• 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

The Phones Are Trying To Kill Us!

September 25, 2025/6 Comments/in General/by Ann Coulter

The Phones Are Trying To Kill Us!

Older generations are always alarmed by whatever new thing young people are doing. It probably goes back to the Stone Age, when cavemen hectored their cave children to stop making dolls out of clay and the kids said, “OK, boomer.”

Here are just a few of the popular pastimes that have caused great consternation in adults:

— Television (denounced for its “addictive nature” and seized on “to explain all the youth troubles” — even blamed for neighbors’ indifference to Kitty Genovese’s murder);

— Arcade video games (alleged to cause “long-term psychological damage” and “increased hostility and violence among those who play them”);

— Pinball machines (”the closeness of the machines to each other inside the busy arcades had sometimes led to fights among teenagers who bumped into one another”);

— Rock lyrics (”A child psychiatrist testified that the notorious ‘Son of Sam’ serial killer David Berkowitz was known to listen to Black Sabbath, once fronted by the most frightening-to-parents avatar of ‘80s metal, Ozzy Osbourne”);

— Violence on TV (”Since Jan Cummings banned her 5-year-old son, Joseph, from watching ‘Mighty Morphin Power Rangers,’ he no longer lunges around their Baltimore home karate-chopping and fan-kicking into thin air. ‘I see a major difference in his behavior. He’s much less aggressive,’ she says.”)

Then television became just another form of entertainment. It turned out that the “bystander apathy” to Genovese’s murder was an urban myth. Neighbors did call the police and go to her aid.

A study of arcade games by an MIT professor found “no evidence that playing the games makes children behave more violently.”

Those degenerate pinball addicts seem to have turned out OK, too: In 2021, a pinball machine auction raised more than $3 million in three days, with some machines going for $10,000 or more.

Tipper Gore became a punchline for her war against rock lyrics, while Osbourne gained the ultimate bourgeois respectability by starring in his own MTV reality show and appearing in a TV commercial for “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter.”

As for violence on TV, psychologist Jonathan L. Freedman pointed out, “Children in Japan watch probably the most violent, the most lurid and graphic television in the world, and the rate of violent crime there is minuscule compared to Canada and the United States.”

Maybe adults should relax.

Alas, they can’t. Today, the looming threat is “social media.” Not liberals calling every white person not wearing a pussy hat a “white supremacist.” Not teachers and psychologists tricking kids into poisoning and mutilating themselves in a fruitless quest to change their sex. Not Democratic DAs, judges and mayors refusing to lock up criminals.

Everything bad is social media’s fault!

Schools are proudly taking students’ phones away (where they might learn that they can’t change their sex). Biden’s finger-to-the-wind surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murthy, issued a call last year for “warning labels” on social media — after spending three years berating those same companies for allowing “misinformation” on their platforms, such as the wacky idea that children as young as 5 didn’t actually need the COVID-19 vaccine.

And last week’s man of the moment, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox, blamed social media for the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Yes, apparently, what really incited Kirk’s confessed assassin, Tyler Robinson, was not his left-wing politics, his confused sexuality or his romantic relationship with a male “transitioning” to female, but, said Cox, “those social media, those dark places of the internet where conflict entrepreneurs reside who are preying upon us.”

Based on his deep cogitations, Cox said, “I believe that social media has played a direct role in every single assassination and assassination attempt that we have seen over the last five, six years.”

That’s like saying air has “played a direct role” in every assassination and assassination attempt. Except the air theory can’t be proved false in 16 seconds.

There haven’t been a lot of assassination attempts to investigate, but of the three most recent ones (that weren’t caused by pure lunacy), two were older fellas, 66 and 58, with little to no social media activity. (James Hodgkinson, the leftist who shot up a Republican baseball practice in 2017, hitting Rep. Steve Scalise, and Ryan Wesley Routh, who attempted to assassinate Donald Trump at his Florida golf course last year.)

In fact, quite the opposite. Those two were perfect creations of the legacy media, babbling about “tax cuts for the rich,” universal health care and Ukraine. (I mean, you NEVER hear about any of that outside the dark corners of the internet.) Hodgkinson, for example, wasn’t lurking in the dark corners of the Internet; he was watching “Real Time With Bill Maher” and “The Rachel Maddow Show,” his favorite TV programs.

The youngest attempted assassin, Thomas Matthew Crooks, appears to have had no friends on or off social media.

But Cox had a zippy line, so he had to use it. He told people to “go out and touch grass” — a phrase as original as “tax cuts for the rich.” (Maybe if Cox spent more time online, he’d come up with something interesting to say.)

Despite that well-known murder-repellent of touching grass, Trump’s attempted assassin, Routh, spent 12 hours in a homemade deer blind on the periphery of Trump’s golf course, waiting to take his shot. And yet all that closeness with Lyme-carrying ticks, fire ants and venomous spiders did nothing to lessen his homicidal intent.

Incidentally, social media has also played a “direct role” — in reality, not in a Utah governor’s imagination — in half of all marriages over the last six years, 51% of all home purchases, the significant decline in drunk driving, the creation of innumerable new businesses and fewer bar fights over factual disputes that can be looked up in 10 seconds on Grok. Such as:

What’s the meaning of “OK, boomer”?

