From Mondoweiss: Gaza ceasefire reveals Israel’s fragility, and the transformative power of resistance

/in /by

An Arab intellectual meditates on the ceasefire deal. A gift for Trump, while for Biden “They leave as faithful sons of a political legacy that demands unyielding allegiance to Israel, a history that exacted their loyalty even as it unraveled them. They are tragic liberals…” Israel: “Despite claims of strategic success—a weakened Hezbollah, a diminished Iran, and a battered Hamas—Israel has not secured the total victory it seeks. Hezbollah remains a capable force, Iran’s regional influence endures, and Hamas persists as a reminder of the limits of Israel’s military campaigns, while Yemen proved its capacity to disrupt global shipping. The mainstream media amplifies claims of strategic triumph, yet the reality is far more sobering: the once-mythologized Israeli military now appears both brutal and highly ineffective, its aura of invincibility shattered on the global stage.”

Gaza ceasefire reveals Israel’s fragility, and the transformative power of resistance

In the wake of a ceasefire, many will try to force the discourse into a binary of victory and defeat. But as the dust settles, a true picture emerges: one of the fragility of the Israeli colony, and the transformative power of resistance.
By   
Palestinians react to news of a ceasefire agreement with Israel, in Deir al Balah, central Gaza Strip, 15 January 2025. According to US and Hamas officials, Israel and Hamas agreed on a hostage deal and ceasefire, to be implemented in the coming days. (Photo by Omar Ashtawy apaimages)Palestinians Palestinians react to news of a ceasefire agreement with Israel, in Deir al Balah, central Gaza Strip, 15 January 2025. According to US and Hamas officials, Israel and Hamas agreed on a hostage deal and ceasefire, to be implemented in the coming days. (Photo by Omar Ashtawy apaimages)

The Qatari Minister of Foreign Affairs, in a pivotal announcement on Wednesday evening, confirmed that Israel and the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) have finalized a deal designed to halt Israel’s genocidal and destructive war in the Gaza Strip for at least 42 days. This accord is essentially a reworking of the previously proposed ceasefire arrangement in May by the Biden administration, when Hamas declared its acceptance of the ceasefire agreement, while Israel reneged on it and continued with the war. It turned out Israel wanted time to both bring out more destruction in Gaza, more death, and use its mix of cards to subdue Hezbollah in Lebanon. Within this context, Qatar emerges once again as one of the biggest winners in this agreement, solidifying its role as a critical node in the architecture of regional diplomacy. The small Gulf state has mastered the art of maneuvering between adversaries, leveraging its relationships with seemingly irreconcilable actors to mediate where others falter. In doing so, Doha reaffirms its place as the capital of dealmaking, able to turn to Trump with a simple pitch: if deals are your game, this is where they happen.

For Donald Trump, the agreement is less a diplomatic breakthrough than a carefully wrapped narrative gift. It hands him a clean storyline of triumph—the return of Israeli captives, the cessation of conflict—crafted perfectly to match his populist brand of politics. It slots seamlessly into the mythology of his presidency: the consummate dealmaker, the leader who succeeds where others fail, the disruptor who shakes the foundations of entrenched stalemates and deadly status quos.

As for Joe Biden and his foreign policy team, however, the agreement serves as a grim epilogue to their tenure—a fading shadow at the helm of power, lingering but powerless. They leave as faithful sons of a political legacy that demands unyielding allegiance to Israel, a history that exacted their loyalty even as it unraveled them. They are tragic liberals, not merely complicit but tragically compelled, witnesses and participants in a machinery of destruction that predates their time and will outlive it. Their defense, when it comes, will rest not on agency but on necessity, as though they were bound by forces beyond their control. And yet, there was a choice. They chose monstrosity and they leave office knowing full well that it could have been otherwise.

Israel’s fractured narrative

In Israel, the agreement marks the unraveling of one narrative and the tentative construction of another—a precarious attempt to shift from the fantasy of total victory to the pragmatism of sufficient victory. Israel now confronts the limits of its aspirations, compelled to take solace in its geopolitical accomplishments. These include its intelligence apparatus’s success in infiltrating the Lebanese resistance and its capacity to wield immense destructive power in Gaza and Lebanon. However, these celebrated achievements remain overshadowed by unresolved contradictions. Beneath the triumphalist rhetoric lies a fundamental question: what, in tangible terms, has Israel achieved?

Despite claims of strategic success—a weakened Hezbollah, a diminished Iran, and a battered Hamas—Israel has not secured the total victory it seeks. Hezbollah remains a capable force, Iran’s regional influence endures, and Hamas persists as a reminder of the limits of Israel’s military campaigns, while Yemen proved its capacity to disrupt global shipping. The mainstream media amplifies claims of strategic triumph, yet the reality is far more sobering: the once-mythologized Israeli military now appears both brutal and highly ineffective, its aura of invincibility shattered on the global stage.

This reckoning extends beyond the battlefield. The military’s failures—its inability to anticipate threats, or deliver decisive outcomes—will slowly ripple through Israeli society, exposing long-simmering tensions. Delays in finalizing a ceasefire, prioritization of settlement expansion over recovering prisoners for many rightwing forces, and the Haredim’s refusal to enlist have deepened internal fractures. These tensions are further compounded by attempts to redraw the state’s legal framework and the economic and social fallout of the war. For a state that ties its survival to military dominance, these cracks reveal the limits of unity after the war. As Israeli society will now have to reckon both with its crimes, its successes, and its new image in the world.

