge before the Great War — nonetheless a formal alliance was maintained through the control of the politicians by Jewish finance — with culmination in the attempt to form an Anglo-Judaic state in Palestine.”[38]

This partnership between rich Jews and the British establishment is confirmed by Leslie Gilbert Pine (1907–1987), a distinguished British writer, researcher, and expert in genealogy, nobility, history, and heraldry. In his book Tales of the British Aristocracy, a work detailing the lives and histories of the British upper class, he states that “the Jews have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual.”[39]

This epoch is dramatized in the very popular TV series Downton Abbey (2010-2015). In short, after the Industrial Revolution, when financial power shifted away from agriculture to manufacturing, down-and-out gentry with ancient titles and large estates, but no money, began marrying the daughters of rich Jews. The 5th Earl of Roseberry, for example, who became Prime Minister in 1894, married Hannah de Rothschild, who was the only child and sole heiress of the Jewish banker Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild. And Sir Ernest Cassel’s granddaughter, Edwina Cynthia Annette Ashley, married Lord Louis Mountbatten, a member of the royal family. While not related by blood, Ernest Cassel was a close friend and financial mentor to the Rothschilds, the preeminent Jewish family in Europe.[40]

As shown by Arnold Leese (1878-1956) in his pamphlet, Our Jewish Aristocracy—A revelation, the British elites, who played a major role in the Maidan coup, are indeed completely Judaized.[41] A fact corroborated not only by Hilaire Belloc, H.G. Pine, and the renowned English aristocrat and philosopher, Anthony M. Ludovici,[42] but also by highly regarded author, journalist, and consultant to the British military, Nesta Webster. In her book, Germany and England. A Prelude to War in 1938, her comments on the power of Jews and how they can make or break any man are still relevant today as we all saw with our own eyes during the election campaign of Thomas Massie:

England of 1938 is not the England of 1914 because she is no longer controlled by Britons. Ever since the war the Jewish power has been growing… We are under an invisible Jewish dictatorship but a dictatorship that can be felt in every sphere of life, for no one can escape from it… Already the Jews can make or break the career of any man. As long as the Jews do not hold Germany [my comment: and now Iran, Russia and China] they can never realize their final aim of world domination. [43]

In today’s Britain, most members of the British establishment including royalty are intimately associated with the Epstein class. In 1999, Prince Andrew, for one, gave Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein — the “Jewish Fixer” of the Epstein Firsters, to put it like America Firster Nick Fuentes—[44] an unrestricted access to the Balmoral castle estate. Newly released images and trial evidence confirm the pair were photographed relaxing in the Queen’s private log cabin at Glen Beg, a location previously occupied by Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.[45] And the new king of Great Britain, Charles III, who was circumcised in 1948 by Rabbi Jacob Snowman, has long had a good relationship with British Jews,” notes journalist Itamar Sharon, in the September 10, 2022, issue of The Times of Israel, “and in recent years has also shored up his bona fides with Israel… Charles himself has abiding ties to British Jewish leaders and institutions, and has shown a keen interest in the stories and lessons of the Holocaust… In 2022, Charles commissioned portraits of seven Holocaust survivors to be displayed at Buckingham Palace for International Holocaust Remembrance Day.[46]

As a matter of fact, Mr. President, all British Prime Ministers involved in the Maidan conflict are all in the Jewish pocket. [47] Many are either: 1. Jewish, like Baron Richard Hermer, the Attorney General for England and Wales and Advocate General for Northern Ireland; 2. Descended from Jews, like David Cameron and Boris Johnson; or 3. married to Jews, like Keith Starmer. Others, such as Liza May, Theresa Truss, and Richi Sunak identify with Jews and Zionism out of sympathy and/or financial and electoral reasons. The fact of the matter is, none of them would be elected if they were not Epstein Firsters.[48]

This certainly explains why the United States and Britain are two of the most rabid supporters of the Ukrainian war, the Gaza genocide, the Iran war, and the Greater Israel Project. What’s left of the British and American Empires, Mr. President, is British and American in name only. It is now owned by the Jewish-led predatory bankers of “The City” of London and Wall Street, together with their financial and corporate networks. We effectively transitioned from Pax Britannica to Pax Americana to Jewish hegemony and a world of chaos. Will we ever reach Pax Judaica? It’s possible but it won’t do us any good. The world Epstein Firsters want to create is a world for Jews only, as Maurice Samuel says in his book You Gentiles,

