The Judeo-Accelerationist Presidency

The Judeo-Accelerationist Presidency

From killing Iran’s top general to legitimizing West Bank annexation, Donald Trump has made U.S. power serve Israel.

Donald Trump’s presidency has been marked by a dramatic intensification of U.S. support for Israel that would make previous presidential administrations blush. This shift is so marked and forceful that it can be understood through the lens of Judeo-Accelerationism. Originating from accelerationist theory, which holds that intensifying a prevailing system’s logic can bring about transformative change, Judeo-Accelerationism describes the abandonment of incremental support for Israel in favor of rapid, sweeping policies that reshape the geopolitical landscape to Israel’s benefit.

While every American president since Harry Truman has maintained a baseline of pro-Israel policy, Trump has gone well beyond this norm. His approach shattered long-standing diplomatic taboos and pushed U.S.-Israel relations into an entirely new and more aggressive phase. Far from merely maintaining the status quo, Trump’s policies reflect a zealous commitment to radically advancing Israeli interests at an unprecedented pace, making even the most hawkish neoconservative administrations of the past appear cautious by comparison.

Trump’s Judeo-Accelerationist Agenda: From First to Second Term

Both of Trump’s presidential terms reflect this relentless pursuit of Israeli objectives. The clearest and most symbolic move came in 2018, when Trump officially moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This wasn’t just a symbolic gesture—it was the violation of a long-held international consensus. Although Congress had passed the Jerusalem Embassy Act in 1995, every president since then, including Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, had deferred the move out of concern it would undermine peace negotiations. Trump not only executed the move but also timed the embassy’s opening for May 14, 2018, the 70th anniversary of Israel’s founding. As Palestinians protested at the Gaza border, Israeli forces killed dozens of demonstrators.

In March 2019, Trump went further by recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. This region has been occupied by Israel since 1967 and unilaterally annexed in 1981. No other country had ever formally accepted this annexation. The timing of Trump’s announcement—just two weeks before Israeli parliamentary elections—suggested it was a deliberate attempt to help Benjamin Netanyahu secure victory. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo justified the move by stating it acknowledged “the reality on the ground,” effectively endorsing Israeli territorial conquest through military force.

Where earlier administrations at least gave lip service to a two-state solution, Trump and his advisors openly abandoned the framework. Jared Kushner, Trump’s senior advisor and son-in-law, declared in May 2019: “If you say ‘two-state,’ it means one thing to the Israelis, it means one thing to the Palestinians. We said, you know, let’s just not say it.” The Trump administration’s so-called peace plan would have confined Palestinians to disconnected territories resembling bantustans, while allowing Israel to annex roughly 30% of the West Bank. This represented the most pro-Israeli “peace” proposal ever advanced by an American administration, one that would have formalized permanent Israeli control over Palestinian territory.

Further entrenching Israel’s power, Trump’s Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared in November 2019 that Israeli settlements in the West Bank were “not inherently illegal,” overturning decades of U.S. policy that had treated settlements as violations of international law. The “Pompeo Doctrine” marked a radical departure from the positions of previous presidents, including ardent Israel supporters like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Trump’s Abraham Accords, heralded by many as a diplomatic success, in fact undermined the long-standing Arab Peace Initiative. By pressuring Bahrain, the UAE, Morocco, and Sudan to normalize relations with Israel without securing any concessions for Palestinians, Trump stripped away one of the last forms of regional leverage against Israel’s intransigence. For groups like Hamas, this shift represented a death knell for Palestinian statehood aspirations. The October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel was in part a daring response to the erosion of regional support for their cause—a gambit designed to re-ignite global attention and leverage international outrage over Israel’s retaliation.

Maximum Pressure, Minimum Restraint: The Trump Doctrine Against Iran

Trump’s sustained hostility toward Iran, Israel’s foremost regional adversary, further illustrates his Judeo-Accelerationist trajectory. His opposition predates his 2016 campaign, going back at least to his 2011 book Time to Get Tough, in which he declared:

“America’s primary goal with Iran must be to destroy its nuclear ambitions. Let me put them as plainly as I know how: Iran’s nuclear program must be stopped–by any and all means necessary. Period. We cannot allow this radical regime to acquire a nuclear weapon that they will either use or hand off to terrorists.”

He repeatedly condemned the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), calling it a “disaster” and “the worst deal ever.”

Though he occasionally struck a peaceful tone with select audiences, Trump’s actual policy toward Iran was one of consistent escalation. After pulling the United States out of the JCPOA in May 2018, he launched the “maximum pressure” sanctions campaign—an aggressive move that clashed with his public image as an antiwar candidate. He dismissed the deal as “the worst deal ever,” claiming it “enriched the Iranian regime and enabled its malign behavior, while at best delaying its ability to pursue nuclear weapons.” Sanctions were swiftly reinstated, hitting Iran’s energy, petrochemical, and financial sectors. Trump also warned of “severe consequences” for any country that continued doing business with Iran.

These measures ranked among the most severe sanctions in modern history, with the explicit aim to “bring Iran’s oil exports to zero, denying the regime its principal source of revenue.” Trump’s administration steadily widened the scope of the sanctions, targeting Iran’s central bank, space agency, and even the inner circle of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

In October 2019, Trump sanctioned Iran’s construction industry, linking it to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which he had previously designated as a foreign terrorist organization in April of that year—the first time the United States had ever applied that label to another country’s military.

At the time of the terrorist designation, Trump bragged: “If you are doing business with the IRGC, you will be bankrolling terrorism…This designation will be the first time that the United States has ever named a part of another government as an FTO [foreign terrorist organization].” These steps were not only economic in nature but also intended to isolate Iran diplomatically, cripple its economy, and prepare the ground for potential military confrontation.

The most dramatic episode came in January 2020, when Trump authorized the drone strike that killed Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Baghdad. Trump claimed Soleimani had been “plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel,” a move that brought the United States and Iran to the edge of open conflict. Iran retaliated with missile strikes on U.S. bases, and tensions surged as the world braced for war.

Even after this volatile episode, Trump continued to escalate with Iran. Toward the end of his first term, he reportedly explored military options for targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. According to accounts, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley and other senior officials pushed back firmly. Milley warned, “If you do this, you’re gonna have a f***ing war,” and began holding daily briefings to prevent an unchecked spiral toward military conflict, a process he described as efforts to “land the plane.”

As tensions with both Iran and Israel intensified, Trump privately gave the green light for preparations to strike Iranian targets. U.S. military assets—including carrier strike groups, bombers, and fighter jets—were moved into strategic positions. According to The Wall Street Journal, Trump informed aides that he “approved of attack plans for Iran, but was holding off on giving the final order to see if Tehran will abandon its nuclear program.”

In June 2025, Trump ordered direct strikes on three Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—using B-2 stealth bombers and bunker-buster bombs. Trump declared that Iran’s nuclear capabilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” despite conflicting reports from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) suggesting that the strikes failed to neutralize Iran’s underground infrastructure and only briefly hindered its nuclear capabilities. Rafael Grossi, head of the UN nuclear watchdog, stated Iran could resume uranium enrichment “within a matter of months.”

This escalation went far beyond anything contemplated by previous neoconservative administrations. Even the Bush administration, which went on a nation-building bender in Iraq and Afghanistan, had never authorized such a strike on Iranian soil. Trump’s willingness to risk regional war to directly advance Israeli security interests represents a qualitatively different level of commitment to Zionist objectives that previous administrations would dare not broach.

Unprecedented Support from Israel First Interests

Trump’s policies cannot be divorced from the powerful influence of pro-Israel donors and organizations. According to watchdog group Track AIPAC, pro-Israel interests have contributed over $230 million to Trump since 2020. The vast majority—over $215 million—came from Miriam Adelson’s Preserve America PAC. Trump’s unwavering pro-Israel stance has helped win over former critics in the neoconservative camp, such as Bill Kristol, who endorsed Trump’s Iran strikes, stating, “You’ve got to go to war with the president you have.”

Within his administration, Trump has elevated individuals whose views reflect the most extreme elements of the Zionist project. David Friedman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel during Trump’s first term, was a financier of West Bank settlements and later published One Jewish State: The Last, Best Hope to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Mike Huckabee, Trump’s current ambassador to Israel and a vocal Christian Zionist, has floated ideas for population transfers of Palestinians while supporting continued Israeli annexation.

In January 2025, Trump proposed moving Gaza’s 2 million Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan: “I’d like Egypt to take people, and I’d like Jordan to take people … we just clean out that whole thing.” Asked if the relocation would be temporary, he responded that it could be “long term.” The following month, Trump stated during a press conference with Netanyahu that the United States would “take over” Gaza and transform it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” Israeli analyst Noam Sheizaf observed: “Trump accomplished what no Israeli politician has: He transformed ‘population transfer’ from a fringe, near-taboo concept in Israeli political discourse to a viable policy option.”

Domestically, Trump further prioritized Jewish interests through his January 2025 Executive Order to “Combat Anti-Semitism.” This order allowed for the deportation of foreign students participating in pro-Palestinian activism and threatened universities with loss of funding if they failed to suppress such speech. The order marked an unprecedented use of federal power to silence political dissent in service of a foreign nation.

America Last: Trump’s Radical Realignment in Service of Israeli Power

What makes Trump’s presidency uniquely dangerous is not simply the extremity of individual policies, but their cumulative effect in normalizing Jewish supremacist objectives under U.S. protection. By shattering norms around Jerusalem, settlements, and Palestinian displacement, Trump has created new facts on the ground that future administrations may find politically impossible to reverse.

Unlike his predecessors, who operated within international frameworks, respected multilateral diplomacy, and maintained at least nominal distance from Israel’s most extreme demands, Trump has turned the United States into an uncritical enabler of Israeli expansionism. His decisions have gone far beyond even the Bush administration, which pursued nation-building campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan but never attacked Iran directly or endorsed population transfer.

