The war on White people. News and comment on the campaigns and movements active in attempting to bring about the genocide of the White race. This comprises in particular immigration and mass migration of non-Whites into White countries, the concept of ‘multi-racialism’ or ‘multiculturalism’ and the incessant campaign in the mass media for Whites to accept that it is natural and inevitable for mixed-race births to occur.
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.
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.
Western classical music, inspired, written, performed and enjoyed almost exclusively by White people even to this day, alone among music of whatever description, has the capacity to inspire the soul, and not just provide entertainment. But it has for some time been under sustained attack. Its protagonists are, of course, the usual array of non-whites, Jews, and liberal whites who want to debauch our entire culture and destroy our race by means of “multi-culturalism”. For example, they use their power of finance to degrade our music festivals by forcing the organisers to cater not just for White classical music but also for lesser kinds of music as if they were the equal of classical music. They would, if they could, bring the music of Mozart and Beethoven, for example, down to the level of rap. This valuable contribution by Brenton Sanderson dissects their shallow arguments and exposes the falsehoods promulgated by the Left. A must-read for anyone who is concerned about the current assault on genuine music.
Triggered by Bach: Classical Music as Implicit White Supremacy
“White supremacist” has long been the preferred Jewish epithet to throw at White people who have the temerity to do what Jews do routinely: openly advocate for their ethnic interests. This hackneyed label has always been utterly beside the point: whether Whites are superior to non-Whites has no logical bearing on the moral legitimacy of White people defending their collective interests. Having said this, everyone is well aware that the achievements of White people in countless cultural and scientific domains surpass those of other groups, and can objectively be regarded as “superior.” A conspicuous example is the Western musical tradition.
The superiority of Western classical music is so decisive one could almost rest the argument for the superiority of Western culture on it alone. There exists a hierarchy in the world of sound, as in other phenomena. Noise occupies the lowest rung in this hierarchy; it is an undifferentiated mass of sound in which no distinction exists. The lowest kind of music, say that of Australia’s Aborigines, most closely corresponds to noise. Western classical music, by contrast, exists on the highest rung because it apprehends sound in the most highly differentiated way possible. It is the farthest from noise and most fully exploits the inherent potential of the world of sound.
How well this potential is apprehended and developed can lead to Bach’s inimitable counterpoint, the extraordinary tonal architecture of Beethoven’s symphonies, Bruckner’s sonic cathedrals — or to banging on a hollow log with a stick. Besides stimulating pleasure in audiences, great classical music has an unrivalled capacity to shed light on our ontological predicament and connect aesthetic experience with the transcendental. Goethe once noted, with reference to Bach’s great fugues, where as many as five separate lines of musical argument are simultaneously sustained, that “it is as though the eternal harmony has a conversation with itself.” Only Western classical music, I would argue, can create this sublime impression.
To point out the foregoing is to trigger rage from anti-White commentators who huff that it has “long been an argument of white supremacists, Nazis, Neo-Nazis, and racial separatists that ‘classical music,’ the music of ‘white people,’ is inherently more sophisticated, complicated, and valuable than the musical traditions of Africa, Asia, South America, or the Middle East, thus proving the innate superiority of the ‘white race.’” The problem with this assessment, aside from denying the very existence of the White race, is the inability to demonstrate (or even attempt to demonstrate) that Western classical music is not inherently more sophisticated, complicated (and yes valuable) than other musical traditions.
That classical music stands as a glaring (and galling) testament to the preeminence of European high culture (and implicitly of the race overwhelmingly responsible for it), was evident in the reaction to a speech President Trump gave in Poland in 2017. The speech, praising Western civilization, included the line “we write symphonies.” Jonathan Capehart, a columnist at The Washington Post, fumed: “What on Earth does that have to do with anything? In that one line, taken in context with everything else Trump said, what I heard was the loudest of dog whistles. A familiar boast that swells the chests of white nationalists everywhere.” For Anthony Tommasini of The New York Times, Trump’s point, extolling the “richness, history and, indeed, the superiority of Western culture,” was “all too clear and dismaying,” Alex Ross, Jewish music critic for the New Yorker, found “ludicrous and sinister” Trump’s “implication that some cultures are incapable of creating symphonies,” a sentiment that, he maintained, should have “stirred bad memories.”
