Jul 14, 2015

Divine Intervention

via Radix

Liberals hate Christianity when it serves as an implicit White identity, particularly a rural White identity that is “clung to.” Christianity gets a pass in its WASPish and “high church” variety, that is, when it is essentially vague liberalism with smells and bells. And Liberals unabashedly love Christianity when it serves as an implicit African-American identity. 

This was on display in the reaction to Barack Obama’s recent eulogy for the victims of the Charleston shooting and his stirring rendition of “Amazing Grace.”

One section of his speech stood out to me. Sayeth Obama:
It was an act [the Charleston shooting] that drew on a long history of bombs and arson and shots fired at churches, not random but as a means of control, a way to terrorize and oppress…
… an act that he [Dylann Roof] imagined would incite fear and recrimination, violence and suspicion, an act that he presumed would deepen divisions that trace back to our nation’s original sin.
Oh, but God works in mysterious ways.
God has different ideas.
He didn’t know he was being used by God.
Blinded by hatred, the alleged killer would not see the grace surrounding Reverend Pinckney and that Bible study group, the light of love that shown as they opened the church doors and invited a stranger to join in their prayer circle.
The alleged killer could have never anticipated the way the families of the fallen would respond when they saw him in court in the midst of unspeakable grief, with words of forgiveness. He couldn’t imagine that.
The alleged killer could not imagine how the city of Charleston under the good and wise leadership of Mayor Riley, how the state of South Carolina, how the United States of America would respond not merely with revulsion at his evil acts, but with (inaudible) generosity. And more importantly, with a thoughtful introspection and self-examination that we so rarely see in public life. Blinded by hatred, he failed to comprehend what Reverend Pinckney so well understood—the power of God’s grace.
Few commentators seem to have taken seriously the fact that the President claimed that Dylann Roof “was being used by God.” According to Obama, God wanted Americans to be touched by the story of a mass murder of African-Americans and engage in a “thoughtful introspection and self-examination.” In other words, God made Dylann Roof murder Christians so that Americans would denounce racism and remove the Confederate battle flag from state grounds.

In 2005, President Bush allegedly told a group of Palestinian Christians that God told him to “end the tyranny in Iraq.” For years, his statement was ridiculed.[1] Just imagine if he had instead claimed that God was behind a mass murder of Black people. . .

And last week, some of South Carolina’s universally contemptible and stupid State Representatives chimed in about the “divine intervention” that led them to bring the Flag down. Democrat Grady Brown said, “I have as much heritage as anyone in the world,” which means that he owns a lot of Civil War memorabilia. But then, someone made him change his mind about the flag: “I’m voting to take the flag down because I think it is, in God's eyes, the right thing to do.”

However you might feel about Gray’s and Obama’s comments, this line of thinking is, structurally, undeniably Christian. It is with Christ that God enters the world, that history becomes a redemption story. And no Christian can believe that God is absent from the world, that he is not, in some way, animating the unfolding of events.

Carl Schmitt famously observed that “all significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts.” Which means that liberalism only pretends to be secular.


  1. It’s worth remembering that Bush also said that God told him to create an independent state for the Palestinian people, a deed that, unlike invading Iraq, was left undone. This suggests that Bush, at least in his heart, was not quite the Christian-Zionist fanatic many make him out to be.

An African Planet?: Is This the Way Our World Ends?

via American Renaissance

Africa has become an unprecedented biological, environmental, and socio-political experiment: It is the scene of the biggest population explosion the world has ever seen. According to authoritative figures published by UNICEF in 2014, the number of Africans will grow from 1.033 billion in 2013 to a mammoth 4.2 billion in 2100. In the next 35 years alone, two billion African babies will be born. By 2100, half of all children on earth will be African. These are not simply straight-line projections of present trends, but the best estimates based on current data and historical precedents. This population explosion has huge implications not only for Africa but for the entire world.

In the terse language of the UNICEF demographers we learn that:
The future of humanity is increasingly African. More than half the projected 2.2 billion rise in the world population in 2015-2050 is expected to take place in Africa, even though the continent’s population growth rate will slow. On current trends, within 35 years, 1 in every 4 people will be African, rising to 4 in 10 people by the end of the century. Back in 1950, only 9 among 100 of the world’s number of inhabitants were African.
Over the last 60 years, thanks to Western healthcare, better nutrition, and large amounts of aid, infant death rates declined on the continent, and its population quadrupled from 200 million in 1950. The population will quadruple yet again over the next 60 years, meaning that in the 150 years from 1950 to 2100, the continent’s population would have increased by a staggering 1,830 percent.


Many European countries have just a few million people. For Slovaks or Latvians, for example, Germany, with its 80 million people feels like an overpowering presence. China (1.4 billion), India (1.3 billion), the USA (323 million), and Indonesia (253 million) are also huge.

But Nigeria alone already has a population of 178 million–more than double the size of Germany–and over the next 35 years 21 percent of all African and 8 percent of world births will be Nigerian. By 2100, assuming current projections hold, Nigeria will have a population of 914 million, and will rival China and India as a demographic superpower. Other African nations are growing even more rapidly.

The country with the fastest population growth in Africa is Niger, which has a population of “only” 19 million people–which still puts it ahead of the Netherlands. Niger’s women have the highest adolescent fertility rate in the world, and an average of 7.5 children each. Current projections are of a 226 percent rise from 2015 to 2050 in the number of children in Niger, with the nation’s population rising to 204 million in 2100. This is projected growth of 1,073 percent in just 85 years, and at 204 million people, its population would rival that of Brazil today.

European populations in decline

Only a little over a century ago, Europeans were still 25 percent of the world population. In 1950, there were nearly twice as many Europeans as Africans, but in 1996, Africa’s population surpassed that of Europe. In 2010, according to UN figures, the population of continental Europe was 740 million, or only 11 percent of the global population. Even adding the 250 million or so people of European descent in North America, Australia/New Zealand and South Africa/Namibia brings Europeans to no more than 14 percent of the global population–just at a time when we hear of “Africa Rising.”

This term has been used to describe economic growth in sub-Saharan Africa, but applies even more to Africa’s burgeoning population, especially its child population. By 2100, the African population could be increasing by 300 million–the equivalent of the current population of the United States–every 2 years! By that time, blacks would outnumber whites four to one, and even more if we count blacks who have already left Africa.

The following projections show Africa’s population surpassing that of Europe and North America, and approaching that of Asia.


What these projections do not show are the disparities in age profile by continent. Africa is by far the youngest continent while Europe, together with Japan, is the oldest. Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that, even in the USA, the population is aging so rapidly that sales of incontinence pads for the elderly rose by 20 percent from 2009-2013, while those of baby diapers declined by 8 percent, forcing manufacturers to “reposition themselves”.

The European Union regularly publishes an Ageing Report on the dismal fertility rates of Europeans. The 2015 report finds that median European fertility dropped from 2.67 in 1960 to 1.56 in 2012, which is well below the replacement rate of 2.1.

In 2000, the following countries had total fertility rates of less than 1.4: Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia. Most European population projections assume net migration from the Third World, without which populations would be declining, since deaths exceed births. The Japanese, who accept essentially no immigrants, saw their population drop by 268,000 in 2014.

It is in order to avoid outright decline that Chancellor Angela Merkel recently declared that Germany had become “a country of immigration . . . . There is something enriching if someone wants to come to us.” In 2014, Germany received 200,000 applications for asylum, and took in a total of 800,000 immigrants.


In a few decades, the European old-age dependency ratio–the number of people age 65 and over to those of productive age between 15 and 64, will rise above 50 percent. A report from the Eurostat statistical agency states that:
Europe is currently the oldest continent with the highest old-age dependency ratio, and will remain so in 2060. Other parts of the world are, however, also experiencing a dramatic ageing of their populations, with old-age dependency ratios climbing to levels clearly above the ones in Europe now on all continents except Africa.
The old-age dependency ratio in Europe, which includes Russia and other non-EU countries, could reach 50 percent in 2040 and stay there. China, which also has rapidly aging population, could reach 50 percent by 2060.