Despite running as an America First candidate, Trump has spent much of his political capital bolstering Israeli military and geopolitical power. In the process, he has revealed the hollow nature of his anti-war image and nationalist rhetoric. His administration, staffed with ideologues committed to Israeli supremacy, has reoriented U.S. foreign policy around the goal of cementing Israel’s regional hegemony, no matter the cost in lives, stability, or American credibility.

By aligning U.S. power with Israel’s expansionist agenda, Trump has steered American foreign policy into dangerous and potentially irreversible territory.

Chapters 1 & 2 from “Vanikin in the Underworld”

Vanikin in the Underworld

Falling Marbles Press, 2025

A rebirth from the rubbish

Disgraced, deposed, and driven to the ‘underworld’ for the crime of political incorrectness, Harry Vanikin — formerly Professor Vanikin — has not left the London housing estate in which he hides for seven years. Even going so far as to cover up his windows, the seventy-year-old Vanikin lives the life of a discarded shadow, going about the motions of something called life and only occasionally visited by his sister, his tormenting nephew, and his fellow residents of the run-down housing project they call home. From these fellows, however, from these similarly mad and equally rejected beings, the ashes begin to stir, and a ray of hope appears for the man who once said: I tried to teach my students the truth; no one told me the truth was no longer wanted.

Vanikin in the Underworld is the story of the furthest down and possible redemption of an educator who can’t escape education.

*   *   *

Eurydice trod on a serpent as she fled, and died of its bite. But Orpheus boldly descended into Hades, hoping to fetch her back…
Robert Graves, The Greek Myths

Then you are not one of us? You are well, you are but a guest here, like Odysseus in the kingdom of the shades? You are bold indeed, thus to descend into these depths peopled by the vacant and the idle dead…
Descend, Herr Settembrini? I protest. I have climbed some five thousand feet to get here…
Thomas Mann, The Magic Mountain

Chapters

1. Inappropriate teaching methods

2. The fall of Mulciber

3. Estrella and the arriviste

4. In the TV room

5. Magda and the measuring man

6. Preparations for a royal visit

7. Queen and consort

8. I am everywhere else

9. Breakfast of champions

10. Time and the maiden

11. The wonders of the invisible world

12. The life and times of Jimmy-Shawn Pallis

13. School for vandals

14. Measure for measure

15. The follies of Pygmalion

16. In the antechamber

17. Europa after the rain

18. Dinner with Estrella

19. Of first and last editions

20. Let the games begin

21. Entry of the gladiators

22. Term time

23. A new printing

24. The book of the dead

25. The dinner party

  1. Inappropriate teaching methods

I dreamed last night I was being measured up for my burial suit. The odd thing was that I was still alive. That’s right. Some mincing little chaffinch with a tape-measure round his neck was feeling me up, chalking outlines on butcher paper, cocking his birdy head to one side while he looked at my scrawny 70-year-old old frame, and all to the end of making a suit to grace Harry Vanikin’s coffin, his lying in state. He didn’t say anything, but I knew. That’s one of the things about dreams that sets them apart from the waking life; however strange or other they might be, you always know what’s going on.

I say I had the dream last night but I meant when I was last asleep. The windows here are blacked out by big theatre curtains. It could be day or night. There used to be tiny ragged holes in the fabric, wounds from a moth invasion, and the daylight would announce itself through these tiny spaces, making it look like a knackered old planetarium. That’s what the ancient astronomers thought stars were, light getting in through a bloody great dome a few hundred miles above the earth. How do we know they were wrong? Everything else in the modern world is built on lies, why not the stars too? Make it all up, fabricate, weave and spin. I stuck black gaffer tape on the holes and now it’s as black in here as a crow’s heart.

I used to burn candles but I set fire to one of the walls and now the boy refuses to buy me any. So I switch on the electric light, the 40-watt bulb suddenly spewing out its pale yellow effusion. Not pale enough for Vanikin. I asked the boy if the shop did 20-watt bulbs, 10. Can you get a 1-watt bulb? Could you see by its light? Perhaps I should learn to feel my way around this haunted palace, like a blind man. Once, when the boy was sick, Estrella did my shopping and brought me back a light bulb that looked like it had been a prop in a Russian science fiction movie of the 1960s. Estrella, tall and gangling, with an anachronistic flapper’s face tending to the lengthy. The bulb was sculpted glass tubing and Estrella said it was energy efficient. Like all young people now, she is the conscience for an entire planet. When she had gone, I broke the monstrosity with the ball-peen hammer to see what was inside and waited for the boy to get well and buy me a proper bulb.

At the moment the boy is well. He rarely gets ill, but he is on the right side of puberty, untroubled by the itches and drives that arrive when poisonous hormones leak into the childish glands. He is, however, prey to the natural maladies of the young. I don’t know what time it is; watches and clocks simply sneer at you concerning your own mortality. When the boy comes I know it is morning. He is a part of the overworld and he has a mother to keep him on the temporal straight and narrow. His mother is called Manda. Not Amanda. Just Manda. I saw her once, peering in at my humble dwelling like a medieval courtesan gazing in wonder into a turf-cutter’s hovel. She lives with the boy in one of the other rooms. The boy has a similarly mutated modern name, but to me he is just the boy, a beacon of innocence in a world as rank as month-old cheese in a long-broken refrigerator.

The house has yet to come to life, so it must be early in the morning. The boy used to chatter away of his adventures in the overworld, and would give away clues as to the season. I forbade him ever to speak of it again. I carry enough of the infection from outside and I am here for the cure, to take the waters. Winter or summer, equinox or solstice; these climatic mood swings no longer concern me.

No. That’s a lie too far. You will become used to my lies, my swingeing embellishments and outright deceptions, but let’s not run before we can walk, or walk before we can crawl, or crawl before we have oozed from our mother’s great tented bellies. Of course I know the seasons even here, down here in the underworld. It is summer now. There is no need for the convection heater and the caretaker of the building in which I live has turned off the central heating. The caretaker is a man called Craig McCerrow and is one of the most frightening of God’s creations. God, or whoever runs this spiteful orb. But it is summer now.

Summer too when I first descended from the glare, down into the bowels searching for no Eurydice but the truth, or at least a truth. Supposing truth to be a woman, wrote Nietzsche, who slept with one woman in his life, who gave him syphilis, which drove him mad and left him in the Jena asylum for eleven years. Beware truth. Summer when I came here, seven summers ago, and in that seven years I have left this room for a period in excess of 24 hours once and once only. Of which more later.

Inappropriate teaching methods drove me here, or led me here (the distinction is a part of the purpose of my visit), and I have to say that is pretty rich coming from the gauleiters of the overworld. I taught inappropriately? In a world where pinheaded advertising executives spend Third-World-economy-sized amounts selling children plastic and rubber shoes endorsed by multi-millionaire hoodlums who made their own fortunes braying about violent sex acts and ballistic weapons, my teaching methods were inappropriate? In a world in which banks deemed too big to fail are paid to survive by money taken from the pockets of toilet cleaners and nurses before awarding their incompetent executives yearly bonuses outstripping the amount those same cleaners and nurses would need to live for as long as a dozen Roman empires to earn, my teaching methods were inappropriate? In a world in which women can become men and men women on the state’s ticket, children can view buggery at any hour of the day or night, screaming dervishes knife octogenarians as they queue for the bus, actors are asked about the world economy, simpering and large-breasted women lie about the weather to make themselves a fortune, shallow graves dot woodlands when men are done with their entertainments and no one is allowed to use the word ‘spastic’ even though it comes from the ancient Greek ‘spasmos’ which, meaning as it does ‘to tremble violently’, adequately describes the condition it used to stand for, and my teaching methods were inappropriate?

‘Mr Vanikin?’

Outside the door, the boy is here. I shuffle to the door and release the latch, tacky with age, and open the door an eye’s width, checking that this is not that dreadful sprite Adam, with his abilities, his mimicry and othernesses. It is not. It is the boy. I retreat back to the safety of my geriatric sofa, my large bald flannel dressing-gown’s train following like a sick dog.

The boy is about twelve but already tall. Christ knows what there is in food nowadays, but it’s not just the post-war boons I remember, iron and calcium and phosphates. Nowadays the junk they shovel down must be crammed with alchemised plant food, kerosene, plutonium. The boy is tall but not independent of limb like Estrella. He already has co-ordination and grace, a larval godling. His mop of curly hair falls over one hazel eye. He would have gone down handsomely in the Athenian square, fawned over by a gaggle of Socrates’ loquacious bum-chums.

Don’t worry; little boys are not what the young people call ‘my thing’. Christ alive, what do you do if you find out it is your thing? Lars, the middle-aged Danish laboratory worker who sometimes sits with me and brings me newspaper snippets from the world of men, like a paunchy Scandinavian Mercury, tells me there has been a spate of arrests of ‘celebrities’ over child abuse back in the days when men were all wearing Neanderthal sideburns and velvet jackets with landing-strip lapels. What actually happens on the day you discover that little girls – or little boys – are your thing? You are sitting on the tube train opposite a cherub. The swinging legs, the flash of tiny knicker cloth, the empathic pull in the sinews of the unruly member… Jesus, do you make straight for the nearest hospital, the nearest cop shop, or do you embrace your new vocation and head for darker infernal regions? Or are we, to use another phrase beloved of today’s academic grubs and pupae, just ‘ethnocentric’ about all this? African tribes and their child brides. Nine-year-old Aisha shepherded into a tent to meet the patiently waiting Mohammed.

The boy has come into the room and is standing tapping at his ever-present mobile telephone, the portal to elsewhere beloved of all modern youth.

‘What do you need today, Mr Vanikin?’

‘Um, the usual really’.

