Featured Articles

Baby-Killers for Open Borders: Why Leftists Love Lies and Hate Whites

/11 Comments/in /by

Kathleen Stock usually writes badly but sometimes thinks well. She’s the British philosopher who was driven out of  academia because she refused to accept leftist lies. What was her thought-crime? Inter alia, she denied that schlong-slung slime-bags should be part of sapphic traffic. In other words, Stock rejects transgenderism and doesn’t think that men can be lesbians. She’s right. She’s also right about a new freedom granted to women in Britain. It’s the freedom to murder their babies. Here’s what Stock said about the contradictory leftist arguments that have won women their right to infanticide:

The Victim Strategy and the Omniscient Gambit can’t both be true. Women seeking late-term abortions for healthy babies cannot be disempowered, traumatised wrecks, but also clear-sighted rational actors whose decisions society should respect. If the number of late-term abortions grows after the removal of the criminal deterrent, then presumably the defenders will stick to their respective sweeping stories even so. Women who induce late abortions are too emotionally delicate to withstand judicial scrutiny, but somehow also powerfully agentic. Either way, their personal involvement in the deaths of their babies is no matter for the law. […]

It seems we have here another example of the “Let’s Be Free” people and the “Let’s Be Kind” people teaming up to wreak havoc upon settled moral intuitions. I first noticed the dynamic during the gender wars, and wrote about it then: of gimlet-eyed sexual libertarians taking advantage of the cover provided by mumsy rainbow types with lanyards [the neck-worn name-tags often sported by leftists]. While the former pushed the boundaries, the latter preached compassion to unfortunate minorities and accused anyone who objected of cruelty. […]

And as for full-term abortion here, it seems likely that — having removed the women at the centre of the story from the possibility of prosecution — there will be later attempts to legalise the process fully, removing providers and partners from criminal sanctions too. Indeed, [Stella] Creasy has been trying to do this for some time.

Though decriminalisation is currently being presented by BPAS [British Pregnancy Advisory Service] as a kindness towards damaged and exploited women-children, I predict that institutional memories will be short. After some time has passed, the act at the heart of the debate will be framed once again as a vital freedom for all kickass girlbosses, at which point surrounding prohibitions can fall away. How can it be rational, it will be asked, to punish providers, doctors, or romantic partners for helping with a process that is not actually a crime for the main participant? Not wishing to go against women’s “reproductive freedoms” or indeed their “vital healthcare”, many politicians once again will not know what to say. (“The limits of bodily autonomy,” Unherd, 27th March 2026)

Stock is describing how leftists have no fixed principle except the pursuit of power: “Heads We Win, Tails You Lose.” And power, for leftists, means being able to privilege their pets and punish their enemies. Leftists like Stella Creasy (whose love of open borders I’ll discuss below) have now given women the privilege to murder babies. Murder is, after all, what “full-term abortion” entails even by feminist standards: a fully developed baby, easily capable of surviving outside the womb, is deliberately deprived of life. That’s murder. In effect, leftists want females, as pets of leftism, to be above the law.

Two privileged Blacks, six dead Whites: the triple-slayers Axel Rudakubana and Valdo Calocane

At the same time, leftists want males, as enemies of leftism, to be more and more firmly under the law. In 2026 leftists in Britain have simultaneously granted females the freedom to murder babies and celebrated a “landmark case” in which a man was jailed for eight years for allegedly driving his wife to suicide. Leftists want any bad outcome for women to be the fault of men. That’s why they believe in privilege for females and punishment for males. Or rather, it’s punishment for White males, whom leftists classify as enemies. But leftism gives privilege to non-White males, whom leftists classify as pets. And so leftists apply the law as harshly as possible against White males while granting maximum license to non-White males.

No details of gang-rapists

That’s why Muslim rape-gangs have flourished for so long in towns and cities all over Britain. And it’s why obviously dangerous Blacks like Axel Rudakubana and Valdo Calocane were left free to commit three murders apiece. In 2026 we’ve just seen another example of this leftist double-standard: law for White males, license for non-White males. At the end of March, there was widespread public disorder in the London district of Clapham as large groups of predominantly non-White youths mobbed shops, committed thefts and intimidated shoppers. How did the police respond? By allowing the yoots to express their vibrant culture without interference.

Riot-police for White male thought-criminals in Epsom (image from GBNews)

A short time later and short distance away, the police acted quite differently when White men protested about an alleged gang-rape in a town called Epsom. Yes, riot-police were out in Epsom to confront the protestors. The White men were protesting because the police have refused to reveal any details of the “several men” allegedly involved in the gang-rape. As the police explained, detectives “do not have full descriptions of any potential suspects.” You see, detectives don’t yet know the suspects’ shoe-sizes, finger-lengths, average heart-rates and dental histories, so they’re not releasing any details beyond that “several men” are being sought. That’s perfectly reasonable, don’t you think?

Blight, not blessing

Well, you’ll think it’s perfectly reasonable if you’re a leftist, because you’ll guess the very simple reason for the police silence. Namely, that the suspects are non-White and have foreign accents. The White men protesting in Epsom have made the same guess. But those men aren’t non-White, aren’t leftists and don’t think the police silence is reasonable. That’s why the riot-police turned out to confront them. But there were no riot-police for the non-White males in Clapham. Why the contrast? It’s simple. White males threaten leftism, because they have the potential intelligence, organization and fighting spirit to challenge and overthrow the leftist elite. But leftism isn’t threatened by non-White crime and chaos. On the contrary, leftism is enhanced by non-White pathologies, because they harm ordinary Whites and reduce our ability to resist and rebel.

Smarmy leftist Stella Creasy and her Jewish partner Dan Fox

Another bonus for leftists is that non-White pathologies reduce the ability of Whites to have children, because Whites lose money both directly and indirectly through them. But non-Whites don’t have to commit crime or create chaos to be a gross and ever-growing burden on Whites. As Arctotherium and Alden Whitfeld have pointed out in an excellent essay at Heretical Insights, leftist economists have been lying for decades about the benefits of Third-World immigration. In fact, it’s a blight, not a blessing:

[B]ecause immigrants cluster in high-productivity areas, and because their presence drives natives out, immigrant incomes are artificially inflated relative to natives. In Britain, ethnic minorities are overrepresented in London by roughly a factor of three. London’s productivity is about 50% higher than the rest of the country. Were it not for immigration-induced native displacement, white British incomes would be higher and minority incomes lower than observed. Fiscal and income comparisons therefore substantially understate the true cost of immigration relative to natives. (“Moving Targets: The ‘missing’ impact of immigration,” Heretical Insights, 28th March 2026)

This brings me back to the leftist Stella Creasy. It’s no coincidence that Creasy is a fan both of baby-murder and, as I described in “Doom of the Dumb,” of non-White migration. She’s a baby-killer for open borders. She knows that both these things are good for leftism, because baby-murder will harm Whites and open borders will help non-Whites. Like the new Green MP Hannah Spencer, Creasy is herself a White blonde, but their shared hair-color may help explain their hostility to their own race. The value of natural blonde hair goes up as the White share of the population goes down. So what’s not to like for egocentric narcissists like Creasy and Spencer? It’s also significant that Creasy’s “partner” is the publicity-shy Zionist Jew Dan Fox, a former director of Labour Friends of Israel.

Iryna Zarutska ignored a vital rule and was then ignored herself by leftists

And perhaps Creasy and Spencer themselves have Jewish ancestry. An anti-blonde American politician certainly does. He’s a Jew called Brett Smiley. As the mayor of Providence, Rhode Island, he’s overseen the removal of a mural of Iryna Zarutska, the blonde Ukrainian refugee who was horrifically murdered by a Black career-criminal called Decarlos Brown. Now, when a Black woman behaves stupidly and gets herself shot by the police, leftists demand that the world “Say Her Name.” But Smiley could not bring himself to “Say Her Name” when he explained why the mural of Iryna Zarutska just had to go: “The murder of the individual depicted in this mural was a devastating tragedy, but the misguided, isolating intent of those funding murals like this across the country is divisive and does not represent Providence. I continue to encourage our community to support local artists whose work brings us closer together rather than further divides us.”

They belong behind bars

Like “democracy” and “rule of law,” “divisive” is a favorite term of leftists. But when they use words, they follow the lexical rule laid down by Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass (1871): “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” What did Brett Smiley mean by saying the mural of Iryna Zarutska was “divisive”? He meant that it revealed the truth about two things that contradict leftist lies and threaten leftist power. First, Black predation on Whites; second, leftist enabling of that Black predation.

Judeo-pol Brett Smiley, yet another elite leftist who belongs behind bars

But Smiley and countless other leftists have never objected to murals of the alleged Black martyr George Floyd. Why not? Because Floyd murals present Whites as vicious villains and Blacks as virtuous victims. In other words, when a mural tells the truth, leftists want it taken down. When a mural tells lies, leftists want it to stay up. Leftists love lies because lying is how they win and maintain their power to privilege their pets and punish their enemies. But sometimes privilege is punishment too. Leftists in Britain have given women the privilege to kill their babies because that’s another way to harm Whites. The agenda is always anti-White because Whites are the only group that can overthrow leftism and put elite leftists where they belong: behind bars.

