Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom

Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom
by Patrick Moore

(2021:  Ecosense Environmental, Comox, BC, Canada)

ISBN 979-85685955-0-2

Paperback, 207 pages

Available from Amazon as a paperback or e-reader

Reviewed by Nicholas Dykes

Summary:  The idea that humans are causing a dramatic rise in global temperature by burning fossil fuels is simplynot trueThe small contribution to carbon dioxide – a trace element in the Earth’s atmosphere – made by human beings is actually highly beneficial.  The notion that it is harmful or dangerous is false.  So are all the other dire predictions made by climate alarmists.  Patrick Moore shows us why in this refreshingly clear, well-written and illuminating book. 

Patrick Moore is a mild-mannered, softly spoken Canadian with a doctorate in ecology from the University of British Columbia.  Growing up in the woods of northern Vancouver Island, he developed a lasting love for the natural world which prompted him early on to become an environmentalist.  Dr Moore’s love of nature led him to be one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, which started when a small group of like-minded friends and colleagues made a voyage to Alaska in 1971 to protest against US underground testing of hydrogen bombs.  Happily, as we know, their efforts were eventually rewarded by the end of all atomic weapons testing by the US and other countries.

            Greenpeace expanded rapidly in parallel with growing international awareness of environmental issues.  Unfortunately, as it grew, it gradually changed from a group of volunteers with “a noble vision” into “a business with an ever-expanding budget, a matching payroll to meet” and by 1986 “was … rapidly transforming into a racket peddling junk science” (p.10). 

            Scientist, and ‘sensible environmentalist’ Patrick Moore began to think about quitting.  The final straw was the decision by his fellow directors of Greenpeace International, none of whom had any formal scientific training, to launch a campaign to ban chlorine.  Dr Moore writes; “chlorine is the most important of the 94 natural elements for both public health and medicine …. more than 85% of our prescription medicines are made using chlorine chemistry.  Twenty-five percent of our medicines actually contain chlorine.  And then there’s polyvinyl chloride, also known as PVC or simply vinyl, the most versatile of all the plastics.”  Banning chlorine would be madness.  Dr Moore had to leave.

            The theme of the book is explaining how Greenpeace and other environmental groups have managed to persuade huge numbers of ordinary people, politicians, journalists and even many scientists, that human beings are facing a series of catastrophes of their own making, global warming being the most pressing, and one which requires urgent, drastic action to prevent it.

            Dr Moore explains how this persuasion works:  “the great majority of scare stories about the present and future state of the planet, and humanity as a whole, are based on subjects that are either invisible, like COand radiation, or extremely remote, like polar bears and coral reefs.  Thus, most people have no way of determining the truth of these … [scare stories].  Instead, they must rely on the activists, the media, the politicians, and the scientists – all of whom have a very large financial and/or political stake in the subject…. ” (p.11).

            Chapter Three, “Climate of Fear and Guilt” is the vibrant heart of the book, which had stated at the outset:  “During the last 50 years we have adopted a lot of environmental policies that have changed the social and economic landscape considerably.  But today there are demands being made that would actually cripple society and the global economy permanently.  The push to ‘phase out all fossil fuel consumption in thirty years’ is certainly the biggest threat to civilization in the world today” (p.9).

            After a brief exposition of what true science consists of – observation, verification, repetition – the chapter examines the crucial but hugely misunderstood role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  For Patrick Moore, and for any other genuine scientist, carbon dioxide is “the most important molecule for the existence of life on Earth” (p. 36).  Yet, “The entire ‘climate change catastrophe’ narrative, is based on the claim that humans are emitting too much CO2 into the atmosphere and that this will cause our planet to be too hot for life.  Both claims are patently false” (p.37).  “[The Earth] is actually colder than it has been during most of life’s existence” (p.59).  Dr Moore points out that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which were originally put there by volcanoes when the Earth was young, had been declining steadily across the aeons until they had almost reached the point at which plants can no longer survive, which is 150 parts per million (ppm).  The reduction in concentration had actually reached 180 ppm. 

