Now that statues of Presidents Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Grant and Theodore Roosevelt have been desecrated, vandalized, toppled and smashed, it appears Woodrow Wilson’s time has come.

The cultural revolution has come to the Ivy League.

Though Wilson attended Princeton as an undergraduate, taught there and served from 1902 to 1910 as president, his name is to be removed from Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs.

And why is this icon of American liberals to be so dishonored?

Because Thomas Woodrow Wilson disbelieved in racial equality.

Says Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber: “Wilson’s racist opinions and policies make him an inappropriate namesake.” Moreover, Wilson’s “racism was significant and consequential even by the standards of his own time.”

And what exactly were Wilson’s sins?

“Wilson was… a racist,” writes Eisgruber, who “discouraged black applicants from applying to Princeton. While president of the United States he segregated the previously integrated civil service.”

Another of Wilson’s crimes was overlooked by Eisgruber.

In February 1915, following a White House screening of “Birth of a Nation,” which depicted the Ku Klux Klan as heroic defenders of white womanhood in the South after the Civil War, a stunned Wilson said:

“It’s like writing history with lightning. My only regret is that it is all so terribly true.”

“Woodrow Wilson is being dishonored today by the house that Woodrow Wilson built.”

Princeton’s board of trustees has endorsed Eisgruber’s capitulation, declaring that Woodrow Wilson’s “racist thinking and policies make him an inappropriate namesake for a school or college whose scholars, students, and alumni must stand firmly against racism in all its forms.”

Yet, as Wilson left the U.S. presidency a century ago and has been dead for 96 years, one wonders: Was Princeton unaware that Wilson had resegregated the civil service? When did Princeton discover this?

Wilson’s support of segregation was a matter of record in his own time and is a subject about which every biographer and historian of that period has been aware. When did Princeton discover that this Southern-born president, the most famous son in the school’s history, like so many of his presidential predecessors, did not believe in integration?

Four years ago, Eisgruber rebuffed student demands to wipe Wilson’s name off the public policy institute, because, as he wrote last week, Wilson “transformed” Princeton “from a sleepy college to a world-class university.”

Talk of ingratitude! Woodrow Wilson is being dishonored today by the house that Woodrow Wilson built.

Wilson was also a history-making liberal Democrat, a two-term president who took us into the Great War, advanced his “14 Points” as a basis for peace, became an architect of the Versailles Treaty, championed a League of Nations and won the Nobel Prize for Peace.

True, it did not all work out well.

Sold as “the war to end war” and “to make the world safe for democracy” Wilson took us in in April 1917 as an associate power of four empires. And rather than make the world safe for democracy, the war made the world that emerged accessible to Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler.

Yet, if Wilson’s disbelief in equality is sufficient to get the most famous son Princeton produced from having his name on a public institute, this is likely just the beginning.

The Wilson Center, chartered by Congress in 1968, a nonpartisan policy forum led today by ex-Congresswoman Jane Harman, is the official memorial to President Wilson in Washington, D.C.

It, too, is likely to be headed for the chopping block.

One of the largest and most integrated public high schools in D.C. is Woodrow Wilson High, which has stood since before World War II in the northwest corner of the city. Is that name to be changed as well?

What of the D.C. Beltway’s Wilson Bridge, south of the city, which has brought traffic into, out of and around the capital for decades?

Will we need a name change there as well?

Theodore Roosevelt is under fire for his negative views of Native Americans. Yet, he, too, has a bridge over the Potomac named after him — and a D.C. high school as well.

The Key Bridge connects Georgetown to Virginia’s Lee Highway, which was named for General Robert E. Lee in 1919. The bridge is named after Francis Scott Key, author of “The Star-Spangled Banner” and whose statue was lately toppled in Golden Gate Park.

If support for segregation is a disqualification for honor in the new America, is it likely that the oldest of three Senate office buildings on Capitol Hill can remain named for Sen. Richard B. Russell of Georgia?

A confidant and ally of President Lyndon Johnson, Russell was a co-signer of the Southern Manifesto of 1956, which called for “massive resistance” to integrating public schools. Russell also voted against every major civil rights bill in his 40 years in the Senate.

If D.C. ever becomes a state surrounding the Capitol, Mall, White House and major monuments, look for the sweeping destruction of statues and monuments and a changing of the names of streets, parks and circles.

Where does the madness end?

On Sept. 27, 1979, professional Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel presented his formal report to President Jimmy Carter regarding the establishment of a Holocaust memorial and museum in Washington, D.C. The previous year, Carter had authorized the endeavor, and he’d tasked Wiesel with crafting a report outlining the museum’s scope and purpose.

The Holocaust had been over for almost 35 years. It had not taken place in America, or as the result of American policies. Some of the camps had been liberated by the U.S., a nation that lost several hundred thousand sons fighting Hitler. Many Holocaust survivors found a fine postwar life in America, and those who lived in Israel could count on U.S. protection against that country’s enemies.

If Washington, D.C., needed a Holocaust museum, and that’s debatable, surely the American people needed no lectures on culpability.

Wiesel disagreed. In his report, he attacked America for not having “changed our immigration laws and opened our gates more widely” to save Jews during the Holocaust (a nonsensical point, as the Polish and Russian Jews who were the main victims of the Holocaust were not allowed to emigrate regardless of whether any nations would’ve accepted them). Having established American “guilt,” Wiesel proceeded to lay down the law, using, as he did throughout the report, capital-E “Event” to represent the Holocaust:

“Like it or not, the Event must and will dominate future events.”

Yes, Americans, “like it or not,” the Holocaust “must and will dominate future events.” Everything you do, everything you accomplish, everything you say or think, will be dominated by this one event that you had absolutely nothing to do with. Wiesel didn’t mince words: The Event’s “centrality in the creative endeavors of our contemporaries” must be undisputed.

And then Wiesel went for the kill shot: “Why not forget, turn the page, and proclaim: let it remain buried beneath the dark nightmares of our subconscious,” he asked. His answer? We must “not spare our children the weight of our collective burden and allow them to start their lives free of nocturnal obsessions and complexes, free of Auschwitz and its shadows.”

American children must not “start their lives free of nocturnal obsessions and complexes.” Let that sink in.

But Wiesel was overconfident and myopic. He couldn’t see beyond his day. He couldn’t foresee his own eventual irrelevance. He couldn’t foresee that the relevance of his capital-E Event would fade. And most of all, he couldn’t foresee that in a matter of decades, a different “victim group” would take his playbook and run with it to even greater effect.

America has a new capital-E Event: slavery. And this new Event “must and will” be “central in the creative endeavors of our contemporaries.” Once again, our children must be terrorized with “nocturnal obsessions and complexes.” BLM terrorists have quite clearly stated that the motivation behind their targeted terror riots is to instill fear in whites. Much as Wiesel loved to terrorize Jewish kids into thinking the Nazis were coming for them anew, and gentile kids into thinking that somehow they were responsible for the human skeletons at Belsen, so BLM loves to terrorize black kids into thinking that “racism” could kill them at any minute (because they’re no “freer” than their slave ancestors), and white kids into thinking that their inborn “privilege” makes them complicit in the death of every black person anywhere.

“America has a new capital-E Event: slavery.”

Wiesel was too egotistical and shortsighted to envision a day in which a young, energetic, and numerically larger (though far less wealthy) nonwhite demographic would use its own long-ago oppression event to gain the influence over whitey that the Jews had in his day. And now Jews are bitching that blacks and their Event are taking over their racket. “Why can’t you get canceled for anti-Semitism?” wept Bethany Mandel, Twitter-superstar wife of the Washington Examiner’s Seth Mandel. I think she meant, “Why can’t you get canceled for anti-Semitism anymore?” And you can, just not with the severity of cancellations demanded by BLM. Similarly, Jewish News Syndicate editor Jonathan Tobin penned a lengthy screed about how tragic it is that blacks have supplanted Jews as the “untouchable” victim group.

