Featured Articles

Tragic Lessons from the Life of Sally McNeil

I recently watched the 2022 Netflix documentary, Killer Sally, which unfurls the tragic life of Sally McNeil (born Sally Dempsey in 1960) who murdered her husband, Ray McNeil (a black Mr. Olympia competitor), on Valentine’s Day in 1995.

Sally and Ray met while they were in the U.S. Marine Corps, and both had an obsession with bodybuilding. They dated for about two months before getting married in 1987 which was perhaps the first indicator that their marriage would not last. Sally’s first marriage to Anthony Lowden (a black marine she met at Parris Island) lasted about four years, and it produced two children – Shantina, John, and a third from another man. Sally claimed that toward the end of her marriage with Anthony, he became abusive toward her.

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

After marrying Ray, Sally became the main breadwinner in the family. Ray had left the marine corps to pursue full-time his passion for bodybuilding which was not lucrative enough to support either himself or his family.

Sally, then, took up a career performing on wrestling videos with various men for $300 an hour (a rather bizarre proclivity among some men even though no sexual contact occurs), taking on the moniker “Killer Sally.” As was common in the 90s bodybuilding scene, both Ray and Sally began to use steroids which only made their already volatile relationship even more so. Sometimes Sally would drive to Tijuana, Mexico with her two children to score steroids for herself as well as to sell to those at her gym. She conceded in the Netflix documentary that it was “bad parenting” on her part.

Sally’s children from her first marriage were alleged to have been routinely beaten by Ray using his belt. John said he began to hate Ray for the beatings he received, and Shantina was often terrified of him during his explosive outbursts or when she witnessed him brutally beat Sally which was a common occurrence in their home.

The local police were periodically dispatched to their Oceanside (CA) apartment for domestic violence incidents. According to Sally McNeil’s entry in Wikipedia, “Child services frequently visited her for reports of abuse to her children by her neighbors, teachers and family members. The children suffered from malnutrition, the apartment was unlivable, and they were both left alone for multiple days in a row while Sally would go to the gym, out of town, out of the state, and out of the Country.”

The marriage progressively got worse when Ray began seeing other women, and it wasn’t long before he began to make plans to leave Sally. Understandably, this drove Sally a bit off the deep end with jealousy and rage, and she threatened the woman who was dating Ray at the time.

On February 14th, 1995, Ray returned late in the evening to their apartment, and an argument ensued between the couple over his whereabouts. According to the investigative report, Ray “slapped her, pushed her down on the floor, and started choking her. McNeil squirmed away, ran into the bedroom, and took her sawed-off shotgun out of its case in the closet.” She then unloaded twice on Ray, striking him in his abdomen and in his jaw. He later died at the hospital. An autopsy revealed that Ray had five kinds of steroids in his body at the time of his death.

Although Sally argued during her trial that she was a victim of ongoing domestic violence by Ray (known as ‘battered wife syndrome’) and that she was only defending herself, she was convicted in 1996 of second-degree murder and sentenced to the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla. Sally was granted parole on May 29th, 2020, after having served 25 years in prison.

Sally’s competitive nature was evident from a young age. She was both athletic and physically strong. She was also impulsive and had a volatile temper that she seemingly had little control over. This was obvious during her time in the Marine Corps. Sally was demoted from her sergeant’s position because of poor behavioral performance, anger issues and violence. All of this eventually led to her to being discharged from military service.

Upon entering the civilian world, Sally appeared to have learned nothing from the disciplinary measures that were taken against her in the Marine Corps because the same sort of behavior continued: “McNeil was arrested in 1990, for brandishing a firearm at Lowden and smashing the windows of his vehicle with a metal bar. She had been arrested previously for assaulting a mailman who had slapped her son John after he had a fight with the mailman’s son. McNeil attacked one of Ray’s lovers at a bodybuilding show, pinning her to the floor and hitting her repeatedly. This resulted in the National Physique Committee suspending her for a year. It is thought she also physically took her anger out on her husband, pulling a gun on him for the first time before being pepper-sprayed by police officers. In 1993, Sally was confronted by a club bouncer for dancing on the tables. Drunk and not wanting to do what he told her, Sally kicked him in the face three times. When police arrived, she threatened to kill them” (Wikipedia).

In short, Sally McNeil was one crazy lady!

Yet, one of the things that most stood out for me about Sally’s life was how frequently she sought out black men as boyfriends and for marriage. For example, Sally got into trouble with her mother as a teenager when it was discovered that she was dating a black guy. Later, after she joined the military, she married a black man who she alleges had repeatedly abused her. Her second husband, another black man, not only physically beat her on many occasions, but did the same to her children!

You’d think that Sally would have learned by now to avoid black males altogether, especially ones who were violent and criminal. But her many years in a California prison, apparently, did little to sober her up to racial realities. When she was released in 2020, Sally went on to date and eventually marry another black man (Norfleet Stewart). Think about it: Sally literally brought enormous levels of dysfunction and violence upon herself and the lives of her children because she couldn’t stop chasing after black men!

I don’t know if the same pattern of violence will continue in this more recent marriage of hers or not, but for me it underscored yet again just how racially naive and foolish so many white women are to date and marry black men who have a long and documented history of domestic violence, rape, murdering their white spouses and white girlfriends, and of abandoning them and any offspring that’s produced.

It’s not that white men haven’t done the same, but the crime statistics show a hugely disproportionate number of violent and sexual crimes committed by black males.

These same white women utterly devalue themselves by pursuing black men, and they throw away their precious European genes to produce mongrel children who often don’t quite fit into either black society/culture or white society/culture. The threat that miscegenation poses to the future of European whites staggers the mind when one stops to think about it.

Large numbers of whites may speak positively about miscegenation in the presence of others, but in their personal lives they are determined never to do it. They know, perhaps instinctively, that it’s wrong or, at least, wrong for them. It would not be unusual for white males to be racially triggered at the sight of a black and white couple. I suspect it happens more often than people think. Our internal defense system, it seems to me, subconsciously recognizes when something is not right, and it would be a natural reaction to view such relationships as contrary to the natural order or perhaps even dangerous – particularly if one looks at the FBI crime statistics!

The 1933 film, King Kong, is considered by many to be one of the most iconic movies of all time. Moviegoers at the time were horrified by the sight of the beastly primate clinging to the Empire State Building while clutching in his swarthy hand a white lady (actress Faye Wray) after his destructive tour of Manhattan before finally being killed. The savage gorilla provided a sharp visual contrast to that of the beautiful white woman. King Kong is aesthetically ugly, violent and primitive. The white woman is aesthetically attractive, innocent, as well as socially and culturally civilized. One did not have to be told that the gorilla was physically abhorrent when compared to the white woman. It was patently obvious. The only ones who might deny it would be the blind, the mentally deficient, or shameless liars and propagandists.

It’s no stretch, then, in the minds of many people who experience a similar revulsion at the sight of a black male romantically involved with a white woman, particularly if any physical affection is displayed. Whites may claim to not be bothered by such unions, but I’m inclined to believe that such opinions are more the result of propaganda and the suppression of what they really think. No westerner wants to look like a bigot to others even though inwardly they may harbor what is considered by society to be bigoted opinions. We are all inclined to restrain ourselves from expressing what we really think or feel about such racial unions because we know the consequences for doing so.

Yet it doesn’t detract from the reality that most whites are not inclined to pursue a racially mixed marriage or relationship unless there is tremendous social and cultural pressure placed on them to do so. It doesn’t come easy, and this may explain why Hollywood and every media outlet does all in its power to glorify race mixing. They’re not content with suggesting it nor speaking in glowing terms of its virtues. No, they must constantly confront whites with it. Every television commercial must portray a racially mixed couple. The benefits of miscegenation must be extolled continually. Black and white unions must be ‘celebrated’ and universally deemed as ‘perfectly normal.’ Whites who choose to do otherwise and prefer those of their own race are labeled ‘xenophobic’ or ‘white supremacist.’ The Left must guilt and shame every last white person who fails to comply.

The push toward miscegenation isn’t a recent thing either. It can be traced to at least the 1967 film, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, starring Sidney Poitier, Katherine Hepburn, and Spencer Tracy.

Despite the push for unnatural unions, our Bolshevik elites are fighting an uphill battle at every turn. We are not as naturally inclined to date, marry and produce children outside of our own race. Yes, there are many whites who engage in this sort of thing (mostly white women), but it’s not as common as one might be led to believe. The greater number of white women, for instance, are not particularly drawn to Asian men. This could be due to the perception that they are viewed as less masculine than black and white males. I would tend to think their more reserved and seemingly less confident personas may conflict with what many women desire – namely, men who are tall, who possess strong masculine traits, and who exude social confidence. Granted, some Asian men do, but the general perception seems to be that Asian men are much too polite and reserved and this may cause them to be less desirable in the eyes of white women.

White males are not generally attracted to black women. These kinds of unions are comparably rare. I would even say that the greater number of them are repulsed by black females unless they are unusually attractive with light-skinned features (e.g., actress Halle Berry). But even then, it’s rare for white males to marry black women. Black women with very dark pigmentation, in fact, seem to be universally rejected by white males. The black wife of former mayor of NYC, Bill de Blasio, is typical of the kind of black woman I’m referring to. Everything about her is visually repugnant, and most men with good eyesight and sound judgment would not be inclined to produce children with such a beast. De Blasio’s marriage to Chirlane McCray, then, was both unusual and rare.

Many black men find even their own black women to be far less desirable compared to white women – a frequent complaint on the part of many black women. This is mostly the fault of the modern black woman who is often marked by an overly aggressive persona, seemingly high testosterone levels, foul-mouthed, morbidly obese, and often completely deficient of the most basic social graces and femininity. Is it any wonder why so many black men turn to women outside of their own race?

Black women are outclassed in every conceivable way when compared to the infinitely more attractive white woman (assuming they are not obese nor afflicted with same problems as black women in terms of being brutish, loud-mouthed, rude, or lacking femininity) and Asian woman. Russian and eastern European women seem to have what a lot of men want in that they are trim, very feminine, genuinely seek marriage and motherhood, and appear not to have been poisoned by ‘woke’ rhetoric nor the kind of radical feminism that prevails in the West.

The kind of white woman, generally, who seeks out black men tend to be young and racially naïve. White college girls often fall into this trap as they are aggressively pursued by smooth-talking black bucks. For some, it’s a form of rebellion against their conservative father. Most of these white girls engage in dating outside their race for the simple reason that they’ve been endlessly propagandized by racial ‘diversity’ lies and see nothing wrong with it. They have no reason to date or marry only those among their own race. They see no benefit to it. They haven’t the foggiest notion about racial realities nor understand the importance of preserving one’s racial ancestry. They don’t even have a framework in which to make sense of such matters even if it were carefully explained to them.

A good many of these white women who mix with black males are morbidly obese. Walk through any big city in America, and you’ll witness it for yourself. Although they’re generally rejected by white males, they’re gladly welcomed by black men who practically worship their rotund bodies, ginormous buttocks, and all the jiggling cellulite that one could straddle.

Perhaps it may be due to a greater acceptance among American blacks of fat people? Or maybe it’s just a widespread preference among black males for larger women? Although I wouldn’t rule out such possibilities, I’m inclined to think that when black males secure for themselves a white woman – even a repulsive ham-beast as previously described – it’s seen as a step up for them. It improves their lot in life (or so it seems) and increases their status among other black males. Consider, for example, how many black male celebrities and sports stars surround themselves with white women and end up marrying one too. Much of this is due to the superior beauty of white women, no doubt, but there may also be a signaling of one’s wealth and status to others as well.

Yet, for the white woman, it devalues her. It’s a step down, not a step up. She throws away her genes, including her racial heritage. Truth is, it’s a huge turn off when white guys discover that their girlfriend had previously dated or slept with black guys. As the saying goes, “Once you go black, we don’t want you back!” Contrary to current thinking, a normal guy doesn’t want to wife-up a woman who has a high bed notch, especially if those same notches came by way of the typical pants saggin’ black ghetto thug!

