James Edwards Interviews Former U.S. Representative Steve King (R-Iowa)

/11 Comments/in , /by

Let me take you back to another incident that really brought my attention to this. It was the opening night of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and I did a panel with MSNBC. Chris Hayes is the moderator. They had April Ryan, a black commentator there, and a fellow by the name of Charlie Pierce. We had our little banter going back and forth, and maybe it wasn’t all that friendly but I didn’t think it was bad, and then at the end, Charlie Pierce said, “One could be an optimist and hope that this would be the last Republican convention where old white people have anything to say about it.” They were ready to cut away, and I couldn’t let that go. I said, “Charlie, that’s getting kind of tiring. I’m tired of hearing that. I’d invite you to explain to all of us what other sub-group has contributed more.”

And Chris Hayes leaned over and leered at me, thinking he had me trapped, and said, “More than white people?” And I said, “More than Western civilization itself defined by everywhere the footprint of Jesus Christ laid the foundation.” That is when they targeted me as a white supremacist and a white nationalist and decided to squeeze me out of Congress eventually.

What follows is an interview conducted by talk radio host James Edwards with former U.S. Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) about his 18 years in Congress and his book, Walking Through the Fire: My Fight for the Heart and Soul of America.

* * *

James Edwards: You gave an interview with Tucker Carlson a few years ago that I consider to be the most enlightening explanation I have seen regarding how Washington operates. Let’s begin there. How does Congress actually work?

Congressman Steve King: Generally speaking, when freshmen arrive, they come in with ideals, objectives, and goals, believing they can achieve them. However, when I was first elected, I went through 11 days of what they called orientation, which consisted of about four days of actual orientation and seven days of indoctrination. During this time, they emphasized what you should never do, which helps them maintain control over you. Additionally, they insisted that you need to raise money because you can’t change the world if you don’t return next time. This kind of manipulation continues to build and intensify as time goes on.

I remember during the class election in 2010, I was walking over to an event one evening early in the session with a freshman. He mentioned, “Well, I got appointed to the Rules Committee, and I’m pretty happy about that assignment.” I replied, “Oh, you should be happy, I guess. You get to vote the way leadership tells you to on the Rules Committee.” It’s the speaker’s Rules Committee, and that’s how it has always been.

He responded, “Oh, no. They told me I could vote my conscience. I’m a free man. If I do well enough on the Rules Committee, I’ll be able to get on Ways and Means in a couple of years, and that’s my goal.”

Well, fast forward ten years, and he was still on the Rules Committee, voting the way the leadership wanted him to vote. That’s kind of what happens to a lot of them. My book covers what goes on in the inner workings of Congress and helps American citizens understand how devious the leadership can be, and why some representatives can’t allow the people’s voice to be heard in Washington.

Edwards: Your book is Walking Through Fire: My Fight for the Heart and Soul of America. In it, you write about so many key topics, such as political treason, media defamation, your relationship with President Trump, why Western civilization is superior, and the magnitude and impact of illegal immigration. Let’s hit that heavy topic. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines genocide as being the deliberate and systemic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. Polls indicate that most Republican voters now believe a “Great Replacement” is occurring and oppose it. What is your opinion on the issue, and do you think that it rises to meet the definition of genocide?

King: I don’t know if I would quite say genocide because it’s not pushing for a massive death. It’s just pushing for lower birth rates among whites, which is one of the things that they like to see, and bringing in massive numbers of aliens of all kinds, whether they’re legal or illegal, from every culture — almost everything but white culture.

I’ve looked at this for a long time, and I’ve had my concerns. I’ve been down to the border repeatedly, doing the calculation. What happens when you bring in military-age men by the millions from cultures that are violent, and they don’t accept our Western civilization? If you bring in one person from another culture, you’re importing their culture, too. It’s axiomatic. In small numbers, you can still assimilate, but the greater the number, sooner or later they become an enclave, and they reconstruct their own country here in an enclave in the United States.

Others will say, “All cultures are equal.” But they are not. Western civilization is a superior civilization. The First World doesn’t exist outside of Western civilization. People want to destroy the First World because they despise what has been accomplished by it. They’ve created this racial envy. They’ve said that Western civilization is white civilization, therefore, it is evil. They say that babies born with white skin are inherently racist.

But what I don’t understand is why the people who built the greatest civilization in the history of the world would hand it over because of something called white guilt. I think we’re entitled to some gratitude for all that’s been built here and the comfort that’s been created for all the people in this country.

This is also happening on a large scale in Europe. I don’t know how many trips I’ve taken there, but I’ve made several specifically to walk among the hordes of people marching from one horizon to the other, primarily heading for Germany. I’ve ventured into the no-go zones in most of those countries, entering unprotected even when the State Department advised against it. I just walked in.

I’ve seen it. I’ve talked to them over there. It is strategic. It is being pushed by George Soros and others and the objective is to tear down Western civilization. They believe that the chaos they create will allow them to take total power, which would result in a Marxist-style government led by a few oligarchs living in gated communities, while chaos reigns everywhere else.

Edwards: I believe every group of people ought to be proud of their history, their ancestors, their heroes, their culture, their folkways, and their faith. But humanity does consist of unique groups who oftentimes have conflicting interests and putting them all in one living space often fosters discontent. That said, if you asked any member of Congress how they plan to help African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, or whomever, they would have an answer locked, loaded, and ready to go. But if you asked them what their plan is to help the white working class, you might be escorted out of that town hall by security. Why do you think that is? And do you think that the day will ever come when elected Republicans will mention the name of the group that actually votes for them by majority?

