• MISSION STATEMENT
  • TERMS
  • PRIVACY
The Occidental Observer
  • HOME
  • BLOG
  • SUBSCRIBE TOQ
  • CONTACT USPlease send all letters to the editor, manuscripts, promotional materials, and subscription questions to Editors@TheOccidentalObserver.net.
  • DONATE
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

General

Tucker and Glenn Greenwald: Epstein files, Israel, 9-11, JFK, Randy Fine

June 10, 2025/5 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

Good to see these ideas being  expressed in the conservative mainstream. I agree with them it’s frustrating to see the continued secrecy on the Epstein files after all the talk about transparency and that Israeli interests in not exposing Epstein’s connections to the Mossad are the likely reason for the continued secrecy. IMO, that’s also the case with 9-11 where there is lots of evidence of Israeli foreknowledge—and with the JFK assassination where continuing Israeli interests are the only interests still remaining after over 60 years. As they note, the interest should be focused on Jack Ruby, not Lee Harvey  Oswald. And the Iraq war and the fake WMDs.

The first part deals with Biden’s dementia, media cover-up, etc. Funny, but nothing new.

Glenn Greenwald: The Truth About Epstein, Jake Tapper’s Humiliation, & Insane New Push to Nuke Gaza

CNN Finally Admits Joe Biden Is in Cognitive Decline

00:01:20
1. CNN Finally Admits Joe Biden Is in Cognitive Decline
How Political Tribalism Is Destroying Society

00:17:46
2. How Political Tribalism Is Destroying Society
Why Trump’s Opinion on NATO Changed Tucker’s Worldview

00:24:20
3. Why Trump’s Opinion on NATO Changed Tucker’s Worldview
Was Jeffrey Epstein Working for Foreign Intelligence?

00:37:25
4. Was Jeffrey Epstein Working for Foreign Intelligence?
The JFK Assassination

00:51:58
5. The JFK Assassination
Greenwald’s Thoughts on Russia

01:07:51
6. Greenwald’s Thoughts on Russia
…

Do you want to talk about the Epstein files in relation to that as well? Yeah, sure. I just find the Epstein files so fascinating because all the people who are now in charge of the government under Donald Trump, particularly Cash Patel and Dan Bongino at the FBI, but others as well throughout the government, were over the last four years everywhere in the media, on their shows, on every other show, banging on the table. Demanding the immediate release of all the Epstein files. We’re now five months into the Trump administration, we haven’t gotten a single document that wasn’t previously published of the Epsteine files. They made a humiliating showing of pretending to release it when they called those conservative influence and they all waved around the binder, Epstein Files! We were like, oh my god what was in them? And then it turns out like nothing. You know, just every document that was in this binder was already previous release, it’s part of the litigation or journalism that was done. And the Pam Bondi’s new excuse, because I mean, I’m glad that there are a lot of people in the Trump movement and the mug movement who are not contrary to how they’re depicted in some sort of cult. Like they hold these people accountable. Like they wanna understand, like we were promised these things, like why isn’t this happening? And so Pam Bondy’s excuse now is, we have thousands and thousands of sex videos of Jeffrey Epstein having sex with minors, implying that it’s obviously gonna take a lot of time to go through these videos, and therefore we have to be patient before we get them. It’s like, I don’t care about sex videos of Jeffrey Epstein having with children because we already know that Jeffrey Epsteine had sex with children. That’s kind of the reason we know who he is. He’s been twice charged with that, once convicted, and then. Was ready to be charged again. For me, the two biggest issues are, are there people to whom he trafficked minors because he was charged with sex trafficking but nobody has been charged with being the recipient of that sex trafficking? But the much more interesting question for me is, and there’s a lot of reason to believe it’s true is, was he working with or for any foreign intelligence agencies? There is no way they don’t already have that answer. Maybe the answer is no. Maybe he wasn’t working with any, it would shock me, but maybe that’s their answer. Maybe their answer is he was. Why don’t we have those answers? Like have FBI agents for whatever reason, go through those sex tapes for the next three years. That’s fine. What stops them from releasing that question now?

Tucker [00:35:07] For people who may not be as familiar with the details, what leads you to raise that question? Is there evidence that suggests he might have been working with a foreign intelligence agency?

Glenn Greenwald [00:35:17] Well, first of all, the source of his wealth has always been mysterious. I mean, he wasn’t just very rich. He was living the life of a multi-multi-billionaire. He had, you know, $50 million properties in Manhattan and West Palm Beach, and bought that island, New Mexico, flying around on a 747. This is not just like somebody who’s very wealthy. This is somebody with essentially unlimited resources, right, like Bill Gates type well. And one of the ways, one of… His primary benefactors is Les Wexner, who is a multi-billionaire, somebody with whom he worked closely. And I guess the argument or the claim is, he was a brilliant strategist for how to save taxes, how to say money on taxes.

Tucker [00:36:03] He was like a highly competent accountant.

Glenn Greenwald [00:36:05] Yeah, like a tax accountant. That’s tax accountant, they tell you what strategies to use to save money. So maybe Les Wexner valued him so much that he gave him, I don’t know, $3 billion. In general, billionaires don’t like to give money away that they don’t have to. Maybe Les Wexxner is like super generous, like, oh, so gratefully, Jeffrey Epstein, here’s like $2 billion. But Les Weixner has all sorts of ties to, like his main non-money-making. Endeavor in life is supporting Israel and donating to pro-Israel groups and working closely with the Israeli government. Jazayn Maxwell, who’s now in prison as having been essentially his right-hand man, her father, Robert Maxwell, he died in a very mysterious way, he slipped off his yacht, was a known Mossad agent. He worked with the Mossad, he had very close ties to Israel. We all know even

Tucker [00:36:57] I was given a state funeral.

Glenn Greenwald [00:36:59] Yes, in Israel. And, you know, when I did the Snowden reporting, people, there’s a lot of documents that we released that in just because there were so many, not all of them got the attention they deserved. One of the set of files we released described the intelligence relationship that we have with Israel, the NSA has with Israel. Israel is the number one recipient of NSA technology and NSA intelligence. We share more with Israel even more than we do with the Five Eyes. Partners who develop this technology. We give more to Israel, more intelligence, raw intelligence about Americans as well, and more intelligence know-how. But at the same time, the documents that describe who are our greatest intelligence threats, who are greatest intelligence adversaries, who spies on us the most, who is capable of spying out the most. Number one on the list is Israel as well. Obviously the Israelis use, you know, some, I mean, the most dangerous spying programs like Pegasus. And others come from Israel, are developed by Israel, are controlled by the Israelis, by which I simply mean to say that Israel uses every weapon at its disposal, including gathering and incriminating information about its enemies. Some people have suggested that, oh no, it’s not Israel, it’s probably the Qatari intelligence agencies with whom he worked. Maybe it was Peru, maybe it was like Indonesia.

Tucker [00:38:23] People would say that Epstein was working with the Qataris?

Glenn Greenwald [00:38:26] They’re like, what hap- like, there’s mental-

Tucker [00:38:28] I want to keep a list of people who make that claim. Do you know any?

Glenn Greenwald [00:38:31] You know how like Israel, like supporters, like loyalists of Israel in the United States are now constantly trying to convince people that the real foreign government that is exerting extreme amounts of influence over our politicians and our institutions is Potter?

Tucker [00:38:50] I find it hilarious.

Glenn Greenwald [00:38:51] And I’m always like, you know what, let me know when Congress starts passing on a weekly basis pro-COTA resolutions or when like students are being expelled and deported because they’ve criticized Qatar. Let me know when like we start sending billions of dollars a year to Qatar. Let me when all that starts to happen and I’ll be receptive to the fact that maybe Qatar. But anyway, I’m not saying it’s Israel. I’m just saying the nature of what Jeffrey Epstein was doing, the amount of wealth that it required, the number of the most powerful elites on the planet who were with him, who were involved with him who were at his island too, despite knowing that he had been convicted in 2010. Of having sex with minors, hiring prostitutes who were underage, who continued to consort with him in the most proximate ways, something was going on there. It would be incredibly valuable. He had cameras in every part of his house. He had tapes of everything. Obviously, that would be of immense value to any foreign intelligence agent. Of course, and American. I mean, he was,

Tucker [00:39:59] He was close friends with Bill Burns.

