Merrick Garland and the War on Federalism

/56 Comments/in /by

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 6th 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 6th “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.

Sleepwalking into a Non-White Future

/136 Comments/in , , /by

“About six-in-ten White adults of all ages say the declining share of White people in the population is neither good nor bad for society.”
Pew Research Center, August 23 2021

I was fascinated and frustrated by a recent series of polls conducted by the Pew Research Center on attitudes toward America’s declining White population. While there are several interesting layers to Pew’s findings, the key message is that a significant majority of White respondents indicated that they feel the declining share of White people in the population is neither good nor bad for society. In other words, they feel that nothing will fundamentally change for them or their children despite their slide into minority status. Pew point out that “the 2020 census showed the U.S. had a shrinking non-Hispanic White population … down 3% – or about 5.1 million people – from 2010 to 2020. The decline was widespread geographically, with 35 states seeing drops in their non-Hispanic White populations.” Pew contextualize this both in terms of immigration and natural increase among non-White populations, but also in terms of a rise in interracial marriages and the growing number of multiracial or multiethnic babies. While Whites retain the largest share of the American population among single-ethnic groups, Pew are clear that they are on an inexorable downward trajectory. The “non-Hispanic White population in the U.S. that identifies with a single race” is expected to fall below 50% by 2045.

H.L. Mencken once described faith as “an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.” Intended primarily as a barb against the religious, I couldn’t help but find it appropriate to the 61% of White adults who told Pew that the momentous changes outlined above will have absolutely no effect on American society and culture. This is to say nothing of the 15% of respondents who told Pew that such a transformation is “good for society” or “very good.” I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this last figure was dominated by Jews in Whiteface (see Kevin MacDonald’s comments on Jennifer Rubin’s unmitigated joy at White decline), but the general picture of this survey is undeniably of a White population sleepwalking into a future that has every indication of being very bad indeed.

Who are the sleepwalkers? Pew stress that “differences by age are especially pronounced.” Among respondents aged between 18 and 29, 29% say White demographic decline is good for society, compared with 13% who say it is bad. By contrast, “32% of Americans ages 65 and older say this demographic shift is bad for society and only 6% say it is good.” While there are some predictable differences between Republican and Democratic voters on whether the transformation of America will be good or bad, almost identical percentages of respondents from each party commented that it would bring about no meaningful social change and was neither good nor bad (61% of Republicans vs. 62% Democrats). Education does not appear to have had a dramatic effect on responses. Among those with postgraduate degrees, 14% replied that White demographic decline would be “somewhat bad” or “very bad,” while 18% responded that it would be “somewhat good” or “very good.” The largest percentage, in keeping with responses broken down by age and politics, was the 69% of postgrad degree holders who asserted that the transformation of America would be neither good nor bad.

“Neither Good nor Bad”

At the risk of over-analyzing a seemingly straightforward statement, I think it’s worth reflecting on the mental processes and cultural messaging that might produce the sleepwalking response highlighted by Pew. The results themselves, one might argue, could be interpreted in a “glass half full/glass half empty” kind of way, and there’s an element of truth to this argument. After all, more than 80% of White respondents to Pew refused to describe White demographic decline in America as a good thing. In the context of the demonization of White history and culture on a mass scale, and the intensification of social pressure against any form of White self-assertion, such a result could be seen as a Pyrrhic victory. Kevin MacDonald, along with several other writers at this site, have shown that there is systemic incentivization for accelerating the decline of White influence and demography, from diversity promotion in industry and business to discrimination against Whites in education and employment. The overwhelming message of modern multicultural society is that White majorities anywhere, and in any walk of life, are inherently bad, and that the easiest and most conclusive method of achieving a better, more vibrant, and more just society involves reducing White representation and flooding every historically White nation or institution with an ethnic panoply. Despite my own deeply pessimistic nature, I must confess to a level of astonishment that in the midst of such a hostile cultural context only 1 in 5 agreed that White demographic decline would be good.

But how to explain the hesitancy to describe it as bad? Isn’t it one of the most human instincts to regret loss of any kind? Each and every day, human beings regret the loss of loved ones, of wealth, of status, of youthful looks, of health, and of cherished possessions. White demographic decline, despite all propaganda, is clearly a harbinger of loss, indeed, massive loss. In simple terms, it marks a break in a chain of successive possession. You inherit land or possessions from an ancestor, and you pass it to a descendent, becoming in the course of that process an ancestor yourself. The United States of America has been a White project of successive possession since the days of the earliest colonies, and that project will come to an end on the day and hour that Whites cease to be capable of determining the direction of the nation. I say “capable of determining” rather than simply “determining” because there are clearly already hostile influential elites directing the course of contemporary America in ways antithetical to White interests. But a White majority at least entails the promise of hope that this situation can be rectified. The loss of the White majority is a loss of hope in recapturing the machinery and assets of the original project. After that Rubicon has been crossed, the only option will be to commence a new project that must have, at its heart, the recapturing of majority status.

Losing demographic control of White nations will resemble losing control of a car, since the consequences of being displaced on one’s own territory have been shown in the vast course of human history to be catastrophic, invariably being accompanied by a rise in violence, political subjugation, social ostracism, and dehumanization. Everything our “woke” critics wish to say about historical White imperialism or dominance are simply truisms of the human animal wherever it is found. What they now decry, they will soon prescribe. The dominant will dominate, and being a minority, especially when you are not historically adapted and tactically equipped for that position (unlike the Jews who are extremely well adapted to it), is a position of vulnerability to be avoided at all costs. Those who point to the protected status of minorities across contemporary Western nations forget that this is a side-effect of a particularly nasty White political hallucination that will evaporate as soon as Whites fall into minority status themselves. Whites who believe they will be granted, in an inter-ethnic quid pro quo, legal privileges, preferential paths to employment, and outsized representation in everything from TV ads to government have clearly not been reading between the lines of the hostile mass propaganda. They are living in a fool’s paradise. Where sleepwalking Whites expect reciprocity, they will find only revenge.

In less materialistic terms, White demographic decline is also a harbinger of profound cultural loss. The signs are already here. When was the last time you saw a media depiction of a normal, ethnically homogenous White community or even just a normal White family? White demographic decline means Whites will see less of themselves, or nothing at all, in the products of the culture they inhabit. The surrounding culture will, at best, become unrelatable and meaningless, and, at worst, incredibly hostile or dangerous.  If culture is the method by which a people speaks to itself about itself and its aspirations, then Whites can expect to become culturally muted, hearing only the browbeating messages of foreigners and losing all natural sense of direction as a consequence. White culture will either be forced to develop on the small-scale, in isolated pockets of ethnic homogeneity, or it will atrophy and stagnate. Faced with the demonization of historical White culture, in which it is regarded and presented as having the potential to inspire future White “wrongs,” White culture will also be subject to ever more aggressive erasure by the new dominant powers.

Liars, Cowards, and Gamblers

Faced with such potential losses, how and why have so many sleepwalkers conjured up a neutral, non-committal response? The first possibility, of course, is that deep down they hold more pessimistic views but are afraid to express them. All commentary on White Flight suggests that Whites abandon any area as soon as they become a minority, or even shrinking majority, in it. So how can people have neutral feelings for a process of decline on a national scale when they can’t even stomach it on Main Street? Is it possible that the results from Pew merely reflect apprehension and anxiety on the part of Whites to express their true feelings on diversity? While interesting, I don’t derive any comfort from this possibility. If there is so strong a sense of social fear that even an anonymous poll prompts evasion and disavowals of one’s own interests then the level of cowardice would be such that all is lost anyway.

