Featured Articles

De–demonization: Women in the Fascist New Order (Part 2)

Christophe Dolbeau is a former professor and historian. This article was first published in the French magazine Tabou (31, Editions Akribeia, 2024) —the original title of the essay in French is “Les femmes et l’Ordre Nouveau” (“Women in the New Order”). The translation into English for TOO was done by the author himself. The editing and some slight adaption of the text below was done by Tom Sunic.

Go to Part 1.

Spain

María del Pilar Primo de Rivera y Sáenz de Heredia (1907–1991)

At the beginning of the 1930s some interest in the New Order began to appear in Spain. Tired of negligence, corruption and virulent anticlericalism of the Second Republic, and scandalized by the climate of terror imposed by socialists, communists and anarchists, young Spanish patriots gathered in small nationalist movements which claimed to establish “a great, just, orderly and faithful Spain.” Founded on October 29, 1933 by José Antonio Primo de Rivera y Sáenz de Heredia (1903–1936), the most important of those movements was the Spanish Phalanx of the Councils of National—Syndicalist Offensive (Falange Española de las Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional Sindicalista or FE de las JONS) where some women were also active. In fact, they assembled within the Women’s Section (Sección Femenina or SF), officially launched on July 12, 1934 and headed by María del Pilar Primo de Rivera y Sáenz de Heredia (1907–1991). She was also one of the sisters of the Falangist leader José Antonio Primo de Rivera (23).

Initially few in number (2,500 before July 1936), Falangist women immediately started to play a vital role in the struggle, notably by visiting the movement’s prisoners and ensuring their connections with the outside world. The boldest, like the teacher Rosario Pereda Cornejo (1912–1944), head of the SF of Valladolid and a good speaker, conducted a political campaign during the elections. There were also several young women in the ranks of the SEU, the Spanish University Union (Sindicato Español Universitario), whose female branch was headed by Justina Rodríguez de Viguri (1914–1989). With the start of the civil war in July 1936, the activities of the women’s section of the Falange increased significantly. From then on, the Women’s Section was entrusted with helping the families of the killed as well as providing moral and material assistance to the population behind the front line (distribution of food and clothing, allocation of ration cards, canteens for children, dispensaries, etc.). Their workforce continued to grow, quickly reaching 60,000 members at the end of 1936, and 400,000 in April 1938, and over 900,000 by April 1939. As soon as the uprising broke out and while fierce Red and antifascist repression raged in Madrid, young members and sympathizers of the SF, numbering 6,000, set up a network to help their persecuted members and sympathizers. Called “Blue Rescue” (Auxilio Azul), this clandestine organization (never dismantled) saved the lives of hundreds of nationalist activists. One of its leaders was María Paz Martínez Unciti (1918–1936). Arrested in October 1936, she was shot by the antifascist Republicans in Vallecas (24).

During the first days of the conflict one of the historic leaders of the Falange was the lawyer Onésimo Redondo, who was killed during a clash with Republican militiamen (July 24, 1936). His widow, Mercedes Sanz Bachiller (1911–2007), was also a member of the SF; she continued his fight in her own way by launching the Winter Aid (Auxilio de Invierno) which would soon become the Social Relief (Auxilio Social), an organization providing assistance to the needy and the victims of the war. Thanks to free canteens, daycare centers and medical centers, this organization strove in particular to fight against scurvy, beriberi and anemia which were wreaking havoc due to the nutritional deficiencies that the civilian population suffered. Alongside the Falangists, other young women also devoted themselves to humanitarian aid in the nationalist-held zones of the country. These women were known as the Carlist “Margaritas” (23,000 members in 1936) who were enthusiastically led by the journalist and a skillful speaker María Rosa Urraca Pastor (1900–1984). Those militants, who stood for “God, the Fatherland and the King,” followed the tercios (battalions) of requetés (25), securing field hospitals, with many of them joining in the military combat, including Agustina Simon Sanz. Captured in Belchite in August 1937, she was shot by the Reds.

Following the unification of the national forces decreed by General Franco (April 19, 1937), the Falange took the new name of Traditionalist Spanish Phalanx and Councils of National–Syndicalist Offensive (FET y de las JONS) while incorporating many Spanish monarchists. From that moment the Women’s Section also became the sole women’s organization. “Margaritas” and Social Relief were soon absorbed into a single body of the struggle. Still led by Pilar Primo de Rivera, the organization then took a different turn. The Social Relief witnessed the increase of assistance centers to 711 in October 1937 and to 1,265 in 1938. By the end of the civil war there were nearly 2,500 centers. The humanitarian organization had its own propaganda office, whose leadership was entrusted to the novelist and poet María Carmen de Icaza y de León (1899–1979) (26). She recalled that in her centers, “there are neither reds nor blues, but only children from Spain.” She also coined the famous slogan, “No home without a fireplace and no Spaniard without bread.”

The charitable work of the SF continued well beyond the civil war given that in 1939, the country had become exhausted. At this point, the Falangist organization had many high-quality leaders and benefactors. Chief among them were the novelist Concha Espina (1869–1955) (27), the lawyer (and feminist) Mercedes Fórmica (1913–2002) (28), the engineer Pilar Careaga Basabe (29), Carmen Werner Bolín (1906–2000), who was also a friend of José Antonio, including the poet, journalist and actress Sara Barranco Soro (1910–1947), aka Sarah Demaris. Even in Catalonia, a region known to be less prone to the Falangist discourse, the SF had several outstanding leaders (30).

The Women’s Section also had its own publications (Medina; Y: Revista para la mujer; Teresa. Revista para todas las mujeres; Revista Escuela de Hogar; Consigna). In addition, it gave birth to several ancillary associations with a specific focus, such as the famous folkdance group “Coros y Danzas de España” and the group “Hermandad de la Ciudad y el Campo” which showed  great solidarity with the rural world of Spain.

After the end of the civil war and during the first phase of the new regime, the new state led by Franco provided massive support to the Women’s Section. In 1939 it entrusted it with the management of the Women’s Social Service (Servicio social de la mujer), a counterpart to male military service (31). As a mark of consideration for the enormous wartime contribution of Falangist women, the new authorities allocated them several prestigious buildings to house their centers and offices. Opened on May 29, 1942, the Castillo de la Mota, a castle near Medina del Campo, became the SF executive school, while the Castillo–Palacio de Magalla, near Avila, was transformed into a dormitory.

The civil war in Spain ended on April 1, 1939. However, six months later the Second World War broke out. In this conflict Spain remained neutral without hiding the fact that it was rather favorable to the Axis powers. Faithful to the alliances and friendships established during the civil war, the Falange and its Women’s Section maintained close links with the forces of the New Order, which was best witnessed during the recruitment of an infantry division, the Blue Division (División Azul) that went to fight on the Russian front alongside the Germans. When this unit departed from Madrid in July 1941 it was accompanied by a detachment of 146 nurses commanded by Mercedes Milá Nolla (1895–1990). Furthermore, the German Reich also hired Spanish labor, prompting the Women’s Section to dispatch official representatives to Berlin. A nurse in German Neukölln–Berlin, Celia Giménez Costeira (who passed away in 1991) also spoke on Radio Berlin during broadcasts intended for the soldiers of the Blue Division (who praised her as their  “godmother.” In Spain itself the strategic position of the head of the Press and Propaganda Office of the SF was entrusted to Clara Sofia Stauffer Loewe (1904–1984), a brilliant recruit of the Falange. Being of partial German ancestry, a distinguished polyglot, and a skiing and swimming champion, this young woman was fully committed to Spanish-German friendship. At the end of the Second World War, she provided invaluable assistance to many European fugitives from the defeated New Order (32).

From this brief picture we can summarize the role of some of the outstanding women in the Spanish Falange. Far from being underestimated or depreciated, their role was highly valued. Moreover, several leaders of the SF received high distinction and even sat in the Cortès (Parliament). As for the Women’s Section, it continued to have nearly 280,000 members in 1973 and was only dissolved on April 1, 1977.

Croatia

Katarina, Matanović-Kulenović (1913–2003)

When the German, Italian and Hungarian armies invaded Yugoslavia on April 6, 1941, Croatia rose up and declared her independence (April 10, 1941). The main actors in this coup were the Ustashas, ​​i.e., Croatian nationalist militants who had been fighting against Yugoslavia since 1929. Their founder and leader (Poglavnik) was the lawyer Dr. Ante Pavelić (1889–1959) who established the Independent State of Croatia (Nezavisna Država Hrvatska—NDH). This new state was quickly recognized by the Axis powers, having little choice to contemplate other possible non-Fascist alliances. Therefore, from then on Croatia found herself associated with the New Order, more by necessity and less by popular desire or by ideological affinities. In any case, Croatia had partly adopted the New Order discourse, contours and decorum, which, after World War II cost her a lot in terms of civilian casualties and worldwide media ostracism.

A patriotic movement in the Catholic and agrarian tradition, the Ustasha movement had an extensive women’s branch which had played a major role in the fight for independence. Very early on, prior to independence, the Ustasha Women’s Revolutionary Action (Revolucionarna ustaška ženska akcijaRUŽA or “Rose”) had become involved in clandestine action, under the leadership of Josipa Šaban. These women were often entrusted with missions of the highest importance. In 1934, for instance, it was the young woman Stana Godina who was in charge of transporting to Aix–en–Provence in France the weapons used in the assassination of the King of Yugoslavia, Alexander Karadjordević.  (October 9, 1934).

