Meditations on Hate

Racial nationalists, more than anybody else, know what it's like to be accused of "hate". "Hate" against non-Whites, Jews, liberals, in fact anyone who isn't either of us or with us. "Hate" is supposedly the driving force behind our views, our politics and our ideology. Now we're into the era of "hate crimes". "Hate" is a powerful trigger word that our enemies seek to label us with so as to alienate our natural allies and supporters and prevent us from becoming a mass movement. Let's take a few minutes, then, to examine this particular human emotion. The article below, by Andrew Joyce, Ph. D., is reproduced by kind permission of The Occidental Observer and the original can be viewed at this link.
meditations on hate

“Nature seems made up of antipathies: without something to hate, we should lose the very spring of thought and action. … Hatred alone is immortal.”

William Hazlitt, 1826

No human feeling has been more maligned, slandered, abused, and misappropriated in contemporary culture than the humble and dignified hatred. Wars have been declared against it. Legislation seeks everywhere to strangle it. It has been presented as the source of all evils, and as the great enemy of our time. This primordial emotion is the red-headed stepchild of our contemporary psychological spectrum and the exile of our political language, ever-present but covered up out of embarrassment, shame, or subterfuge. Entire categories of crime and speech have been segregated under the rubric of Hate, and set aside for especially harsh punishment. “Hate facts” are provable realities allegedly tainted with hate, and thus represent aspects of material existence deemed so awful they are denied despite their evident truth.

Hate, it would seem, just can’t get a break. Few are willing to speak on its behalf, even among those classed primarily as “haters.” The latter are apt to protest to deaf ears that they don’t hate anyone but merely love their own kind. All of this denial and disavowal occurs despite the fact hate is as crucial to human existence, if not more so, as love. It is omnipresent. Without hate, you have no history and no literature, no passion and no capacity for action. The plot of the Iliad essentially revolves around the wait for Achilles to reach an optimal state of hatred that then morphs into martial ecstasy and final victory. Imagine Hamlet merely possessing a mediocre dislike of his uncle Claudius. Without Ahab’s detestation of the whale there is no Moby Dick. Even if it were true that love makes the world go round, it would appear that hate greases the axle. It’s time for an exploration from a justified hater.

The Genealogy of Postmodern Morals

The origin of the contemporary war on hate is worthy of some consideration. Religion, contra Nietzsche, doesn’t offer a complete explanation. Take the Bible, for instance, which for the most part offers no injunction against enmity, intense dislike, or revenge except in cases of silent resentment in fraternal, co-ethnic, or communal relationships (Lev. 19:17, 1 John 3:15). The Hebrew god is said to be a hater of lying (Ps. 119:163) and the Psalmist professes to hate his enemies (Ps.139:22) with a “perfect hatred.” Ecclesiastes (Ecc. 3:8) mentions, without judgment or further commentary, that there is “a time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.” The entire history of the Jewish people can be read as involving a quite shameless hatred for the rest of humanity. The only exception in the Bible is located within the “love thy enemy” section of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:44) which, given that it was most probably written while the persecutions under Nero were ongoing, was likely inserted to both promote non-violent resistance and represent a further denial that Christians were a danger to Roman authority (alongside “render under Caesar” etc., also in Matthew). It sits uneasily with much of the rest of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, which makes Nietzsche’s critique of the entirety of these religions as exemplifying unique slave moralities, based almost entirely on amplifications of the concepts of loving one’s enemy and “turning the other cheek,” seem rather tendentious.[1]

Opposition to hatred, and being kind to one’s enemies, can as easily be found among the ancient Stoics and the Buddhists. For Nietzsche, although he focused overwhelmingly on Judaism and Christianity, these were all positions of life-denial, weakness, and dishonesty. Certainly these responses were weaker than simply hating your enemy. For the Stoics, the goal was individual happiness, and resentment and intense dislike were viewed simply as burdensome barriers to that goal — better to be rid of the enemy, yes, but also to be rid of negative feelings for them. For the Buddhists, the soft, supple branch that bends with the fall of heavy snow is more likely to survive winter than the brittle branch that resists and then snaps under increasing weight. Giving way, if necessary, to enemies, was therefore viewed as a form of tactical strength and a means to survival and happiness.

These positions are ultimately weak and evasive in my opinion, because they reject the principles of overcoming obstacles and engaging in direct competition with opponents. Hatred is only a psychological burden when it can’t be fulfilled, thus involving not only hate of the other for their provocation, but hate of the self for the inability to obtain resolution. The mental burden of hatred is found predominantly in the latter, and many flee from it into perverse and ultimately insincere forms of forgiveness. When they “forgive their enemies” they are rather forgiving themselves for not overcoming their enemies.[2] The Stoic and Buddhist approaches are therefore weak not simply because of their superficial rejection of hatred, but because their rejections are themselves evidence of intrinsic weakness in the rejector. If history tells us only one thing, however, it is that no man, and no religion, is immune to the arising of hate, and few escape it altogether. Differences in outward expression, in Christianity, Buddhism, Stoicism, or Judaism thereafter are mere points of tactics.

Unlike Nietzsche, I don’t think specific answers for our current situation can be found so clearly in religion, or even in the distant past. Hate, and the flight from hate among the weak and cowardly, have been with us from the beginning of time, even if it is worsening in the present age. Contemporary hypocrisy and widespread dishonesty in relation to hatred is primarily a result of decadence in modernity, and is related in no small part to duplicitous Jewish activism on behalf of the emotional anaesthetic known widely now as “tolerance.” What is the genealogy of postmodern morals? In ‘The Genius of the Crowd,” Charles Bukowski wrote that “the best at hate are those who preach love,” which couldn’t be more appropriately applied to those now insisting that every country on earth should learn to love their Jews. We live in an age where the problem isn’t that “hate is on the march” but that it marches under innumerable masks, appearing here as “love” and there as “tolerance.” The “war on hate” that we witness today isn’t a war on hate at all, but a hypocritical war on the White capacity to feel and express hate. It should be starkly obvious that every other race on earth is free to hold all the resentments, bitterness, aggression, and calculated coldness it wants, but these qualities are deemed too dangerous, too volatile in Whites. Better that Whites be rendered emotional eunuchs; timid cattle put out to graze in pastures of fast food and mind-blunting entertainment. StoicismBuddhism, and interfaith “tolerance” branches of Christianity are enjoying a widespread boom across the West, fueled by a culture that wants Whites to be “the branch that bends.” And rest assured it is only in the West that the “war on hate” is taking place. There is no universal campaign for universal brotherhood and friendship outside ubiquitous Western multicultural propaganda. The campaign against hate, including its legal manifestations, is inseparable from multiculturalism, mass immigration, global capitalism, and the demographic decline of Whites.

War on Hate, War on Whites

It has become an axiom of Western culture that “being strongly against” anything is morally unsound or quasi-fascistic. Everywhere, and in all sections of the political spectrum, groups struggle to avoid being seen as “against” something, lest they be accused of hating what they oppose. Better to be “pro-life” than “anti-abortion,” and better to be “pro-choice” than “anti-foetus”! Better to be “for strong borders” than to be “against immigration.” Better to say you “support the Palestinians” rather than bluntly declare yourself an “anti-Zionist.” Better to say you support the privacy of women than let it be known you despise the notion of gender-bending miscreants entering into bathrooms alongside your wives and daughters. Better to say you are “pro religious freedom” than assert your hatred of the notion that two men can marry each other. Every sinew is strained to couch one’s feelings in positive terminology, so that you might be seen as a “positive” person with “positive” intentions. Even in our own movement I’ve noticed slices of semi-sincere rhetoric where we increasingly preface our assertions of identity and interests with claims that we support the identity and interests of all peoples (I don’t), even the Zionism of the Jews (I don’t)! The rot, my friends, is universal. Everywhere in the West, being “anti” anything is regarded as highly suspect, unless you are “anti-fascist” or “anti-racist,” in which case you are merely against the idea that Whites have the audacity to be against something.

The war on hate is founded on a ridiculous premise — that everything in modern culture is perfectly agreeable and that there are no logical or moral grounds for strongly opposing anything or anyone in our midst. What is hatred? A feeling of intense dislike. Contemporary political and social mores would have you believe that any White man or woman who looked about them and was aroused to a state of intense dislike must be some kind of monster. Merely sharing your feelings of intense dislike, now termed “inciting hatred,” has been deemed criminal conduct in scores of Western countries. Criminal conduct! This despite the fact there has never been a point in our history more deserving of the deepest loathing, the most scathing contempt, and the most vicious hatred. This seething morass of ethnic encroachment, miscegenation, perversion, ignorance, degeneration, degradation, and humiliation is worthy of every last drop of spite and abhorrence that can feasibly be poured upon it. I hate it all, and if you have any genuine natural instincts left, and if you haven’t been conditioned into a perpetual state of consumerist ennui, you will hate it too.

I take particular pleasure in considering the appellation “Hope not Hate,” attached to a UK “anti-fascist” group dedicated to being against the idea that White people are against anything. To be sure, they occasionally pepper their activities with token gestures on Islamic extremism, but really they should be called “Hope not [White] Hate.” I find it especially interesting that they don’t call themselves “Love not Hate,” which would surely be the logical way of presenting an alternative to hate.

