Trump’s big mistake

/27 Comments/in /by

Disappointing, disastrous, self-defeating, stupid. There are some adjectives that come to mind in the wake of Trump’s Iran adventure.

I watched Gen. Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff this morning. His message (paraphrasing): “We’re number 1! And we totally kicked ass!” Remember all the triumphalism when the U.S. invaded Iraq and quickly got to Baghdad? We’re still there >2o years later and now those troops and U.S. troops in Syria are likely in even greater danger. From Tucker’s interview with former Pentagon official Dan Caldwell:

Tucker [00:10:00] Can I just say something really cynical? It’d be pretty easy to draw us in to a ground war against, or a full-scale regime change effort against Iran by attacking those troops [in Iraq and Syria] …

Dan Caldwell [00:10:11] I’ve said it publicly, you know, prior to being a DOD, in a lot of ways, those troops in Iraq and Syria were a tripwire to a larger war. Especially after the defeat of the ISIS caliphate, and you can argue whether or not they should have been put back into Iraq and Syria to begin with, but especially after they ISIS califate, they should not have been there. And one of the, there are many crimes in the first Trump administration, but one of the greatest crimes in in the First Trump administration was an active effort by President Trump’s own political appointees in some cases and elements of the military to undermine his stated preference to withdraw, particularly from Syria. And let’s not forget, you had the president’s special representative, I believe for Syria, this guy, Jim Jeffrey, who after he left the administration, ran around Washington, DC, bragging about lying to the president about the number of troops in Syria so that he would be less likely to withdraw them.

Let’s see how the warmongers feel in a few years. Wars aren’t over until the enemy says so, and Iran with its population of 90 million will be there long after whatever the U.S. manages to destroy. Iran realizes that they need nuclear weapons to defend themselves and make other countries afraid to attack them. And it’s at least doubtful that the U.S. and Israel can effect regime change without boots on the ground—not politically viable in the U.S. and likely to be ineffective since they’d be up against Iran’s very large population and territory. And what’s the likelihood of a good regime-change outcome given the U.S. record in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria?

Is Iran really on the verge of a nuclear weapon as Netanyahu has been lying about for 30 years? The whole thing is all too reminiscent of the WMD hoax that got Bush to attack Iraq—a hoax based on lies by Jewish neocons in the Bush Defense Department with strong personal and family ties to Israel.

Iran is a close ally of fellow BRICS countries Russia and China. If Iran goes down with China and Russia doing nothing, it would destroy their credibility and reinforce the U.S. as global hegemon—the neoconservative wet dream since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. I expect Russia and China will stand up and not let this happen. Would they go so far as to aid Iran’s quest for nukes? Russia is already at war with the U.S. Why wouldn’t Russia do whatever it can to prevent a U.S. victory? Russian Security Council deputy chairman and former president and prime minister Dmitry Medvedev makes this clear, along with some other interesting points:

1. Critical infrastructure of the nuclear fuel cycle appears to have been unaffected or sustained only minor damage.

2. The enrichment of nuclear material — and, now we can say it outright, the future production of nuclear weapons — will continue.

3. A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.

4. Israel is under attack, explosions are rocking the country, and people are panicking.

5. The US is now entangled in a new conflict, with prospects of a ground operation looming on the horizon.

Particularly relevant is Medvedev’s statement that “A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads.” China, Russia, and Pakistan come to mind.

So it’s not at all clear that the attacks on Fordow managed to take out the ability to carry on a nuclear program:

Iran’s IRIB state broadcaster claimed its stockpiles of enriched uranium were “evacuated” from all threes sites prior to the U.S. strikes, another assertion not independently verified.

Now we learn that Iran is on the verge of closing the Strait of Hormuz which will raise oil prices generally, thereby contributing to inflation and especially anger countries like China who get most of their oil from Iran. Why would China want to make a deal when the U.S. just dramatically raised their oil prices?

I agree with Steve Bannon that U.S. involvement could destroy the MAGA movement completely—endangering his ability to deport illegals, get trade deals based on reciprocity, and certainly not end the forever wars. And it certainly won’t help Trump’s stated goal of lowering interest rates as inflation inevitably heats up.

And on a personal note, I feel betrayed given that I have strongly supported Trump since he first ran. A very big reason was that the neocons deserted him during the 2016 campaign—Bill Kristol, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin and the rest of the Never-Trumpers. Trump’s often-stated opposition to the forever wars was a big reason the neocons jumped ship and a big reason I supported him. But we’re doing it again.

So glad Trump could finally heal the rift with Kristol et al.

A Commentary on the Movie “The Order”

/24 Comments/in , /by

Part One

A movie that came out in 2024, The Order, caught my eye recently because it looked as if it had to do with a book I wrote, so I checked it out.

The Order is about a real-life, six-eight member, racially committed white insurrectionist group in the northwestern U.S. called The Order led by a man named Bob Mathews that engaged in a brief flurry of nefarious activity—bombings, robberies, the killing of a Denver radio call-in host, counterfeiting—in the mid-1980s before winding up imprisoned or, in Mathew’s case, dead.

The Order, directed by Justin Kurzel from a screenplay by Zach Baylin, revolves around FBI agent Terry Husk, played by Jude Law, who travels to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho to track down The Order.  Nicholas Hoult plays Mathews; Tye Sheridan is Jamie Bowen, a young local deputy that joins up with Husk; Jurnee Smollett (Jussie’s sister) is Joanne Carney, an FBI agent with an unexplained history with Husk, possibly romantic; and Marc Maron plays Alan Berg, the Denver radio call-in host.  Husk, Bowen, and Carney are fictional characters, though the events in the film are based on historical fact.  The Order was entered in the Venice International Festival, had a brief theatrical release, and found a home on the streaming platform Amazon Prime.  It has received generally favorable critical reaction.

My connection to the film is a book I wrote in 2001 called The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce.1   Pierce (1933–2002) was a notorious racist/Nazi figure (“The most dangerous man in America,” the Anti-Defamation League called him) who founded and led until his death The National Alliance, a white advocacy or virulent white racist organization, depending on how you look at it.  He is best known for writing the infamous and widely read—a half million copies sold—underground novel, The Turner Diaries,2 which has a prominent place in the movie.  My Fame book, as I call it, contains a chapter on Bob Mathews.3   It isn’t listed as a source for the film, but I suspect that it was.

Bob Mathews

This writing isn’t a traditional review of the entertainment and artistic merits of The Order, though there is a bit of that.  Rather, basically this is a consideration of how film and print differ in what they communicate about something or someone using the movie and Fame book to illustrate my points.  Going that route, I believe it necessary to give over Part One to outlining basic facts about The Turner Diaries and Bob Mathews, as they provide the raw material for both the movie and my book.

The Turner Diaries takes place in the period from 1991 to 1999, which, since the book was written in the 1970s, is in the near future.   It is made up of the diary entries of Earl Turner, a member of the Organization, a group that successfully wages what came to be called The Great Revolution in the United States against the corrupt, Jewish-dominated System resulting in a “cataclysmic upheaval,” a “New Era,” not only in America but all over the world.

Turner’s first diary entry: “Today it finally began!  After all those years of talking—and nothing but talking— we have finally taken our first action.  We are at war with the System, and it is no longer a war of words.”

The Turner Diaries makes explicit that the Organization is waging a struggle on behalf of the white race; this is a race war.  “If the Organization fails at its task now,” the fictional Turner writes, “everything will be lost—our [white] history, our heritage, all the blood and sacrifices and upward striving of countless thousands of years.  The enemy we are fighting fully intends to destroy the basis of our existence.”

The book describes Turner’s initiation into the Organization’s elite unit, The Order.  He is given what looks like a monk’s robe to wear and stands in a circle with five similarly robed Organization members for the initiation ceremony.  As members of The Order, they are the prime bearers of the Cause—the survival and progress of their race.  He and the others swear allegiance to the Oath to the Cause and one another. The experience, Turner reports, “shook me to my bones and raised the hair on the back of my neck.”  Now his life belongs only to The Order. “Today I was, in a sense, born again.  I know now that I will never again be able to look at the world or the people around me or my own life in quite the same way I did before.”  He describes the others who participated in the ceremony as “real men, White men, men who are now one with me in spirit and consciousness as well as in blood.”

Turner’s unit needs to raise cash, so they rob Berman’s liquor store and make off with 800 dollars.  In the process, Earl bops a black employee over the head with an “Ivory special”—a bar of soap in a sock.  His compatriot Henry slits Berman’s throat from ear to ear.  When Mrs. Berman enters the scene, Henry lets fly with a jar of kosher pickles and down she goes “in a spray of pickles and broken glass.”

Turner’s unit isn’t alone doing this kind of thing and the Attorney General of the United States announces that the FBI is going to root out the Organization, which he describes as “depraved racist criminals who want to undo all the progress toward true equality that has been accomplished.”

The Turner Diaries is replete with violence from beginning to end against Jews and blacks and traitorous whites—detailed accounts of the executions, murder, of Federal judges, newspaper editors, legislators, and other System figures   One example, an Organization member is near death in a Chicago jail, the doing of black inmates while the white authorities looked the other way.  In retaliation, a member of the Organization blows off the head of the Cook County sheriff with a shotgun.  When a spokesman for the Chicago Jewish community responds by describing the Organization as “a gang of racist bigots,” his head is chopped off with a hatchet.

