Featured Articles

“Should Britain have stayed out of the war?”

/19 Comments/in /by

The Second World War was the decisive moment of the left’s ascent to power in the West. Historians like Niall Ferguson and Andrew Roberts, whose careers centre upon justifying it, are falsely presented by fellow anti-fascists as conservatives. The raison d’etre of the fake right is to occupy any space in which genuine, committed opponents of the left would otherwise exist and to continually surrender. They conspire in the anti-fascist monopoly; the real right are excluded from all institutions.

Hitler’s violation of the Munich settlement in March 1939 proved his perfidy and his intention to conquer. But why was Britain party to that settlement? The German invasion of Poland triggered the declarations of war by Britain and France. But why were those countries allied with Poland? The two statements are familiar. The two questions I arrived at myself, and since the answers have not been forthcoming from historians, I have sought them, and only thereby begun to understand the causes of the war.

To say that the war began because Germany invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia or Poland leaves begging any explanation of British involvement, as Britain only pledged support to Poland six months before the German invasion and was never allied with Austria, Czechoslovakia or France. The latter two were allied with each other since 1924, and both made pacts with the Soviet Union in the 1930s. France’s alliance with the Czechs (who dominated the Slovaks) made Germany’s demands toward the latter a British issue because British politicians and civil servants informally maintained the Entente with France: the unwritten understanding that the two would act together (with Russia) against Germany. The understanding was formed in 1904; the Great War had occurred, Russia had been superseded by the Soviet Union and Germany had been diminished at Versailles, yet through the succeeding twenty years, albeit with serious differences, Britain maintained a common diplomatic front with France against Germany. French politicians’ hostility to Germany and collaboration with communists was condoned and imitated by the war party in Britain. French politicians, exploiting British sympathy, aggravated relations with Germany and surrounded it with alliances, but refrained from declaring war alone, regarding British commitment as a necessity. Pro-war forces in Britain required six years to discredit, isolate and defeat the moderates and peacemakers; when they did so, Britain declared war and France followed.

A year before, Britain had been the decisive actor at the Munich summit, in which Czechoslovakia was, according to Churchillian history, ‘given away’ to Germany in a vain attempt to avoid war. Why war would otherwise have eventuated and between whom tends to go unspecified. France was unfaithful from the start in its promises to the smaller nations and would have forgone them if Germany’s threats to Czechoslovakia were fulfilled. Britain’s solidarity was precisely what made France and the Czechs affect such boldness as they did. British politicians, including Neville Chamberlain, acted there, and before and after, as though allied with France; for this I have never encountered any explanation. A self-consciously pro-French, anti-German faction fostered by King Edward VII took over the civil service, Parliament and the media in the century’s first decade and brought about the First World War, in which Churchill exulted. As nothing appears to have interrupted the hold of that faction on British policy, I surmise that they and their successors deepened their power through the 1910s and 1920s, became what we now call anti-fascists in the 1930s and have had hegemony in politics and the publishing of history ever since.

There should be detailed accounts written on this continuation of British support for France against Germany in the interwar period, as it was probably the most consequential foreign policy option in modern British history. Instead the most famous historians have, since the war, directed their readers’ attention toward whatever justifies the course taken by Winston Churchill, not only as Prime Minister from May 1940 but in the previous seven years through which, in their portrayal, he was a prescient but unheeded seer of the German threat. Historians who have diverged, like David Irving and Patrick Buchanan, are treated not only as incorrect but as fools or scoundrels to be met either with vehement denunciation or aloof avoidance and disparagement. In the telling of court historians, Hitler’s insane and malevolent actions are always the explanation for the war. Only one party instigated conflict; everyone else involved was merely responding to the ‘Nazi menace’; every other factor cited is Nazi apologism.

National chauvinism could explain using such a selective approach to exonerate Britain and France, but it is also taken by Western historians in favour of the Soviet Union. The Soviets, it is implied, were no threat to anyone (until 1945). The numerous attempts at Marxist overthrows in Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Hungary, Romania and other states since 1917 are mentioned only in the more detailed studies of the time, yet these were the primary provocation for the burgeoning of fascism and national socialism, which decidedly are included in the victors’ history as causes of the war. The ubiquity of the myth, probably Trotskyist in origin, that Stalin gave up on the idea of world revolution (or conquest) is convenient for his apologists in the West. ‘Socialism in one country’ derives from one letter by Stalin to a newspaper; it is belied by his and others’ more private utterances and the gargantuan military forces he amassed through the 1930s and positioned at the border with Germany in 1940-1, ready to convey socialism to many more countries.

The saviours of civilisation

The activities of the Comintern and the Soviet NKVD in penetrating the British civil service and recruiting agents of influence and prestigious non-communist advocates via front groups are the subject of dozens of books, television dramas and movies, yet I know of few historians who make any mention of them in relation to the causing of the war. Those Churchillian historians who mention the most famous Soviet foreign initiative, the Popular Front, condone it at least tacitly. They could hardly do otherwise, as Churchill was effectively part of a greater anti-German alliance of which the Popular Front was a vital international element. Churchill’s phrase from 1941 about being willing to make a favourable reference to the devil if the devil happened to be at war with Germany is proferred to superficial readers to imply that he became pro-Soviet out of necessity in light of Operation Barbarossa, but Churchill began to privately meet Ivan Maisky, the Soviet ambassador, a full seven years earlier. He was introduced to Maisky specifically to foster an anti-German rapprochement by Robert Vansittart, who personified the pro-French, anti-German faction preeminent in the civil service.

By another civil servant, Reginald Leeper, and for the same purpose, Churchill was also introduced to the Anti-Nazi Council, which he renamed the Focus in Defence of Peace and Freedom (or simply the Focus). The Anti-Nazi Council was the British arm of an international campaign initiated by Samuel Untermyer to force regime change in Germany, initially by boycott. Untermyer, Felix Frankfurter, Bernard Baruch, Henry Strakosch, Eugen Spier and Robert Waley Cohen are the most well-documented of many wealthy Jewish activists who supported and collaborated with Churchill in this effort. As the boycott was found insufficient, threats of war, then war itself, became the methods required; as Britain was as yet governed by men like Chamberlain still inclined to value British interests higher than Jewish ones, regime change was required here too.

The pretext consisted in persistently characterising Germany as a threat to Britain. Churchill’s reputation as the Cassandra who ‘warned us of the danger’ refers to his speeches in Parliament and on the BBC from 1934 claiming that the Germans were developing a larger air force than Britain and implying that they would, when ready, launch it all at Britain, whom against all evidence they were supposed to revile. The juvenile preposterousness of his fear campaign should not distract from the fact that much of the intelligence he (and later the Focus) cited was simply made up by Soviet agents like Jurgen Kucyznski, brother of the handler of the traitor Klaus Fuchs. Germany had no plan to bomb Britain and appears not to have prepared for any such conflict until Churchill’s lies were several years old and beginning to generate the desired antagonism.

The Focus, covert in itself, published and staged events under aliases including ‘Arms and the Covenant’, which referred to its members’ calls for accelerated rearmament (without regard to affordability) and the enforcement of the Covenant of the League of Nations against Germany. When the Soviet Union later violated the Covenant to invade or annex five member states of the League, this approach was abandoned, but Britain was by then at war with Germany. Support of the League had always been a leftist cause and a vehicle for ‘internationalism’, i.e., the supersession of nations, an aim remarkably compatible with the long-term goals of both the Soviets and Franklin Roosevelt. Roosevelt’s vision for the United Nations after the war was as a world government with the USA and the USSR as the leading powers. The entry of the latter into the League had been welcomed by leftists, including Tories like Anthony Eden, who became Churchill’s wartime Foreign Secretary and his successor as Prime Minister in 1954.

Anthony Eden and Ivan Maisky

The Second World War was the decisive moment of the left’s ascent to power in the West. Historians like Niall Ferguson and Andrew Roberts, whose careers centre upon justifying it, are falsely presented by fellow anti-fascists as conservatives. The raison d’etre of the fake right is to occupy any space in which genuine, committed opponents of the left would otherwise exist and to continually surrender. They conspire in the anti-fascist monopoly; the real right are excluded from all institutions.

The Churchillian version of history relies entirely upon portraying Germany as a threat to Britain. No matter how much the wickedness of ‘Kristallnacht’ is magnified in significance, atrocities against civilians in the 1930s cannot suffice as a casus belli against Germany, since the Soviets eradicated more of their own people every few hours throughout the decade than Hitler’s regime killed on those two nights. Aggression toward neighbouring countries also fails as an explanation. Germany invaded the western side of Poland on September 1st 1939; the Soviets invaded their agreed portion sixteen days later. Whatever excuse remained for continuing to treat Germany as the sole enemy thereafter surely evaporated when the Soviets attacked Finland and then subjugated Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Yet by the time Britain ‘betrayed’ the Baltic, at least no less than it betrayed the Czechs, Churchill and the war party were powerful enough to elide the paradox. By Churchillian historians, Hitler’s peace overtures are dispelled by asserting either that they would not have been honoured or that they would have freed German forces to succeed in their invasion of the Soviet Union. The preservation of the communist empire at the expense of Britain’s own is deemed a necessity.