Classical Music as Insufficiently Diverse
As well as decrying as deeply offensive the invocation of classical music to praise Western civilization (and thus White people), commentators routinely bemoan the lack of “diversity” in the genre. According to Jewish music critic Greg Sandow, the “problem of racial diversity in classical music has long been the elephant in the room,” and he labels “ugly” the fact that classical music, “in practice pretty much a lily-white art,” claims “special privileges (lavish funding, school programs devoted to it) in an age of growing diversity.” Rather than simply reflecting the divergent preferences and aptitudes of different racial groups, the underrepresentation of Black and Brown people in Western orchestras (and their audiences) is inevitably ascribed to White racism. Black screenwriter Candace Allen, the ex-wife of conductor Sir Simon Rattle, branded the British classical music world “racist,” claiming a combination of discrimination and lack of exposure to classical music at an early age meant Blacks were unlikely to make it to the concert hall (in the audience or on stage), and when they did, “their sense of alienation made the experience not one to be repeated.”
According to this conception, an insidious White supremacist conspiracy keeps the classical repertoire dominated by the music of dead White men performed by living White men, and prevents Black and Brown people from succeeding in the genre. For the “White supremacist” social order to be maintained, Raymond Arsenault insists, “Blacks had to know their place, and the world of popular music was one of the places where they allegedly belonged.” While the “relativist revolution begun by anthropologist Franz Boas and others had already eroded the presumption of black inferiority,” in the Western world of public opinion and culture, “the time-honored shibboleths of white-supremacy held sway.”[i] One of these “shibboleths” was that:
Mastery of classical technique required superior intelligence, discipline, and years of training. The world of classical music was the province not only of natural talent but of cultivated genius. Here the barriers to black achievement were thought to be both cultural and physiological. Conventional wisdom held that blacks did things naturally and impulsively without much thought or deliberation. Classical music, by contrast, was intellectual, highbrow, and European in origin. As such, it was deemed inappropriate for African Americans three or four generations removed from the jungles of Africa. Black success in the world of classical music would be tantamount to beating whites at their own game, something that could not be tolerated or even contemplated in white supremacist circles. It would represent an affront to white sensibilities, upsetting expectations based on multiple layers of observation and socialization.[ii]
The White supremacist conspiracy to thwart Black and Brown achievement in classical music purportedly extends to musical education where, in the most commonly used theory textbooks in the United States, only 1.63% of musical examples come from non-White composers. This is problematic for Linda Shaver-Gleason because studying a particular piece “reaffirms its canonical status; enshrining it in a textbook is deeming it worthy of study.” Constantly referencing White composers “reinforces the idea that they’re the ones who deserve the most respect, as if to say, ‘Marvel at the many techniques Mozart used so perfectly!” Ethan Hein, a (presumably Jewish) doctoral fellow in music education at NYU, decries the stubbornness of music teachers in teaching “European-descended” classical music over that of “music descending from the vernacular traditions of the African diaspora.” Orienting music education towards the European classical tradition, an “implicit racial ideology,” is, he declares, “insidious” in its “affirmations of Whiteness.”
While White people are chastised for “appropriating” the cultures of non-White groups, the notion they should be allowed to maintain cultural and artistic institutions reserved exclusively for their own racial group is considered anathema. The Vienna Philharmonic came under attack in the 1990s for its failure to embrace the new ideological and moral imperatives of increased racial and gender diversity. One commentator condemned the orchestra for “its consistently racist and sexist hiring practices,” dismissing as “clearly absurd” claims made by representatives of the orchestra that it performs an essentially European art-form and thus should be composed of White men. Dieter Flury, a flutist for the orchestra, opinedat the time that:
From the beginning we have spoken of the special Viennese qualities, of the way music is made here. The way we make music here is not only a technical ability, but also something that has a lot to do with the soul. The soul does not let itself be separated from the cultural roots that we have here in central Europe. And it also doesn’t allow itself to be separated from gender. So if one thinks that the world should function by quota regulations, then it is naturally irritating that we are a group of white skinned male musicians that perform exclusively the music of white skinned male composers. … If one establishes superficial egalitarianism, one will lose something very significant. … [S]omething produced by a superficial understanding of human rights would not have the same standards.
Music writer Stefan Aune insists the European domination of classical music cannot be attributed to advantageous genetic endowments possessed on average by White people, and has “no patience for individuals or institutions harboring antiquated beliefs about the superiority of White-European performers or composers.” Ignoring all the data proving the existence of significant racial differences, he ascribes such beliefs to “racism and a fundamentally incorrect view of musical history.” The European domination of classical music has, he insists, everything to do with “cultural inequalities” and nothing to do with inborn characteristics:
In the last analysis, racial and gender inequalities throughout the history of classical music are a question of access rather than innate ability. Individuals like [mulatto composers] Chevalier de Saint George, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor and George Bridgetower erode the argument that classical music is an exclusively white-European cultural enterprise. They show that individuals from any background can succeed in the western musical tradition, and they also show that the western musical tradition is not nearly as culturally homogeneous as many would argue.
