Majorityrights News > Category: That Question Again

US hits Poland, others in Europe over Holocaust claims

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo listens during a news conference at the State Department on July 28, 2020, in Washington. (Brendan Smialowski/Pool via AP)

Times of Israel, 30 July 2020:
State Department report calls out Bosnia, Belarus, Ukraine and particularly Warsaw for failing to compensate Holocaust victims for property seized during Nazi occupation.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States is criticizing a number of eastern and central European nations, including Poland, for failing to compensate Holocaust victims and their families and communities for property seized during Nazi occupation in World War II as the numbers of survivors dwindles due to age.

In a report issued Wednesday, the State Department called out Bosnia, Belarus, Ukraine and particularly Poland for not having acted on restitution claims. Croatia, Latvia and Russia were also taken to task in the report, which is likely to draw angry responses from the governments identified.

“Much time has passed, and the need for action is urgent,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a forward to the 200-page report that looks at the records of 46 countries in meeting commitments they made to restitution in 2009.

The report had been due for release in March but was postponed because of the coronavirus pandemic and concerns it could fuel anti-Semitism during the economic turn-down caused by the outbreak. Its release after a four-month delay comes as the Trump administration has been loathe to pick fights with conservative European governments it is seeking support from in other areas.

Holocaust survivors walk below the gate with its inscription ‘Work sets you free’ after a wreath laying at the death wall at the memorial site of the former Nazi death camp Auschwitz during ceremonies to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the camp’s liberation in Oswiecim, Poland, on January 27, 2020 (Janek Skarzynski/AFP)

“As we mark the 75th anniversary of the end of the Holocaust, the legacy of the Nazis’ mass looting remains in too many places and largely unaddressed,” he said. “Given the advanced age of Holocaust survivors, many of whom live in poverty, the findings of this report serve as a reminder that countries must act with a greater sense of urgency to provide restitution or compensation for the property wrongfully seized from victims of the Holocaust and other victims of Nazi persecution.”

READ MORE...

Warning: Third Positionism and its vulnerability with a backdoor for entryism and manipulation for its no-account foolishness.

Interventions: GOP, The Enemy of the People

DanielS:

Thamster engaged in terrible strawman misrepresentations of what is being done with pragmatism, describing it as “mere” pragmatism, and the “post modern” mere choice of identity: viz the original practicality of moral concerns is not mutually exclusive to depth of concerns nor even their idealization, sacralization and inspiration, inbornness and non-negotiableness. ....while Christianity has had great practical utility from its onset: for our enemies as a red caping of our moral order.

Thamster WitNat
Highlighted reply
Thamster WitNat

44 minutes ago (edited)
lol strawman, hardly. You are the one misrepresenting here.

I was referring to a tendency for many in the “dissident right” (if we want to go with that as a broad term) to engage in the question of religion by stating we need to either find one or create one more conducive to our politics. Packaged with that is the idea that religion serves as a survival mechanism where you pick and choose aspects of them suited to that end. The reason for this view of religion? A pragmatic concern with constructing one more in line with our politics. In other words, reducing religious truth to our own political interests. That is hardly a genuine answer to the problem but its a common one I see in these circles. Pragmatic because the question of truth is decided on by its practical implications over its absolute commitments. I am not talking about PRAGMATISM as a philosphy, I am talking about the pragmatic aim of this view in a general sense. Obviously stating that religion can have practical concerns as well as sacralization and ideaization that is non-negotiable is completely beside the point.

I also never said the postmodern “mere” choice of identity” I said this view of religion plays (broadly) within the framework of postmodernism that fascists are seemingly opposed to. Of course, for that to make sense, you would have to agree with me that the bulk of postmodernism is a continuation of modernism even if it began as a critique of it. I have expounded this view elsewhere.

Daniel Sienkiewicz
Daniel Sienkiewicz
14 minutes ago (edited)

​@Thamster WitNat

“lol strawman, hardly. You are the one misrepresenting here.

I was referring to a tendency for many in the “dissident right” (if we want to go with that as a broad term) to engage in the question of religion by stating we need to either find one or create one more conducive to our politics.”

While those on the dissident right may have a superficial idea as to the process of religion, I’m gathering that I did not misrepresent your argument, as I am satisfied that a religion, as any moral ordering, has practical matters negotiated between people at its origin.

