Conservatism

Conservatism and The Illusion of Exclusion

In 1950, while being driven from contested Korean territory by the overwhelming force of the invading Chinese, the U.S. Army’s Major General Oliver Prince Smith Jr. told a journalist from Time magazine “We are not retreating. We are advancing in a different direction.” Depending on your perspective, the quote, which has since become almost universally attributed to Smith’s superior, General Douglas MacArthur, is either a masterpiece of positive thinking or a piss-poor method of deception or burying one’s head in the sand. I’ve always viewed it in the latter sense, and it’s a useful shorthand for the unending stream of failures by the mainstream Right. From immigration to gay marriage and the “war on Woke,” the conservative bloc has an innate talent not only for giving ground in its various culture wars, but for somehow reinterpreting or dissembling concession as an advance in a different direction. At the heart of “the conservative problem” is the issue of inclusion versus exclusion, and the fact the conservative bloc, wherever in the West it is found, leads its voter base on the same merry dance to defeat by endlessly hinting at the promise of exclusionary politics while bringing only an expansion to the “inclusive” state. This overwhelmingly takes the form of attracting votes by promising exclusionary action on immigration; retreating from this promise; then playing sleight of hand by trumpeting an advance in the direction of an “inclusive” economy.

“Culture Wars”

Even a brief look at the cultural career of conservatism from around the 1960s reveals a kind of political Attention Deficit Disorder. I can’t think of any single cause, with the possible exceptions of gun control and abortion (in America alone), that has held the attention of the conservative movement enough for consistent opposition or action. Just look at the current fixation on “woke” language and cancel culture. Historian Stephen Prothero wrote back in 2016 that “conservatives almost always lose, because they lash themselves to lost causes.” Despite the ideological rectitude of opposing woke nonsense, it’s essentially true that the issue is already a lost cause. The appropriate time to suffocate the rise of wokeness was years ago, when it was still in its infancy as a niche of left-wing academic nomenclature. In the same way, prior to the advent of woke, when conservatives offered tepid opposition to the eruption of transsexualism into public life, especially in the ridiculous use of pronouns and the question of restrooms and so on, they were at a loss to offer a meaningful challenge because of concessions already made on homosexuals years earlier. And on the homosexuals, conservatives were incapable of serious opposition because of concessions they’d already made around abortion, marriage, and the family, which had in turn created a childless, promiscuous sexual culture more tolerant of the sexually deviant. The conservative is someone who tries to prop up a domino that has many thousands of toppled ones behind it.

Endlessly distracted by new salvoes from the Left, conservatives always arrive too late to the fight, and they combine this with a particularly perverse kind of amnesia on prior defeats. The fundamental strategic difference between Left and Right is that the Left is aware that it is weaving a cultural tapestry, linking one threadlike advance to the next in an endless but coherent chain of social change, while the Right is engaged in political whack-a-mole, seeing everything it disagrees with as an isolated trend or event that can be defeated on its own terms or least milked for votes in the promise of such. The Right sees a series of independent “culture wars” when in fact, as the Left is aware, there is only one war for culture fought on numerous, related, and sequential battlefields. As Prothero points out, the results are conclusive: “In almost every arena where the contemporary culture wars have been fought, liberals now control the agenda.”

The link between gay marriage and the sudden rise of transsexualism to public prominence is an excellent example of the Right’s addiction to last-minute grandstanding on battles that have already been lost. It’s ironic, to say the least, that conservatives often appeal to the idea of a “slippery slope” when opposing a certain trend but are the first to forget they’re on a slope when it comes to the next challenge from the Left. When conservatives opposed gay marriage, part of their reasoning was that it was a slippery slope that would lead to further dilutions in identity, and that it would lead to a quest for “liberation” for the next putatively downtrodden sexual minority. They were right. Almost as soon as the “gay cakes” were finally baked and gay marriage was signed into law, trannies seemed to start walking into female restrooms around the country. And yet the slope was forgotten about as soon as gay marriage was written into law, and while a justified unease about transsexuals ensued there was no mention at all of how, in legislative or cultural terms, we’d arrived at that point. Quite the opposite in fact. Conservatives, consumed with political ADD, had no sooner given up on opposing gay marriage than they were literally championing Trump for advancing the ‘rights’ of homosexuals. Republicans hadn’t lost, they might say, but “advanced in
another direction.”

The Left often portrays the conservative Right as Draconian or heavily Christian on sexual aspects of the culture wars, but this is hardly accurate. In reality, the conservative Right is extremely erratic and divided on the sexual aspect of the culture wars because, with its commitment to visions of the primacy (and privacy) of the individual and the consumer rather that the folk or the nation, it has no solid ideological basis on which in could develop a robust, adaptive notion of the family. The difference is that the individual will always be boiled down to a mere atom of a global community while the family, with its additional obligations, responsibilities and immediate sense of heritage, is the basic unit of a nation. Although the Republican National Committee still technically calls for a ban on gay marriage and transsexuals in the military, this is mere lip service to the idea of sexual normality given the prominence of LGBT platitudes in the Republican top tier. There is currently no conservative political party anywhere in Western Europe, North America, or Australia that proposes the rolling back of protected status for sexual minorities, or even the tightening of laws around divorce and reduction in state provision of welfare that would curb the fracturing of families and rein in the culture of promiscuity and sterility. Without such measures, which conservatism is inherently incapable of introducing and imposing, endlessly debating these issues really is lashing oneself to a lost cause. David Brooks described Trump as “a culture-war president with almost no policy arm attached,” a description that is applicable to almost every conservative government.

Related to the ideological insistence on the individual is the conservative commitment to the fundamental principle of inclusion — a bias that taints all conservative political activity. In an interesting Newsweek piece titled “Why Conservatives Keep Losing the Culture Wars,” Marcus Johnson writes:

Winning the Civil War and World War II against deeply exclusionary societies created a cultural preference for inclusion in the U.S. This preference has become embedded in institutions and has become self perpetuating. It is this cultural preference for inclusion that prevents conservatives from winning the culture wars in this country. To win the culture wars, conservatives would have to fundamentally shift U.S. political culture away from inclusion toward exclusion. But this is extremely difficult to do in practice. It would require rejecting the cultural narratives that the U.S. has long told itself about its past conflicts and reorienting how its political institutions work.

As stated above, conservatives are inherently incapable of doing the difficult but necessary work of introducing exclusionary policies, and their reluctance to even debate or discuss even the potential of such policies keeps the option of exclusion from the public eye; thus ensuring certain defeat in any culture war. It goes without saying that the inclusionary bias of conservatism isn’t entirely autochthonous, even if it is extremely popular in the conservative elite, but has been heavily cultivated both within conservatism and, much more significantly, in the culture as a whole, by hostile, often Jewish, intellectuals and their colleagues operating in society and politics. These aggressive actors have been shaping “ways of seeing” for decades, and “the cultural narratives that the U.S. has long told itself,” referred to by Marcus Johnson, are linked more to pluralist and multicultural propaganda than to the events of history as they actually happened.

Despite the overwhelming tendency to inclusionary politics, even among conservatives, there is clearly an appetite for exclusionary laws among sections of the White population, even if this hasn’t been acted upon in recent decades by a compromised political establishment. Prior to World War II, most Western countries pursued exclusionary politics of some kind, from Britain’s Aliens Act (1905) which targeted Jews, through to the White Australia policy (1901̶–1949) and the Immigration Act of 1924. It’s interesting that two of the most popular and resonant proposals from Donald Trump’s original platform were essentially exclusionary, which is probably why they came to naught. The proposal to build a wall along the US-Mexico border to try to stop illegal immigration was supported by 86% of Republicans, while the attempt to stop immigration from Muslim countries, Executive Order 13769, was supported by the majority (55%) of the American population. Such statistics suggest that conservative avoidance of exclusionary policies is an elite-driven phenomenon not only strategically flawed, but which actually runs counter to the intuitions of their natural voting base — White America.

“Everyone I don’t like is Hitler”

Conservatism has drunk as heavily from the well of hostile “inclusive” propaganda as any other entity within contemporary politics, with the result that it can’t comprehend the existence of any enemy that is not in some way “Nazi” or “fascist.” Conservatives not only live in mortal terror of being branded “Nazis” but fully engage in the use of the ‘Nazi’ pejorative. Their disavowals, coupled with rampant accusations from the Left, create a rhetorical-ideological maze. A staid and tired conservative bloc fights the Left’s almost recreational allegations of Fascism by asserting that it opposes the “real Fascists”—cancel culture types, ‘woke’ protestors, the Democrats, Antifa, pronoun enforcers etc.

The various enemies of majoritarian culture can’t be viewed as opponents on their own terms (neo-Marxist, postmodernist, ethnically alien, Foucaultian, deconstructionist, etc.), which would require developing a full understanding of their myriad and complex behaviors and ideologies, but must be refracted through a single facile lens — that of World War II. Only then, with laughable visions of a latter-day D-Day landing against simplified purple-haired Hitlers, can conservatism conjure enough moral strength to wage a pathetic and doomed war against shadowy left-wing “fascisms” on cultural and legislative battlegrounds long since ceded to the enemy. Meanwhile, at the first accusation of racism, “nationalist” conservatives frantically defend and enunciate their doctrine as meaning there is nothing special about their nation beyond a set of abstract values rooted in individualism — values that are, in Steve King’s words, “attainable by everyone … people of all races, religions, and creeds.” Our contemporary political context is thus one in which the real Fascists are anti-Fascists who call the real anti-Fascists Fascists. The only thing we can sure about these days, it seems, is that everyone is a Nazi.