Other examples of violence:

  • The Washington Post offices are bombed and one of its Jewish editorial writers is blown in half with two blasts from a sawed-off shotgun.
  • One of the Organization’s members is executed for refusing an assignment to assassinate a priest and a rabbi who have advocated race mixing.
  • Mortar shells rain down on the Capitol in Washington D.C. killing 61 (“beautiful blossoms,” “magnificent spectacle”).
  • A bazooka shoots down an airliner heading for Tel Aviv.
  • Three young black males and one of the two white girls with them are killed with a crowbar.  The other girl is shot and killed as she tries to flee.
  • The Israeli embassy is mortared, leaving nothing but a burned-out heap of wreckage and killing all but a few of the 300 people inside.
  • Houston is bombed, killing 4,000 and leaving much of Houston’s industrial and shipping facilities a smoldering wreckage.  Later explosions close the Houston airport, destroy the city’s main power-generating station, and collapse two strategically located overpasses and a bridge.
  • Blacks are shot at random all over the country amid shouts of “White power!”
  • Execution squads shoot, stab, and beat Jews, whose bodies are found strewn on sidewalks, alleys, and in apartment building hallways.
  • Jews and everyone who looks as if he has some non-white ancestry are marched off in columns on a “no-return” trek into a canyon.
  • Nuclear blasts kill 14 million people outright in New York City, with another five million expected to die of burns or radiation.
  • There is the “Day of the Rope.”  Whites in Los Angeles who have “betrayed their race” meet their fate.  Turner writes in his diary entry of August 1, 1993, “Today was the Day of the Rope.  The night was filled with silent horrors: from tens of thousands of lampposts, power poles, and trees throughout this vast metropolitan area the grisly forms hang. At practically every street corner I passed this evening on my way to HQ there was a dangling corpse, four at every intersection. Hanging from a single overpass only about a mile from here is a group of about 30, each with an identical placard around its neck bearing the printed legend, ‘I betrayed my race.’”

Amid these acts or destruction and killing are what amount to lectures by Turner/Pierce on the state of the world:

  • Liberalism is an infantile, pseudo-sophisticated, submissive worldview that is alien to white people.  It is an “egalitarian plague.”
  • Conservatism is a reformist mentality that either won’t or can’t come to grips with the deep futility of the current social arrangements and the need to build something radically different in its place.
  • The women’s movement is an aberration promoted by the System to divide white men and women and thus set the race off against itself.
  • Blacks have exerted an increasingly degenerative influence on white culture.   In order to live in a wholesome way that is natural to whites, whites need their own living space, completely separate from blacks.
  • Most Americans are drowning in a flood of Jewish/liberal propaganda in the media, the schools, and the churches, and don’t even realize it. They have become soft, materialistic herd animals, true democrats, without racial identity and loyalty and without heroic toughness and spirit.
  • We need to dare to envision walking the streets and seeing only “clean, happy, enthusiastic, White faces, determined and hopeful for the future.”  We need to imagine what it would be like if the streets were ours again.

One incident in the book, the truck bombing of the FBI Building in Washington, D.C., has received particular attention because many believe it inspired Timothy McVeigh in 1995 to blow up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in similar fashion.

After the FBI Building blast, Turner hears a moan and sees a girl about twenty years of age trapped in the rubble, half-conscious, her face smudged and cut, her leg broken, and with a deep gash in her thigh.  He puts a tourniquet on her thigh wound and carries her out to the street. He then becomes aware of the moans and screams of dozens of other victims.  He looks upon a woman, her face covered in blood and with a gaping wound in her head, lying motionless—“a horrible sight,” he writes.   He later learns that approximately 700 people died from the blast.

“There is no way,” Turner writes, “that we can destroy the System without hurting many thousands of innocent people. It is a cancer too deeply rooted in our flesh. And if we don’t destroy the System before it destroys us—if we don’t cut this cancer out of our living flesh, our whole race will die.  We are all completely convinced that what we did was justified, but it is still very hard to see our own people suffering so intensely because of our acts.  It is because Americans have for so many years been unwilling to make unpleasant decisions that we are forced to make decisions now which are stern indeed.”  The “unpleasant decisions” he refers to are in reference to the Jewish and black issues that threaten the preservation of a white America.

The last of Turner’s diary entries is dated November 9th, 1993.  “It’s still three hours until first light, and all systems are ‘go’.”  This is the day Turner will fly off in an old crop duster plane and, staying very low to the ground, destroy the Pentagon with a nuclear bomb.  He will lose his life in the process but gain the recognition and gratitude of his race forever.   He achieves a kind of immortality as one of the Great Martyrs of the Revolution.  He will be honored by all of the generations to come for his enormous dedication, courage, and sacrifice, and for the gift of a grand new way of being that he and others like him made possible.

I began the chapter on Bob Mathews like so:

“The 1983 National Alliance’s annual convention was held in September in Washington, D.C., and Pierce invited a young mine worker from the Pacific Northwest by the name of Bob Mathews to give a talk.  Mathews had been an Alliance member for three years and actively recruiting new members for Pierce’s organization among the farmers and ranchers and working people around where he lived in Washington State.  Pierce asked him to tell the people at the convention about how that effort was going, as well as about the situation generally in his part of the country. Bob wrote out his speech on his dining table at home and flew out to Washington for the conference.

Pierce looked forward to Bob’s talk and publicized it in the monthly bulletin sent out to Alliance members.  He included Bob’s picture and a short write-up on Bob’s recruiting activities.  What Pierce didn’t know was what Bob had in mind to do.  Bob had really taken to The Turner Diaries.  He pored over every word in the book and gave it to his friends to read along with his highest recommendation.  But the thing about Bob was that he wasn’t content to just read the book and agree with what it said.  Bob was a man of action.  He had a fire burning inside him; that is what people said about him.  He was going to create an Order of his own like the one in the book and start a revolution like the one he had read about.   Bob meant business.

Bob’s talk was awaited with a good measure of anticipation by the 100 or so in attendance at the convention because of the picture and write-up that had appeared in the Alliance bulletin.  The Bob Mathews they saw at the podium that day was a boyish-looking man thirty years of age.  He was about 5’7” and had a trim muscular build. He was good-looking with even facial features. His dark brown hair was short and parted to the side and tended to fall forward onto his forehead.  Those who knew Bob said he had hazel eyes that shone with intensity and purpose—that was what you noticed about him when you looked at him, they said.  Most people who came to know Bob saw him as a serious and forceful person and they liked him.  Even those who detested his politics liked Bob the man.  In pictures I have seen of him, he reminds me of an enlisted man home on leave or, another association that comes to mind, the young working-class fathers I see walking past the stores in a shopping mall with their wives, their young child in a stroller.

An audio tape exists of Mathews’ talk.  His voice is youthful.  There is a tension and fervor in his delivery that gives a sense of immediacy and electricity to the occasion:

“My brothers and sisters, from the mist-shrouded forested valleys and mountains of the Pacific Northwest I bring you a message of solidarity, a call to action, and a demand for adherence to duty as members of a vanguard of an Aryan resurgence and, ultimately, total Aryan victory. The signs of awakening are sprouting up across the Northwest, and no more than among the two-fisted farmers and ranchers.  The task is not going to be easy.  TV satellite dishes are springing up like poisonous mushrooms across the domain of the tillers of the soil.  The electronic Jew is slithering into the living rooms of even the most remote farms and ranches.  The race-destroying dogs are everywhere.  In Metaline Falls, we have broken the chains of Jewish thought.  We know not the meaning of the word ‘mine.’  It is ‘ours’: our race, the totality of our people.  Ten hearts, one beat!  One hundred hearts, one beat!  Ten thousand hearts, one beat!  We were born to fight and die and to continue the flow of our people.  The future is now!  So stand up like men and drive the enemy to the sea!  Stand up like men and swear a sacred oath upon the green graves of our sires that you will reclaim what our forefathers discovered, explored, conquered, settled, built, and died for!  Stand up like men and reclaim our soil!  Look toward the stars and proclaim our destiny!  In Metaline Falls we have a saying: ‘Defeat, never!  Victory forever!’”

Bob’s talk received a standing ovation.  He would be dead in a little over a year.”

Part Two

With Part One as background, Part Two compares how the movie and my book treated this material.   My background is in education.   I’m especially interested in how modes of communication, reading a book and watching a film in this case—particularly a mass-market film like The Order—can result in significantly different learning outcomes.  Part Two will be a series of unconnected segments that I hope add up to something of worth.

I’ll start with what I take to be the movie’s version of Bob Mathew’s 1983 National Alliance talk.  It’s midway through the hour-and-fifty-minute movie and the context is different, a gathering at the Aryan Nations enclave in northern Idaho.  Bob is seated in the middle of a large audience listening to a talk by the Aryan Nation’s founder and leader, Richard Butler (1918–2004).

Butler holds up a Bible and says, “This book holds our birthright, but it is not taught in the schools or by our elected officials.  The Promised Land is not for the Jews but rather for the true Israelites, the Caucasians, and you deserve to build that home now.”

Bob stands up.  All eyes are drawn to him.  Butler stops speaking.  Standing tall, Bob states his mind.

Before going into what Bob said on this fictional occasion—I can’t imagine this actually happening—an observation about the casting of Nicholas Hoult as Bob Mathews.

Bob was a fairly short, boyish-looking, weightlifting-pumped, high school graduate, a working-class roughneck.

