Featured Articles

FEF Attorneys File for Supreme Court Review in Balogh v. City of Charlottesville Case

/3 Comments/in /by

On February 15, 2025, Frederick C.  Kelly, III,  Esq. and Glen Allen, Esq. filed a petition for Writ of Certiorari on behalf of Warren Balogh to the United States Supreme Court in the case of Balogh v. City of Charlottesville, et al.

An electronic version of the petition can be downloaded here. (This is not the kind of petition that citizens sign. “Petition” in this context just means a formal request to the discretion of a higher tribunal.)

Mr.  Balogh was among the protesters who arrived in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017 to participate in the Unite the Right (“UTR”) rally.  In a complaint he filed in the District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Balogh alleged he was injured when the City of Charlottesville and its police officials pushed him and other protesters into close confines with violent counter-protestors, including ANTIFA, who attacked him and other protestors.  According to Balogh’s allegations, the City and its police were ideologically aligned with the counter-protestors and exploited this orchestrated melee as a pretext to declare an unlawful assembly and shut down the rally.

Mr. Balogh’s complaint was unusually well-supported factually because it incorporated the Heaphy Report, a lengthy and detailed description of the UTR rally commissioned by the City  itself. The District Court nonetheless dismissed the complaint. The Fourth Circuit then affirmed the District Court’s dismissal on the factitious rationale that “the First Amendment [does not] obligate police officers to protect the constitutional rights of protestors amid violence.”

The certiorari petition filed by Kelly and Allen on Balogh’s behalf argues that his case presents the following questions worthy of Supreme Court review:

Whether the First Amendment protects speech amid violence left deliberately unchecked by the local government because such violence serves as useful pretext to suppress speech the local authorities hate?

Whether this Court can ignore the extraordinary case of a local government which temporarily abdicates its monopoly on violence to ensure anarchic conditions enabling it to dishonor the First Amendment?

Whether the use of some defensive violence by protestors overwhelmed by government favored counter-protestors forfeits any First Amendment claim by any persons associated with the protestors?

Whether police officers who deliberately abdicate their responsibility to maintain order — and in fact take additional steps to foment more violence— are entitled to qualified immunity?

Whether a municipality escapes Monell liability where the final policy maker watches his police force enhance violent conditions by standing down in the face of known criminal anarchists?

The following excerpt from the petition (with some case citations omitted) is representative of the arguments it presents for Supreme Court review:

This Court has signalled that the First Amendment can “necessitate police protection” . . . .   Drawing on this, the Sixth Circuit (among others) has come to the sensible conclusion that “[the First Amendment] may at times ‘necessitate police protection.’” Bible Believers v. Wayne Cnty., 805 F.3d 228, 250-51 (6th Cir. 2015).

But at what times is the protection necessary? Conversely, when are the police excused from providing it? The exact scope of police protection remains unclear. . . . . Petitioner respectfully submits that the Sixth Circuit decision in Bible Believers is faithful to the First Amendment: while the courts cannot presume to dictate precisely when and how law enforcement must extend protection, the record must disclose some bona fide effort.

The [Fourth Circuit opinion below]  exploits this ambiguity to reach a radically different result: the First Amendment does not in fact necessitate police protection ever, not even when such violence — easily foreseen and indeed counted on by the state — comes primarily and overwhelmingly from the government’s own ideological allies. “Violence,” unspecified in terms of quantity, quality, and origin, is enough to abrogate any obligation by the state. In the Fourth Circuit, no effort equates to a bona fide effort, especially when that effort would interfere with the government’s inclination to suppress speech.

An interpretation of the First Amendment that places such little responsibility on the government to safeguard what is arguably our most fundamental right is not sustainable – especially in light of the facts revealed on this record. Worse still, the abstract question presented by the COA invites abuse by the government.

Violence cannot always be avoided (and it certainly cannot be avoided when the police press one group directly into another that is intent on fighting). In fact, sometimes, in order to ultimately check it, more violence is necessary, if only because superior force is the only thing that some men will respect. For that reason, if there is a government entity unscrupulous enough to league itself with criminal miscreants who are intent on using violence to suppress free speech rights, the criminals will always prevail to the detriment of free speech: their very lawlessness becomes the excuse for the corrupt government to suppress the speech of disfavored fellow citizens. In effect, the corrupt government benefits from the fact that it shares an ideological alliance with criminal elements.

Even more, those citizens who are targeted by both criminal miscreants and the corrupt government are placed between Scylla and Charybdis. Upon seeing that their government has relinquished the monopoly on violence, they have two options: they can resort to self-help and take matters into their own hands, or they can take a beating.

If they opt to take the beating, they can exercise no rights; in fact, they may end up forsaking the right to life itself. But if they take matters into their own hands the very violence which government inaction has necessitated will become a strike against them.

This is an impossible situation. No sane government demands Ulysses-like guile to negotiate the exercise of First Amendment rights, nor would it demand Bronze age prowess from its citizens to secure their own safety.

As this excerpt makes clear, the Balogh petition raises questions of critical importance, especially in the present era. The general acceptance rate of certiorari petitions by the Supreme Court is quite low, at approximately 5%.  Mr. Kelly and Mr. Allen, however,  believe the prospects for Mr. Balogh’s  petition are considerably higher than the average, given the magnitude of the questions it raises and the many conflicts in the federal circuit courts of appeal on these questions.  The petition, if granted, will have a major impact on the future of First Amendment rights of freedom of assembly and speech.

The printing costs for the petition, together with a small fee  to Mr. Kelly (a tiny fraction of what an attorney of his skill merits) has amounted to about $5000. Any donations (which are tax deductible)  to defray the cost of this worthy cause will be gratefully received.  It has perhaps become a bit of a cliché, but it is nonetheless true that freedom is not free, so we must all do our parts to preserve it.

Download the petition here

Glen Allen, Esq. is President of the Free Expression Foundation. Support the cause of free speech. Donate today at https://freeexpressionfoundation.org/donate/.

More Than 50 NY Rabbis Call for an End to Mass Deportations

/14 Comments/in /by

More than fifty NY rabbis have signed an open letter to NYC Mayor Eric Adams, and NY Governor Kathy Hochul pleading with them to protect immigrants from the ongoing efforts of the Trump administration to deport millions of illegal immigrants.

Although the letter doesn’t address the controversy surrounding Mayor Adams and the corruption charges leveled against him, it does request that Adams and Hochul “be the leaders we desperately need at this moment and do all you can to resist Trump’s terrifying anti-immigrant agenda” (see The Jerusalem Post, ‘More Than 50 NY Rabbis Implore Eric Adams and Kathy Hochul to Oppose Mass Deportation,’ by Ben Sales/JTA, 2/19/2025).

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

As one might expect, the letter contains the following emotional plea that harkens back to ‘anti-Semitic’ abuses that Jews claim to have received as immigrants: “We also know in our bones and from our modern history the danger of an unchecked xenophobic government scapegoating ‘outsiders’ to gain power, preying on a population experiencing hard economic times to gain support for a violent and destructive agenda” . . . “We will not stand by while history repeats itself. You, our state and local leaders, must not either.”