This passing of the torch was perfectly symbolized last week in New York’s 16th District primary race. Jewish incumbent Eliot Engel, who’s taken every opportunity in his 40-plus-year political career to push his capital-E Event with proclamations, photo ops, and demands for more “commemoration,” lost to BLM radical Jamaal Bowman, who campaigned on his capital-E Event.

The Jew and his Holocaust got shown the door, as the black man and his slavery claimed the seat.

The students have eclipsed the teachers. Black Americans know the Jewish playbook word for word, because Jews have always been their instructors in academia and their patrons in the media. Jews cofounded most of the large civil rights organizations, taught “revolutionary dialectics” at every worthless degree factory, and hired most of the illiterate black hacks in legacy media. Jews have empowered the worst of the black community and encouraged its most destructive obsessions.

Jews have experience with the kind of hell they’re forging here. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is defined by its intractability. The unbending demands of both sides make the problem unsolvable. The Palestinians will never give up the “right of return,” and they’ll always want Jerusalem. The Israelis will never allow a “right of return,” and they’ll never give up Jerusalem. And both sides continue to increase the intractability daily, via terror attacks and IDF reprisals, just to make sure that new vendettas prevent the old ones from being forgotten.

No solution…just two sides beating, killing, and terrorizing each other for all eternity.

Here in the U.S., black/white conflicts never had to be similarly intractable. For blacks, it was never about land; many if not most were happy to flee the South after slavery. To be sure, there were always going to be issues—nature and nurture issues in the black community (the latter exacerbated by government policies), employment imbalances, educational imbalances. But none of those things were deal-breakers; there never had to be a permanent state of conflict between black and white.

But today, black/white issues in the U.S. are fast becoming intractable, because black demands have become impossible. Not just impossible to accede to, but impossible to understand. There’s no logic to BLM, only a desire to destroy and terrorize. There was no logic in destroying the historically Jewish Fairfax District of L.A., there’s no logic in toppling statues of abolitionists and freed slaves and defacing busts of Ulysses Grant and Cervantes. There’s only hatred. When Beverly Hills was being sacked last month, that’s what got to me—the hatred in the eyes of the rioters. And the lack of any “moderate” blacks in L.A. saying, “Stop it, this isn’t the way.”

It’s not that all members of the black community have decided to embrace jihad (jihood?), but enough have. And for any conflict to become intractable, you never need “all,” just “enough.”

How did things get this bad? It’s that old fool Wiesel’s playbook. This is the inevitable result of the black capital-E Event becoming dominant in all aspects of American life. That was the point of the New York Times’ 1619 series, written by functional illiterate Nikole Hannah-Jones, a talentless scribbler who, without her Jewish overseers, would be performing “mama got a big ol’ booty” raps on TikTok. Slaves “built America,” so therefore anyone living in America owes the descendants of slaves. Do you like sugar? Well, you wouldn’t if not for slavery. Therefore, you owe (Jones made that point specifically). Indeed, Jones has proudly referred to the current unrest as the “1619 riots.”

Like pimps, blacks are terrorizing whites because they been holdin’ out.

BLM radical and former Obama administration official Allyn Brooks-LaSure made a similar point in a recent correspondence. After claiming that “at one time, 80 percent of the world’s cotton was picked by American slaves,” Brooks-LaSure went on to state that this makes everyone, everywhere “beneficiaries” of slavery.

Basically, if anyone in your family tree ever wore a cotton shirt, you owe (LaSure’s organization, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, was cofounded by National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council chief Arnold Aronson).

When Wiesel and his ilk tried to make the Holocaust the dominant event in American life, it was a scheme carried out by an already affluent community. Jews didn’t need Holocaust guilting as a tool to achieve economic and educational successes; they already had those successes. Holocaust domination was partly an exercise in egotism, partly an exercise in ensuring certain legislative victories (as in, aid to Israel), and partly a way to have an edge in any situation where victim status provides an advantage.

But with blacks, you have a far less successful community that thinks it can somehow use its capital-E Event as a cure-all for its failings. Whites “owe” blacks the successes they could not achieve on their own. At least Jews used Holocaust guilt to deliver attainable goals (aid to Israel, speech censorship, museums, Oscars). Blacks are using slavery guilt to demand the impossible (“make our community rich, smart, and successful!”)

There’s no chance of a satisfactory outcome here. Whites can acquiesce to every demand, they can enforce hiring and college admissions quotas and only watch “black” movies and live in unpoliced cities and turn a blind eye when blacks shoplift and mug, but it won’t make blacks better at STEM or black families more stable or black communities less crime- and drug-infested.

What makes the current black/white conflict more intractable than the Israeli/Palestinian one is that American blacks don’t feel that they’re entitled to land…they feel that they’re entitled to us. Their “claim” is to the people they believe profited from their ancestors’ misfortune. They want us to “make it all better,” but we don’t have that power. It’s a child’s demand, and there are no longer any parents in the room to say no.

Not surprisingly, black leaders are as shortsighted as Wiesel. Their capital-E Event might be the dominant one right now, but blacks continue to vote overwhelmingly for open borders (the ones Wiesel pined for) and the mass importation of brown folks who don’t give a rat’s ass about Jewish or black Events.

As blacks turn on Jews and rob them of their most favored victim status, eventually our emerging brown majorities will do the same to blacks. In the past three decades, L.A. County has lost almost 200,000 blacks solely because they were squeezed out by immigrants who live and hire tribally and can’t be guilted by a capital-E Event into acting against their own interests. L.A.’s cold brown shoulder is the future for blacks nationally, especially if they continue to rely on slavery reparations as a substitute for actual self-betterment.

For Jews, and the blacks who followed in their footsteps, the Wiesel playbook will turn out to be a suicide pact.

Or a suicide bomb, because a lot of innocent bystanders are gonna be taken out along the way.

The 1977 ABC miniseries Roots—despite its slew of historical inaccuracies and outright fabrications—injected lethal doses of guilt into white America’s collective unconscious when it first aired. But over 40 years later, its main narrative remains welded into the public consciousness: There has been a lot of suffering in America, all of it perpetrated by whites and all of it suffered by blacks.

American whites have heard this narrative their whole lives. This nuance-free reading of history, with one side purely evil and the other purely good, has escalated in severity over the years. Many, if not most, American whites have even internalized it. But it has not been their experience. At all.

Their entire lives they’ve been told who they are, and they know it’s not true. It may have been true 100 years ago—at least for the whites who weren’t dying on the battlefield or getting blasted to bits in coal-mine explosions—but it has never been true for a moment of their lives. They have never known the slightest taste of the “white privilege” they’ve been accused of enjoying. The only identity allowed to them is one of self-abnegation and shame. In fact, “allowed” is too gentle a term—this identity is being forced on them.

I suspect this force-fed guilt may backfire in spectacular fashion.

There are multiple generations of American whites who’ve never experienced the old white America the left fixates on, the old white America they pretend not only still exists in significant numbers but actually still has the cultural upper hand.

Roots came in eight episodes lasting a total of nine hours and thirty-six minutes. Despite the fact that if its narrative had been aimed at any other demographic besides whites it would currently be categorized and banned as “hate speech,” I encourage all white Americans to watch it, if only to get a glimpse at the lopsided defamation their ilk has been receiving for generations now.

Then—as an interesting little experiment—I’d encourage all white Americans to watch nine hours and thirty-six minutes of handheld video from the ongoing riots that depict black mobs beating the ever-living fuck out of white people from coast to coast and overseas.

