Lack of Self-Awareness (Self-Deception?) at The Tablet

/18 Comments/in , , /by

Tablet came out with an article relating level of education to attitudes toward Jewish issues. As they note, it’s long been a bedrock belief among Jews that higher levels of education are linked to lower levels of anti-Jewish attitudes—think decades of Jewish-owned media portraying people with anti-Jewish attitudes as illiterate hillbilly types with some missing teeth. But, as the authors note, the problem for doing this kind of research is that educated people are much less likely to agree with classic anti-Jewish statements like “Jews have too much power in international financial markets” or “Jews don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind” (although there’s more than a grain of truth in them).   And this could well be because educated people are more aware that such statements are simply not the sort of thing one says in polite society and if it’s one thing educated people want, it’s to feel that they are good people.

But this study shows or at least suggests that in some areas educated people are more “anti-Semitic” based on asking people with different education levels similar questions but with one set of subjects given questions related to a Jewish example, another set of subjects given questions related to a non-Jewish example. For example, one set of subjects  was asked a question such as “a person’s attachment to another country creates a conflict of interest when advocating in support of certain U.S. foreign policy positions.” One set of subjects got Israel as an example, while the other got Mexico. More subjects thought loyalty created a conflict of interest when Israel was the example than with Mexico.  Their theory was that even though particular individuals will have different opinions on the different questions, on average the responses should be the same for the two groups.

The report only includes three more examples: whether the government should set minimum requirements for what is taught in private schools,” with Orthodox Jewish or Montessori schools given as the illustrating example; whether “the U.S. military should be allowed to forbid the wearing of religious headgear as part of the uniform,” with a Jewish yarmulke or Sikh turban offered as illustrating examples; and whether public gatherings during the pandemic “posed a threat to public health and should have been prevented,” with Orthodox Jewish funerals or Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests offered as illustrating examples.

The Orthodox Jewish/Montessori example showed no difference, but the other three showed differences with the educated responding in a more Jewish-critical way, although, as you might expect given that more educated people trend to the left, more educated people wanted more government control over education.

The question on wearing religious symbols in the military seems clean and suggests a distaste for religious Jews—interesting, but that may not translate to distaste for the many very powerful and influential Jews who don’t wear outward signs of Jewish identity.

The largest effect of education was the Orthodox funeral/BLM item for people with more than a four-year degree (a difference of 36 percentage points). I suspect that more educated people are generally way more enthusiastic about BLM, so that the item doesn’t really get at being critical of Jews. And again it’s Orthodox Jews, so it may not apply to the people who run Hollywood, etc.

Re the loyalty issue, I suspect that more highly educated people are more aware of Jewish influence on U.S. foreign policy, despite such news being confined to the fringes of  political discourse. In other words, they are simply more aware of the reality of U.S. subservience to the Israel Lobby and the incredibly costly wars that has resulted in, not to mention the $3.8 billion/year, and high-profile spying cases like the recently repatriated Jonathan Pollard—not to mention support for Pollard in the Jewish mainstream. Israeli oppression of the Palestinians may also be a factor, even though it’s not directly relevant to the loyalty issue. More educated people then to be more liberal and are likely more aware of the oppression. It’s well known that support for Israel is dwindling on the left. As is often the case, being anti-Jewish is simply about knowing more of what’s going on.

Of this bunch, the loyalty question is by far the most interesting because it gets at a central feature of Jewish activism. And it suggests that more educated people are aware of what should be obvious to the non-braindead—that America has indeed suffered greatly because of the subservience to Israel and that this is entirely due to the activism of American Jews.

But of course, for a very Jewish magazine like the Tablet, any hint that educated people are not completely enthusiastic about Jews is cause of alarm and activism. After all, educated people have more power, and it certainly behooves any community to understand where the real threat lies (same goes for White activism, which is why we stress Jewish issues at TOO). But what really bothers the authors is that “educating” the public may not be the answer. Jews have always relied on their very large influence on the mass media and academic opinion to provide positive images of Jews and completely omit anything that might suggest conflicts of interest between Jews and non-Jews. Since the authors are so confident that there could never be any serious criticism of the Jewish activist community, they suggest that providing facts is not enough to rectify the situation:

Strategies for addressing intolerance in general, and anti-Semitism in particular, tend to revolve around the belief that group-hatred is caused by ignorance, and that the solution is more education. Yet if more-highly educated people are more hostile with respect to Jews, higher educational levels and more courses and training could increase prejudice, rather than diminish it.

This of course leaves out the very strong possibility that more educated Americans are more aware of Jewish power and in particular how Jewish power has been focused on Israeli interests at the expense of American interests. Such information is leaking out despite their best efforts (to date) to shut down negative information about Israel in the mainstream media and even make criticism of Israel illegal, as with the recent spate of anti-BDS laws in several states.

So what to do?

At the very least, it seems that an education that simply provides information about historical events, civil liberties, and other cultural groups is insufficient. Addressing anti-Semitism and prejudice more generally may require the cultivation of virtue. Specifically, it requires the formation of a kind of character that is not only familiar with other outgroups and democratic norms, but also has the integrity to behave in ways that demonstrate consideration of their interests and restraint in the use of political power in the pursuit of personal interests.

This shows an amazing lack of self-awareness, even self-deception. Anyone with the slightest understanding of where the power of the Jewish community has been directed realizes that Jewish power has fundamentally been arrayed against the interests of the traditional White majority.

In fact, the activist Jewish community clearly has not had the integrity to respect the legitimate interests of White Americans, nor have they used restraint in their pursuit of their interests. They have not done unto the White majority as they would like the White majority to do unto them. In their long history of conflict with surrounding peoples, Jews have never been treated better than they have throughout the West, at least since World War II.

In the contemporary U.S., besides the conflict between Israeli and U.S. interests, Jewish activism is strongly focused on curtailing free speech, especially on diversity issues and most especially on assertions of White identity and White interests. And it is strongly focused on supporting replacement-level immigration which is lessening the power of Whites and will ultimately result in Whites being unable to achieve their interests in a democratic manner. And much worse if Whites become a relatively powerless minority.

Immigration is indeed Exhibit A in the Jewish disregard of White interests—the topic of Chapter 7 of The Culture of Critique where I show that the activist Jewish community rejected the ethnic status which was the aim of the 1924 immigration law—a status quo that was obviously in the legitimate interests of White America as the founding population of the country—and that the main Jewish motivation was fear that a relatively homogeneous White America would inevitably turn on the Jews. Some examples:

Svonkin (1997, 8ff) shows that a sense of “uneasiness” and insecurity pervaded American Jewry in the wake of World War II even in the face of evidence that anti-Semitism had declined to the point that it had become a marginal phenomenon. As a direct result, “The primary objective of the Jewish intergroup relations agencies [i.e., the AJCommittee, the AJCongress, and the ADL] after 1945 was . . . to prevent the emergence of an anti-Semitic reactionary mass movement in the United States” (Svonkin 1997, 8).

Writing in the 1970s, Isaacs (1974: 14ff) describes the pervasive insecurity of American Jews and their hypersensitivity to anything that might be deemed anti-Semitic. Interviewing “noted public men” on the subject of anti-Semitism in the early 1970s, Isaacs asked, “Do you think it could happen here?” “Never was it necessary to define ‘it.’ In almost every case, the reply was approximately the same: ‘If you know history at all, you have to presume not that it could happen, but that it probably will,’ or ‘It’s not a matter of if; it’s a matter of when.’ ” (p. 15).

The AJCongress, the largest American Jewish organization at the time, testified during the Senate hearings on the 1952 law that the 1924 legislation had succeeded in preserving the ethnic balance of the United States, but it commented that “the objective is valueless. There is nothing sacrosanct about the composition of the population in 1920. It would be foolish to believe that we reached the peak of ethnic perfection in that year.”

Recently I became aware of Otis Graham’s 2004 book Unguarded Gates: A History of America’s Immigration Crisis. Graham notes that, besides being the most effective force of liberalized immigration, the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western European so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely” (80).

I firmly believe that if Jews had had respect for the legitimate interests of White Americans rather than consistently engaging in ethnic hardball against the interests of White America (especially in the post-World War II era when anti-Semitism had been completely marginalized), we and the entire West would be in a very different situation.

The authors conclude:

As Harvard professor and Yiddish scholar Ruth Wisse has argued, anti-Semitism has not thrived because of ignorance, but because it “forms part of a political movement and serves a political purpose.” Those political causes making use of anti-Semitism are increasingly favored by the well-educated in this country. Countering the anti-Semitism of the well-educated will be a political and moral struggle, not one that can be addressed by conventional approaches and conceptions of education.

I agree with Wisse. If indeed there is an anti-Jewish movement in America, it will be aimed at a political purpose for the Whites involved: rectifying historic wrongs inflicted on White America.

Look Who’s Back

/41 Comments/in /by

Look Who’s Back is the English title for a German movie released in October of 2015. Dealing with the hypothetical return of Adolf Hitler in contemporary Germany, the film, based on a 2012 novel, was quite successful. While the movie reached the number one rank in Germany in the third week after its release, the book has sold over 1.4 million copies and has been translated into at least 41 languages.

After being mysteriously transported to the former site of his bunker in modern-day Germany, the Führer is taken for a comedian, quickly attracting a television role and many admirers. He expresses contempt for much of contemporary German society, including television and most political parties, although he sympathizes with the Green party out of a typical German love of the natural world.

Watching this film, it is hard not to come to the conclusion that it is not so bad to think or do something that Hitler would approve of. Not only nationalism and world domination, but also courage, nature, and Wikipedia are relevant to his interests. After embarrassing himself by shooting a small dog, Hitler even makes a donation to the cause of animal protection, another interest of the historical National Socialists. All this helps circumvent the modern fad of relating everything not politically correct to Hitler in an attempt to end discussion.

The author seems to agree that having something in common with Hitler is no cause for panic. In an interview in the Sydney Morning Herald he makes it clear that he believes existing depictions of Hitler are unrealistic. Hitler is portrayed elsewhere as either a monster or “the funny Hitler,” but “Most people wouldn’t think it possible that if they would have lived back then, they would have thought he was in some way attractive too.” One reviewer agreed that historical facts might be obscured by considering Hitler “either as a comic figure or as the incarnation of evil.”

Timur Vermes, the author of both the book and the script for the film, apparently had a sense of humor in that he priced the book at €19.33, a reference to the year of Hitler’s ascent to power. This was a response to his publisher’s suggestion of €19.45; he preferred to grant the work a lighter tone by referring a point in history when, as he put it, “you have some hint that maybe it could have ended better.”

The secretary Krömeier instructs Hitler in the use of computers.

While most Germans believe or at least hope that they would have been strongly opposed to Hitler had they been alive at the time, the film suggests otherwise. Not only are normal people impressed with him, but the people most hostile to Hitler are not exactly cast in a positive light. These include not only the conniving TV executive Sensebrink, at least initially, but also an old Jewish woman with dementia, as well as a freelance journalist with a severe case of cuckface. The latter, one Sawatzki, is the first to discover Hitler and initially sees him as a great opportunity.

Hitler is not impressed by what passes for “neo-Nazism” in modern-day Germany, including street protesters, vegan cooks, and officers of an unsuccessful nationalist party called the NPD (National Democratic Party of Germany). Far from being able to construct the Fourth Reich, he remarks, “they can’t even build an Ikea shelf.”

Contemporary “Nazis” do not all think highly of the new Hitler either, although many express sympathy; two thugs ultimately assault and severely beat the Führer, not realizing his identity. In a reference to the National Socialist explanation for the loss of World War I, they accuse him of stabbing Germany in the back.

Krömeier’s grandmother makes reference to family killed in the Holocaust and screams at Hitler.

The newer and more prominent nationalist party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) is depicted, but not to tar them as pro-Hitler. The Führer is interested enough to meet with them, and their representative is portrayed complaining about the media characterizing the party as right-wing while Hitler himself is resting his head on his shoulder. However, rather than approving of them, he is sleeping because he finds their platform so boring.

Some scenes may have been attempts to make those who share Hitler’s concerns about immigration look ignorant. One man believes that the average IQ of African immigrants to Germany is between 40 and 50 and that the overall average IQ of his country has already dropped below 80. The actual average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is estimated at between 67 and 82, although this is of course still far below the German average of about 102.

A video on YouTube features a song made from Hitler’s televised speeches.

For the most part, though, it is easy to agree with what Hitler and his new fans say about politics and society. Is being concerned about unemployment, cultural degeneration and a declining population objectionable or even unusual? His comments denouncing various social ills resonate with viewers, inspiring YouTube videos including “songified” speeches and dancing Hitlers.

Much of this movie is actually unscripted; the actor playing Hitler is interacting with typical Germans on the street. Many are happy to be associated with him, and some even give Roman salutes.

Miss Krömeier is excited when the Führer demands a proper greeting rather than being called “mister.”

Many women in the film obviously find Hitler exciting, including several of the non-actors as well as the scripted characters. Both the television executive Bellini and the young secretary Krömeier clearly demonstrate this. Upon first encountering Hitler, the younger woman is overjoyed at the opportunity to play a role and gives an enthusiastic Roman salute, complete with shouting. In contrast with Krömeier’s “good morning, my Führer,” one girl on the street greets Hitler with “may I hug you?”

The Führer is of course depicted as having flaws. He is quick to anger, and he even shoots an attacking dog which is too small to pose a real threat. After touching an electric fence as part of a courage-building effort with Sawatzki, he tries to deny that it hurts despite his obvious physical reaction to the shock. A similar hint of dishonesty is shown when Hitler tells Bellini that he inflated the numbers of an organization he founded, starting the count of German Worker’s Party members at 500 rather than one.

Hitler’s hatred for the Jews would of course be considered a more serious flaw by most contemporary Germans, and the matter is not omitted, but it is a relief that it is far from the focus of the film. He even tries to restrain it somewhat, speculating that although Miss Krömeier’s grandmother is Jewish, she herself may not be a pureblood Judin. This brings us the interesting phrase “the body can handle a certain amount of Jewishness.”

Hitler uses a slain dog as a prop for a joke to lighten up the drive.

Hitler also has a sense of humor, at times more so than Sawatzki. After Sawatzki tries to convince him that the word “nigga” blaring from his car stereo now means “friend,” Hitler decides to practice this new meaning of the word. He picks up the carcass of the dog he has just killed, holds it toward the journalist, and says “hey, nigga!” He even has the dog kiss Sawatzki, which despite being a lonely single man he does not appreciate.

There is an interesting statement here on the absurdity of the fantasy of going back in time and assassinating Hitler before his rise to power. In a sequence near the end of the film, Adolf is brought at gunpoint to a rooftop by a crazed Sawatzki, who has discovered that the “comedian” is the dictator himself.

Hitler is permitted to make a point here in response to Sawatzki’s accusation that “you are fooling people with your propaganda.” The Germans who voted for Hitler were not simply fooled by clever rhetoric, he explains. Instead they knowingly chose a leader who reflected their values.

In a movie based on his latest book, Hitler faces death at the hands of Sawatzki.

