Here’s some “follow the facts” reporting CNN absolutely refuses to do. The network provides breathless bulletins whenever there’s a mass shooting, but as soon as the suspect turns out NOT to be a straight White male, it’s back to Ukraine. [In other words, CNN is still irredeemably on the left.]
General
CNN: If It Bores, It Scores!
Anticipating this brutal column, CNN has just fired Chris Licht. If the next chairman plans to last any longer, he’d better implement these changes right away!
At the risk of raising a topic even more boring than Ukraine, let’s talk about what’s happening at CNN. There was a major article (i.e., long) in The Atlantic this week about the civil war erupting at CNN over the new CEO, Chris Licht, and his attempt to turn the network into one that people want to watch.
The point of the article was to show that Licht is failing — CNN employees don’t like him, no one understands what he’s trying to do, and ratings are worse than ever.
But what the article actually illustrated is how completely out of touch the media are with normal people. Any effort undertaken by these dolts to reform themselves is doomed to failure.
Licht and his bosses aren’t idiots. They know what the problem is. Their idea is to move CNN away from doomsday MSNBC-style reporting where “everything is an 11” and appeal to a “broader viewership that crave[s] sober, fact-driven coverage.”
Good idea, right?
But Licht has no idea how to do it, and no one else in the media does either — not The Atlantic, not CNN employees, not The New York Times.
They all seem to believe it’s a binary choice: Either left-wing zealots hysterically announcing BREAKING NEWS about Trump 24-7; or … a one-hour interview with Jill Biden.
Wait — what?
Yes, that was one of Licht’s ideas for raking in the viewers. As the Times explained:
“Since Mr. Licht’s 9 p.m. experiment, ‘CNN Primetime,’ … viewership has fallen below what the network was drawing in the time slot just a few months ago.
“At 9 p.m. on March 8, more Americans watched ‘Homicide Hunter: The Man With No Face’ on the Investigation Discovery cable network than CNN’s exclusive interview with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. Two days earlier, an afternoon broadcast of ‘Ancient Aliens’ on the History Channel drew a bigger audience than a 9 p.m. interview with the first lady, Jill Biden.”
Say, does anyone at CNN know any actual human beings? How could a one-hour interview with Jill Biden not be ratings gold?
Why is our only choice Rachel Maddow or Watching Paint Dry?
The problem isn’t so much how news is covered, it’s what news is covered. Licht should check out Twitter sometime — also the U.K.’s Daily Mail, if he ever wants to know what’s happening in this country.
Here are a few good stories that I’ll bet CNN didn’t mention at all, certainly not with the lavish coverage given to Ukraine, a country of absolutely no relevance to any American’s life (until we get into a nuclear exchange with the Russkies, thanks in part to CNN’s warmongering).
At a congressional hearing last month, House members heard from the mother of 20-year-old Kayla Hamilton, who was raped and murdered in Aberdeen, Maryland, last year by an MS-13 member from El Salvador. He entered the United States as an “unaccompanied minor” despite a lengthy criminal history in his home country, which our government never checked.
Also last month, Washington state enacted a law allowing minors to hide out from their parents at private homes and homeless shelters in order to undergo gender transitions.
How about a report on the total destruction of Portland, Oregon, by a “progressive” district attorney? Also San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles. Has CNN aired any stories on skyrocketing crime in America? There are armed robberies and homeless people on Rodeo Drive! [These are all standard conservative talking points. CNN would never go there.]
Would anyone be interested in finding out who was funding Jeffrey Epstein or why Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman gave Jared Kushner $2 billion six months after he left the White House?
Like the rest of the media, CNN seems to have traded “If It Bleeds, It Leads!” for “If It Bores, It Scores!” Just because it’s boring doesn’t mean it’s important.
Licht told The Atlantic: “Americans were starving … for a network without perceived partisan loyalties; for a source of authoritative, follow-the-facts reporting.” But we don’t get the facts from CNN — unless how often Jill Biden talks to her husband is a crucial fact missing from the public dialogue.
Somewhere in the media right now (probably MSNBC), someone is talking about Dylann Roof, the monster who murdered nine people at a Black church in South Carolina. That happened eight years and three presidents ago. But mass shootings this year keep mysteriously disappearing from the news.
January: two mass shootings of Asians in California just days apart, including the deadliest shooting in Los Angeles history. Eighteen killed in all. Gunmen in both cases Chinese immigrants, Huu Can Tran and Chunli Zhao.
The end!
February: Active shooter at Michigan State University kills three students, sends five to hospital. Gunman: Anthony Dwayne McRae, a 43-year-old Black man.
The end!
March: mass shooting at a Christian school in Nashville, killing three 9-year-olds and three adults. Gunman: Audrey Elizabeth Hale, a transgender.
The end!
But she left a manifesto!
Media: Go away. We’re not interested.
April: horrific shooting at a 16-year-old’s birthday party in Dadeville, Alabama, leaving four dead — three of them teenagers — and wounding 32 others. Arrested: Johnny Letron Brown, Willie George Brown Jr., Wilson LaMar Hill, Travis McCullough and Tyreese McCullough.
The end!
Last day of April: slaughter of five family members, including a 9-year-old boy, all shot execution-style, in Texas. Arrested: an illegal from Mexico.
The end!
Would covering stories like these turn CNN into a “right-wing” network? Only if facts are “right-wing.”
Instead of providing news that might be of some slight interest to viewers, Licht’s other idea for bringing back viewers — aside from boring them to death — is to balance out left-wing fanatics (representing 10% of America) with right-wing fanatics (also representing 10% of America).
Thus, two weeks ago, Licht produced a town hall with Donald Trump that he purposely stacked with an “extra Trumpy” audience, as he told The Atlantic.
Gee, thanks pal. It’s like trying to appeal to Muslims by holding a town hall with Mohamed Atta.
