The UK Cabinet Minister Who Knows, Deep Down, She’s a Prominent Example of Those Responsible for the Pakistani Grooming Gangs

/9 Comments/in /by

The Morally Superior, Self-Righteous, Neurotic, Narcissistic, Virtue-Signaller extraordinaire, and in All-Ways-Perfect Lucy Powell 

Why would a relatively senior Labour Cabinet Minister – Lucy Powell, the Leader of the House of Commons – refer to one of the worst scandals in British history, an effective war crime against the British people by foreign invaders, as blowing “that little trumpet” and as a “dog whistle”? (See also Tobias Langdon’s condemnation of Powell.) In the heat of a radio discussion program in which Powell was being out-debated, what can be the psychology behind such a grossly insensitive remark, especially from the party that is supposed to care about people’s “feelings” above all else?

Between 1998 and 2010 alone, many thousands of underage English girls, most of them from the underclass and from vulnerable backgrounds were “groomed” and trafficked into prostitution – into statutory rape – by Pakistani males in ex-Industrial towns. The grooming involved the men bonding with these girls, and getting them addicted to alcohol and drugs such as heroin, and pimping round the Pakistani community. One of these girls were as young as 9, many were younger than 12 and the age-group which the clients specifically preferred was between 12 and 14; in other words pubescent rather than fully sexually mature.

Many of these girls were extremely vulnerable; in foster care or children’s homes due to their dysfunctional backgrounds. In fact, the Pakistanis were even able to pick them up from their children’s homes in some cases, or even from their schools. One 11-year-old girl lost her virginity to a Pakistani man on a school playground. Concerns were first raised about what was going on about the year 2000, but, we know now, these were suppressed by the police, social workers and local politicians because it was feared that race relations would be damaged, and their might even be riots, if what was happening got out. People also feared speaking out in case they were accused of racism. Thus, it was allowed to continue right up until 2010, when men were finally brought to trial and there began to be reports into what had been happening. The horrors went beyond mere frequent statutory rape. A 12 year old girl in Oxford was beaten with a baseball bat which was then inserted into her vagina. Her anus was widened using a pump, such that penises could more easily fit into it, and her lead abuser, Mohammed Karrar, branded his initials close to her anus using a red hot pin.

Karrar was jailed in 2013. However, what happened was so horrific, and on such an enormous scale, it is as though the English simply couldn’t face it. Even in spite of the local inquiries, it only began to really be spoken of when Elon Musk started tweeting about it at the beginning of this year, and, even then, the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, referred to the fevered response as a “far right band wagon.”

With Lucy Powell, however, the mask that the Left in the UK actually care about vulnerable English people, let alone these thousands of rape victims, has finally come off, due to her momentary emotional reaction. As I discuss in my book Woke Eugenics, a number of studies have shown that the Left are extremely Machiavellian. They only ever favoured their native working class because they were an out-group which they could employ to covertly attain power via virtue-signalling. But now you can engage in virtue-signalling more conspicuously about foreigners, as they are even more distant from self so easier to Romanticise, the horribly White working class are an inconvenience to their high Neuroticism, a barrier to their resentment-triggered desire to tear traditions down and signal their morality. Lucy Powell’s reaction makes perfect sense in this light.

We have trouble talking about what happened in the UK. We have trouble articulating it because what’s happened is so bad, so appalling. Over the last 50 or 60 years, Pakistanis have come among the British and have acted in a covert manner, like an invading force. What you do when you are an invading force, as did the Russians, and even to some extent the Americans when they invaded Germany, is you go and you rape the women.

Why do you do that? You do it in order to mark yourself genetically, on the people. You do it in order to humiliate the males. You do it in order to destroy their morale. And that is what these men were doing, and they were doing it for a period of at least 20 years and, according to some reports, for a lot longer. It was covered up by the Labour-run authorities because it highlighted a problem with multiculturalism and no problem with that could be highlighted because of course, multiculturalism had become the new morality—sacrosanct and above reproach. It triggers the moral posturing that justifies the power of the New Labour ruling class—of people such as Powell who, high in Narcissism, need to see themselves as special and as morally superior.

But Lucy Powell was on the ropes. The grooming gang scandal showed her that she was at best gulled into a terrible ideology and at worse morally complicit in rape for promoting that ideology, something she’d done because of her own mental instability; her own flaws. Her comments reflected a series of psychological mechanisms via which she could maintain her image of her perfect, morally superior self.

There simply can’t be problems due to her policies. So she deflects by having a go at the person interviewing her, by shooting the messenger, by saying that by bringing up grooming gangs, he’s causing a lack of social cohesion. So she refers to his mentioning the grooming gangs as a “little trumpet” and a “dog whistle;” presumably to the non-humans of the “far right” and the “white working class” of whom they are composed. She wants to shut down the topic, to avoid thinking about it; to end the cognitive dissonance.

Obviously, she’s trying to minimize it as well, which is very interesting psychologically. She’s minimizing what is happening, referring to it as a “little trumpet,” a really revolting term. This minimizing allows her to tell herself that even if her policies caused it, it really wasn’t that bad. In this, she was supported by former Guardian editor Michael White who defended Powell on Twitter, proclaiming “Sex is complicated,” the implication being that statuary rape is a grey area: Some of these 13 year-old girls wanted it: Their suffering is minimized and with it so is the cognitive dissonance of Multiculturalist Narcissists who must feel morally superior at all times.

Left-wing people are higher in Neuroticism than people that are right-wing. They are less emotionally controlled, and therefore the truth has come out. Powell is less able to control her emotions because being high in Neuroticism makes you emotionally unstable, but it also means you feel very strongly things like resentment, anger and even cognitive dissonance. So Powell’s contemptuous remarks really do make sense.

One imagines she resents the grooming gang victims; almost blames them for damaging the god of multiculturalism by speaking out. Powell, indeed, is likely to simply be low in empathy. There are a number of studies on how left-wing people are lower in generalized empathy than right-wing people. They are lower in Agreeableness. They are unkind, they are Machiavellian, as noted earlier, and they are perfectly happy to see people as a means to an end.

Johann von Leers on Spengler’s geopolitical system and National  Socialism

/12 Comments/in , /by

Oswald Spengler (1880–1936) was, in the thirties of  the last century, already famous for his major work Der Untergang des Abendlandes (The Decline of the West, 1918,1922), which presented a panoramic view of civilisations as social entities that are born, grow and decay like biological organisms. However, Spengler’s portrayal of World War I as an inevitable change in the cycle of civilisations was rather suspect in the eyes of German nationalists. What was worse was that Spengler’s philosophy of history was an essentially pessimistic one since, according to his doctrine of cycles of civilisations, the West was doomed to decline and  the only solution to the inevitable dissolution was a static adherence to one’s own cultural superiority. Spengler’s conservatism did not really value the maintenance of tradition so much as it wished to accustom Germans to the inevitable transformation of world history into a cosmopolitanism that would eventually be ruled by a universal Caesar. Spengler’s Caesarism may seem prophetic in our century with the advent of the Trumpism in the United States but it was not a notion that could be welcomed by National Socialists.

In 1931 Spengler published another work on Der Mensch und die Technik (Man and Technology) which criticized the spirit of industrialization and predicted that it would lead to the encroachment of Western civilization by ‘coloured races’ that would soon be acquiring the new technological expertise necessary to compete economically and politically with the White nations. All this seemed to accord with National Socialist ideas, except that Spengler was directly opposed to the National Socialist emphasis on race as a determinative biological reality.

The reason for Spengler’s refusal  to accept the racialist biology of the National Socialists was that he was himself of partly Jewish ancestry. Spengler’s maternal great-grandfather, Friedrich Wilhelm Grantzow, a tailor’s apprentice in Berlin, had three children out of wedlock with a Jewish woman named Bräunchen Moses ( c. 1769–1849) whom he later married, on 26 May 1799. Of the five children the couple had after their marriage, Gustav Adolf Grantzow (1811–1883) was Oswald Spengler’s maternal grand-father. Given such a background it is not surprising that Spengler did not join the National Socialist party and, when he personally met Hitler in 1933, he reported that he had been unimpressed.

It may be recalled also that Spengler’s economic discussions in his various works do not refer much to the Jewish bases of modern economics. In his work  Preussentum und Sozialismus (Prussianism and Socialism, 1919), for example,  Spengler constantly refers to Marx chiefly as a student and product of English society: ‘Everything that Marx has to say with grudging admiration about “capitalistic society” refers principally to English, and not to a universal, economic instinct.’[1] Spengler’s tacit admiration of Jews is also clear in the Untergang, Vol. II, where he talks of the ‘European Jew with his immense race-energy and his thousand years of ghetto life’, while in Jahre der Entscheidung he praises Disraeli as one of few statesmen who “possessed of the true political instinct, see what is going on and whither it is leading and exert themselves to prevent, moderate, or divert accordingly.”[2]

Spengler’s last major work Jahre der Entscheidung published in 1933 indeed contained a harsh repudiation of the National Socialist racialist emphases. Arthur Zweiniger wrote a critique of Spengler’s work in 1933 called Spengler im Dritten Reich and this was followed by Leers’ Spenglers weltpolitisches Sytem und der Nationalsozialismus in 1934.

