Featured Articles

White Dreams and the Politics of Cold Turkey: The Internecine Proclivities of White People

It was two thousand years ago that the Roman writer Juvenal warned us to beware of our dreams coming true. An attractive Roman noblewoman may go to great lengths in her self-adornment only to discover how intensely she is hated by her less physically endowed female companions. Comes the time when the envy of her less attractive entourage turns her accomplished dreamlife into a living hell. Likewise, a wealthy praetor when travelling with his body guards outside Rome stops indulging in his fame and ruminates how not to get mugged by highway robbers instead. The philosopher and lawyer Cicero was the best orator in the Roman empire whose self-complacency eventually cost him the loss of his head by the jealous would-be emperor Mark Antony. His handsome colleague and client, the famous theater actor Quintus Roscius was forced to forfeit his narcistic self-adulation having been obliged to spend most of his backstage life dodging lawfare for his tax evasion. Had he lost the presidential election, despite his phenomenal combative spirit in fighting the DOJ’s Bolshevik-inspired trumped-up charges, president Trump would be by now en route to federal penitentiary.

“Be careful what you wish for” is a fine English expression which lacks a verbal and conceptual equivalent in other European languages. It does, however, reflect the very opposite of grandiose dreams come true. Maybe the best medicine for a livable life is the suppression of free will as preached by the ikons of cultural pessimism, Emile Cioran and Arthur Schopenhauer. Squashing free will and suppressing all political appetites may be also the best answer for an aspiring public figure given that at some point in time his legacy will only be remembered as a criminal enterprise. Over the course of time the unity of opposites leads to the paradox of unintended consequences and unanticipated political disasters. It is only a matter of time that a ruler’s erstwhile stardom will be labeled a crime, or even worse that his name will be chiseled out as damnatio memoriae. Which option to choose; keep a low profile and live one’s life in self-abnegation? Or dwell in an overdrive promethean hubris-like self-delusion of working for the greater good? Ten, hundred, or five hundred years later a politician’s achieved goals will be the target of public demonization. Tearing down the statues of Confederate heroes is just the latest example of unintended consequences that must have slipped the mind of Jefferson Davis and R.E. Lee. The distinction between good and evil is just a matter of individual judgment in accordance to the dominant lie of a given epoch. Even a popular English proverb that “every cloud has a silver lining,” which has a better graphic equivalent in the French language, à quelque chose malheur est bon (“out of bad comes good”) sounds grotesque. It can’t be a solace for a politician sentenced to death for his lost war, nor can it bring relief to a heretic preaching untimely beliefs. With the increasing racial replacement in the U.S. the founding fathers Jefferson and Hamilton will soon be featured in school curricula as the architypes of White Evil, all ready to join the club of hundreds of the damned ones, including the proverbial Hitler and his ilk.

It is a great merit of behavior geneticists and evolutionary biologists to single out the prime role of heredity, particularly when it comes to our political choices when facing off a hostile outgroup. The study of the genetics of race can also help us much in uncovering a sociopathic would-be loudmouth within our own ingroup. Due to the steady bolshevization of social science studies since 1945, it should not come as a surprise why the research in these fields has been avoided like the plague in the Western school curriculum. The good news is that the post-WWII gigantic egalitarian multiracial scam, whether in its communist or liberal form, is falling apart. The decades-long official U.S. Soviet-inspired multiracial-DEI- affirmative action-woke policies  are showing their dysfunctional and destructive results in an all social, economic, and military realms. Even its erstwhile supporters are increasingly becoming aware of it..

Ingroup infighting

Is a racially homogenous society based on meritocratic and hierarchical principles i.e., that everybody must have his own due (suum cuique) the best answer? The works of dozens of prominent geneticists have confirmed that ingroup members are biologically predisposed to flock to their kind, especially when a threat of aggression from outgroups looms. How is it then that more Whites since time immemorial have been killed by people who were in fact their own ingroup members (whatever labels they were using) than by hordes of invading outgroups? Why deny that the entire history of white Europe and America, despite their cultural braggadocio, is largely a history of civil wars? Wishful thinking about the expulsion of all non-Whites, or a putative establishment of secessionist all-White statelets in the U.S. or E.U. will likely lead to another round of mutual inter-White incriminations and civil wars. Also worth pointing out is that non-White and non-European outgroups perceive the history of interminable inter-European wars very differently from how European nations perceive their dispute with similar neighboring outgroups.

Policies based on identity, however romantic they sound, are based on the exclusion of alterity. All of us define our Selves only in comparison to the Other. Example? There is not a single nation in Europe that has been spared from murderous wars with its next-door European neighbor. Very likely White infighting will continue unabated even if all 30 million non-Whites in Europe and over 150 million non-Whites in North America were miraculously to disappear. Alas, birds of feather do not always flock together. In fact, any conflict becomes the more gruesome the less visible racial, linguistic and cultural lines exist between two neighboring groups sharing the same DNA. On the other hand, the more geographically distant nations are from each other, the more likely they will tolerate their mutual differences. As a rule, each ingroup perceives its next door similar as an affront, as a denial or as a caricature of its own identity, as was amply shown during the recent bloody conflict between Serbs and Croats. “The closer we are to the Other”, writes Alain de Benoist, “the more violently we will fight against him, because the very fact of his proximity makes his Otherness all the more scandalous.”

In their turn non-White, non-European observers and scholars, let alone millions of low-IQ non-White migrants flooding Europe and America must be scandalized and bedeviled by disputes between European nations. Historical disagreements resulting in bloody wars between genetically similar Irish and English, between Basques and Castilians, between, Germans and Poles, between Hungarians and Romanians, between Flemings and Walloons must appear to them as a sign of the insanity of the White man. This is the subject White homeland advocates have failed to address. A well-researched work on the sociobiology of civil wars between European nations is sorely missing.

At the heart of interminable inter-White ingroup disputes and civil wars one must single out the destructive role of millennia-long Judeo-Chistian-Islamic monotheism. The catastrophic results of the Abrahamic dogma have been the main engine of European ingroup civil wars, both in their theological and ideological versions. Belief in the existence of only one God presupposes the belief in only one political truth and the rejection of other possible truths. Civil wars among White Europeans, stretching from the first Christian emperor Constantine to the Second World War, all the way to the current war between genetically similar Russians and Ukrainians, have their roots in secularized forms of Christianity. By contrast, old Romans and Greeks, although waging merciless wars against foreign tribes never imposed their diverse deities and their own political beliefs on conquered tribes. In fact, they often borrowed gods from conquered tribes and had them added to their own pantheon.

One can sing the praises of ancient Roman religious tolerance, but the Greco-Roman civil wars amidst the same polytheistic ingroups were not very divine at all. One does not need to recap he Thirty Years Peloponnesian war between the racially same Athenians and Spartans. Very likely similar inter-White carnage will continue in our postmodernity even if all non-White citizens were forced to depart from Europe and America.

One can justly condemn the jealous Jewish god Yahve and his totalitarian ukases against the unchosen ones: “The Lord your God will cut off before you the nations you are about to invade and dispossess” (Deuteronomy 12:29-32). The secular version of this old Yahve’s decree comes now as a free pass for the IDF serial killings of Arabs in the Gaza Strip. Neither have the Christians lagged much behind in their killing sprees within their own racial ingroup, each ingroup sect or clan claiming to hold the only appropriate master key to the Christian heaven. “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke, 14:26). The Russo- Ukrainian conflict is just the latest Gentile secular offshoot of the monotheist Judeo-Christian- inspired mindset.

