Dugin: Greater Israel and the Conquering Messiah

From Arktos

A profound shift in the global perception of Israel — and perhaps of the
Jewish people as a whole — is underway. After the catastrophe European
Jews endured under Hitler during World War Two, they evoked widespread
pity, compassion, and sincere sympathy on a global scale. This moral
capital facilitated the establishment of the State of Israel. The
Holocaust, or Shoah — signifying the horrors and persecutions suffered
by Jews — served as the foundation for the universal consensus: after
such suffering, the Jewish people unquestionably deserved their own
state. This sacred status of the Holocaust became a cornerstone of
Jewish identity and moral capital.

The philosophers of the Frankfurt School proclaimed: henceforth, one
must think “from Auschwitz.” This meant that philosophy, politics, and
morality were to take into account the scale of crimes committed by
Europeans (primarily Germans) against Jews. Western civilization and
humanity at large were now called upon to repent.

This framework rested on the image of Jews as victims, elevating them to
the status of a sacral people. Others were urged to repent and never
forget their guilt. Any hint of anti-Semitism, let alone attempts to
revise the sacral status of Jews or the metaphysics of the Holocaust,
was met with legal repercussions.

However, Israel’s increasingly hardline policies toward Palestinians and
neighboring Muslim populations gradually eroded this image — at least in
the eyes of Middle Eastern peoples, who, it must be noted, bore no
responsibility for the crimes of European Nazis. On the contrary, the
Zionists’ dismissive attitude toward the local population provoked
direct protests and, eventually, the anti-Zionist Intifada.

The self-perception of Israelis and Jews in the diaspora also began to
change. A growing tendency emerged to display strength, power, and the
ambition to create a “Greater Israel.” Concurrently, messianic motifs
intensified: the anticipation of the imminent arrival of the Messiah
(Moshiach), plans to rebuild the Third Temple (which would entail
demolishing the Muslim holy site, the Al-Aqsa Mosque), the expansion of
Israel’s territories “from sea to sea,” and the final resolution of the
Palestinian question (even including calls for deportation and genocide
of Palestinians). These ideas found support among figures like Benjamin
Netanyahu and ministers such as Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.
They were openly articulated in works like The King’s Torah by Yitzhak
Shapira, and in the sermons of rabbis such as Kook, Meir Kahane, and Dov
Lior. Strategically, they were outlined as early as the 1980s in an
article by Ariel Sharon’s advisor, General Oded Yinon. Yinon’s plan
proposed the overthrow of all established Arab regimes with nationalist
Baathist ideologies, plunging the Arab world into bloody chaos, and
establishing Greater Israel.

Following a decade of the Arab Spring and particularly after Hamas’
terrorist attack on Israel in October 2023, these plans appear to be
materializing at an accelerated pace.

Netanyahu leveled Gaza, mercilessly killing hundreds of thousands of
civilians. This was followed by an attack on Lebanon and the elimination
of Hezbollah’s leadership. Next came exchanges of missile strikes with
Iran and active preparations for war, including attacks on Iranian
nuclear facilities. Subsequently, there was an invasion of the remaining
Golan Heights and strikes on Syria. A month prior, Bezalel Smotrich
declared that Damascus would become part of Israel, and Ben-Gvir hinted
openly at the demolition of Al-Aqsa. With the fall of Bashar al-Assad,
the last Baathist regime crumbled, plunging the Arab world into chaos.

Greater Israel and the extermination of Palestinians are becoming a
reality before our eyes.

Here is what is critical: the policies of right-wing Zionists are
effectively turning the page on the Holocaust. The moral capital of
victimhood has been entirely expended. Israel used it to fuel its rise
to power — its current formidable and ruthless stature, akin to the Old
Testament grandeur. Jews are no longer pitied; instead, they are either
feared, hated, resented, or admired — but, in any case, acknowledged as
a formidable and ruthless force.

Jewish identity has transformed.

No longer a symbol of humiliation and suffering, Jews are now seen as an
exemplar of dominance and triumphant victory.

Thinking “from Auschwitz” is no longer necessary. Now, one must think
“from Gaza.”

Jewish tradition contains prophecies of two Messiahs: the suffering one
(Messiah ben Yosef) and the triumphant one (Messiah ben David). After
the European Holocaust, the suffering Messiah, sacrificed as a victim,
was emphasized. Now, this foundational gestalt is shifting, and the
triumphant, attacking, and victorious Messiah is taking center stage.

This shift is most pronounced in Israel itself. But it is clearly not
confined to Israel alone. The messianic archetype is changing among Jews
worldwide.

In this context, Donald Trump — a staunch supporter of right-wing
Zionism and a close ally of Netanyahu — comes to power in the United
States. Much of his administration consists of Christian Zionists who
are prepared to provide unwavering support to Israel. Once again, the
capital of compassion has been converted into the capital of aggression.

This is extremely significant — and will only grow more so.

However, one must refrain from hasty conclusions, reactions, and
judgments. The first task is to comprehend this state of affairs, to
weave countless facts, events, and occurrences into a coherent and
non-contradictory narrative.

