Featured Articles

The Tikvah Fund’s War on Tucker Carlson

/9 Comments/in , /by

The battle for the soul of the American Right is no longer fought in whispers. It has erupted into open warfare, with a taxpayer-funded Jewish organization demanding that Tucker Carlson be purged from conservative media and banished from President Donald Trump’s coalition entirely.

Days after the United States and Israel launched military operations against Iran in early March 2026, the Tikvah Fund released a podcast episode that laid bare the neoconservative establishment’s fury at populist opposition to the war. Former CIA Director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that conservatives must “wholeheartedly” reject Tucker Carlson and Candace Owens over their “nuttiness” and “anti-Semitism.” Pompeo insisted the “isolationist” wing of MAGA does not represent “the Trump that I worked for.”

Hudson Institute senior fellow Michael Doran went further. “I want to see Tucker Carlson dethroned,” Doran told Tikvah’s Jonathan Silver. “I would like to see him become an embarrassment to JD Vance. I would like to see Donald Trump attack him. Not just call him kooky from now and then but really make him off-limits to everybody in the administration.”

Chris Menahan of Information Liberation called attention to the podcast and how the Tikvah Fund is subsidized by gentile taxpayers: “Keep in mind as you watch that this is Trump admin/US taxpayer-funded cancel culture.”

The organization behind this taxpayer-subsidized campaign to marginalize Carlson has deep roots in neoconservative politics and pro-Israel advocacy. The Tikvah Fund describes itself as an “ideas institution” that is “politically Zionist, economically free-market oriented, culturally traditional, and theologically open-minded.” The organization was founded in 1992 by Zalman C. Bernstein, a Wall Street businessman who created the investment firm Sanford C. Bernstein & Company in 1967. Bernstein devoted most of his fortune to Jewish philanthropic foundations before his death in 1999. All his political donations from 1989 to 1998 went exclusively to Republican candidates.

Elliott Abrams, a prominent neoconservative who served in the Reagan, George W. Bush, and Trump administrations, now chairs the organization. Abrams pleaded guilty in 1991 to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra affair and has a long history of supporting interventionist U.S. foreign policy. Roger Hertog, Bernstein’s longtime business partner, served as chairman for approximately 20 years and remains chairman emeritus. Eric Cohen serves as CEO, and Jonathan Silver is the Chief Programming Officer and host of the Tikvah Podcast.

Critics have described Tikvah as the hub of a “neoconservative echo chamber,” noting that the organization funds publications like Mosaic, The Jewish Review of Books, and Mida, then promotes articles from these outlets through its network of think tanks and affiliated journalists at major media outlets. Zachary Braiterman, a professor of religion at Syracuse University, characterized Tikvah as exercising control over “a narrow and limiting range of intellectual and ideological content” while maintaining “non-transparence in public mission statements and operating strategies.”

The organization’s board and speaker network reads like a phonebook of American neoconservative and pro-Israel figures. Board members have included William Kristol and Jay Lefkowitz. Faculty and speakers have included John Bolton, Max Boot, Douglas Feith, Robert Kagan, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Norman Podhoretz, Bret Stephens, and Charles Krauthammer. The 2025 Herzl Prize recipients were Ben Shapiro, Bari Weiss, and Dan Senor.

The March 2026 podcast was not an isolated incident. At Tikvah’s November 2025 Jewish Leadership Conference, Chris Menahan noted that the main theme discussed was “the importance of repudiating Tucker Carlson, Nick Fuentes, and Candace Owens.” Menahan also highlighted that Ben Shapiro “devoted an entire show to explaining why Tucker Carlson is … the most virulent super-spreader of vile ideas in America,” to roaring applause. At the conference, Bari Weiss complained that JD Vance “has yet to distance himself from Tucker Carlson,” calling it “disconcerting.” The conference topic was titled “Can the Jews Save the West?”

The Tikvah Podcast, now numbering over 445 episodes, has increasingly focused on what it frames as antisemitism on the American right. A February 2026 episode with Rod Dreher was explicitly titled “The American Right’s Anti-Semitism Problem,” centering on Tucker Carlson’s October 2025 interview with Nick Fuentes.

What makes this campaign particularly notable is that it is now partially funded by the American taxpayer. In September 2025, the National Endowment for the Humanities awarded Tikvah $10.4 million for its “Jewish Civilization Project,” the largest grant in the agency’s 60-year history. The grant was not awarded through a competitive process. Tikvah was invited to apply by an NEH official, and the agency’s now-defunct scholarly advising council reportedly voted against it, citing concerns that the application was vague and veered into advocacy rather than scholarship. The Trump administration had previously canceled over 1,000 NEH grants approved under the Biden administration, laid off more than half the agency’s staff, and fired the scholarly council that reviewed the grants. A March 2026 lawsuit by the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Historical Association, and the Modern Language Association revealed that DOGE used a flawed ChatGPT process to flag grants as “DEI” for cancellation, and that acting NEH chairman Michael McDonald directed a staffer to solicit Tikvah’s application as a single-source award.

After securing the grant, Tikvah hosted discussions explicitly focused on suppressing what it defines as “anti-Israel” and “anti-Semitic” speech. In a December 2025 episode recorded days after the Bondi Beach shooting, Jonathan Silver asked Rabbi Benjamin Elton, chief minister of Sydney’s Great Synagogue, what he would hope the government would do. Elton responded: “I think there has to be an attempt to defang the anti-Israel, anti-Zionist movement of its anti-Semitism. People shouldn’t be allowed to say things, or have certain placards, or march in certain areas.” Jews definitely do not believe in free speech if the speech is seen as conflicting with their interests.

As an appendage of the broader pro-Israel power configuration, Tikvah has also provided funding to educational programs located in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, including El Haprat in Kfar Adumim at $446,833 and the Ein Prat Leadership Academy at $216,661. Three of four Tikvah leadership programs in Israel are located in settlements in the occupied territories, according to Maya Haber, Director of Development and Programming at Partners for Progressive Israel.

The Tikvah Fund’s campaign against Tucker Carlson reflects a deeper schism within American conservatism. On one side stand the neoconservative, pro-Israel interventionists clustered around institutions like Tikvah, the Hudson Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute. On the other side stands a populist nationalist wing associated with figures like Carlson and Candace Owens.

The frantic campaign to purge figures like Tucker Carlson from the American Right reveals the inherent fragility of Jewish influence. By attempting to use the coercive power of the state to suppress rising populist dissent, organized Jewish power inadvertently accelerates the very instability it fears. This escalation into state-sponsored censorship is a desperate bid to maintain control, yet it serves only to deepen the rift with the gentile population. As the ideology of the current establishment begins to turn against its own Jewish architects, this current conflict represents merely the latest chapter in an unavoidable and predictable civilization struggle between gentiles and Jews for civilizational primacy.

Thomas Massie: Live by the Sword – Die by the Dagger

/11 Comments/in /by

He’s been called a “political stuntman,” a “third-rate grandstander” and a “dangerous nuisance” by the Washington establishment. Thomas Massie is the name on many people’s lips thanks to his fearless litigation of the Epstein scandal and rejection of slavish American vassalage to Israel. Who exactly is this libertarian maverick and self-described tech geek who’s become the Martin Luther-like petitioner of our Epsteinian Era?

