Featured Articles

Don’t Call it the Holocaust

“You ARE Zaphod Beeblebrox?”
“Yeah,” said Zaphod, “but don’t shout it out or they’ll all want one.”
“THE Zaphod Beeblebrox?”
“No, just A Zaphod Beeblebrox, didn’t you hear I come in six packs?”
—Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

In many ways, language is everything when it comes to demographic warfare. The group that can control what other groups are allowed to say has the upper hand because controlling what a person says ultimately leads to controlling what a person thinks. And once you can do that, you can quite easily coerce entire classes and races of people into doing your bidding. The Soviets understood this well, and it was one reason why they were able to manage their oppression of a vast populace for many years.

Whites, as an oppressed class in our current demographic struggles, should be well aware by now of the language restrictions which have been placed on them. For example, referring to blacks as “Negroes” or Asians as “Orientals” is considered not just out of date, but offensive. Calling a black person a “nigger” is practically grounds for murder these days. But what way of referring to Whites is analogous to this? Nothing, really. Recently, a Jew named Donald Moss announced from his perch within the American Psychoanalytic Association that whiteness is a parasitic condition to which there is no cure. Can’t get too much more defamatory than that. And did Dr. Moss get in any trouble for offending White people? Of course not. After all, the Nation of Islam has been calling White people blue-eyed devils for years and getting away with it.

As a result of this pervasive abuse, I believe it is time for Whites to go on the offensive on the language front in the great demographic war. This means that we should produce a list of terms that we should never allow anyone, including other Whites, to say in our presence. Racial insults, of course, should top this list. Under no circumstances should we allow anyone to use the terms “redneck,” “cracker” or other racial epithets in a derogatory way. These should be met with a barrage of accusations of racism, followed by charges of hypocrisy and whatever else the circumstances call for. Basically, this should mark the permanent end of the conversation with those who think they can defame White people and get away with it.

But these are obvious cases. Less obvious is the derogatory term “Nazi” which I discuss in my 2019 Counter-Currents article “The Other N-Word.” I think, however, the most potent weapon at our disposal is the one which can turn the tables on the most potent weapon of our enemies—that is, the insidious demographic weapon known as “The Holocaust.” Not the historical event, mind you, but the demographic weapon which was designed to weaken the morale and spirit of an entire people through guilt, propaganda, and lawfare. The aggressive application of language which I outline below can work regardless if one believes the anti-Jewish atrocities of the 1940s happened or didn’t happen, or were exaggerated or not. This is about controlling language, not arguing history.

Any time a racially conscious White has a serious discussion with a Jew—or, really, anyone on the Left—they need to interrupt their interlocutor as soon as “the Holocaust” is mentioned. There are several ways to approach this. One could take the snarky Jonathan Bowden tack and ask not-so-innocently which holocaust they’re referring to. From Western Civilization Strikes Back, pages 97–98:

The deputy chairman of the party that I was in was asked about the Shoah on a Channel Four program. And he said, “Well, which ‘Shoah’ are you referring to? Are you talking about the communist holocausts, many of which were inspired by Jewish ideas?”

Silence. A very radical statement for a contemporary BNP leader. Silence. Silence.

A clever rhetorical twist, that.

I would prefer, however, to keep things on the up-and-up. When they say “the Holocaust,” we know that they are referring to the Jewish Holocaust—which is what it should be called—and it would be best if we didn’t pretend not to know this unless one has a talent for witty repartee and can handle oneself in these kinds of conversations. So in response to any reference to “the Holocaust,” a racially aware White person should resist the urge to make a Douglas Adams reference and instead politely inform their interlocuter that such a term is racist and evinces an offensive form of ethnic chauvinism.

Why? (They will invariably find the accusation shocking and in all innocence inquire “Why?”). Because by employing the definite article “the” and the capital “H,” the term’s user implies that there is only one holocaust. All other holocausts are, to borrow an expression from Jean-Marie Le Pen, a “just a detail in history.” For example, the Bengal Famine. I’m sure any Jewish person using the term “the Holocaust” would be interested to discover how Winston Churchill requisitioned grain from India during the Second World War, and thereby caused the starvation of up to three million Indians in the Bengal province of British India in 1943. That’s a holocaust. Referring to what happened to the Jewish diaspora in Europe from 1941 to 1945 as “the” holocaust is an insult to all the people who died in the Bengal Famine and every other holocaust before and since.

And if the person hasn’t scurried away or shrieked “anti-Semite!” by this point, then one can bring up the atrocities of the early Soviet period, such as the terror famines, the Great Terror, and the Gulag Archipelago. That’s between 17 and 18 million lives disposed of, according Robert Conquest’s Harvest of Sorrow and The Great Terror. Throw in all the victims of the gulag up to 1939, and you have millions more. These were all holocausts, no? In fact, the point could be made that the Soviets were the ones who committed “the Holocaust” since they killed far more people than the Nazis did and with less reason. This last part is crucial. Whatever atrocities the Nazis committed, they at least had the excuse of being at war and forced to deal with a hostile population of Jews prone to sabotage and guerilla warfare. In fact, by 1944 they were at war with three superpowers on at least as many fronts. The Soviets had no such excuse since they drenched their countryside in blood in the years between the Russian Civil War and the Second World War—in other words, peacetime.

And if by luck or persistence the conversation continues, then one can bring up the names of all the Jews who contributed to “the Holocaust”—this one and only Holocaust—upon millions of innocent Russians, Ukrainians, and others prior to when most Jews even knew what a concentration camp was. Readers of this site probably don’t need an itemization of such a list. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together is a great source. But there are many others.

At this point, there can be no more conversation. We have flipped the script, so to speak. We have trumped the Jewish victim card with an even higher one of our own. We have overwhelmed their most powerful weapon with an even greater one of our own. All because of our control of language. All because we don’t let them or anyone else get away with calling the anti-Jewish atrocities of the 1940s “the Holocaust.” All because we make explicit what Jews have for so long kept implicit with their use the definite article and that dreaded capital “H”—that Jews believe that Jewish lives are worth more than non-Jewish lives. Once we expose this, they have no defense to charges of racism which will naturally follow.

Of course, nothing is this simple in life, and nothing will change in our favor overnight. But if enough Whites were to take this relatively easy tack in the public sphere—and not just on social media, televised news, or on CSPAN, but in everyday discussions with family, friends, and colleagues—then the Jews and their allies will be forced onto the defensive for a change. They will face a rare reversal in the demographic wars. And after that, who knows what could happen?

The Tyranny of Translunacy: How Higher Status in Leftism Decides Who Can Invade Whose Territory

Here’s an interesting sentence in Latin: Utinam populus romanus unam cervicem haberet! But what does it mean? Since the nineteenth century, fewer and fewer British prime ministers have been able to answer that question. Boris Johnson bucked the trend. He has a degree in classics from Oxford and could tell you instantly that it means: “Would that the Roman people had a single neck!”

Serve the cervix

He could also tell you that those were the headchop-hungry words of the tyrant Caligula (12–41 AD), according to the historian Seneca, and that cervicem is the accusative singular of the feminine Latin noun cervix, meaning “neck.” Johnson could give you all the other forms of that word in Latin, from the dative singular to the genitive plural. But alas, his grasp of the word in modern English has deserted him. It’s now a medical term meaning “the neck of the womb.” But when Johnson was asked at the Conservative Party Conference to affirm that only women have a cervix, he evaded the question: “What I think about this is [that] biology is very important. But we have a system now in our country for many, many years in which people can change gender. We help them to do that and what I absolutely passionately believe, and I fought for this for a long time, is everybody should be treated with dignity and respect.”

By piffling and prevaricating like that, Johnson blew his chance to put clear blue water between the Conservatives and their supposed ideological opponents in the Labour party. In the previous week the Labour leader, Keir Starmer, had been asked whether it was transphobic to think, as one of his female MPs does, that “only women have a cervix.” The swamp-creature Starmer claimed it was indeed transphobic. That simple statement of biological fact was “something that shouldn’t be said,” he told his interviewer. “It is not right.” Why so? According to Starmer, it’s because transgender people are among the “most marginalised and abused communities.” If you don’t follow his logic, that’s unsurprising: there is no logic there. The alleged “marginalization” of transgender people doesn’t give them the right to replace biological reality with translunatic fantasies.

Labour loves translunacy

In fact, this absurd controversy about who has a cervix is proof that transgender people are the opposite of “marginalized.” Their lunatic ideas are accepted by mainstream leftists right across politics, academia and the media. The Labour party bows before transgender lunacy and the supposedly right-wing leader of the Conservative party refuses to repudiate it. But let’s be clear about what is going on in the cervix controversy. When Starmer made his absurd statements, he wasn’t worried about the sensitivities of “trans-men,” or cervix-possessing women who claim to be men. Trans-men are a relatively quiet and unaggressive group.

No, Starmer was worried about “trans-women,” the variously perverted and mentally disturbed men who claim to be women. As Steve Sailer has often pointed out, trans-women are both loud and aggressive. They’ve driven the transgender agenda, which now includes the drugging and mutilation of confused or misguided children. Biologically male translunatics are the ones that Starmer is scared of. If he had spoken the truth and said that only women have a cervix, it would immediately follow that those without a cervix cannot be women. Translunatics and their supporters would promptly have driven him out of the Labour leadership.

Emotion versus intellect

But who is Boris Johnson scared of? In the past, he’s repeatedly defied political correctness and mocked leftist pieties on race and sex. And he didn’t merely buck the political trends in his choice of a classics degree: he also appointed the very intelligent and scientifically minded Dominic Cummings as his Chief of Staff. Cummings and his allies believe that “Government has to be totally transformed. It is full of arts graduates. It should be full of mathematicians.” Johnson wanted Cummings to reform government bureaucracy and reverse its ever-growing leftism. And maybe Cummings could have done it if Johnson hadn’t also wanted to share government with his blonde girlfriend Carrie Symonds, who has a degree in “art history and theatre studies.”

In intellect and grasp of scientific reality, Symonds was no match for Cummings on the question of how best to run government, just as the Jewish pseudo-scientist Stephen Jay Gould was no match for genuine scientists like Charles Murray or Arthur Jensen on the question of how best to explain the differing average IQs of Blacks and Whites. But intellect and grasp-of-reality don’t determine power-struggles in the corrupt modern West. Will-to-power and alignment with Jewish interests are much more important.

Testosteronized Tory: the emotional but formidable Carrie Johnson, proud possessor of a degree in art history and theatre studies

That’s why Carrie Symonds defeated Cummings and Gould defeated Murray et al. Cummings left government and Carrie married Boris Johnson. As his wife, she attended the recent Conservative conference and made a sycophantic speech at an “LGBT+ Conservatives reception,” where she revealed that “her husband was ‘completely committed’ to LGBT+ rights” and that she herself had been “moved to tears” by the story of an LGBT+ victim of hate-crime. Carrie obviously has female emotionality, but she doesn’t have a typically female face. Instead, her face is broad and masculine, suggesting that she has higher-than-average levels of testosterone and lots of will-power and aggression. Perhaps that’s why Boris Johnson so often looks like a rabbit caught in the headlights when he’s photographed with her (see the photo above).

Porn-positive pedo-pushing Jews

I think that a sensible man would have taken one look at Carrie’s man-jaw and decided to keep well clear. Johnson was not sensible and has allowed Carrie far too much influence over both himself and the government. That’s why, I suggest, he failed to support biological reality when asked about who has a cervix. He’s scared of his intellectually vacuous but psychologically formidable wife, who supports translunacy, and so he didn’t clearly state that only women have a cervix. This cowardice would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic. Translunacy doesn’t simply make politicians lie or equivocate about biological reality: it is also responsible for genuine medical horrors, like the use of “puberty-blocking drugs” on confused and mentally ill children and the surgical mutilation of such children. All this is done because Western elites have refused to confront and contradict the small but aggressive and determined group of “trans-women.”