Force their eyelids to remain open Clockwork Orange-style for nearly ten hours and make them look at all the misspelled calls for white genocide. Have them look at video after video of bloodthirsty black mobs torturing white people for no other crime than being white—and laughing while they do it. Force them to stare at white people so thoroughly demoralized that they throw screaming fits at the mere possibility of publicly being outed as a “racist.” Force them to observe how UC Berkeley recently issued a statement acknowledging that, yes, OK, sure, a white student was recently murdered, but “many of us” are too busy mourning the far more important black deaths that occurred thousands of miles from campus to really care about that dead white boy.

“The new white identity will revolve around modern reality and not TV movies about the 1850s.”

How will they be able to deny that what’s going on right here and right now is easily as cruel and systematic as anything depicted in Roots?

There are so many of these videos. And so many people I know tell me they can’t watch them anymore. It’s too sickening. But they also feel helpless. And hopeless. And that’s not encouraging when a war is being waged against you.

They know they’re not what they’ve been told they are. They also know that if they speak up, they will be dogpiled.

Have whites already waved the white flag?

When I was a kid, being white was all about expansion and pride. We ruled the world, and the last emotional response to this fact that would possibly occur to us would be guilt or shame.

Now, being white is all about retreat and apology.

The problem with retreating, though, is that you eventually run out of space. You run smack-dab into a wall or a mountain, and then you have to turn around and face what you’ve been fleeing.

There are now entire generations of whites who’ve only known the “privilege” of being blamed for all the evil throughout world history.

Sooner or later, most whites will be able to clearly see the difference between Picture A and Picture B, between what they’re told is going on and what they can see is going on.

Actually, I think we’ve reached this point. The only thing that remains uncertain is how many white people will feel brave enough to start publicly mentioning the glaring disparities between Picture A and Picture B.

Few things enrage me more than realizing someone’s been exploiting my good faith by lying to me. That’s what was at the center of my “transformation” around 30 years ago, when I realized that if the narrative was truly about tolerance, they’d tolerate white people just as well as they embrace everyone else.

White Americans have endured a systematic program of brainwashing that would have alarmed Orwell. They’ve watched how double standards have copulated, breeding quadruple and octuple standards. They’ve been forced to embrace a world that is obviously upside-down, because they know if they open their mouths, their teeth will get kicked out.

But what happens if you remain silent but get kicked in the teeth anyway?

People, especially in groups, have a tremendous capacity for self-deception, but it’s not limitless.

What’s wrong with wanting to live in a world that is friendly to the very idea of your existence?

What’s wrong with objecting to a world that blames you for everything that’s wrong in it?

And how do any of these simple questions qualify as “extremism”?

When in history has a majority population allowed this to be done to themselves? What does it say about the mental condition of white Americans that the moment in their history when they are least likely to attack and demean blacks is also the time when they are most convinced that white-on-black attacks are out of control? If white people were remotely as nasty as they say, would they have cowered and just let all this happen?

Forced tolerance ends when they smack you in the head with a brick.

It all ends when they rape your daughter.

It all ends when they take your job.

It all ends when they burn your house down.

What happens when modern whites realize they are guilty of nothing and are the sole victims of organized modern racial hatred?

There are some white people afflicted with what I diagnosed years ago as “Passover Syndrome.” They’re stuck in some inverted-guilt loop where the worse they feel about who they are, the better they feel about themselves. They’ve deluded themselves into thinking that all their virtue-signaling will somehow magically make nonwhites see them as allies rather than as racial enemies. I don’t think, as some suggest, that whites carry some altruism gene that will prove to be their undoing. I believe it’s the cumulative effect of propaganda, psychological terror, and demographic bullying.

The white people who think all this is headed anywhere good are the biggest fools in world history. Let them fall off the cliff that remains after they’ve sandblasted the faces off Mount Rushmore. If they’re actually swallowing the nonsense that’s been shoveled down their throats, I won’t shed a tear when they wind up choking on it.

I see something absolutely psychopathic in the face of Robin DiAngelo, author of White Fragility. Her face looks as if it’s about to crack and fall to pieces at any moment. Miss DiAngelo certainly looks fragile, so I suspect she’s projecting.

But as things get worse, white fragility will turn to white hostility. Not everyone is as weak and willing to capitulate as the world’s traitorous Barbara DiAngelos.

Whether or not you’re dumb enough to believe race is a social construct, you should at least be wise enough to realize that white people are easy to pick out of a crowd. It doesn’t matter if you think you’re on the “other” side—your skin color marks and tags you as white. An identity has been forced on you. Groucho Marx said he’d never join a club that would have him as a member. But no white person has a choice about belonging to this club—their membership is tattooed on every square inch of their skin.

Black identity was formed by outsiders by constant persecution. So was Zionism. And the new white identity will be formed the same way. By necessity, whites will bond based on a common shared experience of being demonized. People who weren’t remotely “racist” a year ago now realize they’re being targeted.

White people will finally discard the ancient Roots stereotypes and realize their new reality is encapsulated by all the handheld video beatings that blacks administer to whites and post on World Star Hip Hop. A new identity will be formed not on what they’re being told about the past, but what they’ve witnessed with their own eyes.

Suddenly whites are realizing that this whole “anti-whiteness” thing is reality—almost enshrined into law at this point—rather than a cockamamie conspiracy theory.

In fact, they’re realizing the true wacky conspiracy theory is the idea that white people are conspiring AT ALL about ANYTHING. There is no demographic in America that is more hopelessly fractured and at war with itself than white America.

But now they have a common bond, one that can’t be splintered by squabbles about nationality or religion or ideology. They are white whether they like it or not, and people are gunning for them.

The new white identity will revolve around modern reality and not TV movies about the 1850s. It won’t be about guilt this time around. It’ll be about being guilt-tripped. It won’t be about hurting others; it’ll be focused on the “white wounding” that others are openly encouraging.

There comes a point where your brain explodes and you can no longer expend the energy to pretend that what they’re telling you is true.

Today’s whites, ye sluggards, aren’t “waking” up so much as they’re having cold water poured on them while someone bangs on pots and pans until they’re forcibly ripped from slumber’s bliss.

This is all going to create a whole new breed of white people, though.

The avowed enemies of All Things White seem to suffer the delusion that they’ve already tattooed a permanent fatal stigma onto the soul of white folks.

In reality, they may have given them a much-needed gift.

The Week’s Most Inelegant, Irrelevant, and Unintelligent Headlines

Goodbye, Aunt Jemima—you were one of the good ones.

They sacrificed you on the altar of George Floyd, who was one of the bad ones.

Many white people who have never met a black person in their life has at least experienced the joy of seeing Aunt Jemima’s beaming face as they poured golden maple syrup over their flapjacks on a cold winter’s morn and took comfort at the smiling black lady who approved of their gustatory indulgences because life is short and we need all the happy memories we can get.

But she is now gone—brutally butchered to appease the bloodthirsty hordes who suck all the joy out of modern life.

After 130 years of bringin’ that sweet fat black lady to your breakfast table, the Quaker Oats company announced last week that it would be killing Aunt Jemima. They didn’t admit that they sacrificed her chubby body in the hopes that it would sate the crowd’s bloodlust and therefore spare their own lives, but they might as well have:

We recognize Aunt Jemima’s origins are based on a racial stereotype….As we work to make progress toward racial equality through several initiatives, we also must take a hard look at our portfolio of brands and ensure they reflect our values and meet our consumers’ expectations.

Riché Richardson, a black woman with gigantic nostrils who teaches something called “African American” literature at Cornell University, told the TODAY last week that the mere thought of Aunt Jemima gave black Americans conniptions:

It’s an image that hearkens back to the antebellum plantation. … Aunt Jemima is that kind of stereotype that is premised on this idea of Black inferiority and otherness. It is urgent to expunge our public spaces of a lot of these symbols that for some people are triggering and represent terror and abuse.

