Muammar Gaddafi’s The Green Book was published in 1975, and was intended to be read by everyone. Gaddafi was murdered in 2011 for opposing the same people that Abraham Lincoln and John F Kennedy opposed, i.e. globohomo. This book is therefore of immediate interest to anyone else who opposes globohomo.
Part I is titled ‘The Solution of the Problem of Democracy: The Authority of the People’. This is divided into ten chapters.
In the first, ‘The Instrument of Government’, Gaddafi points out the inherently tyrannical nature of electoral democracy as practiced in the West today. Up to 49% of the population can have a government that they did not vote for imposed on them. He writes that “dictatorship is established under the cover of false democracy.”
In the second, ‘Parliaments’, Gaddafi decries the parliamentary system as a “misrepresentation” of the people. Democracy must mean the authority of the people, and not an authority that presumes to act on behalf of the people. As soon as the election is over, the representative assumes sovereignty from the people. The people have the right to destroy the parliamentary assemblies that have taken their sovereignty away.
“The most tyrannical dictatorships the world has known have existed under the aegis of parliaments.”
In the third, ‘The Party’, Gaddafi decries the modern political party as “the dictatorship of the modern age”. He states that “A party’s aim is to achieve power under the pretext of carrying out its program.” Any party not in power will seek to harm the nation so as to undermine their opposition. Moreover, a country governed by one party is not meaningfully different to countries governed by one sect or by one tribe.
In the fourth, ‘Class’, Gaddafi argues that leadership based on class suffers the same problems as leadership based on party, tribe or sect: it can only ever represent a minority. Even if the working class replaced the others, differences in material wealth or prestige between working-class factions would soon lead to the old class system reasserting itself. As before, so after.
In the fifth, ‘Plebiscites’, Gaddafi observes that the people’s expression is limited to ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Referendums are often used to cover up for the failures of democracy. The solution lies, he writes, in finding an instrument of government that is not subject to either internal conflict or underrepresentation of the people it governs. This instrument can only be the authority of the people.
In the sixth, ‘Popular Conferences And People’s Committees’, Gaddafi declares that direct democracy is indisputably the ideal form of government. It’s just impractical. Gaddafi’s Third Universal Theory divides the population into Basic Popular Conferences, each of which chooses a secretariat from among their number. The population then appoints People’s Committees to replace government administration.
In the seventh, ‘The Law of Society’, Gaddafi contends that the natural law of any society must be based in either tradition or religion. Constitutions are artificial, thus invalid. He argues that human beings are essentially the same everywhere, and therefore natural law is applicable to all. Ruling systems must follow natural law, and not the reverse. So all laws must be grounded in tradition or religion.
In the eighth, ‘Who Supervises The Conduct Of Society’, Gaddafi appeals again to his Basic Popular Conference model. No one group can claim the right to police society, therefore society has to police itself. If the people organise themselves into Popular Conferences, however, they can supervise themselves.
In the ninth, ‘How Can Society Redirect Its Course When Deviations From Its Laws Occur’, Gaddafi notes that if a system is dictatorial, resistance to it must take the form of violence. Because the use of Basic Popular Conferences and People’s Committees means that the system is not dictatorial, it can be reformed without violence. Because the system encompasses all, there are no outsiders to direct violence against.
“Violence and revolution are carried out by those who have the capability and courage to take the initiative and proclaim the will of society.”
In the tenth chapter, ‘The Press’, Gaddafi states his belief that the press is primarily a means for society to express itself, and therefore does not belong to individuals or corporate interests. He points out that media sources can only ever speak for their owners and not for society. As such, private publishing or information enterprises must be banned. Only People’s Committees are permitted to act as the media.
Gaddafi finishes this first part of the book by noting that the strongest party in the society is always the one that rules.
The greatest controversy in psychological science today – perhaps in all science – is that regarding the heritability of intelligence. Although the science itself is reasonably clear, the topic is so heavily politicised that certain positions have become entrenched.