I believe, however, that the poll results are at least in some way accurate in reflecting the true, though confused, feelings of the White population. The overwhelming majority of answers are reflective of inertia — of an inability to decide. I believe that the majority of these answers arise from a place in the White mind that is only too aware that diversity isn’t good, but also from a place that simply hasn’t been culturally equipped to see a little further down the road. I believe most Whites have an instinctual apprehension that White decline will be bad for society, but that they are so bombarded with contrary messaging that they struggle to conceptualize in what ways that society will be bad. And, unlike White flight, if the entire nation tips non-White, where is there to go? White Flight will itself become redundant. Whites will be locked in with diversity. Is the only option then, from a psychological standpoint, to simply engage in denial and hope for the best? The Pew results suggest so.

Contemporary mass culture is also a psychological trap in the sense that the White multiculturalist becomes little more than a gambler. The man in a casino mindlessly inserting cash into a fruit machine does so in an entirely artificial environment. He feels comfortable even as he loses money. He loses sense of time, and he continues to insert cash and pull the lever because lights flash, wheels spin, and there is an occasional but dramatic clang of coins into a shiny steel pocket. These are his meagre rewards. He feels good when they happen, but eventually the rewards stop and he has nothing left to give. The thought that the system was against him all along, and that his losses were preordained and predictable may not even occur to him as he walks away semi-dazed and uncomfortable with himself. The White multiculturalist is aware, consciously or not, that if he makes certain affirming noises about diversity, then he will receive the social equivalent of the flashing lights, spinning wheels, and clanging coins. He’ll attract many “likes,” for example, or if he really hits the jackpot he might get a grant or a promotion. He continues to insert the required price of the machine—support for diversity, but he’s ignorant, like the gambler, of the fact his environment is false and the system is designed for his bankruptcy. White demographic decline is the slowly emptying pocket of the gambler. Like all gamblers, the closer they get to the empty pocket, the more reckless and dramatic become the delusions of sudden winnings. For this reason, I expect that as White America’s decline accelerates, we can expect a superficially contradictory state of affairs in which swathes of Whites really do convince themselves that it’s for the best, and that society will be about to turn some magical Utopian corner. The gambler resists the thought that he was utterly stupid to ever have played the game. The multiculturalist will deny the suggestion that he contributes to his own downfall.

Fundamentally, this is what bothers me most about the Pew findings, and why I refuse the “glass half full” interpretation of them. Anyone suggesting that the dramatic changes in demography, power, and influence currently underway will be “neither good nor bad,” is living in an artificial environment in the national casino. Anyone who cannot see the stark and imminent losses on the horizon is living in an eternal present, divorced from the past and unable to conceptualize the future. They have no idea that the hour is getting late.

“A Kind of Triumph”

Inertia among normal Whites is in stark contrast to the palpable increase in joy and excited anticipation of opposing factions (see Kevin MacDonald’s latest piece examining the worst that Twitter has to offer). For the latter, there is no question of White decline being “neither bad nor good.” White demographic decline is instead a massive victory. It’s something so worthy of celebration, in fact, that they are counting down to it. Brookings Institute demographer William H. Frey, of unknown ethnic provenance, has opined in his 2018 Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America that “these changes are a good-news story for America.”[1] I find it endlessly fascinating that this prophet of good news gave his first major speech on the issue to, of all possible places, the American Jewish Committee at Houston’s Beth Yeshurun synagogue.

The remark that White America’s decline was a “good news story” reminded me of the British Jewish journalist Jonathan Freedland’s comments following the 2011 UK census. Freedland first pointed out that “the country is now less white and less Christian. In 2001, white people accounted for 91% of the total population. In the latest census, that figure is down five points to 86%.” For Freedland, 1948 was a pivotal year in British history because it “saw the arrival of the Windrush, the ship bearing the Caribbean migrants who would change the face of Britain.” He cajoled his readers into the belief that he is a jolly old Anglo-Saxon with clever references to “we” and “us,” arguing that “we should love the country we have become — informal, mixed, quirky — rather than the one we used to be.” Freedland then reported gleefully that “White Britons have become a minority in London, accounting for only 45% of the city’s population,” and ended his article with the astonishing remark that “the main story is surely that this country has undergone a radical transformation in this last decade and the ones before — and it has done so with relative peace and relative calm. No one will hand out any gold medals for that, but it’s a kind of triumph all the same.” Britain, like America, is undergoing its changes “with relative peace and relative calm” because it is also home to sleepwalkers, liars, cowards, and gamblers.

Conclusion

This is an unapologetically pessimistic essay, to the extent that its intention is not to demoralize but to assist with sharpening our vision of the problem at hand. This problem involves an artificial environment, a rigged system of temporary reward, and an ever-diminishing return for any Whites playing the dangerous game of diversity. In life you either gain or lose. There is no room for stasis. The idea that massive demographic change will be “neither good nor bad” is nothing more than an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable. The Pew findings indicate that any kind of White awakening to a full realization of the true nature of White decline will be a mammoth task.

[1] W. H. Frey, Diversity Explosion: How New Racial Demographics are Remaking America (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institute, 2018).

Importing Afghanistan: A Very Stupid Idea with Very Powerful Enablers

/51 Comments/in /by

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?

What we’re up against: White liberals rejoice at Whites becoming a minority

/73 Comments/in , /by

I know I spend too much time on Twitter, but this definitely caught my attention:

Yes, of course, it’s strange. What other definable group rejoices that they are becoming a minority and therefore with less power over their future, especially when we see so much anti-White hatred coming from high places? But this tweeter has 85.9k followers, and she is following 55.9k—which means that she is a member of a informal liberal Twitter “resist” group that reciprocates when anyone follows her, not that she is some kind of celebrity. (Although at least some liberal celebrities certainly are celebrating: Michael Moore called the announcement “the best day ever in US history.”)  “Liz ‘Bama’ #BLM #GoodTrouble” is “Bama born & raised,” and is definitely into virtue signaling: “I got nothin’ but Red heart. Equality, morality, integrity, empathy, knowledge & #’s are power. We are 1. Only here to resist.y’all.”

She tweeted this on Aug 22, and as of this writing there are 762 replies, 333 retweets (including 84 quote tweets-where tweeters commented on her tweet), and 3.2K likes, all from like-minded people, the vast majority White. Her tweet thus verges on being enough of a sample for a better understanding of how average, non-celebrity, garden-variety liberals think about the Great Replacement. First, however, I present some findings reviewed in my Chapter 8 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition showing that in general people are happier in more homogeneous communities and that White people in general do not rejoice at the news that they will soon be a minority.

Sociologist Robert D. Putnam recently showed that the greater the racial diversity of a community, the greater the loss of trust.[1] Putnam’s result is confirmed by studies conducted at the local community level.[2] Moreover, people living among fellow ethnics are happier than individuals living as an ethnic minority.[3] White people living in relatively homogeneous areas like New Hampshire or Montana are more involved with friends, the community, and politics than people in more diverse areas.[4] …

There are also mechanisms that are likely to create an increased sense of White identity and White interests in the years ahead. The fundamental reason for this is the demographic transformation resulting from massive immigration of non-Whites into countries that were either homogeneously White or, like the United States (which in 1960 was ninety percent White), had a dominant White majority. This transformation, in which it is obvious that White political power is declining as Whites head toward minority status, would by itself trigger defensive mechanisms of implicit Whiteness and behavior such White flight discussed above.