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 Coulter2025-09-25 13:32:122025-09-25 13:32:12The Phones Are Trying To Kill Us!

Scott Ritter on Trump’s pivot on Ukraine: The Death of a Nation

September 24, 2025/6 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

The Death of a Nation

President Trump announced that he supports Ukraine’s goals of returning to their 1991 borders with Russia. He believes he is helping Ukraine. All he has done is insure the destruction of a nation.

Trump addresses the UN on September 23, 2025

With one stunning social media post, President Donald Trump ended all pretense at being a broker of peace between Russia and Ukraine. During his campaign in the 2024 Presidential election, Trump repeatedly emphasized that his goal was to bring the conflict to an end “within 24 hours” of being sworn in. While this timeframe proved elusive, Trump remained committed to achieving a lasting peace, even if he was unable to articulate a strategy on how exactly this would be accomplished.

Trump has, from the very onset of his presidency, been ill advised by a coterie of foreign and national security officials who, with very few exceptions, are dyed in the wool Russophobes. From his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to his National Security Advisor (initially Mike Waltz and, after his firing in May, Marco Rubio, wearing to hats ala Henry Kissinger), to his Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, to his CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, and on to his Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessant, Trump has surrounded himself with people who have spent their adult lives loathing Russia and its leadership.

To the extent that Trump has access to advisors who might advocate good relations with Russia, he either dismisses their advice (as is the case with Tulsi Gabbard, his Director of National Intelligence), or nullifies their advice by having a Russophobic counter (as is the case with his Russia Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, whose insights are offset by the anti-Russian positions held by Keith Kellogg.)

Trump’s base instincts, which incline towards not only ending the conflict in Ukraine but also normalizing relations with Russia, are subjected to considerable pushback from his inner circle, with little or no pushback coming from any other source. Making matters worse is the fact that America’s European allies are almost unanimously supportive of policies designed to keep Ukraine in a fight designed to strategically defeat Russia. As a result, what passes for Russia policy in the Trump administration suffers from severe vaccination as Trump is subjected to pressure from all sides to turn his back on Russia and its leader, President Vladimir Putin.

In August, it looked like the President’s instincts had won out, with Trump meeting with Putin in Alaska. This meeting resulted in Trump largely embracing Russia’s positions of conflict termination which would require Ukraine to agree to territorial concessions as well as limitations on its military size and political sovereignty.

Barely a month later, President Trump appears to have done a complete 180 degree turn regarding the issue of territorial concessions. “After getting to know and fully understand the Ukraine/Russia Military and Economic situation,” Trump posted on his Truth Social account, “and, after seeing the Economic trouble it is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form. With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is very much an option.”

Trump then changed direction regarding his prognosis of how the conflict was progressing. Back in May, Trump acknowledged that Russian President Putin was not looking for an off-ramp from the conflict in Ukraine because Russia believed it was winning the war. This perception was held through the Alaska Summit. But Ukrainian claims of a successful counterattack north of Pokrovsk, and continued Ukrainian drone strikes against Russian energy targets, helped sway Trump into changing his analysis. “Russia,” Trump noted, “has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a War that should have taken a Real Military Power less than a week to win. This is not distinguishing Russia. In fact, it is very much making them look like ‘a paper tiger.’”

Trump then went on to further characterize his perception of a weakened Russia now vulnerable to an emboldened Ukraine. “When the people living in Moscow, and all of the Great Cities, Towns, and Districts all throughout Russia, find out what is really going on with this War,” Trump wrote, “the fact that it’s almost impossible for them to get Gasoline through the long lines that are being formed, and all of the other things that are taking place in their War Economy, where most of their money is being spent on fighting Ukraine, which has Great Spirit, and only getting better, Ukraine would be able to take back their Country in its original form and, who knows, maybe even go further than that!”

Ignore for the moment that Trump literally greenlighted actions which, if implemented, would most certainly result in a nuclear war. The fact is someone has convinced Trump that Russia is vulnerable militarily and economically. “Putin and Russia are in BIG Economic trouble,” Trump declared, “and this is the time for Ukraine to act.”

Trump closed by “wishing both countries well” and stating that the US “will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO to do what they want with them.”

This post by Trump puts to rest any notion that he remains committed to solving the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. No one should have been surprised by this move—Trump has been stating that he would walk away from the conflict if he were unable to get both parties interested in concluding a peace deal. Neither were, and this is the result.

On the surface Trump’s posting comes off as anti-Russian and pro-Ukrainian. But the public posturing hides the simple truth that Trump is largely abandoning Ukraine to its inevitable destiny with fate. While Trump has embraced Zelensky’s narrative regarding Ukraine’s battlefield prowess and Russia’s economic weakness, he has taken no meaningful action to further either to Ukraine’s advantage.

Trump will not be altering his administration’s policies regarding arms sales to Ukraine, continuing instead to follow a formula which has Europe purchasing weapons from the United States and then transferring them to Ukraine. There is no change in the prioritization of manufacture, which is skewed in favor of replenishing depleted US stockpiles. The result is that the weapons Ukraine claims it so desperately needs will not begin flowing into Ukraine in any meaningful quantities until 2027.

