Page 173 – The Occidental Observer

The Earl Raab Election(s)

October 15, 2020/35 Comments/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Richard McCulloch

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous [i.e., multiracial] nature of our population tends to make it irreversible, and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.
Earl Raab, Jewish Bulletin of Northern California, February 19, 1993

Earl Raab speaking at the 1972 AFT Los Angeles Civil Rights Conference

Note on usage: In this essay the racial designation “White” will be capitalized when used to mean racial Europeans and not capitalized (i.e., “white”) when conforming to common and official usage that includes non-European Caucasians (NECs) such as Middle Easterners and North Africans (MENAs) and semi-European Caucasians such as Ashkenazi Jews in the “white” racial category.

Earl Raab (1919—2015) served 40 years as the director of the Jewish Community Relations Council in San Francisco and was also the director of the Perlmutter Institute for Jewish Advocacy at Brandeis University. By “bigotry” and “Nazi-Aryan” in the above quotation, he means pro-White advocacy and support for White interests, the most existentially important of which are White preservation and independence — the continued existence of the White or European racial group and control of its own existence with its own countries, governments, cultures and economies. Earl Raab and his Jewish readership, the “we” in the above quote who are representative of the dominant and more active elements of the Jewish population, defined their group interests as diametrically opposed to White racial interests, promoting multiracialism, mass non-White immigration and racial intermixture, thereby causing White racial dispossession, subjugation, replacement and destruction. White interests, and especially the existentially important ones of continued racial life and independence through racial separation, are identified with and denounced as Nazism, racism, white supremacy, Fascism, etc. Thus even Donald Trump, whose perceived identification with implicit Whiteness is certainly far below any explicit support for existentially important interests, is frequently described as a racist, white supremacist, Nazi, etc., simply for opposing and obstructing, and so slowing, the progress of the anti-White agenda.

In 2016 the anti-White agenda of Raab, et al. was at the point of achieving Raab’s “irreversible” realization in a Hillary Clinton victory which would have swung the Damoclean sword and politically beheaded the White population, terminating its still remaining vestiges of political control of the country it created. They would do this by the legalization and enfranchisement of an estimated 22 million illegal non-White aliens (and possibly statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington D.C.), so that a party that served, promoted and defended White interests would no longer, in Raab’s words, “be able to prevail.”

But it was Donald Trump — the first major party presidential candidate in generations meaningfully identified with White interests, even if at a very low and implicit level — who won, not Clinton, and Raab’s triumphalism of 1993 suddenly seemed premature. Trump’s victory clearly demonstrated it was still possible for an implicitly pro-White candidate to prevail, and if so, also demonstrated the more remote possibility that a much more explicitly and meaningfully pro-White candidate and party could also still prevail.

So instead of realizing its complete and “irreversible” triumph over White America, the Anti-White Coalition suffered a defeat that shocked and shook it to its core. In response, it mobilized all the assets of its vast power structure to undermine the results of the election and make sure such a thing could never happen again. Before 2016 we could visualize the electoral future as a gradual racial transformation of the electorate to a non-White majority over the course of two or three decades in line with the projected demographic changes, but in the aftermath of Trump’s win it became clear that the Democrats planned to radically accelerate the racial electoral shift in their favor, plans postponed by Clinton’s defeat, but only until the next Democrat victory.

The approaching 2020 election — and if the Democrats lose this election, every election to come until the Democrats do win and impose permanent and “irreversible” non-White political dominance — will be as meaningful and decisive for America as the South African general election of 1994, which transferred political control of South Africa from the White minority to the non-white majority, was for the White population of that country. Every American election until the Democrats win will continue to be a sword of Damocles hanging over the neck of the White population which will finally fall when the Democrats win, striking off the White head (i.e., control or possession) of the country and imposing permanent non-White supremacy and the subjugation of Whites.

To realize the goal of White racial preservation and independence, the continued life of our race, and its control of its own existence, we must separate ourselves from the non-White races. To do this, it is necessary to be in control of the country, in fact very strongly in control, and to exercise that control with a firm and decisive will. To advance the same goal for our race in Europe, Canada and Australia we should so conduct ourselves in the process of separation that our racial kin in other countries will be moved to emulate our example rather than be repelled by it.

If our goal is to preserve as much of our race as we can, and if our goal of separation and independence for racial preservation is the goal consistent with the best interests of our race, then these goals would be best achieved by what Wilmot Robertson labeled the “National Premise,” a grand territorial partition of the country that would “spin off” the non-White racial populations into separate independent countries while keeping the greater part of the territory for a separate and independent all-White country. This separate and independent White country would contain the great majority of the White population (basically all who don’t self-emigrate to non-White areas) as well as the territory where the great majority of Whites reside, obliging less than 25% of them to relocate (the extent of White relocation should be minimized to maximize White support). This separate and independent White country would still be transcontinental and include the national capital and so be the continuation of the United States, and it would keep disturbance and disruption to a minimum (e.g., retirees would continue to receive their Social Security and Medicare benefits). I have previously discussed and described this goal in detail on this site in my essays “The National Premise Revisited” (with maps), my review of The White Nationalist Manifesto by Dr. Greg Johnson, and in two earlier articles in The Occidental Quarterly: “Visions of the Ethnostate” (vol. 18, no.3, Fall 2018 pp 29–46) and “Separate or Die” (vol. 8, no. 4, Winter 2008–2009 pp 15–38)

The most important measure of any separatist and preservationist proposal is what proportion of our race could it be reasonably expected to save, or is even designed to save. By such a measure the National Premise proposal for a grand or total separation is clearly the only sufficient preservationist solution. Such a solution is incomparably superior to the sundry much smaller-scale secessionist proposals that would have little or no lasting preservationist effect, making them no more than larger and more elaborate variants of White flight.

The National Premise goal can theoretically be achieved by different means, but by far the clearest and most structured path forward, and the one that would be least disruptive of people’s lives in every sense, would be within the existing political and electoral system established and long maintained by earlier generations of our race. This is the system to which the great majority of our people strongly adhere, regard as legitimate, and wish to continue.

We can conceive of this electoral path to White racial liberation and restoration (or instauration per Robertson’s more esoteric Latin term), as having multiple stages, and each stage having several steps (or hurdles). The first stage is the conversion or transformation of one of the two major political parties into a national populist party, and then over successive stages and steps into an implicitly and then explicitly pro-White party. Since the 1960s the Republican party has been the obvious vehicle for this development, but other than the steady migration of White voters to the GOP, no overt steps in a national populist direction were taken until Trump, whose election was the first official and historical step (one could say the first victory) for the national populist and ultimately pro-White movement. A basic outline of this electoral path would be:

Stage 1: The conversion or transformation of the Republican party into a national populist party. In many respects the policies of such a party would naturally tend to coincide with the interests of the majority element of the population, which in America, Europe, Canada and Australia would be Whites, including being restrictive of immigration, but it would seek to unify and integrate all parts of the citizenry and so be inclusive of the non-White elements, perhaps even pandering to them to address their complaints and attract their support. The efforts to restrict illegal immigration could include better border protection and enforcement (e.g., “the wall”), abolishing DACA and denying any form of amnesty for illegal immigrants, enacting mandatory E-Verify to restrict employment opportunities for illegals, denying government benefits and assistance for illegals, and possibly, assuming there is a strong enough popular mandate to provide the will, the forcible deportation of all illegal aliens.

Stage 2: The conversion of the GOP into an implicitly pro-White party. At the implicit level of the process pro-White policies would still be limited but would include greater priority and emphasis placed on combating illegal immigration with an increased determination to employ and enforce all the methods listed in Stage 1. Also at this stage there would no longer be any pandering to non-Whites, appeals to their special interests, or promotion of their inclusion and integration.

Stage 3: The further transformation of the GOP into a more actively, but still implicitly, pro-White party. This stage would include abolishing any programs or policies that overtly benefit or prioritize the interests of non-Whites, including Affirmative Action, “reverse discrimination,” or restrictions on rights of private association and discrimination, essentially repealing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Stage 4: The continued conversion of the GOP into an explicitly pro-White party. At this stage of the process active measures would be supported to advance specifically White racial interests, but they would still be more defensive, ameliorative and temporary rather than decisive, complete and final. This would include means to secure White political dominance and efforts to promote various forms and degrees of racial separation.

Stage 5: The completed conversion of the GOP into an explicitly pro-White party. At this level of the process there would be open and determined advocacy for the complete and final, and only fully sufficient, solution to the issue of racial preservation and independence by the National Premise concept of a complete or grand racial separation through a grand partition of the country on racial lines.

The anti-Whites are very much aware of the threat such a development, made evident by Trump’s victory, poses for their previously unchallenged plans. The conversion of one of the major parties into a pro-White party, especially if it has enough White electoral support to win, is their worst political nightmare, and that is why they have mobilized all their power against it, with unprecedented and ferocious intensity, to “nip it in the bud” and abort the further development of a potential nascent pro-White movement. A second Trump victory would take the second step in Stage 1 even if only by consolidating the first step. A Trump defeat would probably set back the development of the GOP into a national populist, and increasingly more pro-White, party until it would be too late to matter.

How fast and far the Republican party can go in the process of its conversion over stages into an ever more pro-White party depends on the extent of its White support, and how fast and far its White support is willing to go. Trump won a very providential Electoral College victory in 2016 with 58% of the “white” vote, including 63% of white men and 53% of white women — the notorious “gender gap” celebrated by the anti-Whites. As the Jews and non-European Caucasians (NECs) commonly included in the “white” classification give most of their vote to the Democratic party (Jews consistently vote over 70% for Democrats) we can estimate that the GOP’s share of the White (European) vote is 2–3% greater than its share of the overall “white” vote, indicating that in 2016 Trump actually won 60–61% of the White vote. In the 2018 mid-term elections about 8 million Trump voters didn’t vote, and this decreased turnout for the GOP allowed the Democrats to take control of the House of Representatives with very adverse consequences, including the expected impeachment attempts.

When Trump began his candidacy in May 2015 he immediately jumped far ahead of his competition, with about 30% support in the polls of the Republican base, by emphasizing his opposition to illegal immigration and amnesty, including DACA, and promising to build a “wall” to stop illegals from crossing the southern border. This was and is a strongly pro-White position, although implicitly so, and beyond what any of his competitors were willing to match. He did not promise to deport the illegals who were already here, which would have been at the very limits of the parameters of acceptable political discourse, but his statements were enough to arouse the full fury of the dominant Anti-White Coalition far beyond anything or anyone since Nixon, and perhaps further than that. But his statements strongly opposing illegal immigration set off alarm bells among the anti-White establishment while also awakening the growing racial disquiet and concerns of a broad mass of Whites. These statements excited unprecedentedly enthusiastic support within the pro-White movement, with some seeming to think he could and would take the conversion process all the way through Stage 2.

