Featured Articles

Ron Unz on the Carlson-Cooper Interview, World Wars I and II, Media Censorship, etc.

/6 Comments/in /by

This is lengthy but important article on many issues that the media-academic establishment polices intensely. Well worth reading. Basically agreeing with Cooper on much of his statements, including Churchill as psychopath acting in order to fuel his profligacy,  defending David Irving’s scholarship, adding Franklin Roosevelt to the list of villains because of his desire for war in order to turn the U.S. economy around.

“American Pravda: Tucker Carlson, Darryl Cooper, and Holocaust Denial, by Ron Unz – The Unz Review

 

The Outdoor Smoking Ban in the UK

/14 Comments/in /by

It took only a few weeks for the authoritarian instincts of Sir Keir Starmer, Britain’s new leftist Prime Minister, to erupt from him like so much pent-up lava scorching its way through the country’s towns and villages. Violent criminals have now been given early release in their thousands from the UK’s overcrowded jails to make way for working-class Whites who wrote slightly emotive tweets about mass immigration as part of the widespread disorder, understandable fury and fear, sparked by an ethnically-Rwandan teenager stabbing three little girls to death at a Taylor Swift-themed holiday club in July. Working-class protestors against this terror were condemned as “far right thugs” by “Two-Tier Keir” — a nickname referring to the fact that Whites are treated far more harshly and dealt with far more quickly than Labour’s foreign or educated clients.

With the riots, Two-Tier Keir’s motives were obvious but they are far less obvious with regard to his proposed banning of smoking outside pubs. This is what makes the policy, overtly a matter of improving public health, all the more pernicious. It is dressed up as something noble — a logical extension of the banning of smoking in pubs which began in 2007 — but, as with everything that emerges from the Labour Party, it is no such thing. It reflects paranoia, Machiavellianism and plain leftist resentment.

As all the businesses around them collapse into Middle Eastern kebab shops, money-laundering “Turkish Barbers” and garish “nail salons,” the pub remains the last bastion of English culture and specifically of White, working-class English culture. It is a place where ordinary English men and women can congregate and exchange notes converse about how Two-Tier Keir is destroying their country — creating a kind of Anarcho-Tyranny, in which traditional crime is not policed but “thought crime” is dealt with quickly and punitively in order to demoralise and control the population. The proles can express their genuine views in such a place; away from the prying eyes of New Labour’s politicised police who gleefully spy on their tweets and Facebook posts.

As such, the pub is dangerous: it is a breeding ground for discontentment and dissent. Banning smoking in the vicinity of pubs will keep working-class people, many of whom smoke, away from The Royal Oak and The Jolly Farmer, and industry leaders agree that it will lead to pubs closing down. So, pubs will shut down, meaning that working-class discontentment is easier to monitor and, so, repress. This all makes sense because, as I have explored in my book Woke Eugenics, leftists are very high in mental instability and in negative feelings. This makes them paranoid — meaning that, for them, there is every motivation to stop working-class people from freely exchanging views.

As I also explore in the book, mental instability is robustly associated with Machiavellianism; the desire for power and control over others. This logically follows as if you experience the world as a frightening and hostile place then you will want to take control of it. The pub represents a lack of control: people get tipsy or drunk and lose their inhibitions to varying degrees. They might, in this alternative state of consciousness, make remarks that incite others to be critical of the Labour Party and immigration and the various way in which Labour is destroying all that was ever good about Britain — high trust, free speech, low crime, impartial public bodies, sound public services — in order to crush dissent. Pubs are therefore a danger, so it is better if they are shut down.

The pub also makes working-class people happy. They can relax after a long day with a few beers and some cigarettes with their friends and other like-minded people. But why would Labour want them to be remotely happy? It is far preferable that they are depressed people who see life as meaningless and lose the will to fight to improve their lot; unlike people who are anxious. Proneness to anxiety is something which strongly characterises leftists. It follows that working-class people need to be isolated and lonely so shutting down the pubs is clearly an excellent idea.

Also, it should not be forgotten that there is something quite profound about English pub culture. In going to the pub, you are not merely having a drink. You are participating in a ritual in which your ancestors participated all the way back to the Middle Ages, with some pubs being hundreds of years old. This link to the past is reflected in pub names that refer to pre-industrial England, historical events, English kings and noblemen, English folklore and long-dead national heroes: The Jolly Farmer, The Royal Oak (when the future King Charles I hid in an oak tree to escape the Roundheads), The Old King’s Head, The Foley Arms, The Green Man, and The Duke of Wellington. As English writer Sean Gabb has argued, you achieve a revolution by cutting the connection to the past. This leaves people confused, lacking in a clear identity and, so, more open to being brainwashed.

Leftists are anti-traditionalist. They feel that they are of low status and therefore must fight against an oppressive culture. And because they are neurotic, and they resent anything that is symbolic of the traditional hierarchy or culture. These must be torn down so that they can attain power. Pubs are a symbol of the old, pre-multicultural England; a rallying point, a reminder of what was. They need to go.

Finally, leftists, being unstable, are unhappy and resentful. Pubs involve people having fun and being happy. If you are bitter and unhappy, there is little worse than seeing other people enjoying themselves. “How dare they enjoy themselves! What about my suffering?” they Narcissistically think, with Narcissism being a way of coping with intense negative feelings. So this is yet another reason why pubs must shut down.

And it’s nothing to do with health. We are evolved, in effect, to be farm labourers in a context of food scarcity and we are now sedentary. Consequently, we will get fat. Tobacco, unhealthy as it is, is an appetite suppressant. Get rid of it and, as we have seen over the last 40 years, working-class people, who tend to have relatively poor impulse control as I have explored in Woke Eugenics, will simply get fat.

Labour are the New Cromwellian Puritans: bitter, resentful, power-hungry, mentally unstable, humourless, virtue-signallers. They may have shut down theatres but even Cromwell’s Puritan Interregnum, between 1649 and 1660, didn’t close the pubs. . . .  Ultimately, of course, the English were pushed too far by the Puritans. There was a counter-revolution and the Two-Tier Keirs of their day were publically hanged, cut down (in some cases while still alive), castrated (with their testicles burned before their Puritan eyes), disembowelled, beheaded, and drawn and quartered   . . .

 

Globo-Mojo: Minority Rights Will Not Apply to Whites

/6 Comments/in /by

You could pronounce it in Welsh: HWWTYL. You’d say something like “hoo-till.” But it isn’t a Welsh word, it’s an English acronym. What does it stand for? HWWTYL = “Heads We Win, Tails You Lose.” It’s the supreme principle of leftism, supplanting all others and governing all aspects of reality.

Simultaneously smarmy and sinister

In other words, leftists have no genuine principles. They have only a pursuit — the pursuit of power. Once they have power, they use it to privilege their pets and punish their enemies. The principle of HWWTYL is central to privileging and the punishment. It means that Whites can do no right and non-Whites can do no wrong. For example, if non-Whites enter a White district, that’s “enrichment,” which is good and glorious. But if Whites enter a non-White district, that’s “gentrification,” which is wrong and racist.

