As Mark Twain probably never said: “History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme.” Old patterns return in new forms, ancient errors and superstitions slide back into unsuspecting modern minds. It’s very unwise for liberals in 2018 to think themselves superior to the past, because in some ways they’re far inferior. If you believe in the supernatural and accept the existence of an immaterial, spiritual realm, there’s nothing irrational about also believing in miracles and witchcraft.
The irrationality of liberalism
Modern liberals reject the supernatural and embrace materialism. At the same time, they believe in miracles and witchcraft. This is highly irrational. As I described in “Dawkins’ Demon,” liberals scornfully reject the idea that a single human being, Jesus Christ, was miraculously born to a virgin about 2,000 years ago in a tiny region called Palestine. Instead, they fervently embrace the idea that billions of human beings have been miraculously born for many millennia over vast stretches of the earth’s surface.
This is because liberals believe that the human brain, unlike all other parts of the material body, was miraculously shielded from evolution when human beings migrated from Africa and entered new and often very different environments in Europe, Asia and the Americas. And liberals believe in a further miracle: that when some groups of Homo sapiensinterbred with distinct human species like the Neanderthals and Denisovans, the new genes they acquired had no effects on their cognition and psychology. Liberals know this because “There is Only One Race — the Human Race.” For many thousands of years all human beings, no matter how different their environments, have kept the same average range of cognitive abilities and psychological traits.
New ways of saying “witchcraft”
In short, liberals think that we’re all the same under the skin. And if some groups do less well than others in an advanced Western democracy, there can be only one explanation. Witchcraft! Liberals don’t call it that, of course. Instead, they employ terms like racism, sexism and Islamophobia. But the underlying concepts and psychology are the same as those that worked in ancient and medieval Europe. And that still work in many parts of the modern world. In Black Africa and the Black African diaspora, belief in witchcraft and magic is still widespread and powerful. Albinos and others are butchered for their magically potent body-parts in Tanzania and South Africa, sometimes while still alive. Adults and children are sacrificed to the spirits in return for material success and riches in Nigeria and Uganda.
Children are also sacrificed for those things in Western nations. In 2001, the headless torso of a young Black boy was retrieved from the river Thames in London. Named Adam by the British police, he had been poisoned and dismembered as part of a magical ritual. And the British police have spent a great deal of time and money trying to find his killers. The same police would also be eager to arrest anyone who said that migration by Black Africans into the West is a very bad idea. People who accept barbarisms like child sacrifice and child exorcism are not likely to be valuable citizens of a Western nation. And they’re not: Blacks in Britain hit the headlines for their criminality, not their contributions to science and high technology.
Whites are to blame
But they’re not to blame for this. When Blacks and other non-Whites in London fail at school, throw acid, and commit murder with guns and knives, this says nothing about non-White genetics and everything about White racism. After all, genes are material things, susceptible to scientific investigation and analysis. How could a mere chemical like DNA affect human cognition and psychology, which long ago slipped the surly bonds of matter and soared into the psychic empyrean? No, for secularist liberals it’s obvious that non-White failure and criminality must be blamed on the supernatural force of White racism.
That is certainly the only explanation on offer in an anti-racist investigation launched by the Guardian in December 2018. It carries the portentous title “Bias in Britain” and bewails such things as the way White men pass driving-tests at a higher rate than Black women. What more proof do you need that witchcraft at work? According to liberal ideology, human beings of all colours are the same under the skin, with the same cognitive abilities. Therefore non-Whites or women should succeed at exactly the same rates as Whites or men. If this doesn’t happen, then the more successful group must be guilty of racism or sexism. In the case of Black women and driving-tests, it’s both. Black women are the innocent victims of sexist racism and racist sexism.
Can such things be?
And the Guardian is horrified by this — or perhaps “titillated” is the better word. Stories about racism are served up in the Guardian and on the BBC rather in the way that stories about adultery are served up in the Sun and Daily Mail. Liberals enjoy the frisson of reading about ideological wickedness and sin. If those liberals are White, they can also indulge in righteous self-examination: “Am I a sinner too, harbouring wicked thoughts in my straying heart?” Liberalism doesn’t use the same words as an overt religion, but it’s a religion all the same. It manipulates its adherents in a religious way, exploiting their self-righteousness, preying on their guilt.
