Featured Articles

James Edwards Interviews Former U.S. Representative Steve King (R-Iowa)

/11 Comments/in , /by

Let me take you back to another incident that really brought my attention to this. It was the opening night of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and I did a panel with MSNBC. Chris Hayes is the moderator. They had April Ryan, a black commentator there, and a fellow by the name of Charlie Pierce. We had our little banter going back and forth, and maybe it wasn’t all that friendly but I didn’t think it was bad, and then at the end, Charlie Pierce said, “One could be an optimist and hope that this would be the last Republican convention where old white people have anything to say about it.” They were ready to cut away, and I couldn’t let that go. I said, “Charlie, that’s getting kind of tiring. I’m tired of hearing that. I’d invite you to explain to all of us what other sub-group has contributed more.”

And Chris Hayes leaned over and leered at me, thinking he had me trapped, and said, “More than white people?” And I said, “More than Western civilization itself defined by everywhere the footprint of Jesus Christ laid the foundation.” That is when they targeted me as a white supremacist and a white nationalist and decided to squeeze me out of Congress eventually.

What follows is an interview conducted by talk radio host James Edwards with former U.S. Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) about his 18 years in Congress and his book, Walking Through the Fire: My Fight for the Heart and Soul of America.

* * *

James Edwards: You gave an interview with Tucker Carlson a few years ago that I consider to be the most enlightening explanation I have seen regarding how Washington operates. Let’s begin there. How does Congress actually work?

Congressman Steve King: Generally speaking, when freshmen arrive, they come in with ideals, objectives, and goals, believing they can achieve them. However, when I was first elected, I went through 11 days of what they called orientation, which consisted of about four days of actual orientation and seven days of indoctrination. During this time, they emphasized what you should never do, which helps them maintain control over you. Additionally, they insisted that you need to raise money because you can’t change the world if you don’t return next time. This kind of manipulation continues to build and intensify as time goes on.

I remember during the class election in 2010, I was walking over to an event one evening early in the session with a freshman. He mentioned, “Well, I got appointed to the Rules Committee, and I’m pretty happy about that assignment.” I replied, “Oh, you should be happy, I guess. You get to vote the way leadership tells you to on the Rules Committee.” It’s the speaker’s Rules Committee, and that’s how it has always been.

He responded, “Oh, no. They told me I could vote my conscience. I’m a free man. If I do well enough on the Rules Committee, I’ll be able to get on Ways and Means in a couple of years, and that’s my goal.”

Well, fast forward ten years, and he was still on the Rules Committee, voting the way the leadership wanted him to vote. That’s kind of what happens to a lot of them. My book covers what goes on in the inner workings of Congress and helps American citizens understand how devious the leadership can be, and why some representatives can’t allow the people’s voice to be heard in Washington.

Edwards: Your book is Walking Through Fire: My Fight for the Heart and Soul of America. In it, you write about so many key topics, such as political treason, media defamation, your relationship with President Trump, why Western civilization is superior, and the magnitude and impact of illegal immigration. Let’s hit that heavy topic. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines genocide as being the deliberate and systemic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group. Polls indicate that most Republican voters now believe a “Great Replacement” is occurring and oppose it. What is your opinion on the issue, and do you think that it rises to meet the definition of genocide?

King: I don’t know if I would quite say genocide because it’s not pushing for a massive death. It’s just pushing for lower birth rates among whites, which is one of the things that they like to see, and bringing in massive numbers of aliens of all kinds, whether they’re legal or illegal, from every culture — almost everything but white culture.

I’ve looked at this for a long time, and I’ve had my concerns. I’ve been down to the border repeatedly, doing the calculation. What happens when you bring in military-age men by the millions from cultures that are violent, and they don’t accept our Western civilization? If you bring in one person from another culture, you’re importing their culture, too. It’s axiomatic. In small numbers, you can still assimilate, but the greater the number, sooner or later they become an enclave, and they reconstruct their own country here in an enclave in the United States.

Others will say, “All cultures are equal.” But they are not. Western civilization is a superior civilization. The First World doesn’t exist outside of Western civilization. People want to destroy the First World because they despise what has been accomplished by it. They’ve created this racial envy. They’ve said that Western civilization is white civilization, therefore, it is evil. They say that babies born with white skin are inherently racist.

But what I don’t understand is why the people who built the greatest civilization in the history of the world would hand it over because of something called white guilt. I think we’re entitled to some gratitude for all that’s been built here and the comfort that’s been created for all the people in this country.

This is also happening on a large scale in Europe. I don’t know how many trips I’ve taken there, but I’ve made several specifically to walk among the hordes of people marching from one horizon to the other, primarily heading for Germany. I’ve ventured into the no-go zones in most of those countries, entering unprotected even when the State Department advised against it. I just walked in.

I’ve seen it. I’ve talked to them over there. It is strategic. It is being pushed by George Soros and others and the objective is to tear down Western civilization. They believe that the chaos they create will allow them to take total power, which would result in a Marxist-style government led by a few oligarchs living in gated communities, while chaos reigns everywhere else.

Edwards: I believe every group of people ought to be proud of their history, their ancestors, their heroes, their culture, their folkways, and their faith. But humanity does consist of unique groups who oftentimes have conflicting interests and putting them all in one living space often fosters discontent. That said, if you asked any member of Congress how they plan to help African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, or whomever, they would have an answer locked, loaded, and ready to go. But if you asked them what their plan is to help the white working class, you might be escorted out of that town hall by security. Why do you think that is? And do you think that the day will ever come when elected Republicans will mention the name of the group that actually votes for them by majority?

King: It seems like there is a movement in that direction. In fact, I know there’s a movement in that direction. There are several different groups in the country that are starting to form that way to defend the culture and civilization that built the United States of America and they’re less and less apologetic about it. But I can tell you the pressure in Washington is just so utterly high. If you looked at what they attacked me for – I was misquoted in the New York Times – but even that quote shouldn’t have been anything that gave anybody heartburn. They conflated white nationalism and white supremacy with Western civilization, and I asked, “How did those terms become pejorative?”

Why did I sit in the classroom as a boy hearing the merits of Western civilization just to see it become a derogatory term today? The last part didn’t get quoted in the paper. But I was defending Western civilization, and I had done that before. I had been quoted 276 times defending Western civilization going back to the year 2000 and had never even used the terms white nationalism or white supremacism.

Let me take you back to another incident that really brought my attention to this. It was the opening night of the 2016 Republican National Convention in Cleveland, and I did a panel with MSNBC. Chris Hayes is the moderator. They had April Ryan, a black commentator there, and a fellow by the name of Charlie Pierce. We had our little banter going back and forth, and maybe it wasn’t all that friendly but I didn’t think it was bad, and then at the end, Charlie Pierce said, “One could be an optimist and hope that this would be the last Republican convention where old white people have anything to say about it.” They were ready to cut away, and I couldn’t let that go. I said, “Charlie, that’s getting kind of tiring. I’m tired of hearing that. I’d invite you to explain to all of us what other sub-group has contributed more.”

And Chris Hayes leaned over and leered at me, thinking he had me trapped, and said, “More than white people?” And I said, “More than Western civilization itself defined by everywhere the footprint of Jesus Christ laid the foundation.” That is when they targeted me as a white supremacist and a white nationalist and decided to squeeze me out of Congress eventually.

Edwards: You were the keynote speaker at a recent American Renaissance conference. Not very long ago, you would routinely see men like Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, and even yours truly, occasionally, on prime-time cable news programming. Those days have passed, but what concerns me is that conservatives too often give their enemies the power to determine those with whom they are allowed to speak and associate. At some point, public figures and elected officials will have to be able to speak with such advocates without fear of what so-called journalists think about it. I assume you agree.

King: I’ve had this attitude for a long time. I am a strong, strong advocate for freedom of speech, and when I see the freedom of speech of a person being curtailed because other people disagree with it, and then they organize to muzzle them, that’s not what made America. It has got to be a robust and competitive freedom of speech.