On the rooftop, the Führer responds to being called a monster by calmly uttering words to the effect of “if you condemn me as a monster, do you condemn all those who voted for me? They were ordinary people.”

What seems to be the end of the Führer, with a shaking “Sawatzki” shooting him in the face, turns out to be only a scene played by an actor in a silicone mask. Hitler has written a wildly popular new book, inspiring a movie in which he plays himself. This is the only point at which he seems to be defeated. He is confident that he will not be shot and displays a comical surprise when he is, as if to fulfill a fantasy of finally humiliating someone who seems untouchable.

However, Adolf inexplicably returns after his fallen body disappears, informing Sawatzki that Germans will never be rid of him. He represented something much greater than himself; as he puts it, he was “a part of all of you.”

Sawatzki is kept in a padded cell after an outburst concerning “comedian” Hitler’s true identity.

A further condemnation of the idea of assassinating Hitler is that the man who “kills” him is deemed insane. Attempting to convey the new celebrity’s true identity to Bellini in a violent outburst, the real Sawatzki attracts the attention of hospital staff and ends up in a mental asylum.

Near the end of the film Bellini is riding in a Mercedes with the Führer and a journalist asks her if she fears the rise of another Hitler. “Our whole history has been fixated on that for 70 years,” she responds. “Students are sick of hearing about the Third Reich. We should have a little faith.”

Out of context this would seem to be a variation on the theme of an old Allied propaganda poster: when you ride without Nazi guilt, you ride with Hitler. More likely the intended message was that rather than simply deceiving the population during his historical rise to power, Hitler rode with Germany and Germany rode with him.

Hitler surveys the political scene in Europe, including the migrant crisis and rising nationalism.

The film ends with footage of contemporary rallies and audio clips of more or less nationalist statements from Germany and other European nations, all of which Hitler seems to approve. In another film, this is could be taken as an attempt to smear all nationalism as the reincarnation of Hitler and thus evil. But even here, the viewer cannot be certain that the creators did not honestly worry about the rise of a new Führer. Hitler observes all of this nationalist activity and says, “I can work with this;” the current situation is one which a new Führer would be able to take advantage of.

Considering the film overall, though, it could not have been meant as simply a crude condemnation of nationalism or populism. It is hard to imagine any self-respecting White man disagreeing with statements like “People who come to Sweden should adapt to our lifestyle.”

The type of people who would support such a charismatic leader today would not be only fringe figures making outlandish claims. They would be normal people expressing patriotic views that large numbers of Germans already agree with.

Further, no modern-day leader has been magicked into the present from the time of the Third Reich. We have no guarantee that the new nationalism will end in a lost World War and a suicide in a bunker. Considering the ongoing issues discussed in the film, Germans today have reason to hope for something very different.

 Academic Hysteria, Part II

/15 Comments/in /by

In my previous essay, I discussed my experiences as a faculty member at an American academic institution that has a far-left radical administration, faculty, and students, and how the social justice hysteria was affecting what was going on in the school. Having finished the first round of months-long “sensitivity trainings” and webinars, I’d like to briefly comment on that and summarize and conclude with respect to where things are going at my institution on these topics, which is reflective of academia in general.

The curriculum of my institution is to be changed to prioritize “social justice” over all else; indeed, we have been told that we need to de-emphasize actual scholarship, the teaching of objective facts, and providing a truly enlightened liberal arts education in favor of politicized far-left talking points. The entire curriculum is to be subordinated to radical anti-White propaganda. Please note that this trend in American academia is not restricted only to undergraduate education, but also extends into post-graduate education of all sorts: graduate school, law school, medical school, etc. With respect to the latter, the scientifically illiterate and hyper-politicized hysterics of the AMA are used to justify curriculum changes at the level of medical education; one set of political hacks justifies the lies and distortions of another group, and vice versa. All of these academic and professional organizations are completely dominated by the Left. Therefore, as a result, the doctors of tomorrow’s America may not know how to conduct a physical exam, diagnose or treat a disorder, and they may have no idea about the anatomical or molecular underpinnings of disease, but, have no fear, they will be well versed in “social justice” and they will be activists in “promoting racial justice and social change.” Be prepared to have to travel overseas to be a “medical tourist” in order to obtain effective medical care in the not-too-distant future.

“Training” about Title IX typically involves either feminist harridans, or blubbery White “men” constantly apologizing for their “privilege” and groveling to others, and making absurd distinctions between equality (bad), equity (good), and justice (best). You see, treating people equally is no good because “systemic discrimination” (designed to benefit “dudes who look like me,” cries the flabby White “man”) holds the oppressed down, and so they must be given special advantages to rise to the same level as their privileged oppressors, and that is termed “equity.” But, optimally, we all must tear down the systemic discrimination, and this would be “justice.” Note that this all makes three fundamental assumptions — that absolute equity is desirable and would not completely abrogate freedom (assuming that they care about freedom), that differences in outcomes must be due to discrimination and not influenced by innate differences in ability and behavior, and that we must ignore the previous half-century of endless efforts to achieve equity, efforts that have discriminated against Whites, particularly White men, and have failed to achieve that ever-elusive equity.

One must be amused at the crude cartoons they use to illustrate the distinction between “equality” and “equity.” One involves people standing on boxes to peer over a fence to watch a ballgame (if ballgame attendance requires the purchase of tickets, then one can question the ethics of their behavior, but never mind). All have boxes to stand on, but, alas, the shortest individual cannot see over the fence even with his box; he requires a bigger box, you see.  Giving everyone the same size box — equality — “harms” the person who requires a bigger box. Thus, to ensure equal outcomes — equity — people must be treated unequally, and some must be given special advantages.

This is all very interesting. First, as alluded to above, this analogy completely ignores the decades of special advantages given to some groups in order to reach equity, advantages that have failed to achieve their objectives. Redrawing that “standing-on-boxes” cartoon to be historically accurate would entail having the shortest person given a box so tall that they are higher than the ballpark’s upper deck, but, being too stupid and lazy to be able to climb to the top, they still fail to see the ballgame. Second, and more fundamentally, note that they are using an innate characteristic like height to illustrate the point. Is it the fault of the taller person that another person is shorter?  Does society have an obligation to bolster the efforts of those lacking the prerequisites to achieve?  Should dwarves be fitted with spring-loaded stilts so as to compete in the NBA? Should small and thin men be fitted with atomic-powered exoskeletons to win “strongman” competitions?  More directly, should individuals and races that are cognitively and behaviorally deficient be artificially boosted?  Why not apply this to individual student grades? If Joe gets a 100 on an exam, and Jim gets a 60, equality means that Joe gets an A and Jim gets a D. But I suppose that equity means that Jim is given 40 free points to bring his grade up to 100, so as to get an A as well. And I suppose that “justice” means eliminating the exam altogether, or making it pass/fail, or dumbing it down to the extent that even roadkill would be capable of getting an A. Can any advanced civilization survive such a process?  Can any nation that prioritizes such misguided efforts compete with nations that are meritocracies?

Getting back to Title IX, interestingly but not surprisingly, some students, particularly female students “of color,” object to the Trump administration’s changes in Title IX law to give the accused the same rights as the accuser; for example — gasp! — the accused should actually be told what they are charged with and who has accused them and have the right to face their accuser (and have their representative question the accuser or their representative) at the hearing.

But, alas, treating people equally violates equity and is not consistent with justice, according to these students, since the accused (always assumed to be a White man) is coming from a place of privilege and hence giving the accused the same rights as the accuser (assumed to be a woman, typically assumed to be one of “color”) disadvantages the accuser. Therefore, this equal treatment of accuser and accused is not equity and therefore violates justice; according to students, justice means enforcing equity by treatment that is intentionally unequal, harming the accused (and other such “privileged” people) and granting special status to the accuser. Thus, the alleged “privilege” of the accused manifests in being treated unfairly and denied equal rights, and the alleged “disadvantaged” status of the accuser manifests in being given special privileges and better-than-equal treatment. This illogical nonsense is, according to the Left, reflective of justice leading to equity.

I believe that this newest leftist paradigm of “equity over equality” needs to be taken seriously by the Right. This is the current intellectual justification for setting up a caste system privileging “oppressed” groups like non-Whites, women, and homosexuals over “dominant” groups like Whites, men, and heterosexuals. We are told that “equal treatment is not equality” because “it doesn’t lead to equity” and is therefore “not consistent with justice.” The Right may scoff at the absurd and Orwellian nature of this nonsense, but scoffing does not make it go away, or become any less dangerous. It is time for the Right to focus on and vigorously oppose this now, instead of just doing nothing (as usual) and seeing this newest meme become part of normal societal discourse (and, no doubt, one day championed and defended by the Mainstream Right as “conservative values”).

“Racial sensitivity” training typically continues to be handled by obnoxious, intellectually vacuous, and physically unattractive (but with the self-esteem to call themselves “beautiful” to a captive audience that attempts to ignore the evidence of their lying eyes) Black women, who spew the vilest anti-White nonsense imaginable. Interesting, these Black women claim that their captive White audiences are the ones with “privilege and power,” while the Black women running the sessions are “powerless” “women of color.” So, the person who is running a mandatory meeting, getting paid well for doing so, and is subjecting the audience to abuse, is “powerless”; while the captive audience, being forced against their will to listen to offensive and humiliating racial abuse, are the ones with “power.” Does that make sense to you?

In these brainwashing sessions, we then learn that trauma is not about White people, only people of color experience trauma, Whites are trauma-free, and of course only non-Whites experience racism (with Whites being the ones who dish out the racism and the trauma to the poor, persecuted non-Whites). So, dear reader, if you are White and you think you have experienced trauma in your life, you are, of course, wrong. Have you experienced racism? Impossible!

And then we are told that saintly non-Whites don’t want to hear White apologies, but want Whites to move heaven and earth to sacrifice themselves for non-White interests. And if anyone objects, then that is not consistent with employment at any academic institution. How that totalitarian dogma is consistent with the institution’s academic freedom policy and with federal law concerning employee rights is unclear.

We also learn about the dreaded malady of “Black Fatigue” — the horrendous cost to Black well-being because Blacks have to put up with constant White racism. What is unclear to me is why non-Whites want to live with Whites if the latter are so horribly racist toward the former. For example, if some person was abusive to me, I would want to get as far away from them as possible. I would not be constantly clamoring to live with them, I would not use the government to force myself upon them, I would not chase after them like a deranged stalker if they move away from me.

Non-Whites complain about how they are being, literally, killed by White racism, they are being traumatized on a daily basis and their mental and physical health therefore impaired, they are discriminated against and tormented by Whites in innumerable ways, and yet they consider access to Whites as some sort of fundamental human right. White nations are horribly racist, yet countless of millions of non-Whites immigrate, legally and illegally, to those nations. Whites are racist and abusive, yet non-Whites use the coercive power of the federal government to enforce racial integration with Whites, using “fair housing” laws to obtain access to White neighborhoods, constantly chasing after Whites when Whites flee in so-called “White flight.”

It’s almost as if — who knows? — non-Whites really don’t believe their own nonsense and simply use it as a cudgel to bludgeon Whites with.  In addition non-Whites are likely aware that without Whites and White largesse, non-White standards of living would be, at best, at Third World levels (due to White racism of course). The only people being abused in this relationship are Whites, who are constantly being told how horrible they are, while being forced to support those attacking them, and being unable to flee from those who claim that Whites are persecuting them. When the alleged persecuted attach themselves to the alleged persecutors with all the tenacity of an intestinal tapeworm, one must wonder who really is the persecuted and who the persecutor really is. One could of course propose the existence of White Fatigue — aka Diversity Fatigue — the very real and wearisome harm to White well-being imposed by mandatory multiculturalism and the ever-present resultant “vibrancy” that all rational Whites loathe (whether or not they are honest enough to admit it).

In these sessions, we were also told that we have a personal obligation to be “change agents” for “social justice.” I wasn’t aware that it is the place of an academic institution to tell its employees what their personal obligations are, what to believe in with respect to the personal lives and beliefs, and what kind of activism they should or should not engage in on their own private time. But that’s the definition of totalitarianism — the ideology is total, it affects all aspects of society, including the private lives of citizens. Indeed, having a track record of social justice has been proposed as a criterion for hiring, retention, and promotion at some universities.

(Editor’s note: having a track record of social justice has been proposed as a criterion for retention tenure, and promotion in the College of Liberal Arts at California State University-Long Beach: “Increase the College’s Community Impact in Social Justice — review and revise the [retention, tenure & promotion] document to better define service that has local, regional, national, and international impact on social justice as well as to provide clearer criteria for evaluating community engagement as [counting toward retention, tenure, and promotion].” Can anyone doubt that social justice activism (not just assertions of approval) will be required for hiring as well?)

I would like to make one other point about these training sessions, particularly those hosted by Blacks (typically, Black women). Not only is the ideological content objectionable, but the actual quality of the presentations are (predictably) terrible. You have people who don’t know how to use a computer, whose presentations run overtime (sometimes suddenly ending components of the presentations mid-way because of time over-runs), whose slides are formatted inconsistently, and who cannot even correctly read and interpret the data on their own slides (assuming they actually put together their own flawed slide presentations). Some of these people apparently are incapable of counting, e.g., saying that “this is the third presentation of the series” while it is actually the second, etc. Thus, even within the confines of their specialized (and useless) social justice activities, Blacks are utterly incompetent.

Liberal Whites respond to these displays of monumental ineptness by smiling benignly and stating how “wonderful the presentation is.” It’s comical.  To any honest person, these sessions, ironically enough, actually undermine and delegitimize their ostensible purpose. To any objective observer, the comical ineptitude of the presenters demonstrates that, e.g., Blacks contribute nothing positive to society and simply manifest as an endless series of problems, issues, grievances, etc., with demands for “equity” that do not in any way correlate to any qualifications or merits other than their race itself. The only meaning to these individuals is their Blackness, they have nothing else to offer other than their monumental obsession with their own racial identities.

That student performances tend to mimic that of these presenters goes without saying. Exams and quizzes must continuously be dumbed down so as to allow certain groups achieve a passing level of “achievement.” Administration turns a blind eye to student cheating if the students happen to be of the “right” demography — allowing cheating may fit in to the special advantages given to some to achieve. Cheating is equity! Justice! Any more subjective evaluation — essays and essay questions, student presentations, etc. — have to be graded on a racial curve, so that low-achieving groups are graded more leniently than others. Otherwise, the grades would be consistently correlated to race and equity would be more elusive than ever.

Of course, this erodes standards for everyone. A century ago, high school students were learning Latin and Greek; today, college students are functionally illiterate and need to take remedial English (and here I refer to students for whom English is their native language). One of the most unpleasant aspects of the current hysteria is the behavior of White employees, including people who really should know better. People who, in private, will whisper agreement that political correctness has gone too far, and who will admit in private the facts about differences between racial groups, speak completely differently in public. It is testament to the power of the mob to enforce group-think on cowards who believe that their personal interests lie in betraying the truth and, ultimately, betraying themselves.

