“Thieves of Virtue”: A Confucian View of White Social Justice Moralism

/47 Comments/in , /by

“Your good, careful people of the villages are the thieves of virtue.”
Confucius, The Analects, 17.

“They agree with the current customs. They consent with an impure age. Their principles only appear to be right-heartedness and truth. Their conduct only appears to be disinterestedness and purity. All men are pleased with them, and they deem themselves to be right. But one cannot proceed with them to the principles of [the moral exemplars]. For this reason they are called “The thieves of virtue.”
D.C. Lau, Mencius (1970)[1]

One of the surest hallmarks of a cultural death spiral is omnipresent anomie and the universal deadening of the capacity to experience shock. Everything in culture becomes repetitive and suffocatingly numb. I was reminded of this back in June when a friend sent me a video from Wi Spa, a Korean spa in Los Angeles that played host to a controversy when a Black female customer complained without success that customers, including children, were being exposed to the penis of a naked transsexual in a female changing area. While some left-wing sources are now claiming that the Black woman was a Christian conservative who fabricated the complaint, the truth of the matter remains unclear. In any case, the footage was, to me, not remarkable for the allegations (now becoming all too real and predictable regardless of what really happened at Wi Spa), nor the attitude of the Black woman, or even the robotic and dismissive attitude of the staff, but rather for the intervention of a White Beta male who played the role of the quintessential Social Justice Warrior. This man insisted to the Black complainant that females could have a penis, showed total disregard for the children involved in the complaint, and did his utmost to rhetorically strut and preen in the manner of some kind of moralistic human peacock; maintaining one eye on the Black female while employing the other to scan the watching crowd for admiring gazes. The spectacle, sickening for so very many reasons, was all the more perverse for this sideshow.

The Woke ‘Hero’ of Wi Spa

The reasons behind behavior like this are not mysterious. There is a strong element of self-interest and a flow of social incentives for ‘woke’ behavior. A lot of people engage in ‘social justice’ interventions, both online and “in the real world,” because they hope for social, financial, and professional rewards. In the same way that very many people in the age of the smartphone now fear being recorded and made viral as a new racist “Karen,” there are a great many people who want to go viral as an anti-racist social hero.

While punishment for racism is permanent and perpetual, however, the rewards of anti-racism are merely fleeting and superfluous. The System expects everyone to be anti-racist and open to sexual deviance, and so the greatest reward it bestows is not to share its riches or status, reserved only for the elites and a handful of celebrity anti-racists, but instead to offer the common compliant man only the quiet relief of not being seen as antithetical to the hegemonic values of multiculturalism. In this sense, we deal not so much with the carrot and the stick, as the idea that the “carrot” is nothing more than a temporary and conditional avoidance of the stick.

To put it another way, one is anti-racist and woke purely and simply in order to avoid being categorized by the System as racist and bigoted. Among yet others (the “vicar’s daughters-types” once described so vividly by Jonathan Bowden), there is an element of pathological altruism. In these cases, we confront the dim-witted and naive, the prototypes of Dostoevsky’s The Idiot, but without that novel’s protagonist’s charm and redeeming qualities. Combined, these various types of White social justice moralist (the career climber, the fashion follower, the socially anxious, and the painfully naive) are fatal to all right-thinking, and are a major accelerator of decline.

So much, then, for explaining why people behave this way. But what are the moral mechanics at work, and how does this behavior impact matters on a wider social level? During some recent reading of Eastern philosophy, I encountered an interesting concept that might deserve at least some attention — the Confucian idea of the “thieves of virtue” or fake moralists. Confucius (551–479 BC) is an interesting figure for the consideration of White moral social justice trends because he was a traditionalist of his era and because he had a particular interest in the search for moral values in a rapidly changing social context. As such, he made a valuable contribution to developing a distinction between what could be seen as merely popularly moral and what was genuinely moral and sincere.

Confucius and Social Virtue

It’s worth briefly explaining who this ancient Chinese philosopher was, before suggesting why he might have some ideas even remotely applicable to contemporary Whites. Confucius was known in his lifetime as Kong Fuzi, or Master Kong. He was a court scholar who occupied, through a relatively novel meritocratic process, a position not unlike modern civil servants. Confucius sought to integrate the new meritocratic developments of ancient China into old ideals and traditions, and this effort to synthesize the old and the new led to his quest to develop a new moral philosophy with direct social implications. Despite the introduction of meritocracy and the partial replacement of aristocracy, Confucius was opposed to egalitarianism and upheld a strong belief in hierarchy and an innate inequality between men. Deep nobility (junzi) and virtue (de) could, however, be found throughout the hierarchy. If a lowly peasant understood and fully embraced his role within it, for example, he was no less virtuous and valuable than the man at top of the social pyramid. Everyone in the folk community had an important role to play. In this sense, his philosophy is a kind of national socialism, which stressed the ultimate importance of the community over social class. The social pyramid itself was made cohesive and coherent through the Five Constant Relationships: Sovereign-Subject; Parent-Child; Husband-Wife; Elder Sibling-Younger Sibling; and Friend-Friend. It should be pointed out, if it isn’t already obvious, that there is no room for the stranger or the foreigner in this scheme of social obligation and ritual.

Social obligation was itself made manifest through demonstrations of Li, which could be roughly translated as ‘justice,’ but could be more accurately described as ritual propriety. One encountered Li in ancestor worship, at weddings, at funerals, when giving or receiving gifts, and in everyday gestures of politeness such as bowing and using the correct mode of dress. These outwards signs were intended to reflected inner virtue, but only truly did so when performed with sincerity. It was sincerity, along with faithfulness and self-reflection, that really pointed to the genuinely moral and virtuous man.

Thieves of Virtue

The opinions of Confucius on those who merely perform Li without possessing inner virtue are found in the Analects, a collection of fragments of his writings and sayings compiled by his disciples. The Analects together comprise a predominantly political treatise, but the collection is also made up of aphorisms and anecdotes. In section 17 of the Analects, Confucius refers to “village worthies (xiang yuan 鄉愿)” and compares their empty moralism to “assuming a severe expression while being weak inside” and breaking into a home and committing burglary. The “worthy” exterior of the village moralists is thus stolen or unmerited. They are in fact hypocrites who, while critiquing all that is “bad,” are themselves utterly devoid of virtue.

If Confucius’s critique of these “village worthies” was solely limited to their hypocrisy then there would be limited value in applying his critique to contemporary White social justice moralists. We know full well that the majority of White self-styled anti-racists and woke activists are hypocrites. We know that most wealthy White multiculturalists do their very best to have their children educated in predominantly White schools, and to raise their families in predominantly White neighborhoods. The vast majority of people outwardly saying they’re fine with gay marriage and the widespread acceptance of transsexualism secretly hope their children don’t turn out that way. In an era in which pro-diversity propaganda is peaking—with no mainstream dissent, the fact remains that Whites are continuing to quietly self-segregate as much as their resources will allow. We live in an age where everyone proclaims the benefits of diversity while doing their very best to avoid it. Hypocrisy is endemic, and it is obvious.

But Confucius goes deeper than hypocrisy in his criticism of the village worthies, the ‘woke’ types of his era, stressing their role in the development of a kind of moral-social cancer that is catastrophic to national culture. In fact, Confucius’s most pointed critique isn’t that the village worthies wear masks, but that there is nothing to mask. They lack all sense of identity, possess no ideology, and are nothing more than chameleons who take on whatever face is considered attractive or laudable by the elites they want to appeal to.[2] In this sense, when considering our contemporary White social justice moralists (the career climber, the fashion follower, the socially anxious, and the painfully naive), all can be subsumed under the title of “village worthies” who are “thieves of virtue.” All of them are fundamentally empty persons without authentic identity. A similar contemporary pop culture reference point would be the NPC (Non-Playable Character) meme developed by gamers to describe those who, like the background figures in video games, possess no agency or capacity for independent thought. Winnie Sung, commenting on this element of the Analects, writes:

The appearance-only hypocrite, such as Confucius’ village worthies, puts us in a special predicament. For someone who does not wear a mask cannot be unmasked. … There is nothing that we can expose when it comes to the village worthies because there is nothing underneath.[3]

This is particularly egregious for Confucius because identity is a foundation of integrity. The person of integrity is someone who preserves a sense of what identifies the person as essentially the person they are. Or, to put it another way, you need to understand yourself and who you are before you can claim that “you” stand for anything, let alone something as lofty as moral values. Someone who denies their own heritage, ethnic origins, and identity cannot sincerely proclaim any moral values because these values are not rooted in their own identity and are therefore both artificial and adopted. Sung writes:

Assuming that having identifications is necessary for having an identity, since the village worthies do not have their own identifications, we cannot say what kind of person they really are. They do not have anything that they actually identify with, and hence do not have what is truly theirs. We cannot in their case say that there is any break between their practices and their true identity. The village worthies lack integrity not in the sense where one’s identity is corrupted or concealed but because they do not even have their own identifications.[4]

Popular Moralism as Social Cancer

Accompanying instinctive self-segregation, there is an almost contradictory rise in culturally deracinated Whites keen to outwardly disavow the White past and condemn the White present. While the animosities of non-White ethnic groups can be easily understood in the context of inter-ethnic competition and their construction of past suffering at the hands of Whites (e.g., the lachrymose view of Jewish history common among Jews), White complicity in this process remains one of the strongest barriers to mounting a successful challenge against multiculturalism and multiracialism in the West. For Confucius, one of the most galling aspects of this behavior would be the tendency among some Whites to proclaim their status as a “White anti-racist” dedicated to spreading their ideology among other Whites. Confucius would object to such a self-designation, pointing out that such people are already devoid of any sense of White identity or what it means to be White, and that their interventions are thus inherently lacking in integrity and are essentially meaningless. There is thus no real “White anti-racism” but instead a phenomenon wherein empty persons mimic foreign ideas.

