White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy

Fighting Whiteness

October 6, 2026/26 Comments/in Anti-White Attitudes, Costs of Multiculturalism, Featured Articles, White Pathology/Guilt, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Mark Gullick

A Field Guide to White Supremacy
Belew, Gutiérrez et al
University of California Press, 2021

Whiteness is having its day in the sun. Not White people — we may have already had ours — but the word itself, and the whole concept of Whiteness. “The problem of Whiteness” often appears in newspaper and magazine headlines, the implication being that Whiteness is a troublesome puzzle which needs to be solved, hopefully using some sort of cross between the lyrics to John Lennon’s Imagine and a final solution, depending on where the person is on the spectrum of blancophobic hatred. Blacks can be regularly seen online calling for the death of Whites, genocidal talk actually being enacted in countries such as South Africa and Zimbabwe, which have been handed over to Blacks with predictable results.

It has long been asked in certain academic circles what Whiteness is, and this is not a bad thing in itself. Definition is a first principle, as Marcus Aurelius recognized: “Ask of each thing; what is it in and of itself? What is its nature?”

Perhaps those who espouse White supremacy as a problem, and take the time to research the field, might enlighten us. A collection of essays published five years ago, A Field Guide to White Supremacy, is an excellent almanac of Left-wing, academic attitudes towards Whiteness, thematizing as it does something that is both their nemesis and the jewel in the crown of White people; White supremacy. Appropriately, as language is one of the major battlefields in the cultural war currently raging, the collection opens with a lexicon of words which constellate around the central concept of White supremacy. The author rather arrogantly proposes it as “a resource for journalists, activists, policymakers and citizens” — everyone, in other words – with a self-importance familiar to anyone who has followed the ruinous arc of development traced by modern, White, middle-class, Liberal women.

The first thing that stands out about this introductory guide for journalists is the sheer audacity of calling it Thoughts on the Associated Press Stylebook. The internationally recognized Associated Press (AP) is heavily biased to the Left, as are all MSM outlets and syndications, but it does indeed have an industry-standard style-sheet. Kathleen Belew, one of the editors and essayists here, is a journalist, and she has written for some major newspapers in her native USA, as well as having a book on the New York Times best-seller list. But so have an awful lot of other people who don’t feel the need to tell the world’s press how to do its job. Ms. Belew is grossly impertinent to believe she has the right to tell an industry leader how to run their business, which in AP’s case is essentially ordering language in order to provide accurate reportage, or at least it should be.

This introductory glossary is the academic equivalent of a girl-boss in HR chastising a male employee:

Our aim in this section is to briefly provide journalists with an overview of terms and understandings agreed upon by most scholarly specialists and to encourage the editors of the Stylebook to reconsider some of the book’s guidance.

“Most scholarly specialists” are not cited and will likely turn out to be a network of faux-academics working in the same, CRT-based field as Ms. Belew. This is how CRT gives itself the illusion of intellectual integrity, by producing a blizzard of footnotes all of which tend to refer to works by people the author has probably had at least lunch with.

Ms. Belew strongly disapproves of the use of the word “immigrant”. “Immigrants”, she scolds, “are people who move”. Well, yes, they are. They are specifically people who move into a country from outside and typically dilute the voting power of the natives. “Migrants” are actually people who move, and “immigrant” is a cognate of that, the antonym being “emigrant”. Still, don’t let that disturb you while you advise one of the world’s largest press syndicates.

The next demand in a litany of disapproval is that the AP recognize that biology is no longer the gold standard, either for race or gender:

We urge the Stylebook to consider defining race itself as a socially constructed category of political identity that has changed over time.

This is evidently absurd, but absurdity in a brave new linguistic world is no longer an argument for invalidity. As for gender, and the busy modern self-elective traffic between male and female, “Pronouns should always match self-identification”. In short, this is a command that standpoint epistemology take the helm from post-Enlightenment rationality, flawed as that may be. This is an important and corrosive paradigm shift.

Capital letters are another area of concern for this journalistic martinet. “Black” should be capitalized, but not “white.” And AP have actually put this into place.

After all, as The New York Times says,

We believe this style best conveys elements of shared history and identity, and reflects our goal to be respectful of all the people and communities we cover [except White people],” said Dean Baquet, The Times’s executive editor, and Phil Corbett, associate managing editor for standards, in a memo to staff.

And:

“The lowercase B in Black has never made sense to me as a Black woman, and it didn’t make sense to me as a Black girl,” said Destinée-Charisse Royal, a senior staff editor in the Graphics department and one of the editors consulted on the change. “My thought was that the capital B makes sense as it describes a race, a cultural group, and that is very different from a color in a box of crayons.

But of course, capitalizing White doesn’t make sense because everyone knows that White does not refer to a race or a cultural group. It’s just like a color in a box of crayons.

“Indigenous” should also be capitalized, as should “Latinx”. This is amusing, as “Latinx” will certainly appear far more in the English-speaking media than its Spanish equivalent. The well-respected polling company, Pew Research, ran a poll a few years ago here in Latin America. The results showed that just 5 percent of Latinos had even heard the phrase “Latinx”, and only 3 percent used it. The statistics do not show how many of those who use the term do so simply to get an easy laugh in some Rancho bar in Panama. Latinos do not take kindly to being collectively described using a term invented by Liberal White women in American universities. There’s your White supremacy, right there.

There is much journalistic advice on the subject of Whiteness, obviously the center of gravity of CRT thought, such as it is:

The word white refers to a socially constructed and historically fluid category of identity in which people, systems of power, and wealth are invested. This is not a biological or unchangeable category, but neither is it neutral.

Whiteness, which built America and Europe, as well as many Commonwealth countries, is not something fixed and immutable:

Whiteness itself is a socially constructed category that has changed dramatically over the course of United States history. … Not until the nineteenth century did racial pseudoscience introduce the idea of ‘white’ as a biological marker.

Because White science hadn’t progressed enough to investigate it scientifically, although implicit notions of race date back to the ancient world. We are familiar with the notion of the “social construct”, which is genuine “racial pseudoscience”. But what is this historically fluid entity capable of? Why, White supremacy of course. We have a definition which is clearly intended to hold for the Field Guide as well as the world’s media. White supremacy is defined as follows:

Both individual belief that White people are inherently better than others and the broad systems of inequality that insure racial disparity of health, income, life, and freedom.

Well, it goes without saying that White people in the aggregate are better than non-Whites (as Prof. Ricardo Duchesne has shown), and that this is demonstrable provided some kind of universal calibration is agreed to, which it no longer is. Who created the modern world?

The Left’s familiar technique of abstract complication extends to the definition of White supremacy:

What is White supremacy? White supremacy is a complex web of ideology, systems, privileges, and personal beliefs that create unequal outcomes along racial lines across multiple categories of life including wealth, freedom, health and happiness.

In fact, White supremacy follows simply from any objective interpretation of history. “Unequal outcomes along racial lines” are dictated by the divergence in intelligence and ability of the different races. Race is not a social construct. Styles of dress are indeed social constructs because they differ between cultures. But race inheres at a cellular level, it is a chromosomal phenomenon.

Negative conceptions of White supremacy have to be craned into some of the essays here. With the CRT lexicon, and the ease of its grammar, this is an easy matter, and there is a philosophical reason for this. In an essay on the supposed persecution of “sex workers” — which is what prostitutes are now called — who are being de-banked and generally hassled as they try to go out their deviant work, the writer almost forgets to mention the star attraction:

While there has been an increase in legislative scrutiny and criminalization of sex workers, White supremacy/racism and transmisogyny/cissexism function to disproportionately impact Black and Brown trans/women/femmes who engage in sex work.

Apart from raising the question of whether “femmes” are French sex workers — salops Françaises, perhaps — this perfunctory mention of White supremacy, coupled with racism, shows the strange methodology of CRT. It works on reverse induction. Instead of gathering facts and progressing towards a hypothesis, testing it against an antithesis, and then arriving at a tenable thesis, they take the answer first and work back. These essays contain more than the usual quota of unsubstantiated claims such as those concerning the “Unarmed Black, Brown, and Asian women and men executed by the police”. These “never happened” memes are often used to reinforce claims about White supremacy, claiming that “overt and covert White supremacy [are] supported by often-violent patriarchy and gender norms”. I’m sure they are. I can’t prove that they are not, and nor can anyone else, given the standards of proof which now obtain.

Other statements made in the essays are very probably true, but lack ethnic and racial context:

Women worldwide ages 15 through 44 are more likely to die or be maimed because of male violence than because of cancer, malaria, war and traffic accidents combined.

Undoubtedly true, but which males are more likely to be violent? Without breakdown by ethnicity, a formula like that makes no sense whatsoever. The underlying ideology is this: it is not any particular ethnicity or religion of violent men that is important, it is that they are men. This recurs with discussion of those with sexual dysfunction:

In our heterosexual culture, being lesbian, gay, trans, or a nonbinary person also places people in disproportionate danger.

It certainly does. It places those deviant categories in danger primarily from Blacks and Muslims, and of course they didn’t discuss how sexual non-conformity is regarded in African or Muslim cultures. In a chapter on the mass shooting at the Pulse nightclub in 2016 in Orlando, Florida, we see elective blindness of race. The shooter was Omar Mateen:

Using hate to explain Omar Mateen … too readily conflates an Islamophobic narrative that misnames Islam as a religion of hate.

Islam is most certainly not exclusively a religion of hate. There are many things it loves very much, in-group things, endogamic things: the myth of its own superiority, that Mohammed is a role model, the genuine subjugation of women (dismissed by Western feminists). But there are certainly other things, other practices, that Islam hates. And one of those is homosexuality (a word the editor warns AP against using in its copy). Boy, do Muslims hate gays. I’ve written here before about “intersectional pile-ups”, in which lifestyles which are utterly antithetical to one another try to group together under a big, Socialist tent. If you are familiar with the group “Queers for Palestine”, you will be aware of the level of cognitive dissonance active among some gentlemen who play for the other team, as the English used to call gay men.

Islamophobia makes its obligatory appearance in the Field Guide, described as:

The presumption that Islam is inherently violent, alien, and unassimilable… [combined with] the belief that expressions of Muslim identity are correlative with a propensity for terrorism.

Firstly, it is not a presumption. For anyone with standard-issue cognitive ability, it is inductive reasoning. Secondly, people who don’t find the statement to be true confirm themselves as either deeply unserious or a Muslim. Islam gets a pass on terrorism, again uncited and unsubstantiated:

White power activists have carried out an overwhelming majority of domestic terror fatalities [sic] and attacks in recent years.

Much of the Field Guide replays many of these unsubstantiated modern myths:

A war is being waged against Black and Brown trans women/femmes in the United States. And this war is caused by systemic White supremacy that fuels racism, economic inequality, and transmisogyny.