Individualists are less naturally ethnocentric, and the left has created a culture that encourages Whites to inhibit expressions of ethnocentrism while encouraging non-Whites to be ethnocentric. Because the media is dominated by the left and because even the conservative media is terrified of appearing to advocate White interests, explicit messages that would encourage Whites to become angry and fearful about their future as a minority are rare. Indeed, the media rarely, if ever, mentions that Whites are well on their way to becoming a minority. And this for good reason: Whites in the United States and in Canada who are given explicit demographic projections of a time when Whites are no longer a majority tend to feel angry and fearful. They are also more likely to identify as Whites and have sympathy for other Whites.[5] [See also here and here.]

In other words, while I have emphasized the ability of the higher brain centers to inhibit ethnocentrism, explicit messages indicating that one’s racial group is threatened are able to trigger ethnocentrism. This is especially important because many Whites live far from the areas of their countries undergoing the demographic shifts. Their day-to-day life of living in an essentially White environment hasn’t changed while the population centers of New York, California, Toronto, and Vancouver have changed beyond all recognition from what they were 50 years ago. An obvious inference to be made is that pro-White activists should appeal to Whites’ higher brain centers with explicit messages emphasizing these transformations.

But as indicated in the following,  messages emphasizing the dwindling White majority are cause for rejoicing among a great many Whites.

In the present case, the trigger was the announcement that the 2020 census found that for the first time in American history, the White population had declined in absolute numbers and that Whites now comprise only 57.8% of the population. Good news for Democrats, of course: “Democrats have reason to be happy with this census data set,” Dave Wasserman, House editor of the Cook Political Report, told The New York Times, citing the higher-than-expected population tallies in New York and Chicago and the steady growth of the nation’s Hispanic population.”

But such news likely triggers twinges of anxiety, even in many White liberals—twinges that need to be suppressed by finding support from like-minded people. I suppose “Liz ‘Bama’ #BLM” felt a bit of anxiety, having been brought up in the South and probably aware that quite a few White Southerners think her attitudes are indeed a bit “strange.” So she decided to Tweet to her liberal Twitter followers in hopes of getting  support for her beliefs. And support she got, as shown by the numbers of positive replies and retweets. In the following I will describe several general categories of response and give pertinent examples of each.

White Racists Are Evil and Deserve Payback for Past Treatment of Non-Whites

It is common for these liberals to direct their invective at “White racists,” imagining that good liberals like themselves will be spared any negative consequences. They are thus oblivious to the general anti-White rhetoric that is common now. It doesn’t resonate with them that White women in general and White liberals as a group are being excoriated for their racism (e.g., Robin DiAngelo’s Nice Racism).  It’s common on the left to believe that all White people share the original sin of being White and therefore are blameworthy for such things as the history of slavery and colonialism by Whites.

There is obviously a moral dimension to this. As individualists, White people are particularly prone to forming moral communities (rather than kinship-based communities like the rest of the world) and to punishing people who dissent from their moral world view, even at substantial cost to themselves and even if they share many of the same characteristics as the people they are punishing, such being White. This is termed altruistic punishment by evolutionary psychologists and is a major theme of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. Liberals therefore rejoice when Whites are punished for their racial attitudes. And since many of them are quite clearly older, established White people, it doesn’t even cost them anything to rejoice about White replacement. They’re all set. Of course, that means they ignore not only the long-term prospects of the wider White population whose fate they are completely unconcerned about, but also the long-term effects on their children and other relatives (e.g., job prospects in an anti-White hiring environment), although, as indicated below, some, including “Liz ‘Bama'” probably don’t have any children.

The tweet below expresses the idea that “White supremacists” will be punished but that people like her will be just fine when Whites are a minority. She may change her mind when her children or grandchildren try to get a job, get into a good college, or get caught up in the judicial system if Whites become a minority.

A Black man tweets that Whites have nothing to worry about and Liz “Bama” #BLM responds that it’s just fine that Whites be treated in the future like non-Whites have been treated in the past. Since Liz “Bama” #BLM doesn’t mention children in her Twitter profile, I suspect she has the attitude that the retribution won’t affect her, so she really doesn’t care if anti-White hatred becomes even more mainstream than it is now. She’s got hers—in effect, a radical individualist.

People Who Advertise They Are Non-Reproductive

Here a “Mother of Cats” gives her input—presumably no children or grandchildren to worry about when Whites lose power. It’s all about coming off as good person. And presumptive fellow cat mother Liz “Bama” #BLM completely agrees.

And here’s another non-reproductive. Her(?) Twitter profile shows  enthusiasm for “dogs!,” BLM, Indigenous People, and “LGBTQIA.”

It’s Great that Whites are Becoming a Minority So We Can Usher in an Era of Peace and Harmony

While some responders look forward to retribution against “white racists,” others have the view that the world will be a much better place if non-Whites are in control. It’s going to be all peace and love. But watch out for the tax collector!

One aspect of this era of peace and harmony is that once White people are not in control, ethnic conflict will disappear—a view that’s obviously out of touch with historical reality. Fifty years of importing non-Whites has led to less ethnic conflict? But in their view, non-Whites are just so much nicer. This one is from “Feline, anarcho-socialist” (presumably non-reproductive). She is a lover of humanity.

In response to a virtue-signaler, the same person who did the previous tweet is so ill-informed she thinks that right-wing elites and corporations run the country and are preventing the triumph of the left. Watched much TV lately? Read about the politics of Hollywood, social media companies, academia, and large swaths of corporate America (Coca-Cola, etc.)?

My view is that, if all groups become minorities, it will set off ethnic/racial competition like this country’s never seen before. But:

Diversity contributes to personal growth!

And then there’s the food, but he’s careful to point out that he’s not one of those evil White gentrifiers.

The Unselfish Virtue-Signaler

Relevant to convincing these people of the short-sightedness of their ways, she also tweeted regarding liberal media coverage of the Afghanistan disaster. These people are living in a cult-like environment and actively tune out information that conflicts with their world view. Rational arguments have no weight because they are simply shut out of consciousness.

Looking Forward to a Future with Lots of Non-White Skin Tones

Finally, there’ll be a cure for skin cancer!

Media Memes: Diversity is Wonderful, and White Racists Are Stupid, Violent People

For at least the last 50 years the media has been filled with messages that White people who identify as White, have at least an implicit sense of White interests, or have negative beliefs and attitudes about non-Whites are stupid—they’re likely to live in a trailer park, shop at Walmart, and be missing a few teeth. At best they are buffoons, like Archie Bunker on Norman Lear’s All in the Family (first aired in 1971), which “spawn[ed] spinoffs that were actually just as popular; The Jeffersons, Maude, and Good Times. So popular that we actually saw a revival of All in the Family and The Jeffersons for ABC’s Live in Front of a Studio Audience in 2019.” White liberals have definitely gotten the message:

And another tweet that reflects the power of the media in promoting diversity:

And yet another pervasive meme, both in education and the media, is “white privilege,”  so it’s no surprise to read that whatever White people achieve is because it was “handed to them at birth”:

And of course, there’s the pervasive meme of “there’s no such thing as race,” coupled here with a very tendentious view of history right out of “The 1619 Project” and your average Black Studies course—and now the K-12 curriculum in many school districts.