Wern Graul (1905–1984): Christian Desecration of the Oak Tree

One must rightly be shocked with ancient Christian and Jewish preachers and their liberal and communist commissars preaching once upon a time the Gospel of antipaganism and lecturing on the importance of antifascism today. But the pagan ingroup and inter-clan violence is also full of gory scenes. Hundreds of historical and mythical texts testify to it. The egotistic Titan Saturn, in order to preserve his sole rule on his global turf did not hesitate a minute to devour his son, the future god Zeus. In the much-vaunted Iliad, the pagan hero Achilles drags the desecrated body of Hector along the walls of Troya, causing discomfort among pagan Troyan mourners worshiping the same gods (The Iliad, Book XXII) . Ovid’s Metamorphoses depicts an orgy of ingroup violence such as when the Balkan-Thracian king Tereus rapes his wife’s sister Philomela and cuts her tongue off in order to prevent her from going public about the crime. Orestes kills her mother Clytemnestra for her cheating on his father and her husband Agammemnon. Neither would have the foundation of the ancient pagan city of Rome been possible without having jealous Romulus kill his brother Remus.

Francisco Goya (1746–1828): Saturn devouring his son

In the study of modern political and academic self-censorship and woke witch-hunts against free thinkers in the EU and the US it is imperative to study Ovid’s bloody allegory of human, subhuman and transhuman transformations.

The cases of more secular and historically recorded ingroup savagery are timeless and countless. The emperor Nero had his mother killed. His lifelong mentor the wealthiest man in Rome, the philosopher Seneca, who liked to brag stoically about modesty and tolerance, was subsequently killed by Nero — his former imperial pupil. Emperor Marcus Aurelius, much eulogized in history books for his compassion and magnanimity toward his defeated foes must have badly misdirected his stoic genes; his son, the emperor Commodus, was the foremost sexual pervert in the Roman empire. Shakespeare’s dramas also abound in ingroup and intrafamilial killings, mostly by the rulers suffering from mental or sexual deformities, as illustrated in his play Richard III. Shakespear’s king Richard is not a far cry from many contemporary White nationalists in the US and Europe parading themselves as undisputed future leaders daydreaming about how to save the West.

And therefore, since I cannot prove a lover
To entertain these fair well-spoken days
I am determined to prove a villain
And hate the idle pleasures of these days.
(Act 1, Scene 1)

White dreams turned into the tragic opposite following 1945. But even if Hitler and Mussolini and similar or sympathetic politicians in Europe and the U.S. of that epoch had won the war, or at least won the day, their dreams would have materialized by now into something entirely different. White dreams caused by acid or crack can help in arresting or even reverse the flow of time, but the aftermath is never pleasant.

……………………..

Further reading:

  1. Alain de Benoist, “Violence sacrée guerre et monothéisme”, Krisis (33/April 2010).
  2. Hervé Coutau-Bégarie “A quoi sert la guerre?” Krisis (34/June, 2010).
  3. Gaius Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, edited by J. Rives (Penguin Classics, 2007).

Will the North American Union Make a Comeback?

Is American imperialism back on the menu?

Since taking back the White House this past November, president-elect Donald Trump has hinted at acquiring Greenland from Denmark, using military force to take back the Panama Canal, and even made veiled threats to annex Canada.

Greenland and Panama have strategic importance to the United States, as the former will be a critical geopolitical flashpoint in Washington’s great power competition with Russia in the Arctic Circle. The Northern Sea Route is emerging as one of most important global shipping lanes, which is largely under Russian control.

Due to melting ice caps and improvements in infrastructure, the NSR could significantly reduce the transportation times and costs. Additionally, in contrast to conventional shipping routes such as the Suez Canal, there’s no threat of piracy from Yemeni or Somali militants, no long lines, nor are there costly shipping tolls in the NSR.

Melting polar ice caps would also make it easier for Arctic countries to exploit natural resources such as oil and natural gas. Estimates point to 15% of the world’s undiscovered oil and 30% of the world’s undiscovered natural gas. Highly-coveted rare earth metals are also present in this region. The Arctic appears to be one of the most critical strategic regions in the new “Great Game” of the 21st century, which will see Russia and the United States locked in a heated security competition.

For its part, the Panama Canal was previously under U.S. control from 1903 to 1999 and served as a critical maritime passage. Even after the recently-deceased President Jimmy Carter relinquished control of the canal to Panama, thanks to signing he Torrijos-Carter Treaties,  in 1977, the Panama Canal remains a critical maritime passage for international commerce in the Western Hemisphere.

An estimated $270 billion of cargo flows through the Panama Canal and processes roughly 5% of global maritime trade annually. Panama assumed full control of the canal in 1999. Since Panama has gained full control of the canal, there have been fears of an ascendant China potentially taking over the canal.

CK Hutchison Holdings, a Hong Kong-based conglomerate and the world’s premier port investor, operates ports on the Atlantic and Pacific ends of the canal. Due to the intimate relationship Chinese enterprises have with the Communist Party regime, there is speculation among leading US military officials that companies like CK Hutchison could have a “dual use” function and be militarized in the event of a military conflict between China and the United States.

Curiously, Panama has a significant Chinese minority of over 200,000 people of Chinese origin (close to 5% of Panama’s population), which makes it susceptible to Chinese efforts to use the Panamanian Chinese population as a potential fifth column. Such fears are not unfounded owing to the Chinese government’s long-standing efforts to use the United Front Work Department — a government agency tasked with advancing Chinese interests abroad— and entities such as Confucius Institutes to expand its cultural influence.

Should China have its way and take over the canal, the US’s hegemonic status in the Western Hemisphere would be called into question.

With respect to Canada, Trump has made veiled threats of making Canada the 51st state of the United States. He also jokingly referred to outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “governor” after a December meeting in Mar-a-Lago where they discussed the hot-button issue of tariffs. Trump threatened to impose a 25 percent tariff on the Great White North which caused a firestorm in Ottawa. Trudeau had been staring down the barrel of growing crises, which included the resignation of Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland on Dec. 16.

Trudeau tendered his resignation on January 6, 2024 after Canadian voters became increasingly frustrated with Trudeau’s Liberal Party and their inability to address the country’s palpable cost of living, crime, and immigration problems.

With less than a week away from Trump assuming the presidency, 2025 is already shaping up to be a rollercoaster of a political year. To the hyperbolic minds of the mainstream media, Donald Trump‘s remarks about jokingly annexing Canada, annexing Greenland, and reasserting control over the Panama Canal may make him look like a cartoon imperialist.

However, there may be something more at play with respect to Trump’s expansionist outbursts. If Trump’s comments were to be taken at face value, the 47th president would likely not be able achieve any of these lofty goals. Trump is entering office at 78 years of age and will already have his hands full in dealing with the country’s crisis at the southern border with Mexico, rising inflation, and geopolitical crises in the Middle East and Ukraine. Vastly expanding the United States’ borders is a pie-in-the sky proposal at this point.

That said, Trump floating the idea of territorial expansion could be a sneak preview of the ruling class’s geopolitical pivot toward creating a “North American Union.” Once the domain of conspiracy circles, the move towards forging the NAU has gained traction among elites in the Western Hemisphere in the last three decades. Foreign affairs writer Robert Pastor called for greater North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) integration and the establishment of a “North American Community” where the borders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States would be gradually erased.

Throughout the administration of George W. Bush, there was a concerted effort to pass amnesty for illegal aliens despite Americans being firmly opposed to such a proposal. As a consummate globalist, whose family has extensive business interests in Mexico, Bush viewed amnesty as a critical step towards eroding United States sovereignty and creating the conditions for it to deepen its ties with Mexico. Thankfully, Bush’s amnesty plans never came to pass during his administration.