I hand him my list, a pathetic inventory in a crabbed hand. Harry Vanikin’s needs, strip-lit libations. The boy looks down at the meagre collection of items and pries loose the twenty-pound note carefully stapled to the torn strip of copier paper. He says,

‘Craig says the water’s got to go off today for two hours. Shall I fill the kettle right up?’

He’s a good boy. If the child is father to the man then the world has a treat coming its undeserving way. The boy will not grow up to be Craig, crackling with malice, finding his way into a job with people, I’m certain, because people are his sport. The water is always having to go off, the lights go out, the heating fade to tepid, so that gangs of mythical ‘workmen’ can tinker and prise. The block is like some great sick mastodon tended by pygmy veterinarians.

The boy has gone, striding down to Ahmed’s shop, and I am alone, or as alone as I can be. Vanikin in the underworld. Where were we? Ah, yes. Inappropriate teaching methods. I suppose it could have been worse. Socrates got the hemlock, Bruno, Wycliff and Savonarola the stake and the fire, looking down and hoping the breeze was ministering to the flames. The university simply made no fuss and paid me my pension before laying me off. Estrella tells me my book is no longer to be found in the library reference system. My book. So much to tell.

Another day in my circle. I rip off a puckered square of kitchen roll and evacuate my nose into it before looking down to view the outcome, a Kandinsky miniature in grey, green and red. My stomach, that aged coil of plumbing, is making small spiral noises, like tiny springs emerging from a captor mattress, and I must prepare porridge.

In the ‘kitchen’ – the square boarded off by prefabricated and hastily painted and wonky boards – I line up oats, salt, milk, a cup of water and sugar on the ugly Formica surface. I turn the hob to three. Hob; Anglo-Saxon word for the devil. Now, a circle of fire. Everything is present everywhere else; the human task is to sort it into piles that make sense.

I make porridge exactly the same way my father did, the big bearded man who was as good to me as he knew how to be. Porridge must not be a swimming gruel, but neither must it be industrial adhesive. It should exist betwixt and between the two extremes, like we poor ape-angels. As I carry the bowl back into the central space and the retired sofa, I realise I must not have slept at all well.

2. The fall of Mulciber

Just as every version of the underworld has its guardian or attendant devil, infernal factotum or dog of three heads, so too Europa House has Craig McCerrow. There he is now, shirtlessly grappling with some ancient lead fixture in the sweltering boiler room deep in the basement. His upper body is a patchwork quilt of tattoos, some professionally applied and some of more home-made provenance. They record past dalliances, the names of Craig’s awful sociopathic children, tribal affiliations in the world of association football, nationalistic aspiration, and mythical creatures, zombie overlords and full-breasted, broadsword-wielding vixens. Craig’s mental life is correspondingly crammed and chaotic, but he is grateful for the job of resident caretaker at Europa House.

Indeed, the job was a godsend. Craig had had quite enough of his regular employment as doorman of various risk-laden speakeasies across the city. He had been stabbed and shanked, shivved and striped too many times to justify the money and drugs he received in payment for plying his precarious trade, and the caretaker’s role allowed him to exercise power without the accompanying perils of the order of clientele to which he had become used. His biography presented here is a composite work, for which I must note the reportage of residents Lars, Declan, Ricky Rick and Mrs. Podolski, who together form a sort of BBC World Service concerning the happenings at Europa House.

I dread Craig. On the few occasions he had been inside my cubicle here at the House I had cringed in the corner while he attended to trip switch or faulty tap, and he seemed exactly what he was, a dreadful man in a city of dreadful men. There is an order of being which seems to take place, to take its place, in a parallel dimension to that in which we, the weak and frail and fallible, live and breathe and have our being. To see Craig McCerrow, his sleeveless shirt showing enough of the hinterland of his squamously illustrated body to indicate his likely passage through life thus far, is to see a type of hell.

Now, he has simply turned off the water to the entire block to attend to some dysfunction in the ancient plumbing. Alerted by the boy, I have filled saucepans and the kettle and the old tin pail for my ablutions. Two hours was mentioned, but Craig keeps to no earthly temporal calibration. Once he turned off the electricity for an afternoon but was persuaded by one of his appalling coterie of friends to go on a three-day drink and drug field exercise, and Europa House remained plunged in darkness for the duration.

As I accept that it is the morning, I must prepare for my day. I heat water in my kettle, testing the great orange gas container with the ball-peen hammer to see how much remains. We are all of us hooked up to these containers, and Craig replaces them for a stipendiary fee when they expire. There is no working gas supply system at Europa House, a fact which exercises the gangling Estrella. She, like most of her generation, is well versed on her rights, and claims that the contraptions which Craig has rigged up in each of our battery cells (the original house has been divided and divided again to provide more hutches for the inhabitants) contravene various Health and Safety commandments. I wouldn’t know about that, although I do know that the last representative from the council to visit Europa House was so menaced by Craig that he had to take a month’s sick leave from his place of work. That awful hobgoblin Bertie Spedding told me that. Bertie Spedding, the Mercury of bad news and sniffer of ill winds.

My water ready in the singing kettle, I fill the basin, select a flannel (one of two, royal blue and washing-machine grey) and begin to soap and valet the various cracks and orifices of my awful old body. The body, writes Plato. A shadow which keeps us company. I can’t have a bath because the bath has a crack in it like lightning-split timber. It also has about a hundredweight of academic papers, newspapers, notepads dense with my scrawl, coverless books. Research, you see, for my next book, the follow up to my university-banned and universally unread debut. More later.

With my cleansed frame snugly inside my billowing dressing gown once more, I sit and read, transported to wherever today’s book (the first of many) will take me. Reading is life to me, the phrases, ideas, concepts, new words and formulations all pouring into the old Vanikin head like wine into a cracked gourd. I would rather be a notepad for the sayings of great men, writes the pugnacious Julius Caesar, than be a great man myself. Some time later, I rest my book on the frayed elbow of the sofa’s arm-rest as I hear the light tappity-tap on my door which announces the arrival of Lars and the news.

Lars is a bald and shiny-domed Dane who was once a laboratory assistant before retirement drew him to the dubious environs of Europa House. He eschewed a return to the Norse land of his fathers on the grounds that it was now overrun by Mohammedans to an extent that not even the sleeping Holger Danske (the giant but currently comatose defender of the Danish people) could ever counter. He and I sit washed by my pale bulb, and Lars will tell me of affairs in the wider world, carefully préçising the main currents of activity before expanding on one or two stories which have caught the attention of his enquiring Scandinavian mind, and dutifully omitting to tell me the date.

Lars sits in my guest’s chair, a sort of faux Regency throne with elegantly curved dark wood legs and the look of a creature with nocturnal habits all its own. Tufts of old horse-hair from a nag long dead protrude at intervals.

Lars speaks perfect English, retaining the slightly clipped tunefulness of his native land. His round-up of current affairs confirms the movements we all know to be taking place outside the ramparts of Europa House, as the world outside marches slowly but resolutely towards a second dark age, a sort of anti-Enlightenment. Money is still acting like an insane woman in the market square, all matted hair and flung excrement. Politicians still parade and speechify, like street vendors in the last minutes of Pompeii. The young still rule the streets while the old stay indoors praying to gods who are themselves frightened. Motor cars still tear around culling the population, television still holds a nation in its mesmeric grip, and it has not rained for eleven days in a row. I make tea.

Lars and I sip at our hot brew as the amiable Dane begins a circumspect tour of what counts these days for news. News. The media. These old shades are part of the reason I fell from the heavenly ramparts of academia and landed here. I think of Milton’s Mulciber in Paradise Lost, one of Satan’s angels pushed (by Michael, if memory is a good and faithful servant) over heaven’s battlements to fall to earth in a leafy forest, a descent which took a full day.

We are fallen too. Crashing to earth where we sit huddled in a damp, loamy forest to be told tales by various spirits of the wood who do not have our well-being in mind. Inappropriate teaching methods. I tried to teach my students the truth; no one had told me that the truth was no longer wanted. Think of Orwell, lanky, pencil-moustachioed, public-school George with his fags and his TB. In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Vanikin the revolutionary, Vanikin in a beret, bearded and chomping a cigar. I told them that Media Studies, the degree for which so many of them clamoured like ducklings at the water’s edge, was a waste of time. Media studies was what you did in your own time. Media studies was just reading the papers and watching television. University education should be more than a breakfast-time habit tenured. Inappropriate teaching methods.

Lars is summing up the state of world affairs. But we all know where the world is heading. It’s heading here, to join exiled Vanikin in the underworld. The world outside my retired theatre curtains was a rickety pier full of whizzing circus rides with the nuts and bolts all loosened and the lights off when I last trod the boards. I tremble to think what it has become since I groped my way below stairs, but I suspect that if I were to re-emerge from my dank and Gyprocced chrysalis this very day, I would not walk out into a second Renaissance.

It’s consciousness, you see. Nietzsche called the brain our last and least developed organ, and he was right, poor mad syphilitic old Friedrich. Giving consciousness to homo sapiens was like giving the Large Hadron Collider (and there Lars did hold my attention) to a saloon bar full of association football aficionados. There was the Renaissance, of course, but it was hardly general issue. A Milanese peasant born the day Fra Angelico was born and breathing his final rasping breath, a rare octogenarian, the day Uccello passed away would in all probability have lived his entire span without setting eyes on a framed painting. A frame was what you grew your turnips in. The Renaissance, the Enlightenment, modernism; these were mostly things that happened to other folk, the folk on the hill. The majority of the world’s population went on much as before while Michelangelo was creating his wonders, dirt under the nails and trying not to get killed by their neighbours. My tea is cold, and Lars has finished his report.

