In almost every state in the union there is a government agency or department with the name “Child Protective Services”. Its purported mission is to act as the long arm of a responsible community to protect children from their own parents or guardians when children are being mis-treated. Although vastly abusive in many, if not most, situations, there is, at least, a good faith argument for the existence of such agencies for extreme cases. Its aim is in part to protect the children; but it also aims to ensure that the children develop into adults that hopefully will not be as anti-social as their parents – in other words, to prevent the perpetuation of anti-social behaviour over multiple generations. Good luck! But, at least, the aim is sensible, even if not, in the main, achievable.

Usually, the targets are lower class blacks and white goyim families, where lack of money exacerbates what mainstream “upper middles” would view as an anti-social lifestyle.

However, given the rise to prominence of a new kind of upper class over the last 50 years, the need for a new kind of child protective services – one might call it “goyim protective services” suggests itself. That upper class, of course, is the new Jewish elite that now rules the United States. And if you doubt me, make a couple of quick calls to “Ye”, yeah, who, until a few days ago, used to be worth over a billion dollars, or a certain Mr. Irving, who, until a couple of days ago, used to play professional basketball.

Anti-social upbringing in a “super-class,” like the ruling Jews, would of course be far more damaging to society than the alcoholism and wife-beating typically passed from generation to generation by the “untermenschen” of our society. The latter affects only the immediate and unfortunate households and perhaps neighborhoods of such persons. The former, however, can have huge and devastating consequences to the entire nation.

The need for such an agency raises its ugly head in what presumably was the completely anti-social upbringing of Sam Bankman-Fried, a child of enormous intellectual privilege, brought up in the most intellectually dominant of Jewish households. His case, sad to say, is simply a poster child for the upbringing of the children of powerful Jews who currently run our country, and whose children are presumably being prepared to continue to run – some might say ruin – our country. Sam’s shenanigans with FTX (a crypto exchange) and its related entity, Alemada Research, apparently a major crypto trader, may have resulted in hundreds of millions, and likely billions, of dollars of losses to FTX account holders and others, including left-wing charities and the Democrat Party, recipient of $40 million in the last election cycle. (As the poster boy for “effective altruism” said, “I wanted to get rich, not because I like money but because I wanted to give that money to charity.”)

No one knows for sure yet how much the losses are, but it looks really big. Huge.

If one were not attentive to family backgrounds, one might assume that ol’ “Sam” – a disheveled heap of negroid curled hair, hideously ugly face, slum-like, deliberately insulting attire, and typical Ashkenazi nasal whiny girlie-type voice – might have been the mis-named son of Eddie Antar, of “Crazy Eddie” fame, perhaps brought up in an atmosphere of switch-and bait retailing, where the collected and unpermitted sales tax is your profit margin and the “yakety yak” crap add-on products turn your normal profit margin into high finance. Eddie Antar brought to the next level. But without the self-depreciating humor of vibrating little Christmas trees accompanied by the intonation “Crazie Eddie – where the prices are insane!!!” (1)

In such an upbringing, however, young Sammy, one might presume, would be taught at the dinner table how to cheat the customer, the government, the investing public, and everyone else, whenever possible. In other words, to continue the family “tradition” into the next generation.

But no. His Royal Highness, Prince Sam, was not brought up in such a household. He was brought up in the upperest class of upper-class households, at which the Eddie Antars of the Brooklyn Jewish world could only gape in intimidated awe. Both Sam’s father, Joseph Bankman, and his mother, Barbara Fried, are professors at Stanford Law (incredibly, Barbara is also on the Board of Advisors of the Stanford Ethics in Society Program). On any given day Stanford Law may be viewed as the most prestigious or second-most prestigious law school in the country. Sammy’s mom co-founded Mind the Gap, which is a Democrat Party fundraising organization centered in Silicon Valley that spent millions on the 2020 election. As if that wasn’t enough, his aunt is Linda Fried, the Dean of the Columbia University School of Public Health. All are presumably at some not so distant point descended from a long line of intellectually distinguished Rabbis whose children married into wealth and business acumen.  No “Odessa bootleg liquor” in that background. Please. More like upper class Vienna Jews living in 18-room apartments on the most elegant of boulevards.

So, WHAT THE HELL WENT WRONG?

He was a Jew, that’s what went wrong.

Non-Jewish Americans simply have no comprehension of the cynicism and hatred in which most Jewish children, including – especially – upper class Jewish children, are raised. Cynicism about “whatever it takes” to separate goyim from their cash. Hatred and contempt for the dumb goyim, who are regarded in most Jewish households – secular or religious – as not much more than preternaturally stupid, though potentially dangerous, talking beasts. And, to be fair, most Jews have no clue as to how their goyim next-door neighbors are raising their children – to believe in moral principles, to tell the truth, to respect others. Very few concentrate first and foremost on how to make money – let alone work to separate Jews from their cash and power. In their world, it’s never brought up. If Jews actually saw how goyim are brought up, they would see what, from their point of view, was only a breeding ground for “suckers” – and of course would never believe that was what was really going on. The admonitions to honesty, fair dealing, morality that most of us goyim associate with proper upbringing are present in Jewish households – but only in respect of other human beings – i.e., other Jews. Not, not, not with respect to the goyim, except in the limiting case where to do otherwise might damage the Jews.

To continue. From a Jewish point of view, how absolutely unfair and contrary to the underlying principles of the universe that mere beasts should have money, cars, houses – anything. An abomination. (“So, Sammy, our job is to correct that, Sammy.” ) This Jewish attitude is accompanied by mass paranoia, verging on psychosis, which educates Jewish children that everyone around them outside their Schul is secretly forming plans to kill them, and that, of course, the history, traditions, culture of such people is nothing more than revolting or meaningless crap – crap that is “taken on” or assumed temporarily solely as a way to worm one’s way up, but certainly not for its own sake. Whether that culture be manner of dress, table manners, music, art, journalism, history, or, most crucially, the laws of the goyim. Or (of course) religion, mainly the hated and despised Christianity.

We come now to goyim law, inherited in this country primarily from 1,000 years of English constitutional development and the Common Law, originating itself from the Roman Law, viewed with veneration in pre-Jewish America as the source and wellspring of our liberties and of ordered government. But by Jews? They have their own law – the Talmud – virulently anti-Christian and anti goyim. Our law? Jews view it with contempt, except to the extent it can be used – or twisted – to help the Jews. (Obviously this attitude is for internal consumption only – not for goyim to hear.) And why shouldn’t they, they think. After all, Jews hated the Roman Empire – remember Titus’s destruction of the Second Temple? The Jews hate the English, probably much more than they hate Germans (look at the cars they drive). Remember the Jews’ expulsion from England under Edward I in 1290? You may not, but Jews do. And their use of the goyisch law evidences this. Any disruptive revolutionary use that can be made of it to up-end cultural and moral norms of the goyim, and thereby promote the interest of the Jews. And don’t think Jewish professors at pre-eminent law schools are any different. In fact, they – and their odious brethren that lead the major, now almost all Jewish-controlled, whatever their “name” – law firms in New York City, Chicago, and L.A. And the accompanying bar associations – lead the charge. A very dangerous and increasingly powerful element indeed.