Trump likewise has linked any decisive US move regarding the sanctioning of Russia to similar moves on the part of Europe, including the cessation of all purchases of Russian oil and gas and the imposition of sanctions on India and China as punishment for their continued purchasing of Russian energy. The problem is Europe is unable to meet these prerequisites, meaning that the US policy when it comes to the sanctioning of Russia will remain largely unchanged.

The reality is that Trump’s highly charged rhetoric aside, there is no fundamental change in the US approach toward Russia and the Ukraine conflict. And just because Trump claims Ukrainian military superiority over Russia, and Russian economic weakness, does not make either so.

Russia continues to maintain a strategic advantage over Ukraine across every metric used to measure success in conflict—militarily, economically, and politically.

Worse, Trump’s words make achieving a negotiated settlement all but impossible. As a result, Europe will continue to provide financial and military support to Ukraine, prolonging a conflict which has been lost for some time now.

But this prolongation will be to the detriment of Ukraine. Russia has mastered the algorithm of attritional warfare, and Ukraine will continue to lose manpower and equipment at a rate that far exceeds its ability to replace either. Russia will likewise continue to destroy critical industrial and energy infrastructure, making Ukraine even more dependent upon European largesse for its continued survival. The combination of military and economic stresses will in turn place strain on the continued political viability of the Zelensky government. Eventually the combined stress of these three collapsing pillars will lead to the disintegration of Ukraine as a governable territory.

In short, Ukraine will no longer exist as a sovereign country.

The price of this defeat will be unbearable for Ukraine. One can easily anticipate death tolls among Ukrainian soldiers that double the 1.7 million dead and missing Ukrainian soldiers who have fallen to date. Ukraine will lose additional territories as well, including Odessa, Mikolayev, Kharkov, and perhaps Dnepropetrovsk and Sumy as well. One can anticipate, too, the further loss of territories as Poland, Hungary, and Romania carve up what remains, leaving only a small rump state centered on Kiev that would be known as Ukraine. The concept of independence and sovereignty has likewise been mooted—whatever remains of Ukraine will forever be under the control of Russia. Dreams of European Union membership will be replaced by Ukraine’s status as the junior partner of an expanded Union State.

This is what Donald Trump has accomplished through his social media posting and subsequent media appearances. He thinks he is posturing as a strong man. But the reality is far different: Donald Trump, by lifting the hopes of Ukraine while simultaneously dashing them, has exposed himself as being intellectually limited and morally diminished. Only too late will Ukraine and its European allies realize they have been duped. By then, the duplicity of Donald Trump will be evident to all—except of course the millions of Ukrainians who will perish as a result.

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 MacDonald2025-09-24 06:34:062025-09-24 06:34:06Scott Ritter on Trump’s pivot on Ukraine: The Death of a Nation

Implicit Whiteness and “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories” at the Charlie Kirk memorial

September 24, 2025/13 Comments/in Featured Articles, General/by Kevin MacDonald

I listened to much of the memorial service for Kirk. It definitely had the feeling of a Christian religious revival. Every speaker commented on Kirk’s intense Christian religious beliefs and there were calls for people to get more involved with Christianity. The memorial began with Christian music and it was striking to see people swaying and lifting their arms up to heaven as if they were in church. Marco Rubio talked about the Resurrection and the Ascension. Sebastian Gor, who has a Jewish mother, talked about Western Civilization as the source of all science and innovation—and obviously something to be proud of. Stephen Miller,  also Jewish, did the same, echoing Prof. Ricardo Duchesne’s Greatness and Ruin. He did so without getting into the Judeo-Christian garbage, a phrase that is clearly the result of Jewish academic and media activism. His speech recieved quite a bit of attention (video here):

Our enemies cannot comprehend our strength, our determination, our resolve, our passion, our lineage and our legacy hails back to Athens to Rome to Philadelphia to Monticello. Our ancestors built the cities, they produced the art and architecture, they built the industry. …

What do you [the left] have? You have nothing. You are nothing. You are wickedness. You are jealousy, you are envy, you are hatred. You are nothing. You can build nothing. You can produce nothing. You can create nothing. We are the ones who build. We are the ones who create. We are the ones who lift up humanity. …

You have no idea the dragon you have awakened. You have no idea how determined we will be to save this civilization, to save the West, to save this republic, because our children are strong and our grandchildren will be strong, and our children’s children’s children will be strong. …

And what will you leave behind? Nothing. Nothing to our enemies. You have nothing to give. You have nothing to offer. You have nothing to share but bitterness. We have beauty. We have light, we have goodness, we have determination, we have vision, we have strength.

Other important themes:

  • Courage. Kirk said he wanted to be remembered for his faith and his courage. Not being Christian, my interpretation is that we have to have faith in our ability to enact change, that no matter how bleak things are at present, they will change. We must believe that we are on the right side of history, and that takes courage, because it won’t be easy. Courage is much-needed among dissidents still being routinely harassed and hounded out of respectable society.
  • Encouraging young people to get married and have families. Especially men. Another critically important message in these times of cultural decline and plummeting fertility. Of course, as F. Roger Devlin emphasizes, the laws surrounding marriage are very much against men, so many are making a rational decision to avoid marriage. We think of pre-nups being for rich people, but seems like a good idea for everyone, especially men.
  • Implicit Whiteness. The only Black speaker was Ben Carson. No LGBTQ+ people, even as tokens—so different from Republican gatherins where non-Whites and queers are given conspiculous places in an effort to showcase “inclusiveness.” And the two Jews that I was aware of being Jews extolled Western Civilization.

