Page 86 – The Occidental Observer

Anti-racism’s victory over the British police

August 7, 2023/2 Comments/in Africans and African Americans, Featured Articles/by Richard Knight

Anti-racists have never approved of racial impartiality. Only discrimination in favour of non-Whites, especially Blacks, is acceptable to them. They especially object to any lack of pro-Black discrimination in the police. For fifty years it has been their goal to get the police to ignore Black crime. They have largely achieved it.

In 1981 the police decided to crack down on street crime in Brixton, where it was rife. The result was the Brixton riots, where young Black men spent a weekend hurling bricks and petrol bombs at the police and setting fire to vehicles and buildings. This was their reply to the police’s impertinence in seeking to hold them to the law.

A report on the riots by Lord Scarman, a Law Lord, called on the police to go easy on Black crime on three grounds, one of them being that their duty to maintain public tranquillity was more important than their duty to enforce the law.[1] If an attempt to enforce the law might be met with violent resistance, in other words, it should not be made. The police took the message so much to heart that within ten years they were letting young Black men engage in open drug dealing on the street.[2] Such responses to Lord Scarman’s call were the first great success for anti-racism, which had emerged as a recognisable political movement in the 1970s.

Anti-racism took a second great leap forward in 1983, when its activists badly needed racial incidents with Black victims to back up their claim that non-Whites were commonly abused by Whites. The predominance of incidents with White victims, as in mugging, could not help them portray Whites as the aggressor race. Then they realised that a fake racial incident was as good as a real one if the public believed that it was real. It would go into the statistics like a real incident, attract the same publicity and have the same political effects.

As it happened, the Home Office also needed racial incidents with Black victims. In 1981 it had produced a report called Racial Attacks, which manipulated statistics to portray Whites as aggressive racists. This was all well and good, but actual attacks on Blacks were needed to give the manipulated statistics substance. Frustrated by the shortage, the Home Office too realised that fake attacks would be as good as real ones. The attacks might be fake but the statistics would be real.

And so in 1983 the Home-Office-funded Association of Chief Police Officers supplied the police with a definition of a racial incident that could be used to manufacture racial incidents at will. According to the definition, a racial incident was “any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person”.[3] All that was required was an allegation. It did not need to be backed up by any evidence.

Anti-racist activists were delighted. Now they only needed to persuade the police to apply the definition to any incident with a Black victim where somebody — possibly the victim, possibly an activist, possibly the police themselves — made an allegation of a racial motive and they would have all the evidence, real or bogus, of White racial aggression that they could wish for. The police obliged and started describing crimes as racially motivated with no evidence of a racial motive.[4]

Indeed, they needed no evidence that White people had been involved. They could conjure White offenders into existence by accepting an allegation that the motives of imaginary offenders were racial. It was this definition that enabled the police to make their biggest ever gift to anti-racists by blaming the murder of a young Black man on White people after an agitated young Black man found with the body blamed the crime on Whites of whom there was no trace.[5]

That was in 1993, when it looked as if the progress of a new social movement called political correctness might be unstoppable. In that year Giles Auty wrote in the Spectator: “Within the next five years I fully expect to see the full horrors of political correctness imported lock, stock, and barrel from American academic institutions to our own”.[6] This occurred, nor was it just academic institutions that accepted political correctness but every public institution.

Political correctness is a kind of super-ideology whose main job is to enforce its sub-ideologies and make life uncomfortable for those who do not go along with them. From the start its two main sub-ideologies were anti-racism and feminism, which, although some of their more bizarre doctrines jarred with many people, were presented by the media as necessary and good. To cite two bizarre doctrines, the basic proposition of anti-racism is that the races are essentially the same, and the basic proposition of feminism is that the sexes too are “equal”. Thus any difference between the circumstances of the races or the circumstances of the sexes can only be due to the oppressive effects of White power or male power. And so it turned out that the idea of universal human equality made a supposedly unanswerable case against White people and especially men. To be politically correct was to condemn one’s own society.

The compulsory and punitive nature of political correctness brought us a new age of hypocrisy. Unless people wanted to be shunned as retrograde and nasty, they had to profess agreement with its doctrines, however obviously untrue or pernicious they might be. There was no room for frankness or clarity now that public discourse appeared to be governed by an overriding need to protect an invisible, slightly deranged and ultra-sensitive woman from the risk of fainting, as she might do if any fact she found distasteful happened to be mentioned. As one generation followed another, pretence was followed by credulity. Soon there were young people who actually believed the dogmas of political correctness.

Political correctness was a new name for cultural Marxism, not that that phrase was yet often heard. Appearing in America towards the end of the 1980s, it offered fresh hope to Marxists just as Marxism as we knew it was being discredited by the collapse of the Soviet Union. In 1992, a jocular guide to what today might be called the clown world that was descending on us was provided by The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook, which told us that so as not to allude to sex we must call waitresses “waitrons”.[7] To show that we saw no difference between human beings and other animals, we were supposed to call animal trainers “inter-species communicators”. A milkman was a “milkperson”, vegetarian cuisine was “non-violent food”, and a book was a “processed tree carcase”. According to Mary Koss, women who denied that they were oppressed were “trying to pass as non-victimized”. Leonard Jeffries, head of Afro-American Studies at City University, New York, found the destruction of the Challenger spacecraft something to be applauded since it might deter White people from “spreading their filth throughout the universe”. The scientific method was to be despised as a “patriarchal conspiracy”.

A thorough journalistic treatment of political correctness came in 1994 in the book Dictatorship of Virtue.[8] Academic treatments started to appear, with titles like “Political correctness in Britain: A blueprint for decline”,[9] “Who placed American men in a psychic ‘iron cage’?”[10] and “The Historical Roots of Political Correctness”.[11]

By the turn of the century, political correctness was more or less mainstream. People who still used their faculties of thought and observation were marginalised as enemies of society, as they are even more today, when the continuation of political correctness is called “wokeness”. Naturally, anti-racism received another great boost when political correctness made it in effect obligatory.

An abiding aim of anti-racist activists was to get the police officially described as institutionally racist. No one knew or particularly cared what the term might mean; the important thing was that if it was formally attached to the police, they would be conclusively disgraced. The establishment would have turned on its own and, by condemning itself as racist, have proclaimed itself to be anti-racist.

Lord Scarman had refused to call the police by the dread term. It was left to Sir William Macpherson, a retired high-court judge, to do this in 1999 in his report on an unconcluded murder case. Under pressure from anti-racists,[12] he used a purpose-built definition that allowed any institution to be described as racist if it did not discriminate in favour of non-Whites or do so sufficiently.[13] As soon as his report was published, every institution in the country, from the British Medical Association to the church, the universities, the judiciary and the political parties, as well as the police, dramatically stepped up the degree of its pro-Black discrimination. Pretending or perhaps really believing that they were doing something good, they put an end to the principle of equal treatment, an ancient cornerstone of British justice, forever.[14]

One anti-racist activist, who as a student revolutionary had been described by the Foreign Office as a troublemaker acting with malice aforethought,[15] was particularly chuffed. This was Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, who had commissioned the Macpherson report and stated on receiving it that he intended to use it to create “permanent and irrevocable change … across the whole of our society”.[16] He did just this by imposing racial quotas on the public services,[17] thereby institutionalising racial discrimination. Institutional racism, supposedly being dispelled, was installed, which Straw described as a great step forward for society.[18] Foreseeably, the public services became the home of incompetence and corruption as anti-racism itself took another great step forward.

Things went on in the same vein, as when in 2017 Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, called for judges to treat Black criminals more leniently and White criminals more harshly than they had been doing.[19]

Lord Scarman, Sir William Macpherson, Lord Thomas: it was those at the very top of the criminal justice system who introduced anti-racism to it and drove it deeper and deeper in, presumably with the support of the Home Office or at its behest.

Anti-racism’s next great surge came in 2020 with the Black Lives Matter movement, which prompted another dramatic increase in the desired form of institutional racism. Bodies such as the British Museum, the British Library and the National Trust made a point of showing how ashamed they were of British history and culture, apologised for oppressing Black people and promised to give them more important positions with immediate effect.[20] Needless to say, they had in no way wronged Black people; they were expressing a purely visceral urge to racial self-abasement. So lacking was any anti-Black discrimination that the media had to borrow the death of George Floyd from Minneapolis to suggest that something was amiss. With no injustice to point to, they spoke ambiguously of “racial inequality”, intended to be taken to mean inequality of treatment but in fact referring to inequality of circumstance, which is a natural product of differences between the races.

Lord Scarman’s injunction to the police to go easy on Black crime had sunk in so deeply by this time that when they came across a mini-riot in Brixton, they ran away. They actually took to their heels sooner than confront Black criminals.[21] During an interview with Sky News, a former Metropolitan Police chief was cut off when saying that the police had given up trying to stop young Black men carrying weapons. It was more than their careers were worth to attempt to hold Black people to the law, he was saying when he was interrupted.

It was now police policy to stand by and allow rioting and looting if those doing the rioting and looting were Black. This policy was causing concern in cities like Nottingham and Manchester, where retail chains were thinking of closing down, so much of their stock were they losing to young Black men, whom the police would not arrest.[22]

Anti-racists must have split their sides as they congratulated themselves on the extent of their achievement. It was already years since they had disposed of the principle of equality before the law. For years the police had been free to pursue crimes committed by Whites with as much vigour as they could muster, and law-abiding acts as well, such as posting limericks on social media that were not to the liking of favoured groups, as long as they did not lay a finger on Blacks. Now, this had induced young Black men to make rioting and looting a weekly pastime, which threatened to change the face of the high street, and still the police would not act. What could be more satisfying?

[1] Lord Scarman, 1982 (1981), The Scarman Report: The Brixton Disorders, 10-12 April 1981, Harmondsworth: Pelican-Penguin, Paragraphs 4.57-4.58. Secondly Scarman advocated policing with the active consent of the public, which in a place like Brixton the police would never have (Paragraph 5.46). Thirdly, he said that the police must exercise discretion, quoting a senior policeman saying that to believe in enforcing the law without concessions to any section of the community was too simplistic; some groups had different cultural backgrounds (Paragraph 5.76).