Thomas Massie’s rise to cult status began with the 2018 documentary that showcased the congressman’s off-the-grid lifestyle in rural Kentucky – not far from where he grew up and reportedly never encountered a traffic light until his college years in Massachusetts. Everything on Massie’s property was constructed and crafted by him – from the self-joining wooden framing of his house and locally sourced stone exterior, to the modified Tesla battery module that powers his home and various other contraptions. It’s not hard to see how the inventiveness of the small town prodigy led him to M.I.T., where he complemented his electrical engineering degree with a mechanical engineering one. He found the time to, concurrently, launch a tech firm that secured 30 patents and raised $32 million of venture capital.

Massie sold the company in 2003 and decided to raise cattle, as well as four children, full-time in Kentucky. The banana peel that Massie slid into politics on was the steady encroachment of regulations from Washington, to which Massie responded by writing letters to the editor and organizing local resistance. Somewhere along the way it dawned on Massie that the only way to safeguard constitutional values in the long run was to complete the engineering trifecta and become a social engineer, which is to say, a politician at federal level. There may just be something in Kentucky’s water, or perhaps gene pool, if we recall that Congress already has one curly-haired libertarian diehard from Kentucky – Rand Paul.

Massie’s first major impact in Congress occurred in 2020, when he was one of the few opponents of COVID hysteria and tyranny. Former presidential candidate John Kerry, of all people, attempted to counter his reputation as a charisma drain by tweeting “Congressman Massie has tested positive for being an asshole. He must be quarantined to prevent the spread of his massive stupidity.” It was in revenge for Massie rightfully humiliating Kerry’s “pseudoscience degree” during a 2018 hearing on climate change.

Massie’s lone opposition to the coronavirus relief bill of 2020 earned Massie bipartisan ire as he forced Congress to assemble at great inconvenience. But all Massie wanted was at least some recorded accountability for the $2.2 trillion in spending, unprecedented numbers in US history. Nancy Pelosi was the one who labelled Massie a “dangerous nuisance,” but Massie was once again proven right, on principle and in practice, given the associated waste and fraud that subsequently came to light. With such principled constitutionalists present to exercise legislative correctness, Pelosi probably feared Massie might go after insider traders next.

Few could argue that Massie doesn’t walk the walk. He’s also prepared to drive all night from Kentucky to Washington if needed, as he did for his CARES Act point-of-order. Massie is known for avoiding flying and hotels, in fact his claim to be the greenest member of Congress remains unchallenged by anyone on the left. Massie even sleeps in a camper van at an undisclosed location near the Capitol so as to save taxpayer and personal expense. The only other politician with a similar custom was the late Colonel Gaddafi, who preferred a large Bedouin tent when travelling abroad. Ahead of the UN General Assembly in 2009, Gaddafi booked a New York estate belonging to none other than Donald Trump, although local protest managed to cancel the arrangement before the Brotherly Leader arrived.

Massie, meanwhile, is seeing his own profile as an admired and comradely figure growing in the midst of widespread MAGA disaffection. It’s the orthodox and paleophytes who’ve been outcast and excommunicated by the Conmander in Chief Trump. Massie actually seems to be relishing the fight, and has even embraced the RINO epithet (Republican in Name Only), since it’s rather the rest of the party that’s abandoned fiscal conservatism. He’s no doubt developed a thick skin for his troubles, while his colleagues channel the emblematic Republican elephant if only to link trunk and tail in blind obedience. That is the difference between being an ideologue and a partisan, as Massie likes to point out. An ideologue is loyal to principles, whereas a partisan is merely loyal to political tribe and leader.

Possibly the most craven archetype of this latter species is the Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, because if there’s one knob to the rubber-stamp legislature of the uniparty, it is this elevated conformist. Johnson has comfortably survived motions to vacate the chair simply because he gives the Democrats as much as they could hope for from a Republican, including the contentious Ukraine aid package that Massie and many Republicans opposed.

Despite Massie’s ongoing marginalization and the general betrayal of the America First movement, he remains hopeful and says he would not stay in Congress if it were otherwise. He’s now campaigning for an eighth consecutive term, which makes him perhaps the best argument against imposing term limits. The past year or so of this most daring and effectual incarnation of Massie yet has coincided with both a new look and a new wife (as Trump rather crudely alluded to), but it’s not come without its costs.

The Israel lobby has been incredibly hostile to Massie ever since he appeared on Tucker Carlson’s show and revealed the bombshell that every member of Congress essentially has an AIPAC handler. Massie has continued the good fight, and last year attempted to require dual-citizenship disclosure for all political candidates at the federal level. He’s since been smeared as both disloyal to the United States and an antisemite (!), while three New York billionaires now collude to unseat him from office. They are Henry Paulson, Miriam Adelson and Paul Singer – who think they know better than the people of Kentucky’s fourth district.

Should the financial warfare and intimidation fail, one has to wonder what comes next. It’s dangerous to be right when the government is wrong, as Voltaire so deftly observed. Following Trump’s latest attacks on Massie as a “lightweight” and “moron,” Massie probably reasons he would have better dialogue with ex-President of Haiti, Leslie Voltaire. This begs the question why Massie, a wealthy but modest man, continues to commit to deeper high-stakes political combat rather than resting on his laurels. He’d surely prefer to enjoy the fruits of his labor back in Appalachiastan, as he calls it, instead of arguing about Iraqi and Iranian Kurdistan. He’d be the first to admit he wishes he could spend more time with his beloved Angus cattle, but instead he’s defending the “goyim” mentioned in the Epstein files. Most people pick their battles in life, but some battles seem to pick men of exemplary valor, whether they want this calling or not.

Some view Massie as little more than a loopy libertarian and unrealistic utopianist whose political trials and tribulations are Don Quixote-like. The tragedy of valiant men falling by the wayside – not from proportional risk but through pure skullduggery was perhaps most memorably coined by nineteenth-century novelist Alexandre Dumas, whose aphorism Live by the Sword – Die by the Dagger sums up this timeless tragedy.

Barely six months have passed since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, and it’s more or less clear that his slaying was in vain – only dovetailing with the vanity of his Jezebel widow Erika and TPUSA’s new handlers. It’s also worth recalling another largely forgotten conservative who died this month 14 years ago, Andrew Breitbart. He was an anticorruption activist in Washington, as well as a proto-Pizzagate sexual abuse exposer. He officially died of heart failure at the age of 43, but even the appointed coroner subsequently dropped dead with arsenic poisoning.

Such morbid themes may not be appetizing food for thought (especially on the Ides of March), but it was Massie himself who recently felt compelled to warn his followers of the magnitude of danger that looms near. This is the state of the Republic, and what a sitting congressman must resort to for preemptive security.

