Featured Articles

Anti-Semitism, Jewish Interpersonal Aggressiveness, and Newton’s Third Law

/23 Comments/in , /by

Such a long history.  It began with the Egyptian and Babylonian captivities of the 15th and 6th centuries B.C., respectively.  It continued through the conquest in 720 B.C. of Galilee and Samaria (the northern and central parts of today’s Israel) by Assyrian gentiles.  As a result, the southernmost Jews, who remained safe in Judea, began to develop and systematically maintain a deep-seated reluctance to assimilate with the rest of the world.

To more fully understand this phenomenon, it is important to bear in mind that the Assyrian invasion led to the permanent scattering of ten of Israel’s twelve tribes.  Because of this, the consequent resolve on the part of the remaining Jews to dwell alone became all encompassing, and not just theologically.  It also became deeply embedded in their culture.  This, in turn, led to an enduring focus on ethnocentrism, of which their persistent endogamy is just one feature

Since the Roman Catholic Church is frequently blamed for having developed early on a skewed body of theology holding Jews responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus, it is tempting to lay the blame for the West’s anti-Semitism at the feet of the Church.  Although there is clearly some truth in this charge against the Church,1 the problem with this perspective is that the anti-gentiles would have to wait a thousand years for the Church to fully develop and thus for any such theologically based anti-Semitism to extend itself throughout Europe.

For this reason, a more fundamental and timeless social-psychological explanation for this widespread cult of persecution is needed, perhaps one that at least partially does indeed “blame the victim.”  Although not referring to the Jewish/gentile dynamic at all, Jordan Peterson raises this point to a more general theoretical level with the following words:  “Over the millennia, animals who must cohabit with others in the same territory, have…learned many tricks to establish dominance while risking the least amount of possible damage.”2   [[Emphasis added].

In this regard, the people of the diaspora undoubtedly found themselves starting out at the bottom of whatever society they landed in.  Partly as a result, according to Benzion Netanyahu (the father of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu), by the time of the Spanish Inquisition there had already been about one thousand “pogroms” of the marginalized Ashkenazic Jews by the established populations of Europe.3  It will be the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that a corresponding  Jewish thirst for dominance and (in their view) the security that comes with it, continues to the present day.

An abrupt and stunning example of how this timeless behavioral norm can apply to confessionalist (inter-religious) struggles in general and to early Christian populations in particular is the 614 A.D. massacre, of as many as 60,000 Palestinian Christians by Palestinian Jews who allied themselves with the Sassanid Persians in their seizure of Jerusalem and the rest of Judea from the Byzantine Empire.4 Although estimates of the number of Christians who were massacred vary somewhat, the current massacre of the Palestinian Muslims in Gaza is probably no worse than the 614 A.D. massacre of Palestinian Christians 1,412 years ago..

This pre-European anti-gentilic brutality is a largely unknown precursor of what became a habit-forming response of Ashkenazi Jews to the almost reflexive anti-Semitism they encountered throughout European society and elsewhere. This pattern of security through dominance is documented not only by Douglas Reed in his classic  Controversy of Zion,  but also by Marshall Yeats in the first chapter of his highly auspicious developing work on Jewish history.  For example, Yeats explains why this behavioral modality was able to work so well for Ashkenazi Jews by pointing out that their unique geographical, ethnic and religious profile made them the natural providers of the wealth of Asia to their European neighbors.

The supply chain was at times direct, as with the ancient Silk Road which was actually a web of trails to Henan Province in China, where the mulberry tree grows in abundance.  Usually, however, the supply chain, which involved obtaining whatever goods (both material and cultural) the Levant and the rest of Asia had to offer, was more indirect.   It is well known, for instance, that the state of Kerala on India’s southwest coast, has had a Jewish presence since the time of Solomon.  Their original purpose was apparently to supply locally grown sandalwood for the 100th room of the Jewish temple, the inner sanctum.

Later, however, they would take advantage of the semi-annual monsoons to ship a wide variety of spices and other from Kerala’s Malabar Coast across the Arabian Sea and then up the Red Sea to Sinai.  Still other Jewish traders could obtain a steady supply of goods from their fellow Semites, the eventually Muslim populations of Baghdad and Damascus.

This strategic position of Jews was further enhanced by the fact that Christianity, like Islam, is built on Judaism.  Thus, it was only natural and even logical that Jewish merchants would morph into becoming the bankers of their known world.  This process was augmented by the fact that Christians, both Catholics and early Protestants, were until relatively recently, prohibited from charging interest on loans, (as are Muslims to the present day).   In the case of Catholicism, opinions as to the propriety of charging interest actually went back and forth within the Church, with the Vatican itself at one point agreeing to pay interest…to the Rothchilds, of course!  It was not until the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law that the routine charging of interest was finally and officially allowed and Jews were no longer considered to be beyond the pale, for that reason at least.

It is the purpose of this paper to demonstrate that this seldom acknowledged but pervasive animus against the gentile world on the part of the children of Israel is roughly equal to the (largely historic) anti-Semitism of the West.  Newton’s Third Law of Motion, after all, posits that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  I will now seek to merge my own experiences and observations with the insights of MacDonald, Peterson, Yeats, Kant, Beck and others to explore the Jewish question while at the same time respectfully taking exception to the Yeatsian thesis that the children of the diaspora, at least Ashkenazic Jews, will always be an alien presence in their country of residence, with Israel itself being the only possible exception..

Humans are not inanimate particles, of course, with one result being that the anger, and resentment of the victimized, if not promptly expressed in the form of countervailing behavior, can turn into clinical depression.  I will argue that in the more secular West “push back” (to put it politely) on the part of Ashkenazic Jews has not only been routine, but almost canonized.  In the traditionally more authoritarian worlds of Italy, Spain. Portugal and Latin America, on the other hand, the Sephardim were forced by their respective authoritarian regimes to lead a cryptic and much less confrontational existence.

In time however,  they emerged from the shadows and found that they could make themselves useful to the elites with their business contacts and in their financial acumen.  In addition, in the world of academics. and more recently in politics, many individuals have been able to make notable advances.  Claudia Scheinbaum, the current President of Mexico, for instance, is Jewish; and the “Mexico Siglo XX” documentary television film series was created by Enrique Krauze with such great sensitivity to historical detail that it was even critical of Jews when necessary.

If the quest for individual recognition failed, however, little recourse remained except depression, which became a common response to the historically pervasive anti-Jewish sentiment and policies of their entorno.  For example, after living in Mexico for only a couple of years I began to notice that there was something different about people who carried the last name Sánchez.  They tended to be small shopkeepers and generally seemed to be morose. It was not until Cary Herz came out with his book, New Mexico’s Crypto-Jews,6 however, that I was able to discover the reason for this personality feature.

It goes back to the Jewish population of Spain being able prosper so much under the 700 hundred year rule of the Muslim Moors.  Both jealousy and a widespread suspicion of their (putative) collaboration with the Muslims led to the 1492 royal edict to either convert to Christianity or face expulsion from Spain.  Although Poland gave free land, a guarantee of employment and no taxes until the seventh generation to those expelled, many just wandered around France until a new dynasty would eventually allow them to return.   Although the standard French word for house is mansion, in southern France the term chez is commonly used.  This term was then frequently applied to the Jews without a stable home as les sans chez.  Finally, when allowed to return to Spain, many bore the name Sánchez with defiant pride.3

On a happier note, it is interesting to examine those who through guile or resourcefulness were able to remain in the (Semitic) Middle East, either in Palestine or elsewhere in the Muslim world. They are known as the Mizrahim, and historically they never experienced the degree of anti-Jewish sentiment and behavior that would oblige them to undergo the profound personality transformations of their co-religionists elsewhere.  As a result, their ethnic personality has largely remained indistinguishable from that of their surrounding population.  They were the happy Jews, and up until the Arabic outrage and Zionist jingoism surrounding the recreation of the State of Israel took them in its grip, the inoffensive ones, too.

For me, the most interesting question here is why the Ashkenazic Jews, especially, those from most parts of New York City, display such a heightened degree of interpersonal aggressive behavior that at first blush it appears to be part of their very nature.  It seems that this phenomenon arises when Ashkenazic Jews, having been raised with the carefully curated  belief that gentiles are out to get them, are also imbued with the Leninist dictum that the best defense is a good offense.  The notion is generally credited as having originated with the Chinee philosopher, Sun Tsu, who wrote that “Attack is the secret of defense.”7 Regardless, this response to the (perceived) antipathy of the world of gentiles appears to be both efficacious and even therapeutic.

In my particular case, I still suffer considerably from post-traumatic stress because more than half a century ago I went away to college and had as a roommate for one semester, a New York Jew who was admitted on an athletic scholarship and who felt so uncomfortable having a non-Jewish roommate (even one whose parents were decidedly pro-Jewish), that he used terror to maintain complete control over me.  For instance, he once lifted me off the floor by my neck when I turned the overhead light on when I entered the room while he was already in bed screaming that he would kill me if I ever did it again.  Another time he destroyed almost my entire record collection and bragged about it to me.  I felt that if I complained in a formal manner, I would simply not survive the semester.

Yet, most of the leadership in the dorm (which was almost entirely gentile) was well aware of what I was going through, with the result that on one occasion I was forced to dress as Jane and my roommate as Tarzan, and we had to walk around campus holding hands!  To this day I still suffer from post-traumatic stress, which was caused by the danger and humiliation I endured.  I think that this story of one person can give the reader a more complete understanding of the need for control on the part of Jews who have been inculcated with the long history of anti-Semitism.  More to the point, it may help to make clear the devastating impact that this insatiable thirst for dominance can have on the affected gentile population right up to the present day.

In reflecting on what I went through, the one thing that consistently amazes me is the reflexive, almost innate, nature of Askenazic inter-personal aggressiveness.  Even though it can have its benefits for the aggressor, as I have mentioned, the total energy expenditure seems to be so enormous as to render it impracticable on a daily basis.  Perhaps a partial explanation can be found in the Jewish expression, “Rush toward the problem; don’t rush from it.”  Interestingly, this cultural response to perceived aggression has now been transcended at a very high intellectual level by the renowned (and very Jewish) University of Pennsylvania professor of psychiatry, Aaron Beck.  He died a few years ago at age 100, but during his lifetime, he completely changed the field of psychotherapy.

Freudianism has now been largely discredited and Beck’s cognitive-behavioral model has become the therapeutic standard.  Basically, it involves identifying a problem, and once it is shorn of its understandable (e.g., monster-under-the-bed) enhancements, the victim of trauma is encouraged to “rush toward the problem” by addressing it as it actually exists and not as it once was.  Current reality then provides the positive reinforcement that helps to extinguish the inflammation of the amygdalae that keeps the sufferer in PTSD’s grip.

Currently, I am a retired professor of sociology and am therefore acutely aware that my sample size, a grand total of one (1), is of course statistically meaningless.  Given the degree of the Jewish control of the media in the U.S. and elsewhere,8 however, I am sure that there are many stories like mine.  Further, the fact that this heightened interpersonal aggressiveness, so emblematic of New York Jews. can affect assimilated co-religionists as well as gentiles is attested to even by Jews who are from other places.

Once, for example, in a university cafeteria all of the tables were taken, so I asked a well dressed fellow student who was wearing a Star of David, if I could sit his table.  He graciously assented and not being able to ignore the fact that he identified so strongly with being Jewish, I recounted to him much of what I have written here.  “Look,” he exclaimed, “I’m from Los Angeles.  There are lots of New York Jews in my synagogue…and we can’t stand them!”  Then he sighed and said, “But what can we do, they’re Jewish.”

