Strategies of Competition in Western Politics

Tobias Langdon
Occidental Observer
January 3, 2016

It’s a mystery worthy of the Twilight Zone. Government inspectors in the British city of Birmingham have discovered “unregistered schools” where children are being taught “misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Semitic material” in “unhygienic and filthy” conditions by unscreened and unqualified teachers. The Chief Inspector of Schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, says that far more children may be at risk and that the promotion of British values is being “undermined by the growth of these unregistered schools.”

Clearly those schools are like something from the Third World. How could they exist in a First World nation like Britain? Why are British children being force-fed these ideological poisons? Well, the liberal media are very coy about giving full details, but they do speak of a “narrow Islam-focused curriculum” at these dismayingly un-British schools. They also say that the schools have been found most often in “Muslim communities.”

The Boys from the Burger Bar

It seems then — brace yourself — that these schools are run by Muslims. And remember that Birmingham was also the scene of the so-called Trojan horse scandal, in which Muslim-dominated official schools were caught exposing vulnerable children to similar misogyny, homophobia and anti-Semitism. In other words, Muslim immigrants from the Third World have set up schools in Britain just like those back home. Who could have foreseen it? The mystery gets bigger when we reflect that Muslim immigrants rape children here just as they do back home. And Muslim immigrants mutilate their daughters here just as they do back home.

But it’s not just Muslims. At the same time as the White folk of Birmingham learnt about the anti-Semitic schools, they were reading about the jailing of a notorious gang called the Burger Bar Boys, who dealt drugs, sold guns and kept the city humming with murder, rape and robbery. If you examine this photo of the B.B. Boys, you’ll see that although they are all male, they are far from stale or pale:

So Black immigrants from the Third World tend toward violent criminal behavior in Britain just as they do back home. These demographic patterns involving Muslims and Blacks are deeply puzzling to liberals, who greet each new scandal with bafflement and dismay. Why do Third-World people create Third-World problems? It’s an enigma that won’t be cracked without much more research and much more funding for think-tanks and community groups. And while liberals are working on it, they ensure that the Third-World population of the West continues to grow. This lunacy isn’t found just in Britain, but in America, France, Sweden, Australia and every other First World nation that has been enriched by the Third World. Liberals are horrified by pathologies that their own policies have created.

Good for Goyim, Bad for Jews

How have Jews been so successful in promoting their pro-immigration agenda on the West despite the opposition of the White majority in every enriched nation? In scientific and mathematical terms, this is a problem in game theory, or the study of strategies for maximizing gain and minimizing loss in competition. These strategies don’t have to be consciously designed: game theory is just as applicable to bacteria or plants as it is to chess, poker and politics.

And bacteria prove a very important point: physical strength and size are not essential for strategic success. Medical fields like embryology and parasitology offer many examples of small and weak organisms manipulating much larger and stronger organisms for their own advantage. In politics, the majority does not automatically win and impose its preferences on official policy, even in self-professed democracies. As Guillaume Durocher has pointed out on the Occidental Observer, the statistician and game-theorist Naseem Taleb “has written insightfully on the apparent paradox of ‘stubborn minorities’ having more agency, influence, and power among political elites than apathetic majorities.”

So we should put aside questions of morality and examine the “double standards” of Jews as strategies in competition between Jews and the White gentile majority. Prima facie, it might seem disadvantageous for Jews to encourage mass immigration by Muslims, who are much more anti-Semitic on average than White Europeans. But Muslim anti-Semitism can strengthen Jewish power. When Muslims murder Jews in France, Jews like Moshe Kantor don’t demand an end to Muslim immigration, but more state surveillance and less free speech.

Fooled by Gould

Furthermore, the criminality and social failure of Muslims and Blacks can be useful tools of psychological warfare against the White majority. If all human groups possess the same intellectual potential, as we are so loudly told by pseudo-scientists like Stephen Jay Gould, then non-White failure can only be explained by White discrimination and malice. In other words, Whites are eternal villains, non-Whites are eternal victims.

