The origins of multicultural rule

Hbd Chick has been discussing the origins of multicultural rule.

I have been reading old books.  The ideology that races, ethnicities, and genders, are the same in mean and distribution, and if they are not it is because of oppression and someone must be punished, is several hundred years old.  It first exercised sufficient power to intimidate its enemies and reward its friends in Britain in 1890, as illustrated by the pressure applied to James Anthony Froude, and by the elevation to the heights of the none too bright John Jacob Thomas.

Affirmative action for women had the whip hand in Europe in 1910 – consider for example Marie Curie getting not one but two Nobel prizes for work that was entirely routine when men did it.  Can you remember anyone who discovered any of the other hundred odd elements?  You cannot, because all the other elements were discovered by men.  She got Nobel prizes not for doing exceptional science, but for doing science that was exceptional for a woman, just as when people praise Obama’s speaking skills, which are far inferior to Sarah Palin’s, they mean he speaks well for a black man.

As early as 1904, academics are tiptoeing around the fact that the great Zimbabwe in Africa was built by Hebrews, and that as these Hebrew settlers interbred with local blacks, their workmanship deteriorated.  (The tribe that claim to have built it recall that they are Hebrew descended, recall their journey from the middle east, have a religion that much resembles Judaism, look significantly less black than their neighbors, and were, in the twenty first century, gene tested revealing substantial Hebrew blood)  The fact that the builders were of a visibly different race to their neighbors and claimed to have immigrated from the middle east is only mentioned by the indelicate, even in 1906.  It was not something a proper academic would mention, since it might suggest that black people just cannot build or maintain cities.

From about 1880 to 1940, the ideology is clearly and overwhelmingly Christian, in particular Protestant Christian socialist, though these Christians were somewhat embarrassed by the bible, due to its reactionary views on family, marriage, women, divorce, adultery, homosexuality, and so forth, and were in the process of discarding it.

From 1920 to 1940, we see the center of power in this ideology, the holy church of multiculturalism and environment, shifting from Europe to the US.  After World War II, the US was wholly dominant, and Harvard the high Cathedral of the religion.  Since the holy doctrine must be taught in government schools, what little Christianity remained in the doctrine was ruthlessly suppressed, in order to superficially appear to comply with the first amendment, though arguably the doctrine was being taught in government schools with a more explicitly Christian tinge before the war.  Jews only show up in the multicultural ruling elite after the remnants of Christianity are purged from the doctrine – fifty or sixty years after it first exercised theocratic power.

17 Responses to “The origins of multicultural rule”

  1. Deep Lurker says:

    WRT the discovery of radium being Nobel-prize-worthy: Not all elements are the same in terms of scientific importance, practical usefulness, or fame. Radium was important because it was the “type specimen” for radioactive elements that spontaneously transmute into other elements. Thus various other radioactive elements and isotopes were first tagged with such names as “radium II,” “radium III,” “radium IV” and so on. In addition there was a significant industry springing up at the time to exploit the unusual properties of radium (e.g. radium watch dials).

    An analogy might be made to chemical reagents and reactions: There are hundreds of different types of special reagents used in organic chemistry, but only a handful of them are important enough to have earned a Nobel for their developers. For every Grignard (1912 Nobel) or Wittig (1979 Nobel), there are dozens of deservedly obscure reactions.

    Likewise with radium: The other elements discovered after the Nobel prizes were established just weren’t as important. A new element could still win a Nobel for its discoverer, but it would have to be as world-shaking an element as radium was back in the early 1900s.

    • jim says:

      WRT the discovery of radium being Nobel-prize-worthy: Not all elements are the same in terms of scientific importance, practical usefulness, or fame. Radium was important because it was the “type specimen” for radioactive elements that spontaneously transmute into other elements.

      Radon was discovered in 1900, ten years before radium. It has all the same properties that supposedly make radium exceptionally interesting and important, far more clearly and dramatically than radium – except that male discovered it, and there is nothing unusual or surprising about a man discovering something.

      Radon illustrates spontaneous transmutation more clearly and easily than radium does, since its mother element is a solid, it is a gas, and its daughter elements are solids.

      If a small amount of radium is exceptionally and obviously radioactive, a small amount of radon is even more exceptionally and obviously radioactive. If radium illustrates transmutation, radon illustrates transmutation faster and more dramatically.