Trump’s record on keeping his campaign promises is mixed, but not for lack of effort. He never seems to give up, and when blocked on one path, whether by congressional or judicial opposition, thinks out-of-the-box to find a way around to another path. His constituency is of course a coalition of somewhat disparate groups, although overwhelmingly White and to a large degree qualifying as populist. His most important constituency, in terms of numbers, is probably Evangelical Christians, and he has found it much easier to keep his campaign promises to them and other constituencies not related to racial or immigration issues than those that are related to race or immigration. Still he has tried, and stubbornly persists in trying to find a way. Despite congressional resistance and judicial obstruction. he has found creative ways to put together $18 billion to pay for about 1,000 miles of bollard fencing, the type of barrier preferred by the Border Patrol. As of mid-October, 341 miles of bollard fencing were completed and construction is continuing at a rate of about ten miles per week. About 500 miles is projected to be completed by the end of Trump’s first term. The remaining 500 miles of already funded fencing should be completed a year or so into his second term, assuming he has a second term. Otherwise the money will certainly not be used for further construction but might be used to tear down the fencing that has been built.

To Trump’s credit, on racial issues he has often gone beyond his campaign promises, taking bold action on matters not discussed in the campaign, which should be regarded as surprise bonuses by White advocates. Recently he denounced both “Critical Race Theory” and “The 1619 Project,” two of the leading current expressions of anti-White ideology, and banned the common practice of engaging in compulsory anti-White indoctrination sessions in the Executive branch and by government contractors, to the great discomfiture of professional anti-Whites like Tim Wise. On border enforcement he has pressured Mexico to allow apprehended illegal border crossers to be returned to Mexico to await the adjudication of their cases rather than being released into the U.S. where almost all of them disappear. He has also stopped the long practice of building federal housing projects—overwhelmingly populated by non-Whites—in primarily White suburbs.

To win the coming election without help from a second stroke of Providence or from an unlikely — and for us undesirable — major increase in his share of the non-White vote, and assuming the same voter turnout as in 2016, Trump will probably need to increase his share of the White (European) vote by at least several points to circa 63–65%, which would show in the tabulations as 61–62% of the overall “white” vote. To win the popular vote he would probably need to raise his numbers to at least 63% of the overall “white” vote, which could require as much as 66% of the White (European) vote. Assuming Trump does win, the larger the margin of his victory, and in particular the greater the extent to which his victory is attributable to White support, the stronger will be his mandate, the effects on the GOP and the spirit of his White supporters, creating a sense of confidence that will both enable and encourage bolder pro-White policies.

If Trump wins with a significant increase in White support it would also be another step in the process of transforming the GOP into a White people’s party, as an essential part of that process is decreasing the party’s dependence on non-White votes. Ideally, and ultimately necessarily as the party’s policies become more explicitly and meaningfully pro-White, the future White People’s party will need to be independent of non-White votes for electoral success, meaning it will need to win, based on the current 2020 racial proportions of the electorate, perhaps 80% of the White vote to win the popular vote, although the percentage required to win the electoral college, depending on the distribution of the votes, could theoretically be much less.

The other essential part of the process of converting the GOP into a White People’s party that is successful both electorally and in the actual implementation of pro-White policies is the continuation of a super-majority of White support as the party’s policies become more explicitly and meaningfully pro-White, ultimately to the point of a racial partition of the country to realize the “National Premise.”

This process of the conversion of the GOP into a White People’s party by steps and stages is at stake in the upcoming election. Trump’s election in 2016 was the first real step in the process. There is a common but misguided tendency for White advocates to focus too much on Trump in this election when our focus should really be on the process, the whole process, and nothing but the process. In this process Trump is only the first stepping-stone, or perhaps the first several stepping-stones depending on what happens, but the process is far bigger than him and hopefully will continue after he has left the scene. But that depends on whether he wins this election. Our choice is between a Trump victory that would likely mean the continuation of the process of transforming the GOP into a White People’s party, or a Democrat win that would be the “irreversible” Earl Raab election, essentially equivalent in effect to the 1994 general election in South Africa, reducing the founding White population to a state of racial dispossession and subjugation, and even persecution, leading ultimately to destruction.

Moral Communities and the Summer of George

October 13, 2020/30 Comments/in Featured Articles, Western Culture/by Kevin MacDonald

The Summer of George is a paradigmatic example of a media-induced moral panic. A whole new, well-funded industry involving “racial sensitivity training” has sprung up where White people are systematically browbeaten into racial submission and abject guilt for the accomplishments of their ancestors. Such moral panics are, so far as I know, unique to the West and a key consequence of individualist culture. Try to imagine a moral panic in an African society. Or China. Or an Arab country. Not going to happen (counter-examples welcome).

My view is that the moral communities observed at the origins of Western history and surfacing recurrently in later centuries tapped into a pre-existing tendency among individualists to create such communities as a force for cohesion that does not rely on kinship relations. Particularly important since the seventeenth century have been the egalitarian moral communities based on a hunter-gatherer ethic whose evolutionary origins are discussed in Chapter 3 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition (hereafter Individualism).

Egalitarianism is a notable trait of hunter-gatherer groups around the world. Such groups have mechanisms that prevent despotism and ensure reciprocity, with punishment ranging from physical harm to shunning and ostracism.[1] Christopher Boehm describes hunter-gatherer societies as moral communities in which women have a major role,[2] and the idea that Western cultures, particularly since the seventeenth century, are moral communities based on a hunter-gatherer egalitarian ethic will is a major theme of Individualism In such societies people are closely scrutinized to note deviations from social norms; violators are shunned, ridiculed, and ostracized. Decisions, including decisions to sanction a person, are by consensus. Adult males treat each other as equals.

Moral communities are pervasive throughout the institutional structures of the West; however, because of their widespread influence, moral communities are particularly noteworthy in the media and the academic world—both areas which have been dominated by a Jewish elite whose gradual rise to power increased greatly after World War II and came to dominate the culture of the West by the 1960s. For example, whereas mainstream social science had been relatively free of morally based ingroup-outgroup thinking prior to World War II, such thinking has had dramatic effects on the social sciences and humanities in later decades, to the point that academic departments and scholarly associations in these areas can be accurately characterized as “tribal moral communities” in the sense of Jonathan Haidt.[3] This is most obviously the case in areas such as social psychology, sociology, and ethnic and gender studies.

The result has been that academic research communities and the media rigorously police research and commentary that conflict with racial egalitarianism or promote the interests of European-derived peoples, and these attitudes have been internalized by a great many White people. Researchers such as Arthur Jensen, Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, and Ralph Scott who attempt to publish findings on race differences or on public policies related to race find themselves socially ostracized, and they quickly learn that there are steep barriers to publication in mainstream academic journals and no mainstream grant support for their research. Recently Bruce Gilley, a professor at Portland State University, had the audacity to publish an academic article titled “The Case for Colonialism” in which he “suggested that European colonies in the Third World were both beneficial and legitimate, as they generally increased the local standard of living and were often supported by a significant portion of the local population.” The moral (not factual) condemnations quickly followed, and his department is now doing all can to make life miserable for him despite “acknowledg[ing] Gilley’s professionalism: it alleges neither academic misconduct nor personal misconduct on his part but affirms the opposite.” The editor of the journal where the article was published “resigned his position out of fear for his physical safety.”

One wonders how Gilley’s article even got published. When scholarly articles contravening the sacred values of the tribe are submitted to academic journals, reviewers and editors usually become extremely “rigorous”— demanding more experimental controls and other changes in methodology. Such “scientific skepticism” regarding research that one dislikes for deeper reasons was a major theme of The Culture of Critique in discussions of the work of Franz Boas, Richard C. Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould, and the Frankfurt School, to name a few.[4]

One result of this academic reign of terror has been that conservatives often self-select to go into other areas that are not so compromised, such as the hard sciences or computing; there is also active discrimination against conservative job candidates and Ph.D. applicants.[5] The system is therefore self-replicating.

Normal levels of wanting to be liked (not to mention pathological altruism) often involve a sense of self-righteousness, which can be translated as a sense of moral superiority that advertises one’s good reputation within a community defined, as prototypical European groups are, not by kinship but by conforming or exceeding the moral standards of the community. As noted above, such expressions of moralistic self-righteousness have a long history in Western societies and are very salient in contemporary political rhetoric.

It’s interesting that moral outrage, especially by males, acts as a cue to mate value in monogamous marriage that is a fundamental marker of Western social structure.[6] Since women want mates who fit into their moral community, men who signal moral outrage compatible with the values of that community are seen as good marriage prospects. One can imagine how this works on campus environments in the contemporary West where moral outrage directed at pretty much the entire Western past is de rigueur. Or in cities like Portland where, on Columbus Day, statues of Teddy Roosevelt and the sainted Abraham Lincoln (because he ordered the executions of 38 Indians after a Dakota uprising) were toppled by morally outraged antifa mobs.

An example of how self-righteous virtue signaling works at the highest levels of government can be seen in the comments of David Goodhart, a liberal journalist on migration:

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 … in the interests of existing citizens.[7]

An evolutionist can only marvel at the completely unhinged—pathological—altruism on display here, given that the people making these policies are presumably native White British themselves.

This overweening concern with people of different races living in far off lands at the expense of one’s own people was characteristic of many nineteenth-century English intellectuals, particularly those associated with Exeter Hall, who exhibited what Charles Dickens described as “platform sympathy for the Black and … platform indifference to our own countrymen.”[8] In his novel Bleak House, serialized in 1852–53, Dickens portrayed such sentiments in the character of Mrs. Jellyby, whose “handsome eyes had a curious habit of seeming to look a long way off. As if … they could see nothing nearer than Africa.”[9] Mrs. Jellyby neglected those around her, including her daughter, her thoughts directed instead towards the fictitious African possession of Borrioboola-Gha and her idealistic plans for its development.

It is well-known that massive non-White immigration has had 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 other neighborhoods—the phenomenon of White flight. They also tend to have jobs, such as in journalism, 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,[10] lessened community cohesion and involvement,[11] and deteriorating public schools. As noted, in Mrs. Jellyby’s case, 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.

Such expressions of high-mindedness are attempts to fit into a moral community as defined by the media and accepted by their peers. Because the left dominates the moral high ground, expressing empathy for the native Whites, especially the White working class, makes anyone with such ideas into a moral pariah, as would advocating for their interests, with likely negative effects on career prospects. Indeed, expressions of White identity and especially having a sense of White interests have been condemned by establishment media and academic figures as illustrating the lowest form of moral depravity.

Of course, the motives involved in such cases may involve more than empathy for suffering others. While these elite Whites may feel genuine empathy for suffering others in foreign lands to the point of wanting to inundate the West with them, they are also in effect buttressing their status in the morally defined ingroup. They may even be attempting to be “more moral than thou”—competitive virtue signaling—by out-empathizing others in the group. And whether consciously or unconsciously, they may be aware of severe costs if they fail to conform to the norms of their moral community—as well as the benefits of conforming.

The conviction of self-righteousness characteristic of altruistic people need not be rational:

What feels like a conscious life-affirming moral choice—my life will have meaning if I help others—will be greatly influenced by the strength of an unconscious and involuntary mental sensation that tells me that this decision is “correct.” It will be this same feeling that will tell you the “rightness” of giving food to starving children in Somalia, doing every medical test imaginable on a clearly terminal patient … . It helps to see this feeling of knowing as analogous to other bodily sensations over which we have no direct control.[12]

In other words, the sensations of rightness and nobility act as psychological reflexes, and they are so pleasurable that people are inclined to seek them in their own right and without regard to facts or the long-run consequences to themselves.

