Featured Articles

Marching Together, Drifting Apart: The Rise and Rupture of the Black-Jewish Alliance

/4 Comments/in , /by

In the last century, the alliance between Black and Jewish communities in the United States represents one of the most consequential cross-racial partnerships in modern American history.

Initially rooted in both groups’ subaltern status, the forging of this coalition brought about landmark Civil Rights victories that paved the way for the undermining of the United States’ White European state-building stock.

Eventually, the Jewish plank of the alliance was able to capture the commanding heights of American politics, finance, and culture. Blacks, on the other hand, have increasingly looked like a golem that organized Jewry activates when it feels its interests are being threatened by the country’s White population.

However, like all golems, Blacks have occasionally turned against their Jewish masters, potentially putting this partnership in jeopardy. From the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to the rise of Black Lives Matter (BLM), the relationship has been shaped by collaboration but also by ups and downs, as seen with the emergence of the pro-Palestine movement in the wake of the 1967 Six-Day War.

The latest October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel have brought these rifts back into focus, with an increasing number of Black political pundits and organizations expressing sympathy with the plight of Palestinians in Gaza. This fissure has called into question the viability of the Judeo-Negro alliance. To gauge whether this partnership can endure a volatile 21st century, one must first understand its modern evolution.

The Jewish Role in the NAACP and Early Civil Rights

The NAACP is popularly perceived as a Black-only organization, but Jewish individuals played a key role in the foundation and development of this civil rights organization. The NAACP’s founding in 1909 marked a watershed interracial effort to undermine America’s White majority. Jewish activists like Henry Moskowitz, a Romanian Jewish emigré, and Lillian Wald, the daughter of a wealthy German-Jewish family, teamed up with W.E.B. Du Bois and Ida B. Wells to found the NAACP, motivated by the shared belief that anti-Black violence and European antisemitism were interconnected struggles.

Jewish philanthropist Julius Rosenwald, who was president of Sears, Roebuck and Company from 1908 to 1924, played a major role as a financial patron to the NAACP. Rosenwald’s philanthropic support for the NAACP came primarily through the Julius Rosenwald Fund, which he established in 1917. He partnered with the famous Black advocate Booker T. Washington to fund over 5,000 schools for Black students in the Jim Crow South.

The Rosenwald Fund donated $33,500 to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund between 1917 and 1948. The Fund supported early NAACP legal cases that sought to promote forced integration. The Jewish Columbia professor Joel Spingarn (1875–1939), who was one of the first Jewish leaders of the NAACP, joining shortly after its founding, serving as chairman of its board from 1913 to 1919, its treasurer from 1919 to 1930, and as President of the NAACP from 1930 to 1939, tapped into Jewish networks to challenge segregation.

Civil rights lawyer Arthur Spingarn (1878–1971) succeeded his brother as President, serving from 1940 to 1965). Under his tenure, NAACP membership quadrupled, particularly in the South, and his aggressive litigation efforts culminated in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Supreme Court ruling that began the desegregation of American educational institutions.

The Civil Rights Movement was marked by disproportionate Jewish participation. Of the non-Black Freedom Summer volunteers in 1964, over 50% were Jewish. In a similar vein, Jewish attorney Jack Greenberg, the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and Romania, participated in 40 civil rights cases before the Supreme Court.

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched with MLK in Selma. Heschel previously declared that “racism is satanism” at the 1963 National Conference on Religion and Race in Chicago, organized by the National Conference of Christians and Jews (NCCJ). This “Grand Alliance” achieved historic wins once the Civil Rights Revolution was fully consummated. However, these victories masked underlying tensions.

The Emergence of Tensions

These divisions would become manifest once the state of Israel began to flex its muscles militarily in 1967 and when Blacks started pursuing domestic agendas that clashed with broader Jewish interests. The 1967 Six-Day War exposed a notable ideological rift. Black radicals like Stokely Carmichael linked Zionism to colonialism, while Jewish groups defended Israel as a refuge for Holocaust survivors and as a successful movement of national liberation from European antisemitism.

New York City was at the epicenter of this breakdown. In the 1960s, Black and Puerto Rican parents in Ocean Hill-Brownsville, a predominantly non-White Brooklyn neighborhood, organized to address lingering problems in their schools such as overcrowded classrooms and underfunded resources.

In 1967, as part of a city-wide experiment, the Board of Education granted limited autonomy to Ocean Hill-Brownsville under a community-elected governing board. The district’s superintendent, Rhody McCoy, a Black educator, sought to implement reforms, including hiring staff aligned with the community’s goals and other measures moving toward decentralization.

In May 1968, the Ocean Hill-Brownsville governing board transferred 19 teachers and administrators — most of whom were White and Jewish — out of the district, accusing them of undermining reforms. The United Federation of Teachers (UFT), led by Albert Shanker, denounced the transfers as anti-Semitism and a violation of due process and union rights. The UFT, whose membership was majority Jewish, argued the moves were racially motivated and felt as if they were being scapegoated despite previously supporting civil rights causes.

In the end, New York State disbanded the Ocean Hill-Brownsville governing board in 1969, recentralizing power. The experiment’s collapse deterred similar initiatives nationwide. The crisis fractured the Black-Jewish alliance, with many Black activists embracing separatism and Jewish communities prioritizing Israel and institutional liberalism.

The Black-Jewish alliance further frayed in the 1990s.  On the evening of August 19, 1991, in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, a car from the motorcade of Rabbi and Jewish supremacist Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement, veered onto the sidewalk after running a red light. The vehicle struck two seven-year-old Guyanese children, killing Gavin Cato and severely injuring his cousin Angela.

​​What transpired next would ignite three days of violence. As described by the CUNY historical account: “Little is known of what exactly transpired at the scene of the car accident. Rumors were circulating about how the incident was handled by volunteer Jewish ambulance company, Hatzolah. According to several witnesses, medical staff treated the injured Jewish driver prior to attending the children.”

Within hours of the accident, a group of Black youths attacked and fatally stabbed Yankel Rosenbaum, a 29-year-old Orthodox Jewish student from Australia who had no connection to the accident. This was just the beginning of what would become three days of violence.

The riots did not occur in a vacuum but were the product of decades of changing demographic and social dynamics in Crown Heights. At the time of the riots, Crown Heights had transformed into a predominantly Black neighborhood with a significant Hasidic Jewish enclave. This arrangement created friction, with many Black residents believing that Jews were given special treatment by law enforcement following a 1976 police redistricting. Many were also upset by what they saw as the Jewish community leveraging Black political leadership for their own benefit, exploiting a lack of unity among Black leaders to advance Jewish interests.

Black public figures added further fuel to the fire during these riots. The Reverend Al Sharpton played a controversial role during the riots. According to historical accounts, “The riot was further incited by the Reverend Al Sharpton.” On the third day of the riots, a group of Black protesters from an Al Sharpton-organized march strayed from their prearranged route, setting fire to an Israeli flag outside the offices of a local Orthodox Jewish group. Sharpton drew criticism for remarks at Gavin Cato’s eulogy, referring to Jews as “diamond merchants” and likening Crown Heights to apartheid South Africa.

