Counter-Currents
Jane Elliott
2,658 words
In 1949 George Orwell published Nineteen Eighty-Four, his dystopian novel of a totalitarian society. Orwell wrote the novel just after the end of the Second World War. His purpose was to warn us that if he could conceive of an unfeeling, soulless government, then someone, somewhere could create it. Less than twenty years later, Mao Zedong’s Communist Party in China forced the break-up of families and transported 17 million young people from cities to farms and work camps to undergo political indoctrination or what the party euphemistically called “re-education.” The central party tied a pretty bow on the whole thing calling it the “Down to the Countryside Movement.” The starvation and mind-numbing labor lasted for nearly ten years. It was a part of Mao’s “Cultural Revolution,” and it graphically depicted the horror of Orwell’s prediction of people living under the mailed fist of repression, fear, and misery.
The repression of the human spirit and the forced compliance with the state’s values were part of the Orwellian message. In today’s analog of the Oceania superstate, “Diversity Training” is the favored method used by Big Brother to strip away all racial consciousness and bend us to cultural universalist creatures. If the state can browbeat us into believing that black is white and white is black, then all other forms of mind-manipulation are simple.
In December 2017, the Huffington Post as part of celebrating all things Martin Luther King resurrected the harridan of diversity training—Jane Elliott. It’s not that Jane had gone into self-imposed exile, as we might only hope; no, she has been busy delousing governments and corporations of their prejudice-typhus with her own brand of Zyklon-B disinfectant; and doing so by charging $6,000 per day.
In case the reader does not recognize the name, allow me to teleport you back to that not-so-very-good year 1992. It was shortly after the Rodney King verdict in the City of Angels and blacks had begun a conversation about race, the beginning of many such Eric Holderian conversations, by looting, burning, pillaging, beating whites and yellows, killing whites and yellows; you know, the usual annoyance-signaling, this time about police impoliteness while arresting the meth-crazed, alcohol-fueled, six-feet tall, 225 pound Mr. King.
Into the conflagration stepped a third-grade schoolmarm from the small all-white town of Riceville, Iowa. She knew how to rid white people of the dreadful disease of racism, and she convinced Oprah Winfrey to allow her to demonstrate the soul-saving baptism on national TV. The demonstration was simple. As the audience entered the studio, Winfrey’s assistants divided the audience into two groups: one group composed of blue-eyed people and the other group of brown-eyed people. The assistants fed the brown-eyed group doughnuts and coffee and seated them in the front rows. Even more humiliating, the blue-eyes had to wear a collar.
The audience took their seats, the show began, and Oprah introduced Jane Elliott who remarked to the blue-eyed people:
I’ve been a teacher for 25 years in the public, private and parochial schools in this country, and I have seen what brown-eyed people have done as compared to what blue-eyed people do. It’s perfectly obvious, you should have been here this morning when we brought these people in here.[1]
Naturally, the blue-eyed group protested both their ill-treatment (I mean really, doughnut and coffee deprivation—the torture of it all!) and Elliott’s erroneous observation of their arrival time. The big breakthrough, however, was when some blue-eye retorted that Elliott had blue eyes and was not wearing a collar. Jane tersely responded:
Because I’ve learned to act brown-eyed, and the message in this room is, act brown- eyed and you, too, can take off your collar.[2]
Eventually, the brown-eyed folks grew keen on Elliott’s created illusion of their superiority and joined in cohesive role-playing while supporting Elliott’s bullying of the blue-eyed group. They called the blue-eyed people “stupid,” “rude,” and “noisy.”
Okay, let’s cut to the chase here. There was a good deal of back and forth among the two groups, Oprah, and Elliott, after which the audience awoke to the great realization that the demonstration was about institutional racism and in particular about how they had been grotesquely turned into racists for a wholly absurd distinction—their eye color!
Elliott appeared on the Oprah show several more times and once on the late night Johnny Carson show. Thus, one woman found her calling in life and virtually single-handedly created an industry that no one knew was needed or wanted, except by Jane Elliott and leftist apparatchiks in the federal government.