Glenn Greenwald [00:40:01] Right, maybe domestic intelligence agencies as well, but it really is starting to inflame my suspicions a great deal every day that goes by when we’re not getting that information, particularly because the people who have it are the people who spent years demanding its release and promising to facilitate it if they got into power.

Tucker [00:40:21] Two facts, data points are now called that suggest to me that something’s up. One is the fact that Epstein was represented in his first tango with the authorities in Florida by Bill Kristol’s lawyer, Jay Lefkowitz, and who I know. And the second is the statement by Alex Acosta, which I think maybe is at the top of your about why Epstein got off so easily.

Glenn Greenwald [00:40:47] How is this not talked about every day? Okay, so in Florida, in the United States generally, having sex with minors, hiring, you know, using minors as prostitutes is considered like a pretty terrible crime. Yeah, it’s- Yeah, you don’t know- Most people agree on that. We don’t allow it, yeah. Yeah, we don’t really have to debate that. That’s considered like something that deserves huge amounts of jail time and typically results in huge amounts jail time. Jeffrey Epstein barely went to jail for that as part of a plea bargain. They had enormous amounts of evidence. It wasn’t a question of, could they prove his guilt? They gave him a plea deal, a plea-deal, where he spent like six seconds in jail, and then like most of the time at home doing community service. And Alex Acosta, who was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida at the time, which was in charge of the case, that’s where Epstein was, ultimately ended up in the Justice Department and other roles inside the government. And so he was constantly asked, why would you give Jeffrey Epstein such a generous plea deal that nobody would ever get for those crimes? And he ended up saying, I was told that he’s intelligence and therefore leave him alone. That’s what Alex Acosta, the prosecutor says that he was told about what he should do with the Jeffrey, like leave him along because he’s intelligent.

Tucker [00:42:07] The conversation just ended. We know now. If the federal prosecutor in Florida says that, then I think we can assume that that’s true.

Glenn Greenwald [00:42:17] Right, so why don’t we know what that means? That’s what, you know, like, what would be the reason that people inside the Trump administration, who have long expressed vehemently, vocally, at the top of their agenda, demands that the Epstein files be released? Why are they not telling us that information?

Tucker [00:42:39] I think the net effect of this is to drive everyone insane and to make everyone like angry and suspicious and paranoid and conspiracy minded. I do think that. It’s like you expect that we’re gonna hear the truth and then it’s like, oh, by the way, no. Everyone assumes the worst. I mean, why wouldn’t you assume the worst? I don’t think that improves American society.

Glenn Greenwald [00:43:02] Whenever I talk about independent media, including from people who are supporters of it, believe it’s a positive development, they all say, oh, but you know, there’s so many conspiracy theories that end up being cultivated and spread that people embrace. And that’s true. Yeah, of course it is. There’s been a lot of conspiracy theories embraced by the credible legacy media as well. I mean, it wasn’t like Reddit that convinced American Saddam Hussein had an active nuclear weapons program. You know that Joe Biden was the best version ever. Right, or that like the North Vietnamese were the aggressors in the Gulf of Tonkin, right? That came from like CBS and Walter Cronkite and the New York Times. But in any event, of course there’s gonna be Americans who are now amenable to every conspiracy theory because what have we lived through? The Iraq war, the 2008 financial crisis, all of the lies from 9-11 itself. And then if you go back further, like the Vietnam War, but then also COVID and like one after the next, at best, massive fundamental systemic failure on the part of all the institutions we were taught to trust and probably at worst and probably more accurately, overwhelming deceit and lies and falsehoods and propaganda continuously disseminated by them in order to facilitate what they wanted. What is going to happen to a society where people lose faith and trust in institutions, not because, you know, charlatans are on the sidelines encouraging them to make that happen, but because rationally those institutions no longer merit trust or faith.

Tucker [00:44:34] If you lie too much I don’t believe you.

Glenn Greenwald [00:44:37] Kinda basic.

Tucker [00:44:38] So the only antidote to that is transparency, is revealing the truth. And I really worry right now especially that this is hardening people’s cynicism and rage and really at some point nihilism, like nothing is true. That is the conclusion a lot of people are going to, nothing is, I don’t believe anything. Like it’s all fake. Also, you know

Glenn Greenwald [00:45:01] Cash Patel and Dan Bongino are people who were among the most popular among the MAGA base. I mean, these were the people among the most respected. I mean Dan Bonginno’s show on Rumble, a platform that still maybe like 30, 40, maybe even 50% of the people in the United States who I’ve never even heard of, was getting bigger audiences than almost every daytime cable show. Cash Patal, you know, the surge of support for him when he was nominated to lead the FBI was massive because people thought, no, that’s who we need to like get in and root this out and clean it out. And I believe that they, I believe there is something to that. I think they are authentic and genuine in that way, but at the same time, something is constraining them. And so I asked myself what kinds of would people… Be determined to hide who are more powerful than they are. And when it comes to the Epstein files, I continuously zero in on that question of who was he working with or for whom. And I can see people in government not wanting that answer to be disclosed, just like the same reason we didn’t have the JFK files and still don’t. We still don’t For 65 years.

Tucker [00:46:21] I know Bongino well. I think of him as a friend. I think he is a man of integrity and I think his integrity remains pure because of his rage, like Dan’s mad at lying. And so I don’t know what’s going on at all. And to be clear, he said, I know that Epstein killed himself because I’ve seen the evidence. So I’m pretty confident in the case of Dan Bongino.

Glenn Greenwald [00:46:45] I don’t even mind that, but then the question still becomes, like they said, they know how their supporters are going to react to that. And they were among the people raising doubts about whether Epstein killed himself. I’m not that, I wouldn’t shock me if Epstein kill himself, like you live a life of great wealth and then suddenly you know you’re gonna spend the rest of your life in prison. It seems odd to me that you can go to a federal prison and kill yourself, like there’s not safeguards against that, but whatever, things that are run by the government failed. I’m not suggesting… That they’re lying about that. But even there, they’re saying like, look, I promise you, we read the files. He killed himself. So then my question is, well, why can’t we read those files?

Tucker [00:47:24] Well, that is my question too, and I would just say in the case of Bongino, I know Cash Patel, but I’m not like a friend of Cash Patel’s, I’m a friend at Bongino’s, and I do think that will come out. But I think big picture DOJ is making a huge mistake, huge mistake in promising to reveal things and then not revealing them. And that gives the whole country a kind of moral blue balls at that point. And it’s bad. It’s really bad. Like it’s gonna, it’s going to cause a lot of heat. And second, I think that we underestimate the physical threat that people in Washington face. It’s always like blackmail or ideological affinity that gets people, no, people are afraid of getting hurt. I do think that’s a, I mean, I know that’s a component.

Glenn Greenwald [00:48:07] Political assassination, political murder has been going on for as long as politics have and the JFK case is an example of the President of the United States having his head blown off. Exactly.

Tucker [00:48:18] And you think that that’s not ever present or constantly present in the minds of people in Washington? They killed the president and got away with it for over 60 years. So like, clearly there are forces that are above justice.

Glenn Greenwald [00:48:30] Oh, no, don’t worry, Lee Harvey Oswald was killed and Jack Ruby went to prison. Jack Ruby, the whole story is Jack Ruby by the way. The whole story’s Jack Ruby. I mean, he just walked up to the person they had claimed and just shot him in the stomach.

Tucker [00:48:45] And there’s no evidence he even liked the Kennedys. There’s zero evidence. He never campaigned for them, never gave them money. There’s not one person who’s ever come forward to say, you know, Jack Ruby was passionately attached to JFK, not one personal. So like, what was the motive there? He was clearly sent there to silence Lee Harvey Oswald. So by whom is the obvious question. There are very serious indications by whom, but whatever, I don’t know. But I don’t know why everyone spends all this time on Lee Harvey-Oswald. When the key to the story is so clearly Jack Ruby.

