Sunday, 24 November 2013

Vice President Biden Acknowledges 'Immense' Jewish Role in American Mass Media and Cultural Life

By Mark Weber
July 2013

In a remarkable but under-reported address, Vice President Joe Biden recently acknowledged that the “immense” and “outsized” Jewish role in the US mass media and cultural life has been the single most important factor in shaping American attitudes over the past century, and in driving major cultural- political changes.

“Jewish heritage has shaped who we are – all of us – as much or more than any other factor in the last 223 years. And that's a fact," Biden told a gathering of Jewish leaders on May 21, 2013, in Washington, DC. “The truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential part of who we are that it's fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage,” he added.

“Think - behind of all that, I bet you 85 percent of those [social-political] changes, whether it's in Hollywood or social media, are a consequence of Jewish leaders in the industry. The influence is immense, the influence is immense. And, I might add, it is all to the good,” he said. “We talk about it in terms of the incredible accomplishments and contributions” of individual Jews, Biden went on, but it's more profound than that “because the values, the values are so deep and so engrained in American culture, in our Constitution.”

Biden speaks with the awareness and perspective of a seasoned Washington insider. He was a US Senator for 26 years, held important posts in Congress, and was twice a US presidential candidate. Few men have been more deeply involved in national politics, or are more intimately familiar with the realities of power in American public life.

Biden went on to speak of the crucial role played by Jews in the evolution of American jurisprudence, and in that regard mentioned seven Supreme Court justices: Brandeis, Fortas, Frankfurter, Cardozo, Ginsberg, Breyer and Kagan. “You can't talk about the recognition of ... rights in the Constitution without looking at these incredible jurists that we've had.”

Biden might also have mentioned that of the nine current US Supreme Court justices, three are Jewish, and that Jews are vastly overrepresented in other high-level federal, state and city government posts. He could have mentioned that the chairman of the Federal Reserve System, and the mayors of America's three most populous cities – New York, Los Angeles and Chicago – are Jewish.

“The Jewish people have contributed greatly to America. No group has had such an outsized influence per capita,” Biden also said. More specifically, he cited the Jewish role in shaping popular attitudes and in setting policies on race relations, the role of women in society, and “gay rights.” He went on: “You can't talk about the civil rights movement in this country without talking about Jewish freedom riders and Jack Greenberg ... You can't talk about the women's movement without talking about Betty Friedan.” Biden also praised the Jewish community's “embrace of immigration.”

“I believe what affects the [social-political] movements in America, what affects our attitudes in America are as much the culture and the arts as anything else,” said Biden. “It wasn't anything we [politicians] legislatively did,” he went on. “It was [such television shows as] ‘Will and Grace,' it was the social media. Literally. That's what changed peoples' attitudes. That's why I was so certain that the vast majority of people would embrace, and rapidly embrace” same-sex marriage.

Although Jewish clout has been an important fact of American life for decades, this reality is rarely acknowledged openly, especially by a prominent non-Jewish American of Biden's stature. In a society that supposedly strives for “diversity,” “affirmative action” equality, and fairness, the fact that an ethnic-religious group that makes up no more than two percent of the overall population wields greatly disproportionate power and influence is, or should be, a source of embarrassment. Perhaps that explains why Biden's unusually frank remarks received only scant press coverage, and prompted almost no commentary in the mainstream media.

For some Jews, the Vice President's bold statements were actually worrisome. One prominent Jewish journalist wrote that, however gratifying Biden's “very philo-Semitic” remarks might be, such an open acknowledgment of Jewish influence is “wandering into highly uncomfortable terrain.” The Vice President went too far, cautioned Jonathan Chait, especially given that “lots of people” are not at all happy about how “Jews have used their influence over popular culture to change societal attitudes toward homosexuality.”

As Biden mentioned, the Jewish role in shaping attitudes is by no means a recent phenomenon. It was noted, for example, in 1968 by Walter Kerr, a renowned author, director and Pulitzer prize-winning drama critic. Writing in The New York Times, he remarked: “What has happened since World War II is that the American sensibility has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as anything else ... The literate American mind has come in some measure to think Jewishly. It has been taught to, and it was ready to. After the entertainers and novelists came the Jewish critics, politicians, theologians. Critics and politicians and theologians are by profession molders; they form ways of seeing.”

“It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture,” wrote Michael Medved, a well-known Jewish author and film critic, in 1996. “Any list of the most influential production executives at each of the major movie stu­dios,” he said, “will produce a heavy majority of recognizably Jewish names.” /4 Joel Stein, a columnist for the Los Angeles Times, wrote in 2008: “As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood ... I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them.”

While Biden praised the Jewish role in the mass media and popular culture as “all to the good,” some prominent Americans have not been pleased. President Richard Nixon and the Rev. Billy Graham, the nation's best-known Christian evangelist, spoke together frankly about the Jewish grip on the media during a private White House meeting in 1972. Their secretly recorded one-on-one conversation was not made public until 30 years later. During their talk, Graham said: "This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain." The President responded by saying: "You believe that?" Graham replied: "Yes, sir." And Nixon said: "Oh, boy. So do I. I can't ever [publicly] say that, but I believe it."

In the United States, as in every modern society, those who control the mainstream media, and especially motion pictures and television, guide and shape how people, and especially the most socially attuned and culturally fashionable, think about major issues. The mass media, including popular entertainment, sets the limits on “permissible” discussion of important issues, and thereby steers the general direction of public policy. Views and ideas that those who control the media do not approve are vilified as “offensive,” “hateful,” and “divisive,” and are eliminated from “acceptable” public consideration, while anyone who dares to express such views is maligned as bigoted, backward and intolerant.

An important result of the Jewish hold on the US mass media is a broadly pro-Israel slant in the presentation of news, current affairs and history – a bias that is apparent to anyone who carefully compares news coverage of Israel and the Israel-Palestine conflict in the US media with coverage in Europe, Asia or Latin America.

Another noteworthy expression of the Jewish role in the media has been a routinely sympathetic portrayal of Jews as victims, with much emphasis on the “Holocaust” and “Holocaust remembrance,” thereby encouraging strong and emotional support of Israel.

With special attentiveness to Jewish concerns and fears, the American media highlights real and supposed dangers to Israel and Jews around the world. Moreover, Israel's adversaries are routinely portrayed as America's enemies, thereby encouraging US wars against countries that Israel regards as dangerous.

Another important consequence of the Jewish hold on the mass media and cultural life has been – as Vice President Biden suggested – a broad decades-long promotion of cultural-racial “diversity” and “pluralism.” Jewish-Zionist leaders regard maximum “tolerance” and “diversity” in the US and other non-Jewish societies as beneficial to Jewish community interests. /9 “America's pluralistic society is at the heart of Jewish security,” says Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League – a leading Jewish-Zionist organization. “In the long run,” he continues, “what has made American Jewish life a uniquely positive experience in Diaspora history and which has enabled us to be such important allies for the State of Israel, is the health of a pluralistic, tolerant and inclusive American society.”

American motion pictures and television, in collaboration with influential Jewish-Zionist organizations, have for many years sought to persuade Americans – especially younger Americans – to welcome and embrace ever more social, cultural and racial “diversity,” and to regard themselves simply as individuals. While striving to belittle and break down racial, religious, ethnic and cultural identity and cohesion among non-Jewish Americans, the US media promotes a tribalistic nationalism (Zionism) for Jews, and defends Israel as a proudly Jewish ethnic-religious state.

Without an understanding of the Jewish role in the American mass media and US cultural life, major social-political trends over the past century are all but incomprehensible. Vice President Biden's frank acknowledgement of this “immense” clout is a welcome contribution to a greater awareness of this important reality of American life.


Wednesday, 20 November 2013

Jewish Communist Leftism is Anti Indigenous Worker.

Communism and International Socialism, which are one and the same, do not protect the rights of indigenous workers of any nation. They sell out the indigenous workers of every nation with their internationalist propaganda that tells you borders should be removed ie 'world without borders', that we should have free movement of people, and that the workers of the 'world' should 'unite' under the same communist banner. This means that the indigenous workers especially in Europe are sold a false and deceptive idea that actually harms them and their workers rights within their own national boundary.

The true goal behind this, is something that even many supporters of communism cannot grasp. That goal is to have a global mass of people subservient to the communist revolutionary ideal that seeks to control and appropriate land, wealth and rules with an iron fist eliminating anybody who does not submit to the communist system in place, history proves this and also proves that communism is a system not of economic equality but a system of mass murder in which a select few control the appropriated wealth, land and produce whilst the majority starve and descend into indescribable poverty.

Communists and assorted leftist groups sell the line that the 'right wing' hate all workers, that people with nationalistic feelings want to oppress workers and keep them down. The exact opposite is true, communists do everything to undermine the indigenous working people of nation by leading them to believe that the only way they can be treated fairly is to reject the nation, the culture and their ethnic group to the mythical communist utopia where everybody is apparently equal and workers are not oppressed. 100+ million dead would argue otherwise. According to these leftists, workers can only free themselves from economic and cultural 'oppression' by allowing the world and its dog to come into the nation of the indigenous worker and 'uniting' with them. The indigenous worker by believing this insanity then destroys not only his future, but his childrens future and the ethnic and cultural ancestry that is unique to his people, and all for the promise of a non-existent workers 'paradise.'

It is ridiculous to believe that patriotic nationalistic people want to oppress workers, and it is ridiculous to believe that they wish to prop up the corrupt system in place that is causing so much damage to the nation and its people. Who do the leftists think patriotic nationalistic people are, do they think it is them who are selling the nation and its workers out to globalism, is it the patriotic and nationalistic people that control the banking system or the media. No, for the most part they are workers, they are 'working class' who refuse to sell out their nation and people to an ideology that wants to destroy the nation and replace it with a globalised world with no borders.

