The Tyranny of Human Rights E-Book

Kerry R. Bolton

• Herausgeber: Antelope Hill Publishing LLC
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

In The Tyranny of Human Rights: From Jacobinism to the United Nations Bolton examines the manner by which "Enlightenment" doctrines shaped liberalism and the bloody progenies of Jacobinism and Bolshevism. Bolton demonstrates that the inevitable consequences of these doctrines being predicated on the fallacy of universal equality is the need for increasingly draconian laws, pervasive indoctrination, and, where these are insufficient, "color revolution" and war. Like the Jacobin doctrine of "liberty, equality, fraternity," these measures, undertaken in the name of "human rights," "equality," and "social justice," are largely directed toward the destruction of European peoples. The ultimate aim behind the humanitarian facade is a world state where people, resources, technology, and capital can be moved about without any hindrance from nation states, races, cultures, and even families. 

Extensively sourced, with forewords by Dr. Tomislav Sunić and Prof. Edward Dutton, Antelope Hill Publishing is proud to present The Tyranny of Human Rights: From Jacobinism to the United Nations by renowned author Kerry R. Bolton. This latest contribution by Bolton is a vital tool in understanding the nefarious machine of international human rights.

Leseprobe

The Tyranny of Human Rights:

From Jacobinism to the United Nations

T H E T Y R A N N Y O F H U M A N R I G H T S

From Jacobinism to the United Nations

BY

KERRY R. BOLTON

With Forewords by

Dr. Tomislav Sunić & Prof. Edward Dutton

A N T E L O P EH I L LP U B L I S H I N G

Copyright © 2022 Kerry R. Bolton

All rights reserved. First printing 2022.

Cover art by Swifty.

Edited by Sam and Margaret Bauer

Formatted by Margaret Bauer.

Antelope Hill Publishing

www.antelopehillpublishing.com

Paperback ISBN-13: 978-1-956887-05-1

EPUB ISBN-13: 978-1-956887-06-8

In Memory of

NATASHAGLENNY

Sacrificed on the Altar of “Human Rights”

Rhodesia, 1977

Contents

Foreword by Dr. Tomislav Sunić

Foreword: Envy Wears the Mask of Love by Dr. Edward Dutton

Introduction

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity…Death

English Antecedents: John Locke

Rousseau’s Social Contract

Neo-Jacobinism: From the USSR to the UN

“Legacy of Enlightenment”

In the Shadow of the Nuremberg Gallows: Raphael Lemkin and the Meaning of “Genocide”

“Human Rights” as a Social Control Mechanism

The Role of the Oligarchs: The Rockefeller Foundation and Black Riots

The Place of BLM: Funds from the Oligarchs

Martin King and Nelson Rockefeller

Prelude to the Fall of Africa: Haiti and America

The Curtain Falls on White Africa

South Africa’s Road to Hell

Mandela: Another False God

Multiculturalism and Social Trust: The Social Consequences of Ethnic Diversity

The Sociology of Snowflake Liberalism

Pied Pipers

UNICEF “Playbook”: Manual for Globalizing Children

Globalization of Labor: Origins and Aims of the United Nations Global Migration Compact

Kalergi’s Plan? Europe and Antieurope

Antipodean Social Laboratory: A Case Study of Official Europhobia and Slow-Motion Anglocide

Humpty Dumpty Laws

Behind the Global Witch-Hunt

Multiculturalism in Practice: First Annual Europhobic Hatefest Turns on Itself

Hate Speech and Human Rights: Imposing the Europhobic State

Heresy

Denigration of Western Science

Erasure of Memory: Delenda est Europaeus

“Taking the Knee”: Reintegrative Shaming

Conclusion

Bibliography

Foreword

By Dr. Tomislav Sunić

Kerry Bolton’s book might just as well carry the title The Decline of the West, Part 2, or short of that, it can be catalogued as a sequel to Oswald Spengler’s work. By using a descriptive and theoretical approach in his heavily footnoted prose, the author describes the endtimes of what was once known as Western civilization. The only problem is that each passage of this book could easily evolve into a separate volume. Each page of the book is replete with dozens of proper names and names of a variety of political organizations to the point that the reader must take a break and read each passage twice. Moreover, given Bolton’s usual custom of providing a massive amount of bibliographic references, the following pages aren’t designed for an ad hoc perusal or some passing right-wing coffee shop entertainment. This is a very serious piece of scholarly work which requires from a reader of the following pages at least some background in different fields of social science. For those lacking time or patience, or those who might find the book too heavy-handed, it may serve as a good reference for studying the rise and fall of the West.

Bolton is at his best when providing the causal nexus leading up to the catastrophe unfolding now in the West. The Sovietization of the Western politics, the resurgence of primal mannerism among masses of Westerners, the primitivization of conduct in citizens’ mutual relationship, the brutalization of the English langue—all these new social pathologies did not drop from the moon. Neither are these signs of the ongoing decay a product of a single special interest group. The chapters of the book trace the historical origins of this chaos. The merit of the author is his willingness to demolish the myth of the much-lauded social contract theorists, the founding fathers of the modern replacement mystique: Jean Jacque Rousseau, John Locke, and their future liberal-leftist fellow travelers. Their daydreams of an expendable man, man as a blank slate, man as a tabula rasa creature, waiting to be perpetually reborn in an imaginary Lalaland, was bound to give birth to what came to be known first as the Lysenkoist-Bolshevik experiment and which we know today under the name of multicultural SJW, BLM, Antifa, LGTB, including hundreds of other outlets of “world-improvers” in the West. In fact, the communist Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s because its own egalitarian multiracial aspirations had been better achieved in practice in the Western liberal global village.

The chapters dealing with the distortion of language are particularly important, all the more as language generates political concepts and the way how we communicate with each other. The much used abstract expressions, such as “human rights” or “humanity,” having originated during the American and French revolutions, are critically analyzed by the author. Similar upsurge in lexical imprecisions, such as the expressions “ethnic sensitivity training,” or “affirmative action,” being now part of the US legalese, are directly borrowed from the now defunct Sovietspeak. A separate book could be devoted by Bolton to his brief passage on Alice behind the Looking Glass and her encounters with the polysemic Humpty Dumpty. The Orwellian double-talk used by Humpty Dumpty had its natural outcome somewhat later in the Soviet Union—albeit not as a nursery rhyme but as a deadly legal procedure against wrong-thinkers.

