Featured Articles

Talking Symbollox: How the Most Important Divide in Politics Isn’t between Left and Right

/4 Comments/in /by

Homo symbolicus. I like that term. I like it a lot. Yes, not Homo sapiens, “Knowing Man,” but Homo symbolicus, “Symbolic Man.” That was a concise and clever suggestion by the Jewish philosopher Ernst Cassirer (1874–1945). We humans shouldn’t classify ourselves as sapients, but as symbolizers. After all, without symbols we lose sapience and sink to the level of animals, like the feral children whose fascinating but tragic stories dot the annals of four continents. Those children were deprived of humanity’s three greatest possessions, which are rightly named as gifts of the gods in many mythologies. What are those possessions? They’re three awe-inspiring systems of symbols. The first lifted us above the animals, the second lifted us above savagery, and the third landed us on the Moon.

Words vs World

I’m talking about language, writing and mathematics, which in Egyptian myth were all the gifts of ibis-headed Thoth. Language made us human; mathematics made us superhuman. With math, mankind has been able to conquer infinity and probe the stars.[1] All the same, language was the matrix of mathematics, the womb where it grew to fullness. However, language has been the womb of other and ugly things. Indeed, of evil things. Like mathematics, language should be a tool for those who want to describe and understand reality. Too often it has become a traitor and tyrant instead, a tool for those who want to obscure and control reality. The great divide in politics is not truly between left and right, because one can be culturally right-wing and economically left-wing. The Nazis were nationalist socialists, after all. No, the great divide in politics is between phantasists and realists. “Phantasist” is my appropriately pretentious term for those who believe that “Words > World,” that words can and should govern reality. Realists are those who believe that “World > Words,” that reality must govern words.

Barack Obama: Master of Symbollox

Ultimately, reality will govern words, whether phantasists like it or not. But in the meantime, phantasists can do a great deal of evil and spin many webs of deceit. They do this by using what I’d call not symbols, but symbollox. Symbols accurately reflect reality; symbollox distort and deny reality. That’s why the neologism incorporates the British slang “bollocks,” which means both testicles and nonsense. If truth-telling symbols reign supreme in mathematics, then truth-trashing symbollox reign supreme in politics. Symbols and words are, after all, very powerful things, able to influence our minds in both good and bad ways. For examples of the  bad way, take the two big parties that have dominated British politics for decades. They’re called the Labour Party and the Conservative Party. But those names are lies and have been for decades. The Labour party despises and demonizes the White working-class whom it was founded to defend. The Conservative party believes in destroying true White Britain, not in conserving it. But the names of these parties are still casting their verbal spells. The White working-class continued to vote “Labour” long after they should have realized the toxic truth about the way it hated and wanted to harm them.

Mutato nomine, carmen solvitur[2]

But one simple thing could have lifted the verbal spell and made the White working-class understand the real nature of their long-favored party. All it would have taken was for Labour to speak the truth and change its name from “The Labour Party” to “The Lawyer Party.” That would have lifted the spell from millions of deluded White voters, telling them that their supposed champions weren’t loyal labourites but lying lawyers.[3] And the new-named party could have reinforced the truth by ceasing to sing “The Red Flag” at its conferences and adopting a new anthem, something that accurately reflected who and what it now stood for. Yes, not the “The Red Flag” but “The Rape Gang.”

The fake Conservative Party and the genuine Mud-Flood

As for the Conservatives: if they had been truthful, they would have re-named themselves the Con-Trick Party. And that would have lifted the verbal spell from their White supporters. Nothing else would have needed to change, just the name. But the new-named party could have reinforced the truth by ceasing to sing “Rule Britannia” and belting out “Grovel, Goyim” instead. And what if Britain’s long-reigning and much-loved monarch Elizabeth II had decided to speak the truth too? Then she would have stopped calling herself “The Queen” and called herself “The Judas-Goat” instead. That’s the term used for the apparently friendly goat that leads trusting sheep into the slaughterhouse. Elizabeth the Evil played the role of Judas-Goat for half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first. She was a fake symbol of continuity and calm as her White subjects were led towards the slaughterhouse. Her eldest son plays the role of Judas-Goat now, which is why — if he were truthful — he would stop calling himself “Charles III” and call himself “Chuck the Cuck” instead.

An acclaimed Black poet

But Chuck the Cuck isn’t truthful, of course. He believes in symbollox, not in symbols. The current female Archbishop of Canterbury believes in symbollox too, which is why she doesn’t re-name herself the Arch-Invertebrate of Contemptible. And it’s why she doesn’t proclaim that she heads the Church of Immivaders, not the Church of England.

The name “England” is another example of something that was once a true symbol and has now become toxic symbollox. Again, the symbollox is casting a verbal spell over millions of Whites. Just look at the soccer World Cup, where a team rightly called Norway is due (as I write) to play a team wrongly called “England.” One name is truly symbolic, the other is trashily symbollox. “Norway” is truly symbolic, because the name of the team accurately reflects the true White Norwegians who compose the team. “England” is trashily symbollox, because the name of the team doesn’t accurately reflect the non-English Blacks and mulattos who compose the team. Or decompose it, more like. To accurately reflect those non-Whites, the team should be re-named “Inglan” and should sing not “God Save the King” before games but a rap version of “Inglan is a Bitch.” If you’re not familiar with that powerful poem by the acclaimed Black poet Linton Kwesi Johnson, here are its vibrant verses:

Inglan is a Bitch

W’en mi jus’ come to Landan toun
Mi use to work pan di andahgroun
But workin’ pan di andahgroun
Yu don’t get fi know your way around.

Inglan is a bitch
Dere’s no escapin it
Inglan is a bitch
Dere’s no runnin’ whey fram it.

Mi get a lickle jab in a bih ‘otell
An’ awftah a while, mi woz doin’ quite well
Dem staat mi aaf as a dish-washah
But w’en mi tek a stack, mi noh tun clack-watchah.

