For me, the most important question in the world is this: What is truth? The question underlies every attempt to understand the world and to act therein. In a biological sense, the problem of formulating true representations of the world existed long before humans and language. Animals seek accurate information about the world: what is edible, what is not; what is dangerous, what is not.
This means that deception also existed long before human beings. Animals are in competition and although they want accurate information for themselves, they often want to deny it to their competitors. Think of camouflage. The truth about a stick-insect is that it is good food for birds or lizards. It conceals that truth by its appearance. The truth about a cuckoo-chick in a reed warbler’s nest is that it is a parasitic interloper. It conceals that truth by its behaviour.
Wasps and monarch butterflies do the opposite: they broadcast the truth about themselves as clearly as possible. “We sting!” “We taste bad!” But their clear warnings can then be stolen by deceivers. Some harmless moths mimic wasps; some edible butterflies mimic monarchs. To understand biology, you have to investigate not just flows of energy, but also flows of information. When you do, it’s clear that control over information is an essential part of biological competition. Deception is a very common evolutionary strategy both between and within species.
These biological realities also apply to human beings, but there are extra layers in the human world. We have language, and our psychology is far more complex. However, this does not alter one essential fact: Truth is often toxic. Revealing it can be very harmful. It’s easy to see how this applies in personal life, but I want to examine how it applies in politics too. The naïve assumption might be that it is good for a political movement to have the truth on its side. But is it? For example, are White nationalists, who recognize the truth about racial differences, actually handicapped by being in the right?
I would suggest that they are. And I’m not simply referring to the hostile media, which celebrate charlatans like Stephen Jay Gould and persecute truthful men like James Watson. We have to ask: why has a strategy of lies and deceit been so successful in politics?
The fact is that it’s often more inspiring to have falsehood on your side. One advantage of falsehood is that it removes the problem of searching for the truth and of adapting the strength of one’s beliefs to the standard of proof and evidence one has. A politician travels much lighter without the truth. If Barack Obama and Tony Blair had had any concern for it, they would not have achieved such spectacular success. By discarding it, they could soar into the political empyrean on the gas of pure rhetoric. In a healthy society, overseen by truthful media, devious narcissists like Obama and Blair would not win political office.
But that again raises the question of why truth has so easily been defeated. Why are lies so successful? Why do we live under a pseudocracy, or government of liars?
The British neo-con Nick Cohen has provided a useful insight into the answer by pointing out that “the left looks for traitors, [while] the right looks for converts.” In other words, the left is concerned simply with winning power, the right with winning the argument. The left is travelling light: it doesn’t have to concern itself with evidence and logic. Persuading an opponent to accept your point of view is much more difficult and uncertain than simply imposing your point of view by censorship or punishing “traitors.”
Some of the left are conscious liars, others are deluded fantasists, but the strategy they employ is the same. They don’t have the truth on their side, so they work much harder to police their own ranks and censor their opponents. In the words of the late Joseph Sobran, The Hive thinks as one and stings as one. Here is the Anglo-American political commentator John Derbyshire putting some numbers on it:
I just went to the NumbersUSA website and looked up the immigration score cards for congresscritters from both parties. NumbersUSA gives every congressperson a grade, from A+ down to F-, on immigration issues. Among Republican House members, 69 percent — I’m going to work with percentages here, if you don’t mind — 69 percent of GOP Representatives got graded A or A+, while 28 percent were F or F-. Got that? 69 percent firm immigration patriots, 28 percent total open borders. That’s the House. Among Republican Senators, 59 percent were A or A+, eight percent were F or F-. See what I mean? Diversity!
Now the Democrats, once again in percentages. Democratic House members: A or A+, zero percent; F or F-, 99 percent. In fact it’s worse than that: two Representatives were not graded, having no voting record on immigration. Of the others, every single one was graded F-! For Democrat Senators the unity was even more solid: 100 percent, every single one, was graded F-.
Where congressional Democrats are concerned, we’re not even in the U.S.A. any more: this might as well be the Supreme Soviet. The President doesn’t have to work these guys; he just has to stroll into the House chamber once a year and bask in the applause. (Radio Derb – Transcript, 7th March 2015)
The Democratic party polices its own ranks and throws out traitors. The Republican party doesn’t police its own ranks, so it has a lot of traitors. But although the Republicans may have a majority of “immigration patriots” among both its ordinary voters and its officials, the Republican elite are traitors who want to open America’s borders to the world. The same is true of the so-called Conservative party in Britain.
The Tory leader David Cameron came to power loudly promising to slash “net immigration.” In fact, he’s done the reverse:
David Cameron will reject calls for the Conservatives to drop their target to cut net migration to below 100,000 a year even though it has soared to almost three times that level. The Prime Minister will go into the May election with his 2010 promise in tatters, official figures confirmed today. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) announced a net flow of 298,000 migrants to the UK in the 12 months to last September – up from 210,000 in the previous year. Net migration is now at its highest level for nine years and 54,000 higher than when the Coalition was formed.
