What’s the connection between cakes and leftism? Until last week, I would have found it impossible to give a good answer to that question. Then I picked up a new book by the British mathematician Ian Stewart (born 1945) and read the following:
The classic example [of fair division], from which everything else flows, is that of two children arguing over a cake. The problem is to divide the cake between them using a good protocol — a set of rules specified in advance — that is provably fair. The classic solution is “I cut, you choose.” … When I mentioned this method in an article, one reader wrote in to say that he’d tried it on his children, and Alice (not her real name) had promptly complained that Bob (not his) had the bigger piece. When her father pointed out that this was her fault for cutting badly, the news didn’t go down terribly well — in her eyes it amounted to blaming the victim — so her father swapped the two pieces. Only to hear her wail: “Bob’s piece is still bigger than mine!” (Ian Stewart, What’s the Use? The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics, Profile Books, 2021, chapter 2)
That might seem a funny but trivial story. In fact, it’s more than that: it captures the way millions of adult leftists think about “social justice” and “equality.” In particular, it captures the way Blacks and other non-Whites think. Nothing Whites can do will ever be enough to satisfy their demands or appease their anti-White hatred, resentment and envy. Whites will always be racist and White nations will always be unjust to non-Whites. Here’s an example of that kind of thinking from the Guardian:
Amy Mae Baxter was still a publishing trainee in 2019 when she founded Bad Form, an online magazine for writers of colour. … This March was a “huge month” for Bad Form, thanks to a flurry of black-authored titles commissioned in response to the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests finally hitting the shelves. Her worry, however, is that they’re all now competing with each other, meaning some might not sell as well as they otherwise could have. (“The book that tore publishing apart: ‘Harm has been done, and now everyone’s afraid,’” The Guardian, 18th June 2022)
How do you satisfy a leftist like Amy Mae Baxter? You can’t: the only solution is to get people like that out of your society. Even better is not to let them into your society at all. In other words, prevention is better than cure. The Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán believes in prevention, not cure, and refuses to open the borders of his White Christian nation to Blacks and Muslims. That’s why he is demonized by leftists around the world for his “racism” and “xenophobia.”
The toxicity of truth
Orbán has the truth on his side, but that doesn’t fully explain why he is successful. As I’ve argued before, having the truth on your side can be enervating and unhelpful, in part because you can subconsciously fall into the trap of thinking that truth will do the work for you. And believing in obvious truths doesn’t require any emotional investment or activate any of the religious modules that seem to be built into the human brain. No religion has ever been based on the claim that water is wet or that the sun rises in the east. It doesn’t take any effort to believe those things. But the very successful religion of Christianity is based on the claim that a man rose from the dead. That claim defies common sense and demands effort to believe. Once you’ve made that effort, you have an emotional and cognitive investment. Naturally enough, you then want to defend your investment and protect your belief against its critics.
Leftism also makes claims that defy common sense and demand emotional investment: we’re all the same under the skin; Blacks fail only because of White racism; East Asians flourish despite White racism; and so on. In short, leftism is a quasi-religion that activates those very powerful and ancient religious modules in the brain. Old religious concepts like sin and blasphemy re-appear in the form of racism and hate-speech. Indeed, leftism is in part a Christian heresy or a perversion of Christianity, drawing on Christian ideas of spiritual equality but failing to accept the Christian idea that we’re all sinners. In fact, some Christians don’t accept that idea either. Calvinism has the concepts of an elect minority, bound from birth for Heaven, and a damned majority, bound from birth for Hell. In Calvinism, we’re all predestined to celestial bliss or infernal agony, and nothing we do will alter our fate.