Stalin freeing up Germany’s eastern flank

Stalin and all the Bolsheviks had considered Britain their main adversary since the day of their overthrow of the Russian Republic. Stalin’s collaborations with Hitler, not limited to the pact of August 1939, make more sense in this light. All the capitalist states were to be subverted or conquered. The ideal scenario was one in which they fought and weakened each other while the Soviets grew their own capacity to dictate and threaten, as the Soviets did to the nations of eastern Europe as soon as they felt able. That scenario the pro-war forces in Britain and France delivered as though fulfilling a promise to Moscow. The Soviet perspective is routinely minimised. The same historians then assert that the Soviet Union did become a great danger as World War II ended, in Andrew Roberts’ case neatly crediting Churchill, speaking in Fulton, with prescience about the Cold War as well. Such involutions are undergone to justify the origins of the existing regime, the one established by Churchill and his comrades.

Why I voted for Trump

/37 Comments/in , /by

I realize that Trump is far from perfect, and some prominent figures on the dissident right have said they are not voting for him. His first term accomplished little (if anything) besides mobilizing the hate-filled left to combat the “fascist threat.” (And if he wins again, there will be rioting that will make the rioting of 2016 look like a picnic.) But I voted for him (I’m in an early-voting state). This is why.

Listening to Joe Rogan’s podcast with Trump, Trump admitted that he had no clue about how Washington worked when he got there. This resulted in lots of bad appointments, like John Bolton, who never saw a war he didn’t like. Christopher Wray, who has shown nothing but hatred toward all things Trump since being appointed. John Kelly, who now says Trump is a Hitler lover. He is quite aware of the problem: “Mr. Trump’s greatest regret from his first term is hiring staffers whom he came to believe were the wrong people.”

Because Trump seems aware of his mistakes, I trust it will be better next time, although having Robert Lutnick as co-chair of his transition team is certainly troubling. Lutnick has said that he is in close touch with Jared Kushner (a huge cancer in his first term), despite Kushner’s claim that he was not going to be involved. Scary.

And Trump has floated names like Tom Cotton and Mike Pompeo for Secretary of Defense or State. This is indeed worrisome—but far from assured. Given Trump’s much-advertised commitment to non-intervention and avoiding wars (i.e., the stance that alienated the neocons like Bill Kristol, Jennifer Rubin, and Max Boot in 2016), one would think he would have learned not to appoint neocon war mongers. His closeness with Tucker Carlson would certainly weigh against that, since Tucker has often railed against the neocons and their promotion of forever wars; he has loudly opposed the Ukraine war and the endless wars in the Middle East.

And yes, I realize that if anything, Trump is more wedded to the Israel Lobby than Harris. His campaign got $100 million from Miriam Adelson, widow of Israel-firster Sheldon Adelson who got Trump to appoint Bolton via the same kind of money as Miriam has contributed. Sheldon Adelson fervently hoped that his support would get Trump to make Iran into a nuclear wasteland. Didn’t happen, and I don’t think it will happen the second time around.

And the general point is that the Israel Lobby dominates U.S. foreign policy toward Israel, whether it’s the Democrats or the Republicans. Like Biden and only because of all those Arab voters in Michigan, Harris may criticize the Israelis more because of their ongoing genocide in Gaza (which now includes banning the UNRWA from the West Bank and Gaza), but there’s no reason to think that she would withhold the military aid from Israel and would continue to involve U.S. forces in shooting down whatever Israel’s enemies throw at them. Bottom line: No difference between the candidates. Effectively, it’s a wash.

But there are people would push back against the threats represented by the likes of Jared Kushner. People like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon—recently freed from his bogus imprisonment, and Elon Musk. I think that Carlson truly “gets it,” although he is not as explicit as would be ideal (remember, the perfect is always the enemy of the good). Carlson has a huge following on his podcasts and live shows. He has definitely shown signs of getting off the Conservatism Inc. reservation. He has interviewed Trump and J.D. Vance, and he will be hosting an event at Mar-a-Lago on election night. A Trump victory would cement his status in the GOP—definitely a good thing.

Carlson’s April, 2021 monologue on his Fox News show is the most powerful and most explicit statement in the mainstream media that Whites—as Whites—have an interest in immigration. He portrayed the middle class as one of the victim groups of the Great Replacement as America is transformed into a society with a hostile, ultra-wealthy elite who are politically supported by a dependent mass of Democrat voters and college-miseducated White liberals. And he dueled with the ADL, pointedly discussing their hypocrisy on immigration to the U.S. vs. immigration to Israel. No wonder he was fired from Fox News.

Carlson’s interview with Darryl Cooper showed that he rejected some basic parts of the standard World War II narrative, such as the hero cult of Winston Churchill so dear to the neocons. And he was excoriated by the left for his interview with Viktor Orban, Hungary’s nationalist Prime Minister who is opposed to transforming Hungary away from its ethnic and cultural roots.

Cooper’s take on election fraud is spot on without going into what are widely considered on the left as conspiracy theories. Tucker read it verbatim on a 2021 show:

Elon Musk’s support for Trump — not only financially (at least $119 million which is greater than Adelson’s), but also happily appearing with him at rallies — is important because of Musk’s celebrity status and very large following on X, especially among young men. Musk is increasingly off the reservation in his tweets: “The damage was done,” [holocaust activist] Deborah Lipstadt remarked about a Musk post on X. “The endorsement of the Great Replacement theory was very harmful.” Lipstadt added that she disapproved of what she saw as any attempt to “mitigate” Musk’s earlier tweet, without criticizing ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt directly. “You can try to mitigate, but once you open the pillow, it’s like chasing the feathers,” she said.

Musk was replying to a user who wrote, “Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. I’m deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest s— now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities [they] support flooding their country don’t exactly like them too much.”

Musk responded, “You have said the actual truth.”

Greenblatt joined a loud chorus in condemning that post. Other Jewish groups, including the American Jewish Committee, harshly condemned it. Later in the same thread, Musk went after the ADL itself, saying the group “push[es] de facto anti-white racism.” He apologized for a lot of this and made the mandatory visits to Auschwitz and Israel, but it’s hard to believe that he now rejects these ideas.

Steve Bannon is a strong and influential Trump supporter who got into a war with Kushner during the Trump presidency—a war that he lost. I suspect he totally gets it on the danger Kushner would represent to a new Trump administration.

Incidentally, the gender gap will be huge in this election, and Democrats are actively encouraging the wives of Trump-supporting husbands to vote for Harris. Trump Derangement Syndrome is especially common among White women—obsessed as they are with abortion rights, ignoring everything else. Women are more conformist because of fear of consequences—social ostracism — and departing from the moral consensus of the mainstream liberal media is certain social death in many social circles. White women are also more empathic than men and hence more likely to have empathy for all the victim groups created by our hostile elite.

And White women are much less prone to identifying with their race, at least partly because of fear of that same ostracism from the contemporary moral community (which is now a pathological consensus created and managed by our hostile elites that dominate the media and academia and aggressively police what politicians say). Moral communities are the social glue of Western societies.

White men, including many young White men, are beginning to see that everything is increasingly stacked against them—jobs, promotions, etc. DEI is completely opposed to their interests. They are attracted to Trump’s masculine persona in an age when the left rejects it. Trump’s interview with Joe Rogan definitely appeals to young men—they even talk about UFC stuff.

But the main reason to vote for Trump — the reason that, IMO, makes this a no-brainer — is that a Kamala Harris administration would be a complete disaster for our side:

Creating a Permanent Leftist Majority. The Left is clearly aiming at a permanent majority, and another four years would allow them to cement it. Despite Harris’s newfound claims that she will enforce the border, who can believe it when she has previously called for abolishing ICE and happily stood by as Mayorkas completely demolished the border? (I never blame Biden for anything because he was non compos mentis for pretty much his entire administration.) They blame Trump for not agreeing to a horrible “bipartisan” immigration bill (>1.8 million/year, not including ports of entry), that included lots of money for more border patrol officers so they could process illegals faster. All this when they could have stopped the onslaught at any time by simply reversing the policies they adopted on Day 1 of the Biden administration.

Another 10–15 million illegals in addition to the massive number already here would further change Congressional representation in favor of blue states—illegals affect elections even if they don’t vote. And Dems would have a massive amnesty to ensure that their new dependents (immigrants and their descendants are far more likely to be on welfare) would vote as soon as possible.  In fact, they have already made it virtually impossible to deport illegals, leading to what the House GOP called a “quiet amnesty.”

Another Democrat administration would also result in a push to end the electoral college, so states like California would have even more influence than they do now. California has already made it illegal to ask for voter ID. How can anyone believe that vote totals from California are remotely valid?

The result would be a permanent left majority, dramatically opposed to the interests of the soon-to-be-former White majority and funded as it always has been by Jewish money and reflecting perceived Jewish interests in a non-White America.

Censorship. The Left wants media censorship to silence the right, while the right’s proposals for censorship only involve LGBT+ propaganda directed at children, although admittedly, I and some others were banned from X in the post-Musk era. Nevertheless, X is much hated on the left because people like Nick Fuentes are still holding forth with oftentimes very anti-Jewish statements—far less subtle than what I was posting.

