Featured Articles – Page 94 – The Occidental Observer

Architecture and Art: Explaining the Revolt against Beauty

February 16, 2024/18 Comments/in Featured Articles, Western Culture/by Edward Dutton

In May last year I found myself in Budapest, surrounded by Neo-Classical architecture. The centre of the city is incredibly beautiful, and so consistently so, that it’s easy to become lost. A young, and rather cynical, female student I was with actually commented, referring to two London skyscrapers: “Budapest needs a Gherkin or a Shard, just so there are a few landmarks.” It’s the little details that are so uplifting: gargoyles, tessellations . . . These edifices were built with beauty in mind.

The Gherkin Juxtaposed to Some Examples of Traditional London Architecture

How different it is walking around most British city centres, marred as they are by brutal post-War architecture, where “beauty” is almost a dirty word. The same is clearly true of Art. Modern Art is quite deliberately vile and shocking: Damien Hurst’s cow cut in half, the Chapman Brothers’ child mannequins with anuses on their faces, flowers (“Piss Flowers”) ultimately cast from artist Helen Chadwick’s urine and so on. English philosopher Roger Scruton bemoaned the hideousness of Modern Art and Modern Architecture. But why does it have to be so revolting? The answer is surprisingly simple and it can be traced all the way back to the most primitive humans, eking out an existence on the Savannah.

Damien Hurst’s Cow Cut in Half

Humans are “pack animals,” which means they must fight for the survival and triumph of their group, but, in the polygamous mating systems to which we are evolved, only the highest status males pass on their genes. Put simply, these males are better at fighting and at hunting. The females sexually select for these Alpha Males because they will have more resources to invest in the female and her offspring and the offspring will inherit the physical and psychological traits which lead to health, high status and the passing on of ones genes. As I have explored in my book Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, among the hunter-gatherer Bushmen of southern Africa only 40% of males have any children at all, while in seventeenth century England the richer 50% of males had about double the number of surviving offspring compared to the poorer 50% of males. So, it is very important – and thus built into us – to want to attain social status.

Consequently, we balance different sets of what are known as “Moral Foundations.” The “binding” or “group-orientated” foundations are Obedience to Authority, In-group Loyalty and Sanctity/Disgust. The latter involves sacralising practices which are adaptive to the group and reacting with disgust to that which is maladaptive. Thus, people tend to react with disgust to foreigners because they may introduce novel pathogens into the group or disrupt its internal dynamics. Of course, high disgust can also be adaptive on the individual level, such as a strong revulsion to rotting food. But these three foundations correlate. Group-oriented people are higher in disgust, presumably due to its importance in policing group boundaries.

There are also the individually-oriented foundations of Equality and Harm Avoidance. A concern with equality means that you will get your fair – equal – share, while a concern with harm means that you personally are less likely to get harmed. People who are highly group-oriented have little concern with these, being happy to lay down their lives for the group, meaning they may pass on their genes only indirectly, by helping to save their group.

Liberals and Conservatives differ in the importance of these Moral Foundations. Conservatives score about the same in all of five of them. Liberals score very low in the binding foundations and they score very high in the individualistic foundations. As I explore in Breeding the Human Herd, liberals are also, on average, shorter, physically weaker, less physically attractive and more anxious and otherwise mentally unstable than conservatives. In a sense, they are bad, unsuccessful hunter gatherers. So, how do you gain status if you are such a person?

You can’t have a fair fight because you will be paranoid that you will lose, and you probably will. Accordingly, you “virtue signal”: You appeal to the conservative society – which is genuinely concerned about equality and harm – and attain status by seeming very kind. You also collaborate with outsiders. Being low in in-group loyalty and low in disgust, it has been found that the liberal moral circle – those with whom they identify – is further from self, in genetic terms. Conservatives are concerned with people in a series of concentric circles. In general, they prefer family to kin, kin to ethny, ethny to race and so forth. By contrast, liberals are more likely to identify with foreigners than with their own. This allows them to collaborate with foreigners and, so, take over their own in-group.

This will shake up everything but they don’t care. They are low in sanctity and they are low in obedience to traditional authority. What is the upper class socialist really doing? He is gaining power by collaborating with the working class against the interests of his own social class, in a context in which there is abundant evidence that social classes are substantially genetic castes. What are elite White people in Britain’s Labour Party doing? They are collaborating with working class Whites and foreigners in order to dominate the elite class of which they are a part.

How does this relate to Art and Architecture? I’m sure it’s clear by now. The traditional purpose of both was, in part, to create beauty. Beauty inspires people; beauty makes people feel good (feel transcendent, even). Beauty is symmetrical, it is about order, it aims to inspire the group with a sense of the sacred and the eternal. If you are low status, it is central to the system which caused you to be of low status. Thus, if you are physically and mentally weak, and cannot attain status within the system, it makes sense to attack the system, to attack “order,” so creating a vacuum in which you can take power.

Being low in sanctity (and low in disgust), you will be positively attracted to Art and Architecture which is revolting and repelled by Art and Architecture which is beautiful. Being concerned with “Equality,” you will horrified by the very idea that some things are more “beautiful” than other things. With your high Neuroticism, this will incur resentment. You will question the very notion of objective “beauty,” argue that there are “different kinds of beauty” and ultimately maintain that the ugly is beautiful so that everyone can feel equal. The very notion of “beauty” will hurt the feelings of –“harm” – those who are repugnant-looking, so it simply cannot be accepted. This destruction of tradition creates dysphoria, it confuses people, it creates a sense of instability; a lack of order. It is in this chaos that the Machiavellian — and liberals are individualistic and thus power-hungry — can take over.

As I have explored in my book The Past Is a Future Country: The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution, due to asymmetrical empathy between conservatives and liberals, culture will tend to drift leftwards. Eventually, once a sufficient percentage of the elite accept these ideas, we very quickly tip over into being a liberal society, as people understand that things are changing and wish to be on the winning team. As the more intelligent better understand the benefits of socially conforming and are higher in what Kevin MacDonald has called the “effortful control” that allows them to do so, they will spearhead this change. Once this takes place the more intelligent start competitively signalling their conformity to the new moral dispensation.

The result is a kind of “runaway individualism” where Art and Architecture become uglier and uglier and uglier across time. This will continue until there is such dysphoria, until so many people are so unhappy, due to their group-oriented foundations being ignored, and due to a general sense of unnerving chaos, there is a right-wing backlash. This will often be provoked by a situation which strongly sets off disgust – such as an epidemic – or which sets off other binding foundations, such as war. We became more conservative in the 1980s about sexuality due to AIDs for example. So, beautiful Art and Architecture may well re-emerge . . .

Mark Collett and I discuss Tucker’s interview with Putin

February 15, 2024/9 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Kevin MacDonald

Not what you’ll see on the New York Times, HuffPo or Newsweek.

ODYSEE: https://odysee.com/@MarkCollett:6/PWR249:a

RUMBLE:https://rumble.com/v4dbalo-patriotic-weekly-review-with-dr-kevin-macdonald.html

Tucker’s comments on the interview.

https://tuckercarlson.com/after-the-vladimir-putin-interview/

Gaza and the Climate Hoax

February 15, 2024/19 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Pierre Simon

This is a corrected version of the article posted yesterday. The main problem was that the author was incorrectly identified. It’s Pierre Simon.