Inglan is a bitch
Dere’s no escapin it
Inglan is a bitch
No baddah try fi hide fram it. (“Inglan is a Bitch”)

It was for such poetry that Linton Kwesi Johnson was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 2013. Britain’s chief Royal, the Judas-Goat Elizabeth the Evil, made no objection. But Johnson isn’t an ornament of British literature, he’s an ornament of brutish illiterature. He’s a poetaster, not a poet — a parody, not the real thing. But his egregious “Inglan is a Bitch” could still do great good for the only true English if it were, as I’ve suggested, adopted as the anthem sung by a soccer-team newly re-named “Inglan.” The only true English are, of course, the White ones. Johnson’s vibrant verse would serve them by lifting the verbal spell that keeps them supporting the non-White farrago that masquerades as “England.” Most of the current team are not English and never could be, because most of the team are non-White. The team is no longer symbolic of England, but symbollox of England. That’s why it should be re-named and adopt a new anthem.

True symbol and trashy symbollox: White Norway’s Erling Haaland and Black Inglan’s Jude Bellingham

If it did so, the truly English soccer-fans — the White ones — would understand what’s already obvious: that they should support Norway, not the team that masquerades as “England.” Genetically and culturally, the current Norway team is very close to what a genuine England team would be. The two teams should be blood-brothers, two nearby twigs on the great tree of White Europe. But Norway and “England” are no longer blood-brothers, because the “England” team is full of Blacks and mulattos. That’s why both the Lawyer Party and the Con-Trick Party would be united in delight if da Inglan team won the World Cup. An Inglan win would be excellent propaganda for those who support the Brave New Britain of rape-gangs, suicide-bombers and acid-throwers. Nigel Farage of Reform would celebrate an Inglan win too, because he and his party are not the enemies of the Lawyer Party and the Con-Trick Party that they pretend to be. That’s why Reform should tell the truth and rectify its name too. I suggest “The Repeat Party” and the slogan “Vote Repeat for More Mud-Flood.”

The Bestial of British

But I don’t think Inglan will win the World Cup. And I hope Norway confirm that by beating Inglan in the upcoming game. A Norway win would be highly symbolic. An Inglan win would be horrendously symbollox. It would aid the cause of those who believe in the Bestial of British, not in the Best of British. The Bestial of British means Black savagery; the Best of British means White civilization. But the true White British would be much better off if they were more bestial in at least one way. Beasts that lack symbols can be much harder to fool than humans that love symbols.

Animalia asymbolica > Homo symbolicus: this lichen-mimicking Madagascan gecko has to pretend much better than Inglan soccer-players do

A stick insect can’t fool a hungry bird by saying: “I’m a stick.” No, it has to look like a stick and stay still like a stick. A bee orchid can’t fool a male bee by saying: “I’m a bee-babe.” No, it has to look and smell like a bee-babe, a potential mate.[4] But human political parties can fool h

uman voters by saying “We’re Labour” or “We’re Conservative.” And Black soccer-players can fool White soccer-fans by performing in appropriately colored shirts under the name of “England” or “France” or “Germany.” That’s the power of symbollox.

[1]Indeed, math has enabled mankind to conquer infinities, not just infinity. See this page for (infinitely) more – and this page for still more.

[2]  Mutato nomine, carmen solvitur means “With the name changed, the spell is undone.”

[3]  This is what the Chinese philosopher Confucius called the rectification of names, “ensuring that terms, especially those denoting roles and statuses, precisely correspond to their referents’ actual functions and behavior.”

[4]By looking and smelling like a female bee, the bee-orchid fools the male bee into attempting to copulate with it, which coats the male bee with pollen for its next faux-fornication. But some bee-orchids can reproduce without fooling male bees.

From the Tiber to the Temple: The Shadow of Roman Antisemitism

/5 Comments/in /by

History has often framed the presence of the Jewish people in Europe as an anomaly, yet their interactions with the ancient world reveal that the tensions defining their existence did not arise in a vacuum. In the marble halls and provincial outposts of Rome, the seeds of a profound geopolitical and cultural divide were sown, revealing that the “oldest hatred” began not with modern prejudice, but with the clashing priorities of imperial authority and a people determined to remain distinct.

Jews had lived in Rome for more than two centuries before the trials that would define their standing in the city arrived. Their community dates back to the second century BC, when diplomatic envoys sent by Judah Maccabi established a presence that never broke — an organized community running in uninterrupted form from the era of the Roman Republic to the present, giving Roman Jewry a claim to being one of the oldest continuous Jewish populations on earth. Roman writers regarded these residents with a mixture of curiosity and suspicion. They respected the sheer antiquity of the Jewish faith yet dismissed its customs as strange, stubborn, and misanthropic (p. 34): Perhaps the most famous anti-Jewish writings from the ancient world are those of Tacitus, who viewed Judaism as “opposed to all that is practised by other men” (The History, 5.4, 659) and reflect Jewish behavior from ancient times to the genocide in Gaza and the ethnic cleansing on the West Bank.

Among themselves they are inflexibly honest and ever ready to show compassion, though they regard the rest of mankind with all the hatred of enemies. They sit apart at meals, they sleep apart, and though, as a nation, they are singularly prone to lust, they abstain from intercourse with foreign women; among themselves nothing is unlawful.5 Circumcision was adopted by them as a mark of difference from other men. Those who come over to their religion adopt the practice, and have this lesson first instilled into them, to despise all gods, to disown their country, and set at naught parents, children, and brethren. (The History, 5.5, 659–660)6

The Romans also noted Jewish clannishness, famously Cicero’s complaint dating from 59 B.C. during the trial of Flaccus: “See how unanimously they stick together, how influential they are in politics” (Pro Flacco, 66). Juvenal complained that Jews would not show a wayfarer his road or guide the thirsty to a spring if he were not of their own faith.

That uneasy tolerance cracked in 19 CE, when Cassius Dio recorded that the emperor Tiberius banished most Jews from the capital because they were flocking “to Rome in great numbers and were changing many of the natives over to their customs.”

The expulsion carried real teeth. Roman authorities shipped roughly 4,000 young Jewish men to the malarial island of Sardinia under the pretext of military service and banished many others from Italy entirely. Ancient sources disagree on the trigger. Josephus blamed four swindlers who had defrauded a Roman noblewoman named Fulvia—wife of the senator Saturninus—out of gifts intended for the Temple in Jerusalem.

