Featured Articles

Mother Mona Maligns Muslims: From My Egregious Errors to the Conspiracy for Greater Israel

I had an interesting encounter the other day. It was with my own brain. More precisely, it was with subconscious mechanisms in my own brain. I was scanning the shelves in the non-fiction section of a library when a title-and-author caught my eye: The Ruin of All Witches by Malcolm Gladwell. He’s a Black Canadian author who’s both a lightweight and a leftist. But I find his books easy and enjoyable to read and I hadn’t heard of this one, so I took it down and looked at the back cover. It told me the book was “the story of a single witchcraft case in a remote New England settlement in 1651.”

Explaining the error

But that was puzzling. It seemed an odd (and oddly limited) choice of topic for Gladwell, so I looked at the front cover. This time I saw that the author was in fact someone called Malcolm Gaskill. But I’d distinctly seen “Malcolm Gladwell” on the spine when I was scanning the shelves. Primed by the context of “Non-Fiction,” the forename Malcolm and a surname beginning with G- and ending with -ll, my brain had imposed a kind of auto-complete on me and made me see what wasn’t there. But then our brains are always doing that. A lot of what we seem to see in front of us is stitched together inside our heads. We auto-complete, jump to conclusions, turn parts into wholes. And most of the time it works fine. Or it seems to, anyway. But occasionally we realize that our brains are leading us astray, as I did in that library. Only the dead never err. And that kind of error is innocent and unavoidable. Our brains sometimes betray us. That’s life as a limited, fallible human.

But my innocent error got me wondering about other errors I’ve made — ones that can’t be described as innocent and unavoidable. Take my article “Murder and Misogyny,” where I contrasted the Norman invasion of England in the eleventh century with the Soviet invasion of Poland in the twentieth. I argued that the Katyn Massacre, in which  22,000 of the Polish elite were shot by the invaders, wasn’t paralleled in England because the Normans were “a closely related racial group who practised exactly the same religion as the English.” The Norman Conquest wasn’t “like the conquest of Catholic Poland by atheist, anti-Catholic communists who were disproportionately drawn from non-Slavic minorities like Jews, Balts and Georgians.” That’s why, I concluded, that the British have never suffered “anything like the Katyn Massacre … because we have never had the conditions for it: occupation by hostile outsiders who despise our culture and want to subjugate us for ever.”

Ideology trumps honesty

But even as I wrote that, I knew that Britain had experienced something comparable to the Katyn Massacre. It’s called the Harrying of the North, a campaign of slaughter and starvation waged by William the Conqueror after rebellion against his rule in Yorkshire and other parts of northern England. Perhaps as many as 150,000 people were killed or starved to death, and the local elite was replaced by Normans. As I was writing about Poland and the Katyn Massacre, I thought to myself that I needed to discuss the Harrying of the North. But it would have complicated things and marred the simple contrast I was drawing between the communist conquest of Poland and the Norman conquest of England. So I found it easy to simply leave the topic unmentioned.

That wasn’t my brain erring, that was me erring. In other words, it wasn’t subconscious mechanisms in my brain making me misread an author’s name, it was my conscious self declining to be fully honest for ideological reasons. And I erred again when I claimed in “The Value of Victimhood” that the politics of Liverpool “have always been left-wing — sometimes very left-wing.” That was a lazy assumption helpfully corrected by a native Liverpudlian at the Unz Review, who noted that “up until the early 1970’s the city very often had a Conservative Party run council.” And a commenter at the Occidental Observer corrected another of my lazy assumptions after I waxed lyrical in “The Power of Pudenda” about a painting of the naked goddess Venus being worshipped on bended knee by heroes like Lancelot and Achilles. The commenter pointed out that “Every one of the men depicted was notorious for having cheated with someone else’s wife.” Yes, I was wrong about the painting: it wasn’t celebratory of sex, but satirical of sexual transgressors.

Mother Mona vs Grotesque Grunberg

I’ve made lots of other errors in my articles for the Occidental Observer, some inadvertent, some less so. Indeed, I must have made lots more errors than I’m aware of. I’m human, therefore I’m fallible. That’s why I question myself and my ideas about Western politics and culture. For example, am I right to say that Jews have a disproportionate negative influence on those things? Well, I think I am. Among other things, that belief helps me make accurate predictions. I made one of those recently when I read something at the anti-Islamist site Gates of Vienna:

The following video is excerpted from a panel discussion on Dutch TV featuring [Mona] Keijzer. The deputy prime minister made the mistake of referencing the Jew-hatred of Muslims, and got herself into a heap o’ trouble as a result. The other panelists employed several logical fallacies in their attacks on her, the main one being the claim that identifying a trait that is characteristic of a group implies that every member of the group possesses the trait. (“You Must Not Generalize About Muslims!,” Gates of Vienna, 19th December 2024)

When I read that, I hadn’t seen the video or read the transcript. But I immediately thought: “I bet one of Mona Keijzer’s pro-Muslim opponents was Jewish!” And I was right. Her chief opponent was Jewish. It was the prominent Dutch intellectual Arnon Grunberg, whom I’ve already discussed at the Occidental Observer. As I pointed out in “Atrocity in Amsterdam,” he’s one of many Jews who have claimed that Muslims and Jews are “natural allies” (natuurlijke bondgenoten in Dutch). Those pro-Muslim Jews don’t say against whom the Judeo-Muslim alliance is directed, but the answer is obvious: Muslims and Jews are natural allies against the wicked White Christians who oppress them both.

But some Jews disagree with Grunberg. They have a different answer to the all-important question of “What’s best for Jews?” They think that Muslims in the West are now a threat to Jewish power, so they’re not uncritically supportive of Muslims like Grunberg and other leftist Jews. Ironically enough, Mona Keijzer (born 1968) serves those Islamo-skeptic Jews, because she’s from a pro-Zionist government headed by the notoriously philo-Semitic Geert Wilders. That’s why she was criticizing Muslims for being harmful to Jews, not for being harmful to Whites. That debate between her and Grunberg was in effect a debate between two sides of Jewish opinion about what’s best for Jews in Holland, not about what’s best for the only true Dutch, namely, the White Dutch.

Ugly Jewish man and attractive White woman: Arnon Grunberg and Mona Keijzer

But I had nevertheless made an accurate prediction: that an Islamo-skeptic White politician would be opposed by a Islamophilic Jew. And the video supported my ideas in another way. I’ve argued that ugliness is characteristic of Jews and Jewish ideologies, which express an envy and hatred of White beauty. The Dutch video contains a literal embodiment of White beauty and Jewish ugliness, because Mona Keijzer is attractive and Arnon Grunberg is ugly. She’s an intelligent, attractive White woman who has done what too many White women like her have failed to do. That is, she’s become a mother and had children — five of them, in fact.

I hope that Mona Keijzer is pro-White and was doing her best for Whites within the boundaries of discourse set by Jewish influence on Dutch politics. In that debate, she couldn’t argue directly for White interests, so perhaps she did so indirectly by arguing for Jewish interests. But the taboo against direct support for White interests is weakening across the West. That’s why discussion of Pakistani rape-gangs is all over the British media at the beginning of 2025. Furthermore, mainstream politicians are using the accurate term “rape-gangs” rather the euphemistic “grooming-gangs.” The rabidly pro-Zionist Robert Jenrick, a prominent Conservative who has a Jewish wife and unswervingly supports Israel, has blasphemed against minority worship like this:

The scandal started with the onset of mass migration. Importing hundreds of thousands of people from alien cultures, who possess medieval attitudes towards women, brought us here. And after 30 years of this disastrous experiment, we now have entrenched sectarian voting blocs that make it electoral suicide for some MPs to confront this. This scandal shows why we must end it. (Tweet by Robert Jenrick, 4th January 2025)

Let’s be clear: Jenrick is trying to serve Jewish interests, not White interests. The “sectarian voting blocs” he refers to are pro-Palestinian and found in Muslims districts. The war in Gaza and pro-Palestinian activism by Muslims in the West have forced more of the Jewish elite to decide that Muslims and Jews are not natural allies and never will be. I’m even beginning to see truth in the conspiracy theory that says Jews like Benjamin Netanyahu have deliberately engineered Muslim migration in the confident expectation that the pathologies spawned by it would sooner or later create a backlash against Muslims. This backlash would provide cover for the creation of “Greater Israel,” the vastly expanded territory that some Zionists want to carve out from Israel’s Arab neighbors.

The much expanded “Greater Israel” dreamed of by Theodor Herzl, founder of modern Zionism

But that’s speculation. What isn’t speculation is that minority worship is being challenged across the West. Zionists like Mona Keijzer and Robert Jenrick are trying to serve Jewish interests when they criticize Muslims, but they’re opening a wider and wider space for White nationalism as they do so.

The Possible Reasons Donald Trump’s Administration Is Recognizing Somaliland

It all comes down to serving Israeli interests.

Somaliland is a former British colony bordering Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Somalia that declared independence from Somalia in 1991 without receiving international recognition. Under international law, Somaliland is currently deemed an autonomous district of Somalia.

If media reports turn out to be true, why is the Trump administration moving to recognize Somaliland’s independence? It boils down to advancing Israeli interests.

Due to its proximity to the Arabian Peninsula, an independent Somaliland would give Israel and the United States a forward base of operations to counter plucky Houthi militants in the Red Sea.

