Aug 17, 2015

Hearts of Darkness: Minority Worship and the Scandal at 'Kids Company'

via The Occidental Observer

Camila Batmanghelidjh: “Feed me!”
Over the past nineteen years Britain’s liberal elite, including three prime ministers, the Creative Director of the BBC, and the rock band Coldplay, have regularly been asked for money by a female Iranian psychotherapist who dresses like a Nigerian transvestite and has the exotic name of Camila Batmanghelidjh. The liberal elite have responded by giving Camila many millions of pounds. After all, what could possibly go wrong?

A lot, it now transpires. Camila’s lavishly funded children’s charity, the emetically named “Kids Company,” has closed its doors amid allegations of gross financial mismanagement and waste. “More than 36,000” of its vulnerable charges will now have to fend for themselves in a cruel and uncaring world. Or so Camila claims. Unfortunately for her, even the devoutly liberal Guardian and Independent have begun to raise serious doubts about the reliability of her statements. When inconvenient facts and self-serving delusion meet between Camila Batmanghelidjh’s ears, your money should always be on self-serving delusion to carry the day.

Kid and Ego

In fact, she reminds me of a cross between Tony Blair and the late Princess Diana. Like Blair, she is a narcissistic confidence-trickster with an unwavering faith in her own saintliness. Like Diana, she is a manipulative autocrat who advances a raging ego by pretending a passionate devotion to children’s welfare. She is expert at the parasitic manipulation I discussed in the article “Verbal Venom.” Mason wasps paralyse juicy caterpillars by injecting them with neuro-toxin. Camila Batmanghelidjh paralysed juicy donors by injecting them with saccharine sentimentality. One example: “the six-year-old she describes finding in his underpants in the snow, unfed by his crack-addicted mother, surviving off scraps from neighbours.”

What cold-hearted brute would refuse to make a donation after hearing such a harrowing tale? The Telegraph describes how, in the midst of an important meeting with high-powered businessmen, Camila was called away to speak on the phone to a “child in crisis.” The businessmen were deeply impressed by her devotion and another large donation was soon sitting in Kids Company’s bank-account. And when Camila was facing tough questions on BBC radio after Kids Company’s collapse, she spoke movingly of how “one child was so upset she had to talk him out of jumping off a platform in front of a train in a phone call.”

All We Need Is Cash

Yes, Camila wants the world to know that she is overflowing with love for deprived and damaged children. That’s why hearts have been a prominent motif in Kids Company propaganda. You can see them on one of her trademark über-African dresses (see above) and on the T-shirts worn by those protesting in London about Kids Company’s closure (see below). Note how hearts form the eyes of a mother-hen and its chick, nestled lovingly together within a circle. In the same photos, you can see another prominent motif in Kids Company propaganda: downtrodden and oppressed Blacks. This is one aspect of Camila’s manipulation and fraud that will not be closely examined by the mainstream media. After all, are not all decent people agreed that Blacks are the helpless victims of centuries of White racism and exploitation?

Hearts of darkness: Pro-KC protestors
Hearts of darkness: Pro-KC protestors

And what better way to prove your devotion to Black welfare than by donating vast sums to Kids Company? Three prime ministers, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for Labour and David Cameron for the Tories, found donating to this noble cause even easier, because the money came from White tax-payers, not from their own pockets. Just like Camila, Cameron is now proclaiming that his purity of heart excuses any possible error of judgement. Here is how he justifies giving Kids Company a £3-million grant shortly before its collapse: “The government thought it was the right thing to do to give this charity one last chance of restructuring to try and make sure it could continue its excellent work.”

David Cameron attended the world-famous public school Eton College before obtaining a first-class degree in P.P.E., or Philosophy, Politics and Economics, at Oxford University (a course that is highly popular among Britain’s liberal elite). His expensive education seems to have given him little ability to read character. On gaining office, he appointed Andy Coulson, one of Rupert Murdoch’s sleaziest editors, as his “Director of Communications.” Coulson lost the job when he was imprisoned for phone-hacking while in Murdoch’s employ.

Liberals united: Cameron and Camila
Liberals united: Cameron and Camila

Before gaining office, Cameron had strenuously cultivated Camila Batmanghelidjh. To achieve high status or hold high political office in Britain, it is essential to parade your devotion to non-Whites and their welfare. This is why Kids Company, which worked in the inner city with “vulnerable” Blacks, was so popular among our liberal elite. It’s also why Cameron is still insisting that the charity was doing “excellent work.” Think of that “six-year-old” shivering in the snow, “unfed by his crack-addicted mother, surviving off scraps from neighbours.”

“Excellent work” at Kids Company

Kids Company have always laid great stress on the way they rescue children who exist on the margins of society. The starving six-year-old was allegedly found by Camila herself, but its other “clients” actively sought its protection: “We are a self-referral organisation, the kids self-refer. Many of them are not looked after by local authorities.” If you want to know why vulnerable “kids” were “self-referring” to Kids Company, this report in the Telegraph offers some clues:
As part of my research I visited the Kids Company centre in south London. Batmanghelidjh claims 50 or 60 kids a day visit the centre for its nutritious meals, education and Pilates. On my first visit, however, I found just one sulky teenager over whom 10 staff hovered solicitously.
One of the staff told me to return the following Friday if I wanted to see what was really going on. This time I found about 20 young people having lunch. When I asked some why they came, they looked surprised: “For the money of course.” It certainly was not for the education or Pilates. As I saw for myself, staff handed out envelopes of cash ranging from £50 to £200 — a serious amount to a young person receiving roughly £50 a week from the state. According to staff and kids, this happened every Friday.
This financial allowance appeared to be the key to the popularity of the centre. One member of staff said: “You don’t see most of the kids coming any other day.” One girl told me: “I come on Friday lunch times to socialise, pick up my allowance and then I go.” Outside I saw four or five cars queuing up. Young people jumped out and ran into the centre. They returned a few moments later, waving their envelopes in the air and grinning. Then they got back into the car and were driven away. Two girls sent by the Prince’s Trust for a week’s course described how, when one young man turned up furious that his allowance had been cut, he threatened staff, shouted abuse, then snatched up a fire extinguisher and threw it into the office where the woman who handed out the cash crouched, terrified. …
That was, admittedly, nine years ago. But last summer I sat outside the same centre for two days to see what had changed. Not much. And disturbing questions about the charity continue to emerge. One young woman who worked in its accounts department claims that Kids Company still hands out cash (though these days to parents, and on Wednesdays and Thursdays instead of Fridays). She claimed the money is not given according to need but, more often than not, because “people turn up and cuss and make a noise until they get their money”. (Kids Company: Did good PR mask deeper failings?, The Daily Telegraph, 4th July 2015)
What was the race of those throwing fire-extinguishers and “cussing”? It’s not hard to guess, because self-righteous aggression is as characteristic of Blacks in Britain as it is in the United States. Drug-taking is characteristic of Blacks too. Sure enough, the money handed out by Kids Company often went up in smoke: “We would queue up and sign our names down and get an envelope with £30 and an Oyster travelcard [for travel in London]. Then we would go to the shop and buy whatever we wanted with that money. It was weed [marijuana] heaven on a Friday, you could smell it coming down from the landings.”