After the creation of the Independent State of Croatia, the Ustasha movement transformed itself into a single party, with a female section, the Ženska loza ustaškog pokreta led by the schoolteacher Irena Javor (1914–1945). The young girls who were part of the Ustaška Youth (Ustaška mladež), before joining the Women’s Labor Service (Radna služba ženske ustaške mladeži) were commanded by Maća Mimić. For women college students, the University Labor Service (Radna pomoć sveučilistarski) was established, chaired by Ivona Latković–Maixner (1917–2014). On the initiative of several Croat academics, women’s sections were also set up everywhere in the newly established state, primarily in the cities. In the capital Zagreb, the women’s organizations thrived under the authority of Olga Osterman (1885–1955), a former high school principal (and holder of the Pro Ecclesia and Pontifice Cross); she was assisted by the teachers Vlasta Arnold (1896– 1963), Silva Radej and Ela Maroš, as well as Mandica Lučić and Djurdjica Vitković.

Overall, the new regime promoted the social advancement of women: 141 elementary schools and nine high schools were  opened, including five for girls. Young female high school students  were encouraged to apply at local colleges (e.g., their number increased from 120 to 727 between April 1941 and spring 1942 at the Law School in Zagreb). The new state of Croatia also championed several artists including the painter Anka Krizmanić (1896–1987) and the sculptor Ksenija Kanteci (1909–1995) who were also invited to represent Croatian contemporary art at major international exhibitions during World War II (Berlin, Vienna, Bratislava). The organization had its own monthly magazine, Ustaškinja, run by Silva Radej. Several personalities from the literary world, such as the novelist Mara Švel–Gamiršek (1900–1975) and the essayist Zdenka Smrekar (1884–1946) lent their support to this project. Being the subject of incessant miliary attacks by the communist guerrillas (Josip Broz Tito’s supporters) and monarchist militiamen (Draža Mihajlović’s Chetniks), the Croat Armed Forces (HOS) then took center stage. Of course, women were not drafted because that would go against the Catholic and traditionalist ethics of the Ustasha regime, but some of them nevertheless served in the military. The best known woman in the Croat military was undoubtedly the aviatrix and parachutist Katarina Kulenović-Matanović (1913–2003) who was in charge of the personal aircraft of Ustasha Minister Ante Vokić. Also worth mentioning is the first certified paratrooper in the new Croatian state, Zdenka Žibrat. On the other hand, there was an inconspicuous Women’s Auxiliary Service protecting the head of the state Ante Pavelić, or the “Poglavnik Guard” (Pomočna ženska služba Poglavnikovih tjelesnih sdrugova) commanded by Nada Miškulin, a niece of Ministers Ivica and Mate Frković.

Given the tense multiethnic situation inherited from monarchist Yugoslavia—and particularly the difficult multifront context of World War II in which the Independent State of Croatia was born, it impossible to review in a completely thorough and objective manner the condition of the local female populations during the four years of Ustasha rule (1941–1945). Similar to Germany, Italy or Spain and despite the war, the new state endeavored to take measures promoting housing, hygiene, health, families and the well-being of children (33). Efforts were also made to promote education and career advancement of women. As for the militant women who explicitly committed themselves to the regime, they generally devoted themselves to tasks of medical aid, maternal assistance, pediatrics and provisioning, which cannot be regarded as dishonorable activities (34). As a price for their actions and services in the new WWII Croatian regime, many women faced extremely cruel repression following  the Yugoslav communist takeover in May 1945 (35). Contemporary historians and critics of the post-World War II New Order hardly want to discuss  those tragic and bloody events, including the gigantic  antifa-communist mass killing fields in communist Yugoslavia.

France

Lucienne Delforge (1909–1987)

Regarding France, it is not easy to draw up an objective assessment because only a few opposition parties and movements had really joined the New Order. Rather conservative, counter–revolutionary and traditionalist, the French Vichy state of Marshal Pétain (1940–1944) does not quite fit into this picture. Neither does the patriotic organization of the Croix de Feu (36). If one considers various groups (apart from the Vichy state) which followed a political line close to that of Italy and Germany, it doesn’t appear that the question of the status of women in France was their main concern. However, this did not prevent those groups from attracting a significant female audience. Some claim for example, that 25 percent of the members of Marcel Déat’s Rassemblement national–populaire (National Popular Rally—RNP) were women. In any case, this party had a youth organization, the Jeunesse nationale–populaire (National Popular Youth—NP), with a female branch whose leader was Christiane de Clerck. An appendage to the party, the Front social du travail (Social Front of Labor), of corporatist inspiration, also had a women’s union led by Odette Ballossier. As to the movement of Jacques Doriot, i.e., Le Parti populaire français (French People’s Party—PPF), women members were welcomed enthusiastically. Under the leadership of Yolande Cencetti and Paulette Tourton, young women were encouraged to join the Jeunes filles françaises (Young French Girls—JFF), i.e., a female section of the Jeunesses populaire françaises (JPF) (37). Several other movements of more modest size, such as the Équipes nationales (National Teams), the Guides francistes (Francist Guides) and the Jeunes de l’Europe nouvelle (Young People of New Europe) also had a few hundred young girls in their ranks. However, on the scale of a country as large as France, one must admit that the enlistment of women remained quite modest.

It must be pointed out that at the time when the New Order movements and parties managed to play a small role in political life—namely during the German occupation of France, most people had other things in mind than the emancipation and promotion of women. Most people were much more concerned about the presence on national soil of foreign troops, the partitioning of the country into two halves, food rationing, air raids, terrorist attacks, the condition of prisoners, etc. It is therefore difficult to fully evaluate the mindset of these groups regarding the feminine question, or to judge their real appeal based solely on the number of their female members.

If for many French women the New Order had a bitter flavor of something imposed by the enemy, a number of them tolerated the new system quite well. One cannot go into every detail regarding many individuals who enlisted in the ranks of the Milice française (French Militia) (38) or ignore the superficial and opportunistic rallying of a handful of cinema and artistic celebrities (39). But a few women in fact did more than simply tolerate the new situation. Some wholeheartedly adhered to the New Order. Thus the famous opera singer Claire Croiza (1882–1946) sat on the honorary committee of the Groupe Collaboration (Collaboration Group), while the great pianist (40) Lucienne Delforge (1909–1987) displayed in all circumstances a commitment which will lead her to Sigmaringen (a place in Germany where the French collaborationist government retreated following the Anglo–American Allied liberation of Paris, in August 1944). The brilliant soprano Germaine Lubin (1890–1979) joined Doriot’s PPF and socialized with the military elites in the Ger,am general headquarters in Paris (41). The very popular Léo Marjane (1912–2016) occasionally sang for the Légion des volontaires français (Legion of French Volunteers—LVF) and made charitable contributions to the PPF. The lawyer (and former communist) Juliette Goublet (1904–1979) even volunteered  to work in a factory in Germany (42), while the sculptor and aviation record holder Madeleine Charnaux (1902–1943) made no secret of her sympathy for the European New Order. All this, admittedly,  may seem quite  anecdotal, but it certainly does not convey the modern media image of a society where women were allegedly despised and relegated to subordinate tasks.

Go to Part 3.

———————————————

Notes

(23) In fact, the Women’s Section was founded by Pilar and Carmen Primo de Rivera, the chief’s sisters, Inés and Dolores, his cousins, and Luisa María Aramburu, a family friend.

(24) See. “María Paz Unciti, un Lucero de 18 años.” https://fnff.es/historia/maria–paz–unciti–un–lucero–de–1–anos/

(25) Spanish Carlist (monarchist) militiamen. More than 60,000 or 41 tercios (battalions) fought in the nationalist camp.

(26) She was ennobled and made Baroness of Claret and Countess of Areny in 1951, in recognition of her charitable work. In 1945, she was considered the most widely read author in the country.

(27) … who missed the Nobel Prize of Literature by one vote in 1926.

(28) who reformed the Spanish Civil Code. See. María Pilar Queralt del Hierro, “Mercedes Formica, la falangista que luchaba por las mujeres en la España de Franco.”  https://www.lavanguardia.com/historiayvida/historia–contemporanea/20230308/8804200/mercedes–formica–falangista –luchaba–mujeres–espana–franco.html

(29) who became the mayor of Bilbao between 1969 and 1975. See. “Pilar Careaga Basabe, primera mujer ingeniero de España, falangista y alcadesa de Bilbao.” https://fnff.es/historia/pilar–careaga–basabe–primera–mujer–ingeniero–de–espana–falangista–y–alcaldesa –from–bilbao/

(30) Notably María Josefa Viñamata Castanyer (1914–1982), Mercedes de Despujol Magarola, Montserrat de Romaña Pujó (1906–2005) and Núria Pla y Montseny (1915–2011).

(31) In 1941, 282,000 recruits were serving in the SSM.

(32) See. Javier Martín García, “Clarita Stauffer, la dama que escondía Nazis en España.” https://www.clarin.com/mundo/clarita–stauffer–dama–escondia–nazis–espana_0_n1anVkAiX.html

(33) For example, the wife of the head of state, Mara Pavelić, and her daughters sponsored an institution, the Ustaški dječački zavod, intended to take care of war orphans. Entrusted to the Sisters of Saint–Vincent de Paul, the establishment opened on April 11, 1942.

(34) As in the case of Germany, we are of course, not discussing here female camp guards and jailers –– who were only a handful.