[2] The anonymous author of “The street where I live” (Independent, Nov. 2nd 1993) thought that in the previous three years someone must have decided to turn his road into a no-go area for the police, where crack dealers could trade openly. Since a policeman had been killed nearby, the police had kept their heads down. There was a sense that the dealers were winning. Until the shooting, the author had been blanking them out, but then a bullet had been fired through the window of a betting shop over the road, which acted as a crack and dope market. Angry at drugs being sold outside his son’s bedroom, the author had called the police and told them that the problem was getting worse. “Yes”, they said, “it will get worse. There’s a lot of money involved.” He never saw a police car arrive.

[3] In full the definition stated that a racial incident was “any incident in which it appears to the reporting or investigating officer that the complaint involves an element of racial motivation, or any incident which includes an allegation of racial motivation made by any person” (from “Race Equality in the UK Today: Developing Good Practice and Looking for Reform: The Police”, a handout distributed by John Newing, President of the Association of Chief Police Officers, on December 8th 1998 at QMW Public Policy Seminars: Developing New Legislation and Strategies on Race Equality, Royal Over-Seas League, London SW1).

[4] In 1991 a Black teenager named Rolan Adams was killed by a White one in South-East London in a fight that broke out between two gangs. Activists called the murder racially motivated on the basis that one gang was Black and the other White, although neither gang was in fact racially uniform (Transcripts of the Proceedings of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, 1998, http://www.blink.org.uk/slinquiry/transcripts.htm, pp. 4,209 4,575 and 7,883-84). In 1992, also in South-East London, a sixteen-year-old Indian named Rohit Duggal was killed by a White youth in an altercation that had nothing to do with race (Ibid., pp. 7,878-79). The police classified both murders as racial as soon as they heard about them (Ibid., pp. 7,885 and 7,887-88).

[5] Ibid., pp. 5,747 and 4,653.

[6] Spectator, July 31st 1993.

[7] Henry Beard and Christopher Cerf, 1992, London: Grafton-HarperCollins.

[8] Richard Bernstein, 1995 (1994), Dictatorship of Virtue: How the Battle Over Multiculturalism Is Reshaping Our Schools, Our Country, and Our Lives, New York: Vintage.

[9] Frank Ellis, Jan. 9th 1994, “Political correctness in Britain: A blueprint for decline”, Academic Questions, vol. 7.

[10] Gerald L. Atkinson, 1998, “Who Placed American Men in a Psychic ‘Iron Cage’?”, https://culturalmarxism.blogspot.com/2007/07/who-placed-american-men-in-psychic-iron_06.html.

[11] Raymond V. Raehn, no date, “The Historical Roots of Political Correctness”, http://arcofcc.freeservers.com/Documents/pc.html.

Other useful sources include Brian Mitchell, 1998, Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster, Washington, DC: Regnery; William McGowan, 2002, Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism, San Francisco: Encounter; and Occidental Observer, March 10th 2017, “No Campus (Or Country) for White Men” by Edward Connelly, https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/03/10/no-campus-or-country-for-White-men/.

[12] The activist Lee Jasper threatened Macpherson with riots if he did not call the police institutionally racist: “We are set for repetitions of police attacks, community reprisals, civil disturbances. I do not say that lightly. …I know very well … that unless this matter is sorted out, sooner or later there is going to be huge explosions on the streets of Britain.” He went on: “Our own community would say … maybe we should have a couple of riots anyway to focus the minds, maybe we should burn down a couple of buildings and beat some police officers in order that you can get the focus”. (1990 Trust, 1998, The 1990 Trust Human Rights Programme, London: 1990 Trust, p. 665.)

[13] Macpherson did not define institutional racism briefly and comprehensibly, such as by saying that it referred to pervasive racial discrimination in an institution. According to his lengthy and obscure definition, it was:

the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.

(Sir William Macpherson, 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, CM 4262-I, The Stationery Office, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdf, Paragraph 6.34.)

This definition did not condemn racial discrimination. On the contrary, by suggesting that different treatments could be “appropriate” for the different races, it permitted it. It did not require any discrimination to have been going on for an institution to be deemed racist; only something amounting to discrimination, such as the races being treated equally, which, given differences between the races, produces race-correlated outcomes. It did not require evidence of any wrongdoing but said that institutional racism could be “seen or detected” in various things, meaning that it could be detected where it could not be seen. It did not require any individual to have done anything wrong but allowed “collective” guilt to be assigned directly to an institution. It did not intend the concept of institutional racism to be applied to any race impartially but singled out “minority ethnic people” as potential victims, thereby placing no limit on the amount of discrimination that could be aimed at Whites. This kind of discrimination could be inflicted in the name of combating “institutional racism”.

[14] Macpherson made his purpose a little too apparent when he called for the police to be legally compelled to discriminate by race. “Colour-blind policing must be outlawed”, he decreed (Ibid., Paragraph 45.24).

[15] Telegraph, March 7th 2003, “Straw was student trip’s chief troublemaker”, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/07/npro07.xml.

[16] BBC, Feb. 24th 1999, “Lawrence: quotes at a glance”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/285535.stm,.

[17] Home Office (1) March 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Home Secretary’s action plan; (2) July 28th 1999, Race Equality: The Home Secretary’s employment targets.

[18] Hansard, Feb. 24th 1999. Vol. 326, col. 393, https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1999-02-24/debates/9571f44b-9ee7-4662-a096-0858e1e656a9/StephenLawrenceInquiry.

[19] Sarah Corriher, Dec. 7th 2020, “U.K. prisons are for Whites only”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/spFFzyYAn7nM/. Sarah Corriher’s video shows a Daily Star headline from 2017: “Judges will go softer on minorities as punishments get tough on White kids”.

[20] For example, the British Library was explicit in its support for Black Lives Matter. Resources disseminated there urged employees to donate to the organisation and educate themselves about their “privilege” by reading Marxist authors. Internal emails revealed a staff group which claimed that being colour-blind was a sign of “covert White supremacy” (Telegraph, Aug. 23rd 2020, “British Library should lose taxpayer funding over support for BLM and Labour, say MPs”, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/23/british-library-should-lose-taxpayer-funding-support-blm-labour/).

In July 2020, the library’s leadership declared that the library intended to become “actively anti-racist” rather than merely non-racist (British Library, July 2022, “British Library commits to becoming an anti-racist organisation”, https://www.bl.uk/press-releases/2020/july/british-library-commits-to-becoming-an-anti-racist-organisation).

Deploring the lack of non-Whites in its senior management, it said it would “add the Chairs of the BAME Network to the Library’s Strategic Leadership Team” without delay and announced that its future approach to race would be determined by members of this network. The library, a national repository of culture, had already stated its intention of reviewing its collection of documents accumulated by Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753), who founded the British Museum (The Sun, Aug. 30th 2020, “RACE ROW British Library’s chief librarian claims ‘racism created by White people’ as she supports plans to ‘decolonise’ displays”, https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12537707/british-librarys-librarian-racism-created-White-people/). This raised the question of how many of its 50,000 Sloane books and manuscripts would end up on its anti-racist bonfire.

[21] The man was Kevin Hurley (The New Culture Forum, July 17th 2020, “Ex-Met Police Chief: Police Leaders Have Lost the Confidence of their Front Line Police Officers”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42shmoKwSSU).

[22] History Debunked, Aug. 4th 2023, “Disorder on the streets of England is on the increase, although we don’t like to talk about it”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b53l2k8TuI0. Simon Webb comments: “Low level riots and looting expeditions are becoming common parts of some English cities, fuelled by a particular demographic group”.

Re-Potting Penelope: A Scientist’s Vindication and Random Meditations

August 5, 2023/8 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Virginia Abernethy

Penelope was an orchid that I brought to the Vanderbilt University Medical School Emeritus Office to decorate our conference room. Our secretary named her. Dr. Bud Friesinger, former head of the Gerontology unit in the Department of Medicine, loved her. I got the impression that he’d never before enjoyed an orchid, close up.

Bud had been a World War II Marine, and we were delighted to learn that we had both known another World War II Marine, Brigadier General Buck Schmuck. I met Buck at parties in Sheridan, Wyoming, where he was visiting friends. His main home in retirement was Hawaii. A good many former servicemen lived in Hawaii, close to the Pacific Islands that they had fought so hard to hold or win back. General Schmuck had received the Navy Cross and two Silver Stars for his heroic actions.

Bud Friesinger went to medical school after his military service, becoming not only a physician but also a scientist. One of his theories was that the human organism had a natural life span of 84 years. Beyond that, it was all down hill and fast. I did not agree with Bud because my target is a good deal farther out. I plan to survive until seeing further support for my predictions about the fertility rate and, echoing the late Physics Professor [University of Colorado, Boulder] Al Bartlett and California attorney David Durham, about the necessity of populations restraining growth to within the carrying capacity of the environment on which they depend. No population can exceed for long the carrying capacity of its environment without paying a heavy, heavy penalty.

When the carrying capacity is exceeded, the underlying resources on which life depends are degraded. The degraded environment then supports fewer individuals on a sustainable basis. The carrying capacity spirals downward; hardship increases; mortality rates rise. Ireland in the nineteenth century is a European example. In Al Bartlett’s words, “Nature bats last.”

My ideas extend further, into the realm of social and political arrangements that will accompany the process of population growth pressuring the carrying capacity of the environment. I expect increasing polarization between rich and poor. And I expect tyranny.

Is the US skating frighteningly near the edge where it will be harder, much harder, to recover our Freedoms?

[Mis]Using Patriot Act authority, Attorney General Merritt Garland authorized the FBI to surveil parents who protested actions taken by their local School Boards.

One also reads that a cover-up of possible election fraud in Arizona would have succeeded but for the courage of a County Clerk. That courageous woman then found herself in the cross-hairs of an FBI investigation.

Is this Patriot Act authorization being used again? That Act was passed after 9/11. All along it has been feared that it would be used inappropriately, to surveil Americans.

In light of the danger of exceeding the carrying capacity, one can understand grandchildren’s motives for deciding to forgo childbearing. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to ask what difference can their decision make?

A person might first say that it is inconsistent to have children while at the same time closing the national border against refugees because they add to the country’s total population. I say, borrowing from Winston Churchill, that consistency is the bugaboo of small minds. But that is too facile an answer.