Room to Groom

Kids Company has also laid great stress on how “vulnerable” its charges are. In the original Latin, the word meant “able to be wounded.” In fact, a more accurate term for many of Camila’s “kids” would be vulnerant — “able to wound”:
Kids Company has been accused of failing to act on claims older men using their classes were forcing younger girls to have sex with them. The charity closed this week amid a row over Government funding after it was accused of financial mismanagement. But claims have now emerged that the charity’s classes in London were used by men to groom younger girls.
A former employee told BBC’s Newsnight that girls aged 16 to 18 were blackmailed into sex by men in their 20s. It is claimed that fears over sex abuse, which happened away from the charity’s centre after the men met the girls in classes, were not passed on. In separate allegations, a woman who used the charity when she was a teenager said she was sexually assaulted by an older man she met at the centre. (Kids Company staff ‘knew of claims adult men were abusing teenage girls they met through the charity’, The Daily Mail, 7th August 2015)
It is highly likely that the unspecified “men” were Black and that, just like Britain’s many Muslim rape-gangs, they went unchallenged because of political correctness. Camila Batmanghelidjh has responded to these claims of sexual abuse by invoking her favourite internal organ: “Hand on my heart, I had absolutely no awareness of it.” Her words remind of Tony Blair and his legalistic evasions when accused of wrongdoing. What sense is Camila giving to “awareness”? Does she mean she wasn’t a direct witness of the abuse?

Yentob the Yehudi

But she has at least accepted that the abuse could have taken place. Her staunch ally Alan Yentob, the Iraqi-Jewish “Creative Director of the BBC” and “chairman of Kids Company,” has dismissed the allegations entirely:
Kids Company is not the only troubled charitable organisation over which Yentob has presided. He was chairman of the Institute of Contemporary Arts from 2002 until 2010 during a turbulent period at the organisation which almost ended in its closure. Yentob said on Thursday that claims of financial mismanagement at Kids Company were “complete rubbish”. He told Channel 4 News: “The idea of what I have heard some journalists call ‘appalling financial mismanagement’ is complete rubbish. We have been audited by the government every year since Tony Blair and the Labour government started to give us money.”
Explaining the collapse of the charity, Yentob added: “It happened because over a period of the last year or so we have had problems raising funds and the demand has been increasing of children. We are a self-referral organisation, the kids self-refer. Many of them are not looked after by local authorities.”
He said he had not been aware of allegations of sexual abuse at the organisation, saying: “I had no idea and I don’t believe them for a minute.” He said the “rumour and allegation and counter-allegation” about Kids Company “is disgraceful”. (Kids Company trustees accused of ignoring finance warnings, The Guardian, 6th August 2015)

Yentob and Batmanghelidjh: “This is about the kids.”
Yentob and Batmanghelidjh: “This is about the kids.

As the University of Virginia rape hoax demonstrates, it is a central dogma of liberalism that allegations of sexual abuse “must be believed,” no matter how implausible they are. But Yentob, a high priest in the liberal cult, feels able to dismiss the allegations about Kids Company. Has he consulted an infallible oracle? Yes: his own ego. He has also denied that he “abused his position” at the BBC by making repeated interventions there on behalf of Kids Company and Camila Batmanghelidjh, including “what was described as ‘a verbal attack’ on BBC special news correspondent Lucy Manning, who was compiling a report into allegations of sexual abuse at the charity.”

Yentob was displaying another kind of self-righteous aggression. This time, it’s characteristic of “Yehudis,” as Jews are called in the Arabic of his ancestral home. This is another aspect of the Kids Company scandal you won’t see discussed in the mainstream: the arrogance and anti-White subversion of powerful Jews like Alan Yentob. What attracted him to Kids Company? I would suggest he liked the way Kids Company transferred resources from Whites to Blacks and promoted Blacks as innocent victims of a racist White society.

Cash and contraceptives

The social pathologies Camila claimed to be fighting are common among Blacks, who combine low average intelligence with high average aggression and impulsivity. If Britain were a genuine democracy, Blacks would never have entered the country in such large numbers, because the White majority have never voted for their presence. But the pathologies exploited by Kids Company are not just a result of mass immigration. Like France, Britain subsidizes Blacks and other pathological non-White groups to breed at much higher rates than its indigenous Whites. Part of that subsidy went to Kids Company, who were eager to work with “vulnerable” Black “families,” particularly if they were illegal immigrants.

Tugging at the heart strings
Eliciting White empathy

This insanity in Britain and France is not found in Israel, which denies entry to non-Jewish Blacks and tries to limit the numbers of its Black Jews: in 2013 the Guardian reported that “Thousands of Ethiopian women are said to be receiving shots of Depo-Provera [a powerful contraceptive] every three months in Israeli clinics.” The Israeli government is well aware that Blacks are tax-consumers, not tax-creators. Kids Company was also a tax-consumer, quickly spending all it received, then demanding more:
Camila Batmanghelidjh, the founder of the bankrupt Kids Company, ran the charity as a personal empire from an office that looked like an “Aladdin’s den”, former workers have claimed. The full extent of waste at the charity which received millions of pounds of public money began to emerge as officials began crisis talks with other charities after the group suddenly closed down amid a spiralling financial crisis. …
As Miss Batmanghelidjh vehemently denied that financial mismanagement was the cause of Kids Company’s collapse, new allegations emerged of lavish spending and claims that there was a culture of fear and favouritism at the charity.
They included claims that people were employed straight off the street, while Miss Batmanghelidjh allegedly had up to five personal assistants at one point. A postgraduate student who worked for several months as an intern at the charity’s London headquarters spoke of amazement at seeing the flamboyant style of Miss Batmanghelidjh’s office. “Her office was like an Aladdin’s den, with a tree in the middle, it was bizarre,” she said. “I was so pro-Kids Company, but even on day one I just couldn’t believe the waste. The ethos is great and when she first started I think she was very well-intentioned, but having the attention of celebrities around her, her ego seems just to have got bigger and bigger. …”
In a scathing feedback report written earlier this year, seen by the Telegraph, she described the charity as “extremely overstaffed” and hopelessly inefficient. She also claimed that the charity effectively doctored its own statistics. She said she had been deeply disillusioned after seeing staff asking children to change what they had written on satisfaction questionnaires if they gave the “wrong answer”. (Kids Company boss Camila Batmanghelidjh turned HQ into private ‘Aladdin’s den’, The Daily Telegraph, 7th August 2015)
More black fans of Kids Company