Glenn Greenwald [00:49:17] Yeah, I mean, this is, I think we are so indoctrinated to believe that this sort of thing happens in other countries. Like how much, think about how much we’ve heard, for example, about Putin and al-Bani. Right. And we’re all supposed to like obsess on the idea that in Russia, you know, if you get too much influence, you become too much of a threat to somebody, you get killed or imprisoned. The funny thing is, Putin didn’t even kill Navalny. I think everybody, the CIA says that. So like, no, we didn’t. There’s no, yeah, exactly. After months of- Well, of course.

Tucker [00:49:47] Well, of course, I got blamed for his murder. I was in Russia when he died, and I can’t believe you killed him all like that. Oh, yeah, that’s right.

Glenn Greenwald [00:49:53] I remember that timing. You were going to go, you had your big Putin interview and then like two days earlier, Putin killed Noamani and you’re like there with Putin. No, but that’s a big part of how that propaganda works. I grew up thinking that, like these kind of bad things happen, they just don’t happen in our country.

Tucker [00:50:09] It must be cool to live, you live outside the country famously, where you’re a foreigner living in a country, you’ve been a long time, you speak the language, you’re engaged in the politics, so you’re part of it, but you’re also from the United States, so you’re not coming at it with that baggage, you can see, you don’t lie to yourself about what it is.

Glenn Greenwald [00:50:28] I do think, I think one of the great, one of things for which I’m most grateful is that I was never embedded in the DC political and media scene. And obviously you removed yourself from it, which is why we’re here and not in Georgetown. It didn’t.

Tucker [00:50:44] Being a part of that at all.

Glenn Greenwald [00:50:46] Oh, I’ll tell you, there’s a I’ve had a friendly relationship with Alex Thompson for a while. I’ve been, you know, Jake Tapper’s co-author in that book.

Tucker [00:50:57] Foreign political reporter.

Glenn Greenwald [00:50:59] Yeah, so now works at Axios. And I’ve been very aggressive about praising him, like going back two years when he was one of the only ones working for these news outlets who was on the story of Biden’s cognitive decline, getting mauled and attacked by the entire democratic party. I was often praising him and defending him. You know, I mean, I wouldn’t say we’re great friends, but you know, he like sent me a copy of the book with very nice words. And so when I go to attack Jake Tapper, which is essentially attacking that book, Of course, there’s a part of my brain that like… You know, thinks about like, wait, what is that gonna do to my relationship with Alex Thompson? And then you have to be like, I don’t care. But if that is your life, you know what I mean, Alex Thompson is not like an important close friend of mine. But like, if you live in Washington and your whole social scene is integrated into, that is why there’s no adversarial relationship between the media. Do you know it’s so funny? Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson were on. That shitty PBS show that is now hosted by Jeffrey Goldberg. So can you imagine the watch?

Tucker [00:52:01] Is Free Goldberg as a PBS show?

Glenn Greenwald [00:52:02] Yeah, it’s like the week in Washington. Jeffrey Goldberg hosts a TV show? Yeah, PBS, like the Week in Washington, just like, I know, I can’t find anyone less telegenic. But anyway, he is the person sits there like, anyway, Jeffrey Goldburg was defending the media saying like, I think it’s outrageous that we’re being blamed for this whole thing with Biden and cognitive decline when there was nothing we could do. And so at the end, he said to Jake Tapper, like, what is the lesson that we have to take from all this? And Jake Tapper was caught very serious. He like furred his brow, but he only like looked down at the table because he just, it was a very weird thing. Like he’s just kind of, you know, he’s on television every day. You know, you look up, you talk to people, you engage, he was like looking down, he had his head bowed, like the face of somebody who has a PR crisis firm. And he said, what I have realized is that You cannot trust. What people in power tell you. People in power lie. And when they tell you things, you have to take it with skepticism. You cannot take it on face value. So Jake Topper at 56 years old, after 30 years of working in journalism, has discovered what, if I were to teach college freshmen a class on journalism would be the thing that I would say on the first day about what the job is, right? Like why it’s important to have journalism because people in power lie to keep their power. And this is something that now that Trump’s in office, they’ve suddenly discovered it’s an important thing to do to be adversarial to people in power. And I think that is in their mind, like there is an element of truth to their revisionist history that makes them the victim. Like they are friends with Mike Donilon and like Anita Dunn. Their kids go to their same schools, they live in the same neighborhoods, they intermarry. You know, like half these couples are like one in the media, one in politics, and then they’re rolling door, they constantly switch and they’re at obvious firms Washington is like, you know, Versailles. And so it’s impossible to be adversarial.

Tucker [00:54:04] Man, we had dinner without naming names, but with a journalist last night, you and I did here, who I never met before, nice guy, actually, but from DC, grew up two blocks from me, mother went to the same school that I did, he went to same school as everyone I know. I mean, it’s like, if you’re from there, you are connected to every other person who’s from there. Of course. It’s like to a much greater extent than people understand, just physically. Yes, it is.

Glenn Greenwald [00:54:32] In this court, like totally incestuous. It’s unbelievable. But you know, this is what I think, I think a lot of times, you know because I’ve been a very harsh critic of media corporations and the like, people ask me like, when did this change or whatever? And I feel like there’s always been a lot of closeness between the media and it’s supposed to be heyday in the fifties with like with Murrow and Cronkite and all of that. But you look at Time Magazine and the New York Times, they were outposts for US propaganda and foreign policy during the Cold War. I think, you know, there was a long time when journalism was considered this like working class, outsider profession and the people who went into it didn’t want to be like wearing Armani suits and you know going to dinner at the White House and with like B-list celebrities. They were just like, you working class guys who just wanted to like throw rocks at power. That was their personality. That’s why they went into journalism. And of course, going back even further, like the first amendment says, you know, all Americans enjoy freedom of the press. There was no such thing as like this secret priesthood of called journalists, like professional. The press was literally the printing press that everybody could use and everybody did use. You didn’t have to be a journalist to use it. It was just a means of expressing and disrupting and informing and organizing. And that’s what they protected. And as huge corporations started buying media outlets, you know, like Westinghouse buys CBS, and then it’s owned by Biocom or Disney now owns ABC, you know that sort of thing, the corporatization of mainstream media. If you think about the kind of attributes that are required to succeed in large corporations, it’s never being disruptive to anybody who has authority, it’s conformity, it’s, you know, just sort of being a good soldier 4 people in power, which is the exact opposite attributes that make a good journalist. And the incentive schemes that journalists are now encouraged to follow to rise within media are the kind of people who worship power, who are obedient to it. Exactly. And that to me has become the most fundamentally rotted part. And that’s why. You know, what inspired me to become a journalist was like the blogosphere of like the early 2000s, which are like just all these angry people on the right and left, like hating the media, no credentials, but like seeing things that they weren’t seeing, you know, hating the Bush administration, but either from the right or from the left, hating mainstream media, same thing. And like you start realizing like, wow, like this mainstream media and politics is like a tiny little, like Obama once described it as, you know, like. Well like John Boehner is supposed to call me a communist but you know everyone knows the reality is we just fight within the 40-yard line. It’s like we’re basically on the same team we just the 40 yard line and you realize there’s this whole other space and way of looking at things and it was really the internet that gave rise to it which is why the internet is in controlling it and censoring it is the thing that is on the top of their agenda because it’s the biggest threat to them.

Tucker [00:57:33] Why do you see things, well, I should just say, I think your mom worked at McDonald’s, actually. Yeah, I mean, I think, which wouldn’t be shocking if you were in any other business, but I don’t think I know a single other person, I don’t think I a single person in our generation in media who can say that.

Glenn Greenwald [00:57:51] Yeah, I think like, I do, I mean, Richard Nixon had this as well, this, you know, I think Trump has it to an extent too, even though like Trump grew up very wealthy, but it was like outer borough wealth, which is not looked upon kindly by like old money in Manhattan. And then he comes into Manhattan and started building gigantic buildings and being all like flashy about it, you now. And so he understood that he was looked down upon by those people. Same with Richard Nixon, Richard Nixon always knew that like the intelligentsia on the East coast hated him, thought he was disgusting. And I think if you grow up feeling excluded from certain kind of power centers, there’s always going to be a kind of resentment that you have toward it. And I suppose in some way that could lead to like a desperation to be integrated into it, but I think more often than not, and certainly in my case, it made me want to deconstructed and showed like the facade that they use to glorify themselves, but the dirt and filth that really lay underneath. And I think that kind of distance really helps with clarity of vision.