I bid Lars a fond farewell in his native Danish. Farvel. It more or less exhausts my knowledge of that jolly-sounding language, and sounds to me like a minor character from a Dickens novel. Little Farvel. Dickens, with his mad hair and social conscience. I feel vaguely unclean after being sprayed with the ordure of the outside world, and I head for my bath tub. I retrieve something soothing and recline on the buggered sofa, wondering who the house will throw at me next.

Europa House was built at the start of the 1960s, and so has no exterior charm and resembles a hybrid of an East German tax office and a giant lock-up by a ring road. As mentioned, the original spacious apartments have been cordoned and sub-divided and partitioned to produce the current human hen-house, and I am merely one lonely occupant among many. A surprising proportion of the inhabitants are, by any reasonable usage of the phrase, clinically insane (I am one), but there are gems amid the chaos. Part sanctuary for the disenfranchised, part asylum, part dormitory, part ghost train, Europa House has been my abode these seven years since my public disgrace and defenestration. After the fall, this is my pandemonium.

No one came to see me as I cleared my office at the university. To associate with Vanikin was to be on McCarthy’s black list, in the FBI’s little black book, marked down for a Leninist show trial. I had become toxic, a pariah or pharmakos or scapegoat. And so for seven years I have wandered in the desert of myself, apart from the ways of men…

A small drum-roll at my hollow door. The boy has returned with my provisions. I trust him with my pension, giving him a small stipendiary consideration of which I suspect Manda would not approve. All modern mothers believe that all elderly men are sexual predators with their offspring squarely in the crosshairs. The danger, however, lurks elsewhere. Mentally and intellectually, the peril starts when teacher arrives with her curriculum of anti-life skills. Outside the school gates, meanwhile, the drug dealers lurk.

The boy, as always, leaves two gossamer-thin carrier bags outside my warped front door, and I retrieve them like a laboratory rat snatching at a food pellet.

Tinned fruit, tinned meat, cordial, tea, milk, biscuits, porridge oats. Ahmed’s prices are reasonable, and I have purchased enough to keep a sub-Saharan family for most of a week. I have modest requirements; such is the life of the fallen angel, the outcast scowling back at the city of the sun, the civitas solis.

Why Argentina May Be the Jewish Diaspora’s Next Frontier

Argentina’s election of Javier Milei in December 2023 has provided international Jewry with an intriguing opportunity.

To say that Milei’s administration is pro-Zionist would be an understatement. Apart from his promises to make the Argentine economy attractive to international finance, Milei has gone out of his way to kowtow to Jewish interests — from honoring the Bibas family with a national mourning period and altering the name of a Buenos Aires street, to designating Hamas a terrorist organization and vowing to relocate the Argentine embassy to Jerusalem. The lengths he’s going to advance Jewish interests make one wonder if he belongs in the Israeli Knesset as opposed to Casa Rosada.

Or perhaps there’s something much bigger at play. Despite having a sovereign state for the first time in two thousand years, it remains widely acknowledged that Jewish history is marked by repeated expulsions from numerous countries around the world. Statecraft has rarely been a historical strength for Jews, and the so-called curse of the eighth decade serves as a stark reminder of the deep instability that often plagues Jewish states.

Relentless attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah rockets in the north, and Iranian missile strikes on cities like Haifa and Tel Aviv—paired with growing internal rifts between secular and religious Jews and the burden of a welfare-dependent ultra-Orthodox population—are fueling doubts about Israel’s long-term viability as a functional state. In light of these alarming trends, a long-term exit plan may be in order.

Enter Plan Andinia.

Milei’s moves to secure Argentina as a refuge for global Jewry have reignited claims that a broader Zionist plan exists to colonize Argentine and Chilean Patagonia.

The theory was put forward by members of Frente Nacional Socialista Argentino (the Argentine National Socialist Front) in the mid-1960s and later disseminated by Chilean diplomat and esoteric Hitlerist Miguel Serrano. The former Chilean diplomat contended that for over twenty years, Jews disguised as backpackers and poor hikers have been traveling through the most remote and strategic regions of southern Chile with the support of Chilean authorities, the army, the navy, and the National Forest Corporation (CONAF), fully aware that they actually belong to the Israeli military, air force, or intelligence services.

In fact, Radio Universidad de Chile reported that a significant number of Israelis travel through South America, often right after completing their compulsory military service. Patagonia has emerged as one of their preferred destinations. Notably, in late December 2011, Israeli tourist Rotem Singer accidentally sparked a major wildfire in Chile’s Torres del Paine National Park, which ended up consuming more than 17,000 hectares of pristine terrain.

Chilean authorities detained Singer, who ended up negotiating a deal to pay approximately $10,000 in restitution to CONAF before leaving the country. The leniency of the resolution sparked public outrage in Chile, where many had anticipated a prison sentence for Singer. Demonstrators gathered in front of the Chilean Supreme Court to voice their anger with the court’s decision to ratify the sentence.

In a 2017 interview, CONAF’s director of the Magallanes region revealed that Israeli tourists were responsible for nearly two-thirds of all expulsions from Torres del Paine over a five-year period. This troubling pattern led many local hostel owners to adopt informal policies of refusing service to Israeli nationals.

Curiously, the Jewish diaspora has built solid roots in Argentina for well over a century. Jewish migration to Argentina goes back to the late 19th century, when the Argentine government pursued an aggressive policy of mass migration to populate its vast, underdeveloped territories. From 1850 to 1913, Argentina welcomed 6.2 million migrants from Europe — largely coming from France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

European Jews, fleeing ethnic conflict in Russia and Eastern Europe, were among those who arrived in Argentina. Between 1889 and the early 20th century, thousands of Jewish immigrants arrived, establishing agricultural colonies in provinces such as Entre Ríos and Santa Fe. The most famous of these, Moises Ville, became known as the “Jerusalem of Argentina” and was supported by the Jewish Colonization Association, founded by the Jewish philanthropist Baron Maurice de Hirsch.

These settlements were intended to function as autonomous communities. The concept of Jewish settlements outside of Palestine was seriously considered by several early Zionists. Theodor Herzl, in his foundational work Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), listed Argentina as a potential site for Jewish settlement, alongside Palestine. Herzl noted Argentina’s vast, fertile lands and sparse population as advantages, but his vision was for local autonomy rather than an independent Jewish state. This idea of a Jewish homeland outside Palestine eventually led to the schism of the Jewish Territorialist Organization, which sought to establish Jewish autonomy anywhere in the world, but these plans never materialized.

Nevertheless, Jewish migration continued trickling into Argentina. At its peak, the Jewish Colonization Association owned over 600,000 hectares of land, and by 1920, more than 150,000 Jews lived in Argentina. The country’s sparsely populated territories and its tradition of religious tolerance made it an attractive destination for Jews in the Old World who wore out their welcome in the Russian Empire. With around 250,000 Jews, Argentina currently has the largest Jewish community in Latin America and the fifth largest outside of Israel.

Now that Milei is transforming Argentina into one of the most pro-Jewish countries in the world, it may emerge as a refuge for Jews. As instability clouds Israel’s future, Argentina’s calmer geopolitical environment and vast, untroubled landscape could make it an appealing fallback if the Zionist project falters.

In a world where Israel’s permanence is no longer guaranteed, Argentina is quietly positioning itself as a Plan B.

Random Racial Reflections: Similarity and Stochastics in Sub-Saharans, Felines and Lepidoptera

Butterflies? Emphatically yes! Blacks? Emphatically no! Cats? Emphatically maybe. Those are my varying answers to the question of “Do you want more of this group in your your life?” Butterflies are beautiful and benign, so I’d be delighted to have more of them. Blacks are uncouth and criminal, so I want fewer of them, not more. As for cats: they’re beautiful too, but they’re very bad for wildlife, so I’m ambivalent.[1] The three groups are obviously different in their effects, ecology and esthetics. That’s why I separate them in my answers: yes; no; maybe.


As above, so below? A butterfly, a cat and a Black rapper (top images from Wikipedia)

In another way, however, I think there’s something that unites the three groups. I think they’re all designed by evolution for randomness. In other words, I think there’s something about the evolved neurology of butterflies, Blacks and cats that makes their behavior unpredictable in a way that isn’t true of related groups like bees, Whites and dogs. Watch a bee or a butterfly; a White or a Black; a dog or a cat. Watching bees, Whites and dogs, you see rationality and regularity. Watching butterflies, Blacks and cats, you don’t. That is, you can understand and predict behavior and reactions with the former set in a way you can’t with the latter set. That’s why I think there’s some kind of randomizer in the neurology of butterflies, Blacks and cats.

The yoke of smoke

And what advantage would that randomizer confer? Well, take butterflies and cats. Butterflies are prey and cats are predators, but both groups would benefit from being unpredictable. The jigs and jags of a butterfly’s flight make it harder for a bird to catch the butterfly; the shifts and swirls of a cat’s movements make it harder for a mouse to escape the cat. Imagine being a mouse hiding from a hunting cat. Could you predict what the cat will do next and make your escape? Not easily. Cats shift and swirl like smoke. And I compared Blacks to smoke in a previous article at the Occidental Observer, when I discussed the cover of the first album by the Chicago rapper Chief Keef (born 1995). He looks menacing as he releases marijuana smoke from his mouth:

It’s a good cover in a bad way, entirely appropriate for the cretinous and corrupting genre of rap. Keef looks both dirty and dangerous, both menacing and malevolent. But I think there’s something in the photo that’s working at a subconscious level to maximize the menace and the malevolence. What is it? It’s the smoke spilling from Keef’s mouth. And why is the smoke important? Because it’s chaotic. I mean that mathematically, not just metaphorically. Smoke is an example of the mathematical phenomenon of chaos. The movements of smoke are notoriously difficult for scientists to model and predict. Smoke is a kind of miniature meteorological phenomenon and, like the weather as a whole, it’s very sensitive to tiny changes in the variables that govern its behavior. … Like smoke, Black behavior is chaotic. And I think that’s why the smoke on the cover of Chief Keef’s Finally Rich is so powerful, subconsciously reinforcing the message of menace and malevolence. And of mindlessness. The smoke is an active, exterior symbol of the evolved Black psychology inside Keef’s dreadlock-draped head. Keef is captured in a moment of stillness, but you can ask the same question of him as you can of the smoke spilling from his mouth. What is going to happen next? You can’t predict what the smoke is going to do and you can’t predict what Keef is going to do. In an instant, he could be active and on his feet, dishing out violence, dealing death or committing rape. Like smoke, Blacks are volatile and chaotic, shifting suddenly and sharply from one pattern of behavior to another. (“Mo with the Flow,” The Occidental Observer, 11th October 2024)

The randomness and unpredictability of Black behavior would again confer advantages in their ancestral environment.[2] Survival in tropical Africa doesn’t require foresight and planning in the way that survival in temperate Europe or America does. If you don’t plan for winter in Europe, you freeze or starve. Or you did, before the welfare states and minority-worshipping bureaucracies that now feed, clothe and house millions of improvident, impulsive Blacks in Europe and America. Those Blacks commit a vastly disproportionate amount of violent and acquisitive crime. And I think they’re impelled to that, and aided in it, by an evolved randomizer in their neurology.