Porn-positive pedo-pushing Jewish academic Gayle Rubin

And why have Western elites refused to do that? I’d suggest that it’s because the elites are following a Jewish agenda. As Kenneth Vinther described in his excellent article “Oppression by Orgasm” at Counter Currents, not just translunacy but all forms of sexual subversion in the West are heavily Jewish in origin, inspiration and promotion. For example, the most important academics in the translunatic cult are the Jewish lesbians Judith Butler and Gayle Rubin. And these Jewish academics have wider ambitions still. As the goy writer Robert McCain has asked: “If her celebration of sadomasochism did not suffice to make Professor Rubin notorious, what about her defense of pedophilia and child pornography in her 1984 essay, ‘Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality’?” But Rubin and Butler aren’t “notorious” among leftists: on the contrary, they’re celebrated as brave pioneers of the struggle for equality. What is that brave struggle truly about? Vox Day suggests that “Pedophilia is the end game of Equality. It always was.” Leftists want to dissolve all barriers: not just those between men and women, but also those between adults and children.

Labour’s betrayal of the working-class

And that’s how we’ve arrived at the absurdity of the Labour leader Keir Starmer stating that “it is not right” to say only women have a cervix. As Labour leader, Starmer supposedly represents the working-class, who overwhelmingly accept biological reality and reject translunacy. It’s clear, then, that Starmer doesn’t represent the working-class. But the Labour party hasn’t done that for decades. Labour’s former deputy leader, Roy Hattersley, has openly boasted in the Guardian that: “For most of my 33 years in Westminster, I was able to resist [my constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy — otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all [Third-World] immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.” Like Hattersley, Keir Starmer has a Jewish wife; and like Hattersley, Starmer believes that Somalis, Pakistanis and Jamaicans can be “just as British” as Whites whose ancestors have lived in Britain for millennia.

An ideal James Bond in leftist eyes: the obese Black actress Gabourney Sidibe

Indeed, it’s a central doctrine of leftism that Western identity should be unconditionally open to non-Whites, who become full and authentic citizens of Western nations simply by migrating there. On the other hand, not all leftists presently accept translunacy. For example, TERFS, or trans-exclusionary radical feminists, reject the doctrine that female identity is unconditionally open to males, who become full and authentic women simply by saying that they are women. But trans-critical leftists don’t realize that non-White migration into the West was the model for migration by men into womanhood. By denying the biological basis of Western identity in the 1950s and ’60s, leftists prepared the way for the translunatic cult in the 21st century. For leftists, men can become women just as, on the movie or TV screen, Blacks can occupy White roles or women can occupy male roles. For example, on British television, a Black actress has recently played the completely White Anne Boleyn, one of the queens of Henry VIII, and the White actress Jodie Whittaker has played the formerly male role of Dr Who. Leftists also strongly support the casting of a Black in the iconic White role of James Bond — their ideal James Bond would presumably be an obese Black actress like Gabourney Sidibe.

Blacks have higher status than Whites

But it is now completely unacceptable for White actors to play non-White roles of any kind. All White roles are open to non-Whites, but no non-White role is open to any White. And when the White American woman Rachel Dolezal tried to pass as Black, she was mocked and condemned, not praised for further demonstrating the “non-existence” of race. So why do leftists believe that some borders should be dissolved while other borders should be maintained? Why can Blacks play Whites, but Whites not play Blacks? As I said in “Borders for Us, Not for You,” I think it’s a matter of status and will-to-power. When a group has high status in leftism, it can assume the identity of any group with low status. But a group with low status can’t assume the identity of a group with high status. Biological men have lower status than biological women in leftism, but “transwomen,” although biologically male, have cleverly aligned themselves with homosexuals, who have higher status than biological women.

The Jewish “trans-lesbian” Jonathan Yaniv at work in a female toilet

And that’s why, for example, the Israeli-Jewish pervert Jonathan Yaniv, who is biologically male, can claim to be a “lesbian” and indulge his paedophilia and menstruation-fetishism without any criticism from the mainstream left. Similarly, non-Whites have higher status than Whites in leftism, therefore non-Whites can migrate freely into the West and take any White role in acting. But Whites cannot take Black roles and Whites like Rachel Dolezal cannot be permitted to pass themselves off as a Black. And I find it very interesting that some Jews are trying to add Jews to the list of groups whom it is forbidden for Whites to represent on stage and screen:

Enough, already! Is it time to stop the ‘Jewface’ casting?

It’s the debate that’s growing ever more heated: should non-Jewish actors play Jewish parts? Now outspoken comedian Sarah Silverman has waded in to decry what she has labelled “Jewface”. The American star was speaking after Kathryn Hahn was reported to have been cast as Joan Rivers in The Comeback Girl, an upcoming drama based on the life of the Jewish comedy icon.

Ms Hahn is not Jewish, but did play a rabbi in the comedy drama series Transparent and is married to Jewish actor Ethan Sandler. “One could argue, for instance, that a gentile playing Joan Rivers correctly would be doing what is actually called ‘Jewface,’” Ms Silverman said on her podcast last week.

Though the comedian said she had “zero problems” with Ms Hahn’s involvement in the project and stressed she was a “brilliant” actress, she pointed to an apparent double standard, with Jewish characters often portrayed by non-Jews despite a growing focus on representation in the industry.

“The pattern in film is just undeniable, and the pattern is if the Jewish female character is courageous or deserves love, she is never played by a Jew. Ever!” she said. She pointed to a number of films and TV shows from recent years which have featured non-Jewish actresses in Jewish parts, including the 2018 courtroom drama On The Basis Of Sex starring Felicity Jones as the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ms Silverman also cited The Marvellous Mrs Maisel featuring Rachel Brosnahan as a Jewish comedian and the 2017 film Disobedience with Rachel McAdams as Esti Kuperman, a Charedi woman who renews her same-sex relationship with her childhood best friend, Ronit Krushka, who is played by British Jewish star Rachel Weisz.

The issue of Jewish representation has sparked debate in recent years, with actresses Maureen Lipman and Miriam Margolyes joining a group of artists in 2019 in signing a letter condemning a musical for casting non-Jews to play Jews. (Enough, already! Is it time to stop the ‘Jewface’ casting?, The Jewish Chronicle, 8th October 2021)

“Jewface,” of course, applies only in one direction: it goes without saying that all White roles should remain open to Jewish actors and actresses. But what is going on in the nascent campaign against “Jewface”? Well, I’ve suggested previously that Jews can be described as “Schrödinger’s Tribe.” In quantum physics, Schrödinger’s cat is simultaneously alive-and-dead until the universe decides one way or another. In Western politics and culture, Jews are simultaneously a minority and not-a-minority, switching between the two identities according to whether they want to claim victimhood or make a Western organization seem more “White” than it actually is.

I further suggest that, in the past, Jew-dominated Hollywood and other media were happy to cast White actors in Jewish roles because this contributed to Jewish crypsis, or the camouflaging of Jews as Whites. The Jewish writer David Cole has also pointed out, in the case of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that true-to-life casting would sometimes be very hard on the eyes of cinema-goers. The real Ginsburg was remarkably ugly, so Hollywood decided it was better she be portrayed by the attractive shiksa Felicity Jones.

“Jewface” in action: the ugly Ruth Bader Ginsburg is portrayed by the attractive Felicity Jones

But it’s apparent that some Jews are now rejecting these considerations of Jewish crypsis and shiksa beauty. They want to join what Steve Sailer calls the “Flight from White” and to openly assert the higher status of Jews. If Jews have higher status than Whites, then Jewish roles must be closed to Whites, while White roles remain open to Jews. And what do I think about this anti-“Jewface” campaign? I fully support it. I’d like to see it made more and more obvious that Whites are being assigned the lowest possible status in Western nations.

That way, more Whites will wake up to what has already happened and to what is being planned for the future. The tyrannical fantasies of Caligula were never realized. The Roman people didn’t have una cervix, a “single neck” that he could sever at a stroke. But the tyrannical fantasies of the modern left are being realized even as I type. By insisting that non-Whites are valuable citizens of Western nations and denying that only women have a cervix, leftists deny biological reality and prepare the way for even worse assaults on truth, beauty and goodness. If Whites are despised and being dispossessed while they are still the majority, what will happen in those fast-approaching days when they become a minority? More Whites need to ask – and answer – that question. And then they will join the fight to reclaim the West.

Jones vs. KMac: Spirit or Material? Toward a Synthesis

By now, healthy numbers of informed people are generally aware of the work of our editor Kevin MacDonald and traditional Catholic thinker E. Michael Jones. Much of their influence comes from the fact that both have devoted major portions of their careers to writing about what is absolutely the most pressing issue of our age: The Jewish Question.

What has long fascinated me is the fact that both writers have considered Jews and their collective behavior in quite contrasting ways — yet in my estimation, they are both right. How can that be? Thus, for a decade or so, I’ve attempted in my own mind to reconcile KM and EMJ. Better yet, I’d love to attempt a synthesis of the two approaches to understanding Jews. Given that the present essay marks my 100th contribution to The Occidental Observer, I’d say that a conversation about the attempt to reconcile KM and EMJ is worthy of the occasion.

In my estimation, the contrasting foundations of these two men’s analyses mirror the larger Western conflict we’ve all seen for five hundred-plus years with the struggle between our inherited Christian past, with belief in faith, souls, spirits, and—most of all—God, vs. rationalism, humanism, and materialism—in other words, a strongly scientific worldview. Obviously, Catholic traditionalist E. Michael Jones falls into the former group, while Kevin MacDonald, an academic evolutionary psychologist, falls into the latter. When views from these two competing and conflicting worldviews consider a wide range of topics, they barely ever share common ground, but with KM’s and EMJ’s approaches, they share so much that they are almost complementary in some respects. How can this be? What, then, is the nature of Jews? Why are they so unique among humans? What can they teach us about humanity in general — if not the greater meaning of existence itself?

My consideration of these questions is biographical in that I’ve grappled with these competing worldviews for most of my life and have actually wavered between them over the decades. To my own surprise, I’d now say that Jones’ Christian approach is the more conclusive narrative in that Christianity — as with religion in general — posits a beginning, a middle and an end, which even to many of us post-Christians is a familiar story encompassing “In the beginning,” Adam and Eve, the life of Christ, the struggles between Good and Evil, everlasting souls, heaven and hell, angels, and always an omnipotent, all-loving God.

In an exchange among KM, EMJ and their hostess, Jones explained some aspects of this religious view:

Man is a composite being made up of body and soul (if that word sounds tendentious to the sociobiologists, they can substitute “mind” in its place). He has both a brain and a mind. These two entities are related but distinct. Human beings, unlike angels, can’t have minds unless they have brains, which function according to the laws of chemistry, biology, electricity, etc. and are a direct product of our DNA. Our thoughts, however, are a function of our minds, and, although we can affect our minds by manipulating the chemistry of our brains through alcohol and drugs, the logic of our thoughts is independent of the functioning of our brains.

In contrast, MacDonald grounds his trilogy on Jews in a post-Christian world, one is which God is dead and therefore plays no role in the universe, where scientific laws impartially govern eternity, among which are those laws in evidence with respect to Darwinian evolution. Sadly (for me personally) this modern view of scientific materialism allows for no obvious purpose in existence beyond mere survival. And while survival is nice, it’s still does not provide a convincing reason to struggle and survive. In this sense, The West in general has been demoralized for the past few hundred years, depending on the pace and degree of an acceptance of the atheism — implicitly or explicitly — that has appeared alongside the rise of science.