Israel’s most exceptional achievement lies not in securing victory but in showcasing unrelenting devastation—a capacity to destroy on an immense scale. This persistence in destruction, rather than achieving security, underscores the lengths to which Israel is willing—and permitted—to go. In this paradox lies its most profound failure: the collapse of its ethical narrative and the erosion of its moral legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

The ceasefire further exposes a growing distrust in the promise of safety along Israel’s militarized frontiers, both in the North and South. The illusion of an impenetrable fortress is eroding, as borders remain volatile and adversaries endure. Israelis living on the frontier are forced to confront the unsettling truth that the mechanisms designed to ensure their security are no longer sufficient, their efficacy undermined by the enduring realities of resistance and occupation.

Unable to extinguish the Palestinians or their political claims, and unwilling to engage in a grammar of recognition, Israel has condemned itself to perpetual war. This condition, far from reflecting strength, highlights Israel’s acute dependency on its imperial patron, whose unwavering support has become more essential than ever to its continued supremacy fused with racialized discourse in the region. The addiction to war leaves Israel navigating a path that offers neither resolution nor reconciliation—only the persistence of its contradictions and its role in defining the frontiers of monstrosity in the twenty-first century. Israel comes out of this war with a changed strategic environment, some of these changes will play for its benefit, and will enable it to buy time. But it also comes having lost much morally, politically and indeed in its own social and political infighting.

[Continues]

Hermer’s Harmers: The Hidden Jewish Handle of the Rape-Gang Scandal

/7 Comments/in , /by

Richard Hermer must be utterly horrified. He’s the Jewish Attorney-General for the current Labour government and in 2024 he delivered the Bingham Lecture, a little-known but highly important event in Britain’s legal calendar. The title of his lecture was “The Rule of Law in an Age of Populism” and Hermer hammered away tirelessly on his central theme. As I pointed out in “Kritarchs on Krusade,” he used the phrase “rule of law” nearly seventy times, loudly and proudly proclaiming that “the rule of law is the bedrock on which” democracy rests.

Hermer, Goldsmith, Garland and Dreyfus, four Jewish Attorney-Generals who believe in the rule of leftism, not the rule of law

That’s why Hermer must be so horrified by the renewed scandal about non-White Muslim rape-gangs. Once again the British media have been full of stories about how the sacred rule of law, bedrock of democracy, has not applied for decades in towns and cities up and down the country. No, the opposite has applied: the rule of crime. Decade after decade, police, politicians and social workers have done nothing as non-White Muslim men have committed highly serious crimes against working-class White girls. Indeed, the authorities have been worse than inactive: they have collaborated with the crimes. When White fathers sought to rescue their daughters from rape and sexual exploitation by non-White men, the police arrested the fathers and left the non-White men free to continue their rape and torture. The local council in Rotherham, most infamous but far from largest of the rape-gang hotspots, determinedly sacked, censored and silenced those who tried to expose the horrors taking place there.

Gasping with Goldsmith

And worse still from Richard Hermer’s point of view, this trashing of the sacred rule of law took place under the aegis of his own beloved Labour party. He must be boiling with indignation at how his own party has actively and atrociously betrayed the very working-class folk it was founded in 1900 to champion and protect. So surely Richard Hermer has not remained silent about the scandal. Surely he has thundered forth denunciations of both the trashing of the rule of law and the betrayal of the White working-class by the laughably misnamed Labour party. Indeed, we can confidently expect that Peter Goldsmith, another Jewish legal giant, has joined Hermer in denouncing the trashing of the rule of law. Goldsmith must be gasping with horror too, because like Hermer he served as Attorney-General in a Labour government that allowed the rule of law to be abandoned and its traditional supporters to fall victim to atrocious crimes.

So have Hermer and Goldsmith, those two leftist legal giants and shining ornaments of the Jewish community, made any speeches or issued any statements about the scandal? Have they demanded the restoration of the rule of law to the town and cities where, decade after decade, it has been unforgivably and abominably ignored? Of course they haven’t. That’s because leftist lawyers like Hermer and Goldsmith don’t practise what they preach. As I pointed out in “Kritarchs on Krusade,” Hermer believes in the rule of leftism, not the rule of law. And the rule of leftism has been working perfectly in all the towns and cities ruled by rape-gangs and abandoned by the rule of law. Leftism preaches equality and practises hierarchy. In the leftist hierarchy of race, non-White Muslim men are far above White working-class girls and women. In the leftist hierarchy of religion, Islam is sacred and Christianity is septic. That’s why the Labour council and Labour MP in Rotherham did not lift a finger to protect the White girls being raped, tortured and sometimes murdered by non-White Muslim men.

The hidden hand of Jews

But there’s an additional factor, something unaddressed even by the commentators who have denounced the rape-gangs and demanded the restoration of the rule of law. This additional and unaddressed factor is in fact not just central to the scandal but the underlying cause of the scandal. What is it? It’s the role of Jews and Jewish ideology. The Labour MP for Rotherham who ignored the rape-gangs was called Denis MacShane. When he was jailed in 2013 for fraud, he was saluted by the Jewish Chronicle in London as “one of the [Jewish] community’s greatest champions.” But MacShane wasn’t elected to champion Jews in far-off London. He was elected to champion the White working-class in Rotherham, a decidedly un-Jewish town in the northern county of Yorkshire. MacShane belonged to the Labour Party, not the Judaic Party. And he has often proclaimed himself to be a staunch feminist.