Readers who are American citizens or residents and wish to slightly balance the scales of justice and ledger of campaign finances may do so via this link. The showdown is May 29, although the race has already well and truly heated up as Trump has attacked him in typical Trumpian fashion:

“We got to get rid of this loser. This guy is bad,” Trump said at a rally in Hebron, Kentucky. “He’s disloyal to the Republican Party. He’s disloyal to the people of Kentucky, and most importantly, he is disloyal to the United States of America. And he’s got to be voted out of office as soon as possible.”

Let’s hope it reaches critical mass by the ballot and not the bullet.

 

What Does It Really Mean to Be English?

/9 Comments/in , /by

The increasing ethnic diversity of England – due to 30 years of mass-immigration combined with the much higher birth-rate of Muslim immigrants in particular – has led to an extremely emotional debate over what it means to be English. The Pakistani Labour Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, has asserted that she is “English” and the Prime Minister has stated that those who dissent from her view are “the enemies of national renewal.” This is a euphemism; a way of saying that you are being divisive if you insist on the idea that to be “English” you must be ethnically so. By contrast, the former (Conservative) Home Secretary Suella Braverman, an ethnic Indian, provoked huge controversy by accepting that though she was “British” she was surely not “English” and didn’t see herself as such.

So, we have two ideas of what it means to be English: (1) That you are born in England, or even simply live in England, regardless of your genetics and (2) That you are . . . well . . . actually English; that you are a member of the ethnic group that is the English. A system of categories is only useful if it allows correct predictions to be made. The second definition allows correct predictions to be made.

Two random English people are twelfth cousins. They have a common ancestor in about the sixteenth century and they are both descended from King Edward III due to the fact that socioeconomic status strongly predicted completed fertility until the Industrial Revolution. This means something, as their helping each other – and certainly breeding with each other –means that they can indirectly pass on more of their genes. This is why most people marry endogamously. It is why studies find that we disproportionately co-operate with people of our own ethnic group. It is why studies find that we sexually select for genetic similarity. It is why friends and housemates are more likely to be from the same ethnic group.

As Frank Salter has shown in his book On Genetic Interests, this can be quantified based on genetic similarity. If the world was only English and Danes then two English people would be 7th cousins. The replacement of 10,000 English with 10,000 Danes would be the equivalent of each Englishman losing 167 children. If we replace Danes with Bantu, it would mean the loss of 10,054 children. Hence, the genetic definition of ethnicity is highly meaningful. It explains why English people will lay down their lives in war, even against relatively similar ethnic groups; such as the Germans. So, this model of Englishness predicts something very important.

Secondly, the English – due to centuries of endogamy and relative isolation – are a genetic cluster. This will lead to modal differences in behaviour or “national character,” again rendering genetic Englishness a useful predictive category. For example, psychologist Richard Lynn (1930-2023) showed in his book An Introduction to the Study of Personality that the English are far lower in Neuroticism than the French, which likely explains why France is so much less politically stable, with all its different “Republics.”

There are many other crucial ways in which English ethnicity is a predictive category. If it is not, then why does the National Health Service put out adverts asking for Black and Asian organ donors? The answer is that your body is more likely to accept an organ from someone who is strongly genetically similar; from someone of your own ethnic group. Similarly, cystic fibrosis is 1 in 19 among the Irish but 1 in 25 among the English. Lactose intolerance is higher among the English than among the Irish.

“Englishness” is meaningful as a predictive category . . . of course it is, because the English are a distinct genetic cluster. The Pakistani Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, is no more likely than a random Irish person to be lactose intolerant. The Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Philp, is more likely to be. Mahmood, being from an area of Pakistan where 70% of people marry their cousins, is, however, more likely to have a whole host of genetic problems that are common there.

Thirdly, there is a simple matter of consistency. The left will allow that the Saami – the reindeer herders of Lapland – are an ethnic group, defined by their ancestry. But, according to data presented by Salter, so are the English. Both present as genetic clusters due to common ancestry and endogamy. If the Saami is an ethnic group, indeed, an “indigenous” group, then so are the English. If the English are not an indigenous group, then, surely, I can simply move to Saamiland and declare myself a Saami. Of course, I cannot, which highlights the inconsistency. The Saami know I’m not one of them, though they might eventually “adopt” me, and this raises a crucial point.

We know – deep within us – who are our “family,” though the borders can be nebulous. Do we see all our second cousins – even those we haven’t met – as “family”? For English people, the English are, in effect, their highly extended family. It’s nothing to do with “values.” Your brother is still “family” even if he is a murderer. It’s the same with your “ethny.” But as with “family,” this “feeling” element means that it is mainly, though not completely, about genetics. Surely, we would see our dog as more part of our family than our cousin, and our dog is a different species!

Can this be true in relation to our ethnic family? Can there be nebulous borders in the same way? It was common in the 1980s to assert that all non-Whites should be sent home “except Frank. He’s one of us is Frank.” “Frank” was the Black boxer Frank Bruno who’d been born in England, married an English woman, and had done our country proud. I think intelligent people can disagree over whether someone like that can be “adopted” into the family of Englishness.

We are a highly pro-social species, we create very strong social bonds, and you can see how an element of being “one of us” can be social. The Scottish comedian Count Dankula once tweeted that he wanted every foreigner sent home, except the ones who were his friends. This resonated with a lot of “based” people. I don’t want my friend, a Native South American woman who was adopted by English people at six weeks, “sent home.” Even bees – a eusocial species – “adopt” into their hives. In a process known as trophallaxis, a bee gets lost, lacks the energy to return to her hive, acquires some nectar as a gift, goes to another hive and, if she’s lucky, is accepted in, with the guard covering her with the guard’s – and thus the hive’s – scent.

Overall, however, only the genetic definition of Englishness is predictive, consistent and congruous with what the English feel, as reflected in how they behave rather than how they virtue-signal. And as for Suella Braverman’s idea that she is “British” but not “English,” it says in the national anthem, “One realm of races four” and the same arguments that I’ve made about “English” could be made, far more cautiously, about “British.” This is because there is a large genetic gap between the English and the Celts. England, after all, is the “land of the English” and the English came from what is now the Netherlands and Denmark and displaced (in the east), and interbred with (in the west), the Celts.        

A Prosoponic Paradox: Why Has the Proudly Progressive Labour Party Never Had a Female or Non-White Leader?

/2 Comments/in , /by

Yuck! Stale pale males. They’re the worst of the wickedest, the vilest of the villainous. That’s what all decent and caring progressive folk are agreed upon. But this raises what you might call a prosoponic paradox (prosōpon is ancient Greek for “face”). In Britain, the proudly progressive Labour Party has traditionally been the home of decent, caring people who want to uplift women and non-Whites. But Labour has never been led by anyone but stale pale males. Meanwhile, Labour’s evil anti-progressive opponent, the Conservative party, has been led by four women and two non-Whites, a brown Indian Hindu called Rishi Sunak and a Black Nigerian called Kemi Badenoch (née Olukemi Olufunto Adegoke).