(Translated from the Russian)

James Edwards and Pat Buchanan Discuss Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War

What follows is an edited transcript of an interview conducted by talk radio host James Edwards with Patrick J. Buchanan several years ago about Pat’s book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. This transcript has never before appeared online and is being published now due to the recent interest generated by a Tucker Carlson podcast with historian Darryl Cooper in which similar, politically incorrect opinions about history were discussed.

* * *

James Edwards: Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War might be your most provocative book. What compelled you to write it?

Patrick J. Buchanan: There were several things. First, it is a phenomenal story. What happened to the Western nation that ruled the entire world in 1914? Thirty years later, all of Europe was in ashes or aflame. Communists had half of Europe, and all the great Western empires had been destroyed. I went back to try and locate the historic blunders that were made, and I think we located eight of them.

Secondly, it’s a cautionary tale for the United States. The arrogance and hubris you see of these monarchs and all their retainers just before World War I, we see emulated and copied today, frankly, by some folks in post-Cold War America. So, it was to try and tell a cautionary tale to prevent what happened to Great Britain and the British Empire from happening to us.

Edwards: What are the parallels between the United Kingdom during the years between the world wars and the United States today?

Buchanan: One of the greatest is the British decision to alienate friends like Japan, which had been an old ally in World War I. The Brits broke the treaty with them at the demand of the United States for no good reason whatsoever. Japan was driven into isolation, anger, and rage, and eventually returned to her imperial policy and collided with Great Britain.

Even Benito Mussolini, who loathed Adolf Hitler, was driven into Hitler’s arms by the British/French decision to sanction them over a colonial war in Ethiopia. That was a mistake.

Finally, there is this war guarantee that the British gave to Poland, unsolicited, even though Poland had participated in the rape of Czechoslovakia — at least the regime had.

You see all these decisions replicated with the United States handing out war guarantees in this century to the Baltic republics and Ukraine and elsewhere. I see the same pattern repeating itself again and again. I believe the gentleman who said that people do not learn from history was right.

Edwards: What are some of the myths that hold up Winston Churchill as a hero?

Buchanan: There is no question that Winston Churchill was a heroic figure in 1940 when he took over the premiership in Great Britain, just as the Germans were breaking through in the Ardennes. He defied Hitler. He defied the Germans. He fought on and inspired his people. He was the leader during the Battle of Britain. Americans watched that from across the ocean and there was an indelible impression that there was a defiant bulldog who represented the British people at their best. That’s a true story. That’s not just a myth.

However, there was another Churchill who, in 1942, 1943, and 1944, slipped into Moscow to divide Europe with Josef Stalin and groveled to Stalin in a way that would make Neville Chamberlain look like Davy Crockett. He was writing off the Poles, for whom the British had gone to war. If you go all the way back to 1913 and 1914, he was lusting for war far more than the Kaiser who was trying to avoid war.

These are the myths we have been raised on since we were kids, and this is one reason I wrote the book. At least the new generation coming up, who is not saturated or marinated in these myths, can understand why it was that our grandfathers and fathers destroyed Western Civilization.

Edwards: What is it about World War II that your detractors don’t seem to understand?

Buchanan: The book is dedicated to four of my uncles who were Greatest Generation Americans and fought in Europe, one of whom came back from Anzio with a Silver Star. But I think it’s the idea that this was a good war, a war where pure good fought pure evil, a war that had to be fought and was necessary, and there are no doubts or qualms about it. But that is not true.

And that’s why I, in effect, am dispelling some of the great myths by which Americans live when I say that Chamberlain and Churchill blundered serially, again and again, to bring about a war with Germany. Hitler didn’t want war with the West. He didn’t want war with Poland. He didn’t want a world war. He wasn’t even prepared for a world war.

To say that Hitler did horrible things in wartime is correct, but, as I say, had there been no war, there would have been no Holocaust, and I’m not sure there would have been a war if the British hadn’t issued this insane war guarantee to Poland.

Edwards: History is like a Sunday buffet. People take what they want and leave the rest on the table. Of course, it has been lost to antiquity that most Americans stood with Charles A. Lindbergh and the America First Committee in opposition to our entry into World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Buchanan: Well, good for you. Good for you for bringing up Col. Lindbergh’s name because his reputation has been blackened because of a single speech he made and a couple of paragraphs in it where he mentioned three forces are moving for war.

Of course, one of them is the Roosevelt Administration. The other is the British, which was clearly true. They had a man called “Intrepid,” William Stephenson, who tried to find ways to get the Americans into war by putting out propaganda and, frankly, blackmailing senators.

And then he said the Jewish community was beating the drums for war, but this was going to be a disaster for the Jewish community if we got into war. That was verboten to say, but no one has claimed what he said was palpably untrue. Before December 7, 1941, the America First Committee wanted to put up a resolution in Congress saying, “We declare war on Germany,” and have it voted up or down, but don’t sneak us by a back door into war.