A fascinating example of this process in action is Brian Reynolds Myers’s 2010 The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters. I bought the book some months ago because I was led to believe it was a sober exploration of morality-based racial ethnocentrism and, in the context of Kevin MacDonald’s work on the formation of moral in-groups among Whites, I was keen to compare and contrast his findings with another ethnic group. Myers’s thesis is that, rather than being the last bastion of Stalinism, North Korea is in fact home to a race-based nationalism and far-right politics derived from Japanese fascism. Myers argues that North Koreans believe that they constitute a childlike innocent race and, being innocent and pure, the Korean race is morally superior to everyone else. Supporting his thesis he offers some statistics on Korean aversion to intermarriage, and a wealth of propaganda from North Korea that seems to be race-specific and ethnocentric. The book was lavishly praised by the neoliberal and neoconservative establishment (Christopher Hitchens embraced it as “electrifying”), which found it much easier to mobilize against a modern Hitler than a modern Stalin, as well as finding a warm welcome with the Obama administration. Myers’s text was even naively welcomed by some on the Dissident Right who saw the book as a kind of blueprint for an ethnostate. The problem, as I learned from both the text itself and criticism I subsequently consulted, was that the book featured a laundry list of exaggeration, omission, psychoanalysis, and ignorance of Korean culture, history, and politics, all of which combined to suppress the Communist footprint everywhere in North Korean politics in order to present the strange little nation of Kim Jong-un as an Oriental Nazi Germany. The book is a caricature.

A bigger concern for me than the bogus nature of much of The Cleanest Race was its lavish welcome. It should be considered an axiom that any thesis that enables the “Nazification” of an opposing movement, ideology, or nation will be warmly embraced by the conservative establishment. One of the recent trends on conservative Twitter is the hashtag #nuremberg2, which called for pro-vaccine politicians and medical officials to be put on trial and, presumably, executed. Regardless of one’s position on the vaccine question, the Nuremberg framing is symptomatic of a psychological fixation. Conservatives will never win if they believe their only true enemies are “Nazis.” Whether it’s the fear of antisemitic “Islamofascism,” North Korean “Nazism,” purple-haired “woke Hitlers,” or vaccine-toting Görings, it’s clear that conservatism is psychologically stuck on the beaches of Normandy while the country passes without struggle into the hands of enemies conservatives are totally incapable of understanding.

“Christ is King”

American conservatism’s commitment to a tactically disastrous emphasis on individualism is undoubtedly connected in some form to the peculiar trajectory and position of American Christianity, or rather, varieties of American Post-Protestantism. Demographically, conservatism remains overwhelmingly (85%) Christian. As scholars of religion have noted (e.g., Nathan Hatch’s 1989 The Democratization of American Christianity), American Christianity is significantly different from the classic European form, being much more democratic as well as essentially Gnostic and millenarian (these features are also extremely prominent in the indigenous sects of the United States: Mormonism, Christian Science, Seventh-Day Adventism, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Pentecostalism, leading several academics to speak of an underlying ‘American religion’). American religion has long been preoccupied with the idea of a God who loves the individual, and the salvation of the American Christian, especially the Protestant, does not arrive communally via the congregation but via direct confrontation with a very personal Jesus.

A recent trend appearing on the t-shirts of young conservatives is the slogan “Christ is King.” The phrase is rapidly lapsing away from any hint of piety and into the role of a platitude, and carries with it a sense of escapism from disturbing political realities into comforting visions of higher but invisible authority. It also, however, recalls the more vulgar “Cash is King,” and both phrases meld into the pervasive and, in theological terms quite heretical, “Christian capitalism” that typifies the American conservative movement today. One of the more interesting texts published on this subject in recent years is Kevin Kruse’s 2015 One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. The book explores the links between corporate executives, religious celebrities, and major politicians, all of whom, in contesting Roosevelt’s New Deal, were engaged in a range of organizations designed to spread a new gospel of inclusive prosperity and Christian capitalism. It was in the period 1930–1960 that “In God We Trust” was adopted as the official motto of the United States and printed on every dollar bill, and it was in the same period that “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. In the words of one reviewer of Kruse’s text, corporate America sought to

mobilize religious leaders and sentiments for a movement opposing New Deal labor rights, social policies, regulation, and tax laws. Second, they intended to restore the reputation of American business after the ravages of the Great Depression by combining the sanctification of American capitalism with a new gospel of prosperity. And third, they promoted “Christian libertarianism” as a political agenda to transcend denominational and theological divisions, thus paving the way for the Christian Right of the late 1970s.[1]

Contrary to much Left-wing bleating, Christian libertarianism, along with the gospel of prosperity, is not the strength but the weak bedrock of modern conservatism. Since the birth of the Christian libertarian Right, it can claim involvement in only one significant conservative legislative success, maintaining the basic right of Americans to own firearms (though this success is more attributable to significant lobbying and other cultural factors). On the Christian Right’s other major concern, abortion, success has been elusive, fleeting, or localized. Much of this ambiguity is probably due to the conservative Right’s habit of trying to meet the Left on its own terms — the question of ‘rights.’ The conservative Right, faced with the “right to privacy,” does not assert a vision of the destiny of a people, an elevated ideal of womanhood, or even a basic religious fanaticism, but offers instead the rejoinder of the “rights of the unborn” that the Leftist establishment is fully prepared to parry. As with gay marriage and the war on woke, I believe there is a moral and ideological rectitude in opposing abortion. I believe there are unfortunate circumstances when it can be a medical necessity, but I personally object to it as an automatic and universal “right” purely on matters of taste, decency, and demographics, since the universalizing of abortion contributes to a deadening atmosphere of cultural sterility and is, like widespread tolerance of sexual deviance, an apathetic and depressing hallmark of a society in steep decline. Such arguments, however, are entirely absent from the current “pro-Life” debate, which relies solely on the twin pillars of Jesus and Thomas Paine.

The clinging to rights-based “inclusive” argumentation is the reason why the Christian conservative Right has been utterly incapable of offering resistance to the advance of legislative special status for sexual minorities. By arguing on “rights,” Christian conservatives bake themselves into the GloboHomo cake. Just as Christians flee from being called anti-abortion into the more inclusive-sounding “Pro-Life,” so they flee from being anti-gay or anti-transsexual into faltering assertions that they are simply “pro” the sanctity of marriage. And yet without a broader and more honest exclusionary focus, in which they dispense entirely with the arguments that simultaneously acknowledge and strengthen their opponents, their legislative goals will always remain elusive.

“Cash is King”

Conservatism is, perhaps more than any other contemporary political ideology, wedded to a personal and national savior that absorbs constant, fervid, and attentive devotion. This savior isn’t Jesus Christ, but Gross Domestic Product, and it’s worshipped by conservatives everywhere. In Britain, news has emerged that Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party is about to celebrate Brexit, the most significant British conservative victory in decades, by signing a trade deal with India that will allow thousands of Indians to work and settle in the country. An unnamed “government figure” told India’s Economic Times “The tech and digital space in India is still hugely protectionist and if we could open up even a slither of access it would put us ahead of the game.” The last major survey of Conservative voters showed that “immigration is the most pressing concern,” with the economy in second place. We find ourselves, therefore, in a scenario in which a conservative establishment will again avoid the exclusionary imperative of its voting base and will instead present itself as not retreating (on immigration) because they are “advancing in another direction” (for the economy).

There is not, nor has there ever been, a debate or referendum on whether a given population is willing to purchase a higher GDP by turning several of its major towns or cities into outposts of Mumbai and Bangalore. No people has ever been asked if such a trade would really “put us ahead of the game.” The cheap labor of the Indian migrants certainly won’t put the native tech workers of England ahead of the game. Nor will it put those who will find themselves waiting even longer for public services ahead of the game. It will, of course, put a small elite of businessmen of multiple ethnic backgrounds ahead of the game, and this, presumably, is what matters most to Conservative Inc. wherever in the West it coheres politically. International finance, in its ceaseless search for cheaper labor and the transformation of peoples into mere markets, is inseparable from inclusive politics. Radical socialism insists that money can be the great equalizer. International finance capital makes the same argument, but from above rather than from below. When cash has rendered the peoples of the world into blank slate consumers, each with the same potential to buy, then we have truly become its subjects and it has truly become our king.

Conservatism thrives on offering the “illusion of exclusion” to its voter base while simultaneously doing nothing about immigration so that it can squat in power and suck profit from decay at home and international trade abroad. No-one has encapsulated this phenomenon more succinctly than Sir Oswald Mosley:

Every one of us in this hall was old enough to see before the war — every one of you know what happened — how the financial forces in the thirties went into these backward countries, into India within the Empire, into Hong Kong, into Japan, into China, and exploited these peoples, to produce cheap sweated goods which ruined the great industries of Britain and of Europe, which put Lancashire out of business in the cotton trade, Yorkshire out of business in the woollen trade, and these poor devils of coolies were exploited for a wage of a few shillings a week. For what purpose? To enable the City of London and Wall Street New York to make fatter profits! … Is that worthy of Britain? Is that to be the future of Europe? … It is childish nonsense to say that a British government rules Britain. It’s nothing to do with British government or the British people. The government of the world is the financial government; the power of money; and of money alone.

