Zephaniah Zaps Zionists: How a Bad Poem Reveals the Ugliness and Evil of Judeo-Leftism

/1 Comment/in , /by

Benjamin Zephaniah was a bad poet with a low IQ. But he was also Black and leftist, so he enjoyed huge success and acclaim before his death in 2023. It didn’t matter that he wrote woeful poetry. No, what mattered what he wrote woke poetry. And one of his woeful woke poems is a racial recipe — a recipe for cooking up “The British.” It celebrates everyone from Picts, Romans and Jutes to Pakistanis, Somalis and Malaysians.

Rebuking racist Robert

Zack Polanski, the ugly Jewish leader of Britain’s Green Party, has recently rebuked racist Robert by reciting that recipe. “Racist Robert” is Robert Jenrick, the Zionist politician who complained about not seeing a “white face” when he visited a heavily enriched district in Birmingham, Britain’s second-largest city. Jenrick is married to a Jew and thinks that “the Star of David should be displayed at every point of entry to the UK to show” that “we stand with Israel.” It’s obvious that he’s working for Israel and Jewish interests, not for the White British. But he’s an interesting example of how, since the Hamas attack on Israel, some powerful Jews have ordered their shabbos goyim to start campaigning against DEI and Islam. His comments about Birmingham were loudly condemned by British leftists and Zack Polanski rebuked his racism by reciting Benji’s bad poem. Here’s a video of the recital and the text of one version of the poem. See if you can spot a horrifying omission from the list of racial ingredients for “Britishness”:

Video of Zack Polanski reciting “The British” by Benjamin Zephaniah

“The British”

Take some Picts, Celts and Silures
And let them settle,
Then overrun them with Roman conquerors.
Remove the Romans after approximately 400 years
Add lots of Norman French to some
Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Vikings, then stir vigorously.
Mix some hot Chileans, cool Jamaicans, Dominicans,
Trinidadians and Bajans with some Ethiopians, Chinese,
Vietnamese and Sudanese.
Then take a blend of Somalians, Sri Lankans, Nigerians
And Pakistanis,
Combine with some Guyanese
And turn up the heat.
Sprinkle some fresh Indians, Malaysians, Bosnians,
Iraqis and Bangladeshis together with some
Afghans, Spanish, Turkish, Kurdish, Japanese
And Palestinians
Then add to the melting pot.
Leave the ingredients to simmer.
As they mix and blend allow their languages to flourish
Binding them together with English.
Allow time to be cool.
Add some unity, understanding, and respect for the future,
Serve with justice
And enjoy.

Note: All the ingredients are equally important. Treating one ingredient better than another will leave a bitter unpleasant taste.

Warning: An unequal spread of justice will damage the people and cause pain. Give justice and equality to all. (“The British” by Benjamin Zephaniah)

Punim of a poetaster: the ugly mug of bad Black poet Benjamin Zephaniah (Wikipedia)

Do you spot the omission from Benji’s bollocks about Britishness? Oy veh — he didn’t mention Jews! And I think the omission was entirely deliberate, because he did mention “Palestinians.” Like it or not, Jews have been important in British history, vastly over-represented for many decades in politics, academia, media and the arts. But Palestinians? They’ve been utterly insignificant in British history, both culturally and demographically. So have some of the other groups mentioned by the woeful woke poet: Malaysians, Kurds and Bosnians, for example.

Propagandizing for Palestine

I conclude that Benjamin Zephaniah was deliberately excluding Jews from his bad poem about Britishness, which he wrote in 2009 or earlier. He was also breaking his own principles: “All the ingredients are equally important. Treating one ingredient better than another will leave a bitter unpleasant taste.” Zephaniah certainly knew that Jews are a big “ingredient” in the racial recipe of Brave New Britain, yet he excluded Jews from his poem even as he included the minor ingredient of Palestinians. In other words, Zephaniah was zapping Zionists — propagandizing on behalf of Palestinians against Jews who support Israel. That must leave a “bitter unpleasant taste” for Jews, who have long regarded Blacks and other non-Whites as “natural allies” against the White majority of Britain and other Western nations.

Jews felt the same “bitter unpleasant taste” after the Black punk-rapper Bobby Vylan led a chant of “Death to the IDF [Israel Defense Forces]” at the famous Glastonbury Music Festival. As I said in my article about the vibrantly vulval Vylan, the chant was a horrifying example of how the Jews’ “natural allies” have turned out to be Nazi-adjacent. After Hamas murdered, raped and kidnapped hundreds of Israeli Jews in October 2023, Jews in the West watched in dismay as their “natural allies” poured onto the streets of New York, London and Paris not in support of poor persecuted Israel but of murderous and rapist-replete Hamas.

Hilary harassed by Hamas-fans

Since October 7, more and more Jews have begun to understand that, by organizing and supporting non-White immigration, they’ve imported not “natural allies” but natural enemies. As long as they thought the mud flood was bad for Whites, they were all in favor of it. Now that they’ve realized it’s also bad for Jews, they’re having second thoughts. You can see those second thoughts appearing in Jewish media outlets like the Jewish Chronicle, where the Jewish journalist Hilary Freedom has recently described the “18 months of hell” she endured at the hands of some “natural allies” in east London:

My daughter and I were targeted at her school for being Zionists

It began with a bake sale to raise funds for Palestine, became a campaign of harassment and ended with transferring my child to another primary. I went through 18 months of hell

Like thousands of parents all over the UK, I am currently in the process of applying for secondary schools, filling out an online form that will determine my daughter’s future. It’s stressful for all Jewish parents, but, for my family, that stress is amplified by the numerous examples of antisemitism that we have endured since October 7.

When we moved here, five years ago — yards from one end of Cable Street — I was fully aware that I would be living in a majority Bangladeshi Muslim area. I was not concerned. I have Muslim friends and have always believed in multiculturalism, in diversity. And besides, the primary school we chose had a wonderful, inspirational Ashkenazi Jewish headteacher known for fostering cross-community relations.

As the only Jewish child at the school — indeed, reportedly the only Jewish child ever to have gone there — our daughter was regarded as a curiosity by some of the other children. A few refused to believe she was Jewish, insisting that she must be Christian. But there were no real issues. We even took in apples and honey for her class to enjoy at Rosh Hashanah.

That all changed on October 7, 2023. My problems began with a parents’ WhatsApp group discussion over a bake sale to raise money for Palestine. I objected to the anti-Israel rhetoric in the thread, pointing out that the group was for school matters, not politics, and that some of the messages upset me. I explained that my cousin’s wife had been murdered at Kibbutz Kfar Aza on October 7. I asked for understanding.

If anything, my revelation seemed to inflame them more. For the first time I understood that some have absolutely no compassion for dead Israelis or those who mourn them. Palestine flag emojis began appearing in the WhatsApp names in the group, mirroring the flags that had sprung up on every lamppost in the area. Someone removed my admin status. Micro-aggressions, that made me feel I was no longer welcome.