The Whites who actually openly comment in these sessions — those who feel free to comment — openly agonize about how to talk to bad Whites who deny “the truth” (similar to a religious cult these types equate their bizarre beliefs with objective “truth”) about “systemic racism” and “social justice.” Not surprisingly, these hysterical leftist Whites are invariably individuals born and raised in predominantly White areas, individuals whose only real contact with Blacks and other non-Whites is with students or other institutional employees. Whites opposed to the “social justice” agenda are, instead, invariably those born and raised in “diverse” and “vibrant” areas. It is almost as if exposure to “diversity” immunizes Whites against the “social justice” hysteria, while those not previously exposed to all of the “vibrancy” are vulnerable to leftist memetic infection.

One other comment needs to be made about the reactions of faculty to all of this. The lack of critical thinking among well-educated PhDs is astonishing, and that includes science/STEM PhDs who you would think should know better. You may argue that the blind acceptance of the social justice dogma by the faculty is due to political reasons; they are either “true believers” or they are being coerced by fear of retaliation and fear of “cancel culture.” While that no doubt contributes to part of the problem, I believe that something deeper is going on here, since the same absolute lack of critical thinking and the same blind acceptance of nonsense manifests for non-political issues as well. For example, faculty may get “training” on various components of their education and research efforts, typically from presenters who look like founding members of Seattle’s CHOP/CHAZ autonomous zone, and whose presentations are incredibly illogical, inconsistent, non-factual, and disjointed. And yet, no matter how bad the presentations are, no matter how obviously wrong the information provided is, and no matter how transparently illogical and inconsistent it all is, I note that my colleagues, with few exceptions, accept it all without question and parrot the most astonishing nonsense without the slightest hesitation or question.

I note as well a strong correlation between those who blindly accept non-political nonsense without question and those who swallow the political social justice nonsense also without question.  Amusingly, all of these dogmatic and conformist leftists, without the slightest shred of irony or self-awareness, decry the “closeminded” and “rigid” and “unthinking” attitudes of all those dastardly (White, of course) people out there (all living in trailer parks, no doubt) who oppose the social justice agenda. Less amusing is the enthusiastic willingness of these leftist Whites to publicly denounce their own family members for not sharing in the great “awokening,” oozing with contempt at the alleged crudity and “lack of empathy” of their ‘racist” parents and siblings.  All of these leftist Whites are budding Pavliks, no doubt.

It is indeed a very serious error to over-estimate the independent thinking and critical reasoning abilities of academics; they are at least as naively accepting and rigidly conformist as anyone else (if not more so). As noted above, that there is a correlation between comic naiveté and blind acceptance of the most outrageous non-political nonsense on the one hand, and acceptance of social justice insanity on the other, will come as no surprise to us; and the converse is true — those who shake their heads sadly at the non-political nonsense and see through the incompetence of the presenters are, not surprisingly, the same people whose adherence to facts and whose ability to exhibit critical reasoning allows them to reject social justice indoctrination. Unfortunately, this latter group is a decided minority in academia.

Indeed, it is always instructive to go to the Federal Election Commission individual contribution database and look up the ideological spectrum of contributions from any academic institution. I have done so for mine and the results were as expected. Exactly how an academic institution has a healthy diversity of opinion when, say, 98-100% of political contributions go to the Left is an open question.  Related to this are the constant 501C3 violations coming from alleged “non-partisan” “not-for-profit” institutions and the constant political commentary from school administration, as well as the training sessions, including remarks about the pro-Trump Washington DC protest of this past January, which, we are told, was characterized as “brutal examples of hatred” and a “lack of proper conflict resolution” (apparently, the preceding months of Left protests, including attempted mass murder in Portland, demonstrate peaceful and loving effective conflict resolution). The administration are typically hard Left and retaliate against any employees who do not toe the line.

Of related interest are the videos of Jodi Shaw, a progressive, liberal, White woman previously employed at Smith College who, despite being of the Left, opposes the anti-White Critical Race Theory garbage foisted on employees at her institution and, of course, virtually all other academic institutions in America. Shaw had to resign from Smith College due to what seems to be an anti-White hostile working environment (more on the Smith college fiasco can be read here.) Then we have the persecution of Dr. Aaron Kindsvatter at The University of Vermont.  The leftist hysteria and hypocritical double-think is well summarized by: “The freedom of free thought is not what is being restricted here, it’s the fact that Aaron Kindsvatter is using his position of power and authority as a platform for spewing these ideologies.”  So, on the one hand, they are not restricting “the freedom of free thought” — but only insofar as Kindsvatter’s “free thought” perfectly coincides with their own “free thought” and he spews his ideologies in his closet so that others aren’t infected by them. Otherwise, he is “spewing” negative ideologies and must be censored and must resign.

The similarity with free speech censors the world over is obvious, European “hate speech” laws being a prime example. First, they state their “commitment to free speech, free thought, and free expression,” before immediately following that by stating that any speech, thought, or expression of which they disapprove is outlawed. It is not clear if these people understand what the word “free” means or whether they understand that in this context “free” is normally expected to include everyone, not just those who happen to agree with the particular ideologies that the censors themselves “spew.” Orwell’s Big Brother is alive and well—and becoming ever more pervasive in the culture of the West: “War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”

It is because of such outrages that groups like the Academic Freedom Alliance have come into being.  See more here. Imagine that — it is now necessary for reasonable academics, including some from the Left, to band together to fight a desperate rearguard action to attempt to stem to the tide of the devastating “woke” tidal wave, fully realized that they will be ostracized or worse for their efforts. Will a Part III of my essay be necessary? Who knows? As the academic madness continues to unfold, I may well have more to report, which will undoubtedly be more bad news.

Libtards Wail, Muslims Wait: Why Fans of Abortion Won’t Defeat Fans of Muhammad

/14 Comments/in , , /by

As Francis Carr-Begbie pointed out long ago at the Occidental Observer, one cultural phenomenon is guaranteed to cause bafflement among liberals, libertarians and cuckservatives. It is the extraordinary spectacle of Muslims behaving like Muslims. Again and again members of Britain’s intellectual elite have been disturbed and dismayed to learn that Muslims don’t behave like Buddhists, Anglicans or Jehovah’s Witnesses. No, Muslims behave like Muslims.

Ho-ho Mo-Show No-No

Who could have seen that one coming? And while libtards wail about Muslim pathologies, Muslims calmly wait for mass immigration and high birth-rates to bring them political and cultural victory. Now we have a new example of libtard uproar at Muslims-behaving-like-Muslims. A teacher at Batley Grammar School in the heavily enriched English county of Yorkshire showed his pupils some satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad during a religious studies lesson. Did Muslim activists in the area respond like fans of Voltaire and warmly support the free speech of the teacher? No, they responded like Muslims and resolutely opposed his free speech. They demonstrated intimidatingly at the school and issued death-threats against the teacher, who has been driven into hiding with his wife and four children.

Muslims behaving like Muslims outside Batley Grammar School

The school itself and local Labour politicians have, of course, immediately capitulated to Muslim intimidation. The headmaster Gary Kibble grovelled like this: “The school unequivocally apologises for using a totally inappropriate image in a religious studies lesson. It should not have been used. … We have immediately withdrawn teaching on this part of the course, and we are revising how we go forward with the support of all communities represented in our school. … The member of staff has been suspended pending an independent formal investigation.”

But it’s hard to blame the headmaster for grovelling or the teacher for going into hiding. After all, look at what happened in France in October 2020. A teacher called Samuel Paty was literally beheaded by an angry Muslim teenager after showing his pupils satirical cartoons of Muhammad.

Something rotten in the county of Yorkshire

I wrote about the murder of Samuel Paty in “Headchopping for Muhammad” and discussed the dishonesty and reality-evasion of the supposed libertarians at Spiked Online, which is the latest incarnation of the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP), a “weird [Trotskyist] sect” founded in the 1970s by the Hungarian-Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi. The libtards at Spiked loudly condemned Samuel Paty’s murder, but they had ignored the very similar murder of Asad Shah on British soil in 2016. Shah, a gentle, tolerant Ahmadi Muslim living in Glasgow, was stabbed to death by a free-speech-hating Sunni Muslim called Tanveer Ahmed, who travelled hundreds of miles from Yorkshire to defend the honour of the Prophet against Ahmadi blasphemies. If Spiked hadn’t ignored Shah’s murder, they could have made an important point in their current noisy condemnation of the “shameful capitulation” at Batley Grammar School, namely, that something is rotten in the county of Yorkshire.

But spotting patterns is not something that libertarians are interested in. Instead, Spiked proved once again the truth of Francis Carr-Begbie’s observation about the blindness of libtards, or liberals and libertarians who support open borders for Third-World people, then bewail the inevitable consequences. According to Paul Stott at Spiked, “Video footage from outside the school is disquieting.” Yes, when Muslims behave like Muslims it’s “disquieting” rather than wholly predictable. Stott went on to claim that “schoolkids” should be free to see satirical cartoons of Muhammad, because “Batley Grammar is a secondary school in a liberal democratic society.”

“What most of the country undoubtedly wanted”

He’s wrong. If Britain were a “democratic society,” mass immigration would never have taken place here against the clearly expressed wishes of the White majority. The treacherous leftist politician Roy Hattersley, a former deputy leader of the Labour party, proudly announced in 2013 that he had refused to support “what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted [in 1964] — the repatriation of all Commonwealth immigrants.” If repatriation had taken place then — or, far better, mass immigration had never begun in the first place — Britain would have avoided all the Third-world pathologies we see flourishing here in 2021, from attacks on free speech to rape-gangs and acid-throwing.

And if Britain were a “liberal society,” it would not have passed so many laws (at Jewish instigation) to stifle the entirely legitimate opposition of British Whites to their dispossession. For example, the British state would not have twice attempted to jail Nick Griffin, then the leader of the British National Party (BNP), for speaking the truth about Muslim rape-gangs in Yorkshire. In 2004 Griffin had made a highly accurate prediction about Islamic terrorism in Britain. He said it was inevitable and that the “terrorists will turn out to be either asylum-seekers or second-generation Pakistanis, probably from somewhere like Bradford.” Whatever you think about Griffin, it’s clear that he isn’t a libtard. He wasn’t “disquieted” by Muslims-behaving-like-Muslims. Instead, he observed their behaviour, analysed it, and understood exactly how and why it would worsen.

Ancient wisdom for modern libtards

But even if Paul Stott at Spiked were correct to call Britain a “liberal democratic society,” he would still have to admit that large parts of Britain have seceded from liberalism. Surprisingly enough, when Pakistanis emigrate to the liberal West, they bring illiberal Pakistani culture with them. Well, it’s surprising to libtards, but the Roman poet Horace did even better than Nick Griffin in predicting the consequences of mass immigration. More than 2000 years ago, Horace said this: Caelum non animum mutant qui trans mare currunt — “They change their sky, not their soul, who rush across the sea.”

Horace and other great classical writers would once have been central to lessons at the scene of the current uproar about Muslims-behaving-like-Muslims. Batley Grammar School was “founded in 1612 by the Rev. William Lee” and provided early education for Joseph Priestley (1733–1804), one of the creators of modern chemistry. Priestley “strongly believed in the free and open exchange of ideas” and “advocated toleration and equal rights for religious Dissenters.” But it’s unlikely that Batley Grammar will be producing any more great scientists and supporters of free speech. As the BBC points out, “According to a 2015 Ofsted report Batley Grammar had 689 pupils of which almost three-quarters were from a minority ethnic background [i.e., were Pakistani Muslims].”

More and more pressure against free speech

Have many libtards noticed the irony of pupils who form “almost three-quarters” of a school being described as “from a minority”? I doubt it. I also doubt that Paul Stott at Spiked will celebrate democracy-in-action at Batley Grammar School. If the majority of the parents are Muslim and they don’t want their children exposed to anti-Muslim satire, why shouldn’t they get what they want? As the Muslim population of Britain and other Western nations continues to grow, there will be more and more pressure against free speech and other archaic Western customs. The libtards at Spiked want to pretend that this is the fault of Whites for refusing to stand up for “Enlightenment values.”

It isn’t. When Tanveer Ahmed murdered Asad Shah on British soil in 2016, he was consciously imitating two Muslim hero-martyrs: Ilm Ud-Deen, who murdered a Hindu publisher under the British Raj in 1929, and Mumtaz Qadri, who murdered a politician in Pakistan in 2011. Both men were defending the honour of the Prophet, both were executed by the state, and both are celebrated today in Pakistan as ghazi and shahid — “hero” and “martyr.” And in 1938, Muslims in London “ceremoniously” burned a copy of H.G. Wells’ A Short History of the World “because of references to the Prophet Muhammad which they considered offensive.” Muslims love the Prophet Muhammad and hate free speech not because they’ve been led astray by any Western ideology, but because they are Muslims. How difficult is that to understand?

No limits on Muslim immigration

Very difficult for the libtards at Spiked, it appears. Their chief propagandist, Brendan O’Neill, has announced that “Britain is not an Islamic country. We do not live under Sharia law. It might be a punishable offence in Islamic nations to make or display an image of Muhammad, but it isn’t here.” In fact, “Sharia law” does operate in large parts of Britain that are de facto “Islamic” because — guess what — they have Muslim majorities after relentless Muslim immigration and on-site population growth. And what do the libtards at Spiked think about Muslim immigration? They want all limits on it removed. In 2015 Brendan O’Neill called for open borders under the stirring headline of “Let them in”:

We shouldn’t demonise or infantilise African migrants. We should welcome them. … We shouldn’t pity these migrants; we should admire them, for using guile, gumption and perseverance to come here. They’re precisely the kind of people sluggish Europe needs more of, an antidote to our students who can’t even clap without having a mental breakdown and our new generation who think that being told to ‘get on your bike’ to look for a job is tantamount to abuse. Let’s relax the borders and let them in to try their luck in our countries and see how they fare. If we do that, we’ll put the traffickers out of business, end the deaths in the Mediterranean, and, more importantly, do our part to enable the aspirations of human beings who have committed no crime other than wanting to realise their potential in our towns, our cities, alongside us. (Let Them In, Spiked Online, 21st April 2015)

In 2021 O’Neill is condemning “religious extremists” and “religious intolerance” in Batley. But Muslims there are displaying precisely the “gumption and perseverance” he celebrated in 2015. O’Neill is also condemning the “slippery way” in which the term “Islamophobia” is used to “conflat[e] discussion of Islam with racism.” That is, he doesn’t like Muslims using “guile,” which he thought was such a positive thing in the aspiring migrants of 2015. What’s happening in Batley is the inevitable consequence of the mass immigration O’Neill has so strongly supported for so many years.

Dedicated to narcissistic self-indulgence

He has also strongly supported unrestricted abortion. And here again we see the stupidity of libertarian support for Third-World immigration. Muslims are not merely entering the West in large numbers: they are being subsidized to have large numbers of children here. In my article “Narcissism and Nihilism,” I contrasted Yetto Souiriy, a Muslim woman in France who had had five children, with Julie Burchill, a liberal woman in Britain who had had five abortions. Indeed, Burchill positively celebrated them: “I’m so glad I had all those abortions. … I’d as soon weep over my taken tonsils or my absent appendix as snivel over those abortions. I had a choice, and I chose life — mine.” The fervent philosemite Burchill writes regularly for Spiked and other libtard outlets in praise of Jews and condemnation of Muslims. She’s an excellent example of libtardism in action. Her choice of “life” was actually a choice of narcissistic self-indulgence. And while she was having abortions, snorting cocaine and experimenting with lesbianism, Muslims were having lots of little Muslims and steadily strengthening their political and cultural power.

