Featured Articles

The Premier and the Pedo-Pal: Thoughts on Keir Starmer and Peter Mandelson, Firm Friends of Jewish Israel, Extreme Enemies of the White West

/11 Comments/in , /by

Dying young. It turns performers into legends and politicians into footnotes. For proof of that, just compare James Dean (1931-55) with John Smith (1938-94). Seventy-one years after he died in a car-crash, the actor James Dean is still famous, still at the heart of a devoted cult. Thirty-two years after he died of a heart-attack, the politician John Smith is a footnote to the dazzling career of Tony Blair, the man who succeeded Smith as leader of the British Labour Party.

Skeptic out, sycophant in

Blair dazzled in the early days, that is, before the voters reached the same conclusion about him as voters in America and France would later reach about the very similar Obama and Macron. As I pointed out in “Blobamacron: Three Gentile Narcissists with One Jewish Agenda,” voters realized in all three cases that they’d been fooled by con-men who promised big and delivered small. But Blair wouldn’t have had the chance to dazzle if John Smith hadn’t died so prematurely. And so conveniently for Britain’s energetic Israel lobby, which had found Smith far less amenable than Blair. Someone else who found Smith’s death very convenient was Peter Mandelson, the half-Jewish, wholly homosexual Labour grandee who had just hit the headlines in the biggest of the scandals that have dogged his entire career. Smith rejected Mandelson: “when he succeeded Neil Kinnock as leader in 1992, John Smith would have nothing to do with Mandelson].” Blair embraced Mandelson and allowed him to control his career. So after Smith died, the sun began to shine on two men and one country: Blair, Mandelson, and Israel.

Premier and Pedo-Pal #1: Tony Blair grins with Peter Mandelson back in the 1990s (image from The Independent)

That’s why I suspect the Israel-skeptic Smith was assassinated to clear the way for the Israel-sycophantic Blair. I suspect the same of two earlier Labour leaders: the almost-forgotten Hugh Gaitskell (1906-63), who died young like John Smith, and the still-famous Harold Wilson (1916-95), who succeeded Gaitskell and enjoyed dazzling success like Blair. A Jewish politician once said of Wilson: “I don’t think Harold [had] any doctrinal beliefs at all. Except for one, which I find utterly incomprehensible, which is his devotion to the cause of Israel.” I disagree with that assessment: I think Wilson’s devotion was very comprehensible. Blair also displayed “devotion to the cause of Israel” and probably for the same reason: that Israel was blackmailing him about secret misbehavior. But aren’t those shocking claims to make about a close ally of Britain? How can I suggest that Israel would assassinate or blackmail politicians in Britain or anywhere else in the world? Well, I can do that very easily and very plausibly. The Jewish state of Israel embodies three core traits of Jewish psychology: selfishness, arrogance and amorality. Only one consideration matters: “Is it good for Jews?” And it was good for Jews – very good – when John Smith and Hugh Gaitskell died young and were replaced by Tony Blair and Harold Wilson.

Mandelson the Magnet

That isn’t proof of Israel’s involvement in those early deaths, of course, but it is highly suggestive. I would certainly put nothing past the Jew Peter Mandelson, who long ago won the same nickname from some of his gentile colleagues as the Jew Richard Perle won in America. Mandelson and Perle are both nicknamed “The Prince of Darkness.” In other words, gentiles accurately recognized that Mandelson and Perle are predatory and amoral men who are not in politics to serve the general (or gentile) public. But there’s one big difference between Machiavellian Peter Mandelson and Machiavellian Richard Perle. Unlike Mandelson, Perle isn’t a giant shit-magnet and hasn’t been dogged by scandal and accusations of sleaze throughout his career.

Premier and Pedo-Pal #2: Keir Starmer (right) grins with Peter Mandelson despite knowing of Mandelson’s friendship with Jeffrey Epstein (image from The Independent)

The latest scandal to engulf magnetic Mandelson has confirmed his long-standing nickname. Emails and texts released in the latest tranche of the “Epstein Files” have confirmed that Mandelson was a firm friend and helper of the Jewish sex-criminal Jeffrey Epstein, endlessly eager to give Epstein exploitable financial secrets, entirely unconcerned about Epstein’s predation on under-aged shiksas. Britain’s current prime minister Keir Starmer, who appointed Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington, has expressed utter dismay and outrage over these revelations. Yes, Starmer knew that Mandelson had been “friends” with Epstein well after Epstein had been exposed as a sex-criminal, but Epstein has committed sex-crimes only against unimportant White girls, so Starmer was happy to accept Mandelson’s assurances that the friendship hadn’t been close. After all, who could have guessed that Peter “Prince of Darkness” Mandelson, with his decades-long reputation for sleaze, self-service and amorality, might be lying and might prove less than suitable as Britain’s most important ambassador?

Geographically, not genuinely

Starmer and others in the Labour elite certainly didn’t guess. Or so they’re now saying. They’re angrily accusing Mandelson of telling endless “lies” and of having “betrayed our country, our parliament and [our] party.” The first accusation is entirely accurate; the second is only part-accurate. Yes, Mandelson is a liar, but no, he isn’t a traitor to Britain. He isn’t British, so he could never betray this country. Instead, Mandelson is trans-British, with the same entitlement to genuine British identity as a “transwoman” has to genuine female identity. Jews like Mandelson can be geographically British or European, but never genuinely British or European. The same goes for Jeffrey Epstein: he was trans-American, not American. Like Mandelson, he worked on behalf of two overwhelmingly important entities: himself and Israel. That’s why he supplied under-aged shiksas to rich and powerful gentiles like Bill Clinton and Bill Gates, gathering abundant material for permanent blackmail.

And that’s why Epstein referred so often and so disdainfully to “goyim” in his emails and texts. But his use of that fascinating Hebrew term hasn’t been discussed in the Jew-dominated mainstream media. You see, it wouldn’t be good for Jews if ordinary gentiles became aware of what Kevin MacDonald calls Jewish hyper-ethnocentrism and started to wonder whether Israel was really such a good and faithful ally of the West. It isn’t, of course. If Israel can’t blackmail important goyim in the West, it will assassinate or otherwise destroy them, then replace them with goyim who can be blackmailed. The unblackmailable Labour leaders John Smith and Hugh Gaitskell were assassinated; the unblackmailable Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was destroyed by other means.[i]

Twinky, Twinky, Brittle Starmer

Corbyn was then replaced by Keir Starmer, whose suitability for blackmail may be apparent in an extraordinarily under-reported story about young male prostitutes from Ukraine committing arson against his property in London. The twinks haven’t provoked any thinks in the mainstream media. As Nick Griffin has pointed out: “So, whichever explanation you prefer [for the arson], you will surely agree that the strangest thing of all in this very queer story is that it isn’t a story. That the mass media continue to censor themselves; that they refuse to share this very profitable story with the masses at all.” If Starmer is a secret user of young male prostitutes (or worse), Israeli intelligence would certainly know and Israel would certainly be eager to blackmail him over it, like Tony Blair and Harold Wilson before him. This would explain why, like Tony Blair and Harold Wilson before him, Starmer displays “devotion to the cause of Israel” — and equal disdain for the cause of Britain.

Twinky, Twinky, Brittle Starmer: the three alleged rent-boys whose connection to Keir Starmer is being ignored by the mainstream media (image from BBC)

It was not in Britain’s interests to appoint a sleazy Jew like Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. But it was in the interests of Israel and of other sleazy Jews, like those running Palantir, the surveillance-state specialists ushered into Britain by Mandelson’s lobbying firm. That’s why Mandelson’s appointment was welcomed by the Conservative grandee Danny Finkelstein, who described Mandelson as the “ideal person” to be Britain’s most important ambassador. Finkelstein further gushed: “My question was always: would Keir Starmer be bold enough to pick Peter Mandelson? I’m pretty impressed that he was.” Finkelstein is supposedly a political opponent of Labour figures like Mandelson, but his warm words for the sleazy slitherer prove that the so-called Conservative Party and the so-called Labour Party are merely two wings of a uniparty devoted to serving the interests of Israel and Jews.

Indeed, Finkelstein played the same role for the Conservatives as Mandelson played for Labour. These two Jews completed the “modernization” of their respective parties. In other words, they trashed the last traces of tradition in these parties and converted them into vehicles for the same pro-Israel, pro-minority, pro-migration agenda. Mandelson is often hailed as the chief architect of New Labour, which would much more accurately be called Jew Labour. His close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein is a perfect embodiment of Labour’s new “values”: the party now works for the plutocracy, not the proletariat. And Mandelson’s utter unconcern for the under-aged shiksas on whom Epstein preyed for so long also embodies Labour’s new “values.” Throughout Britain, Labour councils have not just ignored but actively assisted Muslim gangs in the rape, torture and enforced prostitution of women and girls from the White working-class whom the Labour Party was founded to serve at the beginning of the twentieth century.