Voters rejected the globalist, open borders consensus when they pulled the lever for Donald Trump  in 2016 and 2024. In both campaigns, Trump ran on a strong immigration restriction agenda. Whether or not the rest of the Republican Party gets in line with Trump to halt mass migration remains to be seen.

Nevertheless, Trump’s off-the-cuff remarks about expanding the United States’ reach may not be random ramblings, but rather the manifestation, albeit with a crasser delivery, of the revealed preferences of the chattering classes. New geopolitical realities are compelling the US to readjust its defense strategies as the rising Eurasian powers of China and Russia are gradually pushing the US out of their respective spheres of influence.

The rough sketch of Trump’s strategic vision looks like a throwback to the Monroe Doctrine, wherein the US would be more focused on Western Hemisphere affairs and avoid intervening abroad provided that other major powers from Eurasia not intervene in Uncle Sam’s backyard — a reasonable approach to foreign policy in contrast to the neoconservative consensus in Washington.

In fairness, this shift in strategic focus could easily be co-opted. Certain factions of the globalists may have made peace with the fact the unipolar moment is over, and the United States can’t project power like it could in decades prior. In turn, they will have the United States retrench and concentrate their efforts on Western Hemispheric affairs, namely taking steps towards creating a supranational political structure.

Even under Trump’s first term, NAFTA was replaced with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that ironed out some of the kinks of the preceding trade structure. Nevertheless, the USMCA still maintained and went as far as to create new mechanisms such as a “Competitiveness Committee” to ensure increased economic integration with the three major North American economies.

It’s unlikely Trump will play a major role in making the NAU fantasy project come into fruition, but that could change with succeeding administrations who are not as committed to pursuing a nationalist agenda. Under the pretext of great power competition, US decisionmakers can make the case for establishing a North American superstate. Neoliberal writers such as Matthew Yglesias have already authored works such as “One Billion Americans”  to make the case that public policy — through the use of increased immigration and generous social benefits to encourage family formation — should strive to grow the United States’ population to 1 billion in order to compete with an ascendant China.

The creation of an NAU would certainly put the United States on track to achieving Matthew Yglesias’s wet dream of reaching 1 billion Americans. With the United States no longer being able to remake the Eurasian landmass in its own image, retrenchment can buy elites a few years to regroup and refocus their globalist project on the Western Hemisphere – a region that’s much closer to home and likely more susceptible to neocon and liberal interventionist trickery.

At this juncture, the United States is just playing the game of accumulating as much biomass as possible, consequences be damned. There’s no consideration for the long-term effects of mass migration and other policies that undermine the country’s sovereignty and ethnic stock.

If our leaders want to expand so badly and reach new frontiers, they should look to the stars. But to return to the cosmos and conquer outer space, the racial talent that enabled the United States to reach the heavens must be preserved and championed.

Under the current anti-White system, we live in, that is simply not possible.

José Niño is a Hispanic dissident who is well aware of the realities of race from his experience living throughout Latin America and in the States.

As a native of lands conquered by brave Spaniards but later subverted by centuries of multiracial trickery and despotic governance, José offers clear warnings to Americans about the perils of multiracialism.

The Case Against Females as Patrol Cops

In my many years as a cop (now retired) and having worked for four separate law enforcement agencies throughout my career, I have patrolled alongside numerous female officers. Some were better than others, no doubt, but I’d say that the greater number of them were either unimpressive or absolutely worthless slugs that were hired only because of their gender.

Even the best female police officers, in terms of productivity and quality of work, were only about average when compared to male officers. This is not to say that male officers never made mistakes or engaged in bad decisions because plenty of that occurred, I’m embarrassed to say. But I think a valid case can be made that when females were allowed to enter the profession to work as street or patrol cops, it unfurled an entire mountain of problems that most people are not aware of.

The following, then, is my attempt to explain why females don’t belong in the law enforcement profession — that is, in working as street cops, making arrests and engaged in the physical and dangerous aspects of the job. This doesn’t mean they can’t work in a support function, perhaps as dispatchers, domestic violence advocates, crime scene specialists, police records clerks, helping traumatized children, and the like. But that’s entirely different when compared to a woman who is given the authority of the badge and ordered to go out and conquer crime. The effect this has had on the female psyche and her self-perception has not been good, especially in an age where women are told how wonderful they are solely because of their gender and how they can do anything a male can do. It inevitably leads to a host of mental breakdowns, deeply frustrating careers, a plethora of divorces, and countless lawsuits for sexual harassment all paid for by overtaxed citizens.

The first thing I’d say is that females lack the upper body strength needed to subdue a violent male arrestee. YouTube and other social media platforms have many real-life police videos of female officers getting the snot beat out of them by much stronger men, particularly muscular parolees who are determined not to return to prison. The female officer, then, is very much dependent upon the presence of male officers to help her if things go south. Whether she wants to believe it or not, she’s totally dependent upon suspect compliance and of potential arrestees not challenging her authority. As a result, the female officer is lured into complacency about her physical disadvantages over males. She naively thinks that because criminals comply with her order, she must be tougher and more capable than she imagines.

Trusting that a female officer is going to be a real asset during a knockdown, drag out fight with a violent suspect is like trusting that a female firefighter is going to be able to successfully carry a large 200-pound man out of a second story burning home to safety. You know there’s going to be a sincere attempt on her part, but the reality of her physical limitations doesn’t give you an ounce of confidence.

Coupled with this false view of themselves as female officers is the reality that most women in society have never engaged in a physical fight with someone else. They know nothing about it and have never felt what it’s like to get slugged in the mouth by an opponent and how to recover from it. Thus, when female officers encounter a suspect who has no intention of going along with the program and puts up serious physical resistance, it’s a complete shock to their system. All of their false allusions about themselves that society has persuaded them of vanishes into thin air when faced with cold reality. It’s during situations like these that female officers discover just how weak and vulnerable they really are.

Recognizing the physical limitations of females is not a new or radical idea either and it’s quietly conceded by most police academies when they go out of their way to assist female cadets in jumping over a 6’ wall and in carrying a 150-pound dummy from one location to another. This is not something they do for male cadets. These are state P.O.S.T. physical requirements that all cadets must meet prior to graduation. To get around this, female police cadets are often given multiple attempts, practice sessions to assist them, and in some instances, they are given fraudulent passing scores because affirmative action hiring quotas need to be met.

None of this means that male officers don’t need physical assistance or help at times in subduing a suspect, but only that they naturally possess greater upper body strength and can put up a greater physical resistance than most women can. Granted, there is the female outlier who can sometimes physically outperform a male, but they are the exception and not the rule. The average female officer working the streets is not this kind of outlier.

Secondly, females generally lack the warrior spirit or mindset that’s required of police officers working in crime-ridden communities. Although the idea of a warrior spirit may be interpreted differently by some, it at least carries the image of one who courageously faces danger despite what fears they may have. Male officers generally have this kind of mindset, and it comports well with their higher testosterone levels, something females lack. Male officers generally get a rush from the excitement of catching bad guys, foot chases, and vehicle pursuits whereas female officers are mostly shocked and scared by it all. Their natural reaction is to run and hide. Female officers, then, must engage in behavior that runs counter to their feminine nature and nurturing instincts.

