Featured Articles

Woke Eugenics: Why Wokeness is a Group-Level Adaptation That Will Save the European Peoples  

/10 Comments/in /by

Woke Eugenics – Imperium Press: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism: Dutton, Edward, Rayner-Hilles, J. O. A.

If you’re anything like me, then your natural reaction upon seeing an obviously Woke girl —- complete with the obligatory dyed blue hair, rainbow flag handbag and supercilious facial expression — will be to avoid her. After all, her bright hair alone is screaming at you to do just that. In nature, vivid colours signify that the organism is poisonous; a phenomenon known as “aposematism.” However, considering that leftists, on average, are physically weaker, shorter and less physically and mentally healthy than conservatives, she is really more like a hoverfly; mimicking a wasp in order to deter the aggressors whom she fears.

Nevertheless, your reaction may well be to intensely dislike her. She, after all, is a leading enforcer of the New Oppression; the unforgiving ersatz religion of Wokeness: Black Lives Matter riots, prosecuting elderly ladies for “misgendering,” Drag Queen Story Hour . . . she’ll be an enthusiastic promoter of all of these “causes.” What a simply dreadful young woman.

Or is she? Is she, perhaps, in reality, some kind of ethno-nationalist in disguise, albeit an extremely convincing disguise? Rather than avoid her, and dislike her, should you not, in fact, thank her and perhaps even offer to take her out for dinner; at a vegan restaurant, naturally? In my new book, Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism, I prosecute the superficially extraordinary case that this is precisely what you should do.

Wokeness is, ultimately, a group level adaptation; a vital adaptation which ensures that the group is returned to genetic mental and physical health, and, associated with this, high religiosity and ethnocentrism. The group is, therefore, able to survive the battle of group selection and, indeed, survive the next catastrophe that nature throws at us. It does this by creating an environment in which all but the extremely genetically healthy are induced to not pass on their genes.  In that sense, this blue-haired Cultural Anthropology undergraduate is a nationalist hero: she is sacrificing her own genetic interests for the good of ethnic group and, ultimately, for the survival of humanity itself.

How does Wokeness accomplish this? To really understand it, we have to go back to the Industrial Revolution. Until that point, we were under harsh Darwinian selection, with a child mortality rate of about 50%. This process, in selecting for genetic physical health, purged the population of mutations, which almost always negatively impact an organism, every generation, keeping it healthy.

As I demonstrate in the book, we were also selecting for intelligence (allowing you to better solve problems and thus survive), mental health (the ability to cope with adversity and not get cast out by the band), pro-social personality (because a harsh environment means you must be part of a group), ethnocentrism (a group that is low in this gets itself displaced), conservatism (in essence, concern with the group over the individual and his feelings) and religiosity (a bundle of adaptive instincts which also seems to take that which is adaptive and make it into the will of God).

All of these traits are significantly genetic and, as they were being selected for together, they became bundled together in a process known as “pleiotropy.” Thus, to varying degrees (and there are nuances and exceptions for specific reasons) they are all genetically related. Intelligent people are genetically mentally and physically healthier. This makes sense because the brain accounts for about 84% of the genome, meaning it is a massive target for mutation. Accordingly, if your body is high in mutational load, leading to a poor immune system, your brain will be even more so.

The medical and other advances of the Industrial Revolution led to the collapse of child mortality; from 50% down to about 1%. Obviously, the result has been an enormous build-up of mutations. And we would expect those who carry these mutations to deviate from that which was the pre-Industrial norm, which was to be extremely conservative. Predictably, therefore, leftism is associated with numerous markers of mutation and poor health: shortness, weakness, physical ugliness, mental illness and so on.

However, in advanced societies, intelligence is negatively associated with fertility. Intelligent people desire fewer children, seemingly, in part, because they are more environmentally sensitive; they are less instinctive. This allows them to rise above instinctive responses and coldly solve problems. But it also means that they are far more dependent on being in an environment that, in order to be an “evolutionary match” with nature’s reproductive imperative, must be exposed to images of lots of death, such as 50 percent child mortality. But, as explored in our book, studies have shown that an environment of low mortality salience (such as in contemporary America), even after priming people with death imagery, their instincts fail to be triggered, and they eschew having children. (When we are made to think of death, we desire more offspring.) Consequently, it is the less intelligent (more instinctive) who increasingly have children and low IQ is genetically associated with poor health.

If this went on for too long, humanity would become so unhealthy that when the next massive volcanic eruption brought down civilization, as it did in the Bronze Age, we would almost all die out, save groups who were isolated hunter-gatherers. In particular, ethnic groups living in cold and difficult environments, filled with the unhealthy and unintelligent, would be totally destroyed. The European peoples would go extinct.

But then Darwin, or perhaps God, created the group level evolutionary strategy of Wokeness . . .

What does Wokeness actually achieve? In taking over the culture, Wokeness deliberately puts environmentally sensitive people on a maladaptive road map of life by encouraging them, overtly and covertly, not to have children: Humans are evil and are destroying the environment, men and women should change sex and sterilise themselves, life should be about material pleasure rather than having children and so abort your offspring, life has no eternal meaning so trade children for material wealth. Only those, among European peoples, who are, for genetic reasons alone, very strongly conservative will be resistant to this and will, therefore, pass on their genes. If you control for intelligence, therefore, the big predictor of fertility is conservatism, with liberalism the big predictor of sterility.

Europeans with low intelligence will also disappear: Every television commercial tells them that the only acceptable kind of couple, if a European is involved at all, is interracial, so they simply drop out of the European group.

But Wokeness goes further: it deliberately engineers a growth in nationalist sentiment. Crime is effectively legalised, causing people to become more stressed and hence more instinctive, resulting in them becoming more religious and nationalistic. DEI causes utter incompetence; a dangerous life, which makes people more instinctive as well as more resentful, if they are white, which makes people more instinctive. Polarisation means conservatives are more likely to breed with other conservatives. Intelligent people are highly conformist, they better understand what the dominant worldview is and have the “effortful control” (conscientiousness) to conform to it, meaning they will be the most likely to become Woke and, so, resign from the gene pool. Accordingly, civilization collapses, which will make people even more instinctive. The collapse in civilization will re-impose harsh Darwinian conditions, making us healthy once again. As has been said: “Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

The species has to survive, and the ethnic group, a kind of sub-species, has to survive. Faced with mutational meltdown, we would expect evolution to throw up a mechanism which would return us to genetic health, ensuring our survival. That mechanism is Wokness. So, if you are an ethno-nationalist, you should not shun the next blue-haired, female student that you run into. You should say, “Thank you so much. Thank for all that you are doing to ensure that we survive. You truly are not a spiteful but an altruistic mutant.”

The Murder of VDare

/20 Comments/in , /by

This is horrifically sad, not only because our side has lost a principal asset, but also because of the financial and personal effects on the Brimelows and the people who will lose their jobs. As Peter says, they likely be blackballed in the future. We can only hope that free speech returns to America someday.

PETER BRIMELOW: Why We’ve Suspended VDARE and I’ve Resigned After 25 Years pic.twitter.com/tnWSz3L0xs

— VDARE (@vdare) July 23, 2024

Reflecting on this obscene turn of events, Sam Dickson posted this poem by James Russell Lowell on an email list.

Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, some new decision, offering each the bloom or blight,
Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right,
And the choice goes by forever ‘twixt that darkness and that light.

Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne,—
Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown,
Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.

Then to side with Truth is noble when we share her wretched crust,
Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be just;
Then it is the brave man chooses, while the coward stands aside,

Predicting the Uniparty: Peter Oborne’s “The Triumph of the Political Class”

/2 Comments/in , /by

The Triumph of the Political Class
Peter Oborne
Simon & Schuster, 2007; paperback: Pocket Books, 2008

Words and phrases often enter the political lexicon via the US media before crossing the Atlantic Ocean to the UK, and one such recent migrant is the “uniparty”. The Americans have been using it for some time, and the Right-of-center media in Britain are now cautiously trying it out. The idea, of course, is that the two-party system central to both US and UK politics is an optical illusion, and in fact the difference between Republicans and Democrats, or Conservatives and Labour, does not exist in any meaningful sense. If the British MSM read more and talked less, they would have realized that the British uniparty was discovered back in 2007 in a book entitled The Triumph of the Political Class, by lobby journalist Peter Oborne.

A lobby journalist is the equivalent to a member of the White House press pack, guaranteed access to the inner circles of government and thus worth the attention of the political observer in a way that plain op-ed writer is not. Many political hacks write about government with their faces pressed up against the window looking in; Oborne has been respected and even befriended by some of the most powerful people in British government. But the book was inspired by Oborne’s increasing disillusionment with the way in which the great political reforms made by the much-mocked Victorians were overridden as the twentieth century turned into a new millennium. What had been a system which prioritized public service over private acquisition had changed into a new political cadre in which “the most bitter rivalries at Westminster have involved factional conflicts within individual parties rather than collisions of ideology and belief”. This discovery, Oborne writes, “was very frightening indeed”.