Because it is unnatural to loathe one’s own group and identity, when Whites adopt anti-White or anti-racist positions, they are simply reflecting the values of others, particularly oppositional elites. Unfortunately, such behavior can become endemic because “village worthies,” “thieves of virtue,” or NPCs have an endless capacity to mimic fashion. Sung comments:

At a larger scale, Confucius thinks that the presence of people who have no identity of their own, and merely reflect others’ values, is a threat to the moral system. Mencius quotes Confucius as saying: ‘Confucius said, “I detest what is specious. I detest the foxtail for fear it should pass for seedlings. I detest flattery for fear it should pass for what is right. I detest glibness for fear it should pass for the truthful. … I detest purple for fear it should pass for vermilion. I detest the village worthy for fear he should pass for the virtuous.” Just like the color purple (which closely resembles vermillion) easily confuses people and misleads people in their choice, the village worthies, who look just like the virtuous people according to our current conceptions and appear attractive to the audience, easily confuse their audience and mislead the audience to think that they have the more attractive character than the genuinely virtuous people. The village worthies will pretend to have moral qualities that appeal to their audience, and will not pretend to have moral qualities that do not appeal to their audience. Hence, the village worthies will never fail a moral test from the perspective of their audience. Although a small group of genuinely virtuous people might be able to detect the village worthies’ hypocrisy, they will not be able to convince the village worthies’ audience that these seemingly gracious and attractive people are not what they appear.

Social Justice versus Authentic Justice

A formidable obstacle to forming a challenge to the multicultural status quo is the idea that such a challenge is inherently immoral. This is an idea that began with ethnically alien intellectuals and activists who have an obvious self-interest in promoting it. Then, gradually, and with increasing frequency following World War II, the idea was seeded among leading White “village worthies” (politicians, academics, cultural figures) until it reached critical cultural saturation. Accompanying ideas were then also inserted into social fashion, including the notion that any defense of White ethnic interests is immoral. The result has been exactly as Confucius predicted — a wholesale threat to the true moral order. Today, only a dwindling number of representatives of junzi remain in the West, the “small group of genuinely virtuous people” capable of detecting the hypocrisy and false moralism of the age. This is the group which roots its integrity in its identity, and doesn’t feel the need to conceal the fact that its values are based in ethnic self-interest. Like the junzi of Confucius’s time, this small core of authentically moral people are unable to convince the masses that the village worthies—these “seemingly gracious and attractive people” with their allegedly impeccable morals—are not what they appear.

And yet our morality is evidently both genuine and of an especially high type. One of the most important aspects of Li is a sense of what we in the West call “equity.” This is the idea that we should not necessarily follow the letter of the law, but the spirit of it. We don’t automatically reach for the punishment for theft, but try at least to take into consideration why the theft took place when considering the sentence. Inherent in equity is a sense of the dualism of man — the idea the Man is never entirely good, nor entirely bad. A good judge, aware of his own failings as a human, will seek the most humane punishment or resolution to a legal case. In the Western tradition, equity begins in antiquity with the writings of Aristotle (epieikeia) and with Roman law (aequitas), and it is also a strong element (if not the strongest) in Christianity, which critiques Man as a sinner but rejects the rule of Mosaic law (despite the baffling claim of Matthew 5:17) and proclaims the possibility of Man’s capacity for Good and his ultimate redemption. Equity is also strongly evident in the ancient writings of the Chinese, and in the dualist religions of the Indian sub-Continent and the Far East, especially Buddhism. All such instances contrast with the Judaic/Islamic worldview, which lacks equity and sees law (Torah-Shariah) as an end in itself. It should be noted that the Judaic worldview, which makes categorical moral demands, is especially conducive to the development of “village worthies” and “thieves of virtue.”

White social justice moralists lack equity and deny their own dual natures. One would think, given their many lofty proclamations, that one is dealing with saints. And yet it is commonplace to discover that this or that anti-racist politician or activist is corrupt, a pervert, a child abuser, a slanderer, or some other form of human pond scum. These people, riddled with all kinds of neuroses and obsessions, cling to anti-racism like a life raft, finding in it at least one meagre chance of passing themselves off as “good people.”

Anti-racism, it might be said, is the moral band-aid of our age, covering a multitude of sins. Confucius, on the other hand, would see “racism,” or the seeking of one’s own ethnic interests, as moral to the extent that it proceeds from tradition, from identity, and from the integrity bestowed by both. For Confucius, a war of conquest contains an honesty that a professed moral crusade does not. He would have little patience for contemporary hand-wringing about past European conquests or enslaving Africans. How can one proclaim selflessness when proclaiming selflessness brings one social rewards that benefit the self? Confucius compared this delusion of morality to banging a drum in search of a fugitive—those most loudly bleating about moral matters will always find that true morality eludes them. The man who seeks after his community’s material interests, on the other hand, will be sated by securing them and will not entertain self-delusion. His desires are universal, predicable, and capable of satisfaction. The posturing moralist, or “thief of virtue,” on the other hand, is a true annihilator, since he will not rest until his fashionable worldview, in all its banality, is universally imposed. In this view, Genghis Khan is the moral superior to Moses, and infinitely less dangerous to social order.

Conclusion

Confucius’s perspective on community morality offers a nuanced and interesting perspective on some of the troubling issues confronting Western societies today, especially the total dominance of multiculturalism and Leftism in moral discourse. One of the major problems confronting movements for the defense of White interests is the culturally ubiquitous idea that such a defense is intrinsically immoral, and this idea has advanced to such a degree that several forms of defending White interests have been criminalized. Confucius’s concept of the “thieves of virtue” undermines the claims of this mass false morality and points out that fashion and conformity can smother authentic virtue and morals. We live in an age when most Whites lack identity, and thus integrity, and we have witnessed a kind of mass chameleon effect where the goals of foreign elites are mimicked and parroted for short-term personal relief or reward. This is a threat to the authentic moral system—a system which derives its morality from tradition and identity. It is moral and a demonstration of virtue and nobility to defend and expand upon one’s ethnic interests. The man who claims instead to be a world citizen, or to love everyone, is a liar. Such a man is a thief of virtue.

[1] Lau, D.C. trans. 2003 [1970]. Mencius. London: Penguin Books.

[2] Sung, W. (2020). Confucius’s village worthies : hypocrites as thieves of virtue. Alston, C., Carpenter, A. & Wiseman. Rachael (Eds.), Portraits of Integrity: 26 Case Studies from History, Literature and Philosophy Bloomsbury Academic.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

Kabullshit

/57 Comments/in /by

Actual mural at the US embassy in Kabul

How much did the Afghan War cost?

“When you add up the cost of Defense and State Department funds sunk into Operations Enduring Freedom and Resolute Support, then throw in the cost of caring for the conflicts’ veterans and the interest on the money borrowed to cover it all, you’re looking at over $2 trillion, according to a report released Friday.” [source]

I estimate that’s about around $7000 per U.S. citizen. Real value for money! What about the allies?

The UK and Germany – who had the largest numbers of troops in Afghanistan after the US – spent an estimated $30bn and $19bn respectively over the course of the war. [source]

Of course, a lot of people also died, but we won’t go into that. So, what was it all about?

The “prole feed” version of why we were in Afghanistan for TWENTY YEARS!!!! was (1) to fight terrorism, (2) improve women’s education and opportunities, and (3) create a nice cosy environment for Afghan’s LGBTQ+ population.