Relatedly, this person repeats the “race is only skin deep” mantra:

Religious Reasons: Jesus Would Approve of Whites Becoming a Minority

Whites Are Still Scary and, Like a Cornered Animal, Will Fight to Retain Power. Government

This is reminiscent of Jennifer Rubin’s tweet in response to the census news that formed the starting point of my previous essay. This person must be reading the Washington Post:

But on the other hand, this tweet expresses fear that some non-Whites will join evil Whites to become part of “the oppressive.”

A Presumably Jewish Person Deciding to Not To Be White Any Longer 

Now that Whites are under continuous attack for their so-called privileges and systemic racism, etc., I have noticed in the Jewish media that it’s becoming common now for Jews to explicitly say they are not White (this doesn’t include the “fellow-Whites” who claim to be Jews while lecturing Whites on how evil they are on social media).

Not Wanting to See Race

These White folks are accepting what has become a mantra among conservatives: that we should be colorblind. This is the basis of the conservative critique of Critical Race Theory because it leads people to be more aware of race and vilifies White people. Surprised to see it because such views are definitely not approved by typical leftists these days.

Feminism and Birth Control Overturned White Control

Here’s a rather unique perspective: a White woman rejoicing at the soon-to-be White minority and crediting feminism and birth control, presumably because it has resulted in fewer Whites.

A Dissenting Voice (Who Quickly Apologizes)

Mentioning the economic disparities for POC obviously avoids thinking about why so many Asians are going well in systemically racist White America. Par for the course on the left. And here’s another person who thinks ending White majority status will lead to an end of hatred:

Conclusion

Enough already! There are a wide range of reasons, but they all come down to a whole lot of White people looking forward eagerly to a non-White future. It’s very difficult to see how White identitarians can turn this malaise around when so many of our people are so seriously deluded about the likely results of Whites losing political power. As I noted in my previous essay, the hatred won’t end with a White minority—Jewish hatred toward the West traces back to the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. and didn’t change after they achieved power in the USSR or with the West’s involvement in the defeat of National Socialism. Black hatred is common common among BLM activists, and hostility toward Whites is a bedrock feature of Critical Race Theory that is now well established in many educational systems. Even recent immigrants like Ilhan Omar quickly learn that hostility toward White America is the route to acceptance and upward mobility. The danger is particularly acute given that elites throughout the West are firmly in favor of the Great Replacement. These are people who control the media and are able to sway elections by censoring information and by financial contributions. The people reviewed here are simply the White foot soldiers.

Despite their contempt for the intelligence of the people they disagree with, these people show no signs of operating at a very high level of mental ability—just repeating messages they can easily pick up by watching TV or getting through the education system. They are in a liberal-left bubble and I really don’t think there are rational arguments that would convince them. What might make a difference would be personal experience that conflicts with their world view—having one’s store looted by Black rioters even though you have BLM posters all over the windows. Or being denied a job or a promotion given to less qualified people because of affirmative action policies. Or being shut out of government programs for small business, such as the program giving loans only to Black farmers. Or having a child or grandchild unable to get into a good public university  and having to pay exorbitant tuition and fees for a second-rate private college. Might convince them. And maybe not.

Many of these tweeters explicitly stated that they think the world will be a much better place with Whites out of power, and they probably all believe this. But it’s yet another utopian crusade that will end badly for Whites—and likely for everyone else. In Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition (Ch. 6) I have a  section on the nineteenth-century Puritan-descended intellectuals who dominated American elite culture and created what we would recognize today as a culture of the left—utopian, idealistic, and moralistic.

Humanity was thus heading toward a spiritual and material utopia—a golden age of peace, harmony, righteous behavior and material comfort—ideas that were often combined with the idea that this golden age would follow upon an apocalyptic battle between good and evil. Such thinking may well have been the lens through which many in the North saw the Civil War; as indicated above, it appears to characterize how Lincoln saw his role as an agent of God fighting an apocalyptic battle against evil. …

Ernest Tuveson [Redeemer Nation: The Idea of America’s Millennial Role; U of Chicago Press, 1968] notes that the moralistic, idealistic strand of American thought tends to come to the fore in times of crisis—“the expansionist period, the Civil War, the First World War.” After the evil has been vanquished, the rhetoric dies down, and disillusionment may occur as people realize that evil has not, after all, been extirpated. However, it lurks in the background and may revive in times of crisis. “Yet, despite post-Civil War disillusionment, the myth of the Redeemer Nation kept a hold on the deepest feelings of the country, and in critical moments asserted itself,” citing several speeches of Woodrow Wilson: “America had the infinite privilege of fulfilling her destiny and saving the world.”

Sound familiar? By all accounts, America is in a crisis now, and it’s no surprise that the moralistic rhetoric is deafening. America is more divided now than at any time in its history, except possible during the Civil War, that other great period of moral crusading. We have embarked on yet another battle between  absolute good (diversity) and absolute evil (a sense of White identity and interests), and when the evil is destroyed, it will usher in a golden age of harmony for all.

But disillusionment is bound to occur. The only problem is that it’s looking more and more that  when disillusionment finally does occur among even the most idealistic, moralistic leftists, there are not going to be enough White people who can turn the situation around.

[1] Putnam, “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century”; recent literature is reviewed in Salter, “The Biosocial Study of Ethnicity”; see also “Germany’s Jeopardy.”

[2] See Salter, “The Biosocial Study of Ethnicity.”

[3] Ibid.

[4] Steve Sailer, “Fragmented Future: Multiculturalism Doesn’t Make Vibrant Communities but Defensive Ones,” The American Conservative (January 1, 2007).

[5] H. Robert Outten, Michael T. Schmitt, and Daniel A. Miller, “Feeling threatened about the future: Whites’ emotional reactions to anticipated ethnic demographic changes,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38 (2011): 14–25.

 

 

How the University Sector Promotes the “White Insurrection” Concept

/36 Comments/in /by

The January 6th event in Washington, D.C. continues to be systematically promoted as domestic terror, but also as “White insurrection,” and “White Supremacy.”  The three words—supremacy, terror, and insurrection—have been turned into a triad memetic, where supremacy represents terror, and terror leads to insurrection.  They are self-reinforcing and self-perpetuating concepts that can be applied in nearly any context, and positioned as a profound threat to public safety that purportedly needs to be “confronted,” suppressed and extinguished.  It is a theme that is being deepened in its institutional promotion, and accelerated and heightened in its use as threat and intimidation language against millions of Americans who are either conservative, aligned with the Republican Party, or especially, if they are White and have positive attitudes about Anglo-Saxon culture.

What is fascinating however, is how this theme of domestic terror is advanced, not only by most cooperating media that many adults listen to and view, but also that it is firmly entrenched at the higher education level as a tool of political propaganda and influence directed at the nation’s young adults who are at or nearing voting age.  Getting at the 18–25-year-old cohort, with such racial and ideological messaging, is critical in influencing public attitudes, and creating a massive “force” of active followers, whereas older adults generally are either more resistant or indifferent.  Young adults are more prone to become activists, to be more vocal, and to internalize the racial terror concept into their daily thinking and behavior.

