Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of Peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the Collapse of British Patriotism

/5 Comments/in , /by


Arktos Media, 2025

 

Preface

This book sheds much-needed light on contemporary controversies surrounding the seemingly oxymoronic phenomenon of “Christian nationalism,” past, present, and future, as problem and as solution.

Part One explores the ostensibly biblical foundations of Christian nationalism, the first-century Jesus movement, and the early Christian church in Greco-Roman antiquity.  Part Two examines the extent to which the rise and fall of early medieval Anglo-Saxon Christendom was influenced by the “project of peoplehood” reflected in the Hebrew Bible. In Part Three, the focus shifts to a modern history culminating in the post-Christian collapse of British race patriotism.

Does the contemporary crisis of Anglo-Protestant political theology stem from a failure to recognize in the historical Jesus the mythic model for the miraculous appearance of a Patriot King?  The religious, political, and civil institutions of the Anglosphere now oversee the deliberate degeneration of historic Anglo cultures into mere economic zones, populated by rootless, shifting masses of morally debased monads.

Faithful Anglo-Protestants could spark the reformation of the entire Anglosphere by labouring to bring the sweet dream of a Patriot King down to earth. Anglo-American evangelical Protestants are, therefore, a primary target for this book’s message. The spiritual reformation of the Anglosphere is a matter of geopolitical theology.  Anglo-American Protestants need to understand themselves as a people standing outside and apart from the state apparatus of the global American empire. In other words, they must mentally nullify the 1776 American Declaration of Independence, embracing instead an ancestral British race patriotism, in solidarity with their co-ethnics in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand still owing allegiance to the Crown.

I was born a British subject before the creation of Australian or Canadian citizenship, at a time when Anglo-Saxons still counted as one of Canada’s two “founding races.”  My intellectual development has been much influenced by what historian C.P. Champion describes as The Strange Demise of British Canada.  This theme figured largely in my earlier work.

Accordingly, this book was written from an Anglo-Identitarian perspective.  My hope is that a pan-British race patriotism can be rekindled by a reformed, neo-Angelcynn (Old English for “kin of the Angles”) church.  Such a reformation would provide a desperately needed theopolitical alternative to the hegemonic, universalist model of creedal Christianity. Nowadays, even American Christian nationalism routinely invokes the deracinated, disembodied Lordship of global Jesus as its heavenly warrant.

 

For centuries, Anglo-Protestant churches have been famous for sterile struggles between doctrinal orthodoxy and damnable heresy.  Nowadays, however, mainline Anglo-Protestantism has become indistinguishable from the revolutionary humanism driving the globalist regimes misgoverning the Anglosphere.

From its origins in Greco-Roman antiquity, Christianity was beset by a persistent tension between universalism and particularism.  This was manifested first in an opposition between the neo-platonic image of a cosmic Christ who died on the Cross to atone for the sins of all mankind and the Jewish origins story of a national Messiah come to save “the lost sheep of Israel.”

The deeply rooted pull of particularistic ethnic identities was not easy to escape.  Even the early Christian churches of the ancient Mediterranean world found it difficult to resist the impulse to identify themselves as a particular “third race,” neither Greek nor Jew.

Even so, the orthodox Augustinian worldview eventually achieved doctrinal hegemony.  This dualistic vision posited the existence of an eternal City of God, above and beyond the temporal world inhabited by the mortal City of Man.  That other-worldly cosmology met serious resistance once Christian missionaries encountered the stubborn ethnic particularism of the Germanic tribes in northwestern Europe.

There, the world-rejecting orthodoxy of creedal Christianity was often replaced by orthopraxy (i.e., the adoption of Christian rituals and practices by pagan converts).  Roman Catholic theology’s other-worldly doctrines were a tough sell among Germans and Anglo-Saxons.  By and large, they accepted their world as it was, valuing the warrior virtues of heroism far above Christian humility.

Fast forward to our own postwar world.  Following the crushing defeat of German ethnonationalism in 1945, the global Jesus of Anglo-Protestant theology achieved virtually uncontested hegemony.  Today, almost all mainstream Anglo-Protestants reject even the mildest manifestations of ethnic particularism as tantamount to racism.  Indeed, even the advocacy of “Christian nationalism” is denounced regularly from the pulpits of mainline Anglo-Protestant churches in the United States.

