First Amendment Blues: David Cole’s Dubious Doubts about Denial

/8 Comments/in /by

The subconscious speaks in symbols. Freud wasn’t the first to point that out. And we can see it in ourselves anyway. I saw it again when I first started reading articles by the Jew David Cole and the Russian Anatoly Karlin. I got two messages about them from different levels of my brain. My conscious told me: “They’re interesting and intelligent writers.” My subconscious told me: “They’re trying to pick your pocket!”

Do-Wrong Ron

In other words, my subconscious used the symbol of a pickpocket to tell me that Cole and Karlin were crooks who couldn’t be trusted. I think my subconscious was right. I also think I’m right to attribute Cole’s crookedness to his Jewishness. But I was maybe wrong to decide the same of Karlin. Yes, my subconscious said “Pickpocket!” about him too, but apparently he has little Jewish ancestry. But so what? Someone from Russia doesn’t need Jewish ancestry to be a crook, although the greed-crazed Jewish looting of post-communist Russia proves that it definitely helps. Like all Orthodox nations, Russia scores badly in indexes for corruption. This means that emigration by gentile Russians isn’t good for the West.

But it isn’t anywhere near as bad as Jewish emigration has been. Gentile Russians take advantage of high-trust Westerners, but they don’t wage war on the West in the way that Jews have done. David Cole is himself a good example of why Jews have been bad for the West. He condemns the Jewish presence in the West out of his own mouth, as I’ll try to show later. For now, let’s look at his recent complaints about the attitudes of Elon Musk and Ron Unz to free speech. It’s wrong and illogical, says Cole, that Musk and Unz have allowed their platforms to be flooded with Holocaust denial even though they don’t allow puppy-torture porn the same freedom. Why is this wrong and illogical? Well, Cole argues that Holocaust denial and repulsive pornography are both perfectly legal in America under the First Amendment. So why do Musk and Unz allow one and not the other?

Freedom for Logos, not for lust

I think the answer is obvious. I also think that the Supreme Court was wrong to affirm the legality of videos showing the torture and killing of puppies. Indeed, I think that American courts are wrong to allow any kind of pornography at all under the First Amendment. Here’s the argument. Crudely speaking, you could say that First Amendment is about freedom for words, not for wankers. More precisely, it’s about freedom for Logos, not for lust. In ancient Greek, the word logos literally meant “word,” but also carried the senses of “speech, discourse, reason, rationality, reasoned argument.” That’s why we get the word “logic” from logos. But pornography isn’t about logos: it’s about lust. Pornography isn’t “speech” in the sense intended by the White gentile framers of the First Amendment. It doesn’t appeal to our reason, it appeals to our genitals. And so there’s no contradiction in arguing that Holocaust denial should be legal and pornography shouldn’t. Holocaust denial is often based on logos, pornography isn’t. That’s why Cole is wrong when he says this: “Elon’s coddled buddy Gage (this is the guy baseball legend Curt Schilling retweeted) declared, ‘slay the Jews.’ Does ‘slay the Jews’ have more ‘value’ than ‘slay the puppies’?”

Puppy-torture videos don’t say “Slay the puppies.” Instead, they show puppies being slain in graphic and repulsive detail. They aren’t logos in the way that Holocaust denial is. Yes, Holocaust denial might be bad logos, written by retards for retards. But even if that’s true, Holocaust denial is still logos and still entitled to a hearing. David Cole argues that it’s written by retards for retards, of course. Believe it or not, I can see his point. I’m not a Holocaust denier myself. No, I’m a Holocaust agnostic. I don’t accept the official, ADL-certified story of the Sacred Six Million, but I’m not convinced by Ron Unz’s arguments that it never happened at all. I don’t say that Holocaust denial is right or wrong — I’m agnostic. That said, I’m not agnostic about Holocaustianity, the official cult of the Holocaust. I oppose Holocaustianity and the way it’s used to justify Jewish control of Western politics and to advance a Jewish agenda of minority worship and Third-World migration. I also think Holocaustianity helps Holocaust denial, because the Holocaust-cult reveals the exceptional dishonesty and selfishness of Jews. It’s because Jews are so dishonest and selfish that it becomes plausible to argue that they invented the Holocaust to serve their own ends.

The weaknesses of WASPs

Holocaustianity also reveals the exceptional skill of Jews at manipulation and propaganda. The individual Jew David Cole reveals those things too. Here he is talking about his time as a casting-director in Hollywood and the way it taught him to exploit the “weaknesses” of goyim:

From 1986 to 1992, when I “transitioned” to the exciting new field of Holocaust revisionism because I just knew it would never impact my life in a negative way (maybe I’m not in any position to criticize the intelligence of bimbos), I’d become exceptionally good at reading people. Again, that was the artistry of casting. Twenty minutes in a room with a stranger, taking mental notes about their every move. Asking the right questions to understand their psychology… and their weaknesses. (“Casting My Eyes,” TakiMag, 28th May 2024)

Cole then describes how, on a flight to New York, he sat next to a woman who “was so WASPy, so proper, so Mayflower-descendant nonethnic, she made Ann Coulter look like Nell Carter.” Cole read her shiksa psychology and set to work exploiting her “weakness”:

She had that old Anglo sense of decency, fair play, and Christian sentimentality. It’s the weakness that (as I’ve pointed out before, and as Steve Sailer recently did as well) led “foundational white Americans” to get all weepy and protective of nonwhites long before the 20th-century flood of Eastern European Jewish immigrants.

I knew I could exploit that weakness, and I did. “I’m a Holocaust revisionist Jew oppressed by the forces of censorship and intolerance! I’m just interested in free speech! Fairness! Asking QWESTCHINS! By gosh, shouldn’t we explore the uncomfortable truths?” (“Casting My Eyes”)

The woman had turned out to be the headmistress of a fancy girls’ school. Cole says: “by the time we landed, I had an offer to lecture her history classes.” He presents this manipulated shiksa as proof of something he’d said earlier: “In my revisionist years, I always knew how to present my Holocaust work to a stranger. Give me twenty minutes, I’d know the manipulative angle to employ. It was predatory, and I’m not proud of it.”

Blondes and borders

He’s right. It was predatory. And although David Cole might not be proud of such predation on goyim today, there are many other Jews who are still proudly preying. But not in the service of “Holocaust revisionism,” rather in the service of Jewish power. As Cole himself goes on to say:

But let’s “circle back” (does Psaki still say that?) to that blonde airplane WASP. Yes, I sold her on Holocaust revisionism. But I just as easily could’ve sold her on open borders or prison abolition for black criminals. My message wasn’t what mattered; her weakness was. The ADL and NAACP understand that; they understand whites better than the so-called “white advocates.” While Elon and the Twitter Nazis try to make whites more Nazi, the “other side” realizes that the true power lies in harnessing white sentimentality. You can only bring these WASPs around by appealing to “kindness, decency, and fairness.” (“Casting My Eyes”)

Cole has again shown why Jews should not be permitted power in White societies. Indeed, he’s again shown why Jews should not be permitted any presence at all in White societies. Note how he says that he could just as easily have manipulated the shiksa into embracing “open borders.” Earlier, he’d argued that “foundational white Americans” had got “all weepy and protective of nonwhites long before the 20th-century flood of Eastern European Jewish immigrants.” Well, does that mean White Americans had opened the borders of America to all-comers “long before” Jews acquired power and influence in America? No, it doesn’t. In fact, “foundational white Americans” deliberately blocked immigration by those “nonwhites” of whom, according to Cole, they had gotten “all weepy and protective.” And contra Steve Sailer’s and Curtis Yarvin’s claims about “Protestantism,” it was Catholic frontmen working for Jews who persuaded WASPs to open America’s borders in 1965  (see also Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition, Ch. 6 on how WASPs rally around immigration restriction). It won’t change the racial balance of America, promised the Catholic frontmen as the Jews laughed long and hard behind the scenes.

Industrial exploitation of shiksas

If you want to understand the psychology of those Jews, David Cole is an excellent guide. Again and again, his articles supply proof of why Jews are bad for White societies. Cole isn’t “proud” of his “predatory” exploitation of White “weakness” any more, but many thousands of other Jews have preyed, do prey, and will continue to prey. And despite Cole’s diatribes against Ron Unz, I’ve never been told “Pickpocket!” by my subconscious when I’m reading one of Unz’s articles. I’ve also never seen Unz confess anything that confirmed a negative stereotype about Jews. But Cole is always confirming “toxic tropes.” Here he is doing it again:

… I have the extroverted verbal gab-gift jibber-jabber that Ashkenazis are known for. I can convince people I’m smart, which is different from actually being smart. And that extroversional verbose veneer of quick-wittedness reaches across occupational fields. I could write a horror movie, produce it, and persuade the shiksa bimbo actress to blow me. (“Crushing Puppies, Crushing on Nazis!,” TakiMag, 14th May 2024)

Plenty of sleazy gentile men have preyed on aspiring bimbo actresses. But it took Jews to make an industry out of it. Two industries, in fact. It’s behind the scenes in Hollywood and right out in the open in porn. That’s one reason among many that Jews have been very bad for the West and for America in particular. If you want closely argued and copiously referenced proof of that, read Kevin MacDonald. If you’re pressed for time, read David Cole.

What are “British Values”?

/7 Comments/in , /by

Pre-election Britain is currently going through a self-evaluation in such a way that, were it retail goods brought over a shop counter, there could be an action brought under the UK’s Trade Descriptions Act of 1968. This piece of legislation replaced the Merchandise Marks Act of 1887 with “fresh provisions prohibiting misdescriptions of goods, services, accommodation and facilities provided in the course of trade”. It protects the consumer, who might otherwise be sold something which did not match the description given by the seller and is thus of lesser value than advertised. This act of deception currently applies to a commodity mentioned daily in the British media, and marketed under the brand name of “British values”. Regrettably, some immigrants seem not to share these values. But what are “British values”, and who says so? We should examine the meaning of “value” before ascribing them to a nation.

Value is the ascription of worth and has two main fields of function, the mathematical and the behavioral. Financial value, although that is what is most commonly understood by the English word, is a sub-set of the mathematical function, and need not be a third category. If x is given a value in a mathematical problem and a house is valued at a certain price, nothing essentially different is happening between these two scenarios in terms of value viewed as simple ascription. But whereas mathematical value is contained solely within mathematics, a self-referential system, values can also be societal, and so refer to something other than an apparatus of pure value comparison. Societal values can perhaps be defined as a set of civic indicators deemed acceptable to the majority of a society as conducive to its continuation.

British values, then, would be a belief that a certain set of actions in the civic sphere are preferable to alternatives as consensually agreed by the people who live in Britain. As we shall see, however, it is not a country’s people who get to evaluate their own nation. In this case, financial value is a valid comparison because a price is either centrally controlled or arrived at by the operation of the free market. So too with national values.