A Guardian analysis of five years of [Kids Company] accounts show how the charity got itself into dire financial straits. Despite receiving millions of pounds in government funding, it lived hand to mouth, never built up any reserves, and spent almost all its income each year. “Kids Company didn’t have any reserves, the government knew they didn’t have any reserves, and they bailed them out time and again. The charity, the trustees, got complacent, they got into this habit, they knew they would always get bailed out,” said the source.
Analysis of the charity’s accounts from 2009 to 2013 shows the organisation was receiving huge injections of funding, which included millions of pounds in government grants. Between 2009 and 2013, its income increased by 77% from £13m to £23m, but the charity was spending almost every penny it brought in. In the same period, its outgoings increased by 72%.
Senior management also took pay increases over the past few years. In 2009 the employee with the highest salary was paid between £60,000 and £70,000. However, by 2013, the top-paid employee in the charity was receiving between £90,000 and £100,000, while another employee was paid between £70,000 and £80,000. (Kids Company trustees accused of ignoring finance warnings, The Guardian, 6th August 2015)
At the same time, Kids Company was hiring more staff and inflating the number of “clients” it claimed to work with:
The charity routinely described itself as supporting “more than 36,000 children, young people and vulnerable adults”. However, it has emerged that 8,264 of these received no support from the charity at all and were merely at the same school as children taking part in group or one-to-one therapy sessions or activities. The charity defended their inclusion on the grounds that the children benefited from the knock-on effects of helping their classmates. (Kids Company: The truth behind the collapse of Camila Batmanghelidjh’s charity, The Independent, 6th August 2015)
The liberal Guardian and Independent are scrutinizing Kids Company now, but for years they helped Camila Batmanghelidjh carry out her giant confidence-trick. It was the centre-right Spectator that began proper investigation into the charity and precipitated the current scandal, just as it was the centre-right Sunday Times that revealed the Muslim rape-gangs operating in Rotherham. Credit is also due to the neo-conservative minister Michael Gove and to some civil servants, all of whom were suspicious of Kids Company and tried to end its government funding.

Charles Dickens Understood Liberal Pathology

In the twenty-first century, liberals pride themselves on their sophistication and discernment. In fact, they’re as naïve and prone to self-deceit as liberals were in the nineteenth century. If you want proof of that, just turn to Charles Dickens and his character Mrs Jellyby, who neglects her own children in favour of Blacks in far-off Africa:
We passed several more children on the way up, whom it was difficult to avoid treading on in the dark; and as we came into Mrs. Jellyby’s presence, one of the poor little things fell downstairs — down a whole flight (as it sounded to me), with a great noise.
Mrs. Jellyby, whose face reflected none of the uneasiness which we could not help showing in our own faces as the dear child’s head recorded its passage with a bump on every stair — Richard afterwards said he counted seven, besides one for the landing — received us with perfect equanimity. She was a pretty, very diminutive, plump woman of from forty to fifty, with handsome eyes, though they had a curious habit of seeming to look a long way off. As if — I am quoting Richard again — they could see nothing nearer than Africa! …
The room, which was strewn with papers and nearly filled by a great writing-table covered with similar litter, was, I must say, not only very untidy but very dirty. We were obliged to take notice of that with our sense of sight, even while, with our sense of hearing, we followed the poor child who had tumbled downstairs: I think into the back kitchen, where somebody seemed to stifle him.
But what principally struck us was a jaded and unhealthy-looking though by no means plain girl [Mrs Jellyby’s daughter Caddy] at the writing-table, who sat biting the feather of her pen and staring at us. I suppose nobody ever was in such a state of ink. And from her tumbled hair to her pretty feet, which were disfigured with frayed and broken satin slippers trodden down at heel, she really seemed to have no article of dress upon her, from a pin upwards, that was in its proper condition or its right place.
“You find me, my dears,” said Mrs. Jellyby, snuffing the two great office candles in tin candlesticks, which made the room taste strongly of hot tallow (the fire had gone out, and there was nothing in the grate but ashes, a bundle of wood, and a poker), “you find me, my dears, as usual, very busy; but that you will excuse. The African project at present employs my whole time. It involves me in correspondence with public bodies and with private individuals anxious for the welfare of their species all over the country. I am happy to say it is advancing. We hope by this time next year to have from a hundred and fifty to two hundred healthy families cultivating coffee and educating the natives of Borrioboola-Gha, on the left bank of the Niger. … No, Peepy! Not on my account!”
Peepy (so self-named) was the unfortunate child who had fallen downstairs, who now interrupted [his mother] by presenting himself, with a strip of plaster on his forehead, to exhibit his wounded knees, in which Ada and I did not know which to pity most — the bruises or the dirt. Mrs. Jellyby merely added, with the serene composure with which she said everything, “Go along, you naughty Peepy!” and fixed her fine eyes on Africa again. (From Dickens’ novel Bleak House, 1853)
Dickens was a liberal who didn’t allow his emotions to over-rule his intellect, which is why he satirized figures like Mrs Jellyby. Their narcissism and self-regard underlay what he called their “Telescopic Philanthropy,” or concern for distant causes and neglect of their obligations at home.

Britain’s modern liberals are also addicted to Telescopic Philanthropy. As I’ve described above, Kids Company appealed to them so strongly because it worked with Blacks and other non-Whites, whose presence in Britain harms the welfare of Whites, particularly working-class Whites. Just like Mrs Jellyby, modern liberals feed their own egos by promoting unrelated groups at the expense of their own kind. A story in the Daily Mail describes how, on a visit to Kids Company, a journalist “got the impression that the young, largely black youths in the background were merely accessories to the image the donors sought to project.”

“The ultimate guarantor of Jewish safety”

But that analysis doesn’t apply to Alan Yentob or to the Jewish journalists who are in favour of open borders for Blacks and Muslims. Yentob promotes Blacks at the expense of Whites because he thinks undermining Whites is good for Jews. As the late Larry Auster put it in an American context: “it is not surprising that these Jews look at mass Third-World and Moslem immigration, not as a danger to themselves, but as the ultimate guarantor of their own safety, hoping that in a racially diversified, de-Christianized America, the waning majority culture will lack the power, even if it still has the desire, to persecute Jews.”

In other words, the Kids Company scandal is merely the tip of a very large iceberg. The money wasted there is dwarfed by the money wasted elsewhere on vain attempts to cure non-White pathologies in Britain. The minority worship that assisted Camila Batmanghelidjh in her nineteen-year fraud is causing harm on a much wider scale, from the “random” murder of Whites and Lutfur Rahman’s “Tower of Power” to Muslim rape-gangs and Greville Janner’s long immunity from prosecution. More will emerge about Kids Company and its ludicrous matriarch, but the mainstream media will not admit the full truth. Liberals will merely condemn symptoms while continuing to spread the disease.

A Blow against Mainstream 'Science': Scientists Demolish a Half-Century of Anti-White Bias

via American Renaissance

This is a very important book. It is an exhaustive and painstaking refutation of a set of mistaken assumptions that have dominated social science research since the 1950s, and continue to bias the thinking of most professionals in the field. It is a book for specialists–exhaustive and meticulously documented–but it systematically dismantles the illusions that helped give rise to today’s reflexive hatred of whites. The author, Lee Jussim, is chairman of the psychology department at Rutgers University, and has spent his entire professional life as a social psychologist.


The mistaken assumptions this book demolishes are that biases, stereotypes, and self-fulfilling prophecies are so powerful that social perception plays a central role in creating social reality. The theory is that ordinary people have entrenched biases and negative stereotypes they refuse to give up. They inflict these negative stereotypes on various out-groups, who then conform to those stereotypes through a process of repeated self-fulfilling prophecies that create caste-like distinctions between groups. It is mistaken perception that creates individual and group differences.