So what kind of “Jewish” upbringing must young Prince Sam have received even in a household consisting of “distinguished” Jewish law professors and a host of eminent collateral Jewish relatives?

Interlude: Some data points from other prominent Jews.

Mark Rudd initiated a violent takeover of the administrative offices of Columbia University in New York over what was nominally an issue of Columbia’s involvement with the Vietnam War, through its work for the Institute of Defense Analysis. Rudd became a high priest of the Students for Democratic Society (“SDS”) and, later, the criminal terrorist organization known as the Weathermen. After the fact, after he himself incredibly had been given a college teaching position, Rudd described in a speech about Jewish dominance of both the SDS and the Weatherman:

I lived a Philip Roth existence in which the distinction between Jews and gentiles was present in all things: having dogs and cats was goyish. … What outraged me and my comrades so much about Columbia [University, which he famously attended and disrupted], along with its hypocrisy, was the air of genteel civility. Or should I say gentile? Despite the presence of so many Jews in the faculty and among the students—geographical distribution in the admissions process had not been effective at filtering us out, our SAT’s and class-rank being so high—the place was dripping with goyishness. When I got there freshmen still wore blue blazers and ties and drank sherry at afternoon socials with the deans. At the top of the Columbia heap sat President Grayson Kirk and Vice-President David Truman, two consummate liberal WASP’s who privately claimed to oppose the war but maintained the institution’s support of it. Mark Rudd — “Why were there so many Jews in SDS? (or, The Ordeal of Civility“

Well, there’s undoubtedly no risk of blue blazers, ties, and sherry in the Rudd – or in the Blankman – household!

During the SDS Columbia riots, Rudd recounts how his own father – a Lt. Colonel in the U.S. Air Force Reserves, no less – called Kirk “an intellectual mediocrity.” In fact, Kirk was a distinguished academic, who, according to Wikipedia, “graduated from Miami University in 1924, earned an M.A. in political science from Clark University in 1925, and studied at the École Libre des Sciences Politiques in 1929 before completing a Ph.D. in the discipline at the University of Wisconsin–Madison in 1930.” The École Libre des Sciences Politique, commonly referred to as “Science Po,” was then and is now one of the most difficult schools in the world to get into, being one of the famous “grande ecoles” that dominate the top tier of French intellectual life. Rudd’s father in contrast to Kirk, and in contrast, in fact, to many immigrant Jews of the day, could hardly be described as an intellectual. He was, according to Wikileaks, Jacob S. Rudd (1909–1995), was born Jacob Shmuel Rudnitsky in Stanislower (Yiddish for Stanisławów), Poland; he was a former Army officer who sold real estate in Maplewood, New Jersey. A real estate salesman. Hardly the stuff of which an intellectual elite is made. In fact, an obvious “intellectual mediocrity” if there ever was one.

Rudd goes on. Although, as noted, he was the son of a Lt. Colonel in the US Air Force, he states:

As a child I never fell for the seduction of patriotism. It seemed so arbitrary, who’s an American and who’s not. If my relatives hadn’t emigrated, who would I be? Since I was also at core an idealist and a utopian—another Jewish tradition?—I wanted to skip all that obviously stupid and dangerous stuff that gave rise to wars and racism. In 1965 I began to identify myself as a socialist and an internationalist. I still am an internationalist since old religions die hard.

One can only assume his father felt the same way. One question that pops into the mind is what in the hell was the Army thinking when they allowed a person like this hold a high rank in its own intelligence arm. Another that pops up is that it’s too bad that the officer at Ellis Island allowed this odious family into the country.

Rudd goes on:

Imagine an idealistic Jewish kid growing up in a suburban New Jersey town, always knowing that the world consisted of two kinds of people: Us and Them, the Jews and the goyim. Crossing the river[3] to the big city and taking a place as a student in a world-class Ivy League institution run by Them, I found at the top, much to my surprise, rather slow-witted, Wizard of Oz-like characters who ran things really badly, violated their own principles, lied, put into effect both pro-war and racist policies. My reaction? In my speeches at rallies, I had taken to referring to President Kirk as “that shithead.” Morris V. de Camp, “Punching Left: The Weather Underground, the Haymarket Anarchists, the Kennedys, and the 1960s“

Here again the arrogant disparagement of all things non-Jewish. Kirk, a “slow witted Wizard-of-Oz-like character”? Bullshit. Maybe Rudd was “projecting” as the Jewish psychiatrists like to say. The Wizard of Oz-like character seems much more like Rudd himself – and quite possibly his mediocre, arrogant father.

Then we come to the essential Jew, Norman Podhoretz and his wife Midge Decter, serving for decades as the dual cerebral cortices of the New York’s intellectual and literary elite. One day, he and his wife decided to take a vacation out of New York and decided – at least for a while – to visit one of the most important historical sites of their adopted country. But, just like young Mark Rudd, we must assume they both came to the realization that he should not “fall for the seduction of patriotism…[because] it seem[s] so arbitrary”. Or even any interest in the history of their host country. We shall let Mr. Podheretz tell his own charming story:

I could never quite get over the feeling that I was not as ‘real’ an American as someone whose people had come here earlier than mine. Sometimes I would joke about this, as when, in the early days of our marriage, my wife, who wrote (and still does) under the name Midge Decter, and I drove one summer to Fort Ticonderoga in upstate New York to visit what we thought of as an American shrine. But as we approached the gate, the first thing we saw was a sign informing the public that this was the site of several major battles in the French and Indian wars of the 1750s. “The French and Indian wars?” I burst out in mock indignation, “what’s that got to do with me?” At this, in our ignorance, both giggled, and in an antic gesture of protest I turned the car around without ever entering the fort.  James Fulford, “Ramesh Ponnuru Wrong, Again, (Guess Why) On Civil Rights“

Can you imagine driving all the way up to a significant historic site – probably about a 5-hour drive north of New York City – even an historical site of a foreign country you were visiting for a couple of weeks – reaching the gate and turning around to drive 5 hours back, all because the sign did not indicate anything you had been brought up with? Presumably he would have toured the fort had the sign been in Yiddish. The paucity of interest in history, particularly of the country whose passport he carried, is breathtaking. In fact, it is highly disturbing. It actually indicates an intense hatred for the country in which he lived and, perforce, for the people of that country – other than the small segment of that people located on Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn. One can only imagine the kind of parochial, hate filled upbringing both the Podhoretz and Decter family provided their young prodigies. And one shudders to think of the upbringing of their odious son, John Podhoretz, now a big muckety muck at the New York Post.