How HWWTYL works: Everything Whites do is racist (meme from Dranklestein)

There you have HWWTYL in action. But there’s a much more important example of HWWTYL currently ripening among leftists. It centers on a term that’s simultaneously smarmy and sinister: “global majority.” How is it sinister? That’s what I’ll try to explain. First, let’s look at the definition given by the leftists at Wikipedia:

“Global majority” is a collective term for people of Indigenous, African, Asian, or Latin American descent, who constitute approximately 85 percent of the global population. It has been used as an alternative to terms which are seen as racialized like “ethnic minority” and “person of color” (POC), or more regional terms like “visible minority” in Canada and “Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic” (BAME) in the United Kingdom. It roughly corresponds to people whose heritage can be traced back to nations of the Global South. […] The term was used as early as 2003 as a way to challenge the normativity of a white majority or Eurocentric perspective, through Rosemary Campbell-Stephens’ work on leadership preparation within the school sector. Its proponents argue that terms like “ethnic minority” marginalize the skills, the ways of thinking, and the lived experiences of those from African, Asian, indigenous, or dual-heritage backgrounds. Collectively, these groups are said to constitute 85 percent of the global population. Therefore, terms like ethnic minority, person of color, visible minority, and BAME were criticized as racializing ethnicity. (“Global Majority” defined at Wikipedia)

If you’re naïve, you might suppose that the term “global majority” is even more open to criticism on core leftist principles than terms like “ethnic minority” and “person of color.” After all, “global majority” seems to be an horrific example of erasure and Eurocentrism. How can the hugely diverse “skills,” “ways of thinking” and “lived experiences” of Somalis and Sinhalese, Tibetans and Tongans, Inuit and Indonesians, be crammed together in such a reductive, complexity-crushing way? Plainly, the only thing that the “global majority” have in common is that they aren’t stale pale Europeans. They are being defined and homogenized purely by reference to Whites, which is repulsively wrong and rebarbatively racist.

Rise of the righteous: usage of “global majority” has soared in recent years (graph from Google nGrams)

Except that it isn’t. To the pure in heart, all things are permitted. Nothing is wrong when leftists do it to advance the cause of leftism. They can delete difference and crush complexity to their hearts’ content. And that’s exactly what they’re doing when they use the term “global majority.” If you thought that leftists believed passionately in minority rights, you need to think again. When Whites are the minority, they will have no rights at all. Up till now, leftism has justified the privileging of non-Whites and punishment of Whites on the basis that Whites are the oppressive majority and non-Whites are vulnerable minorities. The term “global majority” represents a shift to a new way of thinking. In the past, non-Whites have had mojo as minorities. In the future, they will have mojo as the majority. Non-Whites will be privileged not because they are vulnerable minorities but because they are the virtuous majority. Simultaneously, Whites will shift from the oppressive majority to a villainous minority. And they will continue to be punished.

Virtuous votes and true democracy

In short, there will be no minority rights for Whites. No, Whites will be a global minority who will have to accept the orders of the global majority — as interpreted by leftists. If Whites vote in their own interests within a Western nation, their votes will be over-ridden by the interests of the non-White majority outside the nation. And that will be true democracy at last. In the past, leftists have had to circumvent false democracy, when the White majority has tried to defend itself. For example, White majorities across the West have consistently opposed non-White migration, but non-White migration has inexorably increased. In Britain, millions of White working-class voters switched their votes in 2019 from the overtly leftist Labour party to the covertly leftist Conservative party, because the Conservatives had promised, hand on heart, to reduce immigration and control the borders. Once they were in power, the Conservatives increased immigration even further and abandoned control of the borders. That might seem anti-democratic, but it wasn’t. Not in the slightest. In true democracy, votes count only when they are cast in the right way. And the right way is, of course, the leftist way.

HWWTYL in action: the Indigenous Irish are vilified for resisting invasion and colonization by non-Whites

The same applies to language. Words have to be interpreted in the right way, namely, the leftist way. Recall the Wikipedia definition above. It says that the term “global majority” includes all people who are  “Indigenous” (with a sacralizing capital I). But the adjective “indigenous” is an excellent example of HWWTYL in action. Leftism regards non-White Maoris as fully indigenous to New Zealand, even though they’ve inhabited those islands only since about the 1300s. But leftism does not regard Whites as indigenous to any part of Europe, even though Whites have inhabited Europe for 10,000 years and more.

In short, “global majority” isn’t an honest term. It’s yet another rhetorical weapon in the leftist campaign to privilege non-Whites and punish Whites. But the privileging of the global majority and punishment of a global minority won’t apply to groups like homosexuals and particularly not to the transgender community. Those groups have been and will continue to be sacred. Yes, “transwomen” are much more of a global minority than Whites are, but “transwomen” are virtuous and will retain full privilege at the top of the leftist hierarchy. Whites are villainous and must have no rights either as the majority or as a minority. “Heads Non-Whites Win, Tails Whites Lose.” That’s all implicit in the increasingly popular term “global majority.” But suppose that the Hollow Earth hypothesis turns out to be true and that 100 billion Whites reveal their presence next week from a vast underground world. In that case, Whites would become the undisputed “global majority” and leftists would instantly convert the term from positive to pejorative. HWWTYL — “Heads We Win, Tails You Lose.” Leftists don’t have principles, only the pursuit of power. George Orwell satirized this leftist power-lust more than seventy years ago:

Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an unwearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The keyword here is blackwhite. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. (Nineteen Eighty-Four, 1949, Part Two, Chapter 9)

The term blackwhite still applies to modern leftism, but to capture other aspects of the ideology you’d have to add two new terms: blackbless and whitevice. Modern leftists believe that whatever Blacks do is virtuous and whatever Whites do is villainous. All apparent failure by Blacks is the fault of Whites, all apparent success by Whites represents theft from non-Whites. That’s why the term “global majority” is simultaneously smarmy and sinister. It clearly proclaims that Whites will never have rights and that Whites will always be punished. As I pointed out in “The Yoke of Woke,” leftists are preaching equality even as they plan to practise enslavement and extermination. When a leftist uses the term “global majority,” you can see the egalitarian mask slip and a tyrant peep out with bloodlust in their eyes.

Afterword: I’d like to thank Jack Antonio for first drawing my attention to the sinister significance of the term “global majority.” If you enjoy good writing, good stories and good jokes, then believe me: you’ll find plenty of all three in Jack’s memoir Boy Outa Brooklyn.

To Burn or not to Burn, Part 2

/2 Comments/in /by

Part 1 of “To Burn or Not to Burn”

Most of this information comes from MSM or from the wonderful world of the Spider’s online web. Perhaps none of it is true, and it is all a psyop….

It is very likely this article will be read by Irish Police (Gardaí Siochána), and it should be clearly stated that this writer does not condone, encourage, facilitate or do any act, word, thought, emotion or prayer which in any way could be construed as inciting either hatred or violence. The deliberate intention is to encourage people to laugh and seek positive solutions.

Big, dramatic fire in the midlands town of Longford. Residents had to run for their lives. Very little media coverage. The Garda Press Office gave no reply when asked if the burnt out residents were ethnic Irish or non-Irish. This tends to suggest they were non-Irish. This is the first EVER anti-foreigner fire directed at a building with people actually living there. Luckily nobody was killed or injured, buíochas mór le Dia. Isn’t it just as well the foreigners are good at running? It is very significant that there was zero comment from the politicians about this, although it would have made an excellent “think of the children” moment for them. Was it Noam Chomsky who said something about the threat of a good example? The non-lethal Longford fire of 2024 will be written about in future history books.