Concluding Remarks

Conservatism has a knack for superficially reinventing itself when it senses it’s getting perilously close to being found out. The litmus test for every astute observer should be an assessment of the extent and sincerity of the politics of exclusion espoused by any new manifestation of the conservative movement. I recently spent some time reading speeches from the 2021 “National Conservative” conference, which was organized by a couple of Zionists and is supposedly representative of a new departure in American conservatism and a new front in the culture wars. A single line from one of the speeches was enough for me to conclude my assessment: “We must strive to transcend racial particularism and stress universality and commonality as Americans.” National Conservatism is, in the final estimation, an inclusive doctrine. Anyone who supports it will find themselves both “in retreat” and advancing in a direction they never intended.

Genuine efforts to redress the deep problems of contemporary society will always be marked by their willingness to at least countenance the option of exclusion. This is one of the reasons for the intense backlash against the work of Kevin MacDonald, who, in the concluding chapter of Culture of Critique suggested (pp.308–9) that

Achieving parity between Jews and other ethnic groups would entail a high level of discrimination against individual Jews for admission to universities or access to employment opportunities and even entail a large taxation on Jews to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth, since at present Jews are vastly overrepresented among the wealthy and the successful in the United States.

This is an honest and necessary discussion of the potential of exclusionary politics, framed in the context of a persuasive argument that such measures might be required if an eventual overt ethnic conflict is to be avoided. Conservatism, inasmuch as it remains wedded to inclusive doctrines and unchecked individualism, is as much an arm of globalism as any segment of the Left it claims to do battle with. We should finish by returning to MacDonald:

The present tendencies lead one to predict that unless the ideology of individualism is abandoned not only by the multicultural minorities but also by the European-derived peoples of Europe, North America, New Zealand, and Australia, the end result will be a substantial diminution of the genetic, political, and cultural influence of these peoples. It would be an unprecedented unilateral abdication of such power and certainly an evolutionist would expect no such abdication without at least a phase of resistance by a significant segment of the population. … The prediction is that segments of the European-derived peoples of the world will eventually realize that they have been ill-served and are being ill-served both by the ideology of multiculturalism and by the ideology of de-ethnicized individualism.


[1] Schäfer, A. R. (2018). Kevin M. Kruse. One Nation under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. The American Historical Review, 123 (4), 1340–1341.

Murder of a Mensch: Cuckservatives, Crypto-Jews and Catch-22s

The central aims of leftism are very simple: to win power, to punish its enemies, and to destroy the West. The central principle of leftism is also very simple: “Heads we win; tails you lose.” Whatever works for leftism is ruthlessly exploited; whatever works against leftism is ignored or reversed. For example, minor infractions or perfectly legal acts by the right are labelled serious crimes and harshly punished; serious crimes by the left and its favorites are censored or brazenly lied about.

Self-defense is no offense

Americans have seen this leftist principle hard at work since the self-inflicted death of the Black thug George Floyd in May 2020. During the Summer of George, Black Lives Matter (BLM) and its antifa allies rioted, looted, burned, and murdered for months on end with both the complicity and the approval of leftist media and officialdom. Their very serious crimes went unchallenged and unpunished. Thanks to the self-righteous anti-police campaigning of BLM, murders have risen sharply among young Black men, the very group the left claim to be seeking to protect from “police brutality.” And all this is censored or brazenly lied about by the left.

He looks sinister because he is sinister: US Attorney-General and Jewish supremacist Merrick Garland

But when a misguided right-wing mob trespassed briefly in the US Capitol in January 2021, the left reacted as though the Apocalypse were upon us. The trespass was “domestic terrorism,” a “deadly assault” on democracy itself, and, according to the Jewish leftist Rebecca Solnit, nothing less than a “coup attempt.” And even as Black and antifa thugs walk the streets unmolested, Solnit’s co-ethnic Merrick Garland, the sinister Jewish Attorney-General in Biden’s Bolshevik cabinet, has poured huge resources into fighting “white supremacy.” The Capitol trespassers have been tracked down and imprisoned, often in solitary confinement and in filthy conditions, before they go on trial on inflated and unjust charges. Also in jail is Kyle Rittenhouse, the young right-winger who coolly and expertly defended his life against a murderous assault by three people, including two Jews, one of whom was a convicted pedophile. If Rittenhouse were non-White or antifa, he would have been released long ago and his deadly shooting would have been accepted as a perfectly legal act of self-defence against bloodthirsty thugs. “Heads we win; tails you lose.”

Somali enrichment strikes again

Across the Atlantic in Britain, the same power-hungry leftists apply the same principle. But even I was taken aback by the leftist reaction to the murder of the supposedly right-wing Conservative politician Sir David Amess on October 15, 2021. The alleged murderer is Ali Harbi Ali, a Muslim “of Somali heritage” (in smarmy leftist parlance) and the murder took place soon after Angela Rayner, Labour’s fiery (and possibly psychopathic) deputy leader, had described Conservatives as “scum … homophobic, racist, misogynistic … scum.” You might think this was embarrassing for the left: a right-wing White man is murdered by a Black Muslim shortly after a left-wing White woman “dehumanizes” right-wing White men. Not a bit of it: the leftist media ignored Rayner’s remark and used the murder to campaign loudly for more censorship of right-wing “hate.”

When a Somali Muslim murders a “much loved” politician, this might appear to be yet more evidence that critics of Third-World immigration are correct. But not to the left, for whom David Amess’s murder is yet more evidence that we must try harder to silence critics of Third-World immigration. After the murder, leftists constantly invoked the saintly Labour MP Jo Cox and her murder by a “right-wing extremist” in 2016. The leftist Andrew Marr “spent his Sunday morning show on the BBC questioning the Home Secretary [Priti Patel] about online anonymity.” There is so far no evidence that “online anonymity” played any role in the murder, but Marr takes his ideas on political discourse straight from the pages of Nineteen Eighty-Four: “It is intolerable to us that an erroneous thought should exist anywhere in the world, however secret and powerless it may be.”

A cuckservative cucks

And if you had judged by one BBC Radio news-broadcast, the true victim of Amess’s murder was the still-very-much-alive left-wing Black MP Diane Abbott, who was interviewed caringly about the abuse she suffers online. But I’ll freely admit it: I feel much more sympathy for Diane Abbott than for David Amess. Abbott isn’t a traitor; Amess was a traitor. She’s Black and she works for Black interests; he was White and he worked against White interests. I’m happy to see Abbott satirized and mocked, but I don’t think she should receive foul-mouthed abuse and threats of violence. I don’t think David Amess should have been stabbed to death either, but I cannot feel any sorrow at what happened to him. He was a cuckservative whose official website proves that he was complicit not only in his own murder but also in the murder, rape, and ethnic cleansing of countless ordinary Whites, past, present, and to come:

A cuckservative cucks: David Amess supports “refugees” and an anti-White leftist charity

Sir David Joins British Red Cross To Celebrate Refugee Week

On Monday 17th June [2019], Sir David Amess MP met with the British Red Cross to mark Refugee Week 2019 and hear about the challenges facing those as they rebuild their lives in the UK.

The Southend West MP took the opportunity to speak with the charity’s refugee ambassadors, who shared their own stories fleeing conflict and persecution. Sir David learnt about the challenges faced by those arriving in the UK, and what more the Government can do to help refugees resettle, work and study here.

The event marked the start of Refugee Week (17th-23rd June), and the launch of the British Red Cross’ “Every Refugee Matters” campaign. Aiming to highlight the issues that many refugees face, the charity have produced a new film along with those with first-hand experience of the challenges in UK asylum system.

Speaking after the event, Sir David said: “I am proud to be supporting the work of the British Red Cross this Refugee Week, and the brilliant work they do helping those most in need rebuild their lives here in the UK. Speaking to the refugee ambassadors was an invaluable experience to hear directly from who have had first-hand experience of some of the barriers blocking them from working, accessing education and healthcare. It is vital that we are able to help and provide protection to the world’s most vulnerable.” (Sir David Joins British Red Cross To Celebrate Refugee Week, 18th June, 2019)

[David Amess comments on] Black Lives Matter

I have received many emails about the events in America which we have seen unfolding on our TV screens. I have been shocked, horrified and repulsed at the murder of a US citizen by a policeman, with three officers standing by and doing nothing to help. Absolutely unforgivable in every respect. I was deeply moved by the appearance of the brother of George Floyd, who visited the scene of the murder and appealed for peace and calm. I do hope he is listened to. I absolutely despair at American politics at the moment and have made representations to government Ministers. I have also added my name to the cross-party letter to Liz Truss asking the government to freeze exports of riot control equipment to the United States. (Black Lives Matter, 4th June 2020)

Amess was supposedly a right-winger, but there was nothing right-wing about his support for “refugees” and Black Lives Matter. Those posts at his website prove that he was a cuckservative allied with leftism, which is why the Guardian, without the slightest trace of irony, called him a “much loved” politician and “devout Catholic.”