This is why serving in the military and pursuing a law enforcement career are such desirable occupations by males, and why the greater number of females have no interest in such jobs. It runs counter to who they are, to how they have been designed. This explains why every federal and municipal police department has such difficulty recruiting females to a career in law enforcement. No matter how much money is spent in recruiting them, it almost always fails to secure the hiring quota they seek because females don’t want these kinds of jobs. Most women want to retain their femininity and not immerse themselves in a line of work that requires very masculine qualities, including facing violent and sometimes deadly encounters. Any woman who gets a serious thrill out of this and wants to devote her life to this kind of danger is an aberration to be sure.

The masculine nature of police work also attracts lots of lesbians and bull-dykes to it. Most people know this at face value. We’ve all witnessed it many times. Females, then, who are conflicted as to their gender, or trying to identify as males, are especially attracted to the profession. Sometimes the effort is so desperate and contrived that it becomes comical to watch them mimic male characteristics. They are pretenders, and most guys know it.

Thirdly, females bring an inordinate amount of drama to everything they do, and this includes police work. Over the years, I’ve witnessed female officers create so many unnecessary problems and drama in the workplace, much more by far than any of the male officers I have known.

Because they are females, they are more likely to be catty, moody, easily offended, and driven completely by their emotional natures which can turn at a moment’s notice. Many female officers will admit it too. One minute they’ll be using the same salty and crude language as any male officer in a casual group setting, and the next minute they’ll be suing the department for sexual harassment because inappropriate language was used in their presence.

Fearing costly lawsuits, many agencies kowtow to female officers, tend to promote them to supervisory positions despite their poor leadership qualities, and are more inclined to settle out of court to avoid any embarrassing press against the department. The chief of police is dependent on the good will of the city council to keep his or her employment, so any scandals or allegations of sexual harassment are immediately squashed when it arises. The discerning male officer eventually learns not to trust the female officers nor to see them as ‘one of the guys,’ and to carefully guard what he says whenever they are nearby.

Fourthly, female officers take an inordinate amount of time off from work. Whether it’s sick time usage, taking off because of their natural cycle, time off for pregnancy appointments or the birth of their child, or time away for nursing, female cops are sure gone a lot. This, of course, inevitably effects staffing levels — that is, how many officers are able to patrol the community they are paid to protect.

Fifthly, females in police work only invite and foster the proverbial ‘attention whore’ nature of women. The popularity of social media has given a platform to the modern woman to display her beauty, her talents, and particularly her sexuality for all to see. To imagine that a new generation of female police officers wouldn’t get caught up in such narcissistic exhibitionism is naive at best. It’s natural for females to want to primp and parade about exhibiting themselves in provocative ways, and this sort of thing doesn’t stop once they become cops.

Countless videos on YouTube, Tik Tok, and other social media platforms have shown female cops in full uniform saying and doing some of them most inane and sexually suggestive things one can imagine. With their heavy makeup, dolled up to the core, massive Kardashian buttocks, and pants as tight as possible to show how sexy they can be in uniform. Most departments prohibit this kind of thing, or at least require that the agency’s badge, patch or insignia not be publicly displayed. Some female officers are so badly addicted to this kind of immature conduct that despite repeated warnings by their superiors to end it, including disciplinary measures, they continue anyway.

Sixthly, giving females the kind of broad authority that police officers have is not in my opinion a wise decision. This is because whenever females are given power or governmental authority, they almost always abuse it. This is not to say that males can’t abuse that same authority (and sometimes do!), but there is a completely different dynamic at work when women find themselves in positions of power. Most often, they are unable to handle it. Their entire demeanor changes, and they often become bossier and more officious than their male counterparts (like Kamala Harris). Many male cops can attest to this.

As an officer, I’ve seen it many times on the streets. The female officer talks down to others, and barks orders in demeaning ways. She lacks even the most basic verbal judo skills and is unable to verbally finesse her way to compliance with suspects she encounters. She tries hard to compensate for her smaller stature, but in the process makes matters worse for herself and everyone at the scene. Her entire mindset reflects the same arrogant attitude as this officer from the State of Washington.

Seventhly, females in the police profession creates sexual tension in the workplace. If there’s any advice that I’d give to a man considering marrying a female cop, it would be to not do it. Sexual infidelity is extremely high among cops, and a male-dominated occupation such as law enforcement brings about numerous sexual temptations to both male and female officers. I don’t think a whole lot of husbands would feel good about sending their wives to a workplace where there’s a disproportionate number of dominant alpha males present.

The job alone with all of its attached stress and negativity inevitably leads female officers to become jaded (as it often does to male officers), to absorb a paranoid and pessimistic view of practically everything. What man, then, would want their wife exposed to this sort of thing on a daily basis, month after month, year after year?

Finally, have you seen how utterly ridiculous and out-of-place the female police chiefs of many police departments look? It’s as if someone pulled a cruel, nation-wide prank on America’s biggest cities and deliberately installed the most physically repugnant women imaginable into the highest law enforcement positions. Here’s three of the many that could be given for your viewership enjoyment.

This is Anne Kirkpatrick, the current chief of police for the New Orleans Police Department. In August of 2024, Kirkpatrick struck two pedestrians with her car while she was on duty. Perhaps she needs to upgrade her eyeglass prescription? She was previously the chief for Spokane P.D. and later Oakland P.D., including serving in high-ranking positions among a host of other agencies throughout the country.

As one might expect, things didn’t quite work out for Kirkpatrick at OPD. According to her entry at Wikipedia: “On February 20, 2020, the Oakland Police Commission voted unanimously to fire Kirkpatrick with Schaaf joining in the decision as required by the law for a police chief to be fired without cause, saying that the commission’s trust in Kirkpatrick was “irrevocably broken”. Kirkpatrick subsequently filed a federal lawsuit accusing the city of firing her as retaliation for reports she had made against the behavior of commissioners. In May 2022, the jury ruled partially in Kirkpatrick’s favor, awarding her one year’s pay, $337,000. One juror said there was “evidence that retaliation played some role in her discharge”. In July 2022, the City of Oakland agreed to pay her that amount plus her legal costs, a total of $1.5 million.”

Not to worry for old Anne Kirkpatrick because her New Orleans PD salary is now at a whopping $337,943!

And here’s the former Knoxville police chief, Eve Thomas, who had been with the department for thirty years and retired in May of 2022.

From what I’ve read about Chief Thomas, the woman seems to have been a rather run-of-the-mill police chief. The only unflattering thing written about her was published in the Knox News describing her failure to carefully review the beating of a mentally ill homeless man by three of her officers: “While overseeing the East District, Thomas and two other supervisors received oral reprimands for initially failing to uncover the use of excessive force when three officers beat a mentally ill homeless man in North Knoxville in February 2013. The officers ultimately pleaded guilty to assault and official oppression. Thomas admitted she’d approved a report on the case without reviewing all the officers’ dashcam videos. “I wish I had seen it earlier,” she told an internal investigator” (by Matt Lakin, 6/21/2018).

And then there’s Heather Fong, who served as chief of police for the San Francisco Police Department between 2004 and 2009. She was not just SFPD’s first female chief, but its first lesbian chief. Isn’t that wonderful?

I’m not sure Fong accomplished a whole lot as chief, and she seemed often to have difficulty keeping her police cap on straight from what I can recall. Everything about her in uniform was visually awkward. It’s as if they took a bespectacled librarian and tried to cram her into an ill-fitting police uniform hoping no one would notice.

Like many female police chiefs in America, I suspect that Fong was promoted solely because she was a woman, a minority, and a lesbian to boot. For the San Francisco city council, Fong checked all the right boxes. I seriously doubt that the rank-and-file who had to serve under her leadership felt the same way.