Actor Hoult is a Brit—mid-thirties, looks his age, around 6’2”, slight of build, somewhat effete (sorry), a pageboy haircut (why?)—who affects the general American accent used by the well-educated.  He came off to me like an Oxford drama school graduate trying his best and doing pretty well with it, but I never believed him as Bob Mathews for a second and that got in the way of my engagement with this movie.

To Hoult/Bob’s talk in the movie.  Compare it to the real National Alliance conference talk in Part One.  Personally, I find a decent fit between the two, including the anti-Jewish references in the movie version, which must have taken some courage on the part of these filmmakers given who passes on their projects and signs their checks in the motion picture industry.

“Good morning my brothers and sisters.  It’s an honor to be here with you.  I’m proud.  If you’re like me, I’m not sure how much more talk I can hear, because that’s all it is, isn’t it?  Talk, talk, talk. Well, I, for one, have had enough of just talk. Now, I know how you feel.  I do. You’ve lost your jobs, your dignity.  I watched my father get knocked down again and again, and he never pushed back, and they tell you that that’s how it works.  You just have to stand there and take it, one link at a time, one freedom at a time, but I won’t do it.  It is time for us to fight.   My friends and family, we’re here for you today because we want you to join us on a mission, putting words into action.  Our brotherhood has broken the chains of Jewish thought and parasitical usury.  We’ve stood tall against the coloreds who have soured our lands. We yeoman farmers are eating, breathing, sleeping, and growing together.  We’ve become one mind, one body, one race, one army!  We’re facing the extermination of our history, our very way of life!  Will you sit back and allow the nation that our forefathers discovered, conquered, and died for be eradicated, or will you stand up like men and fight to survive?  Kinsmen, duty calls.  It is time to take the future all our families deserve!   In Metaline Falls we have a saying.  ‘Defeat never.  Victory forever.’”

Bob receives favorable head-nodding responses from his rapt listeners.

*   *   *

An observation on how these filmmakers chose to tell this story in The Order.

One way they could have gone at it would have been to make Bob the central protagonist.  The movie is about him: he does this, this, and this; we see things from his perspective; other people come into his life as he lives it.  It begins with his National Alliance talk and ends with him being burned to death in a house surround by law enforcement.  That’s how I organized the chapter on him in my book, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds.  The chapter was about him.   I brought in William Pierce for his take on Bob, but it was Bob’s story, not Pierce’s.

This is not the choice these filmmakers made.  The central characters in The Order are fictional: FBI agent Terry Husk (Jude Law), Husk’s helpmate, local deputy Jamie Bowen (Tye Sheridan), and his fellow FBI agent Joanne Carney (Jurnee Smollett)—all of them superb in their roles, by the way.  Bob Mathews is very present in The Order, but it’s Terry Husk’s (Jude Law’s) movie.

In my view, going that route muddied and complicated the movie’s story line.   To what extent is it a true story and to what extent is it fictional? Really, The Order is two stories: one of them Bob Mathews’ and the other Terry Husk’s.  It jumps back and forth between the two and doesn’t tell either of them completely.   There is a hodge-podge quality to this movie.

Why this approach?  To create a star vehicle for Jude Law, who is a producer of the movie?  The belief that a police procedural would make the movie more interesting, compelling, audience-grabbing?   Were there reservations about making a racist/antisemite like Bob Mathews the central protagonist?  Audiences come to identify and sympathize with lead characters whatever they are like—Richard III, Scarface, anybody—and those currently green lighting movies aren’t going to take well to the prospect of somebody like Bob Mathews coming off looking good.  Mathews types you backhand with KKK and Nazi associations and be done with them.  Whatever the case, while The Order is a good movie as it is, I think it would have been an even better one if they had dared to make Bob its central character.

*   *   *

Soon after Bob returned home from his speech at the National Alliance convention, he gathered together eight men in a barracks-like structure he had erected near his mobile home.  He said, “I’ve asked you to come here because I think we share a common goal.”  Earlier, he had talked to them about forming an Order like the one in William Pierce’s Turner Diaries book, a group of kinsmen who would let their deeds do the talking for them.  Bob’s goal was to carve out a part of eastern Washington as a homeland for whites, purged of Jews and minorities.  They would use The Turner Diaries as a blueprint for getting that done.

Bob told the group that he had a plan.  It involved robbing pornography stores and pimps, bombings, and counterfeiting money.  It also involved assassinating both Jews and gentiles who were contributing to the destruction of the white race.  “I’m telling you now,” Bob said, “if any of you don’t want to get involved in this, you are free to leave.”

No one left.

Both the movie and my book deal with The Order’s initiation ceremony.  It might be useful to compare the two accounts.

My book, Bob talking:

“I’m going to ask each of you to take an oath that you will remain true to this cause.  I would like to remind all of you what is at stake here.  It is our children, kinsmen, and their economic and racial survival. Because of that, I would like to place a white child before us as we take this oath.”  The six-week-old daughter of one of those present was placed in the center of the circle as a symbol of a Caucasian future they were about to pledge to create.  She stared up at the figures looming above her in the glow of candles.  The men clasped hands and recited an oath of loyalty and commitment to their race and cause that Bob had written:

I, as an Aryan warrior, swear myself to complete secrecy to The Order and total loyalty to my comrades.

Let me bear witness to you, my brothers, that should one of you fall in battle, I will see to the welfare and well-being of your family.

Let me bear witness to you, my brothers, that should one of you be taken prisoner, I will do whatever is necessary to regain your freedom.

Let me bear witness to you, my brothers, that should an enemy agent hurt you, I will chase him to the ends of the earth and remove his head from his body.

And furthermore, let me bear witness to you, my brothers, that if I break this oath, let me be forever cursed upon the lips of our people as a coward and an oath breaker.

My brothers, let us go forth by ones and twos, by scores and by legions, and as true Aryan men with pure hearts and strong minds face the enemies of our faith and our race with courage and determination.

We hereby invoke the blood covenant and declare that we are in a full state of war and will not lay down our weapons until we have driven the enemy into the sea and reclaimed the land which was promised to our fathers of old, and through our blood and His will, becomes the land of our children to be.”

The movie’s treatment of the ceremony with the baby underscores that movies with their short running times compel keeping the pace up: condense things, keep it short, move it along.  I could take all the time I wanted in my book.  These filmmakers didn’t have that luxury—get the basic idea across and get on to the next scene.

In the movie, Bob speaking:

“As a free Aryan man, I hereby swear upon the children in the wombs of our wives to join together with those brothers in this circle, for we are now in a full state of war and will not lay down our weapons until we have driven the enemy into the sea.  It is time to reclaim what was promised to our fathers and through our blood and His will, let it become the land of our children to be.  May God protect us.  Amen.”

That’s it.

*   *   *

A difference between my task and the filmmakers’ with The Order, I didn’t have to entertain.  I could write with no compunction that Bob walked into a Seattle branch of Citibank and handed the teller a note and walked off with almost $26,000 dollars.  Unfortunately, that action is not the most cinematic, so the filmmakers felt pressed to hype it.   No notes to a teller.  Masked men with automatic weapons burst through the bank door shouting and threatening and charging around.  You’ve seen the routine in a number of movies.

An armored car robbery:

“Get on the fucking ground!”

“Get the fuck down!”

“Don’t you fucking move!”

“Don’t fucking move, bitch!””

“Move and I’ll blow your fucking head off!”

“Fuck!  Fucking go!”

In reality, the bombs at a synagogue and porn theater did little damage, poof.  It the movie, kaboom!

*   *   *

Speaking of “Don’t you fucking move,” the F-word gets a whole lot of play in this movie, as is does generally in the popular entertainment of our time.  Apparently, it is considered a good way to give strength and credibility to speech as well as to the speaker.

An example of the F-word frequency in The Order.  Jamie messed up in his and Terry’s attempt to capture Bob and the others during an armored car heist and Terry reams him out for it.

“Fucking hear me?”

“I’m sorry.”

“Fuck.”

“I’m sorry.”

“Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck!  Cocksucker.  Fuck me, man.”

At this point, agent Carney comes onto the scene and lets Terry have it—he hadn’t done a good job either.  I picked up a subtext in this exchange of a minority woman putting a white man in his place, which is also a feature in popular entertainment these days.

“What a fucking shit show that was!  You find the cars?  Don’t ever fucking do that shit to me again.  You’re not in the lead anymore, Terry.  You don’t get to run off on your own without fucking telling me first!”

“There wasn’t time.”

“Bullshit.”

“I was with Jamie.”

“You were with Jamie?  Well, how’d that fucking work out for you, huh?  Considering you motherfuckers let the target get away.”

*   *   *

Though others are depicted in the movie, the only killing I know about that anybody in The Order committed was the murder of the controversial Jewish radio call-in host in Denver, Alan Berg.  It later became the basis for the film Talk Radio directed by Oliver Stone.

One of The Order had lived in the Denver area and was very put off by Berg, who went off on monologues on the joys of oral sex, the flaws in Christianity, why whites are afraid of blacks, and how white women fantasize about sleeping with black men.

Bob and several others in The Order drove to Denver and ambushed Berg getting out of his car in front of his apartment late at night after one of his shows.  One of the members of The Order, not Bob, started firing from close up.  Bullets hit Berg in the face, neck, and torso. The garage door behind him splintered from the spray of bullets.  When Berg was found lying face up in a pool of blood, the cigarette he had been holding was still lit.  Autopsy reports couldn’t be sure how many shots there were because Berg was twisting at the time he was shot, although it was probably around 12 (the movie says 34).  Two slugs struck near Berg’s left eye and exited on the right side of his neck.  Others hit the left side of Berg’s head and exited from his neck and the back of his skull.