Other than providing a theoretical framework for his analyses Bolton prods into chapters of daily politics and illustrates his prose with the description of current Western movers and shakers. Chapters that follow read often as detailed police reports on the moral corruption, coupled with self-denial of the political class in the West. New Zealand, a country of the author’s actual residence, is also briefly discussed as a small tip of the melting iceberg. The old Rousseauistic imagery of the “noble savage” transpires now in the general self-abnegation process by New Zealand Whites toward the Māori people. The “noble savage” in the Pacific Rim must be treated now as a new superego of Whites; he must be hailed as a new deity guiding the sinful White into the glorious future—regardless whether his or her name is Nelson Mandela or George Floyd or Nanaia Mahuta. In fact, even the so-called great replacement in the West, that is, storms of Afro-Asian migrants on their way to Europe, is a logical process that perfectly ties in with the doctrine of liberalism and its twin brother communism.

In hindsight one may wonder whether the political heavyweights mentioned in the book and their disciples sitting now in DC, London, and Brussels are engaged in a deliberate process of lying, or whether they are just unwilling subjects of their own self-delusion. Whichever way they have chosen, the whole course of Western civilization appears nevertheless to have been, over the last two hundred years, a patent exercise in Western self-destruction.

Dr. Tomislav Sunić

Tomislav Sunić, Ph.D. (Political Science) taught at California State University; University of California; Juniata College, Pennsylvania, and the Anglo-American College, Prague. He has served in diplomatic positions for Croatia in Zagreb, London, Copenhagen, and Brussels. Books include: Homo Americanus; Postmortem Report: Cultural Examinations from Postmodernity; Titans are in Town; Against Democracy and Equality. (http://www.tomsunic.com/).

Foreword:Envy Wears the Mask of Love

By Prof. Edward Dutton

The Wisdom of Tennyson

One of the essays in Dr. Kerry Bolton’s stimulating collection The Tyranny of Human Rights: From Jacobinism to the United Nations begins with a quote from Alfred, Lord Tennyson, a quote that crisply encapsulates most of the movements which the collection explores: “Envy wears the mask of Love and, laughing, sober facts to scorn.” Taken from Tennyson’s poem “Locksley Hall, Sixty Years Later,” there could hardly exist a better summary of the kind of psychology examples of which Dr. Bolton tackles in such gripping detail.

Whether it is Cromwellian Puritans, French Libertines and Jacobins, Marxists, or the multiculturalists, the psychology of the left—and especially of the virtue-signaler—is the same across history, across the interrelated history of political thought through which Dr. Bolton so skilfully guides us. Being liberal correlates with being low in altruism, low in impulse control, and high in neuroticism; that is mental instability: feeling negative feelings strongly.1 These negative feelings include anger and jealousy, and it is also to be found that the main motivation for wanting to bring about greater “equality” is “malicious envy.”2

Power Hunger Disguised as Virtue

Related to this, being on the far left is associated with Machiavellianism and narcissism, that is, with desiring power and with believing that you deserve power and praise.3 Virtue-signaling and victimhood-signaling are also associated with the same “Dark Triad” traits.4 Liberals are concerned with individualizing moral foundations—which ultimately promote the benefit of the individual over the group—such as “equality” and “harm avoidance,” but care little for group-oriented foundations, such as obedience to authority, in-group loyalty and sanctity (v disgust). Conservatives care about all of these foundations.5 Indeed, despite what they may signal about kindness, leftists—though there may be exceptions; people who are so altruistic that they are drawn towards leftist causes—are not only low-altruism individualists, but when they feel hard done by they will turn on their in-group, possibly even collaborating with an out-group to do so, whereas conservatives will turn on an out-group in the same circumstances.6

These disparate relationships all make a great deal of sense. The liberal is, to a great extent, adapted to an unpredictable world, a world in which you “live fast, die young,” a so-called “fast life history strategy.”7 In such a world, kindness may never be repaid, because the other person could be wiped out at any minute. So, those who survive in such an ecology will be selected to be selfish and impulsive and to see the world as a dangerous place. In such a perilous environment, they need to get to the top, as only those at the top survive. So they must be Machiavellian. You’re more likely to be power-hungry if you’re angry, envious, paranoid of others (such that you feel a strong need to control them with an eternal revolution) and unhappy with the state of the world, depressed and anxious, providing you with an incentive to attain power in order to make yourself feel better.

Why Do They Virtue-Signal?

But, paranoid and even low in self-esteem as you are, you fear directly playing for status. So you do so covertly. Rather than overtly assert power, you signal your concern with “harm” and “equality.”8 In doing so, as Tennyson noted, you dress up your essential enviousness—as well as low altruism, mental instability, Dark Triad traits and individualism—as “Love”: as a desire to make the world better for the “marginalized,” with whom you may also identify. Conservatives will cede ground to you, because they are also concerned with individualizing foundations. They, however, are more balanced. As pack animals, who must also ascend the hierarchy to attain resources and so, in prehistory, pass on our genes, we must be concerned with both sets of foundations. It has been shown that pack-orientation becomes more salient the harsher and more stable are the conditions, as this leads to group-selection and the group which is more positively than negatively ethnocentric will tend to dominate.9 In such predictable circumstances, reciprocity will be repaid, altruism will build up alliances, and individuals will be better able to survive as part of groups, groups that can better solve the problems of the harsh yet predictable environment. Leftists are simply adapted to a more primitive situation in which you need be less concerned about the group.

Accordingly, the thinkers who developed the ideas explored by Dr. Bolton—in essence, equalitarian dogmas—may appear contradictory, as may their less risk-taking followers. It may seem contradictory to propose “freedom” and also propose that they define what “freedom” is and that those who disagree with their desired freedom, or even disagree that they should be in charge of the new free world, should be compelled to be “free” or simply executed. But “logic” has little to do with these movements. They are simply attempts, via covert means, to attain power. Power is far more important to these people than logic.