Mere hours after Aunt Jemima was pronounced dead, Mars Inc.—which owns Uncle Ben’s rice, another heartwarming portrayal of a nice, clean African American person who only wants you to have a good meal—said that Uncle Ben would be the next to swing from the lynching rope—“now is the right time to evolve the Uncle Ben’s brand,” the company announced.

We thought it was illegal to mention black people and evolution in the same sentence.

As part of what will inevitably be known historically as The Long March Through The Breakfast Foods, the three adorable Caucasian elves known and loved around the world as Snap, Crackle, and Pop were demeaned by a former Labour Party MP as “three white boys” who have been deliberately segregated from the Coco Pops monkey.

Fiona Onasanya was born with a face designed to scare children. In 2018 she became only the second person in history to be ejected from Parliament as the result of a recall petition after she was found guilty of perverting the course of justice for lying about a speeding violation.

She recently directed a Tweet at the UK branch of the Kellogg’s cereal company, race-shaming them for not featuring Elves of Color on their cereal boxes:

@KelloggsUK, as you are yet to reply to my email – Coco Pops and Rice Krispies have the same compòsition (except for the fact CP’s are brown and chocolate flavoured)… so I was wondering why Rice Krispies have three white boys representing the brand and Coco Pops have a monkey?

It never occurred to her that since Rice Krispies are white they should be represented by white people, and that since Coco Cops are brown, they should be represented by a monkey. White people are white, and monkeys are brown. This isn’t rocket science, people.

“Goodbye, Aunt Jemima—you were one of the good ones.”

In response, the ghoulish lady with the unpronounceable name noted that John Harvey Kellogg, founder of the Kellogg’s company, cofounded something called the Race Betterment Foundation, whose alleged mission statement was to combat “race degeneracy.” That sounds really cool, but the sad reality is that lately, the Kellogg Foundation has been funneling cash toward George Soros’s Open Society Institute, a bottomless money pit which enables people to complain about racist elves from here to eternity.

Because George Floyd is now dead and is essentially the Dictator Emeritus of Western Civilization, expect the endless witch hunts to gleefully proceed apace.

Did you know that grooved handles on a sword represent 400 years of suffering for black people? Well, they don’t, but the mere accusation of racism is enough these days to make all living white people accede to your demands no matter how ridiculous they are.

Pressure from the usual suspects forced the University of Virginia to swap out its old logo—which featured crossed swords with “serpentine” handles—for new swords with smooth handles. Someone got it in their head that the grooved handles were intended to celebrate walls on campus that had been used to shield the public from observing slave laborers way back when that was a thing.

We don’t get it, either.

The school’s athletic director Carla Williams attempted to explain:

After the release of our new logos on April 24th, I was made aware of the negative connotation between the serpentine walls and slavery….I was not previously aware of the historical perspective indicating the original eight-foot-high walls were constructed to mask the institution of slavery and enslaved laborers from public view….Over the last few weeks, I have worked to better educate myself and that education will continue….There was no intent to cause harm, but we did, and for that, I apologize to those who bear the pain of slavery in our history.

We still don’t get it.

We were under the impression that Rhode Island’s official name was “Rhode Island,” but how wrong we were! It’s actually “The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,” which is cool because it not only evokes slavery, but it reminds people that they also had slaves up North.

Well, that’s all coming to an end. The state’s Mafia-appointed governor Gina Raimondo (we have no evidence of this, and we’re actually just kidding, but that’s an Italian name and Rhode Island is a Mob state, so do the math) recently announced that Rhode Island will be officially changing its name to “Rhode Island”:

Many of the State’s residents find it painful that a word so closely associated with slavery should appear in the official name of the State. The pain that this association causes to some of our residents should be of concern to all Rhode Islanders and we should do everything in our power to ensure that all communities can take pride in our State.

On Monday, she also tweeted:

Rhode Island was founded on the principles of acceptance and tolerance, and our state’s name – and actions – should reflect those values.

Do these people hear themselves? How are their minds so consistently capable of seeing things both ways at once? She says the state was founded on “acceptance and tolerance” after signing a bill to remove part of a name from a state that named itself after the fact that it had slave plantations.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, those slaves were listed in legal documents as both “blacke” and “white.”

Facebook recently axed 88 ads from the Trump campaign, claiming that their use of an upside-down red triangle evoked the patches that political dissidents had to wear in Nazi concentration camps and that this was a bald attempt for Trump to Nazi-whistle to all his Nazi followers.

Tim Murtaugh, the Trump campaign’s communications director, replied that the inverted red triangle was actually an Antifa logo:

We would note that Facebook still has an inverted red triangle emoji in use, which looks exactly the same, so it’s curious that they would target only this ad.

Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL essentially told Murtaugh to go piss up a rope, adding that upside-down red triangles send an “offensive and deeply troubling” message.

No one seemed to notice who the real Nazis are here, though—does anyone in their right mind think it was an accident that Facebook removed 88 ads?

Lincoln County, Oregon, is named after an American president who said horrible things about black people. It is no wonder, then, that they recently passed a facemask ordinance that exempted “people of color” from having to wear the mask.

Their stated reason for this exemption was that we live in a white-supremacist society where black people wearing facemasks reminds everyone that although blacks are statistically far more likely to commit crime than any other group in America, to note this fact—or even to think about it for more than three seconds—is extremely racist.

Trevor Logan, a black economics professor at Ohio State University, explained the decision to CNN:

This is in the larger context of black men fitting the description of a suspect who has a hood on, who has a face covering on. It looks like almost every criminal sketch of any garden-variety black suspect….[you’re] basically telling people to look dangerous given racial stereotypes that are out there.

Then, when it became very clear that the real intent of the exemption was to expose black people to coronavirus and make them easier to identify in criminal lineups, the county reversed their decision to exempt peeps o’ color.

Guo Wengui (don’t worry, we can’t pronounce it, either) is an exiled Chinese billionaire who fled his nation of origin for the USA in 2014 after learning that the Chinese were about to charge him with a whole slew of crimes including kidnapping and rape.

In a recent interview, Wengui claimed that the Chinese Communist Party forks over two billion US dollars every year to the Vatican to buy their silence about China’s repression of religious freedoms.

Although we can neither confirm nor refute this allegation, French journalist Alban Mikozy notes that the Vatican has been courting China for a while now:

Pope Francis is a prudent man. He pursues a dream: to be the sovereign pontiff who will restore relations between China and the Vatican.In order to do this, he is ready to make a few concessions: say nothing about Hong Kong, do not get too excited when the Chinese leader talks about rewriting the Bible.

So if you’ve been wondering why Pope Francis sounds more and more like Karl Marx these days, this might be your answer.

The world is so topsy-turvy these days that it’s become a radical racist statement to say white people have a right to live.

At a recent soccer game in the English town of Burnley (they call it “football” over there, but they’re wrong), fans were treated to the sight of a plane carrying a “White Lives Matter” banner as it flew over the stadium.

Burnley’s captain Ben Mee said he was “ashamed and embarrassed” that anyone in England cares about white lives and that whomever was responsible needs to “come into the 21st century” and realize that white genocide is where it’s at.

The culprit, Jake Hepple, proudly claimed responsibility for the stunt on Facebook:

I’d like to take this time to apologise…to absolutely fucking nobody!…It’s now apparently racist to say White Lives Matter, the day after three white people got murdered in a park in Reading, but all we’ve seen on the TV is Black Lives Matter after George Floyd got murdered. What a mad world we live in.

Hepple’s girlfriend, Megan Rambadt, rescently posted online that her town had become “like a foreign country” and that “They [immigrants] need sending back on banana boats, stinkin bastards.”

Those two lovebirds sound like a fun pair of kids. Too bad England is doomed anyway.