No social scientist may ever have put the case quite that baldly, but Prof. Jussim quotes academic authorities who come pretty close: “Social perception is a process dominated far more by what the judge [observer] brings to it than by what he takes in during it.” (1955) “Our beliefs and expectations have a powerful effect upon how we notice and interpret events.” (1987) We should be aware of “the impressive extent to which people see what they want to see and act as others want them to act.” (2002)
Prof. Jussim writes that “social psychologists saw self-fulfilling prophecies and expectancy-confirming biases everywhere” and that “the extraordinary emphasis on the power of expectations to create social reality . . . has become part of the distilled wisdom of social psychology.” “[T]o this day,” he adds, “one of the shortest routes to success in social and cognitive psychology is to be the discoverer of a new bias.”

Lee Jussim
Lee Jussim

Bias and stereotype

The construction of group differences begins with false, negative views people are supposed to have about certain groups. In every instance, the unspoken assumption is that these deluded “people” are white. They are the dominant majority, and use stereotypes to hold everyone else down.

The word “stereotype” was invented in 1922 by the columnist Walter Lippmann. He wrote that people are unable to understand the world in its full complexity, so they simplify in self-serving ways. It was Gordon Allport, however, who brought the concept to full flower in his 1954 book, The Nature of Prejudice. Prof. Jussim writes that Allport “characterized stereotypes as unjustifiably resistant to change and steeped in prejudice, and concluded they were a major contributor to social injustice.” Prof. Jussim adds that the book “set much of the research agenda on stereotypes and prejudice for the next 50 years and remains widely cited today.”

The data appeared to be obliging. In a 1968 study, two different groups were told to read the same essay. One group thought the author was a man; the other thought it was by a woman. The group that thought it was written by a man found it more convincing. In a 1976 study, when students were shown a movie clip of a black and a white bumping into someone in exactly the same way, 75 percent of the students thought the black was acting aggressively but only 17 percent though the white was being aggressive. In 1983, two groups of Princeton students watched identical clips of a child answering questions on a test. The ones who were told the child was from the inner city were convinced she got more wrong answers than the ones who were told she was from a middle-class background. Prof. Jussim says these studies are still widely cited.

But were the data obliging or was it the researchers? The sex bias study could never be replicated. Nor could the bumping study. Prof. Jussim notes that the bumping paper did not contain the usual language about carefully teaching the black and white bumpers to behave in exactly the same way, and that it was the only paper the author ever published. He calls for a “moratorium on citing it.” Prof. Jusssim notes that the Princeton research could not be replicated either. “Psychology is filled with examples of individual researchers having a knack for demonstrating some phenomenon that proves difficult for other researchers to replicate,” he notes delicately.


What these studies–phony or not–were supposed to prove was that stereotypes are so powerful that people cling to them no matter what. In fact, as Prof. Jussim notes, research findings are clear: people use stereotype when they have no other information to go on, but as they get more “individuating” information they treat people as individuals. Prof. Jussim notes that this is still a controversial conclusion among social scientists, who are convinced that most people are blinded by stereotypes and ignore information about individuals.

At an even more basic level, social scientists widely believe that stereotypes are, virtually by definition, wrong. They believe stereotypes rationalize discrimination, so, as Prof. Jussim notes, “crediting any accuracy to stereotypes is tantamount to endorsing bigotry.” He points out that there used to be plenty of research into the accuracy not only of stereotypes but of what people thought about themselves and other people. This research stopped dead from about 1955 to 1985. The assumption that all stereotypes are wrong was so widespread that it was considered futile–even immoral–to study their accuracy.

Many people still bridle at the idea that stereotype could be accurate. Prof Jussim writes that when he mentioned to his Jewish in-laws that “Jews really are, on average, richer than other people,” they reacted as if he had said, “Jews are all a bunch of cheap, corrosive, money-grubbing vermin who should be exterminated.” Prof. Jussim says it is common to assume that “if stereotypes are associated with social wrongs, they must be factually wrong.”

But people don’t just cook up nasty, baseless stereotypes. If I wanted to spread the word that Japanese-Americans are shiftless, crime-prone layabouts who live in crack houses and rob people, it wouldn’t get very far. Stereotypes are part of mankind’s ability to generalize. Logicians call it inductive reasoning. As Prof. Jussin notes, “scientific research evidence pervasively demonstrates extraordinary levels of accuracy in social stereotypes.”

18 year old Tyrone Harris  was recently killed in a shootout with police in Ferguson. He and his friends live up to stereotypes.

18 year old Tyrone Harris was recently shot by police in Ferguson. He and his friends live up to stereotypes.

Of course, they are not 100 percent accurate. Prof. Jussim reports that people are good at putting groups in rank order (who is more or less likely to be criminals, have illegitimate children, graduate from high school, etc.) but they are not nearly as good at quantifying the differences. This is to be expected. Most people don’t pore over census data. But they have a pretty good idea of the differences between races, sexes, nationalities, people of various professions, etc.

Particularly interesting are the ways in which people are inaccurate. Whites and blacks are both about as likely to know how the races differ in outcomes, but whites tend to underestimate the extent of the differences while black overestimate them. Prof. Jussim notes that this is not consistent with the view that the majority uses harshly inaccurate stereotypes as a tool of oppression. Blacks, on the other hand, have two reasons to exaggerate differences. First, they are told repeatedly that white society oppresses them and they believe it. Second, since any alleged evidence of oppression are leverage for special treatment, it is in their interests to exaggerate differences.

Prof. Jussim finds that liberals are especially likely to disbelieve in group differences:
[T]hose most likely to inaccurately underestimate real differences were liberals in denial about group differences. . . [I]ntelligence did not matter for this group. Brainy liberals were just as likely as dumb liberals to inaccurately minimize real differences.
It’s the opposite for non-liberals. The smarter they are, the more likely they are to have an accurate understanding of group differences. This makes sense, since smart people are usually more knowledgeable about the world. Prof. Jussim wonders whether smart liberals have actually managed to block reality or whether they know the truth but refuse to admit it.

Prof. Jussim cites one study in which subjects were given a test to see where they ranked on a scale of Right-Wing Authoritarianism, which is supposed to indicate susceptibility to fascism. If people who scored high on that scale turned out to have exaggerated stereotypes the study would no doubt have trumpeted that fact. They didn’t, so the results ended up in a footnote.

Interestingly, Prof. Jussim found that political stereotypes are among the least accurate. Republicans and Democrats assume crazy things about each other, with Democrats slightly more crazy than Republicans.


Given that stereotypes are generally accurate, should we act on them? In the absence of other information, of course we should. Prof. Jussim concocts a theoretical scenario in which we walk onto a train platform where we find ballerinas at one end and a biker gang at the other. If we happen to know that bikers are, say, ten times more likely than ballerinas to be convicted of crimes, we are justified in edging towards the ballerinas. Of course, Prof. Jussim could have given us a much more realistic example, with crime differentials straight from the Justice Department, but let us give him credit for at least hinting at a rational justification for racial profiling.