Oborne begins with the architecture of the British political class, calling it “a manifestation of the state”, and locating its inception specifically with the arrival of Tony Blair as Prime Minister in 1997. Margaret Thatcher’s premiership, he writes, was the last time there was a genuine ideological difference between the two main parties. Whereas politicians once gained status in Parliament by virtue of their position in society, they now gain status in society directly relative to their position in Parliament, and there is increasingly a disconnect between politicians and the real world of employment, a world they find baffling. Britain had shifted to what Oborne calls “cartel politics”, an impregnable ideological fortress within whose walls both major parties co-exist.

Oborne makes no claim to having discovered the concept of a political class, citing the late nineteenth-century lawyer and social theorist Gaetano Mosca, whose Elementi di Scienza Politica was translated into English as The Ruling Class. It is notable that the book is “today viewed by some historians as a theoretical precursor of the fascist ideology”. This has now become a commonplace move with ideas that are getting too close to the truth: file under fascism.

Oborne sets the political class in its recent historical context by contrasting it with the British “Establishment”, a phrase coined by historian A. J. P. Taylor, and which Blair in particular used as a political tool by claiming it was outmoded and hidebound. His “big tent” politics gave the illusion that the days of the Eton-educated, old money, traditionalist ruling class were over, and that politics was about to descend from its class-bound Olympus to dwell among mortals. This was technocratic smooth talk, of course, but Blair’s people went to work on the idea of the Establishment with fine attention to detail.

One of Oborne’s key insights is that, in 2007, the techniques of the political class were still a work in progress. A complementary realization is that the new political class would not have the organic core of the old landed class, but would rather be put into the hands of PR gurus, spin doctors and focus groups. Media coverage had accelerated, and so the new breed required grooming in dress, speech, and lifestyle, in order to promote to the public a carefully tailored image.

This is not a simple requirement to act with decorum or integrity, as it once would have been, but rather a pre-programmed regimen whereby politicians are “outfitted” for the media, the synaptic link between the political class and the electorate. This extends to speech, and the famous “Queen’s English” (now once again the King’s English) once favored by the political class defers to so-called “Estuary English” (from the region known as the Thames Estuary) as a default speech pattern. Clothing becomes indistinguishable from that worn in the corporate management workplace. A politician’s private life, once off-limits to the media, is now used as a form of self-promotion, and “It is automatic for a member of the Political Class to exploit family and friendships in order to sell his political career”.

This is the positive PR veneer. The negative involves the attack on existing and once-respected standards of behavior. Politicians, it is stated ad nauseam, are “judged by higher standards than ordinary people”, implying that the plebs have lower standards, that “virtue only resides in the state, and that civil society is largely corrupt”. After citing Mary Wilson, wife of Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson in the 1970s, who did not accept £33 for some published poetry, Oborne compares Tony Blair’s wife Cherie, claiming that the human-rights lawyer was exemplary of the new political junta: “She would have been a familiar part of the landscape in the mid-eighteenth century, when the governing class made little secret that it sought public office as a vehicle for pursuing self-interest”.

Her outrageous abuse of position included a speaking engagement for a cancer charity dinner for which her fee exceeded the amount raised at the event, a personal phone call to a director of Manchester United football club to negotiate a discount for a team shirt featuring David Beckham’s number, and an invitation from a Melbourne designer store to take a few things as a gesture of goodwill. She walked out of the store with seventy items. These seem like trifling examples of shameless behavior, but they are indicative of a new code of office in which personal enrichment outpaces public duty.

Her husband’s talent was to mask the project to insulate the political class while making it look as though a much-needed revolution would return politics to the people. Blair pledged “To liberate Britain from the old class divisions, old structures, old prejudices, old ways of working”.

Compare Mao Xidong’s list of revolutionary aims from China’s “Red August” in 1966, just after the Cultural Revolution began. Mao’s mission was to sweep away the “four olds”: Old customs, old culture, old habits, old ideas. This rejection of the outmoded political past was cast as modernization, the shibboleth of the political class.

The sweeping away of the past was not, however, to return to the values of public service, but intended instead to remold the British constitution to answer the needs of this new style of politicking, and that meant undermining the major institutions of government. The Blair government systematically attacked the civil service, the judiciary, the intelligence services and the very power of Parliament itself. The idea of a collective executive loyal to the crown was anathema to Blair. Everything came down from him and his inner circle.

Oborne quotes fellow journalist Hugo Young in defining the British Civil Service as a body which “represents and personifies the seamless integrity of past, present and future government rolled indistinguishably into one”. This is precisely the tradition Blair’s government sought to undermine and, in Oborne’s phrase, “emasculate”. With Blair’s huge mandate, this led immediately to “a sustained and brutal attack on the influence of permanent officials”. The role of Secretary to the Cabinet sounds menial but is in fact one of the most important roles in the Civil Service, and Oborne shows Blair reducing the holder of the post to “a debased and peripheral figure”.

There was nothing slow about Blair’s march through the institutions of government. The Foreign Office, once one of the most respected government departments, found that its very integrity made it a target. The Blairs were notorious for holidaying at the expense of others, and took full advantage: “Very soon after entering Downing Street the Blair family started to see the foreign service, with its access to large houses in desirable overseas locations, as a potential travel agent”.

British intelligence saw the rise of the Secret Intelligence Service, known as MI6. Intelligence increasingly became a political tool, and Oborne notes its rise as coincident with that of the new political class. The intelligence gathered before the contentious entry of Britain into the Iraq War both served that class, and led ultimately to the notorious “sexed-up dossier” which many have found misleading at best, and designed solely to bring the UK into the conflict at the behest of the Americans at worst. This shake-up of government also saw MI6 as increasingly less concerned with national security threats and more dedicated to intruding into the lives of ordinary people, which leads Oborne on to discuss Labour’s manipulation of the law of the land.

The analysis of the judiciary by Blair’s Home Secretary, David Blunkett, “was extremely close to the Marxist proposition that the protections offered by the courts are simply ‘bourgeois freedoms’.” With a sustained offensive against Britain’s famous habeas corpus law, aimed at preventing illegal detention in the absence of evidence, the new breed of politicians struck back at ancient history and the Magna Carta. It was a short step to taking on one of the most ancient and venerable of British institutions; the monarchy.

The co-opting of the funeral of Lady Diana Spencer by Tony Blair, and his sentimental catchphrase, “the people’s princess”, have become notorious as a symbol of Blair’s wish to have a higher public profile than the royal family. The most telling example of Labour’s contempt for the monarchy came from Blair’s infamous press enforcer, Alastair Campbell, largely responsible for the Iraq dossier noted above, and to all intents and purposes a member of Blair’s Cabinet. In Jordan for the funeral of King Hussein, Prince Charles came to meet Blair and Campbell in a makeshift office with only one chair. Blair shook hands with the then Prince of Wales, while Campbell “was sitting slumped in his chair making calls on his mobile [and] simply ignored the Prince”.

As an experienced journalist, one might expect Oborne to be strong on the vital role of the media, and its effective capture, in the formation of the political class. This new executive, he writes “sought to give an almost constitutional role to the British media by building it up as an alternative to existing state institutions”. The result of this replacement is that “at its simplest, journalists become instruments of government”. Journalistic aims are altered, and not subtly, from being supposedly impartial reportage to forming a quasi-constitutional department of government devoted to myth-building and the maintenance of the Blairite project. The Blair government oversaw the creation of the “narrative” we hear so much about, a word which has its roots in story-telling to the tribe.

An added function of media is to act both as a client of government, and to be cast as hostile, the enemies of progress and modernization. Blair divined early on that enemies of his government needed to be put into the public consciousness even if they didn’t actually exist, and despite Rupert Murdoch being effectively a key member of Blair’s cabinet, the line from government was implicitly that the state was fighting with monsters who would oppose good and righteous governance. The BBC — who began to be referred to as “the state broadcaster” around this time — were the mainstay of the operation:

“The distinction between an aggressive, illegitimate press and a well-meaning government has formed the template of a great deal of BBC reporting over the last decade. It became automatic for BBC reporters and commentators to portray any government crisis as a contest between press and government, just as Campbell had suggested”.

I saw Alastair Campbell once on a street in London. We looked at each other for several seconds, and he was obviously aware that I knew who he was. I wouldn’t say the look he gave me portrayed the face of evil, just the face of ambitious malevolence.

The Iraq War was the pinnacle of Labour’s media-generated deception program. The government effectively lied both to the public and to the House of Commons over Saddam’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, his willingness to use banned chemical weapons on British troops, and the likely death toll for allied forces. This was, in the end, far outstripped by hecatombs of dead Iraqis. It is a strongly held opinion on both sides of the British political divide that both Blair and Campbell should have been tried for war crimes.