In short, should you warm to either KM or EMJ, it will likely come down to the worldview you tend to accept already — the general Christian one of historical Europe or the modern scientific view. Personally, I can’t imagine many people changing their worldviews from one to the other simply based on a careful reading of Jones vs. KMac, but that has in fact been happening to me. I’m not back to a belief in God yet, but due to the facts surrounding the Jewish Question, I’m inching my way away from the Existential belief that our presence here on this Earth is meaningless, for it appears indisputable that Jewish existence has some sort of meaning, and, if their existence has meaning, so should ours.

Having just argued tentatively in favor of the religious or supernatural, I will allow that KM likely has the advantage in this debate in that the modern West and its institutions have largely abandoned a spiritual, Christian approach and accepted “science,” which can be as seemingly solid as physics and math or as malleable as the social sciences have been across time. As a rule of thumb, “educated” Westerners have shed Christianity and a belief in God, while “the unintelligent, hicks and charlatans” still embrace them. Witness today’s knee-jerk reaction to the Catholic Church’s repression of Galileo or the respective fates of Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in the 1925 “Scopes Monkey Trial,” such that Darrow is still respected to this day while Bryan is knowingly mocked.

Without question, the largest institutions of The West such as academia and the media, but also the government that rules over us, are functionally anti-Christian and pro-science. Few would argue otherwise. (Let’s leave out the Covid debate for now.) So it is within these structures of support that MacDonald has advanced his career. His project on Jews in the 1990s admits as much in the opening words of the 1994 book that began the trilogy: “The project attempts to develop an understanding of Judaism based on modern social and biological sciences. … The fundamental paradigm derives from evolutionary biology, but there will also be a major role for the theory and data derived from several areas of psychology, including especially the social psychology of group behavior.” (vii)

Though it’s been many years since I read the trilogy, I still have a strong impression that A People That Shall Dwell Alone (1994) and Separation and Its Discontents (1998) hew more closely to what appears to be MacDonald’s mid-to-late career dedication to impartial scientific inquiry. In contrast, by the time of the more famous Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, (also 1998; hereafter usually CofC) there is the impression that this scientist-author, as a member of the group being “critiqued” and therefore harmed, has experienced a number of “Aha!” moments and realized that his earlier efforts at impartial research were insufficient when encountering a hostile group that undermines the very power of impartial science in the service of, well, a “group evolutionary strategy.” This does not imply that MacDonald did not think that the theory and data in CofC would not hold up to the same standards of scientific rigor as the other books in the trilogy. However, from 1998 onward, I would say, MacDonald has become a partisan—and for many good reasons. (In fact, here he writes as much: “As a result of reading about various Jewish intellectual and political movements, I came to see Jews as advocating policies that are opposed to the interests of European peoples. It was this cognitive awareness based on a great deal of reading and thinking that led me to my current beliefs.”)

Careful readers of the trilogy will spot this shift, I believe, with the first two books relying more heavily on evolutionary theory straining to be as evidence-based as possible, whereas CofC moves on to “the Boasian school of anthropology, psychoanalysis, leftist political ideology and behavior, the Frankfurt School of Social Research, and the New York intellectuals.” What is critical, KM points out, is that these venues and ideologies were promoted for their “scientific rigor” for decades, when in fact, as MacDonald discovered, they were perversions of real science employed in the course of anti-White ethnic warfare, with Freudian psychoanalysis being a prime case in point.

Perhaps more than any other thinker in the English-speaking world, MacDonald has exposed this form of ethnic warfare and really captured the critical conversations about race, Jews and Whites in the first two decades of the 21st century, despite robust efforts by Jewish-led interests to stifle this knowledge.

To be sure, KMac’s account could be right — and probably is. Over the millennia, Jews have evolved adaptive behavior that ensures their survival and puts them on top. But honestly, it’s really just too … “uncanny,” which is why EMJ’s Christian approach has, against my desire, it seems, pulled me toward belief in a spiritual battle rather than a merely biological and social one. Let’s consider Jones’ account.

I first ran across the writings of Dr. Jones through his journal Culture Wars, and I actually stopped buying it after a number of issues because the editing and format were often so atrocious that I could not take it seriously. I returned to it, however, because Jones’ writing on Jews was so blasphemous — meaning so good, touching always on our current culture in ways that were highly instructive. Only Kevin MacDonald, many of us TOQ/TOO writers and a tiny handful of others were doing something similar. And Lord knows the mainstream press and academia wouldn’t touch an approach like Jones’ (though any number of Jewish academics were in fact writing similar things in books that were rather obscure, in part because far fewer people read books this century).

I’m pretty good about keeping up with these topics and am happy to say that both MacDonald and Jones, despite opposition, have been getting great exposure for some twenty years. No doubt this is due in part to their successful use of non-written forms of discourse, such as YouTube, other podcasts, speeches, interviews, etc. And for some years, all their works were available on Amazon but of course those days are long gone as the regime methodically cracks down on White activists (and Jones).

Punishing Heretics

Not surprisingly, both of these modern heretics have paid a steep price for fearlessly addressing the JQ. For instance, beginning in 2006, this attack began against MacDonald:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has initiated a campaign against me. The controversy started in September, 2006 when someone not connected with CSULB emailed all the full-time people in the Psychology Department — except me — alerting them to a comment about me at the SPLC website.  Heidi Beirich of the SPLC came to Long Beach from November 12–15, 2006 to interview faculty and administrators about me. During the 2006–2007 and 2007–2008 academic years there was also a great deal of discussion and debate about my work and associations on faculty email lists. Eventually several departments issued statements dissociating themselves from my work and, in some cases, condemning my work.

The result was a hostile working environment for the next eight years (until he retired) where “[c]old shoulders, forced smiles and hostile stares became a reality. Going into my office to teach my classes and attend committee meetings became an ordeal.” Fortunately, MacDonald mounted a robust defense, arguing that “The SPLC is paying me attention because it wants to suppress my academic work.” Further, he argued that the two authors of the SPLC created a report that was “a compendium of ethical lapses.” Unlike others, he survived this attack on his career.

It’s been far from smooth sailing since, however. The ADL currently has 88 entries on MacDonald, and one way or another, MacDonald’s family and neighbors have heard nefarious stories about the retired professor, leading to discomfort and ostracism that most people never experience. And, of course, The Occidental Quarterly (an academic journal) and the online Occidental Observer, both of which MacDonald edits, have been de-platformed by PayPal and credit card processors.

E. Michael Jones has also endured his fair share of opprobrium as well, beginning with the almost surreal story of his first teaching appointment:

In the fall of 1980, E. Michael Jones was an assistant professor of American Literature at St. Mary’s College. After receiving his Ph.D. from Temple University in 1979, Jones had moved his wife and two children to South Bend, Indiana to begin what he thought was going to be a career in academic life. But God had other plans. One year into the six years of his tenure track position, Jones got fired because of his position on abortion. Getting fired for being against abortion at what called itself a Catholic college was something his professors at Temple found difficult to understand. Taking his cue from their incomprehension, Jones decided to abandon academe and start a magazine instead. Initially known as Fidelity and now as Culture Wars, that magazine set out to explore the disarray in the Catholic Church that led to his firing.

What Jones eventually found was that America’s kulturkampf, which long had a Protestant-Catholic dimension as well as a glaring racial one, found itself with a rapidly growing Catholic-Jewish battle as well. Increasingly after the year 2000, Jones wrote about this conflict in Culture Wars, culminating in collecting these essays into a truly magisterial book in 2008 titled The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (JRS). No reader of Jones’ writing in that tome can be surprised that Jones has been met with Jewish opposition. Jones, of course, seems entirely right about his arguments and observations, but many Jews don’t necessarily want the world to read such truths about them.

In particular, the SPLC has been aggressive in chasing Dr. Jones. And in 2008 they realized what initially appeared to be one of their greatest successes. As Jones relates:

I was in the middle of a tune when I got the call. On Monday nights I play Irish music at a pub in South Bend. On Monday, February 11, I was planning an early departure on Tuesday morning to speak at the Catholic University School of Architecture, as part of a lecture series on Building Catholic Communities….

Tim Ehlen was now on the phone explaining that the entire lecture series was cancelled by the Dean of the School of Architecture and Planning at Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.   The Architecture department was the host for this lecture series.  I was scheduled to speak in less than 48 hours. … Just as Dr. Carlson was beginning his presentation, an email was sent from the Southern Poverty Law Center to Ehlen …

“These are not the Latin Mass traditionalists,” Mr. Potok continued, referring to me and John Sharpe of IHS press. “These are the people who reject Vatican II reforms. They are out of [actor Mel Gibson’s father] Hutton Gibson’s world, in saying that the Jews are destroying the world.”

When confronted with the usual SPLC shtick, Dean Ott panicked and canceled the entire lecture series.  Six months of effort on the part of Ehlen to put this series together were all over.  I would be less than candid if I were to say that cancellations come as a surprise to me. The SPLC, the group which pressured CUA to cancel, employs people whose job it is to find out when I speak and get me canceled.

Another cancellation came some years later when Jones had bags packed for an appearance at a Traditionalist Catholic conference in Gardone, in northern Italy. As before, a telephone call relayed the information that yet another Jones speech would be canceled, “thus aborting an opportunity to discuss the thesis of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit in the Traditionalist circles who had gone out of their way to avoid the issue.”

Of course, Jones understood all along what was happening because of his writing and speaking on Jews: “There were certain opinions which were left better unsaid.” Sage advice, no doubt, but based on literally thousands of instances, when that choice arises, Jones is sure to utter them anyway, which is why I titled a 2018 TOO essay on Jones: “Too Reflexively Ornery”:  E. Michael Jones and Culture Wars. In fact, a decade ago I labeled Jones as a “Catholic iconoclast” and noted how Culture Wars had run cover stories such as “Judaizing: Then and Now,” “Shylock Comes to Notre Dame,” and “Too Many Yarmulkes: Abortion and the Ethnic Double Standard.” This Philadelphia boy knows how to shock.


Next, we come to the issue of how the works of MacDonald and Jones have been accepted, beginning appropriately in academia, since both men earned Ph.D.s and taught at universities. While there have been extensive scholarly reviews of MacDonald’s books, neither MacDonald nor I are aware of any instance of these highly relevant books being used in any classroom in American universities, which speaks volumes about the intellectual poverty of today’s humanities and social sciences, as well as the censorship applied to much dissident thought. (MacDonald keeps a superb website cataloging these reviews and so much more; one can follow the links for weeks on end.)

The same can be said for Jones’ books on Jews, particularly The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. In my own field of American cultural history, Jones’ work far exceeds in explanatory power what has been happening in America for a century and a half over the depressing pablum that now dominates the humanities everywhere. Yet we know of no instance of The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit being used in the classroom.

Fear not, however, for both MacDonald and Jones are quite adept at using the Internet to propagate their knowledge and arguments, which is likely why MacDonald emerged as the de facto intellectual leader of the Dissident or Alt-Right and Jones has become increasingly popular among younger White males. I invite readers to consider writing (or creating videos) about the Internet presence of both men.

Fate of Their Books

Some of Jones’ books are still available on Amazon, such as Degenerate Moderns, Libido Dominandi and The Slaughter of the Cities, though not JRS (old or new edition) or Logos Rising. (Oddly, Barren Metal, which appeared between JRS and Logos Rising, is available.)