Prof. Jussim points out the inherent absurdity of the traditional view that stereotypes are all inaccurate and that it is futile to assess their accuracy. If there are any genuine group differences at all, some beliefs about them will be accurate and some not. If inaccurate beliefs really are a social problem why don’t we find out which ones are inaccurate and correct them? That would be intolerable because it would imply that some beliefs are accurate. Of course, as Prof. Jussim points out the very people who claim to hate stereotypes actually love them–in the right context. He notes:
As long as we are demonstrating how open-minded, tolerant, sensitive, and caring we are, it is permissible, even good for us to ‘understand group differences.’ So, in contrast to a social-problems context, where believing in group differences constitutes lowdown dirty stereotyping, in a (multi-)cultural context, recognizing and being ‘sensitive’ to group differences shows how benevolent and egalitarian we are.
To promote “diversity” is to acknowledge group differences; otherwise, what is the advantage of having Mexicans on campus? “Cultural awareness training” is a celebration of stereotypes. Prof. Jussim is no doubt right to conclude that “the current common belief in stereotype inaccuracy appears closer to religion than to science.” Although he does not say this, opposition to the idea of stereotypes is rooted in the refusal to admit even the possibility of any group difference except for The One and Only True Group Difference, namely, that white heterosexual men are evil. Blacks are really as good at math as Asians, and women would make cracker-jack Green Berets, but white men keep them all cruelly oppressed.

Self-fulfilling prophecy

This is the final, key step to maintaining white male hegemony. Once white men have convinced themselves that blacks are no good at math and that women are unfit for combat, they beam these malicious stereotypes at blacks and women, which forces them to conform to those stereotypes. As Prof. Jussim points out, the very idea of self-fulfilling prophecies (SFP) is remarkable–people (white men, anyway) can create reality merely by believing something. Prof. Jussim notes that this idea has extended into all sorts of improbable areas: If enough people are told that introverted Sally is actually extroverted, they won’t change their beliefs when they meet her; instead, the power of SFP will turn Sally into an extrovert!

SFP is supposed to be at its most powerful in schools. Prof. Jussim notes that it is common for liberals to believe that “[social]-class-based teacher expectations help create a ‘cast-like’ system that benefits middle-class children and undermines children from lower social class backgrounds.”


The famous 1968 study called Pygmalion in the Classroom is still credited in many circles with having established once and for all the power of SFP. Experimenters told real teachers at a real school that a certain number of the children entering grades one through six had been given a special test that showed they were “late bloomers” and could be expected to make dramatic gains. In fact, there had been no testing; a few children were randomly labeled “late bloomers.”

Some “late bloomers” made astonishing gains. In the first year of the two-year study, the first-grade late bloomers improved an average of 15 points on a standard IQ test, and the second-grade bloomers improved by 10 points. These are the results that have filtered down to posterity and are quoted even to this day. But there is a lot more to the study. The non-bloomers in those grades improved by about 10 and 6 points respectively, too. Furthermore, the gains were found only in the first and second grades, with nothing statistically significant in the other four grades. During the second year, teachers were again fed imaginary test results and there was a bloomer gain in only one grade of the five studied. Thus, out of eleven school years, only three showed any Pygmalion effect, and that effect was weaker in the second year.

Prof. Jussim is rightly suspicious of average IQ gains of 10 or 15 points for any group. He notes that teachers have tried nearly everything to increase IQ scores–in vain. Can a simple false expectation possibly do what heroic enrichment can’t? But there’s worse. Once critics pried into the actual Pygmalion data, they found that the bloomers who pushed up the first- and second-grade averages in the first year had colossal IQ gains as follows: 17 to 110, 18 to 120, 133 to 202, 111 to 208, 113 to 211. “Does anyone really think that the first two kids went from vegetables to reasonably smart, or the last three wet from reasonably smart to extraordinary genius, as a result of teacher expectations?” asks an appropriately skeptical Prof. Jussim. “[T]he entire self-fulfilling prophecy effect hinged on the occurrence of bizarre outliers,” he notes, which is a polite way of saying the whole thing was probably a fraud.

An IQ of just 200 would put a student in the 99.9999999987 percentile.

An IQ of just 200 would put a student in the 99.9999999987th percentile.
This study gave rise to a great deal of controversy, and a number of attempts to replicate it–which failed. The idea of SFP is not, however, complete bunkum. There may be a bit of it, here and there, especially in younger children. Studies have found that there can be SFP in athletic performance; perhaps some young athletes work harder if coaches think they are stars. But for schools, Prof. Jussim concludes that: “Although the scientific evidence may be equivocal regarding whether teacher expectation effects on IQ are nonexistent or reliably very small, it is completely unequivocal that such effects, if they occur at all, are not very large by a8ny standard.”

Even when the libs concede that effects of SFP may not be very strong, Prof. Jussim notes that “the belief that small expectancy effects accumulate over time is very widespread, at least within social psychology.” The idea is that whites and blacks enter the world with equal potential, but positive SFPs raise up whites while negative SFPs bring down blacks. Prof. Jussim says there is no scientific evidence for this. People’s abilities are usually well established, and people around them find that out:
[E]ven among targets from stereotyped groups, disconfirming behavior is far more likely to be noticed and to influence perceptions and judgments than it is to be ignored and dismissed. Such a process, too, will typically increase the accuracy of expectations for individuals. If accuracy increases over time, it will limit and reduce the potential for self-fulfilling prophecy.
If a teacher or anyone else has an accurate assessment of someone, there can be no SFP because SFP is, by definition, based on an inaccurate assessment. Furthermore, in the real world, even if teachers have the wrong idea about someone, it will almost never be as wildly wrong as the “late bloomer” baloney teachers were fed in the Pygmalion study.

Prof. Jussim notes that teachers often do expect more from middle-class students than from slum-dwellers because it is accurate to do so, but they quickly figure it out if they have a dim middle-class kid or a genius from the slums. Even children usually have a pretty good sense of what they can and can’t do, and don’t mold themselves to some mistaken view. At the same time, there is a great deal going on in students’ lives that teachers can’t control. “When all the factors operating against expectancy effects in the classroom are thoughtfully considered,” Prof. Jussim explained, “it is wonder that they occur at all, not that they are typically small.”

All told, unlike the traditional, grim view of (white) people forcing out-groups into oppressive little boxes through the power of stereotype and SFP, people make reasonable generalizations from experience but set them aside when they meet an exception. As Prof. Jussim puts it, when it comes to social perception, “The glass is 90% full. People are not perfect, but they are pretty damn good.” He even adds: “It behooves us [scientists] to undo the erroneously dark image of human social thought that we have perpetrated all these decades and replace it with one that is more appropriate to the evidence.”