King: It seems like there is a movement in that direction. In fact, I know there’s a movement in that direction. There are several different groups in the country that are starting to form that way to defend the culture and civilization that built the United States of America and they’re less and less apologetic about it. But I can tell you the pressure in Washington is just so utterly high. If you looked at what they attacked me for – I was misquoted in the New York Times – but even that quote shouldn’t have been anything that gave anybody heartburn. They conflated white nationalism and white supremacy with Western civilization, and I asked, “How did those terms become pejorative?”

Why did I sit in the classroom as a boy hearing the merits of Western civilization just to see it become a derogatory term today? The last part didn’t get quoted in the paper. But I was defending Western civilization, and I had done that before. I had been quoted 276 times defending Western civilization going back to the year 2000 and had never even used the terms white nationalism or white supremacism.

Let me take you back to another incident that really brought my attention to this. It was the opening night of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and I did a panel with MSNBC. Chris Hayes is the moderator. They had April Ryan, a black commentator there, and a fellow by the name of Charlie Pierce. We had our little banter going back and forth, and maybe it wasn’t all that friendly but I didn’t think it was bad, and then at the end, Charlie Pierce said, “One could be an optimist and hope that this would be the last Republican convention where old white people have anything to say about it.” They were ready to cut away, and I couldn’t let that go. I said, “Charlie, that’s getting kind of tiring. I’m tired of hearing that. I’d invite you to explain to all of us what other sub-group has contributed more.”

And Chris Hayes leaned over and leered at me, thinking he had me trapped, and said, “More than white people?” And I said, “More than Western civilization itself defined by everywhere the footprint of Jesus Christ laid the foundation.” That is when they targeted me as a white supremacist and a white nationalist and decided to squeeze me out of Congress eventually.

Edwards: You were the keynote speaker at a recent American Renaissance conference. Not very long ago, you would routinely see men like Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and even yours truly, occasionally, on prime-time cable news programming. Those days have passed, but what concerns me is that conservatives too often give their enemies the power to determine those with whom they are allowed to speak and associate. At some point, public figures and elected officials will have to be able to speak with such advocates without fear of what so-called journalists think about it. I assume you agree.

King: I’ve had this attitude for a long time. I am a strong, strong advocate for freedom of speech, and when I see the freedom of speech of a person being curtailed because other people disagree with it, and then they organize to muzzle them, that’s not what made America. It has got to be a robust and competitive freedom of speech.

I think we need to lend a voice to the values and principles I expressed at that conference. It was supposed to be a 30-minute speech and 15 minutes of Q&A, but I got kind of carried away and didn’t step down for an hour and a half. But I was having fun, and they were paying attention. I don’t believe there is a reason why anyone of a different race or ethnicity can’t embrace Western civilization and succeed within the parameters that have been set up by it. Free enterprise, freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, the right to bear arms, all the way down the line. The pillars of American exceptionalism are accessible to everyone.

It is important to be able to tell people what you believe in, let them sort out what they hear, and then come to their own conclusions. Why should we fear speech? Why should we try to muzzle someone who says, “I am of European heritage, and look at all the things we brought with us over here. Look at the things we developed once we got here. What’s wrong with any of this?”

When you muzzle people like Peter Brimelow or Jared Taylor or Steve King or James Edwards, or anyone else out there, what you’re saying is you don’t have confidence that your ideology can compete.

Edwards: Though you were born in Iowa, you courageously defended Southern heritage while in Congress in a most remarkable way. Can you share that story with us?

King: This is another example of my commitment to the freedom of speech. I was walking to my office one day, and there was a debate taking place on the floor. I asked my staff, “What are they debating down there?” And they said, “Well, they’re debating amendments that Democrats are bringing to take the Confederate flag down somewhere.”

I listened to maybe 30 seconds of that, and once I realized what was going on, I ran out and went down the elevator to the tunnel. I ran through the tunnel over to the Capitol, up onto the floor, commanded the floor, and got recognized to speak. I was probably huffing and puffing through the whole five minutes, but I made the argument that the battle flag is about Southern pride. It’s not about advocating for slavery. If you Google “Southern pride,” by the time you get the barbecue out of the way, it’s all battle flags after that. If you Google “slavery” and get images, you get about seven or eight pages of black and white slaves. There’s not one battle flag in the whole thing. But now they’ve turned it into a verboten symbol, and they’re crushing Southern pride.

I also wanted to give credit to what happened at Appomattox when Lee and Grant negotiated the surrender. Lee asked Grant if those boys could keep their arms and their horses because they needed to go home and farm. And Grant said they could keep their horses. The officers got to keep their side arms. When the surrender was announced, a Union regiment fired off a volley in celebration, and Grant shut that down immediately. He said, “From this day forward, these rebels are our countrymen.” So, they got to keep their Southern pride, and their horses, and the officers kept their sidearms, but they also became countrymen again.

I made that argument on the House floor. I lost, but I put a Confederate flag on my desk as a symbol of freedom of speech and respect for Southern pride.

Edwards: On a somewhat similar note, you once shared a humorous story with me about an international trip you took with a former colleague, the late U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas). Do you remember the one?

King: I served with her for 18 years, 16 of those years on the Judiciary Committee, and I traveled the world with her, sitting across from her on long flights. Uganda comes to mind. I remember sitting on a bus with her as we were going through Uganda. Sheila was looking out the window, and she said, “These are my people.” I said, “Sheila, how do you know they’re your people?” Her answer was basically that they looked like she thinks her people look.