      Further, if you read up on radon, or any other element the first thing they tell you is its unusual properties, and somewhere way down in the fine print at the bottom they will tell you who discovered it. If you read up on radium, the first thing they tell you is that a woman discovered it – that being the most remarkable and unusual thing about radium.

      But, in fact, a woman did not discover it. She was part of a three person team, and the lead member of that team was a her husband, boss, and employer, a great scientist who discovered lots of things far more important than radium before he met her, while she discovered nothing after he died. The second member of that team was also an important scientist. She was clearly the least important member of the team in actual work done and evidence of ability to do anything useful.

      So really her main role in the discovery of radium was banging the guy who actually discovered it, that being the most remarkable and unusual thing about radium – that the wife of the guy who discovered it was able to lend him a hand.

      • Deep Lurker says:

        Radon was discovered in 1900 and isolated in 1910. Radium was discovered in 1898 and isolated in 1906 – earlier than radon. In fact, radon was discovered as coming from radium compounds. Radium came first.

        Radium was also put to practical use at the time, far more so than radon. That contributed to making the discovery of radium Nobel-prize-worthy, as the discovery of radon was not.

        • Deep Lurker says:

          According to my CRC Handbook (59th edition): “Radium was discovered in 1898 by M. and Mme. Curie in the pitchblende or uraninite of North Bohemia, in which it occurs… The element was isolated in 1911 by Mme. Curie and Debierne by the electrolysis of a solution of pure radium chloride, using a mercury cathode; on distillation in an atmosphere of hydrogen this amalgam yielded the pure metal.”

          So yes, the first thing they tell you is that a woman discovered it – except that the discoverer is the first thing the CRC tells you about all the elements.

          Thus the entry for radon starts: “The element was discovered in 1900 by Dorn, who called it radium emananition In 1908 Ramsay and Gray, who named it nitron, isolated the element and determined its density, finding it to be the heaviest known gas.”

          Note that radon was originally named for the radium from which it came. As I noted above, radium came first.

          • jim says:

            Compare the wikipedia entry for radium, with the wikipedia entry for radon – or any other element.

            Google search for radon, about 6,000,000 hits. Google search for Radon and Dorn, about 20,000 hits, a ratio of one in three hundred

            Google search for radium, about 4.500,000 hits. Google search for radium and Marie, about 2,500,000 hits, a ratio about one in two

            Thus, the most important thing about radium, the major reason for it being famous, is that a women discovered it. (Or, actually, that woman was part of the team that discovered it, the least important member.)

        • jim says:

          I stand corrected: Nonetheless, it was radon, not radium, that revealed that radioactive decay reflected the decay of one element into another, and it was Rutherford and Soddy that discovered this, not the Curies.

          So, the discovery of radon was more important than the discovery of radium. And as for elements being put to practical use, a lot of elements have been a lot more useful than radium. Thus there is no basis for the discovery or radium being markedly more famous than that of other elements, other than that the least important member of the three person team that discovered it happened to be a woman.

          Further, one finds lots of factoids along the lines of Radioactive decay was first investigated by Marie Curie, which is even more bogus than the claim that radium was discovered by Marie Curie.

          • Deep Lurker says:

            Radon only showed one element decaying into another because it came from radium – which is why it was first tagged with the name radium emanation. Radium was the type specimen, thus “radium II” “radium III” etc. Radium was the important element wrt the study of radioactive decay of one element into another.

            As for practical importance, sure, lots of elements have practical importance. But how many elements were (a) discovered after the Nobel Prize was established, (b) were especially important scientifically, AND (c) had been put to extensive practical use?

            Well, there are the various noble gases – for which Sir William Ramsay won the Nobel Prize in 1904. And there is plutonium – for which Seaborg and McMillan won the Nobel prize in 1951. So yeah, radium isn’t a uniquely important element. But OTOH Nobel prizes have been awarded for the discovery of elements other than radium.

            • jim says:

              No it did not.

              The story of the discovery of radon is the story of the discovery of the transmutation of elements. Rutherford in 1902 suspected transmutation before he had ever set hands on radium, based on his suspicion that the emanation from thorium was an element, the element radon. Radium only enters the story as Dorn discovers that the emanation from radium is the same element as the emanation from thorium.

