Author Archives: theartfuldilettante

Unknown's avatar

About theartfuldilettante

The Artful Dilettante is a native of Pittsburgh, PA, and a graduate of Penn State University. He is a lover of liberty and a lifelong and passionate student of the same. He is voracious reader of books on the Enlightenment and the American colonial and revolutionary periods. He is a student of libertarian and Objectivist philosophies. He collects revolutionary war and period currency, books, and newspapers. He is married and the father of one teenage son. He is kind, witty, generous to a fault, and unjustifiably proud of himself. He is the life of the party and an unparalleled raconteur.

I’m Sick of Being Told to Stay Safe

Posted on by
1

I had thought we were over the whole “stay safe” thing, finally, now that we are over 15 months past the whole “15 Days to Flatten the Curve” thing.

But apparently not.

It appears to have made a resurgence. Perhaps this is because the vaxxed are worried their vaxxes are wearing off and it hasn’t been their turn yet at the boosters.

Today I was asked by a client if I was “staying safe” and told by another at the end of our call to “stay safe.”

I can’t tell you how much this phrase grates me, but I can’t say much to clients, so I just coughed when I mumbled “Yes” and “Will do.”

What I really want to say in reply is something like, “Get skeptical,” or at least ask them what “staying safe” entails and then critique the illogic of their answers.

I don’t remember being told anything like “stay safe” before March 2020.

(Well, I take that back. People would say “safe travels” or “Be safe” if they knew I was traveling some place iffy to see clients.)

People asked me, “How have you been?” as a general greeting or said “Hope you stay well this winter” if there was a flu going around.

I know this whole “stay safe” thing started with the whole safer at home movement that was part of the flatten thing and I know it is the cabal’s attempt to condition us that we need to be afraid and look to them for safety, but it needs to end.

Any ideas on good comebacks to use in different situations?

Cheshire the Cat

The Term “Everything is Racist” is Racist

Posted on by
Reply

There are some folks out there who don’t believe that Critical Race Theory exists.  (This despite the fact that many organizations have unapologetically come forward admitting that it does.)  Others believe it’s just “teaching our history.”  (This despite the fact that we’ve been “teaching our history,” more or less, warts and all, at least since I was in first grade, 36 years ago.)  But I get it.  It’s a subjective term and hard to define.  So let’s get rid of the hard-to-define terms and go with some hard, factual examples.

This particular example doesn’t come from the education sphere, but it does show how race (which, as a reminder, is a made-up construct — we all belong to only one race: the human race) has been “weaponized.”  And when everything is racist, nothing is racist.

It involves two “minorities” (again, I don’t even know what that particular term really means, but it’s what the left would like us to focus on, so I’ll play the left’s game for the purposes of this example and point it out), Lorena Gonzales, a Hispanic woman, and Bruce Harrell, a half-black, half-Japanese man.

The two are running for mayor of Seattle.  Harrell said something a number of years ago when the gay white mayor at the time was accused by numerous men of child sexual molestation.  (I don’t care how much pigment is in your skin or whom you’re attracted to, but since this is all about identity politics and that man was elected largely because he was the “gay candidate,” I figure I’ll include it in the narrative.)

Before all the facts had come to light and that mayor had resigned in disgrace after it was clear the allegations weren’t just “a homophobic attack trying to paint all gay men as child sex abusers,” Harrell came to his defense by speaking the unspeakable — namely, pointing out that we should, gasp, follow due process and not jump to any conclusions.Top Articles By American ThinkerRead More

People Notice When the Elites Lienull

Because of Harrell’s unspeakable comment, Gonzalez has launched a campaign ad using those and other things he’s said out of context as well as having some other people insinuate that he is a “rape apologist.”

