The Crest of the Peacock (1991) has a beautiful title and an ugly purpose. The book takes that title from a line in an ancient Sanskrit text: “Like the crest of a peacock, like the gem on the head of a snake, so is mathematics at the head of all knowledge.” (p. v) So much for the beauty: now for the ugliness. The subtitle of the book is “Non-European Roots of Mathematics” and it’s one of the earlier entries in what might be called the “Whites Stole Everything” school of anti-Western polemic. There’s the West and the Rest—and the Rest is Best.

Sue’s venomous views

The author of the book, a Keralan Indian called George Gheverghese Joseph, didn’t express himself as crudely as that. But thirty years later the implicit message of his “pioneering book” (back cover) is explicit throughout Western politics, media and education. Whites have perpetually stolen from and exploited the rest of the world. They have no true culture, no distinctive achievements, and so-called Western civilization truly is, as the notorious Jewish writer Susan Sontag so eloquently put it, “the cancer of human history.” Joseph doesn’t have that Jewish hatred for Whites and the Christian West—he says in the introduction that he comes “from a family of Syrian Orthodox Christians” in Kerala (p. xiii)—but he obviously wants to give Whites as little credit for their mathematical achievements as he can. This is a book about mathematics, not linguistics, but when he’s describing pioneers in the decipherment of cuneiform script he gives full names and dates to “George Frederick Grotefend (1775–1853) and Henry Creswicke Rawlinson (1810–95)” (p. 95).

The Crest is Best: George Gheverghese Joseph’s successful anti-White book

Grotefend and Rawlinson were Whites uncovering the greatness of a non-European civilization, so Joseph is happy to acknowledge their “pioneering efforts.” But when he’s discussing the mathematical constant π and the ancient problem of “squaring the circle,” he hides another White pioneer behind the passive voice: “The problem of squaring the circle was finally resolved in 1882 when it was shown to be impossible. … Only in the nineteenth century was it demonstrated that, since squaring the circle is equivalent to constructing a line segment whose length is equal to the product of the square root of π (which is not a constructible quantity) and the radius of the given circle, it cannot be done.” (pp. 188-9)

The contradiction that powers leftism

But who “resolved” that problem? Who “demonstrated” that “it cannot be done”? It was the great German mathematician Ferdinand Lindemann (1852–1939). Joseph doesn’t name him, presumably because he doesn’t want to acknowledge that a White mathematician achieved such an important result. Joseph is a leftist and his concealment of Lindemann’s identity exposes one of the central contradictions of leftism. The ideology claims explicitly to believe in absolute human equality and yet acts on the implicit assumption that Whites are innately vicious and non-Whites innately virtuous. Whites must therefore be denied credit wherever possible, because, unlike non-Whites, they don’t genuinely deserve it.

This contradiction doesn’t weaken leftism: on the contrary, it powers leftism. The explicit claim of human equality gives leftists a sense of self-righteous virtue and superiority over the ignorant racists who reject human equality. At the same time, they use their implicit belief in White evil to indulge their hostility towards or hatred of Whites. For example, the leftist attitude to startling Black achievements in the field of murder and mayhem can be summed up like this: “It may be a Black hand holding the gun, but it’s white racism that pulls the trigger.” In other words, the malevolent agency of Whites explains all apparent non-White misbehaviour.

Stonehenge doesn’t count

Joseph is working in this anti-White tradition when he implicitly promotes the idea that the work of non-Whites explains all apparent White achievement in mathematics. And indeed, we should be happy to acknowledge the genius of non-White mathematicians like the Keralan Madhava of Sangamagramma (c. 1340–c. 1425), who was centuries ahead of European mathematicians in some of his results. But we’ve seen that, even as Joseph is naming and proclaiming such non-White geniuses, he declines to name the White mathematician Lindemann: “The problem of squaring the circle was finally resolved in 1882 when it was shown to be impossible.”

That’s not an oversight: it’s intentional. And he states in a footnote that “we shall not be discussing … the mathematical attainments of the constructors of megalithic monuments, such as Stonehenge in England,” claiming that “it is extremely unlikely that the neolithic lifestyle of the constructors would have generated the demands or supplied the resources required for developing the ‘advanced’ mathematics attributed to them by [some] writers.” (p. 27) That may be so, but the “constructors of megalithic monuments” in Europe prove that the “roots of mathematics” were not entirely “non-European.” By discussing the monuments, Joseph would have undermined his simple theme of the Rest being Better than the West. So he doesn’t discuss them.