The difference between an authentic religiosity as opposed to an affectation adopted or imposed (as in the case of Christianity) is that it emerges out of the concern to connect and hold to account a group’s systemic relations (you know the etymology re-ligia). Whereas Christianity tethers us to Noahide law, an affectation of kosher imposition, jurisdiction and expropriation.

“Packaged with that is the idea that religion serves as a survival mechanism where you pick and choose aspects of them suited to that end.”

You don’t pick and choose what has survival value to your people, but you do sacralize what is crucial and make taboo what is harmful.

“The reason for this view of religion? A pragmatic concern with constructing one more in line with our politics. In other words, reducing religious truth to our own political interests.”

In this argument you are relying too much on the word “mere”, which is the strawman element….“mere” pragmatism, “mere” politics, “mere” construction.

“That is hardly a genuine answer to the problem but its a common one I see in these circles.”

Obviously I am not going to defend people in the “dissident right” and your point is well taken regarding the adoption of Orthodox Christianity and probably in regard to some of their larpish attempts to represent pagan religions.

But the recognition of the need for a religion, to facilitate our group pattern on a semi transcendent level, beyond the unworthiness of some of our people and the imperfection of the rest of us, is necessary for many reasons, not least of which is to carry us beyond cynicism for the fact of our imperfection (to say the least).

“Pragmatic because the question of truth is decided on by its practical implications over its absolute commitments. I am not talking about PRAGMATISM as a philosphy, I am talking about the pragmatic aim of this view in a general sense.”

Let me call attention to Kant’s use of the word “practical” when discussing the topic of morality.

I’ll cop to a bit of No-true-Scotsmanning here when I suggest that it is furthermore practical to have ideals and aesthetic inspiration.

The purpose of this exercise is to relocate our agency in the service of our interests; that we can have hope to re-establish a moral order which centers the biological interest of our species. ...not so much to defend pragmatic philosophy, commendable though it is: Hilary Putnam, “the great contribution of the pragmatists is to show that fallibilism and anti-skepticism are compatible.”

“Obviously stating that religion can have practical concerns as well as sacralization and ideaization that is non-negotiable is completely beside the point.”

...well, if your point is to say that people on the dissident right are prone to retain the liberal idea of shopping around, picking and choosing, yes, good point, among the several reasons that you are interesting to listen to…..

But if your point is to criticize post modern philosophy and pragmatism as they should be understood in underpinning White interests, then not besides the point.

“I also never said the postmodern “mere” choice of identity” I said this view of religion plays (broadly) within the framework of postmodernism that fascists are seemingly opposed to.”

Ok, fair enough point - If - if their understanding of postmodernity is the hyper-relative, dada deconstructionist, ironically adopted situational nonsense that its been red caped for Whites as being what “post modernity” truly is. Then agreed.

“Of course, for that to make sense, you would have to agree with me that the bulk of postmodernism is a continuation of modernism even if it began as a critique of it. I have expounded this view elsewhere.”

Not exactly. Post modern philosophy as it is misrepresented is really a continuation of modernity, its late stage fallout - misrepresented as “post modernity” since the antagonists to our interests do not want us to understand the accurate purpose of post modern performance requirements as it would facilitate our systemic survival as opposed to the ravages of modernity, its arbitrary experimentalism in promise that change necessarily leads to progress, and as opposed to maintaining traditions, where they are anachronistic and no longer serviceable..

And conversely, to be able to invoke the best of modern advance and tradition without the pangs of self loathing for the appearance of lacking modern sophistication, but mostly, to be able to protect our inherited forms,  the maintained organization of which requires that post modernity be properly understood: hence why it is that our adversaries have perpetuated the hyper relative misrepresentation: they want to keep us disorganized.

Tens of thousands protest against Putin in Russian far east

KHABAROVSK/MOSCOW (Reuters) 25 July 2020 - Tens of thousands marched in the Russian far east on Saturday, the third such weekend protest in a row, to express their anger over what they say is President Vladimir Putin’s mishandling of a local political crisis.

Residents of Khabarovsk, around 3,800 miles (6,110 km) and seven time zones east of Moscow, are unhappy about the detention this month of the wider region’s popular governor, Sergei Furgal, who was arrested on murder charges he denies.