              Please check the link above. Radon, not radium, was the type specimen, the example, of radioactive decay, and people working on radon, worked on radon from thorium and radium, continually comparing the two. They only figured out that radium was decaying, was ceasing to be, because they realized that radon was ceasing to be. That radium was decaying was announced in the same paper that announced that thorium was decaying.

              Everyone working on transmutation had been working on radon from thorium and radium, or radon from thorium alone. Thus it was not discovered that radium decays, goes out of existence, becomes something else, until after it had been discovered that radon does this, and at the same time as it was discovered that thorium does this.

              Radon was discovered over the same time period as radium was discovered, and radon was scientifically the more important discovery.

              Radium only matters because a woman was on the team – as is implicitly revealed by looking at the literature: Google search for radon, about 6,000,000 hits. Google search for Radon and Dorn, about 20,000 hits, a ratio of one in three hundred

              Google search for radium, about 4.500,000 hits. Google search for radium and Marie, about 2,500,000 hits, a ratio about one in two

              Thus, the most important thing about radium, the major reason for it being famous, is that a women discovered it. (Or, actually, that woman was part of the team that discovered it, the least important member.)

              Dorn’s work matters a lot more than Marie’s work. Pierre’s work matters a lot more than Marie’s work. But all of this work is only well known because a woman was in on it.

            • jim says:

              there are the various noble gases for which Sir William Ramsay won the Nobel Prize in 1904. And there is plutonium – for which Seaborg and McMillan won the Nobel prize in 1951. So yeah, radium isn’t a uniquely important element. But OTOH Nobel prizes have been awarded for the discovery of elements other than radium.

              Neither of the prizes were awarded for discovery of an element, and you had to look them up, because, as I said, no one remembers who discovered any element but radium. Sir Ramsay got his for discovering several related elements and their relationship, and plutonium is one item on the long list of stuff for which Seaborg and McMillan got their Nobel.

              Further, Marie Curie won two Nobel prizes, one in physics, one in chemistry, by which standard Sir Ramsay should have won half a dozen Nobel prizes.

            • jim says:

              Deep Lurker wrote:

              Radon only showed one element decaying into another because it came from radium – which is why it was first tagged with the name radium emanation. Radium was the type specimen, thus “radium II” “radium III” etc. Radium was the important element wrt the study of radioactive decay of one element into another.

              Untrue: This link gives the story of the research
              Oliver Sacks wrote

              [The Curies] had found, as early as 1897, that if thorium was kept in a tightly shut bottle its radioactivity increased, returning to its previous level as soon as the bottle was opened. But they did not follow up on this observation, and it was Ernest Rutherford who first realized the extraordinary implication of this: that a new substance was coming into being, being generated by the thorium; a far more radioactive substance than its parent. Rutherford enlisted the help of the young chemist Frederick Soddy, and they were able to show that the “emanation” of thorium was in fact a material substance, a gas, which could be isolated. . . . Soddy [wrote later]. . . “I remember quite well standing there transfixed as though stunned by the colossal impact of the thing and blurting out. . . . ‘Rutherford, this is transmutation.’ Rutherford’s reply was, ‘For Mike’s sake, Soddy, don’t call it transmutation. They’ll have our heads off as alchemists.’”

              Rutherford and Soddy are talking about studies that started with “thorium emanation”, and continued in large part on “thorium emanation”, in part because radon gas escaped more easily from thorium salts than radium salts. “Radium emanation” enters the story only as the discovery that the “thorium emanation” is the same element as “radium emanation”. “Radium emanation” tends to be held inside the radium salt, obfucating the fact that it is a separate element, that elements are being transmuted, though the fact that “radium emanation” lasts days where “thorium emanation” lasts minutes made it easier to ascertain its chemical properties.

  2. […] is crypto calvinism) and that progressives were ruling the system and stealing all the money back when progressives were still nominally Christians, and did not allow any Jews to get in on the […]

  3. Bill says:

    I have been reading old books.

    I’m curious what they are.

    • jim says:

      Obviously I should produce documentation for such a claim, rather than merely asserting it, but I cannot remember most of the books.

      “The Bow of Ulysses” by James Anthony Froude, written in 1888, is a requiem for the colonial elite, facing destruction by what is clearly what HBD chick calls the multicuturalist elite, what I and Mencius call the Cathedral. So they existed back then, and held the whip hand back then.

