Featured Articles

A Brave Woman Has Passed: Ursula Haverbeck

/18 Comments/in /by

Ursula Haverbeck (11/8/1928 – 11/20/2024) recently passed at the ripe old age of ninety-six. She was known or “notorious” in Germany because she dared to challenge the Jewish Holocaust ‘narrative’ of six million. Time after time, she got into trouble with the German authorities for ‘Holocaust denial’ and ‘incitement to hatred,’ a crime that often results in either an exorbitant fine or imprisonment. The poor woman’s offense was that she dared to believe that Auschwitz was a work camp (which it was) and not a death camp. In a speech that Ursula gave in 2016 in the southern Berlin district of Lichtenrade, she described the Holocaust as one of the greatest lies in history. She also stated that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were not real.

Ursula’s imprisonments, however, reveals something deeply maniacal about our enemies. It shows not only how desperate they are to maintain at all costs the Holocaust propaganda they’ve spoon-fed us for the past 60 years, but how foundationally weak it is that they feel it necessary to imprison a woman in her 90s simply because she thinks differently about Auschwitz. Ursula’s crimes were essentially thought crimes; she happened to think differently than what the German authorities thought about that historic period of time from 1939–1945. And as a result, she was arrested, fined, sentenced, and imprisoned.

Ursula might have been allowed to keep such ‘heretical’ thoughts and never suffer a day in court if she had just kept it to herself. But she dared to share her ‘heresy’ with others and to align herself with Germany’s ‘far right’ political dissidents. Tyrannical governments, such as Germany’s, can’t allow their citizenry to ‘notice’ or even publicly question Jewish dogma about what happened at Auschwitz. All of it must be believed. To do otherwise is to invite inquiry, differing opinions, or even disbelief in the entire Holocaust story itself. Thus, it’s better to stamp out a dissenting whisper or even the mildest objection lest the entire house of cards crumble to the ground.

Would Ursula have been fined and imprisoned had she dared to challenge or question whether the Cambodian genocide (1976-1980) by the Khmer Rouge actually occurred? Would she have been arrested for ‘incitement to hatred’ if she professed not to believe certain parts of the Holodomor genocide (1932-1933) that led to the deaths of millions of Ukrainians? Or what would have happened to Ursula if she refused to believe the Armenian genocide by the Turks (1915-1923) in which approximately one million Armenians were brutally slaughtered? Or what if Ursula had thought differently about the Rwandan genocide (1994) which led to the mass murder of nearly one million Tutsis? Would Ursula have been arrested or fined if she declared Joseph Stalin’s mass murder of approximately 50 million people (1929-1953) never occurred or that his regime had nothing to do with the Great Purge which targeted political dissenters? If Ursula were to tell her German countrymen that Mao Zedong’s regime (1949-1976) never led to the mass murder of an estimated 40 to 70 million people, how likely is it that she would have been summoned to the authorities for questioning?

Truth is, nothing would have happened to Ursula. No German court would have criminally convicted her for believing differently about such human genocides, nor for sharing her thoughts to others. The subject of the Holocaust, however, in their minds is an entirely different matter and that not because of its overwhelming historical and numerical veracity when examined carefully, but because of the power, money and influence that Jewish power wields throughout Europe. Jews will not permit any deviation on whether the Holocaust death count was six million or something far less. They will not agree to anything less than Auschwitz being a death camp for the sole purpose of exterminating Jewish prisoners. And they have placed enormous pressure on the German authorities to never allow even the slightest departure from the received narrative.

In a way I understand this because every aggrieved group or ethnicity that feels it has been wronged view themselves as history’s ultimate victims. Jews, then, are only doing what other groups who feel they have been wrongly persecuted have done.

But there is an important difference.

Jews use lawfare and criminal indictments to enforce their beliefs that pressure non-Jews to comply lest they be summoned by the authorities. As it currently stands, there are 17 European countries, including Israel and Canada, that make Holocaust denial a punishable offense. Jews often publicly malign those who refuse to go along with the narrative via their media outlets. They do all in their power to portray any and all dissenters in the worst possible light. This is something no other ethnic group on the planet does.

The Armenian people, in contrast to Jews, will not engage in a holy crusade against anyone who happens to think differently about the details of the Armenian genocide. They may argue against such notions as individuals, but not in some collective public campaign to force everyone to agree on every conceivable detail over those events. The same may be said of any other ethnic group that has experienced wholesale slaughter at the hands of their enemies. Neither do Armenians erect sympathy museums throughout Europe and America that visually dramatize their sufferings by the Turks as Jews have done in their Holocaust museums. Armenians have not sought exorbitant amounts of reparations from other countries either nor have they instituted policies of perpetual reparations to each new generation of their people as Jews have. Only Jews could create such devious financial scams and trickery and manage to get away with it. Rightly did Norman Finkelstein title his 2000 book, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering.

The Israeli government, interestingly, has refused to formally acknowledge the Armenian genocide (see Yossi Melman, “Israel’s Refusal to Recognize the Armenian Genocide is Indefensible,” Foreign Policy, 4/29/2019). Jews have tended to either deny or downplay the horrors of the Armenian genocide because anything that detracts from the centrality of Jewish suffering is seen as a threat to their power, to their very existence as a people.

The Jewish obsession to marginalize and criminally prosecute those who refuse to believe the Holocaust reflects a strongly religious character. Like the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages that persecuted ‘heretics’ for their thought transgressions, so also today’s Jewish power system that has infiltrated the West fanatically believes it must attack and, if possible, criminally prosecute anyone who renounces Holocaust dogma and makes it known to others.

Many Jews cannot even accept that one might reject the Holocaust story because of problems that make it appear questionable or greatly exaggerated and still have positive feelings for the Jewish people. In their minds, an unwillingness to fully accept what Jews have suffered is clear proof that they are ‘anti-Semites.’ No reasonable nuances are accepted. For the Jews, the Holocaust is an all or nothing proposition that again reveals its overly dogmatic and religious nature.

All of this on the part of Jews stems from an inflated and grandiose view of themselves. Nothing in the world even matters except how it impacts the Jewish people, and this includes the suffering of other groups. Jews may claim to care about non-Jews, poor migrants and the impoverished in their efforts to ‘repair the world.’ But what it almost always amounts to is burdening White western governments with more non-White immigrants at tax-payer expense and less social cohesion.

There is a popular phrase among Jews taken from the Talmud: “Whoever destroys a single life is considered as if he destroyed an entire world; and whoever saves a life is considered as if he saved an entire world” (Sanhedrin 37a). I was at first bewildered by what it meant until I realized that what it’s really saying is that saving one Jewish life has so much intrinsic value and worth that it’s equivalent to saving the entire world, all of humanity! Granted, modern Jews try to argue that it applies universally to everyone, Jews as well as non-Jews. But this is not the dominant opinion among the ancient rabbis, especially when one considers how painfully derogatory Jews routinely spoke of gentiles evident in their Talmudic writings.

One understands, then, why Jews are unwilling to see the genocidal suffering of other groups as equivalent or greater than that of their own. This is one of several reasons why Jews seek to punish all forms of Holocaust denial. The same will occur here in the U.S. if the First Amendment is ever neutered or abolished altogether. Jews in America are currently working on doing that very thing since the First Amendment stands in the way of their efforts to outlawing all speech deemed ‘anti-Semitic.’

What Jews seem to fear most are words. As Abe Foxman, the former national director of the ADL, reminds us: “The Holocaust didn’t start with gas chambers or Auschwitz. It started with words.” Is it any wonder, then, why they do so much in their power to both control the thoughts and words of others? Jews only want free speech when it benefits them. What they really want is controlled speech.