The anti-hereditarian side can be dubbed the Jewish Position. This is for two reasons. One – the foremost supporters of the position are all Jews, and two – almost all Jews adhere to this position. Both of these assertions become clear if one examines the history of the debate around the heredity of intelligence.
Franz Boas was the earliest major opponent of the hereditarian position. Born in Germany to Jewish parents, Wikipedia says of him that “Boas’s main project was to distinguish between biological and cultural heredity, and to focus on the cultural processes that he believed had the greatest influence over social life”.
This belief – that cultural influences have the greater influence on human behaviour and biological ones the lesser, or none at all – is the Jewish Position in a nutshell.
Boas introduced the concept of cultural relativism to the psychological sciences. Before him, it was assumed that the more civilised a culture was, the superior. After him, it was claimed that no-one could say that any culture was superior to any other. This attitude, which is essentially that of slave morality, is political and not scientific in nature. It’s the attitude of someone who promotes tolerance for the sake of tolerance and not for the sake of alleviating suffering.
When Boas’s supposed finding that American and European whites have significantly different skull sizes was proven to have been made up, Jewish professor Jonathan Marks defended his co-ethnic, claiming that those who had debunked Boas had themselves “been quickly rebutted by more mainstream biological anthropology.”
According to Marks’s Wikipedia page, he is “skeptical of genetic explanations of human behavior” and “of ‘race’ as a biological category.” These two attitudes are core components of the Jewish Position, the intent of which is to encourage out-group favouritism and to discourage in-group favouritism. As such, it strenuously denies any scientific evidence that suggests an out-group might be genetically inclined to behave violently or criminally.
Marks once wrote, citing fellow Jew Richard Lewontin (see below) that “…the point of the theory of race was to discover large clusters of people that are principally homogeneous within and heterogeneous between, contrasting groups. Lewontin’s analysis shows that such groups do not exist in the human species…” The Jewish Position denies that race is an valid concept.
Boas heavily influenced co-ethnic Elliot Aronson, born in 1932. Aronson’s ‘Nobody Left to Hate‘ continued the established Jewish trope that exclusion is to blame for pathological behaviour. The book suggested that the reason for the Columbine High School shooting may have been that Klebold and Harris had been excluded by the other students, and therefore the solution to violence is to reduce out-group antipathy.
Central to the Jewish Position is the idea that all exclusion on the basis of genetic or biological grounds is inherently immoral. Further, any in-group preference exercised on genetic or biological grounds is immoral. Proponents of the Jewish Position draw a connection between border control and concentration camps. For them, all lines between folk groups – whether lines of inclusion or exclusion – are evil.
Also born in the 1930s was Richard Lewontin. Lewontin pushed the Jewish Position so hard, a fallacy was named after him. A stubborn opponent of genetic determinism, Lewontin’s approach was typical of the Marxist that he proudly claimed to be. As is often the case with both Jews and Marxists, he opposed genetic determinism in part because it downplays the value of social activism.
Lewontin was one of the harshest critics of Edward O. Wilson’s landmark work Sociobiology. As is typical of those pushing the Jewish Position, his criticism of the work equated genetic determinism with fascism. He went on to co-write, with two other Jewish authors, a book called ‘Not In Our Genes‘, a groundbreaking work of biology denial.
One of the co-authors, Steven Rose, was from Britain, whereas the other two were from America. This reveals the degree to which the Jewish Position is supranational: Jews everywhere believe it, no matter which country they’re living in. In Australia, South Africa, Brazil, just as in America and Europe – everywhere there are Jews, the Jewish Position is asserted.
Lewontin collaborated closely with Stephen Jay Gould, another co-ethnic who prominently supported the Jewish Position. Gould had no shame about equating genetic determinism with Nazism, going as far as to blame people who believe in IQ science for the Holocaust. Gould took issue with anyone who believed in border control at all, also equating this to Nazism.