Denis MacShane, a so-called Labour MP who worked for Jews, committed fraud and utterly betrayed the White working-class (image from Wikipedia)

So why did MacShane not serve those he was meant to serve? Why did he abandon White working-class girls to rape, torture and murder at the hands of non-White Muslim men? Because he unflinchingly follows the modern priorities of what he has called “my beloved Labour party.” Labour long ago abandoned its founding principles and became a vehicle for serving Jewish interests, not the interests of the White working-class. Leftist Jews regard Muslims as “natural allies” against Whites, therefore the Labour party has refused to protect its traditional White working-class supporters from Muslim predation. Even among White nationalists, too many people fail to understand the Jewish role in Labour’s Islamophilia. For example, Mark Gullick has written an interesting and insightful article about the scandal called “Protecting Brand Islam.” But he doesn’t mention Jews once in the article. That’s why he made a serious error and a significant omission when he wrote this:

The current definition of Islamophobia was drawn up by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims, they being the only ethnic or religious minority to be afforded their own such cross-party parliamentary committee. It reads as follows: “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.” (“Protecting Brand Islam,” Counter Currents, 6th January 2025)

Denis MacShane would correct Gullick at once, because Muslims are not “the only ethnic or religious minority to be afforded their own such cross-party parliamentary committee.” Jews were there first. In 2006 MacShane chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Antisemitism, which, as he proudly noted, “was hailed as a model of its kind and changed government policy.” Yes, it was a model for the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPGBM), just as that “definition of Islamophobia” had an earlier Jewish model. Wes Streeting, the homosexual Labour politician who co-chaired the APPGBM, proudly noted that its definition of Islamophobia — “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness or perceived Muslimness” — was “presented within a framework resembling the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.”

Jewish generals in the War on Whites

In other words, the leftist sacralization of “Brand Islam” has been inspired by and modelled on the sacralization of Brand Jew. As I noted in “Free Speech Must Die!,” Streeting went on to claim this: “Contrary to myth, the definition I helped devise isn’t a threat to free speech.” He was lying, of course. The definition is a very serious threat to free speech. Streeting and his fellow leftists wouldn’t have “devised” it otherwise. Jews regard Muslims as “natural allies” in part because Muslims also hate free speech. In effect, Muslims are footsoldiers in a war on Whites and the West overseen by Jewish generals. Like Blacks, Muslims are a non-White group with a low average IQ and low average levels of educational attainment. Like Blacks, Muslims could never have gained their current heights in the leftist hierarchy without the active help of Jews, who are much more powerful, intelligent and verbally skilled. If you want to see Jews working to lift Muslims and lower Whites, here are a few headlines:

Britain’s non-White Muslim rape-gangs exist because of Jews and Jewish ideology. Britain’s non-White Muslim rape-gangs have operated with impunity for the same reason. But Muslims aren’t, of course, the only minority whom Jews regard as “natural allies.” Therefore Muslims aren’t the only minority in Britain to whom the “rule of law” has not applied. Margaret Hodge, another member of the Jewish elite, headed a Labour council in London that, just like the Labour council in Rotherham, granted a sacred minority permission to prey on children with impunity:

Margaret Hodge grins at the goyim in Labour Friends of Israel

In 1985, Margaret Hodge, Islington’s then leader, introduced a “positive action” drive to recruit gay and minority ethnic people into Council jobs, including sensitive roles working with children. So far so good. But an independent inquiry into the Council revealed how this well-intentioned policy heralded an end to effective recruitment checks and became a strong disincentive to challenging bad practice.

Recruitment in Islington was overseen by an Equal Opportunities Unit which set about removing the safeguards that might have stopped a prolific child abuser infiltrating a children’s home. … The positive discrimination policy had serious unintended consequences, the inquiry found. Staff were able to exploit children for their own purposes while managers felt unable to discipline or dismiss staff from marginalised communities. “It cannot be a coincidence that of the 32 staff named in these records, a number fall within these groups,” the report said.

“Intelligent and well-meaning women even categorically advised the council that gay men were less likely to abuse children than heterosexual men. Those raising safeguarding concerns were vilified as homophobic,” according to Eileen Fairweather, the journalist who broke the story of the abuse. What followed was years of violence and abuse of exceptionally vulnerable children in Islington-run homes. The two-part Evening Standard exposé revealed pimps and predatory child abusers were both visiting, and staying in, children’s rooms. Accounts from former residents described rapes and beatings.

Children were given drugs, introduced to porn, impregnated and abused into prostitution. Their stories were supported by staff who had tried to blow the whistle. The Standard accused Islington of a “slavish adherence to a confused ideology” which allowed abusers to shelter behind gay rights and meant that Islington could dismiss its critics as “bigots”.

Concerns about pimps of African Caribbean heritage were dismissed as racist. In contrast, Neville Mighty — a Jamaican-born whistle-blower who was one of the first to try to stop the abuse — was himself accused of inappropriate behaviour, and sacked. Margaret Hodge’s response was to dismiss the Standard’s reporting as “gutter journalism”. Her attitude was typical of Islington’s “Stalinist reluctance” to study the facts when they failed to fit the theory. “If gays are oppressed, then all gay men are good, was its simplistic credo,” Fairweather wrote in the Independent in 1995. “Men who hurt boys were not ‘gay’ — they were paedophiles.” (“Beware the false victim: History shows the folly of insisting that certain classes of people can do no wrong,” The Critic, May 2023)

What happened in Islington under a Labour council is exactly like what happened in Rotherham under a Labour council: “Children were given drugs, introduced to porn, impregnated and abused into prostitution.” In Islington, those “raising safeguarding concerns were vilified as homophobic” and racist. In Rotherham, those raising safeguarding concerns were vilified as “Islamophobic” and racist. In Islington, it was Brand Homo at work. In Rotherham, it was — and is — Brand Islam. But those two brands are in fact antithetical. Muslims hate homos, so you can’t understand what is going on until you recognize that what’s really at work is Brand Jew. In Islington, homosexuals and Blacks were the sacred minorities released from the rule of law to rape and exploit as they pleased. In Rotherham, the sacred minority were — and still are — Muslims. But in both places, the sacred minorities are footsoldiers in a war on the White heterosexual majority directed by Jewish generals.