“White Supremacy” shares, in this regard, a similar opportunism with the Covid program which in many ways is also centered directly in the university sector, as the modern university or college campus contains all the characteristics and infrastructure necessary to efficiently and effectively promote and disseminate what are highly structured psychological programs, designed to “cognitively infiltrate” (in the words of former Obama advisor, Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein) young adults.

At the center of the structured programming that I’m describing—and perhaps the most deeply committed higher education institution that is actively serving as an ideological conduit and as an effective agent or partner in racial and ethnic propaganda programming—is the University of Chicago.  Its concentrated mix of political influence (active campus “Left” alumni including former president Barack Obama, Chicago Mayor Laurie Lightfoot, US Senator Bernie Sanders, and DNC operative and former Obama advisor, David Axelrod), combined with: active government-corporate sponsored programs in race and identity; medical- and biosecurity-related communications; and the University’s deeply embedded relationships with several foundations, including especially the Rockefeller Foundation, along with the Obama, Soros, Gates, and Pritzker Foundations, and its active management of US Department of Defense and intelligence programs, make the University of Chicago arguably the epicenter of current U.S. university special interest programs that are being directly targeted against the American public.

Among its several institutional campus centers that are actively devoted to the articulation, dissemination, and even “research” concerning “White Terror” is the Chicago Program on Security and Threats (or “CPOST”).  It is headed by former Bush administration White House advisor Robert Pape (Ph.D, UChicago) who is an original member of the Bush “911” team and who subsequently promoted the “Muslim terror” construct, including creating a “Muslim suicide terror” data base as his first effort as head of UChicago’s CPOST.[1]

The Center is supported by an Advisory Board that includes former CIA Deputy (and Acting) Director, Michael Morell who made his career from the Global War on Terror program, and markets himself as one of the few confidants (and apparently a hero) at Bush’s side on 9-11.[2]  It also includes former US Army General Andrew Twomey who acted as “deputy commanding general and chief of staff for the Combined Security Transition Command in Afghanistan, where he planned and directed the execution of security assistance programs to field the Afghan National Security Forces.”[3]

Perhaps more unsettling, and threatening to the larger integrity of the university community is “Counterterrorism Strategic Advisor,” Laurie Adler.  Adler is a graduate of the University of Chicago’s master’s program in International Relations and has a resume that indicates her deep involvement in psychological operations within the Washington establishment: “During her 25-year Washington, DC career, Adler worked with US/International Governments & Fortune 500 clients on counterterrorism, public relations, and government/international affairs.  She managed complex, high-profile, crisis & international public affairs issues.”

As the Strategic Communications Advisor to the US Army’s Human Terrain System (HTS), “Adler led all strategic/crisis communications & public affairs. HTS embedded social scientists with Brigade Commanders in Iraq & Afghanistan which provided field commanders with an understanding of the local population & culture to assist their operational requirements. Spearheading a creative team, she won a $100 million US Special Operations Command psychological operations campaign contract. This campaign was to counter militant Islamic propaganda through creative information campaigns against terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan & worldwide.”[4]

In my view, Adler’s work in the Middle East, like the larger Global War on Terror, is now being turned inward, domestically, on American citizens.  Her new “enemy” is the American “White Supremacist.”

At an organizational level, the University of Chicago consists of a multi-level hierarchy of influence and interests that together create the overall institutional culture and ideology that invites, facilitates and nourishes the kind of programming, like the ideology of “White Terror,” which then serves as a platform for academic activity (research and teaching), as well as for funding, from government agencies, and from private corporations serving them.

At its Board of Trustee level, the University is carefully organized with influencers and interests that consolidate around opportunistic themes, programs and strategic initiatives that can be used for several purposes: to extend university-corporate linkages; to attract finance to underwrite new departments or department expansion; and to attract students and researchers who otherwise have no original intellectual instinct or capability, but can attach themselves eagerly to programs that radiate authority, reinforce social and political consensus, and offer reassurances of further career prospects, especially in an institutional dimension.

The University’s “Becker Friedman Institute” (BFI) is its highly financed, para-state flagship economics center, named after Nobel economist Milton Friedman.[5]  It is another active propaganda platform, staffed with a number of political assets including former Obama chief economics advisor, the far Left Austan Goolsbee, who provides regular defense of racial activism, including his regular apologia for BLM terror and violence, by couching it in seemingly objective economic terms.

The BFI organization itself is run by former Chief Economist for the Obama administration Council of Economic Advisers, Michael Greenstone, who champions state-based programs, government spending, radical taxation, and of course equity and diversity studies as part of his larger social engineering advocacy.[6] A recent BFI-sponsored paper sought to reinforce the January 6th event as White terror, by asserting a scientific study of cellphone location data, targeting private citizens as insurrectionists: “Profiling Insurrection: Characterizing Collective Action Using Mobile Device Data.”[7]  It was a stunning intellectual assault on Americans.

The growing consensus on the concept of “White terror” provides an organizing system of thought that allows graduate students and faculty to attach themselves to an initiative with economic promise, and social recognition.  It is by agreement, not by confrontation, that most young adults and faculty seek their orientation within local societies and institutions like university and college corporations.  By tacitly agreeing and cooperating with “White Supremacy” academic programming, both faculty and graduate students are rewarded with grants, donations, academic publishing, and promises of further employment.

For the various special interests that seek to demonize, marginalize, and responsively classify certain others as “White Supremacists”—and to attach to that label a reflexive, conditioned association of danger, threat, destabilization and criminal intent, it is especially vital to condition young adults. And there is no better place to reach them than in the nation’s higher education complex.  The university system is effectively a ready-made network of “re-education” camps that house, feed, train, socialize, condition, reinforce, and dangle life incentives (career preparation, income, economic fit and stability) in return for conforming to the status quo.

In nearly all fascist, authoritarian and operational communist regimes, it is young adult recruitment and control that is key to creating the “army” of mass obedience, and especially, an army with a self-policing sociology where the young adult mind becomes the effective jailor and keeper of its own intellectual confines and of its own tribal affiliations.  Such recruitment and control reinforce group solidarity, but they also radically reinforce group division among “insiders” and “outsiders”—among the safe and unsafe, the acceptable and the unacceptable.  In the past such programs have provided the cognitive and behavioral justification for incarceration and murder, and in some times and places, even mass extermination, imprisonment or isolation.

The “White Terror” meme cannot be as effectively deployed and enforced on older adults, as they already have a network of interests, associations, beliefs and experiences that create at least some resistance to ideological conditioning, if only through economic self-interest (such as property) and the necessary cooperative routines of living and working in an adult economy.

But students generally have no such (or many fewer) compromises, conflicts, practical concerns or attachments: they live in a world of unattached independence, their lives defined by a rented apartment or dormitory room, a meal plan, and the campus itself as their entire economic world including all the issues related to safety, security, health care, recreation, socialization, romance, and highly defined routines.