Rhetoric as route to power
Leftism has re-created that Calvinist concept and founded what Gregory Hood at AmRen has called the Church of the Damned, where nothing Whites can do or say will ever cleanse them from their hereditary taint—their original sin—of racism. Leftism mandates both that Blacks and Whites are born equal and that only the innate evil of Whites explains why Blacks don’t have the same high achievements as Whites. In other words, leftism has two big lies that contradict each other: first, that we’re all born equal; second, that Whites are innately evil. The contradiction doesn’t weaken leftism but strengthens it, because it trains leftists in deceit and allows them to preach one thing while practicing another. They use the rhetoric of equality and justice as a Trojan horse to get themselves into power. Once they’re in power, they impose inequality and injustice on their enemies. A cult of minority-worship goes naturally with a cult of majority-demonization. An anonymous French writer long ago described how leftism operates:
« Quand je suis le plus faible, je vous demande la liberté, parce que tel est votre principe ; mais quand je suis le plus fort, je vous l’ôte, parce que tel est le mien. »
“When I am the weaker, I ask you for freedom, because that is your principle; but when I am the stronger, I take away your freedom, because that is my principle.”
Free speech in the U.S. is a classic example. In the 1950s when Jews had relatively little power compared to the present, Congressional committees were grilling Jewish communists and communist sympathizers on their ideologies and connections. It was the period of the notorious Hollywood blacklist. At that time, Jewish activist organizations were all for free speech. It’s a distant memory now that the left has power and the ADL is partnering with social media companies and payment processors like PayPal to get right-wing and even conservative messages off their platforms. And the Biden administration is actively pressuring social media companies in the same direction—a clear violation of the First Amendment. So now there is a very different kind of blacklist, one reserved for people who do not conform to leftist narratives.
Leftism is an ideology based on lies and run by liars. Look at the topic of slavery, where leftists work tirelessly to encourage White guilt and non-White grievance. But neither the guilt nor the grievance can be justified on the central leftist principle of human equality. If human beings are, as leftists insist from one side of their mouths, innately and absolutely equal, it follows that the roles of slave and master are determined entirely by accidents of history and geography. White Europeans enslaved Black Africans in our reality, but that was pure chance. If the historical and geographical dice had rolled differently, it would have been the other way around: Black Africans would have enslaved White Europeans.
The stench of White history
But there is no hint of any of that in the endless propaganda pumped out by the Left about White enslavement of Blacks (they ignore the Muslim enslavement of Blacks and much else). Kris Manjapra, a Black professor of history at Tufts University, has asked “When will Britain face up to its crimes against humanity?” in the Guardian. But he doesn’t preach the first big lie of leftism, namely the equality of all so-called races. He doesn’t talk about historical contingency and the decisive role of chance in determining who enslaved whom. Instead, he uses rhetoric about the “stench of British historical amnesia and of institutionalised racism” to promote the second big lie of leftism, namely, the innate moral superiority of non-Whites over Whites. The implication of his rhetoric is that the innately evil Whites of Europe enslaved the innately virtuous Blacks of Africa. But he also says something very interesting at the beginning of his anti-White polemic:
On 3 August 1835, somewhere in the City of London, two of Europe’s most famous bankers came to an agreement with the chancellor of the exchequer. Two years earlier, the British government had passed the Slavery Abolition Act, which outlawed slavery in most parts of the empire. Now it was taking out one of the largest loans in history, to finance the slave compensation package required by the 1833 act. Nathan Mayer Rothschild and his brother-in-law Moses Montefiore agreed to loan the British government £15m, with the government adding an additional £5m later. The total sum represented 40% of the government’s yearly income in those days, equivalent to some £300bn today. (When will Britain face up to its crimes against humanity?, The Guardian, 29th March 2018)
Manjapra then complains that all of this huge loan, which wasn’t paid off by ordinary White tax-payers until 2015, was used to compensate the White beneficiaries of slavery rather than its Black victims. He leaves two very interesting historical questions hanging in the air. First, how were Rothschild and Montefiore, members of the tiny and oppressed Jewish minority, in possession of such a vast sum of money? Second, in what other ways were Jewish plutocrats using their wealth and influence over gentile politicians? Manjapra couldn’t explore those questions, of course, or he would have been denounced as an anti-Semite. But a lot of that vastly disproportionate Jewish wealth came from slavery, which Jews have practiced and been enriched by for many centuries. As Andrew Joyce has described at the Occidental Observer, Jewish slave-dealers worked in Europe from Roman times before turning to the profits to be made in Africa. Among much else, they “bought and sold Christian slaves and kidnapped and castrated Christian youths for the Muslim markets in Spain.”