I razzed her because she was opposed to any type of wall, fence, or barbed wire. But, in Africa, the only place where you’re safe is inside your own compound with a wall, broken glass, and concertina wire on top. So, I pointed that out by saying, “Sheila, look at that. What do you think of that? Are all these people stupid? Why did they build these things? It looks like it must work, huh?” And after a few days of me ribbing her, she asked me if I would treat my little sister like this. I told her that I do, and she can stand up for herself. So that’s how that went.

Then, another time, we were in Morocco, where there are these 40-foot-high stone walls. We were talking underneath them, and I said, “Sheila, you see these walls? They were built by slaves. Did you know that?” She perked up. And I said, “Yeah, they were built by Christian slaves with Muslim masters. The Muslims would emasculate them so they didn’t have the equipment to urinate, much less reproduce, and when they there were done with them, they would just throw them off the wall or out of a boat and into the sea.” So, I’m telling her about these white, Christian slaves, and that needled her a little bit because she always viewed everything from the lens of racism. Very late in her career, she even put forth a bill that would have criminalized thought crimes. I think we all know what that means.

Edwards: You still have connections, power, and influence that most people do not have. What’s next for Steve King?

King: I call Victor Orban a gold standard of Western civilization. He knows what he’s doing, and he is methodically protecting the Western civilization within Hungary and influencing it outside of there. I met with him back in about 2015 or ‘16, and it was fascinating. But I also went through Europe, and I met with the patriotic party leaders that have sprung up across there, and I was laying the foundation to build an international organization to restore Western civilization around the world. We were very close to announcing it and launching it when the ambush came in on me and more or less destroyed my political capital and everything else I had going on. But we still need to do that.

The short version would be to pull in all the countries in Western Europe, and Eastern Europe that are part of Western civilization, and then, of course, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Let’s pull those countries together with at least one representative who advocates for Western civilization. That means principled, conservative patriots. Each one of these countries needs to have its own identity and language but also be willing to pull together under the larger umbrella of Western civilization. I wanted to put up an organization that’s founded and planted in Vienna where we turned the Turks back in 1529 and in 1683, committed to saving Western civilization, and then let it grow from there into universities and elsewhere. That’s what I’d like to do in the future. I think we’ve got a chance to get it done. It’s going to take some work and money.

To order former U.S. Rep. Steve King’s book, Walking Through the Fire: My Fight for the Heart and Soul of America, please visit www.steveking.com.

Left to right: Actress Mindy Robinson, former U.S. Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa), Mr. and Mrs. James Edwards, and former U.S. Senate nominee Lauren Witzke (R-Delaware) pose for a photo together after an event last year in Orlando, Florida.

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.

David Betz: Civil War Comes to the West, Part II: Strategic Realities

/3 Comments/in /by

That civil war is looming in the West is a logical conclusion of standard, well-understood precepts of social science. The likely fracture of multicultural societies along lines of identity is an obvious hypothesis. The configuration of demographic geography, and the factional polarisation that is its political consequence, is a measurable fact. The precariousness of contemporary urbanity is a thing which geographers have worried over for at least a half century.[xvi] In short, the situation which I have described above is unpleasant, but it is not controversial as far as our grasp of current reality and theoretical understanding of how societies function is concerned.

Civil War Comes to the West, Part II: Strategic Realities

David Betz

– King’s College London, Department of War Studies

Civil War Comes to the West, Part II: Strategic Realities

Image credit: by Sineakee, Belfast Riots 2011, original source , via Wikimedia Commons CC-by-2.0.

David Betz is Professor of War in the Modern World in the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. He has wide interests in strategic and military affairs but has written extensively on insurgency and counterinsurgency, information warfare, and strategic communications. His most recent book is The Guarded Age: Fortifications in the 21st Century (Cambridge: Polity, 2024).

This is the second of two articles on the dawning of an uncomfortable new strategic reality for the West, which is that the primary threat to its security and well-being today is not external but internal—specifically, civil war.[i] In the first essay, I explained the reasons that this situation has arisen: a combination of culturally fractured societies, economic stagnation, elite overreach and a collapse of public confidence in the ability of normal politics to solve problems, and ultimately the realisation by anti-status quo groups of plausible strategies of attack based on systems disruption of vulnerable critical infrastructure. In this article I expound on the likely shape that civil war will take and the strategies that might be employed to minimise and mitigate the damage that will entail.

At the time of writing the countries that are most likely to experience the outbreak of violent civil conflict first are Britain and France—both of which have already experienced what may be described as precursor or exemplary incidents of the kind discussed further below. The conditions are similar, however, throughout Western Europe as well as, for slightly different reasons, the United States;[ii] moreover, it must be assumed that if civil war breaks out in one place it is likely to spread elsewhere.[iii]

In the previous article in this journal, I explained how the conditions which scholars consider to be indicative of incipient civil war are present widely in Western states. According to the best guess of the extant literature, in a country where the conditions are present the chances of actual civil war occurring is four per cent per year.[iv] With this as an assumption, we may conclude that the chances of it occurring are 18.5 per cent over five years.

Let us assume, based on the existence of recent statements to that effect by credible national political or academic figures, that there are at least ten countries in Europe that face the prospect of violent civil conflict. In Appendix 1, I provide fifteen such examples—readers may dispense with whichever five of those they deem less credible. The chances then of it occurring in any one of these countries over five years is 87 per cent (or 95 per cent if you include all 15 of the sample).