The MSM tells us everyday that the Israelis have burned or bombed ten, or twenty or two hundred refugees or international aid workers. The “On The Ditch” website recently stated that several planes packed with ammunition for Israel flew over Ireland. Two top politicians — the suspiciously named Simon “the Nose” Harris and the equally dubious Michael “the Nose” Martin — claim to know nothing about it. The burning question asks itself, in the most pro-Palestinian country in Europe: If Shlomo can get the Yanks to donate incendiary devices to burn two hundred refugees alive and get standing ovations in the US Congress, maybe Paddy can do it too? If we play our cards right, we could probably get the US taxpayer to pay for it…

There is a lot of resentment in the Irish Defence Forces of Israeli involvement in killing Irish peacekeeping soldiers in Lebannon. The Garda Síochána have earned a place in Jewish history books by being the first police force ever to arrest and charge a Rabbi (Father of ten Londoner  John Abraham) for the crime of foreskin chopping while not being a doctor.

The Camfil fire in a Dublin industrial estate is more puzzling. Another spectacular fire, seen by hundreds of thousands of people. The web rumour mill says there are a lot of data centres in that estate. Another theory is that it was an Amazon fulfillment centre. The website of the company (camfil.com) claims they are innocent makers of air filters and extraction systems.

It’s possible they were planning to flip the building for refugee use. With any fire in an insured building, one must be aware of the possibility of insurance fraud. Perhaps the owners set it on fire themselves, and that will allow them to refit it for refugees, and claim compensation for the fire? Silverstein would be proud of them! A so-called socialist party in Dublin had a debate at a conference last year asking: Is it OK to burn dáta centres? Was it the lefties?

A decent sized fire at the — empty — former Augustinian priory in Ballyboden, Dublin. Rumour has it this was a potential refugee site.

Next to the River Liffey, in the centre of Dublin at Merchant’s Quay, a more direct approach was taken. A large group of foreigners had been squatting the property. A group of unmasked men, some with noticeable beer bellies, went and threw them out, with a little bit of roughing up. MSM reported very briefly on it, saying that a couple of men had to go to hospital, but did not mention any refugee angle. Apparently, the owner of the property hired a few lads to throw the darkies out. It’s technically not an anti-refugee thing, just a financial disagreement. Most remarkable that the beer bellied men did not mask their faces. They must be very sure of their  ground, and why wouldn’t they be?

It seems that Gardaí took a loooong time to get there, even though Garda HQ is five minutes away. Gardaí who want to turn a blind eye to evictions of foreigners have an excellent and true excuse: “We are very understaffed, and the crimes you report are unlikely to lead to any serious injury. We will get to you after we have dealt with more serious matters.”

Rope Games in Cork city centre. An Indian student chap is walking down the street in broad daylight when an ethnic Irish man sneaks up behind him and starts hitting him with a rope. The Indian moves away and takes a photo of the Irishman. He issued a statement claiming that he felt upset and scared. Bad idea! This will only encourage future copycat Rope Man attacks. There was no mention of a noose or a knot on the rope, so there’s no suggestion of hanging or anything.

This is possibly a false flag psyop of some kind, but if not, Rope Man no doubt has a perfectly reasonable explanation, in the highly unlikely event that the Gardaí bother to find him and ask him:
“Oh, I was just having laugh. Messing. Slagging. No harm done. Traditional expression of Irish culture, protected by the Constitution, EU law and the Good Friday Agreement.”

The fact that Rope Man was unmasked tends to show that this was just jolly japes. No harm done, and none intended. Traditional Irish proverb: “If you can’t take a joke, why don’t you go back to where you came from?” An Irish judge has determined that this specific phrase, while it is very rude, does not meet the threshold for criminal speech, in a case brought by a ethnic Nigerian against an ethnic Dublin bus driver.
In Northern Ireland, not one but two Protestant churches have been burnt. Traditionally this would suggest a Catholic/Republican attack (or a devious Brit/Mossad false flag operation). The first burning was a central location and it was reported that fifty percent of the congregation were foreign. An angle grinder was used to remove a steel grid to allow better access for burning. As the radio newsreader smirked, not much damage was done. It was possibly unwise for the MSM to taunt the burners on the lack of burn. The next church burnt, in a more prosperous looking area, was badly burnt. Nobody was hurt or injured, buíochas mór le Dia.

Some Catholic sites (LifeSiteNews and Catholic Arena) have noted a trend of burning churches in France, North America and elsewhere, supposedly for ideological reasons: Islam, feminism, abused boys or just plain old satanism. It’s possible that these Belfast church burnings are not related to the migration thing, but just part of a general Judaeo-Satanic church burning programme, cleverly using the migration issue to slip in a few discrete fires. Insurance fraud is an ever present possibility, and what better time to burn your own church than when there is a wave of attacks on migrant accommodation?
Over 3,000 people (including eight Black British soldiers) were killed in a variety of locations and with various methods in the NI conflict. Possibly thousands of buildings were destroyed or damaged. No-one was ever killed inside a church and no church — of either side — was ever destroyed. Some people were killed on their way to or from church, because of the practical advantages such an kill zone can offer. But destroying a church? Not once. It wouldn’t be Christian…

The burning of two Christian churches is a historic occasion. It probably hasn’t happened anywhere in Ireland since the Royal Navy bombed Dublin in 1916.

There have been almost no claims of responsibility for anti-migrant attacks. This is in contrast to the time of the Troubles. Mostly, even after appalling, senseless attacks, one side or the other would claim responsibility, possibly with some apology for civilian lives lost. The Merchant’s Quay eviction of foreigners is the only case of people claiming credit: there’s a slightly beer bellied gentleman online vaguely hinting about it.

(One of the very few incidents in the Troubles where there was NO claim of responsibility was in the killing of a NI policeman named Harris. The media said the IRA did it, but the IRA never claimed responsibility. That man’s son was also a Special Branch NI policeman, and is the current, and deeply unpopular, head of the Gardaí. Pure cohencidence folks, move along now, nothing to see here. But for further details you could check out Mícheál’s research at freepress.ie. Caveat Lector! As rabbit holes go, it’s pretty rabbity. You will need a strong stomach and nerves of steel. There is reference to the unusual death by fire on a boat on the Shannon of a very brave, honest, ethnic Irish lady cop. RIP.  Deep State. Say no more. And whatever you say, say nothing.)

In Ballina, Co. Mayo, they have a very diverse set of tactics. Diversity is our strength, don’t you know? The hotel is hosting both refugees and regular tourists, and seem surprised that they are being attacked. Here’s what they say:

“These incidents include the breaking of windows with rocks and pellet guns. damage to water and gas mains pipes, blocking of entrances, stopping tourists to ask for identification, rocks being thrown at staff members, verbal abuse of staff, the threatening of both staff and suppliers, abuse of animals and an attempted arson attack.

“The protest camp also attracted a considerable amount of anti-social behavior including the aiming and firing of fireworks and lasers on tourist accommodation rooms, late night roadside drinking, burning of tyres, loud music and litter.

“On Saturday the protesters reinstated a campsite and a fire on the public roadside.

“It is the view of the hotel that it can not be allowed to continue due to the non-peaceful nature of incidents attracted by the previous camp.

“While we respect the rights of protesters, we also would like to highlight the rights of our staff to attend work without harassment and make a living for themselves and their families.

“We ask that the ability of tourist guests, club members and international protection families to use the hotel and leisure club facilities are not blocked and is respected.

“If you have a booking to stay with us here in Ballina and feel apprehensive about staying due to the protest camp, we offer free cancellation and apologies for any inconvenience in finding new accommodation.

“Management of Twin Trees Hotel and Leisure Club.”