White women who date black men place themselves in a precariously dangerous relationship as Sally McNeil discovered. The number of news reports of black men severely beating, disfiguring and even murdering their white girlfriends is at astonishing levels. Mainstream media outlets, as one might expect, do their best to downplay such stories or ignore them altogether. For instance, a simple Google or Duck Duck Go search of “Black man murders White girlfriend” will instead provide page after page documenting occasions where white women killed their black boyfriends or white men who murdered black males because they made sexual advances toward their wives or girlfriends. Rather than finding precise articles about black-on-white female violence, one is instead bombarded with articles on the history of lynching in America, the death of Emmett Till, or stories about ‘Central Park Karen,’ etc. This is not meant to deny that white women have on occasion killed their black boyfriends, but it’s comparatively rare when one considers the staggering number of white females who have been ruthlessly beaten and murdered by their black lovers.

If one wants to find reliable and detailed information on the rising crime statistics of black males who have murdered their white girlfriends, the American Renaissance website edited by Jared Taylor is a good source. Paul Kersey has written a plethora of sobering articles on the skyrocketing levels of violence committed by black men against white females.

The danger that dating black men presents lies in the nature of blacks themselves. Having on average much lower intelligence compared to whites and Asians and coupled with high testosterone levels, including a persistent pattern of neglecting to consider the consequences of their actions (known to those in the human bio-diversity community as ‘poor future time orientation’), far too many black men in America have proven to be emotionally volatile and are easily triggered into violent fits of rage against their white wives or girlfriends when things don’t quite turn the way they want.

Black men also have a long history of abandoning their wives and children. The common notion of the missing black father or black children raised by a single mother with no father in sight is not ‘racist’ mythology as the Left would want us to believe. It’s evident in the astronomical numbers that plague every community or inner city where blacks live in the U.S. In the cities I worked in as a police officer, it was rare indeed to encounter an intact black family with an involved father. Most of the black women were single mothers and they complained constantly at the lack of financial support they receive from their ‘baby Daddies.’

Entire generations of American blacks have been raised on government welfare and absent fathers is nothing new. This explains, at least in part, why a hugely disproportionate amount of the ‘wilding,’ looting, and murders that occurs in our cities is committed by young black males. They have no fathers present in the home to teach them about such things as integrity and basic morality nor to model such qualities before them. The greater number of them are being raised by impoverished single mothers (or grandmothers) who have no real influence or guiding hand on their sons.

This problem is evident even in the animal kingdom, and there are lessons we can learn here as well. Several years ago, for instance, 60 Minutes investigated the serious problem of young male elephant delinquencies in the Pilanesburg National Park (a game reserve in South Africa). The young elephant males and their mothers were separated from their fathers who remained at the Kruger National Park because of a growing population that the park could not sustain. What seemed like a simple solution turned out to be a nightmare.

In a fascinating account of what occurred, Fr. Gordon J. MacRae, writes: “Rangers at Pilanesburg began finding the dead bodies of endangered white rhinoceros. At first, poachers were suspected, but the huge rhinos had not died of gunshot wounds, and their precious horns were left intact. The rhinos appeared to be killed violently, with deep puncture wounds. Not much in the wild can kill a rhino, so rangers set up hidden cameras throughout the park. The result was shocking. The culprits turned out to be marauding bands of aggressive juvenile male elephants, the very elephants relocated from Kruger National Park a few years earlier. The young males were caught on camera chasing down the rhinos, knocking them over, and stomping and goring them to death with their tusks. The juvenile elephants were terrorizing other animals in the park as well. Such behavior was very rare among elephants. Something had gone terribly wrong. Some of the park rangers settled on a theory. What had been missing from the relocated herd was the presence of the large dominant bulls that remained at Kruger. In natural circumstances, the adult bulls provide modeling behaviors for younger elephants, keeping them in line. Juvenile male elephants, Dr. Horn pointed out, experience ‘musth,’ a state of frenzy triggered by mating season and increases in testosterone. Normally, dominant bulls manage and contain the testosterone-induced frenzy in the younger males. Left without elephant modeling, the rangers theorized, the younger elephants were missing the civilizing influence of their elders as nature and pachyderm protocol intended” (“In the Absence of Fathers: A Story of Elephants and Men,” Beyond These Walls, 6/20/2013).

If the same problem of fatherless boys exists in America’s Black communities – a significantly deeper and wider problem than that of rogue elephants on a game reserve in South Africa – how likely is it that racially naïve white women will choose a black man as their mate who isn’t also a criminal thug or who hasn’t been previously incarcerated? If a healthy marriage was never modeled before him by his own parents, what are the chances of having a functional marriage with such a person? Since character and personal integrity plays no meaningful role in the lives of a hugely disproportionate number of American blacks as is evident in their crime statistics and incarceration rates, what sense does it make for any white woman to look to them for a potential life partner?

Black males become particularly volatile when it dawns on them that they are about to lose their white princess, especially so if he realizes that he will never again snag such a pretty white woman. This reality provokes many of them to savagely beat and in some not-so-rare instances to brutally murder their white lovers. Why any white woman would want to take such risks in dating a black man is beyond me. But most of them know little or nothing about racial differences nor the unstable and eruptive nature of black men in America. Modern ‘diversity’ lies, then, help to keep our women blind to the real and ever-present danger that black males in America pose.

Finally, there is an entire set of unique problems that producing racially mixed children brings. Offspring from a black and white couple tend to be racially confused as they grow older, especially in their later teens as they try to figure out just who they are. As mulattos, they don’t quite fit into either a black or white racial paradigm. Often, they feel inferior or inauthentic. Though they tend to favor their ‘black side’ in terms of culture, music or personal identity, they are not always seen as ‘truly black’ by their black peers. This often results in a mission to prove their ‘blackness’ which may explain why mulattos are seemingly always out to show to their racial kin that they’re ‘down for the cause.’ Many of them turn out to be radically pro-black and determined to prove that they’re the ‘blackest’ of the blacks. I’m not a psychologist, but it sure smacks of some kind of identity crisis that they’re undergoing.

Finally, there’s evidence that mixed-race people have higher rates of mental health issues, including that of substance abuse. For instance, a multi-authored article published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence concluded that “multiracial youth were found to have higher levels of mental health issues than their monoracial minority and majority peers. Specifically, multiracial youth had higher levels of depressive symptoms than their African American and Caucasian counterparts. Multiracial and Caucasian youth had similar levels of anxiety, but these levels were significantly higher than African Americans” (“Examining Multiracial Youth in Context: Ethnic Identity Development and Mental Health Outcomes,” 8/7/2014).

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

Kingdom Scum: Let’s Contrast Unimportant Southport and Rotherham with All-Important Auschwitz

“Utter scum.” That is how the libertarian Tom Slater has described the Southport killer Axel Rudakubana. Slater is blustering and evading the consequences of his own ideology. He’s doing the same when he calls Rudakubana an “eighteen-year-old Brit.” Rudakubana is obviously not British, but that’s precisely why Slater calls him that. Like all his comrades in the Spiked collective, Slater has always believed in what the leading hate-thinker Vox Day calls “magic dirt,” namely, that birth on the territory of a Western nation has the magical power to transform Third-World folk into fully authentic Westerners. Because they believe in magic dirt, Slater and his comrades cannot admit the obvious: that importing Third-World people inevitably means importing Third-World pathologies. No, Slater has to pretend that pathological non-Whites like Rudakubana are somehow “Kingdom scum,” that is, people who truly belong in the United Kingdom but wilfully act as though they’re living in Rwanda or Libya.

Betraying his Jewish mentors

I mention Libya because there’s an obvious parallel between what Axel Rudakubana did with a knife in Southport in 2024 and what Salman Abedi did with a suicide-bomb in Manchester in 2017. Rudakubana’s parents were granted “asylum” in Britain from Rwanda before their British-born son slaughtered White children in horrific fashion. Abedi’s parents were granted “asylum” in Britain from Libya before their British-born son slaughtered White children in horrific fashion. The magic dirt didn’t work, just as it didn’t work for the many other British-born non-Whites who have inflicted grossly disproportionate harm on Whites down the decades. Tom Slater calls those malefactors “utter scum.” I would call them entirely predictable products of Third-World immigration.

But Slater is doing more than blustering and evading in his polemic against Rudakubana. He’s also betraying the proud intellectual tradition established by his Jewish mentors, the Hungary-born sociologist Frank Furedi and the Ukraine-born revolutionary Leon Trotsky. “Utter scum” is not a scientific term in any sense. It’s a wilfully anti-intellectual refusal to face reality. Slater really must find time to sit down and have a talk with Frank Furedi about Frank’s birthplace of Hungary, which does not suffer from any of the pathologies regularly condemned by Frank’s disciples at the Spiked website. There have been no Rwandan stabbers slaughtering White schoolgirls in Hungary. And no Libyan suicide-bombers blowing up White schoolgirls. No Pakistani rape-gangs preying on White schoolgirls. No Jamaican rapists preying on elderly White women. No Arabs machine-gunning White cartoonists for blasphemy in Hungary either. No Chechens beheading White schoolteachers for blasphemy. No Afghans licking blood-stained knives after slaughtering White women. And no Afghans throwing flesh-eating alkali into women’s faces.

Hungary’s secret sauce

But how on Earth has Hungary escaped the pathologies that plague Britain, France and other Western nations? Well, as Frank will surely explain to Tom, it’s because Hungary has stumbled on an amazingly effective way of preventing Rwandans, Libyans, Pakistanis, Jamaicans, Arabs, Chechens, and Afghans from reproducing the vibrant traditions of their ancestral lands on Hungarian soil. Tom will gasp in amazement as Frank gives him the jaw-dropping recipe for Hungary’s secret sauce:

  1. Take a proud and peaceful White nation.
  2. Do not add Third-World people or Muslims.
  3. Continue to be a proud and peaceful White nation.

Yes! It really is that simple! If you don’t let Third-World people in, you won’t suffer from Third-World pathologies. Frank will no doubt remind Tom of a potent piece of folk-wisdom: Prevention is better than cure. Indeed, Frank will tell Tom there is only one cure for Third-World pathologies in a White nation, namely, the expulsion of Third-World people from that White nation.

After that eye-opening chat with Frank Furedi, Tom Slater will understand how wrong he is to use phrases like “utter scum” and how foolish he is to write words like these:

[Very Online right-wingers are] trying to make [the Southport killings] all about immigration, gesturing to Rudakubana’s Rwandan heritage, to the Dark Continent, blithely ignoring that he was born and raised in Britain and that white British kids — from James Bulger’s killers to 19-year-old Cameron Finnigan, the neo-Nazi Satanist who was jailed just last week for encouraging young girls to commit suicide online and possessing terror materials — are well represented among Britain’s most depraved and sadistic inmates. (“The monster of Southport — and his enablers,” Spiked Online, 23rd January 2025)

In fact, “white British kids” are clearly under-represented among “Britain’s most depraved and sadistic inmates.” Non-Whites like Axel Rudakubana punch far above their demographic weight in depravity and sadism. And contra Slater, nobody is “ignoring” that Rudakubana “was born and raised in Britain.” On the contrary, “Very Online right-wingers” have made that fact central to their mockery of migration-enthusiasts like Slater. They’ve responded very effectively to claims that Rudakubana is “British” because he was born in the Welsh city of Cardiff. They’ve simply repeated a saying that was first used in the 1960s (or earlier): “If a dog is born in a stable, that doesn’t make it a horse.” Elsewhere, the Very Online right-wingers at Gates of Vienna have adapted a famous meme to salute Rudakubana’s handiness with a knife:

How Gates of Vienna “ignored” Axel Rudakubana’s birth in Cardiff

As I mentioned at the beginning, Vox Day created the term “magic dirt” to satirize the idiotic and irrational belief that merely being born on the territory of a Western nation somehow has the power to transform non-Whites into fully authentic Westerners. And I myself was being sarcastic when I said that Frank Furedi would give Tom Slater the recipe for Hungary’s secret sauce. As you would expect, the mentor Furedi is as dishonest and evasive about Third-World migration as the mentee Slater. When Furedi was defending Viktor Orbán and the Hungarian government against the regular accusations of “anti-Semitism” and “fascism” made against them by the European Union, he contrasted the threats to Jews in Western Europe with the peace that Jews enjoy in Hungary:

If the prevalence of anti-Semitism in a nation is going to be the criterion by which we [condemn] a government, then Hungary should come way behind France, Britain, Germany, Belgium and Sweden. In France and Belgium, Jewish restaurants are often guarded by the police; there is no need for that in Budapest. In Berlin, Jews wearing kippahs face threats and even violence. Not in Budapest. (“The EU’s shameful crusade against Hungary,” Spiked Online, 12th September 2018)

But Furedi didn’t point out the obvious reason for this contrast: that France, Britain, Germany, Belgium and Sweden are heavily enriched with Muslims and Hungary isn’t. Thanks to his refusal to discuss Third-World migration, Furedi failed to make the best possible case for Hungary. He said that “Hungary is no less democratic and no less free than other European nation states.” In fact, Hungary is much more democratic on a fundamental question of national sovereignty and survival. In Hungary, the government obeys the will of the people on Third-World migration. Hungarians don’t want it and don’t get it. In all the other nations he named, the people haven’t wanted it but have nevertheless got it, decade after decade after decade.