I think we need to lend a voice to the values and principles I expressed at that conference. It was supposed to be a 30-minute speech and 15 minutes of Q&A, but I got kind of carried away and didn’t step down for an hour and a half. But I was having fun, and they were paying attention. I don’t believe there is a reason why anyone of a different race or ethnicity can’t embrace Western civilization and succeed within the parameters that have been set up by it. Free enterprise, freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly, the right to bear arms, all the way down the line. The pillars of American exceptionalism are accessible to everyone.

It is important to be able to tell people what you believe in, let them sort out what they hear, and then come to their own conclusions. Why should we fear speech? Why should we try to muzzle someone who says, “I am of European heritage, and look at all the things we brought with us over here. Look at the things we developed once we got here. What’s wrong with any of this?”

When you muzzle people like Peter Brimelow or Jared Taylor or Steve King or James Edwards, or anyone else out there, what you’re saying is you don’t have confidence that your ideology can compete.

Edwards: Though you were born in Iowa, you courageously defended Southern heritage while in Congress in a most remarkable way. Can you share that story with us?

King: This is another example of my commitment to the freedom of speech. I was walking to my office one day, and there was a debate taking place on the floor. I asked my staff, “What are they debating down there?” And they said, “Well, they’re debating amendments that Democrats are bringing to take the Confederate flag down somewhere.”

I listened to maybe 30 seconds of that, and once I realized what was going on, I ran out and went down the elevator to the tunnel. I ran through the tunnel over to the Capitol, up onto the floor, commanded the floor, and got recognized to speak. I was probably huffing and puffing through the whole five minutes, but I made the argument that the battle flag is about Southern pride. It’s not about advocating for slavery. If you Google “Southern pride,” by the time you get the barbecue out of the way, it’s all battle flags after that. If you Google “slavery” and get images, you get about seven or eight pages of black and white slaves. There’s not one battle flag in the whole thing. But now they’ve turned it into a verboten symbol, and they’re crushing Southern pride.

I also wanted to give credit to what happened at Appomattox when Lee and Grant negotiated the surrender. Lee asked Grant if those boys could keep their arms and their horses because they needed to go home and farm. And Grant said they could keep their horses. The officers got to keep their side arms. When the surrender was announced, a Union regiment fired off a volley in celebration, and Grant shut that down immediately. He said, “From this day forward, these rebels are our countrymen.” So, they got to keep their Southern pride, and their horses, and the officers kept their sidearms, but they also became countrymen again.

I made that argument on the House floor. I lost, but I put a Confederate flag on my desk as a symbol of freedom of speech and respect for Southern pride.

Edwards: On a somewhat similar note, you once shared a humorous story with me about an international trip you took with a former colleague, the late U.S. Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas). Do you remember the one?

King: I served with her for 18 years, 16 of those years on the Judiciary Committee, and I traveled the world with her, sitting across from her on long flights. Uganda comes to mind. I remember sitting on a bus with her as we were going through Uganda. Sheila was looking out the window, and she said, “These are my people.” I said, “Sheila, how do you know they’re your people?” Her answer was basically that they looked like she thinks her people look.

I razzed her because she was opposed to any type of wall, fence, or barbed wire. But, in Africa, the only place where you’re safe is inside your own compound with a wall, broken glass, and concertina wire on top. So, I pointed that out by saying, “Sheila, look at that. What do you think of that? Are all these people stupid? Why did they build these things? It looks like it must work, huh?” And after a few days of me ribbing her, she asked me if I would treat my little sister like this. I told her that I do, and she can stand up for herself. So that’s how that went.

Then, another time, we were in Morocco, where there are these 40-foot-high stone walls. We were talking underneath them, and I said, “Sheila, you see these walls? They were built by slaves. Did you know that?” She perked up. And I said, “Yeah, they were built by Christian slaves with Muslim masters. The Muslims would emasculate them so they didn’t have the equipment to urinate, much less reproduce, and when they there were done with them, they would just throw them off the wall or out of a boat and into the sea.” So, I’m telling her about these white, Christian slaves, and that needled her a little bit because she always viewed everything from the lens of racism. Very late in her career, she even put forth a bill that would have criminalized thought crimes. I think we all know what that means.

Edwards: You still have connections, power, and influence that most people do not have. What’s next for Steve King?

King: I call Victor Orban a gold standard of Western civilization. He knows what he’s doing, and he is methodically protecting the Western civilization within Hungary and influencing it outside of there. I met with him back in about 2015 or ‘16, and it was fascinating. But I also went through Europe, and I met with the patriotic party leaders that have sprung up across there, and I was laying the foundation to build an international organization to restore Western civilization around the world. We were very close to announcing it and launching it when the ambush came in on me and more or less destroyed my political capital and everything else I had going on. But we still need to do that.

The short version would be to pull in all the countries in Western Europe, and Eastern Europe that are part of Western civilization, and then, of course, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Let’s pull those countries together with at least one representative who advocates for Western civilization. That means principled, conservative patriots. Each one of these countries needs to have its own identity and language but also be willing to pull together under the larger umbrella of Western civilization. I wanted to put up an organization that’s founded and planted in Vienna where we turned the Turks back in 1529 and in 1683, committed to saving Western civilization, and then let it grow from there into universities and elsewhere. That’s what I’d like to do in the future. I think we’ve got a chance to get it done. It’s going to take some work and money.

To order former U.S. Rep. Steve King’s book, Walking Through the Fire: My Fight for the Heart and Soul of America, please visit www.steveking.com.

Left to right: Actress Mindy Robinson, former U.S. Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa), Mr. and Mrs. James Edwards, and former U.S. Senate nominee Lauren Witzke (R-Delaware) pose for a photo together after an event last year in Orlando, Florida.

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

Andrew Grant “Charlotte” Fosgate: Suicide, Mockery, and Derision

/1 Comment/in , /by

The Suicide of Andrew Grant “Charlotte” Fosgate and the Mockery and Derision in Response

Stigma, Shame, and Other Negative Sanctions are Vital To Stopping the Transgender Menace

The above image features an image of St. Johns Bridge in Portland, Oregon, featured in the last tweet posted by Fosgate’s “charlotteburntfishie” account.

Author’s Note: the nature of this essay, a time sensitive “news” story, is particularly subject to revision and expansion.

As some readers are likely well aware, there is some controversy on social media concerning the apparent suicide of a Portland teen who had succumbed to transgender delirium. His name was Andrew Grant Fosgate, who adopted the name “Charlotte” in order to pretend that he was a young woman. On May 2, 2025, he posted this tweet with a picture of St. Johns Bridge in Portland Oregon. This had gone unnoticed for several weeks, until it was alleged that his death was confirmed. Note there are some who doubt the veracity of these reports.

Right-wingers and edgelords on twitter soon became aware of this, and reacted with mockery and derision. This tweet was met with both support and outrage, just as Stonetoss made a meme with the image of Andrew’s last tweet his profile banner for his twitter account.

This in turn has mobilized transgenders and their enablers to denounce such reactions, many of them making death threats or condoning violence explicitly. The position asserted by this motley assortment of cretins is that it is morally reprehensible to mock or celebrate the death of the “child.” Much of the outcry uses the word ‘child’ repeatedly to describe a junior or senior in high school, a minor who can drive a car, be emancipated as an adult, and tried as an adult under certain circumstances. They further assert that it is this sort of cruelty which drove the young person to suicide. Until Friday May 30, this was largely self-contained on twitter and other social media outlets, although it had been covered on Perez Hilton. And today, May 31, it was covered on Rolling Stone, compelling the publication of this short essay on The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective.