Here’s Chief Fong with transgender Theresa Sparks, the former president of the SF Police Commission. Standing next to them is Sergeant Stephen Thorne, the first transgender male SFPD officer. The photo reveals what a bizarre spectacle of freaks and weirdos the City of San Francisco has morphed into over the past several decades.

According to Wikipedia, “Fong drew criticism in June 2008 for failing to complete firearm recertification for over five years though all San Francisco police officers are required to recertify annually by department regulations. Fong was quoted as saying that she was too busy to recertify. When the controversy erupted in the local media, she was recertified a week later. In 2008, Fong became embroiled in a promotion scandal and faced pushback from SFPD rank and file over her controversial plan to cut the rank of Inspector (equivalent to Detective). About 53 San Francisco police officers filed a complaint with the Civil Service Commission. They tested for Q-35 jobs as inspectors 10 years prior, but Fong had decided to eliminate that position, and fill those investigative roles with Q-50 sergeants. 40 to 50 percent of the knowledge and abilities needed for an inspector were not covered by the sergeant’s test. The San Francisco Police Commission subsequently determined that Fong had acted improperly, and that personnel from the 1998 Q-35 inspectors list should have been hired instead of sergeants.”

But don’t worry, Fong’s not suffering too bad since she’s reportedly receiving $264,000 in annual pension payments!

How demoralizing it must be for the officers who have to serve under such buffoonery and visually hideous characters! That police departments, dominated mostly by males, would be subjugated to these kinds of women serves as just another proof of the downfall of modern law enforcement. The liberal city councils that appoint them are not looking for qualified males, especially conservative white males, but for socially ‘progressive’ females who will rubberstamp their Utopian political agenda. They also want minorities who will fulfill their DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) quotas.

But what else would you expect from a clown nation that’s determined to commit national suicide and to destroy every conceivable American institution?

 

Preserving the White Majority in the United States: My 10-Point Plan

Since Donald Trump was re-elected in November, many things that were rarely said in the mainstream are now being floated in public and taken seriously. Great examples include mass deportationsthe US buying GreenlandFacebook ending its fact-checking algorithmsthe phasing out of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programsflipping New Jersey red, and restricting immigration from IndiaThree months ago, who in the mainstream was discussing, let along debating, such topics? Whatever faults Trump has—and he has many—being wholly part of the Washington uniparty elite is not one of them. And that is a good thing. This reminds me of the Khrushchev Thaw period following the death of Josef Stalin in 1953. For a time, ordinary people and Soviet elite alike were let out on a longer leash, and could engage in discourse that had previously been frowned upon or forbidden. Yes, it was more of a Thermidorian reaction than anything real, but it still opened the door for at least some changes and improvements to the Soviet Union.

Of course, it didn’t last. Mostly likely Trump’s thaw won’t either (they never do, do they?). This is why white advocates should take advantage of this period of greater openness while we can. In other words, it’s time to push the envelope, even if that means getting the enveloped shoved back into our faces by a president who might identify more as orange than white.

My suggestion, beyond what David Zsutty has given us in his excellent three-part series “What White Nationalists Want From the Trump Administration,” is to propose a bill in Congress which would, on paper at least, protect the US white majority in perpetuity through selective immigration bans, mass deportations, and pro-natalist policies. Outlandish, I know. A white US minority is the very thing the Left craves and the mainstream Right is too afraid to talk about—a political third rail indeed. However, there are upsides to attempting to sell such legislation to US congressmen during the second Trump term—aside from it actually succeeding, of course.

For one, whites these days are waking up to anti-whiteism, and so a proposed bill to protect the dwindling white majority at least won’t be unpopular among whites in red areas of the country. Such a proposition in 2025 would certainly not come out of left field, and would make sense to many. Trump has recently spoken against anti-white racism, and so have conservative mainstream pundits such as Charlie KirkTucker CarlsonCandace OwensLaura LoomerMichelle MalkinMatt Walsh, and Mark Dice. The Hodge Twins as well as former MMA world champion Jake Shields recently featured longtime white advocate David Duke on their podcasts. Jared Taylor had his Twitter/X account restored and has garnered tens of thousands of followers. Patrick Bet David recently hosted Patriot Front leader Thomas Rousseau. And here’s a report from February 2024 about a Michigan lawmaker Steve Carra who led a sit in outside the Michigan House Speaker’s office to protest his state’s anti-white spending policies.

So if there ever was a good time to go public with a pro-white initiative like this one, it’s now.

Secondly, even in defeat, such a proposal will provide a surfeit of rhetorical victories for the Dissident Right and pro-white camps. Any congressman who ignores or opposes such a bill can be fairly branded as anti-white. Not only this, they can be accused of not just wanting a white minority, but actually contriving to attain one. If you are not in favor of a white majority then you are in favor of a white minority. There is no middle ground. Yes, most Democrats would reject such a bill out of hand, gladly admitting that they look forward to the day that whites dip below 50 percent in America. Joe Biden did just that back in February 2015. With today’s whites being less likely to tolerate anti-whiteism than ever before, record of such a refusal would certainly help damage a Democrat ticket during a general election.

But the main use of such a bill would be to hector, bog down, or at best replace weak-minded Republican lawmakers who would also reject the bill. How much would it cost, really, to primary a Republican congressman who refuses to consider a pro-white bill because the mainstream narrative tells him it’s racist? How hard would it be for even mainstream Republicans with a little pluck to ding an incumbent over his purported hostility towards whites? Remember, we are in the Trump Thaw at the moment. So what seemed beyond the pale of public discourse three months ago, may no longer be. With enough energetic, well-funded, aspiring politicians beating the white majority drum, establishment Republicans would have to at least give lip service before rejecting the bill. And the more people talking about it, the better—even if much of that talk is negative. And for all we know it could even work well enough to reach a vote on the House floor.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.

Finally, there is the metapolitical change that such a bill promises to make. They say the process is the punishment, but in this case the process would also the reward. The goal here should not necessarily be to get the bill passed (although that would be great). The goal should be to introduce the bill into the long and arduous lawmaking process in order to make it its own news item. The goal should be to get people talking about it in the way the Soviet public began discussing the gulags after the publication of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich during the Khrushchev Thaw. The goal should be to get ordinary, everyday whites to begin to want or even expect a white majority in this country. They should consider it their birthright, given how the Founding Fathers were all white and the vast majority of people who have fought and died in America’s wars have also been white. And why not? Is there anything in the US Constitution preventing this country’s founding race from legislating its perpetual majority? Can that even be called racist? In the Trump 2.0 era, what really is preventing a critical mass of whites from adopting such a perspective? Nothing, I’d say. As I’ve pointed out above, all the signs are actually quite encouraging.

If you are reading this because you have white identity—even a secret one—and you’re not a researcher from the Anti-Defamation League or Southern Poverty Law Center looking to squeeze the vitality out of the entire white race, then ask yourself, why not? Why can’t whites discuss these things? Why can’t we expect such things? Are our jobs and incomes and social standings worth so much to us that we cannot at least throw a few shekels at politicians and pundits willing to buck the anti-white system and stand up for ourselves? Do we really want to live in a world in which we are outnumbered by hostile non-whites in our own hometowns? Is this the kind of world we’d wish upon our children and grandchildren?

If not, then . . . what are we doing?