Yes, I had been naive. I had not realised just how anti-Israel the tight-knit, religious local community was. I wasn’t aware that Bangladesh not only refuses to recognise Israel, but also bans its citizens from travelling there and doesn’t allow those with Israeli passports to enter. To some brought up in this culture, Zionism is evil. And now that I had revealed myself as a Zionist, I had become a non-person, a legitimate target. (“My daughter and I were targeted at her school for being Zionists,” The Jewish Chronicle, 23rd October, 2025)

Hamasite-harassed Hilary Freeman supports Israel at Facebook

Why has Hilary Freeman “always believed in multiculturalism, in diversity”? Because she thinks they are good for Jews and, conversely, bad for ancestrally Christian Whites, whom Jews like Freeman still regard as potential oppressors and anti-Semites. Bangladeshis are non-White and non-Christian, so what’s not to like about importing them in huge numbers into Britain?

Well, Hilary Freeman has started to think that Bangladeshi immigration has its downsides. And if she had paid attention to her near-namesake Jonathan Freedman, she might not have been so “naïve” about her move to a Bangladeshi-enriched district in London. Here is Jonny the Jew writing about Bangladeshi anti-Semitism in London twenty years ago:

On March 27 1945 one of the last V2 rockets of the war landed on Hughes Mansions, a block of low-cost housing in London’s East End. Among the 134 people killed, 120 were Jews. Last Sunday [10 April 2005], survivors of the blast and relatives of those killed came back to Hughes Mansions for a memorial service. I was there along with much of my family, including my mother. Her own mother, Feige, and aunt Rivvy were among those killed 60 years ago. It took a full day to find them in the rubble.

People were choked with emotion from the start; they had come back to the spot where they had seen brothers, sisters, parents and friends die. They were expecting to feel sorrow. What they did not bargain for was fear. Within minutes, the mourners were pelted, first with vegetables, then with eggs. Some said they saw stones; others said they had been spat at. Gathered in old age to remember their dead, they felt under siege.

Looking around, it was difficult to spot individual culprits. All that were visible were groups of young Asian [i.e. Bangladeshi] men, standing on the balconies of the rebuilt block. Among the dignitaries at the service was the local MP, Oona King. When she spoke, she attacked the “ignorance” of the assailants and insisted that their real target was her. […] Most of those there thought it much more straightforward. They believed this was an attack by Muslims on Jews. After all, the men wore skullcaps, the prayers were in Hebrew. There was no doubt who they were.

Pre-war Jews, like today’s East End Muslims, also lived in unforgiving poverty. They too were herded into the cramped streets of East London as the first stop for new immigrants. They too were reviled as outsiders, branded as parasites on the indigenous society. And they too were feared as a potential fifth column, suspected adherents of a violent, supranational ideology. The “Jewish menace” was said to be first anarchism and then Bolshevism. Today’s “Muslim peril” is jihadism. This is what grieved some of those mourners most. As they huddled together in fear, one spoke for all when she said: “This is so wrong. We should be on the same side.” (“Reviled as outsiders,” The Guardian, 16th April 2005)

By “the same side,” the fearful Jew meant “the anti-White, anti-Christian side.” It was obvious back in 2005 that Bangladeshis and other Muslims are not “natural allies” of Jews, but leftist Jews preferred to ignore that and accentuate the positive. After all, Muslims are definitely natural enemies of Whites and Christians. However, since the October 7 attack on Israel, even leftist Jews have begun to doubt that Muslims and other non-Whites are quite so good for Jewish interests as they once appeared. Hilary Freeman is one of those Jews. She has “always believed in multiculturalism, in diversity,” but now she’s kvetching in the Jewish Chronicle about the “18 months of hell” she’s endured from Bangladeshi Muslims in London.

Ugly punim, ugly poem

Zack Polanski isn’t one of those Jews now doubting the value of their “natural allies.” As leader of the Green Party, Polanski still believes in open borders and maximal minority worship. When he recited Benji’s bollocks about Britishness, he must have noticed that Jews weren’t included in the racial recipe. But he preferred to ignore that and use the poem as anti-White propaganda. There was even a shot of a proudly fluttering Palestinian flag when he recited a bit about “some Palestinians.”

Ugly Zeph, ugly Zack: two shots from Polanski’s poetry-recital (see video here)

But there’s more to note in Zack’s video in celebration of vibrancy. I was struck by the ugliness of everything in it, from Polanski’s punim to the bad poetry he was reciting to the unshaven ethnics he was shown shaking hands with as he toured the dirty, run-down streets of enriched Birmingham. And the video had a shot of a mural of Benjamin Zephaniah’s ugly mug. As I’ve often pointed out at the Occidental Observer, ugliness is intrinsic to leftism. So is evil. I fully agree with what the White nationalist blogger Morgoth has said about Polanski and his party:

I get bad vibes from the Green Party, folks. I get that they’re a tiny party of nutballs now, but I feel like something monstrous dwells within.

They make me sort of sick.

There’s a dark aura of foreshadowing about them. That Fagin [the Jewish master-thief in Dickens] fella, and the little goblin woman [former Green leader Carla Denyer].

It’s not right, I’m telling you. (Morgoth at Twitter, 6th October 2025)

That Fagin feller and the little goblin woman: Zack Polanski and Carla Denyer

Mass immigration has been central to the evil visited on Whites and the West by Jews and their leftist allies. Do you recall how the Jew Hilary Freeman kvetched about her “18 months of hell” in east London? Well, compare what she went through with what some Whites have experienced in the same place from the same imported enrichers. Here’s a long-forgotten story about some boisterous Bangladeshis:

A South Quay construction superviser may never work again after a horrific attack by a gang of youths left him paralysed down his right side. John Payne, who oversees refurbishment at London Underground stations for Construction Resources Ltd in Lutomer House, South Quay, was trying to protect two young female friends during the assault in Stepney [East London] on Monday, April 8, at around 11.30pm.

His stepfather, Ricky Jackson, said John, 32, was walking home with Sarah O’Leary and Jenny Curran, both 21, and two other men when a gang of youths began shouting at the group. John told them to go away, but they were set upon, with John and the other two men trying to protect the girls as they attempted to make it to one of the group’s houses 15 yards away.

Jenny, according to John’s family, was struck on the head and body with an iron bar as John tried to protect her along with Denny Curran, 20, who also works for Construction Resources Ltd, and Paul Whitehall, 30. The group were then totally outnumbered as “15 or 16 more guys appeared armed with machetes, axes, knives and hammers,” according to Mr Jackson, of Beckton. He added: “John was hacked about the head and knocked unconscious and Denny threw himself on top of John fearing that the next blow would kill him. In doing this he was struck with a machete over the back of the head, slicing a large area of scalp to the bone.”

When Jenny regained consciousness she held John’s split skull together in her hands as they waited for the police to arrive, and John was taken to intensive care at the Royal London Hospital.

He remains in hospital and is paralysed down the right side of his body. Mr Jackson said: “His skull was crushed with such force that pieces of bone were embedded in his brain. The surgeons operated but concluded that it would be more dangerous to remove the fragments and could do him even more harm.”

John’s cousin Debbie Granger said: “He has got some slight movement back in his fingers, but we are not sure if he will be able to walk again properly, let alone return to work.”

John will now need specialist care and counselling, as he is suffering severe depression and has had a couple of seizures since the attack. (“Paralysed after Machete Attack,” 27th April 2006)

That was Bangladeshis enriching Whites. When the White schoolboy Kriss Donald was doused in gasoline and incinerated, it was Pakistanis. When the White schoolgirl Charles Downes was raped, murdered and dismembered, it was a Jordanian and an Iranian. When White schoolgirls were blown up at a pop concert, it was a Libyan. When the White mother Tracey Mertens was abducted and incinerated in a churchyard, it was two Blacks, probably Jamaicans. It was certainly a Jamaican who committed scores or even hundreds of life-shortening rapes and sexual assaults against elderly White women (and some men) in London. It’s an Afghan who has just allegedly stabbed a White dogwalker to death in London. Et cetera, et cetera, ad nauseam.