 

One might imagine that the established Church of England would accept Christian nationalism as a matter of course.  But the non-negotiable commitment of the English church to global Anglicanism makes that impossible.  As for the Anglican leadership in the former British dominions such as Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, they, too, want nothing more than to escape from their traditional but deplorable “Anglo-Saxon captivity.”

 

Avowed Christian nationalists in the USA are themselves held hostage by global Jesus.  Christian nationalism is bound to affirm that the telos of human history will be realized only when the primary allegiance of all nations is to King Jesus.

Still, it remains to be seen how a distinctively white Anglo-Saxon Protestant ethnoreligious identity can be squared with the ahistorical, universalist reign of Lord Jesus.  Even Stephen Wolfe, the most prominent American Christian nationalist, downplays, when not outright denying, the intractably biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity.  He has suggested, for example, that even black men such as Booker T. Washington and Justice Clarence Thomas (who happens to be a devout Catholic) have been assimilated into the Anglo-Protestant ethnonation.

By contrast, my thesis is that an exclusive ecclesiastical allegiance to a generic cosmic Christ reduces the distinctive character of every earthly ethnoreligious identity to mere adiaphora (i.e., things inessential in the eyes of the church).  The rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism demands an ethnoreligious foundation.

The theological refusal to reflect on the ethnonational identity of the historical Jesus must be recognized as the outdated product of historically Romanised ecclesiastical establishments, Protestant and Catholic alike. My argument, therefore, is that Anglo-Saxon Christianity should be re-Germanized by re-imagining the Angelcynn church of Alfred the Great to fit the needs of our own age.

The primary constituency for such a re-Germanized Christian nationalism is to be found among Anglo-Protestants.  Unfortunately, the realized biblical eschatology of the historical Jesus sent to save the “lost sheep” of biblical Israel has been suppressed in most Anglo-Protestant churches. The still-future Second Coming of global Jesus remains the bedrock presupposition of Anglo-Protestant theology, however well-grounded a “full preterist” interpretation of the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in AD 70  may be in biblical exegesis or historical reality.

This book provides persuasive evidence that the Hebrew Bible (most likely created between the fifth and second centuries BC) produced a poignant and powerful national narrative.  Conceived by Judean scribes as a pedagogic tool, that biblical narrative inspired the “project of peoplehood” presupposed by the Jesus movement of the first century AD.

 

Jesus was received by many of his co-ethnics as the Jewish Messiah.  He also became the Hellenic Christ.  Jesus Christ was the King of Israel for Jews such as Paul and later of the “third race” of early Christians.

That was then; this is now.

Anglo-Protestants desperately need to recover earlier folkish variants of the Christian tradition.  I suggest that the focus of Anglo-Protestantism needs to be shifted away from its historic preoccupation with personal salvation in the world to come.  Anglos need a sense of rootedness in networks of ethnoreligious communities in which shared ancestry matters as much if not more than doctrinal purity.

Colonial and antebellum New England provided many useful examples of churches as godly little republics as well as clear warnings pointing to the dangers of doctrinaire religion.  Jewish synagogues and Islamic mosques offer countless other non-Christian examples of ethnoreligious communities far more productive of in-group solidarity (aka social capital).

An Anglo ethno-religion is both the institutional precondition and moral foundation for the creation of socially cohesive communities.  Anglo-Protestant churches must become the ethnoreligious heart of breakaway parallel societies devoted to producing healthy, happy, and morally upright families together with British-descended counter-elites set in opposition to the irresponsible corporate plutocracy now misgoverning the Anglosphere.

It may be that Anglo-Protestants will someday receive as King a Christ of their own.  But he is unlikely to return as a 5’5” Jewish man whose name is Jesus.  That fact need not preclude the miraculous appearance of our own Patriot King, were he to become incarnate in Australia and the other British dominions.

In short, my book offers a sympathetic but penetrating critique of the hitherto unchallenged hegemony of global Jesus within the Anglo-Protestant epicentre of the emergent Christian nationalist movement.  My hope is to persuade Christian nationalists that their predominantly Anglo-Protestant movement, like the first-century Jesus movement, can and should embrace, explicitly, its historic, ethnoreligious character outside and apart from the state.