GSTAAD—I thought of Nietzsche while the mayhem and destruction of monuments were going on, and his dictum of strengthening the strong and paralyzing the weak as a means of producing a higher type. Decadent bourgeois society was in the great man’s sights, but then he went bananas. Later on, young Nietzscheans believed that what was needed to save the world was an insurrection of sons against their fathers. But things do change, and mostly for the worse. Imagine if Mister N and his followers were around today—the past four weeks, to be exact—they’d exhort the fathers to kill their sons. And daughters.

My higher thoughts were interrupted by a telephone call and a female voice that sounded like a parody of a female voice. She was French and a journalist for France 2, a major television station, and a program by the name of Complément d’enquête, a French sort of Panorama. She had read my daughter’s book on Gstaad and wished to speak to me about the place. “As far as I know, Nietzsche was never here,” I said. She didn’t miss a beat. “But others just as famous have been.” I trust hacks in general and TV hacks in particular as much as I trust the BBC to cover both sides of a story, so I declined. Then a funny thing happened. The female voice that sounded like a parody of a female voice rang the wife, someone who has never willingly spoken to a member of a profession she has very little love or respect for, and convinced her I should speak with her. I suppose it was the manner of a little girl on the telephone and the parody of a female voice. I agreed.

What followed should be included in TV journalism wannabe textbooks. Isabelle—that’s the reporter’s name—with the little girlie voice had assured me her assistant would use a mobile-telephone-like device to film and record. “No lights, no microphones, no problems.” Not true. Two large men carrying large equipment arrived looking ill at ease and proceeded to move my furniture around. Isabelle stood there smiling and saying little. Her size matched her voice and she was very friendly. After the burly technician not wearing a mask had miked me up, we began with me mentioning the N-word: Nietzsche. No, no, said the girlie parody, we were speaking in Frog, “I want to know about votre ami Roman Polanski.” So I said what I had to say about Roman: I’d known him for over fifty years, had never seen him misbehave, that he was fun to be around, and that he was very bright and a hell of a skier, plus the talent. And that I thought he had paid for what he did forty years ago.

“I trust hacks in general and TV hacks in particular as much as I trust the BBC to cover both sides of a story.”

It was not good enough. Girlie voice needed dirt and wanted to know what we had done together fifty years ago. Were there underage girls involved? Were the locals friendly toward him? After a while I had had enough. “You came under false pretenses, this is not about Gstaad but about Polanski.” “Mais no, pas de tout, but tell me what you think Roman does at night…” She was like the proverbial broken record.

It’s not enough that his parents died in a concentration camp, that his wife and unborn child were murdered by hippy types who today would be tearing down statues, but an unproven charge by some publicity freak ten years too late has his film on Dreyfus banned in the United BLM States of America. My “guests” then proceeded to film my house and surrounding fields, and drove up and down the private street filming in case some Albanian thief did not possess a GPS. That’s when Schoenburg got into the act. She rang up and got a lawyer who will sue the hell out of the Frogs in case my chalet appears on screen, and demanded a letter stating that as the filming had not previously been requested and approved, it would not appear on the program. As I said only nice things about Polanski, I will not appear either, of that I’m sure. And now, after that rude interruption, let’s get back to Nietzsche.

The great man would have had lots to say about the present if he had not gone nuts. (The great Wagner, a good friend of his, believed that Nietzsche went bonkers from an excess of masturbation. If that’s true, many present types should be in the nuthouse.) By planting an idea of decline in society, one could actually hasten its demise, or so thought many Nietzsche followers. Actually the master grimly urged that the will to power can serve as a mighty hammer to break down and remove degenerate races. A certain Austrian-born German leader took that to heart some time later, with bad results for his followers. Nietzsche himself had called young men the explosive ones. Today they do seem to be exploding things, although I’d bet my bottom dollar not a single one of them could spell the N-name correctly.

Just as in Nietzsche’s time—with Germany’s university students complaining of being oppressed and suffocated while actually part of a privileged elite—today’s mobs demanding to bring down Rhodes and other greats are among the elites and privileged, and what they really deserve is to be mugged and mugged violently for their cheek. From ignorance to self-righteousness to violence is their way, and we should respond in kind. This is my advice to our side. To them I advise less self-abuse.

Beit Hall at Plumtree School is a beautiful old building built at considerable cost over 100 years ago by early Rhodesian settlers, through which future generations, involving hundreds of thousands of boys of all races, have passed on their way to acquiring the knowledge that would ready them for the challenges of life. Apparently the fires were started by angry inmates under quarantine who had not been fed or afforded decent accommodation. This was, in a sense, a flaming finale to the process of destruction that commenced in 1980 when a magnificent country changed the shape of its government and its name to Zimbabwe.

At the same time, rioters were burning down American cities in the wake of the death of George Floyd, following his arrest by Minneapolis policemen on suspicion of trying to pass a counterfeit $20 bill. Floyd had a history of criminal convictions and had served five years in prison for assault and robbery. The County Medical Examiner’s report has concluded that he died of a heart attack, not asphyxiation; had fentanyl in his system; had recently used methamphetamine; and had coronary artery disease and hypersensitive heart disease. However, footage showing a white policeman with his knee pressed into Floyd’s neck for nine minutes caused international outrage and triggered mayhem.

South Africa’s own Trevor Noah wasted no time in leaping into the limelight, emerging as a sort of “star of the show” as he clambered atop the anti–“white establishment” media bandwagon driven into a righteous frenzy by a Trump-hating press.

“Police in America are looting black bodies,” he cried. “Try to imagine how it must feel for black Americans when they watch themselves being looted every single day. Because that’s fundamentally what’s happening in America.” Asked what good looting does for the community and the country, Mr. Noah replied: “What good doesn’t it do?” The thrust of his rant was quite clear: The wanton destruction was justified. The fact that the victims, both black and white, had nothing to do with the unfortunate death of George Floyd did not trouble Mr. Noah at all.

“The deeply troubling truth is that these motivations are underpinned by a heartfelt desire to destroy whatever they surmise was built by white people.”

A few thoughts crossed my mind as I asked myself why the world reserves all its feigned fury for the relatively rare events when whites are responsible for the death of blacks. In America approximately 7,000 black people are killed in violent incidents each year, and over 90% of those murders are committed by blacks. And where was the apoplectic media and “Black Lives Matter” outrage when just under a million Tutsis were having their heads hacked off by machete-wielding Hutus in Rwanda? This colossal crime against humanity closely followed the mass riots in America after the beating of Rodney King by police in Los Angeles in 1992. But America, led by Bill Clinton, the U.N. with Kofi Annan then responsible for responding to the slaughter, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and virtually the entire world stood idly by and did precisely nothing. The international press paid a parting interest. One has to ask: Is it somehow acceptable if blacks kill blacks?

And when it comes to police brutality the sickeningly sanctimonious Mr. Noah, who makes millions lambasting and lampooning the president of the country that hosts him, might like to ask himself a few questions about how much of a “fascist” and “white supremacist” President Trump actually is. While Mr. Noah can run his mouth without any fear of state sanction, what future would await a white, conservative American comedian who tries to run a talk show in South Africa belittling the president and the government he leads?

Unfortunately for us here in South Africa, Mr. Noah seems to have a lot less to say about tragic events in his homeland. Under draconian emergency regulations, some 250,000 (mostly decent) people have been arrested and charged for breach of stupid rules put in place by a sinister, secretive Command Council headed by former first lady Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma, a woman who has played a leading role in the awful governance visited upon the country since the ANC assumed power.

Also, under this regimen, twelve people have died at the hands of the police or army in the process of enforcing the regulations. One man, Collins Khosa, was allegedly assaulted by a combined police and army detail in his home while entertaining friends, strangled, then slammed against a wall and a gate before being beaten with the butt of a machine gun. His partner has stated that after the detail left, Collins was unable to walk, began to vomit, and then lost consciousness before dying. The matter was investigated by the SA National Defence Force (SANDF) board, which found that the police and the SANDF had no hand in Khosa’s death.

