Featured Articles

Obscuring the Jewish Problem in Alt Media: An Example

Obscurantism: the practice of deliberately presenting information in an imprecise and abstruse manner, often designed to forestall further inquiry and understanding.

We know that obscurantism of the Jewish Problem in mainstream media is rampant and total. This is primarily because mainstream media is largely owned and strongly influenced by Jews, but also because criticism of Jews has been made taboo in our society—partly through use of the media.

Even Alternative Media suffers this obscurantism however. Notable exceptions include The Occidental Observer, Fash the Nation, State of the Nation, Brother Nathaniel, Culture Wars, the Barnes Review, The Unz Review, Institute for Historical Review, and others. Here we will look at one example of popular Alt Media reporting that engages in obscurantism of the Jewish Problem, and see how bad it can be.

An article was posted on February 16th by the popular alternative health expert Joseph Mercola titled “The Web of Players Trying to Silence Truth,” It was reposted by the also popular Children’s Health Defense online journal The Defender under the title “Who’s Behind Global Effort to Silence Critics of the ‘Great Reset’?

Mercola starts with an examination of “The Monsanto Case” to establish the pattern we are to see in the web of players spinning the Covid case. Mercola mentions a number of PR firms that worked for Monsanto/Bayer to obscure the horrors of GMOs, and government agencies such as Commission for Countering Extremism and the Centre for Countering Digital Hate running campaigns against Mercola and other medical dissidents. To see a representative list, open the Playbook at the CCDH website. Mercola asserts that these PR firms attacking him and others have connections to the World Economic Forum.

Publicis Groupe is Not French

At the core of the article is the Publicis Groupe. Under sub-section “Publicis is an organizing force in the Great Reset deception,” we read:

Public deception is now being carried out at a mass scale, and the whole thing appears to be led and organized by another major PR firm, this time the Publicis Groupe, self-described as “one of the world’s largest communications groups.”

Publicis is a Partner of the World Economic Forum, which is openly declaring the world needs a “Great Reset” that will remake everything about our lives and the world, including “a fusion of our physical, biological and digital identities,” and relying on The Fourth Industrial Revolution to accomplish it. Mercola ascribes great power to Publicis in manipulating public perception, especially of Covid: “Publicis and its industry clients have been able to influence and control the press to restrict, indeed virtually eliminate, your ability to get the truth on many important issues.”

It may be a more innocent form of obscurantism—fear of Jewish power—but Mercola makes no mention of how Jewish Publicis is.

The CEO of Publicis is Maurice Levy. A 2012 article in the STL Jewish Light (Saint Louis) journal titled “French-Jewish advertiser enters Israeli and Palestinian markets” declares in the first sentence: “Maurice Levy, the Jewish CEO of Publicis, is bringing the French advertising firm into the Palestinian and Israeli communications markets.”

Vice Chair of the Publicis supervisory board is Elisabeth Badinter. Her father, Marcel Bleustein-Blanchet, who founded Publicis, was at least half Jewish, according to his Wikipedia entry. Marcel married Sophie Vaillant according to Elisabeth’s Wikipedia “early life” entry. “Elizabeth’s mother was raised as a Roman Catholic in a middle-class upbringing, and later converted to Judaism following her marriage. She raised Élisabeth in the Jewish faith.” Elisabeth married Robert Badinter, a “French” lawyer who is 100% Jewish. Robert’s father Simon, a “Bessarabian Jew” who came to France in the early 1920s to escape pogroms, was deported by the National Socialists and allegedly died at Sobibor prison. Elisabeth is a famous writer in France, particularly on the topic of feminism, and is one of France’s wealthiest citizens.

Also on the Publicis Supervisory Board is Elisabeth’s son Simon Badinter (II?). He has been on the boards of various media and PR firms in his career, and presently is a radio talk show host broadcasting in 20 major US cities. Simon is obviously 75% Jewish.

Still another board member who is part of this Jewish family is Sophie Dulac. She is a granddaughter of founder Marcel Blaustein-Blanchet and niece to Elisabeth.

Thomas Glocer is on the Publicis board. He also has obvious connections to the World Economic Forum. For a man of such impressive accomplishments as CEO of the powerful Reuters media corporation, and on the boards of Merck, Morgan Stanley and the Council on Foreign Relations (former Director), it is disappointing that his Wikipedia page has no “Early Life” or “Private Life” entries. Self-obscurantism? Glocer’s blog entry titled “Shanah Tovah Shimon” (‘good year’, a blessing Jews speak at their new year Rosh Hashanah, commemorating the death of Shimon Peres), states: “I met with Shimon regularly, in Davos, in London and once, very memorably, in Tel Aviv.” Though Glocer says Peres was twice Israel’s Defense Minister and founded Israel’s nuclear program, Peres was also Prime Minister twice, President, and much else over a 70-year political career. So to meet with Peres regularly puts Glocer among the top echelons of Jewish power.

But is Glocer himself Jewish? He’s at least very much connected to the Jewish world: “I visited Israel every couple of years to see clients like everywhere else, to meet with tech entrepreneurs from this start-up nation, to support the brave Reuters journalists in Israel as well as the West Bank and Gaza, and to visit my family.”

It is not likely Glocer’s family lived in the Palestinian Occupied Territories.

Publicis board member Marie-Josee Kravis’s second and current husband is Henry Kravis, the multi-billionaire investment firm owner, who “was born into a Jewish family in Tulsa, Oklahoma,”

Another billionaire power broker on the Publicis board is Andre Kudelski. He is described as “a Swiss engineer of Polish descent,” but his father Stephan’s biography says he was born in Warsaw, escaped the German military entry into Poland, found his way to France, and escaped the Germans there too and went to Switzerland. Various sources that attempt to identify Jews, in this case as members of the powerful Bilderberg Group on which Kudelski was a Steering Committee member, such as Radio Islam, The Daily Stormer, and Zogwatch state that Kudelski is an “Ashkenazi Jew” or “most probably Polish Jew,” We must consider this correct.

Suzan LeVine is a Publicis board member who was former ambassador to Switzerland, in the cabinet of Washington state Governor Ray Inslee, and other positions of power. She appears to be Gentile, but her husband Eric A. Levine, described as an “American entrepreneur,” is most likely Jewish. His Wikipedia entry says “He has been a Council Member at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum since September, 2016.” According to Suzan’s bio at Publicis: “Twice during her career, she was a stay-at-home mom, during which time she co-founded… an innovative Jewish community model, The Kavana Cooperative…”

It appears certain Suzan is another Jewish board member or in any case married to a Jew.

The Publicis Supervisory Board is composed of thirteen people. Like the other PR firms Mercola mentions in his article, Publicis is absolutely obsessed with “Diversity, Equality & Inclusion,” and some even add “Belonging” (DEI&B). Here is the Publicis Board’s statement addressing DEI&B:

The Supervisory Board… is carefully balanced in terms of its composition. There are six women and six men, eight independent members and eight members of foreign nationality. Publicis Groupe was one of the first groups to ensure male / female parity in its Supervisory Board.

Applause for Publicis. How noble, achieving such “parity” on its Board. Yet eight of the members (over 60%) are Jews or married to Jews, four are in the same Jewish family, and the top two Board positions, CEO and Vice Chair, are both Jews. Rather than DEI&B, Publicis looks much more like N&IGP: nepotism and in-group preference.

Jewish dominance of Publicis goes even deeper. The current Chairman and CEO of the firm is Arthur Sadoun. His bio does not indicate his ethnicity, but states in the last paragraph:

“Arthur Sadoun became Chairman and CEO of Publicis Groupe on June 1, 2017, making him the 3rd leader of the Groupe in its 91-year history, following in the footsteps of Maurice Lévy, and founder Marcel Bleustein-Blanchet.”

Since both previous leaders were Jews, would not Sadoun be as well? His Wikipedia entry calls him “a French businessman,” Confirmation may come from a Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (“Fighting BDS in America and Abroad”) essay of 2014 titled “France Starting to Reckon with Its History of Anti-Semitism?” It states:

(French Nationalist Marine Le Pen) contended that she was hated by another journalist, Anne-Sophie Lapix, the wife of Publicis chairman Arthur Sadoun. She claimed that the entire Publicis management belonged to an exclusive caste estranged from most French, while her own political mission was to return power to the people. True enough, Marine Le Pen did not actually say that Sadoun and most of Publicis’ managers were Jewish, and her words could be construed to apply to any restricted upper-class group rather than just to a Jewish elite. On the other hand, the Jewish heritage of Publicis, from its founder the late Maurice Bleustein-Blanchet to Maurice Levy, its current CEO, to Sadoun, is an open secret.

Since the author of the article, Michel Gurfinkiel, is probably engaging in the classic tradition of Jewish boasting about the tribe’s accomplishments, today’s Publicis Chairman and CEO Arthur Sadoun is most likely confirmed as Jewish.

We are sure to find more Jews throughout the Publicis leadership structure, investors, and 80,000 employees, but what we’ve seen is more than sufficient to establish the aggressive and tyrannical PR firm harassing alternative health leaders such as Joseph Mercola as overwhelmingly Jewish.


Another associated firm which Mercola calls “the self-appointed internet watchdog NewsGuard” is active in censoring and excluding dissenting views on Covid such as Mercola’s. He says:

NewsGuard rates websites on criteria of ‘credibility’ and ‘transparency,’ ostensibly to guide viewers to the most reliable sources of news and information. In reality, however, NewsGuard ends up acting as a gate keeper with a mission to barricade unpopular truth and differences of opinion behind closed gates. Its clearly biased ranking system easily dissuades people from perusing information from low-rated sites, mine included.

Newsguard received substantial start-up funds from Publicis in 2018. Co-founder and co-CEO Steven Brill’s bio states: “Brill was born to a Jewish family in Queens, New York.” In an interesting tangent, Brill is author of the book Tailspin: The People and Forces Behind America’s Fifty-Year Fall – and Those Fighting to Reverse It. I haven’t read it, but how likely is it that Brill will depart from obscurantism and identify our new Jewish elite as central players in America’s fall, as they indeed have been since about 1970?

The other co-founder and co-CEO of Newsguard is Louis Gordon Crovitz. A National Vanguard article of 2019 titled “In-Browser Censorship: Microsoft Partners With New Jewish ‘Fact-Checking’ Firm” identifies Crovitz too as Jewish (his Wikipedia entry is devoid of any mention, obscurantism most likely the cause, but the picture is highly indicative). The article also describes Crovitz as in close association with “Neo-Conservatives,” which is a euphemism for American Jews mainly concerned with the welfare of Israel. A Truthwiki report on Crovitz actually names some Neocons, almost all Jews, and declares Crovitz a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, now known to “be associated with almost 90 percent of all media in the U.S.” The CFR is almost completely led by Jews.

Newsguard is attempting to provide approval or disapproval ratings on 7,500 news outlets, covering almost 100% of the news most people in the US see. Outlets like Mercola and Children’s Health Defense will be rated red for alarm, forced to the fringes of the internet’s dark corners by Newguard‘s rating system.

The Paley Center For (Zio) Media

The Paley Center for Media is another unit in the army Mercola identifies as attacking him and anyone else prominent enough in alt media to challenge Jewish power, however indirectly. Founded in 1976 by the Jewish man who also founded and built CBS, William S Paley, The Paley Center now declares as its mission: “Drawing upon its curators, collection, and relationships with the media community, The Paley Center for Media examines the intersections between media and society.” Unfortunately for the likes of Mercola and others who stick their heads up above the dominant medical narrative, the Paley Center does more than examine, it manipulates and controls, and there is no tolerance for those it perceives as enemies.