Gould was criticised for his 1981 propaganda masterpiece, The Mismeasure of Man, in which he smeared intelligence researchers as racists. It has been observed that “Gould’s Marxist political beliefs made him attack intelligence research because he saw it as a threat to his egalitarian social goals.” Ironically, Gould was aware that a person’s social goals affected what that person considered to be accurate science. He just didn’t apply this criticism to himself.
Robert Wright wrote in a letter to the New York Review of Books that “many evolutionary biologists consider Gould’s writings a serious impediment to popular understanding of Darwinian thought.” This is of true of everyone who takes the Jewish Position, which in its essence prioritises political expedience over truth and knowledge. It is a form of science denial, in particular biology denial.
The most prominent Jewish anti-hereditarian in popular culture today is Jared Diamond. Diamond’s most famous work, Guns, Germs and Steel, sought to show that the European dominace of recent centuries was a geographical fluke and not due to any inherent genetic superiority. According to Diamond, if Africans had had more plants suitable for domestication and a more pronounced East-West axis, they would have dominated the world instead.
In Guns, Germs and Steel, Diamond describes as “loathsome” the use of biological differences to explain economic outcomes. Yet, as a critique of Diamond’s points out, Diamond’s environmental determinism cannot account for why natural resource-poor Japan is wealthy, or why natural resource-wealthy Nigeria is poor. A biological determinist, aware that the most valuable human capital is the IQ of the people, can easily account for both.
The most prominent Jewish anti-hereditarian in academia today is Robert Sternberg. Sternberg is foremost in pushing nonsense like stereotype threat, the laughable idea that the low academic performance of blacks is because they’ve internalised white supremacist ideas about blacks being dumb.
Stereotype threat has been cited by Jewish researchers such as Joshua Aronson (the son of Elliot menioned above) as the reason for black academic underachievement. The reality is that, like all the other excuses made by people holding the Jewish Position, stereotype threat is a political concept and not a scientific one.
The political conclusion that Sternberg is desperately trying to avoid is that schools ought to be resegregated. To that end, he promotes the narrative that white people are to blame for black underachievement. Sternberg and his stereotype threat narrative claim that blacks only underachieve because white people expect them to, and thus black underachievement is due to white moral failure.
In summary, the Jewish Position is biology denial applied to the subject of human behaviour.
It’s fair to call it the Jewish Position because almost all of the people promoting it are Jews (as mentioned above) and because almost all of the people opposing it (Francis Galton, Ronald Fisher, Charles Darwin, Richard Dawkins, James Watson, Hans Eysenck, Arthur Jensen, Phillipe Rushton, Richard Lynn, Charles Murray, Satoshi Kanazawa, Linda Gottfredson et al.) are non-Jews. Jewish hereditarians, like Richard Herrnstein, are rare.
It’s worth noting that cultures without a heavy Jewish academic and media presence, such as China, India, Japan and Korea, near uniformly reject the Jewish Position. It’s only in the West, which does have a heavy Jewish academic and media presence, where the Jewish Position is taken seriously. Everywhere else, the genetic influence on intelligence is treated much the same as the genetic influence on height, i.e. as an obvious truth.
It’s also worth noting that the Jewish Position is never taken with regards to Israel. Where Israel is concerned, not only are borders and exclusion considered perfectly legitimate, but biological science (in the form of DNA analysis) can even be used to tell if someone is Jewish or not. In Israel, people can have a marriage licence denied if they can’t prove Jewish ancestry by DNA test.
Such policies would result in howls of outrage from all of the Jewish intellectuals mentioned above if any Western country introduced them – yet Israel may do so without a peep of protest.
The reasons why Jews almost uniformly hold the Jewish Position are probably best explained by Kevin MacDonald in his Culture of Critique. It’s enough for this essay to establish the trend that Jews who hold academic positions in the life sciences almost always reject hereditarianism, whereas non-Jews in similar positions in the life sciences almost always accept it.
The sum total of all of these facts is that no-one should ever trust a Jew or anyone pro-Jewish (such as a universalist Abrahamist) when it comes to discussions about heredity and the effect of genetics on human behaviour. They cannot be trusted to be honest on such issues any more than Nazis can, because they have a vested political interest in misrepresenting the truth (an example of what this column has previously called the Palestinian Paradox).
