Ezra Klein Warns Israel’s Role in Iran War Will Fuel Antisemitism

/0 Comments/in /by

For decades, prominent Jewish voices have wrestled privately with an uncomfortable question. Does aggressive Israeli government conduct expose diaspora Jewish communities to backlash they did not invite? In early March, Ezra Klein brought that question back into public view. Speaking with former Obama senior adviser Ben Rhodes on a podcast episode titled “The Great Lie of War”, the New York Times columnist warned that Israel’s central role in the joint U.S. assault on Iran could fuel a new wave of antisemitism.

The two men spent most of the interview discussing the strategic recklessness of the Iran operation where the United States and Israel launched an assault that killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and much of his senior command. They examined the lack of congressional authorization, the absence of an endgame, the risk of a massive refugee crisis, and what they described as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s long-sought goal of drawing the United States into direct military confronttion with Iran.

The antisemitism remark came near the end of that segment, specifically as a follow-on to a discussion about Saudi ambivalence toward the war and the question of what Israel actually wants from the conflict. Klein’s exact words in the transcript were, “I’m not saying this is the biggest issue at this moment, but the centrality of Israel in the operation has raised some concerns for me about what this is going to mean for anti-Semitism. You see the amount of talk on the MAGA right, but elsewhere as well that, you know, Israel’s leverage over Donald Trump or that, you know, this is all just some kind of Israeli plot.”

Klein then noted that Netanyahu appeared to be gambling with Israel’s long term political standing in America and in the world at a time of “very, very sharply rising anti-Semitism,” expressing uncertainty about how it would all pan out. The New York Times columnist’s concern, stated plainly, was that Israel’s highly visible, central role in what many perceived as an unjustified war of aggression would fuel conspiracy theories rather than defuse them. His worry was that Netanyahu’s short-term tactical success, finally getting a U.S. president to strike Iran, risked long-term consequences for Jews, especially in the United States.

This dilemma is not new. Jewish billionaire George Soros articulated a similar concern over two decades ago. Soros has largely steered clear of public association with Jewish communal life and seldom appears at exclusively Jewish functions. That changed in 2003, when he took the stage at a New York City meeting hosted by the Jewish Funders Network. Questioned about the spread of antisemitism across Europe, Soros offered an unexpected diagnosis, laying blame at the feet of U.S. and Israeli policy. “There is a resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe. The policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration contribute to that,” he stated. “If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish. I can’t see how one could confront it directly.”

At the time, the reaction from Jewish leadership was furious. Elan Steinberg, who served as senior adviser to the World Jewish Congress after a stint as its executive director, fired back. “Let’s understand things clearly: Anti-Semitism is not caused by Jews; it’s caused by anti-Semites.” Abraham Foxman dismissed Soros’s words as “absolutely obscene.” The head of the ADL elaborated. “He buys into the stereotype. It’s a simplistic, counterproductive, biased and bigoted perception of what’s out there. It’s blaming the victim for all of Israel’s and the Jewish people’s ills.”

The Foxman and Steinberg responses reflected an orthodox position within Jewish communal leadership. Antisemitism, in this view, is a pathology of antisemites, and any attempt to link it to Israeli behavior constitutes victim blaming. Yet this position has always co-existed uneasily with a practical awareness that Israeli actions, particularly those perceived as disproportionate or aggressive, create public relations challenges for diaspora Jewish communities.

Klein’s 2026 remarks fall squarely within this tension. He was warning that Netanyahu’s gamble, making Israel so visibly central to an unpopular war, would hand ammunition to those who already believed such theories. Polling data suggests that Klein’s concerns about Israel’s political standing are well-founded. Gallup’s 2025 Annual World Affairs Survey documented a broader collapse in American sentiment toward Israel. Only 46% of Americans sympathized with Israelis, the lowest figure in 25 years of Gallup tracking. Among Democrats, 59% sympathized more with Palestinians—with only 21% sympathizing with Israelis—creating a nearly 3-to-1 ratio, the first time Palestinians had held such a commanding lead among members of a major U.S. party. A majority of Americans, and a record-high 76% of Democrats, supported an independent Palestinian state.

These trends predate the Iran strike and reflect cumulative damage from Israel’s conduct in Gaza. The joint United States and Israel operation against Iran, with Israel’s role so prominently featured, is unlikely to reverse this trajectory and will more than likely heighten Western populations’ hostility toward Israel. The polling numbers bear this ou.

The Jewish People Policy Institute found that only 28% of strong liberal Jews support the war while 62% oppose it. Support climbs to 100% among strong conservative Jews. The partisan split is even more dramatic. Trump voters among American Jews back the war at 99%, while Harris voters divide 47% to 42%.

The picture among Americans generally looks very different. Pew Research found that 59% of Americans said the United States made the wrong decision in using military force and 61% disapprove of Trump’s handling of the conflict. An AP-NORC poll found that 59% of Americans believe U.S. military action has gone “too far,” while a Quinnipiac survey reported 74% oppose sending U.S. ground troops into Iran. The immediate unpopularity of the Iran war combined with Israel’s sullied image as a result of the Gaza genocide may explain why elements of American Jewry are embracing certain forms of controlled opposition to the Netanyahu regime, while stopping short of criticizing the entire Zionist project and its thoroughly Jewish nature.

It should be said that rational anti-Semitism is never about all Jews.  Klein’s worry that “Jewish communities globally could be stained with guilt by association in the eyes of those who conflate the Israeli government with all Jews” should be seen as relying on the idea that anti-Semitism refers to complaints about “all Jews.” Most commonly complaints about Jews rely on understanding where the power of the Jewish community is directed, and in this case it’s obvious that the mainstream Jewish community in the U.S. and its powerful lobbying organizations (here and here) are entirely on board with the war. This is especially true in the Trump administration where the more conservative elements of the Jewish community, including Chabad Lubavitch, have increased their influence greatly.

It is simply that their vision [of conservative Jewish groups] for Jewish flourishing in America is radically at odds with the basic assumptions that have grounded American Jewish politics for much of the last century: chiefly, that Jewish interests are best served by the separation of religion and state; that American Jews are best protected through multiethnic, pluralistic coalitions rather than an alliance with the Christian majority; and that the invisibility of Jewish group interests is preferable to visible Jewish particularity.

Ezra Klein’s warnings about the centrality of Israel in the Iran war are a tacit admission that the Jewish establishment has lost its ability to operate from behind a veil. By leveraging control over U.S. administrations to initiate wars of choice, this power structure has forced a public reckoning that no amount of image-polishing can reverse. History has repeatedly shown that Jewish overreach eventually triggers an immune response from the host population.

We are currently in the midst of that reaction, and the path forward lies in the unapologetic identification and systematic dismantling of the Jewish influence networks that have compromised the highest levels of our government and financial institutions.

Stolen Weapons Grade Uranium: Remembering The Apollo Affair

/7 Comments/in , /by

In May 2026, Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) led a group of 30 House Democrats in sending a formal letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio demanding the United States end its decades-long policy of nuclear ambiguity regarding Israel. Castro explicitly cited the ongoing U.S. and Israel military conflict with Iran, noting that “fighting this war side by side with a country whose potential nuclear weapons program the United States government officially refuses to acknowledge risks miscalculation” and potential nuclear escalation. The signatories cited the classified 1974 Special National Intelligence Estimate confirming Israel had nuclear weapons and asked eleven specific questions, including whether Israel had communicated nuclear red lines to U.S. officials.

Castro’s letter represents the most significant congressional challenge to American silence on Israel’s nuclear program in decades. Yet buried beneath that silence lies a scandal that stretches back to the early Cold War—one involving a small Pennsylvania town, a team of Israeli spies, and the largest loss of weapons-grade uranium in American history.

The trail begins in the small borough of Apollo, Pennsylvania, roughly 30 miles northeast of Pittsburgh, where the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation (NUMEC) processed approximately 17 metric tons of weapons-grade highly enriched uranium (HEU) for the United States government between 1957 and 1978. By the time investigators finished their work, more than 337 kilograms of that material had vanished—enough fissile material to construct multiple nuclear weapons. The CIA concluded that the missing uranium ended up in Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Yet no one was ever prosecuted, and the story has been systematically suppressed for over half a century.

In 1957, chemist Zalman Mordecai Shapiro co-founded NUMEC to process government-owned enriched uranium into naval reactor fuel and commercial nuclear fuel. Shapiro was a respected scientist who had assisted in the design of the world’s first nuclear-powered submarine, the USS Nautilus. He was also a committed Zionist with extensive contacts in the Israeli government, including a separate contract to build nuclear-powered generators for Israel.

In 1965, after the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) ordered a physical inventory of the plant, investigators discovered that approximately 93 kilograms—about 205 pounds—of highly enriched uranium could not be accounted for. By the time NUMEC was fully decommissioned in 1978, the total cumulative “material unaccounted for” had grown to 337 kilograms—roughly 741 pounds—confirmed by the Energy Department in a 2001 historical report as the largest HEU inventory loss at any commercial site in U.S. history. Shapiro and his co-founders claimed the losses were normal industrial attrition. The AEC’s own materials accountability system at the time was remarkably lax, providing no mechanism for physically checking shipments abroad, requiring no security clearances for employees handling nuclear materials, and mandating no physical protection of special nuclear material either inside or in transit from private plants.

The men at the center of this affair were not ordinary businessmen. Beyond running NUMEC, Shapiro was a member of the Zionist Organization of America’s Pittsburgh chapter, traveled frequently to Israel, had NUMEC serve as a procurement and sales agent for the Israeli Ministry of Defense, and was involved in a joint venture called ISORAD with Israel’s nuclear organization. FBI surveillance revealed unusual meetings between Shapiro and known Israeli intelligence operatives that were never satisfactorily explained.

Rafael “Rafi” Eitan is the most explosive figure in the affair. On September 10, 1968, four Israeli nationals arrived at the NUMEC plant. They listed their purpose as discussing the purchase of small plutonium-238 power sources, identifying themselves as a “chemist” and “electronics specialists.” In reality, Eitan was not a chemist. He was one of Israel’s most accomplished intelligence operatives, famous for serving as the operational ground commander of the 1960 Mossad team that seized Nazi veteran Adolf Eichmann in Buenos Aires. He later became head of LAKAM, Israel’s scientific intelligence service, and in the 1980s he directed the operation that recruited Jonathan Pollard to spy against the United States.