Johann von Leers (1902–1965) was a National Socialist party member from 1929 and was invited by Goebbels in 1933 to work in the propaganda ministry where he produced several books and booklets until 1945 including a study of the Weimar Republic,  14 Jahre Judenrepublik. Die Geschichte eines Rassenkampfes  (1933) and books on National Socialism, Adolf Hitler (1933), Entwicklung des Nationalsozialismus von seinem Anfang bis zur Gegenwart (The development of National Socialism from its beginning to the present,1936) and Jewry, Judentum und Gaunertum (Jewry and the Underworld, 1940), Juden hinter Stalin (Jews behind Stalin, 1941), Die Verbrechernatur der Juden (The criminal nature of the Jews,1944), etc.

While Leers was a racialist like other National Socialists he did not subscribe to Spengler’s narrow view of Aryanism that considered even southern Italians and southern Spaniards as ‘coloureds’. He in fact wrote a perceptive article in 1942 in the journal Die Judenfrage on ‘Judentum und Islam als Gegensätze’[3] which revealed his support of Arab nationalism.

After the war, Leers fled from Germany to Italy, where he lived for five years. In 1950, he emigrated to Argentina, where he edited a journal called Der Weg. Later, in 1956 Leers emigrated to Egypt accepting an invitation by Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Palestinian mufti who had been supportive of the Third Reich. Under al-Hussein’s influence Leers converted to Islam and called himself Omar Amin. During the last years of his life Leers served as head of Nasser’s Israeli propaganda unit in Egypt.

*  *   *

Leers’ anti-Spenglerian work is significant not only for its criticism of Spenglerian historical determinism but also for its revelation of Spengler’s cosmopolitan capitalism. Spengler’s conservatism is, according to Leers, the opposite of the National Socialist concern for the workers of Germany. Leers’ arguments thus remind us of the socialist aspect of National Socialism that was included in the name of the party (the National Socialist German Workers’ Party)—largely ignored by modern historians of the movement.

Leers is, like most National Socialists, opposed to the historical determinism of Spengler’s philosophy of history. Leers points out that this notion was indeed not original with Spengler  since the Russian naturalist and pan-Slavist historian Nikolay Danilevsky (1822–1885) had already propounded such a theory—with greater clarity than Spengler—in his Russia and Europe (1869).  Leers also gives the further example of Karl Marx as a proponent of historical determinism in his theory of the dialectical evolution of societies through economic stimuli. The defect of these historical determinist theories, according to Leers, is that both Marx and Spengler consider history independent of the national character of the people who undergo civilizational changes. Like Hitler, Leers considers the history of the Aryan and German people as dependent on their special character and free from any cyclical developmental processes that are common to all civilisations. Like Hitler too, Leers maintains that miscegenation is what causes the decay of a civilization and not any cyclical principle within a nation as an ‘organism’.

Leers subscribes to the fundamental National Socialist view that the Aryan is the most creative of races and that because of his idealistic readiness to sacrifice his individual ego for the betterment of his community. As Hitler had expressed it in Mein Kampf (1925):

This self-sacrificing will to give one’s personal labor and if necessary one’s own life for others is most strongly developed in the Aryan. The Aryan is not greatest in his mental qualities as such, but in the extent of his willingness to put all his abilities in the service of the community. In him the instinct of self-preservation has reached the noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands, even sacrifices it.

This idealistic attitude ennobles the concept of ‘work’ itself:

Now, for example, [the Aryan] no longer works directly for himself, but with his activity articulates himself with the community, not only for his own advantage, but for the advantage of all. The most wonderful elucidation of this attitude is provided by his word ‘work,’ by which he does not mean an activity for maintaining life in itself, but exclusively a creative effort that does not conflict with the interests of the community. Otherwise he designates human activity, in so far as it serves the instinct of self-preservation without consideration for his fellow men, as theft, usury, robbery, burglary, etc. …

Every worker, every peasant, every inventor, official, etc., who works without ever being able to achieve any happiness or prosperity for himself, is a representative of this lofty idea, even if the deeper meaning of his activity remains hidden in him.

And this is also, according to Hitler, the crucial difference between the Aryan and the Jew:

For if the Jewish people’s instinct of self-preservation is not smaller but larger than that of other peoples, if his intellectual faculties can easily arouse the impression that they are equal to the intellectual gifts of other races, he lacks completely the most essential requirement for a cultured people, the idealistic attitude.

Hitler’s aversion to Russian Bolshevism is also due to the Jewish domination of the Revolution in Russia:

where he killed or starved about thirty million people with positively fanatical savagery, in part amid inhuman tortures, in order to give a gang of Jewish journalists and stock exchange bandits domination over a great people.

Like Hitler Leers combines the notion of racial distinction with that of German socialism:

[Spengler] does not consider and recognize that the workers, that the millions of our industrial workers, exactly like the other strata of the nation, are bearers of the legacy of the race, of the future of the nation. He sees in them — as in the dusty pages of Manchester Liberalism — only increasingly expensive devourers of the revenue of production.

Leers thus notes the principal difference between the National Socialist ideology and the Spenglerian:

Behind Oswald Spengler’s heroic slogan is hidden an icy contempt for the people, behind the  seduction of his pseudo-Prussian slogans appears the rule of a leader whom he envisages as detached from the people — in the place of Adolf Hitler a Caesar who will force the German workers to  the living standards of negro workforces, in the place of a reliable cooperation of productive nations the unrestrained rule of ‘economic leaders’ and Caesars,  in the place of the Nordic light-bearing race the beast of prey – that is the Spenglerian idea.

As an anti-socialist Spengler was particularly angered by the increased wages of workers that have resulted from recent workers’ agitations, for that, according to him, debilitates the national economy:

Spengler is of the conviction that the ‘high’ wages of the German workers, especially of the ‘white workers’, make the product made here uncompetitive on the world market. He is of the conviction that these wares burdened with ‘high’ wages cannot be maintained in comparison to the competition of non-European continents.

Leers particularly criticizes Spengler for his attack on the trade unions along with his contempt of the workers in general:

The existence of the alliances of working men against the amalgamation of money, the existence of a desire to rise among the creative men of the German nation that manifested itself even under a Marxist form, enraged Spengler. … For him it was not a matter of the creation of a German Socialism. For him it was not a matter of the incorporation of the working class into the nation, for him indeed it was not a matter of a real national community.

However, Leers fails to note what Hitler had noted in Mein Kampf, that the trade unions were dominated by Jews. As Hitler had remarked,

the Jewish leadership in trade-union affairs remains uncontested. … In keeping with all his inner rapacious brutality, he at once teaches the trade-union movement the most brutal use of violence.

Nevertheless, Leers endorses the trade union idea as one that unites the workers against the capitalists, who are for Leers the chief enemy:

It is not the worker or even his Marxist leaders who are solely to blame but the guilt of the propertied strata, the guilt  of their capitalist leaders —- who have also conducted an equally resolute class struggle but were just cunning enough not to speak much of it — is at least as great.

By contrast, Leers points out that Spengler is, in general, in favour of the capitalists:

Here the counter-revolution is being ideologically prepared! Here the weapons are being forged to set up, in the place of a state of creative work, of National Socialism and the German community, a tyrannical state of big capital with a Caesarean leadership supported by mercenaries and without any connection to the vital national community.

Spengler is thus opposed to German socialism as much as he is to Bolshevism:

In their social rise, in their will to rise socially he sees only a burdening of the ‘national economy’. If the youth of the nation, even of the strata not belonging to the industrial workers, consider the solution of the workers’ question as a moral duty and the economic uplift of the industrial worker as their comradely obligation, Oswald Spengler wishes to see therein ‘half Bolshevist’ currents.

Spengler’s opposition to socialism is so extreme that he even opposes the Youth movements in National Socialist Germany as being ‘Asiatic’ forms of collectivism that go against the individualistic character of the Germans:

It is the impersonal Asiatic collectivism of the East, the spirit of great levelling in combination with the Western levée en masse of 1792.

Spengler’s well-known criticism of parliamentarism is also seen to be not a tool of socialist thought such as that of the National Socialists but a bourgeois ruse wherewith capitalism could entrench itself in the state at the expense of the national community and especially of its workers. Spengler is indeed opposed to any form of state socialism which he considers as differing little from Communism. As he said:

[The economic leader] wants economic State Socialism, the suppression of private initiative, a planned economy, all of which is fundamentally the same thing, that is, Communism.

Leers’ major complaint against Spengler’s economic theories is that they are not based on the ‘national economy’:

[It is] not an economy that is conducted for the nation and in the interest of the nation, but something quite detached, something that occurs without relation to the living national body. For him there is no workers’ question nor the compulsion to maintain the masses of millions of healthy and poor national comrades not only economically but also to allow them to participate in the largest numbers in the spiritual life of the nation (and even if that were only so that they do not leave this nation in the lurch in the hour of danger).