Since according to the Jewish Virtual Library, Jews are approximately 0.2% of the world population, the probability that most of the key individuals involved in the climate hoax would be Jews is infinitesimally small. Yet, since at least the 60s, all false alarms have been sounded almost exclusively by Jews.

It all started with Ira Einhorn, the satanic-Jewish-trunk-murderer of his girlfriend Holly Maddox, the founder of the environmentalist “Mother Earth” movement that was selected as the hippy front of the globalists (1) who wanted to promote and use environmentalism as their key method of establishing an end-times Marxist dictatorship for planet earth:

In search of a new common enemy against which we could unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and other such problems would do the trick. In their totality and in their interactions, these phenomena do indeed constitute a common threat that must be confronted by all of us together. (2)

Dr. Stephen Schneider, with his Climate Change Journal, followed by Dr. Barry Commoner, whom Ralph Nader called “the greatest environmentalist” of the twentieth century, were among many others, big advocates of impending climate doom. (3) With them, we went from planetary glaciation to ozone depletion, acid rain, rising sea levels and the melting of eternal snow. (4)

Then there were the global warming theories of Michael Mann, an internationally-renowned, rogue climatologist, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an offshoot of the United Nations (UN). (5) His hockey-stick graph, first published in 1998 in the scientific journal Nature, (6) was the star of the UN climate report (2001), which resulted in a massive mobilization of environmental activists determined to do battle to save the planet. (7)

Figure 1 Michael Mann’s hockey-stick graph

According to this graph, the atmospheric temperature of Europe — where the use of hydrocarbons began during the industrial revolution — soared after more than a thousand years of stability (Figure 1). According to Mann, this sudden and unprecedented rise in temperature could only be due to human activity, in particular to the production of CO₂, that “climatocidal” molecule that young environmental activist Greta Thunberg claims to see with the naked eye.

Michael Mann’s theses were then popularized in the famous documentary on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth. This “warmist” propaganda film earned Al Gore and the IPCC a Nobel Prize in 2006. Based on computer modeling by Michael Mann’s team, Al Gore predicted an imminent catastrophe of biblical proportions. He also predicted that it would be the end of humanity if we didn’t set up a world government within 10 years — that would have been in 2016 — to combat this unprecedented scourge. (8)

Al Gore is not Jewish himself, but his daughter is married to the heir to the international banking fortune of Jacob Schiff, (9) a representative of the Rothschild financial empire that helped finance the Bolshevik revolution. (10) David Guggenheim, the film’s director, Jeffrey Skoll, the executive producer and all the other producers, on the other hand, are all Jewish.

Greta Thunberg herself is the great-grand-daughter of the famous banker Lionel Walter Rothschild, son of the first Baron Rothschild. (11) The €4 million yacht on which Greta travelled to the United States to deliver her famous speech at the UN belonged to the Rothschild family before being sold to another Jewish billionaire involved in the climate hoax. (12)

Even Luisa-Marie Neubauer, Greta Thunberg’s coach, is related to the founder of the Rothschild dynasty, Mayer Amschel Bauer, who changed his last name to Rothschild after returning to Frankfurt to take over his father’s business. Luisa Neubauer’s “job” is “climate activist,” and she’s a volunteer for the One Foundation Campaign founded by Bono and Bill Gates, which also has ties to Jewish stock speculator and predator George Soros. (13)

Klaus Schwab, founder and executive director of the World Economic Forum, “the epicenter of evil in our world today” is possibly Jewish. (14) So is the new czar of climate fraud, John Kerry partly Jewish, as is his daughter Dr. Vanessa Kerry. (15)

And let’s not forget the Jewish French oligarch Jacques Attali, who constantly promotes climate catastrophism as a means of achieving global governance through fear:

History teaches us that mankind only evolves significantly when it is truly afraid: it then first sets up defense mechanisms; sometimes intolerable (scapegoats and totalitarianism); sometimes futile (distraction); sometimes effective (therapeutics which, if necessary, set aside all previous moral principles). Then, once the crisis is over, it transforms these mechanisms to make them compatible with individual freedom and part of a democratic health policy. (16)

The Bernie Madoff of the Climate Hoax

There was a bigger fish behind the climate hoax and the Jews listed above. The mastermind was a Canadian Fabian socialist, the late Maurice Strong, who is thought to be Jewish himself although it has never been proven.

According to journalist John Izzard, Strong was “the man who, more than any other redefined a trace gas as the meal ticket for tens of thousands of climate functionaries — the same people whose light-fingered heirs,” are still pushing today the climate change hoax. (17)

In the name of egalitarianism, Strong used ecology and climate science supposedly to enrich the poor at the detriment of the rich. The United Nations Environment Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were his instruments. (18)

But the road to hell being paved with good intentions, the fruits of his efforts and the policies they spawned such as the wind turbine madness, the carbon tax gimmick and the cow dung gas scam are hurting the poor and the middle class in every country of the world through rising food and energy costs. (19)

Fortunately for the 99%, in 2005, “the most powerful man in the push to save humanity,” writes J. Izzard with delicious irony, “by steady promotion of the theory of human induced greenhouse gases was caught with his hand in the till. He had endorsed a check for $988,885 USD made out to his name by South Korean business man, Tongsun Park, who was convicted in 2006 in a US Federal Court for conspiring to bribe UN officials.” (20)

Strong, the Bernie Madoff of climate change who had to resign from all his functions at the UN, fled like the crook he was to Canada and then to China where his communist sister was living. (21)

Canadian Dr. Tim Ball

It was the late Dr. Tim Ball, a Canadian climate scientist, who let the cat out of the bag. Thanks to this fearless scientist, many people were able to see through the climate hoax. (22) To produce the famous hockey curve that ignores the medieval optimum, MANN and his fraudster colleague Jacoby “forgot” to take into account data that did not confirm the climatic explosion. Fortunately, the archives came to light and the fraud was exposed: ten observation sites were retained and 26 hidden (Figure 2). (23)

In the “science trial of the century,” Dr. Ball won a multimillion-dollar judgment against UN climate fraudster “Dr.” Michael E. Mann. (24)

The CO₂ “error” is the root of the biggest scam in the history of the world, and has already bilked nations and citizens out of trillions of dollars, while greatly enriching the perpetrators. In the end, their goal is global Technocracy (aka Sustainable Development), which grabs and sequesters all the resources of the world into collective trust to be managed by them. Technocracy News & Trends, September 13, 2018.

Dr. Ball deserves all the credit, because the libel suit brought against him by the trickster Michael Mann was of uncertain outcome. Mann was morally supported by a large number of climate functionaries just as rotten as he is; he also was financially supported not only by the UN, but by the Suzuki Foundation, an organization itself financed by large corporations and foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation (25), an influential member of the Fabian Society. (26)

Figure 2 reconstituted curve with the missing data. There is no hockey-stick type graph.

The medieval warm period on the left was hidden from the public.