Tucker [00:58:53] I totally agree and traveling, you were saying last night that you think that traveling is one of the most expanding things you can do.

Glenn Greenwald [00:59:01] I had this, I did that interview with Alexander Dugan, I know you’ve interviewed him too. And I know we’re all supposed to hate him and he’s a fascist, whatever. But one of the reasons I really loved him is, he’s philosopher. When I say I loved him, I mean, I love talking to him. He’s a philosopher. And I was like, that was, I know, sometimes I studied philosophy in college. It was my obsession. I wanted to teach philosophy. I ended up being more practical and going to law school. But thinking about, You know, things in terms of their first principles and always needing a rationale or a logical train that gets you from the start of your question to the end of whatever answer you think you’ve embraced is very important to me. And just thinking about not being reflexive. So one of the things he said to me was he said, I’m always accused of being a racist or a white supremacist because I’m so devoted to preserving Russian culture. Are Western liberals because they believe that their way of being is so superior that every single other culture should give way to adapting itself to their way of life like the whole world should be homogenized in their vision because they’re inherently superior. Like they find a tribe, some ancient tribe and they want to immediately like mold it into like Washington neoliberals. And What he was saying was like, what makes the world valuable and interesting and ultimately like the way you advance and think about things is that you have all these different traditions, all these civilizations like Russian civilization and Chinese civilization and Muslim civilization and Western civilization and preserving those is what ensures that we have this diversity of thought and everything contributes something. And so you are constantly told and maybe it’s as universal. When you grow up in a society that your way of life is, we’re always told the United States is the greatest country ever to exist in the whole history of the world. What a great coincidence for me that I was born in the objectively greatest country to ever be on the planet, not just now, but all of human history. And there are some parts of the United State that I love and I think are very uniquely valuable for sure, but the more you get to know other types of ways of thinking. And you have this experience, like if some neighbor has a politics different than yours and you think they’re crazy and then you go and talk to them and you understand them better. Yes. And then that makes you be more open to ways of looking at things that, that to me is what, you know, like intellectual vibrancy is, is going to places that you don’t understand, hearing ideas that you were taught to believe are crazy or evil or wrong. And then, you know, when you talk to the human beings who believe them, you understand that they actually have as much conviction about it or as much rationale for it as you do for yours.

Tucker [01:01:51] I just think that’s a beautiful sentiment and thank you for saying it. So what you’re really arguing for is diversity.

Glenn Greenwald [01:01:57] Yeah, like diversity, like not the kind that, you know, we’ve been told is diversity where everyone thinks the same thing, but like they have surface level diversity.

Tucker [01:02:04] The Indian guy, the black guy, and the white lady all went to Princeton, and they’re diverse.

Glenn Greenwald [01:02:09] Yeah, I remember this initiative where we wanted to diversify our newsroom at The Intercept. And so we hired like a black Harvard student whose parents were partners at Golden Saks and then like a Latino person who went to Yale and their partners were at JPMorgan. And then like, you know, and that was like diversity, like everything but like working class diversity or experiential diversity, you know, the most like superficial kind, the most easily accommodated kind. Yeah.

Tucker [01:02:34] I do know very much. So what did you think? So you interviewed Dugan in Russia, in Moscow, what did she think of it? When was the last time you were there?

Glenn Greenwald [01:02:43] I had been several times because I visited Snowden and, you know, in Citizen Four, the last scene of Citizen Four the film that was made about the Snowden, our work with Snowden that won the Oscar that Laura Poit just directed was her and myself going to Russia to interview Snowden about like a next sort of story that the other part of the film had to be done.

Tucker [01:03:04] Imagine a Snowden film winning an Oscar now.

Glenn Greenwald [01:03:10] I mean, at the time, it was, uh, we were, we, when we started winning the, all the awards and we did the whole like award circuit and we started winning, we we’re very shocked. Um, and at the time, I remember after they announced. Citizen four is the owner of the Oscars. It was Neil Patrick Harris, who was the host of the Oscars, we had gone on stage and gotten the award and he then said, Edward Snowden wanted to be here, but he was unable to for some sort of treason. You know, like playing, doing a word play on reason, but like with the word treason and it’s like, you fucking idiots, like you’re Hollywood. You went through like the McCarthy era. You went though all these things that you claim.

Tucker [01:03:53] Oh, he was told to say that?

Glenn Greenwald [01:03:54] was, yeah, of course it was part of the script. But it was a very, you know, war is a brilliant filmmaker. And I think it won because of the quality of the film, like in the drama inherent in the story, not because, because the politics of it were that we were exposing spying programs developed under President Obama, largely, almost entirely. But as you’re so right, this was before Russiagate. This was before, you knew, where anything connected to Russia was considered like-

Tucker [01:04:18] Yeah, there’s no chance you wouldn’t even get it here. I don’t think it would even, yeah, they wouldn’t consider it at this point. So you’d been to Moscow before, but you were just there this winter, this spring? Just, yeah. A few months ago, two, three months ago. What’d you think?

Glenn Greenwald [01:04:32] Whoa, I mean, you know, we talked about this before, but like, I remember the first time I went to Russia, I was so shocked by the immense disparity between what I had been taught to think what Russia was like and what I was seeing in front of my own eyes. And you know you can go anywhere, and like, you people come to Brazil, to Rio de Janeiro, and they only go to the richest neighborhoods, and they’re like, oh, it’s, but you know there’s a whole undergirding of misery and suffering that you don’t see because you don’t go there. So I’m very cognizant of that, right? You can’t go to a country and spend like two days there and be shown the best parts and think like, oh, wow, nonetheless. It’s not only beautiful, it’s extremely well-run, it’s clean, but the thing that I felt like was most present was the richness of Russian history and culture and tradition. I mean, this is a civilization that has been around for thousands of years and that has produced the highest in like literature and music and dance and architecture and. And has been through wars of the most difficult kind. And you just feel the heaviness of all of that, like the greatness of it. And obviously I understand that there’s political repression there. I understand that there is a huge, all kinds of social problems. I’m not denying any of that. That’s true everywhere, right? Pretty much. But… You understand why Russians have this immense pride in their country and in their civilization. And…

Tucker [01:06:09] So it didn’t feel like a gas station with nuclear weapons, as McCain said. I mean, has there ever been an uglier thing that any politician, just a dumber, I mean McCain was dumb. I knew him very well, low IQ, wasp. He had to say that, but it’s true. Um, with good qualities, he had good qualities. But he was an idiot. But to say something like that, how loud is like, there’s just, I don’t Like If you’re an idiot, keep it to yourself. A gas station with nuclear weapons. I was just ugh.

Glenn Greenwald [01:06:40] Yeah, I mean, that’s what I mean. You’re taught in college even, the greatest literature is like Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, who are the greatest novelists ever. Which is true. I mean undoubtedly. Also, just the history, the role they played in World War II and the Bolshevik Revolution and the wars of the 17th and 18th centuries. Like Moscow itself and St. Petersburg even more so are so, you know, beautiful and striking. Overwhelming. Like in a way that like the best Western European cities are, you know, like the history of it, the grandness of it. And so, yeah, I mean, that you have to go see things for yourself and you start realizing how much your, how much, you that, this, like, when I started writing about politics, I’ll just tell you this quick story. I never intended to be a journalist. I didn’t go to school for journalism. That was not part of my my life plan in any way, it was just after 9-11, as I saw these radical changes to our civil liberties and the name of fighting terrorism, but also just the climate became so repressive in terms of what you could question, what you can say. That’s when I started feeling a need to wanna say things that I felt like weren’t being said. And when I starting doing that more or less full time, it gave me the luxury of going and looking at things so that I wasn’t being told by the New York Times what a document said. I was able to go spend the three hours to read the document. And when you go and do that, you have the luxury of that time, which most people don’t have. They’re taking care of their kids. They are working, et cetera. You can’t fight propaganda if you don’t, you know, have the resources to do it, especially time. I started realizing how many things I had believed. And I had like a, you know, high opinion of my intellect. I thought I was like a high-end political consumer. You know, I like lived in New York. I like went to good schools. In many ways that makes it worse, not better. I have learned that, yes. Yeah, and so, you just going back and I basically decided I had to dismantle almost everything because so much of it was just ingested through no critical faculty.