That’s why the Guardian has presented its readers with articles like “Racism in Britain: the stark truth uncovered.” And liberals throughout the British Isles have choked on their ethically sourced cornflakes and spilt their Fair Trade coffee. They’re horrified to learn that Black women are not passing their driving-tests at the same rate as White men. That non-Whites are “three times more likely” to be thrown out of bars and restaurants. That there are only two Black chefs in Britain with Michelin stars. That room-seekers with Muslim names get fewer replies. That the talented non-White actor Nish Kumar is sometimes mistakenly called Nish Patel.
Can such things be in the 21st century, fifty years after the Moon landings, decades into the Internet Age? Yes, they can and it’s a woeful indictment of this tiny island nation. But thought-criminals like me don’t answer that question – “Can such things be?” – in the same way as the good-thinkers like the Guardian. I’m dismayed not by the “racism” of 21st-century Britain, but by the superstition, dishonesty and statistical illiteracy of the Guardian and its readers.
Medieval witch-hunting in a new form
I think that modern anti-racism is medieval witch-hunting in a new form, with Whites playing the role of witches, heretics and general evil-doers. The Guardian ignores the abundant evidence that non-White failure is caused by such things as the lower average IQ and competence of non-Whites. After all, even those who deny the existence of race have to accept that marriage between close relatives is guaranteed to produce children with lower average IQs and many other pathologies of the brain and body. And guess what? Pakistani Muslims in British cities like Bradford and Birmingham have shockingly high rates of cousin marriage. The Guardian ignores this. The harm done by inbreeding is an objective scientific fact and the Guardian is not interested in objective scientific facts.
Instead, it’s interested in the immaterial and highly dubious concept of “unconscious bias.” According to the Guardian, “the concept is now essential to our understanding of racism.” It’s also essential to some people’s understanding of the “Evil Eye,” namely, the malevolent ability to cause accidents and death merely by looking at someone or something. Superstitious Italians believe that some people have the evil eye despite themselves. These unfortunate folk don’t intend to harm anyone, but their supernatural power manifests itself regardless. For example, Pope Pius IX was said to be a jettatore, or “caster (of the evil eye),” who brought disaster on the people and buildings he blessed. His evil eye was at work even though he wasn’t an evil person.
“I am a recovering racist”
That’s like the “unconscious bias” that assails non-Whites in the modern West. The superstition, irrationality and paranoia behind belief in the “evil eye” haven’t gone away. All these things are plainly at work in the Guardian’s “Bias in Britain” series. And the Guardian helpfully provides proof of this by running headlines like this: “We need to be eternally vigilant in the fight against racism.” Did a crime-thinking sub-editor chose that headline as a sly dig against the self-righteous posturing in the text below it? Quite possibly. Underneath the totalitarian headline, pious Guardianistas responded to the “Bias in Britain” series:
We were too inclined to believe that we had finally moved on. Bodies such as the CRE [Commission for Racial Equality], with its national responsibility to both campaign for racial equality and enforce the law, had its funding severely reduced as it became absorbed into a more general Human Rights Commission and lost its cutting edge. Community relations councils and units within local authorities fell away and large organisations became less committed to monitoring their performance. So there was a failure to recognise that eternal vigilance is required to maintain progress in this area of national life and we now witness a disturbing resurgence of far-right oppressive rhetoric and policy in many parts of Europe and beyond.
Michael Day, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, 1988-93 (We need to be eternally vigilant in the fight against racism, The Guardian, 5th December 2018 – my emphasis)
That was the Guardianista Michael Day, looking back with fondness on his years as the well-remunerated Chairman of the CRE. But his self-righteous posturing was surpassed by another Guardianista:
Working for the Churches Commission for Racial Justice from 1987 to 1998, it became clear that racism is deeply rooted in British society both individually and institutionally. The latter emerged most visibly through the Stephen Lawrence campaign, which our commission supported, and was then rightly named by the inquiry. At individual level, those of us who are white who claim “I’m not racist” immediately give ourselves away. Racism is in the cultural air we breathe. The best we can say, taking our cue from Alcoholics Anonymous, is: “I am a recovering racist, and I am working on it.” Try saying it out loud, in front of a partner or friend. Then we need one area of institutional racism we can get to work on.
Rev David Haslam, Evesham, Worcestershire (We need to be eternally vigilant in the fight against racism)
Easily adapted to other eras
I suspect that a sub-editor chose the “eternally vigilant” headline to mock Michael Day and David Haslam. But maybe I’m wrong. Either way, the headline certainly reflects the way millions of liberals think about the horror of racism. They don’t have the self-awareness or the objectivity to reflect on how easily such headlines could be adapted to other eras and cultures. Think of medieval Europe: “We need to be eternally vigilant in the fight against witchcraft.” Or Stalinist Russia: “We need to be eternally vigilant in the fight against Trotskyist wreckers.” Or McCarthyite America: “We need to be eternally vigilant in the fight against communist subversion.”