(35) During the war, several female Ustasha militants were tortured and executed by the communist partisans (one of the best-known victims at the time was Andjelka Sarić, whose torturers carved a large “U,” the Ustasha emblem, on her breast before murdering her). Furthermore, several thousand other women were killed during the Bleiburg massacre and during the death marches that followed. See. Christophe Dolbeau, “Bleiburg, démocide yougoslave” (Bleiburg, Yugoslav democide), in Tabou no. 17, 2010: 7–26. Véridique histoire des oustachis (True history of the Ustashis) (Akribeia, Saint–Genis–Laval, 2015, 207–216.

(36) From 1934, the Croix–de–Feu had a women’s section; directed by Antoinette de Preval (1892–1977), this section brought together nearly 60,000 women.

(37) First entitled Union populaire de la jeunesse française (Popular Union of French Youth —UPJF).

(38) See: Fabienne Frayssinet, Quatre saisons dans les geôles de la IVe République (Four seasons in the jails of the Fourth Republic) (Regain, Monte–Carlo, 1953).

(39) For example Corinne Luchaire, Charlotte Lysès, Yvette Lebon, Suzy Delair, Danielle Darrieux, Viviane Romance or Édith Piaf (photographed in August 1943 in front of the Brandenburg Gate).

(40) Also a fencer, a basketball player, a mountaineer and …  former mistress of the writer Louis-Ferdinand Céline.

(41) See Karine Le Bail, La musique au pas (Paris: CNRS Édition, 2016), 224–226.

(42) This hiring cost her five years of forced labor and suffering national degradation, which did not prevent her from subsequently having an honorable literary career and receiving a prize from the French Academy in 1959.

De-demonization: Women in the Fascist New Order (Part 1)

Christophe Dolbeau is a former professor and historian. This article was first published in the French magazine Tabou (31, Editions Akribeia, 2024) —the original title of the essay in French is “Les femmes et l’Ordre Nouveau” (“Women in the New Order”). The translation into English for TOO was done by the author himself. The editing and some slight adaption of the text below was done by Tom Sunic.

For over a hundred years — since Benito Mussolini came to power in October 1922 — the holy alliance of socialists, communists, liberals, masons and progressives of all stripes has been endlessly repeating that nationalism, fascism and national-socialism were backward-looking, regressive regimes that severely oppressed the European population and particularly the fairer sex. If we were to take these post-World War II stories at face value, ii follows that these regimes were particularly resistant to the emancipation of women and women’s self-fulfillment, treating them as objects of significant oppression and derision. Accordingly, the depicted regimes were portrayed as polities attached to the traditional family and patriarchal values, fiercely hostile to abortion, unfavorable to women’s paid work, and opposed to their social or political advancement. The new Fascist Order, as the modern narrative goes, aimed at establishing a caricatured incarnation of the most regressive and misogynist Reaction.

Such a simplistic refrain coming from the Left (and the fake Right) is invariably accompanied by toxic denunciation of women who supported or condoned those hated regimes, and who, accordingly, are portrayed today as stupid or outright villainous creatures. All things considered, it must be pointed out that these allegations border more on propaganda than on honest and objective historical observations. Certainly, the constituent regimes and their partners, i.e., European collaborators of the New Order, were not free of defects. They also had little in common with the feminist or LGBT ideologies of the 21st century. However, if we take into account the context and the mores of that time, there is no reason to suggest that those regimes had to be ashamed of the way in which they viewed and treated women. In order to better seize the spirit of this tragic European epoch, let us take a brief look at the status of women in several European countries during that troubled time.

Italy

Generale Piera Fondelli Gatteschi in 1944 (1902–1985)

With all due respect, let us begin with Italy, the first country to opt for radical change and that took a new path by embracing fascism. From the beginning of this upheaval, as seen at the famous Piazza San Sepolcro rally (March 23, 1919), women were present in the movement, as evidenced by the attendance of nine of them (1) at that famous gathering. The program adopted during that meeting called for the women’s right to vote and eligibility for all women. Shortly after, the first female fasci (fasci femminili) started springing up in the open: in 1920, Elisa Majer Rizzioli (1880–1930) (2) founded a fascio in Milan, while Elisa Savoia founded another in Monza. Other militants coming into the limelight included Olga Mezzomo Zannini in Padua, Marchioness Corinna Ginori-Lisci in Florence, and professor Laura Marani Argnani in Reggio Emilia. The initial struggle was harsh and sometimes even bloody. This did not prevent a few determined women from taking part in the struggle. Those deserving special mention include the nurse Luisa Zeni (1879–1964), Marchioness Margherita Incisa di Camerana (1879–1964), as well as Maria Bianchi and novelist Maria Vitali, who were both present alongside the poet Gabriele d’Annunzio in Fiume in September 1919 (now the city of Rijeka in Croatia) (3). Other women directly joined the ranks of the squadristi, like Cesarina Bresciani (Verona), Claudia Sironi and the journalist Fanny Dini. Ines Donati (1900–1924) would earn the honorary appellations of “La Capitana” (The Captainess) and even the Joan of Arc of fascism (4) for her role in fighting in the blue shirts of the Sempre pronti (5).

As soon as he took office, the Duce undertook profound nationwide reforms and immediately adopted various measures aimed at improving the wellbeing of women. It is with this aim in particular that the Work for the Protection of Motherhood and Childhood (Opera nazionale maternità e infanzia — ONMI) was born in 1925; its major concern being food-related and hygienic measures, while also initiating the opening of thousands of canteens and dispensaries under the name Casa della Madre e del Bambino (6). The same year, the right to vote in local elections was granted to Italian women. Little girls and adolescents were cared for by the Opera Nazionale Balilla (ONB), and from 1937, by the Gioventù Italiana del Littorio. These national organizations divided their members according to their age; i.e., into Figlie della lupa (Daughters of the She-Wolf, for 6 to 8-year-olds), Piccole italiane (Little Italian girls, 8 to 14 years old), Giovanni italiane (Young Italian girls, 14 to 18 years old) and Giovanni fasciste (Young fascists, 18 to 21 years old). Older girls were assigned lessons in childcare, domestic finances and first aid. In 1939, there were more than 2.5 million girls and women in the youth movement (7). In April 1934, the Italian state also enacted a law on the employment of women and children, while prohibiting work at night and limiting the hours of daily work. Under the aegis of the women’s groups, the National Fascist Federation of Rural Housewives and the Section of Domestic Workers (SOLD) were also created. By 1943, the first of these two groups had more than 2.5 million members. These initiatives were of course attributable to experienced militants like the Sansepolcrista lady Regina Terruzzi (1862–1951) and the academic (mathematician) Annita Cemezzi Moretti.

At first professor, Angiola Moretti, a veteran of the Fiume affair, was in charge of the women’s groups, then, shortly after, a board of directors was estabhed and supervised by seven inspectors (8). It goes without saying that far from being marginalized or looked down upon, all of these women held a high rank in the party hierarchy. This was the case with Olga Modigliani, née Flaschel (9), who was a member of a ministerial cabinet. Even higher up in the hierarchy was Margherita Sarfatti (1880–1961), who directly advised the head of the government (she wrote a flattering biography of Mussolini, entitled Dux). Sarfatti was a journalist and art critic of Jewish origin who was close to Mussolini and worked as the editor of Gerarchia, an academic journal on fascist theory. This woman of letters would play a leading role in the fields of art (10) and political decision-making up until 1934. Moreover, and contrary to the modern legend, the regime did not seem particularly sexist or hostile to female intellectuals; several poets and novelists could express themselves freely and benefit from large republishing efforts. These include Ada Negri (Mussolini Prize in 1931 and first woman to enter the Italian Academy in 1940), Amalia Liana Negretti Odescalchi (aka Liala), a friend of D’Annunzio, Fortunata Morpurgo (aka Willy Dias), Flavia Steno, Amalia Guglielminetti, Grazia Deledda (Nobel Prize for Literature 1926) and Maria Assunta Volpi Nannipieri (aka Mura). In addition, many cultured women were to be found within the National Fascist Association of Women Artists and Graduates (ANFA) (11) or the Italian Cultural Women’s Alliance (Alleanza muliebre culturale italiana). As for the fascist women’s magazines (Rassegna femminile italiana ; La donna fascista ; La piccola italiana ; Vita femminile ; Giornale della donna ; Il Tricolore ; Gioventù fascista ; Giovinezza), all of them were run by a multitude of women columnists and journalists. Although the authorities officially favored the role of the housewife whose maternal mission was highly praised, it is no less true that Italian women asserted themselves and came to prominence in many other fields. One must mention the painter Benedetta Cappa (1897–1977), wife of the poet and writer Tomaso Marinetti, as well as the sculptors Lina Arpesini (1888–1974) and Lea d’Avanzo (1898–1975), with many of them being involved with important artistic exhibitions (12). For her part, the lady athlete Ondina Valla (1916–2006) became famous by bestowing Italy with its first women’s gold medal at the Berlin Olympic Games (August 1936).