Talk to an insistent know-it-all who refuses to consider contrary opinions and you get a palpable sense of how the feeling of knowing can create a mental state akin to addiction. … Imagine the profound effect of feeling certain that you have ultimate answers. … Relinquishing such strongly felt personal beliefs would require undoing or lessening major connections with the overwhelmingly seductive pleasure-reward circuitry. Think of such a shift of opinion as producing the same type of physiological changes as withdrawing from drugs, alcohol, or cigarettes.[13]

Feelings of moral righteousness may thus be pleasurable and lead to addiction. “Sanctimony, or a sense of righteous outrage, can feel so intense and delicious that many people actively seek to return to it, again and again.”[14]

The pleasure of knowing, with subjective certainty, that you are right and your opponents are deeply, despicably wrong. Or, that your method of helping others is so purely motivated and correct that all criticism can be dismissed with a shrug, along with any contradicting evidence.[15]

This type of sanctimoniousness is, of course, particularly common among the people labeled “Social Justice Warriors.” These are the people screaming “racist,” “misogynist,” “white supremacist,” etc. at any seeming violation of the norms of the moral communities of the left. And, because of the cultural hegemony of the left, such people can often be seen on social media (and in op-eds in the mainstream media) expressing their moral righteousness—a moral righteousness that fits with or extends the boundaries of the cultural left.

Another aspect of this is competitive altruism or competitive virtue signaling. Given that expressions of moral righteousness are typically communicated in a social setting and are aimed at solidifying or enhancing one’s reputation within a group, there may be competition for ever more extreme expressions of self-righteousness—even among people who are not biologically inclined to be prone to be warm and loving to others. Extreme expressions of moral righteousness are not only addicting, they may also raise one’s status in a social group, just as it’s common for religious people to express “holier than thou” sentiments. Strongly religious people compete to be most virtuous in their local church. On the left, we see vegan fanatics shunning vegans who even talk to people who eat meat or eat in restaurants where meat is served—even family members. I imagine there is a dynamic within antifa groups—the shock troops of the establishment’s views on race and migration—where people who do not condone violence or are unwilling to crack heads themselves are ostracized or at least have much less status.

The result is a “feed forward” process in which the poles of political discourse move ever farther apart, doubtless exacerbated by the contemporary fixation on social media. For example, well-publicized attacks on Confederate statues have quickly morphed into attacks on Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Christopher Columbus. Sympathy among liberals for granting amnesty to illegal immigrants has morphed into calls by prominent Democrats to abolish the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE), make border crossing legal, and give them health care, driver’s licenses, voting rights, and ultimately citizenship. Inviting anyone remotely associated with conservative ideas—much less the racialist Right—to give a talk at a college campus has morphed from a tolerated rarity to a context for angry protests, rioting, injuries to conservatives, and damage to property.

I suggest that this competitive virtue signaling is a major cause of the increasing polarization that we see in the United States and throughout the West in the age of social media. A Pew Research Center survey on changes in U.S. political culture from 1994–2017 found that the increasing divide between Republicans and Democrats, especially on immigration and race, was much more due to the median views of Democrats shifting left.[16]

Nevertheless, a theoretically similar phenomenon exists on the right as, for example, when individuals condemn others for being insufficiently militant or ideologically pure. However, because the left dominates the cultural landscape, such competitive virtue signaling has had most of its effects on the left as the median views of liberals shift to the left. Such competitive virtue signaling from both the left and the right is highly characteristic of the social dynamics of social media sites and journalism.

People on the right face the danger of “doxxing,” having their identity and personal information made public. Hosts of shows in the mainstream media may have to cope with losing sponsors and hence their livelihood; e.g., as of March, 2019, Fox News host Tucker Carlson had lost around 30 sponsors, mainly because of his comments on immigration.[17] Or people may fear losing their job as a result of a phone call to their place of employment by a self-described “civil rights” organization such as the Southern Poverty Law Center or the Anti-Defamation League. This may well be why it is the left that has become more extreme in recent decades, whereas far too many on the right attempt to mollify their leftist critics by knuckling under to their moral righteousness.

The cultural domination of the left has meant that certain views are off-limits for all but the most daring. Thus, media sites like Breitbart and The Daily Caller, while definitely to the right of the mainstream media, avoid explicit advocacy of White identity and interests. Such constraints are much less apparent on the left, with the result that the left continues to get more and more extreme in their views. As I write, views on immigration noted above and on abortion (making abortion legal up until or even shortly after birth) that used to be virtually non-existent among Democrats are increasingly being espoused by mainstream Democrat politicians and pundits. And because transgenderism has become a leftist cause, pre-pubertal children are now given hormone blockers, at times with disastrous results:

Prescribed puberty blockers by the Gender Identity Development Service as a teenager, the Manchester resident has been left with a male-sounding voice, body hair, a beard, no breasts, and unsure whether she will ever be able to have children.

A critical consequence of this is racial polarization. White Americans have been shifting toward the Republican Party—the last Democrat president to get a majority of White votes was Lyndon Johnson in 1964. In general, this is an expression of implicit Whiteness, as non-White groups coalesce in the Democratic Party. The point here is that such trends are likely to increase and polarization become more severe.

Civil war is definitely in the air and one can only imagine the violence that would greet the (at this juncture unlikely) re-election of Donald Trump. But, if Joe Biden wins, a great many Americans, seeing that the changes are happening at warp speed and that the Democrats are aiming at a permanent power via importing Democrat-voting non-Whites, packing the Supreme Court, ending the electoral college and two senators per state and the re(as they already have in states like California), will become disillusioned with the system—like the USSR toward the end of the Cold War. Again, civil war is in the air.

[1] Christopher H. Boehm, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999).

[2] Ibid., 8.

[3] Jonathan Haidt, “Post-partisan Social Psychology.” Presentation at the meetings of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX, January 27, 2011.

https://vimeo.com/19822295

http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/postpartisan.html

[4] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1998; 2nd edition: Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2002), especially Chs. 2 and 6.

[5] Kevin MacDonald, “Why are Professors Liberals?,” The Occidental Quarterly 10, no. 2 (Summer, 2010): 57–79.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321716607_

[6] Mitch Brown et al., “Demonstrate Values: Behavioral Displays of Moral Outrage as a Cue to Long-Term Mate Potential,” unpublished ms, Fairleigh Dickinson University (2020).

[7] David Goodhart, “Why We on the Left Made an Epic Mistake on Immigration,” Daily Mail (March 22, 2013).

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297776/SATURDAY-ESSAY-Why-Left-epic-mistake-immigration.html

[8] Arthur A. Adrian, “Dickens on American Slavery: A Carlylean Slant,” PMLA: Journal of the Modern Languages Association of America 67, no. 4 (June 1952): 315–29, 329.

[9] Charles Dickens, Bleak House, Vol. 3 (London: Bradbury & Evans, 1853), 26.

https://books.google.com/books?id=KlsJAAAAQAAJ

[10] 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

[11] 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 Salter, “Germany’s Jeopardy,” You Tube (January 5, 2016).

[12] Robert A. Burton, “Pathological Certitude,” in Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, and David Sloan Wilson (eds.), Pathological Altruism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): 131–37, 135.

[13] Ibid., 136.

[14] David Brin, “Self-addiction and Self-righteousness,” in Barbara Oakley, Ariel Knafo, Guruprasad Madhavan, and David Sloan Wilson (eds.), Pathological Altruism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012): 77–84, 80.

[15] Ibid., 80.

[16] Pew Research Center, “The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Even Wider” (October 5, 2017).

https://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/

[17] Jeremy Barr, “Without Major Sponsors, Tucker Carlson’s Show Leans on Ads for Fox Programming,” The Hollywood Reporter (March 22, 2019).

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/major-sponsors-tucker-carlsons-show-leans-fox-news-house-ads-1196257

The Real Goal of US University Biosecurity: Copy China’s Social Engineering

October 11, 2020/11 Comments/in Featured Articles/by V.S. Solovyev

“We are all inevitably someone’s adversary.” Michel Foucault, Society Must Be Defended, Lectures at the Collège de France series

“War has become a regime of biopower, a form of rule aimed not only at controlling the population but producing and reproducing all aspects of social life. Biopower functions through the proliferation of acceptable freedoms, fosters life or disallows it. It fosters life through the production of knowledge about the (legitimate) self, especially in relation to a given population. This is what is meant by normalization, which refers to the construction of what behavior, and therefore who, is “normal” in the population. The war function and the police function are increasingly indistinguishable.” Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Multitude, as discussed in Dominic Corva, “Biopower and the Militarization of the Police Function”

“Draconian surveillance measures introduced during the Covid-19 epidemic are handing “unchecked powers” to authoritarian regimes across Asia. Risk analysts warn that “extreme measures and unchecked powers” brought in to tackle Covid-19 could become permanent features of government across the region, and have an impact on the rights and privacy of millions of people. Surveillance tools and technology such as fever detection goggles, drones that monitor curfews and lockdown, and apps that track the spread of Covid are already being deployed as part of laws and other measures brought in during the pandemic in countries including [especially] China. Right to Privacy Index (RPI) has assessed 198 countries on arbitrary and mass surveillance operations. The index found that Asia was the highest-risk region for breaches of privacy. The report also highlights a trend of arrests linked to citizens criticising national Covid response programmes.” “Drones, fever goggles, arrests: millions in Asia face ‘extreme’ Covid surveillance,” The Guardian (October 1, 2020)

“Living in greater harmony with nature [in order to prevent pandemics] will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence, from cities to homes to workplaces, to water and sewer systems, to recreational and gatherings venues. In such a transformation we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks. Among the most important factors are those associated with human behaviors, e.g., population growth, crowding, human movement, and many others, including behaviors that either perturb the environment or result in new human-created ecologic niches. These reflect the extraordinary importance of human population growth and movement.” David M. Morens, Anthony S. Fauci, Office of the Director, National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA., “Emerging Pandemic Diseases: How We Got to Covid-19.”

“While the measures that will be necessary to defeat the coronavirus will seem draconian, even anti-American to some, we believe that there is no alternative. We acknowledge that the refusal to obey rules one considers unjust is an American tradition. A refusal to be vaccinated threatens the lives of others. How can government ensure compliance with protective vaccines? Vaccine refusers could lose tax credits or be denied nonessential government benefits. Health insurers could levy higher premiums for those who by refusing immunization place themselves and others at risk. Private businesses could refuse to employ or serve unvaccinated individuals. Schools could refuse to allow unimmunized children to attend classes. Public and commercial transit companies — airlines, trains and buses — could exclude refusers. Public and private auditoriums could require evidence of immunization for entry. A registry of immunization will be needed with names entered after immunization is completed. Adequate immunization may require more than a single vaccination, and the durability of protection by different vaccines may vary and may require periodic booster immunizations. Thus, immunized persons will need to receive expiration date-stamped certification cards, which should be issued to all who are immunized in the country, whether here legally or not.” Dr. Michael Lederman, Maxwell J. Mehlman and Dr. Stuart Youngner, Case Western Reserve University, “Defeat Covid-19 by requiring vaccination for all. It’s not un-American. It’s patriotic.”