The third data point is told by a non-Jewish acquaintance who was sitting in the living room of a conservative Jewish family. The husband, an American by birth (?), had made big money in a series of investment banking jobs. His wife was European Jewish, naturalized to U.S. citizenship, and the holder of a high-paying job in the U.S. branch of a foreign bank, whose family had lived through the Nazi occupation and whose asses were saved by 400,000 U.S. infantrymen, airmen, and seamen who died defeating Hitler in the European Theatre of World War II. Her son, it happened, had vocalized a heretical interest in joining the U.S. Army – the same force that had saved her whole family less than 50 years before. The wife immediately said “I would never want [Nathan] to join the U.S. Army. If he is going to join any army it should join the IDF [i.e., the Israeli Defense Forces]”. The husband uttered not a contrary word. Clearly, he agreed.

What kind of upbringing does a Jewish family whose lives have been saved by U.S. soldiers, who have scooped out a literal fortune in the U.S. over 20 years, give their children? My God. Why did we ever let either of them in the country? Sammy Blankman, frankly, sounds mild stuff compared to this.

Back to SBF. With young Sammy Blankman-Fried coming from this kind of fetid – not to say, almost treasonous – environment, should we be surprised at anything he cooks up?

But the story gets worse. This is clearly not simply the story of bad upbringing. It looks like his parents, his professor at MIT, and their contacts have been material facilitators (and for a while beneficiaries) of Sammy’s rise. For starters, apparently Blankman pater is a noted expert in crypto-currency tax law, at least that’s what it said before it was scrubbed from Stanford Professorial web page. But Blankman by his own admission has been “studying” Crypto tax, Hmm…, could that mean that he was fully appraised of what was going on so he could give his son free tax or legal advice in the crypto area in which FTX operated? For Daddy’s sake, hope not.

However, this dispiriting report indicates Blankman pater was in the middle of it, and not just with Crypto tax advice:

Bankman was involved in FTX, including raising funds for the firm before its bankruptcy. Via a connection to his former Stanford Law School student Orlando Bravo, Bankman made an introduction which led to a $125 million investment in FTX from private equity firm Thoma Bravo in June 2021.  He and his wife were signatories to a luxury Bahamas residence in Old Fort Bay that is part of the FTX bankruptcy. While it isn’t known what funds were used to purchase this vacation home, Bankman and his wife are trying to return the property to FTX.”

See also: Joseph Bankman – Wikipedia ;  “How Sam Bankman-Fried seduced blue-chip investors”. Financial Times. 2022-11-11. Retrieved 2022-11-12;  “Exclusive: Bankman-Fried’s FTX, parents bought Bahamas property worth $121 million”. Reuters. Retrieved 2022-11-22.

Wow!  Exciting lives for a couple of humble “law” professors!

Glenn Ellison is a Jewish economics professor at MIT, where Sam went to college. Professor Ellison’s daughter, incredibly, is (or was) the CEO of Alemeda Research, which, notwithstanding its name, was a huge crypto trader that apparently was partly owned by Sammy. Part of the enveloping scandal apparently is that FTX funds (read customer deposits) appear to have been used to fund Alameda, which, word has it, is now caput. Not reassuringly she sounds about as ditzy and clueless as Bari Weiss. Except instead of writing articles complaining about antisemitism, she was handling millions (billions?) of dollars in trades, apparently not very well. She went to – take a guess – Stanford, where Sammy’s parents are professors! And apparently not overly interested in studies there either. As Eviamagazine wrote: “Can you guess what Caroline’s advice is for college students? (She was a math major.) She actually says that classes don’t matter that much, and that “friends and networking are really important.” Yeah, right. In her case, at least. Why bother with “studies” when you have contacts like she had. She apparently met Sammy at a proprietary high frequency trading firm and market maker named Jane Street Capital (2), and then went with him to Alemada/FTX along with rumors of personal involvement.

And unsurprisingly, FTX/Alameda and Ellison appear to have had a close relationship with Jewish-run Goldman Sachs.

Sam kept expanding his “family.” In the 2022 election cycle, it appears Sammy was the fourth largest donor, at $39.9 million, almost all to the very Democrats who oversee Gensler’s SEC. That made him second largest Democrat donor to George Soros ($140 million).

As JFK once said in an interview: “I believe in large families.” Its nice to know that Sammy did too, so much so that he kept expanding his to include econ professors, folks at Goldman Sachs, and, finally, a bunch of Congressmen. However, JFK did note in the next breath “of course, there needs to be a father imposing discipline…” Oops. That’s where “Blankman dad” appears to have fallen flat on his face.

Or maybe he didn’t. In fact, the deeper one digs into the FTX scandal, the conclusion becomes obvious: this is simply the Jewish ultra upper-class family writ large – intellectual and financial – fucking the rest of us. Could it be that the result of HRH Sammy’s upbringing is not a defect – but, instead, an intended attribute? He’s still apparently respectable enough to be invited to an elite New York Times-sponsored panel along with the likes of Janet Yellen, Mark Zuckerberg, Bibi Netanyahu, and Volodymyr Zelensky.

If so, “Double Mitzva!” 16 candles this Hanukah season!

So, perhaps, we need a new government agency, a “Goyim Protection Agency,” to effectuate early intervention in such families, to inform the “little ones” that, no, cheating and otherwise screwing goyim is NOT acceptable. Perhaps, in extremis, the child could be removed to a large non-Jewish working class family in, say, South Boston or Cleveland (if there are any of those left in those de-industrialized cities), where he could learn some humility and, perhaps, against all odds, some decency.

I think you are thinking what I’m thinking. A cold day in Hell when that happens.

_________
1. In fairness to “Crazy Eddie”, the consumers did quite well. Even if not quite so well as they thought. Unlike the FTX situation, they certainly stood at no risk of losing their entire net worth, even when buying too much “yakety yak,” by patronizing Eddie’s store on King’s Highway, Brooklyn.

2. Jane Street Capital, located in offices worldwide: (NEW YORK, LONDON, AMSTERDAM, HONG KONG, SINGAPORE) describes its activities as follows: “We are a global liquidity provider and trading firm, using sophisticated quantitative analysis and a deep understanding of market mechanics to help keep prices consistent and reliable. At Jane Street our trading blends human intuition—earned through more than twenty years of experience—with cutting-edge research. Our style is both rigorous and pragmatic. Depending on the problem, we might draw on large-scale machine learning models, domain expertise, or pen-and-paper mathematics. We’re a firm of puzzle solvers on and off the clock.” What We Do :: Jane Street .

Right behind your eyes. That’s where you’ll find the most complex thing in the known universe. And right before your eyes is where you’ll presently find the second-most complex thing in the known universe. What are those things? Well, the most complex thing in the known universe is the human brain. And the most second-complex thing is language, as created and processed by the human brain. A single, simple sentence like this is, in some ways, much more complex than a star. A longer text, like a short story or novel, is more complex than a galaxy or even an entire universe of non-biological phenomena.