“Antisemitism—its history and causes as seen … by a Jew” April 1944 – Special Issue titled “I Hate You”

/12 Comments/in /by

ANTISEMITISM – its history and causes as seen… by a Jew
April 1944 – Special Issue  “I Hate You”

We reproduce below the thirty-third article from the special issue “I hate you” published in April 1944. 

§§§§§§

“ANTISEMITISM: Its history and causes” as seen… by a Jew

In 1894, a 420-page octavo volume entitled L’Antisémitisme, son histoire et ses causes (Antisemitism, its history and its causes), by Bernard Lazare [1865–1903], a Jewish author of great renown, was published in Paris by the publisher Léon Chailley, 8, rue Saint-Joseph.”

This volume is now impossible to find and the quotes published from it are often very incomplete, which is why we thought it useful to take as a collaborator to this notebook the Jew Bernard Lazare by reproducing in full the greater part of the first chapter of his book, Anti-Semitism:

 *   *   *

If we want to write a complete history of anti-Semitism — not forgetting any of the manifestations of this sentiment, following its various phases and modifications — we must undertake the history of Israel from its dispersion, or, to put it better, from the time of its expansion outside the territory of Palestine.

Wherever the Jews, ceasing to be a nation ready to defend its freedom and independence, have settled, everywhere anti-Semitism has developed, or rather, anti-Judaism, for anti-Semitism is a poorly chosen word, which only had its reason for being in our time, when it was desired to broaden this struggle between the Jew and the Christian peoples, and to give it a philosophy as well as a more metaphysical than material reason.

If this hostility, this very repugnance, had been exercised towards the Jews only in one time and one country, it would be easy to disentangle the limited causes of these angers; but this race has, on the contrary, been the target of hatred from all the peoples among whom it has established itself. Therefore, since the enemies of the Jews belonged to the most diverse races, lived in countries very far apart from one another, were governed by different laws, ruled by opposing principles, did not have the same morals or customs, and were animated by dissimilar spirits that did not allow them to judge all things equally, the general causes of anti-Semitism must always have resided in Israel itself and not among those who fought against it.

This is not to claim that the persecutors of the Israelis always had the right on their side, nor that they did not indulge in all the excesses that intense hatred entails, but to establish as a principle that the Jews caused — at least in part — their own suffering.

Given the unanimity of antisemitic manifestations, it is difficult to accept—as has been all too readily done—that they were simply due to a religious war, and the struggles against the Jews should not be seen as a struggle between polytheism and monotheism, or between the Trinity and Jehovah. Polytheistic peoples, like Christian peoples, fought not against the doctrine of the One God, but against the Jew.

What virtues or vices earned the Jews this universal enmity? Why was he, in turn, and equally, mistreated and hated by the Alexandrians and the Romans, by the Persians and the Arabs, by the Turks and by the Christian nations? Because everywhere, and even to this day, the Jew has been an unsociable being.

Why is he unsociable? Because he was exclusive, and his exclusivism was both political and religious, or to put it better, he clung to his politico-religious cult, to his law.

If we consider conquered peoples in history, we see them submitting to the laws of the victors while retaining their faith and beliefs. They could do so easily because, among them, the separation was very clear between religious doctrines bestowed by the gods and civil laws issued by legislators—laws that could be modified according to circumstances without the reformers incurring anathema or theological execration: what man had done, man could undo. Thus, the vanquished rose up against the conquerors out of patriotism, driven by nothing but the desire to reclaim their land and regain their freedom. Apart from these national uprisings, they rarely demanded to be exempt from general laws; if they protested, it was against specific provisions that placed them in a position of inferiority vis-à-vis their rulers. And, in the history of Roman conquests, we see the conquered bowing before Rome when Rome strictly imposed upon them the legislation that governed the empire.

For the Jewish people, the case was very different. Indeed, as Spinoza already pointed out, “the laws revealed by God to Moses were nothing other than the laws of the particular government of the Hebrews.” Moses, prophet and legislator, conferred upon his judicial and governmental provisions the same virtue as upon his religious precepts, that is to say, revelation. Yahweh not only told the Hebrews, “You shall believe only in the One God and you shall not worship idols,” but he also prescribed rules of hygiene and morality for them; not only did he himself assign them the territory where the sacrifices were to be performed, meticulously, but he also determined the methods by which this territory would be administered. Each of the given laws, whether agrarian, civil, prophylactic, theological or moral, benefited from the same authority and had the same sanction, so that these different codes formed a single whole, a rigorous bundle from which nothing could be deviated under penalty of sacrilege.

In reality, the Jew lived under the domination of a master, Yahweh, whom no one could defeat or fight, and he knew only one thing: the Law, that is to say the set of rules and prescriptions that Yahweh had one day wanted to give to Moses, the divine and excellent Law, suitable for leading those who would follow it to eternal happiness; a perfect law that only the Jewish people had received.

With such an idea of ​​his Torah, the Jew could hardly accept the laws of foreign peoples; at least, he could not think of having them applied to him; he could not abandon the divine, eternal, good and just laws, to follow human laws which are fatally tainted with obsolescence and imperfections. If only he could have kept civil ordinances separate from religious ordinances! But did not all of them have a sacred character, and did not the happiness of the Jewish nation depend on their total observance?

These civil laws, which were appropriate to a nation and not to communities, were not to be abandoned by the Jews when they entered into other peoples, because, although outside Jerusalem and the kingdom of Israel these laws no longer had any reason to exist, they were nonetheless, for all Hebrews, religious obligations which they had committed themselves to fulfilling by a pact with the Divinity.

Therefore, wherever the Jews established colonies, wherever they were transported, they demanded not only that they be allowed to practice their religion, but also that they not be subjected to the customs of the people among whom they were called to live, and that they be allowed to govern themselves by their own laws.

In Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Cyrenaica, they were able to act freely. They were not summoned to court on Saturdays; they were even allowed to have their own special courts and not be judged according to the laws of the empire; when the grain distributions fell on Saturdays, their share was reserved for the following day; they could be decurions, being exempt from practices contrary to their religion; they administered themselves as in Alexandria, having their leaders, their Senate, their ethnarch, not being subject to municipal authority.

Everywhere they wanted to remain Jewish, and everywhere they obtained privileges allowing them to found a state within a state. [FG : Why so?]

Thanks to these privileges, exemptions, and tax relief, they quickly found themselves in a better position than the citizens of the very cities in which they lived; they had greater ease in trading and enriching themselves, and thus they aroused jealousy and hatred.

Therefore, Israel’s attachment to its law was one of the primary causes of its disapproval, whether it reaped benefits and advantages from this very law that could provoke envy, or whether it boasted of the excellence of its Torah to consider itself above and apart from other peoples.

If only the Israelites had adhered to pure Mosaic law, there is no doubt that they could have, at some point in their history, modified this Mosaic law in such a way as to leave only the religious or metaphysical precepts; perhaps even, if they had not had the Bible as their sacred book, they would have merged into the nascent Church, which found its first followers among the Sadducees, the Essenes, and the Jewish proselytes. One thing prevented this fusion and kept the Hebrews apart among the nations: the creation of the Talmud, the domination and authority of the scholars who taught a supposed tradition. But this influence of the scholars, to which we will return, also made the Jews the fierce, unsociable, and proud beings of whom Spinoza, who knew them well, could say: “It is not surprising that after being scattered for so many years, they have persisted without a government, since they have separated themselves from all other nations to such an extent that they have turned against themselves the hatred of all these peoples, not only because of their outward rites, contrary to the rites of other nations, but also through the sign of circumcision.”

Thus, the doctors said, man’s purpose on earth is the knowledge and practice of the Law, and it can only be fully practiced by turning away from laws that are not the true one. The Jew who followed these precepts isolated himself from the rest of men; he retreated behind the hedges that Ezra and the first scribes had erected around the Torah, then the Pharisees and the Talmudists, heirs of Ezra, deformers of the primitive mosaic and enemies of the prophets. He isolated himself not only by refusing to submit to the customs that established ties between the inhabitants of the lands where he settled, but also by rejecting all contact with those inhabitants themselves. To his unsociability, the Jew added exclusivism.

Without the law, without Israel to practice it, the world would not exist, God would bring it into nothingness; and the world will only know happiness when it is subject to the universal rule of this law, that is to say, to the rule of the Jews. Therefore, the Jewish people are the people chosen by God as the custodians of his will and desires; they are the only ones with whom the Divinity has made a pact; they are chosen by the Lord. When the serpent tempted Eve, the Talmud says, it corrupted her with its venom. Israel, by receiving the revelation at Sinai, delivered itself from evil; the other nations could not be healed. Thus, while each nation has its guardian angel and protective constellations, Israel is placed under the very eye of Jehovah; it is the Eternal One’s beloved son, the only one entitled to His love, His benevolence, His special protection, and other peoples are placed below the Hebrews; they are entitled only through mercy to divine munificence, since only the souls of the Jews descend from the first man. The blessings that are given to the nations actually belong to Israel.

