The Moral Case for Using the Word ‘Nigger’

/18 Comments/in , /by

2314 Words

Prior to the brutal murder of Iryna Zarutska by a Black man on August 22nd, 2025, there was much talk about “black fatigue.” According to the Urban Dictionary, “black fatigue” refers to the “deep mental exhaustion from being forced to care about Black people and their actions 24/7”[1]—an understandable state of mind for Whites confronted by the appalling reality and universality of Black crime. Since Iryna’s murder however, that fatigue has turned to disgust and contempt. Given not only the atrocious murder itself, but also the anti-Whiteism of the killer who twice claimed he “got the white girl,” the indifference of the handful of Blacks who witnessed the crime on that Charlotte train (sort of like the Kitty Genovese story, but real), the brazen irresponsibility of the Black magistrate who released the killer back in January for a mere promise to meet his court date, and the sheer callousness of many American Blacks who reacted to the murder with little more than a shrug, how could it not?

According to National-Conservative, in 2023 and 2024 Blacks murdered 1,136 Whites in America, while Whites returned the favor only 200 times. Are Whites just not supposed to notice this?

The rampant criminality among Blacks is bad enough. What raises them to the level of an existential threat to the West  is how they coalesce into an identity group, which not only fiercely protects its interests but also seeks to strip power away from other groups (namely, Whites) that care to implement higher standards of law and order—standards which, let’s face it, a significant proportion of Blacks simply cannot abide. And 9 out of 10 non-criminal Blacks get sucked into this vortex. This is where the “slowly I began to hate them” moment begins. You may have a Black neighbor or colleague who’s perfectly nice, and they may even be honest enough to feel some Black fatigue themselves; but they stick with their identity group at the ballot box and they do precious little to police their own. Thus, they offer no real resistance to the forward march of Black power against Whites.

One way Blacks remain on the offensive in this power struggle is to establish uneven codes of speech. For instance, they can speak of a racial “us” and a racial “them,” while Whites cannot. They can use past injustices to justify present misbehavior, while Whites cannot. Also, they can use the word “nigger” and its variations, while Whites cannot.

This last stipulation crystalized for me a few months ago when I was seated at an outdoor table at an amusement park. Four or five young Blacks sat at the table adjacent, and very soon every other word out of their mouths was nigga this and nigga that. It was gratuitous and obnoxious. And because there were no other tables available, I had to listen to it, as did several other Whites seated nearby. It then occurred to me that these Black kids were being loud and proud with this supposedly hateful slur for no reason other than to flex their power. They wanted to rub our noses in the fact that they can say it and we could not. I believe it was the late great Z-Man who referred to this word as “the word of power,” and he was right.

So does this mean that Whites will begin to halt the odious political progress of Blacks when enough of them can utter this word with impunity? Perhaps. It’s gotten to the point in my personal life where I refuse to trust a White person unless he can either say the word “nigger” or tolerate someone who does. And that got me thinking—is there a moral argument for the appropriate use of the word “nigger?” This is, of course, assuming that there is no moral argument behind the indiscriminate use of a racial slur—except as a necessary evil. For example, calling half a million Indian H-1B workers “jeets” when a clear majority of them may well be honest, peaceful individuals is evil, but it’s a lesser evil than the H-1B Visa program itself which, through its use and abuse, is chipping away at the White majority and White political power in America. Thus the lesser evil is justified. The problem with this argument is that it can easily be adopted by anyone, including Blacks. Observe:

Sure, shanking random White girls in the neck on public transportation is evil, but it is the lesser evil to White supremacy, which oppresses Black people everywhere. So this Zarutska bitch is not worth crying over. And if you do cry over her, then you’re a White supremacist who wants to keep Blacks down and contribute to the greater evil.

This epitomizes how Blacks use the necessary evil argument to shrug their shoulders over poor Iryna Zarutska and the thousands upon thousands of other White victims of Black crime. So while I, as a White person, appreciate the necessary evil argument when it protects or advances my interests (which, as Ricardo Duchesne has shown, closely aligns with humanity’s), its inherent moral flexibility makes it difficult—although not impossible—to prove in a formal setting.

Instead of proving that indiscriminately using the word “nigger” is a necessary evil, I would rather attempt to prove that appropriately using the word is a positive good. In other words, it is immoral not to use or tolerate the word under appropriate circumstances. One could take the tack that using it in order to turn a double standard into a single standard is reason enough. So would using it to help diminish Black political power, which obviously has bad effects. Okay. But what about after this double standard or Black power has been crushed? Would saying “nigger” then no longer be a positive good? I am interested in whether saying “nigger” appropriately is always good, everywhere, regardless of double standards or power structures.

I believe it is.

Here are my axioms:

  1. Sub-Saharan Africans have a unique genetic makeup in that 2 to 19 percent of their DNA comes as a result of interbreeding with primitive archaic hominid species hundreds of thousands of years ago.
  2. The general lack of intelligence and impulse control among sub-Saharan Blacks springs from this interbreeding.
  3. On a population level, such genetic defects are impossible to overcome through education, law enforcement, self-discipline, religion, or social engineering.
  4. The word “nigger” is appropriately used only when describing particularly dangerous Blacks who lack enough intelligence and impulse control to become criminally violent.[2]
  5. Violent crime is inherently evil.

I conclude from these axioms that appropriately using the term “nigger” is moral because it is one way to not tolerate and potentially diminish the inherent evil of Black violent crime. If one disagrees with any of these axioms, then the moral imperative behind “nigger” fails, but if one does agree with them, then it must succeed.

Springing from this, my argument is simple: Whites appropriately using the word shames non-criminal Blacks into better controlling their criminal element when it comes to interracial violence. “Nigger” is a nasty word. It is also cruel. When used appropriately it is never good.[3] It is an especially potent epithet because it applies a broad brush to describe behavior that if performed by people of other races would require a finer brush. For example, in 2007 a Korean student shot up Virginia Tech University and murdered 32 people. Using broad-brush language to describe the killer (e.g., calling him a chink or a gook) would be inappropriate since East Asians rarely commit violent crime, let alone shoot up universities. More appropriate would be to label the killer (and only the killer) a deranged psychopath, which is indeed what he was.

On the other hand, using a broad brush to describe Iryna Zarutska’s killer (i.e., calling him a nigger) would be appropriate because the killer’s behavior is typical among Blacks due to their genetics—even though a majority of Blacks are neither criminal nor violent. Because the word itself denotes race, calling him a nigger is effectively calling all Blacks niggers, something that non-criminal Blacks are not going to appreciate. When this happens with enough frequency and nonchalance among Whites, non-criminal Blacks will give up trying to force Whites not to use the word and instead will try to force their own criminal subpopulation to commit fewer violent crimes, thus reducing the evil we established in the final axiom above. For example, if Teresa Stokes, the Black magistrate who set Iryna’s killer free, had any fear at all of a whole nation of Whites shaming her as a nigger, she would have played it safe and kept Iryna’s killer behind bars. But because she had no fear of such a broad-brush treatment (since Whites today lack the nerve to apply it), she let him go, thus perpetuating the evil of Black violent crime.