Fake Catholic, fake Pope

I strongly disagree with the Guardian’s second claim: Amess was a fake Catholic whose pro-refugee and pro-BLM views chimed perfectly with those of the Anti-Pope currently occupying the throne of St Peter. If Amess had been genuinely right-wing and genuinely Catholic, the Guardian and the rest of the leftist media would have hated him and found it difficult to conceal their satisfaction at his death. True Christians are not loved or respected by enemies of Christianity, as Christ himself prophesied: “And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.” (Matthew 10:22)

Anti-Pope Francis kisses the feet of Muslim invaders

And if Amess had been a genuine Catholic, he would never have been called a “real mensch” by one of his many Jewish fans:

Jewish groups express shock over ‘horrific’ killing of MP Sir David Amess

Jewish groups have expressed their “profound sorrow” at the killing of Conservative MP Sir David Amess. In a statement, the Board of Deputies said they were devastated to hear that Sir David had died following a stabbing at his constituency surgery.

“We will never forget Sir David’s long and deep friendship to our community. Our hearts go out in profound sorrow to his wife Julia and children Katie, Sarah and David Jr,” they said. Steve Wilson, CEO of United Synagogue, said the parliamentarian’s murder was “horrific and chilling”. … The Jewish Leadership Council expressed their shock. “He always had a very strong and warm relationship with his local Jewish community. Our thoughts are with his family and friends at this time,” they said. Karen Pollock, Chief Executive of the Holocaust Education Trust, said: “We are shocked and saddened at the tragic loss of Sir David Amess MP. A long time supporter and campaigner for the Holocaust Educational Trust, joining us at every gathering, and encouraging us in everything we did. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family at this difficult time.”

Southend rabbis also paid respect to the MP. Rabbi Geoffrey Hyman of Southend shul described Sir David as “a real mensch”. He said: “We are absolutely devastated by the murder of Sir David Amess, our local MP. He had a very close relationship with our Jewish community here in Westcliff. Always supportive and sympathetic to our members and causes. He attended numerous events at our synagogue. We are deeply saddened and send our condolences to his dear family…. May he rest in peace.”

Sir David previously served as the honorary secretary of Conservative Friends of Israel. From the 1980s, he campaigned for the erection of a statue honouring Raoul Wallenberg, a Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of Hungarian Jews from deportation while the country was under Nazi occupation. Eventually he succeeded, and in 1997 Queen Elizabeth unveiled the statue, located outside Western Marble Arch Synagogue. Earlier this year, speaking at the Holocaust Memorial Day debate, Sir David said although he was a Catholic, “there is Jewish blood in each and every one of us,” and he “would certainly have been proud to have been born a Jew.” (Jewish groups express shock over ‘horrific’ killing of MP Sir David Amess, The Jewish Chronicle, 15th October 2021)

So Amess’s death was the murder of a mensch. He was a dedicated shabbos goy and worked hard for Jews—who have always been the greatest and most implacable enemies of Christianity and the Catholic church. Amess was a traitor to both his race and his religion.

Harvey’s little helper

Or perhaps he wasn’t. Like the saintly leftist Jo Cox, Amess was little-known in Britain before his murder. But he did hit the headlines in 2017 when he appeared to support the Jewish sex-criminal Harvey Weinstein. His parliamentary office issued this unequivocal statement in Amess’s name: “The recent revelations that countless starlets have apparently been assaulted by movie mogul Harvey Weinstein are dubious to say the least. Whilst it has no doubt always been the case that some individuals have achieved their big break via the casting couch, this sudden flurry of alleged inappropriate advances beggars belief. Just as with the claims against Jimmy Savile here in the UK, why did no one say anything until now?”

When the statement was criticized, Amess blamed a mix-up by his staff and claimed that he hadn’t authorized or said anything of the kind. I find that hard to believe. But why would a “devout” “right-wing Catholic” like Amess support a sleazy leftist Jew from anti-Catholic Hollywood? Perhaps the Jewish Chronicle answered that question when, following its tribute to the murdered mensch, it reported that “Sir David Amess MP is believed to have had Sephardi [Jewish] ancestry. … According to information from the The Jewish Genealogical Society of Great Britain, the MP was a descendant of Sephardic families through his mother, Maud, who died in 2016, aged 104. While Sir David was a staunch and practising catholic [note lower case], who often referenced his faith in his work in parliament, he had ties to Sephardic Jews going back hundreds of years.”

Bound by blood

So perhaps Amess was a crypto-Jew rather than a cuckservative. The Jewish Chronicle certainly wants to believe he was, because Jews like to reassure themselves that their control of Western politics doesn’t rely only on the buying and blackmail of goyish politicians. Some of their agents are bound to them by blood, not simply by Benjamins. Prime minister Boris Johnson and his predecessor David Cameron are known to be part-Jewish. I suspect that the former prime minister Theresa May has Jewish ancestry too. The former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has himself claimed to have “some Jewish ancestry” and others have suggested that Denis MacShane, the former Labour MP for Rotherham, had a Jewish father. Before being jailed for fraud in 2013, the staunch feminist MacShane ignored the rape and prostitution of White working-class girls by Muslims in his Yorkshire constituency while working assiduously for rich Jews in far-off London.

Then there’s the former Conservative minister George Osborne, who discovered late in his career that he was halachically Jewish through his maternal grandmother. This prompted the Jewish politician and journalist Danny Finkelstein to wax lyrical on “That mysterious sense of Jewish connection,” because he had felt close to Osborne before learning that they were both Jewish. So Osborne was a crypto-Jew, not simply a cuckservative. Osborne’s attitude to mass immigration is certainly Jewish: in 2017 he “revealed that, despite having pledged to reduce immigration in both its 2010 and 2015 general election manifestos, the Tory leadership secretly abandoned this ambition long ago.” Well, it was secret to the goyim who were voting for the Conservatives, but not to Jewish organizations like the Board of Deputies, which regularly meet with senior politicians to discuss “matters of concern to the Community.” After these meetings, Jews like to put out trophy-photos that implicitly gloat about their control of British politics. Here’s one of those trophy-photos featuring the obnoxious Hindu Home Secretary Priti Patel:

Priti Patel with the Board of Deputies and other Jewish supremacists

Patel has no loyalty to Britain or to British Whites, only to herself and to the Jews whose support she needs to realize her political ambitions. She’s an intellectually undistinguished authoritarian with a very harsh and unpleasant personality — indeed, her own husband calls her “my personal piranha.” But you can be sure that she performs the goy-grovel most eagerly and becomingly at all her meetings with Jews.

The authoritarian spiral

Under the guidance of her Jewish masters, Patel is currently overseeing the creation of an Online Harms bill, which seeks to fight “horrific terrorist and extremist content.” In other words, she wants more and harsher censorship of those who claim, for example, that Jews have undue influence in British politics. But Patel herself has shown again and again that she clearly recognizes Jewish control of British politics. In 2017 she had to resign from Theresa May’s cabinet when it was revealed that she had undertaken a long series of secret and unminuted meetings with Israeli politicians and officials, supervised by the Jewish peer Lord Polack, former director of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI). But she bounced back to a bigger and better position when Boris Johnson became prime minister. Patel simultaneously knows about Jewish power and wants to criminalize any discussion of that power.

The murder of the mensch David Amess will help her plans for more pro-Jewish censorship. One of David Amess’s cuckservative colleagues has asked for his memory to be honored by “David’s law,” to “crack down on social media abuse of public figures and end online anonymity.” This is the authoritarian spiral so beloved of Jews and the left. Third-World immigration inevitably spawns Third-World pathologies like terrorism and crime, which are then used to justify ever more censorship and surveillance of those who criticize Third-World immigration. Some right-wing and libertarian journalists have tried to strike back by pointing out that Amess’s murder has not been shown to have had any connection with “social media abuse” and “online anonymity.”

Migration strengthens censorship

But Amess’s murder does seem to have an intimate connection with the Religion of Peace and its ever-growing presence on British soil. Harbi Ali Kullane, the father of the alleged killer, was a member of the political elite in his Muslim homeland, like the Chechen father of the Boston bombers in America, and lives in an exclusive area of London. The Guardian reports that he is regarded by fellow Somalis as “a committed anti-extremist [and] a liberal, open-minded man, who was not very religious.” Kullane has obviously done very well out of his migration to Britain, but can we say the same of Britain itself? The Guardian and other leftists will not try to answer that question, much to the disquiet of the Trotskyist libertarian Brendan O’Neill, who believes passionately in both free speech and open borders. In a hard-hitting column written within hours of Amess’s death, O’Neill asked: “Can we now have an honest discussion about Islamist terrorism?”

