Leftism is built on lies. I know that. I’ve seen countless examples of it. But even I was surprised by the Guardian’s dishonesty in February 2021. It was reporting on “rising violence against Asian communities in the US” and, of course, it was refusing to admit that Blacks were responsible. Well, I was ready for the usual coy descriptions of how “a man” or “a youth” had committed some act of amoral thuggery. But I wasn’t ready for this:
The Oakland attacks came as many in the Bay Area began changing their social media photos to bring awareness to the seemingly unprovoked killing of an 84-year-old Thai man in San Francisco last month. Video of that attack shows a person running at Vicha Ratanapakdee, a “gentle, nearly blind” grandfather, and shoving him to the ground on his morning walk. Ratanapakdee died of his injuries two days later. (Oakland police make arrest in attack on elderly Asian man as concerns over violence grow, The Guardian, 9th February 2021)
There you have it: according to the Guardian, “a person” was responsible for that brutal crime. The newspaper was averting its eyes from the plain truth revealed in the video: that the “person” in question was a young Black male. Indeed, the word “Black” was not mentioned once in that article, or in two articles reporting how Asian leaders and Democratic politicians have blamed Donald Trump and “systemic racism” for the violence.
Cruel, hate-filled White societies
This is an example of how leftists believe in the “immaculate conception” of Blacks, who therefore exist in perfect sanctity and purity, free from every stain and fault. Any apparent misbehaviour by Blacks is in fact entirely the fault of innately depraved Whites, who have created cruel, hate-filled societies where Blacks and other non-Whites are systematically oppressed, exploited and trodden into the mire. Of course, this leftist fantasy of White oppression and non-White victimhood is contradicted by the way Chinese, Japanese, Indians and many other non-White groups flourish in White societies. But what does reality matter to leftists? They seek power, not truth, and are narcissists, not realists.
They also hate White civilization, which will stand as a permanent rebuke to their lies and fantasies unless they manage to destroy it. And all those aspects of leftism were on full display in the interview conducted by the Black billionaire Oprah Winfrey with the Black millionaire Meghan Markle and her stupid White husband Prince Harry. It was utterly predictable that the marriage of Meghan and Harry would cause big problems for the Royal Family. Meghan Markle was a mediocre actress of mediocre intellect with mediocre looks. She snagged a surplus prince and won herself a spectacular wedding, hijacking great White architecture and ritual with Black narcissism, crudity and entitlement. As the London Evening Standard put it: “Black culture was celebrated throughout the ceremony — from spotlighting British cellist prodigy Sheku Kanneh-Mason, Bishop Michael Curry’s sermon and the presence of Black gospel choir The Kingdom Choir.”
Cast-iron proof of racism
But the wedding would have been the high point of Markle’s life if she’d behaved herself from then on. How would she keep winning attention and enjoying drama if she became a loyal member of the Royals and a dutiful granddaughter-in-law to the Queen? She wouldn’t. So she decided to be disloyal and abandon duty instead. And it’s worked very well. She’s back in the headlines around the world playing that most important and attention-grabbing of leftist roles: the Black victim of White racism. And how wonderful it would have been if she could have claimed that British royals or palace officials had donned white hoods and burned a giant cross on her lawn whilst waving nooses and chanting the n-word. Alas, she couldn’t claim that. Even leftist credulity wouldn’t have stretched that far. But the reaction to what she did claim — that an unspecified royal had wondered how dark her unborn child’s skin might be — has been scarcely less hysterical.
Leftists immediately proclaimed that Markle’s vague accusation was cast-iron proof of racism. Royal racism! You could hear the glee in the voices of anti-royal BBC journalists as they covered the story. You could also hear mediocre Black narcissists around the world rushing to their keyboards to type passionate defences of Markle. The competition was fierce, but I think the prize for “Black Narcissist of the Month” has to go to Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu (Phd MBA LLM MA LLB IAQ), who managed to get eight instances of the first-person singular into the short opening paragraph of her pro-Markle article in the Guardian:
I stayed up late to watch the Oprah interview. As I watched it, I thought: “Lord, give me strength!” Like me, Meghan is independent, well educated, career-minded. Like me, she is a woman of Black heritage. I felt her pain. It was very difficult to listen to Harry and Meghan’s story and not feel sorry for them, because I believed what they were saying. (Meghan has been mistreated for years — but her interview still shocked me, The Guardian, 8th March 2021)
Mos-Shogbamimu went on to explain that “As a Black woman, I am so used to all the nuances of racism that vary from person to person. There is obvious racism, but there is also a more subtle form of racism, which can best be described as a form of white violence.” When racism becomes “more subtle,” it presumably doesn’t involve physical attacks. So how can “more subtle” racism be “best described” as “white violence”? Very easily, to the mediocre intellect of Mos-Shogbamimu. She isn’t interested in reality and she doesn’t use words to reflect reality, but to convey her hostility to Whites and feed her own narcissism. That’s why she announced that “The royal family as an institution has a legacy that is rooted in slavery, colonialism and racism.”