He and I then proceeded to have one of the most interesting conversations of my entire life.  Since we both, Jew and gentile, agreed fully on the obnoxious and intimidating aggressiveness so characteristic of so very many New York Jews, we could focus on analyzing why this is so.  What we concluded is that they came from the same place (northern Europe), to the same place (the recently constructed massive housing projects of the Bronx) and largely for the same reason (fleeing persecution, not just in Germany, but throughout war -torn Europe).

The 63 public housing projects of the Bronx constitute a community onto themselves.  Now occupied almost exclusively by blacks and some Puerto Ricans, in the 1930 and 1940s they were occupied almost entirely by displaced European Jews.  Thus, the critical mass (in the sense of what is required for an atomic explosion) was similarly present for an explosion of outrage and hatred for the world of gentiles.  Not even America was spared because the Jews who could escape to the U.S. had to come in under the regular quota of their country of origin. The liberals in Congress wanted to establish a special refugee category just for the victims of Nazi persecution, but the Southern Democrats prevented the measure from passing.

Now, of course, it is socially acceptable for non-New Yorkers to look suspiciously on all people from New York.  After all, consider Donald Trump: regardless of his politics, he is certainly as ego-centric and almost as overbearing as the one time denizens of the Bronx I have described.  This process is called  cultural diffusion and is well known to anthropologists   Basically, New York gentiles, once cast into the wrong circles, out of self-preservation had little choice but to develop the same armor and tentacles as their adversaries.

The Los Angeles student’s sensitivity to this issue, however, is understandable especially in light of the fact that in reaction to D.W. Griffith’s 1915 “Birth of Nation,” New York Jews immediately began to take over Hollywood.  As the Jewish writer, Michael Medved (1992) has pointed out, their presence in Hollywood is still very extensive.9  Related to this question, is The Library Book,  a study of the Los Angeles library system by the rather liberal writer, Susan Orlean.

She tells the incredible story of why the central Los Angeles library has anti-burglary bars on its second story windows   It turns out that when a studio sends its people to find whatever books are written about a screen play under consideration, rather than simply check them out, one person will go upstairs, find the relevant books and then force open a window in order to throw them out to his accomplice who is waiting outside.10  The books could so easily be checked out and presumably returned, of course, but there is no chutzpah in that.

This says it all, yet, it is important not to stereotype while otherwise making perfectly reasonable and empirically sound generalizations.  For instance, not only is the arrogant, obnoxious New York City archtype not representative of all, or possibly even most, New Yorkers, many acute observers of New York life will attest that there is one New York City borough that is most un-New Yorkish.  It is Brooklyn.   And the key to this transformation is integration.

Because of its relatively cheap rent, beginning in the early 1800s Brooklyn became known as “Manhatten’s Bedroom” and over the next two centuries it became a mozaic of races, religions and ethnicities.  This pattern has continued to the present day, especially with the ongoing arrival of so many penniless but idealistic college graduates.  Over time, shoulders rub shoulders, rough edges tend to gradually get rubbed off and something ressembling a common culture emerges.

It is for this reason that I would like to conclude by elaborating on my difference with the Yates perspective that Jews will never consider themselves to be true citizens of their “host” countries and will always consider themselves to be first and foremost Children of Israel.  Not only are there striking differences between Ashkenazic, Sephardic and Mizraic Jews, but even within these subgroups there are significant differences such as the differences between New York and non-New York Jews..  With this on mind, I would like to bring up an old saying, “Young man, do not remain too long on the Eastern Seaboard, for it will make you too hard; young man, do not linger too long on the West Coast; for it will make you too soft.”

I am bringing this up in part because of my experience back in the 1990s when I flew out (yes, to the West Coast) to confront my nemesis with what he had done to me.  Although I did find him to be largely in denial and still unapologetic, he was really in many ways a changed and even gracious individual and not at all the arrogant monster I had so painfully remembered.   A very prominent example of the West Coast’s potential softening effect is Andrew Breitbart.  Although his biological father was an Irish-American folk singer, he was adopted by a Jewish family when he was just a few weeks old and remained quite openly Jewish throughout his life.

Tragically, he died suddenly in 2012 of heart failure, but his news service is well known and is still widely respected by many conservatives.  Of particular note is his memorable evisceration of the Frankfort School for its shameless and specious attacks on the United States, the country that had saved them from a vastly different fate in Nazi Germany.  A similar figure is Ron Unz, also a California Jew, he is a force of nature and renowned conservative activist who has authored many California referenda.  Among his many other “firsts,” he has accused Jewish admissions officers at Harvard with “unconsciously” favoring Jewish applicants, and recently he had a major article published in the Fall 2025 issue of the Occidental Quarterly.

The main theoretical point here is that although Jewish ethnocentrism may indeed be theological and therefore political, it is mainly cultural.  So, what does this mean in practical terms?  Basically, what it means is that there is one weapon which potentially all gentiles possess against which Jews are utterly defenseless.  It is acceptance.  Yes, their ethnocentrism, aggressiveness, overweaning control of the media, fixation on sex and occasional bouts of dishonesty must be rigorously exposed, as for the most part I have tried to do here.  But this tactic is defensive; it merely involves repairing damage.  They remain the actors and with agency.

Acceptance, on the other hand, renders them (like anyone else) inert.  That is it in a nut shell.  Yes, they do indeed have many rough edges, which will unavoidably get rubbed smooth by abrading our sensibilities.  That however, is the price that we have to pay for our own confessionalism.  (Remember, just as with Jews, history will not hold us gentiles blameless either)!   Newton’s third law works in both directions, after all.  These reflections may induce many to see this article as sadly ending with a whimper rather than a bang and wide from the mark to boot, but I think further examination of my cultural hypothesis will bear me out.  Cultures are like glaciers; they most commonly change very slowly, but they do change.

To conclude, I would like to put my point on solid philosophical ground by mentioning Roger Devlin’s practical summation of Kant’s categorical imperative: “We should be willing to practice reciprocity with all who are willing to practice it with us [i.e., by treating everyone equally]….but when we encounter outsiders committed to the supposedly unique claims [of favoritism] to their in-group, we must counter with an unapologetic commitment to our own.”14  In other words, we should treat others (blacks, Jews, Muslims, Mexicans, Canadians and everyone else) the same way that we treat ourselves unless they claim special treatment for their own group.  In that case, with absolutely no guilt and with no apologies whatsoever, we should show the same preference to our own group.  We may need to do this for defensive reasons if for no other.  The pain of recovery and reconciliation will continue for quite some time, but when as a unified people we can finally reach the stars, we will do so as one planet at peace with itself.

Footnotes

1After more than a millennium of thunderous silence, the Vatican in its 1965 Nostra Aetate declaration absolved the Jewish people of any guilt for the crucifixion of Jesus.  Then, in 1998 it apologized for not having anything to help the Jewish population of Europe during World War II.  Finally, in 2000 Pope John Paul II asked God to forgive those Christians who have persecuted Jews.

2Jordan Peterson. Twelve Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.  Random House; p. 4.

3 Benzion Netanyahu.  Los Orígenes de la Inquisición en España del Siglo XV.  Nagrela Editores, 2015.

4 MacDonald, Kevin.  Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence and Anti-Semitism.  Atlanta: Occidental Press, 2007).

5Douglas Reed. The Controversy of Zion T.  GSG , 2013

6Marshall Yeats.  “The Jewish Question.”  Pre-Print in the Occidental Quarterly, Vol 24, No. 1 (Spring 2024); pp. 3-29.

7Carey Hertz.  New Mexico’s Crypto-Jews.  UNM, 2009

8Kevin MacDonald. ”On the Possibility of a New Elite.” Electronic Posting. February 9, 2025),

9V.I. Lenin, who was one-quarter Jewish, was very studious and being from Kazan, a heavily Oriental part of Russia, he was undoubtedly well aware of Sun’s military writings and was most likely predisposed to them as well.  See Sun Tsu.  The Art of War.  512 B.C.

10 Medved, Michael.   Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values.   New York: Harper Collins. 1992.

11Susan Orlean. The Library Book.  Simon and Schuster, 2018;  pp.  86-87. .

12 Breitbart, Andrew.  2011.  Righteous Indignation: Excuse me While I Save the World.  Grand Central Publishing

 

13 Ron Unz.  “The True History of World War II.”  Occidental Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 3. (Fall 2025), pp. 41-79.

14Roger Devlin.  . “Two Styles of Moral Reasoning: Reciprocity vs. the Unique Rightness of the In-Group.  Occidental Quarterly, Vol. 25, No..4. (Winter, 2025-2026); pp. 73-81.

Bibliography

Breitbart, Andrew.  2011.  Righteous Indignation: Excuse me While I Save the World.  Grand Central Publishing.

Devlin, F. Roger. “Two Styles of Moral Reasoning: Reciprocity vs. the Unique Rightness of the In-Group.  Occidental Quarterly, 25. (Winter, 2025-2026); pp. 73-81.

Herz, Carey.  2009.  New Mexico’s Crypto-Jews: Image and Memory.  Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

MacDonald, Kevin.  A People That Shall Dwell Alone  New York: Praeger, 2002.

MacDonald, Kevin.  Cultural Insurrections: Essays on Western Civilization, Jewish Influence and Anti-Semitism.  Atlanta: Occidental Press, 2007).

Medved, Michael.  1992.  Hollywood vs. America: Popular Culture and the War on Traditional Values.   New York: Harper Collins.

Netanyahu, Benzion.  2015.  Los Orígenes de la Inquisición en Espana del Siglo XV.  Madrid: Nagrela Editores

Orlean, Susan.  2018.  The Library Book.  New York: Simon and Schuster; pp. 86-87.

Peterson, Jordan B.  2018.  Twelve Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.  Toronto:  Random House; p. 4.

Reed, Douglas: The Controversy of Zion.  San Pedro, California:  GSG, 2013.

Unz, Ron.  “The True History of World War II.”  Occidental Quarterly, (Fall, 2025); pp. 41-79.

Yeats, Marshall.  “The Jewish Question.”  Pre-Print in The Occidental Quarterly, Vol 24, No. 1.

Q and A w/ Leonarda Jonie

/5 Comments/in /by

What follows is an interview conducted by talk radio host James Edwards with stand-up comedian Leonarda Jonie.

* * *

James Edwards: You were born in Montenegro, raised in the concrete jungle of New York City, then ditched that scene for Austin, Texas. What was the breaking point in New York?

Leonarda Jonie: My breaking point in New York was Covid. I watched people who I knew become informant agents who wanted to know why I wasn’t wearing a mask. One day, I was out to lunch with a friend, she was Eritrean, and she had three of her friends – all black – come to meet us for lunch. At this point, I wasn’t very racially conscious, but one of the people there made it a point to bring up the fact that I was White when I was criticizing Democrats. She also said I had only criticized “people of color,” which I pointed out was false, as I had criticized both Gavin Newsom and Nancy Pelosi. It was at this moment that I realized New York was at a tipping point, and I was not safe there, specifically because I was White with budding conservative values.

Edwards: Moving from New York to Austin put you in the heart of a new comedy frontier. What was the difference there?

Jonie: Austin was still liberal, but compared to New York, it seemed like a conservative stronghold. There was actual free speech there. I could make fun of trannies without someone wanting to kill me. It was also open. New York was shut down for so long, much longer than the rest of the country. Austin was up and running, and at the time, many comedians were similarly fleeing from liberal hell holes. We were all tired of being censored and shut down, so in the early days, Austin had a lot of promise. Sadly, it didn’t last.

