An Open Letter to Liberals

/21 Comments/in , , /by

My Dear Friends,

It’s a hard time to be a liberal.  I know, because I used to be one.  Or rather, I still am one, but a true liberal, unlike the many fake liberals out there.  Allow me to explain.

Long ago, as an idealistic college student, I valued my high moral principles, my faith in the vague notion of human equality, my trust in authorities, and my open-mindedness.  I believed that most people in positions of power were well-intentioned, if a bit misguided, and that political and economic situations ran into trouble mostly because of bad luck or the occasional bad actor.  I believed that people had to be judged as individuals, and that any assessment of entire groups constituted a sweeping generalization or a caricature that lacked merit.  I believed all people and all races could live together; I believed that we owed something to the less-fortunate of society, no matter who they were.  I believed that, by and large, the American system worked, and that the best would move up in society and prosper.  And I believed that most everyone shared these views.

But I later found out that I was wrong on nearly every count.  Years of hard thinking, research, discussion, personal experience, and observant daily life proved the deficiency of my former views; one by one, they eroded away.  I found out that group characteristics are real and objective, and that they are indicative of broad social trends, even if there exist many individual exceptions.  I saw systemic actions in academia, media, government, and business to promote certain values, to disparage other values, and to advance a certain worldview or mindset that benefited specific people.  I realized that corruption in social institutions was far deeper and more entrenched than I dared believe.  I came to see that religion—and specifically Christianity—was a malevolent force in society, one that again served to benefit a certain group of people at the expense of many others.  I came to understand that much of history was distorted, misrepresented, or outright falsified.  I thought I lived in a largely open-minded and liberal world, but I discovered, to my dismay, that I lived in a controlled and manipulated world.

The final straw, for me, was the realization that many people in positions of authority also knew about many of these things but that they either said nothing, covered them up, or actively participated in them.  In short, I realized that I had been lied to or otherwise deceived on a massive scale, for years, by people at virtually every level of society—people that I trusted and respected.

I don’t know about you, my liberal friends, but if there is one thing I hate in this world, it is being lied to by people in authority.  I can forgive ignorance and I can forgive naiveté, but willful deception is unforgiveable.  “You knew better,” I said (figuratively) to people in power; “You knew this was wrong, you knew what was going on, but you said nothing.”  Worse: “You sustained it, and you profited from it.”  This permanently destroyed my simple-minded liberalism.

Let me offer a few specifics, starting with the question of race.  I had virtually no contact with Blacks growing up, at least until late high school.  I vaguely considered this a good thing, given that my limited knowledge of Black culture was based on those living in our inner city, which was a decidedly unpleasant place to live.  But they had their sphere of life, we had ours, no big deal.  Then when I came to apply for college, I ran into the issue of affirmative action, which was just coming to a head at that time; racial quotas were ruled illegal, but race could still be used as a factor in college admissions.  I was admitted with no problem, but other classmates did not get in, and it is unclear how many lost places to otherwise less-qualified Blacks or other minorities.

The official justification for affirmative action in university admissions has always been “to remedy past and current discrimination”; but how does that relate to the less-qualified Black who got in?  Was it discrimination that caused him to be less-qualified in the first place?  And why penalize my 18-year-old friend who never discriminated against anyone?  Are the children paying for the sins of the fathers?  (How very Old-Testament!)

And was it really helping the less-qualified Blacks, to let them in, only to have them struggle and fail at disproportionately high rates?  According to recent data, 68% of Whites graduate within six years of university study, versus just 45% of Blacks.  Why is that?  Can it be “systemic racism”?

Be that as it may, affirmative action might be tolerable if there were an actual plan with actual objectives.  But there was not; there never is, with our liberal administrators.  If they had said, “Look, we need affirmative action to break the cycle of Black families without college degrees.  So, we need to do this for 20 years, to raise a full generation of degreed Blacks.  Then, everything will be even, and we can go back to normal, merit-based admissions.”  Had they said this, and provided some data supporting it, I might have gone along.  But of course they said no such thing.  Obviously—does any sane person think that after 20 years of preferential treatment, that Blacks would thereafter perform at levels equal to Whites?  Of course not!  Thirty years?  Fifty years?  Of course not.  The reality is that our liberal overseers want affirmative action forever.

This is an admission of failure.  It is an admission that Blacks are congenitally incapable of performing at levels equal to Whites, and that American Whites must pay for the “sins” of slavery forever.  In short, there is no solution to the “Black problem” in America.  Short of ridding ourselves of Blacks, we must pay the price forever.  Or such is the liberal state of affairs.

And then there was history.  I had always been a sort of World War Two buff, and was always fascinated by the German story, by Hitler’s life, and by the drama and grandeur of the entire event.  So it took me a while to realize that World War Two shows up a lot in popular discourse—in fact, far more than might reasonably be expected from an event that was several decades ago and was largely played out on other continents.  And of course, the coverage was so routinely slanted that, for a long time, I never really noticed it.  It took me years to ask myself very basic questions: Why is it that every aspect of Hitler’s Germany gets negative coverage?  Why is Hitler the universal measuring rod for evil?  Why is ‘Nazi’ synonymous with ‘bad’?  Why do we hear so much about the Holocaust?

At about the same time, as I was progressing in my “liberal” education, I started thinking more about the Jewish situation.  Growing up, I had never known any Jews—or at least, none that were public.  Once in college, I encountered a fair number of guys in the residence halls that were, shall we say, rude; they were known to us as “the guys from New York.”  They were loud, pushy, obnoxious. …  Oh well, I said to my liberal self, people are people.  Just stay out of their way.  And don’t make any plans to visit NYC!

Only late in my schooling did I realize that “the guys from New York” were all, to a man, Jewish, and that this fact might well be significant.  I then discovered that my campus was something like 15% Jewish—in a state that was maybe 1% Jewish.  Wait, how does that happen?  Then I realized that my university president was a Jew, that nearly half of the Board of Regents were Jews, and that a large chunk of my humanities professors were Jews—wait a minute, how does that work?  Common sense and basic liberal values dictate that if 1% of my state is Jewish, that roughly one out of a hundred of my fellow students and teachers should be Jews, that one out of a hundred college administrators should be Jews, and so on.  If that were not the case—as it clearly wasn’t, by a factor of 10 or more—then that could only be due to some “systemic racism” in favor of Jews.  Is that fair?  Could all those buildings named after wealthy Jewish donors have something to do with it?  No, never, I told my liberal self.

As I progressed into grad school, earned a PhD in philosophy, and became a lecturer at my alma mater, I became aware of the “BDS” movement—the campus efforts to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel over actions in the occupied territories.  Objectively, the case was clear: Israel was in violation of international law, flouted UN resolutions for decades, engaged in periodic episodes of abuse and torture of the Palestinians, inflicted collective punishment, and committed murder, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.  It was an open-and-shut case; of course, any thinking, ethical person would have to agree that Israel was in the wrong—criminally so—and that any moral institution would want to dissociate itself, at least, from such evil.  This was the bare minimum.

So why, then, was virtually all BDS action led by students?  Or so I wondered.  Aren’t faculty ethical as well?  Don’t they claim to be liberal also?  Didn’t many of them have personal histories with Vietnam War protests?  Why weren’t they active in BDS?  And the same with the administrators—the nominal “leaders” of the university.  Shouldn’t they be blazing the trail, pushing for BDS on all fronts?  Wouldn’t that be the best of all messages, from a liberal institution to its liberal student body: that we refuse to invest in, and profit from, cruelty and injustice?  Wouldn’t that be a real lesson for the students?