Dirty politics is nothing new.  What is fairly new is immediately defaulting to “YOU’RE A RACIST!!!”  In this case, according to those deemed worthy to judge these things, Gonzalez is a racist because, apparently, there’s some racist trope about black men being rapists, and Harrell is apparently black.  (Not that I’ve ever given it any thought, but when I saw this article and was forced to think about his race, because I’ve known of Harrell for a number of years, my immediate thought was, “Isn’t he Japanese?”)  It can’t be that Gonzalez is just playing dirty politics that has nothing to do with Harrell’s skin color — although it is good to know where black/Japanese men rank compared to Hispanic women the next time I’m playing “intersectionality bingo.”

To bring this back to the beginning, CRT views all of history and socio-political relations through the lens of race.  As I heard one proponent of CRT quip, “racism in America is like a pie; it’s baked right in.”

If someone cuts you off in traffic and you happen to be black, he’s a racist.  If you don’t get a job, it’s because the company is racist.  The disproportionate number of black people in prison can only be attributed to racism.  There can’t possibly be another explanation.  It can’t be that the person who cut you off is a bad driver or rushing home because his wife just went into labor.  It can’t be that the other person was just more qualified, did a better job at interviewing, or provided better references.  It can’t be that over 90% of prison inmates grew up without a father.

If your opponent attacks you in an admittedly dirty way, it can’t be that she’s just doing what politicians have been doing since the dawn of time and just trying to get a shot in any way she can.  It has to be that she’s racist.

It’s gotten so bad that it’s almost comical.  The L.A. Times ran a column calling Larry Elder “the black face of white supremacy.”  “#UncleTim” trended on Twitter after Senator Tim Scott gave the response to the State of the Union address.  Joe Biden told voters “you ain’t black” if you won’t vote for him.

Examples like this make it clear that this has zero to do with race and everything to do with pushing a statist agenda.  Those who get in line are everything that is good and holy in the world.  Those who don’t are racist.

We get what we focus on.  If we want to be divided by race and all the other fun little boxes those who seek to control us are trying to put us in, we’ll get those boxes and that division.  Or we could follow the words of Morgan Freeman and just stop talking about it.  There used to be rampant discrimination against Italians, Irish, and Catholics.  Joe Biden’s Catholicism was barely mentioned during the 2020 election.

If we don’t seek to stop division, it will never be stopped.  Let’s say we “solve racism.”  People will just find another reason to divide themselves.  (Read “The Butter Battle Book” by Dr. Seuss, which was an allegory for the then-raging Cold War but involved two groups at war over something as silly as whether they ate their toast butter side up or butter side down.  Considering some of the silly things we see fights break out over, I’m not sure that would qualify as satire anymore.)

So the next time someone says something you perceive as mean or unfair, or cuts you off in traffic, or you lose out on a job or a table at a restaurant to someone else who happens to be of a different ethnicity, religion, sex, etc., you can throw yourself a pity party; call up the ACLU, NAACP, and whatever other acronym you can think of; and sue everyone in sight over the great tragedy — or you can think, “Hmm, that person must be having a bad day, or maybe he just has different opinions from mine, and it doesn’t have a thing to do with the color of his skin or any other superficial difference that exists, and maybe I should see what I can do to bless him or what common ground we can find.”

| Print| Email

Around The Web

FOLLOW US ON

American Thinker on Facebook
American Thinker on Twitter
American Thinker on MeWe

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

About Us | Contact | Privacy Policy | RSS Syndication © American Thinker 2021

Raw Power Grabs: Not Conspiracy Theory; They’re REALITY

Posted on by
1

When I question the overreaction to COVID or the vaccination mandate, people (even the few who aren’t hostile) say things like, “So you believe in the conspiracy theory, then?”

No, that’s not it. There’s no conspiracy. It’s all done out in the open. I’m sure there are possibly secrets, but one thing is not a secret: Medical fascism is POWER FOR THE SAKE OF POWER.

Power for the sake of power is always wrong, and it’s always irrational. The fact that people who pursue power call themselves “social justice warriors” or “progressives” will not alter a thing. They are still evil.

When you replace reason with something else, you necessarily replace reason with (1) emotion, (2) coercion, or both.

We saw it first with mask mandates. Mask mandates were destructive socially and psychologically; the vax mandates are worse, because you’re being forced to take part in a medical experiment where the law of unintended consequences comes into play.