Assuming that we all understand that we need to do something, is there a better idea than crafting some sort of incipient law and presenting it to prospective lawmakers who are willing to promote it while running for office? Now, I am not an attorney, and have little influence irrespective of that. But maybe somebody reading this does have influence and can make a difference? If so, then I offer a rough 10-point plan as a starting point. And before I get outraged comments about how my plan is some cucked Magna Carta, please remember that this is not a White Nationalist wish list, but a proposal for a real-world document to effect real-world changes in the here and now that even non-whites in America today could abide. It will basically be a promise from whites to non-whites to share the United States with them in good faith as long as the current racial proportions remain the same. It will be an effort to halt the white demographic decline, not to turn back the clock or start a race war. Thus, there will be compromises in it which many white advocates (myself included) will find odious. Please don’t let these get in the way of seeing the overall value of the plan.

Such a plan can go two ways: it can work or it can fail. In the former case, great. We won’t be back to 1960, but it won’t be 2020 either. Let’s split the difference and call it 1990, not exactly a terrible year in the life of white people. In the latter case however—which is much more likely—the heightened racial awareness of whites will necessarily increase friction with American non-whites, and will lead to one of two things: red state secession, which is the first step towards a white ethnostate, or (God help us) Civil War 2.0. Again, in the former case, great. And in the latter, we would at least have a fighting chance. This means that of the three possible outcomes of a bill like this, two and a half are positive. Not bad, right?

Anyway, here are my 10 points, and if someone thinks they can do better and still be realistic, I’m all ears:

BILL TO ENSURE THE PERPETUAL WHITE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES

  1. Require bi-yearly censuses.
  2. Define white by “one-half not black” rule (at least one white parent, and no fully-black parent). For the sake of this bill, “whites” would include people of white European descent, Jews originating in Europe, and Caucasians from Central Asia.
  3. Employ self-identification to determine race, and agreed-upon genetic markers to determine race in case of appeals.
  4. Establish African Americans and Indigenous Americans as “demographically exempt” populations. (This means that their populations can fluctuate naturally and are not counted when calculating the proportion of whites to the general population. This would be a good thing for both populations and should be promoted as such.)
  5. Require that the white majority remain no lower than 80% of the US population minus the exempt populations. (Using rough estimates taken from Wikipedia, the United States currently has 48 million blacks and 7 million Indigenous Americans, making 55 million demographically exempt citizens. Subtract this from the 340 million total population to get a denominator of 285 million. Divide the 205 million whites in America by that to get around 72 percent. If such a bill were to be signed into law, the main focus of government would be to push that number up to 80 percent as soon as possible.)
  6. Require that, among non-exempt non-whites, no more than 10 percent of the US population be of Mexican, Central American, or South American descent. All immigration from these places will stop if this proportion grows above this percentage.
  7. Require that, among non-exempt non-whites, no more than 10 percent of the US population be of Asian or Middle Eastern descent. All immigration from these places will stop if this proportion grows above this percentage.
  8. Require that pro-white immigration and pro-white natalist policies be put in place until whites reach 80 percent of the total non-exempt US population.
  9. Require that all illegal immigrants as well as legal immigrants with a history of violent or serious crimes be deported.
  10. Ban all immigration from places of origin of racially exempt populations (i.e., Indigenous peoples from the Americas or blacks from Sub-Saharan Africa).

Given how the Trump Thaw has already allowed whites more leeway to discuss their own racial interests (and Trump hasn’t even taken office yet), I think my 10-point plan might push the envelope far enough but too far in order to get white people to act their own racial interests as well.

Oh, What a Lovely War!

It is important not to be romanticise war. Most people my age (I was born in 1980) had at least one grandfather who fought in World War II. When I was a child, I relished my grandfather telling me “war stories” of his time in Libya, Greece and Italy. But these were obviously highly sanitised. Once, when I was about 16 and we were watching a very realistic war film about the Normandy Landings, I looked over to him. His eyes were lachrymose and he was completely hypnotised by it. Obviously, there was a terrible side to the War which he had never discussed with me.

So, I do not say it lightly when I repeat the cliché that “What we need is a good war.” We need a good war because evolutionary psychology — in essence, the study of humans as an advanced form of ape with in-built adaptive drives — predicts that we need a good war. We are, I suggest, adapted to have a serious war every one hundred years or so. If we don’t have one, then we reach the situation that the West has now reached: polarisation, ethno-suicide, supreme decadence (including an invincibility complex with regard to war), maladaptive behaviour, and a general sense of dysphoria and ennui.

Before looking at the broader evolutionary mechanisms behind why we are adapted to have a massive war every century, let us look at what a war achieves.

In the absence of harsh selection pressures to be group-oriented, we can expect people to deviate more and more from the evolutionarily adaptive norm which, as I have shown in my book Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism, is to be conservative and traditionally religious: These strongly genetic traits are correlated with strongly genetic mental and physical health. As this deviation increases, you will get a society that is more and more genetically and mentally diverse, more and more polarised and, generally, less and less cooperative. After a certain tipping point, the deviants may even hijack the culture — as they now have — and push people along a maladaptive roadmap of life. A war forces us to unite or die, it pushes us down Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, it makes us less concerned about decadent things (like feelings and being validated); it halts the descent into insanity.

It is also an example of mortality salience; of closeness to death. This is our “evolutionary match” — we are adapted to an ecology where child mortality was as high as 50% — so death induces our instincts, which tend to be adaptive. These include religiosity, which gives us a sense of eternal meaning and tends to sanctify that which is adaptive as the will of God, and group-orientation, essentially conservatism. In other words, we become higher in positive and negative ethnocentrism when we are exposed to mortality. It also increases our desire to have children; hence the documented post-War baby-booms. A war reverses the slide towards leftism which seems to be inevitable, as conservatives are concerned with all 5 moral foundations — in-group loyalty, obedience to authority and sanctity (group-oriented) and equality and harm avoidance (individually-oriented) — whereas the left only care about the individually-oriented ones. This asymmetric empathy means that conservatives continuously cede ground to liberals. A war means that balance is restored.

According to the book Fourth Turning, such a massive war and economic collapse seems to happen every four generations; approximately every eighty years. It may be that there is a sense in which mortality salience remains vivid for as long as there is a generation alive that knew serious mortality salience: they pass on stories about it and behave in response to it. Once this generation dies out — as has the War generation in the West — then mortality salience has completely collapsed. Thus, the reset it required or we are overwhelmed by decadence and dysphoria

That reset should’ve occurred in about 2007, with the economic collapse akin to that of 1929. But we were so wealthy, our resources so abundant, that were able to avoid, or at least postpone, the normal consequences of such a massive economic bust. Multiple lines of research indicate that a war should’ve occurred at this point. Peter Turchin’s 2016 book, Ages of Discord, predicts, based on various markers such as “elite-over-promotion” (too many qualified people for too few places), that there should have been a war around 2020. Finnish scholar Jani Miettinen has advanced a model whereby humans, like animals, change in the average presence of certain hormones — such as testosterone and oxytocin — across four generations. This renders them slightly different in behaviour and size across generations, making them less easily predictable from the perspective of predator and prey, meaning the process is adaptive. When the high testosterone generation gets into power, we have a collapse, a war and a reset. This should already have taken place but it hasn’t, presumably due to our unprecedented resources.

This has two consequences: runaway individualism, until men can be women because they say they are and you can’t disagree as it might hurt their feelings, and a growing portion of the population who have a sense that everything is meaningless. And, of course, society is increasingly polarised and unpleasant.