In Africa, by contrast, the average age is only 18; 40 percent of Africans are 14 years old or younger. By 2040, when most of Europe will be a vast old-age home, with only two workers to support each person over 65, Africa’s old-age dependency ratio will be only 7.8 percent.

Swarming into the cities

As Africa’s population rises, it faces a separate crisis: A mass influx into the cities. Many people believed that economic growth and better communications–until the arrival of cell phones almost no one in sub-Saharan Africa had a telephone–would lead to a more dispersed population growth.

In South Africa before black rule, whites had a plan, sometimes known as grand apartheid, whereby blacks would be given local autonomy in homelands. White leaders believed that if they sent aid to black homelands and created jobs there, rural blacks would stop migrating to the then majority-white cities. As anyone visiting Johannesburg or Pretoria today can see, that plan failed. Most Africans would rather live in a shanty on the outskirts of a Western city than farm or create jobs in their own areas.

Johannesburg slum
Johannesburg slum

One of South Africa’s right-wing politicians, Dr. Albert Hertzog, long shunned by the establishment for his blunt views, famously opposed granting more land to blacks, saying:
The black man is no agriculturalist. He settles in the white cities, attracted by the great numbers of people there, by the sense of togetherness; so it is claimed. Does he therefore need more land? Does he not just need more cities, like those of the whites? Then he would not need more land, of course. (Oproep tot die stryd, p. 141)
By Hertzog’s logic, the vast continent of Africa was of little value to Africans, other than as a store of resources to sell the world. In the meantime Africa is urbanising very rapidly, just as he predicted. According to the African Development Bank:
More than 90 percent of future population growth [over the next 35 years] will be accounted for by the large cities in the developing countries. In the developing world, Africa has experienced the highest urban growth . . . .
Rural-urban migration and natural population growth rates in cities are the major causes of the increasing rate of urban growth and slum proliferation in Africa. . . . As a consequence, many African cities have to deal not only with slum proliferation but also with increasing insecurity and crime.
The South African experience, whereby Africans abandoned their rural, ancestral lands to flock to the cities, is not just a national but a global phenomenon. Recently, The Wall Street Journal reported that economic growth and better communications stimulate emigration to Europe:
Senegal is a stable West African democracy, and Kothiary (a village in Senegal) has profited from the currents of globalization transforming rural Africa’s more prosperous areas. Flat screen TVs and, increasingly, cars–mostly purchased with money wired home by villagers working in Europe–have reshaped what was once a settlement of mud huts. The wealth has plugged this isolated landscape of peanut farms and baobab trees into the global economy and won respect for the men who sent it.
But it has also put European living standards on real-time display, and handed young farm hands the cash to buy a ticket out . . . West Africa houses several of the world’s faster-growing economies but is also sending some of the most migrants out.
In other words, Africans now look to Europe as their El Dorado, just as Latin American peasants have long looked to the United States.

Now that Mrs. Merkel has discovered “diversity,” and with so many Africans eager to diversify an aging Germany, it is not impossible that Europe’s largest economy could become increasingly African, a little like the old Western-style, white-run South Africa of two decades ago.

Germany dominates Europe because of its phenomenal gains in productivity. But as Germans fail to reproduce themselves, could Germany–and the rest of Europe–be dominated by the Africans who are already streaming across the Mediterranean? In democracies, numbers are everything. In South Africa, blacks relentlessly apply their demographic advantage at all levels: politics, the economy, sport and culture.


In 1973, French author Jean Raspail depicted the non-violent conquest of Europe in his dystopian novel The Camp of the Saints. But Mr. Raspail’s literary fantasy offers only one scenario, a kind of “Death of the West,” in which the poor from the Third World invade France and then other Western countries.

Reality could be less straightforward. Africa’s phenomenal growth since 1950 could lead to at least three scenarios. I call them “planets” because Planet Earth will be radically changed by Africa’s population explosion.

Imagine this possible future: The average European will look out of his window and no longer see white people but Africans, the women wearing wigs, carrying children on their backs, and the men ambling along with shaven heads. When the European switches on the TV, all the faces of the news readers and politicians will be African. After the news, there will be a soap opera about an African chief who rules in a benevolent way over his subjects, solving their business disputes and love quarrels. There are scenes in which people succumb to supernatural influences and witchdoctors’ spells.

If this sounds outlandish, I have just described contemporary South Africa. Whites are 9.1 percent of the population and still pay at least half of all taxes, but they have no government representation–not even at the local level. Major global corporations advertise their products in the slots between episodes of Muvhango, a black soap opera broadcast in several African languages, and where the influence of dead ancestors is discussed in business meetings as naturally as getting the next government contract. This could be the “brave new world” at the end of this century if Africa’s young, mobile population settles the globe, displacing elderly Europeans.

Planet 1: A South-Africanized Europe

June 7 through 15, 2015, was a glimpse of one possible future in which Europe, if not the rest of the world, is ruled by Africans. This was the summit meeting of the states of the African Union, held in Johannesburg’s business district, known as Sandton. In flew dozens of African presidents and dictators, including the newly elected president of the Africa Union, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.

They and their entourages stayed in five-star hotels, ate South Africa’s finest cuisine, and picked up luxury brands such as Gucci, Louis Vuitton, Hugo Boss, Dolce & Gabbana, and Burberry at the Sandton City complex. According to a local newspaper, Prada has built its largest store right here in Sandton, a first-world island where Citibank, Deutsche Bank, and Merrill Lynch trade derivatives on a continent where hundreds of millions survive on one dollar a day.

The African Union (AU) conference was only slightly tarnished by an attempt to have Omar al-Bashir, dictator of the Sudan, arrested and prohibited from leaving the country. He is wanted by the International Criminal Court in The Hague for committing genocide in Darfur, so a white judge of the High Court in Pretoria issued an injunction that he be detained. The African heads of state stood together in denouncing Western “interference in the continent’s affairs,” and at the end of the summit Mr. al-Bashir got on his private jet and flew back to Sudan.

Only one high-profile white face was to be seen amidst all the pomp and splendor at Sandton: that of Angelina Jolie, who had come as the UN’s Special Envoy for Refugee Issues. There were no other prominent whites at the conference, making it a perfect reflection of African demography. But what about the 5,000,000 whites in South Africa and Namibia, who still man the technical positions and, together with corporations, pay for the glitter of an AU summit?


Africans would reply that they are too few and too old to be represented. However, it was announced during the summit that South Africa, which already pays more AU dues than Nigeria–despite having only one third its population–would increase its contribution to the AU budget by another $60 million. Whites are a useful source of revenue. Western countries, too, contribute generously to the AU, which is nothing more than a talk shop, where the speeches consist of calls for pan-Africanism and whose president, Robert Mugabe, is the global spokesman for expelling all whites from Africa. On a previous visit to South Africa, he objected to the presence of a white reporter in the media contingent following him around, stating, “I don’t want to see white faces.”

If Africans begin to dominate Europe they will increasingly control international institutions such as the UN, and perhaps even the IMF and the World Bank. They will spend everyone else’s money just as they spend white South African taxpayers’ money. As in South Africa, there will be vast transfers of wealth from Europe and North America.

Perhaps there would be a few attempts to halt this process, even in Africa itself. In her recent book, Dead Aid, Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo argues that Africans have not benefited from the $1 trillion in aid that rich countries have given the continent over the last 40 years or so.

Miss Moyo is rare among Africans, in opposing straight transfers of wealth. She offers a free-market solution to Africa’s problems by suggesting the continent should develop its trade with China, which could potentially rise to $500 billion per year. She also says Africans should take advantage of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), passed by the US Congress in 2000, which offers favorable treatment for exports to America. South Africa benefits from AGOA by assembling German and Japanese-branded cars and exporting them to the USA. Software billionaire Bill Gates called Miss Moyo’s book “evil,” insisting that “millions of African children are being saved by aid.”