The ferality of felinity

It wouldn’t be a true randomizer, of course. Is true randomness even possible? And how do you define and test for randomness anyway? Those are fascinating questions that have occupied some of the greatest brains in PhyPhiM (Physics, Philosophy and Mathematics). But those brains haven’t been Black, because Blacks have never mattered in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics). And it’s Black stochastics that accounts for Black STEM-lessness. Or so I suggest. I also suggest that stochastics is part of why we find cats so fascinating. Cats have the chaos of smoke or flames: you can never predict exactly what comes next. And that explains, I suggest, why cat videos are a popular on-line genre in a way that dog videos aren’t. Someone called Gwern has a different explanation for the popularity of cat-videos:

Cats As Horror Movie Villains

Speculation on cat-human fascination being ancestral vigilance triggered by their behavioral similarity to major primate predators, evolutionarily, creating a compelling ‘safe danger’ like watching a captivating villain. […]

Do people like watching cats because of their neotenous appearance? I doubt it, but then why do we have this odd fascination with every ordinary action of a cat and treating them as instances of the Platonic Cat?

I speculate that there may be an evolutionary psychology reason: cats in Africa prey on primates to a degree I suspect few people appreciate, and this seems to have been true for millions of years.

So perhaps we are still slightly hardwired to closely observe cats, in a way we aren’t for most other potential pets. This accounts for the indefinable appeal of cats: they are paradoxically both pleasant and unpleasant, like horror movies. (“Cats As Horror Movie Villains,” Gwern.net, 11th May 2025)

It’s an interesting theory, but I think it fails to account satisfactorily for the “indefinable appeal of cats.” Like a lot of people, I don’t find cats unpleasant in any conscious way. I find them both beautiful and uncanny. Cats are like bats or butterflies: they don’t seem wholly of this Earth, of this plane of reality.[3] And that uncanniness may be explained partly by the unpredictability of cat behavior and movements, by that hypothetical randomizer in feline neurology. And try examining your own reactions to watching cats or butterflies, on the one hand, and watching tigers or snakes, on the other. There’s a fascination in watching all four groups, but with tigers or snakes we can detect fear and a sense of danger powering our fascination. I for one can’t detect those things in myself with cats or butterflies.

The flame of the game: both jazz musicians and flames constantly improvise (images from Wikipedia)

Instead, the fascination of watching cats or butterflies feels to me more like the fascination of watching smoke or flames. The shifting and the swirling, the unpredictability and chaos, compel my eye and fix my attention. But it’s physics that, in the mathematical sense, explains the chaotic behavior of smoke and flames. It would be biology that explains the chaotic behavior of cats and butterflies. And of Blacks too. Randomness would reign through the brain. And that random reign would help explain why “Blacks Blight Britain.” And perhaps it also helps explain why Blacks are so popular as entertainers and sportsmen. Blacks are interesting to watch in a way that more predictable — and more intelligent — races aren’t. Aesthetically and intellectually, cats and butterflies appeal to me in a way that Blacks definitely don’t. Evolutionarily, the three groups may be much more similar than I’d prefer to think.


[1]  Much as I like cats, I would prefer that zoologically rich islands like Australia, New Zealand and Hawai’i were cat-free zones. That sort of suggestion can earn you death-threats from some cat-lovers, who may in fact be cat-crazed in more ways than one. See my discussion of a cat-conveyed brain-parasite called Toxoplasma.

[2]  I read somewhere that police surveillance of Black gangs doesn’t work as well as for non-Black gangs like the Mafia, because Black gangs act on impulse, with little or no planning. With Blacks, deciding and doing aren’t necessarily distinct.

[3]  I find bats fascinating too, but bats are not beautiful like cats or butterflies. Quite the reverse, for some chiropteran species. Even so, I would rather have more bats and fewer cats in Britain, at least until we can find a way of stopping cats preying on bats. And on butterflies (I know someone who had to cut down a buddleia because it was used as a snack-bar by a neighbor’s cat).

Israeli Migration Sparks Debate in Cyprus

Map of Cyprus. The gray line separates the northern part, occupied by Turkish Cypriots, from the southern part, occupied by Greek Cypriots and the Jewish settlers.

What began as a quiet migration of affluent Israeli families to southern Cyprus has now triggered fears of foreign encroachment and strategic displacement.

Since 2021, nearly 4,000 properties have been snapped up by Israelis, particularly in the southern districts of Limassol, Larnaca, and Paphos. But this isn’t just a real estate story—it’s a political one. High walls, religious schools, kosher shops, synagogues, and business hubs are emerging in these areas, forming what critics say resemble “settlements in all but name.”

The backlash has been swift. Stefanos Stefanou, the General Secretary of Cyprus’s main opposition party Akel, voiced his concerns about Israel’s growing influence on the Mediterranean island: “At some point, we’ll discover our own land doesn’t belong to us,” he warned. “These are not just holiday homes. These are settlements in all but name.”

Outside observers increasingly describe the wave of Israeli migration as a “strategic settlement enterprise.”

The migration has come in waves. Israelis first started showing up during the COVID-19 lockdowns, then again amid Netanyahu’s 2023 judicial reforms, and now in the wake of the Iranian missile strikes of 2025. Today, more than 15,000 Israelis live in southern Cyprus. The trend shows no sign of slowing. Many of these settlers are not disillusioned liberals but deeply Zionist and well-resourced.

Though modern headlines paint Israel and Cyprus as close energy and security partners, the relationship has long been complicated—and often adversarial.

Jewish ties to Cyprus stretch back more than two millennia, beginning in the 4th century BCE, when Jewish communities were firmly established under Hellenistic and later Roman rule. By the Roman period, Jews had built synagogues in cities like Golgoi, Lapethos and Constantia-Salamine. However, this early flourishing came to a violent end during the Kitos War (115–117 CE), when Jewish rebels led a revolt that, according to Roman historian Cassius Dio, ended in the massacre of over 240,000 Greek-Cypriots. The Roman historian provided a particularly gruesome account of Jewish behavior during this war, describing how Jews would “cook their flesh, make belts for themselves of their entrails, anoint themselves with their blood, and wear their skins for clothing.”

In response to these acts of brazen savagery, Roman authorities imposed a total ban on Jewish presence on the island, which lasted for centuries. Despite this ban, Jews gradually returned during the Byzantine period, with evidence of synagogue renovation and renewed community life. Tensions, however, persisted.

Under Emperor Heraclius, Cypriot Jews reportedly attacked Christian monasteries, and subsequent Arab raids in the 7th century led to widespread displacement. By the 12th century, Jewish traveler Benjamin of Tudela observed that Cyprus was home to a variety of Jewish sects—Karaites, Rabbanites, and heretical groups like the Epikursim—concentrated in cities such as Famagusta, Nicosia, and Paphos. Yet even during this medieval renaissance, discrimination remained: Jews in Cyprus were required to wear the yellow badge throughout the 14th century, and their communities existed under legal and religious constraints.

The Ottoman conquest of Cyprus in 1571 brought renewed opportunities. Sephardic Jews expelled from Portugal and Spain found refuge on the island and other key hubs of the Ottoman Empire such as Constantinople and Salonika. Famagusta became a key commercial hub, though by the late Ottoman period, the Jewish community in Cyprus had again begun to decline.

Under British rule from 1878 to 1960, Zionist thinkers briefly entertained Cyprus as a substitute homeland. Several agricultural settlement attempts were made—most notably the Margo settlement near Larnaca—but all ultimately failed, as younger generations opted to occupy territory in Palestine. Following the end of British rule, Cyprus’s Jewish population dwindled to just 25 individuals by 1970.

The modern Jewish revival began in the early 2000s. From a few hundred residents in 2003, the population ballooned to over 12,000 by 2023. By 2025, it is estimated that there are roughly 12,000 to 15,000 Jews living on the island, many in gated compounds complete with religious and economic infrastructure—sparking fresh controversy among Cypriots.

Parallel to this long community history is the evolution of state-to-state relations between Israel and Cyprus, which have fluctuated between mutual distrust and strategic cooperation. Diplomatic ties were formally established in 1960, the year of Cyprus’s independence. Yet during the Cold War era, Cyprus maintained a cautious distance, aligning with Arab states and reacting warily to Israel’s military ties with Turkey, especially after the 1974 Turkish invasion of the island.