Women could be even be found in uniform, especially towards the end of the war, during the time of the short–lived Italian Social Republic (RSI). At that time, nearly 6,000 young citizens joined the Women’s Volunteer Corps for the Auxiliary Services of the Republican Armed Forces (Corpo Femminile Volontario per i Servizi Ausiliari delle Forze Armate Repubblicane). More commonly called the Women’s Auxiliary Service (Servizio Ausiliario Femminile or SAF), this unit was commanded by Piera Gatteschi Fondelli (1902–1985), a former participant in the March on Rome, 1922, who held the rank of brigadier general. There were also nurses or « sorelline » of the Republican Red Cross, as well as recruits of the Republican National Guard, i.e. five detachments including three from the Opera Nazionale Balilla. In addition, some women fought in the Black Brigades (Brigate Nere); 300 others in the ranks of the Decima Mas (13) under the orders of Fede Arnaud Pocek (1920–1997) (14), and a few dozen more served in the Legione Volontari Italiani of the Waffen–SS under the orders of the Marchioness and tennis champion Wally Sandonnino (1910–1987). These women showed impeccable courage to the end of the war and without anyone or anything forcing them, as evidenced by high distinctions awarded to thirteen of them by the RSI, often posthumously (15). The fascist anticommunist resistance also had several fearless women, like Princess Maria Elia De Seta Pignatelli (1894-1968) who provided intelligence for the RSI on the movements of the oncoming Allied forces in southern Italy. When arrested by the British in 1944 and sentenced to twelve years in prison and interned in Riccione, she however managed to escape. She hid at Bishop Silverio Mattei’s location and soon launched the country’s first neo-fascist movement, the Italian Women’s Movement (Movimento italiano femminile — MIF).

To close the Italian chapter, let’s add that the post-war anti-fascist purges did not spare these women from antifascist revenge. “The great purge does not spare women,” wrote Paul Sérant (16). “In the region of Rome, approximately 7,000 women were massacred, another 5,000 thrown into prison and 20,000 were raped with their heads shaved.” Moreover, in Turin in 1945 around 400 women were drowned in the Po river. As for the military auxiliaries, several hundred of them were victims of assassinations, violence, rapes and reprisals against their families…

Germany

Hanna Reitsch (1912–1979)

In Germany in 1933 the majority of voters were women. They chose the path to the New Order by bringing Adolf Hitler and the National-Socialist Party (NSDAP) to power. The authoritarian and even totalitarian new Third Reich, contrary to what is often said, was not hostile to women. Rather, it recognized and celebrated women’s fundamental role in the preservation of the race. Similar to Italian fascism, the new regime put in place countless structures designed to ensure the health and well-being of mothers and children. Special benefits were distributed; Mother’s Day was institutionalized on August 12; while a medal was put in place in order to honor the mothers of more than four children, known as the German Mother’s Cross of Honor (Ehrenkreuz der Deutschen Mutter).

In fact, national-socialism benefitted from the active support of many women as soon as it appeared on the political scene. Among the most influential women let us mention Princess Elsa Bruckmann (1865–1946), who was of Romanian origin, Hélène Bechstein (1876–1951), Gertrud von Seidlitz, Baroness Elisabeth Hermine “Lily” von Abegg (1910–1974), Viktoria von Dirksen (1874–1946), Käthe Bierbaumer (1884–1943), Baroness Sigrid von Laffert (1916–2002) and Mathilde Ludendorff (1877–1966), the wife of General Ludendorff. Their contribution, particularly the financial one, was not negligible. Without directly joining the NSDAP, other women, often from nationalist circles, also contributed to the growth of the National-Socialist Party. Elsbeth Zander (1888–1963), for example, established rest facilities for SA members and launched a newspaper (Opferdienst der Deutschen Frau) which was favorable to the Hitler movement. For her part, the educator Guida Diehl (1868–1961) founded an association (200,000 members) favorable to national-socialism. Among rank-and-file militants one must single out the novelist Marie Diers (1867–1949) and former deputies Margarete Behm (1860–1929) and Clara Mende (1869–1947), the teacher and feminist Käthe Schirmacher (1865–1930), Elisabeth Spohr and the educator Martha Voss Zietz. Long before coming to power, the party itself and its subsidiary groups had several thousand female members. The most intriguing among them was Eleonore Baur, aka “Sister Pia” (1885–1981), an long-time member of the NSDAP. As a former nurse in the Oberland Free Corps, she had taken part in the November putsch of 1923 and was decorated with the Blood Order (Blutorden). In 1931, the National-Socialist Women’s League or NS-Frauenschaft (NSF) came to birth, boasting 109,000 members by 1932, and whose number would grow to ten million members by 1939. First chaired by Lydia Gottschweski (1931–1934), the League was subsequently managed by Gertrud Scholtz-Klink (1902–1999), who would remain its chairwoman until 1945. Far from holding a subordinate position, this Reichsfrauenführerin was one of the highest dignitaries of the regime. Other female institutions of the Reich were the Deutsches Frauenwerk (DFN) i.e., German Women’s Work, which was founded in 1933 by Rudolf Hess, and the Bund Deutscher Mädel (BDM) or the League of German Girls. The first of these groups, which would have up to 1.7 million affiliates, was focused on training mothers (in pediatrics, home finances, etc.). The second group (4.5 million members in 1938) was committed to the education and harmonious development of young female citizens of the Reich. It was directed first by the former postmistress Trude Mohr (1902–1989) and then by Dr Jutta Rüdiger (1910–2001), who was a psychologist by profession. Of course, both the adult and youth movements had their own press outlets, namely the NS-Frauen-Warte (1.9 million copies in 1939) for the NSF, and Das Deutsche Mädel for the BDM. There were also other important publications designed for women, such as the Deutsche Frauen-Zeitung, Die Junge Dame and Die Frau.

Gertrud Scholtz-Klink (1902–1999)

German women were in no way marginalized as shown by their being closely associated with the life of the country. In 1933, 36 percent of them were employed and by 1944 their number reached 53 percent. In 1936, more than 1.5 million women were working in the industrial sector. Many were active in the ranks of the National-Socialist Business Cell Organization or Nationalsozialistische Betriebszellenorganization (NSBO), and later in the Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront — DAF). After leaving the BDM, the youngest women could join the BDM Werk Glaube und Schönheit (BDM — Society for Faith and Beauty) which served as a link to the Women’s League (NSF). All of them were required, just like young males, to perform labor service (Frauenarbeitsdienst), with young girls also participating from 1941 onwards in the Service for the War Effort (Kriegshilfsdienst — KHD). The most skillful among them were selected to attend the BDM executive schools and even the Napola, a sort of boarding school of excellence which trained the future executives for the nation (17). The state did not fail to honor some remarkable women. The most famous was undoubtedly Magda Goebbels (1901–1945) who played the role of the first lady of the Reich. Let us also mention the filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl (1902–2003) (18), the architect Gerdy Troost (1904–2003) (19), the sopranos Elisabeth Schwarzkopf (1915–2006) and Margarete Slezak (1901–1956), the short story writers and poets Agnes Miegel (1879–1964) and Ina Seidel (1885–1974), as well as the concert pianist Elly Ney (1882–1968). Margarete Gussow was entrusted with the flattering position of academic chair of astronomy while other women received laudatory distinctions such as becoming recipients of the prestigious Goethe medal for art and science (20). Several actresses and artists enjoyed the favors of those in power who in turn ensured their promotion nationwide; this was the case, for example, with the singers Lale Andersen (1905–1972) and Zarah Leander (1907–1981), as well as the movie stars, Marika Rökk (1913–2004), Brigitte Horney (1911–1988), Paula Wessely (1907–2000), Kristina Söderbaum (1912–2001) and Czech–born Lida Baarová (1914–2000).

Being present in all sectors of the country’s activity, the women of the Reich were also active in the army where their contribution was crucial throughout the Second World War. With a workforce estimated at nearly 500,000 volunteers, these Wehrmachthelferinnen or “Wehmracht helpers” (the French called them “gray mice” (because of their gray uniform) were to be mainly found in health service, offices, radio transmission service and logistical units, but also in the anti-aircraft defense (Reichsluftschutzbund and Flakbehelfspersonal). Among these female soldiers some stand out in particular. The best known of all was undoubtedly the aviatrix Hanna Reitsch (1912–1979), a test pilot and Flugkapitän of the Luftwaffe. Having tested the first helicopter and the first jet aircraft, Reitsch was decorated with the 1st class Iron Cross and with the pilot-observer badge in gold with diamonds. Other heroines of this era included the aviatrix Melitta Schenk von Stauffenberg (1903–1945) (21), also a test pilot and Flugkapitän, who would receive the 2nd class Iron Cross as well as the pilot-observer badge in gold with diamonds. She was shot down by an Allied fighter jet on April 8, 1945. Among the nurses, several women distinguished themselves with exceptional courage and dedication; we can only mention here Else Großmann, awarded the Iron Cross 1st class, and Elfriede Wnuk (1916–1999), Iron Cross 2nd class and silver badge of the wounded (after having had one of her legs amputated). But there were dozens and dozens of other women. Besides, even if we leave aside harmful consequences of the war itself, it would be wrong to say that German women of that period were subject to any form of male harassment in the New Order regime. It is certainly commendable to reject National Socialism and even condemn its objectives and methods, but it is totally unfounded to view it as a system oppressing and mistreating women. In general (22), most women behaved rather honorably and even showed great bravery, self-sacrifice and great resilience. Despite all the losses suffered at the end of the conflict (including hundreds of thousands of rapes committed by the victors), it was the German women who rebuilt the country following World War II.

Notes:

(*) In order to avoid any unfortunate misunderstanding, let us make it clear that in this text we evoke the general attitude of the supporters of the New Order toward women. We are fully aware that the regimes, parties and movements described here often pursued an extremely repressive and even murderous policy against certain women (Israelites, Gypsies, communists, resistance fighters). The reason that we are not addressing this issue lies in the fact that it does not fall within the scope of this study. In fact, these women were not persecuted because they were women, but because they were Israelites, Gypsies, communists or resistance fighters — which in our opinion relates to an entirely different aspect of the New Order.

Go to Part 2.