But to the best of my knowledge, Palestinians haven’t yet committed any bestial crimes on British soil. I confidently predict that Palestinians will soon big up the bestiality, because they’re now being imported into Britain in growing numbers by the left. The Guardian has just reported that a “UK rule change allows Palestinian scholars to bring families from Gaza.” And guess who campaigned for the “rule change” for the “scholars”? The Jew Enver Solomon, chief executive of the Refugee Council, had previously said: “It is excessively harsh to tell students fleeing the appalling devastation in Gaza that while they can study safely here, they must leave their loved ones behind. No one should be forced to choose between their education and their family.” That’s not the wisdom but the wickedness of Solomon. It will soon lead to Palestinians committing bestial crimes on British soil.

Fuentes Flying High

/0 Comments/in /by

Fuentes Flying High

1,641 words 

Tucker Carlson Interviews Nick Fuentes

The biggest news in Nationalism This Week is that Tucker Carlson interviewed Nick Fuentes. Everyone knows that I think that Fuentes is a slimy, unprincipled opportunist who is bad for white identity politics because (1) he isn’t white, and (2) his only (apparent) absolute is Catholicism.

Fuentes is a Mexican Catholic reactionary, not a white advocate. And, as I pointed out more than a decade ago, reactionary Catholicism is not a vehicle for white identity politics. The best it can do is Latin masses for the brown people who are replacing us. This is borne out by Fuentes’ increasingly brown audience.

That said, the Fuentes interview is largely good for white identity politics, despite the fact that Fuentes cucked on every important identitarian issue, as David Zsutty has already pointed out. Seriously, when Tucker said things like “God created only individuals, not groups,” that was an engraved invitation to defend basic race realism, and Fuentes decided to play it safe. Now that Charlie Kirk is dead, he is running toward the mainstream thinking he can pick up Kirk’s audience.

There are at least three reasons why this interview is good for white identity politics.

First, it is a huge Overton window shift. If Tucker can platform Nick Fuentes, what’s to stop him from platforming me or Jared Taylor or Kevin MacDonald? At this point, nothing.

Second, although Fuentes is bad on race and identity, he’s very good on the Jewish question, which is now being widely discussed because his appearance has triggered a public meltdown by Jewish advocates and apologists.

As an aside, I think that Tucker’s decision to platform Fuentes is a master stroke. Fuentes has been getting a “strange new respect” from the mainstream, including the New York Times. The Times wanted to promote him because he is anti-Trump and anti-Vance. But his new respectability began with his attacks on Tucker Carlson as a “fed.” Tucker is the number one enemy of Right-wing Jews like Laura Loomer and Mark Levin because of his critical attitude toward Israel and Zionist power in American politics. Thus the most plausible explanation for mainstreaming Fuentes is to harm Tucker.

By platforming Fuentes, however, Tucker has co-opted Fuentes, who has now dropped the “fed” accusation and is pretending to be pro-Trump. More importantly, by interviewing Fuentes, Tucker has thrust the question of Jewish control of American politics center-stage, and now it has more credibility because Jews and their allies spent their own capital mainstreaming Fuentes. That was clever of them but not too smart.

Third, by platforming Fuentes, Tucker now has the whole establishment bent on attacking and discrediting Fuentes. There’s a mountain of dirt for them to work with, ably assembled by such researchers as Chris Brunet. If Tucker wanted to discredit Fuentes on his own, he would not have had a fraction of the help or reach as the army of critics he has now conjured up.

This creates another Overton window shift, making it more likely for Fuentes’ critics on the Right like Chris Brunet and Jaden McNeil to be platformed. Frankly, discrediting an interloper like Fuentes can only be good for white identity politics, and plenty of people on the real Right have all the necessary receipts.

This may be as close to the sun as Nick ever flies.

Well played, Tucker. Well played. I hope you are kicking back, smoking a stogie, and beaming with satisfaction. 

Continues at Counter-Currents.

What Was Blanche Barrow Really Like?  And What Difference Does It Make?

/3 Comments/in /by

 

Blanche Barrow

This was Blanche Barrow in late 1933.  Twenty-two years old.  An inmate in the Missouri State Penitentiary.  Something is wrong with her left eye.

Blanche grew up poor in Oklahoma and Texas.  Little schooling.   Her last job was washing hair in a beauty salon.  She was married to Buck Barrow, 30, from a poor farming family in Texas; he had a criminal background.  Buck, now dead, was a member of his 24-year-old brother Clyde’s gang that robbed banks and stores and shot anybody that got in their way.

For upwards of two years, Clyde and his lover Bonnie Parker—22, grew up poor in Texas, a waitress—were famous, in all the newspapers.  Bonnie and Clyde, everybody knew them by their first names.   Bonnie’s poems, surprisingly good, and snapshots of her with a rifle and smoking a cigar, were on front pages.  Outlaws, adventurers, on the run from the publicity-conscious FBI until they were riddled with bullets in a May 23rd 1934 FBI ambush as they drove along a rural Louisiana road on their way to see relatives.   Here are the two of them.Bonnie and Clyde

And here’s Blanche and Buck.

Blanche and Buck

In a May, 1933, shootout with the law in Missouri, Buck was shot in the head and both Blanche’s eyes were injured by shards of bullet-shattered car window glass leaving her completely blind in her left eye.

Bonnie, Clyde, Blanche, and Buck made it to Iowa before they were tracked down by the FBI and a posse of locals.  Buck died of his head wound and a second shot and Blanche was arrested.   Bonnie and Clyde escaped, postponing their demise for another year.  Blanche was sentenced to ten years in prison for assault with intent to kill.

Bonnie and Clyde have become part of American history, folk heroes of a sort.  Bonnie had pizzazz.  Depression-era have-nots who went for it big and literally went out with a bang.   Like so many others, I’ve been fascinated by their story over the years.1

Two weeks or so ago, I read Blanche’s book about her time with Bonnie and Clyde.  Up until then, I hadn’t known about her book.  She authored her story during her years in prison, from 1933 until she was paroled in 1939.  In loose-leaf notebooks, mostly hand-written in ink, a bit in pencil, stream-of-conscious unpunctuated prose.   Blanche wrote it just for herself and set it aside, and it wasn’t until well after her death in 1988 that John Neal Phillips edited what she’d put together and published it in 2005 as a book with the title My Life with Bonnie and Clyde, with Blanche listed as the author and himself as the editor.2  I found the book and Blanche herself compelling.  Both have stuck in my mind for days, and now I’m taking the time to write this post up.

Blanche is prominent in one of the biggest movies of the 1960s, “Bonnie and Clyde,” 1967, directed by Arthur Penn.  In one of his very first reviews for the Chicago Sun-Times newspaper, famed reviewer Roger Ebert wrote:

Bonnie and Clyde” is a milestone in the history of American movies, a work of truth and brilliance.  It is also pitilessly cruel, filled with sympathy, nauseating, funny, heartbreaking, and astonishingly beautiful. . . . Years from now it is quite possible that “Bonnie and Clyde” will be seen as the definitive film of the 1960s, showing with sadness, humor and unforgiving detail what one society had come to.3

I’d never seen “Bonnie and Clyde,” and prompted by Blanche being in my thoughts, I streamed it and can affirm Ebert’s take on it.  It is exemplary filmmaking.  I watched it on the Criterion Channel, a subscription service, around $100 a year, that I highly recommend if you are a film buff—a superb collection of classic old films along with a smattering of well-chosen recent ones.