In pursuit of it, high status Finns will criticize the kind of Romantic peasant nationalism, in some respects inspired by Rousseau, of Finland every day of the year, except on Finnish Independence Day. On this day, they will be proud to be Finns and clearly signal this. This is because they have aspects of Dark Triad traits, meaning logic does not matter. However, they also have low self-esteem, in certain respects, meaning that they are cowardly, and they will tend towards covert plays for status.

Lynn and I

Dr. Bolton looks, in this regard, at what happened to Richard Lynn in the wake of Britain’s minor moral panic of 2018 when it came to light that the “London Conference on Intelligence” had been openly taking place at University College London, under the very noses of its leftist administrat-ors, for three years, and had been discussing such forbidden issues as race differences in intelligence. In impotent rage, the leftist mob had this man, at that time nearly ninety years old, stripped of his Emeritus Professorship at the University of Ulster. Lynn had helped organize the conference and had widely published on the “crime think” areas. His defenestration had to occur because all that matters is power and, for leftists, you listen to a person purely because of their credentials; these are means via which society delegates power. Leftists, though low in the moral foundation of disgust, are high in “moral disgust.”10 If one is low in generalized disgust, one will have no problem attacking the “sacred” areas that uphold the system that you do not dominate. However, if one is morally self-righteous, one is more likely to virtue-signal, covertly attack opponents by whom one is disgusted due to their relative lack of individualistic moral foundations, and thus attain power. Lynn had to be publically shamed because his presence besmirched the moral sanctity of (leftist) academia.

Interestingly, something similar had occurred in 2016, as explored in my book The Silent Rape Epidemic: How the Finns Were Groomed to Love Their Abusers.

In 2013, Lynn and I had produced a paper in the journal Intelligence in 2013 showing that IQ in Finland was declining.11 Thus it showed that the Lynn-Flynn Effect, co-discovered by Richard Lynn12 and referring to a rise in IQ, had gone into reverse in Finland. It had drawn upon a table in a Finnish master’s thesis, forwarded to us by the Finnish army. We understood this table to simply be reporting the army’s data, conveniently forwarded to us by an army representative. I felt it best to cite the thesis anyway, even though we understood it to merely be quoting the army, but Lynn, a very elderly man with some of the issues expected in that regard, disagreed, so the citation was removed, he being the more senior of us. The thesis was, however, cited for other information that could be clearly understood though in Finnish, and cited in my own book13 as the source for the negative Flynn Effect data via the army.

The result was that in 2016 there was a minor panic in Finland. The largest newspaper, Helsingin Sanomat, reported that two academics, who researched intelligence differences and other highly controversial issues, may have been leaked military data. The military concluded that this was not so and there was then a plagiarism investigation by Oulu University in northern Finland, to whom I was affiliated as a “docent,” a kind of “Adjunct Senior Lecturer,” a qualification in Nordic countries above doctorate and below full professor which renders you affiliated to the university that bestows it. I was granted this, by the Department of Cultural Anthropology, two years prior to becoming seriously interested in intelligence research.

Lynn publicly took full responsibility for the mistake. I pleaded with the committee: Which is more likely, that there had been some kind of genuine confusion or that the co-discoverer of the Flynn Effect, and his colleague, had deliberately plagiarized an obscure master’s thesis on this subject and, concomitantly, drawn attention to the fact that they knew of the existence of the master’s thesis, as if desiring to be caught? Apparently, it was the latter. The university, toothless to do much, simply requested that I issue a correction, send out a press release, and also send their findings to the University of Ulster. It seemed obvious to me why such an extraordinary conclusion had been reached by an academia that we know is now dominated by leftists, as society has reached a tipping point of leftism, tipped leftist, and has now adopted runaway leftism, with intelligent people competing to signal how leftist they are. This is because intelligence predicts understanding the nature of the dominant worldview, understanding the benefits of adopting it, and having the effortful control to force oneself to adopt it.14

My honorary affiliation with Oulu University came under attack again in 2019. My book The Silent Rape Epidemic: How the Finns Were Groomed to Love TheirAbusers was published on March 7th, 2019. The book explored the epidemic of rapes committed against Finnish girls by Muslim refugees and drew upon evolutionary psychology to make sense of this and of why Finland had flipped from Romantic nationalism to multiculturalism so rapidly. As I wrote in the epilogue to the Finnish translation of The Silent Rape Epidemic:

By the end of March 2019, a Tajik man Museo Aseov (b. 1975) had been found guilty of sexually abusing a 10-year-old girl in Oulu’s mosque between July and October 2018. He received 3 years and 8 months in prison and had to pay the victim 10,500 euros. The mosque’s imam, Abdul Mannan (whom we met earlier), claimed to have been oblivious to what was taking place (Kaleva, 20th March 2019). Around the same time, Abdullhadi Barhum received 2 years and 6 months in prison, and had to pay a 3600 euro fine, for raping a 14-year-old girl. He also forced her to fellate him (Ranta, 26th March 2019). The public fury surrounding this indirectly led to the fall of the government and resurgence for the anti-immigrant True Finns party, who nearly came first in the subsequent election.

In September 2019, the English-language version of The Silent Rape Epidemic was reviewed in True Finns’ online newspaper Suomen Uutiset. Possibly partly due to the Finns being so fascinated by what foreigners think of them, it spread like wildfire on Finnish-speaking Twitter. It caused a predictable uproar among the Finns who had helped to bring about the silent rape epidemic that it described. A website called AntroBlogi vociferously condemned it, with a piece entitled “Pseudo-scientific notions of national nature” on September 24th, 2019. They explained that:

Perceptions of Finnishness have political consequences, but Finnishness is also an ideological fiction.… The role of anthropologists, according to the scientific consensus, is not to take prevalent stereotypes seriously or to reinforce them, but to critically examine these perceptions and their connections to power structures. The reasoning represented by Dutton is not based on current anthropological research, and presenting it as such is frustrating not only the entire discipline but also perceptions of humanity. Talking about multiculturalism as a threat demonizes some people. It is a means of reproduction that normalizes racist and discriminatory structures and is based on historical hierarchies of power.