Edwards: Had Divine Providence seen fit for Pearl Harbor to have never occurred, the United States stays home, and Germany proceeds to defeat Stalin, what would have happened to America? Would Hitler have come over here and taken us out?

Buchanan: Hitler did not war in the West. That’s why he didn’t demand the return of Alsace-Lorraine from France whereas he did want the return of Danzig from Poland and the League of Nations. He did not want war with Britain. Never did. He wanted to see the British Empire preserved. He was a great admirer of it. He thought Britain was a natural ally of Germany because they had no conflicts. So, I think, if the British hadn’t given the war guarantee, I don’t know if there would have even been a war with Poland because the German offer was not outrageous when asking for political control of their city, Danzig, with the Poles having economic control.

I don’t even know if there would have been a war with the Soviet Union then because Germany wouldn’t have had a border with the Soviet Union. They would have had to get permission from Romania, Poland, or Hungary to invade the Soviet Union. If Hitler had not declared war on the United States, I still think he might have been stopped in Russia, but the outcome of that war would have been in doubt because all the equipment we gave to Stalin enabled him to sustain his war effort and mount that enormous offensive the Russians had coming into Europe. I do think that if Germany had not gotten into the war by 1943, Stalin would have been on the Rhine.

Edwards: Hopefully a lot of American blood would have been spared.

Buchanan: There was a wonderful thing that the America First people did, and I was criticized for saying it, but they kept us out of war until after Hitler made his fatal blunder of invading Russia. This meant the Russians bore the burden of battle, and hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of American soldiers lived who would not have lived if we had had to fight Germany from the west without the Soviet Union in the war.

Edwards: How did you go about researching for this book? Who did you primarily consult with and reference when writing it?

Buchanan: After I wrote A Republic, Not an Empire, I got that good letter from Geroge Kennan, the great geo-strategist in the Cold War. He agreed with me on a point that I’ve been really torn apart for. I said that, after the Battle of Britain, if the Germans couldn’t get air superiority over the British Isles, they certainly couldn’t get it over the Atlantic. If they couldn’t land in England, they weren’t going to land in the United States.

It’s preposterous. There was no threat. I was attacked for that, and I sort of determined that, at some point, I’m going to expand on this argument because I think it’s true. So, I started reading more and more books. I was going to write a book on the war guarantee, and then you go back and ask, well, how did we get there?

Then you have to keep going back, and I had to cut it off in 1905. But I’ve got about 120 books, ranging from histories to biographies. I must have quoted six of Churchill’s books and six books by Andrew Roberts, a British historian and a friend of mine.

I just kept reading them and decided, here are the key decisions and pivot points that decided the history of the century.

One, of course, was the assassination of the archduke in World War I, Versailles was another, and I decided that the British breaking their treaty with Japan was yet another. Then I discovered that Mussolini allegedly despised Hitler and wanted an alliance with the West, so you had the Stresa Front agreement of 1935.

Then there are the familiar ones: Rhineland, the Anschluss, and Munich, but the key one is the war guarantee. That’s the soul of the book. If people can only read one chapter, read that one because it shows how leaders in panic, haste, and folly, who have been knocked on their heels by being humiliated, can make a horrendous decision that cost them everything. The whole British Empire and the British nation was put on the line in an insane war guarantee that the British could not honor and did not honor.

Edwards: If people want to learn more, they’ll have to buy the book, right, Pat?

Buchanan: Yes, sir.

Edwards: Last question. What might future wars look like?

Buchanan: In the coming world, I think the wars of race, ethnicity, and culture are going to replace the old wars of ideology, dynasty, and empire. I see that coming, and it’s not a pleasant sight. Pat Moynihan sort of saw it coming, and so did Dr. Arthur Schlesinger. I have read a number of columns on this, and you see the divisions in our society increasingly on the lines of race and ethnicity, and I don’t think it’s a pleasant prospect that our kids and grandkids will have to confront.

I am going to try to address it and see if there is any way it can be resolved short of some sort of Balkanization of America.

When not interviewing newsmakers, James Edwards has often found himself in the spotlight as a commentator, including many national television appearances. Over the past 20 years, his radio work has been featured in hundreds of newspapers and magazines worldwide. Media Matters has listed Edwards as a “right-wing media fixture” and Hillary Clinton personally named him as an “extremist” who would shape our country. For more information, please visit www.thepoliticalcesspool.org

JTA: JD Vance and Musk endorse the AfD. Germany must import more non-Germans

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies is a government-funded neocon think tank. They are rabidly pro-Israel and anti-Russia, and they are very worried about the Trump-Vance administration because of their expressed tendency to oppose war. But of course, as an essentially Jewish entity, they also love non-White immigration. Hence the conflict with Vance. The new DOGE headed by Musk and Ramaswamy should eliminate any government support for the FDD.

JD Vance appears to defend Germany’s far-right AfD party

Vance seemed to back the flagship policy of a party that has unsettled Germany’s Jews.