The letter serves as a clear indicator of why Jews are not good for White, western nations. No nation can long survive in the face of a continuous pattern of unchecked immigration such as we have in the U.S., and it’s both the duty and right of any nation to know who is entering onto its soil and to approve or deny those same persons. This is plain common sense, and it should be self-evident to everyone. Yet, apparently, this is not the case for many Jews who think that it’s somehow “xenophobic” for the U.S. to protect its own borders; to engage in careful selection and scrutiny of those seeking to enter; and to deport all invaders who refuse to comply with sensible immigration laws.

The hypocrisy of far too many Jews on the matter of immigration becomes astonishingly evident when one discovers just how determined Israeli Jews are in heavily securing their own borders. Has the Israeli government ever been as lax as the former Biden administration when it comes to immigration? Hardly. They very much protect their borders and thereby their own people from foreign invaders or immigrants from other ethnic groups. This is perfectly reasonable on the part of Israel’s government, and they do not view it as ‘xenophobic’ or ‘racist’ in the least. It also reveals a wise strategy on their part to protect and preserve their people, their cultural values and the safety of future generations. Thus, the very thing that many Jews rightly want for Israel, they deny to America when it comes to immigration enforcement.

The question naturally arises as to why Jews so strongly support mass, Third World immigration into the West, particularly when they are often victimized by these same immigrant groups? How could any of this possibly benefit them? The answer to this doesn’t lie in one simple reason, but in several complex reasons, all of which gives us important insight as to the nature of Jews and their suitability among white majority nations.

The first thing to understand is that Jews want unchecked immigration among Western countries because it takes the focus off of them as a vexatious minority group. It allows them to essentially hide among other ethnic groups and to conduct their financial schemes, radical politics and cultural subversion efforts with greater secrecy. This is why Jews are always working behind-the-scenes agitating, motivating and even funding minority resistance movements against the greater White majority.

Jews, for instance, played a major role in the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, the Black Lives Matter movement, the Gay and Transgender Rights movements, and in openly welcoming hordes of Islamic and African migrants throughout Europe. They didn’t necessarily have to be at the forefront of such public activities (even though in some cases they were). They were content to remain in the background so long as they remained in charge of pulling the strings of social unrest and making the U.S. less of a racially White and Christian nation.

Thus, if Whites were preoccupied with countering a huge influx of Black, Muslim and Hispanic migrants, they would have less time and opportunity in noticing what Jews were doing in corrupting their host countries who have naively accepted them as their own.

Jews, in theory, want to go unnoticed. Despite their hubris and grandiose view of themselves, they don’t really want people to think too much about them because it invariably draws attention to them as a people. And this is where the problems begin because ‘noticers’ soon discover ‘patterns’ of behavior about Jews, much of it not particularly flattering. The more that people learn about their long history of cultural subversion, their monetary chicanery through the ages, their founding of Communism and cultural Marxism, including their constant promotion of porn and degenerate forms of entertainment among Whites, the less they will be perceived as undeserving victims and more as hostile outsiders.

The second thing to understand is that Jews use mass immigration as a means to destroy nationalism, especially any form of White nationalism. Jews are continually fixated on nationalism, and they view it as a threat to their existence because of what occurred in Nazi Germany during World War II. They are deeply triggered by any rise of White racial identity, and their greatest fear is that Whites might unite on racial grounds and perceive Jews as outsiders and ruinous to their cause. Thus, they are always in fear of another Hitler on the horizon, a common scare tactic used by Jewish groups such as the ADL and SPLC to extract funds from the gullible and easily alarmed.

Although Jews condemn nationalism among Whites, they seem to have no problem with it among the Israeli people. A hardcore ethno-nationalism is not just tolerated, it’s openly encouraged, and most Jews have no problem with declaring that Israel is for them and them alone. It reveals that Jews live with two different standards when it comes to nationalism — one for Whites, and another for themselves. Jews claim that nationalism is permissible for them because they are a tiny country and because they wish to preserve their ethnicity and unique cultural identity. I don’t blame them. But don’t Whites have a right to the same? There are lots of small White countries that have — or — used to have a unique cultural identity. Why are Whites obligated to give up their racial identity and cultural uniqueness — something that’s not required of any other racial or ethnic group on the planet?

Jews constantly reflect on the events of WW2 and the ‘Holocaust’ in a way that has forever enshrined them as history’s greatest victims in the eyes of most people. This is all very paranoid on their part, of course. Yet, it permits them to engage in all sorts of traitorous activity against their host countries (e.g., promoting mass immigration and helping to legalize ‘immigration rights’). It’s all justified and acceptable in their minds because it prevents Whites from racially uniting and advocating on behalf of their own interests in the same way that Blacks and other racial groups are encouraged to do.

The third thing to understand is that Jews like playing the role of a heroic knight, a rescuer of sorts who arrives on scene to help and advocate on behalf of poor and marginalized immigrants, even if those same immigrants intend to harm, rob and rape American citizens. They see themselves as setting right all that is wrong among humans. Many of them see it as their mission to ‘repair the world.’ This is pure collective narcissism and self-righteousness on the part of Jews; and it’s all cloaked in a phony religious sentiment as ‘concern for the stranger’ – the very stranger these same Jews would never allow to set foot in their beloved land of Israel!

It’s also important to note that Jews have created a plethora of pro-immigrant organizations for the purpose of increasing immigration throughout the West. One of the oldest is HIAS (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society), a Jewish American nonprofit organization that was originally founded in 1881 in order to assist large numbers of Russian Jewish immigrants to the U.S. It concentrates most of its efforts now in helping African and Muslim migrants to gain entrance into Europe and America – something they would never pursue for Israel! They want the U.S. and Europe to be the squat house soaking up all the world’s refugees. How charitable of them.

Does any of this sound as if Jews work for the best interests of the countries they live in? Is it any wonder why Jews have historically been challenged so frequently over their allegiance to their host nations? The claim that they are ‘parasitical’ is another one that’s constantly raised against them, probably because they live off and consume the economic resources of their host countries with seemingly little concern for the general population.

One wonders, of course, why Jews are not concerned about how Third World immigrants will impact Americans once they have arrived on our soil? This never enters into the equation in their advocacy for migrants because Jews simply do not think in such terms when it comes to what benefits American and European Whites. In fact, based on the many destructive public policies that Jews promote throughout the U.S., I believe they do it for the express purpose of harming, undermining and demoralizing the majority White population. How could it be otherwise when so much of what Jews socially and politically support undermines basic morality, traditional values and the continuance of America’s White founding stock?

I’m inclined to think, for instance, that Jews promote the right to abort one’s baby in the most horrific ways (e.g., partial-birth or after-birth abortions) not because such abortions will affect large numbers of Jews (there’s actually been a 32-year decline of Jewish abortions), but because such policies will convince lots of White (non-Jewish) women to murder their babies and thereby reduce the number of Whites who will be born.