Geniuses of language

That gap in complexity is why human beings have made so much progress in astronomy and physics and so little progress in linguistics. Of course, physics has attracted geniuses for centuries and linguistics hasn’t, but that’s because physics is a much simpler science. A genius can make progress in physics but not in linguistics in rather the way that a good athlete can swim across the Mississippi but not across the Atlantic. Problems in physics are river-crossings; problems in linguistics are ocean-crossings. How did language evolve? How is it encoded in our genes and instantiated in the brain? Those are much tougher questions than, say: How does the sun shine? When it comes to language, we human beings are like spiders spinning webs or bees building hives. We can do amazing things with words, but we don’t know how. Like spiders and bees, we do it by instinct. We speak, we listen; we write, we read. But how? What’s going on in that warm, wet, sticky mass behind our eyes and between our ears?

Over Sea, Under Stone: a wonderwork of verbal magic

You can ask that question of the simplest conversation or simplest text, but it becomes even more compelling when you ask it of great literature. We don’t have geniuses of linguistics, but we do have geniuses of language. Obvious names spring to mind: Dante, Shakespeare, Goethe. Here’s a less obvious name: Susan Cooper (born 1935), an English-American writer most famous for a five-book series of children’s fantasy called The Dark Is Rising (1965—77). Perhaps I’m wrong to bring her into the illustrious company of that male triumvirate. I’m not sure that she is a genius, but I am sure that she is more than simply an excellent writer. Like the late Rosemary Sutcliff (1920—92), another female writer of children’s fiction, Cooper is a verbal magician or alphabetic alchemist, able to conjure reality with words, to turn the dross of black ink on white paper into the gold of stories that glow and glisten in your mind for life. Two of the most powerful books I’ve read in recent years have been Sutcliff’s The Eagle of the Ninth (1954), set in Roman Britain, and Cooper’s Over Sea, Under Stone (1965), set in modern Britain but incorporating themes and characters from Arthurian legend and Celtic myth.

The might of Mystic Wales

As someone once said, reading is like dreaming with your eyes open. And reading those two books was like dreaming in full color with sound and scent and sensation all thrown in. Which was a pleasant surprise, because I first read those books as a child and returning to childhood favorites is often a disappointment. Not in this case. But one of Cooper’s books did once cause me big disappointment. It wasn’t that the book was weak — quite the opposite. The book was in fact too strong for the reality that it drew upon. When I read Cooper’s The Grey King (1975) I was initiated into Mystic Wales, because the book is set in Wales and draws on the special power of Arthurian legend and the unique beauty and mystery of Celtic mythology. For example, one of the chief characters is Bran Davies, an albino boy with golden eyes who is named after a Celtic crow-god and who owns a white dog that can literally see the wind. Bran has a mysterious father, is far older than he first appears, and takes part in a quest for a golden harp amid wild mountains and dark lakes.

Pwyll Pendeuic Dyuet a oed yn arglwyd ar seith cantref Dyuet. A threigylgweith yd oed yn Arberth, prif lys idaw, a dyuot yn y uryt ac yn y uedwl uynet y hela. Sef kyueir o’y gyuoeth a uynnei y hela, Glynn Cuch. Ac ef a gychwynnwys y nos honno o Arberth, ac a doeth hyt ym Penn Llwyn Diarwya, ac yno y bu y nos honno. A thrannoeth yn ieuengtit y dyd kyuodi a oruc, a dyuot y Lynn Cuch i ellwng e gwn dan y coet. A chanu y gorn a dechreu dygyuor yr hela, a cherdet yn ol y cwn, ac ymgolli a’y gydymdeithon. Ac ual y byd yn ymwarandaw a llef yr erchwys, ef a glywei llef erchwys arall, ac nit oedynt unllef, a hynny yn dyuot yn erbyn y erchwys ef. Ac ef a welei lannerch yn y coet o uaes guastat; ac ual yd oed y erchwys ef yn ymgael ac ystlys y llannerch, ef a welei carw o ulaen yr erchwys arall. A pharth a pherued y llannerch, llyma yr erchwys a oed yn y ol yn ymordiwes ac ef, ac yn y uwrw y’r llawr.

The Mabinogion: sample lines in Welsh and cover of an English translation

Alas, it was a disappointment to visit the real Wales after experiencing the Mystic Wales conjured by the word-magic of Cooper and other story-tellers. In the real Wales, there are exhaust-spewing cars, not fire-breathing dragons. In the real Wales, there are fat women eating fish’n’chips, not beautiful maidens created from flowers like Blodeuwedd in The Mabinogion (12th century).

Real Wales can’t live up to Mystic Wales, and nor can real Welsh people. The Welsh rock-band Super Furry Animals have experienced the disappointment in reverse: they said in one interview that their Welshness made audiences in Europe expect them to be druids with mist in their beards. The fantasy of Wales has become more powerful than the reality, but that’s another tribute to the magic of language and of the stories created in Welsh and other branches of the Celtic family. And in one way, real Wales isn’t a disappointment. Not when you visit an area where Welsh is a living language, still flowering after centuries of withering wind blown in from England. Welsh is a special and seductive language, as strange and subtle as the stories that have used it in collections like The Mabinogion.

Deeper, richer, stranger

And many millions more people have experienced the magic of Welsh than have ever spoken it, because it was one of the linguistic ingredients mixed by J.R.R. Tolkien into his mighty epic Lord of the Rings (1954—55). Welsh and Finnish were the bases of Elvish, the language (or languages) of Tolkien’s immortal Elves, who are tall and beautiful warriors, poets and artisans, lovers of flowers and gems and moonlight, haters of evil and ugliness and cruelty. Like Susan Cooper, Tolkien drew on Celtic mythology to create his stories. But although he was undoubtedly the greater scholar, I think she is the better writer, more adept at word-magic and better able to conjure on paper the beauty of the Light and the foulness of the Dark. Compare the verses that lie at the heart of both writers’ most famous stories. Here are Tolkien’s:

Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all. One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie. (The Fellowship of the Ring, Book 1, ch. 2)

And here are Cooper’s:

When the Dark comes rising, six shall turn it back,
Three from the circle, three from the track;
Wood, bronze, iron; water, fire, stone;
Five will return, and one go alone. (The Dark Is Rising, ch. 3)

Tolkien’s verses can still make the hair rise on the back of my neck decades after I first began reading and re-reading Lord of the Rings. But I think Cooper’s are deeper, richer, and stranger, saying more with fewer words. Either way, it’s clear that Tolkien and Cooper are both lovers of the Light and the haters of the Dark. In Christian terms, they serve God and reject Satan, which is why I am sure that Tolkien would have hated what is happening in the real Wales that so inspired him. And I hope that Susan Cooper, who is still alive as I write this in mid-November 2022, does hate what is happening in Wales too, if she knows about it.