Our opponents try to justify prosecuting dissenters to the Holocaust story by arguing that the atrocities committed by the Nazis were unique in all of history. It’s necessary, therefore, to maintain the historical integrity of what occurred, including Germany’s complicity in the deaths of millions of Jews which must never be forgotten. Thus, it’s incumbent upon the German government to fine and even imprison those who ‘incite hatred’ against Jews lest the same events be repeated.

But such thinking is wrongheaded from the outset. The Holocaust is not a unique event in all of history if one is talking about genocides or human death tolls. Aside from serious questions about where the notion of ‘six million’ originated, including its symbolic usage among Jews many years prior to WW2, the Holocaust story is replete with a multiplicity of historical problems that have caused a growing number of people to question its veracity.

Moreover, a host of truly bizarre and outright silly Nazi death stories surround the Holocaust narrative that only serve to cast even more doubt on what we’ve been told about it (e.g., death by masturbation machines; soap made from the skin of Jews; and the silliest accounts of surviving the gas chambers).

There have also been numerous genocides throughout human history that were greater in number and sheer horror than the alleged Holocaust. Any attempt to make the Holocaust the greatest human atrocity one could imagine is absurd and flies in the face of the historical record.

Finally, when has outlawing speech and free inquiry ever benefitted the progress of Truth? If the Holocaust narrative is factually true, why is it necessary to surround it with legal penalties and punishments if one dares to think and speak otherwise? Why can’t the proponents of the Holocaust story defend their position in the arena of ideas and open inquiry rather than so often resorting to threats of criminal punishment and costly fines? Is the conduct of Jews in this realm the mark of a people devoted to Truth, or a people so desperate to maintain lies that they will gladly resort to imprisoning a 96-year-old elderly woman because she dared to have a contrarian viewpoint?

Ursula Haverbeck was a brave woman who stood by her convictions. She was willing to pay the price for it too. I hope more Whites will be as steadfast in their convictions as she was.

This is from Ambrose Kane’s Substack. Please subscribe.

The Power of Pudenda: Surveying Sex from the Sublime to the Sordid

/10 Comments/in , /by

Vigor Vaginae Veneris. Latin says in three words what can take seven words in English: “The Vigor of the Vagina of Venus.” Or V3 for short. It’s V3 that powers one of the most remarkable images I’ve ever seen. It’s so remarkable, in fact, that I’ve sometimes wondered whether it’s a modern fake. And what is it? It’s a painting on a twelve-sided table that shows a naked blonde Venus from whose vulva golden rays are extending to the faces of six young knights kneeling in worship.

Vigor Vaginae Veneris: a beautiful blonde goddess beams golden vulva-rays at six white knights

Painted by an anonymous medieval artist and currently held in the Louvre in Paris, its full name is Le Triomphe de Vénus vénérée par six amoureux légendaires (Achille, Tristan, Lancelot, Samson, Pâris et Troïle) — The triumph of Venus, worshipped by six legendary lovers (Achilles, Tristan, Lancelot, Samson, Paris and Troilus). However, you could sum it up in two words: Pussy Power! But that’s vulgar and the painting isn’t in the slightest vulgar or pornographic. Instead, it’s beautiful. It wasn’t created to raise a snigger or pump a penis, but to venerate the vulvina of Venus, goddess of sex and love (vulvina is my blend of vulva-and-vagina).

Maiden, Mother, Matriarch

That vulvina-veneration is obvious in the painting, but there’s a lot of more subtle symbolism there too. Venus stands inside a mandorla, an almond-shaped aura that here represents the labia (and that often appears around the Virgin Mary in Christian art). And what are the fruit-bearing trees below and to left and right of Venus? They’re almond-trees. And the young knights are in quest of the Holy Grail, the awe-inspiring chalice that brims with blood and that is, on some gynocentric interpretations, another symbol of the female pudenda.

Those gynocentric interpretations say that Christianity became paganized as it spread into Europe from its austere Semitic roots. The Virgin Mary isn’t prominent in most of the New Testament and the virgin birth isn’t mentioned at all by St Paul. Nor does the New Testament formally define and name the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But Mary is very prominent in Catholicism. So is the male Trinity. However, it’s a woman’s life, not a man’s, that falls naturally into three stages: maiden, mother, matriarch, or the pre-menstrual girl, menstrual woman, and post-menstrual crone who stand behind triple goddesses like Artemis, Hera, and Hecate. That image of naked blonde Venus, with her golden-rayed vulva, was painted in Christian Europe about an ostensibly Christian legend, but it’s pagan, not Christian, and openly expresses pussy-power.

Jewish porn as cultural terrorism

That power is submerged and sublimated in Catholicism, and altogether absent in true Protestantism, which is Pauline in its attitude to the Virgin Mary. She doesn’t matter there, which helps explain one of H.L. Mencken’s best and funniest lines: “The chief contribution of Protestantism to human thought is its massive proof that God is a bore.” Yes, God is boring — lifeless, sterile, uninspiring — when the female principle is stripped away from religion. But what happens when religion is stripped away from the female principle? You can see the answer all around you in the modern West. Pussy-powered paganism in the past and pussy powers pornography in the present. That is not a good thing. The central role of Jews in pornography has often been described and decried by White nationalists. See, for example, Kenneth Vinther’s article “Oppression by Orgasm? The Porn Industry as Jewish Anti-Fascist Action and Cultural Terrorism” at Counter Currents. Pornography degrades and exploits the special beauty and sexual power of White women. What’s not to like for anti-White, money-hungry Jews?

Jews in pornography

But one White-harming aspect of Jewish pornography hasn’t been extensively discussed by White nationalists: its role in encouraging, first, mass migration by non-Whites and, second, the rape and harassment of White women by non-Whites after their arrival. For example, the young non-White men pouring across the English Channel into Britain or across the Mexican border into America are, of course, economic migrants seeking White money. But they’re also erotic migrants seeking White women. It’s absolutely certain that a large or even overwhelming majority of those men have consumed pornography featuring White women and have been conditioned by that porn to see White women as promiscuous and readily available. This does not promote the welfare of White women, to put it mildly. But do feminists ever mention the pull of porn for non-Whites in their critiques of pornography and the patriarchy?

From veneration to vulgarity

Of course not. But if pussy powers porn, it also powers the solipsism and self-worship so obvious in feminism. You’ve seen vagina-veneration from the fourteenth century above. Now here’s some vagina-vulgarity from the twenty-first century:

Vagina-vulgarity and a bushy-haired Black: the book V

That book by the biologist Florence Schechter is subtitled “an empowering celebration of the vagina and vulva.” In fact, it’s a self-worshipping celebration. By saying “V-V-V,” Schechter is really saying “Me-me-me.” And if you’re wondering about her surname, yes, the vulgar, self-worshipping creatrix of the Vagina Museum and author of V does indeed seem to be Jewish:

Self-worshipping vagina-fan Florence Schechter

But Schechter’s self-worship isn’t the simple and satisfying thing it would once have been. The cult of leftism to which she belongs is ever-restless and ever-evolving. That’s why the cover of Schechter’s book features a bushy-haired Black woman standing on her hands and doing the splits. As a White racist, I will freely admit that the Black woman presenting her pudenda makes me feel queasy rather than quim-curious. I am not interested in or attracted to Black vulvas and vaginas. But White feminists would not freely admit that the Black woman also makes the book less attractive to them.

A White woman on the cover would have been much better for a solipsistic White feminist. But the self-worship of feminism has been hijacked by the self-worship of Blacks, which is why Florence Schechter collaborated on V with the Afro-autolatric Nadia Akingbule, “an illustrator from London, working predominantly with themes relating to minority representation and activism. Alongside colourful editorial illustration, she specialises in portraiture, often referencing her experience as a person of dual heritage in her practice.”