However, it’s cloaked in a pro-female, reproductive rights framework that helps conceal their true intentions. It should come as no surprise, then, why a whopping 83% of American Jews favor legalized abortion. The National Council of Jewish Women has even declared that it considers “Abortion a Jewish value and should be safeguarded.” This is not to say that each and every Jew supports abortion because it harms White birthrates, but only that it would be natural for culturally subversive Jews to view the legality of abortion as one of several means to reduce the number of Whites born in the U.S. and Europe.

Those who find it impossible to imagine that Jews could do such a thing only reveal how little they know about the devious and malicious nature of far too many of them. These are a people who think long-term, and they forever hold grudges. They are not inclined to forgive nor forget when it comes to any and all perceived abuses. Nothing is beyond them when it comes to their ability to inflict horrific levels of pain and suffering on their perceived enemies as the ongoing Palestinian genocide has revealed to the entire world.

One question that remains is why Jews would support African and Muslim immigration to the West when many of these same migrants are hostile toward Jews? The rise of Islamic migrants to Europe over the years has shown a dramatic increase in openly ‘anti-Semitic’ attacks upon Jews and their places of worship.

Why would any of this be good for Jews?

A growing number of Jews have, in fact, come to the realization that their support for mass migration over the past few decades has backfired against them. One such Jew, former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, admitted in a 2023 interview that it was a “grave mistake” for Germany to have allowed “so many people of totally different culture and religion and concepts because it creates a pressure group inside each country that does that” (see Politico, ‘Henry Kissinger on Hamas Attacks Fallout: Germany Let in Too Many Foreigners,’ 10/11/2023).

Kissinger, of course, only realized there was a serious problem when he witnessed numerous pro-Hamas celebrations on the streets of Germany. Once he saw how mass immigration negatively affected Jews, he realized how bad it was. But not before then. It didn’t matter to him what problems it created for the historic German people, their safety and the preservation of their culture. If anything, it illustrated just how little Jews care for the indigenous Whites of the host country they dwell within.

So, while it’s true that some Jews oppose mass immigration to the West, they tend to do so only because of how it impacts the safety and security of Jews. One will rarely find a politically conservative Jew openly declaring that Whites have a right to being the demographic majority in their own countries, the same as Asians, Africans and Hispanics do in their respective countries.

Also, these same conservative Jews do not have the level of influence and control over their ethnic brethren as Jewish progressives do. Liberal Jews almost always drive the agenda for their people, and this explains who so many decisions made on behalf of Jews collectively prove ruinous.

The support of mass migration by Jews is utterly self-destructive when one stops to consider the harmful consequences of it. One would think that Jews would be smarter than to pursue such a deadly strategy, one that would surely guarantee continual acts of mob violence against them by the very migrants they support.

But Jews are unable to think clearly when it comes to immigration and their role among White nations. The subject is treated on a very emotional level, and there is a deeply rooted historical resentment among many Jews for what they have suffered during past centuries. Their hatred for Christianity fuels a lot of it too because many Jews are unable to separate being White from being Christian. They tend to conflate the two, and this helps set them on a course that promotes all sorts of anti-White policies and the passage of laws that hurt the nation’s White majority. Subscribe

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

James Edwards Interviews J6 Hostage Christian Secor

/2 Comments/in /by

 

Secor: The establishment, and particularly the center Right, are deathly afraid of us, and for good reason. The true Right is, from their perspective, taking over and ruining their multigenerational project, a GOP that acts as a release valve against the real Right, grassroots white people, populists, etc. Their goal of preventing these abandoned groups from getting anything out of voting is now obviously failing. Not only this, but like the far-Left contra the Democrat Party in the 1960s, we are much smarter than them, and they know this. They do not want a “New Right” to act as the “New Left” of the 60s did. Because of this, the establishment will use all means that it can to squash us like bugs as long as we remain the size of bugs. I believe this is borne out by the fact that “conservative” judges such as mine were even harsher than liberal ones towards the J6ers. …

The “sensitive young man” meme that has come to describe Right-wing youth certainly rings true in my experience. If you scratch the surface of “far right youth,” what you tend to find are intelligent, passionate, selfless people who are well-informed and willing to sacrifice some of their privileges to make the world a better place, even if that world doesn’t yet understand. They can’t allow that side of us to be shown, but Tucker appears to be a rare genuine actor in American media, which is why I imagine I was, in a way, made a poster boy for younger people on January 6th.

What follows is an interview conducted by talk radio host James Edwards with former J6 hostage Christian Secor.

* * *

James Edwards: Please tell us what compelled you to travel to Washington on January 6, 2021.

Christian Secor: On November 3rd, 2020, I watched Trump be reelected as president. The next day, I woke up to find the election stolen by a handful of heavily corrupt, Democrat machine strongholds in key swing states. I participated in Stop the Steal events, calling for an audit of the election for months, locally as well as in D.C., leading up until January 6th. For whatever reason, which in retrospect was a bit odd, the date of 1/6 cemented itself in the zeitgeist, (I wouldn’t be surprised if this was a concerted effort by the feds) and I knew I had to go to the finale of the movement I had been a part of from the beginning.

Edwards: What was the chain of events that led you to the point where you were sitting in Mike Pence’s chair?

Secor: Toward the end of Trump’s speech, someone within our group of young guys exclaimed that something was going down at the Capitol. I and a bunch of other rowdy guys, eager to see history, sprinted a mile or so to the Capitol to see what was going on. When I got there, there was a large crowd around the Capitol, and you could hear flash bangs going off in the crowd, and there was tear gas everywhere. It was at that moment that I realized I had left my gas mask at the hotel. But I shoved my way towards the front as I wanted to be on the frontline, and eventually, the stairs towards the doors were opened up. In the pictures, this is where all the scaffolding was. We gathered around the doors, and eventually, the police opened them up for us. I simply toured around for a bit, took a short reprieve in Pelosi’s office, and we eventually made it to some doors on the second story, which ended up being the Senate Chamber. Someone had the bright idea to jump all the way down from the balcony to the Senate Floor but I, not wanting to risk a broken or twisted ankle, figured the doors to the Floor would be right under us, which they were. When we got in, I noticed no one was doing the obvious, taking the throne, and so I plopped myself in it. It was quite comfortable, and I offer my compliments to the craftsman who upholstered it. Some boomer in tactical gear told me to have some respect, which I thought was laughable considering we had just stormed the Capitol and he was dressed for war. Soon later, the police told us to leave, and we did. Many people were still around the Capitol, but less than an hour later, the protest was declared illegal, and within minutes, everyone cleared out.

Edwards: What emotions did you feel as you participated in the events of that fateful day?

Secor: It was certainly the most exciting experience of my life, and I can’t imagine anything could ever compare to how fun it was. Perhaps actual warfare might top it for someone with a particular mindset. Something in the DNA or ancestral memory awakens in these conflict situations, I believe, and especially in collective action. This emotion is all but unheard of in the modern world and if it can be harnessed, it would be a positive development for the political or cultural program which could harness it. All this being said, there have been rumors that the government may have experimented with subaudible sound weapons during the BLM riots, as well as on January 6th. It has been confirmed that the DoD approved of their use. Did this play a factor in the agitation of the crowds? Who knows?