And yet it makes sense that they didn’t choose “love” for two reasons. In the first instance, anyone who opposes hate must intrinsically obstruct love. These opposites exist on the same emotional spectrum, and if you distance from one you enter into a type of emotional tunnel vision in which you lose sight of the other. If anyone tells you earnestly that they don’t hate anyone, you can be sure you’re either talking to a liar or a passionless member of the emotionally castrated. Secondly, those behind this group were probably confronted with the reality that what they have designated “hate” — nativism and nationalism — can’t rationally be opposed with “love.” What were activists and supporters supposed to love? Hordes of anonymous third world migrants? Clearly too large an ask, they settled instead on “hope.” What is hope? Hope for what? Hope is optimism at its most irrational extreme. Hope is when you’re chased to the edge of a cliff by a pack of rabid dogs, when you look down at foaming waves, and “hope” that when you jump, you’ll miss the rocks and survive. Hope is what you feel when all options, and all rational grounds for optimism, are exhausted. Truly there can be no better name for an organization dedicated to the flooding of White countries with mass migration. I congratulate the group’s leaders on their decision.

meditations on hate

It is a special irony, of course, that the priests of the war on hate are the Jews who, for more than a century now, have posed themselves as angelic warriors against bigotry and hatred. This from a people known since the days of Caesar as world-haters possessing the most extraordinary instinct for misanthropy. And here, perhaps is their greatest strength — that they learned to preach anti-hatred while retaining, protecting, and refining their own hatreds. For what does the Jew possess more intense dislike than the homogeneous White nation? Fingernails running down a chalkboard — this is the traditional White nation to the Jews.

The Jewish campaign against hate is a new attempt at a revolution in values. Those European imbeciles who nibble at this bait, convinced that they are part of some moral crusade for universal brotherhood, are throwing themselves into a campaign supporting Jewish hate. Isn’t it obvious that Europeans who adopt the new values aren’t “against hate” but merely sublimate their instincts and agree to hate themselves? What are speech laws, waves of migrants, and the imposition of new values by outsiders if not a hateful violation of sovereignty and the infliction of a systematic cruelty? Imagine the audacity of introducing these measures under the banner of “fighting hate”! All of these things, to the extent that they restrict and punish the natural feelings of the European, bring obvious pleasure and satisfaction to Jews. It is a matter of great joy to Jews that Whites should sign up by the thousands to purge their own ranks of all capacity for opposition. By preaching “a world without hate,” Jews promote a world of docile and dwindling Whites. And they are considerably advanced in this cause.

meditations on hate

What is hate? A feeling of intense dislike, but also something else. Coming to the realization that one intensely dislikes something is the prelude to action against it. I need to be clear on my meaning here. Contemporary propaganda saturation would have you believe that hate “causes” violence and terrorism. This is a nonsense. Consult the work of any serious terrorism expert and you won’t find “hate” anywhere listed as a serious explanation for any act of terrorism at any point in history. Hate is primarily an understanding, and then a state of mind. One can find terrorism motivated in small part by hate, but also by love, fear, confusion, desperation, tactical consideration, religious enthusiasm, personal anguish, psychopathy, peer pressure, mental illness, drug addiction, greed and even a combination of all of these things. When I say that hate is primarily an understanding I mean that it shapes trajectories of behaviour and conditions responses. Hate is not spontaneously self-creating. It doesn’t arise in a given man simply because that man is “bad.” Hate arises in response to stimuli, some kind of provocation. Hate always has a cause and an object. And the person at peace in their hatred is someone willing to believe that he can ultimately overcome and defeat what he hates.

The Longest Hatred

Jews have described anti-Semitism as the “longest hatred.” I disagree. It is clear to any educated onlooker that Semitism itself, insofar as Semitism is defined as the behavioural expression of the Jewish hatred of mankind, represents the oldest hatred in recorded history. The interesting point here is that all Jewish examinations of what they perceive to be the “longest hatred” are conspicuous in their avoidance of the issue of cause and object. Hatred of the Jews is, for Jews, entirely spontaneous and self-creating. Hatred, a human emotion, is often quarantined from reasonable human consideration and represented in Jewish understanding as something not-quite-human — a virus, a theological mutation, or a psychological malfunction. Europeans in Jewish writings are quintessential haters insofar as this involves Europeans giving themselves over to something entirely irrational and inexplicable. Unwilling to examine their own role as cause and object, or to look at their own hatreds in the cold light of day, Jews promote the idea that hate itself, or at least hate among Europeans, is always devoid of cause and object. The White man’s hate is always spontaneous, always irrational, always self-creating, always inexplicable. Ultimately, as we have seen, hate in the European is “criminal.”

If Semitism is, as I have argued, the true “longest hatred,” then what is its cause and object? Causes here are both internal and external to Jews. Judaism, the precise origins of which will remain forever unknown and unknowable, commands a strict separation from other humans and the formation of an ethnic caste above all others. It asserts an ultimate, cosmic superiority, and permits the infliction of a lesser ethics upon presumed inferiors. Jewish hate has arisen from time immemorial in the simple fact that other humans (collectively lumped together simply as goyim) refuse to accept this state of affairs, and that they fail to indulge Judaism’s dominance fantasy. From the beginning of Judaism until the present day, Jews have encountered populations who refuse to see Jews as their superiors. These non-Jewish populations have consistently refused to be subjected to lesser treatment, and they have hated the Jews for attempting to impose it upon them. Jews have responded to this reactionary hatred with a further hatred of their own — a dishonest hatred that hides even from itself and postures as a morose remembering of past injustices. The cycle continues endlessly, with Jewish hatred thus internally and perpetually powered via the momentum of the past.

The lachrymose history of the Jews is in fact the story of frustrated attempts at dominance, and although it presents as a tale of woe, it is in fact a hit-list for revenge. Adam and Gedaliah Afterman have written of the Medieval period as a time in which Jews cultivated a powerful theology/ideology of revenge for perceived wrongs perpetrated by host populations. One Medieval Ashkenazi tale, for example, portrays God as “listing on his garment” the names of all Jewish victims of Gentiles over the course of time so that in the future the deity would have a record of those to be avenged.[3] Isn’t it clear that this tale is a mere externalizing of deeper instincts? Isn’t Jewish culture and historiography the  real “garment” upon which Jews name their “victims,” thereby paving the way for a future vengeance executed not by a deity but by the true object of Jewish worship — the Jews themselves? Every act of Jewish hate is therefore ultimately dishonest, being predicated on false conceptions of vengeance (since the antagonistic Jews were never truly wronged) and therefore incapable of being fulfilled. Jewish hate does not act on immediate causes and objects, but on causes and objects from all nations and from all time periods including the distant past and future. The contemporary infliction of mass migration and cultural degradation on the United States is therefore part of a scheme of vengeance that has its roots in ancient Rome, and in medieval Toledo, and in 1920s Romania, etc. In this kaleidoscopic form of self-denial, Jews seek to fundamentally change your nation not because they “hate” you, and certainly not because they love you, but because they know only too well the dangers of the past. In the midst of such reasoning, their obvious hatred is obscured even to many of their own number.

meditations on hate

By contrast, the hatred of the Europeans for the Jews, being honest to itself, has always been capable of fulfilment. European hate for the Jews has been predicated much less on the past than on immediate cause and object, and European resistance to attempts at Jewish dominance has for the most part been satisfied with curtailments of certain monopolies. We have no equivalent of the lachrymose history, and are notable for our lack of any kind of “garment” on which we’ve listed the victims of Jewish machinations. Europeans have never sublimated their hatred for outsiders, or disguised these hatreds to themselves. European hatred doesn’t hide from itself, or take on the aspect of mere resentment. It has always been concerned with action and results. Expulsions, the most radical answer to provocative Jewish causes and objects, were in most cases short-lived, illustrating the lack of serious grudges among Europeans and a willingness to renew the contexts for relations. This alleged “longest hatred” among the Europeans therefore has the remarkable quality of large gaps, resets, reversals, and numerous chances at decent relationships. As a people, we have always lived in the present and, but for the fact that this has been taken advantage of, this forgetfulness has, as Nietzsche observed, been a source of robust health, action, joy, and pride. The only error of the historical Europeans was to assume that the slate had also been wiped clean on the Jewish side, whereas in fact the Judaic garment of vengeance was growing ever-longer.

Conclusion

The current revolution in values is designed to make Whites the “branch that bends.” In giving up hate, Europeans everywhere will have resigned themselves to non-resistance and to a psychological state in which successful opposition to the negative forces of contemporary life becomes impossible. Honest hate among the strong is healthy, good, and necessary. It is especially necessary in an environment in which opponents of all kinds are engaged in mass duplicity, disguising their own selfish interests as “love,” their own grudges as “tolerance,” and their own hatred as “kindness.” Surrounded by detestable things lingering under dishonesty, we must embrace a “perfect hatred,” and be at peace in it, in the certain knowledge that, while the weak fall by the way side, we will carry it to its completion.


[1] I tend to concur with Roger Scruton’s assessment of Nietzsche’s fixation here that it was both “obsessive, if not tedious.” See Scruton, A Short History of Modern Philosophy (1995).

[2] This kind of thinking has expanded rapidly in modernity because justice has become an increasingly watered down and impersonal affair in which individual access to adequate retribution is frustrated.

[3] A. Afterman & G. Afterman, “Meir Kahane and Contemporary Jewish Theology of Revenge,” Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal, Vol. 98, No. 2, (2015), 192-217, (197).

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0

Humbug, Hypocrisy, and the Dismantling of White Western Identity

Reproduced here by permission of The Occidental Observer and Professor Kevin MacDonald – a wide-ranging article covering several subjects, including the Peter Simple column that used to grace the pages of the Daily Telegraph most of the time from the 1950s to the end of the twentieth century. In particular it informs us about hogwash from the UK’s Jewish Board of Deputies, the murder of the Dutch-born poet Jacob Israël de Haan (an anti-Zionist), and Jewish hypocrisy in demanding the right to exclusivity for Israel and Jews living in gentile nations but “diversity” for everyone else.