Scholarly debate centers on what Rome feared. Some historians argue the real anxiety was not hatred of Jews as a people but alarm that Judaism would spread among the political class, although evidence (Ch. 4) for significant levels of conversion is controversial and scanty. According to this reading of events, the crackdown fell hardest on converts rather than born Jews, since Rome tolerated the faith so long as its own citizens did not embrace it. Roman elites had reacted the same way to the Bacchanalian rites and to Egyptian worship, treating each foreign devotion as a contagion to be contained. Some historians add that the Sardinian expedition doubled as blunt manpower recruitment, since Rome leaned on less protected groups when it needed soldiers.

A second rupture arrived a generation later. Suetonius reported that the emperor Claudius expelled Jews from Rome because of “constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus”—a disputed passage whose meaning has divided scholars ever since. Many have taken “Chrestus” as a garbled reference to Christ and read the turmoil as fights over the new Christian message spreading inside the Jewish community, though H. Dixon Slingerland argued persuasively that “Chrestus” was more likely a freedman agitator and that nothing in the evidence points toward Christianity.

Cassius Dio described a related but distinct measure—an order restricting Jewish assembly rather than wholesale banishment—and the Philip Harland translations make clear that Dio explicitly denied an expulsion by Claudius, referring instead to a ban on Jewish gatherings. Rome appears to have acted out of impatience with public disorder rather than any theological program. Claudius would tolerate Jewish religion if its followers kept the peace and won no new adherents. The order likely reached only those caught up in the unrest, and it lapsed when Claudius died in 54 AD.

The administrative frictions of earlier centuries gave way to something categorically different. The Great Revolt broke out in Judaea in 66 CE after Roman governors had plundered Temple funds, stood by while Jewish civilians were massacred in Caesarea, and ground down local sensitivities until the province exploded. Rebels expelled the Roman garrison from Jerusalem and organized a provisional government. The moment of no return arrived when the Temple priests halted the daily sacrifice offered for the emperor’s welfare—the sacrificium pro salute imperatoris—a gesture Rome read as outright rejection of its sovereignty.

Nero sent Vespasian north to break the uprising in Galilee and drive the rebels back toward the capital. Inside Jerusalem the resistance collapsed inward, rival factions fighting each other as ferociously as they fought the legions. By 70 CE Vespasian had claimed the throne, leaving his son Titus to complete the siege with an army of tens of thousands. That summer the Romans forced the Temple Mount and burned the Second Temple to the ground.

What followed was systematic: combatants were killed on the spot, captured fighters were executed, those above a certain age were sold into slavery, and children were put into bondage. Scholars have long observed that the totality of the destruction also served Flavian purposes. Nothing legitimized a new dynasty like a spectacular victory and the public humiliation of a conquered people. Titus transported the Temple treasures to Rome, and the Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum still carries the carved image of his soldiers bearing the menorah in triumph.

The humiliation outlasted the war. Vespasian imposed the Fiscus Judaicus—a poll tax of two drachmas re-directed from the destroyed Temple’s own levy, now payable to the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, the god in whose name Jerusalem had fallen. The reach of the new measure exceeded the old one, as women, children as young as three, and converts to Judaism all became liable. Under Domitian the collection grew brutal. Suetonius left a personal recollection of watching tax officials examine an old man of 90 in a crowded court to verify whether he was circumcised. The door to denunciation swung open. Informers could now accuse anyone who seemed to live as a Jew, a weapon that enabled blackmail across Rome and Italy. Rome kept the levy alive long after the Capitoline temple had been rebuilt and consecrated—proof that the tax served purposes beyond revenue, chiefly deterring conversions to a faith the state was determined to contain.

The violence of the suppression marked a genuine rupture. This was no longer bureaucratic friction with a difficult religious minority, but a state campaign aimed at destroying the institutional core of a religion that had placed itself, in Rome’s judgment, outside the imperial order. Yet the campaign carried an unintended consequence: the thousands of captives Titus sent to the Italian peninsula seeded the oldest Jewish communities the country would ever know. In Puglia, in towns like Otranto and Trani, these exiles raised synagogues and academies and turned the region’s ports into a gateway back toward the eastern Mediterranean. Their scholarship grew deep enough that the 12th century French rabbi Rabbenu Tam paraphrased Isaiah to honor them: “From Bari the Torah will come out and the word of God from Otranto.”

The settlement forged under the pagan emperors did not survive the conversion of the empire. When Constantine elevated Christianity to the favored faith in 313 CE, the legal standing of Jews across the empire began to erode, and a cascade of restrictive legislation followed. Julian briefly reversed direction, extending an invitation to Jews to rebuild their Temple, but the opening closed the moment he died. Under Byzantine and then Lombard rule the story of Italian Jewry moved between stretches of relative calm and fresh rounds of oppression.

The story of the Jewish people is characterized by a persistent, inherent tension with the surrounding Gentile world, a recurring dynamic that the Roman era proved impossible to resolve. As the Empire transitioned from the worship of Jupiter to the cross, the legal and social framework solidified, casting a long, dark shadow forward. This ancient collision was merely the prologue. It ultimately formed a foreboding chapter that would predict two millennia of escalating tensions across the European continent.

Britain’s Police Are There to Suppress the White Majority

/14 Comments/in , /by

When a significant portion of society loses trust in the police then that society is in serious trouble. In that direction lies the rise of protection rackets and the collapse of a unified society. This is precisely what has happened in the UK since 1999 and the MacPherson Report which accused the police of “institutional racism” based mainly on its mishandling of the murder of a Black teenager in London in 1993. Since 1999, the police have effectively been inculcated with the idea that their purpose is to protect ethnic minorities from the native population, that nothing is worse than “racism,” that any allegation of it must automatically be taken extremely seriously and that, in effect, the White man must be assumed to be guilty. It’s gone so far that I’ve now had my own run in with the UK police.