…

Tucker: This is a person who I confirmed is a real person, I didn’t believe it at first. Congressman Randy Fine. Of Florida and he said this the other day on Fox News last week quote in World War two We did not negotiate a surrender with the Nazis. We did. Not negotiate a surrendered with the Japanese We nuked the Japanese twice in order to get unconditional surrender that needs to be the same here in Gaza There are something deeply wrong with this culture and it needs to Be defeated So we’re gonna nuke Gaza because of its culture. We’re gonna kill everybody because we don’t like the culture which by the way Lots of Christians in Gaza, Muslims in Gaza. people in Gaza of all kinds of course but like to say there’s some like Gazan culture that’s cohesive it’s like what but we’re gonna kill them all because we don’t like their culture and so i didn’t believe that was real i didn’t really think he was a member of congress i texted a friend

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-06-10 11:20:422025-06-10 11:20:42Tucker and Glenn Greenwald: Epstein files, Israel, 9-11, JFK, Randy Fine

Cyan Quinn of the White Papers Policy Institute on Remigration

June 7, 2025/12 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

WIRED Magazine Points And Sputters At The Remigration Summit—As Remigration Goes Mainstream

Recently David Gilbert, WIRED Magazine’s “online extremism” correspondent reached out to me for comment as a speaker at the Remigration Summit in Milan.

Gilbert [@daithaigilbert on X] asked

I’m writing about the Remigration summit that took place last weekend in Italy and I am focusing specifically on the US and if the idea of remigration will become more popular here given its rise across the EU and in the UK recently.

I was wondering if, as a speaker at the conference, you had a sense if there is support for remigration to become policy during Trump’s second term (given he mentioned the term back in September) and what you think needs to happen for it to happen?

Finally, you mentioned that white people across the globe need to work together, so I was wondering if the summit provided an opportunity for you to connect with different European groups and how that could help drive the adoption of remigration in the US?

This was my reply (with some links added):

Dear David,

Thank you very much for reaching out.

Remigration is in fact already taking place in the US! The first flight of 64 self-deportees following President Trump’s stipend announcement have already arrived home safely in Honduras and Colombia.

Political leaders are beginning to recognize that the migrant crisis was a terrible mistake. In our most genuine efforts to uplift the poor, we ended up impoverishing our own countries by straining our welfare systems as I illustrated in my presentation (transcript and full slide deck here). This holds true across many Western economies. Therefore the collective response as we experienced at the Remigration Summit is very much overdue.

As I noted in my presentation, in Sweden for example, a 2017 study here revealed that immigrants will double the state cost of pensions even after taking into consideration taxes paid by these immigrants. And again in 2019, this study discovered that immigrants could not compensate for an aging population and startlingly drew more benefits than would otherwise be paid out. This is one of the reasons why, in Sweden, the first generous paid remigration proposal has been accepted into the next budget. We cover their full remigration plan here. This experiment is a first in its kind and other Western nations have the opportunity to learn from each other. We have two similar paid, voluntary remigration strategies for the US (read here) and the UK (read here).

Moreover, as I also noted in my presentation, many of these migrants would like to return home. A recent Word on the Curb survey found that 66% of young People of Color in the UK aged 18-64 would like to leave if they had the means to do so. Monmouth University found similar statistics in the United States with 45 – 51% of People of Color desiring a life elsewhere. We see this as a win-win for all nations which is why we also feature a Beyond the West series of pieces from writers in non-Western nations calling their diaspora home.

A greater loss, one that isn’t quantifiable, is our loss of culture and meaning as The West. We have a rich and vibrant history ourselves. Rome is the seat of Western Civilization and representative democracy. The American West symbolizes wild individualism and a spirit of adventure. One of the hallmarks of Western Civilization is our genteel treatment of women and Western marriages involve more equality and respect than any other culture in the world. But as my fellow American presenter Jacky Eubanks described, her hometown of Dearborn, Michigan now plays the Muslim call to prayer.

It’s worth noting that in the 1960s, Michigan possessed the 6th largest economy in the United States. Detroit, the “Paris of the West” demographically went from 90% White in the 1940s to 11% White in 2020 and looks like a bombed-out husk. The state of Michigan provides rental assistance to refugees and immigrants that offers them up to $500 a month. Meanwhile, Michigan is suffering a mounting housing crisis and no such program exists for Michiganders who hope to start a family unless they are severely below the poverty line—a line that keeps getting lower adjusted for inflation thanks to mass migration of labor, as I illustrated in my presentation. The only housing help for native Michiganders is “well, if you’d stop ordering avocado toast…”

We just published an evaluation of the demographics of Ohio where leaders gleefully describe new arrivals as young and more likely to start businesses and Vivek Ramaswamy, descendant of Indian immigrants and governor-hopeful, criticizes Americans as lazy. People wonder why the White fertility rate is so low as if it’s just one of the unknowable mysteries of the universe.

People of Western Nations everywhere have a choice: as a civilization, will we go quietly into that dark night as borderless welfare states? Or will we find our self-worth again as a people who made it to the stars?

Thank you for covering this historic event.

Warm regards,

Cyan Quinn

The column appeared here, and used exactly one line of my reply.

The Trump Administration Wants to Create an ‘Office of Remigration’

“Remigration”—a far-right European plan to expel minorities and immigrants from Western nations—may soon have a dedicated office following a Trump administration reorganization of the State Department. May 25, 2025

The first opinion quote in the article is from the CEO of the “Global Project Against Hate and Extremism,” a spinoff of the SPLC courtesy of Heidi Beirich. That was our first clue we were in for something balanced and insightful.

Regardless, I’m delighted the issue is getting international attention. And if you’re here thanks to the article coverage, welcome!

Remigration is humane, legal, necessary, and mainstream. Check out our voluntary remigration policy platforms here:

  • The American Repatriation Policy Platform
  • The British Remigration Policy Platform

Remigration recommendations for:

  • Sweden
  • Germany
  • Austria
  • Iceland
  • Netherlands

And Beyond the West:

  • Western Repatriation is Necessary for Africa’s Future
  • El Salvador Wants their Citizens Back
  • Diaspora Cards: Bringing Them Home

You can find more on our full website here organized by issue.

Finally, if you would like to support the project, please donate here. To find out more about our activities and how to get involved, get in touch with me directly at cyan@whitepaperspolicy.org.

 

White-Papers is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Zelle: whitepapersinstitute@protonmail.com

Buy us a coffee: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/wppi

Linktree: https://linktr.ee/wppi

Snail Mail: White Papers Policy, PO Box 192, Hancock, MD 21750

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-06-07 07:10:052025-06-07 07:10:05Cyan Quinn of the White Papers Policy Institute on Remigration

Darel E. Paul: Mass Immigration Lowers Fertility

June 6, 2025/5 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

Mass Immigration Lowers Fertility

…

The causal connection between mass immigration and falling native fertility is somewhat mysterious. A common hypothesis points toward a housing effect. Some housing price increases have negative fertility effects, and a number of studies from the United States show that immigrant inflows drive up housing prices in the short-run. Research on the 1980 Mariel Boatlift showed that a 7 percent increase in the Miami labor force in one year caused an 8-11 percent real increase in rents that in turn caused a three-year fertility slump as steep as 14 percent among the city’s renters. At the same time, Miami homeowners showed no fertility decline, and other research from the United States and Canada has shown that an increase in housing wealth among homeowners can actually increase fertility among this group. Czech real estate prices certainly rose in 2022, but no more steeply than in the period before the refugee influx, and they actually declined in 2023. Moreover Czechia has a homeownership level well above the EU average, which should temper rather than exacerbate fertility decline.

Another hypothesis emphasizes household income. An immigrant surge can drive down wages, especially at the lower end of the wage scale, making natives poorer and thus decreasing their fertility. Yet the unemployment rate for Czechs aged 25-54 (the mean age of Czech women at childbirth is now 30.4) is the lowest in the European Union and has even fallen slightly since 2021.