None of my best friends are Jewish, but two of my favourite authors are. One of those favourite writers is Larry Auster (1949–2013) from New York, who wrote some of the best and clearest analysis of liberalism and the American immigration disaster. Although he often criticized Jews for their central role in both, he also condemned Kevin MacDonald’s ideas as extremist and unacceptable. At the end of his life, however, he pretty much admitted that MacDonald was right.

“Read off the result in prejudons”

The other of those favourite writers of mine is Michael Nathan (1913–2006) from the Yorkshire town of Bradford, who wrote the satirical and whimsical “Peter Simple” column in the Daily Telegraph for many years. As he himself often acknowledged, his work owed much to the surreal genius of the Catholic Beachcomber, but he had his own gift for capturing the absurdities of leftism in memorable characters and imagery. One of Simple’s greatest satirical inventions was first unveiled as early as the 1970s and was used regularly until his death in 2006:

THE Macpherson Report’s definition of a “racist incident” as “any incident perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person” is causing immense trouble and confusion for all concerned. Yet there is a simple answer. As I have pointed out before, the Racial Prejudometer was originally developed by the West Midland firm of Ethnicaids for use by the race relations industry, but is now available to everybody (ask your nearest race relations stockist).

Inexpensive and handy for pocket or handbag, you simply point it at any person (including yourself) you suspect of “racism”, press the easy-to-find “action” button and read off the result in prejudons, the internationally recognised scientific unit of racial prejudice. (The Peter Simple ColumnThe Daily Telegraph, 13th April 2001)

It takes a truly gifted writer to say so much in so few words: Simple was satirizing “the race relations industry” (a phrase he also invented), the uncritical adulation of science, the leftist pretence that racism and “hate” can be objectively defined and measured, and more besides. But note particularly the phrase “internationally recognised,” which Simple knew to be a sure sign of leftist cant and humbug. Nonsense remains nonsense, no matter how widely it is “recognised.”

Adopt the definition, already!

Peter Simple first pointed that out decades ago, but his satire has never gone out of date. In the 21st century, nonsense is still being promoted on the ground that it is “internationally recognised.” Simple must have chuckled to himself in Satirists’ Heaven when he read this self-important and self-righteous announcement from the Jewish Board of Deputies:

Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism

Board of Deputies President Elect Marie van der Zyl has applauded King’s College London for adopting the internationally recognised IHRA [International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance] definition of antisemitism.

Marie said: “This is the right move by King’s College London. Together with our Jewish communal colleagues we have been in an ongoing dialogue with Professor Byrne to address some of the issues facing Jewish students at his and other London universities. We are pleased that the university has joined the many bodies that have already adopted the definition, including the UK Government, the Scottish and Welsh Governments, the National Union of Students, and hundreds of local councils.

“The IHRA Definition makes it easier for authorities to identify and understand the nature of contemporary antisemitism. If universities are serious about addressing antisemitism and making Jews feel welcome at their institution, they should follow KCL’s example and adopt the definition.” (Board of Deputies applauds King’s College London for adopting internationally recognised definition of antisemitism, The Board of Deputies website, 30th May 2018)

The phrase “internationally recognised” is still a sure sign of cant and humbug. And sure enough, the IHRA’s definition of “anti-Semitism” is ludicrously vague and elastic:

Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. (What is Antisemitism?, The Campaign Against Antisemitism)

The definition is plainly designed to end free speech about Jewish misbehaviour and to prevent any challenge to Jewish power. It’s accompanied by a list of examples of anti-Semitism in action. Here is one of the examples:

Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations. (What is Antisemitism?)

Well, if that is an example of anti-Semitism, it’s clear that Jews themselves are often highly anti-Semitic. For example, here are two posters that recently appeared in New York and London to celebrate a happy event in ultra-Orthodox Jewish life:

One Nation in New York: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at the MetLife stadium

One Nation in London: Agudath Israel celebrates a Talmudic milestone at Wembley Arena

Note the slogan “One Nation. One Siyum.” A siyum is a complete communal reading of the Talmud, the strange, anti-Christian and anti-gentile scripture that is now central to Judaism (and that makes Judaism, in effect, younger than Christianity — the Talmud was composed in Palestine and Babylonia centuries after the death of Christ).

Murder of a poet

But what is the “One Nation” that has just completed “One Siyum”? Plainly, the nation can’t be the United States or the United Kingdom. Those are two separate countries whose inhabitants have mostly never even heard of the Talmud. And the same slogan is being used in both New York and London. No, “One Nation” obviously refers to ultra-Orthodox Jews living on opposite sides of the Atlantic. They don’t regard themselves as American or British, but as Jewish in both race and religion. The organization behind the Siyum celebrations, in which tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews packed stadiums in New York and London, is called Agudath Israel, which means “Union of Israel,” that is, union of the geographically dispersed Jewish people, wherever they happen to be in the world. Agudath Israel was founded in 1912, long before the founding of the physical state of Israel in 1948. At first the organization opposed Zionist attempts to create a literal homeland for the Jewish people, believing that Jews should wait for “divine intervention.”

Indeed, its opposition was too effective for the liking of some Zionists. In 1924 the militant and often murderous Zionist organization Haganah (the forerunner of the Israel Defense Forces or IDF) assassinated one of Agudath Israel’s most eloquent spokesman, the Dutch-born poet Jacob Israël de Haan. Since then Agudath Israel has become “non-Zionist, rather than anti-Zionist,” and it has actually spawned an ultra-Orthodox political party in Israel called Agudat Yisrael. The party is small, never winning more than a handful of seats, but Israel’s system of proportional representation has allowed it to tip the balance of power and wield far greater influence than any equivalent parties in America or Britain.

A Jewish supremacist party

And equivalent parties in America or Britain would inevitably be called “far right” and condemned with labels like “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” and “extremist.” Agudat Yisrael would accept all those labels with pride: it is a Jewish supremacist party upholding traditional Jewish values. It does not believe in welcoming non-Jewish refugees into Israel, permitting women to pursue careers outside the home, or celebrating homosexuals and their fascinating microbiological experiments. Agudat Yisrael and similar parties also represent Israel’s political future, thanks to much higher birth-rates among strongly religious Jews than among secular and liberal Jews.

The same discrepancy in birth-rates exists among Jews in America and Britain. That’s why Agudath Israel was able to fill stadiums in two major Western cities with enthusiastic young Talmudic scholars. And although it used a blatantly anti-Semitic slogan to promote its Siyum celebration, it didn’t need to worry about being prosecuted for hate. Plainly Agudath Israel is far “more loyal to the priorities of Jews worldwide” than to the nations of America and Britain. Indeed, it isn’t loyal to America or Britain at all. But Agudath Israel is a Jewish organization and Jews can state the truth about Jewish behaviour when it suits them. Goys can’t state the truth or they will be expelled from respectable society.

Inbreeding and ethnocentrism

And why should Agudath Israel be loyal to America or Britain? Its ideology is far more realistic and historically grounded than the race-blind universalism that currently governs the political and cultural mainstream in Western countries. I say “countries” advisedly, because they’re not true nations any more. But when Agudath Israel refers to ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews as “One Nation,” it’s using the word with perfect accuracy. “Nation” ultimately derives from the Latin verb nasci, meaning “to be born.” Ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazim, whether they live in New York or London, are bonded by blood, language and religion, and therefore form a true nation. Indeed, Ashkenazim are highly inbred by gentile standards and seem to have gone through a genetic bottleneck of around 350 ancestors sometime during the Middle Ages.

This inbreeding has undoubtedly contributed to the ethnocentrism of Ashkenazi Jews, who are bitterly accused of racism and prejudice by Mizrahic and Ethiopian Jews in Israel. But Ashkenazi Jews have cleverly projected their own ethnocentrism and ethnic nepotism onto White gentiles as part of the culture of critique. For example, in Britain the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is headed by two ethnocentric Jews: the lawyer Rebecca Hilsenrath and the homosexual-rights activist David Isaacs. Ms Hilsenrath has told the Jewish Chronicle that her well-paid role of hunting down White racism and xenophobia constitutes “the best job in the world.”

The Fine Line

The academic Sarah Fine is another Jewish woman who surely derives great satisfaction from her well-paid job attacking the White British. As the new decade began, the Jewish Chronicle was delighted with Fine’s answer to the vexed question of “Who decides who is British?” It’s certainly not the White British, whose racism, xenophobia and “lazy assumptions” make them entirely unfit for such important decisions. Instead, it’s Jews guided by the sacred Jewish value of “Welcoming the Stranger”:

Jewniversity: Sarah Fine

Who decides who is British? In the latest in David Edmonds’ series on Jewish academics he meets an academic whose focus is national identity

I usually ask the subjects of this column – “is there any link between your academic area and your ethnicity and cultural background?”. “No”, is the occasional curt response.

But Sarah Fine’s work focuses on issues of national identity, discrimination, immigration and minority rights. So, in her case, the connection with her Jewish upbringing is obvious.

Almost everyone reading this column will have parents, grandparents or great grandparents who arrived in this country from elsewhere. Had they not moved country, you, dear reader, would not exist. But would it have been within Britain’s right to deny your ancestors entry? Would it have been acceptable to turn grandfather Sholem away?

To most people, that might seem a silly question. The Brexit vote revealed how strongly many Brits feel about this. Of course, a state should be allowed to set immigration controls, to determine the criteria for entry, to police borders. That’s a fundamental right of every state. Surely?

Dr Fine, who teaches at King’s College London, wants to interrogate this lazy assumption.

On what grounds does the state claim this exclusionary right? Various arguments are offered. One is that the state has the right to defend itself — indeed, providing security is the state’s most basic function. Well, fair enough. That might give it a reason to exclude outsiders who are convicted murderers or ISIS fighters. But grandfather Sholem posed no danger to individuals or to the state.