His arrest, which his supporters say was politically motivated, triggered the protests and created a headache for the Kremlin which is trying to troubleshoot a COVID-19-induced drop in real incomes and keep a lid on unrest.

Protesters chanted “Putin resign!” and “Putin is a thief!”. Demonstrators say they want Furgal, who they think has been set up, to be flown back from Moscow and put on trial in Khabarovsk.

City authorities estimated around 6,500 people had taken part. One local media outlet put the number at up to 20,000, while other outlets and opposition activists said upwards of 50,000 had attended and that it was the biggest protest of its kind so far.

“Give us our Furgal back,” said a local businesswoman called Viktoria. “This is our choice.”

The protests have highlighted anger among some over what they see as policies emanating from detached Moscow-based authorities.

Supporters of Furgal, a member of the nationalist LDPR party, feel he is being belatedly punished for defeating a candidate from the ruling pro-Putin United Russia party in 2018. The Kremlin says Furgal has serious charges to answer.

Such sustained demonstrations are unusual for Russia’s regions, as is the fact that the authorities have not yet moved to break them up.

In an apparent move to defuse tensions, Putin on Monday named a new acting governor. But protesters said they felt insulted by the choice of Mikhail Degtyaryov, who has no connection with the region, and have demanded he step down.

Reporting by Yury Zolotarev and Andrew Osborn; Editing by Louise Heavens and Grant McCool

Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

       
        Sergey Furgal
        Photo By Kremlin.ru, CC BY 4.0,
        https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=75357245

Bari Weiss resigns from NY Times for their witch trial justice.

mancinblack says:

In an ordinary crime, how does one defend the accused ? One calls up witnesses to prove his innocence. And witchcraft is ipso facto, on its face and by its nature an invisible crime. Now we cannot hope the witch will accuse herself ; granted? Therefor, we must rely upon her victims - and they do testify, the children certainly do testify.

( Deputy Governor Danforth, ‘The Crucible’ Act 3 )

It’s to be hoped that the FBI and state prosecutors do have some actual evidence for the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, rather than relying on the numerous allegations made against her by ‘survivors’ - a wondrously American way of describing victims (cue Gloria Gaynor) for some of the allegations might make the casual observer feel a little sceptical.

According to Annie Farmer, in order to satisfy Epstein’s lust, Maxwell had to “recruit three girls a day”. That’s twenty one a week and at least ninety in a calendar month. Goody Maxwell would have needed to spend from dawn of day to blink of night at her grooming wheel, without so much time as to even phone her accountant, just to keep up with demand.

Sarah Ransome, who was a 22 year old when she claims she was trafficked by Epstein said

When Jeffrey wanted me, you know, Sara Kellen [Maxwell’s neophyte] or Ghislaine would call me into his bedroom, and I had no choice but to go

What witchery is this? Ransome had no choice. She had to obey the commands of the monster Maxwell and her dark sister.

Did I say ‘monster’? well, a ‘Jane Doe’ survivor described Maxwell as “a predator and a monster”. Annie Farmer called her “a sexual predator” while Farmer’s sister Maria said “Maxwell would turn on a dime into a very malicious, brutal human being”. Some menopausal women can appear that way sometimes. It’s not that unusual.

“William Steel”, not his real name, who is an ex-jewel thief turned writer , claims Epstein and Maxwell “made him watch videos to prove they ‘owned’ people”. They seemed to be remarkably open and cavalier about their operations and only “William Steel” could explain why they felt it necessary to impress him.

A couple of days ago, lawyers representing Maxwell were moved to file a letter of complaint to US District Judge Allison Nathan saying

The Government, its agents, witnesses and their lawyers have made, and continue to make, statements prejudicial to a fair trial

In reply, Lisa Bloom, who represents five ‘survivors’ said that Maxwell’s accusers “will never be silent. Once empowered, women never go back to being victims”. Maxwell would be the exception to that rule, then.

For her part, Maxwell remains defiant in maintaining her innocence, which suggests that she knows there is no hard evidence against her either because it has been destroyed or because none existed to begin with. If this is so, then the FBI must be hoping that the pressure of twelve months in jail awaiting trial will make Maxwell crack and give up some names. Not that those names would be made public. It’s more likely they would be retained by the US intel services for use in their own blackmail schemes. However, Maxwell may simply ask for “more weight”.