President and CEO Maureen Reidy is Gentile. She was formerly in the administration of ultra-wealthy former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Of seven members of the Paley Center administration under Reidy, at least two, Andy Meyer and David Weinberg, and possibly others, are Jewish. Of a sixty member Board of Trustees, at least eighteen and likely others appear to be Jewish, including Vice Chair Mel Karmazin, former CEO of CBS and Sirius Radio born to a Jewish family in Queens, National Hockey League Commissioner Gary Bettman, and world-controller war-monger Henry Kissinger. Kissinger also co-chaired last year’s Paley International Council Summit, which calls itself the “‘Davos of Media’ [i.e., akin to the World Economic Forum] brings together global leaders and CEOs of the world’s most important media companies, to advance the exchange of ideas and to foster a sense of community.” This community does not include Mercola and anyone else who defies the establishment narrative. Mercola would not have fit into the same community as Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, a top Covid promoter, Director of the World Health Organization, and keynote speaker at Kissinger’s Paley Center Summit.

Of forty-one members of the Paley Center Los Angeles Board of Governors, at least ten appear to be Jews. Member Keith Le Goy of Sony Pictures is most likely not Jewish.

Very recently, the Paley Center initiated The Peter Roth Internship Program. Peter Roth was Chairman and CEO of Warner Brothers TV Studios for twenty years before recently leaving the position. He appears to be obscuring his Jewish heritage, at least on the otherwise often explicit Wikipedia, but it’s no secret that Warner Brothers was founded by and today is predominantly run by Jews, with Peter Roth included in the list. Other Roths who have powerful positions in the media include Joseph Roth (no relation except by tribe), the former Chairman of 20th Century Fox.

Of four major donors to this new Paley Center program, two are Jewish: former “King of sitcoms” Chuck Lorre (born Levine to a Jewish family in New York), and producer/director/writer of blockbuster movies and TV series JJ Abrams, whose “personal life” includes being Jewish. In a bizarre distortion of identity, a third donor, gay mega-producer Greg Berlanti wants to be Jewish. He and his husband professional soccer player Robbie Rogers raised their young son and daughter in the Jewish faith, to the point that the five-year-old son thinks Berlanti is Jewish (“Nothing anyone can say, including my husband, will dissuade him from believing this. He just believes it.”). Berlanti said in an interview for the Jewish Journal that “we sought out a Jewish egg donor — not the easiest thing to find, by the way.” Where there’s wealth, there’s a way.

Lest there be any further confusion, according to a Variety article, the paid internship program is not based on merit, but will “emphasize the importance of increasing inclusion and representation,” favor “interns from diverse backgrounds and underserved communities,” and “help build more diversity in the industry.” Roth praises the Paley Center and the program donors for “creating a program that will ensure greater equity and diversity.” This is Jewish code language for counting Jews as Whites but excluding gentiles of European descent. That theme has been well developed elsewhere.

Should we have any further doubt of The Paley Center’s alignment, recently it celebrated this year’s Holocaust Remembrance Day (officially Day of Remembrance for Jewish Victims of the Holocaust) with the Paley Impact Event “The Media’s Role in Combating Holocaust Denial, Misinformation, and Antisemitism,” The announcement appears to be written by Eva Schloss herself, who claims to have survived Auschwitz, and is the step-daughter of the iconic Otto Frank, actual main author of the supposed Anne Frank diary. Panel topics at the Paley Center event focused on:

“Eva Schloss’s recollections of how friends and neighbors in her native Austria turned on her family in 1938, resulting in her being transported to Auschwitz; Schloss’s thoughts on the emotional toll taken on her stepfather, Otto Frank (father of Anne Frank), when confronting Holocaust deniers after World War II’s end; how social media allows hate groups to flourish; Facebook’s recent ban on those who distort the history of the Holocaust; the necessity of continually magnifying Holocaust survivors’ stories; the media’s lack of coverage over a Camp Auschwitz shirt worn by one of the rioters that stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6; and the need for mandatory Holocaust education for all American students.”

The Paley Center will be fully participating in “the media’s vital role in fighting the rise of antisemitism and Holocaust denial.”

Conclusion: It’s the Jews Again

Dr. Joseph Mercola had the courage and determination to write a critique and exposé of the people and organizations who were defaming, discrediting and censoring him and his colleagues in the alternative health field who did not comply with the official Covid story-telling. His otherwise excellent analysis was reposted by another target of the medical establishment, Robert F Kennedy’s Children’s Health Defense (CHD). These bold moves to push back against a totalitarian media effort by what amounts to a medical cartel were impaired by what must be a self-imposed obscurantism of the Jewish Problem.

Joseph Mercola, Robert F Kennedy Jr, their staffs and supporters are not fools. They could not have missed the obvious overwhelming Jewish representation among their opponents, as we’ve abundantly shown here. Mercola and CHD are willing to wage a media battle against “Big Pharma,” public health agencies like the World Health Organization and US CDC, and the entire medical cartel—but not against Jews. That is one revelation they leave assiduously out of their otherwise honest reporting. They most likely engage in obscurantism of the Jewish Problem in the entire Covid phenomenon out of a perceived need for self-protection. Obscurantism is protectionism in their case.

But is it? How wise is it to fail to identify the overwhelming ethnic component of one’s enemies, in order to know thy enemy and plan a successful strategic campaign? Under the cover of the Covid story, crimes against humanity are being committed. The World Economic Forum’s Great Reset is coming, declaring itself to be a complete transformation of humanity and society—and not for the better—of the vast multitudes on Earth who survive the transition. We haven’t even examined the Jewish component of the WEF yet, but I assure you it’s there, and Executive Director Klaus Schwab may be part of it. Mercola, RFKJr and many others who are in the media bomb sites of the medical Cabal appear incapable of even identifying the Jews embedded in powerful institutions deployed against them. Perhaps Mercola et al. feel they have a strong case to assert their alternative medical positions, but are hopelessly weak should they attempt to expose the Jewish Problem.

It is a dilemma we all must face, and accept the consequences. Self-imposed obscurantism may not ultimately be safe, but neither is open disclosure. Whatever outlet displays this essay risks the wrath of Jews. We have not obscured the Jewish Problem here, but faced it frontally, for any who cares and dares to examine it. The evidence is overwhelming. Joseph Mercola and others in the alternative medical field are confronted ultimately by Jews. This is essential to know if we are to engage in enough self-defense to survive the Great Reset.

Is America’s “Greatest” Ally Teaming Up With China to Screw America?


America’s greatest ally. Right?

Not so fast.

According to a report by Breaking Defense, Israel refused a recent request by the American government to inspect a new port in the city of Haifa that China helped build. SIPG, a Chinese company, will operate this port for the next 25 years.

This move has opened up discussions about Israel’s intriguing relationship with China, which comes at a time when the U.S. is involved in an ever-increasing case of security competition with the East Asian nation.

Since China went from a Maoist disaster and transitioned towards a mixed economy, the country has sought all sorts of trading partners. Israel became one of those partners after China kicked off formal diplomatic relations with the Jewish state in 1992.

China tends to be inclusive in its dealings with Middle Eastern countries. In other words, it tries to be friendly with all states. Even with countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, who are engaged in a proxy conflict of their own, China tries to maintain cordial relations with both countries despite their ongoing conflicts.

The Chinese have also served as mediators between the Israelis and Palestinians in their dispute. From the late 1970s until the 1990s, China and Israel entered a number of arms deals, which caught the U.S.’s attention. Even worse, Israel has a long history of selling U.S. military secrets to China. Yet, there is little talk in national security circles about the Israeli-China partnership that could potentially undermine American interests.

According to Rupert Stone of the Middle East Eye, “By the mid-2000s, military ties had flatlined, and the relationship focused more on economic cooperation” after the U.S. caught wind of Israel’s exploitation of its China ties.

However, the Israeli-China connection has remained intact. When tensions between former American President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu started to mount and Europe’s economy began to slow down during the Great Recession, Israel began looking to its east. Netanyahu went on a state visit to China in 2013 and two years later joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which China dominates. The U.S. did not approve of this move. To top it off, Netanyahu signed 10 agreements in Beijing.

The U.S. has made somewhat of an effort to address Israel’s questionable ties with China. The China virus compelled the U.S. to take a much harder stance against China and make sure its own allies are not completely under China’s thumb. If the U.S.’s allies are under substantial Chinese influence, American interests could be substantially undermined in the long-term.

This explains why Secretary of State Mike Pompeo paid a brisk visit to Israel back in May 13, 2020, to discuss China’s growing influence and other issues with Netanyahu’s new government. For instance, Israel seemed to yield to American demands after it did not grant a contract for a desalination plant to a Hong Kong-based company and instead opted to award the contract to a domestic firm. Additionally, Huawei is not being used in Israel’s 5G network tender.

Trade between China and Israel has increased significantly over the years. According to Rupert Stone, Israel’s exports to China grew fourfold. China is Israel’s second-biggest trading partner. Israelis view China in a very positive light. For instance, 66% of Israelis hold China in high esteem.

Various Chinese companies are actively setting up infrastructure projects in Israel. From the looks of it, the Chinese want to add Israel to its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), a connection of land and sea routes that China is spearheading. Several years ago, Shanghai International Port Group received a contract to operate the Haifa container port, beginning in 2021. Similarly, another Chinese company was awarded a contract to run the Ashdod port. These contracts have generated significant controversy. Take for example, the case of the Haifa terminal. It’s next to an Israeli naval base, where the U.S. Sixth Fleet frequently docks its ships.

As far as technology goes, Chinese companies such as Alibaba, Baidu, and Tencent have invested in Israeli’s “Silicon Wadi,” the Israeli version of Silicon Valley, in an effort to put China on the path to being a technological titan through its Made in China 2025 initiative.

According to Stone, Chinese investment in the Israel tech sector increased tenfold from 2015 to 2016. In 2017, Alibaba set up a research center in Tel Aviv. Allegedly, high-ranking government officials from both countries have forged an innovation partnership. A general fear among cybersecurity experts is that Chinese investment in the Israeli tech sector could make Israel and the U.S. susceptible to Chinese cyberattacks and other forms of espionage. Certain tech stalwarts, such as ZTE—a firm with strong ties to the Chinese Communist Party—have key investments in Israel.

Hypothetically speaking, a deterioration in American-Israeli relations could see Israel pivoting towards China for trade and other forms of cooperation at Americans’ expense. There was already a case earlier this month where Shin Bet (Israel’s internal security services) busted a ring of Israeli aerospace engineers who sold advanced Israeli missile technology to China for millions of dollars.

Twenty Israeli nationals were involved in this illegal trade of missiles. Even more curious, these individuals served in the IDF in intelligence and weapons development roles.  Other members of the criminal ring worked for Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), while some ring members were employed in Israeli companies that produce missiles. One could only imagine what would happen if these missiles were American in origin and ended up being sold to the Chinese.

As mentioned before, Israel is willing to take American tech and sell it to China. If the U.S. doesn’t review its relationship with both China and Israel, it will continue to be exploited by these countries. China and Israel are host to parasitic cultures and in many regards their cooperation is a match made in heaven. If U.S. leaders were smart, they would completely ban immigration from Israel and China, end all forms of military aid to Israel, and decouple from China’s economy.

America is not a shopping mall that predatory ethnic groups can freely exploit.

Reposted from Red Elephants, with permission.

Our political system is selective for sociopaths

Someone like Biden and his disloyalty are easily explained when you think it through.

Our political system is selective for sociopaths.

Almost no one like the heroes of our history (Sir Francis Drake, Bismarck, Presidents Polk and Jefferson) would seek public office in our universal suffrage democracy/plutocracy in which civil debate is controlled by an alien-owned news media.

American politics attracts sociopaths, Sociopaths do not have to bear the burden and suffer the restrictions imposed by normal feelings of loyalty, attachment and morality. Sociopaths do not connect. They are lone wolves. When they have families, the don’t really have any emotional tie to them (like Senator John Edwards of North Carolina to whom his teenaged son’s death provided an opportunity to con voters by appealing to their sympathy and nothing more) . Their spouses and  children are just theatre props to put up in pictures on their office desk or in their campaign literature.