Oh, no!  The faculty—apart from myself and a literal handful of brave individuals—were invisible on the topic; “we don’t want to get political,” they said.  And the university administration was worse: they actively opposed BDS.  They began imputing ill motives to student and faculty leaders on BDS; they began rigidly enforcing “campus security” rules that no one had ever seen before; they worked to marginalize campus support; and they ensured that no word of publicity got out about any BDS actions.  (If there is one thing that universities hate, it’s bad publicity.)  When pressed for explanations for their resistance, administrators routinely spouted lines about how their investments are “not political” and how “donors give money for specific reasons” and therefore, somehow, the university could not divest from Israel—even though they did precisely that to South African apartheid years before.  And purely academic boycotts against Israeli scholars or institutions never got so much as a single word of support.

And this, my liberal friends, was 20 years ago!

It was also in spending time with our Arab students that I heard murmurings about the “so-called Holocaust.”  Whoa, what’s up with that?  I did a little digging and quickly realized how little I knew, and also how hard it was to find straight answers to apparently simple questions—questions that no one else apparently considered important.  Like:  When and how did they determine that 6 million Jews died?  Where were they killed?  By what means?  How did those infamous gas chambers work?  And where are the bodily remains today?  I was frankly shocked to learn how little clear information was available on this most-important historical event.  As I researched the topic, it quickly became obvious that much of the current story was wrong. The many false witnesses, the internal contradictions, the biased and coerced “confessions,” the technical impossibilities, and the practical absurdities—not to mention the striking fact that claims of “6 million suffering Jews” had been in the news for years, decades, before WW2; all this was highly damning for the conventional story, in my opinion.

As a now-waning liberal, I assumed that others would be curious about this as well.  But when I began to even mention this to my liberal friends, they said things like, “Well, that doesn’t matter,” or, “Everyone knows that the 6-million story is false.”  Really?  Everyone?  But we all just pretend like it’s true?  Why?  To placate whom?  And if it doesn’t matter, why is it thrust into our face so often?  Why are Holocaust books mandatory reading in our schools?  Why does every third film seem to have some reference to Hitler, Nazis, or the Holocaust?  Why is simply asking questions about it prohibited by law in 19 countries?  Why is that?  My liberal friends had no good answers.

A bit more digging on my part, and other troubling questions arose.  Why does the US pump $3 billion to $6 billion annually to Israel as “foreign aid”?  Why do we so often vote alone, or with a handful of client nations, with Israel in the UN?  Why do we provide them with diplomatic cover?  Why are so many of their enemies also our enemies?  Why are so many of our recent military engagements targeted against Israel’s enemies?

Thus I ran directly into the Israel Lobby—otherwise known as the Zionist Lobby or the Jewish Lobby.  I quickly realized that most of the major players in the Israel Lobby were Zionist Jews, that most American Jews were Zionists, and that there was near-unanimity that Jewish interests must be protected at home and Israeli interests protected abroad.  This unanimity is transferred to Congress, where, depending on the context, between 90% and 100% of Representatives and Senators regularly vote in favor of Jewish/Israeli interests.  This is not speculation; it is a matter of public record.

Why?  Money.  I soon learned that at least 25% of Republican money, and at least 50% of Democratic money, comes from Jewish sources.  This, to me, was truly astonishing.  According to Open Secrets, there are something like 13,800 lobbying organizations in Washington.  And yet, of all these, one group donates between 25% and 50% of all campaign funds.  Imagine if you were living off regular donations from 13,000 wealthy friends; and that one friend consistently gave you half of all your money each year, and that the other half was divided amongst the other 12,999 friends.  Which friend would be your best friend?  Who would you listen to the most?  Who would you most like to please?  No surprises there.

In an interview with Tucker Carlson from last year (20 June 2024), US representative Thomas Massie made some interesting statements about the leading component of the Jewish Lobby, AIPAC.  Every congressman, he said, has an “AIPAC minder” or “babysitter,” who watches over you, tracks what you do, and makes sure you do “the right thing.”  And if you don’t do “the right thing,” they will slander you in the press and they will fund a pro-Israel opponent in your next election.  No other lobby does anything close to this.  Perhaps you should watch this interview, my liberal friends—but no!  You absolutely hate Tucker Carlson!  Neither he nor his guests can possibly have anything of value to say!

We need to realize what this means.  It means we have one lobby that works on behalf of American Jews, who constitute perhaps 2% of the US population, and that their interests totally dominate everyone else’s interests:  seniors, students, other minorities, the needy, the disabled, environmentalists.  And I mean, totally dominate; unless your interests happen to align with American Jews, you have almost no chance of getting a fair hearing.  It also means that we have one American lobby that works, globally, on behalf of Israeli Jews, who constitute some 0.19% of the world’s population, to the detriment of the remaining 99.8% of humanity.  What’s up with that, my liberal friends?  Are you satisfied with that situation?  Is it fair?  Is it just?  No?  What are you doing about it?

Perhaps you have been a bit too bamboozled by our American, and Western, media—a media that uniformly operates on behalf of Jewish and Israeli interests. Do you doubt me?  Why are no anti-Israeli or anti-Jewish viewpoints or opinions allowed in any branch of mainstream media?  Why has that been true, for decades, at least?  Do you need proof?  Why are all five of the major American media conglomerates—ABC/Disney, Warner Discovery, NBC/Universal, Fox Corp, and Paramount—owned or operated by Jews or Zionists?  (Shall we check the names?  Oh, no, never that!)  Why are the top five Hollywood studios—Disney, Universal, Sony Pictures, Paramount, and Warner Bros.—run by Jews or Zionists?  In a fair and just world, only 2% of these corporations would be Jewish-owned—which means, in all likelihood, none of them; but in fact, Jews own or manage all of them.  Why is that, my liberal friends?  Do you not care?  Do you not believe in fairness and justice?

My friends:  Let’s bring this up to the present day.  It is clear and beyond dispute that Jews in America, and in Europe, have a virtual monopoly on the press, on academia, and on our so-called democratic governments.  Any monopoly is dangerous, but a Jewish monopoly is deeply and profoundly dangerous, as the world can see in Gaza.  To date, officially over 50,000 people, mostly women and children, have been killed.  Likely the actual numbers are double or triple that.  Some may have been armed fighters, but surely 95% were unarmed civilians.  And yet America, and the world, does nothing, says nothing.  Mass murder and genocide before our eyes, and…nothing.  Worse than nothing:  America supplies weapons and cash to the killers, and political cover in the UN, and the world does…nothing.

What are individual Jews doing?  Worse than nothing; they support the action.  According to surveys from last year, around 80% of American Jews and perhaps 90% of Israeli Jews support the ongoing war effort.  Yes, they want their (now) 59 hostages back, but they think nothing of the 50 or 100 Gazans killed every day, on average, over the course of the year-and-a-half slaughter.  “Cease fire for the hostages!” they scream; but they want neither true peace nor true justice.  If and when they get their hostages, then the ethnic slaughter will surely press ahead unimpeded.  It is Old Testament vengeance in the 21st century.

And what are you doing about all this, my liberal friends?  Wringing your hands?  Feeling badly?  Silently condemning it?  How is that working?

And what are you saying or doing to those who are taking serious, direct action against the Jewish monopoly that has a stranglehold on America and Europe?  Are you helping those people?  Praising them?  No!  You are condemning them!  You call them ‘evil,’ ‘Nazis,’ and ‘far-right extremists’!  You call them ‘haters,’ ‘bigots,’ and best of all, ‘White supremacists’!  Why, the Jewish Lobby couldn’t do a better job themselves if they tried!  And there you are, doing their job for them, attacking those who might expose the danger.  Why?  Are Jews threatening you?  Holding a gun to your head?  No?  Then why do you work so hard on their behalf—my “liberal” friends?