“Bonnie and Clyde” stars Warren Beatty as Clyde and Faye Dunaway as Bonnie.  I’ve referred to ages as I’ve gone along here to underscore how young Bonnie and Clyde were—23 and 25 when they died—and now how much younger they were than the actors who portrayed them.  Beatty was 29 during the filming and Dunaway was 26.  Gene Hackman who played Buck was 37.  Estelle Parsons, who played Blanche, was 40.

While I’m on the topic of contrasts, Clyde, Bonnie, and Blanche were smaller than you probably imagine them being:  Clyde was 5’5”, Bonnie 4”10”, and Blanche 4’11”.  Warren Beatty was 6’1”, Faye Dunaway 5’7”, Gene Hackman 6’2” (Buck was 5’7”), and Estelle Parsons was 5’4”.  One of the people who viewed the bodies of Bonnie and Clyde when they were displayed for public viewing—they did that with prominent criminals in those days, John Dillinger a prime example—remarked, “Why, they’re just little bitty things.”

Estelle Parsons won the Academic Award for Best Supporting Actress for her portrayal of Blanche and deserved it.  Here she is in the movie in a characteristic pose—she’s pitched in the movie as being given to hystrionics.

Estelle Parsons

I was struck by the difference between the Blanche that came across in her memoir and the image of her in the movie and it’s this and what I make of it that is the subject of this post.

In her memoir, Blanche is young, sincere, personally grounded, and deeply in love with, devoted to, and protective of her eight-years-older, somewhat-of-a-father-figure, husband Buck.  Blanche in the movie is appealing in her vulnerability, especially after the eye injury, and her concern for Buck’s wellbeing comes through, but the predominant picture of her is as a chatty, shallow, shrill, inept, loose-cannon, hanger-on.  After seeing the movie, the real Blanche was quoted as saying, “They made me look like a screaming horse’s ass.”

Reading the book and seeing the movie — and it’s been a theme in my writing recently4 — reminded me that what I know about the world and the people who live in it is shaped by those who mediate it for me, who show things to me and tell me about them and what they mean.  I’m much more aware of that fact these years than I was before, and I wish I hadn’t been so late in coming to this realization

I’ll illustrate this point through this Blanche Barrow example.  If I had just read her memoir, I’d think one thing about her.  If I’d just seen the movie, I’d think something else.  And now that I’ve both read her book and seen the movie, it’s yet another thing, and I think it’s a better thing.  I have a more complex, nuanced, understanding of her, which includes what I’m not clear about with regard to her.

With that as an organizer, for the remainder of this writing, I’ll compare the Blanche in the movie and the Blanche in the book.

*   *   *

Consider these three segments of dialogue from the movie:

  • Blanche enters the latest motel room on the gang’s run from the law.

“Look, it’s so clean, Buck.  And a refrigerator, not an ice box.  Oh, and about eight pounds of pork chops, four pounds of red beans, and some Chase and Sanborn coffee!”

“Buck, you need a haircut.  You’re looking just like a hillbilly.”

“You’re like an old man playing checkers all the time.  Paying no attention to your poor lonely wife.”

  • Clyde looks out the window of the motel room. “It’s the cops!”

Blanche runs to the window.  “He’s got a shotgun!” Aaah!! she screams.  Get us out of here!”

A shootout with the police, Bonnie, Clyde, and Buck firing through the windows.   Blanche is ducked down.  “Aaah!”

The four escape out the back door.  Clyde, Bonnie, and Buck jump into the car.  Blanche runs off, arms waving, darting left and right.  Clyde drives close to her, slows the car to a crawl, Buck opens the back door. Blanche runs to the car and jumps into the back seat and slams the door.

“Damn it!” snarls Bonnie from the front passenger seat. “You almost got us killed!”

“I thought you’d be happy if I got shot.”

“Yeah, it would have saved us trouble.”

To Buck, “Don’t let her talk to me like that!”

“You shouldn’t have done that [run off on your own],” Buck replies.  “It was dumb.”

Blanche, hyper, irrational: “Make him [Clyde] stop the car.  Please!”

“Just shut up!” says exasperated Bonnie.  “Just shut up your big mouth!”

Later that day, Bonnie to Clyde: “Get rid of her!  She’s dumb, stupid, back country.”

  • May, 1933, Missouri, the end of the road for Blanche and Buck, their final shootout with the law. Bonnie and Clyde escape and buy a year’s time until they meet up with eternity in Louisiana.

Buck is shot in the head, though still conscious.

“It didn’t happen, Daddy.  It didn’t happen.  I know it didn’t.  Oh God. Oh God!   Dear Lord in Heaven, please help me.  Buck will never do anything wrong again in his life, I promise!”

“Blanche be quiet,” admonishes Clyde.  “We’re trying to get out of here. Blanche, stop it.  You stop it!”

“My eyes!  I think I’m blind!  My eyes!  The light hurts so bad!”

Clyde tries to comfort her, but he’s not sure what to say or do.

Bonnie gives Blanch her sunglasses.  “Hon, here.” she says gently, caringly.

“Tell Clyde to get us to a doctor, Bonnie, we’re dying.”

“Buck can’t be moved now, Hon.”

“Clyde!  Clyde!  Clyde!  I believe I lost my shoes, Clyde.”

*   *   *

Contrast that Blanche with the Blanche in her memoir.  To get at this difference, I’ve taken it upon myself to write my own short screenplay based on Blanche’s book.  I call it “Blanche Barrow in Prison.”  As you go through it, see how reading this screen play, “seeing” this movie, affects your view of Blanche Barrow.  When you’re finished, think about how you can better make sense of whatever you experience second hand, whatever you don’t directly see, hear, touch, taste, or smell: Joe Rogan and Tucker and TikTok, the Netflix shows  and YouTubes, The New York Times, Washington Post, Fox News, and  CNN, the biography you’re reading, and the posts on this website, including this one I’ve put together on Blanche Barrow.

*   *   *

My screenplay.

[title: Blanche Barrow in Prison]

[a card taking up the whole screen]

Blanche Barrow, born in Oklahoma, 22-years-old in 1933, was the wife of 30-year-old Buck Barrow, a member of the criminal gang led by his younger brother Clyde Barrow, 24, who with his 22-year-old lover Bonnie Parker attained mythic status in American culture. 

A July 19th, 1933   shootout at a motor court in Platte City, Missouri marked the end of the road for Blanche and Buck.  From the Missouri State Penitentiary late that year, where she was serving ten years for assault with intent to kill, Blanche recounted what went down in that shootout and over the next couple of days.  

[1933, an empty visitors’ room at the Missouri State Penitentiary.  Blanche Barrow sitting on a chair facing an unseen interviewer just off to the side of the camera.  She’s close to the camera, accessible to us, this is an intimate encounter with her.]

It was time for bed. When I got in bed, I kissed Buck goodnight.  I was just starting to doze off when someone flashed a light on our window.  Then there was a knock on the door.