Sociopaths do not get emotional satisfaction from things that normal people need. They don’t have to ‘waste’ their time with their families, friends, law partners, fellow Little League players or fraternity brothers. They can devote full time to their political careers. They can handle a life of several “appearances” per day at which they give little talks to strangers. They aren’t impeded by having to go home for junior’s birthday.

Sociopaths are not encumbered with any sense of shame. As shown in the example of Bill Clinton they suffer no emotional distress when a scandal like Monica Lewinsky giving him ten blow jobs in the Oral Office breaks.  A sociopath like Clinton can carry on without losing a minute’s sleep in the midst of a scandal that normal people would find emotionally unbearable (like knowing that hundreds of millions of people all over the world and your wife and your daughter know that you spilled your seed ten times down the throat of an overweight, unattractive Jewish girl.

Modern democracy is something new in modern history.

In previous times the more loyal you were to your people the more likely you were to rise to higher positions.

The commoner Francis Drake became a knight and was ennobled in recognition of his heroism in defending England from the Spanish Armada.

That’s how men became leaders.

In modern American democracy it’s the opposite… at least  for Whites.

Loyalty — of any kind — is a career impediment.

Loyalty to one’s race, religion, region (the South) etc., are not only impediments. Those kinds of loyalty are radioactive, instant death.

Even loyalty to one’s family is a career impediment. The normal young law firm associate wants to go home at 5.00 p.m. to be with his wife and child. The sociopath will work on till 8.00 on the important brief without any psychological  conflict. He’ll call up the wife and tell her he won’t be home for dinner without any upset.

This explains someone like Biden feeling no loyalty to his country and being willing to pimp for those with power and money without any regard to what it means to people at large.

What makes the situation in America even worse, however, is that this situation is the opposite for the predatory ethnic groups seeking conquest at our expense.

Black, Hispanic, Jewish politicians are successful the more they are loyal. A law student who can put in his resume that he was President of the Black Law Student’s Association, the La Raza Club or the Hillel Foundation enhances his chances of getting a high-paying job with a prestigious law firm, a federal judgeship or election to the US Senate. (Like Schumer who was recently caught  explaining to other Jews that his whole life is spent scheming on how to advance his own particular ethnic group.)

What these two contradictory patterns  lead to is what’s going on in contemporary America.

Our antagonists are led by men  whose loyalty to their ethnic group exceeds that of most of the others.  We are “led” by people like Biden, Clinton, John McCain, William F Buckley Jr., Johnny Isakson, Lindsey Graham, and Mitch McConnel who are bereft of loyalty to us.

This is another reason why there is no hope of reform under the present System.

Grown ups must think realistically and political campaigns to save America are unrealistic.

We must think and act “Post-America.”

Rhymes against Humanity: Blasphemous Borrowings and the Jewish Roots of Translunacy

“History never repeats, but it does rhyme.” It’s a good line (though Mark Twain probably never said it). I see history rhyming in modern leftist ideology, which seems to contain blasphemous corruptions of three central Catholic doctrines: miraculous birth, immaculate conception and transubstantiation. Leftists mock and reject these doctrines in their original Christian form, but those doctrines weren’t pernicious when they were Christian. Instead, they strengthened Western civilization and inspired great art and literature. The leftist corruptions, by contrast, can be called “rhymes against humanity,” in that they promote the destruction of Western civilization and cause vastly more murder and other crime.

Ibram X. Kendi speaks

The doctrines are also much more rational and credible when they’re Christian than when they’re leftist. For example, as I pointed out in “Dawkins’ Demon,” Christians believe that a single conception in Palestine about two thousand years ago involved a miraculous suspension of natural law. Millions of leftists reject that miracle with scorn, while simultaneously believing in a much bigger supernatural intervention involving billions of conceptions for thousands of years over most of the earth’s surface. Yes, leftists believe that the brain has been miraculously exempt from evolutionary change as human beings have occupied environments as varied and widely separated as Tahiti and Tibet or Sweden and Somalia.

Acclaimed Black thinker Ibram X. Kendi, “one of America’s foremost historians and leading antiracist voices”

But leftists promptly contradict their own irrational belief in the Oneness of Humanity, because they blame all non-White failings on the innate depravity of Whites. For example, leftists claim that White racism alone explains the low achievement and high criminality of Blacks, not any imperfection in Blacks themselves. As the acclaimed Black thinker Ibram X. Kendi puts it: “The only thing wrong with Black people is that we think something is wrong with Black people.” In other words, leftists believe in the immaculate conception of Blacks and other non-Whites. According to Catholic doctrine, the Virgin Mary was conceived without original sin and so lived in perfect sanctity and purity, free from “every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities.”

Haque attack

That was the original immaculate conception, granted to one very special human being two thousand years in Palestine. But leftists now insist on the immaculate conception of billions of non-Whites over the whole earth. For leftists, non-Whites live in perfect sanctity and purity, free from every stain and fault, and any apparent misbehaviour on their part is entirely the fault of Whites and their racism. Non-Whites are immaculately conceived, but Whites are born in sin and depravity. Here is an American-based Pakistani called Umhair Haque expressing the implicit leftist doctrine of immaculate non-White conception:

Fuck off already, white people. You enslaved and murdered whole continents. You have yet to make any amends and even the good ones among [you] pretend that’s OK. We are still living in that world. And it makes the rest of us so, so sick and weary and disgusted with you. (Tweet by Umhair Haque, 3rd January 2021)

Pakistani White-hater Umhair Haque

This leftist insistence on the immaculate conception of non-Whites has led, among much else, to a horrendous rise in murders. As Steve Sailer has carefully documented, the anti-White and anti-police rhetoric of Black Lives Matter (BLM) has encouraged young Black men in the US to become even more violent, impulsive and murderous. After all, if Blacks are the innocent and oppressed victims of centuries of White racism, many Blacks seem to conclude that they’re entitled to shoot, rob and rape as they please. Either that or the police have stopped enforcing the law for fear of getting fired or worse.

The BLM-inspired murder-spree by Blacks of Blacks in 2020

But leftism states that we are all the same under the skin, therefore it can only be a historical accident that Whites “enslaved and murdered whole continents,” rather than some other group. It’s therefore wrong and irrational for Umhair Haque and other leftists to be so self-righteous and indignant that the impersonal dice of history happened to roll one way rather than another.  But only if leftism is a coherent, rational and sincere ideology. It isn’t and Haque is in fact using leftism as countless others do: as a vehicle for advancing his personal and ethnic interests. He’s trying to inject Whites with a paralysing ideological venom, exploiting the tendency of Whites to accept universalist morality and to feel guilt when they transgress universalist values.

“Fundamental Jewish principles of truth and avoiding falsehood”

This White universalism is healthy and adaptive in an all-White society, because it allows us to trust and co-operate with strangers. In racially mixed societies, on the other hand, White universalism is ripe for exploitation by moral particularists — that is, by those who are loyal only to their racial or religious in-group and not to the White out-group. Ethnocentric exploiters like the Jews and Gypsies even have contemptuous terms for the out-group, who are called goyim or gorja, and are not protected by the particularist morality that applies to the in-group. Even some Jews condemn Jewish predation on the goyish out-group, because they fear it is “not good for Jews” and will cause anti-Semitism. This is Daniel Greenberg in the Jewish Chronicle criticizing ultra-Orthodox Jews in Britain:

In the UK, benefit fraud appears to be endemic in parts of Charedi communities, with housing benefit in particular being manipulated through bogus shell companies and the like in order to support an otherwise unattainable lifestyle [of intense religious study without gainful employment]. This is incompatible with the fundamental Jewish principles of truth, yashrus (being straight) and avoiding falsehood of any kind. … The biggest problem in all this is that Charedim look so very Jewish. Their obsession with the externals means that to themselves, to the outside world, and even to many other Jews, they appear to be the quintessence of Jewish life. In fact, many of them are the antithesis of fundamental Jewish principles in so many ways. (The lifestyle of many Charedim has become incompatible with Judaism, The Jewish Chronicle, 28th January 2021)

Greenberg is claiming that the most Jewish Jews are in fact the least Jewish Jews. He’s wrong: those “fundamental Jewish principles of truth, yashrus (being straight) and avoiding falsehood of any kind” are perfectly compatible with benefit fraud, because it isn’t the Jewish in-group who are being defrauded: it is the goyish out-group, responsible, in Haredi eyes, for millennia of anti-Semitic oppression, persecution and massacre.

Jews excel at manipulating symbols

The same kind of fraud happens in America, where fast-growing Haredi communities pursue their “otherwise unattainable lifestyle” of intense religious study. The text to which they are devoted is the Talmud, a strange, anti-Christian and anti-gentile scripture that is full of convoluted legalism and dialectical hair-splitting. The organization Agudath Israel, or Union of Israel, was recently able to fill stadiums in London and New York with enthusiastic young Talmudic scholars, who celebrated a milestone in ultra-Orthodox life under the slogan “One Nation. One Siyum.” A siyum is a complete communal reading of the Talmud and “One Nation” is the geographically dispersed nation of Jews.

Agudath Israel is using the word “nation” in its strict historic sense: it’s from the Latin verb nasci, meaning “to be born.” Unlike modern Britain, America and France, Haredi Jews form a true nation by close genetic descent. But what effect has that environment of minute textual study and logic-chopping had on Jewish genetics? As Kevin MacDonald has noted: “success as a scholar [in historic Jewish communities] was valuable because it allowed the scholar to contract a desirable marriage, often to a woman from a wealthy family. At the very center of Judaism, therefore, was a set of institutions that would reliably result in eugenic processes related to intelligence and resource acquisition ability.” But those eugenic processes centred on complex religious texts, not on external reality. That is why Jews excel at manipulating symbols, not at manipulating real objects. And so Jews have typically become famous not as engineers or explorers, but as physicists or financiers.

Lesbians must accept the female penis

Jews have also often become famous as fraudsters. But Jewish fraud is much more varied than is generally recognized. Jews like Bernie Madoff and Robert Maxwell (né Abraham Hoch) commit financial fraud; Jews like Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler commit ideological fraud. Rubin and Butler are academic fraudsters who have been central to the blasphemous leftist borrowing (and corruption) of the ancient Christian concept of transubstantiation. According to Catholic doctrine, suitably consecrated bread and wine become the literal flesh and blood of Christ without changing in any physical or chemical particular. To the eye of materialist science, they remain bread and wine; to the eye of supernatural faith, they are the flesh and blood of God’s only-begotten Son.

I confess that the doctrine of transubstantiation defeats me in both its Christian and its leftist forms. But I can at least see awe and grandeur in the Christian form. I can see only absurdity and depravity in the leftist form, which insists that a bearded, hairy-chested man with intact penis and testicles literally becomes a woman if he decides that he is a woman. To the eye of transphobic hate-think, he remains a man; to the eye of virtuous leftism, he is an absolutely and entirely authentic woman, and always has been. And so we get such concepts as the “female penis” or “girl-dick,” which genuine female lesbians are enjoined to welcome into their sex-lives. We also get such spectacles as Jonathan Yaniv, an overweight Jewish male based in Canada, insisting that he is a lesbian called Jessica and trying to satisfy both his paedophilia and his menstruation fetish with under-aged girls in female toilets.

At least, there is very strong evidence that Jonathan Yaniv is Jewish, but very little of the extensive commentary on his antics has discussed that evidence or explored its implications. Yaniv appears to be an Israeli Jew who, in a sane world, would not have been granted Canadian citizenship any more than anti-White Jewish politicians like Chuck Schumer and Jerry Nadler would have been granted American citizenship. The idea that hostile outsiders like Jews and Blacks can, by mere verbal formulae, become authentic citizens of White Christian nations was the model for the idea that sexually perverted or mentally disturbed men can become authentic women. Jewish Chuck Schumer is a fake American in almost the same way that Jewish Eliana Rubin is a fake woman.