But in fact it’s unfair to accuse Senator Joseph McCarthy of conducting an irrational witch-hunt against communists. Unlike witches, wreckers and racists in other eras and places, communists were a real force and a genuine danger in 1950s America. Spies like Julius and Ethel Rosenberg passed atomic secrets to the Soviet Union and were caught and executed. But many more spies went undetected and unpunished.
Is it good for Jews?
Like the Rosenbergs, a vastly disproportionate number of those spies were Jewish. Given a choice between a flawed liberal democracy and a mass-murdering dictatorship, those Jews chose the mass-murdering dictatorship and tried to bring communism to America. After all, the important thing about communism was not whether it would commit mass murder, but whether it would be “Good for the Jews.” The Rosenbergs thought it would be. So did the Jewish leaders of a revolutionary organization called Weather Underground in the 1960s:
They [the leaders of Weather Underground] also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter revolution and they felt that this counter revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing reeducation centers in the Southwest where [they] would take all the people who needed to be reeducated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I asked, well, what is going to happen to those people that we can’t reeducate that are diehard capitalists and the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further, they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers. And when I say eliminate, I mean kill – 25 million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious. (see Patriot Larry Grathwohl, 65, Infiltrated Weather Underground, Indicted Bill Ayers, The American Spectator, 24th July 2013)
Is it good for the Jews? That’s what matters, not mass murder, not truth or reality. This self-centred, self-worshipping Jewish attitude has influenced many ideologies through history. Communism is one, anti-racism is another. But communism and anti-racism go together, of course, because neither ideology cares about facts and logic, only about the acquisition and intensification of power. There is no mention in the Guardian’s self-righteous, pearl-clutching “Bias in Britain” series that some non-White groups do much better than the White average. Chinese, Hindus and Gujarati Muslims are all flourishing in 21st-century Britain. And Nigerian Blacks do much better than Somali Blacks.
Minority success in plain sight
If racism is the powerful and pervasive force alleged by the Guardian, how is this possible? Well, it isn’t, which is why the Guardian ignores the success of some non-White groups. When reality contradicts ideology, well-trained liberals don’t hesitate for a second. They simply censor reality and re-insist on ideology. But one censored aspect of reality is actually in plain sight in the Guardian’s series about racism:
Rebecca Hilsenrath, the chief executive of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: “Prejudice is still a very real problem in Britain and these findings demonstrate that it is having a significant impact on how real people behave and interact with others. Choosing a housemate is a personal decision and there are lots of reasons which play into it. As a barometer of today’s society, we should sit up and take notice if people are choosing who they live with based on where people come from, what they might look like and what they might believe. (Flatshare bias: room-seekers with Muslim name get fewer replies, The Guardian, December 2018)
… Hilsenrath, the ECHR chief executive, said: “We would always say in the case of unequal outcomes it’s important to look at total transparency, which is one of the reasons we have called for race pay gap reporting to be mandatory. It doesn’t reduce the gap but it starts a conversation.” Zubaida Haque, deputy director of the Runnymede Trust, said: “It’s an important process to start. It sends out a strong message to society. The reason it’s not enough is there are effectively no consequences to employers [of having a large race pay gap].” … Hilsenrath said the government had the power to set the example on tackling bias via the public sector. She said the current requirements for diversity in the public sector were non-specific but could be made more focused, creating “objectives to address the ethnicity employment gap”. (Bias in Britain: what can employers, the government and you do about it?, The Guardian, 7th December 2018)
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said on Tuesday it was aware of claims from some student groups that universities were “brushing incidents under the carpet unless they go viral on social media”. David Isaac, the organisation’s chair, said the inquiry would be looking at whether universities “have systems in place to stop racial harassment being a stumbling block to educational achievement and ensure that victims can obtain redress”. (Equality watchdog launches inquiry into racial harassment at universities, The Guardian, 4th December 2018)
Rebecca Hilsenrath and David Isaac, chief commissars in the Orwellian “Equality and Human Rights Commission,” are both Jewish (Isaac is also homosexual). Zubaida Haque is “deputy director of the Runnymede Trust,” an anti-White, pro-minority organization working hard to stir up racial and religious grievance. As I described in “Barons of Bullshit,” the Runnymede Trust was founded by two highly successful Jews, Anthony Lester and Jim Rose, who went on to found the anti-White, pro-minority Commission for Racial Equality.