People work hard for their children to have a future in a country that their ancestors built, they care for the rights of indigenous workers alot more than the red internationalist's ever will. This is why the communist left smear patriotism and nationalism, this is why they spew out the lies that nationalists want to 'oppress workers' because they know that if the masses of indigenous workers finally understand this then their communist rhetoric would be kicked back into 1848 and right into the faces of Marx and his Zionist mentor Moses Hess.

Communism is nothing more than a tool of global control, it is a divide and conquer ideology that aims to divide nations and people especially in Europe in order to control them, ushering them into a totalitarian communistic and globalist new world order controlled by Jewish high finance, and communist style brutality. The majority of communist leftists of whatever description do not recognise this and these people are what Lenin himself referred to as useful idiots.  From its very beginning this has been the case.

This brings us to the real reason for the founding of communism and its modern day form cultural marxism.

Karl Marx is the historical figure often associated with communist theory, however it was Moses Hess who instructed Marx in communist theory. Hess was the philosophical father of Zionism, Marx stated that the ideas of Hess should receive 'wide recognition.'

What were his remarkable ideas then? In his writings, Moses Hess stressed the need to agitate the social classes against each other and in this way hinder their co-operation. He wanted to bring about a socialist revolution with the help of Judaism, and the class struggle.

He stressed that Socialism was inseparably bound to internationalism, as the socialists have no fatherland. The true socialist cannot have anything to do with his nationality. He also declared: this does not apply to Jews.

Hess believed that internationalism served the interests of Judaism.

 He wrote:

"Whoever denies Jewish nationalism is not only an apostate, a renegade in the religious sense, but also a traitor to his people and to his family."
(Moses Hess, "Selected Works", Cologne, 1962.)

Later, Marx and Engels stated quite openly that many of Hess' ideas deserved a wide recognition. The Hungarian Jew Theodor Herzl further developed Hess' Zionist doctrine in the 1890s.

The influence of Hess on Marx led in 1848 to the Communist Manifesto, the political doctrine that has led to the mass murder and starvation due to orchestrated famine of many tens of millions worldwide and which still to this day oppresses millions. The defining influence to this day in left wing communist activities comes from Jewish backing, and the link between political and relgious Zionism and Communism goes right back to Moses Hess and his nurturing of Karl Marx.

So communism far from being about the workers or 'equality' was about an ideology that sought to divide and rule.

The Bolshevik revolution in Russia which occurred in 1917, was the first successful communist uprising since the writing of the manifesto. The seed had been sewn by Moses Hess for permanent revolution and through the writings of Marx inspired by Hess, the world has suffered at the hands of this ideology ever since beginning in Russia.

The revolution in Russia was financed by Jewish bankers and capitalists Jacob Schiff and Max Warbug, it was led by Jewish generals like Leon Trotsky real name Bronstein, Kamenev, Sverdlov and Zinoviev, and also had many Jewish communists within its ranks.  30+ million ethnic Russians were murdered as a result.

Communism, influenced by the founder of Zionism and financed by Jewish bankers and capitalists the supposed enemy of communism? Doesn't make sense does it. Unless you understand as we have said, that communism is a divide and conquer tool employed by the Jewish financial elite to destroy nations, to destroy their identity, to destroy their culture and homogeneity and it continues today in the form of cultural communism ie cultural marxism.

These facts about communism, its origins and reason for being are widely acknowledged by Jews themselves, the encyclopedia Judaica openly states the disproportionate Jewish role in it.

Lets take a look at what the encyclopedia Judaica has to say about Jews and Communism.

The Communist movement and ideology played an important part in Jewish life, particularly in the 1920's, 1930's, and during and after World War II. Individual Jews played an important role in the early stages of Bolshevism and the Soviet regimeThe great attraction of communism among Russian, and later also, Western, Jewry emerged only with the establishment of the Soviet regime in Russia.

'How involved were the Jews? It continues by admitting that the "anti-Semitic" counteroffensive of the White Russian armies in 1918 "drove the bulk of Russian Jewish youth into the ranks of the Bolshevik regime."  The bulk of Jewish youth. This means that the majority of all young Soviet Jews were communists. Jews, it says, found great opportunity within Bolshevism, "occupying many responsible positions in all branches of the party and state machinery at the central and local seats of power." (pg. 791)

Bolshevism had become the Jewish cause as:
Many Jews the world over therefore regarded the Soviet concept of the solution to the "Jewish question" as an intrinsically positive approach. Communism and support of the Soviet Union thus seemed to many Jews to be the only alternative, and Communist trends became widespread in virtually all Jewish communities. In some countries Jews became the leading element in the legal and illegal Communist parties and in some cases were even instructed by the Communist international to change their Jewish-sounding names and pose as non-Jews, in order not to confirm right-wing propaganda that presented Communism as an alien, Jewish conspiracy (pg. 792)

During the Revolution Jews played a prominent part in the party organs. The politburo elected on Oct. 23, 1917 had four Jews among its seven members. The Military Revolutionary Committee, appointed to prepare the coup, was headed by Trotsky and had two Jews among its five members. In the early years of the Soviet regime, Jews were in many leading positions in the government and party machinery (page 797, 98)

The article then goes on to enumerate who many of these Jews (most with Gentile Russian names) actually were. Here we find most of the giants of Soviet communism, names we have memorized in college history courses as the kingpins of the Revolution, without dreaming they were Jews. But making sure of their Jewish identity is very important to the editors of the Encyclopedia Judaica, which is not addressed to Gentiles. It is clear that the editors want Jewish youth today to be aware of their communist heritage. To this end, they not only never criticize anything having to do with communism but always describe it as a sincere and timely experiment with the greatest social advantages to Jews in Russia.  Many Jewish Bolsheviks, persons who helped make possible the bloodiest regime in the history of the world, are dignified with a separate article.

Keeping in mind that Jews represented only several percent of the Russian population at that time, the disproportion of Jews in the Party hierarchy is further born out:
During the Revolution Jews played a prominent part in the party organs. The politburo elected on Oct. 23, 1917 had four Jews among its seven members. The Military Revolutionary Committee, appointed to prepare the coup, was headed by Trotsky and had two Jews among its five members. In the early years of the Soviet regime, Jews were in many leading positions in the government and party machinery (page 797, 98)

Anti-Semitism was branded as being counterrevolutionary in nature, and persons participating in pogroms or instigating them were outlawed (by a special decree issued by the Council of Commissars in July 1918, signed and personally amended by Lenin to sharpen its tone). A statement against Anti-Semitism made by Lenin in March 1918 was put on a phonograph record, to be used in a mass campaign against the counterrevolutionary incitement against the Jews. (pg. 798)

Allied Intelligence Reports:

During this period intelligence services throughout the free world were buzzing with reports of Jewish involvement in communism. Since an impeccable Jewish source, the Encyclopedia Judaica, has largely convinced us of the importance of Jews to the success of communism, let us briefly consider a small part of the testimony available from a variety of high-level sources. I will present each without comment, but notice how often they describe Bolshevik leadership in much higher figures than the Encyclopedia Judaica, often to as high as 90 percent.

Report of the American Expeditionary forces to Siberia, March 1, 1919. Captain Montgomery Schyler, speaking of events following the decline of the First Provisional Government, says:
"These hopes were frustrated by the gradual gains in power of the more irresponsible and socialistic elements of the population, guided by the Jews and other anti-Russian races. A table made in April 1918 by Robert Wilton, the correspondent of the London Times in Russia, shows that at that time there were 384 "commissars" including 2 Negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen, 22 Armenians and more than 300 Jews. Of the latter number, 264 had come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the Imperial government."

Captain Schyler then provides a personal reflection:
"It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United States, but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type, who have been in the United States and there absorbed every one of the worst phases of our civilization without having the least understanding of what we really mean by liberty."

The Consul General at Moscow (Summers) to the Secretary of State, Moscow, May 2, 1918:
"Jews predominant in local Soviet government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population which tends to regard oncoming Germans as deliverers."

U.S. State Department Report, Foreign Relations, 1918, Russia, Vol. 11, p. 240:
"Fifty percent of Soviet government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type, many of whom are anarchists."

Scotland Yard Report to the America Secretary of State, July 23, 1919:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international movement controlled by Jews; communications are passing between the leaders in America, France, Russia and England, with a view toward concerted action."

Extract of Report from the Netherlands Minister at Petrograd on the 6th of September, 1918, forwarded by Sir M. Findlay, at Christiana, to Mr. Balfour:
"I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war that is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."

Mr. Aleston to Lord Curzon, forwarding Report from Consul at Ekaterinburg of February 6, 1919:
"From examination of several labourers and peasant witnesses, I have evidence to the effect that the very smallest percentage of this district were pro-Bolshevik, majority of labourers sympathizing with summoning of Constituent Assembly. Witnesses further stated that Bolshevik leaders did not represent Russian working classes, most of them being Jews."

The Rev. B.S. Lombard to Lord Curzon, March 23, 1919:
"I have been for ten years in Russia, and have been in Petrograd through the whole of the revolution. . . .I had ample opportunity of studying Bolshevik methods. It originated in German propaganda, and was, and is being, carried out by international Jews. . . .All business became paralyzed, shops were closed, Jews became possessors of most of the business houses, and horrible scenes of starvation became common in country districts."

Sir Winston Churchill, writing in the Illustrated Sunday Herald of February 8, 1920 agrees with the previous testimony.
"There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders."

But to be fair, let the Jews have the last word - words written after millions of "goyim" had already been slaughtered in Russia. Quoting from the American Hebrew of September 8, 1920:
"The Bolshevist revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction, and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, became a reality all over the world." Rense.