Labour is hostile to ordinary Whites

Yes, the Dark is certainly rising in 21st-century Wales. Or rather, it’s rising faster, because Wales has been ruled for decades by traitors who hate the Welsh people and the Welsh language, despite all their posturing and protestations to the contrary. I call them traitors because they are themselves Welsh and work under the banners of Llafur Cymru, Welsh Labour, and Plaid Cymru, the Party of Wales. I’ve often quoted the words of Maurice Glasman, a Jewish Labour peer who saw from the inside how his party had betrayed the group that inspired its own name. Here again is what Glasman admitted in 2011: “In many ways [Labour] viewed working-class voters as an obstacle to progress. Their commitment to various civil rights, anti-racism, meant that often working-class voters … were seen as racist, resistant to change, homophobic and generally reactionary. So in many ways you had a terrible situation where a Labour government was hostile to the English working class.”

In other words, Labour hates ordinary Whites. And what’s true of Labour in England is also true of Labour in Wales: Llafur Cymru hates the White Welsh working-class and is working hard to destroy its future. Like leftists around the world, Welsh leftists have recruited and trained mercenaries against those whom their party was founded to serve and protect. That is, Welsh leftists are using non-White outsiders to wage war on the White Welsh. And they’ve set out their vision of a totalitarian future Wales, where their own power is secure, their non-White servants rewarded with permanent privilege, and their White enemies degraded and stripped of power. They want something utterly contradictory: Cymru Wrth-hiliol, or “An Anti-Racist Wales.” That’s the title of Welsh Labour’s “Race Equality Action Plan for Wales.”

Crumbs of creation

And it’s an ominous title, especially for those familiar with Critical Race Theory (CRT), the branch of cultural Marxism dedicated to waging war on Whiteness. CRT preaches the eternal villainy of Whites and the eternal virtue of Blacks and other non-Whites. One of its leading theologians is the high-status, wealthy, low-IQ Ibram X. Kendi (born 1982), who teaches that every crumb of creation participates in the struggle between wicked Whiteness and virtuous Blackness. For Kendi, you are inescapably racist if you aren’t actively anti-racist. And that’s what the title of Welsh Labour’s Race-Equality Plan refers to: a permanent war on racism. In the ominous words of the traitorous Siân Gwenllian, deputy leader of the supposedly Wales-loving Plaid Cymru: “We are absolutely committed to celebrating diversity and will move to eliminate inequality in all its forms.” Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru have a virtuous vision of an Anti-Racist Wales where nothing escapes the baleful gaze of anti-racist commissars, who will monitor and interfere in all aspects of life and culture. A more honest title for the Plan would be “An Anti-Welsh Wales,” because the Plan is intended to lay waste to the ancient White nation of Wales, raise non-Whites far above ordinary Welsh Whites, and ensure the power of leftists in perpetuity.

Man with a Plan: the physically degenerate Mark Drakeford, so-called First Minister of Wales

Naturally enough, the Plan has a foreword by the traitorous Mark Drakeford (born 1954), the leader of Welsh Labour and so-called First Minister of Wales. He’s someone whose flaccid, unhealthy features remind me strongly of a passage in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Winston Smith, the protagonist of the novel, is sitting in a canteen at the Ministry of Truth and musing on the physiological effects of IngSoc, the totalitarian leftism that controls the British Isles:

He looked round the canteen again. Nearly everyone was ugly, and would still have been ugly even if dressed otherwise than in the uniform blue overalls. On the far side of the room, sitting at a table alone, a small, curiously beetle-like man was drinking a cup of coffee, his little eyes darting suspicious glances from side to side. How easy it was, thought Winston, if you did not look about you, to believe that the physical type set up by the Party as an ideal — tall muscular youths and deep-bosomed maidens, blond-haired, vital, sunburnt, carefree — existed and even predominated. Actually, so far as he could judge, the majority of people in Airstrip One were small, dark, and ill-favoured. It was curious how that beetle-like type proliferated in the Ministries: little dumpy men, growing stout very early in life, with short legs, swift scuttling movements, and fat inscrutable faces with very small eyes. It was the type that seemed to flourish best under the dominion of the Party. (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Book 1, ch. 4)

That passage reminds me of Mark Drakeford, although he’s more like an amphibian than a beetle. He’s the type that flourishes best under Welsh leftism, an intellectual and ethical non-entity devoted to the service of leftism, the pursuit of power, and the destruction of his own nation. Not being a masochist, I haven’t read the entire 142 pages and 50,000 words of the Race-Equality Plan overseen by Drakeford. In fact, I’ve found it difficult to read as much as one page and fifty words. But I can confidently say that every last bit of the Plan oozes repulsively with what Sam Francis called the managerial state and Bruce Charlton has so aptly called “The Cancer of Bureaucracy”:

Everyone in modernizing ‘Western’ societies (roughly the USA, UK, Western and Central Europe) will, no doubt, have noticed that there has been a long-term, progressive growth and spread of bureaucracy. Except during major war; this has not been a matter of pendulum swings, with sometimes less and sometimes more bureaucracy, but instead of relentless overall expansion — albeit sometimes faster and at other times slower.

The bureaucratic takeover applies to science, medicine, education, law, police, the media — indeed to almost all social functions. Such unrelenting growth implies either that 1. Bureaucracy is vital to societal functioning and the more bureaucracy we have the better for us; or that 2. Bureaucracy is parasitic and its growth is uncontrollable. Since the first alternative has become obviously absurd, I am assuming the second alternative is correct: that bureaucracy is like a cancer of modernizing societies — i.e., its expansion is malignant and its effect is first parasitic, then eventually fatal. (“The Cancer of Bureaucracy,” Charlton’s Notions, 31st October 2013)

Welsh Labour’s “Race Equality Action Plan” will feed the cancer of bureaucracy in Wales, but will not bring about “race equality” there. Equality is an impossible objective and the Plan isn’t intended to pursue it in any case. Instead, the Plan will pursue inequality: it will further increase the privilege of non-Whites, further encourage their grievances, further incite them to harm Whites, further hasten the transfer of wealth from productive Whites to unproductive non-Whites, and further advance the cause of leftists around the world. Leftists want to wreck Western civilization and rule the ruins. In this case, Welsh Labour want to lay waste to Wales.

An Anti-Welsh Wales: the cover of Welsh Labour’s Race-Equality Action Plan

Not white, not Welsh, warmly welcomed by Welsh Labour: typical images from the Race Equality Plan

And they’ve proclaimed that aim by saying that they want Wales to become “an Anti-Racist Nation.” The concept of an anti-racist nation is as absurd as the concept of a square circle. The word “nation” comes ultimately from the Latin verb nasci, meaning “to be born.” That is, a nation is formed by birth and blood, by the natural process of unification that takes place among people who have a common ancestry, history, language, and culture. Nationhood is a question of ethnography, not geography. For example, down the centuries Jews were a supreme example of a nation without a homeland. They wandered and settled, were uprooted and expelled, but they never lost their sense of racial, religious and cultural separateness, and they never ceased to be a nation.