As Hillary Clinton noted, “Without censorship, we will lose control…” The lack of social media prior to the internet age led to the complete dominance of Jewish-owned media and their poisonous messages. The possible end of this dominance is a major problem for Jewish organizations and for the left in general—hence the hatred toward Elon Musk since he bought Twitter. The intolerance of the left even toward mainstream conservatives is well established. They are essentially banned from college campuses because of the well-grounded fear of leftist rioting.

Historically the move toward censorship has been led by the ADL and other Jewish organizations. In my 2002 Preface to The Culture of Critique, I wrote about the ADL’s already-robust attempt to pressure media corporations to censor the internet. This reached its apex in the 2020 election suppression of the Hunter laptop story and of dissident information on Covid, the former of which kept enough votes in the Biden column to swing the election, and latter of which dramatically changed voting procedures in a way conducive to fraud. Needless to say, both of these stories turned out to be true and together helped swing the election for Biden.

Promotion of censorship is now common in high places on the left and has resulted in a large body of legal scholarship promoting it. For example, leftist SCOTUS judge Elena Kagan is entirely on board, writing in 1993 that the Supreme Court “will not in the foreseeable future” adopt the view that “all governmental efforts to regulate such speech … accord with the Constitution.” But in her view, there is nothing to prevent it from doing so. Clearly, she does not see the protection of viewpoint-based speech as a principle worth preserving or set in stone. Rather, she believes that a new majority could rule that “all government efforts to regulate such speech” would be constitutional. All government efforts.

And because the present conservative majority is so distasteful to the left, many on the left are demanding that a leftist majority be created by Congress—i.e., by packing the Court.

More Leftist Judges. The left will continue to appoint radical judges prone to enforcing censorship and facilitating lawfare against White advocates (see the work of Gregory Conte on the trials resulting from the Charlottesville marches; or the travesty of the January 6 trials [Trump promises to pardon the protesters]; or the campaign against Vdare by NY AG Letitia James and liberal New York judges).

Reverting to the old GOP. Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of the Trump ascendency in the GOP is that it has threatened to destroy the old neocon-big business GOP. Neocons like the aforementioned Kristol, Rubin and Boot deserted early on, and the GOP became identified with the White working class. If Harris wins, the GOP will revert to the Conservatism Inc.-Paul Ryan-Liz Cheney-Adam Kinsinger-Bush party of war mongering and tax cuts for the wealthy. The result would be leftism lite: eternal war, pro-non-White immigration, and a conservatism that delays leftist agendas for a few years (Coming soon: “The conservative argument for free, government-funded transgender surgery for migrants and prisoners”). Trump’s greatest accomplishment would be to permanently take the GOP away from the neocons and stuffed-shirt liberal Republicans and preventing it from reverting to its role as a loyal component of the uniparty. It’s interesting that arch-neocon Robert Kagan (husband of the notorious Victoria Nuland who engineered the Ukraine war) resigned after Jeff Bezos’s non-endorsement of Harris. Clearly the Dems are the war party.

*   *   *

So please vote for Trump even though you have serious misgivings.  It’s like Pascal’s wager. If you vote for Harris you are sure to lose big when she wins—the left would love to throw us in prison when they get their permanent majority. At the very least.

On the other hand, if you vote for Trump, you are reasonably hoping he would be better than Harris. And quite possibly, much better. And we have to think about what comes after if Trump wins — quite possibly an irrevocably changed GOP that is much more attuned to White interests. It could happen.

In recent years I’ve been thinking about the situation in the U.S. as analogous to the end of the Roman Republic — a time of civil wars and instability such that most people were relieved when Augustus established the Empire. We are inexorably headed to an either-or moment of autocracy, either by the left or by the right. I’m hoping it’s a populist autocracy that protects the interests of the traditional American White majority. The left wants to destroy us and will do so if they get enough power.

Carter Godwin Woodson’s “The Mis-education of the Negro

/9 Comments/in , /by

CARTER GODWIN WOODSON’S THE MIS-EDUCATION OF THE NEGRO

I am fascinated by chance finds in second-hand bookshops. Favorite books that have shaped my life have often been objets trouvés, washed up by the tide, the same way Nietzsche found Schopenhauer’s The World as Will and Idea in a second-hand bookshop in Leipzig in 1865, when the Lutheran pastor’s son was 21. “Something about the book”, he wrote, “told me to take it home…” Two of my three all-time favorite novels were bought from exactly the same charity shop in the London suburbs within three months of one another for an outlay of a couple of pounds. I consider myself well-read, but I had heard of neither book nor their authors – Mark Z. Danielewski’s House of Leaves and Roberto Bolaño’s 2666 – but they soon became favorites. How’s your luck?

There is little chance of this happening in exile in Costa Rica because there is no such thing as a charity shop or thrift store here. People here are too poor to give things to charity, which is a first-world luxury. They keep things until they break and then they repair them or they have them repaired. Nevertheless, the local town has a sort of pop-up store which features an ongoing rummage sale. I always find something useful for the apartment and dirt-cheap there, and recently I noticed a crate of English-language books which I went through in hope of finding a gem. No such Nietzschean luck, no amor fati for me. All the books were management tomes or computing manuals. Oh, well. But a month later I saw that there were a few new books in the crate, and the one perched on top was practically begging me to buy it. A slim, 70-page hardback volume in perfect condition, the book featured a dapper Black man in suit and tie on its cover, and was entitled The Mis-Education of the Negro (MN), by Carter Godwin Woodson. I paid 500 colones for it, a fraction under a dollar at the time of writing.

I had never heard of Mr. Woodson, but I elected to read the book first before investigating its author online. Rarely have I spent a dollar so fortuitously. Mr. Woodson was a teacher and educator, and was indeed the Black man on the cover. His introductory preface was written in 1933, and concerns Black education in American after the Emancipation and Reconstruction periods which followed the Civil War. It exemplifies two major points about Black education. Firstly, it’s the White man’s job. Secondly, the White man always gets it wrong. It is White mis-education that is the fault, never the negro.

The book’s preface sets out its program:

“Only by careful study of the Negro himself and the life which he has been forced to lead can we arrive at the proper procedure in this crisis”.

Woodson’s grounding premise is that White education given to Negroes simply proliferates a system which led to slavery, lynching, and the demotion of the negro to a position of second-class citizen. And yet there is a curious formula applied by which the negro is to be educated to remain precisely in the position natural to his race. The word “negro”, incidentally, is capitalized throughout the book, in much the same way as ‘Black’ now takes a capital in the Western Anglophone media and ‘white’ does not. Outside of textual quotation, I will give it a lower-case because I am not Black and I do not work for Associated Press, whose diktat led to this curious typographical apartheid. (TOO capitalizes both.)

 As an example of the paradox Woodson exemplifies, consider his appraisal of Blacks in the field of business:

“In the schools of business administration Negroes are trained exclusively in the psychology and economics of Wall Street and are, therefore, made to despise the opportunities to run ice wagons, push banana carts, and sell peanuts among their people. Foreigners, who have not studied economics but have studied Negroes, take up this business and grow rich”.

By this token, it is better to teach Blacks how to sell peanuts and bananas to other Blacks rather than attain the skills perfected by those who have attained what is surely an economic gold standard, an ultimate measure of success, by trading on Wall Street. A bespoke education for negroes, which is what Godwin would prefer to simply aping the education given to Whites, contains within itself the low expectations Godwin finds in White educational practices, which teach a Black that “his Black face is a curse and that his struggle to change his condition is the worst sort of lynching”.

This smacks of the hysteria prevalent in Black rhetoric today. “Lynching” is the Black version of the Holocaust, despite the fact that, according to the Tuskegee Institute Archives,  between 1882 and 1968, of the 4,743 men who were lynched, 1,297 of them were White. It’s hardly a Holocaust.

The text occasionally foreshadows the current vogue for cultural relativism:

“There can be no reasonable objection to the Negro’s doing what the White man tells him to do, if the White man tells him to what is right; but right is purely relative”. [Italics added].

It should be noted that, while the Left insist on cultural moral relativism, this does not extend retrospectively but only synchronically between cultures. There is no statute of limitations on what university courses in the UK are now calling “the problem of Whiteness”.

Throughout MN, Woodson does not have anywhere near as much ire for the White man as he does for the “educated Negro”;

“The ‘educated Negroes’ have the attitude of contempt toward their own people because in their own as well as in their mixed schools Negroes are taught to admire the Hebrew, the Greek, the Latin and the Teuton and to despise the African”.

What is curious about this is the virulence Woodson displays towards the “educated Negro”, his bête noire throughout MN. Also, it discounts any notion of the cultural attainment of quality, the meritocracy of the intellectual advantage attendant on studying “the Hebrew, the Greek, the Latin and the Teuton”.  Whites are not taught to admire this tradition and despise the African. They are taught how to discover for themselves to admire the White tradition and discount the African. Why read the output of failed races when they hadn’t produced any literary works until they encountered White civilization? Stick with your own color, just like Black kids do in every high school and prison canteen in America.