Edwards: You slam modern sensitivity culture like it’s the enemy it is. From your perspective as someone raised in a different world—Albanian roots, upbringing in NYC—do you see the woke left’s obsession with feelings over facts as a uniquely American decay, or is it spreading everywhere?

Jonie: I would say it’s my Albanian roots, coupled with the fact that I internalized the pioneer spirit of America. The early Americans were frontiersmen. I believe the decay is not uniquely American, as we’re seeing it in Western Europe and even in parts of Eastern Europe. It’s a consequence of the liberal ideology that places equality as the supreme value, even above truth and definitely above your own people. There is something inherently rotten built into this ideological framework that crushes your ability to recognize and speak the truth about the way the world is when it contradicts what they want the world to be.

Edwards: You’ve mocked the left relentlessly and torn into their sacred cows. As a woman in comedy who’s not afraid to punch back, what’s the biggest hypocrisy you see in the so-called feminists who scream about empowerment but demand safe spaces and censorship?

Jonie: They only want women empowered to the extent that they will parrot back the controlling narrative and act to enforce cultural Marxism. When a woman does not echo their sentiments, they want to crush her as vehemently as they do men. This is usually when they will begin to identify her as a “White woman” with all the privilege that entails, as opposed to just a “woman” with its accompanying victim status. They do the same thing to black people who don’t parrot the race hustling ideology they want them to believe in, although those individuals are quite rare.

Edwards: Your comedy forces people to confront uncomfortable truths—whether it’s cultural taboos, political absurdity, or personal failings. You’ve built a huge following—hundreds of thousands of followers on YouTube and Instagram and tens of millions of views—by being what the media calls “the most offensive female comedian out there.” In an industry where comics get neutered, how did you decide to go full throttle on the taboo stuff instead of watering it down for the blue-check crowd?

Jonie: Since when is comedy’s job to comfort anyone? Comedy is supposed to make you laugh. That’s it. That’s the only requirement: make you laugh. Whatever else you want to put on top of that is your choice, but if you fail the requirement – make people laugh – it’s not comedy. One common way comedians have done that is by pointing out absurdities and making fun of ridiculous aspects of society that we all pretend aren’t ridiculous.

Now, some people choose to make comedy a vehicle for propaganda. In the 80s and 90’s, this did not prevent comedy from being funny because the dominant culture – White, conservative, Christian America – was being attacked, so you could say anything and the more offensive the better, because again, they were using it as a vehicle to subvert the White majority order. Now that the cultural Marxists with their bullshit ideologies about race and sex equality are in power, they demand that you only use comedy to continue enforcing that structure. But how is that funny? You can’t be funny if you aren’t allowed to make fun of absurdities, and cultural Marxism is built on absurdity after absurdity. So now we’re in a “The Emperor Has No Clothes” situation, and the very people who are supposed to be pointing it out are out there reinforcing the lie and attacking anyone who dares to do so.

I’ve chosen to use comedy as a vehicle to tell the truth, and because our world is so steeped in lies and we’ve been lying for so long, sometimes just telling the truth is funny because everyone knows you’re not supposed to say certain things. My challenge as a comedian is often: how do I tell the truth and do it in a funny way? I could absolutely still be funny and stay within the lines of propaganda – the approved narrative – but I’m not interested in that. If I’m going to sell my soul, I might as well do it within a much more secure and lucrative profession. But I’m not interested in selling my soul. I’m interested in being free and setting other people free.

Edwards: Clubs and venues have started canceling your shows, fellow comedians throw you under the bus, and the outrage mob labels you dangerous. You’ve called yourself “the most canceled comedian in America right now.” Does that fire you up more, knowing you’re hitting nerves the safe, corporate-approved acts never touch?

Jonie: It’s a double-edged sword. On the one hand, I often wonder if there was a more intelligent way I could have gone about this so that I didn’t make it so hard on myself to do my job – telling jokes in a comedy club. On the other hand, when someone gets pissed off at me just because I’m saying something their cultural training tells them I shouldn’t be allowed to say, I want to tell them to fuck off. I’m not going to lie, it’s really satisfying to see all these loser comedians who threw me under the bus not be able to sell 5 tickets on their own. I want to go up to them and say, “I’m not the reason you suck. Even if I didn’t exist, no one would be coming to see you. Maybe instead of focusing on destroying me, you should focus on building yourself up, and then you wouldn’t need to worry about me.” But they choose activism – a fake kind of activism of trying to censor their competition because they know they don’t have what it takes to be a good comedian, and they’re avoiding confronting themselves.

Edwards: You’ve taken the heat—cancellations, blacklisting, the whole playbook—and come out swinging harder, building a loyal fanbase that packs houses (when allowed) and shares clips like wildfire. What keeps the fire burning when the establishment tries to memory-hole you?

Jonie: Two things: the first is the absolute retardation of the culture around me. The anger I feel at the insanity and the fact that I’m supposed to be okay with it lights a fire in me to oppose it. The second thing is the people who come to my shows and watch my content. I get 100x more messages of support than I do of hate. That tells me that I am not alone. That there are way more people who see things the way I do, and I am acting as a voice for the unheard.

Edwards: As we mentioned, you were born in Montenegro and raised in the so-called “melting pot” of New York City, witnessing first-hand what “diversity” does to communities. What message do you have for native-born Americans who feel like strangers in their own country, watching everything they built get handed over to outsiders?

Jonie: My heart is heavy when I see this happening to Americans. I have been adopted into America. That is the truth. America adopted me, and it was a huge gift that allowed me to become a fully actualized human being. That is the gift of America to those it embraces and those who embrace it. I am nearly certain that had I been raised in my country of origin, I would not have been able to become what I am now because the structures to do so do not exist there. My people, for various reasons, did not build those structures. There is also a certain ideology – again, the American pioneer – that lives in the air of America that allows a person to become fully actualized. Not every culture has that, not even every European culture. This is something that is uniquely American, and I do believe, sets it apart from everyone else. So when I see outsiders coming in and raping the fruits of this culture without feeding the soil that allowed those fruits to blossom, it enrages me. And on top of that, destroying the very structures that allow them to profit, all while hubristically chanting about their own superiority. I want to join the Americans in their crusade against these invaders and these traitors. It’s like, how dare you? Americans are a people and a race. They are not an idea. Not everyone can just “become” American. That’s about as ridiculous as saying everyone can become “Irish,” “Albanian,” or “French.” The cultural Marxists want to advance this new talking point, and notice they only do it for European cultures. How interesting that they deny the “Africanness” of the Afrikaneers. Then suddenly, race and biology are extremely real.

To native-born Americans who feel like strangers in their own country, I have boundless compassion. They did not ask for this. They did not ask to be overwhelmed by foreigners and have their country hollowed out by them. But I say the spirit that led your ancestors to conquer this land and create one of the greatest civilizations ever to exist still lives on in you. Despair will just hand your enemies an easy victory. So never despair. Take hope to the grave with you if you must, but you have to find the will to live and the hope that you will one day be the land of the free again.

Edwards: Where can people watch you, and are you scheduled for any public appearances in 2026?

Jonie: They should go to my website: www.LeonardaIsFunny.com. I have all my tour dates and content, including bonus content, there. And they can find me on YouTube, Instagram, or Twitter at @LeonardaIsFunny.

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS.

When not interviewing newsmakers, James Edwards has often found himself in the spotlight as a commentator, including many national television appearances. For more than 20 years, his radio work has been featured in hundreds of newspapers and magazines worldwide. Media Matters has listed Edwards as a “right-wing media fixture” and Hillary Clinton personally named him as an “extremist” who would shape our country.

How Israel’s Resettlement Demands Shifted Toward Europe

/9 Comments/in /by

Long before Israel declared independence, Zionist leaders openly discussed what they termed “transfer,” the organized removal of the Palestinian Arab population. David Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel’s first prime minister, stated as early as 1937, “The compulsory transfer of the Palestinians from the valleys of the proposed Jewish state could give us something we never had.” He added, “With compulsory transfer we would have a vast area for settlement. I support compulsory transfer. I don’t see anything immoral in it.”

These pre-state declarations established the ideological foundation that would resurface throughout Israeli political history, eventually extending from proposals to relocate Palestinians within the Middle East to explicit demands that Western nations absorb them.

The 1948 war resulted in the displacement of 750,000 to 1 million Palestinians. Ben-Gurion’s government directed and facilitated this displacement as part of constructing a Jewish-majority state. While the primary expulsion pushed Palestinians into neighboring Arab countries, Western resettlement schemes also emerged during this period.

While serving as Deputy Foreign Minister under Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Netanyahu spoke at Bar-Ilan University on November 16, 1989 and called for mass expulsions of Palestinians: “Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China [Tiananmen Square], when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories.” He told the students the government had failed to exploit “politically favourable situations in order to carry out ‘large-scale’ expulsions at times when ‘the damage would have been relatively small.'” He added: “I still believe that there are opportunities to expel many people.” Netanyahu denied the remarks on November 21, claiming he had been misunderstood.

Avigdor Lieberman, then leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, first proposed his “Populated-Area Exchange Plan” in 2004. The plan would redraw Israel’s borders to transfer hundreds of thousands of Arab-Israeli citizens, particularly those in the Galilee Triangle region, out of Israel and into a Palestinian state, stripping them of Israeli citizenship. Lieberman reiterated this plan at the UN General Assembly in September 2010, describing it as a “population and territory swap.”

As Foreign Minister in 2014, Lieberman received a classified legal opinion from Foreign Ministry legal adviser Ehud Keinan arguing that a population transfer plan would be legal under international law provided it was consensual. First reported by Haaretz’s Barak Ravid, the document was entitled “Territorial Exchange: Transfer of Sovereignty over Populated Areas” and proposed transferring approximately 300,000 Palestinian citizens of Israel living in the Triangle region—a densely populated area along the Green Line—to Palestinian Authority control in exchange for Israeli annexation of large West Bank settlement blocs.

The ideas Lieberman had spent two decades pushing from the political fringe entered the mainstream of Israeli official discourse after October 7. The Hamas attack on October 7, 2023 triggered an unprecedented wave of Israeli official statements calling for the resettlement of Palestinians outside Gaza, with several explicitly naming Europe and the West as destinations.

In a cross-party op-ed in The Wall Street Journal titled “The West Should Welcome Gaza Refugees,” Danny Danon—the former Israeli Ambassador to the United Nations—and Ram Ben-Barak—the former deputy director of Mossad—called on “countries around the world to accept limited numbers of Gazan families who have expressed a desire to relocate.” They urged Western nations to create “well-structured and internationally coordinated relocation programs” and suggested that “even if countries took in as few as 10,000 people each, it would help alleviate the crisis.” The op-ed explicitly invoked European and American precedents of accepting refugees from prior wars.

Responding to the Danon and Ben-Barak op-ed the following day, Finance Minister Smotrich endorsed the idea in a Facebook post, writing: “I welcome the initiative of members of Knesset Ram Ben-Barak and Danny Danon on the voluntary immigration of Gaza Arabs to the countries of the world. This is the right humanitarian solution for the residents of Gaza and the entire region.” He argued that a “cell with a small area like the Gaza Strip without natural resources and independent sources of livelihood has no chance to exist independently, economically and politically in such a high density for a long time.” At the time, the U.S. State Department condemned the statements from both Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, with spokesman Matthew Miller calling them “inflammatory and irresponsible.”