Berg and the killing of him was a couple paragraphs in my book.  Berg gets a lot of time in the movie.

His exchange with a caller accompanies the opening credits.

“You’re saying Jews use the blood of Christian babies for, what was it?”

“Well, for their services, their rituals, their dinners, so they can take over the world.”

“For their dinners?  Oh, okay, I see.  So, do they serve it in cups, this Christian blood?  Is it a drink, or is it more of a condiment, like gravy that we can pour over food?  Because I’ve never been to one of these rituals, so I don’t know.”

“Are you making fun of me, you son of a bitch?”

“No, sir, not at all.  You don’t need my help for that.  I just want to know how I can take over the world, me.  See?”

“You’re trying to bait me, but I’m just trying to answer your question, you dumb kike!”

“All right, that’s enough.  Lot of antisemitism cooking here today.  Thanks, caller, for that load of puritanical garbage. You know what my problem is with every fanatic fundamentalist, from the Catholics to the Orthodox, to the KKK.  The one thing you all have in common, and you are too ignorant to see it, is that you are too inept to get by in the world, so your only recourse is to try and curtail the enjoyment of others.  Well, there it is.  It’s a great country, but we’re all still trapped in our minds.  I happen to believe that most people are decent people.  I really believe that.  Until tomorrow at KOA, this is Alan Berg, and be safe.”

The scene shifts to three men—twenties, early thirties, it’s dark and difficult to see—in a car listening to Berg.

“Hey, gimme that bottle.  You hear this shit?”

“Yeah, yeah, yeah.”

“This fucking Jew, man.”

“Yeah.”

“Ah, fuck.  Fuck him.  He needs a couple of barrels in his mouth.”

About an hour into the movie, Berg on the air again.

“See, I just want to know what to do when I get to hell, because apparently, so you said, all my friends are there.  So, I just want to know what I’m walking into.”

“See, there you go.  You don’t get it ‘cause you’re just a kike.  You’re making fun of something that’s sacred to Christians and you don’t get it.”

“Oh, okay, make it about Jews.  What do you know about Jews?  Jews to you people is some sort of mythological creature, some sort of beast.  You don’t know anything about the Jewish people.  It’s just an easy target, because you’re too afraid to see what’s in yourself, because you have somebody to blame for your life, because you can’t really blame the people that have put you in the position you are in, whether it’s a government that doesn’t care for you and has taught you to believe the alternative or it’s something within yourself.  You can’t face yourself, so it’s the Jews, but the one thing you believe is that the only good Jew is a dead Jew.  I hear this all the time.  People say things are dirty, things are ugly, things are changing.  They don’t like the new neighbor on their street.  They don’t like the new synagogue in town.  And when you hear this all day, you might think we are filled with hate, it’s almost irreversible.  But this may surprise you coming from me, but I think it is actually decent.  That’s why they call in, they want to talk.  They want someone to connect with.  I think people want to give love.   They want to say, ‘You’re all right.   Let’s sit together, let’s have a beer.’  But they are afraid they won’t get it back.  But I think our better instincts will prevail, but it’s got to start somewhere.  So I encourage you to do that tonight.  Put some good out there, because our words, our ideas, that’s going to live on. That’s what matters after all.  And that’s all for me, folks.  This is Alan Berg, KOA Denver, signing off.”

Then Berg’s murder in front of his garage.   Multiple shots fired.  It’s late at night and dark and it’s tough to see exactly what happened.  An aerial shot shows Berg’s dead body sprawled in the driveway.  Terry later says, “They butchered the guy.”

*   *   *

The Turner Diaries book is repeatedly shown in the movie.  I think the filmmakers do a fairly good job of describing its contents given the time restraints film imposes.  The biggest criticism I have is they get across that Bob has taken on the grand task of the Organization in the book, to transform the U.S., when he had the far more modest aim of making eastern Washington State a place for white people to live in their natural way.

Terry and Jamie go back and forth describing what’s in The Turner Diaries to an unseen group that includes us in the movie audience.  You can compare what they say with what I wrote about the book in Part One.

“The men who killed Alan Berg have splintered off from the Aryan Nations and formed a new group.  They are responsible for a series of robberies and murders, and they are inspired by the doctrine in this book [holding up a Turner Diaries paperback].  They’re using this book as a map.”

“It tells a fictional story of a group of white separatists raging a race war against the United States government.  There are six steps in the book.  Recruiting, fundraising, training.  Assassination is step five.  Armed revolution.  Large scale terror attacks.”

“Poisoning city water supplies, bombing federal buildings, seizing the Capitol.”

“Day of the Rope, when race traitors are hung.”

“There are plans to assassinate the president.’

“This terrorist group have a name?”

“In the book they are called ‘The Order.’”

*   *   *

The movie makes Bob a killer when in real life he wasn’t.  Running from a Portland motel, he shoots Jamie in the chest.  Blood pouring out of him, Terry leaning over him lying in an alleyway, we watch Jamie die.

In my book, I reported:

“Somehow Bob got out of there [the motel] and ran about two blocks down the street and got behind a concrete pillar next to an apartment complex.  Bob later said it was at this point he decided to stop being the hunted and become the hunter.  A couple of officers chasing him ran up to the pillar and Bob fired, wounding one of them in the shin and foot. Bob later claimed that he had at first aimed at the officer’s head, but when he saw that he was a white man he lowered his aim.”

My guess is that a central character dying in an alley in a blood-soaked shirt is more dramatic than an anonymous police officer getting shot in the shin and foot and that prompted the movie to have Bob take out Jamie in this fashion when nothing like it ever happened in real life.  As far as I can see, there were no limits to poetic license in the minds of these filmmakers.

*   *   *

Toward the end of the movie, Bob makes it to a safe house—or so he thought—on Whidbey Island near Seattle.

He’s shown typing something.  He hands its pages to a member of The Order.

“What’s this?”

“A Declaration of War.”

“Who am I sending it to?”

“Congress, the House of Representatives, the White House, The New York Times, The Denver News.  Everyone.”

“Why?”

“It’s happening.  The war has begun.”

“Fuck.  There’s no fucking army.  Everyone’s gone.”

“Cattle die, kinsman die, I too shall die.  But one thing that I know that never dies. It’s the fame of a dead man’s deeds.”

I was taken by hearing the reference to the title of my book.  It’s from an old Norse poem that William Pierce recited frequently, the idea being that what will live on after his death and give him the respect he doesn’t have now in his life are the positive memories of what he did with his life on earth.

The movie doesn’t deal with the substance of The Declaration of War.  Here are excerpts from the book.

“It is now a dark and dismal time in the history of our race. All about us lie the green graves of our sires, yet, in a land once ours, we have become a people dispossessed.”

“By the millions, those not of our blood violate our borders and mock our claim to sovereignty. Yet our people only react with lethargy.”

“A great sickness has overcome us. Why do our people do nothing?  What madness is this?   Has the cancer of racial masochism consumed our very will to exist?”

“Our heroes and our culture have been insulted and degraded. The mongrel hordes clamor to sever us from our inheritance. Yet our people do not care.”

“Throughout this land our children are being coerced into accepting non-whites for their idols, their companions, and, worst of all, their mates. A course which is taking us straight into oblivion. Yet our people do not see.”

“Not by accident but by design these terrible things have come to pass. It is self-evident to all who have eyes to see that an evil shadow has fallen across our once fair land. Evidence abounds that a certain vile, alien people have taken control over our country.”

“All about us the land is dying. Our cities swarm with dusky hordes. The water is rancid and the air is rank. Our farms are being seized by usurious leeches and our people are being forced off the land.”

“They close the factories, the mills, the mines, and ship our jobs overseas. Yet our people do not awaken.”

“The Aryan yeomanry [small landholders] is awakening. A long-forgotten wind is starting to blow.  Do you hear the approaching thunder?  It is that of the awakened Saxon. War is upon the land. The tyrant’s blood will flow.”

“We will resign ourselves no more to be ruled by a government based on mobocracy. We, from this day forward, declare we no longer consider the regime in Washington to be a valid and lawful representative of all Aryans who refuse to submit to the coercion and subtle tyranny placed upon us by Tel Aviv and their lackeys in Washington. We recognize that the mass of our people has been put into a lobotomized, lethargic state of blind obedience and we will not take part anymore in collective racial suicide!”

“This is war!”

*   *   *

Something that didn’t make it into the movie that I considered important enough to include in my book was a letter Bob sent to a small weekly newspaper in Newport, Washington on November 25th, 1984, a couple weeks before his death.

“It is logical to assume that my days on this planet are rapidly drawing to a close.  Even so, I have no fear.  For the reality of life is death.  I have made the ultimate sacrifice to secure the future for my children.  As always, for blood, honor, for faith and for race.”

*   *   *

The climax of the movie: law enforcement, including Terry, has Bob surrounded in the Whidbey Island house.  He’s alone.   A SWAT team storms the house but is driven off by Bob’s shots through the floor from the second floor.

The lawmen set the house on fire.  Terry goes into the burning house to try to get Bob to come out.  No.

Bob gets into a waterless bathtub and dies in the flames.