The final masterstroke of the Blair government’s total occupation of the political estates was its use of techniques of mass formation honed in the world of corporate advertising and marketing. Blair copied and adopted Bill Clinton and Karl Rove’s technique of triangulation, whereby advanced software could discount blocs of votes and concentrate on a relatively small number of undecided voters in swing states. Britain has a similar balloting system to America’s electoral college, and so the persuasiveness of any policy message to the people becomes instead a jig-saw puzzle with key pieces which must be privileged when campaigning: “The Political Class negotiates with the voters through television and searches out their opinions through mechanisms such as focus groups and techniques based on market research or borrowed from the advertising industry”.

This “manipulative populism” has been in place ever since, and Oborne’s book shows it under construction, unclear at the time but now a familiar apparatus.

Oborne wrote, in 2007, that the political class had won. The theatrical element to politics, increasingly absorbed from the US, had become the whole show. Oborne relates a story of his visit to a Tony Blair walkabout in an English town. Blair was filmed talking and smiling with all his charm and empathy on show, the good people delighted to bask in the presence of Dear Leader. The only problem is that all the “members of the public” had been hired and paid by the Labour Party. When security realized who Oborne was, they tried to keep him away from the press event. When he finally got in, they tried to throw him out. He was a bad courtier.

Oborne’s epilogue was written as Gordon Brown had recently taken over from Tony Blair as Prime Minister, and despite some cosmetic pledges to correct some of the constitutional excesses of the Blair era, such as announcing government policy in the House of Commons and not via the media, Oborne notes that he only typified the political class. Oborne’s final sentence is in the hope that David Cameron would be “capable of leading an insurgency against the Political Class — or whether he will… become no more than another manifestation of its alluring, corrupt and anti-democratic methodology”. Britain got its answer, and now that the political class is merging fully with the global elites, we have just had the bizarre experience of a nominally Conservative party spending 14 years setting up a far more socialist Labour regime which is only just beginning to show what is to come.

We see the results of the changeover Oborne describes today in Britain. In 2007, “The values of the Political Class… [were] still in the process of formation”.

Now, another chapter has been added to the playbook, as the British uniparty — which recently passed the baton between its two main runners — is happy to allow criticism of government incompetence be openly pronounced. But Government incompetence is a psy-op. The British uniparty is in fact highly competent, just not in an area of expertise which serves anyone else but themselves. The course of Britain towards ruin is not sloppy governance but grand design, part Bezmenov, part Samuel T. Francis’s anarcho-tyranny. The British political class are not only competent, they have been honing that competency over the last 30 years and are, to put it simply, becoming very good at being very bad. This class has done what they have always said they wanted to do, which is to reintroduce morality into politics. Just not, as a child might say, in a nice way. Oborne’s prediction for the future of Britain, made 17 years ago in this most important of British political books, has shown itself to be prescient: “This estrangement between a tiny governing elite and mainstream British society is one of the overwhelming themes of our age, and it will only get more desperate, and more dangerous”.

Hyde and Shriek: Trump’s Narrow Escape and The Power-Hungry Malevolence of the Left

/7 Comments/in /by

It wasn’t murder, it was S.I.D. — Self-Inflicted Death. That’s what ended the life of the Black criminal George Floyd, not the knee of the police officer Derek Chauvin. But the left shrieked that Floyd’s death was a gen-u-cide — Latin genu, “knee” — that symbolized a genocide. America’s most precious asset, the Black Community, was under daily and deadly assault by the foul forces of White supremacism and White racism. The solution? Give the wise and benevolent left more power to control, coerce, and censor.

Exploiting martyrs, creating cults

Of course, the leftist cure turned out to be far worse than the imaginary disease. As Steve Sailer has carefully documented, the hysteria and lies of Black Lives Matter got lots more Black Lives Murdered. When White civilization retreats, Black barbarism advances. But so what? The left used the death of George Floyd to get what truly matters to the left: power. Oh, and the chance to posture self-righteously in public. Leftists pretended to care about Black lives even as they worked to destroy more Black lives. Like the Christianity from which leftism emerged, the left know how to exploit a martyr and create a cult. The American left have George Floyd. The British left have Stephen Lawrence.

And if it had been Joe Biden rather than Donald Trump who nearly had his head blown off on July 13, 2024, the left would have had a near-martyr that they would have exploited ruthlessly against the right. As it is, the right will not make as much from Trump the near-martyr as they should. The mainstream right don’t have the ruthlessness or the will-to-power of the mainstream left.  They don’t have the malevolence either. Malevolence is the will-to-ill against your opponents. Leftists have been wishing violent death on Trump ever since they first realized that he was a threat to leftist power. Back in 2017, I wrote about an anti-White, pro-Mexican extreme metal band called Brujeria (which is Spanish for “Witchcraft”). The band’s first album was called Matando Güeros (1993) or “Killing Whites.” Naturally enough, the leftists of Brujeria would like Trump to get a machete through the head, as they told the world way back in 2016:

Brujeria’s message in 2016 for Trump and his supporters: you deserve violent death

Across the Atlantic The Guardian journalist Marina Hyde (born 1974) wouldn’t agree with that. Machete through the head for Trump? A thousand times no! That would be far too quick and painless. Marina likes her ideological opponents to be hacked up and die in slow agony. That’s why she once horrified someone called Keith Hann, who is liberal in the old-fashioned sense:

At least I knew the identities of the people who shocked me so profoundly on BBC Radio 4’s Sunday morning news flagship Broadcasting House, when newspaper reviewer Omid Djalili announced between chortles “I can’t keep a straight face” while discussing the murder of South African white supremacist Eugene Terreblanche, and Guardian columnist Marina Hyde chipped in “He was still alive when the police found him in his remote farm, so I suppose at least you could say it was slow.”

My, how they all laughed. I sat astonished, waiting vainly for the programme’s host to ask the obvious “So, you’re in favour of the death penalty, are you?” And trying to imagine the fuss that would ensue if a group of right-leaning people had similarly rejoiced in the death of a black political leader. Not that there is the slightest chance of any such thing being allowed on the BBC this side of hell freezing over.

Thoroughly nasty piece of work though he no doubt was, a human being had just been brutally hacked to death. Even I, who am constantly getting into trouble for my inappropriate sense of humour, can see that is not a fit subject for comedy. (Keith Hann Blog, 6th April 2010)

Omid Djalili (born 1965) is a trans-British Iranian who belongs to the pacifist, humanity-loving Baha’i faith. But he’s a leftist too and leftists believe in slow painful death for right-wing racists like Eugene Terreblanche and Donald Trump. Still, let’s be fair. Although Marina Hyde would prefer Trump to die in slow agony, she would have been delighted to see his head blown off on in Pennsylvania. But it isn’t just Trump’s rightism and racism that power Hyde’s malevolence. Trump is well-known as a connoisseur of White female beauty. And he would never have looked twice at Marina Hyde, who seems to be a good example of how leftism appeals to the ugly and biologically unfit. The great White creator Roald Dahl wrote about the BFG — the Big Friendly Giant. I’ve found a photo of Hyde in which she looks like another kind of BFG — a Blonde Female Gollum.

Blonde Female Gollum: The twisted features of malevolent leftist Marina Hyde (main image from Press Gazette)

Gollum was created by J.R.R. Tolkien, another great White creator. He was a character in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, where he is portrayed as physically and psychologically warped by a magic ring that offers supreme power to its possessors. Tolkien’s theme was that the love of power is lethally perverting. The verb “pervert” is from Latin pervertere, meaning “to twist completely.” Leftists love power and, like Gollum, leftist Marina Hyde has twisted features that reflect her twisted psychology. Or so I would claim. The photo of Hyde-as-BFG shows her receiving a British Journalism Award, because she’s one of the brightest stars in the British media.

Her luster wasn’t dimmed in the slightest by her gloating about the slow and painful death of the sixty-nine-year-old Eugene Terreblanche, who didn’t believe in slaughtering Blacks, simply in recognizing the truth about Blacks and their inability to sustain Western civilization. But suppose that the South African Black supremacist Julius Malema, who has explicitly called for the slaughter of Whites, happens to be savagely murdered next week. And Marina Hyde gloats about his death on national radio. It would destroy her career in an instant.

Hegemony of the Hydies

But Hyde would never gloat about the death of any Black. She knows exactly how to win fame and fortune by buzzing with the leftist Hive-Mind, which is why she’s such a heroine to so many other female journalists. And guess what? The right, who don’t share the ruthlessness or will-to-power of the left, have utterly failed to exclude those Marina-maniacs from their media:

Britain’s conservative newspapers have undergone a quiet revolution. A new breed of reporter has infiltrated newsrooms across the land. The days of smoke-filled offices in Fleet Street brimming with hungover grouchy old men are long gone. What has replaced them is far more sinister.

These are the Poppies, the Tillies and the Lillies (no, not all of them — but a lot of them). Let’s call them the Hydies, after their spiritual leader Marina Hyde.