A further reasonable assumption is that if it occurs in one place it has the potential to spread elsewhere. If we say, arbitrarily but plausibly, that the chances of spreading are half and half, then we may conclude that the chances of it occurring in one of ten Western states and then spreading to all others is about 60 per cent (or 72 per cent with all fifteen of the sample included) over five years.

A reasonable person might argue with the assessment of all or some of these factors and calculations. Perhaps things are only half as bad as I argue, might the risk therefore be just two per cent per year? On the other hand, perhaps I have been rather conservative? As I have argued previously the perception of ‘downgrading’ of a former majority which is one of the most powerful causes of civil war, is the main issue in all of the cases at hand.[v] Objectively, one must conclude that there is ample cause for concern about a worryingly large possibility of a form of war occurring in the West, to which it has not thought itself vulnerable for a long time.

This brings me to the matter of to whom this article is addressed. The first intended audience is statesmen, a constituency which I hope will get the message that the danger is ‘clear and present’, to use the jargon. The second is the general public, to whom I wish to say ‘No, you are not taking crazy pills’, the feeling you have had that something like this is going seriously wrong is right.

Finally and most specifically I hope to address military commanders at all levels, but particularly those with the greatest authority. You have spent a quarter of a century now thinking about insurgency and counterinsurgency. You know exactly what is in store for a fractured society under economic stress in which political legitimacy has been lost because your own doctrine spells it out.[vi] Everything that the general staffs and ministries of defence are now doing is secondary to the primary danger.

There is good precedent for what I am suggesting be done. In February 1989 Boris Gromov was the most highly regarded general in the Soviet Army, an obvious candidate to be chief of the general staff, and in time to be minister of defence. Instead, he resigned from the Army to join the Interior Ministry as commander of internal troops—a policeman, in effect. A perplexed journalist begged him to explain why he did it. The answer was that he feared civil war.[vii]

Soviet society was configured in a way that drove it towards internal conflict, he believed. Gromov’s duty, therefore, as he understood it, was to reorient his mindset to meet the main danger. The situation faced by soldiers and statesmen in the West today is fundamentally similar. It is as imminent for them now as it was for General Gromov on the eve of the implosion of the USSR.

The question: If civil war in the West is potentially as imminent, what ought commanders be preparing to do now? The answer is that a drastic reorientation of mindset on the part of the Western defence establishment is required. Generals should be formulating strategies to respond to the reality of civil conflict now. At the very least, should they fear for their careers lest they begin to plan for the outbreak of civil war without a civilian political directive, they ought to seek such a directive.

The essay which follows is intended as a guide to some of the things they might seek permission to consider.

In his book Military Strategy, John Stone reminds readers of the most important Clausewitzian aphorism, that the most crucial step in any ends-means calculation is the selection of the objective, which in turn must be based upon a realistic apprehension of the character of the war that one faces.[viii] I shall argue that the strategic objective in the coming civil war is the maximum limitation of the damage it will entail.

All civil wars are sui generis but we can surmise some general qualities that they tend to possess, which serve well to structure the following rumination on how to navigate the coming turmoil. These are as follows:

  1. Civil wars inflict serious depredation through iconoclastic vandalism or theft of societal cultural infrastructure—i.e., art and other historic objects and architecture.
  2. They destroy a country’s human capital through the strategic displacement of the civilian population on a mass scale.
  3. They increase societal vulnerability to predatory foreign intervention.[ix]

Civil wars are disproportionately long and bloody. A statistical study of civil wars from 1945 to1999 found that their median duration was six years and that total deaths in them came to 16.2 million—five times that of interstate conflicts in the same period.[x] It follows that shortening their duration is the most highly desirable strategy for damage limitation. The importance of the last point above is that foreign involvement in civil conflict seems to be the most important contributor to civil war duration.

As for casualties, if we take Britain as an example, with a population of 70 million and assume levels of violence only as bad as the worst year of the Northern Ireland conflict (1971 with 500 deaths in a population of 1.5 million) then 23,300 killed per year would be expected. If we take the Bosnian War of the 1990s, or the more recent Syrian War as indicators we might hazard a guess that between one and four per cent of the pre-war population will be killed, with many times more that amount displaced.

In light of the human cost of what might be called the best-case scenario, readers may, rightly, consider what follows a dismal strategy. It seeks as much as possible to negate/mitigate certain outcomes but does not assume that preventing them entirely is possible. Its logical parallel is the suite of civil defence measures once undertaken by many states in anticipation of mass aerial bombing of cities—which did occur—and nuclear war—which thankfully has not yet.

At this stage, it is useful to elucidate more specifically the shape of the civil wars that are going to occur in the West.

Feral Cities

Western governments under increasing structural civilisational distress and having squandered their legitimacy are losing the ability to peacefully manage multicultural societies that are terminally fractured by ethnic identity politics. The initial result is an accelerating descent of multiple major cities into marginally ‘feral’ status as defined by Richard Norton in a 2003 essay in this way:

…a metropolis with a population of more than a million people in a state the government of which has lost the ability to maintain the rule of law within the city’s boundaries yet remains a functioning actor in the greater international system.[xi]

The concept as further explored by Norton and others is understood to encompass a range of contingencies of increasing ferality, usually explained with a simple green (non-feral), amber (marginally or partially feral), or red (actively or incipiently feral) typology. In 2003, the exemplary feral city according to Norton was Mogadishu, Somalia.

As of 2024, a list of global cities exhibiting some or all the characteristics of amber and red ferality, such as high levels of political corruption, negotiated areas of police control if not outright no-go zones, decaying industries, crumbling infrastructure, unsustainable debt, two-tier policing, and the burgeoning of private security, would include many in the West.[xii] The direction of the situation, moreover, is decisively towards greater ferality.