“The female penis”

As I said: celebrating “V-V-V” really means celebrating “Me-me-me.” But Black women want to celebrate “B-B-B” too or, as John Derbyshire puts it: “Blackety Blackety Black Black Black Blackety-Blackness.” Yet another self-obsessed group wants to celebrate “T-T-T.” That’s why Florence Schechter’s Vagina Museum had to market itself as “trans-inclusive.” I’ve never visited the Vagina Museum, so I don’t know how it pandered to the egomania of so-called transwomen, with their fake (and fetid) vaginas. And I’ve never read the book V, so I don’t know how it avoids the blasphemous assertion that vulvas and vaginas are in any way central to or defining of womanhood. As mainstream leftism now proclaims: any human being with a penis and testicles can be just as much a woman as any human being with a vagina and ovaries, if the penis-possessor claims to be a woman. This being so, vulvas and vaginas are not central to womanhood. Not for mainstream leftists, anyway.

But leftists are lunatics in thrall to a pernicious ideology based on fantasy and egomania, not on reality and objective science. The ideology is pernicious by design — Jewish design. Just as Jews have been central to pornography, so they’ve been central to translunacy, as Kenneth Vinther describes at Counter Currents in his review of Scott Howard’s The Transgender-Industrial Complex (2020). The godfather of translunacy was the Jewish “sexologist” Magnus Hirschfeld (1868–1935), who was energetically promoting pornography, transgenderism and homosexuality well before the Second World War.

“There are a lot of Jews”

Jews like Hirscheld have been central to the promotion of all three things and all three have been harmful to the West. That isn’t to say that all Jews and only Jews promote harmful things like those. But Jews have been necessary, if not sufficient, in the noxious growth of porn, transgenderism, and homo-cultism. That’s why the hyperbolic meme “Every. Single. Time.” works so well when applied to Jews. It isn’t every single time, of course, but it’s often enough for the meme to work. Jews themselves have openly admitted their central place in the promotion of sexual perversion and subversion. Take the Jewish academic Dr Nathan Abrams. He has argued in the Jewish Chronicle that “It’s not just Kubrick and Sellers who made Lolita a Jewish film” and that Lolita has a “Jewish appeal” because pedophiles and Jews both embody “the outsider who is passionately committed to action against the social order.”

And take the Jewish pediatrician and apparent “transwoman” Dr Ilana Sherer. He has proposed “renaming … clitorises as ‘dicklets’” and claimed in the Jewish News of Northern California that puberty-blockers are “fully reversible.” He has also proudly acknowledged that “there are a lot of Jews” in the field of translunacy and has described how “we [in a transgender group] were trying to schedule our next meeting and realized that everyone in the room but one person was Jewish.” Mark Steyn’s resident Jewish mother, the highly ethnocentric Laura Rosen Cohen, didn’t mention Sherer’s Jewishness when she asked of him: “Why do they all look like that?” Indeed, Sherer looks both demented and depraved in typical transgender fashion.

The revolutionary power of zoophilia

Another trans-skeptic Jew, James Esses, didn’t mention Jewishness either when he used the following as the first example in a list of the perversion and subversion promoted by “queer theory”:

In 2020, the elite academic publisher, Cambridge University Press, published an article titled ‘LGBTQ…Z’. In case you were wondering, the ‘Z’ stands for ‘zoophilia’, another term for bestiality — human beings sexually abusing animals. The article argued that the ‘Z’ should be brought into queer theory, in order to bring about “the revolutionary power of love”. (“Our societies must not be ‘queered’,” James Esses at Matt Goodwin’s Substack, 18th November 2024)

The two leading figures in queer theory are the Jewish-lesbian academics Judith Butler and Gayle Rubin. I think another Jewish-lesbian academic was behind the zoophilia-friendly article highlighted by James Esses. It was written by the lesbian queer-theorist M. Kathy Rudy (also known as Mary K. Rudy and born 1956), an “American women’s studies professor and theologian.” However, to be fair to Esses, Kathy Rudy’s Jewishness is much less obvious than Ilana Sherer’s. In fact, I can’t prove that she is Jewish. But she looks Jewish, has a surname that can be “eastern Ashkenazic,” and has a Wikipedia biography in six languages, one of which is Hebrew. She also got a positive review of her book Loving Animals: Toward a New Animal Advocacy (2011) from her fellow academic Frances Bartkowski, who has based her career on “years of reading, writing, and teaching about the Shoah,” has written a novel about two Polish Jews fleeing the Shoah, and has a promotional page at the Jewish Book Council. I conclude that Kathy Rudy is Jewish, although I can’t yet prove it. Here’s the abstract for her promotion of zoophilia in the feminist journal Hypatia:

In this essay, I draw the discourses around bestiality/zoophilia into the realm of queer theory in order to point to a new form of animal advocacy, something that might be called, in shorthand, loving animals. My argument is quite simple: if all interdicts against bestiality depend on a firm notion of exactly what sex is (and they do), and if queer theory disrupts that firm foundation by arguing that sexuality is impossible to define beforehand and pervades many different kinds of relations (and it does), then viewing bestiality in the frame of queer theory can give us another way to conceptualize the limitations of human exceptionalism. By focusing on transformative connections between humans and animals, a new form of animal advocacy emerges through the revolutionary power of love. (“LGBTQ…Z?”, Hypatia, Volume 27, Issue 3, Summer 2012, pp. 601-615)

Zoophilia-friendly M. Kathy Rudy at Youtube

As you can see from the video-still of Kathy Rudy above, I started this article with a beautiful blonde and have ended it with a bloated bull-dyke. That’s a brutal description, I know, but it’s also an accurate one. Kathy Rudy is an ugly woman promoting an ugly ideology. That’s part of why I conclude she’s Jewish. Sex and sexuality can be both sublime and sordid. When Whites controlled and created Western culture, the sublime suppressed the sordid. Now that Jews control and create Western culture, the sordid submerges the sublime.

Losing is No Reason Not to Fight

/22 Comments/in , /by

All is lost. Western Civilization is over. There is no point in fighting against it. Embrace defeat.

This was the thesis of an article published here on The Occidental Observer this weekend. The writer argued that fighting for the future of our race was pointless, because it would accomplish nothing and only lead to personal tragedy.

“Don’t take heed of anyone who tells you to fight. There is no fight to have, we have already lost…. If you start fighting, you will just be jailed, lose your job, and probably your family and your mental health.”

I disagree. I have done those things and I feel great.

I have lost my job, my family, lots and lots of money. I have been brought up on a politically motivated charge that took me almost four years to overcome. I have been attacked in the streets, betrayed and lied to by the authorities, investigated, been illegally searched and so on.

Many people have suffered way worse. They have done hard prison-time. They have lost more money, wasted more time in court. Many of the writers at this publication have sacrificed more than me.

Have we achieved anything in politics? Have we weakened Jewish power? Had any effect on the health of our race? I don’t know.

What I do know is, my mental health has never been better. I feel awesome. I LOVE fighting against Jewish power! If I had to have a normal job and never ever say what I really think… then I would be depressed. I know many others who feel the same. What is life worth if you can’t fight for something?

So the writer is dead wrong about that. If more people took up the fight against Jewish power, their mental health would certainly improve. And if all Whites took a stand, Jewish power would collapse that very day.

As to the author’s notion that “we have already lost” and should therefore do nothing. Not only is the conclusion wrong, but the premise is too. We have not lost. It’s not over. It’s never over until you and everyone like you is dead. History goes on. More people to fight, more empires to build and destroy, more art and literature to create and forget, more more more.