The Huffington Post writer caught up with Jane while she wasn’t screaming at racist audiences for $6,000 a day, and the two of them wept with joy at the recollection of Jane’s immaculate deception on April 6, 1968:
“Martin Luther King, Jr. had been one of our ‘heroes of the month’ in February in my third-grade classroom, and he was dead at the hands of an assassin,” Elliott says, getting choked up. “I hate to talk about this because every time I talk about it, I remember how it felt that day. I was going to have to go into my classroom and explain to my students why the adults in this country had allowed somebody to kill hope. Martin Luther King, for me, was hope for this country.”[3]
The next morning, one of her students walked into the classroom and asked her “who killed that king?” obviously believing that it was the monarch of a country. Such was the innocence of small-town white third graders. She decided to create the eye-color experiment because she said that is what Adolf Hitler did; separate people on the basis of a physical characteristic. But why did she select eye color? In her own words:
Eye color and skin color are caused by the same chemical: melanin. There’s no logic in judging people by the amount of a chemical in their skin. Pigmentation should have nothing to do with how you treat another person, but unfortunately, it does.[4]
But Elliott’s demonstration is a fraud in terms of teaching us about racism. The demonstration only tells us that when you reward one group of people while at the same time withhold the reward from another group, the unrewarded group will be resentful. This same artificial construct can be based on any number of distinctions regardless of how superficial it may be. A person’s height, weight, hair color, age, place of birth, education, food preference, shoe size, et cetera, all could be substituted for eye color, and the demonstration will obtain the same result.
Elliott ignores the mountain of scientific evidence that race is real and that different behavioral and cultural outcomes are determined largely by racial phenotypes. To Elliott, race is just a color and has no bearing on how people of different colors think or act. This is certainly an odd idea seeing that Elliott doesn’t hesitate to disparage nearly all forms of the behavior, culture, thoughts, and acts of people who are colored white.
Insofar as the brown-eyed group’s superiority posturing, as George Bernard Shaw famously observed, “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul, can always depend on the support of Paul.” It is shameful but thought-provoking that Elliott has demonstrated in this instance that a doughnut and a cup of coffee is sufficient payment to gain Paul’s support.
Elliott made a sinister remark to the Huffington Post writer that points to an ominous purpose underlying her expensive vaudeville act:
Give me a child at the age of 8 and let me do that exercise, and that child is changed forever.
This reveals that this is a sick woman. A pedagogic Harpy brought to life, so full of hubris and motivated by such loathing for white people that we should be thankful that this former grade-school teacher can no longer grasp her withered talons on our children. Elliott delights in describing how she transformed a “brilliant, self-confident, excited little girl to a frightened, timid, uncertain little almost-person.” What kind of blustering witch is this who gloats on a child’s victimization?
As the twatted Torquemada explained, “God created one race: the human race. Human beings created racism.” And by “human beings” she means white human beings.
Jane Elliott has been a one-trick pony show for twenty-two years and she has learned nothing of history as revealed by her telling cowed audiences that white people had nothing to do with the invention of paper, the alphabet, cloth weaving, or numbers. No, she says, people of color invented all these things and most other items of any value. In her demented Lovecraftian world, white people stole these things.
She does credit, however, white people with inventing, guess what—RACISM! They then exported this fiendish manipulating tool around the world colonializing and enslaving people of color and extracting their land’s wealth for little or no payment. Elliott reveals no insight, no self-awareness that she has waged war against the white race in the boardrooms of corporations and in the halls of government agencies decrying their villainous racism while at the same time denying that race even exists.
Why do we have Jane Elliott and other djinns of diversity training? She may have started the diversity training hustle, but she needed help to fuel its growth. A series of US Supreme Court decisions establishing “hostile work environment” theory and “disparate impact” doctrine, followed by a plethora of civil rights lawsuits against large corporations, gave her that help. In the wake was a plague of social justice league diversity trainers.