Edwards: At what point did you learn that legal troubles were brewing and what charges did the federal government bring?

Secor: When the protest was declared illegal, I and those who I was there with thought little of it. This wasn’t our first rodeo, and generally, once this happens, everyone leaves, which is exactly what happened on January 6th. We left D.C. because we were afraid that if we stuck around, we might get a fine or something like that. And if you read the charges like “obstruction,” “picketing,” “parading,” “disorder,” etc., there is really no reason to think this was naive. Even the “assault on a police officer” charge, if you read the fine print, could be applied to any protester ever. All you have to do is impede the job of an officer, whatever that means. You can indict a ham sandwich after all. The “oh shit” moment was when we got back to the new hotel and turned on the TV. That was when we knew we were set up and this was actually going to be bad.

Edwards: You were sentenced to three-and-a-half years in prison but served less time than that due to a retroactive change in the sentencing guidelines for nonviolent, first-time offenders. Do you feel as though your punishment was excessively harsh due to the fact that you were a publicly known America First political activist?

Secor: Yes. The establishment, and particularly the center Right, are deathly afraid of us, and for good reason. The true Right is, from their perspective, taking over and ruining their multigenerational project, a GOP that acts as a release valve against the real Right, grassroots white people, populists, etc. Their goal of preventing these abandoned groups from getting anything out of voting is now obviously failing. Not only this, but like the far-Left contra the Democrat Party in the 1960s, we are much smarter than them, and they know this. They do not want a “New Right” to act as the “New Left” of the 60s did. Because of this, the establishment will use all means that it can to squash us like bugs as long as we remain the size of bugs. I believe this is borne out by the fact that “conservative” judges such as mine were even harsher than liberal ones towards the J6ers.

Edwards: Tucker Carlson twice covered your case on his show. Out of the hundreds of J6 hostages he could have featured, what was it about your particular case that attracted such publicity?

Secor: I was a student at UCLA at the time of J6, and I think I am a sympathetic person, which probably played a role in why I was given positive attention by Tucker and, indeed, why I received especially negative attention from the interregnum regime. The “sensitive young man” meme that has come to describe Right-wing youth certainly rings true in my experience. If you scratch the surface of “far right youth,” what you tend to find are intelligent, passionate, selfless people who are well-informed and willing to sacrifice some of their privileges to make the world a better place, even if that world doesn’t yet understand. They can’t allow that side of us to be shown, but Tucker appears to be a rare genuine actor in American media, which is why I imagine I was, in a way, made a poster boy for younger people on January 6th.

Edwards: Did the draconian punishment you faced cause you to reconsider your actions, or did it serve as a motivation to redouble your efforts upon release?

Secor: My immediate thought in the moment I was sentenced was, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” In the detention center, where I was starved and held in solitary confinement for over a month in 2021, there were many moments that nearly broke me, and I wondered if I was the crazy one. The thought never struck me again since October 2022, when I was sentenced. They wouldn’t have gone so overboard if they were in the right and I in the wrong.

Edwards: During this time, you wrote your book, The American Regime, which was published by Antelope Hill. Please briefly summarize the book for us.

Secor: My inspiration for this book were my studies, which I began seriously while detained in solitary confinement. Books were one of my only reprieves from the cell that I was confined to for all but 3 hours a week. I binged on works in political theory, philosophy, and history that I hadn’t had time for while studying in college, and the works of Rene Guenon and Oswald Spengler especially inspired my thoughts. mehe American Regime was, on the one hand, an attempt to synthesize the organic cyclical worldview of Spengler with the cyclicism that arises from Guenon and Evola’s Traditionalism, within an American context, and on the other hand, a resolution of conflict between the rival schools of thought of Yarvin’s Cathedral theory (itself based on Burnham’s Managerial Revolution theory) versus money power theory, and of course how Jewish hegemony plays a role in both. At the time, this was much more avant-garde, but there is still a need for cogent arguments that naturally flow to the positions of the New Right, which I hope I accomplished in my work.

Edwards: Though you were already free by the time President Trump issued the full pardons on his first day back in office, what was your reaction to his stunning executive order?

Secor: On the one hand, I was surprised that he didn’t start with commutations and work from there. With the track record of conservatives, even this would be optimistic. On the other, I would have been disappointed if it were any other way but blanket pardons. But I had heard Trump speak on behalf of the J6ers, and I knew that he knew the nitty gritty of what they did to us. He knew they forced us at gunpoint to plea to charges, including violent ones, as the jury pool in D.C. is composed of blacks and degenerate leftists. For this I am optimistic of the new and serious political realist Trump.

Edwards: What’s next for Christian Secor?

Secor: For now, I am just living a normal life and enjoying my freedom. I have been writing for Counter Currents on the side, which I have been doing since 2021 under the pseudonym “Aquilonius,” and this was actually the catalyst for writing the book, though I have been writing under my own name since I’ve been in prison. I hope to continue my work, though we may still be far off from being able to pay our activists, writers, intellectuals, and theorists to work full-time. As of now, organizations like the Manhattan Institute and the Daily Wire would rather have liberals among their ranks than Rightists because, as I said, we are the real threat. I do hope to write more books someday, and one that should eventually come down the pipeline that will build off of my analysis of the pop history of the United States should be called something like “American Mythos: The Noble Lies that Made America.” Of course, if the J6ers are given the restitution we deserve, plans may change dramatically.

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.

UFC Fighter Bryce Mitchell’s Pro-National Socialist Remarks Show the JQ Can No Longer Be Fully Censored

/5 Comments/in , /by

Earlier this month fans of mixed martial arts got a much-needed dose of revisionist history, when UFC featherweight fighter Bryce Mitchell made positive remarks about National Socialist Germany.

During an appearance on the ArkanSanity Podcast, Mitchell made everybody lose their minds when he initially defended Adolf Hitler’s leadership of the German National Socialist state.

“I honestly think that Hitler was a good guy based on my own research, not my public education indoctrination. I do really think before Hitler got on meth, he was a guy to go fishing with,” the American fighter said.

“He fought for his country. He wanted to purify it by kicking the greedy Jews out that were destroying his country and turning them all into gays,” he continued. Mitchell noted that the preceding Weimar regime and the degeneracy it presided over created the conditions for the rise of the NSDAP.

“They were gaying out the kids. They were queering out the women. They were queering out the dudes. Do you know where the first tranny surgery ever was? Happened to be in Germany before Hitler took over, “ the UFC fighter observed. (See also Andrew Joyce on Magnus Hirschfeld: e.g., “Hitler referred to Hirschfeld as ‘the most dangerous Jew in Germany.’” See also Joyce on Hirschfeld’s Racism.)

Like clockwork, Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt criticized Mitchell for his comments on the ArkanSanity Podcast. “I’m aghast at this podcast interview. There are simply no words,” Greenblatt said to BBC. “In the span of just a few minutes Mitchell manages to express antisemitic, homophobic, and transphobic sentiments. We hope the UFC will take immediate action to make clear that these ideas are noxious and have no place in the sport,” the ADL CEO added.