I’ve visited a number of US universities over the past several months and they all have one thing in common: a lockstep, identical policy over the covid phenomenon. I say “phenomenon” because the actual scientific data are conflicting, often wildly so, and all over the map, and its effect, profoundly more psychological than even biological. I say “psychological” because it is confusing, and creates anxiety, uncertainty, and a lack of faith in institutional integrity. I say “lockstep” because universities now have identical policy—whether classes are in person, temporarily on-line or a mix—which consists of identical elements, even language, disclosures, warnings, and penalties concerning signage, masks, distancing, socializing, sanitizing, notification, testing, reporting, quarantining, tracing, tracking, monitoring, and eventually, the mandate to vaccinate. The entire US higher education complex is marching in lockstep to one voice, one authority, one interpretation, one strategy. It is as if the country’s universities and colleges were subject to a “hostile takeover,” by a corporate raider or by foreign interests; or they were suddenly militarized under the cover of a need for the “biosecurity of militarization,” and the students, locked in isolation in the towers of a medieval complex and corralled and herded in a massive national experiment. It’s not just heartbreaking, but an outrage, to see how our nation’s young adults are being treated. Everyone is afraid. Fear is the new realm—and the great risk of the new campus “biosecurity.”

Students are caught in a difficult and understandable cognitive dilemma among the conflicts and inconsistencies of health information: the irrational, ad hoc and authoritarian nature of university institutional responses, and the almost impossible choices one is left with, concerning how to even function practically on a college campus today.[1]

One major reason that students, such as the undergraduates at the University of Chicago, are expressing frustration with vague, confusing or conflicting signals from their administration, is because university managers really aren’t in charge; they have effectively handed over management of the campus, to an effective syndicate of alphabet agencies made up of the CDC, the WHO, the DHS, DOD, state and city government, and not least the DNC, toward which the university administration has demonstrated strong political allegiance, including to its own senior political alumnae, such as the Obama-Lightfoot-Sanders “triumvirate.”

Or take the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Its Chancellor, a former White House cabinet member and advisor to former presidents Clinton and Obama, led the institution’s “SmartStart” plan to re-open the campus to all students for the Fall 2020 semester. Over the past few weeks, tens of thousands of students, some with spouses, some even with children, packed their belongings and from all over the world, headed off and converged on Madison, to pursue their academic journeys; move in to new dormitories, apartments and houses; set up a home, buy their books, enroll in courses, and a dozen other personal and academic chores. And yet barely two weeks into the Fall semester, the “SmartStart” turned into the “FallStall” as all campus, in-person classes were suddenly cancelled; libraries, labs, and campus facilities closed or restricted, and students confined to their dorms and homes, and otherwise “quarantined.” All because a few students tested “positive” and the university, “out of an abundance of caution” reversed course, shut down all student activity, and followed the politically charged interventions of the state’s Democrat governor.

Universities like Chicago or Wisconsin also steer their policies from their internal legal counsel, and from Trustees, who worry about being sued. The legal “abundance of caution” doctrine largely rules their corporate behavior and creates confusing, often complex, illogical policy and rules. Covid is also big business: millions of dollars in research grants are on the table, so the administrations are also threading that needle. This in some ways re-defines what an “R1” research university is, as the university, and all its members, have now, effectively, become itself the subject of research.

But what is the larger objective here? Where are U.S. universities headed, and why? Think through what the mix of virus protection routines is doing to the mental routines of young adults, to their new assumptions and expectations about social interaction and compliance; and what the confusion, anxiety, frustration and fear caused by constantly changing university ad hoc policy actions, are doing to establish a set of policies and regulations that can be lowered almost on command by the promise of relief. What does a face mask, social distancing and avoidance, constant sanitizing, cooperation in testing, contact tracing, and “geofencing,” do to one’s psychological outlook; to your core sense of self, and even personality? They are all altered. What is the new “baseline?” Essentially it’s the Chinese system. Why China? China is the model of mass compliance and top-down state authority, on a mass scale that can be extended globally—a model that allows nearly absolute government control of not only economic sectors, their activities and investment, but of culture.[2] Here is an excerpt from a recent New York Times article, implying throughout that China’s top-down command social model represents an aspiration for the US (“How China Brought Nearly 200 Million Students Back to School: China says the reopening of classrooms proves that its top-down system is superior,” 12 September 2020):

While the Communist Party has adopted many of the same sanitation and distancing procedures used elsewhere, it has rolled them out with a characteristic all-out, command-and-control approach that brooks no dissent. It has mobilized battalions of local officials and party cadres to inspect classrooms, deployed apps and other technology to monitor students and staff, and restricted their movements. It has even told parents to stay away for fear of spreading germs.

China’s leader, Xi Jinping, said in a speech on Tuesday that the country’s progress in fighting the virus, including the opening of schools, had “fully demonstrated the clear superiority of Communist Party leadership and our socialist system.”

China’s top-down, state-led political system allows the party to drive its vast bureaucracy in pursuit of a single target — an approach that would be nearly impossible anywhere else in the world. In the United States, where the pandemic is still raging, discussions about how and when to resume in-person classes have been fraught. An absence of a national strategy has left school districts to craft their own approach. Coronavirus tests can be hard to come by. Parents have expressed misgivings about sending their children back to classrooms. Teachers’ unions have threatened to strike, while college students have flouted rules against gatherings.

In China, where the virus has largely been under control for months, there is no such debate. The party controls the courts and the news media and quashes any perceived threats to its agenda. Local bureaucracies have little choice but to obey the orders of the all-powerful central government. “The Chinese system moves by itself,” said Yong Zhao, a scholar at the University of Kansas who has studied education in China. “The system is run like a military: it just goes for it, no matter what anyone thinks.”

In many ways, China is applying the same heavy-handed model to reopen schools that it has used to bring the virus under control. To stop the epidemic, the authorities imposed harsh lockdowns and deployed invasive technologies to track residents, raising public anger in some places and concerns about the erosion of privacy and civil liberties. With schools, the government’s effort has in some places been met with similar frustrations. Teachers, who are at times doubling as medical workers, checking for fevers and isolating sick students, say they are exhausted by the new protocols. Students have complained that some policies, such as lockdowns on university campuses, are excessive.

In a profound irony, China first copied (appropriated) U.S. economic culture, systems and intellectual property, and now there are political interests in the U.S. that seek to copy China’s social culture, and its systems of control and social engineering. Such a unified mass block severs the “invisible hand” and installs the authoritarian fist, but unlike earlier examples such as the USSR, the system is not geopolitically organized, but rather ordered in social dimensions of absolute unification: a re-engineered American culture is in service to a new master; as a re-shaped block that can fit into and be absorbed by a larger entity. That entity is China, and a “Sino-sphere” hegemony. This fits easily into the ideological contours of anti-Americanism, and an identitarianism that at its core seeks extreme class leveling as the ultimate compensation for, and protection against, perceived privilege, ambition, and independence.[3]

The social transformation ambitions of a new American radical Left, naturally expands outward from the higher education (re-education) complex, and is in fact propagated and reinforced by it, as such a transformation requires a constant intellectual reinforcement and stewardship. Flowing outward from this ideological production is a gradual acceptance of larger social, cultural and economic displacements by the state, and at that state level, a deeper operational infrastructure of social control and management—otherwise instinctively resisted—is required. This includes the emerging surveillance and security regime gradually but inexorably growing since 2001, and now consolidated in the new “911” which is the Covid-19 construct. This biosecurity regime is not merely a new passive intrusion into privacy, property and other constitutional rights, but is also an active intervention into the sovereignty of the private, individual body through enforced vaccination. This turns the physical human organism into “converted” property by the state itself; a collective hive maintained by vaccination, continuous testing, and pharmacological intervention.[4] In this way of incremental but systematic normalization of extreme, radical social engineering, the entire global population can be transformed from a natural, “wildlife” and segregated diversity of cultural independence and social autonomy model, into an effective agricultural model of population control that can be industrially cultivated, bio-engineered, homogenized, and harvested. The “crop” of young adults contained within the higher education complex are perhaps the most vital first segment to stabilize and consolidate.

The USA Today opinion piece quoted at the top of this article asserts a radical “forced vaccination” agenda, with extreme penalties for resistance, written by three medical professionals from Case Western Reserve (all Jewish). It is important to appreciate that such extreme social intervention and engineering is not a natural element of Western culture, but instead must be modeled, formatted and institutionalized in mass-cooperative social regimes where deference to authority is especially pronounced: this is inherent in Asian culture. The entire Covid biosecurity construct is designed explicitly to lower resistance in Western culture to authority direction, and to condition behavior in personal and group behavior through symbolic routine and ritual which is why the face mask, distancing, quarantine, and group social congregation restrictions are central to the collective acceptance of an “Asian” social control and authority model. Western cultural traditions must be comprehensively “unscaffolded” across highly traditional routines and expectations such as organized religion. Complementing this meta-social behavioral conditioning system, is an enforced, legal compulsion regime that is being lobbied (including by the same USA Today authors).

In the radical Left’s Weltanschauung of an over-populated and warming world, absolute cognitive conformity and social homogenization allow for the attempted mastery of the entire ecological system—the ability to control production, consumption, energy, and waste. The “Wuhan virus” isn’t a pathogen; it is a behavioral coding that is activated and programmed with an eye to controlling the future culture—and even the genetic structure—of a society. Like a farmer planting his crops, the crop to be harvested in the future must be seeded, incubated, sprayed, pruned, and harvested in concentrated, controlled production centers. Hence the modern university, and “biosecurity.” There is no more centralized, readied and institutionalized infrastructure to accomplish these goals, than our nation’s colleges and universities; there is no more effective, and efficient way to assemble, control and train millions of Americans, year after year, than through the education complex.[5] Nothing even comes close to such mass institutional collation of millions of subjects. No other mass recruitment method can get that many young people with that much concentration, under that much closed-system control, and with that much regular, reliable induction, than higher education—a higher education turned inside-out and converted in its mission via an easy, immediate and inter-institutionally readied, federal takeover. The CDC is the new Department of Education. The university is the ideological and public relations target, which the media promotes through agitation and saturation.

America’s university administrations, through their softness in leadership, by their eagerness to please special interests, and from their susceptibility to ideology and financial dependence, are making life for students and their families utterly untenable, if not impossible—and psychologically dangerous. And for the larger country, they are willing to serve as a social engineering center, with thousands of university “camps” all across the country, in every state, major city, county, and town. These centers are already built and ready for conversion, needing only an insidiously natural-seeming change channeled through a biosecurity overlay. This leaves students—and the public—with an increasingly difficult but urgent choice: either submit to and comply with experimental, mass-control biosecurity and the concomitant ideological indoctrination of millions of our young adults; or reject the university’s corruption to better pursue the interests and future of your family and country.