Nearly all of these trainer “experts” cut their training teeth in academia using the Tavistock Method of thought control originally developed in the 1920s by intellectual elites. It was a precursor to the infamous MK-ULTRA experiments, which the CIA began in the early 1950s. This method was refined to a fine art by the Soviets when used against political prisoners confined in mental hospitals. It was termed “re-education,” and like diversity training, the program began with a pre-defined outcome. B. K. Eakman described the Soviet program in Cloning of the American Mind:
A controlled stress situation is created by a group leader (“facilitator”) with the ostensible goal of achieving a consensus or agreement which [sic] has, in reality, been predetermined. By using peer pressure in gradually increasing increments, up to and including yelling at, cursing at, and isolating the holdouts, weaker individuals are intimidated into caving in. They emerge, facilitators hope, with a new value structure in place, and the goal is achieved.[5]
The inheritors of the Soviet’s method moved their own insidious brand of thought control from the classrooms to the boardrooms. Who were they? Nearly all were radical leftists, community organizers, and civil rights activists such as Marilyn Loden, Elsie Cross, Judith Katz, Mark Chesler, Lillian Roybal Rose, Tom Kochman, and Price Cobbs.
Let us compare Eakman’s description of the Soviet re-education program with a typical American style diversity-training seminar:
In the mid-1990’s, male employees of the Federal Aviation Agency were tied to a toilet together while female employees were forced to bathe in the same shower. Female employees were also made to share a bed with their male supervisors, and some participants even reported that they were sleep deprived and then verbally assaulted. But the most disturbing element of the FAA diversity training sessions were exercises in which groups of dissenting, or even potentially dissenting employees, were tormented by their peers. For example, in a one FAA diversity-training program, white males were “verbally castigated” by their black co-workers and then forced to run a gauntlet in which they were aggressively fondled by their female co-workers.[6]
If you think this is merely an extreme example, then let us return to examine the words and thoughts of Jane Elliott. In her training sessions, people of color can never be racists no matter what they say to torment the white devils in attendance. They are simply reacting to the real racism already inflicted upon them by whites, according to Elliott.
Elliott has a demonic awareness of the long-term damage her training inflicts especially on younger whites who are more impressionable. She seems to revel in the “discomfort, guilt, shame, embarrassment, and humiliation” that her sensitivity sessions can induce. She even proudly refers to herself in her sessions as “your resident bitch for the day.” A TV show that aired on British Channel 4 in 2009 displayed her chastising whites as if they were all stupid. She told one white man to “keep your fucking mouth shut.”[7]
So, is this multi-billion dollar sensitivity industry having a beneficial result? The data and the statements of the participants would say no. In fact, the trainers’ own statements indicate that they are emphasizing differences in race behavior and are reinforcing the well-known stereotypes. One trainer’s handout chart explained that white people “know through counting and measuring,” Asians “know through striving toward the transcendence,” and blacks, Hispanics, and Arabs “know through symbolic imagery and rhythm.”[8]
These kinds of statements do not show how teamwork is going to be organized or goals achieved when the trainer is actively promoting color and cultural differences. If anything is going to be achieved, it would seem to be the balkanization of the workplace.
But companies are still firmly hitching their wagons to the diversity star because their lawyers have advised them that it looks good in court. In 2011, Walmart used the “diversity defense” to win a class-action suit that alleged gender discrimination. Walmart had taken all the politically correct measures, such as conducting sensitivity sessions, diversity training, and distributing to its employees a well-written handbook propagandizing employee rights. In this way, Walmart and other large corporations make it more difficult for plaintiffs to actually prove discriminatory practices.