Those Who Reign Supreme

The Fabian Society, founded by two German Jews, Beatrice and Sydney Webb, born Weber (27), one of a myriad of similar organizations — whose claimed objective is to recreate the Garden of Eden — counts among its members the richest people in the World and their many emanations, proxies, and golems.

The oligarchs of this plutocracy are not all Fabians in due form but this Jewish-led-Anglo-American cabal, aka, the “International community,” which Alexander Dugin has recently labeled “the most disgusting phenomena of world history,” (28) is all for one world government (unipolar world) and neoliberal capitalism, an Orwellian type of “inclusive” capitalism defined by the morally unrestricted exploitation of goods, people, animals, services, and capital under the mantle of democracy, humanism, philanthropy, goodness, and love. (29)(30)(31)

The end goal of these wolves in sheep’s clothing who hide their evilness in goodness is indeed to recreate a Garden of Eden, but only for themselves. They want to “own everything and control the entire global population through a combination of false flag disasters, social engineering technologies, ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ development policies, a revamped food system of their own making, and global biosecurity measures.” (32)

Dugin Quote in Full

What does it mean for Russia to break from the West? It is salvation. The modern West — where the Rothschilds, Soros, Bill Gates, and Zuckerberg triumph — is the most disgusting phenomenon of world history. It is no longer the West of Greco-Roman Mediterranean culture, nor the Christian Middle Ages, nor the violent and contradictory 20^th century. It is a graveyard of the toxic waste of civilization, it is the anti-civilization. (28)

Although the Zionists are without a doubt at the helm of the New World Order project, (33)(34) as says the late investigative journalist, Michael Collins Piper,

they are not in complete control, of the mechanism of power in our world today. However, their level of influence is so substantial especially in the West, that they can, in a sense, be referred to as the fulcrum upon which the balance of modern power rests: every day, they are working relentlessly to make certain that in the end, they do achieve absolute power. (35)

The project of world governance in its present form is also, at the origin, an Anglo-American project promoted on one side of the Atlantic by Cecil John Rhodes and his associates, including Lord Milner, and on the other side of the Atlantic by the pioneer families of the very wealthy White Anglo-Saxon Protestants led by the bankers J. P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, and the Rockefellers. (36)(37)(38)

According to South African journalist Ian Benson, when this essentially non-Jewish financial elite lost its position at the top of international financial capitalism, it was not wiped out, but absorbed into a constellation of Jewish financial powers that it could no longer control, but with which it had strong affinities; they both read the Old Testament and both thought of themselves as the “Chosen People.” (39)

Weaponization of Money, the Media, and Science

With money as their weapon, these psychopaths can buy anyone and anything; impoverish any country through usury and debt; bribe, ruin, censor, persecute, even assassinate or “drone” those who stand in their way. The banksters of the New World Order will stop at nothing to achieve their plans by destroying everything that stands in the way of their hegemonic ambitions.

In order to achieve their objectives, this plutocracy which makes the 99% voiceless in the running of their governments have also built a formidable brainwashing machine which spreads at all hours of the day and night, throughout the whole world, in all social strata, all kinds of double talk, false accusations, and false information about historical events, atrocities, demographic crises, climatic crises, and pandemic. Much in this media-created reality is false and deceptive. These shenanigans have the sole function of dumbing down the herd and forcing it to walk the line, according to a method clearly described by Noam Chomsky in his book The Manufacture of Consent.

With absolutely all the major information agencies and media in their pocket, it is easy for them to hide anything that is detrimental to their interests like the massive electoral fraud perpetrated against Trump during the November 3, 2020, election.

The UN’s Jewish Under-Secretary General for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, admitted in a discussion at the World Economic Forum held on October 2022, that the globalist institution has partnered with Big Tech platforms, such as Jewish-owned Google in order to control search results on subjects like climate change and the COVID pandemic. (41)

The establishment narrative is thus the predominant narrative while information and data that runs contrary to the UN’s climate agenda, for example, is suppressed. Fleming went on to state that the UN is in control of the science: “We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and platforms themselves also do.” By “owning the science,” they can in fact support a narrative even if it is false when according to the scientific method, they should abandon it if the data does not support it.

This open admission only reconfirms what “conspiracy theorists” have been saying for years: Big Tech corporations such as Jewish owned Google, YouTube, and Facebook, governments, mainstream media, and globalist institutions such as the World Economic Forum in Davos, the UN and its emanations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the World Health Organization are actively collaborating to censor dissenting data and opinions as a means to keep the public as ignorant of the truth as possible. Instead of “fact checking” or fighting “disinformation,” globalist efforts are purely about elevating their own propaganda as a means to gain more authority over society:

Carbon emissions laws associated with the UN’s “Agenda 2030” give immense and intrusive power to governments over industry, private property as well as individual freedoms. It only makes sense that the UN would try to combat any information source that contradicts the implementation of such laws; they have everything to gain by preventing the pubic from viewing all the information and making an informed decision on their own. (42)

The public, cut off from reality, is no longer able to make informed judgments about anything. The powerful do not want them to think for themselves. It is still, in other words, Stalinist tyranny, but more sophisticated thanks to technology. Today, you are no longer locked up in a gulag to put you out of action, you are simply ignored by dynamic silence and total censorship.

In the end, the common enemy against which we must unite to save humanity is neither climate change nor wind turbine madness nor the carbon tax gimmick nor the cow dung gas scam but a small clique of miscreants determined to satisfy their greed and lust for power under the mask of good intentions and sentiments regardless of the consequences on the populations of the world.

With the Gaza genocide, the climate hoax is without a doubt one of the most disgusting things of recent world history.