So now we have established exactly what communism is, who created and financed it and what its aims were, is it wise for any indigenous worker of any nation to 'embrace' this most evil of conspiracies to the detriment of their own nation and people. The useful idiots that parade around the streets of Europe waving the red flag of Jewish global control are not your friends, they are the most dangerous of traitors who would deliver you into the hands of real oppression and brutality. Workers do not need this evil ideology to pursue their legitimate interests.

The modern day strategic communist alternative is cultural marxism, this is the result of communist failure to inspire armed revolution across Europe. This failure was surmised to be a result of Western culture, ie religion, the family, patriotism etc. The strategy now is to subvert the culture from within using the ideas of Antonio Gramsci and members of the Frankfurt school, basically it is a silent communist revolution being played out in the academic world, the media and in politics that undermines and attacks the culture from within, cultural marxism is a communist fifth column if you like using culture rather that economic deception. The same outcome is desired, but the methods altered to ensure the success of the original aim of those who created communism.

So the next time you see these leftists on the street telling you to embrace the workers communist revolution, remind them of their stupidity and treason, tell them that workers within your nation do not need nor want the false communist message that wants to destroy their country and people.

Communism is Jewish nation destroying achieved through dividing and conquering the people within a nation, to aid in the destruction of the nation and coercing it into brutal global control.

Communism has no utopia and can not deliver utopia. It delivers murder, misery, starvation, and lies.

When people oppose nationalism, they oppose the only ideology capable of stopping communism,globalism and the oppression of workers. It is the only ideology that opposes corrupt bankers for the right reasons and would protect the rights of indigenous workers, the only ideology that would bring about real change from the corrupt political system that serves globalism and which through cultural marxism and mass immigration, destroys the nation and its people. And it is also the only ideology that has a thorough understanding of the truth in both an historical and modern day sense. A truth that is hidden behind the silencing tactics of 'racism' and 'anti-semitism.' A truth that never alters but remains the same because truth is not for altering.

Monday, 18 November 2013

The Fabian Society, The Labour Party and Mass Immigration - State Enforced Multiculturalism and Multiracialism ie White European Genocide.

From their own website:

The Fabian Society has played a central role for more than a century in the development of political ideas and public policy on the left of centre. Analysing the key challenges facing the UK and the rest of the industrialised world in a changing society and global economy, the society's programme aims to explore the political ideas and the policy reforms which will define progressive politics in the new century.

The society is unique among think-tanks in being a democratically-constituted membership organisation. It is affiliated to the Labour Party but is editorially and organisationally independent. Through its publications, seminars and conferences, the society provides an arena for open-minded public debate.

All Labour Prime Ministers have been members of the Fabian Society, while the Young Fabians have been influential in creating debate and as an arena for young people with an interest in politics to both influence and learn from influential political figures.

The symbol of the Fabian society is a wolf in sheeps clothing, there could not be a more appropriate image to represent Cultural Marxism than a wolf in sheep's clothing. Not to mention the fact that it was originally founded in the year of Karl Marx's death to promote his ideas. It is a Marxist society - The British government are, through this, strongly affiliated with the Marxist ideal of a new world.

Furthermore, when you look at the key points being pushed by The Fabian Society, represented conveniently by their current topics of debate and compare them with Frankfurt School and known New World Order propaganda, it becomes chillingly clear that the Fabian Society is a devious, powerful, subversive organisation dedicated to creating a new, post-modern society against our wishes.

As one blog puts it:

Founded the year of Marx's death to promote his ideas through gradualism, the Fabian Society sought to "honeycomb" society, as Fabian Margaret Cole put it, with disguised socialist measures. By glossing over its goals, the Fabian Society hoped to avoid galvanizing the enemies of socialism.

Excerpt from -

The Labour Party in Britain is inextricably linked to the Fabian society. It is also at the forefront of 'progressive politics' and policies in Britain that have led to the opening up of our borders.

One of the principles of progressive politics is to reduce white Europeans to a minority via importing masses of people from the third world to dilute the once majority ethnic and cultural group, this is called multiculturalism. This fact is not something admitted to by most of those who push it, but does not alter the reality of what it really is and what it really means for European nations and people.

Multiculturalism is a Jewish globalist ideological assault on White Europeans. It insists that European nations open up their borders to non-Europeans and to embrace it as culturally and ethnically 'enriching.' We are told that 'diversity' is beneficial to our nations and people, and to oppose it is 'racist' and 'intolerant.' The term multiculturalism does differ from the term multicultural, for example in Britain, the English, Welsh and Scots have their own cultural traditions but remain ethnically the same. Britain already was multicultural in that sense, and those different cultures merged into what we know today as Britain, but at the same time, the ethnic heritage of the Isles was never compromised until multiculturalism became the new political strategy, and has a totally different meaning to multicultural although the cultural marxists would like the term multicultural to mean something that fits into their narrative.

The real meaning of the term multiculturalism, is multiracialism. This means that the cultural and ethnically identical groups of Britain that comprised the English, Welsh and Scots, were to be replaced with not only different cultures not from Europe, but different racial groups not from Europe. That is the crucial difference, multiculturalism is racial replacement disguised as a 'multicultural society.'

This is happening for one simple reason, to weaken and ultimately destroy, irreversibly, the European people strictly for the goals of Jewish globalism ie the New world order.

The Labour party has been behind this attempt to demographically engineer the British Isles into a multiracial outpost of Jewish globalism. Along with the political establishment as a whole, they have sold out the British people and have disgracefully given away our children's birthright to the tribe who control high finance and our political system. The same is true of all European nations with so called 'progressive' parties and corrupt political systems. European people are immersed in a smoke and mirrors democratic illusion. All parties are servants of their Jewish globalist financial masters and all subscribe to the anti-European concept that is multiculturalism ie multiracialism. This is enforced via the centralised policies of the Cultural Marxist European Union. The EU is the command and control centre of white European genocide through multiracialism.

All European nations can point to the political party and people responsible for opening up their borders. However I think Britain is unique in this sense because of the shocking revelations of a close advisor to the Labour Party. Andrew Neather basically confirmed what most us knew to be true, the sad and frustrating thing about these revelations was that the British people still did not react with the anger it deserved. There were no calls for justice, for arrests of politicians for treason, no mass demonstrations against the anti-white anti-British policies of people supposed to govern in the best interests of Britain and its people. At the same time, the British people had been warned, they didn't listen, they got what they voted for, and when they continue to vote for ANY of the established political system they continue to get what they vote for.

Andrew Neather and the Multiracial Social Engineering of Britain by the Labour Party.

Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw (Jew) and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s. He was to reveal the true nature behind the mass immigration seen in Britain since Labour had come to power in 1997. What he revealed has been denied by the usual leftist suspects and still they try and tell us that immigration has been 'good for the Uk.'

From a telegraph article in 2009:

'Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed.'

'The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.'

'He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core (WHITE) working class vote".'

'As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.'

'Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.'

'Writing in the Evening Standard, he revealed the "major shift" in immigration policy came after the publication of a policy paper from the Performance and Innovation Unit, a Downing Street think tank based in the Cabinet Office, in 2001.'

'He wrote a major speech for Barbara Roche (Jew), the then immigration minister, in 2000, which was largely based on drafts of the report.'

'He said the final published version of the report promoted the labour market case for immigration but unpublished versions contained additional reasons, he said.'

'He wrote: "Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.'

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date."

'The "deliberate policy", from late 2000 until "at least February last year", when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.'

So it is clear to see that mass immigration was a deliberate attempt not to make Britain 'truly multicultural' but multiracial. This is in keeping with the objectives of 'progressive politics' cultural marxism and the Jewish globalist agenda to destroy the homogeneity of white European nations and people. What has happened and is happening in Britain, has happened in almost every majority white European nation on the planet. This shows that far from it being confined to Britain alone, it is concerted attack on ethnic Europeans wherever they may be.

The purpose of Fabian Socialism is to advance the principles of socialism via ‘gradualist and reformist’ means. According to the Columbia Encyclopaedia Fabians are “opposed to the revolutionary theory of Marxism, holding that social reforms and socialistic “permeation” of existing political institutions would bring about the natural development of socialism.”  This concept is virtually that of the Frankfurt School who instigated cultural Marxism following the failure of revolutionary Communism to take root in the West. As such there were Fabians around prior to the formation of the British Fabien society.

There is a Fabian window at the Beatrice Webb house commissioned by George Bernard Shaw in 1910 and executed by Caroline Townsend. The Fabian window shows the Fabians intent to change the world and remould it to their hearts desire. The Fabian heart desires to see the whole world governed by a socialist dictatorship. Tony Blair has been photographed posing beside this window.  Naturally Fabianism is in complete opposition to democratic principals of the British common law constitution. The very idea is suggestive of distortion and manipulation. It was in 1884 that The British Fabian Society was created following a suicide and £10,000 left by Derby Fabian Henry Hutchinson to the Fabians. This was for propaganda and other purposes.Apparently British Fabian socialism was created to promote international communism with a friendlier face. It is quite clear when they put their aims to paper in 1887 that communism figured high on their list of priorities.

Multiculturalism and Cultural Marxism:

The thing that links the Fabian society, the Labour party, multiculturalism and cultural marxism together, is that multiracialism is the driving force behind the pursuit of revolutionary communist takeover, but using subversive cultural marxism to achieve it rather than outright violent armed revolution. The hordes of non-Europeans have become the new revolutionaries, who have taken the place of the 'proletariat.' Communism/Cultural Marxism/Multiracialism are the tools in which Jewish globalism strengthens its grip over the West and the European people. The Fabian society is part of that, and Multiracialism is just one way that they achieve this through political parties such as Labour.