Can we? Well, no, we can’t. O’Neill and libertarians like him don’t understand (or pretend not to understand) the Catch-22 that applies to non-White enrichment. The more non-Whites you have in your country, the more they will reproduce the pathologies of their homelands and the less you will be able to discuss those pathologies, let alone try to end them. This isn’t difficult to understand. True nations like Hungary, Poland and Slovakia don’t have big problems with suicide-bombers, rape-gangs, and stabby Somalis. Indeed, they don’t have any such problems at all. Why not? Because they haven’t been enriched by millions of non-Whites and haven’t been initiated into a leftist-Jewish cult of minority-worship. That cult is difficult to establish in the absence of non-Whites, which is why leftists in all those nations are eager to welcome “refugees,” establish the cult, and open the borders. So far, they haven’t succeeded.

Serving leftism from beyond the grave

The crypto-Jew and crypto-leftist Sir David Amess also welcomed “refugees,” who are mostly healthy young men of low social value and high criminal potential. Amess is gone now, seemingly cut short in his cuckservative prime by a stabby Somali and certainly mourned on all sides of British politics. But even in death he’s providing a valuable service to his former Jewish masters and leftist allies. His “shocking murder” will be used to justify more censorship, more surveillance, and more minority-worship. “Heads we win; tails you lose.”

This leftist principle isn’t intellectually sophisticated, but it’s been very effective across the West. When the left is in power, leftism advances. When the so-called right is in power, leftism advances just the same. If you want to see how that works, look no further than that “real mensch” Sir David Amess, the “devout Catholic” who was “much loved” by those who hate Christ and the Catholic church.

The Problem with Leftism

Everyone complains about the Left, but no one does anything about it.  Or so it would seem.  Part of the problem, I suspect, is that many in the public have mistaken notions about what “the Left” is and how it operates, and thus they more or less mindlessly support it, or oppose it, as the case may be.  Hence it is high time for a hard look at this nefarious political entity, in order to devise better and more appropriate responses to it.

Let’s start with conventional views.  A constant theme of right-wing and conservative commentators is that the Left dominates America today.  This holds true across nearly the entire spectrum of conservatism, from the dissident- and alt-Right to conventional Republicans, to Pat Buchanan, to Fox News, to the Wall Street Journal, to the pro-Trump crowd.  In fact, it’s about the only thing they all agree on.  The primary concern seems to focus on media and on politics, the latter via the Democrats and the Biden regime.  Many would include academia, Hollywood, and the public schools as well.  Furthermore, this is universally seen on the Right as a disaster—and it is a disaster, but for reasons other than they presume—as well as something that poses a fundamental threat to America, to the “American way of life,” and to our very health and well-being.  The Left, apparently, is the root of all evil.

But what exactly is “the Left,” and why are they so evil?  This is rarely explained, likely because it is a relatively complicated matter that requires more than the usual 10 seconds of thinking.  Given the importance of the topic and the seriousness of the threat, however, we need to dive a bit more deeply into it.

To anticipate my main conclusion:  I think “the Left” is largely misnamed and misconceived—it is a kind of diversionary concept invented to distract from the real power-brokers and the real conflicts at hand.  “The Left” is actually a kind of fake Left, portrayed as opposing “the Right,” which is in reality a fake Right.  The net effect is to create a false antagonism and to encourage the unthinking masses to pick sides, even as they ultimately support the same side in the end.  Unsurprisingly, the Jewish Lobby plays a large role here, as I will show.

Real Leftism

I think many would be surprised to hear that real leftism is not what is commonly portrayed, and that it is actually (gasp!) not so bad.  At the risk of being pedantic, let’s look at standard definitions of both “Left” and “liberal,” since these seem to nominally be at the heart of the problem.  As I like to say, we need to know what we are talking about, if we hope to make any progress on these vital issues.  Here, then, is a typical definition of “Left”:

Left n, cap  a: those professing views usually characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established political order, and usually advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man.  b: a radical (as distinct from conservative) position.

Thus stated, this is relatively benign.  Anyone unhappy with an existing political administration will of necessity seek to reform or replace it, and thus we can all agree with this.  However, it is surprising to see the Left defined as striving for increased freedom for the average individual, when today it is more common to decry the “liberty-loathing left.”  It is true that those in power are working to diminish or restrict peoples’ freedoms—but this doesn’t make them leftists.  In fact it makes them anti-leftists, at least on this definition.  More problematically, we can have no doubt that “the Right” in anything like current forms, including neo-con and Judeo-Trumpian conservatism, would certainly (and in some cases did) institute their own forms of liberty restriction; hence ‘liberty-loathing’ is no hallmark of “the Left.”

As to the “radical” aspect, I would argue that this is largely in the eye of the beholder.  To be a radical in this sense is simply to press for far-reaching and qualitative change, as opposed to “tinkering around the edges,” which can be considered a conservative approach.  Clearly one can be a “radical right-winger” as much as one can be a “radical leftist,” and so part (b) does not offer much illumination.

What about “liberal,” or more generally, “liberalism”?  Here’s what we might find:

liberalism n:  a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual, and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.

Again, we find woefully little to object to here.  I think we all are in favor of “progress,” even though we may have different ideas about what exactly that means.  What about “the essential goodness of man”?  That’s a strange phrase.  It is almost a religious idea, almost like saying we are all “children of God” or something.  But that’s nonsense.  I guess we can agree that most people, most of the time, are good; but still, there are bad, malevolent, and detestable people out there whom I would never declare to be “essentially good.”  That phrase might have been better stated as a general optimism about human nature, perhaps.  And I can agree to this.  I am generally optimistic about humanity; it is primarily aberrant conditions that cause the worst in people to come out.  In a mass technological society, “people” can seem incredibly dull, ignorant, and short-sighted, but this is more a consequence of social structure than anything else.  Much more needs to be said on this, but I defer that to another time.

“Autonomy of the individual” and “protecting civil liberties” are again, perhaps, a surprise.  But they should not be.  Liberalism, like liberal, derives from the Latin liber (free).  A liberal is, literally, a free thinker; a key part of the definition of ‘liberal’ is the idea of “one who is open-minded.”  Who among us does not claim to be open-minded?  Hence a true liberal is a free-thinking, autonomous, civil libertarian.  But doesn’t that describe the vast majority of “the Right”?  What are we to make of this?

We are beginning to see the nature of the problem.  Many of us, based on these definitions, would be forced to call ourselves “leftists” and “liberals.”  And yet, many would never do this, even on pain of death.  Somehow, politics has either become detached from reality, or it has altered the basic meaning of words so much that we, collectively, and quite literally, do not know what we are talking about.  Or perhaps a bit of both.

If nothing else, all this suggests that the stereotypical right-left distinction has become almost meaningless, likely as part of a deliberate strategy of obfuscation.  Clearly a more precise analysis is called for.

The Structure of the Fake American Left

The Left as commonly portrayed—the fake Left—is in reality a two-tiered system, composed of a small number of ideological leaders and propagators, and a large mass of people who generally self-identify as “Democrats” or “liberals.”  In America today, ‘Democrat’ and ‘Left’ are virtually coextensive; nearly all Democrats are leftists, and nearly all leftists are Democrats.  The terms are almost interchangeable.  But here, I will focus on ‘Left’ and ‘leftism’ since that terminology has a broader international meaning than the American-only party of Democrats.

More revealing is who these people are.  The elite leftists today are almost exclusively either Jews (of political, corporate, or academic stripe) or Gentiles, mostly White, working for and on behalf of Jews.  (Whether these Gentile lackeys are aware of their subservient status or not, and whether they care, are good questions that I can’t address here.)  In other words, the elite Left are either Jews or people beholden to Jews.  Either way, Jewish interests and Jewish issues predominate.

We know this because, firstly, so many of the Democratic elite are themselves Jews (Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, George Soros, Jerry Nadler, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Janet Yellen, Tony Blinken, Rochelle Walensky…) or have Jewish family members (Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, the Cuomo family).  The pervasive Jewish presence in the Democratic Party is a fact never mentioned in the MSM, and rarely discussed even by their strongest right-wing opponents.[1]  This should tell us something.

Secondly, we know that a large majority of Democratic campaign money comes from Jewish sources.  Over the past few decades, reported percentages of Democratic totals range from “about half,”[2] to 50%,[3] to “as much as 60%,”[4] to “over 60%,”[5] to as much as 2/3,[6] to “70% of large contributions,”[7] to 80-90%.[8]  A recent study, “The Jewish Vote 2020,” cites a number of relevant statistics, including these:

  • In the 2016 cycle, all of the top seven biggest donors overall were Jews (p. 11).
  • The top 10 donors in 2016 gave $406 million, of which $357 million—an amazing 88%—was from Jews (p. 14).
  • Of the top 50 donors in 2016, 20 (40%) were Jews (p. 14).
  • And it reconfirms that, today, Jews comprise roughly 50% of “big individual donors” to Democrats, and 25% of the same for Republicans (p. 11).

Late in 2020, in the run-up to the presidential election, it was reported that 15 of the top 25 donors (for both parties combined), or 60%, were Jews.  Top Democratic donors were Steyer ($54 million), Don Sussman ($22 million), James Simons ($21 million), Michael Bloomberg ($19 million), Deborah Simon ($12 million), Henry Laufer ($12 million), Josh Bekenstein ($11 million), Stephen Mandel ($9 million), Soros ($8 million—although he funnels many other donations through various nonprofits), and Steve Ballmer ($8 million).  These days, anything less than $10 million barely warrants mention.