Services to hysteria and community disintegration
Like Oprah Winfrey and Meghan Markle, Mos-Shogbamimu is a mediocre Black facing the grandeur and tradition of a great White institution. Naturally enough, she feels an affront to her narcissism and wants to drag that institution down whilst pretending that the exploitation of Blacks was central to its success. To be clear: I don’t want to defend the British monarchy myself. It has completely failed to champion the White British against the hostile elite and non-White immigration. Instead, it celebrates the dispossession of the White British. The deceitful Mark Steyn was wrong in his analysis of “this year’s Commonwealth Day service”:
Somewhere in the course of the weekend, someone told me that the Queen had moved up this year’s Commonwealth Day service as part of her “damage control” operation [against the Markle interview] (along with reports that the Duchess of Sussex was a total bitch to her staff). So I watched the Westminster Abbey service for the first time in, golly, several decades. This year it was Covid-compliant, so no congregation, just exotic musical combos — African drummers and Maori choirs — punctuated by various Royal duchesses in somewhat earnest conversation with Malawian women’s-groups organizers and Indian literacy-program teachers and a fellow from Bangladesh who started an ambulance service in rural areas.
The finale — the Lord’s Prayer recited a line apiece by Commonwealth citizens from Nigeria, Belize, Singapore, etc – was rather moving in its universalist simplicity. Much of the rest had a reassuringly boring niceness: The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (that’s “Will ’n’ Kate” to Oprah viewers) seemed genuinely fascinated by the Bangladeshi ambulance service; the Countess of Wessex (that’s …well, she’s never gonna rate Oprah, so who cares?) said “Nice to see you again” to an enthusiastic young lady she’d met on a previous trip to Malawi. If the Royal Family is racist, as the despicable Harry and his malignant narcissist of a missus insist, they’ve got a funny way of showing it. (Things to Obsess About Until They Nuke Us, SteynOnline, 8th March 2021)
Steyn is wrong to say the “Commonwealth Day service” was benign. In fact, the Royal Family was virtue-signalling in typical elite fashion and demonstrating that they have no interest in defending ordinary Whites against dispossession. After all, the rich and privileged royals don’t have to live in close contact with non-Whites day after day, enduring crime, overcrowding and competition for jobs, housing and public space. Muslim rape-gangs won’t be calling at Buckingham Palace to select their victims, low-IQ Blacks won’t be swinging machetes or throwing acid at exclusive private schools like Eton, and Pakistani fraudsters won’t be duping the Queen out of her life-savings if she falls victim to dementia.
Meeting of Mediocrities
But despite its current treachery, the Monarchy remains a potent symbol of White Christian Britain and is still hated by those who want to destroy Britain and its traditions. Those who can’t create often wish to forget their inferiority by destroying what others have created. Anti-White Blacks like Shola Mos-Shogbamimu are a prime example of that psychological truth. But to be fair to Ms Mos-Shogbamimu, she hasn’t attacked the British monarchy after accepting one of the most glittering prizes in its gift. The mediocre Black historian David Olusoga has done exactly that. He was awarded an O.B.E., or Order of the British Empire, in the Queen’s 2019 New Year Honours “for services to history and to community integration.”
In fact, Olusoga has always served anti-White hysteria, not impartial history, and has worked for community disintegration, not integration. And so, after Meghan Markle attacked the Royal Family, Olusoga joined the hysteria in (where else?) the Guardian and announced that the interview with Oprah Winfrey “is not just a crisis for the royal family — but for Britain itself.” Yes, that’s how serious it is when a mediocre Black actress claims that an unspecified royal had enquired, in unspecified terms and an unspecified context, about the possible future skin-colour of her semi-Black embryo. Should David Olusoga, who is 51 years old and Professor of Public History at the University of Manchester, have accepted Markle’s claims so credulously? By White standards, no, he shouldn’t. But Olusoga applies anti-White standards and so he once again served hysteria rather than history.