The good ones don’t outweigh the bad

It isn’t a coincidence that the Labour head of Islington council was a Jew just as the Labour MP for Rotherham was “one of the [Jewish] community’s greatest champions.” Minorities were released from the rule of law in Islington and Rotherham because of Jewish ideology, which insists that minorities are virtuous and the White heterosexual majority are villainous. But it’s also important to note that the article about child-rape in Islington was written by a Jewish journalist called Julie Bindel, who herself acknowledged the “Jamaican-born whistle-blower” Neville Mighty. Bindel and Mighty have worked against the harm done by Jewish ideology.

That’s why we can never claim that all Jewish and Black individuals are actively harmful to Whites. But we can certainly claim that Jews and Blacks, as groups, do grossly disproportionate harm to Whites and that we would be far better off without them. The good ones, like Bindel and Mighty, do not outweigh the harm done by the bad ones. It’s not even close. And unless the good ones call out the harm done by the bad ones, the good ones are complicit in that harm. The Jewish journalist Larry Auster did call out his fellow Jews for their central role in the war on Whites and the West. The Jewish journalist Julie Bindel does not do that.

The rule of Jews

And despite her courageous stand against some aspects of leftist lunacy, Julie Bindel still promotes the central dogmas of leftist lunacy when she says “… the problem is neither immigration nor a particular racial or religious group. The problem is the incompetence of those tasked with protecting the most vulnerable in our society and a criminal justice system that is geared to fail all victims.” Contra Bindel, the problem is indeed immigration and is indeed the pathologies of non-Whites and Muslims. And as Bindel herself has repeatedly shown, leftism is not guilty of “incompetence” but of active collaboration with non-White and homosexual child-rapists.

Those rapists can be described as Hermer’s harmers, that is, as minority footsoldiers in a war on Whites and the West directed by Jewish generals like Richard Hermer, Attorney-General in a Labour government that hates the White working-class. Despite his fetishistic invocation of the “rule of law,” the Jewish legal giant Richard Hermer is not at all horrified by the decades-long trashing of the rule of law in favor of non-White Muslim rape-gangs. On the contrary, Hermer has worked tirelessly to maintain the trashing. When Jews like Hermer say “rule of law,” they mean “rule of leftism” and they think “rule of Jews.”

Horus on Substack: “A classic essay from 2012 by Brenton Sanderson…”

/3 Comments/in /by
Classic indeed!
Horus

A classic essay from 2012 by Brenton Sanderson on how Australia was re-defined by politicians and academics in order to justify the mass importation of strangers from all over the world, which they are currently doing at the fastest rate in history, obviously with the aim of reducing white Australians to a hated minority, as is occurring in nearly every white country. These things do not just happen. They are driven by particular anti-white activists who can be overthrown and prosecuted as traitors.

theoccidentalobserver.net

The War on White Australia: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 1 of 5 – The Occidental Observer

13
2

White Dreams and the Politics of Cold Turkey: The Internecine Proclivities of White People

/19 Comments/in , /by

It was two thousand years ago that the Roman writer Juvenal warned us to beware of our dreams coming true. An attractive Roman noblewoman may go to great lengths in her self-adornment only to discover how intensely she is hated by her less physically endowed female companions. Comes the time when the envy of her less attractive entourage turns her accomplished dreamlife into a living hell. Likewise, a wealthy praetor when travelling with his body guards outside Rome stops indulging in his fame and ruminates how not to get mugged by highway robbers instead. The philosopher and lawyer Cicero was the best orator in the Roman empire whose self-complacency eventually cost him the loss of his head by the jealous would-be emperor Mark Antony. His handsome colleague and client, the famous theater actor Quintus Roscius was forced to forfeit his narcistic self-adulation having been obliged to spend most of his backstage life dodging lawfare for his tax evasion. Had he lost the presidential election, despite his phenomenal combative spirit in fighting the DOJ’s Bolshevik-inspired trumped-up charges, president Trump would be by now en route to federal penitentiary.

“Be careful what you wish for” is a fine English expression which lacks a verbal and conceptual equivalent in other European languages. It does, however, reflect the very opposite of grandiose dreams come true. Maybe the best medicine for a livable life is the suppression of free will as preached by the ikons of cultural pessimism, Emile Cioran and Arthur Schopenhauer. Squashing free will and suppressing all political appetites may be also the best answer for an aspiring public figure given that at some point in time his legacy will only be remembered as a criminal enterprise. Over the course of time the unity of opposites leads to the paradox of unintended consequences and unanticipated political disasters. It is only a matter of time that a ruler’s erstwhile stardom will be labeled a crime, or even worse that his name will be chiseled out as damnatio memoriae. Which option to choose; keep a low profile and live one’s life in self-abnegation? Or dwell in an overdrive promethean hubris-like self-delusion of working for the greater good? Ten, hundred, or five hundred years later a politician’s achieved goals will be the target of public demonization. Tearing down the statues of Confederate heroes is just the latest example of unintended consequences that must have slipped the mind of Jefferson Davis and R.E. Lee. The distinction between good and evil is just a matter of individual judgment in accordance to the dominant lie of a given epoch. Even a popular English proverb that “every cloud has a silver lining,” which has a better graphic equivalent in the French language, à quelque chose malheur est bon (“out of bad comes good”) sounds grotesque. It can’t be a solace for a politician sentenced to death for his lost war, nor can it bring relief to a heretic preaching untimely beliefs. With the increasing racial replacement in the U.S. the founding fathers Jefferson and Hamilton will soon be featured in school curricula as the architypes of White Evil, all ready to join the club of hundreds of the damned ones, including the proverbial Hitler and his ilk.