References

Ira Einhorn, Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.
Alexander King et Bertrand Schneider, The First Global Revolution. A report by the Club of Rome, p. 115.
Chris Morrison, The Top Scientist Who Warned of a Coming Ice Age – Then Switched to “Catastrophic” Global Warming, The Daily Sceptic, April 30 2023.
M.S. KING, Climate Bogeyman. The Criminal Insanity of the Global Warming /Climate Change Hoax, 2017.
John O’SULLIVAN, “Climate fraud justice: Dr. Tim Ball defeats Michael Mann’s climate lawsuit”, Signs of the Times, August 23, 2019.
6. Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley & Malcolm K. Hughes, Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries, Nature, April 1998, vol. 392, pp. 779-787.
Climate Change 2001, Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), United Nations.
Benoît Rayski, “Moronism also pollutes. Better than Joan of Arc: Greta Thunberg sees CO₂ with the naked eye!” Atlantico, June 25, 2019.
Michael Collins Piper, The New Babylon. Those Who Reign Supreme, American Free Press, 2009, pp. 166, 169, 189.
Albert S. Lindenmann, Esau’s Tears. Modern anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 302.
Politikus, Are the Rothschilds ending their “Israel” project? Réseau International, November 28, 2023.
Brabatian, Greta Thunberg – Rothschild Pawn, henrymakow.com, September 29, 2019.
“Greta Thunberg’s handler, Luisa-Marie Neubauer, is a Rothschild,” Winter Watch, May 1^st, 2020.
Karl Haemers, “The not-so-friendly folks at the World Economic Forum,” The Occidental Observer, March 26, 2021.
Dina Kraft, When Kerry Was Kohn: The Jewish Roots of John Kerry, Haaretz, December 21, 2012.
Jacques Attali, Avancer par la peur, L’Express, le 6 mai 2006.
John Izzard, “Maurice Strong, Climate Crook,” Quadrant on Line, December 2, 2015.
Tim Ball, Ph.D., The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science, Stairway Press, 2014, p. 55.
Ibid.
John Izzard, article cited.
Ibid.
Marc Morano, Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball: ‘Global warming is the greatest deception in history,’ Climate Depot, a CFACT project, December 13, 2016.
Steven McIntyre, Discovery of Data for One of the “Other 26” Jacoby Series, Climate Audit, December12, 2023.
John O’sullivan, Climate fraud justice: Dr. Tim Ball defeats Michael Mann’s climate lawsuit, Signs of the Times, August 23, 2019.
Vivian Krause, “Suzuki’s funding,” Financial Post, 19 avril 2012.
Guy Bouliane, La société fabienne : Les maîtres de la subversion démasqués, Éditions Dédicaces, 2019.
John Green, La société fabienne. L’instauration d’un nouvel ordre international chez Béatrice et Sydney Webb, Éditions Saint-Rémi, 2015, p.110.
Alexander Dugin, Wartime Remarks, The Postil Magazine, March 1, 2022
Scott Howard, The Open Society Play-Book, Antelope Hill Publishers, 2021.
John Q. Publius, Plastic Empire, Ostara Publications, 2020.
Michael Collins Piper, work cited.
Dr. Joseph Mercola, “Elitists’ Goal: Wipe Out Good Food”, Mercola.com, July 28, 2022
Valérie Bugault, Les raisons caches du désordre mondial. Analyse de géopolitique économique, juridique et monétaire, Éditions Sigest, 2021, préface du Général Dominique Delawarde.
Larry Romanoff, “The Richest Man in the World,” The Unz Review, November 21, 2022.
Michael Collins Piper, ouvrage cité, p. XIV.
Carroll Quigley, Histoire secrète de l’oligarchie anglo-américaine, Le Retour aux Sources, 2015, préface de Pierre Hillard.
Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, Dauphin Publications, 2014.
Joël Van Der Reijden, “The Pilgrims Society: A Study of the Anglo-American Establishment; Rockefeller, Mellon, Luce, Rothschild, Cecil, Windsor, the Federal Reserve, WW2, the CIA, and so Much More,” NGP Study Center, April 20, 2019.
Ivor Benson, The Zionist Factor: A Study of the Jewish Presence in the 20th Century History, Veritas Publishing Company, 1986, p. 208.
Donald Trump, Joe Biden says he’s built most extensive “voter fraud” org in history, YouTube,

42. Melissa Fleming, WEF/UN: “We own The Science” – UN spokesperson boasts of partnering with Google to manipulate search results,” YouTube.

Evaluating Empire: A review of Nigel Biggar’s ‘Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning”

February 12, 2024/26 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Mark Gullick

Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning
Nigel Biggar
William Collins, 2023

The controversy over empire is not really a controversy about history at all. It is about the present, not the past. Nigel Biggar

The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there. P. Hartley, The Go-Between.

The White population of the USA are wearily used to being beaten with the whip of historical slavery, but in the United Kingdom this weapon is not so effective. Great Britain certainly played a major role in the slave trade, but was most notable in being the first society in history to ban what was a worldwide process. Lacking slavery as a moral scourging-rod, and fortunately for the ethno-masochists who unaccountably direct cultural operations in the UK, they have the British Empire, on which, at one time, the sun famously never set. The Empire has become synonymous with and exemplary of White oppression of non-Whites, and relies on one of the faddish fortune-cookie tropes of cultural Marxism: oppressor and oppressed.

“What I have written is not a history of the British Empire but a moral assessment of it” writes former Professor Nigel Biggar, former Regius Professor of Moral and Pastoral Theology at the University of Oxford, in Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning, “This stated intent to produce a moral reading of Empire (as the British simply refer to the British Empire) drew me to the book, and I recommend it as a timely redress of today’s skewed use of morality. Professor Biggar is not a historian, as he stresses, but an ethicist, and not one of the modern pop-up versions who insist that the past may be judged by ethical standards which obtain in the present. He states clearly that he is a Christian and, although that is becoming an increasingly risky admission for any British academic, it gives the reader clarity of moral framework regardless of whether they share the author’s beliefs.

He was motivated to write the book as the result of an academic tussle over a university course entitled Ethics and Empire which he taught. It ought to be an unthinkable paradox that a book ultimately praised by leading British historians was almost cancelled before publication, but it is unsurprising in today’s intellectual climate, which is a climate we really ought to be worrying about.

The problem Biggar wishes to unpick is one of moral equivalence extended not culturally but temporally. Retrospective moral standards have two problems of application. Firstly, and simplistically, the validity of applying contemporary moral standards to past events is at best heuristic in the extreme—i.e., a very uncertain way of discovering the truth. Secondly, even if it were unproblematically common practice to apply synchronic standards to diachronic events and epochs, what kind of arbitrational procedure could state unequivocally that the moral standards that today obtain are appropriate to judge anyone at any time? Are the British today better or worse people than their Anglo-Saxon forebears? It is difficult to make sense of the question, let alone attempt to answer it.

This is not the place for more than a cursory overview of morality. After Nietzsche, and his key insight that moral codes are de facto rather than de jure, the idea of moral yardsticks is what the young people call problematic. In Paris, it is still possible to see meter-long lines engraved or painted onto the walls of old market buildings. This was for linen traders to mark off their cloth, and represented an agreed standard. Sadly, no such artisanal nicety exists for morals. Morality (along with metaphysics) was what philosophy was left with when science took the reins, and the phrase “moral philosophy” cannot have the surety of science.

The book contains a treasure trove for the historical layman to unpack, and the effort is more than worth it. Colonialism is shown not as some dark design, but a chess-like response to the imperialistic moves of other powerful European nations:

“The Tudor foundation of colonies in North America was also driven by the desire to secure England against the dominant power of imperial Spain”.

This rather goes against Mr. Biggar’s underlying theme, that there was “no motivation for Empire”, but this is playing with nuance. Empire was not an initiative or project, but a stealthy international game of Risk. Empire is shown not as “sheer acquisitiveness” but the imposition of order where “the brutal alternative would have been rule by irresponsible European adventurers”.

Colonialism also has a very serviceable potted history of the British Empire with just enough detail to inform without a weight of facts and figures in attendance. The Empire came at me piecemeal — as I suspect it did for many British people — as separate events not necessarily available as an overview, and Biggar joins dots that the British have never been taught to see. Empire itself is composed of discrete events gathered under a rubric. Great Britain (primarily England) invested more capital abroad than any other nation on earth, and that it also invested moral values is hardly surprising. Some of the subsequent culture clashes became famous.

The story of Sir Charles Napier and the Indian funeral pyre is undoubtedly known to you, but the paradox of empire is nowhere better portrayed in miniature. Sir Charles considered the Hindu ritual of sati, whereby a widowed woman would join her dead husband on his funeral pyre, quite possibly reluctantly. Build your pyre, said Sir Charles, and I will have my men build adjacent gallows on which we will hang any man involved in this act. Thus, you will observe your customs, and we will observe ours.