That people can fall for such simplistic and history-denying arguments tells me that they have no education in the humanities. This is a big problem in our civilization generally, with far too much emphasis being placed on technical subjects and statistics. People have become blind to “the human element,” that is, morale and will-power. They see a graph of a demographic trend and think “oh, the White line is going down, the non-White line is going up, therefore this will continue indefinitely until we are all dead.”

They would know better if they understood the difference between technical subjects and the humanities. History concerns itself with what men do and why they do it. In physics, you can predict with total accuracy the acceleration of a falling object given Earth’s gravity and no resistance. In history, you know what happened only after it has happened. You cannot predict the future with total accuracy, because you have to account for men’s intent. Even if you knew what all the historical actors intended to do, knowledge of other actors’ intentions would cause other actors to change their behavior, and thus, the outcome.

Americans in particular seem to fall into the writer’s kind of defeatism. This defect of our national character is attributable to the fact that (unless you’re a Southerner) our country has not fought a stronger enemy since 1812. We have no historical memory of being on the weaker side in any fight. Exceptions—the Alamo, Bataan, Bastogne—are all either well out of living memory, and they only occurred because a weaker enemy briefly achieved temporary superiority. In the last eighty years, all Americans have known is massive material superiority in any fight. Few of us even have enough experience in team sports to know what it’s like (and what it takes) to win against the odds. This is something we have to fix.

The first step is understanding that nothing is ever hopeless. If only material things matter—money, armies, natural resources, governmental and media apparatuses—history would have “ended” a long time ago. Sumeria or Egypt would have conquered the world and we would be under their heel even now. That didn’t happen, because great empires can and do collapse, and smaller and weaker—but more motivated—groups can beat bigger, stronger ones. That should be obvious, but it seems necessary to say it again. Whites need to keep things in perspective. What German in Caesar’s time could have imagined annihilating three legions a mere generation later, or conquering the whole empire in five centuries?

The next step is identifying and analyzing your opponent’s weaknesses, then exploiting them the same way that they have exploited our weaknesses. We could be doing this. Most Whites just aren’t trying. Everyone has either some money to give or some time to volunteer. Since White resistance against Jewish power is not well organized, the burden is on each of us to figure out how to make his contribution count. I’m constantly hearing about how good we Americans are at taking initiative and what individualists they are. Well, prove it!

So no. It isn’t over. The Jews can have all the money, all the government agencies, all of the media and they will still lose. The trait that got them into power will be their undoing—their monumental arrogance. Because it blinds them to the hidden moral power of their opponents.

I assume that the author of the dystopian vision isn’t a Jew or a political enemy trying to sew defeatism in our hearts. I assume he is acting in good faith. If so, at least he had the willpower to write an article, no matter how wrong he is and how damaging his attitude is to our cause. If he really believed that everything was hopeless, he would not have bothered lifting up the pen.

He does point out, rightly, that there are many charlatans trying to profit from our race’s grief. “There is an industry selling hopium [hope used as a drug] to the White man”.

Indeed. It is called conservatism. Conservatives will try to tell you that “This time it will be different,” Trump will expel all of the illegal Hondurans, he will put real men in charge of crucial government ministries, he will restore order in the military, he will root out the liars and thieves from academia, and a thousand other things.

We all know that Trump won’t do any of that. The writer is right in that regard. There is no hope for conservatism. Thousands of their writers, editors, fundraisers, Twitter-people and operatives are selling desperate White people false hope. They have been doing it for decades. You cannot trust anything they say, because they are always balancing truth with what gets them paid.

Conservatism is a pitiable delusion. We cannot settle for anything less than the complete overthrow of Jewish power in America and the West. There is no sense in hoping for lesser, easier to achieve goals. The Jews see us Whites as a dire threat, and they have no desire to offer us concessions. It’s either us or them in their minds. The only option we have is to tear down their power bit by bit. And since they have all of the material power, we have to have stronger willpower. We have to want it more, no matter the cost.

As Adolf Hitler pointed out:

When self-interest threatens to replace idealism, we notice an immediate weakening in the force that maintains the community. When the community breaks, so falls civilization. Once we let self-interest become the ruler of a people, the bonds of social order are broken. When man focuses on chasing his own happiness, he falls from Heaven straight to Hell. (Mein Kampf, vol 1, chapter 11. Trans. by Ford)

Of course, it will be an awful grueling fight. We will all have to face far worse things than losing our jobs or going to jail. We will have to prepare for pain and loss. “Embrace the suck.” We’re going to have to learn to love this unfair and uneven fight. That is the only true hope.

In the end, I’m here because I love to fight. Even if it’s not fair. Even if we can never have an honest White man’s fight, and we have to fight the Jews on their own turf like lawyering, or weird rhetorical maneuvering. It’s a lot more thinking and less physical exertion. But it is still fighting, because you have an opponent who hates you and wants you poor, imprisoned or dead. There is real danger. And not stupid purposeless danger like jumping off buildings or overdosing on Benadryl. This is not mere thrill-seeking.

The fight against Jewish power is meaningful, purposeful danger in pursuit of noble aims. I love it and I will never give it up.

Thank you to Doctor MacDonald for everything you do. It’s been 10 years this month since I came to understand the Jewish Question, thanks in no small part to this website. Thank you to all the writers and donors to The Occidental Observer. You have changed my life all for the better.

If you understand the problem of Jewish power and the lamentable condition of the White race, you have a choice to make:

Join us in the fight. Or get out of the way.

Trump 2.0: Harbinger of a New Elite?

/26 Comments/in /by

I voted for Trump and would do it again. We escaped permanent rule by the left, so this website won’t be considered a criminal enterprise for at least four years. And it’s quite clear that Trump 2.o will be very different from Trump 1.o with his horrible, self-defeating appointments and the constant harassing and obstruction by his DOJ, the national security agencies, the Pentagon, and the Democrats (impeachments, investigations, lawfare). Trump has obviously learned something from his mistakes and is now targeting the prime culprit: the federal bureaucracy—the deep state that is in large part responsible for his ineffectual first term and has continued to pursue him since he left office.

It’s going to be different.

Somehow disruption doesn’t begin to cover it. Upheaval might be closer. Revolution maybe. In less than two weeks since being elected again, Donald J. Trump has embarked on a new campaign to shatter the institutions of Washington as no incoming president has in his lifetime. here

Trump’s appointments make it clear that he intends to be a transformative president—a president that future historians will record as a watershed figure between an old and a new America. Of course, he may not fulfill his intentions—there will be many roadblocks, not the least from the remaining stuffed-shirt Republicans who want their world to return to the GOP of Jeb Bush, Bill Kristol, and Liz Cheney.

So far his appointments that have caused the most angst in the legacy media and among liberals are RFK Jr. (Health and Human Services), Matt Gaetz (Justice), Pete Hegseth (Defense), and Tulsi Gabbard (Director of National Intelligence). Each would be a thorn in the side of the Establishment. Each could be expected to lop off the most odious people within their purview. Make no mistake, heads will roll, and we would be far better off for it.

I very much hope they all get confirmed. This includes RFK Jr. who would be a great Secretary of Health and Human Services. He does not oppose vaccines (“I’m not going to take away anyone’s vaccines”) but makes a strong case that the RNA vaccines for covid have been a disaster—the school lockdowns, a result of teacher union lobbying, were a disaster for children, the least likely group to be negatively impacted by the virus. No more mandates. And whatever you think of his opinions on vaccines, his opinions on processed foods, food additives, and pesticides in foods are of critical importance in starting to make America healthy again. And he will end the revolving door between the federal regulators and the companies they regulate. It’s no surprise that the previous Secretary of HHS was a Latino identity-politics appointee with no experience at all in these areas.