In a further embarrassment for Mr Cameron and the Home Secretary Theresa May, the last immigration statistics before the election showed a rise in people coming from countries outside the EU, which ministers previously claimed to have got under control. The ONS said 624,000 people arrived in the year to September – up from 530,000 in the previous 12 months. The number of non-EU citizens went up by 49,000 to 292,000, and the number of EU citizens rose by 43,000 to 251,000. Around 327,000 people emigrated in the same period. Ministers admitted the figures were “disappointing” but argued that the UK’s strong economy made it a magnet for job-hunters. William Hague, the Commons Leader, described the statistics as “a problem of success.” (David Cameron: We can still cut immigration to below 100,000 a year, The Independent, 26th February 2015)
“Net immigration” is a deceitful concept in any case. If 1,000,000 British Whites had left Britain and 1,000,000 in-bred Muslims had entered, that would have counted as zero net immigration and a triumphant fulfilment of Cameron’s promise. Britain’s “strong economy” is based on more deceit. In fact, it’s a Ponzi scheme a lot like the one run by Bernie Madoff, but on a much bigger scale and destined for a much bigger smash.
Among those currently benefiting from the Ponzi scheme are the rich elite of the Tory party, like its chairmen Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps, who are both Jewish. Neither seems to be concerned at the complete failure of David Cameron to fulfil his promise on net immigration. But what if Cameron had failed to fulfil another pre-election promise: that he would be a staunch “Friend of Israel”? What if Cameron had taken action against Israel for its spying on Britain and its mistreatment of the Palestinians?
In that case, I think the two Tory chairmen would certainly have been concerned and would certainly have acted. Lavish funding would have ceased to flow to the Tories from the Jewish community of which Feldman and Shapps are such shining ornaments. But here’s an odd and interesting fact: their Jewish identity is not discussed in the mainstream British media.
It was quite different when the over-promoted non-entity Lady Warsi was Tory chairwoman alongside Feldman. Her identity as a Muslim woman was celebrated loudly by the Tories, until, with utter predictability, her appointment blew up in their faces.
Warsi resigned as chairwoman because she objected to the party’s support for Jewish Israel against the Muslim Palestinians. In short, when Muslim interests competed with Jewish interests in the Tory party, the Muslim interests lost completely.
But the Tories don’t acknowledge this Jewish dominance and don’t celebrate the way in which both of their chairman are drawn from a tiny ethnic minority. Lord Feldman is obviously Jewish in both name and appearance, so he keeps a “low profile” and avoids media exposure as much as possible.
For example, he didn’t seek the publicity he got when he was accused of condemning ordinary Tories as “swivel-eyed loons” for their opposition to gay marriage and membership of the European Union. Grant Shapps, who is not obviously Jewish, is quite different: he constantly appears in the media to spin the current Tory line. But he didn’t want the publicity he got recently for his business dealings:
The Guardian revealed on Monday that Mr Shapps was actively pursuing a second career in his early days as an MP after 2005, something he had repeatedly denied in very explicit terms. [H]e pursued that career under a false name, selling a product called Stinking Rich and boasting to clients that it offered them the prospect of “a ton of cash”. And … he insisted – and continued to insist even last month in an LBC interview – that he was not moonlighting as Michael Green when, as the Guardian has now shown, he clearly was, and on top of that used legal threats to force a constituent to take down an allegedly libellous post. His euphemistic admission that he had “over-firmly denied” the second job, and then his attempt to pass his denial off as a screw-up, just made it worse. (The Guardian view on Grant Shapps: a chancer chairman who should be fired, The Guardian, 16th March 2015)
Shapps’ guide to getting “Stinking Rich” involved what “sounds very much like a pyramid scheme,” according to the Independent (see here). The paper also said that he relied on mastery of disguise, trickery, plagiarism and testimonials from “people who seem not to exist.”
If he did behave like that, he is what old-fashioned British slang calls a “spiv,” or someone who makes a living by trickery and deceit. As I pointed out in “Bend It Like Bennett,” there was a vicious stereotype in Britain during World War II that spivs and black-marketeers were disproportionately Jewish.
But was the stereotype true? Like Shapps, two other prominent British politicians have recently had unwelcome publicity for their business dealings: Sir Malcolm Rifkind in the Conservatives and Jack Straw in Labour. Caught in a sting by the Daily Telegraph, they are accused of trying to sell influence for cash. Rifkind, who oversaw a key intelligence committee just like Diane Feinstein in the US, was recorded saying that he “could arrange ‘useful access’ to every British ambassador in the world because of his status” (see here). Straw, a former Home Secretary, was recorded saying that he had “operated ‘under the radar’ to use his influence to change European Union rules” and that he had “used ‘charm and menace’ to convince the Ukrainian prime minister to change laws on behalf of the same firm” (again here).
Guess what? Rifkind is fully Jewish and Straw is part Jewish. Because Straw trained as a lawyer, worked in the media and then entered politics, the Jewish Chronicle described him as following a “classic Jewish career path.” It also said that he “looks like a shul warden.”