Dambisa Moyo
Dambisa Moyo
Miss Moyo writes nothing about the continent’s galloping demography, but she does note that:
The UN estimates that there are around 33 million Africans living outside their country of origin. Nigerians and Ghanaians principally move to the United States, Malians and Senegalese settle in France, and the majority of Congolese make their home in the Netherlands. Some 30 percent of Mali’s population lives elsewhere. In total, emigrants represent almost 5 percent of Africa’s total population, and they are yet another source of money to help fuel Africa’s development.
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out, however, remittances stimulate emigration rather than development. Many outsiders believed, optimistically, that with all its land, water, minerals, and other resources, Africa would create its own Western-style wealth so that Africans could stay home. These people would do well to watch a popular weekly TV series called Voetspore (literally “Foot tracks”), broadcast in Afrikaans in South Africa.

Voetspore is a low-budget program in which a few Boer 4 x 4 enthusiasts in two pick-up trucks explore every country on the continent. It shows the real Africa, far from the rhetoric of official reports and the media. There is an undercurrent of irony in the commentary, usually expressed by describing varying levels of chaos and catastrophe in over-polite terms.

The first thing viewers realize is that the frail infrastructure on the continent cannot even sustain the current population, let alone the extra three billion who are on the way. Even the toughest vehicles break down on African roads that are mostly dirt tracks through the bush. It can take the Voetspore drivers weeks to get through a country, as they bog down in mud, get sick and have to be flown back to South Africa, wait for corrupt bureaucrats to stamp their passports, etc.


A tourist trip in two super-equipped, rugged vehicles requires supplies, resources, military-style planning, and precautions against disaster. How on earth are four billion people going to survive without infrastructure, intensive farming, and good government?

The sad truth is that Africa’s “economic miracle” will never happen. As the population grows, survival will mean only one thing: emigration. The bright lights of Europe and North America–and of South Africa for those who cannot manage to leave the continent–will exert a hypnotic attraction. Many Africans will buy plane tickets financed by their relatives already overseas, or by Western aid money, and those who cannot afford to fly will pile into rickety ships to cross the Mediterranean. The African avalanche is inevitable.

The rush to Europe will be so massive and relentless that it will not be possible to stop it without direct military force. That would require a fundamental ideological change, and without such a change, at some point in the 21st century, Europe will accept African domination. This is not as preposterous as it sounds; most Europeans will be as resigned to black rule as white South Africans are today. Liberal Europeans will probably fight as hard as Africans to implement the current South African system of race preferences, quotas and forced integration.

Africans are not good at engineering, science, management, maintenance of complex systems, and a host of other things, but they excel at politics. In fact, the entire African elite, as well as the Afro-American elite in the United States, is engaged in a form politics. Business, sport, culture, religion, education–in fact, all fields of human endeavor–become extensions of a racial politics designed to push forward the interests of one group at the expense of others.

Given the West’s simplistic notion of “democracy” as counting votes, it is hard to see what will stop the Africans. Every African born on the continent is a potential voter, and as South Africans say: “Vote for a living, don’t work for a living!” There will be four billion voters in Africa, and their voting power will spill far beyond the continent and overwhelm the paltry, aging populations of Europe.

America already has an African president and the UN used to have one in the person of Kofi Annan. No doubt they will have successors. Already, Africans are clamoring for UN Security Council reform that will give them a bigger say in world affairs. Sustained by the most prolific population the world has ever seen, Africans will rule in parliaments, corporate boardrooms, and universities.

In South Africa, blacks assert their rights as the original, “indigenous” owners of the land. In Europe and elsewhere, they will assert their rights–perhaps even more ruthlessly–as conquerors. As in South Africa, they may change the names of cities. Pretoria was renamed after an unknown black chief named “Tshwane.” Andries Pretorius of the Great Trek was no longer worthy of having a city named after him.


In time, everything will belong to Africans. Not so long ago, a black man lodged an official claim to the entire city of Pretoria, complete with its $50 billion economy, saying that the land had belonged to an ancestor. It only sounds absurd. Once legislation gives them the force of law, nothing will stop claims of reparations for slavery, colonialism, racism, and sundry historical slights. Spain was once ruled by Moors from Africa. Once it is dominated by Africans, nothing will prevent a “land claim” for the entire Iberian Peninsula. The rest of Europe would follow.

Like many places in the United States, Johannesburg quickly went from white to black. Paris, Amsterdam, Rome, and Berlin could do the same. The world has already accepted the notion that Africa is “the cradle of mankind” and that “everyone is African.” A new mythology could arise through which Africans claim all of Eurasia.

The remaining Europeans of working age will work very hard for their African masters. After the South African model is implemented, in order to register a business, a white will need a black partner who owns 51 percent of the equity. While the European serves customers and balances the books, the African partner goes shopping. He may attend a few meetings, for which he will habitually arrive late. In South Africa, we have grown accustomed to “African time,” a casual attitude toward deadlines and appointments.

Taxes will be spent on feasting in luxury hotels. There will be glittering conferences about “challenges” and “issues” that accomplish nothing. As South Africa’s president Jacob Zuma managed to do recently, black leaders will charter four airplanes to make one overseas trip. Their status, comfort, and prestige will be paramount.

There might be moments of resistance to the Africanization of Europe and even North America, but barring any major change or catastrophe of global proportions, it will be Africa Rising all the way, with the Dark Continent taking its place in the sun. Heaven knows what would succeed such a system.

Such is my first scenario or “planet,” but I can imagine two others. Planet Two would be Malthusian collapse as hunger and disease strike the continent. Hundreds of millions of people could die, despite the international community’s best efforts to save them.

Planet Three would be midway between One and Two. The West would eventually muster half-hearted resistance to the African invasion, but only after Europe’s identity and economy were battered by millions of newcomers. The result could be a nightmare of racial and ethnic conflict, made even more complex and brutal by a wave of Muslims from the East. This scenario is perhaps the most likely, but at the same time the most difficult to envisage. Race, demography, religion, technology, and ideology would combine to produce a powerful cocktail that could result in nothing short of devastation.

The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945, Part 3

via Carolyn Yeager

Listen Now

Part 1
Part 2

Carolyn reads chapters 5 and 6. Chapter 5, "The Testimony of Witnesses," looks into how credible witness testimony was obtained by the judges. All witnesses took a "real" oath, and the judges sought verification for all testimony, sometimes going to great length to do so.

Chapter 6, "Expert Medical Opinion" explains how medical officers distinguish the nature of wounds, whether from battle or deliberate mutilation, whether inflicted before or after death. The most common mutilations (which occurred daily on the Eastern Front) were the gouging out of eyes and the cutting off of genitals. Severing feet and hands was also carried out by the savage Russian and Jewish partisans. 1hr12m 

Corporal Hans Muth, victim of mutilation: medical examination determined that his eyes had been deliberately put out while he was unconcious

The SS Empire Windrush: The Jewish Origins of Multicultural Britain

via The Occidental Reporter

The Beginning of the End: Jamaican Blacks
disembark from the Empire Windrush
Will you find out who is responsible for this extraordinary action? -Oliver Stanley, M.P., June 1948.

The SS Empire Windrush holds a special place of infamy in the minds of British Nationalists. When the ship arrived at Tilbury docks from Jamaica in June 1948, carrying 417 Black immigrants, it represented more than just a turning point in the history of those ancient isles. In some respects it signalled the beginning of mass, organized non-White immigration into northwest Europe. Back in November, TOO published my research on the role of Jews in limiting free speech and manipulating ‘race relations’ in Britain in order to achieve Jewish goals and protect Jewish interests. I’ve recently been revisiting some of my past essays, delving deeper and expanding each of them in an effort that I hope will result in the publication of a book-length manuscript on aspects of Jewish influence. During this process, I’ve been particularly compelled to research further into the role of Jews in Britain’s immigration and racial questions. What I present in this essay is a survey of some interesting facts, which I hope to document and integrate further as my work on the volume proceeds.