In negotiation, the first thing you learn is how to get up from the table, walk away and say “No.”

This is one of those moments on America’s campuses.

[1] See https://www.dissidentprof.com/8-home/163-covid-19-on-campus-turning-the-university-of-chicago-into-a-re-education-camp. See also Federal judge William Stickman IV’s recent Ruling: It overturns Covidianism’s constitutional violations, but through an actual fact trial, overturns its entire construct. The full U.S. District Court Opinion is linked in this article.

[2] See https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/02/seeking-american-lessons-from-chinas-revolutionary-past/

https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/02/forced-denunciations-and-sensitivity-training-mimic-communist-brainwashing-tactics/

[3] China also has a friend in this ambition for control: Israel. What has been called ‘the only democracy in the Middle East,” wants to become the only authority in the Middle East (brokered with the Sunni Arabs). Israel is also the first developed country to issue a nation-wide “second lockdown” (interestingly on the 9-11 weekend), as it is the leading regional promoter of the Covid program, with top-down, unconstitutional social controls; along with promotion of its pharmaceutical sector,and the vaccination agenda, largely driven by its pharma export interests. Israel’s new lockdown orders are leading to some protests, riots and a level of social anxiety similar to the US. Compare this to Sweden. There have never been any lockdowns or broad social controls including mandatory facemasks. The Covid response across very different cultural domains and political systems, is instructive as to the larger strategic purpose of certain nations. There are steady-state, culturally consolidated, stable societies like Sweden, and then there are unstable, expansionist theocracies like Israel, where Covid is being used as an explicit tool in furthering active geopolitical goals of regional destabilization and expansion under unified control. Sweden stands in stark contrast as a stable cultural and political society, completely detached from the covid biosecurity regime.

[4] Ohio State University instituted such a testing regime, which includes “surveillance testing”—random testing of asymptomatic students. It’s not clear what this will accomplish, outside of assuring, through test result anomaly, that every student will, stochastically wind up in isolation, monitored and inducted into a re-testing and biometric routine. Yale has also initiated “SalivaDirect“. The Yale program highlights how these testing routines are affecting students. In both cases, testing is mimicking randomized control and clinical trial methods. This is largely due to the culture of university medical practices. Such procedures may notionally reduce bias, but it is also theoretically blinding (in this case, blinding is corrupted by bio-ID collection and tracking) and promotes or justifies an evidence case for standardized, universal intervention, including vaccination. Student testing is in fact a mass control experiment and financial annuity, as it asserts permanent re-testing (the C.D.C. which is providing all official guidance and protocols to universities on campus biosecurity and population testing, states that it will undertake long-term “vaccine development and testing such as basic research, clinical studies, side effects and adverse reactions, vaccines of the future, and the vaccine product approval process”). These representative programs otherwise suffer from at least two core problems: one is their biodata, storage, transfer, disclosure, tracking and identity parameters have been established under a biosecurity pretext; the other is the fundamental futility of testing and isolation: mathematical modeling in complex unbounded large networks, shows they are ineffective. The asymmetry among the quantitative and qualitative random variables also creates constraints on the specificity and spread design. Exploitation and manipulation are invited. Moreover, any university campus is subject to numerous daily external workers, contractors, shipping companies, visitors from around the world, hospital admits, and even the homeless. If not network inclusive, testing is especially moot. The other risk from biosecurity enforcement, outside of behavioral and personality alteration, is bio-marker baseline disclosure to facilitate vaccination, re-testing, and secondary pharmicon regimes (see, for example Detroit Daily News: “University of Michigan President: I know there is ‘lack of trust’” resulting from the university’s covid testing. The original plan included “a now-scrapped plan to send armed police officers into off-campus student housing neighborhoods to enforce no-party policies”).

[5] See the Harvard-Wuhan controversy: “Harvard University Professor and Two Chinese Nationals Charged in Three Separate China Related Cases.”
“University Professor Arrested.”
“The Thousand Talents Plan is part of China’s long quest to become the global scientific leader.”
“Spy school: Chinese military officer busted for posing as Boston University student.”
“Harvard prof charged with hiding China ties, payments.“
“China censors Mike Pence during VP debate broadcast as he criticizes Beijing.“

Critical Kosher Theory

October 9, 2020/15 Comments/in Featured Articles/by KosChertified

#CriticalKosherTheory is primarily derived from 1) the 2019 consumer research conducted by the KosChertified? Team titled “A Quantitative Study on Kosher Certification: Seal Visibility and Public Awareness,” 2) the book by Suzanne Bousquet: From Kosher to Halal: When Greed, Politics and the Sneaky Destruction of Western Civilization Intertwine, and 3) from the experiences of our staff in the past three years investigating the kosher certification industry in pursuit of delivering answers to The Kosher Question while advocating for religious freedom and consumer rights in a fair and honest way for all citizens.

1. Without deception, the kosher industry would not be as ubiquitous as it is. Reasoning: the vast majority of the revenue feeding this religious enterprise comes mostly from outside Jewish congregations. Over five decades ago rabbis from kosher agencies claimed that they kept their hekhsher (kosher seal) unusually small so as not to offend non-Jewish consumers, and today they claim that they have no control over the size of kosher seals – even though they stipulate the strictest contracts. Our study suggests that a Deceptive Trade Practice is in play among the companies and agencies. We estimate that this enterprise would be entirely different, perhaps 5% or less of its current size, if completely run by religious volunteers from the congregations that observe Kashrus. We discovered that keeping consumers in the dark with little transparency and a lot of obscurity is key to sustaining and growing their business. Arguably, the kosher agencies can stipulate in contractual words a mandatory legibly sized hekhsher (kosher seal) to be displayed on labels with the morally correct addition of the bold text “KOSHER CERTIFIED”. But they don’t.

2. If label transparency was honest, kosher brands might lose business to #NKC products NOT Kosher Certified. Reasoning: Our surveys indicate that more than half of consumers desire no religious intervention in the production of their food or they desire a “higher” transparency indicated on the labeling when this is the case. If this group was “kosher aware” and if companies were legally forced to display large and clear kosher labeling, companies might opt for keeping away from kosher certification to access this greater share of the market. Of course, there are other factors pressuring companies to kosher-certify their goods that we are not privy to, for instance, distribution and supermarket management demands.

3. When dollar signs start entering the religious aspects of Kashrus, it is perverted with greed and corruption, even in “holy” Jerusalem. Reasoning: Israel’s ynetnews reveals a darker side of the kosher certification business occurring in the Jewish State itself. If such criminality can occur among the rabbis and inspectors in Jerusalem, then similar or worse conditions may exist in America where the kosher revenue is largely derived from outsiders of the Jewish congregations. This behavior was further leaked by professionals at the International Food Safety and Quality Network in their forum, and by Jewish journalists themselves at the New York Daily News.

4. Give ‘em an inch, they’ll take a mile. Reasoning: There are plenty of laws protecting the kosher-keeper, and plenty of IRS law that benefits religious organizations, but no laws protecting the consumer from religious groups co-opting secular businesses, instituting their particular rules and laws, and wringing out revenue from companies where consumers have no reason to suspect outside religious involvement. These consumers are unfairly being taken advantage of, and the parties involved in the kosher enterprise have shown no compassion or even tolerance for how they may feel regarding outside religious intervention in their secular livelihood. Further, given that approximately one million observant kosher keepers are actively buying kosher certified products with deceptively obscured transparency of kosher seals, their silence must be an admission that they find no shame in this religion-based fraud.

Looking back into history…

Jewish women rioted en masse in the early 1900s, resulting in national kosher laws across America protecting kosher-keepers. But kosher laws protecting kosher keepers were not good enough. Preferential IRS laws for religious organizations allow kosher agencies more protections by keeping their finances out of public scrutiny. It is one matter to have laws for protection of particular groups. It is another matter entirely to take advantage of people outside the specific religious community, especially where they are forced into becoming unwitting contributors to the financial gain of a religious congregation they do not belong to. This is immoral; it degrades religious freedom for the out-group. Most Americans perceive religious organizations as moral and honest, but here we find a business practice throughout the industrialized world that is tied directly to untouchable religious NGOs that do all within its power to conceal the facts from consumers.

Our very own Federal Trade Commission ignores whistle blowers on the kosher industry. As a result, as generous as the American government has been to accept religious pluralism and to accommodate protection for the kosher industry and kosher keepers, no effort is extended to protect the general consumer who is not a kosher keeper. The insiders of the kosher industry do not seem to have concerns for the out-group, consistently citing marketing data from pro-kosher associations.

5. When food companies contract with the kosher certification industry, there is a veil of silence that shrouds the details that its patrons inquire about. Reasoning: The companies won’t tell us, so we can’t tell you until an insider whistle blower appears on the scene. Our experience in confronting food companies with questions usually results in silence, or incredibly vague responses with little detail. Our educated presumption is that there are non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements contracted by the kosher agencies and food companies keeping the details in the dark.

6. Major efforts are undertaken to suppress “kosher awareness” from the public, but no efforts to curtail Talmudic “separatist” laws like Bishul Akum. Reasoning: Articles from the ADL and Reveal News magazine attempt to scare away inquisitive minds on The Kosher Question, but are they willing to look into OU Kosher’s own article on three post-Torah Kashrus proscriptions that enforce separation and xenopobia? Of course not.

After reading the article linked above by OU Kosher, “Bishul Akum: Playing with Fire,” a serious double standard is exposed with respect to the entire enterprise of kosher certification. Clearly, these religious experts prescribe that strict observers of the Kashrus dietary laws are to be highly exclusionary, to avoid gifts (like a meal “fit to be served at a royal table” or a bottle of wine) from members of outgroups as a measure to limit socialization, new friendships, and closer relationships. And yet the behavior of this industry is towards imposing its religious rules and dogma onto “others” outside their synagogues with little to no possibility of escape. If this industry was tolerant and fair to other religions and peoples, they would insist with the contracting food companies to produce equivalent products free from kosher certification, thus permitting choice. But they don’t, and so the whole application of these proscriptions within the kosher world is the ultimate hypocrisy.

7. Kosher Supremacy rules over America, and food companies are complicit in depriving #EQUITY to people of diverse faiths and identities. Reasoning: Synonyms of the word ‘Supremacy’ are Authority, Control, Predominance, and Hegemony. The kosher industry enjoys all of these, and more. There are no major churches, religious organizations or advocacy groups working on behalf of consumers and citizens who are against this practice of kosher certification. There is no equity and religious freedom for the vast majority. They are effectively marginalized. You will not find a kosher-certified product “X” and the same branded product “X” without kosher-certification for those consumers who would like to abstain from Jewish intervention.

8. It is easier and more profitable to co-opt existing industry and make it serve ancient particularism of Kashrus law than to build its own industry from scratch. Reasoning: History indicates that the Jewish community had the financial resources to fund an entrepreneurial and niche kosher food industry to serve specialty kosher markets and kosher sections of supermarkets or general stores. But this would have necessitated full funding by the Jewish community. By contracting directly with existing producers, the kosher community built a certification industry on mostly non-Jewish capital and have created a highly profitable enterprise. Of course, we don’t know how profitable it is, because that information is shrouded in secrecy.