Hydies are better looking, nicer smelling and more sober than their Fleet Street predecessors — however, they represent a grave threat to the future of conservatism in Britain. Hydies are twenty-somethings, living on low wages in small flatshares in Clapham. Their dream is to work for The Guardian one day, or maybe even host a podcast about brave entrepreneurial women like Michelle Obama or Melinda Gates. However, there are only so many jobs in writing about how gardening is racist in Guardian towers so these struggling graduates must look elsewhere. Hydies read journalism at Leeds Trinity and worked for The Tab during their student days. Their obsessions include disinformation (“isn’t GB News awful?”), black representation in the arts (“there just aren’t any black people in adverts!”) and the gender pay gap (“my boss makes more than me — why is that?”).

Every major newspaper and broadcaster is filled with Hydies. However, perhaps most shocking is their domination of conservative institutions. Whether it is tabloids like The Express and The Sun or middle and upper-brow papers like The Mail and The Telegraph no newsroom is immune from this flat white-drinking virus. Even GB News, that bastion of low-status right-wing opinion is brimmed with depressed Hydies down on their luck (“this is just a stepping stone” they assure themselves every night — sending a prayer to the Gods for absolution).

If you’ve ever been puzzled why The Telegraph has published yet another article about how to decolonise your holiday, or why The Sun defends [the leftist Black sportsman] Marcus Rashford to the hilt, or why the Daily Express hires journalists called Millie with pronouns in their bio then just think: it’s the Hydies.

A young senior female journalist at the Mail on Sunday is an infamous Corbyn supporter. A few years ago the newsroom of one major conservative paper was full of trans flags on reporters’ desks. There is a “Library of belonging” at Telegraph HQ as reported by Guido Fawkes which offers staff books about white Fragility. The same paper hosted a Drag King event to mark LGBT History Month. The Sun’s editor Victoria Newton, who is probably too old to be a Hydie these days, is renowned for her Left-wing views. She turned on [TV journalist] Jeremy Clarkson, is supportive of BLM and regularly suppresses legitimate stories out of fears of being called racist or sexist. Under her editorship the paper’s circulation is so dire News UK no longer publishes The Sun’s readership statistics. (“Attack of the Hydies,”   The Critic, 7th October 2023)

Can you imagine the left allowing a Trump-fan to become the editor of any leftist newspaper? Of course you can’t. But you can easily imagine what would happen if the British right tried to undertake an entirely justified purge of the Hydies. The left would shriek with outrage and the right would retreat.

So you could call the left’s strategy “Hyde and Shriek.” Malevolent leftist journalists like Marina Hyde use hysteria about racism and other supposed right-wing evils to advance the cause of leftism. That leftist strategy has been very successful throughout the West. And it won’t stop being successful until the right begins to seek and wield power as ruthlessly as the left. I’m confident that the right will do exactly that. What the left have started, the right will finish. The attempted assassination of Donald Trump is another example of how the left are getting desperate as their doom gets nearer.

Ongoing Jewish Influence in the Transformation of Ireland

/28 Comments/in , , /by

The ‘softening up’ of Ireland for the ongoing scheme of mass population replacement is set to gather pace following the appointment of Nigerian Ebun Joseph in the Orwellian role of “Special Rapporteur for the National Plan Against Racism.” The stated aim of this plan is to “make Ireland a place in which the impacts of racism are fully acknowledged and actively addressed.” In other words, the goal of the plan is to brainwash the Irish population into a sense of White guilt, or as a recent article in The Spectator put it, “the Nigerian-born Special Rapporteur will deliver regular reports to the Irish government about how hideously white and racist Irish people are.” The national Plan Against Racism will begin a process where special rights and privileges are handed to foreigners while the Irish become second class citizens in their own land. The reason for the implementation of the plan, according to Shane O’Curry, Director of the Irish Network Against Racism (INAR), is that “migrants in Ireland are reporting not feeling safe across the board in all areas of life.” Mr O’Curry does not appear to be concerned about the declining sense of safety among Irish women and children thanks to these same migrants, but I suspect that Mr O’Curry is on too high a salary, much of it provided by globalist NGOs, to concern himself with such matters. Nonetheless, as will be explained below, Ebun Joseph is merely the figurehead for something that has a distinctly Jewish complexion, because Ireland’s National Action Plan Against Racism has Jewish origins.

Alice Feldman and the Need for an “Anti-Racist Ireland”

Ebun Joseph is a direct protege of Jewish-American academic Alice Feldman, a sociologist at University College Dublin. It was Feldman who supervised Joseph’s PhD, and it was Feldman who groomed Joseph for her current role as the face of Irish ‘anti-racism’. Athough a whole host of Irish and ethnic minority names have been listed as authors of the “National Plan Against Racism,” even the briefest of research reveals that it was first conceived as far back as 2003 and that the author of a plan bearing this precise name was none other than Feldman herself — a draft document carrying that name is listed among her publications for 2003. According to Feldman’s own profile on the University College Dublin website, “Over the past two decades, I have worked in research, advisory and volunteer capacities with many civic, community and other organisations in Ireland involved in anti-racism, migration and interculturalism work.” In other words, like other Jews to be discussed in this essay, she has invested more than twenty years in opposing the interests of the native Irish. Feldman has also perfected the art of linguistic academic nonsense, once describing her work as drawing “on a trans disciplinary variety of traditions to cultivate and mobilise decolonial praxes that intervene in the global colonial legacies underpinning the current necropolitical moment.”

Ebun Joseph

Looking into the relationship between Feldman and Joseph, it is clear that Feldman is quite the activist, though content to let the Nigerian be the public figure advancing her agenda. A description of one of their partnerships reads:

UCD (University College Dublin) academics Dr. Ebun Joseph and Dr. Alice Feldman led a talk on Thursday 2nd July entitled “So What Next: Becoming Anti-Racist via Zoom.” … Joseph is a race relations consultant, Career Development Specialist and module coordinator for UCD’s Black Studies module. Feldman works in the UCD School of Sociology and is a convenor of the UCD MA Race, Migration and Decolonial Studies and Decolonial Dialogues Platform. The academics commented during the webinar that they already have a long working relationship. Joseph and Feldman focused on two topics: white fragility and anti-racism allyship. Feldman said she believed white fragility needed to be understood by white people so they can do the work of anti-racism allyship. … They discussed how when white people defensively deflect during conversations about race out of discomfort, or the fear that they are being attacked, they put the exhausting responsibility on people of colour to ensure that they feel comfortable and as a result, the conversation is closed. They both believe that if we cannot have open conversations about race and racism, we cannot change it. Joseph stressed that there are only racists and anti-racists; if someone defensively says they are not a racist, that merely means that they are a racist in denial. Joseph added that silent racists are in the majority whereas the loud, violent racists are in the minority. Feldman said that an anti-racist needs to accept that they live in a racist society and they should examine the way racism can be eradicated from the organisations they are a part of. … The academics would like there to be a compulsory anti-racism module in UCD because they feel we cannot expect to have an anti-racist society if we do not teach anti-racism.

Alice Feldman

A 2020 article for Gript rightly pointed out that

the ideology of Doctors Joseph and Feldman, which is corrupting the Irish academy as it has corrupted the universities of other western democracies, is Critical Race Theory. This theory, whatever about those who espouse it, can be used as perniciously as the spurious race theories that have gone before it. It is racialism directed against white people: no more nor no less. Its methods are the boots and petrol bombs of Antifa and Black Lives Matter allied to a craven intellectual capitulation on the part of the deracinated bourgeois liberals and lefties who control much of the institutions where the poison is disseminated.

Laura Weinstein and the Dangers of “Irish Inbreeding”

Feldman is not the first American Jew to arrive on Irish shores and start telling the Irish they have no ethnic interests. Back in 2019, Laura Weinstein, a New York PhD living in Ireland and claiming to be an expert in Irish history and culture waded into Ireland’s growing immigration debate. Of all the aspects of Irish history and culture Weinstein could have chosen to focus on, she decided she was most interested, like Feldman and others, in the “myth” of a homogeneous Irish identity and “right wing Irish nationalism.”

Laura Weinstein

Weinstein employed her Twitter account to the trolling of Irish political figures opposed to mass immigration. In one example she responded to a post by the National Party by implying that Irish opposition to immigration would leave the Irish like “neurotic” “inbred” “dogs.” She wrote: “Gene flow as a result of immigration prevents the negative impact of inbreeding. But, go ahead and constrain migration and gene flow if you want to create a race of humans that reflects the neuroticism of “pure bred” dogs. Just be sure to hold a referendum on inbreeding first.” Not only was Weinstein’s fixation exceedingly strange and unsettling, it was also fanciful. Genetic studies have shown the Irish already possess a diverse gene pool in the form of genetic clusters of Scandinavian, Norman-French, British, and Iberian origin. This is a considerably wider gene pool than that of Dr Weinstein’s Ashkenazi Jews, who are descended from a single group of 350 people. It will come as no surprise to readers of this website that Weinstein is acutely concerned about the preservation of her own people, and is listed by Algemeiner as “an antisemitism analyst at the ADL.” “Inbreeding” for me, but apparently not for thee.