Bernard LAZARE.

Francis Goumain Transcription.

FG’s notes:

1 – We cannot fully subscribe to the author’s diagnosis: it is clear that it is the Jews who made the Jewish books and not the Jewish books that made the Jews.

2 – We cannot understand how God could physically have chosen the Jews over the Aryans (nor could Epstein, Weinstein and Polanski).

3 – Regarding Bernard Lazare, it is amusing to note that it was he, and not Zola, who was the true author of the hit song about the Dreyfus affair: “J’accuse”. https://francearchives.gouv.fr/fr/pages_histoire/40045

“At the same time, Bernard Lazare made numerous approaches to influential figures. Aided by Lucien Herr, the librarian of the École Normale Supérieure, he drew young students from the École Normale Supérieure, including Charles Péguy, into the Dreyfusard struggle. Approached as early as 1895, Émile Zola was hesitant. He became convinced in 1897, when the second edition of *The Truth About the Dreyfus Affair* was published. Before Zola’s “J’accuse,” Bernard Lazare had written in it: “As for me, I accuse General Mercier, former Minister of War, of having failed in all his duties; I accuse him of having misled public opinion; I accuse him of having orchestrated an inexplicable campaign of slander against Captain Dreyfus in the press; I accuse him of having lied. I accuse General Mercier’s colleagues of not having prevented this injustice; I accuse them of having helped the Minister of War obstruct the defense; I accuse them of having done nothing to save a man they knew to be innocent.” See also Wikipedia:https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lazare

“It is a shock. Bernard Lazare devotes himself almost exclusively to this task; he publishes his first memoir, The Dreyfus Affair – A Judicial Error, in Belgium at the beginning of November 1896; in fact, it is a total reworking of the text that he had written at the request of Mathieu Dreyfus as early as the summer of 1895. Based on an article in L’Éclair dated September 15, 1896 revealing the illegality of the 1894 trial, Lazare dismantled the accusation point by point and demanded a review. This tactic was undoubtedly more in line with the wishes of the Dreyfus family because in its first version, he attacked the guilty parties, accusing them one after the other, and ended by launching into a litany of “J’accuse…!” which he gave, a little over two years later, to Émile Zola who would make it famous.accuse Zola of plagiarism…

 Additional sources:

Dr Eva Reichmann (1897 – 1998), Hostages of Civilisation A Study of the Social Causes of Antisemitism, 1945.

Le socialiste allemand Moïse Hess (1812-1875) – Rome et Jérusalem : la dernière question nationale, 1862.

The Russian doctor Leo Pinsker (1821-1891) – Autoémancipation ! Avertissement d’un Juif russe à ses frères,1882 (Self-Emancipation! A Russian Jew’s warning to his brothers, 1882).

The Viennese journalist Theodor Herzl (1869-1904) – Judenstaat, 1896.

Acknowledgements: the photocopy of this special issue was provided to us by Éditions de Cassandra (Revue Courrier du Continent) from Sierre in Switzerland, Case Postale 46, CH3960.

This much-appreciated gesture allows us to reconnect with the threads of our own history, a history from which efforts are being made to cut us off.

Cover of “I Hate You”, a 25×30 cm color album published in April 1944
Image: La Rochelle Museums of Art and History, Vincent Mariet

photographie – M0825_2014-0-291 – Alienor.org

In April 1944, using as its title an invective by Léon Blum addressed to the nationalist benches in the National Assembly, “I hate you!”, the editorial staff of the journal Cahiers Jaunes, which had become Revivre, published a special issue, more of a collective work, under the direction of Henry Coston, the last page of the work specifies: 


The final approval for this magazine was given on April 15, 1944, at the printing press of the Special Printing Office of the Central Press and Information Bureau. Maurice-Ivan Sicard was Director, Émile Bougère, Editorial Secretary, and Jehan Teisseire, Head of Photographic Services, the articles and documents in this publication were compiled by Henry COSTON, Director of the C.A.D., with the collaboration of Professor MONTANDON, Professor BERNARDINI, Jean DRAULT, Jacques PLONCARD, Gaston DENIZOT, VAUQUELIN, Paul LAFITE, F. REYSSEL, Henry MEUNIER, Jean VELLAVE, Jacques ROGÈRE, Claude WACOGNE, Jean BERTRAND, Nelly ROSTEAU, Robert JULLIEN-COURTINÉ, X. De TEYTOT and Philippe de NATTES.Our esteemed colleague MULLER, from Masonic Documents, has also provided various important documents concerning Judaism and Freemasonry.

Controlled Opposition: How “Progressive” Zionism Protects Jewish Influence

/12 Comments/in , /by

California gubernatorial candidate Tom Steyer launched a direct assault on the most powerful pro-Israel lobby in American politics, declaring that “AIPAC is a dark money organization that should have no place in our politics.” In a subsequent press conference, he added that “AIPAC is cheering on Trump and Netanyahu’s war” and argued that “we do not have the same interest as this dark money organization.”

The Jewish billionaire’s comments arrived alongside another striking rebuke of the lobby’s influence. Evanston Mayor Daniel Biss, who won the March 2026 Democratic primary for Illinois’s 9th Congressional District, declared after his victory: “Yes, Israel was a safe haven for my Holocaust survivor grandparents and their 2-year-old daughter, my mother, in 1948. And at the same time, the oppression of the Palestinian people is an unacceptable stain on the world and on the Jewish people as well.”

Biss continued with a direct challenge to the lobby that spent more than $5 million against his campaign. “AIPAC found out the hard way. The Ninth District is not for sale.” These confrontations reflect a broader shift within the Democratic Party as criticism of AIPAC spreads from the progressive fringe toward the mainstream.

Three House Democrats formally swore off AIPAC contributions in 2025 after accepting them in prior cycles, driven by constituent pressure over the Gaza conflict. Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-KY) cut ties despite AIPAC being a top contributor in prior cycles. Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC) did the same — the two had received a combined $104,000 from AIPAC in 2024. Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) rejected further support despite receiving $2 million from AIPAC’s affiliated super PAC for her 2022 race.

Rep. La Shawn Ford (D-IL) took the confrontation further, stating that he refused to meet AIPAC’s requirement of supporting unconditional military aid to Israel. He went on to defeat AIPAC’s preferred candidate in the 2026 Illinois 7th District primary.

A wave of prominent Democrats eyeing 2028 presidential bids have rejected any AIPAC association. Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) is rejecting all PAC money this cycle. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) compared Israel to an “apartheid state” — though he later walked back that specific term — and has said he will never take AIPAC money. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Gov. Andy Beshear (D-KY), former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), and Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) have all distanced themselves from the lobby. Shapiro says he has never taken or solicited AIPAC support.

In a major symbolic move signaling the party’s shift, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries accepted J Street’s endorsement for the first time — a notable break after years in which the House’s top Democrat had kept the progressive pro-Israel group at arm’s length.

J Street PAC is backing 133 House and Senate incumbents plus challengers running against Republican incumbents. The J Street Action Fund super PAC raised $3 million, its largest independent expenditure effort, in partnership with Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC. Key endorsed candidates include Representative Dan Goldman of New York and Daniel Biss. J Street has also “primary approved” Brad Lander — a separate designation that allows J Street donors to contribute to his campaign through the PAC portal, short of a full endorsement.

The scale gap between the two organizations remains enormous. AIPAC’s super PAC, United Democracy Project, has raised $78 million for the 2026 cycle and already spent over $7.3 million, but AIPAC also spent $22 million in Illinois races while obscuring the source of the funds. J Street’s $3 million super PAC fund is dwarfed by comparison but is being deployed strategically in targeted races.

Yet observers should temper their optimism about this shift. Liberal Zionist organizations that have emerged as alternatives to AIPAC, particularly J Street, function as gatekeepers that prevent a legitimate, principled anti-Zionist movement from taking root in American politics.

The Electronic Intifada has consistently framed J Street as a more palatable arm of the same lobby. Co-founder Ali Abunimah wrote that “if J Street does not have the courage to support the ICC investigation, opposes the nonviolent BDS movement, opposes cutting US aid to Israel, and, needless to say, condemns any form of Palestinian armed struggle, then, in effect, it does support total impunity for Israel.” The outlet has documented J Street’s rejection of BDS, its unconditional support for US military aid, and its use of “demographic threat” framing as evidence that J Street serves Israeli rather than Palestinian interests. Abunimah concluded that “J Street remains an enemy of Palestinian rights whose mission is to put a softer, ‘progressive’ face on apartheid.”

Mondoweiss published a May 2024 piece critiquing J Street for supporting Israeli military aid, Palestinian demilitarization, and rejection of the right of return, arguing that its two-state framework presupposes Palestinians must “settle for areas designated by the Israeli colonizers.”