But the state has always claimed the right to control its borders — doesn’t that, in and of itself, demonstrate its exclusionary right? Not really. Some states in the past (and a few still today) claimed the right to deny exit (think of the USSR) — can we really be confident that the denial of entry is morally superior to the denial of exit?

But we live in a democracy, and surely in a democracy the people get to decide on the rules: and the majority of people don’t want uncontrolled immigration. Well, what is a democracy and who are the people? Presumably, a democracy is a form of government in which autonomous agents like you and me get a say in laws that shape our lives. In the early 20th century, it was impossible to resist the argument that women should have the vote because women were affected by laws passed by parliament. But, in that case, is it so obvious that the voice of grandfather Sholem should be ignored? Whether he was granted entry to Britain was hugely important to him.

Here’s another argument. Should we not regard the state as just like a larger version of a golf club? And don’t we think that it’s fine for a golf club to exclude members? Up to a point. Many golf clubs excluded Jews until around the 1960s, and that doesn’t seem totally OK. In any case, states are not voluntary associations, and the stakes are far higher.

Let’s try a final tack. We need to control our borders to protect our culture, our way of life. Yet even if we grant there’s something in this, we should tread carefully. What is “our” way of life? Is the British way of life Christian? Can it include the way of life of minorities? Is it immutable, or can it evolve? And is protecting a way of life so important that it trumps grandfather Sholem’s desire to move here?

Sarah Fine has distant roots in Poland and Lithuania, but three of her grandparents were born in the north of England. Her parents both grew up in the tight-knit Jewish community in Sunderland. Most Sunderland Jews departed by the 1970s, and Dr Fine’s parents — the first in the family to attend university — settled in North London. It was a religious home, with a kosher kitchen. She attended the Sinai Jewish Primary School in Kenton.

She found aspects of religion difficult to reconcile with other beliefs and now describes herself as culturally Jewish rather than religious — but she wants to pass on some Jewish learning to her kids. As for her academic work, Sarah Fine says it’s partially inspired by a Torah portion she read during a women’s service when she was a teenager: “And you shall not oppress the stranger, for you know the soul of the strangers, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”. (Who decides who is British?The Jewish Chronicle, 3rd January 2020 / 6th Tevel 5780)

There you go: it’s grandfather Sholem and his descendants who get to decide who is British — and who is AmericanGermanFrenchSwedishAustralian and so on. Grandfather Sholem might have been a highly superstitious and goyophobic Yiddish-speaker in Eastern Europe with no connections to any Western nation, but his “vote” outweighed any vote cast by the White citizens of any Christian nation to which he wished to emigrate. After all, “[w]hether he was granted entry … was hugely important to him.”

And welcoming the stranger is, according to Sarah Fine, a core Jewish value drawn from the Torah, or Jewish Bible. It isn’t, of course, because Israel trashes the Torah by sealing its borders with high-tech fences and refusing to accept any of the non-Jewish refugees that abound in the Middle East. Israel has very strict laws on citizenship, which deny citizenship to Arabs expelled during the formation of Israel, although their ancestors had lived in that region for millennia. No, Israel is a Jewish nation and Jews are determined it will remain that way. Britain was a White Christian nation and Jews were equally determined that it should not remain that way.

The core of mendacity

Meanwhile, Jews in AmericaGermanyFranceSweden and Australia were busy dismantling the national identity of millions of other goyim. The anti-White lies and propaganda began early in America, which Jews proclaimed to be a “nation of immigrants” and a “melting pot” for all creeds and colors. The same lies and propaganda arrived much later in Ireland, but are now doing sterling work in dismantling Irish identity and justifying mass immigration from the Third World. As we saw above, Britain has the Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) to enforce Jewish ideology. Ireland has an organization with a nearly identical name: the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC). There are no obvious Jews among its commissars, but there are plenty of lawyers and also two Black Congolese diversicrats: Fidèle Mutwarasibo, who has “a PhD in Sociology,” and Salome Mbugua, who has “a Master’s degree in Equality Studies.” And so Jewish ideology is certainly at work in the IHREC. That’s why it is busy issuing ludicrous propaganda posters like this:

A Big Black Lie: “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish”

The poster, which features the Black IHREC commissar Salome Mbugua, makes an utterly ludicrous claim: “Diversity is at the core of what it means to be Irish.” You might as well say that “Disunity is at the core of what it means to be united” or “Blackness is at the core of what it means to be White.” And that is what the anti-Irish IHREC are saying: that anyone of any race from anywhere on Earth can be Irish. If that were true, being Irish would have no meaning except residence on Irish soil. It isn’t true, however. It’s a lie derived from the anti-White Jewish ideology of universalism, which seeks to dissolve all White bonds of identity and swamp White nations in a tide of non-White immigration from the corrupt, tribalist and highly illiberal Third World.

Unity for Jews, atomization for Whites

Jewish ideology has a simple underlying message: “Jews can, goys can’t.” Jews like Agudath Israel – meaning “Union of Israel,” remember – can celebrate Jewish unity and nationhood across vast geographic boundaries. Goys like the White Irish cannot form a nation of their own even within the shores of their isolated north Atlantic island, where the genetic, cultural and linguistic roots of Irishness go deep into prehistory.

Our Man in the Dáil: Jewish nation-dissolver Alan Shatter

And guess who opened the immigration floodgates in Ireland both for Black shysters like Fidèle Mutwarasibo and for Black criminals and welfare-eaters. It was the aptly named Jewish minister Alan Shatter, who was hailed by the Jewish Chronicle as “Our Man in the Dáil” (Irish government). Back across the Irish Sea, the Jewish minister Barbara Roche opened the immigration floodgates under the traitorous Tony Blair. The patterns of anti-White Jewish behaviour are very obvious, but the IHRA’s “definition of anti-Semitism” is designed to make them impossible to describe and analyse. Jews can have a nation of their own, goys can’t. What could be simpler than that?

Read the original post here.

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0

A Jewess’s rant in The Spectator against the British body politic

by Martin Webster

Hysterical, self-pitying, self-indulgent, arrogant, spiteful, illogical, hateful.

These are the adjectives which came into my mind when reading Tanya Gold’s tirade — “‘Utterly betrayed’: Britain’s Jews are now politically homeless” by Tanya Gold – in The Spectator of Saturday 9th November 2019 — initially against the Corbynite left of the Labour Party, but which developed against much of our country’s body politic.

In the end, I was left with a sense that she was raging against the British people and nation as a whole — even the gentile world at large. This is nothing new in the voluminous canon of Jewish contemplation about the ‘goyim’, the inhabitants of the non-Jewish world.

Tanya Gold

If somebody had published such a screed against Jewry they might find themselves charged with some sort of “hate crime”, under a law devised by Jewish lawyers and pushed on to the Statute Book at the behest of Jewish organisations such as the Board of Deputies of British Jews and Jewish parliamentarians (of all parties) and their gentile philo-semitic colleagues (of all parties), all of whom are at once:

(a) perpetually hungry for Jewish financial and media patronage bestowed by the likes of the Conservative/Labour ‘Friends of Israel’ organisations,
and
(b)
terrified of being marked down as “anti-semitic” if they refused any Jewish demand.

I found that the case which Tanya Gold’s article seeks to assert self-destructed as I read it, so I will not seek to deconstruct it in detail here. I will simply point to one short passage which exposes the school playground level bigotry — and hence the hypocrisy — of this woman who seeks to denounce bigotry:

“…I have not considered voting Conservative before. But I won’t. There is
a respectable strain of Conservatism, but this is not it, not for me – one
glance at Jacob Rees-Mogg’s face is enough…”

Jewry seeks to control all political parties

Judah has become rampant in Britain not only on account of what the founder of modern political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, described as “…the terrible power of our purse…”, and not only because of the ever-increasing Jewish control of the media, but because Jewry has been able to dominate all the parliamentary political parties – and a lot of the minor parties as well.

In that latter regard, let us not forget Jewry’s sustained effort, circa 1998 to 2007, to get British National Party leader Nick Griffin ‘on board’ only to find that he and his party were so ‘flaky’ that they had to turn their effort to dominate the “far Right” to cultivating the man who calls himself ‘Tommy Robinson’ and promoting his ‘English’ [sic] Defence League. I chronicled all this in my Electronic Loose Cannon e-mail bulletins issued during the first decade of this century while the BNP was still significantly extant.

Jewry’s strategy has been simple for the past 100 years or more: It seeks to exert a controlling influence over all political parties, factions and tendencies so as to protect Jewry both here in Britain and abroad — especially (post WW2) Israel, which is the totem pole focus of its essential tribal and hence political loyalty.

It is because Jewry sees its once stranglehold grip on the Labour Party slipping, at least for the moment, and because it fears that if Labour’s bid for independence is allowed to succeed then the revolt might spread to other major parliamentary parties, that it is making war on the Corbyn-led Labour Party with increasing ferocity.

The Conservative Party purports to be fighting the 12th December General Election to “Get Brexit Done”. In my view that slogan is a confidence trick because the ‘Brexit’ which Boris Johnson is offering is not an implementation of the 2016 Referendum result which mandated a clean break from the EU and all its institutions.

Parties which seek to escape
Jewish control to be destroyed

Jewry is engaged in this election, increasingly by giving support to the
Conservatives, not to achieve any sort of Brexit (to which it is opposed as a revolt against the internationalist and cosmopolitan milieu in which it thrives but all others involved degenerate) but to shatter the Corbynite hold on the Labour Party and, thereby, to demonstrate to the entire body politic that parties and politicians who seek to escape Jewish control will be destroyed.