We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build. Beyond all temporary alliances with this or that faction lies the ultimate split in nature and destiny, the enmity between the Game and God. [49]

To sum up, Britain, the United States, and all Western NATO nations, are indeed ruled by Epstein Firsters. These are the people, Mr. President, who are arming and financing Ukraine against you. They are either allies or vassals of the Jewish-led predatory bankers of the Epstein class. Here is a brief list of the weapons they use to conquer your country and the world:

The Protocols of the Epstein Firsters:

  • Work in secret, lie, cheat, embezzle, blackmail, assassinate, bomb, jail, torture, foment, plot, destroy, scare, sanction, block, intimidate, sue, and anything else you can do to weaken those we wish to dispossess no matter what the consequences are on the nations, populations, and individuals that are in your crosshairs;[50]
  • Use the Holocaust and the anti-Semitism weapons profusely, these boogeymen, together with fear, racism and hate speech accusations, are some of our best weapons and shields against our enemies; whenever you want to discredit dissenters you can also use slurs such as “conspiracy theorist,” “Nazi,” “fascist,” and “White supremacist,” or even better, use the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” slur, but make sure you use the “fake” label; you can on top of it evoke “human rights” to bomb a country to ashes;[51]
  • Those Who Reign Supreme: The Holocaust as Linchpin of a Jewish-Ruled World
  • Demonize authoritarian types of government and promote democracy, the ideal form of government for our purposes;[52]
  • To destroy racial consciousness and national sovereignty, endorse and promote liberalism and measures such as multiculturalism, replacement immigration, critical race theory (CRT), diversity, equity, and inclusion policies (DEI), LGBT promotion, and abortion as a form of contraception;[53]
  • The Hidden Messages of Schindler’s List
  • To dumb down populations and their ability to resist, downgrade educational quality to the level of the least competent and promote and encourage consumer goods that target the limbic system, the center of emotion and motivation, with sex, drugs, and Rock and Roll;[54]
  • Work to abolish private property, race, family, and gender binarism; we want to erase all barriers and identities;
  • To weaken the police and other government institutions and businesses, staff them with women and minorities;
  • Take control of all information and media outlets: Hollywood, mainstream newspapers, TV, the Internet, book publishers, etc.;
  • Control any opposition with generous financial and career rewards;
  • Hire important influencers to promote your ideas or to defame your opponents;
  • Create false flags, false pandemics, and false climate emergencies to scare populations and force them to accept laws and policies they would normally refuse;[55]
  • Take control of the economy;[56]
  • To give them a free hand, impose legal immunity for the whole network of banks and corporations;
  • Deindustrialize and transfer all industries to third-world countries where cheap labor is abundant and taxes and regulations are optimal;
  • Make sure an American system of economy, which favors the building of infrastructure (roads, airports, trains, bridges, etc.) and economic prosperity for the “deplorables,” never sees the light of day.[57] Apply and defend the British System, which advocates for minimal government intervention, low tariffs, and reliance on global free markets;[58]
  • Create unbacked credit (money created out of thin air);[59]
  • Extend excessive debt to borrowing nations to extract political leverage or economic concessions;
  • Grab money anonymously and deposit this money in tax havens;
  • Destroy the Middle class by eliminating small community banks, the bloodline of local innovators and small businesses;[60]
  • Promote on-line shopping to further destroy the Middle class.

Ultimate goal of the Epstein Firsters: Destruction of nations and creation of a worldwide collectivist society of consumers easy to manipulate and control with the help of artificial intelligence, Central Bank Digital Currencies, digital identity, [61] and 15 minutes cities; [62] in this kind of society, the notion of belonging to a country or a race will be obsolete; no one will have any identity, other than that of consumer. This future is described as a “Jewish utopia” for the ruling Epstein Firsters, a nightmare for the millions of rootless, acculturated post-national nomads.[63]

Motivation of the Epstein Firsters: The will for power, which is the basic rule of life, with survival.[64]

Respectfully,

Pierre Simon, a concerned citizen journalist of European descent

[1] Stephen Mitford Goodson, A History of Central Banking and the Enslavement of Humanity, Black House Publishing Ltd, 4th Edition 2019.

[2] Alex Krainer, “Pandemics and the March of Totalitarianism,” Alex Krainer’s Substack, May 29, 2026.

[3] Michael Collins Piper, The New Babylon. Those Who Reign Supreme. A Panoramic Overview of the Historical, Religious, and Economic Origins of the New World Order, American Free Press, 2015.

[4] General Dominique Delawarde, Analysis of US/Russian-/Israeli relations, Reseau International, February 22, 2017.