Is there no television network for people who want exciting news stories, but aren’t endlessly fascinated by either Trump or Jill Biden? A network that showed nothing but paint drying would be better than this.
COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER
Where has the Joy gone?
Where has the Joy gone?
Where has life’s sweetness fled?
Why do we feel so lost or abandoned when we have so much?
Going back in time, we find examples aplenty of joy-deprived folks,
Piles and piles of grieving souls from the dawn of humanity.
Joy was brief in olden days but stretched-out sadness was common.
The privileged few at the top of life’s pyramid savored pleasure of every sort,
The others down below had life but no joy.
Before the horrors of the Great Revolution over there, Marie-Antoinette, the Austrian princess, who had more than enough in every sense, said to the court,
“Let them eat cake,” or “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche,” about the starving Parisian masses.
Their Joy was taken by force and was never really given back by post-monarchical regimes for some time.
We should all be vigilant when politicizing our future dreams, right or left. William Butler Yates warned us that “the centre will not hold,” that society’s core is soft under pressure from a disjointed populace.
Long after heads tumbled grotesquely at the Place de la Concorde because the people were joyless and murderous;
Like the sanguinary zealots at the birth of modern France,
Dangerous rebels fueled by rage without a plausible cause,
A tinder-box waiting for the match to strike,
To avoid this lurking uprising, we are advised to see a shrink or a mood lifter or
Take another pill that has just been FDA-approved so Big Pharma tells us in media ads
To bring sunshine to minds lacking the right hormonal balance.
Pundits, who say they know, offer us learned advice at every turn:
By all means, sleep better, go outside more, meet face to face with folks of a similar nature, run an extra mile,
Be affable when every fiber says turn inward to seek an answer.
At the corner store we can now buy mainline cannabis that will dull our senses: it’s only a few puffs away.
There are no super highs or lows to experience over time,
Weed or pot guarantees smooth sailing over choppy inner seas.
Only life’s middle ground or bland consciousness is there to feel.
The pain is mitigated but not resolved. It crouches patiently somewhere within and waits for the next turmoil to raise its head.
Where has our Joy gone? Somewhere else or maybe less far away than we think.
Having no one to talk to is bad, solitude is even worse. The feeling of isolation is a disease that lacks a pharmaceutical cure.
We can talk to the counter clerk, but not about esoteric things. We can chat with familiar faces but not about what really matters.
We can talk with or at people but it’s pretty unusual to have them listen. There are so many who go their way but don’t stop to look around or change their fixation on immediate things.
Age winnows our talk-buddies and that makes it hard to understand younger minds
Who talk with their thumbs in short bursts; no lengthy analyses, please. Characters are limited and things that happened way back then are not cool.
____________________________________________________
Where has the Joy gone? We need it back again because it has left us out of sync and lonesome as we try to find common ground with rising, impatient generations.
Blank faces in large crowds look past us and we are not there for them; we are invisible oldies who belong elsewhere.
We are elders, anonymous to hostile looks but not to ourselves, bodies on legs that move in the rivers of humanity up and down the urban canyons and wonder why we feel so bad at times.
Where has our Joy gone and why can’t we get it back?
Tick, tock, time is running out for all of us who once saw the glass half full some time ago.
Now we are afraid because we sense those crouching, hidden forces within will come to the surface and override cannabis and pills that make us stable.
For so many the morning sunlight is a warning signal, not the promise of a blessed, God-given day. If being in meetings or filling up the hours with minor tasks or even running some more won’t right the me-ship, then we go back to zero and try again?
Joy is there, somewhere, we just can’t find it right now.
Consciousness Raising for White Students
Equal Training: An Analysis of Antiwhite Material and Language Manipulation Tactics Used in American Schools
Student X
Michael Michau, 2023
The simplest definition of education is the transmission of culture, so it is not surprising that schools are on the front lines of the present kulturkampf. As usual, the Right is reacting to the dynamic cultural changes initiated by the Left whose goal is to replace Western civilization with a globalist multi-ethnic, multi-cultural “civilization.”
A very brief autobiography places author Student X in the belly of the beast. He is a young White man from a working-class family living in a predominately non-White community in Los Angeles County. While attending a local community college X became aware of the anti-White curriculum at his school where “some classes seemed to have more of a prosecutorial atmosphere, instead of an educational one” (8). Not one to suffer in silence while hoping others would challenge this anti-White bias, the author filed an official grievance citing a lack of objectivity and professional manner on the part of some of his instructors.
X received some schooling outside the classroom in his quest for redress. He got the bureaucratic runaround. He met with the president of the department of academic affairs who sent him to the dean of curriculum who referred him to the curriculum committee which met behind closed doors with no input from students or the public. The author also contacted the state’s curriculum committee and the Chancellor’s Office of the California Community College system. The latter entity claimed the issue was outside their authority because “they only have legal requirements to meet on behalf of minorities, not White students” (12). Incidentally, the author does not like the use of colors White, Black, or Brown as designations for ethnic groups. More on that later.
Not easily discouraged, X realized that the educational bureaucracy was not the vehicle for change, at least not at present. Remedies would have to come at the student/classroom level. White students need to be taught to recognize anti-White bias in curriculum and learn how to counter it. Unfortunately, being aware of the likely consequences in terms of ostracism or worse, few students will have the pluck and determination displayed by the author. And while change may begin with a single person, for a cause to succeed there must be organized collective action. In any case awareness of the problem is a start.