“Roma rights campaigner” steals millions

Furedi also got it wrong when he said: “Roma people face considerable socioeconomic problems in Hungary, but their position is far better than it was under the previous Socialist regime.” In fact, Roma don’t “face” but create “considerable socioeconomic problems” in Hungary, thanks to their low average IQ and high average criminality. However, they do much better in Britain, because the welfare system in Britain is much more generous and much more easily defrauded — for one example among many of Roma doing well in Britain, see the story at the BBC of a “Roma rights campaigner jailed for £2.9m benefits scam.” Furedi did not point out that Roma are non-Whites who have been notorious for their criminality and failure to integrate ever since they first reached Europe from India in the 1300s. In other words, the magic dirt hasn’t worked in seven centuries. Roma set the lamentable precedent for the much larger numbers of non-Whites who followed them in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Why does Frank Furedi not discuss or condemn non-White immigration? It’s simple: because he has a typically Jewish enthusiasm for what one of his disciples coyly calls “a liberal migration policy.” Another of his disciples, the Indian Muslim intellectual Kenan Malik, has joined Tom Slater in being evasive and dishonest about the Southport killings. But Malik was more sophisticated than Slater. He didn’t condemn Axel Rudakubana as “utter scum.” Instead, he followed his usual tactic of blowing smoke and sorrowfully intoning that it is all very complicated. He lamented how the “fraying of social bonds has been compounded by the paralysis of state institutions.” He wrung his hands over “a nihilistic desire to cause carnage and mayhem, distress and pain.” He shook his head sadly at how the “catastrophic failure” of “state institutions” is a “recurring theme” and pointed to “Salman Abedi, the Manchester Arena bomber, who again in a horror attack targeted young girls idolising a pop star — in this case, Ariana Grande — was known to the authorities, family, friends and community leaders having all contacted the police.” Alas, alas! “No action was taken.”

No “recurring theme” in Hungary

But Malik didn’t point out the other parallels between Rudakubana and Abedi: that both were the British-born sons of parents granted asylum from violent Third-World nations riven by “a nihilistic desire to cause carnage and mayhem, distress and pain.” He didn’t mention the “distress and pain” caused by non-White rape-gangs in Britain. And he failed to note that his “recurring theme” is found in all White nations enriched by Muslims and other non-Whites. But rape-gangs and “recurring themes” of nihilistic violence don’t exist in the White nation of Hungary. Why not? Like Frank Furedi and Tom Slater, Kenan Malik knows perfectly well why not: because Hungary hasn’t been enriched by Third-World immigration. Hungary doesn’t have to endure Third-World pathologies because the Hungarian elite has never allowed Third-World people to invade its territory.

The United Kingdom is entirely different. The political elite here allowed the Third-World people to begin invading British territory soon after the Second World War. And our symbolic elite in the British royal family did nothing to defend the true British — namely, the White British — against invasion. Instead, Queen Elizabeth II and her successor Charles III have utterly betrayed their White subjects, as I’ve pointed out in my articles “Elizabeth the Evil” and “Chuck the Cuck.” The Lord’s Prayer, the most important prayer in Christianity, was first set out in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It asks that God’s “kingdom come.” But our supposedly Christian monarchs have worked night and day against God’s kingdom. In her coronation oath of 1953 Elizabeth II made a simple reply to a simple question. She was asked: “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?” She replied before God: “[This] I promise to do.”

Same reply, same betrayal

She then proceeded to utterly betray the oath she had made before God. At the beginning of her long reign, murder-and-rape-friendly Blacks and Gospel-rejecting Muslims began immigrating in large numbers into the United Kingdom. She did and said nothing in defence of her people and of the Christian religion. Towards the end of her long reign, it was widely reported that rape-gangs of Gospel-rejecting Muslims had been preying on large numbers of White girls for decades, ignored by the authorities. Again, she did and said nothing.

Elizabeth the Evil then died and was succeeded by her son Chuck the Cuck, who made the same reply to the same question in his coronation oath. Chuck then carried on betraying his people and his supposed religion as he had done all his previous life. But in January 2025 he made his betrayal even clearer. He gave a speech in which he asked us all to “recall the depths to which humanity can sink when evil is allowed to flourish, ignored for too long by the world.” He also shed tears for the victims of the evil of which he spoke. Now, did he make that speech in Rotherham or in any other part of his own kingdom where evil has been “allowed to flourish, ignored for too long by the world”? Did he shed tears for raped, tortured and murdered girls from his own White and historically Christian people?

Chuck the Cuck sheds tears for Christ-hating Jews in far-off Poland

Of course he didn’t. He’s Chuck the Cuck — he doesn’t serve Christ and the White people of his own kingdom, he betrays them. He made his evil-excoriating speech in the foreign nation of Poland, hundreds of miles from his own kingdom, and he shed tears for what happened to Christ-hating Jews eighty years ago in the Holocaust. Chuck the Cuck is not an intelligent or insightful man, but even he can understand that “the true profession of the Gospel” is not upheld by performing the goy-grovel before Jews, whose religion teaches that Jesus Christ is boiling in excrement for all eternity. By making that speech and shedding those tears, Chuck the Cuck has made his betrayal plain to the entire world. For our supposedly Christian King, Jewish suffering at Auschwitz is all-important and White suffering in Southport and Rotherham doesn’t matter at all. Tom Slater was wrong when he said that Axel Rudakubana is “utter scum.” But I’m right when I say that Charles III is a prime example of Kingdom scum, that is, of the treacherous elite which, like foul scum on clean water, lies at the top of society in the United Kingdom.

Society vs. the Market: Alain de Benoist’s Case Against Liberalism

Posted also at the NovelleDroite Substack.

Society vs. the Market: Alain de Benoist’s Case Against Liberalism

Review of Alain de Benoist’s “Against Liberalism: Society Is Not a Market”

What if the very foundations of our modern society—individualism, free markets, and universal rights—are not pillars of progress but harbingers of decay? Alain de Benoist’s “Against Liberalism: Society Is Not a Market” offers a provocative critique of the ideological forces shaping the West. By dissecting liberalism’s philosophical premises and societal consequences, Benoist calls for a reimagining of our communal and cultural priorities. This review explores his arguments and their implications for our understanding of politics, economics, and identity.


Alain de Benoist’s Against Liberalism: Society Is Not a Market1 profoundly critiques liberalism, the dominant ideology in contemporary Western societies. Originally published in 2019 under the title «Contre le libéralisme: La société n’est pas un marché», translated by F. Roger Devlin, the work dissects liberalism’s philosophical premises, societal impacts, and its manifestation as an economic, political, and cultural force. Benoist’s central thesis revolves around the assertion that liberalism reduces society to a marketplace, undermining the very fabric of communal, cultural, and moral life. This review explores the book’s structure, key arguments, strengths, and potential shortcomings.

Alain de Benoist’s Against Liberalism opens by establishing liberalism as the dominant ideology of the modern West, characterized by its roots in individualism, market values, and economic rationality. From the outset, Benoist critiques the Enlightenment’s legacy, particularly its emphasis on universal reason and individual liberty. He argues that liberalism’s prioritization of self-interest and economic growth over communal and cultural considerations has contributed to societal decay. This framing sets the tone for a work that seeks to expose liberalism’s philosophical inconsistencies and its societal consequences.

Central to Benoist’s critique is his rejection of individualism as the foundation of social organization. Liberalism, he contends, isolates individuals by prioritizing self-interest and reducing social bonds to contractual relationships. This atomization undermines collective structures such as families, communities, and traditions, which give life its deeper meaning. In contrast, Benoist advocates for communitarian and conservative values that emphasize the interconnectedness of individuals within a shared cultural and moral framework.

Benoist also critiques the dominance of market logic in liberal thought, which he argues reduces society to a marketplace where all values are subordinated to economic principles. He takes aim at the concept of homo economicus—the model of humans as purely self-interested agents—and argues that it commodifies every aspect of life. Neoliberalism, in Benoist’s view, represents an intensification of classical liberal principles, marked by deregulation, privatization, and the erosion of state sovereignty. This, he contends, exacerbates social inequalities and undermines societal cohesion.

A particularly notable section of the book examines Benoist’s critique of Friedrich Hayek, a leading figure in the Austrian School of Economics.2 Benoist challenges Hayek’s emphasis on spontaneous order and market efficiency, arguing that this perspective overlooks the social and moral costs of unfettered capitalism. He accuses Hayek of advancing a vision of society that prioritizes profit over human dignity and cultural continuity, framing it as an inadequate response to the complex needs of human communities.

Another key dimension of Benoist’s analysis is his interrogation of the relationship between liberalism and democracy. He questions whether liberalism is truly compatible with democratic values, suggesting that liberal democracy often privileges individual rights over collective well-being. In his view, this emphasis on procedural fairness and neutrality undermines the substantive values necessary for a cohesive and flourishing democratic society. Benoist argues that participative democracy, rooted in shared cultural and moral principles, is compromised by liberalism’s focus on individual autonomy.

Benoist further critiques liberalism’s embrace of cultural and moral relativism, which he sees as a denial of shared values and traditions. By promoting radical individual autonomy, liberalism erodes the foundations of identity and belonging. This is particularly evident in debates over multiculturalism and globalization, where Benoist argues that liberalism contributes to the dissolution of distinct cultural and national identities.

Grounded in philosophical tradition, Benoist engages with thinkers such as John Locke, Friedrich Hayek, and John Stuart Mill to develop his critique. His arguments draw on communitarian and conservative perspectives, offering a compelling counterpoint to liberal orthodoxy. Benoist’s analysis of neoliberalism and its impact on societal cohesion is especially relevant in light of contemporary challenges, including rising economic inequality, cultural polarization, and the erosion of public trust. His insights resonate with current debates about the limits of market logic and the need for alternative frameworks of social organization.

Importantly, Benoist does not dismiss liberalism outright but acknowledges its internal diversity and historical evolution. He distinguishes between classical and modern liberalism, as well as between economic and political liberalism, providing a nuanced critique that avoids oversimplification. His analysis invites readers to reconsider the premises of liberal thought and its impact on society.

In Against Liberalism, Benoist delivers a thought-provoking critique of liberalism, capitalism, and individualism. The work challenges readers to reflect on the societal consequences of these ideologies and to explore alternative frameworks rooted in communal values and cultural identity. While the book has its limitations—particularly in articulating concrete alternatives—it succeeds in sparking a necessary and urgent debate about the future of modern societies. For those interested in critiques of capitalism from a non-leftist perspective, Against Liberalism offers an essential and stimulating read.

Order Against Liberalism: Society Is Not a Market here.


1

Benoist, Alain de. Against Liberalism: Society Is Not a Market. Translated by F. Roger Devlin, Middle Europe Books, 2024.

2

In the coming months, I will be featuring my own translation of this essay, titled ‘Hayek: A Critique,’ which was written in 1990. This essay was originally published in Éléments issue #68 under the title “Hayek: le loi de la jungle” (Hayek: The Law of the Jungle). An abridged English translation first appeared in The Scorpion issue #15 in 1991. The first full English translation appeared in Telos Journal issue #110 in 1998. This essay appears as a chapter in “Against Liberalism” which was translated by F. Roger Devlin.