At the same time, a Christian nationalism grounded in orthopraxis rather than strait-laced orthodoxy may attract secular, culturally Christian traditionalists.  While maintaining their resistance to unconditional belief in the established Christian creeds and confessions, such people are more likely to be receptive to a “modernized” folk religion in which the church serves, first and foremost, as a teacher of morality.

In effect, therefore, the book advocates a return to the nineteenth century Broad Church movement in the Church of England pioneered by men such as Sir John Robert Seeley.  Younger Anglo-Protestants in particular, along with their agnostic contemporaries, are having their future stolen from them by a corporatist regime destroying every institution that could provide access to stable, prosperous, middle-class family lives of purpose and meaning.

Their rising discontent could find its first significant outlet in an Anglo-Identitarian Christian movement challenging those who currently manage and control evangelical Protestantism in the USA: the power centre that Christian nationalists call “Big Eva”. This book aims to provide such an oppositional movement with intellectual ammunition as well as insight into the weaknesses of a Christian nationalism that places the mythology of global Jesus over loyalty to co-ethnics. 

Annotated Table of Contents

Introduction

Our Own Worst Enemy? Anglo-Protestant Theology, British Race Patriotism, and the European Civil War

In the nineteenth century British/Anglo-Saxon race patriotism was a commonplace feature of Anglo-Protestant culture.  We begin by examining why and how the twentieth century “European civil war” led contemporary Anglo-Protestant churches to dismiss the English ancestry and white British ethnicity of most of their communicants as a merely implicit and contingent (if not downright unmentionable) circumstance of no theological significance.

 Part One

Creedal Christianity: Theological Origins of the Present Crisis

  1. Sweet Dreams of Christian Nationalism (But What About the Protestant Deformation, Globalist Churches, and Jewish Political Theology?)

This review essay discusses The Case for Christian Nationalism (Canon Press,    2022) by Stephen Wolfe.  The author identifies real problems with post-Christian societies.  One wonders, however, why Wolfe takes such pains to deny that he is a “kinist,” much less a “racist.”  Indeed, he seems to find it extraordinarily difficult to distinguish between “Christian nations” and “Christian states.”

  1. Religion, Race, and Ethnicity in Greco-Roman Antiquity: New Perspectives on the Lordship of Jesus, Judaism, and the “Truthiness” of Christianity

We take a deeper, historical dive into the fundamental presuppositions of Wolfe’s Christian nationalism.  He asserts that “Jesus is Lord” and “Christianity is the true religion.”  In what sense, are those statements “true”?  Were Jesus and Paul really the founders of a new religion?  Was the “resurrection” of Jesus Christ a unique historical event or a mimetic manifestation of a common Greco-Roman literary     trope?

  1. Metanarrative Collapse: Has the Christian Cosmology Crafted by Augustine of Hippo Stood the Test of Time?

Augustine of Hippo rewrote a biblical narrative originally conceived as a Hebrew ethnonational epic.  This chapter examines how Augustine’s Hellenistic hermeneutic laid the cosmological foundation for Western Christendom. We also    consider the efforts of contemporary, neo-Augustinian Radical Orthodoxy to restore that crumbling edifice.

  1. Global Jesus versus National Jesus: The Political Hermeneutics of Resurrection

The ongoing quest for the “true” meaning of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection cannot be separated from the central political conflict of our time: globalism versus nationalism.  Were Jesus and Paul wrong in their expectation that the “resurrection        of the body” would occur in the lifetime of their followers, at the “end of the age”?  How did they conceive the nature of that resurrected “body”?  Was it to appear as the holy spirit breathing life into the dry bones of Old Testament Israel, as lamented in Ezekiel 37:4-7?  Or did they envisage individual, physical (“glorified”?) bodies emerging from their graves in the far distant future everywhere in the world? 

Part Two

Did Anglo-Saxon Christendom Replicate the “Project of Peoplehood” Posited by the Hebrew Bible?