The mountains of Central Equatorial Africa

This exclusion is both convenient for Joseph and revealing of his anti-White and anti-Western motives. At the beginning of the book, he proclaims his own belief in the Psychic Unity of Mankind: “there is no reason to believe that early man’s capacity to reason and conceptualize was any different from that of his modern counterpart.” (p. 27) In fact, there’s very good reason to believe that, thanks to different paths of evolution in very different environments, intellectual powers are not distributed evenly among either the races or the sexes. Intellectual achievement certainly hasn’t been distributed evenly, as Joseph’s own book demonstrates. Although leftists greeted The Crest of the Peacock with delight—“A magnificent contribution” said a “peer-reviewed academic journal on contemporary racism and imperialism” called Race & Class—the book doesn’t in fact support the leftist world-view.

According to the publisher’s blurb, Joseph “makes it clear [that] human beings everywhere have been capable of advanced and innovative mathematical thinking.” No, he doesn’t do that, because mathematical achievements have not been scattered at random among the various human races and cultures. He begins his survey with the Ishango Bone, a very interesting prehistoric artefact found “in the mountains of Central Equatorial Africa” (p. 23). Regular and obviously deliberate markings on the bone, which seems to date from about 20,000 BC, do indeed seem to show a lunar calendar and even some understanding of prime numbers. But Joseph is unable to claim that sub-Saharan Blacks were key contributors to the “non-European roots of mathematics.” It would be difficult to do that, because they weren’t.

Ancient Egypt was not a “Black civilization”

And today Blacks are of no importance in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics). This is a big embarrassment to the left, and Joseph uses one of their main responses: to count ancient Egypt and its awesome civilization as somehow “Black” because Egypt is geographically part of Africa. He announces: “It is important that the African roots of the Egyptian civilization are emphasized so as to counter the still deeply entrenched view that the ancient Egyptians were racially, linguistically and even geographically separated from Africa.” (pp. 57-8)

The “Great Black Briton” Septimius Severus and his family (his son Geta has suffered damnatio memoriae)

The implicit—and bad—reasoning there is that ancient Egypt was in Africa and that Africa is Black, therefore ancient Egypt was a Black civilization. A supercharged version of the same bad reasoning has been used to hail the Roman emperor Septimius Severus (1462–11) as one of “100 Great Black Britons,” because he was born in what is now northern Libya and died in what is now the English city of York. Libya is in Africa, therefore Severus was Black; York is in Britain, therefore Severus was British; and he was a Roman emperor, therefore he was a Great Black Briton. QED!

Backward to Black

Septimius Severus was neither Black nor British, of course. And Greek mathematicians like Euclid and Eratosthenes were not Black either, despite hailing from Alexandria “in Africa” and despite the self-aggrandizing claims of the genuinely Black mathematician Jonathan Farley. As Nassim Talib has pointed out, these ridiculous claims might stop if we replaced the geographic label “North Africa” with the equally legitimate label “South Mediterranean.” The mathematically expert Taleb added: “Too many people think in words.” Joseph isn’t guilty of such explicit misrepresentation in The Crest of the Peacock, but he’s still promoting the idea that ancient Egypt’s geography somehow determined its genetics. In fact, no: ancient Egypt’s genetics were not Black.

But modern Egypt’s genetics are much closer to being so: the admixture of sub-Saharan genes has increased over time. As Egypt’s Blackness rose, its greatness fell. Its leading role in mathematics and its astonishing achievements, like the pyramids, are now long in the past. That’s exactly what one would expect: advanced civilization and technological innovation depend on a critical mass of highly intelligent individuals—what the probably Jewish statistician Griffe du Lion calls “the smart fraction.” The more Black admixture there is in a population, the fewer such individuals there will be and the less capable that population will be of high achievement.