Nigel Farage, currently the joker in the pack of British politics, has recently been criticized for referring to polling showing that a large percentage of Muslims in the UK do not subscribe to “British values”, and it is presumed that everyone knows what this yardstick is in much the same way as they know the names of the four separate nations that make up the United Kingdom. But what are British values? That is, not what do we nostalgically believe them to be, not an airbrushed list of qualities the post-war British held dear and which always begins with “fair play”, but what are they in actuality? Perhaps we should ask the British government.

In 2014, the Department for Education (DOE) published guidelines for Britain’s schools, instructing them “to actively promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different religions and beliefs”. The first three on this wish-list are demonstrably eroding, to say the least, and are in any case not specific to Britain among Western nations. Nothing makes them uniquely British. But it is the fourth that needs unpacking. (“Tolerance” and “respect” for other peoples or religions can be conflated into one term without significant loss of meaning).

Firstly, we must go back to the source of the DOE’s four pillars of British society, and the paragraph quoted from above guides us: “These values were first set out by the government in the ‘Prevent’ strategy in 2011”. This “strategy” has a very specific purpose. The UK government introduced its Prevent program specifically to counter Islamist terrorism, although its guideline document gives equal ranking to other perceived threats. So British values have been defined by government as part of a program to stop Islamists blowing things up and hacking people to death. Is there not more to them than a sub-section of a government policy document? Let’s go back to the last Labour period in power.

The consensus among what there is of the British political Right is that the beginning of the programmatic dismantling of post-colonial Britain, including its elusive values, began in earnest in 1997 with the election of Tony Blair’s Labour government. Margaret Thatcher was certainly the last Prime Minister to be recognizably Conservative, and when her own party turned on her like the Roman consuls on Caesar, John Major was only ever presiding over an interim government before the advent of “Blairism” and the Blairites.

Blair’s Home Secretary was David Blunkett, and in 2005 he wrote a piece for The Guardian on patriotism and British values. In it, he gave a definition of these values:

I believe Britishness is defined not on ethnic and exclusive grounds but on shared values: our history of tolerance, openness and internationalism; and our commitment to democracy and liberty, to civic duty and the public space.

Along with the same anodyne abstractions noted in the DOE set above, note Blunkett’s negative definition which opens the quote. Whatever British values might be, they are not rooted in ethnicity. Indeed, any hint of White British patriotism is now highly suspect, and Labour have a particular animus against England. John Prescott, one of Blair’s aides de camp, spoke of the British Isles as “Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions”. [Italics added]. The BBC never mentions England by name unless there is rioting there or a football match.

British values, however, must not just be defined by government, they must be taught, and for the pedagogical aspect of national evaluation we move forwards almost a decade from Blunkett’s article.

In 2016, a governmental review was published that remains one of its best-kept secrets. Despite being hidden in plain sight, things only become visible to the public if the media make it so, and this document received no coverage. The Casey Review, subtitled British Values and the Common Language of Virtues, is a founding document of British adherence to globalism that would require a novella-length exegesis worthy of a Mediaeval Aristotelean scholar to show its significance. I’ll highlight a few salient points, but if you want to see the technocratic manipulation and systematic undermining of national, practical civic wisdom, it is a short report and worth your time.

The problems with the report are apparent at the outset, with author Baroness Casey’s stated aim to “establish a set of values around which people from all different backgrounds can unite”. Of course, each of these “different backgrounds” already has its own set of values, often differing from those of the British. The review’s example of a value which they deem universal is honesty, and this is assumed to be a value which immigrants from all backgrounds automatically share with the host nation. Teachers may struggle to explain this to the children of devout Muslim families who believe that honesty can be suspended in the case of taqiyya, an Islamic doctrine sanctioning lying if it is in the cause of their religion. This is confirmed by the Koran, Islam’s ultimate arbiter.

The Casey Review is pedagogical throughout. Baroness Casey quotes from David Goodhart (essentially a journalist) on teaching values, and we get our first glimpse of the universalism to come:

Values, meaning different and sometimes conflicting notions of how to live a good life, are in a way the problem, not the solution. It is shared experience and mutual interests, and the way these can be fostered by public institutions and public rituals, that are a better means for overcoming differences.

Values, meaning in this case British values, are now the problem. This is the ideological epicenter of a document super-saturated with ideology. The Baroness herself approves:

While a bolstering of British values may well contribute to enhanced integration, placing an emphasis on character and common virtues could be a more effective way of allowing pupils to discuss shared experiences, and to use a common language in discussing what they think it means to be British.

To give the document an air of philosophical gravitas, Aristotle is invoked as one of “many philosophers of character”, and is found to “suggest that a number of virtues are held in common across humanity”. Apart from his spell in Macedonia tutoring Alexander the Great, it is not reported that Aristotle saw much of the rest of humanity in order to make such a comparison. There is no citation given in the review. Also, if virtue is the issue and it’s a Greek philosopher you want to back you up, Plato would seem the more obvious candidate. However, Plato famously held (particularly in the Meno and Protagoras) that virtue could not be taught, and that is not what a technocrat wants to hear echoing down the millennia.

As noted, a line-by-line exegesis of The Casey Review is required, but I will just note a line from the summary, and the document’s extraordinary sign-off:

[T]he teaching and cultivation of values should be a more interactive, collaborative and inclusive process which will help to enhance the moral character of the next generation, and thus the tolerance, respect and community cohesion… currently lacking across Britain.

“Community cohesion” is code for ensuring Muslims do not have their patience tested by any aspect of British society, and “inclusive” is another familiar dog-whistle word meaning “fewer white people and their values”.

But it is the final statement of the review, boxed off and highlighted at the foot of the document, that contains the core message. Once again, it is by David Goodhart, who is clearly in favor at court:

To combine diversity with solidarity, to improve integration and racial justice, it is not good just preaching tolerance, you need a politics which promotes in-group identity. [Italics in original].

Racial justice has now arrived at the scene, and the identity politics we see blooming now in Britain is here seeded. Identity is all, provided that identity has nothing to do with White ethnicity.

The destruction of ethnic culture is an ongoing part of the drive to rid Europe of its nation states by dismantling the history of those nations, and an example from the troubled country of Sweden is instructive. In 2019, an archaeologist at Stockholm’s Länsmuseum turned whistleblower on the policy of the museum’s curator with regard to newly discovered artefacts from the Viking era:

Coins, arrow-heads, ritual amulets, weapons, jewelry and weights that were kept in the past are now dumped into metal recycling bins upon discovery instead of being cared for and displayed. Museum excavators are instructed to recycle unearthed iron elements into scrap metal on the weak pretext that ‘it would take too many resources to process, identify and store them’.

It is not easy to see how the storage of small metal items at a museum would present a logistical problem in a building geared precisely for storage. As for allocation of Swedish resources, it should be noted that the excavations which unearthed these historical treasures were part of works to prepare land for new accommodation for asylum seekers. The Swedish Culture Secretary at the time was Alice Bah-Kuhnke, a half-caste lady whose Wikipedia page curiously omits mention of any religion she might hold. Those interested in her are forced to make assumptions based on her parentage, her mother being Swedish and her father from 97%-Muslim Gambia. If a country’s ethnic history is destroyed, quite literally in this case, that country can be defeated without a shot being fired, and new values can be imposed which exclude those previously kept alive in the genetic make-up of its natives.

Alice Bah-Kuhnke: In charge of Sweden’s cultural heritage (2014-2019) and now a MEP for Sweden’s Green Party

Genetics is not a purely biological affair. It is obviously a vast field, but we all grasp the concept of heritability and would do so even if our reading stopped at Darwin. We may also know that the formation of heritable characteristics over time may not be limited to physical evolution, but extend to the sphere of the social. In primitive and broad-brush terms, one theory for the vast differences between Africa and Europe in terms of simple development goes back to differing ways of obtaining food. The gatherers in warmer climes had no need of co-operation with one another, which was thus purely discretionary. The hunters of the frozen north, however, who required a team of men to overpower larger animals and whose food did not drop from the trees, soon learned that co-operation was essential both to eat and to stay alive. From these behavioral seeds, two very different continents grew. And those seeds also contained values and the importance of their variation. Thus, the ethnic history of a nation, its developing valuation of itself, travels with it via a genetic delivery system which reinforces behavior advantageous to the group, in this case a nation.

Michael Levin, in his 1997 book, Why Race Matters, examines valuation in the context of racial difference, and makes use of reinforcement as a qualifying term:

From a behavioral standpoint, to value something is to be reinforced by it, and to explain someone’s values is to explain why those stimuli that reinforce him do in fact do so.

Reinforcement is a term in standard use in psychology. People require “conventional reinforcement”, such as praise, acceptance or encouragement. But the distinctive history of a national people has its own type of genetic reinforcement: ethnicity.

The valuation of individual and national ethnicity is the epicenter of the modern schism between the Left and the Right, and to recognize the role of reinforcement in that valuation is to go to the heart of that divide. Reinforcement in ethnic terms creates a virtuous circle in which an individual who values their ethnic history in turn reinforces the value they place on their own partaking of that ethnicity. The English value the work of Shakespeare not just because his work is dramatically satisfying and his use of language appealing, but also because he was English. A high valuation of ethnicity is why nations have national heroes, real or mythical. Which brings us to the question of national pride. Pride is the last of the Bible’s deadly sins, and national pride is now politically suspect if and only if that nation is historically White.

National pride is more complex than personal pride. It is more than the warm glow every time you see your diploma on the wall or feel the heightened sense of self-worth that comes with going for and getting a job you very much wanted. The pride an Englishman or any other native feels in his country extends backwards in time and goes down to the cellular, genetic level. Essentially, you are proud of those who came before you and what they achieved and, by extension, your own place as a living part of that achievement, which is your country. If this is a genetic as well as a temporal relation, we would do well to remember the root of ‘genetic’ is the Ancient Greek genos, among whose meanings are genus and species, but also family, lineage, and kin. This is the genetics the Left would rather you didn’t notice.

So, to what conclusion did our whistle-stop tour of contemporary British values, and the teaching of same, lead us? We can certainly say, pace the favored courtier David Goodhart, that values are not the problem. The problem is that values are being set technocratically by committee and not organically as national self-awareness. The installation of a pedagogical regimen will dictate what those values are, and what they are, what value is given to x, will not be the result of a natural accretion of values which have grown out of collective national identity but a set of globalist diktats. The values British schoolchildren are taught at school are the result of a technocratic/globalist value system which supersedes nationalist values and which by necessity prioritizes indoctrination, conformity and orthodoxy over national fervor. But real British values are not the outcome of focus groups of leftist ideologues writing anti-terrorism documents. They live in the blood and the soil of its native people, whether the new elites like that allusion or not.

Launch of The Front View

/in /by

With the help of skilled videomaker Tony Avery and the support of Philip Gegan, Editor of anglo-celtic.org, I’ve made the first episode of ‘The Front View’, which I hope will evolve as a sequence of video presentations. These will cover not just what is happening in Britain today, but what happened ‘yesterday’.