And that is the paradox both of empire and of morality. Morality is just fine in the household, but it is not easy to take it elsewhere. This moral response by Napier is seen by many contemporary academics as an example of “othering”, a strange epistemological sleight-of-hand intended to expose a natural cross-cultural event as classic racism.

Given the current war on Christianity, cultural in Europe and actual in some Muslim-majority countries, those seeking to dethrone what is still referred to as Britain’s national religion might note that it was Christian movements that contributed much to slavery’s abolition. I suppose we shouldn’t feel gleeful when we read ideas that would make Leftists today liable to some kind of cardio-vascular event, but it is difficult not to. Biggar has a supporting cast of historians who have not obeyed orders, and therefore put forward ideas that would appall a certain type of commentator. David Ritchie was a late nineteenth-century moral philosopher quoted by Biggar as saying quite plainly that slavery was: “…a necessary step in the progress of humanity… [since it] mitigated the horrors of primitive warfare”. And:

Empire is seen as a gradual evolution rather than a political program, and its beneficial effects are the first casualties of contemporary, anti-White critical theory. In one of many famous scenes from the film Monty Python’s Life of Brian, Reg, the leader of the Judean People’s Front, a resistance movement fighting the Romans, asks his followers, “What have the Romans have ever done for us?” The implication is that the imperialists have done nothing, but his comrades enumerate a great inventory of benefits brought by the Roman Imperium. Reg repeats the extensive list and admits its validity before ending the debate by asking what the Romans have done for the locals apart from law and order, sanitation, medicine, aqueducts, improved diet, etc. Nothing! This mirrors the attitude of the global Left to the British Empire, which did absolutely nothing for backward peoples apart from all the things it did do.

Look at the power of empires, which can be read off in their various legacies. An example is the power of language. Discounting Brazil and anomalous provinces such as Quebec, almost everyone between Alert, Nunavut (the northernmost inhabited point in Canada) and Cape Froward (the southernmost point in Chile) speaks languages which are not native and not even named for the countries where they are spoken. No one speaks a language called “American” or “Bolivian”. They speak English or Spanish. That said, I am sure readers towards the southern border (if it can still be called that) have heard the instruction “Press 1 for Spanish, 2 for English”. This order is the same across Latin America, and Britain would do well to learn how languages disappear by erosion, and empires arrive by other means.

The notion that empire was one-way traffic between colonizer and colonized is also debunked. We hear a lot about the Maoris today, the aboriginal tribal people of New Zealand (still a part of the British Commonwealth) whose traditions have been partly made famous by the Haka dance performed by the NZ Rugby Union team before international matches. The dance is aggressive and confrontational, particularly when playing British teams, but Maoris were not always as pushy to their colonizers: “Maori chiefs twice sent letters to King William IV, asking the British Crown to protect them from interference by settlers”.

This is a plea with a firm moral base, and the reaction of the British to requests and requirements from other nations and international events shows a tough moral stance in demanding circumstances.

Biggar certainly paints a picture that shames current political morality, if such a thing can be said to exist, as he finds that, under British rule: “[G]overnance was not so decrepit, bribery not so rampant, favouritism not so common, corruption and plunder of public funds not so pervasive, injustice not so blatant, and bureaucracy not so partisan as it is today”.

Progress is deceptive if it is seen purely in technocratic terms.

As Professor Biggar says in conversation, no one, either historian or activist, seems particularly exercised by history’s non-White Empires, be they Arabic or Zulu. So why should the White man be singled out, particularly when his empires were demonstrably superior to other attempts by the less-abled? Essentially, the British were victims of success, and now that the sun has set on Empire, the jackals of Critical Race Theory are moving in. The British Empire is synonymous with racism for the “woke” Left, and cannot be admitted to have a single redeeming feature. Britain’s punishment for this great and unforgiven gift is flowing across its borders on a daily basis. The Empire really is striking back.

Professor Biggar takes on his opponents, recognizing the main weapon of the post-modern academic is to attempt to debase the White global legacy. Anti-White argument is invariably ex cathedra, arriving at a conclusion without the preliminary steps of proof. Dan Hicks is a Professor of contemporary archeology at Oxford University. Professor Biggar shows up the modern academic “technique” of creating a lexicon which, although it appears to be profound and progressive, is really just anti-White name-calling:

Hicks’ thinking is structured by a number of abstractions: ‘corporate extractive capitalism’, ‘militarism’, ‘racism’, and ‘proto-fascism’. All of these are used to characterize ‘colonialism’ and are morally laden in a pejorative manner. None are explained or justified. They are taken as axiomatic.

This recent, emotive style of academic discourse is equivalent to the old philosophical “Boo/Hooray theory”, by which language is reducible to simple approval or disapproval of the subject under discussion.

How will the ethicists of the future assess our sorry epoch? It is devoutly to be wished that they apply the same approach as Mr. Biggar. Modern myths are springing up with increasing frequency as anti-White academia strengthens its grip on the narrative of history, one in which the roles of saints and sinners have been cast. Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning has as its central support something unpalatable to the new breed; that Empire was not an invasion.

In essence, Empire was the natural response of an island nation surrounded by physical and economic aggressors:

“The desire of self-defence and therefore advantage in international competition or war was often the leading imperial motive of those who ruled Britain, whether from the throne or from Parliament”.

It is not straightforward to recognize who currently rules Britain, but they would do well to understand the true course and legacy of the British Empire. This book should be on the shelves of Westminster, the Mother of all Parliaments, as well as in the office of anyone who teaches the history of the British Empire.

Environmental Activists and Machiavellianism

February 10, 2024/16 Comments/in Evolutionary Psychology, Featured Articles/by Edward Dutton

It is intuitively obvious that people who have the need to emphasise how “moral” and “kind” they are tend to not be very nice people.

Have you ever been at a party where you have started chatting to someone who is “Woke.” Perhaps she is vegetarian, makes a point of purchasing organic food, signs petitions and goes on occasional environmental protests. She will be very pleasant and outgoing until you say something that indicates that you are on what she perceives as the “enemy” side, such as that genetics might play a role in crime. At this point, she will turn: she will become cold, she will shun you. This is because the Woke are not genuinely kind people at all. Many of them behave as they do because they have a personality disorder and a growing number of studies are showing this to be true.

A personality disorder is defined as an enduring pattern of disruptive thoughts, behaviours and moods. There are various personality disorders, but it appears that those most strongly associated with the “Woke” stereotype are “Narcissism” and “Machiavellianism.” Machiavellianism is characterised by manipulative behaviour, deception, a desire for power and trying to force others to comply with your wishes. Signalling Wokeness in a leftist society is a play for power. Narcissism is characterised by entitlement, arrogance, exploitation, grandiosity and a desire for praise. Wokeness, in a liberal society, involves believing you are morally superior to others and may elicit praise. These are two of the “Dark Triad” personality traits, the third being Psychopathology.