I woke Buck up and told him there was someone at the door.  Buck in a low voice told me to ask who it was and what they wanted.  He started to put his pants and shoes on.

A man said it was the law.  He said to send out the man I had in there.

Buck whispered to me, “Tell him there isn’t any man in here.”  Which I did.

The man said, “Well then, come on out yourself.”

I asked again what he wanted.  I was stalling for time.  I just felt the end was near for all of us.

He asked where the men were.

Buck said, “Tell them the men are in another cabin, and shout it loud enough so Clyde and Bonnie can hear you.”  I did that.

“Come on out here,” the man said.

“Wait until I get my clothes on,” I said.

Buck grabbed a .45 pistol and put it in his belt and got a rifle from beside the bed.   He said, “I’d sure hate to kill him and whoever else is at the door, but it looks like I am going to have to.  Get as close to the wall as you can.”

Then the fireworks started.  I don’t know who fired the first shot, but I know Buck shot to the side instead of through the door where he would have killed anyone in front of it.  Those who were in front of our door should be thankful because Buck could have killed them if he had wanted to.

Buck said, “Maybe we can make it out the back to the car.”

We were about halfway to the car, which was in the garage, when there was a shot and I saw Buck fall and I ran over to him.  He’d been shot in the head, but he was conscious.

Clyde and Bonnie were already in the car.  It was all I could do to get my arm around Buck and get him into the back seat.  Clyde stepped on the gas and backed out of the garage.  I was holding Buck’s head as close to my breast as I could and I had my arm wrapped around him trying to protect him.

Bullets hit the side of the car.   Glass broke and something hard hit the side of my head just above my temple.  It seemed to burn its way across my head into my eyes.  My eyes didn’t hurt much.  I didn’t feel it at the time, but I was hit by a bullet in my right arm.

My vision in my left eye suddenly faded completely out, everything was dark.   I wiped my right eye with my hand and I could see a little better with it, but only if I was real close to what I was looking at.  I yelled, “They got my eyes!  I can’t see!”

Bonnie said, “Oh, God!”

It was then that I saw the blood on my arm.  I said, “I got shot in my arm!”

I saw a small towel in the back seat and wiped blood from Buck’s head.  I tried to see the wound, but I just could make out where the blood was on his head and it was streaming down his face,

Buck was conscious.   He didn’t complain at all.  He just said his head hurt and he wanted some water.   I kissed him and I could taste blood.

I had to try and help Buck even if I couldn’t see very well.  About all I could think of to do was protect him with my body from more bullets hitting him.

Clyde started driving. When we stopped at a filling station to get some gas, he said for me to get Buck covered and for both of us to lie down like we was asleep.  I tried to cover us both so the station guy wouldn’t see all the blood.   Buck got sick to his stomach and came out from under the covering some.  There was blood all over his face and head.

We made it out of the filling station OK.  We drove all that night and all the next day.  We stopped one place where Bonnie got some bandages, Mercurochrome, and alcohol.  And she got some aspirin for Buck and me.  We tried to bandage Buck’s head.  The whole night and day of driving, I was afraid to go to sleep for fear Buck would die.  We never thought to try to take Buck to a doctor or a hospital.

Buck never once complained, but I knew he was suffering.  I put ice on his head where the wound was.  That seemed to give him relief more than anything else we did.  Buck would reach out to me and hold me, but he didn’t say anything hardly at all and seldom opened his eyes.  Sometimes he would be so still I’d feel his pulse or place my hand on his chest to see if he was still alive.  I could hardly keep from screaming with the fear that gripped me.   I just couldn’t live if Buck died.  I loved him too much to give him up.  I wanted to go with him whether we lived or died.

We stopped in a wooded area.  I later learned it was near Dexter, Iowa.  Clyde put a car cushion down on the ground under a tree for Buck and me to stretch out on.  Buck seemed to be feeling a little better.  He sat up.  He stood on his feet and I helped him walk a few steps.

In the evening about sundown, Clyde drove into a nearby town with Bonnie.   They brought back fried chicken dinners for Buck and me.  I couldn’t eat mine, but I held Buck’s plate for him and he ate some.  Buck noticed I wasn’t eating anything.   He said, “Baby, what’s the use of me eating and trying to get well if you’re going to starve yourself to death?  The only reason I am trying to get well is because of you.  I am just living for you.”  I tried harder to eat and managed to swallow some food, but it had no taste.

That night we slept in the car.  Bonnie tried to get me to sleep in the front seat.   She said I couldn’t go on without sleep.  She said she would sit by Buck and if he seemed to make any change, she would wake me up.   I got in the front seat and lay down.  But I couldn’t go to sleep.  I was afraid to be that far away from Buck, fearing he may miss me.   I went back to him so I could touch him and know every move he made.

Both of my eyes were starting to hurt a lot.  They were full of fine, shattered glass and there was a large piece of glass stuck in the left one that was real bad.  Both Clyde and Bonnie tried to get it out with tweezers, but the tweezers kept slipping off.   I was pretty weak from the loss of blood from my arm.

The next morning, a shot came from somewhere and hit the car.  Clyde said he didn’t want to try to drive to the highway where we’d come from, so he started backing down a hill.  He backed into a ditch and got hung up on a tree stump and couldn’t pull the car out.

Bonnie said, “Let’s run.”  I got my arm around Buck’s waist.  “Baby,” he said, “leave me.  I’m too tired to go on.”  I told him I wouldn’t leave him ever.  I helped him get up, putting both of his arms around my neck and my arm around his waist.  I had to go slow with him, almost dragging him.  I held onto trees to keep us from falling down.  We could only go short distances and then have to sit down.  Buck kept begging me to leave him, but I kept on trying to get him a few steps farther.

We came to a clearing.   I saw a big log with a stump behind it.  I thought I could sit down on the stump and let Buck lie down and rest a few minutes.  I sat down and put his head and shoulders in my lap.  Buck was cold and wet from the early morning dew, which was like a light rain.  I was cold too.  I only had on a thin silk knit blouse.  I sat there until my feet and legs seemed paralyzed from the weight of Buck’s head and shoulders.

I heard a shout, “There they are!”  I pushed Buck between me and the log to protect him from bullets.   But Buck got shot.  I could see blood on his chest.  I don’t know how he got shot without me being shot too.  Buck threw his body over mine and held me tight in his arms.  Then I spoke my last words to him before he died.  “Daddy, I will always love you.”

[slight pause]

I suppose it could seem like it was a crime for me to have ever met Buck Barrow.  But when I met Buck, it was a case of true love from the first.  I knew I loved him more than I had ever loved anyone before and more than I could ever love anyone else for the rest of my life.  And he loved me the same if it is possible for a man to love as a woman does.  Because I loved Buck Barrow and married him, and was loyal and true to him and to my marriage vows to the bitter end, I am now serving a ten year sentence in prison.  I am not guilty of the crime charged to me.  But I am guilty of loving my husband so much I couldn’t bear to have him leave me and not know what hour of the day or night I may receive word of him being riddled by bullets fired from some officer’s machine gun.  Even though I knew my life was in danger I went with Buck wherever he went.  Rather than live without him, I chose to face death with him.

[slight pause]

Thank you for listening to me.