White Awareness Awakens

By the end of the twentieth century, Labour had completed its transformation from party of the proletariat to party of the plutocracy. That’s why I’ve suggested that Labour would have to be re-named the “Lawyer Party” if there were a rule that the names of political parties had to accurately reflect their true principles. But the “Lawyer Party” wouldn’t be fully accurate either. So what would be? I suggest the “Slaves of Israel Party.” Or rather, I suggest the “Red Servants of Israel Party” for so-called Labour and the “Blue Servants of Israel Party” for the so-called Conservatives.

A suggestion like that would have been greeted with horror and disgust by the vast majority of British Whites when Peter Mandelson first became prominent in British politics back in the 1980s. Forty years later, awareness of Jewish arrogance, selfishness and amorality is much more widespread. And few people have done more to waken Whites to awareness than the Prince of Darkness himself, the selfish, arrogant and utterly amoral Peter Mandelson, firm friend of Jewish Jeffrey and extreme enemy of the White West.

[i]  Corbyn was endlessly accused of anti-Semitism by his Jewish opponents, who were outraged that he wasn’t making Jewish interests his first and overwhelming concern. One piece of evidence for Corbyn’s anti-Semitism was that, in discussing earlier developments in the Epstein scandal, he had pronounced the name “Ep-shtine” rather than “Ep-steen,” supposedly trying to emphasize Epstein’s completely irrelevant Jewishness. Was Corbyn sardonically getting his own back when, in discussing the latest development in the scandal, he used the pronunciation “Ep-stine”? I don’t blame him if he was.

How Objectivists Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Zionist Regime Change Wars

/9 Comments/in /by

In 1964, Ayn Rand told Playboy magazine that any free nation had the moral right to invade Soviet Russia or Cuba. “Correct. A dictatorship — a country that violates the rights of its own citizens — is an outlaw and can claim no rights.” Instead, she preferred waging economic warfare against these rogue governments. “I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else, economic boycott. I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia, and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life.”

Six decades later, her disciples are advocates of a ground invasion of Iran, crushing Palestinian society, and not ruling out the use of nuclear weapons to bring the Islamic Republic of Iran to heel. A secular ideology devoted to laissez faire capitalism now sounds indistinguishable from the most hawkish neoconservatives and aligns with religious nationalist movements in Israel that openly advocate territorial expansion and Palestinian expulsion.

Rand, who is of Russian Jewish extraction, set the tone in her 1979 appearance on the Phil Donahue Show. “If you mean whose side should we be on, Israel or the Arabs? I would certainly say Israel because it’s the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages who have not changed for years and who are racist and who resent Israel because it’s bringing industry, intelligence, and modern technology into their stagnation,” Rand stated.

She doubled down. “The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are.”

Leonard Peikoff, Rand’s designated heir and also of Russian Jewish extraction, continued his predecessor’s hawkish legacy. He published a full page advertisement in The New York Times on October 2, 2001. “Fifty years of increasing American appeasement in the Mideast have led to fifty years of increasing contempt in the Muslim world for the U.S. The climax was September 11, 2001.”

He identified Iran as the central threat. “The first country to nationalize Western oil, in 1951, was Iran.” Iran “is the most active state sponsor of terrorism, training and arming groups from all over the Mideast.” His analogy was stark. “What Germany was to Nazism in the 1940s, Iran is to terrorism today. Whatever else it does, therefore, the U.S. can put an end to the Jihad mongers only by taking out Iran.”

Peikoff demanded total war to address the issue of Iran. “Eliminating Iran’s terrorist sanctuaries and military capability is not enough. We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government. This goal cannot be achieved painlessly, by weaponry alone. It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation.”

The potential for mass civilian casualties was of no concern to Peikoff, who firmly believed that only full-fledged military force could put Iran in its place.  “A proper war in self-defense is one fought without self-. crippling restrictions placed on our commanders in the field. It must be fought with the most effective weapons we possess [a few weeks ago, Rumsfeld refused, correctly, to rule out nuclear weapons]. And it must be fought in a manner that secures victory as quickly as possible and with the fewest U.S. casualties, regardless of the countless innocents caught in the line of fire.”

In a 2006 podcast, Peikoff advocated using nuclear weapons against Iran if necessary. On Israel and Palestine, Peikoff’s 1996 essay dismissed Palestinian territorial claims entirely. “Land was not stolen from the nomadic tribes meandering across the terrain, any more than the early Americans stole this country from the primitive, warring Indians.” He called land for peace “a repugnant formula for Israel’s self-immolation.”

Yaron Brook, the current Ayn Rand Institute board chairman, extended these  radical Zionist principles to the 21st century. After October 7, 2023, he called for Hamas’s total destruction. “Israel must destroy Hamas, everything about it. Its political leaders, wherever they are hiding must be assassinated, their entire military infrastructure destroyed, its supporters, brought to their knees.”

At a January 2024 event, Brook argued Israel should see “the Palestinian population at large as an enemy” and called for “a fundamental shift in Palestinian culture.” Such a scenario can only be achievable when Palestinians “have lost every ounce of hope that they can beat Israel.”

Brook would not allow aid, electricity, or internet into Gaza. He argued Israel shows excessive restraint despite death tolls exceeding 70,000, which includes at least 20,000 children. “So many Israeli soldiers are dying on the field because Israel refrains from defending them and places the lives of civilians on the other side as more valuable than its own soldiers: He described Gaza as “a primitive society” requiring fundamental transformation like Germany and Japan after World War II.

On Iran, Brook advocated for regime change as the only solution to this geopolitical dilemma. “Israel cannot take out the Iranian nuclear facility. So what is the only other way to stop the Iranians from getting a bomb? The only other way is regime change.” He specified acceptable outcomes for Israel in a confrontation against Iran. “It has to go for an internal revolution in Iran taking out the current mullahs, whether with more moderates who are committed to doing away with the nuclear program or whether it’s all out, you know, liberal democracy-type revolution but or whether it’s the shah coming back. Right the son of the shah, but it has to be regime change.”

Objectivists are a quirky bunch when it comes to their ideology, which may appear critical of mainstream political currents.  Brook’s 2007 essay “Neoconservative Foreign Policy: An Autopsy” condemned neoconservatives for advocating democracy promotion rather than rational self-interest. Yet on Israel and Iran, Objectivists and neoconservatives find common ground. Both support unlimited Israeli military action, Iranian regime change, opposition to Palestinian statehood, and framing the conflict as civilization versus barbarism.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently declared “absolute” support for Greater Israel, Jewish sovereignty from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. Such a Jewish supremacist vision is suffused with religious rhetoric. At first glance, one would think that Objectivism’s atheistic nature would dismiss such religious appeals. But yet again, the Ayn Rand Institute’s positions end up aligning with the Greater Israel framework through the rejection of Palestinian statehood and framing Palestinian aspirations as illegitimate.

Netanyahu’s far-right allies, like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich from Religious Zionism and Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish Power”), make no secret of their top goal: Israeli control over Palestinian lands, including Gaza resettlement, West Bank annexation, and the expulsion of Arabs, echoing Rabbi Meir Kahane’s calls for the imposition of Jewish law and Arab removal.

 

Many observers scratch their heads at this odd alliance between Objectivism—an atheistic, free-market creed that Ayn Rand branded as anti-mystical—and religious Zionists appealing to biblical land promises. But when one grasps the Jewish question and how Jews maneuver politically across divides, it all snaps into focus: the Jewish racial will to power drives Jews of all political stripes. Objectivists and religious Zionists clash on faith and domestic policy yet unite to subjugate gentiles like Palestinians and seize their territory.

Objectivism preaches against initiating force and upholds individual rights, yet Leonard Peikoff pushes for invading Iran and Yaron Brook calls for pulverizing Palestinian society to kill their hope. Strip away the lofty appeals to reason and rights, and Objectivism emerges as intellectual camouflage for Jewish racial dominance—a political vehicle that harmonizes Rand’s heirs with Smotrich’s zealots, prioritizing gentile dispossession over any philosophical consistency.

 

The Epstein Bomb

/31 Comments/in /by
On November of 2025, the US Congress passed and President Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act to release nearly six million pages of documents connected with Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex trafficker. Epstein worked for Israeli intelligence by implicating powerful members of Western elites in sexual crimes then blackmailing them. After he was arrested a second time, he was murdered to keep him silent.

On December 19, 2025, the United States Department of Justice released the first tranche of several hundred thousand documents, many of which were redacted and otherwise incomplete.

On Friday, January 30, 2026, the Department of Justice released about 3 million pages of documents. Once again, the documents are redacted. For one thing, we were told that images of murder and torture (!) were not included.