It is a great merit of behavior geneticists and evolutionary biologists to single out the prime role of heredity, particularly when it comes to our political choices when facing off a hostile outgroup. The study of the genetics of race can also help us much in uncovering a sociopathic would-be loudmouth within our own ingroup. Due to the steady bolshevization of social science studies since 1945, it should not come as a surprise why the research in these fields has been avoided like the plague in the Western school curriculum. The good news is that the post-WWII gigantic egalitarian multiracial scam, whether in its communist or liberal form, is falling apart. The decades-long official U.S. Soviet-inspired multiracial-DEI- affirmative action-woke policies  are showing their dysfunctional and destructive results in an all social, economic, and military realms. Even its erstwhile supporters are increasingly becoming aware of it..

Ingroup infighting

Is a racially homogenous society based on meritocratic and hierarchical principles i.e., that everybody must have his own due (suum cuique) the best answer? The works of dozens of prominent geneticists have confirmed that ingroup members are biologically predisposed to flock to their kind, especially when a threat of aggression from outgroups looms. How is it then that more Whites since time immemorial have been killed by people who were in fact their own ingroup members (whatever labels they were using) than by hordes of invading outgroups? Why deny that the entire history of white Europe and America, despite their cultural braggadocio, is largely a history of civil wars? Wishful thinking about the expulsion of all non-Whites, or a putative establishment of secessionist all-White statelets in the U.S. or E.U. will likely lead to another round of mutual inter-White incriminations and civil wars. Also worth pointing out is that non-White and non-European outgroups perceive the history of interminable inter-European wars very differently from how European nations perceive their dispute with similar neighboring outgroups.

Policies based on identity, however romantic they sound, are based on the exclusion of alterity. All of us define our Selves only in comparison to the Other. Example? There is not a single nation in Europe that has been spared from murderous wars with its next-door European neighbor. Very likely White infighting will continue unabated even if all 30 million non-Whites in Europe and over 150 million non-Whites in North America were miraculously to disappear. Alas, birds of feather do not always flock together. In fact, any conflict becomes the more gruesome the less visible racial, linguistic and cultural lines exist between two neighboring groups sharing the same DNA. On the other hand, the more geographically distant nations are from each other, the more likely they will tolerate their mutual differences. As a rule, each ingroup perceives its next door similar as an affront, as a denial or as a caricature of its own identity, as was amply shown during the recent bloody conflict between Serbs and Croats. “The closer we are to the Other”, writes Alain de Benoist, “the more violently we will fight against him, because the very fact of his proximity makes his Otherness all the more scandalous.”

In their turn non-White, non-European observers and scholars, let alone millions of low-IQ non-White migrants flooding Europe and America must be scandalized and bedeviled by disputes between European nations. Historical disagreements resulting in bloody wars between genetically similar Irish and English, between Basques and Castilians, between, Germans and Poles, between Hungarians and Romanians, between Flemings and Walloons must appear to them as a sign of the insanity of the White man. This is the subject White homeland advocates have failed to address. A well-researched work on the sociobiology of civil wars between European nations is sorely missing.

At the heart of interminable inter-White ingroup disputes and civil wars one must single out the destructive role of millennia-long Judeo-Chistian-Islamic monotheism. The catastrophic results of the Abrahamic dogma have been the main engine of European ingroup civil wars, both in their theological and ideological versions. Belief in the existence of only one God presupposes the belief in only one political truth and the rejection of other possible truths. Civil wars among White Europeans, stretching from the first Christian emperor Constantine to the Second World War, all the way to the current war between genetically similar Russians and Ukrainians, have their roots in secularized forms of Christianity. By contrast, old Romans and Greeks, although waging merciless wars against foreign tribes never imposed their diverse deities and their own political beliefs on conquered tribes. In fact, they often borrowed gods from conquered tribes and had them added to their own pantheon.

One can sing the praises of ancient Roman religious tolerance, but the Greco-Roman civil wars amidst the same polytheistic ingroups were not very divine at all. One does not need to recap he Thirty Years Peloponnesian war between the racially same Athenians and Spartans. Very likely similar inter-White carnage will continue in our postmodernity even if all non-White citizens were forced to depart from Europe and America.

One can justly condemn the jealous Jewish god Yahve and his totalitarian ukases against the unchosen ones: “The Lord your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess” (Deuteronomy 12:29-32). The secular version of this old Yahve’s decree comes now as a free pass for the IDF serial killings of Arabs in the Gaza Strip. Neither have the Christians lagged much behind in their killing sprees within their own racial ingroup, each ingroup sect or clan claiming to hold the only appropriate master key to the Christian heaven. “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke, 14:26). The Russo- Ukrainian conflict is just the latest Gentile secular offshoot of the monotheist Judeo-Christian- inspired mindset.

Wern Graul (1905–1984): Christian Desecration of the Oak Tree

One must rightly be shocked with ancient Christian and Jewish preachers and their liberal and communist commissars preaching once upon a time the Gospel of antipaganism and lecturing on the importance of antifascism today. But the pagan ingroup and inter-clan violence is also full of gory scenes. Hundreds of historical and mythical texts testify to it. The egotistic Titan Saturn, in order to preserve his sole rule on his global turf did not hesitate a minute to devour his son, the future god Zeus. In the much-vaunted Iliad, the pagan hero Achilles drags the desecrated body of Hector along the walls of Troya, causing discomfort among pagan Troyan mourners worshiping the same gods (The Iliad, Book XXII) . Ovid’s Metamorphoses depicts an orgy of ingroup violence such as when the Balkan-Thracian king Tereus rapes his wife’s sister Philomela and cuts her tongue off in order to prevent her from going public about the crime. Orestes kills her mother Clytemnestra for her cheating on his father and her husband Agammemnon. Neither would have the foundation of the ancient pagan city of Rome been possible without having jealous Romulus kill his brother Remus.

Francisco Goya (1746–1828): Saturn devouring his son

In the study of modern political and academic self-censorship and woke witch-hunts against free thinkers in the EU and the US it is imperative to study Ovid’s bloody allegory of human, subhuman and transhuman transformations.