9. Mammon rules. As society “progresses”, more secular companies submit and pay to implement ancient kosher law requirements, while few observe “Blue Laws” of old #Christian culture in Western Society that allowed a day for rest and worship. Reasoning: Businesses closed on Sundays in the 1960s and earlier because of local laws that eroded away in time. However, the practice was a religious and moral one serving the culture of the times. Today, all but Chick-Fil-A stores have shed this Sunday closing on economic grounds. But more and more companies are submitting to kosher agencies and their stipulations on ancient dietary laws. Early America was dominated by Christian morals and culture, especially by the early settlers. But this culture has been transformed, and it is clear that either we are living in a purely Judaized culture, or mammon is now running the show. Or both.

10. Ubiquitous kosher certification, as it currently is implemented, is a strategy that abuses the last vestige of moral fiber and good will that bind the American society. Reasoning: Edward Bernays, a Jewish man named as one of the top 100 influential Americans of the twentieth century by Life magazine, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, and an expert on public relations and propaganda, stated: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

Well, one organized habit of Americans nationwide is buying kosher certified products, but 90% may not know it, and people generally don’t like being duped. What little mention there is in American news articles regarding kosher food is entirely positive, with none of the many downsides. One 1954 speech made by a member of the Daughters of the American Revolution (Mrs. Marian Strack) took aim at this business, and the press struck hard against her, silencing honest and balanced debate regarding all aspects of this matter. Our food culture and all the particular interests that this undisclosed kosher revenue feeds have been shaped by figures unseen to the public.

After nearly one century, food manufacturers refuse to produce equitable products free from kosher certification aside from their kosher-certified versions. Access to the national “free” marketplace will eventually be driven by submission to the dogmatic kosher agencies’ will.

As Ms. Bousquet sums up at the end of her masterpiece, From Kosher to Halal:

The accommodations described as ‘reasonable’ directly oppose the historic secularism model, the only guarantee of equality of treatment for all citizens. This project must rest on clear positions applicable to all issues of religious intrusion into civic and public space. No violations should have been tolerated, and should not be in the future. … We must, quite simply, determine the following: (1) What norms are acceptable for the public sphere (commerce)?, (2) What kind of practices should be relegated entirely to the private sphere? and (3) What norms demonstrably contravene animal welfare? [referring to controversial religious slaughter]. … The last word belongs to consumers.

Allow us to conclude with this brief comment: When the masses discover the schemes, the trust will be lost. But is #CriticalKosherTheory just one facet of a larger group evolutionary strategy? That remains to be answered.

This article originally appeared at the KosChertified? website—the go-to place for information on the kosher racket.

Minority-Worshipping Madness: Our New Monuments will be to Blacks and Jews

October 6, 2020/27 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

As sites like the Occidental Observer, VDARE and American Renaissance constantly describe, minority-worship is “madness-inducing.” Minority-worship inverts reality, morality and logic, insisting that Whites abase themselves and trash their societies in a vain attempt to appease the ever-growing rancour, resentment and envy of their racial enemies.

All-suffering saintliness

Blacks, for example, are invariably the most violent, least intelligent, most destructive, least productive, most narcissistic and least admirable group in any White society unlucky enough to host them. They murder, rape and rob at startlingly high rates and in startlingly unpleasant ways: for three examples among millions, see the Knoxville Horror, the mass gerontophile rapist Delroy Easton Grant, and acid-throwing robbers in London.

Ethnic enrichment in London

And who is to blame for these Black pathologies, according to minority-worship? Whites are, of course. The central dogma of minority-worship is the all-encompassing evil of Whites and the all-suffering saintliness of non-Whites, whose innate genius and gentleness are crushed by racism and White supremacy. It follows, then, that Blacks will flourish when the White jackboot is lifted from their saintly necks, as it was in Haiti after the Haitian Revolution of 1804. Whites were tortured, massacred and expelled, whereupon Haitian Blacks promptly built an advanced Afrocentric utopia that is today the most equal, most peaceful, most technologically advanced and yet most ecologically friendly place on earth. If only Blacks in Britain, America and Europe could cast off their chains and emigrate to Haiti to be “Free at last!” Haiti could topple White tyrannies, of course, but it refuses to use its anti-gravity rays and interstellar space-fleet for anything but peaceful purposes.

Megalomania and malignant narcissism

At least, that’s what Haiti would be like if leftist fantasies about Black genius were true. They aren’t, and the real Haiti is a true monument to the Black capacity for civilization. As even the Guardian admits, it’s a hell-hole of misgovernance, corruption, crime, poverty, disease, superstition and ecological devastation. So is Zimbabwe, another place where saintly Blacks were rescued from evil Whites and allowed to rule themselves. They ended up far worse off, as Blacks always do when leftists liberate them from oppression and injustice. For another example of liberation-into-dystopia, look at the current Black Lives Matter (BLM) hysteria, triggered by media lies about the self-induced death of a thuggish, drug-taking Black criminal called George Floyd. BLM hysteria has sent murder-rates soaring in Black districts all across America. Thousands of young Black men are meeting violent, painful and entirely unnecessary deaths thanks to a movement that claims to place their welfare at the heart of its concerns.

But BLM hysteria isn’t responsible only for physical violence. It’s also behind a vast increase in violence to truth, logic, morality and the English language. For a prime example, take the bloated Anti-Racist Action Plan produced by students at the Royal Academy of Dramatic Arts (RADA) in London. I haven’t read all of it: life is too short and my tolerance for leftist prose is too low. But from what I have read, I conclude that one of two things is true. The Action Plan was written either by very clever undercover satirists or by not-so-clever non-Whites determined to bring Deep Purple’s artistic ideal — “Everything louder than everything else” — from heavy metal to politics. The megalomania, malignant narcissism, self-righteousness, pretension, pseudo-intellectualism, irrationality and authoritarianism of the Action Plan could all induce tinnitus at a hundred yards. Here’s a mercifully brief sample:

It is imperative that RADA becomes actively anti-racist, encouraging a greater intake of BAME Black and Minority-Ethnic students and staff, and ensuring that they have positive experiences at all junctures. … As an anti-racist institution, RADA must ensure that all students and staff entering the building are of one mind in terms of holding anti-racist values. It is important that all staff and students are provided with updated reading lists which include texts about contemporary racial and societal issues. … RADA must ensure that Unconscious Bias Training and all other types of training around race, equality and inclusion is mandatory for all students and staff. (RADA Students’ Anti-Racist Action Plan, 2020)

The world’s greatest actor was a hate-criminal! Laurence Olivier in black-face for Othello (1965)

The students at RADA seem to have been inspired partly by Maoism and the Cultural Revolution, partly by the megalomaniac Daleks of the Dr Who television series and the strident Dalek battle-cries of “You will obey!” and “Exterminate!” The non-White students are crying “You will obey, crackers!” and want to exterminate all crime-think at RADA. Among much else, they are demanding “Removal of all material created by those who supported racist ideologies. Including (but not limited to): busts, paintings, room names, theatre spaces and seats.”

An uncanny sense of déjà vu

Britain has a very rich tradition of drama and acting. It has produced some of the world’s greatest writers, performers, plays and films. Thanks to mass immigration, that tradition is now being attacked by non-Whites who want to lose their envy and sense of inferiority in the act of destruction. But I had an interesting experience after sampling the Anti-Racist Action Plan and its megalomaniac demands that the universe revolve about non-Whites and their concerns. A day later I read an article by the conservative Melanie Phillips in the sensible and moderate Jewish Chronicle and was struck by an uncanny sense of déjà vu:

Of course people need to be taught about the Holocaust. But the greater need by far is to teach them about the Jewish people, their history in both the land of Israel and the diaspora and about Judaism’s unique characteristics and record of survival. (Holocaust education can foster ignorance and hatred, The Jewish Chronicle, 1st October 2020 / 13th Tishrei 5781)

Behold Melanie’s megalomaniac demand that the universe revolve around Jews and their concerns! No wonder I felt déjà vu: the narcissism of the leftist “BAME” students at RADA is echoed by the narcissism of the supposedly conservative Melanie Phillips in the Jewish Chronicle. And the Chronicle was so pleased by her words that it repeated them as the sub-heading below the headline.

Hate-facts will be forbidden

Both Melanie and the Chronicle will be in no doubt about who should control the “teaching” given to “people” about those vitally important Jewish topics. For example, will people be taught that among “Judaism’s unique characteristics” has been its ability to spawn an uncannily large number of nation-wreckers like Leon Trotsky, fraudsters like Bernie Madoff, intellectual charlatans like Sigmund Freud, and sex-criminals like Jeffrey Epstein? No, of course not. Hate-facts like those will be strictly forbidden in the teaching Melanie has in mind, because Jews will oversee what goyim are taught about Jews.

And so there will be no place for the horrific anti-Semitism covered by the Jewish Chronicle in July 2019. A hate-filled extremist mocked a proposed “Holocaust memorial and learning centre” near Parliament and claimed that many gentile opponents of the memorial “are keeping quiet — almost certainly because they fear being accused of antiSemitism.” That is, in itself, absolutely classic anti-Semitism: the claim that Jews use unfair accusations of anti-Semitism to silence opposition and get their own way.

Ugly, intrusive and unfairly imposed

And who was that hate-filled extremist spewing classic anti-Semitism against the Holocaust memorial? It was Melanie Phillips herself. She was right in her criticisms, too: the proposed memorial is ugly, intrusive and being imposed on unwilling gentiles who won’t speak out because “they fear being accused of antisemitism.” Melanie doesn’t disagree with the Jew-worshipping aims of the memorial, of course: she simply thinks that it’s not the right way to do “What’s best for Jews.” Lots of other Jews think that it is. The memorial is, in fact, another example of Jewish megalomania and Jews’ insistence that the universe revolve around them and their concerns. Like Holocaust museums across America, it is designed to send a simple message: “You will obey, goyim!”

And I feel déjà vu again when I read demands for a Museum of Slavery in London: “It is unacceptable that the capital city of a nation that built a global empire and its wealth in large part as a result of its role in the slave trade has no significant museum or monument marking the role that London and Britain played in these historic atrocities.” Like the Holocaust memorial, the proposed Museum of Slavery which will fill the urgent need to browbeat Whites about how evil they were — and are — to saintly minorities.

The poisoning of politics

These parallels between Jewish megalomania and Black megalomania are no coincidence. At least, that’s what Britain’s then Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, claimed back in 2007. The Jerusalem Post reported his words like this:

Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the London Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007)

So Sacks thinks that the poisoning of British politics “began with Jews.” He’s right: Jews did invent the megalomania, self-righteousness and authoritarianism of identity politics. And not just in Britain, but right across the West. Identity politics has what you might call “Sacks Appeal”: it’s a way for minorities to blame all their own failings on Whites while receiving ever more privileges and money from Whites.