Putting on record, with evidence, what happened ‘yesterday’ is very important because, as George Orwell wrote in  Nineteen-Eighty-Four:

“He who controls the Present, controls the Past; he who controls the Past controls the Future.”

You, like me, are sure to have noticed that the aliens and Left/‘Woke’ tyrants who control many of the institutions of our society are making efforts to falsify events in our history — not just in the far-distant past but within living memory — particularly where these events relate to what used to be referred to as “race relations”.

Indeed, the tyrants are seeking to disinform us not only about the recent and distant past, but also about the present.

For evidence of this, you have only to look at television commercials and press adverts. A visitor from Outer Space looking at the media output (commercials and programmes) beamed into every home today would quickly form the opinion that:

• The majority of the population in Britain are Negroes or Asiatics.

• White British women are to be seen, but almost always with Negro or Asian partners;

• Children are to be seen in profusion, but nearly all of these are mixed-race;

• White male children are a rarity.

• There are no White fathers with White wives building families of young White children.

• The only adult white males to be seen are decrepit ‘Grandpa’ types.

• Persons holding post of responsibility are increasingly mixed-race females.

We know that at the moment, this depiction of the population of our country is a travesty. But it is a vision that the aliens and race-traitors want to see and are working to create. They excrete these incessant images on TV and in press adverts in order to condition our minds to accept as ‘normal’ such a state of affairs. What they are doing constitutes an incitement to genocide by suicide.

This subversion of truth must be contested. False accounts of events in our past, especially our recent past, must be contested and exposed.

For some reason, the aliens and race-traitors have been picking on events involving the National Front (which effectively died in circa 1987!) as ‘hooks’ on which to hang their mendacities.

The BBC is deeply engaged in this subversive campaign. But it may surprise you to learn that NHS trusts (all “charities”) are putting on “anti-racist” propaganda exhibitions in the public concourses of major hospitals in London — and no doubt elsewhere. This misuse of NHS facilities and funds has prompted the creation of ‘The Front View’ and its first episiode.

The topic which these NHS hospital exhibitions purport to explore is “The Battle of Lewisham” — that is, the National Front’s anti-mugging march in Lewisham on Saturday 13th August 1977. As I was organiser of that NF demonstration I am able to deploy first-hand knowledge to expose the lies which appear throughout these exhibitions. As you will see, my exposé is supported by documentary evidence.

I do hope you find this video exciting and interesting. Its URL line is: https://youtu.be/XRQcNtUk9KA

If you think the video and the project we have given ourselves is worthwhile, then please forward this bulletin — or at least the link — to all of your friends and contacts, and ask them to do likewise.

It’s no good just complaining about what is being done to this country by wicked enemies and traitors who spread vile lies designed, ultimately, to perpetrate a genocide against the indigenous British people. We have to fight back. If we don’t, then we are a disgrace to our illustrious ancestors.

Sincerely,

Martin Webster

The DE-files: von der Leyen the witch and the war-zone

/13 Comments/in /by

See Also: The Eurofiles: The EU as the Sick Man of Europe

Germany is in turmoil. With knife stabbings in the streets and trans surgeries between the sheets — the worst excesses of the Weimar Republic seem to have been eclipsed by an even angrier and more alien cultural cynicism. Social carnage, economic emaciation and festering war escalation have now been joined by environmental disaster in the form of summer floods. Life in the Bundesrepublik these days seems to be playing out with the absurdity of a Kafka novel and the tragedy of a Brothers Grimm tale.

The smallest of political events last month in the town of Mannheim was unable to pass peacefully, as illegal immigrant Sulaiman Ataee flew into a rampage against activist Michael Stürzenberger. After ten years of living in Germany, the Afghan father-of-two realized that he was the one who had run out of patience with domestic sensibilities. He stabbed six people in total, but those who think that this is a clear-cut case need to pay attention to the authorities to learn how actually both sides are to blame in the metapolitical sense. The Chairman of the Police Union told one state broadcaster: “When two extremists meet, it becomes dangerous.” Amid perfunctory consolations, Chancellor Scholz also managed to sneak in some sly relativization, bringing up the old case of left-wing politician Walter Lübcke (whose murder had no witnesses). Other politicians put their thinking caps on and called for more “knife free zones.” Ultimately, the moral of the story seems to be that you shouldn’t bring a gun to a knife fight in Germany, as evidenced by the death of the 29-year-old policeman in Mannheim.

The only people who have identitarian values and are willing to assemble in large numbers these days are, in fact, Islamists. It’s been somewhat of an Arab Spring in the city of Hamburg, with thousands marching in April and May for the burgeoning movement Muslim Interaktiv. They openly call for Germany to become a caliphate under Sharia Law and encourage Muslims to disobey the government they refer to as “a dictatorship of values.” The government, in confused response, classified the rally as a right-wing event on state broadcaster ZDF.

The fate of real right-wingers, however, is litigated very differently. Last year, an 87-year-old woman was sent to prison for posting anti-immigrant messages on social media. A 95-year-old woman is currently on trial for World War II contrarianism, even after having previously served time in prison. Last month, an AfD politician was fined €6,000 because of a tweet in which she questioned whether the mayor of Hamburg had a “welcoming culture for gang rape?” The tweet was supplemented with official sex crime statistics, though this did not spare her from a criminal record.

According to Martin Sellner, members of German identitarian movements are the only ones to suffer deplatforming, doxing and police intimidation. Not only is there biased application of statutes in the penal code, but any speech laws that are on the books in the first place are going to have, in modern parlance, a disparate impact on Whites. As for violent crime, which is not the specialty of Whites, sentencing has become a laughing stock. Less than 1% of rapes in Germany result in a conviction, and even in the case of gang-rape suspended sentences can be awarded. It’s almost as if German jurisprudence is attempting to bring alive the internet meme Immanuel Kant but Genghis Khan.

The most recent round of state lawfare to be mobilized against authentic Germans comes in the wake of the Ausländer Raus scandal. Cases are still pending on whether the lyrics [Germany for the Germans, Foreigners out] constitute incitement to hatred, but with the parliamentary president calling for up to five years prison, the censors may win. Good portions of the legal code that impacts individual liberty have come from recent legal improvisation rather than the post-war apparatus. Legislation has passed that will fine individuals up to €10,000 for exposing a trans person’s birth identity. As of last year, the state has begun seizing unoccupied second properties in order to accommodate newly arrived refugees. This doesn’t sound like the sort of freedom that David Hasselhoff was singing about when the Berlin Wall came down.

One could certainly picture Hasselhoff as a Baywatch lifeguard off the Mediterranean, since rescuing invaders is all that the coastguards of the EU break into a sweat for. Lampedusa has become a de facto Ellis Island, with the paperwork optional. These days pretty much any stretch of Euro coastline can be a teeming shore, and the refuse has never been more wretched. Migrants have uploaded footage of themselves traversing the Mediterranean, grinning in caps lock while they turn their identity documents into confetti. They have reason to celebrate: German authorities are dislodging Ukrainian refugees in order to prioritize Syrians, Turks and Afghans.

Another iconic image from the peak of the migrant crisis was captured by aerial footage in Slovenia, when roving migrants resembled a phalanx of locusts sweeping through fertile fields on their way northward. And the statistics show that they’re coming to eat much more than Germany’s lunch. Years after their arrival, more than 95% were not working. Since then, plenty of economically incestuous sinecures have been created by the state, but recent data still show that almost two thirds of all welfare recipients in Germany have a migrant background.

Crime is soaring across the board — in particular violent crime — but it’s not just the magnitude that’s giving the schwarze Chroniken a whole new complexion. Reports that the train system has become a life-threatening battlefield have led to more security guards being deployed. The same thing happened at public swimming pools for a different reason. In 2023, Germany suffered more than a thousand gang-rapes. Based on the data for Berlin, 54% were perpetrated by non-citizens, while the others were what heritage Germans refer to as passport Germans. Last month, a Congolese man previously lauded as an integration success story was arrested for investigating Freud’s Oedipus complex on his mother. Last week, the Berliner Zeitung reported that a migrant broke into an elderly woman’s apartment, sexually assaulted her, was released by police, then raped a young woman the next day.

Angela Merkel

The person most responsible for this molestation of German society needs no introduction. Angela Merkel cuts a low profile these days, however in November her memoirs will come out under the title Freedom — which is either a sick inside joke or a confused foray into moral relativism. She’s cost tax-payers €55,000 on hair and makeup alone since leaving office, which is a bit rich coming from the queen of austerity. Few would begrudge her this if she’d at least not betrayed the German people, let alone her Christian and Democratic political appellations. Only in the world of a quantum physicist can the state that admitted the failure of multiculturalism coexist with the state that has an open-door immigration policy. On the other hand, a spectral analysis of the body politic suggests that large swathes of the mainstream might actually share Merkel’s politics of penance.

Recall that a lot of the German public embraced the Willkommenskultur directive as a matter of civil duty. Merkel famously won reelection post-migrant crisis because her main rival, social-democrat Martin Schulz (who has the appearance of a James Bond henchman but the voice of Kermit the Frog) virtually agreed with Merkel on everything. Schulz overcame a youth in which he was suicidal, eventually becoming a role-model to his countrymen in politics. His ideology reflects this theme of death and palingenesis. He was the first to promote the abolishment of sovereign EU states in order to make way for a United States of Europe. This is the nice version of the morbid declaration he once made to a Knesset member: “For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.”

Ursula von der Leyen

The current star of the German political class is Ursula von der Leyen. She was expected to be the heir to Merkel on the domestic scene but instead went to Brussels and became the EU Commission president. She’s a much better presented megalomaniac, but still an unabashed elitist. Von der Leyen is a doctor and mother-of-seven, which has made her popular among boomer conservatives and others who only judge books by covers and nothing else. It must have been a youthful aspiration of hers to angle for the von Trapp family esthetic, but in politics she’s resembled more the Disney villain Ursula the Sea Witch. More than a few scandals have had her tentacled imprints — she’s currently under investigation for wheeling and dealing with Pfizer over covid vaccines. In 2016, it was revealed that her doctoral thesis contained plagiarism and bogus referencing, but that she would not be stripped of her doctorate. She was appointed Minister of Defense under Merkel without having any military background and ended her portfolio embroiled in a suspected armaments embezzlement scheme. To the bemusement of colleagues in Brussels, she does not even hide the fact that her legislative vendetta against wolves as a protected species is because one of her ponies was attacked at one of her estates.

The biggest accusation against von der Leyen is that she is working for the Americans. Indeed, almost all of her positions align with the State Department’s. Strongly pro-war, pro-NATO and steadfast with Israel at the height of the Gaza onslaught. She also supports the United States of Europe model and an EU army. She even came out for gay marriage, which is a rarity among the CDU. In other words, she’s a neo-con, but that’s something that could have been predicted from her pedigree. She was born an Albrecht, the very same lineage that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright married into. Meanwhile, her Stanford professor husband and children all live in the United States — not exactly an ideal hostage situation given the continued escalation for direct EU confrontation with Russia.

