“You can never be too rich or too thin.”
That’s a memorable line from Wallis Simpson, the American divorcée who turned Edward VIII into an ex-king. It’s a self-aware joke about female psychology, but its humour also comes from the incongruity of the adjectives it uses. Wealth and weight are different kinds of variable. It’s easy for one human being to be thousands or even millions of times wealthier than another. And wealth can be negative in the form of debt.
The qualitative cliff
If you look at the other ways in which we human beings vary, you can divide them into the wealth-like and the weight-like.
Intelligence is like weight; political power is like wealth.
When it comes to political power, Kim Jong-un of North Korea is a kind of power millionaire: he has supreme power over millions of people who possess almost no power at all. But the IQs of geniuses like Newton and Shakespeare probably weren’t even twice the average IQ of the populations they lived among, even though their influence has been millions of times greater than the average person’s.
It seems very difficult to raise intelligence substantially, whether we’re talking about groups or individuals. My own version of Wallis Simpson’s motto would be this:
“You can never be too intelligent or too knowledgeable.”
But knowledge is much easier to acquire than intelligence, unless the knowledge depends on intelligence. I’d like to be able to understand higher mathematics, for example, but I can’t: there’s a qualitative cliff and I stand at the foot of it gazing upward in frustrated wonder. There’s no pill I can take or brain-operation I can undergo that would enable me to climb that cliff. Intelligence isn’t yet pharmacologically or neurologically malleable.
“The process began with Jews…”
That isn’t true of other psychological variables. Brain injuries can alter personality, turning the law-abiding into criminals. There are drugs that will increase alertness (Amphetamine) or sweep reality (Lysergic acid diethylamide =LSD) away altogether in a flood of vivid hallucinations. There is no drug for IQ, but there are drugs for ego, like cocaine and alcohol.
There are also ideologies for ego, like anti-racism, feminism, LGBTQ+ activism and other branches of liberalism in its corrupt modern form. But egotrophic (mThey also reflect the innate egomania of a particular race, if this story is any guide:nourishing your own self-image for your benefits) ideologies weren’t discovered by chance in the way that cocaine and alcohol were: they were deliberately invented.
Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism
Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from his book published Saturday. Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s [former] chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, “The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society,” he said the movement had run its course.
“Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London. “Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment.
The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the [London] Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Britain’s top rabbi warns against multiculturalism, iSteve, 20th October 2007)
There you have it from the rabbi’s mouth: “…the process began with Jews.” You can see this ego- and ethno-mania at work in another rabbi’s face. Look at the woman in the purple skullcap gazing self-importantly at Theresa May in this photo:
Who is she?
And why is she in the photo?
That’s not so easy to answer. It was taken when Theresa May visited Finsbury Park Mosque in London after an attack by a White Islamophobe there. Rabbi Laura is a wealthy Jewish liberal and not a resident of the area or directly affected by the attack. But she nevertheless felt entitled to stand prominently beside the prime minister with another Jew, while Muslims themselves were relegated to the background.
“We see ourselves…”
There’s a word for behaviour like that: chutzpah. Naturally enough, it’s a Yiddish word describing some typically Jewish traits. Rabbi Janner-Klausner is an egomaniac who, because she herself belongs to a minority, works tirelessly to promote the cult of minority worship. For example, she thinks Britain should open its borders to the vibrant vulnerable and welcome in as many enriching ethnics as wish to settle here. Here is something she wrote in theGuardian about “refugees”:
When Jewish people look at Calais migrants, we see ourselves
… Look at the office you’ve worked in today, the school you dropped your children off at, the carriage you’re in right now. Many of the people you see, or their families before them, came to these shores seeking sanctuary. Our city [London] thrives on immigration, on years of taking in those who sought its help, of taking in people who have returned so much to London. The Jewish community is just one group who enjoy its richness today.
For the Jewish people, for thousands of years a dispersed nation without guaranteed safety, the sight of the Calais “jungle” camp on our doorstep is especially painful. We remember with gratitude the great deeds of the Kindertransport, and with hurt the rejection we have also known. What is the Jewish response to hearing that thousands are living in squalor just a few miles away? When we look across the English Channel, we see ourselves. (When Jewish people look at Calais migrants, we see ourselves, The Guardian, 13th August 2015)
Rabbi Janner-Klausner is speaking only half of the truth: Jewish support for refugees is certainly about Jews, but Jews don’t see themselves in the refugees. If they did, the refugees wouldn’t have been at Calais, because Israel would already have welcomed them in. All of those “fleeing” to Calais started their journeys far closer to Israel than to France or Britain. In some cases, their journey began in Syria, which shares a border with Israel.
But obviously the “pain” felt by Jews in Britain at sight of the vibrant vulnerable isn’t felt by Jews in Israel.
“Is it good for the Jews?”