A major message of Equal Training is the power of words and narrative. The Left is skilled in using language for ideological purposes. They know that “the wording of educational literature determines how students are trained to talk and structure their thoughts” (25). When it comes to terminology the Right remains largely tone deaf. For example: much of the Left identifies as progressive and liberal, and the Right obliges them by using their preferred terms. Yet there is very little classical liberalism or progressivism within the contemporary Left. In addition, both these terms have positive connotations outside of ideology. “Yes, we’re making progress on that issue.” “He was liberal with his largesse.” Leftists are globalists, cultural Marxists, maybe anarcho-communists or nihilists. If you need euphemisms: Jacobins or iconoclasts. Using ‘gay’ as a term for homosexuality should also be avoided.
The author believes that the goal of modern education is to subvert White cultural identity by rendering it invalid, eventually replacing it in favor of a globalist, multicultural identity. To resist this indoctrination, it is important for young Whites to establish a strong ethnic, cultural, and sexual identity. It is difficult even for sophisticated adults to navigate the minefield of American identity politics, so knowing who you are is paramount for White youth dealing with a hostile social environment.
A component of a positive ethnic identity is a knowledge of group history. This is why the Left is so keen on erasing and revising American history. One important topic today in American historiography is slavery. X points out that slavery is often taught within what he calls a “cropped narrative.” The institution is given no historical, social, or economic context – simply evil Whites oppressing hapless Blacks. Some students even come away with the impression that slavery was a uniquely American phenomenon. The Holocaust is another topic that lends itself to a cropped narrative.
For X there appears to be a two-step process involved in what might be described as scholastic social engineering. First, efface a positive White identity, then blame, shame, and guilt-trip White students for past transgressions as constructed by the left. War, slavery, oppression: “There’s not one thing you can blame White people for that Brown, Black, and Yellow peoples haven’t also done” (80).
The author points out that if the establishment really wanted to make a multiethnic society work, they would seek a racial reconciliation rather than a racial reckoning. Instead of stoking the flames of resentment they would emphasize a common past. But they will not take this course because much of the Left is more interested in debasing Western peoples and culture than in helping other peoples and cultures. In any case, suppression is the only effective method to govern a multiethnic, multicultural empire. A colorblind meritocracy will not work. Perhaps a strict racial quota system would be the fairest, most transparent way to handle things. X suggests this when he advocates for “proportionate access to all schools, staff positions, government agencies, social services, scholarships, grants, and other opportunities” (184). Of course, it is not our job to make this perverse system work. At the end of the day, race is such an essential human characteristic, both individually and collectively, that a multiracial society will always be problematic.
As mentioned above the author does not like the ethnic designation “White,” though he often uses the term himself. One problem is the way the US government, especially the census bureau, uses the term: “A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa, including Hispanic and Latino populations” (47).[1] X proposes using the term “White-Ethnics.” For many people this term would bring to mind so called hyphenated ethnics: Polish-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc. “Ethnic White” might be better, but the most useful and accurate designation would be European American.
If European Americans had sufficient racial consciousness, they would insist that Congress change the government’s definition of White. In the author’s words: “We need to demand formal subgroup recognition by the federal government” (60). For one thing having such recognition would “accurately measure our access to scholarships, jobs, and other opportunities” (64). A proper designation would exclude what X refers to as “part-time Whites.” He never explicitly identifies who this group includes, but they are characterized by identifying as White when it is to their advantage, but otherwise adopting a separate, often antagonistic identity, such as is common in Australia since Aboriginals were given benefits like government scholarships and affirmative action based on their identity. If one stylistic criticism could be made for Equal Training, it is the tendency of the author to make general statements without offering specific examples.
There is a tremendous amount of alienation in our society, especially among White youth, leading to drug use, sexual confusion, and nihilism. This is largely a product of a weak sense of familial, ethnic, and cultural identity. When society’s highest values are diversity and inclusion, the ironic results are that no one feels included, there is little sense of belonging, little sense of ownership. The author believes that Whites have a birthright to their own society with their own institutions designed to serve their needs. In the past this was assumed—a near universal expectation. Today this view is condemned as racist. X notes that “the term racist [is used] to refer to anyone who resists any of the tactics used to dissolve their race” (165). Under this definition having a White family is racist.
X touches upon several other interesting topics including selective law enforcement which is most likely to impact young, heterosexual White men. He points out the need for “our own legal representation and dedicated legal network” (181), such as TOO contributor Glen Allen’s Free Expression Foundation.[2] The author notes the strange and toxic congruence between globalist billionaires and neo-Marxist street thugs—without mentioning the vast overrepresentation of Jews in the former. And X suggests White students major in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) subjects where curricula are more objective.
I have a couple minor qualms about this work. First, why the title Equal Training. Something catchier and more descriptive might help to promote the book. Second, while I salute X for having the brass to stand up and confront the educational establishment, that could be a difficult strategy for many students to follow. Even if a student is informed and articulate, instructors usually have arguments to obfuscate a classroom discussion. X concedes that verbally clever academics can deliberately deceive or mislead with a clear consciousness because “they believe their ends justify their means” (59). Then there is the issue of possible grade retaliation. Also, no matter how confident a student might be, a single person representing a position can appear weak and vulnerable. Much more effective in such situations is to have two or more students representing an organization. Of course, organizing is hard and explicitly White groups are prohibited on campuses. Plus, as the author warns, there are sketchy pro-White organizations out there led by people with a propensity for self-destruction. Proxy or surrogate organizations for White students could claim to be groups dedicated to traditional Western culture, either fine arts or folk culture, or they could shield themselves by claiming to be a politically conservative activist group.
I imagine Student X is a member of Gen Z, and Equal Training is aimed at increasing the racial consciousness among his cohort of White high school and college students. Most readers of this journal will be familiar with the issues the author raises. The value of this book for those older readers is that X cuts to the chase emphasizing the basics. For decades a psychological war of unsurpassed sophistication and pervasiveness has been waged against White youth. From pre-school television shows, through the K-12 public education, to academe, they have been subjected to intense propaganda. To mount a defense in preparation for a counter offensive, students must develop a strong positive ethnic and cultural identity. And a prerequisite for such an identity is a firm grounding in history that will enable students to put past and present events into a historical context. If parents, grandparents, and youth mentors want to know where to begin, it is here.