Al Shabaka, the Palestinian Policy Network, published an influential June 2023 policy brief calling liberal Zionism “a pillar of Israel’s settler colonial project” and using J Street as its central American case study, urging activists and institutions to refuse the normalization of Israeli settler colonization and to shift public discourse toward Palestinian decolonial frameworks.

The critiques of J Street from Palestinian solidarity organizations center on several key issues. J Street opposes BDS, the central tool of Palestinian civil society resistance, and actively lobbies against it in Congress, on campuses, and in churches. The organization historically supported every appropriation of US security assistance to Israel, undermining the leverage needed to end the occupation — although in November 2024, it backed Bernie Sanders’ resolutions to block some arms transfers, and in April 2026 it called for phasing out all US military aid to Israel by 2028. J Street backed the US position opposing Palestinian recognition at the UN in 2011 and rejects the right of return, which critics see as fundamentally anti-Palestinian.

The organization’s “demographic threat” talking point reveals that liberal Zionism’s concern is preserving a Jewish demographic majority rather than Palestinian rights. During the post-October 7 war, J Street issued no call to halt U.S. weapons shipments despite expressing concern about civilian casualties — a pattern documented across its 132 press releases between October 7, 2023 and the January 2025 ceasefire, as analyzed by The Nation. By occupying a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” position, J Street provides Democratic lawmakers a shield against demands for more substantive measures to rein in Israel.

The political terrain on which these battles are fought has transformed dramatically. On April 7, 2026, Pew Research Center published a major survey based on 3,507 U.S. adults interviewed March 23 through 29, roughly a month into the joint U.S.-Israeli military operations in Iran. The headline finding showed that 60 percent of Americans now view Israel unfavorably, up from 53 percent last year and 42 percent in 2022. The share holding a “very unfavorable” view at 28 percent has nearly tripled since 2022, when it stood at just 10 percent.

The partisan breakdown reveals the depth of the shift. Among Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, 80 percent hold an unfavorable view of Israel, up from 69 percent last year and 53 percent in 2022. Among Democrats under 50, fully 47 percent hold a “very unfavorable” view.

Even among Republicans, cracks are appearing. While 58 percent of Republicans and Republican leaners still view Israel favorably overall, 57 percent of Republicans under 50 now view Israel unfavorably, up from 50 percent last year. Only older Republicans aged 50 and above remain solidly pro-Israel.

The shift in public sentiment against AIPAC proves that the establishment is losing its grip, but it also highlights a dangerous new phase of controlled opposition. Organizations and activists who seek to pivot from AIPAC to J Street are simply trading one layer of Jewish influence for another. We must call this what it is: the colonization of our political system by organized Jewry.

There is no legitimate political solution as long as we refuse to address the fact that our national interests are being systematically sacrificed to serve Jewish communal objectives. The path to defeat is paved with these “kosher” critiques that protect the core centers of power.

 

The Disunited Kingdom

/17 Comments/in , /by

“To be born an Englishman is to win first prize in God’s lottery”. The phrase is often misattributed to Johnson or Kipling, but was most likely uttered by Sir Cecil Rhodes. If it is true, then any White Englishman today could be forgiven for wondering just how bad second prize is. England has not declined to the level of Zimbabwe, as Rhodesia was renamed when Sir Cecil’s name was removed and White governance ended, but it has started on the journey. When Rhodesia was given back to Blacks in 1980, it soon followed a predictable downward spiral from the “bread-basket of Africa” to its current state of vying with South Africa for the title of most violent and wretched country among Africa’s many contenders for that honor. Perhaps Britain doesn’t have a sufficient Black population to compete in that field. At least, not yet.

When “Britain” is under discussion, “England” is what is generally meant, and the British Empire was essentially the English Empire. Of course, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland provided men and material, the Scottish shipyards built ships and the Welsh provided coal and copper. But England was both engine-room and pilot of Empire, and so is the country least forgiven for what is now seen as one of history’s unforgiveable sins against the brown races, despite all evidence to the contrary. When the Right talk of “anti-Britishness”, it is England that the political class and their fellow travelers really despise. This can be traced back at least to John Prescott, Tony Blair’s token working-class Deputy Prime Minister around the turn of the millennium. He would regularly talk of “Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the regions.” That is what the Left would love to see: England as merely regional, divested of even its name.

England is, for all that, still a part of the United Kingdom which, if it were a consumer product, would surely be in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act. “Division” is a key word in the government’s lexicon of lies, and the phrase “those who seek to divide us” rolls off the tongue of the political class with a practiced ease. It is the government, however, that seeks to divide, specifically the White population from the various sects and sub-sects attendant on identity politics. In terms of diversity, equally routinely referred to as “our strength”, you can have it in any color as long as it is not white. In various pieces of government propaganda, Whites are portrayed as toxic, non-Whites as put-upon victims or heroes. In reality, a zone which is anathema to the ruling class, it is Whites who are being victimized.

That Britain faces a bleak future affords no pleasure in the observation. Acerbic English journalist Julie Burchill coined a word to describe a particular style of doom-laden, pessimistic journalism produced merely to sell newspapers; Amockalyptic. (She had actually forgotten that this was her invention, and was rather grateful when I reminded her). But any serious observer of the state of Britain at present would be hard put to strike an optimistic note. Politically, economically, culturally, and societally, Britain is headed inexorably towards what Guillaume Faye, the French co-founder of the nouvelle droite, called a “convergence of catastrophes”:

A series of ‘dramatic lines’ are approaching one another and converging like a river’s tributaries with perfect accord… towards a breaking point and a descent into chaos.

Of the various tributaries currently threatening to burst the dam in the UK, the first and most serious problem is the economy.

The public finances would not stand an independent audit if the UK were a company. The ratio of debt against GDP (Gross Domestic Product) is estimated as anything between 97% and 104%. It is scant consolation that the debt/GDP ratio in America is 105%, and 112% in France. Britain is far from being the only Western country currently swimming in shark-infested waters, financially speaking. The consensus among economists seems to be that the ratio should not exceed 40/100, but it seems that this yardstick is invalidated by Japan, which is currently running at a ratio of 250% and don’t seem to be suffering economic hardship.

But there is one crucial difference in that Japan does not borrow externally but only from Japanese banks, creating a financial virtuous circle which does not exist in the UK or other European countries which borrow from the type of pirates who bury their treasure in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands. The annual interest on the British debt now exceeds the defense budget, taxes are at their highest since the end of World War II, and shortfalls in public-sector spending are increasing steadily with no signs of slowing. Welfare benefits in Britain have just exceeded the revenue from income tax for the first time in history, reaching £333 billion against the £331 billion raised annually in tax weal. One in five British people do not work, and 2.8 million are registered sick or disabled. There has been a whole new raft of what counts as a disability, with nervous “disorders” such as anxiety and stress now being valid reasons to be signed off as sick and therefore under no requirement to look for work. Britain is the only G7 country to have lower employment than before the Covid pandemic. And every day, the shirking class are joined by largely unemployable migrants who are housed, fed, and paid by the tax-paying, mostly White public. Local government is shambolic and just as profligate as the public sector. Over half of British councils report that they expect to be bankrupt within five years. There has been a 29% cut in funding overall in the last 15 years, and the services which tend to be cut or removed are youth services, libraries, and social services rather than diversity teams and migrant services. Britain’s NHS (National Health Service) pays over £60 million annually just for translation services.

The waste is truly scandalous. I have worked for the NHS in four different capacities, one of which was handling CSSD (Central Sterile Supplies Department) for Britain’s second-largest hospital, St. George’s in Tooting, south London. In the last week of March, the end of the British financial year, all sorts of mystifying things would turn up in the delivery bay: paintings, vinyl chairs, curtains. I asked one of the depot guys what this was all about. He told me that if the hospital failed to spend the same amount as it spent the previous year, its budget would be cut by the amount of shortfall. The fault in this scarcely needs pointing out. Hospitals are not subject to the same laws of supply and demand that private-sector companies are. You decide whether you want to buy a car or a computer or a ladder. You do not choose to break your leg or get Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. And yet hospital accounting is run along private-sector lines.

As for management, all NHS trusts have full diversity teams, and it is not easy to see why they are required. As a youngster, in 1977, I spent a long time in hospital in Surrey, a county bordering London. It was the first place I had seen Black people in any number. I played for a hospital cricket team in my home town, and was one of two Whites in the team, the other being a Kiwi wicket-keeper. And yet diversity officers on high salary are felt necessary for probably the most diverse employer outside football’s Premier League. They do nothing that is required for anyone’s health, and spend most of their time looking for examples of racism.

And nothing will change. The NHS, begun in 1948 by Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee, is a sacred beast in the UK, and no politician aiming at election would dare to suggest streamlining it. I once spoke to an asset-stripper, hedge-fund type at a party, and asked him which section of the British public sector he would most like to get his hands on if it were a private company, and he didn’t miss a beat in his reply: the NHS. And that was 20 years ago. There are 7.25 million people currently on NHS waiting-lists, around 10% of the population. That population is itself ageing, and the strain on health resources worsens daily with more illegal immigrants arriving on the coasts of Kent. Some of this influx is “health tourism”, whereby immigrants take advantage of a free service which was originally designed for the indigenous British, and for which they pay a large proportion of their income tax. Long-vanished diseases such as TB and diphtheria are on the rise as the arrivistes bring their scurvy into the country with them, and the National Health Service is actually an international health service.