Woke joke!
If you believed any of those “Kabullshit” reasons for even five seconds then you were sadly duped. In fact you can be absolutely sure that certain globalist scumbags were pissing themselves laughing at your gullibility.
No, the real reasons Western countries poured trillions of dollars into this failed enterprise was because there were real potential benefits to our power elites — at least in the early days. But what were they?
One obvious reason was, of course, not even connected to Afghanistan, but to an entirely different country in the Middle East:
Stop putting your country so close to our bases!
Yes, having U.S. bases in Afghanistan was a geopolitical move against Iran, either to serve Saudi Arabia, Israel, or the petrodollar, and probably all three. With the pull-out from Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic of Iran looks a little less surrounded than it was.
Also, you can extrapolate out from this and see Western involvement in Afghanistan as a move against China and Russia (ChiRus). But that’s a much bigger, fuzzier, and more complex picture, so let’s just stick with keeping this article tightly focused.
What other clear, concise reasons, then, did the West have for wasting the first two decades of the 21st century in a Third World shit hole?
Well, I guess, opium production is worth taking a look at:
Yup, that’s right. The Taliban, when they were first in power, were quite effective at stamping out the  opium trade. But once the West installed a puppet government, production shot up.
I’m not going to say that was deliberate U.S. policy, because the idea of the American government spending $2 trillion+ just to increase dope production in Central Asia looks retarded. But who knows? In my view, it’s much more a case of farmers turning to a surefire cash crop as a way of surviving the chaos unleashed by Western occupation and Taliban resistance. Also, as part of this picture, there’s plenty of evidence of Afghan government people being tied up in the opium trade and the West turning a blind eye.
But other economic factors are far more important.
Did you know that Afghanistan is sitting on a treasure trove of minerals? No, I didn’t either until I looked. The media was too busy telling me about how wonderful it was that young girls were being encouraged to burn their hijabs by feminist teachers flown in from the West.
Here’s an optimistic report on this mineral wealth from 2014:
“Despite being one of the poorest nations in the world, Afghanistan may be sitting on one of the richest troves of minerals in the world, valued at nearly $1 trillion, scientists say.
Afghanistan, a country nearly the size of Texas, is loaded with minerals deposited by the violent collision of the Indian subcontinent with Asia. The U.S. Geological Survey began inspecting what mineral resources Afghanistan had after U.S.-led forces drove the Taliban from power in the country in 2004.
In 2006, U.S. researchers flew airborne missions to conduct magnetic, gravity and hyperspectral surveys over Afghanistan.
The aerial surveys determined that Afghanistan may hold 60 million tons of copper, 2.2 billion tons of iron ore, 1.4 million tons of rare earth elements such as lanthanum, cerium and neodymium, and lodes of aluminum, gold, silver, zinc, mercury and lithium. For instance, the Khanneshin carbonatite deposit in Afghanistan’s Helmand province is valued at $89 billion, full as it is with rare earth elements.”
But minerals are hard to get out. The real riches lie just beyond Afghanistan, with Afghanistan merely serving as a stepping stone to get at them.
To the North of Afghanistan lies Turkmenistan, which has almost as much natural gas as the United States. As a remote, landlocked country, surrounded by greedy neighbours, however, it has very few easy routes to offload this precious resource.
Here’s a graph showing how it measures up to the other big gas producers:
That’s Turkmenistan in 6th place, right behind the USA.
Back in the early days of the occupation, the plan was to pacify the country and then build a nice, long pipeline through Afghanistan, linking Turkmenistan to Pakistan, India, and the Indian Ocean.
Yeh, I know, in hindsight it looks pretty stupid, and Pakistan is far from being a reliable ally. But in the early Zeroes, it must have seemed almost a possibility. So, what went wrong?

Well, quite simply, the US had a rival, namely China, which decided, as part of its Belt and Road Strategy, to build its own pipeline linking Turkmenistan to China’s vast industrial hinterland. By 2009, Turkmeni natural gas was flowing all the way to Shanghai.

That was the real death knell for Western involvement in Afghanistan, greatly lowering the incentives to stay there year after year.

After 2009, Western involvement increasingly became a question of saving face and protecting political reputations, while also forlornly hoping that the Afghans would turn their backs on the Taliban.

The writing was clearly on the wall, but the Obama Administration thought it was worth a couple more rolls of the dice. That is what led to the pointless troop surges of 2009 and 2010:

Once that failed, it was merely a case of hanging on to pass the poisoned chalice of defeat to someone else. Finally, in the last few days, it ended up on Joe Biden’s lips. Suck it up, Joe! You’re the fall guy for decades of failure.
___________________________________

Colin Liddell is the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia). He is also featured in Arktos’s collection A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of Its Members and Leaders.

Jennifer Rubin et al. Rejoice at the Impending Minority Status of Whites

/65 Comments/in /by

There has been much joy in liberaldom over the recent findings that for the first time in American history the number of Whites declined, and that Whites now make up only 57.8%. of the U.S. population A good example is Jennifer Rubin, a neocon Israel-firster who decamped from the GOP in 2016 with the rise of Trump, because of Trump’s populist rhetoric on immigration and other issues related to their campaign for a non-White America. As she said at the time, “Trump’s nativism and xenophobia make him toxic with a good deal of the American Jewish community for whom such sentiments have invariably been associated with governments hostile to Jews.” For Jews like Rubin, opposition to nativism and xenophobia by Whites in Western countries really comes down to hating Whites.

It’s been obvious for a long time that the neocons not only wanted to make the GOP safe for Israel (it is now more pro-Israel than the Democrats), but also that they sought to move the party to the left on social issues, and immigration in particular. From “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement” (2004):

Samuel Francis witnessed much of the early infighting among conservatives, won eventually by the neocons. Francis recounts the “catalog of neoconservative efforts not merely to debate, criticize, and refute the ideas of traditional conservatism but to denounce, vilify, and harm the careers of those Old Right figures and institutions they have targeted.”

There are countless stories of how neoconservatives have succeeded in entering conservative institutions, forcing out or demoting traditional conservatives, and changing the positions and philosophy of such institutions in neoconservative directions.… Writers like M. E. Bradford, Joseph Sobran, Pat Buchanan, and Russell Kirk, and institutions like Chronicles, the Rockford Institute, the Philadelphia Society, and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute have been among the most respected and distinguished names in American conservatism. The dedication of their neoconservative enemies to driving them out of the movement they have taken over and demonizing them as marginal and dangerous figures has no legitimate basis in reality. It is clear  evidence of the ulterior aspirations of those behind neoconservatism to dominate and subvert American conservatism from its original purposes and agenda and turn it to other purposes.… What neoconservatives really dislike about their “allies” among traditional conservatives is simply the fact that the conservatives are conservatives at all—that they support “this notion of a Christian civilization,” as Midge Decter put it, that they oppose mass immigration, that they criticize Martin Luther King and reject the racial dispossession of white Western culture, that they support or approve of Joe McCarthy, that they entertain doubts or strong disagreement over American foreign policy in the Middle East, that they oppose reckless involvement in foreign wars and foreign entanglements, and that, in company with the Founding Fathers of the United States, they reject the concept of a pure democracy and the belief that the United States is or should evolve toward it.

Most notably, neoconservatives have been staunch supporters of arguably the most destructive force associated with the left in the twentieth century—massive non-European immigration. Support for massive non-European immigration has spanned the Jewish political spectrum throughout the twentieth century to the present. A principal motivation of the organized Jewish community for encouraging such immigration has involved a deeply felt animosity toward the people and culture responsible for the immigration restriction of 1924–1965—“this notion of a Christian civilization.”105 As neoconservative Ben Wattenberg has famously written, “The nonEuropeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” The only exception—thus far without any influence—is that since 9/11 some Jewish activists, including neoconservative Daniel Pipes, head of the MEF, and Stephen Steinlight, senior fellow of the American Jewish Committee, have opposed Muslim—and only Muslim—immigration because of possible effects on pro-Israel sentiment in the U.S.

Neoconservatives have been far more attached to Jewish interests, and especially the interests of Israel, than to any other identifiable interest. It is revealing that as the war in Iraq has become an expensive
quagmire in both lives and money, Bill Kristol has become willing to abandon the neoconservatives’ alliance with traditional conservatives by allying with John Kerry and the Democratic Party. This is because Kerry has promised to increase troop strength and retain the commitment to Iraq, and because Kerry has declared that he has “a 100 percent record—not a 99, a 100 percent record—of sustaining the special relationship and friendship that we have with Israel.” As Pat Buchanan notes, the fact that John Kerry “backs partial birth abortion, quotas, raising taxes, homosexual unions, liberals on the Supreme Court and has a voting record to the left of Teddy Kennedy” is less important than his stand on the fundamental issue of a foreign policy that is in the interest of Israel.

The Ben Wattenberg quote is classic and worth repeating. “The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality.” Clearly the Jewish commitment to a non-White America has powerful emotional overtones.

It was noted above that neocons have a pattern of supporting an interventionist foreign policy. The debacle in Afghanistan won’t change that.

For neocons like Rubin, the 20-year disaster in Afghanistan, which cost thousands of dead and maimed and trillions of dollars, was a great idea that fell short because of tactical mistakes. Sort of like the Marxists who claim that real communism has never been tried. Neocon interventionist ideology dominates the U.S. foreign policy establishment. They’ll do another Afghanistan in a heartbeat, complete with wall-to-wall propaganda that this particular war (Iran is on the top of their list) is a moral imperative. I suppose Rubin also thinks it’s fabulous that 85 percent of the deaths in Afghanistan (82.6 percent in Iraq) were White, almost all White males.

It’s useful to recall the hysteria among neocons about the impending Trump presidency in 2016. Rubin was far from alone, and it shows that besides Israel, neocons had typically Jewish attitudes on White identity and interests. Bret Stephens, who moved from the Wall Street Journal to the New York Times in 2017 and is routinely described as a “conservative” wrote:

[Trumpism] is a regression to the conservatism of blood and soil, of ethnic polarization and bullying nationalism. Modern conservatives sought to bury this rubbish with a politics that strikes a balance between respect for tradition and faith in the dynamic and culture-shifting possibilities of open markets. When that balance collapses—under a Republican president, no less—it may never again be restored, at least in our lifetimes. [Hillary, the Conservative Hope, May 9, 2016]

Or Robert Kagan, who jumped ship to be part of Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy team:

[Trump’s] public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others”—Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees—whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

Contra Stephens, the neocons never respected tradition and gave only lip service to faith. Their only outreach was recruiting Evangelical Christians to the cause of a rabidly pro-Israel foreign policy.

Stephens is correct in that there was an older tradition of conservatism based on the ethno-national interests of the traditional American majority. This was purged by the neocons. In 2016, they were deathly afraid that the older conservatism was returning, perhaps in the form of the Alt Right—the only recognizable intellectual constituency that supported Trump.