WASHINGTON — Vice President-elect J.D. Vance joined Elon Musk in appearing to defend the policies of the far-right Alternative for Germany party, and also seemed to take aim at a pro-Israel Washington think tank whose staffer had criticized the party.

Vance was responding to a post on X on Friday by Ivana Stradner, a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies whose specialties include Russia and Ukraine. She said that Musk’s praise of Alternative for Germany, known as AfD, was “SO dangerous” both for Europe and the United States.

Vance responded sarcastically, implying an endorsement one of AfD’s core policies — stricter limits on immigration.

“It’s so dangerous for people to control their borders. So so dangerous. The dangerous level is off the charts,” Vance tweeted on Saturday. “I wonder how much money this person’s employer gets from the American taxpayer?”

AfD, which is known for its anti-immigrant and anti-European Union stances, and whose popularity has been on the rise in Germany, has unsettled the country’s Jews. Some of its members have downplayed the Holocaust.

On Friday Musk, one of the world’s richest people and an influential adviser to President-elect Donald Trump, set off a torrent of concerned comment on Friday when he said on X, which he owns, that “Only the AfD can save Germany.” Musk, who is poised to take a role in Trump’s White House, doubled down on Saturday, tweeting “AfD is the only hope for Germany.”

In addition to working at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Stradner is also a correspondent for KyivPost, which covers Ukraine. While neither organization receives U.S. government funding — though FDD, a nonprofit, gets certain tax benefits — Vance’s jibe at Stradner’s “employer” could rattle Jewish and pro-Israel foreign policy mavens who otherwise have welcomed Trump’s impending return to the White House.

FDD favors a more confrontational posture toward Iran, Russia’s ally in the Middle East. It is independent and nonpartisan, but its leaders have made clear they believe Trump will be more robust than Biden in dealing with Iran in the region.

FDD and the Trump-Vance transition team did not return requests for comment.

Rep. Daniel Goldman, a New York Democrat who is Jewish, took aim at Vance for boosting the party on the weekend of a deadly car-ramming attack on a German Christmas market. The alleged attacker, a Saudi national, posted a range of sentiments online, including some that reportedly backed AfD.

“Yesterday, a right-wing terrorist murdered 5 people in Germany and @JDVance and @elonmusk are endorsing the Neo-Nazi AfD party that inspired him,” Goldman said. “You know what’s dangerous @JDVance? The antisemitism and Neo-Nazi ideology you’re supporting.”

Trump’s selection of Vance as running mate unsettled some in the conservative Jewish foreign policy community because of his isolationist bent. Vance has opposed continued U.S. backing for Ukraine in its efforts to repel the Russian invasion. He has said that Israel is an exception to his desire to pull America back from its involvement in foreign conflicts.

It’s not clear yet what Trump’s Ukraine plans are, other than a desire to quickly broker a peace.

Emil Kirkegaard: Somalis in the USA: also not a success; on the other hand, they become American citizens are breakneck speed

Emil Kirkegaard’s blog on the Somali immigrants to the U.S. is a welcome counterweight to Niall Ferguson’s (Ferguson has a Somali wife) enthusiasm for African immigration and lack of concern for race differences in traits like IQ that predict success in Western societies.

Excerpt:

Anyway, what I wanted to write about today is America’s growing Muslim program. Although America doesn’t really need to deliberately import low skill migrants to offset their aging population, they have decided to do so anyway. In particular, let’s look at Somalis. The national IQ of Somalia is about 68, and the population is about 100% Muslim. Since low IQ and Islam are the best predictors of immigrants performing poorly in Western countries, let’s look at whether America has been able to work some kind of magic. First, the numbers:

Somalis are curiously concentrated in 3 states, and about 40% of them live in Minnesota alone, so that’s likely where the best social statistics can be found. As a comparison, here’s the overall economic contribution of Somalis to the Danish economy, as estimated by the Danish government in 2023:

Somalia is the worst performing group covered. Previously, the new arrivals from ‘Syria’ did worse, but they have been improving a bit as they learned how to live in Denmark. The average Somali costs the Danish government, and thus taxpayer, about 130k DKK per year, or about 18k USD per year. The lifetime cost is not calculated, but if they live about 75 years on average, it would be about 1.4 million USD per person (the calculation is more complicated in real life because the numbers above are not age corrected, but cover the population as it is today).

Has America been able to work any magic? A glance at newspapers suggest this is not the case:

Granted, this is a 2009 article, but we can also find a Wikipedia page about Somali gangs in USA, and various government agencies have pages about the problems with Somalis. However, these are not hard numbers. Can we do better? Yes, I was able to find this article about sub-Saharan Africans in USA. Highlights:

  • “Meanwhile, Somalis had the lowest levels of educational attainment, with 14 percent holding a bachelor’s degree or higher.”
  • “while Somali-headed households had the lowest median incomes ($32,000).”
  • “or major origin groups, poverty rates were highest among Somalis (37 percent)”
  • “Immigrants from Somalia (68 percent) and Ethiopia (65 percent) had the highest rates of naturalization”
  • “South Africans had the lowest rate of being uninsured (8 percent) while Nigerians and Somalis had the highest rates (20 percent and 18 percent, respectively).”
  • “Remittances accounted for 35 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) of Somalia”

So, in other words, Somalis are the worst educated, lowest income, had the highest rate of poverty and being uninsured, and Somalia’s economy runs on migrants sending welfare money back. Finally, they are very eager to gain US citizenship, gaining it at the highest rates. Not mentioned here is that they also reproduce fast:

Their fertility rate was a staggering 5.2 children per woman, only beaten by the literal Amish and ultra-orthodox Jews.