The genius of Persia

The religion of Islam may also have contributed to the intellectual stagnation of once advanced regions like Egypt and Mesopotamia. Consanguineous marriage, which is widely practised by Muslims, both lowers average intelligence and breaks down social cohesion, because it promotes loyalty to families and clans rather than to larger entities. Joseph devotes the final section of his book to a “Prelude to Modern Mathematics: The Arab Contribution,” where he traces the achievements of mathematicians and astronomers working under the “Islamic rule” that stretched “from North Africa in the south to the borders of France in the West, right across Persia and the Central Asian plains to the borders of China in the east, and down to Sind in northern India.” (p. 301)

However, “Arab Contribution” isn’t the right term, because some of the most important figures in the “Prelude to Modern Mathematics” were not Arab but Persian and hence from an area conquered by the Indo-Europeans in the third millennium BC. Joseph discusses giants like Muhammad ibn Musa al-Khwarizmi (c. 780–c. 850), Omar Khayyam (c. 1040–1123), and Jamshid al-Kashi (c. 1380–1429), who were born within the borders of modern Iran (al-Khwarizmi’s name is the source of the term “algorithm” in modern English). Once again we can see intellectual achievement isn’t distributed at random: “Islamic rule” stretched across a vast territory, but some parts of that territory, like Persia and Central Asia, contributed disproportionately to mathematics, astronomy, philosophy and medicine.

Death-deserving heretics

More interestingly still, some of the great mathematicians of the era seem to follow a pattern I’ve discussed before at the Occidental Observer: that of highly-achieving minority sects within under-achieving majorities. In India, the religious sect known as Parsis have made hugely disproportionate contributions to intellectual life and, in the person of Freddy Mercury, to entertainment. Their name literally means “Persians,” because they’re the descendants of Zoroastrians driven out of Persia by Muslim persecution in the seventh and eighth centuries. Muslims have also persecuted the sect to which the great Pakistani scientist Abdus Salam (1926–96) belonged. He won a Nobel Prize for Physics in 1979, the first scientific Nobel ever awarded to a Muslim.

But he isn’t celebrated in his homeland, where it is illegal to refer to him as a Muslim. He belonged to a much-persecuted Muslim sect called the Ahmadis, who are regarded as dangerous and death-deserving heretics by mainstream Sunnis. That pattern of minority and sectarian high achievement also appears in Joseph’s book. Al-Khwarizmi may have been “of Zoroastrian descent” (p. 305), while Thabit ibn Qurra (c. 836–c. 901) belonged to an ancient star-worshipping sect called the Sabaeans, which Joseph says produced other “eminent scholars in mathematics and astronomy.” (pp. 307–8) He mentions these affiliations only in passing and undoubtedly did not regard them as biologically important. After all, how could membership of one religion or another affect one’s mathematical skills for better or worse?

A genuine Jewish genius

Well, very easily, because religious groups that are genetically isolated from the majority can preserve or evolve distinct genes of all kinds, including those that influence intelligence and cognition. Kevin MacDonald has noted of medieval Jewish culture in Europe that “success as a scholar was valuable because it allowed the scholar to contract a desirable marriage, often to a woman from a wealthy family. At the very center of Judaism, therefore, was a set of institutions that would reliably result in eugenic processes related to intelligence and resource acquisition ability.”

Genuine Jewish genius Emmy Noether

It isn’t a coincidence, then, that Emmy Noether (1882–1935), perhaps the best and most important female mathematician in history, was a product of those eugenic processes. In other words, Noether was Jewish, like a vastly disproportionate number of other great mathematicians and physicists. If intellectual ability were distributed at random among human beings, we wouldn’t see patterns like that. Joseph didn’t discuss Jewish mathematicians in his book, because he almost certainly didn’t regard them as non-White and non-European. Accordingly, he wouldn’t have thought them useful for anti-Western propaganda.

Submerged by the West

But he did mention another statistical anomaly: that of two mathematical geniuses from the large, highly populous and very genetically complex region of India. But the geniuses Madhava of Sangamagramma (c. 1340–c. 1425) and Srinivasa Ramanujan (1887–920) defied the demographic odds and were born in nearly the same part of India and into the same Brahmin stratum of society, a stratum often linked to the Indo-European invasion. Joseph says of Madhava that he “possessed extraordinary intuition, making him almost the equal of a more recent intuitive genius, [Ramanujan], who spent his childhood and youth at Kumbakonam, not very far from Madhava’s birthplace.” (p. 293)

He goes on to ask whether Ramanujan drew on “the vestiges of a ‘hidden’ indigenous mathematical tradition which was not submerged by the influx of modern mathematics from the West.” (p. 293) I don’t think Ramanujan did that. Instead, I think he drew on a different kind of tradition: genetics. Madhava and Ramanujan may have owed their shared genius to their shared genetics. The two men were both Hindus, but Hinduism is like an arch beneath which shelter hundreds of sects and thousands or even tens of thousands of micro-sects whose customs and taboos have kept them genetically separate for centuries and more. The famous division of Hindu society into Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Sudra, or scholars, warriors, merchants, and labourers, is merely a précis. The social—and genetic—reality is much more complicated than that and the stratifications much more detailed and genetically significant, including a significant influx of  the genes of Indo-European Bronze Age conquerors.