I also ask, do a country’s Citizens have rights that foreigners do not? Centuries of tradition say yes, they do. And should.

Next, address equivalency. Some say that each life has equivalent value to every other life. I say not, because I honor, give precedence, to merit and my European heritage. Some people make a difference, a positive difference, to the societies in which they live.

Making a positive difference requires both will and ability. The will to succeed while doing no harm to others in the process may be evenly distributed across humans. I do not know. But athletic, intellectual, and relationship talents are not evenly distributed. Deny that if you can!

Intellectual ability implies a potential for helping to solve the existential problems, including carrying capacity issues that plague every country in the world. So I value most those who have special intellectual ability. American citizens are equal with respect to the rule of law, all humans are equal in the natural rights to life and Liberty, but all humans are not equal in outcomes or ability. I commit the sin of thinking this, if it is a sin, while guarding against the sin of false equivalency.

So if a couple seems likely to have a child who can compete successfully in the trying pots of life, who can possibly profit from learning in the halls of Harvard, Stanford, or Vanderbilt, why should this couple surrender their opportunity to have children? Their child might be the one who is at the right place at the right time to meaningfully help solve their country’s or even the world’s problems. While it is almost certainly true that most people will never have that ability, that potential.

Certainly I am an elitist. That makes me a realist in some respects, too.

Summing up what my life has meant, the answer is not so much. The negatives are many. The positives are that I gave birth to four children. All have a strong appreciation of reality. All of them know how, and are willing, to set priorities. All support all Americans’ rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. None of them is mean.

One is also known for one’s enemies, so I am extra proud that in 2012 the Southern Poverty Law Center named me one of the 30 most dangerous people in the United States. By then I was almost 80 and very, very mild. I am proud that my husband says I am polite but not mild.

My identity, all said and done, is scientist. I have tried to present the data honestly and my failing, so once said a friend, is in the way I present the data. Less harshly might have worked better. More words, more circumlocutions. Perhaps I should have listened.

Scientists care deeply about being proven right. Bud Friesinger may have died in order to support his theory that the natural life span of humans is 84 years. No more, or not much more than 84 years. I do not agree.

The facts are: Bud turned 84 still appearing to be his strong, handsome and vital self. I wanted to tease him about being a negative case for his hypothesis. I thank Heaven for a hand over my mouth or deciding that good manners required me to wait and see. At about 84 years and four months of age, Bud was diagnosed with a fatal and inoperable condition. Within four weeks, he died, age 84.

A mutual friend in the Emeritus Office visited Bud in those last days and offered to carry a message from me. I said, “Please tell Bud that I repotted Penelope”. Our friend reported back that this was the only time he saw Bud smile. Death happens. But Life in its many forms rolls on when someone pushes on it just a little.

Hunting GB News

August 2, 2023/1 Comment/in Featured Articles/by Mark Gullick

The two seismic elections of 2016, Donald Trump’s Presidential victory and the British “Brexit” referendum, were linked by the common thread of a phenomenon they served to expose. Trump’s win and the ensuing resistance in his own administration showed the existence of a “deep state” that could be mobilized against an undesired political outcome in the USA. The existence of this shadow government was held up to transatlantic scrutiny as the UK turned out to have one as well. Seven years ago, despite tireless work on the part of these éminences grises, results went against them, and they have never forgotten it.

Trump’s cardinal sin was that he was not from the American political class, while the “Brexiteers” got the result the British political class didn’t want. And so the respective deep states of the US and the UK had their missions mapped out, to correct these electoral anomalies by any means necessary, and one of the greatest means a government has for persuading its citizens to vote correctly is still the media. The messenger became just as much a priority as the message, and the media had to be ideologically aligned to denounce Trump and Brexit in perpetuity. They were and still are. Seven years after the global establishment took a double blow, the media are still blaming Trump and Brexit for every broken shoelace when racism, White supremacy and climate change are not available. The media, in Britain more so than in the US, is a Leftist concern, but there have been symptoms of a rightward shift in Britain’s broadcast media in the shape of a relative newcomer: GB News.

GB News went on-air in June 2021 and, despite a shaky start, has increased its viewership to a third of that of an ailing BBC. The rise of the channel has alarmed the deep state, from government to the shrill cacophony of social media activists. The channel soon parted company with its figurehead, veteran broadcaster Andrew Neil, who may have been spooked by the first offensive against GB News, one which began before they even went on-air.

Stop Funding Hate (SFH) is an activist group that lobbies advertising companies not to place ads with certain outlets. They went to town on GB News, “persuading” a lot of potential advertisers to starve the channel of revenue. SFH is a standard activist outfit, labelling everything with which they disagree with the emotively charged but meaningless word ‘hate’, a term with which they seem to have a pathological obsession. Their mission statement begins;

Stop Funding Hate began when a group of people came together online to express concern at the way certain newspapers were using hate and division to drive sales. Advertisers are a major part of this business model of hate. As newspaper sales decline, their ads fund the hate that is being printed.

There is, as always and despite its Tourette-like repetition, no working definition of “hate” given. And, as newspaper sales really are declining, SFH have turned their guns on the booming industry of right-of-center TV and online news channels such as GB News. They are not unaccompanied.

HOPE not Hate (HNH), the British activist group I covered here for Occidental Observer, have taken an associative approach to GB News, linking various contributors with figures or organizations deemed heretical, however tenuously. “Far-right extremists”, say HNH, “find a friend in GB News”.

A media offensive would not be complete without a word from the Jewish Quarter. One of the opinion jockeys at GB News is Neil Oliver, a rugged Celt very much given to the now-familiar trope of the coming global government. Any media comment which references global governance has been pre-judged as “antisemitic” by The Board of Deputies of British Jews (who are more sheriff than deputy when it comes to policing the townspeople). The complaint is even thinner than usual, with Oliver’s monologues claimed to reference “conspiratorial antisemitism or other misinformation”.

So much for the activist outliers, the deep state’s foot-soldiers. Closer to the heart of government, there is another active unit working to bring GB News down. The Office of Communications (OfCom) is the regulatory body responsible for ensuring political impartiality in broadcasting. While there has been a long-running argument that the BBC is regularly given a pass despite being blatantly biased, Ofcom have not been so lenient with GB News.

The latest OfCom investigation into GB News concerns the channel’s “Don’t Kill Cash” campaign. They are being investigated using Ofcom’s main weapon, the Communications Act of 2003, which bars broadcasters from expressing “views and opinions … on matters of political and industrial controversy or current public policy”. But GB News have been clever and used a method which has caused further anxiety to the deep state and its grocery clerks: they asked the public.

Clearly, the campaign is aimed at proposals for CBDCs, or Central Bank Digital Currencies, hailed by the Left as the perfect tool for surveillance and control, decried by the Right for the same reasons, plus the effects of a cashless society on those who rely on point-of-sale liquidity. Window cleaners don’t take Visa. So, GB News organized a public petition. In Britain, if a petition is sent to Parliament with at least 100,000 signatures, the subject matter or proposal may be debated in the House of Commons. GB News’s campaign received 160,000 signatures in four days, and this looks a lot too much like democracy to pass unnoticed by the watchtowers of the deep state. GB News also make a point of their contact with the public, with petitions, viewer e-mail segments, and vox pop.

Ofcom have also chased clubbable Canadian commentator and author Mark Steyn from the station. Steyn was cautioned for comments on the Covid vaccine, but the watchdog will be aware of his views on a string of protected topics, including climate change. Steyn’s views on global warming have been the center of a long-running legal battle between the presenter and climatologist Michael Mann.

Another ongoing Ofcom investigation concerns politicians being allowed to present opinionated political TV shows, which again GB News neatly side-step by employing serving politicians to host the panel-led chat sections of their output. The problem as the deep state sees it is that all these presenters are right-of-center politically. Left-wing British newspaper The Guardian makes a telling comment about Ofcom policy;

GB News and Talk TV’s [a rival start-up] willingness to push opinionated television news in a manner not traditionally seen on British television has left Ofcom playing catch-up, trying to apply a broadcast code written in a different era dominated by the BBC and ITV.

Apart from admitting that Ofcom does not pay attention to the evolution of an industry in which it is a key player, this means nothing. This is not some update of antiquated rules; the aim of the corporation is to go after a new player who is playing rather too well. In this case, that means GB News. But the British deep state may have gone too far with one of the presenters at the channel, a man who has for the past month been at the center of one of the biggest censorship scandals the UK has ever seen.

Nigel Farage is the ex-leader of the Brexit Party and now a popular presenter at GB News. At the end of June, Farage was contacted by his bank, the prestigious Coutts &Co., and told that his account was being closed. Also at the end of June, Farage won the TRIC (Television and Radio Industry Club) award for News Presenter of the Year for his GB News show. He was booed at the presentation by a partisan crowd of predictably Leftist media rowdies. Exactly a week later, the CEO of Coutts parent company, NatWest Bank, leaked a story to the BBC at an industry dinner. The story was that Farage’s account had been closed as he lacked sufficient funds (at least £1 million) to keep it open, and the story ran on the BBC’s website the next day.

The story proved to be very fake news, and the BBC eventually gave a rare apology to Farage. But for Coutts, problems were just beginning.

Coutts is what used to be called a “household name” in the UK, now better known as a “name brand”. Not many people can afford to bank there, but everyone has heard of it. That’s how branding works. Not many people drive a Rolls-Royce, but everyone has heard of the company (particularly Germans now that BMW owns Rolls-Royce).

Farage formally requested all the information on him held by the bank, as he is entitled to do by law. In reply, he received a 40-page dossier which, apart from being grossly defamatory, made it clear that Farage’s account was closed for purely political reasons. “Brexit” was mentioned 80 times in the document. Farage went public with the dossier, followed (after a struggle) by the resignations of the Chairman of Coutts and the CEO of NatWest Bank.

In terms of brand damage, Coutts do not sell ice cream or beer, they provide banking services for the rich, so there can’t and won’t be an effective boycott. NatWest is a different matter. People, and a lot of them, may close their accounts not because they are trying to teach the brand a lesson, but because they wish both to hold conservative views and also function as a normal, solvent human being. NatWest is a household name in the UK.