In short, things are manifestly worsening right now. They are, however, going to get very much worse—I would estimate over not more than five years. That is because of the combination of two other vital factors. The first is the urban versus rural dimension of the coming conflicts which, in turn, is a result of migrant settlement dynamics. Simply put, the major cities are radically more diverse and have a growing mutually hostile political relationship with the country in which they are embedded.

Figure 1: French Elections 2024

Source: map adapted by the author from an original published in Le Monde (16 June 2024).

This is most effectively shown graphically, as in the map above which shows in black the 457 French constituencies which voted in the first round of the 2024 European Parliament elections for Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, as opposed to the 119 in white that voted for other parties. Similar maps using other proxies for measuring anti-status quo mood showing the same pattern of geographic distribution could be easily made for the United States, Great Britain, and other countries.

The second is the way in which modern critical infrastructure—gas, electricity, and transportation—is configured. Again, simply put, the life support systems of cities are all located in or pass through rural areas. This is easily illustrated below with a simplified map of Britain’s energy infrastructure. None of this infrastructure is well guarded, indeed most of it is effectively impossible to guard adequately.

Putting these factors together allows one to outline the trajectory of the coming civil wars. First, the major cities become ungovernable, i.e., feral, exhausting the ability of the police even with military assistance to maintain civil order, while the broader perception of systemic political legitimacy plummets beyond recovery. The economy is crippled by metastasising intercommunal violence and consequent internal displacement. Second, these feral cities come to be seen by many of those indigenes of the titular nationality now living outside them as effectively having been lost to foreign occupation. They then directly attack the exposed city support systems with a view to causing their collapse through systemic failure.

Figure 2: Simplified Representation of UK Energy Infrastructure

Source: map adapted by the author using data from ‘Open Infrastructure’, https://openinframap.org/#2.03/26/12.2

In a limited but exemplary form, infrastructural attacks such as I have described have already occurred. In Paris, in July of 2024, a major sabotage attack on the long-distance fiber-optic cable network followed a series of coordinated arson attacks on the rail network. Both attacks were supposed to have been timed to coincide with the Olympic Games that were being hosted by the city.[xiii] In London, vigilantes known as ‘Blade Runners’ have damaged or destroyed somewhere between 1000-1200 surveillance cameras intended to enforce the city’s ultra-low-emission-zone scheme.[xiv] At the time of writing, counterterrorism police are investigating why the primary electrical transformer for Heathrow Airport is burning, causing 1300 flights to be delayed or cancelled with consequent severe economic damage.[xv]

That civil war is looming in the West is a logical conclusion of standard, well-understood precepts of social science. The likely fracture of multicultural societies along lines of identity is an obvious hypothesis. The configuration of demographic geography, and the factional polarisation that is its political consequence, is a measurable fact. The precariousness of contemporary urbanity is a thing which geographers have worried over for at least a half century.[xvi] In short, the situation which I have described above is unpleasant, but it is not controversial as far as our grasp of current reality and theoretical understanding of how societies function is concerned.

Searching for a definition of ‘city’ which would satisfy all the many variants of such a thing that have existed in human history, Arnold Toynbee supposed that it was, simply, ‘a human settlement whose inhabitants cannot produce, within the city limits, all of the food that they need for keeping them alive.’[xvii] It is a definition which is currently highly apposite. The fact of the matter is that numerous major Western cities are perceived increasingly as alien to and parasitic of the nations in which they are embedded.

The viability of such places has always been contingent; their apparent stability is, in fact, an astonishing balancing act requiring constant and competent maintenance. On current trajectory, that balancing act is going to fail.

Continues…

Report: ‘Thousands’ of (White) South African Refugees to Arrive in U.S. by End of Summer

/9 Comments/in /by

50,000 applications for refugee status from Afrikaners

Report: ‘Thousands’ of South African Refugees to Arrive in U.S. by End of Summer

“Thousands” of white South African refugees may be in the United States by the end of the summer as massive amounts of applications from Afrikaners — an ethnic minority in the country — continue to pour in, the Daily Caller reported.

A U.S. Department of State official told the outlet on Friday that the Trump administration is hoping to take in many more than the small group of 59 Afrikaners that arrived in Washington, DC, last month.

“We won’t be talking about dozens of arrivals, but hundreds and perhaps thousands,” the official said. While they did not specify an exact time frame, the official added that “we’ll start to massively scale this up” towards the “second half of summer.”

Referring to a backlog of more than 50,000 applications for refugee status from Afrikaners, who frequently face political and racial violence in their home country, the official added that this number will “continue to rise.”

As the first group of a few dozen Afrikaners was welcomed into the U.S. by the State Department on May 12, President Donald Trump blasted the establishment media for refusing to cover the “genocide” taking place against white farmers in South Africa.

“It’s a genocide that’s taking place that you people don’t want to write about, but it’s a terrible thing that’s taking place, and farmers are being killed,” Trump told reporters in the White House. “They happen to be white, but whether they’re white or black makes no difference to me.”

“But white farmers are being brutally killed, and their land is being confiscated in South Africa, and the newspapers and the media — television media — doesn’t even talk about it,” he continued. “If it were the other way around, they’d talk about it. That would be the only story they’d talk about.”

According to the State Department official, every Afrikaner who has been granted refugee status in the U.S. thus far “has demonstrated a persecution claim.”

