Fall 2018 issue of TOQ is available!

The Fall issue of TOQ is available to electronic subscribers. Just recently we were booted off Square, likely due to the activism of one Jessica Schulberg, who, one can be sure, has zero concern about advancing her ethnic interests (she describes TOQ as a “racist journal”). Given all the de-platforming and cutting off of financial services by the powers that be, it’s more important than ever to subscribe. We can’t let them win by shutting out our ideas. Only $30/year (4 issues) for digital version, $60/yr for hardcopy. Payments must be made by mail. Click here for all the details for subscribing.

TOQ Fall 2018

TrumpHate rises to new heights. Will it work?

The Trump-Putin summit in Helsinki has resulted in the greatest outpouring of TrumpHate to date. Truly stunning. The #NeverTrumpers (basically neocons) now joined at the hip with the liberal/left have finally found the issue they think they can win on. Sure, the image of children being taken from their parents was effective with the people who already hated Trump. But this may not be a winning formula—certainly not Trump’s base—when 70% of voters rank immigration as “very important” for their vote. But the idea of “Trump the traitor” may well have legs.

Democrats and NeverTrump neocons are smelling blood in the water. They can pretend that they are patriotic nationalists (despite all the open borders “abolish ICE” comments from top Democrat politicians and neocon horror over Trump’s America First foreign policy (neocons have a very different idea of what country should come first, and predictably, they shed crocodile tears about Trump on separating illegal families (along with the ADL) without saying a word about Israel’s draconian immigration policies or gratuitous murder of Gazan children).

But more than all that, the “Trump the traitor” rhetoric appeals to quite a few mainstream Republicans who would not fall for the liberal line on immigration but who are definitely part of the hate-Russia crusade—some of them just exhibiting a reflex left over from the Cold War, while others are in thrall to the to the Israel Lobby’s hatred of Putin because of his pro-Iran, pro-Syria policies. (Sascha Baron-Cohen’s recent Showtime stunt is an indication of how reflexive support for Israel can make Republicans advocate ridiculous policies like arming 5-year-olds with guns.)

I should also mention Putin’s treatment of certain Jewish oligarchs who have attempted to influence Western policies toward Russia (e.g., Mikhail Khodorkovsky). A truly stunning moment in the Trump-Putin presser (all but ignored in the MSM) was Putin saying that Bill Browder and his associates had illegally earned $1.5 billion in Russia (“the way the money was earned was illegal”) without paying taxes either to Russia or the United States where the money was transferred. And that he and his associates had contributed $400 million [poorly translated; likely $400,000] to Hillary Clinton’s campaign. While the charges back and forth are impossible to for me to evaluate, Browder’s firm, Hermitage Capital Management, has been involved in other accusations of fraud. Browder was the main force promoting the Magnitsky Act, signed by President Obama in 2012, that barred Russian officials said to be involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Browder associate, from entering the U.S. or using the U.S. banking system.

Here the point is that American neocons have been in the forefront of hostility over Putin’s treatment of Jewish oligarchs, taking the view that Browder et al. are completely innocent victims of Russian evil. Along with Russian foreign policy, Putin’s actions toward the oligarchs is one factor in neocon and hence some factions of the GOP toward Russia. It’s no surprise that they are now eagerly joining the hate-Trump chorus throughout the American establishment.

Put all that together, and it’s a powerful array against Trump. We’ll see what the polls say, but there’s no doubt that many pro-Trump voters will be troubled by accusations of treason and appeasing Russia in a way they wouldn’t about hostility toward Trump’s policies on immigration. As usual, this media furor is couched as a moral imperative. And although the public (especially Whites) are getting less and less susceptible to moralistic rhetoric, I suspect that this is not so much the case with accusations of disgraceful, treasonous behavior by the president.

In any case, I hope Trump survives this hatestorm. His policies on immigration have been a breath of fresh air (I know, they could be even better but they are way better than any administration in memory—since Eisenhower’s Operation Wetback). And immigration is really the only issue.

Diplomacy in absentia: Trump searches for Russia G-spot and sundry other musings

The blame game surrounding Russia’s exclusion from the Group of Seven (G7) was just one of the many side stories piquing Western leaders in their recent display of irrelevance. It’s somewhat fitting that even the G7’s token communiqué was left in tatters—with all of its hackneyed neoliberal pledges for gender change and climate equality. Instead it was the insider anecdotes that dominated the news cycle. This summer, a remarkable array of summits is taking place, from NATO and BRICS to Finland and North Korea, but if the Quebec G7 entrée was anything to go by, we are in for a smorgasbord of sour grapes and humble pie.