The 1980s and 1990s saw the rise of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam (NOI), who published works investigating Jewish control of high finance and corporate media. One of their most controversial works was The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, excerpts of which Wellesley College professor Tony Martin assigned in his courses. The book, produced by the NOI’s Historical Research Department, alleged disproportionate Jewish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade. As expected, the book drew backlash from the academic community, but Martin stood by the integrity of the NOI publication’s historical scholarship.

The NOI’s Judeoskeptic influence on Black public figures has been a constant thorn in the side of organized Jewry. Tamika Mallory, a prominent activist and co-founder of the Women’s March, has maintained a longstanding and controversial relationship with the NOI and its leader, Farrakhan.

As a teenager, she attended NOI events, including its annual “Saviour’s Day.” After her son’s father was murdered in 2001, Mallory found support from NOI members, particularly women in the organization, whom she credited with helping her through grief.

Despite being demonized for his commentary about Jewish influence, Mallory has repeatedly defended her ties to Farrakhan. In 2017, she posted a photo with Farrakhan on Instagram, calling him the “GOAT” (Greatest of All Time). (When challenged, she clarified that her praise stemmed from his work in Black communities.) During a 2019 interview on “The View”, she refused to condemn Farrakhan’s negative views about Jews outright, much to the annoyance of the Jewish community. She stated, “I don’t agree with many of Minister Farrakhan’s statements” but emphasized his role in “building unity” in marginalized communities.

Like most Black activists influenced by the NOI, Mallory has had choice words for Israel. During a 2018 trip to Israel and the West Bank with the Center for Constitutional Rights, she described the establishment of Israel a “human rights crime.” These remarks led to her disinvitation from an Australian conference, with organizers citing concerns that her views would “overshadow” the event.

Black academic Mark Lamont Hill also went off script on November 28, 2018, when he delivered a speech at the United Nations during the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. In his address, Hill expressed support for Palestinian self-determination and equal rights. Hill ended his speech by calling for “a free Palestine from the river to the sea.”

Less than 24 hours after Hill’s UN speech, CNN announced it had severed ties with him. On November 29, 2018, a CNN spokesperson confirmed simply that “Marc Lamont Hill is no longer under contract with CNN.” While CNN did not provide an explicit reason for the termination, the firing came immediately after objections to Hill’s speech from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other Jewish organizations.

Black Lives Matter, Israel, and the Latest Fractures

The resurgence of Black Lives Matter in 2020 brought renewed tensions between Jewish and Black organizations. The year following the death of George Floyd, BLM issued a statement declaring solidarity with Palestinians and advocating for an end to “settler colonialism in all forms.” BLM’s detour into anti-Israel advocacy alarmed countless Jewish organizations who initially backed the anti-White groups.

The October 7, 2023 attacks further reinforced Jewish apprehensions about exclusively relying on Blacks as their proxy army against White America. BLM Chicago shared (and later deleted) an image of a paraglider with a Palestinian flag, a reference to Hamas fighters who used paragliders during the assault. Critics interpreted this as celebrating terrorism. BLM Grassroots also issued a statement condemning Israel’s “apartheid system” while asserting Palestinians’ right to resist occupation.

In October 2023, the ADL denounced BLM Grassroots, BLM Chicago, and BLM Los Angeles for social media posts justifying Hamas’ attacks. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt criticized these chapters for “glorifying Hamas terrorists” and spreading anti-Semitic narratives, calling the rhetoric “sick, twisted, and dehumanizing.” Greenblatt’s message to the Black community was quite clear: there are limits to how far Blacks can go with their political activism.

Other prominent members of the Jewish community did not take kindly to their Black golems not sticking to the program in the wake of October 7. Actress Julianna Margulies, of Azkhenazi extraction, best known for her roles in The Good Wife and ER caused a stir in the November 2023 episode of the podcast The Back Room With Andy Ostroy.

During this interview, she asserted that Black Americans “have been brainwashed to hate Jews.” She also questioned why Blacks weren’t returning the support that Jewish communities had historically given to civil rights causes.  Margulies’ remarks were met with significant pushback. On December 2, 2023, Margulies later apologized in a statement to Deadline, expressing horror that her words “offended the Black and LGBTQIA+ communities.”

New Golems Await?

Despite using Blacks as a battering arm against Whites in the United States for well over a century, Jews’ goodwill toward America’s melanin-enhanced population is wearing thin due to the Black community’s unwillingness to support Israel’s genocide in Gaza. This partially explains the latest efforts to defund DEI nationwide by the Trump administration and attempts to defund universities that are insufficiently harsh on pro-Palestinian activists and expel non-citizen pro-Palestinian activists, while maintaining Jews’ privileged status, in addition to Jewish liberals such as billionaire Bill Ackman making a pivot to the Right in an attempt to check growing antisemitism on the Left.

As Blacks increasingly become a liability, organized Jewry may turn to the vast pool of non-White immigrant groups as another vector for subversion. The United States’s growing Indian population and its philosemitic diaspora may do the trick.

One thing is clear though: the Black-Jewish alliance will not have the same vigor it had in the 20th century.  New golems will have to be activated for the Jewish community to retain its iron grip over American politics.

Postcards from the Empire: The 2025 NFL Draft was another exercise in DEI extremism

/6 Comments/in /by
Death, taxes, and the National Football League discriminating against White men are three things that can always be counted on.

And the just completed annual three-day extravaganza known as the NFL Draft was no exception again this year. The number of White players drafted was unofficially 53 out of 257, or 20.6%. See, the NFL likes their DEI program to be simple and consistent. Twenty percent is the magic number every year, give or take a couple of percentage points.

And that 20.6% doesn’t tell the full story. Only 15 Whites were drafted in the all-important first three rounds, a little over 14%, with the others mostly back-ended into the last two rounds, where a player’s chances of getting to stick on an NFL roster and actually play are dicey at best.

The annual draft begins each year with Commissioner Roger Goodell greatly exaggerating the number of attendees at the event, which the league’s corporate media partners, far-left networks ESPN, ABC, and NFL Network, faithfully echo and then gradually embellish even more during the three days of draft selections.

Goodell claimed 200,000 people were in the audience on Thursday night for the first round, an obvious lie. Right next to the draft venue was Lambeau Field, the stadium for the host city Green Bay and its Packers. Lambeau Field holds 80,000 people. 200,000 people would fill Lambeau Field two and a half times over, yet it was clear that the much smaller draft venue had about 15,000 attendees at most, enough to fill a medium-sized hockey or basketball arena but nowhere remotely close to filling Lambeau even once.

The claimed numbers got even more ridiculous over the next two days. By Saturday, Rece Davis of ABC had raised the number to 400,000. Yahoo took the crown for absurdity however, citing 600,000. Where are they going to sleep?

“Green Bay has roughly 5,000 hotel rooms, with half being reserved for NFL personnel and vendors. Roughly 1,000 homes have been rented in Brown County.”