The college campus is in fact nearly the perfect microcosm of a socialist society, where many of life’s demands are kept at bay or not even visible. These needs are provided for and centrally directed by a controlling administrative authority, and by older adult “keepers” and guides (faculty) who carefully structure acceptable or desirable thinking, especially at a group political level.  Indeed, it is the power of abstraction, privately employed that, as William James remarked, creates a “vicious abstractionism” that is “among the great original sins of the rationalistic mind.”[8]

The University of Chicago further reinforces this arrangement by completely surrounding the university with authority figures—prominent, influential people. As a pillar of the establishment, it regards the state and certain corporations, foundations, and political and even religious affiliations as more, or less acceptable, or even “safe” or unsafe. In UChicago’s case, this includes the on-campus Institute of Politics, run by former Obama senior advisor and Israel-first advocate, David Axelrod, and the Obama Foundation itself, an institution that is much more than a mere presidential library that protects presidential reputations, but rather an active “community organizing” center that promotes and disseminates its racial ideology across the entire university including the professional graduate schools such as the law school, where he taught “race and law.”

The university is further reinforced ideologically by its deep managerial role with the Fermi Lab, and the Argonne National Laboratories, both Department of Defense installations.  The new Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering and the Pritzker School of Medicine, backed by Chicago’s Pritzker family, act as additional nodes of influence and ideology, including the careful thematic management and credentialing of the overall Covid and biosecurity domain, in large part through the use of the “medical expert” platform it provides. (They act also as effective state broadcast and propaganda centers, issuing medical and behavioral guidance on a nearly daily basis.)  Indeed, race, biosecurity, and social divisiveness are powerfully combined in the realm of vaccination policy, where the “unvaccinated” and especially those who doubt and question the Covid vaccines, are branded as outsiders, and linked to red state politics, and White, conservative, rural, and even southern identity

The current biological and ethno-cultural narratives of racial safety and political safety are combined together to create a powerful fear-threat reaction among young adults who are still cognitively and emotionally vulnerable and developing.  Via the totality of conditioning hosted and operated by the university complex, this represents a new social threat—a threat that is more pronounced and well beyond any previously present on our nation’s university and college campuses.  The ever-present indoctrination of racial animosity, fear and even hatred, re-establishes the education complex—including now even elementary and secondary schools—as an institutional body fully absorbed into the state itself, rather than merely part of a “complex” that historically sought to actively maintain some independence from government, commercial, and political influences.

Like the original American system of federalism that consists of separate, independent layers and units of government, the university, originally founded on similar independence, has collapsed into the center of a unified block of monolithic authority, largely because of its vulnerability to and eager willingness to obtain financial grants from government and private foundations, regardless of their objectives.

V.S. Solovyev is a graduate of the University of Chicago

[1] https://cpost.uchicago.edu/people/profile/robert_pape/

[2] https://cpost.uchicago.edu/people/profile/michael_morell/

[3] https://cpost.uchicago.edu/people/profile/andrew_twomey/

[4] https://cpost.uchicago.edu/people/profile/laurie_adler/

[5] Friedman was not quite the “free market” guru and champion that he is typically portrayed to be, and often argued for state priorities including his design of the income tax automatic payroll deduction system which utterly changed the relationship between the individual and the state by taking private property prior to private review and voluntary agreement.

[6] https://economics.uchicago.edu/directory/michael-greenstone

[7] https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/profiling-insurrection-characterizing-collective-action-using-mobile-device-data/

[8]  THE MEANING OF TRUTH: A SEQUEL TO “PRAGMATISM.” By William James. London, Bombay and Calcutta: LJongmans, Green & Co., 1909

Racism or Rapism: No Third-World People, No Third-World Pathologies

/14 Comments/in /by

One reliable sign of leftism in action is that it most harms those whom it claims to care about most. For example, the Labour party in Britain proclaims its concern for the working-class in its very name. But Labour has been attacking the working-class with mass migration and anti-racism for decades. When working-class Whites called for help against the invasion, Labour didn’t simply ignore them as they were murdered, raped, robbed and driven out of their traditional districts by non-White enrichers. No, it demonized them as “racist,” “xenophobic,” and “fascist.”

The golden rewards of treachery

Roy Hattersley (born 1932), once deputy leader of the Labour party and MP for the Birmingham constituency of Sparkbrook in the 1960s and ’70s, has boasted about his own treachery. He’s written in the Guardian that: “For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist Sparkbrook’s demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all [Third-World] immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”

Smug traitor Roy Hattersley and his Jewish wife

Hattersley openly admits both that immigration is vitally important — in his own smug and pompous words, it’s one of “the great issues of national policy” — and that he refused to defend the people he was elected to serve. In other words, he betrayed the White working-class. And his treachery has made him both rich and respected. He’s now married to Maggie Pearlstine, the Jewish literary agent who made him rich, and sits in the House of Lords as Baron Hattersley. You can be sure he feels no shame about what was happening to the White working class in Birmingham while he was “resist[ing] Sparkbrook’s demands about the great issues of national policy”:

A man has been convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl 46 years ago, after the daughter conceived during the attack pursued charges against him. Carvel Bennett, 74, was convicted by a jury at Birmingham crown court. Members of the jury deliberated for just over two hours before finding him guilty.

In what is thought to be the first case of its kind, Bennett was tracked down by Daisy, now 45, who was conceived through the rape. DNA tests on Daisy and her birth parents confirmed that Bennett was her biological father. … While Bennett told the court he regretted what had happened, he denied raping her. He said that she had made sexual overtures to him and that she had told him she was 16. She strongly denied both claims.

Bennett said in his evidence: “I didn’t know she was 13. It wasn’t a deliberate, contemplated act. I don’t feel I have to apologise to her. I don’t think I have done anything to her. I don’t remember her as a scared child.” (Man found guilty of rape after woman conceived in attack pursues charges, The Guardian, 2nd August 2021)

A Black breaking barriers: Carvel Bennett

How the Guardian illustrated Mr Bennett’s Black barrier-busting

Thanks to traitors like Roy Hattersley, there have been many “scared children” raped and otherwise harmed by unrepentant non-Whites in Britain. That report appeared in the Guardian, which chose to head it with a photograph of “Birmingham crown court.” The newspaper didn’t want to celebrate another milestone for Britain’s Black community, you see, because Carvel Bennett is Black (another story in the Guardian did give his photo proper prominence). What were the odds that a Black rapist would be the star of “the first case of its kind” in Britain?

Well, the odds would have been low if Blacks committed rape in proportion to their small share of the population. But Blacks commit rape, murder and other violent crimes far out of proportion to their numbers, which is why the leftist parties that support Black migration are also supporting the rape and murder of White women who would otherwise lead rape-free and violence-free lives.

They know the evils they’re importing

That’s leftism, you see: it most harms those whom it claims to care about most. But it isn’t only Black rapists whom leftists import into the West in ever-growing numbers. Muslim men also commit rape and murder far out of proportion to their numbers. And leftists know this very well. The Guardian reported recently on some shocking comments by the Pakistani prime minister Imran Khan. He “advised women to cover up to prevent” men being tempted to rape them.

The Guardian then put Khan’s disgraceful victim-blaming into cultural context: “Pakistan is a deeply conservative country where sexual abuse survivors are often viewed with suspicion and criminal complaints are rarely seriously investigated. Much of the country lives under an ‘honour’ code where women who bring ‘shame’ on the family can be subjected to violence or murder. It regularly ranks among the worst places in the world for gender equality.”