[5] General Dominique Delawarde, USA-Syria-France-Israel: To better understand the Syrian conflict, Reseau international, April 8, 2017.

[6] Information obtained from LEO AI.

[7] Maurice G. Baxter, Henry Clay and the American System, University Press of Kentucky, November 19, 2004.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Michael Collins Piper, “The Making of Woodrow Wilson—An American Hero?” The Barnes Review, March 2010.

[10] Thomas Dalton, PhD, “Democracy Is an Ideal Government for Jewish Influence,” The Occidental Observer, March 25, 2024.

[11] Eustache Mullins, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve. The London Connection, Bankers Research Institute, 1993.

[12] Robert Ingraham, William McKinley. “Principles must always lead,” 2025.

[13] Information obtained from LEO AI.

[14] FDR’s Attitude to Jews in the US, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

[15] Information obtained from Grok AI on X.

[16] Information obtained from LEO AI.

[17] Laurent Guyénot, The Unspoken Kennedy Truth, Kindle, p. 35.

[18] Armin Rosen, “Trump’s Jews: The Republican Presidential Candidate Has Jewish Family Members and Friends. Here’s Who They Are,” Tablet Magazine, July 15, 2016.

[19] Adam Green, “Trump’s Kabbala ‘Tree of Life’ Award,” Know More News, YouTube, 2019.

[20] Laurent Guyénot, The Unspoken Kennedy Truth, Kindle, p. 35.

[21] Michael COLLINS PIPER, Final Judgment. The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy, American Free Press, 2005.

[22] Information obtained from LEO AI.

[23] Ibid.

[24] Alex Vandermaas-Peeler, Jelena Subotic, and Michael Barnett, “Constructing victims: Suffering and status in modern world order,” Cambridge University Press, December 22, 2022.

[25] Information obtained from LEO AI.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Karen David, “Joe Biden’s Very Jewish Family,” The JC News, November 9, 2020.

[28] Paul Craig Roberts, “Are Jews Again Driving the Western World into a Fatal War?” Institute for Political Economy, September 29, 2022.

[29] Edward Wong, “The Rapture and The Real World. Mike Pompeo Blends Beliefs and Policy,” The New York Times, March 30, 2019.

[30] Victoria Clark, Allies for Armageddon. The Rise of Christian Zionism, Yale University Press, 2007.

[31] Hervé Ryssen, End Times Warfare: The Eschatological Beliefs of the Great Religions, The Barnes Review.

[32] Armin Rosen, “Trump’s Jews: The Republican Presidential Candidate Has Jewish Family Members and Friends. Here’s Who They Are,” Tablet Magazine, July 15, 2016; Adam Green, “Trump’s Kabbala ‘Tree of Life’ Award,” Know More News, YouTube, 2019.

[33] Information obtained by LEO AI.

[34] Hervé Ryssen, End Times Warfare: The Eschatological Beliefs of the Great Religions, The Barnes Review.

[35] Paul Craig Roberts, article cited.

[36] Pat Buchanan: In His Own Words, Anti-Defamation League, 2013.

[37] Anthony H. Ludovici, The Jews, and the Jews in England, Ostara Publications, 2021 (first published in 1938 under the pseudonym “Cobbett.”

[38] Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, Internet Archive, p. XVII.

[39] Leslie Gilbert Pine, Tales of the British Aristocracy, Internet Archive, p. 219.

[40] Ibid, p. 220.

[41] Arnold Leese, Our Jewish Aristocracy—A revelation, Sons of Liberty, 1896. A free PDF is available on the Internet archive.

[42] Anthony H. Ludovici, The Jews, and the Jews in England, Ostara Publications, 2021 (first published in 1938 under the pseudonym “Cobbett.”

[43] Nesta H. Webster, Germany and England. A Prelude to War, 1938, Ostara Publications, pp. 58–59.

[44] The best cogent and articulate analysis of the Epstein files is by America Firster Nick Fuentes: “What They’re NOT Telling You About Epstein,” Rumble, 2026.

[45] Francine Wolfisz, “Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell are shown on Balmoral shooting trip in latest photo dump,” Daily Mail, December 20, 2025.

[46] David Israel, “King Charles III Was Circumcised by Jewish Mohel, Cherishes UK Jews,” The JewishPress.com, September 9, 2022.

[47] Marc Collet, “Britain Is Ruled by Zionists,” Bitchute, October 14, 2022.

[48] Information obtained from LEO AI.