In a similar vein, shortly after October 7, Intelligence Minister Gamliel called on the international community to promote “the voluntary resettlement of Palestinians in Gaza, for humanitarian reasons, outside of the Strip.” She argued, “Instead of funneling money to rebuild Gaza or to the failed UNRWA [The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees], the international community can assist in the costs of resettlement, helping the people of Gaza build new lives in their new host countries.” She described this as “a win-win solution: a win for those civilians of Gaza who seek a better life and a win for Israel.”

Similar calls came from elsewhere in the Netanyahu cabinet. National Security Minister Ben Gvir called for promoting “a solution to encourage the emigration of Gaza’s residents,” calling it “a correct, just, moral, and humane solution.” He stated, “The emigration of hundreds of thousands from Gaza will allow Israeli settlers to return and live in security.”

After the U.S State Department condemned these statements, Smotrich doubled down, claiming “more than 70 percent of the Israeli public supports” encouraging emigration, and arguing that Israel “cannot afford a reality where four minutes away from our communities there is a hotbed of hatred and terrorism where two million people wake up every morning with aspiration for the destruction of the State of Israel.” Pushing back on the US State Department, Ben Gvir posted on X, “The migration of hundreds of thousands from Gaza will allow the residents of the [Gaza] envelope to return home and live in security … with all due respect, we are not another star in the American flag.”

The rhetorical positions soon hardened into operational planning at the highest levels of the Israeli defense establishment. Defense Minister Israel Katz announced on February 6, 2025: “I have instructed the IDF to prepare a plan that will allow any resident of Gaza who wishes to leave to do so, to any country willing to receive them.” He explicitly named Spain, Ireland, Norway, and Canada as target destinations, stating: “Countries such as Spain, Ireland, Norway, and others, which have falsely accused Israel over its actions in Gaza, are legally obligated to allow Gazans to enter their territory. Their hypocrisy will be exposed if they refuse.” He separately singled out Canada, noting that it “has a structured immigration program” and had “previously expressed willingness to take in residents from Gaza.” Spain’s Foreign Minister José Manuel Albares rejected the suggestion directly, saying “Gaza is the land of Gazan Palestinians and they must stay in Gaza,” and Ireland similarly rejected Katz’s comments.

Despite the European rebuffs, Netanyahu and the Israeli security establishment pressed forward. In February 2025, Netanyahu endorsed the Trump plan to relocate Gaza’s population, calling it a “remarkable idea,” and told Fox News, “The actual idea of allowing first Gazans who want to leave to leave — what is wrong with that?” The following month the Israeli security cabinet formally approved a proposal from Defense Minister Katz to facilitate “voluntary transfer” for Gaza residents.

In July 2025, Mossad Director David Barnea traveled to Washington to meet with US special envoy Steve Witkoff and formally requested US assistance in convincing countries to accept “hundreds of thousands” of Palestinians from Gaza. He told Witkoff that Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Libya had expressed openness, and asked the US to offer incentives to those countries. The White House was described as non-committal and reportedly told Israeli officials that if Netanyahu wanted to pursue the plan, Israel would need to find willing host countries itself. A few months later Netanyahu discussed plans for “voluntary emigration” at a meeting with senior defense officials and cabinet members. A Defense Ministry plan would allow Gazans to leave by air and sea starting in October 2025.

Other figures in the Israeli right pushed the same logic well beyond Gaza. At a vineyard near Ramallah, presenting his “Colonisation 2030” campaign platform ahead of elections, Smotrich declared, “Destroy the idea of an Arab terror state; finally, formally and practically cancel the cursed Oslo Accords and get on the path of sovereignty, while encouraging migration both from Gaza and from Judea and Samaria. There is no other long-term solution.” This marked the first time a senior minister explicitly extended the emigration demand to the West Bank.

These statements have drawn uniform international condemnation. The US State Department explicitly condemned the January 2024 statements by Smotrich and Ben Gvir as “inflammatory and irresponsible,” stating that “Gaza is Palestinian land and will remain Palestinian land.” Saudi Arabia, the EU, Netherlands, Slovenia, and other states joined in that condemnation. Spain, Ireland, and Norway rejected Katz’s February 2025 demand that they accept Gazans. Human rights organizations including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and BADIL have characterized these plans as constituting ethnic cleansing or forced displacement under international law. While the post-2023 statements frame resettlement as “voluntary” and “humanitarian,” critics and legal experts note that mass displacement carried out under conditions of war and siege cannot meaningfully be called voluntary.

Taken together, these resettlement schemes represent the logical culmination of a long-standing Jewish policy designed to make the world safe for Jewish supremacy, where the systematic exploitation of Western capital and influence serves the dual purpose of clearing the land of Palestine while accelerating the permanent transformation and destabilization of the traditional European heartlands.

Those Who Reign Supreme: The Holocaust as Linchpin of a Jewish-Ruled World

/39 Comments/in /by

History is a set of lies agreed upon
Napoleon Bonaparte

Wherever you are on this earth, beware! As of January 20, 2022, the United Nations adopted a resolution submitted by Israel and Germany appealing to all nations of the world to take active measures to combat any unwanted skeptical research into the National-Socialist persecution of Jews, and the popular social chatter resulting from it. Following a propaganda speech by Gilad Erdon, Israel’s representative to the United Nations, the UN passed this resolution without a vote, a fact which makes you wonder who really runs the UN![1]

Holocaust education is now mandatory in almost all schools of the Western World. Everyone is obligated not only to learn, but to believe, or else, the official Holocaust narrative.[2]

This obligation is pretty radical when you think about it. Eighty years later, we should be able to discuss the subject freely as we do with most other historical events such as the Jewish-led Atlantic slave trade,[3] or for that matter: the Jewish-led Bolshevik Red Terror of 1937-38,[4] the Jewish-led Bolshevik Gulags,[5] and the Jewish-led Bolshevik Holodomor famine;[6] three events which altogether caused the death of 60 million Russian Christians, according to Nobel prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn, the author of The Gulag Archipelago (1973).

Slavery and Colonialism. Are Whites Responsible for the Stagnation of Africa and Blacks in general?

Why should Jewish suffering be more important? “Jewish death and suffering,” asserts Marc Weber of the Institute of Historical Revision, “do not deserve to be venerated more than the death and suffering of non-Jews.”[7] Why this double standard? There have been many Holocausts in the past. Here is a partial list:

  • Mao Zedong’s Regime (1949–1976): Responsible for 40 to 70 million deaths through policies like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
  • Khmer Rouge (Cambodia, 1975–1979): Killed approximately 1.7 to 2 million Cambodians through forced labor, starvation, and execution.
  • Armenian Genocide (1915–1923): The Ottoman Empire massacred or deported 1 to 1.8 million ethnic Armenians. [8]

And that’s without mentioning the ongoing Gaza genocide which, according to the very conservative statistics of the most immoral army in the world, has killed roughly 70 000 Palestinians since October 2023; with more than 171,000 others wounded and 9,500 missing and presumed dead and buried beneath the rubble of bombed buildings, mostly women, children, and the elderly.[9] If you add to this toll, the number of Palestinians killed, injured,  and displaced since 1948, the number of people killed, injured, and displaced during the war on terrorism, you’re speaking of millions of casualties from fire, bombs, bullets, starvation, illness, and unimaginable sadism and cruelty, all in the name of the Greater Israel Project.[10]

The Holocaust, at the Heart of the Gaza Genocide

No one except like-minded people such as Donald Trump and his neocon war mongers would accept to cooperate with Jews after what they did to Blacks, Christian Russians, Arab populations in Western Asia, and Persian populations in Iran. If they were seen for what they really are, behind the mask of their iconic victimhood status cemented by the Holocaust, no one, states Jewish American intellectual Ron Unz, would want anything to do with these baby killers:

In per capita terms Jews were the greatest mass murderers of the twentieth century. Holding that distinction by an enormous margin and with no other nationality coming even remotely close. And yet, by the astonishing alchemy of Hollywood, the greatest killers of the last one hundred years have somehow been transmuted into being seen as the greatest victims, a transformation so seemingly implausible that future generations will surely be left gasping in awe.[11]

Why Is the Holocaust So Important?

Without the Holocaust, “those who reign supreme,” i.e., the Epstein class and their willing dupes and traitors, will find it difficult if not impossible to achieve what several Jewish philosophers, historians, and rabbis such as Michael Higger, Max Dimont, Asher Ginsberg, Leon Simon, and Alfred Nossig have identified as the ultimate Jewish domination of the earth and its peoples.[12]

This goal is not an anti-Semitic-conspiracy theory taken from the “fake” Protocols of the Elders of Zion by a fringe group of White supremacists, fascists, and Nazis. It is as real as the genocide in Gaza.

This goal of domination is clearly spelled out in the following citation from The London Jewish World of February 9/16, 1883, taken from Michael C. Piper’s book, The New Babylon— from which I have taken the liberty to use part of the cover to illustrate this article, which is a respectful homage to this great American investigative journalist, the first to link the JFK assassination to Israel:

The dispersion of the Jews has rendered them a cosmopolitan people. They are the only cosmopolitan people, and in this capacity must act, and are acting, as the solvent of national and racial differences. The great Ideal of Judaism is not that Jews shall be allowed to flock together one day in some hole-and-corner fashion [as a separate people]; but that the whole world shall be imbued with Jewish teachings and that in a Universal Brotherhood of Nations—a Greater Judaism, in fact—all the separate races and religions shall disappear.[13]

Once all the races, nations, and religions are disappeared, in a “John Lenon Imagine way”, prominent Jewish French cabalist, Jacques Attali, would like the center of the New World Order anticipated by the The London Jewish World to be located in Israel, and the capital of this focal point of Jewish power to be Jerusalem.[14]

As Dr. Kerry Bolton states in his book The Occult and Subversive Movements: “Jerusalem has been regarded by the tradition of Western Civilization as the axis mundi, and the Crusaders believed it to be the nexus between Heaven and Earth.”[15] In some maps of the Middle Ages, this city is in fact depicted as the center of the world, with Europe, Asia, and Africa radiating from it like the petals of a flower. In a more pragmatic perspective, Western Asia, aka the Middle East, contains the world’s largest concentration of proven oil and natural gas reserves, holding more than 50% of global proven oil reserves.[16] For the Rothschild-led City bankers who chose this piece of real estate as their beachhead in Western Asia, it’s an ideal location for their social, financial, and economic ambitions on the world.[17]

And cabalist Jacques Attali and the Rothschilds’ are far from being the only ones advocating for a one world government situated in Jerusalem. In his book, Planetarian Hopes, French author Hervé Ryssen, who has written several critical books on Judaism, has compiled dozens and dozens of citations from prominent secular Jews who advocate for a world of peace without borders and races governed from Jerusalem by an elite Jewish class, who, paradoxically, has no intention of dropping its Jewish identity.[18]

Moses, the First “Führer” in History: Jewish racial consciousness and supremacism

Rabbi Menachem Froman (1945-2013) was also passionately pleading for a capital of the world in Jerusalem:

Jerusalem must be made Capital of the World. We now have the power and opportunity to declare it so, isn’t it only fitting that Jerusalem be the seat of the United Nations cultural bodies, human rights organizations, scholarly forums? Isn’t it only proper that Jerusalem be the place where the members of all faiths convene to renounce their breeding of prejudice, hostility and war?[19]

Is this why Donald Trump, metaphorically called the “first Jewish president of the United States” by Jewish influencer Mark Levin, moved the American embassy to Jerusalem? Considering his dedication to an Israel First policy and his long record of supporting Jewish causes, and his 99% support by the Israelis vs his 35% support by his own citizens, it’s probable. [20]

In any case, as far as Israel’s first Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion (1948) is concerned, it is without a doubt the destiny of the Jews and Israel to be the head of a world alliance governed from Jerusalem:

With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state, all other continents will become united in a world alliance, at whose disposal will be an international police force. All armies will be abolished, and there will be no more wars. In Jerusalem, the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah.[21]

This Court is already in place in the form of the Supreme Court of Israel, which will become the Supreme Court of Humanity dreamed by David Ben Gurion. This purposely designed building covered with Masonic and Egyptian symbols was donated by Dorothy de Rothschild for an undisclosed sum and inaugurated in 1992. [22], [23] The Rothschild, Isaac Rabin, and the designers are in the painting adorning the entrance of the building. On the roof of the court sits in a circle a pyramid like the one-at-the-Louvre museum in Paris and in it, the All-Seeing Eye of providence[24] like the one you can see on American one-dollar bills, and since 2016, on the Ukrainian 500 Hryven bills.[25]

Jewish Doublethink?