After Israel responded to Hamas’ attack on Oct, 7, 2023 with a vicious military assault on Gaza, the Yemen-based Houthis joined the conflict by launching drones and missiles against Israeli and Western vessels traversing the Red Sea. The world faced the Houthis’ wrath in December 2023 when they announced their blockade of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The Bab el-Mandeb Strait is one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints, where a substantial portion of global maritime cargo passes through.

Somaliland’s strategic location close to the Bab al-Mandab Strait makes it an important choke point on the grand chessboard, thus making it a valuable piece of geopolitical real estate the Israeli-American axis for the use to exploit.

Houthi attacks have bottled up the Red Sea, leading to major disruptions in international trade at a time when the world is still adjusting to supply-chain disruptions brought about during the COVID-19 era.

The Houthis are battle-hardened as they come. For well over a decade, Houthi militants have endured years of attacks from Saudi Arabia’s coalition of Arab states that have attempted to prop up the internationally recognized government in Yemen. Since the Houthi’s attacks on US and Israeli shipping in the Red Sea in November 2023, American and British military forces have launched military strikes on the Houthis with the aim of keeping shipping lanes open.

In January 2024, the Houthis launched an anti-ship missile from Hodeidah towards an American destroyer that ended up being shot down by American missile defense systems. This exchange came on the heels of American forces assaulting the port in order to restore regular maritime activity in the area. Despite being at a marked disadvantage in terms of fire power and technology, the Houthis have not backed down against the technologically superior military powers of the United States and Israel. The Houthis upped the ante by launching missiles against Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and multiple Israeli military bases.

Map of Somalia and Somaliland

In July 2024, the Red Sea conflict took an interesting twist when a Houthi-manned drone flew into an apartment complex in Tel Aviv and killed one man, while wounding several other individuals. The United States, United Kingdom, and Israel shortly responded with a joint assault on the critical port city of Hodeidah. The Anglo-American partners struck Hodeidah’s international airport, with the Israeli Air Force attacking Hodeidah’s port a few days afterward.

The aim of the Anglo-American-Israel axis’ attacks in this instance is to shore up Saudi Arabia’s diminishing position in the Red Sea conflict, where shocking Houthi gains have raised fears about Iran—a supplier of Houthi munitions—gaining a stronger foothold in the Red Sea region.

The Relentless Houthis

Even after Israel dealt major blows to the leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah, while Turkish and US-backed assets in Syria toppled the regime of Bashar al-Assad—a fortuitous development for broader Israeli ambitions in the region— the Houthis have not relented one bit in their attacks against Israel.

The sporadic volley of missile and drone incursions towards Israel were soon followed up with ballistic missile attacks from the Houthis by December 2024. The Houthis are steadfast in their demand that their attacks won’t stop until the war in Gaza ends.

The Israelis responded to the Houthi escalation on Dec. 26 by launching air strikes against the international airport in the capital city of Sanaa and the strategic port city of Hodeidah. These strikes were the fourth round of punitive actions the Jewish state has taken against Houthi targets in Yemen.

The Houthis have put on a clinic on the power asymmetrical warfare against the Saudis and the Israeli-American axis in the last year. The Houthis are rumored to have one the largest drone stockpiles on the planet and have used this technology to give their rivals headaches.

According to Defense Security Asia, the Houthis were able to shoot down 13 MQ-9 Reaper drones from the start of the Oct. 7 conflict up until the end of December. The loss of these aircrafts totaled $390 million.

Sending Israeli fighter jets on expensive air campaigns to attack Houthi targets in response to cheap Houthi drones—roughly valued at $20,000— blowing up inside the Jewish state has become unviable in the long-term. This has forced the Israelis to find more creative cost-effective alternatives to tackling the Houthi dilemma. Unlike countries such as Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, where Israeli intelligence operatives have deeply penetrated, Yemen has given the Israeli intelligence community fits. Security experts note that the Israelis don’t have sufficient intelligence to pinpoint the location of Houthi leaders and weapons caches.

“We have a problem,” admitted Zohar Palti, a former head of Mossad’s intelligence directorate. Israel, on its own, does not have a “patent” for solving the problem, he added. Palti believes that Yemen has not been a priority for the Israeli national security state.

He claims that Israel has “too many balls in the air”, with it dedicating most of its attention towards Hamas militants in Gaza, Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon, and Iran’s activity in the Middle East and the development of its nuclear program.

Because of the Houthi dilemma and Israel’s principal security guarantor in the United States shifting its geopolitical gaze to the Far East, Israel has had to get creative with its statecraft.

Adding an independent Somaliland as an ally would go a long way in shoring up Israel security interests in an increasingly chaotic international system.

Israel’s Somaliland Play

Somaliland has stood out as an oasis of prosperity in contrast to Somalia proper. Somalia has gained international notoriety for being mired in civil wars and Islamist militancy from the likes of fundamentalist groups such as Al-Shabaab.

Israel’s relationship with Somaliland is one of the least discussed facets of the Jewish state’s foreign policy endeavors. In 1960, a time when Somaliland was briefly independent, Israel was one of 35 countries to recognize its independence. Fast forward to Feb. 2010, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor revealed that the government of Benjamin Netanyahu was prepared to recognize Somaliland again, though it did not come to pass at the time due to concerns this decision would alienate other countries in the region.

However, the changing world order has resuscitated plans to recognize Somaliland — an endeavor that would kill multiple birds with one stone for the Israeli-American set. China’s growing footprint in Africa has worried US strategists. When China opened its first overseas military base in Djibouti — a nation bordering Somaliland — in 2017, American fears only grew more palpable. To make things spicier, the Djibouti has allegedly allowed Iranian spy vessels to dock at China’s military base.

Chinese military presence in Djibouti

US foreign policy decision makers, who remain fixated with maintaining primacy at all costs, are looking for ways to make up for their faltering position in Djibouti. Recognizing Somaliland would do the trick. The much pilloried Project 2025, a policy blueprint for the Trump administration, actually advocated for “the recognition of Somaliland statehood as a hedge against the U.S.’s deteriorating position in Djibouti.”

According to a Middle East Monitor report last October, Israel was in discussions with Somaliland officials to set up a military base in the East African territory. This agreement would allow Israel to use the Somaliland base to launch attacks and deter Houthi assets. In exchange, Israel would officially recognize Somaliland and make investments into its agriculture and energy sectors.

And Then Came The UAE

The United Arab Emirates has played a crucial role in mediating these discussions and has pledged to finance the construction of the Israeli military base. Emirati-Israeli ties have strengthened in the past 5 years thanks to the 2020 Abraham Accords that facilitated the normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and Arab states such as Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and the UAE.

Simply put, UAE and Israel have mutual interests in containing the Houthis. Originally, the UAE was part of the Saudi-coalition to prop up the government of Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi in 2015 who was forced to step down due to a combination of widespread protests and constant militant activity from the Houthis. The Houthi movement and defectors from the Yemeni armed forces subsequently took over the capital of Sanaa.

When it became clear the Houthis were in firm control of Yemeni capital and the rest of North Yemen, the Emiratis pivoted towards a strategy of supporting the separatist Southern Transitional Council (STC) in South Yemen.

There was ulterior motive behind the Emirati’s change in strategy, namely a desire to establish a “maritime empire” that spans the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea. A key part of this geopolitical venture has been the UAE’s pursuit of strategic partners in the Horn of Africa. Chief among these partners has been Somaliland, who entered a $442 million agreement with the UAE to construct a port in the Somaliland city of Berbera, which is slightly over 160 miles away from the Yemeni city of Aden — a key port for the embattled Arab state.

Socotra Island

A key victory for the Emiratis on the world stage was their seizure of the strategic Socotra archipelago in the Gulf of Aden in June 2020. Shortly thereafter, the Abraham Accords to normalize relations between the UAE and Israel were signed. With the UAE and Israel publicly on good terms, reports of Israeli military advisors visiting Socotra soon surfaced. These visits were assumed to be part of a plan to establish secret intelligence bases in the archipelago. These facilities would let both the Israelis and Emiratis keep tabs on activity across the Gulf of Aden and Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

Adding an independent Somaliland into the mix would strengthen the Emirati’s and Israel’s positions in the Red Sea and give them more latitude to keep disruptive actors in the Horn of Africa at bay.

Potential Pitfalls with The Somaliland Project

In the world of geopolitics, nothing exists in a vacuum.

Bold maneuvers on the world stage will invariably provoke reactions. In the United States’ case, its potential gambit of recognizing Somaliland could strain relations with its fellow NATO member Turkey.

Turkey has bolstered ties with Somalia in the last two decades as part of its efforts to increase its footprint in Africa, above all, in the Red Sea region. Ankara’s growing partnership with Somalia has consisted of signing agreements to deepen oil and gas cooperation, where Turkey would have greater ability to explore, exploit, develop, and produce oil on Somali onshore and offshore territory.

On defense matters, Somalia has gradually forged an intimate military partnership with Turkey. 2017 was a turning point in Turko-Somali relations after Turkey built a military base in Mogadishu with the intention of training members of Somalia’s fragile military.