In MacDonald’s case, the first book in the Jewish trilogy, A People That Shall Dwell Alone, is available at Amazon, as well as an earlier book, but not the second book in the trilogy, Separation and Its Discontents. Of course, CofC and Cultural Insurrections, the two most important books in his oeuvre, are unavailable. In contrast, Barnes and Noble sells both A People That Shall Dwell Alone and Separation and Its Discontents, and most importantly CofC (but not Cultural Insurrections). We find another split in sales where Amazon does sell Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future (2019) (which, as you might expect, takes a social science perspective on the history of the Catholic Church and its influence), but Barnes and Noble does not. Go figure. In any case, searching for each book on both sites can take some extra steps, so, again, just buy them via links on KMAC’s site.

God and Spirit

As indicated above, I’ve found myself involuntarily drifting toward a suspicion that it’s actually Jones and his belief in traditional Catholicism who is setting us further along the track than Kevin MacDonald. I say this with full knowledge of the fact that Jones resolutely disavows a belief in race, the importance of DNA and related matters. Of course, Jones is dead wrong about this, but weighed against the mass of superb scholarship Jones has done over thirty years, I intellectually ding him only about 3% for his odd claims dismissing race. Perhaps this intellectual chasm between the two men is all the more reason to achieve a synthesis of MacDonald and Jones.

Another relevant point is that over the last two decades I’ve found myself accepting a belief in the existence of Satan and Evil, and undeniably, from the perspectives of Whites and other non-Jews, Jews are inextricably associated with Satan, though I’ll leave it to others to argue whether they are, in some sense, actually Satan or more along the lines of being under the spell of that malicious being.

MacDonald can never go that route because science rejects believe in God, spiritualism, the supernatural realm, etc. For his part, Jones accepts the linkage of Jews and Satan but does this properly through the most basic of Christian doctrines—one of the Gospels. St. John writes in the Book of the Revelation (2.9, 3.9) that “those who call themselves Jews” are really liars and members of the “synagogue of Satan” (JRS, 15).

On page 32 Jones again quotes St. John by writing “The Devil is your father, and you prefer to do what your father wants. He was a murderer from the start and was never grounded in the truth; there is no truth in him at all.” I will not begin to try to unpack all of that here, but in the Introduction to JRS and here in Chapter One, titled “The Synagogue of Satan,” Jones makes a case that St. John was revealing that at the foot of the cross, when many Jews rejected Christ as the Messiah, a transformation in the term “Jew” was introduced, and no longer has “a clear racial meaning.” Further, “When the Jews rejected Christ, they rejected Logos, and when they rejected Logos … they became revolutionaries” (p. 15). The following thousand-plus pages is a story of their revolutionary actions, which can be seen as “the history of the Jews and the attacks on the Universal Christian Church by heretics linked to Jews or heavily influenced by Jews” (p. 20). On that count, Jones succeeds hands down in making his case.

(It is interesting to note that on the following page Jones approvingly cites Kevin MacDonald’s observation that movements are led by the few — which Jones indeed shows in his discussion of The Enlightenment, the birth of modern England, the Russian Revolution, the Civil Rights movement and the rise of the American Empire. That neither Jones’s insights nor those of MacDonald are recognized at all in education in the entire Anglo-sphere is, then, an unspeakable crime and we can thank both scholars for doing their best to right this wrong.)

I know I have given far more attention to the writing of Jones than to MacDonald, but that is because I am de facto in MacDonald’s camp, writing as I do for The Occidental Quarterly and The Occidental Observer, where I explicitly support MacDonald’s work and implicitly follow it at all times as well. With Jones, however, it takes a bit more effort. MacDonald writes with unbroken clarity in a social science style, so his own prose speaks for itself. In contrast, Jones is more of a storyteller whose constant goal is to reveal “the unwritten grammar” of events both old and new. The only other scholar I’ve seen succeed in this so successfully in the cultural sphere is the late Jewish professor Stephen Whitfield (American Space, Jewish Time, 1988), though Whitfield covers only a fraction of the story Jones does. The style is fun but can take a little getting used to.

Jones uses other metaphors for exposing “the unwritten grammar” of reality. For instance, in Chapter 71 of Barren Metal, “Andrew Jackson and the Monster Bank,” Jones argues that “Jackson’s repeated use of the word ‘monster’ is the key which unlocks the door to understanding.” This passage highlights both the beauty and the utility of Jones’ writing, in this instance in a critique of usury:

What [author] Meyer failed to mention is that usury is, as Ezra Pound would have put it, contra naturam, and, by its very nature monstrous. Far from being a mysterious lapse into incoherence, Jackson’s repeated use of the word ‘monster’ is the key which unlocks the door to understanding his stake in this fight. A monster is something unnatural. Usury is monstrous because it is contra naturam. The bank war of the 1830s arose because neither Andrew Jackson nor his opponent Nicholas Biddle could articulate the real issue which had plagued the American System from its inception in the mind of Alexander Hamilton, namely, usury.

I suspect our editor Kevin MacDonald will not be overly persuaded by my foray into religion, but these unhappy, desperate times push me to desperate thoughts. By all rational, material measurements, the White race has been defeated by Jewry. Point to even one area in which Whites hold a credible counter to Jewish power. There are none. Except — and this is where desperation comes in — a turn to the possible existence of God, and the Christian God at that. Remember, if I can be convinced that Satan is alive and well, I can well consider that Satan’s opponent, God, also exists. It’s a start.

And I’m not the only one thinking this way. Much to my utter surprise, none other than enfant terrible Andrew Anglin has headed in much the same direction, to the extent that he, too, is turning to E. Michael Jones. In a blog on September 24, 2021, he posted this lecture by Jones:

Commenting on this video, Anglin wrote:

When I read about the way homosexuals have infiltrated the Catholic Church, my resolve in the belief that there is only one true faith is strengthened, as it makes perfect sense to me that in this time of ultimate, total, global satanic Jewish evil, that the Catholic Church would be under such aggressive assault by the Devil….

I will admit, however, that a big part of this is the fact that I really believe that E. Michael Jones is the only relevant living Christian intellectual. However, if that is the case, then why? Surely, God will offer us a guide in this time of darkness? I’m only seeing one guide, who actually seems like an adult.

I am personally cursed to see clearly what is happening in the material world. But I am not any clearer than you on what is happening in the spiritual world. So I am left in as much of a conundrum in trying to figure out what the true nature of religion is as anyone else.

Like Jones, Anglin believes that the Catholic Church “is a top target of Satan.” And any regular reader of The Daily Stormer knows that Anglin sees Jews at the center of all of this. Anglin and Jones are strange bedfellows indeed, but if Jesus could forgive a former prostitute and welcome her among his most intimate followers, Jones and the rest of us might also accept Anglin in a similar way.

Isn’t there an inescapable feeling that we are at a crossroads of history? MacDonald emphasizes that if Whites cannot adopt a counter strategy to the current Jewish group evolutionary one, our prospects are doubtful. Anglin, too, has admitted that The West has lost to the Jews and now is the time merely to survive. Jones, however, offers hope. In the closing of JRS, he writes:

The final collapse of Jewish resistance to Logos will take place when they have reached the pinnacle of worldly power. At no time in the past 2000 years have Jews had more power than now. …

The conversion of the Jews did not seem imminent. The Jews had never been more powerful; the Church, the antagonist of the synagogue of Satan for 2000 years, had never been weaker. But appearances can deceive. Benedict XVI, the author of Dominus Iesus, had said, even before becoming pope, that he looked forward to the conversion of the Jews. Reversal was in the air. (1073–77)

Perhaps we can only pray that this is so.


As stated above, both MacDonald and Jones, based  particularly on their books CofC and JRS, appear to be right with respect to the JQ. One cannot, for instance, read the writings of MacDonald and conclude, “No, he is wrong.” On scientific terms, he has nailed it. With Jones’ writing on Jews, it is not as easy to declare outright that “This is true” because it revolves around religion, and belief is a chief characteristic of religion. It is simply not susceptible to scientific proof. Still, when a reader gets to the end of JRS, the overwhelming response has to be, “Dr. Jones has made his case about the revolutionary (and destructive) nature of Jews.”

This is such an important point to grasp. Take, for instance, last year’s George Floyd incident, BLM violence, and what has since flowed from them. Back in the ‘60s and ‘70s it was pretty much common knowledge that Jews were using Blacks as a battering ram against White society, yet by my estimation, about 90% of the writing on Blacks and American society since last year either states or implies that it is Black agency and power themselves that are responsible for this. Of course, that is preposterous. Blacks don’t have any power. Jews are responsible, and KM and EMJ have written brilliantly on this in an historical context. KM did so in his essay “Jews, Blacks, and Race,” which appeared in Cultural Insurrections, while Jones did so extensively in JRS (specifically chapters 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 26 and 29). This should be common knowledge still but is not.

Again, I must stress how critical it is to openly talk about Jews and the JQ, precisely as KM and EMJ have done. As Jones wrote in Culture Wars in the December 2020 issue, Chinese philosopher Sun Tzu told us, “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” That is why Jones ceaselessly names the enemy: “If you want to succeed in the culture wars, you must identify the enemy.”

Elsewhere (Part 1 & Part 2; also here) I’ve cited TOO writer Andrew Joyce on both naming the Jew and describing their destructive (and often revolutionary) behavior. Just recently he contributed a new TOO essay in which he reviewed a new Arktos book by New Zealander Kerry Bolton, a book which gets to the heart of both MacDonald’s and Jones’s cases. Not mincing words, Joyce writes that “a very Jewish cast of characters were responsible for developing, spreading, and implementing many of the most destructive ideas of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. At the heart of these ideas is the desire to fracture the host society/mass culture.” Joyce quotes Bolton for a specific argument:

The focus of this Neo-Freudianism is on the individual detached from society. It is therefore a means of deconstructing and fracturing the social organism, which is why the Marxian theorists who created the Frankfurt Institute in 1923 found Freudianism to be such a useful ingredient in creating a new revolutionary synthesis. The organic bonds of family, state, faith, and ethos, disparaged as ‘primary ties’ in need of cutting, were portrayed as injurious to the individual well-being and as repressing the individual’s path to self-actualisation.

Bolton, Joyce notes, shows that “The primary weapon employed by all factions is the Freudo-Marxism Synthesis, which touted social engineering as a ‘therapy’ but possessed social control as its aim. This synthesis and its early promotion were of course Jewish in origin, and Bolton makes sure to hammer this point home.” Fortunately for us, Bolton is as tenacious as Joyce and “repeatedly stresses that many of these figures are Jews, and that the Frankfurt School, its funders, and many other peripheral associations involved in early Cultural Marxism were ‘largely Jewish.’” This corresponds completely with the scope of the writing of MacDonald and Jones, both of whom are referenced in Joyce’s essay. I’m completely astonished at this late date that so many otherwise intelligent people either fail to see this or opt not to mention it.

In any case, for years, a tiny minority of us Whites have labored mightily to inform fellow Whites (and fellow Christians) of the threats posed by our enemy. We have done what we can but it appears not to suffice. Perhaps, then, E. Michael Jones has it right in the video above when he says to change the question from “What can we do?” to “What can God do?” Maybe so. In our desperate hour, maybe that’s all we can do. I’m running out of other ideas.

Guillaume Durocher on Éric Zemmour

Editor’s note: I recently posted an article by Daniel Barge on the candidacy of Éric Zemmour, foregrounded by some comments by me based on excerpts from Guillaume Durocher’s work on Zemmour posted in TOO  in 2015. Guillaume, who now writes for The Unz Review (alas!), has written a new article on Zemmour (“a polarizing but popular figure as there is great untapped demand among audiences for patriotic rhetoric”) (“The Zemmour Phenomenon: Can France’s Tucker Carlson Retake France for Patriots?“). I excerpt it here. Durocher’s take is that Zemmour views are shaped by his perception of France as a haven for Jews and that, as someone whose family left Algeria when the French abandoned their colony, he is quite aware of the fate of Jews in an Islamized country.