In terms of infrastructure, it is hard to believe that Britain once built an empire, as today it is unable even to build a railway. The HS2 railway program to link the south and the north is now many years, even decades, over schedule, and it cost £66 billion to build the 140 miles of track which have been laid. By comparison, Spain laid 2,500 miles of track for $70 billion. Britain pays over eight times the European average for infrastructure, and convoluted requirements for planning permission and land use rival those here in Central America, notorious for its reams of necessary documentation.

As for food, the UK is composed of islands, and imports are made more expensive by a lack of road linkage (excepting the Channel Tunnel). Britain imports 48% of its food, and 83% of its fruit. This is absurd, as anyone who has ever flown over Britain and seen how green it is will know. Britain could be food-independent, but instead 12% of British households are food insecure. Any supply-chain interruption exposes Britain’s vulnerability. With education, the sector lies in a state of economic and ideological ruin. There is approximately £260 billion in unpaid student debt, most of which will never be repaid. This means that my brother in England is paying tax to fund White students who are being taught to hate him.

School buildings are crumbling, educational standards are dropping, and truancy and violence in the classroom are also at highs. University courses are increasingly useless, and more likely to render a student both unemployable, and ideologically slanted when they do find a job. An arts graduate is more likely to bring a list of grievances to the workplace than efficiency. The head of the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) reported that the standard of graduate interviewees was increasingly woeful. That was 25 years ago. Things are unlikely to have improved in the interim.

Education itself is now entirely run by Leftist ideologues at every level, and one piece of apocrypha serves as an example of the occupation of the education system by the hard Left. An English YouTuber recently recounted a story told to him by the 14-year-old son of a friend. The boy was in class and the lesson was on slavery, as these ideological topics gradually replace worthwhile subjects of the past now deemed too White for consideration. The mostly White class was told by the teacher that if anyone even mentioned either Britain’s role in the dismantling of the slave trade, or William Wilberforce, architect of that culmination, they would be ejected from the classroom.

As for defense, the country which held out against the Nazis as European countries fell like dominoes is unable even to join its supposed allies in current conflicts. The British Army’s equipment plan is £15 billion short, and the UK is seriously underprepared for a war, as President Trump’s Iranian offensive showed. The British Navy, who once famously “ruled the waves”, was unable to send more than one ship to the Gulf, HMS Dragon, and that broke down en route. The rest of the fleet is undergoing maintenance. Trump was understandably incensed at this pathetic response, and the “special relationship” is becoming a thing of the past.

Crime is rising exponentially. Prisons are 72% overcrowded and at 99.7% occupancy. The British government’s response to this is to arrest and imprison more people for social media comments than any other country in the world, meaning that violent criminals are being released to make room for this new class of lawbreaker. £2.8 billion is required to stabilize prisons, with just over half a billion having been allocated. Prisons are largely Muslim-run, micro-caliphates which will radicalize a low-IQ Muslim faster than the internet ever could.

There are currently over 50,000 immigrants who are currently on the missing list, 736 of them with criminal records. When one or more of them strikes, as they surely will, the tinderbox that England currently is will flare. The Surrey town of Epsom, idyllic and bucolic, has just seen anger take to the streets after the brutal gang-rape of a woman outside a church. The police have yet to release the details of the suspects, despite Epsom having as many-high resolution CCTV cameras in place as the rest of the country, the most surveilled in the Western world. Coulter’s Law applies here, after Ann Coulter: The longer the police refuse to describe an assailant, the more likely he is to be non-White. Essex police recently dropped a new facial recognition scheme as it proved 30% more efficient in recognizing Black faces than White.

Demographically, the seeds of Britain’s demise as a majority White nation are currently being sown, to the undisguised glee of the BBC. The White British, and this extends across Europe, are breeding at well below the replacement rate, while Muslims have children at well above that rate. This is why the government recently removed the two-child benefit cap. This check on benefit payments was designed to stop the type of welfare harvesting Blacks operate in the US, but the British government will be absolutely aware that removing the cap benefits Muslims and not Whites. In fact, it penalizes Whites as they pay the vast majority of taxes.

Then there is the political stance of the current government, whose authoritarianism no one saw coming. The most difficult thing for the British people to accept is that its government is not incompetent but malevolent. When Starmer’s policy advisers see that their boss’s popularity is at an all-time low in the polls, the most rock-bottom figures for any PM since polling began, they are not concerned. If government policy is hated by the people it affects, then these people are performing their duties as globalist shills, just as their masters would wish and have installed them to do. The British uniparty may be coming to an end, but there is no guarantee of a new dawn. Nigel Farage is hardly Right-wing, even if such a thing did exist in any significant way. He is a Thatcherite libertarian who wants revenge on the political system that has shut him out for so long. He has already been corrupted by power, even before he has got it, and his “CivNat” approach to candidature in local elections has repelled many on the Right. While Rupert Lowe is the best bet in terms of old-school conservatism, it is unclear whether he will achieve anything more than splitting the Reform vote.

One thing can be said with certainty. The coming summer in the UK is not going to be a summer of love. There are three events in the cards, and one or more will happen. Firstly, a political assassination similar to that of Charlie Kirk. It could easily have happened to Konstantin Kisin, a Russian Jewish émigré who has relocated to the UK. He is nothing like Kirk; he’s a center-Right, very intelligent, very capable commentator, and he does not have a clearly insane wife. But someone rushed him with a box-cutter recently and it could have gone either way.

Secondly, a serious terrorist attack framed under the false flag of the “far Right” will almost certainly be in the planning stages. Accusations of being “far Right” fulfil the same function as those of “White supremacy” used by the Biden and Obama administrations. White supremacy is just another word for history correctly interpreted, but the Democrats have weaponized it and it is a formless smear, lacking in definition and reduced to a pure performative, in the sense used by the philosopher of language, J. L. Austin. Thus, the word is not descriptive nor is it meant to be. It is used purely to create a pejorative brand, a “word-spell”, in the same way Orwell described the use of “fascist” in Politics and the English Language.

Thirdly, street-level clashes between White British and Muslims are already occurring and will proliferate. There will be war, amockalyptic as that may sound. England today is more Burchillian than Churchillian, but the English will have to “fight them in the streets and towns”.

So, it is difficult to give a cheery prognosis for the old place. There is a trend among British YouTubers on the dissenting Right for showing clips of the United Kingdom, and England in particular, as it once was. These idyllic, nostalgic videos have become almost memetic, and show White people in the streets and parks during my 65-year lifetime, unconcerned and untroubled, and living lives that may as well be as far removed in time as those of the Tudors. Against these tableaux, they juxtapose footage from modern Britain. Black youths rampage down once-quiet streets like cockroaches from a septic drain. Muslims occupy Trafalgar Square for their obeisance. The streets of Britain’s second city, Birmingham, are filled with rubbish through which rats skitter, after a two-year strike by rubbish-collectors in one of the first cities whose council is officially bankrupt. Their response has been to bring in vermin experts, and charge the residents for people who will surely fail in their appointed task.

Some of this footage of erstwhile Britain comes from the 1960s and 1970s, when Whites were in charge of Rhodesia, then the bread-basket of Africa due to its maize crops — “mealy-meal” as the illiterate Africans called it. Things have changed somewhat since the colonial heyday of Sir Cecil and the other Englishmen who had no idea what the world they had created would become and how their ability and firmness of purpose would create a new Africa in the old country. Now, to be born an Englishman is just a lottery, and there are no prizes.

Irish police smoothly switch from helping to pepper spraying fuel protesters

/2 Comments/in /by

Fuel protests blocked streets, and some ports and refineries from Tuesday to Saturday. Slow moving convoys of trucks and tractors clogged motorways. A third of petrol stations ran out of fuel, causing panic buying, enthusiastically hyped by MSM.

Our Chieftain Michael Martin, called it “national sabotage” on Wednesday. Big Jim O”Callaghan, our hard drinking Justice Minister, called for Army help on Thursday morning. The Army did not show until Saturday evening. They were unarmed and had a couple of heavy lift tow trucks.

Cops helped and facilitated the protests for four days. Slow driving and blocking roads are traffic offences. For whatever reason, for four glorious days, the Gardai Siochana did not arrest people. Then they whipped out the pepper spray. They have arrested several people since on charges of dangerous driving. One day they escort you with smiles ón your peaceful protest. A week later they arrest you on charges of dangerous driving.

On Sunday, after a panic Cabinet meeting, the government knocked ten cents off the tax on fuel. It’s not enough, of course. The war is pushing the price up and half the price of fuel is tax. The US can sell petrol for about a euro per litre. Spain, fellow slaves of the EU, can sell petrol for 1.50. Why does Paddy have to pay 2 euro?