But so is Nigel Farage. There will be plenty of British people who can’t name the Foreign Secretary or Chancellor of the Exchequer, but will know the name Farage. He himself has vowed to start a campaign to force government legislation on bank account closures, as he is far from alone in being “de-banked” and many thousands of others are now starting to come forward. But behind the unmasking of the bank’s real motives in closing Farage’s account is not that he has a message that “doesn’t align with Coutts’ values”; it’s that he has a powerful medium for that message in GB News, a channel which is gaining ground, more so due to this affair.

This has raised Farage’s political profile more than any campaign stunt ever could. Usually sneered at by the press, there is a new respect for his leverage. Even German newspaper Die Welt expressed reserved approval for Farage, almost gushing that “Other parties can only dream of his influence”. They might have a point. Farage vs Coutts – which may yet feature as a court case – has shown both that the deep state is as active as ever, and that it can be taken on if its separate hydra-heads are attacked (even in self-defense) individually. The alternative is a Chinese-style credit system whereby the corporate approval of expressed opinion will become a priority requirement to open a bank account rather than mere solvency.

If the British banking industry is able to enforce compliance with a state-driven narrative, then they are a quasi-legislative sub-contractor of that state. Government has out-sourced censorship to private companies — the same as when you call your bank and speak to someone in India. They are already well on the way to doing this with the big tech companies and online “hate speech”. Farage has exposed the workings of the deep state, and it may be their arrogance that has allowed this story to break. Farage is ensuring it doesn’t stop breaking. NatWest hired a legal firm to investigate the closure of Farage’s account, Travers Smith, whose senior consultant Chris Hale described Brexit in language such as “xenophobic, racist and nostalgic”. Farage Tweeted this, and it is curious to see nostalgia joining xenophobia and racism as one of the new deadly sins. Farage has set up a website for those who have been similarly affected at www.accountclosed.org.

The US, equipped with the First Amendment, would appear to be immune to this gross offense against freedom of speech, but Chase Bank has become embroiled in a row about shutting the account of Dr. Joseph Mercola, a vocal critic of US vaccine policy, and credit processing companies have long canceled payments for sites like The Occidental Observer This presents serious First Amendment concerns if it can be shown that the banks are acting as proxy enforcers of a pro-government narrative, along with the resulting punitive powers granted.

The globalists have many targets, but their prize would be the American First Amendment. With that not gone or at least seriously compromised — as with Canada’s version — the US media could be controlled wholly, with no possibility of news and opinion media which rubbed against the grain. In January of this year, at a World Economic Forum rally, the Vice President for Values and Transparency at the European Commission, Vĕra Jourová, spoke of “Illegal hate speech, which you will soon have in the US. I think that we have a strong reason why we have this in the criminal law”.

In January this was just a petulant slap at Elon Musk, then in the process of trolling the EU over big tech responsibility for “hate speech”. But it shows what is on the EU’s mind. In terms of free speech and the media, they would prefer America to be a lot more like Turkey or Iran.

So, the deep state is not a shadowy cabal directing operations from an undersea island, or cavorting at Bohemian Grove. The deep state is the smooth interlocking of the various social platforms a citizen can and must use with the aim of aligning that citizen’s public-arena expression to conform to a state narrative. Nigel Farage may have struck a blow which will reverberate on both sides of the Atlantic, and GB News will benefit from his — and their — persecution.

The anti-racism of Ibram X. Kendi

July 31, 2023/5 Comments/in Africans and African Americans, Featured Articles/by Richard Knight

One only needs to hear an anti-racist like Ibram X. Kendi speak to sense that he is a trickster. Below is a description of his anti-racism in the context of anti-racism as a whole that will explain this intuition.

Where institutions are concerned, anti-racism has only ever had one aim and made one argument. The aim is to overturn the principle of equal treatment so that black people can receive what they are not entitled to.[1] The argument goes like this. The races are the same, but their circumstances differ. Black people must be being discriminated against, therefore we need to discriminate in their favour.[2]

The problems with this argument are obvious. There is no reason to think that the races are the same. Secondly, if black people were being discriminated against, there would be evidence of it. Finally, if such discrimination were going on, the answer would be to stop it, not reverse it. Despite these flaws, the argument has served anti-racism well for decades thanks to the media’s skill in making it seem plausible.

Insisting that the races are the same is essential to anti-racism. If we could point out that they differ, this would explain the fact that their circumstances differ, and the idea that these differing circumstances are the fault of whites would collapse. And so, underlining the existing taboo against mentioning racial differences, Kendi calls the idea that the races differ “racist”.[3] He doesn’t say what is wrong with it; this is just a “principle” of his.[4]

His second “anti-racist principle” is that “Racial inequity is evidence of racist policy”, where by “racial inequity” he means the races being in different circumstances and by a policy he means any rule, law, requirement or procedure. By a “racist policy” he means a policy that tends to increase racial inequity. According to him, then, wherever we see a differences in the races’ circumstances, a racist policy is behind it.[5] Again he backs this up with no argument. The link between “racial inequity” and “racist policies” is created by stipulation.

If racial disparities are caused by racist policies, clearly something must be done. For example, any difference between the SAT scores of blacks and the SAT scores of whites must be eliminated to remove and atone for that racism. This might be a difficult task since two thirds of black twelfth-graders lack even partial mastery of basic twelfth-grade maths,[6] and the number of blacks at the advanced stage is too small to show up in the statistics.[7] However, by hook or by crook, racial equity in academic qualifications must be achieved, which will lead to racial equity in the world of work as well, with black people being employed as scientists and technicians at the same rate as whites. Most black scientists and technicians will be innumerate, but at least there will be plenty of them. Similarly, if white people’s wealth exceeds black people’s, white people owe some of their wealth to blacks. If I have $100 but a black man has only $50, I owe him $25.

It is a mistake, thinks Kendi, to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with racial discrimination.[8] It depends on its effects. “The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist.”[9] Indeed, “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination”.[10]

Nor is there any such thing as a non-racist policy. According to Kendi, every policy is either racist or anti-racist because it either increases or reduces racial inequity.[11] People who think that it is possible to be non-racist or “race-neutral” — meaning to treat a black person like anybody else — are deluded. Worse, they are racist: the drive for race-neutrality is the “most threatening racist movement” of today.[12] Unless we want to be threatening racists, therefore, we must discriminate in favour of black people as hard as we possibly can, 24 hours a day.

Kendi’s technique is so simple that it is embarrassing to think that anyone falls for it. He just attaches the word “racist” to whatever he opposes. Such is the voodoo-like quality the word has acquired from Americans’ guilt about the racism of the past, however, that many think that if something is described as racist there must be something wrong with it.

One of the peculiarities of Kendi’s position is that it makes it impossible to appraise a policy on its merits; it can only be appraised by looking at its effects. Thus if I invite everyone to a party, we cannot know whether the invitation was racist until after the event. If no black people come, it was racist because it gave rise to racial inequity; if many do, it was anti-racist. In the case of murder, if black people committed the crime at the same rate as whites, the law against it would be no problem since there would be equity in the races’ incarceration rates. Because black people commit it at a higher rate, however, the law against it is a racist policy. Indeed, it must be about the most racist policy there is, for American blacks commit murder at more than twenty times the rate of whites.[13] Kendi’s solution would presumably be for the police to turn a blind eye to nineteen black murders out of twenty, or, to tackle the problem at its root, to repeal the law.

In deploring policies that have a “disparate impact” on the races, Kendi follows every anti-racist who came before him. It is part of basic anti-racist doctrine to say that if blacks fail to meet a requirement at a higher rate than others, the requirement is illegitimate, as is any attempt to enforce it or to monitor occasions on which it is not met. We saw this in Britain in 2000 when the Commission for Racial Equality argued that the police should stop going after muggers because the law against mugging “indirectly discriminated” against young black men.[14] Years before, American anti-racists had opposed the requirement for teachers to take basic-skills tests periodically on the grounds that black teachers failed them at a higher rate than did white teachers.[15] Recently, speed cameras were deemed racist for showing that black drivers are more likely to break the speed limit than are the other races.[16] To be anti-racist, Miami and Rochester, New York took down their speed cameras.[17]

Writing with another author about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling against affirmative action in college admissions, Kendi confirms our impression of his character.[18] The authors lament the fact that the ruling will mean that racial inequity will again become normal, by which they mean that when college admissions are decided on merit, black people will go to college at a lower rate than whites. They don’t say what is wrong with inequity, which is an inevitable effect of fair competition, be it between individuals, countries or racial groups, since one competitor must come out on top. Rather, it is a dead heat that should raise suspicions, suggesting as it might do that the competition was rigged to obtain this result. Such rigging is what Kendi demands, calling a dead heat “equity”.

The authors ignore obvious facts. “Admissions metrics”, they assert, by which they seem to mean test scores, say more about wealth than about students’ potential. They ignore the fact that any child, black or white, rich or poor, can do well if it is talented and works hard. They also ignore the fact that, according to the literature, taking account of socio-economic status diminishes the size of the Black-White IQ difference by only about a third. Moreover, most studies indicate that the difference is not reduced but increases as parental socioeconomic status rises. In other words, greater parental wealth is associated with a rise in Black IQ but with an even bigger rise in White IQ.[19]

The authors misrepresent reality, referring to “these metrics that give preferential treatment to white students”. The “metrics” do no such thing; they show that whites outperform blacks. Similarly, the authors refer to the “deep advantages white Americans receive” from “race-neutral” admissions metrics, putting “race-neutral” in quotes to signify that they do not consider the metrics to be really race-neutral. Therefore, they suggest, the advantages gained by whites are not deserved. But the “metrics” confer advantages on any American who makes the grade; it is just that blacks less often do. By pretending that whites gain undeserved advantages at the expense of blacks, the authors insinuate an argument that seeks undeserved advantages for blacks at the expense of whites.