Trahison des clercs: civil servants waging class war on White Britons

In the aftermath of the jailing of Axell Rudakabana, the son of Rwandan asylum-seekers who massacred young girls outside a dance class in Southport, the authorities are doing their usual tactic of obfuscating and generalising. Society is being encouraged to attribute the horrific incident to ‘knife crime’ and harmful content online. Meanwhile, the vague but selective concept of ‘hate’ is used, more in reference to those reacting to the killings than to the killer himself.

How does a political establishment, which never tires of reminding us of the murder of Black teenager Stephen Lawrence three decades ago, manage to make White Britons the focus of criminal intervention, when this was clearly a case of anti-White racism? To the professional-managerial class, with its progressive (or rather subversive) values, racism is only perpetrated by White people. So a Black murderer found to have expressed motives of White genocide (and following an Islamist terror manual) was not racist – how could he be?

The only image presented in mainstream media of the suspect was a school photograph, depicting a smartly-dressed 12-year-old angelic choirboy. Not just a normal kid, Rudakabana had performed on a BBC television series. He was identified as the son of a Rwandan couple, given sanctuary in this country on fleeing the civil war (nothing was mentioned about his father’s role in this conflict).

Axell Rudakabana, Then and Now

In August last year, around the time of the Southport carnage, Yvette Cooper, appointed as home secretary in the newly-elected Labour government, ordered a review towards development of a new counter-extremism strategy.  The report was leaked to the Policy Exchange think-tank, who divulged its disturbing contents.

According to the official narrative, the Southport incident unleashed a wave of racist rioting across the land. The protests were certainly about more than the latest cause of outrage: the long-running scandal of Pakistani rape gangs preying on White working-class girls, previous random killings by migrants, as at Nottingham, instances of terrorism such as the Manchester Arena bombing, and the grossly insulting and expensive housing of illegal immigrants in four-star hotels. But the establishment view was summarised by a magistrate who jailed someone with the remark: ‘I have no idea what you were protesting about’.

The report referred to ‘alleged’ ‘grooming gangs’. The inverted commas around this term were not for the same reason that I use them. From my perspective, this is a shady euphemism to mask the truth of mass racially-motivated gang rape. From the institutional perspective, it’s because the existence of the gangs is exploited by the ‘far right’, so it must be doubted, if not invalidated. This is extremely offensive to the thousands of victims, who don’t feel ‘allegedly’ traumatised. And it defies fact: hundreds of Pakistani-origin men were convicted and jailed for abusing these girls. In some instances the rapists had referred to their prey as ’White trash’.

The concept of ‘two-tier policing’ is dismissed by the report as ‘right-wing extremist narrative’. White working-class people are not permitted to complain about the destruction of their culture and livelihood by institutionally-favoured immigrants. Indeed, the report focused on boosting existing protection for minorities under the Equality Act. Furthermore, it opposed the outgoing Conservative government’s policy to abolish police recording of ‘non-crime hate incidents’. Labour ministers want to curb expression of allegedly Islamophobic and anti-Semitic ideas, whether lawful or not. Denigrating White people is fine, to the extent of barring them from jobs or services, or blaming them for being stabbed, raped or murdered.

A new offence of ‘harmful communication’ likely to cause psychological harm is recommended by the report. The scope of extremism is to be broadened to include misogyny and conspiracy theories.  The establishment is determined to shift the focus from the racially-motivated Black and Muslim violence to make the White working class the biggest threat to a multicultural society.

A few days ago Unity News Network revealed that a hotel in Loughborough owned by a senior civil servant has been repurposed for housing illegal immigrants. Irfan Hemani, a deputy director for cyber security, is profiting from the huge taxpayers’ burden of this relentless influx.  But it would be a mistake to see this primarily as a problem of Muslims abusing positions of power to support an Islamic takeover of Britain.

The real problem is that the civil service is run by the White progressive class, whose treachery to their country and fellow citizens is boundless. They despise the White people below them on the socio-economic hierarchy. They would probably regard Axel Rudakabana as a victim of his upbringing in a racist country. The worst crime, in their eyes, was not the stabbing of eleven innocent primary-school girls, but the ordinary White folk who dared to complain. This is truly le traison des clercs.

Destination 1982: Wilmot Robertson’s “Ventilations” Then and Now — Part 2 of 2

Go to Part 1.

4598 words

Reshaping and Reordering a Decadent United States

Clearly, “Kosher conservatism” is what we today call neoconservatism (and neocons). “Militant liberalism” certainly foreshadowed the feminism, DEI, LGBTQ+, illegal immigration, BLM, critical race theory, global warming and ESG (environmental, social, governance) movements that have divided (and conquered?) this country’s people. Robertson was on to something! While all these movements probably could be called “Kosher” or “Kosher certified,” we probably won’t hear that description from the Trump GOP party as it postures now with a reactionary pushback to the Left. You can, though, find the collaborations from author Scott Howard, who Robertson surely would have supported in the hypotheses of his two books, The Transgender-Industrial Complex and The Open Society Play-Book.

Before the convenience or the computer information age, Robertson’s Ventilations made a valiant effort at connecting the dots of the previous decade and expanding his TDM critique of Jewish power and influence. Before leaving this first chapter, here are some of his interesting takes:

  • The alliance of liberalism, equalitarianism and social Christianity has done more to weaken America in the last thirty years than all the machinations of all the Communist spy rings since 1917.

  • “If [old-line anti-Communists] want to see something Jewish and really conspiratorial all they have to do is turn on their TV sets.”

  • The low standard of living in Russia has also prevented any fanatic emphasis on the ‘good life’ and the soul-dampening materialism that automatically goes with such a philosophy. … In Short, the Russians are the modern Barbarians at the Gate, and we are somewhat in the position of the Romans. Rome [was] not destroyed by Germanic incursions until the internal rot had made resistance all but impossible.

  • We must attempt to root out the infection [i.e., the “disease that now grips America”] before it spreads throughout the American social organism.

  • The Soviet leadership … does not wish a showdown with world Jewry. Whenever Jewish propaganda gets too ruthless and overwhelming, Russia makes a few concessions. Whenever Jewish racial fury provokes some new outrage against Lebanon or some other Middle Eastern country, Russia supports the Arabs, but not to the point of brinksmanship. (my emphasis; consider Russia’s latest yielding on Syria as avoiding brinksmanship)

  • Meanwhile, to prepare the Soviet masses for a stronger line against the Israelis, the state-owned publishing houses release a series of books whose anti-Zionism can hardly be distinguished from czarist anti-Semitism.

Ventilations hit hard on the geopolitical events of the sixties, seventies, and early eighties. It gave a strong, condescending update to his conservative followers on the role of Jewry in Soviet Russia, and reported on the beginnings of American domestic agitation and cultural degeneracy. The final wisdom of this first chapter harks eerily close to today’s shaky predicaments and the warmongering towards World War III:

[If] Americans can be talked into pouring billions of dollars a year into armaments for Israel and cutting themselves off from Arab oil by fostering Jewish racism in the Near East, if Americans continue to act as the moral lepers of modern history by furnishing the weapons for the destruction of Egyptian cities (in the 1967 war), Lebanese villages and Iraqi reactors, then half of Russia’s military problem will be solved. Then Dostoyevsky’s farfetched dream of a Russian colossus astride the four corners of the earth will become less farfetched with every passing day.

On Religion and Social Sciences

Wilmot Robertson dishes out his attacks on Christianity, religion, and the social sciences in the second chapter of Ventilations. It is chock full of his personal insights and frank opinions — what he probably deemed as simple wisdom:

  • The few religionists who have an honest interest in our spiritual welfare offer us a god who is a mirror of our best instincts. The religionists who have more concern for ideas than people or more concern for their people than our people offer us gods who are likely to be mirror images of our worst instincts. (emphasis in the original)

  • It might be better for everyone — everyone, that is, except the religious professionals — if our faith came from the heart. But that isn’t the way religion works. … When it comes to the moral law, we prefer to lend our ear to otherworldly teachers.

  • [The] Moral Majority’s support of Zionist aggression in the Middle East, including massive attacks on civilians in Beirut, belies its name by putting  [the U.S.] on the side of immorality.

  • There is such a multitude of Christian denominations in America, such a strong tradition of church-state separation, that it would be difficult, if not impossible to obtain Christian unity for any cause. For this reason any realistic political movement should leave religious matters strictly to the private conscience.

Robertson clearly finds our Majority religion to be problematic in the way it’s been exploited to work against us in recent years. His boldest comments are found here after a short introduction that backs his hierarchical thoughts on Christianity; he notes that there are both higher and lower religions, “just as there are higher and lower civilizations and higher and lower men”:

Historians tell us that Jews were the greatest religionists. But the historians are wrong. Jews were not great religionists. They were great religious fanatics. Who else could have dreamed up such tribal deities as the genocidal Jehovah, the apocalyptic Marx and the totemistic Freud. Jews may or may not have founded the Christian sect — according the Pharisees, Jesus was a Gentile from Galilee —  but Indo-Europeans most certainly developed the higher religion known as Christianity. The composers of the greatest Christian music, the builders of the greatest Christian churches, the painters of the greatest Christian art, the expounders of the greatest Christian philosophy were not Jews. There were Indo-Europeans.

Christ may have preached to all men, but only men of the West gave him their minds as well as their hearts and remained true to him for more than fifteen hundred years. Jews anathematized him, Moslems unchurched him, Hindus ignored him, Chinese outlawed him, mestizos indigenized him, blacks syncopated him and the Soviet Union in 1917 abandoned and ridiculed him.

There is a wealth of suggestions here from Robertson on the Religion Question:

The perceptive Majority Christian who wants to preserve his religion should have only one response to the question, ‘What do we do about Christianity?’ … He must recognize that the West has provided the only biological framework in which Christianity has both prospered and endured. He must understand that, when a people’s culture is teetering on the edge of a precipice, race must be put before religion in order to save race and religion. (emphasis in the original)

He also lashes out on the social sciences working together with religious sects (“operated by minority and liberal shamans”) for “the purpose of imposing their own particular political, economic and social creeds on the Majority:

Drugs, pornography, the soaring crime rate and corruption at all levels are clear proof of the near-total failure of social scientists to spread anything more than moral nihilism, not only among their brainwashed student congregations, but among the population at large.

Robertson hopes that “the best Majority minds could recapture the social sciences and apply them to the improvement of human behavior … [thus providing] a chance of building a viable morality on empirical as well as metaphysical foundations.” But when the best of Majority minds cannot be easily discovered like Uncomfortable Conversations With A Jew can, Robertson’s third chapter gives us glimpse as to why: “The Censorship of Silence.”

Censorship In Action

Before former Louisiana State Legislature Representative Dr. David Duke had his book My Awakening banned from Amazon, before California State University-Long Beach Professor Emeritus of Psychology Dr. Kevin MacDonald, author of the famous trilogy on Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy was banned from Twitter/X (see bottom of TOO website for individual books) and most of his books banned on Amazon, before the shadow-banning of 911Pilots.org founder and bona fide whistleblower Captain Dan Hanley (on X as handle @DanHanley4) or the de-platforming of countless right wing activists from their very own YouTube channels, Wilmot Robertson experienced tremendous difficulties promoting and selling the newly published TDM because of censorship. He begins this chapter with enlightening perspective:

In the past several decades the pro and con ratio of books written about minorities has been approximately 1,000 to 1. Two prominent additions to the bulging pro-minority library, the heavily promoted The Decline of the Wasp by Peter Schrag and The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics by Michael Novak, have amounted to little more than book-length racial slurs against the Majority.

Well, while it seems in 2024 that the entire American society (mainstream media, academia and corporate world) has mainstreamed anti-White racial slurs (or at least its implicit equivalent), today’s “Conservatism Inc.” resistance is still meek and ineffective due to the average person’s lack of exposure to well-written content like Wilmot Robertson’s. He talks a great deal about the trouble he had getting reviews, and “[s]ince reviews are the life blood of the book trade, there is little or no possibility at all of an un-reviewed book coming to the attention of the general reading public without a long, laborious, year-in, year-out promotional campaign that would consume more money and time than any small publisher could possibly afford.”