In 2016, the Harvard Business Review published an article titled “Diversity Policies Rarely Make Companies Fairer, and They Feel Threatening to White Men.” The authors cited several studies that showed the futility of diversity training, the negative impact such training had on white men, and the counterproductive and inaccurate beliefs the training fosters. Yet the authors (ahem, three females-just wanted to mention that) concluded their article by touting the benefit of corporate diversity policies.[9]
Employees have learned that woe will befall them if they question the value of diversity training. When Kishore Jayabalan, an economist with the Bureau of Labor Statistics, challenged a well-known diversity trainer with concerns about the trainer’s conclusions, the trainer reported him to the BLS personnel office. Jayabalan was told, “Some people ought to just listen to what’s being taught.” Jayabalan did “listen” and he heard one thing of value—the trainer was paid $15,000 to speak at five three-hour sessions.[10]
As for Jane Elliott’s future, she seems to be joyful at the prospect of white people becoming a minority in the US. It’s like payback time for blacks. As she told a writer for the Guardian newspaper in Great Britain:
For one thing, the main thing, white people are rapidly losing their numerical majority in the United States of America. And so people of colour are going to be the people in positions in power in the future. White people are finally beginning to realise that. Some of them are scared to death.[11]
One who reads her statement can almost hear her snickering at her thought of blacks wreaking vengeance on whites. If her statement disturbs you, it should. The Guardian writer’s unnerved reaction was, “There’s a fierce, even admirable, relish in her words, but also the nagging suspicion that she’s more excited by white fear than she is by black success.”
Jane Elliott, a white woman from a small town in Iowa, who has made a damn good living at the expense of white created institutions, is predicting a race war in the US—and she is cheering for the other team.
Notes
[1] “The Daring Racism Experiment That People Still Talk About 20 Years Later,” Huffington Post Online, December 6, 2017,
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/02/jane-elliott-race-experiment-oprah-show_n_6396980.html
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] B.K. Eakman, Cloning of the American Mind: Eradicating Morality Through Education (Lafayette, La.: Huntington House, 1998), 194.
[6] www.vasthead.com/Diverse/diverse.html
[7] http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2009/10/i-sense-a-malign-presence-.html
[8] http://www.sptimes.com/News/022700/news_pf/Perspective/Sensitivity_training_.shtml
[11] https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2009/oct/18/racism-psychology-jane-elliott-4
18 comments
Pure evil.
In point of fact, the US has had decades of “diversity” and “sensitivity” indoctrination, not to mention every manner of civil rights programs, affirmative actions, wars on poverty, positive role models on the telescreen, 10 minute hates against “racists” from Paula Deen to James Watson, and so forth and etcetera. We can add the hatespeak regs in Europe, Canada and American campuses in which crimethinkers are duly unpersoned.
To put it simply: since the 1950s, blacks in America have been given plenty of coffee, doughnuts and front row seats.
Yet racial differences maintain themselves, demonstrated in formerly White cities now dominated by third world demographics: high rates of violent crime, collapse of economies, education failure, disintegration of civic infrastructure, and imposition of Big Man rule whether by race hustling politicos or warlord style gangbanging. Look at Port au Prince, Monrovia, Kinshasha, Detroit, Newark, Camden, Malmo, Johannesburg, Paris’ banlieues, or Cologne’s town square on New Year’s.
Thus, Elliott’s position is a fraud, one whose real goal is not to “end racism” but instead demonize White people.
Of course, we can not put the blame entirely on the Left. The US currently has a Republican White House and Congress, as well as GOP control of numerous state governments. They could with one law ban all such “diversity” indoctrination. But, apparently, they are too busy denouncing the Alt Right post- Charlottesville and removing Confederate icons to notice. It’s also a commentary on capitalists that the corporations promote Leftist indoctrination, and this after conservatives have spent the better part of the last century providing ideological justifications for capitalism.
All this creates an opportunity for the Alt Right to mobilize popular resistance to the indoctrination. How about some Identitarian style guerrilla theater at the next “diversity” goodthink session?
Maybe this is one reason for the general hysteria over the Alt Right among Oceania’s hostile elites. More Whites are taking that Red Pill.
The Alt Right is the real Resistance.
‘It’s also a commentary on capitalists that the corporations promote Leftist indoctrination, and this after conservatives have spent the better part of the last century providing ideological justifications for capitalism.’
Indeed. The author opens this article with a reference to Orwell’s dystopian vision of a society strictly controlled by an authoritarian government. In Orwell’s day it was reasonable to believe that State power might increase to such levels. Indeed, that fear animated the conservative right for decades – and underpinned calls for smaller government, less bureaucracy, privatisation and unfettered free enterprise. Some on the Right also assumed that wrapped up in this bundle of fluff was an inherent patriotism – perhaps even a nationalistic tendency.