Babylon Bee: Fattest, Sickest Country On Earth Concerned New Health Secretary Might Do Something Different
Article Image
U.S. — Citizens in the most obese, unhealthy country on the face of the planet have expressed concern that new Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. might try to do a few things differently.

With seventy-five percent of the adult population now overweight or obese, government officials expressed deep reservations about doing anything differently whatsoever. Thousands of employees within Health and Human Services have even threatened to quit if the new Secretary tries to get the country to change direction in some way.

“RFK Jr. is a nut and his ideas are crazy,” said FDA employee Sharon Wilmington, as she slapped a “Heart Healthy” sticker on a box of Froot Loops. “We obviously have this thing under control.”

Gaetz and Hegseth are being criticized because of charges of sexual improprieties. I get it, and there may be something to the charges. But I really don’t care. The point is that they will clean house in two areas desperately in need of overhaul. Selecting Matt Gaetz as Attorney General is a giant middle finger to the Justice Department. “None of the [other candidate] attorneys had what Trump wants, and they didn’t talk like Gaetz,” a Trump adviser told the Bulwark. “Everyone else looked at AG as if they were applying for a judicial appointment. They talked about their vaunted legal theories and constitutional bullshit. Gaetz was the only one who said, ‘yeah, I’ll go over there and start cuttin’ fuckin’ heads.’”

Hegseth will likely be the same. The system needs a massive shake-up, and they’ll do it. Interests over principles is foreign to a lot of White people, but Democrats who act all principled on this issue looked the other way or made excuses for the obvious corruption that pervaded the Biden family during its time in power. They ignored Biden’s obvious senility and they colluded in Hunter laptop scandal, the Russiagate hoax and much else. And now they are counting votes in Pennsylvania ruled invalid by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court (Ellis-Marseglia said that “precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country” because “people violate laws anytime they want”). Unfortunately for the Dems, the court reiterated its ruling.

Tulsi Gabbard horrifies the left because she is steadfastly against wars that are not in U.S. interests. Amazingly for a major public figure, she is on the Quiet Skies secret terrorist watch list which means she has been subjected to added security checks at airports. She will clean house on this issue, and it’s very reassuring to see that Gabbard is slated to be in the administration as Director of National Intelligence, replacing the half-Jewish Avril Haines. She is very much against the Ukraine war, as are J.D. Vance, Tucker Carlson (who, even though he has no official position in Trump 2.0, certainly has influence), proposed National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, and proposed Secretary of State Marco Rubio (“Trump’s Foreign Policy Picks Are All America First“).  So fears that Trump 2.0 would see the re-ascendency of neocon-minded war hawks are overblown to say the least. It’s hard to believe that anyone ever seriously mentioned Mike Pompeo as possible Secretary of Defense.

But yes, Trump 2.0 will be very pro-Israel, as seen by the appointments of Evangelical Protestant Mike (“There’s no such thing as a Palestinian”) Huckabee as Ambassador to Israel, Zionist  Steve Witkoff as Special Envoy to the Middle East, Marco Rubio, a strong supporter of Israel, who objected to linking the foreign aid bill to aid for Ukraine, as Secretary of State, and Elise Stefanik, who earned her stripes by her aggressive questioning of Ivy League presidents’ responses to pro-Palestinian protests, as UN Ambassador.  In my opinion, these appointments are a testament to the power of Jews in the U.S.; similar policies will occur regardless of whether the Dems or GOP are in power, although it’s reasonable to think that Trump 2.o will be even more pro-Israel than Biden-Harris in word if not in deed. Prepare for the Jewish resettlement of Gaza. Israel is the only country in the world that can engage in ethnic cleansing with impunity.

One has to believe, as I do, that policy toward Israel does not indicate a general pro-war stance in Trump 2.o. The worry is that Israel will be aggressive to the point that Iran and perhaps Turkey, which has severed all ties with Israel, would join up with other Middle Eastern countries to wage all-out war against Israel. That would certainly drag the U.S. into the war, and doing so may very well be Israel’s strategy: the thinking would be that genocide, oppression, and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians along with aggressive military encroachments against Israel’s neighbors would ultimately lead to a war that the U.S. could not stay out of. Already we have seen the U.S. military defending Israel against retaliatory attacks by Iran. But I very much doubt that Trump could be persuaded to start a war with Iran—the war that the Lobby has wanted for years.

Trump 2.0 will be multiethnic because that’s the way it has to be in contemporary America. But it won’t be obsessed with identity politics the way the previous administration has been.

But the interesting question is whether this portends a sea change in American elites—the rise of an elite that could replace the current liberal-left, substantially Jewish elite that has dominated American politics and discourse for the last 60 years and is still very powerful. But if the election showed anything, it’s that the mass media, a major stronghold of the liberal-left elite, has lost much of its power. The New York Times published a daily blizzard of articles lambasting Trump in the runup to the election, and the NYT’s influence percolates through the entire liberal-left media landscape. To no avail. Trust in the media is at an all-time low, while social media continues its rise, including Elon Musk’s X which is leaning much more conservative than in pre-Musk days. (Reading comments on Kamala Harris’s posts on X was a real treat. She was slaughtered.) With his wealth and influence over X, Musk is a huge asset for the forces in opposition to the liberal-left consensus. And frankly, I think he loves being in the limelight and basking in the adulation that high-level political involvement brings.

This new coalition will not be anti-Jewish, but neither will it be run by Jews to anywhere near the extent that the previous elite has been. Religious Jews and some Jewish billionaires have supported Trump, while the general Jewish community likely voted between 71–79 percent for Harris. Results depended greatly on whether religious Jews were polled (~40% for Trump among religious Jews vs. ~25% Trump support among of non-religious Jews—non-religious Jews are over 90 percent of the Jewish population):

A poll conducted by the Democratic firm GBAO Strategies, sponsored by the partisan organization J Street and widely touted by the Jewish Democratic Council of America [JDCA]—which used the same pollster for an October poll that reported a similar outcome—brought the reassuring news that only 25% of Jewish voters in Pennsylvania went for Trump, comparable to the reported 26% of Jews that voted for him nationally. Granted, that represents a 5-point improvement from what the firm found in a similar study amid the 2020 vote, although in the view of Halie Soifer, CEO of the JDCA, “increasing one’s share of the Jewish vote by 5% when the margin of error is 3.5% is not meaningful.”

…  “The biggest problem Democrats have with Jewish voters is there aren’t more of them, because if there were there’d be very different outcomes,” Jim Gerstein, lead pollster for GBAO, said in a Nov. 13 conference call organized by JDCA. “They’re not a swing constituency, and they’re certainly not a Republican constituency,” Gerstein added later in the event. “You have to look at the Jewish population as a core Democratic base constituency.”

So, not much evidence of change, although the Tablet article notes that precinct-by-precinct totals indicate a general shift toward Trump. According to the JDCA poll, the main issues for Jews who voted against Trump were that they see Trump as a threat to democracy and to abortion access, typical liberal-left concerns (although they would love an authoritarian leftist government). Trump has said that Jews who vote for Harris “need to have their head examined,” so it wouldn’t be too surprising to see Trump harbor some resentment against liberal-left Jewish power and try to do something about it. As indicated above, I think at bottom most Jews see Israel as doing fine with either party in power, so they gravitate to what I regard as the anti-White coalition represented by the Democrat  mainstream.

As of August 14 according to Forbes, of 26 billionaire donors to Trump (not including Musk who donated at least $119 million), 22 are not Jewish, while 4, including Bernard Marcus (who recently died) are Jewish, with only one in the top ten (Miriam Adelson [$100 million]). This may well underestimate total Jewish giving to Trump, but it does imply that there is plenty of non-Jewish money supporting Trump—enough to make a Trump-like candidate in our pay-to-play democracy viable even without Jewish support. Harris received over $1 billion in campaign contributions, over 2.5 times the amount Trump received. Money talks but can’t overcome terrible policies (e.g., Harris’s support for radical pro-trans policies like government-paid sex change operations for prisoners and illegals was a disaster) and a terrible candidate, especially when that candidate is supported by a media that is vastly less influential than in previous decades.