More alarming is the fact that Spengler does not really work towards any change in the status quo:

His idea of the economy is a very simple one: “Every person, like every animal, has to defend himself against an unpredictable fate or else bear it. Everybody has his personal care, full responsibility for himself, the need to fight for himself and his own goals in all dangers on the basis of his own decision.”

It is clear that this Nietzschean aspect of Spengler’s doctrine is indeed the basis of his secret championing of Caesarism.

Leers goes on to emphasise that Spengler’s state is indeed a ruthless bourgeois one that has little sympathy for the working class:

The one born for rule can use them but he despises them.’ They may naturally shoot themselves for him … He has no idea of the comradely disposition between the leader and his followers, the common service to the people and the country is foreign to him. His vision goes farther, the Spengler state does not need a national chancellor and a beloved leader – he calls for a Caesar, a predator king.

What is startling is that the Spengler’s admiration of ‘Prussianism’ in his “Preussentum und Sozialismus” is merged with his secret extolment of Caesarism. As Spengler put it:

As a  form-giving power there remains only the ‘Prussian’ spirit, everywhere, not just in Germany. Destiny, once agglomerated in momentous forms and great traditions, will make history in the shape of formless autocracies. The legions of Caesar awake once again.

Thus Leers declares:

[H]ere the confused and capitalist imperialism  of the pre-war period mirroring itself once again separates itself clearly from the nationalism based on cultivation and construction of national culture as Adolf Hitler represents it. Even here Spengler is the man of the strata living on export at any cost, of the imperialistic rule of the world. Even here he is, just as in his opposition to the worker, a West European imperialist of the pre-war period who goes to the logical extreme but not a nationalist, let alone a National Socialist.

Leers contrasts Spengler’s Caesarism with his own view of National Socialism as a movement not for imperialistic expansion such as the Western powers had long indulged in but for nationalistic consolidation.

The ultimate danger that this imperialism poses is the debilitation of the creative forces of the nation:

In the midst of the ethnic awakening [the Spenglerians] approach the new Germany with the idols of a fallen age and direct it onto paths on which their profit may flourish a little but which would at the same time be the end of the creative race in our nation.

Spengler’s fears of socialism are inextricably linked to his fears of the impending rise of coloured nations with newly acquired technology:

For behind the world wars and the proletarian world revolution that has not yet been concluded emerges the greatest of all dangers, the coloured, and everything that is still connected to “race” among the white peoples will be necessary to confront it …

Leers, on the other hand, sees through Spengler’s appeals to the “white race” as being a mere pretext for capitalist imperialism, in which Germany has no major role to play:

To these coloured peoples Spengler opposes the ‘imperium of the white nations’. By this he clearly understands in the first place the English and French, as well as North American, colonial rule. In it he sees the rule of the ‘white man’ in the world. That Germany has no part in it is, for him, not a reason not to champion its maintenance passionately.

Spengler points to the Bolshevik Revolution as a sign of the rise of the “Asiatic,” Mongol race in revolt against European Russians. But Leers believes that, just as the Germans defeated the Socialist Weimar Republic, they should be able to withstand the Bolshevism of the Russians and even cooperate with the latter so long as neither country interfered in the affairs of the other.

As for Japan, the other fear of Spengler, Leers points to the case of the nationalist war minister  of Japan, Araki, who displayed conservative tendencies that strongly resembled those of the National Socialists. Leers is, in fact, more generous to non-European races than Hitler, who in Mein Kampf had declared;

If beginning today all further Aryan influence on Japan should stop, assuming that Europe and America should perish, Japan’s present rise in science and technology might continue for a short time; but even in a few years the well would dry up, the Japanese special character would gain, but the present culture would freeze and sink back into the slumber from which it was awakened seven decades ago by the wave of Aryan culture.[4]

On the whole, Leers considers the general grouping of nations into “white nations” and “coloured nations” as both imprecise and historically useless since Germany itself had not benefited from colonialism in its history and would have suffered more from the Western imperialist powers if the latter had not been distracted from continental problems by their overseas colonies. So, unlike Spengler, he sees no need to defend the other “white nations” in the fight against rising independence movements.

That Leers was sympathetic to other races is evident also in his post-war collaboration with the Egyptians and in his correspondence, where a letter to an unidentified African written in 1955[5] expresses his interest in the American Africanist W.E.B. Dubois’ histories of the African peoples and wishes the negroes success in their efforts to obtain civil rights. He points to the German colonial experience as being quite beneficial to the natives and highlights the case of Jewish financial interests spurring the British against the Germans in Southwest Africa.

As far as Germany’s own territorial ambitions, Leers believes that they should be restricted to the European geographical space in which Germany finds itself:

The real interests of the German nation do not signify for Germany an imperialist battle in alien continents for foreign master races but a peaceful and federalist collection of nations in the eastern and central European space. This is necessary also in an economic sense.

Spengler opposed the migration of German industries and workers to lands that have cheap labour but suggested that international competition can be offset only by reducing the German worker’s ‘luxury wages’. But this would be impossible since German workers cannot live in a lifestyle that is common in less developed countries. This is, for Leers, a further example of Spengler’s disregard for the welfare of the German workers.

Leers exposes the imperialistic economics of the Western powers by pointing to the desire to rule colonial peoples by selling them cheap, low-quality products. Germany, on the other hand, has no imperialistic ambitions and should not trade in cheap products that it can manufacture at home but only import commodities that Germany does not possess and in return export specialized, high-quality products that it manufactures.

Leers concludes his critique of Spengler with a reminder of the essential question that Spengler’s Jahre der Entscheidung raises:

Should National Socialism be the final form of the German nation and develop itself further organically into an ethnic state of Germans or should National Socialism be replaced by a Caesarean rule that, with mercenary troops, socially suppresses the masses of workers of the nation into the depths and conducts an imperialistic great power politics?

The real danger in the Spenglerian ideology is indeed that

in the long term, after the defeat of Marxism on the left, a “Marxism turned on its head,” a sort of Marxism of wealth, should succeed  in crippling the realization of the National Socialist will in such a way that finally an ossification results. There are many examples of a refined counter-revolution that is seldom carried out at the barricades but much rather fights with intellectual and financial weapons succeeding in crippling revolutionary resurgences.

[1] Oswald Spengler, Prussianism and Socialism and other essays, translated by D.O. White.

[2] The Hour of Decision, Part I: Germany and World-historical Evolution, translated by C.F. Atkinson.

[3] See my translation ‘Johann von Leers: ‘Judaism and Islam as Opposites (1942)’, Occidental Observer, September 24, 2024.

[4] Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Mannheim.

[5] https://credo.library.umass.edu/view/full/mums312-b144-i264

Zio-Populism: The New Alliance Between Israel and Europe’s Nationalists

/10 Comments/in , , /by

The present populist era is rife with all manner of odd realignments.

Anti-Defamation League CEO Jonathan Greenblatt recently faced sharp criticism from its ex-director Abraham Foxman over his initial plan to speak at the Israeli Diaspora Ministry’s International Conference on Combating Antisemitism in Jerusalem. For Foxman, the current ADL chief’s decision to share the stage with European populist figures was a bridge too far.

This conference counted on the presence of Jordan Bardella, the leader of France’s National Rally party; member of the European Parliament Hermann Tertsch of Spain’s Vox party; MEP Charlie Weimers of the Sweden Democrats party; MEP Marion Maréchal, granddaughter of National Front founder Jean-Marie Le Pen; and MEP Kinga Gál, of Hungary’s governing Fidesz party.

“Neither the left nor the right are friends of Israel and the Jewish people,” said Abraham Foxman, who led the ADL for nearly three decades. “Since the explosion of left-inspired antisemitism and anti-Israel hate in the last several years, the pseudo-Fascist right is trying to use the Jewish community as a platform, to demonstrate how legitimate and tolerant they are. Israel and the Jewish community should not give them legitimacy.”

Foxman is correct. Parties like the AfD and National Rally gain legitimacy by being slavishly pro-Israel—an excellent marker of the power of Jews in Western societies.

The presence of these controversial figures prompted a backlash from the ruling liberal establishment of the West. Felix Klein, Germany’s commissioner for combating antisemitism, canceled his appearance, citing his shock at the participation of populist politicians. Likewise, French-Jewish intellectual and ardent Zionist Bernard-Henri Lévy withdrew from his keynote address after learning Bardella would be speaking at the conference. Greenblatt, himself, eventually bowed out as speaker.

Bardella was particularly vehement in his comments on anti-Semitism:

“Since Oct. 7 [2023] in particular, France and Europe are witnessing a deadly honeymoon between Islamists and the far left,” Bardella said. “One provides the fanatics, the other institutionalizes the evil … We have to face anti-Jewish action head on … We have a solemn commitment in France to fight antisemitism everywhere at all times in all of its forms, whether from radical Islamists and the far left or the far right and their delirious plots. None of this hatred has any place in France or Europe.”

Bardella linked “the rise of Islamism, resurgence of antisemitism and the migratory phenomenon tearing apart all Western societies,” and said that the “National Rally is the best shield for the Jews in France.”