Niallis O’Connor, one of the first protestors at the port of Foynes, gives credit to Garda Superintendent Martin Fleming for the peaceful conduct of the protest, explaining how they agreed to allow water treatment chemicals and fuel for emergency workers through the blockade.

It is bizarre that for four full days Gardai allowed blockades of O’Connell St in Dublin and of oil refineries and some ports. It could take the state three or four hours to assemble a hundred Gardai to quell a protest in a rural town. Any longer than that and it is clear the Gardai were helping the protests. They have happily tear gassed and baton charged peaceful protests about immigration, so why were they so obliging this time?

Gemma O’Doherty reckons the whole protest is a psy-op: The lack of fuel will make many angry at the protestors and the genuine protestors will be noted by the cops and prosecuted and jailed in a few months time, without any publicity. Then again, Gemma thinks everything is a psy op. Infiltrators are present, of course, but the vast majority of protestors seem honest.

Were the cops told to allow the blockades develop? Or was it a soft mutiny? Rank and file Gardai are potentially sympathetic to the protestors. Did they make excuses to their bosses for not removing the blockades sooner?

If the price of fuel is the problem, blocking a fuel depot will only increase the price and it is a stupid tactic. A much better tactic is what happened in Castlebar, Co Mayo. Junior government Minister Alan Dillon has an office there. On Sunday, one hundred trucks and tractor spent four hours outside his office. No damage was done and nobody was arrested or pepper sprayed.

Big machines intimidate. They don’t mean to, but they do, even if they are parked and the engine is off. Parking a hundred big machines outside a politician’s office intimidates him and his staff but does not inconvenience people as much as a fuel shortage.

MSM, even more bizarrely, gave lavish coverage to the protests, even going so far as to allow some of the protestors airtime. They also publicised protests before they happened. This never happens with anti-Covid or anti-immigration rallies.

Were MSM instructed to promote the protests? Or do MSM journalists want cheaper petrol too?

Our Minister for the Media, Patrick O’Donohue , was furious at the relatively balanced coverage and threatened an investigation by the Media Commission. This is run by the comically Jewish looking and outrageously English Jeremy Godfrey. There are six million ethnic Irish on the island and none of us are good enough to be the boss of the Media Commission. Thank God for immigration.

O’Dohonue was slapped down by his bosses, Michael Martin and Simon Harris. They know that the MSM have much unpublished dirt on politicians. O’Donohue later admitted he “made a hames of what I was trying to say”.

Seamus Dooley of the National Union of Journalists complained bitterly:“During the past week many journalists were abused by protesters, including key personnel involved in organising blockades.”

Seamus is probably understating things. It wasn’t many journalists insulted, it was all journalists.

Oddly, despite the abuse the journalists suffered, they did mention the protestors’ viewpoint and even allowed some to speak. The moral of the story might be that if you want the MSM to report reasonably accurately, you must first fiercely insult them face to face.

The Journal.ie are totally MSM, but they are allowing very sarcastic comments on their articles. Snide remarks about money spent on refugees, the fascist nature of our government and even the Israeli question are all acceptable. It’s like listening to Tucker Carlson.
.
Nothing lasts for ever, and this mutually respectful protestor/police/media dynamic was broken on Saturday when Garda used tear gas and thuggery to remove non-compliant farmers. In fairness, everyone was warned before the tear gas was used. And the cops didn’t actually kill anyone. They could have killed people and escaped punishment, so it is to their credit that they didn’t. Despite the threats from the Minister, there are nó reports of machinery being damaged by the police.

It took three days after the threat to use the Army, before they actually turned up. Is this a sign they were not enthusiastic? In the end, there was no need to use tow trucks. When faced with overwhelming police numbers, most truckers and farmers just drove their machinery away by agreement.

Politicians used deliberately provocative actions and deliberately insulting language. They were obviously goading us. The farmers were accused of dancing to Tommy Robinson’s tune. Fianna Fail politicians told protestors in Galway they could attend talks between Government and official farm and trucking representatives. But when the lads went up to Dublin, they were told their names were not on the list.

Michael Martin said the protests were “national sabotage”. This is the same man who sneered at us Irish as “mongrels”

The arrogance and aggression displayed by politicians was surprising. They were seeking to provoke the population not placate us. At their next EU meeting will they boast about how they insulted us and will the EU leaders roar with laughter as the Irish explain how they rig their elections?

Some government politicians are grumbling openly, but nobody is brave enough yet to challenge the Chieftain. Martin first became a Minister in 1997

One junior Minister voted no confidence and he and his brother have left the Government and joined the opposition. Michael Healy-Rae is from a family of independent refugee-loving populist politicians. They are wealthy and make money from renting properties to refugees. The only person convicted of electoral fraud in the 2024 elections worked for a company owned by the Healy Raes.

The protestors have support from the Independent Ireland political party. Sinn Fein and socialist politicians have got some insults from the protestors, but they still want to support the protests. They did not climb on the anti-Covid or anti-migrant bandwaggons but they are allowed try to climb on this one.

Protests continue, without blockades, but the helpful publicity from the MSM has completely stopped, with the exception of local radio and Raidió na Gaeltachta. Somebody has given the order.

In related news, a man got onto a US Hercules C-130 aircraft parked in Shannon Airport and attacked it with a hatchet. These planes cost 160 million bucks and it was “extensively damaged”. Once again, Iron Age technology defeats modern tech. The tough guy cops and soldiers had to bring a ladder to the plane before they could get onto the wing and arrest him. Our guy, 47 years old, just shimmied up.

Daithi O’Corrain is the man’s name and it is surprising that for such a minor alleged offence the evil feminist lady judge (Patricia Harney) did not give him bail. You get bail for rape, savage assaults and even murder. Daithi translates as David. David against Hercules.

It is suprising that someone could evade all the 21st century security at the airport and damage a military plane. There must be many Irish police and soldiers who have contempt for the Israelis. Did Our Guy have some help from insiders?

There is something you could do which might, just possibly, help Daithi. It’s very dangerous, but you won’t have to leave home to do it. And it won’t take long.

The President of Ireland can issue pardons for any criminal offence. This power is rarely used. The President of Ireland is Catherine Connolly. Until her election last year, she was a great friend of the Palestinians and a passionate critic of Israeli genocide, terrorism, anal rape, canine rape, baby eating, foreskin-selling and general racism. Since her election she has kept her mouth firmly shut about the Palestinians, despite the daily massacres.

You could write to her to ask for a pardon for poor Daithi. It is very unlikely she will do this. She is a typical feminist coward. But if ten thousand or a hundred thousand petitions arrived? If Tucker Carlson asked for an interview with the prisoner and anti-war Congresspeople signed a letter of support?

This is dangerous because Irish police will put you on their enemies list. But if you are already on your own police enemies list, it won’t make much difference if the Irish police also hate you.
Her address: Aras an Uachtaran, Phoenix Park, Dublin. Email: info@president.ie

You could write a líne or two of encouragement to the man himself:
Daithí O’Corrain
Limerick Prison
Mulgrave Street
Limerick
V94 P8N1
IRELAND

Beir Bua

Revilo Oliver papers: Does Integration Equal Progress?

/3 Comments/in /by

The paper discussed here (Does Integration Equal Progress?) was found among the papers of Prof. Revilo P. Oliver (1908–1994), a professor of classics at the University of Illinois and an important racialist thinker who was quite aware of Jewish influence in opposition to the interests of White Americans. He was entirely in the mainstream of conservative thinking until expunged from the movement by William F. Buckley. Wikipedia:

Oliver was an early book reviewer for National Review from 1956 until May 1960 when he was ousted by its editor, William F. Buckley Jr, for his public antisemitism.[9] Oliver also wrote for The American Mercury.[2] Buckley, who aimed to make conservatism more respectable to Americans averse to antisemitism and extremism, kept a close friendship with Oliver but acknowledged privately that Oliver was antisemitic.[10]

In 1958, Oliver joined as a founding member of Robert W. Welch, Jr.‘s John Birch Society, an anti-communist organization.[11][12] He was a member of its national board and associate editor of its magazine, American Opinion.[13][1][12] In 1962, Buckley repudiated Welch and the “Birchers”, saying they were “far removed from common sense” and urging the GOP to purge itself of Welch’s influence.[14] The repudiation drove a wedge in Buckley’s friendship with Oliver.[10]

Revilo Oliver paper: Does Integration Equal Progress?

Oliver’s article makes two main points. First, he was aware of the  importance of Jewish influence on the demise of thinking in terms of race and biologically based race differences. I was particularly gratified to notice that he used the same quote from Melvin Herskovits, a Boas protégé, that I use in Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique, on the influence of Franz Boas:

[Boas’s] protégé Melville Herskovits (1953, p. 23) noted:

[T]he four decades of the tenure of [Boas’s] professorship at Columbia gave a continuity to his teaching that permitted him to develop students who eventually made up the greater part of the significant professional core of American anthropologists, and who came to man and direct most of the major departments of anthropology in the United States. In their turn, they trained the students who . . . have continued the tradition in which their teachers were trained.