“People have suffered attacks on their farms that were racially motivated,” they explained.

Despite the allegations of persecution against white people in his country, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa has repeatedly insisted that they are not victims, Breitbart News reported.

“They are leaving because they don’t want to embrace the changes taking place in our country in accordance with our Constitution,” Ramaphosa claimed soon after news broke of the first group of refugees.

Speaking to reporters a short while later, the president called the refugees “cowardly” for “running away.”

Ramaphosa even went so far as to defend violent political chants calling to “Kill the Boer” and to “Kill the Farmer,” arguing that his country simply values “freedom of expression.”

Olivia Rondeau is a politics reporter for Breitbart News based in Washington, DC. Find her on X/Twitter and Instagram. 

JTA: Karol Nawrocki, right-wing Holocaust revisionist historian, elected Polish president

/9 Comments/in /by

Karol Nawrocki, right-wing Holocaust revisionist historian, elected Polish president

Read more

Andrew Grant “Charlotte” Fosgate: Suicide, Mockery, and Derision

/1 Comment/in , /by

The Suicide of Andrew Grant “Charlotte” Fosgate and the Mockery and Derision in Response

Stigma, Shame, and Other Negative Sanctions are Vital To Stopping the Transgender Menace

The above image features an image of St. Johns Bridge in Portland, Oregon, featured in the last tweet posted by Fosgate’s “charlotteburntfishie” account.

Author’s Note: the nature of this essay, a time sensitive “news” story, is particularly subject to revision and expansion.

As some readers are likely well aware, there is some controversy on social media concerning the apparent suicide of a Portland teen who had succumbed to transgender delirium. His name was Andrew Grant Fosgate, who adopted the name “Charlotte” in order to pretend that he was a young woman. On May 2, 2025, he posted this tweet with a picture of St. Johns Bridge in Portland Oregon. This had gone unnoticed for several weeks, until it was alleged that his death was confirmed. Note there are some who doubt the veracity of these reports.

Right-wingers and edgelords on twitter soon became aware of this, and reacted with mockery and derision. This tweet was met with both support and outrage, just as Stonetoss made a meme with the image of Andrew’s last tweet his profile banner for his twitter account.

This in turn has mobilized transgenders and their enablers to denounce such reactions, many of them making death threats or condoning violence explicitly. The position asserted by this motley assortment of cretins is that it is morally reprehensible to mock or celebrate the death of the “child.” Much of the outcry uses the word ‘child’ repeatedly to describe a junior or senior in high school, a minor who can drive a car, be emancipated as an adult, and tried as an adult under certain circumstances. They further assert that it is this sort of cruelty which drove the young person to suicide. Until Friday May 30, this was largely self-contained on twitter and other social media outlets, although it had been covered on Perez Hilton. And today, May 31, it was covered on Rolling Stone, compelling the publication of this short essay on The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective.

It cannot be stressed enough that no one has shown actual proof that Andrew Grant Fosgate received any sort of pushback, criticism, or even bullying in relation to his mad delusion that he is a “girl.” In fact, according to the tweets and other materials reproduced below, his mother, a single mother, was proactive in feeding this delusion, enabling and encouraging his “transition,” even giving him estrogen shots according to the teen’s own twitter account. There is no evidence that any of his peers criticized, balked, or stigmatized this lunacy in any way.

Despite assertions to the contrary, there should have been a great deal of criticism and stigma by his peers and society at large, in order to deter him and anyone else from entertaining such an impossible delusion in the first place. Some, particularly those of a more mainstream persuasion, including some of those of a Christian faith, may find some of the tweets, memes, and other reaction to this incident distasteful. It should be noted, however, that the young man had become truly contemptible, advocating for White genocide. His detractors insist it is a joke, but when something has to be explained that it is a joke, it has necessarily failed in its attempt at humor.¹

It is also of note that embracing the death and suicide of Andrew Grant Fosgate to advance the transgender cause is contrary to sound principles related to suicide prevention and the copy-cat phenomenon. As hard as it may be for some to fathom, and in contravention to naïveté about “the free marketplace of ideas,” suicide, among many other harmful and irrational behaviors, rubs off on other people. The suicide rate jumped up some twelve percent after Marilyn Monroe committed suicide. This has led to a greater understanding of social contagion and the copy-cat phenomenon, as it has led to strict protocols on how suicide is covered.2 As a general rule, media protocols dictate that such stories are publicized only very briefly, with a mere statement of what had transpired, replete with disclaims including suicide hotlines and so on. Transgender lunatics and their enablers are instead publicizing this, making a martyr of the fallen teen and blaming “transphobia” for his decision when in fact his family and all of his local society in Portland condoned and encouraged this delusion. Suicide attempts by so-called “transgenders” could very likely go up as a result, but those advancing this sick ideology will use it to silence detractors and blame those against this insanity for it, rather than the infusion of this impossible delusion into the stream of culture.

More importantly, such protestations do not change the fact that transgenderism is being normalized, and becoming mainstream. The only way to push this collective delusion into the dark recesses of society is through overt stigma and shaming and, if there is a political mandate to do so, legal sanctions, from restricting to banning so-called “gender affirming care.” Such a legislative response would be akin to laws like anti-prostitution and anti-gambling laws that, while never able to completely eradicate these vices, do provide an important deterrent while signaling that society finds these vices anathema.

Until such time as a political mandate has been realized to use state power to impose such sanctions, stigma and shame are the best deterrents. It may seem distasteful to some, but the more cases like those of Andrew Grant Fosgate are mocked and derided or met with other negative social sanctions, the more people will be dissuaded from entertaining this mad folly in the first place. Such negative responses are essential in order to prevent deviancy being defined even further down3 by mainstreaming transgenderism outright.

