Featured Articles

Tariffs Are a Smokescreen: The West’s Reckoning Demands Imperial Resolve

/11 Comments/in /by

The tariff tempest—Trump’s 25% on steel, 10% on imports—has everyone in a lather. X is a shouting match, pundits clutch pearls, and markets jitter. It’s a masterful distraction, a cheap drama that blinds us to a crisis far graver than any recession. Ray Dalio, the hedge fund titan, didn’t mince words on Meet the Press: the West’s “monetary order” is fracturing—crushed by debt, eroded by division, and challenged by rising powers. This isn’t just markets tanking; it’s a civilizational crossroads.  We’re drowning in propaganda, fixated on trivial fights, while the real threat—a collapse of Western dominance—looms. To survive, we need more than trade tweaks; we need an imperial mindset, a ruthless will to break free from China’s grip and secure our destiny. Anything less is surrender.

Dalio’s warning is stark: “We’re very close to a recession, and I’m worried about something worse.” He sees debt—$33 trillion and climbing, with interest payments set to choke us at $1 trillion by 2030—undermining the dollar’s reign. Since 1945, the U.S. has been the world’s banker, but that’s no divine right. If the monetary system snaps, as it did in 1971’s gold standard death or 2008’s near-miss, hyperinflation could make your paycheck worthless. Worse, it’s not just money. The five forces are colliding: runaway debt cycles, a political culture at war with itself, rival powers like China outmuscling us, technology upending stability, and nature’s chaos—floods, pandemics—exposing our fragility. He likens it to the 1930s, when debt, trade wars, and empires clashing lit the fuse for catastrophe. History’s not subtle, yet we’re sleepwalking.

Oswald Spengler’s ghost hovers here—the civilizations cycle through vitality to decadence, crumbling when they lose their unifying fire. The West is there—fat on consumerism, fractured by identity crusades, and seduced by comfort. Spengler saw tariffs and petty squabbles as symptoms of a deeper rot: a people too soft to wield power. Today, we’re hypnotized by propaganda—not just state lies, but a cultural machine of media, tech, and elites spinning tariffs as the apocalypse or salvation. It’s nonsense. Tariffs won’t fix the $2 trillion deficits or halt China’s Belt and Road carving up global trade. They’re a bandage on a broken limb, and the real wound is our dependence on a rival who plays chess while we play checkers.

This is where imperialism—yes, imperialism—enters. Not the cartoon villain of college lectures, but the clear-eyed will to dominate resources, secure borders, and shape the world in our image. The West built its supremacy on it, from Rome to Britain to post-1945 America. Now, we’re ashamed of it, apologizing while China locks up rare earths and Africa’s ports. Our reliance on Chinese manufacturing—$295 billion in annual trade deficits— isn’t just economic; it’s a noose. Dalio’s third force, shifting global power, is blunt: China’s GDP is neck-and-neck, their navy outpaces ours, and they’re not shy about empire. If we don’t counter with our own, we’re done.

How do we break free? Tariffs alone are a blunt club—useful, but not enough. We need to rebuild industry, not with nostalgia but with ferocity. Think Manhattan Project for semiconductors, mining, and energy. Subsidize factories, sure, but also starve China’s leverage—ban their tech, lock them out of our markets, and rally allies to do the same. It’s not cheap, but neither is decline. Something’s stirring beneath the surface, though—call it a quiet nationalism. From X posts to factory towns, people are waking up, demanding we stop outsourcing our future. The question is whether our leaders have the guts to channel it, to wield power like we mean it.

Can we afford another crisis? We’re already limping—real wages flat since the ‘70s, trust in institutions at Nixon-era lows, and half the country ready to fistfight the other half. Dalio’s worst-case isn’t academic: a dollar collapse means bread costs a briefcase of cash, like Weimar in ‘23. Our political tribalism—fueled by propaganda from CNN to influencers on social media—could turn protests into bloodbaths. And geopolitics? Misjudge China or Russia, and we’re not debating trade but survival. These breakdowns have happened before: history points to 1648’s Thirty Years’ War, 1815’s Napoleonic reset, 1945’s Pax Americana. Each time, the strong rebuilt the world. The weak didn’t.

Propaganda’s the real enemy here, and it’s everywhere. It’s the news framing tariffs as the whole story, ignoring debt and especially dependency. It’s the elite dogma that globalism is inevitable, that borders are bigoted. It’s the algorithm feeding you rage, not reason. Spengler warned of this—when a civilization’s intellectuals trade truth for narratives, it’s over. Look at our culture: we’re too busy canceling each other to notice China’s shipyards or our own rust belts. The fourth force, technology, supercharges this—AI and algorithms aren’t neutral; they’re tools of control, and we’re not the ones steering.

The West can still win, but it takes an antidote: a return to primal strength. Imperialism isn’t a dirty word—it’s survival. We secure our supply chains, our culture, our borders, or we fade like Rome did, whining about barbarians while the gates fell. The fifth force—nature’s disruptions—only sharpens the urgency; pandemics and floods don’t care about your pronouns or your portfolio. We’re at a hinge point, and the choice is ours: rebuild with purpose or bicker into oblivion. Tariffs are a spark, not the fire. The real fight is for the West’s soul, and it’s time we started swinging.

WHITE NOISE: Shoegaze, Night Rites & REJECTING PUNK

/5 Comments/in /by

Australian band Night Rites and their music video for Den

Punk And Its Discontents

Defining shoegaze music can be as vague as its origins. Brian Eno once called My Bloody Valentine “The vaguest thing in pop”. But it does appear that the concrete beginnings are Irish, Scottish and the British colony of Australia. Out of punk’s noisiness, there seemed to be an attempt to discipline the sonic beast, veering into something more mythical.

When we look back on “punk”, the older it gets the more manufactured it sounds. And it was. Punk was initially steered by mastermind tastemakers like US Government Cold War asset homosexual Andy Warhol and sex shop owner Malcolm McLaren. In both cases punk was a crude attempt to mainstream S&M and perverse sexuality. Malcolm McLaren’s Jewish grandmother, who raised him after his father left, taught him the most important thing to do was lie to people and that “to be bad was good”. David Vanian of The Damned called McLaren a devious “Fagin-type character from Oliver Twist”. McLaren himself referred to the group he managed, the Sex Pistols, as his “little artful dodgers”. Genociding Gazans from the sky is like shooting fish in a barrel, but taking over more powerful Western nations must be done through cultural manipulation and subversion.

So like any psychological operation on the public, punk was all about deception – the exploitation of youthful posing and dress-up instincts by older and larger forces behind the curtain. In the British context, punk could not exist as a phenomenon without the cooperation of government-controlled BBC TV and radio to roll it out. The subculture was created by the system to contain any real rebellion against the financial class. An illusion was created that you could fight the elites by becoming perverted. It would be Britain where punk’s generic uniforms, hair-dos and pop-art imagery would most crystalise as a complete commercial product.

Similar to other post-war counter-cultures fostered by international finance, this went beyond Sun Tzu’s wildest dreams. Oligarchs took away national sovereignty and in return gave individuals “freedom” over their own bodies. A transaction that costs elites nothing. But for the public it was very expensive because punk would further destroy what shaky post-war moral foundation was left. This had real-life consequences of broken families, drug addiction and a weaker collective. Pitched as something constructive and assertive with apparent accessibility, punk remains a psychological trap romanticised to this day. A misused and misunderstood adjective. Rather than targeting any serious enemies with its aggressive stances, punks humiliated, mutilated and aborted themselves.

Bolshevism in the UK

The Sex Pistols biggest hit “God Save The Queen” was a Bolshevik revolution against the British monarchy. They didn’t need to execute the Royal family like they had previously done to Russia’s House of Romanov. McLaren’s project simply made an already non-sovereign monarchy impotent through culture-war. There were feeble attempts to censor or repress the record, but without an iron fist this notoriety just fed into promotion. The song should have been illegal for treasonous lyrical content, defacement of the Queen’s image and desecration of Queen Elizabeth II’s Silver Jubilee, where the band attempted to play the song from a boat named Queen Elizabeth on the River Thames, near the Palace of Westminster. If you tried the same thing in Thailand today against its monarchy, you would be put in prison for multiple counts of 15 years, probably culminating in a life sentence.

The British monarchy was entirely entwined with the nation’s Christian religion, not just by being head of the Church Of England, but fundamentally embedded in its 1,500-year Christian history. This includes having gifted the world the King James Bible translation, thought by some to be a miracle in and of itself. So a loss of faith in the Queen’s moral authority by the people would result in a loss of religious faith. Punk was a secularising force with false idols. McLaren’s operation was quite clear and open about its intent, declaring punk as the “Antichrist” in “Anarchy In The UK”, which he described as “a call to arms. … It’s a statement of self rule, of ultimate independence”. Punk, much like LaVeyan Satanism, was a repackaging of Ayn Rand libertarianism for a new audience. Often romanticised as “pushing the envelope”, The Sex Pistols should be seen in the context of other degenerates such as beat-poet Alan Ginsberg (openly a member of paedophile organisation NAMBLA) who fought to destroy rational censorship and Christian society with his work.

The destruction of the monarchy’s symbolic power was integral to the rise of Britain’s managerial grey state and the public’s drab acceptance of it. This attack on the Royal family, even a monarchy that had become merely symbolic, was an attack on British ethnic identity. A racial assault on Britain by parasitic outsiders. It was not just a song, but an anthem that grew out of an orchestrated public event. No different to Edward Bernays engineering public stunts that lead to women smoking in the 1920s. But this time the man behind the curtain would be Malcolm McLaren. He openly thought of the band members as “clay that could be sculpted” and people he could “use and manipulate” for his own agenda. And, like Warhol, punk would be synonymous with pop-art branding, changing the meaning of the Union Jack and royal imagery as visual language.

This is what I mean by punks targeting themselves, because those who adopted it struck their own nation and people. Punk was a treasonous and morally corrosive pathogen injected into a naïve public. Rather than defending against external forces, punk was the disease from outside dismantling everything that was normal or healthy within. The original Bolsheviks were funded by “Wall Street bankers” and punk was a transplant from the same New York elite. This playbook was tried again in modern Russia with a fluent English-speaking feminist punk band backed by “western NGOs”. Their lazy name “Pussy Riot” followed the same formula as the Sex Pistols, combining sex and violence in an appeal to hormonal and impressionable youth. In 2012 the group stormed Moscow’s Orthodox Cathedral of Christ the Saviour and illegally performed their offensive music. But unlike the U.K, such anarchy towards the sacred would be punished with a prison sentence.

In 1998 Marilyn Manson was on the cover of every magazine with this number one hit album that sold transexualism, drug-use and extreme blasphemy to the mainstream public. 25 years later we are giving puberty blockers to children, are more atheistic, and have widespread drug addiction epidemics. Image from Wikipedia.

Selling Drugs, Homosexuality And AIDS To The Public

The Sex Pistols were as much about selling degenerate bondage attire and associated lifestyles of “Dame” (WTF?) Vivienne Westwood as they were shifting records. An already-underway sexual liberation movement would slide into a darker and more self-destructive territory with punk. Saint Paul talked about “the slavery of sin” and Saint Augustine said “a man has as many masters as he has vices”. Human weakness was exploited by the Marxist author of “The Sexual Revolution” Wilhelm Reich, who theorised “if we get people thinking about sex and being involved in more sexual activity, the idea of God will evaporate from their minds”. The blue-haired lesbian uniforms of current-day teachers brainwashing kids with queer theory and running government departments into the ground are just watered-down punk aesthetics absorbed into the managerial class.

Punk’s bisexuality and needle-friendly drug-use would join forces with the gays to create AIDS in the late 1970s. Both punk and the gay leather-bar scene had shared aesthetics and hedonistic culture without moral barriers. What was bad was good. McLaren went on to popularise rap music among Whites with his solo release “Buffalo Girls”, which was later sampled and referenced by Eminem on the lead single of his biggest selling album. McLaren then worked to mainstream homosexual drag culture with “Deep In Vogue” a year before Madonna did the same with her conceptually identical number one hit “Vogue”. So apart from manufacturing punk, he also brought us wiggers and drag queen story hour.

Warhol’s Velvet Underground was basically one long gay chem-sex album. The Velvet’s frontman Lou Reed said that although he was Jewish, his “real god was rock ‘n’ roll”. They glamourised a cocktail of sodomy and heroin that would foreshadow the Sackler Family’s orchestrated oxycontin epidemic. This proto-punk foreshadowing would be perfected later by David Gefen’s glossier Seattle grunge, Nirvana’s Nevermind being one long “Got Heroin?” commercial for kids. Nevermind arguably took its title from the Sex Pistols only completed album “Never Mind the Bollocks, Here’s the Sex Pistols”.

It would be no surprise that the Sex Pistols’ impressionable dunce “bassist” Sid Vicious would murder his arranged Jewish junkie handler-girlfriend from New York Nancy Spungen and kill himself after being moulded by McLaren. John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten) broke down in tears explaining how the naïve Sid was led to his own death for McLaren’s art-school amusement. A similar fate would hit Kurt Cobain with his heroin use and self-inflicted shotgun suicide all encouraged by his yenta wife Courtney Love. Five years before meeting Cobain, an unknown Love auditioned for the role of Nancy Spungen in the biopic “Sid And Nancy”, but the film’s investors insisted on an experienced actress for the co-leading role. Instead, director Alex Cox wrote-in a new character of Gretchen, one of Sid and Nancy’s New York junkie friends, specifically for Love to play.

Parallel to punk was industrial music with Throbbing Gristle’s Genesis P-Orridge becoming a full-blown drug addicted transexual. Industrial was a cultural laboratory of concentrated degeneracy for those already numb to feeling by punk. Marilyn Manson’s “Antichrist Superstar” and overt tranny aesthetics being on the cover of every magazine was pre-internet cultural domination that should leave us with no questions about how we got to our current predicament. The 1980s “Satanic Panic”, a completely rational reaction by middle-American Christians against the booming heavy metal music industry failed to stop capitalism’s combine harvester upon young souls. Thus 1990s industrial feasted itself upon a society that was by that time a spent force and enjoyed the last days of physical media where album sales were still profitable and music videos still relevant. It was all one distinctively downward spiral and much of the public who consumed this material went down with it. You can see them in the very middle-American towns that once protested such music, staggering around wearing Nine Inch Nails T-shirts addicted to fentanyl.