No attempt to break down the ethnicity of the perpetrators.

Victimhood in the Field Guide is present and correct, with its usual false extrapolations and sense of melodrama:

When a Black person was lynched, they were not just lynching that person, they were targeting the entire African-American community.

This is a form of racial transubstantiation. There is no one Black person, they are all one and all is in the one, a negro ummah. This matches up with a tradition of grandiosity and self-aggrandizement among Blacks which is easily fed by the White Liberals behind the Field Guide. There is a lot of faulty wiring in the circuitry of the Black psyche, and one of the worst short-circuits is an acute susceptibility to bias confirmation. On receiving information, Whites are far more likely to assess that input and disregard it if it is dubious, even if, were it true, it would be advantageous to them. Blacks tend to enact a sort of corollary. They are more likely to assess whether the information, if true, would be advantageous to them, and then judge its dubiousness on that basis. It is like utilitarianism, but without the rational workings. Blacks are not, however, the only victims:

Anti-Asian violence recurring throughout US history should not be seen merely as episodic, arising in periods of xenophobia, but rather a structure sustaining racial divides.

This is crucial to the CRT program; It requires constants and not variables. If anti-Asian violence can be localized as “episodic”, it becomes just another aberrant social phenomenon to be explained away using the context in which it occurred. It must be the context. White supremacy must exist even if only presumed by a misreading of empirical facts. It is like the ether eighteenth-century scientists erroneously believed existed always and everywhere.

The media has an uncomfortable, cognitively dissonant role in the Field Guide. It must both help and hinder:

Trump and his supporters and key members of his staff and cabinet appear to adhere to the idea that immigrants are displacing the White ethnics who claim ownership of the nation that they allegedly founded. … This narrative is spread primarily by influential mainstream media pundits, writers, academics, and a host of conservative groups who seek to curtail immigration by invoking tropes of white decline, profound demographic change, and an ongoing Mexican invasion of the United States.

The media can be good or bad little children, dependent on the needs of the CRT community:

Trump’s racist discourse emboldened self-avowed White supremacists to take to the streets while the mainstream media normalized this scandal by calling them ‘Alt. Right’.

The phrase “Alt. Right” actually came into media usage after a stump speech given by Hillary Clinton in 2016, and if the media “normalized” the term, it was effectively at the request of the woman the media confidently expected to win the 2016 Presidential Election. The phrase “Alt. Left, incidentally, is included in Ms. Belew’s introductory linguistic demands as “False terminology; do not use”.

The collection, as with all CRT, is selectively blind to the role of the MSM in defending their dubious position. The legacy media is concerned today not with objective reporting, but with imaginative and agenda-driven story-telling. Part of the Field Guide’s project is statedly “to tell, and understand, better stories”. This is of interest as it funds the currently popular concept of “the narrative”, the root of which is the Latin narrare, meaning “to tell a story”. This is why the Field Guide is able to repeat the outrageous fabrication that the BLM riots of 2020 were “A long summer of peaceful mass protests”.

When it suits the CRT lobby to stroke the media’s fur, however, they are happy to comply:

Our eyes are turned on other horrors. Our news is full of hate crimes, exclusions legal and illegal, cruelty and violence in speech and action.

“Our news” refers to the MSM, clearly a Leftist institution across the West. It has been clear for some time that MSM news is agenda-based, inaccurate, and dedicated to blancophobia and determined to erase Black on White violence. There are occasions here in which the writers seem to forget, or to be unaware of, the fact that the MSM is on their side. But for serious activists like these, the media can never be far enough left.

An essay on antisemitism sits uneasily here, as a dislike and distrust of Jews is the one thing which unites parts of the Right and Left, especially since Gaza. “Antisemitism” is a phrase included in the opening lexicon, incidentally, and the editor suggests the word not be hyphenated. The word “Semite” is, apparently, a word of recent provenance. The essay has a familiar theme, that of historical oppression of Jews by (White) gentiles. There is plenty of talk of “tropes” and “conspiracies”. One particularly hilarious sentence talks of any mention of worldwide banking being automatically anti-Semitic, whether or not there is any mention of the Jew:

The word Jew hardly has to be mentioned to be already nefariously at work.

This is extraordinary reasoning. Even to mention something of which Jews have been accused is Jew-hatred even if the Jews themselves are not mentioned.

The “takeaway” from this collection, to use modern parlance, is that the rift between Left and Right, between “woke” and “based”, reduces to a philosophical schism, that of standpoint epistemology versus post-Enlightenment rationality. The political faction behind CRT, “White supremacy”, micro-aggressions, unconscious bias, systemic racism and the rest of the post-modernist grabbag that passes for their thinking have a singular form of irrationality: they base their theses on ex cathedra statements made ex nihilo.

The Field Guide to White Supremacy is a very good collection of essays. Most of the essays are well-researched and informative. As noted, some of the wilder claims made are not cited or substantiated, but there is a curious aspect to the book. White supremacy is not a guiding principle of the collection, but rather added to many of the essays almost as an afterthought.

There is a tremendous pathos about Whites who whine about White supremacy. One almost feels sorry for them. To fail to understand racial difference, to deliberately ignore what they know to be true, to throw nature out with Horace’s pitchfork is not going to do them any good in terms of mental health. Cognitive dissonance isn’t some skin rash — it will do genuine mental harm to anyone suffering from it. One can see it in the psychotic behavior of many on the Left. All that said, White supremacy is not in a very healthy situation.

There remains only one option for Whites, which is to double down on White supremacy, and to come in so hot that non-Whites know all about it. One of the historical essays in the Field Guide states the following:

British colonists created slave codes to manage potentially dangerous slaves.

Good for them. They obviously saw what we cannot, that Blacks are largely a problem people for the White races, prone to criminality and disproportionately in need of welfare and social services. We need new codes which must be explained, using ebonics if necessary, to non-Whites.

Charlie Downes is a young politician, and a leading member of Rupert Lowe’s party, Restore Britain. He makes a straightforward point:

The answer, in my view, is simple. If the Left is anti-White, we must be pro-White. That’s the game they want to play, so let’s play it.

Fine as far as it goes, but this is not a game. White people may need to go a lot further than merely being “pro-White”. Perhaps the White race, or races, may be left with only one choice: make blancophobia real. It already exists, of course, in the same way as Islamophobia, homophobia, and transphobia are said to exist, but it is the phobia that dare not speak its name. Western deep states, along with their controllers and allies, already hate White people. What is missing is the original meaning of “phobia”; an irrational fear. Now, it is time to make that fear rational. It is time to take the advice of the mad Roman Emperor, Caligula. One of his generals told him that his people hated him. Caligula replied; “Let them hate me, as long as they fear me”.

On Late Loyalism: Rescuing the Lost Sheep of Greater Britain, Part Two of Two

September 24, 2026/5 Comments/in Featured Articles, Universalism, Western Culture, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Prof. Andrew Fraser

Go To Part 1.

The Invisible Race at the End of the Axial Age

While Maoris still practiced an immanentist religion, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants were already becoming transcendentalists in both politics and religion. Two-and-a-half centuries later, the fundamental truths guiding spiritual life for American WASPs, even the ethical truths and legal norms governing the secular realm, have become fully universal in scope and effect. As the universalist logic of the Axial Age unfolded and the global American empire extended its geopolitical hegemony, it became axiomatic among American WASPs that one’s religious identity transcends both politics and ethnicity. Accordingly, the contemporary rise of interest in Christian nationalism presents WASPs with a problem: how can a universal Christian religion accommodate particularistic national, much less racial and ethnic identities? Wouldn’t that be akin to squaring a circle?

In 2025 two important American Christian Nationalist conferences were held, the themes of which illustrate the two horns of that dilemma. One, sponsored by Right Response Ministries in Texas was devoted to discussions of Christ the King: How to Defeat Trash World. The theme itself echoes seventeenth-century Anabaptists, English dissenters, and reformed American colonists who swore allegiance to “No King but Jesus” as a call for fidelity to Christ, lawful resistance to tyranny, and spiritual freedom. Clearly, the conference organizers were invoking the transcendent authority of Christ in opposition to those ostensibly in charge of a fallen “Trash World”.

In Utah, a second conference was organized by The New Christendom Press and featured an array of Christian nationalist speakers addressing the theme of “Safety Third,” thereby implicitly calling upon attendees to summon up the courage to combat the forces now waging a spiritual war against both Christianity and Americanism. For online followers at least, the most striking aspect of the Utah conference, was visual. On the wall at the rear of the stage a huge screen displayed the famous painting by Emanuel Leutze portraying George Washington as a resolute revolutionary general crossing an ice-choked Delaware river, leading his troops on a victorious assault on British forces. This iconic image of Washington came to personify the new nation, the American Adam created ab initio in a revolutionary republic thanks to the god-like courage of a conquering hero.

The founding myth of the American nation celebrates the transcendent character of the “glorious” War of Independence. This has become a central and recurring theme in Christian nationalist rhetoric. As Steven K. Green puts in his book on Inventing a Christian America: “The American colonies did not simply sever their political ties with Great Britain; they also renounced their identity as British citizens [or “subjects”], with that long national heritage.” It was essential, therefore, to muster patriotic sentiment not just to avert military defeat but also to meet the challenges associated with creating a new government that had the support of the people. According to Green, such circumstances called for a narrative of origins to reinforce the idea of national independence.[1]

The road to revolution did not immediately foreshadow the eventual victory of transcendence over the immanent authority of the British past. At first, the colonists invoked the traditional rights of Englishmen in their struggles with the Crown and Parliament. The revolutionary leaders who fought and won the War for Independence laid “the foundations for such a narrative in the colonial past … and in the religious predispositions of many who were positioned to influence popular attitudes.” To “legitimize their cause and unify a new people,” political and religious leaders did celebrate the supposed “contributions” of New England Puritans (such as covenant theory, self-governance, natural law, and human depravity) to the foundation of the new nation. But Green sees no “direct connection” between the finer points of Puritan political theology and the founding period.[2]

In any case, once the decision for independence was set in stone, appeals to either the colonial or the ancestral English past lost their cachet. Carl Becker’s classic study described the Declaration of Independence as “an event, or at least the symbol of an event of surpassing historical importance.” That document “indissolubly associated” the foundation of the American republic “with a theory of politics, a philosophy of human rights which is valid, if at all, not for Americans only, but for all men.” After American independence became an “accomplished fact,” the Declaration acquired “a distinction, a fame, which could not be ignored, and gave to its philosophy of human rights the support of a concrete historical example.”[3]