            Fortunately for us, melting ice and other factors at the end of the last glaciation raised the level back up to 280 ppm which is roughly where it was when industrialisation began in earnest in the 19th century and human activity began contributing to a small increase in atmospheric CO2.  Currently, the level is at 415 ppm, or 0.0415% of the Earth’s atmosphere, which is such a minimal amount that climate scientists call it a ‘trace element.’  Far from being a danger to the planet, this is a highly beneficial concentration which is helping to bring about a clearly proven ‘greening’ of the Earth.  Just as animal life depends on oxygen, so plant life depends on carbon dioxide – and the more the merrier.  The botanical world could easily tolerate, and would benefit enormously, from an atmosphere with 1200 ppm or more of CO2 – as it was during the Carboniferous Period when the lush vegetation which became coal was steadily removing CO2 from the atmosphere; growing, dying, accumulating, being compressed, then stored for millions of years; until humans began using it for fuel and, in a life-saving process, began returning CO2 to the atmosphere, whence it came in the first place.  The bottom line here is that human beings are “life’s salvation, not its destroyers” (p.41).

            The chapter includes a discussion of the misnamed ‘greenhouse effect’ which is just as important to life on Earth as CO2, and equally falsely blamed for imaginary disasters to come.  “Life would never likely have existed without the greenhouse effect.  And yet the climate alarmists refer to greenhouse gasses such as CO2 and CH4 as ‘pollution.’” (p.50).  CH4 is actually the valuable aerial trace element methane which, despite its minuscule presence, makes a not insignificant contribution to our presence on Earth.  Flatulent cows should not be made the object of an alarmist pogrom, but rather be worshipped, as they are in India, though not for the same reason!

            Another important fact described in the chapter is that global warming – or cooling – only happens in the northern and southern hemispheres.  The tropics remain largely unchanged.

            While discussing climate predictions, Dr Moore points out that many “are based on simulations, which are computer-generated models created by authors who decide what they want their model to predict and then build assumptions into the model that provide them with the results they [want]…. [it] has nothing to do with real science, which is about observing real situations in the real world ….” (p.33).  In other words, we should be very wary of climate predictions derived from computer simulations.

            Dr Moore also highlights a common evasive tactic employed by alarmists – the claim that there is an ‘overwhelming consensus among scientists’ often put at 97%; or that ‘the science is settled.’  Dr Moore states in contrast that these (highly dubious) assertions say nothing about whether what is being asserted is true, and goes on to say, ‘“Consensus’ is actually not a valid scientific term.  It is a social and political term having to do with agreement on policies….”  He quotes the late Michael Crichton:  “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science.  If it’s science, it isn’t consensus” (p.36). 

            In fact, citing a consensus of scientists or the IPCC (as government ministers are prone to do) are logically invalid arguments; they commit the fallacy of argumentum ad vericundiam, or ‘appealing to authority.’  Such arguments establish nothing about the truth of what is alleged, as Dr Moore noted.  They merely pass the buck in a singularly cowardly fashion.

            The other chapters of the book tear to pieces ten more myths, the majority connected with alleged dangers from the small but genuinely beneficial human contribution to atmospheric CO2.  Chapter One rips apart a claim that “Africa’s oldest boabab trees are dying at an unprecedented rate, and climate change may be to blame” (pp.15-18).  Moore stresses that no evidence is provided for the assertion, which turns out to be no more than a totally unscientific guess by a journalist, and no more newsworthy than the indubitable fact that older trees, like older animals, die of old age.  Dr Moore began his book with this story because it demonstrates very effectively his thesis that remoteness is one of the factors that environmental alarmism depends on.  How many of us have seen a boabab tree, or know anything about its life cycle?