There are around 2.5 million more pages to go.

Congressman Thomas Massie is demanding full, unredacted documents. He also claims that the unreleased files include indictments for serious crimes.

These indictments need to be unsealed. People need to be prosecuted. Justice will not be done until billionaires are being perp-walked for sex crimes. Justice will not be done until those who even appeared to be doing something improper with Epstein are shunned and driven from public life.

The archive is searchable at the DOJ’s Epstein library. You just have to certify that you are over the age of eighteen.

There are two things that must be borne in mind here.

First, Jeffrey Epstein was a world-class networker. Thus merely being mentioned in the Epstein files is not in itself evidence of illegal or immoral activity. Although after 2008, you can at least assume they had no problem associating with a convicted sex offender. And many members of America’s elite, including people in the present administration, associated with Epstein after 2008.

Second, many of the files that have been released come from FBI investigations, including tips phoned in to the FBI. Inevitably, some of these people were crazy and others were simply trying to taint the case with misinformation. Everything should be seasoned with a grain or two of salt.

That said, if even 5% of what these files reveal is accurate, the Epstein Bomb is big enough to blow up the American political establishment. And since Epstein was at the nexus of Jewish control over American politics, the Epstein Bomb may be the beginning of the end of Jewish hegemony in America.

Let’s talk a bit about what the files reveal or confirm about Epstein and his friends. Then we can talk about crimes and misdemeanors.

First, Epstein was quite racist toward non-whites and most whites as well. Epstein had a strong Jewish identity. He thought Jews were superior to non-Jews, whom he held in contempt.

But Jews are fine with racism as long as they are the master race. Race realism under Jewish hegemony is simply used to cement that hegemony.

Second, Epstein was a hyperactive sexual degenerate who was into underage white girls, which is rape. He didn’t like to victimize or share black or brown girls. There is no mention of Asians either.

The files contain explicit references to pedophilia and torture videos. There are also suspicious references to pizza and other food items, which the FBI recognizes as code words used by child sex traffickers.

It is sad to think that in 100 years, the ADL will be arguing that this degenerate is simply a misunderstood victim of anti-Semitism. But remember: the ADL was created to protect Jewish pedophiles.

Third, Epstein liked to share his underage prostitutes with other rich and powerful men, inculpating them in his crimes. This, of course, gave him the ability to blackmail his friends.

Fourth, Epstein was involved in international politics and business. His closest ties were to Israel. He was probably working for Mossad.

One can’t really read these files without forming the impression that America is ruled by a largely Jewish elite that sees us as subhumans and controls us through our vices.

Based on what I have seen so far—as well as what Massie and the Justice Department claim is being withheld (quashed indictments, murder and torture images)—the following people lied to the American people about the Epstein files: Donald Trump, Pam Bondi, Kash Patel, and Dan Bongino.

Trump has claimed that the files exonerate him from misconduct and that claims to the contrary are a “hoax.”

Bondi has claimed that there is no evidence that Epstein and Maxwell were trafficking underage girls to anyone other than Epstein. Thus there was no “client list” and no evidence of indictable third parties. Bongino made essentially the same statements.

Patel testified under oath to the US Senate that, “There was no credible information that Jeffrey Epstein trafficked women and underage girls to anyone but himself. . . . We have released all credible information.” He also claimed that there was, “No credible evidence” linking Epstein to a larger trafficking ring or blackmail of prominent individuals, with no incriminating “client list” found.

The “client list,” of course, is a red herring. If Epstein had clients—people he was introducing to underage prostitutes—then any competent investigator could make a “list” of suspects and then confirm them. Three people who definitely belong on the suspect list are Bill Clinton, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, and Bill Gates.

But by insinuating the idea that Epstein himself had made a “list” which did not “turn up,” these people then went through the charade of an unsuccessful “search” for “the list.”

But, in fact, it was their job to create such a list. That’s what we pay these people to do. Why didn’t they do it? Because they were covering up for Epstein’s clients, like Clinton and Gates.

Patel lied under oath. Bondi lied to the public. They should be fired, indicted, and prosecuted. Bongino quit his job, but he needs to be indicted and prosecuted as well.

Since Epstein was connected to foreign intelligence, this was not just a coverup, it was treason. All these people are traitors.

This brings us to Donald Trump. There’s no “smoking gun” in the files proving Trump engaged in sexual crimes. Not yet anyway. But there is evidence that Trump was partying with Epstein five years after Epstein was convinced of sexual trafficking of underage girls, three years after he was put on the sex offender registry, and eight years after he married Melania.

For instance, in an exchange between Epstein and a redacted individual from June 22, 2013, REDACTED talks about bringing two REDACTED women who are “up for anything” to some sort of gathering that Epstein has organized or was at least involved enough with to know who was on the guest list.

“Up for anything” suggests a sex party. Epstein says that bringing the two floozies is “not a good idea” because “trump will be there” and he “doesn’t like black girls, calls them ‘boogers.’”

Did Melania know Donald was going to a sex party with Epstein? Would she have been mad to learn about it? Clearly, there is material here for blackmail by any number of individuals.

At the very least, this shows very low character and very bad judgment on Trump’s part.

Trump knew Epstein was a pedophile. Did he share that vice? We don’t know, but the following birthday card from Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003 is highly suggestive. The female figure certainly looks prepubescent, and the text speaks coyly of something shared.

But why be coy if the shared perversion were legal?

One argument that MAGA apologists are making is that if there were anything that incriminated Trump in the Epstein papers, the Democrats would have released them already. This doesn’t follow for two reasons.

First, Epstein’s corruption encompassed the whole political establishment. It would have harmed the Democrats as much as Trump. But the deepest reason to hide Epstein’s crimes is to protect the Jewish power structure. That’s why Biden’s administration sat on them. The only reason the files were released is that Trump was foolish enough to run on their release. Then the Democrats were stupid enough to force Trump to release them, probably out of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Ironically, the best thing that Donald Trump might ever do for America—namely, to unmask and destroy its corrupt establishment—will also be his undoing.

Second, Trump’s Epstein problem is not so much a crime as it is a coverup. He said there was nothing there. He lied to protect pedophiles subverting America’s government for foreign powers. The Watergate coverup brought down President Nixon. This is 1000 times worse. I have predicted that Trump will step down this year. He could well be deposed over the Epstein coverup.

At this point, J.D. Vance needs to ask himself: Do I want to be the next Gerald Ford? Ford became president when Nixon stepped down, but he was too tainted to win election two years later.

A few more interesting revelations.

Epstein had more than a passing familiarity with the Alt Right. He even sent Noam Chomsky a link to an article on race and IQ from The Right Stuff, way back when it was funny. Epstein was on 4chan, met the founder of /pol/, had a close relationship with Steve Bannon, had a passing familiarity with European populists and their parties, and even chit chatted with fellow degenerate and Israel stooge Tommy Robinson.

Epstein was a Jewish operative, but Putin is all over these files. Epstein had business in Russia. In one message he is drooling over possible profits from the seizure of Crimea. But Russia, of course, is also a favored hunting ground for Jewish sex slave traffickers. So now the Jewish press is saying that Epstein was working for Putin and the KGB. Anything to distract us from Israel!

This is a good thing for two reasons.

First, it is so transparent it is funny. Normally, anyone pushing this line should be immediately marked as a Jewish apologist, but unfortunately, many Ukraine partisans are jumping on board for their own reasons. So the literal fog of war is obscuring the battle lines here.

Second, Putin is an enemy of the white race and White Nationalism, so our enemies are now fighting one another. Maybe Tucker Calson and other Putin fans will rush to his defense by attacking Jewish power. Whites really can’t lose from this.

So how should White Nationalists position ourselves to exploit the emerging Epstein Affair?

There are two basic options.

One, we can try to protect Trump because of all the good things he is doing. Basically, we can take the position that covering up for pedophilia—up to and including torture and murder—is a small price to pay for closing the border and rolling back DEI.

Two, we can take this as a historical opportunity to expose Jewish power and its mechanisms of control with the goal of freeing ourselves from it. If that hurts Trump, so be it.

Pedophilia is really the last taboo that Jews didn’t manage to dismantle. They could have ruled the world forever, but the arrogant sick freaks had to cross that line. We need to capitalize on this mistake by exploiting the widespread, visceral revulsion against pedophilia to the max.

Only absolute fools will try to dismantle this disgust reflex by splitting hairs about “pedophilia” and “ephebophilia” and discussing the cultural relativity of “age of consent” laws. If you think this is clever, you are part of the problem. You are objectively working to maintain Jewish power.

If you are posturing as clever by moaning about low-IQ anti-Semitism, you are also part of the problem. Unless you are out there showing leadership by providing examples of high-IQ anti-Semitism, you are objectively working to maintain Jewish power.