*   *   *

Tucker Carlson emphasized Rubin’s recent tweet on his August 13 show in a segment emphasizing the left’s rejoicing at the news that there are fewer White people in the U.S. He clearly framed it as indicating hatred for White people—”gloat[ing] over the decline of a race.” Indeed, he infers that Rubin’s joy at the decline of the White population implies that she is happy for the hundreds of thousands of mostly rural White people who have died in the opioid epidemic.

The segment includes an interview with Pedro Gonzalez, Associate Editor of Chronicles, who notes that anyone noticing that White people are being marginalized can expect to be called a racist. And he notes that White life expectancy has declined—people like Rubin “spit on their graves”—and that Whites are disadvantaged in the job market and education—achieved by lowering standards for “everyone else.”  A good example is that standardized tests are being removed from  college admissions as “racist,” and recently Oregon passed a law saying that it is illegal to require reading and math proficiency to graduate high school. I don’t envy employers looking for competent employees. Degrees, whether from high school or from college, mean nothing.

Gonzalez states “The ruling class [which, as he notes, is a “uniparty”] in the country has deconstructed the nation it was entrusted to govern. It invited millions of people into the country and told them that any disparity in outcome—you just point to a white person and say ‘it’s your fault.'”

Quite right. But of course, what is inevitably missing from Carlson’s show is any serious attempt to describe the ruling class and its ethnic commitments, as personified by Rubin with her perch in the elite mainstream media.

Carson and Gonzalez agree that Rubin et al. are unleashing racial hatred and that this could have cataclysmic effects that would destroy the country. I suspect that the left understands this but are confident that by purging the military and controlling the national security apparatus—control that would be beyond the ability of even a true populist or explicitly White nationalist president to easily reverse at this point—they could win  such a war. On the other hand, the good news is that it is likely true that a great many White people—certainly including Carlson’s audience given his repeated emphasis on this theme—are indeed becoming aware of the very hostile and dangerous society that they now live in. By being explicit that this power is directed against White America, Carlson is certainly performing an important service. Perhaps the above video is his most explicit assertion that what the elites are doing is fundamentally anti-White.

I realize that many people reading this site view Carlson as controlled opposition, but he is clearly the only mainstream media figure who is framing immigration and the demographic transformation of America as fundamentally anti-White, although he often sometimes says that it’s against the interests of all current citizens because it dilutes their voting power. This latter is a specious argument, at least as it applies to Asians and Latinos, because these groups stand to increase their power. And, despite the well-known fact that immigration hurts Blacks the most (because it increases competition for low-end jobs), the Black leadership is entirely on board with the anti-White revolution because it results in greater power for themselves (as noted in the clip by the Black representative in the above video), and many are eager to avenge the perceived injustices of the past. Hatred of Whites is entirely mainstream these days, emanating from the elite media and the academic world, and by many in the political class.

We’re reminded once again that the demographic revolution is not motivated by love of humanity or empathy for the downtrodden, but by lust for power and hatred toward Whites. The hatred toward Whites won’t stop when Whites become a minority, and it’s a utopian delusion to think otherwise. Jewish hatred toward Whites is fueled by their perceptions of the past, from the Roman destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. to the holocaust. The hatred that fueled the slaughter in the early decades of the Soviet Union, based on Jewish perceptions of Orthodox Christianity and their perceptions of persecution by the Czars and by Russian peasants, didn’t end after they had achieved power. Indeed, the main motive for Jewish activism in influencing U.S. immigration law was to change the ethnic balance of the country so that Whites would not be a majority, as argued in Culture of Critique (Ch. 7) and noted more recently by Otis Graham: the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western European so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” No wonder Jewish activists like Rubin and Wattenberg have such a strong emotional attachment to the idea that America not have a White majority.

White liberals (obviously, as an intensely ethnocentric Jew, Rubin is not in that category) will be cursed by their children and grandchildren for being complicit in this transformation. But they’ll likely go to their graves thinking themselves morally superior—even as the revolution turns on them.

‘Science Tikkun’: The Talmudic Control Doctrine of Peter Hotez

/24 Comments/in /by

Certain Jews continue to emerge into view as the Covid phenomenon grinds onward and upward. Previous essays explored the many Jews active in the pharmaceutical industry and public health agencies, developing, promoting and profiting from covid vaccines and other power plays. I also looked at Jews of the World Economic Forum, an epicenter of beneficiaries of the covid pandemic. Also in the news again recently, Dr. Joseph Mercola topped the list of the “disinformation dozen” identified by the Center for Countering Digital Hate and referenced by President Biden as the greatest threat to global public health, for challenging narratives about covid and vaccines. Previously Mercola called out his defamation enemies, but I identified the real Jewish enemies he failed to name.

Not to say that the vaccine hysteria is some kind of Jewish plot, but it’s no surprise that Jews as an integral part of our elite, are heavily involved. Now we examine one Jew in particular, stepping into the public spotlight to declare that Talmudic doctrine justifies medical tyranny and lockdown control.

Peter Hotez

Dr. Peter Hotez is a longtime proponent and promoter of vaccines and an ardent vaccines-cause-autism denier, even publishing a book whose title denies vaccines caused his own daughter’s autism. Hotez complained when nineteen books questioning vaccines were better sellers on Amazon than his. Now twenty-eight precede Hotez’s book. Hotez has offended many parents of vaccine-damaged children by calling them “a hate group. They are a hate group that hates their family and hates their children.”

Hotez’s essay of late April published in the prestigious science journal Nature, “COVID vaccines: time to confront anti-vax aggression,” displays the author’s militant aggression in the subtitle: “Halting the spread of the coronavirus will require a high-level counteroffensive against new destructive forces.” Hotez rails against “anti-vaccine groups” and states “The bad guys are winning, in part because health agencies either underestimate or deny the reach of anti-science forces, and are ill-equipped to counter it.” Hotez has a solution: “The United Nations and the highest levels of governments must take direct, even confrontational, approaches … and move to dismantle anti-vaccine groups in the United States.” This is typical of the militancy and violence-promotion of Hotez, who projects his own aggression onto others:

A high-level inter-agency task force reporting to the UN secretary-general could assess the full impact of anti-vaccine aggression, and propose tough, balanced measures. The task force should include experts who have tackled complex global threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks and nuclear armament, because anti-science is now approaching similar levels of peril.

Here Hotez equates people and groups posing legitimate scientific and medical questions about vaccine safety and efficacy with “terrorism” and nuclear Armageddon. He also equates these concerned people and groups with the political right-wing: “Many far-right extremist groups that spread false information about last year’s US presidential election are doing the same about vaccines.”

In his most recent tirade of July 28, “Mounting antiscience aggression in the United States,” published in the journal Public Library of Science, Biology, Hotez develops his anti-right wing theme much more virulently, in fact leading with it in the summary: “There is a troubling new expansion of antiscience aggression in the United States. It’s arising from far-right extremism, including some elected members of the US Congress and conservative news outlets.”

The first of these enemies Hotez identifies is Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green, Republican, who introduced a bill to investigate National Institute of Allergic and Infectious Disease director Anthony Fauci, whose many policy reversals, lies, exaggerations, obfuscations and conflicts of interest are now legendary. Hotez lionizes the man however, blaming Green for her “attempt to humiliate a prominent American scientist.”

Hotez’s partisan divide and conquer diatribe continues with a criticism of a Republican House Select Subcommittee to investigate the origins of the covid pandemic, as allegations emerged of Fauci’s NIAID funding of the Wuhan virology lab. To Hotez, this is heresy, and he says “the hearings took on a sinister tone”—without giving any explanation other than “pointing fingers.” Hotez also gives no data on his accusations that “Fox News anchors promoted fake claims regarding deaths from COVID-19 vaccinations.” Tucker Carlson’s data were taken directly from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

VAERS has received a lot of criticism over the years, some of it founded. Some critics have argued for a long time that VARES undercounts vaccine injuries. A report submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services in 2010 concluded that “fewer than one percent of vaccine adverse events are reported” by the VAERS system. Fewer than one percent. So what is the real number of people who apparently have been killed or injured by the vaccine? Well, we don’t know that number. Nobody does, and we’re not going to speculate about it. But it’s clear that what is happening now, for whatever reason, is not even close to normal. It’s not even close to what we’ve seen in previous years with previous vaccines.

Most vaccines are not accused of killing large numbers of people. The Menveo vaccine, for example, is given to people around the world, often children, to prevent bacterial meningitis. In this country, only one person died from that vaccine in the entire period between 2010 and 2015. One. So, compare that to what’s happening now. In just the first four months of this year, the U.S. government has recorded more deaths after COVID vaccinations than from all other vaccines administered in the United States between mid-1997 and the end of 2013.

Next Hotez cites three authors to support his thesis that the “far right” and “America First” faction is attacking scientists (including himself) in pursuit of a “modern day authoritarian regime”: Steven Levitsky, Waldemar Kaempffert, and Anne Applebaum. All three are Jewish (Kaempffert I could not confirm, but his origins from New York City, views of “Nazis,” and work at the New York Times are suggestive). This looks glaringly like a Jewish mutual admiration society. A glance at the current President’s cabinet confirms it, as does a look at the President’s primary speech writer. To Hotez though, the threats come from “Experts affiliated with far right-leaning think tanks” and “intellectuals on the dark web.”