UFC President Dana White instantly pounced on Mitchell’s remarks, declaring, “Hitler is one of the most disgusting and evil human beings to ever walk the face of the Earth and anyone that even tries to take an opposition position is a moron.”

“That’s the problem with the internet and social media. You provide a platform to a lot of dumb and ignorant people,” White continued.

Surprisingly, Dana White did not cancel Mitchell much less cut him from the MMA promotion like the shrillest voices of organized Jewry wanted him to. Instead, White defended Mitchell’s right to free speech despite taking the “Boomer Truth” line about Hitler and World War II.   “It’s free speech. That’s the beautiful thing about this business, for all of you who hate Bryce Mitchell, you get to see him hopefully get his ass whooped on global television,” White conceded.

“I know a lot of people died in the Holocaust, and that’s a fact,” Mitchell conceded in an image he posted on X. “Hitler did a lot of evil things, I think we can all agree on that. I’m definitely not a nazi, and definitely do not condone any of the evil things Hitler did.” In a caption he added to this post, Mitchell said, “In the future I will b[e] much more considerate [when] talking about the suffering of all peoples.”

What likely prompted White to decry Mitchell’s statement and the featherweight fighter’s eventual apology was pressure from Ari Emanuel, the CEO of Endeavor and the CEO and executive chairman of TKO Group holdings, the parent company of the UFC and WWE.

Ari Emanuel is the brother of infamous former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who gained infamy for proclaiming in 2011, “Never let a good crisis go to waste when it’s an opportunity to do things you had never considered or you didn’t think were possible.”

Shifty political behavior courses through the veins of the Emanuel family, which is of Jewish extraction. The two brothers’ father is Benjamin M. Emanuel was a pediatrician who moonlighted as a member of the Irgun — a Zionist terrorist organization active in the 1930s and 1940s carrying out attacks against Palestinian civilians and British troops. Similarly, their mother Marsha Smulevitz was heavily involved in the Civil Rights movement and served as the chair of the Chicago North Side chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) for four years in the early 1960s.

Ari Emanuel is plugged into Democratic Party politics and has held multiple fundraisers for the party. He also contributed $2,700 to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 United States presidential election. Despite his Democratic Party affiliation, Emanuel has maintained close ties with President Donald Trump

Emanuel was Trump’s agent for several years, representing him during certain points of Trump’s career in the entertainment scene. In 2016, Ari Emanuel, as co-CEO of WME-IMG (now part of Endeavor), spearheaded the purchase of the UFC for $4 billion from the Fertitta brothers — Lorenzo and Frank.

Like most of his kinfolk, Emanuel does not like it when Gentiles start speaking their minds about Jewish influence in American society. In October 2022, Emanuel pushed for multiple companies to cut off all business ties with rapper Kanye West, currently known as Ye, for his antisemitic remarks. (Ye hasn’t stopped.)

Curiously, the UFC has positioned itself as an anti-woke sports promotion, with Dana White being the most vocal pro-Donald Trump sports executive in the country, going as far as to speak at the Republican National Convention on multiple occasions, in support of Trump. Sean Strickland, a former UFC champion, has made numerous comments poking fun of homosexuals and other protected groups without facing significant consequences from the organization.

Mitchell is an outspoken fighter who has not shied away from expressing right-wing views outside of the Octagon. During a media event in 2022, Mitchell sharply criticized the Federal Reserve, calling it a “corrupt institution.” The featherweight contender is no fan of the current education system either. In 2024, Mitchell announced he would homeschool his son to prevent him from worshipping Satan or turning into a homosexual.

While Mitchell’s reversal is lame, there is still a silver lining. The cat is out of the bag as far as Judeo-skepticism and the reassessment of National Socialism’s legacy is concerned. His latest outburst demonstrates that for the under-40 demographic, Judeo-skeptic beliefs are so strong to the point that gatekeepers in the Jewish-controlled media, political class, and broader culture can no longer contain such sentiments. No matter what side of the political spectrum young Americans find themselves on, they harbor some form of antisemitism.

Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Director Jonathan Greenblatt views it this way. Barely a month after the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks against Israel, a leaked phone call between Greenblatt and an unknown Zionist compatriot achieved virality all over social media. In the audio, Greenblatt was distraught about Generation Z’s weak support for Israel. Further, the ADL director blamed video sharing application Tiktok for platforming anti-Israeli sentiment.

“We have a major, major, major generational problem,” Greenblatt proclaimed. “All the polling I’ve seen: the ADL’s polling, ICC’s polling, independent polling, suggests that this is not a left, right gap folks. The issue of the United States’ support of Israel is not left and right. It is young and old.”

White should be given credit for not reflexively canceling Mitchell and leaving him on the unemployment line. This shows that certain segments of American culture are no longer as keen to be private enforcers of politically correct standard.

That said, as long as Ari Emanuel is slithering around the halls of UFC headquarters, there’s a hard limit to what politically incorrect statements fighters under the UFC banner can make. More Bryce Mitchells, especially those who don’t back down, will have to step up not only in the UFC but across all corners of American culture for the Jewish Question to become fully normalized in political discourse.

Countless people will take proverbial blows from corporations, legacy media, and even the government throughout this process. But this is the cost of doing business in the grueling Reconquista campaign that must be waged to take back our nation from organized Jewry.

No one said this fight was going to be a walk in the park.

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

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

His Substack is at: https://josbcf.substack.com/. Definitely worth supporting.

Hate-Bacon Holocaust: Where Jews Lead, Muslims Follow

/20 Comments/in , , , /by

In Britain today, it takes a heart of stone to read about the suffering of Jewish students without laughing. The Jewish Chronicle has just published “Exclusive research” showing a “shocking volume of assaults, abuse and threats” suffered by Jews at British universities. Among the incidents that the Chronicle deems worthy of note are that “A student at Swansea University found bacon taped to her door in university halls in 2022” and that “At Cambridge University, a student said during one dinner, a peer ‘asked me to turn to the side so that he could gauge the size of my nose’.”

Senior Sacred Minority

I’m cherry-picking the hate-bacon and nose-gauging, of course, but nowhere does the article mention murder, rape or serious injury. Jewish students are not suffering a fraction of what White children have suffered in places like Glasgow, Southport and Rotherham. Nor does the article admit that Jews have engineered their own misfortune. Jewish students in Britain are being hate-baconed and nose-gauged by non-Whites and their allies because of Israel’s oppression of non-White Palestinians. And who was responsible for non-White immigration from the Third World, which the White majority always opposed and never voted for? It was Jews, of course. Who created minority worship, which was intended to demonize the White majority and sacralize minorities? It was Jews, of course, wanting to install themselves as Senior Sacred Minority.