In contrast with his party’s founder, Bardella noted that he visited Yad Vashem and spoke of “the unspeakable horrors” of the Holocaust.

Despite the controversy surrounding the Israeli-sponsored conference, it proceeded without issue.  Overall, it reflects a notable shift in Israeli foreign relations, spearheaded by Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli of the Likud Party. Even before the Israeli government officially abandoned its policy of avoiding cooperation with right-wing populist parties in Europe, Chikli had been engaging with European populists.

He made appearances at conservative gatherings such as the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, where he praised President Donald Trump for his efforts to combat antisemitism. Chikli also spoke last year at Europa Viva 24, a gathering hosted by Spain’s Vox party, where he shared a platform with Marine Le Pen.

This growing closeness between Israel’s current leadership and European nationalist parties has stirred controversy both at home and abroad. Chikli’s vocal support for Le Pen during France’s recent elections drew criticism from diplomats in both countries. Last month, he and several Likud colleagues attended CPAC Hungary. In Western capitals, Hungary has been increasingly treated as a pariah for its unconventional foreign policy of treating NATO rivals such as China and Russia as normal countries and for its defense of traditional values and opposition to mass migration.

To those who have a rudimentary knowledge of Jewish influence in Western politics, the notion of Jewish groups aligning themselves with the populist would be almost unheard of. However, for seasoned observers of Jewish political behavior, these Jewish overtures to the European right are another classic case of the “Kosher Sandwich.” The strategy is quite simple: Jews take advantage, or sometimes even create a pressing social issue — immigration in this case. They subsequently insert themselves and their associates into both sides of the debate. But the Jewish interest in this case is to twist and exploit the issue for their own interests. Political newcomers, unaware of the deception, accept the Jew as an ally, convinced they are united in a common cause — only to be misled in the end.

One can see this in the “counter-Jihad” movement. Anti-Muslim activist Tommy Robinson, who has a history of receiving funding from the pro-Israel Middle East Forum and Jewish tech billionaire Robert Shillman, has been one of the most useful front goys for Jewish interests. While he has valid critiques about Islam’s corrosive influence in the United Kingdom and other West countries, Robinson has no issue with the UK importing millions of Hindus and Sikhs from the Indian subcontinent.

In effect, Robinson serves Jewish interests by promoting a Zionist-approved form of immigration restriction. Certain non-Whites — Muslims from the Middle East and South Asia — are demonized and barred from entering Western countries while other non-Whites less hostile, or at least apathetic, to Jewish political machinations continue flooding the Old Continent by the millions. West.

Jewish co-optation of European populist parties is a multi-decade project. Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orbán, who has otherwise sensible views on immigration and foreign policy, has a blindspot for Israel. This is largely due to his connection to Jewish Republican strategist Arthur Finkelstein—one of the key architects of Orbán’s and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s electoral successes.

As a result of this Jewish connection, Orbán has been one of Israel’s strongest diplomatic allies in Europe, especially in the post-October 7 world. Despite his positive overtures to the Israeli government, the Hungarian Prime Minister continues to be demonized for being antisemitic by Western liberal institutions.

Such Jewish penetration of the populist Right has also been present in Italy. Matteo Salvini, leader of Italy’s right-wing Lega party, has cultivated strong ties with Israel, particularly under Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership. Salvini has visited Israel multiple times, including in 2018 when he met Netanyahu, who called him a “great friend of Israel.” During these visits, Salvini expressed support for Israeli policies and criticized the EU’s stance on Israel.

A similar trend has occurred in the Netherlands. Geert Wilders, the founder and leader of the Party for Freedom (PVV) has a long-standing, personal connection to Israel, having lived and volunteered there as a young man and visited the country dozens of times. He firmly believes that Israel should have dominion over the entire land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, opposes the creation of a Palestinian state, and has openly advocated for moving the Dutch embassy to Jerusalem. Wilders has met with Israeli leaders including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, President Isaac Herzog, and other high-ranking officials. He has been welcomed as a “true friend of Israel” by Netanyahu and has attended official events in Israel.

With prominent French populist leader Marine Le Pen being convicted for embezzling European Union funds, Israel now sees an opening for outreach in the French populist scene. It has invited Jordan Bardella, president of the National Rally (RN), and Marion Maréchal (Le Pen’s niece), to official conferences in Jerusalem, including the aforementioned government-organized antisemitism conference attended by the Netanyahu government.

Both Le Pen and Bardella have sought to rebrand the National Rally as a party amicable to Zionism, emphasizing support for the Jewish state’s security and opposition to “Islamist ideology.” Israeli Diaspora Affairs Minister Chikli publicly endorsed Le Pen, calling her “excellent for Israel” due to her anti-immigration and anti-Islamist positions.

The linking of right-wing populism with Zionist-friendly causes has also been pursued by political strategists and intellectuals like Steve Bannon and Yoram Hazony since the 2010s. Their distinctive approaches—Bannon’s political organizing versus Hazony’s think tank-building—represent two avenues that the American conservative movement has taken to make the world safe for Zionism in the populist era.

All things considered, what’s unfolding here appears to be a part of a backup plan for international Jewry to preserve itself in a 21st century marked by significant geopolitical upheaval. In a world where the United States can’t always be counted on to slavishly defend Israel, Jewish interest groups will strive to have all their bases covered by buying off populist parties abroad. As more and more voters in the West grow disillusioned with the post-World War II order, populist parties are well-positioned to upend traditional conservative and liberal parties and assume the levers of power.

As a result, the shiftiest elements of the transnational Jewish community will make attempts to insinuate themselves in these populist parties to ensure that they don’t become explicitly anti-Israel, much less antisemitic. Europe’s natural tendency, as evidenced by the scores of mass expulsions of the Jews across the Old Continent over two millennia of recorded history, is one of directly confronting the excesses of Jewish economic and political machinations.

To prevent this persistent element of European politics from making a comeback, Jewish interest groups have made it a point to defang White political power on both sides of the pond since the end of World II. In a post-liberal order, where the United States is no longer the unipolar power and its NGO appendages have lost their credibility, the Jewish diaspora will continue its subversive agenda albeit with a few tweaks in its strategy. Enter kosher populism—the only form of White grievance politics allowed in Jewish-dominated polities.

White advocates would be wise to not fall for the glossy exterior of regime-approved “populist” movements. While they may appear to be anti-system, their flaws with respect to challenging Jewish influence, ruin whatever positives they bring to the table. A hardened political cynic would view philosemitic populist organizations as containment vehicles designed to deradicalize Whites and prepare them for their eventual replacement by millions of foreign interlopers. Under normal circumstances, the White segment of the electorate would be gravitating towards nationalist parties that confront Jewish political power head on.

It can’t be stressed enough that European ethnic nationalism and strong anti-Zionist political movements are not permitted in the West. By leveraging hate speech laws, enforcing deplatforming across social media and financial sectors, and promoting controlled opposition groups, the Jewish lobby has thoroughly shaped the discourse in a way that prevents a friend-enemy distinction from ever materializing—the critical factor in undermining the Jewish supremacist projects.

Thanks to the Talmudic sleight of hand a certain faction of Jews has employed in their infiltration of nationalist groups, they ensure that Whites become cognitively polluted by Judaized talking points and expend vast resources and political energy in futile causes. In the meantime, the transnational criminal enterprise that is the Jewish global network continues to act with impunity—be it in the Middle East through the further consolidation of Israel’s geopolitical standing or by accelerating the demographic annihilation of the West via mass migration.

A strict policy of social distancing from institutions that are committed to preserving the Judeo-American Empire is of the essence. Given the demographic crises facing so many Western countries, it makes little sense to strike a Faustian pact with the Jewish institutions responsible for these developments.

As they say, with the Jews you lose.

President Trump and the End of the Post-World War II Interregnum

/6 Comments/in /by

In the study of politics, two schools of thought converge: the school of stability and the school of change. The former emphasizes dominant political ideas that shape weak or strong leaders, while the latter highlights the role of a charismatic and strong political figure who drives social changes. In reality, these forces interact to shape a country’s political future. Over one hundred days into Donald Trump’s presidency, evidence supports the “strongman” theory of change. However, it’s uncertain whether Trump would have made it to the White House in a more stable America. The post-World War II Liberal order, like its defunct communist twin in the Soviet Union, has already run its course.

Donald Trump has emerged as a key figure in US and global politics, not because he caused the current wave of domestic and international disorder, but because he is a product himself of a disorder that has shaped the United States and the entire West since 1945. He has reignited the dormant divide between Left and Right, a deadly hallmark of the 20th century, while throwing modern right-wing parties and nationalist movements in Europe and the US into disarray. Unlike his post–World War II predecessors, who pursued hyper-moralizing world-improving policies, Trump’s approach to foreign affairs is the complete opposite. He is dismantling the post–World War II order not through ideological conviction but through his pragmatic, common-sense perspective of a businessman. History shows that often a simple, down-to-earth individual—akin to an everyday “Joe Six-Pack” or the German “deutscher Michel”—can grasp political realities more clearly than self-proclaimed experts, advisors, academics, and professors, many of whom are caught in a cycle of wishful thinking and self-deception.