            Chapter Two concerns a more serious example of ‘remoteness trading’ – coral reefs.  The chapter explains in a concise fashion how coral reefs are formed; where they thrive and why, and accounts for the phenomenon of ‘bleaching’ which alarmists maintain is the fate of all corals, due to man-made warming of the oceans.  It turns out that bleaching is a relatively rare, local occurrence, seldom fatal, and usually short-lived.  More significantly, since corals thrive best in warm seawater they would welcome warmer oceans.

            Later chapters cover the threatened extinction of polar bears (whose numbers are actually rising to the extent of becoming a menace to the Inuit peoples of Arctic Canada); assertions that millions of species face extinction (nonsense); a claim that the Pacific Ocean contains a vast garbage patch of plastic (completely untrue, it does not); another that genetically modified food is harmful (a blatant lie); and that we should fear nuclear power (bunkum, it’s our future.  Danger?  You’re a million times more likely to die in a road accident [p.153]). 

            Other topics addressed are the causes of forest fires (mismanagement through ‘green’ policies); ocean acidification (imaginary), and mass walrus deaths due to global warming melting Arctic ice sheets (no!  Due to polar bear attacks on rapidly growing populations of this protected species!).  All the above are shown to be fabrications based on ignorance of genuine climate science; ignorance of geology and of climate history (paleoclimatology); one-sided, false, or incomplete reporting; disregard of counter evidence; and misrepresentation, gross exaggeration, or outright falsehoods.  It really is a shameful record.

            One of the more shocking episodes recounted is the assault by Greenpeace – which, as we saw, Dr Moore co-founded – on genetically-modified, life-saving, Vitamin A-enriched Golden Rice.  He and some new colleagues were actually led to accuse Greenpeace of a “Crime against Humanity” (p.141) during a campaign for Golden Rice adoption by poor, rice-dependent countries.  “While the ‘green’ left calls for socialism and redistribution of wealth, they are fighting against a cure for the very poorest people in the world … one cup of Golden Rice per day could save millions of them from blindness and eventual death.  They die quietly and unnoticed” (p.144).

            Another shocker is deliberate falsification or misrepresentation of evidence by the world-famous Sir David Attenborough, towards whom Dr Moore throws down this gauntlet:  “I personally challenge Sir Attenborough (sic) to dispute the points presented herein regarding seabirds, plastic, walruses and polar bears.  I look forward to his rebuttal” (p.204).  One wonders whether a response will be forthcoming.

            A prodigious amount of work went into this book, which is very well-illustrated and jam-packed with information, much of it not mentioned in this report, such as the Milankovitch Cycles, which throw light on the real causes of historic changes in climate (pp. 67-9); libellous use of the word ‘denier’ (p.12 & passim), and failure to consider the social and economic consequences of government policies. 

            From a literary point of view, it must be added that the quotations used to illuminate points are very well chosen, be they from friend or foe.  Since climate alarmism is entirely built on predictions, my favourites were:  “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, May 2018 (p.51); and, “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future” – 1922 Nobel Prize for Physics winner Niels Bohr (p.53).

            While faultless 95% of the time, Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom is not without flaws.  One is delayed or missing explanations of two vital pieces of evidence:  core samples from ice sheets, and from ocean sediments.  These yield huge amounts of information about the history of Earth’s climate but, while Dr Moore rests much of his case on them, he doesn’t explain how the information is actually extracted nor why we should place such confidence in it.  He says on page 41, “Marine sediment core samples … go back hundreds of millions of years and the sediment does not lie.”  I’m sure he’s right, but I also learned at university that the Earth’s crust has gone through incredible contortions during its long history and that many sedimentary deposits have been folded, twisted or otherwise displaced.  Movement of present-day tectonic plates shows that this is still happening.  Some confirmation that the core samples he uses as evidence have not been affected by crust movement would be reassuring.