The careful reader will notice that there is absolutely no mention of the cops in this statement. Why not?

If you have cheap phone calls to Ireland, you can see the potential here for a bit of armchair activism. Call them up and make enquiries about booking a room. Tell them you’ve heard rumours about the refugees, and quiz them on the details. Obviously, don’t incite hatred or violence, as that would be a criminal offence here. But you can certainly ask if any of the refugees are convicted criminals, or if they come from ethnic groups with a tendency to violence or if they smell bad.

It’s quite possible that the hotel employee will be ethnic Irish or European, and in that case, you can certainly have a bit of good natured banter with them. Christians from Kerala and the Filipines will also enjoy anti-refugee banter.

This could work by email as well, but direct voice impact works better.

There seems to be a strong Jewish involvement in the refugee thing, which is surprising. As is well known, there are very few Jews in Ireland.  Alan Shatter is the notorious evil mastermind of migration, and he was boasting the other day that he has just come back from seven weeks in the US. What was he up to?

Jewish school teacher, Mr Simon Lewis (pro-refugee, pro-trans, anti-Christian, etc.) claims that what starts as civilised online discussions about education policy often ends with the Christian Irish person asking him: ”Why don’t you fuck off back to Israel and kill some Palestinian babies?”

Good old Harry Crosbie, well known Dublin businessman and highly respected member of the Jewish community, was complaining on Joe Duffy’s RTÉ radio show. Apparently, there have been repeated attacks on his wife’s cafe in the Canal Docks area, and it has even had to close on occasion.

Several alleged eyewitnesses confirm his account. One talks of four balaclaved youths aiming and firing illegal fireworks directly at a crowd outside the cafe. Extremely dangerous, and equivalent to attempted murder. If they shouted slogans in support of the Palestinians, perhaps their actions would be covered by the Geneva Conventions on warfare? Harry supports the Israelis, so his wife’s cafe could, potentially, be seen as a legitimate military target. Or perhaps it was just an accident caused by the fog of war, like the Jewish-American protesting the Netanyahu government killed by the IDF?

Another eyewitness describes youths with wetsuits swimming in the canal, climbing out, climbing onto Crosbie’s roof, damaging guttering and chimneys. The youths were reportedly very abusive, but everyone was very careful not to mention what they said.

There seem to be two types of incident: simple damage to property and intimidation versus serious attempts to kill and injure people. Perhaps the perpetrators are different?

Two possible explanations (not justifications):

1.These kids grew up with almost non-stop violence on TV, and that’s not even counting what’s online. Monkey see, monkey do.

2. The lads have been radicalised by reading all this crazy conspiracy stuff on The Occidental Observer and Unz.com.

Meanwhile, at Thornton Hall, north County Dublin, on some of the finest agricultural land in the country, they are preparing refugee accommodation for 10,000 people. A fifty-year-old woman was arrested for threatening behaviour and obstruction. When big strong policemen are arresting little old grannies, because the men are scared, it is a sign that the system is about to collapse under the weight of public mockery.

To conclude, would you like to hear the story of the very first burning of an (empty) refugee property in Ireland?

Fadó, fadó, fadó(a long time ago), in the days before Covid 21, in the lovely village of Roosky on the banks of the mighty Shannon, there was a little hotel that wanted to be a refugee centre. But the hotel’s neighbours did not want it to transform into a refugee centre.

A fire happened in the little hotel. It was a very very, very tiny little fire. It was one of the tiniest little fires that were ever lit in the whole history of man and fire. The dark-skinned foreign gentleman who was working security did not ring the fire brigade or the cops when he noticed the fire. The first thing he did was ring his boss, some kind of greedy half-English atheist businessman. Only after ringing his boss did he ring the fire brigade. The MSM bigged it up as a shocking racism thing. Roosky residents suspect it was simple insurance fraud.

And that’s the end of the story of the little Hotel who wanted to become a big refugee centre.

Nothing in this article should be taken as an endorsement, encouragement, facilitation or admission of any illegal acts, words, thoughts, feelings or prayers. Just having a laugh, officer…
Beir Bua!

Horus: Chaos of the Ether

/2 Comments/in /by

Support independent scholarship. Subscribe to Horus.

Chaos of the Ether

The Yoke of Woke: Nathan Cofnas Is Wrong about the Nature and Origins of Wokism

/6 Comments/in , , /by

I admire the moral courage of Nathan Cofnas, the Jewish philosopher and race-realist. He stood out against the dominant ideology of Cambridge University and was duly punished for his crimethink. He’s also stood up for the free speech of heretics like Kevin MacDonald, even though he doesn’t agree with MacDonald’s heresies. But I don’t admire the honesty of Nathan Cofnas. It’s hard to admire something that disappears whenever Jewish interests are at stake. For example, here’s Cofnas on what you might call the yolk of woke — the central principles and origins of wokism:

To explain the appeal of leftism — which increasingly takes the form of wokism — you have to explain what wokism is. I argue that wokism is simply what follows from taking the equality thesis of race and sex differences seriously, given a background of Christian morality. Both the mainstream left and right believe that innate cognitive ability and temperament are distributed equally among races, and probably the sexes, too. (Mainstream conservatives acknowledge the existence of physical sex differences, but they rarely chalk up disparities in, for example, mathematical achievement to differences in innate ability — at least not publicly.) As I will explain, wokesters correctly follow the equality thesis to its logical conclusion, whereas conservatives fail to recognize the implications of their own beliefs. Smart people are disproportionately attracted to wokism in large part because it offers a more intellectually coherent explanation for the major issue of our time, which is the persistence of racial disparities. (“Why We Need to Talk about the Right’s Stupidity Problem: To win over the elites, the right needs to challenge the Big Lie that motivates wokism: the equality thesis,” Nathan Cofnas’s Newsletter, 2nd January, 2024)

Nathan Cofnas, who bears an uncanny resemblance to the internet meme Wojak

So Cofnas claims that wokism is “wokism is simply what follows from taking the equality thesis of race and sex differences seriously, given a background of Christian morality.” He’s wrong. Wokism is not a simple phenomenon — not ideologically, not psychologically, not historically. And although I agree that the right has a “Stupidity Problem” and that anti-Semites are often  “emotionally disturbed fools,” I also think that Cofnas has a dishonesty problem. First of all, wokism doesn’t in fact take “the equality thesis of race and sex differences seriously,” as I will shortly show. Second, wokism’s concern about “the persistence of racial disparities” isn’t to end them but to reverse them. It wants to place favored racial groups at the top and Whites at the bottom. In his article, Cofnas doesn’t address what are perhaps the core features of wokism: its hatred of Whites and Western civilization, and its desire to harm the former and destroy the latter. That hatred and that desire can’t be explained by egalitarianism or a “background of Christian morality.” But they can be at least partly explained by Jewish activism and the longstanding resentments of Jews against Whites and the West.