Just as a comparison for the income number (household median), they are poorer than every other group listed on Wikipedia:

Native African Americans have a household income of 48,297, so Somali households are still 34% lower.

Given all of these findings, it is no surprise that local politician Tim Walz is keen on importing more of them as part of “strong moral tradition”.

A More Beautiful Future The world according to Niall Ferguson

When I first wrote about the historians’ reaction to Darryl Cooper’s condemnation of Winston Churchill, I was unaware of Niall Ferguson’s interview with Konstantin Kisin. Ferguson, I knew, particularly objected to Cooper and Carlson’s comments on the present state of Britain, which now contains more than eighteen million occupants of foreign ancestry. In his interview with Kisin, however, Ferguson was at his most fulsome and explicit in his support of the anti-white measures imposed on Western populations over the last century.

Problematising the right

The subject of the interview was ostensibly a response to Cooper and Carlson, but Ferguson eagerly used the occasion to articulate what connects the Second World War to the plight of white people today, which he welcomes. After disputing Cooper’s criticisms of Churchill, Ferguson proceeded to describe “a pretty clear dilemma” that he says has faced the political right in the USA and Europe:
Do you remain true to conservatism as, say, Bill Buckley [and] Churchill defined it… rooted in the rule of law, the idea of a free society … free elections … a free civil society and a free press … or do you go to a dark side [and adopt] ideas of racial hierarchy [or] ideas in which might is more important than right…[?]

I believe in a free society, free elections and a free press, at least insofar as they are consistent with private property. I believe might, in the form of the state, determines legitimacy, but doesn’t make right. As for racial hierarchy, who can watch Olympian athletes and dispute that it exists? As to the ethics, I think it is natural for societies and nation-states to prioritise their own native populations and to do nothing to welcome outsiders; this, if not arrested by universalists, results in varying racial hierarchies worldwide. The Masai are supreme in their domain, the English in theirs, and so on. I see no dilemma here.

Ferguson continues by saying that the right has, since the 19th century, had a “very fundamental problem… who are you getting into bed with?”. He praises Buckley for “solving” this problem by purging and repelling John Birchers and “explicit racists and segregationists” and asserting that “American conservatism cannot be an anti-civil rights movement”. Ferguson omits that Buckley simultaneously ‘got into bed with’ Zionists and recent apostates from revolutionary Marxism. He gives no explanation of the “problem” or what compelled Buckley to do any of what he describes. Why couldn’t American conservatism be an anti-civil rights movement? Likewise with Edward Heath and Enoch Powell, the latter of whose 1968 speech against what became the Race Relations Act was the British “fork in the road”. Ferguson said that Powell’s speech ended his career, eliding that Edward Heath chose to remove Powell from his shadow cabinet post despite the speech being supported by an overwhelming majority of the nation. Heath knew himself to be, in this and in joining the European Community, the leader of a subversive anti-nationalist minority, and of this in particular Ferguson evidently approves. Conservatives, he tells us “believed in free trade, a free society — essentially classical liberalism in the days of Thatcher — and the far right were essentially skinheads and the National Front…” Conservatives believed in classical liberalism? Again, unexplained. The proper function of a leader of the right, for Ferguson, is to be an impostor and a phoney, displacing traditionalists and patriots and supporting and entrenching the achievements of the left, especially in regard to race (hence the endurance of the Civil Rights and Race Relations Acts).

William Buckley, the libertarian totalitarian
More than once, Konstantin Kisin raises the issue of native Europeans being on course to become minorities in their homelands. Ferguson cites his marriage to a Somali woman as both a sufficient answer to Kisin’s question and a self-evident justification for immigration in general. Even if a few people form loving mixed-race families, Ferguson does not say why politicians in Britain, France or Germany should also import millions of complete strangers. He does inform us that

in the 19th century, there was a disastrous backlash against large scale immigration, disastrous because it went from observing the social problems that always arise… to a theory of racial difference… [which] crossed the Atlantic and was adopted by the far right all over Europe including by Hitler… If you start to believe this stuff… [that] they’re fundamentally incompatible with our society… the path to genocide is the path you’re choosing. That’s the lesson of history.

Thus any doubt as to the benefits of mixing populations is precluded: such doubt leads to genocide and we are obliged to contradict it regardless of rationality or experience. Ferguson does not specify whether the same applies in regard to Israel, where racial hierarchy with Jews at the apex is both a theory and a law; Kisin doesn’t ask.