How to end anti-Semitism for ever

Alas for Jews, the non-Whites whom they fondly regarded as “natural allies” haven’t accepted their Jew-assigned role. As I pointed out at the Occidental Observer in 2019, Muslims and other non-Whites regard Jews as “Hyper-Whites with Hyper-Privilege” and not as a fellow persecuted minority. On the contrary, they regard Jews as arch persecutors. Given the amount of high explosive recently rained by Israel on the Gaza Strip, it’s easy to see their point. I don’t myself agree with those who accuse Israel of committing genocide against the Palestinians, whom I’d rank with Pakistanis as societal pathogens. But I again find it amusing that Jews are wailing about the accusation. Who was it first used noisy accusations of genocide to gain political advantage and claim moral superiority? It was the Jews again. Their solipsism and arrogance blinded them to the obvious possibility that their own self-serving tactics would be taken up and used against them. That possibility has been realized: Muslims and other non-Whites have turned out not to be “natural allies” of Jews but natural enemies. One insightful — and honest — Jew wouldn’t have been surprised by this. The late Jonathan Sacks, once Britain’s Chief Rabbi, admitted in 2007 that Jews were the inventors of “identity politics” and founders of the Victimhood Olympics:

Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy

Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and threatens liberal democracy, Britain’s top Jewish official warned in extracts from [a recently published] book … Jonathan Sacks, Britain’s chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an attempt to affirm Britain’s diverse communities and make ethnic and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in his book, The Home We Build Together: Recreating Society, he said the movement had run its course. “Multiculturalism has led not to integration but to segregation,” Sacks wrote in his book, an extract of which was published in the Times of London.

“Liberal democracy is in danger,” Sacks said, adding later: “The politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear.” Sacks said Britain’s politics had been poisoned by the rise of identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women and gays. He said the effect had been “inexorably divisive.” “A culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than that of others,” he said. In an interview with the Times, Sacks said he wanted his book to be “politically incorrect in the highest order.” (Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy, The Jerusalem Post, 20th October 2007; emphasis added)

“We’re disloyal to real, pure, white America”

That’s why I have no sympathy for Jewish students enduring hate-bacon attacks at Swansea and nose-gauging requests at Cambridge. Jews are not suffering a fraction of what Whites have suffered for decades at the hands of Muslims, Blacks and other non-Whites imported by our treacherous elite under Jewish orders and with full Jewish approval. The minor Jewish suffering bewailed by the Jewish Chronicle is entirely their own fault. So is the minor Jewish suffering bewailed in America. As the Horus Substack notes, the Jewish writer Bari Weiss has openly admitted the central role of Jews in the war on Whites and the West: “The far right says we are the greatest trick the devil has ever played. We appear to be white people. We look like we’re in the majority, we’re incredibly successful, but in fact … we’re disloyal to real, pure, white America. And in fact, we’re loyal to Black people and brown people and Muslims and immigrants.”

Semitic synergy: how Jews use and abuse Muslims to benefit themselves

But somehow killer quotes like that always escape the notice of the Semito-sycophants who rush to the defence of Jews after their non-White pets turn on them. The same Semito-sycophants ignore the central role of Jews in the war on free speech. For example, mainstream conservatives and libertarians in Britain have recently condemned Labour’s plans to impose an official government definition of “Islamophobia.” The conservative political scientist Matt Goodwin has said that “Labour’s crackdown on ‘Islamophobia’ is yet another crackdown on free speech.” He’s right. The Trotskyist libertarians at Spiked Online have warned that “New rules on ‘Islamophobia’ would chill discussion about anything even tangentially related to Islam.” They’re right too. And both Goodwin and Spiked describe how the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on British Muslims first proposed the definition in 2019. But neither Goodwin nor Spiked mention a killer quote by the homosexual Labour MP Wes Streeting, who co-chaired the APPG on British Muslims. Streeting proclaimed that the APPG’s definition of Islamophobia was “presented within a framework resembling the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.”

Parallel pathologies

You can trust Streeting on that, because he was also co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group against Antisemitism. I described Streeting’s labours for Jews and their natural allies in my article “Free Speech Must Die!,” where I explored the way Jews have guided Muslims in their joint campaign to censor and silence Whites. After all, it’s very easy to find proof of that. But Britain’s noisy mainstream defenders of free speech have always been silent about who guides Muslims. In other words, those staunch opponents of censorship have censored themselves. So let’s look more closely at what they refuse to discuss, namely, the leading Jewish role in the war on free speech. The University of Bradford has very helpfully put “Definitions of Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia” on the same page at its website, drawn respectively from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Anti-Semitism and the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) Working Definition of Islamophobia. Even the most myopic mainstream conservatives and libertarians will see how the deplorably vague and elastic definition of Islamophobia, which they loudly condemn, was directly modelled on the deplorably vague and elastic definition of anti-Semitism, which they either support or keep quiet about. To make the parallels even more clearer, I’ve inter-woven examples of the hate-speak and hate-think that Jews and Muslims say the government must crush:

  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
  • Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Muslims as such, or of Muslims as a collective group, such as, especially but not exclusively, conspiracies about Muslim entryism in politics, government or other societal institutions; the myth of Muslim identity having a unique propensity for terrorism, and claims of a demographic ‘threat’ posed by Muslims or of a ‘Muslim takeover’.
  • Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
  • Accusing Muslims as a group of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Muslim person or group of Muslim individuals, or even for acts committed by non-Muslims.
  • Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
  • Accusing Muslims as a group, or Muslim majority states, of inventing or exaggerating Islamophobia, ethnic cleansing or genocide perpetrated against Muslims.
  • Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Accusing Muslim citizens of being more loyal to the ‘Ummah’ (transnational Muslim community) or to their countries of origin, or to the alleged priorities of Muslims worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
  • Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour.
  • Denying Muslim populations the right to self-determination e.g., by claiming that the existence of an independent Palestine or Kashmir is a terrorist endeavour.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
  • Applying double standards by requiring of Muslims behaviours that are not expected or demanded of any other groups in society, e.g. loyalty tests.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
  • Using the symbols and images associated with classic Islamophobia (e.g. Muhammed being a paedophile, claims of Muslims spreading Islam by the sword or subjugating minority groups under their rule) to characterize Muslims as being ‘sex groomers’, inherently violent or incapable of living harmoniously in plural societies.
  • Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
  • Holding Muslims collectively responsible for the actions of any Muslim majority state, whether secular or constitutionally Islamic. (“Definitions of Anti-Semitism and Islamophobia” at Bradford University)

But Bradford University doesn’t mention two inconvenient facts: that Jews in Britain support Israel’s military massacre-machine; and that Muslims are now the chief anti-Semites in Britain. Like the rest of our current political and academic elite, the university wants to pretend that Jews and Muslims are united in powerless victimhood, both groups suffering from the cruel and irrational hate of the White majority. The current elite are very anxious to stop thought-crime against Jews and Muslims, but have no concern whatsoever about stopping flesh-crime against Whites.

Bradford University supplies another perfect example of that, because it does nothing to address horrific misogyny and patriarchy on its own doorstep. Like the town of Rotherham, the city of Bradford is in Yorkshire. The Muslim rape-gangs that made Rotherham infamous around the world have done much worse in Bradford. After all, Bradford is a much bigger place and has many more Muslims. The Labour party has controlled both Bradford and Rotherham for decades, collaborating with the rape-gangs and betraying the White working-class whom the party was founded to defend.