It was this motivation that prompted the Board of Deputies of British Jews, via the Labour Friends of Israel, to set up in 1977 the Anti Nazi League (“Anal” to nationalists) in alliance with the ‘anti-Zionist’ Socialist Workers Party, then led by a group of Israeli passport-holders fronted by a man who called himself ‘Tony Cliff’ but whose real name was Ygael Gluckstein. In the run-up to the 1979 General Election Anal subjected the National Front’s lawful activities to mob violence. Their objective was made clear with their chant: “Smash!–Smash!–Smash the National Front!” It is deliciously ironic that among those active in Anal’s ‘Red Rent-a-Mob’ are people who are now being witch-hunted as Corbynite “anti-semites” within the Labour
Party.

Jewry’s strategy in treating the current Labour Party with the same venom — if not, yet, with the same degree of physical violence — as it deployed against the NF in the 1970s strikes me as very high risk. In making such an effort Jewry puts itself on view to the general public in a way that it traditionally prefers not to do. The nasty, neurotic, self-worshipping aspect of Jewry’s personality becomes exposed, as it is here for all to see in Tanya Gold’s article.

‘Anti-semitic’ or not, the Labour Party is multi-racialist

This is not a plea for anybody to vote Labour on 12th December! Whether or not there are “anti-semites” within the Labour Party, that party — be it ‘Blairite’ or ‘Corbynite’ — adheres to unrestricted immigration not only from Europe but from the whole of Africa, Asia and South America and actively approves of inter-racial mating. It seeks to allow the families of illegal immigrants to “unite” — here, not in their own ancestral homelands. Corbyn himself in his younger days flaunted his relationship with the negress Diane Abbott, now the Labour Shadow Home Secretary.

When Coloured Immigration into the UK commenced in the late 1940s the
Communist Party was comprised for the most part of Scots and Jews. To begin with the Jock element was in the ascendancy and proclaimed (correctly in my view) that Coloured Immigration was a “bosses’ plot to undermine the wages of British workers”. But the Jews, fearful of where such sentiments might lead if British society became less, not more, cosmopolitan, fought back and eventually turned the CP in favour of immigration and multi-racialism. (“Workers of all Lands Unite!”) This policy development soon influenced the Labour Party. Those seeking to know how the CP influenced Labour Party policy in the 1940s have only to read Douglas Hyde’s 1951 memoir: I Believed: The Autobiography of a Former British Communist.

This ‘Communist’ multi-racialist policy is in fact an essentially Jewish policy; a strategy devised to leave non-Jewish nations/societies weaker and, relatively, Jewry stronger. If Jewry sustains its internal discipline, via Judaism and societal pressure, which interdicts marriage with non-Jews (“Vot? You vant to continue ze vork of Hitler?”) whilst promoting all manner of non-Jewish races to inter-breed with each other, then the culturally/ethnically distinct Jewish population will develop its patriotism and objectives whilst all manner of other folks are dissolved into racial/cultural chaos.

Not that the Jews are a particularly ethnically homogeneous nation, but as I have remarked before: In the Land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is King.


Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0

A Race War Prophecy

race war prophecy

Ethnic Apocalypse: The Coming European Civil War
Guillaume Faye
Arktos, 2019.

“A confrontation has become indispensable if we are to resolve the problem, remediate the situation and free ourselves.”

                                                         Guillaume Faye, Ethnic Apocalypse

This is a review by Andrew Joyce, Ph.D. of the last book written by the French “far-right” intellectual, Guillaume Faye, with the title of “Guerre civile raciale” (A Racial Civil War). It has a foreword written by Jared Taylor.

M. Faye sadly passed away in March 2019. He wrote this book knowing he had nothing to lose as he was dying anyway. It deals brutally with the nightmare that a growing number of European countries are gradually waking up to – the fact that when you have millions of Africans and Arabs, largely Muslim, of low IQ and with no record of stable civilisation, settle in White countries in numbers that are now outnumbering those of the native White population, then the result is not exactly going to be that everyone lives happily ever after.

Mr Joyce is in danger, in places in his review, of falling into the trap of summarising the book chapter by chapter, but that aside this review is essential reading for all genuine racial nationalists. We are obliged to The Occidental Observer for their permission in republishing this article, which was originally published at https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2019/09/08/a-race-war-prophecy/

The celebrated French far-Right intellectual Guillaume Faye passed away in March, after a long battle with cancer, but not before leaving us a literary parting shot that deserves to be a bestseller. In his final book, Faye explores the demographic, cultural, political, and military degradation of France, drawing sobering lessons for the West as a whole. The book makes a number of stark and terrifying predictions that, when all current trends are taken into consideration, have an overwhelming probability of coming to fruition. Foremost among these predictions is that the West is now almost certainly destined to convulse with a savage and intense civil war (both civil and internal, both religious and racial) without parallel in the history of mankind. With all the dark candour one might expect from a dying man with nothing else to lose, Ethnic Apocalypse, or as it was published in French Guerre civile raciale (A Racial Civil War), is perhaps the most brutally frank, bitterly scathing, and searingly honest accounts of the current trajectory of the multicultural West that I’ve ever come across. The reader searches the text for euphemism, finding none. There are no evasions here; no duplicity in nomenclature. Faye doesn’t speak of cultural differences, or religious incompatibilities. He has little time for talk of assimilation and integration. The problem, he declares, “is neither ideological nor even religious in nature, but, in fact, anthropological. And so is the solution. The coming war will involve people who have nothing to say to one another and who should never have been made to live together.”[1] A little over 50 years after Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, Faye’s book is both a nod to Powell’s prescience, and a chronicle of the nascent ebbs and waves of a crimson tide that now seems fated to engulf us all.

The volume opens with a heartfelt preface by Jared Taylor, who appears to have been appropriately affected by its contents and describes the text as “certainly the darkest, bravest, and frankest book my friend has ever written. It is a brilliant analysis of the mortal threat to us of massive non-white immigration.”[2] Arktos, the publisher of the English translation, then offer a brief note explaining the change in title from the “intentionally incendiary” French, pointing to the fact “the original title would render this book a magnet to our contemporary censors, who would work under the curious pretext, no doubt, that any book which speaks of a racial civil war in its title must surely be advocating the same.”[3] It is a credit to Arktos that they haven’t changed anything other than the title of this book which, while not necessarily advocating for race war, certainly doesn’t shy away from considering or even desiring the positive results that might arise from such an eventuality. As Arktos make clear, “many of the ideas the reader will encounter herein are harsh and hard to look upon, but they are genuine and astute; they are a serious man’s assessment of what he regarded as a coming emergency of continental, if not global proportions.”[4] And with the conclusion of these preambles, explanations, and caveats, Faye’s final book gets underway.

In the first chapter, “Diagnosis Before the Storm,” Faye outlines the fundamentals of the problem facing Europe and those of European origin. He begins with a list of murders and atrocities committed in France, including the slaughter of a priest by Muslims during Mass and massacres in Paris, Nice, and other provincial French towns. He points to an “ever-increasing criminality involving clearly identified perpetrators whose ethnic origins is often concealed by the official media,” and a “growing difficulty for the native population to coexist with African and Oriental immigrants who are increasingly aggressive, demanding and violent.”[5] What surprises Faye is that “we have not yet registered any defensive reaction on the part of this formerly valiant people or that of other European countries, let along the beginning of any sort of retaliation against Arab and black Muslims, who bear the sole responsibility for all of these crimes.”[6] The response thus far has been that one “snivels and proceeds to place candles and flowers where massacres have occurred,” something that the author attributes to both a loss of collective energy (the lower socio-professional classes have been wearied by incoming populations whose “cruelty remains unequalled”) and to a state that targets any identitarian awakening with repressive measures.[7] Faye argues that Whites (he specifically uses the term throughout the text after stating “let us state the facts as they are’), are “leading miserable and exasperated lives, are weary of being deprived of their tranquility” but that “an unpredictable spark” may yet cause them in “a spirit of self-defence, to organise themselves and  ultimately launch a counter-offensive.”[8]

Faye is unapologetic about speaking bluntly and specifically of race. He employs the term “as part of a sincere longing for accuracy.”[9] Some people find the term disagreeable? The author responds:

Do you know what is really unpleasant, by contrast? Living your life surrounded by ten million, twenty million, or even a greater number of Africans and Arabs, with whom one never wanted to associate. What is very disagreeable indeed is acknowledging the thought that, soon enough, the people of our race, namely the Whites of Europe, will be a minority in their own lands. What is more unpleasant is our inability to describe the very horror of our situation without burdening our statement of the facts with foolish periphrases and politically correct words, all of which remain less expressive of what is crucial for us to say than of what one is required to say.[10]

Again and again, Faye hammers home the racial reality of the our situation, and is biting and scathing in his descriptions of those who have flooded Europe. He describes a reality where “our peaceful French men and women” are “mocked, attacked, raped and killed every day by individuals belonging to non-European races.”[11] These “foreign and belligerent races” have “come to have their cake and eat ours.” They “want to reap the benefits of Western prosperity without having to make the same effort we have made in order to enjoy it, while simultaneously retaining their own identity and hating us most openly. They perceive us as being foreign and will continue to do so; it thus seems fair to me that we should regard them in the same manner.”[12] For Faye, “these third-world immigrants are not worth a penny,”[13] and African immigration to France, and more generally to Europe, “is an abomination and must be brought to an end as soon as possible.”[14]