Two recent examples serve to illustrate the state of the British constabulary. In December 2025 in Southampton, a White student called Henry Nowak was stabbed by a Sikh. The Sikh then rang the police and dishonestly accused Nowak of having made racist remarks. When the police turned up, Nowak was lying on the ground bleeding to death. “I’ve been stabbed,” he mumbled. Such was the police’s contempt for him that the male officer replied, “I don’t think you have, mate” before arresting him and even handcuffing him. The Sikh, who was ultimately convicted of murder, was at no point handcuffed, even when he was eventually arrested.

Film has emerged, taken in June in Birmingham, of a young White man being beaten up by a group of Blacks. The Blacks are seen dispersing as a young, short female police officer rushes in to attack the White man as he gets up from the ground. Clearly disorientated and not knowing it’s a police officer he strikes back, knocking off her hat. She arrests him, adding, “Walk to the fucking car, you dick!” The police initially denied that anything was wrong with this incident—before putting out another press release claiming that the arrestee had been the victim of an assault and they were now looking for the suspects, whom they’d permitted to run away.

If it wasn’t for members of the public filming these things, and putting them on Twitter, we would never know about this police corruption — this Two-Tier Policing, as it’s commonly termed — so it is no wonder that the British government is interested in restricting social media access under the pretence of protecting children from “harmful content.” Studies on the kinds of people who become police officers indicate that they are not very intelligent (their IQ is about average) and that they are relatively high in Narcissistic traits (which would predict their wanting power and authority over people).

One of the ways in which we can expect them to deal with their understandable insecurity about their intelligence and status is to proclaim that they are more “moral” than others; to take the current morality — Woke — and strongly believe it and signal it in order to reassure themselves that they matter. This is precisely what we see with the UK police. In the 1990s, they weren’t trusted by the Black minority and they were widely regarded as “racist.” This has now been completely reversed. They are an arm of the Woke Deep State and are not trusted by White people or, at least, not by politically conservative White people.

In March, my crew and I were filming a documentary in Luton, a thoroughly Islamised part of the UK that birthed Tommy Robinson’s English Defence League. We were at the recently shut down Vauxhall car plant and couldn’t get inside due to Nepalese security guides. A camera man I’d hired sent up a drone. I thought nothing of this as, in my experience, if you’re in a restricted zone for drones — as I once was in Budapest — then they simply won’t fly. Before long, a car arrived with three police officers, one of the two females being covered in tattoos. They arrested the cameraman for flying the drone too close to Luton Airport. Worryingly, this means that ex-Communist Hungary has better technology than the UK.

I got chatting to the non-tattooed female officer. She asked what my film was about and I innocently said “the decline of Luton.” It was almost as if, in that moment, a light bulb went on in her indoctrinated brain: decline of Luton = critical of the government = dissident = far right = evil. She asked who I was and I refused to tell her. “That’s a bit evasive,” she said, reflecting the tendency of the less intelligent to misuse high order words. Why wouldn’t I tell her? I responded that, as far as I’m concerned, the police can’t be trusted. “We’re not all like that,” she responded, seemingly personally offended.

After a while she came over and told me that though I had done nothing wrong and I was with someone who’d been arrested and because we were near an airport she had the right to my details and could arrest me if I refused to provide them. Two barristers later told me that this was nonsense and that she was just a corrupt or ignorant police officer. But I provided her with an address and number. When we left, she was the only one of the three who refused to say goodbye to me. She was very annoyed.

The cameraman was interrogated for three hours and a significant part of the interrogation was about me. They wanted my mobile number, which he refused to give, so they could “pass it on.” Would the drone be filming asylum seekers? It turned out we were close to an asylum seeker centre, which explained why there were groups of Black men in track suits wandering around. “We’re trying to help you. You could get in trouble working with this man. He’s far right.”

Clearly, the British police feel that an aspect of their job is political — as with secret police in communist countries. If you are not “on board” with Woke — if there’s even the slightest hint that you dissent — then you are an “enemy” of the state, you are “trouble” and information must be gathered on you. Whites are also dangerous and must be heavily policed whereas Blacks are allowed to run riot. As this distrust of the police by conservatives grows, we can expect to see the growth of parallel societies, of the effective breakup of the UK. Certainly, the behavior of the police seems to indicate that the British Establishment is deeply concerned that organised dissent — or even the mere existence of lone dissenters — among the native population might lead to their losing their grip on power.

Jewish Neocon Warhawks Want the United States to Resume its War with Iran

/11 Comments/in , /by

The hawks who pushed the United States into its most expensive military operation in decades are already planning the next one. Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin, two of the most listened-to Jewish voices in conservative media, have made clear in the immediate aftermath of the U.S.-Iran Memorandum of Understanding that they view the current peace not as a resolution but as an intermission, one they intend to use to rebuild the political and military conditions for a return to war.

Ben Shapiro published a Daily Wire piece titled “Why Trump Signed The Agreement With Iran,” explaining the MOU while making clear his deep reservations. In the same Fox News appearance hours after the text was released, he simultaneously called the war “the signal act of political bravery, perhaps, of my lifetime” and labeled the Memorandum of Understanding “a disaster that does not achieve any of the actual signal goals that were set by the administration at the beginning.” Shapiro laid out five specific objectives he said the administration had named —ending all nuclear enrichment, dismantling ballistic missiles, ending support for so-called terrorist proxies, permanently reopening the Strait of Hormuz toll-free, and conditioning sanctions relief on Iranian compliance—and argued the MOU met none of them. Despite his public condemnation of the deal, he nonetheless stopped short of urging Trump to reject it, thus revealing something more significant than mere disagreement. It exposed a proposed recalibration among hawkish commentators who now appear to be laying the groundwork for a resumption of hostilities after the November midterm elections.

While commentators debated the terms of the deal, the war itself had already delivered its verdict in blood. The war they championed exacted a staggering price. Operation Epic Fury, which began on February 28, 2026, killed between 7,144 and 9,676 people across multiple countries while wounding approximately 46,965 more. Iran’s Foundation of Martyrs confirmed 3,468 Iranian deaths while independent monitors documented higher figures. Among the dead were 240 women and 212 children. One American strike on the Shajareh Tayyebeh Primary School in Minab, Hormozgan province on February 28 killed approximately 175 to 180 people—the majority of them schoolchildren—a strike investigated by the New York Times, BBC Verify, Reuters, NPR, and CBC all of which concluded the United States was likely responsible. Over 4,000 people were killed in Lebanon according to its Health Ministry.