The composers identified here are remembered solely because they were non-White — not because of the excellence of their compositions. Rather than being excluded from the classical repertory because of their music’s relative lack of quality and popularity, Linda Shaver-Gleason believes they are victims of the aforementioned White supremacist conspiracy which has “intentionally suppressed” their music “in the service of a narrative of white — specifically German — cultural supremacy (because, alas, that too is part of Western culture).”
Constructing Beethoven as Black
Even the romantic idea of the composer-genius is regarded as an element of this conspiracy to keep Western classical music a Whites-only field. For Shaver-Gleason, “The conflation of ‘genius’ and ‘white man’ means that no minority will be viewed as a real genius, and hence not a real composer.” Given Beethoven’s status as the archetypal musical genius, it is unsurprising that aggrieved Blacks have, since the early twentieth century, attempted to propagate the myth that Beethoven had some African ancestry. The basis for this spurious claim was the composer’s somewhat swarthy complexion, and the fact a part of his family traced its roots to Flanders, which was for a period under Spanish monarchical rule. Because Spain had a longstanding historical connection to North Africa through the Moors, a degree of blackness supposedly trickled down to the great composer.
The myth was eagerly disseminated by Jamaican “historian” Joel Augustus Rogers (1880–1966) in works like Sex and Race (1941–44), the two-volume World’s Great Men of Color (1946–47), 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro (1934), Five Negro Presidents (1965), and Nature Knows No Color Line (1952). Rogers, whose intellectual rigor was basically nonexistent, claimed that Beethoven — in addition to Thomas Jefferson, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Robert Browning, and several popes, among others — was genealogically African and thus Black. Despite being thoroughly debunked, the myth still lingers in contemporary culture: in 2007 Nadine Gordimer published a short story collection called Beethoven Was One-Sixteenth Black: And Other Stories. The determination, contrary to all evidence, to make Beethoven Black is, of course, a desperate attempt to make the composer and his oeuvre a glorious symbol of Black accomplishment.
Shaver-Gleason warns such efforts are self-defeating, merely serving to treat the Western canon as fundamental and all other styles as deviations from this norm, thus reinforcing “the notion that of classical music as a universal standard and something that everyone should aspire to appreciate.” Trying to make Beethoven Black and desperately scouring the historical records for examples of non-Whites who wrote symphonies is to accept “a white-centric perspective that presents symphonies as the ultimate human achievement in the arts.” Black musicologist Philip Ewell agrees, and advocates “overthrowing the existing structure and building a new one that would accommodate non-white music a priori — no reaching for ‘inclusion’ necessary because non-white composers would already be there.” One Black music writer endorses this stance, and resents that the waltzes of Johann Strauss Jr. are regarded as part of the body of superior classical music, while the music of James Brown — “the Godfather of Soul” — is regarded as mere entertainment.
The East Asian Affinity for Western classical music
Curiously, the alleged White supremacist conspiracy that allegedly prevents Blacks and Browns from succeeding in classical music doesn’t have the same effect on East Asians – the one non-White group that likes performing and listening to classical music. A survey of Asian-Americans aged 18–24 found 14 percent attended a classical concert in the preceding year, more than any other demographic in that age group. Asian attendance rates match or surpass the national average up through the 45–54 age range. The younger the classical music audience gets, the more Asian it becomes.