A prosoponic paradox: stale pale male Labour leaders versus vibrant Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch

Even more puzzlingly, the very new “far right” Reform Party in Britain has already filled two of its five most important posts with vibrancy, naming a Muslim Sri Lankan man as shadow home secretary and a Hindu Indian woman as shadow education secretary. So why do the despicable right-wing parties have a much better record on “diversity” than the decent and morally superior Labour party? What explains the prosoponic paradox of so many women and non-Whites as Tory leaders and nothing but stale pale males as Labour leaders? Well, I think it’s easy to answer those questions. You just have to look at British politics through the eyes of the most powerful, selfish and subversive group in British politics.

Undermining White men and Christianity

And which group is that? It’s Jews, of course. Jews believe that, because they’ve always been powerless victims, they need to rule the world to protect themselves. In the words of one Jewish activist, Jews are “a people [who have] survived for thousands of years in the teeth of the most prolonged and vicious persecution the world has ever known.” And who, for Jews, have been the vilest villains in that “prolonged and vicious persecution”? White Christian men, of course.

Farage the Fake: Nigel Farage with four firm Friends of Israel, two of them non-White

Accordingly, Jews in Western nations like Britain have worked tirelessly to undermine the power of White men and Christianity. That’s why Jews have organized and sacralized both feminism and mass migration. It’s why Jews in Britain and America believe that “Jews and Muslims are natural allies” and Jews in Holland believe that Joden en moslims zijn natuurlijke bondgenoten, which means the same thing. It’s also why, I’d suggest, the Conservative party has had all those vibrant leaders and the Labour Party has had no vibrant leaders at all. When newly emancipated Jews looked at the Conservative party in the nineteenth century, they saw it as dangerous to their interests, because it was created and run by White Christian men. Even more worryingly for Jews, it was a potential vehicle for White nationalism, Christian or otherwise. But when the Labour party emerged at the end of the century, it wasn’t dangerous like that. Labour was leftist and already served Jewish interests, knowingly or unknowingly. Therefore it was the Conservatives that Jews had to subvert, not Labour.

Churchill urges the troops to fight for rape-gangs and the mud-flood

The highly ethnocentric Jew Benjamin Disraeli became leader of the Conservatives in 1848 after the death of the previous leader, gentile Lord George Bentinck, at the suspiciously early age of 46. Disraeli’s ascent was a sign that Jewish subversion was well under way. And when the profligate alcoholic Winston Churchill became Conservative leader in 1940, he was owned by Jewish financiers and was guaranteed to follow Jewish orders. Back then, Jews wouldn’t have cared whether Labour had female or non-White leaders in the future. But they would have cared a lot whether the Conservatives did. A female or non-White in charge of that traditionally White male party would reassure Jews that its fangs had been drawn, that it was no longer a potential threat to Jewish interests. Sure enough, as Jewish control of British culture and politics grew ever greater, it was the Conservatives who acquired female and non-White leaders, not the Labour party. Putting a Black Nigerian woman in charge of Labour would have been wasted effort from the Jewish point of view. But putting a Black Nigerian woman in charge of the Tories? Ah, what a supreme symbol of successful subversion!

Dan’s downcast by defamation: Danny Finkelstein bewails anti-Semitism in the London Times

And so a Black Nigerian woman called Kemi Badenoch is now the leader of the Conservative party. But she’s not genuinely in charge, of course. She got the title as a reward for her dedicated goy-grovel, but her leadership is purely symbolic. Leftist Jews like Danny Finkelstein are the real controllers of the party, which is why it never hesitated to betray White voters during its fourteen years in power from 2010. Whenever Whites voted to reduce non-White immigration, the Tories always responded by increasing non-White immigration. The betrayal was most blatant under BoJo. That’s Boris Johnson, the part-Jewish, part-Turkish confidence-trickster who persuaded millions of working-class Whites to break their traditional allegiance to Labour and vote for the Conservatives, the party of strong borders and “British values.” After securing those White votes, BoJo and his female Hindu sidekick, Priti “Piranha” Patel, gleefully unleashed the BorisWave, flooding Britain with even more Third-World tax-eaters who despise British values and hate working-class Whites.

Standing with Israel

The BorisWave and other betrayals explain why Reform is now riding so high in the opinion polls and why the Tories are riding so low. White voters have vowed that they “Won’t Get Fooled Again” and pinned their hopes on the tough-talking Nigel Farage, who will surely deliver what the Tories so often promised to deliver and never did. In other words, White voters seem determined to be fooled yet again. Fake Farage will not deliver on his promises of strong borders and mass deportations, because Reform is yet another vehicle to serve Jewish interests, not White interests. The surest sign of that is the way the rabidly Zionist Robert Jenrick has abandoned the Conservatives and joined Reform, where he has swiftly become the party’s chancellor-in-waiting.

“Hand on heart, kaffirs!”: the Sri-Lankan Muslim Zia Yusuf makes a fake promise of tough action

Jenrick has a Jewish wife, the corporate lawyer Michal Berkner, and a Jewish billionaire backer, the IDF-fan Idan Ofer. While he was still in the Tories, he said that “the Star of David should be displayed at every point of entry to the UK to show” that “we stand with Israel.” Jenrick works for Jews and Israel, not for British Whites, and when he drew up a model budget for a future Reform government, he sent it for approval to the part-Jewish George Osborne, a former chancellor in the traitorous Conservative government of the part-Jewish David Cameron. The fully Jewish Danny Finkelstein once saluted Osborne’s Hebraic heritage as he waxed lyrical about the power of Jewish ethnocentrism in British politics:

That mysterious sense of Jewish connection

Some of my best friends are Jewish. Well, all right, most of my best friends are Jewish. And I’ve been thinking about why.

This week [in May 2018], reports on the wedding of George Osborne’s brother Theo included accounts of an Orthodox ceremony and Theo’s discovery that his maternal grandmother was Jewish. In other words, George himself is halachically Jewish [i.e., would be allowed to emigrate to Israel as a Jew].

This is the second time that one of my small circle of very close non-Jewish friends has turned out, in fact, to be Jewish. Something that not only I didn’t know when we first became friends, but they didn’t know either.

In George’s case this is made even more intriguing and amusing by the fact that I have often joked to him about how he seems to have made so many close Jewish friends and how striking that was. (George has often talked about being jealous at school of his friends having barmitzvahs. Former Israeli ambassador Daniel Taub responded by presenting him with a fountain pen.)

Which has led me to wonder whether this is all more than mere coincidence. […] [T]here is the undoubted bond that exists with other Jews, sometimes even complete strangers. Take, for example (although, yes, I’m fully conscious this is a ludicrous example) other Jewish members of the House of Lords.