The SPD Is Back in Power

The German political class has undergone quite a radical shift this century. From 1998 to 2005 Germany had a pro-Russia chancellor in Gerhard Schröder. He secured the construction of Nord Stream 1, kept the nuclear power plants operating and was somewhat of a man’s man. He earned the nickname Audi Man on account of being married four times. He recently married a young Korean, but the Olympic Rings moniker seems not to have caught on. Even though he was from the center-left SPD, it’s hard to imagine that Schröder would have ever opened the flood gates to millions, or shut down the nuclear power plants — thus he was more right-wing than the CDU politicians of today.

Now the SPD are back in power as part of the three-party traffic-light coalition. It’s a fitting semiotic for those who think that the German government has no real sovereignty and requires permission for every action. We can expect future mnemonics to involve even more colors as the political center gives way and more fringe parties gain leverage. A third of campaign posters already feature rainbows and gay couples, as was evidenced by the recent EU elections. Germany is well and truly LGBTQ compliant; it passed a gender self-identification law that allows infants to transition. Universities enforce the same pronoun and trigger warning rules that one might find at Harvard or Princeton, while the voting age has been lowered to 16.

It’s arguable whether Germany still needs to be militarily occupied at this point; the culture is Americanized and the population diversified. The only pews being regularly filled are those at the football stadiums, where pricey exotic athletes fight for the meaningless colors of Bayern Munich or Bayer 04 Leverkusen. For those who are not interested in football, other cultural delights await, such as the vivacious fusion of classical music and African freestyle dance at the Berlin Konzerthaus.

Multiculturalism is certainly in vogue — after all, it is the original trans ideology of our era. Since the integration of millions of Poles, Yugoslavs and Greeks from Gastarbeiter to citizens was close enough, it’s thought that the net can be widened and the process expedited for Südländer further afield. Last year Germany gave citizenship to 200,000 people, comprising mostly Middle Easterners. This notwithstanding, another layer of actively anti-German sentiment has become an irresistible indulgence among trendy Germans.

In the 1990s one clever leftist coined the sarcastic expression bio-deutsch to disparage ethnic Germans, even though comparison to high-quality produce can’t really be a bad thing. Perhaps that is why some Germans use it as a light term of self-deprecation. It does seem with foreigner usage to be less of an insult and more like sour grapes. Everyone still remembers the incident in which Merkel confiscated a small German flag from a colleague at an election victory celebration. Merkel popularized the concept of Staatsräson (reason of state) in her 2008 address to the Knesset. In order to be anti-German in a sophisticated way, one needs to be German, and for this such individuals are certainly grateful. The impression is that they use this fossilized identity like a boutique heirloom in order to feed their negative pride.

The Holocaust Industry Is Alive and Well

The moral debt that Germans have been paying off since WWII has cost them more than the economic reparations. Officially, war reparations were paid off by 1988, although the category of Holocaust compensation continues to this day, with the cooperation of the German government. By the year 2000, the racketeering nature of compensation litigators was already well documented by prominent Jewish intellectual Norman Finkelstein, who compiled something of a swindler’s list that included cases of fraud and blackmail. But the more legitimate claimants keep getting more innovative as Germany deals with a subscription it just can’t seem to cancel.

In 2023, lawyers in New York successfully lobbied on behalf of Russian Jews who had not been in camps to get payments extended to 2027, even though the previous agreement was for a one-time payment. This year, survivors in Israel were given a raise to their payments because of the war with Hamas. It is often said Less is more — indeed there has never been fewer Holocaust survivors, yet Germany will shell out a record $1.4 billion this year in compensation. Some might be surprised to learn that even Allied countries pay Holocaust compensation. France and the United States signed a deal worth $60 million because in occupied France Jews had been transported on trains belonging to the national railway SNCF. For this sacrificial tithe the French were rewarded not with good karma but with ironic punishment: the trains of Paris were infested with bedbugs less than a year before the Olympics and required immediate fumigation.

Ukraine: German Economic Self-Destruction at the Behest of the United States

The Germans understandably don’t want to pay war reparations a third time, and so have been more cautious on Ukraine while the UK, Poland and France convert their righteousness into belligerence. Macron in particular has been aggressive on Russia in order to compensate for his reputation as a leader of little impact. The voters, however, have now rubbished this paper-mâché Napoleon, as they will also eventually do to Rishi Sunak and the muscle-shirted Zelensky (given the chance). Putin is the only leader who is respected in Europe, or at least taken seriously. As they say on the pro-Russia channels: Putin has red lines, Zelensky has White lines.

Still, it’s the German economy that’s been devastated the most, with rampant inflation and high energy prices prompting two thirds of companies to move at least some of their operations abroad. America is offering tax credits to these companies, and is now conveniently a major supplier of expensive LNG to Germany. As economist Philippe Béchade wrote: “Europe is not shooting itself in the foot … it would rather shoot itself in the head, for the almost exclusive benefit of the United States.”

Interestingly, the two most impactful men in America share German ancestry. Donald Trump’s direct German heritage is fairly well known, but Elon Musk’s is less so as it’s Pennsylvanian Dutch. This group of traditionalists, whose members typically prefer to drive in a horse and cart, are therefore also responsible for the Cybertruck — the comic-book monstrosity that wants to poke your eye out from peripheral view. It will not pass European regulations any time soon, but the regular Tesla models pumping out of Berlin’s giga-factory are a bestseller in Europe.

Jews in the New Germany

Germany currently has a bustling start-up scene and futuristic technologies sector that is likely to grow since these are not so energy intensive. But not all of these outfits are something to be proud of. One company developed anti-rape pants that feature an alarm and padlock. Another creepy development is the synthetic foods industry. One of the biggest alt-agro ventures is the Berlin-based Infarm, which produces leafy greens in warehouses using artificial lighting and soil-free substrates. The founders are all Israelis.

In April, footage appeared on social media from a German supermarket that allegedly showed bug-meat being secretly trialed on the population in a range of non-descript products. While it is unverified, the country that is home to Klaus Schwab probably doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt. Across Europe, 3D-printed steaks are being served in restaurants thanks to Aleph Farms and Redefine Meat, both based in Israel. Putty meat from reconstituted plant matter isn’t even the worst of the loin-shaving: TIME magazine reports that another Israeli outfit is producing synthetic caviar from modified pond scum. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade — we now seem to be doing the opposite at the behest of misanthropic industrialists.

One more eco-hacking entrepreneur deserves special mention. Aaron Tartakovsky of Epic Cleantec in San Francisco wants to turn waste water into beverages (as though there weren’t enough agricultural and industrial applications). But rather than producing arak or sachlav, he told CNN that his company was using shower water to synthesize a Kölsch-style ale — a beer originating in Germany. Moreover, in an interview with JWeekly, he left the following modesty turd in the awareness punchbowl: “All the work I do to ever so slightly move the world in the right direction is infused by my Jewish values, to make the world not just a more Jewish place but a more human place.” The Tartakovsky family is very involved in Jewish activism, right up to AIPAC and Holocaust-related projects with the American Jewish Committee.

Back in Germany, Jewish organizations are no more moderate now than they were forty years ago. This might be because of a changing tide in attitudes to Israel. But rather than focus on the demographic background of those hostile to Jews, experts on antisemitism are still laser-focused on the bio-deutsch. The AfD explicitly supports Israel, but because of its anti-Muslim and anti-migrant positions it has been deemed ultimately a threat to Jews. When the AfD achieved some success at the ballot box last year, Christoph Heubner of the Auschwitz Committee wielded a Talmudic definition of democracy, stating: “A majority of voters have obviously said goodbye to democracy.” Josef Schuster of the Central Council of Jews added: “This is a watershed that this country’s democratic political forces cannot simply accept.” Meanwhile, it was the administration of the ruling SPD that dropped a bombshell following the ICC ruling by hinting that it would indeed arrest Benjamin Netanyahu if he travelled in Germany.

The good relationship between Germany and Israel, which of course predates 1947, has evolved over the decades, even if as a lopsided affair. The cash cow and the holy cow; but it is not a relationship that is about be put out to pasture just yet. Interpreting the elements of anti-Israel protest as signs of an awakening Teuton spirit is wishful thinking at best, since what’s really joined the fray is a rival philo-Semitism and victimhood client in the Palestinians. As prosperous and liberal as Germany has been, it’s been stuck in Hotel Canossa for the last 80 years. It can check out any time it likes, but it can never leave. Either Germany snaps out of its boiling-frog paralysis, or all that will be left of this ancient realm is the Black Forest and Edelweiss — a future that injustice defiles.

 

Jews Are Rewarding Black Criminality

/4 Comments/in , , /by

“Seeking justice for these serious offenses was complicated by violations to the Racial Justice Act.”
D.A. Diana Becton

 “I don’t give a shit about no racist shit! What about my son?” Thus spoke Brandi Griffin, the mother of Arnold Marcel Hawkins, 22, who was shot dead on March 9, 2021, in what police allege was a gang-related drive-by shooting in Contra Costa, California. Hawkins was Black, as were the four defendants charged with his murder — Keyshawn McGee, Trent Allen, Eric Windom and Terryonn Pugh. The shooting, during which over 40 shots were fired from one vehicle into another, was allegedly part of a long-running feud between two East Bay gangs, and the arrests of the men were heralded by East Bay law enforcement as a meaningful step toward reducing gun and gang violence in the area. The four were part of the arrests of 48 gang members and associates during a complex, six-month investigation involving 24 agencies, for murder, attempted murder and illegal guns. The effort removed 40 firearms, including 15 “ghost guns” off the streets and over $100,000 in cash. Evidence was overwhelming and everything about the case seemed straightforward. That is, until California’s new Racial Justice Act and accusations of institutional racism became the centerpiece of the entire investigation, prompting the outburst that opens this essay.

The Racial Justice Act 2020

On February 5, Judge David Goldstein, a former public defender and past chair of the Diversity/Bench-Bar Outreach committee, removed all gang enhancements that could have resulted in life without parole sentences for the four men charged with the murder on the basis that the case was tainted by racism.  It was the second time Goldstein ruled that anti-Black bias had shaped elements of the case, and by the time it was concluded, he’d also removed special circumstance allegations and firearm enhancements. Facing radically reduced sentences and charges, all four defendants quickly made no contest to the charges and the case was brought to a sudden end. Goldstein’s actions, which follow the introduction of California’s Racial Justice Act, essentially set a precedent for a two-tiered justice system in which non-Whites can have aggravating factors in their criminal behavior, often the defining factor of the crime itself (e.g. gang motivation), ignored in court. The very concept of justice is therefore made subservient to a new need to protect non-White criminals and, in the longer term, to ensure they spend less time behind bars.