Unlike non-White groups affronted by claims to the superiority for Western classical music, East Asians are under no illusion about the inferiority of their own musical tradition when compared to European art music. This acknowledgement lies at the heart of why East Asian parents are so enthusiastic for their children to play and appreciate the genre. As Amy Chua acknowledges in her widely publicized (and criticized) Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother:
That’s one of the reasons I insisted [my two daughters] do classical music. I knew that I couldn’t artificially make them feel like poor immigrant kids. … But I could make sure that [they] were deeper and more cultivated than my parents and I were. Classical music was the opposite of decline, the opposite of laziness, vulgarity, and spoiledness. It was a way for my children to achieve something I hadn’t. But it was also a tie-in to the high cultural tradition of my ancestors[Chua is proud to be descended in the direct male line from Chua Wu Neng, Imperial Astronomer to a 17th-century emperor]. … To me, the violin symbolized respect for hierarchy, standards, and expertise. For those who know better and can teach. For those who play better and can inspire. And for parents. It also symbolized history. The Chinese never achieved the heights of Western classical music – there is no Chinese equivalent of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony – but high traditional music is deeply entwined with Chinese civilization.[iii]
Chua is married to a Jew and recalls her stereotypically Jewish mother-in-law (a “progressive” art critic) being opposed to her grandchildren learning the violin — suggesting they learn Indonesian gamelan percussion instruments as more in keeping with the multicultural zeitgeist of the contemporary West. To back her case, she noted how French composer Claude Debussy had been captivated by gamelan music which helped inspire shimmering impressionistic masterpieces like L’apres midi d’un faun. Chua is distinctly unimpressed with this line of argument:
Personally, I think Debussy was just going through a phase, fetishizing the exotic. The same thing happened to Debussy’s fellow Frenchmen Henri Rousseau and Paul Gauguin who started painting Polynesian natives all the time. A particularly disgusting variation of this phenomenon can be found in modern-day California: men with Yellow Fever, who date only Asian women – sometimes dozens in a row – no matter how ugly or which kind of Asian. For the record, Jed [her husband] did not date any Asian women before me. Maybe the reason I can’t appreciate gamelan music, which I heard when we visited Indonesia in 1992, is that I fetishize difficulty and accomplishment. … Gamelan music is mesmerizing because it is so simple, unstructured, and repetitious. By contrast, Debussy’s brilliant compositions reflect complexity, ambition, ingenuity, design, conscious harmonic exploration — and yes, gamelan influences, at least in some of his works. It’s like the difference between a bamboo hut, which has its charm, and the Palace of Versailles.[iv]
Debussy first heard Indonesian gamelan music at the Paris Exhibition in 1889 and possibly again at the same event in 1900. In his biography of Debussy, musicologist Stephen Walsh notes that while it’s common to talk about the influence of the gamelan on Debussy’s compositions, it merely accentuated existing aspects of his style: “He did not need the gamelan to teach him pentatony, the whole-tone scale or modalism. They were already part of his language. Insofar as this contact with the oriental musical mind helped release him from the toils of Wagnerism and, worse, the [conservatively-inclined] Conservatoire, the truth is that it did so only in part and quite gradually.”[v]
East Asia has produced countless young technical virtuosos, but their nimble fingers and admirable work ethics are often not matched by the emotional depth required for the successful interpretation of nineteenth-century Romantic repertoire. Chinese film director, and classical music fan, Chen Kaige, hopes Western classical music can educate an intensely materialistic and collectivist Chinese people in spirituality and individualism. “One of the biggest differences between Chinese and Western culture,” he points out, “is that we don’t have religion. We don’t worship anything. Western classical music has elements of love and forgiveness that come from religion. Chinese music is very intellectual, very exotic, but there is no love. You don’t feel warm after you listen to it.”
Appreciation of Classical Music Correlated with Intelligence
The East Asian affinity with Western classical music is perhaps not surprising given that appreciation of the genre has been correlated with higher intelligence. Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa posits that more intelligent people populate concert halls because they’re more likely to respond to purely instrumental works. By contrast, people across the intelligence spectrum seem to enjoy vocal music. Kanazawa’s Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis predicts highly intelligent people are more likely to adopt evolutionarily novel preferences and values. According to this theory, they are better able to comprehend, and thus enjoy, novel stimuli. Vocal music predated sonatas by many millennia, so, in evolutionary terms, purely instrumental music is a novelty — which, according to Kanazawa’s theory, means highly intelligent people are more likely to appreciate and enjoy it.
Studies support Kanazawa’s theory, finding clear preferences for instrumental musical genres among those who score higher on intelligence tests. Controlling for age, race, sex, education, family income, religion, current and past marital status and number of children, more intelligent people are more likely to prefer instrumental music than less-intelligent people. A 2019 Croatian study confirmed these findings, showing that people with lower intelligence preferred music with lyrics, rather than complex orchestrations. 467 teenagers performed a non-verbal intelligence test and were then asked to rank musical genres in order or preference. Those who recorded the highest IQ scores displayed a clear preference for instrumental music. On the other extreme, preference for rap music is significantly negatively correlated with intelligence.
The Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis helps to explain why Black people (as a low-IQ group) are generally repulsed by classical music, and why it has been used successfully as a crime prevention mechanism in racially-diverse cities around the world. Neurologists note that certain types of music work as a crime deterrent because of people’s neurobiological responses to things they don’t enjoy or find unfamiliar. When people hear music they like, it stimulates dopamine production and puts them in a better mood. But when people dislike the music, their brains respond by suppressing dopamine production — souring their mood and making them avoid it.