[1] Actually the US Census Bureau states that Hispanics can be of any race making the term useless as a racial category.
[2] A contributor to The Occidental Observer website, Baltimore attorney Glen Allen, heads an organization, The Free Expression Foundation, which may be able to provide legal assistance to White dissidents.
Weaponizing Anti-Semitism: From Victim to Predator by Dr. Alan Sabrosky
Editor’s note: Readers of this site will likely be familiar with most of the material presented here, but it’s refreshing nonetheless to see such a frank and honest assessment of Jewish issues, from Unz.com. And from someone who is half-Jewish (on his father’s side) himself. I have removed the material on historical Jewish writing like the Talmud and Schulchan Aruch to focus on the part most relevant to our current situation.
ALAN SABROSKY • MAY 30, 2023
The Rush to Radicalism
Over the centuries, Jews overall have acquired a well-deserved reputation for disruption, in addition to other more admirable qualities. Virtually every social disorder afflicting the West in general and especially he United States today, for example, appeared in the Weimar Republic of Germany in the 1920s and early 1930s. Cities like San Francisco now mirror Hamburg from that era. Pick your extremism or perversion, they had it then as we have it today. Then as now, Jews figured conspicuously in all of those movements, as the litany of their involvement in our day and time depicts. Also then as now, social and economic disorder was seen by its Jewish architects as something to be exploited to their own advantage, impervious to its impact on the population as a whole.
Today, as before, the prevailing strains of Jewish political radicalism and societal perversion run strong and deep. Simply review the very long list of activities in which Jews have the lead and/or are principal financiers. Radical feminism; critical theory and its offshoot, “critical race theory” (CRT); the racist, destructive “Black Lives Matter” extortion scam; Antifa; and the promotion of gender dysphoria and pedophilia, are just a few of the entries on an appalling list of shame. Nor does the old affinity for communism give any evidence of waning. One wonders what a Hollywood dominated by (e.g.) Ukrainian expatriates from the 1930s on would say about “Uncle Joe” and his minions?
The Pursuit of Power
As in the early Soviet Union, the Jewish quest for economic power extended to political power and influence in the greater society of all Western countries. I’ll only look here at the United States, but the situation is much the same throughout all of Western Europe and much of Eastern Europe, as well as Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Indeed, if it were not so destructive of everything whites had built over the centuries, one could almost admire the single-minded Jewish determination to dominate – a determination in which some innate consensus almost eclipses the need for conspiracy and cabal. (The operative word is “almost.”)
What Jews have done in America and in so much of the West is what they tried to do in Germany during the aforementioned Weimar Republic, but here they have been more patient and circumspect until very recently. In 20th century Germany, they openly identified with the communists, and advocated practices such as gender dysphoria and pedophilia (led by Magnus Hirshfeld) before they were in a position to stave off critics and attacks. (They ended up fleeing the country when Hitler and his party came to power in the early 1930s – theirs were the books that the National Socialists famously burned).
Not so here. Jews in the U.S. founded the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) in 1909, and later took the lead in radical movements such as the “Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)” and the “Free Speech Movement” during the combined militancy of the antiwar and civil rights movements of the 1960s. But when their hoped-for revolution did not materialize, they went – well, not so much underground, but into a form of low-key radicalism, as I have discussed elsewhere. In this phase, they initially emphasized infiltration of universities. Once within the academic bastions, they staffed the critical professions: education and law first, then business along with the faculties of higher education themselves.
The end result was that they gained control of the mainstream media, much of academe, and prominence in many other areas. This, combined with the growing power of two Jewish-led organizations – the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) – as arbiters of political acceptability, had the intended effect of ensuring that the American people rarely heard, read or saw anything critical of Israel, let alone Jewish power or Jewish supremacism. Interestingly enough, the ADL in particular is now openly joining the chorus of anti-white voices, and declaring that criticism of Antifa (recall its heritage) to be “hate speech.” Both ADL and SPLC have become much more adept at defaming and ruining critics of causes they support, then of defending the Jewish people themselves or others against slander and abuse. In the process, they’ve liberally enriched themselves and their leadership.
To those who might say I am exaggerating Jewish power, I would say (quoting an individual who will remain nameless for his own protection): “I’ll stop believing its the Jews when people can say its the Jews in public, without having their lives destroyed by powerful Jews.” I expect Kanye West and some others in the black community who dared mention something those “powerful Jews” did not appreciate could add to that.
But it was not simply power in the media, academe, finance and the courts. There was a significant growth in direct Jewish participation in the government, no matter which political party is in power, wholly different from the situation 60-odd years ago. For example, for decades, Jewish groups such as ADL and SPLC had increasingly vetted nominees for political appointments. They could not always get the ones they supported, but they had an effective veto over ones they did not support – I speak from personal experience.
At this point in time , no one in either party can be a serious contender for the presidency in the face of Zionist opposition (or Jewish, perhaps a distinction without a difference). And that includes DeSantis and Trump as well as Biden. No serious contender for any national office, with the partial and very occasional exception of the House of Representatives, dares criticize Israel or mention directly the Jewish role in everything bad that is happening – they talk around them, but few say the “I or “J” words critically. Not even former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (whom I generally and genuinely admire) or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. They know what will happen if they do. And the same holds for governors like Kristi Noem (SD) and Greg Abbott (TX) , who understand full well the extent to which the power of organizations like ADL and SPLC and their cohorts extends into state governments – especially state legislatures.