If you are worried about preventing a digital pogrom by low-IQ, semi-sentient mobs, you’ve lost the plot.

Frankly, if the smart people cannot lead, it is time for peasants with pitchforks to rise up and burn it all down. We would be losing a historic opportunity by not exploiting the horror of pedophilia to trash the system.

The operating assumption we need to instill is that every prominent Jewish billionaire and political operator, and every gentile Zionist is the moral equivalent of a pedophile, a pimp, or a pedophile enabler—until proven innocent.

Whenever you look at someone like Bill Ackman or Miriam Adelson, the safest assumption is that you are dealing with another Jeffrey Epstein, or someone who would approve of or cover for him.

Whenever I look at Zionist lickspittles like Mike Johnson or Tommy Robinson, the safe assumption is that somewhere there are videos of them raping kids or the moral equivalent.

We don’t just have a Zionist Occupied Government. We have a Pedophile Occupied Government.

Moreover, everyone who doesn’t outright denounce the Epsteins of the world should be assumed to be supportive of such people.

I’d like every politician and pundit in America to feel the need to say things like: “Hi, I’m . I am not a pedophile. I am not being blackmailed by Israel or any other foreign power to betray the United States.”

Yes, I know that some of them might be innocent. But this is serious. The fate of our race and civilization is at stake. We cannot afford to make mistakes. We don’t have the luxury of the presumption of innocence.

White people cannot win without shaking off Jewish hegemony. I was hoping that would come about after a successful Trump administration. But this is such a golden opportunity, and Trump is so compromised, that I don’t care if Trump is collateral damage. Neither should you.

Thus my recommendation to our extremely online autists is: Just move forward and weaponize this without listening to MAGA whisperers saying “Yes, but what about the deportations?” Don’t worry about the consequences. Do what is righteous. God can sort out the consequences.

If no stone is left standing, that’s not because we are nihilists. It is because no stone deserves to remain standing.

Of course, some people will come out of this unscathed and will rise in power: Massie, Elon, MTG, Matt Gaetz. Others can benefit if they position themselves right: Tucker, Vance.

Just as wokism helped recirculate elites, the Epstein Bomb will allow elements of the current elites to move up if they get behind it. Let’s hope some of them break ranks.

Who in our movement should we be following and boosting? Chris Brunet is the best voice on X. Dr. Simon Goddeck also deserves to be followed.

Who are the losers we should be shunning?

The biggest loser in our sphere is Nick Fuentes.

After the first Epstein document dump, Bronze Age Pervert and his followers immolated themselves by trying to romanticize Epstein as cool, fashionable, even “based.” It all started out so innocently. Just a gay Jewish guy on Twitter posting beefcake photos and speaking in baby talk about genocide, prostitution, and blackmail ops. Who could have predicted it would end up in such a dark place?

Bronze Age Pervert and the people who follow him are organically part of the same Jewish subversion and control network that Epstein epitomized. Of course they regarded him as a hero. No intelligent white advocate will ever take them seriously again.

In the weeks before the second Epstein document dump, Fuentes revealed that he has a big new Jewish sponsor. He also began romanticizing Epstein as “Cool as fuck.” He even started selling reproductions of one of Epstein’s sweaters. The timing is suspicious. I think it is safest to assume that Fuentes works for the enemy and was deployed in advance of the new document dump to soften the blow. He’s organically part of the system we want to destroy. He needs to go down with it.

Fuentes’ credibility should not recover from this. I’m picturing Jonestown. Or Heaven’s Gate. Time for Groypers to put on their Epstein zips, lie down under their trans flags, and take their poisoned applesauce so they and their cult leader can escape the cringe.

Other big losers in our sphere are the Tate pimps, the MAGA whisperers, Patrick Casey, Michael Tracey, and the revolting Richard Hanania. They’ve been given a glimpse of the ultimate arcanum: the way the anti-white system controls us through our vices. And they chose the system. They need to go down with it.

I hope the Epstein Bomb sets off a great cleansing firestorm. But even though they are terrifying and destructive, forest fires are nature’s way of clearing away deadwood and creating room for something fresh and new.

Reposted from Counter-Currents.

Victory for the First Amendment in the Third Circuit

/5 Comments/in , /by

This article first appeared on the website of the Free Expression Foundation.

… a female professor – and of course, it would be a female professor because, as Orwell noted, “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy”– handed NJIT’s Provost an essay from Jorjani’s personal (non-university) website entitled, “Against Perennial Philosophy.” His sin here was mentioning a genetic link between race and intelligence, which really set the faculty frothing. Entire departments took to the school newspaper to denounce Jorjani – though none dared debate him.

On September 8, 2025 the Third Circuit Court of Appeals did something remarkable: it protected a proponent of race realist speech against depredation by a state university. The case is Jorjani v. New Jersey Inst. Tech, 151 F.4th 135 (3rd Cir. 2025) and it bears watching.

Jason Jorjani was a lecturer at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (or NJIT) in Newark, New Jersey. (A lecturer is a kind of junior professor, a role many universities have embraced as a means of exploiting the large number of Ph.Ds on the market). He had taught for several years at NJIT in Newark, earning very strong reviews from his students, especially the minorities. His publishing record, too, was very strong. But then Jorjani found himself the subject of a doxxing attack published in the New York Times on September 19, 2017 (viz. “Undercover with the Alt Right” by Jesse Singal). It transpired that in the summer of 2017, while school was not in session, Jorjani was secretly recorded without his consent during an off-campus conversation in a pub in New York City. His interlocutor in that conversation, which had gone on for hours and covered various controversial topics, turned out to be an undercover left-wing operative.

None of Jorjani’s remarks were directed to anyone at NJIT, nor did they mention anyone at NJIT.

The premise that the left-wing operative used to secure Jorjani’s confidence was that the operative was a right wing graduate student who wanted to discuss how the left persecutes the right in the modern academy. Immune to all irony, one of the first things the left wing organization that had set the sting did upon publication was to post a Facebook petition demanding that Jorjani be fired for his comments in the New York City pub.

The left-wing operatives would soon have their way.

Instead of defending Jorjani’s right to speak, the day after the NYT Op-Ed was published the President of NJIT, along with the Dean, responded with the release of a Mass Email that went to all faculty and staff at NJIT (approximately 200 people) before Jorjani had even been heard from. The Mass Email specifically condemned Jorjani for his speech as revealed in the NYT Op-Ed and then announced that he was being treated to an investigation because of his speech. Five days later, those sanctions were given added teeth when the NJIT administration suspended Jorjani from teaching while they conducted an “investigation” prompted by his speech.

NJIT’s administration inspired something like a feeding frenzy in the rest of the faculty. With the NJIT administration having chummed the waters by indicating that Jorjani could and would be targeted because of his extra-mural speech, the sharks began to circle. The administrative attack on Jorjani induced people within NJIT to scrutinize other extra-mural speech by Jorjani and bring such speech to the attention of the NJIT administration. Thus, shortly after the Mass Email, a female professor – and of course, it would be a female professor because, as Orwell noted, “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy”– handed NJIT’s Provost an essay from Jorjani’s personal (non-university) website entitled, “Against Perennial Philosophy.” His sin here was mentioning a genetic link between race and intelligence, which really set the faculty frothing. Entire departments took to the school newspaper to denounce Jorjani – though none dared debate him.

Jorjani’s “Against Perennial Philosophy” essay was again an instance of extra-mural speech on various topics of public concern, including geo-political matters in modern Iran, brutal periods in Persian history (including an apparent historical genocide perpetrated by invading Turkic peoples against the prior Aryan peoples of Persia), and the prospect of eugenics. It was composed from remarks Jorjani had originally delivered to a Persian think tank he had been involved with. Again, Jorjani had never directed “Against Perennial Philosophy” to anyone at NJIT, nor did the essay even mention anyone at NJIT.

Suffice to say that no one at NJIT was interested in past genocides, let alone of white people. Rather, what excited their attention was the very small part of the essay which dealt with racial differences in intelligence.

Needless to say, Jorjani’s suspension was never reinstated; instead, the school simply refused to renew his appointment. Incredibly, the state university contended that Jorjani’s extramural speech in both the NYC pub and in his essay, which they conceded met the test under the law for “speech on a matter of public concern,” was simply too “disruptive” in itself to permit his continued employment. (Again and again NJIT came back to this notion of “disruption,” ultimately derived from the case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)).  If one wants to know what kind of men find their way in the modern academy and hold rein there, we offer the following exchange from the deposition with Jorjani’s Dean:

Q: Students and faculty were so distracted by a conversation that had been secretly recorded off campus months before, they could not effectively concentrate on their studies and on their teaching at NJIT; is that right?

A: Yes.