The other three visitors in the 1968 delegation were equally remarkable. Avraham Bendor—whose real name was Avraham Shalom—was a long-time Shin Bet agent who served as deputy commander of the Eichmann capture in 1960 and later became head of the Israeli internal security service (Shin Bet) from 1980 to 1986. Avraham Hermoni was listed as the Israeli Embassy’s scientific counselor but was in fact the technical director of Israel’s nuclear bomb project at RAFAEL, Israel’s armament development authority, with a direct role in the Dimona project. That this group of four—collectively representing the operational cream of Israeli intelligence and nuclear weapons development—would visit a Pennsylvania fuel processing plant to discuss commercial plutonium power sources strained any plausible cover story. As former Pentagon official Anthony Cordesman put it: “There is no conceivable reason for Eitan to have gone to the Apollo plant but for the nuclear material.” David Lowenthal, NUMEC’s venture capitalist and financier, also had close ties to Israeli intelligence and had previously facilitated the transport of refugees between the U.S., Europe, and Israel before organizing NUMEC’s financing.

Several independent threads of evidence coalesced to make the diversion case compelling. Before April 1968, the CIA had conducted clandestine environmental sampling around Israel’s Dimona nuclear complex and detected traces of highly enriched uranium there. Critically, the uranium bore the isotopic signature of the Portsmouth, Ohio enrichment facility—enriched to 97.7 percent, a level produced exclusively at Portsmouth, which had only one commercial customer: NUMEC.

Testimony from the ground backed up the data. In March 1980, FBI agents interviewed a former NUMEC employee who stated that in early 1965 he had encountered armed strangers on the NUMEC loading dock loading what appeared to be canisters of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) onto a truck—with a shipping manifest indicating the material was bound for a Zim-Israel shipping line vessel headed to Israel. A gun-toting guard ordered him to leave, and a NUMEC manager later threatened him to keep his mouth shut about what he had seen. Former CIA Tel Aviv station chief John Hadden, who served from 1963 to 1967, later described NUMEC as “an Israeli operation from the beginning” and told investigators that Israel’s removal of the material was relatively straightforward compared to the Eichmann kidnapping.

In April 1968, CIA Director Richard Helms wrote to Attorney General Ramsey Clark—in a memo that remains classified—reporting that HEU processed at Apollo had likely ended up at Dimona and requested the FBI resume its investigation. Despite this, in 1969 J. Edgar Hoover halted the FBI investigation that Helms had requested after the Atomic Energy Commission declined to revoke Shapiro’s security clearance, citing insufficient grounds for prosecution. The CIA recorded that FBI investigators “indicated that even if they came up with a case, it was extremely unlikely that Justice and State would allow it to come to trial.” The Nixon administration simultaneously adopted Israel’s preferred policy of nuclear ambiguity, agreeing in a secret 1969 meeting between Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir not to press Israel on its nuclear program. Henry Kissinger’s July 16,1969 memo to Nixon had already outlined the philosophy: “What we really want at a minimum may be just to keep Israeli possession from becoming an established international fact.”

During the Ford Administration, in February 1976, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman William Anders invited CIA Deputy Director for Science and Technology Carl Duckett to brief senior NRC officials. Instead of dismissing the rumors, Duckett stunned the audience by confirming the CIA’s belief that Israel had illegally obtained highly enriched uranium from NUMEC and used it to develop its first nuclear weapons. President Ford’s aide James Connor summarized it plainly to Ford: “The good news is that Israel definitely has the Bomb and can take care of itself. The bad news is that the stuff came from Pennsylvania.” Attorney General Edward Levi then wrote a remarkable memo to President Ford listing multiple federal statutes that may have been violated, stating his belief not only that uranium had been unlawfully removed from Apollo, but that federal officials themselves may have committed felonies by concealing the events after the fact.

During the Carter Administration, Carter was briefed during the presidential transition, and his National Security Advisor’s staff concluded, “The CIA case is persuasive, though not conclusive.” Yet despite Carter’s public identity as a champion of nuclear nonproliferation, newly declassified documents show his administration worked to keep the NUMEC story under wraps out of concern for relations with Israel. As Ford’s close adviser James Connor later told journalist John Fialka, the investigative trail had grown cold: “You could look at all the documents and ask yourself whether something had happened here. The answer was probably yes. Then the question was whether you could do anything about it, and the answer was no.” When confronted decades later about why the Carter administration covered up the evidence, National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski was dismissive: “What are we going to say to the Israelis, ‘Give it back?'”

Congress conducted its own inquiries but reached no resolution. The House Interior Committee, chaired by Rep. Morris Udall, conducted oversight hearings from 1977 to 1980. Udall personally interviewed Shapiro. When a BBC interviewer asked him in 1979 whether he thought the Israelis had taken HEU from Apollo, Udall replied: “If someone had me write in an envelope whether a diversion occurred or did not occur and that I would be put to death if I answered wrong, I suspect I would have to put in the envelope that I believe there was a diversion.” A General Accounting Office report on the matter—titled Nuclear Diversion in the U.S.? 13 Years of Contradiction and Confusion and classified for decades—found that the CIA and FBI had refused to cooperate with the investigation, noting: “We believe a timely, concerted effort on the part of these three agencies would have greatly aided and possibly solved the NUMEC diversion questions, if they desired to do so.”

Israeli officials have never acknowledged the NUMEC diversion. The most high-profile response came in a 1977 CBS 60 Minutes interview when Mike Wallace asked Prime Minister Menachem Begin directly whether Israel had stolen bomb-grade uranium from the United States. Begin neither denied it plainly nor engaged with the substance, instead ridiculing the premise: “From time to time I read in the press the most fantastic stories—how everywhere Israel snatches away uranium from America and from Europe. It belongs to the James Bond stories.” When Wallace pressed, “Not so?” Begin replied, “I don’t pay any attention to them.”

When Rafi Eitan died in March 2019, the Mossad’s official statement said his “operations cannot be publicized but they contributed greatly to the security of the State of Israel.” The New York Times initially included a reference to the uranium disappearance in Eitan’s obituary but removed it after pressure from the media watchdog CAMERA, replacing it with a correction noting only that “it was never shown conclusively that he had had an important role in it.”

Victor Gilinsky, former NRC commissioner, and Roger Mattson, a former NRC physicist who investigated NUMEC, published a landmark reassessment in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 2010 titled “Revisiting the NUMEC Affair,” which stated plainly: “When the known facts are put together, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Israel probably did steal highly enriched uranium from the United States.” Mattson went on to publish a full book, Stealing the Atom Bomb, through the National Security Archive in 2016. Grant F. Smith, director of the Institute for Research on Middle Eastern Policy, also published Divert! NUMEC, Zalman Shapiro and the Diversion of US Weapons Grade Uranium into the Israeli Nuclear Weapons Program in 2012, based on exhaustive FOIA requests.

To this day, the NUMEC affair remains unresolved. Key CIA and FBI files are still classified or heavily redacted. No criminal charges were ever filed against anyone, and Zalman Shapiro died in 2016 at age 96. Roger Mattson, who spent decades investigating the affair, put it simply in a public lecture: “My conclusion is the material went there [Israel].”

The Apollo Affair stands as a cautionary tale of how American foreign policy can be corrupted from within, how institutional silence becomes its own form of complicity, and how the most documented case of nuclear diversion in American history was buried by the very officials charged with preventing it. It is yet another indication that the first loyalty of many American Jews is to Israel, not America. Rep. Castro’s May 2026 letter represents a rare attempt to pierce the silence that has surrounded these events, but the precedents established over six decades of official denial remain formidable obstacles to the transparency he seeks.

NUMEC was never an accounting error, but rather a clear-cut act of espionage that our leaders chose to ignore. This pattern of complicity continues because our political establishment is trapped beneath the weight of an unshakeable Jewish supremacist power structure.

Seriously Narcissistic People: From Harts of Darkness in America to a Posturing Poison-Dwarf in Alba

/13 Comments/in /by

One was a tragedy, the other is a farce. One happened in America, the other has happened in Scotland. But both of them say a lot about the psychology of leftism. Let’s look at the tragedy first. And it truly was a tragedy, a horrible story from California of a psychotic “white savior” slaughtering six Black children in narcissistic rage. Do you remember it from 2018? Probably not, because the left didn’t want to commemorate the Black children and their White murderer, who was called Jennifer Hart. You see, she was both leftist and lesbian, one half of a thoroughly progressive couple who adopted six Black children, then postured in public as kind and compassionate anti-racists whilst abusing and starving the children in private.

Promoting lies, advancing leftism

But the family’s façade slowly began to crack and by 2018 the “same-sex white couple” knew that the authorities were finally closing in. Narcissistic rage explains what happened next: rather than endure public exposure and the collapse of her lies, Jennifer Hart drove her “wife” and “family” in an SUV over a cliff on the California coast, plunging them 100 feet into the sea. Unsurprisingly, no-one survived and the body of one of the children has never been recovered. He was called Devonte, but did Black Lives Matter (BLM) and other leftists ever demand that the world “Say His Name”? Nope. Jennifer Hart’s death-drive was what I call a meteor murder, something that flashes through the headlines of the mainstream media, then disappears for ever. Why so? Because leftists don’t want to commemorate some crimes. Unlike the self-inflicted deaths of Black Trayvon Martin in 2012 and Black George Floyd in 2020, leftists couldn’t exploit the Hart Massacre to promote lies and advance leftism. On the contrary: the Hart Massacre was very bad publicity for leftism. From the lesbianism of the Harts to their oh-so-ironic surname, it was a spectacularly horrible symbol of how leftists posture about helping Blacks whilst in reality doing great harm to Blacks.

Note the nose: Sarah (left) and Jennifer Hart and three of the Black children they abused and murdered (Devonte is on the right) (see image here)

And I think you can see the abuse in the posturing photos that came before the massacre. There’s something forced and desperate in the children’s smiles. And the children look disturbingly small, particularly by comparison with the hulking figure of Jennifer Hart. In the photo above she’s wearing a T-shirt that reads “LOVE IS THE ANSWER TO [?EVERYTHING]” as she’s kissed by her lesbian partner Sarah Hart (née Gengler). As you can see from her vulturine profile, Sarah Hart was Jewish. I suspect Jennifer Hart was Jewish too. The involvement of at least one Jew in the tragedy is another reason for the Hart Massacre not to be infamous in the way it deserves to be. Possibly Jewish Jennifer Hart and definitely Jewish Sarah Hart did not display love towards those Black children, who were literally stunted in their growth by the starvation and cruelty they endured. Here are some of the horrible details that the leftist media long ago dropped down the memory-hole: “At 11, Hannah weighed 50 pounds and stood less than 4 feet tall, a stature typical of a 6-year-old girl. Devonte, also 11, stood about 4-feet-2 and weighed 57 pounds — the size of a typical 8-year-old boy.”