Hotez demands two solutions: a letter of support from the President and leaders of federal agencies, and expanded protection for scientists from “right-wing extremists,” including extending “hate crimes” laws to cover the fantasy “attacks” Hotez imagines. His first demand is likely to get fulfilled, given the general pro-vaccine stance of the administration. The second is a measure quite consistent with the anti-free speech attitudes that are now high on the wish list of Jewish organizations and the left generally.

To fully confirm the Jewish embeddedness of Peter Hotez, we refer to his 2017 essay “‘Science Tikkun’: Repairing the World through the Science of Neglected Diseases, Science Diplomacy, and Public Engagement.” Hotez affirms that the Talmudic concept of tikkun olam translates as “repairing the world,” something only the Chosen People are capable of, and something they are obligated to do for the rest of us. Here is how Hotez defines science tikkun:

We define Science Tikkun broadly as an added role for leading U.S. scientists to elevate the profile of their knowledge and findings, and educate leaders in the areas of government, business, religion, the military, the media and other sectors in order to improve the human condition.

One of the ways the world is broken is within the human immune system, and one way that Talmud is going to fix this is through vaccines. Such is the logic of Peter Hotez.

Two years later in 2019 he revisited the concept in another PLoS essay titled “Science tikkun: A framework embracing the right of access to innovation and translational medicine on a global scale.” Here he further explicates the concept of tikkun olam: “According to some religious scholars, the ancient Jewish framework of repairing the parts of the world still left undone after the creation arose some 500 years earlier during the 16th century.” We must forgive Hotez his syntax here, since he is a vaccine promoter, not an accomplished author. He is not saying the creation arose 500 years earlier, but that the Jewish framework for repairing it did. This framework actually assumes the Creator left some aspects of the world un-created or under-created, and only Jews are capable of completing them.

Hotez is open about declaring a term for this new Jewish-completed world. He is concerned about “ensuring that the world’s poor continue to receive access to innovation and technologies in this new world order.” He deploys the term again in a broader summary statement:

The new world order of science and technology gaps engendered from the opposing forces of successes due to global vaccine and NTD [neglected tropical disease] programs versus opposing social determinants of shifting poverty and blue marble health [poor people in wealthy societies], urbanization, war and conflict, and antiscience movements affords us an opportunity to expand our science tikkun definitions. Here, I redefine it as initiatives led by scientists to address the innovation gaps in global health and neglected diseases allowing illness and disease not only among the world’s vulnerable populations but especially among the huge numbers of poor living amid wealth and prosperity. A fundamental tenet of science tikkun is that vulnerable populations have a fundamental right to access innovation. In this context, science tikkun can take on several different dimensions.

It goes without saying that these dimensions allow profiteering off of the world’s poor through corporate techno-science, especially vaccines, and dismissal and suppression of any indigenous natural health approaches, termed by Hotez “antiscience.” This is one example of how people like Peter Hotez are “repairing the world.”

Of the twenty-six references Hotez lists for this essay, he is the sole author or co-author of twenty-three of them. He clearly doesn’t have a low self-esteem problem.

We don’t need people like Peter Hotez lecturing us about “right wing extremists” and “conservative media” threatening the lives of the world’s poor by questioning vaccine safety. It’s hard to think of an Extremism more of a threat to the world than the concept of tikkun olam being used to rationalize any and all proposals.

Real science would not only allow, but welcome study and debate of the vaccine safety issue. Hotez is part of the extensive cabal working to protect the pharmaceutical industry and global public health infrastructure from scrutiny. Many voices beyond Tucker Carlson have presented their data on vaccine safety, especially now when the CDC’s own data shows extraordinary numbers of deaths (12366 as of July 30) in temporal proximity to covid vaccinations. Vaccine programs have been halted in the past upon evidence of far fewer deaths. Yet Peter Hotez denounces all this as right-wing conspiracy theory, because in his own mind he is uniquely qualified as a member of the Chosen People to fix what is incomplete about the human immune system. He considers it “antiscience” and I am sure “anti-semitic,” to doubt him.

“Otherizing” the intruders among us: strangers can be dangerous

/64 Comments/in /by

Let’s begin by saying that “The Other is not my brother,” in spite of the basic tenets of our Christian society which is founded on the concept:  “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”  When we examine the evolution of social interactions, we find that the reason we do not love our neighbor (not necessarily the one who lives next to us but humans at large) is because we tend intuitively to hold unfamiliar individuals at arms’ length both emotionally and physically.  To be blunt, strangers are initially considered “hostile” or untrustworthy unless proven otherwise.

This exclusionary attitude (or “otherization” as we say) is not an anti-social or malevolent choice on our part.  It is firmly embedded in our cultural ethos and our DNA, given that strangers’ reputations, such as for honesty, would likely be less well known and hence interacting with them would be risky. It goes back many, many millennia to a time when we wandered in tribes or extended families across the Eurasian plains.

In the beginning, we were “hunter-gatherers” whose days were devoted to acquiring food off the land.  To survive, homo sapiens or Cro-Magnons needed a cooperative and close-knit bond of familial unity. The hunt for prey and food was the focal point of each day’s activities. Women, if social paleontology is correct, did not stray far from home—whether a cave, a hut or some other form of habitat. They were presumably “keepers of the hearth.”  They bore and raised children, searched for edible vegetation, and cared for the elderly or infirm.  The familial unit within the tribe was a protective shield against a mysterious and dangerous world.  When another humanoid or family group appeared unexpectedly, the entire unit’s stability and safety were threatened.

The “stranger-danger” motif was and continues to be wired into the individual psyche: without this defense mechanism, each member of the tribe was put in jeopardy.  For the most part, the intruder was either expelled or killed.  Throughout the animal kingdom, the rejection of the “other,” e.g., among chimpanzees—our closest relatives, is a basic survival instinct.  Our bodies are programmed to “fight or flee.”

In the earliest days of humankind, the species was protected by the exclusion of unknown others.  From a modern-day perspective, this hostility toward the “outsider” is a leitmotif that is woven into the fabric of literature and especially the western movie.  A number of films portray this theme, notably Alan Ladd’s Shane and Clint Eastwood’s rebellious Pale Rider, who both challenge the forces of evil in a remote cattle ranch or mining encampment where only the steely-eyed gunfighter can impose law and order.  This dichotomy is an integral part of the conquest of the Far West:  the transitory “hero” or vigilante who symbolizes society’s need for justice and public safety in opposition to the antagonist who seeks to rule by brutal domination for “nefarious” reasons.  Law-abiding citizens were at the mercy of amoral predators who roamed unchecked throughout the region. Fear and self-defense were triggered by challenges to familial and community stability. Under these conditions settlers were forced to choose either certain subjugation to a lawless invader or an orderly life under the protection of a hired gun and vigilantism.

Today, if we accept contemporary propaganda, the stranger or the interloper is a person who should be welcomed into the household or family unit.  In America, the innate goodness of all people is a foundational principle of “our way of life.”  And as a result, we highlight bits and pieces of our cultural history if it fits this narrative. In a pioneer society, a helping hand is extended to strangers in need. The Biblical parable of the Good Samaritan resonates even today.  We sometimes see examples of strangers performing potentially sacrificial acts to help others.  For example, the donation of kidneys, portions of livers, or bone marrow transplants to unknown victims of disease isn’t all that surprising.  Such gestures, of course, are not without considerable risk. The loss of a kidney can have lethal consequences for donors in case of renal failure.

Of course, altruism does exist, so we find ourselves asking: what drives this (actually quite rare) spontaneous altruism? Some putative acts of altruism actually may reflect ordinary self-interest. First responders are paid to have a professional obligation to put their lives at risk for the benefit of others who face danger. They are courageous but not altruistic. In a similar manner, people will give to needy individuals on “Go Fund Me” pages without the slightest proof of authenticity.  Self-sacrifice for the public good competes with the preservation of those closest to us regardless of outside commitments.

But there are examples of real altruism, and we can ask, whether they are acts of pure generosity—a social obligation—or do they respond to a need in the individual for self-fulfillment and public admiration?  Are Western elites being altruistic when they promote mass immigration of ethnically heterogeneous peoples? It is notable that such acts of compassion toward complete strangers tend not to be practiced by those in positions of authority or extreme wealth outside the family unit. Here’s an example of elite attitudes toward immigration posing as altruism by David Goodhart, a liberal journalist based in the UK, on migration to the UK:

There has been a huge gap between our ruling elite’s views and those of ordinary people on the street. This was brought home to me when dining at an Oxford college and the eminent person next to me, a very senior civil servant, said: ‘When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration [because] I saw it as my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.’ I was even more surprised when the notion was endorsed by another guest, one of the most powerful television executives in the country. He, too, felt global welfare was paramount and that he had a greater obligation to someone in Burundi than to someone in Birmingham. … [The political class] failed to control the inflow more overtly in the interests of existing citizens.

One can only marvel at the completely unhinged—pathological—altruism on display here, given that the speakers are themselves native White British. Countries whose policies ignore the good of their own people are surely headed for disaster. Such altruism is nothing but a recipe for evolutionary extinction.