If Maxwell ends up with a witch trial, she will still fair better than the police officers who have been charged in the Floyd case. They have already been found guilty by the same government and its agents, the MSM and a global public who appear to have added ergot to their lockdown diet. All the officers will get is a show trial. Another opportunity for the descendants of Tituba to flex their huge sense of entitlement and foreshadow another global orgy of virtue signaling and sado-masochistic self flagellation of white liberals.

As nationalists, for obvious reasons, we should want sound jurisprudence to be maintained in our countries . That a fair trial cannot be taken for granted in the country that prides itself on being the leader of the free world is beyond disgusting. Everyone, regardless of their alleged crimes, deserves the right to a fair trial, free from political interference and Woke culture. Although, as we know, a court case is not the only way a life can be destroyed and a reputation shredded.

Woke Matthew Hopkins Rides Out

Social media infractions aside, there is a growing trend for people making accusations against work colleagues, with the same relish and enthusiasm their seventeenth century ancestors displayed when accusing their neighbours of practicing the Dark Arts. The adoption of the African American #MeToo and #BLM movements by white liberals has made and will continue to make, this phenomenon worse. It seems no one is immune. Recent victims include the Jewish centrist writer at the NYT, Bari Weiss, for not being Red enough. Author JK Rowling, who was devoured by the creatures she created for having the temerity to say that womanhood has a biological basis ; and the US ambassador to Britain, Woody Johnson, who was investigated by US officials following accusations that he had made “generalised comments about black men”.

The only salvation for the accused is to confess their sins, prostrate themselves and apologize profusely and if at all possible, implicate another person. If it is a black life that has taken offence, only taking the knee before kissing the anus of a black male will suffice. At midnight after walking thrice widdershins around an old oak tree.

There will be a pointy reckoning one day but until then, although you cannot see the yellow bird in the rafters, you must believe it is there. Or Else.

After all that darkness, here’s a piece of music to lighten things up. A little. Be True.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbdHFeuDmn8

READ MORE...

Paleoconservatism as “Cultural Controlled Opposition” in response to Neo-Conservatism and its Clean Break Memo.

They typically come across as your best asset. If you recognize it for what it is and keep it on the radar screen as such, not getting caught up, controlled opposition can have its utility as they are often funded to provide valuable resource, typically enlisting intelligent people and allowing them fine and clear articulation of some important information for WN. Nick Fuentes nicely articulates Israeli Operation Clean Break, a.k.a., “Project for a New America Century.”

Although Nick’s Paleoconservatism is not what most people consider to be classic controlled opposition, make no mistake. While we are tossing around the word “culture” of late, adding “cultural capitalism” and “cultural nationalism” on the radar screen with cultural Marxism, it can be said quite accurately that Paleoconservatism is a “cultural controlled opposition”.... a bit softer and more flexible perhaps than classic, but undoubtedly allowing the enemies of European peoples to act on key points.

Amon Göth’s daughter, a tragic figure.

Sometimes they cling to the right wing elements that allow for backdoor vulnerabilities through straightforward identification as rightist, at other times they don’t admit their right wing foolishness explicitly by saying “neither right nor left”, “national socialist” but lately there has been a gathering among the “dissident” right around the idea of “Third Positionism” ...which does allow for the admittance of Jewish influence by means of Christianity and where not directly, then by maneuvering of reactionary scientistic rigidity, like Uncle Adolf….serving reactionary elitism as such, it has young boys clambering for the leader in “truth, nature, god and foundation”, has the puerile girls getting all right-wing and wet as incitement of will to power in genetic competition will instigate the next round of genocide and leave a new breed of sociopaths on top for them to breed with, no matter whether they are Jewish, black or Mulatto, no matter if most and maybe nearly all of our European people get destroyed in the “inevitable, objective” process….

Greg Johnson discusses Carl Schmitt and The Concept of The Political...

The right wing being what it is, holding such rules as “no punching to the right”, is ripe for catastrophic exploitation in its non-corrective rigidity.