Showcase of the Soviet style Show Trials

To his credit, Donald Trump has survived a relentless barrage of judicial travesty, presented in the Liberal dogma as the “rule of law.” This system, revered for decades in the United States and its vassals in the European Union as sacrosanct Holy Writ is coming to an end.  Secretary Marco Rubio unknowingly admitted that efforts to ban the German right-wing Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party only reveal the Liberal order as a form of “disguised tyranny”. Even the recent judicial charade against Trump, is not new—it has thrived in liberal democracies since 1945. Unlike the overt repression in the former communist East, the Western lawfare operates through more refined means, such as biased court verdicts, usually preceded by academic self-censorship and media fake news. While the Liberal system appears more palatable for the masses, its long-term results are often worse than in communism.

Trump has survived a gauntlet of challenges, dozens of politically motivated felony charges, two impeachments, and even two assassination attempts. Whatever one may think of his hubris, his psychological resilience under such pressure highlights the strength of his character. By way of contrast, many dissidents in the former Soviet bloc would often break down under the weight of a single charge and start ratting out their accomplices in order to secure a reduced prison sentence or escape further psychological torment. It remains to be seen how many of Trump’s trusted servants will cover his back or turn tail when clouds soon begin to gather over the US and EU.

The judiciary under Clinton, Obama, and Biden had more than a passing resemblance to the defunct Soviet judiciary once championed by the NKVD strongman Lavrentiy Beria and Chief Prosecutor Andrey Vyshinsky. In some respects, Biden’s weaponizing of the judiciary was even worse than in the Soviet Union. Unlike the Soviet courts, politically driven prosecutions in America continue to be marked by a strong anti-White bias, which was best visible in the treatment of the January 6 Capitol protestors, many of whom were victims of trumped-up charges. The Clinton-Obama-Biden triumvirate, seconded by its loyal vassals in the EU, managed to reenact a parody of communist utopia, albeit under a different legal denomination. Instead of gulags and firing squads, the judicial tools in the Liberal West consist of deplatforming free thinkers and renaming of free speech into “hate speech”. One must recall that US policies like DEI and affirmative action, which Trump is trying to roll back, were already tested many times in the multiethnic Soviet Union and the former communist East Europe. The results were predictable: hatred of all against all, mutual ethnic resentments, and ultimately, the collapse of the system.

The Casbah Left, The Caviar Left and Free Speech on Campus

Leftist critics of Donald Trump rely on flawed arguments. They criticize the Trump administration’s stance against eroding free speech in the EU while condemning Trump’s orders for mass ICE arrests of foreign students suspected of supporting Hamas or expressing anti-Israel sentiments. Trump and his DOJ may have a point. The full story behind these detained students—their motives, backgrounds, and reasons for studying in the US rather than in China or Africa—remains unclear.

To start with, most of those apprehended or detained students come from Third World countries where free speech is severely limited or nonexistent. How would the Turkish female student at Tufts University, now facing deportation, respond if asked to advocate for a Kurdish state or a public commemoration of  the Armenian genocide in Turkey? How many of these students, now detained by US authorities, would actively champion minority rights in their home countries—such as the rights of Palestinians in Jordan, Berbers in Algeria, or Moors in Morocco? In their homelands, in their local casbahs, local caids dismiss concepts like plea bargains, while dissidents frequently vanish into memory hole.

Many of these non-White international students in the US do not hide their hatred of White “giaours” while perpetually claiming to be victims of a White racists and the allegedly oppressive Western system. Yet, they prefer to pursue education in “racist” America and Europe rather than seek opportunities in ostensibly less oppressive, antifascist and decolonized and greener pastures of their homelands. This contradiction raises questions about the sincerity of their pro-Palestinian activism and their true motives for coming to the US.

May-day Call: For Fear of the Jews

There’s no need to pontificate about Bible verses, such as John 7:13, or recount Joe Sobran’s tragic betrayal by his conservative peers. It would be naïve, however, to assume that Donald Trump is ignorant of the Jewish lobby’s influence. Neither can one hope he could any time soon abandon the delicate balance of mutual love-hate rhetoric toward Jews if he wants to remain alive and kicking. His support for Israel serves as a strategic counterweight, enabling him to crack down more freely on the Left. One might speculate whether Trump has struck a Faustian bargain with neoconservatives or Jewish-influenced leftist organizations, such as the ADL or SPLC, to secure a free hand in dismantling the Communist-inspired DEI policies in the US.

Far more significant is the historic collapse of the Left in the West—their collapse is affecting key Jewish intellectual figures who birthed those Communist-inspired movements a century ago. Alongside numerous rainbow LGBTQ+ advocates, including violent Antifa factions, the Left in the West is now turning against their former Jewish founders and mentors. Their rejection of Jewish intellectual lordship is not merely a symbolic gesture akin to a mythical Oedipal parricidal rebellion; it is unfolding in real time, with a clear intent this time around to denounce Israel as a “right-wing, colonial, fascist state.”

President Trump would be advised to disregard Leftist campus protests against Israel. It is more of a passing media show than an act of serious pollical dissent. It does however drive a wedge between the non-white “Kasbah Left” and – what the French call – the Jewish “Caviar Left.” Given Trump’s unpredictable governing style, it’s not far-fetched to imagine him parting company with the Jewish lobby down the line. On the flip side, the crocodile tears a few right-wingers and White nationalists shed for Palestinians feel like a flimsy camouflage for their anti-Jewish sentiments. Why are some Whites so obsessed with the Palestinian cause, anyway? Shouldn’t they leave their compassion to Muslim Arab leaders to sort out for their own kin? Arab nations, especially those in the Maghreb, Middle East, and the Gulf and those with diplomatic ties to Israel and the US (Morrocco, Egypt), could shake up the global order if they wanted to. Yet, beyond empty rhetoric, they’ve done little to nothing for their Palestinian kin in Gaza.

Fear of Jewish opprobrium paralyzes Western politicians. They like to lament the deaths of Ukrainian children killed by Russian drones, but they stay silent about the far higher tally of Palestinian children killed weekly by Israeli forces in Gaza. Israel, however, has a solid legal and historical argument for its behavior in the Middle East. The dead in Gaza align with the post-World War II order, forged on far bloodier killing fields. Often called “Liberation Day,” May-day 8, 1945 unleashed a wave of antifascist revenge killings of opponents renamed by the Allies into “fascist and antisemitic war criminals.” The Israeli military in Gaza can now safely seek for a similar legal excuse from American and British victors, who in 1945 enabled mass killings of disarmed enemy and civilians in Soviet-occupied Central and Eastern Europe. The Gaza dead are merely a logical extension of those late May 1945 events.

World War II never truly ended; it merely slipped into an interregnum that’s now drawing to a close.

Rulers and Rape-Gangs: How Traitors at the Top Have Imported and Incubated Non-White Evil

/10 Comments/in , /by

Where was the Queen then? Where is the King now? And where has the Church been throughout? Nowhere, that’s where. Neither the individuals nor the institution have spoken a word in condemnation of Britain’s burgeoning non-White rape-gangs or in defence of the White victims. And neither the individuals nor the institution can possibly say: “We didn’t know.”

Raped by Pakistani Muslims, betrayed by Labour’s elite: a White working-class girl in Groomed: A National Scandal (video extracts here)

By 2020, the whole country knew. The rape-gangs had been exposed repeatedly in the national media and no-one could deny knowledge. But Britain’s rulers are plainly on the side of the rapists, not of the raped. Elizabeth the Evil, Chuck the Cuck[i] and the Church of Mudzone have made that plain by their silence. Our current Labour rulers have made it plain by their sneers. The sneers in question came in response to Groomed: A National Scandal, a harrowing documentary about the rape-gangs broadcast on national television in April 2025. Lucy Powell, an elite Labour apparatchik, was asked during a radio debate whether she had seen the documentary. She immediately responded: “Oh, we want to blow that little trumpet now, do we? Yeah, OK, let’s get that dog-whistle out.” By “dog-whistle” she meant “disguised appeal to racists.” And it’s clear that Powell, who is no less than the Leader of the House of Commons, was speaking for the entire Labour elite. She and her fiercely feminist comrades all believe that it’s wrong and racist to mention the organized rape of tens or even hundreds of thousands of White working-class girls by Pakistani Muslim rape-gangs in Labour-controlled towns and cities all over Britain.

How to identify crimethink

And it’s precisely because her sneer was clear that she had to pretend the opposite. She issued an insincere and evasive apology the next day, saying: “In the heat of a discussion on AQ [Any Questions, the radio debate], I would like to clarify that I regard issues of child exploitation and grooming with the utmost seriousness. I’m sorry if this was unclear. I was challenging the political point-scoring around it, not the issue itself. As a constituency MP, I’ve dealt with horrendous cases. This government is acting to get to the truth and deliver justice.”