Politicized science

So where did that “erroneously dark image” come from? Prof. Jussim’s explanation is pretty damn good, and is worth quoting at length. Here, he uses the word “target” to mean someone being evaluated and “perceiver” to mean someone who is observing and evaluating:
To characterize a belief that some kid is not too bright, is a klutz on the basketball court, or is socially inept as ‘accurate’ has a feel of ‘blaming the victim.’ Blaming the victim is a bad thing to do–it means we have callously joined the oppressors and perpetrators of injustice.
If the belief is ‘accurate,’ then we cannot point to perceivers’ errors, biases, misconceptions, egocentrism, or ethnocentrism as explanations for target difficulties. The unintelligent, unattractive or socially awkward target, in these cases, really is flawed in some way. This is especially true if the negative belief is applied to large demographic groups (i.e stereotypes). Acknowledging this is difficult and distasteful. People who publicly declare that two groups differ in some societally valued attribute (intelligence, motivation, propensity for alcoholism or crime, morality, etc.) run the risk of being accused of being an ‘ist’ (racist, sexist, classist, etc.) or, at a minimum, of holding beliefs that do little more than justify existing status and hierarchy arrangements.
In contrast, an emphasis on expectancy effects or other errors and biases (including but not restricted to prejudice) implies a benevolent and egalitarian concern with injustice. Such an emphasis suggests that so-called ‘real’ differences between groups do not result from any actual attributes of members of those groups (their cultures, their religions, their histories, their social conditions, their geography, their practices, their politics, their genetic predispositions)–they result solely or primarily from the oppressive effects of others’ self-fulfilling prophecies, prejudices, and expectations. Furthermore, this perspective suggests that many differences alleged to be real are not real at all–they simply reflect the ists’ own expectancy-confirming biases.
In addition, an emphasis on expectancy effects provides a clear villain–the holder of the false expectation. It also points to a relatively straightforward way to ameliorate some social inequities–change expectations, stereotypes, etc. In contrast, not only does accuracy seemingly justify inequality (‘they have lower status because they are less skilled, competent, intelligent’ and so on), but also its relevance to solving social problems is not as readily apparent.
If my belief that you are incompetent is inaccurate, all that you need to do is change my belief to ameliorate the problem. But if my belief is accurate, then changing the situation requires much more work–to make us equal, we have to upgrade your actual competence.
This is all very fine, but what Prof. Jussim does not say is that the “clear villain” who turns up in these studies is always and inevitably white people. The conceptions he is dismantling are not just wrong: They are an important part of the conviction that white men are a scourge and that the world would be much better off without us. That is what makes this book so important.

Social Perception and Social Reality reminds me of Arthur Jensen’s 1980 classic: Bias in Mental Testing, which also completely demolished fashionable illusions. Jensen showed beyond any reasonable doubt that mental tests, including IQ tests and the SAT, are not biased against blacks, and accurately assess people of all races. This book is just as exhaustive and just as persuasive.

The trouble is that hardly anyone read Bias in Mental Testing, and hardly anyone has read this book. Oxford University Press priced the book at a scandalous $84.00, and although it has been out since April 2014, it has only five reviews on (all give it five stars). Prof. Jussim has a regular column at Psychology Today but piecemeal blogging isn’t enough to promote his arguments.

This book is a rare achievement; it is even more important than the author himself realizes.

Trigger Warning: Girls with Guns

via Alternative Right

Ann Sterzinger—authorformer editrix of and good friend of this site—has embarked (with several other winsome trend-buckers) upon a bold new internet venture entitled Trigger Warning, a bracing melange of Zeitgest-unfriendly reportage and hard-hitting alt-right-esque fiction.

It is a venue well worth checking out, recommended warmly (indeed, even hotly) by our editorial staff.

Below, Ann pitches the site in her inimitable manner. Check her out... and check out Trigger Warning, now featuring fiction by Mark Dyal, Tito Perdue, and others!

Revolution in Egypt: The Zionist-Collaborating Egyptian Stratocracy Must Go!

via The European Guardian

The international Zionist-plutocracy is facing an existential crisis: Egypt stands poised to throw off the yoke of the global Zionist power-structure. The rank hypocrisy is there now - out in the open - for all the world to see. And indeed, the world sees America for the bullying tyrant that it is; the Egyptian People have risen en masse, for freedom, for self-determination, for their human rights - and America has chosen to side with the tyrannical dictatorship of Mubarak, the palace lackey par excellence.

The blood of the Egyptian People that today is flowing in the streets is the direct responsibility of billions upon billions upon billions of dollars’ worth of American military aid, over decades, to prop up the Zionist- plutocratic puppet Mubarak and his regime of thugs, cronies, criminals, thieves, traitors, torturers, and collaborators.
For three decades, Mubarak has aided-and-abetted the apartheid, Zionist entity in penning the Palestinian People inside an open-air concentration camp. For three decades, Mubarak has been a willing accomplice in the dispossession, enslavement, and subjugation of the Egyptian People - and thereby the Arab masses and the Islamic world at-large. For three decades, Zionist-controlled America has misused American tax dollars to bribe the Egyptian puppet regime to collaborate with Israel and to keep the Suez Canal oil artery open to Western economies. Mubarak has - for three decades - proven that he is nothing but a ruthless, bloodthirsty tyrant: a Western-Zionist quisling whose utter subservience to the international Zionist-plutocracy is an affront to the dignity and aspirations of the nations of the Middle East.

America - the world's foremost hypocrite - stands utterly exposed as the self-righteous, two-faced dealer in double-standards that it most undeniably is. The United States has been, is, and desperately desires to continue being, the financier of oppression and terrorism on a worldwide scale. And this is why the Egyptian Revolution is the world-historical litmus test for who really believes in freedom - and who merely mouths the word "freedom" in order to further their vested interests: America, who has the gall to lecture the world about "human rights," stands with the inhuman, bloodthirsty dictator Mubarak; America, who promotes itself as a beacon of democracy, sides with, subsidizes, protects, and nurtures the despot Mubarak; America, who prattles endlessly about "self-determination," is nothing - nothing - but a tool and a cash cow with which the international Zionist-plutocracy sponsors the apartheid, Zionist entity of Israel and mercilessly persecutes genuine freedom movements the world over.

And we witnessed the global Zionist Power-Structure racing to save its stooge, Mubarak: urging "restraint," providing diplomatic cover, shipping weapons to Mubarak with which he murdered and suppressed the Egyptian People. Here is the blunt, simple, vulgar truth:
  • America does not give a rat’s ass about “democracy”
  • America could not care less about “freedom”
  • America has absolutely no concern whatsoever for the best interests of the Egyptian People
  • America does not give a damn about genuine independence and real liberty
There is one thing - and one thing only - that America cares about: Israel.

America is occupied by Zionist lobbies. Therefore, America doesn't care if the entire Middle East is turned into one vast, impoverished dungeon; as long as Israel is safe, as long as Israel is secure, as long as Israel can continue fomenting dissension and wars and misery and division - America is owned, operated, controlled, and run by-and-for the international Zionist-plutocracy: global finance capital and world Zionism, and their bought- and-paid fellow travelers like the criminal dictator Mubarak.