The wickedness of Whiteness

Let’s take Cofnas’ claim that wokesters take “the equality thesis of race and sex differences seriously.” In fact, no, they don’t. They emit rhetoric about equality while simultaneously believing in the innate evil of Whites or men and innate virtue of non-Whites or women. George Orwell called this kind of contradiction doublethink: the simultaneous holding of “two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them.” But wokism is increasingly less about doublethink on race and more about singlethink. It’s very easy to find wokesters blatantly contradicting “the equality thesis of race”:

A former Seattle city employee has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging he was a victim of anti-White discrimination due to a “racially hostile work environment.” … As part of his RSJI [Race and Social Justice Initiative] training, the lawsuit alleges, Diemert was required to attend a two-day workshop in 2019 called “Undoing Institutional Racism,” during which facilitators declared, “white people are like the devil,” “racism is in white people’s DNA,” and “white people are cannibals.” … “Mr. Diemert’s colleagues used their work emails to berate and entertain violence against him, referring to him as ‘some a—hole,’ the ‘reincarnation of the people that shot native Americans from trains, rounded up jews for the camps, hunted down gypsies in Europe and runaway slaves in America,’ noting that it was not worth addressing his concerns because he would ‘just come back with more stupidity,’ and that someone should ‘get a guy to swing by when Josh is in the restroom and beat him bloody,’” the lawsuit alleges. (Seattle City Employee Sues Over Anti-White Discrimination, ‘Racially Hostile Work Environment,’ Fox News, 29th November 2022)

If wokesters took the “equality thesis” seriously, they wouldn’t make anti-White statements like those. No, they would condemn statements like those. They don’t. The New York Times, a bastion of woke, happily accepted the Korean wokester Sarah Jeong onto its editorial board in 2018 despite her long history of spreading “hate and poison” against Whites in ways that blatantly contradicted the “equality thesis.” At American Renaissance, Gregory Hood has accurately described woke anti-racism as a “Church of the Damned” for Whites. Nothing Whites can do will ever cleanse them of their hereditary taint — their original sin — of racism. In short, wokism operates more and more explicitly on an in-equality thesis of race. Whites are innately wicked (“racism is in white people’s DNA”) and non-Whites are innately virtuous. Orwell said this in 1945:

Among the intelligentsia, colour feeling only occurs in the transposed form, that is, as a belief in the innate superiority of the coloured races. This is now increasingly common among English intellectuals, probably resulting more often from masochism and sexual frustration than from contact with the Oriental and Negro nationalist movements. Even among those who do not feel strongly on the colour question, snobbery and imitation have a powerful influence. Almost any English intellectual would be scandalised by the claim that the white races are superior to the coloured, whereas the opposite claim would seem to him unexceptionable even if he disagreed with it. (“Notes on Nationalism,” Polemic, London, 1945)

Orwell used the terms “intelligentsia” and “intellectuals.” Cofnas uses the term “smart people.” Orwell described their racial beliefs accurately. Cofnas doesn’t. And Cofnas doesn’t mention the central role of some particularly smart people in fomenting the anti-White hatred that is central to wokism. Here is the Ashkenazi Jew Susan Sontag:

The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone — its ideologies and inventions — which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself. (Partisan Review, 1967)

And the Ashkenazi Jew Noël Ignatiev:

Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed—not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed. (See Andrew Joyce’s “Jews, Communists and Genocidal Hate in ‘Whiteness Studies’,” The Occidental Observer, 12th June 2015)

That is the Jewish “Culture of Critique” described by Kevin MacDonald: the anti-White, anti-Western ideology created by highly intelligent Jews and taken up by much less intelligent Blacks and others. In Britain, the Black academic Kehinde Andrews is a woke hero for books like The Psychosis of Whiteness (2023), which implicitly argues for the enslavement and even extermination of Whites. After all, Kehinde believes that rational argument is useless against the psychotic whiteness that has a stranglehold on so-called Western civilization:

Critical Whiteness studies has emerged as an academic discipline that has produced a lot of work and garnered attention in the last two decades. Central to this project is the idea that if the processes of Whiteness can be uncovered, then they can be reasoned with and overcome, through rationale dialogue. This article will argue, however, that Whiteness is a process rooted in the social structure, one that induces a form of psychosis framed by its irrationality, which is beyond any rational engagement. (“The Psychosis of Whiteness: The Celluloid Hallucinations of Amazing Grace and Belle,” Journal of Black Studies, Volume 47, Issue 5, July 2016)

Unlike Jewish Sontag and Ignatiev, Black Kehinde is stupid. Non-Whites like him couldn’t have created and promulgated the ideology they are applying. But they can certainly adopt the ideology and base successful careers on it. Kehinde’s stupidity is apparent in the self-refuting nature of his thesis. If “whiteness” were so psychotically powerful in Britain, he wouldn’t be able to criticize it as he does. Could a book called The Psychosis of Stalinism have been published in 1940s Russia? Or a book called The Psychosis of Islam in modern Iran? Obviously not. And what would happen in modern Britain or America to a book called The Psychosis of Blackness? It would be anathematized as abhorrently racist, as a genocidal assault on “black bodies.”

What wokesters want

Well, Kehinde’s book is “abhorrently racist” by the “equality thesis of race” that Cofnas claims to be at the heart of wokism. But no wokester has condemned Kehinde or pointed out where his logic is pointing. If he is right in his claims about “Whiteness,” it follows that only physical force will successfully “overcome” its “Psychosis.” But what do wokesters like Kehinde really mean by “Whiteness”? They mean the physical existence and autonomy of Whites. To defeat the Psychosis of Whiteness, then, Whites must be enslaved or exterminated. What other conclusion is possible if rational argument is impossible  and “psychosis” arises inexorably from “Whiteness”?

Cofnas says wokesters want equality. I say wokesters want enslavement and extermination. I think history is on my side, not Cofnas’ side. The Bolsheviks preached equality before they seized control of the Tsarist empire. They then practised enslavement and extermination. Here’s a chilling quote by one of the successful Bolshevik leaders: “To overcome our enemies we must have our own socialist militarism. We must carry along with us 90 million out of the 100 million of Soviet Russia’s population. As for the rest, we have nothing to say to them. They must be annihilated.” That was Grigory Zinoviev, who launched “the Red Terror” in 1918 after the assassination of Moisei Uritsky and the near-assassination of Vladimir Lenin. Another prominent Bolshevik, Yakov Sverdlov, promised “merciless mass terror against all enemies of the Revolution” after that attempt on Lenin’s life.

Minority rites

Many millions of Russians and Ukrainians were enslaved or exterminated by communists like those. The pattern was very clear: minorities were taking their revenge on majorities. Zinoviev, Moisei, Sverdlov and many other leading communists were fully Jewish, while Lenin was half Mongol, a quarter German and a quarter Jewish. Josef Stalin was Georgian and won supremacy partly because of Leon Trotsky’s reluctance to be the obviously Jewish leader of what was supposed to be a movement for all mankind. You can see the same over-representation of Jews in the proto-woke Weather Underground, a revolutionary movement in 1960s America that claimed to be pursuing equality but planned to enact extermination. The Weather Underground was infiltrated by an FBI agent called Larry Grathwohl, who later described a meeting at which the disproportionately Jewish Weatherfolk discussed how to secure their revolution:

They also believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect against what they called the counter revolution and they felt that this counter revolution could best be guarded against by creating and establishing reeducation centers in the Southwest where [they] would take all the people who needed to be reeducated into the new way of thinking and teach them how things were going to be. I asked, well, what is going to happen to those people that we can’t reeducate that are diehard capitalists and the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated. And when I pursued this further they estimated that they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers. And when I say eliminate I mean kill — 25 million people. I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people most of which have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well known educational centers and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people and they were dead serious. (“Patriot Larry Grathwohl, 65, Infiltrated Weather Underground, Indicted Bill Ayers,” The American Spectator, 24th July 2013)

People with “graduate degrees from Columbia” are what Cofnas calls “smart people.” And Cofnas says that smart people “are disproportionately attracted to wokism in large part because it offers a more intellectually coherent explanation for the major issue of our time, which is the persistence of racial disparities.” Bolshevism and the Weather Underground prove that smart people often have other and much darker motives for embracing supposedly egalitarian ideologies. The smart people preach equality, then practise enslavement and extermination.