Ferguson’s wife is Somali, therefore British politicians should import millions of Congolese and Namibians

Ferguson proceeds to assert that “the ideas and institutions of a free society”, which he identifies with Britain and North America, “are open source technology” which “can be enjoyed, adopted and embraced by anybody” regardless of race. There was, he says, “no particularity of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants that made them more successful economically than anyone else”. Why else that success occurred is unsaid. Ferguson’s concern is to establish that Whites, especially WASPs, are dispensable. This all goes unchallenged.

Asked by Kisin’s assistant whether people have a predilection for authoritarian rule, Ferguson resumed the eternal panegyric on the necessity and genius of Churchill, who “was as much an anti-Bolshevik and anti-Stalinist as he was an anti-Nazi and anti-Hitlerist” and saw that “fighting with Stalin on your side against Hitler, which of course Britain did after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, was literally a pact with the Devil”. Like Andrew Roberts, Ferguson credits Churchill’s prescience in foreseeing, in addition to the world wars, the Cold War: the Soviets

were the lesser evil strategically in 1941–5, but as soon as Hitler’s dead, you have to recognise that it’s an evil too and you must prepare to defend Western civilisation against that enemy. This is what’s so good about Churchill — he’s consistent. He makes this choice of evils because it’s forced upon him by Hitler.

This is simply false, as I have shown. Churchill began to side with the Soviets and an international alliance of leftists and wealthy, influential Jews against Germany shortly after Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933. The German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 did not force Churchill’s hand as much as it answered his prayers, finally providing the pretext to formalise the alliance he had personally fostered; he did not regretfully ally with the Soviets in the face of a common menace but willingly assisted the Soviet ascendance from 1933 until Yalta.

Ferguson proceeds seamlessly from his laudation of Churchill’s “pact with the Devil” into an unbidden paean to racial mixing, laying out his own “theory of racial hierarchy”:

God bless all the children who are produced by mixed unions… they’re the future, and it’s a beautiful future. They actually look better on the whole than people of pure race (with no disrespect to my white children by my first marriage who are also very beautiful)… This is the future. We can’t avoid this future unless we want to go extinct as a species. Why? Because population collapse is a reality for a whole bunch of ethnic sub-groups.

Some people’s growing disinclination to procreate presents, to Ferguson, a thrilling opportunity. The likes of Anglo-Saxons, who originated the best “ideas and institutions” in the world (purely by chance), can pass them onto more beautiful people as they retire from existence. Ferguson projects that mankind will diminish to about 2 billion people by 2100 and says that only Africans will continue to proliferate during that time. Preventing African immigration into the rest of the world is thus an absurdity. “You’ve got to explain how that’s going to work economically,” we are told. Ferguson accuses elderly voters of wanting to have no immigration and no inflation, which he suggests we should regard as paradoxical. If we had had, or have in future, lower immigration, there would have been, or will be, much higher inflation because the labour force would be much smaller, he says. The number of people potentially available as labourers is, apparently, the main determinant of inflation. Ferguson presumably refers, without wanting to put a fine point on it, to the effect of immigration most valued by its proponents: with open borders, employers can always find a cheaper employee or found a cheaper plant instead of negotiating with British workers over pay and conditions or satisfying customers who want British-made products and services. At any rate, such arguments are moot for Ferguson, as he knows the future:

There will be mass migration. There will be miscegenation. There will be more brown people. … Keeping Africans out of the rest of the world is a doomed enterprise. The only question that interests me is how do you make the assimilation process as successful for every African as it has been for my wife. That must be possible.

He doesn’t say why that must be possible; nor does he address the likely difficulties of assimilating every African into the culture and conventions originated (by chance) by what will become, in his vision, the small and dwindling (and less beautiful) minority of the population who are of native European ancestry.

Assimilation

Ferguson shows particular disdain for Hungary under the government of Viktor Orban, whom he associates with Vladimir Putin. He falsely implies that Hungary has stopped immigration and says it is “aging out” and “doesn’t have a future”. Instead, for Ferguson,

The question is what do we do to make assimilation work so that the multi-racial societies we’ve already created, that we can’t uncreate, are harmonious, productive and committed to the ideals of freedom.

Putting aside the tactical pretence of inevitability, it is not clear what Ferguson is referring to. There are no “multi-racial societies” to uncreate. That there are currently millions of foreigners occupying our homelands is a fact, but one which beckons to a single, obvious solution: mass repatriation to their own lands. When this occurs, few social bonds will be severed, as few have been formed between the different races and cultures. Ferguson’s own family may exemplify what he wants for the world, but it remains unusual and unrepresentative.