What I wrote:

“On December 7th, the FBI had the Whidbey Island house surrounded. They’d caught up with Bob again.  He was alone in the house. This time, they were going to be sure that he didn’t get away.  One hundred agents surrounded the house. They cut off his electricity. They attempted to negotiate through a bullhorn.  ‘Come out and we won’t harm you.’  Bob was having none of that.  He wasn’t coming out of there.  His hand mangled and throbbing [he was shot escaping from the Portland motel], he opened fire with an automatic weapon.

The standoff went on through the night and into the next day.  By this time, the press had converged on the site.  The FBI lofted in tear gas. Bob must have had a gas mask.  He continued to fire—da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da-da.

They issued an ultimatum.  ‘Give up or we’re coming in to get you.’

More automatic weapon fire from Bob.

At 3:00 p.m. on December 8th, a SWAT team went into the house. When they got inside, bullets rained down on them through the ceiling from the floor above. The SWAT team returned fire as they retreated.

Later that evening, after it had gotten dark, a helicopter flew over the house and dropped white phosphorous illumination flares onto the roof. The house ignited and flames shot one hundred feet into the air.  Bullets came ripping through the walls from inside the burning house—Bob was still firing away! The agents kept down as the slugs whistled through the night air and split the trees above them.

Then everything was still.

The next morning, in the charred ruins of the house they found a body burned beyond recognition.  Dental records determined it to be that of Bob Mathews.”

Endnotes

  1. Robert S. Griffin, The Fame of a Dead Man’s Deeds: An Up-Close Portrait of White Nationalist William Pierce, FirstBooks Library, 2001.
  2. Andrew Macdonald (Pierce’s pen name; everyone knew Pierce wrote the book); The Turner Diaries, second edition, National Vanguard Books, 1980.
  3. 3. The Fame of Dead Man’s Deeds

The UK Has Voted to Allow Anti-Social, Woke Women to End Their Bloodlines. Rejoice!

/10 Comments/in , /by

On 17th June 2025, after almost no debate whatsoever because it was merely a proposed amendment to a broader crime bill, the British parliament voted for the most liberal abortion laws in the world by a large majority. Even though abortion is only legal up to 24 weeks gestation, under this law women will not be prosecuted for ending their pregnancies, even if they are 9 months pregnant. Indeed, the baby may be late and, thus, normally already born at its level of gestation.

Apparently, the UK has been prosecuting women who are already very upset and vulnerable and such women should be above the law because of their “feelings.” The feelings of the mother come first, due to a number of prosecutions that have upset left-wing MPs, mainly female ones. For example, one woman, during Lockdown, told the doctor she was 6 weeks pregnant and obtained abortion pills. In reality, she was 26 weeks pregnant. She was prosecuted and was, inexplicably, found Not Guilty, even though she went to hospital and dishonestly claimed she’d had a late-term miscarriage rather than a still born induced by the pills.

A number of conservative UK commentators have remarked that this is, basically, legalised infanticide. Even left-wing firebrand George Galloway has tweeted that it marks the UK’s descent into Sodom. The British are now the Phoenicians, some have remarked, sacrificing their infants to Maloch.

I am sympathetic to these ideas. Naturally, the MP who proposed the bill was an extremely ugly woman; I mean literally circus ugly. From some photos, you’d genuinely think Tonia Antoniazzi was a man, while in others she is more like a fairy tale witch; vile both inside and out. I suspect that she is high in mutational load. This would explain both her physical repellence and her extreme left-wing and very low-empathy views. After all, as I have shown in my book Woke Eugenics, under pre-Industrial, harsh Darwinian conditions we were selecting for a Fitness Factor that included genetic mental health, physical health (a poor immune system means you won’t produce a symmetrical phenotype), and general conservatism, as this is associated with altruism, being pro-social and being group-oriented, vital under conditions of harsh group selection.

Tonia Antoniazzi

A variety of studies have shown, unsurprisingly, that on many markers left-wing people are genetically sick: more likely to be sickly children, uglier, shorter, more often mentally ill (especially high in anxiety and depression), and more likely to have Cluster B personality disorders such as Narcissism with its attendant low empathy. The genetic component of these kinds of psychological traits and conditions is at least 50%, based on twin studies, and in some traits it is even higher. And this leads to an interesting question. What is the psychological nature of the kinds of women that have abortions?

According to a 2014 study in Social Science and Medicine entitled “The role of stress, depression, and violence in subsequent pregnancies among women having a first abortion,” such women are high in anxiety and depression and also in emotional dysregulation. In other words, they are high in the Cluster B personality disorder known as Borderline Personality Disorder. Sufferers feel a constant sense of emptiness, intensely fear abandonment, and, centrally, are highly emotionally dysregulated. They behave like stereotypical naughty children: tantrums, attention-seeking, manipulation; anything to get what they feel they want in the moment. They are fickle, due to constant self-doubt, and prone to black and white thinking known as “splitting;” where you either love or hate the same person depending on your suddenly shifting moods. Clearly, these neurotic women are much more likely to be left-wing than conservative. These woman want abortions, and their offspring, had they lived, would very likely have been psychologically similar to themselves.

This study is line with a much earlier study, from 1992, “Personality Characteristics of Women Who Had Induced Abortions” in the journal Association for Interdisciplinary Research in Values and Social Change. It found that women who undergo abortion have a markedly different modal personality compared to those who do not. They score higher than controls on histrionic characteristics (dramatic attention-seeking), Narcissism (which includes low emotional empathy and low altruism) and antisocial personality (psychopathy, which also includes low emotional empathy and low altruism). So, females who have abortions, compared to controls, are likely to be unpleasant, anti-social people and these traits are significantly genetic.

They are also more likely to be left-wing. This is firstly because conservatives will be likely to eschew abortion for religious reasons or due to their higher empathy and sense of responsibility, and, secondly, because being left-wing is predicted by being mentally unstable and by having Cluster B personality disorders. This was found in the study “The Dark Triad traits predict authoritarian political correctness and alt-right attitudes” in the journal Heliyon. Leftists were high in Narcissism and Machiavellianism while the authoritarian, anti-freedom extreme right, who I’d aver are almost as bad as the far left, were high in the other Dark Triad trait, psychopathy.

But in essence, abortion involves nasty, anti-social, virtue-signalling left-wing women ending their own bloodlines in a context in which the traits involved are strongly genetic. Leftism itself is as much as 60% genetic. The law passed in the UK is, therefore, Woke Eugenics in action. It is eugenic.

Wokeness seems to be a group-level adaptation that will return deracinated, genetically sick Europeans to genetic health. Surely, the kind of women who want abortions should be allowed, nay, actively encouraged to have them. Think how selfish, nasty and unnatural you’d have to be to kill your baby at 9 months gestation, as English Law now effectively permits. And that baby will almost certainly grow up to be very like its mother. What can possibly be wrong with letting such a woman snuff-out her own bloodline?

Her offspring will not only be left-wing, and thus destructive of adaptive traditions that keep us in our evolutionary match and thus happy and safe, but, likely, criminally inclined.  The study “The Dark Triad as a predictor of criminality: Evidence from the Add Health Study” in the Journal of Criminal Justice has demonstrated this in depth. Criminal behaviour is about 60% genetic. This law will reduce criminality. Indeed, according to “The impact of legalized abortion on crime” in the Quarterly Journal of Economics the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s in America is estimated to account for approximately 50% of the observed drop in crime rates between 1991 and 1997. Specifically, the study attributes a 20–25% reduction in violent crime and a similar reduction in property crime to increased abortion access.

Put simply, this law is a leap forward in the process of Woke Eugenics and the return to sanity. Conservatives should put their sentimentality aside and rejoice as more and more deeply unpleasant people remove themselves from gene pool. Rejoice!

Sacred Sex-Beasts: How a Rape-Gang Report is Another Step Towards Civil War in Britain

/8 Comments/in , , /by

Operation Voicer. Why is it so little known? The left could surely use it to counter the “racist narrative” that importing non-White men into the West is bad for White women and girls. Yes, Operation Voicer was the police investigation into a gang of the most depraved and disgusting sex-criminals. They were raping babies, filming their crimes, and sharing the footage on the dark web:

Police combed the suspects’ electronic communications and established that contact between them began on adult online sex forums, which are publicly accessible and legal to use. Investigators recovered Skype chat logs that recorded conversations between the men, which police described as disgusting and abhorrent. The exchanges — which were never meant to have been discovered as the men went to great lengths to destroy their online activities — included references to “nep”, a term investigators had not come across before. It is a shortening of “nepiophile”, a person sexually attracted to babies and toddlers. There were also references to controlled drugs and over-the-counter medicines, with members of the ring openly discussing what dosages were needed to drug children of different ages. (“Seven members of ‘terrifyingly depraved’ paedophile gang jailed,” The Guardian, 11th September 2015)

The White baby-rapists whose rich and vibrant gay identity was erased by the leftist media (image from the Guardian)

All of those sickening sex-beasts were White men — every last one of them. And they might still have been raping babies in 2025 if one of the gang hadn’t spontaneously confessed his crimes to the police in 2014. So why don’t the left use Operation Voicer to shame the pro-White racists who oppose non-White immigration? The answer is simple: leftists don’t do that because the baby-rapists are the wrong kind of White men. In their reports on the case, the Guardian, BBC and Wikipedia do their best to “erase” a core component of the men’s rich and vibrant sexual identity. But one word in one sentence of one Guardian report hints at the truth: “A baby, aged between three and seven months at the time of the abuse, and two boys aged around four have been identified as victims.” Can you spot the word? That’s right: it’s “boys.” The Manchester Evening News was less reticent: “A child rapist involved in a paedophile ring which sexually abused babies and toddlers was a manager at a well-known local charity […] Chris Knight worked at OutdoorLads, a social group for gay and bisexual men, for around five years until he was suspended when he was arrested in November last year [2014].”