The most powerful positions in the Biden cabinet related to the issues of most interest to White advocates have been held by Jews—Homeland Security (Mayorkas), Justice (Garland), State (Blinken), and Chief of Staff (Klain, Zientz). This is critical because Biden is and has been a complete non-entity with no ability or desire to rein in his nominal subordinates. So we have mass immigration, mass injustice, and a very expensive (and likely futile) war.

Thus far, Howard Lutnick (Secretary of Commerce) and Lee Zeldin (Head of the EPA) are the only Jews proposed for cabinet-level positions in Trump 2.0. Thankfully, Jared Kushner is noticeably missing from any proposed positions in Trump 2.0.

Also of interest to White advocates, Tom Homan, who is to be in charge of the deportations, is not Jewish and is very committed to mass deportation. Jewish immigration patriot Stephen Miller will be homeland security advisor and deputy chief of staff in Trump 2.o. Thus Jews in line with Trump’s overall agenda are welcome. But the point is that Trump 2.0 will have a much less Jewish look and—most importantly— be much less in sync with the mainstream liberal-left Jewish community on policies of interest to White advocates than the Biden-Harris administration.

This portends well for the future. Trump’s policies, particularly his mass deportation plan, will be extremely contentious and will likely result in massive civil disobedience and violence in the big cities. But media coverage of the disorder will certainly be further indication to Trump voters and to White Americans in general that White America is under siege.

However, the money and the media are in place for a sea change in American political culture in the direction of White interests. Let’s hope it happens

The multiculturalization of Denmark: Unrequited love

/9 Comments/in , /by
The Arch of Titus in Rome east of the Roman Forum. This relief depicts the triumph after the capture of Jerusalem in 70 AD, when Titus put an end to the Jewish revolt. Roman soldiers carry spoils of war from the conquered Jerusalem, including the seven-armed candlestick.

This article was originally published in Danish on January 14, 2018.

In recent decades, a number of so-called right-wing populists have experienced a significant rise in almost all European countries. Their rise is fueled by a growing number of Europeans’ natural dissatisfaction with the immigration policies of recent years, which have opened Europe’s borders to a tsunami of Third World surplus population.

A common feature of right-wing populists is their single-minded focus solely on the religion of immigrants, Islam. The foundation of their activities is thus not opposition to non-European mass immigration per se. As a consequence, right-wing populist policies are consistently hypocritical, incoherent and inconsistent, which is evident in the countries where right-wing populists have had political influence for several years. Multi-ethnicization in these countries continues unabated. Another important general feature of almost all European right-wing populists is that they seem to be deeply in love with the state of Israel and everything Jewish.

A typical example of this is Dutch politician Geert Wilders. There can be no doubt about Wilders’ deep and sincere love for Israel. As a young man, Mr. Wilders spent two years living in the Jewish state, which he sees as a Western bastion in a sea of Arab or rather Muslim primitiveness and barbarism. In this context, Wilders has stated that

“If Jerusalem falls into Muslim hands, Athens and Rome will be next. Thus, Jerusalem is the main front protecting the West. It is not a conflict over territory, but more precisely an ideological struggle between the liberated West and the ideology of Islamic barbarism.”

Wilders also sees Judaism as an integral part of the European cultural tradition and has stated that the “European Judeo-Christian tradition should be formally recognized as the dominant culture”.

Finally, Wilders has been quick to dismiss certain elements on the European right who might be so naughty that they don’t share Wilders’ unconditional enthusiasm for all things Jewish:

“My allies are not Le Pen or Haider… We will never make common cause with fascists and Italy’s Mussolinis”.

With such an impressive pro-Jewish resume, you would think that Mr. Wilders would be very popular among Jews. However, this does not seem to be the case. In the 2011 elections, Wilders only received support from a paltry 2% of the Jewish population in the Netherlands. It is one thing to support Israel and publicly declare his unconditional love for all things Jewish, but Wilders’ other policies, especially his so-called restrictive immigration policy, are not compatible with Jewish interests, according to a Jewish source.

The article “Not crazy about Wilders? Populist’s anti-Islamic message worries European Jewish leaders” from 25-10-2010 in the Jewish Telegraphic Agency makes it clear to everyone that the organized Jewish communities in Europe, just as in the US, want a multi-ethnic and multicultural future for native Europeans. In general, European Jewish leaders are saying that Europe should definitely continue to import both Muslims and other non-Europeans on a large scale in order to create a multicultural Europe – the Europe of the future.

The fact that the multicultural project in general seems to be very close to the hearts of Jews is also admitted by Barbara Lerner Spectre, an American/Israeli Jewish woman living in Sweden and head of the state-funded Jewish “Paideia Institute”.

“I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.”1

In Denmark, too, several prominent Jews have joined the multiethnic cheerleading squad. At a hearing on anti-Semitism in March 1994, Israeli citizen, Mossad agent and former editor-in-chief of Politiken Herbert Pundik quite tellingly stated that “we want to educate the Danes so the Turks can be here”.  Former head of information at the Danish Refugee Council Klaus Rothstein eagerly helped with this education by spewing out endless amounts of “informational materials” to convince Danes of the enrichment of receiving refugees.  In the metropolitan area, the education was supported by Dan Tschernia, who as head of TV2 Lorry for 25 years ensured that viewers were bombarded daily with multicultural propaganda so that they gradually matured to accept the new colorful multicultural reality. Similarly, former editor of TV-Avisen and former editor-in-chief of Dagbladet Information Georg Metz has been one of immigration’s strongest advocates throughout his career, and he has never missed an opportunity to smear nationalist-minded Danes. The blessings and absolute necessity of mass immigration were also proclaimed by another well-known Jewish personality. At a public hearing on immigration policy in 1997, Arne Notkin, then editor-in-chief of BT, former chairman of the Danish Zionist Association and former head of DR2, lectured the audience that “it is immigration to Denmark that has made Denmark an industrial nation.” In practice, Arne Notkin also demonstrated his dedication to the multicultural project when he ensured that Denmark got its first Muslim TV host, Asmaa Abdol-Hamid, in 2006, when she became a presenter on the DR2 program “Adam and Asmaa” together with Jewish Adam Holm, wearing a traditional Muslim headscarf. Most recently, the former Chief Rabbi, the first honorary member of the Danish Refugee Council and honorary president of the influential Jewish lobby organization B’nai B’rith Europe Bent Melchior stated in the TV show “Rabbi” on 26.11.2016 that Jews “have everything in common with Muslims”. There are many more examples of this behavior among leading Jews in Denmark, but for Denmark, let us conclude by referring to an article in BT, 10.12.20181, which states that “Danish Jews experience intolerance against Muslims at its worst” and that “hostility directed against Muslims is the most pressing problem.”

That Jewish organizations in general are very concerned about the well-being of Muslims is also confirmed on 9 April 2017, when none other than Pinchas Goldschmidt, President of the Conference of European Rabbis, called for solidarity with Muslims. The pious rabbi states that Jews and Muslims have a “common interest” in fighting the rise of nationalism in Europe and that “Jews have always felt safer in places where other cultures and religions are respected”. The fact that a few Jews here and there have been victims of Muslim cultural enrichment seems to be of minor importance, the most important thing for organized Judaism is to “protect minorities” in general, thus cementing the multicultural society where Jews supposedly thrive.