Faye reflects for several pages on the novelty of race war, remarking that while Europeans may in the past have driven back invaders and occupiers as part of a Reconquista movement that ended with the liberation of Greece in the early nineteenth century, these invaders “did not enjoy such demographic superiority” as they do in the present, and they were historically “perceived as foreign occupiers with their own army”[15] rather than being embedded in our societies in the fashion they are today. Because of the overlapping elements (religion, race, and treason among Whites), Faye predicts that “this war will therefore be characterised by a very high intensity resulting from the multiplication of its explosive causes, since the conflict will simultaneously be a civil and internal one, an ethnic one, a religious one and a racial one. An unheard-of event in Europe.”[16]

The author also remarks that the conflict is “probably inevitable,” due to the “huge and constantly accelerating wave of colonising immigration” and the fact most of these immigrants possess a “hatred combining resentment with a desire for revenge.”[17] Tensions are building further because the secret services have designated the retaliatory actions of native groups, rather than Muslim or immigrant aggressors, as the main danger to French society, an aspect of what Faye calls the French state’s “Collaborationist Tropism.”[18] This is part of a much wider problem – the fact that in modernity “democracy imposes invasion upon peoples.”[19] Citing Angela Merkel’s flooding of Germany with millions of non-Whites, Faye remarks: “The underlying purpose is for the system to impose upon ethnic peoples  —  upon Whites, to be perfectly clear — an invasion at the hands of foreign masses of illegal immigrants and to force them to accept the destruction of their own living environment and culture.” Parliamentary democracy, in reality a “putrid oligarchy,” is “guilty of paving the way for an ethno-racial civil war not only in Western Europe (beginning with France itself), but perhaps also in the United States and Canada.”[20]

Faye asserts that the worst possible progression would be that this mass invasion occurred “smoothly,” but that we have instead encountered “terrorist violence, delinquency and nuisance.” This has made it more difficult to disguise the fact “that a conflict with these foreigners is underway.”[21] Conflict is therefore always preferable to “surrender without fighting — a progressive agony characterised by demographic and cultural disappearance, population replacement and Islamisation.” Faye is adamant in his insistence that

A confrontation has become indispensable if we are to resolve the problem, remediate the situation and free ourselves. In this regard, these Islamist provocations, who purpose is to spark off a civil war, are dialectically positive for us Whites and perhaps even suicidal for them if the events result in our awakening. If one keeps pulling the sleeping tiger by the tail, it will awaken.[22]

The book presents a racial civil war as potentially cathartic, solving “the generally delinquent, criminal, hostile, provocative and parasitic behaviour of a large part of these populations who, in all areas of our daily life, render all cohabitation unbearable.”[23] Faye argues:

It may turn out to be necessary to go through such events in order to salvage what is essential, because an ethnic and cultural war, in the event that we do emerge victorious, will rid us once and for all of the main problem, of the evil which, although never clearly formulated, is common knowledge to us all and has been gnawing at France and Western Europe: the immigration stemming from low-IQ Africa, the gradual colonisation of our territories, and the destruction of our identity. In short, our future disappearance from history books.[24]

In the book’s next chapter, “The Conquest of Europe is Underway,” Faye surveys the recent influx of millions of Muslims into Europe, and points to some of those “degenerate whites and impudent Jews” who have orchestrated it and cheered it on. [25] He describes the current phase of mass migration as “more important and much more serious than the two world wars of 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 and Soviet Communism (1917-1991).”[26] These migrants “have no reason to be here at all yet are confident of their rights, turn out to be demanding and aggressive, never doubting the fact they shall remain unpunished, evade deportation and enjoy the assistance of both ‘humanitarian’ associations and the state itself.”[27] The author condemns the role of the Catholic Church in both offering and soliciting ‘humanitarian’ aid for the migrants, and is clearly disgusted by the “complete traitor” Pope Francis who is condemned in the text for his “complete lack of historical knowledge,” “Trotskyist views,” and “rather delirious and insane conception of Christian charity.”[28] Faye also presents the example of Jacques Attali, the economist and political advisor, as a demonstration of “impudent Jews” in action. He quotes Attali as writing the following for L’Express in June 2018:

The only solution is for us to understand, as soon as possible, that it is in our interest to massively develop this neighbouring continent [Africa] and help accelerate its demographic transition; to organise the coming of migrants to Europe; and to create the necessary conditions [on European soil] to welcome and integrate millions of people into our cultures upon their arrival from this cradle of humanity.[29]

In a chapter titled “The Omens of a Civil War,” Faye moves into an examination of instances in which low level ethnic conflict is already underway. This can be most clearly seen in the establishment of ethnic “no-go” zones in many European towns and cities, and their role as a hotbed for violence against police. Faye statistics for injuries suffered by French police in the course of deliberate ethnic ambushes and more general ethnic delinquency are sobering, running into the thousands every year. For Faye, these areas are not just “zones of lawlessness” but in fact “invaded areas” that have been successfully conquered by foreigners, and are essentially no longer part of France. Although the security services have been successful thus far in preventing significant acts of French retaliation, Faye points to the June 2018 arrest of ten men and women (“for the most part family men, with no criminal history”) for planning attacks on mosques as an example of the fact “tensions are indeed on the rise, as the country gradually turns into a powder keg.” In the author’s estimation, if such attacks were indeed to be carried out, “it would unleash a civil war upon us once and for all.”[30]

The book’s third chapter, “The Ethnocidal Project Targeting European Peoples,” examines in more detail how life in White countries is being fundamentally changed for the worse. Faye defines ethnocide as “the destruction of a people through non-sanguinary, long-term and more pervasive processes, namely progressive immigration flooding; the destruction of one’s cultural identity and historical memory; repressive measures; spoliation; and, last but not least, the relegation the indigenous population to a lower status.”[31] Western governments are complicit in the ethnocide of their native peoples by refusing to act even in the fact of “incessant neighbourhood riots,” “ritualistic and mass-scale car arsons,” “occasionally deadly attacks and ambushes targeting policemen, gendarmes, and firefighters,” “verbal or physical assaults committed against native French people,” “the violent harassment of White women in the streets,” “acts of aggression perpetrated against doctors,” schools falling “into the grip of daily violence,” and “the open and raucous appropriation of public spaces, followed by that of entire towns.”[32] Faye asserts that the state and associated elites are complicit in the ethnocide of the European peoples because they desire to create a “new man” (“a necessarily anti-racist and mixed-race type of man”), and describes the figures behind this effort as “cosmopolitan elites” and “collaborationist court Jews.”[33] Macron is specifically denounced as a Kalergi-praising product of “globalist support and Jewish funding.”[34]

In predicting the battle lines of the future civil war, Faye asserts that the primary aggressors in Europe will be Muslims, with the main Muslim organisations coming to direct the activities of ethnic rioters throughout France. In the early stages, this camp will be assisted by collaborators in the form of leftist “journalists, officials or politicians at all national and local levels,”[35] before support and financial aid is further provided by Morocco, Algeria, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other countries “engaged in the Islamisation and colonisation of France.” Against this coalition, Faye posits that a substantial element of the police and gendarmerie will move into a retaliatory mode, joining “a growing number of exasperated Frenchmen with no ideological or political connections with the far Right, who could organise themselves into neighbourhood-based self-defence groups or structured militias.” After initial skirmishes, Faye asserts that a specific response to collaborationist efforts would be required and, in his discussion of “the origin of pro-migrant and anti-French elites,” Faye doesn’t shy away from explaining that Jews are a prominent collaborationist element in French society:

It must also be said that in both rightists and leftist parties, though admittedly far more often in the leftist spectrum, one encounters Jewish MPs, ministers, general councillors and mayors who, for the most part, define themselves as ‘citizens of the world’ or quite simply Jewish rather than French. This is a rather unpleasant fact, since the nation they are supposed to love and serve with a patriotic heart is actually our own … As soon as the fate of Israel becomes more important than that of France in the words of the journalists, thinkers and politicians that are supposed to represent and faded our country, the result is a serious conflict of interest, one that I cannot fail to highlight.

The book’s fourth chapter, “Foreign Occupation,” is an extended indictment of multiculturalism from the point of daily, widespread ethnic delinquency. Faye rails eloquently against the “vindictive” state of mind of “the young Afro-Muslim population,”[36] who comprise “entire groups of seasoned and trained juvenile delinquents that fear neither the police — whose members are highly demotivated, discouraged and spiritless — nor a lax justice system that finds itself unable to keep pace with them.” We learn that in France “90% of all minors and young adults involved in all conceivable forms of criminality stem from Afro-Arab immigration.”[37] The young delinquents organise in a “primitive tribal pattern,” and “shall form the shock battalions of an already brewing racial civil war.” The majority of the White victims of these urban occupying tribes are young women, provoking Faye to remark “In all cultures, the normal, vital reflex is to protect one’s women against any and all sexual assaults committed by foreigners. This, however, is not what we are witnessing in today’s Western Europe, whose members have now surrendered to complete mental weakness — it would indeed be racist and entirely reprehensible for us to ensure our women’s protection.”[38] Faye rejects this weakness. For him, the matter is simple: any idea of a peaceful, multicultural living together with these groups is an irrational sham. “The only programme that one could envisage in their case is one where they would all travel back across the Mediterranean, regardless of any eggs broken along the way. A convivial living-together is only possible when it involves populations that are biologically and culturally related. Anything else is but a sham. We do not wish to live with these people. Period.”[39]