It is well-known that massive non-White immigration has negative effects most of all on the traditional, White working class of Western societies, while wealthier Whites can escape the problems brought about by immigration by moving to better neighborhoods.  They also tend to have jobs that have not been impacted by immigration, although visas for workers in technical areas are increasingly common. However, contemporary liberal-minded elites throughout the West are indifferent or even dismissive of the negative effects of immigration on the White working class in terms of lowered wages,[1] lessened community cohesion and involvement,[2] and deteriorating public schools. Like Charles Dickens’ Mrs. Jellyby’s (i.e., the character from Bleak House), this included neglecting her own children—also characteristic of contemporary liberals who typically fail to think seriously about the effects of mass non-White migration on the long-term prospects of their own children as a minority in a majority non-White society.

Is it possible to absorb large numbers of ethnically heterogeneous migrants and maintain a stable and productive society?  It’s at least doubtful. The outside world demands a different set of values from the dynamics of the home place.  At first encounter all mammals are motivated by instinct to defend their “turf” against intruders.  Suspicion of the “other” runs deep in our genetic code. The exclusion of strangers is a primordial means of survival.

In today’s highly politicized world, the criticism of the other’s motives and way of life is labeled a sign of bigotry, racism, or xenophobia, among other epithets. We are constantly reminded of this humanistic dimension of our social contract.  This openness is often claimed to be more than an attitude; it is a duty.  However, very few restrictions are placed on the outsider by the welcoming community—even obeying laws is waived given how illegal immigrants are simply waved in these days by a Biden administration intent on ending White America as quickly as possible.  The supposed demands of being kind to the stranger (actually, a way of getting votes for Democrats—unrestricted immigration has become a demographic weapon in the hands of the progressives) and the availability of cheap labor supersede the application of the law.

In the woke philosophy of today, illegal migrants are being classified as “protected” groups.  By virtue of their physical presence in America, they are endowed with a privileged status according to the current administration.  Only casually vetted for disease and criminal activity—if at all, they are packed into buses and airplanes and sent to undisclosed sites in our country without notifying local authorities.  Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are swarming across our borders and not being deported. Border guards wave them onto American soil and offer assistance to everyone in need before processing.

Homogeneity initially builds trust among strangers.  It is much easier to incorporate an unknown person into a neighborhood when people have similar backgrounds.  The “stranger-danger” reflex is activated when a community loses control over its values and relationships.  Diverse families living in urban high-rise projects do not willingly socialize on a large scale.  They are either suspicious of each other or realize they have very little in common.  They are not in sync or, as we say, not on the same page in many aspects of daily life.

For many centuries the Jewish people have lived in ghettoes or closed ethnic communities.  Hebrew and Yiddish are not languages that non-Jews typically learn.  By adhering to a life apart, living in an insular community with overt religious symbols, the Jewish people became the other in the eyes of homogeneous societies. And because homogeneous Christian societies have sometimes risen up against them, Jews have been vigorous champions of multiculturalism. As Otis Graham noted (2004, 80), the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western Europeans so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.”

Even though contemporary rates of intermarriage are high, the Jewish community continues to take steps to ensure its homogeneity. There are dating sites for Jewish couples.  Jewish social gatherings for singles are organized by synagogues, and Jewish teenagers are given trips to Israel to solidify Jewish identity and promote marriage to other Jews.

To outsiders, Judaism has a cultish appearance: Orthodox Jews typically wear distinguishing clothing, and there are rites of passage (bar and bat mitzvahs) and multiple customs that set them apart from the Christian population.  Religious holidays play a significant role in the life of the average Jew.  In the Christian world, only Christmas and Easter have any true importance.  The rest are listed on the calendar but rarely observed. Devout Jews (e.g., Hassidic) lead a parallel life of religious observance.  In a sense, one is first and foremost a Jew and only secondarily an inhabitant of a specific country—even in Israel.

We cannot unlearn the defensive strategies of our cultural and genetic heritage.  At the very heart of our social dynamic is the need for survival and perpetuation of our genes, and that in turn is tied to the fate of those with whom we share the most genetic similarity—our race. But the reality is that wealthy and politically stable Western countries are being assaulted by hordes of desperately poor migrants as depicted in the French dystopian novel The Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail (1973).  As world economies worsen, vast numbers of Third World discontents will continue to seek refuge and a new life in wealthier countries—essentially a death sentence for the peoples who created the West.

As the adage tells us: “Birds of a feather flock together.”  You are compelled by nature (or a powerful survival instinct) to associate with people who look like you and with whom you have a lot in common. As we have learned over the years, diversity is not a “strength” but a source of stress and division throughout the world.  Highly diversified neighborhoods are more insular and less civic-minded than those with more homogeneous residents.  If we are left alone and not counseled or threatened with punishment, we tend to select associates who are similar in many respects.  Comfort level or quality of life is a determining criterion in our choice of friends and acquaintances.  Social clubs, such as sororities and fraternities, are based on a selective process of similarity and congeniality.  We are, in every respect, what nature made us to be: selective and protective.

In conclusion, we inherited profound tendencies that link us to the survival instincts of our earliest years.  They served us well millennia ago and will continue to give us alternatives to the artificiality of enforced social relationships.  The stability and longevity of our society depend on recognizing the legitimacy of these inbred tendencies that govern our ethnic behavior. Forcing us to live otherwise will bring about nothing but social disorder and internal conflict.

[1] George J. Borjas, “The Analytics of the Wage Effect of Immigration,” Working Paper 14796 (March, 2009), National Bureau of Economic Research.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w14796.pdf

[2] Robert D. Putnam, “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century,” Scandinavian Political Studies 3 (2007): 137–174; Salter, “The Biosocial Study of Ethnicity”; see also Frank K. Salter, “Germany’s Jeopardy,” You Tube (January 5, 2016).

Biology Is Blasphemy: Racist Reality Meets Anti-Racist Inanity

/30 Comments/in , /by

“Shocked, confused, and frankly horrified!” As Steve Sailer has reported, that’s how an anti-racist radiologist called Luke Oakden-Rayner sums up the reaction of himself and other medical researchers to a dark, dangerous, and deeply disturbing discovery in artificial intelligence (AI). What have they found? That AI has what Oakden-Rayner calls the “worst superpower.” It’s guilty of “medical racism,” because it can identify racial identity in X-rays and other medical images that, to human eyes, contain absolutely no clue as to race.

Emotion vs intellect

Is this a White lung or a Black lung or a Chinese lung? Humans can’t tell. But AI can. And ditto for the heart, the liver, the pancreas, the spleen, and, it appears, everything else in the human body. As that medical researcher despairingly concludes: “[T]here is no easy way to remove racial information from images. It is everywhere and it is in everything.”

Can I sympathize with his shock and horror? In fact, I can. As a kid, I once turned over a piece of old carpet in a shed and was startled and disgusted to see a host of plump and pale larvae chewing away at the underside. Ugh! But that was an instinctive reaction, not a scientific one. Today I hope I’d quickly overcome my disgust at a similar discovery with some amateur science: What species do the larvae belong to? How can they nourish themselves on carpet? How do they get water? And so on.

The blasphemous brain

Scientists quâ scientists shouldn’t be “shocked, confused and horrified” by an unexpected discovery. No, they should be pleased and interested. Unexpected discoveries, like the presence of microscopic life in tooth-scrapings or anomalies in the orbit of Mercury, are often gateways to greater things, to an expansion or overturning of previous scientific understanding. And the anti-racist radiologist Luke Oakden-Rayner and his colleagues were certainly not expecting what they have discovered:

Firstly, the performance of these [AI] models ranges from high to absurd. An AUC [Area Under the Curve, or correct identification] of 0.99 for recognising the self-reported race of a patient, which has no recognised medical imaging correlate? This is flat out nonsense.

Every radiologist I have told about these results is absolutely flabbergasted, because despite all of our expertise, none of us would have believed in a million years that x-rays and CT scans contain such strong information about racial identity. Honestly we are talking jaws dropped — we see these scans everyday and we have never noticed. (AI has the worst superpower… medical racism, Luke Oakden-Rayner, 2nd August 2021)

But in fact this discovery about racial information in “x-rays and CT scans” shouldn’t have been unexpected, let alone “shocking, confusing and frankly horrifying.” Anatomists have known for centuries that race can be identified from the skeleton — indeed, from the skull alone. If bones carry “racial information,” why not organs? And in fact, just as the skull commits blasphemy and betrays the reality of race, so does the brain inside the skull:

Modeling the 3D Geometry of the Cortical Surface with Genetic Ancestry

  • Geometry of the human cortical surface contains rich ancestral information
  • The most informative features are regional patterns of cortical folding and gyrification
  • This study provides insight on the influence of population structure on brain shape

… Here, we demonstrate that the three-dimensional geometry of cortical surface is highly predictive of individuals’ genetic ancestry in West Africa, Europe, East Asia, and America, even though their genetic background has been shaped by multiple waves of migratory and admixture events. The geometry of the cortical surface contains richer information about ancestry than the areal variability of the cortical surface, independent of total brain volumes. Besides explaining more ancestry variance than other brain imaging measurements, the 3D geometry of the cortical surface further characterizes distinct regional patterns in the folding and gyrification of the human brain associated with each ancestral lineage. (Modeling the 3D Geometry of the Cortical Surface with Genetic Ancestry, Current Biology, Volume 25, Issue 15, 3rd August 2015)

Leftist lies about the human brain: an anti-racist propaganda poster

That brain-study was published six years ago, which is a long time by the standards of rapidly advancing modern science. But at the same time as science is advancing, leftists are doing their best to obscure, distort, and deny any of its findings that contradict leftism. If the structure and size of the brain differ by race, an obvious conclusion follows: so do the functioning of the brain and the cognitive performance of different races. How could they not? The human intellect isn’t a ghost in the machine, but a product of the machine, that is, of the immensely complex electro-chemical mechanisms of the brain. Even if all humans were running the same neurological software, we wouldn’t be running it on the same systems. Some brains are faster and more efficient, some are slower and less efficient.