It cannot be stressed enough that no one has shown actual proof that Andrew Grant Fosgate received any sort of pushback, criticism, or even bullying in relation to his mad delusion that he is a “girl.” In fact, according to the tweets and other materials reproduced below, his mother, a single mother, was proactive in feeding this delusion, enabling and encouraging his “transition,” even giving him estrogen shots according to the teen’s own twitter account. There is no evidence that any of his peers criticized, balked, or stigmatized this lunacy in any way.

Despite assertions to the contrary, there should have been a great deal of criticism and stigma by his peers and society at large, in order to deter him and anyone else from entertaining such an impossible delusion in the first place. Some, particularly those of a more mainstream persuasion, including some of those of a Christian faith, may find some of the tweets, memes, and other reaction to this incident distasteful. It should be noted, however, that the young man had become truly contemptible, advocating for White genocide. His detractors insist it is a joke, but when something has to be explained that it is a joke, it has necessarily failed in its attempt at humor.¹

It is also of note that embracing the death and suicide of Andrew Grant Fosgate to advance the transgender cause is contrary to sound principles related to suicide prevention and the copy-cat phenomenon. As hard as it may be for some to fathom, and in contravention to naïveté about “the free marketplace of ideas,” suicide, among many other harmful and irrational behaviors, rubs off on other people. The suicide rate jumped up some twelve percent after Marilyn Monroe committed suicide. This has led to a greater understanding of social contagion and the copy-cat phenomenon, as it has led to strict protocols on how suicide is covered.2 As a general rule, media protocols dictate that such stories are publicized only very briefly, with a mere statement of what had transpired, replete with disclaims including suicide hotlines and so on. Transgender lunatics and their enablers are instead publicizing this, making a martyr of the fallen teen and blaming “transphobia” for his decision when in fact his family and all of his local society in Portland condoned and encouraged this delusion. Suicide attempts by so-called “transgenders” could very likely go up as a result, but those advancing this sick ideology will use it to silence detractors and blame those against this insanity for it, rather than the infusion of this impossible delusion into the stream of culture.

More importantly, such protestations do not change the fact that transgenderism is being normalized, and becoming mainstream. The only way to push this collective delusion into the dark recesses of society is through overt stigma and shaming and, if there is a political mandate to do so, legal sanctions, from restricting to banning so-called “gender affirming care.” Such a legislative response would be akin to laws like anti-prostitution and anti-gambling laws that, while never able to completely eradicate these vices, do provide an important deterrent while signaling that society finds these vices anathema.

Until such time as a political mandate has been realized to use state power to impose such sanctions, stigma and shame are the best deterrents. It may seem distasteful to some, but the more cases like those of Andrew Grant Fosgate are mocked and derided or met with other negative social sanctions, the more people will be dissuaded from entertaining this mad folly in the first place. Such negative responses are essential in order to prevent deviancy being defined even further down3 by mainstreaming transgenderism outright.

Stated another way, right-wing stalwarts, luminaries, and provocateurs like Stonetoss are not what killed Andrew Grant Fosgate. Rather it is the dissemination and promulgation of this sick ideology that implants this impossible idea into the minds of people on a macro, societal level, further aided and encouraged by lunatics like his mother. That transgender ideology is nothing other than the maddest delusion is proven by even a cursory glance at this creature before his demise. Despite being draped in concealing clothing, the unmistakably male features are immediately apparent in the size of his feet, and the distinctly male if not masculine features of his face, this despite adolescent males often having babyface features, to mention nothing of the estrogen shots he was receiving from that mother of his.

Charlotte Sometimes? Charlotte NEVER!
Above, an image of the boy pretending to be a girl. Below, some mad lad edited a picture of him to look more like what he is.

Fighting a culture war is never for the faint of heart, which is probably why mainstream conservatives have done almost nothing but bring about defeat after impending defeat. As with other matters, mealy-mouthed murmurings from such fuddy-duddies need to be ignored. Their strategy has been tried, and it has largely failed.

The loss of young life is often tragic and lamentable, but those voices responding sharply to this event are precisely those voices that needed to be heard as soon as the transgender agenda entered mainstream society when Bruce Jenner appeared in Vanity Fair. Just as they needed to be heard in other ways society and culture have devolved in the decades before, defining deviancy ever further downward. For that reason, those with ideological focus and intellectual acuity will not condemn those who respond in this way, but join them in the fight.

ADDENDUM (June 2, 2025): some of the hysteria by tansgender lunatics and their enablers has died down somewhat. The story has since been convered by local Oregon news, as well as LGBTQ Yuck propaganda rag Pink News (as any internet search query will demonstrate). Transgender vermin and radical gender ideologues have made the spot where Fosgate jumped into a shrine, and those against this lunacy are leaving mementos in mockery and derision. As stated, publicizing the suicide in this way to push so-called transgender rights is in contravention to basic protocols to prevent suicide ideation based on the copy-cat and socail contagion phenomena. These cretins are far more interested in trying to appropriate the death of Andrew Grant Fosgate as a martyr for their insidious cause than trying to prevent copy-cats. Below readers will find screenshots demonstrating these developments, as well as a sample of incitement to violence by the left. The latter is protected speech under Brandenburg vs Ohio, but is liklely in contravention to terms of service under twitter any other mainstream social media platform.

Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his publication, The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, found at theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls.

 

1 There are other unsavory postings associated with his social media footprint. The interest of brevity prevents a further exposition of such matters, at least for now.

2 This is discusseed at length in “When So Many Do Jump off a Bridge.”

3 Those unfamiliar with this critical concept are directed to this brief description, taken from “What Consenting Adults Do Is Our Councern:”

Discussed in detail by the late Robert Bork in the introductory chapter to Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Defining Deviancy Down posits—quite correctly—that any society, no matter how moral or depraved, can only afford to regard so much behavior as deviant before that behavior becomes normalized. This is closely related with the Durkheim Constant, postulated by German Jewish sociologist Emile Durkheim, which posits every society, no matter how moral or depraved, will have the same quotient of behavior that society regards as deviant. A society of saints will have vastly different morals and mores than a society of sinners, but both societies will regard the same quotient of behavior on the outlying edges of that particular society as deviant. Quite critically, as deviancy is defined ever further downward, society will then regard behavior that had been regarded as normal and beneficial as deviant

‘Black Fatigue’ is Real

/7 Comments/in , /by

Due to the persistent problem of black dysfunction and criminality in America — the kind we witness in various forms each and every day whether it be on social media, nightly news reports or from personal experience — ‘black fatigue’ has reached epic proportions throughout the country.

An increasing number of white Americans, including those of other racial and ethnic groups, have grown weary of the entitlement attitudes, the violent crimes and societal disruption that blacks bring. They used to limit their dysfunction largely to their own communities, but it’s now spread everywhere. Social media platforms such as X, Instagram, Rumble, YouTube, and TikTok document it all.

White Americans, of course, should have been fatigued a long time ago during the Rodney King incident and subsequent L.A. riots of 1992, or the Trayvon Martin fiasco, or the Michael Brown debacle of 2014, or the nationwide Black Lives Matter-George Floyd riots that managed to destroy large sections of numerous American cities at the cost of billions in 2020, divided the entire nation, and led to widespread ‘defund the police’ efforts. But these things take time, and a good many whites are still numbingly tucked away in their multicultural slumber.

Yet, the ripening of America’s fatigue of blacks has, apparently, reached its peak or at least close to it. This is especially evident on social media where criticism of typical black criminality is scorned and harshly condemned, often in explicitly ‘racial’ terms that are sometimes in coded language and other times not.

This was not always the case just a few years back when there were tighter controls over what one could say on the various platforms. But times have changed. It has become so common now to mock blacks openly on social media because people are fed up with their antics and victim mentality. Persistent comments on social media about blacks, such as “Ashamed of nothing, offended by everything, and entitled to everything,” or “The fatigue is real,” or “The 13% commit over 60% of the nation’s violent crime,” or “We don’t have a race problem, we have a problem race” are all indicative that much of the nation no longer believes the lies of black victimhood.