Andrew Neather and the 1965 Open Immigration Act - Similarities Point to the same Influence over Immigration Policy in both Britain and the US:

New Labour and Mass Immigration:

Sunday, 17 November 2013

Gramsci's Grand Plan

Gramsci's Grand Plan

The New American  | July 5, 1999 | Fr. James Thornton

One of the most interesting aspects of the study of history is that very often men born in the most humble of circumstances nevertheless rise up to affect the course of human history dramatically. They may be men of action or men of thought, yet in either case their activities can father tremendous changes across the years. Antonio Gramsci was both a man of action and thought and, whatever the outcome of the events of the next several decades, he will almost certainly be reckoned by future historians to have been a remarkable figure.

Born in obscurity on the island of Sardinia in 1891, Gramsci would not have been considered a prime candidate to impact significantly the 20th century. Gramsci studied philosophy and history at the University of Turin, and soon became a dedicated Marxist, joining the Italian Socialist Party. Immediately after the First World War, he established his own radical newspaper, The New Order, and shortly afterwards helped in the founding of the Italian Communist Party.

Disillusioned Marxist
The fascist "March on Rome," and the appointment of Benito Mussolini to the prime ministry, impelled the young Marxist theorist to depart Italy. Casting about for a new home, he chose the most logical place for a Communist, Lenin's newly fashioned USSR. However, Soviet Russia was not what he had expected. His powers of observation wakened immediately to the distance that so often separates theory from reality. A fanatical Marxist insofar as political, economic, and historical theories were concerned, Gramsci was profoundly disturbed that life in Communist Russia exhibited little evidence of any deeply felt love on the part of the workers for the "paradise" that Lenin had constructed for them. Even less was there any deep attachment to such concepts as the "Proletarian revolution" or "Dictatorship of the proletariat," apart from the obligatory rhetoric.

On the contrary, it was obvious to Gramsci that the "paradise" of the working class maintained its hold over workers and peasants only by sheer terror, by mass murder on a gargantuan scale, and by the ubiquitous, gnawing fear of midnight knocks on the door and of forced-labor camps in the Siberian wilderness. Also crucial to Lenin's state was a continuous drumbeat of propaganda, slogans, and outright lies. It was all very disillusioning for Gramsci. While other men might have reassessed their entire ideological outlook after such experiences, Gramsci's subtle, analytical mind worked on the seeming paradox differently.

The death of Lenin and the seizure of power by Stalin caused Gramsci immediately to reconsider his choice of residence. Building upon Lenin's achievements in terror and tyranny, Stalin began to transform agrarian Russia into an industrial giant that would then turn all of its energies to military conquest. It was Stalin's design to build the greatest military machine in history, crush the "forces of reaction," and impose Communism on Europe and Asia — and later on the whole world — by brute force.

In the meantime, however, to consolidate and assure his power, Stalin systematically commenced the extermination of potential foes within his own camp. That, as it turned out, became an ongoing process, one that lasted until his own demise. In particular, men suspected of even the slightest ideological heresy in relation to Stalin's own interpretation of Marxism-Leninism were sent straight to torture chambers or death camps, or were hurried before firing squads.

Prison "Prophet"

His days obviously numbered in Stalinist Russia, Gramsci decided to return home and take up the struggle against Mussolini. Seen as both a serious threat to the safety of the fascist regime and a likely agent of a hostile foreign power, after a relatively short time Gramsci was arrested and sentenced to a lengthy term of imprisonment, and there, in his prison cell, he devoted the nine years that were left to him to writing. Before his death from tuberculosis in 1937, Gramsci produced nine volumes of observations on history, sociology, Marxist theory, and, most importantly, Marxist strategy. Those volumes, known as the Prison Notebooks, have since been published in many languages and distributed throughout the world. Their significance comes from the fact that they form the foundation for a dramatic new Marxist strategy, one that makes the "spontaneous revolution" of Lenin as obsolete as hoop skirts and high button shoes, one that promises to win the world voluntarily to Marxism, and one based on a realistic appraisal of historical fact and human psychology, rather than on empty wishes and illusions.

As we shall see, Gramsci's shrewd assessment of the true essence of Marxism and of mankind makes his writings among the most powerful in this century. While Gramsci himself would die an ignominious and lonely death in a fascist prison, his thoughts would attain a life of their own and rise up to menace the world. What are these ideas?

Essence of the Red Revolution

Gramsci's signal contribution was to liberate the Marxist project from the prison of economic dogma, thereby dramatically enhancing its ability to subvert Christian society.

If we were to take the ideological pronouncements of Marx and Lenin at face value, we would believe — as have millions of their deluded disciples — that the uprising of the workers was inevitable, and that all that was to be done was to mobilize the underclass through propaganda, thereby sparking universal revolution. Of course, this premise is invalid, yet it remained inflexible doctrine among Communists — at least, for public consumption.

However, the hard core of the Communist movement consisted of ruthless criminals, clear-eyed in their understanding of the intellectual errors of Marxism, who were willing to employ any necessary means to obtain the power they sought. For such hardened, hate-intoxicated conspirators, ideology is a tactic, a means of mobilizing supporters and rationalizing criminal actions.

Those who accept uncritically the idea that "Communism is dead" fail to understand the true nature of the enemy. Communism is not an ideology in which one believes. Rather, it is a criminal conspiracy in which one enlists. Although Lenin professed to revere Marx's scribblings as sacred writ, once his Bolsheviks had seized power in Russia, Lenin freely modified Marxism to suit his needs. The same was true of Stalin. The Bolsheviks did not come to power in Russia by any uprising of the workers and peasants, but by a coup d'etat, orchestrated by a tightly disciplined Marxist cadre and ultimately consolidated by civil war. They also received — lest it be forgotten — critical help from Jewish political and banking elites.

In similar fashion, Communism did not come to power in Eastern Europe by revolution, but rather through the imposition of that system by a conquering Red Army — and, once again, through the corrupt connivance of conspirators in the West. In China, Communism came to power through civil war, aided by the Soviets and by traitorous elements in the West. (Jewish)

In no single instance has Communism ever achieved power by means of any popular revolutionary upheaval, but always by force or subterfuge. The only popular revolutionary upheavals recorded in the 20th century have been anti-Marxist "counter-revolutions," such as the revolt in Berlin in 1954 and the Hungarian uprising of 1956.

Looking back on the 20th century, it is clear that Marx was wrong in his assumption that most workers and peasants were dissatisfied with their places in, and alienated from, their societies, that they were seething with resentment against the middle and upper classes, or that they in any way were predisposed to revolution. Moreover, wherever Communism achieved power, its use of unprecedented levels of violence, coercion, and repression have generated underground opposition at home and militant opposition abroad, making endless killing and repression endemic to Marxism and essential for Communist survival. All of these undeniable facts, when examined honestly, posed insurmountable difficulties insofar as further extensions of Communist power were concerned, and assured some kind of ultimate crisis for Marxism.

While the foregoing is obvious to perceptive observers now, looking back from the vantage point of our time and after more than eight decades of experience with the reality of Communism in power, we begin to understand something of the insightfulness of Antonio Gramsci when we realize that what is evident now, at the close of the millennium, was evident to him when the Soviet regime was in its infancy and Communism still largely untried conjecture.

Gramsci was a brilliant student of philosophy, history, and languages. This education imparted to him an excellent grasp of the character of his fellow men and of the character of the societies that made up the civilized community of nations in the early decades of this century. As we have already seen, one of the foundational insights given him by this education was that Communist hopes for a spontaneous revolution, brought about by some process of historical inevitability, were illusory. Marxist ideologues were, he asserted, beguiling themselves. In the Gramscian view workers and peasants were not, by and large, revolutionary-minded and they harbored no desire for the destruction of the existing order. Most had loyalties beyond, and far more powerful than, class considerations, even in those instances where their lives were less than ideal. More meaningful to ordinary people than class solidarity and class warfare were such things as faith in God and love of family and country. These were foremost among their overriding allegiances.

Such attractiveness as Communist promises might possess among the working classes was, moreover, diminished by Communist brutalities and by heavy-handed totalitarian methods. Stirring the aristocratic and bourgeois classes to action, these negative attributes were so terrifying and sobering that militant anti-Marxist organizations and movements sprang up everywhere, effectively putting a halt to plans for Communist expansion. With all of this easily apparent to him, and, blessed in a way with the seemingly endless leisure afforded by prison life, Gramsci turned his excellent mind to saving Marxism by analyzing and solving these questions.

Subverting Christian Faith

The civilized world, Gramsci deduced, had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years and Christianity remains the dominant philosophical and moral system in Europe and North America. Practically speaking, civilization and Christianity were inextricably bound together. Christianity had become so thoroughly integrated into the daily lives of nearly everyone, including non-Christians living in Christian lands, it was so pervasive, that it formed an almost impenetrable barrier to the new, revolutionary civilization Marxists wish to create. Attempting to batter down that barrier proved unproductive, since it only generated powerful counter-revolutionary forces, consolidating them and making them potentially deadly. Therefore, in place of the frontal attack, how much more advantageous and less hazardous it would be to attack the enemy's society subtly, with the aim of transforming the society's collective mind gradually, over a period of a few generations, from its former Christian worldview into one more harmonious to Marxism. And there was more.

Whereas conventional Marxist-Leninists were hostile towards the non-Communist left, Gramsci argued that alliances with a broad spectrum of leftist groups would prove essential to Communist victory. In Gramsci's time these included, among others, various "anti-fascist" organizations, trade unions, and socialist political groups. In our time, alliances with the left would include radical feminists, extremist environmentalists, "civil rights" movements, anti-police associations, internationalists, ultra-liberal church groups, and so forth. These organizations, along with open Communists, together create a united front working for the transformation of the old Christian culture.