[49] Maurice Samuls, You Gentiles, Antelope Hill Publishing, 2022.

[50] Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority, Howard Allen, 1981.

[51] Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry, London: Armreg Ltd, 2024 (5th edition); Holocaust Encyclopedia, Uncensored and Unrestrained, 2025. Sponsored by the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust (www.CODOH.com); Nicholas Kollerstrom, Breaking the Spell. The Holocaust, Myth & Reality, London: Armreg Ltd, 2024;

Jared Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America, Carroll & Graf Pub, 1993; Kerry Bolton, PhD, The Tyranny of Human Rights. From Jacobinism to the United Nations, Antelope Hill Publishing, 2021.

[52]Thomas Dalton, PhD, “Democracy Is an Ideal Government for Jewish Influence,” The Occidental Observer, March 25, 2024.

[53] Kevin Macdonald, PhD, The Culture of Critique. An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Antelope Hill Publishing, 3rd Edition, 2025; Anthony M. Ludovici, The Specious Origins of Liberalism. The Genesis of a Delusion, Ostara Publications, 2015.

[54] Ricardo Duchesne, PhD, “Why the West Is Replacing Its White Population. The Post-Fordist Trap,” The Unz Review, May 15, 2026; John Taylor Gatto, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, New Society Publishers, 2002.

[55] Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine. The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Metropolitan Books, 2007;

Tim Ball, PhD, The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, Stairway Press, 2014. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., The Real Anthony Fauci. Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health, Skyhorse Publishing, 2021.

[56] The best book I have read on the subject of banks and how they control the economy and destroy nations is by a French jurist and fiscal lawyer Valérie Bugault, Les raisons cachées du désordre mondial. Analyse de géopolitique économique, juridique et monétaire (The Hidden Causes of Global Turmoil: An Analysis of Economic, Legal, and Monetary Geopolitics), Sigest, 2021. She is very active on YouTube and with automatic translation you have access to her ideas. For French speakers, she also published a small pocket book, which is a synthesis of the above book, Demain dès l’aube… le renouveau (Tomorrow at dawn… a new beginning), Sigest, 2023.

[57] Maurice G. Baxter, Henry Clay and the American System, University Press of Kentucky, November 19, 2004.

[58] American investment banker and former public official with a background in finance and government service, Catherine Austin Fitts, appeared on the Tucker Carlson Show to talk about the global control grid; her February 27, 2026, appearance is titled “Catherine Fitts: Epstein, CIA Black Budget, the Control Grid, and the Banks’ Role in War.” In this episode, Fitts argues that major banks and central bankers are constructing the infrastructure of programmable money, global digital IDs, and surveillance hardware to merge monetary and fiscal policy, effectively bypassing democratic legislatures.

[59] Kerry Bolton, PhD, The Banking Swindle. Money Creation and the State, Black House Publishing, 2017.

[60] For a good explanation on how bankers start all wars and put small businesses and innovators out of the loop, see this interview of German economist Richard Werner on the YouTube Tucker Carlson channel: “Every Major War Begins Under False Pretenses & the Central Banks Are Behind It. Economist Explains,” May 22, 2026.

[61] Catherine Austin Fitts, “Catherine Fitts: Epstein, CIA Black Budget, the Control Grid, and the Banks’ Role in War,” The Tucker Carlson Show, Feb 27, 2026.

[62] The most cited and foundational reference on 15-minute cities is the work of Professor Carlos Moreno from the Sorbonne, who coined the term in 2016 and formalized it in a 2021 paper titled “Introducing the ‘15-Minute City’: Sustainability, Resilience and Place Identity in Future Post-Pandemic Cities.”  His concept defines a 15-minute city as an urban planning model where all essential services—work, education, healthcare, recreation—are accessible within a 15-minute walk or bike ride from home. Information obtained from LEO AI.

[63] Michael Higger, PhD, The Jewish Utopia, The Lord Baltimore Press, 1932; Gearóid Ó COLMÁIN, “Rothschild’s ‘Slaughter Ships.’ Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe (Part 4 of 11),” Dissident Voice, 2016. Cited by Scott HOWARD, The Open Society Playbook, Antelope Hill Publishing, p. 223.

[64] Anthony M. Ludovici, Who Is to Be Master of the World. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzche, Legare Street Press (first published in 1914 by T.N. Foulis).