Kevin Shields of Irish shoegaze band My Bloody Valentine

Ambient Light At The End Of The Tunnel

But with enough people jamming and playing around with equipment inspired by these often simple or attainable musical styles, it was only natural that better things would emerge from teenagers accessing and experimenting with the same tools. If punk did one good thing, it was to encourage anyone to adopt a DIY ethos and work intuitively. Around the same time as punk there was also interesting stuff that could be drawn from Krautrock and synthpop. Both Tangerine Dream and Kraftwerk were classically trained and this came out in their modern musical instrumentation. The exploding post-punk scene, with thoughtful acts like The Smiths, allowed young people into increasingly high-tech studios to become perfectionists, new wave versions of Phil Spector and Brian Wilson with their own theories on sound

Enter figures like Rowland S Howard of The Birthday Party (Australia), Robin Guthrie of the Cocteau Twins (Scotland) and Kevin Shields of My Bloody Valentine (Ireland). Introverted figures that turned punk and new-wave on its head. They took the public’s new appetite for loud undisciplined noise and did something more refined with it. Rowland S Howard’s more abrasive work with the Birthday Party created an aural ether to inspire the softer dream-pop of both The Cocteau Twins and pink tones of My Bloody Valentine. White noise and guitar feedback that was once jarring became more transcendent in their hands.

Such protagonists were often more interested in how an instrument was recorded and treated than the actual notes being played. None of these people debased themselves quite like Iggy Pop begging to be someone’s dog, Lou Reed longing to be sodomised and injected or the Ramones singing how-tos for turning tricks. This new crop of studio-orientated noisists were happy to let the guitar do the talking. In the case of My Bloody Valentine, lyrics were often whispered or ambiguously delegated to female guitarist Bilinda Butcher. Cocteau Twins vocalist Elizabeth Fraser did belt out her lyrics, but it was often unclear as to which language or whether they were real words at all. Critic Jason Ankeny says: “Fraser is an utterly unique performer whose swooping, operatic vocals relied less on any recognizable language than on the subjective sounds and textures of verbalized emotions.”

The term “shoegaze” literally refers to guitarists performing antisocially, looking downwards at the myriad of fuzz-pedals at their feet being stepped-on, triggering distortion and reverberation. Zeroing-in on a certain delicate sound aesthetic and atmosphere that the listener would also be able to envelope themselves in. This concern is symphonic and ambient, in some ways closer to classical music experiences than punk rock’s bright and instant gratification. This was reactionary and metaphysical. Shoegaze should not just be seen on its own but in the larger context of ambient and contemplative music that predates rock ‘n’ roll.

Enya creates ambient ethno-folk music and remains the highest selling solo artist in Irish music history. Image from Wikipedia.

Siren Songs

Elizabeth Fraser’s vocal on This Mortal Coil’s Tim Buckley cover Song Of The Siren became an obsession for film director David Lynch. It was a minimalist arrangement, almost entirely acapella as if amplified and reverberated in an ancient cave. David Lynch was unable to secure the budget to use the piece in his film Blue Velvet, so an attempt to replicate its ambient power would inspire the long-term musical collaboration between composer Angelo Badalamenti, vocalist Julee Cruise and Lynch himself. Mysteries of Love would have more restrained vocals amongst a lush bed of synthesisers. Along with sound-designer Alan R Splett, who previously worked with Lynch to create the audio-landscape of cult midnight movie Ersaserhead, this stable of artists collaborated on an entirely new sound universe. Blue Velvet would be an American classic and prototype for Lynch’s biggest stamp on the culture with the TV series Twin Peaks. Many instrumental and vocal pieces from Twin Peaks, often lofty and ambient, would define Americana in the modern era.

Enya was a similarly cinematic creation in that it was her overtly ethno-folk score for the BBC historical documentary The Celts that led to the soundtrack being commercially released and the start of her solo career. The Celts has a sentimental pop quality as if John Hughes had made a movie in the medieval period, or the top Irish choir-girl was given the latest keyboards, samplers and unlimited studio time. She brought vast ambient ambition to pop-music with her mixture of synthesizers, FX-treated vocals and traditional Irish lyrics. Enya was raised in the Irish-speaking region of Gweedore with eight siblings. In an era of hyper-sexualised Madonna (who was an overt attack on the Catholic faith) and drug-soaked alternative-rock exploding on MTV, Enya was mocked for being square by not making the same moral transgressions. But it was bolder to ignore the trends. Enya purposely didn’t listen to the radio and cocooned herself away from popular cultural influence. Her aesthetic instead remained an unmovable rock against crashing ocean currents and blowing winds. Like the stone of a church wall that wears centuries of thrashing storms and still stands. Her albums have the power to make you stop what you are doing and listen with complete focus to the point that it’s confronting. You may spontaneously start to shed tears. Apart from the production and arrangement being so engaging, it’s the reminder of who we are that cuts right through to the soul. Enya remains the highest selling solo-artist in Irish musical history.

There’s something about this homeland and ethnicity that conjures spatial musical experiences like it’s in the blood. Unlike the UK, Ireland has remained far more ethnically and culturally homogenous. They dont have a monarchy you can just come and destroy. Instead they have a complicated photosynthesis of the Vatican, Catholic Saints and their own folk heroes that can’t easily be erased. Even when there is a bad Pope, Irish Catholics tend to ignore him and maintain things more on the local level. Sigmund Freud famously said “psychoanalysis doesn’t work on the Irish” and that “when in psychic trouble, the Irish go to poetry or storytelling”. Interestingly, Ireland also stayed neutral in WW2. During the recent globalist push to flood the country with third-world immigration, the Irish have shown the most resistance. So even if all the Irish musicians mentioned are libtards, they still ultimately come from a more nationalist milieu. Hence despite being such a small nation, they are able to impart their distinct indigenous sensibilities upon the world of music.

The end of shoegaze was partially led by establishment UK critics who branded it as “pretentious and middle-class”. Shoegaze did not provide the same politically self-destructive or phony-rebellious function as punk. Nor did it come with much merchandise or uniform to sell. It was too exploratory and off-plantation, so momentum had to be cut like Talk Talk’s sensitive latter work was starved of oxygen. Kevin Shields and Talk Talk’s Mark Hollis had idiosyncrasy and stubbornness that turned record label executives’ hair grey. Conversely, this made such musicians isolated and reclusive. Britain was instead given bisexual heroin-use with Suede spearheading “Britpop” and blockheads Oasis regurgitating The Beatles like A.I. software. Oasis were co-opted by Tony Blair to help win his first election as part of the “Cool Britannia” psychological operation. Now they are being wheeled-out again 30 years later to please Britons while their nation gets destroyed.

Night Rites – DEN

The recent track “Den” by Australian band “Night Rites” is indeed a zone experience. It has a bit of jangling like The Birds, organs twirling like other 1960s psychedelic acts.. But it leaps forward with an arrangement that creates sophisticated cacophony and drone. This is not from the 1990s shoegaze and alternative rock era but our own time period. Slipping and sliding audio layers then get more complicated, keeping our ears guessing amongst a wide vista. Whispery delays of vocals, that often materialise like digital mistakes, feel very much of this moment and not just nostalgic throwbacks to previous eras. The studio mix is perfect, it’s constantly offering another level to be appreciated. But its biggest asset is the overall wall of noise that provides a blanket of atmosphere. This is well illustrated by a new music video in the second half where it attempts to literally depict the sound as if played in the ocean. The film clip is a kind of shoegaze expression in and of itself featuring lots of textured and noisy imagery.

People often say rock is dead, and in terms of popularity and the current zeitgeist, it is. The idea of people even playing instruments anymore would make many zoomers look at you strange. Recorded music post-physical media is also too abundant and fragmented into a million financially worthless markets. Nothing seems to create critical mass and we tend to just dwell on the past. New bands that could have played arenas 30 years ago are now forced to ask for crumbs through online patronage. But just like those teenagers in the past that were inspired by punk to do something more interesting with their guitars, intuitively conjuring the great orchestras, concert halls and places of worship – there remain a class of spare-room and backyard alchemists focused on getting something sonically new out of the electric guitar and rock band format.

Shoegaze’s Anglo-Celtic origins seem to channel old stone church ambiences, choirs and the white noise of pipe organs. Subdued voices gliding from one side of a hall to another. Grand spaces transform sound because architecture is an instrument too. Cathedrals with finely tuned acoustics, light-altering stained glass windows and astonishing sculpture were not just technological heights of their time but remain the absolute zenith of Western civilisation. Maybe what shoegaze is channelling is our instinctive way of returning to religious observance. The Dream-pop of the Cocteau Twins used chimes and church bells to manifest diffused landscapes of European fairytale. Enya expressed great fondness for churches and said her use of reverb was to create a religious aesthetic. Roland S Howard misused a collection of guitar pedals to create an inky canvas for Nick Cave to project his southern gothic preacher onto. Kevin Shields spending weeks to set up equalisation for recording one guitar track and years to complete work is monastic in its devotion and truly mythological in artistic narrative. The word “Rites” in Night Rites means “a religious or other solemn ceremony or act”.

Phil Spector’s wall of sound technique is really just replicating choirs and orchestras, multiple people playing or singing the same thing at once with the added magic of physical space. It was nothing new, it literally came from the stone age. These dimensions are available to all of us because of accessibility to recording technology.. We can put a microphone anywhere. The hard work involved to make something perfect, specific mic-placement and the elbow-grease of recording requires trial, error and vision to hold it together. Analogue recording being another barrier to access that adds a certain singular magic. But channelling the divine inspiration that is behind anything good is often sidestepped for the easier options provided by prefabricated sample-packages, software short-cuts and now A.I. conjuring of worthless muzak. Basically computers just making the music for us. But labour is the source of all value and we know when we hear it. You will also know when you make it. Artistic movements can start from a mustard seed of faith in an idea. As either a listener or a musician, if you are unhappy with where music is at – do something about it.

First posted on The Noticer, posted here with permission.

Exorcising the False God of Religious Tolerance

/3 Comments/in /by

Absurd, Harmful, and Alien Religious Beliefs and Practices Should Not Be Tolerated

“Taking of Jersualem by the Crusaders, 15th July 1099, ” by Emil Signol. This beautiful painting depicts a very different ethos once espoused by European civilization.

Author’s Note: this essay contains mild spoilers for two episodes of Curb Your Enthusiasm: “Ski Lift” and “Palestinian Chicken.”

No matter how idiotic, harmful, or ridiculous a religious belief or practice may be, a deeply engrained social more and value of religious tolerance has emerged in the modern world in the past few decades. According to this false god of religious tolerance, such beliefs and practices, no matter how stupid, destructive, or unsavory, are beyond the purview of criticism, let alone ridicule and scorn. Just as the “free speech” clause1 of the First Amendment is not just a proscription against government censorship, but an avatar for “free speech” as one of the highest normative social values in the modern Anglo-American world, the establishment clause in the same amendment has had a similar effect with religious tolerance; the establishment clause not only acts as a legal proscription against state power curtailing freedom of religion, it has helped establish and advance “freedom of religion” as a widely held normative and social value. Such “freedom of religion,” a phrase often mistakenly attributed to the actual text of the establishment clause2, has become something sacrosanct that few think to question. Indeed, this value of “religious tolerance” is nothing other than abject, radical pluralism. A brief survey of unsavory religious views and practices further reveals this is a grave error.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, there is nothing more deserving of ridicule and scorn than embracing or exhibiting bizarre, harmful, or ridiculous religious views or practices. Just as someone should be ridiculed and mocked for asserting, for example, that a person could ever change sex, a person should similarly be criticized and even denigrated for clinging on to wrong-headed and even preposterous superstitions that should have been jettisoned centuries ago. This iconoclastic ethos is admittedly exhibited by a particular breed of leftist who holds all denominations of Christianity in contempt, no matter how reasonable or pragmatic a particular theological interpretation may be, or how practical the application of such religious belief is in normal, everyday situations. Aside from very few exceptions, the left never turns such sharp, biting vitriol towards Judaism, Islam, or other religions and superstitions. This is because those religions are embraced by non-white peoples around the world, “fellow whites,” i.e. Jews, excepted, of course. Christianity, too, is a world religion, but it flourished in Europe and is most closely associated with European civilization and its diaspora.

Judaism is particularly immune from any criticism because of how accusations of so-called anti-Semitism have been weaponized as a sort of blunt instrument to bludgeon any criticism or complaint into silence, often with the most severe consequences for anyone who dares transgress such prohibitions in public. Separate some of these practices and beliefs away from the modern taboo of criticizing or mocking religious absurdity, particularly as such absurdity pertains to Judaism, and consider what some of these things are intrinsically. Such a standard would seem to be a fair equivalent to the idea of judging someone “not based on the color of his skin,”—as if race were only about skin color!—”but the content of his character.”

Various practices and beliefs embraced by Orthodox Judaism seem particularly vulnerable to such criticism and even ridicule. Orthodox Jewish practice related to a kosher diet, known as kashrut, is just an absurdity. This practice requires two sets of dishware, one for milk and one for meat, with the two strictly separated. A milk dish “contaminated” with meat and vice-versa require an elaborate cleansing process, known as “koshering.” This entails a waiting period of 24 hours, as well as boiling for metal utensils, pots and pans, and the like, heating for other types of cooking ware, dishes and utensils. Items of a porous nature such as earthware and ceramic must be discarded, while porous materials such as a wooden cutting board depend on “rabbinic opinion.” An episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm, “Ski Lift,” famously mocked the absurdity of this, although it characterized the practice of burying plates as part of the koshering process. That seems to be a myth, but may have been followed by some Orthodox Jews in the states.

In public spaces, Jewish Orthodox individuals are known to ostentatiously and obnoxiously exhibit their extraordinary –and extraordinarily ridiculous—dietary requirements to anyone and everyone, with no qualms about imposing on others what is ultimately their self-imposed burden. Orthodox individuals are known, for example, to brandish elaborate lunch kits bifurcated in two sets marked “milk” and “meat,” to ensure that all the coworkers, Jew and gentile alike, know this individual is an observant Jew. Offices in New York City and other certain areas with notable Jewish minorities are known to feature two separate microwaves in certain break rooms, one marked “kosher” for the observant Jew whose predilections are indulged with his own separate microwave, and the main microwave for the rest of the staff that uses that break room. It is noteworthy that despite assertions that “freedom of speech” is robust in this country, federal laws concerning workplace discrimination have created quite the “chilling effect” that First Amendment jurisprudence otherwise deems anathema to the Constitution, such that neither employee, nor the boss, nor even owner of a company would ever dare make any negative remark or complain in any way whatsoever about such an imposition as to accommodate select individuals of a minority faith with their own microwave ,or the elaborate lunch kits in two sets for “milk” and “meat” with which they make themselves such a peculiar spectacle. Such utterances would, after all, create a hostile working environment.