  1. Adam and Eve in Torah: The Lost World of Covenantal Ethnotheology

Despite their differences modern biblical literalists and scholarly literary critics alike abstract Adam and Eve from their place in the particularistic ethnotheology of national Israel according to the flesh.  Both camps view Adam and Eve, whether biologically or mythically, literally or figuratively, as ancestors or representatives of Everyman and Everywoman.  A better interpretation of Genesis 1-3 conceives the pair as characters in the foundation myth of Old Covenant Israel

  1. Exodus 34: Covenantal Ethnotheology and the (Re)Birth of the First Holy Nation

In Exodus 34 God enters into the everyday life of Israel according to the flesh via the channel of grace embodied in Mosaic authority.  Having received the Mosaic law, national Israel is thereby empowered to serve as the spiritual womb of the living God, the one to come in an as-yet far-distant future.  The modern functionalist interpretation of Exodus 34 holds that covenantal ethnotheology merely reflects the primitive, particularistic, and narrowly ethnocentric character of ancient Israelite religion.  This approach downplays the problem in practical theology posed by the story: the national religion lacked a secure cultic foundation.  This has been no less a problem for early medieval Angelcynns and contemporary Anglo-Protestants.  How can we preserve a Christian nation if the Presence of the Lord is no longer with us?

 

  1. Making Angelcynns: How Alfred the Great Responded to the Viking Invasion

This essay highlights the theopolitical significance of the Anglo-Saxon king, Alfred the Great.  His reign (871-899) brought to fruition the project to establish an Anglo-Saxon Christendom begun by the Venerable Bede in the eighth century. The British-descended peoples of the modern Anglosphere would do well to reclaim Alfred’s legacy.

  1. Sanctifying the Norman Yoke: William the Conqueror, the Angelcynn Church, and the Papal Revolution

The Norman Conquest brought Anglo-Saxon Christendom to an end.  William the Conqueror was a fellow traveller of the Papal Revolution of the late eleventh         century. Earth-hugging Saxon churches gave way to the spires of Gothic cathedrals pointing to an empty sky. The “Romanization” of Alfred’s Angelcynn church signalled an Age of Disincarnation, thus splitting the secular from the spiritual realm. 

  1. A Choice Not an Echo: Biblical Israel as Mythic Model for Anglo-Saxon Christendom

It seems that the Old English church of the Anglo-Saxon era reflected what scholars describe as “the Germanization of early medieval Christianity.”  It has also been said that the Hebrew Bible was the product of a “project of peoplehood.”  This chapter considers whether the Hebrew Bible served as a model for the creation of the Anglo-Saxon Christendom. 

Part Three

Beyond Creedal Christianity: Neo-Angelcynn Political Theology versus Globalist Churches and the Transnational Corporate State

  1. Who are We Now? Restoring the Ethnoreligious Dimensions of WASP Identity throughout the Anglosphere

The world-rejecting cosmology of the church in the Mediterranean world of the late Roman Empire stood in opposition to the world-accepting character of Germanic Christianity.  Nevertheless, both traditions presupposed the universal reign of Lord Jesus.  Christian nationalism therefore remains, for us, something of an oxymoron.  Accordingly, in the Anglosphere at least, the postmodern restoration of Christian nationhood should be inspired by a neo-Angelcynn theopolitics best organized around four “orienting concepts”: process theism, preterism, kinism, and royalism. 

  1. Was Early New South Wales (1788-1850) a “Christian Community”?

Anglo-Protestant churches in England (both the established Church of England and its dissenting offshoots) aimed to perpetuate themselves by reinforcing cultural ties between the mother country and the British settler colonies in Australia and elsewhere.  Unfortunately, those cultural ties were not always conducive to the creation of a Christian community, either “at home” or in early New South Wales.

 

  1. The White Australia Policy in Retrospect: Racism or Realism?

The White Australia Policy was inaugurated in 1901 at the high-water mark of    British race patriotism. This review essay discusses two books, one on the adoption of the WAP, the other on its repeal.  Both works view the policy from the    perspective of a racial egalitarianism that flies in the face of the intractable reality of racial differences presupposed by the founding fathers of Federation in Australia.

  1. Puritans in Babylon: The Impact of Global Christianity on Sydney Anglicans

In the brave new world of “global Christianity,” the largest Christian communities are now to be found in the overwhelmingly non-white realm of the so-called “global south.”  This chapter deals with the response of the evangelical, low-church Anglican diocese of Sydney to the movements that demand conformity to the manifold manifestations of the progressive Cult of the Other.