Another recent example is Raja Jackson, whose horrendous story fell from the news cycle after video of the Zarutska murder was released, and has remained sidelined thanks in no small part to the tragic Charlie Kirk assassination. Raja, the son of retired MMA fighter Quentin “Rampage” Jackson, was taking part in a scripted wrestling event in Los Angeles on August 23rd in which he body slammed wrestler Stuart Smith (AKA Syko Stu) into the canvas and then punched the unconscious Smith nearly twenty times in the head before having to be pried off of him by other wrestlers. Jackson is an MMA fighter like his father, and so knows how to attack a downed opponent with his fists. As a result, Smith was hospitalized for a concussion, a fractured maxilla bone, the loss of several teeth, and trauma to both jaws. The video is horrific. This was clearly attempted murder—all to avenge a perceived slight before the event in which Smith harmlessly smashed a beer can on Jackson’s head in an attempt to sell the show. (He later apologized to Jackson for it.) For some reason it took law enforcement in California nearly a month to arrest Jackson for felony assault.

White people calling Raja Jackson a nigger for his actions would be appropriate not because it would make Jackson less inherently violent (nothing can do that), but because it would make Jackson’s less-violent father less indulgent of his son’s violence. After the assault, Rampage Jackson predictably condemned Raja’s actions and offered prayers and platitudes for the victim. He also stated that his son should do “a little time” and then attend anger management therapy. But when asked about it directly, Rampage denied it was attempted murder. How did he know? Because Raja is his son, that’s how. Perhaps Rampage also wished to downplay his own possible culpability in the crime since he rage-baited his son moments before the attack.

I argue that millions of angry White people publicly calling Raja Jackson a nigger would effectively be calling his father and other Blacks niggers too. This would prompt them to use whatever influence they have to throw the book at Raja to avoid the opprobrium themselves. The result would be taking a violent thug off the streets for a long time and sparing future victims of violence. In other words, widespread appropriate use of the word “nigger” will force a fundamental attitude shift among at least some non-criminal Blacks towards the good. It will reduce the evil of Black-on-White violent crime, and is therefore moral.

Of course, this is not a perfect solution and won’t necessarily have a dramatic impact. There are better and more direct solutions to Black-on-White crime, such as police racial profiling, segregation, apartheid, or (most preferably) complete separation. But these solutions require greater effort and come at greater risk. Normalizing the word “nigger” among Whites requires less effort and entails less risk, so of course it will have less impact. But an impact it will still have, and likely will be the starting point for the more consequential solutions listed above. Most importantly, however, I am not arguing the efficacy of the appropriate use of the term “nigger” but rather its morality. Using it appropriately is moral. The small extent to which it will reduce the evil of Black-on-White crime makes it so.

*   *   *

[1] “Black fatigue” has a double meaning, and originally stems from the title of a 2020 book called Black Fatigue: How Racism Erodes the Mind, Body, and Spirit by Mary-Frances Winters. According to a separate entry at the Urban Dictionary, “Black fatigue” originally referred to how Blacks feel “the physical, mental, and emotional exhaustion, trauma, and consequences of systemic racism.” In this essay, of course, we focus on the second definition of this term, not the first.

[2] Arguments can be made for using the word “nigger” to describe Blacks who exemplify other negative stereotypes of their race, such as laziness, stupidity, and corruption. But these arguments are more difficult to prove and are thus excluded from this brief essay. With video evidence of Black violence being so pervasive today, keeping to the strict definition of appropriateness outlined above is sufficient to prove the moral necessity of using the word “nigger.”

[3] Yes, “nigga” and words like it can be used as terms of endearment, but not universally. Blacks who accept other Blacks using the word will balk when a White  (or non-Black) uses it in the exact same way—even if the endearment is sincere. A memorable scene from the 1998 Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker movie Rush Hour exemplifies this contradiction. Meanwhile, Whites may use the term among other Whites for the sake of humor or rebelliousness, but would never dare utter it publicly—as White country singer Morgan Wallen found out after being secretly recorded using the word in 2021. Thus, “nigga” as endearment is not a serious term  with only one strict definition; whereas the hard-R term “nigger” is.

The Untold Jewish Role in Venezuela’s Crisis

/10 Comments/in /by

The United States is edging toward an unprecedented military showdown with Venezuela. The crisis escalated earlier this month after a U.S. drone strike killed 11 alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua — the first such strike in Latin America since the 1989 invasion of Panama. This was followed by another strike on September 15, 2025, that killed three alleged drug traffickers.

Days later, Venezuelan F-16s flew over U.S. naval vessels, triggering Pentagon warnings and threats from President Donald Trump that approaching aircraft would be shot down. Washington has since deployed its largest Caribbean naval presence in decades, including 4,500 sailors and Marines, Tomahawk-equipped destroyers, submarines, an amphibious assault ship, and 10 F-35s stationed in Puerto Rico.

This confrontation follows Venezuela’s disputed July 2024 election, widely condemned as fraudulent, in which opposition candidate Edmundo González claimed victory, but the electoral council declared Nicolás Maduro the winner. Jewish political scientist Steven Levitsky described the official results as “one of the most egregious electoral frauds in modern Latin American history.” Protests left at least 22 dead and resulted in more than 2,000 arrests.

Once Donald Trump returned to office, his administration ramped up sanctions and terrorism designations, labeling Tren de Aragua and the Cartel de los Soles as narco-terrorist organizations and invoking the Alien Enemies Act against Venezuelan nationals connected to these groups.

The roots of hostility stretch back to Hugo Chávez’s rise in 1999, his survival of a U.S.-backed coup in 2002, and decades of mounting sanctions, indictments, and efforts at regime change. Analysts see Trump’s current escalation as a revival of the Monroe Doctrine, Washington’s long-standing claim to hemispheric hegemony.

Yet what makes today’s crisis uniquely combustible is Venezuela’s deepening ties to Russia, which signed a sweeping 10-year strategic agreement with Maduro in May 2025, and to China, which openly opposed the U.S. naval buildup. Venezuela, sitting atop the world’s largest proven oil reserves — 300 billion barrels, 17 percent of the global total — has become not only a prize of energy geopolitics but also a node in the emerging Moscow–Beijing–Caracas axis.

However, beneath the surface of this escalating military confrontation lies an overlooked dimension: the Jewish angle in U.S.-Venezuelan relations. Israel’s strategic concerns have played a significant role in shaping American policy toward Caracas. As Venezuela has emerged as the most consistently anti-Zionist country in South America, Jewish factions within the U.S. foreign policy establishment have increasingly viewed Caracas as a threat extending well beyond traditional hemispheric security concerns.

 

 

Venezuela’s Anti-Zionist Evolution Under Chávez

The deterioration of Venezuelan-Israeli relations accelerated during the Second Intifada, when Chávez’s government sponsored rallies supporting the Palestinian cause. The first direct targeting of Venezuela’s Jewish community occurred in May 2004 when the Sephardic Tiferet Israel Synagogue in Caracas was attacked following a government-backed pro-Palestinian rally.

The situation escalated dramatically during the 2006 Lebanon War, when Chávez accused Israel of carrying out a genocide. In August 2006, Venezuela recalled its ambassador from Israel and later declared: “Israel has gone mad. They are massacring children, and no one knows how many are buried.”

Venezuela’s complete break with Israel came on January 14, 2009, during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. Chávez described Israel’s military offensive as a “cruel persecution of the Palestinian people, directed by Israeli authorities.” The Venezuelan Foreign Ministry announced the severance of diplomatic ties, stating the move was made “given the inhumane persecution of the Palestinian people carried out by the authorities of Israel.”

Following this diplomatic break, Venezuela officially recognized Palestine on April 27, 2009, becoming the first country in the Americas to establish formal diplomatic relations with the Palestinian Authority.

Likud in Caracas: The Israeli Hand Behind Venezuela’s Opposition

The Venezuelan opposition has taken a dramatically different approach to relations with Israel. This is epitomized by María Corina Machado, head of the liberal party Vente Venezuela, who in July 2020 signed a formal cooperation agreement with Israel’s ruling Likud Party.