The great David Irving speaks the truth about World War Two

Now Labour want to expand their betrayal by imposing a definition of Islamophobia that will further censor discussion of Muslim pathologies. But no conservatives and libertarians in the mainstream will admit the obvious: that Jews are responsible for the presence of Muslims in Britain, the proliferation of Muslim pathologies, and the free-speech-chilling definition of Islamophobia.

Nor will those conservatives and libertarians admit that Jews have led the way for Muslims in another front of the war on Whites and the West.

The rape and sexual enslavement of White women by Muslims were long preceded by the White Slave Trade, which Jews created before the Second World War, and by the pornography industry, which Jews created after the Second World War for the same reason: to turn shiksas into shekels. Jews and Muslims are homies in hate. But while they both claim to suffer hate from Whites, they’re both lying. What really unites them is that they both direct hate at Whites. That’s why neither Jews nor their Muslim bio-weapons belong in the West. As a wise man once said: the world is divided into those who know who opened the gates of Toledo and those who don’t.

Contemporary Italian Dissident Thought: The Importance of Masculinity and Heroism

/6 Comments/in , /by

Adriano Scianca, Carlomanno Adinolfi, Francesco Boco, Andrea Anselmo, Guido Taietti, Alberto Brandi
Polemos Editrice, 2024

Despite the rise of computer translation technology, language remains a significant barrier to the sharing of important ideas. Italy is home to an active identitarian scene with its own print and web publications, but most sympathetic English speakers’ acquaintance with it is limited to having heard a bit about Casa Pound—an important component of the Italian dissident right, but not the whole. Recognizing the desirability of broadcasting their message beyond the borders of Italy, five prominent activists arranged for publication of a small anthology of their writings in English last October under the title Italian Vanguard: Ideas for Future Predators.

Important influences on the Italian identitarian movement include Nietzsche, Marinetti, Evola and the French nouvelle droite, especially Guillaume Faye. They reject liberal capitalism and the monotheistic tradition, and much that goes under the label “conservative” in the English-speaking world. Many find inspiration in the myth of Prometheus, the Titan who stole fire from Olympus. Accordingly, they are critical of any tendency to set limits to technological advance—an attitude they consider un-European. (This is not, of course, equivalent to denying that technology can and has been put to harmful uses.)

By way of introduction, we shall look at the essay “Stay Superhuman” by Carlomanno Adinolfi. Signore Adinolfi is an electrical engineer who has written three novels in the fantasy genre and contributed to the nationalist website Il Primato Nazionale (www.ilprimatonazionale.it) since 2005.

Today’s dominant ideology is fond of appeals to “humanity,” a concept useful to egalitarians since it tends to strip actual persons of all that distinguishes them. But a closer look reveals the ease with which these supposed humanitarians can deny the human status of all who oppose them. During Italy’s “years of lead,” a time of political turmoil which lasted from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, leftist terrorist groups proclaimed the slogan “killing a fascist is not a crime,” always with a tacit reservation of the left to decide for themselves who was a fascist. The attitude persists: in February 2023, an Italian “anti-fascist” was arrested for participating in an armed assault on Hungarian citizens taking part in a demonstration. Sympathizers back home got her elected MEP, whereby she acquired parliamentary immunity for her past actions! A license for violence appears the natural result of the cult of humanity. Americans will remember the “punch a Nazi” kerfuffle of a few years ago as an expression of the same mentality.

During the First World War, Italian soldiers adopted the motto “it is better to live one day as a lion than a hundred years as a sheep.” But not everyone agrees with this sentiment, of course. Lions can be scary. Adinolfi sees the dominant ideology of the West as

a great attempt to repress all the “fierce” qualities of the human being. A man who is too masculine is a “toxic male chauvinist;” a child who stands up to the bully by beating him up instead of reporting him to the teacher is punished more severely than the bully himself; a street fight, especially if it happens for political reasons and one dares to have “certain ideas,” is likely to be punished with a disproportionate number of years in prison. This is the path followed, if only unconsciously, by all the crazy vegans and environmentalists who blame hunting, horse racing, [and] bullfighting. The standard bearers of “do-gooder” egalitarianism fear and viscerally hate those ancestral instincts that since the dawn of Man have always elevated the aristoi above the masses.

It is true, of course, that civilization requires channeling and placing limits upon violent human instincts. But it is an illusion to believe they can be made permanently unnecessary and done away with. Life will always remain a struggle, and the heroic virtues will never become obsolete. Adinolfi cites an illustration from Italian history: Garibaldi’s “expedition of the thousand.” His men were denounced as pirates, but they freed and unified Italy when negotiation was failing.

Masculinity, as Jack Donovan has written, derives from the tasks men had to perform in our primary environment of evolutionary adaptation, the hunter-gatherer band: defending territory and overcoming threats from other groups, resource scarcity, and environmental stresses. But modern man has become a victim of his own success, providing so much security and so many resources that the experiences of danger and want have been forgotten. As a result, the masculine virtues that made civilization possible are no longer valued, and they atrophy: “When man no longer has to deal with risk, when from a wolf he turns into a house dog, he is destined to decline.”

Adriano Scianca, another contributor to Italian Vanguard, writes with sensitivity of how primitive masculinity is subsumed and elevated but not eliminated within a flourishing civilization:

Man loves more to found civilizations that to abide by their laws. If subjected too long to given order, he withers. This is why the tendency to gather in a Männerbund, a manly community—gangs, militias, fraternities—manifests itself so often in history. Of course, the gang clashes with another symbolic form of men’s power: fatherhood, i.e., the laws of the city. The band of brothers thrives where the father is missing, no longer there or not there yet, thus at the beginning or end of civilization. When the father is there and performs his function, the brothers feel like sons first and foremost, the bond with the father prevails over that with each other. In order not to wither, civilization must hold the two dimensions together. If the gang prevails, it is anarchy; if the father dominates, it is an oppressive power that stifles individuality. The gang must be organically integrated into the Law.

Adinolfi himself writes of the need to maintain a balance between the dynamic force of the conquering gang and the static force of civilization which must rein in barbaric impetuosity so that it does not overreach and civilization degenerate into anarchy.

He finds a disturbing precedent for today’s human self-domestication in an event of late antiquity:

In the 4th century, Emperor Constantine canceled military service from the political cursus honorum. To become a magistrate, governor, senator, one no longer had to go serve in the legions. As a result, a resident army of barbarians was formed, which was no longer bound to the fortunes of Rome.

Simultaneously, the empire came to be ruled by a class of soft and fearful bureaucrats, and Rome’s end was not far off. Mussolini knew better; he was fond of saying: “One can go from the tent to the palace provided one is prepared to go from the palace to the tent.”

A careful study of today’s ruling humanitarian and egalitarian ideology reveals a firm determination to destroy every attachment presupposed by what Jack Donovan has called the way of men: family, clan, nation, borders, identity. Our task is to safeguard these essential human goods. Adinolfi does not believe “conservatism” can provide a useful model:

Complex dynamic systems, whether biological or mechanical, in attempting to regulate themselves “dampen” certain behaviors so that their output does not become unstable, so that the system always remains controlled. While the progressive is the sworn enemy who wants to kill the noble predator, the conservative is the control valve that seeks to tame and depower it.