… Zemmour has successfully built up his profile on the right-wing edge of the media system. He long worked for the conservative newspaper Le Figaro and broke through on TV talk shows in which he was noted for his criticism of feminism and professional “anti-racist” activism. He has been periodically fired by certain media for going ‘too far.’ He has also often been dragged into court by said “anti-racist” lobby groups – while he has generally been vindicated, he twice was found guilty of “inciting racial hatred.” In the end, Zemmour has been able to flourish despite these setbacks, keeping gainful employment in a critical section of the French media and continuing to reach his audience. …

Zemmour’s ideas: The defense of French interests, including the native French

Regarding Zemmour’s political ideas, the best place to start for English-speakers is probably the recent interview he gave to a Hungarian think-tank, on the occasion of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fourth Demographic Summit. (This event, focused on opposing immigration and supporting European families and fertility, was itself very noteworthy and included the participation of the prime ministers of Czechia, Serbia, and Slovenia.)

In the interview, Zemmour explicitly mentions France’s white identity with a suitable quote from General Charles de Gaulle, who said that the French were “a European people of white race, Greek and Latin culture, and Christian religion.” Both add that while some non-Whites and Muslims may become French citizens, the nation would lose her identity if these groups ceased to be “a small minority.” In the French media, few have been as explicit as Zemmour in denouncing the ills of Afro-Islamic immigration and the results in terms of criminality, welfare abuse, and day-to-day Islamization.

In Zemmour’s politics, France is the be-all-end-all. He is enamored with the nation who gave citizenship to the Jews during the French Revolution, enabling his own people to flourish, and with the glory that France was able to achieve under great leaders such as Napoleon Bonaparte and Charles de Gaulle.

Zemmour’s dissident critics: A tool of the globalist oligarchy?

Zemmour has plenty of critics, including among patriotic dissidents. One such critic is the anti-Zionist civic nationalist Alain Soral, who asks: Why is Zemmour “allowed” to speak in the media in the way he does? Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has long made similar comments, enjoyed no such privilege but was viciously demonized. Is Zemmour not allowed to rise because, wittingly or not, he serves the interests of the global oligarchy which wishes to see France weakened, paralyzed, and bled by fatal internal conflict, namely the ethno-religious civil war which Zemmour is effectively promoting?

I personally do not find the Soralian critique convincing. He fails to recognize the fact that there are differing factions within the French and global oligarchies. Indeed, Donald Trump was able to win the U.S. presidency precisely by exploiting these divisions. He governed with the support of ultra-Zionists who won a great deal for Israel. America won a bit too, though admittedly much less, with drastic reductions in border crossings and refugee settlements.

It is true that Zemmour’s rhetoric is ambiguous. At times, he speaks of “assimilating” foreigners into France, such as by a recent proposal to require newborns to be given traditional French names. At others, he speaks of France’s white identity and of potential civil war between the natives and the Muslims.

Assimilation is a non-starter in a country where around one fifth of newborns are Muslim and one third are non-European. I do not however think “racial civil war” will be occurring in France at least within the next 10-15 years. And even if it did, the fact is that at this stage the Europeans would easily win.

Zemmour’s Jewish identity: rationally pro-French?

There is no downplaying Zemmour’s Jewish identity, right down to his Gargamelian phenotype. Indeed he regularly goes to a conservative synagogue – which probably gives him some subcultural and social autonomy to take taboo permissions within the Parisian politico-media set. He is not among the neoconservatives who have pushed for France to undertake endless wars against the Islamic world on behalf of Israel. Indeed, Zemmour rarely mentions Israel and, in writing though not to my knowledge on television, he has criticized France’s Jewish lobbying organization, the CRIF for being “a State within the State.”

Zemmour arguably has good reason to be a pro-French Jew. His ancestors were Sephardic Jews in Algeria who had been blessed with French citizenship with the Crémieux Decree of 1870 (itself passed by a French Jew during the chaos of the Franco-Prussian War). This unlocked great opportunities for Algerian Jewry, who had previously been subalterns to the local Muslims.

Zemmour’s parents left Algeria for France during the Arabs’ war for independence in the 1950s, no doubt sensing that their time was up. In 1962, Algeria’s 1 million European settlers and most Jews fled the country, knowing that the Arabs would prepare a grisly fate for them if they did not (“the suitcase or the coffin” was the slogan of the day). …

Thus, Zemmour’s French nationalism would be motivated by a rational ethnic calculation: contra the anti-French propaganda of Bernard-Henri Lévy and company, modern France has objectively treated its Jews well on the whole. “As happy as God in France” is a traditional Jewish saying. The French are obviously more tolerant of the Jews than are Blacks and especially Muslims. What will happen to the Jews once France has an Afro-Islamic majority? Over the past decade, terrorist attacks by Muslims have become a banal occurrence in France, killing hundreds upon hundreds with knives, bombs, and charging vehicles.

Zemmour Can Win

I cannot say if Zemmour’s campaign is serious or merely an umpteenth conservative/populist grift operation. Indeed, Zemmour has timed his crypto-campaign with the release of his latest book, La France n’a pas dit son dernier mot (France Has Not Spoken Her Last), a diary of his conversations with French media and political figures since 2006.

What I can say is that a Zemmour victory is by no means impossible. Plenty of celebrity outsiders have been able to convert their media clout into political power: I think of Beppe Grillo in Italy, Donald Trump in America, or Vladimir Zelensky in Ukraine.

Admittedly, there is a chance that so many right-wing candidates (Zemmour, Marine Le Pen, and a conservative) are fielded that none of them breaks through to the second round. So far, polls show a right-candidate breaking through. This would become a very serious risk if the far-left, Socialists, and Greens agree to a common candidate – but this seems quite unlikely given the monumental egos involved. …

Can Zemmour Govern?

I am more skeptical about Zemmour’s ability to govern. After all, being an effective “media-troll” does not require the same skill set as does governing a country, as Trump learned to his chagrin. Still, there are reasons to be more optimistic. Political and media power is far more concentrated in European countries than they are in the United States.

Viktor Orbán in Hungary has been able to push a patriotic agenda in Hungary with little effective pushback. In Italy, Matteo Salvini was able to rise to astonishing levels of popularity when he, as Interior Minister, blocked the arrivals of illegal immigrants in the south of the country. Salvini’s successes were only scuppered by the “populist” Five-Star Movement’s collusion with the Italian Establishment. (While the complexities of Italian politics are far beyond the scope of this article, I would say: keep an eye on Italy, the country is perfectly likely to flip sooner or later, with the next elections planned for 2023.)

At this stage, Zemmour’s crypto-campaign has served to have taboo patriotic and pro-French messages penetrate the country’s political discourse in a way unprecedented since the days of Jean-Marie Le Pen. The dynamics of Zemmour’s career and campaign are distinctly Trumpian. Marine Le Pen has solidified her position in the French political landscape by carefully reeling in “excesses” and effectively being house-trained by the legacy media. Zemmour by contrast has developed his position and prospered by always pushing the envelope in a way which the rest of the media could not deal with – except by giving him more prominence by denouncing him and trying to shut him down.

2030 Vision: Part III—Transhumanism and the Transhumanists of the Great Reset

“Posthumans will be almost entirely augmented — human minds in artificial, eternally upgradable bodies…Human nature is at a crossroads. In the coming decades we will experience a radical upgrading…Genetic engineering, biotechnology, nanorobotics (microscopic robots inside the body) will bit by bit replace the fully biological body.”—Natasha Vita-More, Humanity+ Executive Director

“There has been a distinct warming up to human-less, contactless technology. Humans are biohazards, machines are not.”—Anuja Sonalker, founder and CEO of STEER Tech

“So we just went ahead and fixed the glitch.”—Bob Slydell

Defining Transhumanism

So what is transhumanism, the ideology motivating the leading faction of self-styled “masters of mankind” driving the Great Reset largely from the shadows, particularly as these self-identified transhumanists define it? The global transhumanist organization Humanity+ defines it as the drive to eliminate aging and expand human capabilities, with technology used to “move beyond what some would think of as ‘human.’” Humanity+ Executive Director Natasha Vita-More states that transhumanism has “become a worldview that represents the currents in global society.” This is absolutely true, particularly as the medical tyranny of 2020 opened the doors to all sorts of possibilities for the ruling class. Despite the fact that Vita-More’s “Transhumanist Manifesto” declares that “each person deserves the right of genetic liberty,” the majority of the ruling class does not agree.

Relying on science and technology to improve human life is one thing, but using it to augment or modify it in a fundamentally transformative nature is quite another. The agenda often is hiding in plain sight. Consider Moderna, which offers a COVID-19 mRNA “vaccine” (COVID—certificate of vaccination identification, perhaps?)—Mod(ify) RNA. This isn’t some kind of secret—it is part of their mission statement and, from the biotechnology company’s founding until 2018, their name was stylized ModeRNA. Their CEO Stéphane Bancel is a Harvard MBA and also attended the University of Minnesota, one of the main incubators of the transgender agenda. The University of Minnesota also houses the Charles Babbage Institute, which per its mission statement, “design[s] and administer[s] research projects in the history of information technology and engage[s] in original research that is disseminated through scholarly publications, conference presentations, and the CBI website.” It was founded in 1978 by the Jewish couple Erwin and Adelle Tomash as the International Charles Babbage Society with its office in Palo Alto, California, very close to Stanford University.

Artificial Intelligence

Interestingly, in 1965 at Stanford University, Jews Joshua Lederberg, Edward Feigenbaum, and Carl Djerassi (considered the “father of the birth control pill”) devised the computer program DENDRAL (dendritic algorithm) for the elucidation of the molecular structure of unknown organic compounds taken from known groups of such compounds, such as the alkaloids and the steroids, which served as a prototype for expert systems (“In artificial intelligence, an expert system is a computer system emulating the decision-making ability of a human expert”) and was one of the first uses of artificial intelligence in biomedical research. In 1973 DENDRAL was hosted by SUMEX-AIM (Stanford University Medical Experimental Computer—Artificial Intelligence in Medicine), a national computer resource for AI applications in biomedicine. Users at universities and hospitals across the country were connected to SUMEX via the US Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency Network (ARPANET); also in 1973, University College of London and the Royal Radar Establishment (Norway) were connected to ARPANET. In 1978, Lederberg was named President of Rockefeller University, in which capacity he served until 1990. He was also a scientific advisor to the US government including the Department of Defense. Feigenbaum established the Knowledge Systems Laboratory at Stanford; among his doctoral students is included the Israeli-American Alon Yitzchack Halevy, a research scientist at Google from 2005–2015 before eventually moving on to Facebook AI where he brings expertise in data integration (“Data integration is a group of technical and business processes…that combine data from disparate sources into a meaningful and valuable data set for business intelligence and business analytics”), which is useful for predictive purposes and modeling behavior. Facebook has a rather rich set of data inputs with the vast array of personal information entered by its 2.89 billion users, a pretty good sample size of humanity. If you think the use will be or is benign, consider the funding that helped launch Facebook we covered last time. Consider Google’s connections discussed last time as well.