      “Froudacity” written in 1889 by a black intellectual (John Jacob Thomas) affirmative actioned up into the elite, is a condemnation of Froude, written in the familiar voice of power speaking to truth, arrogant and condescending, the voice unchanged from 1889 to 2011. Froude, like white working class Americans, was supposedly a bitter clinger. (Not Thomas’s words, nor exactly Obama’s words, but their meanings.)

      That same Thomas produced the 1890s version of Ebonics. He claimed that the language spoken by blacks in Jamaica was not broken English, but a language as expressive and as capable of conveying complex and precise thoughts as regular English, a similar doctrine to Ebonics. It might be true, but like Ebonics and Global Warming, true or false, it was claimed without evidence, and accepted without examination. Skepticism was sin and heresy, just as skepticism of Global Warming is sin and heresy. Indeed, to doubt Global Warming makes women infertile and causes cow’s milk to dry up. The offenders need to be blown up for the harm that they cause.

      I read the writings of the great colonialist Sir Stamford Raffles, and observe that with the passage of time, his later words start to display a pious political correctness that his piratical and bloodthirsty actions conspicuously lacked.

      He still is covered up in PC whitewash, which seemed odd to me, since I thought modern PC demonized colonialists. So I traced the PC back, and it set in not long after he retired, though again I cannot produce citations for this claim. Earlier PC, rather than demonizing the then recent past, rewrote recent great men to make them more politically correct.

      “The great Zimbabwe”, published 1907, is most notable for what it does not say – carefully avoiding any discussion or evidence as to who built those ruins, from which silence I concluded that such discussion could get the author in big trouble, then as now.

      • Bill says:

        Thanks, I have added those to my reading list. I agree that the genesis of the multicult is a really important thing to understand. I have taken it for granted that it was the Frankfurt School, aided by KGB and Party subversion, which was the critical thing.

        • jim says:

          The key part of multicult is that all groups are the same in mean and distribution, and if they are not, it is a result of oppression for which someone must be punished. There is nothing in communism that would incline communists to make a big deal out of a woman doing science, and in practice, communists did not.

          Looks to me that communism is heretical sect of Judaism, multicult a development of or heresy of Calvinism.

          The problem is that in the New Testament, Jesus personally confirms the old testament rule that marriage and family law should treat men and women not in the same way, but in almost the opposite way: He says that men should only divorce their wives for “fornication” – that is to say adultery or lack of promised virginity, while women should not be able to divorce their husbands for any reason. Also, a divorced woman should never remarry, while a divorced man may remarry. Paul, on the other hand, says some things that could be interpreted as declaring women to be absolutely equal to men.

          This used to be interpreted as equality of the soul, inequality of body, mind, and reproductive roles. Christians became progressive Christians when they started to resolve all biblical contradictions in the nicest and most humane possible direction – what we would now call the most politically correct direction, a process that necessarily leads to discarding the bible, Jesus, forgiveness of sins, and salvation, replacing all of the above with the ever more destructive, arrogant, and Stalinist enforcement of general niceness. And thus progressive Christians became anti Christian multicults. See also Mencius Moldbug arguing that progressivism is crypto calvinism.

          While the multicults were infiltrated by commies and used by the commies, in much the way they are infiltrated by Muslims and used by Islam, and doubtless believed that they were using the commies in much the same way they believe that they are using Islam, these three religions are different, though very similar, religions. Since they are all theocratic religions, with the application of state power as their central sacrament, they necessarily converge to much the same religion in practice, despite wildly different theological foundations, and are therefore easily confused one with another, just as a dolphin looks very like a fish.

  4. Alrenous says:

    !!!

    “She got Nobel prizes not for doing exceptional science, but for doing science that was exceptional for a woman”

    Well damn. I should have noticed that, but didn’t.

    Also shows how secretly sexist the multicult actually is. “A woman managed to do science! Amazing! So amazing, let’s double down on it.”

    Whereas I’m more like, “A woman wants to try science? Well, okay. If she wants.”

    Similarly, a progressive believes that a black will never get a prestigious position without help, far more strongly than any redneck believes similar things. The progressive never lets the black forget they didn’t earn the position, either.

Leave a Reply