            A similar objection might be made when Dr Moore examines the genetic modification of foodstuffs (Chapter Seven).  Clear proof of GM’s safety presented earlier would make his discussion more persuasive, although he does make several telling points; e.g., that genetic modification takes place naturally and that we ourselves – each and every one of us – are created by genetic modification.

             There are a few other minor glitches, and an index would have been helpful, but enough of quibbles.  Patrick Moore has written a very timely and very important book.  In my opinion, panic stricken politicians such as Joe Biden and Boris Johnson should be locked up in solitary confinement until they have read Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom and thereafter demonstrated a full understanding that their goals of zero emissions of CO2; of banning petrol and diesel from motor vehicles, and of smothering the landscape with ugly, very expensive, short-lived, and highly unreliable energy sources – windmills and solar panels – are both fatuous and entirely unnecessary.

            The arch sceptic Karl Popper was fond of saying, “we never know what we are talking about.”  He also remarked, “Now a little debunking may do us a lot of good.”  Patrick Moore has demonstrated time and again throughout this book that Popper – though often wrong elsewhere –  was right on the button with climate doomsayers, who emphatically do not know what they are talking about.  Let’s hope Dr Moore’s debunking of their myths, misinformation and lies will do them a lot of good.  I doubt it will, too many reputations and research grants are at stake.  But if we can persuade enough open-minded, educated adults (i.e. voters)to read Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom that alone might end up doing the rest of us a lot of good indeed.


A discussion of the ‘climategate’ controversy and the infamous ‘hockey stick’ graph – showing a dramatic increase in global temperatures – would be a welcome addition to the book, should Dr Moore decide on a new edition, especially after the BBC’s heavily biased, October 2021 documentary on the subject.  The BBC Four film made no mention of computer modelling, nor of ice and ocean sediment cores; and the only reference to the beneficial effects of COlasted about three seconds.  Michael Mann’s hockey stick, which the programme set out to vindicate, may be factually correct to some degree but it only covers a thousand years, a mere blink in geological time.  Dr Moore’s work covers millions of years, and shows that the Earth is currently in an ‘interglacial period’ – and is thus very likely to get much colder!

The Conservatives: Not Fit for Any Honest Purpose

The Conservatives: Not Fit for Any Honest Purpose
Alan Bickley
12th June 2020

According to The Daily Mail, Madeline Odent is the Curator of the Royston Museum in Hertfordshire. This museum is funded by Royston Council. In the past few days, Mrs Odent has taken to Twitter, giving expert advice on how to use household chemicals to cause irreparable harm to statues she dislikes.

It is, she says, “extremely difficult” to remove the chemicals once they have been applied. She adds that “it can be done, but the chemical needed is super carcinogenic, so it rarely is.” Again, she says: “We haven’t found a way to restore artefacts that this happens to.” Her last reported tweet features a picture of Winton Churchill’s defaced statue in Parliament Square, and says: “Stay tuned for our next edition, where we’ll be talking about marble memorials of racists.”

The newspaper and various people are calling for the woman to be sacked. It is, I allow, surprising for someone to hold a job that involves conserving the past, and then to advise an insurrectionary mob on how to destroy the past. This being said, and assuming the story is substantially true, Mrs Odent is less to be blamed for giving her advice than those who employed her as an expert on conservation and its opposite.

We have had a Conservative Government since 2010. We have had a Conservative Government with a working majority since 2015. For the past six months, we have had a Conservative Government with a crushing majority. It all counts for nothing, because the Conservatives themselves are useless.

Political power is not purely, nor mainly, a matter of being able to make laws. It is far more a matter of choosing reliable servants. Before 1997, we could suppose, within reason, that these servants were politically neutral. They often had their own agenda. They could use their status as experts to influence, and sometimes to frustrate, laws and policies with which they disagreed. But there were not self-consciously an order of people devoted to a transformative revolution. The Blair Government broke with convention by stuffing the public sector with its own creatures, loyal only to itself. This is to be deplored. On the other hand, the Blair Government did have a mandate for sweeping change, and it is reasonable that it should have given preference to employing those who could be trusted to further both the letter and spirit of this mandate. The Conservatives have had enough time to make the public sector into at least an obedient servant of those the people keep electing. Instead of this, they have spent this time employing and promoting people whom Tony Blair would have sacked on the spot as malicious lunatics.