So much for politics.  What about leftist media?  We know the main culprits:  CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post.  Unsurprisingly, Jews fill top spots at all these organizations or their parent companies.  CNN’s president is Jeff Zucker, and is owned by Warner Media, with Jason Kilar as CEO.  MSNBC is owned by NBC Universal, with CEO Jeff Shell, and top execs Robert Greenblatt, Bonnie Hammer, Noah Oppenheim, and Ron Meyer.  The NYT has been Jewish-owned and -operated since 1896; the current owner and publisher is Arthur Sulzberger.  The Washington Post has been Jewish-owned and -operated since 1933, with the possible exception of current owner Jeff Bezos (status unknown), who acquired it from the Jewish Graham family in 2013 (“at the suggestion of his friend, Don Graham”).[9]  We could include various other media entities, such as NPR Radio; elsewhere (note 10) I have shown that its on-air staff is over half Jewish.

In support of political and media Jews are the leftist “Big Tech” Jews, who include the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook), Larry Page and Sergei Brin (Google), Larry Ellison and Safra Catz (Oracle), Susan Wojcicki (YouTube), Steve Ballmer, Andy Jassy (Amazon), Marc Benioff, and Michael Dell (Dell computers).  Thus, between money, power, media, and technology, the leftist elite—Jews and their sycophants—have a near monopoly on discourse in America and much of the West.

What about the base of the fake Left?  This is a large group of individuals, mostly White, who have been deluded as to the true nature of that ideology.  We can get a rough idea of numbers by considering the fact that Biden received about 80 million votes, of which some 72% were Whites; thus, there are about 55 million Whites who presumably identify with or favor the leftist Democrats.  To this number we can add the 15 million Blacks and 10 million Latinos who also voted for Biden.  The leftist base is thus about 80 million people.  This is a large number, though not overwhelming in a nation of 330 million.

By contrast, Trump earned about 50 million White votes; another 50 million or so Whites did not vote.  Hence, in rough terms, the (fake) Left has a grip on only about one-third of Whites; two-thirds elude their grasp.  This is a good sign—perhaps the best news among a raft of bad omens.  Something like 100 million Whites are either opposed, or potentially opposed, to leftist ideology.  There is much to build on here.

In sum, the nominal Left is a fake Left, adhering to virtually nothing of the meaning of a true leftism.  Rather, it is influenced and run, directly and indirectly, by wealthy and influential Jews.  This fake Left is a Jewish Left, ideologically speaking, and it operates largely by and for Jewish interests.  Likewise with liberalism, which today is a fake liberalism: an ideology that is fully aligned with Jewish interests.  In fact, the marriage of convenience between Jews and liberalism has long been known.  Consider this revealing passage:

Throughout the nineteenth century and later, the fate of the Jews would be linked inextricably with that of liberalism itself.  Their loyalty to liberalism would be intense and abiding, nurtured on gratitude for rights received and determination to establish a permanent place for the Jews in the modern European world.  Liberals, although scarcely ecstatic over persistent Jewish religious and social particularism, would reciprocate with toleration and increasing measures of equality before the law.  Both parties, but especially the Jews, would be acutely aware that Jewish emancipation stood or fell with the fortunes of liberalism.[10]

For well over a century, a majority of Jews have allied themselves with liberalism and leftism solely because it served their interests—the welfare of native populations be damned.  In a sense, they hijacked an otherwise virtuous ideology and perverted it to their own benefit.

The Real Right

Now that we have done some preliminary analysis of the Left, let’s turn to the Right.  In a popular sense, the Right has some stereotypical characterizations.  We know the catchphrases: “Guns, God, and country”; “Don’t tread on me”; “Liberty or death”; and various takes on the notion of freedom.  Again, these are constant themes across the conservative spectrum.

But how do these conventional ideas match up with the formal notion of “the Right”?  Earlier I cited standard definitions of ‘Left’ and ‘liberal,’ and to be fair, I need to do the same for their nominal counterparts, ‘Right’ and ‘conservatism’.  Here they are:

Right n, cap  (1) individuals favoring traditional attitudes and practices, and sometimes advocating the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order.  (2) a group or party that favors conservative, traditional, or sometimes authoritarian attitudes and policies.

conservatism n:  a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.

As before, there are some surprises—mostly in what is not here.  On the one hand, we find an emphasis on tradition and stability, gradual change (“reform”), and potentially anti-democratic policy, if this is how we may interpret ‘forced authoritarianism’ in this context.  On the other, we notice what is missing:  God, religion, rights, liberty, freedom.  Nothing on “small government.”  Even terms like ‘nation’ and ‘country’ are absent.  What are we to make of this?

It would seem that, as with the Left, that the Right has also been distorted from its formal and definitional meaning into a kind of caricature.  The current obsession with religion, freedom, patriotism, and formal democracy have been introduced by those who would like to divert people away from the true ruling entities in the US—Jewish money and power, Judeophilic lackeys, the ultra-rich, and a techno-industrial system that is spinning out of control—in order to confuse and distract the masses.

A true Right, composed of true conservatives, would do the following:

  • They would be less concerned about formal, representative democracy and more about the integrity of society, human welfare, and long-term sustainability of their own people. If this demands the use of “undemocratic” policies, so be it.
  • They would actively oppose any corrupt and malevolent minority from attacking the basis of society and from seeking to exploit it for their personal gain.
  • They would strive for social homogeneity, both racially and ethnically, knowing that multicultural and multiracial societies are inevitably prone to conflict, disruption, instability, and ultimately decay.
  • They would oppose an advancing high-tech society, knowing that potent and uncontrollable technologies not only empower our social overlords but also destroy traditional society, damage human health, and promote the destruction of the natural world upon which all real stability is grounded.
  • They would support the disintegration of large, unstable political systems like modern America and encourage the devolution and decentralization of political power; large complex societies have, of necessity, more laws, more constraints, and less freedom. They are also more easily manipulated by unscrupulous minorities.

Incidentally, one troubling fact of the January 6 “insurrection” is that most of the people there were pro-America and pro-democracy (or so it is claimed).  But true conservatives would not hold these views.  True conservatives realize that “America,” in both practice and theory, is anti-conservative and unsustainable.  America needs to be replaced with something else—something new, something different, something that will protect and defend the social well-being of the American majority and the ecological basis for it.[11]  Sadly, very few of the “insurrectionists” seem to have had any conception of the Judeocracy that rules over them and which dictates much of what Trump does and says; this strongly suggests that they severely misread the real basis of American power politics.  Most of those people, I would suggest, are members of the “fake Right”—a manipulated and distorted ideology that serves the purposes of the ruling Jewish elite.

The True Problems with “the Left”

Returning to the main theme, the fake Left is a heavily Jewish enterprise.  But most people, Left and Right, don’t know this or don’t acknowledge it, and they therefore don’t object to that fact.  When those on the Right object to the Left, it is usually to more concrete (but secondary) issues.  We can make a short list:  leftists are for “big government”; they support “open borders”; they want to take our guns; they stifle our freedom of speech (or freedom generally); they are authoritarian; they conduct “cancel culture”; they demonize Whites; they are anti-Christian; they tyrannize the public, as via their over-hyped Covid panic; they “tax and spend.”   Maybe even “they hate America” (if we listen to Tucker Carlson).  Doubtless we could add more, but I think this covers the main concerns for most on the Right.

I cannot argue with these points; I think all of them are basically true.  But there are deeper factors at work that help to explain this collective phenomenon, which is why we need to press a bit harder to really understand the process at work here.

When I consider the many objectionable features of what is called the Left, I compile a different sort of list.  For what it’s worth, I find it to have the following negative qualities:

A desire to impose their beliefs and values on others.  This is the “controlling,” “authoritarian,” and “liberty-loathing” aspect.  Leftist liberals seem to have an inordinate need to compel others to follow their belief-system.  They are the antithesis of “live and let live.”  They have little or no tolerance for dissenting views, especially those that threaten their own positions.  They know that rational dissent will severely undermine their credibility, and so they suppress it.[12]

They are blind to the realities of race, biology, and genetics.  For the Left, most all of human nature is a “social construction”—something pliable and malleable, something that can be defined and redefined almost at will.  Humans are merely a plastic biology; the many races are rather like different colors of Playdough, all equally moldable into new shapes and forms.  This results in an over-inclusive and naïve egalitarianism.

But this is not reality.  The fact is that there are profound and unalterable differences between human beings, both between and within races.  These are manifest in physical, mental, emotional, psychological, and cultural ways.  They are rooted in genetics, and cannot be wished away.  But leftists have deeply imbibed the fallacy of human equality.  Many are also functional relativists who cannot bear to make value distinctions.  (I should note here the difference between the leftist elite, who espouse views that they don’t really believe, and the naïve leftist masses, who generally do seem to believe them.)  As a result, leftists say incredibly stupid things and make incredibly stupid policy proposals.