Yes, the baby-rapists were members of what I call the Glorious Gay Community or GGC. Also members of the GGC are two men charged in June 2025 with raping a baby to death in northern England. Once again, the Guardian has done its best to erase the men’s rich and vibrant sexual identity. Unfortunately for the Guardian, it’s easy to read between the lines when the story is about two men adopting a baby boy:

A secondary school teacher has appeared in court accused of the sexual assault and murder of a 13-month-old baby boy he was adopting. Jamie Varley, 36, who was a head of year at a school in Blackpool, is also accused of a number of counts of assault, cruelty and taking and distributing indecent images relating to Preston Davey. Varley was in the process of adopting Preston along with the co-accused John McGowan-Fazakerley, 31. Both men appeared in court on Friday, nearly two years after police were called to Blackpool Victoria hospital, where the one-year-old died on 27 July 2023. (“Blackpool teacher charged with sexual assault and murder of baby,” The Guardian, 13th June 2025)

The two gay men accused of raping a baby boy to death in 2023 (photos from Twitter)

Again, the two men are White, but again they’re also gay and therefore entirely unsuitable for anti-White leftist propaganda. The left refuses to admit that pedophilia is more prevalent among homosexual men than among heterosexual men. It appears that baby-rape too is more prevalent among homosexual men. But homosexual men are a sacred minority on the left, so Operation Voicer cannot be used by leftists to counter another toxic truth about another sacred minority. The second toxic truth is that sex-crime is more prevalent among non-White men than among White men. Much more prevalent. That’s just been admitted by a leading leftist in her National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. Dame Louise Casey was appointed to carry out the audit by the Labour government in January after Elon Musk criticized that government over Britain’s rape-gang epidemic. Unfortunately for Labour, Casey has been honest rather than obfuscatory. The BBC reluctantly reports some of her honesty about another sacred minority:

One small example of how Pakistani Muslim men are massively over-represented in sex-crimes (graphic from Louise Casey’s rape-gang report)

One key data gap highlighted by the report is on ethnicity, which is described as “appalling” and a “major failing”. It says the ethnicity of perpetrators is “shied away from” and still not recorded in two-thirds of cases, meaning it is not possible to draw conclusions at a national level. However, the report says there is enough evidence from police data in three areas — Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire — to show “disproportionate numbers of men from Asian ethnic backgrounds amongst suspects for group-based child sexual exploitation”.

It adds that the significant number of perpetrators of Asian ethnicity identified in local reviews and high-profile prosecutions across the country also warrants further examination. The report says more effort is needed to explore why it appears perpetrators of Asian and Pakistani ethnicity are disproportionately represented in some areas. […] The review also notes a significant proportion of live cases appear to involve suspects who are non-UK nationals or claiming asylum in the UK. (“Key takeaways from grooming gangs report,” BBC News, 16th June 2025)

The toxic truth is slowly starting to prevail over leftist lies. Not that the left is going to give up without a fight. The veteran leftist liar Polly Toynbee was still trying to hold the line — and the lying — in her response to the rape-gang report. She wrote in the Guardian that it was “inadequate” to record “ethnicity” in only “a third of cases.” I’m surprised that a writer as good as Toynbee used the feeble adjective “inadequate,” which is by no means the mot juste. And Toynbee didn’t explore how and why this “inadequacy” has arisen in leftist institutions that are usually obsessed with recording “ethnicity” and exposing “racial disparities.” She then announced: “[H]ere’s the latest from the data that has been recorded: 83% of suspects are white, 7% Asian, 5% black.”

Fancy that. Polly Toynbee doesn’t appear to read her own newspaper. Four days before her valiant attempt to carry on lying, the Guardian had published a report about the trial of a Pakistani Muslim rape-gang in the northern town of Rochdale. Here’s one line from the report: “Girl A told the jury she could have been targeted by more than 200 offenders but said ‘there was that many it was hard to keep count’.” And how many of those offenders went on trial in Rochdale? The report revealed that seven did. 7/200 = 0.035 or 3.5%. You can find the same thing in every other non-White rape-gang trial: the victims of the gangs always report far more abusers than are ever arrested and prosecuted. As I wrote at the Occidental Observer in 2018: “You’ve heard about specimen charges, selected when a criminal has committed too many offences for a court to deal with speedily and efficiently. Now meet specimen defendants, selected when a ‘community’ contains too many criminals for the authorities to charge without embarrassment.”

Seven Pakistani Muslim child-rapists out of possibly “more than 200”

I based that conclusion on reports in the Guardian. If a knuckle-dragging racist like me could understand the truth from reports in the Guardian, why couldn’t the hugely intelligent Polly Toynbee? It’s simple: because she prefers leftist lies to the toxic truth (and, of course, she isn’t really either intelligent or a good writer). But not all leftists prefer lies to truth. As I’ve also written at the Occidental Observer: “not all leftists are collaborating with or trying to conceal the rape-gangs.” I then listed some of the honorable exceptions: the journalists Anna Hall and Julie Bindel; the Labour politicians Ann Cryer and Sarah Champion; the former policewoman Maggie Oliver and the social worker Jayne Senior. Now I’ll add two more honest leftists to that list: Dame Louise Casey, who has begun to speak the truth in her just-published report on the rape-gangs, and Raja Miah, a brown-skinned Muslim from Oldham, another of the rape-gang redoubts in northern England. Raja Miah is a leftist insider who went rogue, because he refused to join the cover-up about the Pakistani rape-gangs. In other words, he refused to join the Labour party’s war on the White working-class. Then again, he’s Bangladeshi, not Pakistani.

Raja Miah, the rogue Bangladeshi leftist who refused to join Labour’s war on the White working-class (image from Andrew Gold’s channel at YouTube)

I don’t think that Bangladeshis are good for Britain, but I’m in no doubt that Pakistanis are worse. We are not all the same under the skin. Some groups, like homosexual men or non-White men, commit more and worse sex-crime than heterosexual men or White men. But Pakistanis are a lot worse than Bangladeshis. This is a toxic truth that the mainstream left has done its best to deny, decade after decade. Now the toxic truth is beginning to emerge. But there is no genuine cure for Third-World pathologies in the West except the removal of Third-World people from the West. And that won’t happen without civil war, which the evil White racist Enoch Powell prophesied long ago. In 2025 the respectable military historian David Betz expects civil war to arrive soon in Western Europe. Casey’s report is another step towards the fulfilment of Powell’s prophecy.

Two Styles of Moral Thinking: Reciprocity vs. the Unique Rightness of the In-Group

/8 Comments/in , , /by

Philosophers have been debating the nature of justice since antiquity without ever coming to agreement. Formally, justice means “giving every man his due.” In other words, it concerns the distribution of rewards and punishments or (more broadly) of the good and bad things of this world to human beings. The debate really concerns what principle ought to determine the distribution. This is what philosophers are trying to establish when they argue over the nature of justice.

Although no conclusive agreement has ever emerged on the question, some general principles appear to have been thrown up by the debate itself. One such principle is reciprocity. The idea is that one necessary (but probably insufficient) condition for justice is that the same principles a person (or group) applies to himself (or itself) must also be extended to rival claimants.

The issue of reciprocity arises in debates over racial nationalism. White nationalists seek to create White ethnostates, and this may appear prima facie unjust because it requires the exclusion of other possibly quite decent and worthy people from such states. This is, of course, precisely the injustice of which nationalists’ opponents accuse them.

The nationalists’ answer is that they want nothing for their own group that they would not be happy to allow others: every ethnicity should be free to form its own ethnostate. So, while these other groups may indeed be excluded from our countries, this does not deprive them of a homeland of some kind—one from which they are even free to exclude us in their turn.

We can see from this example that the nationalist and his opponent—whom we may call the integrationist, the antiracist, the cosmopolitan, or any of a number of other terms—actually do agree on something: both argue in terms of reciprocity, supporting political arrangements as just only if they apply the same principles to all. The integrationist wants every country opened up to everybody, while the nationalist wants a particular homeland for every group—and thus (indirectly) for every individual. Both agree, in other words, that justice requires reciprocity, and both apply this principle in their thinking, even though they arrive at different and contradictory political programs.

One consequence of this situation is that no appeal to justice-as-reciprocity can decide the point at issue between integrationists and nationalists. Any verdict in favor of one doctrine or the other must be based on some other consideration, such as its relative compatibility with human nature. I would suggest that the tribal nature of man might be especially relevant in this context.

It is likely that the disposition to reason morally in terms of reciprocity is stronger in some people than others, like virtually all human dispositions. And racial realists will easily understand that if this is the case, such a disposition almost certainly differs across genetic groups as well. I would expect to find thinking in terms of reciprocity most common in Europeans and their descendants, although I admit never having made an empirical study of this.

One great European expression of the importance of reciprocity, or applying the same principles to others that we would claim for ourselves, is what the philosopher Immanuel Kant called his categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” A maxim is a rule of behavior. So what Kant means is that rules of behavior possess moral legitimacy only if they can be applied in the same way to everyone. The essence of morality, in his view, lies in not making exceptions in one’s own favor.