Asked to comment, President Cyril Ramaphosa explained that: “[The police] let their enthusiasm get the better of them.” Police Minister Bheki Cele fobbed the question off with an almost incomprehensible statement that “if someone says I stole a chicken, it’s only an allegation.”

Against this ugly backdrop the ruling ANC has found the gall to involve itself in the Floyd death by calling on the Ramaphosa administration to “engage with the American government” through diplomatic channels to “diffuse racial tensions and build social cohesion among different races.” The statement continues: “While we note the action taken by American authorities in charging one of the officers who was caught on camera kneeling on an unarmed Floyd, it is equally concerning that incidents of police brutality against African American citizens are on the increase.”

What Mr. Noah won’t be telling his listeners is that the officer blamed for the death of George Floyd and three of his colleagues will be prosecuted, tried, and, if convicted, punished. However, this will not happen where he comes from.

Far from it. Here in SA it appears the COVID-19 health alarm has been hijacked to suit a political agenda aimed at achieving the same goals set by the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe. As arguably the most powerful person in the land, Dr. Zuma has referred to the concept of “class suicide” recently. She was quoting from the political tenets of Amilcar Cabral. Cabral, a Guinean academic and anti-colonial activist, called for the elimination of the “upper classes” as the only way of achieving a truly egalitarian society. Challenged by the opposition Democratic Alliance to explain herself, she refused to elaborate, but the intent appears to be to destroy the white middle and upper class. Maybe a little more subtle than the methods adopted by Robert Mugabe, a man Dr. Zuma admired and supported, but the ends will certainly justify the means.

In all the above-mentioned situations and scenarios, the deeply troubling truth is that these motivations are underpinned by a heartfelt desire, by a class of people, to destroy whatever they surmise was built by white people. Just what they intend to replace it with when the whites have been eliminated and their structures destroyed will evidently not amount to very much.

I have never been quite able to make up my mind whether there is no new thing under the sun or whether we live in completely unprecedented times. When we look at events close up and nearby in time and place, we are inclined to think that nothing like them has ever happened before; but with the passage of time, and a little calm reflection, we find analogies all over the place. I suppose the wise man is alive to both the similarities and the differences, but keeping both in mind at the same time is hard, like trying to see the old crones and the candlestick simultaneously in the famous diagram beloved of gestalt psychologists.

In light of the recent events in the United States and elsewhere (the elsewhere that has long imitated the United States in completely decerebrate fashion, while at the same time being anti-American), I flicked through a large picture book of May 1968 in Paris, the upheaval of spoilt brats, by spoilt brats, for spoilt brats. I hesitate to quote Georges Marchais, the leader of the Stalinist French Communist Party of the time, who was not in favor of the upheaval, but who said, with some prescience:

In general, it’s all about the sons of the haute-bourgeoisie who, disdaining the students of working-class background, will soon extinguish their “revolutionary flame” in order to go and manage Papa’s companies and exploit the workers in the best traditions of capitalism.

Spot-on, Georges, if one goes a little less hard on the poor capitalists and includes in the stricture the former Maoists who later joined the upper echelons of the French state apparatus!

Another Georges, this time the soon-to-be president of France, Pompidou, said something pertinent in the French National Assembly in the middle of May 1968:

At this stage, it is, believe me, no longer the government that is in question, nor the institutions, nor even France, it is our civilization itself.

One can’t help thinking that good old Georges was onto something, even if, in the 52 years that have so far elapsed since then, I have personally managed, as have millions of others, to lead a perfectly satisfactory and even fulfilling life, as no doubt did many Romans in the run-up to the collapse of the empire.

“Bogusness is a permanent temptation in political life.”

What is quite clear from the photographs is that the students who made a mess of Paris and threw up barricades that made the streets of the City of Light look temporarily like those of Port-au-Prince (where disposal of garbage is not very well-organized, if I recall correctly) were far from the horny-handed sons of labor. On the contrary, they were clearly the children of the bourgeoisie, and could not hide the fact, however casually (for the time) they dressed. Social class does not spare physiognomy in its effects, any more than it spares longevity.

The students obviously liked to make a mess; it was, so to speak, their natural milieu, as maggots like carcasses. When, occupying offices, they put their feet up on the antique desks of authority that they were soon to sit behind, they thought that they were being revolutionary rather than merely savage and insolent. They were privileged, but not privileged enough in their own estimation. They were earnest, but not serious; and earnestness combined with frivolity and armor-plated self-righteousness is not very attractive. Evidently, however, earnest frivolity is a permanent temptation of youth, which does not yet appreciate that deterioration as well as improvement is possible.

One reads the words of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the student revolutionary and narcissistic apologist for pedophilia, who managed afterward to carve out a lucrative career for himself, with a certain rage:

The French flag is made to be torn up and to be transformed into the Red Flag.

Did he have any understanding of what he was saying or knowledge of what he was advocating? Did he, in fact, care? I think not. What he cared about was cutting a figure in public. Let the heavens fall, so long as I am in the newspapers, might have been his mission statement.

Of course, bogusness is a permanent temptation in political life. There is a wonderful photograph of the deputies to the French National Assembly in 1968 having a physical brawl, with punches thrown. Every onlooker, except two, appears concerned by the brawl, but one of the two sits with his arms folded, his expression that of contempt, while the other, actually Pierre Mendès France (though a French friend said he thought it was Roland Dumas, another experienced Machiavellian politician), smiles wickedly as if, having seen a great deal in his life (for example, having been imprisoned under Vichy and having escaped to England during the war, as well as having been twice prime minister), he knew playacting when he saw it.

There has always been playacting in political life, with simulation of strong emotions for their own sake, and so forth. There seem to be periods when these phenomena are at a minimum, as there are periods when they are at a maximum. Not every manifestation of mass feeling is bogus, of course: The million who turned out in May 1968 in support of de Gaulle and against the students were sincere enough (not that sincerity by itself is more than a necessary condition of political virtue, and certainly not a sufficient condition). But the temptation to act more passionately than one feels, and to pretend to believe strongly in principles of no conceivable application—for example, the May 1968 slogan that “It is forbidden to forbid”—is a recurrent one.

I don’t believe in cycles of history, let alone eternal recurrences, but some things really do change. For example, both Pompidou and the much younger Jacques Chirac, as well as many others, including demonstrators, have cigarettes in their mouths. Surely it is time for these shocking scenes to be photoshopped, so that they may not corrupt any youth who happens upon them? If two future Presidents of the Republic are portrayed with cigarettes sticking to their lower lips, who can say how many will die as a result of imitating them? It is high time that history were more carefully edited for the sake of public health.

“How long do you think Seattle and those few blocks looks like this?” CNN’s Chris Cuomo asked Seattle’s liberal mayor Jenny Durkan earlier this month. “I don’t know; we could have the summer of love,” came her response.

The comment now seems particularly absurd, given the violence that has plagued the Capital Hill Autonomous Zone (CHAZ). Seattle police Tuesday morning reported the third shooting in the area since Saturday. The victim was in his 30s. There were two shootings over the weekend—one early Saturday that left a 19-year-old man dead and another person critically injured, and one Sunday night that left a 17-year-old wounded.

In response, Durkan said the city would move to dismantle the police-free zone because the violence was distracting from the message of the “peaceful protesters.”

“The cumulative impacts of the gatherings and protests and the nighttime atmosphere and violence has led to increasingly difficult circumstances for our businesses and residents,” Durkan said at a news conference. “The impacts have increased and the safety has decreased.”

“There should be no place in Seattle that the Seattle Fire Department and the Seattle Police Department can’t go,” she added.