Is this a good thing for humanity? Is this a philanthropic project as advertised? Are we approaching the earthly paradise so coveted by millenarians of all stripes? Are we finally going to recreate the famous Garden of Eden prophesied in the eschatology of religions? Or, are we being taken for a ride?

Judging by what follows, the answer to the last question is “yes.” It may be good for the Jews, but not for everyone else. In Judaism, small inconvenience, only Jews are human, and that’s a problem.

Here is what the Prophets and the Jewish Sages “Of Blessed Memory” say about the status of non-Jews:

the Gentiles are thought of as animals. The status of the Gentiles in Halacha [Jewish religious law] is similar to that of animals in many respects, and generally speaking, there are no real distinctions made between them … There is no escaping the facts: the Torah of Israel makes a clear distinction between a Jew, who is defined as “man,” and a Gentile. This distinction is expressed in a long list of Halachic laws [practical rules of conduct derived from the legal interpretation of the Hebrew Bible], be they monetary laws, the laws of the Temple, capital laws or others.[26]

The Pentateuch or the Hebrew Bible called the Torah contains a recurring theme in political Judaism: the world belongs to the Jews and all non-Jewish “animals” on the planet are at the mercy and whim of Jewish interests. The following passage from chapter 7 of Deuteronomy is pretty chilling, to say the least:

For you are a people sacred to the LORD, your god; he has chosen you from all the nations on the face of the earth to be a people peculiarly his own.

You shall consume all the nations which the LORD, your god, will deliver up to you.

Rout them utterly until they are annihilated.

He will deliver their kings into your hand, that you may make their names perish from under the heavens.

No man will be able to stand up against you, till you have put an end to them.

More generally, this hatred of non-Jews is openly expressed in several passages of their sacred book, the Talmud, which is, according to Abbey Olivier Rioult, “the most hateful, the most racist, and the most perverse book that has ever been written in the history of humanity.”[27]

The future condition of non-Jewish “animals” in the world advocated by the Jewish Sages of Blessed Memory, the Torah, and the Talmud is confirmed by the great rabbi of Israel, Ovadia Yosef, a “giant of Jewish thought,” who  compared non-Jews to donkeys and slaves, according to the October 7, 2013, issue, of The Times of Israel:

Goyim [non-Jews, my comment] were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world—only to serve the people of Israel.

In Israel, death has no dominion over them… With Gentiles, it will be like any person—they need to die, but [God] will give them longevity. Why? Imagine that one’s donkey would die, they’d lose their money.

This is his servant… That’s why he gets a long life, to work well for this Jew.

Why are Gentiles needed? They will work, they will plow, they will reap. We will sit like an effendi and eat… That is why Gentiles were created.[28]

These are not just empty words. This great Jewish sage is simply following a passage from the Hebrew Bible found in the book of Isaiah (61:5-6). Until his death in 2013, Ovadia Yosef, who was for thirty years a highly respected religious authority and listened to by Israeli leaders, including the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu, was the embodiment par excellence of the rabbinic thinking (Talmudism) that prevails today in Israel and the Jewish Diaspora. When Yosef died, 800,000 Israelis attended his funeral, the largest in Israel’s history.

In his book, Jewish history, Jewish religion: The weight of 3000 years Jewish professor Israel Shahak takes us down into the rabbit hole of Jewish supremacism: “An Orthodox Jew learns from his earliest youth, as part of his sacred studies, that Gentiles are compared to dogs, that it is a sin to praise them.”[29] Institutionally, The Book of Education is currently a popular book for all Israeli school children, its publication is subsidized by the government. Its texts contain material such as “The Jewish are the best of the human species, created to know their Creator and worship Him, and worthy of having slaves to serve them.”[30]

This supremacist mentality is confirmed by English author and journalist, Nesta Webster—she is scorned today as “pseudo-scholarly” and an “anti-Semitic fantasist” because of her continuing influence on so-called conspiracists, but in her time, she was highly regarded for her knowledge on subversive movements by the Main Press, the British military, and people such as Lord Kitchener, H.G. Wells, and Churchill.[31] In her book, Germany and England. A Prelude to War 1938, her comments on the power of Jews and how they can make or break any man are still relevant today as we all saw with our own eyes during the election of Thomas Massie:

England of 1938 is not the England of 1914 because she is no longer controlled by Britons. Ever since the war the Jewish power has been growing… We are under an invisible Jewish dictatorship but a dictatorship that can be felt in every sphere of life, for no one can escape from it… Already the Jews can make or break the career of any man. As long as the Jews do not hold Germany [my comment: and now Iran, Russia and China] they can never realize their final aim of world domination.

It is idle to say that this vast ambition has been falsely attributed to the Jewish race. The dream of a messianic era when they shall rule the world runs all through their sacred writings. In this article on the Messiah, the Jewish Encyclopedia says: “As for the Royals, in the apocalyptic rabbinical literature the conception of an earthly Messiah is the prevailing one, and from the end of the first century of the common (i.e., Christian) era his mission is, in all essential respects, the same as the apocalypse of the older period; he is to free Israel from the power of the heathen world, kill its ruler and destroy the host, and set up his own kingdom of peace.” The peace of death for the Gentile world.[32]

Judging by what they are doing to the Arab “animals” in Palestine and the surrounding countries as well as the extreme racism and hatred of Whites expressed by many Jewish American intellectuals and thousands of ordinary Jews, the answer to the above question “are we being taken for a ride?” is definitely “yes.”

The “Seal Puppy” Hunt that’s Coming: The Ache of Envy and Other Obstacles to Change

Why, then, with such a mentality, would they treat non-Jews as equals in the New World Order they are selling as a paradise on earth for all humanity? From what has been said above, there is every reason to believe that the humanitarian and philanthropic aspect of the Jewish project is only a mask that the Jews will remove at the last moment when their project of planetary domination is, or will seem to them, finally realized.

Their vision is in fact much larger than just a New World Order ruled from Jerusalem, the capital of the world. Their real vision is a “Jewish utopia” where all the wealth of the world will be held by the Jews and all the nations of the earth will be subservient to them and their “God.”[33] As such, Zionism is not only about a Jewish state, it is about a Jewish-ruled world as confirmed by prominent Jewish author and journalist, Israel Shamir:

Palestine is not the ultimate goal of the Jews, the world is. Palestine is just the place for world state headquarters. The Jews intend to turn Jerusalem into the supreme capital of the world, and its rebuilt temple into the focal point of the earth… Christianity will die, the spirit will depart from the nations in our part of the world, and our present dubious democracy will be supplanted by a vast theocratic state […] Theocracies are not this pleasant to live in; however, the Jewish theocratic state will be considerably worse, for the ordinary Gentiles will have no share in its rule and no access to its spirituality. Despiritualized and uprooted, homeless and lonely, yesterday’s masters of the world will become slaves in all but name.[34]

Role of the Holocaust

As such, in this duplicitous scheme hidden by an alleged concern for humanity, the Holocaust is both the sword and the shield with which organized Jewry and the State of Israel—with the help of their insufferable thought police, such as the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and the French International League against racism and anti-Semitism (LICRA):

  • Justify their actions in Palestine and in Western Asia;
  • Acquire their victimhood status from which they derive financial reparations and other social and political benefits. (Research indicates that “victimhood is a constructed status that confers moral capital, recognition, and resources. Individuals or groups may cultivate this status to demand justice, reparations, or sympathy, effectively ‘thriving’ on the recognition of their suffering.”); [35]
  • Censor and persecute their opponents;
  • Mobilize their community;
  • Fulfill their hegemonic ambitions on the world. [36], [37], [38], [39]

But not all Jews are on board. In one of his books, famous Jewish author Philip Roth, for one, bitterly deplores how Auschwitz and the Holocaust are weaponized:

What justifies seizing every opportunity to extend Israel’s boundaries? Auschwitz. What justifies bombing Beirut civilians? Auschwitz. What justifies smashing the bones of Palestinian children and blowing off the limbs of Arab mayors? Auschwitz. Dachau. Buchenwald. Belsen. Treblinka. Sobibor. Belzec. … Power-mad Jews is what they are, is all that they are, no different from the power-mad everywhere, except for the mythology of victimization that they use to justify their addiction to power….[40]

A point of view fully shared by other Jewish intellectuals[41] such as Jewish academic Tony Judt, director of the Remarque Institute at New York University:

The Holocaust is frequently exploited in America and Israel to deflect and prohibit any criticism of Israel; it allows Israel to outdo the suffering of any other nation (and justify its own excesses) by asserting that the Jewish catastrophe was unique and incomparable; and it is presented as a polyvalent metaphor for evil — everywhere, anywhere, and always — taught to schoolchildren all over America and Europe without any reference to context or cause. This modern instrumentalization of the Holocaust for political purposes is ethically unsound and politically unwise.[42]

Undeniably, the Holocaust is an instrument that Jews “use a lot, in a cynical way,” asserts Israeli historian Moshe Zimmerman, “to manipulate the public, Jewish people in particular, in Israel and abroad.”[43]

And if anyone dares to complain about Jewish behavior in Israel or elsewhere, the Holocaust and anti-Semitism are used to shut them down. But make no mistake about it, according to Shulamit Aloni, a former member of the Israeli government, these all-purpose boogeymen are nothing but a ruse:

When someone in Europe criticizes Israel, we bring up the Holocaust. When someone in this country [the United States] criticizes Israel, they are anti-Semites… We use the Holocaust, anti-Semitism and Jewish suffering to justify everything we do to the Palestinians.[44]

The Holocaust, Linchpin of a Jewish-Ruled World

All things considered, you have to agree with what Mark Weber of the Institute of Historical Review thinks about the Holocaust Remembrance Day: “It is not, as its supporters claim, a noble effort motivated by sincere concern for humanity, this relentless campaign is an expression of Jewish-Zionist power, and is designed to further Jewish-Zionist interests.” [45]

As stated in 1991 by Ian Kagedan of the Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai B’rith Canada, “Memory of the Holocaust is central to the New World Order” that Jews want to impose on the world. As American journalist Chris Hedges asserts in “The Death of the Holocaust Industry” published on substack.com in may 2026, “The genocide in Gaza has exposed the weaponization of the Holocaust as a vehicle not to prevent genocide, but to perpetuate it, not to examine the past, but to manipulate the present.”