For example, it would be advantageous to me to take anything I wanted from anyone else: in other words, to steal. But if this principle were applied universally, there could be no security of property for anyone, and civilization would quickly collapse back into savagery. So the maxim “steal whatever you desire” fails to conform to the categorical imperative, whereas the maxim “do not take things that do not belong to you” does conform to it. The latter rule can thus be morally legitimate, while the former cannot. A similar argument could be made about lying, which if it became universal would completely destroy social trust and thus also result in the collapse of civilization. The rule that we should tell the truth, on the contrary, can be universalized and is therefore morally legitimate.

In his book Why Race Matters, the Jewish-American philosopher Michael Levin suggests that conformity to the principle of reciprocity is a basic feature of what he calls “Caucasoid morality.” In tribute to Kant’s formulation of this principle in his categorical imperative, Levin calls persons who think morally in terms of reciprocity “kantian:”

A kantian can be expected to see things from a variety of perspectives. He will follow general rules, not constantly seek to make an exception of himself. He knows that other people take their own ends as seriously as he takes his, so he does not treat others as mere resources. Nobody wants his own preferences overridden for the sake of someone else’s, so a kantian will not selfishly override the preferences of others. A kantian who wishes others to serve his own ends attempts to recruit them as he would wish to be recruited, by persuasion or bargaining rather than threat, coercion, or deception. Kantians are aware that they sometimes need help, so they are inclined to help others. Since a kantian like everyone else wants to be able to rely on promises, he is trustworthy. (Why Race Matters, 211–212)

This is, in fact, a reasonably good description of our everyday conception of what a good person is, although it may not include the whole of moral virtue (e.g., heroic self-sacrifice for the group). Levin points out that applying such moral principles requires some intelligence, since it involves an ability to abstract from one’s personal interests. So while there certainly exist bad persons of high intelligence, there may be limits to how good (in the kantian sense) a person can be without some intelligence. This helps to explain why kantian behavior may be more common among races with higher intelligence, e.g., among Whites than Blacks.

My impression, as already stated, is that European descended people are especially prone to moral reasoning in terms of reciprocity. I will not try to prove this thesis conclusively within the confines of an essay, but I can point out how it might explain certain cultural misunderstandings which arise in our age of mass immigration and multiculturalism.

For example, I once came across a story about a Christian pastor who visited a Mosque in an immigrant neighborhood in Europe. During his visit, the resident Imam presented him with a copy of the Koran, which the man politely accepted. The pastor then extended an invitation to the Imam to come visit his church, which the Imam proceeded to do. There, the pastor politely presented him with a copy of the Christian Bible. The Imam drew back in horror, fearing contamination from the infidel’s disgusting and sacrilegious book, in such clear contradiction to everything contained in the Holy Koran.

It would, I think, be safe to observe that this Muslim Imam did not reason morally in terms of reciprocity. But that does not make it impossible for us to understand his behavior. He was a Muslim, after all: he believed in the divine origin and unique rightness of his particular faith tradition. If God really did dictate the Koran and reveal his will to Muhammad in a way he never did to any other human prophet, then the Imam was correct to act as he did. Infidel dogs such as that polite Christian pastor are bound for the flames of hell, and such a fate is no more than what they deserve for their inexplicable failure to recognize the obvious truth of Muhammad’s claim to be God’s final and most perfect prophet!

In other words, rather than reasoning morally in terms of reciprocity, the Muslim reasons in terms of the unique rightness of his in-group, the ummah or worldwide community of Muslim believers. Many writers have noted this aspect of Islam. Frithjof Schuon, e.g., writes of Muslims’

curious tendency to believe that non-Muslims either know that Islam is the truth and reject it out of pure obstinacy, or else are simply ignorant of it and can be converted by elementary explanations; that anyone should be able to oppose Islam with a good conscience quite exceeds the Muslim powers of imagination, precisely because Islam coincides in his mind with the irresistible logic of things. (Quoted in Serge Trifkovic’s The Sword of the Prophet, p. 199)

Their implicit faith in the rightness of the authoritative traditions of their in-group is so powerful that they are unable to place themselves outside of it even in their imaginations, as Schuon notes. This is, of course, directly contrary to the practice of the kantian as described by Prof. Levin, who “can be expected to see things from a variety of perspectives.” Communication between an observant Muslim and a European who thinks in terms of reciprocity is thus inherently difficult and cannot be overcome by mere good will on either side: that European pastor will inevitably see the problem as getting the Imam to reason in terms of reciprocity, while the Imam will see the problem as the pastor’s failure to convert to Islam. The two ways of reasoning are simply incommensurable. This is one reason the presence of any significant number of Muslims within Western societies will always be problematic.

The same failure of communication due to different styles of moral reasoning can be met with in other contexts as well. One example is holocaust commemoration. Many European gentiles are easily recruited to support this cause out of a sincere horror for the killing of the innocent. They see the holocaust as an especially horrifying example of man’s inhumanity to man. It is irrelevant for them that the particular case involved Germans killing Jews; it would have been just as wrong and just as horrifying if it had involved Jews killing Germans instead.

But some European gentiles eventually come to the realization that many Jews do not see matters in this way at all. For Abraham Foxman, e.g., the holocaust “was not simply one example of genocide but a near successful attempt on the life of God’s chosen children and thus on God himself.” It would have been an entirely different matter if Jews had been killing Germans rather than the other way around, for the Germans are not God’s chosen children! In Foxman’s way of looking at things, there can be no reciprocity when one is a Jew, for his in-group is unique and not commensurable with any other human group. It would be positively wrong to apply the same standard to Jews as to the other peoples of the world. He even comes close to identifying his own group with Almighty God.

Elad Barashi is an Israeli television producer with ties to the current governing coalition in Israel. Regarding that country’s ongoing war on Gaza, he recently unbosomed himself as follows:

[W]ho is the man who doesn’t want to see Gaza burned to the ground by the IDF’s fire? Who is the man who defends and has mercy on these Nazis? Who is the fool who says there are ‘innocents’ in Gaza? Who is the despicable scoundrel who wants to let them flee to Arab countries or Europe freely?… The 2.6 million terrorists in Gaza deserve death!! They deserve death!! They deserve death! Men, women, and children—by any means necessary, we must simply carry out a Shoah against them—yes, read that again—H-O-L-O-C-A-U-S-T! In my view—gas chambers. Train cars. And other cruel methods of death for these Nazis. Without fear, without weakness—just crush. Eliminate. Slaughter. Flatten. Dismantle. Smash. Shatter. Without conscience or pity—children and parents, women and girls—all of them are marked for a cruel and harsh death…. Who is the brave man who will decide to bring a total Holocaust to Gaza, so that rivers of blood will flow from it, so that rotting Gazan corpses pile up in mounds…. (X post, since deleted but available here)

He goes on, but this sample of his thinking is perhaps adequate for our purposes.

Mr. Barashi’s reflections might be usefully understood in the context of frequent Jewish warnings against facile holocaust comparisons which trivialize that event’s allegedly unique horror. Here we see someone not simply comparing current events with the holocaust but actually calling for a new one: no “never again” for this Jew!

But, of course, the holocaust Mr. Barashi wishes to see is not really the same as the late unpleasantness in Eastern Europe. In fact, it will be the farthest thing imaginable from the Nazi holocaust, because this time it will involve Jews killing Palestinian “Nazis.” For the essential question in assessing holocausts is not how many deaths they involve but whose ox is getting gored. The case where Jews are being killed is not simply distinct from the case where Jews are doing the killing: they are polar opposites. One is the greatest horror in all of human history, while the other is more than justified and rejected only by the unpardonably weak—such as Jews who want to make peace with their neighbors.

If European gentile thinking turns decisively upon the principle of reciprocity, much Jewish thinking turns upon the principle of Jewish uniqueness. It is easy to see that the two principles are precisely opposed to one another. For Kant, the essence of right behavior lies in not making an exception of oneself, and the principle can apply to groups as well as individuals. For the Jew, the fundamental fact about the world is the Jew-Gentile distinction, along with the entirely exceptional status of his own people.

However, we must not rush to conclude that this un-Kantian way of thinking, so difficult for many European-descended people even to wrap their minds around, is a specifically Jewish trait: the Muslim, as noted above, also sees his religion as universally and uniquely true, something that gives the ummah or community of Muslim believers a status not unlike that which the Jewish nation holds in Jewish thinking. Both are, of course, entirely incompatible with justice-as-reciprocity, and problematic in any group residing among Europeans prone to thinking morally in those terms.

Even if I am correct that such thinking is especially characteristic of Europeans, it is only fair to ask whether the contrary style of thinking—viz., in terms of the unique rightness of an in-group—has not also sometimes characterized us. One can certainly make a case that it has, citing certain teachings of historical Christianity in support. The Gospel of John depicts Christ as saying “No one comes to the Father except through me.” This has traditionally been understood to mean that there is no salvation outside Christianity (although Catholics and Protestants argue over whether this means communion with Rome or personal faith in Christ). That would make Christians the unique depositories of spiritual truth, and thus incomparable with all other people in the world. If this sounds vaguely Jewish, that is no accident. For most of Christian history, most Christians have held to the doctrine of supercessionism, which understands Christians as heirs to the divine promise made to Abraham (Genesis 12: 1-3) and understands the Christian Church as having replaced (or “superceded”) the Jewish nation as God’s chosen people.