There is no doubt that across parties and across the House there is a connection between those of us who are Jewish. It isn’t a political connection particularly (although there have been moments). It’s more a sympathy and an understanding of where we are coming from. […] A sense that we are all family. And that every time you meet another Jew for the first time, you are really taking part in a family reunion. (That mysterious sense of Jewish connection, The Jewish Chronicle, 22nd May 2018 / 8th Sivan 5778)

Finkelstein was revealing the sham of British democracy and admitting that Jews pursue Jewish interests “across parties.” One of those Jewish interests is open borders for non-Whites and non-Christians. And guess what George Osborne “revealed” in 2017? He said that, “despite having pledged to reduce immigration in both its 2010 and 2015 general election manifestos, the Tory leadership secretly abandoned this ambition long ago.” I’d quibble with part of what Osborne said. “Secretly abandoned”? No, “semitically abandoned” would be better. After all, it was the Jews funding and controlling the Tories who fixed migration policy and were happy for the party to lie to voters on immigration. Those lies have proved disastrous for the Tories, but why should Jews care? They never had any loyalty to the party and now that it’s sinking they’ve switched their subversion to Reform. Even as Nigel Farage rails against “identity politics,” the party has acquired a Reform Friends of Israel and a Reform Jewish Alliance.

Reformed Re-Routed: A potential vehicle for White interests has been semitically subverted

And although Farage once vowed to destroy the Conservative party, he’s now welcoming traitorous former Conservatives like the stale pale male Robert Jenrick and the vibrant Indian Hindu Suella Braverman, both of whom are happily married to Jews. Is that shared choice of spouse just a coincidence? No. It’s a sinister sign of successful subversion. Like the Conservatives before them, Reform are expressing bold ambitions on cutting migration that they secretly — and semitically — abandoned long ago.

IRAN – the latest victim of the Jewish master race mentality

/8 Comments/in /by
(Photo: Grok xAI)

This article was originally published in Danish on March 9, 2026.

It is disheartening to see the reaction of the so-called right wing to Israel’s (and its American vassals’) unprovoked war of aggression against Iran. One can seriously doubt whether there is sufficient intelligent life on the nationalist wing at all. There are many aspects to this issue – I cannot promise that we can cover them all within this framework, but let us at least try to touch on the most important ones.

1: Very few Westerners have any idea about Iran and Iranian affairs – and certainly not about Iranian history. However, this knowledge is a prerequisite for having any opinion at all about this criminal attack. If you don’t know anything about Iran, you should keep off your keyboard.1

2: The Iranians who, unfortunately, find themselves in this country came here mainly because they were fleeing military service during America’s (i.e., Israel’s) war against Iran in the 1980s—because that is what it was. Iraq was only America’s henchman – and the thanks Saddam Hussein got for his efforts clearly shows that it is literally deadly to be a friend of the US – Saddam Hussein simply knew too much. From the beginning, these Iranians belonged to the segment of the population that supported the Shah’s bloody dictatorship against the majority of the Iranian people. Their opinion on this matter is quite irrelevant. They have been traitors to their people from day one. They do not represent the Iranian people, but only a small minority.

3: Iran is not an Arab country, but an Indo-European country. Its culture goes back thousands of years and extends far beyond the Muslim conquest. The Iranian language is an Indo-European language like Danish and English. The Iranians are our brothers – or at least our cousins. However, history has made it so that there are many minorities within Iran’s borders, such as Azeris, Kurds, Arabs, and many others. This is a weakness to which we will return.

4: Iran is a Muslim country. There are two very different forms of Islam: Sunni and Shia. Iran is Shia Muslim. There are Shia Muslims in most countries in the Middle East, but in the Arab countries the leadership is mostly Sunni Muslim. An understanding of Iran requires a basic understanding of Shia Islam. However, there is extensive religious freedom in Iran. There are several Christian denominations, Sunni Islam, Zoroastrians (worshippers of fire, an ancient Persian religion). Missionary work for religions other than Islam is prohibited, as in other Muslim countries.

5: Iran’s strength, size and population (93 million) have made it Israel’s main enemy, as Iran also supports the Palestinian struggle for freedom. It is the last country on Israel’s laundry list to the US of Middle Eastern countries that must be destroyed. All the others have been destroyed: Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Libya, Sudan. The other Arab countries are merely Israeli vassal states. In all cases, the villain is the US – humanity’s enemy No. 2. No. 1 is Israel. If the world is ever to have peace, these two states must disappear from the map in their current form.

6: Iran is an immensely rich country. A significant part of its wealth comes from oil. This has also proved to be one of Iran’s curses, because it has always attracted foreign interests.

7: Iran had actually established a democratic government until England and the US jointly overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh’s democratic government in 1953 because Mosaddegh had committed the mortal sin of nationalizing the country’s own oil industry. When the US talks about wanting to “democratize” Iran, it therefore sounds more than hollow. Instead of Mosaddegh, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was installed as governor, for this was what he was, even though he later assumed the title of shah. Pahlavi did not represent the Iranian people, but the US, and he initiated a harsh and forced westernization of the country. This means that in Europe and the US, there is a tendency to view the Pahlavi dictatorship as a golden age and the Shah as a man of progress – because, from our perspective, we are naturally far more developed and civilized than everyone else. The Shah did his best to make the country resemble America, but these efforts meant that he was inevitably mobilizing the population against him, because the population was and is Muslim and wanted to live as Muslims even then. The Muslim resistance movement was fought with harsh measures. Imprisonment, widespread use of torture, random executions, etc. were part of the daily disorder. The Muslim leader Ruhollah Khomeini was forced into exile in Paris, from where he led the resistance movement. Despite massive American support for the dictatorship, Pahlavi’s regime collapsed, and Khomeini was able to return and was welcomed as a hero by the Iranian people—there are still a few of us who remember the television images from that time. The current regime is precisely the result of a popular uprising. The American embassy was stormed and exposed for what it really was: a spy center – and the home of Iran’s actual secret government.

The majority of the Iranian people hate America for what America has done to Iran (not least during the eight-year proxy war with Iraq).

8: Iran has a Muslim government with the Council of Guardians and the Supreme Leader as guarantors that the country’s government does not pursue policies that deviate from Islam. But there are elections that determine who is president and who sits in parliament. Candidates must be approved – which is not a bad idea. This protects against the election of complete idiots, as we know from the average Western parliament and the average Western government. In Iran, the qualifications of Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen would just be sufficient for her to clean a public toilet. As Westerners, we may like this system or not. It is none of our business. It is an internal Iranian matter, and no outsider has any right to interfere in it. We can probably agree that we do not want that system here, but then again, we do not have it, and Iran in no way poses any threat to either the US or Europe.

9: Donald Trump also knows nothing about Iran, as he has clearly demonstrated. Overall, Donald Trump has been a big disappointment. He has consistently done the opposite of what he promised during the election campaign: namely, to keep the US out of foolish wars. However, he has done nothing but embroil the US in wars and conflicts – and the war against Iran may well be his downfall. It is illegal – both under international law and under the US Constitution – but Trump has openly declared that he does not recognize any law – only his own conscience. However, it is doubtful whether he has one. This is not Trump’s war, however; it is Netanyahu’s war. But why is Trump waging this war – which threatens his position as president and will cause him to lose the midterm elections in November, leaving him paralyzed for the rest of his presidential term, if he is not impeached before then? Why get involved in this war at all? We know that Israel controls the US. Rich Jews control the capital, the entertainment industry, the media, and almost all institutions of higher education — and through their wealth, they determine who can be elected to Congress—and as president. Trump’s election campaign was paid for with Jewish money—and his daughter is married to a Jew and has converted to Judaism. When he lets Jared Kushner, his Jewish son-in-law – who has no role whatsoever in the US government – and his likewise Jewish golf buddy Steve Wittkoff – who also has no official role to play, but like Kushner is merely a speculator – travel around the world as negotiators, including on relations with Iran, it is a mockery of professional diplomats in general and of the Iranians in particular.