Green Bay itself only has a population of just over 100,000. Some of them obviously attended, though parking was a problem. With such limited hotel space and parking, what did the hundreds of thousands of other alleged attendees that supposedly traveled from all over the country do? Sleep in the street? Set up makeshift tent cities? If they lie about something as basic as this — and they do every year, claiming 750,000 attended last year in Detroit — what won’t they lie about? Answer: very little, especially when it comes to sports and the Caste System.

Above: Lambeau Field, capacity 80,000. Below: the modestly sized venue in which the NFL claims 200,000 people were present; in reality it would have filled about 1/5 of Lambeau Field at most.

The NFL’s DEI agenda is built on lies and exaggerations, the main one being that Blacks are the world’s best athletes, to the extent that Whites are incapable of playing other than at a few positions, namely quarterback, the offensive line, and tight end.

And Whites are systematically being replaced at quarterback and the o-line as well. It’s curious that the first offensive tackle and first defensive tackle taken in the 2025 NFL Draft were White, but then were followed at those positions by dozens of Blacks.

The few Whites taken early in the draft are outliers, exceptional athletes who are so good that the league takes them as part of the tiny White contingent on team rosters, but after that it’s one average or mediocre Black after another selected. Yes, there are some with star potential who live up to it also, but the number of Blacks taken in the early rounds who don’t live up to the hype each year is remarkable.

There were more defensive tackles taken than at any other position. Yet many teams only start one tackle on defense. Given that there are 32 teams, this means that the turnover at defensive tackle every year is quite large, a damning indictment of the Blacks only policy of the league, but of course it’s never mentioned by the media, which has always enabled and fully supported the racial Caste System in sports.

It’s the same at cornerback and safety – huge numbers taken every year, almost none of whom will make much of an impact and will be replaced by other mediocre talents the next year and the next year. No White cornerbacks were drafted and only two White safeties were drafted, both in the final round, which means they face very stiff odds of ever starting.

It’s curious too that after going some 20 years without any White cornerbacks, one was drafted in 2023 (Riley Moss) and 2024 (Cooper DeJean), and both became instant stars. Both played at Iowa, the only big college football program in the country that “allows” Whites to play at cornerback. And even though Moss and DeJean are both off to great starts in the NFL, White high school stars at cornerback will continue to not be recruited by the major programs. Same with running back after Christian McCaffrey became a superstar. The few Whites who break through change nothing as football at the college and professional levels is a classic racial spoils program for Blacks.

As Clay Travis of the website Outkick said, “The NFL, a majority black employee league, has created more black millionaires than any business in the history of the world. Arguing the league is racist, as many sports media did this weekend, is the dumbest argument in 21st-century sports history.”

Yet this didn’t stop the usual whining and cries of “racism” against Blacks, because quarterback Shedeur Sanders, son of Hall of Fame cornerback Deion Sanders, wasn’t drafted in the first round as many expected. It didn’t matter that the first quarterback taken, Cam Ward, is Black. In fact, Black quarterbacks are now routinely taken before any Whites each year. It was White quarterbacks who were actually screwed over, as they are every year and at every position. As poster Leonardfan from the website Caste Football.us wrote:

The NFL is DEI. It is not a meritocracy. Every draft for the past 25 years has hovered right around 20% White athletes drafted with little deviation. The glass ceiling White athletes face is a very real thing. The open discrimination that Whites have to endure in both college recruiting and NFL draft processes is not some imagined conspiracy theory. I have followed the draft closely since 2004 and after 20 years the patterns are obvious. I have seen countless White athletes get screwed over and never get a chance at the NFL. The number of White kids coming out of high school every year that get ignored is probably 10 times as bad as the NFL draft.

Year after year there are a ridiculous number of black players drafted at defensive back, wide receiver, running back, linebacker, defensive line, offensive tackle. And the next year the same cycle repeats itself. Meanwhile White athletes are written off because of their 40 time while the NFL Draft process makes no effort to take into account much of the other athletic testing — vertical jump, 3 cone, bench press, short shuttle, broad jump, all of which Whites test just as well at as Blacks on average. If the player is Black and fast it’s a meal ticket to the NFL. Meanwhile the White athlete that has a much more complete athletic workout and profile but is a tenth of a second slower running in a straight line in shorts for 40 yards is written off.

The newest trend being pushed is arm length. It’s the next big lie behind 40 times to try and push White offensive linemen away from the tackle position. There have been several instances of this I can point to over the past few years — Pete Skoronski, Graham Barton, Grey Zabel, Jonah Monheim all played left tackle in college at a high level but their arms were deemed too short so they get moved to the interior. That is just a small sample off the top of my head. Will Campbell faced the same scrutiny this year about the issues with his arm length despite the fact he was the best blindside protector in the supposed best conference in college football.

The cries of racism and collusion against Black quarterback prospect Shedeur Sanders were beyond asinine. These cries were mostly coming from the same group of people who for the past few weeks have been donating to Karmelo Anthony’s gofundme, defending his murder of an innocent White teenager and reveling in the grief of Austin Metcalf’s mother and brother (Metcalf’s father is another story, a truly pathetic man). Many of these complaints I noted on social media were not people that followed football but just typical angry black people with the well-established black victimhood mentality. It’s all so tiring.

The real collusion in this draft was against White quarterbacks: Kyle McCord not being drafted until the 6th round. McCord was demonized and pushed out of Columbus by the Ohio State fan base despite going 11-1. He goes to Syracuse and leads them to a 10-3 record. He did more for Syracuse than Sanders did for Colorado. Also led the nation in passing and was a better QB than Cam Ward who was gifted the number one pick due to skin color.

Will Howard transfers to OSU and has a stellar season running Chip Kelly’s offense. He wins a national championship. At KSU he was pushed aside much like McCord so he goes and wins a national championship.

Riley Leonard takes Notre Dame to the national championship game. A true dual threat that was a better passer than he was allowed to be at ND due to play calling.

Quinn Ewers might be the biggest outrage out of them all considering he won 27 games in the SEC. Won big games in the SEC and guided Texas to back to back playoff appearances.

The militant racist blacks and their white hanger-ons crying about Sanders won’t be able to deny those facts and will just ignore them. Fact is Sanders thought he was better than he is. He refused to take part in the Shrine Bowl practices or game, the Combine or the Big 12 pro day. He really thought he was that good. His arrogant father fed him and hyped him up all these years. Blacks are saying that Sanders did not ‘code switch’ to appeal to the ‘White’ owners. You can’t make this stuff up. Millions of black people in this country think like that.”

And so do tens of millions of White football fans, who have been indoctrinated since birth with the glorification of Black athletes and the negative stereotyping of White ones.

Sadly, pointing out the racism against Whites in sports results in being accused by the usual suspects of being racist against Blacks! That’s how it always works in the Empire of Lies, double standards and hypocrisy galore. The Empire’s overseers, change agents and gatekeepers have no interest in having a “meritocracy” in sports; as always it’s about an agenda of replacing Whites and doing so by waging psychological warfare against them in numerous ways.