In the end, the one question which will be ever-present in this book remains the same; What if the “inferiority” that Blacks are taught to feel is not the product of oppression, but an expression of a natural order? This is the question Woodson sets out to answer, although I don’t believe he knew that.

There is an inbuilt flaw in Woodson’s general argument. Industrial apprenticeships, for example, do not benefit Black men because they do not have the experience their White counterparts built up before Emancipation. But the author fails to consider the fact that those White apprentices still had to learn the job before they could gain that experience. Why cannot the Black man do the same? There exists in MN a constant undercurrent of cognitive dissonance, a now-familiar distaste Black academics have for Blacks adopting White educational practice while knowing in themselves that Whites are the only serious educators. We see it today in the dismissal of Blacks who push back against the racial politics of the Black caucus, like Thomas Sowell and Candace Owens, who are regularly described as “Oreos”, “Uncle Toms”, “house niggers”, and other childish epithets. And it is still prevalent today in schools at which Black students discourage other Blacks from learning, and thus “acting White”. A good friend of mine in England got out of the teaching profession, and one of the reasons he gave me was the dispiriting sight of Blacks using their college as a cross between a fashion-show catwalk and a gang den, while making sure none of their fellow Black students strayed off the path and tried some larnin’, that White man’s juju.

Towards the end of MN, Woodson contradicts statements made at its beginning, in which he points out what he sees as the pointlessness of a classical education for negroes:

“While such guidance as the Negro needs will concern itself first with material things, however, it must not stop with these as ends in themselves. In the acquisition of these we lay the foundation for the greater things of the spirit. A poor man properly directed can write a more beautiful poem than one who is surfeited”.

No doubt, and Woodson’s sister was a noted poet. But whereas Woodson dismissed a classical education earlier in MN, he now recognizes that such an academic grounding is not simply required to be a classicist, but that the classics themselves instruct the student about life by the extension of their influence on that student’s life. If you read and understand Plato and Suetonius, you will be better equipped mentally for just about anything else.

So, with the book read, it was time for the great reveal; Who was Carter Godwin Woodson? I imagine some readers will be surprised at (and hopefully forgive) my ignorance, because Carter G. Woodson was none other than “the father of Black history”. Born in 1875 in New Canton, Virginia, Woodson’s parents were freed slaves. This was the end of Reconstruction, and the hope was that the Black man and woman could now go it alone after Emancipation, on an equal footing with Whites as citizens, and in receipt of the financial help required to establish themselves in that citizenry. This new environment was one in which young Woodson flourished.

Although his early education was minimal due to the necessity for him to help with his parents’ farm, Woodson was an autodidact from an early age, and his self-education took him into a teaching career. He became principal of Douglass High School, from which he had gained his diploma in 1897. His later education was as cosmopolitan as any found today, and his path to his doctorate took him to Kentucky, the University of Chicago, and the Philippines before attending Harvard and becoming only the second African-American after W. E. B. DuBois to gain a PhD. His later career took him to Africa and Asia before studying at the famed Sorbonne in Paris. He was affiliated with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and his inauguration of “Black History Week” in February of 1926 is seen as the precursor to Black History Month (BHM). February is the month the USA “celebrates” BHM, although the UK (along with Ireland and The Netherlands) marks this month in October, in the first week of which I chanced across Woodson’s book.

Blacks as a mainstay of the teaching profession is now a (rare) substantive part of the Harris/Walz official policy as they pledge to: “Support education training, and mentorship programs that lead to good-paying jobs for Black men, including Pathways [sic] to becoming teachers”.

Incidentally, Harris also wishes to legalize marijuana, a clear sop to Blacks who feel it necessary to avoid school “because I got high”.

Black men, of course, already have the same pathways to becoming teachers that every other person in the US has, but Blacks always seem to need additional help from the White man.

This is a fascinating book, and available on Amazon for a pittance. Carter G. Woodson benefited from the very system he himself criticized from the inside. Championed by both the Transatlantic Black caucus and their Leftist friends, he could not have criticized White educational practice without himself having been fortunate enough to benefit from that same practice. In the end, although this is a worthwhile book and a fascinating glimpse at history, it’s the same story of the eternal and paradoxically dependent Black attitude towards Whitey; Can’t live with him, can’t live without him.

Another Take on the Causes of Black Family Dysfunction

/4 Comments/in , /by

Who Lost America? Why the United States Went ‘Communist’ and What To Do About It
Stephen Baskerville
Arktos Media, 2024

Back in July my friend Roger Devlin posted an extended and largely favorable review of Stephen Baskerville’s Who Lost America?[1] I recently read this book and had quite a different reaction. To be very generous, Baskerville’s book is a glass half full.

To his credit the author is a harsh critic of establishment conservatism, although perceptive leaders of the authentic Right long ago realized that the conservative approach to combating the Left was a losing proposition.[2] The critique of Conservative Inc. has certainly intensified in recent years with the rise of Trumpism and the Alt Right/Dissident Right. Yet, while keeping a lower profile of late, Ryan/Romney conservatism is quite resistant to change, and is ready to again take full control of the establishment Right after the Trump era is over.

Among Baskerville’s complaints about the Right include a lack of leadership, creativity, and energy. In contrast the Left is innovative. It has “reinvented itself repeatedly” while the establishment Right is content to dog whistle to their constituents while protecting vested economic interests. “Conservatives seem temperamentally incapable of arousing themselves . . . . [T]hey seem habituated to apathy” (67). The Right is “devoid of ideas and intellectual depth . . . . the Right still produces few intellectuals of any stature, no universities of any quality, no ideas of any value” (119). Okay, this appears to be the case, but I do not believe that conservatives are inherently stupid or lazy. Their retreat is a maladaptive response to political and social conditions. The master manipulators on the Left have exploited the individualism of Western culture. More on that later.

Another telling point made by Baskerville is the centrality of the radical sexual revolution—feminism, homosexuality, transgenderism—to the Left’s agenda. It is part of an effort by the Left to blur all distinctions between cultures, races, and sexes. The author’s main concern is the prevalence of fatherless families, but this issue must be viewed within a wider context.

Credit Professor Baskerville with tamping down on conspiracy theories. The problem with conspiracy theories is that they “can foster a defeatist mentality of . . . helpless resignation. The conspirators become so evil and all-powerful that opposition is pointless” (xxv). Often those who posit such theories assume the status of savvy and sophisticated analysts who can see through the smoke and mirrors, and the smart money is on the sidelines. Later in the book, however, the author will indulge in some “black pilling” of his own.

Baskerville is also on the mark in Chapter 5 “Flirting with Nuclear War.” Here he laments “the needless carnage in Ukraine” (121). Apparently, “the negotiating table is off limits” (123). And “Russia is not the only hegemon playing power politics at Ukraine’s expense. We—the US, NATO, the EU—have cynically manipulated Ukraine as a pawn to augment our own position” (133). There is no mention of the carnage in the Middle East. Baskerville does not address the Jewish question in this book, but elsewhere he has supported Judeo-Christian values.

So, if Who Lost America? is a glass half full, it must also be a glass half empty. It is a work with serious analytical flaws.

To begin with a minor point of terminology: The word communist in the subtitle is in quotes so we understand that it is used a bit ironically. But Baskerville refers several times to a Leftist coup occurring in early 2020. Although I follow the news fairly closely, I missed that event.  A widely accepted definition of a coup is a sudden violent overthrow of the existing government by a small group. At the risk of seeming pedantic, rather than a coup, what we saw in 2020 was the approaching end of the “Long March through the Institutions.”  The term was coined in 1967 or 1968 by German communist Rudi Dutschke. The long march is, in part, a reference to the Chinese Communist Party’s retreat inland during the 1930s. But to simplify things quite a bit, the core concept originated with Antonio Gramsci and György Lukács in post- World War I Europe. After the failure to replicate the Bolshevik Revolution in other European countries a segment of the Left reinvented itself, abandoning violent revolution to work within, but against, society’s institutions. The strategy was imported to America in the 1930s and ultimately led to the Frankfort School’s critical theory and the domination of academic and media culture by the left.

It has taken time, but this technique has succeeded in making cultural Marxism the dominate ideology in government bureaucracies, education, the news and entertainment media, the judiciary, Christian churches, and even in the military and corporations. Not to belabor the point, but there has been no coup. As a professor of political science, one might think that Baskerville would be more precise in his terminology.

The author’s overriding concern is fatherless families. He states that it is an “irrefutable fact that every major social pathology is directly attributable to fatherless homes” (30). The professor is given to making sweeping generalizations without documentation. A family of children living with their married biological parents is best and should be the norm, but why weaken a valid point by overstatement? The author attributes the weakening of family structure, especially among Blacks, to the welfare “reforms” of the 1960s which made men, particularly Black men superfluous. It was during the 1960s that all the markers of family dysfunction—single parenting, teenage childbearing, and divorce) began their inexorable rise.

Baskerville is a rare bird indeed—a rightwing negrophile. “The young African American male is truly an extraordinary figure. His culture in large measure distinguishes that of the United States itself, and he has spread it all over the world—in music, films, sports, religion, and politics—where it inspires widespread imitation” (159). Two points come to mind: The ascendency of Black culture did not happen by chance, but was heavily promoted by the Left, especially the Jewish Left. And yet, despite this cultural dynamism, the author would have us believe that Black men have no agency when it comes to welfare policies. You cannot have it both ways.