Endnotes

  1. A biography: Jeff Guinn, Go Down Together: The True, Untold Story of Bonnie and Clyde, Simon & Schuster, 2009.
  2. Blanche Barrow, author, and John Neal Phillips, editor, My Life with Bonnie and Clyde, University of Oklahoma Press, 2005.
  3. https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-bonnie-and-clyde-1967#google_vignette
  4. A couple of examples. Robert S. Griffin, A Commentary on the Movie “The Order,” The Occidental Observer, posted June 21, 2025. Robert S. Griffin, A Commentary on the Film “Quisling: The Final Days,” The Occidental Observer, posted October 15, 2025.

More Non-White Crime in the U.K.

/2 Comments/in /by

This  article came out before yesterday’s train stabbings by two Black men, injuring 11, two critically. The assailants were both born in the UK; one is a 32-year-old Black British man, the other is a 35-year-old man of Caribbean descent. This isn’t working, folks.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A clip of a TalkTV caller from London has gone viral after she expressed her extreme distress over rising violence in her area, particularly stabbings, in the wake of yet another horrific incident Tuesday.

As we earlier highlighted, an innocent man walking his dog in West London was brutally stabbed to death for no reason whatsoever by an illegal Afghan migrant, with two others being seriously injured by the knife wielding maniac.

It was quickly ascertained that the suspect arrived into the country completely illegally on the back of a lorry, yet was granted leave to remain in 2022.

The caller, a woman named Sarah, was explained that she lives near Hillingdon, the area where the attack yesterday was carried out.

She noted that since moving into her house in 2019, her local shop has experienced three stabbings and one murder.

“My friend was murdered last year up on The High Street. A girl that I know was murdered in South Ball Park. Government are failing us. We’re scared for our children,” the caller urged.

“I have a 22-year old son and I’m begging him to move out of this country,” she continued, adding “What are these politicians doing to us? They’re putting our children in so much danger. They put everyone in danger and they’re doing nothing to help us.”

She then expressed deep frustration that despite being peaceful people, the community feels pushed to take action because their concerns are not being addressed.

“They’re pushing us to do something that we don’t want. We are peaceful people. British people never revolt against their government. They’re going to push us to it because they are not listening to us. Please, our friends, our family are dying,” the woman pleaded.

“I don’t leave the house without a man,” she further revealed, urging “everyone I know is getting stabbed. They’re getting raped in parks. This is where I live, not where the politicians live.”

She then directly addressed British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, stating “if you’re listening to this, please do something. I’m petrified. I’ve never broken the law in my life. I have been a law abiding citizen, a civil servant. Please do something. It’s us that are dying on the streets.”

At time of writing, Starmer has not said anything about yesterday’s stabbing spree.

“You talk about being racist,” the tearful caller further stated, referring to Starmer’s repeated characterisation of those concerned about rampant illegal immigration as “far right.”

“We’re not racists,” the woman stressed, adding “My sister’s mixed race. I was a white child brought up in a mixed-race family, it’s nothing to do with race.”

Other callers were furious with rage.

GB News is exposing the kind of individuals who are arriving and being housed in hotels and former military bases.

All of this comes after another migrant who was imprisoned for sexually abusing a teenage girl in Epping, sparking mass protests at the hotel housing illegals there, was accidentally released from prison and left to wander around London.

The man has since been arrested and quietly deported to Ethiopia, having reportedly been paid a paltry sum of money to not make a fuss about it.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Are Democrats Trying To Start A Civil War?

/3 Comments/in /by

Are Democrats Trying To Start A Civil War?

By Brandon Smith

Whenever you delve into the modern history of internal national conflict you’re bound to come across post-crisis accounts from people who said “We never saw it coming…” or “The violence hit us from nowhere…” Generally speaking, these were the people who weren’t paying attention and they just happened to survive by sheer luck.

I think of this dynamic a lot these days. I see a large contingent of American society (perhaps 25% of the population) which has been radicalized or brainwashed beyond all reason or repair. These people (leftists) operate deep within a protective bubble of propaganda and zealotry; they function within a hive mind that does not deviate from the demands of their gatekeepers. They cannot be reasoned with, nor can they be satiated. They lust for power and the suffering of anyone who opposes them.

One can see an immediate difference between the sides. Conservatives are so independent we in-fight constantly. We might agree on basic values (even in this we sometimes argue), but in terms of policy and action we rarely shake hands.

For the political left, any disagreement with the majority leads to immediate ostracism. The hive mind does not tolerate individual rebellion. Only the gatekeepers can change the mindset or the mission of the mob.

It is strange then that this dichotomy has resulted in conservatives, with their values of liberty and independence, seeking order. Meanwhile leftists, in their Orwellian uniformity of thought, seek chaos and the deconstruction of civilization. You would think the relationship would be reversed, but this is the way it has always been.

Looking back on the events of the Bolshevik Revolution and the long list of Marxist disruptions in Europe following WWI, it should not have been at all surprising to Europeans that domestic conflict would erupt. It should not have been surprising that people would follow their natural inclination to rally around their founding heritage rather than submit to the cultural and moral relativism of the radical left.

Fascism was popular exactly because it offered shelter from the chaos and degeneracy of communism. The war and brutality that followed was seen as a balancing of the scales. Europeans wanted to ensure that the communists would never get a chance to wreak havoc again.

To be clear, both systems of governance are authoritarian and can lead to monstrous outcomes, but communism’s love for economic sabotage, mob actions and political violence are almost always a precursor to a fascist crackdown. The public does not embrace fascism in a vacuum, they must be compelled by an existential threat.

The question is, can communist subversion be defeated without using “authoritarian” measures? Is a constitutional republic equipped to deal with this kind of threat? When someone wages war on your society internally, is there a way to fight them while being civic minded? Probably not.

What we are witnessing in the US and Europe today is, in every way, a Marxist/Communist insurgency. It’s difficult to determine what stage we are at in this war. We have moved well beyond the stage of propaganda and mob influence into the realm of political violence, with multiple assassination attempts and terror attacks against civilian targets.

The gatekeepers for the woke communist movement are obviously Democrat politicians and media influencers. They have been consistently and actively encouraging mass hysteria and violence. They have used media spin to protect activist groups like Antifa, pretending that such organizations don’t exist. Whenever activists cause harm or death, the media and political leaders immediately move to defend that action as if it was justified.

When asked why Democrats are continuing down the path of militancy, their response is that Donald Trump is a “dictator and a fascist.” Yet, these same people can’t seem to come up with a single legitimate example of HOW Trump is acting like a dictator.

Deportations of illegal immigrants? Most countries on Earth have basic immigration laws and enforce them much more harshly than the Trump Administration does. Cuts to federal programs and employees? The President is perfectly within his power of office to reduce waste in the federal government. How about using the National Guard in US cities? Democrat leaders in those cities have aided violent activists, helping to disrupt ICE operations while threatening the lives of agents. If they don’t want the National Guard in their cities they should stop waging war on immigration officials.

From Trump’s remodeling of the White House ballroom to the US troops countering drug smugglers, everything Trump does is blown out of proportion by Democrats into an “end of democracy” scenario. Their useful-idiot followers then take these claims as permission to create even more turmoil.

The government shutdown in particular is becoming a nexus point for this agenda. The Senate needs only five Democrat votes to reopen the government with a clean funding bill, but Democrats refuse to see reason. Meanwhile, they are blaming Republicans for the consequences of the shutdown, specifically seeking public pain as leverage over conservatives.

Trump is already being held accountable for a prolonged shutdown of EBT. The Democrats know their audience well. They know that the free-stuff army is entitled, vicious and easy to manipulate.