Sex, drugs and five abortions(!!): the fervent philosemite Julie Burchill

So here’s a question for Julie and her fellow libtards at Spiked: Who’s going to win a demographic battle between those who believe in lots of abortions and those who believe in lots of children? You won’t need many guesses. But let’s be fair: Burchill’s self-indulgence hasn’t just lost her the war of wombs with Muslims. It’s also lost her the war of words. In December 2020, Burchill defended her fellow philosemite Rod Liddle against a Bangladeshi Muslim woman called Ash Sarkar, who had criticized Liddle for making a joke about having sex with schoolgirls. Burchill tried to exploit the historical fact that the Prophet Muhammad first had sex with his wife Aisha when she was nine years old. But Burchill’s choice of words was so crude, intemperate and ignorant, and the behaviour of the supporters she enlisted so unpleasant, that Sarkar was able to bring a successful action for defamation.

“Muslims and Jews are natural allies”

Burchill had to pay “substantial damages,” cover Sarkar’s legal costs, and make a grovelling public apology. Sarkar’s lawyer Zillur Rahman triumphantly announced: “I am delighted for Ash, it really is a resounding victory. As a Muslim myself, this case meant more because of the grossly offensive comment made concerning Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him), who is dear to all Muslims.” If all their enemies were like Julie Burchill, Muslims would have much less need of their good friends in the Jewish community. And they certainly have many good friends in the Jewish community, from Dr Richard Stone, the prominent anti-racist who proclaimed that “Muslims and Jews are natural allies” in 2001, to Richard Benson, the former head of the Jewish Community Security Trust (CST) who began helping Muslims “battle Islamophobia” in 2014. Here are a few more examples of the warm support given by Jews to Muslims:

But the fervent philosemites Julie Burchill and Rod Liddle have never discussed — let alone condemned — the central Jewish role in fomenting the Muslim pathologies now so prominent in the West. It’s yet another example of libtard blindness. So is the claim made by Tom Slater at Spiked that the Muslim protestors in Batley are “dickheads.” In fact, Muslims aren’t foolish or misguided to oppose free speech, because they know it is bad for Muslim interests. As a former Trotskyist, Slater may recall that Josef Stalin used censorship very successfully to maintain his own power and defeat his enemies. History teaches us that censorship works very well to defend authoritarian systems, while free speech is a very rare and fragile phenomenon. History also teaches us that free speech was created by stale pale males like John Stuart Mill in Britain and the Founding Fathers in America. In other words, it’s a White thing — Muslims, Blacks and other non-Whites neither created it nor want it.

The “libertarians” at Spiked believe in protecting the rare and fragile phenomenon of free speech by opening the borders of White nations to unlimited numbers of highly illiberal tribalists from the Third World. So here’s another question for Tom, Brendan, Julie and the other libtards at Spiked: If you support free speech and open borders for Muslims, while Muslims support censorship and open borders for Muslims, who exactly are the dickheads?

“White Identity Politics” by Greg Johnson, Part 2 of 2

/20 Comments/in /by

Go to Part 1.

Johnson’s Suggestions

Johnson has been very involved with the European scene, making many trips there to address conferences (two of the essays in this compilation are from lectures he made in Sweden and Lithuania and another is one he was prevented from delivering in Norway) and meet with European identitarian activists, perhaps more than any other prominent figure in the American White identitarian movement. It would not surprise me if he has more contacts in Europe than in the U.S. This provides an international perspective on our racial situation that is of critical importance for our movement but is too often ignored.

In the essay “Uppity White Folks & How to Reach Them,” originally a lecture delivered in Sweden, Johnson makes the important observation about democracy that “[t]he far-sighted few are outvoted by the short-sighted many. … So one of the problems for us is how to explain White Nationalism to short-sighted people. People who only think a year of two ahead.” (p. 104)

The project that I want to work on now is how to connect present-day political concerns with radical, fundamental, and long-term thinking about white extinction, white genocide, and how to create white homelands. The problems that we fear and the solutions we propose will happen in the far future. How do we relate to people as they are right now, especially short-sighted people who only think a couple of years down the road? (p. 106)

The most revolutionary thing that Donald Trump did in 2015 … is that he broke … [the] gentlemen’s agreement not to compete on immigration and globalization. … He chose to compete on those issues, and therefore he had to fight a two-front war against the Democratic Party and his own party, to get the presidency. That was revolutionary, because it showed that there are large numbers of people—sixty-plus million people in the United States—who really would vote for a nationalist candidate, a candidate who had an America-first foreign policy, was anti-globalization, and was anti-immigration. That was terrifying to the establishment. He broke the gentlemen’s agreement. He broke the political cartel that’s been in place since the Second World War. (pp. 111–112)

I would add that the 2015 revelation of broad White support for implicitly pro-White positions, especially on immigration, was as pleasant a surprise for me as it was a terrifying surprise for the establishment. This was not only revealed by the response of the Republican party’s base to the Trump candidacy, but also by a study released that year showing 55 percent of White survey respondents (38.2 percent of the total sample) supported stopping illegal immigration, deporting illegal immigrants, and greatly reducing or halting legal immigration.[1] Such a response is as radically pro-White as the questions on any survey ever allow, and only a very few allow this much. These were among a number of indicators of a wave of White popular sentiment that the Trump campaign rode to victory but did not create.

Johnson defines his “uppity white folks” as

a large and growing category in the middle. This is the category of people that the Republican Party doesn’t want to touch explicitly. But again, between 84% and 77% of white Americans believe that it would be okay for whites to organize to protect their group interests. They’re not necessarily envisioning White Nationalism, a white ethnostate, or an end to multiculturalism. But as long as there is multiculturalism, they’re damn certain that whites have to take their own side in the ethnic conflicts that exist in multicultural societies. A very large number of people believe that. But the Republican Party will not appeal to them. They simply will not appeal explicitly to white interests, but very large numbers of whites believe that it would be perfectly legitimate if they did so. … They’re not ready to be White Nationalists, and yet they are ready for white identity politics within the context of a multiracial, multicultural society. That’s a huge number of people. That is where our movement can expect its growth. Thus the great task that faces us is to get inside the heads of those people. (pp. 116–117)

I agree that this is the constituency where our movement can expect the greatest numerical growth, but we should not surrender the primary purpose of our movement to do so by abandoning its raison d’être to accommodate the presently ill-informed ideas, beliefs and preferences of the majority of our people. Our primary task, as Johnson says, is to “get inside the heads” of these people, to educate and inform them and thus move them over to our position—the position of their racial interests, the position advocating the continued existence of their race and its control of its own existence, and not for us to win them by moving over to or compromising with their racially incoherent, insufficient, and ultimately even harmful positions. That would be a possibly fatal defeat for our race, not a victory.

 

In a subsequent essay, “The Uppity White Folks Manifesto,” the only one written specifically for this volume, Johnson again steps forward on the path to victory, but then he again takes some steps backward.

White people are ready for white identity politics. This is clear from the rise of populist and nationalist politicians and parties around the white world. … [S]ignificant numbers of white Americans have positive racial identities, believe the current system is anti-white, reject white guilt, and think it is appropriate for whites to politically organize to protect their collective interests.

This … means that the metapolitical conditions for white identity politics are crystallizing. Center-Right parties, however, refuse to cross the line into explicit white identity politics because they are part of a globalist elite that regards white nationalism and populism as the top threats to their hegemony. But that is also encouraging news, for it is an opportunity for genuine white identitarians to establish themselves as a political force. … But the vast majority of people who are ready for white identity politics are not ready for full-on White Nationalism. … I use the phrase “uppity white folks” for the people who are ready for white identity politics but not (yet) ready for White Nationalism. … If you don’t aim at a white ethnostate, then you are committed to some form of multiculturalism. So you need to make it work for you. (pp. 137–138)

This backstepping to accommodate what he perceives as the limit to which Whites are now willing to go was heralded in this passage in the Introduction

“The Uppity White Folks Manifesto,” … outlines a policy agenda to appeal to the vast constituency of what I call “uppity white folks” who think that white identity politics is inevitable, necessary, and moral, but who are not quite ready for full white ethnonationalism. (p. 5)

This is where Johnson seems to falter and backstep on the program he advocates elsewhere. That is, he accepts “multiculturalism” (by which he means multiracialism, the real object of our concern, because without multiracialism there would not be enough multiculturalism to be concerned about) in a reduced degree with pro-White modifications to make it work better for Whites. He thus adopts a Fabian or “creeping” approach to eventually achieve an ethnostate. This is supposedly to minimize the difficulties and opposition entailed by a complete and more abrupt racial separation. In the previous essays in this volume Johnson has built a strong case for complete racial separation to attain his elsewhere expressed desire for what he calls “a nice white country,” as he did in his previous manifesto. However, in “Uppity White Folks” he materially deviates from that position.

He describes his “uppity white folks,” as “not quite ready” or “not yet ready for White Nationalism.” (p. 5 and p. 138 quotes above) The “yet” and “not quite” are important. They imply Johnson believes that in time, when they are better educated and informed on the racial situation and alternatives, they would be ready for 100% White Nationalism, as they appear to already be at least borderline ready for the 90% variety. In other words, their preferences are a moving target, based on levels of consciousness and situational awareness that are subject to modification and change with additional education and information. Providing that education and information, based on facts, a powerful sense of morality, and ideas, is our basic task—the winning of the hearts and minds of our people that is the essence of metapolitics. Yet to gain their support Johnson proposes to accommodate their current ill-informed and misinformed racial, political and moral beliefs and values, however false and harmful they may be, by abandoning preservationally-sufficient 100% White nationalism in favor of preservationally-insufficient 90% White nationalism. He does not consider that a little more information and education on the vitally important differences between these two options might move most, or enough, of these folks over to the preservationally-sufficient position. Sometimes holding out a little longer for a little more makes a huge difference.

To make multiculturalism work for the founding population, they need to assert their special privileges as the founding stock and resist the demographic and cultural erosion of their status. … An American identitarian movement should make three basic demands.

First, the American state must halt and reverse the demographic decline of Americans in America. And by “Americans” we all understand white Americans, the founding stock of the country. In 1965, when America opened its doors to non-white immigration, it was 90% white. Today, the white population is barely over 60%. Because of non-white immigration, low white American fertility, and high non-white fertility, with each passing year, those numbers get worse for white Americans.

American identitarians should demand that, each year, the white American percentage of the American population be a bit larger than the year before. This would entail social and political programs directed specifically to the demographic benefit of white Americans and not other groups.

For instance, the American state would reduce the immigration of non-whites and increase their emigration (for instance by repatriating refugees and reunifying immigrant families in their homelands). It would also reduce incentives for white Americans to emigrate. If white American birthrates are below those of non-white populations, the state should create programs to specifically increase white American birthrates.

Once such policies are in place, the creeping decline of America will be replaced with a creeping renewal. It took half a century to make America into a multicultural dystopia. It might take half a century to fix it. In the meantime, Americans can go about their business as usual, but with the optimism that comes from knowing that their progeny have a bright future ahead, not decline and extinction. (pp. 140–141)

How credible is this half-century program of “creeping renewal?” Can we have enough confidence in it to stake the future survival of our race on it? It raises many questions that need credible answers. First, how will the demographic decline of Whites be halted and reversed? As the plan outlined here involves the gradual demographic replacement of non-Whites by Whites rather than some form of separation or “divorce,” as Johnson has advocated elsewhere, halting and reversing this decline is obviously required for the plan to work. It’s one thing to say “the state should create programs to specifically increase white American birthrates” but in actual practice birthrates have proved to be remarkably unresponsive to government action, even when the means used involved a degree of regimentation and compulsion far beyond what White Americans would tolerate. Second, how will the demographic increase of non-Whites be halted and reversed? It would not be enough to “reduce the immigration of non-whites,” nor even to totally halt their immigration, as projections consistently show very substantial non-white increases even with zero immigration. There is no mention of programs to specifically decrease non-white birthrates, which, to be effective, would have to be truly draconian. Third, how will racial intermixture, which decreases the number of whites while increasing the number of non-whites, be prevented. There is no mention of a program to do this, which, to be effective, would have to involve a degree of racial segregation far stricter than that of the “Jim Crow” era, or the apartheid system in South Africa, again requiring severe social regimentation. Even then, it would seem any measures short of mass non-White sterilization could not accomplish a restoration of the 1965 racial status quo ante in “half a century.”

Such measures, of course, would qualify as genocidal under the United Nations’ definition. Also, in order for such measures to be implemented, explicitly pro-White forces would first have to be in total, even totalitarian, control, as their effectiveness would require near zero noncompliance. And if pro-Whites were in such total control, they could implement any solution they wished, including a total racial separation by partition of the national territory into separate White and non-White nations that could be completed in less than a decade without genocidal measures (e.g., restricting non-White reproduction). It would not require programs to decrease the numbers of non-Whites, just their movement or relocation to the territory allotted to their new country by the partition.

What would be the final goal, the final numbers or proportions of Johnson’s proposed solution, or how much would the non-White population have to be decreased to reach the solution? He addresses that question in the sub-section titled “Ninety-Percent White Nationalism.”

If an American identitarian movement were to propose reversing the demographic decline of white America, they would need a target number. If the public is not yet ready for homogeneously white ethnostates, that target number must be somewhere under 100%. As an American, I would choose 90%.

As for the ethnic breakdown of the non-white percentage, … I would … make it clear that it could contain representatives of all currently existing non-white groups. This is important to reduce opposition.

[M]any whites who are ready for some form of white identity politics will not accept it unless you leave some room for “based” minority outliers, mail-order brides, indigenous minorities, hard-luck groups like refugees and the descendants of slaves, and the purveyors of their favorite ethnic cuisines. (pp. 142–143)

Including non-Whites in our country because they purvey some Whites’ favorite ethnic cuisines? Johnson has elsewhere dismissed this objection to racial separation as petty compared with the White interests involved. Indeed, it is on a par with such objections as “who will pick up the trash” or “who will cut the grass.” Why is he now not just taking it seriously but actually accommodating it?

Leaving room for non-White “mail-order” brides in the supposedly 90% White nation would logically also include all non-White spouses or partners of Whites, and all of their half-White children, which could number as many as 15 million born in the last fifty years, unless there is some persuasive reason for including foreign non-White spouses and their children but not American ones. Including “the descendants of slaves” would add over 40 million Blacks. “Hard-luck groups like refugees” would also number many millions of  non-Whites. Sounds like the goal of even 90% White Nationalism has already been abandoned with just the turn of a page as the circa 200 million Whites are now still tied to somewhere over 60 million non-Whites. Just like with Tar-Baby, it’s hard to break free.

Second, leaving some space for all existing outsider groups would reduce resistance among such populations.