Here is how I see it:  The state of affairs in the world today is like a big sandbox.  And the powers-that-be need to contain your thinking and your outrage, and so they direct it away from the actual cause—themselves—and toward other things.  In this way, they confine you to half the sandbox.  The liberal, leftist Jews who donate to, and run, the Democratic Party, and who monopolize the mainstream media, want you to see the Republicans, or Trump, or conservatives, or White men, as the enemy.  They do everything in their power to demonize these groups.  One need only glance at CNN, or MSNBC, or the New York Times, or the Washington Post, to see that this is true.  For their part, the ‘right wing’ media (Fox) and the Republicans are just as anxious to demonize the leftist Democrats; again, watch any episode of Fox’s evening commentary shows.

But strangely enough, both parties, who hate each other with such vehemence, are in agreement on just one special issue:  Jewish and Israeli interests, which they both bend over backward to serve.  Recall any presidential debate of the past few decades: all candidates and all parties are emphatic that they alone are the “true friends of Israel,” and that they alone can best tackle “the evil of anti-Semitism.”  And you, the viewer, are left with choosing between a left-leaning “friend of Israel” and a right-leaning “friend of Israel.”  Some choice, isn’t it?

In this way, they trap you in half the sandbox: You only see the enemy of their choosing: either “the right” or “the left.”  But never “the Jewish Lobby.”  That’s the half that you are missing.  In fact, you are not even allowed to know that that half exists.  Anyone who dares venture there is, by definition, a “far-right extremist” and “a hater”; and since both the left and the right agree on that, it seems like a unanimous decision.  Clever, isn’t it?

But the Gaza war is a true eye-opener, isn’t it, my liberal friends?  Your fellow liberals have been raised from birth to be hyper-sensitive to everyone’s needs, everyone’s concerns, everyone’s feelings.  Slavery was wrong (of course); colonialization was wrong (yes); and it is the Whites of the world who inflict “systemic racism” on all the people of color (wrong).  Every oppression of a “person of color,” every attack on a vulnerable minority, was seen as the gravest of social ills—until Palestine.  Then, everything changed.  There, the “people of color” are now terrorists, or terrorist sympathizers, or supporters of terrorism, and thus need to be shot, bombed, burned, and otherwise destroyed by the righteous Israeli Jews.  The 2.4 million people of Gaza are now to be held collectively responsible for the actions of a few resistance fighters.  They will be moved here, moved there, and finally removed, as the Israeli Jews complete their ethnic cleansing.  And they will do so with the support of 80% of American Jews and 90% of Israeli Jews.

And what if you should object to these state crimes, my liberal friends?  Oh, I’m sorry, you’re screwed.  Should you choose to join an encampment on your local campus, the university police will haul you off to jail, perhaps expel you from school, and perhaps get you fired—as happened to one young Arabic lady just last week, at my own esteemed alma mater.  Also, the local Hillel Jewish students will photograph you, identify you, and post your personal information online, just to make it harder for you to get a job, join a social group, or become active in any way.  And if you happen to be a foreign student, or a foreigner of any kind, you risk getting booked and deported—by our Jewish-friendly president Trump.  All for protesting a genocide!

So:  Where does this leave us, my liberal friends?  Or perhaps you no longer call yourselves ‘liberal’?  A wise move, my friends!  But are you now conservative?  Oh no, of course not—another wise move.  You are coming to learn that simplistic, dualistic, Manichean terms like ‘liberal,’ ‘conservative,’ ‘left,’ and ‘right,’ are now almost meaningless, so distorted has their meaning become.  Perhaps you are learning that the power structures of America and the West have such a notable Judean orientation that this fact alone becomes decisive in thinking about social dilemmas and social conflicts.  Perhaps you are learning that those “liberals” in academia and politics are really only liberal when it serves their interests; otherwise, they become positively authoritarian.  Perhaps you are learning that Israeli brutality in Gaza is not a consequence of one bad leader but rather a reflection of the mindset of an entire people.  Perhaps you are learning that ‘far right’ is a functional synonym for ‘opponent of the Jewish Lobby.’  And perhaps you are learning that many on the ‘far right’ are at least partially justified in their righteous indignation at the national and global state of affairs.

For my part, call me a true liberal: from the root word liber, ‘free.’  I prefer to live free, think free, speak free, and act free.  But I can’t do this in present-day America, or in present-day Europe, or else the Jewish-oriented powers-that-be will come down upon me with an Old Testament vengeance.  This is a fact.  Therefore, let us (1) openly state this fact, (2) openly state our objection to this fact, and (3) work to create a society and a world where this is not a fact.  What could be more important than that—my liberal friends?

David Skrbina, PhD, is a former senior lecturer in philosophy at the University of Michigan.  He is the author or editor of several books, including The Metaphysics of Technology (2015) and most recently, The Jesus Hoax (2nd edition, 2024).

Huge remigration rally in Dublin

/5 Comments/in /by

Huge remigration rally in Dublin, nobody beaten or gassed

Twenty thousand Irish remigration enthusiasts filled O’Connell St from Parnell Square to the Customs House.

The size of the crowd put manners on our Garda Síochána (Guardians of the Peace)

The cops behaved impeccably: They did not baton charge any elderly grannies nor tear gas any beautiful Filipina-Irish reporter ladies, as they did in Coolock and Newtown. They did not arrest anyone, not even people who shouted hurty words like: Ireland for the Irish, Get Them Out, Remigration to save the Nation and the old favourite: If you don’t like us, why don’t you feck off back to where you came from?

Our cops are, sometimes, happy to bully small groups of a hundred or a thousand. But twenty thousand is too much for them. Free speech is back, baby!

Two hundred pro-foreigner types, with masks and scowls, huddled behind police protection. They included Sinn Fein members. They started the “antifa” chant: Whose streets? Our streets. But slogans, like swords, have two sides. The Remigration crowd cleverly joined in the chant, changing it’s meaning completely!

Conor McGregor tweeted his presence in the Garden of Remembrance with his young family at the start of the demo, but kept a low profile and did not speak.

Elected independent Remigration councillors Malachi Steenson, Gavin Pepper and the National Party’s Patrick Quinlan spoke to the crowd.

MSM almost completely ignored the event, although it is the biggest mostly peaceful protest since the Dublin Stabbing Riots in 2023.

Photos show the NP boys in tasteful green shirts, although some of the lads need to work off that belly fat. Great to see a bilingual sign: Remigration Now! Aisimirce anois!

Our elected leaders were quick to say that the demo will make no difference. Taosiseach Michael Martin and Minister of state for European Affairs and Defence Thomas Byrne both referred to our recent elections (probably rigged – see my Conor McGregor article) and said that they are simply implementing the pro-immigration policies we supposedly voted for in huge numbers. They hinted that if we want to change anything, we will have to wait five years until the next election. They repeated the obvious lie that we need vast amounts of foreigners to keep our economy growing.

Gardai said they arrested three people for public order offences at the rally.

Trashing Traumatized Trannies: How Biology-Besting Bullshit Predicts the Resurrection of Racial Realism

/5 Comments/in /by

Transgenderism is both trivial and tremendous, both empty and epochal. It’s trivial in that it’s an empty and inane ideology powered by sexual perversion and mental illness. And it’s tremendous for the same reason. What do I mean by that? I mean that trivial transgenderism exposes and explodes the hugely powerful system of leftism, which has seized, corrupted and begun to strangle Western civilization. It’s hugely significant that an obviously empty and inane ideology like transgenderism has been able to capture and co-opt so many leftists and leftist institutions.

By biology, not by bullshit

But it wasn’t a hostile takeover, of course. Transgenderism was pushing at an open door. The ideology both embodies and exaggerates all the vices and idiocies of leftism. But now trannies are traumatized, because transgenderism has been trashed in the highest court in the land. The land of Britain, that is, where the leftist Supreme Court has ruled that, for the purposes of law, women are defined by biology, not by bullshit.