Now that the 2014 reincorporation of Crimea into Russia is no longer seen by the international community as the great Anschluss of our times and given that the election meddling hysteria is not sustainable for much longer, something has to give. With Trump and Italian PM Conte expressing support for Russia’s return to the group, other members seem to have countered with a secondary strategy: they now disagree about the disagreement. Hardliners now argue that Russia is choosing to self-exclude from the Group of Seven, even neocon-supervised encyclopedia Wikipedia cites an article on Russia’s intent to leave, but contains nothing other than sardonic hypotheticals from Russian officials. Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have stated on a number of occasions that Russia never left and is in fact still waiting to resume hosting of the boycotted Sochi summit. Read more

Thinking about Civil War II

Lately a lot of people—31% in a recent poll—have been thinking the previously unthinkable — a civil war. Specifically, they agreed that “it’s likely that the United States will experience a second civil war sometime in the next five years.” Moreover:

Women and those under 40 are more worried about a possible civil war than men and older voters are. Forty-four percent (44%) of blacks think a second civil war is likely in the next five years, a view shared by 28% of whites and 36% of other minority voters. Whites are also less concerned about political violence than the others are.

There’s no question that the level of polarization we see now is greater than perhaps any time since Civil War I. There is simply no common ground any more. Absent a complete capitulation to their policies (which is not going to happen), there is literally nothing that Trump can do that would be approved by the liberals and the left. The weeping that we saw after the election has turned into cold anger at Trump, his family (Peter Fonda wanting to “rip Barron Trump from his mother’ and put him in a ‘cage with pedophiles'”), and everyone in his administration (e.g., Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Scott Pruitt harassed). Read more

The TOQ Summer issue is up. Subscribers Needed!

The Summer issue of TOQ is available for subscribers, with the print version to be mailed out soon.

It’s a great issue with articles on a wide range of topics vital to understanding Western culture, Western history, and the struggles we face. I strongly encourage people to subscribe. As is well known, the establishment is attacking us on all fronts, and PayPal in particular has been a problem. TOQ has lost many subscribers because their automatic renewals were not processed after PayPal cut us off. The result is that we are struggling—especially frustrating because we had almost achieved the break-even point.

It’s very important for our side to be able to put out a high-quality journal. One of the strengths of Jewish activism has always been that Jews would support magazines and journals that were overtly (e.g., Commentary) or implicitly (e.g., Partisan Review back in the 1940s and 1950s). We should be able to do the analogous thing and support media that takes our side.

Subscription information is at For US subscribers, it’s simple: $30.00/year for a digital subscription and $60.00/year for the print journal (includes digital access). We have been able to get a credit card processor. For anyone who wants to send a check or money order, please send an email to, and you will be provided with further instructions.

Summer issue

Guillaume Durocher on Greek struggle for freedom from the Persians

Dr. Tom Sunic on Heidegger and the current “Fake News” phenomenon

Karl Nemmersdorf on Ted Gold and the Jews of Weatherman, the 1960s group of radicals.

Prof. Ricardo Duchesne provides a scathing review of  Steven Pinker’s war on White identitarianism, Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress

Brenton Sanderson provides a review essay on Revolutionary Yiddishland: A History of Jewish Radicalism by Alain Brossat and Sylvia Klingberg

Nelson Rosit  reviews The Rhythm of the West: A Biohistory of the Modern Era, AD 1600 to the Present by Michael A. Woodley et al.

Guillaume Durocher reviews On the Origins of Greek Biopolitics: A Reinterpretation of the History of Biopower by Mika Ojakangas

Ron Unz on the JFK Assassination: Strong Suspicion LBJ and Mossad Responsible, as recounted in Michael Collins Piper’s “Final Judgment”

Do Liberals Really Care about Children Being Separated from Their Parents?

The American news media have apparently just realized that when foreigners illegally enter the United States in the company of their minor children and get arrested, those children are temporarily separated from them. It would be surprising if it were otherwise: keeping the children with their parents would require throwing them in jail as well. It would hardly be fair to punish minors for the acts of their parents, so they are accommodated separately. We are now being told this amounts to “ripping families apart” and “child abuse.”

I would like to draw attention to a passage quoted in a review essay of mine from The Occidental Quarterly, Summer 2007, regarding children forcibly separated from their fathers through divorce. Such children, we read,

expressed the wish for increased contact with their fathers with a startling and moving intensity….The most striking response among six-to-eight-year-old children was their pervasive sadness. The impact of separation appeared so strong that the children’s usual defenses and coping strategies did not hold sufficiently under stress. Crying and sobbing were not uncommon…. More than half of these children missed their father acutely. Many felt abandoned and rejected by him and expressed their longing in ways reminiscent of grief for a dead parent…In confronting the despair and sadness of these children and their intense, almost physical, longing for the father, it was evident that inner psychological needs of great power and intensity were being expressed.

This has been allowed to go on every day in America—year in, year out—and no major media outlet has yet seen fit to treat it as newsworthy. Today, however, the nation is awash in maudlin sentimentality over the unavoidable inconveniences suffered by the children of foreign lawbreakers because of their parents’ crimes.

If American children victimized by family courts have less claim upon our attention and sympathy, it would appear to be because their suffering cannot be used to further the project of deconstructing the historical United States. What the liberal establishment really wants is open borders.