The idea for a Racial Justice Act was first introduced in 2019 by California state assembly member Marc Levine, former Chairman of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus and current Regional Director of ADL Central Pacific. In 2015, Levine already exhibited his Jewish activist credentials when he contributed to a legislative package titled “Immigrants Shape California.” He drafted legislation providing $3 million in legal aid for undocumented immigrants, and publicly announced “immigrants are welcome and we will do everything we can to help them achieve legal status.” In 2019, with “AB 1798, the California Racial Justice Act,” Levine proposed that death penalty sentences on non-White criminals be postponed until it was determined “if race resulted in a sentence of capital punishment.” Levine’s bill failed, but he re-emerged as co-author of a more expansive proposal a year later, along with Jewish assembly members Scott Weiner and Laura Friedman, and several non-White assembly members.

Marc Levine

The new bill, which was later signed into law as the Racial Justice Act 2020, marked a radical departure from legal precedent set by McClesky vs Kemp (1986), in which it was established that in order to challenge a charge or conviction, a defendant must “prove that the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose” and cannot for example rely solely on statistical studies that he alleges show “institutional racism” or discrimination more broadly. In 1978, Warren McCleskey, a Black man, was convicted of armed robbery and murder in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia. Following the jury’s recommendation, the court sentenced McCleskey to death. His appeal eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court. His primary claim was that “the Georgia capital sentencing process is administered in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.” To support his claim, McCleskey offered a statistical study that showed racial disparities in death penalty sentencing in Georgia (but without any qualitative evidence that may have shown the presence of more aggravating factors in the murders committed by Blacks).

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts and rejected his claim, holding that a criminal defendant alleging an equal protection violation must not only prove there was purposeful discrimination, but that the purposeful discrimination had a discriminatory effect on him. The Court found that McCleskey offered “no evidence specific to his own case that would support an inference that racial considerations played a part in his sentence.” This decision effectively denied a defendant’s ability to use statistical evidence of racial disparities related to but not directly involving their case to establish an equal protection violation. The decision in McClesky vs Kemp, for example, meant that although statistical evidence could show Blacks to be incarcerated for gang violence at a higher rate than Whites, this was irrelevant to whether the individual in a given case was a gang member and certainly not grounds for a more lenient sentence.

One of the most prominent legal critics of McClesky vs Kemp is Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and founding member of the Progressive Jewish Alliance. Chemerinsky, who provided much of the intellectual basis for the revision of McClesky, has accused the Supreme Court of a “dismal record on issues of race throughout American history. The Court enforced the institution of slavery, upheld “separate but equal,” and consistently failed to deal with systemic racism and racial inequalities.” Chemerinsky alleged that McClesky set an almost impossible evidential standard for a defendant to prove racism was involved in his prosecution, and called for a much wider basis for challenging a case in which racism “may” have played a part.

Erwin Chemerinsky

Borrowing from the initial activism of Marc Levine, and incorporating the critique devised by Erwin Chemerinsky, the Racial Justice Act 2020, allowed racial data, and related concepts of “institutional racism” and unconscious bias, to be brought into the criminal justice arena. As one commentary describes it, the RJA “dramatically expand the ways a defendant can show discrimination. Under the RJA, defendants in California no longer need to prove intentional discrimination in their case to bring a claim of racial bias, as McCleskey required. Instead, defendants can now establish racial bias by relying on statistical data showing racial disparities in the charging, conviction, or sentencing process of other defendants who share their race.”

It allows judges to discount any evidence if it appears to be based on racial bias. In Contra Costa, David Goldstein said there was a “significant statistical disparity,” which shows “gang charges are more often filed against Black people.” He said he used data from prosecutors and defense attorneys “largely agreed upon that showed that Black people were from six to eight percent more likely to be charged with ‘special circumstance gang enhancements’ than people who weren’t Black. Those enhancements, alleging gang membership and added on top of the underlying criminal charges at issue in a case, can greatly increase the sentence a defendant receives.” As well as removing these enhancements in this particular case, Goldstein said his decision clears the way for “any Black person who has faced or is facing those charges in Contra Costa over the past decade to challenge them in court.” In other words, every convicted Black gang criminal in the area can now apply to have his sentence radically reduced. In fact, $2 million has been granted by the legislature to fund precisely that course of action for any non-White criminal who wishes to allege that he was the victim of a racist legal system.

Judge David Goldstein 

Goldstein’s actions, and the case in general, are now seen as a primer for what will soon unfold across the entire criminal justice system in California. Several other cases involving the RJA are already pending. For example, in 2022, a San Diego police officer stopped Tommy Bonds III, a Black man, and cited him for misdemeanor possession of a concealed weapon. In San Diego Superior Court, Bonds invoked the RJA, believing he was pulled over because of his race. However, the judge ruled that the officer did not show bias in his interaction with Bonds. Bonds appealed, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the Superior Court judge “fail(ed) to address the abundant evidence suggesting that the traffic stop may have been the product of unintended racial bias.” Although the officer had previously testified that he did not see the driver’s race before deciding to stop him, he did say that “the person was wearing a hooded sweatshirt with the hood up.” The appeals court said “it was not necessary that [the officer] had verified the occupants were Black before he stopped their vehicle, because he may well have subconsciously assumed they were based on their clothing, their presence in the neighborhood, or other subtle factors.” This extremely broad level of evidential consideration is precisely in line with that advocated by Chemerinsky as a ‘corrective’ to McClesky vs Kemp.

One of the major sponsors and lobbyists for the Act was the League of Women Voters of California, the prominent member in relation to the RJA being its Jewish Deputy Director, Dora Rose. Rose greeted the passing of the RJA by saying

The bottom line is that we can’t keep having trials with all white juries. We can’t continue to allow racially coded language that triggers bias in the courtroom. And we must stop the systemically disproportionate arrest and sentencing that is tearing up our Black communities. The Racial Justice Act will help us accomplish those ends.

Dora Rose 

Unequal Justice for Victims and Discrimination Against Whites

Ironically, while the Racial Justice Act is being touted as a major leap forward for the Black population, it is likely to compound its misery. This is more than abundant in the blunt but apt protest from the mother of Arnold Marcel Hawkins: “I don’t give a shit about no racist shit! What about my son?” What we are really seeing play out here is not a crusade on behalf of innocent Blacks, but a crusade by Jews and a motley of non-White politico-intellectuals in the service of diminishing White safety and achieving the further demoralization and decay of stable White societies. Ultimately, Blacks are unconcerned with contrived and, to them, often complex theories of institutional racism unless it appears to immediately benefit them in form of a lesser prison sentence or the granting of immediate material benefits. Like any mother, Brandi Griffin wants the four men who killed her son to go to prison for the longest possible term, even if I am certain that if she were the mother of one of the defendants she would most definitely “give a shit about the racist shit.” Blacks will be individualist opportunists in such scenarios, while the intellectual and political heavy lifting is done “on their behalf” by Jews who pose as their saviours.

Those looking at the statistical data with honesty reach the similar conclusions. Heather MacDonald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, has argued that the RJA “will produce unequal justice for victims as well as offenders.” MacDonald points out that racial disparities in incarceration reflect disparities in who is more likely to commit criminal offenses. Citing police department data, MacDonald said, “In Los Angeles, Blacks are 21 times as likely as Whites to commit a violent crime, 36 times as likely to commit a robbery, and 57 times as likely to commit a homicide.” She further argued that the RJA will have a disproportionate impact on Black victims, stating that the victims and witnesses who contribute to police department data are “themselves disproportionately Black . . . [and] are 17 times as likely to be homicide victims as Whites.” One of the primary impacts of the RJA will therefore be that a lot of Black victims will not see the justice they expect to be served. Dora Rose claims she is preventing the “tearing up of our Black communities,” but that’s exactly what she is going to worsen — for Blacks and everyone around them. Blacks are being fed a fantasy by Jewish intellectuals that their liberation will be found in the reduction of incarcerations, but as one legal commentator has argued:

The Reparations Task Force in California, a state that fought on the side of the Union in the Civil War and in which no person lives today who was either slave or master when the practice was still legal in parts of the U.S., has also recommended that the state shutter 10 prisons in five years, repurposing the facilities to benefit African Americans. But it’s clear that California’s prisons do benefit its Black citizens – by protecting them and all the state’s residents from violent criminals. Black Americans number just under 14% of the population but suffered 53% of homicides in 2020, up 32% from the year before the advent of defund-the-police, Black Lives Matter, and widespread urban unrest – with 2,457 more murder victims compared to the year before. In a typical year, 9 in 10 people who murder a Black American are themselves Black, meaning going even easier on violent felons in California will most likely end up resulting in more dead Black Californians.

Whites will be massively disadvantaged under the new system. Chuck DeVore, the Chief National Initiatives Officer at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, has argued the RJA gives preferential treatment to individuals of certain races and “extending preferential treatment to a criminal based on their race wrongly punishes individuals not benefiting from that leniency.” Black and Latino defendants, because their groups are disproportionately prosecuted and incarcerated, may be able to bring claims under the RJA that would be unavailable to White defendants. As a thought experiment, we could assume a Black and White person who together commit the same crime, and are charged exactly the same—both with more serious offenses than others who commit a similar crime. Under the RJA, the Black defendant may be able to use statistical data to argue that the prosecution more frequently sought these types of convictions against other Black defendants, while that argument might be unavailable for the White defendant if the same disparity doesn’t exist for other White defendants. In this scenario, although the Black defendant would be entitled to remedies under the RJA, the White defendant would not—even though they were both charged with the same crime. In other words, Black criminals will benefit from the fact their race commits disproportionately more crimes — Black criminality is thus rewarded, at the expense of victims of all ethnic backgrounds.

As well as being an ethical disaster, the Racial Justice Act will be a drain on taxpayers and public finance. Millions of dollars have already been allocated to reassessing historical cases for hints of racism. More serious, however, will be the future cost. An entire industry will essentially be built upon the probes and investigations that will now take place every time an RJA protest is lodged at the outset of a criminal case. Everything from text messages sent between police officers, to passing comments by prosecutors, will be assessed and reassessed to see if they in any way constitute something that could vaguely be construed as racial. As seen above, every mention of a hooded sweatshirt or other “subtle factors” will now be brought into play to ensure that even the most appalling and obvious murderers are not seen through a racial lens. Lisa Romo, an attorney at the Office of the State Public Defender, complained, “There’s not enough money; we have defenders who are overwhelmed and not enough staff to process all the requests coming in. We desperately need more resources. The legislature just appropriated $2 million just for retroactive RJA claims, which is appreciated, but that’s just a drop in the bucket.”