In fact, modern welfare policies have been designed to accommodate the Black family structure. The well-known French anthropologist and historian Emmanuel Todd wrote a seminal work on the influence that family structures have on social systems, especially political ideologies.[3] Todd found that: “Family relationships—those between parents and children, between husband and wife—provide a model for political systems and serve to define the relationships between the individual and authority.” He identified seven different family systems distributed across various geographic and environmental regions. Yet the African system, originating in the sub-Saharan region, was unique. Its main characteristics were “instability of the household [and] polygyny.” One of the subheadings in the African chapter is “A fatherless world?” In the African family “the primordial family relationship is between brothers rather than that between father and son.” There is “a lax attitude toward paternal authority, African society does not respond well to discipline. It has trouble forming states.”

Todd is not a racialist. There is no explicit genetic determinism in his argument. He is, however, identified with the Annales School of historiography. The Annalistes are interested in what they describe as cultural continuities of long duration. Thus, while negatively impacted by New World slavery and modern welfare policies, the looser African family structure predates those institutions.

When discussing welfare, it should be noted that modern social welfare originated under German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, hardly a bleeding-heart liberal. During this same period rural America had county poor farms that cared for the indigent, including single mothers, but excluding “rogues” and other unworthies. Both the German and American systems were government-supported, augmented by private charity. My brief stint as a volunteer with the Salvation Army reinforced my belief that the Victorians were right to distinguish the deserving poor from the irredeemables.

In considering relations between the sexes Baskerville believes that “men are too cowed and frightened—too emasculated even to discuss honestly what is wrong” (147). Radical sexual ideologies, the Left’s cutting edge, have feminized society. “Where did all this begin? Here we must return once again, to that pivotal character in the American tragedy: the neglected, demonized, and manipulated black male” (159).  Well, here again, as in welfare policy, Baskerville has things backwards. Second-wave feminism and the sexual revolution, which the author so detests, had its genesis in the “civil rights” movement. The chronology is clear. Mainstream historians agree with feminist journalist and woman of color Anna Holmes: “Correctly contextualized second wave feminism [was] a direct outgrowth of the civil rights movement.”[4] And both are products of the culture of critique.

Forced racial integration meant that the White men could no longer defend their communal interests, diminishing their leadership role. The traditional defenders of the community were men, especially young men, now emasculated and no longer permitted to protect the tribe. What happens if White men assume that role? Consider the fate of Daniel Penny the New Yok subway rider, Marine Corp vet, and architectural student, who stood up to protect his fellow passengers from a psychotic Black criminal. The confrontation ended with the Black miscreant dead. Some called Mr. Penny a Good Samaritan, others called him a hero. The Black Manhattan district attorney called him a criminal and charged him with manslaughter. European-Americans have paid a high price for diversity.

Baskerville has a valid point regarding “the myth of female innocence.” Many White men especially conservatives, engage in the “sentimentalization of women” (157). This is not true in other societies. It is another example of the Left manipulating a Western cultural characteristic to their advantage. Tacitus, in his ethnographic study Germania, notes the high status of women among the northern tribes. Some social historians trace the concept of romantic love to the medieval aristocratic culture articulated by troubadours of twelfth century Aquitaine and Provence, but may well have much deeper roots in Western culture.[5] The present “woke” society is so alienating that many young people find it difficult to make the social/sexual bonds needed for family formation.

The church is another institution that the Left has marched through. Christianity, a universalist and essentially egalitarian faith concerned with individual salvation has been exploited by every outgroup—racial, sexual, and mental—to guilt trip Whites into acquiescing to their demands. In some Whites, the urge to virtue signal has mutated into ethno-masochism where they actually gain pleasure from witnessing the diminishment of their own people and culture. The terrible sectarian conflicts our people have had in the past argues strongly for religion to be a matter of personal belief. But no creed should be permitted to advocate socially destructive policies. A new Western religion would require the emergence of what Wilmot Robertson called “a mind-blowing prophet.” One might hope that a science-based naturalist religion with an element of faith might gain currency in the future.

What is the creation story of the feeble Right? One of the most cogent explanations for the flaccid state of American conservatism was written by a liberal academic Kevin Kruse. His book White Flight is a case study of racial integration in post-war Atlanta.[6] Kruse describes pre-civil rights era White working-class neighborhoods of that city as taking a great deal of pride in their parks, schools, and civic associations. Integration broke up these neighborhoods along with their collective identities. What replaced this communal integrity was an “every man for himself” individualism which translated politically into a shallow, defensive conservatism that retreated from the public sphere into the private sphere. This process was repeated in hundreds of communities across America.

This rise of the enervated Right, which Baskerville complains about, developed in the absence of a confident, collective ethnocultural identity. This psychological manipulation was made possible because Western peoples, especially the Anglo-Keltic branch, tend to be very individualistic. They are likely to seek individual solutions to social problems: A deteriorating neighborhood? Move to the suburbs. Poor schools? Home school or parochial school. Public parks and playing fields no longer conducive to recreation? Join a private club. Once again, a cultural characteristic was exploited by those hostile to our people.

With this in mind we can see why Baskerville’s last chapter, “Conclusion—The Way Out” is way off the mark. The author believes “the true antithesis of leftist ideology is not rightist ideology. It is no ideology—the default state that existed throughout the world until modern times” (198). Wrong and wrong. Terminology matters. While some may argue that ideologies grew out of the French Revolution, in fact an ideology—root word ‘idea’—is simply a set of beliefs about how society should be run. All societies are ruled by an ideology. Premodern ideologies included rule by aristocratic warriors or by the divine right of king or priests. What the Right needs is an ideology more radical and dynamic than the Left.

In the conclusion Baskerville again rides his hobby horse. The solution to our present societal crisis is to repeal “no-fault” divorce laws and “reimpose a presumption of father custody over children” (203). Yes, divorce is bad, it is an admission of failure, but it is not always the woman’s fault. Yes, there is clear evidence that the divorce rate increased after many states instituted no-fault laws, but there were other social factors involved. Plus, many studies have shown that infidelity/adultery is the leading cause for divorce. Desertion is another leading cause. Presumably these are not considered no-fault. If you can believe the CDC statistics the divorce rate peaked in the 1980s at close to 50 percent and has since slowly declined. Presently, 41 percent of first marriages end in divorce, still way too high. The author’s solution is for men to “boycott women and marriage until laws are changed” (204). A men’s revolt “is a key takeaway of this book” (205).

There is a lot to unpack here. This is just a guess, but one might suppose that the author has personally experienced a bitter divorce and custody battle that has skewed his perceptions. If young White men did “boycott” the young women of their race, then we will know that the life force has truly left our people and all is lost. The more important and immediate problem is the low White birthrate, and the need for pro-natalist policies. If the European-American ethny had a collective voice it would encourage marriage. There are no guarantees in life other than death and taxes. Starting a business, entering a profession, starting a family are all risky. What if an army recruiter emphasized the dangers of military service, highlighting whose who came home grievously wounded or in a body bag. How many recruits would enlist? In any case, the battle of the sexes has been waged for millennia, consider Aristophanes Lysistrata or Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew.

In the end, Baskerville’s criticisms of conservatives, while valid, rings somewhat hollow. He singles out Victor David Hanson’s “10 Steps to Save America” as an example of “the pointless wish lists dreamed up by frustrated conservatives” (207). That is a bit ironic because Baskerville’s ideas on citizenship are somewhat similar to Hanson’s non-ethnic civic nationalism. In fact, Who Lost America? could be summarized as an amalgamation of libertarianism, Hanson’s ideas on citizenship, and the men’s rights movement.  But in the end Baskerville is a reactionary. His answer to the failure of conservatism is radical reaction reaching back to the nineteenth century for some of his policy proposals.

After being so critical of the professor I would be amiss not to offer an alternative. Strong communities are key; they support and strengthen marriages, increase birthrates, and contribute to the overall quality of life. A while back, I made some suggestions for forming White communities even during these trying times.[7] My vision of citizenship differs from both Hanson’s civic nationalism and Baskerville’s libertarian-influenced radical traditionalism. The professor warned us about being “black pilled” by conspiracy theories, yet Baskerville dismisses my idea of building “local communities and parallel structures. . . . As if the totalitarians are going to permit this” (xxvi).  Properly conceived, it would be difficult for any authority to prevent the building of European-American communities and parallel structures, as in the case of Orania in South Africa. If there is a remedy for our decadent society, it begins with recreating a strong ethnic and cultural identity. Opposition to such an idea unites Baskerville with the woke Left and the establishment Right.

[1] F. Roger Devlin, “Courage Cannot Be Outsourced,” A Review Essay on Stephen Baskerville’s Who Lost America? The Occidental Quarterly 24, no. 3 (Fall, 2024): 3–23..

[2] See, for example, William Pierce’s essay “Why Conservatives Can’t Win,” Attack!, no.4 (1971); reposted in National Vanguard (September 22, 2010). https://nationalvanguard.org/2010/09/why-conservatives-cant-win/

See also: Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority (H. Allen, 1981).