Trannies have reacted just as you’d expect, deploying the tactic that has served them so well in the past. That is, they’re wailing once again that they’re the cowering victims of cruel bigots. One veteran tranny told the Guardian that “The fear is back. The fear I had when I first started my transition in 1979, that people will hurt me.” A tranny “spokesperson” told the same paper that “this ruling has brought another wave of fear to the trans community.” An American trans-ally has attacked the prominent trans-skeptic J.K. Rowling and said: “I can’t think of anything more vile and small and pathetic than terrorising the smallest, most vulnerable community of people who want nothing from you, except the right to exist.”

Transwomen are violent male narcissists #1: some signs at the London protest against the Supreme Court ruling

This wailing isn’t going to wash. As Edward Dutton has explained in an interesting but incomplete analysis, trannies are not cowering victims, but narcissistic bullies who are far “more prone to commit violent and sexual crimes than normal men.” But the ruling by the Supreme Court has much deeper significance than either traumatized trannies or triumphant trans-skeptics have yet recognized. Indeed, the ruling has much deeper significance than the leftist judges themselves recognized when they made it. The judges have ruled that woman are defined by biology, not by bullshit. This is an unacknowledged step towards an even more important truth: that Westerners are defined by biology, not by bullshit. In other words, Westerners have to be White or the West has no meaning, just as women have to be female or womanhood has no meaning.

Transwomen are violent male narcissists #2: more signs at the London protest against the Supreme Court ruling

In its essentials — and its evils — transgenderism isn’t new. It’s a reiteration of an older and even more pernicious ideology, that of trans-Westernism. Where transgenderism claims that men can be women, trans-Westernism claims that non-Whites can be Western. In both cases, the claim is empty in its ideology and evil in its consequences. But the harm done by transgenderism is dwarfed by the harm done by trans-Westernism. The consequences of forcing real women to share private spaces with perverted men have been far less serious than the consequences of forcing White women to share public spaces with non-White men.

Tapeworm vs typhoid

On the one hand, you have a handful of rapes committed by translunatics against real women. On the other hand, you have a hurricane of rapes committed by non-White men against White women. That rape-hurricane has been blowing for decades in every Western country invaded by non-Whites, from Austria to Australia. And leftists have done nothing to stop it. On the contrary, they’ve done all they can to assist it, to help it blow harder by opening the borders to more non-White men who will inflict more harm on more White women. If transgenderism is a tapeworm, then trans-Westernism is typhoid. But what works against the tapeworm also works against the typhoid. When transgenderism was trashed at the Supreme Court, it was a sign that the tide is turning against trans-Westernism too.

Rachel Crandall-Crocker, a “Jewish transgender lesbian with Tourette’s syndrome” (left); Rachel with his bestie Vanessa Emma Goldman, pregnancy-fetishist and probable pedophile

And that’s just what you’d expect, because the two empty and evil ideologies run in parallel. Indeed, they have been run in parallel, because they both owe their existence to the energy and activism of Jews, who have been central to these ideologies and see them as two fronts in the same war on Whites and the West. As Kenneth Vinther said in his review of Scott Howard’s The Transgender-Industrial Complex (2020), “the key figures of the transexual agenda — from its pseudoscientific pioneers to the private sponsors and philanthropic benefactors funding its implementation, from the activist organizations and NGOs to the judges and legal activists drafting landmark legal opinions — are Jewish.” The inane and oxymoronic slogan “America is a nation of immigrants,” coined and endlessly repeated by Jewish activists, goes perfectly with the inane and oxymoronic slogan “Transwomen are women.”

Ashkenazi Jews are highly inbred, which accounts both for their intelligence and their insanity

In the light of that, are you even remotely surprised to learn that “International Transgender Day of Visibility” was established in 2009 by one Rachel Crandall-Crocker, a self-described “Jewish transgender lesbian with Tourette’s syndrome”? Then you shouldn’t be. Edward Dutton hasn’t applied his biology-based analysis of transgenderism to the central role played there by Ashkenazi Jews, who are highly inbred and suffer from some fascinating neurological diseases. The inbreeding and the neuro-diseases are related both to the higher average intelligence of Ashkenazism and to their stronger tendencies toward mental illness and sexual perversion.

Color-blatant casting

At present, the parallels between transgenderism and trans-Westernism are much more likely to be denied than acknowledged, but denial doesn’t delete them. Quite beside the central Jewish role in both, transgenderism and trans-Westernism both exemplify that central principle of leftism: “Preach Equality, Practise Hierarchy.” Although leftists claim to believe in equality, they in fact maintain a hierarchy of privilege and punishment. Those higher in the leftist hierarchy, like Blacks and “transwomen,” get the privilege; those lower in the hierarchy, like Whites and real women, get the punishment. Part of the privilege for the higher groups is the right to maintain their borders against the lower; part of the punishment for the lower groups is the inability to maintain their borders against the higher.

The symbolic celebration of superior Blacks invading the territory of inferior Whites

For example, inferior Whites can’t claim to be Black and invade the territory of superior Blacks. But superior translunatics can claim to be women and invade the territory of inferior women. This also explains why the left regard it as an abomination for White actors to play any non-White role, but an affirmation of equality for non-White actors to play any White role. When non-Whites play Isaac Newton or Anne Boleyn, leftists call this “color-blind casting.” In fact, it’s the complete opposite of color-blind casting — it’s color-blatant casting, because the non-White actors are chosen precisely for their color. It’s a blatant signal that non-Whites are invading and occupying White territory. In a similar way, while leftists insist that women’s roles can be played by translunatic actors, they equally insist that translunatic roles must be played only by translunatic actors.

That’s “gender-blind casting” in action. Again, it’s the opposite of what it claims to be. Leftists follow the rule laid down by Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s immortal Alice Through the Looking-Glass (1871): “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” But what Lewis meant as solipsistic absurdity, leftists maintain as settled axiom. For them, it’s an axiom of politics that they can invent and invert meanings as they please. And what most pleases leftists is power. Another of their central principles is this: “Heads We Win, Tails You Lose.” Nothing is fixed in leftism except the pursuit of power and privilege. For example, take the leftist concept of “kink shaming,” which is the wicked attempt to criticize the sexual practices of the “kink community.” It’s not perversion, it’s preference! Fetishes are fantastic! That’s what leftists loudly maintain. Except when they don’t. Yes, meet “genital fetishism,” which is the derogatory label used by translunatics and their allies against lesbians who prefer pussies to penises. Now, if kink-shaming is wrong and fetishes are fantastic, you would assume that lesbians are fully entitled to valorize vadges and be turned off by todgers.

Biology is back

But you’d be wrong. That’s logic and leftists loathe logic. What matters is always and only advancing leftism, never adhering to logic. Transgenderism is replete with examples of leftist loathing of logic and repudiating of reality. But so is trans-Westernism. It was always and obviously idiotic and evil to claim that a bearded and be-penised bloke can be a woman. But it’s equally idiotic and evil to claim that an Afghan can be American or a Bengali be British. Womanhood is defined by biology, not by bullshit. And so is the West.

That’s why the ruling by the Supreme Court is bigger than it appears. Yes, it’s obviously a sign that the tide has turned against the biology-denying bullshit of transgenderism. Lots of people have recognized that. Far fewer have recognized something else. The ruling is also a sign that the tide is turning against the biology-denying bullshit of trans-Westernism, which rose earlier and will fall later. Realism about sex will be followed by realism about race. As a great White poet once said: Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret — “You can drive Nature out with a pitchfork, but she’ll burst back.” What’s truth for Horace is horror for trannies. And will soon be horror for trans-Westerners too.

Marching Together, Drifting Apart: The Rise and Rupture of the Black-Jewish Alliance

/4 Comments/in , /by

In the last century, the alliance between Black and Jewish communities in the United States represents one of the most consequential cross-racial partnerships in modern American history.

Initially rooted in both groups’ subaltern status, the forging of this coalition brought about landmark Civil Rights victories that paved the way for the undermining of the United States’ White European state-building stock.