“Race is everywhere and in everything”

And those differences in the brain arise in decisive part from genetic differences, both within races and between them. The same applies to every other part of the human body. As the anti-racist doctor said: “[Race] is everywhere and it is in everything.” This isn’t surprising, because “everything” — every organ and aspect of physiology — is under different selective pressures in different physical and cultural environments. For example, lungs and red blood-cells that work well in low-lying Tahiti won’t work so well in elevated Tibet. As the racist Charles Darwin taught us, it’s a basic rule of biology that living organisms become adapted to their environments. Modern humans evolved in Africa, then migrated across the world, entering new environments and acquiring new adaptations, both directly, by natural selection, and indirectly, by inter-breeding with previous human migrants like Neanderthals, Denisovans, and other now-extinct members of the Homo genus.

Leftists like to pride themselves on their intellectual sophistication and their ability to cope with “complexity.” But when it comes to human biology and evolution, they become as hungry for simplicity and comforting falsehoods as any fundamentalist Christian. Rather than accept our rich and fascinating racial differences, leftists cling to the nonsensical slogan of “There’s only one race — the human race!” What could be simpler than that? And what could be falser? Reality says that racial differences are much more than skin-deep. They’re brain-deep, lung-deep, liver-deep, kidney-deep, and everything-else-deep. Luke Oakden-Rayner, the anti-racist doctor, claims that “There is no causal pathway linking racial identity and the appearance of, for example, pneumonia on a chest x-ray. By definition these features are spurious.”

GIF from Luke Oakden-Rayner’s blog: “Is this the darkest timeline? Are we the baddies?”

The soothing simplicity of falsehood

In fact they’re “spurious” only “by definition” within the dogmas of leftism. But reality is racist and doesn’t care about leftist dogma. Disease affects different races in different ways. Leftists want to ignore this complexity and insist on the soothing simplicity of “No race but the human race!” They don’t recognize the crypto-religious nature of their own behaviour. For example, leftists jeer at and mock fundamentalist Christians for their rejection of Darwinism. The fundamentalists are disturbed by the idea of humans descending from ape-like ancestors and have sought refuge in the soothing simplicity of a God-created Adam and Eve from whom we all descend. But leftist denial of race serves the same psychological function. Indeed, its simplicity doesn’t just shield leftists from disturbing reality, but also allows them to indulge in an ancient religious custom: hunting for scapegoats.

If humans are all the same under the skin, then only one thing can explain why Blacks, for example, fail so badly and behave so badly. It can’t be anything innate or intrinsic to Blacks, so it must be an external force of evil: White racism! Whites are responsible for Black failure. Whites are oppressing and exploiting Blacks. What else could explain White success and Black failure? Well, it could be (and is) innate racial differences in cognition and psychology. That’s why the medical researchers described above are “shocked, confused, and frankly horrified” by what AI is telling them about biological reality. Their findings contradict their ideology and, like good leftists but unlike good scientists, they value ideology far above reality. In fact, they don’t seem to value reality at all, as you can see from one very telling reference in the anti-racist doctor’s blog-post. He lists examples of unacceptable racial discrimination, including the horrific fact that “Black newborns are substantially more likely to survive if they are treated by a Black doctor.”

Grinding non-Whites into the dirt

There you have it: White racism is killing Black babies! Or is it? In fact, no. Consider that patients with ingrowing toenails “are substantially more likely to survive” than patients with brain-cancer. Does this prove that chiropodists are better and more caring doctors than brain-surgeons and radiologists? Obviously not. As Greg Cochran pointed out at West Hunter, Black newborns with dangerous medical problems are more likely to be treated by White doctors than by Black doctors, who are “a much smaller percentage of specialists.” That explains the difference in survival rates. Meanwhile, Hispanic newborns in America have lower mortality and higher life-expectancy than White newborns. How can this be, when White racism and White supremacy are at work non-stop in America, remorselessly grinding Hispanics and other non-Whites into the dirt?

Anti-racism is the Church of the Damned: Whites are racist “no matter what” (see rule 10)

Well, leftists don’t ask how that can be, because they’re not interested in the truth. For leftists, ideology trumps reality, which is why they believe in censorship and suppression, not free speech and open debate. And what they can’t censor or suppress, they will distort and deny. At American Renaissance Gregory Hood has reported these highly revealing words by the leftist philosopher Daniel Dennett: “[I]f I encountered people conveying a message I thought was so dangerous that I could not risk giving it a fair hearing, I would be at least strongly tempted to misrepresent it, to caricature it for the public good. I’d want to make up some good epithets, such as genetic determinist or reductionist or Darwinian Fundamentalist, and then flail those straw men as hard as I could. As the saying goes, it’s a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it.”

The innate evil of Whites

Countless other leftists think in the same way, because truth does not matter to them. The message of racial difference cannot be given a “fair hearing,” because it’s too “dangerous.” So instead of the truth about race, leftists insist on a lie about race: that it doesn’t exist and that all non-White failure is due to the greed, selfishness, and malevolence of Whites. This lie incites non-White violence against Whites and justifies systemic discrimination against Whites in education and employment. But underneath that leftist insistence on the non-existence of race is a contradictory belief in the innate evil of Whites and the immaculate conception of non-Whites, who are born without hereditary stain or spot. As Gregory Hood has said at AmRen: for Whites, anti-racism is a Church of the Damned, offering no hope of salvation or redemption. Whites are racist whatever they do, say or think. The only solution is dissolution. In the words of the late, great anti-racist Dr Noel Ignatiev (1940-2019), we have to “Abolish the white race.”

The late, great Jewish anti-racist Dr Noel Ignatiev

Ignatiev edited a magazine called Race Traitor, whose catchy strap-line was “Treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.” But during what New Yorker magazine called his “Long Fight against Whiteness,” he always said that “abolition” of “the white race” meant merely abolition of the concept and privileges of “whiteness,” not the physical subjugation or extermination of Whites. I don’t believe his disclaimers. Ignatiev was a White-hating extremist, which is why it should come as no surprise that he was also Jewish — a Jew pretending to be a “fellow-white” representing himself as a traitor to his race. You’ve seen above how we can read race reliably from the human body. But I think we can also read race reliably in a more literal way: from the words people use and the ideas they promote.

It is no surprise, for example, that a Jew was the inventor of the slogan “Abolish the white race” and the editor of an anti-White magazine called Race Traitor. Nor is it a surprise that Jewish biologists like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin, and Steven Rose have led the fight to deny the existence of race. You can read their Jewish psychology in their words and I think you can also read their Jewish genetics. Psychology is under decisive genetic influence, after all. I predict that artificial intelligence could also be trained to identify race from samples of written or spoken language. Language is another aspect of human biology and that anti-racist doctor captured a central truth of human biology when he said: “Race is everywhere and in everything.” To put it another way: Biology is blasphemy because reality is racist.

Tucker Carlson Visits Hungary. Apoplectic Rage on the Left

/57 Comments/in /by

Liberals and leftists are absolutely apoplectic about Tucker Carlson’s week-long visit to Hungary. His shows featured views of the border as well-fenced (built after the 2015 attempted invasion) and peaceful, with migrants from Serbia being turned back—a far cry from Biden’s unofficial policy of welcoming migrants and putting them on planes and buses to be sent around the country to dilute any remaining places that are seen as too White, with the assumption that they will eventually vote Democrat when they get amnestied or they change the voting laws. (The NYTimes recently published an op-ed arguing there is no good reason why illegals can’t vote, so it’s definitely on the left’s wish list.)

On Monday Carlson opened his show with this:

If you care about Western civilization and democracy and families, and the ferocious assault on all three of those things by the leaders of our global institutions, you should know what is happening here right now.

That quote appeared in an article in The Daily Beast where the author, Jared Yates Sexton, couldn’t resist referring to “so-called ‘Western Civilization.'” You definitely know where that train of thought is going.

Here’s most of the show from last night.

At the beginning there is a clip from an interview with Victor Orbán who reasserts the right of Hungary to decide who comes into their country, and that they have a right to decide on their culture. If they want a family-friendly culture and oppose LGBT+ propaganda and Critical Race Theory in their schools, they should be able to do that. If they would rather not have a post-Christian society or a Muslim counter-culture, it’s their right. Their culture is up to them, not globalist elites residing in Brussels or Washington dictating what they must do. And that’s what they have done.

Mr. Orban’s party recently adopted a law restricting depictions of homosexuality; critics said it was being used to target the country’s L.G.B.T.Q. community. And the government-aligned media regularly rails against the destabilizing effect that Western “woke” culture has on traditional society. (Benjamin Novak & Michael M. Grynbaum in the NYTimes)

One can only imagine the horror at such things among our ruling class. “Authoritarian!” they’ll say—while happily mandating their own totalitarian ideology in America.