Fake women Jessica Yaniv (above) and Eliana Rubin

And who is Eliana Rubin? He’s a male Jew who responded to a virtue-signaling tweet on women’s healthcare from Joe Biden:

Translunatic tweet: Rubin responds to Joe Biden

Some mainstream figures like Titania McGrath have criticized and mocked Rubin for his “erasure” of women and his lunatic insistence that he is a woman. And rightly so. But how many of them linked his lunacy to his Jewishness? None at all. And when the apparently goy-American writer Robert Stacy McCain condemned the Jewish academics Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler as central to the translunatic cult, he too made absolutely no mention of their Jewishness. But this section of his essay reads almost like classic anti-Semitism:

Fake scholar Judith Butler

It is fair to say that Professor Rubin and Professor Butler advocate what Matt Barber has called “Sexual Anarchy,” a world in which there are no rules, no laws, no morality governing sexual behavior. What such a lawless and amoral culture would mean for women (and for children) is not a topic these two professors seem to have given much thought; neither of them have children, and why should they care what becomes of our daughters and granddaughters in this no-rules future? (The Butler Did It: ‘Gender Trouble’ and the Academic Roots of the #Transcult, Robert Stacy McCain, 17th July 2018)

McCain is effectively complaining that subversive Jews are trying to loose anarchy on non-Jews — “our daughters and granddaughters.” He also complains that Judith Butler’s translunatic book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990) “is lodged more or less permanently among the Top 10 Amazon bestsellers … not because it is pleasant reading, but because it is required reading in so many college and university courses.

Porn-positive pedo-pushing Professor Gayle Rubin

Again, that’s almost a classic anti-Semitic complaint about the undeserved success of a subversive Jewish writer. But, for McCain, Gayle Rubin is even worse: “If her celebration of sadomasochism did not suffice to make Professor Rubin notorious, what about her defense of pedophilia and child pornography in her 1984 essay, ‘Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality’?” Indeed, Mr McCain. But your question prompts me to a question of my own: Is it merely a coincidence that two such important figures in the translunatic cult are drawn from the tiny Jewish minority? Or that Richard Levine, Joe Biden’s repulsive “transwoman” Assistant Health Secretary, is also Jewish?

Fake woman Richard Levine, Jewish Assistant Health Secretary

And those are only three figures in the extensive list of Jewish sexual subversives, from Sigmund Freud and Herbert Marcuse to Al Goldstein and William Reich, who wrote an autobiography, Passion of Youth (1988), wherein “he fondly recalls raping his family’s maids, engaging in bestiality with the farm animals, masturbating to thoughts of his mother, and lusting after his friends’ sister because he was obsessed with ‘her glorious, long, blond hair.’” So no, it isn’t a coincidence that Jews like Gayle Rubin and Judith Butler are central to the translunatic cult.

Jews in the West: “a permanent problem of the gravest character”

Nor would the great Anglo-French writer Hilaire Belloc (1870–1953) have thought it a coincidence that a blasphemous corruption of transubstantiation appears in the cult. In his book The Great Heresies (1938), Belloc wrote that the modernist assault on Christianity drew on Catholic doctrine while being both “materialist and superstitious” — “a contradiction in reason, but the modern phase, the anti-Christian advance, has abandoned reason.” Belloc was right: modern leftism is materialist in all senses, but also superstitiously insists that men can become women simply by saying so.

And Belloc would not have been surprised to find Jews at the heart of superstitious, materialist leftism, which seeks to destroy the West and dominate Whites. In 1922 he published an “anti-Semitic” polemic bluntly entitled The Jews (reviewed by Andrew Joyce), where he identified “Bolshevism” as a vehicle for “racial revenge” by Jews on “Russian society.” He also said that “the continued presence of the Jewish nation intermixed with other nations alien to it presents a permanent problem of the gravest character.” Belloc’s insights and moral courage are sadly lacking among modern Christians. That is why so many of them don’t simply accept the blasphemous borrowings of leftism from Christianity, but turn Christianity itself into another branch of leftism.

A Time for White Leadership

Will the last American kindly turn  off the Shining City on a Hill?

With the passing of Rush Limbaugh, this feels like the right moment to reflect on the legacy of talk-radio conservatism—an “alternative right” which preceded us—and to consider how we might succeed where they failed. In their bones, millions of right-leaning Americans know that the time of ‘standing-up for America as founded’ has passed. Our job is to prevail upon them that now is time for White America to stand-up as Whites, and stop fighting with half-their-brains-tied-behind-their-back.

But if we are going to fare any better than populist conservatism at bringing the necessary intellectual leadership to our people, we must be clear on our purpose—the ethnostate. We, as English-speaking Whites, view ourselves, rightly, as a nation. And as any other, our nation has a moral right to a state of a size commensurate to accommodate its numbers. This must be our message, stated just so plainly. Along with our ideal, we need a basic outline of how we can go from here to the ethnostate in a fashion morally acceptable to reasonable people. Otherwise, we are just wasting ours and everyone else’s time. Make America White Again is just as ridiculous as Make America Great Again. The fundamental flaws were (1) ideological misdirection/incoherence and (2) overestimating numbers and potential numbers. We should not make the same mistakes.


I’m not here to bash Rush; he was a supremely talented American original who faced his impending end admirably. I was never a dittohead, but I certainly get why so many were. A lot of other people did what he did, and he was a lot better at it than any of them. And there are many more nice things that may be said of the man, but I cannot be uncritical. It must be said that superior political insight—the ostensible purpose of his program—was not among Rush’s gifts. Though he spent his entire career railing against it, “the big voice on the Right” never did quite comprehend the magnitude of what we face, and even if he had, it’s not like he had any great ideological vision to counter it anyway.

He was just an American-style conservative, along with all the nonsense and futility that that entails. At the end of the day, his worldview amounted to a cruder version of that of the National Review. Plus, the Dems are the real racists. This, combined with his inimitable style, won him millions of loyal fans, and hundreds of millions of dollars, but it made not a dent in the Left’s relentless advance in the “culture war.” In the year Rush’s show went into national syndication, the GOP won the presidency for the fifth time of the last six elections (winning at least 40 states four times, and 49 states twice). Since then, the Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the last eight presidential contests. “They used to get away with it.” Then Rush came along, and they still get away with it, but then, they’re the majority now anyway.

Their City is Gone.

The contradiction at the heart of talk-radio conservatism has always been an exaggerated love of “America” combined with a deep-seated opposition to all of America’s major institutions. It sounds ridiculous to us now, but forty-odd years ago, when Rush was a young man, it would have had some surface plausibility. In 1980, the country was still 80% White, down a bit from what it had been at mid-century, but the same as it had been when the first census was taken in 1790. Demographic changes were surely noticed around the edges, but it still looked like home. To the average low-information conservative, everything was fine until the pampered boomers came along. Then we got soft, and let the hippies and the bleeding-hearts infiltrate positions of power. Luckily, the ‘silent majority’ had reacted strongly against the excesses of 60s counter-culture. And then Ronaldus Magnus came along and warmed the cockles of their little hearts. Maybe we had learned our lesson. We just had to be more vigilant about “leftist wackos” going forward.

Well, we see how that worked out. During the “racial justice uprising” of this past summer, we received a particularly vivid illustration of how well that’s worked out. (Take note, an uprising is totally not the same as an insurrection, even if said uprising involved attempting to storm the White House, resulting in the evacuation of the president to an underground bunker. It is a false equivalency to compare storming the White House with storming the Capitol, and is just the sort of disinformation that we must get a handle on if we are to protect our democracy.) While many conservatives were aghast over the summer that Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act to quell the “mostly peaceful” racial reckoning, Rush speculated that Trump worried about losing face, because the military leadership might well have refused to follow such an order. My friends, when it’s come to this, we can no longer speak in terms of our institutions being compromised. At such a point, there is no longer any “we” to speak of; there is only an us and a them.

The silver-lining, for us, in the contradictory talk-radio conservative worldview is how definitively it draws a friend-enemy distinction between the Left and the Right. Rush in particular never tired of expounding on why there can be no compromising with Leftism. Not only did Rush paint the Left as the implacable enemies of liberty and the American way, he went further, characterizing the psychology of Leftism in essentially the same terms as Edward Dutton does. The Left, Rush would explain, are not like you and me. Every aspect of life is political to them, they insert ideology into everything. And they are never happy, always resentful. We might take pity on them if not for the fact that their resentfulness fuels a relentless hostility toward us. They are always on the attack. In other words, they are spiteful mutants. Amidst all his silly denunciations of “environmentalist wackos” and “feminazis,” this hard friend-enemy distinction was the true essence of the Rush phenomenon. Whether he pushed that way in the interest of securing audience engagement/investment or out of genuine conviction (I think both), is of no concern to us. What matters to us is that he did push that line, and in so doing, molded the entire populist wing of conservatism into that mindset.

What he ultimately sowed with this is something close to the opposite of his purported intent. His stated aim was to save America from liberalism, to not rest until every American agreed with him. What he actually accomplished was the division of America into separate nations. He so thoroughly alienated his audience, and much of the populist Right, from the rest of America that they have become a sort of amorphous proto-nation. It turns out he really was on the cutting-edge of societal evolution.


To me one of the most extraordinary developments which I have not seen remarked upon elsewhere is the emergence of the Trump 2020 flag. At the rallies, on cars, and hoisted up residential flagpoles, Trump partisans have a flag for their cause. As far as I can recall in my lifetime, this is a first in American politics. Supporters of American political campaigns have bumper stickers, yard signs, and campaign pins. They wave signs at campaign rallies. They don’t have flags. Nations have flags. The populist Right in America is already at least sub-consciously aware of itself as a separate nation. What defines them as a nation, and what they want for their nation, that they do not yet know. Their leadership has utterly failed them in that regard. In the grand scheme, all the wacky conspiracy theories that float around the mainstream populist Right are testament to Conservatism Inc’s failure of leadership. The stupid, and frankly sad, conspiracy theories of the Right are a direct result of conservative leadership being too weak and stupid to unequivocally rebut the conspiracy theories of the Left.

We live in a country in which every major institution has explicitly favored non-Whites over Whites for the better part of three generations, a country in which reducing Whites’ share of the population has long been official policy. And yet, the Left, and its mainstream media, is able to push the conspiracy theories of “White privilege” and “systemic racism” virtually unchallenged by mainstream conservatives. Sure, they will argue that the Left goes too far. Some of them will say that the leftist racial narrative is wrong altogether. But never do they give it the serious attention it deserves. Either they don’t comprehend the depths of the issue, or they just don’t care.

The concept of “White privilege” is not just one of many eccentric narratives floating around the leftist blogosphere. It is the Left’s very reason-for-being. They, and well-nigh the entire American establishment, stand on opposition to Whiteness as the foundation of their legitimacy. And it is a racial blood-libel, one that is for all intents directed squarely at the Right’s voter base, and aims at delegitimizing their cause at the root. And still, conservatives can hardly be bothered to address it.

Talk-radio is right when it tells conservatives that they are under-attack, but the attack is primarily against them as Whites. And the conservative establishment will not defend them on that ground, nor advance their interests on that ground. This is where we come in. We are the ones to defend them as Whites, we are the ones to advance their interests as Whites. We need to tell that, if they so choose, they, as English-speaking North American Whites, are a nation. Our job is to provide (1) the moral justification for why they ought to see themselves as a nation, (2) the moral vocabulary for them to assert their right to be a nation, and (3) explain  the moral means by which we might have a state for our nation. In other words, our job is to fill the leadership void on the American Right.