Blanking the blonde: a Black teacher turns her face away from a passive White girl towards active Black children

In other words, a true nation has to be “racist”: it has to discriminate between racial insiders and outsiders, between those who belong and those who don’t. If a nation ceases to discriminate between insiders and outsiders — that is, if it ceases to be “racist” — it also ceases to be a nation. But that national negation is what Welsh Labour want to happen in Wales. They want to destroy the true nation of Wales and replace it with a pseudo-nation of privileged non-Whites and parasitized Whites, all overseen by power-hungry leftists like Mark Drakeford. Leftists like Drakeford understand perfectly that the quickest way to destroy a White nation is to open its borders to non-Whites who aren’t and never will be part of the nation. That’s why those non-Whites don’t care about the most precious parts of nationhood, like language and tradition. This story from Scotland also applies to Wales, because non-White immigration will be just as bad for the Welsh language as it is for Gaelic:

Funding for Gaelic “discriminates against Muslims”

A former SNP [Scottish National Party] Holyrood candidate has claimed “anti-Muslim racism” is seeping into Scottish education because language policies treat ethnic minorities as inferior to white Scots. Nighet Riaz, an academic at the University of the West of Scotland, said Gaelic was promoted and given millions of pounds in ring-fenced public funding while the traditional languages of non-white groups were sidelined in schools. She said that there was a lack of Urdu teachers, with schools unable to meet the needs of large Pakistani communities, particularly in Glasgow.

Dr Riaz was a regional list candidate for the SNP at the 2016 Holyrood election, endorsed by Alex Salmond, the former party leader, and Robin Sturgeon, Nicola Sturgeon’s father, but was not elected. She is an SNP equalities officer for Pollokshields and the first minister’s Glasgow Southside constituency.

She said the SNP narrative of Scotland being a “more tolerant, welcoming nation” clashed with the experiences of ethnic minority communities and described lack of provision for Urdu as “a form of anti-Muslim racism being played out by the state”.

She added: “The reality is that no new funding is being diverted to minority languages other than Gaelic which is ring-fenced by the Gaelic School Capital Fund and protected by legislation, as it is seen as the ‘Scottish’ language. We cannot ignore that Gaelic is spoken by white Scots, whilst Urdu is spoken predominantly by brown Muslims. This suggests that ethnic minorities, Muslims in particular, are not considered equally Scottish as white ‘native’ Scots.”

According to the most recent census Urdu is the fourth-most commonly-spoken language in Scottish homes, after English, Scots and Polish, while Punjabi is the fifth most common. Gaelic is eighth. (Funding for Gaelic “discriminates against Muslims,” The Times of London, 6th October 2018)

Not White, not Scottish: the anti-Gaelic Muslim invader Nighet Riaz

You can’t blame Nighet Riaz for not caring about Gaelic. She’s not Scottish, has no roots in Scotland, and plainly feels nothing for Scotland’s unique history and traditions. All that interests her is the promotion of her own non-White group and its culture. She was stupid, of course, to make her disdain for Gaelic so obvious, but you can be sure that what she said openly is thought privately by countless other non-Whites. As for me, I’m not Scottish either, but I am White and I recognize the immense importance of Scotland in Western history. It is a small nation that has made an outsize contribution to Western civilization.

Hungry cats and rats

But even if Scotland were small and obscure, I would still be saddened to see that Scots Gaelic is the eighth-most commonly spoken language in its only homeland. Urdu and Punjabi shouldn’t be spoken by large numbers of people in Scotland, because speakers of those languages have homelands of their own. Their presence in Scotland harms ordinary Whites there and increases the power of the leftists in the so-called Scottish National Party or SNP. Urdu and Punjabi are bad for Gaelic in Scotland just as they are for Welsh in Wales. They’re invasive languages, like hungry cats and rats introduced to a small island with a unique — and very tasty — flora and fauna. Over the years I’ve studied all of these languages, and I know that, alphabets aside, the Celtic languages are more difficult and more unusual than the Indian ones. They’re also much more fragile. Native speakers of Gaelic and Welsh are numbered in thousands and grow fewer by the year; native speakers of Urdu and Punjabi are numbered in millions and grow more numerous by the minute.

Nicola Sturgeon (right), the Giftzwerg or poison-dwarf of Scottish politics, takes part in minority-worship

But the Scottish National Party wants more and more speakers of Urdu and Punjabi to enter Scotland and have children there. The party is led by the power-hungry poison-dwarf Nicola Sturgeon (born 1970), a dedicated high-priestess in the cult of minority-worship. For example, Sturgeon became “the only serving prime minister or first minister in the UK to have led a [Gay] Pride event” when she marched at the head of “Scotland’s largest ever LGBT event” in 2018. She was wearing a rainbow “Choose Love” T-shirt, a slogan that’s as insincere as it is saccharine and smarmy. But next to Sturgeon marched another female poison-dwarf in a T-shirt bearing words that were much more honest. They ran like this: “WHY BE RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC OR TRANSPHOBIC WHEN YOU CAN JUST BE QUIET?” The threat is obvious and the message is clear. Evil folk have a simple choice under leftism: either keep their mouths shut or spew their vile hate and be crushed.

Satanic inspiration and intent

Nicola Sturgeon does not believe in free speech and free enquiry, only in power for herself and punishment for her enemies. As a leftist, she has the same enemies as Labour in England and Wales: the ordinary Whites of her nation. The Scottish National Party should really be called the Scottish Negation Party, because like Llafur Cymru in Wales it is dedicated to the destruction of the nation over which it presently rules. The concept of negation is the key to understanding leftists like Nicola Sturgeon and Mark Drakeford. They can’t create: they can only destroy. The German writer Goethe, whom I named above as one of a triumvirate of White geniuses, may have best captured the psychology of leftism in a famous speech by Mephistopheles in Faust (1775 onward). Indeed, Goethe may have captured the literally Satanic inspiration and intent of poison-dwarfs like Sturgeon and cancerous bureaucrats like Drakeford:

Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint!
Unde das mit Recht; denn alles was entsteht
ist werth daß es zu Grunde geht;
Drum besser wär’s daß nichts entstünde.
So ist denn alles was ihr Sünde,
Zerstörung, kurz das Böse nennt,
Mein eigentliches Element. (Faust: Eine Tragödie, Part 1)

I am the spirit that negates!
And rightly so, for all that comes to be
Deserves to perish wretchedly;
’Twere better nothing would begin.
Thus everything that your terms, sin,
Destruction, evil represent —
That is my proper element. (Faust, translation by Walter Kaufmann)

Another possible Englishing of Mephistopheles’ opening line is “I am the spirit that ever denies!” Both translations provide key insights into leftism. It is the ideology that ever negates Truth, Beauty and Goodness, that ever denies reality and pursues ugliness, evil and lies. When I say that Welsh Labour and the SNP are hell-bent on the destruction of Wales and Scotland, I mean literally that: Hell is where their lies and lunacies will take these ancient White nations. The anti-woke writer Irish Savant has chronicled the same national negation in Ireland, whose traitorous leftists are eagerly importing Somalis and Syrians to destroy a third Celtic homeland.