The cases of more secular and historically recorded ingroup savagery are timeless and countless. The emperor Nero had his mother killed. His lifelong mentor the wealthiest man in Rome, the philosopher Seneca, who liked to brag stoically about modesty and tolerance, was subsequently killed by Nero — his former imperial pupil. Emperor Marcus Aurelius, much eulogized in history books for his compassion and magnanimity toward his defeated foes must have badly misdirected his stoic genes; his son, the emperor Commodus, was the foremost sexual pervert in the Roman empire. Shakespeare’s dramas also abound in ingroup and intrafamilial killings, mostly by the rulers suffering from mental or sexual deformities, as illustrated in his play Richard III. Shakespear’s king Richard is not a far cry from many contemporary White nationalists in the US and Europe parading themselves as undisputed future leaders daydreaming about how to save the West.

And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days. (Act 1, Scene 1)

White dreams turned into the tragic opposite following 1945. But even if Hitler and Mussolini and similar or sympathetic politicians in Europe and the U.S. of that epoch had won the war, or at least won the day, their dreams would have materialized by now into something entirely different. White dreams caused by acid or crack can help in arresting or even reverse the flow of time, but the aftermath is never pleasant.

……………………..

Further reading:

  1. Alain de Benoist, “Violence sacrée guerre et monothéisme”, Krisis (33/April 2010).
  2. Hervé Coutau-Bégarie “A quoi sert la guerre?” Krisis (34/June, 2010).
  3. Gaius Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, edited by J. Rives (Penguin Classics, 2007).

Disappointing interview of Mel Gibson by Joe Rogan

/4 Comments/in /by

Around 26:40 they start discussing the resistance to Gibson’s Passion of the Christ movie, attributing what was an assault by Jewish Hollywood as just due to Hollywood secularism.

Some other material on Gibson from the TOO archives:

“What’s Up with Mel Gibson”

Mel Gibson has announced that he will be involved in a movie about the revolt led by Judah Maccabee against the Greeks in 160 BC—the basis for the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah. Patrick Goldstein in the LATimes (“Mel’s miracle: doing right by Maccabee” 9/10/11; apparently not available online) says that “Gibson is back in good standing in Hollywood, at least at Warner Bros., arguably the industry’s leading studio.” (On the other hand, Jim Caviezel says that his career has been damaged because he played Jesus in Gibson’s Passion which was widely detested by Jewish activists.)

Jewish activist organizations have expressed their displeasure with Gibson’s current venture. Abe Foxman called it a “travesty,” and the Simon Wiesenthal’s Marvin Hier said, among other things, that it would be like having “a White supremacist  trying to play Martin Luther King Jr. [!] It’s simply an insult to the Jews.” No surprise there.

Goldstein thinks it’s just fine for Gibson to be involved, noting the parallels of the Maccabee story with Gibson’s signature movie role in Braveheart: An embattled warrior fighting for his people. He expects that Gibson will produce a properly heroic depiction because he “must surely realize that a film from him that in any way undercuts the heroism of Maccabee would be a career killer of the highest order. But it would be almost as bad if he were doing the film as an act of penance for his sins, since dutiful acts of penance rarely lend themselves to great artistry.”

If Gibson is doing this as penance, it would represent groveling taken to a new low.

Jeffrey Goldberg seems a bit skeptical. He calls Gibson “Hollywood’s leading anti-Semite” but also notes his long fascination with the Maccabee story. Goldberg clearly doesn’t buy Gibson’s excuse for his anti-Jewish rant when he was arrested for DUI:

He answered me directly: “I was loaded, and some stupid shit can come out of your mouth when you’re loaded.”

But from what dark corner of his soul did this terrible accusation—that Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world—emanate? He said, “That day they were marching into Lebanon. It was one of those things. It was on the news.”

The “they” in question is the Israel Defense Forces. I found this answer to be proof, of course, of Gibson’s anti-Semitic tendencies. Most drunk people, when stopped by the police, don’t launch into tirades against Jews. He was obviously preoccupied with the putative sins of Jewish people. …

I’d have to agree with Goldberg in the sense that his rant probably does indicate a problem with Jews released by the alcohol. An unbuttoned Abe Foxman arrested for DUI would probably rant about Hitler, Neo-Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan as causing all the world’s problems.

Gibson’s negative views of Jews likely stem from his traditional Catholic theology [also apparent in the Rogan interview], much apparent in his Passion (and the reason Gibson was forced to endure a deluge of hostility from Jews for making it).  The fact is that the idea that Jews are responsible for wars is part of the ancient loyalty theme of anti-Semitism (see here, p. 60 ff)—that Jews have interests as Jews that are not always the same as those of the country they happen to live in, so they have at times pushed for wars that haven’t necessarily been in the national interest. There is a great deal more than a grain of truth to it. For example, Charles Lindbergh’s accusation that the Jews were an important group pushing for US entry into WWII was quite correct, and you are just not paying attention if you are unaware that Jewish neoconservatives with close ties to the U.S. government, the media, and the organized Jewish community—not to mention close family ties and close personal relationships to the political and military elites that run Israel—were the main force responsible for getting the US to invade Iraq. The image of Israel as a peaceful but beleaguered power in the Middle East conjured up by Goldberg’s mention of the Israeli Defense Force is the stuff of Zionist propaganda and self-delusion. And now the same forces are preparing the US for a war with Iran.

…

I think some us had a vague hope that Gibson was a closeted White patriot and that he could be a White savior—someone with enough money and popularity to really make a difference. We thought that he really identified as William Wallace battling for his people and that he would perhaps try to be a leader in the battle against White dispossession. I have been involved in several conversations with strongly identified Whites where Gibson was mentioned this way.

But making a movie about a Jewish hero doesn’t seem consistent with that.