They then got in touch with Oulu University on Twitter. Oulu University was left with no choice on September 24th but to admit their own impotence: “Edward Dutton does not work at Oulu University. Under current legislation it is not possible to cancel a docentship.” I had last done paid teaching for them in early 2016.

Indeed, in June 2019, they had tweeted the same, only in English, in response to leftist criticism of a video I had made critiquing a leftist book on “race” in which I was mentioned. This book was Superior: The Return of Race Science by British ethnically Indian journalist Angela Saini.15 In other words, there was nothing the poor woke dears could do. So, in January 2020, they, rather childishly and without contacting me, removed my name from the list of Docents on the website of Oulu University’s Cultural Anthropology Department. This is utterly misleading, of course, because there is no question about the title having been withdrawn, as they have publically admitted.16 This was a covert act, done secretly, to avoid overt conflict: a covert “cancelation,” even.

Locksley Hall

Dr. Bolton’s book is an excellent guided tour through the minds of people who think in this way, and what their thinking has accomplished. In Tennyson’s early poem, “Locksley Hall,” the eye of the poem has his heart broken by a girl. As a result, in a stream of consciousness, he rejects European civilization, embraces Rousseau’s Romantic ideas about primitive peoples, and, in effect, virtue-signals about primitive peoples and becomes despairing and self-centered: “Mated with a squalid savage—what to me were sun or clime? I the heir of all the ages, in the foremost files of time.” Only the call of war from his comrades—to defend a civilized homeland about to be destroyed—shakes him out of this leftist stupor and makes him realize anew the importance of self-discipline for the good of the group.17 He realizes that his leftism is an expression of selfishness, envy, and melancholy. “Not in vain the distance beacons. Forward, forward let us range,/ Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing grooves of change./ Thro’ the shadow of the globe we sweep into the younger day;/ Better fifty years of Europe than a cycle of Cathay.”

Dr. Bolton’s book is a timely reminder of just how crucial it is, for those of us who value understanding the true nature of the world, to never stop fighting the intellectual descendants of Rousseau, be they Black Lives Matter thugs, or those who espouse “human rights” without truly exploring, as Dr. Bolton does, what these truly mean, and the many sinister dimensions to the ideology behind them.

Prof. Edward Dutton

Asbiro University, Poland

Edward Dutton has served as guest researcher in the Psychology Department, Umeå University, Sweden; academic consultant, Psychology Department, King Saud University, Riyadh; Visiting Lecturer in the Anthropology of Religion, Riga Stradins University, Latvia; docent at Oulu University, Finland; and editor of the scholarly journal, Mankind Quarterly. In 2020 he was appointed Professor of Evolutionary Psychology, Asbiro University, Łódź, Poland. As of 2021, Dutton has authored sixteen books on anthropology, religion, psychology, etc., and numerous papers.

Introduction

“The concept of humanity is an especially useful ideological instrument of imperialist expansion, and in its ethical-humanitarian form it is a specific vehicle of economic imperialism. Here one is reminded of a somewhat modified expression of Proudhon’s: ‘whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat.’ To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term, probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity.”

Carl Schmitt (1932)18

There is seldom more perfect a justification for propaganda against a state, or a people, as suggested by Schmitt, than the claim that it is mistreating migrants or ethnic minorities. NATO bombed Serbia into submission on the pretext that they were helping the Kosovar Muslims, whom, it was claimed, were being “ethnically cleansed.” The war demands of NATO happened to feature the privatization and globalization of the mineral resources of Kosovo, with the Trepca Mine being a special prize, using the demand for the self-governance of the Kosovar Albanians as a pretext for war. The principles that were demanded were drawn from the UN Charter. Economic subjugation by international capitalism proceeded behind the bloodied flag of “human rights”:

The Parties to the present Agreement:

Reaffirming their commitment to the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations, as well as to OSCE principles, including the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris for a new Europe…

Recognizing the need for democratic self-government in Kosovo, including full participation of the members of all national communities in political decision-making…

Desiring to ensure the protection of the human rights of all persons in Kosovo, as well as the rights of the members of all national communities…

Have agreed as follows:

Framework

Article I: Principles

All citizens in Kosovo shall enjoy, without discrimination, the equal rights and freedoms set forth in this Agreement.

National communities and their members shall have additional rights specified in Chapter 1. Kosovo, Federal, and Republic authorities shall not interfere with the exercise of these additional rights. The national communities shall be legally equal as specified herein, and shall not use their additional rights to endanger the rights of other national communities or the rights of citizens, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, or the functioning of representative democratic government in Kosovo.

All authorities in Kosovo shall fully respect human rights, democracy, and the equality of citizens and national communities.

Citizens in Kosovo shall have the right to democratic self-government through legislative, executive, judicial, and other institutions established in accordance with this Agreement. They shall have the opportunity to be represented in all institutions in Kosovo. The right to democratic self-government shall include the right to participate in free and fair elections.

Every person in Kosovo may have access to international institutions for the protection of their rights in accordance with the procedures of such institutions.

19

After much posturing about the welfare of “humanity” the actual aims were pronounced under “economic issues.” It took a great deal of rhetoric to serve as a preamble to obscure the starkness of the aim: globalist predation via the dismembering and fracturing of the Yugoslav state.

Article I:

The economy of Kosovo shall function in accordance with free market principles.