And if small White nations like Wales, Scotland and Ireland are led to destruction, the rest of the White West would inevitably follow. However, just as Susan Cooper and J.R.R. Tolkien prophesied in their books, that will not happen. The Dark is indeed rising, but the Dark will be thrown back. Leftism will not triumph and the West will not perish. The struggle will be hard and long, just as it was for the Servants of Light described by Cooper and the Company of the Ring described by Tolkien, but it will end in victory. The malevolent and mendacious word-magic of leftism — “Race Does Not Exist,” “Choose Love,” “An Anti-Racist Wales” — will not hold back reality for much longer. As the Roman poet Virgil, another genius of language, said long ago: Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret — “You can drive Nature out with a pitch-fork, but she’ll be back.” And Nature is not a poison-dwarf like Nicola Sturgeon, but a giantess of joy.

When I wrote this, six full days after the 2022 midterm election, the situation was still undecided.  The Senate is apparently in Democrat hands again, and the House was “leaning” Republican , although some 19 (!) races are still undetermined.  [Editor’s note: The Democrats have indeed held the Senate, and the Republicans now have been assured of a very slim majority in the House.] But in any case, what we have witnessed here are multiple systemic failures at multiple levels.  The simple fact that so many races have no results even now, over a week after the fact, is itself an indictment of “American democracy.”  But the problems go much deeper than that.  If it wasn’t already obvious, the system is broken beyond repair.  The house is rotten.  New siding or new paint won’t do it.  Down it must come.

But before I get to that, let’s look at a few details of the results.  Even a basic analysis at this point is helpful.  Obviously the anticipated Red Wave never materialized, but there were still a few bright points.  At the moment, according to the Cook Report, Republicans have earned 5 million more votes than Dems in House races (out of about 100 million cast).  This gives them a 51.7% to 46.8% edge in terms of total votes—a significant margin.  If this margin is reflected in the final tally, Reps will hold 225 House seats and Dems 210.  We will see what comes.

Strangely enough, in the 2010 “Obama backlash” midterm, Republicans won by a very similar margin in terms of total votes (51.7% to 45.0%), and yet held 242 seats—a full 17 more than expected this time.  This is an astonishing difference; clearly, new district maps have favored Democrats.  They clearly have profited from the many redistricting initiatives out there.

Also, the current split in the House races is almost the exact mirror image of the last presidential election, where (officially, at least) Biden took 51.3% and Trump 46.9%.  To me, that indeed counts as a ‘Red wave,’ even if it is something less than expected.

In terms of racial categories, as Kevin MacDonald emphasizes, Whites voted 58% Republican, whereas non-Whites went 68% Democrat.  (Among non-Whites, Asians voted 58% Dem, Latinos 60% Dem, and Blacks a whopping 86% Dem).  This is highly revealing.  By significant majorities, Whites see Republicans as their party, and non-Whites see Democrats as theirs.  Bottom line: When Democrats win, non-Whites win.  And when Republicans win, Whites…well, they don’t win (we never really win these days), but at least White grievances can be heard.

And then a few other interesting statistics:  Voters who had a least one gun in their household voted 66% for Republicans—unsurprising, and potentially good news down the road.  And this was some 53 million voters!  Second, a surprising (to me) 27% of voters said abortion was their #1 issue.  (Really?  With all the problems in the country and the world, with your economy a mess, a doddering senile president, and a planet facing potential nuclear war, abortion is #1?)  These were largely incensed liberal women, and they voted 76% Dem.  Third, 53% of voters said immigrants “help the nation” and just 39% said they “hurt the nation.”  (Obviously, the relevant issue at the moment is illegal immigration, but cleverly, the question did not specify.)

What about election fraud?  Was this election, too, “stolen”?  I must admit that I have yet to see compelling evidence for fraud in 2020, but I remain open to the possibility.  And there are already hints of problems now in 2022, but it remains to be seen if these amount to enough to account for the difference in outcomes.  Also, as Tucker Carlson has pointed out, it is highly suspicious that, of the longest-delayed results, Democrats seem to win most of the time—the figure he cited was 77%.  It’s almost like, “Keep counting until the Dem is ahead, and then stop.”  Again, we’ll see where the longest-delayed and closest races shake out this time.  But the example of the Senate is not encouraging.  Of eight tight races there, Dems won four, Reps won three, and Georgia is in a runoff, almost certainly to go Democrat.  That will give Dems five of eight (63%) close races in a national environment that was supposedly pro-Republican.

But my main takeaway from the current situation is this:  Whether there was fraud or not, either way, the outcome is very bad.  If there was sufficient fraud to tip the outcomes, then the system obviously has zero credibility and something approaching a revolution is immediately required.  On the other hand, if all reported votes are legitimate, then that tells us that far too many people were willing to reward the current administration; that they are not terribly upset about record inflation caused, in part, by record federal spending; that they don’t mind funding wars in Europe; that they were not all that concerned with the Covid fiasco that allegedly killed over 1 million Americans and destroyed thousands of small businesses.  (Republican candidates should have repeated over and over: “vaccine mandates,” “mask mandates,” “shutdowns,” “school closures,” “Anthony Fauci,” “Rochelle Walensky,” etc., etc.  Remember those?)  In short, either we have (1) a fraudulent democracy that is literally worthless, or (2) an electorate so bamboozled by the Jewish media machine—and Jewish porn, and Jewish legalized pot—that they can hardly think straight.  Both alternatives are bad news indeed.

The bit of good news, again, is that a strong majority of Whites (58%) could see through the nonsense and propaganda.  This is certainly cause for hope.  But even at that, a Republican vote was really nothing more than “sending a message.”  Even with a true Red Wave, even with a Republican House and Senate, virtually nothing was going to change anyway—partly because of Biden, but mostly because the same corrupting forces hold sway in both parties.

As we know, Jewish donors are dominant funders of both parties.  One recent Jewish study admits that “Jews donate as much as 50 percent of the funds raised by Democrats and 25 percent of the funds raised by Republicans.”  Other sources give higher estimates.[1]  But even these figures are appalling.  Think of it: Of the hundreds of lobbies and special interests out there, a quarter to a half or more of all campaign funds come from a single lobby: the Jewish Lobby.  Guess who calls the shots.  Politicians just don’t pass on that kind of money because, quite obviously, they understand that they can’t be elected by alienating Jewish money. The Democrats are totally and completely sold to the Jews, and the Republicans are only slightly less sold-out.  No matter who won, the Jews win—and Whites lose.

