Saturday, 22 October 2016

White Privilege Theory: The Poison-Pill

I first came across the term ''White Privilege'' about five years ago in an article in the Telegraph which was a response to Laurie Penny's (surprise surprise) attempt to bring the idea into popular discourse in Britain. It was one of those occasions when you knew instantly an idea or policy is bad news, understanding the term itself and the theory of White Privilege was to be made aware that the enemy had been working on a new weapon which was in the process of being tweaked and polished before being rolled out onto the meta-political battlefield.

...And now it has.

White Privilege Theory emanates from the ''Social Science'' wing of modern leftist thought, this is the field of study which has given us the tragic and insane ''Social Justice Warrior''. The standard response to White Privilege theory of the Ethno-Nationalist is to reject the entire premise out of hand, non-whites cannot be oppressed by whites if they are no longer living in our countries. Furthermore, the existence of White Privilege Theory as a valid subject within academia undermines the premise of the theory because if the society was directed toward ''privileging'' whites above everyone else then why haven't whites shutdown such studies?.

Wednesday, 19 October 2016

Will Anyone Remember Jodie Wilkinson?

Some idle speculation on a recent murder in my home town.....

On Monday a murder took place here in the North East of England which has left many of the locals, myself included, somewhat baffled. Newcastle and the North East are 'rough' and relatively poor but murder is exceptionally rare, and the manner of Jodie Wilkinson's murder must qualify as unique, according to the BBC:

 ''Jodie Wilkinson, 27, died in hospital after being attacked by a group of up to 11 men in the city's Stanhope Street on Monday afternoon, police said.
A 25-year-old man who was with her at the time was also injured and needed hospital treatment.
Police said those arrested, a man aged 43, two aged 25, and three others aged 22, 20 and 18, were being questioned.''

Saturday, 15 October 2016

Trump Unbound

Fiend, I defy thee! with a calm, fixed mind,
All that thou canst inflict I bid thee do;
Foul Tyrant both of Gods and Human-kind,
One only being shalt thou not subdue....
Thou art omnipotent.
O'er all things but thyself I gave thee power,
And my own will....
I curse thee! let a sufferer's curse
Clasp thee, his torturer, like remorse;
'Till thine Infinity shall be
A robe of envenomed agony;
And thine Omnipotence a crown of pain,
To cling like burning gold round thy dissolving

Here in post-Brexit Britain the liberal intelligentsia have developed a canny little trick to misinform the British public, indeed, this is becoming the standard line of the lefty hive-mind everywhere, whether Owen Jones in The Guardian or a chubby YouTube cuck. The line being peddled is that the millions of working class Whites who voted to leave the EU were mistakenly 'lashing out' at immigrants, it is the ''Don't blame the migrants and refugees'' argument. What flows from that is a tedious debate on the economics of mass immigration, if working class Whites have suffered financially, they argue, then it should be the Tories and big business who are to blame, not the migrants themselves. The solution is more ''equality'' and jobs, raising the minimum wage and so on.

Wednesday, 12 October 2016

The Great Shutdown: Google's Jigzaw

I recently came across a fascinating video which goes into some detail on the increasing levels of internet censorship, who is doing it and why, what their long term aims are and who ((They)) deem to be the gravest threat to their scheming. It's depressing but I don't know how much longer blogs such as this one will be able to survive. As is explained in the video, they are using the comments section of the New York Times as a test ground, words or phrases which they deem ''Hate'' will be written into Google's programming and then the machine will be set loose to simply Shut Down or de-list anything which transgresses the new speech codes.

 Most of the time when we think of censorship we think of the cops kicking your door down and dragging you off to Right Think camp, but the future is shaping up to be even worse, you'll be unable to publish a Thought Crime on the internet in the first place and because it's private companies doing this and not governments, there's nothing you can do about it, you don't get to vote Google out. And make no mistake, it is the 'Far Right' that is the problem for these people, as is explained in this excellent production......