This is because Jews in Israel wouldn’t benefit from mass immigration by Muslims and other non-Jews, who would commit crime, consume welfare and undermine the power of the Jewish majority. But Jews in Britain support mass immigration precisely because it has those harmful effects on the White majority. There’s a blatant double-standard explained by that perennial question: “Is it good for the Jews?” And we can’t excuse Rabbi Janner-Klausner on the ground that Israel is a long way off and difficult to get news from. She lived in Jerusalem for 15 years, so she knows perfectly well what Israel’s policies on migration are. When Israeli Jews look at their neighbours in the region, they do not “see themselves.” Instead, in the words of Benjamin Netanyahu, they see “predators” and “beasts” who must be kept out with hi-tech fences.
Rabbi Janner-Klausner was also wrong when she said that London “thrives on immigration.” In fact, immigration atomizes the city and impoverishes its native White working-class. It also introduces crimes that were once unknown there, like gang-rape and female genital mutilation, and re-introduces crimes that had died out, like acid attacks. What race were the two “youths” who recently eased the tricky job of robbery by throwing acid in their victims’ faces? It’s highly likely that they were Black and their victims all or mostly White. The criminals’ race is indicated not just by the egocentric savagery of the crimes, but also by the ease with which the police were able to arrest and charge a suspect. When savagery meets stupidity, Blacks are world-class performers.
Librarians vs Barbarians
Not all Blacks are savage and stupid, of course. But the intelligent ones are sometimes even more harmful to Western nations than the savage and stupid ones. Take April Hancock, a Black American librarian whose jaw-dropping effusions were recently celebrated at Steve Sailer’s blog. Ms Hancock’s own blog, At The Intersection, is “about the intersection of libraries, law, feminism, and diversity” and is a richly rewarding case-study in Black female egomania and anti-racist metaphysics. Ms Hancock has a simple message for us white folk: we are innately evil and must fight our natal infection under Black direction:
For as long as there has been time, white people have been fighting the notion that they are racist. For them, it is like the N-word, the C-word, and the B-word all rolled into one. (If only those words didn’t exist and we didn’t know which slurs they referred to.) It is their kryptonite. It is the moment when all communication on issues of race break [sic] down. It is the sledgehammer that shreds their delicate #whitefragility to dust in a shower of #whitetears.
And all this is sheer and utter nonsense.
Racism is everywhere. It is the norm. It is the foundation upon which every white colonializing country was built. It doesn’t matter if you’re not American, not Southern, not mean, not old, not conservative. Racism is the fertile soil upon which white supremacy grows. And white supremacy is like ivy. It is everywhere, it is hard to uproot, and it grows fast.
White people are so intent on treating racism like it’s an anomaly, a disease, rather than realizing that racism is the default. White people, by virtue of their race privilege, are racist. All of them. Everyone. It is how white privilege exists and continues to persist. It is a painful reality, I know, but a reality nonetheless. …
The only way we will ever truly dismantle white supremacy and dig up the manure of racism in which it grows is if we all face this truth: Racism is the foundational default and all white people are guilty of it. There’s no getting around it. …
So, now, let’s face facts and get to work. Granted, it may take you awhile. For many of you, this post feels harsh and divisive and mean and insulting and untrue. That’s okay. That’s just your #whitefragility acting up. Go ahead, take a moment to yourself or with some fellow white people, and cry those #whitetears. (Just don’t burden people of color with them; we’ve got better things to do.)
And when you’re really ready to be honest and do this work, come on back. It’d be great to have you as a true antiracist ally. (Everything But… Racism, At The Intersection blog, 8th February 2016)
Ms Hancock talks about “reality,” “truth” and “honesty,” but I’m not sure quite what she means by those words. If Black failure in America is entirely due to “white supremacy” and “the manure of racism,” we would expect nations like South Africa, Zimbabwe and Haiti to be blazing beacons of Black achievement. After all, Blacks are firmly in charge there.
But South Africa, Zimbabwe and Haiti are remarkable for crime, corruption and poverty, not for achievement. No doubt Ms Hancock would attribute this failure to White “racism” too. Racism is an eldritch force of immense power and extent, grinding Blacks into the mud all over the Earth, but somehow failing to do the same to the Japanese, despite their complete defeat at the end of World War II and the strong prejudice held against them by their conquerors.
Nor have Japanese and other East Asians in America been held back by racism: they do better than Whites in income and education. Given these facts, I wonder whether Ms Hancock’s beliefs about “white supremacy” and “racism” are entirely rational. To me, they look like a more sophisticated version of the beliefs about witchcraft and magic that flourish in her ancestral continent of Africa. True, she isn’t dissecting albinos for their magically potent body-parts, but she doesn’t seem any more interested in evidence and logic than those Black Africans who are.
I also wonder what non-Whites like Ms Hancock will do to Whites if present trends continue and Whites become a powerless minority in their present homelands. This post at her blog about Donald Trump’s victory does not radiate goodwill or understanding:
It’s like you wake up one evening and turn on the light to find a giant cockroach with bad hair and a fake tan in the middle of the floor. And you scream and holler and cry about how awful the giant cockroach is. And then you notice other cockroaches surrounding and supporting the giant cockroach and being just as awful. And you think, Oh noes! When did my apartment start being a place for horrible cockroaches full of hate?