Among the reactionary positions that its proponents have been maneuvered into - duped - into taking, is that “sociology is Jewish.”  ...not that it is a neutral instrument that has been abused and weaponized against Whites by Jewish academics; no, right wingers take the position that sociology is Jewish and thus its unit of analysis - the group - is to be dismissed as so much skulduggery rather than what the group unit of analysis is - the most relevant to our cause.

You see, we European peoples, all of us, are being attacked as a group - a race is a group, and anti-racism is primarily aimed at the disorganization and destruction of the group that is European peoples along with our subgroups.

But the right wing position and its rational blindness to social accountability serves the elitism, secrecy and snobbery of some would-be leaders….

As their rationally blinded snobbery and elitism discriminates vertically instead of horizontally and fundamentally on the basis of qualitative niches, they also become naive, easily duped into entryism and maneuvering by our enemies.

Greg Johnson is only now saying what I have been saying explicitly for over a decade, that Jewry is organizing groups against us in anti-White coalitions, that we are under attack as a group and thus have to defend ourselves as a group.

Not that I am going to be given credit or even a hat-tip by these right-wingers for purveying that among an array of significant ideas that go into making it happen.. but as they are trying to spuriously bolt better grounded thoughts to their elitist positioning, let me point out that they are still clinging to their right wing, elitist positioning -

As I have observed before, Greg Johnson’s snobbery, that is, his vertical as opposed to horizontal discrimination leaves him with a bias that has him discriminating against some who are loyal and sincere while perhaps without pedigree, while favoring at times some who are clever, accredited but dubious in their will for our people (in the most relevant example, Greg banned me from Counter-Currents when I expressed suspicion in regard to Mark Dyal, whom Greg sought to curry favor with).

But here again, Greg’s elitism is served by Carl Schmitt’s concept of the political, though its “friend and enemy” distinction wound-up being drawn on catastrophic lines as it dovetailed with Schmitt’s dubious concept of “the exception” [exception to social accountability and regard for national boundaries] in his endorsement of the Nazi regime and the person of Hitler…and, well, what could go wrong?

Granddaughter, daughter and Amon Göth

The Great Awokening and the Second American Revolution.

by Eric Kauffmann for Quillette.com 22 June 2020:
       

Statues toppled, buildings renamed, curricula “decolonized,” staff fired. The protests following George Floyd’s killing have emboldened cultural revolutionaries in America and Europe. The iconoclasts are changing minds, and could be in a position to enact a root-and-branch reconstruction of America into something completely unrecognizable to its present-day inhabitants. Imagine a country whose collective memory has been upended, with a new constitution, anthem, and flag, its name changed from the sinful “America” to something less tainted. Far-fetched? Not according to data I have collected on what liberal white Americans actually believe. Only a renewed American cultural nationalism can resist it.

According to multiple surveys, the effect of the riots which occurred at around the same time as the BLM protests is quite different from what occurred with previous waves of rioting. First, many of the participants in the major riots were white. Second, there has been no clear call for Nixonian law and order following the riots, but rather greater public acceptance of the BLM movement’s unsupported claims that contemporary structural racism explains why police shoot unarmed black men or violent crime plagues inner-city neighbourhoods. While 57 percent of Americans disagree with the protestors’ radical slogan, “defund the police,” an astounding 29 percent support it. This is so despite the deaths of a number of black people during the riots and the fact the riots have coincided with a steep rise in the number of black homicide deaths in inner-city neighbourhoods due to a “Ferguson Effect” of police reducing their presence in these areas.

Meanwhile Trump is polling well down after the riots, having dropped 2.5 points to Biden since Floyd’s death on May 25th. Trump’s repeated mistruths, unstatesmanlike behaviour and nepotistic employment of family members may have eroded the truth-based environment to such an extent that evidence-free shifts in issue position become increasingly easy. His sinking popularity tarnishes issue positions associated with his presidency, even when they are backed by the weight of evidence—as with the idea that indiscriminate police brutality rather than racism accounts for violence against unarmed blacks. The power of corporate and celebrity endorsement, magnified by “trendy” social media herding, has resulted in unusually high approval among whites for the activities of the rioters. This is an important departure from what occurred during, for example, the late 60s race riots, 1992 Rodney King riots, or even the 2014 Ferguson riots.