The overt thievery of large groups of young black males and black females who often commit their crimes attired as Ninjas to conceal their identities has caused increasing numbers of people to lose whatever good feelings they might have had of them. Criminal ‘flash mobs’ are almost exclusively committed by young black males, and most jewelry shops and Apple iPhone centers have learned to be wary of blacks in groups. The simple-minded may see it as ‘racial profiling,’ but it’s simply a matter of noticing repeated patterns committed by the same people.

The Dilbert cartoon creator, Scott Adams, rightly described blacks as a “hate group” when one considers all the malice they express against whites, including the crime and violence they routinely perpetrate on others. He admonished whites to just stay away from them: “Based on the current way things are going, the best advice I would give to white people is to get the hell away from black people” . . . “Just get the (expletive) away. Wherever you have to go, just get away. Because there’s no fixing this. This can’t be fixed.”

Mind you, these were the words coming from a man who was once sympathetic to black causes and closely identified with them. But no more. Adams also said, “I’m going to back off from being helpful to black Americans because it doesn’t seem like it pays off . . . The only outcome is that I get called a racist.”

Blacks have no one to blame but themselves for these kinds of reactions. And it’s not a matter of whites being ‘racist’ either, but of them seeing the true nature of blacks which is marked by low intelligence, impulsiveness, menacing, temperamental, aggressive, and possessing strong proclivities toward violent crime and thievery. Is it true of all blacks without exception? Of course not. But there can be little doubt that a sizable population of blacks in any city or community will inevitably bring about enormous levels of street crime, murder, out-of-wedlock births, poverty, and a ‘culture’ that is inherently destructive to the black family. Whites have no need to destroy black communities; blacks freely do it to themselves.

This is why racially discerning whites have long maintained that blacks should not be allowed into white societies, and every effort to bring about an equality between the two races is doomed to failure because we are so very different in terms of our worldviews, our cultures, our morality, our intelligence, and our industriousness. Abraham Lincoln in 1858 expressed the same sentiments in one of his presidential debates with Senator Stephen Douglas:

I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races . . . I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Thus, when whites many decades earlier erected Jim Crow and Sundown laws, it was for the purpose of preserving the kinds of societies that whites created and of preventing blacks from destroying it. This is because they understood the nature and natural proclivities of black people having interacted with them for a period of almost two centuries prior. When blacks are allowed full legal equality and freedom in white societies, it’s just a matter of time before all of our once grand cities begin to resemble South Side Chicago, Birmingham, Selma, Baltimore, Oakland, and Detroit. This is beyond dispute because it’s not the Amish or German tourists who have made our major cities unsafe, but the presence of blacks and the thug culture that has become part and parcel to who and what they are as a people.

As harsh as it may sound to some ears, blacks culturally erode and inevitable destroy whatever societies are foolish enough to allow them to participate in it unless a firm hand is present to keep them out. But few whites today have the heart to do it having been softened and guilt-ridden by decades of anti-white racial propaganda. This is one of many reasons why America has failed. It has permitted a plague to fester in its midst all while convincing itself that things are not really as bad as they are.

This is, admittedly, hard for modern whites to understand because we’ve all been propagandized with government race dogma that tells us that whites and blacks are really no different from each other. However, a failure to understand that blacks and whites are fundamentally different in so many ways and that we are not compatible has led to a long history of race relations in America marked only by conflict, hatred, fruitless and costly government programs — as well as total chaos. It’s like trying to force a square peg into a round hole, so we have worked feverishly to force blacks and whites to live together, and it always fails no matter what pretty lies we tell ourselves to justify it.

Blacks in the past didn’t even need to live among whites in order to have relatively successful and happy lives. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s when blacks were mostly kept away from white society, there was comparably less out-of-wedlock births, less drug usage and less violent crime within black communities than today. The black family was also largely kept intact, and divorce was not as common. Thus, whites generally had a moral and civilizing influence over blacks that did not require both groups to live among each other. It’s only when the civil rights movement took hold along with the welfare state and feel-good government policies, did we begin to witness the breakup of America’s black families.

Some blacks claim to have the same level of black fatigue that many whites do. Maybe so, but this means relatively little because the number of blacks who speak out against normative black dysfunction is infinitesimally small. Those who do are generally condemned by their fellow blacks as “Uncle Toms,” as trying to appease the white man to gain his favor. This is one of many reasons why blacks are unable to self-correct on any collective level. Individual blacks may be able to civilize themselves and reform their conduct, but it will never happen in any collective sense. Decades of racial coddling and endless liberal excuses for why blacks are unable to achieve parity with whites in so many areas has created a people with appalling levels of self-entitlement and who believe the most irrational things about themselves (‘We was Kangs’).

Black dysfunction will never go away because the nature of blacks will never change, including the low and degrading cultures they create wherever they dwell. This is largely attributable to genetics and deeply engrained behavior. No wonder generational welfare is so rampant among blacks in America — they think nothing is wrong about it and feel entitled to endless government handouts. We need to remember that blacks are the only race of people on the entire planet that need to create inner-city campaigns to urge their young men to stop ‘sagging’ and pull up their pants!

Blacks in America have proven to be so ruinous to good order and civility that they can’t even take cruise ship vacations without engaging in large brawls. Whether it’s a waffle house, a backyard BBQ, a musical concert, a wedding, or even a funeral, blacks always find a way to create a disturbing public scene that does nothing but drive intelligent and decent people away from them.

One of the more recent trends among blacks is to dance and gyrate at their high school and college formal graduations. Nothing about it is subtle or subdued. I’m not against celebrating such events, mind you, but blacks have a way of demeaning themselves and the dignity of public events by their ghetto-ratchet behavior. Videotaped high school prom celebrations among blacks are often show them wearing the most tasteless and gaudy clothing while flashing money before the camera. Blacks see this as an expression of their success and achievements, but in reality, it’s one more garish display of a people who possess little self-awareness and introspection.

A recent incident showing how whites no longer care what blacks think can be seen in the case of a Minnesota mother, Shiloh Hendrix. While at a public playground with her son, a black child had allegedly attempted to steal something from Shiloh’s diaper bag. When she rebuffed the child, using the n-word, a black Somali man (Sharmake Omar) confronted her and began to film her. Shiloh replied by saying “fuck you!” and again used the n-word when she was challenged by the man.

Attempts were made to expose Shiloh and ruin her life as a result of what she said. The local branch of the NAACP (Rochester) has called on the city of Rochester’s Attorney’s Office and the Olmsted County Attorney’s Office to take action against Shiloh Hendrix. This prompted Shiloh to open a fund-raising account. At this time, she has received nearly 9,000 supporters and raised more than $754,000! This is all very encouraging, and she probably would not have received any financial support just a few years earlier. But the presence of ‘black fatigue’ has taken root among whites.

Who cares if Shiloh used the n-word or not, especially when blacks freely use it in almost everything they say! The point is that whites are starting to stand up for themselves and no longer give a rip what blacks think or what whites are allowed to say in their presence. And if the black child at such a young age is starting to take things he shouldn’t, then maybe it’s time to call him out for what he is?

Whatever one may think of Adolf Hitler, he rightly saw through the facade of America and its many lies about ‘racial equality’ and ‘diversity as a strength’:

I don’t see much future for the Americans. . . . [I]t’s a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities. . . . My feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance . . . everything about the behavior of American society reveals that it’s half-Judaised, and the other half negrified. How can one expect a State like that to hold together?” (Adolf Hitler, Hitler’s Secret Conversations: 1941–1944 [Octagon Books, 1972]).

History has not proven him wrong. Only twenty years later, the U.S. began to unravel with its divisive civil rights movement (primarily funded and organized by Jews), affirmative action quotas that directly discriminated against whites, multi-city riots throughout the nation by violent blacks, including the onslaught of an endless third-world invasion across our borders, not to mention the spread of pornography and every stripe of filth that continually bombards our entire citizenry twenty-four hours a day.