As alluded to above, one of the few cultural phenomena that has been allowed to express strong criticism and even repudiation of various expressions of Jewish religion and Jewish identity is Larry David’s Curb Your Enthusiasm, with the aforementioned episode “Ski Lift” being one of the more memorable forays skewering Orthodox Judaism in particular. With David’s interactions and observations driving the narrative, the show generally offers sharp, biting satire and commentary regarding absurd Jewish practices and characteristics, both in relation to Jewish Orthodox and secular Jewish identity. This has been largely without controversy because David is Jewish himself; any gentile commentator or writer who dared to mock and ridicule the various peculiarities Curb has explored over the years would be met with shrill cries of “anti-Semitism.” The exposure of any number of horrible behaviors of secular Hollywood Jews could easily make for a modern successor to Der Sturmer or even Jud Süß. The episode where some Jew accosts him on the street for whistling Wagner is unforgettable. So too is the aforementioned episode “Ski Lift” from season five, which mercilessly lampoons, and even ridicules and mocks Orthodox Jews. This episode concerns a ruse whereby David seeks to curry the favor of Ben Heinemann, an Orthodox Jew, militant Zionist, and staunch supporter of Israel who is the president of a kidney transplant “consortium” that oversees the donation and assignment of kidneys for transplant. This is done because Richard Lewis, also Jewish and a friend of David (in real life and the show), needs a kidney transplant sooner than his place on the waiting list is likely to avail him, or he will die. The favoritism that Heinemann bestows on Larry David once he professes his strong love and support for Israel while schmoozing on a weekend ski trip is shocking, as David’s ruse convinces Heinemann to place Lewis at the front of the waiting list (at least until David has the misfortune to be trapped with Heinemann’s nasty adult daughter Rachel on a stalled ski-lift just before sun-down). Heinemann couples such unethical conduct (moving a patient list to the top on account of personal acquaintance, friendship, or favor) with lip service about being a deeply pious, religious (Jewish) man. This is, to put it mildly, what Kevin MacDonald calls the “moral particularism” that is the hallmark of Judaism.

The exposition and chastisement of such unethical and possibly illegal conduct only complement the despicable range of behavior examined and lampooned by David: behavior that is part and parcel to Hollywood as a predominantly Jewish institution and subculture, including Jeff Greene’s constant womanizing (given his repulsive appearance one cannot help but think of Harvey Weinstein). The insufferable antics of Greene’s foul-mouthed shrew of a wife, Suzy, also fit certain stereotypes of middle-class and rich, affluent Jewish women. Another favorite episode, “Palestinian Restaurant,” concerns a chicken specialty restaurant with Palestinian proprietors renowned for particularly delectable offerings, with David and Greene eating there, despite the proprietor’s hostility towards Israel. Most in David’s circle steadfastly refuse to eat there at all, however, and even organize a protest when the restaurant opens a second location next to “Goldblatt’s Deli,” all replete with hysterical histrionics about Israeli Zionism that reveals what most charitably describe as having “dual loyalties.” One subplot concerns two friends, both married to another, having an affair, and choosing to rendezvous at the Palestinian venue on the basis that no other Jews would ever eat there. As an aside, this excerpt from Larry David’s monologue on Saturday Night Live reveals him to notice certain trends among his kind in relation to the Harvey Weinstein and other “#metoo” scandals.

Curb is of course an outlier if not the single solitary instance of popular media that portrays both Orthodox and secular Jewry in such a negative light, permitted and countenanced only because of David’s own Jewish identity, as well as the cloak of humor in which such criticism is clothed. These and other Jewish practices not explored by the hit show go beyond merely being objects of ridicule, but impose positive harms on society as they offend anyone with a moral conscience.

One harm arising from such religious tolerance relates to how modern society is required to subsidize the kosher marketing system, which has created a lucrative industry3 for Jewish concerns to certify that most all food stuffs consumed by the entire population conform to their bizarre dietary superstitions: an enterprise not subsidized by those Jewish enclaves that require them, but passed off on to the public consumer at large. Tolerating kosher dietary requirements has also facilitated barbaric animal cruelty in kosher-observant slaughterhouses. A video presentation by Devon Stack concerning the establishment of a kosher slaughter house in Postville, Iowa is noteworthy not just because it exposes sharp business practices that destroyed a rural, exclusively white town, but for its exposure of the cruel, barbaric manner in which cows are slaughtered. This modern innovation to make kosher slaughter more benign does not weaken but instead strengthens the call for intolerance of contemptible religious views and practices.

Less pervasive but far more egregious than the barbarism characterizing kosher livestock slaughter ritual is the Kapparot atonement ritual exhibited in certain sects of Orthodox Judaism. In this ritual, a person waves chickens over his head, transferring the individual’s sin to the chicken before the chicken is killed. Chickens seem less sentient than cows, who are reasonably intelligent animals with greater sentience than chickens, but the Kapparot practice is barbaric nonetheless, and cannot be characterized as anything other than animal cruelty. Indeed, it is of note that the article exposing this practice includes a condemnation by a rabbi:

“Even though there are other people who do it in my community (and they’re good people), treating a chicken like this on the eve of Yom Kippur, when we’re asking God for compassion… and we’re not treating this animal with compassion, what are we doing?” — Rabbi Donn Gross

Why must this article by an animal rights organization and other condemnations of this barbaric practice seek permission or agreement from other Jews? Why cannot those on the right, who harbor legitimate grievances and criticism against Jews collectively (no different than how any other group is capable of agitating or transgressing other groups in inter-group conflict) be allowed to express such grievances in what is regarded as polite, respectable society? A bold, proper response would quote the likes of “noticers” like Devon Stack, Kevin MacDonald, and the like, and not seek permission from a rabbi to condemn such practices.

The practice of circumcision also warrants condemnation. No conclusive evidence has ever demonstrated a clear unequivocal benefit, as it diminishes pleasure sensory in the human penis.4 Kevin MacDonald describes circumcision as a “bizarre ritual in which sharp instruments slice up the most intensely personal part of the male body, right after birth, and for which is there is almost no legitimate medical explanation.”5 This barbaric practice has of course been exported to much of the gentile population in the States, but it really should not be allowed to be performed on any human being—absurd Jewish practices and beliefs be damned.

Metzitzah B’peh is probably the greatest outrage of any absurd, ridiculous, and harmful religious practice currently tolerated. In Metzitzah B’peh, a “mohel” uses “his mouth to suck blood away from the baby’s circumcision wound as part of the circumcision ritual.” There is no other context in which society would ever countenance an adult placing his mouth on the sex organs of an infant or a child. Aside from the repulsive and bizarre fetishism centered around genitalia, this practice regularly leads to infection of herpes, HSV-1, and other diseases. A salient quote from a statement not from Stormfront or Andrew Anglin, but the New York City department of health reads as follows:

Public health experts have found that metzitzah b’peh can put babies at risk of getting a harmful virus called herpes simplex virus type 1 or HSV-1. Some of these babies became seriously ill. Some developed brain damage, and others have died. There is no proven way to eliminate the risk of HSV-1 infection from direct oral suctioning, though there are options to reduce the risk.

The written statement continues:

Many adults carry HSV-1 in their bodies. They may have no symptoms or only mild symptoms, such as cold sores. Unlike adults, babies are too young to fight the virus. When a baby gets the virus, they could have brain damage, develop a lifelong disability or, in some cases, die.

The establishment clause, at least as it has been interpreted, obliges American society to tolerate this. This among other tragic flaws in the revered document should dissuade irrational fetishism for the Constitution that is so typical of mainstream conservatism, as it reveals that much of it will have to be jettisoned if Europe and the West are ever to disabuse themselves of false gods like “religious tolerance.”                                                                            ◊

While shrill accusations of anti-Semitism are best met with the retort “yes, and?,” collective ire and scorn should not be directed solely on absurd and harmful Jewish practices. Certain Christian denominations—what some more mainstream denominations denounce as heretical sects—entertain absurd beliefs so very deserving of ridicule and censure as well. However, given the animus towards European peoples embraced by elite institutions, such ridicule either barely raises an eyebrow, or hardly receives any condemnation as religious intolerance or “bigotry,” as it invariably would when sharp criticism is lodged against other religious groups. So-called “young Earthers” are utterly preposterous in their assertions that the Earth is only 6-10,000 years old, and deserve some modicum of ridicule, as they receive by many segments of the left. The fossil and geological records soundly repudiate such childish musings. However, as Robert Heinlein explicates in Job: A Comedy of Justice, a mischievous creator could have fabricated these and other records as a sort of test, so their beliefs, as ridiculous and silly as they are, are not completely indefensible as the evidence disproving their beliefs do not quite transcend Cartesian doubt. Certain Christian sects that espouse flat earth theories should not be received so charitably, however, as the machinations of a supposed creator feigning the overwhelming evidence that the Earth is round would have to be far more elaborate than creating false fossil and geological records that could deceive man into thinking the Earth is millions of years old when it is in fact a few thousand years old, as hypothesized in Heinlein’s A Comedy of Justice.

So-called “Christian healing” and more particularly the belief in this practice leading to the refusal of vital or even life-saving care is another example that belies the wisdom of “religious tolerance.” Society has had a peculiar and decidedly disjointed reaction to religious objections to the provision of medical care by certain Christian sects, particularly Jehovah’s witnesses and Christian scientists. The case law and legislative history surrounding this controversy is long and complicated. Some parents with such beliefs have been convicted of manslaughter for not providing what would have been life-saving medical care to their children—at least 50 such cases—while others have been acquitted. The short article “Christian Scientists in the Courts” summarizes the legal status on this matter as follows:

[I]n 1974, the federal government granted the Church a religious exemption from child neglect and abuse laws, to prevent parents and practitioners from being charged. Within 10 years, all 50 states had passed similar religious exemptions. However, after many high-profile manslaughter cases in the 1980s and 1990s, several states decided to remove these laws. Still, as of 2016, 34 states continue to exempt Christian Science parents from liability for refusing to provide medical assistance to their children.

Public policy has arguably been less accommodating to such beliefs because of “overt hostility” that many mainstream Christian denominations regard these sects, but that seems limited to the context of parents who would deny their children life-saving or otherwise vital medical care. Adults subject to such delusions seem free to indulge them in ways society otherwise does not countenance. The new ethos of religious intolerance advocated in this essay dictates that society has been far too tolerant of these beliefs, which have directly led to sickness and even death unnecessarily. While not exactly mainstream, faith healing is not limited to Jehovah’s’ witnesses and Christian Science, but is practiced in certain instances of evangelism and Protestantism as well.

Questionable practices and beliefs that ought to be subject to far greater criticism and censure also include the requirement and expectation of donating some ten percent of a family’s net income. Martin Luther’s condemnation of the Catholic Church as a “churnery” seem equally applicable to such a money grab. This problem is particularly egregious in the context of so-called televangelists, such as Kenneth Copeland, who have amassed incredible wealth from what is nothing less than a scam. A list of the wealthiest televangelists demonstrates why this phenomenon should not be tolerated, even as both operative clauses of the First Amendment render both the state and society seemingly powerless to do anything about it:

  • Kenneth Copeland between $350-700 million
  • David Oyedepo $150 million
  • Pat Robertson $100 million (mitigated to some extent by his sensible position concerning feminism)
  • Joel Osteen $100 million
  • Rick Warren $25 million
  • Jesse Duplantis $20 million
  • John Hagee $5 million (a preeminent Christian Zionist who tirelessly advocates for the end of the world)

Such scam artists are roundly criticized across many different political and ideological perspectives, but public policy, particularly given the establishment clause and its limitations on state power, would never consider going so far as to prohibit such exploitation under the guise of consumer protection or other legal rationales, which would be the proper remedy in any sane society.

So-called Christian Zionism is a particularly loathsome expression of the Christian faith, as its adherents blindly support Israel and do so as a catalyst to bring about “rapture,” that is Armageddon. What sane society tolerates advocacy for the end of the world? Such nuttery should at the very least be subject to what John Derbyshire calls “the smack of firm government” at the very least, the bare brunt of strongarm, jackboot, and even a little automatic weapons play at worst—or should one say at best?

Above, the family of Amy Coney Barrett, including two black adopted children.

Equally troubling as Christian Zionists who openly and shamelessly advocate for the end of the world, many expressions of Christianity seem particularly susceptible to the multi-cultural creed, with many evangelicals and Catholics going on missionaries to the third world, black Africa in particular. This has often led to tragedy. These same propensities lead a certain sort of Christian couple to adopt children outside of their race, particularly Asian and black children. Transracial adoption is objectionable for many reasons, not least of which is the “lost opportunity” for white orphans who need families. Beyond that, the adoption of children of different races presupposes that race is a trivial matter, that race really is just skin deep, that black children in particular are in effect interchangeable with white children. White Christian couples who do this are touting received orthodoxy that multiculturalism can and should work. Many of them do so to “virtue-signal,” to demonstrate what good, color-blind people they are. Others are doubtlessly indulging in “white guilt,” either to atone for the history of slavery, of colonialism, or some other imagined evil that whites are supposed to share collective guilt for. And just as race is part of identity and culture for whites, so is it for other races, and placing children of different races removes them from their race and their identity. Unfortunately, there are doubtlessly a dearth of suitable black families who want or are able to adopt, but that does not override these objections. Racially aware Christians object to such characterization of the Christian faith, but it seems incontestable that the thesis of Christianity, that each and every individual can be redeemed from his fallen state by accepting Jesus Christ as his lord and savior, is strikingly universalist at its core. This is tempered of course by the parable of the Tower of Babel and other select quotations from the bible. Both Amy Coney Barrett and house speaker Mike Johnson adopted black children as a direct and explicit extension of their Christian faith.

Speaker Mike Johnson, his wife, and their adopted black “son,” on the left. As the wife seems much more attractive than her husband, the couple might be befuddling to some who are not familiar with the Ned Flanders phenomenon. The couple might also remind those who watched Better Call Saul of Betsy Kettleman (pictured left, for the benefit of readers) and her doofus, milquetoast husband, Craig (insert). Concerning the Johnsons, there are dark murmurings on 4chan and another undisclosed platform suggesting a cuckold fetish (the “son” was adopted as a teenager, and has been in various legal entanglements). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, however, of which little has been produced to substantiate this particular claim.

Much of the ridicule of and contempt for Christianity in popular culture does not focus on absurd, ridiculous, or abjectly stupid practices, but stems from a blunt mean-spiritedness and contempt for any religious piety by Christians writ large. Compare and contrast Larry David’s observational humor on the absurdities of Orthodox Jewry and the contemptible, despicable behavior of secular Hollywood Jews with some of his more objectionable comedic efforts focused on the Christian faith. The most notorious example is the infamous episode in which he inadvertently urinates on a portrait of Jesus Christ that is (for some reason) hanging on the wall directly over the toilet. A Hispanic woman sees the drop of urine and interprets this as a divine sign, that Christ’s tears have materialized on the portrait through a divine act. The episode, which was met with significant controversy and even outrage, does take aim at certain Christian elements that see holy images in mundane things, often as a ploy for personal enrichment, but the plot nonetheless involves David, a Jew, urinating on a Christian symbol—namely a portrait of Christ himself. While his skewering of both religious and secular Jewry is laudable, as he also mocks certain elements in Islam, it is obvious neither he nor anyone would attempt observational humor that involves urinating on or otherwise desecrating Jewish or Muslim religious icons in such a brazen manner.