Relations between the two Muslim countries have only grown more vigorous. In a defense agreement signed in Feb. 2024, Turkey ( NATO’s second largest military with over 350,000 active personnel) pledged to support Somalia’s maritime assets. In recent months, the Turks have been in discussions with the Somali government to install a long-range missile test site on Somalia soil. Such a move is definitely causing concerns in rival Arab states and African states such as Ethiopia.

The Turks have proven to be a wildcard on the world stage, and no one can ever know what their intentions are.

Should the United States recognize Somaliland, the Turks could take it as another affront to their geopolitical goals. The Turks are already on the verge of coming to blows with US-backed Kurdish forces in Syria. Recognizing Somaliland could prompt the Turks to stick it to the Judeo-American axis by not only dialing up support to Sunni militants such as Hamas but also cutting off Israel from receiving critical steel exports.

Dawn of the Post-Liberal Order

Due to Israel’s lack of strategic depth, having a base in Somaliland would help it project power against the Houthis in Yemen and throw a wrench in Iran’s ability to deliver arms shipments in the region. Since its foundation in 1948, Israel has had very few allies in its backyard. The Oct. 7 attack and the resulting fallout serves as the latest reminder that Israel needs to grow its geopolitical portfolio.

In a security environment where the United States is pivoting to Asia, Israel has already taken steps towards normalizing diplomatic and economic relations with the Arab world. A Saudi-Israeli normalization plan was originally on deck, but it appears to be on the ropes due to Israel’s brutal ethnic cleansing expedition in Gaza.

Giving the green light to Somaliland’s independence and subsequently amplifying military activity with it, would be in line with the Israeli strategy of engaging more with Muslim states who desire to balance against Turkish and Iranian influence in the MENA region. At its core, an Israeli military presence in Somaliland grants it more latitude to directly attack the Houthis and other rivals in the Red Sea during a time when it’s uncertain the United States and its NATO allies will come to Israel’s defense.

Furthermore, Somaliland independence would mark another blow to the liberal international order.

The holy sacrament of territorial integrity is increasingly becoming a dead letter. It’s no longer abstract principles or following international law that’s shaping the actions of states. Instead, the dictum of The Melian Dialogue will be the guide of international affairs in the foreseeable future: “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

Is Somaliland Recognition a Done Deal?

In his first term in office, Donald Trump showcased a devotion to Israel that is unmatched compared to previous Republican administrations. Former President Ronald Reagan surprisingly halted the delivery of advanced F-16 fighter aircraft to Israel after its controversial bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility in 1981.

The following year, Reagan gave then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin a tongue-lashing for carrying out an indiscriminate bombing campaign against the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in Beirut, Lebanon.

Arch neoconservative George W. Bush backed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza in 2005 and even encouraged parliamentary elections in the Palestinian territories the following year. It was in these elections that saw Hamas come to power in 2006.

Trump’s time in office saw him break numerous taboos with respect to Israeli-American relations. The 45th president moved the US embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognized the Israeli’s annexation of the Golan Heights, brokered the aforementioned normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and other Arab nations such as Bahrain, Morocco, and the UAE, scrapped the Iran Nuclear Deal, and assassinated Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani.

Indeed, Trump stopped short of fulfilling Israel’s wish of toppling the Iranian regime. Though his rabidly pro-Zionist cabinet appointments from Pete Hegseth as Defense Secretary to Mike Huckabee underscore his steadfast devotion to advancing Israeli interests. Moreover, Zionist billionaire Miriam Adelson’s $100 million donation to Trump’s presidential run will likely come with the expectation of Trump giving his blessing to Israel’s plans of eventually annexing the much-coveted West Bank (Judea & Samaria as the Israelis view this territory) and the war-torn Gaza strip.

While Trump talks a big game about doing away with never-ending wars, it remains to be seen if he will keep his word. But if his track record on Israel is an indicator, Trump will likely follow through with recognizing Somaliland. If there’s one constant about Trump’s political record, it’s his responsiveness to pressure from the Israel lobby.

If Trump won’t give the Israelis their war with the Iranians, he will meet them halfway by creating a geopolitical environment favorable to its interests via diplomatic maneuvers. Recognizing Somaliland as an independent state will likely do the trick.

James Edwards Interviews Pat Buchanan on the Death of the West

What follows is a transcript of an interview conducted by talk radio host James Edwards with Patrick J. Buchanan upon the initial release of his book Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?  We revisit this conversation because the year in question has now arrived, and many of the concerns raised during the discussion still remain. This transcript has never before appeared online and has been edited for brevity.

* * *

James Edwards: Pat, thanks for being back with me again, and congratulations on the early success of your latest title. Writing a book is like printing money. Everybody loves you!

Patrick J. Buchanan: No, James. They give me an advance and then I go out and try to sell as many as I can to help the publisher get it back.

Edwards: I saw someone buying it at Target last night, of all places. Maybe you should run for president.

Buchanan: Been there, done that!

Edwards: Well, let’s jump right into the thick of it. Do we currently have front-row seats to the end of Western Civilization and culture as we know it?

Buchanan: I believe the answer is yes, from a variety of standpoints. In one chapter, I discuss the “Demographic Winter” of the West. Currently, no Western country has a birth rate among its native-born population that is sufficient for it to sustain itself in any recognizable form by the end of this century.

It is my argument that when Christianity, which was the faith that created the West, when the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, and then the people die. And I think that’s true down through history. And we certainly see that in Europe, for example, which is well advanced ahead of us, where something like one in ten people go to church in Great Britain, I believe. More people attend Muslim mosques on holy days of the week than go to Anglican churches.

So, I think the West was created by this great religion, and that created the magnificent culture of the Middle Ages, out of which came all these great countries, which really dominated the world through the twentieth century, with empires basically dominating every country on earth almost, except for Japan. And now look at where they are. I think you see a civilization basically in retreat. As Toynbee said, “Civilizations die by suicide, not by murder.”

Edwards: I’m glad you brought up our faith in your book. It is dying in America and that precedes the death of a nation. In Russia, however, there seems to be at least somewhat of a revival of Christianity. I have read reports that the Russian government has even tried to encourage its citizens to have more children. Is Russia coming to its senses in a way that we in the West are not?

Buchanan: Well, I think the Russians went through hell for 70 years under Bolshevism.  They were a deeply religious and patriotic people who were Orthodox Christians. And when Lenin and Stalin came in, the church was literally murdered. I was over there in 1971, I guess, and we went down to this museum of Atheism in Leningrad, which was a gigantic cathedral. They turned it into that, and everything had been emptied out.

So, they went through 70 years of hell. And it’s very true that when they were liberated from Bolshevism and Communism, many returned to the faith. But frankly, James, if you look at the numbers there, Russia’s current birthrate may lead to a loss of approximately 25 million people by 2050. I have the statistics in my book.

Suicide of a Superpower also deals with what’s happening in Russia and these other countries. They’ve already lost 8 million in the last two decades ever since they became free, and the women are not having children. I think the median death age of Russian men is now something like 60. It has not only to do with the lack of births but apparently, the health system is terrible. There’s alcoholism. I think the average woman has seven abortions. I’ve had that in an earlier book.

Edwards: I once said during an appearance on CNN that you can’t have a first-world nation with a third-world population. Moving on to another aspect of your excellent new book, which I have a review copy of right here on my desk, you write that “White America is an endangered species.”  Pat, what is America going to look like if Whites go extinct?

Buchanan: I don’t think Whites are going to go extinct — I mean, certainly not in the near future.  But what is happening, as you see in California, is that Americans of European descent are already a minority, and that is true in Texas, and it is true, I believe, in New Mexico and Hawaii.  And in this decade, I think six more states will pass the tipping point where Whites become a minority. I think the best way to understand what America will look like is to look at California today. The Hispanic population will be immense, 135,000,000, according to the Census Bureau of Statistics.

California was once the Golden Land. Everybody went there. It was paradise. The soldiers who went out to the Pacific came home and then made their homes there.

But what is happening out there, James, is that the bond rating is the lowest in the country. The taxes are enormously heavy on the well-to-do and the successful, and these folks are leaving the state while one-third of poor, illegal immigrants head for California. You’ve got a Black/brown war of the underclass going on in Los Angeles, according to Sheriff Lee Baca, in the gangs and in the prisons. The welfare state is bankrupting California, and they have some of the highest taxes in the nation.

So, I think this is what the country is going to look like. And I quote the famous Harvard sociologist, Robert Putnam. He did a study of all the major cities of the United States and some others throughout the world. He found that social capital, that disposition of people to work together and live together and join together for common causes and good causes and political and social causes, is at its lowest in the city of Los Angeles.  He said he had never seen social capital so low anywhere and that diversity brings about people moving into their own enclaves, segregating themselves, separating themselves, and really cooperating in very little.

Edwards: Pat, we were talking about the demographic decline of European stock around the world and here in America. As you know, every minority group in this country has numerous organizations and representatives seeking to protect and advance their unique group interests. I find that to be quite natural and healthy, and, of course, it’s not only allowed when they do it; it is encouraged and applauded.  You discuss this tribalism in Suicide of a Superpower. Clearly, tribalism has empowered minorities in America and Europe. What happened to the tribal instincts of European Americans?