Anyone following the zeitgeist will have noticed a sharp rise in anti-China rhetoric lately. Some will also have noticed that the mainstream media recently switched narrative on the origins of the Covid virus. Until recently, one could get banned from FaceBook for suggesting that the virus was made in a Chinese lab. Now FaceBook encourages the idea. Why? This essay explains.
This BBC article from March is typical of the new rhetoric. The British Government’s main propaganda organ is now openly declaring that China is committing a genocide against their Uighur population in Xinjiang. The American Government has followed the British lead, with the Biden Administration now formally stating that China is guilty of “genocide and crimes against humanity”.
Declaring China to be carrying out a genocide is a major step, because it means that many people will feel morally obliged to do something about it. It will also allow the Establishment to paint the Chinese Government as the moral successor to Nazism, and thereby to play on all the conditioned guilt around the Holocaust.
This sudden concern for the Uighurs seems extremely odd, as the Uighurs aren’t treated any worse than cannabis users are treated in most Western countries. Moreover, not even other Muslims care about the Uighurs, as demonstrated by the fact that Muslim trade delegations to China seldom raise the issue.
The plight of the Uighurs is being exploited for propaganda purposes. There will be a lot more mainstream media propaganda in this vein in coming years. The narrative will be Evil China. We will get daily reminders that China is oppressive and evil – because the Western Establishment is trying to manufacture popular consent for a war against them.
Although many Westerners consider their ruling classes to be omnipotent, the reality is that they still need popular consent for any major move. That popular consent lubricates the gears of the war machine; without it, those gears don’t turn. To that end, the ruling classes instruct their lackeys in the mainstream media to manufacture consent for those major moves in advance.
The next major move they wish to make is to smash China. The ruling class of the West intends to attack China now for the same reason it attacked Germany then: to stay on top of the pile.
Measured by PPP, the Chinese economy has already surpassed the American one. It’s apparent that China’s economic rise will soon give it the capacity to project power over Taiwan. The fear is that China will eventually gain the capacity to project power over Singapore, and thereby over the centre of the world.
Today, the Chinese economy is some 10% larger than the American one. By 2026, according to IMF estimates, the Chinese economy will be some 40% larger. It’s apparent to every Western military planner that, if they want to prevent China from becoming unmanagably powerful, they have to strike now. As Machiavelli wrote in The Prince: wars cannot be avoided, they can only be postponed to the benefit of one or the other party.
The ruling elites of the West have been faced with a stark choice. Either strike now, and put the rising challenger back in its place, or wait, and risk that China becomes too strong to deal with. Given that China has an average IQ of 105, and is not near as wealthy as other populations with similar IQs, logic suggests that they have the potential to become a lot more powerful yet. More logic suggests that, if all that is true, the time to strike is now.
The Western ruling classes followed that same logic to its inevitable conclusion a while ago. They have decided that war is preferable to falling further behind. To that end, they will do everything they can to stoke conflict. This explains the sudden intense increase in anti-China rhetoric from the mainstream media.
The war imperative is why Western powers are sending flotillas to patrol the South China Sea. Everyone understands that the attack on China will be a multinational affair, with America, Japan, Britain, Australia and India all involved at a minimum. The strategy now is to increase the provocation and intimidation, and wait for China to make a mistake.
The great risk is of a false flag attack similar to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. It’s entirely plausible that the Western ruling class blows up one of its own warships and tells the plebs that the Chinese did it – this was how they successfully manufactured consent for the attack on Vietnam.
If such a thing did happen, the mainstream media would scream 24/7 about the need for revenge against murderous Chinese aggression before it was too late. The narrative would be that anyone unwilling to destroy China is dishonouring the victims of the false flag attack, is endangering the rest of us and is therefore a traitor to the West.