Claiming Whites are inferior physically and athletically to Blacks is a Big Lie and more Americans need to understand that DEI and general anti-Whiteness in all spheres of society includes sports and has for over half a century. It’s about fairness and equal opportunity. I reject White supremacy and discrimination against Blacks, but I also reject anti-White hatred and denigration. Fair-minded people need to be able to discuss racial issues openly and honestly, and when we can’t it’s just more evidence that this is no longer a free country.

Posted from “Postcards from the Empire” with permission.

Finnish nationalist Tuukka Kuru Interviews F. Roger Devlin

/4 Comments/in /by
1. Greetings, Roger! How are you doing?
My life has never been better, and there are signs of hope in my country as well after the horrible interlude of the Biden presidency.
2. You have been involved in White nationalist activities for years, yet you are best known for your statements on gender and sexuality. Are these two issues connected, or do you treat them as separate matters?
Each race must reproduce itself each generation, and the European race is conspicuously failing to do so. In Italy and Spain, the total fertility rate is now 1.3 children per woman and the figures are well below replacement level throughout the West. The fertility crisis is every bit as important a threat to our people as mass immigration and multiculturalism.
3. Over the past 20 years, the worldviews of young men and young women have diverged significantly in all industrialized countries—young women show greater interest in leftist ideologies, while young men express tribalistic and socially conservative opinions, unlike previous generations. What do you think has caused this divergence, and can it be attributed solely to social media?
Young women are impressionable conformists. They anxiously seek the approval of their peers and authority figures. In his novel 1984, George Orwell remarks that young women were the most enthusiastic supporters of official doctrine and nosers out of heresy. Those women who do support nationalism—and I know we are fortunate to have some wonderful women in our ranks—have most often been brought up well by their fathers or influenced by positive authority figures. Men are the fighters of the human species, both literally and figuratively, and our sex must fight and win the battle for our people. Most women will come over to our side once we start winning.
4. Do you believe that monogamous and nuclear-family-oriented sexual behavior is inherently valuable and worth protecting, or is it merely a meme that succeeded in earlier cultural evolution but has become unnecessary given today’s standard of living?
Monogamy gives children a secure and reliable environment in which to grow up. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary for maintaining a high-trust society of the sort traditional in Europe, especially Northern Europe. And our high standard of living will not long survive the destruction of the monogamous family.
5. Over recent decades, many Western countries have transformed from ethnically homogeneous nation-states into multiracial “rainbow” societies. Multicultural ideals do not emerge in a vacuum but are the result of a longer cultural shift, where conservative institutions in Western societies have been replaced by egalitarian and revolutionary ideologies. How is it possible that this same development has occurred almost identically across all Western countries, using the exact same terms, narratives, and arguments?
When America sneezes, Europe catches a cold. My country’s influence on the rest of the world since the Second World War has been enormous but not always favorable, and I say this as someone who considers himself a patriot. Ease of communication has also contributed to growing cultural homogeneity across the West. We should cherish and protect our differences.
6. European nationalists typically have a clear vision of what their country should be, as many were born in nation-states with minimal minority populations, and their native language and religion enjoyed complete societal dominance. In contrast, American White nationalists have widely differing opinions—some advocate for segregating Whites and people of color into separate states, others support deporting all non-Whites, and some propose dismantling the United States and replacing it with completely different system. What is your own opinion on America, and what role should it play in the world?
The goal of White American nationalists should be a White ethnostate on North American soil where we enjoy self-determination, unapologetically give preference to our own people, and pursue our long-term best interests. I believe this is how White Americans can best benefit the rest of the world as well.
7. According to current estimates, in 15 to 20 years, Whites will be a minority population in the US. As the U.S. population becomes more diverse, the role of Race as a backbone of personal identity has only become more pronounced. Is it possible to create a functional national identity for a racially, linguistically, and religiously mixed population, and was a colorblind society ever anything more than a liberal illusion?
There will never be a colorblind society anywhere in the world. Race and kinship are the most important social cement, although language and religion are certainly important. But Brazil is an instructive example of a racially diverse country that has tried to maintain unity through the Portuguese language and (especially in the past) the Catholic religion. The results have not been altogether encouraging: it is a low-trust society riven by class conflicts that have a clear racial aspect. You are much more fortunate in Finland.
8. The relationship between American White nationalists and the Trump administration is surely quite conflicted. What is your opinion of President Trump—does he do more harm or good for the nationalist movement, and does his administration advance the interests of the White population in any way?
It is frequently forgotten, even in the United States, that Donald Trump first ran for the presidency in 2000 as a kind of progressive. His commitment to reducing immigration is extremely weak, and he often shifts back and forth. As a lifelong businessman, he is susceptible to the argument that “we need immigration for the economy,” which really means that business interests would benefit from immigration by being able to pay lower wages. His thinking appears confused in other areas as well: for example, he says he wants to protect freedom of speech on university campuses while also eliminating anti-Semitism. Well, do students have a right to criticizes Israeli actions in Gaza or not?
So far, however, his second administration appears to be a clear improvement over the first. He has shown himself capable of learning, especially from his enemies.
9. Should we see the fertility crisis strictly as a Western phenomenon, or will it affect all developed countries in the end? Can diminishing populations be something positive?
There has been a serious drop in fertility in the Far East as well. When I was young, commentary on Japan often pointed to overpopulation and crowding as big problems in an island nation with no room to expand. No sooner did the birth rate go down that some writers began panicking that the Japanese nation was going to die out. But it should be obvious that a nation cannot be always growing and never shrinking. Worst of all, some people started proposing that the Japanese allow large-scale immigration to solve the alleged problem of declining numbers. I do not believe the Japanese are going to die out, at least if they do not listen to the people telling them to import a foreign population. The same goes for South Korea, where the birth rate has sunk below 0.7 children per woman, meaning a population decline of two-thirds every generation. When I hear this admittedly shocking figure, I am reminded of “Stein’s Law,” formulated by the American economist Herbert Stein: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” The truly deadly danger is what we see in the West: the combination of low birth rates with mass immigration.
10. Current fertility rates in all Western countries are too low to sustain the existing population. Nowadays Nigeria alone produces more children than all of Europe combined. Economic incentives have not raised fertility rates to a level that would allow organic population growth in any Western country, suggesting that other measures are needed to address this issue. Do you propose any solutions?
Yes, I do have solutions to propose, and they will be the subject of my talk at the Awakening Conference. For now, I will just say this: changing economic incentives is crucial, but small cosmetic changes such as tax cuts for large families are absurdly inadequate. We need a thorough restoration of the economic basis of family life, and this will involve a decisive break with the ideals of feminism and “equality between the sexes” which even many nationalists have internalized.

Conscription is coming

/18 Comments/in /by

The nations of Scandinavia, until recently, were idealised as modern, progressive places to live. Their highly educated populace embraced liberal values and eschewed ethnocentric patriotism to open their doors to immigrants, particularly Muslims. They had nothing but token armies, which pursued diversity and equality policies.