Royston as a town and Hertfordshire as a county have been dominated by the Conservatives almost without a break since the creation of elected local government in the nineteenth century. Yet Royston Council allowed Mrs Odent to become the curator of its town museum. It allowed this in 2015 – five years into a Conservative Government. To her credit, she did not lie her way into the job. Once more according to The Daily Mail, she claims that she negotiated a contract with her employers that allowed her to “decolonise and diversify” the museum, and that her employers gave her a “safe platform” that she could use to “piss off some racists.” She adds: “a) my boss thinks I’m funny, b) she also supports BLM, and c) I’m the one reading [your direct messages].”

Ever ready to pose as the spokesman for a disenfranchised majority, Andrew Rosindell, the Conservative Member for Romford, announced that the spreading wave of vandalism was being driven by “a politically-correct gang of anarchists who hate everything about this country.” Fair enough, so far as these people do hate England. But this is not an insurrection of anarchists – not even the kind who like the power to destroy. It is an insurrection driven by the wealthy and the well-connected. Mrs Odone is the daughter of an American college president and the wife of a banker. She is part of a network of the rich who feel no twentieth century shame about their wealth, so long as they believe and act on their beliefs in a repeat of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. And they have been given the power to make this revolution by Conservative Governments.

A government of conservatives would long since have purged these people from every institution within its orbit of control or influence. It would have remodelled some and shut others down. This Conservative Government has instead left or even put them in charge of these institutions, and they are now acting in mockery of the parliamentary majority won just six months ago.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not approve of police brutality. Indeed, I have long believed in abolishing the police. I am no fan of Winston Churchill. I do not believe, had I been alive at the time, that I would have supported slavery or the slave trade. I do not think, in retrospect, that having a big empire was a good idea. But the events that have been made the excuse for what is now happening took place in a foreign country, or a long time ago. What we now have is, I repeat, a cultural revolution – a cultural revolution led by what amounts to the ruling class. The BBC has incited it. Big business and the rich are cheering it on. The police have no wish to stop it.

It is also a cultural revolution that will not end with pulling down the statues of men whose actions may not have been spotless. Again, I quote Mrs Odent, whose honesty, if nothing else, is to be commended: “[W]e all immediately forget history when statues are destroyed.”

And a Conservative Government that, last December, swore blind it would stand by us has abdicated what little control it might still have. If disappointment is reasonable, we have no reason to be shocked. The Conservatives are, and always have been, unfit for any honest purpose. Sooner or later, I have no doubt – if it has not already happened – Mrs Odent and Boris Johnson will meet at some smart dinner. They will get on very well. Why not? She may despise him. Being herself intelligent, she has no choice. Being intelligent, though, she can also be sure that, unlike the average reader of The Daily Mail, he is not her enemy.

Homer, Vergil and the Culture War (2020), by Sean Gabb

Homer, Vergil and the Culture War
Sean Gabb
22nd February 2020

One of my Books
Learn More

The Classics Faculty at the University of Oxford is considering whether to remove from its undergraduate courses the compulsory study in their original languages of Homer and Vergil. The reasons given are that students from independent schools, where some classical teaching is kept up, tend at the moment to do better in examinations than students from state schools, and that men do better than women. I regard this as the most important news of the week. I do so partly because I make some of my living from these languages, and so have a financial interest in their survival. I do so mainly because I see the proposal as a further enemy advance in the Culture War through which we have been living for at least the past two generations. Continue reading

Queen Elizabeth Beats Hollywood And The Stumblebum Sussexes

By ilana mercer

His wife, a hero of sorts only in the TV series “Suits,” had hightailed it to Canada, leaving Harry Windsor, formerly known as Prince Harry, to deliver a concession speech.