Westerners be warned: if the mainstream media informs us about a sudden and inexplicable act of deadly violence carried out by the Chinese against Western targets, we need to steadfastly remain sceptical. Freethinking people might not be able to stop the herd stampede to war, but we might be able to limit the carnage.
Many of the world’s current social ills are blamed on social media. Some have the idea that FaceBook, Reddit, YouTube and similar websites are responsible for an increase in psychological abuse and a decrease in mental health. This has brought calls to ban them – but, as this essay will argue, banning social media won’t work out any better than banning anything else has.
With the hysteria around the killing of George Floyd, many have realised that social media found Derek Chauvin guilty before the trial. The pressure to convict Chauvin was so great that, had he been found innocent, riots were likely. U.S. Representative Maxine Waters even took to social media to call for a confrontation in case of acquittal.
Government representatives elsewhere are also using social media to destroy their own citizens. In New Zealand, Member of Parliament Debbie Ngarewa-Packer launched an online petition to ruin the life of podcaster Lee Williams, smearing him as a white supremacist and evil wrongthinker. This quickly received several thousand signatures after being shared by Maori supremacists.
That government representatives use social media to stir up hate against private citizens is deeply concerning. Lynchings are the obvious next step. In countries with weak rule of law, influential people regularly call for their followers to murder their political enemies. It isn’t hard to imagine a Maori Party MP using social media to form a physical mob that kills someone.
However, the idea of banning social media is a neo-Luddite delusion. It’s the same knee-jerk retardation that inspired alcohol and cannabis prohibition, both of which failed. Proof? Before social media, it was even worse than this.
The newspapers spread just as much fake news a century ago as they do now. But it was worse then, because there was no alternative media to ask questions. If the newspapers said that Germans were bayoneting Belgian babies, that was the truth and no discussion about it could be had. Everyone had to believe it or be shunned from society.
The radio and the television are just as bad as the newspapers. Like the newspapers, the radio and television dictate the truth to a passive audience, with no dissenting voice allowed. Although they claim to be objective speakers of fact, the reality is that each of these media has an owner, and that owner ultimately decides what gets said and how.
Newspapers, radio and television are all one-way media. None of them are superior to social media, which, despite its crapness, at least allows for a discussion. But it is precisely the possibility for discussion that has the ruling class upset about social media.
The ultimate reason why social media is now so heavily opposed by the Establishment, and its lackeys in the mainstream media, is that it allows for an alternative narrative. As Josef Goebbels outlined in his Principles of Propaganda, propaganda is most effective if it is executed by only one authority. As was true in Nazi times, the greatest enemy of the ruling class is the alternative media.
It’s imperative that we, the people, develop a better way to manage social media, lest our rulers find an excuse to ban it. The correct way to deal with the problems caused by social media is to ensure that its use does not lead to hysterical chimpouts, i.e. that its agitprop potential is neutralised.
This will involve a twofold process.
The first step is to educate people to reflexively disbelieve everything they’re told. Currently, our education system is set up in such a way that the most credulous students get the highest grades. This is a consequence of the fact that, when our education system was invented, information was extremely scarce.
But the information environment of today is much different to the past. Information is no longer scarce; in fact, we have far too much low-quality information. Our education system, therefore, needs to be re-tooled, so that students are taught to question everything – literally everything – that is said by an authority figure.
A properly sceptical culture would have no need to fear social media, because sceptical people don’t share news articles or videos unless they’re confident the information in them is accurate. Even if they did, any sceptical people reading or viewing that information wouldn’t chimp out like they do in today’s Clown World.
The second step is to run society in a way so that people have hope. Right now, the atmosphere of the Western World is thick with despair. This despair encourages people to spread hate and madness on social media. A great many people are in a great deal of pain, and this encourages them to share garbage.
A society with rectitude, one which the average person felt proud to belong to, would naturally encourage its members to share higher quality information. The main reason people are so drawn to conspiracy today is because they know something’s seriously wrong with our social environment. The quality of social media will always reflect the quality of the social environment, and improving the latter is the easiest way to improve the former.