One of the things that struck me most when I began looking into the origins of multicultural Britain was the hazy and confused background to the arrival of that notorious ship. First though, I might point out one of history’s bizarre ironies —  the vessel that would signal the end of racial homogeneity in Britain started life as a Nazi cruise liner. The ship began its career in 1930 as the MV Monte Rosa. Until the outbreak of war it was used as part of the German Kraft durch Freude (‘Strength through Joy’) program. ‘Strength through Joy’ enabled more than 25 million Germans of all classes to enjoy subsidized travel and numerous other leisure pursuits, thereby enhancing the sense of community and racial togetherness. Racial solidarity, rather than class position, was emphasized by drawing lots for the allocation of cabins on vessels like the Monte Rosa, rather than providing superior accommodation only for those who could afford a certain rate. Until the outbreak of war, the vessel was employed in conveying NSDAP members on South American cruises. In 1939 the ship was allocated for military purposes, acting as a troopship for the invasion of Norway in 1940. In 1944, the Monte Rosa served in the Baltic Sea, rescuing Germans trapped in Latvia, East Prussia and Danzig by the advance of the Red Army.

Finally, in May 1945, her German career ended when she was captured by advancing British forces at Kiel and taken as a prize of war. The British renamed her Empire Windrush on 21 January 1947, and also employed her as a troop carrier. Sailing from Southampton, the ship took British troops to destinations as varied as Suez, Aden, Colombo, Singapore and Hong Kong. Crucially, the ship was not operated directly by the British Government, but by the New Zealand Shipping Company.

It is with this little fact that we begin tumbling down the proverbial rabbit hole. I quickly discovered that the New Zealand Shipping Company, like other crucial players in the story of the Windrush, was Jewish owned and operated. The company was for the most part controlled by the Isaacs family, particularly the direct descendants of Henry and George Isaacs. Henry and George left England in 1852 at the instigation of a third brother, Edward, and arrived in Auckland via Melbourne. They established the firm of E & H Isaacs, acting as profiteers during the Taranaki and Waikato war, and winning a number of heavy contracts in connection with the provisioning of the troops.

Henry took a great interest in shipping affairs, and was for many years a member of the Auckland Harbour Board. He was one of the chief shareholders of the Auckland Shipping Company, which was subsequently merged into the New Zealand Shipping Company. The other major shareholders of the company were Laurence and Alfred Nathan, of L.D. Nathan & Company. The Auckland shipping industry, like many colonial shipping routes, had by the 1890s been effectively monopolized by Jews. During 1947 and 1948 many former German vessels were passed on to several of these contracted private companies at the discretion of the Ministry for War and the Ministry for Transport. The Secretary of State for War during these crucial years was none other than Emanuel Shinwell, the socialist son of Polish and Dutch Jews. With a degree of loyalty and patriotism typical of his race, Shinwell was discovered by MI5 to have been passing British secrets to the Irgun in Palestine in November 1947. To Shinwell, disproportionately handing government vessels and contracts to fellow Jews would have been mere grist to the mill.

A Vanity Fair Depiction of N.Z. Shipping Company Magnate Henry Isaacs
A Vanity Fair Depiction of N.Z. Shipping Company Magnate Henry Isaacs

In 1948 the British Empire was crumbling. India had been granted independence in 1947, and an exhausted, over-stretched, and indebted Britain was busy arranging for the return of colonial troops to their homelands, and the collection of others for present or future conflicts. The Windrush was used mainly for this purpose until in May 1948 the ship’s Jewish operators were given permission by the British Ministry of Transport to increase their profits by filling to capacity with commercial customers (immigrants rather than contracted troops) at Jamaica before returning to Britain with these new settlers. This momentous decision appears to have been taken very arbitrarily (and certainly un-democratically) since it elicited great shock and confusion among British politicians when it later came to light. They might not have been so shocked had they considered the ethnic origin of the head of the Ministry for Transport who authorized that action. The Minister of Transport in that crucial period was Harry Louis Nathan, formerly a member of the law firm of Herbert Oppenheimer, Nathan and Vandyk, and a distant relative of the owners of the NZ Shipping Company.

Harry Nathan: Approved non-White Immigration to Britain
Harry Nathan: Approved non-White Immigration to Britain

If the web is already beginning to look a little tangled, readers would do well to consider some of these developments and ‘coincidences’ within the context of the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, a topic I covered for TOO about three years ago. From the early 19th century until the First World War, English Jewry was ruled by a tightly connected oligarchy. Daniel Gutwein states that this Anglo-Jewish elite comprised some twenty inter-related Ashkenazi and Sephardic families including the houses of Goldsmith, Montagu, Nathan, Cohen, Isaacs, Abrahams, Samuel, and Montefiore. Some of these names have featured already, and will feature again in the Windrush story. At its head, of course, stood the House of Rothschild.[1] This network of families had an “exceptionally high degree of consanguinity,” leading to it being termed “The Cousinhood.”[2] Conversion and intermarriage in the group was exceptionally rare, if not non-existent. The business activities of the group overlapped to the same degree as their bloodlines. I illustrated this in my previous essay by pointing out that:
In 1870, the treasurer of the London Jewish Board of Guardians was Viennese-born Ferdinand de Rothschild (1838–1898). Ferdinand had married his cousin Elvina, who was a niece of the President of the London United Synagogue, Sir Anthony de Rothschild (1810–1876). Meanwhile, the Board of Deputies was at that time headed by Moses Montefiore, whose wife, a daughter of Levi Barent Cohen, was related to Nathan Meyer Rothschild. Nathan Meyer Rothschild’s wife was also a daughter of Levi Barent Cohen, and thus Montefiore was uncle to the aforementioned Anthony de Rothschild. … Anthony was married to a niece of Montefiore, the daughter of Abraham Montefiore and Henrietta Rothschild[3]et cetera, et cetera. In financial terms, the houses of Rothschild and Montefiore had united in 1824 to form the Alliance Insurance Company, and most of the families were involved in each other’s stock-brokering and banking concerns. Endelmann notes that in these firms “new recruits were drawn exclusively from the ranks of the family.”[4] Working tightly within this ethnic and familial network, the Cousinhood amassed huge fortunes, and in the years before World War I, despite comprising less than three tenths of 1% of the population, Jews constituted over 20% of non-landed British millionaires.[5] William Rubinstein notes that of these millionaires, all belonged to the Cousinhood.[6]
It was the Cousinhood that pioneered the way into direct political power for Jews in Britain. By 1900, through a process of ethnic and familial networking, the Cousinhood had secured many of the most significant administrative positions in the Empire. Feldman notes that the Nathan family alone had by that date secured the positions of Governor of the Gold Coast, Hong Kong and Natal, Attorney-General and Chief Justice in Trinidad, Private Secretary to the Viceroy of India, Officiating Chief Secretary to the Governor of Eastern Bengal and Assam,  and Postmaster-General of Bengal.[7] In Parliament, Lionel Abrahams was Permanent Assistant Under-Secretary at the India Office, working under his cousin Edwin Montagu who was then Parliamentary Under-Secretary for India.[8] Together with the rapid development of a Jewish monopoly over key Imperial positions were countless cases of nepotistic corruption and profit-seeking. The Cousinhood was instrumental in disseminating false Russian pogrom narratives throughout the West, in fomenting the profit-driven Boer War, and in the Indian Silver and Marconi scandals.

The Nathan and Isaacs families who owned and operated the New Zealand Shipping Company also comprised part of the Cousinhood, as was the case also with Harry Nathan who occupied the strategically valuable position of Ministry for Transport between 1946 and 1948. These were crucial years in which many foreign and domestic ex-military vessels were being re-purposed for commercial purposes and handed over by the Royal Navy to private (most often Jewish-owned) companies. Much like the nepotistic corruption at the heart of the Marconi scandal, having a Jew running the Ministry for War and a Jewish cousin running the Ministry for Transport was good news for Cousinhood members who had monopolized shipping companies and routes and now stood to gain from successive government contracts to newly acquisitioned vessels like the Empire Windrush. These government contracts and the Jewish quest for profit played a huge role in the burgeoning of the commercial passenger industry that would bring wave after wave of Blacks, Indians and Pakistanis to Britain over the next two decades.


