See also: "Do As I Say": The Paradox Of Eugenics And The Jews

Almost all of the Establishment—most mainstream politicians, journalists, academics and literary-types—favor teaching Critical Race Theory. They obsess about “equality” and avoiding “harm” to the “weak” and “marginalised.” Particularly obsessed are women, and women school teachers all the more so, due their strong social conformity. Granted, some communities have banned CRT because parents protested, but in the main it still marches through the education system [Ban on teaching critical race theory in Temecula, Calif., sparks heated debate, By Chanelle Chandler, Yahoo! News, March 28, 2023]. Now imagine a world where the entire Establishment, including all the schoolteachers, unquestioningly accepted an ideology based upon eliminating the “weak” and breeding the “strong,” intelligent and genetically healthy, for the future good of the “group.” And imagine that parents protested. Well, you don’t have to imagine it. As I explore in my new book, Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, that was the world of just more than a century ago.

In June 1914, just before the outbreak of World War I, there was a “school strike” in Dronfield in Derbyshire in the English Midlands. Parents were horrified to discover that the headmistress was teaching their daughters about eugenics. She had attended a conference at the University of London the previous year, which included a paper read by Sir J. Arthur Thomson, Regius Professor of Natural History at Aberdeen University, on how to teach eugenics. Parents refused to send their daughters to school, then landed in court and were fined. It was a national scandal called the “Peasants’ Revolt at Dronfield.”

The year before, Home Secretary and future Prime Minister Winston Churchill organized

The communist enforcer Hope Not Hate is the British equivalent of America’s Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. It releases an annual report (downloadable here), entitled State of Hate, the aim of which claims to be to provide “the most comprehensive and analytical guide to the state of far-right extremism in Britain today.” This year’s report is certainly both analytical and comprehensive, but it lacks one key element: far-right extremism.

State Of Hate notes, for example, an alarming jump of 11 per cent in terrorism convictions:

Last year (2022) 20 people were convicted of terrorism-related offences, up from 18 in 2020.

(Note: These figures include only white British offenders.)

Twenty people. But with the exception of a man who threw petrol bombs at a migrant center, then killed himself, all of were involved in online activity, paraphernalia, and literature, i.e., speech. The literature is almost always The Anarchist’s Cookbook and The White Resistance Manual, both freely available on the internet. There were nine teenagers sentenced, one of whom had a “Nazi dagger.” One group had a partially printed 3D gun.

Hope Not Hate is all too obviously longing for a Timothy McVeigh or an Anders Behring Breivik, and all it has is a rogues’ gallery of low-IQ misfits talking about bomb manuals in adolescent chat-rooms. For Hope Not Hate, the problem is not that there is too much “far-right” violence—it is that there is nowhere near enough.

Hope Not Hate’s review of identifiable groups shows similar desperation. Vanguard Britannia, for example, is described as “a fascist group that engages in stickering and graffiti.” This is hardly a British version of The Proud Boys or The Oath Keepers (which were actually Alt-Lite and ostentatiously multiracial, but did have a street presence).

A report on “far-right extremism” needs a bigger threat than graffiti, and the way Hope Not Hate manufactures this threat is by a now familiar misuse of language.

The term “far right” is the British equivalent of the Biden

See also, by Peter Brimelow: A Long Farewell To Donald Trump, Immigration Patriot. And Thanks.

If the 2024 GOP presidential contest comes down to Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis, then immigration patriots do face a tough choice, particularly with Trump’s renewed red-meat pledge to end Birthright Citizenship. DeSantis looks good on paper. But VDARE.com’s respected Washington Watcher II suspects he’ll duck into the bushes when the Treason Lobby wages war over border security in particular and immigration in general. My response: DeSantis is less likely to betray us than Trump—as his Administration’s largely failed immigration efforts showed.

During that time, I wrote repeatedly about Trump’s flip-flops and general incoherence on immigration. One day a policy would be announced and then the next day modified or withdrawn at the slightest criticism. At first, I blamed former Attorney General Jeff Sessions. But add the foolish appointments to most positions in the Department of Homeland Security, and Trump’s tolerating deliberate sabotage by his own officials, big and small. Example: He was on both sides of the H1-B visa issue during his campaign, to say nothing of the contretemps among advisers when he was president [Donald Trump flip-flops, then flips and flops more on H-1B visas, by Michele Ye Hee Lee, Washington Post, March 21, 2016].