Statues, memory, and the social construction of harm

Progressive scholars are fond of emphasizing the socially-constructed nature of perceived reality. This is overstated, of course. Human minds are not blank slates. Gender can’t be readily reconstructed to make males dominate the caring professions and females the majority of ditch-diggers. Similarly, Americans can’t easily be convinced they are actually Russians.

But you don’t need to follow social construction to its postmodernist extreme to acknowledge that social construction does play a role in how we perceive the world. To a partial extent, there really is a “social construction of reality,” as Berger and Luckmann put it. Psychological research, for example, shows that flagging certain issues repeatedly, or framing them in particular ways, affects attitudes and feelings.

Let me interject here to make a correction in Kaufmann’s assessment of the abuse of social constructionism. The agentive aspect of social constructionism can be overstated [and I am sure that “progressive scholars” like to do that], but this would be an abuse of social constructionism indeed. As I like to emphasize, there are three important aspects to proper deployment of social constructionism: 1) The more literal, for example, as in people constructing a building together. 2) The metaphoric, for example, “a couple and a village socially constructing a child together”...or the social (re)construction of the narrative of a people’s history and 3) Post Hoc attribution as to how more brute facts come to count - e.g., fact, ‘my cousin was hit by lightning and killed’ but now there is a negotiation (social construction) as to whether the lightning strike was an act of god or triggered by events of physics; whether he has gone to heaven or is now just worm food, up for beatification or a good riddance, etc. ...is there something to be done to prevent lightning strikes or not?

...and poignantly, the fact of immigration, to be treated like a force of nature, a flow (as our enemies might like us to passively accept it), something that just happens? or rather an egregious social policy instantiated by hostile and irresponsible elites?

For Kaufmann to say that “social constructionism is overstated” is not accurate then. He might say with accuracy, that the agentive aspect of social constructionism can be overstated where it might attempt to say that it can make just whatever it likes of brute facts. But then that is neither particularly social nor anti-Cartesian indeed, but rather solipsistic, violating the corrective raison d’être of social constructionism and its means to harness social accountability.

Besides a red caping for the sake of Jewish interests, to dissuade Whites from this vital instrument (viz. for Whites to organize as a group), I believe much of the abuse of social constructionism has to do with the university being in the big business of selling talk and undergraduates being the paying customers that can be lured into liberal tenured professors’ language games by appealing to them with an “empowering” sense of overstated agency and liberal activism.

That correction at hand, back to Kauffmann

What society chooses to focus on and care about, the emotions it feels, the objects it sacralizes, the boundaries between groups, vary a lot across time and place. For instance, choosing not to shake someone’s hand is offensive in Western culture, but not in Japan, where a bow is the common greeting. Leaving food on one’s plate is treated as an insult in Japan, but not in the West. Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning show that in Western elite culture in 1800, as in violent inner-city neighborhoods today, insults were treated as violence, which can only be avenged by physical violence. But for most of us, who haven’t been inculcated into a touchy honor culture, verbal slights don’t carry the same emotional punch. We either ignore them or respond with a counter-insult. As the sociology of emotions tells us, the way societies and individuals emotionally respond to words is, to an important degree, socially constructed.

The same sensitizing dynamic works for history, literature, film, statues, and even words. Like Red Guards with a hair-trigger sensitivity for sniffing out the bourgeois, today’s [*internationalist left ergo liberal-modernist] offense archaeologists outdo each other in trying to reframe the world as racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and so on. Turning the principle of charity on its head, they insist on the most suspicious interpretation of a person’s motives when the subject matter is associated with their canonical totems of race, gender, sexuality. A Hispanic man flicking his fingers outside his truck window gets fired because this was photographed, tweeted, and spun as the “OK” white power sign. The result is an atmosphere where inter-personal trust is as low as humanly possible while discursive power flows to the accuser. The new cultural revolutionaries have constructed our emotional and conceptual reality.

Once “harm”, “racism” and other concepts become unmoored from reality, more of the world is remade. Statues which were long ignored become offensive. Complex historical figures like Jefferson or Churchill, who embodied the prejudices of their time, or elites like Columbus or Ulysses Grant, whose achievements had both positive and negative effects, are viewed through a totalizing Maoist lens which collapses shades of grey into black and white. If a historic personage transgressed [liberal internationalist] left-modernist sacred values, their positives instantly evaporate and activists myopically focus on their transgressions.