Jennifer Hart and her starved Black abuse-victims (image from CNN)

But while Jennifer Hart didn’t display any love, she did display things that contradict what “one welfare worker put […] in a report[:] ‘these women look normal.’ ” No, the Harts didn’t “look normal.” Lesbians are not normal and don’t behave like straight women. For one thing, they’re more aggressive, that is, more masculine in their behavior. Jennifer Hart committed mass murder in an aggressive, quasi-male way, driving a powerful vehicle over the edge of a cliff. And whether or not she was Jewish, she certainly had Jewish traits of authoritarianism and self-righteousness:

Jennifer Hart and her Jewish “wife” Sarah Hart (née Gengler) (image from Pink News)

A relative of Jennifer’s, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private matters, said Jennifer often erupted at the children.

“The kids couldn’t do anything without getting into trouble,” the relative said. “If the kids did anything she thought was wrong, she would snap her fingers and say, ‘Get in the corner. No food for you.’ ”

Family members and others who questioned her child-rearing were “pretty much cut out,” said the relative. “Jen wouldn’t have anything to do with you if you disagreed with her.” (“Abuse, neglect and a system that failed: The tragic lives of the Hart children,” The Washington Post, 12th July 2018)

Narcissists hate contradiction and criticism, but narcissism on its own doesn’t fully explain why leftists punish heresy and dissent so aggressively. If you’re interested in finding truth, you will support free speech and free enquiry. If you’re interested in winning and retaining power, you will support censorship and bans on free enquiry. That’s why the left suppress discussion of, and research into, the differences between the races and the sexes. And differences between the sexualities too: the role of lesbian aggression in the Hart Massacre is something leftists would never discuss or allow to be discussed in the mainstream. Nevertheless, it’s obvious in the story, which is why the Hart Massacre was also a meteor massacre. What isn’t talked about doesn’t undermine your ideology.

Seriously narcissistic and seriously nasty: the glowering Giftzwerg Nicola Sturgeon (see Youtube video)

That principle has been at work in the tragedy in America as it has been in the farce in Scotland (or Alba as it’s known in Scots Gaelic). We’ve looked at the tragedy, so now let’s look at the farce. It’s also a story of public posturing and seriously narcissistic people. And maybe it’s a story of lesbianism too. That’s because rumors of secret lesbianism have long circulated about Nicola Sturgeon, the former leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP). I discussed the authoritarian and anti-White ways of Sturgeon and the SNP in “A Tartan Tyranny.” Well, the Tartan Tyrant lost her job as First Minister of Scotland in 2023, but now she’s back big-time in the headlines. Her former husband, Peter Murrell, has just admitted embezzling more than £400,000 ($540,000) from the SNP while he served as the party’s chief executive.

Loving Scotland, looting Scots

The story is both farcical and damning: farcical for how Murrell spent the money and damning of how the SNP’s leadership both failed to spot his crimes and tried to prevent scrutiny of party finances. Among much else, Murrell stole the donations of ordinary SNP members to spend “£3,232 on a Jura Giga 5 Cromo coffee machine, £2,618 on two Feuilles pepper and salt grinders, £1,990 on eight umbrellas, £1,475 on a Beatles special-edition fountain pen and rollerball, [and] £550 on a 1:30-scale model of an Airbus helicopter.” That raises three obvious questions in my mind, but only one of them seems obvious to the mainstream media in Britain. They’re asking how Nicola Sturgeon could have failed to be suspicious about her husband’s extravagance. I ask that too. But I also ask: How did Murrell think he could get away with stealing so much and spending so extravagantly? And how did he reconcile looting Scots with his loudly professed love of Scotland?

Machiavellian Murrell: the Scotland-loving, Scots-looting embezzler Peter Murrell (image from Wikipedia)

By all accounts, Murrell is a highly competent White male of the kind leftist parties across the West no longer favor. But his political success included Machiavellianism and didn’t preclude mental illness. He was central to the rise of the SNP in Scotland and will probably now be central to its fall. His Machiavellianism explains the rise and his mental illness will explain the fall. I ask again: how did he think he could get away with the embezzlement? If he really thought he could, he was mentally ill and detached from reality. If he didn’t care whether he could, he was mentally ill in another way. Narcissism was part of his mental illness, but I don’t find that surprising. I’ve long thought that leftism is better described as a mental illness than as an ideology. And narcissism is central to leftism. You can see that in the tragedy of the Hart Massacre just as you can in the farce of the SNP embezzler. A “pro-independence blogger” called Stuart Campbell raised concerns about the party’s finances as far back as 2020 and the SNP’s leadership reacted by concealing the party’s accounts from audit. Campbell was impugning their virtue! How dare he! And when SNP figures like Joanna Cherry raised their concerns too, Nicola Sturgeon “treated [them] as traitors to the party,” according to Cherry.

SNP = Seriously Nasty People

Sturgeon often behaved aggressively and moralistically like that. She postured as a virtuous woman in a world of villainy. In fact, she’s a virago, not a virtuous woman. As I described in “The Trouble with Trans-Westernism,” her small physique and malignant personality make her what Germans call a Giftzwerg, a “poison-dwarf.” As SNP leader, she was interested only in power, not in truth or what was good for Scottish Whites. Like the equally narcissistic and malignant “nationalists” of Celtic Wales and Ireland, the Scottish National Party want to destroy their supposedly beloved homeland by flooding it with non-Whites from the Third World.

So are you surprised to hear that, as SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon “regularly met the Jewish community and […] always [spoke] supportively of it”? You shouldn’t be. Jews want to destroy White Scotland just as much as they want to destroy White America. That’s why Jews have supported leftism in both Scotland and America, because leftism is the ideal ideology for narcissists who posture as virtuous in public while practising villainy in private. You can see the toxic truth just as much in that tragedy of child-murder in America as in the farce of embezzlement in Scotland. Seriously Narcissistic People are also Seriously Nasty People.

Afterword

For more evidence that the child-murderer Jennifer Hart was Jewish, compare her face with that of the definitely Jewish Michelle Walker, who’s currently waging lawfare against a White private-membership group called Return to the Land (RTTL). For more details of the lawfare and how to donate towards the fight-back, please see RTTL’s fund-raising page and this video at Twitter.

A possible Jew and a definite Jew: Jennifer Hart and Michelle Walker (second image from Twitter)

Q and A w/ Leonarda Jonie

/5 Comments/in /by

What follows is an interview conducted by talk radio host James Edwards with stand-up comedian Leonarda Jonie.

* * *

James Edwards: You were born in Montenegro, raised in the concrete jungle of New York City, then ditched that scene for Austin, Texas. What was the breaking point in New York?

Leonarda Jonie: My breaking point in New York was Covid. I watched people who I knew become informant agents who wanted to know why I wasn’t wearing a mask. One day, I was out to lunch with a friend, she was Eritrean, and she had three of her friends – all black – come to meet us for lunch. At this point, I wasn’t very racially conscious, but one of the people there made it a point to bring up the fact that I was White when I was criticizing Democrats. She also said I had only criticized “people of color,” which I pointed out was false, as I had criticized both Gavin Newsom and Nancy Pelosi. It was at this moment that I realized New York was at a tipping point, and I was not safe there, specifically because I was White with budding conservative values.

Edwards: Moving from New York to Austin put you in the heart of a new comedy frontier. What was the difference there?

Jonie: Austin was still liberal, but compared to New York, it seemed like a conservative stronghold. There was actual free speech there. I could make fun of trannies without someone wanting to kill me. It was also open. New York was shut down for so long, much longer than the rest of the country. Austin was up and running, and at the time, many comedians were similarly fleeing from liberal hell holes. We were all tired of being censored and shut down, so in the early days, Austin had a lot of promise. Sadly, it didn’t last.

Edwards: You slam modern sensitivity culture like it’s the enemy it is. From your perspective as someone raised in a different world—Albanian roots, upbringing in NYC—do you see the woke left’s obsession with feelings over facts as a uniquely American decay, or is it spreading everywhere?

Jonie: I would say it’s my Albanian roots, coupled with the fact that I internalized the pioneer spirit of America. The early Americans were frontiersmen. I believe the decay is not uniquely American, as we’re seeing it in Western Europe and even in parts of Eastern Europe. It’s a consequence of the liberal ideology that places equality as the supreme value, even above truth and definitely above your own people. There is something inherently rotten built into this ideological framework that crushes your ability to recognize and speak the truth about the way the world is when it contradicts what they want the world to be.

Edwards: You’ve mocked the left relentlessly and torn into their sacred cows. As a woman in comedy who’s not afraid to punch back, what’s the biggest hypocrisy you see in the so-called feminists who scream about empowerment but demand safe spaces and censorship?

Jonie: They only want women empowered to the extent that they will parrot back the controlling narrative and act to enforce cultural Marxism. When a woman does not echo their sentiments, they want to crush her as vehemently as they do men. This is usually when they will begin to identify her as a “White woman” with all the privilege that entails, as opposed to just a “woman” with its accompanying victim status. They do the same thing to black people who don’t parrot the race hustling ideology they want them to believe in, although those individuals are quite rare.

Edwards: Your comedy forces people to confront uncomfortable truths—whether it’s cultural taboos, political absurdity, or personal failings. You’ve built a huge following—hundreds of thousands of followers on YouTube and Instagram and tens of millions of views—by being what the media calls “the most offensive female comedian out there.” In an industry where comics get neutered, how did you decide to go full throttle on the taboo stuff instead of watering it down for the blue-check crowd?

Jonie: Since when is comedy’s job to comfort anyone? Comedy is supposed to make you laugh. That’s it. That’s the only requirement: make you laugh. Whatever else you want to put on top of that is your choice, but if you fail the requirement – make people laugh – it’s not comedy. One common way comedians have done that is by pointing out absurdities and making fun of ridiculous aspects of society that we all pretend aren’t ridiculous.

Now, some people choose to make comedy a vehicle for propaganda. In the 80s and 90’s, this did not prevent comedy from being funny because the dominant culture – White, conservative, Christian America – was being attacked, so you could say anything and the more offensive the better, because again, they were using it as a vehicle to subvert the White majority order. Now that the cultural Marxists with their bullshit ideologies about race and sex equality are in power, they demand that you only use comedy to continue enforcing that structure. But how is that funny? You can’t be funny if you aren’t allowed to make fun of absurdities, and cultural Marxism is built on absurdity after absurdity. So now we’re in a “The Emperor Has No Clothes” situation, and the very people who are supposed to be pointing it out are out there reinforcing the lie and attacking anyone who dares to do so.