As for George Washington, he was an enlightened Freemason as well as, inter alia, a planter, land speculator, soldier, and statesman of the Axial Age. He certainly did not present himself as a cosmic man bearing mana from the gods of his ancestors. His theological beliefs and religious terminology indicate the “unmistakable influence of rationalism, if not deistic thought.” Green cites “Washington’s disdain for church doctrines and religious enthusiasm,” along with the complete lack of any references by him to Jesus or his salvation mission” as evidence that “he rejected many Protestant core teachings.”[4] In short, he was anything but a poster boy for Christian nationalism.[5]

Modern Christian nationalists beg to differ. Certainly, the organizers of the Utah conference held up George Washington for public veneration as an iconic figure central to “the myth of the religious founding.” In their view, the diversity of Anglo-Protestant experience during the colonial era culminated in a founding generation, symbolized by Washington, the creator of what once was and, they hope, will become, again, a Christian nation.[6]

Yet Anglo-Protestantism provides an unstable foundation for American republicans whose roots in the Puritan tradition admit no contradiction between the worship of “no king but Jesus” in his heaven and the sanctification of the Almighty Dollar here on earth. Civic nationalists to the core, Anglo-American Protestants proudly pretend that their American ethnicity was born of their revolutionary struggle against royal tyranny. In contrast, the Loyalists grounded their identity in British race patriotism manifested in ancestral loyalty to throne and altar. American patriots have had only the Constitution (along with the efforts of Emanuel Leutze, Parson Weems, and others devoted to “the sanctification of George Washington and his re-casting as an orthodox or evangelical Protestant”) to provide a functional substitute for the metapersonal image of the Crown at the mythic centre of Power in Great Britain.[7]

The revolution left a permanent spiritual vacuum at the heart of the secular republic: the Divine Economy fills the God-shaped hole in our transient lives here on earth while Christian churches order their flocks to their eternal, heavenly end, humbly praying for the return of King Jesus in fulfillment of his eschatological promise.

Failure of the American Experiment

From a metahistorical perspective, the closing phase of the axial age within the Anglosphere manifests itself most conspicuously in the progressive devolution of the American republic. The WASP Question discusses the first three stages of that process: The First (Federal) Republic, 1789–1860 was replaced after the War Between the States by the Second (Bourgeois) Republic, 1865–1932, which itself was succeeded by the Third (Managerial-Therapeutic) Republic. The WASP Question was completed and published in 2011 in the first term of the Obama presidency which, it now seems clear, inaugurated what became the Fourth, and probably final (Transnational/Transracial) Republic.

Spiritual sterility and political corruption have led to widespread recognition that the “American experiment” has failed. What is to be done? At least four major dissident strategies propose remedies for the terminal crisis of the Republic:

American Christian nationalists hope to make America Christian again. But their institutional response to the evident failure of the American experiment goes no further than a call to move beyond denominationalism, while maintaining orthodox unity on primary theological principles. Baptists, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Methodists, and other Protestant churches must put aside their creedal differences on secondary and tertiary theological issues and unite as Protestants (while retaining their historical resistance to Popery and Eastern Orthodoxy). Pastor Joel Webbon dreams of incorporating the Nicene Creed into the preamble of the Constitution.[8] More minimalist approaches focus on Sabbatarian laws, school prayers, outlawing abortion and so on.
Liberal-minded process theology presents a second strategy: struggle against the demonic powers embodied in the global American Empire. This would amount to a globalist campaign waged in the name of universal human rights.[9]
Race realist Jared Taylor prefers a secular strategy focused on secession as one possible mode of ensuring the survival of the White race on the North American continent.[10]
Neo-reaction (NRx) or the Dark Enlightenment proposes a technocratic model of an authoritarian, corporatist monarchy focused on the capture of Power. Curtis Yarvin’s article on “The Situation and the Solution” clearly outlines the strategy necessary to create a one-party state capable of rescuing America from the failure of a constitutional republic grounded in the civic virtues of its citizens.[11]

From Late Loyalist Schadenfreude to the Rebirth of British Race Patriotism

Those of us who grew up with ancestral memories of the Loyalist regime established in Upper and Lower Canada after the American Revolution can perhaps be forgiven for indulging in a bit of Schadenfreude when contemplating the “progressive” mutation of the American Republic into what has long been characterized by the dissident right as the Zionist-Occupied Government (ZOG) now manifest in its final, most grotesque form as the Age of Trump.[12]

None of the major dissident strategies on offer for the salvation of the republic seek to restore the fusion of ethnicity, race, and religion that American Loyalists vainly sought to preserve. Nor do these strategies recognize or orient themselves towards the tribal future of the West as portrayed in the final chapter of The WASP Question. The hope held out there for the palingenesis of the founding race of the Anglosphere has taken on a new urgency with the publication of Mike Maxwell’s book on the Tribal Future of the West.

That future, as conceived by Maxwell, will present WASPs with unavoidable, existential challenges as intractable, “essentially ethnic and kin-based” conflicts produce recurrent tribal warfare:

The struggles to come will be non-civic, non-propositional, and non-consensual in character—rooted not in ideological belief or institutional allegiance but in ascriptive bonds of kinship and inherited identity. Tribal war captures the devolutionary direction of political life: a reversion from the scale of great nations to smaller, more organic groupings. It emphasizes that lower orders—families, clans, and local loyalties—are the real buttresses of higher structures, and that when those foundations fracture, so too do states.[13]

Looking on the bright side, neo-tribalism holds out some hope of a return to new (hopefully more refined) incarnations of immanentist ritual and religious discourse, fusing ethnicity and religion across the British diaspora. Stiff doses of reality as tribal warfare becomes normalized will certainly reconnect “the future to the deep past, acknowledging that nothing fundamental has changed in human organization since prehistory. Only the outer form and technologies have shifted; the human material remains the same.”[14] Should Angelcynn tribes revert to immanent forms of religious experience, the world itself may, once again, be filled with gods.[15]

In that advanced model of primordial cosmoreligions, personal adherence to transcendental creedal orthodoxy will no longer suppress ethnoreligious identities. Instead, a long transition towards the orthopraxis of an Angelcynn ethnoreligion will begin with the emergence of a Broad Church grounded in transnational ethnoreligious unity among WASPs throughout the Anglosphere. This process will ground neo-Angelcynn identity in institutions and communities outside and apart from the state. Any such expectations contradict the statist assumptions underlying all the reactionary alternatives on offer.[16]

Gustave Doré “When London is in Ruins”

The reinvention of Angelcynn tribal confederations throughout the post-Christian Anglosphere will draw upon a metapersonal, monarchical myth of Power rooted in an ancestral folk-religion re-embedded in the ritual cult of a Patriot King.

Such a new-modelled Angelcynn Network requires, at a minimum:

The transformation of Anglo-Protestant, especially Anglican, churches into the institutional medium for the emergence of a folkish/ancestral religion with its own ethnohistorical mythology; and
a process theology that recognizes Anglo-Saxon/British identity as a divinized work-in-progress emerging as a process of theosis within the lifeworld of today’s deracinated “heritage Americans,” Anglo-Australians, Anglo-Canadians, etc.; and
the emergence of Angelcynn (formerly WASP) elites capable of countering the crypto-Jewish supremacism of the so-called techno-populism promoted by Yarvin and other leading figures of the Dark Enlightenment; and
“Christian nationalists” who clearly and unambiguously acknowledge that the words “Christ” and “Messiah” in the original Greek and Hebrew meant “anointed” and could, in principle, be applied to historical figures emerging within a self-consciously, ethnoreligious “Angelcynn” tradition at some point in our own future; and
the recognition of Jesus the Christ as a (possibly) historical and/or mythological figure whose universal pre-eminence has long compromised manifold particularistic projects of peoplehood, as varied as the Hebrew Bible, a somewhat suppositious first-century Jewish-Christian movement, the Greek and Roman literary circles which created the New Testament canon, their imperial sponsors, as well as the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and myriad Protestant and other churches over the past two millennia; and
acknowledgement, therefore, that Sola Scriptura cannot serve as the sole inspiration or the foundational text for an Angelcynn ethnotheology in the current post-Christian age; and, finally
WASP churchmen ready, willing, and able to act on Sir John Seeley’s recommendation that the Anglo-Protestant churches create their own Bible. While they are at it, they must infuse folkish themes into liturgies and homiletics. The intellectual and spiritual armoury of a post-Christian WASP project of peoplehood also requires Anglocentric forms of practical, historical, and geopolitical theology enabling Angelcynn communities the world over to navigate the differences between friends and enemies.

In summary, The WASP Question mourns the collapse of British race patriotism which left Anglo-Saxon Christendom subject to the financialized streams of irresponsible Power emanating from the Divine Economy. The formerly White Dominions of the British Crown were absorbed seamlessly into the postwar globalist American empire managed by cosmopolitan client regimes rapidly taking on the character of multicultural police states.

The spiritual reformation and temporal survival of the Anglosphere require a post-Christian Angelcynn geopolitical theology adapted to a world in which the core ethnic identities of Western nation-states have been hollowed out. As a result, the sovereign legitimacy of those regimes is visibly withering away. Stateless WASPs will have to create and maintain tribal confederations at scale, across land and sea, if they are to survive as a recognizable ethnic group.

The collective strength and unity of widely scattered Anglo-Saxon diaspora communities will be conditional upon the creative re-configuration of constitutional authority on the terrain of civil society, not in the realm of formal state power. In the tribal future of the Anglosphere, any such institutionalized efflorescence of WASP civic authority will require a profound and continuous cultural revolution. Paradoxically perhaps, these innovations will call for the restoration of civic virtues pioneered by the republican polities of Greco-Roman antiquity—within which tribal identities and tribal gods still played a prominent role.

Unfortunately, ever since the Puritan Revolution every Anglo-Saxon country has been dominated by mercantile and financial elites driven by the pursuit of wealth rather than civic virtues. Consequently, our managerial, professional, and political elites are steeped in the social psychology of “hedonic maximization,” valuing short-term gratification over long-term flourishing. By contrast, ancient Aristotelian ethics prized eudaimonia (lit. good spirit), the divine state of being generated by consistent activity reflecting virtue and excellence.

Successful Angelcynn resistance to the increasingly corrupt (and corrupting) mercantilist regimes of our time must reanimate the good spirits once incarnate in the triadic social structures of early medieval Anglo-Saxon kingdoms—and secure their long-term flourishing. This will require another “great replacement,” that of the one-dimensional man spawned by the plutocratic, corporate oligarchies now misruling the hollow states and degenerate cultures of the Anglosphere. A postmodern Angelcynn reformation will reconstitute re-tribalized societies on the model of the three-legged stools which supported the authority of Anglo-Saxon kings: “those who work” will be governed by an alliance of “those who pray” with “those who fight.”