Seize power, create dystopia

What’s not to like? Nothing, if you’re a self-righteous ethnocentric anti-White minority. Everything, if you’re White and have foresight. As I pointed out in “Feeding the Dragon,” non-Whites and their Jewish enablers do not believe in equality and justice, but in power and revenge. They want power over Whites in order to take revenge on Whites. When Blacks came to power in Haiti, they tortured and massacred Whites, then created a hellish dystopia. When Jews came to power in the Soviet Union, they tortured and massacred goyim, then created another hellish dystopia. If Blacks and other non-Whites come to power in the West, the same things will happen. Their hatred of Whites and Western civilization is already obvious. And what the obviously Jewish “museum curator” below wants to do to “racist statues” is also what she wants to do to racist Whites:

The unattractive Madeline Odent

A museum curator who sparked outrage after tweeting a guide about vandalising ‘racist’ statues has left her job. Madeline Odent posted messages to her 5,000 followers in the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement outlining how household items could permanently damage monuments.

The furore began in June when the Oxford-educated curator, who comes from a wealthy family in Georgia and is married to banker Pascal Odent, tweeted her comments days after protesters in Bristol toppled a statue of slave trader Edward Colston.

She wrote: ‘From an art perspective, it’s honestly fine to throw paint on memorials of genocidal racists! Paint is pretty easy to clean off. What would be an absolute shame is if people threw certain household items that cause irreversible bronze disease. Of course then the artefact can’t really be on display. … Because, like, if somebody were to throw a ton of tomatoes at a bust of a genocidal racist, nobody would probably notice the chemical reaction until it was too late to save the artefact.’ … (Toppled? Museum curator who sparked outrage after tweeting a guide about vandalising ‘racist’ statues using household items has left her job, The Daily Mail, 26th September 2020)

Looking at that photo of Madeline Odent reminds me of something I’ve written before at the Occidental Observer: “Personal ugliness goes naturally with the urge to destroy beauty, order and harmony, and to overturn the aesthetic and artistic standards whereby one is judged.” And it’s no surprise that Ms Odent comes from “a wealthy family” and is married to a banker. She’s part of the hostile elite that attacks Western civilization from above while non-Whites imported and fostered by the hostile elite attack Western civilization from below.

Above or below, these people have to go. They all have countries of their own and they should return there. Then they’ll be free of White oppression and can create the societies that suit them best. The examples of Haiti and Zimbabwe don’t look promising, it’s true, but that’s not our problem. Instead, our problem is how to end minority-worship, free ourselves of our implacable racial enemies, and return our societies to what best suits us, not what best suits them.

The Moral Darwinian Argument For White Interests: Chapter 9 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

October 4, 2020/15 Comments/in Featured Articles, Western Culture, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Prof. Ricardo Duchesne

We have now reached the last chapter of Kevin MacDonald’s Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. This indispensable book argues that both the rise and decline of the West can be explained in terms of the genetically selected predisposition Europeans have for creating communities that emphasize the moral reputation of individuals for honesty, hard work, and fairness, rather than kinship ties and racial identities. The fundamental error of Whites was to project onto all human beings their peculiar individualism and moral universalism. Whites failed to understand their own history: that only Europeans created moral communities based on universal values, and that non-Whites have remained very in-group oriented and ethnocentric throughout their histories. They failed to understand that in the age of mass immigration non-Whites view their openness as an opportunity to promote their own ethnic interests.

This is not to say that Whites have always viewed themselves in the extreme individualistic and anti-nationalistic manner they do today. Some decades ago, Americans were quite comfortable identifying their liberal nation in ethnic “Anglo-Saxon” terms and imposing strict limits on immigration from non-European nations. They did not think that cultural nationalism was inconsistent with liberal principles. It was really after Word War II that Whites came to the view that liberalism demanded the integration of multiple races within their homelands. Why did they come to this view?

This is where the inordinate influence of Jews comes into MacDonald’s historical study. The Jews did not create Western liberalism. But in the United States, the focus of MacDonald’s work, Jews were crucially important in the articulation of the argument that America was meant to be a “polycentric” nation populated by multiple races. They came up with the idea that liberalism was inconsistent with the identification of America as an “Anglo-Saxon nation.” They played the leading intellectual role in formulating the idea that all Western nations were meant to be multicultural and that assimilation to a “dominant culture” was a violation of the “human dignity” of immigrants. They pushed the idea that Western nations were founded on racism, patriarchal domination, exploitation of the Third World, and that the mere existence of Western nations without racial diversity was a form of “White supremacy.”

MacDonald is not of the view that Whites are inherently condemned to be swamped by non-Whites in lieu of their individualism. As we saw in Part 8 of our extended review, Whites are still instinctively ethnocentric even while they express adherence to immigrant multiculturalism. Furthermore, and this is the focus of Chapter 9, MacDonald anticipates that, as “expressions of anti-white hatred” intensify, Whites will start to coalesce as a race. But he cautions against a strategy premised on the expectation that Whites will suddenly start behaving in the collectivist manner of non-Whites. Whites are not inclined to create kinship-based communities. Therefore, if Whites are to join communities that emphasize their racial interests, they need to be rationally persuaded that these race-oriented communities are morally justified. Whites need to be persuaded that their individual self-interests, and their own liberal way of life, are fundamentally threatened by immigrant diversification. As MacDonald writes:

Pro-White activists attempting to combat this moral community [of the left] must be aware of the very powerful tendency among their constituents toward wanting to be part of a moral community. In particular, they must emphasize that Whites have interests that are morally legitimate.

It is MacDonald’s view that a Darwinian perspective would be an excellent rationally-based argument to persuade Whites about the legitimacy of their ingroup interests. As Whites face increasing hostility from non-whites, they need to be persuaded that their communities based on social trust, rule of law, scientific objectivity, and equal rights, will survive only within an ethnicized form of individualism.

Darwinian Communities of WEIRD Whites

White normies can’t be expected to discard altogether their deeply seated behavioral inclination for communities based on moral fairness, trust, honesty, and merit. They can’t be expected to create “group-oriented intellectual movements based on dogmatic assertions [and] fealty to group leaders.” Whites are a different race with a WEIRD personality and intellect. Whites have a unique capacity for analytical reasoning. Whereas the minds of non-Whites operate within contextual relationships made up of traditions, kinship interests, and personal inclinations, the mind of Whites operate according to rules dictated by the mind’s own rational principles.

The White mind has a capacity for decontextualization, that is, for detaching things from their context, focusing on the inherent traits of objects as such and developing formal rules for explaining and predicting phenomena. The non-White mind, if I may put it bluntly, can’t fully distinguished the subject and the object, the mind and the body, the context and the thing-in-itself. The minds of collectivist non-Whites are socially embedded, which means that the collectivist mind tends to be trapped to the surrounding world of prescribed or dogmatically given norms and interests of the kinship group, and thus has a lesser capacity for impartiality, for science, for honesty, for trustworthiness. It is no accident that Whites are responsible for almost the entire history of logic, 97% of all scientific findings, the development of abstract symbols in musical notation, arithmetical operations, grammatical rules, and almost all the categorizing, serializing, enumerating, and inferring in science.

Therefore, if identitarians are to make a case for White racial interests in the face of growing White awareness of their impending marginalization, they must articulate arguments that take into consideration the unique nature of the White inclination for moral communities. It is MacDonald’s conviction that the key to a successful moral argument is to persuade Whites to create moral communities with a proper Darwinian understanding of history and in-group interests. The following are some of the key Darwinian lessons Whites must integrate into their moral communities:

that there are genetic differences between peoples, and that despite their individualism and universalism Whites have legitimate racial interests like every other race.
that those communities enjoying higher social trust, lawfulness, political participation, functional schools, and ethnic cohesion happen to be heavily populated by Whites with minimal diversity.
that the moral communities Whites cherish based on democratic politics, rule of law, meritocracy, are deteriorating precisely because these communities are increasingly populated by non-whites and dominated by radical leftist politics.
that Whites are the least morally depraved race on the planet when it comes to political corruption, inequality of rights, and ethnic despotism.
that low-IQ immigrants are a drain on society and on the ability of White nations to compete in our highly technical world economy, as well as a major cost to White taxpayers.
that mass immigration brings a downward pressure on the wages of working classes, and that the importation of workers from India and China undermines White high tech workers.
that immigration and incessant attacks on “white racism” are leading to extreme polarization in politics, civil strife, and eventual civil war across many Western communities, rather than racial harmony and the elimination of human conflict as promised.
that diversity comes together with increased anti-White hatred and violence against Whites.

MacDonald’s book thus comes full circle, in a tightly argued manner, from a very original account of Western uniqueness based on Darwinian principles, to a call for White identity politics based on moral Darwinian arguments that appeal to the individualism and the analytical mind of Whites to counter the anti-white “monster” the “left and its big business allies have created”. Criticisms can undoubtedly be directed against Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. But having studied this book in a thorough manner, I am convinced that MacDonald’s perspective is far more than one viewpoint among other interesting viewpoints. It is an indispensable viewpoint without which White identity politics would lack both a solid scientific foundation and a compelling moral argument that could persuade large numbers of Whites about the legitimacy of their ingroup interests.

“Fuck Your Free Speech”: Leftism, Libertarianism and the Death of Free Speech

October 2, 2020/43 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

It’s true, you know: foul speech is a sure sign of a foul mind. It’s also a sure sign of a foul ideology. That’s why the f-word is so popular among leftists. It packs so much into so little: self-righteousness, aggression, intolerance, lack of self-control, contempt for reasoned debate, and the unashamed rejection of civilized values. You could say that the f-word is a bawl of barbarism. And here it is in action, illustrating all those leftist values, among students protesting against eugenics and “scientific racism”:

A bawl of barbarism as students protest eugenics and “scientific racism”

The faces of five protesting students are visible. Four of them seem to be either White gentiles or Jews. But the young woman holding up a sign saying “FUCK YOUR FREE SPEECH” seems to be an East Asian, quite possibly with a high IQ and from a long line of civilized, law-abiding ancestors. Nevertheless, she wants to destroy “your free speech” — that is, the free speech not just of Charles Murray, but of Whites in general. After all, whatever her precise origins in East Asia, that young woman and her co-ethnics don’t come from a culture that values free speech or has any tradition of free speech. And now that she’s in America she’s working to “fuck free speech.” No sane observer of political reality should be surprised by this.

The glass house of free speech

But I know a group of intelligent, educated and articulate people who are surprised by it. The group are called libertarians. Alas, you can lead libertarians to reality, but you can’t make them think. For example, most libertarians are passionate supporters of both free speech and open borders. This is a lot like supporting both glass houses and throwing stones. And indeed, free speech is a lot like a house built of glass. Free speech is rare and fragile and much easier to destroy than to create. It hasn’t existed in the vast majority of cultures for the vast majority of human history.

Rare and fragile: The Crystal Palace in London

And it’s no coincidence that nineteenth-century Britain saw both the rise of free speech and the construction of the Crystal Palace, a giant house of glass built for the Great Exhibition of 1851. To create the ideological structure of free speech and the physical structure of the Crystal Palace required high intelligence, ingenuity, cooperation and, you might say, a love of light and openness. But the Crystal Palace burned down in 1936 (shortly before another interesting burning, as we shall see). The Palace was rare and fragile and didn’t last long. Free speech faces the same fate. After all, Britain has imported millions of non-White stone-throwers and arsonists from the Third World. They don’t build glass houses: they smash and burn them.