Suddenly, an entire Orwellian world opens up: place names, history books, statues, buildings. When you’re equipped with the anti-racist hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. In this brave new world, it doesn’t matter whether a symbol like the Rhodes Scholarship has acquired a completely different meaning, or whether a statue has become a symbol of something completely different. All must be levelled to bring forth utopia.

What has occurred across the West, especially in the English-speaking world, is a steady [liberal internationalist] left-modernist march through the institutions. Beginning in the 1960s, former radicals entered universities and the media, capturing the meaning-producing machines of society. Once boomers became the establishment in the 1990s, the ethos of institutions started to shift. For good and ill, equality and diversity rose up the priority list. As these ideas filtered through Schools of Education and into the K-12 curriculum, older ideas of patriotism faded and the new critical theory perspective began to replace it. Sixty three percent of millennials (aged 22–37) now agree that “America is a racist country,” nearly half say it is “more racist than other countries” and 60 percent that it is a sexist country. Older generations are less radical, but 40–50 percent of boomers and Gen Xers agree with these statements, reflecting the long march of the [Internationalist Marxist] Left through American culture.

The deculturation of America

In order to find out how willing liberal Americans are to jettison the country’s cultural identity, I decided, on May 7th, to ask what I thought were outlandish questions—almost to the point of inflicting a Sokal Squared-style hoax on survey respondents. The answers I received amazed me. I then repeated the exercise on June 15th, after the George Floyd killing and subsequent protests to see whether things had gotten even crazier. It turns out they have.

After the preface, “To what extent do you think that the following should be done to address structural barriers to race and gender equality in America,” I presented 16 statements that an amalgamated sample of 870 American respondents could agree or disagree with. The sample is not representative of the American population—I used the Amazon Mechanical Turk and Prolific Academic survey platforms that thousands of academics use. Respondents on these platforms lean young, liberal, and white. But as this is precisely the group I wished to study, this is not a major limitation. Indeed, I have removed conservatives and centrists to focus only on liberals. Liberals are defined as those who rate themselves as a one “very liberal” or two “liberal” on a five-point scale from “very liberal” to “very conservative.” The liberal sample, consisting of 414 people, was 86 percent white and 53 percent male. Forty percent of liberals identified as “very liberal” and the other 60 percent as just “liberal.”

Responses ranged on a seven-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” I’ve simplified the seven categories into a binary agree-versus-disagree score. Those who scored a four—“neither agree nor disagree”—were dropped from the analysis, permitting me to gauge where the balance of committed opinion lies.

Here is what I asked people to agree or disagree with:

1. Rebalance the history taught in schools until its voices and subjects reflect the demographics of the population and heritage of Native people and citizens of color.

2. Move, after public consultation, to a new American anthem that better reflects our diversity as a people

3. Rename our cities and towns until they match the demographics of the population

4. Rebalance the art shown in museums across the country until an analysis of content shows that it reflects the demography of the population and perspective of Native people and citizens of color

5. Move, after an open public process, to a new name for our country that better reflects the contributions of Native Americans and our diversity as a people

6. Rename our states until they better reflect the heritage of Native people and citizens of color

7. Gradually replace many older public buildings with new structures that don’t perpetuate a Eurocentric order, until a more representative public space is achieved

8. Respectfully remove the monument to four white male presidents at Mount Rushmore, as they presided over the conquest of Native people and repression of women and minorities

9. Allow our public parks to return to their natural state, before a European sense of order was imposed upon them

10. Move, after public consultation, to a new American flag that better reflects our diversity as a people

11. Consider adopting a new national language, that will be forged from the immigrant and Native linguistic diversity of this country’s past

12. Remove existing statues of white men from public spaces until the stock of statues matches the demographics of the population

13. Gently remodel the statue of liberty to make it better reflect the diversity of America

14. Rename our streets and neighbourhoods until they match the demographics of the population

15. Move, after public consultation, to a new American constitution that better reflects our diversity as a people

16. Begin changing the layout of our cities, towns, and highways, moving away from the grid system to follow the more natural trails originally used by Native people