In the end, if the memory of the Holocaust is “good for the Jews,” it’s bad for the non-Jewish “animals.” Beware, if you don’t obey the Jewish-ruled world that’s in the cards, the “chosen” have shown that when it comes to revenge, torture, rape, assassinations, mass murder, and genocide, they have nothing to envy in anyone else.

One of the greatest murderers in history is the Jew Genrikh Yagoda, deputy chief of the Bolshevik police, the infamous Cheka police, who said, “Some call it, Marxism, I call it, Judaism.” He was responsible for the deaths of about ten million people. It was he and his Jewish henchmen who set up the gulag system in the USSR that was denounced by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his book The Gulag Archipelago.[46]

To watch the “most moral army in the world” slaughter the Palestinian baby “animals” of Gaza, without a shred of human remorse, with impunity, live, in front of the entire planet, it’s high time to ask some serious questions.

Please, Mr. Rothschild, reassure us on this matter; please Mr. Attali, tell us it’s not true; please Mr. Netanyahu, we need to know because it turns out that Jews, when driven by talmudic fever, can become great murderers, among the greatest known in modern history.[47]

DeepSeek on Race, Egalitarianism, Jews, the Rulers of the World and the Solution to the Problems they Cause 

[1] Germar Rudolf, The Day Amazon Murdered Free Speech, Castle Hill Publishers, 2022, p. 143.

[2] Ibid.

[3] The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, prepared by the Historical Research Department of the Nation of Islam, Latimer Associates, 1991.

[4] Thomas Muller, “The Suppressed History of Jewish Red Terror in Europe and Russia After WW1,” Truth to Power, May 1, 2020.

[5] Steve Plocker, “Stalin’s Jews,” Yediot Aharonot, December 26, 2006.

[6] Robert Conquest, The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization and the Terror-Famine, Oxford University Press, 1987.

[7] Mark Weber, “Holocaust Remembrance: What’s Behind the Campaign?” Institute for Historical Review.

[8] Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.

[9] Brett Wilkins, After 2 Years of Denial, IDF Confirms ​70,000+ Killed in Gaza​—But Denies Famine, Common Dreams, January 29, 2026.

[10] Yidon Plan, Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. This plan is openly advocated by Benjamin Netanyahou.

[11] Ron Unz, “Racial Discrimination at Harvard,” The Unz Review, 2016.

[12] Michael Higger Ph.D., The Jewish Utopia, The Lord Baltimore Press, 1932;

Max Dimont, Jews, God, and History, Signet, 1962;

Asher Ginsberg,  Ahad Ha-‘am: Selected Essays, Sefer V’Sefel, 1912, republished in 2021;

Leon Simon, Studies in Jewish nationalism Longmans, Green and Co., 1920;

Alfred Nossig, Integral Judaism, 1922, independently republished in 2025.

These books are all cited in chapter 3, “Zionism is Judaism: The Foundation for a Global Jewish Imperium,” of Michael C. Piper’s book The New Babylon. Those Who Reign Supreme. The Rothschild Empire: The Modern-Day Pharisees and the Historical, Religious and Economic Origins of the New World Order, American Free Press, 2011.

[13] Ibid., p. 103.

[14] Jacques Attali, “Jerusalem, capital of the New World Order,” YouTube.

[15] Kerry Bolton, PhD, The Occult and Subversive Movements. Tradition and Counter-Tradition in the Struggle for World Power, Black House Publishing, 2017, pp. 293-290.

[16] Leo AI.

[17] Balfour Declaration, Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.

[18] Hervé Ryssen, Planetarian Hopes, Omnia Veritas, 2022.

[19] Rabbi Menachem Froman, “A Modest Proposal,” The Jerusalem Report, Oct. 25, 1999.

[20] Dan Feinreich, Trump family has long record of supporting Jewish causes, San Diego Jewish World, January 27, 2020. Mr. Trump received the Tree of Life award in 1983 for his dedication to American-Israeli friendship and support for Israel.

[21] “Ben-Gurion Foresees Gradual Democratization of the Soviet Union,” Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Jan. 4, 1962.

[22] Jerry Golden, “Supreme Court of Jerusalem,” Gravoline, March 12, 2015: “Being myself Jewish, God be my witness, that I would never say or do anything that could be considered antisemitic (translated from French).

[23] Kerry Bolton, PhD, The Occult and Subversive Movements. Tradition & Counter-Tradition in the Struggle for World Power, Black House Publishing, 2017.

[24] Robert Keith Spence, The Cult of the All-Seeing Eye, Omni Publications, 1968.

[25] Lucien Cerise, Ukraine. La guerre hybride de l’OTAN, Culture et Racines. 20222, p. 203.

[26] Rabbi David Bar Chaim, “Jews Are Called `Man’: The Distinction Between Jews and Gentiles in Torah,”

Gentiles in Halacha, October 17, 2006.

[27] Abbé Olivier Rioult, De la question juive : Synthèse, Éditions Saint Agobard, 2018, pp. 33 and 59.

[28] Lazar Berman, “5 of Ovadia Yosef’s Most Controversial Quotations,” The Times of Israel, October 9, 2013.

[29] Israel Shahak, Jewish history, Jewish religion. The weight of a thousand years, Pluto Press, 2008, p.113.

[30] Ibid., p. 114.

[31] Kerry Bolton, PhD, The Occult and Subversive Movements. Tradition & Counter-Tradition in the Struggle for World Power, Black House Publishing, 2017, p. 68.

[32] Nesta H. Webster, Germany and England. A Prelude to War, 1938, Ostara Publications, p. 58-59.

[33] Michael Higger Ph.D., The Jewish Utopia, The Lord Baltimore Press, 1932.

[34] Israel Shamir, Cabala of Power, self-published, 2009, pp. 88-89.

[35] Alex Vandermaas-Peeler, Jelena Subotic, and Michael Barnett, “Constructing victims: Suffering and status in modern world order,” Cambridge University Press, December 22, 2022.

[36] John Beaumont, The Truth Will Set You Free. The case for Holocaust revisionism, Fidelity Press, 2023, pp 304 to 313.

[37] Anne Kling, La France licratisée : Enquête au pays de la Ligue internationale contre le racisme et l’antisémitisme, Éditions Mithra, 2006.

[38] Anne Kling, Shoah : La Saga des réparations, Éditions Mithra, 2015.

[39] Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Verso; Reprint edition, January 6, 2015.

[40] Philip Roth, Operation Shylock. A Confession,  Simon and Schuster, 1993, pp. 132-133. Cited by the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust.

[41] Mark Weber, “Holocaust Remembrance: What’s Behind the Campaign?”, Institute for Historical Review.

[42] Tony Judt, “Goodbye to All That?”, The Nation, Jan. 3, 2005, p. 17.

[43] Moshe Zimmerman cited by Yakov M. Rabkin in Au nom de la Torah : Une histoire de l’opposition juive au sionisme, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 2004, p. 211, in Abbot Olivier Rioult, Sur la question juive. Synthèse, Éditions Saint Agobard, 2018, p. 304.

[44] Steve Cooke, “Is Antisemitism a Trick? A Closer Look at That Shulamit Aloni Meme,” Medium, June 5, 2019.

[45] Mark Weber, “Holocaust Remembrance Day: What’s Behind the Campaign?” Institute for Historical Review.

[46] Steve Plocker, “Stalin’s Jews,” Yediot Aharonot, December 26, 2006.

[47] Ibid.

The resistible rise of Blancophobia as a dominant reality in the UK

/12 Comments/in /by

If you have ever been a passenger on a large, ocean-going vessel which has had to turn through 180°, then you will know how long it takes. A cruise-liner or a super-tanker moves at glacial speed on the turn, and it is reminiscent of something; the British national consciousness. After almost two years of the latest — and hopefully last — incarnation of the British uniparty, the people of those rainy islands seem finally to be waking up to two inescapable facts. The first is that uncontrolled immigration is intentional and not a by-product of incompetence. The regular influx of undocumented, fighting-age, non-white Muslim men into the UK is not a glitch in the British political class’s coding, it is a feature. The second fact, harder to swallow for the famously tolerant British, is that their government hates them. More specifically, it hates them if they are White.

We live in an age of phobias, but there is one which dare not speak its name. Blancophobia, a fear or hatred of white people, is never mentioned, not even by those on the genuine political Right. We know that a phobia is actually defined as an irrational fear of something, not “hatred of” as the Left have re-branded it, but the concept of definition is passé, like wearing last season’s fashion. Language is increasingly what the hegemonic Left say it is, and definition is at their discretion. If the Left ever do have an auto da fé, a burning of books as the Nazis did in 1933, when 40,000 books were consigned to the flames, then the dictionary would be first on the pyre. But the phobia it is not okay to mention in polite society is blancophobia, and this is because polite society is now policed society.

Blancophobia is defined as “a fear or hatred of white people” not in any of the internationally recognized Anglophone dictionaries such as the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) or Merriam-Webster. The only definition I can find is in something called the “Urban Dictionary”, a fairly minor internet outpost.

Why this omission? It is not as though the compilers of dictionaries, from Dr. Johnson onwards, are not sensitive to any change in meaning. Merriam-Webster — the American OED — famously changed their definition of “racism” when a black woman requested they do so. Yes, ma’am, said the company. What uppity Black women want, they get. But no mention of blancophobia. So, there is no point looking for a definition of this whisper-word. How does it manifest?

We moderns have a tendency to think in news cycles, which is exactly what the Western media wish. We don’t need an Orwellian memory-hole, we have our own. We do have to store a lot away these days, it must be said, and we forget quickly, but let’s look at how blancophobia has been incubating this century.

Why not start with what I am writing? I am using Word, and I can tell you what spellcheck recognizes. Of the following five words, only one gets the red line underneath it from a Microsoft spellcheck: Islamophobia. Homophobia. Transphobia. Negrophobia. Blancophobia. There are no prizes for working out which one is not recognized.

This tallies with what has become a saw among those on the Left; it is not possible for non-Whites to be racist concerning White people. I have said many times that this is an ex cathedra statement made ex nihilo; a statement made with no rationale to back it up, but having the power of a Papal edict. It began in 1970, when an American academic named Patricia Bidol-Padva wrote in Developing New Perspectives on Race that racism is “prejudice plus power”. Despite being rationally untenable, this formula was taken up by modern Critical Race Theory (CRT) authors such as Robin DiAngelo and Reni Eddo-Lodge, author of Why I’m No Longer Talking to White People About Race.  Now, this concept is an established part of the UK school curriculum, and is one example among many of blancophobia in the classroom.

Apparently, the only reason given for the impossibility of non-Whites being racist to Whites is that, in some mystifying way, Whites have power and Blacks don’t, or “White privilege”, as it is known in some circles. The truth, as it so often is, is the polar opposite of this. As Enoch Powell’s famous constituent warned would happen in 1968, the Black man now has the whip-hand over the White man, aided and abetted by the largely White political class and their executive arm in the public sector.

The current concerted attack on Whiteness in the UK is now blatantly obvious in sectors as disparate as advertising, employment legislation, and policing. Although only around 5% of the British population is Black, it is estimated that up to 50% of British advertising features Blacks, and mixed-race couples are disproportionately represented, almost always showing a Black man squiring a White woman.

As for employment, one of the top brass in the RAF, the famous Royal Air Force which won the Battle of Britain, complained about “useless White men” when recruiting. He didn’t mean useless in the air, he meant useless for his DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusivity) quota.