But Trump is not up for re-election, and the midterm elections are unlikely to be won at this point anyway, so why is he doing this? It is hardly a stretch of the imagination to assume that Netanyahu is in possession of all of the Epstein files. Could it be that Netanyahu has damning evidence against Trump? In any case, this war is a wonderful distraction from the Epstein scandal, which suddenly no one is talking about anymore…

But probably Trump has also been misinformed about the actual situation in Iran on purpose! He believed that regime change could be achieved by killing the country’s leader. How naive. Trump may have believed that the entire country would then welcome the Americans (and the Jews?) as liberators. This only testifies to his ignorance of Iran and its history and the country. The Iranians still hate the US. Since that strategy failed, we have heard countless other reasons why this barbaric attack was necessary:

  1. To prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; indeed, they were only a week away from having a nuclear bomb. Well, that has been said for the last 40 years – and they still haven’t developed one. And besides, Trump claims that he completely destroyed their nuclear program in the 12-day war six months ago. How does that add up? Furthermore, the recently assassinated supreme leader had issued a fatwah against the development of nuclear weapons – a religiously motivated ban. Trump assassinated what was probably the most moderate figure in Iran’s leadership. I should think that his successors will reconsider this fatwah. The reason Iran is in its current situation is precisely because it has not developed nuclear weapons, cf. North Korea, which is left in peace precisely because it does have nuclear weapons. Incidentally, does anyone remember the legend of Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction?
  2. Because Iran allegedly controls all the world’s terrorist movements. Another claim that has been plucked out of thin air. Iran supports the Palestinian people and defends southern Lebanon against Israeli aggression. It is a reaction to Israeli terror.2
  3. To prevent further executions of rebels. How touching. What about the nearly 100,000 Palestinians murdered in Gaza? How about preventing that? It would be easy. But oh no, they were just Palestinians. In Iran we were talking about CIA and Mossad agents who had been smuggled in. It was the master race, or at least its servants.
  4. Because Iran threatened the US. It takes a lot of imagination to picture that!
  5. Among the more bizarre explanations is War Minister Hegseth’s explanation that Trump has been anointed by God to initiate Armageddon, which is a prerequisite for the return of Jesus. He really said so. And it is people like him who want to rule the world. God help us all!

The fact is that Trump’s ideas about Iran had no basis in reality. He is a stupid man and, like most Americans, he is uninformed about the world he wants to rule as his own personal property. This is precisely what makes him and the US dangerous.

By killing Khamenei, he did not just kill Iran’s supreme political leader. He killed the supreme religious leader of the vast majority of Iranians – the second most important leader of all Shia Muslims. He turned him into a martyr – and martyrdom has a special place in Shia Islam. With this killing, Trump did the worst thing he could possibly do if his goal was to overthrow the regime.

There is much speculation as to why all these people were gathered in Ali Khamenei’s official residence at this time – and not in a bunker. One explanation is that Khamenei deliberately sought martyrdom. He may have sought martyrdom for himself, but hardly for his closest associates, let alone his children and grandchildren. It is believed that he had received an American peace offer that needed to be discussed and responded to. As the Mossad’s motto goes: “By means of deception!”

10: This war could change the world. The Gulf states have seen that it is dangerous to be America’s friends. American bases are being bombed, economic life is being hit, and tourists are being scared away. A blockade of the Strait of Hormuz could triple the price of oil within a few days. Europe has cut itself off from cheap and reliable Russian energy. Russia can supply China with whatever it may lack from the Gulf states. Europe is going bankrupt.

11: Israel’s goal is to create an Israel from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates River by expelling the indigenous Arab population, who will flood Europe (and other European-populated countries) as refugees. This will contribute to the breakdown of Europe (and other white countries) and will create further hatred towards Muslims and implicitly greater love for the Jewish criminal state in the Middle East, who is the origin of the disaster. It is satanic – but well thought out. The Jews are intelligent people – and the Europeans and white Americans are stupid. Iran’s support for the Palestinians stands in the way of these plans.

12: The CIA is arming the Kurds, of whom there are also large numbers in Iran, in order to incite them to rise up against the Iranians. As a reward, they have been promised their own state – a dream the Kurds have had for centuries. This may incite other minorities in Iran to try to get their own state, so that Iran is split into atoms, but it will inevitably force Turkey into the war on Iran’s side. Turkey will never voluntarily accept a Kurdish state, and neither will Iraq and Syria, but Israel has already castrated these two states. Turkey, however, is a powerful military force. What right do the Americans have to interfere in such matters?

13: The great unknown. Will China and Russia accept an Iranian defeat? I don’t think so – and that would mean World War III, which would inevitably end in nuclear war. After that, further concerns are superfluous.

14: Israel is a terrorist state – and the US is Israel’s extended arm. The imperialist ambitions of the US and Israel are the greatest threat to world peace, mankind, and the existence of the planet. We cannot have a world order where one country – the US – can set the agenda everywhere on the planet. An international court must be established to judge all these warmongers and criminals against humanity. German officers and politicians were hanged in Nuremberg for far less!

15: One can debate whether it is the US that directs and facilitates Israel – or vice versa. The fact is that the two are joined at the hip. Israel is the little brother, but it is the little brother who calls the shots, because it is the little brother who holds the economic power in the US. Remember the movie “Wag the Dog!” – that is the situation we are facing. It is the tail that is wagging the dog. In this context, Epstein plays a very important part. Israel has incriminating evidence against a vast part of the US and European elites!

16: Is democracy even a desirable form of government? Just take a look at the governments this way of organizing states has created. America and Europe are hardly examples to follow! As they say: Gold sinks to the bottom – shit floats on top!

 The author on a city walk in Isfahan, Iran. The streets are clean, there is no street crime, no homeless people begging for money. In Teheran, the metro is clean and safe…… and a tank full of gas cost less than a liter in Europe.  

Notes

  1. If you want to know more about Iran, check out one of Povl’s earlier articles: https://danmarksfrihedsraad.com/2026/01/23/iran-3/ ↩︎
  2. Povl has written about the Israel-Palestine conflict in the following articles (In Danish): https://danmarksfrihedsraad.com/2023/04/09/on-palestine/
    https://danmarksfrihedsraad.com/2024/03/03/israel-et-mislykket-samfund-en-mislykket-stat/ ↩︎

Neoconservative Jewish Pundit Bret Stephens Sees the Writing on the Wall

/14 Comments/in , /by

Bret Stephens built his career advocating for American military interventions abroad, but now the Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist is telling Jews to retreat inward and abandon the institutions that have defined Jewish advocacy for a century.