Facing the postmodern descent into decentralized forms of tribal warfare, recovering WASP elites must cultivate the heroic character that, in days of yore, belonged to Anglo-Saxon men of steel in ships of wood. Only such an archeofuturist model of social order can resurrect the ancestral ethnoreligious spirit which, in the guise of Alfred the Great, brought the sweet dream of a Patriot King down to earth.

Endnotes

[1] Steven K. Green, Inventing Christian America: The Myth of the Religious Founding (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 101.

[2] Ibid., 101-102.

[3] Carl L. Becker, The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas (New York: Vintage, 1922), 225.

[4] Ibid., 147-148.

[5] Washington, it should be noted, was partly of Huguenot descent, as were Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. Marco de Wit contends that the “leading Huguenot families were uniformly philosemitic and often connected to Jewish merchants through trade, politics, and Freemasonry. In fact, the philosemitic Huguenot Freemason from New York, John Jay served as the Revolution’s spymaster” worked closely with a “highly positioned Huguenot-Jewish-Freemason circle to feed information to Washington.” Significantly, there is also “evidence suggesting George Washington oversaw extensive homosexual and bisexual ties among his officers and intelligence agents.” De Wit suggests as well that Washington’s “opposition to strict conservative Christianity” and advocacy “for the more ‘tolerant’ Freemasonry,” along with a long, childless marriage and an “obsession with clothes” might account for his own “apparent homosexuality.” See:

https://www.unz.com/article/alexander-hamilton-and-franks-dynasty-jewish-masterminds-of-american-revolution-and-usa/

[6] Green, Inventing Christian America, 101-102; cf., Stephen Wolfe, The Case for Christian Nationalism (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2021), 399, 431.

[7] Green, Inventing Christian America, 209.

[8] Pastor Joel Webbon, “Denominationalism is Dead,” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBDrMAYKK2w&t=1751s

[9] David Ray Griffin, The Christian Gospel for Americans: A Systematic Theology (Anoka, MN: Process Century Press, 2019).

[10] Jared Taylor, “The American Experiment Has Failed,” https://www.amren.com/features/2025/11/the-american-experiment-has-failed-2/

[11] Curtis Yarvin, “The Situation and the Solution,” https://substack.com/home/post/p-181216819

[12] The transnational character of the 4^th Republic is formalized inter alia “in Section 622 of S. 4615, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027. Its title is anodyne: ‘United States-Israel Intelligence Sharing Enhancement.’” This obscure statutory provision routinizes intelligence sharing between the USA and Israel in such a way as to effect “the quiet conversion of an ally into a co-sovereign.” Ronald Dodson, “Section 622 and Israel,” https://rondodson.substack.com/p/section-622-and-israel, June 24, 2026.

[13] Mike Maxwell, Tribal Future of the West (Perth: Imperium Press, 2025), 349.

[14] Ibid., 349.

[15] John Michael Greer, A World Full of Gods: An Inquiry into Polytheism Revised and Expanded Edition (UK: Aeon Books, 2023).

[16] This Preface is not the place to develop a systematic critique of those alternatives. Readers interested in my take on alternative dissident strategies can find such critiques in a series of books that I have published after the appearance of The WASP Question in 2011. See, Dissident Dispatches: An Anglo-Identitarian Guide to Christian Theology (Arktos, 2017); Reinventing Aristocracy in the Age of Woke Capital: How Honourable WASP Elites Could Rescue Our Civilisation from Bad Governance by Irresponsible Corporate Plutocrats (Arktos, 2022); and Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of Peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the Collapse of British Patriotism (Arktos, 2025).

James Edwards Interviews White Advocate Don Wassall

September 12, 2026/11 Comments/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by James Edwards

What follows is an interview that talk radio host James Edwards conducted with veteran political activist Don Wassall, founder and administrator of CasteFootball.us.

* * *

James Edwards: Don, you have been a lifelong activist and have been involved in many different projects and publications. Could you give readers a quick recap of your work?

Don Wassall: Building a strongly pro-American “third party” was the main reason I left my legal career and devoted my efforts full-time to the Populist Party of America in the 1980s and ‘90s, first as Executive Director and later National Chairman. The Populist Party was the most successful right-wing grassroots third party since the Populist Party of the 1890s. After the seemingly inevitable factionalism and infiltration that bedevils nationalist projects and caused the Populist Party’s downfall, I ran the American Freedom Union for several years and founded and published The Nationalist Times from 1985 until 2023.

Edwards: CasteFootball.us is a long-running online forum dedicated to discussing sports through the lens of what you call the racial “caste system” in American athletics. You argue that White athletes face systemic discrimination, negative stereotyping, and positional restrictions in both professional and collegiate leagues. Sports fandom plays a significant role in the lives of countless Americans, yet few examine these racial dynamics in sports the way you do. What inspired this issue to become a passion for you?

Wassall: I played sports growing up and always followed baseball, football, basketball, and hockey among other sports as a fan. I grew up in an all-White suburb of Pittsburgh and didn’t become racially aware until my mid-20s. At that time (the early 1980s), I noticed an ongoing change in the demographics of the National Football League. Although the NFL, like Major League Baseball and the National Basketball Association, had been thoroughly integrated beginning in the 1950s and ’60s, starting in the 1980s, White players began to be phased out as running backs, wide receivers, and on defense in general. It was obvious that this wasn’t by accident but rather as part of an agenda, so it was something I began following quite closely, and eventually I started Caste Football in 2004 to study and expose the racial and political dynamics of sports, and Caste Football remains the one and only website of its kind to this day.

Edwards: Football has become a religion in this country, and you’ve tracked this racial caste system in the NFL for years. Do you believe that White players are steered away from certain positions despite their talent? If so, why?

Wassall: The racial slotting actually begins at the peewee level, with Black kids almost automatically becoming the running backs and receivers, and more and more now the quarterbacks. It’s not as noticeable in predominantly White small towns and suburban areas, but it continues through high school and then, of course, college and the NFL.

The template of the Caste System in football, restricting Whites primarily to quarterback, tight end, and the offensive line and rarely any other positions, was cemented in place some 40 years ago and has changed very little since, other than there are now many more Black quarterbacks than there used to be. Blacks are heavily recruited and given every opportunity to succeed at quarterback, while Whites rarely receive scholarships or opportunities to play running back, wide receiver, or defense at major college programs.

There have been two generations now of uncontested propaganda that American Blacks are the world’s greatest athletes, and that Whites just can’t keep up with them when it comes to speed, jumping, and other measurements of athleticism.

This agenda serves two main purposes. One is a form of psychological warfare directed at Whites to make them feel inferior physically and athletically, to demoralize them and keep them down as they are rapidly replaced in the United States; and also, to prop up Blacks and their often-fragile egos.

Many Whites, especially racially aware Whites, have tuned out sports, seeing it as “blackball” and buying into the “Blacks are the best” propaganda and ceding it as an area where Whites can’t compete. In reality, Whites, not Blacks, are the world’s best athletes, and it’s not even particularly close. Whites win around 90% of the medals at the Winter Olympics and usually 60% or more at the Summer Games. Blacks are almost completely invisible in most sports because they just aren’t very good at them compared to Whites, and often Asians as well.

The only slight advantage Blacks have over Whites on average is running short distances in a straight line. This is why the 40-yard dash at the NFL’s annual Combine is hyped so much, but even there the Black advantage is small. At the Combine, athletes are tested in several events, and the relatively few Whites who are invited more than hold their own in the strength and quickness tests. And also in jumping; on Caste Football we regularly post videos of young White basketball players who can “jump through the roof.”

A new measurement in recent years for college football players is the Relative Athletic Score (RAS), which combines various tested attributes of athleticism into a grade, with 10.0 being perfect. Again, many Whites do exceptionally well when it comes to RAS, including those who don’t even get drafted by the NFL.

White football players are at the back of the bus when it comes to scholarships and opportunities after high school, no matter how much talent they have. From there, the lack of opportunities at big-time college football programs results in Whites being excluded by the NFL via its annual draft, which every year, decade after decade, limits the number of Whites drafted to around 20%, defying all laws of probability and common sense.

DEI began in earnest in sports in the late 1960s and has since spread throughout society as an extremely important part of The Great Replacement. Blacks can indeed be good athletes, but what we have now is an extremist form of Black racial supremacy in sports that most Whites aren’t even aware of because the corporate media always follows the party line of lionizing Black athleticism while downplaying and even joking about White athleticism.

Contrary to what we’re often told, sports is not the one area of American society that is still a “meritocracy”; it’s the original proving ground of effective anti-White propaganda as well as a tool to glorify and promote Black athletes far more than Whites ones in service to The Great Replacement agenda.

Edwards: Some readers may be surprised to know that there is a women’s professional basketball league called the WNBA, where we find a notable example of anti-White sentiment in sports. Who is Caitlin Clark, and why are her Black, lesbian opponents trying to physically assault her during games?

Wassall: Caitlin Clark was the most dominant female college basketball player ever. However, another characteristic of the Caste System in sports is the requirement that a Black person must always be regarded as “the best” in football, basketball, and sprinting. And as an aside, of late we are seeing several White sprinters breaking 10.00 seconds in the 100 meters; Whites often won gold medals in sprinting until the 1970s and are now battling their way back when it comes to world-class speed even though they are rarely given scholarships out of high school or trained at a high level. Boxing is another sport where Whites have made a strong comeback, which is why the media doesn’t cover it like it used to.

The WNBA is not only regarded by the mostly Black players in it as “theirs,” but it also has a high number of lesbians, including the coaches. So Caitlin is doubly resented for being both White and straight as well as for the publicity she received while playing collegiately for Iowa. So the hatred directed toward her is a textbook example of Black fragility and hatred toward Whites who “encroach” on what they regard as their exclusive territory.

Edwards: A few weeks ago, during a game where Clark was punched in the throat, her teammate Sophie Cunningham got into a viral finger-pointing standoff with DeWanna Bonner following the incident involving Clark. Cunningham, a blonde bombshell resembling a Greek goddess, calmly pointed while Bonner reacted with typical hysterics. The clip exploded as a meme, generating tens of millions of views on social media and national news coverage. What did you think of the incident, and why has it sparked a public debate about racial realities in sports?

Wassall: God Bless Sophie Cunningham! She is a beautiful and very likable White girl who protects Caitlin on the court as best she can and doesn’t take guff from anyone. She and Caitlin are doing a great job of exposing the WNBA as a bastion of Black and lesbian supremacy. However, while it is generating a lot of debate, at Caste Football we dig much deeper into these things, and unfortunately the average White sports fan, being a well-indoctrinated American, is still oblivious to the bigger picture when it comes to the racial dynamics of sports and how it disadvantages Whites.

Edwards: Why does successful athletic performance by White players in Black-dominated sports leagues trigger such a level of resentment and physical response?

Wassall: Black fragility and ego are the main factors. They believe that once something becomes “theirs” it stays that way in perpetuity.