Unsurprisingly, then, a new study by Hannes Zacher of Leipzig University in Germany — “The dark side of environmental activism” — has found a clear connection between the Dark Triad traits and leftism. In the study, published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, Zacher administered a leftism scale to 839 full-time employed Germans which measured such facets as anti-hierarchical aggression, anti-conventionalism and top-down censorship. He also administered to them accepted scales of Narcissism and Machiavellianism, further asking them about their environmental activism.

What did he find? Machiavellianism was positively associated both with left-wing authoritarianism and with environmental activism. Fascinatingly, he then controlled for personality type — in psychology this is measured using the “Big 5” personality traits of Openness, Conscientiousness (rule-following), Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism (mental instability) — and found that the association still held: Machiavellianism predicts leftism and environmental activism.

This is one of a growing number of studies to have made this connection. In “Why dark personalities participate in politics?,” also published in Personality and Individual Differences, Polish researchers found that Narcissism was consistently related to left-wing political participation, such as joining boycotts and blocking streets. Such people receive Narcissistic affirmation via such actions — they reassure them of their moral righteousness — and their grandiosity means that they are certain that whatever they do is right.

A study in 2020, “The Dark Triad traits predict authoritarian political correctness and alt-right attitudes,” on a sample of Americans, found that the key predictors of Authoritarian left-wing attitudes were scoring high on the scales of Machiavellianism and Narcissism. Interestingly, it also found that “Alt-Right” activists, though not leftists, scored high on Psychopathology. It is unclear why, but one possibility is that psychopaths tend to be attracted to danger and if you are serious political dissident — “Alt Right” in a Woke society — then you are potentially placing yourself in a dangerous situation.

Even quite everyday left-wing activities seem to ultimately have some association with Dark Triad traits. The recent study “The dark side of going green: Dark triad traits predict organic consumption through virtue signaling, status signaling, and praise from others” in the Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services found precisely this. Drawing on a survey of 337 people, the researchers found that the intention of buying organic food and the willingness to pay extra for organic food was mediated by status consumption and by the belief that one would receive praise from others. In addition, it was found that those who were inclined to “virtue-signal” about these purchases had high levels of Narcissism and of Machiavellianism. In other words, to some extent, people who purchase organic food are motivated by their Dark Triad personality traits and this is especially true of those who want you to know that they have made these purchases.

All of this, indeed, is consistent with evidence from broader studies of personality differences. These tend to show that “conservatives” are high in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness and that they are low in Neuroticism. Liberals, on average, are the reverse of this: they are selfish and have low mental stability. This was set out in a study where, conveniently, quite the opposite findings were reported, and widely publicised, due to a “coding error.” If you experience the world as frightening and dangerous, which those who are high in Neuroticism do, then it makes sense that you would wish to take control of that world. Hence Neuroticism is associated with Machiavellianism according to the study “The dark triad and normal personality traits.”

Returning to that party where you meet the Woke activist, note that she shuns you rather than the other way round. This is consistent with the evidence that liberals are more likely to break friendships with conservatives than the other way round. They are also more likely to avoid talking to friends and family who have different political views than are conservatives. This may be because, being higher in Neuroticism and Narcissism, they are more likely to be overwhelmed by negative feelings when the views they hold — which are important to making them feel superior and important to papering over their inner turmoil — are challenged.

This research seems to indicate that society has turned Woke because leftists are more power-hungry, but also partly because they are more mentally ill: Conservatives are simply too mentally stable, too content with life and, well, too nice.potent

“Democracy Is Tyranny”: The Orwellian Slogan That Explains the Modern West

February 9, 2024/5 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

Two out of three. That’s what I think most people would get. Try it for yourself: What were the three ominous slogans at the heart of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949)? Two of them are punchy and easy to remember: WAR IS PEACE and FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. But what is the third? It’s the unmemorable IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. That third slogan just doesn’t work. It isn’t punchy and it doesn’t condense and capture the ideology of the ruling party like the first two. Orwell could have done much better than that.

“Carefully constructed lies”

So what should he have used instead? I suggest: DEMOCRACY IS TYRANNY. That is punchy and perverse like the first two slogans. It captures the ideology of the ruling party and the most important concept in the novel. Here’s the novel’s protagonist musing on that concept:

Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part 1, chapter 3)

Doublethink rules the modern West, because doublethink is at the heart of leftism and leftism controls every aspect of cultural and political life in the modern West. For example, race relations are governed by two contradictory principles: first, that all racial groups are equal in every way; second, that Whites are innately villainous and non-Whites innately virtuous. If non-Whites like Blacks fail in the West, it’s because of White racism. If non-Whites like Indians succeed, it’s despite White racism. Leftists preach equality and practise hierarchy. Those at the top of the leftist hierarchy, like non-Whites and homosexuals, are privileged over those at the bottom, like Whites and straights.

Boasting about betrayal

This explains why, in leftist eyes, transgenderism is sacred and transracialism is sickening. The male perverts who absurdly claim to be women are at the top of the hierarchy, which is why the left agrees with their claims and condemns all opposition as bigoted, hateful, and “transphobic.” But the Whites who claim with no more absurdity to be Black are at the bottom of the hierarchy, which is why the left rejects their claims with contempt. It’s also why leftists forbid White actors to take non-White roles, but applaud when non-White actors take White roles, from Achilles to David Copperfield, from Guinevere to Anne Boleyn. On the one hand, yes, all races are entirely equal, but on the other hand Whites are demons and non-Whites are saints. That’s doublethink. And it means that a superior group can invade and occupy the territory of an inferior group. Perverted men can become “transwomen” and civilization-wrecking non-Whites can become what I call “trans-Westerners.” Neither the perverted men nor the civilization-wrecking non-Whites have a genuine claim to the identity bestowed on them by the left, but that’s precisely why the left bestows it on them.

Saintly non-Whites invade and occupy White territory: all White roles are open to non-Whites, but no non-White role is open to Whites.

It’s also why ordinary Whites are allowed absolutely no say on migration. Decade after decade, the political elite have postured about “democracy” whilst ignoring the crystal-clear message of the White majority: “We don’t want non-White migration.” As I pointed out in “Working-Class Zero,” politicians in the so-called Labour party have openly boasted about betraying their supporters in the White working-class. This is Roy Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the Labour Party, addressing his fellow doublethinkers in the Guardian:

Richly rewarded traitor Roy Hattersley and his Jewish wife (image from The Daily Mail)

How are politicians to behave when, having listened, they find themselves in fundamental disagreement with what they have heard? Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted: the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants? [His answer: “Not in a million years.”] (Politics should be guided by principles, not populism, The Guardian, 5th May 2013) … For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist Sparkbrook’s demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union. (Ideology’s our life, Esther, The Guardian, 31st July 2013)

Traitor-in-waiting Keir Starmer and his Jewish wife (image from The Daily Telegraph)

It’s no coincidence that Hattersley is now a rich man who sits in the House of Lords as Baron Hattersley. In 2013, he married the woman responsible for his wealth, the Jewish literary agent Maggie Pearlstine. The current Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, also has a Jewish wife. When he becomes prime minister, as seems likely to happen very soon, he will betray the White working-class just as thoroughly and enthusiastically as Roy Hattersley did. And he will be just as richly rewarded. The Conservative party is also led by traitors and doublethinkers. They posture about “democracy” and pour billions of pounds into defending the borders of Ukraine. At the same time, they refuse to defend the borders of Britain, as the Telegraph’s Sam Ashworth-Hayes has pointed out in an excellent article at Substack:

For 13 years and counting, the British electorate has voted at every opportunity given to it for immigration to come down. Politicians have solemnly nodded, pledged to deliver reductions, and proceeded to design a system which saw 745,000 people added to the UK’s population last year.