The agreement pledged collaboration on “political, ideological, and social matters, as well as advancing cooperation on issues related to strategy, geopolitics and security.” It explicitly stated its goal to “bring the people of Israel closer to the people of Venezuela while advancing, together, the Western values of freedom, liberty, and market economy.”

Machado described this as sending “a clear message to Nicolás Maduro” and indicated that if she came to power, she would restore diplomatic relations with Israel.

Israel’s Recognition of Juan Guaidó

Israel was among the first countries to recognize Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s interim president during the 2019 presidential crisis. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced Israel’s recognition on January 27, 2019, stating that Israel “joins the United States today, as well as Canada, most South American countries and European nations.”

According to Axios, the Trump administration had specifically asked Israel to publicly support the regime change campaign against Maduro.

Guaidó thanked Netanyahu for the recognition with rhetoric explicitly linking Venezuela’s struggle to Holocaust liberation: “74 years ago, the Auschwitz concentration camp was liberated, and today, just as our country is also fighting for its freedom, we thank the Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu for the recognition and the support.”

Venezuela’s Strategic Alliance with Iran

Venezuela has forged strong ties with the Islamic Republic of Iran since 1999, creating what both countries describe as an “axis of unity” against U.S. imperialism. Chávez’s first visit to Iran in 2001 launched what would become a strategic partnership based on shared resistance to the Judeo-American imperium’s overreach in their respective spheres of influence.

The relationship deepened after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election as Iran’s president in 2005. Through multiple exchanges, Chávez and Ahmadinejad established hundreds of bilateral deals. Their alliance grew so close that in 2006 Chávez vowed to “stay by Iran at any time and under any condition.”

During an address at Tehran University in 2010, Chávez warned: “If the U.S. empire succeeds in consolidating its dominance, then humankind has no future. Therefore, we have to save humankind and put an end to the U.S. empire.”

Under Maduro, Venezuela-Iran relations have continued to consolidate, with Tehran providing gasoline shipments during fuel shortages, military cooperation including drone technology, sanctions evasion assistance, and a multi-billion-dollar trade and investment deal.

The Hezbollah Connection

The Iran-Venezuela partnership has extended to include Hezbollah, a long-time ally of Iran that has created security concerns for Empire Judaica. U.S. officials assert that Iran and Hezbollah maintain operational networks within Venezuela that facilitate narcotics trafficking and money laundering schemes. These networks reportedly work with Venezuelan military elites in the Cártel de los Soles to move cocaine, with Hezbollah allegedly serving as a “main finance and money launderer for narco-terrorism groups like Tren de Aragua.”

Security experts claim Hezbollah operates in Venezuela through clan-based structures embedded within the Maduro government’s illicit economy. The Venezuelan airline Conviasa conducts regular flights between Caracas, Damascus, and Tehran, which Hezbollah reportedly uses to ‘ferry operatives, recruits, and cargo in and out of the region.’

These allegations of Hezbollah infiltration further fueled Maduro’s framing of his domestic opposition as part of a larger Zionist conspiracy.

Maduro’s “International Zionism” Accusations

Following Venezuela’s disputed 2024 election, Maduro repeatedly blamed “international Zionism” for Venezuela’s internal problems. In August 2024, after widespread protests over alleged electoral fraud, Maduro claimed that his opposition was supported and bankrolled by international Zionist networks.

“All the communication power of Zionism, who controls all social networks, the satellites, and all the power behind this coup d’état,” Maduro declared in a televised speech. He also described Argentina’s president Javier Milei, who currently leads Latin America’s most philosemitic government, as a “Zionist” and “social sadist.”

Maduro’s remarks drew sharp criticism from Deborah Lipstadt, then U.S. Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, who accused him of reviving classic antisemitic tropes about Jews controlling global affairs.

“Maduro’s absurd claim that Jews are behind election protests in Venezuela is antisemitic and unacceptable,” Lipstadt tweeted. “The Venezuelan people have gone to the streets to peacefully call for their votes to be counted. We reject all forms of antisemitism, and the use of these types of age-old tropes fans the flames of Jew hatred in Latin America and throughout the world.” 

The Enduring Neoconservative Order

The American approach to Venezuela cannot be understood without recognizing the influence of neoconservative ideology on U.S. foreign policy over the last 30 years. Neoconservatism posits that the United States is an exceptional polity that must export its model of democracy far and wide. But this only scratches the surface. Its ultimate goal is to make the world safe for Zionist supremacy — an ideological current marked by significant Jewish overrepresentation.

Stephen McGlinchey, Senior Lecturer in International Relations at the University of the West of England, observed: “the core postulate of the neoconservative Bush foreign policy package, revolutionary democratisation, is intricately tied to Israel’s security.” Under this Jewish supremacist framework, any country adopting a principled anti-Zionist stance is viewed as a threat to Judeo-American interests.

Like many Jewish movements, neoconservatism relies on servile gentiles to implement its agenda. Currently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a longtime interventionist with an eye toward remaking Latin America in the United States’ dysfunctional image, is spearheading the campaign to topple the Maduro government. A regime change booster, Rubio has maintained close ties to Venezuelan opposition figures such as María Corina Machado, pushing for harsher sanctions and greater diplomatic isolation.

Venezuela’s affinity with Iran — the bête noire of world Jewry — further motivates Rubio and his Jewish patrons to pursue punitive measures against Caracas. Any country that deviates from this consensus becomes a fresh target for regime change. 

The breakdown in U.S.-Venezuela relations represents a complex intersection of hemispheric hegemony, energy geopolitics, and Jewish concerns. While oil reserves and great power competition provide the obvious explanations for American hostility, the Israeli factor adds a crucial dimension that has been consistently underestimated in policy analysis.

By emerging as South America’s most reliably anti-Zionist country, aligning with Iran, and tolerating Hezbollah’s presence, Venezuela has drawn the ire of Jewish policymakers in Washington who interpret challenges to Israel as pretexts for expanding U.S. power in defense of Zionist objectives.

Taken together, these dynamics reveal how Venezuela’s defiance is not viewed in Washington merely as a hemispheric issue, but as part of a larger ideological battle tied to Israel’s security and the global reach of Zionist influence. With Jewish interests shaping foreign policy at the highest levels, the pursuit of genuine U.S. interests becomes impossible.

 

The Billionaire Trump Supporters (Larry and David Ellison) Who Will Soon Own the News — and Important Social Media

/16 Comments/in , /by

I recently finished writing a summary of Jewish ownership of the media for the revised edition of The Culture of Critique, but it’s looking like it needs a major update already. Larry Ellison, the billionaire founder of Oracle whose net worth is north of $350 billion, and his son David are buying up media properties. They are Jewish and they are Trump supporters, so the mainsteam media (including CBS and CNN) would likely become more (neo)conservative. Notice that the names mentioned as having prominent roles are also Jewish—Bari Weiss, designated for a “senior position at CBS,” and Kenneth Weinstein of the Hudson Institute, the designated ombudsman.

Bari Weiss is a former New York Times columnist and a Jewish patriot. Here she discusses anti-Semitism:

Since then [the making of Jud Süss during World War II], the myth of the wily Jewish manipulator of those in power continues to persist in various forms. During the Iraq War, it became common to blame Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith — Bush administration figures who happened to be Jewish — for a military campaign that had been ordered by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. In the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump blamed “globalists” with names like Lloyd Blankfein and George Soros for America’s economic woes.