Millions of Americans are drug-addicted and dependent on psychotropic pills just to get through the day. Jews largely control our Congress, the legacy media and Hollywood, and our financial institutions, while blacks are continually shoved in our collective faces telling us all how much superior they are and how culturally ‘enriched’ we’ve become as a result. That millions of Americans would think highly of such a criminal goon as George Floyd and that statues honoring him would be erected shows what a laughingstock the U.S. has become.

The great ‘noticing’ about blacks among an increasing number of white Americans is neither ‘racist’ nor unfair. In fact, it’s precisely what Martin Luther King Jr. wanted when he declared in 1963 that he looked forward to a day when blacks would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the “content of their character.” Today’s ‘black fatigue’ phenomena, then, has nothing to do with judging one’s skin pigmentation and everything to do with judging the character and conduct of far too many blacks.

Thus, MLK Jr. got his wish, but the outcome was something he would have never imagined in his wildest dreams.

Thanks for reading Ambrose Kane! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and please support my work.

Another Neoconservative Bites the Dust: The Life and Legacy of Michael Ledeen

/7 Comments/in , /by

Michael Ledeen, the man who urged America to “to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall” every decade,  met an end that many of his critics would call overdue. On May 17, 2025, Ledeen died at the age of 83. marking the passing of one of the last influential Jewish neoconservatives of his generation.

Ledeen obtained a Ph.D. in History and Philosophy from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where he studied under the Jewish German-born historian George Mosse. He took a particular interest in Italian fascism and wrote a doctoral dissertation that eventually became “Universal Fascism: The Theory and Practice of the Fascist International, 1928–1936,” published in 1972, which explored Benito Mussolini’s efforts to create a Fascist international in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

His academic career began at Washington University in St. Louis, where he was an assistant professor of history from 1967–1973, before becoming a visiting professor at the University of Rome from 1973–1977. Ledeen authored over 35 books throughout his career, including works on fascism, European history, and Middle Eastern politics.

His influence was most felt in the realm of national security though. Throughout his career, Ledeen held multiple advisory roles within the U.S. government, including as a consultant to the National Security Council, a special advisor to the Secretary of State, a consultant to the Department of Defense, and a consultant to the under-secretary of political affairs. Ledeen was an active member of numerous think tanks and regime-change advocacy organizations such as the U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon, Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI), American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). Additionally, he has been published in numerous philosemitic conservative outlets such as the National Review, Wall Street Journal, and the Weekly Standard. His influence extended beyond formal roles. According to the Washington Post, he was the only “full-time” international affairs analyst frequently consulted by Karl Rove, the chief strategist of then-President George W. Bush.

Ledeen’s career was not free of controversy, however. In 1980, Ledeen co-authored articles with Belgian-American journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave in The New Republic alleging Jimmy Carter’s brother, Billy Carter, accepted payments from Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi and met with PLO leader Yasser Arafat. He made those same assertions before a Senate subcommittee as the 1980 presidential election quickly approached. These claims, published weeks before the presidential election, reignited the “Billygate” scandal.

A 1985 Wall Street Journal investigation later confirmed that the stories were part of a disinformation campaign executed by Italy’s military intelligence agency (SISMI) to hurt Carter’s presidential re-election campaign. Italian intelligence officer Francesco Pazienza testified that Ledeen received $120,000 for his role and operated under the codename “Z-3.” Pazienza, who was convicted for extortion in connection to the operation, described Ledeen as a key figure behind the dissemination of false narratives.

Additionally, Ledeen was heavily involved in the Iran-Contra affair during the Reagan administration. As a consultant to National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, Ledeen facilitated back-channel communications between U.S. officials, Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, and Iranian arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar. In this case, the Reagan administration was clandestinely negotiating hostage releases in Lebanon via arms sales to Iran, a scheme that bypassed Congressional oversight and later became a major scandal. Ledeen defended Ghorbanifar despite widespread skepticism about his reliability, subsequently detailing his perspective in the book “Perilous Statecraft.” While he never faced criminal charges, Ledeen’s role in Iran-Contra showcased his willingness to operate in the shadows, ethics be damned.

Like many Jews in the neoconservative movement, Ledeen has a long career of advocating for regime change in the Middle East.

Ledeen was one of the most vocal Jewish neoconservatives lobbying for the removal of Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein. Along with other neoconservative luminaries such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, Ledeen signed “An Open Letter to the President” in 1998, urging Bill Clinton to topple Iraq’s Baathist regime.

Similar to other Jewish officials in the national security establishment, Ledeen was an unapologetic champion of using hard military power. Jewish neoconservative journalist Jonah Goldberg coined the “Leeden Doctrine” after reflecting on a speech he attended in the 1990s at the American Enterprise Institute. In that speech, Ledeen was alleged to have said:

Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business.

In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Ledeen was one of the most energetic proponents of using military force against the country. Ledeen wrote a piece at the National Review critical of former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, who advised against invading Iraq. Instead of exercising restraint, Ledeen called for turning the entire Middle East “into a cauldron”, as he explained in more detail:

Scowcroft has managed to get one thing half right, even though he misdescribes it. He fears that if we attack Iraq “I think we could have an explosion in the Middle East. It could turn the whole region into a caldron and destroy the War on Terror.”

One can only hope that we turn the region into a cauldron, and faster, please. If ever there were a region that richly deserved being cauldronized, it is the Middle East today. If we wage the war effectively, we will bring down the terror regimes in Iraq, Iran, and Syria, and either bring down the Saudi monarchy or force it to abandon its global assembly line to indoctrinate young terrorists.

Ledeen’s hawkish stance on Iran was also a lifelong constant. He labeled the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini a “theocratic fascist”, and as Jewish political commentator Peter Beinart observed about Ledeen’s Middle Eastern political analysis, every problem in the region “traces back to Tehran.” Despite opposing a direct invasion of Iran in his later years, Ledeen championed aggressive support for Iranian dissidents and preemptive strikes against nuclear facilities if diplomacy failed to get Iran to kowtow to the United States.

Michael Ledeen’s death marks the end of a career that Jewish journalist Eli Lake described as one of “America’s most courageous historians and journalists.” His friend David Goldman, a Jewish international relations commentator associated with the Claremont Institute, wrote that Ledeen’s “personal contribution to America’s victory in the Cold War is far greater than the public record shows.”

Ledeen’s legacy is undeniably one and steadfast advocacy for Jewish interests within the American conservative movement. For those who saw his influence as a barrier to a more authentically gentile Right, his passing, like David Horowitz’s, may indeed be viewed as an opportunity for change as more of the Jewish founders of neoconservatism and their progeny exit the plane of the living.

For this author, Ledeen will certainly not be missed.

Moobs on the Move: Translunatic Tantrums and Core Concepts of Clown World

/3 Comments/in , /by

“Pissing in Public.” That was the alliterative theme of the first tranny tantrum. “Moobs on the Move.” That’s been the alliterative theme of the second tranny tantrum. Narcissists hate being told “No,” you see, and translunatic narcissists in Britain were told “No” by the Supreme Court in April 2025, when judges ruled that women are defined by biology, not by bullshit.

Moobs on the move: some mentally ill men parade their perversion in public (images from Pink News and translunatic Munroe Bergdorf)

“It’s fascism!” cried the translunatic narcissists. “We’re being erased!” So they held a tranny tantrum outside parliament in April and some of them pissed in public. It was an ugly and uncouth thing to do. It was also against the law, because it was plainly “an outrage against public decency.” But translunatics belong to a privileged class under leftism and the police did nothing. At the end of May, the police have stood by again as participants in a second tranny tantrum have committed a second outrage against public decency. As Pink News put it: “Topless trans folks protest outside Downing Street in ‘deeply symbolic act’.” In other words, a group of mentally ill and sexually perverted men exposed their moobs in public after marching from Marble Arch.