———————————————

(1) Namely Giselda Brebbia; Luisa Rosalia Dentici; Maria Bianchi, widow Nascimbeni; Fernanda Ghelfi Peyrani; Paolina Piolti De Bianchi; Cornelia Mastrangelo Stefanini; Ines Norsa Tedeschi; Regina Terruzzi; and Gina Tinozzi.

(2) Elisa Majer Rizzioli had been a nurse in Libya, under the orders of the Duchess of Aosta, and then during the Great War.

(3) “Some,” writes Denise Detragiache, “are part of the armed female groups who entered the city with the legionnaires and wear the black shirt of the arditi and the “Roman” dagger. The Sansepolcrist Maria Nascimbeni, “volunteer sergeant of the Black Flames”  is one of them.”  Cf.  “Le fascisme féminin, 1919–1925” (Female fascism, 1919–1925), in Revue d’histoire moderne et contemporaine 30, no. 3 (1983): 366–400, 372.

(4) On February 18, 1921, she publicly slapped the socialist deputy Alceste Della Seta.

(5) The Sempre Pronti per la Patria e per il Re was a paramilitary group created in 1919 by the Italian Nationalist Association. In 1923, it joined the Voluntary Militia for National Security (MVSN).

(6) See. M. Missiroli, Ce que l’Italie doit à Mussolini (What Italy owes to Mussolini), Editions de Novissima, Roma, 1942, p. 105.

(7) Ibid, p. 182.

(8) Namely Angiola Moretti (a teacher and a veteran of Fiume), Clara Franceschini, Giuditta Stelluti Scala Frescara (a nurse and a pediatrician), Wanda Bruschi Gorjux (a journalist), Laura Marani Argnani, Teresita Menzinger Ruata and the Marchioness Olga Medici del Vascello.

(9) A former feminist of Jewish origin.

(10) She was at the origin of the so-called Novecento movement and France named her a member of the international jury at the Decorative Arts Exhibition in October 1925.

(11) For example, Adelina Pertici Pontecorvo (1888–1981), first female notary in Italy, or the mathematician and statistician Maria Castellani (1896).

(12) In 1941, the Almanacco della Donna lists 693 professional artists present in official events.

(13) Combat swimmers’ unit of the Royal Italian Navy, then special detachment of the RSI Navy commanded by Prince Junio Valerio Borghese (1906–1974). In 1943–1945, the Press and Propaganda Office of this elite unit was headed by a woman, Pasca Piredda (1916–2009).

(14) After the war, she will become a screenwriter and dubbing director for cinema and television.

(15) These women include Franca Barbier, Maria Garzena and Angelina Milazzo who received posthumously the gold medal for military valor, Silvia Polettini, who received, again posthumously, the silver medal for military valor, and Marietta Togna who received the bronze medal.

(16) See. Paul Sérant, Les vaincus de la Libération (The Vanquished of the Liberation), Robert Laffont, Paris, 1964, pp. 282 and 285.

(17) Designated under the name of Nationalpolitischen Erziehunganstalten (NPEA) or Nationalpolitischen LehrAnstalten — Napola, there are 33 schools in 1942, including 3 reserved for girls. A list of some male alumni of these establishments can be found on: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalpolitische_Erziehungsanstalt..

(18) Director of the movies Sieg des Glaubens (1933), Triumph des Willens (1934) and Olympia (1936) among others.

(19) Gerdy Troost was entrusted with prestigious projects, such as Haus der Kunst, Königsplatz and Ehrentempel.

(20) Namely the Wagnerian soprano Anna Bahr-Mildenburg (1872–1947), the Austrian actress Hedwig Bleibtreu (1868–1958), the gynecologist Agnes Bluhm (1862–1943), already holder of the silver Leibnitz medal, the poet Isolde Kurz (1853–1944), and the poet Lulu von Strauss und Torney (1873–1956).

(21) She was the sister-in-law of Claus von Stauffenberg (1907–1944), main perpetrator of the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler.

(22) It goes without saying that our assessment does not apply to the camp guards. Besides, 3,600 of these female guards are absolutely not representative of German women — the Reich in fact had 41.7 million women in 1939, and as for the members of the National Socialist Women’s League (NSF), there were 10 million at the same time. At most, we can consider these Aufseherinnen (guards) as symptomatic of the appalling level of prison staff (they were often recruited through classified ads) and of the criminal excesses in the Nazi concentration camp apparatus.

The Free Press Versus Darryl Cooper for deviating from the WWII narrative

When Tucker Carlson and Darryl Cooper discussed the Second World War in September, Cooper named Winston Churchill as the “chief villain”, condemned the legacy of the war and attributed the present state of Britain to it. Pro-Churchill historians reacted: Niall Ferguson and Victor Davis Hanson (and the author and columnist Sohrab Amari) at Bari Weiss’ Free Press; Ferguson in conversation with Ben Shapiro; Andrew Roberts in a series of interviews; Ferguson, Hanson and Roberts together at the Hoover Institution.

The historians, though they regarded Cooper as unscholarly, stooped to respond due to the enormity of Carlson’s audience. The conversation’s view count on X is nearly 35 million. The wide interest and the reaction should both have been expected. The war, nearly eight decades past, continues to be the main justification for a political consensus of which most faux conservatives, including Roberts, Ferguson and Hanson, are adherents, and in which it is mandatory for Britons and other people of European descent to submit to being reduced to despised minorities in their ancestral lands. Advocacy for whites is likened to ‘Nazism’, which is the ultimate evil. Following the example of Churchill, who followed that of Disraeli, the same people treat advocacy for Jews as obviously necessary and laudable. The Churchillian version of the history of 1933–45 is the basis of post-war anti-fascism, the ideology of the pro-Jewish, anti-White regimes that control Britain, the USA, Canada, France, Germany and nearly every other white country. For Cooper and Carlson to say or imply this to an audience of tens of millions did indeed warrant a defence of the crucial narrative; this was especially so as X has permitted a large degree of free discussion since Elon Musk’s purchase of the site in 2022, an act which itself repudiated the authoritarian demands of the Jewish advocacy groups for whom “the guilt of the Holocaust” is an asset.

Cooper and the historians’ dispute is over what is true but also over who should rule. People on both sides of the debate agreed that the pro-Churchill history of the Second World War constitutes, in Cooper’s phrase, the “founding mythology of the… current global order.” Cooper stated that “The post-World War II order is really defined by the fact that after Nuremberg, it became effectively illegal in the West to be genuinely right wing…”, to which Niall Ferguson responded: “The only right-wing parties that are illegal in Europe today are Nazi parties. And the only people who regard the Nuremberg war crimes trials as a “sacrificial ritual”—Cooper again—are Nazis.” Ferguson was side-stepping a true statement: it did become effectively illegal to be genuinely right-wing. In all but a few insignificant instances, that is what ‘Nazi’ has meant since the war. Anti-fascism is a collaboration of the ‘centre right’ with the left against everyone else; it is an acid test to distinguish the real right from the fake. It is also a pretext for ruling elites to act against those they rule. In politics it is approvingly called the cordon sanitaire, the disease being ‘the far right’, or white people attempting to organise and defend themselves. The aim of anti-fascism is to render them defenceless. Refuting its historical justification is thus an existential imperative for whites, just as maintaining it is for the present regime.

Ferguson spoke approvingly to Ben Shapiro of the “emergence of multi-racial societies”, i.e., the presence of foreign races in large and growing numbers in white countries (not Israel), as though it were not brought about intentionally by politicians and activists. He objected to the following:

Carlson: “If Churchill is a hero, how come there are British girls begging for drugs on the streets of London and London is not majority-English now?”

Cooper: “The people who formulated the version of history that considers Churchill a hero, they like London the way it is now.”

Carlson: “But that’s not victory, that’s the worst kind of defeat, is it not?”

Cooper: “If you’re an English person who cares about England, it is.”

Ferguson accuses them of implying that “some terrible degradation has happened to Britain because of immigration”. He grants that “They don’t quite go right into Great Replacement theory” but, still, “that’s clearly where the conversation is heading by the end”. Andrew Roberts agrees that it was “a racist rant”. Ferguson warns that the Nazis emerged as a reaction against the formation of multi-ethnic societies in the previous century and informs us that “We can’t unmake the multi-cultural societies that have evolved since Churchill’s death”, as though infeasibility is his real objection. One could hardly disagree that the “worst possible way to react to the emergence of multi-racial societies is racial policies that aspire not just to forced resettlement but to genocide”, but racial policies that effect resettlement without genocide would obviously be the best possible way to react, if only those with the will had the power.

Roberts, Hanson and Ferguson

Sohrab Amari appears to see clearly how historical narrative relates to power. He warns us against “the Barbarian Right”, which, he explains, has

“a revulsion for the mildly egalitarian conservatism that took hold across the West in the postwar period. That conservatism made its peace with the civil rights movement and marginalized Jew-haters. The barbarians cannot stand the resulting state of affairs, since it has meant granting the grubby demands of the ‘dysgenic’ many. … Therefore, they feel compelled to attack what they see as the founding ‘mythology’ of the postwar world…”

Cooper and Carlson deserve some gratitude for provoking the defenders of the “resulting state of affairs” to be so plain about their allegiance.