 

A Jamaican Researcher Explodes the Myths About Why Africa is Like It Is

/17 Comments/in /by

Busting African Delusions: Intelligence, Institutions and the Path to Progress
Lipton Matthews
Independently Published, 2026

We are told by our masters that there are no race differences in intelligence or personality and that countries with Sub-Saharan African populations are poor as a consequence of exploitation by Europeans. Busting African Delusions does precisely what the title states. Lipton Matthews, a Jamaican researcher, presents in tremendous detail the case that Sub-Saharan African population countries, whether in Sub-Saharan Africa or the Caribbean, are in the chaotic and impoverished state that they are because of the evolved nature of Sub-Saharan African people.

Matthews begins by dedicating his book to the late English psychologist Richard Lynn (1930–2023) who presented a huge amount of research on race differences in intelligence and personality and its causes. Lynn would present his research in a highly detached and dry fashion and Matthews follows in the tradition, though he provides some examples of such experiences of corruption in his native Jamaica.

Matthews explores national differences in socioeconomic achievement in detail and demonstrates that these seemingly come down to genetic differences in average intelligence, which is in the region of 80% genetic at the individual level. Of course, the poor environment of Africa may mean that  the genetic contribution to intelligence differences is lower there. But, even if this is so, Matthews cites studies indicating that the prevalence of alleles that are associated with intelligence is notably lower in Sub-Saharan Africa than in Europe. Accordingly, Matthews argues in favour of Richard Lynn’s “Cold Winters Theory.” This is the idea that cold winters present difficult problems to solve and, as such, select for intelligence. There are exceptions here, such as the intelligence of Arctic peoples but this may be due to a combination of very small populations, meaning less genetic diversity, and never developing agriculture, as agriculture selects for future-orientation which is a key component of intelligence.

Having carefully refuted the many criticisms of national IQs, Matthews then turns to the consequences of this low average African IQ for African economies. Most starkly, it means very poor education systems and extremely low quality teachers. Almost 80% of maths teachers in South Africa do not meet the required national standard in Maths. There are 450 schools in South Africa that do not teach maths at all. The result is an innumerate society, with obvious consequences for economic development. I once met a South Sudanese man in northern Finland and asked him how old he was. He was actually a trained teacher but could not give a firm answer: “I think I’m about 40,” he said. Not knowing his birthday, he used the date he’d arrived in Finland as a proxy. Society is also relatively illiterate, meaning that the technological revolution does not assist in creating a more knowledgeable or innovative society.

Matthews then turns to historical African wealth and highlights the way in which there were some wealthy African countries, mainly due to highly successful slave economies. We are told to believe that there was little difference between Europe and Africa until the Industrial Revolution and our supposed exploitation of Africa. Matthews shows this to be wrong: by the sixteenth century England’s wealth was at least 3 times that of many modern African countries. This contrasts with African economic systems which Matthews demonstrates were far more clannish than European ones. In other words, African systems are not based around finding talented people and employing their abilities. Instead, they are very strongly based on who is related to you and how you can assist those who are related to you in return for them assisting you. Accordingly, they are inherently nepostistic and corrupt in a way that is not so obviously true in Europe. This is a particularly original section and I learnt a great deal about pre-Colonial African economic systems. Matthews further shows that colonialism itself was far less wealth-creating for the colonial nations than we are led to believe.

Matthews, in an extremely detailed work, also looks at a series of delusions with regard to African development. Corruption and low intelligence mean that remittances will not really help Africa and nor will international aid. Leaders will always end up being corrupt and the people there tend to be incapable of planning for the future.

Matthews then shows that far from utterly exploiting sub-Saharan Africa, European colonialism precipitated rapid economic growth in the region. The situation was nuanced however. Matthews observes that, “In French Africa, monopolistic trade policies allowed European trading companies to purchase goods from African producers at artificially low prices, sometimes extracting up to 60% of the potential revenue.” Even so, Africans generally earned well above subsistence levels and there was huge investment in infrastructure and education, particularly in missionary schools.

This is a dangerously revisionist book in terms of what we’re supposed to believe and this is no better encapsulated than in Matthews’ section on the European slave trade. He shows it was nowhere near as a big a part of Britain’s economy as we are led to believe. The UK was already well into the Industrial Revolution when the slave trade reached its peak, and Caribbean goods were far from central to the British economy.

Overall, this is a fascinating and eye-opening book which genuinely debunks the key myths about Sub-Saharan Africa and the reasons for its backward socioeconomic state. It is, however, written in a highly academic style. I think one of Matthews’ key selling points as an author on this subject is that he is Jamaican, though an obvious intelligence outlier by Jamaican standards. I would relish seeing him produce another book on this topic that is far more personal in nature. How does it feel to be a highly intelligent Sub-Saharan African, whose IQ is so many standard deviations above the mean? What unusual experiences or thoughts does it lead to?