It doesn’t really concern me whether the beginnings of this movement was part of a concerted campaign to flood Britain with non-Whites, whether the motivation was purely profit-driven, or whether it was a mixture of both. The fact remains that Jews occupied conspicuous roles throughout the process. Even the method by which Blacks were enticed to set sail for Britain must be remarked upon. Around three weeks before the Empire Windrush arrived in Jamaica, Blacks were bombarded with ads for cheap travel to Britain and articles extolling the new life they could have in London. Stephen Pollard writes that “the response was almost instantaneous. Queues formed outside the booking agency and every place was sold.”[9] Many of the ads were propaganda pieces that presented an idealized picture of life and job opportunities in Britain — in stark contrast to the bleak reality. Nonetheless, the ads were successful in generating a buzz of excitement among Blacks keen to make the move to the new welfare state.

Daniel Lawrence quotes, as an example, one migrant who explained his move to Britain: “Well, I left Jamaica because I saw the advertisements in The Gleaner. … I left to better my position. That was the chief reason.”[10] The Gleaner, is part of the Gleaner Company which to this day enjoys an effective monopoly of the Jamaican press. The company has its origins in 1834, when it was founded by the Jewish brothers Jacob and Joshua De Cordova. Since its founding it has been a kind of Jamaican micro-Cousinhood. Even when it registered as a private company in 1897, its first directors possessed a mixture of Ashkenazi and Sephardi names, from Ashenheim to de Mercado. At the time the Empire Windrush ads appeared, the managing director was Michael de Cordova. Even as late as the 1960s, and despite numbering no more than six hundred in the whole country, according to Anita Waters the powerful Jewish minority of Jamaica controlled “many of the larger economic enterprises.”[11] Before the socialist policies of the Manley administration were implemented (1972–1980), Jews “controlled the country’s only cement factory, the radio sector, the telephone company, and the largest rum company.”[12]

For all intents and purposes, the Empire Windrush was passed into Jewish ownership by a Jewish Secretary for War, given the green light to boost profits and start bringing non-Whites to Britain by a Jewish Minister for Transport, and provided with armies of eager passengers by a Jewish-owned media. Despite these facts, a very different narrative emerged in the aftermath of the ship’s arrival. Pollard writes that “in the years since the arrival of the Empire Windrush … a myth has taken hold that the British government was responsible for bringing the passengers over as part of a concerted plan to help overcome a labour shortage. …But this is wrong. It is clear from the reaction of ministers that they were as surprised as the public when they first learned, via a telegram from the Acting Governor of Jamaica on May 11, what was about to happen.”[13] The myth was a helpful one because it acknowledged the un-democratic nature of the event while deflecting blame away from the most obvious source of the scourge — the Jews of the shipping industry and the Ministry of Transport. It’s an interesting fact that, with the relevant contracts assigned and the process underway, Harry Nathan quietly vacated his position on May 31. Astonishingly, since that date Nathan has eluded all scholarly and journalistic attention until my own investigation.

The Labour government fumbled in the aftermath of the arrival of the Empire Windrush, clinging to the fantasy that upholding the ‘tradition’ that members of the colonies should be “freely admissible to the United Kingdom” could act as a means of holding the crumbling Empire together.[14] Part of the Cabinet’s strict adherence to this established, but previously superfluous, protocol, may also have been influenced by the interpretation of existing immigration law presented to them. The responsibility for interpreting existing law for the Crown and the Cabinet lies with the Solicitor General — a role that had been occupied since 1945 by yet another Jew, Frank Soskice. As I noted in a previous essay, Soskice would later introduce Britain’s first legislation containing a provision prohibiting ‘group libel.’ Soskice, was the son of a Russian-Jewish revolutionary exile. It was Soskice who “drew up the legislation” and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.” The Act “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places.”
Crucially, the 1965 Act created the ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research. Clearly Soskice would have been at pains to admonish, with legal jargon, any ‘racist’ reactions among Ministers to the arrival of Empire Windrush and subsequent streams of Black immigrants sailing on Jewish vessels. It was Soskice who informed Arthur Creech Jones, the anti-immigration Minister for Labor, that neither the Jamaican nor the British government had any legal power in peacetime to prevent the landing at Tilbury of the Empire Windrush. And so the former Monte Rosa, once a triumphant symbol of ‘Strength through Joy,’ disgorged its passengers on the Thames as part of a new initiative: ‘Destruction through Diversity.’ It was soon followed by numerous other troopships, like the SS Orbita, laden with dusky immigrants and stinking of “vomit and urine.”[15]
It was only during the next Churchill government that some reflection took place on the longer-term implications of what had begun, with Churchill recorded by Sir Norman Brook as remarking:
Problems will arise if many colored people settle here. Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in the UK? Attracted by Welfare State. Public Opinion in UK won’t tolerate it once it gets beyond certain limits.[16]
But by then it was too late. Over the course of the following decade, Black immigration to Britain increased dramatically. Between 1948 and 1952 between around 2,000 Blacks entered Britain each year. By 1957 the figure had climbed to 42,000. Government investigations into this new population revealed that the idea that Blacks were helping fill a labor shortage was grossly ill-founded. In one report, completed in December 1953, civil servants stated that the new population found it difficult to secure employment not because of prejudice among Whites, but because the newcomers had “low output” and their working life was marked by “irresponsibility, quarrelsomeness, and lack of discipline.” Black women were “slow mentally,” and Black men were “more volatile in temperament than white workers … more easily provoked to violence … lacking in stamina,” and generally “not up to the standards required by British employers.”[17]

Worse, future social and criminal patterns were already being established. In 1954 Home Secretary David Maxwell Fyfe issued a secret memorandum to the cabinet on blacks pimping White women, stating that: “Figures I have obtained from the Metropolitan police do show that the number of colored men convicted for this offense is out of all proportion to the number of colored men in London.”[18] Three months later he again wrote to the cabinet stressing that “large numbers of colored people are living on national assistance or the immoral earnings of white women.”[19] While the famed Notting Hill Race Riots of 1958 are often pointed to as an example of Black victimhood and the need for a Black reaction against White ‘oppression,’ the riots were instead the culmination of White reactions against Black crime and miscegenation. Earlier in 1958 the Eugenics Society, now the Galton Institute, issued warnings that the mingling of races that had started in Britain “ran counter to the great developing pattern of human evolution” and attacked the United Nations for minimizing the “quite obvious dissimilarities between people and individuals.”[20] The Notting Hill riots, occurring a decade after the arrival of Empire Windrush, were seeded one August evening when White youths intervened in an argument between a Swedish prostitute and her Black ‘husband’ Raymond Morrison. A brawl broke out between the youths and Morrison’s friends. The following day some of the White youths verbally assaulted the Swede for being a “Black man’s trollop.” The White youths then assembled between three and four hundred fellows to begin a violent demonstration against Black criminality, resulting in six days and nights of almost uninterrupted inter-ethnic warfare.

The Fruits of the Empire Windrush
The Fruits of the Empire Windrush

This period represented one of the clearest opportunities for Britain to turn back the tide. But, as I have previously documented, it was also the period in which the efforts of a large number of unelected Jewish lawyers began the British ‘race relations’ sham, choking out free speech, and with it any opportunity for effective White resistance.

After catching fire during a voyage, Empire Windrush sank to a watery grave off the coast of Algeria in 1954. Its legacy was to last much longer. Liberals and the Cultural Marxist elite named a public space in Brixton, London, “Windrush Square” to commemorate the 50th anniversary of its landing. It also featured during the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympic Games, and the salvaged wheel of the vessel sits relic-like for veneration at the offices of the Open University in Milton Keynes.

I see a more tangible legacy however. Last year Jamaican Lloyd Byfield smashed his way into the apartment of Londoner Leighann Duffy after she spurned his advances. Armed with a claw hammer and knife he stabbed her 14 times in front of her six year old daughter. What made the brutal crime even more disgusting was the fact that Byfield was an illegal immigrant who had previously been jailed for 30 weeks after attacking a White woman with a chisel. A deportation order was made during that sentencing, but was never carried out because Britain remains as catatonic on matters of race and immigration as it was in May 1948. The motherless, raped, and murdered White children of Britain are the truest legacy and reflection of that fateful voyage. But, it is hoped, the mechanics behind that voyage are now a little better known.