Eventually, the Jewish plank of the alliance was able to capture the commanding heights of American politics, finance, and culture. Blacks, on the other hand, have increasingly looked like a golem that organized Jewry activates when it feels its interests are being threatened by the country’s White population.

However, like all golems, Blacks have occasionally turned against their Jewish masters, potentially putting this partnership in jeopardy. From the founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to the rise of Black Lives Matter (BLM), the relationship has been shaped by collaboration but also by ups and downs, as seen with the emergence of the pro-Palestine movement in the wake of the 1967 Six-Day War.

The latest October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel have brought these rifts back into focus, with an increasing number of Black political pundits and organizations expressing sympathy with the plight of Palestinians in Gaza. This fissure has called into question the viability of the Judeo-Negro alliance. To gauge whether this partnership can endure a volatile 21st century, one must first understand its modern evolution.

The Jewish Role in the NAACP and Early Civil Rights

The NAACP is popularly perceived as a Black-only organization, but Jewish individuals played a key role in the foundation and development of this civil rights organization. The NAACP’s founding in 1909 marked a watershed interracial effort to undermine America’s White majority. Jewish activists like Henry Moskowitz, a Romanian Jewish emigré, and Lillian Wald, the daughter of a wealthy German-Jewish family, teamed up with W.E.B. Du Bois and Ida B. Wells to found the NAACP, motivated by the shared belief that anti-Black violence and European antisemitism were interconnected struggles.

Jewish philanthropist Julius Rosenwald, who was president of Sears, Roebuck and Company from 1908 to 1924, played a major role as a financial patron to the NAACP. Rosenwald’s philanthropic support for the NAACP came primarily through the Julius Rosenwald Fund, which he established in 1917. He partnered with the famous Black advocate Booker T. Washington to fund over 5,000 schools for Black students in the Jim Crow South.

The Rosenwald Fund donated $33,500 to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund between 1917 and 1948. The Fund supported early NAACP legal cases that sought to promote forced integration. The Jewish Columbia professor Joel Spingarn (1875–1939), who was one of the first Jewish leaders of the NAACP, joining shortly after its founding, serving as chairman of its board from 1913 to 1919, its treasurer from 1919 to 1930, and as President of the NAACP from 1930 to 1939, tapped into Jewish networks to challenge segregation.

Civil rights lawyer Arthur Spingarn (1878–1971) succeeded his brother as President, serving from 1940 to 1965). Under his tenure, NAACP membership quadrupled, particularly in the South, and his aggressive litigation efforts culminated in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Supreme Court ruling that began the desegregation of American educational institutions.

The Civil Rights Movement was marked by disproportionate Jewish participation. Of the non-Black Freedom Summer volunteers in 1964, over 50% were Jewish. In a similar vein, Jewish attorney Jack Greenberg, the son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and Romania, participated in 40 civil rights cases before the Supreme Court.

Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel marched with MLK in Selma. Heschel previously declared that “racism is satanism” at the 1963 National Conference on Religion and Race in Chicago, organized by the National Conference of Christians and Jews (NCCJ). This “Grand Alliance” achieved historic wins once the Civil Rights Revolution was fully consummated. However, these victories masked underlying tensions.

The Emergence of Tensions

These divisions would become manifest once the state of Israel began to flex its muscles militarily in 1967 and when Blacks started pursuing domestic agendas that clashed with broader Jewish interests. The 1967 Six-Day War exposed a notable ideological rift. Black radicals like Stokely Carmichael linked Zionism to colonialism, while Jewish groups defended Israel as a refuge for Holocaust survivors and as a successful movement of national liberation from European antisemitism.

New York City was at the epicenter of this breakdown. In the 1960s, Black and Puerto Rican parents in Ocean Hill-Brownsville, a predominantly non-White Brooklyn neighborhood, organized to address lingering problems in their schools such as overcrowded classrooms and underfunded resources.

In 1967, as part of a city-wide experiment, the Board of Education granted limited autonomy to Ocean Hill-Brownsville under a community-elected governing board. The district’s superintendent, Rhody McCoy, a Black educator, sought to implement reforms, including hiring staff aligned with the community’s goals and other measures moving toward decentralization.

In May 1968, the Ocean Hill-Brownsville governing board transferred 19 teachers and administrators — most of whom were White and Jewish — out of the district, accusing them of undermining reforms. The United Federation of Teachers (UFT), led by Albert Shanker, denounced the transfers as anti-Semitism and a violation of due process and union rights. The UFT, whose membership was majority Jewish, argued the moves were racially motivated and felt as if they were being scapegoated despite previously supporting civil rights causes.

In the end, New York State disbanded the Ocean Hill-Brownsville governing board in 1969, recentralizing power. The experiment’s collapse deterred similar initiatives nationwide. The crisis fractured the Black-Jewish alliance, with many Black activists embracing separatism and Jewish communities prioritizing Israel and institutional liberalism.

The Black-Jewish alliance further frayed in the 1990s.  On the evening of August 19, 1991, in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, a car from the motorcade of Rabbi and Jewish supremacist Menachem Mendel Schneerson, the leader of the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement, veered onto the sidewalk after running a red light. The vehicle struck two seven-year-old Guyanese children, killing Gavin Cato and severely injuring his cousin Angela.

​​What transpired next would ignite three days of violence. As described by the CUNY historical account: “Little is known of what exactly transpired at the scene of the car accident. Rumors were circulating about how the incident was handled by volunteer Jewish ambulance company, Hatzolah. According to several witnesses, medical staff treated the injured Jewish driver prior to attending the children.”

Within hours of the accident, a group of Black youths attacked and fatally stabbed Yankel Rosenbaum, a 29-year-old Orthodox Jewish student from Australia who had no connection to the accident. This was just the beginning of what would become three days of violence.

The riots did not occur in a vacuum but were the product of decades of changing demographic and social dynamics in Crown Heights. At the time of the riots, Crown Heights had transformed into a predominantly Black neighborhood with a significant Hasidic Jewish enclave. This arrangement created friction, with many Black residents believing that Jews were given special treatment by law enforcement following a 1976 police redistricting. Many were also upset by what they saw as the Jewish community leveraging Black political leadership for their own benefit, exploiting a lack of unity among Black leaders to advance Jewish interests.

Black public figures added further fuel to the fire during these riots. The Reverend Al Sharpton played a controversial role during the riots. According to historical accounts, “The riot was further incited by the Reverend Al Sharpton.” On the third day of the riots, a group of Black protesters from an Al Sharpton-organized march strayed from their prearranged route, setting fire to an Israeli flag outside the offices of a local Orthodox Jewish group. Sharpton drew criticism for remarks at Gavin Cato’s eulogy, referring to Jews as “diamond merchants” and likening Crown Heights to apartheid South Africa.

The 1980s and 1990s saw the rise of Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam (NOI), who published works investigating Jewish control of high finance and corporate media. One of their most controversial works was The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, excerpts of which Wellesley College professor Tony Martin assigned in his courses. The book, produced by the NOI’s Historical Research Department, alleged disproportionate Jewish involvement in the transatlantic slave trade. As expected, the book drew backlash from the academic community, but Martin stood by the integrity of the NOI publication’s historical scholarship.

The NOI’s Judeoskeptic influence on Black public figures has been a constant thorn in the side of organized Jewry. Tamika Mallory, a prominent activist and co-founder of the Women’s March, has maintained a longstanding and controversial relationship with the NOI and its leader, Farrakhan.

As a teenager, she attended NOI events, including its annual “Saviour’s Day.” After her son’s father was murdered in 2001, Mallory found support from NOI members, particularly women in the organization, whom she credited with helping her through grief.

Despite being demonized for his commentary about Jewish influence, Mallory has repeatedly defended her ties to Farrakhan. In 2017, she posted a photo with Farrakhan on Instagram, calling him the “GOAT” (Greatest of All Time). (When challenged, she clarified that her praise stemmed from his work in Black communities.) During a 2019 interview on “The View”, she refused to condemn Farrakhan’s negative views about Jews outright, much to the annoyance of the Jewish community. She stated, “I don’t agree with many of Minister Farrakhan’s statements” but emphasized his role in “building unity” in marginalized communities.