Determined to Know: Free-Will, Randomness and the T.B.Q.P.

/8 Comments/in /by

Fish swim in water; humans swim in philosophy. But I doubt that any fishes ponder what surrounds and sustains them as fish, just as I know that few humans ponder what surrounds and sustains them as humans. We humans think and know, talk and exist, yet few of us think about thought, think about knowledge, language and existence. Either way, questions are bubbling up endlessly from the depths of being, big ones and small ones, bursting and bifurcating. What is the meaning of life? What is the meaning of “meaning”? What is the meaning of “of”?

The Biggest Three

All of that is philosophy, but one of the fascinations of philosophy is the way it turns back on itself. You could say it’s sometimes omphaloskeptic — it gazes at its own navel. Take epistemology, the branch of philosophy devoted to knowledge. As humans, we know things and we seek to know things, but what do we know about knowing? How do we know what we know is true? What ways of knowing and truth-seeking are most trustworthy, efficient, refinable? And so on. As for me, I’m particularly interested in the collision between epistemology and one of the T.B.Q.P. — the Three Biggest Questions of Philosophy. What are those questions? Well, each to his own, but my T.B.Q.P. run like this:

1) Why is there something rather than nothing?[1]

2) What are the nature and mechanism(s) of consciousness?

3) What is free-will and does (or can) it exist?

I’ve ordered them by what I think is their importance, but perhaps I’ve got the order wrong. In a way, the third question is the biggest of the three, because if we need free-will to know truth and free-will doesn’t exist, we’re up a Socratic creek without a paddle. But hold on: that reasoning is absurd, because if it’s true, we couldn’t know so, because it claims we can know that we can’t know anything. In other words, it claims we can have true knowledge that true knowledge is impossible. That is, true knowledge would be impossible if free-will doesn’t exist and true knowledge depends on free-will. But does epistemology depend on free-will? Are logic, reason and true knowledge possible in an entirely deterministic and material universe? But is absurdity back when I ask that last question? The German mathematician David Hilbert was determined to know when he said “Wir müssen wissen, wir werden wissen!” — “We must know, we will know!” But was he determined to know — or not know — in another sense? After all, in a deterministic universe all questions and all answers are preordained, fixed and unalterable in advance like the routes taken by trains on a network of tracks. In a deterministic universe, the truth-trains will always go here or here, and never go there or there. But what if truth always lies there and never here? Then truth-trains would be travesty-trains. And we’d be helpless permanent passengers, never able to get off, change our tickets or influence the drivers.

“I Came, I Sawed, I Cankered”: Is arguing against free-will an absurd exercise? (image by Frits Ahlefeldt at Pixabay

Yes, some philosophers would say that “Does free-will exist?” is an ansker — an asking that answers itself, a self-answering question.[2] The answer would have to be “Yes.” Without free-will, it would be absurd to ask anything at all, let alone ask about free-will. Without free-will, we couldn’t reason or have true knowledge of the world. I don’t agree. Or I partly don’t agree. That’s because one of the compelling things about reason is that it’s a compelling thing. In clear, simple reasoning you don’t have a choice about whether to accept it or reject it. No, you’re compelled to accept or reject, by design. We can’t exercise free-will when it comes to propositions like these:

  • All men are mortal and Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal.
  • 2 + 3 – 1 = 6

Try to exercise free-will about those two propositions, rejecting the first and accepting the second. It’s impossible. Well, impossible for the sane and rational, that is. But sanity isn’t a question of free-will.[3] Even those who insist that free-will is necessary for reason and seeking truth have to accept that determinism is also necessary for those things. The point of logic is that it’s a deterministic route to truth: “If X, then Y, therefore if not-Y, then not-X.” That’s good logic, compelling belief in those who understand logic. Compare this bad logic: “If X, then Y, therefore if Y, then X.”[4] Such bad logic can compel belief only in those who don’t understand logic for one reason or another: stupidity, ignorance, insanity.