A golem, not a shabbos goy

Jews were disproportionately involved in both Bolshevism and the Weather Underground. Like Marxism in general, communist movements like those are a vehicle for minority resentment against the majority and for minority revenge on the majority. Wokism owes much more to communism than it does to Christianity. And communism foreshadows wokism in another important way. Both movements were created by Jews to serve Jewish interests, then escaped Jewish control. Jews have recently watched in dismay as their “natural allies” among Muslims and other non-Whites have supported the wrong side in the war between egalitarian Israel and hate-filled Hamas. Wokism is escaping Jewish control just as communism did. Georgians like Josef Stalin and Lavrentiy Beria are more examples of the way communism attracted vengeful minorities. But Jews were one of the groups Stalin sought revenge on after becoming leader. Once he had supremacy, he exiled Trotsky and murdered Zinoviev and many other Jewish communists who had learnt too late that he was a golem, not a shabbos goy. Later he murdered Trotsky too. Stalin was a resentful man who tirelessly pursued revenge. That makes him an excellent example of leftist traits identified in this academic research:

In two pre-registered studies, we investigated the relationship of left-wing authoritarianism with the ego-focused trait of narcissism. Based on existing research, we expected individuals with higher levels of left-wing authoritarianism to also report higher levels of narcissism. Further, as individuals with leftist political attitudes can be assumed to be striving for social equality, we expected left-wing authoritarianism to also be positively related to prosocial traits, but narcissism to remain a significant predictor of left-wing authoritarianism above and beyond those prosocial dispositions. We investigated our hypotheses in two studies using cross-sectional correlational designs. Two nearly representative US samples (Study 1: N = 391; Study 2: N = 377) completed online measures of left-wing authoritarianism, the Dark Triad personality traits, and two variables with a prosocial focus (i.e., altruism and social justice commitment). In addition, we assessed relevant covariates (i.e., age, gender, socially desirable responding, and virtue signaling). The results of multiple regression analyses showed that a strong ideological view, according to which a violent revolution against existing societal structures is legitimate (i.e., anti-hierarchical aggression), was associated with antagonistic narcissism (Study 1) and psychopathy (Study 2). However, neither dispositional altruism nor social justice commitment was related to left-wing anti-hierarchical aggression. Considering these results, we assume that some leftist political activists do not actually strive for social justice and equality but rather use political activism to endorse or exercise violence against others to satisfy their own ego-focused needs. We discuss these results in relation to the dark-ego-vehicle principle. (“Understanding left-wing authoritarianism: Relations to the dark personality traits, altruism, and social justice commitment,” Ann Krispenz and Alex Bertrams, Current Psychology, 2023)

Contra Cofnas, wokism is not “simply what follows from taking the equality thesis of race and sex differences seriously, given a background of Christian morality.” Malevolence and hatred are central to wokism. Cofnas also ignores the central role of Jews in wokism. Although Jewish activism was certainly not sufficient to create and empower wokism, I would argue that it was necessary. Cofnas can’t admit that and doesn’t accurately describe what lies at the center of woke. Wokesters don’t in fact take the equality thesis of race and sex seriously. And wokism owes much more to communism than to Christianity.

If you want to remove the yoke of woke, then you have to understand the yolk of woke — the central principles that guide its adherents and power its malevolence. Wokism is driven by hatred of Whites and the West, not longing for equality. That’s why the end-logic of wokism is the same as the end-logic of communism: enslavement and extermination. We’re fortunate indeed that modern wokism has no highly competent leaders like the quarter-Jewish Vladimir Lenin and the fully Jewish Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Moisei Uritsky, Yakov Sverdlov, Genrikh Yagoda, Lazar Kagonovich, Maxim Litvinov, Karl Radek, etc, etc, etc.

Ashkenazic Afterword

Writing about the ethnocentric Ashkenazi Nathan Cofnas reminds me that I owe an apology to the alcoholic Ashkenazi David Cole, whom I criticized in my article “First-Amendment Blues.” I’ve sinned against Cole by both commission and omission. My commission came when I hacked his computer and added some embarrassingly inept insults against myself — Adolf Mentally-Unfitler, Heinrich Dimmler, Reinhard Heydick, Oskar Girlywanger, Horst Wuss-el — to the manuscript of “The Gentile-Jew Death Tango,” his reply to my article.

I knew that Cole would peer blearily at the published text through his latest hangover and attribute all those to himself “not being funny any more” rather than to malicious outside action. Sorry about that, David. I’m not a “sieg heiler” (honest), but I am good at writing like a 12-year-old. And my omission? That came when I failed to acknowledge that by Jewish standards David Cole is remarkably honest about Jewish malfeasance. I think he’s much more honest than I would ever be if I were Jewish myself. He hasn’t matched Larry Auster yet, but maybe he’ll get there in time. As for the genuinely Colean part of the anti-sieg-heiler article: yes, I like the tango metaphor, but I don’t think David has thought it through properly. Maybe he should meditate on “The Human-Mosquito Malaria Tango.” And listen for the sound of one hand clapping. Geddit?

The Carlson-Cooper Podcast: A Major Step Forward

/34 Comments/in , /by
Tucker Carlson has often been the subject of commentaries on this site, some quite negative, although I have tended toward his defense while calling attention to some of his blind spots, mostly involving race and Jewish influence. However, quite simply, Carlson has been by far the edgiest voice among mainstream conservatives.  This interview marks a major step forward and has resulted in outrage from some of the usual suspects such as from the Biden Administration, the ADL (J.D. Vance sought to “distancee the candidate from the interview).  Among the “numerous columnists” (according to CNN) who condemned the interview was Jewish activist and New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg. Two things particularly angered Goldberg. First:
This clever rhetorical formulation, familiar to various strands of right-wing propaganda, flatters listeners for their willingness to reject all they’ve learned from mainstream experts, making them feel brave and savvy for imbibing absurdities. Cooper proceeded, in a soft-spoken, faux-reasonable way, to lay out an alternative history in which Hitler tried mightily to avoid war with Western Europe, Churchill was a “psychopath” propped up by Zionist interests, and millions of people in concentration camps “ended up dead” because the overwhelmed Nazis didn’t have the resources to care for them. Elon Musk promoted the conversation as “very interesting” on his platform X, though he later deleted the tweet.”

I don’t have the background to comment on Hitler’s attempts to avoid a war or the beginnings of concentration camps, but of course we do know that Churchill’s profligacy and chronic indebtedness was funded by wealthy Jews who desperately wanted war with Hitler, as the articles by Horus and other accounts clearly show. The relevant passage in the interview is very brief but Goldberg fastened upon it and, at least to my hearing, Cooper seems uncomfortable discussing it. Needless to say, Goldberg does not attempt a rebuttal for any of these points or give any citations to people who could.

On Carlson’s website the interview is titled “The Fall of Europe” and subtitled: “Darryl Cooper: The True History of the Jonestown Cult, WWII, and How Winston Churchill Ruined Europe.”

The offending material starts with a comment on Jewish involvement in Bolshevism based on Churchill’s famous article from 1920 advocating that Jews embrace Zionism rather than Bolshevism but noting that many Jews got caught up in it, and Cooper agrees. Here are the relevant parts of Churchill’s article:

International Jews

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort [i.e., Jews who are nationalists in the nations they reside in] rise the schemes of the international Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all. of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus—Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown. a definitely recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Terrorist Jews.