Andrew Roberts, responding to Aaron McLean’s suggestion that “the Second World War, its contemporary understanding, and Churchill’s iconic status form a kind of founding mythology for our current world”, said, “Yes. Absolutely. Thank God it does”. He cited the legacy of anti-appeasement, anti-totalitarianism, anti-isolationism, and standing up for small nations against invasion by larger neighbors, asserting that “we should be thankful” to Churchill for it. Perhaps Baron Roberts has more reason to be thankful than most. At any rate, his answer accurately identified nearly all the foreign policy components of Amari’s “mildly egalitarian conservatism,” only omitting unconditional support for Israel. Of the places ‘egalitarian conservatives’ identify as suitable objects of military intervention, including Gaza, the populations are invited to move to White countries to accelerate Ferguson’s “emergence”. Authentic conservatives like Patrick Buchanan and Joseph Sobran perceived decades ago that advocates of invasion tended also to be those of invitation; they were condemned and excluded as anti-Semites by the likes of John Lukacs, a comrade of Lord Roberts, for straying outside the cordon. That the same charge, anti-Semitism, is levelled at all opponents of immigration into the West tells its own story.

Britain, in Victor Davis Hanson’s words, “went to war on the principle of a third-party nation’s territorial integrity”. As Hanson says, Britain “saw World War II through from the first day to the very last” and, “of the victorious Big Three, … alone foresaw well before the war that it would likely end any cataclysmic war strategically diminished, its empire gone, and without its centuries-long global stature.” While for Hanson this is laudatory, he describes what made the war a triumphant, ascendant moment for the left: the complete abandonment of British interests by British leaders.

Ferguson says that while AJP Taylor called Churchill the saviour of his nation, he was inclined to credit him with saving the whole of the West or even the world. The ‘Nazi menace’ must have been terrible indeed, as, in delivering us from it, and from our own “Barbarian” tendencies, our saviours have shamelessly afflicted us with Rotherham and Rochdale, where British girls are lured into “granting the grubby demands of the ‘dysgenic’ many” thanks to ‘egalitarian conservatives’ “making peace”, and laws, with the “civil rights movement”. That movement, really a network of anti-white activists, went under the name ‘race relations’ in Britain and was instigated primarily by Anthony Lester and Richard Stone, neither of whom, recalling Cooper’s allusion, was “an English person” or “care[d] about England”. Both were strongly-identifying Jews, as is Bari Weiss, organiser of the anti-Cooper reaction, who sees Cooper and Carlson’s remarks as part of “the war on our history”. The Churchillian telling is, indeed, her history, the one that convinces Whites to submit to the demands of her kind and the decline of their own: ‘anything but Nazism’. The more whites become aware of its speciousness, the less they yield. Bravo, Cooper.

The Psychology of Trump Derangement

Why, in the wake of Donald Trump’s convincing victory in the presidential election, would it occur to somebody to pick up their phone, film themselves screaming and shouting “Why?!” and “No!” and then post this online, much to the amusement of Trump supporters? What is the psychology of an adult who records themselves having a tantrum, of the kind of 3 year-old might have, and then publishes it?

Let’s put aside the publishing it for a moment and simply look at the fact of having a tantrum at all. Such people are obviously deeply unhappy that Trump has won; indeed they are emotionally unhinged by this fact. As I have explored in my book Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism, numerous studies concur that leftists are relatively high in the personality trait of Neuroticism; in experiencing negative feelings such as anger, paranoia and anxiety strongly. They are also high in grandiose Narcissism; in believing that they are perfect and superior and in being highly entitled and manipulative. This combines Neuroticism and low Agreeableness.

The grandiosity element of Narcissism develops as a consequence of Neuroticism: You feel intensely negative about yourself so you tell yourself that you are wonderful; you create a false self, in this case one in which you are morally perfect and powerful. The “entitlement” element is a consequence of low Agreeableness and can develop if you are spoilt: you always get everything you want so you have never had to develop coping mechanisms for not getting what you want.

Trump’s victory has inflicted two Narcissistic injuries on these kinds of people. Firstly, it has left them questioning their own superiority (as if they are wrong in their Woke worldview, then the illusion of superiority is shattered) and it has left them feeling powerless and unimportant and so confronted with their own unfathomable negative feelings.

Secondly, they haven’t got what they want. They are not used to this and they have not learnt to cope with it happening. What is the result? Uncontrollable fear and rage. Like a child, they have a tantrum as a means of bullying mummy into giving them what they want or into ensuring that they are not failed by mummy again.

In addition, they are likely to feel an intense sense of fear. Borderline Personality Disorder is often co-morbid with Narcissism. Sufferers have a fundamental fear of abandonment, display intense mood-swings (as if stuck at a child-like stage), oscillate between extremes (such as Narcissism to self-loathing; deep love to intense hatred) and, thus, have unstable goals. Under stress, they can display psychosis, in which they become absurdly paranoid. Being psychotic is a survival strategy in a dangerous and unstable world; it will cause the evil orange man to be frightened and keep away from you. They are adapted, in other words, to an unpredictable environment, in which parental love has been capricious. This fear of abandonment, and consequent Borderline Personality, may be behind an aspect of these breakdowns. For extreme-leftists, the state is Mummy and the state has abandoned them to the wicked, abusive Step-Daddy.

Obviously, the fact of having a tantrum has two positive consequences in a purely mechanical sense. If you are stressed then your muscles tighten. Having a tantrum releases tension in the muscles. It also releases endorphins. Hence, it makes you feel slightly better to have a little breakdown.

But that explains how they feel. What about the performative element to these breakdowns? Why publish them online? One answer is that it allows them to socially signal to other leftists just how committed to “social justice” they are. Rather like North Koreans competitively crying upon the death of Kim Il-Sung, they are competitively furious upset and aghast as a way of indicating just how deeply they believe in Woke ideas.

There may also be a manipulative element to this as well. In a sense, they might be seen to be vulnerability-signalling; signalling that they are out of control and need help. The left are not only high in Grandiose Narcissism but also in Vulnerable Narcissism. More common among women, you believe you are wonderful and that you deserve to be looked after. To achieve this, you present yourself as a misunderstood victim, the world’s biggest victim, and this manipulates people into doing what you want. Are they hoping that their cries of pain will persuade people to look after them by standing up to the evil orange man?

Their problem is that the more they engage in such behaviour, and the more extreme it becomes, the more likely people are to look into what is happening and to realise that these people are simply deeply mentally unstable and selfish.

They are the 15 year-old girls who burn themselves with cigarette lighters to get attention and to feel a sense of control over their chaotic world. They are manipulative and dangerous and should probably be institutionalised, yet Americans have been forced to live inside their heads for at least the past decade. Hopefully, as well as building a physical wall on the southern border, Trump’s victory will allow Americans to build a psychological wall between themselves and these nasty, manipulative young women.

Atrocity in Amsterdam: Notes on Gentile Anti-Semitism and Jewish Anti-Fragility

“Ajax are the Spurs of Holland.” Millions of expert English-speakers will be baffled by that short sentence. It’s a linguistic iceberg, with the words as the tip of the berg riding on a submerged mass of implicit culture. If you’re baffled by it yourself, the sentence means that the soccer-club Ajax (EYE-acks) in Amsterdam are the Dutch equivalent of the soccer-club Tottenham (TOT-num) Hotspur in London. Thanks to their proximity to Jewish districts in those cities, both clubs have become strongly associated with Jews and with Israel. The largely gentile fans of Ajax call themselves Joden (Jews) and the largely gentile fans of Spurs call themselves “Yids.” Both sets of fans often wave Israeli flags at matches. Rival fans respond by hissing to mimic the infamous gas-chambers of the Holocaust.

Semito-sycophants deplore a pogrom

Now, it’s because Ajax are the Spurs of Holland that I easily guessed the full truth behind some recent news about violence against Israeli soccer-fans in Amsterdam. The fans had been cruelly and viciously attacked after a match between Ajax and an Israeli club called Maccabi Tel Aviv. Semito-sycophants — gentiles who suck up to Jews — have wailed in chorus with Jews about the violence. They’re all presenting it as yet another example of innocent Jews facing inexcusable anti-Semitism:

That’s the message of the mainstream: innocent Jews were cruelly and unjustifiably attacked by anti-Semitic thugs just because they attended a soccer match. In fact, the violence was yet another example of Jews being bitten on the arse by their own anti-White scheming. Yes, when I heard the news from Holland I immediately thought: “Natural allies!” That is, I couldn’t believe that Israel-supporting Ajax fans were responsible, so I assumed it was non-White Muslims in Amsterdam.

Jews are hyper-White oppressors

And I was right: it was indeed non-White Muslims attacking obnoxious Israelis (but I repeat myself). Many Jews have proclaimed down the decades that “Muslims and Jews are natural allies.” They’ve done it in Holland too: the trans-Dutch Jew Arnon Grünberg said that Joden en moslims, zowel geseculariseerd als niet geseculariseerd, zijn elkaars natuurlijke bondgenoten — “Jews and Muslims, both secularized and non-secularized, are natural allies together.” But against whom are Muslim and Jews natural allies? Against barbarous and bigoted Christian Whites, of course. That’s why Jews have worked so hard to open the borders, inflict the West with Muslims and other non-Whites, then portray the low-IQ, high-criminality invaders as gentle, culture-enriching victims of irrational White racism and hate. Jews saw those non-White invaders as “natural allies” in their war on the White West. But it hasn’t worked out like that. Muslims and other non-Whites see Jews not as a fellow oppressed minority, but as hyper-White oppressors, replete with unjustly earned wealth, privilege and power.