Mass non-White immigration into Western nations has ensured that, for a growing percentage of their populations, classical music holds little or no appeal. Classical music audiences in the United States and other Western nations are contracting: according to a National Endowment for the Arts survey, in the early twenty-first century, the percentage of American adults who attended at least one classical music event dropped from 11.6 to 8.8 in just ten years.
Non-White immigration to the West was always unpopular with existing White populations who were assured it posed no long-term threat to their demographic and cultural dominance. This was always a lie: changing the demographics and culture of the West (in Jewish interests) was the core motivation for these policies. With the Great Replacement now well underway, even White people who enjoy a White art form – like classical music – are regarded by some as engaging in an activity that should make them feel “uncomfortable.” One White commentator, for example, laments that “we don’t seem uncomfortable enough” when “sitting in the concert halls of Europe and America’s cosmopolitan cities in a usually very white audience listening to a usually very white orchestra.”
African-American writer Teju Cole is similarly perplexed that White people who enjoy hearing White musicians playing White music don’t feel more uncomfortable: “It never ceases to surprise me” he notes, “how easy it is to leave the hybridity of the city, and enter into all-white spaces, the homogeneity of which, as far as I can tell, causes no discomfort to the whites in them.”[vi] Jewish music critic Greg Sandow likewise finds offensive that, “in a diverse culture, classical music stands out (on the whole) as strikingly white, and that even many white people, especially younger ones … look at classical music, and feel (whether they put it in words or not, or even if they don’t consciously know they think this) that something isn’t quite right, that this isn’t the country they live in.” The solution to this problem, according to Fred Bronstein, the Jewish former director of the St. Louis Symphony, is for future classical music audiences to be “much more diverse than we can even dream of today. And audiences will only become truly diverse when the performers on our stages are diverse.”
Classical music, like other aspects of Western culture, has been a casualty of the anti-White diversity mania that now infests Western intellectual life. The Cultural Marxist critique of classical music wallows in bad faith arguments and cognitive dissonance: Western classical music is nothing exceptional, yet cannot be invoked to praise White people because this necessarily implies the inferiority of other races; a White supremacist conspiracy thwarts Black and Brown achievement in the genre, but it utterly fails to prevent East Asian interest and success; Black composers have written symphonies (and, indeed, Beethoven himself was Black), yet the Western classical music tradition is inherently White supremacist and needs radical deconstruction.
Ultimately, the reason invoking classical music to laud White people is so keenly resented by anti-White intellectuals is because the gap in civilizational attainment it underscores is an embarrassing affront to regnant egalitarian assumptions. Classical music is one of the crowning glories of Western civilization, and White people have every right to take proud in their race’s achievements in the genre, and to cite these achievements as motivation for pro-White activism.
[i] Raymond Arsenault, The Sound of Freedom: Marian Anderson, the Lincoln Memorial, and the Concert That Awakened America (New York: Bloomsbury, 2009), 81
This article was first published in Professor Kevin MacDonald's 'The Occidental Observer' blog and is reproduced here by his kind permission. The original can be viewed at this link at The Occidental Observer.
Civilization vs Savagery: Black Criminals and the Traitors Who Import Them
Irony. It’s another over-worked term in modern popular culture. But there are times when it’s perfectly appropriate. The Dutch academic Dr Jeroen Ensink devoted his life to improving water-supplies in the Third World, thereby helping non-Whites to lead healthier lives and raise more children. He had worked everywhere from Pakistan to Malawi, but in 2015 he was based in London and “working on a large study” on the Congo for the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Dr Ensink was happily married and had just celebrated the birth of a daughter to his wife Nadja Ensink-Teich. On 29th December 2015 he left his home in north London to post some cards announcing the birth to his friends and relatives. That’s when he encountered a psychotic stranger, who stabbed him to death in a “random attack.”
I’m an incorrigible thought-criminal, so when I first heard about the killing I naturally leapt to a hate-filled conclusion. White victim? Random attack? Vibrancy will be involved, I thought. Sure enough, the psychotic killer turned out to be a 23-year-old Nigerian called Timchang Nandap. And yes, it is indeed a tragic irony when a Black from the Third World kills a White who has devoted his life to helping Blacks in the Third World.