As for the police, when hundreds of Black teenagers recently ran riot in a once-genteel part of London called Clapham, the police presence was sparse and seemed entirely uninterested when they did arrive at what would have been condemned as a riot had it been Whites smashing property and looting stores. When White crowds assembled peacefully to protest in migrant-afflicted towns such as Crowborough and Epsom, however, the police were present in force and wearing full riot gear. This is the famous “two-tier policing” that the government claims does not exist in Britain, a denial that certainly shows that it does. Anyone presenting an argument that blancophobia is not by far the strongest racial animus in Britain today shows themselves to be deeply unserious.

Despite it clearly being open season on Whites, the government diktat is that it is ethnic minorities, and various other groups with “protected characteristics” who are under threat. This thinking is reverse induction; you start from the answer and work back to the question. And the answer is always that Whites can only ever be the problem.

This can be seen in miniature in UK television advertising. Ads are little dramas now, and the morphology of these tales in miniature is not hard to find. Whites are shown as incompetent, objectionable, and humorless, while Blacks are portrayed as invaluable, empathetic, and the saviors of any given situation.

When the government produced a series of ads to dissuade young men from harassing young women in the street, the sexual aggressors are always White, while the gallant knights who save the girl and scold the boy are always Black or British Asian. Britain, and its White political ruling class in particular, is profoundly blancophobic, and it is at long last starting to be noticed and spoken about.

British non-Whites (or at least non-Whites in Britain) fall into two broad classes: Blacks of Caribbean or African heritage, and Muslims either from sub-continental Asia or Africa. I am from London, and lived there for much of my life, so I have seen both groups at close hand. Blacks are notably the more racist of the two groups, disliking Whites purely because they are White. The young Muslim sees kuffar before he sees Whiteness, and so the animus is more religious than racial. Blacks and Muslims don’t really get on, and the attitude of Muslims such as the London Mayor, Sir Sadiq Khan, is that the only good Black is a convert to Islam. This is why Khan campaigned at the last Mayoral election on a ticket which would ban stop-and-search, by far the easiest way to reduce knife crime, and yet prone to racial disparity. Khan is entirely unconcerned about Blacks stabbing one another — and the occasional White boy — stabbing them to death because these people are not of the ummah, they are out-group delinquents.

“Integration”, or rather the lack of it, is much talked about in British political commentary, and one point is never made; Muslims have integrated perfectly well into another culture. This is not the vanishing culture of the host country they infest, of course. Almost all young Muslim men speak, act, dress and behave like young urban Blacks. They have integrated perfectly.

Even the White image of Blackness in Britain is blancophobic because it is coerced. No White Briton is free to form their own opinion of Blacks and Black culture based on, say, empirical evidence. The White experience of Blackness is pre-fabricated and mandatory. Whites are not required to have their own experience of Blackness, but rather they are told what that experience is and must be. It is also explained to them that their experience of Blacks is tainted by their own prejudice, snobbery, xenophobia and racism. Whites are told that they have a visceral hatred of non-Whites, and Blacks in particular.

In a relatively short period of time, the British Black caucus, in collaboration with their White liberal handlers, have produced a White personality which is far more of a social construct than race is deemed to be by the promoters of CRT. Blacks have long monopolized the grievance industry, and the White persona they have come up with is general issue and melanin-dependent. It is that of the racist.

Racism has had an interesting arc of development this century. At first, it was enough not to be a racist. Then, as the Black caucus realized they could expand on this theme, it became compulsory to be anti-racist. This was further refined so that it became necessary for Whites to declare their anti-racism on request, like a member of the Stasi demanding to see a person’s papers. This is a part of an overall program in which Blacks demand “respect” — a big word in that community, if rarely exhibited by its members. No one has ever dared to point out to Blacks that respect must be earned. No one would dare if they wanted to stay in position. Blacks just expect respect to be there automatically, like a hotel towel. Even after this state-imposed humiliation ritual, of course, Whites are still racist. Racism has replaced Adam and Eve’s transgression as the original sin. On the subject of history, blancophobia is hard at work in what was once a respected academic field.

Blacks and their enablers have learned to master cognitive dissonance, a psychological dysfunction which involves an individual holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. So it is that the Black caucus has no problem with holding two contradictory versions of history. Firstly, Blacks require a bogus history in which Blacks invented everything from the plough to the Large Hadron Collider, pausing only to kick-start the Industrial Revolution and come up with the internet.

In fact, of course, Blacks have invented very little of use, and in fact represent a negative asset to history’s development, White-led as it is and will remain. And yet schools are filled with books such as Brilliant Black History, which propagates the myth of Black exceptionalism. In the arts, famous historical figures who were clearly White are portrayed as Black in dramatic productions. Thus, Anne Boleyn was Black, according to the BBC, and there were plenty of Black Romans, Tudors, and Victorians, even though the actual numbers were vanishingly small. The latest incarnation of this is Christopher Nolan’s upcoming film version of Homer’s Odyssey, in which Helen of Troy is played by a Black woman, despite Homer specifically describing her as White. We also saw a Hollywood version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarves in which the role of the little princess was played by a Latina, despite the name being a translation of the German, “Schneewittchen”.

Drama based on actual fact is not confined to history. Readers will remember the BBC drama, Adolescence. This featured a young boy who has been “radicalized” online, and goes on to kill a female classmate. For extra authenticity, the writers based the show on a real case. What puts something of a dent in that authenticity is that, in reality, both killer and victim were Black. When scriptwriters tinker with a script, that’s permissible.

When they tinker with reality, not so much. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer wanted Adolescence shown in every school, and repeatedly referred to it in the House of Commons as “a documentary”.

The arts are a hotbed of blancophobia. In 2023, a Black theater group in London announced that one performance during a run of its play, Tambo & Bones (which is, as you might expect, about race) would be to a black-only audience. The producers did not exclude Whites from attending, nor could they do so legally, they simply suggested they not attend. Given that their White audience would be mostly liberals who would do anything a Black man told them to, that order was obeyed. The producers wanted, they said, to have one performance “free from the White gaze”. This is a curious choice of phrase. In London, no White person gazes at a Black if they know what’s good for them.

Blancophobia is not treated as a criminal offense, as are all other racial phobias. What of crime itself? Media bias is used to screen Black violence, as with a piece from The Guardian in February, 2023. The headline informs us that “Black people four times as likely as White people to be murdered, ONS (Office for National Statistics) data shows.

The piece unpacks this data, but at no point mentions the ethnicity of the murderers. The sub-textual hint is that these dead Black people were killed by Whites. This is not the case, or I feel sure we would have heard more on the subject.

A feature in The Daily Telegraph from December 2023 has a helpful hint beneath the headline, which reads “London knife and gun crime surges amid gang warfare”.

Now, it is axiomatic that no such feature will mention Blackness except in the context of victimhood, and this one does not. But the newspaper extends to its readers an invitation to “find out how much knife crime is in your area using our searchable tool”. They say there is an app for everything, and now there is one for Black dysfunction, although it is not exactly framed in those terms.

Alternatively, rather than bother installing the app, you could just walk out of your London front door, stroll around for a while (accompanied, if female), count how many Black people you see, and use that as a reliable indicator of the dangers inherent in the place where you live. You don’t need an app to recognize what Paul Kersey calls the “Black undertow”. What happens when Black academics are the ones compiling crime statistics?

Tony Sewell is a Black education specialist. In 2021, as Chairman of the Race and Ethnic Disparities Commission, Sewell was tasked with producing a report on those very categories. This was one of those governmental reports which are produced “to show” a pre-judged result, and the one Mr. Sewell’s commission came up with showed very much the wrong result. Instead, the report found that racism was not the dominant factor in Black dysfunction, but trailed behind geography, family, wealth, culture and religion. This was not what the deep state wanted to hear, and the vitriolic attacks on Mr. Sewell began immediately.

In 2007, then-Prime Minister, Tony Blair, took something of a political risk. In a studio panel Q&A, Blair told a Black woman the following about crime: “We won’t stop this by pretending it isn’t young Black kids doing it”.

But it is what Blair said immediately beforehand which shows the ultimate avoidance of Black culpability:

The black community — the vast majority of whom are decent, law-abiding people horrified at what is happening — need to be mobilized in denunciation of this gang culture that is killing innocent young black kids. [Italics added].

This deflects culpability away from “young black kids” (who liberals believe not to have moral agency) and relocates it in something abstract: “gang culture”. This removes responsibility from Black culture, which alone is responsible for the current toxic and dangerous state of London’s streets. But even that was not enough for some of the screeching choir. Amnesty International’s Director at the time, Kate Allen (a crop-haired White woman), found the “gang matrix” most unsavory:

It’s part of an unhelpful and racialized focus on the concept of gangs at the expense of concentrating on the most violent offenders. The entire system is racially discriminatory, discriminating and stigmatizing young men for the type of music they listen to.

Quite what Black crime in London has to do with Amnesty International is not clear, but that organization has long since wandered from its original remit as representatives of political prisoners. Many inner-city Whites are now effectively political prisoners, however, unable to go out at night, and wholly unsupported by the police. That would be unlikely to interest Ms. Allen.

Years later, Sadiq Khan would order 1,000 Black men to be removed from a so-called “crime matrix”. (Don’t those in power love calling data a “matrix”?). These men, said Khan, were not deemed a threat. Young Black men are not only a threat to one another, however, they are a threat to Whites, and so are the blancophobic police. This was shown very recently when a young White man, Henry Nowak, was stabbed to death by Vikrum Digwa, a Sikh, using a ceremonial “shastar” knife, an 8” blade Sikhs are legally allowed to carry on religious grounds. When the police arrived to find the White boy trailing blood, the 23-year-old Sikh claimed he had been racially abused. Accordingly, with an accusation of racism easily out-trumping the obvious need to get the boy an ambulance, the police promptly arrested Nowak. While they were handcuffing him, he bled out, collapsed, and died. This is blancophobia in action.

Blancophobia first appeared on the national political landscape in what now looks like quite an anodyne comment made in 2001 by then-BBC Director-General, Sir Greg Dyke. The BBC, he said, was “hideously White”. Now, a quarter of a century later, this seed has grown into a mighty bough, and blancophobia is steadily on the rise in the United Kingdom. It represents precisely the type of “divisiveness” politicians won’t stop accusing Whites of. White Britons are just beginning to grasp just how much the political class hate them, and will weaponize non-Whites, as well as racial legislation, against them. Perhaps it is time for British to reclaim the meaning of “phobia” and give them reason to fear us as well as hate us.

The Israeli Scam Networks Hiding Behind a Fake Island Regulator

/3 Comments/in /by

Few people have heard of the island of Anjouan. Fewer still could locate it on a map. Yet this tiny island in the Indian Ocean has become a crucial node in one of the least discussed aspects of Jewish perfidy abroad. Anjouan is one of 3 semi-autonomous islands in the Union of Comoros, a small nation wedged between Madagascar and the African mainland. For decades, Anjouan has marketed itself as an offshore financial jurisdiction, offering banking, insurance, gambling, and cryptocurrency licenses through the Anjouan Offshore Finance Authority.