When you attempt to prevent “A” (COVID) you also can trigger all kinds of other side-effects or symptoms, possibly with far worse consequences than “A” (COVID) itself.

We’re not even permitted to investigate or consider these possibilities.

We’re told, basically, “Take the vaccine — or be shunned, and starve.” How much longer until we get to: “Take the vaccine — or be imprisoned, or executed.” What’s to stop it? John Roberts and the Supreme Court? Seriously?

The Constitution, while sacred and important on one level, is no longer practiced. In fact, people routinely invoke the Constitution to obliterate its whole original purpose, which was to LIMIT the power and scope of government. Government in the United States is far more powerful than it ever has been. Today’s regime has nothing whatsoever to do with the original founding government, and it’s hard even to recognize the America of 20 or 30 years ago in today’s dystopian insanity.

Limited government is gone, and it’s not coming back … at least, not without a big fight.

Unfortunately, limited government has no friend anywhere on earth, at present. When it went in America, the stage was set for it to perish everywhere else. Have you read about Australia lately? Or Great Britain? They’re glorified prison camps. America was always the last, best hope of mankind for economic freedom, individual liberty, innovation and prosperity.

If you want your freedom back, you’ll have to get out of your comfort zone. Because, believe me: They are NOT giving any of it up. And they’re expanding it by the hour.

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Why not Question the Holocaust in Schools ?

Posted on by
Reply

There has been major pushback against a Texas state education official who said that if schools are adhering to a new state law that mandates teaching alternative points of view on controversial issues having a course and a book on the holocaust, for example, would suggest providing material that reflects other interpretations of that historical event. The comment came from a Texas school district administrator named Gina Peddy in the Carrollton Independent School District in Southlake, which is in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, who was in a training session explaining to teachers her directive regarding which books can be available in classroom libraries. She told teachers that if they have books about the Holocaust in their classrooms, they should also have books that offer “opposing” or “other” viewpoints on the subject.

Reportedly a staff member who was present secretly made an audio recording of the training session which was then shared with NBC News, which broke the story.

The Texas law was and is intended to lessen the impact of the current “woke” campaign by progressive educators to rewrite American and international history to reflect the dark side, notably by emphasizing issues like slavery and oppression of minorities. Texas legislators insist, not unreasonably, that presenting an essentially negative view of American history as envisioned by Critical Race Theory (CRT) must be balanced by having a curriculum that also includes discussion of the many positive achievements of the United States of America. In the recording, Peddy, the school district’s executive director of curriculum and instruction, told the teachers that the new law applies to any “widely debated and currently controversial” issues. She was quoted as saying “And make sure that if you have a book on the Holocaust, that you have one that has an opposing, that has other perspectives.”

Predictably, on such a hot wire issue Peddy has had little or no support from her peers either locally or in the education establishment. The school district Superintendent Lane Ledbetter posted on Facebook an “apology regarding the online article and news story.” He said Peddy’s comments were “in no way to convey that the Holocaust was anything less than a terrible event in history. Additionally, we recognize there are not two sides of the Holocaust. We also understand this bill does not require an opposing viewpoint on historical facts.”

Clay Robison, a spokesman for the Texas State Teachers Association, responded “We find it reprehensible for an educator to require a Holocaust denier to get equal treatment with the facts of history. That’s absurd. It’s worse than absurd. And this law does not require it.” Republican state Senator Bryan Hughes, who wrote the bill that became the law, denied that anyone should come up with alternative views on what he called matters of “good and evil” or to remove books that offer only one perspective on the Holocaust.

Jews in Peddy’s school district and elsewhere in both Texas and nationally have inevitably also risen to the bait, denouncing any attempt made to challenge what they view as an issue fundamental to their understanding of their place in the world and in history. One Jewish former student Jake Berman asserted that “The facts are that there are not two sides of the Holocaust. The Nazis systematically killed millions of people.”