[1] D. Gutwein, The Divided Elite: Politics and Anglo-Jewry, 1882-1917 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p.5.
[2] T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), pp.491-526, p.491 & 495.
[3] Ibid, p.496.
[4] Ibid, p.519.
[5] Ibid.
[6] W. Rubinstein, “The Jewish Economic Elite in Britain, 1808-1909,” Jewish Historical Society of England. Available at: http://www.jhse.org/book/export/article/21930.
[7] D. Feldman, “Jews and the British Empire c1900″ History Workshop Journal, 63 (1), pp.70-89. Available at: http://eprints.bbk.ac.uk/655/2/655.pdf.
[8] Ibid.
[9] S. Pollard, Ten Days That Changed the Nation: The Making of Modern Britain (Simon& Schuster, 1999), p.4
[10] D. Lawrence, Black Migrants, White Natives: A Study of Race Relations in Nottingham (Cambridge University Press, 1974), p.19
[11] A. Waters, Race, Class and Symbols: Rastafari and Reggae in Jamaican Politics (Transaction, 1999), p.41.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Pollard, p.5.
[14] Pollard, p.8.
[15] I. Thomson, The Dead Yard: Tales of Modern Jamaica (Faber & Faber, 2009), p.53.
[16] Pollard, p.13.
[17] K. Paul, Whitewashing Britain: Race and Citizenship in the Postwar Era (Cornell University Press, 1997), p.134.
[18] J. Procter, Writing Black Britain, 1948-1998: An Interdisciplinary Anthology (Manchester University Press, 2000), p.71.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.

Jewish Supremacist Abe Foxman: 'Anti-Semites' jealous of astounding Jewish Success

via The Realist Report

The Jewish Daily Forward has published a rather revealing Q&A with Abe Foxman, the outgoing national director of the Anti-Defamation League, conducted by Jewish journalist and author Tuvia Tenenbom. The Q&A begins:
Tuvia Tenenbom: Let me ask you, is the state of anti-Semitism better or worse after the last 28 years since you became national director of the ADL? Or the last 50 years?

Abraham Foxman: The answer is “yes” to both. On one hand it’s better and on one hand it’s worse.


I’d say that in the United States it’s significantly better; it’s gotten better in the last 50 years. In this country, when I started, for example, the level of anti-Semitism as measured by attitudes was about one-third; one third of the American public in the ’50s was infected by anti-Semitism. Today, America is not immune, but the level of anti-Semitism is about 10 to 12%. It’s still pretty serious, because it means that 35, 40 million Americans are seriously infected with the disease of anti-Semitism, but legislation, litigation, education, all of these things, cumulatively, have had an impact. But I think probably the most important thing is that in this country, our laws permit you to be a bigot, an anti-Semite. In Europe you have laws against anti-Semitism, not here. Why? Because in this country, even though the law says you can be a bigot, the pressure of society is such that there are consequences, public consequences, to being an anti-Semite. Here, if you are in business and you engage in anti-Semitism, you’re not going to succeed very much. You remember Mel Gibson? He was a great hero of Hollywood: the best producer, the best director and the best actor. And he revealed himself as an anti-Semite. He went all the way down. Not because of legislation, not because of litigation, but because the American people reject this.

But this rejection started with legislation, correct?


If the ADL did not exist, do you think the level of anti-Semitism in this country would be the same as it is now?

This is for somebody else to say.

But what do you think?

There’s no question in my mind that it would’ve been worse. If I did not believe that I could change people’s minds and hearts I wouldn’t go to work. I wouldn’t raise my voice. So, it’s a question of faith. I believe that if we in the ADL, the American Jewish Committee and other institutions didn’t act, it would be worse. How much worse? I don’t know. I see in Europe how much worse it can be, even with legislation. In Europe it’s worse today than it’s been since World War II. It’s not like in World War II, because the governments of France, Germany, Holland, Great Britain speak out publicly, but in terms of measurements, of attitudes, it’s the worst it’s been since World War II.

In Europe we’re talking about the rise of anti-Semitism in the last 20 years. Is there a rise of anti-Semitism in America as well in the last 10, 20 years?

No. If anything, it has declined. While in Europe, anti-Semitism has gone up, here it has come down.

What’s the origin of anti-Semitism?


Jealousy? When I look at Jews, I see a nation that has been persecuted for all its history —

Tuvia, bigots see what they want to see!

And what do they see?

They see Jewish success.



Show me.

If you look at the issue of anti-Semitism, they believe that the Jews control: They control banks, they control finance, they control government.

I know what they say. But explain to me the “jealousy” part.

They see that Jews are rich, that Jews are smart…

Are Jews really smarter than other sects or groups?

I don’t know. Some people say, look at all the Nobel Prizes. I think that Jews are more driven; education is part of our culture, and it’s also part of our baggage. If you are a people who cannot work the soil and cannot be in carpentry, you study. You develop skills which are a lot different. [...]
There are several points worth making about Foxman's responses to Tenenbom's questions.

First off, we see that Jews view "anti-Semitism" as a "disease" that can "infect" a society. Of course, Jews would have you believe that they themselves have nothing to do with "anti-Semitism".

"Anti-Semitism" and genuine anti-Jewish sentiment, according to Jews like Foxman (whose views reflect the wider organized Jewish community), is fundamentally irrational and unfounded. "Anti-Semites" are misguided, deranged, and pathological bigots who blindly "hate the Jews" merely because they are Jews. Jews are, and have always been, a "persecuted people" who are scapegoated and discriminated against for no good reason.

Nothing could be further from the truth: "anti-Semitism" and genuine anti-Jewish sentiment is always a direct result of Jewish chicanery, treachery, subversion, and criminality.

Secondly, in their on-going efforts to "treat" and combat the "disease of anti-Semitism" which has historically "infected" and plagued Western society, organized Jewish institutions such as the Anti-Defamation League have lobbied for legislation designed to criminalize and neutralize manifestations of "anti-Semitism". "Tolerance" and "multiculturalism" - two key pillars of post-WWII America (and the wider Western world) - are promoted by Jews in an effort to combat and neutralize "anti-Semitism" and "racism," thus facilitating Jewish exploitation and dominance of their host nations.

Aside from legislation, Jews have also used litigation, educational programs, public relations campaigns, and marketing to combat "anti-Semitism". For example, the "Holocaust" industry is a very effective public relations and marketing campaign designed to advance Jewish financial, political, and cultural interests while "combating anti-Semitism" in the process. As Dr. Kevin MacDonald has persuasively argued, the "Holocaust" has become "the central moral icon" of Western civilization due to Jewish lobbying and ethnocentrism.

In the West, especially America, Jews have been quite successful in combatting "anti-Semitism" via non-legal means. As Foxman notes, there are very real consequences for publicly taking an "anti-Semitic" stance in America. "Anti-Semites" regularly find themselves ostracized from society, boycotted and shunned, and even publicly persecuted and assailed by the mass media and political establishment. "Anti-Semites" are often financially ruined, blackballed, and fired from their jobs, simply for expressing a point of view found offensive by the organized Jewish community. None of these reactions to "anti-Semitism" are enforced by the state; rather, they are organic social manifestations directly related to effective Jewish activism, public relations, and propaganda.

Finally, while Foxman and other Jews always claim "anti-Semitism" is fundamentally irrational and pathological, in this interview he essentially admits "anti-Semitic" sentiment is a direct result of "jealousness" of Jews as well as their "success" and control of banking, finance, and government.

From my own personal perspective, I am not "jealous" of Jewish success, intelligence, or their various accomplishments. "Jealousy" of the Jews does not drive my "anti-Semitism". Rather, I am "anti-Semitic" because of the subversive and destructive nature of Jewish power and influence in the West, coupled with their outrageous hypocrisy and criminality. I am an "anti-Semite" because I understand and recognize the true nature of the Jews, as well as the reality of Jewish power and influence over virtually every aspect of political, economic, and social life of the West.