Blank slates and loaded dice

As a believer in the “Blank Slate” theory of human nature, Joseph doesn’t mention genetics in his discussion either of India or of China, which was more fertile ground for the “Non-European Roots of Mathematics.” In other words, while his book supposedly expanded the horizons of intellectual history and enquiry, in fact it shrunk them in typical leftist fashion. Leftists try to reduce the vast and fascinating complexity of human biology and behaviour to a narrow tale of environment and culture. The “Blank Slate” theory of human nature accompanies and complements the “Tumbling Dice” theory of human history. If we’re all the same under the skin, then, as the Jewish scientist Jared Diamond has often claimed, it’s merely chance and fortunes of geography or climate that explain why one group achieves this and another group achieves that. Or fails to achieve it.

But the “Tumbling Dice” theory of history inexorably gives rise to the “Loaded Dice” theory of history, whereby Whites are found guilty of rigging the historic game in their own favour. If the dice weren’t loaded, they would surely tumble sooner or later in favour of Blacks. Century after century, they haven’t done so. Therefore they must be loaded. What else but White racism can explain why Blacks are so successful at crime and so unsuccessful at STEM? And while Whites were unjustly and maliciously treading Blacks into the dirt, they were looting the intellectual treasures of India and China. In short, Western civilization is a fraud and Whites stole everything, lifting themselves up by pushing everyone else down.

Indian numerals, Babylonian timekeeping

As I said at the beginning, Joseph doesn’t put it as crudely as that. Nevertheless, scholarly work like his has fuelled the increasingly rabid anti-White attitudes of the present day, when people are putting it as crudely as that. But those anti-White fanatics are wrong. Whites did not “steal everything” and they have distinctive and admirable achievements of their own. Joseph is right that the West built on and benefited from the genius (and geniuses) of ancient civilizations like Babylonia, Egypt, India and China. For example, we use Arabic numerals, which are really Indian numerals, and we still divide time in the ancient sexagesimal fashion of the Babylonians.

But Western civilization has surpassed its mentors in STEM and reached new heights. Modern mathematics, like the modern science it underpins, is a White Western creation. Whites could very easily make unlimited further progress in mathematics and science without the contribution of high-IQ non-Whites, whether Indians, Chinese or Jews. Indeed, Whites will stop making progress of all kinds if non-Whites do not leave Western societies and allow us to end the worsening anti-White trends in politics and culture.

Insanities, inanities and fatal flaws

The Crest of the Peacock was fuel thirty years ago as those trends began to gain momentum and venom. Yes, in part the book is a fascinating (if wordy) synthesis of some very diverse mathematical history and biography. But its interesting contents and beautiful title belie its ugly purpose. And it has undoubtedly contributed to the slow-motion collapse of standards in STEM that began in the last century. Thanks to the insanities and inanities of Black Lives Matter and its allies, the collapse is losing slowness and gaining motion by the day. The left knows that it can’t raise Blacks to meet high standards, so it has to drop standards to meet the low abilities of Blacks.

That is not a recipe for civilizational success, which is why China is refusing to follow it. But it’s easy for China to refuse to contort and flagellate itself for its sins towards Blacks. Why so? Because China hasn’t opened its borders to the Third World and been massively enriched by Blacks. Or by Indians like George Gheverghese Joseph, who was educated at the English universities of Leicester and Manchester as he researched and wrote his anti-Western book.

If Whites have a fatal flaw, it is not nasty xenophobia but naïve xenophilia. We have been too ready to nurture hostile outsiders and too ready to indulge them as they’ve set about the culture of critique and the dismantling of Western civilization. There is indeed the West and the Rest. But when the Rest flood into the West, the West ceases to be Best. That’s the lesson I draw from The Crest of the Peacock.

The New Bolshevik Branches of the United States of America:  Chief of Staff (Klain), State (Blinken, Sherman, Nuland), Treasury (Yellen), CDC (Walensky), DHS (Mayorkas), Cybersecurity (Neuberger), CIA (Cohen), Council of Economic Advisors (Bernstein), FCC (Rosenworcel), SEC (Gensler), Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (Lipstadt), NSC Border Czar (Jacobson), Council on Gender Policy (Klein), Covid Response (Zients), U. S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (Kleinbaum), U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. (Gitenstein), SGOTUS (Emhoff), Senate (Schumer).