Materialist hypotheses are not the only ones we can entertain. Studies have shown significant fertility effects from all manner of ephemeral cultural and political events, whether elections or sporting matches or papal visits. Why wouldn’t a mass immigration event provoke a fertility reaction far greater than an electoral or sporting defeat?

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, support for the Czech right-populist party ANO has been on the rise, reaching an all-time high of 35 percent earlier this year. ANO’s popularity has begun to flag in recent months only due to the challenge from Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD), a party even farther out on the populist right. Both ANO and SPD hold restrictionist positions and win the support of right-wing populist voters motivated by feelings of cultural dispossession and powerlessness, a preference for homogeneity over heterogeneity, and fears over national decline. ANO leader and former Prime Minister Andrej Babiš explicitly has connected mass immigration, native fertility decline, and national despair, saying in 2021, “They know that mass, unchecked illegal migration is not the solution. Quite the contrary. The only truly sustainable solution against Europe’s extinction is to increase the birth rate of our own, indigenous population.”

The connection between cultural despair and fertility decline is not necessarily direct, however. Young Czechs of child-bearing age are not right-wing populist voters. Their parents and grandparents are. Those who despair over the demographic future of the nation turn out to be the ones least able to do anything about it. Their worries drive support for right-wing populism, which in turn provokes a left-wing backlash from the young that trends toward anti-natalism. This is especially true among young women, precisely the demographic that needs to buy into the populist fertility project for it to succeed.

In a period of low and declining fertility, many conclude that mass immigration is the only solution to population decline, societal aging, and welfare-state collapse. But simply on demographic grounds, mass immigration may be a cure worse than the disease. Rather than resign themselves to importing the next generation, policy-makers should ask why natives have lost so much faith in the future.

Darel E. Paul is a professor of political science at Williams College. darelmass

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-06-06 12:07:442025-06-06 12:07:44Darel E. Paul: Mass Immigration Lowers Fertility

‘ORIGINAL SIN’: IT’S WORSE THAN THE AUTHORS KNOW

June 5, 2025/in General/by Ann Coulter

‘ORIGINAL SIN’: IT’S WORSE THAN THE AUTHORS KNOW

The new Joe Biden book, “Original Sin,” detailing the Democrats’ conspiracy to deceive Americans about the carcass of a man sitting in the Oval Office, brought back warm memories. I really enjoyed that debate. So I’m ranking Alex Thompson and Jake Tapper’s book as a must-read for any Republican.

But the key takeaways from the book weren’t sufficiently highlighted by the authors.

The three main lessons from Original Sin are:

1. Democrats are monumental liars.

2. They’re still lying.

3. The Biden dead-enders, who fought like banshees to keep him as the candidate, would have been Machiavellian geniuses, not con artists — if only the media hadn’t decided to dump the dementia patient.

As the book convincingly demonstrates, the entire Democratic Party lied ceaselessly about Biden, basically since the 2020 South Carolina primary. They lied in White House press briefings, in Signal messages, on social media. They lied in videos. They lied to the public, to the fact-checkers and to themselves.

They’re still lying, but now they’re lying about how, at the time, they really wanted to tell the truth. Or about how, in some evanescent moment, they secretly told someone the truth — and, no, you can’t talk to that person.

Half of them are still lying about Biden’s mental capacity.

The scale and intensity of the lying is mind-boggling.

Merely mentioning Biden’s age — even by a New York Times reporter — would send White House staffers into a frenzy, unleashing a team of attack dogs on social media to “shame journalists and create a disincentive structure for those curious about the president’s condition,” as the book puts it. (My first surprise. I did not know it was possible to shame journalists.)

When one of the book’s authors — a reporter, i.e., a liberal — accurately wrote in Axios in early 2024 that Biden aides found it “difficult to schedule public or private events with the president in the morning, in the evening or on weekends,” the White House quickly denounced him as a “peddler of fake news.”

Every Hollywood trick in the book was deployed by the Biden campaign simply to produce a decent short video. First, they cut the videos from five minutes to two. They used two cameras to make the jump-cuts less obvious, so that they could cut and paste any short bursts of coherence from the president to create the semblance of an actual sentence. They slowed videos of him walking to make his tortoiselike gait less obvious.

It didn’t work. In September 2023, the White House sent a pre-recorded message from Biden to a naturalization ceremony in Gloucester, Massachusetts. But the video was from 2021. (It might have been from 1821 on close inspection.)

They brought in Hollywood heavyweights, Jeffrey Katzenberg and Steven Spielberg, to coach Biden and work on his lighting and microphone before any public appearances.

They lied about “cheap fakes” whenever any actual video of the president slipped into public view.

Now that it’s over, Democrats are lying up a storm about how they almost told the truth.

Here are a couple:

“[After the debate, one] donor arrived determined to go up to Biden and plead with him to drop out but was talked out of it at the last second.”

“[Chief of Staff] Jeff Zients kept it to himself, but after the debate, he thought that the president should drop out.”

I’m in awe of their balls-to-the-walls bravery.

Others keep insisting that Biden’s mind was FINE — it was just a problem of his “communication skills.” Not to be dense, but if he couldn’t “communicate,” how do we know what he was thinking? Telepathy?

But the book’s authors were wildly impressed with the “communication” argument, citing it dozens of times.

Here are a few:

— “Biden on a day-in, day-out basis could certainly make decisions … [complicated by] his ability to communicate.”

— “House Democrats would see in the president’s flawed presentation evidence of perhaps some communicative, if not cognitive, slippage.”

— [After a major international gaffe], “’He just struggles to communicate nuance,’ one senior White House official told us. ‘First, he’s not a great communicator …’”

— “’The president’s decisions were always solid and deeply considered,’ [said a former senior administration official]. ‘But the second part of that — communicating those decisions — that was never easy for him throughout his presidency.”

— “[Some staffers] believed that the president’s decision-making was solid but also acknowledged that, yes, his communications were a problem.”

— Chris Hayes weighed in: “I think Joe Biden has a very good record on making decisions. And I think he is a very poor communicator right now.”

— “As for … Biden’s ability to communicate his sound decisions, those closest to [him] … saw these abilities, or lack thereof, as separate from his core capacity.”

— “He had … a stark inability to communicate … Yet those same critics continued to the end to attest to his ability to make sound decisions.”

How do I “communicate” this? It’s completely insane. Did they bring a crystal ball to Cabinet meetings? You know who else makes great decisions but is totally unable to articulate them? A statue of Abraham Lincoln.

The authors themselves pitch the “communication” argument, saying: “Biden was weak throughout [the debate]. Not necessarily on the substance but on his ability to communicate.”

Again, if he couldn’t communicate, how do they know he was good on “substance”?

For example, what precisely did Biden mean when he responded to Donald Trump’s claim that Democrats support abortion in the ninth month of pregnancy by saying, inter alia:

“[And] this is the guy who says the states should be able to have it. We’re in a state where in six weeks you don’t even know whether you’re pregnant or not, but you cannot see a doctor, have your — and have him decide on what your circumstances are, whether you need help.”

You can’t see a doctor? What?

“Look, there’s so many young women who have been — including a young woman who just was murdered and he went to the funeral. The idea that she was murdered by — by — by an immigrant coming in and (inaudible) talk about that. …”

Was he proposing to abort illegals? That’s a little aggressive, even for me, but OK.

Most weirdly, the authors themselves brush off Biden’s Hiroshima of a debate by claiming that some critics will “sniff at the superficialities of such matters.” Really? Name one.

When the entire Times editorial board calls for the Democratic presidential nominee to withdraw before the cameras are turned off, I’m pretty sure the problem with his debate performance wasn’t merely cosmetic.

Finally, while Biden’s inner circle, or “the Politburo,” come across as power-mad nitwits in the book, they would have been studs if the Times editorial board had thought Biden still had a chance. But according to the book, post-debate polls gave Biden between a 1% and 5% shot at winning. (Must’ve been his makeup, you superficial dolts.)

In a truth-from-the-mouths-of-babies moment, earlier in 2024, CNN’s MJ Lee had asked Biden about polls showing Americans were worried about his age.

Biden: “That is your judgment.”

Lee: “This is according to public polling.”

Biden: “That is not the judgment of the press.”