No mention of the close personal and family ties that Perle, Wolfowitz, and Feith have to Israel or their involvement in promoting false intelligence accusing Iraq of having WMD in the lead-up to the Iraq war; or the close affinity of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld had to Jewish interests throughout their careers—except Bush who was a babe in the woods on foreign policy; all of which can be perused here.

The following is from my review of Jacob Heilbrunn’s They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons:

Heilbrunn also has some nice nuggets on George Bush’s naiveté in the area of foreign policy. The first time [Richard Perle] met Bush, he immediately sensed that he was different from his father. Two things were clear to Perle: one was that Bush didn’t know much about foreign policy and another was that he wasn’t too embarrassed to confess it. Like Wolfowitz, Perle admired Bush’s ability, as he saw it, to cut to the heart of the matter rather than become mesmerized by Washington policy talk. (p. 230) The fact that Bush was a babe in the woods on foreign policy was seen as a plus by the neocons. “In August 1999 an excited Wolfowitz told me over lunch . . . that Bush had the ability to penetrate the dense fog of foreign policy expertise to ask a simple question. ‘Tell me what I need to know? [sic]’ Bush, Wolfowitz said, was ‘another Scoop Jackson’” (p. 230)—a comment that certainly doesn’t reflect well on Jackson. Although Heilbrunn states that we can never know for certain what was going on in Bush’s brain in the days and months after 9/11, his comment that Bush “moved further and further into the web that the neoconservatives had woven around him” (p. 235) seems reasonable.

Bush was in way over his head and was a sitting duck for the neocons. And a big part of the web they wove consisted of falsified or cherry-picked intelligence reports engineered by Douglas Feith, David Wurmser and Abram Schulsky, and presided over by Paul Wolfowitz. As to the other “Christians” who actually made the decision to invade Iraq, Heilbrunn notes that “the movement’s non-Jewish members were largely bound to the group by a shared commitment to the largest, most important Jewish cause: the survival of Israel” (p. 69). This may be correct in some cases (quite possibly Henry Jackson). But “it is often quite difficult to separate such sentiments from the personal and professional attractions of being involved in neoconservative networks.”

Weiss continues:

But the biggest “Jew” today in the demonology of modern anti-Semitism is the Jewish state, Israel. While there are perfectly legitimate criticisms that one can make of Israel or the actions of its government — and I have never been shy about making them [where she describes herself (and Bret Stephens) as “a Zionist fanatic of unhinged proportions”— those criticisms cross the line into anti-Semitism when they ascribe evil, almost supernatural powers to Israel in a manner that replicates classic anti-Semitic slanders.

Could Israel possibly be any more evil than what they are displaying in Gaza?

And Weiss displays the typical Jewish affinity for non-Whites who come to the West (not to Israel). Horus:

“The far right says we are the greatest trick the devil has ever played. We appear to be white people. We look like we’re in the majority, we’re incredibly successful, but in fact… we’re disloyal to real, pure, white America. And in fact, we’re loyal to Black people and brown people and Muslims and immigrants.” – Bari Weiss laying it out in 2023.

Horus continues:

From a conversation on “How to Fight Antisemitism in the Arab World.” – fdd.org/events/2022/01/…

Bari Weiss’ Free Press is the biggest thing on Substack, featured by Substack itself and suggested to readers in the Explore section.

[Darryl] Cooper blasted a hole in their walls and they fired back with frowns and weary sighing. Being termed the ‘barbarian right’ by a twerp like Sohrab Amari just doesn’t matter. Being likened to a Nazi by Niall Ferguson is more funny than frightening. Cooper laughed at them and pressed on, becoming more radical and incisive in the months since. His enemies were organised by the grand dame of the most boring section of Substack, Bari Weiss, who deemed the articles by Andrew Roberts and Victor Davis Hanson so vital to the cause of anti-fascism that she paywalled them. Baron Roberts likes to boast about how much wonga he makes as an unctuary to the saviour, but we can assume that all the audiences he’s ever had amount to a lot less than Cooper’s on that one day.

But one could argue, as I have, that none of this matters because the legacy media is dying anyway. It really doesn’t matter if CBS and CNN become neocon outlets. The other, perhaps larger problem is that they are also a major part of the consortium that is in the process of buying TikTok which has a pervasive presence among young people. So the Ellisons intend to expand their reach well beyond the legacy media. As Mr. Cohan notes in the following article, Ellison is about “to become one of the most powerful media and entertainment moguls America has ever seen.”

The Billionaire Trump Supporter Who Will Soon Own the News

Listen to this article · 5:19 min Learn more

Larry Ellison is already a major stakeholder in CBS and Paramount. Now CNN, HBO and a major share of TikTok are in his sights. If all goes as anticipated, this tech billionaire, already one of the richest men in the world and a founder of Oracle, is poised, at 81, to become one of the most powerful media and entertainment moguls America has ever seen.

For the rest of us, the effect of Mr. Ellison’s gambit could be every bit as consequential, if not more so, than what happened a generation ago when Rupert Murdoch brought his brand of Down Under snark and cynicism to create what has become Fox News, intensifying our political polarization.

Mr. Ellison’s expected incursion into Hollywood and Big Media, if successful, could also go well beyond what other tech moguls like Jeff Bezos and Marc Benioff have attempted through their acquisitions of The Washington Post and Time magazine, respectively. For those men, the acquisitions were more like expensive hobbies.

Mr. Ellison is up to something very different: transforming himself into a media magnate. Along with his son, David, he could soon end up controlling a powerful social media platform, an iconic Hollywood movie studio and one of the largest content streaming services, as well as two of the country’s largest news organizations. Given Mr. Ellison’s friendship with, and affinity for, Donald Trump, an increasingly emboldened president could be getting an extraordinarily powerful media ally — in other words, the very last thing our country needs right now.

It all begins for Mr. Ellison with David’s recent acquisition of what is now known as Paramount Skydance, bought with a small part of Larry’s more than $350 billion fortune. That deal, which included an investment from the private equity firm RedBird Capital Partners, combined the old Paramount Global with Skydance Media, the film production and entertainment company David founded in 2010.

Within weeks of the August closing of the deal, it was clear that the Ellisons were serious about making Paramount Skydance a major new media force. They signed a seven-year, $7.7 billion deal for CBS and Paramount to broadcast and to stream the Ultimate Fighting Championship, whose chief executive spoke at the 2024 Republican National Convention and is a longtime Trump supporter.

The Ellisons have also made no secret of their intention to move CBS News to the right. They are negotiating to acquire The Free Press, a heterodox publication co-founded by Bari Weiss that prioritizes criticism of “woke” culture, and put Ms. Weiss in a senior position at CBS News. The Ellisons also hired as the CBS ombudsman Kenneth Weinstein, the former chief executive of the conservative Hudson Institute. See where this is going, and fast?

Then, if all goes according to plan, Mr. Trump could soon hand an 80 percent stake in TikTok, the powerful social media platform, to the existing shareholders, among them KKR and General Atlantic, plus a new consortium that includes Mr. Ellison’s Oracle and a16z, the Silicon Valley venture capital firm whose co-founder Marc Andreessen is close with the administration.

There’s more: The Ellisons are also, reportedly, preparing a bid — of perhaps $80 billion, according to some estimates — for Warner Bros. Discovery, the media conglomerate that controls such jewels as HBO Max, the Warner Bros. movie studio and CNN.