The Jewish organizations’ fundamental problem with Wilders and others like him is that, albeit on a populist, superficial and indirect level, he is agitating for the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of native Europeans, which according to the Jewish organizations is not in their interest and represents a dangerous development. As the president of the official Jewish community in Sweden, Lena Posner Körösi, aptly puts it, “history has shown us where this kind of thing can lead, and it is not necessarily good for the Jews”.

This kind of reasoning is entirely consistent with the traditional Jewish aversion to their host peoples having ethnically and culturally homogeneous nation-states. The reason for this behavior is quite logical: Major anti-Semitic movements are usually found in ethnically homogeneous nations, and ethnic and religious pluralism therefore serves outward-looking Jewish interests because Jews become just one among many ethnic groups, they go under the radar, so to speak, making it difficult or impossible for the majority population to build unified, cohesive groups that could unite in their opposition to Jews specifically. In the words of American psychology professor Kevin MacDonald, this is a survival strategy, which is illustrated in his three groundbreaking books; A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism As A Group Evolutionary Strategy, Separation And Its Discontents: Toward An Evolutionary Theory Of Anti-Semitism, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements.

What is strange, of course, is the support for Israel by the same Jewish organizations. It seems as if the Jewish organizations want to huff and puff with all their might; in the diaspora they seek to dissolve the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of the European host peoples, thus weakening them, while at the same time wholeheartedly supporting Israel’s sensible ethnic-based nationalism and healthy racist policies.

That organized Jewish communities in the West generally support and promote immigration – including Muslim immigration, even though many Muslims are hostile to Jews and Israel – clearly demonstrates how dedicated organized Judaism is in its campaign against the West’s indigenous people and traditional culture.

The harsh fact is that Jews, like Muslims, are an ethnic group that is generally hostile to us and our interests. The relationship of Wilders and other European right-wing populists with the Jews can thus be seen as a kind of unrequited love. You woo and woo, but the Jews are not the least bit interested.

Povl H. Riis-Knudsen

Translated by means of AI

Postscript

Even more very revealing confessions from Barbara Lerner Spectre have come to our attention and we are sharing them here with our readers.

In the meantime, our readers may wonder why no Jewish organizations have spoken out against the Jewish promotion of multiculturalism and mass immigration in the West (Interestingly, not for Israel), is there even one Jewish organization fighting for the preservation of European peoples and European culture? Just one? We’re still searching.

Barbara Lerner Spectre is an academic, philosphy lecturer and the founding director of Paidea. She was born in the United States and has studied and taught at American universities and Jewish universities in Israel. She moved to Sweden in 1999 to join her husband, who was rabbi at the Jewish synagogue in Stockholm. The following year, she applied to the Swedish government for funding for Paidea, the European Institute for Jewish Studies, which she founded and continues to lead today. The organization trains people for leadership positions in the renewal of Jewish culture in Europe.

She is best known on the Right for the statement that we have quoted above. WhiteRabbitRadio has made a parody of her in the video “AntiRacist Hitler”. Entertaining and scary, be sure to watch till the end.

Videos

Will he succeed this time? Watch and find out.

Clip from Barbara’s interview with a Jewish channel on November 16, 2023.

There can be no doubt who the elite are after seeing this confession. BLS says what we’ve known all along, it’s them. She is known for her self-incriminating honesty, we attribute it to hubris, a common feature of Jewish history, they go too far, incur the wrath of the host population and then have to pack their bags and find a new country where the pattern repeats itself. Jews lack self-awareness and a brake pad.

Watch more videos with Barbara here: https://rumble.com/c/c-6853803

Ethnically self-conscious Jews receive financial support from the EU in their work to spread cosmopolitan (Jewish) anti-nationalist values and the European identity is the Jewish identity according to the EU.

  1. This interview was only meant for a Jewish circle, but it got out and is now circulating on the internet: https://rumble.com/v57fiot-barbara-lerner-spectre-calls-for-destruction-of-christian-european-ethnic-s.html ↩︎

Gangsters and Goodthinkers: Musings on Mafia Malfeasance and the Locked-In Left

/8 Comments/in , /by

Genes for suicide. That seems like a ridiculous notion. But the evolutionary mathematics can work perfectly. In The Selfish Gene (1976), his magisterial introduction to evolutionary theory, Richard Dawkins considers a nest of baby birds that all carry hypothetical suicide-genes. If one of the babies is a runt and going to die anyway, it’s harming its siblings by taking food that would benefit them but that doesn’t, in the end, benefit itself. If the suicide-genes are triggered by struggle and the runt simply gives up and dies, then one copy of the genes is lost but more copies will survive in the siblings. Without the extra food, some of them might have died too or reproduced less well as adults. If more suicide-genes survive on average than are lost, then that ridiculous notion turns out to be disturbingly sensible. You can have genes for suicide.

Killed by cancellation

And what about worker-bees that die as they sting in defence of the queen-bee? It’s only the queen that reproduces, not the workers, so no suicide-genes are lost at all when a worker sacrifices herself for the good of the hive. Now, these suicide-genes will obviously be active in the brain. In the brains of birds and bees, that is. But what about human brains? Could we have suicide-genes too? In a general sense, we must have. Rates of suicide vary widely by race and must be under some genetic influence. Whites commit suicide more often than Blacks, for example, which is interesting when you consider that Whites evolved in a harsher environment than Blacks. When resources are scarcer, suicide can benefit siblings more. Perhaps that’s part of why Whites are more prone to suicide. But triggers for suicide will obviously be different in humans than in birds and bees. A nestling runt doesn’t give up and starve to death out of shame or despair.

But shame and despair certainly explain why a young human jumped off a bridge and drowned himself in January 2024. As widely reported in the mainstream media, he was a 20-year-old White called Alexander Rogers and a popular student at Oxford University. But his popularity disappeared after a sexual encounter went wrong and his female partner began complaining that she’d felt “uncomfortable.” Having been shamed and ostracized by his circle of friends, Rogers saw no way out but suicide. The right-wing side of the mainstream are condemning his death as an egregious example of “cancel culture.” And rightly so. But they aren’t discussing the possible evolutionary aspects of the case or pointing out that cancel culture is egregious in more ways than one. After all, the word egregious literally means “out-of-the-herd” and cancellation entails being ejected from the herd.

Alexander Rogers

The Mafia is for life

Alexander Rogers was ejected from his herd and killed himself as a result. But will a tragedy like that make leftists re-think cancel culture? On the contrary, it may make them think that cancel culture is working just as intended. By killing himself, Alexander Rogers has provided a grim memento mori for possible dissidents and badthinkers: “Stay in line or else.” His transgression was sexual, but cancel culture is mainly designed to police thoughts and opinions. And the goodthinkers who cancelled Alexander Rogers remind me of the gangsters who executed Paulie Gatto.