The 1980s marked a low point in bilateral relations. Cyprus recognized the State of Palestine in 1988, hosted Yasser Arafat, and allowed Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) operations. Diplomatic tensions flared, including the infamous Larnaca yacht killings in 1985 and the car bombing of PLO officials in 1988. In 1993, a notable diplomatic incident occurred when Israel declared Cypriot First Lady Androulla Vassiliou—wife of then-President George Vasiliou—persona non grata after she led a delegation seeking to meet Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat, who was under Israeli house arrest in Ramallah. Relations remained strained until the 1993 Oslo Accords, after which a thaw began, marked by increased diplomatic engagement and cooperation.

By the 2010s, Cyprus-Israel relations had transformed dramatically. A 2010 agreement to delimit their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) set the stage for joint natural gas exploration and a broader strategic partnership. In 2011 and 2012, both Cypriot and Israeli heads of state — Dimitris Christofias and Benjamin Netanyahu — made historic reciprocal visits, cementing this energy-driven alliance.

In the 2020s, bilateral ties deepened further. Cooperation expanded to include emergency response, innovation, and infrastructure projects like the Great Sea Interconnector. However, regional instability has put this alliance under scrutiny. In 2024, Hezbollah warned Cyprus against supporting Israel militarily, while Turkey issued similar threats. Cyprus has nevertheless served as a critical logistical hub for Israeli operations, including humanitarian efforts during recent conflicts.

Most recently, Israeli real estate investment in southern Cyprus—largely post-2021—has sparked domestic controversy. As thousands of properties have been purchased and a growing Israeli population has settled, some Cypriot politicians have accused Israel of creating a “backyard” on the island.

The current migration wave cannot be understood apart from the post-October 7 landscape. The Hamas attack shattered Israel’s aura of invincibility, while Hezbollah’s ongoing rocket threats and Iran’s dramatic missile salvos in 2024 and 2025 have upended the once-common belief that Israel was the safest place on Earth for Jews to live in.

In 2024 alone, 82,700 Israelis were recorded as having left the country, up from around 55,000 a year before, according to figures from the Central Bureau of Statistics. That figure itself was a sharp increase from the previous decade, when approximately 35,000 people left each year.

A 2025 AllJobs poll revealed that 73% of Israeli workers are now contemplating emigration, citing personal safety, political instability, and disillusionment with the state as key factors. Among the preferred destinations: the United States, Greece, and Cyprus.

In a symbolic sense, the dream of “Aliyah”—the Jewish return to Zion—has been replaced by a new exodus. Cyprus, with its close proximity, EU perks, and already growing Jewish infrastructure, has become an attractive haven.

Yet this migration is not without consequence. With settlements expanding and local resentment growing, Cyprus may find itself on the fault line of heightened ethnic tensions. As Israel’s security erodes and its citizens flee, Cyprus could become the latest stage in a long historical sequence where Jewish migration enables subversion and communal backlash.

Cypriot leaders would be wise to close their doors to Jewish migration, lest they want their country to become the latest victim of Jewish perfidy.

Trump Gaslights His MAGA Base: Is This Supposed to be “Winning”?

Trump Gaslights His MAGA Base: Is This Supposed to be “Winning”?

Trump recently expressed his disinterest in perusing the Jeffrey Epstein matter after the Justice Department on July 7th released a memo detailing how Epstein died at the Metropolitan Correctional Center (NYC) in 2019. Not only was foul play ruled out with Epstein committing suicide in his jail cell (rather than being murdered by someone else as most people probably think), but there was reportedly no blackmail client “list” used to incriminate those involved in any sex crimes on his island.

This is precisely what Trump’s attorney general, Pam Bondi, has publicly said adding that “no further disclosure” on Epstein-related material “would be appropriate or warranted.” Bondi’s announcement, of course, directly contradicted her public statements back in February when she said that the “list” was literally sitting on her desk: “It’s sitting on my desk right now to review,” she told ‘America Reports’ host John Roberts (FOX News). “That’s been a directive by President Trump.” And what about all those “The Epstein Files: Phase 1” binders that were given at the White House to the social media influencers just a few months prior? What was that all about if there was no client list to begin with?

Attempts to explain away this glaring contradiction have not been successful and has only managed to stir up more criticism from Trump’s own political base.

Trump feigns bewilderment over why Americans are still interested in the Epstein affair when his administration has been accomplishing so much good for the American people and when more pressing matters need to be addressed (e.g., his [hopeless, feckless] efforts at securing a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, his bombing of Iran [that will lead to more war because Israel says Iran still has ability to build bomb “within days”], rebuilding the economy, the recent Texas floods, etc.). He has labeled the entire Epstein case as “sordid and boring” and has even gone as far as to accuse Obama, former FBI Director, James Comey, and the Biden administration of ‘making up’ the Epstein files!?

On Truth Social, Trump went on tell his supporters not to “waste time and energy on Jeffrey Epstein” (July 12th) — and that’s precisely what several prominent conservative pundits have obediently done in urging their followers to ‘move on’ from the Epstein matter. Charlie Kirk on July 14th said that he was “done talking about Epstein for the time being” and that he would “trust” his “friends in the government to do what needs to be done.” Dinesh D’Souza said essentially the same thing stating that it’s “time to move on” and “it seems pretty clear we’re not gonna get more information out of the government.”

Aside from the fact that Trump himself declared during his 2024 campaign efforts that he would release the Epstein files, there are a plethora of good reasons to be concerned about the sexual crimes that Jeffrey Epstein committed against hundreds of underage girls, including the many important and influential persons who fell prey to what appeared to have been an obvious ‘honey pot’ scheme possibly orchestrated and funded by the Mossad. There is also the matter of justice and what kind of country has the U.S. morphed into by having allowed a widescale pedophile rape network to go unscathed. One also wonders why Epstein’s partner-in-crime, Ghislane Maxwell, is still in prison serving a 20-year sentence if no client “list” ever existed and if there was no evidence that sexual crimes against underage children occurred?

Several theories have been advanced as to why Trump wants to place the Epstein matter behind us and move on to better things.

One view is that behind-the-scenes Trump had to promise that he would jettison the Epstein affair altogether in exchange for strategic votes he needed for the passing of his ‘Big Beautiful Bill.’ It’s also thought that Trump’s reversal on the Epstein list might assuage some hostilities between Democrats and Republicans and that cooperation might occur between those on both sides of the aisle over future legislation. This is possible, I suppose, but I’m not so sure this was basis for Trump’s reversal on the Epstein matter. I’m not aware of any evidence in support of it.

Another view is that Trump is on the Epstein blackmail list and not just on the “Lolita Express” flight log to Epstein’s Island. This is what Elon Musk had maintained since breaking with Trump a few months earlier when he wrote on X: “Time to drop the really big bomb: (Donald Trump) is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT. Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out” (June 5th).

Judge Andrew Napolitano likewise on a recent YouTube interview thought that Trump’s change of mind about the Epstein client list is because he’s on it: “I think Trump’s name is on the list. I think Mossad knows it. I think Mossad told their American stenographer, who happens to be the director of the CIA (John Ratcliffe) who takes down and regurgitates everything Mossad told him, and I think that stenographer whispered it into the president’s ear, and he’s terrified that this will come out because he knows that it will be the beginning of the end” (George Galloway’s YouTube channel, July 9, 2025).

Although it’s true that Trump’s name is on the flight log (seven times!), this alone doesn’t constitute any proof that he engaged in sex with minors. These flights appear only to be business or vacation related. There were other important figures listed on the flight log as well, but that wouldn’t mean anything in a court of law by itself as ‘evidence’ of partaking in a sex-trafficking ring.

I’m not inclined to believe that Trump is guilty of committing sex crimes against minors, although I would not put it past Trump in an absolute sense because he was rumored to have had multiple affairs and allegedly cavorted with high-end prostitutes. Trump’s only real vice appears to be his sexual weakness for women because he doesn’t drink, smoke or do illegal narcotics. He’s also alleged to have made some inappropriate sexual comments about his 16-year-old daughter, Ivanka, in 1997 while watching the Miss Teen USA pageant: “Don’t you think my daughter’s hot? She’s hot, right?” He later referred to Ivanka as “voluptuous” and has allegedly described her as “a piece of ass,” even stating according to one report that if she wasn’t his daughter, “perhaps [he’d’] be dating her.” He agreed with Howard Stern in 2004 that Ivanka was indeed a “piece of ass” (see the article in the Independent, “Donald Trump’s Unsettling Record of Comments About His Daughter Ivanka,” by Adam Withnall, 10/10/2016).

I think only a person who is very sexually driven would think such things about his own daughter and dare to make such statements in a public forum. It’s downright creepy and perverted to say the least. Despite his hedonism, I doubt that Trump’s name is on the Epstein client list since he seemed to have preferred fully adult females rather than underage girls.

What I find interesting, however, is how many MAGA folks automatically shut down even the remote possibility that Trump might be on that infamous list. This is because in their minds they have turned Trump into some messianic ‘God-Emperor’ who can do no wrong—typical cult behavior. They seem to have little awareness of how sexually driven Trump appears to have been throughout much of his adult life, and the seedy characters that he partied with. Trump referred to Epstein as a “creep” in a recent press conference, yet most people are unaware that he partied and hobnobbed with the guy for over 15 years!

In a 2002 article in New York magazine, Trump admitted during a phone interview that “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy” . . . He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life.” If the kind of people you hang out with says something about your character — especially when such a friendship has lasted for 15 years — what does this suggest about the moral character of Trump? But as the old adage goes, “The best of men are men at best.”

One argument says that Trump couldn’t be on the client list because if he were, the democrats would have already exposed it. Maybe, yet I’m not so sure of this. If Trump were exposed as a client of Jeffrey Epstein, it surely would have exposed many others as well (or, at least the possibility of it). If the Democrats were to have revealed Trump’s name on that list, it would have opened an entire Pandora’s Box of legal complexities and disclosures that would have jeopardized the reputation and livelihood of many important persons, including Democrats.