If Paramount Skydance follows through with an all-cash bid for Warner Bros. Discovery, it is likely to win the prize. Few other companies out there want all of Warner Bros. Discovery and few of those would be able to compete with the Ellisons’ cash. Regulators under a different presidential administration might have objected to the deal because of the concentration of Hollywood studios and the combination of CBS and CNN, but few expect the Ellisons to run into similar trouble. In the end, Warner Bros. Discovery may have little choice but to take Larry’s money and run.

There will be plenty of jobs lost as a result of the “synergies” that the Ellisons will promise investors they will find. That will be painful. But of even greater consequence from the combination of these assets under the control of Larry Ellison will be the expectation — and probably the reality — that these important media outlets will, like Fox News, march toward a more Trump-friendly worldview.

Who knows why the Ellisons seem to be moving in this direction. Is it good for business? Is it just easier to bend the knee to Mr. Trump? Do they really believe in the Trump agenda and all his meshugas?

No matter their motives, two independent journalistic voices, CBS News and CNN, could soon be combined into something potentially almost unrecognizable, something way too close to what is served up on a daily basis by the Murdochs. And that will put yet another chink in the fragile armor that is America’s democracy.

Peter’s Pedophile Pal: The Coprocentric Key to Comprehending Israel, Jews and Jewish History

/6 Comments/in /by

Do you want to understand Israel and Israeli behavior? Then there are two routes you can take, a fast one and a slow one. Taking the slow route, you spend years reading lots of books, learning Hebrew, reading lots more books. Taking the fast route, you just spend a few minutes reading a short article at Neokrat. The article gets Jim Goad badly wrong and Jewish nationhood bullseye right as it explores a fascinating question: “Is Israel Just A Shit-Magnet?” Here’s an extract:

Jim Goad, no friend of this site […], has, from all his tedious writings, gifted the World with the term “shit magnet” for [people who endlessly attract trouble], no doubt with reference to himself. In truth, it is a great concept, because it skips the tedious detail and cuts to the main point — certain people do seem to attract a lot of shit, and usually that tells us more about them than anything else.

Now, with “Israeli problems” once again taking up vital bandwidth — and at a time of real crisis (Ukraine, the threat to Taiwan, the hollowing out of American democracy by moronic populist forces, etc.) — it seems appropriate to apply the term “shit magnet” to the state of Israel.

Of course, Israel is a relatively new state and all new states should be allowed a little leeway to make mistakes and learn from them, but when I compare Israel’s track record with other states of a similar vintage, there can be no doubt about it, Israel is definitely the king of the shit magnets, getting involved in one stupid fracas after another.

Since its foundation in 1948, it has either been involved in stupid wars, pointless occupations, constant infringements of international law, and the constant rubbing up of its neighbours (and occasional friends) the wrong way. […] I am just noticing the general pattern: Israel is just not a “get along” kind of country. It seems to be devoid of a sense of “good form,” constantly “oversteps the mark” (those invisible guide rails of harmonious behaviour), and, maybe even without meaning to do so, rubs up its friends and neighbours entirely the wrong way.

One or two border wars since 1948 and even a temporary occupation or two would have been forgivable, but 18 wars, the occupation of foreign territory for decades, and countless instances of ignoring international law within the last 75 years make it look like it isn’t even trying.

Really, once this framing is accepted, it is impossible to argue that Israel isn’t a total shit magnet. (“Is Israel Just A Shit-Magnet?,” Neokrat, 16th October, 2023)

The article is completely wrong about Jim Goad and completely right about Israel. Nothing Goad writes is “tedious.” But yes, Israel is indeed a total shit-magnet, endlessly involved in trouble, tragedy and trauma. The article is right to say that Israel “rubs up its friends and neighbours entirely the wrong way,” but wrong to add “maybe even without meaning to do so.” Of course Israel means to do so: it behaves badly because it’s arrogant, amoral and completely unconcerned about anyone’s interests but its own.

Hebrew Dindus

Israel is, in short, a collective expression of age-old Jewish psychology. That article at Neokrat doesn’t point out that the term “shit-magnet” also applies perfectly both to individual Jews like the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, endlessly involved in scandals about corruption, and to Jewish history as a whole. The Hebrew Bible could easily be re-titled “Confessions of a Shit-Magnet.” From slavery in Egypt to slavery in Babylon, from Job’s boils to Samson’s blinding, it’s a story of endless trouble for both individual Jews and the Jewish race. Outside the Bible there’s lots more trouble and tragedy: the Jews are persecuted by the Greeks, persecuted by the Romans, persecuted by the Christians and the Muslims; they’re expelled and massacred and finally suffer the ultimate horrors of the Holocaust. And through all that extra-Biblical trouble, they insist that they dindu nuffin’! According to Jews, it’s not bad behavior by Jews that explains why Jews attract so much trouble, it’s the irrational hate and malice of the goyim.

 

Bathrobe Bum-Boy: Peter Mandelson with his pedophile pal Jeffrey Epstein (photo from The Guardian)

A persecuted pedo: the Jewish cyber-spook Tom Alexandrovich flees to Israel

Jews are wrong to auto-exculpate, of course. Their own bad behavior does indeed explain the endless trouble attracted by Jews. Like Israel as a nation, Benjamin Netanyahu is a shit-magnet because he’s crooked, corrupt and completely selfish. Peter Mandelson is a shit-magnet for the same reason. Mandelson is the homosexual half-Jewish politician who’s just lost yet another big job thanks to yet another of the big scandals that have dogged his career. As the Guardian puts it: he “has an extraordinary talent for securing jobs at the top of the government, but an even more extraordinary one for leaving them in a blaze of controversy.” The staunch Friend of Israel Keir Starmer had appointed Mandelson as British ambassador to Washington “despite warnings,” as the Guardian again put it, “over his links with” the late pedophile predator Jeffrey Epstein, who was yet another Jewish shit-magnet. Starmer then had to dismiss Mandelson as ambassador when the links proved even more extensive and enduring than Mandy had admitted. Mandelson called Epstein “my best pal” in a birthday-letter and commiserated with his pedophile pal in an email when the pedo was slapped on the wrist by American justice in 2008: “I think the world of you and I feel hopeless and furious about what has happened. I can still barely understand it. It just could not happen in Britain. You have to be incredibly resilient, fight for early release and be philosophical about it as much as you can.”

An Israeli super-hero

Like Israel bombing America’s ally Qatar, Mandelson showed complete disregard for morality and gentile interests. He cared only about the Jewish predator Epstein, not the under-aged White girls who had been preyed on by Epstein. The two men had been brought together by Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the Jewish shit-magnet Robert Maxwell, né Binyamin Hoch. Like Mandelson and Netanyahu, Maxwell suffered scandal after scandal during his career. When he was accurately condemned as a crook, he responded by smearing his critics as “anti-Semites” and successfully suing them. Then he fell off his super-yacht and was buried on Israel’s most sacred ground with the highest honors. But he was an even bigger shit-magnet in death than in life. It soon emerged that he had been preying on his own companies and looting the pension funds of his own employees. Did Mossad, Israel’s fearsomely efficient intelligence agency, not know that Maxwell-Hoch had been stealing huge sums from the goyim? Of course it knew. But Israel didn’t care: the mega-fraudster Maxwell was working for Israel, so to Israelis he was a super-hero, not a super-villain.