Like most Black activists influenced by the NOI, Mallory has had choice words for Israel. During a 2018 trip to Israel and the West Bank with the Center for Constitutional Rights, she described the establishment of Israel a “human rights crime.” These remarks led to her disinvitation from an Australian conference, with organizers citing concerns that her views would “overshadow” the event.

Black academic Mark Lamont Hill also went off script on November 28, 2018, when he delivered a speech at the United Nations during the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. In his address, Hill expressed support for Palestinian self-determination and equal rights. Hill ended his speech by calling for “a free Palestine from the river to the sea.”

Less than 24 hours after Hill’s UN speech, CNN announced it had severed ties with him. On November 29, 2018, a CNN spokesperson confirmed simply that “Marc Lamont Hill is no longer under contract with CNN.” While CNN did not provide an explicit reason for the termination, the firing came immediately after objections to Hill’s speech from the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and other Jewish organizations.

Black Lives Matter, Israel, and the Latest Fractures

The resurgence of Black Lives Matter in 2020 brought renewed tensions between Jewish and Black organizations. The year following the death of George Floyd, BLM issued a statement declaring solidarity with Palestinians and advocating for an end to “settler colonialism in all forms.” BLM’s detour into anti-Israel advocacy alarmed countless Jewish organizations who initially backed the anti-White groups.

The October 7, 2023 attacks further reinforced Jewish apprehensions about exclusively relying on Blacks as their proxy army against White America. BLM Chicago shared (and later deleted) an image of a paraglider with a Palestinian flag, a reference to Hamas fighters who used paragliders during the assault. Critics interpreted this as celebrating terrorism. BLM Grassroots also issued a statement condemning Israel’s “apartheid system” while asserting Palestinians’ right to resist occupation.

In October 2023, the ADL denounced BLM Grassroots, BLM Chicago, and BLM Los Angeles for social media posts justifying Hamas’ attacks. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt criticized these chapters for “glorifying Hamas terrorists” and spreading anti-Semitic narratives, calling the rhetoric “sick, twisted, and dehumanizing.” Greenblatt’s message to the Black community was quite clear: there are limits to how far Blacks can go with their political activism.

Other prominent members of the Jewish community did not take kindly to their Black golems not sticking to the program in the wake of October 7. Actress Julianna Margulies, of Azkhenazi extraction, best known for her roles in The Good Wife and ER caused a stir in the November 2023 episode of the podcast The Back Room With Andy Ostroy.

During this interview, she asserted that Black Americans “have been brainwashed to hate Jews.” She also questioned why Blacks weren’t returning the support that Jewish communities had historically given to civil rights causes.  Margulies’ remarks were met with significant pushback. On December 2, 2023, Margulies later apologized in a statement to Deadline, expressing horror that her words “offended the Black and LGBTQIA+ communities.”

New Golems Await?

Despite using Blacks as a battering arm against Whites in the United States for well over a century, Jews’ goodwill toward America’s melanin-enhanced population is wearing thin due to the Black community’s unwillingness to support Israel’s genocide in Gaza. This partially explains the latest efforts to defund DEI nationwide by the Trump administration and attempts to defund universities that are insufficiently harsh on pro-Palestinian activists and expel non-citizen pro-Palestinian activists, while maintaining Jews’ privileged status, in addition to Jewish liberals such as billionaire Bill Ackman making a pivot to the Right in an attempt to check growing antisemitism on the Left.

As Blacks increasingly become a liability, organized Jewry may turn to the vast pool of non-White immigrant groups as another vector for subversion. The United States’s growing Indian population and its philosemitic diaspora may do the trick.

One thing is clear though: the Black-Jewish alliance will not have the same vigor it had in the 20th century.  New golems will have to be activated for the Jewish community to retain its iron grip over American politics.

Postcards from the Empire: The 2025 NFL Draft was another exercise in DEI extremism

/6 Comments/in /by
Death, taxes, and the National Football League discriminating against White men are three things that can always be counted on.

And the just completed annual three-day extravaganza known as the NFL Draft was no exception again this year. The number of White players drafted was unofficially 53 out of 257, or 20.6%. See, the NFL likes their DEI program to be simple and consistent. Twenty percent is the magic number every year, give or take a couple of percentage points.

And that 20.6% doesn’t tell the full story. Only 15 Whites were drafted in the all-important first three rounds, a little over 14%, with the others mostly back-ended into the last two rounds, where a player’s chances of getting to stick on an NFL roster and actually play are dicey at best.

The annual draft begins each year with Commissioner Roger Goodell greatly exaggerating the number of attendees at the event, which the league’s corporate media partners, far-left networks ESPN, ABC, and NFL Network, faithfully echo and then gradually embellish even more during the three days of draft selections.

Goodell claimed 200,000 people were in the audience on Thursday night for the first round, an obvious lie. Right next to the draft venue was Lambeau Field, the stadium for the host city Green Bay and its Packers. Lambeau Field holds 80,000 people. 200,000 people would fill Lambeau Field two and a half times over, yet it was clear that the much smaller draft venue had about 15,000 attendees at most, enough to fill a medium-sized hockey or basketball arena but nowhere remotely close to filling Lambeau even once.

The claimed numbers got even more ridiculous over the next two days. By Saturday, Rece Davis of ABC had raised the number to 400,000. Yahoo took the crown for absurdity however, citing 600,000. Where are they going to sleep?

“Green Bay has roughly 5,000 hotel rooms, with half being reserved for NFL personnel and vendors. Roughly 1,000 homes have been rented in Brown County.”

Green Bay itself only has a population of just over 100,000. Some of them obviously attended, though parking was a problem. With such limited hotel space and parking, what did the hundreds of thousands of other alleged attendees that supposedly traveled from all over the country do? Sleep in the street? Set up makeshift tent cities? If they lie about something as basic as this — and they do every year, claiming 750,000 attended last year in Detroit — what won’t they lie about? Answer: very little, especially when it comes to sports and the Caste System.

Above: Lambeau Field, capacity 80,000. Below: the modestly sized venue in which the NFL claims 200,000 people were present; in reality it would have filled about 1/5 of Lambeau Field at most.

The NFL’s DEI agenda is built on lies and exaggerations, the main one being that Blacks are the world’s best athletes, to the extent that Whites are incapable of playing other than at a few positions, namely quarterback, the offensive line, and tight end.

And Whites are systematically being replaced at quarterback and the o-line as well. It’s curious that the first offensive tackle and first defensive tackle taken in the 2025 NFL Draft were White, but then were followed at those positions by dozens of Blacks.

The few Whites taken early in the draft are outliers, exceptional athletes who are so good that the league takes them as part of the tiny White contingent on team rosters, but after that it’s one average or mediocre Black after another selected. Yes, there are some with star potential who live up to it also, but the number of Blacks taken in the early rounds who don’t live up to the hype each year is remarkable.

There were more defensive tackles taken than at any other position. Yet many teams only start one tackle on defense. Given that there are 32 teams, this means that the turnover at defensive tackle every year is quite large, a damning indictment of the Blacks only policy of the league, but of course it’s never mentioned by the media, which has always enabled and fully supported the racial Caste System in sports.

It’s the same at cornerback and safety – huge numbers taken every year, almost none of whom will make much of an impact and will be replaced by other mediocre talents the next year and the next year. No White cornerbacks were drafted and only two White safeties were drafted, both in the final round, which means they face very stiff odds of ever starting.