In fact, as I explained in “Carry on Raping,” the Labour government is acting to conceal the truth and destroy justice. And by “political point-scoring” Powell meant “any reference to the rape-gangs by a thought-criminal.” And how do we know someone is a thought-criminal? That’s easy to answer. If you refer to the rape-gangs, you’re a thought-criminal and it is therefore wrong and racist of you to refer to the rape-gangs. Catch-22, crime-thinker!

Lucy Powell, grinning defender of non-White rape-gangs

That is the official but unspoken attitude of the Labour party. At least, it was supposed to be unspoken. But Lucy Powell allowed the mask to slip. The Labour party, founded to champion the White working-class, are now dedicated and remorseless enemies of the White working-class. Like the Queen, the King and the Church of England, the Labour elite are on the side of the non-White rapists, not the White girls who have been raped. And are still being raped. As even the Guardian admits, Groomed has made it plain that the pathology continues to burgeon across the Jew-Blighted Kingdom.

Heretics against leftist orthodoxy

But Groomed also made something else plain: that not all leftists are collaborating with or trying to conceal the rape-gangs. The documentary was made by a leftist called Anna Hall, who first began work on this topic nearly thirty years ago. The documentary was broadcast by Channel 4, a thoroughly leftist station. Julie Bindel, a part-Jewish leftist lesbian journalist, began exposing the rape-gangs in the 1980s. So did the leftist politician Ann Cryer, Labour MP for the Yorkshire constituency of Keighley. The leftist social worker Jayne Senior and the leftist politician Sarah Champion, Labour MP for Rotherham, followed Cryer’s lead in the twenty-first century. Like Cryer, Bindel and Hall before them, they were denounced as “racists” and “Islamophobes.”

All these women have moral courage. That’s why they become dissidents, heretics against leftist orthodoxy—and unrepresentative of leftism as a whole. So yes, not all leftists are collaborating with the rape-gangs, but the leftist elite certainly is. Leftism as a movement has been responsible for importing and incubating this non-White evil. And the rape-gangs are only part of that evil. Importing men from the rape-friendly Third World has certainly caused huge harm and suffering to young White women. But it has also caused huge harm and suffering to elderly White women. You can be certain that these horrors described in Sweden have been taking place all over the enriched West:

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

This satire by Nick Bougas accurately reflects Sweden’s leftist reality

Sweden’s elder rape scandal

The sexual abuse of elderly women by migrant carers was shamefully ignored

In autumn last year, Sweden was shaken by a scandal that shares some disturbing similarities with the grooming-gangs scandal in Britain. It is on a far smaller scale. But in Sweden, as in Britain, it seems that many vulnerable individuals have been raped and sexually abused, while the people whose job it should have been to protect them failed to do so. What’s more, those in positions of authority sometimes downplayed or hushed up allegations because of their low view of the victims and, potentially, the identity of some of the perpetrators.

The big difference between what happened in the UK and what happened in Sweden is that the victims were not young girls. They were elderly ladies dependent on outside carers to look after them. They claim that some of these carers brutally exploited their position of trust.

The scandal broke properly in early September last year, when 84-year-old Elsa (using the pseudonym, ‘Vera’) decided to speak out in an interview with the regional daily newspaper, Upsala Nya Tidning (UNT). [She had been raped by her non-White “carer,” whom leftist officials continued to send to her home despite her repeated complaints about his disturbing behavior.] When UNT interviewed Elsa last September, she used the pseudonym, ‘Vera’, because she was so frightened of what people would think of her. But her courage proved to be a wake-up call for Uppsala and, in many ways, for Sweden as a whole. Within days, more elderly ladies started to come forward to allege that they, too, had been abused by their carers. In particular, there was Siv, also from Uppsala. She told reporters how she was regularly raped by three different carers ‘from the same [non-White] country’. One of these men was the man who raped Elsa. They didn’t just visit her when they were supposed to work, but started to turn up in the evenings, too. This went on for months. Siv says she was in shock and was fearful of saying anything to anyone — that is, until Elsa gave her interview. Soon, other media started to cover the story. And the government-backed Swedish Gender Equality Agency began compiling a report on the violent abuse of the elderly.

The abuse clearly went beyond just a few cases. UNT contacted Sweden’s Health and Social Care Inspectorate (IVO) and demanded to see all reports of elder sexual abuse in the Swedish care system over the past five years. It turned out that councils across Sweden had received a staggering 45 reports. Some of these reports involved more than one perpetrator abusing a single victim. Others involved several victims reporting a single perpetrator. […] In 2024, television channel TV4 interviewed an 80-year-old lady called Ylva. Sitting in a wheelchair, Ylva said that she was raped twice in 2023 by her carer. When she spoke to her home-care management, they told her to keep quiet and not say a word to anyone. She did as she was told. It was only when she saw the UNT article about Elsa a year later that she plucked up the courage to speak about it. ‘Elsa is a hero’, she said. The manager of Ylva’s home-care service continues to avoid all questions from journalists.

The cases of elder abuse just keep coming. On 13 January this year, Baasim Yusuf, a 28-year-old of Somali origin, was sentenced by an Uppsala court to eight years in prison for two cases of rape and three cases of sexual assault, all of which he filmed. Some of his victims, suffering from poor memory, did not recall what had happened to them until the police showed them the video recordings. The public anger after Elsa spoke out, unleashing a torrent of horrific allegations, has been palpable. It has been matched only by the determination of the authorities to suppress the scandal. (“Sweden’s elder rape scandal,” Spiked Online, 27th April 2025)

Delroy Easton Grant and Emmanuel Adeniji, Black gerontophile rapists imported by leftists

England has had a prolific gerontophile rapist called Delroy Easton Grant, who is a Jamaican Black. Ireland has had prolific gerontophile rapist called Emmanuel Adeniji, who is a Nigerian Black. Importing Third-World people means incubating Third-World pathologies and inflicting horror on White women of all ages. Throughout Britain’s importing, incubation, and infliction, the monarchy and the Church of England have stayed silent. That is a gross betrayal and proof that we have traitors at the top. Meanwhile, another gross betrayal took place lower in the social scale, in an institution not traditionally regarded as leftist, namely, Britain’s police. The Groomed documentary is replete with examples of how one vital virtue appears to be entirely lacking amongst the macho men of the British police, just as it appears to be entirely lacking amongst the macho men of Britain’s armed forces. It’s called moral courage and to my best knowledge no male police officer has displayed it in response to rape-gangs, just as no male soldier, sailor or airman has displayed it in response to the gayification of the military. Ordinary military men and police will readily face death and serious injury because that wins them social approval and the praise of their leaders. However, they will not openly oppose leftism because that would win them social disapproval and the condemnation of their leaders. That’s why moral courage is much rarer than physical courage.

Why have there been no strikes by ordinary British police in protest at the way their traitorous leaders have refused to allow them to enforce the law against non-White child-rapists? Yes, it’s illegal for the police to go on strike, but that is all the more reason for them to do it. Like the monarchy and the Church of England above them, the police have the power to expose evil and rally public opinion in a way that can’t be censored or denied. But like the monarchy and the Church of England, the police have never used that power. Imagine the effect of a speech by the Queen in the 1960s or ’70s in which she had denounced the invasion of her White Christian realm by violent and unproductive non-Whites from corrupt and crime-ridden Third-World cultures. And imagine the effect of strikes by the police in the same era in which they denounced the organized and officially condoned rape that was already apparent in towns and cities all over the country.

How to end Third-World pathologies

But the Queen never made such a speech and the police have never gone on such strikes. The Queen was a traitor and the police lacked moral courage. The male ones, at least. And almost all the female ones too. Maggie Oliver was an honorable exception. She was a policewoman in Manchester, but wasn’t prepared to join the rest of the force in its implicit policy of “Carry On Raping.” Manchester is one of the big cities that I’ve described as “Much Worse Than Rotherham.” Bad as the rape-gangs in Rotherham have been, their crimes have been reproduced on a much bigger scale in cities like Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Bradford. More and more Whites are recognizing that. They’re also recognizing the complicity and collaboration of Britain’s leftist elite.

A true Queen and a true traitor: Elizabeth I (1533-1604) and Elizabeth II (1926-2022)

But most importantly, more and more Whites are recognizing that there is only one solution to the Third-World pathologies caused by Third-World people. The pathologies will expire only when the people are expelled. I gave Elizabeth the Evil that nickname because she wasn’t a true Christian and wasn’t a true queen. If she had been, she would have followed the example of her genuinely illustrious namesake from the sixteenth century. This is the true queen Elizabeth I ordering the expulsion of “divers Blackmoores” from her realm:

An open lettre to the Lord Maiour of London and th’alermen his brethren, And to all other Maiours, Sheryfes, &c. Her Majestie understanding that there are of late divers Blackmoores brought into the Realme, of which kinde of people there are all ready here to manie, consideringe howe God hath blessed this land w[i]th great increase of people of our owne Nation as anie Countrie in the world, wherof manie for want of Service and meanes to sett them on worck fall to Idlenesse and to great extremytie; Her Majesty’s pleasure therefore ys, that those kinde of people should be sent forthe of the lande. And for that purpose there ys direction given to this bearer Edwarde Banes to take of those Blackmoores that in this last voyage under Sir Thomas Baskervile, were brought into this Realme to the nomber of Tenn, to be Transported by him out of the Realme. Wherein wee Require you to be aydinge & Assysting unto him as he shall have occacion, and thereof not to faile. (See “Open letter by Elizabeth I” at the National Archive)[ii]

What Elizabeth I ordered in the sixteenth century can be achieved in the twenty-first. Non-Whites have to return where they belong. After that, we need to put the traitors on trial and ensure that Britain’s future leaders never forget that they either serve the true British or suffer the painful consequences of betraying the true British. And the only true British are, of course, the White ones.