That is the definition of a rigged system: a small, wealthy, corrupt minority wins out over a large majority of the people.  Until that changes, nothing of substance will change.  Even if Trump or DeSantis miraculously wins in 2024, nothing of substance will change.  In fact, the Jews love nothing more than masses of people getting all worked up about “Democrats versus Republicans” or “Trump versus Biden” or “pro-life versus pro-choice” or “pro and con LGBT rights.”  Such issues are wonderful distractions.  They take everyone’s eyes off the ball—the Jewish ball—and put them on relatively trivial side issues.  The main issue, and the only issue that really matters at this point, is:  How will a given candidate address the Jewish dominance and Jewish corruption of our nation?  At every town hall, at every candidate panel and forum, people should be hammering away at their candidates:  What will you do to stop the Jewish Lobby?  Virtually nothing else matters at this point.  And how often did that question come up in the 2022 cycle?  Case closed.

As it is, the situation is hopelessly corrupt.  The system has completely failed.  ‘Representative democracy’ is utterly discredited and worthless.  ‘America’ as a functional nation is dead.  The lowest and most pernicious criminals hold sway at the top, and the nation drowns in Democrat-voting Third-World immigrants at the bottom.  Which party holds the Senate or House is irrelevant.  With anything short of revolutionary action, the nation will sink ever further into the abyss:  economic decline, rising crime, moral degradation at every turn—a wonderful future for your children and grandchildren.

The Only Option

Fortunately, we do have a revolutionary option: secession.  As MacDonald and others are openly stating, secession is now perhaps our only viable alternative.  For myself, I have been advocating such a thing for literally 30 years now; it was clear to me, long ago, that no nation as large and diverse as the USA could be rationally governed.  And worse, that the size and complexity of modern America ensured that malevolent actors would inevitably gain the upper hand—as indeed they have.  I argued this position long ago, and nothing since has made me alter my view.  A breakup of the USA is the only option if we want accountable, responsible, and reasonably non-corrupt government.

In theory, almost any subgroup of people, of almost any size, has the right to secede from their existing forms of government.  If there is any truly inherent human right, it is the right to self-government.  Just as no one is born a slave, no one is born enslaved to their local nation-state.  All people have the right to re-form and re-create their own government—even if it involves violent action.

Here, states are the obvious candidates for secession.  Not only do they have well-defined boundaries, they (some of them, at least) have a long history of independence—in some cases, older than the US itself.  In fact, secessionist movements exist now, and have existed, for a long time; if we can believe Wikipedia, there are at least 14 active organizations: 7 regional groups, 6 states, and Puerto Rico.

This is a good start, but it’s not enough.  There is no reason why all 25 Red States (per the 2020 election) shouldn’t immediately create active secessionist parties.  Red-Staters: you have no good alternatives.  You will continue to lose.  Trump won’t save you.  “MAGA” won’t save you.  You deserve better, and you can have better, but not within the current “America.”  You need to go it alone—or with a few other like-minded states.

For practical reasons, the most viable movements will be in border states; it would be tough for landlocked Kansas, for example, to become an independent, self-governing country.  There is a reason that, for centuries, nations have fought for access to oceans and waterways.  Free access to trade routes is vital.

Of the 2020 Red States, 12 are border states (I am including Indiana and Ohio, which have access to the Great Lakes).  Here’s a list of them, along with percent voting for Trump:

• North Dakota (65.5% Trump in 2020)
• Idaho (63.9%)
• Alabama (62.2%)
• Louisiana (58.5%)
• Mississippi (57.6%)
• Indiana (57.1%)
• Montana (56.9%)
• South Carolina (55.1%)
• Ohio (53.5%)
• Texas (52.1%)
• Florida (51.2%)
• North Carolina (50.1%)

Of these, only Texas has an active secessionist movement.  We need all the others to get on board, immediately.  (Unfortunately I do not reside in any of these states, but I would be happy to move, once a serious movement gets going.)  And again, it need not be individual states.  Consortia of states would be more powerful, obviously.  One can envision the power of a unified block cutting right down the middle of the US, if the two Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas all got together to form a single union.  It would be a dagger to the heart of the American Judeocracy.

This last point bears emphasis:  Secession of one or a group of states has a huge, double benefit.  It would bring true freedom and autonomy to the secessionists, and second, it would dramatically weaken the power of the Jewish Lobby to wreak havoc here and abroad.  American Jews rely on the wealth, tax revenue, and labor of a nation of 330 million.  This is where they draw their power.  Secession directly impacts their power in a way that nothing else can.  It would be like chopping off a finger or two from a professional athlete—devastating.

But could it really work?  Would secessionists have a reasonable chance of success?  We can already hear the scare-mongering reply:  “Oh, that will never work!  The army will come down on you in a flash.  They’ll nuke your ass!”  So wait—which army was that?  Oh, right, our LGBTQ+, pregnant-women, trans-Army.  Seriously—our military is so degraded, and our Congress sufficiently conflicted, that they would hardly be able to conduct a significant counterattack.  There would be a lot of bluff and bluster, and nothing to show for it, especially if the secessionist states had their own “well-regulated militia” (remember that silly Constitution?).  Recall those 53 million voters with at least one gun.  That’s a lot of guns.  All the militaries in the world, combined, can’t match that.

“But now you’re talking violence.  No one will go for that.”  Okay—except, every national struggle in history has involved some level of violence.  You don’t get something for nothing in this world.  If you’re happy to be a slave to the Judeocracy, then stay home.  If you want to “live free or die,” then take action.  So far, all action has taken place in the voting booth, and Republicans, and Whites, have been losing badly.  That will only get worse in the future.  The problem is that we are playing on the enemy’s turf.  It’s “home field advantage” for the Jews and the leftist liberals when we rely on elections to solve our problems.  That’s a losing strategy every time.  Now is the time to turn the tables and play on our field: the battlefield.  That’s where we win.

Never forget:  This nation was born in ‘revolution’ and secession.  It’s in our DNA.  Now is the time to reawaken those inborn feelings, and act.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His latest work is the anthology Classic Essays on the Jewish Question: 1850 to 1945.  He has also recently published the definitive critique Unmasking Anne Frank, and a new edition of political cartoons, Pan-Judah! Volume Two. All these books are available at www.clemensandblair.com.  See also his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

[1] For Democrats, estimates include “as much as 60%” (Washington Post, 13 Mar 2003), “over 60%” (Jewish Power in America, R. Feingold, 2008, p. 4), “as much as 2/3” (JTA, 7 Jun 2011), “80% to 90%” (Passionate Attachment, Ball and Ball, 1992, p. 218).  For Republicans: “nearly 60%” (Passionate Attachment), “over 60%” for Richard Nixon (Israel Lobby, Mearsheimer and Walt, 2007, p. 407).