As for the administrations themselves, for the last thirty years or so, they have been so heavily Jewish that one could relocate them to Tel Aviv and not notice the difference. Trump talked about “Making America Great Again,” but he was a far better president for Israel than he was in fact – if not in words – for the United States. A list of some of the principal things Trump did for Israel indicates as much. Like Trump’s administration before him, Biden’s administration is dominated by Jews [Figure 9 about here] . and there are many Jewish holdovers from the Trump era among those charged with overseeing the response (such as it was) to the Covid-19 plandemic.
It is amazing that the blue field and white stars on our flag have not been replaced with Israeli flag elements, considering that almost all of these officials – as well as most Jewish members of both houses of the Congress and many senior civil service officials – have dual Israeli citizenship. They speak openly of their “dual loyalty” – which in practice means loyalty to Israel first. Hence, the designation “Israel Firsters.”
Replacement and racism as Political Tools
There is another element to “new antisemitism” that did not exist before which implies very clearly that these Marxist Jews – whom I have called hyper-Zionists – are playing the end game now. This entails the deliberate replacement of white populations everywhere they have been a majority with a growing influx of migrants from Africa, Latin America and the Middle East – the so-called “Great Replacement.” The details and implications of this development, along with the unfolding of the Civil Rights movement (an essential failure, as far as blacks in America were concerned) can only be touched on briefly here, and are certain to be the subject of considerable contention and debate.
Suffice to say that illegal immigration coupled with civil rights frustrations provided fuel for the simmering fire that was, and is, black crime in America, capped by six months of urban upheaval in 2020 following the death in police hands of a black career criminal named George Floyd. A final autopsy showed Floyd died of a drug overdose, having enough fentanyl (among other drugs) in his body to kill three adult males – or two Stacey Abrams. The Democrats did nothing to check the riots, nor did President Trump.
Biden took office in the wake of a deeply flawed 2020 presidential election and an unarmed non-insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021 (about which I will write a good deal more in a subsequent article). Afterwards, millions of illegals swarmed into the country, perhaps seven to ten million so far. Even worse, these illegals are often aided and recruited from places as far away as central Africa not only by left-wing organizations, but also by the very Department of Homeland Security whose supposed mission was to keep illegal immigration from happening. Just coincidentally, the Secretary of Homeland Security is Jewish.
It should be understand that Jewish leaders use blacks as both a foil and as a distraction from Jewish behavior as well as to attack whites and Asians so that they themselves are not in the forefront. They use accusations of racism and hateful fill-in-the-blank accusations against the critics of black misconduct – because the same people who criticize huge black crime rates, for example, are often the same people who condemn Jewish influence over our government.
The Jewish role in the campaigns against racism and “white supremacy” serves three purposes:
- it sets whites against blacks within the US;
- it elevates blacks at the expense of whites, who are seen as the principal obstacle to Jewish ambitions; and
- it further disrupts and diminishes American society and the largely white culture on which its success has been based.
Until very recently, Jews and Jewish groups in the US have not been quite as blatant as they are in Europe about the goal of racially mixing ethnic Europeans with people from Africa and the Middle East, until white majority countries simply do not exist. What has been called the “Kalergi Plan” for a “Pan-European Union” may well have provided a theoretical framework for some of this. One of many Jewish advocates of this policy went from America to Israel and then to Sweden – where she helped facilitate the social disaster afflicting that country. She speaks proudly of the Jewish role in which she sees multiculturalism as an essential transformation for Europe, and acknowledges that Jews may be hated for this. A refrain repeated endlessly by prominent Jews and Jewish-led organizations is their very accurate understanding of the end result of this practice of massive migration and eventual miscegenation.
https://www.bitchute.com/embed/3CUuELMV3K4v/ Video Link
Yet given that the same type of people (Jewish globalists and Marxists) and many of the same organizations and movements are involved on all sides, it is reasonable to assume the worst in America. Biden has said – does he even know what he said? – that it will be a good thing when whites are no longer a majority in this country. He has also repeatedly said that “white supremacy” is the greatest threat facing the United States, and that those whites who object to his policies are “domestic terrorists,” and threatened to use F-16s against them at least twice in 2022 – assuredly a first for any American president, sentient or not.
His entire administration, including all of the armed services and all of the intelligence services, are pushing the “DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) initiative intended to minimize white participation and artificially maximize participation of almost all other groups. Again with the exception of East Asians, who apparently are considered “honorary whites” because of their “excessive” [s ic.] success rate. Teachers unions, most colleges and universities, many corporations, and Democrat-led everything mirror the DEI emphasis.
Biden’s growing senility is (or ought to be) self-evident by now. Yet it cannot be ignored that the current administration is pursuing domestic and immigration policies whose net effect is to demonize and demean whites and Asians. It will shift the demographic makeup of this country to a multiracial stew – and thus measurably less intelligent, less educated and more malleable. The policies are also meant to flip “red” (Republican) states to “blue” (Democrat) ones – assuming, of course, that elections still matter.
Coupled with these developments, there is a continual push from Jewish groups for whites to have fewer children. The five Western Jewish-owned advertising conglomerates (three in the U.S., one each in Britain and France) and the Jewish-dominated entertainment industry continually pump out messaging encouraging white females to mate with black and brown males to produce fewer white offspring and more racially mixed children. It is quite a witches’ brew, with a predictably ghastly outcome – for our culture. Our race and our country, if not for Jews.
And So?
Let’s see where we stand. Jewish-funded NGOs are pushing migrants into the US and Europe. Jews are prominent in the leadership of “woke” groups such as LGBTQ++ and radical feminists, as well as predominating in academe as “cultural Marxists” advocating CRT and child mutilation (sorry, “gender-affirming”) surgery. Several generations of graduates from the “re-education camps,” with radical values firmly inculcated, and have now infiltrated all of our institutions from corporations to nonprofits to art and entertainment – and to the armed forces, which get most of their officers from ROTC on campuses.