And Meet the New Head of the US Department of Justice: Attorney General Merrick Garfinkle.

The American government is established under both ideological and constructive federalism: most broadly, that means that it has separate branches of government; that those branches are relatively independent; and that a set of rules, laws, or a constitution, establish and maintain such a structure.  Some observers believe, however, that this federalism construct is “imploding” toward its center, into a monolithic, centralized unit.  The classical liberal principles that informed the crafting of the U.S. Constitution, and the form of limited government, with limited, circumscribed powers held at bay in order to leave men and women unburdened, have been eroded, weakened and even explicitly attacked.  This development has become especially pronounced in the last 12 months, but has been creeping toward this arrangement since the Second World War when government, industry, the intelligence sector and finance pushed toward an effective creation of a unified trust.

The exact same phenomenon, animated by additional factors but sharing a common cultural causation, exists in the greater Middle East, as, like the gravity of a black hole, the country of Israel seeks to centralize regional power, resources and command, under its authority: a single, unified “Pan Israel” operated by a permanent Zionist, effectively theocratic authoritarianism.  Like the US, its dominant political trust seeks to deceive, distort, divide and destroy.  It functions from the effort of continuous destabilization, created through routines of deception.  The current Afghanistan operation is another, perhaps near-term final stage in the Global War on Terror (“GWOT”) that has as its underlying purpose a “Middle East transformation” that is centered on the conquest of Iran, the control of regional resources, and the effective control of Russia in a neo-Bolshevik fantasy currently led by the U.S. State Department.

Both the US, and the Pan Israel project, also share a common network of special interests, embedded largely in US institutions.  Their outward ideological posture is that of liberty, freedom, and a fight against terror: it is, in fact, the use of terror to suppress liberty, and centralize authority. Consolidating authority in the U.S. is central to the ability to carry out the final phases of the GWOT.  Capturing the Department of Justice is central to breaking down the checks and balances that would otherwise retard or inhibit such overt consolidation, and where any remnants of federalism must be collapsed. Merrick Garland is the right man for that job.

Jewish organized interests—like all interests that organize for specific objectives—form their network, assets, influence and authority, in institutions.  And quite clearly, it’s much more difficult for a relatively small group of activists to influence policy when the government is dedicated to federalism, with its 50 states and thousands of local jurisdictions such as police departments, than it is to have power centralized in Washington DC. Top-down institutional control at the federal level is key to the special interest interface with, and influence over, American society.  In Garland’s case, nearly his entire career has been within government.  While this is not necessarily unusual in the legal field, it creates a perspective that favors central government—a perspective that sees problems primarily as challenges to governmental authority and that reinforces a culture of government expansion especially through the sprawling administrative state that has characterized U.S. government since the New Deal era of the 1930’s.

While Jewish and other special interest institutional infiltrations of American civil, military and government departments are not new, what is new is a radical shift and even transformation, in the relationship between the President and the branches, departments and agencies, resulting from the installation of a cognitively impaired chief executive in the White House as Commander in Chief.  By eroding and dismantling what firewall or even notional separation and independence of authority, judgment, and operations, that the office of the president has historically provided, it has been subject to what is in effect a complete takeover. When the current acting president is replaced with his Vice President—an individual with more overtly clinical psychological characteristics—the takeover and strategic plans will be consolidated (until it is successfully disbanded by direct election or constitutional removal—which would be challenged under Garland, and another reason the current administration seeks a packed, “super-majority” in the Supreme Court, in order to consolidate judiciary branch power, and reinforce judicial review.  It is important to appreciate that the current administration and its larger network, are almost exclusively from the law sector and law academy.  In their methods and assumptions, it is Justice, the judiciary and the Supreme Court that are the objects of their designs for power and control.  They are not by instinct aligned with congressional, legislative and representative processes, but rather with the use of “lawfare” in a top-down authoritarian construct of centralized federal control).

U.S. presidents have always been dependent to some extent on advisors, staff and inter-branch administrative cooperation.  But now that pretense has been completely dissolved: rather than having to negotiate through the barriers of offices and officials, the White House chief executive is now, not merely influenced or guided, but completely controlled by direct command.  And given that the bureaucrats running the U.S. government are overwhelmingly on the left and thus are sympathetic to the centralization of power (this includes the FBI, the national security apparatus, and the military), the result is the ultimate realization of control of the United States itself.  Indeed, Biden is not merely reliant on his aides and “note cards” for his every function and act, but deeply, desperately dependent on them for his basic daily functions and routines, like an invalid or patient in assisted care.  The White House is now a medical nursing home—or biosecurity prison.