Stated another way, right-wing stalwarts, luminaries, and provocateurs like Stonetoss are not what killed Andrew Grant Fosgate. Rather it is the dissemination and promulgation of this sick ideology that implants this impossible idea into the minds of people on a macro, societal level, further aided and encouraged by lunatics like his mother. That transgender ideology is nothing other than the maddest delusion is proven by even a cursory glance at this creature before his demise. Despite being draped in concealing clothing, the unmistakably male features are immediately apparent in the size of his feet, and the distinctly male if not masculine features of his face, this despite adolescent males often having babyface features, to mention nothing of the estrogen shots he was receiving from that mother of his.

Charlotte Sometimes? Charlotte NEVER!
Above, an image of the boy pretending to be a girl. Below, some mad lad edited a picture of him to look more like what he is.

Fighting a culture war is never for the faint of heart, which is probably why mainstream conservatives have done almost nothing but bring about defeat after impending defeat. As with other matters, mealy-mouthed murmurings from such fuddy-duddies need to be ignored. Their strategy has been tried, and it has largely failed.

The loss of young life is often tragic and lamentable, but those voices responding sharply to this event are precisely those voices that needed to be heard as soon as the transgender agenda entered mainstream society when Bruce Jenner appeared in Vanity Fair. Just as they needed to be heard in other ways society and culture have devolved in the decades before, defining deviancy ever further downward. For that reason, those with ideological focus and intellectual acuity will not condemn those who respond in this way, but join them in the fight.

ADDENDUM (June 2, 2025): some of the hysteria by tansgender lunatics and their enablers has died down somewhat. The story has since been convered by local Oregon news, as well as LGBTQ Yuck propaganda rag Pink News (as any internet search query will demonstrate). Transgender vermin and radical gender ideologues have made the spot where Fosgate jumped into a shrine, and those against this lunacy are leaving mementos in mockery and derision. As stated, publicizing the suicide in this way to push so-called transgender rights is in contravention to basic protocols to prevent suicide ideation based on the copy-cat and socail contagion phenomena. These cretins are far more interested in trying to appropriate the death of Andrew Grant Fosgate as a martyr for their insidious cause than trying to prevent copy-cats. Below readers will find screenshots demonstrating these developments, as well as a sample of incitement to violence by the left. The latter is protected speech under Brandenburg vs Ohio, but is liklely in contravention to terms of service under twitter any other mainstream social media platform.

Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his publication, The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, found at theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls.

 

1 There are other unsavory postings associated with his social media footprint. The interest of brevity prevents a further exposition of such matters, at least for now.

2 This is discusseed at length in “When So Many Do Jump off a Bridge.”

3 Those unfamiliar with this critical concept are directed to this brief description, taken from “What Consenting Adults Do Is Our Councern:”

Discussed in detail by the late Robert Bork in the introductory chapter to Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Defining Deviancy Down posits—quite correctly—that any society, no matter how moral or depraved, can only afford to regard so much behavior as deviant before that behavior becomes normalized. This is closely related with the Durkheim Constant, postulated by German Jewish sociologist Emile Durkheim, which posits every society, no matter how moral or depraved, will have the same quotient of behavior that society regards as deviant. A society of saints will have vastly different morals and mores than a society of sinners, but both societies will regard the same quotient of behavior on the outlying edges of that particular society as deviant. Quite critically, as deviancy is defined ever further downward, society will then regard behavior that had been regarded as normal and beneficial as deviant

Dutch Government Collapses Over Migration Dispute

/1 Comment/in /by

Mr. Wilders said that implementation of that policy was not going quickly enough. During a news conference last week, he said he wanted to add 10 more proposals to the agreement to further curb migration and demanded the immediate support from his governing partners.

The proposals included calls for a complete halt to asylum, as well as a temporary stop to family reunions for asylum seekers who had been granted refugee status, and the return of all Syrians who had applied for asylum or are in the Netherlands on temporary visas.

Dutch Government Collapses Over Migration Dispute

The populist Geert Wilders withdrew his right-wing party from the ruling coalition, saying that partners were stalling his plans for the Netherlands’ “strictest migration policy ever.”

Geert Wilders is flanked by two people as he talks to reporters with microphones.
Geert Wilders, the far-right leader of the Netherlands’ biggest political party, speaking to reporters in The Hague on Tuesday.Credit…Robin van Lonkhuijsen/ANP, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
The governing coalition in the Netherlands collapsed on Tuesday after the populist leader Geert Wilders withdrew his party over a dispute about migration policy, ending a rocky 11-month reign by the country’s first far-right government and triggering early elections.

The move by Mr. Wilders shows how much a debate over unauthorized migration continues to roil European politics, a decade after a large-scale influx of people fleeing wars or seeking better economic opportunities unsettled the region.

The governing coalition’s collapse was confirmed by Prime Minister Dick Schoof, who said he would hand in his resignation to King Willem-Alexander on Tuesday. He said he would stay on as the leader of a caretaker government, without Mr. Wilders’s party, until elections and the formation of a new coalition.

It was not immediately clear when the elections would take place, but they appear unlikely to happen before October, plunging the country into political uncertainty for at least the rest of the year. Mr. Wilders’s party has been dropping in Dutch polls lately.

Mr. Wilders announced the withdrawal of his Party for Freedom from the four-party coalition on X, saying the decision was made because of his partners’ refusal to sign off on a new list of proposals to curb migration. “No signature for our migration plans,” he said.