Buchanan: Frankly, it’s almost impermissible for folks of European descent to organize around their race. But you have a point, and in the book, I do talk about the Black caucus in Congress, which organizes and operates on Capitol Hill on government property, and it does not admit White members and several Whites who’ve tried to get in — Jonathan Bingham, I believe, and Pete Stark — have been denied admission because they were not African American.  And then there was your congressman in Memphis, they basically slammed the door in Steve Cohen’s face.

Edwards: It is one of the greatest hypocrisies that exists. African Americans voted 95 plus percent for Barack Obama, and people just shrug and say, “Well, of course they did. Why wouldn’t they?”  You have the Black congressional caucus, as you just mentioned. You have organizations like the NAACP. However, if White people express similar ethnocentric tendencies, they face harsh denunciations and condemnation.

Buchanan: That’s right. The African American community voted 95 to 4, which is 24 to 1, for Barack Obama, which is astounding.  Even prominent Republicans like General Powell turned against his fellow Vietnam vet to vote for Obama and Powell admitted that race had something to do with it, even though Obama ran denouncing the war that Powell sold to the country.

But you know, 85 percent of White folks in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama voted against Obama. There is this fellow for the New Yorker who wrote that he sees a new people emerging in the White community and that people who are constantly under attack and discriminated against by affirmative action will eventually unite around what it is that is being attacked and what they have in their own identity.

And frankly, this is something that somewhat concerns me. If you have no ethno-national poor in a country, such as they didn’t have in Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, and Czechoslovakia, as soon as they lifted off that repression, those things flew apart into something like 24 or 25 countries, whereas Poland stayed together, and Germany reunited on ethnic grounds.

And so, I feel that this power of ethnonationalism and religious fundamentalism is really the coming force in the world and you can see these things tearing countries apart.

Edwards: This is a follow-up to my previous question. It seems to me that many White politicians in Washington often work against their own group interests, which stands in stark contrast to the actions of their minority counterparts. Your chapter titled “The Diversity Cult,” begs me to ask this question: Why do so many Whites remain entranced by diversity when the social and cultural effects of diversity are almost entirely negative for themselves and their children and grandchildren?

Buchanan: I’ve been asked by people why it won’t be a really good thing when Whites become a minority nationwide. I mean, real problems are attendant to this.

If you go with the average American, let’s take the fellow who does the anti-affirmative action and civil rights initiative things. He conducted those ballot initiatives that abolished affirmative action in Michigan by referendum, in California by referendum, and in Washington by referendum, in three states that normally vote Democratic.

So, there is a growing majority of American people, even among the young, who feel that racial preferences and affirmative action are simply unjust. There’s a great belief that everybody should have a shot at getting on the team or getting in the band, or whatever. But the prize should go to those who are the best and work the hardest. And the idea that people should be discriminated against because of the color of their skin or where their ancestors come from, I think they find that profoundly offensive.

I think the further we go down the road with this affirmative action, especially now when you have women who qualify for affirmative action, Hispanics do, although there was no slavery of Hispanics. African Americans do. Then you’ve got 30 percent of the country, White males, who are really the ones who are the victims of affirmative action, not the beneficiaries. White males are 30 percent of the country, but they’re 75 percent of the dead and wounded coming back from Afghanistan. That’s not a formula for social peace.

Edwards: No, it’s not. But if these disenfranchised White males tried to come together politically to assert themselves, they would be shouted down as racists, supremacists, and so on and so forth.

Buchanan: Well, you know Shelby Steele wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal several years ago.  He’s an African American intellectual and scholar. And he said this type of racial identity politics is simply denied to Whites. I don’t know if he was saying this was a good thing or not. But clearly, if this type of organization took place it would be denounced. But I remember several years ago they had a meeting over in Leesburg of the Asian American caucus, the African American caucus, and the Hispanic caucus to decide how they can get more benefits out of the Congress for their own communities.  And you would say, “Wait a minute. At whose expense are these going to come?” I think, regrettably, that’s where America is headed.

Edwards: Let’s talk about the end game. Where do all the liberal, multi-racial, multi-cultural utopian fantasies that are destroying American pride and prosperity end?  You have written that we don’t share the same heroes, faith, or even the same language anymore.

Buchanan: Well, this is it. What are the basics of a nation?  It is a common language, common borders, a common faith, moral consensus, and moral code. Certainly, a common history, heroes, holidays, and literature are things that make up the culture. But you’re right. When I grew up in Washington DC, even though we were a segregated town, Blacks and Whites shared a lot of those things in common, and now we have very little in common that we share. And in addition to that, our politics and ideology are dividing us. If all these things go and we no longer have something like the Cold War to unite us where we could all stand together against Communism, then what do we have left?

Edwards: So where are we twenty years from now?

Buchanan: James, what I believe is that the United States will be a legal and political entity in 2041 when there is no majority anymore, and we’re all minorities. But I’m afraid the things that hold us together seem to be weakening, and the centrifugal force that is pulling us apart, as Lee Hamilton said, is strengthening. I think we will be a legal nation, but I don’t think we will be one nation under God, indivisible, and one people again. We will be a Balkanized country, sort of a tower of Babel, and we will be at war with each other over our differences in culture, language, politics, ideology, and religion.

We already see it happening now. I mean, the atmosphere, especially up here in Washington, is just poisonous. And I hear the term “racist” thrown out there. It’s a constant on cable television these days. Just disagreeing with somebody and calling them a racist. Those were horrendous terms 50 years ago, even when you had the civil rights struggle going on.

Edwards: I love God. I love my family, Pat. I want to see our destiny and traditional cultural heritage reclaimed for the benefit of all Americans. I don’t want that to come at the expense of anyone, but I also don’t want to be forced to trade down.

Buchanan: James, my hope is certainly that we’re going to be free to do that. But what I think is going to happen is the folks who believe as you do are going to basically, I think, retreat into enclaves of their own kind.

You know, all over the world, as I write in the chapter, “The Triumph of Tribalism,” ethnonationalism, and religious beliefs are driving peoples to separate from each other and to set up their own small nation-states where their own religion is predominant, and their own culture is predominant, and they themselves rule to the exclusion of all others.

Arthur Schlesinger and Pat Moynihan, both of whom I knew and who came to be my friends, wrote in the 1990s that these are the forces that will shape the future. It will not be Democracy versus Communism, Democracy versus Fascism, or ideology at all.  But these fundamental forces.

Edwards: We know a lot of the problems, but what can we do?  I don’t think it’s ever going to be 1950 again, though that certainly looks like an oasis by comparison.

Buchanan: You were born in 1980. I go back a long way before that. But you know, I’ve talked about the 1960s transition from Eisenhower to Kennedy. And the 1950s were really a wonderful time in America. I thought we were one people. We had won the World War. We were united. Ike was in charge. We were challenging the Soviet Union. The young president was coming in. He was going to the moon. And you know, I just don’t know if we’re ever going to be anything like that again. I think we are going to be utterly different than that in the future.

And I saw a review of my book that quoted Russell Kirk asking what a conservative’s duty is. And Kirk had said it is to preserve a particular people in a particular place at a particular time. And I think that’s what I’ve been trying to do with little success, and we have to look at things realistically. We can preserve this, but it’s not going to be dominant in the country anymore as it was. It’s not going to be the view of all. It will be the view of some, and others will have ideas, beliefs, and cultures that are in utter conflict.

And so, I see, as I said, sort of a Balkanization and a separation of peoples coming in this country over these most fundamental beliefs.


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

Why did the Israelis close their Dublin embassy?

Good news! It is now both fashionable and safe in Ireland to criticise Jewish Israelis and aspects of the Jewish religion.

They say it’s because Irish politicians are the most anti-Semitic in the world. Nonsense. Have they never heard the joke about Gregor Braun, the menorah and the fire extinguisher?

They cite Ireland’s decision to recognise the Palestinian state, to join the genocide case against Israel and the proposed bill to boycott Israeli goods.

This is also nonsense. Other countries have given much more active support to the Palestinians, and the Israelis have no problem having embassies there. And they hang out with Hamas and fund jihadis, so what’s the problem with an embassy in Ireland?

The Irish politicians publicly sympathise with the Palestinians, but privately they do everything to support the Israelis. Above our heads, day and night, we see and hear planes crossing the Atlantic in military convoy. The journalists tell us the Israelis are flying their US munitions through our skies. Sometimes they even stop at Shannon airport. Our government does nothing.

The bill to boycott some Israeli goods from the Occupied Territories has been sitting waiting approval for five years. Our politicians all support the bill, but they just can’t seem to find the time to pass it. The Israelis boast that they caused the delay. They released a supposed transcript of a chat one of their guys had with our finance minister, Pascal O’Donohue. He tells the Israelis not to worry about the Occupied Territories bill, that the government will find some technical excuse to delay it. Which is exactly what they did, and are still doing. Coincidence?

Multiply these incidents by a thousand and you will see that behind a screen of sympathy for the Palestinians, the Irish state is very helpful indeed to the Israeli killing machine.

Three possible explanations for the Israelis closing their Irish embassy:

1. It’s a boast and a show of strength. The Israelis are saying: ”The Irish are supposedly big pals of the Palestinians. We don’t even have an embassy there. But we can fly our war materials through Irish skies, no problem. We can stop an Irish law with just one phone call. We don’t need an embassy because Irish politicians just do exactly what we ask them to. Every single time. If they want to cry crocodile tears about the dead Palestinian children, let them. As long as they do what we tell them.”