But an additional ring of control surrounds the president and White House, consisting of a syndicate of Foundations that have effective control over the “military-industrial-university” complex, and now, the health agency establishment of the CDC, NHS and UN-related organizations.  Those primary strategic foundations are largely controlled by Jewish interests, but at a heightened level of direct operational and governance authority, largely by financial leverage.  They include the Rockefeller Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Soros Foundation, and by penetration and control, the Obama Foundation, the Clinton Foundation, and with ties to the UK bio-research Wellcome Trust, among others.

Former Israel prime minister Ariel Sharon is reputed to have once said that “We, the Jewish people, control America, and the Americans know it.”  If they didn’t before, then they should now because the pretense has been removed, and the threat is no longer disguised: it is out there in plain sight, with authoritarian indifference to perception, and in defiance of opposition to the blatant capture of America’s system of government.

The installation of Chicago-born Merrick Garland as Attorney General and head of the U.S. Department of Justice is of great concern, because his bias for a powerful central government, whether constitutional or not, further widens the gap between American citizens and their own government, and between citizens and their enumerated rights; indeed, he appears committed to making government more and more our adversary, instead of our constitutionally circumscribed servant.

There are two elements of Garland’s professional profile that are instructive.  One, while his judicial record appears mixed—merely conventionally liberal, a larger assessment of his opinions and administrative actions, undertaken by faculty at the University of Chicago Law school, Stanford, Harvard and other law schools, shows that he was a “safe” pick due to his Harvard bona fides and his conventional career track; but it also shows that he may be more liberal than generally assumed.  The Wall Street Journal is more assertive, describing how he regularly takes sides with labor unions and government: “His many opinions…defer to administrative agencies and…are a hallmark of his jurisprudence during his nearly 20 years on the D.C. Circuit Court.”  His record clearly shows an instinct for supporting the power of central government via its agencies, and he is thought “safe,” as a government insider.  He is clearly not a champion of states’ rights, nor has he shown any passion for the rights of individual citizens: he will go along to get along; he is a judge who doesn’t rock the boat, and is a reliable servant to government interests.  That may not be new, but it is especially troubling when the separation of powers is especially necessary, and when Justice must be called on to police the government itself.  But even the New York Times expressed concerns from a liberal, human rights perspective, including his embrace of the Global War on Terror (and its infringement of civil liberties) and his position on the Guantanamo prison.

It is his core allegiance to centralized state power that is the main reason for concern regarding his influence and priorities at the Department of Justice.  At a period of extreme government intrusion through the Covid program where constitutional rights are being comprehensively challenged, if not assaulted, Garland’s natural instinct has already been shown to side with government over individuals—that he will support authoritarian control by the state; indeed, his public statements confirm his readiness to do the bidding of the current White House regime concerning the January 6^th prosecution as “white supremacist terror” (where he asserts its primacy in his prosecutorial priorities, but more, it is the centerpiece to his “domestic war on terror”).  This is part of the full panoply of his larger ambitions directed at federal government control over the states and classes of individuals thought to be enemies of the state.

He fully embraces the biosecurity construct of comprehensive authoritarian, top-down state control, and unusual expansion of federal police powers such that the states are overrun with a federal law enforcement web that replaces state-level and local forces (hence the “defund the police” program, which is directed at idling local and state law enforcement, replaced with a unified, politically controlled federal and ultimately even international policing force).  He embraces, in my view, a certain “NKVD” vision of central power, extended across key American institutions.  In this, he also reflects a certain “Bolshevik-like” attitude toward weakening or even dismantling of civil liberties.  Examples include DoJ “guidance” that warns states not to push their investigations into voting fraud too aggressively, and his heavy handed order that Texas not restrict entry of migrants at risk for Covid. Indeed, the White House has just expressed its intent to organize a “whole-of-government effort” to use federal powers against the recent Texas abortion law decision—a decision that will likely further motivate proposals to pack the Supreme Court.

Garland is an “organization man” and a champion of government, not individuals and the people.  And by siding with the White House on voter fraud suppression and the entire Covid biosecurity program, including Covid mandates, he both weakens the checks and balances role of the DOJ, while also ignoring Constitutional law questions concerning efforts to bypass state legislatures, change voting rules in major swing states, and suppressing immigration and subsequent citizenship standards.  In an era of unusual constitutional violation, one after another, he is not a defender of Americans, but rather a bureaucratic apparatchik of what regime holds power, or takes power in whatever way it can, so long as legal accountability is not brought to bear by other branches, or the judiciary.