The political crisis comes about two weeks before the Netherlands is set to host a NATO summit on June 24 and 25.

Mr. Wilders’s Party for Freedom — which has advocated banning the Quran, closing Islamic schools and entirely halting the acceptance of asylum seekers — won the largest number of seats in November 2023 elections, sending shock waves through the Dutch political system.

Mr. Wilders was able to form a government with three other right-wing parties — the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, a center-right party; the Farmer Citizen Movement, a populist pro-farmer party; and the New Social Contract — after more than six months of wrangling last year. It was the first government to include Mr. Wilders’s party, which mainstream parties had previously shunned.

Together, the four parties hold 88 seats in the 150-seat House of Representatives, a comfortable majority. But in a sign of how uncomfortable their arrangement was, the four agreed not to name any of their own leaders as prime minister. Instead they settled on Mr. Schoof, a career civil servant with no elective office or party affiliation, to lead the government.

Despite a decline in further migrant arrivals, anti-immigrant sentiment remains strong across Europe, fueling far-right populism that has brought politicians like Mr. Wilders to power.

Efforts to limit unauthorized migration have become more mainstream on the continent. In Germany on Monday, a Berlin court ruled that the German border police can no longer reject asylum seekers who arrive from neighboring European Union countries without investigating their claims, dealing a blow to Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s attempts to control such migration.

Mr. Wilders had prided himself on bringing the “strictest migration policy ever” to the Netherlands, something that his governing partners had said they agreed with. In May 2024, the four parties reached a deal that included “the strictest asylum admission policy and the most comprehensive migration control package ever.”

But Mr. Wilders said that implementation of that policy was not going quickly enough. During a news conference last week, he said he wanted to add 10 more proposals to the agreement to further curb migration and demanded the immediate support from his governing partners.

The proposals included calls for a complete halt to asylum, as well as a temporary stop to family reunions for asylum seekers who had been granted refugee status, and the return of all Syrians who had applied for asylum or are in the Netherlands on temporary visas.

The leaders of the other three parties in the coalition said that while they did not necessarily oppose Mr. Wilders’s plans, they wanted him to propose them in the Dutch House of Representatives. That would have taken longer and would not have guaranteed the plans’ implementation.

Then on Tuesday morning, after an emergency meeting with his governing partners that lasted barely 20 minutes, Mr. Wilders said he had no choice other than to withdraw his party from the coalition.

Dilan Yesilgoz-Zegerius, the leader of the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, expressed disbelief over the move. “I am baffled, and I assume his voters are, too,” she said. “I don’t think we will get another right-wing majority.”

Caroline van der Plas and Nicolien van Vroonhoven, the leaders of the other two governing parties, called Mr. Wilders’s decision “irresponsible.”

“He isn’t putting the Netherlands first, he’s putting Geert Wilders first,” said Ms. van der Plas, the leader of the pro-farmers party. “And I blame him for that.”

New elections now seem all but certain, less than two years after voters in the Netherlands went to the polls. The opposition leader Frans Timmermans, who leads the country’s left-wing alliance of the Green Party and the Labor Party, which came in second in the November 2023 elections, said he hoped for new elections “as soon as possible,” effectively ruling out any other option for saving the coalition.

Andrew Goldberg’s “White with Fear”

/4 Comments/in /by
Andrew Goldberg’s White with Fear. Needless to say, it’s devoid of an interest in the actual statistics on Black crime. See Ambrose Kane’s article.
In the documentary White with Fear, an insidious long-running campaign to villainize people of color in the US is laid bare
In the year 1968, a group of housewives in Dearborn, Michigan, then a nearly all-white suburb of Detroit, gathered for a workshop on how to shoot a gun. The women at the pistol range, mostly late-middle age and grandmotherly, were reacting to rhetoric from Richard Nixon’s presidential campaign, which fixated on a so-called crime wave. They were scared, defensive, willing to pick up a gun as a guard against what Nixon called “cities enveloped in smoke and flame”.
The neighboring city of Detroit was 40% Black, and the “crime” supposedly overtaking US cities meant, in this context, Black people, and white suburbia’s racist fear of them. […] Nixon’s approach demonstrated that “when you appeal to whites on the basis of race, they will go all the way to changing their political party,” said Andrew Goldberg, the film’s director.
As White with Fear immediately makes clear with footage of the old ladies with their pistols braided into clips of contemporary Republican “migrant crime” soundbites, the political tradition of dog-whistling white fear remains strong. The only difference between Dearborn housewives with, as a 1968 newscaster put it, “suburbia’s new tranquilizer”, and the viral photo of a white Missouri couple pointing an AR-15 at Black Lives Matter protesters in 2020, is the quality of the footage and the openness of the hostility.
===
[Interviewer:] What are you working on next?
[Andrew Goldberg:] We are working on a film about antisemitism coming from progressive spaces, as told by voices within the progressive movement. Light fare, right?!
Andrew Goldberg’s filmography:
The Armenian Americans (2000)
The Armenians, A Story of Survival (2001)
A Yiddish World Remembered (2002)
Images of The Armenian Spirit (2003)
They Came to America (2003)
Proud to Serve: The Men and Women of the U.S. Army (2004)
The Armenian Genocide (2006)
Anti-Semitism in the 21st Century: The Resurgence (2007)
The Jewish People: A Story of Survival (2008)
Jerusalem: Center of the World (2009)
Out in America (2011)
The Iranian Americans (2012)