Jewish fantasy: a Black woman dutifully accepts Jewish propaganda about the Holocaust (image from the Holocaust Educational Trust)

Gentile reality: a Black woman contemptuously rejects Jewish propaganda about Gaza (blood-clart = “blood-cloth, menstrual rag” and is Jamaican slang for a despicable or contemptible person) (image from the Campaign against Antisemitism)

Even more shockingly to Jews, since the “pogrom” of 7 October 2023, Muslims in the West have sided with the rapists of Hamas rather than the rapees of Israel. Oy veh! Amsterdam is the latest example of this blowback, but you’ll search most of the mainstream coverage in vain for any mention of the attackers’ racial and religious identity. Take the Israel-and-Trotsky-loving libertarians at Spiked Online, who have been expertly programmed by their Jewish controller Frank Furedi to support unlimited immigration by Muslims and other non-Whites. Under the hyperbolic title of “A Pogrom in Amsterdam,” the Spiked writer Tim Black condemned the brutal anti-Semitism of “‘pro-Palestine’ thugs,” “men riding scooters,” and “masked men.”

Chilling indifference to Jewish suffering

But he didn’t mention the skin-color of the “thugs” or reveal what religion they follow. Like everyone else in the mainstream, he refused to admit that border-opening Jews like Frank Furedi are reaping what they’ve sown. Siam Goorwich, a writer at the Jewish Chronicle, wailed thus: “One of the elements I’ve found most chilling has been the reports of how the Israeli fans were abandoned by the local authorities. One victim is quoted as saying: ‘We were all alone. I saw people on the floor, the police didn’t do anything to help us, police cars just drove by and saw it happening and did nothing.’” Goorwich then goes on to reveal that, thanks to ethnic enrichment in Holland, lots of non-White Muslims have joined the Dutch police and don’t want to protect Jews from harm. But she doesn’t say which small but very powerful group in Holland has most warmly welcomed Muslim immigration and most loudly demanded that Muslims and other non-Whites be recruited into “the authorities,” despite their lower intelligence, lesser competence, and higher rates of corruption.

It’s her own group who’ve done all that, of course. Just as in America, Britain, France and the rest of the West, they first opened Holland’s borders to the Third World, then privileged and empowered the non-White invaders, then sat back and rubbed their hands in glee as their “natural allies” murdered, raped, robbed and generally blighted the native Whites. But now Jews are wailing in horror that the “natural allies” they’ve imported aren’t following the Semitic script. Muslims and other non-Whites weren’t supposed to attack their fellow oppressed minority of Jews. But they are. And Jews are once again claiming to be victims, as they’ve done so often and so loudly down the centuries.

Jews and Japanese knotweed

All this wailing by Jews and Semito-sycophants is an excellent example of what the Lebanese-Greek writer Nassim Taleb calls antifragility. Taleb invented the term “antifragile” to describe a highly valuable but under-appreciated quality: that of being able not merely to survive adversity but to benefit from adversity. Words like “tough” and “resilient” don’t capture the concept properly. If you’re tough, you survive despite adversity. If you’re antifragile, you flourish because of adversity. The notorious pest-plant Japanese knotweed is antifragile: the more gardeners try to dig it up and destroy it, the more widely they spread fragments of its self-sprouting roots.

Notorious pest-plant and noted anti-racist: Japanese knotweed and anti-White Jew Tim Wise

Jews are anti-fragile in a parallel way: they benefit from being victims and from portraying themselves as victims. Jewish culture centers on and sacralizes victimhood. Just look at the Holocaust museums in cities all over America and now beginning to sprout all over Europe too. They’re the latest manifestation of the cult of victimhood obvious in Judaism, which is replete with festivals commemorating the way innocent Jews faced inexcusable anti-Semitism.

And the way Jews triumphed over that unjustified hate by slaughtering wicked goyim. The so-called “pogrom” in Amsterdam will prove yet another example of Jewish anti-fragility. Jews will once again benefit from portraying themselves as innocent victims of inexcusable anti-Semitism. Yes, some writers in the mainstream media have admitted that some Israeli fans were provocative in Amsterdam, tearing down Palestinian flags and gloating about the IDF’s slaughter of Palestinians. But none of that could justify the violence visited on poor Jews later, could it? Or so the mainstream is saying. I don’t agree. I think Jews are responsible for importing Muslims into the West and are now reaping what they’ve sown. However, thanks to Jewish anti-fragility, Jews will once again benefit from their loud wails of perpetual victimhood.

Appendix: Jews proclaim their “natural alliance” with Muslims

A Pretender Appropriate for the Age: Donald Trump’s Ersatz Caesarism

The Rubik’s Cube, like the chess board, can be counterintuitive to the noninitiated. A cube finished on one face seems closer to solution than one all mixed up, but cursory study of the many solution algorithms online teaches the opposite. With fixation on the facade, one misses more significant action elsewhere. Often, the creation of a good-looking face requires a contradictory mess of compromise at deeper levels, pushing the whole farther from solution. Solvers of Rubik’s Cubes, chess masters, and the politically initiated understand the difference between a situation’s superficial face and the substance behind it, allowing them to dazzle the naïve observer with prescient solutions or predictions of what comes next. It is precisely because most don’t understand the inner workings that things like Rubik’s Cubes are entertaining at all; when everyone knows the trick, there is no audience.

Enter Trump, a tall, blonde, brash businessman who doesn’t apologize for his masculinity, who triggers passionate hatred in all of the right people. A man with a fitting facade, perfect because it is unpolished in just the right places, for the White man’s president. Trump has already had a term in which he failed to deliver on his promises to his American supporters while over-delivering to Israel and even non-constituencies like the Black criminal class. But, like any cult of personality figure worth his salt, Trump inspires endless excuses for his failures, rivaled in number and convolution only by the many fantasies spun up by his unhinged opposition. Why does Trump resonate so, both positively and negatively, with the American and broader western public? Is it that he breaks the rules of engagement for presidential politics, speaking the truth for once on the big stage, or is he tapping into a deeper level of signs and symbols?

In the culture/civilization schema of Oswald Spengler, Western Civilization is at or near the period of Caesarism. What is Caesarism and what is a Caesar? In brief, Caesarism is a time when a great leader wrests power from a decadent political system through direct appeals to the people. The governing body previously interposing between head(s) of state and citizenry is stepped over. This transition is brought about through civil wars. A Caesar is the man who does this by achieving sufficient success and notoriety in a field fitting his culture to allow him to make such a power proposition to the populace. In the case of Rome, the so-called Optimates, champions of the Roman elite structure, were brought down by the so-called Populares, a loosely populist movement centered on issues like land reforms. The yeoman soldier, proud backbone of the Roman legions, was being asked to campaign for longer and longer periods, his farms laying fallow, while the proceeds of these campaigns went to a smaller and smaller clique of senatorial and equestrian elites. This grievance found voice first in the failed political career of the brothers Gracchi and the civil war of Gaius Marius against Optimates leader Sulla. It was ultimately consummated in the political personage of Julius Caesar, the nephew of Marius, who won his civil war against the new Optimates champion Pompey. Caesar’s smashing of the republican senatorial system survived his own assassination via Caesar Augustus and the succession of emperors.

When governing institutions passed a critical threshold of unresponsiveness to the people, the reaction of the people is a wish for destroying the instituions even at the cost of social upheaval. All segments of the American and wider Western public are dissatisfied with their so-called representative government and its policies. The American right, left, and center respond to polling in a manner consistent with the desire to crush their opponents and force their policy preferences. It is not an uncommon sentiment to wish for the destruction of such institutions, as the mainstream media, banking and finance, and Congress itself. Respect for the democratic process or following legal forms is now only a pretense for partisan desires rather than a principle unto itself. That Western Civilization resonates with Trump, and to a lesser extent with his global copycats, shows that it is ready for Caesarism. What’s more, this makes us also ripe for manipulation by a spun-up imposter, a Manchurian candidate with the facade of a populist but without the policy intentions. During Julius Caesar’s time, the patrician-born Clodius had himself adopted into a plebeian family, the equivalent of covering your Ivy league sweater with a Dickies work shirt, in order to help his political career eligibility for the tribunate. In other words, the public’s appetite for system resetting populism can be sensed by savvy players who will use it cynically.

Enter Trump, a businessman trained in the ways of the world by the homosexual Jewish legal heavyweight Roy Cohn, whose campaigns are largely funded by Jewish billionaires, who has several part-Jewish grandchildren, and who referred to himself as the king of Israel due to the favoritism he showed them in his first term. Not satisfied with the obligatory presidential visit to the wailing wall, Trump paid his respects with a visit to the grave of Jewish supremacist “rebbe” rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. Does this sound like a man ready to fight a civil war on the side of the Populares against the Optimates, or like a well-placed ersatz Caesar meant to prevent the rise of the real thing? Is Trump cleverly biding his time, allowing himself to be stymied at every policy fork by lawfare and infiltration, before turning heel to the system at the age of 78 to fight a political war? Is it somehow beyond the ken of the Jews who dominate the media, banking, financial, academic, and entertainment sectors to sense that a fake rogue figure is now needed? The system, bankrupt of all legitimacy with the citizenry for decades, has been kept meta-stable up to now through stoking intense partisan hatreds that maintain some level of interest in the electoral show. As that strategy becomes less effective and the total loss of confidence in governance is sensed, these clever manipulators know full well how to give the people the look of the thing without the substance. I hearken back to the famous reaction of Jared Kushner to his first Donald Trump rally, viewing the masses of energized and angry Americans declaring hatred for the media and political system in general. How long did his ears tingle, did racial memories of the Pale of Settlement flash before his eyes, before he realized this movement itself could play the perfect spoiler to the realization of its own aims? Could this be why the Adelsons and others have given Trump’s campaigns hundreds of millions of dollars, or are they so stupid they don’t realize they’re laying fertilizer down around the growing tree that holds their nooses?