The Jewish-dominated media praise all of the above and suppress criticism of any of it, including reports of its abuses. The Jewish-dominated social media platforms likewise censor criticism of their efforts, as well as keeping gruesome accounts of what went very, very wrong out of the public eye. The Jewish-dominated entertainment media glorifies everything Jews are pushing, while belittling whites – especially straight white males. But noticing any of the foregoing constitutes “hate speech,” and even a whisper of criticism makes one a raging antisemite and a prime candidate for utter ruin.
The net effect is to paralyze opponents of the woke/radical agenda into inaction. Why? Because Jews do figure so noticeably in virtually all such groups, any criticism of the groups is immediately denounced by the Jewish-owned media and the Jewish-heavy academic establishment And ADL and SPLC as antisemitism. Virtually all of the critics then shut up rather than be demonized and penalized as antisemites, even when the abuse being criticized involves insane gender beliefs that can directly harm the biological health of men, women, boys and girls. It is an insidious strategy that almost always works. (I say “virtually” and “almost” because there may be a handful of exceptions.)
On the surface, many progressive secular black people, Jewish people, LGBTQ activists and feminists seem united in their hatred of white people – especially straight white men.Nut in reality, it’s basically a hatred of Western civilization that unites them, a civilization which was largely founded by white pagans in the Greco-Roman classical era, expanded later by white Christians during the Renaissance and the Reformation, and industriously shaped much of the modern world. Delete white achievements, and globally one is essentially back to what were medieval times in Europe.
That hatred, invoked and stoked by Jews and none other, compels these groups to try to destroy anything that white culture created, including patriarchy, Western civilization, and the United States of America. They are the barbarians within, and under predominately Jewish leadership. Make no mistake: They are well on their way to bringing this edifice down. The one-time victim – actual or assumed – has become a full-fledged predator, intent on making Deuteronomy reality. We must not let this happen. I will turn to how we do this in the future.
Author’s note: I wish to extend my great appreciation to my editorial associate and good friend Cat McGuire for her excellent assistance.
Alan Ned Sabrosky (PhD, University of Michigan) is a ten-year US Marine Corps veteran. He served in Vietnam with the 1st Marine Division and is a graduate of the US Army War College. He can be contacted at docbrosk@comcast.net
Gender, “identifying as” and identity
According to Helen Joyce, her bestseller Trans is about gender self-identification: the idea that “people should count as men or women according to how they feel and what they declare, instead of their biology”. But she doesn’t say what gender is.[1] When people have these feelings or make these declarations, what are they feeling and declaring? And what does it mean to identify as something? She points out that national laws, company policies, school curricula, medical protocols, academic research and media style guides are all being “rewritten to privilege self-declared gender identity over biological sex”, but she doesn’t say what a gender identity is, or, come to that, what an identity is.[2]
Let us look at these questions to see if we can gain some clarity. In a previous article I argued that the basic term of transgender ideology, namely “gender”, is only an obfuscating euphemism for sex. If it doesn’t mean sex itself but is taken to refer to clusters of features that tend to go with one sex or the other, these are simply clusters of features that tend to go with one sex or the other. To think of them as amounting to separate things called genders that we “have” in the way that we have a sex is mistaken.
A better way of looking at this is in terms of Carl Jung’s archetypes of the animus and anima, each of which, as I understand it, he thought were present in different degrees in both sexes. Moreover, they might co-exist in different degrees in two members of the same sex. So I imagine that he would have said that in a woman like Margaret Thatcher, who was a leader and a firm one, the animus was stronger than in most women while the anima was weaker, whereas someone like Theresa May, a subsequent British prime minister, was more womanish. What he would not have said is anything so trite as that Mrs. Thatcher had the “gender” of a man.
In my own case, as a boy I was never very interested in soccer or military history; I preferred art and cooking. I drew incessantly on the blackboard my father had fitted over an unused fireplace and baked my first loaf of bread at the age of about nine. No one suggested that I had the “gender” of a girl or saw my art or cooking as a problem. As it happened, I also enjoyed going on adventures with a home-made spear and coming back looking as if I had been dragged through a hedge backwards. The idea that people have a gender, unless by this is meant their sex, is a silly oversimplification of a reality that, although variegated, anyone can grasp, nor does the fact that one boy likes one thing while another likes another raise any question about their sex.
When we ask what it means to say that someone identifies as something, we confront a difference between American and British English, for in British English, properly spoken, one cannot say that someone identifies as something but must say that they identify themselves as something. In other words, in British English the verb “identify” is transitive. Since it is a little easier to explain the answer to our question in British English, I will use this to start with and switch to American English later.
What it means to say that someone identifies themselves as something is that they call themselves that thing or describe themselves that way. Thus a man approaching the scene of an accident might identify himself as a doctor. But it is not only oneself that one might identify as something; it could be anything. One might identify that woman over there as French, a bird as belonging to a certain species or a precious stone as an emerald. So we can say that in the sex context, a man who identifies himself as a woman calls himself one. Now, clearly identifications are not necessarily correct. The man who identifies himself as a doctor might not be one; the woman might not be French, and so on. A man who identifies himself as a woman mis-identifies himself.
Whereas what one identifies oneself as is what one calls oneself, one’s identity is what one is. It is an attribute one has. Everyone has many attributes, therefore everyone has many identities, three in the case of an actress with two children, for example, being those of actress, woman and mother. But in today’s political usage the word “identity” has a narrower meaning. Only a few political identities are available, which are defined by reference to a person’s politically salient features, such as their race or sex. Thus one might have the political identity of being Black or White or of being a man or a woman.