Back in the 1990s, there were very few White receivers in the NFL, and they were often hit in the head with extreme force by Black defenders, what’s called “head hunting.” In recent years, the league has moved to penalize the worst offenders, but it’s still an occupational hazard for Whites at the “verboten” positions.

Racial taunting is also common; Peyton Hillis, who in 2010 became the first White running back in the NFL to run for 1,000 yards in a full 25 years, has said he was the target of racial insults on virtually every play.

Edwards: Using a sporting event as a segue into politics, an extreme example of Black violence against White athletes would be the murder of Austin Metcalf by Karmelo Anthony at a high school track meet. This incident has led to a mini-resurgence of BLM hysteria, with many individuals in the Black community posting AI images of themselves urinating on Metcalf’s grave and arguing that Anthony should have been able to strike first, stab Metcalf repeatedly, and expect a “not guilty” verdict. How pervasive is this kind of thinking within the Black community, and what was your reaction to that incident, the trial, and the sentence handed down?

Wassall: It saddens me to see the level of knee-jerk anti-White hate among some Blacks. There are Blacks who speak out intelligently against the behavior that has caused epidemic “Black fatigue” in the U.S, but so many Blacks in urban areas are seemingly nurtured from birth with an unshakeable victim mentality that resists common sense.

The stabbing death of Austin Metcalf, a good-looking young kid who repeatedly politely asked Karmelo Anthony to go to the correct area at a track meet in Texas, was a tragedy, but typifies a scenario that happens all too often and with far less publicity.

Edwards: Representative Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) attempted to stoke the flames with her comments, asserting that in that district, there was no way a Black man could receive a fair trial. With the election of more politicians who are quick to blame everything on Whites (Mamdani, Crockett, AOC, etc.), where is this all heading?

Wassall: The problems will continue to worsen until Whites start thinking and acting in their own group interests far more than is the case now. You see White groups like the Mormons and Amish who work together for the greater good of their community, but among Whites in general there is precious little of that. Whites are independent to a fault, and until we find some ways to work together in this virulently anti-White system, we will continue to freefall when it comes to numbers and our collective mental and physical health.

Edwards: What do you think other minority groups think about these concerns? Do Asians, for instance, view the blatant anti-White racism against Caitlin Clark and others differently than we do? And are average Hispanics relieved that a murderer like Anthony is off the streets, or is there a loose alliance among these minority groups against heritage Americans?

Wassall: Asian Americans were bombarded with propaganda that “Asian hate” was coming from White men, but they are well aware that Black men (and often Black women) are behind all of it. Blacks and Hispanics rarely get along; in fact, Blacks as a group seem unable to get along with anyone.

Many “Hispanics” are primarily or entirely White; “Hispanic” is a linguistic definition more than a racial or even ethnic one. Some South American countries have a larger White population by percentage than the United States, and “south of the border” Whites are still mostly respected and are at the top of the pecking order when it comes to politics and things like advertising and standards of beauty. There are many pro athletes named “Rodriguez” or “Garcia” from Latin America who are mostly or entirely of European descent, usually Spanish, Italian and/or German.

Whites need to be open and welcoming of any potential alliances, including with Asians, given the overall poor condition of our great race both in North America and Europe.

Edwards: Please provide a final statement and let readers know where they can continue engaging in the debate at the intersection of race and sports.

Wassall: There is a lot more to the Caste System in sports than what I’ve briefly summarized. Caste Football is a discussion forum that has well over half a million posts, and we discuss everything under the sun, not just sports, though rooting for White athletes and exposing the racism and unfairness they often experience with direct and indirect evidence is our primary mission. American Free Press readers are encouraged to contribute to the discussion by going to castefootball.us and signing up as a poster.

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS.

Postcards from the Empire: The Anti-War Movement is now the Anti-White Movement

February 24, 2026/14 Comments/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Don Wassall

Some twenty-three years ago, the United States government was getting ready to invade Iraq, again. The pretext for the second war against Iraq in 12 years was that Saddam Hussein had procured “weapons of mass destruction.”

That of course was a lie, as many suspected at the time and was quickly revealed as a hoax, but the war of aggression still took place, with untold numbers of Iraqis dying along with 4,418 U.S. servicemen killed and over 31,000 wounded, many with hideous injuries from IEDs. Over half a million Iraqi children are estimated to have died due to U.S. sanctions in the 1990s and early 2000s, but as Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeline Albright infamously stated during a “60 Minutes” interview: “It was worth it.”

In the lead-up to the 2003 invasion, as the bomb-happy U.S. government moved troops, equipment and ships into place, huge protests were held all over the world. For example, on February 15, 2003, between 6 and 14 million people protested in over 600 cities worldwide against the impending invasion, considered the largest one-day protest in history.

Twenty-three years later the Empire of Lies again is on the verge of slaughtering another Middle Eastern country, one that hasn’t threatened the U.S. mainland and couldn’t damage the country even if it wanted to. The pretext, to the extent one is even given anymore, is that Iran is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons, a charge made over and over for the past 30 years by Israel’s Prime Minister for Life Benjamin Netanyahu.

The U.S. intelligence community has debunked Netanyahu’s charge on several occasions, but because it is Netanyahu, virtually all American politicians play along, as of course does the government’s corporate media arm. That’s hardly a surprise, but what’s noticeable is that the anti-war demonstrations that took place in 2003 around the world including in the U.S. are nowhere to be seen in 2026.

The UN is quiet. China and Russia could be stirring up a hornet’s nest of resolutions condemning the U.S., but aren’t. Neither is the “Global South” nor the BRICS alliance. And from millions of people in the streets in Europe and the U.S. in 2003, now it’s crickets.

There is no longer an anti-war movement to speak of. Why? Because smashing Iran is a major objective of Zionism, particularly the Greater Israel agenda.

Israel engaged in genocide in Gaza, and still is, and the “world community” was mostly muted in response when it wasn’t actively cheering it on. There are some notable voices speaking out against Trump’s subservience to Netanyahu, such as Tucker Carlson and a number of other commentators along with the usual sprinkling of patriotic Senators and Congressmen, but it’s far short of enough to prevent what’s coming.

If Congress doesn’t have to authorize war in this case, war against a country of 90 million people with a civilization thousands of years old and which is not a threat to the fatherland, then it’s undeniable that the U.S. President does indeed have unchallengeable dictatorial powers, something to keep in mind when the Democrats regain control of Washington, including the executive branch. The bloodlust coming from the likes of Susan Rice and James Carville are but a taste of what what’s left of America will experience in 2028 given the near total failure of the Trump 2.0 administration following a promising start.

Democrat Party and prominent Obama administration figure Susan Rice says conservatives need to be “rounded up and sent to reeducation camps or prison..” WTF.

12:00 PM · Feb 20, 2026 · 119K Views

Democrat Party member Susan Rice says conservatives need to be “rounded up and sent to reeducation camps or prison..”

WTF. pic.twitter.com/UOHAubLQQS

— American AF 🇺🇸 (@iAnonPatriot) February 20, 2026

Trump has tucked tail and run from Minnesota instead of engaging the leftist revolutionaries the way he should have. It only emboldens the communists and the elitists who engaged in non-stop lawfare during the Biden Cabal that there will be no accountability and they’ll be free to finish the job once Trump is gone.

The left flips out over a couple of comrades in Minneapolis being killed when they interfered and threatened ICE officers from doing their job. Yet they have no concern for the one hundred thousand-plus “people of color” Gazans murdered to sate Netanyahu’s bloodlust, nor for the untold number of Iranians about to perish if Trump gives the green light for war, and all indications are that he soon will.

The left is concerned about brown-skinned illegal aliens who have committed felonies in the U.S. They believe it is “White supremacy” to make any attempt to deport them. If you want to try to understand the admittedly insane mindset of the left, the key to doing so is that they will always take the anti-White position, or the anti-Christian position, or the anti-traditional values and morality position. They are committed to the complete inversion and destruction of the United States, from all the government institutions, NGOs, foundations, and universities to the street gangs they finance. And they will also always take the pro-Zionist, pro-Israel position, even though Israel is the world’s leading and most dangerous racist country.

Impossible to reconcile? Not to the leftist mindset.

What’s changed since 2003 is that the international left is now focused solely on replacing Whites and Western Civilization, in the U.S., in Europe, and in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and everywhere else Whites still reside. Iranians are mere collateral damage as the U.S. has morphed into an extension of Israel and Israeli barbarism and replacement ideology.

The huge anti-war movement of the past is now the huge anti-White movement of the present, controlled from the top down to street level. As always, what’s left of the fast-shrinking White population is squeezed from the top and the bottom by implacably hostile forces. Total degradation and replacement of Whites is the aim, and only the braindead who haven’t realized the fast-paced changes taking place demographically are still oblivious to what’s taking place at warp speed by any historical measure. Of course there’s always been a large number of naïve, easily deceived Americans and the number has only grown thanks to the development of advertising and the mass media.

Don Wassall is a prominent long-time White advocate.

Stay informed on all the important issues by reading American Freedom News.us, updated daily (americanfreedomnews.us). And support Don Wassall’s Substack.

Our People or ‘America’?: Looking Beyond Trump

June 26, 2025/6 Comments/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Mark Weber

Adapted from an address given on May 31, 2025, at a conference organized and hosted by James Edwards in Greenville, South Carolina.

Our host has brought us together this weekend to do more than diagnose and explain what’s gone wrong, or to call out those who are responsible. The focus of this conference, he explains, is “on how to effectively leverage the opportunities created by Donald Trump’s re-election,” and to “capitalize on the changing political climate.” Well, doing that demands an honest and realistic assessment of Trump’s career, the MAGA movement that grew from it, and the Trump presidency.

Donald Trump’s astonishing rise to power has been, above all, an expression of deep and growing unhappiness among Americans with what’s become of our country. The Trump-MAGA movement has given voice to the pent-up rage of millions — above all, White middle class and working Americans — who have been ignored and belittled by their political leaders, and who have been made to feel like strangers in their own country.

His success is the result of the mounting disappointment and anger at the ever more obvious failure of the establishment political parties and their leaders, who have held power for decades, and of those who have supported them in the mass media, in Hollywood, in business, and in school and college classrooms. Trump’s ascent to the White House is both a symptom and an accelerator of the breakdown of the liberal democratic order — and the ideology on which it is based — that has prevailed in our country and in western Europe since the end of World War II.

Trump has performed a great service by shaking things up. He has pushed Americans to acknowledge uncomfortable realities that those in power have wanted everyone to ignore. He has pressed Americans to re-consider such important issues as birthright citizenship, and “affirmative action” policies and other programs that discriminate against White citizens — issues that those in power had long regarded as “settled” and not open to question.