Naturally, weening them off of Americanness is a prerequisite to their embracing Whiteness as their nation. In the long run, this should not be too difficult. The America of their dreams is utterly implausible. The reality of America moves further away from their vision of America everyday. The very existence of talk radio is implicitly based on this fact of American life. The other side’s numbers grow every year, your side has won the popular vote for president once in the last eight cycles; do the math. Virginia and Colorado are deep-blue states. Even if you can cobble together a majority, do you really want to live in a country where a substantial share of the population bases its politics around hating you and everything you stand for? Your country should feel like home; you shouldn’t need to live on knife’s-edge every election cycle.

Meanwhile, this negative message is twined with our positive message for the ethnostate. You and yours were White long before they were American. The White race has been our peoples’ nation since before we had even conceived what a nation was. As an individual, race is your foundational group identity. Your ancestral membership in this group goes further back than any other group identity that separates you as distinct from others. It is your true nation not because its members share common values or tastes with you, but because it simply is you, you at scale.

You may have been mislead to think that collective identity necessarily imposes on individual liberty, especially if it is an inherent identity such as race. With other collective identities, that may be true, but not with race. The fact that race is inherent, the fact that you did not chose it, is precisely what makes it so conducive to individual liberty. If race is the basis on which your nation-state defines itself as a nation state, then there is no inherent need for the state to coerce you into conformity. You conform with the nation-state by your very existence. You are free to do whatever you like with your life, and it will not change the fact that you will conform to the nation’s definition of itself from the second you were born until the second you die.

If you still want something else, whether that be Americanism or whatever, so be it. Unlike the Left, I do not wish to force you into ideological conformity. You are right that nationalism should be based on ideas. But it is not the nation that hands the idea down to the individual. That would truly constitute a harmful collectivism. Rather, it should be the individual who makes his idea into a nation. As a good, freedom-loving American, I believe every individual has an inalienable right to the nation of his choice. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are a dead letter if the tyranny of the majority can suppress the nationalism of the individual. 

To most ethnonationalists, this all looks very unrealistic at first glance, but think deeper, and outlandish idealism of this kind is the only realistic path. Our “nation” is scattered all across the fruited plain, everywhere a minority, yet all together we are several millions. There is certainly potential for us to grow our numbers, but it is pretty safe to assume that we will always be a minority. Not least because barely more than half the country is even White, and that share is going down all the time.

Let’s say we nationalists, as 15-20% of the population (we are likely not half that, but that is probably about what we need to be for anyone to pay attention to us), identify as a separate nation, and request the right to go our own way. To that end we ask for a viable area of some 3-5% of the country’s territory, home to an even smaller share of the country’s population, for ourselves. And as recompense we announce our willingness to pay the U.S. an x-amount share of our GDP for an x-number of years, as well as pledging to remain in military alliance with them. Most Americans, eventually,will support our cause, provided we are loud and visible enough.

In principle, most people have no moral objection to the notion of an ethnostate. If some number of people want to go and live that way, fine. The only moral problem they have with it is, but how? What about the people already there? It’s all well and good to talk of “raising consciousness,” but public consciousness never becomes public acceptance until we answer this question. Besides, answering the question of how is in effect an aspect of our moral argument ,and thus is of a piece with raising public consciousness.

There really is no good argument against us, other than, “But we hate you, and you deserve nothing.”

What about the people who already live there, and want to stay in America? The other 95+% of America is still there for them. If moving 100 miles down-the-road is too great an inconvenience, then it must not be that important to them after all. You can help them with their moving costs with the money we’re already paying you. What’s really inconvenient is not having your own country at all. What about the non-White population there? Same goes. And if they live inland that would become part of the ethnostate, then the odds are they already live around a bunch of White people anyways. What’s a few more?

Yes, majority support is not the same as elite support. The establishment is unlikely to be moved by the righteousness of our cause. Opposition to our cause is their cause. So we have that going against us. But things can change.

Having majority support is not everything, but it gets the ball rolling, it builds consciousness. If it is the right majority, it becomes difficult to ignore. If we are 15-20%, and 70% in total support our cause, including a large chunk of the organized non-White and far-Leftist base who just want the racists out, meanwhile increasing numbers of the Right are joining with us, then pressure starts to build in our favor.

Combine that with where our politics appear headed over the next decade. The federal government has run-up an enormous deficit over the past year. The Democrats’ base is impatient for even more spending, for an ever wider and deeper social safety net. To those in the beltway, $50-100 billion a year is not worth losing a France-size chunk of territory over, but activists may well see it as leaving money on the table that could go to social programs. Meanwhile, the conservatives have been making their own murmurs about the possibility of a national divorce. No less than Rush himself hedged in that direction recently. Conservative Inc’s first instinct would be to suppress us as hard as they can, but the base is likely to continue entertaining their own ideas of national divorce. Suddenly there’s a lot of moving parts in play, and maybe, eventually, the establishment decides a state for us is their least worst option. They can decapitate red state secessionism, and pacify the proles with some gibs in one move.

Maybe our message never breaks through here, but what about Canada or Australia? Like the US, those countries have run up huge deficits during the pandemic. Unlike the US, their currencies are are not the global reserve currencies. They may be in for some lean economic times. Canada also is planning to increase their already outlandish immigration totals for the coming years. You never know who’s going to rally to your flag until you unfurl it.

If you want to sit around, all coming up with reasons why the elite will never permit us an ethnostate, that’s your affair. Okay, maybe the ethnostate doesn’t have much to offer the establishment. That is all the more reason why we must appeal to the moral sympathies of the people. The morality of our cause is the only card we have to play

“Be realistic. Stop LARPING”
This sounds pie-in-the-sky, but our ideal is already pie-in-the-sky. Embracing that is our most realistic option. “More realistic” people on our side claim the path to our salvation is infiltrating the GOP/conservative movement, or boycotting the electoral process, or attaching White identity to an economic populist program.
Infiltrate the GOP? People have been attempting this for years, and it’s gotten nowhere. Hell, conservatives have been at that game for even longer.
As for boycotting the electoral process, would anyone even notice? If every one of us had sat out the last election, voter turnout still would have been higher than it was in the 90s. Rather than delegitimizing the establishment, lower voter turnout might just as easily be interpreted as a sign of relative social content. And while economic populism may well be useful as a cudgel for bludgeoning the GOP, it is certainly not going to Make America White Again. And if your ultimate aim is a separate ethnostate, then economic populism is a dishonest line. The ethnostate is not going to be in a position to provide a lavish social welfare system. If it’s gibs you’re after, best to stick with Team America.

But whatever the merits of these or any other strategies, they would “put the cart before the horse.” The self-styled realpolitik tacticians of our side who would sneer at my naïveté betray their own misapprehensions of how power works. They fundamentally misunderstand our position. Strategies are for actors, and we are not an actor, we are an ideology.

States, sports teams, chess players; these are actors. They have strategies. They are actors because they already went through the ideological part. They already know who they are. We are not like them. We are a still-forming idea. It is a still-forming idea because, even if we here know who we are, 90% of the members of our would-be nation do not know who we are. Many Whites are ethnonationalists ‘who just don’t know it yet.’ Subliminal entryism is not going to get them there. The first step is to define to our people what we want, and why we should have it. Otherwise there is no “we” in the first place.

Sorry folks, just saw the word count, and I’m long here, but we’ll be back before you know it.
Reposted from Affirmative Right, with permission. Ryan Andrews is the author of the forthcoming book The Elective Nation.

Can Feudalism Save the Western World? Reflections on the De-Centralization of Power

Late Medieval France

It is both surprising and infuriating that many conservatives, libertarians and those on the Right describe today’s political and financial order as “neo-feudalism.”(1)  Surprisingly, because many of these commentators are trained academics(2) who should know better and infuriating, since feudalism and the glorious age which it reigned – the Middle Ages – if rightly understood and not denigrated could provide a paradigm for the reconstruction of the present social order after its inevitable collapse.

Many compare today’s political and economic configurations of vast wealth disparity and totalitarian democratic nation-states whose latest, and probably most egregious, abuse of power has been the lockdowns and compulsory face-mask edicts to combat a supposed deadly virus, with the conditions which existed under feudalism.

This is false.

Feudalism, and for most of the era which it existed, was characterized by political decentralization with little financial concentration of wealth.

Feudalism can be described as an arrangement between lords and monarchs with their underlings – vassals, dukes, earls, princes, counts, marquises, knights – in exchange for services.  “Feudal tenure, whatever its minor adaptations,” writes medieval historian Carl Stephenson, “was essentially military because the original vassalage was a military relationship.”(3)

In return for military service, the vassal would receive a “fief” in the form of land, money, goods, or other benefits.  “[A] fief,” Stephenson describes, “was the special remuneration paid to a vassal for the rendering of a special service.”

The relationship, unlike what modern commentators would have many believe, was not one-sided.  While the vassal swore allegiance to his lord, the latter was obligated to provide his vassal with agreed upon “payment.”  If the lord failed to fulfill his obligation, the vassal was free to break the agreement and find another lord.

The vassal, to receive his due from the lord, had to “faithfully give aid and counsel so that in every way the lord may be safeguarded as to person, rights, and belongings,” while the lord “has a reciprocal duty towards his faithful man.  If either defaults in what he owes the other, he may justly be accused of perfidy.”(4)

The feudal relationship between lords and vassals had immense consequences – mostly positive – for medieval life.  It helped shape the social order which impacted all aspects of society such as law, the political order (such as it was), war-making, and economics.  The arrangement between lord and vassal was not really “political” as in the modern sense; it was more of a “contractual relationship” than that of power.

Lords and vassals and, for that matter, monarchs, did not create law or legislation but were subjected to the (natural) law.  There was no monopolistic justice system, but a number of courts which were for the adjudication of disputes where cases could be appealed to different courts for redress. The myriad of public legislation regulating every aspect of modern man’s life, where most laws are not even read by legislators until they are enacted was, happily, not a feature of the Middle Ages. Law had to be “discovered” and based on custom and tradition in which all sectors of society had to abide by.

The feudal arrangement between lord, monarchs, and their vassals, where all had to live according to the law resulted, throughout the Western world, in a diffusion of power.  Professor Stephenson illustrates how this effected France for centuries:

France, obviously, had ceased to be a state in any proper sense of the word. Rather, it had been split into a number of states whose rulers, no matter how they styled themselves enjoyed the substance of the regal power.(5)

The idea and reality of monarchial absolutism, which characterized the early modern era and which nation states would build upon for their own aggrandizement, was not part of the medieval period.  In many areas, authority was held by dukes, princes and earls not based on political power, but one of trust, loyalty and contract.

The most vilified institution of the Middle Ages was serfdom.  Yet, compared to the present epoch where the working classes are largely indebted, have had their individual liberties curtailed, and many are dependent on the welfare state for their financial survival, could serfdom be worse? Charles Coulombe contrasts

the serf, like laborers everywhere and at all times, had a hard life.  He also could not be forced off the land, worked about 30 days a year for his lord (as opposed to the average American’s 167 for the IRS), and could NOT work on Sundays and the 30-odd Holy Days of obligation and certain other stated times.  One may compare that to any current job description one wants to.(6) …


How are they guaranteed in any case? As Joe Sobran observed, “if voting actually changed anything, it would be illegal.”

The amount of taxation and its legitimacy in a society is ultimately determined by ideology.  And, the ideology of the era frowned on taxation and those that were levied were done so grudgingly.  It was the institutional framework of feudalism which limited taxation to the benefit of the social order.