For a Democrat, that’s all that matters. Contrary to popular belief, the media is not the handmaiden of the Democratic Party; the Democratic Party is the handmaiden of the media. They are the ones calling the shots, but the media can’t run the country unless Democrats are in power. So their No. 1 objective is to ensure that Democrats win elections.

Had Times editors believed Biden could win, then instead of that paper finally admitting, after four years of lying about it, that Trump never instructed people to inject bleach, they would have been calling the entire debate a “cheap fake.”

COPYRIGHT 2025 ANN COULTER

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Ann Coulter https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Ann Coulter2025-06-05 17:23:202025-06-05 17:23:55‘ORIGINAL SIN’: IT’S WORSE THAN THE AUTHORS KNOW

Chad Crowley’s Substack:

June 5, 2025/4 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

Chad Crowley at Substack (“Undoing the Myth of the “Good War”) summarizes several important books on World War II: AJP Taylor: Origins of the Second World War; Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof: 1939: The War That Had Many Fathers; David Irving’s Churchill’s War, vol.1: The Struggle for Power; Patrick Buchanan: Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World; and David Lough, No More Champagne: Churchill and His Money. Here I post his section on Irving’s book, but the entire article is well worth reading.

While most wartime histories paint Winston Churchill as the defiant savior of Western civilization, David Irving’s Churchill’s War (Vol. 1: The Struggle for Power) strips the myth to its roots and reconstructs the man from his own words, actions, and financial records. Drawing from private diaries, unpublished documents, and declassified archives across Europe and North America, Irving reframed Churchill not as the reluctant wartime leader thrust into history’s path, but as a calculating political outcast desperate to return to power, one who understood that war, above all, could restore his relevance.

Irving documented in detail how Churchill, largely excluded from political office after the First World War, was increasingly marginalized during the 1930s and reliant on private financial backing to sustain his lavish lifestyle. He was a man of letters, not a statesman, and depended heavily on income from newspaper columns, book royalties, and speaking tours—many of them sponsored directly or indirectly by interest groups eager to promote rearmament and confrontation with Germany. Irving’s research, drawn from Churchill’s unpublished financial papers and confidential correspondence, revealed a pattern of secretive and often foreign funding. Chief among these was Sir Henry Strakosch, a Jewish South African mining magnate who paid off substantial Churchill debts in 1938. This patronage helped keep Churchill solvent, and it aligned with his increasing hostility toward Germany, a hostility that suited the interests of his benefactors.

This financial dependency shaped his politics. Churchill, who once supported détente and praised Mussolini, pivoted sharply to championing intervention. Irving showed that Churchill used every diplomatic crisis—Abyssinia, Spain, Austria—as a theatrical stage to revive his public role. He fostered ties with Fleet Street editors, leaked documents to generate panic about German intentions, and used Parliament to position himself as Chamberlain’s most vocal rival. By 1938, Churchill had already opened unofficial channels of communication with Roosevelt’s inner circle, including ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy’s rivals, and urged the United States to resist neutrality in Europe. He was not merely awaiting a war; he was helping to engineer it.

Irving’s title refers not to the clash of nations, but to Churchill’s personal war for control of British policy. His rise was not the natural result of public demand, but the fruit of tireless private maneuvering. When Chamberlain resigned in 1940, it was Churchill, not Lord Halifax, who took power, largely because of his cultivated image as the voice of resistance and his backroom dealings with Labour and elements of British intelligence. Once in office, Churchill rejected every German peace offer, including the multiple proposals delivered through neutral channels in 1940 and 1941. These included full German withdrawal from Western Europe, restoration of Polish sovereignty (minus Danzig and the Corridor), and guarantees of British imperial holdings. Churchill refused to consider them. He insisted on total victory and unconditional surrender, even though Britain had no means to achieve such ends without American intervention.

The book also addresses Churchill’s psychological profile. Irving included testimonies from ministers, secretaries, and physicians, painting a picture of a man whose judgment was increasingly erratic. Churchill began each day with brandy, continued with whisky, and ended with champagne. His drinking was not social; it was habitual and heavy, bearing the marks of clinical alcoholism. Cabinet colleagues routinely commented on his inability to focus, his mood swings, and his detachment from material consequences. At the same time, he indulged in apocalyptic rhetoric and romanticized war as a stage for personal greatness. His belief in history vindicating him was not ironic, it was literal.

Irving also covered Churchill’s early approval of terror bombing. As early as 1940, long before the Blitz, he advocated for striking German civilian centers to break morale. He instructed RAF planners to maximize destruction and was briefed daily on the tonnage dropped and lives lost. This strategic shift, explicitly targeting civilian populations, represented a break from traditional rules of war and was, in Irving’s view, a moral decision for which Churchill bore full responsibility.

Churchill’s War was the product of a decade of archival research, including access to documents previously unpublished or unavailable to earlier biographers. It did not apologize for Hitler or endorse Germany’s policies. Rather, it asked whether the war was truly inevitable, or whether it had been maneuvered into existence by a man for whom war offered personal salvation.

Although Churchill’s War was not as immediately incendiary as Irving’s earlier Hitler’s War, it played a significant role in accelerating his marginalization within academic and media circles. While some reviewers acknowledged the book’s archival depth and provocative arguments, its central thesis—depicting Churchill not as a noble savior of the West but as a self-interested opportunist—fueled existing efforts to discredit him. A campaign was already underway to ruin Irving professionally, financially, and reputationally, and this work added further ammunition. As his research increasingly challenged the sanctified narrative of the war, especially regarding British motives and Allied conduct, the pressure to silence him intensified.

The most surreal phase of this campaign unfolded during Irving’s high-profile libel lawsuit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books in the early 2000s. Irving sued over Lipstadt’s characterization of him as a Holocaust denier and falsifier of history, but the trial became a show trial of his life’s work. A large legal team was granted full access to his personal archives. Tens of thousands of pages of handwritten diaries, private notes, and correspondence were subpoenaed and examined line by line, down to trivial marginalia and offhand remarks, in a sweeping effort to discredit him. Despite this unprecedented level of scrutiny, only a small number of factual errors were identified—fewer, in fact, than in many widely accepted academic texts. Nonetheless, Irving lost the case, was bankrupted, and a few years later was arrested and imprisoned in Austria for a speech delivered nearly two decades earlier.

As an aside, it is worth stating plainly: no other historian, perhaps in the entire history of civilization, has faced such sustained and coordinated censorship, financial ruin, legal persecution, professional ostracism, and exhaustive historical scrutiny as David Irving. At the height of his career, he published with major presses, was invited to lecture across the globe, and was widely praised for his unparalleled archival skill. His early books, such as The Destruction of Dresden and Hitler’s War, were once cited in mainstream academic and journalistic publications. But as his research began to challenge the sacred pillars of wartime memory—particularly Allied conduct, motives, and propaganda—he was systematically erased from polite intellectual life.

Whatever one thinks of his conclusions, the institutional force brought to bear against Irving speaks volumes about the fragility of official memory. Churchill’s War remains one of the most detailed and exhaustively documented accounts of Britain’s entry into the Second World War. Its arguments may be contested, but its sources remain, silent yet immovable.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-06-05 07:45:042025-06-05 07:45:04Chad Crowley’s Substack:

NYT Oped by Sheila Katz: Jews Are Afraid Right Now. 

June 5, 2025/4 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

NYT Oped: Jews Are Afraid Right Now.

It’s a reasonable assumption that Jews who attended the pro-hostage march in Boulder are supporters of the genocide. And no acknowledgement that the Israel Lobby in the U.S. retains huge power and is entirely supported by the mainstream Jewish community. Kaatz acts as if the few Jews who protest the war are the mainstream. False.

In one city, two are dead. In another, 12 were wounded. Two horrific attacks against the Jewish community in less than two weeks.

For over 600 days, since the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, the conditions in the United States for deadly antisemitic acts have grown. At rallies and on campuses, in coalition rooms and online spaces, slogans sometimes directly drawn from Hamas’s terrorist manifesto have been chanted and painted on placards, and shouted from stages and in the streets. “Globalize the intifada.” “By any means necessary.” “From the river to the sea.” “Zionists out.” These are not simply words; they can be interpreted as calls for violence.