While acknowledging positive features of the Trump-MAGA movement, honesty compels us to also frankly acknowledge the very real limits of what that movement and the Trump administration can actually accomplish.

Donald Trump and MAGA movement leaders claim that America is no longer the great country it was and should be because it has been wrecked by evil people. To “Make America Great Again,” they believe, does not require a revolution. It requires only getting rid of those bad people who have done so much to wreck the country. In keeping with its character as a reactionary protest movement, Trump and MAGA Republicans focus on identifying their enemies and removing them from power and influence.

Trump and his colleagues and supporters are clear about who and what they do not like, and want to sweep away. They seem certain, for example, about what books they believe Americans should not read. Accordingly, the Trump administration has been busy removing from libraries books that foster anti-White attitudes, and notably those that promote “Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.” However, Trump and the MAGA movement seem to have no idea of just what books should be in libraries, or that Americans should be reading.

That’s because Trump and the MAGA movement has no coherent, self-consistent worldview or historical outlook of its own to replace the ideology that has prevailed in the U.S. for the past 80 years, and which has inexorably brought us to where we are today. As a result, the Trump-MAGA movement has no clear concept of the future other than a vague vision of an America that, once again, is “great” and “winning.”

So often we have heard Republican politicians and commentators tell us that the miserable conditions in U.S. cities — the decay, crime and disorder of Detroit, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and so on — are all because … the mayors of those cities are Democrats. Do they — does anyone — actually believe such nonsense? So often MAGA Republicans tell us that the Democrats are the “real racists,” and insist that, “we” should all think of ourselves simply as human beings and “Americans” — and that our goal is, or should be, a color-blind, non-racial America.

MAGA Republicans complain about “identity politics,” calling it “divisive” and “racist.” It’s difficult to believe that those who make such claims are sincere, given that Trump’s own campaign routinely practiced “identity politics,” with election appeals to Blacks, Hispanics, and Jews that promise benefits to members of those racial or ethnic groups.

As part of his effort to win support from Black voters in the 2020 election campaign, Donald Trump issued his so-called “Platinum Plan,” which promised that a second Trump administration would make “Juneteenth” a national holiday, and would set up a range of new federal programs that, he claimed, would “increase access to capital in Black communities by almost 500 billion dollars,” thereby “creating 500,000 new Black-owned businesses.” When President Biden later made Juneteenth an official federal holiday, Trump claimed credit for it because, he said, he was the one who made the idea “very famous.” During the 2024 presidential election cycle, both the Trump and Harris campaigns made “identity politics” appeals to Jews, running television ads that explained why each candidate was best for Jewish interests.

Although Trump and MAGA Republicans reject anti-White policies, and the outlook on which those polices are based, they do not have an explicitly pro-White outlook. Instead, they believe, or pretend to believe, that race does not matter — that America is so “exceptional” that this country is somehow immune from the realities of biology, of history, and of life itself.

Those who are serious about our country and our future, though, cannot afford to close their eyes to things as they really are. Work and sacrifice based on anything other than a frank and realistic understanding of the great challenges we face is a waste of time and effort. When we carefully consider just what can and should be done, we must be clear-eyed and honest about how profoundly the drastic racial-cultural transformation of our country over the past 80 years has changed everything. To be blunt, the Trump-MAGA diagnosis of what’s wrong with America, and therefore what’s to be done, is woefully inadequate.

In the years just after the end of World War II, the U.S. population was some 90 percent European American. Whites were even a majority in every large U.S. city. Today, only a handful of large U.S. cities still have a majority White population. As everyone here is very aware, the U.S. population is, or very soon will be, a majority non-White. MAGA Americans believe, or at least hope, that in spite of the radical cultural-racial change in the U.S. population since the 1950s, President Trump will somehow restore the united, purposeful U.S.A. of a bygone era.

Some of us here this weekend are old enough to remember how many millions of White Americans and so-called conservatives put great hope in Ronald Reagan, another Republican leader whose slogan in the 1980 presidential election campaign was “Let’s Make America Great Again.” In his acceptance speech at the Republican Party national convention that year, Reagan spoke about welcoming Haitians to the U.S., because — he explained — America is a providentially chosen country for people everywhere who yearn for freedom. “Can we doubt,” he said, “that only a divine providence placed this land, this island of freedom, here as a refuge for all those people in the world who yearn to breathe freely: Jews and Christians enduring persecution behind the Iron Curtain, the boat people of Southeast Asia, of Cuba and of Haiti, the victims of drought and famine in Africa, the freedom fighters of Afghanistan, and our own countrymen held in savage captivity.”

I remember the joy of victory shared by millions of White Americans when Reagan was elected president a few months later, and their happiness during the eight years he was in the White House — lifting spirits with inspiring, patriotic rhetoric about American greatness and exceptionalism. Like Trump, Ronald Reagan ignored race — and, not surprisingly, the country’s demographic and cultural de-Europeanization continued during the Reagan years at a brisk pace.

However thrilling election victories by politicians who promise a “great America” may make many of us feel, that is not what really matters. What’s important is not victory for a candidate or a party, but solid, purposeful policies for our people based on a coherent worldview grounded in reality.

During the 2024 election campaign, many MAGA voters were encouraged by the prospect that a second Trump administration would deport one or two or even ten million illegal immigrants. Most Trump supporters today still hope that sweeping policies and measures by the new administration might somehow turn back the clock, and restore an America that once was. The sober truth, though, is that even if all illegal immigration to the U.S. stops tomorrow, and every illegal immigrant is deported or leaves the country, the racial “third-worldization” of the U.S. — the de-Europeanization of the country — will continue, even if at a slower pace.

In his inaugural address in January, and in similar remarks on election night in November, Trump made a point of expressing thanks for the support he had gotten from “African Americans, Hispanic Americans, [and] Asian Americans.” He made no mention of the much more important, indeed, decisive support he received from White Americans. The reason for this “oversight,” if you will, is not ignorance.

To talk explicitly about White American voters, or White American heritage, or White American history, is somehow to detract from the comfortable but delusional assumption of so many of our people that White America is America, and that Blacks, Hispanics, and so forth, are more or less adjunct or peripheral population groups that “we” should either ignore or try to uplift and fit in to “our” great country. Until the middle of the twentieth century, nearly all Americans understood and acknowledged the obvious reality that race matters. Today that’s no longer true. For more than 80 years, White Americans have been subjected to a systematic, organized campaign of social conditioning that promotes a poisonously distorted portrayal of life and history, through television and Hollywood movies, in newspapers and magazines, and in school and college classrooms, all bolstered with reassuring but toxic platitudes by compliant politicians. This well-organized campaign has succeeded in persuading most White Americans — including millions of MAGA-Trump supporters — that race does not or should not matter.

In his inaugural address of January, Donald Trump promised, “America will soon be greater, stronger, and far more exceptional than ever before.” His administration, he said, will “bring back hope, prosperity, safety, and peace for citizens of every race, religion, color and creed.” He promised not only that “we will bring prices down,” but that “the American Dream will soon be back and thriving like never before.” If Trump’s vision of the future is valid, then we — that is, all those who understand that race is not merely a social construct — have been wrong.

It’s possible to ignore reality — but it is not possible to ignore the consequences of ignoring reality. What that means is that the real-life consequences of what the U.S. has become — racially, culturally and socially — impose unequivocal limits on the actual, lasting achievements of a Trump government. Within ten years, and most likely before the end of this second Trump administration, it will be obvious, even to most of his supporters, that the MAGA vision of a “Golden Age” for America is delusional.

In coming years, demographic reality will dispel what’s left of the naïve hopes of a Trumpian restoration, and the foolish view that the realities of biology, history, and life can be ignored. The consequences of this process will also inevitably force a shift in attitudes by White Americans about themselves and their country, especially among younger men and women who have no memory of a time when the U.S. was still an overwhelmingly White nation.

As White Americans become an ever smaller part of the U.S. population, our people will be increasingly forced to acknowledge their declining influence and status, and will be compelled to face the consequences of living as a dwindling minority in the country that was once theirs. Only then will large numbers of White Americans begin to organize in earnest to battle for the rights and interests of our people.

A great change in attitudes among White Americans is coming. As history shows, such a change can happen quickly when the new outlook is in line with sensibilities that already exist, but which have been dormant and unexpressed. Where conditions like those in today’s America existed in the past, similar shifts have taken place quickly.

The history of our own country provides an instructive example. When prominent Americans from the 13 colonies met together in late 1774 as the “Continental Congress,” they still regarded themselves as loyal to Britain and the English king. Their identity was still first and foremost that of British subjects. At that time, George Washington — a delegate at that assembly — was “well satisfied’ that independence from Britain was not “desired by any thinking man in all North America.” As late as July 1775, that is, even after the bloody clashes between colonial militiamen and British soldiers in Massachusetts at Lexington and Concord, as well as at Bunker Hill near Boston, the Continental Congress denied “any designs of separation from Great Britian and establishing independent states.”

But attitudes about identity were changing. By the summer of 1776, a view that just a year earlier had been considered unthinkable was now acceptable, at least to a determined minority of White Americans. In July 1776, the Continental Congress delegates ratified and signed the Declaration of Independence, and thereby proclaimed a new identity for the White people of the former 13 colonies. It was only after five years of suffering and privation in a bloody struggle that often seemed hopeless, and in which support from a foreign country proved decisive, that British military power was broken, thereby securing the future of the new republic.

More importantly, all those who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, or who debated and signed the U.S. Constitution of 1787, unanimously regarded the new country as a White people’s republic. This new identity took hold quickly because it fit well with changed conditions, and because it expressed a latent but suppressed sensibility.

In spite of decades of egalitarian propaganda and social conditioning, most White Americans today still have an instinctive sense of “Whiteness.” On a certain level, most White Americans already realize, however unclearly, that there is no secure and hopeful future for themselves and their children and grand-children in a non-White, Third-World society. That dim awareness is manifest in how we live and act. For decades, White Americans have shown in their behavior that they prefer to live among, and associate with, people who are like themselves. Even those who claim to love “diversity” move away from neighborhoods that become too non-White.

All the same, most White Americans today are still loyal to the U.S.A., and hope that somehow this increasingly diverse and divided entity can still be held together. For most of our people, a future without the U.S.A. is simply unimaginable. That’s understandable, of course. After all, for most of the nearly 250 years that the U.S. has existed, this country’s saga has been a historically unparalleled one of prosperity, innovation, expansion, hegemony, and success.

For reasons already mentioned, only a minority of White Americans today are more concerned about the future of our people than they are about the future of the United States. Because most White Americans today more or less accept that forthrightly affirming our heritage and identity is somehow shameful or embarrassing, they are not yet ready to support candidates who openly defend White interests. As a result, not a single openly, unapologetically pro-White public figure holds elected office right now — at least on the federal level — anywhere in the country.