Any political identity contrasts with one or more other political identities, and in certain pairs people with one political identity are conventionally described as being oppressed by people with the other. Thus Black people are conventionally described as being oppressed by Whites, and women are conventionally described as being oppressed by men. This comes straight from cultural Marxism and has nothing to do with whether anyone is actually oppressed. It is just theory. But the theory is applied so that “oppressed” groups are favoured over their “oppressors”, making them feel entitled to social goods such as pity, power and preferential treatment. The struggle of favoured “identify groups” to obtain such goods at the expense of their opposite groups is known as identity politics.
Switching to American English now, the sort of people who say that they identify as something also tend to talk about their “identities”, and they generally conflate the two. Thus a man who says that he identifies as a woman will say that being a woman is his identity. It is “who he is”. But in saying this he adds one mistake to another. Not only does he call himself a woman when he is not one; he insists that he really is one. It is as though someone who calls himself Napoleon were to insist that he actually is Napoleon. Both mistakes must be undone before we can see that he is really just Fred Bloggs.
After gender, transgender ideology’s most important concept is that of gender identity, which it defines as a person’s deep, inner sense of their gender, meaning their deep, inner sense of their sex. A transgender person’s “gender identity” is not, however, their identity but a contradiction of it.[3] A man who calls himself a woman still has the identity of a man because he is still a man. Thus the term “gender identity” refers neither to a gender nor to an identity; it refers to a person’s idea of what sex they are. Thus when we hear that someone is “questioning their gender identity”, this is only someone who is wondering whether they are male or female.
As Helen Joyce points out, transgender ideology asserts that we all have a “gender identity”, which in most cases lines up with our sex but in the case of transgenders happens not to. But is it true to say that we all have a deep, inner sense of our sex? I suspect that most people no more have such a thing than they have a deep, inner sense of how many arms they have. For most people, their sex is such an obvious and familiar part of them that they never think about it, still less do they see it as the sort of thing about which they might have opinions. If this is correct, the only people who have “gender identities” are transgenders, whose deep, inner sense of their sex deceives them.
These people’s “gender identities” may be deep and inner, but if they identify as members of the opposite sex, this is something outer, for to call oneself something is an act that requires an audience. If they go so far as to present themselves as members of the opposite sex, in what transgender ideology calls their gender expression, this is a decidedly public act.
People who present themselves as members of the opposite sex run into trouble if they expect others to identify them as they identify themselves. Just as Fred Bloggs, presenting himself as Napoleon, is more likely to be seen as the deluded Fred Bloggs than as Napoleon, so a man presenting himself as a woman is more likely to be seen as a man presenting himself as a woman than as a woman, nor is he much more likely to be treated as a woman than is Fred Bloggs to be treated as an emperor. But whereas Fred Bloggs knows that he must put up with other people failing to endorse his idea of himself, this is more than transgenders can do. At least, it is more than they can do if they follow the example of their activists, who cannot tolerate anyone failing to endorse their self-descriptions.
Years ago, when transgender activists asked themselves what could be done about these unco-operative people, an idea came to them. Why not force them to endorse their self-descriptions? So they set about gaining influence over policy-makers and getting them to bring in rules banning references to anything they didn’t want mentioned. This would mean that when people saw a man presenting himself as a woman, they would have to call him a woman, or at least a “trans woman”. Note that they could not call him a “trans man”. As a term for a transgender man, the term would have been too descriptive. The idea was to conceal the fact that these were men, not disclose it. “Trans men” were therefore women, namely ones who presented themselves as men.
People would also have to refer to transgender men as “she”. If they wanted to refer specifically to such people’s sex, as when talking about their participation in women’s sports, they could not call them men but would have to come up with locutions such as Piers Morgan’s “people born to male biological bodies”. Why not require people to make fools of themselves and waste everyone’s time by using twelve syllables instead of one?
Come to that, why not get policy makers to stop people using the words “mum” and “dad” and “husband” and “wife” as well, as Qantas told its cabin crew to stop doing in 2018?[4] Why not ban the term “expectant mother”, as the British Medical Association did the year before, requiring such women to be called pregnant people?[5] Why not ban the term “breast feeding” into the bargain? Why not get all references to sex, sex roles and family relationships expunged from the language on the grounds that they might “make groups of people invisible” (Qantas), or “offend transgender people” (BMA)? With no reference to basic natural facts permitted, people might eventually forget that they were basic natural facts.
Policy-makers thought that this was such an excellent idea that they couldn’t understand why they hadn’t thought of it themselves, and so it came about that in 2015 two Texan day-care workers could be fired for refusing to call a six-year-old girl “John” after her “two male parents” complained.[6] The fact that the women, as one of them explained, had been “concerned about confusing the little girl” was neither here nor there. In 2016 a British man was convicted of a hate crime for greeting a man he knew by sight with the words “All right, geezer?” after the latter, a veteran of Afghanistan, turned out to identify as a woman.[7] During the appeal hearing the following year the complainant reportedly sobbed as he told the court that he had found the greeting “very upsetting”. It had “denied his humanity”.[8]
In 2018 an American teacher lost his job when he called out to his class of seven-year-olds: “Don’t let her walk into the wall!”,[9] forgetting that the girl in question now called herself a boy. A woman representing the school district illustrated the mental calibre of those applying the rules when she stated: “That was in fact discriminatory because all the other students were being used pronouns and this student was not being used pronouns”.
We have all heard the stories. In 2018 a teacher in Indiana was forced to resign after refusing to go along with his school’s policy of addressing transgender children by their self-chosen first names.[10] At first the school let him use their surnames, then changed its mind without explanation. At the meeting where the new decision was conveyed to him, he found the school administration “very threatening and bullying”. The character of transgender activists seems to have a way of transmitting itself to their proxies. In 2021 a Canadian man was sent to prison for calling his fourteen-year-old daughter his daughter and referring to her as “her”.[11] He was in contempt of court, having already been told to stop doing this.