Straw served in the New Labour government when Lord Levy was at the heart of a financial scandal. Levy is of course Jewish. So is the disgraced politician Shirley Porter. So was the mega-fraudster Robert Maxwell, whose daughter Ghislaine is currently accused of “procuring young girls” for the Jewish-American Jeffrey Epstein. So is Greville Janner, who is accused with the late Leon Brittan of being part of an establishment paedophile ring. Brittan was Jewish too.
Why do members of this tiny minority so often appear in scandals about the abuse of power? Anyone who asks this question immediately removes himself from respectable society. The patterns are obvious, but cannot be discussed. Lady Warsi’s Muslim identity was celebrated when she was chairwoman of the Tory party. Lord Feldman’s and Grant Shapps’ Jewish identity is treated like a state secret. Concealment and deception seem to be constant themes of Jewish behaviour.
But why should we expect the Jewish minority to regard “truth” in the same way as the majority community amongst which it lives? We shouldn’t. Do Jews care if mass immigration wrecks Britain or France or America? No, because they regard those countries as temporary bases, not as permanent homes. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated: “I want to tell every Jew in France and in Europe that Israel is your home.” There’s no nonsense about dual loyalty from Netanyahu: he clearly thinks that Jews outside Israel should be loyal only to Israel.
Many of them are exactly that. Israeli intelligence agencies like Mossad can rely on the aid of thousands of sayanim, or “helpers,” that is, Jews based outside Israel who work with Mossad against the interests of the nations of which they are ostensibly citizens. That is a huge advantage for Israel. Another huge advantage is related to flows of information. Mossad can easily recruit Jewish speakers of any important language on earth. How easily can non-Jewish intelligence agencies recruit speakers of Hebrew? It’s a specifically Jewish language written in a unique alphabet. This linguistic asymmetry means that Israel can spy far more effectively on, say, America, France and Russia than those countries can spy on Israel:
Israel, where government and business work hand in hand, has obtained significant advantage by systematically stealing American technology with both military and civilian applications. The US developed technology is then reverse engineered and used by the Israelis to support their own exports with considerably reduced research and development costs, giving them a huge advantage against US competitors. Sometimes, when the technology is military in nature and winds up in the hands of an adversary, the consequences can be serious. Israel has sold advanced weapons systems to China that are believed to incorporate technology developed by American companies, including the Python-3 air-to-air missile and the Delilah cruise missile. There is evidence that Israel has also stolen Patriot missile avionics to incorporate into its own Arrow system and that it used US technology obtained in its Lavi fighter development program, which was funded by the US taxpayer to the tune of $1.5 billion, to help the Chinese develop their own J-10 fighter. (Israel is no Ally, Philip Giraldi, The Unz Review, 13th March 2014)
In biological terms, Israel’s relation with America is parasitic, not symbiotic. Israel gains at America’s expense, harming an ally that the late Larry Auster correctly described as “the most philo-Semitic nation in the history of the world.”
But try pointing this out to the average American conservative. You will be handicapped by the truth, not helped by it. Rather than criticize Israel, it can be more effective to praise it. Point out the way in which it ruthlessly excludes “illegal infiltrators.” Israel doesn’t regard mass immigration by Blacks as “enriching” or a cause for “celebration.” No, it puts up massive fences to keep Blacks out.
Jews in Israel scornfully reject the lie of human equality; Jews in America self-righteously enforce the lie of human equality. That lie is currently dominant across the Western world, justifying a vast system of parasitism and privilege for ethnic minorities and feminists. If truth is mighty, why doesn’t it prevail against the lie? Because politics is not mathematics or science. It is not a system designed to search for truth and refine our knowledge of reality. Instead, it is a competition between rival interests, akin to biological evolution. Deception and parasitism have flourished for millions of years in the natural world. They also flourish in the political world.
Look at Rotherham, where a Labour council has presided over decades of child-rape by in-bred Pakistani Muslims of low intelligence and high clannishness. But the group that has suffered, the White working-class, will continue to support a party that hates them and works tirelessly to harm their interests. The Labour council will remain firmly in control and Rotherham is guaranteed to return a Labour MP at the next election. Truth isn’t mighty in Rotherham, but Schiller’s words apply there perfectly: Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens – “With stupidity the Gods themselves battle in vain.”
I therefore put my faith in a native English saying: “The burnt child fears the fire.” If you think about it, fire is a liar. It looks beautiful and seems harmless. How could something so insubstantial harm solid flesh? Easily, but no warning about fire is as effective as a direct encounter with its reality. If the Western world is a house, then that house is currently a serious fire-hazard. The lie of human equality has been stripping wires bare, disabling alarms, wedging fire-doors open and stockpiling cans of gasoline next to the stove. There’s already smoke in the air and a serious conflagration is on its way. Even stupid people, like Labour-voting Whites in Rotherham, are going to feel its bite in their flesh. Those who haven’t been persuaded by reason will have to be persuaded by pain. Equality is a lie.