Non-White rapism in White Denmark: Rape-rates by country of origin

An obvious question arises. If Pakistan and other Muslim countries are among “the worst places in the world for gender equality,” will mass migration by Muslims into the West be good for Western women? An obvious answer follows: No, it will be very bad for Western women. And Muslim have proved it by forming anti-White rape-gangs everywhere from Rotherham in England to Sydney in Australia. Leftism has worked its maleficent magic once again. It claims to care immeasurably about women’s welfare while simultaneously importing non-White rapists and misogynists who do immeasurable harm to women’s welfare. And leftists are not doing this out of ignorance. As the Guardian’s own words prove, they know how badly Third-World men behave towards women on home soil. But it doesn’t stop leftists feeding relentless growth of Third-World colonies in the First World. By doing that, they also feed the growth here of Third-World rapism, the genuine rape-culture that flourishes in countries like Pakistan and Jamaica.

An even more remarkable Black rapist

And rather than admit they are wrong, leftists do their best to hide or deny the crime committed by Third-World colonists. The Black rapist Carvel Bennett starred in what “is thought to be the first case of its kind” in British legal history. The Guardian chose to illustrate his breakthrough with a photo of Birmingham crown court. But the leftist ideal is to ignore Black rapism altogether. Back in 1999, the Black rapist Milton Brown was the self-appointed star of his own trial for rape, after he dismissed his defence team and spent “five days” personally cross-examining his three victims.

But he failed in his heroic resistance to the racist White legal system and was jailed for 21 years. The then prime minister, Tony Blair, made a great show of changing the law to prevent men accused of rape being able to cross-examine their alleged victims. At the same time, Blair’s Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche was opening the borders to the Third World and ensuring that lots more rapists like Milton Brown took up residence in Britain.

Rapist then, rapist now: the remarkable Milton Brown

While Brown was in jail, one of his victims committed suicide. It’s reasonable to conclude that she never recovered from the way he had “locked in his [apartment] for three months, sexually abused her and beat her with a nail-studded plank.” But Brown was released early from jail, “after 14 years,” and resumed his career of rape and violence against women. This year, he’s been jailed again on “two counts of rape, assault by penetration and attempted rape.”

You’d expect the feminists at the Guardian to be writing detailed analyses of this Black high-achiever, because his crimes say so much about toxic masculinity, rape-culture, and the shameful woman-harming failures of Britain’s male-dominated justice system. But the Guardian hasn’t mentioned Milton Brown’s remarkable feats at all. Quite understandably, leftists don’t want to discuss Black rapism and the consequences of their own ideology.

The simple choice facing the West

That’s bad enough, but leftists also want to stop everyone else discussing the consequences of leftism. It’s “racist” to point out that Blacks, Muslims and other non-Whites rape at higher rates and in worse ways than White men. And what is worse than racism? Well, rapism is worse than racism. Much worse. Indeed, racism in the true sense isn’t bad at all. It’s a healthy and natural response to Third-World invasion. Unlike leftism, racism acknowledges reality rather than denying reality. It doesn’t seek to harm non-Whites, but to stop non-Whites entering and harming White nations where they don’t belong.

So that’s the choice we face: racism or rapism. Either we acknowledge racial reality or we deny it. If we acknowledge it, we have to send non-Whites back where they do belong. If we deny it, we will continue to suffer rape, murder, terrorism and all the other Third-World pathologies that inevitably accompany Third-World people.

Crime, corruption, and interference: China’s CCP confluence in PC Canada

/22 Comments/in /by

Recent experiences of Canadians in China have Ottawa professing its intention to finally stand up to Beijing. But Canada’s internal Chinese threat demonstrates greater vulnerability to Middle Kingdom machinations. China complements its military and economic power with three Western-bestowed weapons: immigration policies, political correctness, and corporate greed.

Sino-Canadian relations came to prominence on August 10, when a Chinese court imposed the death sentence on a Canadian convicted of drug smuggling. The following day China sentenced another Canadian to 11 years on highly doubtful espionage charges in a largely secret trial. A second alleged Canadian spy awaits trial on equally dubious charges. China arrested those two in apparent retaliation shortly after Canada detained Beijing insider Meng Wanzhou, CFO of tech giant Huawei Technologies, on an American extradition request. While the Canadians languish in solitary confinement, Meng resides in one of her two Vancouver mansions.

Vague talk of trade sanctions and a boycott of Beijing’s 2022 Winter Olympics emphasizes Canada’s helplessness. But China’s depredations inside Canada have long been obvious, especially in Vancouver. The city’s pitiable state might induce scorn, but “Hongkouver” presents a warning to the entire West. With nearly 50 million Chinese living overseas, 80% of them citizens of 180 countries, the rest of the world might wonder whose interests this enormous migration serves. Two recent books have, however cautiously, examined its impact on Canada.

Both authors are journalists, so they distance themselves from any hint of racial realism. Published earlier this year, Sam Cooper’s Wilful Blindness: How A Network of Narcos, Tycoons and CCP Agents Infiltrated the West starts with a preface by a Chinese granting permission to criticize Chinese corruption. Despite Cooper’s disturbing account, the author sometimes expresses almost breathtaking naivete.

Additional revelations come from the 2019 publication Claws of the Panda: Beijing’s Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada. But this writer, former Hong Kong correspondent Jonathan Manthorpe, actually considers “populism” as characterized by Boris Johnson and Donald Trump to be an even more “toxic” threat to Canada than the Chinese Communist Party.

That must be a Chernobyl-level of toxicity because Manthorpe describes China as “a fascist regime . . . with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” He adds comparisons to Russian “Mafia capitalism” and “a classic Chinese imperial dynasty.”

The dynasties bring to mind the Middle Kingdom, a country that for thousands of years shut out the rest of the world to bask in its sense of racial superiority.

Now China has unleashed itself and its presumed superiority on the world. Historically, that’s a stunning reversal of more than a century of humiliation by foreign powers that ended with imperial Japan’s 1945 collapse. During the Opium Wars beginning in 1839, British gunboats opened China to the drug trade with Britain, the world’s first narco-state. Grim irony can be seen in the streets of Vancouver, where a sprawling underclass of mostly White addicts contrasts with an ostentatiously wealthy Chinese elite. Cooper says some Canadian and American intelligence sources believe today’s fentanyl trade represents Beijing’s “weaponized” use of the drug.

As Manthorpe explains, what’s good for Chinese business is good for the CCP. He says it’s irrelevant whether or not a Chinese company is state-owned. All sizeable businesses in China and many abroad hold close ties to the Beijing regime.

That’s an aspect of guanxi, the network of relationships that binds Chinese politicians, entrepreneurs, and gangsters. Yes, gangsters — Canadian police and security intel shows that “China’s government is in fact controlling drug cartels,” Cooper reports.

Beginning in the 1970s, the Chinese population of the Canadian province of British Columbia expanded rapidly thanks to exceptionally lax immigration policies, partly a reciprocal gesture for Chinese trade with powerful Canadian corporations. Maybe few places in the world can match greater Vancouver for its proportion of Chinese. Their numbers, wealth, and influence have transformed the metropolitan area.

Among the results have been soaring real estate prices. By the 1980s, middle class Canadians found Vancouver increasingly unaffordable as affluent new arrivals inflated single-family home prices and tore down modest buildings to put up monster houses and luxury towers.

“A new financial system based on secretive transactions had become the city’s economic centre of gravity,” Cooper writes. The main sources were “drug money and capital flight from Mainland China.”