Robertson explains the various pitfalls that created the literary blockade against his masterpiece. His diligent efforts to engage library officials and book critics, to place TDM on consignment at book stores, to use paid advertising in newspapers, magazines and college publications, and his attempts to get the book listed in the Literary Market Place were extremely challenging and disappointing. His pain is felt in the myriad details conveyed in this chapter, and he concludes that this marketing failure

does not prove the abrogation of freedom of thought in this country. After all, the book did get published. But in the final analysis, what good is the freedom to write, if there is very limited freedom to publicize what one has written? If America’s largest population group is to be defended effectively against a torrent of minority racist propaganda, the rights defined in the First Amendment must apply to the dissemination of ideas as well as their expression.

His moving plea here is today suppressed by the ease in which the Jewish interpretation of this right is spread and enforced: “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of reach,”[1] says Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL.

No doubt, Robertson would not have been surprised to find this coming from the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. And although he did not specifically cite Jewish influence behind the campaign to silence his book, he did include one typewritten comment from the wife of a Jewish department store owner who returned her copy of TDM to Robertson. And he does state that her comment “does help to prove that at least some Jews take pride in the fact this censorship is so effective.” She wrote:

My pride in being an American Jew was never greater nor more profound than now, since I see where bookstores and decent Americans refuse to put your trashy literature (???) on their shelves. When you crack up, which you must eventually, maybe a Jewish psychiatrist will take pity on you and help you deal with your insanity. Too bad you’re so insanely jealous of those who have proven you less than adequate.

As is often the case, Jews take pride in their accomplishments but are utterly blind to the idea that their interests conflict with those of the Majority. Robertson adds his erudite comment on to her stinging comment:

There are many sources of pride in the human spirit, but this is surely one of the strangest, particularly in a country supposed to be a democracy and in a member of a race which is so overwhelmingly ‘liberal’.

And he finishes this chapter on censorship thus:

Members of the Cosa Nostra get away with homicide by the traditional practice of omerta. They never talk, and they see to it that witnesses never talk. The same code of silence is used very effectively by members of the publishing Mafia to murder ideas.

Forty years after Robertson published Ventilations, the Museum of Jewish Heritage—A Living Memorial to the Holocaust, hosted an event featuring Jewish historian Robert Rockaway titled “Kosher Nostra: The Life and Times of Jewish Gangsters in the United States.” One can wonder what the fallout would be if Robertson would have substituted the  term “Kosher Nostra” for “Cosa Nostra” as found in his book. One can only imagine the additional flak he would have received! We can say that we will never know, but that would be a lie. The presentation linked above is likely Jewish history intended for a Jewish audience, and goyim (i.e., non-Jews) are off-limits from making critiques on how odd it might be that a Jewish heritage site would celebrate ethnic gangsterism. But the included video presentation actually supports Robertson’s ethnic concerns when within the first seven minutes the speakers are stressing the point that large scale organized crime in America began with Jews and Italians. Of course, most Americans today only associate the Italians with the Mafia, since Jews have been the predominant producers of Hollywood’s movies and kept these details hushed.[2]  In the end, it was more than just “ideas” that were murdered in the lust for money, territory and power. During the same period that organized crime exploited the American prohibition on alcohol, Palestine and Russia were both being overtaken by the same ethnic cabal. See my articles “Destination 1922” and “Destination 1933” on these conflicts.

Other Topics Covered

A lot of ground had been covered in these first three chapters. The next ten were titled as follows: “The Loony Bin or the Great Watergate Purge,” “The High Grading of Henry Kissinger,” “Harsh Advice for Young Majority Activists,” “Productive Activity for Majority Undergraduates,” “A Search for Mental Coordinates,” “Why, for the Time Being, Nothing Much Can Be Done,” “Homage to Kemal Ataturk,” “A Second Life for Women,” and “The Utopian States of America.”

The gist of Ventilations is jointly a history lesson on the complex ways our enemies operate coupled with the guidance and advice of a guru who wishes the Majority to learn from its failings and have a fighting chance in its struggle. It is too late to ignore the mistakes of our past. And if there were ever a time to read this book, the time is now while right-leaning politics takes power in Washington, D.C. It’s  a time not to rest on one’s laurels. Robertson critiques the Majority:

We think individually when we should think collectively. We react when we should act. We whine when we should be positive and assertive. In short, we do everything but the right thing.” Incredibly, we are still immobilized by the story line the media feed us in ever larger doses. Because it says so in print, we actually believe that we are the oppressors, not the oppressed.” (my emphasis in both)

The fact is, the Majority no longer is the establishment, but the disestablishment. It no longer is an ascendant race, but a rootless agglomerate of the mentally and morally disarmed. Worst of all, it actively participates in its own downgrading.

Thinking Morally for Solutions

Robertson brings many solid points to his “search for mental coordinates,” and with his pragmatic nature he prescribes that “the Majority must begin to devise programs to put a stop to its dispossession.” Yes, a lot of today’s internet warriors might be thinking, “Easier said than done!” The opposition has over 10,000 non-profits and billions of dollars, while the racially conscious Majority has one hand’s full of charity groups, maybe a few hundred thousand dollars, and difficulty putting together a conference or hosting a dinner without getting attacked! Then again, maybe the time to attract new adherents and start up new programs really is today, after the 2024 election, where enough good people have had it with woke politics and its negative impact on traditional family life. Can today’s Majority heed Robertson’s admonitions and change for its future survival? Can they finally tolerate the scholarly writing of authors published in The Occidental Quarterly or the alternative narratives found on The Unz Review?

We must acquire the proper frame of mind…to direct the slow and difficult process of recovery.  We squirm at accusations of bigotry while refusing to identify our accusers as the authentic bigots. We retreat before allegations of racism by opponents who are the real racists.  We are deathly afraid to talk about racial solidarity, although it is the racial solidarity of others that has performed the miracle of our dispossession.

Robertson understood that the solution to our demise requires a revolutionary behavioral change towards unabashed courage. “If we are to win this war [against Western Civilization], we must conquer not only our enemies, but ourselves.”  And maybe that change demands a re-thinking of our past ideals:

We were once idealistic enough to believe that, at least on paper, all men were equal. Now we know better. Now we know that those who honestly believe in equality are likely to become the servants of those who pretend to believe in it.

That certainly sounds like the summary of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, doesn’t it? If only more of our people would read and draw lessons from masterful writings like that! Instead, we know that since the dawn of the movies, advancing to TV, then personal computer bringing us Facebook, Twitter/X, and TikTok, our people have demanded more from less of our time-space, and on smaller screens. While the internet and PCs were not even available to the public when Ventilations was published, Wilmot Robertson delivered a profound message that makes even writing this simple book review seem so very worthwhile. It’s the spirit at the heart of  this article, the patience that precedes glory:

The written word does not bring with it the immediate satisfaction of the spoken word. Nevertheless, it is the authentic seed of action. Your successors, the second — and third-echelon movers and shakers of future generations, will harvest the crop you have sown in your loneliness and tragic isolation. But instead of being depressed by such a thought, you should be aware that very few humans have ever had the priceless opportunity to be in at the start of a fateful attempt to save a great people from suicide. Your reward, although delayed, will be the greatest of all rewards, a niche in history. (emphasis in original)

I believe Francis Parker Yockey would have approved those words! And an inspiration like that could help multiple generations of our still-current Majority start playing the long game, just as our adversaries have, if Robertson’s wisdom and message spread.

Indeed, the dispossession of the European White race from America, its European Homeland and Western colonies — The Great Replacement — has been played out for many generations, and well over a century. Robertson ends his book urging us to use “morality as a weapon,” much like Dr. Kevin MacDonald always stresses how our opposition routinely conquers us by claiming the “moral high ground.”

What Would Wilmot Do Today?

While I write this book review, two of the most striking examples challenging our European-derived principles today are right before our very eyes, and Robertson’s spirit is surely wondering what’s taking the Majority so long to stake out the moral high ground. Most of the general American public that watches network news, CNN or Fox News, is inundated with one particular commercial so much that they probably could sing the accompanying jingle without a hitch. I’m talking about “1-877- Kars-4-Kids, donate your car today!” This charity is so successful that it’s likely that very few have not heard of it — but how many know whose kids receive the donations?  It’s not surprising that this non-profit spells “cars” with the letter “K,” since the organization is through and through Kosher in its focus, with donations funding (exclusively?) Jewish children’s organizations. And it’s no longer just cars that the charity takes on, but also boats, airplanes and real estate!

Along with that jingle, the American public has their heartstrings pulled multiple times per day to help these poor young innocent souls. The amount of advertising from this organization alone hints that they are a successful money-maker, and it would be no surprise to find that the ever-altruistic European-Americans are the predominant group rushing to open their wallets to help the “kids.”[3] Actually, it might move them more if they knew it was strictly Jewish children the charity was helping since Jewish victimhood has been drilled so well into the minds of Americans. One can only behold how well the drumbeating jingle works, and “pathological altruism” kicks in (as Dr. MacDonald might claim).[4]

But at the same time, 2024 and beyond saw the Jewish community’s majority both tacitly and overtly sanctioning the Israeli slaughter of innocent non-combatant Palestinian kids (because they’ll grow up to be Hamas combatants?), and any American protesting these disgusting war crimes is singled out as an “anti-Semite” and has their career or livelihood destroyed one way or the other by Jewish elites and their supporting organizations. Then, the same Jewish community sneakily takes your money to support their children from a charity goliath that uses kids to draw your sympathy. The cognitive dissonance could rattle the heads of anyone clued in to today’s real world, and it’s time somebody call them out on it. A reading of Ventilations might inspire the strong, intelligent and courageous of the Majority today to meme this hypocrisy into a truth movement supporting our children’s future. For some day, Majority children may be a despised minority just as Palestinian children today are being found under concrete rubble by the thousands.

Here’s another folly of “justice” foisted upon our minds that wasn’t quite at a mature state when Ventilations was published: The Israeli lobby approves the ongoing Palestinian genocide based on the October 7th Israeli hostage crisis and the 1200 allegedly killed in action. But for decades now the American people have been forced to accept hundreds of thousands, if not millions over time, of murdered citizens caused by the illegal drug trade brought in across our southern border as well as violent illegal immigrants and cartel networks growing in our Homeland.[5] Based on today’s Jewish logic we are forced to hear every day from the mainstream media (“all Palestinians are Amalek,” “destroy all of Gaza including non-combatant citizens”), Robertson might assert that Americans should have annexed Mexico or Central America over a decade ago when fentanyl deaths began to creep up. American government support for Israeli military actions certainly places our people’s lives and security into second place compared to foreign interests, and it’s now up to our people to speak intelligently on this delusional madness — wherever their voice can be heard.

Speaking up with what we have remaining in our First Amendment is one of our greatest challenges facing us when billionaire Elon Musk’s “X” social media platform obeys the wishes of a non-profit, the ADL. And that’s why if Elon wants to make a difference for the world, he too should invest a few hours in Ventilations and heed the important lessons taught in this collection of essays.

This direct mail fundraising letter received by the author at time of writing; Same organization inundates TV with lengthy infomercials targeting Christians; Is there any equivalent showing poor Christian widows or starving Palestinian children seeking money from the wealthiest ethnicity in the world?

 

Inside Ventilations the reader will find “An important message for Christians,” non-Christians, and in fact all Gentile Americans wishing to reverse the accelerating dispossession of White European-Americans from their Homeland.  Until we find the boldness to aggressively raise funds and build an organized-Majority explicitly for their interests, or until money and finances no longer are a factor in the big picture, Ventilations and TDM should be required reading for understanding the grave dilemma we face and brainstorming multiple paths towards our sanctuary. For the Millennials and Gen Z, just call it Diversity Training!

Final Thoughts Inspired by Wilmot

I’ll conclude my review of Ventilations by returning to the start of this article where I was surprised at the opening words of an older Jewish woman asking me straight off about holocaust movies: There hasn’t been a day since October 7, 2023, where “the [Israeli] hostages” haven’t been mentioned in the news. But in the paradigm I would like to see more widely known, I see the sailors and marines who survived the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty as the greatest hostages in our recent American history — hostages to our government’s lies and betrayals for 58 years now, whose PTSD must be unthinkable. Those military men were likely not all Majority members, but the suppression of their story by The System we live under today clearly shows that American civic nationalism is dead — a foreign nation matters more than American patriots serving our own country. We constantly admonished to “never forget” the Israeli hostages, but we are forced to forget the dead sailors who were left in a flooded gaping hole of a Navy ship attacked by Israeli military, or the dead servicemen shot up on the deck or murdered with napalm. So the next time I meet someone worth influencing at first greeting, I will follow the strong collective advocacy approach and say, “Have you visited USSLiberty.org?” instead of “Hi, my name is Sigurd!”