Ronit Lentin’s Deconstruction of the Irish

As well as being a direct protege of Alice Feldman, Ebun Joseph is the ideological child of Ronit Lentin, the Israeli Jew who in 1997 established Ireland’s first “Ethnic and Racial Studies” programme, and thereby ushered in the arrival of Critical Race Theory in Ireland. Lentin was also a colleague and collaborator with Alice Feldman in an early 2008 side project of the National Action Plan Against Racism. From 1997 until 2012 Lentin was Head of Sociology, and acted as director of the MPhil program in “Race, Ethnicity, Conflict.” She was also the founder of the Trinity Immigration Initiative, from which she advocated an open-door immigration policy for Ireland and opposed all deportations, as well as engaging in activism to liberalise Irish abortion laws.[1] As an academic and “anti-racist” activist, Lentin formulated what would become some of the cardinal facets of Irish self-recrimination on matters of race, beginning with her definition of Ireland as “a biopolitical racist state.”[2]  By her own account, before she began her work on stoking Irish race guilt in the early 1990s, “most people were not conscious that Irish racism existed.”[3]

Ronit Lentin

In some senses Lentin introduced the concept of an Irish racism. Her first step in assuring the Irish that they were indeed racist was to deny their existence as a people. She asserted that the Irish were merely “theorised as homogeneous — white, Christian and settled.”[4] Quite who had developed this theory of the Irish, and when, was never specified by Lentin, nor did she attempt to show that the White, Christian, and settled status of the vast majority of the Irish population was anything other than a matter of fact and reality. It appears to have sufficed for Lentin simply to assert that Irishness was nothing but a theory, and to leave it at that. She was particularly aggrieved by the fact the Irish, apparently unaware they were a figment of their own imagination, voted (80 percent%) to link citizenship and blood (ending “birth-right citizenship) by constitutionally differentiating between citizen and non-citizen in a June 2004 Citizenship Referendum. This move was taken primarily in order to stop African “birth tourism” and “anchor babies” by African women, which had become increasingly common by the early 2000s. To Lentin, however, the move was symbolic of the fact “the Irish Republic had consciously and democratically become a racist state.”[5] She concluded that any idea of the Irish as historical victims should be dispensed with, and that “Ireland’s new position as heading the Globalisation Index, its status symbol as the locus of “cool” culture, and its privileged position within an ever-expanding European Community calls for re-theorising Irishness as white supremacy.”[6]

So, in Lentin’s worldview, Irishness is not only a fiction, but a racist, “white supremacist” fiction. Lentin’s advice to the Irish, should they wish to rid themselves of the delusion of peoplehood, was to engage in mass celebrations of “diversity and integration and multiracialism and multiculturalism and interculturalism,”[7] Lentin adds: “I propose an interrogation of how the Irish nation can become other than white.” Keeping up the family tradition, Ronit Lentin’s daughter Alana moved to Australia several years ago, where she quickly established herself as an equally rabid promoter of White guilt and engaged in successive critiques of Australian “racism.” She is now President of the Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association, and has penned articles for The Guardian asserting that Australian identity is as fictional as that of the Irish, and demanding Australia adopt an open borders policy so that it too can become other than White.

Katrina Goldstone and the Flooding of Ireland

Working alongside Feldman and Lentin on the 2008 collaboration relating to the early National Plan Against Racism was the Irish Jewish writer Katrina Goldstone. Goldstone remains a board member of New Communities Ireland, “Ireland’s largest independent migrant-led national network of more than 150 immigrant-led groups comprising 65 nationalities,” an organisation similar to Migrant Rights Centre Ireland, the Deputy Director of which is the Sephardic Jew Bill Abom. Goldstone has described herself as being “involved in asylum rights and minority issues” for more than two decades.

 Katrina Goldstone 

Louise Derman-Sparks and The Perils of Racist Irish Children

“Teaching anti-racism” is a top priority for Jewish ethnic activists across the West, and involves inculcating a sense of White guilt and shame about expressing White ethnic interests. The groundwork for the brainwashing of Irish children was laid by Katherine Zappone, an American lesbian who served as Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth from 2016 to 2020. In 2016 Zappone unveiled the “Diversity, Equality and Inclusion Charter, and Guidelines for Early Childhood Care and Education.” The document opens by explaining these guidelines for transforming Irish education in an anti-White direction “are informed by national and international equality and antidiscriminatory educational approaches and practice. They draw heavily on the anti-bias approach developed by Louise Derman-Sparks in the USA.”

Derman-Sparks is an American Jew who “pioneered” anti-bias and anti-racism courses for children in the 1980s through such works as Leading Anti-Bias Early Childhood Programs: A Guide for Change, Anti-Bias Education for Young Children and Ourselves, Teaching/Learning Anti-Racism: A Developmental Approach, and What If All the Kids Are White? Derman-Sparks travelled to Ireland on at least one occasion, in October 1998, to preach her doctrine, giving a keynote speech at a conference on early-years education with a paper titled “Education without Prejudice for the Early Years.”

A good example of Derman-Sparks’ work, which is being incorporated into the teaching of Irish children, can be found in an article for the American Federation of Teachers in which Derman-Sparks states:

Biologically, there is no such thing as race. All people are members of one race, Homo sapiens, the human race—even though everyone does not look the same. … Diversity does not cause prejudice, nor does children noticing and talking about differences, as some adults fear. … Very early, white children come to value their whiteness, presume it is the definition of normal, and believe that therefore all other skin colors are strange and less than. While early childhood teachers want all children to like who they are, the challenge for an anti-bias educator is to enable white children to like who they are without developing a sense of white superiority.

In What If All The Kids Are White? (2011), Derman-Sparks writes that “White children’s learning to be “White” is part of the maintenance of systemic racism, and “Whiteness” plays a significant role in the behaviour of all White adults.”[8] By incorporating the work of Derman-Sparks into the national education system, Ireland has sealed the fate of its youth, consenting to the ongoing brainwashing of generations.

***

The Nigerian Ebun Joseph is often ridiculed by the right-wing media, both for the extremes of her positions and for her ineptitude at articulating her ideas. She is a figurehead being used by others behind the scenes, and she absorbs much of the jokes and hostility. Joseph is certainly an ideological activist who sees ‘racism’ even in Irishness itself. A good example occurred in 2019 when she was mistakenly served blackcurrant juice instead of house wine at the Galway Bay Hotel. Whereas others might have simply mentioned the mistake to staff, Joseph declared herself the victim of racism. As this affair gathered pace, she took to social media to demand: “Please, more Blacks go there. They can’t discourage us from going where we want!” Ireland now has this person, so militant over a glass of juice, ordering the government to make the nation less ‘racist.’

It would be a mistake, however, to take Ebun Joseph lightly. She has been groomed for her role and she will attempt to perform it with aggression and dedication, to the detriment of the Irish and to the great satisfaction of her mentors. Across the West there has been a pattern of elite-led brainwashing, where ideas cooked up by hostile Jewish academics are fed to students who go on to become the nation’s professional class and from there disperse into the general population. Joseph wants the “anti-racism” material cooked up by her mentors made compulsory in the education system. These ideas infect police forces, the media, and Human Resources departments. They penetrate every aspect of life until they are inescapable. Critical Race Theory isn’t satisfied until everything about European culture and peoplehood is destroyed. There is no set target when it can be agreed that Ireland is sufficiently “diverse,” and there is no point at which the Irish will have the smear of racism lifted from their heads. Under the gaze of Critical Race Theory, the existence of a single Irish family is racist. The Irish will cease to be racist, only when they cease to be; when they are utterly replaced and when nothing of Ireland remains. These are the dictates of new rulers, of a conquering class who have not arrived with swords and guns, but with sob stories, lies and a perverted academic blackmail.

[1] See Lentin, R. (2013). A Woman Died: Abortion and the Politics of Birth in Ireland. Feminist Review, 105(1), 130

—136.

[2] R. Lentin, After Optimism? Ireland, Racism and Globalisation (Dublin: Metro Eireann Publications, 2006), 3.

[3] Ibid., 1.

[4] Ibid., 2.

[5] Ibid., 55.

[6] Ibid., 107.

[7] Ibid., 165.

[8] Derman-Sparks, Louise., Ramsey, Patricia G.. What If All the Kids Are White? Anti-Bias Multicultural Education with Young Children and Families. (United States: Teachers College Press, 2011), 31.