Saturday, 8 October 2016

The Revolution That Ruined Us: How Hippies Destroyed Marriage

Written by RW Jetz

According to the Jewish media, the sexual revolution which burgeoned in the 1960s was a time of much-needed freedom from prudish oppression. The dawn of free love, ‘flower power’, and hippy culture was a symbol of times changing towards equality and mass acceptance of diversity. The revolution was cleverly marketed. With the concurrent (Jewish) inventions of the pill and condom, gays and straights, men and women alike, were now ready to be liberated from societal judgement on their sexual habits. A human being could now choose to have casual sex with someone, without fear of being judged and ostracised. To most people, this must have sounded wonderful. However, the reality of such liberalisation of traditions has proved quite the contrary – at least, for those who care for the future of the White race.

A few statistics make this sobering fact clear. The average age of the (primarily White) population is quickly rising while (White) birth rates slump to an all-time low. Meanwhile marriage rates are down to their lowest levels since 1862, and the divorce rate creeps steadily upwards. The environments in which children could be raised and thrive are therefore far fewer than in past generations, because those environments have historically been the preserve of married, monogamous couples. The problem is – clearly – that people aren't getting married much anymore. And when they are, it doesn’t last long. What has happened to marriage since its heyday, and what part did the sexual revolution play in its decline?

To formulate an answer to such a broad question, it is necessary to first review how the revolution came to pass: what could a revolution stand to offer either sex, and how did its leaders bring it about? The sexes are innately dimorphous, and so sexual liberation, as promised by the revolution’ proponents, would necessarily stand to mean a different thing for men and women. F. Roger Devlin aptly outlines the two divergent ideals of sexual freedom as envisaged by both the male and female imperatives in his polemical essay 'Sexual Utopia In Power' (which I heartily recommend). First, the male vision:

Monday, 3 October 2016

The BBC Begins Devouring Its Children

Last week a BBC radio presenter and comedian received a phone call in which he was told flat-out that he was being fired because he was a white male:

'I'll get straight to the point,' she continued. 'I'm afraid for the next series, we're not inviting you back. We're recasting it with more women and diversity.''

Jon Holmes had been working for the BBC for 18 years, his career was sprinkled with Baftas and plaudits from his liberal peers in the British intelligentsia, but there's a larger agenda in play here and Jon's career had to be liquidated to make way for his politically correct replacements.

 It's hard to have much in the way of sympathy, the pundits and 'edgy' comedians of the BBC have been cherry picked for decades,  the joke was always on working class whites, conservative whites, Christian whites, whites who live in the Shires, whites who vote UKIP, whites angry at mass immigration, whites scared of Islam, whites who want out of the EU.

The role of the BBC career personality is to drag the little Englanders up before the High Court of the Notting Hill and Chelsea priesthood to be ridiculed for their ignorance and racism, to pillory them for their longing to be left alone to live like Hobbits far away from the ''enrichment'' and without having to deal with falsely generated guilt and shame.

Friday, 30 September 2016

Leaving The Fence On The Milo Issue

I do enjoy a bit of drama and Milo-Gate hasn't let me down, I've spent more time than usual catching up with the latest discussions and podcasts, reading comments threads and various articles. Back in April when Milo Yiannopoulos began flirting with the Alt-Right I wrote an article  in which I expressed my dismay that a flamboyant gay Jew should be courting a movement which would see him deported to Israel, but if he was willing to help us achieve that goal then, hey, great!.

 So here we are half a year later, it seems like as good a time as any to assess how useful Milo has been to the cause of racial Nationalism.

Sunday, 25 September 2016

The Tragic Life Cycle Of The Baby Boomers

 In David Lean's great wartime movie 'Bridge over the river Kwai' the British prisoners of war are set to work building a bridge for the Japanese, Colonel Nichols (Alec Guinness) becomes obsessed with using the construction of the bridge as a means by which his men's discipline can be held together and, more importantly, to prove to the Japanese that the British army are capable of building a better bridge than they. Nichols' monomania makes his men's lives more miserable than the Japanese ever did, but eventually the bridge is finished and Nichols stands proudly gazing upon it, adoring it, it's surely the best bridge in all of Asia, and the British army built it.