The MSM are threatening us that Trump will close all the US big tech and big pharma factories here. Perhaps we can save ourselves if our politicians do a goy grovel, and open Shannon airport to Israeli flights?

2. Anti-Semitism is popular here! It’s an Israeli attempt to boost the popularity of our two top leaders Simon Harris and Michael Martin. By name, by nose and by the nature of their deeds, these two buckos have quite possibly some Jewish ancestry, and if there is a plot, they might well be working for it. They are widely unpopular and recently re-elected. Their brand needs freshening up, in preparation for the next five years. What could be more popular and refreshing, in pro-Palestine Ireland, than rebranding the two boyos as the worst anti-Semites in the world?

3. Nervous breakdowns: Israeli people working in the Dublin embassy are suffering mental health breakdowns because people keep making insulting jokes about various aspects of Jewish history and Jewish religion. Irish law allows you to make jokes about other people’s religions, and even to suggest to foreigners that they feck off back to where they came from. Perhaps dozens of Dubliners were mocking the embassy staff every day, and they just couldn’t handle it. There is no direct evidence this happened; it’s just a hypothesis. There have been statements by Irish Jews that other Irish people constantly bring up the question of the Israeli massacres with them, often in rather a rude way! The Israeli ambassador lady has sounded quite stressed and on the brink of a nervous breakdown when speaking on Irish radio, though it is possible she was just acting and looking for sympathy.

Man is a social animal. He wants to belong. If you were to meet with one insult in a day, it would have an effect. If you met with a dozen insults a day, five days a week, for weeks and weeks and weeks it would work it’s way through even the thickest skin.

The Irish Overton Window of talking about Jewish bad behaviour is pretty wide. Even government politicians and mainstream journos will say stuff like: The Zionists control the US…Jewish money and influence in the US…The IDF are murderers and liars…Netanyahu and his pals are part of a weird bloodthirsty Jewish sect. None of these statements are in any way controversial here.

So far, no mainstream politician will talk about Jewish power in Ireland.

Low profile people can voice even stronger criticism of aspects of Judaism, without any direct public punishment. You will not be arrested, brought to court or even publicly criticised or doxxed for saying things like: If the Israelis control the US, it means they control Ireland too. We should arrest all Israeli citizens in Ireland, confiscate all their assets and deport them, unless they can provide a certificate of good behaviour from the Palestinian ambassador. You can accuse Irish politicians of supporting mass migration because they have been compromised by Israeli sex traps. You can accuse Zionists of being involved in the multi-billion euro refugee accommodation scam.

Nobody will blink an eyelid. There will be no fuss. They may try to take revenge in other ways, but they won’t do anything publicly.

This is because they do not want to draw any more attention to these statements. They are afraid. If they publicly criticise someone for criticising the Jews, it could be the spark that set the heather blazing.

Statements like these have been made on local radio and in public meetings attended by government politicians. The government people did not say one word of criticism or contradiction to these potentially controversial statements. They just spoke about other topics.

This is proof that they are afraid.

Some politicians sense the way the wind is blowing. They are rubbing shoulders with Gregor Braun and a large bunch of other Remigration people in the European Parliament. They know Trump is talking about deporting tens of millions of people.

Deporting surplus foreigners is becoming fashionable. Trash talking Israeli Jews is very fashionable.

Four Irish MEPS discussed Israeli power on RTÉ. They all were in favour of the bill to boycott Israeli goods, but they all warned: There will be consequences, sanctions, ramifications, we will be totally isolated in Europe and at risk of being punished by Trump. One spoke with shock at how vehemently her colleagues in the European People’s Party defended the Israeli massacres.

At a public meeting in Killarney, all in the dear old Gaelic, the statement about arresting all Israelis, confiscating their assets and deporting them was made. None of the speakers ón the podium condemned this suggestion in any way. After the debate, who makes a beeline for the group including the maker of the “Deport them all” statement? None other than Cynthia ní Mhurchu, newly elected Member of the European Parliament, and still a very elegant woman, despite the fact that she is not as young as she used to be. All those months listening to Gregor and the other Konfederacla people complaining about Israel has obviously made her immune to shock when someone suggests rounding up all the Israelis and deporting them. She was keen to make clear that she voted against von der Leyen because of Ursula’s pro-Israel stance.

Good news: It is now both fashionable and safe in Ireland to criticise Jewish Israelis and aspects of the Jewish religion.

How do we encourage our world champion anti-Semitic leaders to take the next step and start taking action against the Israeli menace?

Simon Harris is boasting that he will send a top diplomatic mission to the US to make nice to Trump.

Wouldn’t it be fun to hijack this diplomatic offensive? A roster of fifty people could provide three one hour vigils outside the consulate, morning, lunch and evening. Every time they leave the office, there is someone holding a big photo of a massacre, calling the officials by name, and urging them not to be complicit in the genocide.

A few hundred other people contact the consulate by email, phone and in person. In person is best, of course. Explain that you are part of Trump’s base. But you’re also anti Israel using US weapons to kill children. Tell him that he must contact his superiors and inform them that Irish airspace is being used to transport genocide supplies. Remind him that you will hold him personally responsible, and quote the UN convention at him.

A few hundred contacts and a small vigil could have a big effect on some embassy staff. Some embassy staff are very nasty, and this will have very little effect on them. Some of the others will have a conscience, or at least a sense of shame. A couple of months of this kind of perfectly legal lobbying would definitely send some staff into a Palestine-related nervous breakdown. Or, better still, they could become whistleblowers…

Labour Fights for Rapists’ Rights: How the Non-White “Mass-Rape Abomination” Was Flourishing 70 years Ago

Jess Phillips is a typical masculinized high-testosterone leftist female politician. She’s also typical in that she follows a script written nearly eighty years ago by a man called George Orwell. In his most famous novel, Orwell described how “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.”

Jess Phillips, a masculinized high-T leftist fempol, with three of the White girls she and her party helped to murder

What Orwell meant as a satirical rebuke is a settled reality for modern leftists. Jess Phillips is the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence against Women and Girls in the current Labour government. Naturally enough, then, she works to encourage violence against women and girls on behalf of a party that hates the White working-class whom it was founded to defend. Phillips believes in the right of non-White rapists to carry on raping, not the right of White women and girls to be protected against non-White rapists. She has refused to commission any government enquiry into the industrialized abuse of White working-class girls by Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs in Labour-controlled towns and cities all over ethnically enriched England. For perfectly obvious reasons, feminist Phillips does not want any discussion of how and why these working-class Whites ended up dead while they were supposedly under the protection of Labour MPs and Labour councils:

  • 14-year-old Charlene Downes, who was raped and prostituted by Muslims in the Labour constituency of Blackpool before being murdered by her Muslim “boyfriends” and probably turned into kebab-meat.
  • 15-year-old Victoria Agoglia, was raped and prostituted by Muslims in a Labour constituency in Manchester and deliberately addicted to heroin before dying of an overdose.
  • 16-year-old Lucy Lowe, who was raped and prostituted by Muslims in the Labour constituency of Telford before being burned alive with her mother Eileen and her 17-year-old sister Sarah when her Muslim “boyfriend” set her house on fire.
  • 17-year-old Laura Wilson, who was raped and prostituted by Muslims in the Labour constituency of Rotherham before being repeatedly stabbed by her Muslim “lovers” and then thrown into a filthy canal to drown.

The Yorkshire town of Rotherham is, of course, the most infamous example of how Labour collaborated with non-Whites as they raped and prostituted White working-class girls. But much worse has gone on in other town and cities controlled by Labour. Rotherham’s staunchly feminist Labour MP, Denis MacShane, is nevertheless a perfect example of how and why Labour betrayed its traditional supporters. He worked tirelessly for rich Jews in far-off London while ignoring the White working-class girls being raped, tortured, and murdered by Pakistani Muslims in what he called his “wonderful constituency.”

Great champions for Jews

When MacShane went to jail for fraud in 2013, he was saluted as “one of the [Jewish] community’s greatest champions” by the journalist Martin Bright in the Jewish Chronicle. Bright got it right. So did the billionaire Elon Musk when he said that Jess Phillips should follow MacShane into jail for betraying women and girls. But Musk should call for the entire leftist elite to be jailed, from the slippery lawyer Tony Blair, a dedicated shabbos goy, to the slippery lawyer Keir Starmer, also a dedicated shabbos goy, to the very well-paid “Children’s Commissioner” Sue Berelowitz, a Jew who “denied there was a disproportionate problem with gangs of British Asians grooming young girls for sex.” Labour and other leftists have worked to harm the White working-class just as they’ve worked to harm ordinary women. Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, understands that. So, it appears, does one of the world’s richest women. The leftist mega-millionaire J.K. Rowling tweeted this in response to the scandal about Jess Phillips’ refusal to safeguard women and girls:

The details emerging about what the rape gangs (why call them ‘grooming’ gangs? It’s like calling those who stab people to death ‘knife owners’) did to girls in Rotherham are downright horrific. The allegations of possible police corruption in the case are almost beyond belief. (Tweet by J.K. Rowling, 2nd January 2025)

Sue Berelowitz, the leftist Jew who said “Screw you!” to working-class Whites (image © Lucy Young/REX from Daily Mail)

It’s almost as though Rowling has read what I wrote about her at the Occidental Observer: “I admire leftists like J.K. Rowling for standing up to the small clown-cult of transgenderism. But she ignores the far greater harm done to women by the giant clown-cult of trans-Westernism. It’s as though she’s complaining about the common cold while cholera is raging.” Just as transgenderism is the lie that men can be women and occupy female spaces, so trans-Westernism is the lie that non-Whites can be Westerners and occupy White nations.