Marine Mind

And who chooses to be stupid, ignorant or insane? Well, some people choose to be ignorant. That’s a real choice if free-will exists, but I have doubts that it does. I can’t see any mechanism for it in a material brain. Or in an immaterial spirit. For me, either determinism reigns or a mixture of determinism and randomness does. But to me randomness seems as impossible as free-will. Indeed, to me the concepts of randomness and free-will seem intimately related, in part because both depend on a putative mechanism that evades or escapes determinism.[5] I can’t see how any such mechanism could exist. Then again, I can’t see any mechanism for consciousness in a material brain. Or in an immaterial spirit. Yet I know by introspection that consciousness exists. Can I not know by introspection that free-will exists?

No, not in the same way, because I can’t be fooled about consciousness. To be conscious of being conscious is to be conscious. To be conscious of having free-will is not necessarily to have free-will, because consciousness can be fooled and free-will can’t be guaranteed if something unconscious is at work too. And I also know by introspection that consciousness is not all there is inside my head. Consciousness isn’t the only thing underlying my actions, my beliefs, and my supposed free-will. The mind is like an ocean, with a sun-struck surface atop brightly lit water atop a twilight zone atop a zone of ever deepening darkness. Consciousness swims on the surface and looks down into the water. It can usually see what’s in the brightly lit water and can glimpse what’s in the twilight, but the darkness hides marvels and monsters from its gaze — marvels like the mechanism of our senses and our physiology,[6] monsters like our true selfish or self-serving motives.[7]

Light and liquid

In other words, the Mind-Mere, the Mind-Ocean, has a conscious zone, a semi-conscious zone, and an unconscious zone. It doesn’t matter that the mechanism of my consciousness is down in the dark, because consciousness of consciousness is consciousness. That doesn’t apply to free-will. It doesn’t matter that I’m not conscious of a mechanism for my own consciousness, but it does matter that I’m not conscious of a mechanism for my own free-will. If I can’t examine the mechanism, how can I know whether it’s really supplying me with free-will? I’d draw this analogy: Suppose you enter a room and find an electric lamp and a glass sitting on a table. The lamp is lit and the glass is full of a clear liquid that looks and smells (or unsmells) like water. Now, do you know that the systems supplying power to the lamp (which represents consciousness) and the systems that supply the liquid (which represents free-will) are working as they should? In the first case, yes: the proof is in the pudding. If the lamp is lit, then all is obviously working as it should be.

In the second case, no: the proof isn’t in the pudding. Just by looking at the liquid and smelling the liquid, you can’t be sure it really is water. But let’s suppose it is water. Can you now be sure the water is not contaminated with invisible bacteria or an odorless, tasteless, slow-acting poison? No, and drinking it wouldn’t immediately enlighten you either. You don’t need to confirm the credentials of the power-supply if the lamp is lit. Like consciousness, light is its own guarantee.[8] Like free-will, a glass of water is not its own guarantee, because you do need to confirm the credentials of the water-supply. With the water, you need to examine the supply to know that there’s no deliberate or inadvertent contamination and so on. Similarly, with free-will you need to examine the mechanism to know that it isn’t deterministic. But what is the mechanism of free-will? It’s as mysterious as the mechanism of consciousness. But I would suggest that perhaps the mechanism of free-will is mysterious because free-will doesn’t exist.

Reasoning that reason is impossible

If free-will exists, then there must be a mechanism of free-will, something that receives information and supplies a choice based on, but not determined by, that information. But how could that be possible? How can a mechanism receive and process information without the operation of that mechanism being in some full sense determined by the information? How could one have an indeterministic mechanism for something like free-will?[9] Standard theory in physics claims that atomic decay is indeterministic, but it doesn’t claim that atoms exercise free-will about whether or not to decay. And the marker of the supposed indeterminism is randomness. For its proponents, free-will represents the complete opposite of randomness. For opponents of the concept of free-will like me, the complete opposite of randomness could only be strict determinism.

But am I an opponent of the concept? I would once have said that I was. Nowadays I’d say that I’m only a skeptic about free-will. Or maybe an agnostic. I’m skeptical about free-will for the same reason as I’m skeptical about infallibility: because I can’t see a mechanism for it. I can’t see a material mechanism and I can’t see an immaterial one. But I’m also skeptical about the rejection of free-will. There are two reasons for that. First, I recognize the possible absurdity of arguing against free-will and for determinism or (if standard theory in physics is true) a mixture of determinism and randomness. Arguing against free-will sometimes feels like reasoning that reason is impossible. Inter alia, both determinism and randomness would seem to render agency irrelevant, yet how can we reason without being agents? I certainly feel like one as I think about these topics, apply logic and try to reach conclusions.