The economic devastation proved equally severe. The Pentagon reported spending $29 billion by May 12, though this figure excluded damage to American military bases from Iranian retaliation and the costs of munitions expended. By June, the Pentagon sought an additional $87.6 billion supplemental from Congress to cover the full costs of the campaign. Harvard economist Linda Bilmes projected that total costs could reach $1 trillion when accounting for long-term ripple effects including veteran care, replenishment of depleted weapons stockpiles, and regional economic disruption. Iran estimated its losses at $270 billion and demanded compensation as a condition of broader peace negotiations. CSIS independently assessed the total U.S. military campaign cost at approximately $34 to $42 billion—a figure that excluded base damage, munitions replacement costs, and long-term obligations.

This catastrophic toll apparently failed to satisfy those who pushed hardest for the conflict. Mark Levin emerged as the most explicit voice calling for a strategic pause followed by renewed military action. On June 18, the same day CNN reported that Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu was actively using pro-Israel media figures to influence the deal, Levin posted on X/Twitter his prescription for the path forward. “Time for a change in strategy. We should consider slow walking the enemy, building up our munitions, our oil reserves, get the price of gasoline down, get through the midterms, then knock them out. Instead of rushing to a deal, building up their oil industry, transferring billions to them, etc.”

Levin had advocated for military action against Iran long before the war began. He reportedly lobbied Trump directly at a private White House lunch in early June, falsely warning that Iran was “days away from a nuclear weapon”—a claim the U.S. intelligence community did not support. On his show in May he had argued that “The mass-murdering death cult that is the Iranian regime is not going to commit suicide” and that “they cannot” abide by any deal “because as a matter of religious and political ideology and doctrine, they will not in the end bend to the demands of the great Satan.”

Shapiro adopted a position less explicit but functionally identical. After the MOU was signed at Versailles on June 18, he declared the agreement a disaster and hoped that Trump would return to bombing Iran after November’s midterms. He had previously called the war “the single bravest foreign policy move of my lifetime,” telling Lara Trump on Fox News that what Trump was doing in Iran “has the potential to be a true game changer for America’s role in the world,

The broader hawk faction echoed the same framework for restarting the conflict. Hugh Hewitt called the MOU “halftime” and predicted a return to war after the election. Fox and Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade added that “After the midterms, the gloves come off.” Media Matters described this as the hawks’ new “cope” strategy—a way to avoid criticizing Trump directly while keeping the door open for future military escalation.

These commentators built their case for war over several years. Shapiro praised Trump’s 2020 killing of IRGC commander Qassem Soleimani as “utterly righteous,” calling Soleimani “one of the worst human beings on the planet,” and he consistently argued that Iran required direct confrontation rather than the appeasement he accused the Obama administration of pursuing. When Israel launched preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear program in June 2025, Shapiro published a syndicated column declaring that “two lies die: the lie that only negotiations can end the threat of a rogue state seeking nuclear weapons, and the lie that every conflict must necessarily become Iraq.” Levin appeared on Hannity right before the 2026 conflict to argue that “If this Islamic Nazi terrorist mass killing regime gets a nuclear weapon, will they use it? The answer is yes” and that “We don’t need to put up with their crap. It’s time to put it to an end.”

Despite the memorandum of understanding being signed on June 17, the conflict remains far from resolved. The deal lifted the U.S. naval blockade, reopened the Strait of Hormuz, created a 60-day window to negotiate permanent terms, and proposed a $300 billion reconstruction fund. Critics noted that despite the war’s enormous costs, Iran’s government remained intact, its ballistic missile program is still functional, and its support for regional resistance organizations like Hezbollah is still unwavering. The statements from Shapiro and Levin give the game away. They have already begun conditioning their audiences for a second round of bellicosity against the Islamic Republic.

For the likes of Shapiro and Levin, conservatism is merely a skinsuit they don, carefully tailored to win trust and influence within the American Right. But the substance beneath it has nothing to do with American national interests. Every war they cheer, every deal they oppose, every argument they make is calibrated toward using American blood and treasure as a battering ram for the interests of World Jewry. The consequences for the United States, the American people, and the families who bear the cost of their wars are simply not part of their calculation. It is time to stop mistaking their fluency in conservative language for loyalty to this country.

Ideological Agendas and Careerism Undermining Scholarly Integrity: Case Study # 1: Dr Douglas C. Youvan

/5 Comments/in /by

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

Jumping on an antifa is an easy way to advance an academic career, because scholarly standards are held in abeyance, and deemed unnecessary. Presently I have complaints pending against: two peer-reviewed papers, one book from a university press, and an Australian university doctoral dissertation by a woman who now postures as an expert on “national security” and the “threat of the far right.” Others, better positioned than me, have exposed the appalling state of so-called scholarship, particularly in the peer-review process.[1]

Douglas C. Youvan

While the above complaints have been pending, there is a relatively minor example, which nonetheless illustrates the blasé attitude towards accuracy of research when dealing with the demonized “far right.” This is Dr Douglas C. Youvan, a former MIT professor who for reasons unclear strayed from his professional disciplines to produce a self-published article, masquerading as a research paper, on the influence of “far right” authors on women in the occult. Apparently, I have such an influence, along with Guénon, Evola, et al.[2]

I gave Dr Youvan the opportunity to reply; I gave him the opportunity to revise his article by giving him the correct information. He chose not to respond. If I make an error of fact in a paper, article, or book, I want to be told about it. If I am wrong about something, I change or adapt my opinion. If research is not subject to revision, it is not scholarship but dogma.