Private property was considered sacrosanct and the violation of it an egregious offense.  In the medieval world, taxation was a “sequestration of property” which the monarch only had the right to tax when it had “become traditional.”  “The rights to property possessed by every individual member of the community,” according to historian Fritz Kern, “are an absolutely sacred part of the whole absolutely sacred legal order; the criterion of the rights in property of the individual as well as of the State is the good old law.”(7)

Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages: I The Divine Right of Kings and the Right of Resistance in the Early Middle Ages…

While many other passages could be cited, the existence of state power in feudal times is almost the polar opposite of the political situation which exists in the world today. It is inconceivable that the draconian measures taken by governments in response to the pandemic, which has ruined countless lives and allowed monetary authorities the world over to assume unseen power and control, could have never taken place during the Middle Ages. Nor could a system like communism with its oppressive top-down control happen. As noted, the medieval world was a world of de-centralized power.

Instead of naming the current age “neo-feudalism,” it is far better categorized as “neo-Progressive,” a term which describes the era of American history at the beginning of the twentieth century.  The Progressive Era, despite the façade of supposed regulation of Big Business, was really the start of American corporatocracy – a cozy alliance between the State and Big Business to protect the latter, especially the financial sector, from competition.  Each successive generation has seen this alliance become stronger leading to today’s situation of mega bailouts for the 1% at the expense of the middle class.

The learned detractors of feudalism who mischaracterize it are doing a great disservice to those who are seeking solutions to the myriad of social and economic crises which the Western world faces.  The prime lesson that can be gleaned from feudalism is the diffusion of power.  Attempts at reform of the current totalitarian democratic social order or the creation of alternative political parties to challenge the entrenched, corrupt, political order will result in failure.

Instead, all activities, movements, and more importantly, intellectual arguments should be directed toward the break-up of the nation state. Brexit, the recent victories of pro-independence parties in the Catalan elections, and the nascent secession movements in some states, such as Texas – TEXIT – should be encouraged and supported.

Happily, the pages of history provide a paradigm of a decentralized social order which thrived for nearly a millennium.  Instead of bashing it, feudalism should be embraced and its principles incorporated into modern political discourse.

(1) The latest smearing of feudalism can be seen in Charles Hugh Smith, “The Coming Revolt of the Middle Class,” Zero Hedge, 28 January 2021.

(2) As an example, see Paul Craig Roberts, “Are We Brewing a New Feudalism?”  Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy. 16 April 2020.

(3) Carl Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions: Selected Essays, ed. Bryce D. Lyon (Ithaca, NY.: Cornell University Press, 1954, Cornell Paperbacks, 1967), 217.

(4) Carl Stephenson, Mediaeval Feudalism, 4th ed. (Ithaca, N.Y.: Great Seal Books, 1960), 20.

(5) Stephenson, Mediaeval Feudalism, 78.

(6) Charles Coulombe, “”Monarchist FAQ.” Tumblar House.

(7) Fritz Kern, Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages, trans. S.B. Chrimes (New York: Frederick A Praeger Publishers, 1956), 186.

Review of Josh Neal’s American Extremist

American Extremist: The Psychology of Political Extremism
Josh Neal
Imperium Press, 2020.

About a year after Charlottesville, I noticed the emergence of a new breed of young alternative thinkers in our circles. I’m more of a reader than a listener and, because these individuals were overwhelmingly engaged in podcasts and YouTube videos, my familiarity with them and their ideas was only developed gradually. At the inevitable risk of omitting someone of importance, I don’t think I’m terribly mistaken in listing them as including, for the most part, the staff of the Euro Bureau of Literaturo podcast—Tyler Hamilton, Josh Neal, Joel Davis, “Fashy Žižek,” and Jefferson Lee—as well as Keith Woods, and a handful of Twitter personalities and other podcasters roughly in the 25-35 age range.[1] Although each brings their own perspective and expertise to a broad range of subjects, these thinkers share a number of characteristics which make a form of common association logical. One of the most obvious is their departure from prior, more reactionary, perceptions of Marxism, Cultural Marxism, and Americanism. As the “Far Right” has evolved, it has inevitably and eventually come to include a younger generation educated in the jaws of the beast, by which I mean a generation educated long after the “long march” through the institutions had taken place.

This younger generation, which, having representatives from Canada, Australia, Central Europe, and Ireland, is less wholly American in staffing if not in following, is more distant from “Red Scare” politics, yet has also been confronted with some of the most radical social changes in a century. The result is that these figures have arguably developed a very nuanced perspective of our contemporary problems and their origins when compared with what might have been offered previously. Other commonalities include the fact these thinkers emerge predominantly from the fields of philosophy and psychology, often with graduate degrees, and combine a renewed and focused criticism of capitalist neoliberalism with a qualified repurposing of some of the arguments of the Frankfurt School, especially the work of Adorno and, to a lesser extent, Marcuse.

One need not agree in toto with the approach or theoretical grounding of these young thinkers to understand that they are performing very important work. One of the consequences of the alienation of our ideas from practical politics in the Anglosphere is the resort to a war of ideas rather than a practical electoral politics based on immediate material interests (e.g., the direct community engagement of the British National Party at its peak). The rise of the social media “movement,” the podcast scene, and the rise of online “personalities,” sometimes disparagingly termed “e-celebs,” has largely followed in the wake of the death of that politics, and it seems to be a received wisdom that cultural metapolitics is necessary to pave the way back to practical engagement.

Be that as it may, the question remains as to which metapolitical path, or battle, is the surest route to success. Here we have a quandary. It’s in the nature of each person to believe that his particular expertise holds the key to unlocking the puzzle of the age. The historian steps forth with a revision of the received narratives of the past in the belief that it will help bring about an awakening. The philosopher sees instead a philosophical revolution as the means to renewal. The geneticist or the anthropologist dissects the dysgenic fall of man and calls for a eugenic program to reverse decline. The psychiatrist diagnoses the pathologies of the masses in the hopes of lifting the veil and ushering in a transformation. The truth, of course, is that all hands are required on deck, and that all keys are required for a Great Unlocking. In this spirit, so long as certain basic principles remain unviolated, I’ve always been relatively open-minded towards novel approaches to the terrible times in which we happen to live. And the revisiting and repurposing of the work of Adorno, Marcuse, Freud, and Žižek is certainly novel.

If I had any problem with these podcasters at all, it was that they didn’t write enough, because putting opinions systematically to paper, where one’s sources can be scrutinized and one’s logical progression of thought more clearly laid bare, certainly makes such opinions more personal, vulnerable, and accountable. Being something of a Luddite, I also harbor a personal antipathy to what I see as the transience of the podcast as opposed to the permanence of the essay or the book (it being much easier in my view to turn to a page for a quote than to click through a succession of time-stamps).

It was a great personal pleasure, then, to see Josh Neal emerge late last year as the first of his emergent cohort to systematically set down a worldview in book form. In fact, in American Extremist, Neal offers one of the most interesting, thoughtful, and challenging (in several respects) works I’ve read in about a decade. This is a sizeable text, coming in at just under 300 densely-packed pages, divided into four “books,” all of which are aimed at reshaping our understanding about how political extremism begins, and what it really is.

Yet, in my reading of this exceptionally written text, it was also much more than that. First, although it is painstakingly objective throughout, this is an intensely personal work and, intentionally or not, it bears the stamp of Josh Neal’s personal journey throughout. This isn’t a bad thing, and it adds considerably to its significance and gravitas in my opinion. Second, American Extremist is one of the most, if not the single most, thorough elucidations of the nature of contemporary society that I’ve ever read. Such was the startling clarity of some of Neal’s dissections that at times I felt as though I wasn’t so much reading the book as being beaten about the head with it. Third, the book is a timely call for self-reflection on the part of all of us who, having spent so much time working against our opponents, should take care not to sacrifice who we are in the process. This is therefore a work of profound political conscience.


The book opens appropriately with an introduction titled “From There to Here,” in which Neal outlines his journey into thought criminality. I think I first saw Josh sometime in 2018, when he recorded an episode of the McSpencer Group with Richard Spencer. He was very well-spoken, authoritative, and seemed a natural in front of the camera. Although some of the media scaremongering around Richard has now dissipated somewhat, especially in the discovery of new bogeymen following the Capital “invasion,” I remember thinking it was very brave for someone who appeared to be a successful young scholar to publicly show his face in a podcast with a figure then regarded as Public Enemy Number 1. In the introduction to American Extremist, we find out just how Neal came to be in this position. A psychology graduate with ambitions to become a licensed clinical psychologist, he spent the period 2015/2016 knee-deep in doctoral applications but also reconsidering his life path and the world around him. Academic psychology was dominated by “academics of a certain persuasion,” and as Neal began to re-evaluate what he understood about the world, “I couldn’t shake the nagging feeling that there would be significant compatibility issues. I wanted to practice my craft, but the cost seemed too high. Cautiously, I began searching for potential off-ramps to liberate me from the highway of stagnation and conformity I saw unfolding before me.”

The Trump campaign, and more specifically the response of Neal’s colleagues to it, accelerated his journey into the kind of wrong-think that places a man in professional jeopardy. But Neal’s journey had begun a little earlier, precipitated by, among other things, the removal of Muammar Gaddafi, the Trayvon Martin affair, the shooting of Michael Brown and subsequent assassination of five Dallas law officers by Micah Xavier Johnson, the migrant crisis in Europe, and the rash of domestic terror attacks in California, Florida, and New York during the second term of the Obama administration. Faced with a challenging political and cultural climate, Neal and a friend entered the world of podcasting. He abandoned most of his earlier media consumption habits, and sought out new perspectives—a journey that would eventually lead him to content produced by the then “Alt-Right.” In relation to his growing distance from his older worldview, his transformation was quite sudden. In Neal’s words, “the depth of my ignorance was dispelled in spectacular fashion. … I was introduced to alternative ways of thinking, texts I never knew existed, and whole ideological movements I was utterly and completely unaware of.” Together with this was another realization:

Intellectual journeys are often more perilous than the kind your average adrenaline junkie might pursue. People won’t disown you for scaling a mountain, but perhaps they will should they catch you reading the wrong book.

Undeterred, Neal pushed ahead with his own broadcast, hoping to make a contribution through his interests in psychology, philosophy, and art. He began an interview series, during which he recorded conversations with figures like Kevin MacDonald, and found it thrilling to work with genuinely heterodox intellectuals as opposed to the kind of fake rebels offered up by the mass media. Neal was soon enjoying a viewership in the tens of thousands, and eventually entered into a broadcasting partnership with Richard Spencer—the McSpencer Group. Although I am unfamiliar with the precise details of what next occurred—and they are only really hinted at in the book—I think Neal was then caught in the crossfire of lingering hostility from some factions of the American movement over Charlottesville. Neal explains that his new broadcast association with Spencer was “not exclusively” the cause of a subsequent clash with “the wrong kinds of people,” but that it was a significant element in it. In any case, it was disgruntled members of the American movement, and not Leftists, journalists, or Antifa, who started the ball rolling in terms of revealing the full details about Neal’s life—a doxxing in other words. What followed was the predictable sequence of media hit-pieces, and Leftist activism designed to ruin Neal’s employment and career prospects and his life in general.

I’ve related this section of the book at length for a number of reasons, the most important being that I think the episode was crucial not only to the production of the book, but to its approach as well. Neal’s entry into our circles was nothing less than a rollercoaster, involving first a sequence of revelations about issues from the Left, followed by a stunning dropping of the veil in relation to some on “our own side.” In Neal’s words,

Just because you think you share beliefs with someone doesn’t mean that you actually do. The alt-right was (and to some degree remains) the place to find some of the most courageous, intelligent, and talented people you’ll ever meet—but it is also a den of thieves and scoundrels. Foolishly, I had gotten into bed with a bunch of snakes and paid the price for it. A tiny but vocal group had gathered all of the information they could find, and hand delivered it to their supposed mortal enemies—antifascist activists and their sympathetic friends working as journalists.