Here Lies Binyamin Hoch: Mega-fraudster Maxwell is buried on Israel’s most sacred ground (image on Private Eye #781)

Indeed, the mega-fraudster Maxwell was very probably a Mossad agent. So were Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. And if Peter Mandelson isn’t a Mossad agent, he’s certainly worked for Israeli and Jewish interests throughout his own scandal-dogged career. But none of that has been discussed in the mainstream media during the latest shit-storm to erupt around Mandelson. In particular, the mainstream has ignored the glaringly obvious Jewish angle. When Mandelson was involved in a previous scandal about his links with billionaires like Mikhail Fridman and Oleg Deripaska, the mainstream called them “Russian oligarchs.” In fact, they are Jewish oligarchs. And crooks. But I repeat myself. The mainstream got it wrong again when it said Mandelson was appointed ambassador to Washington “despite” his already known links to Epstein. In fact, he was appointed ambassador because of those links, not despite them. Just like the Jew Melinda Simmons, the “British” ambassador to Ukraine appointed by staunch Friend of Israel Teresa May in 2019, Mandelson became an ambassador to serve Jewish and Israeli interests, not British ones.

Mandelson as microcosm

And now that scandal has struck Mandelson yet again, it’s revealed Mandy as microcosm yet again. Mandelson is a shit-magnet as a Jewish individual just as Jews are a shit-magnet as a race and Israel is a shit-magnet as a nation. But Mandelson is more than that. Like Richard Perle in America, he was given the nickname of “Prince of Darkness” by gentiles. Two other prominent Jewish politicians in Britain have received similar nicknames: Michael Howard (né Hect) is “Dracula” and the late Gerald Kaufman, a homosexual like Mandelson, was “Hannibal Lecter.” Whether they know it or not, gentiles are responding to the alien and predatory psychology they sense in Jews.

Parallel punims: the anti-White Jewish journalist Emily Maitlis shares a joke with pedo-pal Peter Mandelson (Twitter)

And what about Israel? Like Netanyahu and Mandelson, Israel is more than just a shit-magnet. I’d call it a vampire among nations. So who’s going to drive a stake through its twisted heart? Well, maybe Israel will self-stake and destroy itself. As E. Michael Jones has repeatedly pointed out: no Jewish kingdom has lasted more than eighty years and the clock is now ticking louder and louder on Israel. It has been “rubbing up its friends and neighbours entirely the wrong way” since 1948, so its eighty years are nearly up. One thing is certain: the copromagnetism will continue. Jews like Peter Mandelson and his pedo-pal Jeffrey Epstein will continue to attract shit wherever they go. And in the end, yes, we goyim are to blame. If any gentile nation allows Jews to have power and influence, shit will ensue. From the rape-gangs of Rotherham to future wars across the West, it can all be traced back to not saying “No!” to Jews.

Another Canadian Antisemite

/5 Comments/in , /by

As a small break from the tedium of the Charlie Kirk fiasco, here’s a little news item from Canada that didn’t quite make its way into the broader MSM.  On Monday September 15, CBC Radio broadcast a French-language television program Sur le Terrain (‘On the Ground’), hosted by Christian Latreille, that covered Marco Rubio’s latest visit to Israel.  Their correspondent in Washington was a female reporter, Elisa Serret, who has served as a national correspondent for the CBC for over 10 years.  By all accounts, she is an experienced and well-respected journalist.

At one point in the program, Latreille asked Serret why Americans “have such difficulty distancing themselves from Israel, even in the most difficult moments”—such as in the midst of an ongoing genocide.  She replied:

My understanding, and that of multiple analysts here in the United States, is that it is the Israelis, the Jews, that heavily finance American politics. There is a big machine behind them, making it very difficult for Americans to detach themselves from Israel’s positions.  It is really the money here in the United States. The big cities are run by Jews.  Hollywood is run by Jews.

Well.  What impudence: to speak some truth, live, to a national television audience.  Predictably, the Canadian Jewish Lobby jumped all over this incident.  The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) declared that “antisemitism is absolutely unacceptable” and called for “immediate and unequivocal condemnation from all relevant [Canadian] leaders.”  In an online statement, the group said that “Antisemitism is corroding the fabric of society”; they demanded that the CBC “take concrete steps to ensure that neither such comments—nor the systemic issues that enabled them to be aired—are ever allowed again on Canadian airwaves.” The B’nai Brith of Canada said it was “deeply irresponsible and dangerous,” calling her remarks “textbook antisemitic conspiracy theories.”  They demanded an on-air retraction stating that the comments were “false, hateful, and unacceptable.”

Also predictably, Canadian authorities immediately caved in to pressure.  Writing on X, Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault said “The words used last night were pernicious antisemitic tropes and have absolutely no place on Canadian airwaves.”  A few hours later, the CBC released a statement saying that Serret’s analysis “led to stereotypical, antisemitic, false, and harmful allegations against Jewish communities.”  Conservative deputy leader and Jewish lesbian Melissa Lantsman called for her to be fired.  Serret was, of course, promptly “relieved of her duties until further notice.”  The Canadian Jewish Lobby, it seems, has nearly as much power internally as the US Jewish Lobby has here.

We can understand the Lobby’s reaction—it definitely makes things look bad for the Jews.  “Antisemitic” (yes, thankfully), “harmful” (yes), “hurtful” (yes)…but “false”?  That is, was she wrong?  Did Serret speak some actual truth, or was it all just “trope”?  Let’s walk through each of her assertions.

First: “Israelis/Jews heavily finance American politics.”  This is undeniably true.  According to a 2020 report by Jewish researcher Gil Troy, American Jews provide a huge proportion of political donations: around 25% for Republicans and 50% or more for Democrats.  Indeed, the Democrats are particularly captive to Jewish money; other sources claim that their Jewish share runs “as much as 60%,” “over 60%,” up to 70% of “large contributions,” and perhaps as high as 80-90% for certain elections.[1]  Such figures are surely underestimates, given how much dark money and laundered donations make their way into politicians’ pockets.

But Republicans are obviously not free from such influence.  Trump received considerable funding from wealthy Jews, including the likes of Bernie Marcus (deceased), Miriam Adelson (Sheldon Adelson’s wife; Adelson is deceased), Carl Icahn, Paul Singer, Robert Kraft, Steve Witkoff, Howard Lutnik, Jacob Helberg, Bill Ackman, Ron Lauder, and Marc Rowan.  Most notably, in the latter phases of last year’s election, Miriam Adelson made good on her pledge of $100 million to Trump’s campaign.

Let there be no doubt:  Jews are the dominant donors in American politics for both parties, and this is a key factor underlying the subservient compliance of our elected officials.

Second: “a big machine.”  The US Jewish Lobby is indeed a big machine, centered on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC.  AIPAC has its own political action committee (the “AIPAC PAC”) to make donations, and its own super-PAC, the United Democracy Project (UDP); jointly, these two components spent at least $125 million in the last election cycle.  AIPAC has minders or staff members in the offices of nearly every Congressman, and it works to defeat unfriendly legislators—most recently, Cori Bush and Jamaal Bowman.  Other influential Jewish groups include the American Jewish Committee (AJC), the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Council of Presidents (COP), the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ), the Orthodox Union (OU), and the Jewish Agency for Israel (JAFI).  Other groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) receive considerable Jewish funding and thus work to serve Jewish interests.  Additionally, we have “liberal” Jewish organizations like Jewish Voices for Peace (JVP) and J-Street that work to advance Jewish aims.  A big machine indeed.

Third: “very difficult for Americans to detach.”  Most Americans, especially the young, are increasingly moving toward anti-Israel and even anti-Jewish views.  US approval for Israeli actions in Gaza recently hit a new low of 32%, down from 50% early in the conflict.  Only 9% of those 18-34 approve of the actions, showing a notable “detachment” among American youth.  A recent poll showed that 30% of Americans believe that “Jews have too much power.”  And perhaps most notoriously, a 2023 survey found that 20% of American youth believe that the Holocaust was “a myth.”  The American people, especially the youth, do not find it very hard to detach from the Israeli megalith.