Conclusion

Chuck DeVore points out at the conclusion of his remarks on the RJA that “when logic and reason die, people soon after get robbed, raped and murdered.” These are certain outcomes, along with the death of justice and the bankrupting of the public purse at the behest of stunning and brave “racial allies” like Levine, Friedman, Weiner, Goldstein, Chemerinsky, Rose and so many others working behind the scenes on initiatives like the RJA in California and beyond.

 

The Great Destroyers: The Myth of Jewish Superiority

/8 Comments/in /by

Lying to ourselves is more deeply ingrained than lying to others.
Fyodor Dostoevsky

As famous Russian mathematician Igor Shafarevich points out in his essay on the Jewish question, Jews like to take credit for just about everything when in fact, they have observably invented or contributed very little throughout modern history and were only able to do what they did using the tools that were handed to them by the host cultures in which they found themselves:

I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Jews are active and often useful in their activities, but they are only able, so to speak, “to work on an already plowed field.” For example, Mendelssohn, Mahler, and Berg were undoubtedly talented musicians. But they were able to express themselves only when Western music was created—by Gabrielli, Schutz, Bach, Haydn, etc. Or, in Russia, Jews were very active in recent centuries (we will not discuss the difficult question of whether it was for good or to the detriment of the natives), but in any case, this became possible only after the country was plowed up and the Russian state was created.[1]

Most of their great men, such as Karl Marx,[2] Sigmund Freud,[3] Franz Boas,[4] Albert Einstein,[5] and Stephen Jay Gould[6] turn out as failures or notorious frauds or plagiarists.[7] And as far as their alleged inventions are concerned, most of them are not theirs to claim. According to academic writer and scholar Karl Radl, the editor and owner of Karl’s substack. Everything about Jews and Judaism, “Jews have a nasty habit of claiming that they created/invented things when they in fact didn’t and then never correcting the claim so that it becomes common place and ‘accepted as fact.’” Here is a partial list of the things they falsely claim to have invented: Nuclear-powered submarine, Wi-Fi, the Weekend, scale electric model train, Prozac, Aciclovir (antiviral drug), instant camera, fax machine, rubber condom, tapered roller bearing, stainless steel, incandescent light bulbs, laser, refrigerated railroad cars, video games, cafeteria, barbie, seven-day week, homeopathy, Scotch guard, helicopter, instant coffee, blue jeans, kidney dialysis and the artificial kidney dialysis machine, walkie-talkie, lipstick, pacemaker, electric motor, colour television, flashlight/torch, biochemistry, operetta, modern orthopedic surgery, Frequency-hopping spread spectrum technology, the bra, chemotherapy, drip irrigation, vitamin C, automobile/car, the term cardiac countershock, stainless steel, microbiology and bacteriology, streptomycin, interferometer, nuclear powered submarines, sewing machines, the high-vacuum electron tube, discount store, geosynchronous satellite, mercury battery, optical fiber cable, hologram, 6-mercaptopurine (leukemia treatment), portable synthesizer, etc.[8]

What about their achievement lists? Can they be trusted? No, says Karl Radl, “Jewish achievement lists” can hardly be held to be valid given that they don’t represent anything other than a rhetorical ploy on the part of the Jews to — as before stated — prove the contention that Jewish persecution has been brought about by so self-congratulatory a reason as simple jealousy about the supposed ‘superiority of the jews’ when compared to the gentiles. […] Thus, we can see that the ‘Jewish achievement lists’ are simply meaningless.[9]

Does this include the disproportionate number of Jewish Nobel prize winners? You couldn’t bluff that. The Nobel prize is a serious affair. They gave one to Bob Dylan, didn’t they? Well, according to the Swedish scientist, Jan C. Biro, Md., Ph.D., this has more to do with Jewish marketing and networking skills than with merit:

Alfred Nobel’s Will (the founding document of the prestigious Nobel Prize) requests “…that in awarding the prizes no consideration be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize …” This expressed wish is largely ignored by the Nobel Foundation, who award excessive numbers of Prizes to Jewish scientists (who traditionally belong to “One Nation” even if they live in different countries around the World), thus creating the large Jewish-Bias (J-bias). They award the Prize 137 times more frequently to Jewish candidates worldwide, and 26 times more frequently to those in America than would be expected from the size of the Jewish population. The proportion of Jewish laureates more than doubled (2.3-fold increase) after the Second World War owing to the explosion of prizes shared between Jews and Gentiles (8.8-fold increase). Higher IQs and preferential choice of science as a profession among Jews do not fully explain this J-bias. It is more likely that extensive and well-organized personal networking of a marketing type among Jewish scientists, together with the egalitarian-liberal, nonchalant attitude of the Swedish representatives of the donor, are responsible for this unfortunate phenomenon. It is suggested that the World’s scientific community persuade the Nobel Foundation to follow the rules of Nobel’s Will in accordance with Swedish Law. [10]

Simply put, as explained in an excellent article by blogger “Academic Agent” called “The Myth of High Jewish IQ”:

Nobel Prizes are not a neutral institution; they are not selected in an open manner, but tightly controlled through a committee. They demonstrate nothing beyond what power selects. The claim that prizes from this body is an objective measure of anything, therefore, must be discarded.”[11]

But aren’t the Jews in Israel smarter than most people? It takes brains to transform a desert into an oasis, right? Yes, it does, and there are indeed very smart people in Israel who belong to the Ashkenazim section of the population (average IQ 111), but they are now a minority at 35% because of the lower-IQ middle eastern, Sephardic, and the ever-increasing orthodox and ultra-orthodox sections of the population. According to a study by Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, the average IQ of Jews in Israel is now 95.[12]  So, if brains did contribute to the prosperity of Israel, it was not the only factor. Money and outside help had a decisive impact on the development of the country. As Lenni Brenner says, the Jewish author of the book Zionism in the Age of Dictators, without Hitler’s help, in the thirties, it is highly likely that Israel would not exist.[13] And without massive financial and technical help from the White American and White German taxpayers, the Jewish cuckoo that laid its hegemonic ambitions in the nest of the Palestinians could not survive for very long.

How can that be? Most people think that Jews are really smart and that Jewish doctors are the best in the world. In fact, Jews who think of themselves as God’s preferred people believe they are superior in everything they do because of that.[14] Charles Murray, for example, the famous co-author of The Bell Curve. Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, in an article called “Jewish genius in 2007” attributes Jewish superior intelligence to the “happy irrefutable” fact that Jews are “God’s chosen people.” Is this why they are admitted in such high numbers to the best schools of the country?

“No,” says Ron Unz, the Jewish owner and editor in chief of one of America’s most influential conservative websites, The Unz Review, “given the poor performance of Jewish students on admissions tests, it is totally absurd and ridiculous that they are admitted in such large numbers to America’s elite universities. […] They are apparently admitted at a rate 1000% higher than equally intellectually deserving white students.”[15] How is this possible, with White students outnumbering them by 30-40 to 1?

It seems according to Ron Unz that Jews have lost the drive that characterized early immigrant generations and are now much more average. Their admission is no longer explained by brains alone. Nepotism has nothing to do with it, but “it’s not entirely clear,” writes Ron Unz, “and I don’t think it is,”[16] even though most of the deans of these venerable institutions are Jewish, as are a disproportionate number of administrators and faculty members. Unz leans more towards pressure from the American media, which is all Jewish-controlled. Thus, at the slightest drop in Jewish enrollment, the tribal watchdogs are quick to cry “antisemitism,” resulting in a subsequent increase in Jewish students. Admission officers, who are poorly paid and susceptible to bribery by the wealthy parents of Jewish applicants, are also believed to be responsible for this systematic bias. But according to Ron Unz, most of this favouritism is due to the Holocaust. It would be enough for Jewish applicants to play the card of the grandmother gassed in Auschwitz to be admitted, to the great displeasure of White students, who view this unbearable anti-White racism with much disgust but are forbidden to fight back publicly on pain of being branded as antisemites.[17]

That being said, let’s not forget the fact that beginning in the twenties, there were quotas on Jewish admissions to the universities. The cream of the cream—the high IQ Ashkenazim—that was admitted went on to play a significant role in the upward mobility of Jews in Western societies. The more average Jews could not get into Ivy League schools because they just weren’t smart enough as reflected by their poor performance on the SAT tests. That all changed, when in the early fifties, a clever Jew from Brooklyn named Stanley Kaplan found a way to subvert the system. It was a rather simple scheme. After each class that graduated from his test-prep school, Kaplan invited to a party every student that took the test on the condition that he would tell Kaplan one question he remembered from taking the test. By the time he sold his business in the 70s, he could tell his students with increasing accuracy, the answers to most of the questions on the test. As a result, Jewish scores on the SATS skyrocketed, as did Jewish admissions to the best schools of the country.[18]

Ironically, the type of people that the test was supposed to exclude because they were not intelligent enough, “ended up using the test to take over America’s elite universities. Once that happened, it was only a matter of time before they took over American culture as well, something that occurred in the mid-‘70s, just as opposition to the SATs was reaching a fever pitch,” notes journalist Sean Tite.[19]  And “Once a sufficient number of Jews became professors at the Ivy League schools,” asserts J. Tite, “they started showing extreme preference for other Jews in the hiring and admissions processes — to the point that the ‘elite’ schools today have become not much more than Jewish Shivas.”[20] Fortunately, the scheme that allowed Jews to cheat the system was ended in 1977 when David Halperin, a Jewish senator from Brooklyn, who had himself cheated the system, introduced the truth-in-testing bill which made the SAT questions public. In doing so, no one after that could use that scheme to cheat the system.[21]

The above cheating schemes raise a number of questions: Is nepotism at Harvard more important than Ron Unz thinks? If it was so common during the Kaplan years, why would it be different today? Do the Jews who now occupy leading positions in our universities, media, government, and institutions deserve to be there on merit or because of ethnic nepotism? In the end, are their fake celebrities, their fake invention claims, their fake achievement lists, their fake Noble Prize numbers, their fake antisemite accusations, and their holocaust victimization weaponized to legitimate and facilitate their domination over Western countries? Would control of the money and the media on top of it, be the perfect recipe for their success? Is this “group evolutionary survival strategy,” as Kevin MacDonald would put it, what allowed them to prevail, up until now, over more gifted and meritorious races? Did the Jewish race in general find in the Mossad’s motto, “By way of deception thou shall do war,” a biological niche that allowed them to succeed?

The Great Destroyers

According to Jewish author Maurice Samuels, Jews are unusually good at destroying and building back nearer to their heart’s desire, as the Fabians would say[22]:

We Jews, we, the destroyers, will remain the destroyers forever. Nothing that you will do will meet our needs and demands. We will forever destroy because we need a world of our own, a God-world, which it is not in your nature to build.[23]

You can see in Gaza, live, 24/7, on most social media, how Jews like to destroy and rebuild back nearer to their heart’s desire. They seem to have a strong predisposition for absolute destruction of their enemies—starvation, violence, cruelty, phosphorus bombs, and murder of children, women, and the elderly. The scale of civilian suffering and the images and videos coming from Gaza are devastating.