But since the 1980’s – in Australia, and I believe similarly in the US – state power has been quietly replaced by the power of international corporations. Sure, ‘The Government’ still features on the nightly news and the implication is that it actually has real agency in people’s lives. But, compared to big business and the media that business controls, does it? In so-called democracies, doesn’t the media MAKE governments?
I realise in saying the following that I might be in a minority of one here, but I sincerely think that capitalism – or free enterprise as currently practiced (and as championed by the Right for decades) – is far more of a threat to white peoples than state power.
It is, after all, corporations that gain by mass immigration. Corporations that see humanity as interchangeable consumers and wage slaves. Corporations that drive free trade deals that put white workers on the scrap heap. Sure, the globalist left has bought into all this claptrap (based, often it would seem, on a misreading of Marx) but who really thinks that GloboCorp P/L has some pussy-hatted SJW telling them what to do? They do these things because that’s the nature of capitalism today.
Australian nationalists have been thinking about these issues for some time. It is the view of at least some of us that nationalism and ‘the Right’ are not the same thing. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that the conservative Right is an ideological trap for genuine white nationalism.
http://australiafirstparty.net/australias-future/political-vacuum/nationalist-is-not-right-wing/
Again, I appreciate that this view is a minority one here, but it’s one that I have come to progressively after much consideration over several decades.
.
You are not a minority of one. I believe you are exactly right. In fact, realizing the threat of capitalism towards your ethnic group seems to be the national socialist position. Both the left and the right are promoting as much multiculturalism as possible. The driving force for both is pure greed. This is a feeding frenzy on the white community.
I think whites for the most part really don’t care about riches. We don’t derive our meaning from material goods. This is why we see rich white rock stars off themselves. Capitalism provides an utterly empty existence for whites.
I think that your generalisation is too broad, but is applying to many. In your own place, you have a huge part of the populace whose only interest is pumping up real estate prices, doesn’t matter if it is mainly through foreign buying only to let or for speculation.
A very sick economy there. No production but from violent mining and agriculture
Mark E. Smith, Mancunian, very recently deceased, someone who really despised money, to pick an Australian inspiree, do you think that Geelong Grammar”s Nick Cave, as just one, had the same heedless wildness?
I remember her, and I even think her experiment may have been reproduced in one of my classes. While she’s made a nice career out of it, and it does make an impression, her and people like her are actually setting up Whites and Asians to become race-realists once they realize they have been lied to about racial equality. The notion that race is simply skin deep is sophomoric. There is no greater red pill than the research findings on race and IQ, which is why they go to such lengths to hide and discredit it.
Recently Steven Pinker was talking about the rise of the alt-right and he correctly pointed out that one of the reasons the alt-right is spreading is because our PC classrooms fail to prepare us for these fundamental truths. He goes further, admitting that by lying by omission, the Marxists are inadvertently supporting the alt-right’s case that there is an agenda at play. Of course, Pinker’s solution is to inoculate (indoctrinate) the youth with the correct (liberal) context.
Here’s the video, it’s well worth watching to hear him admit the alt-right is intelligent and internet savvy, that we’re correct on issues of race (and other topics), as well as to hear his political spin.
Evola was right in his tripartite conception of race. This in no wise argues against the necessity of the ethnostate, since if you want to make a people true to their own nature (healthy), the reasonable starting point is to make them racially and ethnically homogeneous. But cases like this demonstrate how, just as some people can end up having (through some combination of nature and nurture) inordinate combination of male and female qualities, so they can come to have inordinate combinations of qualities proper to other races. This is why it is critical alien heterogeneous elements be physically and otherwise removed. This is your brain on Jew.
On all levels except physical, she’s a Jew.
[Receives subconscious transmissions from the Demiurge]
Good points, sir (especially about the (((demiurge)))), and thanks for your goodwill towards White Nationalists. During a recent extended layover in Istanbul, I was quite impressed with the size of the city and the good infrastructure, at least in the area I was in. I wish Whites had a megacity like that for themselves….