The question of “why” this happened can wait for another time. Today’s point is a much simpler one: there is no political consent for this, the economic benefits are negligible, the cultural downsides are not, and it is making Britain a worse country to live in. (“Our immigration system is making Britain a worse country to live in,” 26th November 2023)

The same is true of all other Western nations. America and Britain, France and Germany, Italy and Spain — they’re all being invaded by non-Whites from the world’s most violent, corrupt, and unproductive regions. Those non-Whites will always consume far more in taxes than they contribute and will never excel at anything but crime, corruption, and ethnic nepotism. The White majority have never wanted this to happen and have voted against it “at every opportunity.” But the democracy-loving elites of all Western nations have just as consistently ignored their votes. As Orwell should have written: DEMOCRACY IS TYRANNY.

Naming the Jew has been taboo

Sam Ashworth-Hayes says that the question of “why” the non-White invasion has happened “can wait for another time.” Unfortunately, he can’t address that question honestly, because he’d lose his job and reputation if he did so. And why has it happened? It’s happened because the rich Jews who control Western politics have wanted it to happen. Like America, Britain is a Judeocracy, not a democracy. That’s why the Conservative and Labour parties are united on the need to defend the borders of Ukraine and to demolish the borders of Britain. It’s also why no-one in the mainstream can talk about Jewish control. Naming the Jew has been taboo.

But that taboo is beginning to slip. Israel’s vicious war on Gaza is adding to the pressure on Clown World’s crumbling wall of lies. When the wall finally collapses, Western politics will be invaded by something the Clown-elite won’t welcome at all: truth and racial reality.

A Theory of Khazars and Ashkenazi Jews

February 8, 2024/11 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Pierre Simon

If there were Jews living in a region called Khazaria largely occupied by present-day Eastern Ukraine and part of Southern Russia, including Crimea without Sevastopol, these Jews were not Gentiles who converted to Judaism, i.e., converts. Attracted by the strategic proximity of the Khazarian capital Itil to a number of important caravan routes, these Jews — who were merchants and slave dealers, mostly rhadanites or rabbinic Jews from Persia and the Middle East, active in the slave trade between Christendom and the Muslim world — settled there in large numbers between the eighth and tenth centuries. “By the 8^th century” writes French historian Laurent Guyénot, in an excellent article on the life and work of famed Russian historian and ethnologist Lev Goumilev,

they formed a foreign elite and gained increasing political influence. The situation came to a head at the beginning of the 9^th century when a Jewish prince took power and made rabbinic Judaism [talmudism] the official religion of the state. A bloody civil war ensued, which the Jewish caste won by using mercenaries. Although the mass of ethnic Khazars was eventually forced to submit to the authority of the Jewish elite, they never converted to Judaism, which remained exclusively the faith of the political authorities, according to Goumilev. With this, he concludes, Khazaria was transformed into a ‘social-political chimera ruled by a Jewish trading elite, with the original ethnic Khazars becoming subjects of ‘a state that was alien to them in terms of ethnicity and religion.’ (1)

This Jewish hostile elite was eventually subdued at the end of the tenth century by the Kievan Rus’ led by Prince Sviatoslav. Their empire collapsed and the surviving Jewish Khazars dispersed throughout Eurasia and Europe. Some retreated to the Crimea, others fled to the West. “Many,” according to Goumilev, “remained active in the Russian lands, encouraging hostilities between the Russian princes and inciting the steppe peoples to attack the Russians.” (2)

To recap, Jewish Khazars did indeed rule over Khazaria between the eighth and tenth centuries but they were not converts, i.e., gentiles who converted to Judaism. According to Wikipedia, this purely speculative theory on the Khazarian origin of Ashkanezi Jews was first developed by a French philosopher named Ernest Renan. It was then popularized by Arthur Koestler in his book, The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and Its Heritage. (3) More recently, extremely left-wing Israeli historian Shlomo Sand, the author of The Invention of the Jewish People (4) argued that because Jews are mostly descended from Khazar converts, they do not constitute a nation or need a state of their own. Likewise, Arabs have long cited the Khazar myth in attempts to deny a Jewish historical claim to the land of Israel.

Several historians who are aware of the apologetic nature of its hypothesis rejected this theory. (5) A crucial difficulty right from the start is in the word “Ashkenaz” which means “the West,” (6) i.e., Jews of England and France who after their expulsion from these countries moved to Germany and Eastern Europe into an area designated by the Russian government as the “Pale of Settlement,” the great medieval haven of Jewry. This area included Poland, Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, and Bessarabia. These regions which were also inhabited by the Jewish remnant of the Jewish Khazaria empire were part of the Russian Empire, but not of Russia as such. (7)

The fact that Ashkenazi Jews speak a language based on German (Yiddish) rather than a language based on Turkish is an additional difficulty. Moreover, it is unlikely that the highly literate Ashkenazim would retain no trace of their Turkish origins. (8) Finally, genetic evidence also weighs heavily against such a hypothesis. According to Jewish journalist Tina Hesman Saey:

Large-scale genetic studies have shown that today’s diverse Jewish communities have remarkable genetic cohesion. The Jews of Iran, Iraq, Yemen, North Africa, European Ashkenazi and other Semitic groups all originated in the Middle East. A common geographic origin can be observed for all major Jewish groups studied. This genetic research clearly disproved the story of the Khazars: a pre-10^th century Turkish-Asian empire that converted en masse to Judaism. The researchers compared the DNA signatures of Ashkenazi Jews with those of people of Turkish descent and found no match. The DNA results support the hypothesis that the paternal gene pools of the European, North African, and Middle Eastern Jewish communities originated from a common ancestral Middle Eastern population, and suggest that most Jewish communities remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the diaspora. (9)

The Khazars have nevertheless become a kind of all-purpose device, a sort of strawman or red herring used by Jews and non-Jews alike. The idea that the Ashkenazim are not Semites but converted Khazars is a trick that is widespread on social media, allows non-Jews to safely vent their hate of Jews and of Israel. Some sincerely believe this legend is true since it is so widespread, others are just trying to escape a life-threatening accusation of antisemitism, the only anathema still punishable by social death, even assassination. And if you are Jewish, blame the Khazars for whatever bad deed you are accused of. If Ashkenazim are in fact converts, this implicitly means that the real Semitic Jews from the Holy Land, the real “chosen people” are not responsible for their actions. Arthur Koestler, for example, uses the Khazar conjecture to defuse racial antisemitism, which, from his point of view, would be misdirected, since he supposes that Ashkenazi Jews are not Semites. Thus, if for some reason Ashkenazim behave badly, evangelical Christians, for example, and all Christians for that matter, who are convinced that the Jews are God’s chosen people, will be able to continue fooling themselves since the bad Jews in question are not real Jews, but impostors. (10)

Professor Revilo P. Oliver, one of the greatest American White conservative thinkers of the last century, had the following interesting insights on the subject of the Khazars:

During the past century, many Christians who resented the depredations of the Jews, chiefly Ashkenazim, but wanted to retain faith in their favorite story book, elaborated the theory that their parasites were not really God’s People but only the descendants of Khazars who had been converted to Judaism. The theoretical evasion was so attractive to them that it became an article of Faith, and it was finally adopted by a prominent Jew, Arthur Koestler, who expounded it in The Thirteenth Tribe: The Khazar Empire and Its Heritage (New York, Random House, 1976).