The next two chapters focus specifically on the Islamic nature of the mass migration into Europe, and the Islamisation process as a whole. In Faye’s view, “Islam shall act as the sole banner, the sole emblem for the rallying, mobilisation and identification of non-European populations. It shall embody what some fight for and others against, even if — and because — what lies under its din and behind its blazing shadow is a haunting biologico-racial melody.”[40] Faye clearly despises Islam, calling it “the poorest and the most mediocre of all human religions,” and jihad little more than a “form of delinquency.”[41] He highlights the existence of an “Islamosphere” occupied not just by the Muslims themselves but by “French people who have chosen the path of collaboration.” These are leftists who “spread the idea that Muslims embody the new image of the oppressed,”[42] and work in concert with Muslim, Black, and Jewish lobbying groups to “intimidate French people and discourage any and all French criticism and resistance against immigration invasion and Islamisation.”[43] Such collaborators, including the Jews Edgar Morin and Emmanuel Todd, whom Faye briefly profiles, are “driven by a fierce hatred of France, its culture, its traditions, its deep-rooted provincial population, its ethnic people and ‘little white folk,’ described as a bunch of racist hicks,” and have “infiltrated our associations, our national education system (a very serious development indeed) and the media.” Although many of the immigrants are anti-Jewish, presenting something of a paradox, Faye reminds us that these Jewish activists have not “joined the pro-immigrational cause from rational reflection, but due to an emotional and irrational surge of hatred for their native France.”[44] He continues, referring also to irrational support for Islamisation from feminists and the broader Left:

What particularly fascinates these dumbstruck Islamo-leftists, these defrocked Trotskyists, these intellectuals nursed in the lap of cultural Marxism, these old communists or crypto-communists that still hold Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin in high regard and venerate Mao, Pol Pot, the violence of the Reign of Terror (1792-1793), the Paris Commune of 1871 and the crimes committed by the Spanish Republicans, is something consubstantial with Islam, something that they have in common with the latter and that is the focus of their deference and adoration — the tropism of fanatical violence and totalitarianism, which remain correlated and inseparable. That is what they have been missing since the disappearance of ‘genuine’ communism! And what Islam is now offering them is a similar dish, served bloody and on a silver platter.[45]

In chapter 7, “As the Catholics Lose their Footing,” Faye takes aim at Pope Francis and institutional Catholicism which has acted as “the ferocious enemy of the ethnic identity of white Europe and the objective accomplice of the migrational invasion conducted under the banner of Islam.”[46] Pope Francis is described as “both a traitor and a madman.”[47] Particularly concerning is the existence of large numbers of otherwise right-wing and traditionalist Catholics who nevertheless waver on matters of race. For Faye, this is an unforgivable positions that threatens to place such Catholics (“prisoners of their own intellectualism and of an annoying sort of biological relativism”) in an impossible situation in the eventual civil war. Faye explains:

It is all quite simply, actually: ask any patriotic Catholic if an African who also happens to be a patriot and has recently converted to Christianity should be sent home in the event of a mass de-migration process that would follow our side’s lightning-like assumption of power. You will see how long they hesitate before giving you an answer. There we have it! No, seriously now, hesitations of this order are no longer acceptable. We have no time to waste on such childishness. Foreigners are DIFFERENT FROM US and must return to their homeland as soon as possible.[48]

The only dogma of concern to Faye is the simple fact that “in order to win a racial civil war, one must first be racist, regardless of whether one participate in it willingly or reluctantly … A racial AND civil war will involve violence, as well as terrible tragedy and injustice … An indigenous person must, however, choose other natives over all foreigners, rather than prefer some allogeneic ‘brothers in Christ.’ In their desire to soften the hearts of the French people fighting them, many immigrants will attempt to play this card.”[49]

The book’s eighth chapter, “The Jews Amidst the Racial War,” is the one I am most ambivalent about, and perhaps the weakest in an otherwise outstanding volume. To begin with, it is one of the shortest chapters, and one senses that Faye was uneasy or uncomfortable tackling the subject “head on,” rather than in the asides and minor profiles he scattered throughout the book. The basic problem, as I see it, is that while Faye was rightly scathing of those who are so anti-Jewish (in a distorted fashion) that they see Muslims as their allies (he names Alain Soral as an example), he failed to see that he had actually fallen into the mirror image of that problem, despising Muslims with such tunnel vision that he came to see, and search for, Jews as allies — despite all the evidence of Jewish collaborationist activities that he himself would amass and discuss. This isn’t to say that Faye doesn’t hit some high notes in this chapter. He remarks that “the Jewish soul finds itself continuously torn between exacerbated particularism and a universalistic sort of tendency; between its ghettoised spirit and its conquering mindset.”[50] He rightly concludes that “this results in a number of contradictory features: their seeking of peace and security while relishing the idea of being persecuted; their aspiration to dominate and proud acknowledgement of their intrinsic superiority, alongside their embracement of the image of a small people that is perpetually under threat.”[51] But, showing remarkable ignorance of Jewish opinion polls and voting patterns that suggest overwhelming political affinities among Jews as a whole, he believes, foolishly in my opinion, that these Jews, “Court Jews,” can be quarantined from the rest of the Jewish population who are potential allies.

As for any idea that a Jewish Question exists:

There is, however, a serious analytical mistake made by numerous anti-Semitic writers, especially Kevin B. MacDonald — that of focusing on the psychological traits of Jewish intellectual movements that are in favour of cosmopolitanism, and of confusing these traits with the behavioural and mental patterns of the Jewish ethnicity … A growing proportion of ‘common Jews’ are now rejecting both anti-racism and cosmopolitanism, partly in response to the Muslim-Arab invasion.[52]

But Faye’s retort to MacDonald can only be regarded as, at best, anecdotal, and is flatly contradicted by, for example, my own analysis of Jewish representation in contemporary refugee and migrant organisations. MacDonald’s theory is also not of “the psychological traits of Jewish intellectual movements” (can intellectual movements have psychological traits?) but that a group evolutionary strategy in which the behavioural and mental patterns of the Jewish ethnicity can be observed in such movements. It’s clear that Faye was confused, and I suggest that his tunnel vision on the Muslim Question was the reason why. We might further consider his comment in the appendices of the book:

Judeocentrism [belief that a Jewish Question exists] is a hollow obsession whose causes, meaning and goals cannot be clearly defined. There are some who will claim that the reason I say this lies in my fear of the Jewish lobby, but I am not afraid of anything and am going to die soon. Over the years I have come to understand that the anti-Semitic reduction of all our current problems to the Jewish question is the most striking form of contemporary conspiracy theories.[53]

And so, rather than reduce all of our current problems to the Jewish question (when has anyone on this site neglected to refer to Muslims, Blacks, or broader social decay including the failings of our own people?), Faye decided to reduce all of our current problems to the Muslim question. I must be clear in that I firmly believe that Faye is not guilty here of subversion or fear of the Jewish lobby. If I did, I would hesitate to recommend this book. Instead I see a paralysis-like error in thinking, brought about by a quite understandable reaction to the stark and visible Islamisation of France. This error (commonplace in countries with large and growing Muslim populations) comprises a small element of this excellent book, a few pages in a text more than 200 pages in length, and is in many places in the text quite contradicted by the “Judeocentric” material Faye himself cannot help but refer to. But I would neglect my duty as a reviewer for this website if I did not make it clear that one must have to flexibility of mind to be aware of all facets of the existing problem, and to avoid Faye’s potentially dangerous habit of seeing allies where they simply do not exist.

But this is a book about racial civil war, not the Jewish Question, and in the final three chapters Faye returns to this theme with a vengeance, producing some of the best content of the volume. In “Our Law Enforcement Organisations Are at the End of Their Rope,” the author explains that French police are already at the frontline of the earliest phases of the racial civil war. He relates a number of infuriating anecdotes, including that of a police officer disciplined and demonised for shooting an African in the leg to avoid being beaten to death by a 15-strong African gang, but particularly horrifying is the brutal June 2016 murder of a police couple, slaughtered by Arabs in their own home, in front of their child. Brushed under the carpet by the media and authorities, Faye sees the incident as a “barbaric assassination” that “takes on the symbolic meaning of a declaration of war, one that is obviously both ethnic and racist in nature.”[54] Due to the refusal of the establishment to act in a rational manner against racial criminals, French police are resigning in large numbers, with almost 3,000 quitting the police force in 2017. Faye argues they “might end up joining a potential Popular Resistance in the coming civil war against the Occupation and its collaborators.”[55] The rest, he asserts, “will have no difficulty in choosing sides.”[56]

Chapter ten, “Race and Racism — At the Heart of the Coming Clashes,” concerns the total destruction of White lives under multiculturalism. Faye explains:

Maliciously targeted by Le MondeLiberationMediapartTelerama, and France Culture, these ‘petty Whites,’ i.e. our people and indigenous lower classes, have been forced to embrace ethnic coexistence, an artificial living-together that our leaders themselves do not even practice. This fool’s bargain also implies a blatant disregard for democracy at the hands of this shitty republic’s governments — a republic that has, since 1974, been resorting to decrees to impose an immigration invasion upon the French people, going against the latter’s wishes and corrupting their dreams of tranquility.[57]

Whites are saturated with the ideology of anti-racism which “is completely contradictory as a result of its bias and tendency to overvalue ‘coloured people’ to the detriment of Whites” thereby contributing to “the profound racialisation of our society” and proving an “aggravating factor in an ethnic civil war characterised by its racial and racist dimensions.”[58]  The increasing obviousness of racial antagonism in our societies is masked only via the efforts of Marxists in academia, government, and media who produce a steady stream of propaganda

for the sole purpose of intellectualising, blurring and thus rendering unsolvable the daily problems experienced by our French natives, who are forced to live among non-Whites … Our rulers impose immigration upon each and every one of us, as sociologists, psychologists, philosophers and other accomplices are seen on television in their fancy clothes and lovely little brown-nose glasses, telling us that it is all actually a blessing. The process of ethnic replacement is underway, but all is well, no problemo.[59]