Just the other day, in Britain a teacher was banned from the profession for “misgendering” a pupil by saying “Well done girls!” His class contained a girl who identified as a boy. He was also alleged to have shown the class a video that referred to men taking responsibility. He denied that he had done this, but the allegation was enough.[12]
Showing that it is now unacceptable to refer to the sexes themselves and not merely to the qualities generally associated with them, on the same day it was reported that an American student was given zero marks for an assignment in which she had used the term “biological women”.[13] Her professor described her work as “solid” but deemed the “exclusionary” expression so offensive that her assignment could not be recognised as having any merit.
And so we see the logical continuation of bans on words like “chairman” and “fireman”, brought in at the behest of feminists decades ago. These were followed by such things as Cardiff Metropolitan University’s 2017 ban on expressions like “man-made”, “right-hand man” and “gentleman’s agreement”.[14] The words “forefathers” and “sportsmanship” were also ruled out. “Manpower” was not to be used, suggested alternatives being “staff” or “human resources”, meaning that students writing about the battle of Agincourt would have to say that the English won when the French ran out of staff or human resources. Many other universities have introduced similar rules.[15]
All this applies the theory behind George Orwell’s Newspeak, that if we lack the word we will lack the concept, and without the concept we will act as if the thing does not exist. The concept mainly slated for deletion is that of men, as in all the examples in the previous paragraph, but as we have seen, our linguistic engineers have it in for the concept of women too. What is really under attack is any awareness of the fact that there are two sexes. As in Newspeak, our vocabulary is constantly reduced so as to “diminish the range of thought”, and it is this most basic fact of life that we must not think about or, ideally, be able to think about.[16]
This takes us some way from the questions we started with, of what genders are, what identities are and what it means to identify as something, but to repeat the answers: gender as a property of a human being does not exist unless by this is just meant their sex; a person’s identity is something about them; and when someone identifies as something, they call themselves that thing, which they might very well not be.
We got from this to the unhappy situation of today by way of the megalomaniac urge of transgender activists, given in to we know not why by policy makers, to control the speech of others so that their delusions would be supported and never questioned. But it turned out that their agenda extended far beyond stopping anyone upsetting them to include reshaping the language so as to rule out any reference to the sexes or their roles in society or reproduction. Thus what Shulamith Firestone specified in 1970 as the end goal of feminist revolution, namely the elimination of the sex distinction itself, approaches fulfilment.[17]
[1] Helen Joyce, 2022 (2021), Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, London: Oneworld, p. 1.
[2] Ibid., p. 2.
[3] The present article uses the terms “transgender person” and “transgender” (as a noun) to denote someone who calls themselves a member of the opposite sex. To keep things simple, it does not consider people with other “gender identities”, such as those who call themselves members of both sexes or of neither.
[4] New Daily, March 5th 2018, “Qantas bans staff from using ‘gender-inappropriate’ words”, https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/travel/2018/03/05/qantas-ban-gender-inappropriate-words/.
[5] Telegraph, Jan. 29th 2017, “Don’t call pregnant women ‘expectant mothers’ as it might offend transgender people, BMA says”, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/dont-call-pregnant-women-expectant-mothers-might-offend-transgender/.
[6] WND, Nov. 6th 2015, “Daycare workers fired for refusing transgender demands”, http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/daycare-workers-fired-for-refusing-transgender-demands/.
[7] MailOnline, Feb. 4th 2017, “Entrepreneur hauled into court for hate crimes after saying ‘all right geezer’ to a transgender war veteran”, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4190064/Entrepreneur-hauled-court-hate-crimes.html.
[8] The conviction was overturned.
[9] Kevin’s Corner, Dec. 15th 2018, “Teacher fired 4 using wrong pronoun”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQbjNPjizY0&t=0s.
[10] Conservative Daily Post, unknown date in 2018, “Teacher forced to resign after transgender demands ordered by school”, https://conservativedailypost.com/teacher-forced-to-resign-after-transgender-demands-ordered-by-school/ (page no longer there).
[11] Breitbart, March 18th 2021, “Canadian Man Jailed After ‘Misgendering’ His Daughter”, https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/03/18/canadian-man-jailed-after-misgendering-his-daughter/.
[12] Christian Concern, May 23rd 2023, “Heartbroken teacher banned from profession for ‘misgendering’ pupil”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm3dKtjN6SQ. The teacher was Joshua Sutcliffe, who said: “Well done girls!” in 2017. A bible study club he had started had already been closed down. The Teaching Regulation Agency backed the punishment (Christian Concern, May 26th 2023, “Teacher banned for ‘misgendering’ | Round The Table”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-53JYC1Pgg&t=130s). See also Telegraph, May 23rd 2023, “Joshua Sutcliffe interview: I was told ‘call her a him’. I couldn’t go along with it”, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/23/teacher-sacked-misgendering-pupil/?utmsource=email.
[13] Anthony Brian Logan, May 23rd 2023, “College Student Gets ZERO On Project Over The Term Biological Women!”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I57tp_9JWQ.
[14] Independent, March 3rd 2017, “University bans phrases such as ‘mankind’ and ‘gentleman’s agreement’ in favour of gender-neutral terms”, https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/university-cardiff-metropolitan-bans-phrases-mankind-gentleman-s-agreement-genderneutral-terms-free-speech-a7609521.html.
[15] For other examples see BirminghamLive, July 7th 2022, “University bans terms ‘mankind’ and ‘manpower’ over fears of offending”, https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/university-bans-terms-mankind-manpower-24421851.
[16] George Orwell, 1989 (1949), Nineteen Eighty-Four, London: Penguin, p. 313 (from the Appendix: “The principles of Newspeak).
[17] Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution is quoted by Ryan T. Anderson, 2019 (2018), When Harry Became Sally, New York: Encounter Books, p. 151.
Also available at Barnes & Noble
Also available at Barnes & Noble