Tucker Carlson provided another highpoint, much noticed by Jewish activists (here’s his speech and a compendium of his interviews with Kirk emphasizing Kirk on “God, Christianity, and hope”). It seems a stretch to suppose that Carlson was hinting that Israel was behind the assassination, as many of these activists do, but there’s a lot of Jewish paranoia out there right now—understandable given Israeli genocide of Palestinians and the damage that has done to the “Jews as eternal victims” narrative, Europeans calling for a Palestinian state largely because of the genocide, Kirk’s declining support for Israel, and Carlson’s record of making statements and interviewing people that Jews don’t like, such as Darryl Cooper. His speech has exacerbated Jewish hostility.

JTA: Tucker Carlson tells story about murder of Jesus at Charlie Kirk’s memorial, igniting criticism

 Carlson likened Kirk to Jesus — and his assassin to those who killed the man worshipped by billions of Christians. Recounting what he said was “my favorite story ever,” Carlson said:

So it’s about 2,000 years ago in Jerusalem, and Jesus shows up and he starts talking about the people in power, and he starts doing the worst thing that you can do, which is telling the truth about people, and they hate it, and they just go bonkers. They hate it, and they become obsessed with making him stop: ‘This guy’s got to stop talking. We’ve got to shut this guy up.’

And I can just sort of picture the scene in a lamp-lit room with a bunch of guys sitting around eating hummus, thinking about — what do we do about this guy telling the truth about us? We must make him stop talking. And there’s always one guy with the bright idea, and I can just hear him say, “I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we just kill him? That’ll shut him up, that’ll fix the problem.”

It doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t work that way.

For many listening, including right-wing Jews who admired Kirk, the link between the story and the contemporary allegation against Israel was clear.

Some Jewish voices said Carlson, who laughed as he told the story, was invoking antisemitic ideas that have long fueled Christian violence against Jews. Several also noted that hummus was not traditionally eaten in ancient Jerusalem, for them making Carlson’s reference a clear dogwhistle about contemporary Israel.

“Tucker Carlson pushed an antisemitic trope, painting the Pharisees as ‘sitting around eating hummus’ plotting Christ’s crucifixion — then comparing it to people supposedly silencing Charlie Kirk by killing him, as if Jews killed Kirk the way they killed Christ,” tweeted Adam King, who goes by “Awesome Jew” on the show he hosts on Infowars.

“I’m not a person who sees dog whistles quickly or readily, but I sure as s— saw it in Tucker’s speech,” tweeted the conservative commentator Bethany Mandel. She noted that President Donald Trump had included Tel Aviv among the places where Kirk had been mourned, adding, “There is a fight for the soul of the conservative movement.”

“Tucker Carlson Hints at Baseless, Antisemitic Conspiracy Theory of Jews Killing Charlie Kirk at Funeral Service,” read a headline on Belaaz, a right-wing Jewish news site. The site said it had “reached out to two influential Jewish leaders with personal ties to President Trump, and both declined to comment.” It did not name the leaders.

It was not only Jews drawing the connection: The Quds News Network, a Palestinian network, meanwhile, tweeted a video of the speech with the description, “Tucker Carlson suggests Israeli involvement in Charlie Kirk’s death during TPUSA’s memorial for its late founder.”

The most prominent voices amplifying the theory that Israel was behind Kirk’s murder, which authorities have attributed to a 22-year-old Utah man who they say has confessed, have been Carlson; Candace Owens, who has long amplified antisemitic and anti-Israel ideas; and Nick Fuentes, a streamer who made a point of goading Kirk to be more antisemitic and anti-Israel.

Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a pro-Israel group, tweeted that he was distressed by Carlson’s speech.

“Tucker Carlson used the memorial for Charlie Kirk — a passionate friend of Israel & the Jewish people — to spread antisemitic blood libels,” Dubowitz wrote. “I knew his father, Richard Carlson, Vice-Chair at FDD who strongly supported Jews & Israel. I just can’t fathom what happened to Tucker.”

Max Abrahms, a political scientist focusing on terrorism who is a Republican, tweeted that he was most unnerved by Carlson’s prominence within the party. Carlson took the same stage as Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance and multiple prominent Republican lawmakers.

“There was a time when Tucker was known for debating” Abrahms wrote. “Now he’s known for dog whistles, blaming everything on Jews, heaping praise on fake-historian Hitler apologists, apologizing to the Bin Laden terrorist family, denying Hamas is a terrorist group, siding with Islamist terrorists, and pretending Russians enjoy a higher standard of living than Americans.”

He added, “What concerns me isn’t Tucker. What concerns me is this un-American toxicity is so welcomed in the Republican Party.”

A Kansas Reform rabbi, Sam Stern, responded, “As long as he is welcomed, will we be?” Abrahms responded: “Your question answers itself.”…

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 MacDonald2025-09-24 06:11:172025-09-25 09:49:58Implicit Whiteness and “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories” at the Charlie Kirk memorial

Matt Goodwin: Get ready for Brexit 2

September 23, 2025/18 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

What the reaction to Reform’s policy reveals about the country

One key lesson from the Brexit years is that the ruling class who claim to speak for the British people do not really understand the people at all.