In the eleventh and final chapter, “How the War Shall Unfold — Possibilities and Predictions,” Faye uses the material discussed thus far to build a model of how a racial civil war will begin and proceed in France, and other nations in Europe. This is a thought-provoking and sobering piece of work. A brief summary here would inevitably do an injustice to Faye’s well-developed sequence of thought, but Faye certainly sees the origin of a future conflict in police confrontations, either involving Muslims claiming police brutality in response to their heightened delinquency or “following the death of some Black African scum.”[60] Rioting is viewed by Faye as having every potential to bleed into sustained guerrilla warfare and, if it were to be prolonged long enough, Faye sees the potential for Antifa (“leftist-anarchist troublemaker groups”) to join forces against the police. The alliance will be short-lived since collaborators in the race war, even if the ethnic faction wins, will “not be given the position they hope for in this future society. Instead, what awaits them is death, humiliation, beatings and a state of modern slavery.”[61]

Faced with an escalation of violence, including massive Islamic terrorist attacks funded and supported by Muslim countries, the only hope for Europe is that such events cause a shock “strong and traumatic enough to reverse mentalities.”[62] In fact, Faye argues that this is the primary condition for possible victory, without which we are fated to slow replacement and ultimate defeat. He stresses the same precondition for the United States, which he warns will endure “severe turmoil, perhaps even partitions, in the course of the next century.”[63]

Faye reflects for some time on the possibility that we would suffer defeat, and ponders what would become of the European peoples in the eventuality. I don’t want to linger on that here, though I encourage all those reading this review to read the book and let this particular section urge them on to renewed efforts for our cause. Instead, here, I want to focus on his more optimistic conclusion, “The De-Migration of the Afterwar.” Here the author offers a vision of White victory. He posits that the racial civil war would “through its unique violence, turn into an unprecedented collective trauma whose memory will echo across the centuries.”[64] In other words, multiculturalism would never again be repeated by our descendants. There would be a “massive repatriation of African and oriental populations to their countries of origin … It must be made possible, and must take place and commence very soon, because it is both necessary and vital … Let me state things clearly: whether willingly or by force, they shall indeed leave. This is not only my promise, but also my prognosis.”[65]

Despite his error on the Jewish Question earlier in the book, I leave the last words of this review to Guillaume Faye, who returns to the theme, despite himself and with wisdom, to close his magnificent book – a book I recommend to all readers of this site, and to whoever may encounter this review elsewhere:

These anti-racist and anti-White leftist Jews will have to watch their backs when the wind turns … They will have to consider the option of returning to the land of their ancestors once the just anger of European identitarians allows the latter to cleanse not only France, but also every other part of the West. This is not a threat, but a piece of advice.

[1] Faye, Ethnic Apocalypse, (hereafter EA) 7.

[2] EA, viii.

[3] EA, xi.

[4] EA, xii.

[5] EA, 1.

[6] Ibid.

[7] EA, 2.

[8] EA, 2.

[9] Ibid.

[10] EA, 3.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] EA, 88.

[14] EA, 213.

[15] EA, 6.

[16] EA, 7.

[17] EA, 9.

[18] EA, 10.

[19] EA, 12.

[20] EA, 13.

[21] EA, 15.

[22] EA, 16.

[23] EA, 17.

[24] Ibid.

[25] EA, 20.

[26] Ibid.

[27] EA, 21.

[28] EA, 24.

[29] EA, 29.

[30] EA, 44.

[31] EA, 49.

[32] EA, 52.

[33] EA, 56.

[34] EA, 62.

[35] EA, 57.

[36] EA, 77.

[37] EA, 79.

[38] EA, 87.

[39] EA, 89.

[40] EA, 93.

[41] EA, 94-5.

[42] EA, 107.

[43] EA, 112.

[44] EA, 116.

[45] EA, 134.

[46] EA, 135.

[47] EA, 143.

[48] EA, 145.

[49] EA, 146.

[50] EA, 154.

[51] Ibid.

[52] EA, 155.

[53] EA, 215.

[54] EA, 164.

[55] EA, 165.

[56] EA, 166.

[57] EA, 176.

[58] EA, 178.

[59] EA, 183.

[60] EA, 189.

[61] EA, 192.

[62] EA, 207.

[63] EA, 202.

[64] EA, 209.

[65] Ibid.

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0

The African Population Bomb

This post follows up from an earlier post at http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-worlds-most-important-graph/ on the “world’s most important graph”. This topic, suppressed by the mainstream media, should be top of the discussion list at every school, college and university in every White country.
In 1995 the population of Africa overtook that of Europe. There are comparatively few Whites in Africa. There are millions of Africans and other non-whites in Europe. The graph predicts that the population of Africa will top 4 billion before the end of this century, whereas Europe’s population will remain steady at around half a billion (presumably including the increasing numbers of non-whites and mulattoes living there).
Of course it won’t really be like that. Around half of all Africans intend to travel to Europe to live in one of our Welfare States where they don’t have to work and the (White man’s) state will look after them. Unless we stop them…

The following post was written by Gregory Hood, of American Renaissance, and published on June 27th 2019. The URL of the original article is given at the foot of the page.

Thomas Jefferson called Missouri’s petition for statehood a “fire bell in the night” portending war. For me, the fire bell is the first large all-African group of immigrants caught crossing the southern border. They knew the legal tricks to pull to be released into the country. This portends doom.

My foreboding comes from what Steve Sailer calls “the world’s most important graph.”

african population bomb

If current projections hold, the population of sub-Saharan Africa will increase during this century to more than 4 billion people. This would be an 18-fold increase in 150 years.

A 2017 Pew Research poll asked Africans if they wanted to emigrate. Three-quarters of people in Ghana, almost as many in Nigeria, and more than half in South Africa—black Africa’s most developed economy—said yes.

Since 2010, sub-Saharan African countries have accounted for eight of the 10 fastest growing migrant populations. About 25 million black migrants lived outside their own countries in 2017. Blacks will swallow up Europe and North America if we do not keep them out.

Bill Gates is aware of this population trend. “By the end of the century, almost half the young people in the world will be in sub-Saharan Africa,” he said in a recent video. The Gates Foundation already spends half its money on Africa, splashing out for medicine, education, and economic development.

What does Mr. Gates expect in return?

These young people can be a huge asset if they’re healthy and educated. They drive economic growth, they drive innovation. So it’s a challenge to the world to take advantage of investing in youth. Improving their health and education really pays off.

How can Mr. Gates believe this? He is not completely immune to the facts. “To put it bluntly, decades of progress in the fight against poverty and disease may be on the verge of stalling,” Mr. Gates noted in 2018. “Africa must almost quadruple its agricultural productivity to feed itself,” he said in another interview. “That’s very daunting.”

Mr. Gates has repeatedly called for more birth control in Africa but also funds programs that increase population and decrease mortality. His efforts create an eternally increasing African population that needs ever-more Western aid and technology to stay alive. This burgeoning population also floods into the West, where Africans become domestic dependents. This reduces the West’s capacity to nursemaid the Dark Continent.

Mr. Gates seems to sense all this, but is paralyzed by political correctness. Why call desperately for birth control if African youngsters are going to bring economic growth?

Perhaps it’s because Mr. Gates has heard something about IQ. “The average IQ in sub-Saharan Africa is about 82,” he said in 2013. However, he declared that it has “nothing to do with genetics or race or anything like that—that’s disease and that’s what disease does to you . . . .”

Mr. Gates prizes intelligence. According to a conversation recounted by Rich Karlgaard, Mr. Gates said of success in business: “It’s all about IQ. You win with IQ.” Microsoft was famous for creating tests to try to measure the intelligence of job applicants.

But the Gates Foundation can’t raise test scores in America, let alone Africa. It recently admitted its $575 million initiative to transform teacher evaluation, compensation, and employment practices, especially in low-income minority schools, was a complete failure. It may have even made things worse. How does Bill Gates expect to transform sub-Saharan Africans?

Recently, Mr. Gates said that “intelligence takes many different reforms” and is “not as important as I used to think.” Perhaps he’s trying to avoid the political landmines in wait for anyone who talks about intelligence.

Bill Gates is not alone among billionaires who amassed fortunes through ambition and intelligence but now seem determined to squander money in the name of egalitarianism. Mark Zuckerberg wasted $100 million dollars trying to improve the public schools of Newark, New Jersey. Mayor Ras Baraka—son of the anti-white and anti-Semitic poet Amiri Baraka—then accused philanthropists of “parachuting” into the city and not working with the locals. Mark Zuckerberg didn’t even get credit for his virtue signaling.

Michael Bloomberg made his fortune by selling a specialized information service for securities traders. It was for high-IQ people who can’t make excuses for failure. Yet Mr. Bloomberg recently donated $1.8 billion to his alma mater Johns Hopkins University to foster a more “socioeconomically diverse student body.” No one criticized Mr. Bloomberg for wasting money on “diversity” rather than funding science or health research. He took heat because he didn’t give the $1.8 billion to local community colleges.

The Western elite are not fools. Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and Michael Bloomberg are very intelligent and don’t believe in “equality” when it comes to recruiting employees. Yet in philanthropy, they have forfeited their judgment to race-baiters and egalitarian propogandists. At best, they are wasting their money. More realistically, they are making the world worse.

In the face of a soaring African population, only clear thinking about race can forestall disaster. Sentimentality about the supposed potential of an African planet is dangerous foolishness. The West needs an elite that puts its resources behind excellence, rather than equality. Such an elite requires men not just with intellect, but courage. Are there such men? The future of our civilization—and the world—depends on the answer.

Mr. Hood is a staff writer for American Renaissance. He has been active in conservative groups in the US. The original article can be read at https://www.amren.com/commentary/2019/06/the-african-population-bomb/

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0 0