American politicians, however, are another story.  Having been heavily funded, and even pre-selected, to be pro-Israel and pro-Jewish, Congressmen routinely vote 80%, 90%, even 100% in favor of Jewish interests.  Apart from a few renegades in the US House, like Thomas Massie and Rashida Tlaib, Congress is thoroughly unable to detach from Jewish interests.  The two major parties, who disagree on nearly every other point, readily find common ground when it comes to Jewish and Israeli concerns.

The only real “detachment” problem in the US today is the one from Jewish money in politics.  Excluding such money would be obvious in any rational governmental system.  Unfortunately today in the US, we are governed by an irrational system, one in which the process of change is corrupted and blocked by the same money that creates the problem in the first place.  In other words, wealthy Jews, who now effectively control Congress and the Executive branch, will naturally stop any efforts to reform the system in such a way that might decrease their power.  They control both the system and the means to change the system; this is political corruption beyond belief, and it suggests that only governmental collapse or civil war will improve things.

Fourth: “it is really the money.”  Yes, as noted above.  American Jews own or control as much as 50% of the $175 trillion in total personal wealth in this country.  They comprise half or more of the richest Americans, including the new #1, Larry Ellison, who recently clocked in at $390 billion[2] and is now buying up media.  If the 6 million or so Jewish-Americans own or control, say, $90 trillion, this yields a staggering average of $15 million in assets for every Jewish man, woman, and child.  The average Jewish family of four thus holds about $60 million in wealth.  Little wonder that they can afford such hefty political donations.

Fifth: “the big cities are run by Jews.”  Serret has overreached here a bit.  Of the 50 largest cities in the US, only three have Jewish mayors:  San Francisco (Daniel Lurie), Louisville (Craig Greenberg), and Minneapolis (Jacob Frey).  But several other large cities have significant Jewish populations and thus are certainly run in accord with their interests, including New York (10.8% Jewish, for the larger metropolitan area), Miami (8.7%), Philadelphia (6.8%), Boston (5.2%), Los Angeles (4.7%), Washington DC (4.7%), and Baltimore (4.1%).  (I would note that, based on empirical and anecdotal evidence, for any demographic unit in which Jews exceed even 1%, they certainly dominate political and economic activities.)  Additionally, there are a number of Jewish governors, and they clearly have influence over the major cities in their respective states: Jared Polis (Colorado); J. B. Pritzker (Illinois); Josh Green (Hawaii); Josh Shapiro (Pennsylvania); Josh Stein (North Carolina); and Matt Meyer (Delaware).  On the other hand, there are large cities with relatively few Jews, including Indianapolis, Memphis, and Austin.  Thus, it is something of a mixed bag, but Jewish interests unquestionably dominate in New York, LA, Miami, DC, Philly, San Francisco, and Boston.

Sixth:  “Hollywood is run by Jews.”  Nothing more need be said.  Actually, it would have been better if Serret had said, “American media is run by Jews”; we can infer that this is what she meant.  One need only look at the largest media conglomerates:  Disney/ABC, run by Bob Iger, Alan Horn, and Alan Braverman; Warner Discovery, run by David Zaslav; NBC/Universal, run by Mark Lazarus, Bonnie Hammer, and via Comcast, Brian Roberts; and Paramount, run by Shari Redstone.  Furthermore, the new Skydance/Paramount corporation will be run by billionaire Larry Ellison’s son, David, and his new management team includes Jeff Shell, Josh Greenstein, and Dana Goldberg.  Case closed.  This lock on American media, which includes news and entertainment, explains why most Americans are utterly unaware of the situational dominance by Jews.  Very little truth slips out; and when it does, as in this case, the censors and “editors” step in to squelch the story and contain the damage.

Elisa Serret is a heroine.  We owe her much gratitude for her few seconds of truth-telling on a national media stage.  For now, the Jews have black-bagged her, but we can only hope that she reemerges stronger than before—perhaps as a new media star in North America, perhaps as a new, strong voice in defense of truth, honesty, and justice.

David Skrbina, PhD, is a retired professor of philosophy. For more on his work and writings, see www.davidskrbina.com

[1] Cited in Washington Post (13 Mar 2003, p. A1); Jewish Power in America (2008) by R. Feingold, p. 4; The Hill (30 Mar 2004, p. 1); Passionate Attachment (1992) by Ball and Ball, p. 218—respectively.

[2] Ellison regularly swaps places with Elon Musk, depending on the vagaries of the stock market.  If one man owns nearly half a trillion dollars, we can easily see how 6 million Jews might own $80 or $90 trillion.

Kevin DeAnna on Arktos: The European Civil War Starts Again

/11 Comments/in , , /by

The European Civil War Starts Again

Kevin DeAnna pays tribute to Charlie Kirk, Iryna Zarutska, and Liana Kassai, arguing that their killings inaugurate a new age of martyrdom and struggle for the future of European peoples.

Historically, Western Civilization has existed as a unity. From the Greek alliance against the Persians, to Rome, to the Crusades, the West has found its highest expression when it fights as one. Since the rise of the nation-state, such expressions have been few. In many ways, the entire twentieth century was one great European Civil War, with the global right and left warring over the destiny of Western Man. The victor was not the Communists nor the traditional Right but the extra-European, American creed of individual liberation and international capitalism. In the eyes of critics like Julius Evola, this was a foreign conquest as dangerous as that of Soviet Communism.

Yet, while it is rational for Europeans to oppose American interference on the Continent, it does not change the reality. Despite repeated boasts of European “strategic autonomy” from figures like Emmanuel Macron, the EU has failed to chart a course separate from Washington, and in many ways seems more committed to center-left transatlantic institutions than America itself. The more traditionalist and arguably authentic European Right remains submerged and politically marginalized, while Donald Trump, despite his failures, provides a rallying point for Western patriots worldwide. We can mourn that America has become the Metropole of the West, but what happens in the United States affects everything that happens in Europe.

“The past European conflicts over borders, language, and empires fade to insignificance as we see the war raging within each of our countries.”

The killings of Iryna Zarutska, Liana Kassai, and Charlie Kirk could provide an unexpected spur to united action. The murder of Zarutska is almost overdone in its scripted poignancy – a beautiful Ukrainian refugee, practically a poster child for the sympathetic victim that the neoliberal establishment has been championing. She received shelter in America, exactly the kind of case that the liberal media would use as a club against the Trump Administration’s anti-immigration and arguably anti-Ukrainian policies. She got a job and begins making her way in the big city, almost a walking advertisement for progressives who want a living rebuttal to nativism, patriarchy, and Putinism.

All this was annihilated overnight as she was butchered before the uncaring denizens of Chicago by a career felon who was already arrested more than a dozen times. Decarlos Brown Jr. was released by a magistrate on the basis of a “written promise” he would show up for court, despite numerous past offenses and wild rantings to police that materials in his body were controlling his action. Despite his supposed insanity, he somehow managed to expertly ambush the one white girl within his car from behind, avoiding potentially more dangerous targets. Audio after the event suggests that he muttered “got that white girl” to himself as Zarutska bled out on the dirty floor, fodder for cell phone footage by gawking spectators. Needless to say, the murderer has already been referred to mental health counseling, and we await the inevitable ruling that he cannot be held criminally responsible.