In the aftermath, Newsweek and the New York Post both attempted hit-pieces on Neal, while his Graduate School professors declared that his political affiliations suggested he had succumbed to a “dangerous insanity.” Meanwhile, in the midst of allegations of his own extremism, and confronted with escalations of extreme and often irrational behavior from both the Left and Right, Neal was presented with an important question: What is extremism, and where does it really come from?

In American Extremist, Neal attempts to answer this question while taking clinical aim at extremists of both the Left and Right. The central thesis of the book is that extremism is built into American neoliberalism, and that it is essentially an inescapable top-down phenomenon that draws almost all citizens into its vortex in one fashion or another. While one can take the Left path or the Right, the result in most cases is a suffocating inertia interrupted occasionally only when certain alienated or disturbed individuals spiral off into chaotic and nihilistic violence. While “extremism” has become a talking point, as a societal problem it has become unsolvable thanks to the failure of psychology to even approach the issue objectively. Neal argues that, beginning with Freud, psychology has dedicated itself only to the “erasure of limits, an aggrandizement of the self, and the overthrow of authority and ritual. Eager to depose the Gods of old, deicide became an end in and of itself.” In the postwar period, psychology became a “scientific attack dog” which “legitimized the sociopolitical developments that weakened the family, weakened the community, and weakened the country.” The Frankfurt School and its links to the OSS (an early incarnation of the CIA) prefigured an intensifying relationship between the State and the University, with the result that experiments in depersonalization techniques, and attempts at mind control, paved the way for later co-operation in the development of advanced interrogation techniques following 9/11. Since academic mainstream academic psychology is thoroughly entrenched in the neoliberal system that incentivizes and directs it, a radical redefinition of extremism can only come from outside the paradigm. This is the fundamental goal of American Extremist.

Systemic Alienation

The first “book” of American Extremist is an attempt to explain the ways in which extremism is created and perpetuated by neoliberal elites. Decades of propaganda have steadily eroded mental and cultural links to the past, with devastating consequences. Neal points out that “if a people can be ripped from their inherited narratives, or merely have their narratives re-written in a way that is disempowering, then they necessarily become psychologically vulnerable to the slings and arrows of malevolent storytellers and cognitive colonizers.” What we see today, in average citizens, are “victims of this mythological theft” becoming “alienated from their own identities, thus producing a kind of false consciousness and the development of an othered self-concept.” In attempting to locate the fons et origo of extremism, we would be mistaken to look among individual people alienated from themselves and should instead place the responsibility on “those members of society who possess the power to influence entire civilizations,” and who have greatly benefited from the fact “the subversion of religious, national, and ethnic mythos grants a tremendous capacity for political and social control.”

As an example of myth-robbing subversion, Neal points to Donna Zuckerberg’s Not All Dead White Men (2008), a text dedicated to “de-fanging classic texts (such as those of the Stoics) who, in her view, served as a legitimating force that aided far-right misogyny.” Other subversive figures pointed to by Neal include Hugh William Montefiore, a British Jewish convert to Anglicanism, and later Bishop of Birmingham, whose primary “contribution” to Christianity appears to have been his claim that Jesus Christ was a homosexual. With millions of dedicated and motivated activists chipping away at collective memory like this, a quiet revolution has taken place. Neal stresses that,

The revised slavery mythos sets Black Americans in the role of ‘true’ Americans and Whites in the role of oppressive coattail riders. The narcissism of modern sexual identity allows religious figures to be desacralised and reconfigured as counter-culture heroes for sexual minorities. Novel psychological and sociological paradigms are cast retroactively upon classic texts, thus removing their genius and necessitating their decontextualisation so as to accord with contemporary sensibilities. In all such cases only one group truly benefits: the powerful.

In the widespread absence of the development of secure identity, resentment has become the prevailing feeling of our time and a general atmosphere of falsehood is rampant. Although we’ve heard a lot about “fake news” over the last four years, Neal points out that false collective fictions have long been rampant in American society thanks to the malicious activity of the mass media. Neal uses the cases of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown to demonstrate the way in which the press is far from “free and independent” in relation to neoliberal hegemony. Media misrepresentation of these cases, and later that of George Floyd, led to nationwide riots, racial strife, and the deaths or protestors and police officers alike. In other words, press action was extremist, and in turn led to extremism. The book then offers a remarkable and damning psychological profile of the average journalist, revealed to be overwhelmingly left-wing with “a high need for power, sensation seeking, and binge drinking.” As the foot soldiers for neoliberal ideology, journalists and other media figures saturate the general population with a malevolent framing of reality that excludes real dissent, with the result that America has witnessed instead a “total convergence between leftism (neoliberalism) and rightism (neoconservatism)—two ideologies birthed by the same mother, differentiated only by aesthetic and temperamental particularities.” Neal continues,

Points of disagreement between the two ideologies rarely scratch the surface of political discourse, instead opting to pedantically bicker over matters both optical and practical, thus limiting the scope of what can possibly be achieved. The theatrical nature of their dispute gives the impression of opposition, whereas on matters of political significance the two invariably march in lockstep.

Journalists keep this theatre in motion because they are “easily controlled people; their hunger for power makes them ideal minions.” The left-journalist is notable for his/her “arrogance and gluttony, narcissism and pedantry,” as well as their habit of being “passive-aggressively confrontational, and possessing a uniquely religious quality of pettiness and vengeance-seeking.” Journalists are often of the “lowest quality and character,” and represent biological types as well as certain perspectives. Neal remarks that, “while their employment does not offer them much in the way of meaningful compensation, they out-earn others when it comes to catharsis, self-righteousness, and visibility.” Equally important, however, is Neal’s assertion that mainstream right-wing journalism is equally sociopathic, and both hysterical and self-serving, with only the object of hystericism differing in each case. Neal explains that “both the American right and left believe they hold a monopoly on truth and moral self-righteousness.” Locked in powerlessness, the media of the Right has descended into “neurotic escapism and counter-narrative creation.”

All media, of course, is essentially monopolized. Neal points to the fact “most of the media any American will ever consume, be it digital, print, or otherwise, is effectively owned by six corporations.” Press centralization means genuine dissent can be dealt with very efficiently either by directly attacking ideas or groups dangerous to the status quo or by maintaining a policy of silence in order to starve these ideas or groups of social oxygen. The media monopoly, in both its mainstream Left and Right arms, is united against genuine opposition, as well as a series of other presuppositions. Neal argues that the idea that progressive neoliberalism and reactionary neoconservatism are wholly distinct and antagonistic is a myth.

Both are system ideologies with a great deal of epistemic agreement, and as such uniformly share the same goals though they may achieve them through different methods. Axiomatically, both accept the primacy of the individual and share the belief that he can be improved or realised through the application of economic techniques. Both tend to view contemporary moral debates in terms of America’s history with slavery and its participation in the Second World War. Both accept a linear, progressive view of history (that is to say, humanity always moves forward, improving along the way). Neither side fundamentally takes issue with America’s imperial practices, especially if the military is used as a force for “spreading democracy.”

The American Ideology

Perhaps most important of all is the fact both Left and Right insist that Americanism itself “is not bound in anything real, but rather is simply a result of the choice to live in America.” Because of this deeply problematic, but ubiquitous, understanding of what it means to be American, we are forced into the realization that “the problem of political extremism is to understand that the problem is America.” Here I was reminded strongly of Sam Dickson’s remarkable NPI 2013 speech on “America: The God That Failed.” When I mentioned this speech to Dickson several years ago, he told me that he had been criticized for it at the time. Now, however, it seems prophetic, at least in the sense that a growing segment of the younger American, and indeed international, movement is rejecting what it perceives as an American imperialism and internationalism that enriches elites and individualistic traitors while destroying the ethnic and cultural fabric of the nation. In fact, Neal, echoing Dickson, insists that “the country can only be regarded as a dismal failure.” One can only add that any nation that reduces its self-concept to merely “a choice to live in ‘X’” is a failure, and this goes for every country in the Anglosphere, and, increasingly, most of the nations of Europe, that have redefined themselves in the image of the ideology of Americanism.

Beginning with a discussion of the myth of democracy, Neal then moves to a discussion of American mental paralysis. Although much ink has been spilled on authoritarianism and anti-authoritarianism, Neal argues that most Americans in fact “struggle to find an actionable equilibrium between the two positions.” Rather than being clearly Fascist-leaning, or anti-Fascist, Americans endlessly fumble in the middle, as demonstrated by the Right’s screeching about fascist overreach under Obama, and the Left’s identical refrain under Trump. Neal asks, “What does this tell us? Are Americans hopelessly confused? Is every political actor a fascist or a fascist-in-democratic clothing? I believe that we can confidently say yes to the former, but no to the latter.” Americans are hopelessly confused because of the way in which democracy obscures the true nature of authority. The result of this confusion is a fear of all authority, as well as a breakdown in authority itself and of its accountability. Neal mentions that,

Parents fail to exercise the rightful authority over their children; teachers do not discipline their students; hedge fund managers, investment firms, and executive boards routinely engage in unethical and illegal conduct but frequently go unpunished; and to the degree that Americans engage in the political process, we find that they support the same policies and the same actors time and time again.

A fundamental feature of American society is that of disunity. “Supposedly unified by our shared American values, our freedoms, and our love of democracy (though not in actuality), the line between friend and enemy grows murkier with each passing year.” Americans are now united only by an increased feeling of unease and uncertainty. Everywhere Americans look they see failures of authority, “thus producing a conceptual collapse whereby failures of authority anywhere become failures of authority everywhere. Without anyone to show us how to act, we struggle to devise constructive courses of action for ourselves. Absent a rightful authority, agency and ethical conduct collapses.” Neal thus implies that the remedy to our current situation is not less authority, but an increase in ‘rightful’ authority. He contrasts this with the inertia of conservatism, stressing that authority is “a wilful and vital stance which seeks assertion, dominance, security—yes—but more importantly a securing of desire, or some thing, be it an object or a goal.” Locked in a holding pattern in which he/she perpetually loses, the conservative is little more than a right-liberal.

Another myth attacked by Neal is that of the individual. Neal insists that extreme individualism is indistinguishable from sociopathy. A key problem of our time is that extreme individualism is now systemic, encouraging endless “narcissistic line-pushing,” and endlessly shaping individuals in this image:

America’s culture of transaction and domination, of immediacy and short-sightedness, of ruthless pragmatism, could produce little else in its population. The speed with which recently migrated peoples conform to this system surely indicates the verity of this fact.

A society filled with individualistic sociopaths will inevitably reproduce both extremists and novel forms of extremism. Combined with alienation from one’s identity, what emerges is a kind of oikophobia, a fear of one’s own house, or the commonplace items one might find inside it, now transposed to the cultural sphere, where the oikophobic individualistic sociopath develops a disdain for all that is familiar in his homeland and home life. From this emerges a fashionable disdain for rural or “hometown” America, for one’s ethnic group, and even for oneself. Such, argues Neal, is the one of the major problems of our time.

What is Extremism? Who is an Extremist?