Until the USS Liberty survivors, such as author Phil Tourney, are given a standing ovation in congress greater than Netanyahu received, I encourage our readers to blindside others with a retort on “hostages” such as “Which hostages?” to grow a back bone for even stronger challenges against our demise — challenges that could help create a new word for Chutzpah, but exclusively reserved for European-Americans. Make USSLiberty.org a household name and charity that will bring reflection and perspective on what kind of collective will best suit our Majority interests now that sacrificed military men have been disgraced in favor of a hostile nation advertised as “our greatest ally.” With that moral compass redefined and polished, we can begin our own ventilations to guide us in our struggle.[6] Perhaps then “Hostages” will always be published with a capital “H” like the “Holocaust” is today in journalism, but it will signify even greater meaning for the European Man. It will serve as a memory that Westernkind was held Hostage in their own nation-states for well over a century while it fought massively destructive and fratricidal wars — later termed the Zionist Wars by our newly awakened people — until European humanity at last spoke.

Wilmot Robertson put it this way in Ventilations:

But one day, perhaps in five years, perhaps in fifty, the Majority’s decline will be pushed a little too far and a little too fast. Something will finally snap in the neuron network of some talented Majority politician. For the first time a Majority member with brains, character and ambition will divert his life-supporting drives to his race rather than to his career. From then on, the Majority curve will point up. The termite will then have to think seriously about moving to another mound and the fungus to another tree.

Clearly, that “Majority politician” will have to have protection from blackmail or assassination, the enemy’s favorite tactics when bribery via campaign contributions or ostracizing fails.

January 21, 2025 post script: President Donald Trump, who took office yesterday, probably is not that man. But maybe he will fertilize the soil that will create him!


[1] https://x.com/JGreenblattADL/status/1511331730594095107

[2] See An Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, Neal Gabler, (1988) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/118657.An_Empire_of_Their_Own

[3] Their mission statement as filed on their 2021 IRS form 990 stated:
“KARS 4 KIDS FUNDS EDUCATIONAL, DEVELOPMENTAL, AND RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR JEWISH YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES. OUR GOAL IS TO FOSTER A GENERATION OF WELL-BALANCED, PRODUCTIVE ADULTS. OUR MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL IS TO PROVIDE CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES WITH A STRONG NETWORK OF PERSONAL GUIDANCE AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES, INDIVIDUALIZED TO THEIR NEEDS. OUR WIDE ARRAY OF SERVICES IS DESIGNED TO MAXIMIZE EACH FACET OF A CHILD’S DEVELOPMENT — ACADEMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL.KARS 4 KIDS’S OVERALL AREAS OF ACTIVITY CONSIST OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING, SCHOOL PLACEMENT, TUITION ASSISTANCE, MENTORSHIP PROGRAMS, CULTURAL ACTIVITIES, WEEKEND RETREATS, RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, SUMMER CAMPS, RECREATION AND GUIDANCE COUNSELING.”

The “Gross Receipts” on this form indicate $234,009,826.

[4] See “The Personality System of Empathy,” Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. Dr. Kevin MacDonald, p. 318, and “The Role of Empathy in Moral Communities: Altruism — And Pathological Altruism,” p. 381–391

[5] Please see and consider supporting the 501(c)3 non-profit “The Homeland Institute” for polling and surveys that better serve the Majority’s opinions and interests. It’s one of only a handful of such IRS-sanctioned organizations. See https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates#Fig3 for government stats on overdose deaths in America.

[6] Ventilate: to examine, discuss, or investigate freely and openly: expose (definition 2.a. Merriam-Webster dictionary)

Destination 1982: Wilmot Robertson’s “Ventilations” Then and Now — Part 1 of 2

3152 words

The Context

Absolutely true event — not a joke: My former neighbor, whose parents emigrated from the nation of Georgia to Israel to the United States, introduced me for the first time to his parents on a family visit. I cordially spoke, “Hello, my name is Sigurd, and I live next door.”  The mother immediately fired back with the strangest reply in her strong foreign accent, “Have you heard about the new holocaust movie?” “Why no, I haven’t. And what was your name again?” I answered. While geography and family economic status had me surrounded by Jews since early childhood onward, and having developed an understanding of what I might expect in their social behavioral traits, this mother’s opening line finally confirmed my midlife curiosities that these people were wired differently, despite the often-similar skin color. This was my turning point where I scrutinized our social, cultural and political situation with a much keener eye. Human diversity was a fact, and as my worldview evolved along with the internet, I came across a book — a quasi-underground classic — that attempted to spell it all out on behalf of the European-American’s perspective: The Dispossessed Majority, by Wilmot Robertson, published in 1972[1] (henceforth TDM).

President Trump is found on cover of the latest paperback edition of The Dispossessed Majority

Robertson’s magnum opus is an eloquent attempt to bring racial consciousness to the American Majority before it’s too late! As its dust jacket introduction states, “this mind-rousing book hammers home the theme that America has changed, and changed for the worse…the Americans of Northern European descent — the American Majority — have been reduced to second-class status.” It continues, “the sickness of America…is presently racked by a double infection: (1) the moral debility of liberalism [and] (2) the rampant virus of minority racism.” The concluding paragraph here finally describes the American Majority as “the loser in a racial war.”

Wilmot Robertson’s life experiences and extensive education brought him the great clarity to coin the term “The Dispossessed Majority.” But while even the mainstream Fox News channel will carry today’s similar term “The Great Displacement,” they dare not credit the author whose book forewarned Americans and is still available on Amazon (hardcover, $224 and paperback for $35). For Fox News, delving into what they’d consider extreme right-wing literature is far more violent and hateful than tacitly approving the America-funded-and-condoned bombing of defenseless women, children, and non-combatant male civilians in the Middle East (continued by Trump).

As abhorrent and devastating as the Palestinian-Israeli conflict had already been by the writing of TDM, this subject comprises but a small chapter within a larger section on “The Foreign Policy Clash.” In fact, after addressing racial dynamics, racial composition, and the predicaments of the Majority, the core substance of its original 538 pages carefully describes the Minority groups within our nation that have interests that conflict with those of the Majority. The factor of assimilability is stressed in Robertson’s writing long before the Diversity-Equity-Inclusion movement celebrated the differences of all groups and sub-groups of peoples apart from the nuclear family which is indigenous to Whites and rare in the rest of the world; nor was the heterogeneity of Whites acknowledge in an effort to paint all Whites as cut from the same (evil) cloth. Chapters V–VIII emphasize Majority-Minority “Clashes” — culturally, politically, economically, and legally, and the book concludes with Prospects and Perspectives. It is here where Robertson’s nine pages titled “Toward a Pax Americana” foreshadows concepts for his final book, “The Ethnostate,” a 1993 utopian journey that he professed would be most beneficial for the civilizations of all races — not just those of European descent — since multi-cultural societies always degenerate into discord.

Social Science Bookshelves Today

TDM has sold hundreds of thousands of copies in over fifty years despite the challenges promoting a book that defends and advances the uniqueness of Northern Europeans and their American descendents. Indeed, the quality of Robertson’s writing and the rationality of his intellect present (in this author’s opinion) the most profound and sagacious appeal ever accomplished on behalf of the White race. TDM would easily have sold millions if abundantly stocked on the Social Science shelves of a Barnes & Noble book store today. This is where you should find this well-thought-out discourse in defense of Western peoples and culture. Robertson’s the book is both exemplary and thorough, but instead of carrying TDM or other like-minded books, instead, this last bastion for brick-and-mortar book sales carries titles like: Rich White Men, by Garrett Neiman, White Fear, by Roland S. Martin, White Fragility, by Robin Diangelo, Nice Racism (How Progressive White People Perpetuate Racial Harm), also by Robin Diangelo, Nice White Ladies (The Truth about White Supremacy, Our Role in it, and How We Can Help Dismantle It) by Jessie Daniels, and of course Critical Race Theory, Fourth Edition, by Richard Delgado and Jean Stefancic. Today’s mainstream social science topics certainly do not shy away from the topic of “race.” It’s just that “racial justice” today means tipping the shelves over with multi-pronged anti-White attacks from every direction![2]

Typical books found in the “Social Science” section at popular book stores

One book that was also displayed prominently in the Barnes & Noble social science section was Uncomfortable Conversations With A Jew, by Emmanuel Acho and Noa Tishby, both “New York Times Bestselling Authors.” The back cover of Uncomfortable Conversations brings up a multitude of topics on Jews that I’m confident Wilmot Robertson would loved to have opined on — topics which today’s critical-thinking youth of all races are probably questioning amidst the escalations of Israeli (read: Jewish) deadly aggression (read: war crimes) and student protests against it (read: last vestige of American freedom of speech). We find:

  • Is a “Jewish race” a thing?
  • Is it true that people don’t believe the Holocaust really happened?
  • Are Jewish people white? Do they have access to the privilege that comes with that?
  • If Zionism is Jewish people’s right to have a country, what’s the counter?
  • Is it possible to be an anti-Zionist and not be antisemitic?[3]
  • In whose life am I the oppressor?
  • Why are there so many Jewish people in Hollywood?
  • Could the Holocaust happen again?
  • Is ending antisemitism even possible?

And most relevant to what we see and hear today in everyday news and media:

  •  Calling things antisemitic is the quickest way to shut down a discussion. But if there are no discussions, how can we ever reach a place of understanding?

Everybody on the book shelves is a “New York Times Bestselling Author.” Wilmot Robertson devoted a chapter in Ventilations to why he didn’t garner this accolade.

If equity or egalitarianism[4] referred to any notion of fairness for all races, this book and the previous social science bestsellers already mentioned would alone justify mainstreaming of TDM. It should sit side by side on the shelf next to Uncomfortable Conversations at Barnes & Noble, since Robertson’s book represents the uncomfortable racial realism issues confronting Majority Americans — whether they know it or not. Instead, TDM receives “The Censorship of Silence.” And a decade after its first edition print, this would become the title of the third chapter in a new Wilmot Robertson book that provided his essays and commentary on TDMVentilations.

Anti-White books dominate brick & mortar book store shelves for “Social Science.”

Wilmot’s Observation: More Pronounced Domination = More Separateness

Robertson wrote 45 pages on “The Jews” as a separate chapter within “The Minority Challenge” section of TDM, and it was the longest chapter regarding minorities while representing less than ten percent of the book.[5] After reading the book twice, I found his treatment of Jews and their history to be just a small side story in the overall message and lessons he was trying to convey, and I wondered if the Uncomfortable Conversations authors would even approve TDM on the same shelf as theirs? But for today’s young adults with curiosity on how our government and nation ticks, having no clue as to how a William Ackman[6] can summon up a congressional hearing to confront campus free speech, or how people like him, such as Idan Ofer, Len Blavatnik, or Leslie Wexner, can earn or accumulate vast sums of money and a great deal of power, this TDM chapter instructs us:

To sum up the phenomenon of Jewish affluence, what is happening in the United States today is what has been happening throughout much of Western history. The Jews, finding themselves unrestricted and uncurbed in a land rich in resources and labor, are rapidly monopolizing its wealth. It is almost certainly the same historic process that took place in Visigothic, Arabic and Catholic Spain, in medieval England, France and Germany — and most recently in twentieth-century Germany. Yet no one cares — or dares — to notice it.

He emphasizes that so many people seem to be

concerned about labor monopolies or business cartels, about the influence of the Roman Catholic Church or the military-industrial complex, about the WASP domination of the big corporations or the international Communist conspiracy,

but these same critics are

strangely silent and utterly unconcerned about the activities of an ever more powerful, ever more dominant, supranational ethnocentrism with almost unlimited  financial resources at its command.