Despite his odd claim that his book did not invalidate his race’s claim to the territory now called Israel, Koestler’s demolition of the ‘Chosen People’ myth was savagely denounced by many of his fellow Ashkenazim. Some speculate that the hostility of his fellow tribesmen may have influenced the joint suicide of Koestler and his wife not long thereafter.

The Jews’ interest in making Khazarian conversion to Judaism authentic is explained by their pretense that they are a religion, not a race. If they are a religion, like Christianity and Islam, they must seek converts and what better proof than that they once converted a whole kingdom? (11)

This will by Christians to retain faith in the Bible at all cost—the first point made by R. P. Oliver in the above citation—is still very much the norm today. The Biblicism Institute has an eloquent easy-to-find Internet article on the subject called “The Ashkenazim.” Prominent catholic intellectual E. Michael Jones is a staunch believer of the Khazar theory.

The last point on the race/religion gambit is particularly interesting. For example:

John Murray Cuddihy’s (1978) book, No Offense: Civil Religion and Protestant Taste, Cuddihy focuses on the elevation of Judaism to the status of one of the “big three” U.S. religions, to the point that a rabbi officiates at the presidential inauguration even though Jews constitute approximately 2–3 percent of the population. Cuddihy argues that this religious surface served as a protective coloring and led to a sort of crypto-Judaism in which Jewish ethnic identities were submerged in order to make them appear civilized to non-Jews. As part of this contract, the prominent Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr acknowledged “the stubborn will of the Jews to live as a peculiar people”—an acknowledgment by an important Protestant leader that the Jews could remain a people with a surface veneer of religion.

Both sides gave up something in this bargain. The Jews’ posturing as a religion left them open to large-scale defection via intermarriage to the extent that they took seriously the idea that Judaism was akin to Protestantism, and to some extent this did occur.

What the Protestants gave up was far more important because I think it has been a contributing factor in the more or less irreversible ethnic changes in the United States and elsewhere in the Western world. Judaism became unconditionally accepted as a modern religion even while retaining a commitment to its ethnic core. It conformed outwardly to the religious norms of the United States, but it also continued to energetically pursue its ethnic interests, especially with regard to issues where there is a substantial consensus among Jews: support for Israel and the welfare of other foreign Jewries, immigration and refugee policy, church-state separation, and abortion rights (Goldberg, Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment: Addison-Wesley, 1996, 5). What is remarkable is that a wealthy, powerful, and highly talented ethnic group was able to pursue its interests without those interests ever being the subject of open political discussion by mainstream political figures, for over 60 years—since Lindbergh’s ill-fated Des Moines speech of 1941.

I suppose that Niebuhr thought that he was only giving up the prospect of converting Jews to Christianity, but the implicit downgrading of the ethnic character of Judaism provided an invaluable tool in furthering Jewish ethnic aims in the United States. The downgrading of the ethnic aspect of Judaism essentially allowed Jews to win the ethnic war without anyone even being able to acknowledge that it was an ethnic war. For example, during the immigration debates of the 1940s–1960s Jews were described by themselves and others as “people of the Jewish faith.” They were simply another religion in an officially pluralistic religious society, and part of Jewish posturing was a claim to a unique universalistic moral-religious vision that could only be achieved by enacting legislation that in fact furthered their particularistic ethnic aims. The universalistic moral-religious vision promoted by Jewish activists really amounted to taking the Protestants at their own word—by insisting that every last shred of ethnic identity among Protestants be given up while Jews were implicitly allowed to keep theirs if they only promised to behave civilly.

The evidence provided by Cuddihy suggests that Niebuhr was socialized by the Jewish milieu of New York into taking the positions that he did—that his position as a major Protestant spokesperson was facilitated by alliances he formed with Jews and because his writings fit well with the Jewish milieu of New York intellectual circles. Niebuhr’s behavior is therefore as much an indication of Jewish power and the ability of Jews to recruit gentiles sympathetic to their causes as it is an indication of Protestant self-destruction. One cannot underestimate the importance of Jewish power in intellectual circles in New York at the time of Niebuhr’s pronouncements (see CofC, passim). For example, Leslie Fiedler (1948, 873) noted that “the writer drawn to New York from the provinces feels . . . the Rube, attempts to conform; and the almost parody of Jewishness achieved by the gentile writer in New York is a strange and crucial testimony of our time.”(Fiedler, L. A. (1948). “The state of American writing.” Partisan Review 15: 870–875. (12)

Judaism is in fact a group evolutionary strategy which allows the Jewish ethnicity to pass off the ideology that it is a religion when it is really a political project which allows them not only to survive, but to prevail. Hitler in Mein Kampf had penetrated the secret of this form of cryptic Darwinism:

One of the most ingenious tricks ever devised has been that of sailing the Jewish ship-of-state under the flag of Religion and thus securing that tolerance which Aryans are always ready to grant to different religious faiths. But the Mosaic Law is really nothing else than the doctrine of the preservation of the Jewish race. (13)

According to evolutionary psychologist Kevin MacDonald, Jews are constantly inventing all sorts of such legends and ideologies to protect themselves, achieve their goals, and maintain their hegemony. (14) Several Jewish historians try, for example, to falsify the history of their country of adoption to serve nationalist Jewish causes. Polish Historian Yitzhak Schipper, for one, attempted to show, notes K. MacDonald, that Ashkenazi Jews originating from the Khazar empire who had converted to Judaism,

had lived in Poland as long as the Poles, and further that they had had a civilizing influence on Poland. His theory of a powerful, independent Jewish state was also meant to be a model for a future Zionist state. His emphasis on the agricultural prowess of the Khazars implied that Jews engaged in farming unless prevented by others—a claim that was meant to counter the antisemitic charge that Jews avoided farming and were disloyal, alien economic parasites. (15)

However, this theory has outraged many Polish historians, including A. Marylski, who see in this lie an attempt, “to place pre-historic Poland under the boot of the Jews.” (16) This is an impossibility since Sephardim, i.e., Spanish Jews and Ashkenazi, i.e., Western Jews, arrived in Poland after their expulsions from Spain and Western Europe starting in the 15^th century, much later then, than the supposed influx from the Khazar Empire which came to an end in the early 10^th century.

Likewise, V. Zelensky, the president of Ukraine, uses the historic presence of Jews in Khazaria a 1000 years ago to claim that Ukraine is a Jewish land, just like Zionists in Palestine use their historic presence in Palestine 2000 years ago to claim that Palestine is a Jewish land. (17) (18)