Nor was this a momentary lapse of reason. Here are some additional outtakes from the Dean’s performance at his deposition:

Q: In the course of your nearly three decades in the academy, have you had the opportunity to consider the concept of academic freedom?

A: It — it — it’s difficult to say. I — I haven’t explicitly considered it.

*

Q: Your job [is] concerned in some respect with academic freedom; correct?

A: I’m not aware that, you know, specifically that’s in my job description.

*

Q: So my question to you, Dean ___, is: Are there some instances when there should be a pall of orthodoxy thrown over the classroom?… MR. KELLY: Let the record reflect that Dean _____ was taking some time to answer this question. Please take as much time as you need, sir.

THE WITNESS: Sure. I’ll say possibly, yes.

*

Q: So, Dean____, the question is: As part of the limited concept of academic freedom that you hold, are you aware of the need for the academy to protect controversial speech?

A: No.

*

Q: Did you have any concern in September of 2017, with protecting unpopular speech?

A: Did I have a concern about protecting unpopular speech?

Q: Yes, sir.

A: No.

Q: Have you had time to reflect upon that lack of concern since then?

A: I — I — I — no. I haven’t really thought about it.

And yet the trial court, standing all modern First Amendment jurisprudence on its head, backed the Dean and NJIT. It is as though the judge interpreted the bedrock principle to be that the Government certainly may prohibit the expression of an idea – simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

But a unanimous panel of the Third Circuit disagreed, strongly: “the disruption NJIT described does not outweigh even minimal interest in Jorjani’s speech.” Jorjani v. New Jersey Inst. Tech, 151 F.4th 135, 144 (3rd Cir. 2025). It not only characterized the alleged “disruption” as “minimal” but noted that it differed “little from the ordinary operation of a public university.” Id. at 142. Nowhere did the Third Circuit indicate that it was confronting a “close question.”

The case of Jorjani v. New Jersey Inst. Tech, 151 F.4th 135 (3rd Cir. 2025) is now etched in law as a firm reprimand against state sponsored groupthink at public university. Let us hope for a few more free speech victories.

– Frederick C. Kelly, Goshen, New York. The author records his gratitude for professional help from the FEF in reviewing his brief in Jorjani v. New Jersey Inst. Tech, 151 F.4th 135 (3rd Cir. 2025).

Iran

/12 Comments/in /by

I will venture to predict one thing: [Trump] will always follow Israel’s slightest hint. A main sponsor is Sheldon Adelson’s widow, Miriam. The money does not, of course, come from real work, but from casino operations in Las Vegas. Added to this are Trump’s family ties to Israel – not to mention the leverage Mossad may have over him. He is Israel’s president more than he is the president of the United States. When he says he will intervene if the security forces shoot at the demonstrators, one does not know whether to laugh or cry. His concern is touching, of course. Meanwhile, his lord and master in Jerusalem is murdering tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians (men, women, and children), committing genocide against the country’s actual population, a true holocaust. Where is Trump’s human sympathy here? Anti-Semitism can only be combated by combating the causes of anti-Semitism!

The national flag of Iran. 

This article was originally published in Danish on January 22, 2026.

There is unrest in Iran. The new president, Massoud Pezeshkian, may not be a good economist. I cannot judge that, but it is a fact that the Iranian economy is not doing well and that inflation has eroded the value of money. This kind of thing can easily cause unrest in the streets when there is a sudden deterioration. But why is the economy not in the best shape? Iran is an immensely rich country, and there is no rampant corruption as in Ukraine. So what is the problem?

Let us start by stating categorically that Iran is not an Arab country. Iran is an Indo-European country where the main language spoken is an Indo-European language that has nothing to do with Arabic, except that it is written with the same alphabet. It is related to Danish, German, English, etc. – although it can be difficult to see the relationship based on individual words. The Persians themselves are also Indo-Europeans – but a turbulent history has created a society with many minorities who speak different languages and have different religions, and where the inevitable mixing that characterizes such multicultural and multi-ethnic societies has taken place. There are several different types of Christian churches in Iran.

Map of the Middle East, 2020. 

Here, too, we need to take a closer look at history. Iran is a millennia-old country that has lived under several different dynasties. Persia was a world empire until it became embroiled in wars with the Greek city-states. Its location on the map has meant that the country has always been important. It was the gateway to India. It therefore caught the interest of the British early on, and their influence was decisive for many years, until the British were gradually replaced by the Americans. Together, in 1953 MI6 and the CIA overthrew the country’s democratically elected prime minister, who may have been a scoundrel, but that was not his crime. However, he had just nationalized the British-owned national oil company, considering Iran’s oil to be Iranian property—that was the reason he was deposed. Instead, what can only be described as an American regime was installed, with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as its figurehead.

The Shah attempted to bring Iran closer to European and American culture, lifestyle, and dress. We see this as “progress” – but a rapidly growing proportion of the Iranian population saw it differently. At that time, most Iranians lived in rural areas and small towns (and to some extent they still do). They lived a traditional, Muslim-influenced life, and they wanted to continue doing so. The more radical Islamists took advantage of this, and to counteract it, the Shah established an increasingly oppressive regime of terror, in which his opponents were imprisoned, tortured, and killed (the Ebrat Museum in Tehran speaks clearly about this1). Oppression breeds resistance, and the Muslim movement grew rapidly. Its leader, Ayatollah Khomeini, was sent into exile in Paris, from where he distributed cassette tapes with his ultra-Muslim message to his people in Iran. This culminated in a popular uprising, during which students stormed the American embassy, which served as an extensive spy center, not only against Iran, but also against the Soviet Union, whose border was not far from Tehran. The employees were held hostage for 444 days before they were allowed to return home. The Shah fled, and Khomeini was able to return home and become the country’s de facto leader. Life changed significantly, but it was the life that the vast majority of the population wanted. We call it a step backwards, but it is simply a different culture – and an expression of democracy in practice.

The author in front of the former US embassy in Tehran

The next act in the drama was that the US paid Saddam Hussein to start a bloody war against Iran that lasted eight years. Saddam lost the war and was not allowed to take Kuwait as a reward, as he had been promised. We know how things turned out for Saddam. He knew too much. There is a large museum in Tehran about this war, which is well worth a visit2. Next to it is a smaller museum about Hezbollah’s fight against Israel in southern Lebanon.

The US still has no diplomatic relations with Iran and has been trying ever since to bring down the Islamic regime through sanctions against the country’s economy. As in Venezuela, the Americans had been allowed to develop the oil industry, which meant that spare parts for these systems were now in short supply. Iran is an oil-rich country, but today there are empty gas stations and long lines—simply because there is a lack of refinery capacity. On the other hand, a tank of gas costs less than a liter costs here. Most recently, the US—strongly encouraged by Israel—has carried out bombings of Iran, allegedly to prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons. Now, of course, one might ask oneself whether the US dictator, Donald Trump, should be the one to decide this. Who made him the ruler of the world? After all, Iran has signed the treaty against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and allowed inspections of its nuclear facilities. Israel has not, and no one seems to be bothered by this terrorist state’s growing arsenal of nuclear bombs. In any case, it would benefit world peace if countries refrained from interfering in each other’s internal affairs and local conflicts. Countries must solve their own problems!

The sanctions and the lack of tourists are obviously hurting. Hotels and businesses that cater specifically to tourists are suffering noticeably – but of course there is also a local audience with strong purchasing power. Iran has an economic upper class – living in the northern part of Tehran – and a very large middle class. However, the uprising we are seeing today is just one of the usual regime change operations that the US is expert at carrying out – and which always leave the countries affected in total chaos. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, etc.

We must not forget that both the US and Israel have, of course, long since sent their agents into the country along with 40,000 Starlink terminals. It is not difficult to obtain an entry visa to Iran. It is my impression that there is really no control over who is allowed into the country – and then there is a green border several thousand kilometers long. There is obviously an entire army of Mossad agents in Iran, because Iran is the only remaining country on Israel’s list that it has not (yet) succeeded in destroying. Yes, Israel even boasts that it is marching alongside the Iranian demonstrators.

It starts with a currency crisis that brings ordinary people out onto the streets. A currency crisis is easy to stage when you have the necessary resources. Over a long period of time, you buy up the currency you want to destroy – and the rial is not the strongest currency on the market. Once you have accumulated a sufficient amount, you sell everything at once, and the exchange rate falls like a stone. It’s no big deal – all it takes is people and capital. Israel and the US – which is simply Israel’s extended arm – have both.

When people take to the streets, you send out your agents to escalate the situation. They arrange for bonfires to be lit in front of subway entrances, burn buses, etc. When everything is boiling over, you send in the snipers – just like in Kiev in 2014. They shoot at everyone – but when they hit the security forces, the latter shoot back at the demonstrators, so that it can be claimed that the security forces are murdering the population. At the same time, so-called “influencers” from foreign countries report in, pretending to convey alarming news from acquaintances in Iran. When the authorities shut down the internet, Starlink terminals come into use. It is the same script that is used everywhere – Kiev, Tbilisi, Caracas, Tehran, Tripoli, etc.