No concept of a noble humanity.  When one swallows the myth of human equality, one condemns the human race to a miserable mediocrity.  If all are equal, then none are better, and in fact no one can be better.  Equality denies the existence of superior individuals, who are the very ones that drive society forward.  When such superior individuals do appear—as they inevitably do—they are suppressed, censored, attacked, perhaps jailed, perhaps killed.  Superior individuals put the lie to the myth of equality, which is one reason why they are so dangerous to the Left.  Because leftists have repudiated the whole concept of a noble humanity, they represent a profound threat to human well-being.  They effectively destroy the future of our race.

A pathology of pity.  Leftists are pity-mongers in the extreme.  They wallow in pity.  They praise pity.  And they sell pity.[13]  Great individuals and great societies do not wallow in pity.  They accept pain, hardship, and loss, and then they move on.  They give a fair respect to all of humanity, but they don’t elevate the lesser or the weak.  They don’t allow the lesser to dominate or even to consume inordinate time or resources.  The lesser of one’s own race are cared for, quietly, and the lesser of other races are excluded.  Such an approach can seem harsh, but such is life.

Dangerous and possibly fatal naiveté.  By accepting false but comforting myths, by failing to address the real threats to society, by adopting a de facto philo-Semitism, and by wallowing in an over-socialized and misdirected form of pity, leftists dodge the hard reality of the modern world.  In doing so, they doom society to inevitable suffering and decay.  Life is hard, evolution can be brutal, and choices are painful.  Leftists, though, prefer the easy way out; they seek to avoid all conflict and confrontation, and are happy to surrender control of their lives to, for example, a Jewish elite who would like nothing more than to use them, exploit them, and utterly crush them in the end.

Only by addressing these deeper failings of the Left can we get to the root of the problem.

Where Is the Opposition?

As I mentioned above, all sectors of the Right oppose leftism, but most are half-hearted—or worse.  Let’s take a specific example.  Perhaps the most visible and vocal critic of the Left is Tucker Carlson of Fox News.  In my essay Dissecting Tucker Carlson, I have critiqued his modus operandi, but here I want to emphasize his deeper alignment with the Left.

Let’s compare Carlson’s worldview to that of the typical leftist.  (A) The leftist, being a naïve egalitarian, is an anti-racist.  He believes deeply in human equality.  He is pro-democracy (at least verbally) and he supports “America.”  He is materialistic; he strives for a thriving economy, economic growth, and material prosperity.  Most importantly, he is philosemitic; he supports Israel, defends Jewish interests, promotes Jewish ideology, and gives free reign to Jewish voices.  The leftist never ‘outs’ Jews, never really criticizes Israel, never seeks to limit Jewish dominance in government, finance, media, or academia, and never calls to restrict their activities.  In this way, the leftist maintains his status and material well-being.

(B) Tucker Carlson, being a naïve egalitarian, is an anti-racist.  He believes deeply in human equality.  He is pro-democracy (at least verbally) and he supports “America.”  He is materialistic; he strives for a thriving economy, economic growth, and material prosperity.  Most importantly, he is philosemitic; he supports Israel, defends Jewish interests, promotes Jewish ideology, and gives free reign to Jewish voices.  Carlson never ‘outs’ Jews, never really criticizes Israel, never seeks to limit Jewish dominance in government, finance, media, or academia, and never calls to restrict their activities.  In this way, Carlson maintains his status and material well-being.

I trust that we can see the similarities here.[14]  And yet Carlson is supposedly an exemplary member of “the Right.”  Sadly, he is not alone; the above description applies to a large majority of the nominal Right.  This is precisely why the alleged Right is a fake Right, and why so many populist conservatives are fake conservatives.

If Carlson and others were true right-wingers, and true conservatives, they would display the characteristics I cited above.  They would be openly and explicitly anti-minority, anti-egalitarian, explicitly “racist” (or “racialist”), anti-Semitic, pro-environment, anti-technology (and not just anti-Big Tech), and perhaps even anti-democratic.  They might be anti-capitalist, knowing the disruption caused by unrestrained free-market capitalism.  God forbid, they might even be a little socialist!  They would be not so much patriotic—which implies a kind of naïve acceptance of the ruling class and the existing political order—but rather truly nationalist, in the sense of defending the interests one’s own race and ethnicity, which is, after all, the true basis of a “nation.”[15]

Where, then, are the true conservatives?  Where lies the true Right?  It is almost impossible to find, even in the big wide world of the Internet.  Thank God for organizations like The Occidental Observer, The Unz Review, and National Vanguard, who are willing to call a spade a spade.  Thank God for individuals like Kevin MacDonald and Andrew Anglin, William White Williams and David Duke, who are willing to speak openly and intelligently about the Jewish Question.  Thank God for the small circle of leading Holocaust revisionists, who work relentlessly to undermine the keystone of Jewish mendacity.[16]  Without such individuals, we would be lost.  With them, we have hope.

The Way Forward

In sum, the popular Left-Right divide in American politics is a fake dichotomy, constructed by and serving the interests of a Jewish elite and their well-paid Gentile lackeys.  When people focus all their attention and energy on this contrived distinction, they are distracted from, and thus overlook, the true and deeper causes of social crisis in this country.  The fake Right and the fake Left both serve their Jewish masters.  Only by moving beyond this superficial divide can we get to the root of things.

There are positive aspects of both real leftism and real conservatism.  We should indeed be open-minded, free-thinking, non-dogmatic, and progress-oriented.  We should indeed defend individual autonomy, and political and civil liberty, while promoting the better instincts of humanity.  At the same time, we should be truly nationalist:  that is, defending the integrity and well-being of White Americans.  We should work toward a relatively homogenous, monocultural, mono-ethnic nation, which is the only type of nation proven to be stable and sustainable.  We should be ardent environmentalists, preserving wild nature, expanding wilderness, and protecting indigenous species; without this, we cannot hope for a flourishing society.  We should put sharp limits on free-marketeers, finance capitalists, and financial speculators; if this means moving toward a limited socialism, so be it.

Above all, we should end the constant clamor over the bogus Left-Right confrontation, and focus on what really matters:  subverting the dominant Judeocracy, creating a manageable and ethnically-uniform nation (or nations), and getting down to the hard work of restoring a sane society.  I fear that we haven’t much time to spare.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).  Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!.  All these works are available at www.clemensandblair.com.  For all his writings, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.


[1] It will be a cold day in hell before Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity ever speak explicitly about the Jews on the Left.

[2] Jewish Power, by J. J. Goldberg (1996), p. 277.

[3] Jerusalem Post (27 Sep 2016).

[4] Washington Post (13 Mar 2003), p. A1.

[5] Jewish Power in America, by B. Feingold (2008), p. 4.

[6] Jewish Telegraphic Agency (7 Jun 2011).

[7] The Hill (30 Mar 2004), p. 1.

[8] Passionate Attachment, by Ball and Ball (1992), p. 218.

[9] This fact alone is damning; I know of no instance in which Jews have sold a major media company to a non-Jew.  And the fact that Bezos turned over operations of Amazon to another Jew, Andy Jassy, is a further indication.

[10] The Jews in Weimar Germany, by Don Niewyk (1980), p. 1.

[11] More needs to be said on this, which I will address in a subsequent essay.

[12] Again, the Left has no monopoly on this issue.  The Right can be just as imposing.

[13] One need only watch any episode of popular television shows, especially so-called reality TV.  Shows like “American Idol” or “Dancing with the Stars” or “America’s Got Talent” are endless parades of sob stories.  Crying contestants are de rigueur.

[14] There are, of course, differences:  Carlson is anti-immigration, pro-Christian, Covid-skeptical, and withering in his critique of the Biden regime.  But the similarities are more significant and more consequential than the differences.

[15] ‘Nation’ comes from Latin natus or natio, that is, those who are “born together,” or of similar birth.

[16] Among whom I would include Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, and Jürgen Graf.  Any discussion of Holocaust revisionism that does not mention these men is not worth its salt.

Prologue to “A Critical Look at Rush Limbaugh”—Parts One and Two

Like many of Rush Limbaugh’s listeners I felt a personal connection to him, but unlike many, I did not believe that he was practically infallible or always told the truth. I saw great merits in him but also weaknesses. “A Critical Look at Rush Limbaugh,” published by The Occidental Observer in late 2014, is largely a memoir of important occasions when Rush Limbaugh demonstrably had not been honest, and had served the political establishment rather than his own ideals or the people.  We loved him, but he had let us down.

There were several purposes in writing this. Obviously it was to educate the public, but this was not necessarily a disfavor to Rush Limbaugh. Suppose that he had made untrue statements only because he felt forced by circumstances: in that case it could be a relief for him, the alleviation of a moral burden, to find out that his audience “gets it.” On the other hand, while I was seeing positive changes in the Rush Limbaugh of 2014, the continuing pretense that he had practically never been wrong about anything was troubling, because it showed a lack of repentance. It was troubling, both that he was saying it and that the audience was accepting it. I wanted to call attention to Rush Limbaugh’s past failings so that returning to them would be difficult. I wanted to burn the bridges behind Rush Limbaugh so that he could not go back.

The critique seemed to attract wide attention. A few days after TOO published my two-part critique, Rush Limbaugh did something unusual. He spent his first hour ruminating over the “blogosphere” and “new media.” Based on the timing and some details in what he said, and the unusually subdued and thoughtful manner in which he spoke (not his usual boisterous persona), I believe that my criticisms were on his mind.