When we give serious consideration to just what can or should be done in political life, obviously we must take into consideration the actual feelings and attitudes of White voters. The confusion of most White Americans about what it even means to be “American,” together with their ambivalent feelings about race and identity, impose constraints on just what is possible, and not possible, for pro-White candidates. For the foreseeable future, pro-White candidates must be careful about how they express themselves, making sure not to be so explicit that they alarm voters who are afraid of “racism,” but not so timid that they betray our communitarian interests. All the same, the election record of the Trump-MAGA movement shows that millions of White Americans will vote for candidates who openly reject anti-White egalitarian policies, and thereby defend, at least implicitly, White community interests.

As the demographic trends of the past half-century continue, and as ever more White Americans better understand the consequences of those trends, they will be steadily more willing to support candidates who appeal for votes with a White version of “identity politics.” Ever more White voters will be motivated to support candidates who not only highlight and call out the deceit and hypocrisy of the politicians, educators, media masters, and business leaders promoting DEI, “affirmative action” and similar policies, but who also explain just how such policies, and the outlook behind them, harm the interests and future of White Americans.

The outreach of pro-White candidates should be cogent and reasonable, and appeal to a sense of justice and fair play. Such candidates will be all the more effective when they appeal to voters not merely with negative messaging about their opponents, but when they also present positive imagery of our own people, and messaging that inspires hope for a better future for our children. Successful pro-White candidates and activists must learn to be flexible and adaptive in tactics, while always firm and steadfast in principle. That’s not easy to do. It requires patience, self-control, and discernment — virtues that normally come only with experience and age.

In this time of accelerating change and looming challenge, our most pressing task must be to awaken the suppressed but slumbering self-awareness, confidence, and latent strength of our people. Our hopes and efforts must be directed, first and foremost, not to propping up and trying to save the multi-cultural, multi-racial U.S.A. Instead, our focus should be on the well-being and future of our people. In this struggle there will be no easy, “quick fix” victory. In fact, the battle will become more intense after Trump is gone, and the MAGA movement is history.

Happily, there are already encouraging reasons for hope and confidence.

On the intellectual front, we are already prevailing, even if that’s not yet widely understood or acknowledged. Our most formidable adversaries in the battle for ideas are not neo-Marxists or dreamy utopians, but rather the neo-conservative and neo-liberal apologists for the prevailing democratic-capitalist order. Although they defend a System that is still powerful and entrenched, they are very much on the defensive because that order is ever more obviously failing.

These defenders of what they call “democracy” want to suppress and ban popular political parties that they say are not “really” democratic. These champions of “free speech” and “tolerance” ban books, websites, and podcasts that they regard as offensive or hateful. They denounce ethno-nationalism in Hungary and Poland, but defend it in Israel. Their slogans, arguments and ideas are lackluster and uninteresting. No wonder they are increasingly regarded — especially by younger men and women — as ineffectual hypocrites.

In this struggle, we can also take heart from the important work that’s being done to lay a foundation for ultimate victory. Especially encouraging is the rise in recent years of an ever-growing number of capable, smart, and articulate younger White activists, publicists, writers, and organizers. With each passing year, these younger men and women — in our country and overseas — are turning out ever more — and ever better-quality videos — podcasts, websites, essays and books.

In this great, existential struggle of our age, our guiding spirit must not be loathing or hatred of others, but an abiding loyalty, love and devotion for the heritage and future of our own people, sustained by our vision of a secure, hopeful and durable future for our children and for generations of our people not yet born.

Mark Weber, Director of the Institute for Historical Review, is a historian, lecturer, and current affairs analyst. Mr. Weber was educated in both the United States and Europe and holds a master’s degree in modern European history.

The Jonathan Bowden: The Messiah, the Chosen One?

March 21, 2025/in Featured Articles, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Edward Dutton

“Execute, burn, kill the heretic!” In Monty Python’s The Life of Brian, this is the reaction of one of Brian’s zealous followers to a hermit, whose vow of silence was broken by Brian landing on his foot, dissenting from the view that Brian is “the Messiah, the chosen one.” When religions of this kind, based around the worship of an individual, begin then we normally refer to them as “cults” or, less pejoratively, as “New Religious Movements.” It is telling that the John Cleese character who condemns the hermit earlier informs Brian, who declares that he is not the Messiah, that, “I say you are, Lord, and I should know. I’ve followed a few.” This man is the archetypal “seeker” — he is searching for someone to follow, for somebody who will provide his life with eternal meaning — and, as I will show, there is a specific kind of psychology associated with being a “seeker.”

Now, you might be asking why I am writing about this in a nationalist webzine. How can New Religious Movements, let alone a minor character in The Life of Brian, possibly be relevant? Well, having gone off on a tangent, allow me, like Jonathan Bowden, to bring everything back to the key point: Jonathan Bowden himself. I recently published his biography — Shaman of the New Right: The Life and Mind of Jonathan Bowden. In this book, I directly stated that, for some people on the right, Bowden has become imbued with something of the holy. Well, I have now become a heretic for writing a biography rather than a hagiography.

I actually pre-empted this reaction in the book. Bowden’s good friend Adrian Davies, whom I interviewed about Bowden on The Jolly Heretic in 2022, was as shocked as I was when someone in the live stream accused him of creating a “Bowden hit piece” simply for recounting his own experiences of his friend. Davies and I later discussed how there was clearly, “The Bowden of History and Bowden of Faith.” When I interviewed former British National Party chairman Nick Griffin — he knew Bowden well because he appointed him the party’s Cultural Officer — Griffin warned me off writing the biography at all, informing me that a truthful account of Bowden’s life would subtract from the mystery that is so attractive to his followers, would inevitably upset these people and, anyway, they are the kind to become upset because Bowden “sold impossible dreams to people . . . and is popular among Incels.” Incels have been shown to be high in mental instability and Dark Triad traits, such as psychopathy and Narcissism; hence their being unattractive to girls.

With these remarks, Griffin was extremely prescient. Many of Bowden’s friends, including the sole beneficiary of his will, asked me to write the biography. I thought I would be attacked as blasphemer for so-doing and this is precisely what has happened. It began last week with an Amazon review of the book, which has since disappeared for some reason, but of which I kept a screen shot. “Ian Thompson” described the book as “Nonsensical” and continued:

Did the author even talk to Bowden’s best friend and beneficiary of his Will [sic.]. Did he even look at his Last Will & Testament [sic.]. Thought not. How you write a biography on a man you never met, never spoke to his family or close friends is beyond understand [sic.]. Just a money making exercise in self promotion on the author’s part [sic.]. Far too expensive, don’t waste your money. I haven’t. I knew the man, one of the few who was invited into his home, so won’t read the book [sic.]. One more thing. If Jonathan created a myth around him, he had a very good reason.

This is obviously a reflection of extreme emotion, leading to impulsivity and a lack of logical thinking: Can we not write Plato’s biography because we haven’t met him? Had “Ian Thompson” read the book, he would know that I did interview Bowden’s beneficiary (Michael Woodbridge), I did obtain his will, and I did speak to his close friends, including one who was invited into his home. Mysteriously, the same reviewer then completely changed his review — presumably because he read a summary of the book somewhere; he was not a “verified purchase” — and altered his method of attack. Alas, I did not keep a screen shot and he seems to have deleted it, but, in essence, he declared “shame” on all those who were prepared to be interviewed; they weren’t Bowden’s true friends and that the book is “a character assassination of a good man.”

When I remarked on the first review on Twitter, someone called “Julius” exclaimed, “You piss on the graves of better men in order to get attention from left wing media. You should die of shame” while the “Traditional Britain Group” remarked that, “Yes, when Gregory a TBG VP made some relatively mild criticisms in an interview a year back, based upon his personal recollections a bunch of groupies here became both spiteful and hysterical. I blocked them all. They obviously operate under a very simplistic and comic book view of human nature.” They were referring to Gregory Lauder-Frost, whom I interviewed for the biography and who knew Bowden.

Beneath my interview about the book on the podcast “History Sessions,” someone called “Jackdoe4632” declared, “Perhaps Jonathan gave his reasons to his genuine friends (not Renouf or Woodbridge who crave attention and notoriety). His loyal friends, those whom he trusted and have not betrayed him in death, are keeping his confidences and protecting his memory. . . . The people you spoke to were merely acquaintances.” So, the sole beneficiary of Bowden’s will and Lady Renouf, to whom Bowden fled when he went mad and thought people were trying to kill him, were “merely acquaintances,” but this internet anon was Bowden’s true best friend?

On the podcast “Scrumpmonkey,” where I was interviewed about the book, I was attacked with fallacious arguments continuously by a troll called “Jo-os3vp” who, in particular, asserted that: “Bowden would have hated this disrespectful and exploitative ‘biography’ with a passion. I don’t expect its zero-empathy author to understand that. Some people can’t just listen to a man’s words, they are more interested in deconstructing his character and digging up dirt on his private life.” The implication seems to be that Bowden is so holy that an accurate biography simply shouldn’t be written at all. As with Incels, studies indicate that trolls are high in sadism and psychopathy: The “empathy” remark is clear projection, as was much else.

As a person who is interested, as I hope my readers are, in finding out the truth about how Bowden became an oratorical genius, I find this attitude beyond comprehension. But it makes sense if we look into the psychology behind New Religious Movements, which crosses over with aspects of the extreme “far right.” As I explore in Shaman of the Radical Right, such people are, on average, highly mentally unstable. They experience negative feelings very strongly, including low self-esteem, predicting periods of religious or political fervour.

To deal with this, they sometimes latch on to charismatics who seem to make their cold world feel warm again. These charismatics become an extension of themselves; a central component to their identity: “Bowden is brilliant and I am brilliant because I follow him.” When people are stressed they instinctively think in a black-and-white fashion; they lose nuance and either love or hate. They also create a kind of false self, via this method, where they suppress their negative feelings and see themselves as superior to the herd: they are purer, more intelligent and more moral.

If you criticise Bowden in any way, then you are attacking them; you are taking away that which allows them to suppress their intense negative feelings, and you are confronting them with the black-and-white, low-intelligence manner in which they think. They have been gulled by Bowden, in a sense. Hence you are creating Narcissistic injury and cognitive dissonance. This leads to negative feelings which must be dealt with by attacking the messenger.

It may also be, if Nick Griffin is right, that some of Bowden’s followers identify with Bowden, even if only unconsciously, because he’s rather like them. I don’t mean in the sense that Bowden was an amazingly talented and highly intelligent charismatic, but that he was evidently unsuccessful in many aspects of his life: never had a job, was a university drop out, never really had a serious relationship, didn’t have any money and told lots of lies. Some of his followers may realise that this is true of them — which is incongruous with their false self — but may cope with that by telling themselves: “At least I’m super-red-pilled.”