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very, great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff. And the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek, all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing,

So Churchill was aware of the evils of Bolshevism and the intensive Jewish involvement in it but cooperated with the Jews financing his lifestyle in order to destroy Hitler whose crimes paled in comparison with those of the Bolsheviks, at the very least in the 1930s. Needless to say, Goldberg and her ilk never refer to Jewish domination of the Soviet Union in the decades after the Revolution.

The following machine translation has been edited to try to make sense out of a mess (Tucker needs to hire an editor), but you get the idea.

Darryl Cooper: Churchill wrote a kind of infamous now article called Zionism Versus Bolshevism. And he [Churchill] basically makes the case  — which was which was true to a large extent that all of Eastern Europe — that the Pale of Settlement, which is where the vast majority of Jews lived other than the United States, which is where a lot of them had had traveled to that area had become so engulfed by a revolutionary spirit that all of the young Ashkenazi Jews who were over there were getting swept up into it. It was the 60s here on steroids, right? [Perhaps suggesting Jews were deeply involved in the 1960s counter-cultural revolution throughout the West — which they were.] And in a much more serious and destructive way. And this is 1920. So shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution.

Basically, the point of his paper is he says, these people who over there they’re all going one direction or the other. They’re going to be Bolsheviks. They’re going to be Zionists. We want them to be Zionists, you know? And so we need to support this. And so that was early on. There was an ideological component of it. But then as time goes on, you know, you read stories about Churchill going bankrupt and needing money. Getting bailed out by people who shared his interests, you know, in terms of Zionism, but also, his hostility. Just, just. You know, I think his hostility, to put it this way, I think his hostility to Germany was real. I don’t think that he necessarily had to be bribed to have that feeling. But, you know, I think he was, to an extent, put in place by people, the financiers, by a media complex that wanted to make sure that he was the guy who, you know, who was representing Britain in that conflict for, for the, for a reason. And you know, Churchill’s a… Again, it’s so hard. Because like, you know, especially in a short interview like this where you have this guy. Who? I mean, he’s an Abraham Lincoln-, George Washington-, Martin Luther King-like type figure in the sort of Western consciousness, right?

Tucker [00:57:09] Yes.

Darryl Cooper [00:57:10] And so people have so many assumptions in built-in triggers, like when it comes to this guy, that it’s hard to talk about it because you’re always thinking about the triggers that you’re setting off and your listeners. And I don’t say that in a way of like, I don’t want to offend anybody. No, no, I understand it’s that it’s, you know, you know, that things are going to be misunderstood. And so this is why I do 30, our podcast.

Tucker [00:57:31] Well, it’s just it’s interesting because I, you know, as a follower of your work, I don’t see you as hostile to the West. I see you actually as a product of the West and as a defender, really of the West for its values. You know, in your approach, in your open mindedness, rigor, you know, belief in accuracy and honesty and those are Western notions. And yet Churchill has been positioned and has been and really is accepted as like the defender of the West over the last 100 years.

Darryl Cooper [00:58:02] Yeah.

Tucker [00:58:03] And so maybe that’s and I wonder why that is. I don’t I mean, people can certainly take issue with any factual claims you’re making. I assume they’re all right. They’re consistent with what I think I know to be true. But why do you think Churchill has been presented in a way, in the way that he has?

In other words, Tucker has long known this about the roots of World War II, Jewish involvement in it, and Churchill’s role in producing this disaster.

Darryl Cooper [00:58:22]  Well, it’s it has to do with what you said earlier, right? Neville Chamberlain versus Churchill has been the binary model that has served as the chief rhetorical device for every conflict we’ve wanted to get into since then. Yes. You know, the entire Cold War. And then even after the Cold War, in the global war on terror is if you appease them, you’re Neville Chamberlain. Hitler’s the, rather, Churchill’s the one who saw all along where this was headed and was trying to warn people this, you know, Cassandra. And finally, because nobody listened to him, the war ended up breaking out and we were forced to, like, go stamp out this threat. And now it’s a….much bigger threat than it ever would have been if we just …

Tucker [00:59:05] Put a listing, say, if we had strangled it in its

Darryl Cooper [00:59:07] Crib and it’s justified every conflict, you know, really, since the Second World War, everybody’s the new Hitler, right? It’s you know, it really did become the founding myth of the of the global order that we’re all living in now. Right?

*   *   *

The other big problem for Goldberg (also predictable):
Toward the end of their conversation, Carlson and Cooper discussed how the “postwar European order” has enabled mass immigration, which has, in Carlson’s telling, destroyed Western Europe. “So why not have a Nuremberg trial for the people who did that?” asked Carlson. “I don’t understand. I mean, that’s such a crime.”
“Well,” Cooper responded, “we have to win first.”

Goldberg’s column ends there. For the Michelle Goldbergs of the world, the worst thing that could happen would be for people to realize that Western cultures and peoples are in the process of suicide and that Jews are influential advocates of this process. Here’s the relevant transcript edited for clarity because the machine transcription is a mess:

Tucker Carlson:  “I just can’t get over the fact that the West won and is completely destroyed in less than a century. … Somehow the United States and Western Europe won. That’s the conventional understanding. And both now look like they lost a World War. So, like, what the hell was that? Like, there’s something very, very heavy.

Darryl Cooper [02:08:46] Yeah. I mean, it’s all the things that we have been talking about. [Presumably a reference to Jewish involvement in Bolshevism, Hitler’s campaign against Bolshevism, the Jewish-financed campaign against Hitler and its ensuing media-and academic-manufactured mythology, as well as the 1960s counter-cultural revolution, massive non-White immigration, and multiculturalism.] And probably some things that, you know, we only talk about privately, but we can see the results of it. I mean.

“We only talk about privately. A revealing statement. It’s pretty clearly a reference to the disastrous consequences that await anyone who dares to question the consensus and an oblique reference to Jewish power that is so instrumental in suppressing ideas that they don’t like, especially any ideas that seriously discuss Jewish power.

Tucker [02:08:58] Yeah. So that’s that’s the real question. If they were trying to achieve that destruction that you’re talking about, if they if they were trying, they couldn’t have done it more directly or more effectively, you know. And so, there are trends in forces. There are things that drive people, you know, like incentives to drive people that they’re not aware of. There’s a lot of things going on.

So no clear reference to Jewish influence, but he’s certainly right about incentives that are so attractive to so many non-Jews, particularly politicians and others with aspirations to power, that smooth the way for traitorous behavior by so many White people. I have argued that the Jewish motive is quite clear: They feel safer in a multicultural, non-White majority country as an antidote to what happened in White, Christian Germany beginning in 1933.

Tucker around 2:05: So when can just tie a bow in [your] World War Two project? … I think it’s like it’s central to the society we live in, the myths upon which it’s built. I think it’s also the cause of like the destruction of Western civilization and these lies.

Absolutely right.

I should also mention a tidbit from an Alex Berenson blog — Berenson being the Covid dissident who was on Tucker’s Fox News show several times. Berenson:

And just weeks ago, when I heard that Tucker said on a podcast that my “indispensable quality is bravery,” I was genuinely thrilled. Which is why it hurt to hear Tucker playing footsie on his incredibly popular podcast this week with Darryl Cooper, a historian who is a Nazi apologist and — at best — walks to the edge of Holocaust denial.