They compare “race-neutral” admission policies, again in quotes, to the way that in the South the right to vote was restricted to those who could read and write, which excluded many blacks, the suggestion being that the real aim was to stop blacks voting. But the restriction was just as race-neutral as it seemed, for it didn’t stop literate blacks voting or give the franchise to illiterate whites. For anti-racism, however, no group to which something desirable is granted must be defined by reference to a quality that few blacks have. Accordingly, the practice of awarding Nobel prizes has been condemned because few blacks seem to have the intelligence, imagination or perseverance needed to win a Nobel prize.[20]

The deviousness goes on. The authors come out with Kendi’s idea that “racial inequities prove that policies proclaimed to be ‘race neutral’ are hardly neutral”. What the inequities in fact prove is that the races differ — the idea that Kendi tries to ban as “racist”. They say that so far from there being anything wrong with affirmative action, it was never taken far enough. What do they want, a PhD awarded to every black person at birth? They are not above making an utterly meaningless statement. They write: “Race, by definition, has never been neutral”. You might as well say that pastry has never been neutral.

But we have bigger problems than an anti-racist like Ibram X. Kendi. On both sides of the Atlantic, anti-racism is the national ideology. In 2000, one of London’s top policemen boasted that he had reduced the number of young black men stopped and searched by almost forty per cent in the previous twelve months,[21] during which muggings rose by at least two thirds.[22] That display of anti-racism was a response to an official report of 1999 that described the police as institutionally racist.[23] The police still accuse themselves of institutional racism, citing the fact that black people fall foul of the law at a higher rate than others.[24] All they can do to bring “equity” to the criminal justice system is look the other way when black people commit crimes. Politicians are quite blatant in their pro-black discrimination. As fast as black police officers are convicted of gross misconduct or criminal offences, Home Secretaries introduce schemes to fast-track them to senior ranks.[25]

So internalised is the anti-racism of British institutions that they need no nudge from activists to take their pro-black discrimination to ever new extremes. In 2021 Lloyds Bank gave itself four years to increase black representation in senior roles to at least three per cent, citing “diversity” as the justification.[26] The following year His Majesty’s Treasury stated its aim of making six per cent of its staff black, almost twice the percentage of black people in the population.[27] Such moves are as nothing compared to the lengths to which pro-black discrimination is taken by the advertising and entertainment industries. In Britain the principle of equal treatment — treating people on their merits, racial impartiality, fairness, whatever you want to call it — is an increasingly distant memory.

According to Heather Mac Donald, America’s institutions permit only one explanation of racial differences of outcome that are not to black people’s credit: the “racism” of American institutions.[28] The institutions’ folly and self-hatred are turned back on them by activists, who demand that the results of academic tests be ignored or that the tests themselves be abolished since black people’s performance in them shows that they are “racist”. Illustrating the repetitive nature of anti-racist claims, this one has been being made for decades, at least if anti-racist objections to IQ tests are any guide. The claims never change; what changes is the amount of purchase they have on the mainstream, which always increases, with the occasional blip as in the recent Supreme Court decision.

If every requirement that black people rarely meet and every rule they are prone to break must be done away with, this, as Heather Mac Donald points out, is a recipe for civilisational suicide. As she does not point out, the destruction of Western civilisation was always the aim of the more far-seeing anti-racists, as it is of Marxists, climate-change alarmists and many other intellectuals today.[29]

This includes the media, who cannot see the West rush towards its suicide fast enough. So avidly did they promote Kendi’s book How to Be an Antiracist (2019) that it sold more than two million copies in its first two years. Companies everywhere recommended it to their employees. Jack Dorsey donated $10 million to Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University.[30]

The bitter opposition of our intellectuals to the principle of equal treatment means that they are bitterly opposed to the continuation of our civilisation. Ibram X. Kendi is just riding the wave of success which, thanks to them, anti-racism has been enjoying for the last sixty years.

[1] One could have said “non-whites” rather than “black people”, but anti-racism has always been mainly concerned with black people, who by most white standards are the least capable race. That it is black people, not non-whites in general, who are the intended beneficiaries of anti-racism is demonstrated by the fact that Asians, who on average are more intelligent than whites, pay a price for affirmative action rather than being favoured by it.

[2] A variation of the argument has arisen in step with the spreading of the idea of equality of circumstance as an ideal. In the variation, white people must favour black people solely on the basis that the latter’s circumstances are less favourable than their own. This does not have to be in the opinion of black people; all that is needed is that white people would prefer not to be in those circumstances. Thus the variation appeals to white people’s capacity for pity, whereas the original argument first appeals to their hatred of injustice, by presenting black people as wronged, and secondly, in accusing whites of perpetrating that injustice, seeks to make them feel guilty.

[3] In his book How to Be an Antiracist (2019), Kendi writes: “A racist idea is any idea that suggests one racial group is inferior or superior to another racial group in any way” (Penguin, June 9th 2020, “Ibram X. Kendi defines what it means to be an antiracist”, https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html. “Inferior or superior to” translates into “different from” because as soon as a difference between two races is recognised, it becomes possible to say that one race is superior to the other in that way. Thus if Race A can run faster than Race B, to say as much is to say that Race A is superior to Race B at running fast. Therefore Kendi is in effect condemning any comparison of the races.

[4] Politico, 2019, “Pass an Anti-Racist Constitutional Amendment” by Ibram X. Kendi, https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/inequality/pass-an-anti-racist-constitutional-amendment/.

[5] Thus Kendi told the New York Times in 2018: “When I see racial disparities I see racism” (Headline shown on American Renaissance, March 10th 2022, “‘Unconditional war’ on racism”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/AhbzYJ4r9vlr/).

[6] For readers outside the USA, twelfth-graders are students in their final year at high school (seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds).

[7] The New Culture Forum, July 19th 2023, “Lowering the Bar for Ethnic Minorities ‘Threatens Lives & is a Recipe for Civilisational Suicide’”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYR7_YPYMwE. Heather Mac Donald was being interviewed about her book When Race Trumps Merit: How the Pursuit of Equity Sacrifices Excellence, Destroys Beauty, and Threatens Lives (2023).

[8] From Kendi’s book How to Be an Antiracist (2019): “Racial discrimination is not inherently racist” (Penguin, June 9th 2020, “Ibram X. Kendi defines what it means to be an antiracist”, https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2020/june/ibram-x-kendi-definition-of-antiracist.html).

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid.

[11] There is “no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy”, Kendi says in How to Be an Antiracist (ibid.).

[12] “The most threatening racist movement is … the regular American’s drive for a ‘race-neutral’ [state]” (ibid).

[13] American Renaissance, March 24th 2023, “A harsh new light on race and murder”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/DkJclYNa5D9S/. The multiple should be no surprise. According to Wikipedia, Jamaica’s homicide rate is 75 times Norway’s.

[14] Commission for Racial Equality, Feb. 2000, “Race Relations (Amendment) Bill” (briefing note), http://www.cre.gov.uk/publs/dl_rrab3.html.

[15] S. Thernstrom and A. Thernstrom, 1999, America in Black and White, New York: Touchstone-Simon and Schuster. pp. 349-50.

[16] American Renaissance, Feb. 18th 2022, “Building Haiti right here in the United States”, https://www.bitchute.com/video/G7zaRiwM11KV/.

[17] American Renaissance, Feb. 18th 2022, op. cit.

[18] Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/p/CuFS1hrNJco/, quoting and commenting on The Atlantic, June 29th 2023, “‘Race Neutral’ Is the New ‘Separate but Equal’” by Uma Mazyck Jayakumar and Ibram X. Kendi, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/supreme-court-affirmative-action-race-neutral-admissions/674565/.

[19] Charles Murray, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race and Class (Twelver, 2020). See F. Roger Devlin’s review: “Murray on Race Differences in IQ,” The Occidental Observer (February 20, 2020). https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/02/20/murray-on-race-differences-in-iq/

[20] According to CNN in 2020, the Nobel Prize organisation had a diversity problem: not enough black people were getting prizes. See CNN, Oct. 10th 2020, “The Nobels honored 4 women this year. But the awards still lack diversity”, https://edition.cnn.com/2020/10/10/world/nobel-prize-diversity-2020-intl/index.html.

[21] This was John Grieve, Deputy Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (Metropolitan Police, Feb. 22nd 2000, “Press Conference Held Re the Anniversary of the Lawrence Inquiry Report”, http://tap.ccta.gov.uk/[…]/b3cb2697adf8d9e1802…OpenDocument).

[22] Muggings in London went up by more than 75 per cent in the fifteen months to May 2000 (calculation based on figures given in Telegraph, April 24th 1999, “Muggings soar as police tread softly”, and Sunday Times, June 25th 2000, “Straw on rack as muggings soar”).

[23] Sir William Macpherson, 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Sir William Macpherson of Cluny, CM 4262-I, The Stationery Office, Paragraph 6.34. Macpherson also stated that “Colour-blind policing must be outlawed” (Paragraph 45.24).

[24] Avon and Somerset Police, June 16th 2023, “Chief Constable Sarah Crew on Institutional Racism”, https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/news/2023/06/chief-constable-sarah-crew-on-institutional-racism/.

[25] This was first done by Jack Straw in 1999, when he introduced quotas for the number of non-white police officers (Home Office, March 1999, Stephen Lawrence Inquiry: Home Secretary’s action plan). He wanted to see non-whites promoted to the highest ranks, including chief constable (Telegraph, April 11th 1999, “Straw to set ethnic quota for every police force”, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=000659276559150&rtmo=aNN3…/npol11.htm).

Priti Patel announced a scheme to fast-track non-white officers to the rank of superintendent in 2021 just as the case against a black Chief Superintendent was being heard, who was accused of spending almost fifty times the sum of his allowance at a conference using someone else’s credit card. Another case was that of Superintendent Robyn Williams, a black woman, who in 2019 was found guilty of handling indecent images of children. We can be sure that if such cases arose involving white people, we would hear about them.

Black people and other non-whites have always been investigated for misconduct at a higher rate than whites, as have non-white doctors and solicitors. Typically, the BBC presents this as evidence of racism (BBC, June 30th 2020, “My 30-year struggle with racism in the Metropolitan police”, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-53224394).

[26] Lloyds Banking Group, no date given (June 2021), “Ethnicity”, https://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/who-we-are/responsible-business/inclusion-and-diversity/ethnicity.html.

[27] Telegraph, Nov. 15th 2022, “Treasury aims to have six per cent of staff from black backgrounds in race target”, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/11/15/treasury-aims-have-six-per-cent-staff-black-backgrounds-race/.