Make no mistake—no matter the moola they rake in, Harry and Meghan Markle have been sorely defeated and deflated.

Earlier in January 2020, the stumblebum Sussexes had smugly announced to the public that they “planned to carve out a progressive new role within this institution.” The unavoidable implication of that sleight-of-hand was that “this institution” (the monarchy) was just not woke enough for the two’s exquisitely honed sensibilities.

Gallantly has Harry tried, since, to make his subjects believe that it is he, not Meghan Markle—his meddlesome, divisive, American wife—who had attempted, and failed miserably, to outsmart Queen Elizabeth II.

But the crass and callous rollout production, lacking in etiquette and contemptuous of royal protocol, fell flat.

So deeply silly was the Sussexes Instagram statement, that it had brainy royal correspondents and members of the Queen’s Bench snickering that Harry and his Hollywood wife must have been getting bad advice from friends across the Atlantic, who knew nothing about the workings of the British monarchy.

A woman of impeccable class, HM the Queen, aged 93, handled the Markle tantrum with great kindness—even though the couple had informed the world of their antics, before apprising the queen and other members of the Royal Family.

Wrapping up Markle’s failed brinkmanship, Harry unleashed a load of bafflegab, peppered with oddly fatalistic phrases such as, “after so many years of challenges,” “there really was no other option,” and, sadly, “it had come to” this.

Translated: After two years of royal toil, my wife had had enough. She cracked under the duress of being dressed to the nines, served the food of her fancy, watched over and catered to, housed in a palace of her own design, and showered with her heart’s desire and a title.

These were paltry rewards for Markle’s herculean efforts. In a word, Meghan prefers the life of a celebrity to the life of a public servant.

Despite two years of torturous toil, Harry and his “hardworking” bride were prepared “to continue serving the Queen.” Alas, rambled Harry, that “unfortunately, … wasn’t possible.” The Queen was having none of it.

No wonder. Her Royal Majesty embodies mettle. She has lived a life of dedication and duty. Still in her teens, before being crowned, Elizabeth had joined the military, during World War II, where she “drove a military truck while she served.”

Translated, again: Meghan and Harry (the man of the house comes first) had hoped to serve the queen on their own terms. Her Highness went hardline, the outcome of which is that, for mindlessly following Meghan, Harry and his boorish bride have been stripped of their status as “working members” of the Royal Family, have forfeited their HRH titles and the honor of travelling on behalf of the queen. Their names have been expunged from the court circular. The Sussexes are also in the bad books of the prince of Wales. Prince Charles, after all, pays for his sons’ lavish lifestyle.

According to Alastair Bruce, ABC News’ royalty consultant, and himself a military man, Prince Harry will also lose his honorific military patronages and titles, including “his title as Captain General Royal Marines,” which was especially dear to Harry.

Granted, life at Frogmore Cottage, in Windsor, a place beyond picturesque, didn’t quite cut it for Meghan. But, since it was renovated largely at public expense, down to a yoga studio, a staircase for Meghan’s grand entrances and original paintings from the queen’s own collection—the pair will have to reimburse the Sovereign Grant fund.

That the British monarchy stands for the last vestiges of ancient English tradition is not in dispute. But what do the Duke and Duchess of Sussex stand for in this tawdry saga? The Economist magazine, whose sources crown Meghan Markle as the “principal agent of the current debacle,” tethers “Harry and Meghan to … Marx”:

Markle is a “product of an entertainment business that has done more than any other industry to fulfil Marx’s prediction that ‘all that is sacred’ would be ‘profaned’ and ‘all that is solid’ would ‘melt into air.’”