Islam provides an equally if not more “target rich” environment that invites rebuke and ridicule, and yet is rarely the subject of criticism or rebuke from any mainstream figures at all. Similar to abhorrent ritual slaughter practices mandated by kosher law, Islam imposes equally onerous requirements in how animals are slaughtered. Halal requires invoking the name of Allah before using a sharp knife to swiftly cut the throat of the livestock animal, before the animal’s blood is fully drained as the animal lies conscious while dying. This needless animal cruelty should simply not be tolerated, whether it stems from sincerely held religious belief or not.

This ethos of religious intolerance applies to many other Islamic practices as well. The prohibition of consuming pork might be acceptable for dietary considerations relating to health and physical training (lean pork is fine in moderation, providing protein and other nutrients), but should be met with abject hostility when stemming from absurd religious superstition, as it pertains to both Islam and Orthodox Judaism.

Prohibition of alcohol from religious superstition should also be mocked. Alcohol is a cornerstone of European culinary traditions and centuries old festivities, holidays, and other cultural customs cherished by the sons and daughters of Mother Europa. Abstention of alcohol should similarly be shunned, as religious groups that espouse this idea should be marginalized and stigmatized. Just as a person who insists on drinking O’Douls at a party serving beer and alcohol would be regarded as peculiar if not chastised outright, and just as a person invited for a drink at a rough and tumble Irish bar patroned by off-the-boat Irish would be met with derision and hostility for not having a drink with his fellow bar patrons, those who adhere to absolute abstention from alcohol are similarly an affront to European traditions and customs, particularly when such groups are part of alien and racial ethnic groups that do not belong in any case. That members of alien religions condemn a cornerstone of European culinary and social traditions further proves they do not belong and must not belong in The Occident.

The Islamic requirement to pray five times a day seems equally absurd in the fast-paced life of the modern world. As this is unfortunately a society where people are summarily fired for looking at a mobile phone while checking messages from friends and loved ones and that tolerates the ridiculous, demeaning conditions Amazon has imposed on its warehouse workers, why should that same society tolerate a religion in our midst that requires its adherents to pray five times a day? Why should this society allow employers to torment its employees with the sort of onerous, even mean-spirited policies enforced at Amazon fulfillment centers, but force an employer to accommodate such breaks for prayer? Devout Christians who would make a public display of praying at work would probably raise eyebrows, why not a religion that requires prayer several times a day, five times in fact, which would necessarily require two and possibly even three prayer sessions during working hours? There is after all work to be done, and time is money. That managerial ethos, whether one considers it onerous or reasonable, seemingly applies to anyone and everyone who works at a place of employment that abides by this creed, except for when Mohammad wants to pray during the work day. The best result would be labor standards that outlaw the sort of onerous conditions imposed on workers in Amazon warehouses and other places of employment, while still making no accommodations for the supposed need to pray five time a day. Those who absolutely, positively require such accommodation should remigrate to Islamic countries, as should they all in any case. A similar rationale applies to absurd accommodations of the Sabbath for Orthodox Jews. Those who balk at such considerations should consider how wall street and big-law firms impose grueling hours on their associates, sometimes with no day off at all in 60-80 and even as much as 100 hour work weeks, with no dispensation for what secular or non-religious people may regard as very important. Orthodox Jews however are granted every Saturday off, no questions asked.

One example demonstrating the absurdity of indulging this particular religious practice is particularly noteworthy. In 2018 the British army released a recruiting and public relations advertisement showing a unit stopping to allow a Muslim in its ranks to stop and pray. Why is this tolerated at all in British society, let alone allowed to permeate the ranks of the British military, such that combat units stop movement so an imposter in their midst can carry out this absurd ritual? No matter, the other members of that unit—and their loved ones—can rest assured any enemy combatants that may be lying in wait will open any ambush attack only until after the prayer to Allah has concluded. In fairness, internet search queries reveal no known causalities from such practices, including the United States military working with friendly Afghani and other local units that would adhere to this religious requirement even in a combat zone. However, just because such incidents are not publicized or divulged is not proof that they never happened. And in any case the process of setting up a parameter to allow this to occur in safety is absurd, a luxury only a military with seemingly inexhaustible resources could ever contemplate let alone implement as standard military procedure.

The manner in which Islam segregates the sexes and imposes onerous dress requirements in women is equally antithetical to European civilization. While female emancipation has arguably, potentially gone too far, burdening women with a burka or even a hijab is barbaric, is not compatible with how women have been celebrated in European culture and civilization through the centuries, and should simply not be tolerated, whether or not such barbaric customs are only visited on their beastly women. Finally, rather than an object of ridicule or derision, what many reasonably interpret as the Islamic mandate and command to convert infidels to Islam or eradicate them further implores not religious tolerance, but the very opposite.                                                                           

There are other objections to the special status afforded to religious beliefs and practices, as that special status affords those who hold them special privileges and immunities not afforded others. Why should opposition to so-called gay marriage and transgenderism only be countenanced if stemming from “deeply held religious conviction?” As some may be aware, this author teeters between atheism and agnosticism, but a right-wing variant more prevalent in Europe and the European political schematic that understands and discerns the importance of “race, blood, and soil” as a first principle, and that articulates a right-wing populist and ethnonationalist worldview on a reasoned, secular basis. Indeed, this author has repudiated transgenderism, so-called gay marriage, and many other social ills on a secular, rational basis, using the faculties of reason and discernment to articulate why these phenomena are harmful and should not be tolerated. A rebuttal of transgender lunacy based on reason and logic—that men and women cannot change sex, that so-called gender affirming care provides a very poor imitation of the genuine article, that tolerating let alone condoning this mad delirium only serves to normalize it is a far more effective and convincing method of attacking this menace than appeals to religion and religious conviction ever could. And yet, under current First Amendment jurisprudence and the onerous body of so-called civil rights laws, a person like this author who correctly—righteously, even—decides to refuse to make a so-called “transgender cake” or refuses to rent out property for so-called gay weddings or even interracial marriages—would likely have no legally cognizable protection under the first amendment because these objections are rooted in reason and discernment, as such objections stem from secular reasoning, rather than religious conviction. Why should rejection of these evils, not based in religious belief, or what some may regard in some instances as religious superstition, but rooted in reason and discernment be taken far less seriously than such objections based in religious conviction alone? If society must cling to these absurd notions about pluralism, religious and otherwise, the standard should simply be “sincerely held belief and conviction,” not merely “sincerely held religious belief.”

Indeed, placing religious conviction in a special status largely immune from social criticism and deeming it the only legally cognizable defense against demands to “bake the cake, bigot” and “make that floral arrangement, bigot” create a sort of perverse incentive by which opponents to these and other evils resort only to religious objection, all too often without ever bothering to articulate substantive reasons why one objects to these and other affronts to decency and sanity: reasons rooted in intellect and logic. Despite this essay’s overt hostility to ridiculous, absurd, and harmful religious beliefs and practices—it must be stressed that such hostility is only directed at such religious beliefs and practices that are ridiculous, absurd, and harmful. Nothing in this essay should be construed in a way to diminish or belittle the religious conviction of men and women like Jack Phillips, owner of the famous Masterpiece Bake Shop that has been targeted by the rainbow mafia: LGBTQ-Yuck activists for many years. By all accounts his religious conviction is sincere, and devout, and persons such as himself are better for it. But why is the expression of opposition to baking a “transgender cake” only limited to such personal religious conviction? Why do he and other litigants thrown into the onerous legal process by malicious elements that seek to ruin him and everyone like him only express objection in terms of religious conviction, without articulating, as far as this author is aware, the secular reasons why someone ought to oppose transgender lunacy, or so-called gay marriage?

The line of cases surrounding compelled utterance and usage of fantastical, customizable pronouns that do not align with another’s actual sex and gender are also instructive. Most teachers and other similarly situated plaintiffs such as students and the parents of students have usually, with limited exceptions, asserted their claims on the basis of deeply held religious conviction. Most have not based such claims on a proper understanding of and passionate commitment to basic rules of grammar and scrupulous adherence to grammatical rules in accordance with biological reality.6

As stated, this normative value that discourages and shuns sharp criticism and even ridicule of preposterous, absurd, and even harmful religious beliefs, stems from the establishment clause of the First Amendment and the value of religious freedom underpinning it. Such beliefs and practices are disproportionately promulgated by religions which are intrinsically alien and hostile to Europe and the Occident and should have no place here. Consider perhaps that not everyone—or rather not every group—should be entitled to religious freedom. Certainly such “religious freedom” should not be afforded to an alien blood cult like Orthodox Judaism or Europe’s century-long adversary in Islam that subject livestock to cruel, barbaric slaughter practices. Nor should such indulgences be extended to the absurd ritual of circumcision, as Judaism writ large has not only held this procedure as intrinsic to Jewish identity, but has seemingly exported that abomination to the wider gentile population as a whole. Indeed, the establishment clause seems to be one of the first installations of pluralism as a normative value in Western civilization. The establishment clause led to Supreme Court decisions like Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993), which held that animal sacrifice rituals were protected under the First Amendment. The animal sacrifice in that case is practiced by what some might call a cult rather than a religion practiced by millions like Judaism and Islam. Defenders of such “religious liberty” argue the animals subject to sacrifice rituals at issue are killed quickly and humanely, just as Jewish and Islamic groups contend that halal and kosher methods of livestock slaughter are humane. One should be skeptical of such claims, and if laws in Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States require the animal to be stunned before slaughter, no such exception should be allowed for religious purposes. Stated another way, none of this should be tolerated or countenanced in the slightest. Indeed, many of the laws for which various religious groups are granted blanket exceptions stem from moral convictions held by society at large. This is most readily evinced by laws requiring animal livestock to be stunned prior to slaughter: a moral conviction that unnecessary animal suffering is anathema. Those moral convictions are no less valid than concerns by these religious groups; indeed, they are far more valid and should take precedence in these and other contexts.

Pluralism is of course disastrous, as it balkanizes and fractures society by placing alien and disparate peoples with little in common under the same polity. In this author’s mind, the establishment clause and the underlying value of religious freedom is yet another feature of the Constitution that has been positively harmful to Europe and the West, this along with its failure to stymy the vice of pornography, the tragedy of the 14th Amendment to be worded the way it is granting birthright citizenship to anchor babies when the intent was to simply confer citizenship to the offspring of emancipated slaves, along with a whole litany of other undesirable traits. Many will argue that this was not the intent of the Constitution, or, more precisely, the First Amendment’s mandate that “Congress shall make no law. . .. respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” That may or may not be true, but it seems inevitable that such language would eventually become the same vehicle for pluralism regardless.

Some may balk at this, arguing in particular that protections like the establishment clause protect white Christians from persecution by their enemies. Others might object that “religious” freedom is a “human right,” even though the recognition of such “rights” is aberrational to the history of civilization and human nature itself. Such naïve musings fail to discern that such protections are only good until opposition has the political mandate and will to simply disregard such “inalienable rights” in the same way they have promulgated so-called hate speech laws and vying to exempt so-called “hate-speech” from First Amendment protection altogether. Beyond that, just as the proper response to the fear of an edged weapon being used against one’s self is to take up that edged weapon himself, these fears demonstrate the need to seize and wield such power, rather than shy away from it, foolishly hoping ideological enemies will reciprocate in kind.

Indeed, jettisoning these absurd sensibilities is the first step in defending Europe against third world invaders. Before full-scale, mass remigration can be implemented, revoke special religious privileges, such as accommodating multiple prayers a day and bizarre, barbaric animal ritual slaughter rituals. The revocation of such privileges not only bolsters public policy on a range of matters, from fostering a productive workplace environment, military procedures best suited to the inherently dangerous conditions of war and combat, to advancing moral convictions about animal cruelty and the obligation to slaughter livestock in as humane a manner as reasonably feasible. Furthermore, consider how historical events and figures like the Spanish Inquisition and Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s7 drastic but necessary measures to protect Japan from European colonialism and other hostile, foreign incursion reveals the answer to many of the existential threats facing Europe and the West. These and other reactions were not characterized by such pluralism and tolerance, but the very antithesis of such mad delusion. This consideration alone demonstrates the necessity of exorcising the false god of religious tolerance.

Tolerance, pluralism, diversity and other such mantras are founded on a fundamental misapprehension of human nature, and Europe and the West will never defeat the existential threats at hand unless these mad delusions are dispensed with. And so it is with religious tolerance, both as a legal proscription and as a societal norm and value. The notion that absurd, ridiculous, harmful, and despicable beliefs and practices that would otherwise be objects of ridicule and chastisement are suddenly immune from strong criticism and rebuke only because they stem from religious belief (what some might call superstition) is a most absurd one. To the contrary, absurd, foolish, and morally repugnant beliefs and practices that do stem from such religious belief should be particularly open to such ridicule, chastisement, and even legal proscription. If a person cannot ridicule another for absurd, foolish, and destructive religious beliefs and practices, what can a person criticize or even ridicule another for?

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

NOTES

1

The operative portion of the Amendment reads in pertinent part, with the “free speech” clause emphasized in italics, as follows. “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . ..

2

The text of the establishment clause reads “Congress shall make no law. . .. respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

3

Defenses of this practice in Snopes and elsewhere this note this only adds pennies to the cost of food products. The benefit and creation of an artificial industry is the concern. Note also the scam perpetrated in Office Space envisoned the pilfering of fractions of pennies, which over time amount to a lot of money. This concerns pennies, not fractions of pennies, multiplied many billions of times over (350 million population times weekly grocery expenditures).

4

Kevin MacDonald has related his inquiry on the matter before deciding not to circumcise his newborn son, stating while evidence is not conclusive, there is persuasive evidence that circumcision, He wonders if there is concerted effort to export the practice to American gentiles to advance Jewish interests; were Jews responsible for persuading so many American gentiles to perform this bizarre ritual, primarily as a way to “normalize” the practice and remove the stigma?” He further surmises that exporting the practice might make Jews less distinguishable from gentiles in the event history repeats itself for a 110th time.

5

The CDC has defended the practice, which has been questioned by Brian D. Earp in “Do the Benefits of Male Circumcision Outweigh the Risks? A Critique of the Proposed CDC Guidelines” (Frontiers in Pediatrics, 2015). The lack of conclusive evidence, similar to what is known as a clear and convincing standard in legal parlance, suggests important institutions such as the CDC are subject to ideopolitical capture and influenced by AIPAC and other powerful Jewish lobbies.

6

As far as this author is aware, no teachers who filed lawsuits as plaintiffs asserted their objections on secular grounds. In the instance of students and parents of students. Three students in Kiel, Wisconsin, cited secular objections concerning basic grammar and biology. Parents in New Hampshire have cited secular, but that matter is pending.

7

For a more in-depth discussion on these historical precedents and how they show Europe a path to escape racial suicide and civilizational collapse, see “The Inherent Right of Race, Blood, and Soil: Our First Principle of Race as Right,” featured in the third section, in the latter half of the essay.