There is an unmistakable anxiety in Bret Stephens’s recent public appearances. The Jewish columnist who once radiated confidence while calling for American military interventions across the Middle East now speaks with the urgency of a man watching the ground shift beneath his feet. On February 1, 2026, standing before an audience at Manhattan’s 92nd Street Y to deliver the 46th annual “State of World Jewry” address, Stephens made an admission that would have been unthinkable from the neoconservative establishment just a few years ago.

“The fight against antisemitism, which consumes tens of millions of dollars every year in Jewish philanthropy, is a well-meaning but mostly wasted effort,” Stephens declared. “We should spend the money and focus our energy elsewhere.”

When asked what he would do if he led the ADL or similar organizations, Stephens apologized to ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, who was sitting in the audience, and said, “if it were up to me, I would dismantle it.” He compared the money spent on fighting antisemitism to “those scenes of people in the Wolf of Wall Street, just tossing a hundred-dollar bills into garbage cans.”

Some of the most salient points Stephens raised in that speech were that Jews should stop trying to disprove hatred through achievement and that Jewish survival depends on building independent institutions rather than seeking broader acceptance. He called for redirecting resources toward building more Jewish day schools at “Catholic-school tuition rates” and strengthening Jewish identity from within.

Stephens pointed to polling data showing that “one in five millennials and Gen Zs believe the Jews caused the Holocaust” as evidence that decades of Holocaust education had failed. Greenblatt responded that Stephens’s thoughts on Jewish identity were “powerful and provocative” but called his critique of antisemitism-fighting efforts “misguided,” noting the ADL’s work in collecting hate crime data, training synagogues in security, and running a Center on Extremism that has helped “intercept and prevent plots.”

Stephens’s stance on Tucker Carlson has undergone a dramatic evolution. In March 2019, when recordings surfaced of Carlson making controversial statements about Iraqis, Stephens tweeted approvingly of a David French quote — calling it “astute as usual” — defending the principle that society should “rebut ideas” rather than “destroy careers.”

By late 2025, however, Stephens’s tone had hardened. In a November 2025 New York Times column titled “Meet the New Antisemites, Same as the Old Antisemites,” Stephens wrote about Carlson’s interview with nationalist podcaster Nick Fuentes, noting that “antisemitism was supposedly banished twice from the conservative universe” by William F. Buckley Jr. only to return through figures like Carlson. He highlighted the irony that Carlson himself had once criticized Pat Buchanan for “needling the Jews” in 1999 and had now become the very figure he once denounced.

In his State of World Jewry address, Stephens grouped Carlson and Candace Owens together with Nick Fuentes, Alice Walker, and Roger Waters as “the out-and-out Jew-haters and their sly enablers.” He noted that “Tucker Carlson’s popularity and influence as a podcaster have only soared as his bigotry has become more blatant.”

Yet in a February 2026 i24NEWS interview, Stephens argued that the ADL’s approach of condemning these figures is counterproductive. “When the ADL focuses on condemning figures like Tucker Carlson or Candace Owens — or other antisemitic enablers — it’s often worse than useless,” he said. “These individuals feed off condemnation from groups like the ADL. That doesn’t help build thriving Jewish life in the United States.”

In the same interview, Stephens made remarks about Carlson’s children and grandchildren that sparked fierce backlash. He argued that history will judge Carlson harshly and that the stigma will extend to his family legacy, much as the descendants of notorious figures bear reputational consequences. George Galloway called Stephens’s statement “hard to overstate how offensive, even obscene” and noted it invoked “one crime, three generations” logic. Chris Menahan of Information Liberation described it as Stephens endorsing “Vile blood guilt targeting children.”

Stephens has written extensively about the impact of October 7 on American Jewry. He coined the now widely referenced term “October 8 Jew” in a New York Times column shortly after the attacks. In his 2026 speech, he revised the definition. Rather than a Jew who “woke up to discover who our friends are not,” the October 8 Jew “was the one who woke up trying to remember who he or she truly is.”

In his December 2023 column “Why I Can’t Stop Writing About Oct. 7,” Stephens wrote intimately about his mother, who was born in Italy during World War II to a Jewish family that had fled the Nazis. His mother told him, “I was born in hiding. I don’t want to die in hiding.” He documented how hate crimes against Jews had “surged fivefold” from October 7 to December 7, 2023, compared to the same period the prior year.

In his October 2023 Sapir essay “We Are Alone,” Stephens excoriated left-wing Jewish intellectuals who had championed anti-Zionist causes, writing that “Jewish progressives are being massacred by [reality], if only metaphorically.” He described the October 7 attacks as “the single most murderous day in Jewish history since 1945” and argued that the post-Zionist Jewish left had provided “moral cover to outright antisemitism.” His overarching message, sharpened over subsequent years, was that Jews needed to stop seeking validation through progressive causes and instead “lean into our Jewishness as far as each of us can, irrespective of what anyone else thinks of it.”

Stephens’s insistence on Jewish self-reliance is not merely an intellectual posture. It is rooted in a family history shaped by pogroms, exile and survival. Stephens was born November 21, 1973 in New York City into a secular Jewish family. Both his parents were Jewish. His mother was born in wartime Italy to a family that had fled the Nazis, and his paternal grandfather fled the Kishinev pogrom in Moldova. He was raised in Mexico City and is fluent in Spanish. He attended Middlesex School in Concord, Massachusetts, then earned an honors degree from the University of Chicago in 1995 and a master’s in comparative politics from the London School of Economics.

Stephens began at Commentary magazine as an assistant editor in 1995. He joined The Wall Street Journal in 1998, later serving as editorial writer for its European edition in Brussels. In 2002, at just 28 years old, he moved to Israel to become editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post, leading the paper through the worst years of the Second Intifada. He has said one reason he left the WSJ for The Jerusalem Post was that “Western media was getting Israel’s story wrong.”

He returned to the WSJ in 2004 and took over the “Global View” foreign affairs column in 2006. He won the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 2013 for “his incisive columns on American foreign policy and domestic politics, often enlivened by a contrarian twist.” In April 2017, he joined The New York Times as an opinion columnist. In 2021, he became founding editor-in-chief of SAPIR, a major journal of Jewish intellectual discourse funded by the Maimonides Fund, a pro-Israel philanthropy.

Stephens is one of the most prominent neoconservative voices in American media. His core belief is that American global retreat invites disorder, the thesis of his 2014 book America in Retreat: The New Isolationism and the Coming Global Disorder. He was a prominent voice among media advocates for the 2003 Iraq War, writing in 2002 that Iraq was likely to become the first nuclear power in the Arab world. As late as 2013, he continued to insist the Bush administration had “solid evidence” for going to war, despite weapons of mass destruction never being found. Stephens compared the Iran nuclear deal to the 1938 Munich Agreement.