This quote and much else also appeared in Carleton Putnam’s Race and Reason: A Yankee View (Public Affairs Press, 1961) and shows clearly that even in the 1950s there was a significant community of intellectuals who understood the importance of Jewish influence on thinking about race and were aware of race differences in intelligence and ability to inhibit biological tendencies seated in the more evolutionarily ancient parts of the brain. Regarding intelligence, Oliver notes:

There is reason to believe that hot climates shape human evolution in ways which inhibit, or at least do not adequately stimulate, the growth of mental capacity. In their book, Geography of Intellect, Nathaniel Weyl and Stefan Possony state: “Tropical man is shaped by evolutionary forces to enable him to lose body heat by sweating; this dictates a specific somatic, or physical, structure and accordingly, he is lean, attenuated and has a high ratio of skin surface to bulk. this tends to produce narrow pelves and heads with subnormal cranial capacity. In the case of the Negro, there is a good deal of evidence that the smaller brain capacity means a more than proportionate reduction in the capacity of the new brain, namely, those cortical areas which are specifically adapted to the higher process of reasoning.3

Such reasoning fits well with the later writing of authors such as J. P. Rushton and other who have emphasized that northern  climates favored intelligence and foresight needed to plan for a long winter when crops could not grow. Instant gratification was strongly selected against. —

These findings are  broadly compatible with my own work emphasizing the importance of prefrontal cortical control of impulses (MacDonald, K., 2008; Effortful Control, Explicit Processing and the Regulation of Human Evolved Predispositions. Psychological Review, 115(4), 1012–1031). Here Oliver quotes a Prof. J. J. Connelly on brain differences in prefrontal control between Blacks and Whites:

Comparing the two large groups of Whites and Negroes, while the variability is large and there is much overlapping, the mean values reveal significant differences. The dimensions correlate well with what we might expect from a knowledge of the cranium in the two races. The Negro brain is on the average relatively longer, narrower, and flatter, than the brain of Whites. The frontal region, as measured by the projectional distance to midpoint of central culcus, is, relative to the total length of the brain, larger in male Whites than in Negroes, while the parietal is larger in Negroes than in Whites…It can be said that the pattern of the frontal lobes in the White brains of our series is more regular, more uniform than in the Negro brain,..The White series is perhaps slightly more fissurated and there is more anastomosing of the sulci [indicating greater complexity more apparent in higher primates]. It is a matter of frequencies.

I do not discuss race differences in this paper because it is impossible to get a paper published in a mainstream  psychology journal that has an evidence-based discussion of race differences in brain size or anything else. It’s interesting that Putnam discusses interviewing academics who personally accepted the importance of race differences but were afraid to say so publicly:

Most of them expressed their reluctance in terms of a temporary condition. One was about to publish a book and he felt it more important in the long run to keep the track clear for the book than to declare his position now. Another had a confidential assignment for his state that he must first perform. Another said, “I cannot commit academic suicide. I still have work to do. But when I retire—!” Another was simply “biding his time.” How much of this was rationalization, arising from a timidity that ought to be overcome, I would not venture to say. It was easy enough for me, a man entirely independent of control, to speak—indeed it made my obligation unavoidable. It was less easy for them. (p. 21)

So even in the 1950s the academic world was being rigorously policed to favor environmentalist views on race and punish dissenters. However, Richard Lynn has written on race differences in prefrontal control (Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality: An Evolutionary Perspective; Washington Summit Press, 2018), summarized in my Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition:

People who are low on Nurturance/Pair Bonding are prone to psychopathic personality—exploitative interpersonal relationships, lack of warmth, love, and empathy, an inability to form long term pair bonds and close, confiding relationships, and lack of guilt or remorse for violating others’ rights. The finding that males in the general population are three times as likely as females to be categorized with Antisocial Personality Disorder[1] fits with the robust sex differences in this system. Psychopathic personality, which is characterized by lack of empathy and social bonds, is associated with having many sexual partners, an uncommitted approach to mating, sexual coercion,[2] many short sexual relationships, sexual promiscuity,[3] and lack of nurturance of children.[4]

In terms of race differences, the Nurturance/Love system is a central aspect of a slow life history strategy,[5] with the result that it is expected that African and African-derived populations will be less prone to affectionate pair bonding and paternal investment in children, and more prone to short-term sexual relationships. Indeed, while African mothers are sensitive and responsive to babies’ needs, mother-child interactions in prototypical African cultures are devoid of the warmth and affection that are typical in European cultures.[6] Thus Mary Ainsworth, a pioneer in attachment research, found that Ugandan babies were quite securely attached despite the fact that their mothers rarely showed any affection toward them—a phenomenon also noted by Robert and Sarah LeVine for another African group.[7]

Prefrontal Executive Control (PEC). Having a reputation as conscientious and dependable is important for being accepted in a moral community [a central institution of social control in individualistic Western cultures]. A relatively recent trend in evolution, especially in the Primate line, has been the evolution of a centralized control system able to integrate and coordinate lower-level adaptations. This top-down Prefrontal Executive Control (PEC) system control enables coordination of specialized adaptations, including all of the mechanisms associated with the Behavioral Approach System (BAS) [e.g., proneness to reward seeking].[8] PEC involves explicit processing of linguistic and symbolic information and the top-down control of behavior. Unlike the automatic processing typical of the BAS, it is able to evaluate complex contexts in order to generate behavior that is adaptive in contemporary human societies with their constantly changing, highly complex environments.

For example, emotional states resulting from adaptations designed to react to evolutionary regularities may place people in a prepotently aggressive state energized by anger [e.g., an insult]—an emotional state that is one of the subsystems of the BAS [Behavioral Approach System] discussed above. However, whether or not aggression actually occurs may also be influenced, at least for people with sufficient levels of the the PEC system, by explicit evaluation of the wider context, including explicit evaluation of the possible costs and benefits of the aggressive act (e.g., penalties at law, possible retaliation). These explicitly calculated costs and benefits are not recurrent over evolutionary time but are products of the analytic system evaluating current environments and producing mental models of possible consequences of behavior.

Individual differences in PEC are most closely associated with the personality trait of conscientiousness.[9] Conscientiousness involves variation in the ability to defer gratification and pleasure (both related to the BAS) in the service of attaining long-term goals, persevering in unpleasant tasks, paying close attention to detail, and behaving in a responsible, dependable, cooperative manner. Not  surprisingly, conscientiousness is also associated with academic success;[10] indeed, higher conscientiousness is likely the reason for the finding of sex differences favoring females throughout the school years, including college.

Conscientiousness refers to “socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task and goal-directed behavior”[11] and is thus central to understanding undercontrolled behaviors associated with psychopathic personality.[12] Specifically, variation in PEC is central to understanding the difference between controlled and uncontrolled aggression—i.e., the difference between an impulsive act of aggression carried out in anger because of an insult versus a well-planned attack of revenge carried out in cold blood. Variation in PEC is also central to controlling reward-oriented behavior, another central component of the BAS.[13] Individuals with low levels of prefrontal control are prone to impulsivity, substance abuse, and have low levels of emotional control, including relative inability to control anger, a prime motivator of some types of aggression.

Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Personality: Whites as More Generous and Empathic than Other Races

Richard Lynn’s Race Differences in Personality provides a welcome review of the personality literature related to race differences that fits well with the material on personality discussed above.[14] Studies from the United States have consistently found a rank ordering of races on behaviors related to psychopathic personality—highest in Blacks and Native Americans, followed by Hispanics, lower in Whites, and lowest in Asians, especially in Northeast Asians. The variables studied in the research included conduct disorder, direct measures of psychopathic personality, measures of sexual promiscuity (indicating less proneness to pair bonding and being high on the BAS), conscientiousness (Blacks vs. Whites only), criminality, school suspensions, emotional intelligence (Blacks vs. Whites only), drug and substance abuse, child abuse, and self-esteem (linked to the BAS: individuals high on the BAS are prone to high self-esteem and self-confidence). An important exception to this rank ordering is in behavior related to altruism and charitable giving (see discussion below). In general, as with IQ, race differences are greatest between Whites and Blacks and much attenuated between Whites and Northeast Asians.

Given the data on European individualism and its effects on mating patterns (highlighting the importance of love and pair bonding in choice of marriage partner compared to more kinship-oriented societies), I suggest that the differences between Northeast Asians and Whites are best explained mainly by differences in Prefrontal Executive Control. The results for Blacks clearly indicate higher levels of the BAS, lower on Love/Nurturance, and lower on PEC.

So Prof. Oliver was correct to emphasize race differences in the ability to control impulses. The academic world was hostile to such ideas back in the 1950s and remains so today.

[1] American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (Washington DC, 2012).

[2] Martin L. Lalumiere and Vernon L. Quinsey, “Sexual Deviance, Antisociality, Mating Effort, and the Use of Sexually Coercive Behaviors,” Personality and Individual Differences. 21 (1996): 33–48.

[3] Robert D. Hare, Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) (2nd ed.) (Toronto: Multi-Health Systems, Inc., 2003).