CHAZ occupants disagree. According to the New York Post, Seattle police were prevented from responding to the deadly shooting Saturday by “a human chain of protesters”: “A high-ranking police source told The Post that cops were not only blocked from reaching the victims at the scene, but were confronted by armed protesters at Harborview Medical Center and kept from entering.”

“Without the police to enforce law and order, there will be little of it.”

Journalist Andy Ngo spent five days and nights undercover in the CHAZ. He writes:

In Seattle, as soon as police evacuated from the station nearly two weeks ago, masked protesters stole city property—barricades, fencing and more—to create makeshift barriers. These barriers became the official border checkpoints in and out of the CHAZ. They were later fortified with additional layers of security: more blockades and 24-hour guards. A large team of volunteers assembled to designate themselves “security” for the CHAZ. Many of them wear patches signaling they’re part of the Puget Sound John Brown Gun Club, a far-left militia-type organization named after the radical abolitionist. Last year, one of the group’s members carried out an armed attack on an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Tacoma, Wash. Police said Willem van Spronsen tried to ignite the 500-gallon propane tank attached to the facility. He was killed by police….

Mainstream media reports have focused on the “block party” atmosphere of the occupation, repeating a talking point from the Seattle mayor. She, along with Gov. Jay Inslee, a fellow Democrat, have gone to great lengths to emphasize the “peaceful” nature of the occupation. For media crews that arrive during the day, that is certainly what they will see. People have barbecues in the street. Many bring their children to make street art. People walk their dogs.

But at night, a whole different side of the CHAZ emerges.

Lacking agreed-upon leadership, those who have naturally risen to the top have done so with force or intimidation. For example, rapper Raz Simone, real name Solomon Simone, patrols the CHAZ on some nights with an armed entourage. Simone, originally from Georgia, has an arrest record for child cruelty and other charges. He usually conducts his patrols carrying a long semi-auto rifle and sidearm. Last weekend, a livestream recorded Simone handing another man a rifle from the trunk of a car.

Seattle police chief Carmen Best has said that rapes, assaults, burglaries, and vandalism have also been reported around the protest area since police abandoned the precinct.

But of course, for without the police to enforce law and order, there will be little of it.

The police were removed “in an effort to proactively de-escalate interactions between protestors and law enforcement outside the East Precinct,” Mayor Durkan said in a statement earlier this month. She added that

we will continue to remain focused on what we can and must do to address the systemic inequities that continue to disproportionately impact our Black residents. Yesterday, we announced a commitment to invest $100 million dollars into community—in addition to existing city programs—and to work with community to create a Black Commission that will help to amplify black voices in City Hall.

What “systemic inequities”? No doubt the race hustlers will be glad to get their hands on that $100 million investment.

The best take on CHAZ belongs to the president. “Radical Left Governor @JayInslee and the Mayor of Seattle are being taunted and played at a level that our great Country has never seen before,” President Trump wrote on Twitter. “Take back your city NOW. If you don’t do it, I will. This is not a game.”

In contrast, Mayor Durkan is quite willing to be manipulated by the mob that occupies CHAZ, a mob that has published a list of demands claiming that

The Seattle Police Department and attached court system are beyond reform. We do not request reform, we demand abolition. We demand that the Seattle Council and the Mayor defund and abolish the Seattle Police Department and the attached Criminal Justice Apparatus. This means 100% of funding, including existing pensions for Seattle Police. At an equal level of priority we also demand that the city disallow the operations of ICE in the city of Seattle.

You have only to consider the lawlessness that has characterized CHAZ to imagine what would become of Seattle (or anywhere else, for that matter) without a police department and criminal justice system.

It is unfortunate that CHAZ ever happened to begin with. Plainly it should not have. One wonders whether Mayor Durkan, now that she intends to restore law and order to the region, has learned anything from the experience.

It was very predictable that after months of house arrest and a 24/7 fear campaign, any spark would cause a fire that would be difficult to put out.

The new barbarians are encouraged by social pyromaniacs, experts in manipulating the rebellion of the masses with a mentally retarded message. It is the perfect storm, for the long confinement has made the world even more insane. Anger, stupidity, and victimhood mix a perfect Molotov cocktail for explosive use by preachers of global chaos.

What is their ideology? Their ideas are confused with irrational rage, and there is always an asshole willing to pay for a link to Lenin. They say they are fighting for equality and progress, but their greatest enemy is freedom and a luminous culture, which they want to destroy. It is therefore a war against personal excellence and diversity of choice; the supposed progress they dream of is something very decadent.

I remember a dinner in Ibiza with the French academic Florence Delay, an immortal literate, green-eyed actress, and good whiskey drinker. She told me that her generation had hope in TV as a propagator of culture and education that would make the longing for the Age of Enlightenment a reality. They were soon disappointed. Vulgarity reigned on the screen and globalized the world with the lowest common denominator. The programs were dependent on the audiences, and it was decided that panem et circenses had to be given, to hypnotize an audience allergic to any intellectual rarity. This happens with both private and public channels, but the latter case is even more scandalous because of the perverse misuse of taxes. The brutalization of the citizen is therefore subsidized.

“Anger, stupidity, and victimhood mix a perfect Molotov cocktail for explosive use by preachers of global chaos.”

In too many schools and even universities the same vulgarization has happened. The bar has been lowered just as much as the criticism of elitist thinking has grown, which is accused of being selfish and unsupportive for not descending to the level of the plebs. The standard personality and the flat spirit of the slave who is incapable of making poetry are encouraged, fostering a unique thought where no brilliant surprises are to be had. Artificial intelligence grows as much as natural intelligence is diminished.

More books are available on the internet than in the library of Alexandria, within the reach of anyone who wants to learn. But it is no longer necessary to set fire to wisdom. In the age of the slogan, it is enough to fool around, to castrate thought. And single-book sects proliferate, where slaves do not even sell their souls, they simply give them to the guru for free.

The same society is filled with zombies and robotic people at an electronic pace. The sacred joy of spontaneity fades away. Courtesy has become a rarity, which is extremely dangerous for coexistence. Everyone puts on a uniform and becomes an automaton, incapable of using common sense when necessary. “There are no exceptions,” says the lazy coward on duty as he wields a law or ordinance that excuses him from all moral doubt.

But that is a lie, because exceptions are for the exceptional. It’s a question of personality.

Tribes, social classes, nationalities? Bah, those are labels for sociologists who only know how to generalize. The person, the individual, is much bigger than the club where they want to lock him up. One travels around the world and recognizes one’s peers among dangers and pleasures. Sometimes a single glance is enough.

Among the scientific community there is a great consensus in favor of the theory of evolution of the species, and it is believed that man is descended from the monkey. I am beginning to believe that it is the monkey that is descended from man.

(The article in its original Spanish immediately follows.)

Del Hombre al Mono

Era muy previsible que, tras meses de arresto domiciliario y propaganda del miedo 24 horas al día, cualquier chispa provocase un incendio difícil de apagar.

Los nuevos bárbaros se manifiestan alentados por pirómanos sociales, expertos en manipular la rebelión de las masas con un mensaje mentalmente retrasado. Es la tormenta perfecta, pues el largo confinamiento ha vuelto al mundo más majareta todavía. La ira, la estupidez y el victimismo forman un perfecto cocktail molotov para uso explosivo de los predicadores del caos global.

¿Qué ideología tienen? Sus ideas se confunden con la rabia irracional y siempre hay un imbécil dispuesto a pagar un tren a Lenin. Dicen luchar por la igualdad y el progreso, pero su mayor enemigo es la luminosa cultura, a la que quieren cortar la libre cabeza. Por tanto es una guerra contra la excelencia personal y la diversidad de gustos; y el supuesto progreso que sueñan, algo muy decadente.