And I believe most "anti-Semites" would agree with me.

Mad as Hell

via Alternative Right

Most of us around these parts of the intertubes would agree that Fox News is little but controlled opposition (i.e., GOP-funded shills and hacks pimping for the establishment lite-right), but I'd say it still has its moments. One of those moments transpired last week when the brainiest of the network's obligatory blonde babe anchors, Megyn Kelly, got a bee in her bonnet over the murder of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant who had been given "sanctuary" status in San Francisco.

Most of us around these parts of the intertubes would agree that Fox News is little but controlled opposition (i.e., GOP-funded shills and hacks pimping for the establishment lite-right), but I'd say it still has its moments. One of those moments transpired last week when the brainiest of the network's obligatory blonde babe anchors, Megyn Kelly, got a bee in her bonnet over the murder of Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant who had been given "sanctuary" status in San Francisco.

Darwin's Casino

via The Archdruid Report

Our age has no shortage of curious features, but for me, at least, one of the oddest is the way that so many people these days don’t seem to be able to think through the consequences of their own beliefs. Pick an ideology, any ideology, straight across the spectrum from the most devoutly religious to the most stridently secular, and you can count on finding a bumper crop of people who claim to hold that set of beliefs, and recite them with all the uncomprehending enthusiasm of a well-trained mynah bird, but haven’t noticed that those beliefs contradict other beliefs they claim to hold with equal devotion.
I’m not talking here about ordinary hypocrisy. The hypocrites we have with us always; our species being what it is, plenty of people have always seen the advantages of saying one thing and doing another. No, what I have in mind is saying one thing and saying another, without ever noticing that if one of those statements is true, the other by definition has to be false. My readers may recall the way that cowboy-hatted heavies in old Westerns used to say to each other, “This town ain’t big enough for the two of us;” there are plenty of ideas and beliefs that are like that, but too many modern minds resemble nothing so much as an OK Corral where the gunfight never happens.
An example that I’ve satirized in an earlier post here is the bizarre way that so many people on the rightward end of the US political landscape these days claim to be, at one and the same time, devout Christians and fervid adherents of Ayn Rand’s violently atheist and anti-Christian ideology.  The difficulty here, of course, is that Jesus tells his followers to humble themselves before God and help the poor, while Rand told hers to hate God, wallow in fantasies of their own superiority, and kick the poor into the nearest available gutter.  There’s quite precisely no common ground between the two belief systems, and yet self-proclaimed Christians who spout Rand’s turgid drivel at every opportunity make up a significant fraction of the Republican Party just now.
Still, it’s only fair to point out that this sort of weird disconnect is far from unique to religious people, or for that matter to Republicans. One of the places it crops up most often nowadays is the remarkable unwillingness of people who say they accept Darwin’s theory of evolution to think through what that theory implies about the limits of human intelligence.
If Darwin’s right, as I’ve had occasion to point out here several times already, human intelligence isn’t the world-shaking superpower our collective egotism likes to suppose. It’s simply a somewhat more sophisticated version of the sort of mental activity found in many other animals. The thing that supposedly sets it apart from all other forms of mentation, the use of abstract language, isn’t all that unique; several species of cetaceans and an assortment of the brainier birds communicate with their kin using vocalizations that show all the signs of being languages in the full sense of the word—that is, structured patterns of abstract vocal signs that take their meaning from convention rather than instinct.
What differentiates human beings from bottlenosed porpoises, African gray parrots, and other talking species is the mere fact that in our case, language and abstract thinking happened to evolve in a species that also had the sort of grasping limbs, fine motor control, and instinctive drive to pick things up and fiddle with them, that primates have and most other animals don’t.  There’s no reason why sentience should be associated with the sort of neurological bias that leads to manipulating the environment, and thence to technology; as far as the evidence goes, we just happen to be the one species in Darwin’s evolutionary casino that got dealt both those cards. For all we know, bottlenosed porpoises have a rich philosophical, scientific, and literary culture dating back twenty million years; they don’t have hands, though, so they don’t have technology. All things considered, this may be an advantage, since it means they won’t have had to face the kind of self-induced disasters our species is so busy preparing for itself due to the inveterate primate tendency to, ahem, monkey around with things.
I’ve long suspected that one of the reasons why human beings haven’t yet figured out how to carry on a conversation with bottlenosed porpoises, African gray parrots, et al. in their own language is quite simply that we’re terrified of what they might say to us—not least because it’s entirely possible that they’d be right. Another reason for the lack of communication, though, leads straight back to the limits of human intelligence. If our minds have emerged out of the ordinary processes of evolution, what we’ve got between our ears is simply an unusually complex variation on the standard social primate brain, adapted over millions of years to the mental tasks that are important to social primates—that is, staying fed, attracting mates, competing for status, and staying out of the jaws of hungry leopards.
Notice that “discovering the objective truth about the nature of the universe” isn’t part of this list, and if Darwin’s theory of evolution is correct—as I believe it to be—there’s no conceivable way it could be. The mental activities of social primates, and all other living things, have to take the rest of the world into account in certain limited ways; our perceptions of food, mates, rivals, and leopards, for example, have to correspond to the equivalent factors in the environment; but it’s actually an advantage to any organism to screen out anything that doesn’t relate to immediate benefits or threats, so that adequate attention can be paid to the things that matter. We perceive colors, which most mammals don’t, because primates need to be able to judge the ripeness of fruit from a distance; we don’t perceive the polarization of light, as bees do, because primates don’t need to navigate by the angle of the sun.
What’s more, the basic mental categories we use to make sense of the tiny fraction of our surroundings that we perceive are just as much a product of our primate ancestry as the senses we have and don’t have. That includes the basic structures of human language, which most research suggests are inborn in our species, as well as such derivations from language as logic and the relation between cause and effect—this latter simply takes the grammatical relation between subjects, verbs, and objects, and projects it onto the nonlinguistic world. In the real world, every phenomenon is part of an ongoing cascade of interactions so wildly hypercomplex that labels like “cause” and “effect” are hopelessly simplistic; what’s more, a great many things—for example, the decay of radioactive nuclei—just up and happen randomly without being triggered by any specific cause at all. We simplify all this into cause and effect because just enough things appear to work that way to make the habit useful to us.
Another thing that has much more to do with our cognitive apparatus than with the world we perceive is number. Does one apple plus one apple equal two apples? In our number-using minds, yes; in the real world, it depends entirely on the size and condition of the apples in question. We convert qualities into quantities because quantities are easier for us to think with.  That was one of the core discoveries that kickstarted the scientific revolution; when Galileo became the first human being in history to think of speed as a quantity, he made it possible for everyone after him to get their minds around the concept of velocity in a way that people before him had never quite been able to do.
In physics, converting qualities to quantities works very, very well. In some other sciences, the same thing is true, though the further you go away from the exquisite simplicity of masses in motion, the harder it is to translate everything that matters into quantitative terms, and the more inevitably gets left out of the resulting theories. By and large, the more complex the phenomena under discussion, the less useful quantitative models are. Not coincidentally, the more complex the phenomena under discussion, the harder it is to control all the variables in play—the essential step in using the scientific method—and the more tentative, fragile, and dubious the models that result.
So when we try to figure out what bottlenosed porpoises are saying to each other, we’re facing what’s probably an insuperable barrier. All our notions of language are social-primate notions, shaped by the peculiar mix of neurology and hardwired psychology that proved most useful to bipedal apes on the East African savannah over the last few million years. The structures that shape porpoise speech, in turn, are social-cetacean notions, shaped by the utterly different mix of neurology and hardwired psychology that’s most useful if you happen to be a bottlenosed porpoise or one of its ancestors.