Here are Robertson’s comments on anti-Semitism — comments that prefigured Uncomfortable Conversations and provide a quite different perspective:

Instead of submitting anti-Semitism to the free play of ideas, instead of making it a topic for debate in which all can join, Jews and their liberal supporters have managed to organize an inquisition in which all acts, writings and even thoughts critical of Jewry are treated as a threat to the moral order of mankind. The Tartuffe[7] of the contemporary era turns out to be the Jewish intellectual who believes passionately in the rights of free speech and peaceful assembly for all, but rejoices when permits are refused for anti-Semitic meetings and rocks crack against the skulls of anti-Semitic speakers.

More than fifty years later we find our U.S. House of Representatives passing an outrageous anti-Semitism bill aimed at preventing criticism of Jews and Israel;[8] and we find that “punching Nazis” has become normalized and society-approved form of violence. Robertson saw it all coming, but then he also understood history. He emphasizes that “Jews seem bent on destroying the very political, economic and social climate that has made their success possible.”

But how does Robertson really feel about Jewish history?

As if in the grip of a lemming-like frenzy, they have been in the forefront of every divisive force of the modern era, from class agitation to minority racism, from the worst capitalistic exploitation to the most brutal collectivism, from blind religious orthodoxy to atheism and psychoanalysis, from total dogmatism to total permissiveness.

The TDM chapter on “The Jews” ends with Robertson admonishing the reader “to transcend, for the first time, the ancient racial infighting by submitting the Jewish problem to reason and full disclosure, not to the harsh and inconclusive solutions of the past.” His appeal is fundamentally moral. But this last paragraph incorporated a pre-condition for this to occur: “When and if a resuscitated American Majority has the strength and the will to put a stop to the Jewish envelopment of America,” he wishes that we learn from, and not repeat history. And with (1) new laws on the near horizon combating anti-Semitism and possibly even “hate speech,” with (2) a newly elected President Donald Trump ostensibly supporting such crackdowns,[9] and with (3) politically-right-leaning citizens resting (all too) comfortably within the Republican Party that now has four more years in control, it remains doubtful that Wilmot Robertson’s reasoning and “full disclosures” will see daylight any time soon.

Most Americans read very little, and very few have heard the term “The Jewish Question” or “The JQ,” and even fewer “The Jewish Problem” despite these societal conflicts having existed for millennia.[10] Mainstream media and academia create the historical, political and cultural narrative that we consume. Most of the Majority haven’t a clue as to how many influential people in America identify as Jews, and so a book like TDM might open the eyes of a typical under-informed American and change his or her worldview, adding both wider and sharper focused lenses. 

A Decade after TDM: An Open Discussion on Race and Politics

In 1982 Wilmot Robertson published Ventilations, a short 113-page gem that is no longer available in print. It can, however, be downloaded from colchestercollection.com, the archival work created by a former writer/White advocate from The Occidental Observer, Russell James. I call it a gem because Robertson elucidates so many topics that occupied “the current events” of my teens and early adulthood, giving them a fresh perspective that complements and affirms the significance of TDM as we fall ever more downward in The Decline of the West.[11]

Wilmot Robertson was also the founder and publisher of the magazine Instauration, which presented articles that TDM readers likely found important and insightful. For instance, one issue featured the sensational 1913 Georgia trial of Leo Frank and the murder of 13-year-old Mary Phagan, “Pardoning the Unpardonable.” But it was in a 1982 issue where he finally commented on pro-Spenglerian metaphysical white knight “Francis Parker Yockey and the Politics of Destiny,” and especially regarding his book, Imperium, for it was the definitions of “race” that caused splits between the two camps of right-wing movements supporting America and Western Civilization. Per author Kerry Bolton’s biography on Yockey,[12]

The two types of race theory according to Yockey are ‘horizontal race’ and ‘vertical race’. The first is the race of the ‘spirit’, culture and soul, expounded by the German Idealists, Herder, Goethe, Fichte, et. al. The second is biological and materialistic, measured and tabulated, influenced by Darwin, and introduced to Germany by Haeckel.

Wilmot Robertson’s TDM definitely embraced the vertical race concept, as Bolton also describes as ‘zoological’ race theory. The quotes of the Instauration article provided in Bolton’s book are important if an advocate for “Westernkind and White Wellbeing”[13] wished to learn the history and inner conflicts of the movement resisting Majority dispossession:

In the six years since its existence, Instauration has not once touched upon the problem of Francis Parker Yockey. We say problem because it’s hard to know exactly what to make of this mysterious character, who has become a cult figure of certain hermetic elements of the American right. His much touted and much thumbed through Imperium (Noontide Press) is part twentieth-century Book of Revelations, part post-script to Oswald Spengler, part revised and updated edition of Mein Kampf. His suicide or murder in a San Francisco jail makes him a candidate for martyrdom in some future century, provided that in the meantime his writings and his tragic life story have not been scourged out of the West’s consciousness.

Towards the end of the article, Robertson sheds his positive viewpoint on Yockey:

[Yockey’s] great selling point is that amid all the despondency of the present age, he is one of the very few thinkers who offers us Balm in Gilead, some shreds of hope, some possibility of white resurgence. Expectedly, it is not the deep space of the cosmos that Yockey is interested in, but the equally deep and equally mysterious space of the inner man. This is all to the good because in these days anyone who writes seriously and earnestly about the soul, about the Western soul, strikes a bell that reverberates most pleasantly up and down our increasingly spineless spines.

So more power to Yockey. He is still alive and kicking in the hearts of a sizeable number of true believers. Despite his shortcomings, his life and his works are proof that no matter how far they get us down, we will never be out.[14]

Yockey was profoundly spiritual, Robertson was rational and more pragmatic. They also viewed Europeans differently, Yockey being the ultimate ‘inclusive’ proponent of all Europeans — including Western Russians — while Robertson favoring Nordics. And while they may have viewed race differently, they did share an updated view on the Soviet Union, particularly regarding the decline of Jewish power and influence in that communist state. Apparently, this topic tended to divide the right-wing movement from the 1940s onward, and Ventilations presents this topic as its first chapter, “The Kremlin and the Jews.” Given a similar divide in Majority opinions today on Russia and Putin, good or evil, Robertson’s 1982 commentary (contesting that the U.S.S.R. was under Jewish control by that time) provides amusing quips and forgotten events:

Jews themselves have reason to be suspicious about Russian racial policies when the foremost Jewish world organizations, which used to sing the praises of Russia openly or in secret, now issue frequent press releases accusing the Soviet government of anti-Semitism. When the United States Senate rejects most-favorite nation treatment for Russian trade, when Jewish publishers and reviewers in America heavily promote books by Khrushchev, Stalin’s daughter, Svetlana Alliluyeva, and the dissident Yugoslav Communist, Djilas, pointing out instance after instance of Stalin’s anti-Semitic speeches and cheer Yasser Arafat, when Russia gives or sells huge amounts of arms to Syria, Iraq, and Libya, Israel’s bitterest enemies, when Jews flee the Soviet Union by hundreds of thousands, it is difficult for anyone to say that Russia is a pro-Jewish country.

With all of the recent American uproar against Russia and our arming of Ukraine, Robertson’s view predicts the 2024 victory for Donald Trump and his campaign promises:

If we want to protect ourselves from the Russians — and we should never close our eyes to the possibility of a sudden Russian assault on Western Europe or on the oil fields of the Middle East — we should clean up our domestic chaos, which is an open invitation to Soviet aggression everywhere.” (my emphasis)

When millions of Americans go out after dark without running the risk of being mugged, raped or murdered by bands of roving young blacks who haven’t the faintest notion of what a Communist is or what communism stands for, it hardly seems logical for the Birch Society, William F. Buckley, Jr. and other assorted ‘patriots’ to harp on the Red Menace while carefully avoiding the far greater domestic menace.

Fast forward to today and we hear Republican pundits constantly harping on “Chinese Communists” while BLM/AntiFa rioters have recently burned our cities down ostensibly with federal agency immunity. Russia recently failed to support the Syrian government against Israeli and U.S. intervention, but in 1982, Robertson wished to straighten out the geo-political beliefs of right wingers:

When Jewish propaganda mills are cranking out anti-Russian articles day and night, it is some-what mind-boggling for our rock-ribbed anti-Semites to inform us that Jews and Russians are joining in a secret alliance. These fossilized patriots cannot seem to get it out of their heads that Jewish support for world revolution has now been withdrawn from the Russians and funneled into the New Left, the Maoists, the Zionists, militant liberalism and noisy Kosher conservatism.

Go to Part 2.


[1] The Dispossessed Majority, Howard Allen Enterprises, Cape Canaveral, FL, 1972. Wilmot Robertson was the pen name of John Humphrey Ireland (1915–2005), who studied at Yale, served in the Army during WWII, studied Physics at U.C. Berkeley, started a small scientific company, and had a successful career in journalism and advertising. Obviously, he was an intelligent man whose written words on racial matters could not be easily dismissed as simply “bigoted racism” (as leftists and mainstream conformists would describe), but rather an intellectual counter-argument that had to be censored by The System.

[2] It does appear, though, that Wilmot Robertson’s TDM might be purchased online in the new edition paperback from the https://www.barnesandnoble.com/.  On searching availability of this paperback, however, this author’s effort yielded nothing. It certainly wasn’t available on store shelves.

[3] Uncomfortable Conversations With A Jew uses the spelling “antisemitism” instead of the more commonly presented “anti-Semitism” on the book’s back cover.

[4] Robertson’s TDM frequently refers, instead, to ‘equalitarianism’.

[5] For comparison, Robertson wrote 25 pages on “The Negroes” in “The Minority Challenge” section.

[6] https://www.thenation.com/article/society/william-ackman-harvard-donor/

[7] Tartuffe, or The Impostor, or The Hypocrite, was a French theatrical play (by Molière) first performed in 1664 that included a character with the same name. The word Tartuffe now is used to mean a hypocrite who gives a false impression of caring for what is virtuous.

[8] https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6090

[9] See CNN’s story: “Trump Vows to ‘Remove the Jew Haters’…”, https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/politics/trump-remove-jew-haters-october-7-event/index.html

[10] But when Americans do read non-fiction, they do flock to the social science section of the book store in search for answers to the crazy world we are living in.

[11] The Decline of the West, Oswald Spengler, original publications: Volume 1 (1918), Volume 2 (1922), available by Arktos Media Ltd (2021)

[12] Yockey: A Fascist Odyssey, Kerry Bolton  (Arktos Media Ltd., 2018), https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38741770-yockey

[13] Jason Kohne, Go Free: A Guide To Aligning With The Archetype of Westernkind, (2017)

[14] Yockey, A Fascist Odyssey, Kerry Bolton, p. 502 (Resurrection)

Black Biology Matters: The Southport Killer Was Created by Leftist Lies

Behind their smarm and sentimentality about the three dead little girls in Southport, leftists like Keir Starmer and journalists at the Guardian simply don’t care. They didn’t become leftists because they believe in Truth, Beauty and Goodness. No, they became leftists because leftism supplies the only things that truly matter to them: power, privilege, and fuel for their insatiable narcissism.

Vile individual.” That is how Sir Keir Starmer, Britain’s leftist prime minister, has described Axel Rudakubana, the teenaged Rwandan Black who horrifically murdered three White schoolgirls in Southport last year. Starmer is wrong. Rudakubana isn’t vile. He’s pathetic. He didn’t choose to be born in Britain. He didn’t choose to possess the Black genetics that made him much more susceptible both to psychosis and to committing violent crime. Like the many Black killers who came before him and the many Black killers who will come after him, he is a product of Black biology, which evolved in Africa and should never have been exported from Africa.

Psychotic Black Killer #1: Axel Rudakubana and his victims

That’s why the only “vile individuals” in the story of the Southport killer are leftists like Keir Starmer. For decades they’ve made conscious choices to import and incubate Third-World pathologies on British soil against the clear opposition of the White majority. They’ve sacralized non-Whites, incited non-Whites to hatred and resentment against Whites, and demonized everyone who speaks the truth about non-White pathologies. Rudakubana’s horrific murders were the fruit of leftism and leftist lies. His psychosis is clearly visible in the now infamous photo of him taken after his arrest. With his crazed hair and twisted expression, Rudakubana looks utterly and appropriately alien. After all, he’s Black and Britain is White. Rudakubana is a glaring and ugly example of a great but forbidden truth: that Black Biology Matters. And it matters because it creates Black pathologies like murder, rape and educational failure.