  1. Anglo-Republicanism and the Rebirth of British History: Why Virtuous WASPs Must Challenge the Corrupt Globalist Plutocracy Misgoverning the Anglosphere

The rise of a globalist system, presided over by the managerial elites of                 transnational corporate capitalism, has transformed the British-descended citizenry        of once-proudly “Anglo-Saxon countries” into random collections of stateless people.  This chapter explores the relevance of the Anglo-American republican tradition to a neo-Angelcynn reformation of civil society, outside and apart from     the state, throughout the Anglosphere

  1. Monarchs and Miracles: Australia’s Need for a Patriot King

The eighteenth-century Country Party politician, Viscount Bolingbroke, maintained that only the influence of a Patriot King (“the most uncommon of all phenomena in the physical or moral world”) could draw despotic governments and   their corrupted peoples back to the original principles of liberty that had their origins in the ancient British constitution.  The issue here is whether (and how) Bolingbroke’s idea of a Patriot King can be transposed into our own age of woke capital and mass migration to rescue stateless Anglos, now stranded in the (residually) British dominions of the Crown throughout the Anglosphere.

Covenant Theology and God’s Chosen

/4 Comments/in , /by

Introduction

Within the alt-right community there is a continual call to advocate traditional, Northern European paganism. Inherent in both the published and online literature is the view that the fall of Europe can be traced to the abandonment of its roots in the Norse religion and that Christianity looted paganism of its intellectual treasures.[1] Though alt-right Christians like me can be found, there seems to be a rising consensus in the alt-right that is critical of Christianity. This is understandable since the New Testament is the prophetic fulfillment of Judaism, which has a history of plundering nations and, especially since the medieval era, has become a morally debased religion practiced by a generally evil people. In this brief article, I hope to reinvigorate interest in the Christian story among the alt-right by providing a theological consideration for why God chose the evillest race in history to be his people in the Old Testament. I’ll begin by proffering covenant theology as the historic alternative to dispensationalism (and its Zionism), as the interpretive lens through which we should understand the biblical meta-narrative. I’ll conclude by examining how the incarnation of Christ and God’s pattern of salvific election can better help us understand the character of God and his choice of the Jewish people in the Old Testament.

Abrahamic Blessing and Covenant Theology

The Jews have wreaked havoc on Western civilization. This is one of the first realizations one has when she starts to dive into alt-right literature. Their mode of operation has sometimes been described as parasitic, as they attach themselves to a host nation and destroy that nation from the inside. Yet, many Christians in America believe that the Jews are God’s special and chosen people. Guided by a theology called dispensationalism, they eagerly defend the Jewish people in all internal and foreign affairs: they defend their presence in any nation, they defend the state of Israel and their cause in any conflict, they defend U.S. foreign aid (both financial and military) to Israel, and they support any political policy that lifts up the Jewish people, even to the detriment of another people. Writes one Christian Zionist, “With the world rightly united against the use of nuclear weapons, let us empower Israel—and stand ready ourselves—so that Iran’s regime grasps a simple truth: We will not hesitate to defend ourselves or our allies. True peace hinges on strength, and we must exhibit both in earnest, today and always. And just as strength is not a precursor to war, neither does bombing Iran start a never-ending conflict; in fact, it stops the war that started the day the Islamic Republic was born.”[2]

What could drive a Christian to speak so casually about bombing another nation? It all starts with the covenant promise that God made to Israel. In Genesis 12, God says to Israel’s patriarch, Abraham, “I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” (2–3). Evangelicals receive this verse as a mandate to support God’s Abrahamic people in the form of modern Israel to whatever violent end and at whatever financial or human cost. However, if the reader of Scripture progresses, he’ll find that the nature of this covenant is framed in conditional terms. Leviticus 26:3-4 uses the if/then grammatical structure of a subjunctive conditional: “If you walk in my statutes and keep my commandments so as to carry them out, then I shall give you rains in their season, so that the land will yield its produce, and the trees of the field will bear their fruit.”

But Israel did not keep their end of the covenant, and God, in his loving patience, decided to give them chance after chance, renewing their covenant at various points in Scripture. In the book of Joshua, He reaffirms His covenant with Israel and reiterates His warning against disobedience. Joshua says on behalf of Yahweh, “If you abandon the Lord and worship foreign gods, He will turn against you, harm you, and completely destroy you, after He has been good to you” (24:20).