Recuerdo una cena en Ibiza con la académica francesa Florence Delay, inmortal literata y actriz de ojos verdes, buena bebedora de whisky. Me contó que su generación tenía esperanza en la televisión como un propagador de cultura y educación que haría realidad el anhelo del Siglo de las Luces. Pronto les decepcionó. La vulgaridad reinaba en la pantalla y globalizaba el mundo con el listón del más bajo denominador común. Los programas eran esclavos de las audiencias y se decidió que había que dar panes et circenses, para hipnotizar a una audiencia alérgica a cualquier rareza intelectual. Eso pasa tanto con canales privados como públicos, pero este último caso es aún más escandaloso por el mal uso de los impuestos. El embrutecimiento del ciudadano está subvencionado.

En demasiados colegios y hasta universidades ha pasado lo mismo. El listón de exigencia ha disminuido tanto como aumenta la crítica al pensamiento elitista, al que se acusa de egoísta e insolidario por no descender al nivel de la plebe. Se alienta la personalidad estándar y el espíritu plano del esclavo incapaz de hacer poesía, fomentando un pensamiento único donde no broten sorpresas geniales. La inteligencia artificial crece tanto como quieren disminuir la natural.

En internet se encuentran más libros que en la biblioteca de Alejandría, al alcance de quien quiera aprender. Pero ya no es necesario prender fuego a la sabiduría. En la época del slogan basta entontecer, castrar el pensamiento. Y proliferan las sectas de libro único donde los esclavos ni siquiera venden su alma, simplemente la ceden gratuitamente al gurú de turno.

La misma sociedad se llena de zombies y gente robotizada a ritmo electrónico. El sagrado gozo de la espontaneidad se difumina. La cortesía se ha vuelto una rareza, lo cual es peligrosísimo para la convivencia. Cualquiera se pone un uniforme y se transforma en un autómata, incapaz de emplear el sentido común cuando es necesario. “No hay excepciones,” dice el vago cobarde de turno mientras esgrime una ley u ordenanza que le excusa de toda duda moral.

Pero eso es mentira, porque las excepciones son para los excepcionales. Cuestión de personalidad.

¿Tribus, clases sociales, nacionalidades? Bah, eso son etiquetas para sociólogos que solo saben generalizar. La persona, el individuo, es mucho mayor que el club donde quieren encerrarlo. Uno viaja por el mundo y reconoce a sus iguales entre peligros y placeres. A veces basta una sola mirada.

Entre la comunidad científica hay un gran consenso a favor de la teoría de la evolución de las especies y se cree que el hombre desciende del mono. Yo empiezo a creer que es el mono quien desciende del hombre.

If you were watching MSNBC last Sunday, you may have seen Imani Perry, professor of African-American studies at Princeton University, and wondered, as I did, Why do I know that name?

Professor Perry’s delightfully original point was that we need to “think in serious contemplative ways about the depth of American inequality.”

So perhaps we know her from her incisive commentary! I certainly haven’t heard anyone talk about American inequality. It really made me think.

But then I suddenly realized it’s that Imani Perry! The one who nearly destroyed a policeman’s life by falsely accusing him of racism!

Back in February 2016, Perry launched a series of tweets, alleging the following:

— She was “arrested in Princeton Township for a single parking ticket three years ago.”

— She was cuffed — FOR A PARKING TICKET — and not allowed to make a phone call “so that someone would know where I was.”

— “I was afraid,” she wrote. “Many women who look like me have a much more frightening end to such arrests.”

Oh my gosh, she could have been killed!

— She was “working to move from being shaken to renewing my commitment to the struggle against racism & carcerality.”

Naturally, her story became instant international news. The president of Princeton leapt to her defense, firing off a letter to the chief of police, demanding an investigation. (I know Perry is a professor, but you’d think that, by now, more people would say, Let’s wait for the facts.)

Perry attributed the universal acceptance of her story to her “small build” and her association with “elite universities” such as Princeton.

Just a thought, but it might also be because she’s black.

“Turns out body cameras are the best thing that ever happened to cops.”

The Princeton police spent several days investigating before finally releasing the dashcam footage. I’m hoping they dragged it out to allow public outrage to reach maximum velocity.

Perry wasn’t arrested “for a single parking ticket three years ago.” After being stopped for going 67 mph in a 45 mph speed zone, officers ran her name and discovered her license had been suspended. She was arrested for driving with a suspended license.

The officer was almost comically polite to the professor. He gently explained to Perry that because of her suspended license, “What you’re going to have to do is come with us, it’s $130, so if you have that money we’ll be able to post and we’ll be able to get you right back out.” He offered to drop her at the university, saying, “You really shouldn’t be driving because of your suspended license.”

He informed her that police are required to cuff anyone being transported to the station and assured her that no one would have to know. As for not being allowed to make a phone call, he clearly told her that once they got to the station, “You can make as many phone calls and texts as you want.”

A policeman was kind to her, so Perry turned around and accused him of racism, secure in the knowledge that no one would dare challenge whatever she said.

It would have been firing offense for him, but not for her. She is still gainfully employed as a Princeton professor — and a sought-after guest on MSNBC and NPR! (It must be because of her “small build.”)

There are dozens of these cases. Tweet me your favorites!

Here’s another, from one of our blessed immigrants, Minati Roychoudhuri, professor at Capital Community College in Connecticut. (Really! That’s not one of my proposed new names for Yale, currently named for a slave trader.)

In 2015, Roychoudhuri (B.A., M.A., Utkal University, India) wrote a letter to the commissioner of public safety, as well as “the Senator and Legislator of my constituency” (she teaches English), claiming a policeman had racially profiled her.

Her letter said: “The officer did not give me any reason as to why had stopped me. His asking if I could speak English shows that he had racially profiled me and was not able to give me a concrete reason for stopping me. Further, the officer had checked ‘Hispanic’ in the race category in the infraction ticket.”

The professor also noted that, “I teach about diversity and the negative impact of racial profiling, I have now become a target of the same insidious behavior! It is easy to connect the dots with the nationwide racial profiling which has led to serious consequences.”

(It’s such a boon to have immigrants teaching about the horrors of “racial profiling” in America because we can’t get anyone to do that!)

Then police released the dashcam footage.

Below are relevant portions from the transcript. I didn’t include the part where the officer asked Roychoudhuri if she spoke English because he never did that. It was a bald-faced lie.

Officer: Hi ma’am, do you know why I’m stopping you today?

Roychoudhuri: No.

Officer: OK. There’s that big gore area with white lines painted across it and you cut in front of it, in front of me, thinking it’s a lane or something. You have to wait until it’s a dotted white line. License and registration.

Officer: Ma’am. So I wrote you the infraction for that improper lane change that you did.

Roychoudhuri: Please, you know, I probably crossed over there, and that’s why I did it. … Obviously I did that. … My (record) is absolutely clean.

Officer: OK. So I wrote you an infraction for that improper lane change that you did.

Roychoudhuri: OK.

Officer: The answer date is on the front of it and the instructions are on the back of it.

Roychoudhuri: Wait, what?

Officer: It’s a mail-in infraction. All you have to do is mail in, either a check or money order, and mail it in.

Roychoudhuri: OK.

Officer: All right.

Roychoudhuri: Thank you.

Guess who’s still teaching at Capital Community College and paid by Connecticut taxpayers? Our sacramental immigrant!

(NOTE TO MSNBC: Roychoudhuri would make another excellent guest to discuss racism in America.)

After the 2014 killing of Mike Brown in Ferguson, Missouri — a justified killing according to everyone, including Obama’s Department of Justice — the big demand was that police be required to wear bodycams.


That was a miscalculation. Turns out body cameras are the best thing that ever happened to cops. Which reminds me: The public has still not seen the bodycam footage from the officers arresting George Floyd, explaining how he ended up on the ground.

Maybe we should wait for the facts.