What Gramsci proposed, in short, was a renovation of Communist methodology and a streamlining and updating of Marx's antiquated strategies. Let there be no doubt that Gramsci's vision of the future was entirely Marxist and that he accepted the validity of Marxism's overall worldview. Where he differed was in the process for achieving the victory of that worldview. Gramsci wrote that "there can and must be a 'political hegemony' even before assuming government power, and in order to exercise political leadership or hegemony one must not count solely on the power and material force that are given by government." What he meant is that it is incumbent upon Marxists to win the hearts and minds of the people, and not to rest hopes for the future solely on force or power.

Furthermore, Communists were enjoined to put aside some of their class prejudice in the struggle for power, seeking to win even elements within the bourgeois classes, a process which Gramsci described as "the absorption of the elites of the enemy classes." Not only would this strengthen Marxism with new blood, but it would deprive the enemy of this lost talent. Winning the bright young sons and daughters of the bourgeoisie to the red banner, wrote Gramsci, "results in [the anti-Marxist forces'] decapitation and renders them impotent." In short, violence and force will not by themselves genuinely transform the world. Rather it is through winning hegemony over the minds of the people and in robbing enemy classes of their most gifted men that Marxism will triumph over all.

Free-Will Slaves

Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, a classic study of modern totalitarianism, contains a line that epitomizes the concept that Gramsci tried to convey to his party comrades: "A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude." While it is improbable that Huxley was familiar with Gramsci's theories, the idea he conveys of free persons marching willingly into bondage is nevertheless precisely what Gramsci had in mind.

Gramsci believed that if Communism achieved "mastery of human consciousness," then labor camps and mass murder would be unnecessary. How does an ideology gain such mastery over patterns of thought inculcated by cultures for hundreds of years? Mastery over the consciousness of the great mass of people would be attained, Gramsci contended, if Communists or their sympathizers gained control of the organs of culture — churches, education, newspapers, magazines, the electronic media, serious literature, music, the visual arts, and so on. By winning "cultural hegemony," to use Gramsci's own term, Communism would control the deepest wellsprings of human thought and imagination. One need not even control all of the information itself if one can gain control over the minds that assimilate that information. Under such conditions, serious opposition disappears since men are no longer capable of grasping the arguments of Marxism's opponents. Men will indeed "love their servitude," and will not even realize that it is servitude.

Steps in the Process

The first phase in achieving "cultural hegemony" over a nation is the undermining of all elements of traditional culture. Churches are thus transformed into ideology-driven political clubs, with the stress on "social justice" and egalitarianism, with worship reduced to trivialized entertainment, and with age-old doctrinal and moral teachings "modernized" or diminished to the point of irrelevancy. Genuine education is replaced by "dumbed down" and "politically correct" curricula, and standards are reduced dramatically. The mass media are fashioned into instruments for mass manipulation and for harassing and discrediting traditional institutions and their spokesmen. Morality, decency, and old virtues are ridiculed without respite. Tradition-minded clergymen are portrayed as hypocrites and virtuous men and women as prudish, stuffy, and unenlightened.

Culture is no longer a buttress supporting the integrity of the national heritage and a vehicle for imparting that heritage to future generations, but becomes a means for "destroying ideals and ... presenting the young not with heroic examples but with deliberately and aggressively degenerate ones," as theologian Harold O.J. Brown writes. We see this in contemporary American (and European) life, in which the great historical symbols of our nation's past, including great presidents, soldiers, explorers, and thinkers, are shown to have been unforgivably flawed with "racism" and "sexism" and therefore basically evil. Their place has been taken by pro-Marxist charlatans, pseudo-intellectuals, rock stars, leftist movie celebrities, and the like. At another level, traditional Christian culture is condemned as repressive, "Eurocentric," and "racist" and, thus, unworthy of our continued devotion. In its place, unalloyed primitivism in the guise of "multiculturalism" is held as the new model.

Marriage and family, the very building blocks of our society, are perpetually attacked and subverted. Marriage is portrayed as a plot by men to perpetuate an evil system of domination over women and children. The family is depicted as a dangerous institution epitomized by violence and exploitation. Patriarchally oriented families are, according to the Gramscians, the precursors of fascism, Nazism, and every organized form of racial persecution.

The Frankfurt School

With respect to the subject of the undermining of the American family, and to many other aspects of the Gramscian technique, let us explore briefly the story of the Frankfurt School. This organization of leftist intellectuals, also known as the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, was founded in the 1920s in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. There it flourished amidst the decadence of the Weimar period, both compounding and feeding off the decadence, and extending its influence throughout the country.

With Hitler's acquisition of the chancellorship in 1933, the Jewish leftist stalwarts of the Frankfurt School fled Germany for the United States, where they soon established a new institute at Columbia University. As is characteristic of such men, they repaid their debt to the U.S. for sheltering them from National Socialism by turning their attention to what they regarded as the injustices and social deficiencies inherent to our system and society. Immediately they set about devising a program of revolutionary reform for America.

Max Horkheimer, one of the notables of the Frankfurt School, determined that America's profound allegiance to the traditional family was a mark of our national inclination towards the same fascist system from which he had fled. Explaining this connection between fascism and the American family, he declared: "When the child respects in his father's strength a moral relationship and thus learns to love what his reason recognizes to be a fact, he is experiencing his first training for the bourgeois authority relationship."

Commenting critically on Horkheimer's theory, Arthur Herman writes in The Idea of Decline in Western History: "The typical modern family, then, involves 'sado-masochistic resolution of the Oedipus complex,' producing a psychological cripple, the 'authoritarian personality.' The individual's hatred of the father is suspended and remains unresolved, becoming instead an attraction for strong authority figures whom he obeys unquestioningly." The traditional patriarchal family is thus a breeding ground for fascism, according to Horkheimer, and charismatic authority figures — men like Hitler and Mussolini — are the ultimate beneficiaries of the "authoritarian personality" instilled by the traditional family and culture.

Theodor W. Adorno, another notable of the Frankfurt School, underscored Horkheimer's theory with his own study, published in book form as The Authoritarian Personality, which he authored together with Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford. Upon closer examination, it became apparent to critics that the research on which The Authoritarian Personality was based was pseudo-sociological, flawed in its methodology and skewed in its conclusions. But, the critics were ignored.

America, Adorno and his research team pronounced, was ripe for its own, home-grown fascist takeover. Not only was the American population hopelessly racist and anti-Semitic, but it had far too acquiescent an attitude towards authority figures such as fathers, policemen, clergy, military leaders, and so forth. It was also far too obsessed with such "fascist" notions as efficiency, cleanliness, and success, for these qualities revealed an inward "pessimistic and contemptuous view of humanity," a view that leads, Adorno held, to fascism.

Through such unmitigated balderdash as one finds in the writings of Horkheimer, Adorno, and the other luminaries of the Frankfurt School, the structures of the traditional family and traditional virtue have been called seriously into question and confidence in them blunted. Elected government officials and bureaucrats have contributed to this problem through government taxation policies, which mulct the traditional family while subsidizing anti-traditional modes of life.

Additionally, these officials are inclined more and more towards the elevation of abominations such as homosexual and illicit heterosexual unions to the same level as marriage. Already, in many localities throughout the country and in numerous private corporations, benefits previously reserved to married couples are now granted to unmarried sexual "partners." Even the word "family" is slowly being superseded by the vague euphemism "household."

A Lawless Land

Americans have long boasted that their nation is a government of law, not of men. American law is derived directly from English common law and from the biblical and Christian principles that are at the root of English common law. One would therefore expect law to constitute one of the chief barriers against the subversion of our society. Instead, in the field of law, revolutionary change has become the order of the day, change so astounding that it could not have been imagined by Americans of 50 years ago. None would have dreamed of the outlawing of prayer and any expression of religious conviction on public property, the legalization of abortion as a constitutionally guaranteed "right," and the legalization of pornography, to mention but three.

Clearly expressed principles embraced by the Founding Fathers and set forth in our Constitution are now routinely reinterpreted and distorted. Those that cannot be reinterpreted and distorted, such as the Tenth Amendment, are simply ignored. Worse yet, the ideological agenda underpinning the radicalization of American law is blithely accepted by millions of Americans, who have themselves been radicalized without ever realizing it.

Crucial to the Gramscians' success is the disappearance of all memory of the old civilization and way of life. The older America of unregulated lives, honest government, clean cities, crime-free streets, morally edifying entertainment, and a family-oriented way of life is no longer vivid in the minds of many Americans. Once it is gone completely, nothing will stand in the way of the new Marxist civilization, which demonstrates as nothing else that through the Gramscian method it is indeed possible to "Marxize the inner man," as Malachi Martin wrote in The Keys of This Blood. Then and only then, writes Fr. Martin, "could you successfully dangle the utopia of the 'Workers' Paradise' before his eyes, to be accepted in a peaceful and humanely agreeable manner, without revolution or violence or bloodshed."

It must be evident to all but the most simple souls that after the passage of a generation or two, such ceaseless social conditioning is bound to alter the consciousness and inner-substance of a society, and it is bound to produce significant structural crises within that society, crises that manifest themselves in numberless ways in virtually every community throughout the country.

The Good Fight

It may seem to some that the situation in our nation is hopeless and that no force or agency can possibly put a halt to the insidious strategies working to destroy us. Despite the grim chronicle of the past 60 or 70 years, however, there is still much that may be done and much reason for hope. Families and individual men and women still possess, to a large extent, the freedom to avoid and escape the mind-altering social conditioning of the Gramscians. They have the power to shield themselves from these influences and especially to shield their young. There are alternatives to public schools, television, trashy movies, and strident "rock" music, and those alternatives must be embraced. The propaganda and cultural strychnine must be excluded from our lives.