The Move to Seek Fellowship and Common Values on the Right

/24 Comments/in , , /by

As someone who has moved twice to seek fellowship and a sense of safety in a country hostile to people on the right, I can totally relate to the people described in the article below, except that the people discussed here are serious Christians—true believers. They’re not just “cultural Christians” like me —i.e., someone who admires some aspects and influence of the Church in European history, such as the strong Christian identities of those who fought in the Spanish Reconquista, but who deplores the recent descent of  so much of mainstream Christianity into wokeness and subservience to the dominant, essentially anti-Christian culture. Many of these people doubtless imagine a Western European Reconquista that would return Christianity (and perhaps implicitly at least, Whiteness) to the center of Western culture.

But, despite these differences, we have pretty much everything else in common, including place of residence and a desire to fit into a community with shared values. The main places mentioned here are Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, a small-town near Nashville, and suburban Dallas-Fort Worth. These locales are all in red states, at least for now, until the immigration deluge has its intended consequence of turning the country into a White minority nation saturated with people who identify as LGBTUQIA+ and the accompanying propaganda that is attempting to maximize the number of people with these identities. This propaganda is being blared throughout the educational system and all the major media. It’s striking that in the article, a wife exchanges teacups with her husband so that she has the more feminine one. These people uphold traditional notions of sex roles. They seem to understand that biologically based sex differences are real and that its adaptive (or perhaps part of God plan) to adhere to them. And notice the photo of the girl doing embroidery.

But it’s one thing to be in a conducive area, it’s still important to develop social relationships with people you can trust. In my case I am part of a small, all-male group sharing the same values and trying to develop projects that would bring more people like ourselves to our area and to similar areas throughout the country. I realize that people often can’t simply up and move, but many people can. And for long-term happiness, I highly recommend living among like-minded, culturally and ethnically homogeneous people is essential. Robert Putnam, whose research on increasing loneliness in American society and the detrimental effects of multi-culturalism on community (e.g., lack of willingness to contribute to public goods) is well known, realizes the importance of bonding with similar others although, like the mainstream liberal Jewish community he identifies with, he is entirely in favor of the multicultural experiment.

The people described here are successful economically, and they are well educated, including some refugees from the Claremont Institute, a conservative think tank, More importantly, they are highly fertile, with intact families with 4–8 children (likely with more being planned). They are thus part of the hypothesized demographic revolution described by Edward Dutton and J.O. Rayner-Hilles in which cultural conservatives will become dominant because of their fertility, although our hostile elites will do their best to import the multiethnic, non-White mélange that they favor to ultimately dispossess them.

These people are organizing into small groups. They are not the types to take to the streets with their guns. And I suppose they tune in to mainstream conservative media like FoxNews which will never educate them on the importance of ethnicity in human affairs, much less inform them of the reality of how a very influential Jewish elite is well on their way to shaping the country into something they loathe. An example from the article:

In Mr. Kressin’s new hometown in Idaho, the streets are clean and people leave their doors unlocked. His family lives in a house they can afford to own, with a white picket fence and room for a trampoline in the yard. In the cozy living room, an upright piano stands in the corner, and hymnals and classic novels line shelves on the wall.

“Many in our generation are very, very much longing for rootedness,” he said. “And they were raised in an era where that was really not valued very much.”

On a weekday morning this spring, he took a brisk morning stroll out his front door and up Tubbs Hill, with wildflowers sprinkled along the path and soaring views of the crystalline lake below. At his house afterward, Lauren Kressin, who was pregnant with the couple’s eighth child, served peach tea in tastefully mismatched china, quietly switching cups with him so he would have the “less feminine” one, she said with a smile.

Starting over in Idaho, Mr. Kressin said later, was part of a project so long term that he does not expect to see its conclusion. “The old landed aristocracy in England would plant oak trees that would only really mature in 400 years,” he said. “Who knows what the future holds, but if you don’t even start building a family culture, you’re doomed to fail.”

But of course, this being the New York Times, it’s mandatory to haul in an academic who is hostile to all this:

The circle’s critics say they present a cleaned-up version of some of the darkest elements of the right, including a cultural homogeneity to the point of racism and an openness to using violence to achieve political ends.

“It’s this idea of organizing discontent at the local level and building a network that over the next decade or three decades or even half-century would just keep moving the Republican Party further and further rightward, and mobilizing voters in discontented parts of the country, a lot of them men,” said Damon Linker, a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Pennsylvania, who has written critically of the crowd. “It’s a highbrow version of the militia movement.”

The Smug, Self-Righteous Damon Linker

Yes, nothing worse than being among people like yourself. People who share your culture and your values, and yes (God forbid!), even your ethnic background (unmentioned here of course) — a sure sign of racism to your garden-variety journalist-academic like Linker.

***

The article is well worth reading: New York Times: “Why a New Conservative Brain Trust Is Resettling Across America.”

The Claremont Institute has been located in Southern California since its founding in the late 1970s. From its perch in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains, it has become a leading intellectual center of the pro-Trump right.

Without fanfare, however, some of Claremont’s key figures have been leaving California to find ideologically friendlier climes. Ryan P. Williams, the think tank’s president, moved to a suburb in the Dallas-Fort Worth area in early April.

His friend and Claremont colleague Michael Anton — a California native who played a major role in 2016 to convince conservative intellectuals to vote for Mr. Trump — moved to the Dallas area two years ago. The institute’s vice president for operations and administration has moved there, too. Others are following. Mr. Williams opened a small office in another Dallas-Fort Worth suburb in May, and said he expects to shrink Claremont’s California headquarters.

“A lot of us share a sense that Christendom is unraveling,” said Skyler Kressin, 38, who is friendly with the Claremont leaders and shares many of their concerns. He left Southern California to move to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, in 2020. “We need to be engaged, we need to be building.”

A bearded man looking to the left, partly in sunlight, partly in shadow, in front of a modernistic fountain.
“There’s an interesting shift going on to Texas. I think there’s a renewed sense of seeking community and shared values and culture amongst right-wing folks.” said Ryan Williams, president of the Claremont Institute. Credit…Shelby Tauber for The New York Times

As Mr. Trump barrels through his third presidential campaign, his supporters buoyed by last week’s debate, many of the young activists and thinkers who have risen under his influence see themselves as part of a project that goes far beyond electoral politics. Rather, it is a movement to reclaim the values of Western civilization as they see it. Their ambitions paint a picture of the country they want should Mr. Trump return to the White House — one driven by their version of Christian values, with larger families and fewer immigrants. They foresee an aesthetic landscape to match, with more classical architecture and a revived conservative art movement and men wearing traditional suits.

Their vision includes stronger local leadership and a withered national “administrative state,” prompting them to celebrate last week when the Supreme Court effectively ended the “Chevron deference,” which could lead to the weakening of thousands of federal rules on the environment, worker protection and beyond.

Fed up by what they see as an increasingly hostile and disordered secular culture, many are moving to what they view as more welcoming states and regions, battling for American society from conservative “fortresses.”

Some see themselves as participants in and advocates for a “great sort,” a societal reordering in which conservatives and liberals naturally divide into more homogenous communities and areas. (And some, including Mr. Kressin, are simultaneously chasing the cheaper costs of living and safer neighborhoods that fuel many ordinary moves.

Former President Donald Trump puts a medal around the neck of Ryan Williams of the Claremont Institute.
Ryan Williams is presented the National Humanities Medal by President Donald Trump on behalf of The Claremont Institute during a ceremony at the White House in November 2019.Credit…Samuel Corum for The New York Times

The year Mr. Kressin moved to Idaho, he and Mr. Williams were part of an informal conversation at Claremont about the need for new institutions in what some hope will be a rejuvenated American society. The idea was a “fraternal community,” as one leader put it, that prioritized in-person meetings. The result was the all-male Society for American Civic Renewal, an invitation-only social organization reserved for Christians. The group has about 10 lodges in various states of development so far, with membership ranging between seven and several dozen people.

The group’s goals, according to leaders, include identifying “local elites” across the country and cultivating “potential appointees and hires for an aligned future regime” — by which they mean a second Trump presidency, but also a future they describe in sweeping and sometimes apocalyptic terms. Some warn of a coming societal breakdown that will require armed, right-minded citizens to restore order.

The group’s ties to Claremont gives it access to influence in a future Trump administration: Mr. Anton served on Mr. Trump’s National Security Council, and a Claremont board member, John Eastman, advised Mr. Trump’s 2020 election campaign. He faces criminal charges in Arizona and Georgia over schemes to keep Mr. Trump in power after he lost that race.

Their rhetoric can sound expansive to the point of opacity. “As the great men of the West bequeathed their deeds to us, so must we leave a legacy for our children,” the group’s website proclaims. “The works raised by our hands to this end will last long after we are buried.”

Their output, so far, looks more modest. Mr. Kressin’s home chapter has hosted an expert in menswear, who exhorted members to dress in a “classical American style,” and a screening and discussion of the 2003 naval adventure film “Master and Commander.” The men socialize outside of meetings and pass each other business.

Two adults and six children out for a walk, They are dressed neatly in attire appropriate for school or work.
Skyler Kressin and his family moved to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, from Southern California in 2020.Credit…Margaret Albaugh for The New York Times

The circle’s critics say they present a cleaned-up version of some of the darkest elements of the right, including a cultural homogeneity to the point of racism and an openness to using violence to achieve political ends.