Guide for the Perplexed

I think it’s very significant that an influential leftist like Rowling now understands how her own ideology has betrayed and harmed women not just by siding with sexually perverted men but also by siding with sexually rapacious non-Whites. But there’s a lot more for Rowling and company to understand about leftist collaboration in what Nigel Farage has called the “mass-rape abomination.” They’re beginning to see how badly Labour has betrayed the White working-class, but they don’t yet see how long this betrayal has been going on.

For the answer to that, Rowling should turn to another – and much better – female writer, the late and definitely great Jennifer Worth (1935-2011). In her hugely successful Call the Midwife: A True Story of the East End in the 1950s (2002), Worth included a chapter whose title and toxicity hasn’t been analyzed or publicized in great detail by leftists. You will understand why when I tell you that its title was simply “Zakir” and its toxicity arose from its honest portrayal of the way non-White men were preying on White working-class girls many decades ago.

First pretence, then predation

Zakir is the name of a Muslim Asian who “grooms” a young White girl called Mary with pretended love and concern. Even when she sees that Zakir is in harsh control of other White girls, she doesn’t realize what he is planning to do:

Mary thought, “He likes me the best. He doesn’t like those girls. They look a nasty bunch anyway. But I am his special friend,” and a warm glow flooded over her. Each time Zakir returned, he showered Mary with smiles, his beautiful white teeth flashing and his dark eyes gleaming. … That night Mary had her first clients. She was auctioned as a virgin, and the highest bidder got her first, with eight others following after. The next day Zakir put his arm around her, and told her that he was very pleased with her. He flashed his smile at her and her heart melted. She lived off this smile, and the others he condescended to give her, for months. (Call the Midwife: A True Story of the East End in the 1950s)

Worth is describing the modus operandi of countless similar non-White predators in Britain, who first pretend love and concern to fool naïve White girls, then turn into vicious predators and pimps. Mary was soon working as a prostitute for Zakir, whose pretended love turns into sadistic abuse and exploitation. Zakir had destroyed the lives of dozens of White girls before Mary and would go on to destroy the lives of dozens more. And that was merely one non-White predator-pimp in London in the 1950s. In other words, the “mass-rape abomination” was already flourishing seventy years ago.

How did the feminist Labour party respond as its traditional supporters were attacked and had their lives destroyed? By ignoring the raped working-class Whites and championing the non-White rapists. In 2013, Roy Hattersley, the former deputy leader of the Labour party, asked this question in the Guardian: “Should I, in 1964, have called for what a clear majority of my constituents, and most of the country, undoubtedly wanted – the repatriation of all Commonwealth [i.e., non-White] immigrants?” His answer was an emphatic “No.” What “most of the country” wanted, traitorous politicians like Hattersley refused to supply. As he boasted in a later article: “For most of my 33 years in [parliament], I was able to resist [my constituents’] demands about the great issues of national policy – otherwise, my first decade would have been spent opposing all Commonwealth immigration and my last calling for withdrawal from the European Union.”

Keir Starmer and Roy Hattersley with their Jewish wives (images from Sky News and Daily Mail)

It’s no coincidence that Roy Hattersley has a Jewish wife just like Keir Starmer, the current leader of Hattersley’s party. Labour was founded to champion the White working-class but was long ago taken over by Jewish money and Jewish ideology. It now works to harm the White working-class and help the non-White predators whom Jews regard as their “natural allies” in their war on Whites and the West. That’s why Labour and all other mainstream leftists have been collaborating with non-White rape-gangs for so many decades. It’s good that J.K. Rowling has started to understand the truth about the Labour party and her own ideology, but she still has a long way to go.

The Hite Three

The Hite Three, as I call them, are three precepts, prescriptions, rules to live by, somewhere in there, that you might want to try out to see how they work for you. Hite refers to Shere Hite, a woman who was big in American life back in the 1970s and ‘80s. She came up with the Hite Three, though she didn’t call them that.
Shere Hite was best known for a book she wrote in 1976 on women’s sexuality that sold in the multi-millions called The Hite Report. She wrote other books, all of them on sexual practices and perspectives, men’s as well as women’s, that got attention though none made a splash like The Hite Report.

The Hite Report

This is not the place to go into The Hite Report’s content in any detail. Enough to say here that it was controversial. A major example, Hite’s claim that women do way better coming to an orgasm through masturbation than from someone lying on top of them thrusting in and out, which results in them faking it a lot of the time. You might want to read the book. It’ll give you a sense of the who-needs-men posture of the emerging second wave women’s movement in those years, as well as the tone of the ‘70s in general.

The success of The Hite Report was increased by the “wow” quality of young, glamorous, fashion-model-esque, super cool Shere Hite, who was everywhere in the media—TV, newspapers, and magazines, including nude Playboy poses. No internet back then of course.

Shere Hite

Here’s a video of her in 1976:

Hite came to my attention recently watching an excellent 2023 documentary on her, “The Disappearance of Shere Hite,” something else you might want to check out. The actress Dakota Johnson—Don’s daughter with Melanie Griffith for those of you old enough to remember–was major in producing it and does the voice of Hite when needed.

The Disappearance of Shere Hite

The title of the documentary gets at the fact about Shere Hite that particularly intrigued me and got me thinking: in 1990, she disappeared from view. She went from being in the public consciousness to, in a flash, no segue, no farewell speech, gone, and for good. According to the documentary, she got fed up with the static she was getting about her books and her persona and decided who needs it and hit the road.

What had been going on, and it was intensifying, is that men in particular weren’t taking to Hite telling them—or so they thought anyway, I think they were overreacting—that they were needy and unnecessary annoyances in women’s lives. A lot of people, women as well as men, came at the validity of the research methodology Hite employed to generate the data that supported her conclusions. She distributed surveys with open-ended questions here, there, and everywhere, and people mailed in completed surveys to her in New York City. She based The Hite Report on what the 3,000 women who chose to mail in their surveys reported. By the way, nobody ever questioned Hite’s work ethic—she toiled away day and night to get The Hite Report and her other books out.

To be sure, the survey responses Hite compiled for The Hite Report didn’t comprise a representative sample of all women, but she came on as if it did. If I’d been around her, I would have suggested she acknowledge that her data didn’t hold up as a random sample, but still, what 3, 000 women, and that’s a lot of people, think about their sex lives, whether or not they are representative of the total population of women, should prompt the rest of us to think through how we come down on these same concerns, and that’s a worthwhile activity apart from whether or not her pool of respondents to her surveys would pass muster in Statistics 201.

Another criticism of Hite is that some people were rubbed the wrong way by what they perceived as her haughty, better-than-thou manner. Not me. In the clips I’m seen of her, I found her to be articulate, gracious, and charming.

The documentary reveals that Hite went to Europe and stayed there until her death in 2020 at seventy-seven after years of suffering from a Parkinson’s-like illness. I find it hard to imagine young, vital, beautiful Shere Hite as a physically ill, diminished, dying old woman. I don’t know of pictures of her after she dropped out of sight, so Shere Hite remains, per the Bob Dylan song, forever young.

From the documentary, I picked up on what I’m calling the Hite Three that she used as personal guidelines, including cutting out for Europe. I’ve thought about them and put my twist on them and tried them out and they’ve seemed to help me live better.

The three:
1. Take your life very seriously. As time goes along, do what you can to boost your “take my life seriously” level and be vigilant to anybody or anything that lowers it. This can get subtle: A relationship can be good but at the same time trivialize your existence. An article, say in this internet magazine, can be excellent but make you feel as if you are on the outside looking in at life’s drama. A conference speaker can make a superb presentation and leave you feeling that he is the star of the show, standing up high, in the spotlight, and you’re a lesser being in the audience, sitting down, in the dark. Tucker Carlson could do a fine interview and the best thing you can think of to do after it is watch LeBron James shoot free throws. The ideal is to develop a healthy perversity of sorts: if somebody/something, which includes what you think and do, cues you to take your life less seriously, make that a prod to take yourself more seriously.

2. If anybody is laying a negative concept of who you are on you, leave. Leaving can be what Hite did, vacating the premises, heading out to New Mexico or going in the next room or to the garage to work on your car. It can also mean leaving in place, as it were: right here, don’t go anywhere, make the other person invisible, no energy positive or negative sent in his/her direction; you’re in the room but not in the room as far as this person is concerned. Speaking of Bob Dylan, a couple nights ago I watched the documentary “Dont Look Back” (Dont is not a typo) about his 1965 concert tour of Britain. The singer Joan Baez, who once was personally close to Dylan and seemed to think she still was, was smiling and chattering away a few feet from him, but to Dylan it was if she wasn’t there. He didn’t as much as look at her. No animosity, no coolness toward her, no agenda with her at all, just nothing. She finally went back to the U.S., and you might imagine Dylan’s reaction, or better, non-reaction, to that. I’d put what Dylan did in the category of leaving.