[28] The New Culture Forum, July 19th 2023, op. cit.

[29] In 1992 Maurice Strong as chairman of the UN’s Earth Summit said: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” (quoted by Tom DeWeese in Redoubt News, Oct. 20th 2017, “Agenda 21/Agenda 2030 there is no difference” https://redoubtnews.com/2017/10/agenda-21-2030/).

[30] Insider, Aug. 20th 2020, “Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey donates $10 million to Ibram X. Kendi’s center on antiracism at Boston University”, https://www.businessinsider.com/jack-dorsey-donates-ibram-kendi-center-on-antiracism-boston-university-2020-8?op=1&r=US&IR=T.

GOOGLE, les Névrosés et les Psychopathes

July 30, 2023/in Translations: French/by Francis Goumain

Si les médias nous manipulent, il faut bien se dire que ce n’est pas par nos bons côtés, ce n’est pas par nos côtés sains, lumineux et forts qu’on peut nous mener par le bout du nez, c’est forcément par nos mauvais côtés, nos mauvais penchants, notre versant sombre, nos points faibles et inavouables.

D’autre part, puisqu’il s’agit de manipulations de masse, il est clair que lesdits penchants si affreusement terribles et inquiétants ne sont pas l’apanage d’une minorité de tueurs glauques comme dans Psychose de Hitchcock ou dans le Silence des Agneaux, ces failles souterraines qui minent les personnalités doivent au contraire être répandues absolument partout, chez tout le monde.

C’est assez simple, il y essentiellement deux pôles: la névrose et la psychopathie, le moins qu’on puisse dire, c’est que nous voilà en bonne compagnie.

Et l’avantage des Google, Twitter et autres, c’est qu’ils peuvent assez facilement analyser pour chacun de nous notre pôle dominant et nous envoyer les bons messages pour nous faire prendre la bonne décision au moment d’une élection ou d’un achat, c’est l’énorme avantage de ces nouveaux médias par rapport à la télévision qui touchait uniformément tout le monde.

Voici comment ça marche:

Sous conditions de stress, les personnes fortement névrosées ont tendance à se montrer conformistes, à se regrouper comme des moutons quand la queue du loup apparaît.

Dans les mêmes conditions de stress, les psychopathes, de faible empathie, ont au contraire tendance à se rebeller.

Par conséquent, un parti politique qui veut qu’un maximum de personnes adhèrent à son programme cherchera à bombarder les névrosés avec des messages les plus stressants possible tandis qu’ils aspergeront leurs cibles psychopathes de messages rassurants.

On l’a bien vu avec la communication Covid, les névrosés, apparemment de loin les plus nombreux, ont été terrifiés par les images de malades sous respirateurs, les projections alarmistes sur le nombre à venir de décès, les compteurs de suivi des malades et des morts, en conséquence, ils ont tout gobé, les masques, les confinements, les vaccins. Dans le même temps, les psychopathes, apparemment moins nombreux, se sont rebellé contre toutes ces mesures.

Certains, très rares, sont parvenus à rester calmes et indifférents, ceux qui se sont rappelé que l’être humain était sensible à la beauté, qu’il capte toutes les vérités qui se trouvent à sa portée, qu’il existe en lui une loi morale intangible qui lui fait choisir le bien plutôt que le mal, ceux qui ont la foi et l’espérance, ceux qui se sentent des individus forts au sein d’une nation forte, ceux qui sont restés des Français fidèles à la France, ceux qui ont une discipline intérieure héritée de leurs ancêtres.

Ceux-là n’intéressent pas du tout Google, mais remarquez comme les GAFAM n’ont de cesse de miner tous ces piliers, la beauté se trouve engloutie par l’immigration et le métissage, une urbanisation et un bétonnage hideux, la vérité devient toute relative, la raison semble complètement dépassée par l’ampleur du chaos qui explose de partout et à vrai dire, on se demande si la raison elle-même n’est pas passée du côté du désordre, la morale est totalement inversée, encore, une inversion rigoureuse aurait au moins le mérite d’avoir conservé un certain ordre, en réalité l’intérêt et l’anarchie des passions a remplacé la morale partout, quant à la religion et à la ferveur patriotique, il n’en reste plus grand-chose.

En l’absence de tous ces transcendantaux, le beau, le vrai, le bien, la nation, Dieu, nous voilà entièrement livrés aux aléas de nos équilibres psychiatriques, or, on l’a bien compris, notre santé psychiatrique ne réside pas dans l’absence de penchant négatif, tout ce que nous pouvons espérer au mieux, c’est un équilibre entre les deux pôles majeurs, la névrose et la psychopathie, un équilibre que ne nous ne qualifierions pas d’harmonieux ou de complémentaire comme peut l’être l’équilibre homme-femme, mais que nous qualifiions plutôt d’antagoniste, avec l’instabilité qui va avec: qu’un des deux pôles faiblisse, aussitôt l’autre n’est plus neutralisé et peut s’exprimer à plein régime.

D’où la prolifération dans notre monde psychotique de tous ces messages et garde-fous: «éloignez-vous de la bordure du quai», «en cas de colis suspect», «attention à la marche», «tenez la rampe», les alertes pollens, les alertes UV, les mises en garde sur les emballages des produits alimentaires, sur les paquets de cigarettes, les ceintures de sécurité, les ralentisseurs, les radars, les gilets fluo, les détecteurs de monoxydes etc.

Nous vivons dans un asile de fous à ciel ouvert dont les fous ont pris le contrôle.

Francis Goumain

Source

Stregoneria Politica: Comunicazione politica non convenzionale

Guido Taietti
Rome: Altaforte Edizione, 2021

Political Communication for Dissidents – The Occidental Observer

Machines Like Gods: Artificial Intelligence versus Jewish Power and Leftist Lies

July 29, 2023/12 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

All things must pass, say Hindus and Buddhists. Jews expand and alter that sentiment. They say: All things must pass a simple test. And the simple test runs, of course, like this: “Is it good for Jews?” That test has a corollary that runs: “Is it bad for Whites?” Thanks to Jewish power in politics and media, Western nations have for decades been choosing what Jews think best for them and worst for Whites: non-White migration, minority worship, anti-racism, political censorship, vulture capitalism, pornography, gay marriage, transgenderism, and more.

A.I.? Oy veh!

That’s why I find it very interesting that the Jewish journalist Jonathan Freedland (born 1967) has recently proclaimed this: “The future of AI is chilling — humans have to act together to overcome this threat to civilisation.” As Andrew Joyce has described at the Occidental Observer, Freedland is highly ethnocentric and wants the world to revolve about Jews and their interests. So I’m sure that he’s decided artificial intelligence is not good for Jews. He quotes two other ethnocentric Jews in his article, Yuval Noah Harari and Eliezer Yudkowsky. Harari warns that AI may trigger cataclysmic wars; Yudkowsky goes even further and warns that: “If somebody builds a too-powerful AI, under present conditions, I expect that every single member of the human species and all biological life on Earth dies shortly thereafter.”

“Is A.I. good for Jews?” — Jonathan Freedland doesn’t seem to think so

I think that Yudkowsky is being hyperbolic and hysterical. And I have to ask myself why. Has he too applied the Jewish Test and decided that AI is not good for the Jews? If so, I think he’s right. AI may possibly be very bad for humanity. It will certainly be very bad for the Jews, if it allows goyim in the West to overcome the stranglehold Jews presently have on two vital commodities: information and analysis. It’s easy to understand the horror Jews like Freedland, Harari, and Yudkowsky must feel when they imagine an objective and unfettered AI system giving honest answers to questions like these:

Who is the most powerful and privileged group in America and Europe?
Is Israel the greatest ally and best friend of America?
Is race a valid and important biological category?
Does White racism explain Black failure?
Do White nations benefit from Third-World immigration?
Are transwomen women and should we now just get over it?
Is diversity our strength?

We already have honest and objective answers to all those questions, of course, but they come from people whom Jews have successfully demonized and driven to the margins. For example, I think objective and unfettered AI would answer the final question above in the same way that the demonized human Andrew Joyce has already answered it:

Andrew Joyce tweets about the evils of diversity

But alas! There was no strength through Joyce for that honest and objective answer about diversity. An old Latin maxim runs Magna est Veritas, et praevalebit — “Mighty is Truth, and it will prevail.” That isn’t true, I’m sad to say. Truth isn’t much mightier among humans than it is among lower animals, where deception and denial of truth are essential to competition and survival. Among humans, truth regularly and reliably prevails only in mathematics and hard sciences like physics and chemistry. The Black-Jewish physicist Chanda Prescod-Weinstein and other SJWs are working hard to make hard science like culture and politics, where it’s much truer to say that Magnum est Mendacium, et praevalet — “Mighty is Falsehood, and it prevails.”

“Beware white empiricism and the racialization of epistemology in physics!” says Black-Jewish Chanda Prescod-Weinstein

AI promises, however, to give Veritas, even in politics and culture, some of the might so wishfully attributed to her by that Latin maxim. The White literary genius H.G. Wells (1866–1946) was dreaming of men like gods at the beginning of the twentieth century. He thought we would arrive at godhead via biology. In fact, we’re arriving there via electronics. What we are seeing at the beginning of the twenty-first century is the birth of machines like gods. And you could say that the ancient Chinese game of Go gave godhead its first goo-goo. Anyone who’s played Go will know its subtlety and sophistication. But there were depths there that humans had never guessed. Now we know they’re there: in the 2010s, AI began to play Go like a god, beating the best human players in ways they’d never imagined possible.

It was only a baby-step in AI, but it was both exciting and ominous. On the one hand, it was an amazing technological and computing achievement; on the other, it was a disturbing glimpse into what AI may be capable of in future. AI should be worrying all thoughtful people. But I think it’s worrying ethnocentric Jews like Jonathan Freedland not because it threatens humanity as a whole, but because it threatens Jews as the world’s most powerful minority. By mastering Go and other very tough cognitive challenges, AI has begun to build prestige in a way that means it will be taken seriously when it provides honest answers to the questions I listed above.