Mind you, porpoises and humans are at least fellow-mammals, and likely have common ancestors only a couple of hundred million years back. If you want to talk to a gray parrot, you’re trying to cross a much vaster evolutionary distance, since the ancestors of our therapsid forebears and the ancestors of the parrot’s archosaurian progenitors have been following divergent tracks since way back in the Paleozoic. Since language evolved independently in each of the lineages we’re discussing, the logic of convergent evolution comes into play: as with the eyes of vertebrates and cephalopods—another classic case of the same thing appearing in very different evolutionary lineages—the functions are similar but the underlying structure is very different. Thus it’s no surprise that it’s taken exhaustive computer analyses of porpoise and parrot vocalizations just to give us a clue that they’re using language too.
The takeaway point I hope my readers have grasped from this is that the human mind doesn’t know universal, objective truths. Our thoughts are simply the way that we, as members of a particular species of social primates, to like to sort out the universe into chunks simple enough for us to think with. Does that make human thought useless or irrelevant? Of course not; it simply means that its uses and relevance are as limited as everything else about our species—and, of course, every other species as well. If any of my readers see this as belittling humanity, I’d like to suggest that fatuous delusions of intellectual omnipotence aren’t a useful habit for any species, least of all ours. I’d also point out that those very delusions have played a huge role in landing us in the rising spiral of crises we’re in today.
Human beings are simply one species among many, inhabiting part of the earth at one point in its long lifespan. We’ve got remarkable gifts, but then so does every other living thing. We’re not the masters of the planet, the crown of evolution, the fulfillment of Earth’s destiny, or any of the other self-important hogwash with which we like to tickle our collective ego, and our attempt to act out those delusional roles with the help of a lot of fossil carbon hasn’t exactly turned out well, you must admit. I know some people find it unbearable to see our species deprived of its supposed place as the precious darlings of the cosmos, but that’s just one of life’s little learning experiences, isn’t it? Most of us make a similar discovery on the individual scale in the course of growing up, and from my perspective, it’s high time that humanity do a little growing up of its own, ditch the infantile egotism, and get to work making the most of the time we have on this beautiful and fragile planet.
The recognition that there’s a middle ground between omnipotence and uselessness, though, seems to be very hard for a lot of people to grasp just now. I don’t know if other bloggers in the doomosphere have this happen to them, but every few months or so I field a flurry of attempted comments by people who want to drag the conversation over to their conviction that free will doesn’t exist. I don’t put those comments through, and not just because they’re invariably off topic; the ideology they’re pushing is, to my way of thinking, frankly poisonous, and it’s also based on a shopworn Victorian determinism that got chucked by working scientists rather more than a century ago, but is still being recycled by too many people who didn’t hear the thump when it landed in the trash can of dead theories.
A century and a half ago, it used to be a commonplace of scientific ideology that cause and effect ruled everything, and the whole universe was fated to rumble along a rigidly invariant sequence of events from the beginning of time to the end thereof. The claim was quite commonly made that a sufficiently vast intelligence, provided with a sufficiently complete data set about the position and velocity of every particle in the cosmos at one point in time, could literally predict everything that would ever happen thereafter. The logic behind that claim went right out the window, though, once experiments in the early 20th century showed conclusively that quantum phenomena are random in the strictest sense of the world. They’re not caused by some hidden variable; they just happen when they happen, by chance.
What determines the moment when a given atom of an unstable isotope will throw off some radiation and turn into a different element? Pure dumb luck. Since radiation discharges from single atoms of unstable isotopes are the most important cause of genetic mutations, and thus a core driving force behind the process of evolution, this is much more important than it looks. The stray radiation that gave you your eye color, dealt an otherwise uninteresting species of lobefin fish the adaptations that made it the ancestor of all land vertebrates, and provided the raw material for countless other evolutionary transformations:  these were entirely random events, and would have happened differently if certain unstable atoms had decayed at a different moment and sent their radiation into a different ovum or spermatozoon—as they very well could have. So it doesn’t matter how vast the intelligence or complete the data set you’ve got, the course of life on earth is inherently impossible to predict, and so are a great many other things that unfold from it.
With the gibbering phantom of determinism laid to rest, we can proceed to the question of free will. We can define free will operationally as the ability to produce genuine novelty in behavior—that is, to do things that can’t be predicted. Human beings do this all the time, and there are very good evolutionary reasons why they should have that capacity. Any of my readers who know game theory will recall that the best strategy in any competitive game includes an element of randomness, which prevents the other side from anticipating and forestalling your side’s actions. Food gathering, in game theory terms, is a competitive game; so are trying to attract a mate, competing for social prestige, staying out of the jaws of hungry leopards, and most of the other activities that pack the day planners of social primates.
Unpredictability is so highly valued by our species, in fact, that every human culture ever recorded has worked out formal ways to increase the total amount of sheer randomness guiding human action. Yes, we’re talking about divination—for those who don’t know the jargon, this term refers to what you do with Tarot cards, the I Ching, tea leaves, horoscopes, and all the myriad other ways human cultures have worked out to take a snapshot of the nonrational as a guide for action. Aside from whatever else may be involved—a point that isn’t relevant to this blog—divination does a really first-rate job of generating unpredictability. Flipping a coin does the same thing, and most people have confounded the determinists by doing just that on occasion, but fully developed divination systems like those just named provide a much richer palette of choices than the simple coin toss, and thus enable people to introduce a much richer range of novelty into their actions.
Still, divination is a crutch, or at best a supplement; human beings have their own onboard novelty generators, which can do the job all by themselves if given half a chance.  The process involved here was understood by philosophers a long time ago, and no doubt the neurologists will get around to figuring it out one of these days as well. The core of it is that humans don’t respond directly to stimuli, external or internal.  Instead, they respond to their own mental representations of stimuli, which are constructed by the act of cognition and are laced with bucketloads of extraneous material garnered from memory and linked to the stimulus in uniquely personal, irrational, even whimsical ways, following loose and wildly unpredictable cascades of association and contiguity that have nothing to do with logic and everything to do with the roots of creativity. 
Each human society tries to give its children some approximation of its own culturally defined set of representations—that’s what’s going on when children learn language, pick up the customs of their community, ask for the same bedtime story to be read to them for the umpteenth time, and so on. Those culturally defined representations proceed to interact in various ways with the inborn, genetically defined representations that get handed out for free with each brand new human nervous system.  The existence of these biologically and culturally defined representations, and of various ways that they can be manipulated to some extent by other people with or without the benefit of mass media, make up the ostensible reason why the people mentioned above insist that free will doesn’t exist.
Here again, though, the fact that the human mind isn’t omnipotent doesn’t make it powerless. Think about what happens, say, when a straight stick is thrust into water at an angle, and the stick seems to pick up a sudden bend at the water’s surface, due to differential refraction in water and air. The illusion is as clear as anything, but if you show this to a child and let the child experiment with it, you can watch the representation “the stick is bent” give way to “the stick looks bent.” Notice what’s happening here: the stimulus remains the same, but the representation changes, and so do the actions that result from it. That’s a simple example of how representations create the possibility of freedom.
In the same way, when the media spouts some absurd bit of manipulative hogwash, if you take the time to think about it, you can watch your own representation shift from “that guy’s having an orgasm from slurping that fizzy brown sugar water” to “that guy’s being paid to pretend to have an orgasm, so somebody can try to convince me to buy that fizzy brown sugar water.” If you really pay attention, it may shift again to “why am I wasting my time watching this guy pretend to get an orgasm from fizzy brown sugar water?” and may even lead you to chuck your television out a second story window into an open dumpster, as I did to the last one I ever owned. (The flash and bang when the picture tube imploded, by the way, was far more entertaining than anything that had ever appeared on the screen.)
Human intelligence is limited. Our capacities for thinking are constrained by our heredity, our cultures, and our personal experiences—but then so are our capacities for the perception of color, a fact that hasn’t stopped artists from the Paleolithic to the present from putting those colors to work in a galaxy of dizzyingly original ways. A clear awareness of the possibilities and the limits of the human mind makes it easier to play the hand we’ve been dealt in Darwin’s casino—and it also points toward a generally unsuspected reason why civilizations come apart, which we’ll discuss next week.