To take a recent example, Cooper posted on X that the Nazi occupation of Paris was “infinitely preferable” to the (admittedly idiotic and offensive) opening ceremony of the Olympics in July. The Nazi occupation of Paris led to over 70,000 French Jews being sent to gas chambers. (Cooper later deleted the post.)

So Cooper is definitely on page with the idea that World War II has led to the disastrous consequences we see in the contemporary West in terms of cultural degradation and, on the basis of the above, on being colonized by the Third World. Of course, Berenson (and the rest of the critics) never bother to consider the consequences to the people and culture of the West as a result of the World War II mythos being so entrenched in the West, much less give any serious analysis of the Jewish role in establishing and maintaining it.

This interview is a big step forward in bringing these ideas into the mainstream. One wonders if Carlson did it in hopes of influencing the looming election in which immigration and multiculturalism are definitely on the minds of a great many voters. (Carlson is doing a 16-date cross-country tour in September, including a show with J.D. Vance on September 21.)  Perhaps he understands that there is not much time left and that we have to make a stand against the onslaught we are facing.  And a necessary part of taking a stand would be to change the public’s attitudes on the origins of World War II and on Jewish power and influence.

Of course, there will be consequences, but in retrospect, Tucker getting fired from Fox News is definitely a big positive. He never could have said anything like this on Fox. It’s not clear what the powers that be can do to Carlson, but for the ADL and the rest of establishment media figures, this is Armageddon — a battle they can’t afford to lose. They will pull out all the stops to prevent it from becoming mainstream in conservative circles.

But some people are just too big to completely bury and his alliance with Elon Musk and Musk’s ownership of X is a big plus. Any conservative who is remotely paying attention realizes that the formidable power of the Jewish community is firmly aligned with the Democrats as it has been for decades.

We’ll see. It will be a nice test of Jewish power. Believe me, they won’t take this lying down.

Here’s Goldberg’s screed:

Tucker Carlson and the Heterodoxy-to-Holocaust Denial Pipeline

Tucker Carlson stands at a microphone and raises his hand. Behind him is a huge screen showing the same image.
Credit…Thalassa Raasch
Michelle Goldberg

By Michelle Goldberg

This week Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News star who now hosts one of America’s top podcasts, had an apologist for Adolf Hitler on his show. Darryl Cooper, who runs a history podcast and newsletter called Martyr Made, considers Winston Churchill, not Hitler, the chief villain of World War II. In a social media post that he’s since deleted, Cooper argued that a Paris occupied by the Nazis was “infinitely preferable in virtually every way” to the city on display during the opening ceremony of the recent summer Olympics, where a drag queen performance infuriated the right. On his show, Carlson introduced Cooper to listeners as “the most important popular historian working in the United States today.”

Over the course of a wide-ranging two-hour conversation, Cooper presented the mainstream history of World War II as a mythology shrouded in taboos intended to prop up a corrupt liberal political order. The idea that Nazi Germany represented the epitome of evil, argued Cooper, is such a “core part of the state religion” that we have “emotional triggers” preventing us from examining the past dispassionately.

This clever rhetorical formulation, familiar to various strands of right-wing propaganda, flatters listeners for their willingness to reject all they’ve learned from mainstream experts, making them feel brave and savvy for imbibing absurdities. Cooper proceeded, in a soft-spoken, faux-reasonable way, to lay out an alternative history in which Hitler tried mightily to avoid war with Western Europe, Churchill was a “psychopath” propped up by Zionist interests, and millions of people in concentration camps “ended up dead” because the overwhelmed Nazis didn’t have the resources to care for them. Elon Musk promoted the conversation as “very interesting” on his platform X, though he later deleted the tweet.

Some on the right found Carlson’s turn toward Holocaust skepticism surprising. “Didn’t expect Tucker Carlson to become an outlet for Nazi apologetics, but here we are,” Erick Erickson, the conservative radio host, wrote on X. But Carlson’s trajectory was entirely predictable. Nazi sympathy is the natural endpoint of a politics based on glib contrarianism, right-wing transgression and ethnic grievance.

There are few better trolls, after all, than Holocaust deniers, who love to pose as heterodox truth-seekers oppressed by Orwellian elites. (The wildly antisemitic Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust named its journal “An Inconvenient History: A Quarterly Journal for Free Historical Inquiry.”) Those who deny or downplay the Holocaust often excel at mimicking the forms and language of legitimate scholarship, using them to undermine rather than explore reality. They blitz their opponents with out-of-context historical detail and bad-faith questions, and they know how to use crude provocation to get attention.
Long before 4Chan existed, the disgraced Holocaust-denying author David Irving urged his followers, in an early 1990s speech, to break through the “appalling pseudo-religious atmosphere” surrounding World War II by being aggressively tasteless. “You’ve got to say things like: ‘More women died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chamber at Auschwitz,’” he said.

Until quite recently, American conservatives mostly maintained antibodies against Irving-style disinformation. Right-wing thought leaders generally shared the same broad historical understanding of World War II as the rest of society, felt patriotic pride at America’s role in it and viewed Hitler as metaphysically wicked. Rather than recognizing the way right-wing politics, taken to extremes, could shade into National Socialism, they would hurl Nazi comparisons at the left, as the conservative columnist Jonah Goldberg did in his 2008 book “Liberal Fascism.”

Goldberg’s approach was dishonest, but it was representative of a broad antifascist consensus in American politics. Cooper is, in fact, correct that abhorrence of Nazism has helped structure Western societies. If we could agree on nothing else, we could agree that part of the job of liberal democracy was to erect bulwarks against the emergence of Hitler-like figures.

For parts of the contemporary right, however, the social consensuses undergirding liberalism are artificial and even tyrannical. After all, the “Matrix”-derived metaphor of being “red-pilled” implies a realization that all you’ve been told about the nature of reality is a lie, and thus everything is up for grabs. And once you discard all epistemological and moral guardrails, it’s easy to descend into barbarous nonsense.

Candace Owens, another anti-woke right-wing celebrity who has lately become Hitler-curious, has also come to question received wisdom about the shape of the earth. “I’m not a flat-earther,” she said in July. “I’m not a round-earther. Actually, what I am is I am somebody who has left the cult of science.”

Obviously, not every red-pilled conservative ends up arguing, as Owens did, that Hitler gets a bad rap. But the weakening of the intellectual quarantine around Nazism — and the MAGA right’s fetish for ideas their enemies see as dangerous — makes it easier for influential conservatives to surrender to fascist impulses. When they do, they pay no penalty in political relevance, because there’s no conservative establishment capable of disciplining its ideologues.

Carlson has just embarked on a national tour with special guests at each stop. In addition to Alex Jones, he’s scheduled to appear with the vice-presidential nominee JD Vance and Donald Trump Jr.

Ultimately, Holocaust denial isn’t really about history at all, but about what’s permissible in the present and imaginable in the future. If Hitler is no longer widely understood as the negation of our deepest values, America will be softened up for Donald Trump’s most authoritarian plans, including imprisoning masses of undocumented immigrants in vast detention camps.

Toward the end of their conversation, Carlson and Cooper discussed how the “postwar European order” has enabled mass immigration, which has, in Carlson’s telling, destroyed Western Europe. “So why not have a Nuremberg trial for the people who did that?” asked Carlson. “I don’t understand. I mean, that’s such a crime.”

“Well,” Cooper responded, “we have to win first.”