Also questionable: Trump’s competence. Candidate Trump famously said he wanted a “Deportation Force” but apparently didn’t know that the country has a deportation force that is supposed to identify, arrest and deport illegal aliens. It’s called Immigration and Customs Enforcement [Donald Trump’s ‘Deportation Force,’ by Lawrence Downes, New York Times, November 11, 2015].

I believe DeSantis knows about it and will use it.

As to his immigration policies, POTUS Trump often

Earlier (February 2021) by Steve Sailer: BLM Rakes In $90 Million In 2020

That the tiny VDARE Foundation is being harassed (without being charged) by New York Attorney General Letitia James is just another example of America’s increasingly notorious two-tiered justice system, e.g., America Has a Two-Tiered Justice System and the FBI Just Proved It, by Margot Cleveland, Daily Signal, August 10, 2022. Contrast it with the kid-glove treatment of the Ruling Class’s favorite cause: the St. George Floyd beneficiary organization Black Lives Matter.

On May 23, 2023, in a piece of real journalism, Andrew Kerr of the Washington Free Beacon permanently destroyed his chances of winning a Pulitzer Prize by posting Black Lives Matter Hemorrhaged Cash in 2022, Tax Documents Show.

Black Lives Matter bled cash and suffered blistering investment losses in 2022, according to a copy of its tax return.

The group ran an $8.5 million deficit and saw the value of its investment accounts plummet by nearly $10 million.

Via @AndrewKerrNC https://t.co/HShQ2MfLBM

— Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) May 23, 2023

Kerr, clearly a man to be watched, had had the enterprise to catch the filing of the Black Lives Matters Foundation Federal 990 statement [PDF.]

Subsequent articles on this matter broke down into two types:

• The Regime Media, with predictable unanimity, took a “Nothing To See Here” line as exemplified in AP’s story New Black Lives Matter Tax Documents Show Foundation Is Tightening Its Belt, Has $30M in Assets, May 26, 2023.
• Dissident Media focused on BLM’s dramatic financial decline: Black Lives Matter Risks Going Bankrupt, by Khaleda Rahman, Newsweek, May 24, 2023. (Newsweek is not your father’s Newsweek!)

Black Lives Matter risks going bankrupt after running an $8.5 million deficit last year, financial disclosures indicate.

Donations amounted to about $9.3 million for the period between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022, while net assets stood at about $30 million. By comparison, for the period between July 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, the organization reported donations of nearly $77 million, while net assets amounted to $42 million, suggesting a sizeable drop in both categories.

Subsequently the Regime Media has (of course) lost interest in the story. But the Dissident Media have begun to consider the more important question: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY?

Of these stories, the New York Post distinguished itself by powerful graphics

Donald Trump made Birthright Citizenship a top issue in the 2024 presidential campaign this week, and indeed might have made it the issue. His promise to eliminate it invited a spasm of hysteria on Twitter and in the leftist Main Stream Media. But the noise didn’t matter. What mattered was Trump’s injecting this critical issue back into the political discourse. All by itself, ending Birthright Citizenship would checkmate the Democrats’ drive to Elect A New People through mass illegal immigration: babies born to illegals would not be American citizens and would hence be ineligible to vote. GOP elected officials have ignored this for far too long, even as millions of illegal aliens have invaded the country and threatened to permanently Replace the Historic American Nation. Now, Republicans must take a stand, and the ones who want to be the nominee will share Trump’s view.

Typically, the debate over Birthright Citizenship faded from public view when Trump left office. He had campaigned on eliminating it in 2016 and brought up scrapping it by Executive Order right before the 2018 midterms, reportedly at the suggestion of former White House staffer Michael Anton. Staffers apparently scuttled the idea, claiming Trump didn’t have the legal authority to issue the order. The idea was revived in Trump’s last days in office, but nothing came of it. Calling for the end of Birthright Citizenship was commendable, but his failure to issue the order or push for legislation (or even a Constitutional Amendment, a 1996 GOP platform plank notoriously Disavowed by candidate Bob Dole) can’t be overlooked. It was one of his most significant failures [Dole Rejects a Party Plank, by Frank Bruni, NYT, August 24, 1996].

But at least Trump has made Birthright Citizenship an issue again. Almost no Republican has even mentioned it since