 Nichols finally understands his monumental folly when he notices allied soldiers desperately trying to destroy his bridge and worse, the chunting of a Japanese train carrying thousands of troops and tonnes of armaments and supplies. Nichols became so blinded by his own ego and chauvinism  that he forgot his bridge was a huge  benefit to his enemy's war effort, before dying, taking his bridge with him, the heartbroken Nichols gasps ''What have I done?''. 

Similarly, Polly Toynbee wrote an article in The Guardian recently which she called:

Wednesday, 21 September 2016

How To Slay A Marxist Academic In Five Tweets

A while back I made post called 'Five Shades Of Liberal' in which I attempted to dissect the mentality of  five random liberals on Twitter. Some comments under the post suggested the subject of debating leftists and liberals should become more of a blog focus, I remembered that the other other day when I happened to run into a Marxist teacher on a ''RefugeesWelcome'' trend after they protested in London demanding we take in more! Muslims.

 One of the points I hammer relentlessly on this blog is that the left are not revolutionaries but rather an inherent part of the system, they are not outside it, they are of it and everything they do and everything they endorse further empowers the real power, which is High Finance. 

 So, the test subject here, despite his youthful appearance, is not a student but a teacher, as you can see from his profile he hits all of the right beats and ticks all of the right boxes, he's your typical middle class left wing Twat.

Saturday, 17 September 2016

The Scourge of "Pseudo"

Most readers of this blog will be familiar with the left's quite brilliant use of semantics and sophistry, often completely ignoring the facts and data in favour of clever wordplay. Examples include erroneously appropriating virtuous sounding words like "liberal" and "progressive" for themselves and branding their opponents as suffering from various "isms" and "phobias" that are suggestive of mental illness. One of the most pernicious examples of the left's cunning use of language is their use of the word “pseudo" as a prefix to any academic work or idea that contradicts their world view. In particular, "pseudo-science" and "pseudo-intellectual". The Oxford English dictionary defines Pseudo as:

1. Not genuine, a sham.

2. Informal, pretentious or insincere.

Therefore, by the mere application of the prefix "pseudo", the left believe that they can instantly discredit anything they disagree without engaging in any discussion of the substantive issues. As always, they adopt this dishonest approach because the facts are not on their side. It is enough to cause one to suspect that their movement might be led by people with unusually high levels of verbal intelligence. However, facts will beat sophistry every time.

The left frequently use the term "pseudo-science" to dismiss out of hand any scientific evidence relating to racial differences between human populations. They will haughtily dismiss all of the data as irrelevant ab initio without even taking the time or trouble to address it merits. However, it is the left's shibboleth of universal human equality that is without scientific foundation. The notion of human racial equality does not come from hard science. It is a sociological and anthropological theory that gained traction for political reasons shortly after World War II. In 1948 the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) issued a proposal calling for the
 "general adoption of a programme of dissemination of scientific facts designed to bring about the disappearance of that which is commonly called race prejudice" 
They knew the answer they wanted before they even asked the question. This was not science. It was an exercise in propaganda.
UNESCO issued no less than four statements on race between 1950 and 1967, drafted by such luminaries as (((Morris Ginsbeg))), (((Claude Levi Strauss))). The 1950 statement was drafted by sociologists and anthropologists and included some truly startling, and entirely unsubstantiated, claims such as:

"Given similar degrees of cultural opportunity to realise their potentialities, the average achievement of the members of each ethnic group is about the same".  
The 1950 statement caused such an outcry among biologists and geneticists, who had not been invited to contribute to it rendering it scientifically invalid, that a revised statement was issued in 1951 which was far more reasonable in tone.

"Most anthropologists do not include mental characteristics in their classification of human races. "When intelligence tests, even non-verbal, are made on a group of non-literate people, their scores are usually lower than those of more civilized people." However, overall, available scientific knowledge provides no basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development."

i.e. there are measurable differences in intellectual capacity between the races but that, at that point in time, they were unable to unequivocally state that these differences were due to genes rather than some other factor such as culture or education.