“It’s this idea of organizing discontent at the local level and building a network that over the next decade or three decades or even half-century would just keep moving the Republican Party further and further rightward, and mobilizing voters in discontented parts of the country, a lot of them men,” said Damon Linker, a senior lecturer in political science at the University of Pennsylvania, who has written critically of the crowd. “It’s a highbrow version of the militia movement.”

In its first two years, leaders said, SACR received significant funding from Charles Haywood, a former business owner in Indiana. Mr. Haywood seems to delight in being an online provocateur. He has called the riot on Jan. 6, 2021, an “electoral justice protest” and praised the racist 1973 novel “The Camp of the Saints.”

Posting on the platform X last month, he wrote that foreign-born citizens should be deported for offenses including “working for Left causes.” Other leaders attribute the apocalyptic tone of the group’s founding documents to Mr. Haywood, who declined to comment.

A young girl, photographed from the neck down, in conservative attire, sewing next to a table full of books.
An interior scene in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Many of the young conservatives who have risen under Mr. Trump’s influence see themselves as part of a movement to reclaim the values of Western civilization as they see it. Credit…Margaret Albaugh for The New York Times

Members of the society are young, mostly white-collar (and mostly white), and often wealthy. Some have left elite institutions to start their own firms and invest in conservative-leaning ventures.

Josh Abbotoy, the executive director of American Reformer, a Dallas-based journal that serves as an informal in-house publication for the movement, is moving to a small town outside Nashville this week with his wife and four children. Through his new professional network, he is raising funds to develop a corridor of conservative havens between Middle Tennessee and Western Kentucky, where he has also purchased hundreds of acres of property. He expects about 50 families to move to the Tennessee town — which he declined to identify — in the next year, including people who work from home for tech companies and other corporations.

Mr. Abbotoy is betting big on the revitalization of the rural South more broadly, as white-collar flexibility meets conservative disillusionment with liberal institutions and cities. He sees the Tennessee project as a “playbook” for future developments in which neighbors share conservative social values and enjoy, he suggested, a kind of ambient Christian culture.

“I personally would happily pay high H.O.A. fees to be in a neighborhood where I have to drive by an architecturally significant church every day, and I can hear church bells,” he said.

The Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which legalized same-sex marriage nationally, was a watershed moment for Mr. Abbotoy and other conservatives’ understanding of how quickly the ground could shift under their feet. It is a decision that signaled to them the onset of an era that the conservative Christian writer Aaron Renn — who has spoken at the fraternal society’s events — calls “negative world,” an influential concept that describes a culture in which “being known as a Christian is a social negative, particularly in the elite domains of ­society.”

Image

A man in a gray sweater looks out the window from a sparsely furnished office.
Josh Abbotoy, director of the American Reformer, is counting on the revitalization of the rural South as white-collar flexibility meets conservative disillusionment with liberal institutions and cities. Credit…Shelby Tauber for The New York Times

Mr. Abbotoy was raised in an evangelical culture that encouraged conservative Christians to go out into “the world” and influence secular institutions, including corporations and universities. But that approach, which defined the last several generations of mainstream evangelicalism, feels increasingly untenable to people in his circle.

Mr. Abbotoy, who graduated from Harvard Law School, left a job with a major infrastructure company in 2021 and came to work for Nate Fischer, a Dallas venture capitalist and prolific networker whose firm invests in conservative projects and opposes “DEI/ESG and the bureaucratization of American business culture.” Mr. Fischer is the president of SACR’s Dallas chapter.

Andrew Beck, a brand consultant for conservative politicians and entities including SACR and Claremont, moved with his wife and their now six children, along with his parents and five of his siblings and their families, from Staten Island to suburbs north of Dallas in 2020. Almost 30 members of the family now live in the same area, just as they did in New York.

“Something is shifting that’s tectonic,” said Mr. Beck, who wrote a widely shared essay on “re-Christianizing America” for Claremont’s online magazine the American Mind. “It’s not so much about staking out some stronghold where you can live in a cocoon, it’s to be a part of a place you can truly consider to be home.”

Members must be male, belong to a “Trinitarian Christian” church, a broad category that includes Catholics and Protestants, but not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Members must also describe themselves as “unhyphenated Americans,” a reference to Theodore Roosevelt’s speech urging the full assimilation of immigrants.

A stack of copies of the publication, the Claremont Review of Books.
An issue of the Claremont Review of Books from winter 2016-2017.Credit…Brad Torchia for The New York Times

The group’s interdenominational membership reflects the fact that in the Trump era, conservative Christianity is increasingly becoming a cultural and political identity, with theological differences falling to the wayside and Christianity serving as a kind of generic expression of rebellion against modernity. A significant minority of members are Catholic, including Mr. Kressin. The group also includes Presbyterians, Baptists and charismatics.

In Mr. Kressin’s new hometown in Idaho, the streets are clean and people leave their doors unlocked. His family lives in a house they can afford to own, with a white picket fence and room for a trampoline in the yard. In the cozy living room, an upright piano stands in the corner, and hymnals and classic novels line shelves on the wall.

“Many in our generation are very, very much longing for rootedness,” he said. “And they were raised in an era where that was really not valued very much.”

On a weekday morning this spring, he took a brisk morning stroll out his front door and up Tubbs Hill, with wildflowers sprinkled along the path and soaring views of the crystalline lake below. At his house afterward, Lauren Kressin, who was pregnant with the couple’s eighth child, served peach tea in tastefully mismatched china, quietly switching cups with him so he would have the “less feminine” one, she said with a smile.

Starting over in Idaho, Mr. Kressin said later, was part of a project so long term that he does not expect to see its conclusion. “The old landed aristocracy in England would plant oak trees that would only really mature in 400 years,” he said. “Who knows what the future holds, but if you don’t even start building a family culture, you’re doomed to fail.”

Labour Loathe White Workers: How Slippery Starmer Has Slithered to Supremacy to Serve Semites

/3 Comments/in , /by

Words don’t rule reality, but they do manipulate minds. Take British politics. If honesty prevailed there, the Labour Party would be renamed the Lawyer Party. Millions of its deluded supporters would finally see the truth and stop voting for a party that hates them. Labour was founded to advance the White working class, but it now abominates the White working class. This betrayal was openly admitted by the Jewish politician Lord Glasman in 2011:

Labour let in 2.2million migrants during its 13 years in power — more than twice the population of Birmingham. Lord Glasman, 49, had already told BBC Radio 4 … “What you have with immigration is the idea that people should travel all over the world in search of higher-paying jobs, often to undercut existing workforces, and somehow in the Labour Party we got into a position that that was a good thing. Now obviously it undermines solidarity, it undermines relationships, and in the scale that it’s been going on in England, it can undermine the possibility of politics entirely.”

The academic, who directs the faith and citizenship programme at London Metropolitan University, criticised Labour for being “hostile to the English working class”. He said: “In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters… were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.” (Miliband ally attacks Labour migration ‘lies’ over 2.2m they let in Britain, The Daily Mail, 16th April 2011)

By “English working class,” Glasman meant the “White working class.” Labour loathes White workers, not non-White workers. The party ignores the far worse homophobia of lower-class Muslims and Blacks, because they’re at the top of the leftist racial hierarchy, not at the bottom like Whites. Its attitude towards White workers can be summed up in a single simple phrase: “Vote for us, you scum.” In 2014 a rich Labour lawyer called Emily Thornberry went to support her party’s candidate in a by-election at Rochester. She spotted a white workman’s van parked outside a house flying the English national flag, the cross of St George. “Yuck!” she thought. So she took a photo and sent a silently sneering tweet.

Serve Jews or else!

Her leader, the reptilian Jew Ed Miliband, was very angry. He fully shared Thornberry’s contempt for White workers, of course, but he hadn’t wanted that contempt to be made public. In other words, he hadn’t wanted the Labour Party to be exposed as the Lawyer Party. Alas for Miliband, Thornberry’s arrogance revealed the truth and helped UKIP win the by-election. It then helped the Conservative party win three general elections, first against Miliband, then against his replacement Jeremy Corbyn. When Corbyn was leader, he maintained Labour’s hostility to White workers. No-one in mainstream politics or media had any problem with that. But many politicians and journalists had very serious problems with Corbyn’s refusal to make Jewish interests his first and overwhelming priority.