I warned about this outcome at the beginning of the month; Democrats are fighting hard for the shutdown to continue because it creates greater fear in their constituency. However, if Republicans fold then Democrats will use the same threat of civil unrest over and over again. The government will be under their control even though they lost the elections.

Democrat rhetoric has been even worse than usual.  DNC Chair Ken Martin recently argued on MSNBC that:

“The Democratic Party’s job right now is to win elections. That’s our focus. But we may be nearing the moment where we are truly in a dictatorship and an authoritarian regime here has completely shredded the Constitution. Then elections don’t matter, and then the resistance looks completely different. And we may be nearing that moment.”

Senator Chuck Schumer also made provocative statements calling for “resistance” against Trump:

“This is tyranny. This is what happens in dictatorships… I don’t care if you’re Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, moderate – people should be forcefully rising up against this…”

In an odd and obviously inciting discussion on MSNBC, Joy Reid and Jasmine Crockett sent out multiple signals to leftists, barely disguising their intent:

Joy Reid: “We’re in a moment where the MAGA crowd is armed to the teeth, and they’re not shy about it. So, everybody needs to pick up a weapon – whether it’s a vote, a protest sign, or whatever it takes – because this isn’t just politics anymore; it’s survival.”

Jasmine Crockett: “Absolutely, Joy. This is a war, this isn’t a battle. We’re talking about the soul of this country, about whether democracy survives or gets crushed under fascism. And yeah, we need to arm ourselves with everything we’ve got—truth, turnout, and tenacity. The other side declared war on us long ago.”

Numerous Democrats across social media are announcing, in no uncertain terms, that they want conservatives dead and Trump allies humiliated or eliminated. When they return to a government majority and get power back, they say conservatives are going to pay a terrible price for daring to oppose them.

But if we’re living under a fascist regime as they assert, then how could they possibly expect to return to government power? If elections are still an option, then leftists must not be too serious about their claims of fascism.

A perfect example is the New York mayor’s race, which is is going much like I predicted months ago.  Zohran Mamdani (a champagne socialist/communist with wealthy parents) is holding a steep lead in polling over all other candidates. As I noted when the race began, Mamdani is the natural end game of the political left – A combination of all the groups that hate western civilization, concentrated into a single man.

Democrats are doubling down.  Mamdani proudly mentioned this in a recent campaign speech, arguing that the correct path of Democrats is to blindly charge forward. In other words, they should not self reflect on their long list of failures, but dive headfirst into radical chaos.

Prominent Democrats like AOC and Bernie Sanders are openly endorsing Mamdani. Like it or not, this is the course that their party is taking, which means violent conflict is inevitable.  If Dems are being honest in their rhetoric to “get revenge” on conservatives once they return to power (there’s no reason to think they are joking), then the rules of survival dictate that leftists can never be allowed to return to power.

If Democrat leaders continue on the path of disrupting deportations of illegals and threatening immigration officials, then Americans will increasingly support National Guard intervention. The public may even support the arrest of those same politicians.

If leftists incite mass violence over the loss of SNAP benefits, the gatekeepers will have to be arrested or removed from the country. One can question the constitutionality of the reaction, but the path that led us to this is undeniable. Leftists are provoking these responses; they are making peaceful resolution impossible.

They have gone so far over the top in their behavior, I have to ask: Are they doing this on purpose to trigger a civil war, or an authoritarian response? Do they really believe they will be able to use national instability as a weapon to get what they want?

My long running theory ever since Trump ran for office in 2016 is that he represents a perfect scapegoat for a leftist/globalist induced collapse of the US. In fact, for many years I have posited that if real conservatives and patriots (not Neo-Cons) ever gained legitimate government power, the elites would simply crash the system around our ears and make it look like it was our fault.

This plan seems to be unfolding right now. Progressive gatekeepers are using far-left activists as cannon fodder to induce a crisis, or a domestic war.

Think about the Bolshevik Revolution: The gatekeepers spurred a revolution of the poor and the working class, yet Lenin and Trotsky both came from upper-middle class wealth (like Mamdani). Hell, Karl Marx came from an upper middle-class family and married into his wife’s riches. When his debts and refusal to work a steady job caught up with him, he lived off the money of rich benefactors.

The gatekeepers of the left rarely share the struggles of the downtrodden workers they purport to represent, they only use the working class and the poor as tools to gain power and destroy their ideological enemies.

This is what Democrat leaders are doing with the mentally ill rabble they have accumulated. They are aiming the naive and unhinged horde at the guts of the country and they are hoping to create enough mayhem that Trump, conservatives, nationalists, all of us get blamed for the uncompromising response that follows.

Maybe they are hoping that in the process, conservatives will haphazardly jump on the bandwagon of totalitarianism; that we will look like the villains. I think the progressives are underestimating the average American’s resolve to see order restored. Playing the victim may not help them garner much public empathy this time.

It’s hard to say what the end result will be, but I’m finding it difficult to see an outcome that doesn’t include considerable conflict and, unfortunately, bloodshed. And, to be frank, most of it is likely to befall the leftist side. For the sake of their own self preservation, I hope they realize they’re only being used to further an agenda, and their gatekeepers don’t actually care what happens to them in the end.

Moralizing White Nationalism

/5 Comments/in , /by

I stumbled into White Nationalism circa 2006. There wasn’t any particular happenstance that resulted in my interest, I just always seemed to inherently find myself viewing an increasingly diverse society through a racial lens.

Perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions about White Nationalism on an individual level is that it’s a reactionary position based on causation, due to either multicultural victimization, or being seduced by some form of antiquated, familial indoctrination. Of course this isn’t a coincidence, it’s a socially engineered ad hominem fallacy used to deter Whites from being pro-White: “Oh, you’re a ‘racist,’ did you get assaulted by a black guy, or was your grandpa in the KKK?” An unprovoked worldview in support of White homogeneity is implausible reasoning within the conformity guidelines of the status quo.

Due to the perpetual onslaught of anti-White propaganda that has flooded the Western conscious via the subverted information systems over the last 60 years, the concept of White people wanting to be racially exclusive triggers immense cognitive dissonance within the average person’s psyche. The argument can be made that “diversity is our strength” and “we all bleed red” have replaced “land of the free” and “home of the brave” as characterized mantras of neo-Americanism.

Personally speaking, my journey into White Nationalism began after an internet search of a local politician accused of doing a racism directed me to the forum Stormfront. Mind you, this was long before search engine censorship attempted to manipulate people’s curiosities algorithmically. Therefore, interest on a variety of topics could lead one to such a website and ultimately pique their curiosity into the foundational ideology of the platform (hence the reason for censorship years later). I’ve personally known people who had very little interest in race who became race realists after their interest in pantheism and Nietzsche resulted in Google sending them to Stormfront as well.

Furthermore, up until that point, I had this media-induced stereotype ingrained in my mind that these “White Nationalists” were just a bunch of dumb skinheads and rednecks with a collective IQ of 78. Instead, what I quickly learned was that White Nationalism was a byproduct of intellectualism, motivated by the quest for unadulterated truth. Of course, like all intellectual movements, many of these people were eccentric, anti-social personality types, but that was the stage of the game at that point in time. It was the exchange of ideas that was needed to pave the way for future generations by seeding propaganda in support of an existential ideology that was forged with group survival in mind.