Pacifism no more: Sweden and Finland, after decades of neutrality, joined NATO. Their ‘woke’ female leaders seem to relish their new role in sabre-rattling with Vladimir Putin. Their citizens face enlistment for potential war, and that means women too. A year ago Danish defence minister Troels Lund Poulsen announced that ‘more robust conscription, including full gender equality, must contribute to solving defence challenges, national mobilisation and manning our armed forces.’ Perhaps he should check his language — ‘manning’ is hardly gender-neutral.

Why Scandinavia to get the ball rolling on Western militarisation? One reason could be that unlike Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Great Britain, the Swedes and their neighbours are not associated with imperialism or fascism (okay, let’s forget the Vikings). Thus they present a positive image for boosting defence and protecting progressive European culture.

A second reason could be that Scandinavia is technologically advanced. Remember that Sweden was allowed to get through covid-19 without lockdown, as epidemiologist Anders Tegnell was lauded for a common-sense approach. But perhaps such licence was because Sweden was already well on its way to the Great Reset. The ‘new normal’ was promoted by young Swedes making purchases or entering offices using microchip hand implants. Digital identity is in widespread use.

Scandinavian conscription will soon be followed across Europe. To calm the horses, however, the British government states that there are no current plans in this direction. But the seed has been sown in the public psyche by mainstream media. Currently, the Daily Telegraph has billboards with messages about how Putin is likely to invade the Baltic states next, and contesting the idea that being proud of your country is prejudice — subtle primers for conscription and jingoism?

Two weeks ago, amidst the contrived moral panic over the television drama ‘Adolescence’, I suggested that the real purpose of this propaganda was to get people thinking about young male energy and aggression, and how this could be channelled positively. Numerous letters were sent to newspapers calling for a return to National Service.

Our fathers and grandfathers who did National Service in the 1950s may not be good guides, though. They did their two or three years at a time of post-war peace. They got to see the world and learned useful skills. Nowadays our leaders are drumbeating for war. As in the First World War, the younger generations are at risk of becoming cannon fodder.

Not that decisions are really made by Keir Starmer and Westminster, although the British government appears to be taking a lead role in escalating the conflict with Russia. Global forces are taking us on a momentum, and as with covid-19 and Net Zero there are no stops on the military express. Whether Putin is performing for the same masters or fighting his corner on the grand chessboard is difficult to discern.

Retired officers writing to the Daily Telegraph scoff at the prospect of pampered youth making a fighting force — they won’t know which way to point a rifle! But the push for war is not necessarily to defeat Russia and have everyone home for Christmas. The carnage on the Western Front a century ago was so effective for killing millions of men that the underlying message of Richard Attenborough’s O What a Lovely War was a deliberate cull of the population. The First World War erupted at the height of eugenics, and the same ideology prevails today, albeit with a ‘green’ disguise.

Despite technological progress, the war in Ukraine is not dissimilar to that fought in the mud of Flanders. Men are pounded in their trenches by explosive projectiles, and any ventures ‘over the top’ are deadly. Mostly they crouch in their lines of earth, through the bitter winter, spring floods and summer heat. Perhaps a million, disproportionately Ukrainians, have perished in this war of attrition.

The British public is equivocal on conscription. The majority is asleep to what’s really happening in the world, getting their limited information from social media news feeds or the BBC. Conscription is not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’. And I predict sooner rather than later. Recruiting sergeants will exploit any lingering patriotism, while the younger generations will be enticed to fight for diversity and equality.

Don’t trust opinion polls. During the covid regime polling results showed about 74 per cent supporting any proposed deprivation of freedom. The government, if it wants to introduce conscription, will find the number to support it.

After decades of relative peace and comfort in the West, there is much naiveté about the realities of armed service. Often I hear the utterance that people won’t accept conscription because they won’t fight for Starmer or King Charles. Do they not understand that conscripts are not given a choice?

How Did White Men and Women Vote in 2024?

/in /by
Credit Image: © Imago via ZUMA Press
Credit Image: © Imago via ZUMA Press

How did whites in different parts of the country vote in the 2024 Presidential election? There is usually analysis of how different age groups vote, how the sexes vote, and sometimes even how whites of different religious denominations vote, but seldom of how whites vote by region. Although in our circles, it is common to regret that women do not vote Republican as often as men, the white vote is determined more by region than by sex. Regional differences can be very large.

Data and Methods

We got our 2024 exit-poll data here. It is true that exit polls can shift a point or two for particular states in the future, but not enough substantially to change the regional and state differences we present here. We divided the country into regions that we called Pacific Coast, Interior West, Midwest, Alaska, Northeast, and South.

We put Alaska by itself because it is too conservative to be grouped with the rest of the Pacific Coast. We didn’t include Hawaii because the exit-poll data are incomplete. Virginia is politically unlike the rest of the South (it had the smallest percentage of whites in that area who voted for Trump), so we grouped it with Northeast, to which it is more similar. We did the same with Maryland, which was long considered culturally part of the South, but is now more like the Northeast.

Regions

In all regions, white men were more likely than white women to vote for Mr. Trump. However, there were larger differences between regions than between the sexes. The whites least likely to vote for Mr. Trump were, in order, white women on the Pacific Coast (40 percent), white women in the Northeast (43 percent), white men on the Pacific Coast (45 percent), and white men in the Northeast (52 percent).

The two groups that voted for Trump in the highest percentages were white men (72 percent) and women (70 percent) in the South. These are very substantial regional differences.

States

The South was the only region with states in which 80 percent or more white men or women voted for Mr. Trump: both sexes in Mississippi, women in Alabama, and men in Louisiana. Also, it was only in the South (Alabama, Mississippi, and Georgia) where more white women than men voted for Mr. Trump. Outside the South, the Interior West was the only region with a state (Wyoming) that reached 70 percent or above (73 percent for white men and 72 percent for white women).

The Midwest didn’t have any state that reached 70 percent for either sex, nor did Alaska. In the Northeast, no state reached 60 percent for either sex, and on the West Coast, neither sex even reached 50 percent. Vermonters were least likely to vote for Mr. Trump (white women 30 percent, white men 37 percent). Again, these are very substantial differences.

Table 1. States by percentages of white men and women who voted for Trump, color coded by region to match the map.
Table 1. States by percentages of white men and women who voted for Trump, color coded by region to match the map.

Voting gaps between white men and women

The South had the smallest gap between white men and women at 2 percent, with both sexes voting overwhelmingly for Mr. Trump. The second smallest gap was for the Pacific Coast at 5 percent, with majorities of both sexes voting against him. Alaska had the largest voting gap at 11 percent, with both sexes voting mostly for Mr. Trump. The next largest gap was in the Northeast at 9 percent, with a small majority of white men voting for Mr. Trump, and white women voting mostly against him. Details for all regions are here.

Table 2. Regional percentages of white men and women who voted for Trump, and the voting gaps by sex.
Table 2. Regional percentages of white men and women who voted for Trump, and the voting gaps by sex.