Carry On Raping: How Leftists Are Ideal Folk to Tackle the Pathologies Created and Sustained by Leftism

/4 Comments/in , , /by

Here’s an important question with an obvious answer. Who is best-placed to tackle war-crimes committed against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip? Clearly, it’s the Israel Defense Forces or IDF. The IDF have all the necessary local knowledge and experience, having been focused on the Gaza Strip for many months now, extending outreach daily to the local inhabitants, and conducting extensive remodelling of local architecture and infrastructure.

Creating a rape-gang epidemic

Next, what about crime and corruption on the island of Sicily? Who’s best-placed to tackle that? Clearly it’s the veteran civic association known as the Mafia. Again, they have all the local knowledge and experience. No-one knows more about crime and corruption on Sicily than the Mafia, as all experts are agreed. Finally, what about vampirism in the Romanian province of Transylvania? Who’s best-placed to tackle that? Clearly, it’s the respected local leader Count Dracula. His personal experience of vampirism in Transylvania stretches back many centuries, as not even his most stubborn critics will deny. Owing to a rare medical condition, the Count can’t, alas, be active by daylight, but he more than makes up for that with his energy and enterprise in the hours of darkness.

So the principle is clear. Those best-placed to tackle crimes are those responsible for or complicit in the crimes. And it’s this clear principle that has guided Britain’s Labour party in its response to the Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs that have been hard at work for decades in British towns and cities controlled by the Labour party. After Elon Musk led an outcry about the rape-gangs at the beginning of 2025, the Labour government refused to commission a national enquiry, but promised that there would be “five local enquiries.” Labour were lying, of course. They were merely buying time as they plotted to shield both themselves and their ethnic pets from further scrutiny. As I’ve pointed out in article after article at the Occidental Observer, Labour and its leftism created the rape-gangs, have sustained and protected the rape-gangs, and have absolutely no intention of stopping the rape-gangs. If the current Labour government were honest about that, it would admit that its policy on the rape-gangs can be summed up in three simple words: “Carry On Raping.”

The Grift Report extends its congratulations to fiercely feminist Labour minister Jess Phillips

But Labour isn’t honest about its policy on the Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs, of course. Leftism is an ideology of lies and evasion, so the veteran Labour politician Jess Phillips was intent on lying and weaseling throughout the speech she made to parliament about “Tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation” on 8th April 2025. That date was carefully chosen, because parliament was about to shut down for the Easter Recess and the House of Commons was almost empty. Phillips has the Orwellian title of “Minister for Safeguarding Women and Girls,” which means that she is dedicated to harming women and girls. In particular, she’s dedicated to harming women and girls from the White working-class, whom the Labour party was founded to champion but now works tirelessly to destroy. In a pathological sense, here’s one of the most interesting parts of her speech:

We are developing a new best practice framework to support local authorities which want to undertake victim-centred local inquiries, or related work, drawing on the lessons from local independent inquiries like Telford, Rotherham and Greater Manchester. We will publish the details next month.

Alongside this we will set out the process through which local authorities can access the £5 million national fund to support locally-led work on grooming gangs. Following feedback from local authorities, the fund will adopt a flexible approach to support both full independent local inquiries and more bespoke work, including local victims’ panels or locally led audits into the handling of historic cases. (“Tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation,” speech by Jess Phillips, 8th April 2025)

It’s hard to know where to begin responding to even that short section of Phillips’ lying and weaseling speech, but I’ll begin by noting the “£5 million national fund.” Three days after the speech, the Labour government announced that it was sending an additional £450 million in military aid to Ukraine. So Labour can devote another huge sum to a futile war in a distant foreign land infamous for official corruption and theft, but can find only a paltry sum for “locally-led work” on a pathology afflicting its own traditional supporters in Britain. Res ipsa loquitur, as we say oop north. Next, note how often Phillips used the word “local” and its variants. In every case, it could be replaced by “Labour” or “leftist.” For example, what does “locally-led work” really mean? It means “leftist-led work.” That is, the “local authorities” — the Labour authorities — responsible for the pathology of Pakistani rape-gangs will be leading the response to it.

Leftist-led audits

There has been “feedback from local authorities,” you see. That is, leftists in rape-gang redoubts have sent “feedback” to leftists in London about how local leftists can be best supported by their leftist government in “tackling” pathologies created by leftism. It’s like the IDF in the Gaza Strip sending “feedback” to Tel Aviv about “tackling” war-crimes in the Gaza Strip. Or the Mafia in Sicily sending “feedback” to Rome about “tackling” crime and corruption in Sicily. Or Count Dracula in Transylvania sending “feedback” to Bucharest about “tackling” vampirism in Transylvania. We can be sure that the IDF, the Mafia, and the Count would all be firmly in favor of “a flexible approach” and “locally led audits,” that is, audits led by themselves and therefore guaranteed to reach the right conclusions. And recall this richly resonant phrase used by Phillips: “more bespoke work.” Again, the IDF, the Mafia and the Count would most certainly want that. After all, who would be “bespeaking” about the best way to “tackle” war-crimes in the Gaza Strip, crime in Sicily, and vampirism in Transylvania? You won’t need any guesses.

Loathsome leftists in Britain: Jess Phillips and Angela Rayner

Yes, that speech by Jess Phillips was a master-class in leftist lying and weasel-words. Watching her make the speech, I was reminded once again of how well a book published in 1949 describes the psychology and behavior of leftists like Phillips in 2025. I’m talking about Orwell’s classic Nineteen Eighty-Four, of course. Jess Phillips is the Minister for Safeguarding Women and Girls. Orwell captures all the truth and sincerity of that title when he describes how, in his darkly comic dystopia, “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.” But there’s also a classic from 1886 that describes leftists in 2025. I’m reminded of it every time I see Jess Phillips and her Labour colleague Angela Rayner. The classic is Robert Louis Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. Here’s a highly relevant quote from it:

Mr. Hyde was pale and dwarfish, he gave an impression of deformity without any nameable malformation, he had a displeasing smile, he had borne himself to the lawyer with a sort of murderous mixture of timidity and boldness, and he spoke with a husky, whispering and somewhat broken voice; all these were points against him, but not all of these together could explain the hitherto unknown disgust, loathing, and fear with which Mr. Utterson regarded him. “There must be something else,” said the perplexed gentleman. “There is something more, if I could find a name for it. God bless me, the man seems hardly human! Something troglodytic, shall we say? or can it be the old story of Dr. Fell? or is it the mere radiance of a foul soul that thus transpires through, and transfigures, its clay continent?” (Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, Robert Louis Stevenson, 1886)

Loathsome leftists in America: Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton

Like Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton in America, Jess Phillips and Angela Rayner aren’t “pale and dwarvish.” But all four of those leftists strike me as “hardly human” and fill me with “disgust and loathing.” And in each case I attribute that to the “radiance of a foul soul that thus transpires through, and transfigures, its clay continent.” When Jess Phillips made that speech about “Tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation,” I witnessed once again the “radiance” of her “foul soul.” And after she’d made the speech, I witnessed more radiance from the foul soul of another female leftist. But this time it was a leftist I’d never heard of: one Tessa Munt (born 1959), an MP for the Liberal Democrats (this is another Orwellian title: it really means the Illiberal Anti-Democrats). Ms Munt had been enraged by the response of a quick-thinking Conservative to Phillips’ speech. The Shadow Home Secretary Katie Lam pointed out that the Pakistani rape-gangs were clearly motivated by racial hatred of Whites and quoted one of Labour’s ethnic pets to that effect: “We’re here to fuck all the white girls.”

Tessa Munt spits out the phrase “white men” as she addresses her fellow goyim in parliament

Ms Munt wasn’t standing for that incitement to racial hatred. Or rather, she was standing for it. Quivering with indignation, she rose to her feet from the famous green benches of the House of Commons and proclaimed: “My blood is boiling as I listen to this stuff from the Conservative benches.” She then reminded the racist Tories of “people just like me, white girls who’ve suffered at the hands of white men.” The venom with which she spat out the phrase “white men” was a sight (and sound) to behold. Well, as I said, I’d never heard of Tessa Munt before, but a little research told me that I’d just witnessed this “white girl” supply a classic M.F.G. moment. In other words, Ms Munt was addressing “My Fellow Goyim.” Wikipedia, as lovingly “curated” by leftists, says that Munt’s “mother was raised within the Church of Scotland, but her family had mainly Jewish roots.”

Accordingly, Ms Munt reminds me of Denis MacShane, the slug-like leftist and bon viveur who long and devotedly served as Labour MP for Rotherham. Unfortunately, Denis was badly let down by the local police, who failed to notify him that, decade in, decade out, Pakistani Muslims had been brazenly raping, torturing, prostituting, and murdering White working-class girls in what he called his “wonderful constituency.” That is, Denis says he didn’t act because the police failed to notify him, but his credibility was sadly tarnished when he was jailed for fraud in 2013. His downfall was lamented by the Jewish Chronicle, which saluted him as “one of the [Jewish] community’s greatest champions.” The Chronicle was perfectly correct in that description. But MacShane wasn’t elected to champion rich Jews in far-off London. He was elected to champion the White working-class in Rotherham. He didn’t do that. Instead, he utterly betrayed the White working-class, just like his “beloved Labour party” as a whole.

The Judeo-leftist war on Whites and the West

In short, the Labour party doesn’t merely hate the White workers it was found to champion, but imports and incites non-White savages to rape, torture, prostitute, and murder the daughters of White workers. It then condemns anyone who notices its criminal conspiracy as “racist” and “Islamophobic.” Modern Britain is like a giant Carry On movie based on Nineteen Eighty-Four but scripted by the Marquis de Sade and directed by Jeffrey Epstein. It would, of course, be called Carry on Raping. If you don’t know the Carry On movies — Carry On Cruising from 1962, Carry On Camping from 1969, and so on — they’re classics of no-brow British comedy, cheaply made, crammed with crude innuendo, and endlessly repeated on nostalgia channels.

Trigger warning needed! Leftists are deeply concerned not by non-White rape-gangs in 2025, but by sexism in movies from 1969

But nowadays they have to be preceded by solemn “trigger warnings” about their racism, sexism and homophobia. Leftists in modern Britain are determined to tackle the harmful effects of words in decades-old movies, you see. At the same time, leftists are determined not to tackle the rape, torture, prostituting, and murder of White working-class girls by non-White men in towns and cities all over Britain. After all, the non-White men are vital footsoldiers in the Judeo-leftist war on Whites and the West. Jess Phillips, Tessa Munt and Denis MacShane would, of course, all deny that they and their fellow leftists want the non-Whites to carry on raping. But leftist deeds speak far louder than leftist words.

Profiling Palantir — the tech firm beloved by the WEF and founded by Peter Thiel and Zionist zealot, Alex Karp — that is watching every last move you make.

/9 Comments/in /by

 

Good Friends Alex Karp and Volodymyr Zelenskyy

Palantir Technologies — its name derived from the “seeing-stones” of deception (Palantir) that allow their holder to see across great distances to track friends and foes, in JRR Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings — has been called the “most evil company on the planet” by critics (footnote 1) — on both the traditional Left and Right.

Although few people have heard of Palantir, it’s as important as any firm in existence, an existential threat to our personal liberty and global peace, and as dangerous as some of the more infamous firms like Black Rock or Vanguard.

Headquartered in Denver, Palantir was founded by Stanford University dormmates, Peter Thiel and Alex Karp in 2003. Strident Zionist, Karp, brought in Stephen Cohen and others later.

Since then, Palantir has grown into a $200 billion juggernaut with contracts with dozens of governmental bodies globally.

TOO‘s Scott Howard mentioned Palantir a few years ago in passing, when discussing Thiel, writing that Thiel founded Palantir, which was integral to the COVID-19 “vaccine” allocation aspect of Operation Warp Speed (under Trump), among many other aspects of the globalist-transhumanist agendas. And he noted that Thiel shares a similar obsession and ideologies with a “great many of the “elites” behind the Great Reset and the other spokes of the globalist agenda.

Alex Karp, Thiel’s partner, is first and foremost, an anti-White Zionist and Leftist whose contempt for humanity and dissent knows no bounds.

Karp, who cites Israel, the Frankfurt School and his parent’s Judaism as the foundations of his ethos, has described himself as an “activist” and “socialist at heart”. He referred to his parents as Jewish hippies, saying that “they often took him to labour rights demonstrations and anti-Reagan protests when he was young. Even as recently as 2018, during a Wall Street Journal interview, Karp referred to himself as a “proud self-described socialist.” (footnote 2)

Like David Milliband (former British Foreign Secretary to PM Gordon Brown), current British Prime Minister, Kier Starmer — who is married to a Zionist Jew and raising his children as practicing Jews, and has predictably come down as hard on Left wing pro-Palestinian activists as he has on right wing British patriots protesting Islamism — Karp’s self-described penchant for “humanitarian activism” only reaches as far as his tribal allegiance.

In a conversation between Karp and Jacob Helberg — the Zionist economist and writer nominated Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment by President Donald Trump — Karp discussed the importance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in defending both Ukraine and Israel, saying that AI “must be used to stop Russia and Hamas”.

During the chat, Karp, a self-described strident Leftist, had no problem attacking predominantly left-wing anti-Israel protests at Columbia University, saying “Look at Columbia. There is literally no way to explain the investment in our elite schools, and the output is a pagan religion — a pagan religion of mediocrity and discrimination and intolerance, and violence against Jews.”

My guess is Karp has no problem with leftists that attack Whites and Christians.

Karp is so ardent a Zionist that Palantir held its first board meeting of 2025 in Tel Aviv, where he openly expressed his desire to see US military drone technology used against his political enemies and enemies of Israel and the “West”.

Although he felt doing so might land him in trouble, he felt as Jew he had an obligation to do so. He openly stated that he wished he could use his software and military drones to target his enemies and enemies of Jewry. Although he sometimes intentionally calls his enemies, “enemies of the collective West”, it’s fair to say that he is about as much a Western chauvinist as Noel Igantiev and Meir Kahane — Jews with seemingly diametrically opposing ideologies that assail us and revile us with every last fiber of their beings.

In a CNBC Money Movers interview with NBC’s Alex Kollers, Karp stated that he is unashamed of his political positions, that he is proud to stand with both Ukraine and Israel, and that he does not care if it offends anyone.

And why should he worry what any decent people think?

His positions are the official policy of the U.S. Deep State and collective West and have made Karp a billionaire almost 10 times over.

NBC’s Alex Koller wrote:

Palantir, known for its government contract work in defense and intelligence, has provided its technology to support the Ukrainian and Israeli militaries in their respective wars. Israel has vowed to defeat Hamas following the Palestinian militant group’s rampage on Oct. 7 in Southern Israel that killed nearly 1,200 people.