Ledbetter, Robison and Hughes should perhaps consider that they are suggesting that their new law should only apply on “controversial” racial issues, not on other historical developments and it is curious that educated people should consider a multi-faceted transnational historical event that has inter alia a highly politicized context a “fact.” The holocaust narrative in and of itself is the creation of men and women after the fact with an agenda to justify the creation and support for the State of Israel and should be subject to the same inquiry as any other facet of the Second World War and what came after.

The tale of “the holocaust” is essentially a contrived bit of history that serves a political objective wrapped up in what purports to be a powerful statement regarding man’s inhumanity to man. Jewish groups generally speaking consider the standard narrative with its highly questionable six million dead, gas chambers, extermination camps, and soap made from body fat to be something like sacred ground, with its memorialization of the uniqueness of Jewish suffering. Serious scholars who have actually looked at the narrative and the numbers and sequences of events are not surprisingly skeptical of many of the details.

As a first step, it is helpful to look at controversial Professor Norman Finkelstein’s carefully documented book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. Finkelstein, to be sure, believes there was something like a genocide of European Jews and even lost some family members due to it. He does not, however, necessarily believe many of the details provided by the standard narrative and official promoters of that story to include the numerous holocaust museums. In his view, powerful interests have hijacked “the Holocaust,” and use it to further their own objectives. He wrote “Organized Jewry has exploited the Nazi holocaust to deflect criticism of Israel’s and its own indefensible policies. Nazi genocide has been used to justify criminal policies of the Israeli state and US support for these policies.”

And there is also a money angle, as there often is. Per Finkelstein, Jewish organizations in the US have also exploited the situation of the dwindling number of aging holocaust survivors to extort “staggering sums of money from the rest of the world. This is not done not for the benefit of needy survivors but for the financial advantage of these organizations.”

As taking courses in the holocaust are mandated in the public school systems of twenty states (and soon to be more due to pressure from local Jewish groups) and is used to validate the billions of US taxpayer dollars given annually to the state of Israel it would seem that supporters of the narrative should have the confidence as well as sufficient integrity to defend their product. But that is, of course, not the case. They would prefer to have their chosen narrative unchallenged, raising the usual claims of anti-Semitism and “holocaust denial” to silence critics. One of the “textbooks” frequently used in public schools that mandate holocaust education is Night by Elie Wiesel, whom Finkelstein has dubbed “the high huckster of the holocaust.” “Night” claims to be autobiographical but is full of errors in time and place. It is at least in part a work of fiction. Similarly, the “Diary of Anne Frank” was published after editing by her survivor father and parts of it have been challenged.

As a general rule, contentious issues where advocates attempt to silence opponents by claiming that what they are promoting is based on fact and cannot be challenged should be challenged. In Europe, powerful Jewish constituencies have even made it illegal to criticize or deny the holocaust narrative. In America, that day may soon be coming as Jewish groups increasingly seek to criminalize questioning of the factual basis of the holocaust as well as any criticism of Israel.

Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org

The Evil Rot at the Center of the Empire

Posted on by
2

Given President Biden’s decision to succumb to the CIA’s demand for continued secrecy of the CIA’s 60-year-old Kennedy assassination-related records, this would be a good time to remind ourselves of how President Kennedy felt about this type of secrecy:

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.

Kennedy’s attitude toward the evil of governmental secrecy was just another reason why the U.S. national-security establishment hated him so deeply and considered him a grave threat to national security, in addition to, of course, Kennedy’s determination to end the Cold War racket and establish friendly and peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, Cuba, and the rest of the communist world. 

In his 1985 book People of the Lie, the noted psychiatrist M. Scott Peck noted that there definitely is evil in the world. 

The Central Intelligence Agency epitomizes the evil to which Peck was referring. That’s not to say, of course, that everyone who works for the CIA is evil. It’s to say that everyone who works for the CIA is either wittingly or unwittingly working for an evil institution, one that should never have been grafted onto America’s federal governmental system and that now forms the core of the rot that afflicts the American empire. 