[3] The quotes below are from: Emmanuel Todd, The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structure and Social Systems. Translated by David Garrioch. (NY: Basil Blackwell, Ltd. 1985) 6,7,191-195.

[4] Anna Holms, “The Second Wave,” New York Times Book Review, 09/15/24, 10.

[5] Kevin MacDonald, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolution, History, and Prospects for the Future (CreateSpace, 2019).

[6] Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism. (Princeton University Press, 2005).

[7] Eric Paulson, “Nine Reasons for an Ingathering” The Occidental Observer (11/03/2010).

 

Mbogba’s Machete: More on Blacks Blighting Whites

/8 Comments/in , /by

I’m the creator of the universe. And so are you. There’s a huge and immensely complex universe, crammed with color, sound, taste, scent and sensation, that exists only because of me. It’s the universe of my personal experience, brought into being by my brain, even (or especially) when that brain is asleep.

Pseudo-mystical leftist nonsense

Meanwhile, your brain is bringing another huge and immensely complex universe into being. And so is the brain of every other sentient human. But I’m a White male, so there’s nothing special about my brain-born universe. However, if you’re not White or not male, there is something special about yours. If you’re Black, your brain-born universe is very special indeed. If you’re a Black woman or (gasp) a Black transwoman, it’s so special that Whites should bow before its creatrix in awestruck worship. That’s what leftists think, anyway. I’ve argued elsewhere that this creation-by-consciousness helps explain why leftists regard even the most minor Black presence in Western history as deeply significant. How so? Because any Black who was present in, say, Tudor England or the Roman empire was, in a sense, creating Tudor England or the Roman empire by being conscious of it. A Black brain contained the world of that time and thereby, in leftist eyes, was creating and sustaining the world.

That’s pseudo-mystical leftist nonsense, of course, but leftists have never asked for truth and logic in their ideologies. They ask only that their ideologies grant them power, feed their narcissism, and assuage their neuroses. For a good example of this, let’s take a look at an article about “Black British” history in the Guardian from 2023. It’s exceptionally dishonest and stupid even by the Guardian’s standards. Here’s a highlight:

Although people with dark skin first came to Britain about 12,000 years ago, with the first known people to come directly from Africa settling approximately 2,000 years ago, more than a third (36%) of Britons surveyed believed that the first Black people migrated to Britain only in the past 200 years, with a further 29% not sure. One in four (25%) believed that it was within the past 100 years and only 9% thought that it was more than 1,500 years ago. (“Half of Britons can’t name a Black British historical figure, survey finds,” The Guardian, 26th October 2023)

Leftists constantly complain about right-wingers “erasing” the rich identity and complex experiences of non-Whites. But that paragraph contains two blatant acts of erasure against non-White identity and experience. The “people with dark skin” who came to Britain 12,000 years ago were not “Black.” That is, they were not sub-Saharan Africans and were not ancestral to modern Black groups like Nigerians or Kenyans. Nor were the vast majority of people “to come directly from Africa” in Roman times. The emperor Septimius Severus (145–211 AD) is often described as “Black British” because he was born in north Africa and lived in Britain. But north Africa was (and is) inhabited by groups like Berbers and Arabs, not by Blacks, and surviving images of Severus clearly show that he wasn’t Black.

White Romans denigrated Black skin

The same is true of the Roman governor Quintus Lollius Urbicus (fl. 140 AD) and the “Aurelian Moors” once stationed on Hadrian’s Wall. They too came from North Africa and they too were not Black. Yes, there is reference in Roman history to an “Ethiopian” soldier meeting Septimius Severus in Britain, so genuine Blacks were very likely present here 2,000 years ago. But guess what? Severus recoiled at the color of the Ethiopian’s skin, which he regarded as an unlucky omen. So the Romans were racist against Blacks! They denigrated Black skin. “Denigrate” is the mot juste: its literal meaning in Latin is “blacken completely.”

And when modern leftists celebrate Roman Britain as “diverse” and “multicultural,” they don’t explain why the empire had a policy of stationing troops from distant provinces in Britain. What is the explanation? It’s simple: the Romans knew that those foreign troops had no kinship with and would feel no sympathy for the indigenous Celts of Britain, who had been brutally conquered and were being harshly exploited. In other words, leftists are celebrating imperialism, colonialism and enslavement when they celebrate Roman Britain. After all, the very words “empire,” “colony,” and “slave” come to us from Latin. So-called Blacks like Septimius Severus and real Blacks like the Ethiopian soldier were only in Britain because of brutal imperialism by Rome. If you want a good example of that brutal imperialism, here’s the Roman historian Tacitus (c. 56–117 A.D.):

Prasutagus King of the Iceni, celebrated for his long prosperity, had named the emperor his heir, together with his two daughters, in an act of deference that he thought would place his kingdom and household beyond the risk of injury. The result [after his death] was contrary — so much so that his kingdom was pillaged by centurions and his household by slaves as though they had been prizes of war. As a beginning, his wife Boudicca was flogged and his daughters raped; all the chief men of the Iceni were stripped of their family estates; and the relatives of the king were treated as slaves. Impelled by this outrage and the dread of worse to come, for they had now been reduced to the status of a province, they flew to arms and incited to rebellion the Trinobantes and others, who, still unbroken by servitude, had entered into a secret and treasonable compact to resume their independence (Tacitus, Annals, Book XIV, 31)

Queen Boudicca led the native British in rebellion against the foreign invaders who had imposed “diversity” and “multiculturalism” on them at sword-point. The rebellion was bloodily suppressed: Tacitus reports that 80,000 Britons were slaughtered in the final and decisive battle. By leftist standards, the imperialist enslaving Romans were guilty of horrible crimes against the indigenous Celtic natives of Britain. So why are leftists so desperate to shoehorn Blacks into Roman history and pretend that Blacks were an important part of Roman civilization? Again, it’s simple: because leftists care about power and prestige, not about truth and logic. They want Blacks to be associated with the grandeur and great achievements of Rome, while reserving the bad parts of Roman history strictly for Whites.

Leftists portray Blacks as proud Roman soldiers in a brutally imperialistic army of unrepentant enslavers (images by the BBC)

That’s why leftists love to portray Blacks as Roman soldiers in the splendor of scarlet cloaks and gilded armor. But you can be sure that leftists would never use Blacks as Roman soldiers in any modern portrayal of Queen Boudicca being flogged and her daughters being raped. The same applies to the leftist shoehorning of Blacks into more recent Western history. Again, leftists want Blacks to have the prestige of the West while reserving the sins strictly for Whites. For example, leftists often proclaim that “Black history is British history” and that Blacks resident in Britain are thereby completely and authentically British. Does that mean that these completely British Blacks share any responsibility for the imperialism, colonialism and enslavement so wickedly practised in “British history” by “the British”? Of course not. Blacks are to be associated only with the positive aspects of British history, while the negative aspects are reserved strictly for Whites. Indeed, leftists want to pretend that the positive aspects of Britain and the West exist only because of Blacks and other non-Whites.

“The grave concerns of Black Londoners”

Blacks are the most important racial group in leftism, of course. But that isn’t because leftists value Blacks in themselves. No, it’s because they value Blacks as anti-Whites, that is, as the group most distant in appearance, behavior and achievement from Whites, and therefore most harmful to White civilization. If a White nation imports Blacks, it inevitably imports violent crime and educational failure. But for leftists that’s a feature, not a bug, of Black immigration, because they can blame all Black pathologies on White racism. Meanwhile, they do their best to ignore the numerous White victims of Black crime. For example, I pointed out in “Blacks Blight Britain” that there has been no feminist response since the Black Muslim Mohamed Iidow (sic) was found guilty of killing the White woman Natalie Shotter. Shotter was lying unconscious on a park-bench in London when Iidow repeatedly committed “oral rape” against her. He “overstimulated the nerves at the back of her throat” and induced “a cardiac arrest.”

Feminists have not condemned this horrific example of toxic masculinity and rape-culture. And the non-White leftist mayor of London, the Pakistani Muslim Sadiq Khan, has not issued any stern statement to the media, condemning male violence against women and vowing to fight even harder for women’s safety. Mohamed Iidow is Black, Natalie Shotter was White, therefore the rape-killing does not advance the pro-Black, anti-White agenda of leftism and leftists are silent. But Sadiq Khan did issue stern official statements about the fatal shooting of a 23-year-old Black man, Chris Kaba, by a White police marksman called Martyn Blake in September 2022. Khan lamented the “young life cut short” and acknowledged “the grave concerns and impact of Chris’s death on black Londoners across our city and the anger, pain and fear it has caused — as well as the desire for justice and change.” He was advancing the cause of leftism, you see, and promoting the lie that innocent Blacks are the perennial victims of racist Whites in the police.