The goal is, of course, to give the US an excuse to send in the military – and with an insane president who openly states that he couldn’t care less about national and international law and only follows his own elastic – or non-existent – conscience, anything is possible. Under these circumstances, the US can no longer be described as a constitutional state. Nothing is predictable in principle – everything depends on the dictator’s whims. However, I will venture to predict one thing: he will always follow Israel’s slightest hint. A main sponsor is Sheldon Adelson’s widow, Miriam. The money does not, of course, come from real work, but from casino operations in Las Vegas. Added to this are Trump’s family ties to Israel – not to mention the leverage Mossad may have over him. He is Israel’s president more than he is the president of the United States. When he says he will intervene if the security forces shoot at the demonstrators, one does not know whether to laugh or cry. His concern is touching, of course. Meanwhile, his lord and master in Jerusalem is murdering tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians (men, women, and children), committing genocide against the country’s actual population, a true holocaust. Where is Trump’s human sympathy here? Anti-Semitism can only be combated by combating the causes of anti-Semitism!

If Trump had been interested in the welfare of the ordinary Iranian population, he would naturally have lifted all sanctions, as these primarily affect ordinary people. And so does the war he wants to start against the country.

One thing we must remember when it comes to media coverage is that we can no longer trust anything we see. People more technically savvy than I have analyzed the images that are shown: some of them are from demonstrations in support of the government, others are images taken in other countries or under other circumstances, and many are simply manipulated or “enhanced” using artificial intelligence. We saw the same thing in Caracas, where it was pretty obvious that a large “demonstration” we saw in the streets with a huge Venezuelan flag came from some sporting event and had nothing to do with Maduro.

I become discouraged and disheartened when I read the posts of well-meaning Danes about this conflict on Facebook and elsewhere. Let me just say it again: Virtually no Danes know anything about Iran! Of course, one can have an immediate opinion about the theocracy, but let me be clear: The theocracy exists in Iran—not here. What kind of government Iran has is none of our business! The Iranians have chosen it themselves, and it is a lot better than its reputation. It is trying to preserve the country – unlike the European regimes that are digging Europe’s grave! Life in Iran is quite normal. Admittedly, you cannot get alcohol, but excellent alternatives have been developed, if necessary. And it certainly does not harm public health. Women must wear a hijab – or at least a scarf. When I was a child, women here also wore scarves when they went out. This annoys beautiful young girls – and it is considered foolish far into the ranks of the government. But it is something you can live with – it is really not an existential issue! In practice, it is taken quite lightly, except in public buildings. You just have to avoid provoking anyone. When driving, you have to be aware that speed cameras – and there are many of them – also check whether women are wearing their hijabs. The fines are substantial. However, a large part of the population walks around in black overcoats anyway – because that is their custom.

Would I want to live in Iran? No, because it is not my culture – and it should not be. We have an unfortunate tendency to believe that the whole world should be organized the way it is in our own country. But I enjoy visiting Iran as a guest – and as a guest, I adapt to the customs and traditions of the country.

You should not discuss politics unless you agree with the system. It is a well-known fact that the police have provocateurs who try to get people to criticize the regime so that they can crack down on them. Foreigners are favorite victims of this, so you should not discuss politics with strangers. But here, you should also not say that there are only two genders, or that black people belong in Africa.

The clerical regime has overwhelming support among the country’s population as a whole – and that support has not diminished despite the fact that the US and Israel openly support the uprising. People have learned from their historical experiences with the US, and they are not keen to repeat them. The US is hated in Iran. Isn’t anyone dissatisfied? Yes, of course. There are people here who are dissatisfied too! I hate Mette Frederiksen and her whole gang more than words can express, and I know that this system is designed in such a way that it cannot be removed through elections. I can emigrate (which I would do if I were younger), or I can sit back and, in my powerlessness, content myself with studying medieval manuals on methods of torture and execution, at least in order to vent the pent-up hatred I feel toward all those who have destroyed my country! Even if I could gather a million people who think like me, Mette Frederiksen would still have a solid majority of brainless fools behind her. Should this one million people use violence to seize power over the vast majority? If you believe that the issue is so important that it concerns the very existence of the people, you could perhaps argue for it, but in Iran, the country’s existence is not at stake under the current regime – it is only a question of the habits and comfort of a relatively small number of people – their “freedom.” If the rebellious forces were to win, it would be Iran’s future as a nation that would be threatened. Incidentally, there are 90 million inhabitants in Iran, of whom approximately 20 million live in Tehran and its suburbs…

I would strongly advise people who know nothing about Iran to be less assertive in their statements. If they want to find out more about Iran, they are fortunate that there is a book in Danish that provides the reader with a very thorough introduction to this foreign culture. If one were to criticize it, it would be because it is so full of information that it can be difficult to maintain an overview.

The book in question is:
Rasmus Chr. Elling: Irans moderne historie (The Modern History of Iran)
Gyldendal 2022

The book is only in Danish, sadly.

Trash can in Iran.
Perhaps it could be put into production here?

Travel videos from Iran with Povl

Seen on Facebook.

Notes

  1. https://altomiran.dk/ebrat-museet-i-iran-rummer-en-moerk-morbid-historie/. (Use browser translation.) ↩︎
  2. https://irantravelingcenter.com/da/st_activity/museum-of-the-islamic-revolution-and-holy-defense-tehran/ – Opening hours differ from everything stated in brochures and books. In summer, for example, they don’t open until 4 p.m. to save electricity for the air conditioning. This may change, and telephone enquiries automatically give the normal opening hours. I only succeeded on my third attempt. ↩︎

The Curious Case of Venezuela’s Jewish Mayor in Exile

/13 Comments/in /by

The graffiti appeared on his house in crude, hateful letters. “Zionist shit,” it read, spray painted across the home of David Smolansky, then mayor of El Hatillo municipality in Caracas. On Venezuelan state television, Diosdado Cabello, one of the Venezuelan government’s most powerful figures, denounced him as “Zionism’s project,” trained by Mossad and representing “death and terror in Venezuela.”

At his peak, Smolansky was one of the most prominent Jewish politicians in Venezuela. His paternal grandparents had fled Soviet Ukraine in 1927 precisely to escape the same brand of persecution now being weaponized against their grandson. They settled first in Cuba, where they lived for 43 years before that island’s Communist revolution forced another exodus. In 1970, when Smolansky’s father was just 13 years old, the family escaped to Venezuela, seeking the freedom that had eluded them across two continents.

Now, two generations later, history was repeating itself. The young mayor who had become a symbol of democratic resistance found himself targeted not just for his politics but for his Jewish identity.

When Hugo Chávez shuttered Radio Caracas Televisión in May 2007, David Smolansky was 22 years old and studying journalism at Universidad Católica Andrés Bello, one of Venezuela’s most prestigious institutions. The closure of the country’s oldest television station sparked massive student protests, and Smolansky found himself thrust into a movement that would define his generation.

He co-founded the Venezuelan Student Movement that year, helping coordinate protests against Chávez’s constitutional reforms. The students developed innovative tactics of resistance, painting their palms white and holding them up before National Guard troops to signal peaceful intentions. The symbolism proved powerful, and the movement grew.

What happened next shocked the hemisphere. The student-led campaign achieved the impossible, handing Hugo Chávez his only electoral defeat when voters rejected his attempt to remove presidential term limits. At an age when many of his peers were focused on career prospects and social lives, Smolansky had helped orchestrate a victory against one of Latin America’s most successful populist leaders.

The experience shaped everything that followed. Smolansky became a founding member of Voluntad Popular (Popular Will), the opposition party established by imprisoned leader Leopoldo López. Smolansky subsequently pursued graduate education in international affairs, earning a Master’s degree from Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and fellowships from Georgetown and Stanford.

In December 2013, at 28 years old, Smolansky won election as mayor of El Hatillo, a municipality of Caracas, with 44 percent of the vote, becoming one of the youngest mayors in Venezuelan history. The campaign itself had been a David versus Goliath affair. Smolansky started as an asterisk in polls, facing a favored candidate from a rival opposition party. But he proved tireless, attending multiple events daily and building grassroots support. The Caracas Chronicles documented how the race tightened into a dead heat, culminating in a massive rock concert featuring the band La Vida Boheme, the largest such event El Hatillo had ever witnessed.

 

His administration established the municipality’s first true public transport service, reactivated the Police Academy, and revitalized collapsed education and health systems. In 2015, the Junior Chamber International recognized him as the World’s Outstanding Young Politician, while Americas Quarterly identified him as one of ten leaders who would help rebuild Venezuela after Maduro.