Just ask the Russians. Many of them remember well what the Jewish-led Bolsheviks did to them during the Red Terror. They murdered, starved, tortured to death, and sent to the gulags, to die a slow death, every individual that stopped them from building back nearer to their heart’s desire. Thirty million dead is their legacy just in Russia.[24], [25], It’s more like a 100 million if you count the number of casualties of communism in general. [26]

That’s what they did in Germany also. They were not the only ones involved, but Churchill’s mentor, Professor Fredrick Lindemann[27] and his Jewish colleagues, Professors Solly Zuckerman and Desmond Bernal played a significant role in the design and planning of the wartime carpet bombing of German cities that was advocated to break the spirit of the population.[28] Hundreds of thousands of civilians, women, children, and the elderly, were burned alive by incendiary phosphorus bombs.[29] Dresden first comes to mind, but hundreds of cities and villages were destroyed in that matter. The infrastructure of the country was destroyed, overpopulated concentration camps full of refugees fleeing the Soviets in the East, were no longer supplied with food, water, and medicines, inmates died by the thousands from hunger and disease. When the allies liberated these camps, they found piles of emaciated cadavers all over the place, but it’s questionable whether they were killed by the Germans as the allies were quick to claim for propaganda reasons; many were killed indirectly by the accusers themselves.

The atomic bomb itself, the destroyer of all destroyers, was mostly a Jewish invention.[30] It was in fact called the ‘Jewish bomb.” Jacob Beser, the individual who detonated both of the atom bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, at an altitude that was calculated to cause the greatest possible destruction, was Jewish. Although this bombing was most likely unnecessary to win the war as Japan was ready to surrender, Beser never expressed any regret of having probably killed for nothing roughly 200 000 thousand civilians. In fact, his only regret is that he could not do the same thing to Germany.[31]

Only one conclusion is possible: Jews were the greatest criminals of the 20th century. A fact vindicated by Ron Unz, the Jewish editor in chief and owner of one of America’s leading conservative websites, The Unz Review:

[…] per capita, Jews were the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century. And by a huge margin, with no other nationality even remotely close. And yet, through the astonishing alchemy of Hollywood, the greatest killers of the last hundred years have been magically transformed into the greatest victims, a transformation so seemingly implausible that future generations will surely be left speechless.[32]

Cultural Marxism

But there’s more than one way of destroying to rebuild back nearer to the heart’s desire. Besides the bombs, the tortures, the famines, and the gulags, Jews devised more subtle ways to destroy what they don’t like. The following is a short reminder for those who are not familiar with this subject and for those who lost track of its methods and implications.

When the Jews realized that the Communist Revolution they were advocating in order to achieve world governance was not igniting the Western proletariat as expected, they devised an alternative plan that was milder, but much more effective in its subtlety. The plan which has many similarities with the controversial Protocols of the Elders of Zion was to destroy Western society from within.[33] Here are some of their goals and the means to achieve them:

– Penalize racism by Whites in order to promote Third-World immigration and race mixing;

– Provoke continual change in order to create confusion and to keep children from developing a strong sense of values or a feeling of historical continuity;

– Promote pornography, transgenderism, and teach children about sex and homosexuality at a very young age in order to destroy the traditional model of family and marriage;

– Undermine the authority of schools and teachers in order to promote a laissez-faire culture;

– Promote mass immigration and miscegenation in order to destroy racial and ethnic identity;

– Promote excessive alcohol and drug use to dumb people down and prevent them from asserting their rights and defending themselves;

– Empty the churches, without morals and spirituality, people are defenseless;

– Institute a justice system biased in favour of the criminals to the detriment of the victims in order to demoralize the population and create confusion;

– Create dependency on social benefits to prevent dissent;

– Control and dumb down the media and journalists for propaganda purposes;

– Encourage the breakdown of the family by promoting feminism, contraception, divorce on demand, abortion, “furry babies,” among other things.

In his book The Dispossessed Majority, American racialist Wilmot Robertson brilliantly describes the disastrous effect of this wholesale cultural destruction on the American white majority.[34]

Frankfurt School

One of the main objectives of the Jewish Frankfurt School was to exploit Sigmund Freud’s Jewish doctrine of pansexualism,[35] according to which every act could be explained by an unconscious sexual motivation. Prominent authors such as William Reich, Herbert Marcuse, and Theodore W. Adorno were convinced that antisemitism is a symptom of sexual frustration that can be cured by liberating the Gentile’s libido. To that effect, they advocated the pursuit of pleasure, unfettered enjoyment, the exploitation of gender differences, the reversal of traditional gender relations, and especially feminism.[36]

Why is feminism so important? A Jewish-dominated liberal democracy cannot happen without feminism, a movement that was largely pioneered, influenced, and led by Jewish women.[37] Feminism removes family structures and traditions, and creates individualistic populations that are easy to manipulate and control. Without a strong family to support it, society loses its cohesion and capacity to resist and fight back. This is why the CIA promotes feminism in Muslim countries.[38]

Here are some of the strategies they used:

– To undermine the authority of the father, reject the specific roles assigned to the father and the mother and wrest from parents their inalienable rights to the education of their children;

– Abolish the difference in education between girls and boys;

– Abolish all forms of male domination;

– Declare without justification that women are an oppressed class and men are oppressors.

One of the Frankfurt School’s most influential propagandists, Willi Münzenberg (not a Jew), summed up the long-term goal of this school of Globo-Zionist subversion as follows: “The West we are going to create will be corrupt to the point of stinking.”[39] Indeed, that’s exactly what happened. After WW2, Jews imbibed with cultural Marxist and Frankfurt School notions, flooded American and European universities, and were given “honorary degrees” in the 10s of thousands! This Frankfurt School invasion laid the seeds to the sex, drugs, and rock and roll revolution of the sixties which destroyed the traditional way of life of all Western countries. Right up until now, it had a considerable impact not only on the youth, but also on the general populations of all these countries. We only have to look around us to see the extent to which the Western White majority has been dispossessed and dragged through the mud.

In the end, instead of wanting to destroy the world to better suit their needs and demands, Jews should follow the advice of one of their most distinguished scholars, Harvard historian, Richard Pipes. He finishes his book, Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, by asking: “does anyone have the right to remake human beings and refashion society without the mandate of the people and even against its will in the spirit of the early communist slogan, ‘we will drive mankind to happiness by force?’” Modern society concludes Professor Pipes, “is a complicated structure difficult to grasp, so one should never impose on it patterns of conduct. […] It is best to let people be. The tragic and sordid story of communism teaches that political authority must never be employed for ideological reasons.”[40]

[1] Igor Shafarevich, “Postscript to The Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma,” The Occidental Observer, October 11, 2022. See also Roll Slavisky, “The Elusive ‘Jewish Solution.’ Thoughts on Igor Shafarevich’s ’Postscript to ‘The Three-Thousand-Year-Old Enigma,’” The Unz Review, October 20, 2022.

[2] Chris Christensen, “Popper on Marx on History,” Philosophy Now, 2019.

[3] Michel Onfrey, Le crépuscule d’une idole. L’affabulation freudienne, Bernard Grasset, 2010.

[4] Sam Francis, “Franz Boas – Liberal Icon, Scientific Fraud,” Dare, October 14, 2002.

[5] Larry Romanoff, “A Few Historical Frauds. Einstein, Bell & Edison, Coca-Cola and the Wright Brothers,” The Unz Review, July 11, 2020.

[6] Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique. An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political movements, Kindle, 2021.

[7] Hervé Ryssen, Planetarian Hopes, Omnia Veritas Ltd, 2023.

[8] Do a search with “Jewish Invention Myths,” Karl’s Substack. Everything about Jews and Judaism.

[9] Karl Radl, “Why ‘Jewish Achievement’ Lists are Meaningless,” Karl’s Substack. Everything about Jews and Judaism, Dec 22 2023.

[10] Jan C. Biro Md., Ph.D, The Jewish Bias of the Nobel Prize

[11] Academic Agent, “The Myth of Jewish High IQ,” The Forbidden Texts, November 26, 2023.

[12] Richard Lynn and Tatu Vanhanen, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, Praeger/Greenwood, 2002.

[13] Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the Age of Dictators, Croom Helm Ltd, 2014.

[14] Laurent Guyénot, Our God is Your god too, but He has chosen us. Essays on Jewish Power, AFNIL, 2020.

[15] Ron Unz, “Racial Discrimination at Harvard,” The Unz Review, 2016.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Nicholas Lemann, “Behind the SAT,” Newsweek, June 9, 1999, Vol. 134 Issue 10, p52, 6p, 1c, 4bw.

[19] Sean Tite, Jews Cheat to Infiltrate Academia via SAT Scam, March 6, 2017, archive.today

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Zygmund Dobbs, Keynes at Harvard. Economic Deception as a Political Credo, Veritas Foundation, 1960.

[23] Maurice Samuels, You Gentiles, Internet Archive, p. n.76.

[24] Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century, Princeton University Press, 2004.

[25] Alexandre Soljenitsyne, Deux siècles ensemble, 1795-1995, tome 1 : Juifs et Russes avant la révolution, Fayard, 2002 ; Deux siècles ensemble, 1917-1972, tome 2 : Juifs et Russes pendant la période soviétique, Fayard, 2003. An English translation can now be found on the web.

[26] Jacques Courtois et al, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Harvard University Press, October 15, 1999.

[27] Although this issue is far from settled, if Lindemann was not Jewish by blood, as some Jewish influencers claim, he is undoubtedly a “synthetic” jew, or a Jew at heart, someone who espouses Jewish values and objectives like Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and most politicians in the US, who as soon as they are elected pledge allegiance to Israel. How else can Lindemann’s extreme hatred of Germans and Whites be explained?

[28] Frederick Lindemann, 1st Viscount Cherwell. Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia.

[29] Benton Bradberry, The Myth of Jewish Villainy, Money Tree Publishing, 2023, Second revised and augmented edition, p.385.

[30] The Secret Jewish History of the Atomic Bomb.

 [31] The Jew who Bombed both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[32] Ron Unz, “Racial Discrimination at Harvard,” The Unz Review, 2016.

[33] Benjamin Garland, , 2017.

[34] Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority, H. Allen, 1981.

[35] Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia: Pansexuality is sexual, romantic, or emotional attraction towards people of all genders, or regardless of their sex or gender identity. Pansexual people might refer to themselves as gender-blind, asserting that gender and sex are not determining factors in their romantic or sexual attraction.

[36] Benjamin Garland, work cited.

[37] Ibid., “Part VII-Second Wave Feminism,” p. 56 to 69.

[38] Suzanne Thompson, Planting Seeds in Afghanistan, Economica. Women and the Global Economy, International Museum of Women.

[39] Willi Münzenberg, Spartacus Educational.

[40] Richard Pipes, Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime, Vintage Books, 1995, p. 512.