The call was heeded on May 21 by a shooter who took the lives of Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lischinsky outside a Jewish event in Washington. The call was heeded on Sunday, on the eve of the Jewish holiday of Shavuot, by someone firebombing a peaceful Jewish march in Boulder, Colo., calling for the release of hostages held by Hamas. Several older protesters, including at least one Holocaust survivor, were left critically injured. The victims were targeted because they were at Jewish events.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-06-05 07:24:592025-06-05 07:24:59NYT Oped by Sheila Katz: Jews Are Afraid Right Now. 

Ross Douthat in the NYTimes: Is Civil War Coming to Europe?

June 4, 2025/7 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

Is Civil War Coming to Europe?

…

When I’ve written skeptically about scenarios for an American civil war, I’ve tended to stress several realities: the absence of a clear geographical division between our contending factions; the diminishment, not exacerbation, of racial and ethnic polarization in the Trump era; the fact that we’re rich and aging and comfortable, not poor and young and desperate, giving even groups that hate each other a stake in the system and elites strong reasons to sustain it; the absence of enthusiasm for organized communal violence, as opposed to lone-wolf forays.

Does the European landscape look different? On some fronts, maybe. Tensions between natives and new arrivals are common on both sides of the Atlantic, but ethnic and religious differences arguably loom larger in Europe than they do in the United States: There is more intense cultural separatism in immigrant communities in suburban Paris or Marseilles than in Los Angeles or Chicago, more simmering discontent that easily turns to riots.

At the same time, British and French elites have been more successful than American elites at keeping populist forces out of power, but their tools — not just the exclusion of populists from government but also an increasingly authoritarian throttling of free speech — have markedly diminished their own legitimacy among discontented natives. This means that neither underassimilated immigrants nor working-class white residents feel especially invested in the system, making multiple forms of political violence more plausible: pitting immigrant or native rebels against the government or pitting immigrants against natives with the government trying to suppress the conflict or, finally, pitting different immigrant groups against one another. (English cities have already played host to bursts of Muslim-Hindu violence.)

Then, too, Western Europe’s economies have grown more sluggishly than America’s for the past decade, reducing ordinary people’s stake in the current order and encouraging alienation and resistance. Finally there are arguably geographic concentrations of discontent — in the north of England or in immigrant-dominated cities that Betz warns could become ungovernable — that don’t exist in quite the same way in the United States.

All of this adds up, I would say, to a useful corrective to the progressive tendency to regard America in the Trump era as a great outlier, uniquely divided and deranged and threatened by factional strife, while liberal politics continues more or less as usual among our respectable and stable European allies. Not so: There are clearly ways in which Europe’s problems and divides are deeper than ours, with economic and demographic trends that portend darker possibilities, and the establishment attempt to keep populist forces at bay may end up remembered as accelerating liberal Europe’s downfall.

Yet many of the reasons to doubt the imminence of civil war in America still apply to Western Europe. The continent is more stagnant than the United States but still rich and comfortable and aged, there’s enthusiasm for rioting but rather less for organized violence, and for all the palpable disillusionment it is hard to glimpse any elite faction yet emerging — right or left, nativist or Islamo-Gauchiste — that would see violent revolution as an obvious means to its ambitions.

Meanwhile, there are distinctive European conditions that make civil war less likely there than in the United States: Smaller nations with more centralized political systems generally find it easier to police dissent, and there’s no Second Amendment or American-style gun culture to challenge the European state’s monopoly on force.

 

Ultimately I agree with the British writer Aris Roussinos, a pessimist but not a catastrophist, when he writes that the most likely near-future scenarios involve increasing “outbursts of violent disorder” but not the kind of collapse of central government authority, complete with ethnic cleansing and refugee flows, that the language of “civil war” implies.

And that imprecision matters: As I suggested before, if you use a civil-war framing to describe a world where rioting is more commonplace and assassination attempts and random forms of terrorism make a comeback, you’re describing realities that big, diverse societies often have to live with, using terms that misleadingly or hysterically evoke Antietam or Guernica.

I don’t think America in the 1960s and 1970s experienced a civil war, even though those were certainly chaotic decades. I don’t think modern France, with its long tradition of student protests and urban riots, has existed in a perpetual state of civil war. And as we face a future that’s clearly more destabilized than the post-Cold War era, it still behooves us to be realistic about the most plausible scenarios: We are still far more likely to be navigating a more chaotic landscape together as fellow citizens than shooting at one another across a sectional divide.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Kevin MacDonald https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Kevin MacDonald2025-06-04 10:52:502025-06-04 10:52:50Ross Douthat in the NYTimes: Is Civil War Coming to Europe?
Page 31 of 184«‹2930313233›»
Subscribeto RSS Feed

Kevin MacDonald on Mark Collett’s show reviewing Culture of Critique

James Edwards at the Counter-Currents Conference, Atlanta, 2022

Watch TOO Video Picks

video archives

DONATE

DONATE TO TOO

Follow us on Facebook

Keep Up To Date By Email

Subscribe to get our latest posts in your inbox twice a week.

Name

Email


Topics

Authors

Monthly Archives

RECENT TRANSLATIONS

All | Czech | Finnish | French | German | Greek | Italian | Polish | Portuguese | Russian | Spanish | Swedish

Blogroll

  • A2Z Publications
  • American Freedom Party
  • American Mercury
  • American Renaissance
  • Arktos Publishing
  • Candour Magazine
  • Center for Immigration Studies
  • Chronicles
  • Council of European Canadians
  • Counter-Currents
  • Curiales—Dutch nationalist-conservative website
  • Denmark's Freedom Council
  • Diversity Chronicle
  • Folktrove: Digital Library of the Third Way
  • Human Biodiversity Bibliography
  • Instauration Online
  • Institute for Historical Review
  • Mondoweiss
  • National Justice Party
  • Occidental Dissent
  • Pat Buchanan
  • Paul Craig Roberts
  • PRIVACY POLICY
  • Project Nova Europea
  • Radix Journal
  • RAMZPAUL
  • Red Ice
  • Richard Lynn
  • Rivers of Blood
  • Sobran's
  • The European Union Times
  • The Occidental Quarterly Online
  • The Political Cesspool
  • The Right Stuff
  • The Unz Review
  • Third Position Directory
  • VDare
  • Washington Summit Publishers
  • William McKinley Institute
  • XYZ: Australian Nationalist Site
NEW: Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Culture of Critique

Also available at Barnes & Noble

Separation and Its Discontents
A People That Shall Dwell Alone
© 2025 The Occidental Observer - powered by Enfold WordPress Theme
  • X
  • Dribbble
Scroll to top

By continuing to browse the site, you are legally agreeing to our use of cookies and general site statistics plugins.

CloseLearn more

Cookie and Privacy Settings



How we use cookies

We may request cookies to be set on your device. We use cookies to let us know when you visit our websites, how you interact with us, to enrich your user experience, and to customize your relationship with our website.

Click on the different category headings to find out more. You can also change some of your preferences. Note that blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience on our websites and the services we are able to offer.

Essential Website Cookies

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our website and to use some of its features.

Because these cookies are strictly necessary to deliver the website, refusing them will have impact how our site functions. You always can block or delete cookies by changing your browser settings and force blocking all cookies on this website. But this will always prompt you to accept/refuse cookies when revisiting our site.

We fully respect if you want to refuse cookies but to avoid asking you again and again kindly allow us to store a cookie for that. You are free to opt out any time or opt in for other cookies to get a better experience. If you refuse cookies we will remove all set cookies in our domain.

We provide you with a list of stored cookies on your computer in our domain so you can check what we stored. Due to security reasons we are not able to show or modify cookies from other domains. You can check these in your browser security settings.

Other external services

We also use different external services like Google Webfonts, Google Maps, and external Video providers. Since these providers may collect personal data like your IP address we allow you to block them here. Please be aware that this might heavily reduce the functionality and appearance of our site. Changes will take effect once you reload the page.

Google Webfont Settings:

Google Map Settings:

Google reCaptcha Settings:

Vimeo and Youtube video embeds:

Privacy Policy

You can read about our cookies and privacy settings in detail on our Privacy Policy Page.

Privacy Policy
Accept settingsHide notification only