Hence, it may be that, at the group level, humans are literally evolved to have a massive war every four generations. It is this that keeps them group-oriented, and thus adaptive (as computer-models show that ethnocentric groups defeat and dominate their rivals on average), across time. The attendant economic collapse, under harsher conditions, is also likely to ensure genetic health across time. Over four generations without war, genetic mutations will have accrued, with genetic poor health being associated with liberalism. With a collapse into harsher conditions, these mutants will be purged and group mental and physical health will be restored.

Generation Z do not have grandfathers who fought in a War. When they were born, the country was run by Boomers who had never known any serious mortality salience. This wouldn’t have mattered if the economy had collapsed in 2007, resulting in war a decade later. But it didn’t. This is why we have reached the dysphoria and insanity that we have. The children need some new war stories and for that we need a new war.

Strength in numbers, power or truth?

In his Christmas speech, recorded in the secular space of the former chapel of the Middlesex Hospital, King Charles lauded the ‘great religions’. Although he quoted Gospel, the monarch is not the ‘defender of the faith’ as claimed in the past, but ‘defender of faith’.

Charles III is a leading proponent of a one-world religion, although he is careful not to use such terminology. More work must be done in schools to prepare upcoming generations for such incongruence. And of course the status of the ‘chosen people’ will not be undermined.

The abominations following the alleged Hamas terrorist act of 7th October 2023, with the massacre of civilians in Gaza by Israeli forces, supported by the UK, USA and other Western governments, have stirred another awakening. Writers like me, previously immersed in the Left versus Right paradigm, had seen through the establishment defiance of the Brexit vote, the climate scam, and the contrived pandemic, to realise that all politicians (whatever their colours)  are following the same agenda. But whose agenda?

In my book Moralitis: a Cultural Virus (with Robert Oulds, 2020) I described how the psychosocial affliction known as Woke’ spreads like a contagious disease. I traced this back to the subversive ideology of the Frankfurt School. For using the term ‘Cultural Marxism’ the book was vilified by online news media such as Vice for peddling anti-Semitic tropes.

Of course I was aware that the Marxist professors were Jewish – that’s why they fled Germany in the 1930s. But I regarded this as coincidental; I was naïve to the International Jews’ role in the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and to the targeting of Germany by an element that obsessed Adolf Hitler. Until a few years ago, I would not have doubted official history of the Second World War.

I have no animosity to individual people who are Jewish, any more than to people who are Muslim. But as a Christian I have found the last fifteen months revelatory about the relations between the Abrahamic religions. First, it became undeniable to me that Zionists are bent on destroying Christianity.

The 35% Christian population of Gaza has been ignored by Western media.  It is abhorrent for any nation or community to be subjected to genocide, but would you not expect the likes of the Daily Telegraph or the Church of England to be more concerned with the blitzing of Christians and their places of worship? An uninformed Westerner could be forgiven for thinking that Palestine is a ghetto of extreme Islamists. Israeli government ministers have overtly described the people of Gaza as subhuman and exhorted their annihilation.

It is objectively true that Jews run the world. They control the banking system, academe, the media and Hollywood. They have incredible power over US politics. The UK is no different: both major political parties have close links to Israel, and soon a Holocaust museum and memorial will be built next to the Houses of Parliament. Schoolchildren are taught that the Second World War was all about saving Jews from the Nazis (when I was at school, the Holocaust was hardly mentioned; I heard that one-and-a-half million Jews perished; this was later increased to four million, and now six million).

If Jews are so powerful, what is their goal? Is it just greed? Most Jewish citizens are not unfathomably rich. But undeniably the upper rungs of institutions and corporations are disproportionately occupied by members of a religion that comprises merely 0.2% of the global populace. Or is it a strategy of world domination? Ordinary Jews have no designs on a New World Order with them as masters and all gentiles as servants. But an emerging technocracy, as propounded by the World Economic Forum, will surely be led by people who are already rich and powerful — many of whom are nominally Jewish.

More sinister is the perceived onslaught on Christianity. Again, I doubt whether ordinary Jews harbour murderous hostility to their Christian neighbours.  But powerful Jewish interests are behind the various means of the fall of Western civilisation: mass immigration using Muslims as storm-troopers, imposition of transgender ideology, the audacious Black Lives Matter campaign and ‘decolonisation’ agenda, the contrived climate crisis and Net Zero puritanism, and exploitation of health and safety fears to build a surveillance society.

My understanding, until recently, was that the Jews are distinct from Zionists and the nasty government of Israel. And for most people who actually practise Jewish relgion, that certainly holds. But the Jewish faith, with its identity as God’s special people, has been manipulated by malign agents into something more akin to the Synagogue of Satan.

Last year I came across a highly controversial speculation on Islam. The Koran is known for its many verses hostile to the Jews. Yet globalist NGOs and oligarchs such as George Soros keenly promote migration of Muslims to the West, and seem as concerned by Islamophobia as anti-Semitism.  The state of Israel draws widespread support from right-wing Christians, because it is apparently surrounded by nations of Islamic hotheads who would like to wipe it off the map. Shouldn’t Jews be less supportive of sworn enemies?

The aforementioned conjecture is this: Islam was a Jewish invention. That would understandably be deeply offensive to Muslims, and it would also be too far-fetched to be taken seriously by any mainstream commentator (or indeed most of the independent media). I shall leave readers to look into this more (don’t rely on Google), with the historical indicators. However, while I cannot say that I believe it, it makes some sense to me. In my journey from having no interest in the Jews, to viewing this group as architects of multiculturalism, I can see that Christians are foolish to think of Israel or Zionists as their friends.

Having crucified Jesus Christ, Jewish leaders were troubled by the propagation of Christianity in the following centuries. In the seventh century the Arabian merchant Mohammed was divine conduit for a new religion that would be spread by the sword. Its blatant hostility to Judaism is perhaps a cover for the real source and purpose of Islam.

The three Abrahamic faiths co-exist, mostly in mundane harmony, but sometimes in conflict. While Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet, to the Jews he was nothing but a criminal and impostor.  Christians, who are taught tolerance to the nonsensical extent that they are not allowed to fight for their survival, are the butt of Talmudic disgust. Is it too much to believe that the Jews would create a massive army of outsiders to destroy the faith that they thought was extinguished on Calvary?

No religion is more dangerous than Christianity for its followers. That has always been the plight, but in the secularised world of today, the defences are so weakened  that the Jews may finally claim victory. But while the Jewish religion has the privilege of power, and Islam strength in number and zeal, Christianity has the trump card of truth.

Mother Mona Maligns Muslims: From My Egregious Errors to the Conspiracy for Greater Israel

I had an interesting encounter the other day. It was with my own brain. More precisely, it was with subconscious mechanisms in my own brain. I was scanning the shelves in the non-fiction section of a library when a title-and-author caught my eye: The Ruin of All Witches by Malcolm Gladwell. He’s a Black Canadian author who’s both a lightweight and a leftist. But I find his books easy and enjoyable to read and I hadn’t heard of this one, so I took it down and looked at the back cover. It told me the book was “the story of a single witchcraft case in a remote New England settlement in 1651.”

Explaining the error

But that was puzzling. It seemed an odd (and oddly limited) choice of topic for Gladwell, so I looked at the front cover. This time I saw that the author was in fact someone called Malcolm Gaskill. But I’d distinctly seen “Malcolm Gladwell” on the spine when I was scanning the shelves. Primed by the context of “Non-Fiction,” the forename Malcolm and a surname beginning with G- and ending with -ll, my brain had imposed a kind of auto-complete on me and made me see what wasn’t there. But then our brains are always doing that. A lot of what we seem to see in front of us is stitched together inside our heads. We auto-complete, jump to conclusions, turn parts into wholes. And most of the time it works fine. Or it seems to, anyway. But occasionally we realize that our brains are leading us astray, as I did in that library. Only the dead never err. And that kind of error is innocent and unavoidable. Our brains sometimes betray us. That’s life as a limited, fallible human.