6. Federal and other authorities shall within their respective powers and responsibilities ensure the free movement of persons, goods, services, and capital to Kosovo, including from international sources. They shall in particular allow access to Kosovo without discrimination for persons delivering such goods and services.20

US foreign policy, including the “color revolutions” and “regime change” it instigates, is conducted under the guise of “human rights,” like the Jacobins had their “revolutionary wars” in Europe in the name of “liberty, equality, fraternity,” and the Bolsheviks had their abortive war pushing West in the name of “liberation.” Woodrow Wilson took the USA into war in Europe stating before Congress: “The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty.”21

Wilson’s Fourteen Points insisted on a post-war world in which the economy was based on free trade and the scuttling of the European imperial blocs as a hindrance to international capital:

III. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

V. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.22

The final point urged the establishment of the League of Nations, as a world government, the predecessor to the United Nations:

XIV. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.23

Here we begin to see the actual reasons for wars and revolutions behind the rhetoric about “human rights” and “making the world safe for democracy.” We see it repeated in Franklin Roosevelt’s Atlantic Charter, again predicated on free trade and the scuttling of the European powers from their empires:

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.24

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) enables such intervention in the affairs of states on the pretext of “human rights” for indigenes. Will the signatory states to UNDRIP be subjected to UN embargoes and ultimately UN military intervention on the pretext of defending the rights of indigenes, so long as these are of course “people of color”? Certainly, the indigenous peoples of Europe—let alone the indigenous Afrikaners—will not be granted protection, unless some globalist purpose is served. Likewise, the signatories of the United Nations Global Compact for Migration, and an increasing array of other UN global treaties and declarations are fastening the grip of “international law” in the name of “human rights.” Yet the UN Migration Compact serves as a justification for intervening on issues this time not of “indigenous peoples,” but of migrant peoples.

Hence, UNDRIP is supposed to protect indigenous peoples, when they are “people of color,” while the UN Compact for Migration is supposed to protect not indigenous peoples—when these are Whites—but migrants, when these are, again, “people of color.” There is consistency insofar as the globalist laws are formulated to ostensibly protect migrants when they are “people of color,” and on the other hand to protect indigenes only when they are, again, “people of color.” Whites, whether as migrants or as indigenes, whether as minorities or majorities, are forever the pariahs, outside of international law, other than when, as with Kosovar Albanians, they might be used against other Whites.

The manner by which the Afrikaner was dispossessed and the South African economy globalized followed such a pattern of demands for “human rights.” The original pretext was that of the “human rights” not of Blacks but of “Uitlanders,” mainly British mine workers backed by wealthy investors in the Transvaal, an independent Afrikaner republic. Uitlanders had become if not a majority then at least on par in numbers with the Boers, a lesson in what can happen when economics drives migration. However, occupants of the Transvaal were not entitled to vote until a naturalization process requiring fourteen years of residence. On the pretext of “Uitlander rights” agitation was initiated, leading to the abortive Jameson Raid of 1895. Four years later the Second Anglo-Boer War erupted in a grab for South Africa’s wealth, using the Uitlander issue as the pretext.

The Afrikaner could not be left in peace, despite having secured his independence after two bloody conflicts with Britain. Agitation was resumed in the name of “human rights,” this time in regard to the myriad of ethnic communities lumped together as “Black.” Between decades of terrorism, internal subversion, business and political maneuvering, and high level pressures from UN rostrums, corporate boardrooms, and Western embassies, the Afrikaners relented and South Africa was delivered to international capitalism behind the facade of “majority rule.”

When Nelson Mandela returned from a meeting of the World Economic Forum at Davos in January 1992 he did so as a convert to privatization and globalization.25 South Africa’s economy, resources, and state utilities, after years of Afrikaner struggle, persecution, denigration, and martyrdom,26 were opened up to capitalist predation courtesy of the African National Congress, and with the help of the multitudes of vacuous do-gooders who shouted “Amandla” through the streets of Western cities. Harry Oppenheimer got his vast new consumer and labor market once apartheid was dismantled, albeit reduced to a typically African shambles, and the Afrikaner Nationalism which plutocracy had despised and fought27 since the nineteenth century, was obliterated.

After the long drama of South Africa, the process of European dispossession has recently been accelerated by three events: the inauguration of President Trump in 2017, showing that Populist-Nationalism persists en masse even in the citadel of globalism; the killing of fifty-one Muslims in Christchurch, New Zealand in 2019; the accidental death of Black criminal George Floyd while resisting arrest in 2020.

Each event unleashed forces that had hitherto worked usually through a gradual, subtle process, into a worldwide reaction of fear and rage. The Trump presidency shocked the oligarchy into the realization that there were still millions of Americans who rejected globalist agendas.

The killing and wounding of Muslims at two mosques in far-off New Zealand provided a pretext for repression that was unleashed from the Antipodes to Austria against all things deemed “Right.”

The killing of Floyd provided a further means of reinforcing White self-loathing to the point that it remains a common practice for Whites to bend their knees in atonement and repentance at public events, while bringing rampaging mobs onto the streets.

Europhobia has assumed a religious quality, and dissent is heresy.

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity…Death

“The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints.”

Edmund Burke (1790)28

“Human rights” is the harbinger of death. The premise of “equality” is only possible by leveling. One cannot level upwards, but only downwards. One cannot maintain equality without a continual purging of anyone who rises above the lowest denominator. Paradoxically, a dictatorship of bureaucrats, technocrats and managers, overseen by a cabal of unbalanced intelligentsia, must be imposed to assure the process continues in an orderly fashion. Hence, “human rights” and its “equality” predicate cannot be enacted without tyranny. Jacobinism and Bolshevism were the ultimate doctrines of “equality” in the name of “human rights.”

George Washington and Alexander Hamilton sought to avoid the tyranny of equality by a constitutional Republic that recognized that “liberty” is not premised on equality. In this they were vigorously opposed by the party of Thomas Jefferson which sought to introduce Jacobinism to the USA and inaugurate a second revolution. Hamilton’s biographer, Ron Chernow, writes of this period, during Washington’s second term as president (1793) that it:

Revolved around inflammatory foreign policy issues. The French Revolution forced Americans to ponder the meaning of their own revolution, and followers of Hamilton and Jefferson drew diametrically opposite conclusions. The continuing turmoil in Paris added to the caution of Hamiltonians, who were trying to tramp down radical fires at home. The same upheavals encouraged Jeffersonians to stoke the fires anew. Americans increasingly defined their domestic politics by either their solidarity with the French Revolution or their aversion to its incendiary methods. The French Revolution thus served to both consolidate the two parties in American politics and deepen the ideological gulf between them.29

American diplomat William Short wrote from The Hague of the situation in France, where he had been stationed, that the Parisian streets “literally are red with blood.” Fourteen hundred political prisoners were slaughtered in the “September Massacres,” Robespierre stating that “it is the most beautiful revolution that has ever honored humanity.” Marat responded, “Let the blood of traitors flow.”30 In America James Madison exclaimed that the Jacobin Revolution was “wonderful in its progress… stupendous in its consequences.”31 In 1793 French Ambassador Genêt landed in Philadelphia and was feted by Democratic Party crowds which passed around “liberty caps” and sung “The Marseillaise” with gusto.32 It is these matters that prompted Washington to declare in his “Farewell Address to the American People” (which Hamilton had drafted) that America should maintain a neutral foreign policy and not become embroiled with foreign ideologies and states.