Bright White Light: More on White Men Achieving Most and Being Vilified Worst

/1 Comment/in , /by

Why are lighthouses so fascinating? In part, it’s because they’re luminal zoons in liminal zones. And why is Tom Nancollas’ Seashaken Houses: A Lighthouse History from Eddystone to Fastnet (Penguin 2019) such a good read? In part, it’s because it doesn’t use pretentious phrases like “liminal zones” and “luminal zoons.” Instead, it uses clear prose and simple illustrations to describe the huge effort and astonishing ingenuity of the White men who designed and built an essential but often overlooked part of the early modern world: the rock-based lighthouses that saved countless lives and ensured safe voyages for countless ships.

Seashaken Houses: the cover of Tom Nancollas’ unconscious celebration of White male achievement

Or they ensured safer voyages, at least. The sea has never ceased to be a dangerous place and lighthouses didn’t end the wrecks and the drownings. Indeed, the first chapter of Seashaken Houses describes how lighthouses sometimes couldn’t save their own keepers, let alone the ships and sailors they were built for. Tom Nancollas asks his readers to “imagine a time-lapse film” of a dangerous patch of sea “13 miles” off the southern coastal town of Plymouth, England. If the film reached “back three centuries” and were “rewound at speed”:

It would show four towers falling and rising upon the Eddystone reef: one disassembled, one combusting like a firework, one destroyed in a storm, their materials cycling from stone to wood, their forms regressing from engineered simplicity to experimental folly, the types of ships darting around them devolving from diesel to steam to sail, until the time-lapse halts at the first Eddystone lighthouse, a thing of outlandish fantasy. (ch. 1, p. 17)

The “outlandish fantasy” of Henry Winstanley’s Eddystone lighthouse (image from Wikipedia)

It was a fantasy that failed during “a storm of unprecedented ferocity” in November 1703. Henry Winstanley (1644–1703), the “eccentric creator” of that first lighthouse, had expressed “the hope that he might chance to be inside his Eddystone during the fiercest storm nature could muster.” As the Great Storm of 1703 began to grow, he realized his hope and sailed to the reef with workmen, seeking to reinforce his creation against the rising wind and waves. But his efforts were in vain: when the storm subsided, the lighthouse had vanished from the reef with Winstanley and his men. They had defied Mother Nature and been rewarded with death.

The pale male paradox

But in its four years of existence, the lighthouse “had become vital for Plymouth’s prosperity.” (p. 22) That’s why more ingenious and courageous White men defied Mother Nature and built lighthouses on the reef, maintaining Plymouth’s prosperity even as other White men did the same for other ports around the coast of Britain. One of them was Robert Stevenson (1772–1850), the Scottish engineering and architectural genius responsible for the lighthouse on Bell Rock off the coast of Angus. As Tom Nancollas describes, Robert was the grandfather of another White genius, the writer Robert Louis Stevenson (1850–94). Not that Nancollas ever refers to race in any way in his book or celebrates the creators and keepers of Britain’s lighthouses as “white men.” He’s interested in their achievements, not their genetics or gender, and he celebrates their ingenuity and courage, not the color of their skin.

Turner’s drawing of Robert Stevenson’s Bell Rock Lighthouse (image from Wikipedia)

After all, he’s a White man like them and it’s characteristic of White men that they aren’t obsessed with themselves and their own identity. Unlike Jews or Blacks or women of all races, White men are exotropic, directed outward to the universe, not endotropic, directed inward to themselves and their own advantage. As I described in “The Pale Male Paradox: How White Men Achieve Most And Are Vilified Worst,” this explains both the mighty achievements of White men and their lowly status in the racial hierarchy of leftism. Contra the claims of leftists, White men don’t constantly seek their own advantage and empowerment, which is why they’re been so vulnerable to the culture of critique. It’s also why under-achieving Blacks have been elevated so far above them. In modern Britain, we hear very little about the ingenuity and courage of White men like Henry Winstanley and Robert Stevenson.

Turning history against Whitey

But we hear incessantly about the Black teenager Stephen Lawrence, England’s new patron saint. Lawrence was an aspiring architectural student who was stabbed to death in London in 1993. Hundreds of other young Black men have met similar or worse fates in the same city, stabbed, shot, kicked, beaten or bludgeoned to death. But those others have never become the subject of a martyr cult, because all of them were murdered by their fellow Blacks. Stephen Lawrence was highly unusual, because he was murdered by “a gang of white racists.” That’s why he can be used to promote an enormous lie: that evil and aggressive Whites are an ominous and ever-present threat to the lives and well-being of vulnerable Blacks. The truth is entirely the reverse. Despite still being a relatively small minority, Blacks kill far more Whites every year in Britain than Whites kill Blacks. Blacks also rape, wound, rob, and defraud Whites in vast disproportion to their numbers.

But leftists care about power, not about truth, which is why the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence was created and is now lavishly funded by the state. Modern Britain celebrates Blacks and denigrates Whites. For example, Britain’s astonishing history of maritime adventure and exploration is now turned against its native Whites, because what did Whites do with their ingenious ocean-braving ships? They committed horrible and unforgivable crimes against the noble and innocent Blacks of Africa, wrenching them from their homes and carrying them across the Atlantic at huge expense in lives and suffering to toil at voyages’ end in sugar-plantations and cotton-fields for the enrichment of Whites. That’s why Britain is so rich and Africa so poor today, as Black scholars like these are happy to explain to the Whites whose taxes fund their propaganda:

In this essential two-part lecture, Dr Kennetta Hammond Perry and Professor Kehinde Andrews will draw on historical fact to demystify [sic] the notion that the Western economy owed its bounty to scientific advancements, industry and democracy — and was instead built on violence, slavery and colonialism. (“The Guardian at 200: Windrush histories and mythologies of race in Britain,” Online workshop at The Guardian, 19th May 2021)

The anti-White hatemongers Dr Kennetta Hammond Perry and Professor Kehinde Andrews

I would suggest that Dr Kennetta Hammond Perry and Professor Kehinde Andrews are as mediocre in intellect as they are biased in racial politics. After all, they don’t appear to understand the simple difference between “demystify” and “debunk.” I doubt that they have any concern at all for “historical fact.” No, they’re not historians but hatemongers, driven by envy and resentment of White achievements. As I described in “The Pale Male Paradox,” the humble screw undoubtedly contributed (and contributes) more to the “Western economy” than what Kehinde Andrews calls “centuries of African enslavement.” The lighthouses described in Tom Nancollas’ Seashaken Houses also contributed more. But Perry and Andrews aren’t interested in screws and lighthouses, fascinating as those things are in so many ways. Perry and Andrews are Black and endotropic, directed inward to themselves and to their own advantage and self-glorification.

No wheels or sails in Africa

That’s part of why they and other Black pseudo-scholars will never consider another vast crime against the Blacks of Africa: the theft of the rich and abundant natural resources of the island of Madagascar. By all standards of geography and natural justice, Madagascar belongs to the Blacks of the south-eastern coast of Africa. After all, it lies a few hundred miles off that coast and is separated by vast stretches of ocean from all other large land-masses. But Madagascar was peopled and exploited not by Blacks but by Austronesians, a race that began its seafaring on the distant island of Taiwan, thousands of miles from Africa. You see, despite the very long coastline of Africa and its many large lakes, sub-Saharan Blacks never invented the sail or built ocean-going ships. Austronesians, in contrast, were excellent sailors and spread their genes and languages over an astonishing area, from Madagascar in the east to the Pacific islands of the west. When Europeans arrived in the Pacific, they discovered that Polynesians practised both slavery and cannibalism.

Madagascar was stolen from nearby Blacks by far-off Austronesians (image from Wikipedia)

But that isn’t held against them today, as I described in “The Island of Slave-Keeping Cannibal Saints.” Instead, Polynesians are celebrated as the noble and nature-loving indigenes who were cruelly oppressed and exploited by brutal White invaders. Once again, Britain’s astonishing history of maritime adventure and exploration is being turned against its native Whites and their diaspora. Captain James Cook (1728–79), the highly intelligent and courageous navigator who rose from humble origins to remarkable achievements, was once justly celebrated as a hero in White-majority nations like Australia and New Zealand. Now he’s unjustly reviled as a villain. Once again, we’ve got the Pale Male Paradox of White men achieving most and being vilified worst. But I think I’ve explained that paradox. White men have achieved most because they’re not obsessed with themselves and their own advantage. But it’s because they’re not obsessed with themselves that they’re vulnerable to the culture of critique that casts them not as the greatest heroes of history but as its darkest villains.

“Stone, air, water, light”

Tom Nancollas and his book Seashaken Houses are another example of the paradox at work. Nancollas is a White man writing about the vast achievements of White men, but he’s interested in the achievements, not in the Whiteness or the masculinity. He doesn’t refer to race in any way in the book and I doubt that race ever crossed his mind in any way when he was writing it. But that absence of race and self-obsession is part of what makes Seashaken Houses so interesting and so satisfying to read. This is Nancollas explaining what attracted him to his subject:

The [lighthouses] may be sophisticated, but my experience of them felt primal. Out in the starkness of the sea, the basics – stone, air, water, light, dark, life, death – were just as vividly emphasized as engineering prowess. By achieving a home, a presence, in the most hostile of environments, the rock lighthouses provide a poignant insight into what it means to build and endure – and to bring light into places where previously there was none. Entwined with the stories of the houses is the story of their purpose – how lights were established and maintained in these liquid places, then improved, made crisper, more powerful, until certain sectors of the sea were as brightly and safely lit as Grosvenor Square [in the heart of London]. (Introduction, pg. 13)

As you can see, Tom Nancollas would never indulge in pretentious prose like “luminal zoons in liminal zones.” I described lighthouses like that at the beginning of this article. But what did I mean by it? Well, a “luminal zoon” is a light-bearing creature (Greek ζῷον, zōon, “living being”). When lighthouses are operating, casting strong light through salt-laden darkness, they seem alive in an uncanny way. And they exist in liminal zones, that is, places that stand on a threshold between one realm and another. They’re built on solid rocks or reefs but are constantly menaced by the ever-shifting sea.

Black Barack Obama pays tribute to White Neil Armstrong with a photo of Barack Obama (image from Daily Mail)

That uncanny life in precarious places explains part of the appeal and fascination of lighthouses, I think. But you could also say that White men are luminal zoons, light-bearing creatures who have entered the world’s most liminal zones. Who was the first to reach the world’s highest spot? To plumb the world’s greatest depth? To reach the north and south poles? To stand on the surface of the Moon? In every case, it was a White man. But those White men did so as individuals, as exotropic explorers of the outer universe, and not one of them regarded his achievement as casting luster on the male half of the White race. After all, if they’d thought like that, they wouldn’t have achieved what they did. White men are doers of deeds, not celebrators of the self. That’s why, after achieving most, they’ve become vilified worst.