Those in charge of young people have an especially weighty responsibility. Despite all of the efforts of the radical left and of their sympathizers in the schools and media to transmute young Americans into savages, they must not be allowed to succeed, because disorganized minds — mental vortices of anarchism and nihilism — have no powers of resistance. Savages soon become slaves. Children and youths should be introduced to such bedrock concepts as honesty, decency, virtue, duty, and love of God and country through the lives of authentic national heroes — men like George Washington, Nathan Hale, John Paul Jones, and Robert E. Lee.

Similarly, they will better be able to retain civilized values and maintain healthy minds if they are encouraged to learn to love their cultural inheritance through great literature, poetry, music, and art. Parents must demand from their children the upholding of the morals, manners, and standards of their ancestors.

In school, the young must be required to adhere to high standards of scholarship. Most importantly, traditional religion must be an integral part of daily living.

We as citizens must also exercise our persuasive powers over our elected representatives. In doing this our mindset must be one of demanding absolute non-compromise from politicians. Likewise, in choosing elected representatives at every level, we must look to men and women who refuse to compromise.

Just as importantly, the honorable, uncompromising men and women we elect to represent us must be made aware of the Gramscian strategy of cultural subversion; they must be able to recognize the tactics and strategies being used to undermine the institutions upon which our liberties depend. Building that understanding will, in turn, require the creation of an educated and principled electorate that will impart this wisdom to our representatives — and hold them accountable once they have been entrusted with elective office.

We should never allow ourselves to be stampeded, herd like, into forming opinions and judgments stimulated and orchestrated by the sensationalism of the press and the other media masters. Instead, we must calmly resist their mind-control techniques. We must strive to be independent thinkers. Realizing that we are not alone, we should turn to tradition-minded churches, schools, and political and educational organizations, and there lend our voices and support to the creation of bastions of resistance to the Gramscian onslaught.

Finally, we must never give up our faith in the future and our hope for a better America and world. God, with His infinite power and boundless love for us, will never forsake us but will answer our prayers and reward our efforts, as long as we do not lose our faith. Marxism and whatever other flags the total state parades under these days — are not inevitable and are not the wave of the future. As long as we think and act in the indomitable spirit of our forefathers, we cannot fail.

Tuesday, 12 November 2013

Race and History, Part 1: The Zionist Racism of Anti-Racist Jared Diamond by Paul Grubach

Race and History, Part 1:

The Zionist Racism of Anti-Racist Jared Diamond

Paul Grubach

In the interests of fairness and truth, this review was sent to Professor Jared Diamond prior to its publication here. He was asked to identify any statements that he believes to be false or misleading. No response had been received by press time.

Do Human Races Exist? Do Racial Differences Influence History?

In every society there are social groups whose office is to provide an understanding of the world. These social groups, the culture-bearing strata, in some cases enjoy nearly monopolistic control over a society's world-view. America is no exception: it too has its culture-bearing strata, intellectual and cultural establishments, and media elite that effectively mold the worldview of the masses. One of the most influential of these mind-shaping groups is the Jewish political and cultural establishment.

Social scientists Stanley Rothman and S. Robert Lichter admit quite frankly that:

"Americans of Jewish background have become an elite group in American society, with a cultural influence far beyond their numbers.”

In a study of the Jewish movie moguls that came to dominate Hollywood, noted film industry historian Neal Gabler was more direct:

"The Hollywood Jews created a cluster of images and ideas so powerful that, in a sense, they colonized the American imagination. Ultimately, American values came to be defined largely by the movies the Jews made.”

A similar statement could be made for the Jewish intellectuals that had, and continue to have, a considerable influence upon historiography and the social and biological sciences. They created an ensemble of images, ideas, 'moral' evaluations and ideologies that profoundly impact Western thinking. Predominant forms of belief derive from the fact that the Jewish power elite commands much power and influence in the United States and Europe, and has the authority to impose its viewpoints upon American and European people. This becomes apparent when we consider what left-wing Jewish scientists have written on the race question and the widespread acceptance of their “anti-racist” ideas in Western society.

Do human races actually exist? Or is race an arbitrary, artificial and negative construct that should be discarded? Do biological differences between different ethnic/cultural groups influence the course of history? In this two-part series we will examine Jewish scientist Jared Diamond’s widely influential views on these issues. Indeed, he contends that “the big world impact of his ideas may be in demolishing the basis for racist theories of history and racist views.”

Biologist and historian Diamond began his career in physiology and expanded into other fields such as ornithology, evolutionary biology and biogeography. Currently a professor of geography at the University of California at Los Angeles, he has a long list of honors to his credit, such as the National Medal of Science, a MacArthur Foundation fellowship, and the Tyler Prize for Environmental Science. He has authored numerous best-selling books and has published over two hundred articles in prestigious journals such as Discover, Natural History, Nature, and Geo magazine. His most famous book, Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, won a Pulitzer Prize, the Aventis Prize for Best Science Book, and was made into a major PBS special documentary. Former US President Bill Clinton included the 518 page tome on his reading list—a tribute to its considerable influence upon powerful people.

Jared Diamond: His Ethnic/Cultural Background and Ideological Biases

As this study will ultimately show, Diamond’s racial thought is defective, inconsistent and plagued with a hypocritical double standard. An understanding of Diamond’s background and biases could shed light upon the real reasons as to why his ideology is so ardently promoted.

Like many other Jewish intellectuals, Diamond admits how lurid and brutal stories, real or mythical, about 20th century European history influenced his thinking:

“Living in Europe from 1958 to 1962, among European friends whose lives had been brutally traumatized by 20th-century European history, made me start to think more seriously about how chains of causation operate in history’s unfolding.”

Since the Jewish people’s archenemy, German National Socialism, placed much emphasis upon racial differences, this may have motivated him to become a prominent spokesman for the left-wing movement that insists the traditional racial classifications of mankind should be discarded, and any biologically based mental differences between different ethnic groups are irrelevant to the understanding of history.

Many Jews contend that racialist-nationalist ideologies, advocated by right-wing movements, have had a disastrous effect upon their people. From a 1943 statement of the American Council for Judaism (which was anti-Zionist), we read:

“Racist theories and nationalistic philosophies, that have become prevalent in recent years, have caused untold suffering to the world and particularly to Jews.”

Significantly enough, Diamond admits the most important goal in writing his most famous book, Guns, Germs, and Steel, was to refute the “racist biological explanation” of history, that “history’s pattern reflects innate differences among people themselves. Nevertheless, Diamond’s writings are plagued by a hypocritical double standard on the race issue, especially in regard to his Jewish ethnic group. This becomes readily apparent in his magnum opus.

It has been proposed that genetic differences in intelligence between Europeans and Australian Aborigines explain why the White immigrants to Australia built a technologically, politically advanced society and the native Aborigines remained as tribal hunter-gatherers. Diamond strongly rejects such arguments. In his own words:

“The objection to such racist explanations is not just that they are loathsome, but also that they are wrong.”

Quite predictably, he rejects the belief that Black Americans are innately less intelligent than White Americans, and he attaches the “notorious” label to The Bell Curve, a famous 1994 study that supported the hypothesis of group differences in intelligence.

In the same book, however, Diamond does a 180-degree turn-around and goes on to argue that non-White New Guineans are biologically superior in intelligence to Europeans. He says that, generally speaking, New Guineans impressed him as being more intelligent and alert than the average European and American. He further wrote that in regard to intelligence Europeans have a likely genetic disadvantage when compared to New Guinean people. After enunciating arguments that support his belief, Diamond drew this conclusion:

“In mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners [read: White Europeans], and they surely are superior in escaping the devastating developmental disadvantages under which most children in industrialized societies now grow up.”

According to Diamond’s “morality,” it is “racist” and “loathsome” to argue that White Australians are inherently superior in certain characteristics when compared to Aborigines, but it is “non-racist” and “morally acceptable” for him to claim that non-White New Guineans are genetically superior in intelligence when compared to White Europeans.

The reader should prepare himself for another surprise. In the prestigious scientific journal Nature, our “anti-racist” activist pondered what evolutionary forces operated upon Eastern European Jews to make them biologically different from their non-Jewish neighbors.  Without condemning it as “racist,” he floated the hypothesis that in ages past mutated genes that create high intelligence, but are also linked to genetic diseases, may have spread through the Jewish population. That is to say, the mutated genes may have been positively selected “in Jews for the intelligence putatively required to survive persecution, and also to make a living by commerce, because Jews were barred from the agricultural jobs available to the non-Jewish people.” He further suggested that Jewish men with the ability to be rabbis would be “prized as husbands and would have tended to marry wealthy [Jewish] women capable of nourishing many children.” In other words, Eastern European rabbis of ages past were more able than their competitors to pass their high-intelligence genes down to future generations.

Although he added that this is speculative and other explanations are possible, the reader should note his double standard. He ardently condemns any suggestion that Europeans are genetically superior in intelligence to non-Whites, but he calmly proposes that Jews may have inherited genes which could make them smarter and better than non-Jews. One can see how this could easily merge with a Jewish-Zionist racial supremacist perspective. Indeed, it even suggests that Diamond may not really believe the thesis of his magnum opus, that racial differences play no role in determining the course of history.

In his November 1994 article in the popular Discover magazine, Diamond emphatically declared that dividing humanity up into different races is a totally arbitrary and futile exercise that should be discarded. Traditionally, races were classified on the basis of geographical location and visible physical characteristics. Diamond wrote that we could make an equally reasonable separation on the presence or absence of a gene or a group of genes. By selecting various objective criteria (such as presence or absence of anti-malarial genes, lactose tolerance, fingerprint whorls, skin color, etc.) one could, for example, classify Norwegians and Nigerians as one “race,” and Chinese and Cherokee Indians as another “race.”