3. For three days, shut your personal act down. Get away from everything and everybody, which in our time, for just about all of us, means work, people, rituals and habits, the entertainment industry, news shows, the internet, social media, and texting. Just you here and now, a walk by the lake, cook a meal, sit in a chair. Books and movie streaming and journal writing are OK, or I guess, or maybe not, I don’t know. Another metaphor to get at this idea, put a “Closed” sign on the door of your particular business, what you try to sell to your customers (the people in your life) every day all day. No to-do list for the three days, no topics and issues to ponder. Breathe in and breathe out and let whatever comes up present itself to you, and if you want to, think about it, give it meaning, identify its implications, and if you don’t have the impulse to do any of that, that’s fine too. Another way to say it: for three days, don’t do, be.

I did the three-day shut down. It’s not necessary to get into what came out of it for me. Enough to say it was well worth my time and I recommend doing it.

As for the two other “Hites” during the three days:

Not that I’m not taking my life seriously now, but I should take it more seriously. During the backed-off time, what and who (including me) is impeding getting that done came into focus.

And yes, I have to some leaving. And since the opposite of a good thing is most often also a good thing, I have to get better at staying. I need to say YES rather than yes to some people.

It’s only been a few weeks, but I’ve already gotten on with doing some good things in a “Hite” direction, which has been gratifying and encouraging. I feel—and I mean that literally, the organism I experience, feel, as me—clearer and stronger, less vulnerable, and more directed after working with the Hite Three, enough to put the energy into writing this up. Your call as to what, if anything, to do with what’s here.

 

Identities, TWASH, and the True Purpose of Propaganda: On the Nature of the Parasitic Superorganism That is the American Regime and How to Overcome It

Why has the true Right, the Dissident Right, been losing ground to its enemies for so long? There are almost as many answers to this as there are intellectual fighters within our ranks—not surprising, given that the hive mind doesn’t exactly thrive on our side. Today I wish to present not only my answer to that question, but also what I believe to be the best method for reversing that trend and driving back the Left. To begin, then, let’s start with the nature of the problem, which can be summed up in one simple sentence: The Right thinks in terms of ideas and how to spread them, whereas the Left thinks (or, at least, the segment of it that does think at all) in terms of institutions and how to conquer them. It is absolutely critical that our side realize that institutions give ideas, however wise or foolish they may be, teeth—or to put this is a more graphic, in fact literal, form, picture the Left in its current dominant form as a rabid, plague-ridden sewer rat with massive, razor-sharp incisors. Then picture the Dissident Right in its current form as a healthy, muscular Doberman that has had all of its teeth plucked out one by one until it has now only gums: despite the fact that it’s madder than a March hare and incapable of surviving for very long. That rat’s going to inspire complete and utter terror in everyone who crosses it, whereas the Doberman despite its strength and potential longevity, is more likely to get laughed at than feared. Such is the power of ideas when they have institutions to back them.

The reason for this goes to the very heart of human nature. Ideas do indeed have consequences, to quote the Southern agrarian Richard Weaver, but they’re actually far less consequential than many dissidents tend to think, at least when they’re by themselves. If you want to know what charts the course of human events, look to the twin concepts (as I define them) of attributes and identity, or any aspects (true or false) of a man which are or which he holds to be part of himself and his nature. Together they constitute a person’s being, and as such, there is not one event however small and long-forgotten in all of human history that was not presided over by this absolute duopoly, the nature and workings of which will allow those who come to appreciate and understand that nature and those workings a far greater ability to influence events yet to come than they otherwise would have.

Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica famously described the attributes of God as simplicity, perfection, goodness, infinity, existence in all things, immutability, eternity, and unity. Although not all of you may agree with St. Thomas on the nature of God or even the nature of His existence, I think you can all agree that human nature by contrast is just about the opposite: namely, it’s transitory, changeable, and conflicted. Given that we might say that at any given point the course a person pursues will be the result of which coalition of attributes and identities came out on top, if only for that time. Moreover, the battles of this lifelong war are often much more convoluted and confused than would be the case with sets of distinct attributes and identities going head-to-head until one set emerges triumphant. There are numerous ways this actually plays out, but for our purposes here, we’ll just focus on a few ways, all of which have to do with identities intertwining, deceiving, or both.

As for the ways identities can intertwine or blend, we might begin by observing that there are only two types of reasons why a person likes or dislikes anything, be it a person, place, object, or idea: implication and association, these corresponding very roughly to reason and emotion. To give a quick example, one might like carrot juice for its ability to help restore red blood cells after an injury or blood donation; in contrast, the person might not be aware of any health benefits of carrot juice and may actually hate the taste of it but still like drinking it for its association with the dinner at which he proposed to his wife and how it floods him with those happy memories.

Hence, you get some cases in which identities logically blend or grow out of each other—for example, our identity of opposition to open borders and unlimited and indiscriminate immigration grows naturally out of our identity as those desiring nations that are stable, internally sturdy, and with a longevity that can be measured in centuries rather than decades.

On the other hand, there are identities that become intertwined by mere designation, though having no logical connection with each other and possibly being mutually exclusive or at odds with each other. For example, the bizarre package of identities that the neocons and MSM try to sell as conservatism—(in theory) freedom of speech, limited government, loyalty to the Constitution, along with (in practice) unlimited immigration, a vast expansion of the surveillance state, endless open-ended wars “for democracy,” etc.—despite the utter incompatibility with each other and their negative utility for conserving anything beyond the elites’ own power and wealth.

And then, there is the grand but mostly associative intertwining of the vast majority of our attributes and identities, involving thoughts which deal with our ideas about ourselves and the world, into what you might call our sense of normalcy—which as we’ll see later, the elites weaponize in order to better control us.  All of which have to do with identities intertwining, deceiving, or both.

Also important are the identities of deception. There are, of course, the types which you were aware of even if you never gave them a name, i.e., what I call stalking horse identities which are false identities we present to others in order to deceive them, such as the ones adopted by those who would use talk of support for human rights or the poor of the world as a stalking horse behind which lurks a raw desire for increasing political power by swelling the ranks of supporters or increasing profits with an endless supply of cheap labor or both.

But of course there are other deception types of identities as well, ones even more quintessentially human: for while examples abound in nature of species that try to deceive others or even others of their own, it is man alone who habitually deceives himself, with two (among others) such types of deception involving what I refer to as cloaking identities and iceberg identities.

The latter is a unique blend of internal and external deception: as the name implies, it is where you’ve got one or more identities on the surface that you let people see. They aren’t phony, as with stalking-horse types, but they aren’t the whole story either, as they’re inextricably bound to other identities below the surface (some far enough below that those who possess them aren’t even consciously aware of them). For example, those engaged in White flight who describe their motivation as a search for “better schools”—that being the surface part with the racial component kept safely below. If you’re arguing with an ordinary person, someone not a political shill, and you’ve logically addressed all their objections but have not swayed them in the least, the chances are pretty good that you’re dealing with a set of iceberg identities, and you need to have your arguments address what they’re not revealing.

Then there are the purposeful self-deception cloaking identities. They’re the identities behind which we conceal from ourselves those parts of us that are embarrassing or shameful. Often what’s behind the cloak is some form of laziness and/or cowardice: many there are that make at least some part of the regime’s ideology their own, either out of a combination of fear of the repercussions for openly opposing it and shame at being so impotently timorous, or out of a slothful love of first-world leisure that opposing the system would eliminate, or both.

This brings us to the true purpose of propaganda and what makes control of institutions so important.

You see, the primary purpose of a regime’s ideology, propaganda, pronouncements, etc., isn’t to deceive people: most of what the regime espouses is too far removed from reality to truly fool all but the most fanatical ideologues or the very dumb—who don’t make up enough of the population to make pure deception an efficient method of control. Rather, its primary purpose is to give those of at least middling intelligence and at most middling energy and courage a way to sublimate their sloth and/or cowardice, concealing those parts of themselves behind a façade belief in the official line. Were the regime to come right out and flaunt its power and its hatred of us, the timidity and lethargy of the majority would be on display for all to see and all would be forced to choose between standing there in complete shame or fighting, and, thus cornered, many would finally choose the latter, which is why no regime EVER will abandon its official lies.

Of course, this also requires the regime to make opposition to it and its lies a fearful and difficult matter; hence why control of institutions is key to its survival, since they serve as the enforcement mechanism for compliance with its ideology. In the Soviet Union these institutions, especially the economic bureaucracy and secret police, were formal appendages of the state itself; in our case, they tend to be unofficial, ostensibly private ones, with the most common being those capable of inflicting economic harm: express unapproved sentiment on racial differences, the border, etc.—get fired from your job, have your payment system cut off and the like.

Not that such economic enforcement alone would be enough. Given its undisguised antagonism toward the nation’s founding stock, the regime’s official ideology would lead to massive opposition and boycott had it just been foisted on us out of the blue by government in conjunction with big business without a prior effort to instill at least elements of it into the population at an early age and have it permeate the culture. In other words, unless the regime gains control of other, mutually reinforcing institutions as well.

That last part cuts to the heart of both the regime’s fundamental nature and the reason the Dissident Right keeps losing ground to it: to put it simply, the regime functions as a parasitic superorganism.