Among other projects, Facebook AI is invested in the Deepfake Detection Challenge (DFDC), partnering with the Partnership on AI and Microsoft, and academics from Cornell Tech, MIT, the University of Oxford, UC Berkeley, the University of Maryland-College Park, and SUNY-Albany. Guess who’s in the Partnership on AI? That would be, among many others: The New York Times, Mozilla, McKinsey, Microsoft, the ACLU,[1] the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford, the MIT Media Lab, the MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy, IBM, GLAAD, Google, Human Rights Watch, Facebook, Chatham House, CBC Radio-Canada, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Article 19, the BBC, Apple, Accenture, Amazon, the American Psychological Association, the UNDP, UNICEF, the SoftBank Group, the Australian National University’s 3A Innovation Institute (“3A is an innovation institute at the Australian National University intent on creating a new applied science to manage the future of cyber-physical systems—autonomous systems super-charged by Big Data, Internet of Things and Artificial Intelligence”), and DeepMind (acquired by Google in 2014).

It is worth mentioning that the three countries by far the most invested in AI and adjacent and often-overlapping fields, including biotech both public and private (a false binary in this day and age), are the US, China, and Israel. The Israeli connections include such companies as Diagnostic Robotics, which is in demand abroad for the seemingly ubiquitous contact tracing/health monitoring with COVID-19 as the justification, and in the broader surveillance realm as well. Diagnostic Robotics partnered with the state of Rhode Island on its COVID-19 Self Checker AI remote assessment and monitoring platform, and is part of the COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition. Their Medical and Scientific Board features connections to Harvard, MIT, and the Boston-area medical community, and their Vice President of Business Development went to Columbia, is a management consultant with McKinsey, and is a Senior Director with the Clinton Health Access Initiative. There are also Israeli Air Force connections.

Suffice it to say that AI is deeply embedded in elite institutions across several countries.

Additionally, I must pause here to both apologize to the reader and explain the purpose of such detail and density. It is not my intent to overwhelm but rather to illustrate that the goal of the “elites” is in no small part to do just the former. Further, they operate using byzantine networks and velocity of data, and model interactions in the human realm increasingly close to that of the machine realm. We are dealing with the onset of advanced intelligences here that are very likely crafting specific scenarios beyond human capacity—but informed by human capacity—in order to further an agenda that may well indeed be beyond human capacity.

The Extropians

I will provide a few more illustrative examples here so that the reader may understand more fully what I am talking about. As with another World Economic Forum Board of Trustees member Marc Benioff, fellow Jew Martine Rothblatt—an avowed transhumanist—sits at the nexus of the various strands of this agenda. Rothblatt, like Benioff, is a member of the Scientific Advisory Board of Alcor Life Extension Foundation, a non-profit focused on cryonics and helmed for almost a decade by Natasha Vita-More’s husband, Max More, who remains an Ambassador and President Emeritus.

Max More also co-founded the Extropy Institute, which is now-shuttered; according to its website the Extropy Institute was a “networking ideas exchange devoted to developing strategies for the future. Extropy is a symbol for continued progress and reflects the extent of a living or organizational systems intelligence, functional order, vitality, and capacity and drive for improvement. Extropy is an essential element of transhumanism.” According to Max More, writing in 1996, the “Extropy Institute is building a culture favoring physical and intellectual augmentation, life extension, and a free and responsible society (here, in cyberspace, or off-Earth).”

The Extropy Institute was affiliated with UNICEF-Africa and worked with Friends of the United Nations. Max More was the Chair of the Board of Directors while Natasha Vita-More was the President. The Jewish Marvin Minsky, a Jeffrey Epstein associate and recipient of Epstein funding for numerous projects as well as the co-founder of MIT’s AI laboratory, was on the Institute’s Council of Advisors, as was the Jewish Ray Kurzweil, author of The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Kurzweil’s correspondence with Marvin Minsky as a teenager convinced him to study at MIT; he is currently employed by Google, which is an integral part of this agenda.

Kurzweil, who in a 2009 interview with Rolling Stone admitted that he’d like to exhume his father and clone his DNA, has also worked with the Army Science Board and NASA in the past. According to an interview with Wired from 2002 called “Ray Kurzweil’s Plan: Never Die”:

Just in case he does happen to die, he’ll have his body cryogenically frozen and preserved by Alcor, the company that the late baseball Hall of Famer Ted Williams now calls home, to be thawed when the technology to reanimate him has been developed. … He plans to outwit the medical establishment on a grander scale by achieving eternal life. … I don’t think we have to die. And the technology and the means of making that a reality is close at hand.[2]

Marvin Minsky and the transgender transhumanist Martine Rothblatt are now on the Scientific Advisory Board of Alcor. Further strengthening the ties between transgenderism (and the inescapable connection to deviant sexuality) and transhumanism, from the same interview, the interviewer asks, “How does Ramona [Kurzweil’s 25-year-old female rock star alter-ego] feel about extreme life extension?” Kurzweil continues:

A virtual person doesn’t have to worry about life extension. When she was first created, she was 25 and that was two years ago and she’s still 25. In the virtual world they’ve already mastered remaining at an optimal age. But I do feel that we have other people inside of us. I’m one of the few people who has had the experience of looking in the mirror and seeing a completely different manifestation of themselves. That’s what the experience is like. It’s like you’re looking in the mirror and instead of seeing what I generally see in the mirror I saw this 25-year-old woman. And I could kind of get into being her. … This experience will be quite ubiquitous I’d say in 10 years from now, until we can go inside the nervous system and actually create virtual reality from within. That’s more of a late 2020s scenario. … It’s a way of exploring different types of relationships, heterosexual couples could both change their genders, which would be very cool.[3]

The homosexual Peter Thiel (whose company Palantir is integral to the COVID-19 “vaccine” allocation aspect of Operation Warp Speed, among many other aspects of the globalist-transhumanist agenda) shares a similar obsession with immortality not just with Kurzweil and company but by a great many of the “elites” behind the Great Reset and the other spokes of the globalist agenda.

Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and Board member of Facebook, has written that he “stands against … the inevitability of the death of every individual,” and as part of his regimen to prolong life indefinitely, he allegedly takes human growth hormone and, according to a 2016 interview, Thiel

signed up with cryogenics company Alcor to be deep-frozen when (or if, a more optimistic death-cheating evangelist would say) he dies. There are three ways you can approach death, Thiel has said. “You can accept it, you can deny it, or you can fight it. I think our society is dominated by people who are into denial or acceptance, and I prefer to fight it.” … Given Thiel’s obsession with warding off death, it comes as no surprise that the Silicon Valley billionaire is interested in at least one radical way of doing it: injecting himself with a young person’s blood. … Jeff Bercovici of Inc. magazine published [an] interview with Thiel, in which the venture-capitalist explains that he’s interested in parabiosis, which includes the practice of getting transfusions of blood from a younger person. … Bercovici notes that Silicon Valley is abound with rumors of wealthy tech elites experimenting with parabiosis, and Gawker has reported that it received a tip in June claiming that Thiel “spends $40,000 per quarter to get an infusion of blood from an 18-year-old based on research conducted at Stanford on extending the lives of mice.”[4]

Thiel has invested with Aubrey de Grey, who is also on Alcor’s Scientific Advisory Board, as is Ralph Merkle, whose biography is reported by the Alcor website thusly:

Dr. Merkle co-invented public key cryptography. … His current research interest is molecular manufacturing (also called nanotechnology). The central objective of molecular manufacturing is the design, modeling, and manufacture of systems that can inexpensively fabricate most products that can be specified in atomic detail. This would include, for example, molecular logic elements connected in complex patterns to form molecular computers, molecular robotic arms or Stewart platforms (e.g., positional devices) able to position individual atoms or clusters of atoms under programmatic control (useful if we wish to make molecular computers and other molecular manufacturing systems), and a wide range of other molecular devices. … Further interests include cryonics, medical applications of nanotechnology, computational chemistry, reversible computing, neuroscience, extropians, and other areas. He is also interested in cryptography (including one-way hash functions and digital signatures based on one-way hash functions). … Dr. Merkle is an executive editor of the journal Nanotechnology … , which publishes a broad range of articles both on molecular manufacturing and nano-scale research in general. He is a former Director of the Foresight Institute.

Natasha Vita-More was a Senior Associate at the Foresight Institute, based in Palo Alto and focused on the development of nanotechnology. Co-founder K. Eric Drexler’s doctoral advisor at MIT was Marvin Minsky. While at MIT, Drexler (who plans to be cryonically preserved “in the event of legal death”) participated in NASA summer studies on space colonies and has continued to be involved with research into outer-space possibilities and technologies. He is also a Senior Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute, which is housed at the University of Oxford; Anders Sandberg, a former member of the Board of Directors of the Extropy Institute, is also a Senior Research Fellow. Nick Bostrom is the Future of Humanity Institute’s (FHI) Director. FHI researchers have given policy advice at the World Economic Forum, and to the MacArthur Foundation and the World Health Organization, as well as to various governmental entities.

Bostrom, More, and Drexler all spoke at the inaugural Singularity Summit in 2006 at Stanford University; it was founded by Kurzweil, Thiel, and the Jewish Eliezer Shlomo Yudkowsky (who tweeted in January 2018: “People who call me arrogant must seriously not know anything about Jewish culture.  Every Orthodox Jew grows up hearing stories about all the famous Jews who got into arguments with God, and the most admired figures of all are those who, like Moses, won their arguments. Like I am *way* more deferential towards moderately superhuman AGIs [artificial general intelligences] than a Jew is toward God.”) through what is now the Machine Intelligence Research Institute in initial collaboration with Stanford and with funding from Thiel. Other speakers at the Singularity Summit, which no longer takes place, have included the Jewish artificial intelligence researcher Ben Goertzel, the Jewish immunologist and regeneration biologist Ellen Heber-Katz, the Jewish animal cognition scientist Irene Pepperberg (MIT Media Lab, Messaging Extraterrestrial Intelligence), the Jewish blogger and writer Cory Doctorow, the Jewish scientist and author Douglas Hofstadter, Sebastian Thrun (founder of Google X and Google’s self-driving car team), the Jewish science journalist Carl Zimmer, the Jewish scientist and researcher Max Tegmark (MIT), the Jewish co-founder of the Center for Applied Rationality Julia Galef, the Jewish psychologist and author Steven Pinker, the Jewish scientist and businessman Stephen Wolfram, and more.

Tegmark and his wife Meia Chita-Tegmark are co-founders of the Future of Life Institute along with Jaan Tallinn (a founding engineer of Skype and Kazaa, also of the Future of Humanity Institute and the Machine Intelligence Research Institute), Victoria Krakovna (a research scientist in AI safety at DeepMind; her PhD thesis in statistics and machine learning at Harvard University focused on building interpretable models), and Anthony Aguirre (the Faggin Presidential Professor for the Physics of Information at UC Santa Cruz; creator of the science and technology prediction platform Metaculus.com). Their Scientific Advisory Board includes for some reason Morgan Freeman and Alan Alda, as well as individuals like Bostrom and Stuart Russell, a computer science professor at Berkeley and the Director of the Center for Intelligent Systems, as well as a Fellow and former Executive Council member of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence. Elon Musk is also on the Scientific Advisory Board and is a top donor along with the Jewish Sam Harris and the Jewish Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz’s Open Philanthropy Project. Among Musk’s many projects is Neuralink, which is focused on developing implantable brain–machine interfaces. Neuralink shares a headquarters with OpenAI, whose CEO Sam Altman is Jewish. Peter Thiel is, in addition to Musk, a major backer of the OpenAI project.