“The whirl of the infinite”

And thinking — or thinking about thinking — has supplied my second reason for being skeptical about rejecting free-will. I’ve thought more about epistemology and hope I understand it better. Or rather: understand better that I don’t understand it. As I asked in “White Rites: Meditations on Mathematics and Materiality,” how is it possible that a material brain, occupying a speck of space and a blink of time, can supply a human being with certain knowledge about all space and all time? The great Arthur Conan Doyle described one of his characters as a “poor impotent atom with his pin-point of brain caught in the whirl of the infinite.” Yet the pin-point of a human brain can conquer the infinite. With our minute, material brains, we can know things that are true of, say, all triangles and all circles anywhere and anywhen. And we can grasp more than trivial truths-by-definition, such as that all triangles have three sides and that all points of a circle are equidistant from its center. No, we can grasp profounder truths, such as that the internal angles of any Euclidean triangle sum to 180° and that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is a constant called π or pi, which is both infinitely long and infinitely complex.[10]

We can know that of all triangles and circles with our minute, material brains. How? I don’t know. Well, we know it with our immaterial minds, our immaterial consciousness, but they’re generated by our minute, material brains, aren’t they? And are they truly immaterial? Again, I don’t know. Are minds and consciousness immortal, as theology and some branches of philosophy would claim? Yet again, I don’t know. I can’t account for consciousness or universal knowledge within materialism (or immaterialism, for that matter). But I know by introspection that they exist, which is why I’m now only skeptical about free-will, not rejectional. I don’t know by introspection that free-will exists, but perhaps there’s a mechanism for it, down in the deepest dark. And whatever the ontology of free-will, there are interesting implications for politics and White nationalism. But that, as Rudyard Kipling would have said, is another story.

[1]  “Why is there something rather than nothing?” packs more puzzle into fewer syllables than anything else I know. It’s Leibniz’s puzzle, originally posed in Latin, according to Wikiquote, as Cur aliquid potius extiterit quam nihil? Heidegger later asked: Warum ist überhaupt Seiendes und nicht vielmehr Nichts? Das ist die Frage. — “Why are there beings at all rather than nothing? That is the question.”

[2] Here are two more examples of anskers or self-answering questions: “Is this question in English?” « Est-ce que je pose cette question en allemand ? »

[3] Sanity isn’t usually a question of free-will, that is. But a sane person could choose to take a drug that drives him insane. Or could he? Would not voluntarily abandoning sanity be in itself an insane or irrational act? And so on — as usual, philosophy makes me feel like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice.

[4] The bad logic commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Compare “If human, then mortal, therefore if not mortal, then not human” (good logic) with “If human, then mortal, therefore if mortal, then human” (bad logic).

[5] Randomness, defining it, detecting it — these are more fascinating topics.

[6] We see, hear, taste, touch and smell, but we don’t know how our senses supply our consciousness, just as we don’t know (by introspection) how we voluntarily control our limbs or involuntarily regulate our heart-beat, digest our food, monitor our hormone levels, and conduct the myriad other tasks of house-keeping a human body.

[7] One of the sorrows of owning a brain is that the mind-monsters sometimes swim up into the light, but the marvels never do. In other words, we can become conscious of our previously unconscious bad motives and so on, but we can never become conscious by introspection of how our senses work. The physical mechanism of the senses is being explained by science, but not the mechanism of how that physical mechanism supplies aphysical consciousness, which remains as mysterious as ever. As I said in my article “Magnissimum Mysterium: Pondering a Huge but Hidden Factor in Politics and White Nationalism”: “everything that science knows and understands about [consciousness] could be written on the full stop at the end of this sentence.”

[8] “Like consciousness, light is its own guarantee.” — in some sense, this statement is redundant. It really says: “Like consciousness, consciousness-of-light is its own guarantee.

[9] I’ll go further: I don’t see how there be an indeterministic mechanism for anything at all, which is why I don’t believe that atomic decay is truly indeterministic or truly random. Some companies claiming to supply truly random numbers use atomic decay and other quantum effects to generate them, one company uses lava lamps. But lava lamps are chaotic, not indeterministic, so perhaps atomic decay depends on chaos or something other pseudo-random, entirely deterministic process.

[10] The digits of pi are entirely deterministic but also, in a sense, entirely random. The decimal of 1/7 = 0·142857142857142857… is infinitely long but entirely predictable, because it falls into a repeating pattern. The decimal of pi = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795… is infinitely long and also infinitely unpredictable, because it never falls into a repeating pattern. You can compress the infinite decimal of 1/7 into “0·142857…” You can’t compress the decimal of pi like that.