Significantly, he did not have any negative comment. On the contrary, he said that blogs and websites are part of the “alternative media” that he started with his syndicated radio show in 1988. About the creators of “new media,” he says:

Many of them are conservative, many of them are renegade conservative, but the point is, it is causing the Drive-By Media further panic,  and the impact that all of this new media is having is clearly the erosion of the monopolistic mainstream media model. That deterioration is continuing. …

The American people — and I’m not being critical. You know me, the more the merrier, and the freer the speech, the better. I can deal with it. You know, I’m in a content content content business. I’m proud of my content, and I don’t make it up, and I don’t lie about it, so I got nothing to worry about. But the people in the Drive-Bys who have been living a lie for all these years are being exposed, and they are in a panic.

I had criticized him precisely for “living a lie.” He also referred to “being exposed,” and I certainly did expose him. He acknowledges that he could be a target of criticism from some “renegade conservatives” in thes“new media” when he says: “I can deal with it. …. I got nothing to worry about.”  His subdued tone suggested nonetheless that he had been affected by something.

Rush Limbaugh’s last years turned out to be his best. While he did not become 100% honest all the time, he did become more honest, and more valuable to his people. I was not alone in noticing this change; Don Black on Stormfront Radio also commented on it.

I certainly do not want to appear to claim credit for this, however. The important factor facilitating Rush Limbaugh’s evolution  was  not a screed that gave him pause on one day: rather, it was a change in practical circumstances, specifically the rise of Donald Trump.

Displacing the Phony Right: Review of James Kirkpatrick’s “Conservatism Inc.: The Battle for the American Right”

Conservatism Inc.: The Battle for the American Right
By James Kirkpatrick
London: Arktos Media, 2019; $19.95

It is a political truism that the best way to control the opposition is to lead it oneself, and today’s globalist, anti-white left has succeeded better than perhaps anyone else in history at implementing such a strategy. The rising generation of young white men are subject to a ceaseless campaign of psychological warfare by the dominant elite: taught that their ancestors were monsters and that they themselves are the great, supposedly all-powerful enemies of the rest of oppressed humanity. But when they look around for an alternative to such hostility, they encounter a “conservative” opposition happily chirping about “the record number of new businesses started by black women” and holding “Young Latino Leadership Summits,” while hypocritically telling Whites (and Whites alone) that “ethnonationalism has NO place in the conservative movement.” We will never defeat our declared enemies before we have displaced this sham opposition.

James Kirkpatrick, columnist for VDare.com and The Social Contract Quarterly, spent years within a conservative movement that now has no place for him, but readers of his new book Conservatism Inc. will be the beneficiaries of their folly. No one knows that gutless, cowardly gang of careerists better than he does. As he writes:

Conservatism Inc. always has to appeal to nationalism and populism to win elections. However, they didn’t actually mean it—it was simply a way to get the rubes to vote Republican. Once safely in office, the likes of Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan get back to cutting taxes for the rich, outsourcing jobs, opening the borders and getting mired in pointless foreign wars.

Kirkpatrick correctly observes that the leadership of every normal movement in history has been more dedicated to achieving its  goals than the rank and file; conservatives alone are “always enthusiastic about denouncing the most stalwart and energetic activists on their own side.” The only possible explanation is that they are not genuinely interested in hardball politics:

If politics can be defined as the pursuit of power, movement conservatives aren’t even really involved in politics, since they are trying to persuade the world with their universal “principles,” not trying to acquire power to defeat enemies…. The conservative movement exists to consolidate and legitimize the leftist victories of the past.

Yet, although they make “no serious effort to defeat the Left, movement conservatives have a highly developed political sense when it comes to climbing the career ladder within Conservatism Inc.” The periodic purges of all who directly challenge key leftist assumptions are conservatism’s “preferred method for removing competitors within their own organizations or securing a spot as the token ‘conservative’ on a liberal media network.” This journalistic cartel is in reality “a parasite that …  exploits the grievances and frustrations of a dying people to fuel policies that furthers their dispossession. For the nation to live, the Beltway Right must be radically reformed or, more likely, broken.”

The rising generation of Americans is faced with “increasingly overt anti-white sentiment and the cascading catastrophes engendered by mass Third World immigration.” The nation which should have been their birthright has been reduced, in Obama’s approving words, to “a hodgepodge of folks.” These young Americans have no stake in defending a “limited government” that ceased to exist a long time ago, or a “free market” made up of gargantuan monopolies that deplatform the few spokesmen who explicitly support the interests of White America. They know they can have their lives destroyed in an instant for an overheard remark. Under such circumstances, they must focus not on universal principles, however admirable in themselves, but on winning an existential struggle against the determined enemies who have unleashed anti-White racial hatred and demographic warfare against them.

And to do this, they must mobilize their natural base—the White working class abandoned by the Left. As automation lowers the supply of jobs for which such Whites qualify and immigrants increase competition for those that remain, these people desperately need a leadership able to channel their righteous anger into an effective political program that genuinely advances their interests both as a class and as a race. As Kirkpatrick says, “the existential issue of the next century is identity, the key challenge is resisting the Death of the West, and the template to follow is the Donald Trump campaign of 2016, which proved that National Conservatism can win.”

Note that it is Trump’s campaign, not the man himself, to which Kirkpatrick directs our attention. In office, Trump has flinched from implementing the policies that seemed implied by his campaign rhetoric. Some of his failures are due to his enemies, but he has only himself to blame for failing to tax remittances and calling for increased legal immigration. Kirkpatrick is probably correct that Trump will prove a transitional figure, while his electoral strategy will provide the inspiration for more consistent nationalists in the years ahead.

Most of Conservatism Inc. consists of carefully chosen columns written between 2013 and 2018. The pieces are short and punchy, ideal especially for younger readers getting up to speed on America’s current situation and the nationalist response. This material can be difficult to summarize, but highlights include his account of

  • the gay Filipino illegal alien who “personally contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ask what ICE planned to do with him. ICE said they had no record of his existence, even as an ICE agent spoke on the phone with him about his criminal status”;
  • the long impunity of Rotherham’s Pakistani rape gangs as a demonstration that “a strong tribe will defeat a weak nation”;
  • Obama warning police to “show restraint in managing peaceful protests that may occur” even as America watched rioters looting and burning their way through Ferguson, Missouri;
  • a new industry whereby “a woman who is a U.S. citizen can be hired by a reproductive medical clinic to become pregnant overseas and to give birth in China, Saudi Arabia, or anywhere else, and then effectively hand a U.S. passport to the baby”;
  • the European Union’s stake in undermining nations to concentrate power in its own hands;
  • the efforts of our elites to swamp the founding stock population of the US as “indistinguishable from the tactics of a foreign regime waging a war of conquest;
  • the lying press “staging the news by covering up obscenities to present an attractive image of young children holding a Mexican flag.”

As Kirkpatrick wrote four years ago:

Conservatism may prefer running out the clock on Anglo-America in order to squeeze out consultants’ fees and board directorships for a few more election cycles. In that case, the dreaded specter of ‘white nationalism’ will move from the margins to the mainstream as the only Alternative to a permanent Leftist (and anti-white) regime. And the Beltway Right will have only itself to blame.

Satan Lives in Moscow

The Ukrainian crisis has instigated an effort by the West to get into Putin’s mind, and this has inevitably led to his advisor, Prof Alexander Dugin, a leading Eurasianist and the architect of Putin’s geopolitics.

Inevitably, Dugin’s anti-liberalism has been a source of grave concern for American commentators. His book, The Fourth Political Theory, has been read with interest by a minority of them, who, though not necessarily in concert with Dugin’s geopolitical aims, do share his negative conclusions regarding liberalism and do recognise the need for something better. Needless to say, these commentators are outside the American mainstream.

Those inside the mainstream, being liberals to a man, have felt very threatened. For them, liberalism and Americanism are one and the same, and Dugin must therefore be a mad philosopher calling for the end of the world.

Among those most threatened, apparently, are the folk at the National Review. They have not only felt the need to publish multiple hit pieces about Dugin, but they have also enlisted a rocket scientist to write them. Enter Robert Zubrin. Read more

David Cameron on Muscular Britishness

In the wake of Operation Trojan Horse, the plot to Islamicise Britain by co-oping schools and then running them according to Islamist ideas an beliefs, British Prime Minister, David Cameron, has now written an article for The Daily Mail, expressing his commitment to promoting “muscular” Britishness in schools.

Muscular Britishness? This sounds very similar to Cameron’s call for “muscular liberalism”, made in 2010, when he concluded, decades too late, that “multiculturalism has failed”.

With such an antecedent, readers could certainly justify a measure of scepticism. And, indeed, when one analyses Cameron’s piece, there is much to comment on.

His central thesis is that “we”—an inclusive euphemism for “the British political establishment”—have been far too tolerant, effectively saying that if you don’t like democracy, or can’t get excited about equality, or would rather not be tolerant, it’s all good, nothing to worry about, we’re happy to live and let live. And this, he says, has got to stop. Particularly since it has led to division, extremism, and violence. Instead, the British government should use the system of education to promote British values and pride in Britishness, so that the “diverse nation” can be unified. Read more