While the USA was spared a bloody Jacobin Revolution, the crypto-Jacobins have for the most part had the upper hand since at least the time of Woodrow Wilson, who sought a world revolution led by the USA, and declared his “Fourteen Points” as a global revolutionary doctrine. Whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, US Administrations have since then regarded the USA as the custodian of a democratic revolution that imposes an American-Jacobin ideology over the world in the name of the motto on the Great Seal of the USA:  Novus ordo seclorum; or “a new world order,” as President George H. W. Bush termed it in his “State of the Union Address” in 1991:

What is at stake is more than one small country, it is a big idea, a new world order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fulfil the long-held promise of a new world order where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance.33

Bush reiterated the same year:

We can see a new world coming into view. A new world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order…a world where the United Nations, freed from Cold War stalemate is poised to fulfil the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.34

This is the neo-Jacobin doctrine that premises US foreign policy; its use of “human rights” is a moral facade for both invasion and “color revolution,” fomenting revolutionary disorder in Jacobin manner, in what foreign policy adviser Ralph Peters lauded as the USA’s world mission of “constant conflict.”35

The premise of these doctrines, including those posing as empirical sciences, is that there is a “natural state” into which the individual is born, that of absolute freedom and equality; that he is corrupted by imposed institutions and that he can return to his pristine nature of absolute happiness when these institutions (or “primary ties” as the critical theorists say) are broken. Indeed, while the Jacobin’s slogan was Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, the American humanist slogan was and remains: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That elusive utopian happiness is the outcome of the perfectibility of Man (with a capital “M”). It is a predicate of the US Declaration of Independence. The doctrine is proto-Jacobin and a product of the British Enlightenment, as shown in the preamble:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.36

The primary author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, whose “revolutionary heroism” never extended to seeing a British Redcoat for dust, was later to become a zealous advocate of Jacobinism. Jefferson held John Locke, the English Enlightenment philosopher, to be one of the three greatest men—a “trinity,” as he called them—in history, the others being Francis Bacon and Newton.37

We see in the Declaration of Independence the precursor of the Jacobin Declaration of the Rights of Man, and of the UN Declaration on Human Rights. Given the US and French sources for the UN Declaration this is no coincidence, as will be seen.

In the Declaration of Independence can be seen the deism of Jefferson that was a feature of Jacobinism, and indeed of the Enlightenment, with the appeal being to the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” As will be seen, the Jacobins, in the name of “enlightenment” established the “Cult of the Supreme Being.” An unquestioned dogma is laid down, that cannot be challenged because it is predicated on the “God and Laws of Nature,” that there are “truths” that are “self-evident,” and among these are “that all men are created equal,” and that all men are given “unalienable Rights,” by the “God of Nature,” including “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” As will be shown, France’s Declaration on the Right of Man refers in the first point to “Men” who are “born and remain free” and with “equal rights.” These “rights,” according to the French model, are enacted “under the auspices of the Supreme Being.”

When the USA was threatened with a Jacobin-style revolution at the end of the eighteenth century, it was widely believed that the crypto-Masonic Order of the Illuminati had infiltrated the USA. Whether true or not, and it would be naive to dismiss such ridiculed “conspiracy theories,” Jefferson and his party were regarded as the harbingers of Illuminati doctrines. With the Federalists accusing Jefferson and his followers of illuminism, Jefferson responded in 1800 by calling Adam Weishaupt “an enthusiastic philanthropist,” and alluding to his own adherence to perfectibilism:

He is among those…who believe in the infinite perfectibility of man. He thinks he may in time be rendered so perfect that he will be able to govern himself in every circumstance, so as to injure none, to do all the good he can, to leave no government the occasion to exercise their powers over him, and, of course, to render political government useless.… The means he proposed to effect this improvement of human nature are “to enlighten men, to correct their morals and inspire them with benevolence.”38

Utopia: The Endless Wait

Likewise, and contrary to assumptions about communism, Karl Marx believed that the state, so far from being omniscient, would eventually wither away after going through a dialectical historical process, of which socialism was an intermediate phase. This would require a long transition period during which man would be gradually perfected through the change of his institutions, as Jefferson termed it, to “improve human nature” and “correct man’s morals.” Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety tried it, as did Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, and “human rights” icon Jim Jones. Lenin assured us:

The expression “the state withers away,” is very well chosen, for it indicates both the gradual and the elemental nature of the process.… Only communism renders the State absolutely unnecessary, for there is no one to be suppressed—no one in the sense of a class, in the sense of a systematic struggle with a definite section of the population.”39

This “withering away of the state” can only be achieved with absolute equality, and that can only be achieved by a prolonged period of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” under which “class enemies” are destroyed. But the latter can only mean also destroying their institutions: religion, property, nationality (for the proletariat has none, according to Marxism), and family; the same institutions that are called enemies of freedom by the critical theorists.40

Again, the predicates even of the most vicious forms of tyranny go back to the same foundations as liberalism, the Enlightenment, with its “rights of man,” and its present-day emanation, “human rights”; that “Man” is perfectible through a change of institutions, and thereby a change of his character and morals. The Jacobins and communists have sought this through the liquidation of “class enemies,” mass imprisonment, forced labor; the destruction of traditional culture and religion; and the elimination of the family, as “bourgeoisie institutions.” Where does the liberal, the United Nations “humanitarian,” and the facilitator of “human rights” differ in ideology from the bloody-handed Jacobins and Bolsheviks? All seek the reconstruction of humanity through an imposed equality. This shall become more evident as we examine some of the methods used by the democratic enforcers of “human rights.” The difference is in the degrees of enforcement, but even that is becoming less so, the ultimate sanction of violence and warfare being within the purview of the UN, NATO, the USA, or a combination thereof, with the additional option of fomenting “color revolutions.”