As for individual states, Rhode Island had the largest voting gap between men and women: 19 percent, followed by Connecticut at 18 percent. In both cases, 55 percent of white men voted for Mr. Trump, while women voted heavily against him. New York and Illinois both had voting gaps of 14 percent, with white men voting for Mr. Trump, and women mostly against him. Delaware had a voting gap of 13 percent, with the same split as in the other states. This kind of divide was most common in the Northeast, and was either extremely rare or never occurred in the other regions. The Northeast also had the largest state voting gaps by sex. Alaska, New Jersey and Nebraska had voting gaps of 11 percent, with both sexes in Alaska and Nebraska voting mostly for Trump. In New Jersey, a majority of white men voted for Trump and a majority of white women voted against him. (Table 1).

None of the states in the South, Pacific Coast, or Interior West had voting gaps greater than 10 percent. In the South and Interior West, majorities of both white men and women voted for Trump in just about every state, with the exception of New Mexico and Colorado. In New Mexico, white men and women split in opposite directions, while in Colorado, both white men and women voted mostly against Mr. Trump (Table 1).

On the Pacific Coast, all gaps were at or under 10 percent, and majorities of both white men and women voted against Mr. Trump. The South and Alaska were the only regions in which, in all states, majorities of both white men and women voted for Mr. Trump (Table 1).

Voting gaps between regions

The voting gaps between regions were much larger than the sex gaps between white men and women within regions. For example, there was a 27 percent difference between how white men in the South voted vs white men on the Pacific Coast, but only a 2 percent difference between Southern white men and women, and a 5 percent gap between Pacific Coast white men and women (Table 2). Southern white men also voted 20 percent higher for Mr. Trump than Northeast white men, and 11 percent higher than white men in the Interior West. Southern white women outvoted white men for Mr. Trump in every region outside the South: by 18 percent over Northeast white men, and a crushing 25 percent over Pacific Coast white men.

There is no need to go through every region; readers can make the comparisons they find most interesting.

Discussion

The white vote is determined more by region than by sex. As noted, Southern white women voted for Mr. Trump in higher percentages than any group other than Southern white men. In the Midwest, Interior West, and Alaska, white women voted for Mr. Trump in higher percentages than both white men and women in the Northeast and on the Pacific Coast. In each region, whites of both sexes cluster together — much more so than whites as a whole nationwide, if you consider sex alone.

For example, the largest sex gap by region was in Alaska, at 11 percent, whereas the largest same-sex gaps between regions can be almost three times greater: 30 points between Southern and Pacific Coast white women and 27 percent between Southern and Pacific Coast white men. It doesn’t make sense to spend so much time after every election wondering why 5 to 10 percent fewer white women than men voted Republican, when there are such stark regional differences. Whites are far more divided by region than by sex (Table 2).

At the same time, to the extent there is a sex divide, it is greatest in the Northeast, where a small majority of white men voted for Mr. Trump while a majority of white women voted against him. The sharpest within-state sex gaps are also found there. We think this region is what gives the incorrect impression of a large, nationwide sex gap.

Voting patterns confirm that the South is the most conservative part of the country. Some say that the Northeast and Upper Midwest (as opposed to the Midwest as a whole) have purple and blue states, while the South is solidly red because the former regions have more large cities than in the South. This may have been a good explanation 50 years ago, but the South now has many large cities also, including some that vote heavily red.

Some have argued white transplants moving South have made the South redder. However, the Southern states that are notorious for having the most transplants (Texas, Florida, and North Carolina) have the lowest percentages of whites voting for Mr. Trump, whereas Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, which have the fewest transplants, voted more solidly for him than any other states in the country. The South has the largest percentage of white people of founding stock, and the South tends to be the most patriotic part of the country. In our circles, patriotism is often criticized, but it can also be seen as honorable, and this also affects voting patterns.

We suspect that the Trump vote in the South is largely driven by the large number of evangelical Protestants, who are the religious group that votes most heavily Republican. In the 2016, 2018 and 2020 elections, white evangelical Protestants voted Republican by 61-, 64-, and 69-point margins, while white Catholics voted Republican by 33-, 20-, and 15-point margins. Religiously unaffiliated voters tilted Democrat by 41-, 53-, and 45-point margins. In 2020, avowed atheists supported Joe Biden over Donald Trump by a 76-point margin. Religious differences between whites are therefore much more politically decisive than sex differences. Half of Republicans are Protestants. White evangelical Protestants are 33 percent of Republican voters and are the base of the party. Secular Americans make up 45 percent of the Democratic Party and are that party’s base. In 2024, 62 percent of irreligious Americans considered themselves “very liberal” and only 11 percent considered themselves “very conservative.”

Kamala Harris won Vermont by a 32-point margin. Mr. Trump defeated Miss Harris in West Virginia by a 42-point margin. In Vermont, 41 percent of voters are religiously unaffiliated, and white Evangelicals hardly register in the statistics; in West Virginia, only 24 percent are religiously unaffiliated, and 36 percent are Evangelical. In general, blue states are largely Catholic and irreligious, while red states are Protestant. Swings among white Catholics in Rust Belt battleground states have been decisive in national elections in the Trump era.

In Virginia and Colorado, 83 percent and 72 percent, respectively, of white evangelicals voted for Mr. Trump, while 74 percent and 67 percent of irreligious whites voted for Miss Harris. In Washington and Oregon, 66 percent and 79 percent of white evangelicals voted for Mr. Trump, while 73 percent of irreligious whites voted for Miss Harris. The relative size of the white evangelical population and the religiously unaffiliated populations go a long way to explaining regional differences.

In defense of the Western states

There was a time when the Western states, even California, were conservative. Much of their population was descended from Southerners who went West. These states have, over the years, received white immigrants from bluer states, pushing them heavily Democrat. Otherwise, the region’s whites might have voted more like the South. Similar migration could threaten the political profile of white Southerners as well.

Colorado, in the Interior West, is a leftist anomaly for the region. It has been overrun with blue-state transplants over the years, vastly transforming its politics. In Colorado, 49 percent of white men voted for Trump, and 41 percent of white women. New Mexico had the second lowest Trump percentages in the region, with 52 percent of white men and 46 percent of white women. This may have to do with Hispanics who aren’t really white being counted as white. If these two states were removed from the Interior West data, the region would have been 65 percent Trump for white men and 59 percent for white women, putting them closer to the South than to any other region (Table 1).

Conclusion

Politically, whites are far more divided by region than by sex. Southern white men have more in common politically with Southern white women than they do with white men in other regions. Regional differences are largely a religious headcount, with the South being the most religious and most politically conservative region. Other regions are similar to the South politically, to the extent that they share heritage with the South as in parts of the Midwest and Interior West and perhaps even Alaska.

New England and the West Coast are the most irreligious parts of the country and had some of the lowest percentages of whites voting for Mr. Trump. The South is the most Protestant region, and white evangelicals are concentrated there.