But my innocent error got me wondering about other errors I’ve made — ones that can’t be described as innocent and unavoidable. Take my article “Murder and Misogyny,” where I contrasted the Norman invasion of England in the eleventh century with the Soviet invasion of Poland in the twentieth. I argued that the Katyn Massacre, in which  22,000 of the Polish elite were shot by the invaders, wasn’t paralleled in England because the Normans were “a closely related racial group who practised exactly the same religion as the English.” The Norman Conquest wasn’t “like the conquest of Catholic Poland by atheist, anti-Catholic communists who were disproportionately drawn from non-Slavic minorities like Jews, Balts and Georgians.” That’s why, I concluded, that the British have never suffered “anything like the Katyn Massacre … because we have never had the conditions for it: occupation by hostile outsiders who despise our culture and want to subjugate us for ever.”

Ideology trumps honesty

But even as I wrote that, I knew that Britain had experienced something comparable to the Katyn Massacre. It’s called the Harrying of the North, a campaign of slaughter and starvation waged by William the Conqueror after rebellion against his rule in Yorkshire and other parts of northern England. Perhaps as many as 150,000 people were killed or starved to death, and the local elite was replaced by Normans. As I was writing about Poland and the Katyn Massacre, I thought to myself that I needed to discuss the Harrying of the North. But it would have complicated things and marred the simple contrast I was drawing between the communist conquest of Poland and the Norman conquest of England. So I found it easy to simply leave the topic unmentioned.

That wasn’t my brain erring, that was me erring. In other words, it wasn’t subconscious mechanisms in my brain making me misread an author’s name, it was my conscious self declining to be fully honest for ideological reasons. And I erred again when I claimed in “The Value of Victimhood” that the politics of Liverpool “have always been left-wing — sometimes very left-wing.” That was a lazy assumption helpfully corrected by a native Liverpudlian at the Unz Review, who noted that “up until the early 1970’s the city very often had a Conservative Party run council.” And a commenter at the Occidental Observer corrected another of my lazy assumptions after I waxed lyrical in “The Power of Pudenda” about a painting of the naked goddess Venus being worshipped on bended knee by heroes like Lancelot and Achilles. The commenter pointed out that “Every one of the men depicted was notorious for having cheated with someone else’s wife.” Yes, I was wrong about the painting: it wasn’t celebratory of sex, but satirical of sexual transgressors.

Mother Mona vs Grotesque Grunberg

I’ve made lots of other errors in my articles for the Occidental Observer, some inadvertent, some less so. Indeed, I must have made lots more errors than I’m aware of. I’m human, therefore I’m fallible. That’s why I question myself and my ideas about Western politics and culture. For example, am I right to say that Jews have a disproportionate negative influence on those things? Well, I think I am. Among other things, that belief helps me make accurate predictions. I made one of those recently when I read something at the anti-Islamist site Gates of Vienna:

The following video is excerpted from a panel discussion on Dutch TV featuring [Mona] Keijzer. The deputy prime minister made the mistake of referencing the Jew-hatred of Muslims, and got herself into a heap o’ trouble as a result. The other panelists employed several logical fallacies in their attacks on her, the main one being the claim that identifying a trait that is characteristic of a group implies that every member of the group possesses the trait. (“You Must Not Generalize About Muslims!,” Gates of Vienna, 19th December 2024)

When I read that, I hadn’t seen the video or read the transcript. But I immediately thought: “I bet one of Mona Keijzer’s pro-Muslim opponents was Jewish!” And I was right. Her chief opponent was Jewish. It was the prominent Dutch intellectual Arnon Grunberg, whom I’ve already discussed at the Occidental Observer. As I pointed out in “Atrocity in Amsterdam,” he’s one of many Jews who have claimed that Muslims and Jews are “natural allies” (natuurlijke bondgenoten in Dutch). Those pro-Muslim Jews don’t say against whom the Judeo-Muslim alliance is directed, but the answer is obvious: Muslims and Jews are natural allies against the wicked White Christians who oppress them both.

But some Jews disagree with Grunberg. They have a different answer to the all-important question of “What’s best for Jews?” They think that Muslims in the West are now a threat to Jewish power, so they’re not uncritically supportive of Muslims like Grunberg and other leftist Jews. Ironically enough, Mona Keijzer (born 1968) serves those Islamo-skeptic Jews, because she’s from a pro-Zionist government headed by the notoriously philo-Semitic Geert Wilders. That’s why she was criticizing Muslims for being harmful to Jews, not for being harmful to Whites. That debate between her and Grunberg was in effect a debate between two sides of Jewish opinion about what’s best for Jews in Holland, not about what’s best for the only true Dutch, namely, the White Dutch.

Ugly Jewish man and attractive White woman: Arnon Grunberg and Mona Keijzer

But I had nevertheless made an accurate prediction: that an Islamo-skeptic White politician would be opposed by a Islamophilic Jew. And the video supported my ideas in another way. I’ve argued that ugliness is characteristic of Jews and Jewish ideologies, which express an envy and hatred of White beauty. The Dutch video contains a literal embodiment of White beauty and Jewish ugliness, because Mona Keijzer is attractive and Arnon Grunberg is ugly. She’s an intelligent, attractive White woman who has done what too many White women like her have failed to do. That is, she’s become a mother and had children — five of them, in fact.

I hope that Mona Keijzer is pro-White and was doing her best for Whites within the boundaries of discourse set by Jewish influence on Dutch politics. In that debate, she couldn’t argue directly for White interests, so perhaps she did so indirectly by arguing for Jewish interests. But the taboo against direct support for White interests is weakening across the West. That’s why discussion of Pakistani rape-gangs is all over the British media at the beginning of 2025. Furthermore, mainstream politicians are using the accurate term “rape-gangs” rather the euphemistic “grooming-gangs.” The rabidly pro-Zionist Robert Jenrick, a prominent Conservative who has a Jewish wife and unswervingly supports Israel, has blasphemed against minority worship like this:

The scandal started with the onset of mass migration. Importing hundreds of thousands of people from alien cultures, who possess medieval attitudes towards women, brought us here. And after 30 years of this disastrous experiment, we now have entrenched sectarian voting blocs that make it electoral suicide for some MPs to confront this. This scandal shows why we must end it. (Tweet by Robert Jenrick, 4th January 2025)

Let’s be clear: Jenrick is trying to serve Jewish interests, not White interests. The “sectarian voting blocs” he refers to are pro-Palestinian and found in Muslims districts. The war in Gaza and pro-Palestinian activism by Muslims in the West have forced more of the Jewish elite to decide that Muslims and Jews are not natural allies and never will be. I’m even beginning to see truth in the conspiracy theory that says Jews like Benjamin Netanyahu have deliberately engineered Muslim migration in the confident expectation that the pathologies spawned by it would sooner or later create a backlash against Muslims. This backlash would provide cover for the creation of “Greater Israel,” the vastly expanded territory that some Zionists want to carve out from Israel’s Arab neighbors.

The much expanded “Greater Israel” dreamed of by Theodor Herzl, founder of modern Zionism

But that’s speculation. What isn’t speculation is that minority worship is being challenged across the West. Zionists like Mona Keijzer and Robert Jenrick are trying to serve Jewish interests when they criticize Muslims, but they’re opening a wider and wider space for White nationalism as they do so.