Intelligent non-whites … would resist white identity politics if no provision were made for their kind in the future. (p. 142)

Johnson seems to be trying to attract non-White support at the expense of alienating White support, by accommodating less-than-vital non-White interests at the cost of vital White interests. Wasn’t that one of Trump’s bad moves with his “platinum plan?” To achieve pro-White ends, it would seem advisable to focus on maximizing White support—the only support we can rely on when there is a conflict of racial interests, which there will be in abundance, as Johnson has amply shown. Pandering to non-Whites for their support is self-defeating for it will come at too high a price, sacrificing White interests, and even endangering our racial existence, in an attempt to accommodate and curry favor with non-Whites to reduce their opposition. To paraphrase Johnson’s own words from page 67 quoted above, “There is no moral imperative to destroy our race to accommodate other races.” It should be accepted as a given that non-Whites of all types will totally oppose a partition of the country into a White nation and one or more non-White nations as they want all of the homelands that were once ours, not just a part of them. To hope non-Whites might be allies in a partition is to chase a mirage. We cannot serve two masters. We cannot save the White race and restore its possession of its homelands and also give non-Whites what they want—possession and control of those same homelands. Our one and only natural constituency is Whites. Winning their support is the decisive battle, starting with those who already possess a fair degree of situational awareness and want their race to be saved. The others will need varying degrees of “consciousness raising,” and that is our task. The non-Whites will not help us. They are and will remain our most determined opponents for the simple reason that our goals of racial preservation and independence are contrary to their racial group interests of subjugating us and dispossessing us of our country and our existence.

Multiculturalism is just the white majority being gaslighted into a long, drawn-out suicide. (p. 143)

Here Johnson returns to his position in the first 136 pages, and again uses multiculturalism as a euphemism for multiracialism, as references to “white majority” and “suicide” make sense in the context of race but not of culture. But isn’t the idea of 90% White Nationalism nothing more than Whites being gaslighted into an even longer and more drawn-out suicide, and distracted from non-suicidal alternatives?

This kind of policy seems fair to all parties. Majorities get their homelands back … and historically established minority groups have a place as well.  (p. 143)

Would somehow reducing non-Whites to 10% of the population, or in the U.S. from 130 million to circa 20 million, really give us back our homelands? Did the English still have their homeland in 1968 when non-Whites were still less than 5% of the population and Enoch Powell gave his “Rivers of Blood” speech to warn their presence was fraught with danger? Did White Americans have a racial homeland when Wilmot Robertson was writing The Dispossessed Majority in Johnson’s supposed racial halcyon age of the 1960s? If not, as my own teenage-self believed at the time, then reducing the non-White presence to 1960s U.S. levels, or even to the less than 5% of 1968 Britain, would not constitute getting our homelands back.

Johnson does not define who the “historically established minority groups” are, and does not say what their “place” would be, but even if they only include “the descendants of slaves” referred to above, then 90% or even 80% White Nationalism would already be a lost goal.

I admit to some confusion about how Johnson proposes to reach his goal of a 90% White country. The quotes from pages 140–141 propose reversing demographic trends to gradually increase the White population and decrease the non-White population over fifty years or more. Is this his method to achieve 90% White Nationalism, to reduce the current non-White population of 130 million plus to circa 20 million? The only credible way to do this in anything close to fifty years would require the draconian and even genocidal measure of mass non-White sterilization. But in the quotes from pages 142–144 he seems to indicate his 90% White goal would be achieved by a territorial racial separation or partition of the nation’s territory, which would involve the removal, presumably into the territory allotted to their own non-White country or countries, of ~110 million of the 130 million non-Whites.

Ninety-percent White Nationalism can even deliver a reasonable facsimile of 100% White Nationalism. The ethnostate is the idea of a racially and culturally homogeneous homeland for a particular people. But how homogeneous is homogeneity? … I distinguish three senses of the term: 

Strict homogeneity—meaning there are no racial and cultural outsiders at all

De facto homogeneity—meaning that outsiders are present, but citizens are not forced to deal with them, so if one wants, one can live as if one inhabits a strictly homogeneous society

Normative homogeneity—meaning that if outsiders are present, they accept and live by the norms of the dominant group. (p. 144)

Wilmot Robertson, who coined the term ethnostate, stated that “The basic sine qua non of an ethnostate, the prop on which it succeeds or fails, is racial and cultural homogeneity.”[2] He did not divide homogeneity into different senses, but clearly meant it in the standard sense of “having a uniform structure or composition throughout,” corresponding to Johnson’s “strict” sense, as did Rudyard Kipling’s references to being of “one sheaf” and “one vine” in his poem “The Stranger.” Johnson seems to be stretching, and so diluting, the standard definition and concept of homogeneity to include two additional “senses” or types that allow him to claim his suggestion is a form of homogeneity. But in the biological and genetic terms of racial preservationism racial homogeneity is synonymous with monoracialism, and any degree of multiracialism recognizable as such would not qualify.

Most white societies will reject strict homogeneity. (p. 144)

This last assertion turns the assumption already made on page 5 and pages 137–138 (quoted above), that his targeted “uppity white folks” constituency is “not yet ready” or “not quite ready” for full White ethnonationalism, or a totally White country, into an absolute and permanent rejection of it. This is important because Johnson bases his proposed solution of 90% White Nationalism on this assumption, which I have not previously encountered, causing me to wonder what its source might be, or if it is original to him. But is this assumption correct? Is there a vast constituency of the White electorate, whose will we cannot alter and thus must be accommodated as determinative, who would support reducing non-Whites to 10% of the population but not less than that, and if so, why? Is it because they have been so indoctrinated with anti-White ideology, values and morality that they believe an all-White society is immoral and evil? That the racially creative and preserving condition our ancestors evolved in and lived in for uncounted millennia until modern times and in their European homelands until the last century is immoral and evil? Must we accept that a society has to be at least 10% non-White as the minimal standard for the threshold of multiracialism in order to be morally acceptable? To acquiesce to this is to recognize this level of multiracialism as morally acceptable when our most important metapolitical task is to instill in Whites the conviction that any kind or degree of multiracialism is contrary to the fundamental White interests of racial preservation and independence, therefore anti-White, and thus immoral and evil. Those Whites who support multiracialism in any degree that qualifies as such are denying the independence of their race and endangering its continued existence. It is our job to make them see this.

Actually, we do not really know what the great majority of populist or Trump-supporting Whites think on this subject, and therefore whether Johnson’s assumption is anywhere near correct. Polls and surveys do not ask anything like the questions that would provide an answer. This is probably just as well because the general public, and even many White Identitarians, are very poorly informed about both the realities of the racial problem and the possible alternatives or solutions to it, with the most common solutions advanced by pro-Whites advocating giving up on America, surrendering the greater part of it and its White population to the non-Whites, and putting their White ethnostate and its residents in very desperate circumstances. This is like the English giving up on England and surrendering it to the non-Whites, or the French, Germans and Swedes giving up on France, Germany and Sweden and surrendering them to the non-Whites. Fortunately, European Identitarians are not yet ready to surrender their countries. I wish the same could be said for the White identitarians in America.

I think this all comes down to a matter of moral and intellectual leadership. The primary task of racial metapolitics should be to provide that leadership, not abdicate it. Our people have been misled and taught wrong. They have essentially followed the path of error since 1619. Our task is to teach them right and lead them on the correct path. It would be a failure of leadership to accept and accommodate their erroneous beliefs rather than correct them.

Some of the most vocal opponents of 90% White Nationalism will be advocates of the 100% variety. The poison pill for them is the Jewish question, for Jews are long- established minorities in practically every white society. Jews are the leading proponents of multiculturalism and race-replacement immigration. If these policies are rejected, most Jews will feel uncomfortable. Many might even emigrate. But some might remain among the 10%. That possibility might reduce Jewish opposition to 90% White Nationalism, but it will guarantee the opposition of hard-core anti-Semites. Such opposition might, however, improve the overall political prospects of 90% White Nationalism. (p. 145)

The rather offhand remarks in this paragraph are the only mention of Jews and anti-Semitism in the book, and as an “advocate of the 100% variety” of White preservation, separation and independence, or the 100% White solution to our racial problem, which I would regard as essential to qualify as “hard-core” pro-White, I think they should be examined. First, is anti-Semitism, as defined and used in the mainstream culture, a valid concept, or is it merely a ploy to advantage Jews and shield them from criticism? Johnson doesn’t define what he means by “hard-core anti-Semites,” but the context indicates he means those who want to be totally separate and free from Jewish control and power, which as a practical matter requires effective separation from Jews themselves. Second, Jews have been the primary causative agents of multiracialism, non-White immigration, and our ongoing subjugation, dispossession, and replacement. All the evidence of history, and especially of the last century as Jews have ascended to hegemony and played the leading role in promoting, guiding and enforcing the causes of our racial destruction, as Johnson himself admits in this paragraph, proves that White independence, or control of its own existence, requires that Jews be removed beyond the reach of power or influence, just as racial preservation requires that Blacks and other non-Whites, to quote Thomas Jefferson, “be removed beyond the reach of admixture.” Simply put, Jews and other non-Whites (i.e., non-Europeans) are in an adversarial relationship with the White “Founding Stock” population. So why advocate a solution that would keep millions of such racial adversaries in our country?

If we allow that Johnson’s target of 90% White Nationalism is achievable, whether desirable or not, the question then is how would it be maintained, or is it even realistic to assume it could be maintained, other than by a permanent continuation of the draconian measures which would probably be required to attain it. To assume the proportion of non-Whites could be kept at 10% and intermixture prevented is to assume the racial situation could be held in a stable and permanent state of stasis, which many thought was the racial situation in the U.S. through the 1950s. But the racial revolution of the 1960s made it clear that the true racial situation was an unstable state of suspension, a temporary prevention or delay of a major change in the situation that can never be permanent. A similar transformation occurred in South Africa after the assassination of Prime Minister Henrik Verwoerd in 1966, when his “purist” vision of “Grand Apartheid,” in which “vertical” or total racial separation would be accomplished by the division of South Africa into multiple ethnostates, was effectively scuttled by the delaying and temporizing tactics of the usual anti-White elements, whose supposedly permanent policies of “petty apartheid” stasis proved to be only a temporary suspension when they were undone by the revolutionary election of 1994.

Our proposed solutions are a very important matter which should be given careful consideration for at least three reasons. First, our solution, the alternative we offer, along with our goal and our motive, is what defines us. If we do not define it ourselves then we fail to define ourselves, and by our default we allow our opponents to define us without challenge—most probably to our detriment. Second, our solution, if successfully presented as necessary, effective and moral, and certainly much preferable to our present situation, should help attract support which would be lost if potential supporters were only offered a leap into the unseen and unknown. Third, if we do succeed in gaining control and implementing our solution, it will have a major effect on our racial situation for many, perhaps all, the generations to come. So we should be careful what we wish for, and be sure to get it right, for it could be permanent, meaning we should only advocate solutions that we want to be permanent, which would exclude solutions that create a racial situation that is in a state of suspension.

In my view a well-considered solution should be sufficient, credible and acceptable. The first condition means sufficient to achieve its purpose and motive. My purpose and motive is White racial preservation, independence and security, and I judge or measure the effectiveness of solution proposals by this triple standard. Preservation means the continued existence of the whole of our race, complete in all of its diverse parts, types and nations, and not only a small fraction of it. Independence means control of its own existence and freedom to serve its own interests, not subjugated to the will or subservient to the interests of another race. Security means the credible ability to defend the existence, independence and interests of our race against any threat or danger, whether near or far, in all of its homelands in every part of the globe. As in every age, this requires resources, population size, and military and economic power on a scale able to withstand and overcome the most powerful potential adversary.

In the final subsection titled “Medicare for All Plus Slurs” Johnson considers how to “put together a winning political coalition” to achieve the goals he has set out. (p. 145) For this he suggests that the White identitarian movement align itself with the populist agenda as a way to gain political support by “giving the people what they already want.” (p. 145) It also helps that the constituency that supports populist issues largely coincides with the constituency that is more supportive of implicitly white policies, such as opposition to non-white immigration. (p. 148) I believe that Johnson himself favors these policies, as do I, except I don’t share his enthusiasm for a welfare state so massive that it would consume all resources and incapacitate the military, and I have reservations about Medicare for all, as I have doubts about socialized medicine’s efficiency and its ability to sustain medical progress. I would, however, strongly advise against making any prior commitments for our future ethnostate to any ideological or political agendas or movements other than the racial agenda of preservation and independence, which we should focus on as its primary and singularly essential purpose—in short, an ideologically minimalist approach, to go in clean with as little baggage as possible. This would limit our pre-ethnostate determinations to the bare necessities, including the demarcation of the ethnostate’s racial and territorial boundaries, and guidelines for the methods and means of conducting the separation, but not much else. Once the ethnostate is achieved the newly all-White citizenry should not be bound by prior commitments that would limit their sovereign prerogative to choose their own social, economic and political policies. Whether they choose a largely populist agenda, or something else, the essential point is the choice should be theirs to make.

Johnson is to be commended for addressing the subject of solutions to our racial problem, something too few do. He might sometimes seem to get ahead of himself and neglect specifics that would clarify his multiple proposals, but this is all to the good as it both stimulates and provokes thoughtful, constructive, and hopefully fruitful discussion of this vitally important matter.

[1] Richard McCulloch, “White Racial Interests and the Trump Candidacy,” The Occidental Quarterly 16, no. 2 (Summer 2016): 21–54, 41.

[2] Wilmot Robertson, The Ethnostate (Cape Canaveral, FL: Howard Allen Enterprises, 1992), 16.

 

“White Identity Politics” by Greg Johnson, Part 1 of 2

/21 Comments/in /by

Since he founded the Counter-Currents website over ten years ago Greg Johnson has been one of the most prolific writers in what I would call the “pro-White” movement, and since his active involvement began some ten years before that it is probably safe to regard him as one of the “Old Hands.” Most of his output has appeared originally in the form of essays and lectures, many of which have been compiled into a series of books. The first seven chapters of his latest work, White Identity Politics, are a compilation of lectures from 2018–2020. The eighth and last, “The Uppity White Folks Manifesto,” was written especially for this volume. Johnson is a master at describing the many facets of our problem and their effects both proximate and ultimate, and this mastery is on full display here. He is also a fertile source of ideas on the important subject of solutions, which he appropriately saves for the end.

One of the continuing problems within the pro-White movement is the term or label we choose for ourselves and our ideas. There has been a series of labels that have come and gone, with “Alt-Right” being the best known recent example. Our antagonists, of course, have many labels for us, usually employed as ill-defined epithets, with “racist,” “white supremacist,” “neo-Nazi,” “anti-Semite” and “hater” being among the most common. Whatever we choose to call ourselves is also adopted by our antagonists, who redefine it into yet another term of opprobrium. That is why I try to limit my self-labeling to mutually consistent phrases that are self-defining, and thus much more resistant to misunderstanding or misrepresentation, such as pro-White, White Preservationist, or White Separatist, but these phrases lack the emotive resonance or “catchy zing” we would like to have in the name of our movement.