In being confronted with the truth about Bowden, they are being confronted with the truth about themselves, and this is most unpalatable to mentally unstable types who cope by developing Narcissistic traits. Bowden understood that geniuses are “like specials needs but the other way round” and will inherently be flawed in “normal” aspects of life, as Bowden knew he was. But unlike with Bowden, there is no “genius” dimension to these people, so all they can do is bitterly attack the messenger in order to try to claw back a modicum of self-worth by experiencing the power that you may feel when you are unpleasant to someone.

But unpleasant as they may be, they are fascinating. It is cliché, in right-wing circle, to talk of the posthumous “Cult of Jonathan Bowden” and the very word “cult” has long been employed beyond the religious realm, as in Monty Python having a “cult following.” But with some of the people I have encountered of late, we are able to watch a far more literal “personality cult” develop in real time; a “Bowden of Faith” is coming together before our eyes.

Supreme Ct. Filing Exposes How Charlottesville Officials Enabled 2017 Violence to Suppress Speech

March 14, 2025/6 Comments/in Unite the Right, White Racial Consciousness and Advocacy/by Warren Balogh

Warren Balogh, who has written for The Occidental Observer, is an important activist for our cause. This article is about his effort to get the Supreme Court to rule that the city of Charlottesville plotted to shut down a planned peaceful rally by allowing unfettered violence by the left. This article originally appeared in The Gateway Pundit.

A new Supreme Court petition filed by political activist Warren Balogh sheds light on what he calls the ‘intentional dereliction of duty’ by Charlottesville officials during the infamous 2017 “Unite the Right” rally. The petition, appealing a lower court decision from the Fourth Circuit, raises serious constitutional questions about whether local governments can deliberately allow chaos and violence as a means of suppressing speech they dislike.

Balogh is a self-described ‘pro-white’ activist. Far-left groups use a variety of labels to describe him as a ‘white nationalist’ and other such defamatory terms. Balogh says he was at the Charlottesville rally for only one purpose: to oppose the destruction of a historical monument. The Lee monument was destroyed in 2023, despite promises by officials it would be relocated.

Balogh is appealing the Fourth Circuit’s dismissal of his claims, as part of Balogh v. Virginia, 120 F.4th 127. That appeal was decided by Chief Judge Albert Diaz, an Obama appointee. That court said that because the participants engaged in violence, they were not entitled to protection from the police, a ruling at odds with the evidence in the case.

You can read the request for Supreme Court review here.

ALLEGATION: GOVERNMENT DELIBERATELY SOUGHT VIOLENCE

The “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville became a flashpoint in American political history, but according to this Supreme Court filing, the event was doomed from the start—not by the protestors, but by the city’s leadership. The lawsuit argues that Charlottesville police officers were ordered to “stand down” while violent far-left Antifa counter-protesters clashed with demonstrators, ensuring the event spiraled into disorder.

Balogh’s legal team alleges that city officials knowingly refused to maintain public order, allowing Antifa-aligned groups to provoke violence. The filing contends that this deliberate inaction was a strategy—the violence created a pretext for shutting down the protest and blaming the right-wing demonstrators.

This point has been confirmed in prior Gateway Pundit reporting, where previously-unseen drone footage from the day of the event shows that the pro-Lee-statue protesters were being attacked and abused and were refusing to fight back. The far-left, on the other hand, was allowed to get away with anything they wanted, even when crimes were committed in front of police officers.

Far-left Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe even bragged about telling the police to ‘stand down’ in his book, on page 95, about the Charlottesville event. This was done by ‘screwing protocol’ in his words, and declaring a state emergency and demanding the park be cleared. “The critical thing here,” Balogh told the Gateway Pundit, “is that the police only attacked the right-wing protesters. They didn’t clear streets of the Antifa protesters waving Communist flags, they came only at the right-wing protesters. Governor McAuliffe was a top Clinton fundraiser, a corrupt member of left-wing elites, and they saw this as revenge against Donald Trump’s supporters. Hillary’s fundraiser’s agenda was to invent violence to shut down a peaceful rally. This was nothing but woke overreach.”

“They drove us into Market Street, they drove us into Antifa. I got attacked twice that day. The first time was in Lee Park when I got sprayed in the face with riot-grade pepper spray as the police pushed us out of the park, where we had a permit. Then when I was half-blinded by police, I got clubbed from behind by a masked member of Antifa. We were pushed out into the street to get us to fight with Antifa.”

LEGAL QUESTIONS BEFORE THE COURT

The Supreme Court petition asks the justices to weigh in on several major constitutional issues:

Does the First Amendment protect speech even when local governments deliberately allow violence to erupt as a justification for suppression?
Can police officers who intentionally refuse to maintain order—while knowing their inaction will lead to violence—hide behind qualified immunity, a legal theory that makes them immune from lawsuits?
Should municipalities be held accountable under Supreme Court precedent (Monell v. Department of Social Services) when their top officials orchestrate conditions that violate constitutional rights?

The case hinges on whether government officials can manipulate violent conditions to crack down on speech they oppose, a dangerous precedent if left unchecked according to Balogh.

ALLEGATION: GOVT. WANTED VIOLENCE TO JUSTIFY SHUTTING DOWN PROTEST

The petition argues that Charlottesville officials, led by Police Chief Al Thomas and Lieutenant Becky Crannis-Curl, took active steps to fuel tensions. Instead of enforcing the rule of law, the lawsuit alleges, they allowed left-wing extremists to run amok, ensuring that the right-wing protesters could be blamed for the resulting chaos.

Evidence cited in the filing suggests that the police:

Stood down and refused to intervene as violence erupted.
Blocked exit routes, preventing protestors from leaving safely.
Waited until the situation was out of control before shutting down the rally entirely.

The consequences were tragic. In the aftermath, the media and political establishment used the day’s events to falsely frame the entire rally as right-wing violence, a narrative still echoed today.

COURTS KEEP DISMISSING CRITICAL FREE SPEECH CASE

Lower courts have largely dismissed Balogh’s claims, relying on the legal shield of qualified immunity—a doctrine that often protects government officials from lawsuits unless a clear precedent has already established their actions as unconstitutional.

“I went there to support the Robert E. Lee statue that day,” said Balogh. “I went there peacefully. I had no weapons, no body armor, we were a group of people who were proud of our history and didn’t want the woke mob to use ISIS-tactics to destroy the memory of people and events. That’s why we were there, and we were attacked by the government for expressing our free speech. We could have defended ourselves against Antifa, but we couldn’t also fight the police and the National Guard, and that’s what we were facing.”

The Supreme Court has in past cases ruled that police must make reasonable efforts to protect speech, even in contentious situations. The petition argues that the Fourth Circuit ignored key Supreme Court rulings, including Terminiello v. Chicago, where the Court upheld the principle that speech cannot be suppressed simply because it provokes hostility.

The City had previously tried to allow left-wing protesters who wanted to tear down the statue of Robert E. Lee, but to deny permits to protesters who wanted to protect the Lee statue. This was the basis of litigation prior to the “Unite the Right” rally where the city wanted to allow one viewpoint over another, and a federal judge, Glen E. Conrad, did not allow the government to allow one viewpoint or another.

What Balogh alleges is that, as a way to defy the judiciary, the court’s rulings, and the Constitution, the government conspired to create the violence necessary to justify shutting down the protest anyway.

Balogh’s legal team also points to conflicting rulings from other circuits, where courts have ruled that government actors cannot enable violent mobs as an excuse to silence unpopular opinions. The Fourth Circuit’s ruling runs contrary to these precedents, making it ripe for Supreme Court review.

LITIGANTS: GOVT. SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO CREATE VIOLENCE TO SILENCE SPEAKERS & SPEECH IT DISLIKES

The implications of this case extend far beyond Charlottesville. If local governments can intentionally refuse to enforce the law to suppress speech, then the First Amendment is effectively meaningless.

If the Supreme Court takes up the case and rules in favor of Balogh, it could establish a major precedent preventing state and local governments from using orchestrated chaos as a weapon against speech they oppose. It would also put law enforcement on notice that standing down in the face of political violence is not an acceptable strategy.

The Gateway Pundit was sued for defamation by one of the rally participants, Brennan Gilmore. In the course of the case, discovery revealed that the Department of Justice’s controversial “Civil Rights Division” was on-site several days prior to the “Unite the Right” rally. In addition, the City had hired multiple major press firms, one of which it didn’t end up using at all.

Even more explosively, discovery received by the Gateway Pundit in that litigation revealed that the Department of Justice’s agents on the ground in Charlottesville were coordinating on the morning of the rally with a Vice President of the World Bank. These phone logs suggest that an extensive, vast, deep state operation was underway to create violence at the Charlottesville rally, use the violence as a way to smear President Trump, and also as a major political operation underway to advance a far-left agenda.

That major deep state effort would also explain why the prosecutions of those arrested at Charlottesville were so extreme and politically charged. James Fields hit Heather Heyer with his vehicle while attempting to leave town. State and Federal prosecutors alleged it was domestic terrorism, even though it was clearly a case of vehicular manslaughter, where Heyer died of a heart attack having been trampled by the crowd after Fields crashed into a series of cars being swarmed by a left-wing mob. Fields was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole plus 419 years in prison on the state charges. Federal prosecutors then threatened to bring the death penalty against him, and coerced Fields into accepting a plea on federal charges which saw a concurrent life imprisonment sentence without the possibility of parole.

Balogh makes that point even blunter, “There was a plan to shut it all down from the beginning, and Heather Heyer would be alive today if the police did their jobs that day. The government set the stage for what happened, and their reckless plan caused everything that resulted. Fields should be freed.”

The Charlottesville riots were a turning point in modern American politics, used to justify an unprecedented crackdown on free speech and political dissent. Now, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to correct the record and send a clear message: government officials cannot use violent mobs as a tool to silence opposition.

Balogh’s fight is about the future of free speech in America. The Supreme Court takes up very few cases every year, typically 100-150 of the 10,000 application it receives. The Court is likely loathe to stand up for what it perceives as controversial speakers, but the case presents the chance to strike down the trend of the government abusing the law, and abusing law enforcement, to shut down speakers it dislikes.

Despite the odds, Balogh is encouraged by the simple fact of preserving a record of what happened at Charlottesville. “I don’t have any illusions about whether the Court will have the courage to take this case. But I’ve put the evidence on the record, and the filings speak for themselves,” he said. “I want to set the record straight about what happened at Charlottesville, and the injustice done to peaceful protesters who were attacked by the police and the government as we tried to demonstrate against the destruction of our history and monuments. The court may be cowards, the cops and politicians might be hopelessly corrupt, and the media may be liars, but these filings tell the truth.”