A cute cat and a canine clown: Men can no more become women than dogs can become cats

Moobs are man-boobs and are usually a sure sign that something is wrong with a male body (the medical term is gynecomastia). In this case, the moobs were a sure sign that something was wrong — badly wrong — with male brains. The men had moobs because they’d been injecting themselves with female hormones. That’s a deeply unnatural and unhealthy thing to do, but it’s one of the sacred rites of Clown World, the vast system of lunatic leftism that currently rules the West. In Clown World, lunacy is held up as sanity and lies are held up as truth. One of the central lies of Clown World is this: “Men can become real women.” That’s a core concept of Clown World, blatant bullshit contradicting basic biology. But a related lie is even corer Clown. It goes like this: “Non-Whites can become real Westerners.”

Blacks in America behave like Blacks in Africa: they rape, murder and destroy civilization

Again, it’s blatant bullshit contradicting basic biology. No, men cannot become women; and no, non-Whites cannot become Westerners. Except in a strictly geographic sense. Non-Whites can live on Western soil, but that doesn’t make them authentic members of Western societies. As the leading hate-thinker Vox Day has so often pointed out: The dirt isn’t magic. That’s why I call non-Whites in the West “trans-Westerners.” The lies that justify their presence in the West run in parallel with the lies that justify the presence of transwomen in female spaces. In reality, the transwomen aren’t genuine women and the trans-Westerners aren’t genuine Westerners. But that’s precisely why leftism gives special privilege to these unnatural invaders and elevates them far above authentic members of the groups to which they claim to belong. The consequences of that privilege are trivial when it comes to trannies, traumatic when it comes to trans-Westerners. Trannies have had licence to piss in public. Trans-Westerners have had licence to commit decades of rape, torture and sexual enslavement in ethnically enriched places like Rotherham.

Clown-Kings Import Cousin-Copulators

But Rotherham is merely the tip of the trans-Western iceberg. This small town in Yorkshire is now infamous around the world for its Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs, but much worse has happened in nearby cities like Leeds and Bradford. When Pakistanis come to Britain, they don’t become British but remain Pakistani. In other words, they retain their proud Pakistani traditions both of child-rape and of cousin-marriage, which is guaranteed to lower IQ and create horrible genetic diseases. The Pakistani tradition of child-rape has destroyed the lives of countless children from the White majority; the Pakistani tradition of cousin marriage has destroyed the lives of countless children from the Pakistani minority itself. In both cases, leftists have stood by and done nothing. Like transwomen injecting themselves with oestrogen, trans-Westerners marrying their cousins is deeply unnatural and unhealthy.

Feelings don’t reverse facts: just say no to transgenderism and trans-Westernism

So what’s not to like for Clown World? Cousin-marriage will help wreck the West and Clown World wants to wreck the West. That’s why the Clown-Kings are so eager to import non-Whites who will practise cousin-marriage — and child-rape — with unrelenting enthusiasm. In Britain, the cousin-copulators and child-rapists are mainly Pakistani. In Germany, they’re mainly Arab. In both countries — I won’t dignify them with the noble name of “nation” any more — the trans-Westerners are footsoldiers in a war on the West. And in both countries, the Clown-Kings insist that the trans-Westerners are true citizens, just as they insist that transwomen are true females. For example, the German branch of Clown-World has been celebrating the heroism of a newly arrived trans-Westerner called Muhammad Al Muhammad. He’s a Syrian refugee and helped to subdue a “39-year-old German woman” who had stabbed eighteen people at Hamburg rail-station. This reverses the usual pattern whereby it’s Syrians stabbing Germans, you see, so Clown-World is using Heroic Mo to pretend that Syrians are good for Germany.

The Hamburg stabber under arrest: note large chin and flat chest

They aren’t, of course, and it will be no surprise if this stabber-subduing Syrian appears again in the news for perpetrating a violent crime rather than helping to prevent one. But there’s something about the Hamburg stabbing that Clown-World is keeping quiet about rather than celebrating. Or so I suspect. Clown-World has said that the attacker is a “39-year-old German woman.” But stabbing eighteen people is not something you’d expect a woman to do. It’s a male kind of crime. That’s why I immediately suspected that the attacker wasn’t a woman but a transwoman.

When I saw a video of the attacker being bundled out of the station by police, my suspicions were confirmed. The gait and posture of the arrested individual, the height and flat chest, all say “man” to me. So does the chin. The attacker is a transwoman, not a woman. That’s what I think. But am I given pause because the police have said that “there is ‘very concrete evidence’ of mental illness in the suspect”? Not at all. Transgenderism and mental illness go together like Islam and child-rape. Where you’ve got the first, you automatically have the other. That’s why transwomen and Muslims are both so high in the hierarchy of Clown-World, far above the real women whom the transwomen parody and the White children whom the Muslims prey upon.

Appendix: Music for Moobs on the Move

Whoever invented the term “moob” was a master of language. So was whoever wrote the lyrics of this song.

“The Transgender Song”

(To the tune of “If You’re Happy and You Know It, Clap Your Hands”)

If a person has a penis, he’s a man!

If a person has a penis, he’s a man!

If he doesn’t want to lose it,

Even though he doesn’t use it,

If a person has a penis, he’s a man!

If a person has a nutsack, he’s a man!

If a person has a nutsack, he’s a man!

He can tuck it to conceal it,

Let it dangle and reveal it,

If a person has a nutsack, he’s a man!

If he amputates his bits, he’s still a man!

If he grows a pair of tits, he’s still a man!

If the chromosome’s a “Y,”

HE WILL ALWAYS BE A GUY…

If he isn’t born a woman, he’s a man!

James Burnham’s “The Managerial Revolution”

/12 Comments/in /by

We are aware that we live in a technocracy, but we don’t necessarily understand what that means. What is a technocrat, and how does he or, increasingly, she function? A key text to understanding this relatively new style of governance is James Burnham’s 1941 book, The Managerial Revolution. Writing during World War 2, Burnham finds a societal shift analogous to this new kind of warfare, as the West moved “from one type of structure of society to another type”.

The outgoing form of society is that dominated by capitalism, the development of which Burnham dates from the end of the Middle Ages to 1914, and “our purpose is to analyze not capitalism but the type of society which is succeeding it”. Three possibilities are offered up: that capitalism will continue to dominate society, that it will be succeeded by a “socialist revolution”, or that both capitalism and socialism will be replaced by the “managerial revolution” of the book’s title.

The failure of the first great experiment in socialism in Russia after the 1917 revolution, and that nation’s steadfast refusal to accept capitalist practice, along with the rise of historiography, mean that “The Marxian philosophy of dialectical materialism takes its place with the other outmoded speculative metaphysics of the nineteenth century.” This seems to imply, in Burnham’s triumvirate of alternatives, that Russia could only tend towards managerialism. Moving on to consider the struggle for power in a general sense, Burnham states that “To an ever-increasing extent in post-medieval society, the decisive sectors of economy are not agricultural but mercantile, industrial, and financial.” It is already clear that this shift from the old, extractive or “primary” industries to another level of organization lends itself to a new and necessary level of control. And, as feudal society gave way to – or was effectively defeated by – capitalism (partly due to collusion and the fact that the new class of capitalists were largely drawn from the feudal tradition), so too the control of production was accorded to the ever-strengthening bourgeoisie. The proletariat, although championed by the revolutionary socialists in Russia, “did not have the social equipment for the fight”. The stage is set for the managerial revolution.