[i]  Like his mother, Chuck the Cuck raises a fascinating question. Which is greater: his evil or his stupidity? The latter leapt to the fore in his recent claim that the Allied victory in World War 2 was a “result of unity between nations, races, religions and ideologies” and “remains a powerful reminder of what can be achieved when countries stand together in the face of tyranny.” The most important “ally” and “ideology” in the victory was, of course, the mass-murdering tyranny of Soviet Communism, which hated Chuck’s supposed religion of Christianity and had slaughtered Chuck’s relatives, the Russian royal family, in 1918.

[ii]  The Jewish historian Miranda Kaufmann has denied that “blackamoores” were expelled en masse from England. It’s part of her campaign to pretend that Blacks have long been an important part of British history, but there’s no doubt either that Elizabeth’s letter exists or that Blacks were a tiny and insignificant group in Elizabethan England.

American History’s Grim Future

/5 Comments/in /by

I had experienced something a few months ago that caught me off-guard. It was a black-pilling moment; not just one black-pilling moment, but two. I don’t get those all too often anymore since I had been black pilled for a half of a decade and red-pilled much longer.

It began when my wife, children and I took a short vacation to Omaha, Nebraska. We decided to save money and stay in a hotel right in the middle of the downtown area. I am fully aware of the unfortunate state of American cities however being a Kansas-boy (and having the mentality that the Midwest is still populated by mostly whites), I didn’t expect what I saw when we arrived. The block on which my hotel stood was something you would see in videos that show the current conditions of Nicaragua or Venezuela. There were no whites to be found (excect for hotel staff and guests), decaying buildings, loads of graffiti, and plenty of homeless. To top it off, across from my hotel there was a large pro-homosexual mural of two men kissing each other and next to it another mural of a topless black woman breast feeding a black baby. It was horrific!

Immediately, I was stricken to the core. After more investigation of the area, I realized just how satanic Omaha’s inner city was. It was a confusing mix of the libertine wealthy and the pleasure-seeking poor. In one section, you’d find what was surrounding my hotel—a cesspool of decadence and degradation. However, drive a bit further and you’d find giant corporate buildings, white collar pedestrians, nice eating establishments, and 5-star hotels. Then go a few more blocks and there would be a Third World wasteland again.

I found it disgusting—a mix of corporate materialism and cupidity with the low impulse control and hedonism of non-White neighborhoods. I should have anticipated it though. I am fully aware of the state of metropolitan areas in America—homelessness, drugs, crime, moral and physical decay—especially after the accelerationist event that was COVID. But I was hopeful and a bit naive. I dumbly still have this pre-1990s conception of the people and places of the Midwest. Kansans are known for their hospitality, humility and decency. And Nebraskans—they are ‘good ole’ farm boys, like all Midwesterners. It’s Omaha, Nebraska for God’s sake! That is where the Wizard of Oz is from. No one expects to go there and see Tyrone tweaking on some street corner or José blasting his stereo down Main Street in his El Camino.

The next black-pilling moment (and most sobering) came on the last day of our trip. My family and I went to the Lewis and Clark Museum on the banks of the Missouri river. Outside there was a hiking path which led to a walking bridge spanning the river. The building which houses the museum was, of course, a cold and “modern-looking” government building but it was clean and well-maintained. It was staffed entirely by White people.

I noticed two things when I was there: 1.) there was hardly anyone patronizing the free museum despite there being a lot of people on the hiking path; and 2/) those walking the path were mostly non-White. The Black, Hispanic, and Pageet walkers who were enjoying the free paved path and bridge (all paid for by White tax payers), cared not about the history of the area nor did they care about the sacrifice of Lewis and Clark and of the thousands of settlers who built that city.

Then it struck me. All across the United States, we have government institutions, established long ago, whose sole purpose is to preserve and promote the history of this country. And it’s no secret that 99.999 percent of American history is White European history—stories, artifacts and buildings of settlers who sacrificed wealth, blood and life to establish this country. However, considering the rapidly declining percentage of the White population (and concomitantly, the rising percentage of the non-White population), why would these institutions have a future? Pedro, Tyrone, Muhammad, and Wong have no vested interest in keeping the stories of our people alive. Do you think these non-White immigrants care about Sherman’s March through the south, Paul Revere’s ride, William Jennings Bryan’s Cross of Gold speech or Joshua Chamberlain’s heroic stand at Gettysburg? This goes for Western Europe too. Their history is also in jeopardy thanks to the millions of Arabs flooding into their country.

In a few years, I believe we will start seeing a noticeable change in how history is treated in the United States. We’ve seen leftists in recent years attempt and sometimes succeed in changing the narrative of history but I think within the decade, our history will begin to be erased permanently. Think about it—who is maintaining our historical institutions now, at least here in America? It is not the financially struggling millennials. It’s not the gay Zoomers. It’s the Boomers. They are the remaining stewards. Who donates or pays taxes to the preservation of our history and to keep these places staffed with individuals who will protect artifacts and locations? Boomers. Who will complain or petition if the government, local or federal, begins to substantially cut funding to these places? Boomers. Who are the curators, presidents and even founders of these historical institutions? Boomers. When the Boomer generation dies off, who will be the stewards of our stories?

The non-Whites and the ruling class that  is hostile to Whites. Will they pour thousands upon thousands of dollars in maintaining our history? Of course not. The new curators will want to expunge American history to make way for the new demographics. Non-whites are only interested in their own kind and the hostile, substantially Jewish ruling class have no use for White history. They have the incentive to discontinue its perpetuation to further demoralize the only demographic of people who can compete with them. Not only will our stories as a people be wiped from the history books and internet, artifacts destroyed and any evidence of it demolished but it will be erased from the zeitgeist—our collective consciousness. Our children and their children will not know about the Mayflower, the war for independence or the Jackson’s victory over the British in New Orleans.

I think by the 2030s, the rapid change will begin. In America and Europe, five years from now, places we once knew will be unrecognizable and every year forthwith, the decline will be exponentially worse. The dam that holds back the surge of non-White violence against Whites will be gone. Monuments will be torn down. Grand cathedrals and statues left to rot and decay. Thus is the fate of all crumbling empires.

I admit, this is will be a small defeat in the overall war against our people. Naturally, if we had to choose the preservation of some artifacts over the future survival of our people, we would all choose the latter. I don’t think this is a trivial issue though. A people’s stories are what makes them. Imbedded in them are the virtues and morals on which our nations were founded and inspiration for the youth to emulate their progenitors. Our stories shape our children and determine our destiny. Take my words into consideration and begin buying books (physical copies especially) pertaining to not only history but all things European. We must pass on the knowledge and narrative of Europeans to the next generation. If we don’t, we are a lost group—a demographic sure to go extinct.

Finis Germania: Reflections on the 80th Anniversary of Germany’s Unconditional Surrender

/11 Comments/in /by

Germany’s Surrender May Herald Her Death After All, Incrementally

Berlin in ruins. And this is a cause for celebration, even in Germany.

May 8, 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of Germany’s unconditional surrender to the Allies and the Soviet Union. Many modern-day Germans are so deluded and so brainwashed that they actually celebrate their nation’s catastrophic defeat and ruin. The leadership of Adolf Hitler was, of course, ultimately a disastrous failure. But, as argued in “Denouncing Hitler for Very Different Reasons,” a more enlightened perspective denounces him not in the way conventional wisdom demands, but for many of the same reasons many of his best officers and generals did: for losing the war and for the immoral brutalization of certain White Europeans Slavic peoples and even the German people themselves. As that essay also sets forth, there is a fundamental distinction between the motivations and reasons why1 the German people embraced national socialism and the swastika—das Hackenkreuz—on one hand and the many defects and failings of the political leadership at the top. To not condemn the Allies and Soviets for their own peculiar evils and celebrate the catastrophic ruin and devastation afflicted on Germany, replete with 80 years of occupation and cultural and linguistic colonization is nothing less than the worst fit of ethno-masochist delirium imaginable. And if the Germans do not disabuse themselves of this madness, and fast, Germany will perish, as will all of Europe.

On the left, on May 7, 1945, General Alfred Jodl signed the Instrument of Surrender in Reims, France, at Allied headquarters, marking Germany’s capitulation to the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. On the right, on May 8, 1945, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel signed a second surrender document in Karlshorst, Berlin, formalizing the surrender in the presence of Soviet and Allied representatives. Both Jodl and Keitel were soon tried and executed.