He has written numerous columns calling for or praising military action against Iran. Stephens compared the Iran nuclear deal to the 1938 Munich Agreement, calling it “worse than Munich” in a 2013 Wall Street Journal column. He has written numerous columns calling for or praising military action against Iran, including a 2010 WSJ essay arguing that Iran “cannot be contained” and that containment advocates were dangerously naive, an October 2024 New York Times column titled “We Absolutely Need to Escalate in Iran” calling for the destruction of an Iranian missile complex, a June 2025 column laying out a strategy for Trump to “drop bunker busters on Fordo,” and a February 2026 column titled “The Case for Hitting Iran” arguing that military strikes were necessary because engagement, sanctions and diplomacy had all failed. Now it appears Stephens has gotten his wish. The United States is at war with Iran, with no exit timetable and no indication Washington intends to fully disengage.

And finally, on March 10, Stephens proposed the following:

What, then, should the Trump administration do? My prescription: Seize Kharg Island. Mine or blockade Iran’s remaining ports. Destroy as much Iranian military capability as possible over the next week or two, including a second Midnight Hammer operation to destroy what’s left of Iran’s nuclear capacity and know-how. And threaten the regime with further bombing if it massacres its own citizens, mounts terrorist attacks abroad or returns to nuclear work.

That constitutes the most realistic path to victory at the lowest plausible price in lives, risk and treasure. And for all its admitted dangers, it gives Iran’s people their best chance of winning their freedom. Not bad for a one-month war its critics warned would be another Iraq.

The increasingly volatile rhetoric from Bret Stephens serves as a stark barometer for the pervasive anxiety currently gripping the American Jewish establishment in the wake of October 7th. As Jewry’s veneer of civility dissolves in this new judeo-skeptic environment, what remains is a defensive, hyper-tribal reaction to a perceived loss of cultural hegemony across the West.

Should this anxiety continue to escalate, it is highly probable that figures like Stephens will abandon the rhetoric of liberal pluralism in favor of state-sanctioned repression, using hate speech legislation to insulate their interests from public criticism. Such a transition would serve as a clarifying moment for the American public, revealing the extent to which these alien actors prioritize their specific communal survival over the fundamental constitutional norms of the nation.

The First Novel to Explore England’s Muslim Grooming Gangs Scandal: “Bothelford’s Gone” by Edward McLaren

/3 Comments/in /by

Bothelford’s Gone
Edward McLaren
Maldon Press, 2026

From the publisher: Edward McLaren is an academic, journalist, and novelist living in Oxford. He draws upon a wide range of influences, blending myth, politics, and romanticism.

I don’t tend to read many novels, but Edward McLaren’s Bothelford’s Gone is a rare exception. I couldn’t put it down. The euphemistically termed “Muslim Grooming Gang Scandal” may count as the most serious crime committed against the English people in their entire history. As the prologue to the novel points out, between the 1950s – when Muslims began coming to England in significant numbers – and today, over a million under-age English girls have been groomed, often via the use of drugs, into becoming sex slaves for Muslim men.

The details of what has happened and its causes – such as the infiltration of the authorities, including the police, by leftists and Muslims, the pathetic conformism of English people and their desperation not to be called “racist,” and a related materialistic culture that turns us all into disconnected drones with little to live for – is so painful that, for many people, the easiest thing to do is to put it out of our minds. It is something that happens to “Chavs” – the British term for “White Trash” – and they are so genetically incompetent and sexually incontinent that they somehow deserve it.

It is for this reason that Mr McLaren’s idea of exploring this on-going attack on the English people in the form of a short novel is so compelling. It allows us to understand the different kinds of characters involved in this scandal; to enter their minds and feel what they do. Bothelford is a fictional every-town, seemingly somewhere in the north of England. Its name is an allusion to the lost town of Bothelford in Cumbria, a town which disappeared from the record in the Middle Ages. Mr McLaren, a Gen Z author himself, describes the ancient history of the town, its pagan roots, and even how its central church is haunted by a plaintive female ghost. Until very recently, the people of Bothelford had a strong connection to the ghosts of its past, but this has been broken by the soul-annihilating decadence of the modern world: binging the internet via smart phones, vile and foreign takeaway food, mass non-White immigration making the town unrecognisable, ethnic divisions even within classrooms, and the degree to which, like most of the characters in Nineteen Eighty Four, most people just want a quiet life and will tell themselves lies in order to achieve this internally and cope with living through the self-caused destruction of their birthright; they are so materially wealthy, and emasculated by the female-run education system, that they don’t feel the urge to fight.

Mr McLaren takes us through each of these reasons: “There was also a third power involved: denial. For it was always easier for the sorry, pale victims of these spirits to turn to their phones, to consuming and making porn, than ever to acknowledge their displacement and the on-going colonisation of Bothelford. . . . Few allowed themselves to imagine that the black mother with three babies who passed their window, followed by an older white mother with only one, might mean something overwhelmingly significant.”

The central character, a 15 year-old school boy called Jack Grundon (an Anglo-Saxon name meaning “green hill”), is highly intelligent, to the extent that his school thinks he might be capable of one day attending Cambridge. Even his conformist mother understands that school was a safer and more pleasant place when she attended it, but, like the donkey in Animal Farm, is an expert at forcing herself to ignore or play down what she sees with her own eyes, if only to maintain her sanity. In moments of awareness of the invasion, “Mary remembered Hitler, she remembered Enoch Powell, the secular sin of white racism, and tried not to think about it.” Jack, in return, wonders why he is “condemned” to “live alongside terrifying young men” who have nothing in common with him and will prey upon him when his mother “as a child dealt with nothing of the sort.”

Slowly, Jack has an awakening to the full horrors of what is happening in his town and in particular to his friend Agatha. Matrix-like, the superficial and dysfunctional town of Bothelford falls away to reveal the reality: his friend Agatha has been groomed, raped and passed around Bothelford’s Muslim community. Even with the names of the characters, Mr McLaren is determined to always peel back the connection to a deep history that English people all share, and has Jack muse on the meaning of the name “Agatha” for this reason.

As in some real-life cases, Muslim police officers and teachers are complicit in Agatha’s torture, Muslim school children are much older than they seem, and the lie is given to the nonsense cliché that “We’re all human.” Jack realises that they are simply not like us. They think like Mafia dons and the humiliation of colonialism has left them with a visceral hatred for White people. For them, the “grooming gangs” are an act of war, a righteous vengeance on White people who have allowed women – and thus suicidal concern with empathy and unmet maternal feelings – to dominate their society and, so, allow Muslims in by the millions. Mr McLaren does a particularly impressive job of allowing his Muslim characters to articulate how they feel; why they are treating under-age English girls so horrifically.

Without giving away too much of the plot, the book culminates in an inspiring call to arms. What should Jack do after the terrible things his investigation has put him through? When our ancestors settled England, or even as recently as World War II, the notion that the English would permit themselves to be dominated by shrill women and displaced by Muslims was something that danced around only in the mind of a madman; yet it has come to pass: “After all, the world we live in now was once nothing more than a madman’s dream!” Likewise, those who suggest now that the current Clown World can be reversed are widely dismissed as “mad.” For Mr McLaren, the English shouldn’t be too downhearted. The madman’s dream came true once, so why shouldn’t it again? Only this time it will involve the English reclaiming and fighting for at least part of their inheritance.