I’ve chosen to use comedy as a vehicle to tell the truth, and because our world is so steeped in lies and we’ve been lying for so long, sometimes just telling the truth is funny because everyone knows you’re not supposed to say certain things. My challenge as a comedian is often: how do I tell the truth and do it in a funny way? I could absolutely still be funny and stay within the lines of propaganda – the approved narrative – but I’m not interested in that. If I’m going to sell my soul, I might as well do it within a much more secure and lucrative profession. But I’m not interested in selling my soul. I’m interested in being free and setting other people free.

Edwards: Clubs and venues have started canceling your shows, fellow comedians throw you under the bus, and the outrage mob labels you dangerous. You’ve called yourself “the most canceled comedian in America right now.” Does that fire you up more, knowing you’re hitting nerves the safe, corporate-approved acts never touch?

Jonie: It’s a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I often wonder if there was a more intelligent way I could have gone about this so that I didn’t make it so hard on myself to do my job – telling jokes in a comedy club. On the other hand, when someone gets pissed off at me just because I’m saying something their cultural training tells them I shouldn’t be allowed to say, I want to tell them to fuck off. I’m not going to lie, it’s really satisfying to see all these loser comedians who threw me under the bus not be able to sell 5 tickets on their own. I want to go up to them and say, “I’m not the reason you suck. Even if I didn’t exist, no one would be coming to see you. Maybe instead of focusing on destroying me, you should focus on building yourself up, and then you wouldn’t need to worry about me.” But they choose activism – a fake kind of activism of trying to censor their competition because they know they don’t have what it takes to be a good comedian, and they’re avoiding confronting themselves.

Edwards: You’ve taken the heat—cancellations, blacklisting, the whole playbook—and come out swinging harder, building a loyal fanbase that packs houses (when allowed) and shares clips like wildfire. What keeps the fire burning when the establishment tries to memory-hole you?

Jonie: Two things: the first is the absolute retardation of the culture around me. The anger I feel at the insanity and the fact that I’m supposed to be okay with it lights a fire in me to oppose it. The second thing is the people who come to my shows and watch my content. I get 100x more messages of support than I do of hate. That tells me that I am not alone. That there are way more people who see things the way I do, and I am acting as a voice for the unheard.

Edwards: As we mentioned, you were born in Montenegro and raised in the so-called “melting pot” of New York City, witnessing first-hand what “diversity” does to communities. What message do you have for native-born Americans who feel like strangers in their own country, watching everything they built get handed over to outsiders?

Jonie: My heart is heavy when I see this happening to Americans. I have been adopted into America. That is the truth. America adopted me, and it was a huge gift that allowed me to become a fully actualized human being. That is the gift of America to those it embraces and those who embrace it. I am nearly certain that had I been raised in my country of origin, I would not have been able to become what I am now because the structures to do so do not exist there. My people, for various reasons, did not build those structures. There is also a certain ideology – again, the American pioneer – that lives in the air of America that allows a person to become fully actualized. Not every culture has that, not even every European culture. This is something that is uniquely American, and I do believe, sets it apart from everyone else. So when I see outsiders coming in and raping the fruits of this culture without feeding the soil that allowed those fruits to blossom, it enrages me. And on top of that, destroying the very structures that allow them to profit, all while hubristically chanting about their own superiority. I want to join the Americans in their crusade against these invaders and these traitors. It’s like, how dare you? Americans are a people and a race. They are not an idea. Not everyone can just “become” American. That’s about as ridiculous as saying everyone can become “Irish,” “Albanian,” or “French.” The cultural Marxists want to advance this new talking point, and notice they only do it for European cultures. How interesting that they deny the “Africanness” of the Afrikaneers. Then suddenly, race and biology are extremely real.

To native-born Americans who feel like strangers in their own country, I have boundless compassion. They did not ask for this. They did not ask to be overwhelmed by foreigners and have their country hollowed out by them. But I say the spirit that led your ancestors to conquer this land and create one of the greatest civilizations ever to exist still lives on in you. Despair will just hand your enemies an easy victory. So never despair. Take hope to the grave with you if you must, but you have to find the will to live and the hope that you will one day be the land of the free again.

Edwards: Where can people watch you, and are you scheduled for any public appearances in 2026?

Jonie: They should go to my website: www.LeonardaIsFunny.com. I have all my tour dates and content, including bonus content, there. And they can find me on YouTube, Instagram, or Twitter at @LeonardaIsFunny.

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS.

When not interviewing newsmakers, James Edwards has often found himself in the spotlight as a commentator, including many national television appearances. For more than 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.

How Israel’s Resettlement Demands Shifted Toward Europe

/9 Comments/in /by

Long before Israel declared independence, Zionist leaders openly discussed what they termed “transfer,” the organized removal of the Palestinian Arab population. David Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel’s first prime minister, stated as early as 1937, “The compulsory transfer of the Palestinians from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something we never had.” He added, “With compulsory transfer we would have a vast area for settlement. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.”

These pre-state declarations established the ideological foundation that would resurface throughout Israeli political history, eventually extending from proposals to relocate Palestinians within the Middle East to explicit demands that Western nations absorb them.

The 1948 war resulted in the displacement of 750,000 to 1 million Palestinians. Ben-Gurion’s government directed and facilitated this displacement as part of constructing a Jewish-majority state. While the primary expulsion pushed Palestinians into neighboring Arab countries, Western resettlement schemes also emerged during this period.

While serving as Deputy Foreign Minister under Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Netanyahu spoke at Bar-Ilan University on November 16, 1989 and called for mass expulsions of Palestinians: “Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China [Tiananmen Square], when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.” He told the students the government had failed to exploit “politically favourable situations in order to carry out ‘large-scale’ expulsions at times when ‘the damage would have been relatively small.'” He added: “I still believe that there are opportunities to expel many people.” Netanyahu denied the remarks on November 21, claiming he had been misunderstood.

Avigdor Lieberman, then leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, first proposed his “Populated-Area Exchange Plan” in 2004. The plan would redraw Israel’s borders to transfer hundreds of thousands of Arab-Israeli citizens, particularly those in the Galilee Triangle region, out of Israel and into a Palestinian state, stripping them of Israeli citizenship. Lieberman reiterated this plan at the UN General Assembly in September 2010, describing it as a “population and territory swap.”

As Foreign Minister in 2014, Lieberman received a classified legal opinion from Foreign Ministry legal adviser Ehud Keinan arguing that a population transfer plan would be legal under international law provided it was consensual. First reported by Haaretz’s Barak Ravid, the document was entitled “Territorial Exchange: Transfer of Sovereignty over Populated Areas” and proposed transferring approximately 300,000 Palestinian citizens of Israel living in the Triangle region—a densely populated area along the Green Line—to Palestinian Authority control in exchange for Israeli annexation of large West Bank settlement blocs.

The ideas Lieberman had spent two decades pushing from the political fringe entered the mainstream of Israeli official discourse after October 7. The Hamas attack on October 7, 2023 triggered an unprecedented wave of Israeli official statements calling for the resettlement of Palestinians outside Gaza, with several explicitly naming Europe and the West as destinations.

In a cross-party op-ed in The Wall Street Journal titled “The West Should Welcome Gaza Refugees,” Danny Danon—the former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations—and Ram Ben-Barak—the former deputy director of Mossad—called on “countries around the world to accept limited numbers of Gazan families who have expressed a desire to relocate.” They urged Western nations to create “well-structured and internationally coordinated relocation programs” and suggested that “even if countries took in as few as 10,000 people each, it would help alleviate the crisis.” The op-ed explicitly invoked European and American precedents of accepting refugees from prior wars.

Responding to the Danon and Ben-Barak op-ed the following day, Finance Minister Smotrich endorsed the idea in a Facebook post, writing: “I welcome the initiative of members of Knesset Ram Ben-Barak and Danny Danon on the voluntary immigration of Gaza Arabs to the countries of the world. This is the right humanitarian solution for the residents of Gaza and the entire region.” He argued that a “cell with a small area like the Gaza Strip without natural resources and independent sources of livelihood has no chance to exist independently, economically and politically in such a high density for a long time.” At the time, the U.S. State Department condemned the statements from both Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, with spokesman Matthew Miller calling them “inflammatory and irresponsible.”

In a similar vein, shortly after October 7, Intelligence Minister Gamliel called on the international community to promote “the voluntary resettlement of Palestinians in Gaza, for humanitarian reasons, outside of the Strip.” She argued, “Instead of funneling money to rebuild Gaza or to the failed UNRWA [The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees], the international community can assist in the costs of resettlement, helping the people of Gaza build new lives in their new host countries.” She described this as “a win-win solution: a win for those civilians of Gaza who seek a better life and a win for Israel.”

Similar calls came from elsewhere in the Netanyahu cabinet. National Security Minister Ben Gvir called for promoting “a solution to encourage the emigration of Gaza’s residents,” calling it “a correct, just, moral, and humane solution.” He stated, “The emigration of hundreds of thousands from Gaza will allow Israeli settlers to return and live in security.”

After the U.S State Department condemned these statements, Smotrich doubled down, claiming “more than 70 percent of the Israeli public supports” encouraging emigration, and arguing that Israel “cannot afford a reality where four minutes away from our communities there is a hotbed of hatred and terrorism where two million people wake up every morning with aspiration for the destruction of the State of Israel.” Pushing back on the US State Department, Ben Gvir posted on X, “The migration of hundreds of thousands from Gaza will allow the residents of the [Gaza] envelope to return home and live in security … with all due respect, we are not another star in the American flag.”

The rhetorical positions soon hardened into operational planning at the highest levels of the Israeli defense establishment. Defense Minister Israel Katz announced on February 6, 2025: “I have instructed the IDF to prepare a plan that will allow any resident of Gaza who wishes to leave to do so, to any country willing to receive them.” He explicitly named Spain, Ireland, Norway, and Canada as target destinations, stating: “Countries such as Spain, Ireland, Norway, and others, which have falsely accused Israel over its actions in Gaza, are legally obligated to allow Gazans to enter their territory. Their hypocrisy will be exposed if they refuse.” He separately singled out Canada, noting that it “has a structured immigration program” and had “previously expressed willingness to take in residents from Gaza.” Spain’s Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares rejected the suggestion directly, saying “Gaza is the land of Gazan Palestinians and they must stay in Gaza,” and Ireland similarly rejected Katz’s comments.