Egalitarianism has not simply been ‘taken too far’; it is fundamentally false and pernicious, and we must seek its total overcoming.

Other essays in Italian Vanguard offer meditations on the work of Ernst Jünger, space as the frontier for future human endeavor, and a challenging philosophical meditation on potentiality (“Dynamis: A Philosophy of Force”).

Guido Taietti is perhaps the contributor best known in the English-speaking world due to his appearance at 2023’s Scandza Forum and 2024’s American Renaissance Conference. I have reviewed his book Political Witchcraft here.

In the present volume he offers some thoughts on the concept of heroism in Western thinking. He points out that in a vast, thinly populated country such as Russia, retreat can serve to stretch an enemy’s supply lines and thus contribute to victory, as it did against Napoleon in 1812. In the West, however, a retreat of even 25 miles may involve the loss of an entire city with its population. Hence the ideal of the sacrificial hero on the model of Sparta’s Leonidas.

Today, however, the West is dominated by liberal capitalism, an inherently antiheroic way of thinking based on rational decision making with a view to individual utility. From liberalism’s point of view,

nothing is more absurd than dying for a cause, losing the material good par excellence, the one which makes possible the enjoyment of all others for the sake of something that does not even potentially offer a material benefit (a ‘cause’). Of course, the need for heroes can be considered a rational choice from the point of view of society if one postulates the existence of a mechanism that reasons in collective terms.

Heroism thus presupposes the reality of the collective. It is an aspect of the sacred, anti-economistic dimension of life. The struggle against liberal economism is thus the sacred and heroic struggle par excellence.

When the Kalergi plan reached number 3 in the pop chart

/14 Comments/in /by

Demographic replacement of the White Christian West has advanced so rapidly that for anyone in middle age upwards their younger lives seem to have been spent in a different country. In the entire roll of my high school in the late Seventies and early Eighties there was one Black boy and a few Asian offspring from Indian and Chinese restaurant owners. Now White British children are the minority in many towns and cities.

Our indigenous folk have learned to either pretend that rapid ethnic change is not happening, or (if they want to pursue a career or be seen as a good person) to embrace multiculturalism.  The mantra ‘diversity is strength’ is repeated ad nauseum, despite the reality of a broken society, bereft of shared social norms, traditions and belonging.

This was all planned long ago. The alleged architect of this ethnic mixing was Austrian aristocrat Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, whose book Practical Idealism (1925) envisaged a future Europe of a unified and borderless continent, with racial differences dissolved through interbreeding with Africans and Asians.  Coudenhove-Kalergi described White Europeans as intelligent but cold (befitting their climate), Africans as less smart but warmer, and the Jews and Chinese having the ideal character and intellect. The latter traits, he implied, would lead to a new nobility.

Fleeing to the USA when Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany, Coudenhove-Kalergi’s work on American policy for post-war Europe was seminal to the European federalist project. Yet he is rarely mentioned in official narratives on the European Union.  I suspect that the authorities don’t want ordinary European people to know too much about the man and his radical demographic design.

Conspiracy theorists believe that the ‘Kalergi Plan’ has been enacted through mass immigration, which has rocketed since the elevation of the European Economic Community to European Union superstate, and consequent dismantling of sovereignty and border control. Alongside the unprecedented influx is the ubiquitous depiction of biracial couples and blended families in advertising, with White heterosexual males only cast as fools or bigots. Whose agenda does this serve?

Kalergi is not someone that you can discuss openly, as anyone referring to his projected mongrel race risks accusation of anti-Semitism for associating with the scurrilous notion of a Zionist plot against Christianity. However, I found myself discussing him in the café a few days ago. A friend who is both a critic of uncontrolled immigration and an encyclopaedic fount of knowledge on popular music brought to my attention a group from before my time. ‘Have you heard of Blue Mink?’  No, I hadn’t.

Back in 1969 this band of six, comprising five White men and Black singer Madeline Black, released a song promoting racial harmony. You probably haven’t heard ‘The Melting Pot’, for reasons that become clear from the lyrics.

Take a pinch of White man, Wrap him up in Black skin,
Add a touch of blue blood, And a little bitty bit of Red Indian boy.
Oh, curly Latin kinkies, Mixed with yellow Chinkees,
If you lump it all together
And you got a recipe for a get along scene;
Oh what a beautiful dream
If it could only come true, you know, you know.
What we need is a great big melting pot,
Big enough to take the world and all it’s got
And keep it stirring for a hundred years or more and turn out coffee-coloured people by the score
Rabbis and the friars
Vishnus and the gurus
We got the Beatles or the Sun God
Well it really doesn’t matter what religion you choose
And be thankful little Mrs. Graceful
You know that livin’ could be tasteful
We should all get together in a lovin machine
I think I’ll call up the queen
It’s only fair that she knows, you know, you know.
What we need is a great big melting pot
Big to take the world and all its got and keep it stirring for a hundred years or more
And turn out coffee-coloured people by the score.

Politically incorrect terms such as ‘Chinkee’ are verboten nowadays, whatever the context. The song had a rare airing in the BBC comedy series The Alan Partridge Show, which depicted a radio DJ in a rural backwater, and playing ‘The Melting Pot’ was a typical gaffe. Recently it was played on the retro pop radio station Gold, and a single complaint to the broadcast regulator Ofcom led to the corporate owner Global banning the song from playlists.

But I was more interested in the message, rather than contrived offence. The last line suggests this song as an advertisement for the ‘Kalergi Plan’: the melting pot culminating in a ‘coffee-coloured people’.  Had the group’s song writer Roger Cook heard of Kalergi? It seems quite a coincidence if he hadn’t.

The song reached number three in the British pop chart, an outstanding success, as well as number 10 in Australia, and also reached number 11 in Ireland. “Melting Pot” reached number 2 in New Zealand. The Blue Mink probably thought that they’d follow in The Beatles’ tracks and go big in America. But the lyrics were perceived as too controversial. Instead, a cover version titled ‘People are Together’ was released in the USA, but this got little air play due to radio stations’ fears about listeners’ reaction.

Was ‘The Melting Pot’ an example of Predictive priming? According to DJ and music analyst Mark Devlin, the massive impressionable audience makes pop music an ideal medium for the powers-that-be to prime youth for radical social engineering, a cloak of anti-establishment rebelliousness masking the authoritarian motives.

The song could have become an anthem for today’s ‘refugees welcome’ virtue-signallers. But it’s too blatant. The Georgia Guidestones were destroyed three years ago, probably because of growing awareness of the globalists’ depopulation agenda (one of the secular ten commandments was to reduce the world population to 500 million). Dystopian designers do not want Kalergi and his coffee-coloured race in public discourse. They prefer to work in silent stealth.

Perhaps we should relax, and accept the happy theme of ‘The Melting Pot’, but I suspect the song was used for subtle messaging of what was planned for Western society. The intent is not harmony, but demoralisation — which makes us easier to control.