Greg Johnson has for some years labeled his position as “White Nationalism,” a label also adopted by many other movement writers. Unfortunately, White Nationalism has become another term of invective and condemnation, and even of accusation as it is added to law enforcement’s list of supposed terrorist threats. More recently, as shown in these essays, Johnson has labeled his message as “white identitarianism.” This label is associated with the leading pro-White movement in Europe, where it has recently begun to suffer from a campaign of delegitimization, demonization and suppression, but in America it is still new enough to be relatively free of preconceptions. Johnson seeks to link White identitarianism with the populist movement that has surged with the Trump phenomenon and Brexit into the primary opposition to the establishment and its globalist agenda, with many aspects that are consistent with White interests, and so at least implicitly pro-White. The main threat to this goal is what Johnson discerns as establishment conservative efforts “to coopt national populism and channel its energies into establishment conservatism. This is what befell the Trump administration and the MAGA movement.” (p. 2)

At the beginning of the first chapter, Johnson notes that White identity politics is subjected to condemnation and censure.

The biggest political taboo today is against white identity politics. … If you organize as a white person for white people, if you speak as a white person for the interests of white people, and especially if you’re willing to act in the political realm for the interests of white people, that is crossing the line into thoughtcrime. (p. 8)

The main threat to White identity politics, as to the populism Johnson seeks to link it with, is from establishment conservatism and its long but unproductive history of implicit White identity politics.

Implicit white identity politics, as practiced by conservative parties, is basically a swindle. They will “dog whistle” to us, meaning that they will signal in an oblique way that they understand our racial anxieties. They will propose universalistic legislation that “just so happens” to coincide with our interests as white people. But they’ll never explicitly court us. Indeed, if you accuse them of being interested in preserving the white race, they will angrily denounce you. They will do anything to avoid the stigma of standing up for their own people. (p. 10)

Considering the scale of our problem is one of continued existence, implicit is just not up to the job. “[I]n terms of long-term survival, we have to go explicit.” (p. 15)

This is how Johnson summarizes his own position and how it relates to the populist constituency he terms “uppity white folks,” who in many respects seem to overlap with those Sam Francis called “Middle American Radicals.”

I am a white separatist, meaning that I want to live in a racially homogeneous society rather than a multiracial society. I want racially homogeneous homelands for all peoples, to the extent that is possible … . Uppity white folks are white people who are content— for now—to live in a multiracial, multicultural society but who are going to take their own side in ethnic conflicts. Uppity white folks are the largest group practicing white identity politics. They tend toward the implicit rather than the explicit end of the spectrum. They tend to be politically moderate. They aren’t willing to entertain radical new policies just yet. … [T]hey are increasingly open to explicit talk of white identity and interests, as long as it is reasonable, moderate, fair to all parties, and not freighted with foreign symbols and ideologies. Uppity white folks are where white identity politics is growing. They are the people we can agitate and radicalize. The Left thinks that the tens of millions of white people who voted for Donald Trump are uppity white folks. That’s an exaggeration, of course. But the Trump electorate is definitely our target audience. (pp. 11–12)

In a sub-section titled “White Identity Politics is Moral,” Johnson gives a discourse on the importance of morality in political matters that is unique to whites.

The biggest question that we must deal with before people are going to accept white identity politics is not whether it is inevitable or whether it is necessary but whether it is right. People will refuse to bow to the inevitable if they think that’s the wrong thing to do. They will refuse to do what is necessary if they think that’s the wrong thing to do. White people are highly conscientious. That’s one of our strengths. … But that is also a great weakness if people can hack our conscientiousness and turn our moral fervor and moral idealism against our interests. That is basically what is driving white dispossession today. So we have to know that white identity politics is moral. (pp. 16–17)

I myself have stressed the importance of morality since I began writing, both the morality of our goal and the morality of our actions, or methods and means. I addressed the former in my essay “The Moral Battle”  and the latter in a much earlier essay in the August 1989 issue of Instauration titled “Creating a Moral Image.”  Johnson has repeatedly addressed the latter in a standard essay condemning counterproductive acts of violence which he posts whenever one of these acts occurs, merely changing the names, locations and other details of the particular event. Kevin MacDonald has repeatedly analyzed and addressed the evolutionary origins of our unique morality, most comprehensively in his recent book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.[1] In brief, our unique sense of morality, as well as individualism and objectivity, is a product of our remote ancestors’ evolutionary adaptation (both cultural and genetic) to the particular conditions of their existence in northern Europe. We now live in very different conditions, but our tendencies toward establishing moral communities, and toward individualism and objectivity are still in us, part of us, as selected over many millennia by the pressures of survival. In multiracial conditions we coexist with races who evolved in very different environments, where groups were selected to have a very different sense of morality—morality as beneficial to the ingroup—as well as collectivist social structures and subjectivity. In such multiracial conditions our sense of morality, individualism and objectivity place us at a disadvantage. But we cannot change them, nor should we want to, for we would no longer be us, no longer the creators of the unique civilization those traits enabled us to create. We must accept it as it is and work with it, to turn it to our advantage and make it a source of strength rather than vulnerability.

In his critique of multiculturalism—the euphemism for multiracialism he employs in this collection, he emphasizes the importance of “collective self-actualization,” which is best realized in homogeneous rather than diverse societies.

When a people is free to express its collective identity, it stamps its identity on the public realm….it creates a homeland. A homeland is … a realm of shared meaning, in which people understand one another, feel comfortable with one another. … This is why multiculturalism cannot really work. Cultures with opposed conventions cannot exist comfortably in the same system. … Multicultural societies basically force you to either fight constantly with other groups about conflicting values and customs, or stop caring about them, so you don’t fight. … Multiculturalism creates a society in which everyone feels alien. That’s no way to live. … We have a right to a land where we feel at home, where we are comfortable … where we can understand and trust strangers because, in the end, they’re not all that strange. So, from the point of view of collective self-actualization, we need to own up to our ethnic identities and ethnocentric preferences. Then we need to create ethnically homogeneous homelands where we are free to be ourselves. In short, white self-actualization requires white identity politics. (pp. 23–25)

One wonders why Johnson, who is talking about race, as made clear by the reference to “white” in the last sentence, uses the euphemism multiculturalism instead of multiracialism. This is not typical of his work. As these essays came from lectures, I suspect he considered the term more appropriate for his Norwegian, Swedish and Lithuanian audiences, where the racial threat is largely from non-European Caucasian (NEC) Islamic invaders whose cultural differences pose a very serious additional problem to their racial problem, but a footnote explaining this would have been helpful, as the difference between the two terms is important. Multiculturalism is the term used by those who refuse to recognize the existence of different or multiple races and claim that we are all one single race. If race does not exist then the problem is merely cultural—not racial, not physical, not biological, and not genetic, and therefore not existential in importance and scale, and thus totally different and far less serious.

But the problem is a racial one, and therefore biological, genetic and existential, and much more serious. If we had just one culture, as we effectively had before 1965, we would still have essentially the same racial problem. In Gunnar Myrdal’s very influential book An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (1944) he clearly and correctly defined the problem as racial. The term multiculturalism came into vogue with the postwar rise of the Boasian school of cultural anthropology which denies the importance or even the existence of race and minimizes or trivializes the problem to one that is not racial or existential. I took upper division courses in both physical and cultural anthropology and they are very different things. The latter is ideologically loaded with the dogma and agenda of cultural relativism and egalitarianism that devalues Western civilization, while the former, at least in 1970, focused on the physical facts of racial, biological, genetic and evolutionary reality.

Ultimately, the problem is based on the threat and reality of racial intermixture and its destructive effects on the White race, with the result of changing or shifting its genotype and phenotype in the direction of the races with which it mixes. Thus, ultimately, the problem is a matter of White racial preservation. This was Jefferson’s concern when he asserted that the non-White population “must be removed beyond the reach of admixture.” It was the concern Lincoln addressed when he asserted his support for racial separation as “the only perfect preventative of amalgamation,” which he later made clear—as he explained in a meeting with Black leaders—meant living in separate countries. It was the concern of Southern Whites when they instituted the “Jim Crow” system of racial segregation and White control called White Supremacism. It was the concern of Lothrop Stoddard, Theodore Bilbo and countless other Whites who care or have cared for the preservation or continued existence of their race in its existing form. In every intuitive, rational, logical, subjective and objective sense they have understood that different races inhabiting the same territory eventually intermix into a single blended race. And all the historical and genetic evidence indicates they were right—that populations sharing the same territory will blend together into a racially mixed or hybridized population, as has been recently reaffirmed by Harvard geneticist David Reich (2019, 43), who states

[W]hen one population moves into a region occupied by another population with which it can interbreed, even a small rate of interbreeding is enough to produce high proportions of mixture in the descendants.[2]

Therefore, to advocate or accept a population that is part non-White, in whatever proportion, is to advocate or accept that the population that ultimately results from their blending will be that proportion non-White. To accept a population that is 5% non-White is to accept the White race becoming 5% non-White, and accepting a 10% non-White population would mean the White race would become 10% non-White, a 5% or 10% shift away from being us and toward being them. Such a genetic shift is racially destructive and hence anti-White. The European-American population’s current genetic average is 98.6% European, or 1.4% non-European, with 94% of European-Americans having no genetically measurable non-European ancestry. (3)

After a 5% mixture with non-Caucasians, we would not really have a White race in the European sense of the term. So if we don’t want our race to become 5%, 10% or more non-European then we must not allow our country to be 5%, 10%, or more non-European. That is why Enoch Powell’s 1968 “Rivers of Blood” speech, made when Britain was still less than 5% non-White, had such an emotional impact.

Returning to the subject of morality, Johnson focuses on the concept of universality, which holds that true standards of morality should apply equally to everyone.

[T]he idea that true moral principles are universal has a great deal of intuitive appeal. If something is true, that means it is true for everyone. If something is right, that means it is right for everyone. Immanuel Kant argued that a principle is not moral unless you can will it to be a universal law. … But there is nothing un-universalizable about the principle that you take care of your own first, and you let other people take care of their own first. There is nothing un-universalizable about the principle of individuals and groups actualizing their unique potentials for excellence and letting other individuals and groups do the same. (p. 26)

Western political morality and ideology has elevated the most fundamental interests of the individual to the status of rights, with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or well-being even being regarded as “unalienable” and God-given. A race has interests that are similar to those of an individual, most importantly including life, liberty and well-being—or continued existence, control of its own existence, and what Johnson terms “flourishing.” The essence of pro-racial morality and ideology is the recognition and extension of these same interests and rights of individuals to races. So long as this is applied equally to all races, with all races allowed the same rights to continued existence and control of their own existence in their own separate homelands or countries, this pro-racial morality, that is pro-racial preservation and independence, is fully consistent with the principle of moral universality. This kind of universal morality, that recognizes the interests of races and nations as well as individuals, would recognize as universal the right of every race and nation to existence and control of its own existence.

But the world really works more on the basis of competing interests, at the level of both the individual and the group, than on the principles of morality and rights. And the group interests of non-Whites within White countries are diametrically opposed to the group interests of the White population, to the extent of dispossessing, subjugating, replacing and inevitably destroying them and their existence, without respect for the universality of equal interests, but denying or condemning White interests that stand in their way.

Johnson discusses the universalist moral concepts of fairness and the golden rule, and their relation to Identitarian principles. (pp. 28–30) Again, in actual practice these are moral concepts and values followed by Whites acting against their interests but not reciprocated by non-Whites. And what happens when these concepts conflict with vital or even existential racial interests, such as independence or even continued existence? That is where a line should be clearly drawn. But short of that line, the rules of fairness should be our guide, provided the same rules apply equally to everyone, reciprocated rather than taken advantage of and exploited to our disadvantage.

The basic Identitarian principle is to plant one’s flag and say, “This country is ours; this is our homeland; invaders and colonists must leave.” There is nothing unfair about that, because the invaders and colonists have homelands of their own.

But the current situation, in which whites—and only whites—are being asked to accept replacement levels of immigration from the Third World, while Third Worlders keep their homelands, is totally unfair. What’s theirs, they keep. What’s ours is negotiable. That’s a morally outrageous proposition. Repatriating invaders and colonists is not, however, unfair, because at the end of the process, everyone has a homeland.

There are good and bad kinds of nationalism. Bad nationalists seek to secure the sovereignty of their own people, but they are willing to deny the sovereignty of other peoples. They refuse to treat others the same way they wish to be treated. They defend their own but do not allow others to do the same. They create a world of oppressors and the oppressed. … Good nationalists believe in nationalism for all nations. They treat other peoples as they would like to be treated themselves. (p. 29–30)

Johnson turns to the ethical theory of Consequentialism to further buttress his case for identitarianism, asserting “We should justify moral principles by their consequences.” The consequences of the moral principles of multiracialism are anti-White, ultimately to the point of White racial extinction.

Under the present … order, all white nations are in demographic decline. If this decline is not reversed, whites will cease to exist as a distinct race. What would reverse these alarming demographic trends? … Suffice it to say that governments would have to make white preservation and flourishing the overriding goal of public policy. (p. 30)

Johnson even appeals to the longer-term and larger-scale best interests of non-Whites by arguing that the continued existence of Whites is in the best interests of the non-Whites themselves, because of Whites’ civilizational and scientific capabilities—capabilities that all races benefit from. “If we want to save the world we have to save the whites.” (p. 31) But in their focus on their own group interests, non-Whites tend to be far too subjective, and thus far too lacking in the objectivity required to grasp this concept.

Regarding the significance of race, Johnson states that “we’re part of one great genetic continuum going all the way back to the Ice Age and before,” an observation that provides the context to appreciate the enormity of the historically very sudden White racial dispossession, replacement and destruction that is now occurring. (p.10)

[T]he distances between the great continental races and subraces—whites, blacks, Asians, Amerindians, non-European Caucasians, Australoids, and Capoids—are significant enough that radically different forms of societies suit them, which means that societies with multiple races suffer from conflicts that do not afflict racially homogeneous societies. … This is why some globalists declare that we will have a stable global society only when all racial and cultural differences have been erased. … Thus to construct a single world state, they wish to construct a single, mongrelized humanity. So much for diversity. … [I]nstead of destroying all existing peoples to create a world state, we wish to preserve all of them by giving them their own sovereign ethnostates. (pp. 38–39)

In reply to those like David Reich who claim that historical racial intermixture, even if it occurred many thousands of years ago, justifies current and future intermixture and delegitimizes preservationist opposition to it, Johnson states that “Race-mixing in the past is never an argument for increasing diversity in the present. In fact, one reason race-mixing took place in the past is to overcome the problems of diversity, i.e., of multiple races living in the same society.” (p. 39)

The idea that a nation is a pure social construct means that kinship is not an essential characteristic of nationhood. In concrete terms, that implies that the French people are no longer essential to the enterprise known as France. The French people are replaceable by foreigners, as long as their replacements pay lip-service to the designs of the ruling elite. Cultural and credal forms of nationalism are organically connected to race replacement. … When elites define you as replaceable, that’s because they intend to replace you. (p. 43)

In a subsection by that title, Johnson introduces “Love of One’s Own” (p. 46) as the force that makes identity politically potent, making a people “willing to assert itself, to take its own side in a fight.” Willingness to fight is the third pillar of white identity politics that gives it “its fighting spirit.” This is similar to what I call “wanting my race to live.”