Palantir held its first board meeting of the year in Tel Aviv, Israel, in January, after which the company agreed to a “strategic partnership” with the Israeli Ministry of Defense to supply the country with technology for its military efforts. In November, Karp asserted the company’s support of the U.S. government and Israel, declaring on an earnings call that “Palantir only supplies its products to Western allies.”

In Wednesday’s interview, Karp reaffirmed his extremist pro-Israel views. Eisen referenced the company’s decision in October to take out a full-page ad in The New York Times, stating it “stands with Israel.”

“From my perspective, it’s not just about Israel,” Karp, who started the firm with Conservative Peter Thiel, told CNBC. “It’s like, ‘Do you believe in the West? Do you believe the West has created a superior way of living?’” (footnote 3)

The “West”?

The West, which for all intents and purposes is modern Christendom and the home of the indigenous Europeans — in spite of what our treasonous leaders tell us — and Israel — the modern illegally occupied squat of the Jewish people — should never be equated.

Karp’s allegiance has nothing to do with the West. Palantir is a tool used by a Zionist zealot and self-described socialist, masquerading as a Western chauvinist, to target his enemies and the enemies of his tribe.

And as deep as Thiel’s involvement in Palantir is, Palantir at this point is this dangerously demented Jewish man’s baby.

Alex Karp (right), Israeli president Isaac Herzog (middle), Peter Thiel (left) at a meeting in Tel Aviv

Palantir’s website describes Palantir Technologies Inc. as an “American publicly traded company that specializes in software platforms and Artificial Intelligence for big data analytics.”

Wikipedia:

The company has four main projects: Palantir Gotham, Palantir Foundry, Palantir Apollo, and Palantir AIP. Palantir Gotham is an intelligence and defence tool used by militaries and counter-terrorism analysts. Its customers included the United States Intelligence Community (USIC) and United States Department of Defense. Their software as a service (SaaS) is one of five offerings authorized for Mission Critical National Security Systems by the U.S. Department of Defense. Palantir Foundry is used for data integration and analysis by corporate clients such as Morgan Stanley, Merck KGaA, Airbus, Wejo, Lilium, PG&E and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles.

So, why I do feel that it is absolutely necessary to talk about Palantir today?

The American firm initially rekindled my attention a few years back during the latter stages of the Trump Administration, after it had won a $91-million U.S. military contract to oversee the development of an artificial intelligence and machine learning mechanism for the US Army Research Laboratory.

In October of 2020 Artificial Intelligence News announced that:

Defense start-up Palantir Technologies will develop artificial intelligence and machine learning capabilities for the US Army Research Laboratory, in a contract worth $91 million over two years. The deal will include the company’s Foundry and Gotham products, to “accelerate and enhance” the Army’s research work.” (footnote 4)

Again, keep in mind, that this was during the last quarter of the first Trump administration, when most of us believed President Trump had moved away from supporting the security state. Palantir is exponentially more dangerous than USAID’s funding of transgender “affirming care” in mice.

It piqued my attention, and troubled me, as I was aware that Karp had been highly critical of Trump and openly supported Democrats like Hilary Clinton.

But it shouldn’t have surprised me because Palantir, like other big companies, has high-level friends in both parties.

Current US Vice President, JD Vance — as much as I do like him — is in fact very close to both Peter Thiel and Alex Karp. Sadly, as smart as the man is, I honestly believe that he thinks that the universally accepted oxymoron, “Judeo-Christian values”, is an actual thing.

The firm had already made a killing — literally (I’ll explain later) — by “working with” the CIA and were now taking their services to the military as well as deeper into the private sector, first going public on the NYSE, and later signing lucrative deals with JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, dozens of US Police departments and a wide variety of Big Pharma companies, in addition to the array of NGOs and agencies attached to the US Federal government it was already working with.

Ironically, under President Biden, although Palantir appeared to have kept its contracts, it wasn’t as front and center as it is with Peter Thiel’s friends — Donald Trump and JD Vance in the White House. While I am a supporter of President Trump on many issues, his support of Israel, seemingly unwavering support for Jewish causes — many of which are pro-war anti-White and anti-Christian — and his current insane position on Iran should be cause for great concern for our people.

And make no mistake, … Karp is as dangerous as it gets.

Palantir sparked my attention again this past January, while watching YouTube vlogs covering The World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, I noticed what looked to be a Palantir office set up adjacent to one of the pavilions hosting the forum. I did a little digging and it appears that Palantir actually has a massive lavish office in the town.

Making it stand out farther was the timing. This was mere days before Donald Trump’s inauguration. A firm trying to lie low, in fear of perhaps losing funding from the incoming U.S. federal government under a new administration promising to cut bloat, wouldn’t be as bold.

Although founder, Alex Karp — who admittedly voted for Hillary Clinton and was recorded during a Palantir company meeting saying that he turned down an invitation from President Trump for dinner, proclaiming “I respect nothing about the dude” — he continues to work hand-in-hand with the likes of Marco Rubio and the openly pro-Zionist Trump administration.

It is my opinion, as unpopular as it may be with supporters of Mr. Trump, that Trump’s reliance on men like Mike Waltz, Jacob Helberg, Marco Rubio, Stephen Miller and even Pete Hesgeth — with his misguided obsession with Islam and support of our true adversary — is a deterrent to genuine global peace and White and gentile rights worldwide.

Due to how close the Trump Administration is to Israel, I fear that Palantir will have an even greater impact on global affairs during Trump’s second term than it did in his first or even Biden’s.

As recently as last week, while watching old YouTube videos from Davos discussing the WEF’s role in the liberal “elite’s” push for what is referred to as “global transgenderism”, I saw another Palantir sign in the city.

The LGBT and transgender activists, surrounded by Davos security, were standing directly in front of yet another Palantir sign, in a shot that made me sit up and immediately shake my head with concern. I asked myself why a firm that handles information technology, Artificial Intelligence and surveillance — a firm that largely works “behind the scenes” — needs such a PUBLIC display in Davos?

And why was Karp literally seemingly everywhere that week and since?

He has been on CNBC multiple times, the focus of several interviews regarding Israel and protests against the Apartheid State on U.S. College campuses, antisemitism, the “importance” of Ukraine, as well as interviewed by Bloomberg and a multitude of other mainstream media channels since the run up to Trump’s inauguration — as if he is taking a larger role in our lives and he wants us to know it.

Just how much of a threat to our freedom is Palantir?

To understand the role Palantir plays I think it is important to understand its role in both the public and private sectors and most importantly, what it does.

Firstly, make no mistake, Palantir and its ardently pro-Zionist founder is the go-to firm our governments use to spy on us. In the United States, police departments from southern California to Boston use Palantir to track all sorts of people. Left wing activists in San Leandro California like Michael Katz-Lacabe, a California-based privacy rights activist and the founder of the Center for Human Rights and Privacy, has written for almost a decade about the dangers of Palantir domestically.

In 2010 Katz-Lacabe, a native of Oakland, California, learned that his San Leandro Police Department’s automatic license plate readers — designed to photograph and track the movements of every car in the city, every minute of every day — had been tracking him.

He filed a public records and freedom of information request for any videos and images that included either of his two cars. The police shockingly sent back 112 photos. Lacabe found several that had his children and their faces in the video.

Although I personally don’t have an issue with this, and Leftists like Katz-Lacabe are looking to profiteer from litigation against firms like Oracle and Palantir as well as against police departments who use such data when tracking actual violent criminals, he did make several valid points when discussing Palantir’s technology in an op-ed for his website, Oakland Privacy.

Who knows how many other people’s kids are captured in these images? With this technology you can wind back the clock and see where everyone is, if they were parked at the house of someone other than their wife, a medical marijuana clinic, a Planned Parenthood center, a protest.

From the FOI request Katz-Lacabe found that the millions of pictures collected by San Leandro’s license plate cameras are now passed on to the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC), one of 72 federally-run intelligence fusion organizations set up after 9/11. These photos are analysed using software built by San Francisco based Palantir.

Katz-Lacabe wrote:

In the business proposal that Palantir sent NCRIC, it offered customer references that included the Los Angeles and New York police departments, boasting that it enabled searches of the NYPD’s 500 million plate photos in less than five seconds. Katz-Lacabe contacted Palantir about his privacy concerns, and the company responded by inviting him to its headquarters for a sit-down meeting. When he arrived at the Shire, a pair of employees gave him an hour-long presentation on Palantir’s vaunted safeguards: its access controls, immutable logs and the internal Batphone.

Karp has said that he wants his technology to be used for “good”. But does he have the same moral compass as we do?

Although Katz-Lacabe focused on his fears that Palantir software and surveillance technology would be used to spy on people who work for left-wing organisations like Planned Parenthood (as if….) that I am quite sure are fully supported by Karp, he failed to mention the sort of people it actually targets.

And Palantir is not just active in the United States.

There’s a great deal of consternation in the UK over the use of CCTV and speed cameras. Though these technologies have tracked down murderers like Wayne Couzens, the monstrous cop who kidnapped, raped and killed Sarah Everard, it’s fair to say that the government primarily use these to make money from people going 32 in a 30 mph zone, and have installed Palantir’s tech to track, monitor and watch their enemies first and foremost.

We have seen Kier Starmer in Britain for all intents and purposes designate the right-leaning British White patriot as the island nation’s greatest threat and pathogen. A close second are people that oppose Israel, typically White liberals and their non-White plantation pets on the Left.

Who’s to say that the British government won’t use the sort of technology Starmer is pursuing at Palantir to track his enemies so that he can wage lawfare against them “pre-emptively”?

Over the past year Palantir has also been working directly with the Israeli military on their campaign of so-called “targeted killings”. Palantir has been using social media information from Meta and other firms, as well as mobile phone data to track people, so that the IDF can target them for assassination.

Watchdogs estimate these murders have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

A prominent left-leaning anti-Zionist Substack publication, the Political Economist, claimed that “over 150 Palestinian journalists have been killed in Gaza and in numerous cases they appear to have been directly targeted [using Palantir tech].” writing that “Using social media information to murder journalists using drone strikes is already dystopic, but this is likely to just be the beginning of the evil Palantir will facilitate.”

And it’s not solely Karp’s support of Israel that has shaped company policy, nor is it a recent phenomenon.

As far back as 2011, e-mails demonstrated that a Palantir engineer had collaborated on a proposal to silence what they termed a “WikiLeaks threat” to spill documents they had on the Bank of America were leaked to the press.

Wikileaks were not specifically a threat to Israel. In fact, I think it is fair to say that Wikileaks set their sights on the U.S. Deep State and Democrat Party in particular.

The Palantir staffer, with no evidence that they conspired with the firm’s Zionist founder, had eagerly agreed to use company software to both track and identify members of the Wikileaks team, as well as its donors — track their physical and web-based movements. Several other Palantir staff also supported the idea of using the software’s power to launch cyberattacks on WikiLeaks’ infrastructure and even threaten its donors, supporters, and “sympathizers”.

When the scandal demonstrating that Palantir was already being used to harm actual truth tellers broke, Karp reacted by placing the team member on leave. He immediately issued a statement profusely apologizing for his staffer’s “indiscretion” and pledged to adhere to the company’s support for “progressive values and causes.”

And here I thought Wikileaks work exposing government surveillance and war crimes, was progressive in nature.

To Karp and his ilk, the term ‘progressive’ obviously has a very different connotation than it does to genuine liberals who typically oppose Israel and the surveillance state, as well as even the far-left loons and grifters of the left wing — women like AOC — of the Democratic Party. To men like Karp though, the term appears to refer to work that protects the agendas of the Neo-Liberal establishment and global elite, and of course — and certainly most importantly — Israel. Although Karp vowed changes would be made, due to concerns his engineers were working with the state to stifle free speech and target dissent (Wikileaks) within months of the scandal, the offending engineer was rehired, and nothing of consequence happened.

It was as if Palantir’s tech was being weaponised by the surveillance state to protect the Deep State. Who could have seen that coming!

Just as Meta intentionally censored the “Hunter Biden laptop story” and Jack Dorsey’s Twitter literally banned the sitting President of the United States so that he couldn’t broadcast his views during his campaign for president, Palantir was doing the bidding of the Deep State, the Neo-Liberal elite and Democrat Party.

Who could have seen that coming??!!

The technology used in 2011 and this past year in Israel to target Palestinian journalists, is now being widely used across the United States and by regimes around the world.

Unsurprisingly, Palantir’s technology has widespread support from both sides of the aisle in the United States and Britain, and is sought after by any government that can afford it.

Palantir, whose past advisors include Condoleezza Rice and former CIA director George Tenet, also continues to create surveillance technology for NSA, the FBI, the CIA, IDF, MI5 among other firms and government agencies at home and abroad, in both the public and private sectors.

So far, it has remained in the hands of massive wealthy governments like the United States and even China as it isn’t cheap. However, it is already being used by smaller vassal States like Ukraine (with U.S. funding) — in its proxy war against Russia — as well as by the likes of Israel.

In fact, Palantir — even in its earliest days — was closely linked to both the CIA and more importantly, the Jewish state of Israel. Some say it was in fact directly funded by both during its start-up phase.

It is also at the forefront of the military artificial intelligence sector. …

As predicted in the Tom Cruise sci-film, Minority Report, Palantir has created programs that literally locate, monitor, track and perhaps even groom and entrap people before they perpetrate crimes. The software application is used by the State to watch their targets until the moment they are incinerated by one of our drones or taken out by an operative.

Some of the people targeted are, no doubt, well-deserving of being turned into dust, but in other cases, Palantir targets dissidents, people working on behalf of genuine causes and enemies of the State.

And it shouldn’t really come as a surprise, as Karp has never shied away from his interest in targeting people just like you and me, student groups protesting Israel, and dissenters he feels are a threat to the sort of society he wants to live in.

Over the past decade, Palantir has become the go-to company for what the intel industry refers to as “mining,” collating and analysing data and digital information for American and Israeli intelligence and law enforcement agencies. It has even been used by Beijing when tracking their own people. The same hypocritical western politicians bloviating about democracy and human rights — the ones who that tell us that the naughty Chinese are our enemy because they are bad to their own citizens and others like the Uyghurs— have absolutely no problem whatsoever funding a firm that enables the Communist Chinese government to spy on and kill its own people. Not to mention innocent Palestinian civilians trapped in an open-air prison in Gaza.

And from what I have ascertained, access to Palantir’s surveillance and AI software is far more useful than any state-sanctioned security clearance. Why would you need access to days and weeks old pre-collated intelligence that is sometimes weeks and months old, when you can track specific enemies in real-time?

Even if someone has had his security clearances taken away — as Trump has supposedly done to Biden, Clinton and Obama — anyone with credentials to access Palantir’s data and machinery has all that they need to track their enemies and dispose of them.

Does anyone for a moment think that Hilary Clinton needs U.S. security clearance to target her enemies?