Despite the European rebuffs, Netanyahu and the Israeli security establishment pressed forward. In February 2025, Netanyahu endorsed the Trump plan to relocate Gaza’s population, calling it a “remarkable idea,” and told Fox News, “The actual idea of allowing first Gazans who want to leave to leave — what is wrong with that?” The following month the Israeli security cabinet formally approved a proposal from Defense Minister Katz to facilitate “voluntary transfer” for Gaza residents.

In July 2025, Mossad Director David Barnea traveled to Washington to meet with US special envoy Steve Witkoff and formally requested US assistance in convincing countries to accept “hundreds of thousands” of Palestinians from Gaza. He told Witkoff that Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Libya had expressed openness, and asked the US to offer incentives to those countries. The White House was described as non-committal and reportedly told Israeli officials that if Netanyahu wanted to pursue the plan, Israel would need to find willing host countries itself. A few months later Netanyahu discussed plans for “voluntary emigration” at a meeting with senior defense officials and cabinet members. A Defense Ministry plan would allow Gazans to leave by air and sea starting in October 2025.

Other figures in the Israeli right pushed the same logic well beyond Gaza. At a vineyard near Ramallah, presenting his “Colonisation 2030” campaign platform ahead of elections, Smotrich declared, “Destroy the idea of an Arab terror state; finally, formally and practically cancel the cursed Oslo Accords and get on the path of sovereignty, while encouraging migration both from Gaza and from Judea and Samaria. There is no other long-term solution.” This marked the first time a senior minister explicitly extended the emigration demand to the West Bank.

These statements have drawn uniform international condemnation. The US State Department explicitly condemned the January 2024 statements by Smotrich and Ben Gvir as “inflammatory and irresponsible,” stating that “Gaza is Palestinian land and will remain Palestinian land.” Saudi Arabia, the EU, Netherlands, Slovenia, and other states joined in that condemnation. Spain, Ireland, and Norway rejected Katz’s February 2025 demand that they accept Gazans. Human rights organizations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and BADIL have characterized these plans as constituting ethnic cleansing or forced displacement under international law. While the post-2023 statements frame resettlement as “voluntary” and “humanitarian,” critics and legal experts note that mass displacement carried out under conditions of war and siege cannot meaningfully be called voluntary.

Taken together, these resettlement schemes represent the logical culmination of a long-standing Jewish policy designed to make the world safe for Jewish supremacy, where the systematic exploitation of Western capital and influence serves the dual purpose of clearing the land of Palestine while accelerating the permanent transformation and destabilization of the traditional European heartlands.

Those Who Reign Supreme: The Holocaust as Linchpin of a Jewish-Ruled World

/37 Comments/in /by

History is a set of lies agreed upon
Napoleon Bonaparte

Wherever you are on this earth, beware! As of January 20, 2022, the United Nations adopted a resolution submitted by Israel and Germany appealing to all nations of the world to take active measures to combat any unwanted skeptical research into the National-Socialist persecution of Jews, and the popular social chatter resulting from it. Following a propaganda speech by Gilad Erdon, Israel’s representative to the United Nations, the UN passed this resolution without a vote, a fact which makes you wonder who really runs the UN![1]

Holocaust education is now mandatory in almost all schools of the Western World. Everyone is obligated not only to learn, but to believe, or else, the official Holocaust narrative.[2]

This obligation is pretty radical when you think about it. Eighty years later, we should be able to discuss the subject freely as we do with most other historical events such as the Jewish-led Atlantic slave trade,[3] or for that matter: the Jewish-led Bolshevik Red Terror of 1937-38,[4] the Jewish-led Bolshevik Gulags,[5] and the Jewish-led Bolshevik Holodomor famine;[6] three events which altogether caused the death of 60 million Russian Christians, according to Nobel prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the author of The Gulag Archipelago (1973).

Slavery and Colonialism. Are Whites Responsible for the Stagnation of Africa and Blacks in general?

Why should Jewish suffering be more important? “Jewish death and suffering,” asserts Marc Weber of the Institute of Historical Revision, “do not deserve to be venerated more than the death and suffering of non-Jews.”[7] Why this double standard? There have been many Holocausts in the past. Here is a partial list:

  • Mao Zedong’s Regime (1949–1976): Responsible for 40 to 70 million deaths through policies like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
  • Khmer Rouge (Cambodia, 1975–1979): Killed approximately 1.7 to 2 million Cambodians through forced labor, starvation, and execution.
  • Armenian Genocide (1915–1923): The Ottoman Empire massacred or deported 1 to 1.8 million ethnic Armenians. [8]

And that’s without mentioning the ongoing Gaza genocide which, according to the very conservative statistics of the most immoral army in the world, has killed roughly 70 000 Palestinians since October 2023; with more than 171,000 others wounded and 9,500 missing and presumed dead and buried beneath the rubble of bombed buildings, mostly women, children, and the elderly.[9] If you add to this toll, the number of Palestinians killed, injured,  and displaced since 1948, the number of people killed, injured, and displaced during the war on terrorism, you’re speaking of millions of casualties from fire, bombs, bullets, starvation, illness, and unimaginable sadism and cruelty, all in the name of the Greater Israel Project.[10]

The Holocaust, at the Heart of the Gaza Genocide

No one except like-minded people such as Donald Trump and his neocon war mongers would accept to cooperate with Jews after what they did to Blacks, Christian Russians, Arab populations in Western Asia, and Persian populations in Iran. If they were seen for what they really are, behind the mask of their iconic victimhood status cemented by the Holocaust, no one, states Jewish American intellectual Ron Unz, would want anything to do with these baby killers:

In per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass murderers of the twentieth century. Holding that distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close. And yet, by the astonishing alchemy of Hollywood, the greatest killers of the last one hundred years have somehow been transmuted into being seen as the greatest victims, a transformation so seemingly implausible that future generations will surely be left gasping in awe.[11]

Why Is the Holocaust So Important?

Without the Holocaust, “those who reign supreme,” i.e., the Epstein class and their willing dupes and traitors, will find it difficult if not impossible to achieve what several Jewish philosophers, historians, and rabbis such as Michael Higger, Max Dimont, Asher Ginsberg, Leon Simon, and Alfred Nossig have identified as the ultimate Jewish domination of the earth and its peoples.[12]

This goal is not an anti-Semitic-conspiracy theory taken from the “fake” Protocols of the Elders of Zion by a fringe group of White supremacists, fascists, and Nazis. It is as real as the genocide in Gaza.

This goal of domination is clearly spelled out in the following citation from The London Jewish World of February 9/16, 1883, taken from Michael C. Piper’s book, The New Babylon— from which I have taken the liberty to use part of the cover to illustrate this article, which is a respectful homage to this great American investigative journalist, the first to link the JFK assassination to Israel:

The dispersion of the Jews has rendered them a cosmopolitan people. They are the only cosmopolitan people, and in this capacity must act, and are acting, as the solvent of national and racial differences. The great Ideal of Judaism is not that Jews shall be allowed to flock together one day in some hole-and-corner fashion [as a separate people]; but that the whole world shall be imbued with Jewish teachings and that in a Universal Brotherhood of Nations—a Greater Judaism, in fact—all the separate races and religions shall disappear.[13]

Once all the races, nations, and religions are disappeared, in a “John Lenon Imagine way”, prominent Jewish French cabalist, Jacques Attali, would like the center of the New World Order anticipated by the The London Jewish World to be located in Israel, and the capital of this focal point of Jewish power to be Jerusalem.[14]

As Dr. Kerry Bolton states in his book The Occult and Subversive Movements: “Jerusalem has been regarded by the tradition of Western Civilization as the axis mundi, and the Crusaders believed it to be the nexus between Heaven and Earth.”[15] In some maps of the Middle Ages, this city is in fact depicted as the center of the world, with Europe, Asia, and Africa radiating from it like the petals of a flower. In a more pragmatic perspective, Western Asia, aka the Middle East, contains the world’s largest concentration of proven oil and natural gas reserves, holding more than 50% of global proven oil reserves.[16] For the Rothschild-led City bankers who chose this piece of real estate as their beachhead in Western Asia, it’s an ideal location for their social, financial, and economic ambitions on the world.[17]

And cabalist Jacques Attali and the Rothschilds’ are far from being the only ones advocating for a one world government situated in Jerusalem. In his book, Planetarian Hopes, French author Hervé Ryssen, who has written several critical books on Judaism, has compiled dozens and dozens of citations from prominent secular Jews who advocate for a world of peace without borders and races governed from Jerusalem by an elite Jewish class, who, paradoxically, has no intention of dropping its Jewish identity.[18]

Moses, the First “Führer” in History: Jewish racial consciousness and supremacism

Rabbi Menachem Froman (1945-2013) was also passionately pleading for a capital of the world in Jerusalem:

Jerusalem must be made Capital of the World. We now have the power and opportunity to declare it so, isn’t it only fitting that Jerusalem be the seat of the United Nations cultural bodies, human rights organizations, scholarly forums? Isn’t it only proper that Jerusalem be the place where the members of all faiths convene to renounce their breeding of prejudice, hostility and war?[19]

Is this why Donald Trump, metaphorically called the “first Jewish president of the United States” by Jewish influencer Mark Levin, moved the American embassy to Jerusalem? Considering his dedication to an Israel First policy and his long record of supporting Jewish causes, and his 99% support by the Israelis vs his 35% support by his own citizens, it’s probable. [20]

In any case, as far as Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion (1948) is concerned, it is without a doubt the destiny of the Jews and Israel to be the head of a world alliance governed from Jerusalem:

With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.[21]

This Court is already in place in the form of the Supreme Court of Israel, which will become the Supreme Court of Humanity dreamed by David Ben Gurion. This purposely designed building covered with Masonic and Egyptian symbols was donated by Dorothy de Rothschild for an undisclosed sum and inaugurated in 1992. [22], [23] The Rothschild, Isaac Rabin, and the designers are in the painting adorning the entrance of the building. On the roof of the court sits in a circle a pyramid like the one-at-the-Louvre museum in Paris and in it, the All-Seeing Eye of providence[24] like the one you can see on American one-dollar bills, and since 2016, on the Ukrainian 500 Hryven bills.[25]

Jewish Doublethink?

Is this a good thing for humanity? Is this a philanthropic project as advertised? Are we approaching the earthly paradise so coveted by millenarians of all stripes? Are we finally going to recreate the famous Garden of Eden prophesied in the eschatology of religions? Or, are we being taken for a ride?