The problem, of course, is that all too many Americans do not wish to confront, much less acknowledge, the existence of this evil. Succumbing to CIA propaganda and wishing to defer to the power of the national-security establishment, they have convinced themselves that the CIA is a force for good in the world and that it is necessary to their safety and well-being. 

Thus, such Americans have turned a blind eye to the evil actions in which the CIA has engaged practically since its inception in 1947.

How many times are we reminded of the evil of the Nazi regime that the U.S. defeated in World War II? Hardly a week goes by without someone bringing it up in the mainstream press.

Yet, here we have an an entity within the federal government that secretly hired Nazi officials after World War II ended. How can that possibly be reconciled with moral or religious principles? When an entity knowingly cavorts and partners with evil, doesn’t that say something about the evil nature of that entity?

Let’s not forget the drug experiments that the CIA conducted on unsuspecting Americans. I don’t know if the CIA’s secret Nazi employees assisted with those drug experiments, but I do know that the mindset that went into those experiments was the same type of mindset that motivated the Nazis to conduct medical experiments on people. 

That CIA partnership with Nazis isn’t the only partnership with evil that the CIA has engaged in. There is also its partnership with the Mafia, one of history’s most evil criminal organizations, one that engages in murder as one of its regular activities. Yet, all too many Americans ignore that CIA-Mafia partnership. They would rather just look the other way.

What was the purpose of that secret CIA-Mafia partnership? Assassination, which is really just a fancy word for murder. The purpose of the secret CIA-Mafia partnership was to murder Cuba’s president Fidel Castro. 

Why Castro? Because he was a communist. More important, he was also a communist who established peaceful and friendly relations with the Soviet Union and rest of the communist world.

That’s it. That’s what the CIA says justified its assassination partnership with the Mafia to assassinate Castro and its repeated attempts to assassinate Castro.

One of the fascinating aspects of the CIA-Mafia partnership to assassinate Castro has been the reaction of many Americans who just have taken it all in stride. That blasé reaction to unjustified state-sponsored murder is a perfect example of what CIA propaganda and indoctrination has done to warp, pervert, and stultify the consciences of many Americans. 

The fact is that not only was the CIA partnership with the Mafia evil, so were its repeated assassination attempts on Castro. The CIA never had the moral, religious, or legal authority to murder anyone, including Castro, just because he happened to be a communist or a socialist or just because he favored establishing peaceful and friendly relations with the Soviet Union and the communist world.

And yet, all too many Americans, especially the mainstream press, have been so nonchalant about those repeated CIA murder attempts on Castro.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, there has also been a steadfast willingness among many Americans to turn a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence establishing that the November 22, 1963, assassination of President Kennedy was a regime-change operation on the part of the CIA and the national-security establishment, no different in principle from the CIA’s repeated assassination attempts on Castro.

But let’s set aside the Kennedy assassination. Let’s just talk about the CIA’s assassination of Patrice Lumumba, three years before Kennedy was murdered. Or how about the CIA’s kidnapping/murder of Gen. Rene Schneider in Chile seven years after Kennedy was assassinated? How can those two assassinations be labeled anything but evil? What did Lumumba and Schneider do to warrant having their lives snuffed out by the CIA? They did nothing to warrant their assassinations.

Or how about the CIA’s regime-change operation in Iran ten years before Kennedy was assassinated? It was accompanied by the deaths of many innocent Iranian people. Then came 26 years of U.S.-supported horrific tyranny and oppression under a brutal U.S.-installed dictator. That led to the Iranian revolution and more decades of horrific tyranny and oppression. That led to brutal U.S. economic sanctions that have killed and impoverished countless innocent citizens of Iran. How can all that not be labeled evil?

Or how about the CIA’s regime-change operation in Guatemala nine years before the Kennedy assassination? The CIA had a secret assassination list for that operation which listed the people who were to be murdered as part of the operation.

What did Guatemalans do to deserve such evil being inflicted on them? They had the audacity to elect a socialist named Jacobo Arbenz, who declared a willingness to establish peaceful and friendly relations with the Soviet Union and the communist world. 