Jacobin fanatics, around 130 years prior to Bolshevism, and around 150 years prior to the founding of the United Nations Organization, were zealously proclaiming in France’s National Assembly the advent of a new epoch of the Universal Republic, Jean Baptiste (alias Anacharsis Cloots) declaring in 1793:

We are not free as long as there is a single moral obstacle to our physical advance at a single point anywhere in the world. The Rights of Man are extended to the totality of men. A state that calls itself sovereign grievously wounds humanity, it is in full rebellion against commons sense and happiness, it cuts the channels of universal prosperity, its Constitution faulty at its root, is contradictory, uncertain and ready to fall.

We will have no other master than the expression of the general will, absolute and supreme. No, if I encounter on this earth a particular will which resists the universal instinct, I am against it; such resistance spells universal war and servitude, and mankind, the Supreme Being, will sooner or later treat it as it deserves.41

Here we have the primary elements of present-day cosmopolitan humanism on which liberalism and communism are ideologically based, along with their UN, European Union, and US excrescences:

The aim of imposing a humanist doctrine—expressed in the Jacobin Declaration of the Rights of Man, the US Declaration of Independence, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and so on—over “the totality of men.”

The destruction of any state that resists globalist hegemony, which is dehumanized as a “rogue state,” and subjected to economic embargoes, and ultimately military action or a “color revolution.”

The justification for destructive actions in the name of a universal “general will” or “the international community” as it is today called, including war;

Cloots predicting “universal war.”

The homocentric elevation of “Man” as the “supreme being,” replacing God.

English Antecedents:John Locke

“You ask what I have found and wide I go,

Nothing but Cromwell’s house and Cromwell’s murderous crew,

The lovers and the dancers are beaten into the clay

And the tall men and the swordsmen and the horsemen, where are they?

And there is an old beggar wandering in his pride

His fathers served their fathers before Christ was crucified

O what of that, O what of that?

What is there left to say?

All neighborly content and easy talk are gone,But there’s no good complaining, for money’s rant is on.He that’s mounting up must on his neighbor mount,And we and all the Muses are things of no account.They have schooling of their own, but I pass their schooling by,What can they know that we know that know the time to die?O what of that, O what of that,What is there left to say?…”

W. B. Yeats, “The Curse of Cromwell”

While we might assume that the rot of the present epoch has its origins amidst the decadence of the French aristocrats and the rise of the bourgeoisie that preceded the French Revolution, we can look to the origins, even of Jacobinism, in England. We can trace the first great tumult in the process to the English Revolution of Cromwell, starting in 1642, where the remnants of tradition were dealt a death blow, and money assumed authority over politics in the name of Puritanism. Here we see ideological antecedents of the French Revolution, where property relations—or civil society as it is called—replaced the organic social community and, like the Jacobins, a tyranny was erected in the name of “democracy.”

Well might we ponder Yeats’s words today of what emerged from England in the seventeenth century in the name of parliament and democracy: “All neighborly content and easy talk are gone, but there’s no good complaining, for money’s rant is on.” In the name of “human rights,” as we now call “money’s rant,” there is no “easy, neighborly talk,” for on pain of imprisonment or financial ruin, and public vilification by the kept media, none dare speak their own mind or heart, and of “progressive education,” “what can they know?”

It is with the English Civil War that we can trace the origins, in the Anglophone world, of “left” and “right,” of conservative and liberal. The notion that libertarianism, free trade, and Whig-liberalism are somehow “right-wing” and “conservative”—represented for example by British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, or US President Ronald Reagan, or economic theorists such as Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, the “Chicago School,” “the Austrian School,” and in Marx’s day the “Manchester School”—is testament to the muddle that masquerades as academia. The genuine conservative philosopher Anthony Ludovici, explained:

…and it is not astonishing therefore that when the time of the Great Rebellion the first great national division occurred, on a great political issue, the Tory-Rural-Agricultural party should have found itself arrayed in the protection and defence of the Crown, against the Whig-Urban-Commercial Trading party. True, Tory and Whig, as the designation of the two leading parties in the state, were not yet known; but in the two sides that fought about the person of the King, the temperament and aims of these parties were already plainly discernible.

Charles I…was probably the first Tory, and the greatest Conservative. He believed in securing the personal freedom and happiness of the people. He protected the people not only against the rapacity of their employers in trade and manufacture, but also against oppression of the mighty and the great…42 

A point to be noted from the above is that the Tory Party became “Whig,” as did similar parties throughout the world, and even certain regimes such as Pinochet’s in Chile, under the catastrophic influence of the Friedmanian “Chicago Boys.” The “Right,” especially in the Anglophone states, was long ago subverted by liberals, espousing free trade.43

As for the central premise of liberalism, it is to John Locke (1632–1704) that the Western culture primarily owes its notion of the individual as a “blank slate” (tabula rasa). Locke lived his youth under the Cromwell regime. His mentor was Anthony Ashley Cooper, later the Earl of Shaftesbury, leader of the Whig Party, the predecessor of the Liberals. In dispute over the restoration of a Catholic to the Throne, Cooper and Locke relocated to Holland. Locke returned to England in 1689, the year after the Glorious Revolution that placed William of Orange on the throne. The intrigues of merchants in Holland in regard to both the support for Cromwell and later for William will not detain us here, other than to say that both were examples of oligarchic intrigue.44

Locke’s tabula rasa is an enduring premise of liberalism, leftism, and their oligarchic patrons. It also continues to premise the social sciences, sociology, and social and cultural anthropology, which dogmatically assert that the individual is born tabula rasa, and those blanks are filled in through experience. Hence, we see also the notion that environment molds the individual without any input from the innate intelligence or character.