Although it embarrasses many contemporary Christians, the traditional understanding of these doctrines was that non-Christians are bound for eternal damnation after death. The early North African Christian writer Tertullian wrote graphically of his fantasies of seeing Christ’s pagan enemies suffering in the flames of hell. This is not so different from what we find in Islam. When I ask Christians about this awkward aspect of their faith tradition, they usually admit that it makes them uncomfortable, but say they have faith in God to do whatever is right. In their minds, this probably does not include roasting all Buddhists in eternal fire.

Europeans did not always view their religious traditions as having a unique claim to truth. First-time readers of Herodotus’s Histories are often surprised to find him writing of foreign peoples worshiping Greek gods: e.g., the Egyptians worshiping Apollo. Of course, the Egyptians did not have any god named “Apollo.” Instead, they had a god named “Horus.” When Greeks heard Egyptians telling stories about Horus, he sounded more like Apollo to them than like any of the other Greek gods. So they concluded that “Horus” was simply the Egyptians’ name for Apollo. This is called an interpretatio Graeca. Herodotus uses the procedure in describing the religious life of all foreign peoples he describes.

What Herodotus never does is claim that only the Greek gods are the true gods, while the Egyptians and everyone else worship false gods, for which blasphemous practice the Greek gods are sure to punish non-Greeks after death. At one point he declares: “I have no desire to relate what I heard about matters concerning the gods . . . since I believe all people understand these things equally.” In other words, no one stands in a privileged relation to the divine. It is a kind of reciprocity concerning religion: your gods are probably as valid as mine. When modern European Christians think in a similarly tolerant and easygoing way about alien religious traditions, they may be succumbing to liberal modernity—but they may also simply be returning to a way of thinking long characteristic of their non-Christian ancestors.

Where did the less tolerant aspects of historical Christianity come from? Many would say they first came into the world with monotheism itself: in other words, with Judaism, the world’s first monotheistic religion. It does not seem to have occurred to Jehovah’s first worshipers that Baal and Ashera might be alternative Canaanitic names for their own God. Why not? One obvious possible explanation is that Jews are not Europeans—and neither were their ancient Israelite ancestors who first formulated monotheism. The same goes for Islam, which shares with Judaism the idea of a special and particular relation to the divine in which outsiders do not participate.

Just as intolerance and the unique rightness of in-group tradition are not absent from European history, the ability to think in terms of reciprocity is not necessarily entirely lacking in non-European peoples. It was, after all, the Jewish academic philosopher Michael Levin whom I cited as formulating justice-as-reciprocity in a useful way. And even Orthodox Jews who recognize the authority of the Talmud and rigorously separate themselves from all gentiles may understand the value of practicing justice-as-reciprocity among themselves. Indeed, such Jews are especially noted for high levels of in-group trust.

Finally, we should ask ourselves whether or not it is acceptable or even advisable for European-descended people to think partly in terms of the inherent claims of our in-group rather in terms of reciprocity. We might point out, e.g., that this is simply how the game of evolution is played: all persons and groups want to get their genes into the future for no other reason that the genes are theirs. Why should Europeans be any different from platypuses in this regard? We all want to survive and reproduce, and if any group does not wish to do so, it will not be long before another, healthier group comes along that will be happy to replace it.

So while we are sincere in acquiescing to the existence of homelands for non-Europeans from which even we ourselves may be excluded, our ultimate political aims have a purpose which transcends a mere willingness to practice reciprocity. Fundamentally we want what all living organisms want: to perpetuate our kind. Justice-as-reciprocity is an important component of European moral thinking, but not its sole and ultimate horizon.

In sum, while all human groups reason to some extent in terms of both reciprocity and the interests of the in-group simply because it is the in-group, Europeans are probably especially prone to the former style of thinking and non-Europeans to the latter. As a practical matter, we must be aware of both styles of moral reasoning. We should be willing to practice reciprocity with all who are willing to practice it with us—in other words, to practice reciprocity reciprocally. But when we encounter outsiders committed to the supposedly unique claims of their in-group, we must counter with an unapologetic commitment to our own.

Thoughts and Predictions on Israel’s war

/31 Comments/in , , /by

Trump should have remembered the French proverb: If you dine with the Devil, you’d better have a long spoon.

 Netanyahu and the Jews have played their cards adroitly and Trump has been left hanging out to dry.
At about 22:30 and 24:00 Mearsheimer comments on how the administration has been conned and what the costs will be.

The impact of the bombing of Iran and of the Israelis playing Trump for a fool is such that Trump’s presidency will never recover.
Trump’s base — cobbled together out of MAGA type Southerners and peace Democrats like Tulsi Gabbard and Kennedy — is going to be shattered.  The surprising defections of Gabbard and Kennedy enabled Trump to squeak by into office with 50.5% of the popular vote.  Trump could never afford to shatter that slender base.  His base will now dissolve.
Gabbard and Kennedy have been publicly humiliated.  The peace voters will drop out.  As the situation worsens and Trump is dragged along by the Israeli dog leash, I would not be at all surprised to see Tulsi Gabbard resign and make a public statement damning Trump.
The US may be drawn into a prolonged conflict.  The deficit will continue to soar as it did due to the money poured into the pockets of Liz and Daddy Dick Cheney and the rest of the military industrial complex when the neocons and their Baby Bush got us into the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.  Oil is going to soar in price…potentially to staggering prices. If oil prices rise dramatically, the economy is going to sour and as a result much of the public support for Trump will nosedive.
The neocons are going to be back in the driver’s seat. Trump is going to be at their mercy.  There’s no feasible way he can maneuver out of the situation.  The System Media will have an easy job exciting Americans into wanting to “get even” with Iran when American troops and oil investments in the Middle East are endangered.
Trump has no wiggle room.  He has been played for a fool by Netanyahu and the Jews.
Trump has boundless self-confidence in himself as “the master of the deal.”  He foolishly thought he could manipulate the Jews into going along with him on the immigration issue by making a deal with them — supporting the Gaza genocide and in exchange he thought the Jews would abandon their anti-WASP politics.
The Jews are far greater masters of the deal than Trump, but Trump’s pride made it impossible for him to see that and set his foolish course.
The Jews understand that crushing Amalek, the word they apply to White European Christians, is what is critical.  They can never abandon their policy of hostility toward us.  Without hostility, without cultivating and maintaining an adversarial attitude toward the host culture, the Jews would cease to exist.  Hostility is the sine qua non of their survival.
Netanyahu would never be so blind as to sign up for Trump’s deal.  Nor would “the community” at large buy into it.  Destroying Amalek through Third World immigration is their #1 priority. 
The latest poll shows that 71% of American Jews are opposed to Trump.  They are not going to change as a result of Trump’s championing Israel.  The Jews know that all significant politicians and both parties will always cater to them.  Trump’s “deal” was always DOA but Trump didn’t see this.
Netanyahu and the Zionists hate the demographic core of America.  They love immigration.  They are not going to change.  Trump should have thought of that but his level of self confidence did not allow for such considerations.
What will happen now?
Netanyahu and the community hold the trump cards.  They have trumped Trump.  Trump has no way out.  He’s caught.  They have caught him.  He has no options.
Trump will flop around like a fish out of water.  There’s no path open to him to save his Presidency.  There’s no way out for Trump. He cannot abandon Israel now.  He has to do what Israel tells him to do.  He will have to continue to cater to Israel even as the military “defense” budget rises staggeringly, oil doubles in price, inflation takes off, the economy reels and Trump’s public support dries up.
The Republicans will be crushed in the midterms.  Trump’s remaining time in the White House will be years of humiliation.  The neocons will be laughing their heads off and will be back in control even during the remaining Trump term.  In fact, the neocons are back in the driver’s seat already.
J. D. Vance will not be elected President in 2028.  His career is finished along with that of Trump.  He needs to start planning a new career.  Maybe he should become a real estate agent or a stock broker. After the peace voters return to the Democratic Party, after demographics ratchet America several more percentage points against the GOP, after working class voters get nothing while the plutocratic elite conspicuously enjoys Trump’s tax cuts, I would not be surprised to see the Republican Party lose the 2028 election by Goldwater/Johnson margins with the Democrats getting over 60% of the vote.
In 2028 the US will return to the post WWII status.  The Democrats will inherit the mantle of “racial progress”, wars to end war, etc.  The GOP will be a shadow opposition party that — as was the case for most of the post war period — will not oppose anything of consequence.
Anyway, these are my predictions.
As the English proverb says, “Truth is the daughter of time.”

Time will either confirm my assessment or disprove it.

Prof. John Mearsheimer on the Israeli attacks

/12 Comments/in , , /by

Mearsheimer: Trump was trapped by Israelis—once attack happened (against the president’s expressed wishes) the forces for war (Israel Lobby, etc.) were too much, so that he would have a political disaster if he disowned Israel. As I noted, “Trump is likely unhappy with what Israel did but will make the best of it and will defend Israel if it comes to that.” It has come to that.

Mearsheimer: Israel knows that no matter what anti-war conservatives say, when push comes to shove, “Israel has us tied around their little finger.” This does not exonerate Trump, but it would have been political suicide to jettison Israel as people like Tucker Carlson have advocated. Napolitano especially condemns Trump while Mearsheimer seems more willing to see the wider picture of Israel’s ultimate responsibility.

Mearsheimer:  Israel “Israel owns us”; Israel did not do all that much damage yet—lots of Iranian missiles underground; Iran can do serious damage to Israel (as we are seeing). He is worried about wider war, bombing oil facilities leading to disaster, global recession, etc. “Israel wants Americans to be killed because it would suck us into the war.” False Flag alert!