Transcending Biology

Comprising the nucleus of these extropians, individuals like Thiel and Kurzweil

would become transhuman, possessing “drastically augmented intellects, memories, and physical powers,” or maybe even post human. They envisioned a future in which human brains would be downloaded and preserved for posterity. So, too, would the human body, through cryogenics. … They helped set the stage for a sector of the tech industry that has, of late, been flooded with money from philanthropists and venture capitalists alike. Life extension, artificial intelligence, robotics, and other posthuman ambitions are still very much a part of the techno-utopian agenda, in a way that’s more mainstream than ever. Venture capitalist Peter Thiel is looking into blood transfusions as an anti-aging treatment. (“PETER THIEL IS VERY, VERY INTERESTED IN YOUNG PEOPLE’S BLOOD,” Inc. reported last summer.) Google co-founder Larry Page has invested $750 million in Calico, a laboratory for anti-aging technologies. And in 2012, Google appointed Ray Kurzweil, a futurist who believes artificial intelligence will soon allow humans to transcend biology, as an engineering director. … Anders Sandberg, a neuroscientist working on mind uploading, wishes literally to become an “emotional machine.”[5]

These are the people and this is the ideology animating the Great Reset and the dominant strain of globalism we are seeing unfold before our very eyes at this moment as it moves from “simply” shadow domination through the financial system and in influence in other corridors of power to something far darker, that would see too many of the kinds of connections to the work being done with “living vaccine factories” and hydra vulgaris at UC Davis, for example—the latter of which in the Hydra 2.0 Genome Project also includes the NIH. Though I cannot say for certain how long this particular vision has been directing globalism nor how many major figures in the One World regime are fully invested in this image of immortality, certainly a great many have no limitations to their own delusions of grandeur.

“Does God exist?” Ray Kurzweil asks. “I would say, ‘Not yet.’”

[1] For the ACLU: “Far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties. They protect the most vulnerable among us, including people with disabilities and fragile immune systems, children too young to be vaccinated and communities of color hit hard by the disease.”

[2] Philipkoski, Kristen, “Ray Kurzweil’s Plan: Never Die,” November 18, 2002. Wired.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Kosoff, Maya, “Peter Thiel Wants to Inject Himself with Young People’s Blood,” August 1, 2016. Vanity Fair Hive.

[5] Wiener, Anna, “Only Human,” February 16, 2017. New Republic.

Who is Really Running the White House? 

“There is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations.  A despot may otherwise constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly by the chain of their own ideas. … On the soft fibers of the brain is founded the unshakable base of the soundest of Empires.” Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison

“They seldom desire anything unless it belongs to others. The result is the encroachment of one group upon the territory of another. For knowing their own inferiority, they would only be too glad to have equality.” Plato, Gorgias

Though some would like to believe that it is impossible for the modern world to fall back into the Homeric ‘imbecility of infancy,’ and though they scoff at the idea that one might ‘claim to amuse grown men by the same fictions that would have charmed children,’ they know that in reality adulthood slips easily back to infancy’s grip.  (La Motte, Discours 22–23, in The Shock of the Ancient, L. F. Norman)

FIRST, IT MAY BE HELPFUL TO ASK: WHO ISN’T RUNNING THE WHITE HOUSE?  It clearly is not Joseph Biden.  He obviously meets the 25th Amendment test of incapacity, and could rather easily be removed under organized congressional opposition.  Why he is not, is a fascinating question.

Second, it may be helpful to ask: why was a White House stage set crafted and installed in the old executive building across the street?  This provides two strong clues: one, it allows for technically enhanced prompting, control, digital enhancement and scripting.  And two, it symbolically establishes the fact that Biden is not the actual president occupying the actual White House, and is being sidelined.  For those who can remember Star Trek’s original episode, “Patterns of Force,” where a drugged figurehead president was installed behind a carefully organized broadcast room, while his handlers from the “Party” actually controlled the State, this dramatically shows the nature of the White House proxy control program, and its inherent basis in deception.

The drugged and controlled president in Patterns of Force


The scripted and controlled president in 2021

New TV “set” of a “White House” underscores contempt for the American public

It may also be helpful to consider that the biosecurity construct that has dominated civil society since early 2020 is anchored in two primary motivations—one ideological, the other psychological, and both are centered in fundamental human biology: population, and centralized health care.  Both of these objectives find their power, and their implementation, in top-down state authoritarianism.  Such political psychology must also flow from a certain sociopathology, and that must flow from hatred and revenge.

In my view this defines the clinical profile of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, the actual occupiers of the current executive office (it also invokes a key animating factor of race.  All three factors—population, medical control, and race—must also together operate from deception, and a manufactured political program, hence the fundamental purpose of Covid).

The Obama-Clinton syndicate, through division and fear, offer to a frightened public the opportunity for salvation, and paternal protection that reaches deep into the childhood mind still accessible in the adult. The progressive political class offers up the government, the centralized authority of right thinking, and utopian visions of “equity.”  It is vitally centered in and draws its strength from faction, dissension, conflict, and most of all, division.  Division is its source of power; its only means of creating its role, and its authority.  The real source of authentic power—the cooperation and purposeful living of enlightened independent, self-directed, liberated men and women, is its enemy: hate must create more hate until hate and fear is all there is, and with it, a permanent state of social tension and social control.

And it’s effective. Consider the U.K.:

According to an Ipsos MORI poll conducted in July, an impressive 27 percent of Britons want to impose a government-mandated nationwide curfew of 10 PM—not then in force—“until the pandemic was under control worldwide,” which might be years from now. A not-inconsiderable 19 percent would impose such a curfew “permanently, regardless of the risk from Covid-19.” Presumably, these are people who don’t get out much. While 64 percent want Britain’s mask mandate in shops and on public transport to remain a legal requirement for the duration of the global pandemic, an astounding 51 percent want to be masked by law, forever.

There’s more: some 35 percent want to confine any Briton who returns from a foreign country, vaccinated or not, to a ten-day home quarantine—permanently, Covid or no Covid. A full 46 percent would require a vaccine passport in order to travel abroad—permanently, Covid or no Covid. So young people today would still be flashing that QR code on whatever passes for smartphones in 2095, though they might have trouble displaying the device to a flight attendant while bracing on their walkers. Likewise, the 36 percent who want to be required to check in at pubs and restaurants with a National Health Service contact-tracing app forever. A goodly 34 percent want social distancing in “theatres, pubs and sports grounds,” regardless of any risk of Covid, forever. A truly astonishing 26 percent of Britons would summarily close all casinos and nightclubs forever. Are these just a bunch of fogies who don’t go clubbing anyway? No. In the 16-to-24 age bracket, the proportion of Brits who want to convert Ronnie Scott’s jazz club in London’s Soho into a community lending library, even after Covid is a distant memory, soars to a staggering 40 percent.

Far from yearning for their historic liberties as “free-born Englishmen,” eight out of ten of the British, according to a Southbank/Kingston University survey, were “anxious” about lifting any of their benevolent government’s copious pandemic restrictions. I’m not sure that you can call it Stockholm syndrome when captives don’t fall in love with their captors but with the state of captivity itself.

It is a political agenda for power, control, domination, and authority.  It rests on hysteria and even “blood lust” for revenge, and especially, for merely taking the property of others (the “1619 Program” for example). In this regard, despite the instincts that our adult minds generally have for a calmer assessment based in rational engagement, this political deception (and some of its ancillary components, including Black Lives Matter, Antifa and Critical Race Theory, among others) is part of a dangerous threat to the West and all its people.  This does not mean a suppression of free speech or limits to the full exercise of political discourse.  It does mean facing squarely, an organized assault on higher-order aspirations and integrity that must constantly be summoned, as a unified nation, rather than passively accommodating a dishonest faction of special interests that have as their aims and designs the literal dismantling of the inherent foundation of what remains the most successful experiment in human liberty: America[1]

A message of revenge, hate, retribution—and control.


At a practical level, the Obama-Clinton agenda doesn’t have only contempt for White America: the entire world and all its races and cultures are included as past or present victims of Whites.  There is otherwise no coherent “White guilt” or White shame concept: the enslavement of people was (and still is in many regions), a central characteristic of the entire global race, and it is embedded centrally within its cultural traditions, practices and social psychology, with all other features of a world cultural anthropology. Except that modern America is, precisely because of her freedoms, generosity and riches, including in trust and forbearance, the target for racial political agitation and the extortion—agitation and extorsion that define the current organized racial political agenda and its larger designs in what amounts to tribalism in property, power, and control.

A  deal to share the executive office has been effected: secure in their deception

Some may recall the “deal” that was struck in Obama’s first run for president (in a well-covered “secret meeting) with the then-opposing Clinton team: they dropped their pretenses, and joined forces.  Indeed, Hillary, in an unprecedented move, dropped her campaign entirely, and joined Obama to promote him. The deal was a quid pro quo where HRC backed his bid in exchange for the Secretary of State position (and her data “server” crime reflected her actual activities in using her office to broker favors, deals and raise money, with a president and ex-president controlling an “above-the-law status” that led to the FBI backing down in its investigation). The plan was simple: she would help seat him as president, and then they would “swap” seats after his terms, and he would guarantee her presidency. Then Obama would possibly be nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court. Indeed, the Supreme Court configuration is a primary goal of the DNC: and its goals is not merely to expand it, but “color” it especially, and to do so by fundamentally altering the entire process, configuration and rules of the Court itself, through the pretext of a bi-partisan commission (which as its turns out, it made up predominantly of Obama allies, and headed by his former advisor, Bob Bauer at NYU Law.

The Obama-Clinton plan was audacious, but was frustrated (or delayed) by Trump; hence the desperate measures to impeach him, along with a highly planned election steal (organized by the Obama and Clinton Foundations), that directed fraudulent voting law changes by the Perkins Coie “Political Law” practice—whose lead partner in the voter fraud operation, was recently indicted).  In my view there was a planned activation of the Covid-19 program, was long incubated as a back-up, fail-safe political weapon with carefully administered “gain of function” work between the US and (apparently) China, overseen by the Obama administration.  This explains the 4-year program to remove Trump: it didn’t just come out of nowhere—it was manufactured and directed—by Clinton and Obama, and their foundations, investors and backers.  Ron Klain runs the day-to-day at the White House, along with Susan Rice (Obama’s direct link) but they both work for higher powers than the enfeebled Biden.  Rice especially, is Obama’s guarantee of policy continuity in domestic affairs, which are being consolidated into national security, under her direct actions. Indeed, “racial equity” across all government departments is her priority.  Some have called the appointment of so many Obama officials, as the “Obama reunion.”  Indeed, Rice has been dubbed the “shadow president.”  And of course, when such assertions are made or intimated (including by Fox news: “Fox News pushes conspiracy Barack Obama secretly running Biden administration,” March 2021), the Left will claim conspiracy theory, which often tells you, that you’ve made the opposition uncomfortable.

Two become one

Both Obama and HRC are obsessed with medical centralization and control (recall her prior frustrated effort to nationalize it as First Lady, or “Hillarycare”—which became Obamacare). Both fancy themselves intellectuals; both hate middle America; both harbor cultural Marxist obsessions with power; both are willing to engage in mass incarceration, extortion, and blackmail. They also have the power base of two ex-presidencies, and a carefully tended international favor bank through the State department (which now runs all executive office foreign policy, and US military ideological purging operations).

Biden will almost certainly be “removed” within the next 12 months, and is already being physically isolated.  VP Harris will take his place under the same level of control, but with a fascinating symbiosis of her two actual masters: the merging of the Black with the female into a new symbol of ideological consolidation.