Knowing how vindictive Trump is, including the legal and propaganda war he would have waged if someone exposed his name as being on the blackmail list, it would have been an extremely dangerous endeavor indeed to have tried it without also exposing the lives of so many other important persons, including world leaders, popular entertainers, dignitaries, high ranking judges, and other elites. This, then, might have been a rare instance when the Deep State realized that it would be better to keep their mouths shut because to do otherwise would have invited endless legal inquiries or discoveries as to who else is on the list and brought enormous levels of immeasurable damage.

Exposing the list would also reveal the degree to which Israel in cooperation possibly with the CIA was involved in blackmailing American citizens. Making public the Epstein list, then, is a much bigger problem than that of simply discrediting Donald Trump.

Some have surmised that Trump was threatened by the Deep State. Perhaps even threats against his family were made? This is certainly a possibility. I wouldn’t put it beyond the Deep State to do such a thing. After all, Trump would not have been the first U.S. president assassinated by operatives within our own government. At this point, I just don’t know. We may never know.

Another scenario explaining Trump’s reversal on the Epstein matter argues that releasing the “list” (regardless of what form it may have taken) would unsettle or destabilize our society. I don’t think so for even a minute. Most people would just go back to their lives and do as they have always done. I seriously doubt there would be any widescale riots or a national revolution. Most Americans don’t care and are too preoccupied with the passing pleasures of this world to make an issue over a blackmail list they’ve never even seen over a bunch of rich perverts who diddled underage girls on some strange island.

Nothing about the Epstein files would “shock the conscience” of a nation that condones the deaths of millions of aborted and partially aborted babies each year, including the constant stream of pornography that Americans regularly consume and the low brow, raunchy entertainment that has become the norm among us.

The only persons who would be destabilized by a public reveal of the list would be the perpetrators and those who enabled them. They apparently don’t have anything to worry about now.

There is perhaps an even greater and more probable reason why Trump won’t release the Epstein files — namely, Mossad’s fingerprints seem to be all over it. It is believed by many in Washington (though practically no one will come out and say so) that Mossad had recruited and funded both Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislane Maxwell to create a ‘honey pot’ scheme that would document and implicate important persons having sexual relations with underage girls as a means of blackmailing them. If such persons refused to support Israeli political or military interests or funding for the State of Israel, they could always be threatened with revealing photographs or videos of them engaging in felonious sex crimes with minors.

It’s also important to understand that Israel is considered a strong U.S. ally. The United States provides billions in funds to Israel annually, and the majority of our congress not only supports Israel, but most congressional republicans have an AIPAC person to help guide them on any legislation that impacts the State of Israel. In 2024, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) exposed it all during an interview on The Tucker Carlson Show. He described these AIPAC persons as “babysitters” to make sure a congressman votes ‘the right way’ (meaning, their votes support the national interests of Israel and not necessarily that of the national interests of Americans).

Thus, Trump’s unwillingness to pursue the Epstein matter any further might be an effort to protect Israel, including at least one former Israeli prime minister who is alleged to have engaged in criminal sex acts with underage girls which he has denied (see “Ehud Barak Met with Jeffrey Epstein Dozens of Times, Flew on Private Plane – Report,” The Times of Israel, by TOI Staff, 5/4/2023).

If indeed the bigger picture is about protecting Israel as our ally, then think about the implications of such a cover-up. It would mean that U.S. officials knowingly allowed for almost twenty years an Israeli ‘honey pot’ enterprise to occur on American soil. The federal government, then, permitted a foreign government to entrap and blackmail American citizens for the express benefit of that foreign government!

This is treasonous to the core.

And if anything, it demonstrates just how much power and influence the State of Israel has over the United States.

Some pundits have surmised that Trump’s recent public statements about the Epstein files may have been a signal to those on the list that his administration will protect them and not disclose its contents. This very well could be the case. I imagine that a good many of the criminal perverts who flew to Epstein’s magical sex island were quite consoled by his words. Yet, in the end, Trump has betrayed his base, including the entirety of the American people who deserve to see what a vile and wicked federal government we have inherited. But don’t blame the Feds for too long because the American people allowed and tolerated this lying bureaucratic monstrosity to not only exist but flourish all the while doing nothing about it. We Americans, then, get the kind of government we deserve.

It’s also important to remember that under four years of the Biden administration, there was no significant effort to publicly reveal the Epstein list. As much as democrats like to talk about women’s rights, they fell silent and never collectively demanded answers from the Biden administration on behalf of the many victims. Like opposing war, negating the military industrial complex, and defending women’s rights, the democrats are only outspoken when a republican is in the Oval Office.

What about the future of MAGA? I don’t think there’s much to it, at least not under Donald Trump’s leadership. If there’s any hope, it has to be a strictly ‘America First’ kind of vision, one that doesn’t kowtow to Israel or tied exclusively to Jewish interests. It has to eschew warmongering and the military industrial complex. It has to eschew America as an empire and promote America as non-interventionist and peaceful toward other nations. It has to see both political parties as essentially a uniparty with relatively minor differences and more that unites them together than divides them (e.g., perpetual war, high taxes and low wages, foreign entanglements, endless support for Israel, continual foreign aid, unchecked immigration, discrimination against its founding stock (whites), and the list goes on).

But none of this will occur under a Trump presidency in light of current trends in which he has threatened Putin and vowed to send billions in armaments to Europe that he knows will be given to Ukraine to bomb Russia. Trump has wed himself closer to Israeli interests and has employed more military force than his prior presidential term.

It would be naive, then, to imagine that Trump would ever end the infinitely stronger and more complex Deep State. The Deep State is here to stay so long as the federal government continues to maintain its same destructive foreign policies, its excessive bureaucratic ways of governance, and its tyrannical nature that assumes every problem must be solved through military might and endless political meddling among foreign nations.

But what else should we expect from Trump when so much of what he promises either never actually occurs or is left incomplete? I’m thinking of the ‘Big Beautiful Wall’ that was at best a half-measure; declaring that there will be mass deportations of illegals that will likely turn out to be nothing more than national amnesty for third-world invaders (similar to what Reagan had done in the 1980s); the promise that he would end America’s warmongering only to engage in the very same military trajectory as former U.S. presidents; the campaign promise to expose the Epstein list only to reverse himself and declare there was no Epstein list and you should not waste time inquiring about it; or the passing of his ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ that has some good things in it, but also a lot of wasteful pork that only served to increase the national debt by trillions more.

Sadly, this will be Trump’s legacy. Though he was supposed to have saved us from the Deep State, he has chosen instead to join them.

This is not to say that Trump is all bad. He should be commended when he makes wise national decisions and supports policies that help to improve the lives of the American people. But he should also be rightly criticized when he fails to fulfill campaign promises, particularly when he allows Benjamin Netanyahu to take him by the snout and guide him to fight Israeli military conflicts that the U.S. should clearly avoid.

British Free Speech and J.S. Mill

Article 19 is an organization which monitors global free speech, and it issues an annual report which grades countries into five categories of freedom of expression: Open, Less Restricted, Restricted, Highly Restricted, and In Crisis. In its most recent report, the United Kingdom has been demoted from the highest category to the second for the first time since records began. From 2000, the UK’s grading had held steady at 88/100 before dropping to 87 in 2014. The decline accelerated, and Article 19’s latest report rates it at 79. Of the 161 nations for which data are available, Denmark ranks first with 94, and North Korea last with 0. The US, with its famous First Amendment, is in 21st place with 85.

Disparities are not necessarily regional. Nicaragua is at 160, just above North Korea, with a rating of 1, whereas neighboring Costa Rica — in which I am writing this –— comes in level with the US on 85. This means I have more freedom of expression in a Central American country than I would in my native UK. Although Article 19 notes that a downward slide is apparent across Europe, there is something particularly unnerving about the UK’s declining freedom of speech. To attempt to discover why this is so, perhaps it may help us to go back 170 years, from the heart of one declining empire to the center of one long vanished, and revisit a philosopher who has much to say about freedom in general and freedom of expression in particular.

In January of 1855, John Stuart Mill, the English radical philosopher and Member of Parliament, was in Rome. One beautiful morning, he climbed the Capitoline Hill and had an epiphany he noted in his Autobiographical Study. Mill had, the previous year, written a short essay on the subject of liberty. Now, he knew he had not said enough, and that he had to grow this fledgling into a book. He says of the revelation: “[O]pinion tends to encroach more and more on liberty, and almost all the projects of social reformers in these days are really liberticide”.

Friedrich Nietzsche was 15 years old when Mill published On Liberty, but the German would have appreciated both Mill’s epiphany — won by walking, as Nietzsche said his own best ideas were — but also that the line with which liberty bisects free will and determinism is as fine as Penelope’s thread. Indeed, the opening line of Mill’s treatise takes up that very thread: “The subject of this essay is not the so-called Liberty of the Will, so unfortunately opposed to the misnamed doctrine of Philosophical Necessity…”

Free will and determinism, that ageold philosophical agon, are present in today’s conflicts over free speech, with Western governments determined to erase the former and replace it with the latter. But this is determinism in what we might call a genetically modified form. Free will — whether it exists or not — is now what it always has been throughout the history of philosophy, that of the individual. Determinism has a mixed provenance. It could be scientistic, religious, or philosophical. Now, the source of the deterministic matrix has changed into something else, something highly temporal and hidden in plain sight; the State. On Liberty is not so much about “freedom to” as it is “freedom from”.

Mill is what we would call a “free speech absolutist“If the teachers of mankind are to be cognizant of all that they ought to know, everything must be free to be written and published without restraint”.

I don’t want to give an overall review of On Liberty, but rather a forensic audit of its second chapter, “Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion”. This is the key in terms of the modern debate among Mill’s countrymen concerning free speech, and “Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion” calls directly to the British state as it stands, although possibly doesn’t shout loud enough. But before noting any congruencies between Mills account of liberty and our present predicament, a note on the important difference between Mills age and our own.