Despite what Dr Youvan promises in the title, he presents very few specifics, utilizing rhetoric to enable his article to run to 26 pages. I wrote to Dr Youvan:

26 June 2026

Dear Dr Youvan

I have just come upon by chance your essay entitled “Women of the Radical Fringe: Exploring the Lives and Philosophies of Modern Female Esoteric Extremists”, (2024) in which you state of me on p. 14:

“Kerry Bolton, an occult writer and political activist from New Zealand, has been involved in various far-right and neo-pagan movements, combining esoteric spirituality with racial nationalism. While not exclusively female focused, Bolton’s writings have influenced women within these movements who are drawn to his blend of mysticism, nationalism, and traditionalist philosophy. His works often explore the connections between occultism, spiritual warfare, and political struggle, themes that resonate with those seeking a deeper, esoteric justification for their far-right beliefs.”

I am absolutely bewildered by this description. I would be interested if you could provide me with a single instance of this alleged influence.

Secondly, the only work you cite by me is “Revolution from Above,”[3] which you claim is subtitled:

“Occult, Elite, and Radical Thought in Modern Politics.”

The book has never borne such a subtitle, nor does any such phrase appear in the book, which is not at all about the “occult.” The actual subtitle is, remains and always has been: “Manufacturing ‘Dissent’ in the New World Order.”

It seems that you have contrived a subtitle to make your only reference credited to me appear to conform with the theme of your essay. You describe the book thus:

“This book explores the intersections of occultism, elite rule, and far right ideology, analyzing how these ideas persist in contemporary politics.”

I suggest that you have not read the book, and that you do not have the foggiest notion as to what it is about. It seems a tad dishonest for you to cite the book in this manner, in order to ascribe to me associations that I do not have.

It is certainly not the only time that I have been subjected to utter bilge by supposed “scholars” and “academics,” indicative of the corruption, dishonesty and incompetence that obviously permeates academia, especially in the West.

In fact I did write a book on such topics, published in 2017, “The Occult and Subversive Movements,”[4] with brief forewords by professors Richard Spence and Mark Mirabello, notable authorities on the subject, and genuine scholars. The book is largely on the role of Freemasonry, and its aim is to expose, not champion, the occult influences in politics.

Please consider this an “open letter”. I look forward to your reply.

K R Bolton ThD

With a lack of response, I wrote to Dr Youvan on July 3:

Dear Dr Youvan

A response would be appreciated. Do you intend making corrections to your paper in regard to the above, in the interests of scholarship?

Thank you for your consideration

K R Bolton

It could be that Dr Youvan is busy, away from his email, or whatever, in which case I will thankfully accept forthcoming corrections from him. As it stands however, Dr Youvan is undermining his integrity by jumping on the antifa bandwagon and presenting himself as a researcher on the “extreme right.” Although a minor example, this is odder than usual because Dr Youvan is already long-established as a biophysicist and mathematician, where precision and high intelligence are required, as distinct from the Humanities “disciplines” that are the usual abodes of antifa “scholars” wanting easy options for academic notability. If accuracy of research was important to him, he would surely want to correct his “errors.” If not, what then are we to make of his enormous number of research papers in the physical sciences?[5]

[1] H Pluckrose, J Lindsay, “How Activist Scholarship Made Everything about Race, Gender, and Identity―and Why This Harms Everybody” (Pitchstone Publishing, 2020), https://cynicaltheories.com/

“Science reporter spoofs hundreds of open access journals with fake papers,” Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/2013/10/03/science-reporter-spoofs-hundreds-of-journals-with-a-fake-paper/

[2] Douglas C. Youvan, “Women of the Radical Fringe: Exporting the Lives and Philosophies of Modern Female Esoteric Extremists” (2024),

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383666164_Women_of_the_Radical_Fringe_Exploring_the_Lives_and_Philosophies_of_Modern_Female_Esoteric_Extremists

[3] K R Bolton, Revolution from Above (Arktos Media Ltd., 2011).

[4] K R Bolton, The Occult and Subversive Movements (Londin: Black House Publishing, 2017).

[5] Douglas C Youvan, ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Douglas-Youvan

 Pope: Great Replacement Vicar

/38 Comments/in , /by

It is touching to hear Pope Leo XIV deliver lofty sermons on Christian charity and open borders while he himself resides in a well-air-conditioned Vatican cocoon. His Mass on July 4th on the Italian island of Lampedusa, just off the coast of Tunisia, was clearly designed to guilt-trip Europeans and further legitimize the unconditional acceptance of millions of non-European migrants. There is no need to worry about His Holiness’s physical safety; his residence within Vatican City is protected by massive walls stretching nearly two miles, guarded not by humble deacons clutching the Holy Writ, but by burly carabinieri armed with Beretta GLX160 assault rifles. This is a typical trait of all Western proxy humanists: pontificating about a borderless, non-White world and taking the Floydesque knee, all while residing in walled-off golden ghettos.

The fundamental mistake many White Christians make is to lay the blame only on Jews, Muslims, LGBT activists, and the leftist mob for the brewing racial chaos, while failing to examine the millennia-long Christian drive that lies at the root of the modern Great Replacement. Despite their low average IQ, non-European migrants are street-smart enough to figure out who their real friends in the West are. They’re not the deranged communists, Antifa thugs, or LGBT activists, but self-hating White elites and, above all, the Catholic clergy. While liberal politicians in the U.S. and E.U. are slowly waking up to the looming multiracial chaos, the Catholic clergy and the Pope continue to float in their own apocalyptic theophany. The multiracial project they’ve championed for decades must now go into overdrive.

The Pope’s Lampedusa sermon was primarily designed as a fresh round of welcoming calls for millions of new non-White migrants. What crosses the migrants’ minds is not hard to divine: once they reach European or American shores, they will enjoy near-total immunity, turning every previous or future ICE raid or European deportation order into little more than a pathetic bureaucratic joke.

“Ad maiorem Dei gloriam”

The Gospel truth of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and their European counterparts is the aggressive promotion of open borders and race mixing. With their White flock steadily shrinking, they are forced to import more colorful sheep to fill the empty pews. All Christian denominations must echo the early Christian teaching of brotherly love, skillfully weaponizing the historical guilt of the European peoples. Surely, pockets of resistance still exist in Catholic nations such as Poland and Croatia, as well as in Christian Orthodox Eastern Europe, although their faith basically functions as a symbol of national identity rather than a sign of religious rapture.