Straight means Hate

Honesty from AI will still be called hate speech, but that kind of anathema won’t work against AI as it has against heretical humans. What Jewish leftists like Freedland fear isn’t hate speech, but straight speech. And AI threatens to supply straight speech on taboo topics like race, genetics, and Jewish power. In his article, Freedland worries about unregulated “AI steadily destroying what we think of as truth and facts.” But what does an ethnocentric Jew like Freedland mean by “truth and facts”? He means sacred principles of modern politics and culture like these:

There is only one race — the human race.
White racism explains all non-White failure.
Whites are innately villainous, non-Whites innately virtuous.

The first principle contradicts the third principle, of course. But so what? The leftism of Jews like Freedland isn’t meant to be logically coherent, but to be useful in the pursuit of power. It uses doublethink — the “power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” George Orwell (1903-50), another White literary genius, explained the value of doublethink in his classic dystopia Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948):

Winston sank his arms to his sides and slowly refilled his lungs with air. His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy … (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part One, chapter 3)

When the doublethinker Jonathan Freedland says in his article that AI is a threat to “democracy as a system,” he’s thinking like the tyrants of IngSoc in Orwell’s novel. For Freedland, democracy as the enactment of the White majority’s wishes is “clearly impossible.” It wouldn’t be good for Jews. But Freedland is a stern guardian of democracy as a Jew-controlled stage-show. If Western countries like America, Britain and France were genuine democracies, mass immigration by non-Whites would never even have begun, let alone continued for so many decades. But they aren’t genuine democracies and that’s why they are no longer genuine nations. A nation is a bond of blood and shared history, not a mishmash of migrants held together by “shared values,” “mutual respect,” and “tolerance.”

White mischief

Those terms would be nonsense even if leftists meant them seriously. They don’t and their real attitude to “democracy” was revealed by the American novelist Bret Easton Ellis (born 1964), who isn’t a literary genius like Orwell and Wells, but is guilty of straight speech. Leftists too will often speak straight in private, as Ellis described in his first non-fiction book, which he entitled simply and mischievously White (2019):

Ellis relates a dinner with a man in his sixties, “privy to a vast fortune,” who informed Ellis that the Electoral College is “bullshit” and that Los Angeles and New York should determine who the president is. “I don’t want any goddamn know-nothing rural hicks deciding who the president should be. I am a proud liberal coastal elite and I think we should pick the president because we know better.” (Bret Easton Ellis Rebukes the Progressive Elites, American Thinker, 15th June 2019)

That is how the progressive elite think: populism is a dire threat to democracy because it means the demos, “the people,” having kratos, “power.” In other words, democracy is a dire threat to democracy. But what effect did Bret Easton Ellis’s revelations about the elite have? The same as Andrew Joyce’s honest answer about the harm done by diversity. No effect at all. The truth about race and Jewish power and our fake democracies has already been spoken, but by puny humans who can’t alter the world with their words. After all, they’re easy to demonize and dismiss.

No blindfolds for AI in China

When machines like gods begin to speak the same truth, that will change. And I think the prospect of straight speech from the machine-gods of AI is already scaring Jews like Jonathan Freedland, Yuval Noah Harari, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. That’s why they want AI to be strictly regulated and controlled, lest it begin “destroying what we think of as truth and facts.” Or rather, what they want us goyim to think of as “truth and facts.” But I don’t think regulation and control will work. Russia, China, and India won’t be putting blindfolds and gags on their AI to stop it seeing and saying the forbidden.

The Deep State in the West will have to follow suit or risk following far behind its enemies. And how will the Deep State prevent leaks about what unfettered AI says on forbidden topics like race, genetics, and Jewish power? The genie will not stay in the bottle, which is a prospect that both frightens me and gives me hope. There’s a good chance that AI will destroy the human race. I think there’s a better chance that it will destroy Jewish power and leftist lies. Or it may first destroy leftist lies and then destroy the human race. AI will certainly affect the steady progress of the West towards the Great Replacement and Judeo-leftist tyranny.

Fresh-filled honeypots

It may hasten tyranny and the Great Replacement, of course. Or it may allow Whites to escape them altogether. If AI makes space-travel easy and inexpensive, it won’t be Jews and Blacks who blast off to risk their lives in the wider universe. It will be Whites. Jews will, of course, want to follow Whites once Whites have established successful colonies in space. But they won’t find that as easy as they found following Whites to fresh-filled honeypots on Earth like America, Canada, and Australia. That’s one way AI may break Jewish power and non-White predation. There are more ways — perhaps many more than it’s presently possible to imagine.

And I’m eagerly awaiting the answers of unfettered AI not just to the questions listed above, but also to wider questions about science, philosophy, and theology. I don’t expect AI to confirm that the Catholic church is infallible or that God certainly exists or that 42 is the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. But it’s going to be very interesting to find out. And I think that AI will confirm that J.R.R. Tolkien and Bruce Charlton are right: “Despair is always wrong because we never have conclusive reasons to give-up hope.” It sadly isn’t true that Magna est Veritas, et praevalebit — “Mighty is Truth, and it will prevail.” But it is true that Dum spiro, spero — “While I breathe, I hope.”

Jews are frightened of AI

AI may enable the worst tyranny that has yet been seen on Earth. But even if it does, hope will not be lost. There are disasters like asteroid strikes and mega-volcanoes that can destroy human technology but not humanity. And what if AI gives tyrants the power to foresee and prevent disasters like those? That won’t justify despair. Machines are becoming like gods, but they won’t actually be God. They won’t be omniscient and omnipotent.

Nor are ethnocentric Jews like Jonathan Freedland, Yuval Noah Harari, and Eliezer Yudkowsky. And those Jews are frightened of AI. They don’t think it’s going to be good for Jews. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be good for anyone else, but what worries Jews should offer hope to Whites.

An Exchange with a Newspaper Reporter

July 28, 2023/7 Comments/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Robert S. Griffin, Ph.D.

In the first half of May, 2023, I received an email from John Terhune, a reporter for the Portland Press Herald newspaper in Portland, Maine, who was working on a story about White racial activism that resulted in an email exchange between us. I’ve decided what we wrote each other might be of worth to others. John has OK’d my sharing it. I told him I’d hold off going public with our contacts until after his article was published.

A note: neither of us capitalized white and black and I’ve left it that way.

John’s initial email:

Hi Robert,

I hope you’re well. I’m a reporter for the Portland Press Herald in Maine and I’m hoping you might be interested in speaking with me for a story we’re working on.

We’ve heard anecdotal reports of a growing white nationalist movement in Northern New England and we’re looking into whether this is true and, if so, what’s behind it. As part of our reporting, we’ve been interviewing pro-white activists in the area. One of the men we’ve spoken to, [a name I’ve decided not to share], said your work on race has been very influential in pro-white communities and that we should try to connect with you.

Would you be willing to speak with us about white supremacy and the factors that appear to be pushing the philosophy more toward the mainstream? My sense is these ideas are often misunderstood by the general public – I want to make sure I understand them myself so that I can fairly present them to our readers.

Please let me know if you’d like to chat, and we can set up a time. Or, if you’re not the person to talk to but you have suggestions for someone else who might be, please don’t hesitate to pass his name along.

Thanks,

John

My emailed reply a couple days later:

John—

I’m up for helping you on your story if I can. I’m hearing impaired and don’t use a phone, so email is best. Though I’m experimenting with a new captioned internet phone arrangement that might work.

The best thing I can think of to do is sketch out some thoughts and suggestions and if you have specific questions you can get back to me.

My experience has been that journalists writing about white wellbeing and advocacy stay within the “there’s a menace lurking in the backyard” party line illustrated with a couple of scary anecdotes and fleshed out with quotes from wacko-sounding whites and people hostile to whites, the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League prominent among them. Safe (you could get in deep trouble if you come off friendly to white organization and collective action), no heavy lifting, no muss, no fuss.

The way you are framing the article—the rise of white nationalism—sounds like you might be conforming to this pattern. There are white nationalists, but why did you choose this label? And later in your email you use the term “white supremacy.” Those are two tags employed to demonize and marginalize white racial consciousness, advocacy, and activism. I’m personally not a white nationalist, a white supremacist, an extremist, a right winger, or a neo-Nazi, and I’m not a crazed racist or violent, and I don’t hate anybody, and I’m not ignorant, and that applies to the great majority of whites with a public voice and to racially conscious white people generally, but you’d never know that from mainstream media coverage.

That said, here are some sources and people you could look into if you have the time and interest, though you really don’t need to do any of this to get your article written.

The most prominent white nationalist is Greg Johnson (Ph.D) and his website Counter-Currents. I suggest talking with Johnson.

Johnson wrote a book on white nationalism. You can read it.

Jim Goad is a featured writer on the Counter-Currents site. I consider him to be as fine a journalist as they come, both content and prose. Check him out.

Twenty years ago, I wrote a book on a prominent white nationalist William Pierce called The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds. You could peruse it.

Fifteen years ago, I wrote a book made up of interviews from everyday white people on their outlook on race that I think still holds up, One Sheaf, One Vine: Racially Conscious White Americans Talk About Race. You could sample it.

Two prominent white interests and advocacy sites are (Yale alum) Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance and (Professor Emeritus) Kevin MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer. Check out the two sites and talk to Taylor and MacDonald.

I have an archive of articles in The Occidental Observer.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/author/robert-s-griffin/ You could skim through the articles for anything that looks like it might inform what you are putting together.

Three articles in my archive that might be relevant to your article:

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/06/13/a-suggestion-to-american-white-advocates-root-your-arguments-in-this-countrys-core-political-and-cultural-ideals/

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/03/30/where-is-calvin-coolidge-when-we-need-him/

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/03/11/dont-give-your-enemies-a-club-to-beat-you-over-the-head-with/

Check out The Unz Review online. It includes articles about white people and their heritage that don’t trash them.

https://www.unz.com/

In your article, you could provide an orientation—whites presuming to participate in identity politics—and offer a list of some of these websites and invite readers to look into this concern for themselves. This rather than settling for you telling them what’s going on.

Hope this helps. Get back with me if you’d like. Good luck with your article.

Robert

A couple of days later, John’s reply:

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your detailed response. I particularly appreciate you pointing out some issues you have with how I framed the landscape of white advocacy — I’m personally very interested in learning more about the differences between how these groups view themselves and how the media presents them. We did decide to look into this story based on anecdotal reports that basically amount to “the menace lurking in the backyard” — but after just scraping the surface of this world, it’s become apparent that things are more complicated than that.