Johnson describes his concept of racial love:

We don’t love our race because it is the best but because it is ours. And unlike chauvinists and supremacists, we can love our own without denigrating others who love their own as well. Indeed, we can understand why they do so, and neither party need feel threatened by the other. (p. 53)

None of this is visible to the modern liberal. … From that point of view, there are no nations. …  They have no homelands … and human borders are illegitimate.

In practice, this means that all men are interchangeable, which means that you are replaceable with foreigners. The Great Replacement is merely the political expression of a world-destroying blindness … : the decision to see the world—and ourselves—as merely a stockpile of interchangeable resources.

The globalists have not refuted nationalism. They are simply blind to us and our concerns. When confronted with human differences, they airily declare that they do not matter. Identitarians beg to differ. In fact, we insist on it. In fact, we’ll fight to preserve our differences.

The answer to the Great Replacement is simply to say “No.” We will not jump into the melting pot. We veto the globalist dream. (p. 53–54)

I would develop the concept of racial love a bit further. Emotions and values can supersede socially and politically constructed moral codes and ideologies. Loving, valuing and caring for our race, and so wanting it to live and be free, can be used to supersede constructed anti-race and anti-White moralities that conflict with these emotions and construct a new pro-race and pro-White morality consistent with them, which could be applied universally to and by all races. Constructing such a morality, and instilling it in as many Whites as possible, could arguably be regarded as our most important task, the foremost mission of what Johnson, following Houston Stewart Chamberlain, terms metapolitics (p. 131), but could also be described as the “winning of White hearts and minds.” A pro-race morality would extend the same interests and rights to life, liberty and well-being to races as it does to individuals. It would recognize the right of every race to its own homelands and self-rule, and regard any kind or degree of multiracialism as immoral and evil.

Why is multiracialism immoral and evil under a pro-race morality? Because it is an engine of racial destruction, the destroyer of races. More specifically, from our perspective as a race suffering multiracialist destruction, because it is contrary to the most fundamental White interests of racial preservation and independence, meaning our continued existence and control of our own existence. The pro-race and pro-White morality and ideology we need to instill in our people is simply that pro-White is moral and good and anti-White is immoral and evil. Multiracialism is diametrically opposed to and destructive of the most vital or life-essential White interests. It is therefore anti-White in the ultimate degree, and therefore it is immoral and evil. An effectively monoracial or all-White society protects and preserves the existence of the White race and is therefore pro-White, and therefore moral and good. The essence of this morality and ideology, and its attitude toward our race, could be summarized in the four words “love, value, preserve and protect.” We preserve and protect that which we love and value, so the love and value come first and the preserve and protect naturally follow.

In an essay titled “The Very Idea of White Privilege” (p. 55ff) Johnson addresses the false concepts of “white privilege,” “white fragility,” and “systemic white racism.” He deconstructs so-called “white privilege” as just more racial gaslighting, as is the concept of “white fragility” to describe those who deny it. He shows how fifteen of the fifty examples of “white privilege” listed in Peggy McIntosh’s 1989 essay which began it all “are simply aspects of having a homogeneous homeland.” Another fourteen examples can be “described as the absence of the disadvantages of being black.” He describes black social delinquency, criminality, and racial IQ differences in sufficient detail to refute the claims that systemic racism is the cause of Black problems.

Having brought up the concept of having a homogeneous homeland, perhaps the object of desire Johnson has referred to elsewhere as “a nice white country,” he warms to the subject:

Every human being deserves a home, where he can be himself free of the interference of others. But we should feel at home outside our front doors as well. We should be able to live among people who share our language and values, our history and destiny, the whole litany of “white privileges.” We don’t just need homes. We need homelands. Not alienating, bewildering, multicultural bazaars. … There is no moral imperative to destroy our homelands to accommodate strangers….This planet is big enough for all races and nations to have places they can call their own. This is the ethnonationalist version of utopia. (p. 67-68)

The goal of linking populism and White racial identitarianism appears to be the main focus of this compilation, with the earlier essays laying the groundwork and the essay “In Defense of Populism” beginning our journey into the matter itself with a description of the anti-White establishment’s reaction to it.

The populist uprisings of 2016—Brexit and the election of Donald Trump—aren’t epochal events like the revolutions of 1789 and 1848. Not yet anyway. But you wouldn’t know that judging from the panic that swept through Western political elites. … Populism seeks to rescue popular government from corrupt elites. (pp. 69–70)

Johnson notes that populism is distinct from White identity politics, although both are opposed to the existing liberal elites and their globalist order. But the two do sometimes overlap, and they do “complement one another, so that the strongest form of white identity politics is populist, and the strongest form of populism is identitarian.” (p. 70) Identitarianism has an ethnic conception of peoplehood that is based on “blood,” i.e., race. A civic conception is a pure social construct “that seeks to impose unity on a society composed of different ethnic groups. … Ethnic nationalism draws strength from unity and homogeneity.” (p. 72)

Civic nationalism, on the other hand, draws its strength from an imposed civic ideology which could be based on multiracialism, diversity and inclusion.

Why do populists need to appeal to white identity? It all comes down to what counts as the people. Is the people at its core an ethnic group, or is it defined in purely civic terms? Populists of the Right appeal explicitly or implicitly to identitarian issues. Populists of the Left prefer to define the people in civic or class terms and focus on economic issues. Since … both identitarian and economic issues are driving the rise of populism, populists of the Right will have a broader appeal because they appeal to both identity and economic issues. The great task of white identitarians today is to destroy the legitimacy of civic nationalism and push the populism of the Right toward explicit white Identitarianism. … Liberalism triumphed not by rejecting popular sovereignty but by subverting it. This is one reason the elites are so hysterical about the rise of populism. It puts them on the spot. If they affirm popular sovereignty, then populism is the only logical outcome. (pp. 81–82)

In the next essay, “National Populism is Here to Stay” (p. 83ff) Johnson claims that National Populism, which combines populism with implicit White identitarianism, is the wave of the future. What matters to the ultimate fate of the White race is that this “National Populism” moves in the direction of explicit White Racial Populism and becomes a vehicle for White racial interests.

Johnson next discusses “the Four D’s”—the four trends that contribute to the rise of national populism: distrust, destruction, deprivation and dealignment. Ethnonationalists “must exploit and intensify the existing tendency towards distrust of the establishment.” (p. 87) And Johnson lists ways this can be done.

I think our most important role is less in raising consciousness than in deepening consciousness. We have explanations of why multiculturalism creates alienation and conflict. We can explain who is behind globalization, immigration, and multiculturalism and why. We defend the moral legitimacy of white identity politics against the widespread notion that white identity politics, and only white identity politics, is immoral per se. That moral taboo is the great dam holding back the tide of national populism. If we can breach that dam, it will unleash the flood-waters of white identity. Finally, we can offer workable and humane alternatives, not just Right-wing civic nationalism, which basically is just lying about diversity in a different way. (pp. 91–92)

Regarding deprivation, “to reverse globalization, national populists need to overthrow the existing elites and institute protectionist economic policies. We need to reindustrialize the First World.” (p. 92)

Destruction refers to the destruction of identity through multicultural (i.e., multiracial) and immigration policies imposed by elites on the population. “National populists, however, promise to restrict immigration and preserve distinct national identities from multicultural erosion.” (p. 89) It’s therefore noteworthy that all of the destructive changes we see have been enacted by elites, often in the teeth of popular opposition. As MacDonald noted in The Culture of Critique,  “the sea change in immigration policy in the Western world occurred at approximately the same time (1962–1973), and in all countries the changes reflected the attitudes of elites rather than the great mass of citizens. … A consistent theme has been that immigration policy has been formulated by elites with control of the media and that efforts have been made by political leaders of all major parties to keep fear of immigration off the political agenda.” Otis Graham (Unguarded Gates, 2004: 88) corroborates this for the U.S. in the context of debate over the 1965 immigration law: “There was emerging on the immigration question a pattern in public debate that could be found on many issues: elite opinion makers selected a problem and a liberal policy solution, while grassroots opinion, unfocused and marginalized, ran strongly the other way.” The anti-populism of top-down elite control championed by Jewish intellectuals in earlier decades (Ch. 5 of CofC) had come to fruition.

Dealignment refers to the polarization of the electorate as voters abandon centrist politics in favor of more radical politics of both the left and the right largely in response to the divisiveness, alienation and cultural changes caused by multiracialism and White replacement.

Dealignment is basically the breakdown of the post-World War II political system in which power was traded between center-Left and center-Right parties, while Western societies drifted steadily toward cultural Leftism, bigger and more intrusive government, and the loss of sovereignty to globalization….The main factor behind dealignment is the increasing realization on the part of voters that there aren’t really any fundamental differences between the parties. There is no real competition. Instead, there is a political cartel. … The different branches of the establishment agree on all important matters. … A lot of people naïvely think that political power primarily means beating the other team in political contests, like elections. But there’s a deeper form of political power that determines all the things that the parties don’t fight about and that are never put to the choice of the voters. That’s real power. … Election after election, the people send their tribunes to the capitals, only to see them absorbed by the establishment. Thus when there is a conflict between the public interest and elite interests, it is impossible to believe that our representatives will side with the public. … [W]e are never allowed to simply vote for what we really want. (pp. 93–95)

Go to Part 2 of 2.

[1] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the future (Seattle: CreateSpace, 2019).

[2] David Reich, Who We Are and How We Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past (New York: Vintage Books, 2019), 43.

The not-so-friendly folks at the World Economic Forum

/32 Comments/in /by

Here I examine the ethnic composition of quite possibly the most influential global organization transforming our world today and its plan to restructure the planet: The World Economic Forum. The WEF and its Executive Director Klaus Schwab are openly pursuing nothing less than the fundamental transformation of the global system, human life and the entire planet, acting as the central hub for that process. The WEF includes in its agenda resetting humanity into a “fusion of our physical, our digital, and our biological identities.” This was openly declared by Schwab in a speech in November last year, referring to his vision for a cybernetic transhumanism.

The Great Reset Scam

At the core of this process is The Great Reset, a WEF program that is elaborately detailed on how it will change every aspect of our lives and the world itself into something unrecognizable but unimaginably better. It is worth examining two key statements from the WEF about this extraordinary program. First, the context:

The Covid-19 crisis, and the political, economic and social disruptions it has caused, is fundamentally changing the traditional context for decision-making. The inconsistencies, inadequacies and contradictions of multiple systems –from health and financial to energy and education – are more exposed than ever amidst a global context of concern for lives, livelihoods and the planet. Leaders find themselves at a historic crossroads, managing short-term pressures against medium- and long-term uncertainties.

Fear not, because the WEF knows how to lead the leaders in health, finance, energy, education and all the rest out of this dilemma. They do it because they are deeply concerned for our “lives, livelihoods and the planet.”

Next, The Opportunity:

As we enter a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery, this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons. Drawing from the vision and vast expertise of the leaders engaged across the Forum’s communities, the Great Reset initiative has a set of dimensions to build a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being.

In other words, the oligarch overlords of our world who engineered this crisis will now provide the solution, a “new social contract” that we dignified human beings had nothing to do with crafting, but will have to sign in blood. This is top-down, elite control with a vengeance.

The main page on this world-transforming program is titled “Now is the time for a ‘great reset.’” Some notable quotes:

“… a reset of our economic and social foundations is possible.”

“There is good reason to worry…”

“the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies…”

“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.”

“the pandemic represents one of the worst public-health crises in recent history.”

“We must build entirely new foundations for our economic and social systems.”

“the will to build a better society does exist. We must use it to secure the Great Reset that we so badly need.”

“the pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.”

The WEF has a program it calls 2030Vision, which concerns itself with 17 Sustainable Development Goals, taken from the United Nations. Basically, all these goals can be met with new technology, the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). That is why “2030Vision is co-owned and developed with founding partners and co-chaired by Simon Segars, CEO of ARM, and Achim Steiner, Administrator, United Nations Development Programme.” ARM is a high tech company that develops “a complete 5G ecosystem” and other super tech necessary for the Great Reset. Neither of these men appears to be Jewish.

The WEF partners with governments, global corporations, academia, media conglomerates, non-governmental organizations, including immense global “philanthropy” and development operations—any and every sector of power, wealth and influence. It shows fifty-eight partners under the letter A alone. Examples include the African Development Bank, Airport Authority Hong Kong, Amazon Web Services, American Heart Association, Anheuser-Busch, Apple and AstraZeneca. “Access to Forum networks and experts provides Partners with visibility and time-sensitive insight into strategic decision-making on the issues most important to them.” This sounds like WEF connections and “experts” aid partners in how to participate in the Great Reset to make money and exert power while advancing the global transformation.

It sounds utopian. We’ve heard it all before; it’s the old Problem/Reaction/Solution scam. The WEF and its partners create perception of the problem, a fraudulent pandemic that is really the standard flu season, and now is providing the solution—their Great Reset to restructure the foundations of life on Earth. We’re all going to benefit with health, equity and prosperity. This sounds too similar to the false promises of the Bolshevik Revolution—a harmonious, classless society with citizens shaped by the government, but which in fact saw mostly peasants and workers being murdered by the millions. Only the new elite oligarchy benefited; their power to make a world-wide revolution is now concentrated in the World Economic Forum.

We now examine the Jewish role in the World Economic Forum and its Great Reset.

Who’s Who at the WEF

In examining the Leadership and Governance page, we find the WEF is led by a Board of Trustees, “exceptional individuals who act as guardians of its mission and values, and oversee the Forum’s work in promoting true global citizenship.” Thirty-one “exceptional individuals” are on this board. Let’s see how many are Jews, and in what ways they are exceptional. We will reserve Klaus Schwab himself for last.

Leo Rafael Reif

WEF Board of Trustee member Leo Rafael Reif is the President of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His biography says he is an electrical engineer and is a “Venezuelan-American.” Among other initiatives at MIT, Reif established a Clinic for Machine Learning in Health, the MIT Plan for Action on Climate Change and the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab. This lab works on “techniques for making large-scale AI systems more efficient and robust.” This should not concern us, even though AI and machine learning are at the core of the Fourth Industrial Revolution the WEF promotes to drive the Great Reset, because  “the Lab is committed to building trustworthy and socially responsible AI systems.”

Reif as President of MIT had to respond to accusations that the MIT Media Lab took substantial grants from the Jewish pedophile blackmail ringleader Jeffrey Epstein, most of whose money came from the Jewish billionaire oligarch Leslie Wexner. The actual “head of the snake” according to Epstein victim Maria Farmer, was Wexner. Epstein invested large sums of Wexner money in new technologies throughout industry and academia focused on mass surveillance, robotics and cyborg development, machine intelligence/AI, and disturbing aspects of transhumanism, including at MIT. Reif said the accusations were “deeply disturbing.”

Reif is also a Board member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which another essay exposes as a major power center dominated at the leadership level by Jews.