The greatest problem confronting millions of White Christians in the U.S. and E.U. is that they remain trapped in a painful, neurotic conflict: they observe the catastrophic consequences of non-European migration, yet, short of becoming atheists or pagans, they cannot reject the Christian theological foundation—that is, to ditch the legacy of St. Paul’s early, Bolshevik-style palaver: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). In this sense, Christian dogma has achieved what Communism only dreamed of: the total demographic erasure of European man, all for the promise of a blissful salvation in a true and only heavenly homeland.

Although the new Pope, Leo, speaks with a meek voice, behind his bland, puerile, sexless face lurks a shrewd and ruthless operator. On July 4th, while the United States celebrated its 250th anniversary, the American-born pontiff chose to forgo the festivities. Instead, he flew to the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa to encourage African boat migrants to come and graze in European pastures. This new Pope is every bit as aggressive as his predecessor, Pope Francis, in pushing population replacement; he eagerly cheers on the racial transformation of Europe ad maiorem Dei gloriam. Installed to advance the globalist project, he works diligently to secure a future interracial bloodbath as a guise for the Last Judgment and the Christian end times. The pontiff’s strategy is simple: flood the West with millions of non-White settlers, grant them superior rights over natives, ignore their crimes and welfare dependency, and steadily stoke the rage of the indigenous White population until interracial war becomes inevitable. On Lampedusa, the Pope performed his usual theatrics—fake prayers for drowned migrants followed by his blessings for their entry at the “Gate of Europe.” Here’s an excerpt:

From this far-flung corner of Europe on the Mediterranean Sea, one can more clearly perceive the momentous challenge that the phenomenon of migration poses to European societies. In this regard, just as with the ecological transition and the promotion of peace, Europe possesses a unique potential, stemming from its history and culture, and therefore bears a corresponding responsibility. Thanks to its geographical location and institutional framework, Europe is capable of addressing the crisis — in this region — in a comprehensive manner, integrating immediate relief efforts into a long-term strategic plan capable of receiving, protecting, supporting and integrating migrants, while at the same time assisting developing countries so that no one is forced to emigrate. All of this must be done with vigilance, ensuring respect for the dignity of every person. This is a task not only for public institutions but also for civil society as a whole and for the Church.

It would be foolish to blame the Pope only. Although not all Catholics go along with the Church’s teachings and a great many American Christians back President Trump’s  crackdown on immigration, the pope’s words do indeed reflect the ideas held by a large number of U.S. Bishops’ Conference members and hundreds of millions of true believers. To be a mainstream Catholic and to be opposed to non-European migration is a contradictio in adjecto, a contradiction in terms. Words from Cardinals Blase Cupich of Chicago, who is of Croat descent, and Joseph Tobin of Newark outbid the Communist Manifesto in their zeal for brotherhood and unity through their lament on behalf of migrants and refugees. Therefore, papal words are not just a pastoral gesture; it is an ideological commitment fully in line with the Christian multiracial teaching. Leo’s mandate must persist at all costs despite a crumbling social reality in Europe and the U.S. reflecting scenes from movies like Escape from New York or Escape from L.A.: surging interracial tensions, decaying public services, rising insecurity, and a growing sense of dispossession felt by White Europeans. The German Bishops’ Conference, with its WWII Tätervolk stigma and guilt-ridden homilies, has gone a step further: it has been for decades the prime spokesman for migrants, opposing any attempted German government policy curbing migration, thus taking the lead in the former Chancellor Merkel’s open-border policy.

Nevertheless, as noted, not all Catholics buy into the pope’s views on immigration. From a survey of 1400 U.S. Catholics conducted in 2024:

  • It seems Catholics are not totally ignorant of Catholic social teaching in this area but are more influenced by other factors. In general, immigration is not at the top of the list of most important issues. More important to many is the institution of marriage, the environment and abortion.

  • 57% would like to see immigration kept at its present level or increased; almost 77% believe it is good or a mixture of good and bad for our country; 34% consider the situation at the Mexican border to be a crisis, with 40% considering it a major problem and 20% a minor problem.

  • Sympathy for undocumented aliens varies from very sympathetic (21%), somewhat sympathetic (37%), unsympathetic (16%), and very unsympathetic (20%). Likewise, attitudes towards Central American refugees or asylum seekers closely follow the same pattern.

  • Another key teaching regarding the right to migrate, subject to judicial conditions and a sovereign country’s right to uphold its borders, was understood by only 61% of the respondents as very and somewhat reflective of Catholic social teaching, with 39% believing it is little or not reflective of a key teaching.

  • The Church has never taught that open borders are the preferable paths for migration, an issue greatly misunderstood today.

  • Another key question is to what degree does your Catholic faith inform your opinions about immigrants and refugees, with the following result: 19% very much, 35% somewhat, 19% a little, and 27% not very much.

Migrants seeking asylum in the U.S. walk into a temporary humanitarian respite center run by Catholic Charities of the
Rio Grande Valley in McAllen, Texas, April 8, 2021.

The Pope’s stint at Lampedusa carries an unmistakable message: Europe and America must keep rolling out the red carpet for millions more migrants. More boats. More migrants. More chaos. While preaching compassion, Catholic organizations like Caritas and affiliated NGOs rake in millions of dollars from the migrant industry. The more chaos on the horizon, the fatter the wallets of the Vatican and its multiple NGO sidekicks. Thus, the pontiff is proving to be more dangerous than yesterday’s communists; while the latter almost destroyed European nations through class warfare and economic ruin, the Pope and his followers are erasing them through mass replacement and civilizational suicide—all wrapped in pious ecumenical robes. The Catholic Church, once a pillar of the West, has become one of its chief gravediggers.

Ronald Lauder Strikes Again in Romania

/10 Comments/in /by

Ronald Lauder holds no Romanian office, casts no Romanian vote, and no longer owns a Romanian television network. Yet few foreigners have shaped the country’s laws, schools, and public memory as persistently as the Estée Lauder heir has across the past three decades. His Romanian record reads as a case study in how one wealthy Jew projects power across borders, and how that power now leans on a sovereign parliament to deliver the outcomes he wants.