Jane Elliot’s behavior is motivated by envy of other Whites. Professor Revilo Oliver writes about this envy by the White abolitionist toward the southern Whites of high status. Jane Elliot couldn’t give a hoot about Blacks. They are a means to an end. The end is to tear down and dispossess other Whites.
This lady came to my graduate school and my class had to sit in a big auditorium and listen to her. She brought up white male students from the audience and demonstrated how racist they were. I can’t imagine what all these kids in classrooms and adults at their jobs had to put up with because of this con-woman. I am a fortunate to not have to be exposed to too much of this kind of brainwashing directly. I will quit any job that requires this indoctrination.
Look, I’m not white and I haven’t experienced any of the things she does in her videos. And I’m pretty sure she would not be able to produce evidence for those things if demanded. Back in reality, teachers would be fired if they were even accused of doing something slightly racist.
Her problem is personal. She sounds like one of those white women who don’t know a thing about racism except some sob stories she heard and actually believed. By her own definition she is incapable of knowing what racism is.
I think Jane simply latched onto this social justice issue for the same reason a lot of radicalized white women do: A poor upbringing that indulged her childlike emotions, and a stunted view of the world due to a lack of critical thinking.
Very perceptive comments. Elliott figured out to make money out of humiliating White people. As long as ‘civil rights law’ creates ‘protected classes’ and asserts the importance of ‘disparate impact’, government is weaponized against Whites and, by extension, every business will be weaponized against Whites.
For most of my life I have made the study of faces a hobby. As a result I can often tell much about a person long before they speak or write a word. My process is not perfect, of course. In the case of Jane Elliott, however, seldom have I seen a face which matches more perfectly that person’s words and deeds than with this unsavory, unbalanced creature.
Harridan, indeed. Great photo of her.
Adding a few asides on brainwashing and psychic attack techniques from the boomer gen. (Not mine).
As a student of psychology (not my major, only first year, but keep track a little, and a distinction for it), her techniques remind me of the worst offshoots of the ‘human potential movement’, actually, I don’t know of any good ones from subsequent reading.
In the novel A Scanner Darkly by P. K. Dick, the New Path organisation and its personality distruction and personal attack ‘group therapy’ tactics are closely based on the real organisation, Synanon, and a couple of other similar ones.
Much too young to have encountered them, but the EST, Forum, and Landmark cults of Wehrner Eckhardt, real name ‘Jack’ Rubenstein, I came across a set of them in the ’90s, very creepy people. Other similar groups existed. The followers are sworn to secrecy, but I heard enough from one or two to understand that it is the same kind of thing, verbal attacks and psychological destruction in group settings, exploiting the fear of separation from the hive.
My main point is that the hippy gen. and its ‘new age of consciousness’ also has a rich history of brainwashing.
Replying to correct myself because going from 10-yr.ago comments on wp (fun game at the time, had several liar admins deposed), but was forgetting names. The EST brainwashing cult was or is run by Werner Erhard, whose birth surname was Rosenberg. I do not believe the current claims of forenames, it remains a constant site of fighting, thinking his real first name must be something like ‘Shmuel’and recall that it was nothing like the ‘John Paul Rosenberg’ now on wp, thotgh the Rosenberg part seems true.
Since I am posting now,
One to add on the topic, another from childhood years, Symbionese Liberation Army, another hippy-gen. bowel movement, sure was seeming to use crude brainwashing accompanied by rape, wow, what a great band!?
“Harridan, indeed. Great photo of her.’
Good heavens — great photo? She looks almost exactly like me! Though I smile in photos. But take heart — I’m ‘way over here’, on this side, so some of us are awakening to reality and working over here now. I’m a bit too old and weary to be as influential as she, but I’m here, and counting for something, I hope. And I’m spreading the message as best I can.
One has to laugh when a programme that purports to fight racism as there is no real race difference quite openly points out race differences.
The sad, little lady is so wrapped up in her own hatred, and has drawn so many into her sick world, that one has to wonder what will happen to her when the world wakes up. She will have an even greater problem, of course, when she is called for her final reckoning. I wonder how she will plea, then…?
It would be interesting to see her in conversation with Jordan B Peterson, though.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.