No discussion of innate racial differences
And, by White standards, an acclaimed and award-laden historian should not write like a pseudo-intellectual teenager. But Olusoga isn’t held to White standards, which is why he wrote of “the simmering contempt [for Markle] still being incubated and transmitted by the toxic parts of our tabloid press.” He then went on to express his sorrow that Britain was unprepared for “an honest national conversation about race and racism,” “honest self-reflection,” “hard self-reflection” and “a reckoning with the difficult truths of our imperial history.”
As Steve Sailer has often pointed out, when leftists call for “honest conversation,” they mean: “We speak — you obey.” If Britain truly had “an honest national conversation about race and racism,” it would ask whether there are innate racial differences in cognition, personality and criminality. It would also ask whether non-Whites systematically harm and exploit Whites, rather than vice versa, and whether “anti-racism” is a parasistic ideology that seeks to paralyse the resistance of Whites to their own dispossession and destruction. Obviously, Olusoga doesn’t want any of those questions raised. Nor does he want Blacks such as himself to engage in “honest self-reflection” and to ask whether Black problems might be owed to Black shortcomings rather than “white racism.”
Black barbarism trumps White civilization
No, “self-reflection” is for sin-stained Whites, not for saintly Blacks. David Olusoga is a supposed historian who doesn’t believe in objective enquiry or open debate, but in subjective certainty and proclamation ex cathedra. He’s a narcissist, not a realist. That’s why he and other Black mediocrities side with Black barbarism rather than White civilization. In November 2020, Olusoga and other “Black public figures” signed a joint letter opposing the deportation of fifty Jamaican criminals, including “convicted murderers and rapists.” The criminals wouldn’t be safe in Jamaica, Olusoga and company said. I agree: Black-majority Jamaica has astonishingly high rates of murder, rape and police brutality. And by signing that letter, Olusoga proved that he supports Black barbarism over White civilization. He wants Britain to become more like Jamaica and his hugely corrupt paternal homeland of Nigeria.
But Olusoga persists in believing that he is somehow a brave rebel fighting for truth, justice and high culture against cruel White-hegemonic racism. In 2020, his Black privilege earned him another honour when he was asked to deliver the “keynote MacTaggart lecture at the virtual edition of the Edinburgh television festival.” In the lecture, he proclaimed that:
The year of Black Lives Matter and the murder of George Floyd is not the year to speak half-truths to power. … In the spirit of Black Lives Matters, in the spirit of an age in which millions of people have come to recognise that silence on these issues is a form of complicity, I am going to say what I really think about race, racism and our industry. And I’ll discover if, at the end of it, I still have a career. (David Olusoga: his Edinburgh television festival speech in full, The Guardian, 24th August 2020)
That’s how deluded and narcissistic David Olusoga is: he thought (or pretended to think) that condemning British television for racism and demanding more “diversity” might end his career. He thought (or pretended to think) that he might be made to punished by powerful Whites for claiming victimhood and for revealing that White racism had left him feeling “sidelined, dismissed and desperately unhappy” — “so isolated and so devalued that I twice slipped into clinical depression.”
Oprah and Obama, united in mediocrity
The opposite happened after his lecture, of course: he was extravagantly praised and his Black mediocrity was even more richly rewarded. For example, his fellow mediocre Black, the Guardian journalist Afua Hirsch, extolled his “candour and courage.” And why not? She too has built a highly successful career on accusing Whites of racism and proclaiming her own victimhood. But while Olusoga is half-White and trained as a historian, Hirsch is part-Jewish and trained as a lawyer. And her ancestry and training bring me to other questions that should be raised in any genuinely “honest conversation about race and racism.” How is it that mediocre Blacks like Markle, Olusoga, Hirsch and Mos-Shogbamimu wield such power and influence in modern Western societies? How did a mediocre Black like Oprah Winfrey become a billionaire and a mediocre Black like Barack Obama become President of the United States?