Judging by what follows, the answer to the last question is “yes.” It may be good for the Jews, but not for everyone else. In Judaism, small inconvenience, only Jews are human, and that’s a problem.

Here is what the Prophets and the Jewish Sages “Of Blessed Memory” say about the status of non-Jews:

the Gentiles are thought of as animals. The status of the Gentiles in Halacha [Jewish religious law] is similar to that of animals in many respects, and generally speaking, there are no real distinctions made between them … There is no escaping the facts: the Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as “man,” and a Gentile. This distinction is expressed in a long list of Halachic laws [practical rules of conduct derived from the legal interpretation of the Hebrew Bible], be they monetary laws, the laws of the Temple, capital laws or others.[26]

The Pentateuch or the Hebrew Bible called the Torah contains a recurring theme in political Judaism: the world belongs to the Jews and all non-Jewish “animals” on the planet are at the mercy and whim of Jewish interests. The following passage from chapter 7 of Deuteronomy is pretty chilling, to say the least:

For you are a people sacred to the LORD, your god; he has chosen you from all the nations on the face of the earth to be a people peculiarly his own.

You shall consume all the nations which the LORD, your god, will deliver up to you.

Rout them utterly until they are annihilated.

He will deliver their kings into your hand, that you may make their names perish from under the heavens.

No man will be able to stand up against you, till you have put an end to them.

More generally, this hatred of non-Jews is openly expressed in several passages of their sacred book, the Talmud, which is, according to Abbey Olivier Rioult, “the most hateful, the most racist, and the most perverse book that has ever been written in the history of humanity.”[27]

The future condition of non-Jewish “animals” in the world advocated by the Jewish Sages of Blessed Memory, the Torah, and the Talmud is confirmed by the great rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef, a “giant of Jewish thought,” who  compared non-Jews to donkeys and slaves, according to the October 7, 2013, issue, of The Times of Israel:

Goyim [non-Jews, my comment] were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world—only to serve the people of Israel.

In Israel, death has no dominion over them… With Gentiles, it will be like any person—they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.

This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.

Why are Gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why Gentiles were created.[28]

These are not just empty words. This great Jewish sage is simply following a passage from the Hebrew Bible found in the book of Isaiah (61:5-6). Until his death in 2013, Ovadia Yosef, who was for thirty years a highly respected religious authority and listened to by Israeli leaders, including the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, was the embodiment par excellence of the rabbinic thinking (Talmudism) that prevails today in Israel and the Jewish Diaspora. When Yosef died, 800,000 Israelis attended his funeral, the largest in Israel’s history.

In his book, Jewish history, Jewish religion: The weight of 3000 years Jewish professor Israel Shahak takes us down into the rabbit hole of Jewish supremacism: “An Orthodox Jew learns from his earliest youth, as part of his sacred studies, that Gentiles are compared to dogs, that it is a sin to praise them.”[29] Institutionally, The Book of Education is currently a popular book for all Israeli school children, its publication is subsidized by the government. Its texts contain material such as “The Jewish are the best of the human species, created to know their Creator and worship Him, and worthy of having slaves to serve them.”[30]

This supremacist mentality is confirmed by English author and journalist, Nesta Webster—she is scorned today as “pseudo-scholarly” and an “anti-Semitic fantasist” because of her continuing influence on so-called conspiracists, but in her time, she was highly regarded for her knowledge on subversive movements by the Main Press, the British military, and people such as Lord Kitchener, H.G. Wells, and Churchill.[31] In her book, Germany and England. A Prelude to War 1938, her comments on the power of Jews and how they can make or break any man are still relevant today as we all saw with our own eyes during the election of Thomas Massie:

England of 1938 is not the England of 1914 because she is no longer controlled by Britons. Ever since the war the Jewish power has been growing… We are under an invisible Jewish dictatorship but a dictatorship that can be felt in every sphere of life, for no one can escape from it… Already the Jews can make or break the career of any man. As long as the Jews do not hold Germany [my comment: and now Iran, Russia and China] they can never realize their final aim of world domination.

It is idle to say that this vast ambition has been falsely attributed to the Jewish race. The dream of a messianic era when they shall rule the world runs all through their sacred writings. In this article on the Messiah, the Jewish Encyclopedia says: “As for the Royals, in the apocalyptic rabbinical literature the conception of an earthly Messiah is the prevailing one, and from the end of the first century of the common (i.e., Christian) era his mission is, in all essential respects, the same as the apocalypse of the older period; he is to free Israel from the power of the heathen world, kill its ruler and destroy the host, and set up his own kingdom of peace.” The peace of death for the Gentile world.[32]

Judging by what they are doing to the Arab “animals” in Palestine and the surrounding countries as well as the extreme racism and hatred of Whites expressed by many Jewish American intellectuals and thousands of ordinary Jews, the answer to the above question “are we being taken for a ride?” is definitely “yes.”

The “Seal Puppy” Hunt that’s Coming: The Ache of Envy and Other Obstacles to Change

Why, then, with such a mentality, would they treat non-Jews as equals in the New World Order they are selling as a paradise on earth for all humanity? From what has been said above, there is every reason to believe that the humanitarian and philanthropic aspect of the Jewish project is only a mask that the Jews will remove at the last moment when their project of planetary domination is, or will seem to them, finally realized.

Their vision is in fact much larger than just a New World Order ruled from Jerusalem, the capital of the world. Their real vision is a “Jewish utopia” where all the wealth of the world will be held by the Jews and all the nations of the earth will be subservient to them and their “God.”[33] As such, Zionism is not only about a Jewish state, it is about a Jewish-ruled world as confirmed by prominent Jewish author and journalist, Israel Shamir:

Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews, the world is. Palestine is just the place for world state headquarters. The Jews intend to turn Jerusalem into the supreme capital of the world, and its rebuilt temple into the focal point of the earth… Christianity will die, the spirit will depart from the nations in our part of the world, and our present dubious democracy will be supplanted by a vast theocratic state […] Theocracies are not this pleasant to live in; however, the Jewish theocratic state will be considerably worse, for the ordinary Gentiles will have no share in its rule and no access to its spirituality. Despiritualized and uprooted, homeless and lonely, yesterday’s masters of the world will become slaves in all but name.[34]

Role of the Holocaust

As such, in this duplicitous scheme hidden by an alleged concern for humanity, the Holocaust is both the sword and the shield with which organized Jewry and the State of Israel—with the help of their insufferable thought police, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the French International League against racism and anti-Semitism (LICRA):

  • Justify their actions in Palestine and in Western Asia;
  • Acquire their victimhood status from which they derive financial reparations and other social and political benefits. (Research indicates that “victimhood is a constructed status that confers moral capital, recognition, and resources. Individuals or groups may cultivate this status to demand justice, reparations, or sympathy, effectively ‘thriving’ on the recognition of their suffering.”); [35]
  • Censor and persecute their opponents;
  • Mobilize their community;
  • Fulfill their hegemonic ambitions on the world. [36], [37], [38], [39]

But not all Jews are on board. In one of his books, famous Jewish author Philip Roth, for one, bitterly deplores how Auschwitz and the Holocaust are weaponized:

What justifies seizing every opportunity to extend Israel’s boundaries? Auschwitz. What justifies bombing Beirut civilians? Auschwitz. What justifies smashing the bones of Palestinian children and blowing off the limbs of Arab mayors? Auschwitz. Dachau. Buchenwald. Belsen. Treblinka. Sobibor. Belzec. … Power-mad Jews is what they are, is all that they are, no different from the power-mad everywhere, except for the mythology of victimization that they use to justify their addiction to power….[40]

A point of view fully shared by other Jewish intellectuals[41] such as Jewish academic Tony Judt, director of the Remarque Institute at New York University:

The Holocaust is frequently exploited in America and Israel to deflect and prohibit any criticism of Israel; it allows Israel to outdo the suffering of any other nation (and justify its own excesses) by asserting that the Jewish catastrophe was unique and incomparable; and it is presented as a polyvalent metaphor for evil — everywhere, anywhere, and always — taught to schoolchildren all over America and Europe without any reference to context or cause. This modern instrumentalization of the Holocaust for political purposes is ethically unsound and politically unwise.[42]

Undeniably, the Holocaust is an instrument that Jews “use a lot, in a cynical way,” asserts Israeli historian Moshe Zimmerman, “to manipulate the public, Jewish people in particular, in Israel and abroad.”[43]

And if anyone dares to complain about Jewish behavior in Israel or elsewhere, the Holocaust and anti-Semitism are used to shut them down. But make no mistake about it, according to Shulamit Aloni, a former member of the Israeli government, these all-purpose boogeymen are nothing but a ruse:

When someone in Europe criticizes Israel, we bring up the Holocaust. When someone in this country [the United States] criticizes Israel, they are anti-Semites… We use the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering to justify everything we do to the Palestinians.[44]

The Holocaust, Linchpin of a Jewish-Ruled World

All things considered, you have to agree with what Mark Weber of the Institute of Historical Review thinks about the Holocaust Remembrance Day: “It is not, as its supporters claim, a noble effort motivated by sincere concern for humanity, this relentless campaign is an expression of Jewish-Zionist power, and is designed to further Jewish-Zionist interests.” [45]

As stated in 1991 by Ian Kagedan of the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai B’rith Canada, “Memory of the Holocaust is central to the New World Order” that Jews want to impose on the world. As American journalist Chris Hedges asserts in “The Death of the Holocaust Industry” published on substack.com in may 2026, “The genocide in Gaza has exposed the weaponization of the Holocaust as a vehicle not to prevent genocide, but to perpetuate it, not to examine the past, but to manipulate the present.”

In the end, if the memory of the Holocaust is “good for the Jews,” it’s bad for the non-Jewish “animals.” Beware, if you don’t obey the Jewish-ruled world that’s in the cards, the “chosen” have shown that when it comes to revenge, torture, rape, assassinations, mass murder, and genocide, they have nothing to envy in anyone else.

One of the greatest murderers in history is the Jew Genrikh Yagoda, deputy chief of the Bolshevik police, the infamous Cheka police, who said, “Some call it, Marxism, I call it, Judaism.” He was responsible for the deaths of about ten million people. It was he and his Jewish henchmen who set up the gulag system in the USSR that was denounced by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his book The Gulag Archipelago.[46]

To watch the “most moral army in the world” slaughter the Palestinian baby “animals” of Gaza, without a shred of human remorse, with impunity, live, in front of the entire planet, it’s high time to ask some serious questions.