This is why, at the 2019 general election, the ruling class found itself completely outflanked and overturned by an electorate that had simply had enough of its ongoing efforts to dilute, block, and overturn their democratic vote for Brexit.

Once the sheer power of popular sovereignty was mobilised against a remote elite along the lines of an issue, Brexit, that cut across the traditional ‘left versus right’ divide, the contest was not even close. The people won, easily. At the 2019 general election, the forgotten majority comprehensively defeated the elite class.

Which is what, I think, we are about to witness all over again, only this time the cross-cutting issue that unites the forgotten majority in this country will not be the call to leave the European Union; it will be the call to end mass uncontrolled immigration.

Just look at the utterly deranged, bizarre, and hysterical reaction among the ruling class to Nigel Farage’s and Reform’s latest policy announcement on immigration, which is remarkably similar to their equally unhinged reaction to the vote for Brexit.

This week, Nigel Farage and Reform said something that the vast majority of people on these islands will hear as being entirely reasonable and understandable.

They will overturn the widely unpopular ‘Boriswave’, a policy that saw, with no democratic mandate whatsoever, Boris Johnson and the Tories import millions of economically costly low-wage, low-skill and non-European migrants from radically different cultures into Britain and then give them the right to remain indefinitely.

This policy makes zero economic sense (see here and here). Not even one in five of the people Boris Johnson brought into the country came on skilled worker visas. The rest, more than 80 per cent, are the relatives of workers, international students who often moved into low-skill jobs, and refugees, subsidised by the British people. Only about 2-3% of all visas issued went to doctors and highly trained workers in the NHS.

Reform have pledged to not only overturn this disastrous policy and sharply reduce overall levels of legal migration into Britain but also ensure that any migrants who come in the future will have to apply for five-year renewable visas, speak English fluently, make a net contribution to the economy, have a clean criminal record, and work, rather than relying on welfare benefits and social housing.

At the same time, welfare benefits and social housing will be restricted to British nationals while companies that do need migrant workers will be forced to also invest in training up British people, such as the one million young British people who are currently not in education, employment, or training.

Now enter the ruling class, which over the last 24 hours has responded to this entirely reasonable policy by having what can only be described as a nervous breakdown.

Despite this policy being pursued by many other countries around the world, here in Britain our ruling class has radicalised to such an extent that it now views any opposition to mass migration as tantamount to the resurrection of the Third Reich.

Andrew Marr, the same man who assured us after Keir Starmer’s election victory, last year, that “the adults are back in the room”, wonders if the policy could lead to “blood on the streets”. Seriously. So-called ‘conservative’ Iain Dale wonders where the British sense of “fairness” has gone. London’s Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan says the policy is ‘unacceptable’, while John Crace, in the Guardian, says it is ‘economically illiterate’.

The New Statesman, meanwhile, talks of Farage’s ‘immigration extremism’. The Times claims the policy is “half-baked”. And Keir Starmer is reportedly preparing a major speech to warn about, you guessed it, “the far-right”.

The members of the ruling class, in other words, the people who control many of the key institutions in our society, are once again demonstrating to the rest of the country how utterly out-of-touch and adrift they really are, much like they did after Brexit.

A reminder. The British people, out there in the country, have never been as strongly concerned and sceptical about mass immigration as they are today. Consistently, reliable pollsters find large majorities want what the ruling class refuse to give them. Lower immigration. Control over their borders. A country they recognise.

Not even one in five think immigration has been ‘mostly good’ for Britain. Close to three-quarters, a record in modern polling, say immigration’s been ‘too high’. The zeitgeist, the mood, in other words, has turned firmly against mass immigration.

Which is why the people have sent Reform to the top of the polls. Such is the intensity of feeling about immigration that the people are prepared to burn down a two-party system that has governed this country for a century so they can change course on this issue.

And the policy Reform is offering is not extreme at all. It is the approach taken by countless other countries around the globe, from Switzerland and Japan to the United Arab Emirates.

Countless other countries would look at Reform’s proposals and shrug their shoulders. Only in Britain would the ruling class conclude that ensuring migrants speak the national language, make a net financial contribution, and do not commit crime is somehow equivalent to entering the political abyss.

Most other countries do not hand out billions in welfare benefits to foreign nationals. Most other countries do not prioritise foreign nationals in social housing. And most other countries do not force their own people to subsidise millions of low-wage migrant workers from radically different cultures. Only in Britain do politicians do this and then call their own people “far-right extremists” when they ask questions.

What about that British sense of fairness, they ask? Well, indeed. Where is fairness when the UK government, the UK state, is using the British people’s own money to outbid the British people in their own housing market to favour migrants?

Where is fairness when the UK state is forcing its own people to pay £12 billion a year in benefits for households with at least one foreign national in them —enough for 240,000 new nurses or police officers, 15 new hospitals, or 1,700 new schools?

The fringe minority, in other words, are not the people who are suggesting a radical overhaul of an immigration policy that is visibly broken; the fringe minority is the ruling class that is now insisting the British people maintain this rotten status-quo and continue paying billions in costs for an extreme policy they never asked for.