Palantir’s software indubitably enables swamp creatures like Condy Rice and John Brennan unlimited access to the firm’s software interface linked to satellites, global CCTV networks, and to Palantir’s team of de-coders — to literally watch anyone they want, even while they are no longer in power.

Though I have seen no specific intel to support this, I am certain that their friends like Dick and Liz Cheney also have access to this information. Palantir — using AI and both federal and private social media databases — also compiles data, targets movement patterns and converts disconnected piles of information into maps, histograms, live-action updates and charts that give its users the ability to monitor, predict the movement of and “tail” whomever they want. It is also believed that it can shut down your computerised car while you are driving it, cancel your Visa, Mastercard and bank cards, and empty your bank account anywhere in the Western world. Yet another reason to hold onto a bit of cash and emergency necessities.

Unless you are living underground outside Tyumen in the Siberian Tundra, be confident that the people in charge of all our lives can see you, your domicile, front and rear door, know where your kids sleep and track your movements. I am not saying that they are actively watching every one of us, just that they can if we become too much of a nuisance.

Remember during Trump’s first term, during negotiations with the Taliban, he even threatened Afghan leaders with this. Trump specifically made mention of the software that knows where their kids sleep. Bill Maher, the wretched Liberal who gets far too much airtime with right-wing pundits, recently said he found himself respecting Trump because of this specific incident.

This is the power of Palantir.

Whether it’s monitoring “terrorists” in the Hindu Kush, evaluating disaster response in South Carolina, watching human trafficking happening in Tijuana in real-time or monitoring dissidents at Columbia University — Palantir’s software is linked to incredibly powerful surveillance satellites as well as CCTV around the globe. It’s like in the four “Bourne” movies where the American CIA types in Washington monitor the movements of Jason Bourne running around the streets of Europe, using local German CCTV.

It has that much reach.

According to information I have compiled from Palantir and other sources — among those using Palantir’s systems are:

  • The US Marines who have deployed its tools in Afghanistan for forensic analysis of roadside bombs and predicting insurgent attacks;
  • ICE agents watching cartels and coyotes along the Rio Grande;
  • It is also used to monitor customer workings in high finance. According to a former JPMorgan Chase big-shot, the firm, which acquired access to Palantir technology, saved hundreds of millions of dollars by using the software to tackle issues from cyber-fraud to bad (i.e., overextended and fraudulent) mortgages.

A Palantir user at, let’s say, Citibank can, in a matter of moments, see connections between a Nigerian Internet service provider and protocol address, a proxy server hidden somewhere within the U.S., and a million-dollar payment leaving from a hijacked home equity line of credit or loan.

Sounds good, but have you noticed how it is only accessible to the people in charge and to protect their interests?

Palantir, known in security circles as the “killer app,” can also take much of the credit for the location and ultimately the killing of Osama bin Laden (or whoever it was).

These are, no doubt, perhaps some of its more positive applications.

Now to a few more negatives:

  • January 6 protesters were tracked before and after they left the Capitol using the software. They were identified and their travels tracked as well.
  • Under the Obama administration, Palantir was used extensively to spy on the administration’s political enemies, including Donald Trump, Dinesh DeSouza and scores, perhaps hundreds of others.
  • The same software and interface that says it can predict ambushes in an Iraqi far-off desert before they occur, is now being used by pharmaceutical firms to compile and analyse drug data, outcomes of using the drugs, and providing recommendations prior to lawsuits being filed.

I haven’t seen evidence to support the following assertion: perhaps Palantir tech was involved with taking out the Assad government in Syria, as it was in the killing of thousands of dissidents in Palestine as mentioned above. That coup has resulted in the murder of thousands of Syrian Christians and Alawites. I’m sure no Israelis have been harmed.

It is rumoured in Russian circles that Dasha Dugina and her father, Alexander, were targeted for assassination using intel and Palantir software made available to the Ukrainians.

This was, regardless of your stance on the conflict, an illegal act of terror perpetrated against a civilian writer and journalist. Dugina, whose only crime was being the daughter of a widely read academic and pundit who supported his country, was undoubtedly the target. They’d have seen Ms Dugina before she entered the car. I believe they targeted her to punish him.

Though there is no evidence that Palantir software was used in the hit, but it would be naïve to think that Palantir tech was not used in many of Ukraine’s attacks against civilian targets and infrastructure in Russia.

The reason Trump specifically mentioned taking out the Taliban’s kids when threatening them, and Ms Dugina was killed instead of her father — the supposed target — is simple: This is how you impact perceived “strongmen” in non-Western nations and cultures. You harm their blood relatives.

This is why the Israelis target the family members of Palestinian dissidents as much as they target the actual dissident.

And it is not just overseas.

Libertarians and civil rights activists on both the right and genuine left rightfully worry the software is now being used domestically — to keep the rich and powerful on top, and take out enemies of the Deep State, the Party in power, and to punish effective and legal dissent.

“They’re in a scary business,” Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Lee Tien told people at a recent conference he gave on the surveillance state. “Palantir is a true totalitarian nightmare that monitors the comings and goings as well as the daily activities of innocent Americans on a mass scale.”

My final thought on the matter:

As powerful as Palantir is, it seems to have been pretty shoddy at spotting hundreds of Palestinian fighters entering Israel, by car, foot, and paraglider on October 7. For technology that can supposedly track an Afghan child playing in a cave nestled twenty thousand feet above sea level in the Baba Mountain Range, it sure seems to have pretty spotty coverage along the fortified wall separating Gaza and Israel. Very odd.

Additional notes:

Although Karp has no regard for our privacy, he appears to value his. His office — decorated with cardboard effigies of himself built adoringly (perhaps so he won’t ask the Feds to strike their homes 🙂 by Palantir staff and a symbolic Lego fortress on a coffee table — overlooks Palo Alto’s Alma Street through two-way mirrors, that are said to be bullet proof.

No one can look into his office or the building and if you dare to try and take a photo of the place, you will get arrested. There are tales across the net of the lengths this man will go to protect his anonymity and privacy. Being responsible for the deaths of thousands of fighters globally will put a target on your back.

Each pane of his mirrored fortress is also fitted with an electronic device resembling a space-aged white hockey puck. These gadgets, known as acoustic transducers, imperceptibly send a vibratory signal to the glass that creates a veritable force field of white noise. (These are similar to the sort of thing we would see in cartoons we grew up with.) This mechanism prevents modern laser-driven eavesdropping techniques — laser technology his team and rival firms have also produced — that are able to record conversation.

The term “regime” shouldn’t only be used for leaders we are told not to like, like Vladimir Putin, Robert Fico, the Saudi leadership, Kim Jong Un, Basha Al-Assad or Saddam Hussein. Last time I checked, none of these men have sought to harm me, my kith and kin or anyone I care about in any way. The regimes across the West have.

Footnotes

  1. The Political Economist, Substack — The World’s Most Evil Company, https://politicaleconomist.substack.com/p/palantir-the-worlds-most-evil-company, Feb 6, 2025
  2. Avery Hartmans, Business Insider — The career rise of billionaire Alex Karp, Palantir’s outspoken CEO, https://www.businessinsider.com/alex-karp-bio-palantir-ceo, Dec 17, 2024
  3. Alex Koller, CNBC — Palantir CEO says his outspoken pro-Israel views have caused employees to leave company https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/13/palantir-ceo-says-outspoken-pro-israel-views-led-employees-to-leave-.html,Mar 13, 2024
  4. Chuck Martin, AI Business News — Palantir wins US Army AI contract worth $91 million, https://aibusiness.com/nlp/palantir-wins-us-army-ai-contract-worth-91-million, Oct 8, 2020

Guatemala’s Strange Love Affair with Israel

/3 Comments/in /by

Strange things are happening in Guatemala.

In February 2025, Guatemalan authorities arrested Yoel Alter, a senior leader of the Ultra-Orthodox Jewish cult Lev Tahor, outside a government childcare facility in Guatemala City.

Alter is wanted in Guatemala and Mexico in connection to human trafficking allegations. He had recently been organizing protests as a direct response to the Guatemala government’s crackdown in November that separated 148 children from their parents within the sect’s compound near Oratorio, Guatemala. The protests sought to challenge the Guatemalan government’s custody of minors rescued during raids that uncovered systemic abuse, including forced marriages, child rape, and malnutrition.

Lev Tahor “Pure Heart” was founded in 1988 in Jerusalem by Rabbi Shlomo Helbrans. The group adheres to an extreme interpretation of Judaism, enforcing strict dietary laws, extended prayer sessions, and requiring women and girls to wear full-body coverings.

The Jewish cult relocated to Guatemala around 2013 after fleeing investigations in other countries, such as Canada and the United States, for a series of sex-related crimes. They established a compound near Oratorio, close to the border with El Salvador. The move was part of their pattern of seeking refuge in countries with less stringent oversight on matters concerning human trafficking.

The broader Jewish communities in these Latin American countries tactically distanced themselves from Lev Tahor and supported recent investigations into the sect, likely as a way to divert attention away from organized Jewry’s long-standing connections to human trafficking.

What could have possibly made Guatemala a spot for the most depraved elements of Jewish society to carry out their heinous crimes? A closer look at its recent history reveals the rise of a sizable evangelical movement—one that has made Guatemala Latin America’s most staunchly pro-Zionist state.

This growth of evangelicalism in Guatemala has been over a century in the making. In 1882, Justo Barrios, a liberal president with anti-Catholic views, invited an American Presbyterian minister to Guatemala to encourage the growth of Protestantism. Later, in the late 1890s and early 1900s, Protestant missionaries from organizations like the Central American Mission, Quakers, Primitive Methodists, and Nazarenes began arriving. Pentecostal missionaries associated with the United and Free Gospel Society joined them in 1916.

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein, founder of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ), perceptively remarked in an interview Christianity Today in 2017 that wherever Pentecostal traditions have spread across the globe, so has Christian Zionism. Research has confirmed Eckstein’s observation, which has found a correlation between the growth of these traditions and support for Israel. “Just as Pentecostals and Charismatics experienced remarkable success spreading their movement around the globe, exuberant expressions of Christian Zionism proliferated alongside these preexisting Pentecostal networks as well,” wrote Joseph Williams, a religious scholar at Rutgers University. This trend toward evangelical confessions held true in Guatemala throughout the 20th century.

After World War II, the Central American nation played a crucial role in the establishment of Israel’s statehood, being one of the first countries to vote in favor of UN Resolution 181 in 1947. This resolution called for the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state. In 1948, Guatemala became one of 21 countries in the United Nations to recognize the state of Israel.

Guatemala’s support for Israel’s creation in 1948 laid the foundation for deep military collaboration between the two nations. As one of the first nations to recognize Israel, Guatemala positioned itself as a key ally during the Cold War, particularly as Guatemala faced international isolation for its role in suppressing indigenous guerillas during a brutal civil war from 1960 to 1996 —  a conflict that claimed over 200,000 lives.

Under Guatemalan President Carlos Arana Osorio (1970–1974), Israel began supplying arms and counterinsurgency expertise, which intensified after the United States restricted military aid to Guatemala in 1977 over human rights abuses. Israeli advisers gradually introduced tactics modeled on Israel’s own occupation strategies in Palestine. Among these were scorched-earth operations that Guatemalan forces emulated in their campaigns to destroy more than 600 villages.

Israeli influence also extended to military infrastructure, with Guatemalan troops adopting Israeli-designed field camps, communication systems, and weaponry such as Galil assault rifles and Uzi submachine guns. Additionally, Israel’s Nahal program — fusing military training with agricultural settlement — served as a blueprint for Guatemala’s “Beans and Bullets” strategy, aimed at pacifying rural populations through the provision of basic services such as health care, education, and other benefits to Indigenous communities who cooperated with the government, while meting out harsh punishments against communities suspected of supporting guerrillas.

The Israeli-Guatemalan collaboration continued swimmingly under the regime of General Efraín Ríos Montt, who ruled from 1982 to 1983. In addition to being backed by the United States, his government received crucial military support from Israel, including Arava transport planes and armored vehicles, fueling one of the bloodiest chapters in Guatemala’s history.

While Israel helped Guatemala wage a brutal civil war, many Guatemalans sought solace in religion. Evangelical churches provided a sense of community and hope amidst widespread suffering. The Guatemalan earthquake of 1976, which killed over 22,000 people. was another key moment in the spread of evangelicalism in Guatemala. It devastated many communities, and evangelical organizations, particularly from the United States, saw this as an opportunity to provide extensive humanitarian aid and grow their influence. These groups filled gaps left by the government, offering food, shelter, and emotional support. Their efforts gained them significant numbers of converts as they presented both material and spiritual solutions during a time of crisis.

In this process, General Ríos Montt would become Guatemala’s first evangelical Christian president during his brief time in office. His government promoted evangelicalism as part of its agenda, allying with the U.S.-based evangelical groups and figures such as Pat Robertson. Ríos Montt’s government actively supported evangelical churches while marginalizing Catholicism by accusing it of being linked to liberation theology and leftist movements during the Central American country’s civil war. This political backing helped solidify evangelical influence in the country.

Though Ríos Montt’s tenure was brief, evangelicalism endured as a potent force in Guatemalan politics, with later presidents like Jorge Serrano Elías (1990–1993) and Jimmy Morales (2016-2020) openly embracing the faith as a defining feature of their public identities. The latter, who is an evangelical entertainer with a Baptist seminary degree, was particularly zealous about his pro-evangelical credentials and his devotion to the Jewish state.

As Guatemala’s third evangelical president, Morales prioritized Israel since his election in 2015. His first official visit outside of the Americas was Israel itself. “Guatemala has a special relationship with Israel, and we know we can continue to work together in partnership and hand in hand,” Morales said to then-Israeli President Reuven Rivlin in Jerusalem during a diplomatic visit he made to Israel in 2016.

In 2018, the United States broke a major diplomatic taboo by moving its embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — a move that unraveled seven decades of global consensus, Jerusalem’s status as a contested capital traces back to the aforementioned UN Resolution 181, which designated the city as a corpus separatum under international administration. The plan was rejected by Arab states, leading to the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and the division of Jerusalem into Israeli-controlled West Jerusalem and Jordanian-held East Jerusalem.

Israel’s capture of East Jerusalem during the 1967 Six-Day War further complicated the city’s status, with Israel asserting sovereignty over the entire municipality—a claim unrecognized by the United Nations and most nations. The international community, including the United States until 2018, maintained embassies in Tel Aviv to avoid influencing the outcome of final-status negotiations.

However, when Donald Trump took the White House in 2016, Israel’s political fortunes took a fortuitous turn. As a public figure with deep connections to organized Jewry that span multiple decades, Trump could be counted on to carry out Israel’s bidding. Moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem was one of Trump’s most notable pro-Israeli gestures.

As both a vassal state of the United States and a loyal friend of Israel, Guatemala would shortly follow Uncle Sam in moving its embassy to Jerusalem. Morales described the move as a continuation of Guatemala’s pro-Zionist legacy, stressing “love, peace, and fraternity” with Israel.