Please, Mr. Rothschild, reassure us on this matter; please Mr. Attali, tell us it’s not true; please Mr. Netanyahu, we need to know because it turns out that Jews, when driven by talmudic fever, can become great murderers, among the greatest known in modern history.[47]

DeepSeek on Race, Egalitarianism, Jews, the Rulers of the World and the Solution to the Problems they Cause 

[1] Germar Rudolf, The Day Amazon Murdered Free Speech, Castle Hill Publishers, 2022, p. 143.

[2] Ibid.

[3] The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, prepared by the Historical Research Department of the Nation of Islam, Latimer Associates, 1991.

[4] Thomas Muller, “The Suppressed History of Jewish Red Terror in Europe and Russia After WW1,” Truth to Power, May 1, 2020.

[5] Steve Plocker, “Stalin’s Jews,” Yediot Aharonot, December 26, 2006.

[6] Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine, Oxford University Press, 1987.

[7] Mark Weber, “Holocaust Remembrance: What’s Behind the Campaign?” Institute for Historical Review.

[8] Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.

[9] Brett Wilkins, After 2 Years of Denial, IDF Confirms ​70,000+ Killed in Gaza​—But Denies Famine, Common Dreams, January 29, 2026.

[10] Yidon Plan, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. This plan is openly advocated by Benjamin Netanyahou.

[11] Ron Unz, “Racial Discrimination at Harvard,” The Unz Review, 2016.

[12] Michael Higger Ph.D., The Jewish Utopia, The Lord Baltimore Press, 1932;

Max Dimont, Jews, God, and History, Signet, 1962;

Asher Ginsberg,  Ahad Ha-‘am: Selected Essays, Sefer V’Sefel, 1912, republished in 2021;

Leon Simon, Studies in Jewish nationalism Longmans, Green and Co., 1920;

Alfred Nossig, Integral Judaism, 1922, independently republished in 2025.

These books are all cited in chapter 3, “Zionism is Judaism: The Foundation for a Global Jewish Imperium,” of Michael C. Piper’s book The New Babylon. Those Who Reign Supreme. The Rothschild Empire: The Modern-Day Pharisees and the Historical, Religious and Economic Origins of the New World Order, American Free Press, 2011.

[13] Ibid., p. 103.

[14] Jacques Attali, “Jerusalem, capital of the New World Order,” YouTube.

[15] Kerry Bolton, PhD, The Occult and Subversive Movements. Tradition and Counter-Tradition in the Struggle for World Power, Black House Publishing, 2017, pp. 293-290.

[16] Leo AI.

[17] Balfour Declaration, Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.

[18] Hervé Ryssen, Planetarian Hopes, Omnia Veritas, 2022.

[19] Rabbi Menachem Froman, “A Modest Proposal,” The Jerusalem Report, Oct. 25, 1999.

[20] Dan Feinreich, Trump family has long record of supporting Jewish causes, San Diego Jewish World, January 27, 2020. Mr. Trump received the Tree of Life award in 1983 for his dedication to American-Israeli friendship and support for Israel.

[21] “Ben-Gurion Foresees Gradual Democratization of the Soviet Union,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Jan. 4, 1962.

[22] Jerry Golden, “Supreme Court of Jerusalem,” Gravoline, March 12, 2015: “Being myself Jewish, God be my witness, that I would never say or do anything that could be considered antisemitic (translated from French).

[23] Kerry Bolton, PhD, The Occult and Subversive Movements. Tradition & Counter-Tradition in the Struggle for World Power, Black House Publishing, 2017.

[24] Robert Keith Spence, The Cult of the All-Seeing Eye, Omni Publications, 1968.

[25] Lucien Cerise, Ukraine. La guerre hybride de l’OTAN, Culture et Racines. 20222, p. 203.

[26] Rabbi David Bar Chaim, “Jews Are Called `Man’: The Distinction Between Jews and Gentiles in Torah,”

Gentiles in Halacha, October 17, 2006.

[27] Abbé Olivier Rioult, De la question juive : Synthèse, Éditions Saint Agobard, 2018, pp. 33 and 59.

[28] Lazar Berman, “5 of Ovadia Yosef’s Most Controversial Quotations,” The Times of Israel, October 9, 2013.

[29] Israel Shahak, Jewish history, Jewish religion. The weight of a thousand years, Pluto Press, 2008, p.113.

[30] Ibid., p. 114.

[31] Kerry Bolton, PhD, The Occult and Subversive Movements. Tradition & Counter-Tradition in the Struggle for World Power, Black House Publishing, 2017, p. 68.

[32] Nesta H. Webster, Germany and England. A Prelude to War, 1938, Ostara Publications, p. 58-59.

[33] Michael Higger Ph.D., The Jewish Utopia, The Lord Baltimore Press, 1932.

[34] Israel Shamir, Cabala of Power, self-published, 2009, pp. 88-89.

[35] Alex Vandermaas-Peeler, Jelena Subotic, and Michael Barnett, “Constructing victims: Suffering and status in modern world order,” Cambridge University Press, December 22, 2022.

[36] John Beaumont, The Truth Will Set You Free. The case for Holocaust revisionism, Fidelity Press, 2023, pp 304 to 313.

[37] Anne Kling, La France licratisée : Enquête au pays de la Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme, Éditions Mithra, 2006.

[38] Anne Kling, Shoah : La Saga des réparations, Éditions Mithra, 2015.

[39] Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Verso; Reprint edition, January 6, 2015.

[40] Philip Roth, Operation Shylock. A Confession,  Simon and Schuster, 1993, pp. 132-133. Cited by the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust.

[41] Mark Weber, “Holocaust Remembrance: What’s Behind the Campaign?”, Institute for Historical Review.

[42] Tony Judt, “Goodbye to All That?”, The Nation, Jan. 3, 2005, p. 17.

[43] Moshe Zimmerman cited by Yakov M. Rabkin in Au nom de la Torah : Une histoire de l’opposition juive au sionisme, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2004, p. 211, in Abbot Olivier Rioult, Sur la question juive. Synthèse, Éditions Saint Agobard, 2018, p. 304.

[44] Steve Cooke, “Is Antisemitism a Trick? A Closer Look at That Shulamit Aloni Meme,” Medium, June 5, 2019.

[45] Mark Weber, “Holocaust Remembrance Day: What’s Behind the Campaign?” Institute for Historical Review.

[46] Steve Plocker, “Stalin’s Jews,” Yediot Aharonot, December 26, 2006.

[47] Ibid.

The resistible rise of Blancophobia as a dominant reality in the UK

/12 Comments/in /by

If you have ever been a passenger on a large, ocean-going vessel which has had to turn through 180°, then you will know how long it takes. A cruise-liner or a super-tanker moves at glacial speed on the turn, and it is reminiscent of something; the British national consciousness. After almost two years of the latest — and hopefully last — incarnation of the British uniparty, the people of those rainy islands seem finally to be waking up to two inescapable facts. The first is that uncontrolled immigration is intentional and not a by-product of incompetence. The regular influx of undocumented, fighting-age, non-white Muslim men into the UK is not a glitch in the British political class’s coding, it is a feature. The second fact, harder to swallow for the famously tolerant British, is that their government hates them. More specifically, it hates them if they are White.

We live in an age of phobias, but there is one which dare not speak its name. Blancophobia, a fear or hatred of white people, is never mentioned, not even by those on the genuine political Right. We know that a phobia is actually defined as an irrational fear of something, not “hatred of” as the Left have re-branded it, but the concept of definition is passé, like wearing last season’s fashion. Language is increasingly what the hegemonic Left say it is, and definition is at their discretion. If the Left ever do have an auto da fé, a burning of books as the Nazis did in 1933, when 40,000 books were consigned to the flames, then the dictionary would be first on the pyre. But the phobia it is not okay to mention in polite society is blancophobia, and this is because polite society is now policed society.

Blancophobia is defined as “a fear or hatred of white people” not in any of the internationally recognized Anglophone dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) or Merriam-Webster. The only definition I can find is in something called the “Urban Dictionary”, a fairly minor internet outpost.

Why this omission? It is not as though the compilers of dictionaries, from Dr. Johnson onwards, are not sensitive to any change in meaning. Merriam-Webster — the American OED — famously changed their definition of “racism” when a black woman requested they do so. Yes, ma’am, said the company. What uppity Black women want, they get. But no mention of blancophobia. So, there is no point looking for a definition of this whisper-word. How does it manifest?

We moderns have a tendency to think in news cycles, which is exactly what the Western media wish. We don’t need an Orwellian memory-hole, we have our own. We do have to store a lot away these days, it must be said, and we forget quickly, but let’s look at how blancophobia has been incubating this century.

Why not start with what I am writing? I am using Word, and I can tell you what spellcheck recognizes. Of the following five words, only one gets the red line underneath it from a Microsoft spellcheck: Islamophobia. Homophobia. Transphobia. Negrophobia. Blancophobia. There are no prizes for working out which one is not recognized.

This tallies with what has become a saw among those on the Left; it is not possible for non-Whites to be racist concerning White people. I have said many times that this is an ex cathedra statement made ex nihilo; a statement made with no rationale to back it up, but having the power of a Papal edict. It began in 1970, when an American academic named Patricia Bidol-Padva wrote in Developing New Perspectives on Race that racism is “prejudice plus power”. Despite being rationally untenable, this formula was taken up by modern Critical Race Theory (CRT) authors such as Robin DiAngelo and Reni Eddo-Lodge, author of Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race.  Now, this concept is an established part of the UK school curriculum, and is one example among many of blancophobia in the classroom.

Apparently, the only reason given for the impossibility of non-Whites being racist to Whites is that, in some mystifying way, Whites have power and Blacks don’t, or “White privilege”, as it is known in some circles. The truth, as it so often is, is the polar opposite of this. As Enoch Powell’s famous constituent warned would happen in 1968, the Black man now has the whip-hand over the White man, aided and abetted by the largely White political class and their executive arm in the public sector.

The current concerted attack on Whiteness in the UK is now blatantly obvious in sectors as disparate as advertising, employment legislation, and policing. Although only around 5% of the British population is Black, it is estimated that up to 50% of British advertising features Blacks, and mixed-race couples are disproportionately represented, almost always showing a Black man squiring a White woman.

As for employment, one of the top brass in the RAF, the famous Royal Air Force which won the Battle of Britain, complained about “useless White men” when recruiting. He didn’t mean useless in the air, he meant useless for his DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity) quota.