The killer Phillip Simelane was Black, but he came from Swaziland, not Nigeria like Timchang Nandap. Otherwise the two cases are remarkably similar. Both killers had long histories of crime and psychiatric problems. They should have been in jail or secure mental hospitals, not roaming the streets. That’s what Christina Edkins’ relatives said then and that’s what Dr Ensink’s widow is saying now, as an enquiry into his death gets under way in London. She wants “answers” from the authorities about a crime that she says “should never have happened.”
But she is, I’m afraid, a deluded liberal exactly like her late husband, because she is not asking the most important question: Why was Timchang Nandap in the White nation of Britain in the first place? Blacks cause huge problems in the West and supply nothing that White nations need.
They are much more prone not just to crime, violence and welfare-dependency, but also to the most severe forms of mental illness. En route to his “random” killing of Dr Ensink, Timchang Nandap announced that he was “the Chosen One” and the “Black Messiah.” If Britain’s mainstream journalists were honest, they might have drawn parallels with an even worse Black killer in London, the psychotic Robert Torto. But mainstream journalists are not honest, so Mr Torto has stayed where liberals know he belongs: in oblivion.
A forgotten hate-criminal
And who was Robert Torto? He was a Ghanaian religious maniac who announced that he was the “Son of God” and conducted a fire-bombing campaign in 2006 to rid London of sin and infidelity. He successfully burned two Muslims to death after throwing a petrol-bomb into their shop, but he was arrested before he could turn his attention to the gay clubs and mosques on the “To Do” list found by police at his home.
If he’d been White, he would now be a notorious hate-criminal and his horrific crimes would be regularly re-visited by official propaganda. But he was Black, so he’s long-forgotten. The criminal Berlinah Wallace will eventually be the same. As I described in “The Bestial of British Re-Booted,” she threw sulphuric acid on her White ex-boyfriend Mark van Dongen in 2015, leaving him with such horrific injuries that he committed suicide. Like Dr Ensink, Mark van Dongen was Dutch. Like Timchang Nandap, Berlinah Wallace was Black.
But she came from South Africa, not Nigeria. Africa is a huge and varied continent. Indeed, there is much more genetic diversity among Black Africans than in the rest of the world’s population combined. Unfortunately, none of that genetic diversity codes for civilization and sustained intellectual achievement. Tiny White nations like Scotland, Sweden and Hungary have contributed far more to science, mathematics and art than all the teeming millions of Africa. And Whites from those nations make many more valuable contributions when they emigrate to larger nations like England and America. Blacks from Africa, by contrast, are a permanent burden on the White nations that host them.
No skin in the game
And that brings me to another tragic irony in modern Britain. It just has been announced that there will be prosecutions of a senior police officer and other men responsible for supervising a soccer match in 1989 at which ninety-five fans were crushed to death. However incompetent they may have been, the men have my sympathy. Crowd-control is a difficult but thankless job. If you get it right, people take your success for granted. If you get it wrong, you’re covered in opprobrium. But the prosecutions are probably a good thing. They mean that the police have what Nassim Taleb calls “skin in the game.” When the police make mistakes, it’s right that they answer for them.
Meanwhile, British citizens responsible for many more deaths and much more suffering walk around in no fear of the law. The Jewish immigration minister Barbara Roche oversaw a vast increase in Third-World immigration under the smirking war-criminal Tony Blair. The officials at that soccer-match in 1989 did not know that their actions would lead to nearly a hundred deaths. At worst, they were incompetent.
Blair and Roche knew with absolute certainty that increased immigration from the Third World would lead to thousands more murders, rapes and woundings. Indeed, they knew that it would permanently harm Britain. For merely one example, let’s take the “more than 200,000” Somalis who came to Britain under New Labour. Tom Bowyer’s devastating biography of Tony Blair points out that “most” of the Somalis were “untrained and would be dependent on welfare,” so “the Home Office could have refused them entry”.
Masters of Mendacity
But Barbara Roche “granted [them] ‘exceptional leave to remain’.” Somalia is a failed state riven by clan warfare and corruption. The average IQ of Somalis appears to be 68 — yes, a jaw-dropping sixty-eight. Even if they weren’t inclined to criminality, Somali immigrants will always form a permanent — and expanding — underclass of tax-eaters. Of course, Somalis are heavily inclined to criminality. Barbara Roche committed huge crimes against Britain and she has never answered for them. Instead, she serves as “the chair of the board of trustees” at the “Decidedly Jewish” Migration Museum in London, which pumps out lying propaganda about the way migration has “enriched” Britain.