The standard superorganism definition runs along the lines of “a colony of social organisms (such as ants) in which the members and castes are integrated in much the same way as the organs of a multicellular individual,” with the colony of ants mentioned being the usual example (of a nonparasitic, albeit predatory, type): as with a multiorgan being, none of the individual parts can survive without the others. A cancerous tumor would be an example of the parasitic type displaying these attributes: the rogue cells not only multiply out of control but engage in a division of labor with some specializing in tricking the body into growing extra blood vessels specifically for it (angiogenesis), etc.

To lay it out in broad terms, these are the major parts of the superorganism in relation to each other:

  1. The political elites who give a veneer of legitimacy to the system. Without them, the other divisions would not be able to push their ideologies and undertake their de facto looting operations of various kinds without risking being noticed and retaliated against. On the other hand, these elites rely almost entirely on the other divisions to fund their campaign against more honest men and create and enforce the ideologies that justify their nefarious activities.
  2. The oligarchs whose connections to the central bank allow them through credit expansion to clandestinely steal the wealth of the general population, giving them a greatly heightened ability to buy out businesses and politicians alike, to the disadvantage of those for whom theft (even legalized theft) is immoral and forbidden. It is the oligarchs’ Fed connection that allows for the existence of financial behemoths such as BlackRock whose leadership converts financial power into ideological power by pushing wokeism from the top down: allowing them to buy out and/or fire those who won’t toe the line and thus allowing them to enforce ideological conformity with the threat of livelihood loss. However, the oligarchs mostly do not create the ideology they push nor give it its initial push; THAT is the task of the third part.
  3.         The educational establishment, in whose upper ranks first develop the deadly ideologies that then spread downward, eventually reaching the level of grade-schoolers who are most ill fitted to discover their fallacious nature or their disastrous effects. The ideas that provide oligarchs and politicians alike with the ideological justification for various forms of manipulation and tyranny originate in academia. The upper echelon of education also serves as a gateway (and thus, their denizens as gatekeepers) to the lower ranks of the political and oligarchic parts. On the other hand, this part is almost entirely dependent on the largesse of the first two for its survival.
  4. The Hollywood media and professional sports entertainment complex, the means by which the ideologies which would otherwise remain confined to the ivory tower or be scorned by ordinary people are made to permeate the general culture such that they are taken at least semiseriously even by those who have the greatest scorn for academics. Without the push of entertainment, the oligarchs and politicians would never be able to utilize the ideas cooked up by the academics even half as effectively. On the other hand, as the era of the Hays Code showed, even media moguls can be brought to heel by an unindoctrinated population wielding the threat of political force to force the moguls to keep their works in line with the general culture. Hence, the elites of media and Hollywood require the assistance of the others in order to protect their own part of the superorganism.
  5. Finally, the military-industrial complex. This part indirectly supports the superorganism’s other parts by—at least up until the time that the Ukraine War began to prove the US military to be something of a paper tiger—allowing for the threat of military intervention against countries who refuse to align with our elites’ interests. By propping up the dollar’s status as the world reserve currency (at least until now) the MIC gave the US Fed the awesome financial power that it somewhat yet enjoys. In turn, the defense contractors within it donate massively to the various politicians’ campaigns and are in turn fed out of the public trough. Also, as the ideological campaigns of Biden’s diversity officers show, the military is not invulnerable to the pseudointellectual bilge cooked up in the academy and spread through the media.

As you can see, it’s truly like a biological superorganism in that the loss of some parts would mean the others couldn’t survive in parasitic form. As such, the regime has all the strengths and weaknesses of a parasite, including as I noted in passing earlier, most people have a kind of grand intertwining of most of their identities into what you might call their sense of normalcy and thus avoid disillusionment with any major part of their worldview. This worldview is for the most part crafted by the education and media establishment, Disillusion would make them feel as though their whole world is falling apart despite the other parts having no logical connection to the parts there was disillusionment with; this in turn allows the parasite to hold their sense of sanity and normalcy hostage and thus allows it to force them to swallow even ridiculous narratives rather than feel that world collapse.

How can the Dissident Right give its ideas the teeth to oppose the parasitic regime, perhaps in conjunction with normiecons and even citizens in general? By providing the leadership and direction for forming a counter-superorganism, one that can outcompete that of the regime and its allies in some or most of the areas it currently dominates.

As I said, the regime’s a superorganism, meaning none of its parts can thrive or possibly even survive without the others. Imagine if an alternative economy (not a black market–style underground one, but a legal parallel one) could be formed, rendering the regime’s primary means of punishing heterodoxy null: many, many more would find the courage to openly voice ideological blasphemy. Or if an alternative education system could be put together, allowing an entire generation to see just how bizarre and evil, how contrary to nature the regime’s official ideology truly is. That should be the Dissident Right’s goal, to form that counter-superorganism.

In this we will be given help, quite unintentionally, by the superorganism itself, which like all parasites contributes nothing to its host and in fact actively weakens it as it battens itself. This means that it faces what I call the parasite’s paradox: the greater the parasite’s power becomes, the more tenuous its hold on power becomes as well, since every move that it makes to strengthen itself has the counterproductive effect of creating more TWASH (my Elmer Fuddish–sounding acronym for “those whom the American system hurts”).

This, in turn, creates the potential for a leveraging effect to be used against the parasite. Here’s how it works. At any given point there are those who are greatly harmed by the regime and will oppose it (legally and nonviolently in our case), the consequences—save maybe being sent to a literal gulag or executed—be damned. It is critical to begin with this mad as hell and not going to take it anymore TWASH crowd, giving unique focus and appeal to each subgroup of them and uniting them to leverage their power to influence, one after the other, the critical groups above them. For immediately above the TWASH lies a larger group of those who still have their jobs and reputations but are hurt enough by the parasitism (in the form of inflation, antiwhite propaganda insults, etc.) that they’d be glad to oppose the regime—nonviolently, I mean, as with everything I say here—if only the effort were not futile. Above them lies an even larger group that would oppose the regime if opposition is either easy or likely to be successful. Together these three groups constitute a critical mass capable of imparting to our ideas legitimacy and respectability in the eyes of the gray men of the world: that is, those who hold no strong beliefs but will swing one way or another based on what everyone else, or at least the respectable majority, seems to favor. And once you get the gray men—who at this late stage of the infection are feeling pain from the parasites’ activities as well—on the side of your ideas and plans, you have the means to overwhelm those who yet support the regime either for profit or ideology,

In the past, even ten years ago, the potential for forming a counter-superorganism and leveraging was fairly small: too many Americans still had too much faith in the system and were too comfortable in their bubble of easy money/debt-fueled consumerism to want to truly (if nonviolently) oppose the parasite, and the parasite was still too able from a combination of debt-financed pseudoprosperity and perceived military might to grow fatter and more damaging without creating too much TWASH.

Those days are now long gone. The military has been shown, in Ukraine and Afghanistan, to be a paper tiger (albeit with a few nuclear teeth left); deficit financing now leads to massive inflation—and as such there is no way for the parasite to bribe one group of our potential allies among the TWASH without making more TWASH in the process. It’s all out of carrot and has only stick left to work with—and all punishment, real or threatened, obviously creates TWASH as well.

Based on the 2024 and 2020 elections, we have a potential pool of about 77 to 81 million to work with (a number greater than the population of all but 19 countries!). That number of dissenters from the regime will only continue to go up—I’m assuming both that the regime won’t give Trump any fake votes and that (contrary to what Trump’s ego might feel), while there were many who voted for him who didn’t like him or might even despise him personally, there were virtually no Trump voters who didn’t hate the regime. It needs only be given skilled leadership and guidance to mold it into a powerful counter-superorganism capable of outcompeting (again, nonviolently) the parasite and bringing it to its knees.

Too many on our side showed surprise when those such as Italy’s Meloni and our Trump failed to live up to their promises or outright turned on those who elected them. But why should that outcome surprise anyone older than a grade-schooler? After all, as things stand now, we have nothing to offer politicians but a vote and nothing to threaten them with besides waiting patiently ‘til the next chance to vote for someone even worse; meanwhile the superorganisms of the various regimes can both offer the pols huge campaign war chests and easy, highly lucrative employment for their remaining days when they final step down from their positions as top Judas goats and threaten them with everything from lawfare to being JFK’ed if they’re truly perceived as a threat by the parasite to its interests. Had we as powerful a counter-superorganism as our numbers would allow, we could field and fund our own party, defend its members against any harm, and make sure that anyone tempted to turn traitor would be duly punished: obviously not by physical harm or death, but by ensuring that either they’ll be recalled in disgrace, or when they step down, any business that tried to hire them with their proverbial 30 pieces of silver would find itself made into a pariah and boycotted into bankruptcy.

As I close, let me make something clear: intellectual institutions such as VDARE are absolutely necessary. they’re just not sufficient. Without virtue and truth on our side— truth which they help spread, what counter-superorganism we might form would slowly but inevitably devolve into just another parasite.  To give teeth to the ideas they’re helping to spread, we of the Dissident Right need to immediately begin to analyze the numbers, composition, and location of various segments of TWASH and start forming the groups that will compose our counter-superorganism. Only then will we see our beloved ideals honored and our ideas brought to fruition.

Thank you.