Two kinds of gangsterism: Das Kapital by Karl Marx and The Godfather by Mario Puzo

Gatto is a character in The Godfather, the book of 1969 and film of 1972 about the Sicilian Mafia in America. He betrays Vito Corleone, the titular Godfather, so he’s shot in the head by another gangster. Before that, Gatto’s immediate boss Peter Clemenza ponders how best to carry out the execution. It has to be done just right, although Clemenza knows that Gatto “was locked in, he could not run away” (chapter 6). That’s what happens to members of the Mafia: they’re enmeshed in the organization, supported by fellow gangsters but also under constant surveillance by them. When Paulie Gatto transgresses, he can’t run away. Nor could Alexander Rogers when he transgressed at Oxford, which is why I think that leftists are also “locked in.” When you’re surrounded by leftists, you’re under constant surveillance and under constant threat of cancellation. I don’t like the sleazy Semitic sex-pest Nick Cohen, a prominent journalist on the British left, but he provided an excellent summary of leftist thought-policing — and self-policing — in one of his books:

Outsiders don’t understand the enfeebling self-consciousness of political debate on the middle-class liberal-left: they can’t imagine the thoughts strangled and tongues bitten to avoid giving the smallest offence to audiences overanxious to find it. The director of a prison reform charity once told me that he struck all metaphors and similes from his speeches. Even if it was a bland cliché of “the government is like a rabbit caught in the headlights” type, he knew half his listeners would stop listening to him for thirty seconds while they double-checked that he had not unintentionally insulted a disadvantaged or ill-favoured group. (What’s Left? How Liberals Lost Their Way, Nick Cohen, Fourth Estate, London, ch. 12, pg. 337)

And that’s just about inadvertent error. What about deliberate badthink? As Kevin MacDonald has described, Whites are unique in the way they form moral communities based on abstract notions of right and wrong, rather than the concrete notions of “What’s best for the Tribe?” that apply among Jews and other races. In the moral community of leftists, you have to be a goodthinker, someone who holds exactly the right opinions and says exactly the right things. Suppose that the Oxford student Alexander Rogers had expressed a liking for Donald Trump or asked whether Muslim immigration had been wholly beneficial for White working-class girls in Rotherham (and lots of other places).

Helping Joe, harming Kamala

If he’d said things like that, he would have been ejected from the herd just as surely as he was for making his sexual partner “uncomfortable.” Leftism is a kind of ideological mafia, “locking in” millions of minds and ensuring that there is no free speech and no free enquiry in leftist bastions like university and government bureaucracy. Leftists also do their best to shame and coerce their non-leftist friends and relatives into compliance with leftism. Would evil, fascist, racist, White Trump have beaten beautiful, intelligence, super-accomplished Black Kamala if the ballot hadn’t been secret? And would Trump have beaten Kamala without the support of X and other internet media? Leftism doesn’t just lock its adherents in: it also tries to lock down dissent. And it did so with great success when it censored the toxic tale of Hunter Biden’s laptop in 2020.

Sleazy Joe might well have lost that election if Elon Musk had owned X back then. But it looks as though all that leftist censorship was for the best. If Trump had begun his second term in 2021, he wouldn’t have followed an agenda as radical as the one he seems about to follow in 2025. After all, he wasn’t promising mass deportations in 2020. He wouldn’t have had Elon Musk as his consigliere either. By helping Biden back then, the left may have hamstrung itself now. If birds and bees have genes for suicide, then leftism has a genius for self-owning. As King Théoden says in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings: “Oft evil will shall evil mar.”

Whither the West? A Dystopian Perspective

/39 Comments/in , /by

I’ve been angry about the decline of Western “Civilization” for a long time. I am not going to go through the list of injustices, slander, lies, blood libel, theft and gaslighting we have endured as a people in recent decades. You are all familiar with it, we are living through it, and the fact is that every year our collective power, prestige, wealth and social capital is diminishing in a painfully slow creeping process of decline, in every metric. Most of us would accept the axiom that you are either growing or dying. We are most assuredly not growing as a people in any meaningful metric. Maybe our waist lines, but that’s about it.
I have also imagined the ways in which we as a people could reverse this ominous slow-moving cataclysm and reassert ourselves. There is a whole industry of people attempting to sell hopium to Western Man. “Trump has to align himself with Israel otherwise he will never get into office and he won’t be able to make the changes we need” blah blah blah ad infinitum “Trump is playing 5d chess to save America”. Or maybe a military coup? A charismatic White General overthrows the US government and really drains the swamp. Maybe someone important in the real government structure changes their mind and decides to stop the ethnic cleansing of the West. Maybe God or aliens will intervene.

Now I think this desperation was in fact denial. I wasn’t willing to accept the truth, and none of us can move forward unless we accept the truth.
“We must realize that our party’s most powerful weapon is racial tensions. By propounding into the consciousness of the dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by whites, we can mold them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the whites, we will endeavor to instill in the whites a guilt complex for their exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause.” – Israel Cohen – 1912.

The intellectual framework which has brought the White race to where we are in history, that is to say, on our proverbial knees and hanging by a thread, was framed by our enemies (literally) centuries ago. It was debated by them endlessly decades before you were born, the machinations were made, the tentacles embedded into our institutions and finances, the critique of our social norms and the process of subversion and demoralization tested, refined and retested long before even the parents of the people reading this were born.

What has happened to us is not something anomalous which began in the 1970s. It can’t be pinned on the LGBT movement, feminism or mass immigration. It’s a monstrous, creeping behemoth which has been sneaking up on us, perhaps since antiquity.

So what is the point I am making? Well, essentially, I want to impress upon the reader that something which took centuries to mature and develop, an evil soup which has been simmering in it’s own foul juices for countless decades, refined and seasoned endlessly, something which has in large part shaped and reshaped the mind of Western Man, can not be easily undone. It certainly can not be quickly undone.

No. In fact, that is not the point I am making, this is the point I am making. Western Civilization is dead, and the question for Western Man, is whether Western Man dies with his civilization.

First, I’d stress, this isn’t your fault, and nothing you could have done in your life could have prevented any of it. The battles were fought before you were born, the arguments made, the knives drawn, deals done before you were even a glint in your father’s eyes, the long marches marched and remarched. So don’t beat yourself up about it, and don’t pay any heed to anyone who tells you to “fight”. There is no fight to have, we already lost. This may in fact be the most frustrating aspect of all and the hardest thing to wrap your head around, but if you start fighting, you will just be jailed, lose your job, and probably your family and mental health. You can’t fight because most of your compatriots don’t even believe we are under attack, and will most likely fight to protect the system which is ethnically cleansing them.

Secondly, and this is the part you probably won’t like, is the long grinding trend which has been bleeding out western civilization cannot be reversed.
Indulge me in a thought experiment. Let’s say Donald Trump by some miracle keeps all of his promises, that somehow he can break the entrenched power structures in the United States and accomplish his promises. Let’s imagine, and I’m sure it would feel glorious, that 10 million illegal migrants are rounded up and deported from the US, let’s imagine that government spending is curtailed, there are no more foreign wars, peace in Ukraine, imagine whatever you want. You can have it, all of it.

Would it reverse the demographic decline of the White race in America?

Would it get 5th-column alien elite Marxists out of our academia, every branch of government? Would it get them out of our banks and financial institutions?

Would it stop the owned, demonic, Satanic, pathologically lying corporate media machine from pumping lies into our televisions 24 hours a day, would it take the pesticides out of our food? Or for that matter the refined sugar or seed oil?

Most importantly, would it imprint on our people en masse a sense of the importance of preserving our bloodlines, heritage, traditions, health, self-confidence, virility and our institutions?

Truthfully, we all know it wouldn’t. America used to be a White country, even if by some anomaly, government fiat made America a White country once again, the egalitarian mindset would still be so firmly ingrained on the bulk of our people that we would immediately continue on our inexorable slide into the footnotes of the Jewish history books. The universities would still be pumping out coddled, effeminate morons determined to destroy their bloodline and flagellate themselves on the altar of the latest Jewish “isms”. Corporations would still be importing migrants “legally” to force down wages and dilute our stock, and the media machine would still be painting Western man as the Emmanual Goldstein of the world.

So what’s the answer? Truthfully I don’t know, but I want to start thinking about it. I do know there are still hundreds of millions of us. I know that even though most of that number are mindless morons who can not debase themselves and their bloodline fast enough, that still leaves tens of millions of people who understand that we have enemies and interests which need to be vigorously protected. What I would like is for people in our circle to start planning for what comes next for Western Man in a post-Western world.