Vermont and West Virginia are two of the whitest states, but couldn’t be more different in religious and cultural makeup, which clearly divides their politics. Although men generally voted more enthusiastically than women for Mr. Trump, region had a much stronger effect on voting patterns than sex, and the largest sex gaps were mostly concentrated in the Northeast. In the South — in Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, specifically — white women actually outvoted white men for Mr. Trump.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)

Trial by Jewry: Asa Winstanley on Weaponizing Anti-Semitism

/10 Comments/in , , /by

Weaponizing Anti-Semitism: How the Israel Lobby Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn
ASA WINSTANLEY
OR Books, 2023

The Jew cries out in pain as he strikes you.
Polish proverb

Jeremy Corbyn was the leader of Britain’s Labour Party prior to the current Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, taking over in 2015 remaining leader until Labour’s comprehensive defeat in 2019. Despite losing the snap General Election in 2017, Labour exceeded expectations electorally, and Corbyn remained at the helm until 2019, when Boris Johnson’s Tories (in name, at least) won a resounding mandate. Corbyn’s tenure as leader was particularly tempestuous as he was fighting not just the old enemy in the form of the Conservative Party, but another, more shadowy foe:

The most successful attack vector against Corbyn would prove to be the narrative of a ‘crisis’ of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party.

The quote is from Weaponising Anti-Semitism: How the Israel Lobby Brought Down Jeremy Corbyn, a book by British journalist, Asa Winstanley. Anti-Semitism, along with racism, homophobia, Islamophobia et al, is one of the new occupational hazards, a reboot of the Seven Deadly Sins for the workplace. An accusation of any one of them can lose someone their job, and politicians must tread particularly carefully. But whereas racism and transphobia bring hordes out onto the streets waving ill-written signs, the Jews are not much given to placardism. Anti-Semitism is a charge more clinically applied, but equally deadly. Corbyn’s political demise, according to Winstanley, was “death by a thousand investigations into anti-Semitism”.

The book represents seven-years’ research into Labour’s relationship with (and attack by) the Jewish lobby by Winstanley and colleagues at his website, Electronic Intifada. A long-time Labour member himself before leaving the party in disgust, Winstanley and his site represent a rare voice, one critical of Jewish presence and influence in British politics. This book shines an unwelcome light into the shadows, as when the site’s investigations revealed that “the Israeli state is arming Ukraine’s Azov Battalion—one of the world’s most dangerous Nazi armed groups.”

As soon as Corbyn took the reins of the Labour Party from the utterly hopeless Ed Miliband, there were stirrings within the British establishment the cause of which is the subject of Winstanley’s work here. Corbyn was correctly seen as a creature of the hard Left, and his reception was a frigid one. Media coverage and interviews were hostile and provocative, an ex-British Army General said that there would be mass resignations should Corbyn become Prime Minister, and both MI5 and MI6 invited the new Labour leader to “let’s get acquainted” meetings which gave him the sense there was an éminence grise working behind the scenes.

The media were cautious about Corbyn’s accession to the Labour leadership, although impressed by the party’s showing in the 2017 election. Already, though, the expected chorus warning of anti-Jew enmity had begun to build:

Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard had to face up to the reality of Corbyn’s achievements, admitting that ‘Like most pundits, I called the election completely wrongly.’ But he went on to write that the 12.8 million people who had voted for Labour ‘scare me’, implying that they were all anti-Semitic, or at least willing to tolerate Jew-hatred.

But the opposition to Corbyn, and the complex and determined campaign to depose him, had as its center of gravity the Labour leader’s lack of vocal support for Israel. It is not sufficient in British politics to pay lip-service to Israel. You must support Zionism, at least tacitly. And so Corbyn was painted into a corner before he had even begun his run at the premiership:

No matter how much Corbyn tried to pander, the Israel lobby always refused to take yes for an answer.

The ultimate aim of the Israeli lobby was to keep a genuinely Socialist Prime Minister out of 10 Downing Street, and Corbyn alarmed them: “probably more than anything else, Corbyn was known among activists for his involvement in the Palestine solidarity movement.” In fact, Winstanley’s tenacious research shows that the lobby did not suddenly turn their fire on the Labour leader once he had won the leadership contest:

Israel’s security services had set their sights on the MP at least five years before he became Labour leader and long before anti-Semitism in Labour became a newsworthy issue.

Anti-Semitism was not something that British newspapers such as The Jewish Chronicle and Jewish News suddenly discovered in the Labour Party, but rather something they at best exaggerated and at worst confected.

Much of the war over perceived racism of any kind is waged on the battlefield of language, and now that social media has amplified political commentary, use of language, vocabulary, and rhetoric is forensically examined by those who wish to use it to serve their political purposes. Winstanley is in no doubt in his choice of equivalence:

‘Do you agree that’ a certain quote, social media posting, or unfortunate turn of phrase ‘is anti-Semitic?’ became the new ‘Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?’.

The term “trope” is always in play for the Jewish lobby. Their Islamic and Black counterparts tend not to use it, Muslims perhaps because its provenance is Ancient Greek (and thus a relic from the jahiliyya, the time before Islam), Blacks because they can’t find it in their slim, one-volume dictionary of Ebonics. Thus, when Al Jazeera’s media arm produced a revealing series called The Lobby, which involved undercover reporting and recording, the response of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI) was typical:

LFI [called] Al Jazeera’s series ‘a combination of lies, insinuations, and distortions’ that ‘attempted to construct a vast conspiracy involving hidden power, money and improper influence — typical anti-Semitic tropes’.

Well, sure. All Jew-critical observers understand that “hidden power, money and improper influence” are the reasons they are Jew-critical observers in the first place. It’s a little like saying that poisonous snakes possess deadly agility, sharp, canalised teeth, and lethal venom, and that these are “typical, anti-snake tropes”. If a “trope” is simply a feature, it loses its sinister overtones. It too must be weaponized. One prominent member of LFI related with pride that her son had recently got a very good job by virtue of having worked for the Labour faction. When a journalist implied that LFI might have access to some serious funding from the Jewish lobby, “She instantly lashed out: ‘It’s anti-Semitic. It is. It’s a trope. It’s about conspiracy theorists!’.”

It’s also interesting to note the name of LFI’s savior in the Labour Party when they fell on hard times:

The decline of LFI’s membership led its director, in an internal report, to write that 1992 ‘came near to seeing the end of LFI as an active body.’ Its fortunes were revived when Tony Blair took over in 1994. Blair called it ‘one of the most important organizations within the Labour movement’.

The Jewish lobby’s concerted and ultimately successful attempt to bring down Corbyn was no mere whispering campaign among Zionists. “Israeli officials often described their campaign against ‘delegitimisation’ using military language”, Winstanley writes:

According to Israeli journalist Barak Ravid, there was even a ‘war room’ at the Israeli embassy in London. Describing a map of Britain hanging on the wall, … Ravid wrote that it was like something from ‘a brigade on the Lebanese border.’ The map showed ‘the front’ (Britain’s universities) as well as ‘the deployment of pro-Israel activists and the location of ‘enemy forces’. The aim was to sabotage and divide the left in order to promote Zionist ideology, and to block the rise of democratic socialist governments overseas that would be more likely to loosen ties with Israel.