It’s curious too that after going some 20 years without any White cornerbacks, one was drafted in 2023 (Riley Moss) and 2024 (Cooper DeJean), and both became instant stars. Both played at Iowa, the only big college football program in the country that “allows” Whites to play at cornerback. And even though Moss and DeJean are both off to great starts in the NFL, White high school stars at cornerback will continue to not be recruited by the major programs. Same with running back after Christian McCaffrey became a superstar. The few Whites who break through change nothing as football at the college and professional levels is a classic racial spoils program for Blacks.

As Clay Travis of the website Outkick said, “The NFL, a majority black employee league, has created more black millionaires than any business in the history of the world. Arguing the league is racist, as many sports media did this weekend, is the dumbest argument in 21st-century sports history.”

Yet this didn’t stop the usual whining and cries of “racism” against Blacks, because quarterback Shedeur Sanders, son of Hall of Fame cornerback Deion Sanders, wasn’t drafted in the first round as many expected. It didn’t matter that the first quarterback taken, Cam Ward, is Black. In fact, Black quarterbacks are now routinely taken before any Whites each year. It was White quarterbacks who were actually screwed over, as they are every year and at every position. As poster Leonardfan from the website Caste Football.us wrote:

The NFL is DEI. It is not a meritocracy. Every draft for the past 25 years has hovered right around 20% White athletes drafted with little deviation. The glass ceiling White athletes face is a very real thing. The open discrimination that Whites have to endure in both college recruiting and NFL draft processes is not some imagined conspiracy theory. I have followed the draft closely since 2004 and after 20 years the patterns are obvious. I have seen countless White athletes get screwed over and never get a chance at the NFL. The number of White kids coming out of high school every year that get ignored is probably 10 times as bad as the NFL draft.

Year after year there are a ridiculous number of black players drafted at defensive back, wide receiver, running back, linebacker, defensive line, offensive tackle. And the next year the same cycle repeats itself. Meanwhile White athletes are written off because of their 40 time while the NFL Draft process makes no effort to take into account much of the other athletic testing — vertical jump, 3 cone, bench press, short shuttle, broad jump, all of which Whites test just as well at as Blacks on average. If the player is Black and fast it’s a meal ticket to the NFL. Meanwhile the White athlete that has a much more complete athletic workout and profile but is a tenth of a second slower running in a straight line in shorts for 40 yards is written off.

The newest trend being pushed is arm length. It’s the next big lie behind 40 times to try and push White offensive linemen away from the tackle position. There have been several instances of this I can point to over the past few years — Pete Skoronski, Graham Barton, Grey Zabel, Jonah Monheim all played left tackle in college at a high level but their arms were deemed too short so they get moved to the interior. That is just a small sample off the top of my head. Will Campbell faced the same scrutiny this year about the issues with his arm length despite the fact he was the best blindside protector in the supposed best conference in college football.

The cries of racism and collusion against Black quarterback prospect Shedeur Sanders were beyond asinine. These cries were mostly coming from the same group of people who for the past few weeks have been donating to Karmelo Anthony’s gofundme, defending his murder of an innocent White teenager and reveling in the grief of Austin Metcalf’s mother and brother (Metcalf’s father is another story, a truly pathetic man). Many of these complaints I noted on social media were not people that followed football but just typical angry black people with the well-established black victimhood mentality. It’s all so tiring.

The real collusion in this draft was against White quarterbacks: Kyle McCord not being drafted until the 6th round. McCord was demonized and pushed out of Columbus by the Ohio State fan base despite going 11-1. He goes to Syracuse and leads them to a 10-3 record. He did more for Syracuse than Sanders did for Colorado. Also led the nation in passing and was a better QB than Cam Ward who was gifted the number one pick due to skin color.

Will Howard transfers to OSU and has a stellar season running Chip Kelly’s offense. He wins a national championship. At KSU he was pushed aside much like McCord so he goes and wins a national championship.

Riley Leonard takes Notre Dame to the national championship game. A true dual threat that was a better passer than he was allowed to be at ND due to play calling.

Quinn Ewers might be the biggest outrage out of them all considering he won 27 games in the SEC. Won big games in the SEC and guided Texas to back to back playoff appearances.

The militant racist blacks and their white hanger-ons crying about Sanders won’t be able to deny those facts and will just ignore them. Fact is Sanders thought he was better than he is. He refused to take part in the Shrine Bowl practices or game, the Combine or the Big 12 pro day. He really thought he was that good. His arrogant father fed him and hyped him up all these years. Blacks are saying that Sanders did not ‘code switch’ to appeal to the ‘White’ owners. You can’t make this stuff up. Millions of black people in this country think like that.”

And so do tens of millions of White football fans, who have been indoctrinated since birth with the glorification of Black athletes and the negative stereotyping of White ones.

Sadly, pointing out the racism against Whites in sports results in being accused by the usual suspects of being racist against Blacks! That’s how it always works in the Empire of Lies, double standards and hypocrisy galore. The Empire’s overseers, change agents and gatekeepers have no interest in having a “meritocracy” in sports; as always it’s about an agenda of replacing Whites and doing so by waging psychological warfare against them in numerous ways.

Claiming Whites are inferior physically and athletically to Blacks is a Big Lie and more Americans need to understand that DEI and general anti-Whiteness in all spheres of society includes sports and has for over half a century. It’s about fairness and equal opportunity. I reject White supremacy and discrimination against Blacks, but I also reject anti-White hatred and denigration. Fair-minded people need to be able to discuss racial issues openly and honestly, and when we can’t it’s just more evidence that this is no longer a free country.

Posted from “Postcards from the Empire” with permission.