In short, how did members of such an under-achieving race become such over-achievers? Well, as you might expect, it wasn’t by their own efforts. Blacks have, in fact, been foot-soldiers in a war on White civilization directed by a race that isn’t intellectually mediocre or handicapped by impulsivity and disregard for the future. As Kevin MacDonald has documented, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in America was run and funded not by Blacks, but by Jews. In the UK, the anti-racist Runnymede Trust was founded by two Jewish lawyers to attack Whites and promote mass immigration from the Third World. Blacks were foot-soldiers in the war on White civilization; Jews were generals. Blacks and Jews are still playing those roles. You can see Jewish power behind the scenes even in the hysteria about the Markle interview with Oprah Winfrey. The White journalist Piers Morgan bluntly said that “I don’t believe a word [Markle] says” and that he was prepared to lose his job “for expressing an honestly held opinion about Meghan Markle and that diatribe of bilge that she came out with in that interview.”
“Squalid example of blatant antisemitic language”
And he did lose his job as a presenter at the show Good Morning Britain, after severe condemnation by leftists and “41,000 complaints to the [TV] regulator Ofcom.” Unlike David Olusoga, Morgan showed “candour and courage.” But don’t worry that his career is over: he will probably soon be employed by Rupert Murdoch or Murdoch’s former henchman Andrew Neil. You can often survive in the media mainstream if you criticize Blacks. But not if you criticize Jews — or even if you compliment Jews in a way they don’t like, as the philo-Semitic Irish journalist Kevin Myers discovered in 2017. Myers pointed out that the two highest-paid women at the BBC are Jews called Vanessa Feltz and Claudia Winkleman. He then said: “Jews are not generally noted for their insistence on selling their talent for the lowest possible price.” Jews immediately objected and Myers lost his successful career, despite his loud protestations of admiration and respect for Jews. Mark Gardner, the “communications director” of the Jewish Community Security Trust (CST), gloated that “Myers’s squalid example of blatant antisemitic language was swiftly dealt with.”
The message was simple: “Watch yourselves, goyim!” And I think the goy Piers Morgan is well aware of Jewish power and the often-seen Jewish ability to end careers. Look at the strange non-sequitur he used when, a few weeks before the Markle interview, he was defending himself against a critic of his journalism. The critic, Morgan said, “raged against my ‘idiotic rants’ [and] branded me a ‘parasite’ — the word the Nazis infamously used for Jewish people.” That comment about “the Nazis” was completely irrelevant, except as a virtue-signal from Morgan to powerful Jews. “See how pro-Jewish I am?” Morgan was saying. “The merest mention of the word ‘parasite’ makes me think of the nasty Nazis and their vile slurs against the saintly Jewish community.”
The Jewish role remains plain to see
That’s why Morgan still has a place in the mainstream media. He’s pro-Jewish, even if he’s prepared to criticize a self-proclaimed Black victim like Meghan Markle. But he didn’t discuss Black narcissism, mediocrity and hatred of White civilization, which are still taboo subjects in the mainstream. And Morgan will never discuss the Jewish role in agitating Blacks and employing them as foot-soldiers in their war on White civilization. But the Jewish role remains plain to see. Jews don’t merely fund and staff “anti-racist” organizations like the Runnymede Trust, sponsor illiberal laws against “hate speech,” and proclaim repeatedly that “Muslims and Jews are natural allies.” They’re also central to the denial of racial reality: Jewish biologists like Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leon Kamin and Steven Rose have propagandized tirelessly for the irrational and biologically illiterate dogma of “There’s Only One Race — the Human Race!”
That lying leftist dogma has done incalculable harm to the West, justifying not only the massive coercive apparatus of “anti-racism” and egalitarianism, but also the flooding of White nations with non-White migrants from the Third World. The Jewish culture of critique proclaims that if non-Whites like Jamaicans and Somalis fail in the West, it’s because of White racism. But if non-Whites like the Chinese and Indians succeed, it’s despite White racism. Oprah Winfrey and Meghan Markle may be mediocre in intellect, but they and countless other non-Whites have proved quite capable of learning and applying the central message of the culture of critique: White racism explains all White success and all non-White failure.
Whites have rights
It’s a simple message for simple minds and it will destroy the West unless it is firmly and irreversibly defeated by the truth. Whites are not the world’s greatest villains, but the world’s greatest creators. And they have a right to live in their own nations free of envious and hate-filled Black mediocrities like Meghan Markle and David Olusoga.
Whites also have a right to live free of the hostile Jewish elite that supplies the culture of critique to envious and hate-filled Blacks. After all, Blacks and Jews all have nations of their own. If they’re sincere about how evil and oppressive Whites are, they should be glad to leave us. If they’re not sincere, they’re obviously seeking to harm us and should leave us just the same.