“The Communist Manifesto” predicted and celebrated that crass commercialism would subject national institutions “to the revolutionary logic of the global market.” “The Sussexes,” muses the Economist’s Bagehot Column, “are … embracing capitalism in its rawest, most modern form: global rather than national, virtual rather than solid, driven, by its ineluctable logic, to constantly produce new fads and fashions.” [Emphasis added.]

In 21st-century capitalism you accumulate followers in order to monetize them. … In a 21st-century-capitalist society you are propelled around the world in pursuit of the latest marketing opportunity.

To date, the queen has foiled Meghan’s mindless plan to brand the term “Sussex Royal.” Believe it or not, the two twits had gone and hired a branding agency—the same one that caters to the children’s channel Nickelodeon—and had tried to trademark a Sussex Royal logo.

No doubt the Queen’s Bench has put Meghan and her American pettifoggers in their proper place.

Once upon a time, a dolt from Tinseltown imagined she was a match for the queen of England.

The End.


Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook & Gab. Latest on YouTube: “How Democracy Made Us Dumb.


It’s Not ‘Identity Politics,’ It’s Anti-White Politics

By ilana mercer

Every time a manifestly racist, anti-white event goes down, which is frequently, conservative media call it “identity politics.” “The left is playing identity politics.”

Whatever is convulsing the country, it’s not identity politics. For, blacks are not being pitted against Hispanics. Hispanics are not being sicced on Asians, and Ameri-Indians aren’t being urged to attack the groups just mentioned. Rather, they’re all piling on honky. Hence, anti-white politics or animus.

The ire of the multicultural multitudes is directed exclusively at whites and their putative privilege. Anti-whitism is becoming endemic and systemic.

Take “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett. Smollett deceived the country and the Chicago Police Department about having fallen prey to a hate crime, which, it transpired, he had crudely orchestrated.

The Chicago Police Department superintendent expressed the requisite righteous indignation that a black man (Smollett) would desecrate symbols of black oppression in the process of framing innocent Others. (A noose had been purchased at Smollett’s behest.)

Nobody, Superintendent Eddie Johnson included, said sorry to the accused group, whose reputation had been sullied: “Trump supporters or white persons.”

“Trump supporters” is indeed a proxy for “white persons.” The conflation of “white” and “Trump supporter” was made, for one, by an anti-white, anti-Trump, professional agitator: Trevor Noah of the “Daily Show.” Noah is neither funny nor very bright, but he is right, in this instance.

Conservatives, for their part, persist in skirting the white-animus issue. The Smollett libel fit the “progressive narrative,” they intoned. (Overuse has made the “narrative” noun a bad cliché.)

It was a right vs. left matter, insisted others.

Smollett was sick in the head, came another obfuscation. What would public expiation and excuse-making be without the rotten habit of diseasing misbehavior?! His antics might still make him a big-time actor, but Smollett is a small-time crook, a common criminal of low character. To disease immorality is a corruption of traditional conservative thinking.

We have here a politicization of crime, reasoned other compromising conservatives.

Come again? What is the hate-crime category if not a politicization of crime? With the hate crime designation, we are essentially saying that a murder committed with racial malice is worse than one committed without it. Is that a normative call or a political one? I’d say the latter.

Some conservatives remarked that the Smollett affair occurred against the backdrop of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS). Is TDS not a proxy for the white-hot hatred of whites?

Four minutes and 13 seconds in, a video filmed at the Washington State Evergreen College gives way to softly hissed, but deranged, diatribes by faculty. Theirs is unadulterated, anti-white agitprop. Yet the TV host who screened this pedagogic incitement chuckles lightheartedly about secondary, lesser issues like victimhood chic. Never once is the thing called what is it:

Incessant and dangerous incitement to hate innocent whites for their alleged pigmental privilege.

A recent and jarring anti-white incident involved the curriculum imposed on students by the Santa Barbara Unified School District. As if public education is not sufficiently corrupt, “educators” now contract out to an educational black op. These tax-paid mercenaries come to schools as social levelers to put your kids through an indoctrination boot camp. However, it’s not egalitarianism that the schools are increasingly teaching, but anti-whitism.