I hope that Blair’s and Roche’s immunity from prosecution ends sooner rather than later. When it does end, it will be easy to prove that they acted in full knowledge of what increased Third-World immigration would do to Britain. It will also be easy to prove the motives for their crimes. Blair was a shabbos goy betraying British Whites in return for money and political success. In her own words, Roche entered politics “to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.”
Atomizing British society has been “good for the Jews”. But it has not been good for Jeroen Ensink, Christina Edkins, Mark van Dongen and countless other British Whites. The same is true in every other Western nation where Jews and their shabbos goyim have committed the huge crime of exposing civilization to savagery.
This report on White Flight by Alasdair Palmer & Karyn Miller was first published in the Daily Telegraph on 8th October 2006 (to read original source, click here - all emphasis on this page has been added). Nearly twelve years have now elapsed since that time, and the mass-influx of non-white migrants into our country, towns and cities continues unabated...
The call to prayer from the muezzin wafts down the streets five times a
day. Nearly all of the women are veiled in public. It is not easy to buy
alcohol or find an open pub. And, as one resident says: “You can walk
all the way to the shops – you won’t see any whites.”
But this isn’t an exotic city in South Asia or the Middle East. This is
Bradford. The old Victorian city has profoundly segregated
neighbourhoods: areas separated not simply by wealth but by ethnicity,
culture and religion.
Profound segregation along those lines could be the future for many of
Graham Gudgin, of the consultants Regional Forecast, has calculated
what that level of migration means for the future of Britain’s cities. He
examined the population and complexion of the UK’s 37 largest cities.
To his surprise, he discovered that, after years of shrinking, many of
Britain’s towns are now increasing in size.
Yet the exodus of middle-class families that was responsible for many
cities falling in population has not ceased or even slowed. It is simply
that the rate of immigration from outside Britain has increased fast
enough to compensate.
Migrants from developing countries typically have more children than
indigenous Britons: they marry younger and start families earlier.
In 2001, the Institute for Economic and Social Research revealed that
the birth rate among Bangladeshi teenagers, for example, was 75 per 1,000, compared with 29 births per 1,000 white teenagers of British parentage. The Bangladeshi girls were almost all married and would go
on to have many more children, while most of the white teenagers
In the London borough of Newham, where a very high proportion of the
population is from South Asia, the average woman will have 2.5 children. The average number of children for women in Britain as a
whole is 1.8. Where wealth goes up, birth rates go down.
The exodus of wealthier whites and influx of poorer migrants with higher
birth rates means many of Britain’s towns and cities may soon have
majority populations made up of recent migrants. Indeed, Mr Gudgin’s
model predicts that many of them will soon be completely dominated by
He has calculated what happens, on present trends, to the population of
a hypothetical British city that starts with immigrants making up just one
per cent of the population.
It takes, he notes, “45 years for that population to reach a proportion of
20 per cent of the total”. That, he says, is approximately the number of
years it took for the proportion of migrants to reach 20 per cent in the
British cities where it has actually done so.
It takes a further 20 years for the ethnic share of the population to
double to 40 per cent – the level achieved in London in 2001. But then
the ethnic proportion increases very rapidly, taking a further 12 years to
reach 60 per cent and just another five years to reach 100 per cent.
“Obviously,” says Mr Gudgin, “our cities are not going to be 100 per
cent ethnic in the near future, or probably ever. We have to assume that
migration policy and behaviour will change long before that point is
reached. The model simply shows what would happen if migration
policy and behaviour continued at the same rate as it is today.”
The assumption that policy will change to alter the rate of migration long
before any of Britain’s cities become “100 per cent made up of recent
migrants from other ethnicities” is surely correct. Yet the expectation is
that immigration will increase, rather than diminish, over the next
Mr Gudgin explains his projection’s rapid increase in the ethnic
proportion not just as the result of immigration itself but as the result of
its combination with “white flight” from cities.
The indigenous Britons who leave are those who have the opportunity
to do so, which usually means they have the economic resources to be able to move house. They are usually middle-class rather than working-
class, and often people who own their homes.
Does this mean that the middle classes want to be segregated from
ethnic minority migrants, and will move to ensure that they live in white
neighbourhoods: that they are, in a word, “racist”?
That is the allegation normally thrown at working-class inhabitants of
inner cities: the people who are “left behind”, who complain about “their”
neighbourhoods being “swamped by immigrants”, and who say that
“immigrants are claiming too many benefits and are allowed to jump the
queue for council housing”.