Where Mill, in Chapter 2 and thus talking about freedom of expression, writes “the press”, we must read “everyone online” today. Thus, the American Constitution’s famous protection of freedom of assembly must be similarly extended into the virtual community. Freedom of assembly today does not mean a mob of ranchers gathering at the Union Hall to make their feelings known to the Governor, it means billions of people who don’t even have to leave their homes to assemble freely. On Liberty was written a century and a half before the internet would amplify expression and make information more readily available to both the rulers and the ruled than it could ever have been in his time. This discrepancy is analogous to the argument that America’s Second Amendment is seriously outmoded because it was written in the age of musket and flintlock, not our present era of the AK47.

But, at its core, On Liberty has much to say to us, and has taken on a particular resonance all these years after Mill’s death. Once merely a humdrum, course-work, stock-issue, universitycurriculum regular, On Liberty has suddenly come to life. Mill’s country is today under scrutiny because its rulers are blatantly curtailing the freedom of its citizenry, and in particular their freedom of expression. Keir Starmer, who looks permanently startled to begin with, was not expecting Donald Trump and Elon Musk (before he went rogue) to upbraid him over free speech in the Oval Office. “Two men will not be together for half an hour, writes Dr. Johnson, “but one will try to get the better of the other”. It took Trump around half a minute with Starmer, which is the behavior of a ruler. But what of Mill’s ruler?

Mill presents the ruler and the ruled already imbued with a mutual tension. His simple analysis of societal dichotomy is anatomically precise:

“It was now perceived that such phrases as ‘self-government’ and ‘the power of the people over themselves’, do not express the true state of the case. The ‘people’ who exercise the power are not always the same people with those over whom it is exercised”.

If you are outside the political class in Britain, you will be becoming increasingly aware that they are no longer your peer group. They neither serve the state nor pay it undue respect, because they are the state, supposedly there to protect its citizenry, but increasingly that from which the citizens feel they need protection, as they did for Mill.

But it is not merely the apparatus of the state that citizens need to be shielded from: “Protection… against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling…”

We’ll return to opinion and feeling, but for now the tyranny of the magistrate may be precisely what the British public do need protection from. Legislation is being proposed to abolish jury trials for rape cases in the UK and, if it goes through, there is no reason to think this government will stop at rape. In a jury trial, the judge represents the state, the jury the citizenry. Remove the jury, and a defendant’s guilt or innocence will no longer be decided by a jury of his peers, but directly by the state. How long before “hate speech” cases are tried by a judge alone, with the state deeming “12 good men and true” superfluous to requirements?

Mill’s argument in Chapter 2 revolves around the encroachment of tyranny through the suppression of dissident opinion. But in Mill’s time this suppression was of opinion, often religious, the authorities fervently believed to be false. Now, the tyrant knows perfectly the opinions it suppresses to be true, and the citizenry can go hang, or at least go to jail: “[I]t is not, in constitutional countries, to be apprehended that the government … will often attempt to control the expression of opinion, except when in doing so it makes itself the organ of the general intolerance of the public”.

Today, the intolerance of the public means nothing. They have no tolerance to spare, in any case, as it has all been requisitioned by the government and expended on foreigners. But governmental control of the expression of opinion has two facets, the actual performative, the expression of opinion by an individual agent, and the meaning and significance of the opinion itself: “First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging”.

The question of authority has today come to the fore. Authority is implicitly bound up with the social contract, which the government honors if authority is used in a representative fashion, and disabuses if it uses its authority merely to instantiate that very mode of domination and keep itself in power. The beginning of tyranny. And authority can even tinker with epistemology, despite Mills rather Nietzschean dismissal of this: “There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life”.

Mill is, of course, the great utilitarian. He is not selling his utlilitarianism here, however, merely offering up the idea of utility as a deciding factor in deciding what is true and what isn’t: “This mode of thinking makes the justification of restraints on discussion not a question of the truth of doctrines, but of their usefulness”.

“The truth of an opinion is part of its utility”, he writes. Truth under the auspices of utility does have something of the casino about it. And what happens in a casino is not merely down to the behavior of the gamblers, but also depends on the policy of the management.

This section on truth and certainty is relevant to us moderns, seeing as we do have a ruling class which is attempting to conflate the truth of what it says with mathematical truth“The peculiarity of the evidence of mathematical truths is, that all the argument is on one side. There are no objections”.

This was exemplified by the command to “follow the science” during Covid.

But Mill is aware of the tyrannical turn, and its roots in the nature of the true. Thus, the ruler may “assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty”. If not, they can manipulate it until it is certain. I believe President Obama was the first to talk of the necessity for “curating the truth”. Such a religious term for such an irreligious act.

Truth should also be communal, Mill believed, and the necessity of sharing it is a social contract broken by interfering with freedom of expression: “But the particular evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it”.

Mill finds a sense of duty in the transmission of improving information, an office each individual owes to a wider humanity: “To discover to the world something which deeply concerns it, and of which it was previously ignorant; to prove to it that it has been mistaken … is as important a service as a human being can render to his fellow-creatures”.

In fact, it is the intellectual wellbeing of his fellowcreatures which completes the objections to the censorship of freedom of expression for Mill“But it is not the minds of heretics that are deteriorated most, by the ban placed on all inquiry which does not end in the orthodox conclusions. The greatest harm done is to those who are not heretics, and whose whole mental development is cramped, and their reason cowed, by the fear of heresy”.

And social relations are the salve for erroneous beliefs: “He is capable of rectifying his mistakes, by discussion and experience. Not by experience alone”.

This is Socratic, and Mill devotes a page or so of On Liberty to Socrates rather than Plato. And the transmission of opinion is also one of the checks and balances democracy requires“If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility”.

What of those most affected by the suppression of free expression, those ultimately imprisoned for it? And what is the nature of their crime? “To calumny of this sort, those who hold any unpopular opinion are peculiarly exposed, because they are in general few and uninfluential, and nobody but themselves feel much interest in seeing justice done them”.

This is increasingly becoming the case in the UK, where the appellation “far Right” has been mobilized to segregate the patriotic who are prepared to voice their opinions. Thus, truth is molded via social engineering creating an ideologically atomized populace“[T]here is never any fair and thorough discussion of heretical opinions... [and this leads to] the dread of heterodox speculation.”

This leads, in turn, to “The deep slumber of a decided opinion”. Public opinion, acceptable public opinion, has now been formed by social coercion.

But Mill also discusses the giving of offence, perhaps the element today which has taken on supreme importance. “Our merely social intolerance kills no one, Mill writes, and the litmus test of opinion versus offence is made clear: “[I]f the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful…”

It is worth noting that when “freedom of speech” is discussed, what is generally meant today is freedom of writing. Unless speech is recorded, each speech act is discrete and non-scriptive. Litera scripta manet, as John Dewey noted. “That which is written down remains”. That which is spoken and unrecorded is not. Recording it turns it into a type of writing, a type of inscription. Without straying too far into Jacques Derrida territory, speech and writing are intertwined, but freedom of speech itself appears to remain untouchable in the absence, for example, of witnesses. Now, the British government is seeking to change that with its Employment Rights Bill.

This is one of those legislative instruments which hides behind an apparently beneficent title. Who could argue against the rights of employees, particularly the right not to be harassed in the workplace? But in practice the bill has no interest in physical or sexual harassment, but rather that of overhearing speech which may offend the hearer and thus count as harassment. And the punishment for heresy is not just reactive, but also proscriptive.

An English YouTuber by the name of Andre Walker told a very indicative story in a recent episode. Talking to his friend’s teenage boy and his friends about their experience in school, the boy told him of a lesson they had on slavery. The teacher sternly informed them that if anyone even mentioned the fact that Britain was instrumental in dismantling the slave trade, they would be dismissed from the class.

For Mill, the price society must pay for the suppression of opinion is high: “But the price paid for this sort of intellectual pacification, is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind”.

And if what is required seemed unattainable to Mill then, what prospect does it have now? We would have to reach “a stage of intellectual advancement which at present seems at an incalculable distance”.

We have the intellectual advancement, but the political class are concerned that it is being shared around and democratized. A technocratic elite operating the machinery of state has no need of a populace keen and able to use its collective intellect.

Some politicians are not even attempting to hide the suppression of free expression. The new Mayor of New South Wales in Australia informed his citizens that they did not have the same freedom of speech as America. That was it; that’s how policy gets made in the area of freedom of expression.

Mill was areligious, if anything. But On Liberty often displays a Biblical framework. There is a lot of “Do unto others” in there. Civic Christianity can set good laws, so there is nothing wrong with that, but for a man so seemingly uninterested in the religious impulse, his own is analogous: Doing unto others certainly adequately describes the current British government, just not in the traditional, Biblical sense.

But there was enough cynicism in Mill to span the ages: “But, indeed, the dictum that truth always triumphs over persecution is one of those pleasant falsehoods which men repeat after one another till they pass into commonplaces, but which all experience refutes”.

On Liberty is a work of limits and boundaries, transgressed and untransgressed, and, although it speaks again from the past to the UK’s present predicament, Mill perhaps did not go far enough, and could not see, could not have seen, what might happen with the return of tyranny to the country of his birth. He did not see just how far power was prepared to go: “In England, from the peculiar circumstances of our political history, though the yoke of opinion is perhaps heavier, that of law is lighter, than in most other countries of Europe; and there is considerable jealousy of direct interference, by the legislative or executive power, with private conduct”.

The yoke of law is not so light now, 170 years after Mill walked the Capitoline Hill. And it is weighing heavier on the shoulders of the British people week by week, month by month, as more of them are arrested for social media posts than in Russia. There is still a long way down from Mills country’s position in Article 19s league table, but that just means there is further to fall.