He wasn’t the only one. Ten years after Kennedy was assassinated, the Chilean people elected a socialist named Salvador Allende, who, like Arbenz, established peaceful and friendly relations with the Soviet Union and the communist world. The CIA said that that made him a threat to U.S. “national security.” The CIA and the Pentagon convinced the Chilean national-security establishment that it had a moral duty to violently oust their country’s president from office. How can the CIA/Pentagon-instigated Chilean coup, which left Allende dead and tens of thousands of Chilean citizens raped, tortured, executed, or disappeared by the brutal U.S.-supported military dictator who replaced him, not be labeled evil?

In fact, that’s why the CIA’s goons kidnapped and murdered General Schneider. Schneider opposed the CIA’s violent regime-change operation and instead favored supporting and defending the Chilean constitution, which provided only two ways to remove a president from office: impeachment and election.

With the exception of the Kennedy assassination, Americans have come to accept all of these CIA regime changes as part of America’s legacy as a national-security state. Unfortunately, however, owing to a stultification of conscience that came with the unconstitutional conversion of the federal government to a national-security state, all too many Americans have not yet come to the moral realization that every one of those regime-change operations, including the Kennedy assassination, was evil to the core. 

In his 1978 book The Road Less Traveled, M. Scott Peck stated, “Mental health is an ongoing process of dedication to reality at all costs.” 

The same principle applies to a nation. For America to heal in the wake of the Afghanistan and Iraq debacles and all the lies that came with them, it is necessary for Americans today to dedicate themselves to reality at all costs — especially the reality that a rotten evil entity known as the CIA lies at the core of America’s federal governmental structure. For America to restore morality, freedom, health, and right conduct to our land, it is necessary to eradicate, not reform, that evil.

Jacob Hornberger

Arrest Fauci

Posted on by
Reply

Imagine if the honorable practice of science were hijacked by intellectually dishonest, cynically politicized, creepy profiteers who torture puppies, flirt with mass murder and gain the unearned credibility to turn the previously free world into a dreary, totalitarian nightmare. Oh, we don’t have to imagine. It’s actually happening. #ArrestFauci

Michael J. Hurd, Daily Dose of Reason

Watch “The Difference Between a Democracy and a Republic” on YouTube

Posted on by
Reply

NOTE: We, and talking heads and people who should know better, continually refer to our country as a democracy. Such talk would have the Founders turning over in their graves. We are not a democracy, or at least not intended to be one. We are a constitutional republic with strictly enumerated powers (Article 1, Section 8). A/D.

White People are an Endangered Species

Posted on by
Reply

Today throughout the Western world the only expression permitted to white people is expression of their guilt. Their function is limited to working tirelessly to elevate their racial and cultural enemies. While people everywhere are organized in an act of self-genocide.

And this despite endless warnings. Half a century ago in 1972 Wilmot Robertson showed in his book, The Dispossessed Majority, that majority white expression in art, literature, and culture was so thoroughly banned that the ban is enforced with pre-censorship by white writers and artists themselves.

As for the classics of the culture, “Chaucer and Shakespeare have been cut and blue-penciled. The motion picture of Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist had a hard time being released in the US because of the recognizably Jewish traits of Fagin. The masterpiece of American silent films, The Birth of a Nation, can no longer be shown without the presence of picket lines. Mark Twains Huckleberry Finn has been blackwashed and expurgated by liberal-minded watchdog organizations. As for modern classics, Willa Cather’s The Professor’s House, perhaps her greatest novel, is not reprinted as a paperback because a Jewish character is treated unsympathetically, while Henry Miller’s Tropic of Capricorn has been attacked by millionaire novelist Leon Uris as ‘anti-Semitic.’ Even nursery rhymes and Stephen Foster are being rewritten and bowdlerized.”

“Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice has been removed from the curriculum of New York City high schools. . . . ‘The prioresses Tale’ is omitted from editions of Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales because it tells of a murder committed by Jews. The Oberammergau passion play, a fixture of European culture since 1634, is under constant attack by Jews . . . a tireless, clandestine literary vendetta is being waged against such towering modern writers, composers and scholars, both American and European, as Eliot, Dreiser, Pound, Toynbee, Henry Adams, D.H. Lawrence, Celine, Roy Campbell, Wyndham Lewis, Knut Hamsun, Franz Lehar and Richard Strauss.” There is, of course no counter vendetta of white artists against those who are erasing Western culture.

Multiculturalism is the weapon that has successfully banned Western literary and cultural achievements, destroyed its monuments, and rewritten its history to serve its racial and cultural enemies. “Diversity” means demonizing white people and replacing their society and culture with those of other races and persuasions. The only remaining career path for white people whether as writers, artists, employers or politicians is service to the elevation of “minorities.” Thus the universal support for non-white racial preferences in university admissions, employment, promotions, and entertainment. No Western politician in office anywhere in the Western world except for Hungary and Poland serves the white ethnicities that once comprised nations and now are submerged in a Tower of Babel. Even the formerly self-assured British are repudiating and dismantling their heritage.

Multiculturalism has stripped the West of unity. That a Tower of Babel can stand up to a united people such as Russia, China, and Iran is nonsense. This is why Washington does everything it can to spread disunity in those nations.

To understand the total failure of multiculturalism, all a person has to do is to look at the artificial boundaries created by Europeans in Africa and the Middle East. Whereas the white minority in South Africa is clearly threatened, the worst conflict is among the black tribes themselves, as the recent violence in South Africa demonstrates. In Nigeria the Igbo could not coexist with the Hausa and Yoruba, seceded and existed as Biafra until conquered and reincorporated into Nigeria in 1970. The genocidal conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994 is another example. Here is an account in Wikipedia which I suspect will soon be censored for reflecting doubt on multiculturalism:

“The Rwandan genocide[4] occurred between 7 April and 15 July 1994 during the Rwandan Civil War.[5] During this period of around 100 days, members of the Tutsi minority ethnic group, as well as some moderate Hutu and Twa, were slaughtered by armed militias. The most widely accepted scholarly estimates are around 500,000 to 800,000 Tutsi deaths.[6] Estimates for the total death toll (including Hutu and Twa victims) are as high as 1,100,000.[3]
In 1990, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), a rebel group composed mostly of Tutsi refugees, invaded northern Rwanda from their base in Uganda, initiating the Rwandan Civil War. Neither side was able to gain a decisive advantage in the war, and the Rwandan government led by President Juvénal Habyarimana[7] signed the Arusha Accords with the RPF on 4 August 1993. Many historians argue that genocide against the Tutsi had been planned for a few years. However, Habyarimana’s assassination on 6 April 1994 created a power vacuum and ended peace accords. Genocidal killings began the following day when soldiers, police, and militia executed key Tutsi and moderate Hutu military and political leaders.

The scale and brutality of the genocide caused shock worldwide, but no country intervened to forcefully stop the killings.[8] Most of the victims were killed in their own villages or towns, many by their neighbors and fellow villagers. Hutu gangs searched out victims hiding in churches and school buildings. The militia murdered victims with machetes and rifles.[9] Sexual violence was rife, with an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 women raped during the genocide.[10] The RPF quickly resumed the civil war once the genocide started and captured all government territory, ending the genocide and forcing the government and génocidaires into Zaire.”

In the Middle East artificial boundaries encompassing both Shia and Sunni have made Arabs powerless despite their numbers.

The participation of white ethnicities in the erasure of their own culture by submerging themselves in multiculturalism and then dismantling the white culture that “offends” the “preferred minorities,” deprives them of power to resist their demonization, the precursor to genocide. Nothing strikes more fear in a white person than being called “racist” and “anti-semite.” We are witnessing the self-genocide of the white race. White people are erasing themselves. They are their own worst enemies.

For the latest act of white self-flagellation see: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/10/25/cambridge-formerly-a-university-now-an-insane-asylum-rushes-forward-in-erasing-western-literature/