As for the police, when hundreds of Black teenagers recently ran riot in a once-genteel part of London called Clapham, the police presence was sparse and seemed entirely uninterested when they did arrive at what would have been condemned as a riot had it been Whites smashing property and looting stores. When White crowds assembled peacefully to protest in migrant-afflicted towns such as Crowborough and Epsom, however, the police were present in force and wearing full riot gear. This is the famous “two-tier policing” that the government claims does not exist in Britain, a denial that certainly shows that it does. Anyone presenting an argument that blancophobia is not by far the strongest racial animus in Britain today shows themselves to be deeply unserious.

Despite it clearly being open season on Whites, the government diktat is that it is ethnic minorities, and various other groups with “protected characteristics” who are under threat. This thinking is reverse induction; you start from the answer and work back to the question. And the answer is always that Whites can only ever be the problem.

This can be seen in miniature in UK television advertising. Ads are little dramas now, and the morphology of these tales in miniature is not hard to find. Whites are shown as incompetent, objectionable, and humorless, while Blacks are portrayed as invaluable, empathetic, and the saviors of any given situation.

When the government produced a series of ads to dissuade young men from harassing young women in the street, the sexual aggressors are always White, while the gallant knights who save the girl and scold the boy are always Black or British Asian. Britain, and its White political ruling class in particular, is profoundly blancophobic, and it is at long last starting to be noticed and spoken about.

British non-Whites (or at least non-Whites in Britain) fall into two broad classes: Blacks of Caribbean or African heritage, and Muslims either from sub-continental Asia or Africa. I am from London, and lived there for much of my life, so I have seen both groups at close hand. Blacks are notably the more racist of the two groups, disliking Whites purely because they are White. The young Muslim sees kuffar before he sees Whiteness, and so the animus is more religious than racial. Blacks and Muslims don’t really get on, and the attitude of Muslims such as the London Mayor, Sir Sadiq Khan, is that the only good Black is a convert to Islam. This is why Khan campaigned at the last Mayoral election on a ticket which would ban stop-and-search, by far the easiest way to reduce knife crime, and yet prone to racial disparity. Khan is entirely unconcerned about Blacks stabbing one another — and the occasional White boy — stabbing them to death because these people are not of the ummah, they are out-group delinquents.

“Integration”, or rather the lack of it, is much talked about in British political commentary, and one point is never made; Muslims have integrated perfectly well into another culture. This is not the vanishing culture of the host country they infest, of course. Almost all young Muslim men speak, act, dress and behave like young urban Blacks. They have integrated perfectly.

Even the White image of Blackness in Britain is blancophobic because it is coerced. No White Briton is free to form their own opinion of Blacks and Black culture based on, say, empirical evidence. The White experience of Blackness is pre-fabricated and mandatory. Whites are not required to have their own experience of Blackness, but rather they are told what that experience is and must be. It is also explained to them that their experience of Blacks is tainted by their own prejudice, snobbery, xenophobia and racism. Whites are told that they have a visceral hatred of non-Whites, and Blacks in particular.

In a relatively short period of time, the British Black caucus, in collaboration with their White liberal handlers, have produced a White personality which is far more of a social construct than race is deemed to be by the promoters of CRT. Blacks have long monopolized the grievance industry, and the White persona they have come up with is general issue and melanin-dependent. It is that of the racist.

Racism has had an interesting arc of development this century. At first, it was enough not to be a racist. Then, as the Black caucus realized they could expand on this theme, it became compulsory to be anti-racist. This was further refined so that it became necessary for Whites to declare their anti-racism on request, like a member of the Stasi demanding to see a person’s papers. This is a part of an overall program in which Blacks demand “respect” — a big word in that community, if rarely exhibited by its members. No one has ever dared to point out to Blacks that respect must be earned. No one would dare if they wanted to stay in position. Blacks just expect respect to be there automatically, like a hotel towel. Even after this state-imposed humiliation ritual, of course, Whites are still racist. Racism has replaced Adam and Eve’s transgression as the original sin. On the subject of history, blancophobia is hard at work in what was once a respected academic field.

Blacks and their enablers have learned to master cognitive dissonance, a psychological dysfunction which involves an individual holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. So it is that the Black caucus has no problem with holding two contradictory versions of history. Firstly, Blacks require a bogus history in which Blacks invented everything from the plough to the Large Hadron Collider, pausing only to kick-start the Industrial Revolution and come up with the internet.

In fact, of course, Blacks have invented very little of use, and in fact represent a negative asset to history’s development, White-led as it is and will remain. And yet schools are filled with books such as Brilliant Black History, which propagates the myth of Black exceptionalism. In the arts, famous historical figures who were clearly White are portrayed as Black in dramatic productions. Thus, Anne Boleyn was Black, according to the BBC, and there were plenty of Black Romans, Tudors, and Victorians, even though the actual numbers were vanishingly small. The latest incarnation of this is Christopher Nolan’s upcoming film version of Homer’s Odyssey, in which Helen of Troy is played by a Black woman, despite Homer specifically describing her as White. We also saw a Hollywood version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves in which the role of the little princess was played by a Latina, despite the name being a translation of the German, “Schneewittchen”.

Drama based on actual fact is not confined to history. Readers will remember the BBC drama, Adolescence. This featured a young boy who has been “radicalized” online, and goes on to kill a female classmate. For extra authenticity, the writers based the show on a real case. What puts something of a dent in that authenticity is that, in reality, both killer and victim were Black. When scriptwriters tinker with a script, that’s permissible.

When they tinker with reality, not so much. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer wanted Adolescence shown in every school, and repeatedly referred to it in the House of Commons as “a documentary”.

The arts are a hotbed of blancophobia. In 2023, a Black theater group in London announced that one performance during a run of its play, Tambo & Bones (which is, as you might expect, about race) would be to a black-only audience. The producers did not exclude Whites from attending, nor could they do so legally, they simply suggested they not attend. Given that their White audience would be mostly liberals who would do anything a Black man told them to, that order was obeyed. The producers wanted, they said, to have one performance “free from the White gaze”. This is a curious choice of phrase. In London, no White person gazes at a Black if they know what’s good for them.

Blancophobia is not treated as a criminal offense, as are all other racial phobias. What of crime itself? Media bias is used to screen Black violence, as with a piece from The Guardian in February, 2023. The headline informs us that “Black people four times as likely as White people to be murdered, ONS (Office for National Statistics) data shows.

The piece unpacks this data, but at no point mentions the ethnicity of the murderers. The sub-textual hint is that these dead Black people were killed by Whites. This is not the case, or I feel sure we would have heard more on the subject.

A feature in The Daily Telegraph from December 2023 has a helpful hint beneath the headline, which reads “London knife and gun crime surges amid gang warfare”.

Now, it is axiomatic that no such feature will mention Blackness except in the context of victimhood, and this one does not. But the newspaper extends to its readers an invitation to “find out how much knife crime is in your area using our searchable tool”. They say there is an app for everything, and now there is one for Black dysfunction, although it is not exactly framed in those terms.

Alternatively, rather than bother installing the app, you could just walk out of your London front door, stroll around for a while (accompanied, if female), count how many Black people you see, and use that as a reliable indicator of the dangers inherent in the place where you live. You don’t need an app to recognize what Paul Kersey calls the “Black undertow”. What happens when Black academics are the ones compiling crime statistics?

Tony Sewell is a Black education specialist. In 2021, as Chairman of the Race and Ethnic Disparities Commission, Sewell was tasked with producing a report on those very categories. This was one of those governmental reports which are produced “to show” a pre-judged result, and the one Mr. Sewell’s commission came up with showed very much the wrong result. Instead, the report found that racism was not the dominant factor in Black dysfunction, but trailed behind geography, family, wealth, culture and religion. This was not what the deep state wanted to hear, and the vitriolic attacks on Mr. Sewell began immediately.

In 2007, then-Prime Minister, Tony Blair, took something of a political risk. In a studio panel Q&A, Blair told a Black woman the following about crime: “We won’t stop this by pretending it isn’t young Black kids doing it”.

But it is what Blair said immediately beforehand which shows the ultimate avoidance of Black culpability:

The black community — the vast majority of whom are decent, law-abiding people horrified at what is happening — need to be mobilized in denunciation of this gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids. [Italics added].

This deflects culpability away from “young black kids” (who liberals believe not to have moral agency) and relocates it in something abstract: “gang culture”. This removes responsibility from Black culture, which alone is responsible for the current toxic and dangerous state of London’s streets. But even that was not enough for some of the screeching choir. Amnesty International’s Director at the time, Kate Allen (a crop-haired White woman), found the “gang matrix” most unsavory:

It’s part of an unhelpful and racialized focus on the concept of gangs at the expense of concentrating on the most violent offenders. The entire system is racially discriminatory, discriminating and stigmatizing young men for the type of music they listen to.

Quite what Black crime in London has to do with Amnesty International is not clear, but that organization has long since wandered from its original remit as representatives of political prisoners. Many inner-city Whites are now effectively political prisoners, however, unable to go out at night, and wholly unsupported by the police. That would be unlikely to interest Ms. Allen.

Years later, Sadiq Khan would order 1,000 Black men to be removed from a so-called “crime matrix”. (Don’t those in power love calling data a “matrix”?). These men, said Khan, were not deemed a threat. Young Black men are not only a threat to one another, however, they are a threat to Whites, and so are the blancophobic police. This was shown very recently when a young White man, Henry Nowak, was stabbed to death by Vikrum Digwa, a Sikh, using a ceremonial “shastar” knife, an 8” blade Sikhs are legally allowed to carry on religious grounds. When the police arrived to find the White boy trailing blood, the 23-year-old Sikh claimed he had been racially abused. Accordingly, with an accusation of racism easily out-trumping the obvious need to get the boy an ambulance, the police promptly arrested Nowak. While they were handcuffing him, he bled out, collapsed, and died. This is blancophobia in action.

Blancophobia first appeared on the national political landscape in what now looks like quite an anodyne comment made in 2001 by then-BBC Director-General, Sir Greg Dyke. The BBC, he said, was “hideously White”. Now, a quarter of a century later, this seed has grown into a mighty bough, and blancophobia is steadily on the rise in the United Kingdom. It represents precisely the type of “divisiveness” politicians won’t stop accusing Whites of. White Britons are just beginning to grasp just how much the political class hate them, and will weaponize non-Whites, as well as racial legislation, against them. Perhaps it is time for British to reclaim the meaning of “phobia” and give them reason to fear us as well as hate us.