Despite admonitions about “racism,” concerns have been raised since at least the 1990s about money laundering’s impact on housing. Internationally recognized as “the epicentre of money-laundering” is River Rock Casino, a BC government-owned, largely Chinese-staffed, and Chinese-patronized enterprise in the Chinese-dominated Vancouver suburb of Richmond.

Money soiled in any manner comes clean here. Chinese have literally dragged in hockey bags stuffed with grimy twenties from the street drug trade. Others use more sophisticated money transfers through underground banks in Macau or the Chinese mainland with branches in Vancouver and Richmond. These illegal banks have expanded to serve Hispanic cartels and Iranian-backed narco-terrorists.

River Rock patrons convert the money to gambling chips for a stint at the tables before redeeming the chips for respectable bank drafts. BC-originated money both comes from and fuels drug trafficking and loan sharking, with associated gangsterism like prostitution and murder. Money smuggled into BC from China generally comes from wealthy business/criminal figures (there isn’t much distinction) who, despite their usually cosy CCP connections, want to evade currency export restrictions to establish themselves, their families, and their money overseas.

With that money comes influence. And that influence — notwithstanding the flight from the motherland — serves Beijing. Following a two-year study by RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, the 1997 Sidewinder report provided evidence of CCP-linked businessmen, intelligence operatives and Triads affecting Canadian corporate and political spheres. Targets included Canadian real estate (a place to park wealth and a means of influencing local politicians), technology (especially communications and military applications), academia (more tech intel, along with influence over Chinese students and Canadian curricula), media (to propagate the CCP message), and politicians at all levels of government.

As if confirming the evidence, Canada’s political establishment shot the messengers. “Those involved with the investigations were demoted, moved aside or ridden out of town by senior RCMP and CSIS team members,” Cooper states.

Except for a few more investigative reports that met similar fates, Canadian law enforcement largely gave up. But Manthorpe says Sidewinder’s dramatic findings “obscured the far more subtle and successful means that Beijing uses to ensure its interests in Canada and other countries.”

They include the CCP-funded Confucius Institutes in Canadian schools and universities that monitor overseas students and spread CCP propaganda. But not always subtle are tactics of the United Front Work Organizations that China maintains in its consulates and embassies. Ongoing United Front campaigns include stealing intellectual property, harassing overseas Chinese dissidents, and various means of demanding racial loyalty from the diaspora. Special ops have included buying up and shipping home Canada’s (and other countries’) supplies of personal protective equipment while the motherland kept its Covid epidemic secret. Connected with Triads and money laundering, the United Front funds Chinese and compliant White political candidates.

“Most United Front ‘overseas leaders’ are businessmen who trade on their guanxi with Beijing to earn fortunes,” Cooper explains.

Cooper names several Chinese and White politicians on Canada’s municipal, provincial, and federal levels who have likely or overt links to Chinese underground banking, real estate, loan sharking, or United Front activities. Among them is former prime minister Jean Chretien, “who since leaving office, has been at the CCP’s financial trough earning millions for himself and influencing Global Affairs [Ottawa’s foreign ministry] in the public policy realm. Various Liberal Ministers and Global Affairs have shown a bias and written policy that is favourable to China and not to Canada.” And Cooper notes that the family foundation of current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accepted $1 million from a Chinese organization led by a United Front official.

Manthorpe portrays Canada’s last five Quebecois prime ministers as suspiciously China-friendly, from Mao-admirer Pierre Trudeau down to his son Justin. All five have political, business, and/or family links to the Desmarais family of Quebec that runs Power Corp., a strong beneficiary of Sino-Canadian trade and “the premier gatekeeper of this country’s formal relations with China.” However Quebec, unlike the provinces of Ontario and especially BC, remains relatively unscathed by Chinese immigration.

This Quebecois guanxi helps explain why Canada capitulated while our two most similar countries, Australia and New Zealand, continue to resist Chinese influence. Also unlike Canada, the US has launched “a steady stream of prosecutions” against CCP operatives for stealing technology. “It defies belief that the same level of industrial espionage is not going on in Canada,” Manthorpe argues.

But the Quebecois elite aren’t entirely to blame. The story of HD Mining International casts harsh light on BC opportunists. Neither Manthorpe nor Cooper mention this. In 2013 the Chinese company began coal mining in northeastern BC with an underground work force comprised entirely of 51 miners imported directly from China. Prior to suspending work due to declining prices, the company intended to expand the underground operation to 480 Chinese. The company claimed only Mandarin-speakers could understand longwall mining, a procedure commonly used in the US and Australia, among other countries.

Even after media publicized the story (while avoiding its obvious racial implications), the BC government continued to support the company’s Chinese-only hiring policy. HD Mining stuck with its agenda as two other companies in the same region laid off 775 Canadian coal miners.

Some Third World countries have suffered unfettered Sino arrogance, especially after being compromised by the loans and subsidies behind Belt and Road, the multi-trillion-dollar program to link much of the world’s infrastructure and resources to China. But BC has lowered the bar for First World countries. That prompts the question of who in BC benefits.

“Canadian political parties, academic institutions of various sorts, and the media have been far too willing to accept benefits, financial and otherwise, that make them beholden to the CCP,” Manthorpe stresses. “Perhaps most questionable are Canadian politicians and officials who in retirement from public life accept lucrative consultant work or advisory positions with the CCP and its agencies.”

It’s not just the Chinese elite who attract this subservience. Desperate to win votes from greater Vancouver’s huge Chinese middle class, many White politicians embarrass themselves with awkward attempts to speak Mandarin.

Much as China has transformed Canadian politics, Manthorpe says, China has overwhelmed Canadian business. “CCP practices of corruption, contempt for the rule of law and the sanctity of contracts, hierarchical arrogance, and disdain for social disparity have deeply infected the Canadian corporate world.”

Two years ago, after decades of compliance and/or complicity, the BC government ordered an inquiry of sorts into money laundering. As it plods along, the Cullen Commission will supposedly examine the problem’s full scope “including real estate, gaming, financial institutions, and the corporate and professional sectors.”

But a so-far very narrow focus suggests a number of inhibitions, including fear of racism allegations and the current provincial New Democratic Party government’s complicity, in addition to that of its 16-year BC Liberal predecessor. A thorough inquiry, as Cooper’s book implies, would release a non-partisan sorcerer’s apprentice on the entire establishment. The commission’s report comes due in December.

Meanwhile we can speculate how China will assert itself in Canada as this country succumbs to the multi-faceted social revolution. A hint might have come in Montreal’s 2019 homosexual Pride Parade, a type of event as sacrosanct in Canada as is the Hajj to Islam. Barely mentioned in Canadian media was the experience of a small number of would-be participants from Hong Kong who intended to protest Beijing’s anti-homo policies. Parade organizers barred them following threats from a much larger, aggressively contemptuous group of pro-CCP demonstrators. The Beijing supporters then disrupted the event’s moment of silence by singing the Chinese national anthem. Had Whites committed any comparable “hate crime,” of course, all hell would have broken loose. But police, marchers, and the antifa contingent that was presumably present did nothing.

Also present was Prime Minister Trudeau. Normally quick to berate wrong-thinking Anglos, he said nothing.

Even if China uses political correctness to its advantage, the country makes no concessions towards the West’s dominant ideology. Yet the regime has been embraced by Canada’s political and corporate elite.

Wayne Northrup is a pen name for the author of You Can’t Say That (http://youcantsaythat.ca/), a racial satire set in Canada.