Ferguson’s portrayal of history is misleading on other counts. He asserts that Poles, Irish and Jews caused nativist fears but all assimilated quickly into America. Of Poles and Irish this may be true, but Jews, in America as everywhere, are assertively identitarian, typically referring to themselves as American Jews, or just Jews, rather than as Americans. A large majority of them are openly, proudly loyal to a foreign state on ethnic/tribal grounds. In no sense are such people assimilated, and they don’t want to be. America is merely their base of operations. Ferguson, though, names only one foreign group incompatible with his vision for Western countries: the Muslim Brotherhood (which happens to be a major opponent of Israel), as it propounds Islamic fundamentalism, which contradicts the aforementioned institutions of a free society. Even then, he condones no restrictions on Muslim immigration. The only restrictions he does support are on illegal immigration, and only because the illegality angers ordinary people and provokes them to adopt more nationalist positions.

American Jews

Replacement

Near the end of the interview, Kisin tries again to raise the interests of native Europeans, and puts to Ferguson that they are being replaced with immigrants, apparently attempting to steel-man the nativist case. Yet Ferguson is determined not to give a serious answer and chides Kisin that there aren’t “bands of asylum seekers” hunting down British natives. He scoffs that “replacement” is a “buzzword” of “the transgressive right” and “has no validity”. Historically, he says, “mass migration is the name of the game” and “civilisations don’t clash” but are “much more likely to fuse”. He then reminds us that our low fertility rates require us to be replaced by others. The formulation, for anyone wishing to emulate Sir Niall, is as follows: replacement is inevitable, continuous throughout history and beneficial, and those who oppose it must be defeated, but it isn’t happening.

Ferguson is a long-standing supporter of Kemi Badenoch, whom he posits as an ideal manager of the decommissioning of the White race. She and others of the “new generation” can make the arguments he’s making but better, as can his wife, he says. “I’m just a dead white male. What do I know?” asks the ‘anti-woke’ professor. I have never heard Ferguson’s wife make such arguments, and to my knowledge she is nowhere near as anti-White as he is. His fervour is sufficiently embarrassing for none other than Konstantin Kisin to try to mitigate it, though to no avail.

Is this Churchill’s legacy? Is Britain now as Churchill intended? Did he save his nation, the West or the world in order to see White people supplanted by Africans? If not, why does Ferguson identify Churchill with Buckley, Heath, Sohrab Amari, Victor Davis Hanson, Christopher Hitchens, Bari Weiss and himself in the fight against the “transgressive right”? Are other Churchillians not embarrassed by Ferguson? Why not?

Requiem for the Duke University Fake Rape

Coulter emphasizes the anti-White aspect of the episode. Most conservatives won’t go there.

Requiem for the Duke University Fake Rape and the stripper who made a fool of The New York Times [and the Duke U. administration and faculty]

It was nice to see Crystal Mangum, victim of the nonexistent gang rape by Duke lacrosse players in 2006, admit last week that it was all a fake-out. Many of you were happy, though bored, and moved on. But cruel people like me aren’t ready to move on.

The Duke lacrosse case was the ne plus ultra of the media’s anti-White hate. Lacrosse is the oldest team sport in America (apart from scalping and human sacrifice) now played by mostly White, preppie, upper-middle-class kids. So when Mangum claimed she’d been gang-raped, beaten, kicked and strangled by members of the Duke lacrosse team after being hired as a stripper, the media thought it was Christmas Day.

In lieu of reporting, news reports were bristling with references to “frat boys,” “entitled,” someone’s “daddy,” “white male privilege,” “the patriarchy” and — of course — “slave masters.” (“The tangled American opera of race, sex and privilege” -— in the deathless prose of New York Times reporter Duff Wilson.)

Mangum’s credibility was not exactly bulletproof. A year earlier, she’d been hospitalized for psychiatric problems; she was on antidepressants, in addition to having a serious drinking problem; and she once pleaded guilty after trying to run over a police officer with a taxicab she’d just stolen. This also wasn’t the first time she’d claimed to have been gang-raped by three men. Even her father said the previous allegation was false.

Moreover, her claims about the lacrosse players were really a kaleidoscope of stories. First, she insisted she hadn’t been raped at all, and then she said she’d been raped, but the number of rapists kept changing (20, five, four, three or two, before she finally settled on three), as did the number of orifices that had been raped.

None of the doctors and nurses who examined Mangum found any physical evidence that she’d been raped, much less violently gang-raped in a small bathroom. Even when given an absurd and unconstitutional photo “lineup” of only team members (no wrong answers!), her description of the rapists was so at variance with the actual players that some speculate she was trying to hit the eject button on the whole case. But District Attorney Mike Nifong wouldn’t let her.

After a year of Nifong torturing the “suspects” (with the enthusiastic cooperation of Duke University) — putting them in handcuffs for the cameras, lying about their cooperation, hiding the DNA evidence clearing them — then-North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper took over the case, dismissed all charges, and took the highly unusual step of declaring the players, “innocent.” DA Nifong was removed, disbarred and jailed.

Why would any prosecutor so maniacally pursue trumped up charges, in open defiance of the evidence? It seems that Nifong was up for reelection and was trying to impress his Black constituents. As Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson put it in their excellent book on the case, “Until Proven Innocent“: “Black leaders and voters made it clear that his only chance of winning the primary was … by indicting lacrosse players for a rape that he must have known they did not commit.”