In those days, White Nationalism was a thinktank, not a movement. In fact, way back in January of 2014 I had my first paper published on Occidental Observer titled Is White Nationalism Real?, based on the premise that White Nationalism was just the exchange of ideas on the internet:

Theoretically, White Nationalism is the political ideology supporting the formation of a homogeneous state or “homeland” for the White race. Although the definition might vary somewhat, the concept is universally consistent. Obviously the philosophy is real, but is the movement endorsing the dogma a reality? Is White Nationalism figurative terminology in efforts to make the ideology more socially acceptable (i.e. “I’m a White Nationalist, not a racist”), or is it an actual movement?

I was somewhat jaded, because it seemed like all anyone wanted to do was argue on the internet about things that had been argued about a thousand times already. You couldn’t even convince anyone to meet you for a beer. I couldn’t see the forest through the trees. I was naive to the systemic consequences involved with revolutionary ideas, and the fear of social ostracization that made a lot of people really paranoid. And after reading books like Hoffer’s The True Believer, I developed a better understanding of the psychology behind the personality types that were attracted to fringe movements. It takes a certain kind of person to be “racist” in an explicitly anti-racist world.

In the conclusion of my paper, I posited that White Nationalism wasn’t “real” because it hadn’t been experienced:

In conclusion, the term “real” is defined as having actual physical existence. With a very few minor exceptions, the White Nationalist movement would be better defined as a hobby of like-minded idealists. The reality of an all-White homeland in the foreseeable future (in America) is comparable to finding the end of a rainbow….

“Nothing ever becomes real until it is experienced” ~ John Keats

Hindsight is always 20/20. If you had told me back then that the political landscape would be what it is today, I’d probably accuse you of lying. I remember having a conversation with a Bob Whitaker disciple around that time period, and I asked him to give me an optimistic forecast for where he would like to see us in 10 years. He said, “If the mainstream media is using our talking points and terminology, that would be big. If they just referred to us as ‘White Nationalists’ or ‘pro-White’ and we can defeat their term ‘racist,’ that would be a huge victory.” He was one of those guys who would just go around repeating “anti-racist is just a code word for anti-white” to anyone who would listen. The term “racist” has definitely lost its sting, mostly because I think people have slowly realized that the “R word” is just the “N word” for White people.

I seldom write these days. Maybe one piece a year. I’m not very ingenuitive, and when you’re an “oldhead” like me, a lot of dissident discourse becomes redundant. But occasionally something will spark the creative juices, and I’ll dust off the keyboard and spend a day pecking away. Case in point, Counter-Currents recently published an article titled “Alt-Right Nostalgia” that was an enjoyable and rather reminiscent read. The author touched on some things that I’ve discussed in this paper, and consequently instigated a personal pause for reflection:

Occasionally, I miss the romance of fighting a battle against seemingly impossible odds. The movement is in a different phase. We’ve won the debate and our ideas have conquered the internet. In a way, the fun part is over. The road ahead to the next level is going to involve some mundane normie politicking that requires engaging with the system and a long march through the GOP.

He references the romantic age of the Alt-Right era of 2016-2019. Those were certainly fun times to be involved in dissident politics. Lots of street activism. Tons of entertaining podcasts and digital media content with very little censorship. And for the first time since my involvement, the adage “getting White Nationalists together is like herding cats,” didn’t apply. There was an aroma of optimism in the air.

This Dissident Right, or whatever we shall have to call ourselves now, was founded by political theory nerds who arrived at White Nationalism after a long ideological journey. “I started out as a normie conservative, then read Atlas Shrugged and was a libertarian for a few years. I was into Moldbug for a little while and then got redpilled on race after watching some Molyneux videos. Then I found Jared Taylor and here I am.”

While many probably see that bygone era as the catalyst for the mundane march politicking through the GOP that lies ahead, I personally rewind back further to those early Stormfront days as the formative years that paved that ideological road for future success (I assume those before me are going to rewind it back further, before the internet). You never really know what is going to become relevant, and what’s not. So many of those ideas that were so passionately debated at the time ended up being completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. You can draw up the perfect societal system on paper, but until the unpredictable variant (humans) is inserted into that equation, you don’t know what the question will be. This has always been the argument for and against communism. When faced with the atrocities of communism, communists always point out that “true” communism has never actually been implemented.

It’s so crazy to see some of those talking points that nobody knew anything about 20 years ago be used in the mainstream today. Those big-brain political theory nerds, like Bob Whitaker and Horus, used to preach about the importance of staying on a consistent message, and how propaganda typically took about 15 years to have an impact on public opinion. Our side was playing 4D chess long before that term became popularized in 2016. Nonetheless, intellectual movements just provide the ideological framework necessary to nudge the pendulum of power. At some point, conclusions are reached when the variants of unpredictability become known, and that intellectual candle slowly burns out. As the writer of the Alt-Right nostalgia piece accurately points out, dumbing down is an unavoidable part of the mainstreaming process:

That said, I also remember the bad times of the Alt Right. The sociopaths and constantly having to run cover for the latest self-inflicted PR disaster. After having been in the game as long as I have, I’ll take the boring but stable normiefied Dissident Right of today over interesting yet volatile counter-culture era Alt Right. Being edgy was fun but I’m ready to be a normie now. The whole mission was to get the ideas to this point.

But to be honest, yes, something has been lost in the mainstreaming process. In many ways, the level of intellectual discourse has dropped since back in the good old days. There have been rumblings about “low-IQ antisemitism.” That might mean different things to different people. Sometimes the term is used disingenuously and sometimes it’s referring to a real phenomenon that might or might not be a serious issue. It’s normal to accuse your factional rivals of being a dumb version of what your faction believes. Still, it is deniable that the level of discourse in the right-wing ecosphere has dropped a grade or two. Going from Kevin McDonald to Lucas Gage is a step down intellectually. Science-heavy Human Biodiversity stuff has become less fashionable, and the leading influencers are less dynamic thinkers than back in the day. I don’t think it is an unreasonable critique to say that the scene has gotten dumber.

Some of the dumbing down may be an unavoidable part of the mainstreaming process. Some of it is not. Some of it we might be able to remedy and some of it we simply cannot.

“The whole mission was to get the ideas to this point,” is the perfect summation of pre-2020 White Nationalism, and dissident politics in general. The exchange of ideas is over. There were certainly lots of pessimistic times during that period. Honestly, you pretty much had to be a pessimist to even get involved in White Nationalist politics pre-2016. But the good thing about pessimism is it reduces expectation. It has been said that happiness is results minus expectation. And demoralization is usually the result of failed expectations.

When I embarked on my intellectual journey I was already college educated, but I never really learned anything meaningful until I dove headfirst into White Nationalism. And that isn’t to say I just learned how to regurgitate White Nationalist ideology, I learned philosophy, psychology, political theory, science, genetics, theology, human biodiversity, the JQ, economics, geography, migration patterns, finance, etc., which all supported the morality of my worldview. I could count the number of books I had read on two fingers, and my writing skills were elementary at best. I became an accomplished writer and have read hundreds of books. I lived in a very diverse metropolis and relocated to a predominately White rural area. I fathered White children. I adhered to a pro-White code of conduct. It’s highly improbable that any of these things would have happened had I not become interested in White Nationalism. To say that White Nationalism hasn’t had a profound impact on my life would be a drastic understatement. I was (and still am) a true believer that White people should have the right to self determination.