“Just Communities Central Coast” (JCCC) is such an “educational” black op. The reported outcomes of the “Just Communities” initiative tell us a lot about the impetus behind the course.

“JCCC’s discriminatory curriculum has led to increased racial animosity toward Caucasian teachers and students,” reported Eric Early, a Republican candidate for California attorney general.

American kids can barely read properly or speak and write grammatically. They’ll never know the wonders of the Western literary canon (banished because produced by the pale patriarchy). But they’ve committed to consciousness ugly, nonsensical, stupid, decontextualized grids that tabulate the ways of white oppression.

Talk about “The Closing of the American Mind”!

Yet, the litigant, a Republican candidate for California attorney general, had a hard time coming out with it. JCCC’s anti-white teachings were merely anti-American, he told Fox News apologetically. Is that all you’ve got, sir?

I read Esquire’s Feb. 12, cover story featuring Ryan Morgan, of West Bend, Wisconsin. Fox News’ Martha MacCallum called it “provocative,” before inviting U.S. Army veteran Darrin Porcher and activist-actor Rumando Kelley to trash “The Life of [this] American Boy at 17.”

The only reason the humdrum story of poor Ryan Morgan was deemed “provocative” is because he’s white. As it transpired from the disjointed “thoughts” disgorged by MacCallum’s two black supremacist guests, “There is [sic] more important people in the world than white middle-class.” (Ryan is not wealthy. He holds a job for which he rises at 6:30 a.m., before school. I’d put him in the working-class category.)

While the one unedifying black supremacist conceded that, “We do need to lend some credence to what a Caucasian man goes through,” the irate Rumando roared that, “Esquire dropped the ball on this.”

Rumando could not quite explain why the experiences of white boys deserved to be expunged, in the era of anti-whiteness and suicide rates rising among this very cohort: white American males.

Indeed, the suicide rate is declining everywhere in the world except for America, where it is 12.8 per 100,000, “well above China’s current rate of seven.” Dubbed “deaths of despair,” white Americans and native Americans are the most suicidal populations in the U.S.


Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & “The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). She’s on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube

When Victimhood Masquerades as a Virtue

By Natalie Fawn Danelishen

One must question ‘society’ and ‘our standards’ when becoming a victim is the new hip cool thing. With a wave of hoax ‘hate crimes’ attempting to fabricate victimhood since Trump has taken office, we have to ask, how did we get here?

Many people share the blame. The enablers are easy to spot much like the dealer selling crack on the street corners. The Media, Progressives, Conservatives, YouTube, Facebook, even Gofundme pages share blame for encouraging these anti-social trends.

However, we can’t blame only them. No. As individuals, many of us have fallen into the trap of pushing their narratives through social media. On places like Twitter and Facebook we take what we are told and spread it like wildfire. We have become the enablers. When we don’t apply critical thought, but instead mindlessly parrot what we’ve heard, then we end up pushing someone else’s agenda. Like what happened at the Lincoln Memorial when we watched the world turn on the Covington Catholic students. The public was manipulated into being bamboozled.

Continue reading

England at a Crossroads

By Andy Duncan, Vice-Chairman of Mises UK

Well, I suppose I always knew that it was logically possible for England to become a tyrannical third world socialist tinpot dictatorship. However, it’s still been emotionally quite a blow to realise that we’ve now officially sunk down to the same ignominious level as North Korea.

When I grew up, we entertained the generally accepted idea that to be born an Englishman was to be handed a life-long Willy Wonka golden ticket in life’s mysteriously complicated lottery.

Yes, it rains here a lot. Yes, our main culinary condiment is ‘Brown Sauce’. And yes, the rapid decline of our Empire took a huge amount of wind out of our previously billowing sails.

But there still remained something about this England, this glorious England, that felt special.

Continue reading