The manner of Zarutska’s end also made her immortal. In shock from the sudden stabbing, she curls in a fetal position and looks up fearfully, almost childlike in appearance. As life drains from her, she sobs while the other passengers on the train ignore her. She then slides off the seat, dead within seconds. There is no gore or fountain of blood, but a combination of vulnerability and beauty that can’t help but inspire rage and a frustrated desire to protect her in every white man that viewed it. Her final moment is iconic, and it compels and yet sickens one to look upon it.

In her, we also see the countless other victims of terrorism and crime, mostly committed by non-whites throughout Europe. It’s impossible not to think of Liana Kassai, another Ukrainian refugee killed at a train station in August, this time in Germany. She was reportedly killed by an Iraqi refugee who had been denied asylum. German authorities initially suspected suicide, though the victim’s family immediately objected. In this case too, we are told the alleged murderer is schizophrenic. Despite his asylum request being denied, the alleged killer remained in the country for years.

Angela Merkel’s boast of “Wir schaffen das” appears doubly tragic, as the Fatherland’s inability to assimilate millions of resentful Muslims now compromises its ability to shelter its European kinsmen fleeing from war. The bright promises of European unity and even the German rearmament supposedly needed to guard the Continent against Russian aggression are especially hollow when refugees are in danger from non-European migrants admitted by Berlin itself. History is rebuking Mutti Merkel, with reality showing Europeans that no, we cannot do this, we cannot admit unlimited numbers of migrants from the Third World and remain who we are.

The assassination of Charlie Kirk is the capstone to this trifecta of tragedy. Kirk was a singular figure on the American Right. Only 31, no one in recent political history has filled so many roles. The founder and lead organizer of the most powerful campus conservative organization, he was also a talk show host, a political organizer who helped win the last presidential election, a close ally and advisor of the White House, a campus speaker, and an online fixture. No one else was simultaneously pushing the margins of political debate while remaining relevant within the mainstream, advocating realistic policies from within the corridors of power while simultaneously widening the Overton Window.

For the extremely online Dissident Right, Charlie Kirk and TPUSA were something of a joke years ago, famously confronted during the first “Groyper War” by activists pressuring him on immigration, anti-white discrimination, Israel, and other issues. Recently, however, Kirk had shifted his rhetoric away from Conservatism Inc. bromides. He proclaimed that there was undeniably a war on whites. He told whites to be proud of who they were. He called for ending the “H1B visa scam.” His final post on X read: “If we want things to change, it’s 100% necessary to politicize the senseless murder of Iryna Zarutska because it was politics that allowed a savage monster with 14 priors to be free on the streets to kill her.” The hard right did not appreciate Kirk until he was martyred, and many of us found to our shock that his opinions were not so different from ours after all.

Despite a deeply dishonest effort by media to muddy the waters, it appears the killer is exactly what most people expected: a progressive radicalized by the violent cults of “antifascism” and transgenderism. Though he was raised in a conservative family, it appears Tyler Robinson converted to the clichés of the modern egalitarian religion and felt he had not just the right but the duty to kill Kirk because he was a “hater.” Perhaps more than the killing itself, it is the reaction to the murder that has radicalized the Right. Soldiers, nurses, teachers, government workers, emergency dispatchers, and others in positions that Americans depend on in their most vulnerable moments have revealed themselves as reveling in the public execution of one of mainstream conservatism’s most beloved figures, one whose entire approach was characterized by a dedication to open debate with even his most militant opponents.

Yet what is most remarkable about the assassination of Kirk is how it has echoed around the world. In England, his name, along with that of Iryna and Liana, was cited by activists at the Unite the Kingdom rally. In Vienna and Leipzig, impromptu monuments to Iryna and Kirk were created, and then promptly targeted and destroyed by antifa. In Poland, Dariusz Matecki held up a picture of Iryna on the floor of the Sejm while proclaiming “White Lives Matter.” The names of our martyrs are known throughout the West.

“This struggle is forging a new civilizational identity, if for no other reason than that we face the same enemy pursuing the same goal of the Great Replacement.”

The past European conflicts over borders, language, and empires fade to insignificance as we see the war raging within each of our countries. While whites cling to post-racial illusions, non-whites within our countries put race first in both political and personal disputes. Unlike in the last European Civil War, leftists do not fight in the name of class justice, but in solidarity with non-whites to defeat “hate” and “racism.” Whatever local issues confront us, the essentials of mass immigration, crime, anti-white discrimination, and the repression of right-wing figures are common to Europeans worldwide. This struggle is forging a new civilizational identity, if for no other reason than that we face the same enemy pursuing the same goal of the Great Replacement.

Few of those on the authentic Right can have any illusions that American-style “conservatism” offers a way out of the death spiral of the West. Yet that is secondary. What matters is the forging of a constituency and ultimately a people that is aware it is under deadly, existential threat. The assassination of Kirk and the butchery of Iryna and Liana have brought that home to millions. “Our fellow citizens” mean nothing compared to those of kindred blood who have felt the pain of these losses and rallied against them. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church – and the Faith is Europe, and Europe is the Faith.

Kevin DeAnna, popularly known under the pen name James Kirkpatrick, is the author of Conservatism Inc., available from Arktos.

THE CHARLOTTESVILLE LEGAL STRUGGLE CONTINUES!

/1 Comment/in , , /by

As many of you are aware, I have been in bankruptcy court fighting the multi-million dollar debt incurred from the absurd Sines v. Kessler ruling. While I will continue to call bullshit on the conspiracy allegations to the day I die, for legal purposes the arguments in bankruptcy court are of a different nature. Currently, the plaintiffs have been claiming that the debt incurred is not dischargeable, despite a clause in the law itself specifically stating that those found liable on a conspiracy allegation can discharge their debt so long as they themselves did not cause the actual damages.

The bankruptcy exception under 11 U.S. Code 523(6) states:

A discharge under… this title does not discharge an individual debtor for any debt for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity.

The critical language is “for… injury by the debtor”

The so-called “injuries” in the Sines v Kessler case were all alleged to have been caused by the actions of other individuals. Not myself. In fact, I was not even present when a single one of these injuries occurred!

Despite my attorney pointing this out in his argument, Judge Ronald Sargis ignored the law and sided with the plaintiffs bizarre argument which conflates two legal concepts from entirely different jurisdictions and areas of law.

He observed that, in Virginia civil suits, an individual or business entity can, in some cases, be legally liable for the actions of another person via respondent superior (aka vicarious liability). An example of this is if an employee of a company negligently or wantonly injures a customer, the customer can sue the company itself, and it is legally responsible.

Then he applied that logic to federal bankruptcy law (which is an entirely independent area of law) and concluded that, because VA civil liability acknowledges vicarious liability, then the federal exception statute for bankruptcy (which states that “the debtor” must physically harm someone or some property) should also be subject to vicarious liability.

This is an entirely malicious interpretation of the law based on a genocidal hatred of of White people. This ruling is ultimately not about me. It is about sending a message that any White man who publicly rejects the ethnic cleansing of our people will be dragged through the system for years on end.

Despite this, I have not given up hope. Legally, the ruling is so absurd that there is a good chance a higher court will overturn it or risk setting an entirely new precedent that would overthrow long-standing bankruptcy law. While I have already filed a notice of appeal, the process will require raising another $3,000 for the fees involved that I cannot afford. If you would like to contribute to my my legal fight against this judicial corruption, click on the link below to the Free Expression Foundation (FEF) and make a donation. Please ensure to write in the notes that the donation is to go to my appeal, as I am not the only individual being represented by the FEF.

DONATE

As always, anything donated to the Free Expression Foundation that is not needed for my case will go to the defense of others. Thank you for your support. I could not continue without all of you.