Since the end of World War II the unsubstantiated theories of (((Franz Boas))), that all differences between human populations are due to culture, and that no culture is better than any other, have become the only acceptable opinion to express in any western University. The chilling effect of this brutally enforced false consensus is that scientific discussion of racial differences has become a potentially career ending taboo in academic circles. Most biologists and geneticists who value their livelihood avoid mentioning the word race altogether preferring to talk of "population groups" and "genetic ancestry makers" but it amounts to the same thing. Any scientific data, however valid, which departs from this orthodoxy, is branded "pseudo-science" negating any need to engage with it on its merits. This is the antithesis of the scientific method.

Of course, the reason why establishment left is unable to discuss race in a fact based and scholarly manner is because there is no hard data which supports their dogma of universal racial equality. All they have to offer is well meaning platitudes and a variety of canards, red herrings and straw men which are embarrassingly easy to rebut. 

1. "Most scientists agree that there is no such thing as race". Yes. They avoid the word race and use less incendiary terminology like population groups instead, but it means the same thing.

2. "There is greater variation among the members of each race than between the races". This is true, but it is utterly meaningless. The fact that a white Olympic sprinter can run faster than an obese black asthmatic or that a black university professor is more intelligent than a white retard does nothing to change the different averages of each group. These outliers are already included within those averages.

3. "All human beings share more than 99% of their genes". This is true but, again, it is totally meaningless. We also share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees and 60% of our genes with chickens. Tiny differences in genetic code can create huge differences in outcome.

4. "Black people have higher rates of criminality and lower educational attainment due to their culture/environment". This has been disproved by countless twin adoption studies, but it is irrelevant in any event because whether their deficiencies a due to genetics or culture, or a combination of the two, the fact is that they exist. 

5. "No race is superior to any other". A classic straw man. Few people claim that one race is superior to another overall. Each race is adapted to the environment in which it evolved. Each race is better at some things and worse at others. Difference does not imply overall superiority.

6. "Race is only skin colour". See the numbered points below.

Racial egalitarianism and blank slate theory are virtually fact free. They are an exercise in obfuscation and whataboutery. They themselves are examples of pseudoscience on a par with astrology and creationism. All the racial egalitarians have is, "Everyone is the same because we say they are. Dissent against this point of view will not be tolerated". By contrast, the hard data supporting biological racial differences is voluminous and overwhelming. Examples include:-

1. Forensic scientists can discover a person’s race from their skeletal remains with over 80% accuracy and from their DNA with over 99% accuracy.

2. Every IQ test and public examination ever conducted in any country show the same stratification of the races.

3. Black women have narrower hips as black babies are born with smaller heads/brains.

4. Every finalist the Olympic men's 100 meters since 1980 has been of West African ancestry.

5. Certain parasites can live on some races but not on others.

6. Transplanted organs from member of another race are far more likely to be rejected by the recipient.

7. Certain diseases only affect, or are more prevalent in, certain races.

8. The races have diffrent brain sizes.

I could go on all day, but I'm sure you get the point. This will be familiar stuff to most of the Morgoth's Review regulars, but this article from Radix Journal sets out a useful summary for newcomers to the topic.

It is nothing short of astonishing that the entire academic establishment of the west should reject all of this hard data as "pseudo-science" when they cannot disprove any of it, but they base the whole of the modern orthodoxy on race upon UNESCO propaganda and the works of Franz Boas which have already been comprehensively rebutted.

This would not be such an important issue if it was just a matter of crusty old professors talking among themselves, but the entirety of western government policy is based upon this baloney. Countless billions have been wasted, and continue to be wasted, on the impossible task of trying to make black and brown life outcomes the same as white life outcomes. We could be on Mars by now if the money we had wasted on this nonsense had been more productively spent.

A close cousin to pseudo-science is "pseudo-intellectual" which the left and the academic establishment, which are in practical terms the same thing, use to describe any thinker who they disagree with but are unable to rebut. It is frequently used in relation to highly intelligent race dissidents such as Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer. No need to deal with their substantive positions, just call them "pseudo" and hope they go away.