Race is real

Leftism is founded on one of the biggest lies in history: that that all human groups are the same under the skin. Reality says the opposite: that we are very different under the skin because adaptation to wildly diverse environments has altered not just our skin-color and physiology but also our brains and psychologies. Ask yourself: Is it even remotely plausible that the Black natives of sun-blessed, fertile Rwanda and the non-Black natives of icy, oxygen-starved Tibet are the same under the skin? No, of course it isn’t. Rwandans and Tibetans look very different and behave very differently, because they’re very different under the skin — and under the skull. And that isn’t just because they’ve evolved in very different environments: it’s also because they’ve interbred with different species of hominid. Tibetans have genes from Neanderthals and Denisovans, two distinct species of human. Rwandans don’t have those genes, but they do have genes from distinct hominid species in Africa.

Even the Jewish pseudo-scientist Stephen Jay Gould couldn’t have lied away the effects of interbreeding with different species. Gould endlessly claimed that “human equality is a contingent fact of history,” mendaciously arguing there had been too little time for the human brain to evolve in distinct ways after the departure of Homo sapiens from Africa. He was wrong then and he’s even wronger now. Not only has there been ample time for humans in Rwanda and Tibet to evolve differently in their very different environments, those humans have interbred with different hominid species that have been separated for even longer. The Rwandan Black Axel Rudakubana was born in the White nation of Wales, but that did not make him Welsh or White. He was created by his Black genetics and committed brutal murder because of his Black genetics. Black Biology Matters. It’s responsible both for the low average IQ of Blacks and for the high average criminality of Blacks. But Rudakubana was only a vehicle for evil, not the creator and sustainer of that evil. The creators and sustainers are leftists like Starmer, whose ideology of lies and deceit is still denying racial reality and still ensuring that more indigenous Whites will be killed by more imported non-Whites in future.

Psychotic Black Killer #2: Valdo Calocane and his victims

Because leftism is an ideology of lies, leftists like Starmer have to crush anyone who tells the truth about the way Blacks blight Britain. Just imagine how leftists would react to anyone in the mainstream who pointed out the obvious parallels between what Axel Rudakubana did in the town of Southport in 2024 and what Valdo Calocane did in the city of Nottingham in 2023. Both Rudakubana and Calocane were Black, both were psychotic, and both murdered three people in horrific fashion. The psychotic Black Joshua Jacques went one better. He murdered four people in horrific fashion. He then had his precious Black identity erased by the leftist Guardian, which called him merely a “London man” in its headline:

Psychotic Black Killer #3: Joshua Jacques and his victims

London man who killed girlfriend and her relatives as ‘sacrifice’ jailed for life

A man who claimed he stabbed his girlfriend and three of her family members as a “sacrifice” has been jailed for life with a minimum term of 46 years for their murders. Joshua Jacques, 29, had consumed drugs and alcohol when he attacked Samantha Drummonds and her family with a knife in their home in south London in April 2022, the Old Bailey heard. Police found the bodies of Drummonds, 27, her mother, Tanysha Ofori-Akuffo, 45, grandmother Dolet Hill, 64, and Hill’s partner, Denton Burke, 58, after being alerted to a disturbance by a neighbour.

Officers found Burke’s body at the foot of the stairs and the three women “heaped together” in the kitchen. Mr Justice Bryan said Jacques had committed the “horrific catalogue of murders” after using skunk cannabis. … The court heard that Jacques took 3gm of skunk cannabis a day and refused to consider cutting down, saying he would carry on smoking marijuana “even if it killed” him.

At the scene, armed officers discovered Jacques naked and lying in the upstairs bathroom in a praying position, screaming “Allah, take me!”, “Kill me now”, “Get rid of me”, and “God please forgive me”. Later, at Lewisham hospital, he said: “I ain’t even in the wrong, I did them for sacrifice,” and warned: “I will do something stupid again.” (“London man who killed girlfriend and her relatives as ‘sacrifice’ jailed for life,” The Guardian, 1st March 2024)

What astonishing coincidences! Three individuals drawn from Britain’s tiny Black minority have slaughtered ten people in the same horrific fashion thanks to the same homicidal psychosis. But the coincidences don’t end there. It is now emerging that Axel Rudakubana was free to murder because the authorities failed to act on repeated warnings about his potential for harm, just as they failed to act on repeated warnings about Valdo Calocane and Joshua Jacques. Indeed, this seems to be a settled rule: each time a psychotic Black commits a horrific murder in Britain, it will emerge that the authorities failed to act on repeated warnings about the Black in question. That happened after a psychotic Black murdered the White schoolgirl Christina Edkins. And after a psychotic Black murdered the White father Lee Pomeroy. And after a psychotic Black murdered the White scientist Jeroen Ensink.

Cretinous rap is truly Black

But let’s be fair: Blacks do not have to be psychotic to commit horrific murders. The Blacks responsible for a blood-bath in the London district of Ilford were not psychotic, but they would have gone two better than Rudakubana and Calocane if they’d been able:

Non-psychotic Black killers who tried for five and slaughtered two

Two rappers were fatally stabbed and shot repeatedly in what jurors were told was a scene of “bloody carnage”. The Old Bailey heard Saydi Abu Sheikh, 23, and Zakariya Jeilani Mohamed, 31, were left dead or dying in a bedroom after the five-minute “revenge” raid in Ilford, east London, last October. A third man was shot through the head but lived. Two more managed to escape. … Minutes after the attack in Henley Road, a white Mitsubishi Outlander, allegedly used by the attackers and containing a small pile of clothes, was set alight in nearby Ronnie Lane. …

Police and paramedics found a “scene of bloody carnage” when they arrived at the address a few minutes later, [the prosecuting lawyer John Price] said. “In an upstairs room were two young men, both dead or dying. They had each been shot and stabbed many times,” he said. “A third young man, gravely wounded, had been left for dead. Though he sustained a gunshot wound which had passed through his head, he was to survive. It was later discovered that a fourth man had run from the back of the house when a group of attackers armed with guns had forced their way in. A fifth man was even more fortunate. Before the gunmen were able to force their way into the room, he had concealed himself between a bed and the wall. Almost miraculously, his presence there went undetected by the gunmen.” (“Ilford rappers found in scene of bloody carnage, jury told,” BBC News, 1st November 2023)

The Blacks Axel Rudakubana and Valdo Calocane killed three people; the Black Joshua Jacques killed four; the Blacks in Ilford would have killed five if they’d been able. But it’s important to note a big difference between the killings in Ilford and those committed by Rudakubana, Calocane and Jacques. The victims in Ilford were not innocent. As any honest observer will recognize, the BBC was being euphemistic when it described the murdered men as “two rappers.” In other and more honest words, they were two thuggish criminals who celebrated their thuggery and crime with an ugly and stupid Black genre of rhythmic noise and shouting called rap. That genre is a much more authentic expression of Black biology than, say, jazz or blues, which were created when Blacks were much more under White influence and control. Performing jazz and blues requires the ability to play non-Black instruments and master the rules of a non-Black musical system. Performing rap requires the ability to shout crude rhymes against deafening rhythms. It’s improvisational, inane, and celebrates violence.

In other words, it’s both a product of Black biology and an exacerbator of Black biology. Rap both expresses and incites the Black biological tendency to violence. That’s why I predict that the alliterative annihilator Joshua Jacques is also a fan or performer of rap. After all, he was a thuggish criminal who was described as posing a threat of “serious harm” to the public. Jacques was certainly a fan of something else that interacts disastrously with Black biology, namely, cannabis. Part of the reason that Blacks are more susceptible to psychosis is that Black brains are harmed more by drugs like cannabis and cocaine. Examine some remarks made by the judge who sentenced Jacques for his remarkable achievements in the field of extreme violence:

Mr Justice Bryan said Jacques had committed the “horrific catalogue of murders” after using skunk cannabis. Addressing Jacques in the dock, the judge said he had inflicted the murders “in the most brutal of circumstances on three generations of the same family” after increasing his daily intake of the drug. He said Jacques’ offending had been contributed to by cannabis abuse, and that he was “well aware” of the impact of it on his mental health. He added: “It is a salutary lesson to all those who peddle the myth that cannabis is not a dangerous drug. It is, and its deleterious effect on mental health and its potential to cause psychosis is well-established.” (“London man who killed girlfriend and her relatives as ‘sacrifice’ jailed for life,” The Guardian, 1st March 2024)

I agree with the judge about cannabis and that “salutary lesson.” But I am absolutely certain that the judge would not agree with me if he heard me adapt his words like this: “Jacques’ quadruple killing is a salutary lesson to all those who peddle the myth that Blacks are a blessing to Britain. They are not, and their vastly disproportionate tendency to commit murder, rape and other violent crimes is well-established.”

Clown Jewels

Indeed, not only would the judge disagree with me: he would happily send me to jail if I spoke those words in public or displayed this simple truth in public: BLACKS BLIGHT BRITAIN. Leftists like him would call that “hate speech,” because truth is hate to those who hate the truth. The BBC hates the truth, which is why I often encounter a great irony when I visit the BBC website for stories about pathological Black behavior. The BBC is a jewel in the crown of Clown World, which is why visitors to the site will often be greeted by the following image of a grinning Black woman:

The grinning Black woman who greets visitors to the BBC website

I saw that grinning Black woman again when I was looking for stories about the psychotic Black killer Joshua Jacques. The woman promotes a leftist lie: that Blacks Bless Britain. Jacques reveals the ugly reality: that Blacks Blight Britain. And what about another jewel in the crown of Clown World, namely, MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence service? Before I visited the MI5 website recently, I made a little prediction to myself: “I bet the front page has prominent blacks on it.” I then visited the MI5 site and laughed out loud at what I found there:

Worshipping Blacks at mendacious MI5, a crown jewel of Clown World

More negrolatry at Clown Jewel MI5

MI5 is lying when it says “The people of MI5 work to keep the country safe.” In fact, they do the opposite, because they work on behalf of Clown World, the vast system of leftist lies that imports and incubates Third-World pathologies in White nations like Britain. But MI5 isn’t just lying, of course. It’s also spying. It’s central to  the surveillance state created by leftists in response to Third-World pathologies like Muslim terrorism. The cycle goes like this: First leftists import and incubate evil, then justify further evil by the evil they’ve imported and incubated.

Leftists pursue power, not truth

It’s a perfect cycle from the leftist point of view: evil feeds evil and enhances the power of leftists to create more evil. We can see the cycle at work once again in the proposals the Labour government is making in response to the Southport killings. The killings by a Black will be used to justify more surveillance of Whites and more censorship of Whites who speak the truth about non-White pathologies.

But the killings will not be used by leftists to criticize either non-White immigration or Islam, the imported ideology that directly inspired Rudakubana. He was the “shy son of evangelical Christians,” according to the leftist Guardian, but he found murderous Islam much more congenial than mild Christianity. Behind their smarm and sentimentality about the three dead little girls in Southport, leftists like Keir Starmer and journalists at the Guardian simply don’t care. They didn’t become leftists because they believe in Truth, Beauty and Goodness. No, they became leftists because leftism supplies the only things that truly matter to them: power, privilege, and fuel for their insatiable narcissism.

Send Blacks back

But I try to follow the truth, which is why I would never make the ludicrous claim that all problems in Britain are caused by non-Whites like Blacks, Muslims and Jews. That claim would be clearly untrue. For example, the White homosexual pedophile Thomas Hamilton shot sixteen children to death in 1996. And the story of an apparent White committing a horrific multiple murder has also been in headlines this month. Kyle Clifford killed three women in 2024, stabbing one to death and shooting the two others with a crossbow. He is also accused of raping one of the women. And his older brother Bradley Clifford is a killer too.

I’d be interested to know if Kyle Clifford has Gypsy or similar non-White ancestry, but let’s suppose he’s fully White British. That would not alter the statistical facts. Horrific murders by Whites are rare in White-majority Britain. Horrific murders by Blacks are routine in White-majority Britain. Also routine in White-majority Britain are the rape and sexual enslavement of Whites by non-White Muslims. Non-Whites like Blacks and Muslims inflict vastly disproportionate harm on Whites, which is why non-Whites do not belong here and must return to their homelands.