This is why libertarians and secularists on the left can’t be honest when they defend the glass house of free speech against its stone-throwing and gasoline-pouring non-White enemies. For example, when non-White Muslims machine-gunned cartoonists and writers at the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in 2015, the staunchly secularist Guardian cartoonist Martin Rowson responded not with a bang, but a whimper:

Staunch secularist Martin Rowson responds to the Charlie Hebdo massacre

Rowson didn’t dare to draw Muhammad, because he was (quite rightly) scared of being murdered for intruding on something sacred to Muslims. But look at these two examples of how Rowson has regularly intruded on something sacred to Christians, the death of Christ on the cross:

Banal blasphemies: Martin Rowson’s unfunny crucifixion cartoons

Rowson’s crucifixion cartoons — and there are lots more where those two came from — are both unfunny and foul-minded. Rowson is effectively saying “Fuck you!” to Christianity. His cartoons are banally blasphemous and he seems to enjoy dragging the crucifixion in where it isn’t relevant. After all, he knows that he’s in no danger from effete modern Christians. But when Muslims machine-gun Rowson’s fellow cartoonists in the name of Muhammad, he doesn’t dare even draw, let alone mock or satirize, anything representative of Islam and least of all Muhammad himself. In short, Rowson is frightened of Islam. He isn’t frightened of Christianity.

Whites are to blame!

And why is he frightened of Islam? Because mass immigration has firmly established Islam and its violent adherents on British soil. Muslim immigration has been disastrous for free speech, but Rowson and other secularist leftists can’t admit this. Nor can libertarians, who knew instantly what was to blame for the Charlie Hebdo massacre. It wasn’t Muslim immigration, which had flooded France with millions of illiberal, corrupt aliens who didn’t believe in free speech. No, not at all, it was the policies of the French government and the attitudes of French Whites. The government hadn’t supported free speech strongly enough and Whites hadn’t argued for Enlightenment values hard enough.

If they had, then all would have been well. All those millions of low-IQ Muslims from illiberal cultures with absolutely no tradition of free speech would have embraced the Enlightenment, founded thriving Voltaire societies, and chuckled wryly when Charlie Hebdo published a foul-minded cartoon of a naked Muhammad bending over to display a star over his anus and a pair of dangling testicles. It would have been so easy to turn those non-White Third-Worlders into dedicated students of Voltaire and fans of Charlie Hebdo. But French Whites betrayed their Muslim brothers and sisters by not sufficiently promoting the Enlightenment values that, deep down, Muslims all over the world are longing to embrace.

Meteorizing murder

And the same was true in Britain when Muslims in the heavily enriched northern city of Bradford set fire to Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses (1987). For libertarians, Whites were again to blame, not mass immigration. As in France, Whites hadn’t promoted free speech and the Enlightenment hard enough to all those non-White Third-Worlders who, deep down, were longing to embrace it. Again, it would have been so easy to turn the Muslims into dedicated students of John Stuart Mill. Again, Whites betrayed their Muslim brothers and sisters. Or so many libertarians continue to argue. They’re not being honest and I think that, deep down or otherwise, they know it. That’s why so many of them didn’t raise a squeak of protest when a gentle and tolerant Muslim called Asad Shah was stabbed to death on British soil by an avowed enemy of Asad Shah’s free speech.

But libertarians weren’t alone in making little of that brutal and portentous crime. Asad Shah was the victim of what I call a “meteor murder,” that is, a murder that flashes across the headlines and then disappears, despite bearing great political and cultural significance. Or rather: a meteor murder flashes and disappears precisely because it bears political and cultural significance. The leftist media have a narrative of White evil and non-White saintliness. If a murder or other significant crime contradicts that narrative, it’s meteorized.

“Hang the blasphemer!”

And Asad Shah’s murder did contradict that narrative, just like the viciously sadistic murders of the White teenagers Kris Donald and Mary-Ann Leneghan in 2005, and the horrible mass rapes of elderly White women in London between 1992 and 2009. In all these cases, non-Whites were the perpetrators, so all these cases flashed across the headlines and disappeared. Similarly, Asad Shah was an Ahmadi Muslim stabbed to death by a Sunni Muslim, Tanveer Ahmed, who thought that Ahmadi Muslims are death-worthy heretics (and Tanveer Ahmed still thinks that in his $50,000-a-year prison-cell). Leftists dropped Shah’s murder down the memory-hole because it didn’t fit their narrative of non-White saintliness.

Pakistani Muslims express their longing for free speech

And libertarians ignored Shah’s murder because it didn’t fit their narrative of how Muslims and other non-Whites would happily embrace free speech if only Whites worked harder to make them realize their true desires. Alas for libertarians, there is abundant evidence, both contemporary and historical, that Muslims despise free speech and are eager to destroy it wherever it rears its repulsive, White-supremacist snout. After all, Tanveer Ahmed was inspired by a Pakistani Muslim called Mumtaz Qadri, a body-guard who assassinated his employer, the Muslim politician Salmaan Taseer, because Taseer had “advocated reform of Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws” and taken up the cause of “Asia Bibi, a poor Christian woman … sentenced to death for allegedly insulting the prophet Muhammad.”

A Pakistani book celebrates the martyr-hero Ilm-ud-Din

And Mumtaz Qadri had been inspired in his turn by Ilm-ud-Din, a young Muslim who stabbed the Hindu publisher Mahashay Rajpal to death in 1929 for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. That took place under the British Raj and Ilm-ud-Din faced British justice: he was hanged for murder. His fellow Muslims, by contrast, celebrated his forthright defence of the Prophet and in modern Pakistan he is known as Ghazi Ilm-ud-Din Shahid, that is, Hero Ilm-ud-Din the Martyr. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, Mumtaz Qadri became ghazi, “hero,” when he assassinated his employer, and shahid, “martyr,” when he was executed for murder by the Pakistani authorities. The judge who passed the death sentence on him had to flee the country. If he hadn’t, he would sooner or later have met the same fate as Salmaan Taseer, Mahashay Rajpal and many others, including Dr Muhammad Shakil Auj, a “Pakistani academic known for promoting liberal views on Islam” who was “accused of committing blasphemy in a speech he made in the US.” He too was shot to death.

Muslims in Maryland

In other words, there is a long and vibrant tradition of censorship-by-murder among the Muslims of what is now Pakistan (and elsewhere). After Asad Shah’s murder in Glasgow, a human rights lawyer called Aamer Anwar announced: “We do not want to see the importing of sectarian bigotry and hatred from Pakistan to the UK.” In other words, Anwar thinks the Britain can import Pakistanis without importing Pakistani culture. Like the libertarians and secularists who think the same, he’s either stupid or dishonest or both. The United States has also imported Pakistanis and so has also imported murderous Pakistani culture. This is the flyer for a mosque in Maryland that hosted a celebration of the Hero-Martyr Mumtaz Qadri:

Maryland mosque and martyr with machine-gun: Muslims in the US celebrate the murderer Mumtaz Qadri

Note how the Urdu script protects Muslims from outside scrutiny just as Hebrew or Yiddish script protects Jews. Even some libertarians and secularists might have second thoughts about Muslim immigration if the flyer were in English and openly stated the nature of the celebration and its martyred hero. But the mosque probably uses Urdu for uncontroversial topics too, because keeping up a foreign language is an excellent way to avoid assimilation and maintain cohesion.

Muslims assert their rights

And Muslims will happily burn books in public and march against free speech, as Britain saw during the Satanic Verses controversy in the 1980s. A Labour minister in Tony Blair’s government revealed the solipsistic nature of leftism when he reminisced to a journalist about “a meeting of Muslims at his constituency surgery … during which one of them had taken Rushdie’s book and kicked it furiously across the room.” The minister, probably the part-Jewish Jack Straw, commented: “That’s when I knew that everything had changed.” No, all that had changed was the then-MP’s awareness of what Muslims are like. After all, Muslims in Britain were burning books and marching against free speech long before the 1980s. They did both of those things in London way back in 1938, two years after the destruction by fire of the Crystal Palace:

Muslims “assert their rights” by book-burning and marching against free speech in London, 1938

Members of the Jamiat-ul-Muslimin, a British Muslim organisation whose members were predominantly working-class South Asians, gathered at one of their regular meetings in King’s Hall on Commercial Road, east London. Here, according to the Guardian of 13 August 1938, they “ceremoniously committed to the flames” a copy of H. G. Wells’s A Short History of the World because of references to the Prophet Muhammad which they considered offensive. This was followed by a protest march by members of the organisation to India House, Aldwych, which accommodated the Indian High Commission in London’s West End. Contrary to the public perception that Britain’s Muslim minority began to find a voice of dissent only as recently as the 1980s, here we have evidence of a group of working-class East End Muslims marching west into the heart of London to assert their rights as Muslims and plead their cause with government officials. (Muslims Protest Against H. G. Wells Book in 1930s Britain, The Huffington Post, 19th September 2012)

Note the approving tone of that report in the leftist Huffington Post. By burning a book and demanding censorship, Muslims were “asserting their rights.” The authors of the report were the leftist academics Rehana Ahmed, “Senior Lecturer in English Studies at Teesside University,” and Florian Stadtler, “Research Fellow in Literature at The Open University.” You might expect even leftist academics to disapprove of book-burning, which has uncomfortable associations with the Nazis. But book-burning is obviously acceptable to leftists when non-Whites are “asserting their rights” thereby. Rehana Ahmed herself is non-White and Florian Stadtler, apparently non-English, is undoubtedly a staunch anti-racist and supporter of open borders to the Third World.

Poisoning Western civilization

And note that these two bibliocaustophilic academics drew on the leftist Guardian for details of the book-burning and march in 1938. Leftists saw clearly before the Second World War that Muslim immigration would be very bad for free speech and secularism. After the Second World War, leftists fully supported Muslim immigration. They then gasped in horror at the way Muslims behaved towards Salman Rushdie and Charlie Hebdo. Or some leftists gasped in horror, anyway. Others were happy to see Muslims begin their assault on Western civilization. As for libertarians: if they were sincere about supporting both free speech and mass immigration, then they were also exceedingly stupid.

But I don’t think some libertarians were or are sincere. After all, great figures of libertarianism, like Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard, were Jewish. I would read the movement as yet another way for Jews to encourage individualism and atomization among White gentiles who are under collectivist attack. By supporting open borders, libertarianism has helped to kill free speech. Leftists say: “Fuck your free speech.” Muslims say: “Damn your free speech.” In Muslim eyes, it’s a literally damnable doctrine whose practitioners are worthy of death and consignment to the fires of Jahannam, the Muslim hell. Muslim immigration is poison for free speech and Western civilization. But libertarians won’t admit this. Nor will Martin Rowson and the other staunch secularists at the Guardian. So let’s end with a cartoonist who is prepared to tell the truth about Islam, leftism and free speech.

A cartoonist tells the truth about Islam, leftism and free speech