Leftists bewail the death of Black thug Chris Kaba (image from Stop Hate UK)

The cause of leftism was further advanced when the leftists of the Crown Prosecution Service decided to put the White marksman on trial for “the murder” of Kaba. It was a misguided and malicious prosecution that placed Martyn Blake and his family under immense strain as they waited for and then endured the trial. Leftists were trying to create an anti-White martyr-cult around Kaba to match that of George Floyd in America. But they didn’t get the verdict they wanted. In the same week in 2024 as Mohamed Iidow was found guilty of killing Natalie Shotter, Martyn Blake was found not guilty of murdering Chris Kaba. Leftists have ignored the death of Natalie Shotter and once again lamented the death of Chris Kaba.

Kaba’s colorful contributions

Indeed, it seemed likely that those lamenting leftists would successfully incite Blacks in London to riot in protest at the not-guilty verdict. But the judge in the case forestalled that by allowing hitherto concealed details of Kaba’s contributions to Britain to be made public. Kaba was not the innocent Black victim portrayed in leftist propaganda. He was a violent career criminal who would have gone on trial for the attempted murder of another Black if he had not been killed by the police. Leftists have constantly described Kaba as “unarmed” when he was shot. In fact, he was armed with a large and powerful car when, having received clear instructions to surrender to armed police, he tried to batter his way out of a police road-block and was shot by Martyn Blake, who rightly feared for the lives of himself and his fellow police.

Leftist propaganda has also portrayed Kaba as a young musician who was expecting his first child when his life was brutally ended by White racism. In fact, the “drill rap” he performed with a gang called 67 can only loosely be described as music and he was subject to a restraining order after committing “domestic violence” against the mother of his child. In one of his crime-celebrating videos, Kaba issued this auto-prophetic Afro-apophthegm: “Fuck around and get smoked.” Well, he was 13 when he is first known to have begun “fucking around,” that is, committing violent crime. It was entirely predictable that he would one day “get smoked,” that is, die by violence.

Fascinating names from far-off climes

It was also much more likely that another Black thug would kill him, rather than a White policeman. In the same month as leftists have ignored the entirely horrific killing of Natalie Shotter and lamented the entirely justified killing of Chris Kaba, another story about violent death has been in the news. Like so many similar stories from modern Britain, it’s what I call a feast for phoneticians, because it contains fascinating names from far-off climes:

A group of four attackers who used a “fearsome” machete to murder a teenager in east London have been given life sentences. Wazabakana Elenda Jordan Kukabu, known as Jordan, died after he was stabbed in the heart outside Dagenham Heathway Underground station in May 2023.

Michael Tommy-Mbogba, 21, and Toluwaslase Odunewu, 18, as well as a two teenagers aged 17 and 16 — who cannot be identified due to their age — were all found guilty of murder following a trial at the Old Bailey. During sentencing, Mr Kukabu’s mother, Tantine Kukabu, said she never thought she would lose her son, “let alone in such a brutal and painful way”. The trial heard Mr Kukabu had arrived at the station with two associates when they were confronted by a heavily-armed group. Their car was surrounded as Mr Kukabu and his colleague Matthew Adekoya, 20, tried to escape.

Mr Adekoya was chased and stabbed by the 17-year-old defendant, but managed to drive away. Mr Kukabu collapsed and died at the scene after being stabbed by Mbogba, the court heard. … The court heard [the killers] were identified after one man had seen the defendants sitting on the top deck of a bus after the murder, re-enacting the fatal attack they had just carried out. (“Four jailed over ‘beautiful’ teen’s machete murder,” BBC News, 16th October 2024)

Machete-mensches Michael Mbogba (left) and Toluwaslase Odunewu (right)

By “re-enacting,” the leftist BBC means “laughing and celebrating.” It was a very stupid thing to do in public, but that makes the murder like the rape-killing of Natalie Shotter. They’re examples of a very simple equation: Bestial + Bustable = Black. That is, the worse the crime and the easier it is to solve, the likelier it is that the criminal is Black. Despite that brutality and stupidity, leftists would insist that the machete-mensch Michael Mbogba is “British.” After all, it’s probable that he was born on the magic dirt of Britain, just as Chris Kaba was before him. But in reality, as opposed to leftist fantasy, Blacks like Kaba and Mbogba are not British at all. Kaba was born to parents from the Congo and Mbogba was probably born to parents from Cameroon. That’s where his phonetically fascinating name comes from. It’s not a White British name: it’s a Black African name. And when Black Africans come to White Britain, they don’t bring only their un-British names. No, they also bring their un-British genetics and culture, both forged in the un-British environment of sub-Saharan Africa. That’s why Blacks blight Britain and don’t belong in Britain.

Smiling traitors in Poland

But it’s precisely because Blacks blight Britain and don’t belong in Britain that leftists are so eager to import Blacks, privilege Blacks, and prevent the effective policing of Black behavior. Blacks create crime and chaos wherever they go, and leftists use that crime and chaos to advance leftism. The same is true of all other White nations. Britain has been blighted by the Black Chris Kaba and Portugal has just been blighted by another Black: “Two nights of disturbances have shaken outskirts of the Portuguese capital Lisbon following the fatal police shooting of a Black man.” Like Chris Kaba, the dead Black in Lisbon seems to have been a thuggish criminal: “According to a police statement, the shooting victim had fled and crashed a car after seeing a police vehicle. When officers approached, he tried to attack them with a blade, before being shot and dying in hospital.”

“The smiler with the knife under the cloak”: Polish traitor Szymon Hołownia smiles in happy anticipation of non-White crime and chaos (photo Notes from Poland)

I would once have contrasted ethno-enriched Britain and Portugal in western Europe with un-ethno-enriched Poland in eastern Europe. Up until now, Poland has not suffered from the non-White crime and chaos so prevalent in Britain and Portugal. But Poland has a traitorous leftist government that wants to blight Polish Whites with Blacks and other ethnic enrichers: “The Polish government is setting up 49 Foreigners’ Integration Centres (CICs) across the country, aimed at helping newly arrived migrants integrate into Polish society, the European Commission announced this week.” In fact, the non-White migrants will not “integrate into” but attack Polish society. That is, they will commit rape, murder and other crimes against Polish Whites, and provide traitorous leftists with home-grown versions of George Floyd and Chris Kaba. The White traitor you can see in the photo above is smiling in anticipation of this crime and chaos. He’s called Szymon Hołownia and is the speaker of the Polish parliament or Sejm.

It’s no coincidence that Black-welcoming Hołownia once issued a parliamentary exclusion and stern rebuke to a patriotic Polish MP called Grzegorz Braun, who had used a fire-extinguisher to douse a “Chanukah menorah” erected by Hasidic Jews in the Sejm. Braun rightly denounced the menorah as symbolic of rasistowskiego, plemiennego, dzikiego, talmudycznego kultu – a “racist, tribal, savage Talmudic cult.” Braun also described the menorah as “Satanic.” And he disrupted and denounced a lecture devoted to the Jewish Holocaust cult. He’s fighting on behalf of Whites and Christianity; Szymon Hołownia is fighting against Whites and Christianity. That’s why Hołownia performs the goy-grovel before Jews and welcomes the arrival of Blacks in Poland. Just as the menorah is symbolic of Satanic Judaism, so Mbogba’s machete is symbolic of Black crime and chaos. That machete is already swinging in London and Lisbon. Soon it will be swinging in Poland too.

Understanding How Trump Operates

/12 Comments/in /by

Warren Balogh has a Substack. Please subscribe!

Understanding How Trump Operates

Adapted from a Twitter post by me on 10/25/24

Everything about Trump and the way he thinks comes down to the Deal.

Even though his book The Art of the Deal was ghostwritten, the second chapter “Elements of the Deal” undoubtedly come from the man himself.  He breaks these down as:

– Think Big

– Protect the Downside (& the upside will take care of itself)

– Maximize Your Options

– Know Your Market

– Use Your Leverage

– Enhance Your Location

– Get the Word Out

– Fight Back

– Deliver the Goods

– Contain the Costs

– Have Fun

For all the people in the nationalist movement and adjacent to it, who seem to admire or even worship Trump, very few have taken the time to study these principles and how he applies them in politics.  Trump is a political genius, but he’s not an ideologue at all—he doesn’t have principles in the ideological or ethical sense of the word.  What he has is a modus operandi that he applies consistently and to deadly effect, which his enemies have never been able to figure out how to counter effectively, and even many of his allies fail to grasp.

Everything he does and the way he thinks can be explained by how he applies these operating principles.  Trump sees powers and interests in America and in the world, and he “deals” with them on the basis of his leverage and their leverage over him.

The fact that Trump seems to promise everything to everyone and, for instance, never sides completely with neocons over paleocons, or paleocons over neocons, is an example of “Maximize Your Options.” Serving fries at McDonald’s is an example of “Know Your Market”—he knows who his target voters are and how to appeal to them.  The same goes for when he visits the Rebbe’s grave: he’s appealing to his target donors and backers.

His penchant for doing controversial things that attract publicity and drive the news cycle towards himself is an example of “Get the Word Out.” The fact that he has figured out how to tap into the mass enthusiasm of the long-suffering White masses without spending a huge amount on advertising or traditional political consulting is an example of “Control the Costs.”