And what is the argument the ruling class plan to take to the country at the next general election, exactly? That the British people should stay quiet, keep subsidising low-skill migrant workers from the Third World, paying £10 billion a year in welfare for people who are not British, another £6 billion subsidising social housing for foreign nationals, ignore the 1 million people in our country who do not speak English, and just go along with a policy that even major experts say makes no sense?

Is that the plan, here? And if the ruling class really think it is “fascist” or “far-right” to demand migrants should be able to speak English fluently, have a clean criminal record, make a net contribution to the economy, and work rather than rely on the welfare state then I would urge them to get outside London and try these arguments on the people of Wigan, Halifax, or Sunderland, where I was speaking last week.

Because what I see happening out there, clearly, is mass immigration becoming the new Brexit –a new fault line separating a ruling class who support a policy they and their friends have largely benefitted from, and a much larger number of people who have been forced to live with the dire effects of this policy.

Only, this time the split will not be 52-48, like it was with Brexit. It will be more like 80-20. Pretty much everything Farage is currently saying –end mass immigration, prioritise people who contribute, force migrants to speak the national language, reserve housing for British families, restrict benefits for British people—is popular.

And so, what will end up happening, if the ruling class remains on this course, is what we saw after Brexit, in 2019. The people, once again, outflanking a distant and out-of-touch elite in London, Oxford, Cambridge, and Brighton, handing Farage a commanding majority drawn from the very same areas that handed Boris Johnson a commanding majority nearly a decade earlier.

It will be Alarm Clock Britain, the people who have to get up and work for a living, Middle England, coastal communities, Labour’s Red Wall, Wales, and the people of non-London England who will rally behind this policy, much like they rallied behind the only other major rejection of the liberal establishment —Brexit.

They will all mobilise en masse to ensure the misery of mass immigration, imposed by an alliance of London liberals and globalist corporations who have zero interest in looking after the national community, comes to an end.

Nigel Farage knows this. Zia Yusuf knows this. Reform knows this. I know this. You know this. The only people who don’t are the ones who claim to speak for the British people but who, once again, will soon discover they do not understand them at all …

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 MacDonald2025-09-23 09:30:132025-09-23 09:30:13Matt Goodwin: Get ready for Brexit 2

Constantin von Hoffmeister: Charlie Kirk and the Tale of the Two Wests

September 22, 2025/8 Comments/in General/by Constantin von Hoffmeister

America crowned through sacrifice, Europe consumed by decline.

Stephen Miller stood at the pulpit and spoke like a prophet speaking lightning through a microphone. His words framed Kirk’s fall as a doorway into eternity, the body silenced yet the figure multiplied across the cosmos. “You thought you could kill Charlie Kirk; you have made him immortal.” Hatred, envy, wickedness: Miller named them as entities feeding on emptiness, parasites of civilization, and destroyers who build nothing. His voice cracked into vows of vengeance, pledging state power as a sword, Department of Justice and Homeland Security as hammers, promising disruption, dismantling, and annihilation of radical left networks. The speech became ritual, an invocation of Caesarism born from blood, Miller’s cadence elevating Kirk to the crown, sealing him into the structure of myth.

Charlie Kirk falls, and America trembles with the force of the blow. His body collapses, yet his figure expands, thrust upward like a banner of fire. The Faustian soul of the West, long restless in skyscrapers and deserts alike, seizes upon this moment as a symbol of destiny. America breathes this martyrdom as if it were oxygen, and the air becomes sharper, colder, clearer. The West divides before our eyes: America emerges as the Caesarist bearer of the civilizational flame, armored in conservatism and sharpened by faith. Western Europe, meanwhile, converts its cathedrals into stages of woke liberal performance, preaching LGBTQ and transgender dogmas as sacred truths while inviting endless tides of immigration to erase its memory and genetic heritage.

In the American heartland, farmers, workers, mothers, soldiers, all turn towards the new axis. Kirk’s words surge across digital plains as fragments of gospel. He becomes Caesar slain, and with his fall the Republic transforms into an Empire of conviction. Spengler foresaw this metamorphosis: democracy’s chaos yields to leaders born of blood and destiny. Martyrdom accelerates what had already begun: the conservative reawakening, the rejection of globalist illusions, and the claim of America as the citadel of the West. The United States is no longer a parody of Rome but a new Imperium itself, its temples now megachurches, its armies both martial and spiritual. Kirk becomes a symbol of continuity, a reminder that history writes its chapters in sacrifice.

Across the ocean, Western Europe embraces its own theater. Rainbow banners and flags of foreign nations hang across state ministries. Brussels enforces ideological loyalty tests in the form of LGBTQ codes, transgender lessons, and immigration quotas. Berlin hosts parades where bureaucrats in suits bless drag queens as guardians of democracy. Paris chants hymns to diversity while dismantling its own historical self. The Faustian drive towards infinity there dissolves into a cult of sameness, a civilization devouring itself by proclaiming openness as its supreme faith. The continent of knights and philosophers remakes itself into a safe space of bureaucratic sermons, immigration pipelines, and transgender lessons.

Two Wests now contend for the meaning of civilization. America seizes its role through Kirk’s death, raising its conservative standard high, summoning imagery of destiny and renewal. Europe, enthroned as the new headquarters of woke liberalism, drifts towards dissolution, its elites enthralled by the cult of sexual identity and immigration as salvation. The Atlantic becomes a wall as much as an ocean: on one side, faith, tradition, Caesarism, the promise of renewal through sacrifice; on the other, indulgence, bureaucracy, parades of rainbow perversion. Kirk’s assassination lights the fault line. America becomes the spear. Europe becomes a sinkhole.