The coming of this revolution is aided and abetted by accelerated culture, itself an analogue to increasing mechanization. “An unusually rapid rate of change of the most important economic, social, political, and cultural institutions of society”, seems to favor the coming of the managerial class. Wyndham Lewis described World War 1 as “the first mechanized war”, and when Burnham dates the rise of managerialism from what was, until World War 2, known as “the Great War”, the parallels with the acceleration of machine-based technology seem clear. The new class does not exercise its power through property rights, but rather via control of those rights, which is at the heart of managerialism. The managers will control not the means of production and their necessary link to property rights, but rather by controlling those who do. The ideology funding this Burnham calls “technocracy”. Burnham sums up the framework of transition:

In simplest terms, the theory of the managerial revolution asserts merely the following: Modern society has been organized through a certain set of major economic, social, and political institutions which we call capitalist, and has exhibited certain major social beliefs or ideologies. Within this social structure we find that a particular group or class of persons—the capitalists or bourgeoisie—is the dominant or ruling class in the sense which has been defined. At the present time, these institutions and beliefs are undergoing a process of rapid transformation. The conclusion of this period of transformation, to be expected in the comparatively near future, will find society organized through a quite different set of major economic, social, and political institutions and exhibiting quite different major social beliefs or ideologies. Within the new social structure, a different social group or class — the managers — will be the dominant or ruling class.

Burnham turns his attention to the question that bridges his era and our own. Who are the managers? As increasing technological specialization leads to less training time, for example, for engineers, mechanics, and various other secondary industry operatives, so too a new class of coordinators must of necessity arise:

“We may often recognize them as ‘production managers,’ operating executives, superintendents, administrative engineers, supervisory technicians; or, in government (for they are to be found in governmental enterprise just as in private enterprise) as administrators, commissioners, bureau heads, and so on.”

The feudal system required no management in the modern sense, and the early capitalist was his own manager. Burnham uses a fictional car company example to show that, although there are different positions which control the company – executives, stockholders, finance capitalists – the management class splits off from these dominant functionaries and becomes its own separate order. This shows us, writes Burnham, “the mechanism of the managerial revolution”.

As capitalists withdraw further and further away from the means of production, so a vacuum appears for the managerial class to fill:

Throughout industry, de facto control by the managers over the actual processes of production is rapidly growing in terms both of the aspects of production to which it extends and the times in which it is exercised. In some sections of the economy, the managerial control is already fairly thorough, even though always limited indirectly by big capitalist control of the banks and finance.

The new class of managers will not themselves replace the capitalists as the controllers of the means of production, but the management class as a whole will. And this class goes through the next stage of evolution as the government begins to expand into the economy as a whole:

“The actual, day-by-day direction of the processes owned and operated by the government or controlled, without full ownership, by the government is in the hands of individuals strictly comparable to those whom we have called ‘managers’ in the case of private industry.”

And so, as capitalism recedes, the new managerial class fortifies itself not simply with regards to the actual means of production, but to the economy itself.

It is clear that, while socialists favor governmental incursion into the wider economy, capitalists are against it. Today, for us, things are more complex, and a deal seems to have been struck between government and Burnham’s outgoing class. We have all heard of “crony capitalism”. There is, however, a historical determinism at play:

The ‘limited state’ of capitalism is replaced by the ‘unlimited’ managerial state. Capitalist society exists no longer or lingers only as a temporary remnant. Managerial society has taken its place.

And this managerial society, this new ruling class, will be exploitative. Also, it will gain a position from which it can “achieve a certain continuity from generation to generation”.

As Burnham looks to the future, he sees any problems for the new managerial class as being distinct from those that befell the old capitalist class:

“Managerial crises will, it would seem, be technical and political in character”.

The managerial class will, however, be better able to turn new technology to its advantage, as it will not be actuated by profit-and-loss motives. Burnham now moves to the “shift in the locus of sovereignty”.

That capitalist society develops in tandem with the institution of parliament cannot be plotted with accuracy, writes Burnham. It is not “as tidy as a geometrical theorem”. It is a point he makes often, and an important one. It is always a category mistake to expect social or historical theorizing to have the surety of the mathematical, but it is a category mistake still made today. However, with a change in the ruling class must come a change in its executive institutions, and Burnham conjectures what will accompany the rise of the managerial class in terms of its symbolic locus of power.

While the new managerial class can function in a state which is not totalitarian, totalitarianism cannot exist without the managers:

Those nations — Russia, Germany, and Italy — which have advanced furthest toward the managerial social structure are all of them, at present, totalitarian dictatorships.

Totalitarianism is enabled by technological advance, and technological advance is the sine qua non of managerialism.

Burnham considers the apparent conflation of managerialism with bureaucratism, and asks which of this set of functionaries is ultimately to be in charge. It makes little difference, he writes, and is simply a question of nomenclature as, “In either case, the general structural and institutional organization will be the same.” The result is also the same. Technology has enabled management not only to rise within the state system, but also to dictate and regulate that system as though it were itself a technologically enhanced means of production:

“Stalin or Hitler prepares for a new political turn more or less as a production manager prepares for getting out a new model on his assembly line.”

Welcome to the machine.

But the mask of democracy must still be worn, and the masses must continue to be duped by the ring of its name. We see this on a daily basis, as everyone from Donald Trump to Nigel Farage is branded by the new political managers as “a threat to democracy”. Democracy works best the smaller the core of the state which actually casts executive votes, as in Athens, and the new brand which is emerging in parallel with the new managerial class will be somewhat different, another aspect of the malevolent new state we see across the West today:

The democracy of capitalist society is on the way out, is, in fact, just about gone, and will not come back. The democracy of managerial society will be some while being born; and its birth pangs will include drastic convulsions.

Perhaps Burnham’s prediction explains the convulsions felt across the West today. It is not his only foresight which today sounds familiar, as he turns his attention to the “world policy” of the managers, and we detect the grand entrance of globalism, a term flung around today but whose definition is not wholly clear. The existence of many nations, Burnham writes, is simply not compatible with the technologically enhanced new world order. Managers would rather manage one large department than lots of little bureaucratic fiefdoms:

The complex division of labor, the flow of trade and raw materials made possible and demanded by modern technology, were strangled in the network of diverse tariffs, laws, currencies, passports, boundary restrictions, bureaucracies, and independent armies. It has been clear for some while that these were going to be smashed.

This is consistent with the borderless aims of today’s globalists. Any machine will function more efficiently if it is one large structure subject to repair and improvement as a whole, rather than having to modify mechanical sub-catalogues, and Burnham is prescient considering our current predicament:

If political problems were settled by scientific reasoning, we should, most probably, expect that the political system of managerial society would take the form of a single world-state.

However this is achieved, Burnham continues, war will be the catalyst, and he describes the war in which he is writing as the first great war of the managerial age, just as World War 1 was the last of the capitalist era.

What of the managerial ideology? Burnham reprises his distinction between types of truth, and the difference between truth functions is insufficiently attended in our time. Science is fact-based, ideology is not. The classical distinction between ratio and emotio becomes a distinctive feature of ideology compared with more rigorous science:

The primary function of ideologies – whether moral or religious or metaphysical or social  is to express human interests, needs, desires, hopes, fears, not to cover the facts.” While scientific disputes can be settled by recourse to experiment and empirical verification or refutation, ideological differences have no such veridical reserve. It is simply a question of power, of Nietzschean kinetics. Burnham is alive to the pragmatics of the conflict between a dying capitalism and the new breed of manager, and also to the notion of adaptation over innovation:

That an ideology should be a managerial ideology, it is not necessary that managers should be its inventors or the first to adopt it. Capitalists did not invent capitalist ideologies; and intellectuals were elaborating them when the ambition of nearly every capitalist was still to be a feudal lord. It is the social effects that count.

Managerialism also unites two infamous ideologies, both ruinous, which are routinely separated today. This is a Venn-type overlap which takes us, once again, back to the model of the production-line:

Fascist and communist ideologies denounce in the same words the ‘chaos’ and ‘anarchy’ of capitalism. They conceive of the organization of the state of the future, their state, exactly along the lines on which a manager, an engineer, organizes a factory.

Considerations of managerial influence in Russia and Germany show that both were vulnerable to the new ideology, and thus were forced to accommodate it:

“What is really involved is a very important consequence of the pattern of the Russian way to managerial society, which we are here studying. This pattern, we saw, calls for first reducing the capitalists to impotence and then curbing the masses. The masses are of course used in accomplishing the first step; and ‘workers’ control’ is a major maneuver in breaking the power of the capitalists. But workers’ control is not only intolerable for the capitalist state: it is, if long continued and established, intolerable for any state and any class rule in society.”