America has a clear, unambiguous choice to make: the Egyptian People or the international Zionist network of puppeteers, crooks, and autocrats. And because America is occupied and run by an odious Zionist plutocracy, America will, for as long as it plausibly can, continue "urging restraint" and advocating "evolutionary change" - because the Zionist plutocracy has no choice: the Zionist plutocracy must ensure that the Egyptian Revolution is thwarted; it must ensure that the status quo prevails - i.e., the Zionist plutocracy will resort to anything to co-opt the Egyptian Revolution, because if Egypt escapes from the global Zionist-plutocratic plantation - the whole world will in time follow it. Israel will no longer call the shots: finally - at long last - the Zionist global network of subterfuge and lies and double-standards will face a new power constellation in the Middle East, a power constellation capable of smashing the usurpers and colonizers and Crusaders: the Egypt-Turkey-Iran alliance, along with the backing of China and Russia - ALL of whom would love nothing more than to bash-in the face of the arrogant, obnoxious, self-righteous Zionist-plutocratic global network and its pseudo-democratic Western guarantors.

And the next collaborationist regime to go will be the Saudi House of Whores. And make no mistake: if Egypt frees itself, the Saudi House of Whores will be encircled, and the Saudi House of Whores will eventually be forced to flee and go where they belong: to Zionist-controlled Great Britain.

The mask is off. America - and indeed the entire West - is exposed for what it is: a minion of the global Zionist- plutocracy. The Egyptian Revolution not only exposes the current machinations of the international Zionist plutocracy, it also shines a light on the genesis of the modern world Power-Structure. The War of Northern Aggression, World War One, World War Two, the Balfour Declaration, and the World Zionist Organization: the history of the modern era is in large part the history of the machinations of organized world Zionism.

All the freedom-loving Peoples of the world are the victims of this Zionist world network, and it is this very same Zionist world network that the Egyptian Revolution - if successful - has the potential to expose, derail, and rollback. Today, the Egyptian People stand at the forefront of resistance to the international Zionist-plutocracy. The Egyptian Revolution must not fail.

This is a world-historical moment; now is the time for decisive action.

It is time for the Egyptian People to be released from their bondage. It is time for the Egyptian People to be free, and in freeing themselves, they might very well set off a chain reaction that will free us all: no one is free until ALL the Peoples of mankind are free.

And make no mistake about it: the Peoples of the West are also enslaved to the vile international Zionist- plutocracy: to realize the truth of this assertion, one need only look at the bankster bailouts and the war that Western governments are waging on their own middle classes. The international Zionist-plutocracy has one overriding goal, that it pursues in various and sundry ways, depending upon the context of the particular nation- state that it is "digesting": in some nations, particularly those in the Middle East and the so-called "Third World," the Zionist-plutocracy's modus operandi is old fashioned proxy dictatorship, e.g., the criminal prostitute Mubarak rules Egypt to safeguard the interests of America and Israel; in other nations, particularly Western nations, the Zionist-plutocracy rules through a combination of corporate media indoctrination of the masses and fake democracy in which there is no real choice; a politics of make-believe where one-party rule is masked by the facade of "elections": the one-party divides itself into (in the case of America) Democrats and Republicans, and then proceeds to label the entire farce as a "choice." And the corporate media brainwashed sheeple take it all seriously, even as "their" respective Zionist occupation governments use their tax money to bailout banksters, to repress authentic freedom movements in every corner of the planet, and to invade and occupy sovereign nations at will - wherever, whenever, and however the Zionist plutocracy damn well pleases. The international Zionist-plutocracy's one overriding goal is the transmogrification of the world into a Mammonized cesspool, with a debased, deflowered sub-humanity enslaved forevermore to the money-power of finance capital, corporate media, and world Zionism.

The Israel Lobby has hijacked the United States' federal government and is yearly bilking billions of dollars from the American treasury to fund, among other things:
  • The Zionist-Racist-Theocratic-Apartheid state of Israel
  • The buying-off of the Arab elites, most notably the palace lackeys in the Saudi Arabian and Egyptian plutocracies
For decades, the United States has installed, supported, subsidized, and nurtured brutal stratocratic dictatorships throughout the Middle East, all in the name of protecting Israel and furthering the hegemonic objectives of international finance capital.
Now is the opportune moment for decisive action. This is the world historical moment for the Egyptian People, at long last, to lift their heads and proclaim to the forces of international Zionist-plutocratic tyranny: enough is enough.

Hail to the King!

via TradYouth

A blogger and author going by the name Clement Pulaski, wasn’t too fond of Matthew Heimbach’s infamous “Death to America” speech at last year’s Stormfront conference.  After considering his material, it seems there are three main points of contention: TradYouth’s fraternizing with non-Christians, Heimbach’s interpretation of American history, and Heimbach’s advocacy of monarchy.

As a Reformed Christian (I’m a Calvinist who believes in ethnic nationalism and monarchy), I was naturally interested in hearing what Pulaski had to say.  I even found many of my feelings and concerns expressed in his article.  Nevertheless, I think he’s overplayed his criticisms so a brief response is warranted:

The first two aren’t biggies, in my opinion.  Fraternizing with pagans?  Really?  Because Heimbach cites Evola from time to time?  Because some non-Christians write posts on TradYouth occasionally?  Because we hold picket signs next to pagans?  There’s been a long running debate within moral realist circles about how to apply universal norms to particular situations[1]. This debate spills into Christian ethics as well, with certain “totalitarians” advocating for a proof text to govern our every move, while certain “libertines” abuse God’s grace by doing whatever is right in their own eyes.

However a Christian solves this conundrum, it must be admitted that it’s a difficult question and that individual Christian dignity ought to be honored with respect to intimate decisions – like, for instance, how closely one decides to work with non-Christians as part of a political strategy.  Until Pulaski is able to produce an internationally acclaimed church council, detailing the exact limits and bounds of such political posturing, then he ought to respect the consciences of those involved.  Without such a council or consensus from Christendom, his arguments amount to little more than complaints that TradYouth doesn’t meet his personal tastes.  Big deal.  He’s not even a member of TradYouth, so why should we cater to his tastes?

And what of Heimbach’s view of America’s founding?  It’s disingenuous for Pulaski to spend a lot of time refuting talking points in a speech.  It’s unnerving to give public talks in the first place, but even more so when you’re speaking at the Stormfront conference.  Fudging historical particulars to make a succinct point, then, may require clarification later, and Pulaski might argue that some of Heimbach’s talking points need work, but it’s not an unusual practice, nor unwarranted given the audience and situation.  And the American founding is a ridiculously complex topic, one that even Pulaski’s article wasn’t long enough to do justice.  Heimbach’s a history major and, I’m sure, were it required of him, he could give a thorough defense of his interpretation of America’s history – just maybe not in a few comments during a speech intended for other purposes.

That leaves us with the biggie: Pulaski’s rejection of monarchy.  Here we have a genuine ideological disagreement; in response, I’ll provide a few words in favor and invite the curious to ask questions in the comment section.

How can a Calvinist support monarchy?  Isn’t that counter-historical?  Isn’t that contrary to the spirit of God’s law (see 1 Samuel 8, for example)?

Skipping to the heart of the matter, a few points must be made:

1.  Throughout the history of political philosophy, positions, names, and labels have proven to be notoriously ambiguous.  “Monarchy” is no different.  In the end, and despite minute differences in terminology and practice, it may be that a Christian confederacy of tribal monarchs, governed by a loose allegiance to God’s law, may resemble what others think of as a republic.   At any rate, both terms are ambiguous, even in their historical manifestations.