History is flesh, and myth bleeds through language. Kirk dissolves as a man and fuses as an archetype, his ghost looping endlessly across headlines and speeches, never silent, always returning. The tale of two Wests is written across his fall: America inherits the crown, Europe wears the clown costume. The story is written with strokes of providence, a narrative of martyrdom, empire, decline, and resurgence. Charlie Kirk, slain, becomes more alive than ever, his absence the pulse of a continent, his silence the thunder of a new Faustian dawn.

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png 0 0 Constantin von Hoffmeister https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/TOO-Full-Logo-660x156-1.png Constantin von Hoffmeister2025-09-22 09:58:092025-09-22 09:58:09Constantin von Hoffmeister: Charlie Kirk and the Tale of the Two Wests

Murdoch family to be included in TikTok bid

September 22, 2025/3 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

Trump said yesterday that “Lachlan Murdoch … Rupert [Murdoch] is probably gonna be in the group, I think they’re going to be in the group.” Fox will presumably be quite happy with the new neoconning of the American media.

Trump also said that Oracle executive chairman Larry Ellison and Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell are also likely to be involved in the TikTok deal.

“Couple of others, really great people, very prominent people,” Trump said.

“And they’re also American patriots, you know, they love this country[!!]. So I think they’re going to do a really good job,” he continued.

A person familiar told CNBC that Lachlan Murdoch is unlikely to participate in the TikTok deal individually, but Fox Corporation, where Lachlan Murdoch is executive chair and CEO, could play a role.

President Donald Trump said in an interview that aired Sunday that conservative media baron Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan are likely to be involved in the deal to save TikTok in the United States.

“A man named Lachlan is involved,” Trump said on Fox News’ “The Sunday Briefing.”

“Lachlan Murdoch … Rupert [Murdoch] is probably gonna be in the group, I think they’re going to be in the group,” he continued.

Trump also said that Oracle executive chairman Larry Ellison and Dell Technologies CEO Michael Dell are also likely to be involved in the TikTok deal.

“Couple of others, really great people, very prominent people,” Trump said.

“And they’re also American patriots, you know, they love this country. So I think they’re going to do a really good job,” he continued.

A person familiar told CNBC that Lachlan Murdoch is unlikely to participate in the TikTok deal individually, but Fox Corporation, where Lachlan Murdoch is executive chair and CEO, could play a role.

But China is dragging its feet.

Trump’s remarks come as the details of the deal to allow TikTok — currently owned by Chinese company ByteDance — to continue operating in the United States are still being worked out by Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

Congress last year passed a bill that would ban the popular social media platform unless ByteDance divested from U.S. operations amid national security concerns.

The White House provided new details of a possible deal on Saturday, saying that six of the seven-member board that controls TikTok will be Americans.

The U.S. will also control the app’s algorithm, according to White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, addressing a major sticking point in negotiations.

Leavitt also said that data and privacy for the app in the U.S. will be led by Oracle.

Trump and Xi had a call on Friday about the possible TikTok deal. After the call, Trump said that the deal “is well on its way, as you know, and the investors are getting ready.”

But China, in its own statement, suggested that the two sides are still further apart on negotiations.

 

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 MacDonald2025-09-22 09:50:482025-09-22 09:50:48Murdoch family to be included in TikTok bid

John Tyndall on how democracy works

September 20, 2025/10 Comments/in General/by Kevin MacDonald

Tyndall (1934–2005) was a prominent English nationalist. Wikipedia article.

Right now the UK and the West in general are in upheaval about immigration. Tyndall has seen such outbreaks of righteous fury before but predicts that the elites will find a way to channel the anger into yet another feckless alternative to the current situation. One thinks of Boris Johnson and the Tory promises to drastically reduce immigration. So now theyhave Labour, which is worse but still making promises to cut immigration.

From John Tyndall’s The Eleventh Hour (p. 225ff; Albion Press, 1988).

In effect, what we have in Britain is an ongoing state of national disunity and civil war, chaos, inefficiency and weak and flabby government — without, at the end of it all, even the free choice and sovereignty of the people that are supposed to justify these things.

For government in Britain is not democratic government; it is oligarchic government, operating within a purely nominal framework of democratic institutions and procedures; nor is it oligarchic government of the type that might be justified: an oligarchy bound in devotion to nation and people and the guardian of their welfare; it is oligarchy which, at least in modern times, has been consistent in its betrayal of nation and people at every juncture of affairs.

In the hands of this oligarchy of power, the politicians and their parties have become nothing better than marionettes, to be paraded before the people each at his appointed hour and then withdrawn from the stage as soon as he has served his purpose, to be replaced by new performers with a new act, though of course manipulated by the processes by which they are governed. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to put the ordinary people of this country in a position of having less power over national affairs and less freedom to choose how they will be governed than they have today. An alternative system of government designed to produce leadership of the quality for which I have called, and which empowers it to act effectively, is by no means incompatible with the objective of giving the people greater freedom and a more influential voice in national affairs. On the contrary, the establishment of such conditions of government would, without question, meet a need that is yearned for by millions of Britons as never before.