Little in Garland’s law training or early career would suggest a legal philosophy or jurisprudence of top-down centralized diktat in law and policy, but his career was entirely formed by government service, with little if any private law experience and instincts for traditional private property.  He also fully embraces the Global War on Terror program, and this especially, may be a modern marker of intent and inclination toward a tolerance for near Bolshevik-style government, if the right pretextual narratives are present.  Given his unquestioning acceptance of the entire Covid program, illegal immigration, voter fraud, racial categorization and selective prosecution of American citizens by ideology, one may expect that violations of the Constitution and Constitutional law, may face little if any challenge from his office.  Indeed, he appears to be among the most reliable nodal points of influence and control, in the rapid permeation of authoritarian biosecurity, and the dismantling of individual constitutional protections, and even international human rights law.  This tendency fits well within the constellation of interests that seek to establish a global, transnational legal regime that replaces United States Constitutional sovereignty with a centralized UN-based order. In the same way that Jewish interests have always championed a strong central government in the U.S., those same interests  favor a strong centralized authority at the international level.

Among Garland’s most threatening intellectual vulnerabilities, is his stated obsession with “White supremacy” and his confused conflation of mass media hyperbole (including his stated determination to prosecute the January 6^{th “}insurrection”) as a racial issue, with his emotionalism over “anti-Semitism,” while the southern border of the United States has been opened, and the DOJ abstaining from prosecution of illegal immigration—all positions reflecting the views of mainstream Jewish organizations such as the ADL; indeed Garland and his Justice team are facilitating the diffusion of illegals into the interior of the country.  Together, these ideologies are directing the massive machinery of the Department of Justice, and turning it inward, on the American public, against their interests, and as a direct assault on the American Constitutional order.

Here’s some good news about Afghanistan. If you drew up a “Toxic Top Ten” of the worst possible places to receive migrants from, Afghanistan wouldn’t be #1. I think that honour would go to Somalia. Now some bad news about Afghanistan. It could be well #2 or #3 in the Toxic Ten. It’s #2 for rape convictions in Denmark, but Denmark doesn’t have the honour of having been enriched by importing large numbers of Pakistanis. The Western politicians, journalists and charities now enabling the “evacuation” of Afghans into the West should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

They Posture, You Pay

To be more specific: they should be prosecuted for enabling the murder, rape and other crimes that will, with 100% certainty, be committed in future years by violent, corrupt and welfare-dependant Afghans against the White citizens of Western nations. But the enablers of Afghan migration aren’t being prosecuted, of course. In Britain, all mainstream parties are united in their insistence that we have to pay the debt we owe to the translators and other Afghans who helped the British army in its doomed mission to turn an in-bred population of ever-warring clans, tribes and races into Switzerland.

But when those Afghan enablers say “we,” they mean “you.” It’s us, the little people, who will pay when a flood of vulnerable Afghans bring their rich and fascinating culture to cities and towns across the West. For a preview of coming attractions, here’s a story from 2012 about how an Afghan male in Britain used traditional Afghan methods to put an uppity White girl in her place:

Sadistic Afghan asylum seeker made ex-girlfriend watch him stab her sister and friend to death because she wouldn’t take him back

A “sadistic” asylum seeker who forced his former girlfriend to witness him stabbing her sister and her friend to death after she refused to take him back has been jailed for life. Afghan national Ahmad Otak laughed and spat on 17-year-old Kimberley Frank’s body after stabbing her 15 times at her home in Yorkshire while her sister Elisa watched helplessly. He then tied his ex-partner up with electrical flex and lured her friend Samantha Sykes, 18, to Kimberley’s flat in Wakefield, where he stabbed the teenager repeatedly before slitting her throat. (Sadistic Afghan asylum seeker made ex-girlfriend watch him stab her sister and friend to death because she wouldn’t take him back, The Daily Mail, 9 November 2012)

The take-no-nonsense Afghan Ahmad Otak and his two White victims

Before that double murder, Elisa Frank and other White girls had complained to the police and other authorities about Otak’s male-supremacist behaviour. But they complained in vain. Like the Muslim rape-gangs that have operated for decades in Yorkshire, Otak had non-White and non-Christian privilege. But I disagree with the description of him as “sadistic.” It’s redundant, because it’s already covered by the description “Afghan.” Rudyard Kipling pointed that out long ago in some sardonic advice for the working-class Whites who fought in Britain’s imperial wars:

When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An’ go to your Gawd like a soldier. (“The Young British Soldier”)

Kipling knew the irreformable savagery and sadism of Afghans when he wrote that poem in the 1890s, after Afghanistan had chewed up two British armies and given clear proof that it’s a very good place for outsiders to avoid. The proof got clearer still when Afghanistan chewed up the Russian army in the 1980s. But the neo-cons thought they knew better and sent the American army to be chewed up in its turn. Yes, two words explain the latest disaster in Afghanistan: tikkun olam. That’s Hebrew for “repair the world.” When translated from principle to practice, it entails huge loss of life and huge waste of money, and produces nations that are wrecked rather than repaired.

But it’s goyish life that’s lost, goyish money that’s wasted, and goyish nations that are wrecked, so the crypto-Trotskyist neo-cons will always be eager to try again. As Kevin MacDonald and Vox Day have pointed out, the Afghan disaster was a thoroughly Jewish enterprise. It was overseen and lied about by powerful Jewish politicians and journalists whose arrogance is matched only by their ineptitude: Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, David Frum, Max Boot, Michael Ledeen, Jennifer Rubin, Ben Shapiro, et al. By no coincidence, Rubin and many of the same Jews are currently “rejoicing at the impending minority status of Whites” in America.

The Trots and the Trillions

Having listed those Jewish warmongers, I’ll now try to boggle your mind about the money they’ve wasted on Afghanistan when it could have done good for White goyim in America. In the image below, you can see 1,000 circles. One of them is blue and 999 of them are red:

1,000 circles, one blue, 999 red

If you imagine that the blue circle is $1, then all the circles together are $1,000. If the blue circle is $1,000, then all the circles are $1,000,000—a million dollars. And if the blue circle is a million dollars, all the circles are a billion dollars. Now do it one more time: if the blue circle is a billion dollars, all the circles together are a trillion dollars.

Is your mind boggled? Mine certainly is when I look at that image and run through that reasoning. As one to a thousand, a thousand to million and a million to billion, so billion to trillion. And $2.31 trillion is one estimate of how much the neo-cons have wasted turning Afghanistan from a Third-World hell-hole controlled by a poorly-equipped and media-clueless Taliban into a Third-World hell-hole controlled by a well-equipped and media-savvy Taliban. The neo-cons have a Midas touch in reverse. In myth, everything King Midas touched turned into gold. In all-too-obvious reality, everything the neo-cons touch turns into dross. And even after the disaster is obvious to everyone, they continue to defend it—and hold out the possibility of more such interventions in the future.

Crimes of the Jewish elite

And worse than dross. But the neo-cons are only one wing of the Jewish elite presently driving the West towards destruction. The two  trillion dollars and more wasted in Afghanistan was urgently needed back home in America. For example, what about the opioid epidemic ravaging working-class Whites? They’re dying “deaths of despair” thanks to the loss of their traditional jobs and their relentless demonization by the anti-White media. The Jewish Sackler family of pharmaceutical billionaires manufactured that epidemic for working-class Whites. At the same time, their neo-con co-ethnics were sending other working-class Whites to death and mutilation in Afghanistan.

But from the Jewish point of view, wasting White money on foreign wars makes excellent sense. In his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949), George Orwell put it like this as he explained how “War Is Peace” for the ruthless power-addicts of IngSoc:

The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labour. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labour power without producing anything that can be consumed. (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part 2, ch. 9)

The money spent by the neo-cons on foreign wars should have helped American Whites have bigger families and lead better lives. But the Jewish elite have also wasted trillions on Blacks and other non-Whites in America since the 1960s. The hopeless quest was originally for “racial equality.” Now more trillions are being wasted on a new quest for “racial equity.” The lying justification has changed, but the waste of money hasn’t. Nor has the clear and malicious intent: To stop White money benefiting Whites.

Instead, White money is being used to harm Whites. Although huge sums were spent in Afghanistan over the past two decades with disastrous results, the much smaller sums being spent on “evacuating” Afghans to the West will definitely produce results. There will be more Whites murdered, raped, maimed and robbed by Afghans. And Afghans will join the ever-growing anti-White army that battles “white racism,” “white supremacy” and “white privilege.” What’s not to like for those who hate Whites and Western civilization?