In Guatemala, Israel has a reliable toady. The Guatemalan parliament regularly celebrates Israel’s anniversaries and has established a Guatemala-Israel Parliamentary Friendship League with over 80 deputies. Guatemala and Israel also bolstered trade ties by signing a free trade agreement in March 2024.

As the United States renews its focus on Latin America, its diplomatic posture is increasingly likely to hinge on each country’s stance toward Israel — effectively sorting allies and adversaries along that axis. Being a polity run by and for the benefit of Jews creates such a strange dynamic. For its warm relationship with Israel, Guatemala appears to have received a get-out-of-jail-free card.

It’s an open secret that Mexico has the largest population of illegal aliens in the United States at roughly 5 million per DHS figures — a conservative estimate if we’re being honest. In second place, Guatemala has 750,000 illegal aliens living in the United States. Additionally, there are close to 2 million Hispanics of Guatemalan origin living in the United States.

Like most diasporas from the Global South, Guatemala is largely dependent on remittances. Remittances to Guatemala reached a record $21.5 billion in 2024 — constituting nearly 20 percent of the country’s GDP.

Despite having such a large number of migrants sullying the United States’ venerable soil, Guatemala receives mild criticism from the United States. Contrast that to Colombia, whose president Gustavo Petro has offended the DC foreign policy consensus by criticizing Israel’s genocide in Gaza and cozying up to China. Indeed, Colombia has a sizable illegal alien population of 240,000, but it still trails considerably behind Guatemala’s.

Regardless, at the start of the second Trump administration, Colombia received massive tariff threats and a nasty tongue lashing from the Trump administration. Michael Oren, the former United States ambassador to Israel, praised Trump for his tariff threats against Colombia, saying, “I applaud President Trump’s resolve in confronting Colombia’s openly anti-American government. Let this be a message to the world’s terror-supporting regimes: America is back.”

Remarkably, Oren previously praised Guatemala for its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital on December 24, 2017. He exclaimed, “Viva Guatemala! It takes courage for a superpower to stand up for justice and recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s eternal capital. But it takes even more —immense guts—for a small nation to do that. People of Guatemala, the people of Israel will never forget your support and bravery.”

One thing is clear: A credible anti-Zionist threat is not coming out of Guatemala anytime soon.

As of 2023, evangelical Christians comprise an estimated 44.2 to 45.6 percent of Guatemala’s population, making evangelicalism the country’s largest religious affiliation—surpassing Catholicism, which now accounts for approximately 42.4 percent. This marks a profound transformation in the nation’s religious landscape, driven in part by vigorous proselytizing and the movement’s resonance during periods of political upheaval and natural disaster. In turn, it has helped establish a lasting pro-Zionist sentiment within the Guatemalan populace.

In the wake of Oct. 7, 2023 attacks, the Jewish state has had to walk a delicate public relations tight rope. The Israel Defense Force’s punitive campaign against the population of Gaza, often resembling an industrial scale child ritual murder act that would make an extremist Hasidic cult blush, has horrified large swatches of the globe.

While Israel enjoys the special privilege of being supported by the world’s pre-imminent superpower in the United States, no country’s super power status is permanent. It is for that reason, as I’ve detailed previously, Israel has courted nations such as India as part of a plan to have backup options in a world where the United States can no longer be counted to be the unipolar power.

In such a multipolar environment, the Jewish state will be looking to recruit all manner of allies big and small. Guatemala, as backwards and geopolitically irrelevant as it may be, will be one of the few nations who will back Israel unconditionally, no matter what skullduggery Israel is involved in.

However, with Javier Milei as President of Argentina, Guatemala could have stiff competition in being Israel’s most loyal house slave in the Spanish-speaking world.

Not exactly something to be proud of.

The Boundless Power of Black Privilege: It Rescues Rapists, Elevates Incompetents and Is Building the Blacklash

/3 Comments/in /by

Here’s a fascinating new concept: the one-off rape. It’s a rape committed in a moment of aberration by a special kind of man who is otherwise entirely respectable and worthy. Obviously, then, the man doesn’t need to be seriously punished or censured for the rape, because he has never raped before and he’s never going to rape again. And how do we know that? Well, because it’s a one-off rape. One-off, see?

Trained in Nigeria

Now, you’ll no doubt be wondering what kind of man gets to commit a one-off rape. Not a man like me, that’s for sure. And not men like the vast majority of those who read the Occidental Observer and Unz Review. I’m not special and they’re not special. If I or one of them ever commit a single rape, it will merit harsh punishment and life-long labelling as “rapist.” No, the special kind of man who gets to commit a one-off rape is described here:

Doctor not struck off by panel over ‘one-off’ rape

A doctor found by a tribunal to have raped a young woman at his home avoided being struck off over what the panel described as a “one-off” attack. Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, then a consultant at Blackpool Victoria Hospital, instead had his medical licence suspended for 12 months for attacking the woman.

Police investigated but did not charge Dr Foy-Yamah, but the Medical Tribunal Practitioners Service (MPTS) concluded on the balance of probabilities that he had raped the woman — which he denies. The panel, which emphasised the incident had not taken place at work, has been accused of “victim-blaming” and failing to properly assess Dr Foy-Yamah’s risk given that it found he had raped someone. […] The General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates the register of doctors licensed to practice in the UK, had asked an independent panel run by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) to permanently erase Dr Foy-Yamah’s licence.

However the panel stopped short, stating that Dr Foy-Yamah had not “abused his position of trust as a doctor” because the victim was not a patient, and noted a series of glowing testimonials from colleagues. The legally qualified chair of the panel, Angus Macpherson, wrote: “The Tribunal considered that this was a one-off event in Dr Foy-Yamah’s personal life. It did not involve patient safety concerns. The Tribunal has found it will not be repeated.” (“Doctor not struck off by panel over ‘one-off’ rape,” BBC News, 29th March 2025)

You need to know only one thing to understand why the tribunal was so lenient with Dr Aloaye Foy-Yamah, despite finding that he had in fact committed rape. The tribunal was lenient because Dr Foy-Yamah is Black. The BBC doesn’t reveal that he “trained at the University of Benin in Nigeria in 1995 before moving to the UK.” This move means that he now benefits from Black privilege, the systemic bias in favor of Blacks that exists across the West.

Black privilege is a sub-set of non-White privilege, which has protected rapists in a much worse way for a much longer time in towns like Rotherham. Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs have been preying on White girls there for decades with the complicity — and sometimes active assistance — of the so-called Labour party, which was founded to champion the White working-class but now works tirelessly to harm the White working-class. However, here’s a curious fact about Labour. Although it loudly professes to be an anti-racist and anti-sexist party, its leaders have always, without exception, been stale pale males, from Keir Hardie in 1906 to Keir Starmer in 2025.

Gloriously non-White leaders

But Labour’s supposed political rivals, the Conservative party, have had four female leaders and two gloriously non-White leaders. But that isn’t six un-pale-stale-male leaders in total, because the current leader is both Black and female. She’s the Nigerian Kemi Badenoch and succeeded the Indian Rishi Sunak. When Sunak became prime minister in 2022, some leftists and cuckservatives celebrated the fact that four regions of the British Isles had had non-White leaders in the twenty-first century. There was the Indian Rishi Sunak in England, the Pakistani Humza Yousuf in Scotland, the Indian Leo Varadkar in Ireland, and the Black Vaughan Gething in Wales.

Duds, not dynamos: the non-White leaders celebrated by leftists and cuckservatives

What a wonderful time for the British Isles! That’s what some leftists and cuckservatives said. But they’ve now gone quiet about the Fantastic Four, because all of those non-White leaders have proved to be duds, not dynamos. Most glaringly of all, Sunak steered the Conservative party to its worst ever election defeat in 2024. Now the Tories are trying again with another non-White, Kemi Badenoch, who was widely hailed as a Black reincarnation of Margaret Thatcher, as an anti-woke dynamo who would ram home the devastating message that Labour are the real racists. But alas for the Tories, Badenoch is also proving to be a dud, not a dynamo. It’s becoming increasingly apparent that she too has benefited from Black privilege. It unjustly rescued a rape-accused Nigerian called Aloaye Foy-Yamah and it’s unfairly elevated an incompetent Nigerian called Olukemi Adegoke.

Bending the knee to Jewish power

That was Kemi Badenoch’s maiden name, before she married a rich White banker and began the essential work to become Tory leader and prime minister of Britain. And what is that essential work? Is it being highly competent and boundlessly energetic in one’s jobs both before and after entering politics? No, not at all. If the very credible rumors are true, Badenoch has been lazy and useless in every job she’s ever had, from the few months she spent as “Digital Director” at the Spectator to her role as Minister for Women and Equalities in the Conservative government. No, the essential work for any ambitious politician in Britain consists not of being competent and energetic, but of strenuously sucking up to Jews and endlessly adulating Israel.

Bending the knee at Holocaust Central: Kemi Badenoch at Yad Vashem in 2023

In short, to succeed in British politics you have to perform the goy-grovel and prove that you’ll be a devoted shabbos goy or shabbos shiksa. And Badenoch has certainly proved herself to be a devoted shabbos shiksa. In 2023, for example, she bent the knee at Yad Vashem, the central shrine of Holocaustianity in Israel. Throughout the Gaza war, she has firmly backed Israel’s massacre-machine. So has the Labour prime minister Keir Starmer, of course. He too knew that he’d never get to the top without proving himself as a shabbos goy. That’s why he’s married to a Jew and has always firmly backed Israel. Robert Jenrick, Kemi Badenoch’s chief rival in the Tory leadership election, is also married to a Jew. And Jenrick’s Semito-sycophancy has soared even beyond Badenoch’s. He is funded by the Israeli billionaire Idan Ofer and has said that “the Star of David should be displayed at every point of entry to the UK to show” that “we stand with Israel.”

Diversity Hire vs Israel Cuck: Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick competing to be Tory leader

But Jenrick is a stale pale male, not a vibrant Black female like Badenoch. He doesn’t have Black privilege and he lost the final round of the leadership election to Badenoch. But he’s not given up hope of succeeding her, because he thinks that Badenoch’s incompetence and laziness will sooner or later outweigh her Black privilege. That’s when she’ll be removed and Jenrick can take over as chief Tory shabbos-goy. Working towards that happy day, he’s been very active on social media and in parliament. He’s trying to show that, unlike her, he works hard and is competent. But the demonic crime-thinker Dominic Cummings thinks that the Tories will not learn any lessons from useless Black Kemi Badenoch. He’s predicted that when she’s forced out as leader, they’ll replace her with useless Black James Cleverly, whom Cummings describes as an “NPC extraordinaire.” This is what Cummings has said about Badenoch at his Substack:

Kemi is lazy, brittle and delusional. In her previous jobs she was useless but learned to blame others. She doesn’t have any of the things needed for a serious leader. The people who like her are a) people who’ve swallowed Insider spin or b) a subset of Insider characters whose preferences and tastes are very far from the median voter. From all parts of the ideological spectrum I hear identical lines: ‘She won’t listen to anybody, she picks fights with everybody, she meets a businessman who made a fortune in X then explains why they’re wrong about X, she’s lazy and won’t read, she sits in her office playing computer games on her iPad, she sees stuff on Twitter and blurts it out, I can’t see her developing in the job’. Most spads [special political advisors] and donors who created her did not work on her leadership contest because they got so disillusioned. People inside her inner circle are already telling friends ‘I can’t see this working’. (“TSP #5: What comes in 2025-6 as both parties & Whitehall fail? What can be done?,” Dominic Cummings Substack, as updated from 13th February 2025 [TSP = The Start-Up Party, which is Cummings’ name for a proposed new party to replace the Conservatives and Labour])

Cummings is always careful not to give his enemies grounds to call him “racist,” so he doesn’t discuss how someone as useless as Badenoch became Tory leader. That is, he doesn’t discuss Black privilege or Semito-sycophancy. And when he describes a shadowy figure called Henry Newman as a “Kemi handler” who works on behalf of translunacy, he doesn’t note that Newman is Jewish. But Cummings still delivers a devastating indictment of the “Black Thatcher,” as he mockingly calls her. Badenoch isn’t the Black Thatcher — she’s the British Barack. Like Barack Obama, she’s an over-promoted Black narcissist and intellectual nullity. When Obama became president, it was the apotheosis of AA in the USA, of Affirmative Action in America. If Badenoch ever becomes prime minister, it will be the apotheosis of AA in the Yoo-Kay. I don’t think she will become prime minister, but she’s certainly fulfilled all the stereotypes of the Black diversity hire, from laziness and lateness to the way her work was done for her by a White colleague.

High-testosterone and high-narcissism: useless Black Kemi Badenoch, current leader of the Conservative party (image from Wikipedia)

Or so the rumors run. And those rumors are getting louder all the time. It seems as though she won’t last much longer as Tory leader and one anonymous insider has already proclaimed that “Badenoch must go,” arguing that  the “hapless Conservative leader is consigning the party to complete irrelevance.” Nevertheless, Kemi Badenoch is doing a good job at one thing. It’s the same thing as Sunak, Yousuf, Varadkar and Gething were good at: proving that non-White leaders are bad for the native Whites of the British Isles. As another of her disillusioned colleagues has said of Badenoch: “All the things we thought she’d be good at, she’s not. And all the things we thought she’d be bad at, she is.” If Black James Cleverly replaces Black Kemi Badenoch as Tory leader, we can confidently expect that he will do the same good job at being useless and helping to build the Blacklash, namely, the growing White revolt against the worship of Blacks and other non-Whites.

Black shabbos goy James Cleverly, “NPC extraordinaire,” meets Jewish crook Volodymyr Zelensky

And what about the stale pale male Robert Jenrick? Well, if he succeeds either Badenoch or Cleverly, his Semito-sycophancy will further expose Jewish control of British politics. At Neo-Krat, Colin Liddell has compared Jenrick to the French president Emmanuel Macron, who has long been rumored to be gay, like Blair and Obama before him, and whose wife is much older than he is. Wikipedia notes that Jenrick’s wife, Michal Berkner, “is nine years older than [him], and is the grandchild of Holocaust survivors. She is an Israeli-born and US-educated corporate lawyer who practises mainly in London. Together, they have three daughters, whom they are bringing up in the Jewish faith.” As Liddell himself sardonically concludes: “Nice to know that Jewish concerns will have a prominent place at the breakfast table should Mr Jenrick proceed further in his career!”

Liddell is right: it is nice to know that. And it will be even nicer if Jenrick topples Badenoch and she responds by accusing the Tory party of racism. She would look ridiculous to do that after all her anti-woke posturing, but her narcissistic rage may prove stronger than her reason. Her Black privilege has taken her to the top of the Tory party and she will be very angry when her Black pathologies force her White colleagues to depose her.