It is quite ridiculous to place a man who has never had a driving lesson in the seat of a motor car and then tell him: “You are now free to drive this car anywhere you like!” Ridiculous and also dishonest. The dishonesty is then compounded if the lay-out of the streets in the area is such that, whichever one he takes, he is bound to end up at the same destination.

It is equally dishonest to tell a man that he has the freedom to determine what government he wants by exercising his vote at election time if he is completely lacking in the information needed to use that vote intelligently and discriminately and if, furthermore, his effective range of choice is limited to candidates and parties whose policies, at the end of the route, land him in the same place!

If the freedom of the individual to influence the course of politics — supposedly the first foundation-stone of ‘democracy’ — is to have any meaning, it must be in the context of that individual having the capability to exercise that freedom by understanding the political issues. Without this, ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ are meaningless catchwords. That is a cardinal truth which must be taken into account in any effort to formulate an alternative political system for the achievement of sound government.

The next truth which must be accepted is that it is futile a government being elected to carry out policies approved by a majority of the people if, from the moment it takes office, it is engaged in a nonstop civil war in parliament in which every possible device is used to sabotage its effective operation.

Likewise, the will of the people, just supposing that we have a way of clearly ascertaining what that is, cannot be carried out by any government effectively if its power of action is hampered at every turn by the need to appease various vested interests and bend to the pressures of the various lobbies, invariably representing organised minorities, which bay at government’s heels. Here we come back to the truth recognised by Mosley in the 1930s and dealt with in an earlier chapter. Under the old system, as Mosley said, the power of finance “can affect the lives of the mass of people more closely and more provided a useful safety-valve for those voters who might grow disillusioned with both Tories and Labour. By courtesy of The Guardian newspaper, it was ensured that the Liberal Party did not fade into total oblivion but, on the contrary, was always there at election time to soak up the protest vote just in case that vote rose to unmanageable proportions. This of course happened at Orpington in 1961 and has happened on a number of occasions since, thus corralling safely into the establishment pen any maverick steers that might be so bold as to break loose from the general herd.

In the 1980s, a similar device was employed by the creation of the Social Democratic Party. Again, the establishment astutely judged the public mood: sensing that a larger than usual number of voters and members were deserting Labour, and realising that not all of these could be relied upon to drift into the Liberal camp, our real rulers did everything possible to encourage and nurture the infant SDP, giving it a rousing send-off in the press and thereafter generously publicising the daily utterances of its leaders and the pastiche of old-gang clichés that it tried to pass off as ‘policies’. In consequence, the voter who had grown tired of the Tory/Labour cycle of misgovernment of the previous half-century now had, not one alternative, but two! Well, just for a while at any rate. As is known, the Social Democrats later went out of business when their main rump was swallowed up by the Liberals, leading to the formation of today’s ‘Liberal Democrats’. The latter party incorporates just the same flabby potpourri of internationalism, free trade, racial suicide and ‘wet’ prescriptions for social problems that form the bases of the manifestos of their rivals. Whatever way the poor voter tries to turn, he ends up down the same blind alley.

This is the reality of the political system under which the people are deluded that they have a ‘free choice’, and under which every symptom of governmental weakness and ineptitude is glossed over by the consoling cry that Britons are favoured by the benign smile of providence to live in a ‘democracy’.

No meaningful effort to grapple with our immense national problems will be possible until this ludicrous and wholly unworkable system is done away with and we institute an effective system of government capable of bringing to the fore a high calibre of national leadership and then properly equipping that leadership with the necessary powers of action.

There will be those who will ask if such a change would threaten the framework of ‘democracy’ and the ‘freedom’ of the people that is supposed to lie at the centre of that ideal. To them, let us straightaway reply that at present no such framework of ‘democracy’ exists which can be threatened and no freedom exists for the people to control the processes by which they are governed. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to put the ordinary people of this country in a position of having less power over national affairs and less freedom to choose how they will be governed than they have today. An alternative system of government designed to produce leadership of the quality for which I have called, and which empowers it to act effectively, is by no means incompatible with the objective of giving the people greater freedom and a more influential voice in national affairs. On the contrary, the establishment of such conditions of government would, without question, meet a need that is yearned for by millions of Britons as never before.

It is quite ridiculous to place a man who has never had a driving lesson in the seat of a motor car and then tell him: “You are now free to drive this car anywhere you like!” Ridiculous and also dishonest. The dishonesty is then compounded if the lay-out of the streets in the area is such that, whichever one he takes, he is bound to end up at the same destination.

It is equally dishonest to tell a man that he has the freedom to determine what government he wants by exercising his vote at election time if he is completely lacking in the information needed to use that vote intelligently and discriminately and if, furthermore, his effective range of choice is limited to candidates and parties whose policies, at the end of the route, land him in the same place!

If the freedom of the individual to influence the course of politics — supposedly the first foundation-stone of ‘democracy’ — is to have any meaning, it must be in the context of that individual having the capability to exercise that freedom by understanding the political issues. Without this, ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ are meaningless catchwords. That is a cardinal truth which must be taken into account in any effort to formulate an alternative political system for the achievement of sound government.

 

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 MacDonald2025-09-20 16:11:062025-09-20 16:11:06John Tyndall on how democracy works
Page 4 of 184«‹23456›»
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