The first hurdle faced when dealing with extremism is the issue of definition. Our conception of extremism is, for the most part, set in stone by organizations like the ADL and the SPLC who use it as shorthand for White, rightwing dissent from the multicultural neoliberal status quo. This tunnel vision isn’t just an issue of partisanship, but of wholly malicious intent, as evidenced in the documentary Alt-Right: Age of Rage when a chart illustrating White demographic decline was captured ‘in shot’ during an interview with the SPLC’s Mark Potok. Of the SPLC and the ADL Neal remarks:

We may say it is a metaphysical principle of certainty that whenever an individual or group undertakes a world-transformative mission of moral excellence that their true intention probably has more to do with the opposite of goodness and nobility. This is particularly true when that mission is aided by State and Capital.[2]

The mission of the ADL and the SPLC has been boosted in recent years by increasing cooperation from the press, with Neal noting that “the language of the top press outlets radically shifted in favour of extreme intersectional neoliberal ideology.” Thus, while the mantra is that White nationalist extremism is on the rise, “one can only conclude that, institutionally, the ideology of the intersectional left rose to prominence, not White supremacy. Ideological White supremacists, nationalists, immigration skeptics, racists, and patriots (who are all regarded as indistinguishable from one another and thus equally evil) hold no sway in the media, the government, and are hard pressed to locally organize.” Neal argues that the real nature of extremism takes the form of a “high and low versus the middle” pincer strategy, in which elites cooperate with the lowest (rank and file anarchists, antifa, etc.) in order to mobilize against the middle (working classes and members of the recently dubbed precariat). The result is that the pincer “squeezes the center out of political existence,” thus breeding extremism systemically. But the only definition of extremism elites are happy with is one that condemns “critics of global finance, open borders, multiculturalism, radical individuality (feminism, identity politics, etc.), scientism, institutionalised arts and media, and the sexual revolution.” Whether individuals  protest against these things with a laptop, or with a semi-automatic rifle, is ultimately of no consequence to elites, who insist that “lawful and peaceable radicals are no different from the violent school shooter, the rioter, the unhinged lunatic—they are extremists one and all.”

Neal, on the other hand, asks why definitions of societal harm, and extremism, are not much broader. He insists that

The university professor who betrays his role as shepherd of his academic flock, the journalist who uses his platform to spread maladaptive ideas or destroy the lives of those he views as contemptible, the media personality who engages in dishonest and destructive speculation and reckless cheerleading, the tech guru who indulges in post-human fantasies, the capitalist who sacrifices his workers’ livelihood for greater earnings, the physician who trades his role as healer for that of political activist—they are all, no more and no less, every bit the extremist that the school shooter and the online anti-fascist/racist are. … Pathological and antisocial extremism from on high breathes life into the lungs of those down below. Their relationship is symbiotic.

The ubiquity of the “high-low” definition of extremism is, however, severely limiting to the average individual, who invariably fears social ostracism. The self-policing of thoughts is therefore rampant. Neal remarks that “average people do not fear being wrong, or philosophically and intellectually inconsistent. The average person fears social censure; he fears a disruption of employment. He fears, deeply fears, an inability to find romance and friendship.”

How A Society Becomes Extreme

Again, Neal’s fundamental premise is that extremism is “a top-down phenomenon, originating among the powerful and then floating downstream through the various institutions of power and influence.” Like all revolutions, the advent of neoliberal extremism has not occurred “without the patronage of the upper classes.” Neal borrows from the work of Polish psychiatrist Andrzej Łobaczewski (1921–2008) to argue that our elites are staffed predominantly by characteropaths, individuals who, through biological condition or genetic predisposition, are given to a psychological disposition to evil. Beneath the elites are pathocrats—maladapts and political actors given to the psychology of evil who are also skilled in the infiltration of institutions. Since characteropaths cannot thrive under normal conditions, they “must destroy what is good and healthy in order to live.” The foot soldiers of both groups are schizoids; a lumpen population of the hypersensitive, the distrustful, and the eccentric. Also of assistance in this scheme are skirtoids (the uncritical, the egotistical, and those drawn to the primitive), and “jackals”—violent mercenaries. Neal illustrates these categories with some interesting examples, most notably that of legal scholar Cass Sunstein, who is presented as a quintessential pathocrat skilled in subversion and the manipulation of language. Neal points to the manner in which Sunstein, a “spellbinder,” “has a long-standing preoccupation with the control of information flow and human behavior. … [He] seeks to nudge people away from their deeply evolved instincts toward attitudes that favor the governing classes.”

Spellbinders like Sunstein, who “cannot function in a healthy society, and feel wronged by it,” help suspend cognition in the masses through changes in the meaning of terms like ‘racism’, ‘anti-Semitism’, etc. Since many reactions to the decline of society and civilization (disgust, anger, etc.) are based in evolved and natural responses to negative stimuli, changes in language and the interruption of cognition results in the fact that “a whole range of emotional responses (disgust, confusion, ambivalence, reticence, self-preservation etc.) are no longer legitimated for anyone outside of the spellbinding class.” In fact, through speech laws and other legislation this narrowing is enshrined in law. The project of delegitimizing identity is thus so total that it acts as a catalyst to extremism among those deprived of natural emotional responses.

In some pathological responses, the result is, of course, an inversion of the suffocated emotions, and Neal remarks that “it is possible to critique oneself out of existence”—something that is clearly ongoing throughout the West. There is a very real incentive, therefore, for hostile elites and spellbinders to continue with the status quo. Neal points out that

once the central pillars of the individuation process are toppled, we are all but helpless to make up the difference, particularly when they are replaced with toxic simulacra—psychological facsimiles—that are transient and wholly inferior to the real thing. We become ripe for exploitation.

White left-liberals are described by Neal as some of the most prominent victims of elite extremism, since, through concept creep, they have come to regard most of their own heritage as either non-existent or uniquely evil. As explained in American Extremist, these individuals, for a range of reasons, are capable of great “sensitivity towards injustice directed towards others but not the self.” Many, of course, also become ambitious for advancement within the status quo, and are only all too aware of the price for admission—one they are in many cases quite willing to pay:

Without the ability to creatively construct his identity, to conceptualise his experience in terms that he uniquely understands for himself, contextualised by his community, man becomes something easily molded and controlled. Modern American identities are passively accepted by the transformed consumer classes; developed by academic spellbinders and reified by figures of cultural influence, so chosen not because they actually represent anything of significance or because they are trusted members of some community, but rather precisely because they are willing to compromise themselves—to purge their consciousness and accept another in its place—is what earns them the role of high priest or priestess of the American empire.

In the second book of American Extremist, Neal profiles the psychology of extremists of both the left and right while maintaining the basic principle that “the extremist is a cultural creation through and through.” The section begins with a thorough denunciation of centrists and fence-sitters who view themselves as somehow apart from the poles of the system. For Neal, the static centrist is characterized by a numbing inertia that renders one particularly vulnerable to the nudges of the pathocrats. In short, the centrist believes he’s standing still while the changing of definitions all around him means he is in fact a pawn constantly moving in a direction dictated by the spellbinders. “Time and again, he cedes territory because of his habit of narcissistic ignorance and apathy.” From here, Neal moves to a discussion of the antisocial extremist of the left (AEL) and of the right (AER). Neal borrows somewhat heavily from psychoanalysis in this section and, depending on their opinion and knowledge of that subject, readers may or may not enjoy this style of profiling, heavy as it is in references to the ego, the id, and, in one case, even to the retention of feces. Freud is employed with qualifications, but again, I think some readers will find this approach difficult. For my own part, the use of this approach caused some hesitancy, but wasn’t so overbearing that I became dismissive. I was also aware of the fact that I’m simply not well-read enough in psychoanalysis to be able to offer a meaningful critique of this kind of discourse. My really rather limited reading is skewed overwhelming to the writings of Jung, and I haven’t read more than a couple of essays by Freud. I nevertheless found the section very interesting, with much that I couldn’t help but agree with. Neal’s description of the left extremist as psychologically underdeveloped and addicted to politics as part of a deranged pursuit of pathological pleasure certainly has a ring of truth.

The Internet

Book III, “The Digital Demiurge,” was one of my favorite sections of the volume, and offers some piercing insight into the way in which the internet, and social media in particular, has accelerated extremism. Being an instinctive Luddite, I’ve long regarded social media as an unmitigated disaster, and have several times in the past advised people to remove themselves altogether from the most data-intensive platforms. The internet has swamped us with information, with the result that we know more but act less. At the same time, the dynamic of Internet news media is such that sensationalism is a built-in and inescapable feature. For Neal, “the techno-informational age has made hermits of us all.” We buy online, we date online, and more and more of our social and political life is taking place exclusively online. The result is a proliferation of online lives that allow, to an increasing extent, ordinary people (especially those opposed to the system) to be targeted as if they were responsible for all the ills of the world. One need only look at the glee that accompanied attempts to dox attendees at the torch-lit rally the night before Unite the Right in Charlottesville. As Neal puts it, “the will to transgress is being directed at people with no influence whatsoever. … More and more, the average person is invited to participate in this new social ritual—to vilify, degrade, and shame the apostate of neoliberalism.” Neal continues:

The prevailing psychologies of our time (hopelessness and loss, moral self-righteousness, narcissism, and rage) combined with free and easy access to total strangers creates the perfect storm of opportunity for irrational (and consequence-free) retaliation. The retaliatory object is symbolic, for it is almost never the case that the transgressor was personally slighted by them. Rather they are the image of the oppressor.

Social media in particular has resulted only in the formation of herd mentalities, and has “permitted the control of global crowd consciousness in a way that has never before been achieved in human history.” Neal adds:

Corporate control of these social media platforms simultaneously allows for the cordoning off of wrong think, which keeps the larger crowd docile and removed, while also permitting wrong thinkers and their ideologies to fester in isolation, thus more susceptible to self-cannibalisation and irrelevance.

Neal spends a fascinating few pages on the nature of censorship that I found extremely enlightening, not least his characterization of it as an “evolving technique of removal,” and as a survival technique developed and implemented in a sick society by “the disease-makers.”

Solving the Problem

The final book of American Extremist is devoted to discussions around solving the problem of extremism. The section opens with a very good critique of false, but heavily publicized, “attempts” to address the issue, with special emphasis on Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility. Having reviewed White Fragility myself, I agree with much that Neal has to say on the subject, especially his discussion of DiAngelo’s “malicious” use of language to describe Whites and the “curiosity of an ethnically Italian-Jewish woman championing the cause of Blackness.”[3] Neal situates DiAngelo’s work, and her style of Capital-sponsored “Whiteness education” as falling into the same category as “corporate gym memberships, sports leagues, psychological services, and hot yoga classes,” since “anti-racism training promises to make the workplace a better environment for everyone. In the mind of the neoliberal, raising political consciousness has the same holistic value as any diet or fitness regimen.” DiAngelo claims to be fighting against the overwhelming strength of Whiteness, but, Neal asks, if this is the case then we must ask how she got her book published, and how she can command speaking fees in the tens of thousands of dollars. Her message is promoted in every company, school, and university. The answer, remarks Neal, is that extremism, or elite-created perceptions of it, is profitable. There will therefore be no genuine attempts to resolve it from within the system.

Neal then turns to his own proposals for a genuine transformation of society, and these involve attacking extremism at its root. He first suggests an attack on the pathocratic vision of the future. He then stresses that Man must be provided something meaningful from within to steer him from despair. The entire moral framework of the elites must be rejected. A more philosophical mode of thinking should be introduced to the minds of troubled individuals. There should be a concerted effort to promote the building of faith, family, love, and honor. Finally, Neal calls for free and uncomplicated speech.

Final Remarks

Josh Neal’s American Extremist is a vast, wide-ranging, nuanced, and incredibly thoughtful treatise on the decline of American society and the rise of political extremism. The book is a product of a tremendous amount of study and effort, and it will require a similar level of study and effort from the reader if the fullest extent of its wisdom is to be extracted. It’s a book to be read and re-read, and I believe that, since we unfortunately may be shackled to neoliberalism and its ideological poisons for some time, it will continue to be of the utmost relevance. Its author is to be congratulated and thanked in equal measure.

[1] Eric Striker and the TRS team share some of the thinking of this group, but have a longer history of movement prominence, and differ enough in approach, to be considered distinct from this new grouping.

[2] One is also reminded of that famous line from Bukowski that “the best at hate are those who preach love, and the best at war finally are those who preach peace.”

[3] I myself was unable to confirm that DiAngelo had a Jewish ethnic background.