The leadership of the Allies and the Allies way of doing things are not only as bad as the Nazis, but worse. Sacred Germany and, with the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, much of Europe is nothing more than a collection of vassal states under the American Empire. American hegemony has infused an unrelenting stream of Unkultur into the cultures and societies of Europe. English advertising and mass media are ubiquitous throughout the nations of Europe: shit music and shit culture that can hardly be called music or culture at all. Graffiti mars the cityscapes and even some landscapes of vanquished Germany. A McDonald’s stands in almost every European city, even in the most historically and culturally significant quarters of Europe’s most cherished towns and cities. Madonna, rap music, Katy Perry and an endless litany of other such dreck pervade the proverbial airwaves. A certain sort of German Tussi actively seeks out black GIs and other blacks and racial imposters who have no right to be there. And Germany and all of Europe are on an accelerated course to racial suicide and civilizational ruin. All of this is while under the heel of the United States.

Many if not all of these auspices of American hegemony pertain to Germany in particular but all of Europe generally. Unlike the rest of Europe, however, Germany has been marinating in a potent concoction of war-guilt, a program of indoctrination that began with so-called de-Nazification in the immediate aftermath of the war, culminating in decades of an ever-worsening guilt complex. That guilt complex, also known as Kriegschuld, has unfortunately become a defining characteristic of the German national character in the modern age, warped by the trauma of catastrophic defeat and ruin followed by decades-long marination in Allied propaganda and degenerate pop culture. This new programming is augmented by a reformed education system directed if not installed by the Allied victors, facilitated by modern mass media and the steady infusion of American Unkultur described above. These elements have created, in concert, a vicious cultural milieu pervading modern Germany: a cultural milieu that has programmed large contingents of the German populace to seek the very abolition of the German people, its culture, and even its language.

For these and other reasons, the defeat and capitulation of Germany is no cause for celebration, as this date may mark the slow, gradual death of sacred Germany and by extension all of Europe. In many ways, an unsustainably low birth rate far below the death rate seems planned, calculated, and perpetrated with the intentional infusion of feminist dogma, the sexual revolution, multiculturalism, and all the other auspices of a dystopia that is peculiarly American in both its origins and characteristics. In this way, it seems as if the Morgenthau Plan was never called off, it was just implemented on a more gradual timeline. This makes it all that much more pernicious as it is that much more difficult to detect. The more subtle something is, the harder it is to perceive and discern a pernicious evil for what it is. This in turn makes it that much difficult for thinkers, writers, and others to articulate on both the existence of that evil and the various existential threats it poses.

When reflecting on the 80th anniversary of Germany’s capitulation, as with any day, there can only be sadness, particularly in consideration of how the deutsche Wehrmacht was unparalleled in heroism and fighting prowess. So too were select Waffen SS divisions that bolster the mythos behind the double sig runes: SS Panzer Divisions Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler, das Reich, and Wiking in particular, but even also Totenkopf, its particularly unsavory reputation notwithstanding, were among the most formidable combat units fielded by the Third Reich. Compelled to challenge the bulk of the entire planet because of the combined machinations of Churchill, Roosevelt, as well as the mad delirium that persuaded Hitler he could somehow involve Germany in a war with three peer powers simultaneously on three fronts without leading to absolute ruin, the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS fought tenaciously to the bitter end—bis zum letzten Mal. Those fallen, tragic heroes, forgotten and defamed all too often, made it much more of a contest than seems humanly possible. In victory and defeat, the vaunted deutsche Wehrmacht was arguably the greatest fighting force in the annals of warfare. May the memory of those fallen, forgotten heroes, those tragic, fearsome formations in feldgrau2be purged of defamation and honored and revered with the respect, admiration, and awe they so richly deserve. Although one wonders at times if the Soviet Union was any greater of an evil than the American Empire, it is because of the heroism, valor, and sacrifice of both the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS that the Red Army did not march all the way up to the English Channel.

The memory civilian victims of both Allied and Soviet war crimes must also be honored—and never forgotten. The allied terror bombing campaigns were deliberately perpetrated to target and kill civilian populations in Germany. Such crimes are compounded by the wholesale rape and murder at the hands of the marauding Red Army, as well as the expulsions in Silesia, Prussia, and other lands east of the Oder River that forever destroyed important regional cultures that had helped defined Germania for centuries. Between some 12-14 million German civilians were displaced, with some estimate of over two million civilian deaths. This was all set in motion when Churchill and Stalin sat down at Yalta and played a little game with three matchsticks.

This and other crimes and horrors perpetrated against the German people are what modern “good” Germans in fact celebrate when they celebrate the defeat, occupation, and ruin of their own country, Being bludgeoned so thoroughly by absolute devastation and ruined, coupled with decades of intensive programming do not entirely account how so many could buy into such utter bullshit.

This ethnic cleansing coincided with the subsequent partition of what remained of Germany between the Soviet Union on one hand and France, Britain, and the United States on the other, forming die deutsche demokratische Republik (German Democratic Republic, also known as East Germany) and die Bundesrepublik, also known as West Germany and the current German Federal Republic, which is nothing other than an American puppet state.

The division of Germany is something the western allies allowed to happen; they had the atomic bomb, Stalin did not, thus giving the do-goody Alllies leverage to not allow the division of Germany to happen, to say nothing of General George S. Patton’s epiphany that they were on the wrong fucking side and fought the wrong enemy. Allied and Soviet policy alike ripped German families apart, and to the extent one believes in human rights3, generations of so-called “East Germans” had such “inalienable rights” violated for decades, with both Allied and Soviet blessing. Those familiar with modern German history, the history of East Germany in particular, know the legacy of die Stasi, know that the East German government coerced husbands and wives to inform on each other, know about the shoot-to-kill orders at the Berlin wall and along the border of divided Germany.

As has already been stipulated in this and other writings, there are many reasons for condemning the political leadership of Nazi Germany, but they are grossly overstated, to put it mildly, when compared with the abject lies and hypocrisy of the Allies and Soviets. Whatever conclusions one reaches about who is the greater or lesser evil in World War II and its origins, causes, and consequences, the idea that either the western Allies or the Soviets were the “good guys” is a preposterous and abject lie, made all that much more outrageous by how many people actually believe it. At the very least, the very absolute minimum compromise that can be agreed upon is that all actors are gray, with very bloody hands all around. I defiantly submit nonetheless that both the Allies and Soviets are far more insidious.

Today is not a day for celebration, but a day for mourning and loss. I weep for Germany and Europe. Those of a similar inclination should listen to a sound, competent performance of Brahm’s Ein Deutsches Requiem, as was played over Deutscher Rundfunk after unconditional surrender was announced over the airwaves. And as time is running out, I pray for a spark that will reanimate Germany with a revived national consciousness that is at once both old and new. Ich bete, daß heiliges Deutschland noch wieder erwache!

Two instruments of surrender were signed. On May 7, 1945, General Alfred Jodl signed the Instrument of Surrender in Reims, France, at Allied headquarters, marking Germany’s capitulation to the Western Allies and the Soviet Union. On May 8, 1945, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel signed a second surrender document in Karlshorst, Berlin, formalizing the surrender in the presence of Soviet and Allied representatives. Both Jodl and Keitel were soon tried and executed. Und das heißt Siegerjustiz.

Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his publication, The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, found at theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls.

1 This is discussed at length in “Denouncing Hitler for Very Different Reasons.” It is also addressed in footnote five in “On the Indoctrination of Frau Löwenherz: A Case Study of Culture as Programming“ reproduced in its entirety below:

While the German people of the time and today are undeserving of the unmitigated villainy that has unfairly maligned them, the regime—or more precisely its political leadership at the top—had a number of moral failings, not to mention a number of catastrophic strategic and tactical blunders that doomed Germany, despite the deutsche Wehrmacht being a most lethal instrument and one of the great paragons of military discipline in all history; even the greatest warriors cannot fight three peer powers on three fronts simultaneously and emerge victorious. As stated elsewhere, I am most ambivalent about the Nazi period, as I regard Hitler and those in his inner circle with a strong aversion, although this aversion diverges largely from conventional wisdom. I am deeply sympathetic to the reasons for which everyday Germans followed Hitler—without the advantage of hindsight—as I regard the Allies as bad or worse. I do condemn Hitler however, for in effect losing the war by involving Germany in a war with three peer powers simultaneously, not to mention the barbarism he perpetrated against Slavic Europeans, the Russians in particular although the German armed forces saw much barbarism perpetrated by the Russians as well from the very onset of Operation Barbarossa. Hitler also brutalized his own people, and showed callous disregard for the lives of his own men in “stand or die” orders. While in Allied captivity, Field Marshall Ritter von Leeb once stated “The excesses of National Socialism were in the first and final analysis due to the warped personality of the Führer,” to which Heinz Guderian responded, “the fundamental principles were fine.” This is an entirely reasonable position on the matter.

2 The color palette of the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS was of course wonderfully varied, from pea-dot and leaf camo patterns to the black tunics of the panzer crews.

3 See Neither Inalienable nor Self-Evident: Reflections on the Chimera of Human Rights.