2.  The most important premise in a Christian defense of monarchy is that Scripture supports private property ownership.  Any attack on monarchy is ultimately an attack on private property, as the following illustration will show:

Imagine, if you will, that you and your family move to Texas and purchase a 600 acre homestead.  But 600 acres is a lot to manage.  One day, a gang of Mexicans lazily stroll onto your property and ask for work.  You need their help, so you agree about wages and they set out to do their thing.  Part of the agreement is that they can have the large shed on the back 40 to live in while they work.

In this illustration, we have the foundation of monarchy.  Your children and the children of the Mexicans, while equal in dignity, have different rights and privileges on the farm.  Perhaps the Mexican’s children are not allowed in the main yard or allowed in the ranch house?  Now, suppose, one day, the Mexicans decide the political situation is unjust and that the 600 acre farm ought to belong to everyone?  The only way they can overturn the current situation is by effectively robbing you and your family of your original property and redistributing it among themselves.

…hence, on this view, those who executed Charles I were little more than thieves and street thugs [2].

3.  Many defenses of monarchy are offered by those who either aren’t interested in Christianity, or who offer arguments that don’t directly rest on Christian theology.  These arguments, like some from Fr. Raphael Johnson as well as those from Hans Hoppe, focus on the utility of monarchy, claiming it’s better than other systems for practical reasons [3].  While I wont focus more on them here, they’re important and ought to be dealt with in any debate about monarchy.

Much more can be said, especially about how a Christian monarchy fits into a tribalist and theonomic context, but there’s no denying that monarchy is ethical and maybe even the normative state for man.  It’s just as normative as patriarchy, family, and private property ownership.

I wish more Calvinists throughout the history of the West had realized it and I hope Pulaski gives it a second thought.


1.  For an interesting view of this debate in contemporary philosophy, see Marianne Talbot’s series of lectures: “A Romp Through Ethics.”
2.  See Hilaire Belloc’s book on Charles I, for a monarch-friendly analysis of the English Civil War.
3.  See The Orthodox Nationalist’s episode in defense of monarchy.  Fr. Raph Johnson has an interesting and uniquely Orthodox defense of monarchy.  I became a monarchist, in part, thanks to the influence of his excellent podcast.  His material is a great place for budding Christian monarchists to begin and he does a wonderful job of putting arguments, like the ones Hoppe offers, into a Christian context.  A typical sort of pragmatic argument, found at 33 min. into Hoppe’s lecture “From Monarchy to Democracy”, is that it’s more difficult for Kings to inflate the currency than it is for anonymous banking oligarchs.

Oslo, Norway Is Facing White Genocide, as Schools Become Less White

via White GeNOcide Project

Statistics show that Oslo’s school population is becoming increasingly non-White, as the city is being made more “diverse”, and less Norwegian.

According to the statistics, over one third of Oslo’s schools are minority Norwegian, and shockingly, there are 7 schools where Norwegians make up less than 10% of school children.

All schools have at least some students from an immigrant background, but depending on the district of Oslo, this can range from less than 10% of students being non-Norwegian, to an excess of 90% being non-Norwegian. 

Gran and Mortensrud, are two such alarming areas where less than 5% of school children are native-Norwegian.

Jan Bohler, Labour party politician told TV2, that “there is a problem considering that we all benefit from growing up together, across cultures. It would create more community and less danger of contradictions if one had a more even distribution throughout the city

There has never been a mass vote of immigration in ANY White country to date, which allowed anti-White politicians to.start importing African, Middle Eastern, or Asian immigrants. This has been forced on us, whether we like it or not.

As our cities have gradually been filling up with non-White immigrants, White people have been moving out to the suburbs (White flight).

And now the anti-Whites want to chase us down, and force our suburbs to accept this “diversity” that we never voted for or asked for.

This is not “multiculturalism”; it is not “progress”; it is not “diversity”, and it’s not any other silly buzzword. It is simply White Genocide, because they are trying to make us a minority everywhere.

Genocide is not about the methods you use, it’s about what you are trying to achieve.

Has Coulter Left Conservatism?

via Radix

Ann Coulter used to make different kinds of jokes about abortion. In 2009, when President Obama spoke at Notre Dame about “finding common ground” on the issue, Coulter quipped,
How about for next year's graduation ceremony Notre Dame have an abortionist perform an abortion live on stage?
This is typical Ann Coulter humor. Ann’s base of support—“conservative” activists, FOX News watchers, and the “Religious Right”—finds the joke poignant and hilarious; most everyone else cringes at its tastelessness.

Today, Ann’s joke—which walks the line of explicit racialism—is that all the conservative “hot buttons” don’t really matter if the European-American nation is broken.

Despite the fact that Ann has been labeled “far Right” for most of her career, I’ve always disliked her. She has been, for me, a kind of extreme expression of the stupidity of “conservatism” in the 2000s—the “Age of the Flag Pin”—when the American Right dedicated itself to bombing Muslims into democracy, accusing antiwar or anti-Zionist intellectuals of “treason,” and generally squandering Republicans’ six years of total power in Washington on some of the stupidest, most destructive projects possible. (It’s worth pointing out that Donald Trump opposed all this nonsense at the time.)

I have no doubt that Ann, like most intelligent people, is a secret “race realist,” who, in private, has few illusions about race differences in intelligence and behavior. It is her articulated arguments that are the problem. In her 2012 book Mugged—which includes retellings of various race hoaxes and misdeeds—it is the Democrats who are the real racists. (Vdare's Alexander Hart has a good essay on the inaccuracy and uselessness of this kind of thinking.) In the book’s opening chapter, Ann endorses affirmative-action and even busing as a redress against segregation: “As with Truman’s unenforced executive order desegregating the military, it took a Republican to actually get the job done.”

There are many conservatives who simply want race to go away. In their rosy view of history, the race problem was solved by the Civil Rights Act and related Supreme Court decisions, and there’s nothing more to do. It’s now time to stop talking about race and stop taxing and berating White people. “Just leave us alone.” (We, on the other hand, know that race won’t just go away. . .)

Ann’s view is a bit different. In Mugged she bizarrely argues that White guilt ended after Whites witnessed the miscarriage of justice of the O.J. Simpson verdict. But then she also argues that Whites carry a special burden with regard to Black people. One reason she opposes mass immigration is, as she reiterated recently, because it would be a way for Hispanics to “piggyback on the Black experience,” that is, benefit from the debt that Whites owe Black people.

Should we consider Ann’s arguments to be mere rhetorical flourishes? Or a savvy strategy for confronting the demographic issue?

Or is she engaging in “race baiting,” that is, raising provocative issues, hoping the Republicans will benefit from the angst they generate, while ultimately doing nothing?
Does Ann “surrender the pass before the battle begins,” that is, does she take good positions on issues like immigration, while demoralizing the basis for White identity?
Or we could put aside these tricky and complicated questions and ask a simpler one:
Has Ann officially left “conservatism”?