Hideously White: Labour’s lying propaganda video

That’s why Corbyn was vilified as an anti-Semite and eventually thrown out of the party altogether. In 2024 Corbyn has just won his old constituency of Islington North standing as an independent. But the general election itself was won by Labour in a landslide under the fatuous and vacuous slogan of “Change.” Normal service has been resumed, because the party is once again headed by a lawyer, the slippery Sir Keir Starmer, and is once again dedicated to serving Jewish interests. Like Emily Thornberry, the new Labour leader is a human rights lawyer; unlike Thornberry, he has successfully concealed his hatred and contempt for White workers. During the election, the party released a remarkable propaganda video. Why was it remarkable? Simple. It was what the former BBC apparatchik Greg Dyke would call “hideously white.” Starmer was shown at a junior school surrounded by children and teachers who were uniformly stale and pale — there was not a black or brown face in sight, not a hijab or afro to be seen. Normally, of course, all mainstream politicians love to be seen surrounded by non-Whites and non-White symbols. But not here. At one point in the video, Starmer is seen giving the thumbs-up to an all-White class with a Union Jack on the wall behind him. At other points, the flags of the Home Nations — England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland — are visible over his shoulders.

Slippery Starmer slithers to supremacy

In other words, that video was deeply and deliberately dishonest. And every adult participating in it knew that it was a lie. The video was exploiting White children to advance the cause of a party that is dedicated to destroying the future of White children. Labour propagandists must have searched long and hard to find a school like that. In fact, I wonder whether the video was faked using AI. Nowadays, junior schools up and down the country are not uniformly White but swarming with Somalis and Syrians. And the flags on the walls of classrooms are typically the crowded chromatics of the noble LGBTQIA+ community, not those of the Home Nations. Starmer and his propagandists were being seriously sly and slippery. He was trying to pretend to White workers that he and his party aren’t implacably hostile to them and their love of country.

Now you see it, now you don’t: Starmer and his disappearing poppy (image from Twitter)

He was lying, of course, but enough White workers were fooled to keep Labour on track for its landslide. That’s one example of Starmer’s slipperiness. Another example was apparent when he was photographed proudly sporting the red poppy that symbolizes respect and honour for the British armed forces. But the poppy had vanished when Starmer appeared in an anti-Islamophobia video aimed at Muslims, who aren’t fans of the British armed forces. After all, Jewish control of British politics means that Britain has been dropping bombs on Muslims for decades in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. It also means that Britain is backing Israel as it drops bombs on Muslims in Gaza. When Jeremy Corbyn was leader, he backed the Palestinians and opposed Israel’s murderous war-machine. Starmer does the opposite, but that brings me to a third example of his slipperiness. He served without protest in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet and in 2019 was asked on BBC television to repeat the sentence “Jeremy Corbyn would make a great prime minister.” He happily did so. A few months later, he told the BBC that “he was ‘100%’ behind Mr Corbyn and working with him to win a general election.”

No purpose but power

But guess what? It turns out that all the time Starmer was 100% against Corbyn and serving in the shadow cabinet only because he thought Corbyn had no chance of winning that general election. When Starmer became leader, he expelled Corbyn from the party and utterly repudiated Corbyn’s pernicious reign. In other words, Starmer has no principles and no purpose but the pursuit of personal power. To win that power, he has to serve Jewish interests. He also has to pretend that Labour doesn’t loathe White workers. That’s why, in the words of the BBC, he has “embraced British patriotism, using the union jack as a backdrop for speeches and getting his conference to sing ‘God Save the King’.” In reality, Starmer isn’t a patriot and doesn’t believe in the monarchy. Everything about him is fake. His “landslide” victory was won on a low turn-out and ludicrously low share of votes — barely higher than that gained by Corbyn in 2019, when Labour badly lost the election.

And it isn’t just the name of Starmer’s party that’s a lie: it’s also his own given name. He was named by his Labour-supporting parents after the Scottish firebrand Keir Hardie (1856-1915), the founder, leader and first member of parliament for Labour. Hardie was a genuine champion of the working class. So were the Trade Unions of Hardie’s day. When a mining company in Scotland tried to import foreign workers at the beginning of the twentieth century, this is what happened:

Trade Unions were openly hostile, claiming that the newcomers’ lack of English made them a danger at work; the Glasgow Trades Council declared the Lithuanians in Glengarnock as “an evil” and wrote to the TUC [Trades Union Congress] demanding immigration controls to keep them out.

Even a figure such as Keir Hardie, founding father of the Labour Party, led a fierce, xenophobic campaign against the Lithuanians. Hardie, as a leader of Ayrshire miners, wrote an article for the journal, The Miner, in which he stated that: “For the second time in their history Messrs. Merry and Cunninghame have introduced a number of Russian Poles [as the Lithuanians were described] to Glengarnock Ironworks. What object they have in doing so is beyond human ken unless it is, as stated by a speaker at Irvine, to teach men how to live on garlic and oil, or introduce the Black Death, so as to get rid of the surplus labourers.” (“Lithuanians in Lanarkshire,” BBC History, February 2004)

In 2024 Sir Keir Starmer would heartily agree that his namesake Keir Hardie was “xenophobic.” Hardie wasn’t, of course. Instead, he was doing exactly what a Lithuanian socialist would have done if the situation had been reversed: standing up for the local workers he was elected to serve. But that was at the beginning of the twentieth century. By century’s end, Labour’s betrayal of White workers was complete. When Tony Blair became Labour leader in 1994, all the old-fashioned socialist nonsense had been discarded. Now the Labour party champions the downtrodden bosses against the oppressive workers. Blair was a slippery lawyer just like Starmer. And just like Starmer, Blair knew that he had to serve Jewish interests to win power. That’s why Blair won the ultimate accolade from Jews in Britain: he was a mensch. Starmer has just won that accolade too. He has been hailed in the Jewish Chronicle under the headline “Starmer is a mensch and deserving of our trust”:

After the last general election, every political commentator speculated on whether the Labour Party could ever hold office again. The spectre of the EHRC [Equality and Human Rights Commission] report [into alleged anti-Semitism in Labour] was an ever-present reminder of the nightmare of Corbyn’s tenure as leader of HM Opposition and nearly everyone believed that Boris Johnson had built an electoral coalition that had permanently redrawn our political map.

Yet last week, the country decided that the Labour Party had changed, that we could be trusted to run the government and that change was needed. … As a result, Keir Starmer’s Labour Party has a working majority of 181 seats and the Conservative Party has had its worst result since 1832.

Even I struggle to comprehend the full scale of what this means for our country, for my city of Stoke-on-Trent and for our community. It’s beyond my wildest expectations and I can’t stop grinning every time I think about it. The images of Rachel Reeves, Wes Streeting, John Healey, Shabana Mahmood, Angela Smith, Peter Kyle, Ian Murray and the rest of the new cabinet walking down Downing Street on Friday made me sob with much happier tears than those that followed the 2019 election.

Five years ago, our community would have been scared by the thought of a Labour landslide. The pages of the JC would have been filled with stories of families worried about the future and plans to make aliyah. Thank God that is not where we are today.

After tearing out the poisonous plant of antisemitism from my party by its roots, Keir (or the PM as I must get used to calling him) has managed to rebuild enough trust with you that Hendon, Finchley and Golders Green, Chipping Barnet, Bury North, Bury South and East Renfrewshire have all returned Labour MPs. And I genuinely don’t believe that anyone, regardless of their personal politics, considers a Labour government as an existential threat to our community — because it isn’t.

That in itself is truly a miracle. I will be forever grateful to Keir for fixing what I thought had been irrevocably broken.

He is a mensch. And he deserves this opportunity to lead our country in the years ahead. He has earned our trust and we in turn owe him a fair hearing as he turns from campaigning to governing. Elections are only the first step. Now we have the privilege of service, trying to fix what has been broken in our society after 14 years of Conservative governments. (“Starmer is a mensch and deserving of our trust,” The Jewish Chronicle, 10th July, 2024)

That article was written by a highly ethnocentric Jew called Ruth Anderson, who served as a Labour MP under the Dickensian name of Ruth Smeeth (appropriately enough, Dickens would have used the name to signify smarminess, selfishness, and hypocrisy). While she was an MP, Smeeth wept in public when she was accused of working with the Conservative-supporting Daily Telegraph to undermine Jeremy Corbyn. She accused the truth-teller in question of “anti-Semitism” and had him expelled from the Labour party. Then she left the party and hilariously became “chief executive” of Index on Censorship. In reality, she no more believes in free speech than Keir Starmer believes in championing the White working class. Instead, Starmer believes in personal power and in Pabloism, an obscure variant of the Marxist-Leninism created by the Jewish megalomaniac Leon Trotsky (1879-1940). Starmer became a Pabloist at university, but no-one in the mainstream media is interested in that. How does it matter that the Labour leader was an enthusiastic supporter of the twentieth century’s most murderous and authoritarian ideology?

Fatuous and vacuous: by “Change,” Starmer means “More of the Same”

But it matters hugely when any Labour leader isn’t an enthusiastic servant of Jewish interests. The purpose of mainstream politics in Britain and all other Western nations is to wage war on Whites and sycophantically serve Semites. The fake Conservatives did that and the fake Labour party will now do the same. The only difference is that Labour will wage war on Whites with extra enthusiasm, extra authoritarianism, and extra hatred for the White workers it was founded to serve.