The deception is complete

[1] It is interesting to consider in what ways the destabilization of Haiti (the former slave mecca, French Saint-Domingue) is a modern-day orchestrated “uprising” and revolt, resulting in mass-immigration to the United States, through the southern border.  As the U.S. has a long history of reaching into foreign nations for its own political objectives, it is not inconceivable in my experience, that the extremism of the current White House, Senate and State Department, centered in a universal racial retribution construct and in broader cultural Marxism, views the Haitian “caravans” created by effective forced eviction, as a social justice retribution act of slave repatriation, and as a blanket reparations program.  The core ideology of cultural Marxism which defines the executive office and is reinforced by its network of private foundations, is precisely the intellectual analogue of the 2020 summer riots, and indeed defines the larger organization from which all its programs emanate: It rests on fraud, violence and chaos that is used to force a social re-engineering, in a top-down strategy that works through institutions of the state.  This is exactly the risk that Thomas Jefferson faced, and the same risk he and his peers feared, and predicted: a war that turns into a cause that results in a nation “torn asunder” by violence.  The psychological nature of “radical abolitionism” versus planful nation building, appears today as a similar dichotomy in the current political economy.  See https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/19/world/americas/us-haitian-deportation.html

French Politics Is Built Around the Principle of Stopping Marine Le Pen Becoming President

Editor’s note: An interesting and possibly important development in French politics is the possible presidential candidacy of Éric Zemmour, a Jewish conservative media figure. TOO readers may recall Guillaume Durocher’s article on Zemmour from 2015 where he noted:

Zemmour, who is not a recent convert to French nationalism, has been both the most prominent mainstream pundit arguing for conservatism and patriotism, and has to some degree been increasingly marginalized while still maintaining a major audience. He was removed from a talk show on the France 2 public TV channel in 2011 to move on to the more marginal regional channel, Paris Première. He has occasionally been sued by (de facto Jewish) “anti-racist” groups (for example, for arguing that a majority of drug dealers are Black or Arab). In January 2014, the Nouvel Observateur, the leading center-left magazine, equated Zemmour with Soral and Dieudonné under the title “Hatred.” Most recently, he was fired from a talk show on i-Télé (a secondary digital TV channel) for giving an interview to an Italian newspaper which was interpreted as advocating the deportation of French Muslims. In fact, he pointed out that Muslims could be evicted during an ethnic civil war, such conflict being exceedingly common in human history. Zemmour sees such a war in France as likely in the long-term.

Zemmour is walking a fine line and is by no means “burned out” with the establishment. He continues to be employed by RTL radio and the conservative newspaper Le Figaro. In addition, the controversy re-boosted his book Le suicide français back to the #1 spot of the Amazon best-seller list. Many mainstream figures, including those opposed to him politically, such as the leftists Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, protested i-Télé’s decision to fire him as censorship.

It is very tempting to argue that Zemmour is a “kosher nationalist” whose candidacy would be used to derail the hopes of Marine Le Pen. As Durocher notes, there are major problems for politicians not approved by the French Jewish community: “French Identitarian writer Anne Kling has argued that anti-immigration books have tended to be ignored unless they are kosher. She notes that the best-seller on crime and immigration, La France Orange mécanique, was promoted by “right-wing and ultra-right-wing Zionist” Jews and that the book’s author was represented in court by Gilles-William Goldnadel, a Franco-Israeli dual national close to the Likud party,  Franco-Jewish neoconservative networks thus find it in their interest to promote books and ideas hostile to Islamic immigration.”

Durocher gives several scenarios in which a candidate like Zemmour would conform to Jewish interests:

One possible outcome would be for the center-right conservative party to become a genuinely anti-immigration party or possibly have FN participation in a coalition government (and possibly an outright FN presidential victory, although I wouldn’t bank on that before 2022 at the earliest).

This is only possible if the French Jewish community, on some level, accepts it. This may reflect in fact the optimum outcome for them: To not completely Islamize/Africanize France, but to have a multiracial country in which European-French remain the majority, with Jews as a privileged group, particularly over-represented in the oligarchy and media, and with politicians particularly sensitive to its concerns. This, it seems to me, would be optimal for French Jews, but, as we’ve already seen, Jews often pursue their ideological fervor even to the point of self-destructiveness, so the rational outcome is not necessarily the most likely. It is not clear that they would be temperamentally capable of maintaining a stable equilibrium, even one which was in their favor.

Axios presents the results of a recent small survey of 1,310 French citizens; Oct. 1-4, 2021

Emmanuel Macron 24%
Eric Zemmour 17
Marine Le Pen 15
Xavier Bertrand 13
Jean-Luc Mélenchon 11

And as Axios notes:

A split in the far-right vote could provide an opening for a candidate like Xavier Bertrand, who is seeking the nomination of the center-right Republicans.

The Harris poll gives Macron the slimmest of margins (51% to 49%) in a hypothetical runoff with Bertrand, and slightly larger leads against Le Pen (53% to 47%) and Zemmour (55% to 45%).

So Durocher’s scenario of the center-right benefiting from a Zemmour candidacy may come true (Zemmour hasn’t announced that he is running). But what is quite clear is that the Jewish community remains a power in France and is quite unlikely to support Le Pen.

Another issue is Covid policy. Macron has opted for a very strict vaccine policy which has led to protests and will likely sway some voters.

Over the weekend [July, 2021], more than 100,000 people took to the streets to decry French President Emmanuel Macron’s tough new rules that require proof of vaccination or a negative test to enter cafes, restaurants, churches, trains, shopping centers, cinemas, sports stadiums and many other public places. Two vaccination centers were also targeted by vandals. … some French venues that hold more than 50 people will start asking people to show so-called digital “health passes” that certify a person’s vaccination status. Macron has also made it mandatory for all health workers to get vaccinated. … Macron’s draconian approach to vaccines may end up hurting him as he starts his campaign for reelection next April.

Daily Mail article (September 27) shows why the establishment would fear Le Pen in the April, 2022 election and use Zemmour as a way to derail her candidacy. Macron’s popularity is slipping, and vaccine policy and his pro-EU stance are issues:

Public dissatisfaction has been compounded by [Macron’s] bungled vaccine programme, that saw him brazenly claiming the AstraZeneca jab was only ‘quasi-effective’ before quickly backtracking amid poor uptake among the sceptical public.

The voters disdain for the EU has increased, leaving Macron more isolated as Le Pen gains ground.

Impatience with the president has been fuelled not just by the glacial vaccine roll-out but also by his apparent contradictions of scientific advice, with rivals referring to him as a ‘Napoleon’ and accusing the president of believing that he is an epidemiologist.

Adding to his woes, voting intentions for Le Pen’s party have not been this positive since her father Jean-Marie Le Pen’s campaign in 2002, when he reached the second round of the presidential election.

The right-wing party is ranking ahead of any other party in France among the 25-34 age group, who have faced unemployment and soaring costs of student loans.

Many of the younger age groups had already turned against Macron in the Yellow Vest protests of 2018, the pandemic only hardening their positions.

On the other hand, Marine Le Pen recently called the health pass “a disproportionate interference with [our] liberty” and promised that she would be a “president of French liberties.” On the EU, Le Pen  has “toned the [anti-EU] rhetoric down to try and win over more voters.”

Below is an article by Daniel Barge reposted with permission from Affirmative Right. As with Durocher, there is a real possibility that Zemmour could derail Marine Le Pen’s candidacy.

Charlie Hebdo cartoon showing Zemmour with
the Le Pens as concentration camp guards 

I don’t know who Éric Zemmour is or what his appeal to French people is. To get a true flavour of the guy I would probably have to learn French, which is never going to happen. But I can infer that he talks a great game, and makes plenty of good points. But those are mere details, and details are generally irrelevant. What is important is the big picture.

What is obvious, however, is that France has a Presidential election next year, and it would be extremely awkward for the governing elites if someone like Marine Le Pen won.

The way the election is structured is that there are a couple of rounds, with the final round being a run off between the two leading candidates. Last time it was the clearly astroturfed Macron vs Le Pen in the final, with Macron winning 66% to 34%.

The reason Macron won was because he was a “centrist” with almost total media support, who was able to take most of the votes to his Left as well as many Cuckservatives to his right. While he got 95% of voters describing themselves as “Left-wing” and 91% of voters describing themselves as “rather Left-wing,” Le Pen interestingly got almost a quarter or voters describing themselves as “Very left-wing.”

Since then, Le Pen has been making moves to break out of the “far-right extremist” framing imposed on her, and has made further inroads both to Leftist and Centrist voters.
For years now, in head-to-head polls with Macron she has been in the mid 40s, sometimes narrowing the gap to just 6 points. As we know, polls grossly under-count populist Right figures, so the gap may be much narrower or even inverted. Also, it has to be borne in mind that Le Pen’s support, which is socially unvalidated and constantly demonised by the media, is much harder than Macron’s, after all, his wishy-washy centrism does not inspire much passionate support anywhere.
So, from this we see that the macro-data was all pointing to Le Pen having a much better chance of beating Macron in 2022. Now, suddenly we are hearing about this “new” nationalist meteor, Éric Zemmour. Marine Le Pen’s own father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, now in his 90s, is said to be backing him.
From a quick “catch-up” article in Axios:
A far-right firebrand is shaking up the French presidential election and, with six months to go, has pulled into second in the polls.

Why it matters: This race had long seemed on course for a rematch between President Emmanuel Macron, now an unpopular incumbent, and far-right leader Marine Le Pen. But it’s Le Pen who’s now facing a major threat on her right flank.

Driving the news: Éric Zemmour, a writer and TV pundit sometimes compared to Tucker Carlson, is second in the latest Harris Interactive poll — a crucial benchmark, as the top two finishers will enter a runoff. Never before has a candidate jumped so quickly in the polls, pollster Antoine Gautier told AFP.

Zemmour — who was convicted in 2009 of inciting racial hatred and is an advocate of the “Great Replacement” theory popular among white supremacists — has yet to enter the race, but took a leave of absence from the French equivalent of Fox News.

I won’t comment on his Jewishness, but it’s clear that Zemmour is an effective communicator who talks in a way that strikes a chord with ordinary French voters, but why is he pushing himself forward as a potential candidate, especially now? Remember, details are irrelevant. It is the bigger picture that is important.
Zemmour and Le Pen

There are three reasonable possibilities of what will happen with Zemmour, all of them negative for the populist Right:

  1. He crashes and burns, whereupon his lack of purchase with Right-wing voters is attributed to “anti-Semitism” and used to smear Le Pen as a “Nazi” again, scaring some voters to cling to Macron. An old trick that seems to keep on working.
  2. He does well, whereupon Le Pen’s bloc is split down the middle, allowing someone else — a bland Centre-Leftist or Centre-Rightist — to push Le Pen and Zemmour down to 3rd and 4th spot, and thus set up a “safe” final round for the Establishment.
  3. He does very well, whereupon he faces off against Macron in the final round and somehow manages to lose.
The idea that Zemmour goes all the way and wins the Presidency seems a little far-fetched but not impossible. However, this can safely be set aside for the moment.

So, to summarize, what are we looking at here?

In 2017 Le Pen does well for a Right-wing Populist but is defeated in the final round to an astroturfed Macron. By 2021 President Astroturf is looking shop-worn and jaded, while Le Pen continues to build a solid challenge. Suddenly, out of nowhere, Zemmour is unleashed, his most obvious purpose apparently being to stop Le Pen winning again. Conclusion: he’s a spoiler candidate.

What we are seeing here, once again, is the central principle around which contemporary French politics is built: namely stopping Marine Le Pen becoming President.

Is this part of the “shadow war,” which Colin Liddell and others allude to, that is being fought out between the West and the rising “ChiRus” powers of the East, with Le Pen weaponised to destablise the West while Zemmour is a French Deep State countermove? Or do the elites just genuinely dislike Le Pen, and think that their version of Pan-European and Eurabian multiculturalism is the way forward?

Perfect timing: France’s Tucker Carlson
Daniel Barge writes for Affirmative Right.