This profile report lists Reif’s religion as Jewish. His Infogalactic entry states under Background:

Leo Rafael Reif was born in Maracaibo, Venezuela, to Eastern European Jewish parents, who immigrated to Venezuela in the 1930s through Ecuador and Colombia. His father was a photographer, and the family spoke Yiddish and Spanish at home.

David M. Rubenstein

Rubenstein’s bio at WEF declares he is a Co-Founder and Co-Executive Chairman of the Carlyle Group. It is an immense global investment bank with 100s of billions of dollars under management. Rubenstein was profiled in the essay Jews of the CFR:

He is a co-founder of one of the world’s largest investment firms, Carlyle Group. He served a long career advising Presidents and Congressional committees, serving as a board member or Trustee of various organizations including Johns Hopkins Medicine (to which he donated $20 million), Duke University (his alma matter), Tsinghau University in China, the Brookings Institute and the World Economic Forum, all known outlets for the current COVID agenda. Rubenstein’s racial and religious affiliation is obvious.

The Carlyle Group was involved in a number of major scandals, including bribery to receive pension fund investments, taking investments from a tax-dodging company set up by the corrupt Jewish hedge fund manager and funder of destabilizing revolutions George Soros. Carlyle also has major ownership of Booz Allen Hamilton the defense contractor where Edward Snowden worked when he leaked knowledge of government-industry mass surveillance on American citizens; Carlyle is thus involved as owners and investors in the war industry. This included employing former President George Bush Sr. and former Secretary of State James Baker to lobby for defense contracts and increased military defense budgets, eliciting investments from Saudi princes and the Bin Laden family, and promoting the Iraq war and profiteering in the rebuilding aftermath. All this is well presented in a full length documentary focused on the Carlyle Group’s corrupt war profiteering.

On Rubenstein’s Wikipedia entry, the only “Controversy” attributed to him and Carlyle was raising the rents in mobile home parks Carlyle owned, evicting poor people.

To be clear: “Rubenstein grew up an only child in a Jewish family in Baltimore.”

Marc Benioff

WEF Board member Marc Benioff is the CEO of Salesforce, a Fortune 500 company with 50,000 employees, and another multi-billionaire. Salesforce is a cloud computing company with a mission of “the end of software,” presumably as we know it. Wikipedia openly admits: “He hired and planted fake protestors and a fake news team, Channel 22, at Siebel’s (his competitor’s) conference in 1999.” Siebel’s founder, however, was a colleague of Benioff’s at Oracle, where they both previously worked. Incredibly, this story of deception is presented in an article titled “Marc Benioff’s Marketing Genius.” More of Benioff’s genius included renting all the taxis at the Cannes France airport to shuttle participants to Siebel’s conference and selling them on Salesforce. In 2018 Benioff bought Time Magazine to distribute more fake news world-wide.

The company that Benioff formerly helped develop, Larry Ellison’s Oracle, had close working ties with the National Security Agency which is engaged in mass surveillance of Americans, and with the CIA. Today Oracle is partnered with the government’s covid vaccine program to track and trace vaccine recipients for two years under a “pharmacovigilance” program to monitor side effects and other medical data.

Benioff’s ruthless marketing “genius,” his development of cloud computing platforms and services, his former work at a digital mass surveillance contractor, and his billionaire status make him a strong contributor to the Great Reset and the glories of the WEF’s transhumanist near future.

Under Early Life: “Benioff was raised in a Jewish family long established in the San Francisco Bay area.”

Laurence D. Fink

Larry Fink is the founder and CEO of Blackrock, the world’s largest investment firm, with over $7 Trillion in managed assets. Fink himself is yet another billionaire on the WEF Board. Like Carlyle’s Rubenstein, Fink’s Blackrock is heavily invested in the war industry, issuing its own mutual funds such as US Aerospace and Defense.

In his annual letter to corporate CEOs, Fink suggested that “As governments fail to offer solutions to pressing social problems, people are looking to public and private companies to step in and offer fixes.” That seems to have been the opportunity Fink and Blackrock needed to become the broker for the fusion of the most powerful financial institutions in the US: the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, and Blackrock.

We know that the world’s most powerful financier is on the Board of the global organization conducting the total transformation of society, civilization and humanity. Fink’s letter is littered with utopian promises for “racial justice,” “prosperity,” “more inclusivity,” and saving the world from “climate change.” We see under Early Life, “He grew up in a Jewish family.”

Orit Gadiesh

Chairman of Bain & Company is Orit Gadiesh, whose many positions and accomplishments include being a  graduate of Hebrew University, Governor of Tel Aviv University, Ben Gurion University Leadership Award, and Forbes Magazine’s 100 Most Powerful Women in the World. She too is on the Council on Foreign Relations as a Committee Member. Gadiesh is on the International Business Leaders Advisory Council to the Mayor of Shanghai, China.

Bain is a business consultancy company based in Boston but now with offices around the world; it was once headed by Mitt Romney. Gadiesh became chairman (their word) in 1993 and helped the company recover to become one of the world’s “big three” consultancy firms. It provides many kinds of advice and guidance to many different kinds of businesses, NGOs and governments, including in the areas of defense, chemicals, healthcare, education, oil & gas, technology and finance among many others.

Gadiesh’s father was an Israeli Defense Forces colonel, and she served in the IDF herself, a compulsory  service for Israeli-born Jews. In an interview with the UK Telegraph, Gadiesh revealed how her IDF military experience helps her lead Bain.  Perhaps her familiarity with IDF’s brutal subjugation of helpless Palestinians will serve her well in helping advise the WEF in its Great Reset plan to subjugate the rest of humanity.

Her Wikipedia entry shows she has dual US-Israeli citizenship.

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe

Known more simply as Peter Brabeck, his WEF profile declares him the Vice-Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Brabeck was the CEO of Nestle Corporation for over ten years, and Chairman of the Board for part of that time. He is a former Board member of Credit Suisse, Exxon-Mobile and L’Oreal, among many others. He was also Former Chairman, 2030 Water Resources Group, a public-private partnership  operating as part of the World Bank.

Brabeck provoked outrage and condemnation when in a 2005 documentary titled We Feed the World, he shared some of his own views. Only slightly distorted, this is a fairly good summary of Brabeck’s statements: “Brabeck believes that nature is not ‘good,’ that there is nothing to worry about with GMO foods, that profits matter above all else, that people should work more, and that human beings do not have a right to water.” He made others. Nestle has been involved in ongoing scandals in California for its low-cost access to major water sources for its high-priced bottled water sales, during extended drought when other Californians suffered rationing.

In 1998, for Israel’s fiftieth independence celebration, Israeli PM Netanyahu bestowed “the highest tribute ever awarded by the State of Israel, the Jubilee Award,” recognizing those individuals and organizations that have done the most to strengthen Israel’s economy. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe of Nestle was one of three recipients in the Food category.

This source is also highly suggestive:

Nestle owns 50.1% of Osem Investments, an Israel-based company engaged directly in the production and distribution of food products in Israel and abroad. The Nestle Purina Israel, Director and Corporate Executive at Osem Investment Ltd and CEO of Osem International Ltd., Gad Propper, is the Chairman of the Israel-European Union Chamber of Commerce. He is also Chairman of L’Oreal Israel, 30% owned by L’Oreal, another prominent supporter of Israel.

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe, CEO of Nestle, is also on the Board of Directors of L’Oreal, that has a history of breaking laws to support Israel. He is also a director of Credit Suisse, which is a board member of the Swiss-Israeli Chamber of Commerce. Brabeck-Letmathe is also on the foundation board of the World Economic Forum (WEF), which in 2006 removed from its Global Agenda Magazine an article that called for a peaceful boycott of Israel until it complied to international law and human rights. In contrast to the WEF’s promotion of peaceful free speech, the article was said to be “totally in contradiction to … the Forum’s mission and values.”

Nestlé, the world’s largest food company, set up their R&D Center in Israel (greatly enhancing Israel through their technical know-how, expertise and distribution channels). This R&D center was built on Sderot – stolen and illegally occupied Palestinian land that was once a town called Najd. The presence of Nestle’s plant effectively sabotages the Palestinians’ right to return as stated by UN Resolution 194 and also the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13, Section 2.

Nestle and Osem own over half of the goodwill and assets of Israel’s largest infant formula producer, Materna. Through Osem, Nestle invests heavily in Israel’s development, such as $80m in new salad plants, logistics centers for distribution, development labs, and so on.

Nestle also partners with JNF (Jewish National Fund) through Osem. JNF is one of the foremost Zionist organizations that for decades has persistently uprooted Palestinians and destroyed their villages and towns to make way for Israel’s illegal expansion and occupation.

Peter Maurer – Philo-Semite

WEF Board member Peter Maurer is the current President of the International Committee of the Red Cross. His biography entry indicates his ethnicity is Swiss, and nothing else indicates otherwise.

Two significant news events indicate Maurer is an avid philo-Semite. In a rapid series of articles in the Times of Israel in September 2017, headlines focus on ICRC director Maurer’s meetings with what the articles consistently call the “terror group” Hamas. Two of the four headlines focus on Maurer’s inquiries into “missing Israelis,” with no mention of the many missing Palestinians, including children. A third depicts Israel PM Netanyahu explaining to Maurer “unbelievable Hamas ‘cruelty’.” Unbelievable is the word, but Maurer appears to have taken it to heart in his talks with Hamas. Only the fourth and most recent headline mentions that Maurer noted illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian land as a “key humanitarian challenge”—but then reverts to a focus on missing Israelis.

I doubt Netanyahu was concerned that the Maurer would focus on Israeli atrocities and injustices committed on Palestinians, because he reassured them at a World Jewish Congress meeting a little more than a week before that his talks with Hamas would focus on missing Israelis. After all, the WJC had submitted a petition to Maurer with 11,000 signatures, pressuring Maurer and the ICRC to appeal to Hamas to return the bodies of two missing Israeli soldiers. Hamas could have submitted a petition for the return of the bodies of thousands of Palestinian children, but it does not have the money and power of the WJC and its billionaire oligarch leaders Ronald Lauder and Paul Singer. As a Board member of the WEF, Maurer aligns the ICRC with Jewish power, not justice or humanitarian aid.

The other significant event of course involves the holocaust. According to a Jewish Journal article, Maurer’s ICRC and the World Jewish Congress teamed up in 2015 to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of the “liberation of Nazi death camps.” Maurer gave the keynote address and said the ICRC “had failed as a humanitarian organization because it lost its moral compass.” The article states, “the ICRC did not publicly denounce the deportation of Jews to concentration camps.” The ICRC also helped other POWs in German camps, but not Jews, because the “Nazis” wouldn’t let it. “’We have chosen to confront our past and to embrace transparency,’ Maurer said. ‘Our public archives are proof of our acknowledgment of the past and our continued effort to confront uncomfortable truths.’”

WJC President and billionaire Jewish oligarch Ronald Lauder praised Maurer’s and the ICRC’s groveling contrition for abandoning innocent Jews during the holocaust. “’You have already proven your moral authority because you have opened up your historical records,’ Lauder said. ‘You have admitted that you could have and should have done more.’”

While Peter Maurer is most likely Swiss, his service to Jewish interests at the expense of the Palestinians, however immoral, grants him the revered status as honored philo-Semite. And it bestows a false front of compassionate humanitarianism on both the ICRC and the WEF.

Mark Carney – Philo-Semite

This WEF Board member is a mega global bankster. He is the Governor of the Bank of England and on the board of one of the most powerful banking institutions in the world, the Bank of International Settlements. Carney worked at Goldman Sachs for thirteen years, in multiple offices around the world. He is one Goldman Sachs alumni “notable for his public repudiation of capitalism in arguing for green socialism.” Green socialism is only another euphemism for the totalitarian seizure of world control through the Great Reset, what the WEF calls “stakeholder capitalism.” As a WEF Board member Carney is in the right place.

Chrystia Freeland – Dishonorable mention

Chrystia Freeland is one WEF Board member who is definitely not Jewish. In fact we are led to believe she even had “Nazi” associations in her past, but has reformed. She is currently the deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister of Canada, and major media outlets such as Politico and The Atlantic have declared her “Minister of Everything.” However, in 2017 allegations arose that Freeland’s maternal grandfather had been an editor for a Ukrainian newspaper that published “anti-semitic” content, a “school of hate,” and was supported by the National Socialists. Grandpa did not have the moral integrity to work elsewhere (possibly because Ukrainians hated life under Stalin and saw the Germans as liberators), and so while maybe not an “intellectual collaborator” because Freeland maintained he did not write copy, he was still a “situational collaborator.”

Freeland overcame the scandal and retained her positions in the Canadian government. She was instrumental in arranging major global oligarchic control “free trade” agreements such as the   Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with the European Union, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement. In a major move of what would be, Freeland wrote a book titled Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else. “It… won the 2013 National Business Book Award for the most outstanding Canadian business-related book.” It was one reason PM Trudeau brought her into his cabinet. A review says “The book divides the very wealthy into three main groups—Russian oligarchs, Wall Street financial professionals, and American business executives”— but the book does not concern itself with the ethnic composition of these three groups. For someone so influential in the Canadian cabinet as to arrange the global “free trade” agreements that are impoverishing working Canadians and driving their wages and standard of living down, to publish a book focused on the “new global super rich” and how they are impoverishing everyone else, while serving the global totalitarian plutocratic take-over at the WEF is grotesque.

Klaus Schwab – Philo-Semite or Crypto-Jew

Finally, we must examine the ethnic nature of the Executive Director and Founder of the World Economic Forum himself, Klaus Schwab. Another essay discussed Schwab’s many Jewish and Israeli connections.

Recently I came across a “deep dive” on Schwab just as I was preparing to submit this essay. This source, Forbidden Knowledge TV, comes in the form of an interview or discussion between the host and Michael McKibben of Leader Technologies, who claim a team of “miners” have been digging into Schwab’s family past for three months. They have yet to post this information in written form, so we will have to assess the interview podcast for now: “Klaus Schwab and the Fourth Reich.” The written introduction states: “Klaus Schwab was born in Nazi Germany in 1938. His Jewish mother fled the country, forced to abandon her year-old son with Klaus’ father….” In the podcast itself, at timestamp 12:52, McKibben says: “Through several two or three weeks of digging, discovered it through the back door. His mother was Jewish.” And at 24:40, the host says “here we have the Schwab family, or at least Klaus, hiding the fact that he (Klaus’ father Eugene) was married to a Jewess.”

We must eagerly await the written report on this interview to verify these claims and find out what the “back door” is. But if the “miners” at Leader Technologies have worked on this case for months to discover the ethnic background of Klaus Schwab, seeking primary sources and documentation, and state their findings with such confidence, then we must conclude: Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Director of the World Economic Forum, epicenter of evil in our world today, driving humanity into the Great Reset technocratic tyranny using the powerful new technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution to force the survivors of his engineered destruction of all we have known of life into his transhumanist cybernetic nightmare, is Jewish.

Conclusion

In the comment section of a previous essay, someone said: “Haven’t we passed the point of naming the Jews already?” He called for solutions. But the first step is inevitably to realize the scope of the problem. Quite clearly Jews and philo-Semites are ensconced in the most powerful organizations and institutions in the world, and these organizations are aimed at a complete restricting of the entire planet.