After all, they’re minorities and oligolatry, or the worship of minorities, is now the official religion of the West. If the White heterosexual majority suffered from AIDS at higher rates than Blacks and homosexuals, that would clearly be an indictment of the White heterosexual majority. As it is, the reverse is true, which is just as clearly an indictment of the White heterosexual majority. Like water, wickedness runs only downhill: from the White majority onto the minorities whom that majority oppresses.

This explains the apparent paradox of the staunchly feminist Labour party not merely concealing but collaborating with the gang-rape of under-aged girls in Rotherham and other British towns and cities. And feminists don’t benefit from pointing out that Muslims and other non-Whites commit sex-crimes at much higher rates than Whites. With rare exceptions, feminists are interested in power and personal prestige, not in helping ordinary women. Muslims are not susceptible to emotional blackmail and wouldn’t be remunerative targets if they were. Indeed, more sex crime and sexual harassment mean more opportunity for feminist propaganda and moralizing — so long as the perpetrators are identified only as men, not as non-White men.

Majority Malice

But minorities have another highly important function in Jewish and liberal strategy. They serve as a buffer-zone against self-assertion by the majority, rather as the occupied Eastern European states did for the Soviet Union at the end of the Second World War. The Western powers could not launch an invasion of the Soviet Union without first invading Eastern Europe, and Stalin’s paranoia was undoubtedly assuaged by this simple fact of geography.

Similarly, minorities like Muslims and homosexuals are cultural buffer-zones for Jews. In Jewish understanding, European history has been blackened again and again by outbreaks of irrational gentile malice against blameless Jews. When Jews are the only or most highly visible minority in a gentile society, this irrational malice can erupt without warning at any moment. After all, how could Jews know it is coming when they are doing nothing to provoke it?

But when other and more visible minorities are present, hostility towards those minorities by the White majority is a clear warning that trouble may also be on the way for Jews. Conversely, majority tolerance of the minorities is a reassurance that Jewish power will not be challenged. Indeed, the more the majority tolerates bad behaviour by minorities, the greater that reassurance is. Whites are undoubtedly suffering serious harm from the presence of non-Whites in Western nations. When Donald Trump suggests limiting this harm by ending Muslim immigration, Jews are horrified by the threat to Muslims. In reality, they are horrified by the idea that the White majority might assert itself and act in its own defence. The harm done by non-Whites is a feature, not a bug, of mass immigration and minority worship. This is the state inquisitor O’Brien in Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948):

He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: “How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?”

Winston thought. “By making him suffer,” he said.

“Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation.” (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part III, chapter 3)

City of Sanctuary

The passivity of Whites in the face of non-White pathologies is proof that Western societies are obeying the will of Jews, not of Whites. This is why organizations like the English Defence League and PEGIDA cannot appease Jews by insisting that they are philo-Semitic and fully support Israel. By expressing hostility to Muslims, the EDL and PEGIDA are moving into the buffer-zone between Jews and the gentile majority and exposing themselves as a potential threat. As we’ve seen above, Birmingham’s enrichment by non-Whites has been extremely bad for Birmingham’s Whites (see also the murders of Lucy Lowe and Christina Edkins). But when PEGIDA plan to hold a rally in the city in opposition to that enrichment, the traitorous Labour party and its allies respond with all the clichés of cultural Marxism:

Birmingham’s political leaders have united to condemn plans for a far-right rally in the city involving ex-EDL leader Tommy Robinson. Pegida UK has announced plans to gather in the city on February 6 as part of a series of protests across Europe. Robinson said in an interview that the aim was to “preserve our culture, save our country and save our future”.