The problem is that this “regulator” has been officially stripped of any recognized legitimacy by the Comoros central government—banking laws passed in 2013 and 2015 formally stripped AOFA of all regulatory authority. The Comoros Central Bank has stated publicly that AOFA and its affiliated bodies have “no physical or legal existence in the territory of the Union of the Comoros” and “operate online via websites to scam people.” Yet Anjouan Licensing Services Inc., which emerged in 2023 as the latest successor entity, claims to have issued more than 1,300 gambling licenses at roughly €17,000 each—potentially generating over €20 million annually—with no publicly disclosed ownership or governance structure.

The International Chamber of Commerce’s Financial Investigation Bureau has flagged Anjouan banking as a serious risk, with FIB Assistant Director Jon Merrett stating: “A number of people on Anjouan claim to have the authority to issue bank licences, but their credibility remains heavily suspect.” This regulatory vacuum has proven irresistible to Israeli-based criminal networks. The most documented connection between Israeli-linked companies and Anjouan involves the large-scale “Scam Empire” investment fraud network, exposed by OCCRP, Swedish Television, and more than 30 media partners in early 2025. Based on 1.9 terabytes of leaked internal data, the investigation found 2 groups of scam call centers that defrauded at least 32,000 victims of approximately $275 million between 2021 and 2024.

The Israeli and European operation—headquartered in the 42-story Sapphire Tower in Ramat Gan, Israel—ran call centers operating from Tel Aviv and Cyprus and generated at least $247 million from 27,000 victims across 30 countries. The central management team was based in Tel Aviv. When the scam platforms needed fake “regulatory legitimacy,” they used fraudulent licenses supposedly issued by the “Mwali International Services Authority”—a fictitious body operating in the name of the island of Moheli—or the related “Anjouan Offshore Financial Authority.” At least 4 of the 81 platforms in the network used these fake Comoros licenses as cover. Notably, after OCCRP’s investigation began, 3 platforms that had previously claimed legitimate South African licenses quietly switched to claiming regulation by the same 2 fictitious Comoros authorities instead. The Comoros Central Bank has confirmed that these bodies “are not official bodies and do not have any legitimacy to grant official licenses.”

In February 2026, a German court sentenced Mikheil Biniashvili, a Georgian-Israeli dual citizen, for running a separate scam call-center operation based in Albania—a case with documented links to the same software infrastructure used in the Scam Empire investigation. The exploitation of Anjouan’s offshore branding by Israel-connected operators fits a wider pattern. A separate joint investigation by BIRN and Investigate Europe, published in September 2025, found Israeli businessman Eliran Oved—a convicted money launderer who served a year in prison in 2012 for running an illegal gambling website—and his wife Liat Kourtz Oved connected through a network of shell companies and frontmen to call centers and fake investment platforms that German authorities say defrauded over 70,000 people of an estimated €250 million. The call centers, based in Belgrade, were raided by Serbian police in January 2023; 21 employees have since been indicted on fraud charges. The Oveds themselves have not been charged with any criminal offense in connection with the Belgrade operations and did not respond to requests for comment.

The Times of Israel has documented Israel’s long struggle with call-center investment fraud operations targeting victims abroad, including the earlier “binary options” scandal centered in Israel which victimized tens of thousands of people worldwide. Anjouan’s near-zero regulatory enforcement, lack of taxes, and easily purchased licenses made it a useful but legally hollow stamp of legitimacy for these schemes.

Investigative journalism outlet ABC Australia found, with the figure cited in iGamingToday’s reporting on Julian Fell’s investigation, that a network of companies selling fraudulent Anjouan licenses was “likely generating tens of millions of euros annually” from the banks and casinos buying these non-functional credentials. These fraud operations did not emerge in a political vacuum. They developed against the backdrop of one of the most contentious and legally contested bilateral relationships in the Indian Ocean world—the fractured and unresolved relationship between the Union of Comoros and the State of Israel.

The diplomatic relationship between Israel and the Union of Comoros has been one of the most volatile in the broader Arab world. In November 1994, Comoros announced it had established diplomatic ties with Israel, but the move did not materialize. Comoros reversed itself, announcing normalization would only occur after a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement. Comoros has never formally recognized Israel since gaining independence from France in 1975.

One of the most significant legal confrontations between Comoros and Israel involved the 2010 Gaza flotilla raid. The Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara, which was sailing under the Comoros flag toward Gaza to break Israel’s naval blockade, was boarded by Israeli Defense Forces on May 31, 2010. Ten activists were killed and several IDF soldiers were wounded. Because the ship was registered to Comoros, making it legally Comorian territory, Comoros referred the incident to the International Criminal Court in May 2013.

This triggered a years-long legal saga. The ICC Prosecutor initially declined to open a formal investigation on November 6, 2014, ruling the crimes lacked “sufficient gravity,” but Comoros appealed. The Pre-Trial Chamber ruled on July 16, 2015 that the prosecutor had made “material errors” and ordered the case reconsidered. The prosecutor declined again on November 29, 2017 and then on December 2, 2019. The Appeals Chamber on September 2, 2019 had ordered that third reconsideration, but the ICC ultimately closed the case on December 21, 2020, rejecting any further review of the Prosecutor’s determination.

That legal confrontation did not prevent renewed diplomatic contacts a decade later. Beginning around 2021, the Biden administration brought Comoros and Israel together for normalization discussions. Israeli diplomatic sources identified Comoros as among the leading candidates for the next normalization deal. Former Comorian president Ahmed Sambi publicly stated that Israel had previously offered his country financial aid in exchange for normalization, which he refused. By June 2023, Comoros had agreed to attend a ministerial meeting of the Negev Forum as an observer—a modest but symbolically significant step—though the meeting was subsequently postponed by Morocco following Israeli settlement announcements and never took place. No normalization deal between Comoros and Israel was ever finalized.

The October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent war in Gaza completely reversed Comoros’ trajectory toward normalization. In March 2025, Comoros submitted a formal written statement to the ICJ characterizing Israel’s actions—including the cessation of UNRWA operations—as violations of international humanitarian law, suggesting these acts may constitute crimes against humanity or genocide. On October 29, 2025, Comoros formally filed a declaration of intervention in South Africa’s genocide case at the ICJ—joining Spain, Ireland, Libya, Mexico, Belgium, and Turkey among the countries that have joined the proceedings. The Comorian president also addressed the UN General Assembly in September 2025, accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.

What we observe in the Indian Ocean is the inevitable result of a worldview that deems Gentile populations as little more than cattle. By treating the island of Anjouan as a digital-age clearinghouse for international fraud, Jewish networks are merely perfecting a centuries-old tradition of financial warfare. Africa represents only the current frontier for this Jewish predation, chosen for its regulatory fragility and leaders willing to trade their nation’s dignity for shekels. The “Scam Empire” is not an outlier but rather the manifestation of a parasitic impulse that requires the constant exploitation of foreign peoples to sustain the mothership—the State of Israel—which remains the ultimate bastion for, and primary beneficiary of, this coordinated global theft of gentile resources.

The Secularisation Thesis: How the Lack of Actual Science in Social Science Caused a Ultimately Fruitless Debate  

/13 Comments/in /by

Secularisation is the theory that across time, in the West, religion will become less important and will be replaced by reason and science. But there’s something about it which seems to induce an aspect of religion — fervent belief — in the sociologists who explore it. In 1999, American sociologist Rodney Stark (1934–2022) published a study in Sociology of Religion entitled “Secularisation: RIP.” In 2002, British sociologist, and proponent of the theory, Steve Bruce published his stridently titled book God Is Dead: Secularisation in the West.

Both authors used death metaphors as a means of asserting, in absolute terms, that the secularisation thesis is complete nonsense or that religion in the West is absolutely doomed. Steve Bruce is an atheist while Rodney Stark was agnostic in 1987 and, by 2007, claimed to be an “independent Christian.” It is as if, beneath these supposedly neutral sociological studies, were merely means of justifying the authors’ own desires. This is precisely what a new study has found.

Published in the journal Sociological Science, the new study is entitled “The Faith Factor: How Scholars’ Religiosity Biases Research Findings on Secularization.” There have been hundreds of studies of secularization in different parts of the world, with sociologists unable to agree that secularization is even happening, let alone on how it is happening and what its end point will be. The study tested whether researchers’ religiosity is related to their personal belief in the secularization thesis and the likelihood of supporting secularization in their published articles.

The authors constructed an international database of scholars working on secularization and conducted a survey measuring their religiosity and beliefs about religious decline. They then coded their publications according to whether they supported the secularization thesis or not and linked the two data sets. They found statistically significant evidence of bias. Researchers who were “religious” found less evidence for secularization while researchers who were not religious found more evidence for it. The result could not be explained by differences in research methods, study quality, or the religious and geographic contexts under investigation.

Such a finding is unsurprising, because most sociology does not have proper scientific standards. As a rule, sociologists are not only heavily left-wing but they are also environmental determinists. The Secularisation Thesis is, effectively, a kind of prophecy which assumes that people are religious for environmental reasons, people are rational, and the world is one of linear progress towards atheism.

Indeed, in his book God Is Dead, Steve Bruce dismisses periods in which the world seems to become more religious, such as in the wake of wars, as “humps and bumps” in the, apparently, inevitable march of secularization. Bruce was briefly the co-supervisor of my doctoral thesis at Aberdeen University and I confess that in my early-twenties, before I had discovered science, I saw little reason to believe anything other than that Europe and the US would become less Christian, though I took the view that secular religions — such as Political Correctness, as we called it at the time — which were non-rational though atheistic were surely on the rise.  

The way to solve the debate over secularisation is to introduce what the biologist Edward O. Wilson called “consilience.” It was reading Wilson that opened my eyes to science. Science is a hierarchy of disciplines each of which must make sense in the one that underpins it. Sociological theories must make sense in terms of psychology. Psychological theories must make sense in terms of biology, biological theories must make sense in terms of chemistry, and so on.

It is here that the Secularisation Thesis runs into problems. It assumes that religious belief is a matter of environment, but it isn’t. Twin studies find that the heritability of religiosity is as high as 0.66 depending on which measure you employ; so it is strongly genetic. Indeed, it has all of the components of a psychological adaptation: elevated at times of stress, associated with mental and physical health, associated with being pro-social, associated with elevated fertility, a human universal and so on.

As I’ve discussed in various books, most recently in Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism, there was a long period when we became less religious for both genetic and environmental reasons. This occurred in the wake of the Industrial Revolution, in which, due to medical advances, mortality became less salient, particularly infant and childhood mortality. Religiosity, which is associated with genetic fitness and selection for genetic health, became severely weakened. Religiosity emerges when we are confronted with death and there was a lot less death about. But genetically sickly people seem to have sickly inclinations, including not wanting children, and the future belongs to those who show up.

In Western countries, religious people outbreed non-religious people. This is even more pronounced when you just look at the top quartile of intelligence among Whites — at those who are likely to run the society — or establish breakaway White enclaves — in the future. The big predictor of fertility is religiosity. As far as I can see, this — consilience — substantially solves the debate over secularization.

The entire discussion, whether the sociologist is a Christian or an atheist, is based on assumptions: the Christian assumption of linear progress and the leftist assumption of environmental determinism. If we accept the reality of genetic influence on salient psychological traits and on civilizational cycles, then we can cut the Gordian Knot of the Secularization Debate and the way in which it seems to be little more than an out-working of the religious biases of the sociologists involved.

The actual science substantially disproves the Secularisation Thesis and even the proposed causes of secularization — that science answers our questions coherently, so we cease to answer them using religion. Secularization should indeed “Rest in Peace,” but not for the reasons Rodney Stark proposed.

Again, the future belongs to those who show up. And that means that the future will be disproportionately religious.