Our “anti-racist” crusader hailed Genes, Peoples, and Languages, authored by famous population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, for purportedly dismantling the idea of race. In the New York Review of Books, Diamond saluted Cavalli-Sforza for “demolishing scientists’ attempts to classify human populations into races in the same way that they classify birds and other species into races.” According to this thinking, because the popular assumption of clearly defined races has allegedly been discredited, this will lead to the elimination of so-called “racism.”

However, Diamond’s own words suggest that he subscribes to a double standard. In an article that appeared in the popular Natural History in 1993, Diamond discussed the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this eye-opening statement:

“There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew. For example, a debate is going on right now [November 1993] in Israel concerning policy toward Ethiopia’s remaining would-be immigrants who identify themselves as Jews. Are they descendants of ancient Jews, as they maintain, or are they descendants of converted Africans, as their physical appearance might suggest?”

Diamond opposes classifying human populations into races, except of course as to Jews and non-Jews. He gave his tacit assent to the proposed Israeli-Zionist policy of defining and classifying Jews and non-Jews on the basis of whether or not they possess “Jewish genes.” Indeed, notice what Diamond is saying: there are legitimate grounds for investigating how Jews differ genetically from non-Jews. The Israelis need to know who carries “Jewish genes” so as to determine who will be allowed to settle in the Zionist state.

In his 1994 Discover article he says that the classification of humans into races based upon their biological makeup is “destined to follow the Flat Earth into oblivion.” Yet, in his 1993 Natural History article he told us that the classification of Jews and non-Jews on the basis of genetic makeup has a bright future in Israel, as it may be used to differentiate between Jews and Gentiles. In the 2005 edition of Guns, Germs, and Steel, he tells us that dividing up peoples of the earth on the basis of race, such as “blacks” and “whites,” is arbitrary and misleading. Strangely enough, a few sentences later he writes that “recognizing these major [racial] groups is still so useful for understanding history.”

Diamond wrote in his widely acclaimed The Third Chimpanzee that “Nazi propaganda invoked a pure Aryan race.” Of course, he condemns “racist nonsense [his own words]” such as this. Nevertheless, our militant “anti-racist” maintained in his 1993 Natural History article that his Jewish people are a somewhat “pure race.” He argued against the view that “being Jewish is more a matter of belief than of genes.” Eastern European Jews can be genetically distinguished from European Gentiles, and “the non-Jewish contribution to the Ashkenazic [Jews of central and Eastern Europe] and Sephardic [Jews from Spain and Portugal] Jewish gene pool has been low.” That is to say, the Jewish gene pool is somewhat pure, as it has not been “polluted” by too many non-Jewish genes.

Significantly enough, Diamond’s racial thought dovetails with the view propounded by Israeli scientist Batsheva Bonne-Tamir from the Department of Human Genetics at Tel Aviv University’s Sackler School of Medicine. In a 1985 issue of Nature, we read this description of her findings:

“Preliminary studies using DNA sequences as a new and sophisticated tool for genetic analysis tend to support the conclusions drawn from earlier investigations that the Jews, even after being scattered around the world for two millennia, remain, to a significant degree, genetically distinctive.”

The article goes on to note that this finding has met with opposition from some scientists because “any attempt to suggest the existence of a specific Jewish group is to be rejected as a racist doctrine.”

Like so many other Jewish intellectuals, Diamond has spent a good portion of his career fighting “racist” doctrines that support the racial nationalism of non-Jewish peoples. Yet, he concurrently created a line of argument that merges with an Israeli-inspired racial doctrine that suggests the existence of a specific “Jewish race.” In this context it is worth quoting the prominent Zionist leader, former president of the American Jewish Congress and World Jewish Congress Stephen S. Wise (1874-1949), who told a New York rally in June 1938:

"I am not an American citizen of the Jewish faith, I am a Jew…Hitler was right in one thing. He calls the Jewish people a race and we are a race."

In a sense, Diamond is a replica of Wise: both were involved in “anti-racist” left-wing causes and both supported Jewish-Zionism racialism.

In his Discover article of 1994, Diamond condemned the classification of humans into different races because it:

"shapes our views of other peoples, fosters our subconscious differentiation between ‘us’ and ‘them,’ and is invoked to justify political and socioeconomic discrimination.”

These are precisely the dynamics of the Israeli-Zionist policy that Diamond gave his tacit assent to in his Natural History article of 1993. Knowing if someone possesses “Jewish genes” helps to differentiate between “us” (Jews) and “them” (non-Jews), and can be invoked to “justify” the discriminatory practice of refusing to allow those who lack “Jewish genes” to join the Zionist state.

Diamond points out that:

“few scientists dare to study racial origins, lest they be branded racists just for being interested in the subject.”

The exception of course is if you are Jared Diamond and come to a conclusion that serves Zionists interests, then you are assured of being left in peace.

In the Natural History article, Diamond was quick to downplay the non-Jewish European gene admixture among Ashkenazi Jews and discredit the theory that the Ashkenazim are descended largely from non-Hebrew Central Asian Khazars who converted to Judaism in the 8th century, all in an effort to portray modern Jews as genetic descendents of the ancient Jews of the Old Testament. He focused on research that has shown contemporary Jewish populations (except for the non-ethnically Jewish Ethiopian Jews) to be very closely related and to have ties with the ancient Hebrews of the Middle East.

There are two important points to note. First, Diamond was attempting to refute what Jewish leaders have condemned as an “anti-Jewish libel”: Ashkenazi Jews are not related to the ancient Hebrews of the Middle East, but are the descendants of the Khazar tribe, the pre-tenth century Turko-Asian people who supposedly underwent a mass conversion to Judaism. This defense of “Jewish honor” points to Jewish-Zionist sympathies on his part.

Second, Diamond’s line of argument dovetails with Zionist ideology. One of its standard tenets is that for 2,000 years Jews were dispersed among the nations of the world, and then decided to return to the land of their ancestors in the Middle East. Jews have a natural attachment to the land of Israel, an assertion rooted in Biblical tradition. Lo and behold! Along comes Jared Diamond’s line of argument, which may be used to “justify” and “legitimize” this standard tenet of Zionist ideology. Zionists may now say:

“Jews are not alien invaders on Palestinian territory. Genetic studies show that modern day Jews can trace their ancestry back to the land of Israel. Jews have a right to return to the land of their genetic ancestors.”

Diamond has cautioned against “racist pseudo-science by which white settlers seek to justify dispossessing indigenous peoples.” Nevertheless, a similar version of Diamond’s foregoing argument has been used by Zionist Jews to “justify” the dispossessing of the indigenous people of Palestine.

There is more evidence of Diamond’s allegiance to Jewish-Zionist nationalism. In his highly influential Guns, Germs and Steel, he writes:

“Much of Africa is still struggling with its legacies from recent colonialism. In other regions, including much of Central America, Mexico, New Caledonia, the former Soviet Union, and parts of Indonesia, civil unrest or guerilla warfare pits still-numerous indigenous populations against governments dominated by descendants of invading conquerors. Many other indigenous populations, such as native Hawaiians, Aboriginal Australians, native Siberians, and Indians in the United States, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile became so reduced in numbers by genocide and disease that they are now greatly outnumbered by the descendants of invaders. Although thus incapable of mounting a civil war, they are nevertheless increasingly asserting their rights.”

On another page Diamond makes a similar statement:

“Still other peoples, such as the aboriginal inhabitants of Australia, the Americas, and southernmost Africa, are no longer even masters in their own lands, but have been decimated, subjugated, and in some cases even exterminated by European colonists.”

Notice how Diamond “conveniently” fails to mention one of the most glaring examples of violent colonialism of the modern era, where native people battled against invading conquerors and their descendents, where indigenous people have been decimated and subjugated by colonists from Europe: the Jewish invasion of Palestine and conquest of the native Palestinians. Israeli scholars Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, Simha Flapan, and Ilan Pappe have demonstrated that from its very inception a central plank of Israel’s founding ideology was the forcible removal of Palestinian Arabs and the creation of an ethnically homogenous, Jewish-supremacist state.

This refusal to mention Israel and Zionism in a critical light is a consistent pattern with Diamond. In his well received Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, he discusses the “world’s worst trouble spots,” areas of the globe that are causing severe problems for First-World, industrialized countries like the United States, Europe and Japan. He says the “list of trouble spots should surely include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Burundi, Haiti, Indonesia, Iraq, Madagascar, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Rwanda, the Solomon Islands, and Somalia, plus others.” Notice how he “conveniently” fails to mention the area of the world that could be the flashpoint for the next world war, Israel’s brutal oppression of the Palestinian people in the Middle East.

Moreover, Diamond has made statements that suggest an emotional attachment to Jewish-Zionist tradition. In a trip to Israel in 1992 he visited the fortress of Masada, where in A.D. 73 during the Jewish revolt against Roman rule a small group of Jews, after a year-long siege by a vastly larger Roman army, finally committed mass suicide rather than surrender. Professor Diamond revealed how he identifies with this icon of Jewish history:

“As I stood there on a burning hot day in 1992, I could almost feel the ferocious determination that had driven the besieged [the 960 Jews who refused to surrender to the Romans] to hold out for so long in their hopeless situation.”

It is important to note that just because Diamond’s racial and historical theories may be politically motivated and dovetail with a Jewish-Zionist agenda, this in no way disproves them: they may even be 100% correct. His line of argument is to be examined for its truth and falsity independent of his motives and underlying sympathies. Nevertheless, Diamond’s biases shed light upon why his theories are skewed in a certain direction.