The once well-known anti-liberal author Dr. Lothrop Stoddard summarized the rise of this intellectual milieu, the Enlightenment, which continues to dominant the modern world:

All the great thinkers of the eighteenth century (who still influence our ideas and institutions to a far greater degree than we may imagine45) were convinced believers in “natural equality.” Locke and Hume, for example, taught that at birth “the human mind is a blank sheet, and the brain a structureless mass, lacking inherent organization or tendencies to develop in this way or that; a mere mass of undefined potentialities which, through experience, association, and habit, through education in shirt, could be moulded and developed to an unlimited extent and in any manner or direction.”46 The doctrine of natural equality was brilliantly formulated by Rousseau, and was explicitly stated in the American Declaration of Independence and in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man. The doctrine, in its most uncompromising form, held its ground until well past the middle of the nineteenth century.47 At that period so notable a thinker as John Stuart Mill could declare roundly: “Of all vulgar modes of escaping from the consideration of the effect of social and moral influences on the human mind, the most vulgar is that of attributing diversities of conduct and character to inherent mental differences.”48

The “progressives” of today still shout back at any dissent with the platitudes of the seventeenth century.

Blank Minded Liberalism

Once born, the mind of the child can be filled with anything required to mold the individual into whatever is desired. That is how the modern world has proceeded. The perfectibility of “Man” is the aim of liberal, Masonic, and Marxist doctrines. There is nothing innate to be overcome, but only that which has been instilled and which can be purged through re-education. The younger the person the better, since there is not so much to purge. Whether in a liberal-democratic-parliamentary society or that of Pol Pot, the techniques differ in degree, but the process is one of brainwashing. Liberal democracy relies on indoctrination as much as North Korea or China, and is predicated ultimately on the same doctrine of the nature of the mind.

Locke presented a detailed speculative case for the doctrine of the tabula rasa (blank slate) mind in 1689. Until then character and intelligence were regarded as innate. As the subsequent sciences of genetics, ethology, epigenetics, and Jungian psychology now tell us, our forebears—prior to the so called “Enlightenment”—had it right in the first place. However, this has not dissuaded much of the present-day social sciences from maintaining Locke’s fiction for the sake of their ideological foundations, rendering as nonsense their facade of “empiricism.” Such “empiricism” was nothing other than salon speculation among the debased and self-destructive aristocracy and their intellectual protégés, but it remains the basis of our modern laws and education. A blatant example of the latter is New Zealand’s “new school histories curriculum,” beginning in 2022, and premised on another speculative assumption of liberalism, that of the noble savage. Locke introduces his intention:

It is an established opinion amongst some men, that there are in the understanding certain INNATE PRINCIPLES; some primary notions, KOIVAI EVVOIAI, characters, as it were stamped upon the mind of man; which the soul receives in its very first being, and brings into the world with it. It would be sufficient to convince unprejudiced readers of the falseness of this supposition, if I should only show (as I hope I shall in the following parts of this Discourse) how men, barely by the use of their natural faculties may attain to all the knowledge they have, without the help of any innate impressions; and may arrive at certainty, without any such original notions or principles.49

Locke here rejects “natural faculties” or “innate principles” in the shaping humans. Where Locke rejects the idea that the soul can be inherited by the embryonic mind, the reader might refer to the unconscious and the psyche. One might also apply genetics and epigenetics to the remark by Locke when he criticizes the then common belief about “the constant impressions which the souls of men receive in their first beings, and which they bring into the world with them, as necessarily and really as they do any of their inherent faculties.”50

In short, Locke was among those Enlightenment philosophers who formulated the still dominant position of sociology, that intelligence and character traits are not, and cannot be, inherited. Mendelian genetics, behavioral epigenetics, and ethology have not changed that view, because it is a dogma fundamental to liberalism.

Drawing on the example of “children and idiots,” whose minds are assumed to be blank at birth, Locke proceeds with a dialectical discussion:

For to imprint anything on the mind without the mind’s perceiving it, seems to me hardly intelligible. If therefore children and idiots have souls, have minds, with those impressions upon them, THEY must unavoidably perceive them, and necessarily know and assent to these truths; which since they do not, it is evident that there are no such impressions. For if they are not notions naturally imprinted, how can they be innate?51

He arrives at the speculative conclusion that what is known to the “mind” is only to be gained by the perception of outside stimuli. The content of the “mind” only contains what is filled from the outside. What philosophers intuited or observed as innate to the “soul” or “mind,” which Locke aimed to repudiate with this essay, was more in line with what we now know through psychology, epigenetics, genetics, and ethology.

What Locke confuses with innate abilities is the reception of knowledge. Hence, he states the obvious as some type of revelation in proving his position. He uses the straw man argument, which remains the predominate method of the left before resorting to banal abuse or suppression:

A child knows not that three and four are equal to seven, till he comes to beable to count seven, and has got the name and idea of equality; and then, upon explaining those words, he presently assents to, or rather perceives the truth of that proposition.52

The question however is whether this hypothetical child has the innate ability to utilize mathematical formulae when taught; not whether a newborn baby can immediately recite mathematical equations between dribbling and breast-feeding. This is an important question for the present, because it is now framed in terms of learned behavior, including whether gender is a social constructthat is independent of innate biological sex, and whether “Whiteness” is nothing more than a recent social construct to justify slavery.53

These are the types of questions that are now framed to deconstruct authentic—innate, organic—identities. Entire schools of ideology presented as social science pervade and dominate academia as a protected orthodoxy, against which any questioning is condemned as heresy.54 Ultimately, much of it can be traced to seventeenth century philosophers such as Locke.

Marx is no better, since his doctrine holds that the blank canvas of the human mind is shaped by the forces of social production. Mendelian genetics was for long condemned in the USSR as “reactionary” and “fascist,” because it means that certain human characteristics are hardwired and are not readily susceptible to change without the use of the most draconian intrusions, including mass liquidation; which is precisely what occurred.55