“Use Your Leverage” is his ultimate deal-making insight, and this is something he deploys powerfully, all the time.  He knows no other elites in America will stand up for White people and they are desperate for a champion, so that’s leverage he has over them.  He knows powerful, rich Jews need to enlist White people to prop up their financial domination and Zionism, the fact that he alone can inspire that enthusiasm in White people (and a figure like Michael Bloomberg, for example, never could) is leverage he has with Jews.  Trump learned the lesson from losing to Pat Buchanan in 2000 that there was a huge, untapped base of frustrated White populism and nationalism in America that no Republican was willing to touch, and he picked it up at a steal.

This is why, when White people in the hinterland worship Trump and are willing to serve him and die for him, he takes it for granted and he doesn’t value their loyalty.  Trump doesn’t think in terms of loyalty, he thinks in terms of leverage, so a common person who has pledged blind loyalty to him has lost all leverage over him.  Meanwhile, a Jewish billionaire who is 9/10ths hostile to Trump, he will still respect because that person has leverage.  This is why he leaned into White populism and nationalism to win the 2016 Republican primary, then immediately pivoted to catering to the establishment Republican Party elites.  He didn’t need the leverage of GOP primary voters anymore, he had that group locked down, but what he did need was support of the old GOP establishment to win the general election.

This is also why Trump constantly leans into more LGBTQ+ voters, more Black voters, more Hispanic voters.  It isn’t so much that he is ideologically anti-White (neither is he ideologically pro-White), as he needs the leverage that those traditional Democratic voting blocs would give him and he doesn’t need Whites.  Trump doesn’t lean into White nationalism not because he’s ideologically opposed to it, but because all that could do is hurt his leverage with the powerful anti-White elites who rule the country.  Right now he’s signaling a bit in that direction, because he needs WN enthusiasm to cross the finish line.  The instant he’s back in, even if he has record turnout from White working class voters, he’s going to credit his victory to Blacks and other minorities because that was the group holding out, and stealing them away from Kamala would be the ultimate act of undercutting her leverage.

He is a supreme pragmatist, a businessman, a capitalist and a showman. If you want to influence Trump, the worst thing you can do is come at him from a position of weakness. He only respects and deals with strength. In many ways, his way of operating should be familiar to anyone who understands the Red Pill tropes about women. “Trump hypergamy” is a thing, Trump “monkeybranches” constantly and any poor fool who has “oneitis” for Trump is going to be rapidly used, cheated on and left behind. The people he respects most of all are other billionaires and people who are more powerful than him, and this will never change.

Original Post: https://x.com/Ahab4K/status/1850023748599984401

Trump up 2 points in battleground states, but Harris up 500 points on late mail-in ballots

/12 Comments/in /by

Like a good social justice protest, the Harris campaign is crashing and burning. Whether it’s teleprompter Kamala or earpiece Kamala, her media blitz has only resulted in voter favorability sinking toward her earlier VP approval ratings. Not only is she struggling with the under-30 vote, she’s losing Black men faster than a father’s day picnic. Even Saturday Night Live has lowered the curtain on her flailing campaign. All that’s left now is to announce a Victory Plan™ in the style of Volodymyr Zelensky.

Though Harris and Zelensky haven’t always seen eye to eye (she wears heels), they have more in common than they would like to admit. Both are the spoiled children of political convenience — thriving on delusions of importance and competence. They have come to occupy high office without proper democratic mandates and are backed by big money interests. Even their political godfathers, Soros and Kolomoisky, share similar backgrounds. The fate of both of their political careers now comes down to the November election, and the only ray of hope is ironically embodied by the freshly lacerated cadaver of Joe Biden. After all, it was his Lazarus victory in 2020 that forever changed the rules, demonstrating that an incoherent, unpopular, media-avoiding bunker campaign could nevertheless wake up with 81 million votes. Harris barely survived her candidacy’s honeymoon, but all may not be lost.

Realclearpolling currently gives Trump a 1 to 2 point edge in swing states Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada and Arizona. Assuming current trends, it’s going to take some moonlight action with mail-in ballots from the Harris campaign to flip results late in the vote count. The legal reform to massively liberalize postal voting was the great coup of 2020 and the same logistical infrastructure is still in place, be it on the ground or embedded in the US Postal Service. But don’t call them vote riggers – their preferred pronoun is ballot harvesters.

As Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton charges, all of the battleground states that flipped for Biden in 2020 ignored federal election laws and unlawfully enacted last-minute changes that meant photo ID was not required — using the covid-19 pandemic as a pretext. With just signature verification enforced, the result was immediately palpable. Texas and Georgia used to vote the same way, but due to the difference in local law Trump managed to lose Georgia while winning Texas by 6 points. Since proving fraud on the basis of signatures is practically impossible, Paxton suggests that it was a scheme so well organized and executed that Soros was likely behind it.

Republican ears are certainly amenable to a good conspiracy theory, but you can hardly blame them when the voter turnout clocks in at 66.6%. Though it wasn’t mentioned much, Biden’s election triumph broke a 120-year record for turnout and was an increase of 6.5 percentage points from 2016. Logic tells us that the covid pandemic should have actually decreased turnout in 2020, not increase it. As if economic inflation wasn’t enough, now there is also voter turnout inflation. Add to this the fact that all of the bellwether counties somehow got the result wrong and the cloud of smoking guns starts to get bigger. Even marquee bellwether state Ohio was blindsided, ending a sixty year record.

Quantitative metrics aside, a look at the qualitative distribution of votes suggests that the electoral system has reached the twilight zone — figuratively and literally. By some unexplained mechanism of demographics, two-thirds of postal and absentee ballots went to the Democrats in 2020. The official explanation for this is that Trump’s critique of postal voting led to extreme partisanship in method of voting, though this seems wholly inadequate. Republican voters tend to be older and more rural, so it should follow that Republicans do better in the postal and absentee category. Biden voters were so overrepresented for mail-in ballots in 2020 that they even exceeded their comrades voting in person (58% to 42% according to Pew Research). Forget chasing the White working class or Latinos – the new number one constituency for the Democratic Party is absentee and postal voters! On the other hand, a Rasmussen survey found that only 36% of Biden voters reported casting a mail-in ballot. Draw your own conclusions regarding the 22-point discrepancy.

If we go further and isolate early postal votes from late ones, the distortion gets even more grotesque. Official data do not provide this, but anecdotal evidence indicates that the lopsidedness was off the charts. With 92% of the vote counted in Wisconsin, Trump led by 8 points, but would lose because of a late vote dump of incredibly uniform ballots. Similar reversals were seen in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona. A Dominion employee gave an affidavit stating that an arrival of 100,000 votes at 4 am in Michigan went 100% for Biden — the claim being corroborated by independent contractors. When the world’s greatest technologist Elon Musk argues for a return to simple paper ballots and photo ID like virtually every other country, it’s with good reason.

Musk, who voted for Biden in 2020, is now a surrogate for Trump following his claim that a Harris administration would throw him in prison and destroy Twitter (X). It’s a very reasonable worry. The saga of 2020 is still playing out for Trump’s other allies; earlier this week a New York judge threw out the bankruptcy case of Rudy Giuliani, who lost his attorney’s licence and was ordered to pay $148 million to two Black election officials in Georgia whom he allegedly defamed in his post-election crusade to expose fraud. If this is how the former mayor of New York during 9-11 is treated because of his affiliation with Trump, one can only imagine the ongoing lawfare against protesters from the much eulogized January 6 pogrom.

The best bellwether for this election’s sentiment might be the recent poll that shows 79% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track. The tragedy is that Americans are hopelessly polarized on the causes and solution to the crisis. Illegal immigration has been essentially decriminalized and political assassination has been virtually normalized. Record low trust in elections and media is bipartisan. An astounding 42% of independents and even 7% of Democrats say that Biden didn’t win the election fairly. Evidently not all have forgotten the primary rigging against Bernie Sanders that sullied the Democrats in 2016. Nowadays, the Democratic Party Politburo is so efficient that it foregoes primaries altogether and installs candidates at will. Out with Methuselah — in with Jezebel, and the base barely bats an eyelid.

The Republican Party, thankfully, is richer for one Tulsi Gabbard, but the female vote could still cost Trump the election. Trump knows it and has resorted to courting women through such token initiatives as women-only town hall events.

The irony for Trump supporters in 2024 is that they have to believe that Trump was good enough to beat Biden last time but was thwarted by electoral fraud – while also believing that fraud won’t happen this time. Or that Trump wins by such large margins as to be safe, because they know that relying on the judiciary, media, or Republicans like Mitch McConnell and Mike Pence to fight for the truth is not going to happen. The litmus test of 2020 made it clear that there are simply too many people with sinecures unwilling to risk constitutional chaos and civil unrest.

The public largely join them in wishing to preserve the myth of American democracy, or at least reckoning that it’s better to let some things slide. Implicitly, American democracy has become too big to fail. For all of the extra eyeballs that will be honed in on electoral proceedings this year – the hindsight will indeed be 2020, but to what avail? The Democrats always seem to be one step ahead as great innovators within the electoral industrial complex. This election more than any other has epitomized the clash of the ballot and the bullet, with much of the country quite indifferent to the latter’s appearance. America has crossed the Rubicon, but whether you think the river runs red or blue ultimately depends on your perspective.