With that said, we now turn our analysis to Jared Diamond’s claim about the crucial biological difference between people of European descent and the hunter-gatherers from technologically primitive societies.

Diamond’s Argument: Why Europeans are allegedly genetically inferior in intelligence to New Guineans

Diamond’s theory of history is summarized with this statement:

“History followed different courses for different peoples because of differences among peoples’ environments, not because of biological differences among peoples themselves."

It is crucial for him to demonstrate that Europeans are genetically inferior in intelligence to non-White “Stone Age” peoples [ “Stone Age peoples” is Diamond’s terminology—Ed.]. In this way, he can rule out genetic differences in intelligence as the reason for the dissimilarity between European and non-White “Stone Age” societies.

This is precisely why Diamond begins his Guns, Germs and Steel by arguing that White Europeans are genetically inferior in intelligence to non-White New Guineans. Indeed, in his outlook “Stone Age” peoples are on average probably more intelligent than people from industrialized nations. Diamond says that it is easy to discern two reasons why his “impression” that native New Guineans are smarter than Westerners may be correct.

So I can never be accused of distorting Diamond’s argument, I will quote him verbatim:

“Europeans have for thousands of years been living in densely populated societies with central governments, police, and judiciaries. In those societies, infectious epidemic diseases of dense populations (such as smallpox) were historically the major cause of death, while murders were relatively uncommon and a state of war was the exception rather than the rule. Most Europeans who escaped fatal infections also escaped other potential causes of death and proceeded to pass on their genes. Today, most live-born Western infants survive fatal infections as well and reproduce themselves, regardless of their intelligence and the genes they bear. In contrast, New Guineans have been living in societies where human numbers were too low for epidemic diseases of dense populations to evolve. Instead, traditional New Guineans suffered high mortality from murder, chronic tribal warfare, accidents, and problems procuring food.”

Diamond continues with this line of thought:

“Intelligent people are likelier than less intelligent ones to escape those causes of high mortality in traditional New Guinea societies. However, the differential mortality from epidemic diseases in traditional European societies had little to do with intelligence, and instead involved genetic resistance dependent on body chemistry. For example, people with blood group B or O have a greater resistance to smallpox than do people with blood group A. That is, natural selection promoting genes for intelligence has probably been far more ruthless in New Guinea than in more densely populated, politically complex societies [of Europe of past ages], where natural selection for body chemistry was instead more potent.”

Finally, he draws the logical conclusion: “In mental ability New Guineans are probably genetically superior to Westerners.”

Charles Darwin argued that chronic warfare could favor the evolution of higher intelligence in humans.
Similar to Charles Darwin’s argument of 1871, Diamond is suggesting that chronic warfare could actually favor the proliferation of genes for higher intelligence in humans. Supposedly, intelligent and cunning men who overcome their enemies in personal conflict and inter-tribal warfare are more likely to survive and pass down their genes as compared to less intelligent men. If a tribesman of higher intelligence invented a new weapon or method of attack and this enabled his tribe to defeat, supplant and eliminate other tribes, then his genes for high intelligence would be favored to survive and proliferate. In addition, more-intelligent people are better able to obtain food and survive in a hostile environment like New Guinea as compared to less-intelligent people. Once again, this supposedly gives intelligent New Guineans an advantage in passing down their genes for higher intelligence.

Diamond’s belief, however, that warfare played almost no role in the evolution of genes for greater intelligence in the European past is very dubious, to say the very least. Warfare has been recorded in Europe during prehistoric and ancient times. Summarizing the findings of a major study of warfare, Harvard sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson pointed out that when “the histories of 11 European countries over periods of 275 to 1,025 years [were analyzed], [it was] found that on the average they were engaged in some kind of military action 47 percent of the time, or about one year out of every two. The range was from 28 percent of the years in the case of Germany to 67 percent in the case of Spain. The early chiefdoms and states of Europe and the Middle East turned over with great rapidity, and much of the conquest was genocidal in nature. The spread of genes has always been of paramount importance.” Directly contradicting Diamond, these somewhat frequent episodes of warfare in Europe could have selected, in accordance with Diamond’s own representation of the process, for genes for high intelligence among European peoples.

Furthermore, Diamond’s contention, that epidemic diseases in traditional European societies of the past would have played no role in the selection for genes for higher intelligence, is very questionable. He ignored the relationship between intelligence and social mobility, and its differential effect upon mortality due to epidemic disease. As the evolutionary psychologist Richard Lynn pointed out, in European societies of ages past those born with qualities needed to move up the social ladder tended to rise in the social hierarchy, while those lacking in such qualities tended to fall.

We let Professor Lynn complete the argument:

“Those who had previously died from infectious diseases were disproportionately the poorer classes, who had lower nutritional status, and many of whom lived in unsanitary conditions in overcrowded and insalubrious towns and cities, where diseases were most virulent; these were less able to escape to the countryside when epidemics appeared. The lower classes tended to be less intelligent and have weaker character than the middle and upper classes as a result of centuries of social mobility, so their differentially high mortality from infectious diseases exerted selection pressure against low intelligence and weak character. As mortality from infectious diseases declined in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this selection pressure weakened, and those with poor general health, low intelligence and weak character were the principal beneficiaries.”

Prior to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, those Europeans who were intelligent enough to fill the roles of military officer, judge, political official, etc and thus were able to obtain the best food, clothing, housing, sanitation, medical care, care for children, etc, would be less susceptible to dying from disease. The end result: they were better able to pass down their genes as compared to those who were not intelligent enough to fill these roles. With the advent of modern medical and health techniques in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, this selection pressure against low intelligence may have weakened, in New Guinea as well as in Europe.

Diamond offers another non-genetic, environmental reason why New Guineans are allegedly superior in intelligence to Europeans. He writes:
“Besides this genetic reason, there is also a second reason why New Guineans may have come to be smarter than Westerners. Modern European and American children spend much of their time being passively entertained by television, radio, and movies. In the average American household, the TV set is on for seven hours per day. In contrast, traditional New Guinea children have virtually no such opportunities for passive entertainment and instead spend almost all of their waking hours actively doing something, such as talking or playing with other children or adults. Almost all studies of child development emphasize the role of childhood stimulation and activity in promoting mental development, and stress the irreversible mental stunting associated with reduced childhood stimulation. This effect surely contributes a non-genetic component to the superior average mental function displayed by New Guineans.”

One wonders if Diamond is really being serious here! He totally ignores the fact that children in the industrialized West are exposed to the mentally stimulating environment of many hours per day of school, where they learn math, science, language, geography, etc. Many of the New Guineans that Diamond refers to do not go to schools, as he admits that the ones from remote villages are “unschooled.” Moreover, even the New Guineans who undergo some type of formal education attend inferior and faulty schools, as two such papers point out.

Diamond is comparing literate and schooled children from Europe and the United States to illiterate, unschooled or poorly schooled children in New Guinea. And even if we compare the native New Guinean children who do attend school to the children in Europe and the United States, does he really believe that the former attend better and more mentally stimulating schools than the latter?

After completing his two-part argument, Diamond makes a generalization that forms a cornerstone of his historical theory:

“The same two genetic and childhood developmental factors are likely to distinguish not only New Guineans from Westerners, but also hunter-gatherers and other members of technologically primitive societies from members of technologically advanced societies in general. Thus, the usual racist assumption [that people from technologically advanced societies are inherently smarter than people from technologically primitive societies] has to be turned on its head. Why is it that Europeans, despite their likely genetic disadvantage [in intelligence] and (in modern times) their undoubted developmental disadvantage, ended up with much more of the cargo [technologically advanced products]? Why did New Guineans wind up technologically primitive, despite what I believe to be their superior intelligence?”

Contrary to what Diamond claims, selection promoting genes for intelligence was probably very intense in European societies of ages past, and there is no reason to believe that it was any less intense as compared to the situation in any hunter-gatherer or technologically primitive society. Furthermore, children from Europe and America are exposed to many hours per day of formal education, while many, if not most, children from hunter-gatherer or technologically primitive societies remain illiterate or attend inferior schools. Again, directly contradicting what Diamond alleges, this advantage should surely contribute a non-genetic component to a better mental functioning of European and American school children.

It is important to note that Diamond has no scientific evidence whatsoever to back up his belief that New Guineans are genetically superior in intelligence to Europeans and other peoples of Eurasian origin: he simply puts forth the aforementioned line of argument, and a very dubious one at that. In the 2005 edition of his magnum opus, he admitted that this belief is a “subjective impression.” That is to say, a “subjective impression” forms the foundation of his Pulitzer Prize winning theory!

Diamond Ignored Scientific Evidence

As psychologist Lynn pointed out, Diamond ignored or dismissed the scientific evidence of intelligence testing, which suggests that, for genetic and/or non-genetic reasons New Guineans as a whole are less intelligent than Europeans.

If Diamond’s theory, that New Guineans are genetically better endowed in intelligence as compared to Europeans, and as children they are exposed to more mentally stimulating environments than Europeans, is correct, then we should expect that educated New Guineans should score quite high on tests of intelligence. Just the opposite is the case.

Professor Lynn discussed the results of a study of New Guinean “high school and university students aged 16 to 19 years who had been selected by competitive examination for secondary school and college and had at least nine years of schooling.” The results indicated that the group as a whole had about the mental age of European 10-year-olds. Nor can Diamond fall back upon the slogan that “the New Guineans really are more intelligent than Europeans, but the intelligence tests are biased against them.” Professor Lynn cites the evidence that shows this to be incorrect.

In Part II, we will evaluate Diamond’s geographical theory of history and show how his distorted racial thought actually reflects and serves the interests of Jewish-Zionist nationalism.


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...