And his interview with Rogan confirms that in spades. BTW, the Maccabees movies was shelved  because it was deemed too “controversial,” because of Gibson’s putative role in it. The “move comes after Jewish groups were outraged to learn that Gibson would produce and direct.”

*   *   *

One Rachel Abramowitz says the following:

I saw him in 2004 during the media meltdown of “The Passion of the Christ.” Huddled in a swank hotel room, Gibson had aged considerably and appeared harried and even paranoid, which is a strange quality for a gazillionaire mega-star. “I’ve been subjected to religious persecution, persecution as an artist, persecution as an American, persecution as a man,” he told me, which was a little hard to take, given that he didn’t have a concentration camp number on his wrist or hadn’t just spent five years in a labor camp in Siberia.

Still, he was remarkably warm and seemed genuinely surprised when I told him how much “The Passion of the Christ” upset me. As a Jew, it made me feel like I had a target on my back. “I’m sorry if it’s caused you to feel that way, because you’re a friend of mine and I love you,” he said sincerely. “It completely tears my heart out when I see you like that.”

So Abramowitz finds Gibson a “nightmare on two legs” because he made a movie of his version of the crucifixion — a version that is fits squarely with the Gospel account and mainstream historical Christianity. The persecution Gibson endured for this “crime” can’t even be termed ‘persecution’; since that word is reserved for victims of real suffering such as the Holocaust survivors. And it doesn’t help to say that you are sorry that you caused such pain. What matters is that you offended Jewish sensibilities.

This Hollywood Reporter piece notes superagent Ari Emanuel’s change of heart on Gibson:

Emanuel’s essay referenced a 2006 piece he wrote for HuffPost in which he said entertainment companies should stop working with Mel Gibson after the antisemitic remarks he made that year during an arrest for drunk driving. In his new op-ed, Emanuel explained that he has since recommended Gibson for roles following the actor’s public apology and “commitment to understanding the consequences of his actions,” and that he would be open to helping West do the same.

There’s also a discussion of Gibson’s father with no mention of his politics. Here’s from James Edwards’ recent summary of his years interviewing interesting people, including Hutton Gibson:

Mel Gibson’s father, Hutton, made several appearances before his passing. Hollywood media attacked him furiously for it, but he never backed down. AFP readers might remember that Hutton Gibson was also a friend of Willis Carto and spoke at some gatherings that Willis organized.

From the NYTimes obituary:

In 2003, as Mel Gibson was directing “The Passion of the Christ,” his film about the crucifixion, Hutton Gibson gave an interview to The New York Times laced with comments about conspiracy theories. The planes that crashed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, had been remote-controlled, he claimed (without saying by whom). The number of Jews killed in the Holocaust was wildly inflated, he went on.

“Go and ask an undertaker or the guy who operates the crematorium what it takes to get rid of a dead body,” Mr. Gibson said. “It takes one liter of petrol and 20 minutes. Now, six million?”

In a radio interview a week before the February 2004 release of “The Passion,” Mr. Gibson went further, saying of the Holocaust, “It’s all — maybe not all fiction — but most of it is.” The comments added to an already simmering controversy that the film was anti-Semitic; the chairmen of two major studios told The Times that they wouldn’t work with Mel Gibson in the future.

Interviewed by Diane Sawyer of ABC News, the actor was asked to repudiate his father’s statements. He stopped short of doing so, saying: “He’s my father. Gotta leave it alone, Diane. Gotta leave it alone.”

Will the North American Union Make a Comeback?

/3 Comments/in /by

Is American imperialism back on the menu?

Since taking back the White House this past November, president-elect Donald Trump has hinted at acquiring Greenland from Denmark, using military force to take back the Panama Canal, and even made veiled threats to annex Canada.

Greenland and Panama have strategic importance to the United States, as the former will be a critical geopolitical flashpoint in Washington’s great power competition with Russia in the Arctic Circle. The Northern Sea Route is emerging as one of most important global shipping lanes, which is largely under Russian control.

Due to melting ice caps and improvements in infrastructure, the NSR could significantly reduce the transportation times and costs. Additionally, in contrast to conventional shipping routes such as the Suez Canal, there’s no threat of piracy from Yemeni or Somali militants, no long lines, nor are there costly shipping tolls in the NSR.

Melting polar ice caps would also make it easier for Arctic countries to exploit natural resources such as oil and natural gas. Estimates point to 15% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of the world’s undiscovered natural gas. Highly-coveted rare earth metals are also present in this region. The Arctic appears to be one of the most critical strategic regions in the new “Great Game” of the 21st century, which will see Russia and the United States locked in a heated security competition.

For its part, the Panama Canal was previously under U.S. control from 1903 to 1999 and served as a critical maritime passage. Even after the recently-deceased President Jimmy Carter relinquished control of the canal to Panama, thanks to signing he Torrijos-Carter Treaties,  in 1977, the Panama Canal remains a critical maritime passage for international commerce in the Western Hemisphere.

An estimated $270 billion of cargo flows through the Panama Canal and processes roughly 5% of global maritime trade annually. Panama assumed full control of the canal in 1999. Since Panama has gained full control of the canal, there have been fears of an ascendant China potentially taking over the canal.

CK Hutchison Holdings, a Hong Kong-based conglomerate and the world’s premier port investor, operates ports on the Atlantic and Pacific ends of the canal. Due to the intimate relationship Chinese enterprises have with the Communist Party regime, there is speculation among leading US military officials that companies like CK Hutchison could have a “dual use” function and be militarized in the event of a military conflict between China and the United States.

Curiously, Panama has a significant Chinese minority of over 200,000 people of Chinese origin (close to 5% of Panama’s population), which makes it susceptible to Chinese efforts to use the Panamanian Chinese population as a potential fifth column. Such fears are not unfounded owing to the Chinese government’s long-standing efforts to use the United Front Work Department — a government agency tasked with advancing Chinese interests abroad— and entities such as Confucius Institutes to expand its cultural influence.