Jews like Hilsenrath, Isaac and Lester are part of a very obvious but also very unmentionable pattern in the modern West: the vast over-representation of Jews at the upper levels of government, media, business and academia. Why is this Jewish success not held up as an example of how a once persecuted and powerless minority can triumph over discrimination and hate?
Jewish success disproves anti-racist ideology
It’s simple. Jewish success can’t be celebrated because it disproves anti-racist ideology and draws attention to Jewish power. If we’re all the same under the skin, why is the tiny Jewish minority so over-represented at the top? That is a forbidden question, because there’s no way to answer it within the rigid, anti-White parameters of anti-racism. An honest answer to the question would reveal that Jews practise ethnic nepotism, promoting other Jews and excluding Whites. It would also reveal that native British Whites are not “privileged” in modern Britain. If Jews are over-represented at the top, then native Whites are under-represented. But Hilsenrath and Isaac want to attack and undermine Whites, so they can’t celebrate themselves as examples of dazzling minority success.
As I said in “Blight unto the Nations”: “Jews are a minority when they wish to present themselves as victims. But [they] merge seamlessly into the White majority when it’s time to bash Whites for racism, prejudice and discrimination.” That’s the “dual nature of Jewishness.” Rebecca Hilsenrath exploited it when the Jewish Chronicle described her as “The woman with the ‘best job in the world’.” Jewish women are vastly over-represented in the liberal elite just as Jewish men are, but Hilsenrath claimed to be a victim despite her success and power:
The head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission [EHRC], the body which is charged with advancing equality and countering discrimination knows first-hand the problems women face in trying to get to the top. Rebecca Hilsenrath, a Cambridge law graduate, Mrs Hilsenrath had worked for five years for Linklaters, a leading London legal firm, before she took a break and had four sons in five years. When her youngest was two-and-a-half, she wanted to resume her career. “I was looking for a part-time opportunity. And I found that those are not so easy to come by in the private sector,” she says. “It was my first experience of what it’s like to be a woman looking for a senior role.” …
She joined the EHRC as chief legal officer in 2014 and within 18 months was acting chief executive. She landed the role permanently last October and describes it as “the best job in the world”. Invaluable to her career was her experience as a co-founder of the Hertsmere Jewish Day School, and then Yavneh College in Hertfordshire. She had a son in each of their first intake. … Since the Race Relations Act was passed in 1965, anti-discrimination law has greatly extended its reach. The EHRC’s casework includes backing successful legal action last year against a pub which refused entry to Irish Travellers. (The woman with the ‘best job in the world’, The Jewish Chronicle, 11th August 2016 / 5th Av 5776)
Hilsenrath seems to have had few problems getting to the top. And she doesn’t seem to care about occupying a position that should have gone to a non-White woman. As “a Cambridge law graduate” with “five years [at] Linklaters, a leading London legal firm,” she had enjoyed enormous privilege and success before she landed “the best job in the world.” But I don’t think Rebecca Hilsenrath and David Isaac really care about any minority except one: the minority to which they themselves belong. As “co-founder of the Hertsmere Jewish Day School, and then Yavneh College,” Hilsenrath must be a strongly identified Jew who constantly asks that eternal question: “Is it good for Jews?”
Harming Whites, helping criminals
“Anti-discrimination law” is good for Jews, but it isn’t good for Whites. The pub that “refused entry to Irish Travellers” undoubtedly had good reasons for doing so. In both Ireland and England, “Travellers” have a well-deserved reputation for violence, theft and amoral predation on outsiders. For example, the “UK family found guilty of enslaving homeless and disabled people” in 2017 were coyly described by the Guardian as being “based on Traveller sites.” In other words, they were “Travellers.” By helping this predatory and violent group, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is harming law-abiding and productive Whites.
But harming Whites is the raison d’être of anti-racist, pro-minority organizations like the EHRC. Recall this line in the Jewish Chronicle’s article about Rebecca Hilsenrath: “Since the Race Relations Act was passed in 1965, anti-discrimination law has greatly extended its reach.” I think that the greater “reach” of such law is sinister, not a cause for celebration. And who was behind the “Race Relations Act” of 1965? As I described in “Barons of Bullshit,” it was the Jewish lawyer Anthony Lester.
Jews like Lester and Hilsenrath are as energetic as they are anti-White, constantly working to undermine majorities and elevate minorities in Western nations. But Jews don’t do this in Israel, where the Jewish majority is firmly in control and laden with privilege. In Israel, Jews are determined to maintain both their control and their privilege for ever. They’re just as determined to lead a witch-hunt against Whites throughout the West.