The Russian Revolution, writes Burnham, was not a socialist revolution but a managerial one.

As for Germany, Burnham completes his equivalence in the context of managerialism:

“We find in Germany to an ever-increasing degree those structural changes which we have discovered to be characteristic of the shift from capitalism to managerial society. In the economic sphere, there is a steady reduction, in all senses, of the area of private enterprise, and a correlative increase of state intervention.”

Germany may be at an earlier stage than Russia, but Burnham still sees a larval managerial state.

As for US, although Burnham did not find it to be a managed concern yet, it was well on the way to becoming one:

In the United States, very conspicuously, the great private capitalists have been withdrawing from direct contact with production, traveling from direct supervision of the instruments of production to finance to occasional directors’ meetings to almost complete economic retirement. By this course, they give up, more and more, the de facto control of the instruments of production, upon which social rule in the end rests. Correlatively, more and more of the control over production, both within the arena of private enterprise and in the state, goes into the hands of the managers.

Anyone who has ever worked within a modern management structure, with its line-managers, reports, assessments, duplication, triplication, time-wasting training and ridiculous co-axial, private language, will hear the echoes of Burnham’s book, essential reading for anyone who wishes to understand the modern world and its management, or mis-management:

But no one who comes into contact with managers will fail to have noticed a very considerable assurance in their whole bearing. They know they are indispensable in modern society. Whether or not they have thought it out, they grasp the fact that they have nothing to fear from the immense social changes speeding forward over the whole world. When they begin to think, they get ready to welcome those changes, and often to help them along.

It was Sir Geoffrey Howe, Margaret Thatcher’s aide de camp and Chancellor of the Exchequer, who coined the phrase “managing decline”, and that seems more appropriate now than ever. You would be surprised what can’t be managed.

When Uncle Tom Crosses Uncle Shmuel

/8 Comments/in , , /by

In America’s NGO space, some topics are so taboo that even renowned public intellectuals aren’t safe when they dare criticize sacred cows such as the state of Israel.

Just ask Black economist Glenn Loury.

A former Reagan-era conservative, Loury has held a distinguished career in the field of economics. After earning his doctorate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Loury began as an assistant professor at Northwestern, then joined the University of Michigan, becoming a full professor in 1980. In 1982, at age 33, he became Harvard’s first Black tenured economics professor.

Loury would later join Brown University in 2005, where he held the title of Merton P. Stoltz Professor of the Social Sciences and Professor of Economics at Brown University. Additionally, he is a Professor of International and Public Affairs at the same institution. In late 2020, Loury joined the Manhattan Institute as a senior fellow and got the conservative think tank to sponsor his podcast “The Glenn Show” for a few years.

Everything was going well for the economist until he crossed into politically dangerous terrain. During his May 9, 2025 interview with Tucker Carlson, Loury revealed that he was fired by the Manhattan Institute for criticizing Israel.

In 2024, Loury started to criticize Israel for the way it conducted its military campaign in Gaza. According to Loury, the Manhattan Institute first expressed concerns about his stance on Gaza after he published his interview with Israeli historian Omer Bartov, who has been critical of the Israeli hard right and the Netanyahu coalition government’s actions in Gaza.

Loury endorsed historian Omer Bartov’s analysis, which aligned with international human rights organizations’ warnings that Israel’s conduct might constitute a genocide. Further, Loury openly condemned Israel’s actions in the summer of 2024 in a post titled “I Was Fired by the Manhattan Institute. Here’s Why.”

Loury conceded that Hamas’ attack on Israel was indefensible but stressed that Jewish state’s response was disproportionate. He wrote:

…killing thousands of noncombatants, subjecting hundreds of thousands to injury and starvation, and destroying the homes of millions is too high a cost to pay for the goal of “eliminating” or “eradicating” Hamas, especially since it is not clear whether and how that goal is to be accomplished. It seems likely that the scope of the death and destruction in Gaza will inspire more people in Gaza, the West Bank, and abroad to take up arms against Israel than would have been the case had the response been less catastrophic.

Interestingly, Lowry praised Ta-Nehisi Coates’ 2024 book The Message for its coverage of the plight of Palestinians living in the West Bank settlements, saying “there’s much to admire in it.”

It was his appearance on Carlson’s show where he finally broke the silence about his departure from the conservative think tank. In the show, Loury discussed the chilling effect that such actions have on open debate. The former Manhattan Institute fellow could no longer tolerate self-censoring and holding his opinions back on Gaza. Carlson summed up the incident: “For decades, conservative think tanks celebrated and supported black economist Glenn Loury. Then he expressed an unauthorized opinion on the Middle East and they dropped him in a second.”

Glenn Loury [00:00:00] And I said, what has been proceeding there in Gaza as a collective punishment that I don’t think is justified. And I got notified the next day the Manhattan Institute was discontinuing its relationship with me as a senior fellow.

Tucker [00:00:13] If you’d said that about the United States, would you have gotten the same reaction?

Glenn Loury [00:00:17] Ah, good ques-

Tucker [00:00:18] Do you think you’ve been bamboozled?

Glenn Loury [00:00:20] Are we really going to go to war with Iran and turn the world economy upside down? Is it really Jim Crow 2.0 if they want to ask for a driver’s license before you cast the ballot in Georgia?

In a follow-up post on Substack, Loury noted that the Manhattan Institute “disapproved of my opposition to the Gaza War, my criticisms of Israel’s prosecution of that war, and my praise of Ta-Nehisi Coates’s meditations on the West Bank settlements. “

Loury’s call for proportionality and Palestinian rights violated an unspoken rule in U.S. politics: unconditional support for Israel supersedes intellectual independence, even for Black thinkers, who are largely privileged by the United States’ anti-White system.

Being the token Black in Conservatism Inc. could not even shield Loury from professional harm at the hands of Manhattan Institute—an organization bankrolled by billionaire Jews such as Paul Singer and John Paulson.

Other Blacks have shared a similar fate as Loury when they dared touch the Hebraic third rail in the post-October 7 world. Progressive Black commentator Briahna Joy Gray learned firsthand about the risks of criticizing Israel’s industrialized child ritual murder project in Gaza.

In September 2022, Gray joined The Hill’s popular web program “Rising” as a co-host. The show was noted for its bipartisan format and focus on breaking political news and analysis. However, her tenure on “Rising” was brief.  On June 4, 2024, Yarden Gonen, the sister of Israeli hostage Romi Gonen, appeared on “Rising.” As a strong advocate of Palestine, Gray was skeptical of the narrative being put forward by Gonen and other defenders of the Jewish state. The interview was suffuse with tension.

At the end of their conversation, Gonen said she hoped that Gray would “believe” Israeli women. Gray rolled her eyes, interrupted Gonen, and ended the segment. This moment sparked backlash, with many perceiving Gray’s reaction as dismissive toward the families of Israeli hostages. Shortly thereafter, Gray was unceremoniously fired from “Rising.”

Addressing her termination, Gray stated: “The Hill has a clear pattern of suppressing speech — particularly when it’s critical of the state of Israel. This is why they fired @kthalps, & it was only a matter of time before they fired me.”

As I’ve written before, the once stout Jewish-Black alliance appears to be fraying. Jews’ historically reliable golems in the Black community are beginning to venture outside of the Zionist plantation, thereby compelling the Jewish community to find new proxy forces to carry out their bidding and even throw Whites a bone.

Blacks are getting a hard lesson that their political relevance is predicated on Jewish funding and organization. Once that funding and support dries up, they become just another non-White minority group fighting for political attention in the Empire of Mongrelia.

When one strips everything away, the real sovereign in American politics is not in Congress, but in a synagogue near you.