I note at this juncture that there is no jurisdiction in the country where a prosecutor could impress White constituents by railroading innocent Black men.

In a surprise development, The New York Times reported the case honestly at first, with Joe Drape talking to both sides, the prosecution AND the defense. Unfortunately, any actual reporting inevitably cast doubt on the state’s case. So Drape was promptly yanked off the story, and it was handed to writers who could be counted on to talk only to Nifong.

Times sportswriter Selena Roberts wrote an entire column premised on Nifong’s easily disproved claim that the athletes had refused to cooperate. In her first column on the case on March 31, 2006, Roberts wrote: “Players have been forced to give up their DNA, but to the dismay of investigators, none have come forward to reveal an eyewitness account.”

In fact, the accused immediately gave statements to the police of their own free will — without counsel present — and eagerly provided their DNA, blood and saliva samples, knowing it would prove them innocent (which it did … to no effect).

The Times had to issue a correction to Roberts’ claim.

But Roberts burbled on, comparing the lacrosse team to “drug dealers and gang members engaged in an anti-snitch campaign,” accusing them of being “roped off from the norms of decent behavior,” and abiding by “the Vegas rule of ‘what goes on here, stays here.'”

Appalled by the players’ supposed lack of cooperation, Roberts turned, naturally, to a women’s study professor, Katie Gentile at John Jay College. Based on her extensive research, Gentile explained to Times readers that, for male athletes, “your self-esteem is more valuable to you than someone else’s life.”

Someone else’s life?

The only lives that were nearly destroyed here were those of the accused lacrosse players. Give me any reason why — it doesn’t even have to be true, just a reason — other than that they were White men.

COPYRIGHT 2024 ANN COULTER

“Christmas Market Attack Suspect Was a Saudi Arabian ‘Leftist’ Asylum Activist Promoted by BBC”

The lesson seems to be that even anti-Islam activists should not be allowed into Europe.

Breitbart: “Christmas Market Attack Suspect Was a Saudi Arabian ‘Leftist’ Asylum Activist Promoted by BBC

According to reports, the Saudi Arabian man arrived in Germany in 2006 after allegedly fleeing his homeland for fear of persecution for being an atheist. He was granted asylum in Germany in 2016 and had been living in the town of Bernburg — near Magdeburg — where he worked as a psychiatrist.

After moving to Germany, the suspect reportedly established a service to assist other asylum seekers move to Germany. For this work, he was profiled in “several media outlets from FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) to BBC to promote his mission for human rights in Saudi Arabia,” Welt reports.

The BBC noted in 2019 that he focussed on helping ex-Muslims flee from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region, with a particular focus on women.

In an interview with FAZ during the same year, Taleb proclaimed that he was “the most aggressive critic of Islam in history,” claiming that he was ostracized from the Muslim community in Germany over his atheism. In the article he also detailed his move to become a pro-asylum seeker activist in Germany.

An editor’s note attached to the article following him being identified as the suspected Magdeburg attacker, FAZ wrote: “This interview with Taleb Al A. was published in June 2019. Entries of the alleged assassin in the social media indicate that he has also been increasingly quarreling with Germany and its migration policy over the five and a half years since then. There are also signs of persecution delusions. Nothing of this was felt in 2019. Here is the unchanged wording of the conversation.”

Since then, Taleb A became increasingly critical of the German government and its migration agenda, accusing Berlin of promoting the “Islamization” of Europe. He appears to have been particularly angered over the acceptance rate of “Syrian jihadists” compared to ex-Muslims from Saudi Arabia.

While much media attention in the wake of the attack has focussed on statements Taleb made in support of the populist right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) party over its critiques of Islamic immigration, he apparently considered himself to be a leftist.

“Taleb A. said in the interview that he was not a right-winger and described himself as a leftist,” Der Spiegel reports.

The German news magazine also reports that Berlin security agencies received three warnings from Saudi Arabia about the suspect. They were also warned following a 2023 post vowing “revenge” against Germany for supposed persecution of Saudi Arabian refugees and that the country would pay a “price”. However, officials allegedly dismissed the statements and reportedly did not consider him to be a threat as a potential extremist.

In another post in 2024 reported by Welt, he is claimed to have said: “I assure you: If Germany wants war, we will have it. If Germany wants to kill us, we will slaughter them, die or proudly go to prison. Because we have exhausted all peaceful means, we have only encountered more crimes from the police, the state security service, the public prosecutor’s office, the judiciary and the Ministry of the Interior. Peace is of no use to them.”

There are increasing suggestions that the suspect may have suffered from some form of mental illness, with German media describing his posts online as having been “confused”.

According to the BILD newspaper, a saliva drug test taken after the attack indicated that the suspect may have been intoxicated at the time of the attack. While it is currently unclear what drug he may have been on, the paper notes that the test scans for seven different drugs, including amphetamines, benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine, opiates, cocaine, and methamphetamines (MDMA, ecstasy).