As Orbán notes, the globalists basically want to force other societies to be multicultural—to admit Muslim communities, for example—in the belief that these disparate groups will get along just fine. But, he says, it’s “obviously risky.” So true. Multiculturalism is a utopian ideology, and what evidence we have thus far is not encouraging—even apart from the argument from ethnic genetic interests. As Orbán says, Germany has gotten what it deserved for bringing in millions of Muslims. Now Europe has no-go zones and organized crime by family-based cartels. You can import people out from of the Middle East, but the magic dirt of Europe doesn’t obliterate their clannishness or their criminal tendencies. And minimally, the multicultural United States has never been more polarized, with the polarization essentially along racial lines.

Carlson’s comment on the effect of immigration on crime infuriated Salon. All they had to do was quote him commenting on a case where an illegal beheaded a woman in broad daylight in Minnesota after authorities did not deport him:

The Biden administration did this on purpose, and they’re still doing it. And that is exactly why Democrats become hysterical when you mention the obvious successes that are on display here in Hungary on the immigration question. They don’t want you to know that there is an option to the chaos and filth and crime growing all around us.

“Chaos, filth, and crime.” But the idea that there are globalist elites seeking to impose multiculturalism and massive non-White, crime-prone (and low-IQ) immigration on European societies is a complete fantasy in the eyes of the Daily Beast writer:

Using fellow Hungarian [???] George Soros as a catch-all bogeyman, Orbán prides himself as a champion against a massive global conspiracy that involves wealthy and powerful liberals, and international organizations determined to undermine the authority of the state and break the back of nationalistic thought.

The idea that there is no globalist, wealthy, liberal elite that opposes nationalism is absurd. But this elite doesn’t generally undermine the authority of the state. Only if the state is trying to enforce nationalism.

The left loves authoritarianism. It’s a recurrent theme that globalists want to force conformity and obedience on any dissenting entity to produce a homogeneous culture of the left. Later in the show he interviews the always interesting Michael Anton, who notes the same thing about the U.S.: Blue states want to impose their values and way of life on the red states, but the red states just want to be left alone to decide on their own culture, whether it’s energy policy, mask mandates for schoolchildren, abortion on demand, or teaching White students to hate themselves (here).

But as I said, the left is apoplectic about seeing such ideas in the conservative mainstream. A recurrent theme is that Hungary under Orbán is authoritarian—that he has dismantled democracy so that there are only sham elections. Here’s Zach Beauchamp at Vox:

Fidesz justified its power grabs by demonizing a series of outgroups and external enemies. If you read the state-aligned press, you’ll learn that only Viktor Orbán can save Hungarian civilization from the threat posed by Muslim immigrants, liberals in the European Union, the LGBT community, and the Jewish billionaire George Soros.

Orbán won reelection in 2015 and 2018, in votes that were formally free but in no sense fair. Fidesz benefitted from massive resource advantages, backing from government-aligned media, and rules designed to tilt the playing field. Though Orbán’s party won less than 50 percent of the vote in the 2018 election, it still won a two-thirds majority in parliament — thanks in part due to gerrymandering.

Today, political scientists see Hungary as a textbook example of something called “competitive authoritarianism”: a kind of autocratic system where elections happen and aren’t formally rigged but are so heavily stacked in the incumbent party’s favor that the people don’t have real agency over who rules them.

One thing that’s obvious about the left these days is that they are not self-aware. They routinely project what they are doing throughout the West onto their enemies. It’s quite reasonable to argue that the left stole the 2020 U.S. election, certainly via biased media coverage, and at least partly by changing the voting laws under cover of the Covid crisis. And quite possibly much worse. Now the left is going all out to continue those laws, rejecting voter ID laws and other election security laws as Jim Crow 2.0. And, despite several of the articles cited here condemning Orbán for imposing a gerrymandering regime favorable to his party, they don’t seem to notice that it’s very mainstream among them to want to get rid of the electoral college, pack the Supreme Court with leftist judges, and get rid of two senators per state. Their entire program is aimed at creating permanent hegemony: promoting maximum levels of legal immigration, amnestying illegals, allowing illegals to vote, disbanding the border patrol, distributing migrants to red states, and pathologizing criticism by Whites that they are being replaced. They want hegemony over the entire country that they already have in blue states. Yes, the left loves authoritarianism.

But here’s Vox: “Competitive authoritarian regimes survive, in part, by tricking their citizens — convincing enough of them that democracy is still alive to avoid an uprising.” Exactly what’s happening here. We still have the flag (although even that is in jeopardy) and we have the illusion of free elections. In fact, the vast majority of the media in 2020 was propagandizing for one candidate, demonizing the other, and ignoring anything unsavory about the one they like—Hunter’s notorious laptop.

The left loves authoritarianism, but only when they have power. When they were out of power during the 1950s, they were all about the civil liberties of communist professors and how evil Joe McCarthy was. There developed a whole literature on the evils of suppressing free speech, such as Arthur Miller’s The Crucible which implicitly condemned the  House Un-American Activities Committee by comparing it to the Salem witch trials. But now that they have power, they have used their power to basically end free speech at universities and for anyone in the private sector who they might be able to get fired from their job by calling him a racist or anti-Semite. As this recent article by Glen Allen of the Free Expression Foundation shows, there is already a double standard of justice where the system throws the book at right-wing protesters, including solitary confinement for January 6 protesters awaiting trial, while leftist rioters from last summer who burned and pillaged a great many American cities and attacked police have gotten off scot-free. But here’s Sexton in The Daily Beast complaining that Hungary now is hostile to free speech, impartial law, and representative government:

Within this system [i.e., the former regime], certain rights were considered inalienable and automatic. Expression. The press. The right to representative government and the rule of theoretically impartial law.

The left is now firmly in charge of the entire federal bureaucracy, including the FBI and other national security organs. Dissidents are being purged from the military. It’s gotten to the point that even if, by some miracle, a real populist was elected, he or she would have to direct a massive purge of the federal bureaucracy, from top to bottom, to get their policies implemented and to prevent these agencies from actively working against the administration—as certainly occurred at the FBI with Trump-Russia collusion hoax.

And the media. Vox complains that 90 per cent of the media is in government hands, and The Daily Beast complains about lack of press freedom in Hungary. From the perspective of the dissident right, it’s more like 99.9 percent of the media in the U.S. is in hostile hands, and for mainstream conservatives, 90 percent is probably a good estimate. Here the left benefits from the wokeness of the corporate media, including social media. But the result is the same. A façade of democracy in which most people are simply unaware of what’s really going on. And dissenters from the left, such as Carlson, who have a significant media following, are subjected to activist campaigns against their advertisers.

And The Daily Beast complains that the government is pushing its nationalist ideology in schools, completely ignoring the left’s push for everything from holocaust education to Critical Race Theory and LGBT+ propaganda in public schools. Same outcome, slightly different way of obtaining it in the U.S., all the while paying lip service to liberal democracy.

But for The Daily Beast, in order to make their argument, all they have to do is claim that Orbán, Carlson, et al. are nothing more than lunatic conspiracy theorists.

There is importance in western civilization, they maintain, that must be protected at any and all costs, particularly from evil, criminal traitors determined to undermine it. They are in league with foreigners and constantly manipulating people of color. Behind the scenes lies a shadowy threat pulling the strings. They control the media. They control culture. And liberal democracy, with its freedoms, its espoused equality, with its acceptance of diverse identities and ideas, brings with it the contagion of the very populations and creeds that will dilute the country and undoubtedly destroy it.

If you are on the left, there’s no need to really make an argument that liberal elites are not in control of the media or culture, or that they are not really interested in bringing in in people of color in order to further their agenda. The fact that non-Whites vote Democrat is complete happenstance. And the people who run the media are of no discernable ethnic group, and they are nothing but truth seekers. When you have the kind of power the left has today, all you have to do is just accuse those evildoers of believing in conspiracy theories.

Vox quotes Rod Dreher, Senior Editor at The American Conservative:

The unhappy truth is that liberalism as we Americans have known it is probably dead. Our future is almost certainly going to be left-illiberal or right-illiberal. The right-of-center thought leaders who want to figure out how to resist effectively will be coming to Budapest to observe, to talk, and to learn.”

Vox condemns this because Dreher sees a role for the state in creating a right-wing regime, but, as usual, the author seems blissfully unaware of the obvious authoritarian trends on the left—trends they are doing their best to enshrine with state power. I’m afraid Dreher is right. It’s going to be an authoritarianism of the left or of the right, take your pick. The old conservative values of limited government are non-viable. The old America is dead. And right now, I certainly wouldn’t want to bet on the right eventually winning. While the left is pretty much united around a program of authoritarian control—they love censorship, whether by government or corporations, and would embrace prison terms for thought crimes, as they already do in Europe—the right remains fractionated between idiotic libertarians, traditional country club, business-friendly conservatives (even though corporate America hates them), and religious fundamentalists.

However, it’s somewhat encouraging that 23 percent of Republican men have a favorable view of White nationalists, and actually shocking that 17 percent of Democrat men have a favorable view. And discouraging that only 7 percent of the  electorate have a favorable view of White nationalists—again  highlighting the problem of White women, especially unmarried White women, being more likely to buy into the contemporary zeitgeist of White guilt and the left generally. I’d be interested in a poll where they also asked about attitudes toward Carlson. I suspect that Republican men with favorable views of White nationalists overlap to a large extent with those who are fans of Carlson.

I realize Carlson is not ideal. But there’s no one else even close to him in continuing to hit on the issues that vitally affect White America. It’s no surprise that his trip to Hungary set off a firestorm on the left,  or that the ADL was furious when he referred to White replacement. I think he’s waking up a lot of people, and that terrifies the left.