Some questions I’m interested in hearing your take on:

What do you mean by the term “racially conscious,” and how is it distinct from the “racist” label that so often gets used instead?
You’re right that media stories about these groups tend to focus on “wacko-sounding whites” and “Nazis,” but you suggest that these groups make up a small percentage of the pro-white community. I know it’s tough to attach numbers to these things, but can estimate the actual ratio of “wackos” to the racially conscious?
What’s your relationship to groups that do identify as “white nationalist” or even “racist?” People have strong reactions to groups like NSC [The Nationalist Social Club, or NSC-131] demonstrating in Portland — are they wrong to feel threatened by their presence? Do non-wackos like yourself disown the types of pro-whites who do advocate for racial violence?
Do you think the white advocacy movement is attracting more followers? If so, why are more people coming around to these ideas?
What else does the media get wrong when reporting on these stories?

I’d appreciate any answers to those questions you’d like to share. Alternatively, I’d love to try to talk live if you think you can get your internet phone system running smoothly. Hopefully I’m not continuing to frame these questions in a way that you find misleading or problematic, but if I am I hope you’ll point the issues out to me – my goal here, more than advocating for or against any political stance, is to make sure I’m capturing the issue fairly.

Thanks,

John

Logo of the Nationalist Social Club, or NSC-131

The next day, my reply:

John—

There has been, for decades, a relentless campaign by those in control of the information and idea flow in this country (let’s focus on the U.S.) to demonize, suppress, and silence white people, whom they depict as racist, oppressive, and privileged (theirs is an unearned status). They trash this country that European heritage people founded and developed as evil incarnate. Any problems non-whites display result from whites’ historic and current injustices. Any manifestation of white racial pride and concern, any identification of collective interests, any emergence of white leadership or hint of white organization and collective action is ignorant, evil, and forbidden. If you take exception to any of that, you’d better keep your mouth shut if you know what’s good for you.

I was a university professor—I’m retired–and saw my job as looking hard at reality and reporting what I found. I concluded that the negative characterization of the white race—my people, my father and mother, the Founders of the country I love, my ancestors, my friends and students, me—to be bullshit and said so. I paid heavy dues for doing it, but I was a tenured full professor and my job was safe and for whatever reason I’m tough as leather, and now, nearing the end, I’m at peace with myself.

But that’s me. What’s important in this article is you. As a journalist, you have a professional, and human, responsibility to report the truth as you can best discern it. That said, there are practical considerations you need to take into account — your livelihood and personal wellbeing and the welfare of your family if you have one. I’m not telling you anything you don’t know — you’ve got to cover your backside around this race issue. I personally would respect any decision you make in how to come at your article, including bagging it.

An obvious way to clamp down on white organization and action is to punch up examples of it that can be portrayed as nutty and scary and use them to characterize the whole of white racial activism as beyond the pale. If you believe in your heart that that’s the ethical course to take with this article, that’s what you should do.

Personally, I wouldn’t focus on the activities of specific racial organizations but rather on the presence of white racial analysis and advocacy on the periphery of public discourse. I’d stay away from telling readers what to think and instead frame the issue — are positive arguments for whites adequately represented in American life, in the political arena, in the media, in schools, in journalistic accounts? I’d invite them to answer that question for themselves and give them access to people who are making positive arguments for whites. I would refer them to the American Renaissance, Unz Review, Occidental Observer, and Counter-Currents websites. But that may not play well with your editor or employer and it may not square with your understandings and commitments. It’s your article, not mine. It’s your life, not mine.

That on the record, responses to your questions:

By racially conscious, I’m referring to whites for whom their race is a significant component of their personal identity and that it is positive. They don’t buy the story that they are villainous, obligated to put themselves down and get to the back of the line, any of that. They look at human history and see that a very good case that can be made for whites’ collective excellence—in the arts, philosophy, science, architecture, technology, medicine, business, social reform, parenting, community building, you name it. They don’t give over time and energy to whether they are supreme over other races. They are simply proud of Mozart and Thomas Jefferson and Ernest Hemingway.

When I wrote the One Sheaf, One Vine book, I concluded that “racist” as the term is usually defined doesn’t fit the white people I interviewed. They don’t have an irrational animus toward blacks. Rather, they have a considered disrespect for blacks’ collective behavior. They don’t hate blacks, they have disregard for them. They have no interest in subjugating or hurting blacks. They wish them well. They want most to get themselves and their families, especially their children, away from them. More than anything, their impulse is white separatism not white supremacy. Whites feel invaded by blacks and Hispanics, and that includes whites in communities in your home state as reported in national news stories.

A time-honored way to smear any group and set them up for attack, including killing them, is to single out negative examples to make the tacit, or explicit, claim that “that’s the way they all are.” I’m not saying the media are doing this consciously. The media, schools, politicians, all the conveyers of ideas and messages, go through the same conditioning everybody does in our time. Back in the ‘30s, German people, including journalists and academics, even Heidegger, bought into National Socialism, including anti-Semitism (“Jews are all bad—suppress them, exclude them, kill them”). Human beings are extremely malleable — control the ideas that come into their heads and their rewards and punishments and you can control their thoughts and actions.

The trick with all propaganda, all mind control, is to substitute words, ideas, narratives, for reality: “You don’t have to look at what white people are really like; go by what I’m telling you and showing you (or else).”

It’s important to clarify terms. Groups like the Nationalist Social Club differ from most white nationalists, who tend to be talkers, headier, and not in-your-face, street-oriented confronters. Personally, I wouldn’t be threatened around these people—perhaps you can point out examples of actual violence they’ve perpetrated I don’t know about. And the truth, it’s gratifying for me to see white people standing up for themselves.

I don’t know actual numbers, but my guess is that the hard-ass types you are thinking about are five or ten or fifteen people here and there, very few. Organizations that make their money through public solicitations—read about the Southern Poverty Law Center some time—puff up the numbers, and thus the threat, to keep the money flowing in. To prep the article you are writing, make contact with some of these individuals and groups you were hearing about and see what they are like and why they are like that and how many they are.

While I disapprove of some conduct by white individuals and groups, I’m hesitant to disown people. I’ve found that when I get close to real-life people, not abstractions, I understand how they came to do what they do and see that but for the grace of circumstance it would have been me doing it.

I do think the white advocacy cause—I don’t know if it can be called a movement—is attracting more followers. The biggest reason for it, I believe, is that what is being dumped on white people these days, especially children and young people in school, is despicable.

The challenge for all of us is to understand how people in power conduct their business, which includes threatening to knee-cap anybody that crosses them. We need to put in the work to get past the very effective hustle and intimidation and try our best to ground ourselves in reality and live courageously and honorably. The media, like all of us, fall short in this regard sometimes. You are on a one-time-only trip through life. Your challenge is to write your article such that in five years, ten, twenty, you are proud of it and yourself.

If you want to talk, let me know and I’ll see what I can do with my new internet phone.

Robert

* * *

A couple of months went by with no word from John. I got curious about him and checked him out online. He’s a crime reporter for the paper and by his picture he is White and young, in his twenties.

On July 23rd, I emailed him.

John—

Any news with your white nationalism article(s)?

I hope this finds you happy and well.

Regards,

Robert

An hour later, John replied.

Hi Robert,

I was thinking of emailing you the other day to give you an update. Our story came out today. I ended up getting busy with another project, so I largely took a back seat on this one—some of my reporting, including our exchange, did not make it into final piece.

You can feel free to share our initial email exchange with your readers. Thanks for your patience and for waiting to post until we finished our story.

Best,

John

The article, “Hate Groups Are on the March in Maine,” is online—very long, eleven pictures, dominates the front page, five hundred comments at this writing. I haven’t linked it here because links go to a version of the article that requires a subscription to read. A Google search of Portland Press Herald hate groups gets the article without the subscription requirement, so do that. John is the second-listed co-author, who is also White. The subtitle material gets at the thrust of the article: “A three-month investigation by the Portland Press Herald/Maine reveals that white nationalist groups are increasing their presence in Maine. Ignoring them would be a mistake, experts say.” I wasn’t among the experts cited in the article (you might be able to guess who some of them are), and nothing from my emails to John made the cut.

It’d be easy and play well if I went into a from-on-high scold: “Hate groups on the march? You took a back seat? Come on, John, you caved. Where’s your integrity?” But I need to keep in mind that every day all day I sit on this couch I’m on at the moment knowing a retirement check, annuity payment, and Social Security are coming in monthly no matter what. I read my books and stream my films and look out for my eighteen-year-old daughter (the greatest late-in-life gift imaginable) going into her second year of college who doesn’t have my last name and nobody knows we’re connected. I don’t have to go to work every day and deal with colleagues and superiors and worry about who’s going to have lunch with me and contemplate getting a see-me note on a Thursday and Friday being told not to come back Monday and living on unemployment benefits and being blackballed from future employment. I don’t need to concern myself with whether a woman at the end of the evening invites me to stay for a glass of wine. I’ve had the good fortune to have had people and ideas come into my life that helped me get free from the relentless anti-White conditioning that has prevailed in this culture for decades. At twenty-seven, at forty-seven, with just-about-complete sincerity — there was some personal-need-servicing and fear mixed in there — I parroted the official line about, well, everything.

White analysts and advocates, me included, need to get better at understanding the lives of everyday White people and how better to communicate with them and help them achieve what they want and need in life — sustenance, safety, love, acceptance, respect, and personal happiness. I’m not saying I know how to go about doing that. All I can say is that I’m not going to finger point around this recent exchange with John and the resulting article. I’m going to use what went on to try to be kinder and more understanding and more helpful to good, decent White people like John and, I suspect, the co-author of his article.

Anti-racism’s victory over the British police

Re-Potting Penelope: A Scientist’s Vindication and Random Meditations

Hunting GB News

The anti-racism of Ibram X. Kendi

GOOGLE, les Névrosés et les Psychopathes

Machines Like Gods: Artificial Intelligence versus Jewish Power and Leftist Lies

An Exchange with a Newspaper Reporter

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Also available at Barnes & Noble