But Birmingham’s Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders issued a joint statement saying the group would not be welcome. Labour council leader [Councillor] John Clancy and Tory and Liberal Democrat group heads, Robert Alden and Paul Tilsley, said the city was no place for “prejudice, intolerance and hate”. They said: “On the day that Birmingham was formally awarded City of Sanctuary status, it was disappointing to hear of the plans for the launch of a new anti-Islamic far-right group. Birmingham is a city that has a proud history of tolerance, cohesion and integration — with people from around the world of all faiths and heritage welcome to make their home here.

“Brummies [people from Birmingham] do not subscribe to ideas based on prejudice, intolerance and hate. That is why the planned launch of a new group in Birmingham is rejected by the council. The best way to demonstrate this is for everyone to go about their normal business on February 6 as a very public exhibition of what makes Birmingham great.” (Birmingham unites to tell Pegida UK: ‘You’re not welcome here’, The Birmingham Mail, 8th December 2015)

In reality, Birmingham is neither united, cohesive nor integrated. Large numbers of Whites there are horrified by what mass immigration has done to their city. Like similarly industrial Detroit, Whites made the city great and non-Whites are destroying it. The Labour council in Birmingham, like the Labour council in Rotherham, responds to Muslim pathologies by pretending that they aren’t happening. The “Trojan horse” scandal was first exposed twenty years ago and in 2014 the Birmingham Mail reported that “Child sex gangs [have been] a problem in Birmingham for 40 years.” The council knew and did nothing (see also here and here).

Punishing the Goyim

But some people respond to Muslim pathologies in a quite different way: by gloating over them, including rabbis expressing Schadenfreude at what Muslims are doing to Europe: “Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years [we] were in exile there.”

I also wonder at the attitude of feminists like Jenni Murray of the BBC to the mass rape carried out by Muslims in Rotherham, Oxford and elsewhere. Murray, whose autobiography has the “poignant tale of an early 1960s visit to Auschwitz with her half-Jewish father,” is not a slim or attractive woman. Does she genuinely care that shiksas are being raped in such large numbers? One thing is certain: the BBC’s daily Woman’s Hour, which Murray has graced for many years, did not break any of the Muslim rape-gang scandals. Nor did the Guardian, despite the numerous readers it has among the social workers and child-welfare officers who were paid large sums of money to “supervise and safeguard” the victims.

Did those Guardian-readers not have access to email, telephones or postage stamps? Did they not think the Guardian would be interested in what brutal misogynist males were doing to helpless under-aged girls on such a vast scale? Apparently not. The extensive news-gathering apparatus of Guardian, with reporters and sources in every corner of the United Kingdom, failed to notice what the Guardian itself called “grotesque abuse” and a “colossal institutional failure in child protection.”

All the necessary information was available, but it wasn’t being transmitted or processed as it should have been. If British society is likened to a human body, then the media are part of its nervous system. That nervous system is clearly diseased, because it doesn’t work as it should. Oligolatry is a selective neuro-toxin: it interferes with the transmission and processing of information on certain topics. If minorities can’t be criticized for pathological behaviour, that behaviour will worsen, not improve.

Contingent Cuckoos

Game theory is applicable again, because the control and manipulation of information is an essential part of competition. For example, cuckoos lay camouflaged eggs to trick their hosts into raising non-related chicks. If birds used full language, cuckoos would undoubtedly be passionate supporters of universalism:

Say it five times before breakfast tomorrow; more important, understand it as the center of a network of implication: “Avian equality is a contingent fact of history.” Equality is not given a priori; it is neither an ethical principle (though equal treatment may be) nor a statement about norms of social action. It just worked out that way. A hundred different and plausible scenarios for avian history would have yielded other results (and moral dilemmas of enormous magnitude). They didn’t happen. “Species” does not exist. We are all the same under the feathers. (Adapted from a famous homily by Stephen Jay Gould)

Cuckoos would also support laws against “hate-speech,” denouncing pigeons who claimed that hawks had a tendency to eat pigeons and shouldn’t be allowed to immigrate into pigeon societies. But cuckoos would of course ban immigration by hawks into any cuckoo society.