Born in 1944 to the cosmetics dynasty his mother built, Lauder served as a deputy assistant secretary of defense and then as United States ambassador to Austria from 1986 to 1987. Vienna re-oriented him toward the Jewish communities of the region, and in 1987 he launched the Ronald S. Lauder Foundation.

He has led the World Jewish Congress since 2007, chairs the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial Foundation, and heads the World Jewish Restitution Organization. He also ranks among the more durable Republican donors and Trump allies in American life. Those roles give him enough standing that most heads of state answer when he calls.

His largest commercial stake in Romania came through television. In 1991 Lauder and Mark Palmer, a former ambassador to Hungary, founded what became Central European Media Enterprises. The company entered Romania in 1995 through the local producer Adrian Sârbu and launched Pro TV on 1 December 1995. The channel dominated the market fast. According to the International Directory of Company Histories, “a year later PRO TV reached 55 percent of Romania’s population of 23 million and had captured 40 percent of television advertising revenues.”

Lauder chaired the board as a non-executive for roughly 20 years and re-signed in March 2014—less than a year after Sârbu stepped down as CME’s president and CEO. Sârbu was arrested the following February, in 2015, on tax-evasion and money-laundering charges tied to his separate Mediafax group. PPF Group later bought CME in a deal valued near $2.1 billion. Romanian nationalist commentators long alleged that Lauder used Pro TV to steer public opinion toward American and Israeli interests, a charge his representatives rejected. Whatever the merits, the network gave him a megaphone few outsiders ever hold.

The philanthropic channel proved more lasting. In 1997 his foundation opened the Lauder-Reut educational complex on the site of a former Jewish school in the old Jewish quarter of Bucharest that had sat shuttered throughout World War II and the Cold War. The complex now teaches more than 600 students from kindergarten through high school, many of them not Jewish, and ranks among the capital’s elite private schools. In 2019 the Romanian arm gained functional and financial autonomy and took the name Reut Foundation.

Restitution supplies a third lever. Through the WJC and WJRO, Lauder has pressed the Romanian government to return confiscated Jewish communal property and compensate Jews persecuted during World War II, work channeled through the Caritatea Foundation set up in 1997. In July 2024 the WJRO announced “the distribution of more than 10 million dollars to nearly 4,100 Romanian Holocaust survivors worldwide, as part of the Romanian Survivor Relief Program (RSRP) and the Romanian Emergency Assistance Program (REAP).” Lauder has also served as a standing pressure point on Holocaust memory. When Romania outlawed Holocaust denial in 2015, he congratulated President Klaus Iohannis and urged other leaders to copy the move. Earlier, at a 2012 restitution conference in Prague, he had singled out Romania alongside Poland and Latvia for the delays stalling restitution.

The clearest display of Lauder’s reach arrived in June 2019, while Romania held the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union. The WJC joined Prime Minister Viorica Dăncilă and the Federation of Jewish Communities of Romania to stage the first International Meeting of Special Envoys and Coordinators on Combating Antisemitism inside the Palace of the Parliament. The gathering drew leaders of more than 50 Jewish communities and over 30 government envoys, and the EU presidency closed it with an official declaration. Months earlier, in February 2019, Lauder had addressed EU officials at a related conference inside the European Parliament in Brussels, an event hosted by Dăncilă that seated her alongside European Commission First Vice President Frans Timmermans and the Romanian lawmaker who would become his closest domestic partner, Silviu Vexler.

Vexler is the man who turns Lauder’s international standing into binding Romanian law. Born on December 8, 1988, he studied journalism at Hyperion University and advised his predecessor Aurel Vainer before winning the Chamber of Deputies seat reserved for the Jewish minority in December 2016. In 2020 he became president of the Federation of Jewish Communities, and that year Romania named him its High Representative for combating antisemitism and protecting Holocaust memory. He chairs the friendship group linking Romania and Israel.

His legislative output has no rival in the post-Communist era. He drove the 2018 antisemitism statute, the 2019 law creating the National Museum of Jewish History and the Holocaust, and the 2021 law he wrote with German minority deputy Ovidiu Ganț that made Jewish history and the Holocaust a required high school subject. Lauder praised that education mandate as a tool to teach Romanians “the dangers of antisemitism and other forms of racial and religious hatred.” In October 2024 Germany handed Vexler its Cross of Merit for what its citation called his “tireless and successful commitment to the service of Romanian-German relations.”

Their partnership carried its heaviest weight in 2025, when the tandem model showed its full shape. Vexler’s most sweeping bill, known widely as the Vexler Law, raised penalties for promoting fascism, racism, and xenophobia, including prison terms for spreading such material online. Parliament passed it in June, but President Nicușor Dan returned it for re-examination, arguing its definitions lacked precision.

Lauder was not satisfied with the Romanian president’s concerns. In a statement that July, he said he was “deeply” concerned by Dan’s decision to delay legislation that “would significantly strengthen Romania’s ability to confront antisemitism,” and warned the move had been “widely perceived, both domestically and internationally, as legitimizing efforts to rehabilitate war criminals and emboldening those who seek to deny or distort the Holocaust.” His statement, echoed across the international press, turned a Romanian constitutional dispute into a reputational threat aimed at the president himself. In protest, Vexler returned his National Order of Merit, saying the president’s action would “directly or indirectly encourage continuing to promote Iron Guard ideology.”

Domestic events grew turbulent in December, as the bill returned to the floor. During the debate a nationalist deputy set a page bearing images of Romanian cultural figures with antisemitic pasts on the rostrum. Vexler tore it up on camera, then said he had reacted instinctively. The Elie Wiesel Institute reported “an explosion of antisemitic manifestations on social networks, with incitement to maximum violence.” The European Jewish Congress condemned the harassment, and the WJC stood with him publicly. On December 17, 2025 the Chamber re-adopted the law in its original form.

Similar to his efforts in Greece, what Lauder has built in Romania is a prototype. He proved that one man, armed with wealth, a foundation, an international network of Jewish activists, and a total unwillingness to compromise, can turn a parliament into an instrument of Jewish organizational will. The rest of the world should watch closely, because he has already started making copies of this Jewish supremacist blueprint.