The Maduro government viewed Smolansky’s achievements with alarm. Here was a young, charismatic opposition figure demonstrating that alternatives to the ruling Chavista model could build a competing power base. Mayors like Smolansky represented an electoral base the government could not control.

The crackdown came systematically. According to Global Americans, the Venezuelan government removed 13 opposition mayors, imprisoned six, and forced the rest into exile. Smolansky observed that “no other authority has been more persecuted than mayors. If you represent 10 million people and those people now do not have the majority of the mayors they elected, this is very dangerous for a country, especially because local authorities are closest to people.”

But the persecution of Smolansky carried an additional dimension. The Venezuelan government took a hard look at Smolansky’s Jewish heritage, accusing him of being the “boss of Zionism in Venezuela” according to The Times of Israel.

Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello used his television platform to denounce Smolansky repeatedly, linking his opposition politics to international Jewish conspiracies. The 2023 Report on International Religious Freedom documented these systematic attacks on his Jewish identity as part of the government’s broader campaign of persecution.

On August 9, 2017, Venezuela’s Supreme Court sentenced Smolansky to 15 months in prison for sponsoring marches against President Maduro and allegedly failing to prevent anti-government protests in his municipality. He was immediately removed from office, disqualified from holding public office indefinitely, issued an arrest warrant, and had his passport voided.

Smolansky would then spend 35 days in hiding, evading government capture while planning his escape. The BBC documented his flight, during which he navigated more than 35 regime checkpoints using false identification before finally reaching Brazil. He later expressed deep discomfort about using fraudulent documents but deemed it necessary for survival.

The escape carried profound psychological weight. “My grandparents left the Soviet Union in 1927, my father left Cuba in 1970, so I am the third generation of Smolanskys who’ve had to leave a country because of a totalitarian regime, ” he would later reflect to The Times of Israel. By November 2017, Smolansky had reached the United States and established himself in Washington, joining a growing community of Venezuelan exiles organizing resistance from abroad.

Rather than retreat into private life, Smolansky transformed his exile into a platform for advocacy. The Organization of American States appointed him Special Envoy to address the Venezuelan migration and refugee crisis, the largest humanitarian displacement in the Western Hemisphere. He authored 15 comprehensive reports and conducted official visits to 11 countries, documenting the scale of suffering and advocating for Venezuelan migrants to receive formal refugee status.

His academic credentials opened doors at prestigious institutions. Georgetown University brought him on as a visiting fellow researching citizen security and regional threats. Johns Hopkins University currently hosts him as an SNF Agora Institute Fellow and Visiting Professor, designated as “Dissident in Residence” for the 2024 to 2025 academic year.

But Smolansky never abandoned frontline politics. He led diaspora organizing for opposition candidate María Corina Machado during the 2023 primary election, coordinating campaigns across 77 cities in multiple countries. When Machado contested the disputed July 2024 presidential election, Smolansky became a central figure in her international advocacy.

It’s an open secret that the Venezuelan opposition’s relationship with U.S. government funding has generated persistent controversy. While direct funding to Smolansky personally remains undocumented, his party Voluntad Popular and the broader opposition have received substantial American support through the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID.

According to Venezuelanalysis, these organizations channeled over $14 million to opposition groups between 2013 and 2014 alone, with over $1.7 million specifically directed to anti-government organizations within Venezuela. During Juan Guaidó’s “Interim Government,” USAID provided $98 million in “humanitarian aid,” with opposition figures like Carlos Vecchio receiving $116 million through USAID programs according to Monthly Review Online.

Rather than distance himself from the Jewish heritage the government had used against him, Smolansky embraced it more publicly. He attended the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference and urged Israel to speak out against the Maduro government, arguing that since Israel had vacated its embassy in Venezuela, it had little to lose diplomatically by defending human rights there.

At 40 years old, Smolansky maintains an exhausting schedule of teaching, research, and advocacy. He appears regularly on international media as a spokesperson for the opposition, teaches courses on democracy and migration at Johns Hopkins, conducts research at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation where he serves as Senior Fellow of Latin American Studies, and runs the Miranda Center for Democracy, his own research organization.

His current work emphasizes documenting Venezuela’s role as an alleged hub for drug trafficking and organized crime. He has warned about Hezbollah’s presence in Venezuela, which he notes places the terrorist group “three hours by plane from the United States.” Like many hawks in world Jewry, he has advocated for continued international pressure on the Chavista government through sanctions and diplomatic isolation for it being a de facto member of the “Axis of Resistance,” through its strong relationship with Iran.

In her televised address amid the chaos of Nicolás Maduro’s capture by Delta Force, acting President Delcy Rodriguez blamed “Zionist overtones” for the American raid—echoing government accusations against figures like David Smolansky. In Venezuela’s transitional turmoil, Jewish actors like Smolansky, who are notorious for their ability as spies and agents of subversion, could be reactivated at any moment.

While the Trump administration appears to be satisfied with its current arrangement with the Rodriguez government, the game is far from over. Smolansky and other Jewish agents with an axe to grind in Venezuela stand poised to lead the wider subversion effort to topple the Venezuelan government once they believe the opportunity is ripe. Jewish perfidy should never be underestimated in these cases.

Truthless Tongue: The Lie-Loving Language of Leftism

/9 Comments/in , /by

Truthless Tongue: The Lie-Loving Language of Leftism

I’m bilingual in English and English. That is, I’m bilingual in standard English and leftist English  — I’ll call the latter Lynglish to blend the concepts of “leftist English” and “lying.” Standard English and Lynglish look the same but often mean very different or even entirely opposite things. And it’s a huge advantage for the left to use what appears to be English but is in fact Lynglish. Words are a kind of wizardry for human beings. Even when you know the truth about the Labour Party’s hatred of working-class Whites, a name like “Labour” still casts a linguistic spell on you. It certainly cast a spell on the millions of working-class Whites who continued to vote Labour many decades after the party had not merely abandoned them but become actively and eagerly hostile to their interests.

Hermer the Hater

But suppose that there was a rule that the names of political parties had to accurately reflect their true principles and the real interests they seek to serve. Then the Labour Party would have had to change its name to, say, the Lawyer Party.[i] And those working-class Whites wouldn’t have been fooled any more and would have stopped voting for the party. That’s all it would have taken: a simple change of name. Nothing else would have changed, but the party would have been sailing under its true colors at last. It wouldn’t have been pretending to champion the White working-class, but instead openly proclaiming itself to be a party run by devious, dishonest lawyers like Tony Blair, Keir Starmer and Richard Hermer, all of whom hate the White working-class and seek to harm it in every way they can. And who is Richard Hermer? Well, under the name Lord Hermer, he’s the little-known Jewish Attorney-General in Britain. I’ve looked at his anti-White activism in the articles “Kritarchs on Krusade” and “Hermer’s Harmers.” He’s a dedicated champion of what he calls “the rule of law.” But when he uses that phrase, he’s speaking Lynglish, not English.

Lying leftist lawyer Richard Hermer, a fluent speaker of Lynglish

In standard English, “the rule of law” means something like “the firm application of an objective system of laws applied impartially to all those under its jurisdiction.” And the phrase carries the implication  — the verbal spell  — that law is a kind of independent entity, floating free of politics, culture and human imperfection. But the standard meaning isn’t what leftists like Hermer have in mind when they use the phrase. If you translate “the rule of law” from Lynglish into English, you get “the rule of leftists.” But an additional and enlightening translation would be “the rule of words.” Even when you know the truth about leftists like Hermer, “the rule of law” still carries that verbal spell, still fools you in some way into thinking the law is somehow objective and impartial. But “the rule of words” breaks that spell. It explicitly reminds you that laws are composed of words and that words have to be interpreted by human beings. Lord Hermer speaks Lynglish, not English, so when he says “the rule of law” he means that laws can be arbitrarily applied or abandoned at the will and whim of leftists.

The Rule of Rape-Gangs

And it’s very easy to prove that leftists like Hermer don’t believe in the genuine rule of law. As I pointed out in “Kritarchs on Krusade,” he used the phrase “the rule of law” nearly seventy times in possibly “the most important speech of the entire Starmer government.” But has he ever made a speech condemning the flood of illegal immigrants across the English Channel? Day after day, the law  — the wonderful, worship-worthy law — is being brazenly broken by hundreds of young non-White men from countries and cultures where there is no rule of law, where official corruption and crimes like rape and femicide are routine. The non-White immivaders break the law to get here and carry on breaking the law after the British state houses, clothes, feeds and medicates them at the expense of White tax-payers. But does Lord Hermer demand stern and implacable action to restore and maintain the rule of law and end the illegal immivasion? Of course not. He supports the mud-flood and, like the rest of the Labour elite, is complicit in the destruction of the rule of migration law.