[4] Andrea L. Glenn and Adrian Raine, “Psychopathy and Instrumental Aggression: Evolutionary, Neurobiological, and Legal Perspectives,” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 32 (2009): 253–258.

[5] Aurelio J. Figueredo et al. “The Psychometric Assessment of Human Life History Strategy: A Meta-analytic Construct Validation,” Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences 8, no. 3 (2014): 148–185.

[6] Kevin MacDonald, Emily Patch, and Aurelio José Figueredo, “Love, Trust, and Evolution: Nurturance/Love and Trust as Two Independent Attachment Systems Underlying Intimate Relationships,” Psychology 7, no. 2 (2016): 238–253.

[7] Mary D. S. Ainsworth, Infancy in Uganda (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967); Robert A. LeVine and Sarah E. LeVine, “Parental Strategies among the Gusii of Kenya,” in Robert A. LeVine, Patrice M. Miller, and Mary Maxwell West (eds.), Parental Behavior in Diverse Societies (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1988): 28–35.

[8] MacDonald, “Effortful Control, Explicit Processing, and the Regulation of Human Evolved Predispositions.”

[9] Ibid.

[10] Oliver P. John and Sanjay Srivastava, “The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives,” in Lawrence A. Pervin and Oliver P. John (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2nd ed. (New York: Guilford Press: 102–138.

[11] Ibid., 121; italics in original

[12] Adrian Raine, “Psychophysiology and Antisocial Behavior: A Biosocial Perspective and a Prefrontal Dysfunction Hypothesis,” in Daniel M. Stoff, James Breiling, and Jack D. Maser (Eds.), Handbook of Antisocial Behavior (New York: Wiley, 1997): 289–304.

[13] MacDonald, “Effortful Control, Explicit Processing, and the Regulation of Human Evolved Predispositions.”

[14] Lynn, Race Differences in Personality.

 

Mikhail Bakunin vs Karl Marx and the Jewish Question

/7 Comments/in /by

Mikhail Bakunin is remembered as the founding theorist of modern anarchism, a man who dedicated his life to the abolition of all systems of domination and who warned with prophetic accuracy that Marxist states would create new ruling classes rather than liberate the masses.

Mikhail Bakunin

His admirers in the anarchist space celebrate him as a champion of human freedom who spent years in solitary confinement for his beliefs, escaped from Siberian exile, and inspired revolutionary movements across Europe. Tucked away in the dark corners of Bakunin’s voluminous literary output is a persistent, antisemitic thread that has been obscured by the passage of time.

Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin was born on May 30, 1814 into Russian landed nobility at the family estate of Premukhino in the Tver Governorate, northwest of Moscow. His father had served as a diplomat in Italy before returning to manage an estate that included over 500 serfs. The young Bakunin abandoned a military career, immersed himself in Hegelian philosophy, and eventually found his way to the revolutionary circles of Paris, where he consorted with Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and Karl Marx.

The revolutionary wave of 1848 transformed Bakunin from a philosophical radical into a man of action. He fought during the February Revolution in Paris, attended the Slav Congress in Prague, and participated in the Dresden insurrection of May 1849. His arrest led to a death sentence that was commuted, followed by extradition first to Austria — where he was sentenced to death a second time, again commuted — and then to Russia. In May 1851, he was placed in solitary confinement in the Peter and Paul Fortress in St. Petersburg, where he spent three years before being transferred to Schlisselburg Fortress for three more years, then exiled to Siberia in 1857.

His escape from Siberian exile in 1861 became legend. Bakunin made his way through Japan and then by ship from San Francisco through Panama to New York before crossing to London, where he would spend the remainder of his life constructing the anarchist creed he preached until his death in 1876. He built networks of interlocking secret revolutionary societies, participated in an insurrection in Lyon in 1870 and helped plan an anarchist uprising in Bologna in 1874, and became the central figure of the anarchist faction within the International Workingmen’s Association.

Bakunin’s anarchism rested on a profound conviction that all systems of domination, whether the state, the church, or capitalism, must be abolished simultaneously. He argued that “to exploit and to govern mean the same thing” and viewed the state as an instrument of domination and exploitation serving a privileged ruling class — one that applied equally to monarchies and representative democracies alike.

He envisioned a post-revolutionary world of freely federated communes organized from below, with voluntary associations of producers starting locally but organizing internationally. He championed the right of every people to self-determination and opposed colonialism and imperialism. In his 1867 essay Federalism, Socialism, Anti-Theologism, Bakunin declared: “liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality.”

His most enduring contribution to political thought was his warning that a revolutionary state run by socialists would not wither away but would instead create a new ruling class of party officials and intellectuals governing in the name of the proletariat. In Statism and Anarchy (1873), he directly challenged Marx’s concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat, arguing that any post-revolutionary state would perpetuate itself indefinitely rather than dissolve.

Bakunin and Marx first met in Paris in 1844 and maintained an initially cordial if wary relationship. Marx even sent Bakunin a copy of the first volume of Capital. But their disagreements ran too deep for friendship to survive.

Marx believed the working class should seize state power through a “dictatorship of the proletariat” as a transitional instrument to build socialism. By contrast, Bakunin believed any state, even a workers’ state, would inevitably reproduce class domination. Marx favored centralized political organization while Bakunin advocated federalism and spontaneous worker action. Marx placed the urban industrial proletariat at the center of revolution while Bakunin also embraced the peasantry and the poorest workers, especially in Russia, Spain, and Italy.

The conflict was also bitterly personal. Marx wrote that Bakunin was “a man devoid of theoretical knowledge” and “in his element as an intriguer.” Bakunin believed Marx “lacks the instinct of liberty” and “remains from head to foot, an authoritarian.”

The crisis came to a head at the 1872 Hague Congress (The Hague Congress of the International Workingmen’s Association (aka the First International)). Bakunin could not travel to the Netherlands without risking arrest, and in his absence, Marx engineered his expulsion from the International on charges of maintaining a secret society within the organization and fraud related to an unfinished translation of Capital. The anarchist wing regrouped at the Saint-Imier Congress eight days later and founded the Anti-Authoritarian International, permanently splitting the socialist movement into wings that remain divided to this day.

Bakunin perceived that Marx had conspired against him and assumed that Marx sought to centralize control of the International. Bakunin framed the entire conspiracy in antisemitic terms, as a specifically “Jewish” plot.

The Russian anarchist intellectual’s antisemitism appeared in rudimentary form as early as 1851. While imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress, Bakunin wrote his Confession to the Tsar, in which he criticized Polish independence leaders for their favorable attitude toward Jews. Bakunin’s aversion to Jewry grew stronger after his conflict with Moses Hess, a German Jewish socialist and proto-Zionist who represented the Marxist wing of the International and published a two-part critique in the Paris newspaper Le Réveil on October 2, 1869.

Bakunin responded with a long unpublished letter titled To the Citizen Editors of Le Réveil, in which he declared something that his friend Alexander Herzen immediately found disturbing. Herzen read this letter and complained to Nicholas Ogarev with a single question that captured the bewilderment of those who knew Bakunin best: “Why all this talk of race and of Jews?”

Between October 1871 and February 1872, Bakunin wrote a note titled Supporting Documents: Personal Relations with Marx that was originally intended for Italian allies but never sent. First published in 1924 in volume 3 of his German collected works, it contains some of his most disturbing writing:

Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are everywhere: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of bloodsuckers, a single gluttonous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild.

Throughout the passage, he sought to synthesize his broader critique of the state with specific observations regarding the role of Jewish financiers in the global economy:

What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralisation in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail…

In his February–March 1872 letter To the Comrades of the International Sections of the Jura Federation, perhaps his most extensively antisemitic text, Bakunin expanded his theories into sweeping generalizations about Jewish people as a collective.

Every Jew, however enlightened, retains the traditional cult of authority: it is the heritage of his race, the manifest sign of his Eastern origin. … The Jew is therefore authoritarian by position, by tradition and by nature. This is a general law and one which admits of very few exceptions, and these very exceptions, when examined closely confirm the rule.

He attributed Marx’s authoritarianism to his “threefold capacity as an Hegelian, a Jew, and a German.” In Statism and Anarchy, his 1873 book written in Russian, Bakunin described the creation of the German nation state as “nothing other than the ultimate realisation of the anti-popular idea of the modern state. … It signifies the triumphant reign of the Yids, of a bankocracy under the powerful protection of a fiscal, bureaucratic, and police regime which relies mainly on military force.”

Ultimately, Bakunin’s willingness to look past the superficial constraints of his day and directly identify the intersection of finance, state power, and Jewish influence and proneness to authoritarianism remains his most vital, yet ignored, lessons. While his contemporary successors in the anarchist movement have devolved into willing foot soldiers for the Jewish-dominated post-World War II order, a resurgence of Bakunin’s brand of judeoskepticism is long overdue. It is time for a new generation of dissidents to pick up Bakunin’s mantle, shedding the baggage of modern ideological constraints to confront the reality of Jewish power head-on.