Little do you realize that your apartment has always been full of cockroaches. In fact, your neighbor on the margins has known all about them. It’s dark on the margins and your neighbor has been covered in cockroaches the whole time. But you just didn’t see them. You had your lights out or you weren’t paying attention or whatever. All this time you thought you were committed to anti-cockroach praxis. But they’ve been there. They’ve always been there. They were there when you moved in and they’ll likely be there when you leave.
Unless you step up. But that means being proactive in combating the oppression of the horrible cockroaches all the time. Not just when your lights are on. Not just when you see the cockroach. All. The. Time. You gotta be putting out those traps and spraying that Raid. It’s a full-time job.
Let’s get over our privileged shock and despair and get to work, shall we? We’ve got some oppression we need to exterminate.
N.B. No cockroaches were harmed in the writing of this post. Also, I apologize to cockroaches everywhere for comparing them to a “basket of deplorables.” (Welcome to Reality, Friends, At The Intersection blog, 15th October 2016)
You don’t “exterminate” oppression, which is an abstract noun. You “exterminate” oppressors, who are animate evil-doers. And I think that is what Ms Hancock, an intelligent and literate Black, wants to do to White “racists.” She has the same hostility to Whites as the far more numerous unintelligent and illiterate Blacks who share her beliefs about the innate evil of Whites and the omnipotence of “white supremacy” and “white racism.”
Smite the White
But I don’t think there could be any reasoning or reconciliation with the likes of April Hancock and Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner. They’re egomaniacs who will never stop attacking and undermining the shrinking White majority in Western nations. And because they believe themselves both absolutely right and unimpeachably righteous, they themselves have no interest in “dialogue.” The only response they want from their opponents is silence and obedience. For proof of that, simply see what happened at Evergreen State College in Washington when “progressive activists” were able to put their anti-cockroach gnosis into anti-cockroach praxis:
Evergreen Student: ‘I’m Not Allowed To Speak Because I’m White’
Evergreen State College in Washington has been the subject of outrage ever since one of its professors, Bret Weinstein [who is Jewish], was driven from campus for rejecting progressive student activist demands to remove white people from the campus in a “Day of Absence.” Addressing the school’s Board of Trustees this Wednesday, Weinstein and student speakers spoke out on the issue.
One student, who identified herself only by her last name, MacKenzie, stated that she was prevented from voicing her opinions on any issue at the school all because she is white and labeled a “white supremacist” for offering any sort of viewpoint. This behavior has actually been encouraged and because of this I feel like people are becoming more violent and the campus is becoming more of an unsafe place,” she continued. “I have been to several meetings to speak. I’ve been told several times that I’m not allowed to speak because I’m white. This school seems to focus so much on race that it is actually becoming more racist in a different sort of way. And because I say that — because I choose not to focus on race I have actually been labeled a racist and a white supremacist. If anyone took the time to actually know me, it’s not true at all,” she said.
Professor Weinstein says that Evergreen “descended into literal anarchy” for days following the protests. He says that the school had lost complete control of the environment. Heat Street previously reported that progressive activists at the college had formed a militia, armed with baseball bats, to perform what they called “community policing.” [Weinstein said:] “For days the campus was not under control of the state, it was under the control of protesters. There were assaults, there were batteries, there was pressure not to report crimes to the police. People were, by the legal definition I believe, kidnapped and imprisoned. That included faculty members and administrators. Others were hunted on the campus.”
“Lawless bands roamed the campus unimpeded. Police were physically and intentionally blocked by protesters,” he continued. “Police were cruelly, systematically and personally taunted. They were humiliated and forced to stand down by the president. Students that held different opinions were, by the protesters own analysis, stalked, harassed … their names, pictures, addresses, and phone numbers were distributed online.” (Evergreen Student: ‘I’m Not Allowed To Speak Because I’m White’, Daily Caller, 14th July 2017)
Evergreen is a microcosm of the West’s future if present trends continue: a lawless dystopia of anti-White violence. Note that the White female student denies being racist. As we saw above, the Black librarian April Hancock deems this impossible: “White people, by virtue of their race privilege, are racist. All of them.” To Ms Hancock, Whites who question her assertion are simply providing further proof of their racism. And however much Rabbi Janner-Klausner might shriek with outrage, she is included among the White racists. Professor Bret Weinstein at Evergreen is Jewish, but he is still regarded as a White racist by the protestors there.
Weinstein is a self-proclaimed progressive, so he helped to dig the pit into which he fell. Yes, I can accept that he genuinely believes in free speech and free enquiry, but I still think it would be better if he moved to Israel to be among his own people. April Hancock should certainly move to Africa to be among hers. Egomaniacs like her cannot be reasoned with.
Separation is the only solution.
H/T: T. Langdon