Finnish nationalist Tuukka Kuru Interviews F. Roger Devlin

/4 Comments/in /by
1. Greetings, Roger! How are you doing?
My life has never been better, and there are signs of hope in my country as well after the horrible interlude of the Biden presidency.
2. You have been involved in White nationalist activities for years, yet you are best known for your statements on gender and sexuality. Are these two issues connected, or do you treat them as separate matters?
Each race must reproduce itself each generation, and the European race is conspicuously failing to do so. In Italy and Spain, the total fertility rate is now 1.3 children per woman and the figures are well below replacement level throughout the West. The fertility crisis is every bit as important a threat to our people as mass immigration and multiculturalism.
3. Over the past 20 years, the worldviews of young men and young women have diverged significantly in all industrialized countries—young women show greater interest in leftist ideologies, while young men express tribalistic and socially conservative opinions, unlike previous generations. What do you think has caused this divergence, and can it be attributed solely to social media?
Young women are impressionable conformists. They anxiously seek the approval of their peers and authority figures. In his novel 1984, George Orwell remarks that young women were the most enthusiastic supporters of official doctrine and nosers out of heresy. Those women who do support nationalism—and I know we are fortunate to have some wonderful women in our ranks—have most often been brought up well by their fathers or influenced by positive authority figures. Men are the fighters of the human species, both literally and figuratively, and our sex must fight and win the battle for our people. Most women will come over to our side once we start winning.
4. Do you believe that monogamous and nuclear-family-oriented sexual behavior is inherently valuable and worth protecting, or is it merely a meme that succeeded in earlier cultural evolution but has become unnecessary given today’s standard of living?
Monogamy gives children a secure and reliable environment in which to grow up. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary for maintaining a high-trust society of the sort traditional in Europe, especially Northern Europe. And our high standard of living will not long survive the destruction of the monogamous family.
5. Over recent decades, many Western countries have transformed from ethnically homogeneous nation-states into multiracial “rainbow” societies. Multicultural ideals do not emerge in a vacuum but are the result of a longer cultural shift, where conservative institutions in Western societies have been replaced by egalitarian and revolutionary ideologies. How is it possible that this same development has occurred almost identically across all Western countries, using the exact same terms, narratives, and arguments?
When America sneezes, Europe catches a cold. My country’s influence on the rest of the world since the Second World War has been enormous but not always favorable, and I say this as someone who considers himself a patriot. Ease of communication has also contributed to growing cultural homogeneity across the West. We should cherish and protect our differences.
6. European nationalists typically have a clear vision of what their country should be, as many were born in nation-states with minimal minority populations, and their native language and religion enjoyed complete societal dominance. In contrast, American White nationalists have widely differing opinions—some advocate for segregating Whites and people of color into separate states, others support deporting all non-Whites, and some propose dismantling the United States and replacing it with completely different system. What is your own opinion on America, and what role should it play in the world?
The goal of White American nationalists should be a White ethnostate on North American soil where we enjoy self-determination, unapologetically give preference to our own people, and pursue our long-term best interests. I believe this is how White Americans can best benefit the rest of the world as well.
7. According to current estimates, in 15 to 20 years, Whites will be a minority population in the US. As the U.S. population becomes more diverse, the role of Race as a backbone of personal identity has only become more pronounced. Is it possible to create a functional national identity for a racially, linguistically, and religiously mixed population, and was a colorblind society ever anything more than a liberal illusion?
There will never be a colorblind society anywhere in the world. Race and kinship are the most important social cement, although language and religion are certainly important. But Brazil is an instructive example of a racially diverse country that has tried to maintain unity through the Portuguese language and (especially in the past) the Catholic religion. The results have not been altogether encouraging: it is a low-trust society riven by class conflicts that have a clear racial aspect. You are much more fortunate in Finland.
8. The relationship between American White nationalists and the Trump administration is surely quite conflicted. What is your opinion of President Trump—does he do more harm or good for the nationalist movement, and does his administration advance the interests of the White population in any way?
It is frequently forgotten, even in the United States, that Donald Trump first ran for the presidency in 2000 as a kind of progressive. His commitment to reducing immigration is extremely weak, and he often shifts back and forth. As a lifelong businessman, he is susceptible to the argument that “we need immigration for the economy,” which really means that business interests would benefit from immigration by being able to pay lower wages. His thinking appears confused in other areas as well: for example, he says he wants to protect freedom of speech on university campuses while also eliminating anti-Semitism. Well, do students have a right to criticizes Israeli actions in Gaza or not?
So far, however, his second administration appears to be a clear improvement over the first. He has shown himself capable of learning, especially from his enemies.
9. Should we see the fertility crisis strictly as a Western phenomenon, or will it affect all developed countries in the end? Can diminishing populations be something positive?
There has been a serious drop in fertility in the Far East as well. When I was young, commentary on Japan often pointed to overpopulation and crowding as big problems in an island nation with no room to expand. No sooner did the birth rate go down that some writers began panicking that the Japanese nation was going to die out. But it should be obvious that a nation cannot be always growing and never shrinking. Worst of all, some people started proposing that the Japanese allow large-scale immigration to solve the alleged problem of declining numbers. I do not believe the Japanese are going to die out, at least if they do not listen to the people telling them to import a foreign population. The same goes for South Korea, where the birth rate has sunk below 0.7 children per woman, meaning a population decline of two-thirds every generation. When I hear this admittedly shocking figure, I am reminded of “Stein’s Law,” formulated by the American economist Herbert Stein: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” The truly deadly danger is what we see in the West: the combination of low birth rates with mass immigration.
10. Current fertility rates in all Western countries are too low to sustain the existing population. Nowadays Nigeria alone produces more children than all of Europe combined. Economic incentives have not raised fertility rates to a level that would allow organic population growth in any Western country, suggesting that other measures are needed to address this issue. Do you propose any solutions?
Yes, I do have solutions to propose, and they will be the subject of my talk at the Awakening Conference. For now, I will just say this: changing economic incentives is crucial, but small cosmetic changes such as tax cuts for large families are absurdly inadequate. We need a thorough restoration of the economic basis of family life, and this will involve a decisive break with the ideals of feminism and “equality between the sexes” which even many nationalists have internalized.

Conscription is coming

/18 Comments/in /by

The nations of Scandinavia, until recently, were idealised as modern, progressive places to live. Their highly educated populace embraced liberal values and eschewed ethnocentric patriotism to open their doors to immigrants, particularly Muslims. They had nothing but token armies, which pursued diversity and equality policies.

Pacifism no more: Sweden and Finland, after decades of neutrality, joined NATO. Their ‘woke’ female leaders seem to relish their new role in sabre-rattling with Vladimir Putin. Their citizens face enlistment for potential war, and that means women too. A year ago Danish defence minister Troels Lund Poulsen announced that ‘more robust conscription, including full gender equality, must contribute to solving defence challenges, national mobilisation and manning our armed forces.’ Perhaps he should check his language — ‘manning’ is hardly gender-neutral.

Why Scandinavia to get the ball rolling on Western militarisation? One reason could be that unlike Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Great Britain, the Swedes and their neighbours are not associated with imperialism or fascism (okay, let’s forget the Vikings). Thus they present a positive image for boosting defence and protecting progressive European culture.

A second reason could be that Scandinavia is technologically advanced. Remember that Sweden was allowed to get through covid-19 without lockdown, as epidemiologist Anders Tegnell was lauded for a common-sense approach. But perhaps such licence was because Sweden was already well on its way to the Great Reset. The ‘new normal’ was promoted by young Swedes making purchases or entering offices using microchip hand implants. Digital identity is in widespread use.

Scandinavian conscription will soon be followed across Europe. To calm the horses, however, the British government states that there are no current plans in this direction. But the seed has been sown in the public psyche by mainstream media. Currently, the Daily Telegraph has billboards with messages about how Putin is likely to invade the Baltic states next, and contesting the idea that being proud of your country is prejudice — subtle primers for conscription and jingoism?

Two weeks ago, amidst the contrived moral panic over the television drama ‘Adolescence’, I suggested that the real purpose of this propaganda was to get people thinking about young male energy and aggression, and how this could be channelled positively. Numerous letters were sent to newspapers calling for a return to National Service.

Our fathers and grandfathers who did National Service in the 1950s may not be good guides, though. They did their two or three years at a time of post-war peace. They got to see the world and learned useful skills. Nowadays our leaders are drumbeating for war. As in the First World War, the younger generations are at risk of becoming cannon fodder.

Not that decisions are really made by Keir Starmer and Westminster, although the British government appears to be taking a lead role in escalating the conflict with Russia. Global forces are taking us on a momentum, and as with covid-19 and Net Zero there are no stops on the military express. Whether Putin is performing for the same masters or fighting his corner on the grand chessboard is difficult to discern.

Retired officers writing to the Daily Telegraph scoff at the prospect of pampered youth making a fighting force — they won’t know which way to point a rifle! But the push for war is not necessarily to defeat Russia and have everyone home for Christmas. The carnage on the Western Front a century ago was so effective for killing millions of men that the underlying message of Richard Attenborough’s O What a Lovely War was a deliberate cull of the population. The First World War erupted at the height of eugenics, and the same ideology prevails today, albeit with a ‘green’ disguise.

Despite technological progress, the war in Ukraine is not dissimilar to that fought in the mud of Flanders. Men are pounded in their trenches by explosive projectiles, and any ventures ‘over the top’ are deadly. Mostly they crouch in their lines of earth, through the bitter winter, spring floods and summer heat. Perhaps a million, disproportionately Ukrainians, have perished in this war of attrition.

The British public is equivocal on conscription. The majority is asleep to what’s really happening in the world, getting their limited information from social media news feeds or the BBC. Conscription is not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when’. And I predict sooner rather than later. Recruiting sergeants will exploit any lingering patriotism, while the younger generations will be enticed to fight for diversity and equality.

Don’t trust opinion polls. During the covid regime polling results showed about 74 per cent supporting any proposed deprivation of freedom. The government, if it wants to introduce conscription, will find the number to support it.

After decades of relative peace and comfort in the West, there is much naiveté about the realities of armed service. Often I hear the utterance that people won’t accept conscription because they won’t fight for Starmer or King Charles. Do they not understand that conscripts are not given a choice?