Should China have its way and take over the canal, the US’s hegemonic status in the Western Hemisphere would be called into question.

With respect to Canada, Trump has made veiled threats of making Canada the 51st state of the United States. He also jokingly referred to outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “governor” after a December meeting in Mar-a-Lago where they discussed the hot-button issue of tariffs. Trump threatened to impose a 25 percent tariff on the Great White North which caused a firestorm in Ottawa. Trudeau had been staring down the barrel of growing crises, which included the resignation of Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland on Dec. 16.

Trudeau tendered his resignation on January 6, 2024 after Canadian voters became increasingly frustrated with Trudeau’s Liberal Party and their inability to address the country’s palpable cost of living, crime, and immigration problems.

With less than a week away from Trump assuming the presidency, 2025 is already shaping up to be a rollercoaster of a political year. To the hyperbolic minds of the mainstream media, Donald Trump‘s remarks about jokingly annexing Canada, annexing Greenland, and reasserting control over the Panama Canal may make him look like a cartoon imperialist.

However, there may be something more at play with respect to Trump’s expansionist outbursts. If Trump’s comments were to be taken at face value, the 47th president would likely not be able achieve any of these lofty goals. Trump is entering office at 78 years of age and will already have his hands full in dealing with the country’s crisis at the southern border with Mexico, rising inflation, and geopolitical crises in the Middle East and Ukraine. Vastly expanding the United States’ borders is a pie-in-the sky proposal at this point.

That said, Trump floating the idea of territorial expansion could be a sneak preview of the ruling class’s geopolitical pivot toward creating a “North American Union.” Once the domain of conspiracy circles, the move towards forging the NAU has gained traction among elites in the Western Hemisphere in the last three decades. Foreign affairs writer Robert Pastor called for greater North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) integration and the establishment of a “North American Community” where the borders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States would be gradually erased.

Throughout the administration of George W. Bush, there was a concerted effort to pass amnesty for illegal aliens despite Americans being firmly opposed to such a proposal. As a consummate globalist, whose family has extensive business interests in Mexico, Bush viewed amnesty as a critical step towards eroding United States sovereignty and creating the conditions for it to deepen its ties with Mexico. Thankfully, Bush’s amnesty plans never came to pass during his administration.

Voters rejected the globalist, open borders consensus when they pulled the lever for Donald Trump  in 2016 and 2024. In both campaigns, Trump ran on a strong immigration restriction agenda. Whether or not the rest of the Republican Party gets in line with Trump to halt mass migration remains to be seen.

Nevertheless, Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks about expanding the United States’ reach may not be random ramblings, but rather the manifestation, albeit with a crasser delivery, of the revealed preferences of the chattering classes. New geopolitical realities are compelling the US to readjust its defense strategies as the rising Eurasian powers of China and Russia are gradually pushing the US out of their respective spheres of influence.

The rough sketch of Trump’s strategic vision looks like a throwback to the Monroe Doctrine, wherein the US would be more focused on Western Hemisphere affairs and avoid intervening abroad provided that other major powers from Eurasia not intervene in Uncle Sam’s backyard — a reasonable approach to foreign policy in contrast to the neoconservative consensus in Washington.

In fairness, this shift in strategic focus could easily be co-opted. Certain factions of the globalists may have made peace with the fact the unipolar moment is over, and the United States can’t project power like it could in decades prior. In turn, they will have the United States retrench and concentrate their efforts on Western Hemispheric affairs, namely taking steps towards creating a supranational political structure.

Even under Trump’s first term, NAFTA was replaced with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that ironed out some of the kinks of the preceding trade structure. Nevertheless, the USMCA still maintained and went as far as to create new mechanisms such as a “Competitiveness Committee” to ensure increased economic integration with the three major North American economies.

It’s unlikely Trump will play a major role in making the NAU fantasy project come into fruition, but that could change with succeeding administrations who are not as committed to pursuing a nationalist agenda. Under the pretext of great power competition, US decisionmakers can make the case for establishing a North American superstate. Neoliberal writers such as Matthew Yglesias have already authored works such as “One Billion Americans”  to make the case that public policy — through the use of increased immigration and generous social benefits to encourage family formation — should strive to grow the United States’ population to 1 billion in order to compete with an ascendant China.

The creation of an NAU would certainly put the United States on track to achieving Matthew Yglesias’s wet dream of reaching 1 billion Americans. With the United States no longer being able to remake the Eurasian landmass in its own image, retrenchment can buy elites a few years to regroup and refocus their globalist project on the Western Hemisphere – a region that’s much closer to home and likely more susceptible to neocon and liberal interventionist trickery.

At this juncture, the United States is just playing the game of accumulating as much biomass as possible, consequences be damned. There’s no consideration for the long-term effects of mass migration and other policies that undermine the country’s sovereignty and ethnic stock.

If our leaders want to expand so badly and reach new frontiers, they should look to the stars. But to return to the cosmos and conquer outer space, the racial talent that enabled the United States to reach the heavens must be preserved and championed.

Under the current anti-White system, we live in, that is simply not possible.

José Niño is a Hispanic dissident who is well aware of the realities of race from his experience living throughout Latin America and in the States.

As a native of lands conquered by brave Spaniards but later subverted by centuries of multiracial trickery and despotic governance, José offers clear warnings to Americans about the perils of multiracialism.

Candace Owens interviews Phil Tourney on the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty

/1 Comment/in /by

Candace Owens is getting completely based on Jewish issues. Great interview which once again shows the power of the Israel Lobby over the U.S. government and mainstream media. I doubt that Tucker Carlson would be bold enough to do some honest journalism on this.