The depressing conclusion – that the middle classes are, despite the
rhetoric of inclusiveness, no more welcoming or inclusive than some of
their working-class compatriots – might turn out to be correct.
Extreme segregation is found in many American cities, where blacks
and whites are often separated in different residential enclaves. Is it the
future for some British towns?
Are we, in the words of Trevor Phillips, the chairman of the Commission
for Racial Equality, “sleepwalking towards segregation”?
I remember hearing a Labour Party member saying in 1970 that coloured immigration (as “multi-culturalism” was then called) would benefit Britain by “enriching our culture”.
This was in the face of what even in those far-off days was considerable evidence that non-whites tend to debase and distort White culture by superimposing their own sub-cultures upon it.
In the intervening years this evidence has multiplied and now we only have to switch on our television sets or open a magazine to see what black sub-culture is doing to our music, art and way of life. Even the English language is not immune.
Blacks and asiatics are ceaselessly promoted in the mainstream media by the Jews and white liberals who for the most part control it. Blacks, in particular, are portrayed as “artistic” and “sensitive”, in the face of all the evidence of our own eyes and ears. The most cravenly childish and primitive forms of culture – whether crude paintings, sculpture, reggae or similar “music”, or attempts at acting, are thrust upon us as being somehow equal to or even superior to our own.
Black “entertainers” posture on our stages and screens gyrating and swaying, to the applause of white liberals and fellow blacks. Rap artists drone on with their mono-tone, staccato verbal diarrhea backed up by a bongo drum and an electric guitar (and, usually, several other blacks). Even the once staid “Songs of Praise” television program that used to grace our Sunday evenings on BBC1, with choral singing from some of Britain’s finest church choirs, has become largely a platform for black gospel singers shaking their ample hips and emitting sounds that used to be heard on TV in the 1960s in David Attenborough’s reports from African forest clearings.
One of the first casualties of our culture was our language, the English language, spoken by more people worldwide than any other. The language of Shakespeare and Milton, of Wordsworth and Dickens. From the earliest days after mass non-white immigration took a hold on our country alien words have entered our language. Words such as “chillin'”, “chillaxin'”, “dude”, and “holla”, are part of the black sub-language that is attacking the English language.
Other English words, often going back centuries, have been made to mean something different, often the opposite of their original meanings, such as “wicked” and “cool”. One of the most important words that blacks use among their own is “shit”, used to describe just about anything.
The English language word-ending “er”, as in “mister”, “player” or “gangster” becomes “mista”, “playa” and “gangsta”. Ironically, the word “nigger” also falls into this category. It was originally a term of affection used by Whites in the southern United States in the nineteenth century. Then it was made unacceptable in Western countries by the liberal media, who deemed it a “hate” word. Now it has become popular with blacks themselves when greeting each other. And, of course, they spell it “nigga”.
Black obsession with the sex act is reflected in most of their so-called musical efforts, as in “The pussy was da bomb, had a nigga on sprung” or “Bitches get fucked on the roof when I ain’t got no hotel dough”.
Another part of the human anatomy that endlessly fascinates black people is, apparently, what we refer to as the backside. Hence, to “drop it like it’s hot” refers to dropping one’s backside quickly to the rhythm of a song, and catching it just before it touches the floor.
All this is just a small part of the “cultural enrichment” promised us by establishment politicians in the early days of multi-culti. There are now thousands of ways in which the English language has been distorted through its use by non-whites. In fact the situation is now so bad that, according to Dr Dominic Watt, a sociolinguistics expert from the University of York, and the author of ‘The Sounds of the Future’ report, there will be significant and permanent changes to our language by the middle of the century. It goes without saying that these “changes” will invariably be for the worse.
For example, blacks and asiatics have difficulty in pronouncing “th”, as in “the”, “mother” and “think”. The sounds that come out are the more primitive sounding “da”, “muvver” and “fink”. “This” becomes “dis” and “that” becomes “dat”. These people also can’t pronounce the letter “u” properly. So, for example, “beautiful” (not that they tend to use such a word very often) becomes “bootiful” and “duke” becomes “dook”.
In other areas of pronouncement, “red” becomes “wed”, and “real” becomes “weal”. And then there’s the hundreds or maybe thousands of new, primitive words, blacks use in their rap outpourings and, more and more, in their day-to-day language.
So fast is the alien population growing compared to Whites that this deterioration of the English language is now the mainstream way of speaking in many of our large towns and cities, where blacks and asiatics outnumber White Britons. You can imagine the long-term effects all this constant degrading of our beautiful language will have on it, and on our culture in general.