Listening, Learning, Lying
You wouldn’t guess any of that from anti-White propaganda-films like Amistad (1997), which was directed by the proudly Jewish Steven Spielberg and is about Blacks mutinying against cruel Whites as they are carried into slavery. In Hollywood, Jews are not simply over-represented but overwhelmingly dominant, and they have been promoting minority-worship and majority-demonization for decades. That propaganda will increasingly shift from denying history to outright reversing it. Leftism is abandoning the rhetoric of equality to insist on the wickedness of Whiteness. In August 2022, the White American historian James H. Sweet made a doomed attempt to criticize this trend:
The Elmina [Ghana] tour guide claimed that “Ghanaians” sent their “servants” into chattel slavery unknowingly. The guide made no reference to warfare or Indigenous slavery, histories that interrupt assumptions of ancestral connection between modern-day Ghanaians and visitors from the diaspora. Similarly, the forthcoming film The Woman King seems to suggest that Dahomey’s female warriors and King Ghezo fought the European slave trade.
In fact, they promoted it. Historically accurate rendering of Asante or Dahomean greed and enslavement apparently contradict modern-day political imperatives. (President of American Historical Association Dares Doubt the 1619 Project, Quickly Apologizes, Steve Sailer, 20th August 2022)
The video below is a classic summary of African culpability in the British slave trade that dumbfounded Don Lemon, a CNN anchor — Africans rounding up Africans and depositing them in cages on the beach, the costs to the British navy for policing their ban on the slave trade [2000 dead British sailors], and the uniqueness of the British anti-slavery policy at a time when slavery was essentially universal.
As Steve Sailer has noted, Prof. Sweet was quickly forced into a groveling apology. He announced that “I sincerely regret the way I have alienated some of my Black colleagues and friends” and promised that “I’m listening and learning.” One of the things he is “learning” is that traditional White standards of scholarship have no place in modern academia and must exercise no influence on portrayal of the past. Yes, it’s historically true that King Ghezo and his female warriors promoted the European slave-trade rather than fighting it. But so what? If it serves the purposes of leftist propaganda and the promotion of Black grievance to invert the truth, that is precisely what must be done. Virtue trumps veracity and it is virtuous to sanctify Blacks and demonize Whites.
History isn’t a science, as you can see from the inability of historians to make accurate and useful predictions of the future based on their study of the past. But I’m an amateur historian and I will confidently make this prediction: that the demonization of Whites will not lessen as ever more power and wealth are taken from Whites. On the contrary, it will intensify. George Orwell also described how leftism operates: “The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism.”
Not by words but by war
Black leftists like Kris Manjapra are not seeking justice and equality. No, they’re seeking revenge. And their anti-White rhetoric will increasingly translate into anti-White action. Manjapra and countless other non-Whites share the psychology of the Black criminal Eldridge Cleaver (1935–1998), who made this boast way back in 1968: “Rape was an insurrectionary act. It delighted me that I was defying and trampling upon the white man’s law, upon his system of values, and that I was defiling his women — and this point, I believe was the most satisfying to me because I was very resentful over the historical fact of how the white man has used the black woman. I felt I was getting revenge.”
Revenge and resentment are what power leftism and motivate the Black and Brown foot soldiers of leftism. That’s why leftists were so eager to open the borders of formerly cohesive and conservative Western nations. Hungary can defend its native Whites and maintain its ancient traditions because anti-White barbarians are outside its gates. America, Britain and France can’t emulate Hungary because anti-White barbarians are inside the gates. And those barbarians are growing in numbers, aggression and arrogance by the day. Separation is the only solution and separation will not come by words but by war.