Political Caesarism is the marriage of populism with a great man of history, a rogue elite giving voice to the demands of the common. A Caesar is a leader credible with the people, who took wounds in battle and with skin in the game. Donald Trump is no Caesar. That he has the appearance of such is an indication of the corrupt confusion of pieces behind the facade. Donald Trump is not a system smasher, he is a necessary blunt stabilizer to counter a system driving off of a cliff. Donald Trump does not lead from the front lines, but skips out the back door after he picks a fight. Trump left his hoodwinked supporters to rot as political prisoners just as he left his business partners in prior decades holding the bag on failed ventures over and over again. The man has declared himself bankrupt on several occasions; believe him.

The danger to America and the broader west is not that either Donald Trump or Kamala Harris will be elected. The difference between their administrations will be largely aesthetic in nature. Perhaps a war with Iran is more likely under Trump, while the economy may do more poorly under Harris, but the reverse of both is perfectly possible. Economic, foreign, and immigration policy has largely been consistent across administrations, Democrat or Republican, for many decades, and for all of Trump’s bluster and Biden’s “return to normalcy,” theirs have been no exception to this trend. The danger is that the yearning in our people for a Caesar will be quelled and confused by this imposter, as viewing pornography tricks the brain into thinking one is fulfilling one’s reproductive directive. The West needs a true Caesar to knock over our decrepit and corrupt institutions, allowing progression through our next civilizational epoch. The chief obstacle to this, in a sort of Gresham’s Law of politics, is not the enemy itself but their ersatz Caesar golem.

Voting is a Waste of Time! Or Is It?

Reposted from Ambrose Kane’s Substack with permission.

Donald Trump’s massive win for the highest office in the land shocked much of the world. Not only did Trump earn a second term, defeating Vice President Kamala Harris, but he won the popular vote as well, including securing both the Senate and House of Representatives (House to be determined, but likely) with republican majorities.

Record numbers of Americans showed up at the polling booths, and millions mailed their ballots in early. Seems to me that the greater number of Americans sensed just how important this election was, and that four more years of nation-destroying policies from the Biden administration could possibly be something that we might never recover from. For many Americans, the economy was their major concern; for others it was our open borders that allowed staggering numbers of unchecked immigration from the third world.

In the midst of all our nation’s social and economic woes, there were a plethora of black-pilled and fatalistic folks who urged us all to not vote, to not be part of a system that’s hopelessly ‘rigged’ where the final decision of all U.S. presidential elections is ‘fixed’. Voting, it’s argued, only provides the ‘illusion’ that one is making a choice, but in the end the final outcome is predetermined. But is that true in every election? Is that what the 2024 presidential election proved to be?

I can certainly understand why many Americans might feel this way, especially when one considers just how dishonest and internally corrupt the Democrat party is. The results of the 2020 presidential election raised more than enough concerns that a substantial amount of widespread voter fraud was involved to seat Joseph Biden in the Oval Office. There was every reason to think that an even greater level of voter fraud would occur in the 2024 presidential election since a lot more domestic and foreign policies were at stake, including the mess of on-going wars in Ukraine and the Middle East.

For the past four years, the democrats had engaged in brazen lawfare against their political opponents, something we had never previously experienced in this country – at least not to the degree that was waged against Trump. The democrats had reason to believe that if the election were lost, they themselves might be facing similar retaliatory lawfare efforts. In the midst of all this, the mood of the country had become so ugly and divisive that it’s easy to see why people would throw up their hands and give up, declaring it’s all a charade and that no one could be trusted to provide an accurate voter count that genuinely reflected the will of the people.

But none of what the black-pilled folks predicted actually took place. Not even a little bit of it. Trump won so decisively that the mainstream media couldn’t do much more than sadly read the election results, blame Kamala’s weak campaign efforts, and cry bitterly over it. This is not to say that the democrats didn’t engage in any voter fraud, but only that it was not sizable enough to thwart a Trump election victory.

The 2024 presidential election of Donald Trump proved that voting works. It’s not that voting alone will accomplish all that we want, but it is one of numerous tools at our disposal to bring about the kind of country that we envision for ourselves and our posterity.

Refusing to vote for candidates that align more with our social and political views under the banner that ‘voting is futile’ only serves to create greater problems for our cause. Consider the following.

If millions of sane, politically conservative people throughout the U.S. suddenly declined to vote, what would this result in? Would the Democrats stop voting too just because we withheld our vote? Their inevitable landslide victory would surely be interpreted as a “mandate” to fulfill the entirety of their cultural Marxist agenda. That’s how they’d see it, and that’s precisely how it would be reported in the mainstream media. And once their candidates win by such a massive margin, what’s to stop them from creating legislation that would place all of us “dissenters,” “racists,” “anti-Semites,” and MAGA folks into concentration camps? You think the Democrats wouldn’t do it if they knew they would face little political resistance or consequences? Think again.

And how would refusing to vote impact our Second Amendment rights? Democrats would make certain to pass laws that would completely eradicate such rights. It would turn every right-leaning gun owner into an enemy of the state. Gun confiscation, then, would not be only a possibility but an undeniable reality. Our people would fall prey to marauding groups of Black criminals, especially among those who are unable to escape our major cities.

If we all refused to vote, then should we also refuse to hold our elected representatives to account for how they vote on our behalf? Does anyone seriously believe that those in office will more faithfully represent their voter base when we abandon any effort to participate in the election process?

Perhaps the Democrats would sympathize with our plight? Get real. Our political opponents don’t play by the same set of rules, nor will they be inclined to have mercy on us when they literally view all conservative White Americans as “racist, Hitler-loving, White supremacists.” Yes, this is how incredibly stupid and evil Leftists are. There is no balance or nuance in their thinking. If anything, history has proven how easy it is to get seemingly “nice people” to engage in the worse kinds of atrocities.

Perhaps large numbers of Democrats would see our point in refusing to play the game of voting? Maybe then they will listen to our message and see the utter futility of it all? Nope, none of this would happen. They would not seriously ponder anything we’ve said nor any political protests we might engage in, no matter how empirically sound and data-driven our ideas. They would not come to their collective senses once we declared that we have abandoned the ‘voting charade’. They will only see themselves as winners and all of us as losers. And then comes their great payback in which they would seek to punish every one of us. They would not be persuaded by reason, nor would their wrath be assuaged.

Our non-voting, then, amounts to non-resistance in the public sphere, an admission of sorts that the Democrats have better ideas and better solutions to our nation’s problems. And that’s exactly how the media would spin it and how the average American simpleton would interpret our complete abdication of our voting rights.

Jewish elites, of course, would get everything they wanted as a result — even more than what they have now! By not voting and forming a political resistance, we will essentially hand them all they want from us. And they will make sure to ‘reward’ us nicely for it too. Whatever resistance we might have on social media now would be cut off as they’re certain to censor and de-platform all dissenters.

Have you noticed as well that those who mock voting as futile with expressions such as “vote harder” rarely if ever provide any practical alternatives? They are largely whiners and complainers offering little more than verbal tantrums. One wonders whose side they are on. Throwing up our hands and giving up is precisely what our enemies would want.

The enemies of Trump threw everything they could at him. Neither endless lawfare, constant threats of imprisonment, millions of dollars in government fines, and even two assassination attempts were sufficient in preventing him from winning the election. This occurred not because enough gullible citizens believed that voting was a waste of time, but because reasonable people were discerning enough to realize that they could destroy the Left’s political efforts by simply casting a vote for Trump.

Trump’s win proved that voting, despite the problems and messiness associated with it at times, is a necessary component to shaping the kind of country that we as racially aware White Americans are seeking. This is not to say that Trump will give us all that we may want, but even if we garner only half of that which serves our racial and cultural interests, it’s still far more than anything we would have ever obtained under a Harris administration. As Greg Johnson rightly puts it:

“Trump won’t give us a white homeland. That is our job. But Trump’s victory makes it easier for us to get what we want. Compared to Harris, Trump is far better on immigration. Both candidates offered legal immigration. But Harris also offered massive illegal immigration and amnesties. Trump offered a clampdown on illegal immigrants coming in and mass deportations of the ones already here. Trump will slow down the Great Replacement, which buys White Nationalists time. To win, we need time” (‘We Won: An Agenda for Trump’s Second Term,’ Counter Currents, November 7, 2024).

Under Trump, there’s a real possibility that the economy will significantly improve. None of this would ever take place under Harris. Neither Biden nor Harris had the foggiest notion of how to improve the economic lot of Americans, and I doubt they had any real concerns about it. They had four years to reverse course, and yet they did nothing other than to drive more Americans into poverty and homelessness.

Under Trump, there’s a greater likelihood that illegal immigrants will be returned to their countries of origin. Trump might indeed have learned a thing or two from his first administration, and may complete that “great big, beautiful wall” that he had promised. Had Kamala Harris won the election, she would have seen her victory as a mandate and continued a policy of open borders at great expense to the American people.

Free speech, particularly the speech of White racialists and political dissidents, has a greater chance of surviving with Trump in office. If Elon Musk ends up playing an important role in Trump’s cabinet, there is even more reason to think that our speech will be safeguarded.

Under Trump, no more unnecessary wars are a real possibility. Trump already knows just how wasteful and stupid funding the Ukraine war has been, and I’m inclined to think that he will not so easily go along with Benjamin Netanyahu’s efforts to force the U.S. into a proxy war against Iran. With informed and sobering influences as Tucker Carlson and a host of others who are tired of America’s warmongering, it seems unlikely that Trump will be so easily manipulated.
Thanks for reading Ambrose Kane ! Subscribe