His support for the mud-flood by no means exhausts his rejection of the genuine rule of law. Has Lord Hermer ever made a speech condemning the utter abandonment of law in rape-gang redoubts like Rotherham and Rochdale? Again, of course not. Decade after decade, police and politicians have refused to apply the law against non-White men preying on White working-class girls throughout Britain. Worse still, they have actively assisted the criminals: police have arrested fathers for trying to rescue their daughters from non-White rapists and Labour councils have effectively run so-called “children’s homes” as child-brothels where girls are warehoused for the benefit of non-White rapists and pimps. The full extent of these horrors is still to emerge, but one central fact is already certain: that for decades leftists have suspended “the rule of law” throughout Britain in favor of their non-White pets and against the White working-class. Lord Hermer has collaborated with that suspension of “the rule of law,” not condemned it.

Refusing to protect real women

Hermer has gone even further since April 2025. Or rather: he’s gone nowhere again. He has stayed silent and done nothing as “the rule of law” has again been suspended in favor of another group of leftist pets. In April 2025, the British Supreme Court made the clear ruling that women are defined in equality law by biology, not by bullshit. In other words, the Supreme Court stated that real women are entitled in law to private spaces that so-called transwomen cannot enter. If “the rule of law” applied in Britain, the Supreme Court’s judgment would have been swiftly obeyed and genuine women would have been protected from the perverted male narcissists known as transwomen. But the judgment hasn’t been obeyed, because Bridget Phillipson, the Labour “minister for women and equalities” has refused to sign off “guidance” that explicitly asked her to “act at speed” in ordering the judgment to be obeyed. This is a gross and glaring suspension of “the rule of law” by a prominent minister in Hermer’s own government. And Hermer has said and done absolutely nothing.

Lying leftist Bridget Phillipson, another fluent speaker of Lynglish (image from The London Standard)

It’s clear that, like everyone else in the Labour elite, Hermer does not believe in the genuine rule of law. Instead, he believes in the rule of leftists. And when Bridget Phillipson calls herself the “minister for women and equalities,” she’s using Lynglish, not English. She should really call herself the “minister against women and for inequalities.” For leftists like her, perverted male “transwomen” are superior to genuine ordinary women and therefore entitled to invade female territory. The same applies to Whites and non-Whites. Leftists claim to believe in “racial equality,” which looks like a phrase in standard English. It isn’t: it’s a phrase in Lynglish and has to be translated into standard English as “privilege for non-Whites, punishment for Whites.” For leftists, non-Whites are superior to ordinary Whites and therefore entitled to invade White territory, prey on Whites and parasitize Whites as they please. That’s why the votes of ordinary Whites against non-White immigration have no effect. Leftists say they believe in “democracy,” which looks like a word of standard English meaning “rule by the people.” But leftists are using Lynglish, where the word “democracy” means something quite different. Here’s a leftist in the Guardian explaining what “democracy” means in Lynglish:

Nesrine Malik’s article on racism leads to the uncomfortable idea that democracy is OK as long as the good people can fiddle it to keep the bad ones out of power. Once it becomes genuinely democratic, you might find that the intelligent and virtuous are outnumbered on three fronts — by the stupid and virtuous, the intelligent and evil, and the stupid and evil. (“We abhor racism in Britain, but refuse to recognise where it comes from,” Guardian Letters Page, 19th December 2025)

To Guardianistas and other leftists, “democracy” is only “OK” when it isn’t democracy, that is, when the “intelligent and virtuous” are able to subvert, cancel or reverse the popular will. But what exactly did that leftist mean by “intelligent and virtuous”? Well, it’s obviously intelligent to flood advanced White nations with non-White folk from the most primitive, corrupt and low-achieving regions on Earth. And it’s obviously virtuous to allow non-White Muslims to rape, prostitute and torture girls from the White working-class. How do we know all this? Because that’s what leftists have done and leftists are, by definition, “intelligent and virtuous.”

Proles Protesting Paddington

If you object to the mud-flood and the rape-gangs, you are certainly evil and probably stupid too. It’s evil to criticize any aspect of non-White behavior or culture — that is one of the central dogmas of leftism. You can see the dogma celebrated in a cartoon about “migration and the hard right” at the Guardian, Britain’s newspaper of choice for the intelligent and virtuous. To understand the cartoon, you have to know that it’s referring to a musical about the fictional children’s character Paddington, a small bear who migrated to Britain from Peru in the 1950s. Paddington is harmless, loves marmalade sandwiches, and once starred in a video having tea with Queen Elizabeth II. The air-headed Labour MP Stella Creasy invoked him in arguing for open borders and the air-headed cartoonist Ben Jennings has followed her lead:

Cartoonist Ben Jennings feeds the narcissism of intelligent and virtuous leftists at the Guardian

Note how the intelligent and virtuous leftist woman on the right is widening her eyes in stunned disbelief at the stupidity of the racist male prole on the left, who is protesting against a harmless bear who poses absolutely no threat to children. Another racist male prole is shown further left, his ugly face distorted with xenophobia and malice. The two proles and their fellow protestors are wrapped in or waving English or British flags, emphasizing the stupidity and evil of their protest against little Paddington. And how do I react, looking at that cartoon? I know how the leftist woman feels. Looking at it, I feel stunned disbelief too. The cartoon is so stupid and so dishonest that even Guardianistas must have regarded it as an insult to their intelligence, mustn’t they? In fact, no. Not in the slightest. Leftist cartoonists and journalists can insult the intelligence of their leftist audience as much as they like, just so long as they remember to pander to the insatiable narcissism of that audience at the same time.

And that’s what the cartoon does: it simultaneously insults the intelligence of its audience and panders to the narcissism of its audience. “You are intelligent and virtuous because you welcome all migrants of color,” the cartoon tells leftists. “You are infinitely superior to these evil racist proles, who are so stupid that they can’t grasp a simple syllogism: ‘Little Paddington Bear is a migrant of color and harmless, therefore all migrants of color are harmless.’” And that is indeed the implicit syllogism of the cartoon. The syllogism is stupid, of course, just like the cartoon as a whole. The scenario there is not merely fictional but doubly fictional. Paddington Bear isn’t real and nor is the idea that anyone would protest against Paddington. In reality, the “proles” are protesting about real crimes committed by real migrants against real children. Here is merely one example:

A man has pleaded guilty to the rape of a 12-year-old girl in Warwickshire, in a case that prompted anti-asylum protests in Nuneaton. Ahmad Mulakhil, 23, of no fixed abode, changed his plea at Warwick crown court on Friday, admitting the single charge of rape of a child under 13 on 22 July [2025]. Mulakhil, an Afghan national, had previously denied abducting a child, three counts of rape and two counts of sexual assault of a child under 13 at a hearing on 28 August.

Co-defendant Mohammad Kabir, 23, of no fixed abode, previously pleaded not guilty to attempting to take a child, aiding and abetting rape of a child under 13, and intentional strangulation of the girl at the hearing in August. Mulakhil, 23, was assisted in the hearing with a Farsi interpreter and pleaded guilty to a single count of oral rape. Kabir was assisted with a Pashto interpreter. The hearing did not mention the men’s nationalities or immigration status. (“[Afghan] Man pleads guilty to rape of girl, 12, in case that sparked anti-asylum protests,” The Guardian, 21st November 2025)

The ugly reality that leftists ignore: non-White migrants commit sex-crimes at much higher rates (graph from Restore Britain and Centre for Migration Control)

How do intelligent and virtuous leftists react to the toxic truth about the frequent and vicious crimes committed by non-Whites against Whites? It’s simple. Given a choice between ugly reality and dishonest fantasy, no leftist hesitates a second. It’s dishonest fantasy every time. That’s why a cartoonist for the Guardian fantasized that proles were protesting against harmless little brown-furred Paddington rather than about real brown-skinned rapists. And even if Afghans and other non-Whites didn’t commit sexual and other crimes at much higher rates  — which they do  — intelligent and virtuous leftists refuse to face a simple fact about the presence of those non-Whites in Britain and other Western nations. As Connor Tomlinson has pointed out, every crime committed in the West by a non-White migrant is a crime that did not need to happen. A crime that shouldn’t have happened. And a crime that wouldn’t have happened if Western nations were genuine democracies.

So always remember: when leftists praise “democracy” or “equality” or “the rule of law,” they’re not speaking English but Lynglish. It’s a truthless tongue spoken by ruthless people who are interested only in power for themselves, privilege for their pets, and punishment for their enemies. And who are their enemies? Anyone who believes in truth rather than lies.

[i] If that rule existed, lobby-groups in Britain like Conservative or Labour Friends of Israel would have to be renamed Conservative or Labour Servants of Israel.