Corbyn was not the only Labour Party member to be targeted and ultimately defenestrated by the Jewish lobby, nor even the most high-profile. When Corbyn won the leadership contest, no one outside the Westminster bubble had even heard of him. Ken Livingstone, on the other hand, was a household name. The two-term London Mayor affectionately known as “Red Ken” was effectively brought down by forces using anti-Semitism as their field artillery, and two names which are never far from the Jewish lobby’s lexicon: Hitler and the Holocaust.

In an interview, Livingstone mentioned the fact that Hitler, in the early 1930s, announced his plan for Germany’s Jews, which did not involve gas chambers, but instead mass deportation to Israel. Even Reinhard Heydrich, known as the “architect of the Holocaust”, approved of Zionism (although Livingstone was not so foolish as to mention that). The interview was a classic stitch-up:

In the days, months and years to follow, Livingstone would be incessantly berated with the allegation that he had brought the Nazis into the conversation out the blue, even of being ‘obsessed’ by Hitler. But examination of the transcript shows that, in fact, it had been [the interviewer] who had raised the issue of the Nazis.

The interview was followed a familiar maneuver by the Jewish lobby: Get the interviewee onto Hitler territory and then watch closely for any slip-up. When Corbyn tried to defend Livingstone’s comments, the Jewish media pounced with trademark hyperbole. Former chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks accused Corbyn of “the most offensive statement made by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell’s 1968 ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech”. Powell, of course, never mentioned any “Rivers of blood” but rather, as a classics expert, was making an allusion to Virgil. This regular misquotation has passed into the currency both of the Left and the Jewish lobby. It has become, as our Jewish friends might say, a trope. Concerning Corbyn’s apparent defense of Livingstone, Jewish journalist Simon Heffer announced on live radio that Corbyn “wanted to re-open Auschwitz”. This is a willful and absurd misinterpretation of the situation, but it helped to put Corbyn on the defensive. Once a prominent personality is forced to start saying things like, “I’m not a racist” or, “I don’t have an anti-Semitic bone in my body”, the struggle is already slipping away from them.

Winstanley and his research team were also affected by Labour’s desperate purge of anything that even remotely resembled anti-Semitism:

At the Electronic Intifada, we saw signs of this early on, as Labour Party bureaucrats implemented what was in effect a stealth ban on party members sharing our stories.

Published in 2023, Winstanley’s book almost bring us up to the present day (in which it is possible for the staunchest Tory to feel nostalgic about Corbyn) and extends to Starmer’s accession as Party leader, as well as the clarity of his attitude towards Israel and its ever-busy lobbyists:

[Starmer’s] first act as ‘Labour’ leader was not to address the material conditions of the working classes or (with the looming threat of millions of newly unemployed) lay out his plans to combat COVID-19. Rather his top priority was assuring the Israel lobby that they were back in the driver’s seat.

The return of Israeli influence was confirmed with the first of Starmer’s minor scandals: Inviting an Israeli spy to take over as head of “social listening”, a euphemism for the surveillance of citizens on social media. “Israel and its lobby no longer needed to infiltrate the Labour Party”, writes Winstanley. “Starmer had invited them into headquarters”.

Starmer now has to serve two masters, the Jewish lobby and the Muslim Council of Britain. It seems at first glance that the mass importation of Muslims into Europe represents what people have taken to calling an “existential threat” to Europe’s Jews. An alternative view is that it is the Israel lobby which is orchestrating this invasion, and a few hospitalized Jews and damaged synagogues are collateral damage. It is even whispered that the Jewish Board of Deputies is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood. But that is a tale for another day.

Winstanley’s book is both highly competent, responsible journalism, and a reminder that, for the Israeli lobby, the only thing worse than anti-Semitism is no anti-Semitism, nothing with which to gain political purchase and leverage. “Israel and its lobby”, Winstanley writes, “have always used anti-Semitism as a political weapon.”

We hear much, at least from our own quarter, about the influence of Jews at a global level and too little about the small maneuvers—the grassroots plots and plans, the targeting of individuals. The strategy used by the Jewish lobby is simple but, as the case of Jeremy Corbyn shows, devastatingly effective. One leading Jewish lobbyist explains the methods used to control both the narrative and even an entire political party:

[We] built a robust political discourse, rooted in the politics of the left, and deployed it in their own backyard.

Gold Soars to Historic RSI Levels as the World Edges Toward the Brink

/5 Comments/in /by

Gold’s Relative Strength Index (RSI) just hit a monthly high not seen since 1980—a year marked by oil shocks, global unrest, and the Iranian hostage crisis. Today, we find ourselves in eerily similar terrain. As gold rockets upward, investors are no longer betting on rate cuts or inflation hedges. They’re preparing for catastrophe. And the market, which always moves faster than the news cycle, is signaling one thing with conviction: a geopolitical inflection point is imminent.

The surge in gold is not random. It reflects a convergence of structural instability, rising conflict risk, and the growing realization that the post-war global order is beginning to fracture. Tensions between Israel and Iran have moved from rhetorical threats to the threshold of military engagement. This is not a drill. This is not saber-rattling. It’s preparation. Israel is signaling intent. Iran is signaling resolve. The United States stands uncomfortably close, with too many interests on the line to disengage, and too much to lose by becoming deeply involved.

In game theory terms, we are in a pre-crisis coordination phase. Rational actors—governments, central banks, institutional investors—are already repositioning. This is the phase where uncertainty dominates but alignment begins. Gold’s RSI is the visual manifestation of that alignment. When it reached this level in 1980, Americans were lining up for fuel on designated days. Conflict in the Middle East had shut down oil flows. Inflation was rampant, and the dollar’s supremacy looked fragile. Today, the echoes are loud—and the stakes may be even higher.

There is a widespread belief that BRICS nations are quietly preparing to launch a competing financial system—one that may ultimately challenge the dollar’s global dominance. But no such system can come online while its members remain economically unstable or politically cornered. Which is precisely why, from the standpoint of the United States, it must be stopped before it gains momentum. This is no longer about ideology or “democracy”. It’s about hegemony. The global economic framework, which has functioned like a digital operating system for the last two decades, cannot afford a parallel network to go live.

We’re entering an era where financial markets and kinetic warfare are no longer separate domains. Stocks are digital. Bonds are digital. Commodities clear through algorithms. If oil flows are threatened or if a cyberstrike disables a central clearinghouse, the damage would be instantaneous—and not just to portfolios. Sovereign trust itself could collapse.

Gold is not just a safe haven anymore. It is a protest. A shield. A signal. Those who move early understand that we are transitioning from a world of markets into a world of moves. This is no longer about prediction. It’s about preparation.

We are not waiting for a shoe to drop. It already has. The question now is not if conflict will shape the global economy. The question is: how much of it has already been priced in?