Within the Abrahamic covenant then, there is a two-fold promise: The unconditional promise that through Abraham all nations will be blessed. This is an allusion to the coming of the Messiah whose line will persist through the Jewish people no matter what. Yet there is the conditional promise of general blessings; the material blessings of rain for the harvest, protection from enemies, and God’s provision of Holy Spirit-led guidance and sense of fatherhood over the nation of Israel as his children.[3] In other words, God promised to keep his Messianic promise of blessing to the Jews and that promise was kept through Christ. When Christ the Messiah did finally come, he came through the Jewish people. The gospels of Matthew and Luke even provide a genealogy of Jesus with Matthew going back to Abraham and Luke going all the way back to Adam.

But the Jews have rejected the Messiah. Acts 4:11 says, “Jesus is ‘the stone you builders rejected, which has become the cornerstone.’” So, God sent his gospel to the Gentiles through the Apostle Paul and engrafted them into the salvific tree of Israel. The promises that were meant for Israel have now been transferred to the Church. Whoever trusts in Christ for salvation becomes a citizen in God’s chosen spiritual nation — the Church. Circumcision, which in the OT was the sign and seal of the covenant that God made with his people to make them his own has been replaced by baptism. It serves the same purpose as circumcision as it is understood as setting someone apart from the world and bringing them into the covenant family of God’s people which is now the Church, not Israel.

Theologians have long called this observation supersessionism, which is directly informed by covenant theology. Covenant theology is a helpful interpretive guide to the meta narrative of the Bible. The Bible’s story unfolds in “chapters” of covenants. God made a covenant with Noah not to destroy the natural world even though he knew sin would continue to spread among it. He gave Noah the sign of the covenant in the form of a rainbow. He made a covenant with Abraham to bless his offspring materially and spiritually if his people would not follow other gods. The sign and seal of this Abrahamic covenant is circumcision, which is seen as a ceremonial act of cleansing and purification; a way to set the Israelites apart from her neighboring nations. He made a covenant with David that his kingship would be eternal. The sign and seal of this covenant was the throne, on which Christ now sits at the right hand of God the Father. In the New Testament, God made a covenant to anyone through Jesus Christ to be their God, if they abandon their false gods and idols and trust in Him through Christ alone.

The sign and seal of this new covenant is baptism. This is why Christians baptize their babies — It replaces circumcision as the ceremonial rite of induction into God’s covenant community. In this way, covenant theology makes a common-sense observation of the chronology of biblical salvific history. Zionist disagree with this way of viewing the whole Bible, and instead insist the Bible’s narrative unfolds in ages called dispensations. They believe that there are several ages in the salvific story and that we are currently in the “church age.” According to dispensationalists, there is a final coming age of Zion, where Christ will rule from Jerusalem for a thousand years. This theology gives Israel a sort of sacred status as the future center of God’s kingdom. Zionists angrily denounce covenant theology and its subsequent supersessionsim as “replacement theology”[4], because it replaces the idea of the chosenness of Israel with the chosenness of the Church.

It is confusing that Christian Zionists, while believing along with covenant minded Christians that salvation is found only in Christ, could simultaneously believe that the people who have whole heartedly rejected Christ are his chosen people. If they believe on the one hand that people who reject Christ, including Jews, spend eternity in hell, how could they on the other hand believe that an entire race of people who have rejected the only means of salvific blessings could be God’s chosen? If anything, the very opposite is true. St Paul likens Israel to Pharaoh whose heart was hardened by God before the Exodus from Egypt. It’s quite possible that Israel is under a special spiritual curse, as they continue to reject their Messiah who came through their own faith.

A more comprehensive explication of covenant theology than provided here is needed to fully understand its interpretive implication. However, it should suffice to say for now that dispensationalism is rather new in the history of biblical interpretation. The historic tradition of the church is also an important epistemological factor in discerning the Word of God in Sacred Scripture. The doctrine of the Church is passed on from one generation to the next, preserving the sacra doctrina of the apostles. This is what the Church means in the Apostles Creed when we say, “I believe in the Holy Catholic Church.” As St Vincent of Lerins said, “All possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has always been believed, everywhere, always, by all.”[5] Dispensationalism is as new as the nineteenth century. It does not mean that we don’t see doctrinal developments based on already-evolving truths come in more recent times. But it does mean that the church cannot accept an entire paradigm shift in interpretation. Covenant theology is the historic (traditionally) and commonsense (biblically and logically) method for understanding the whole of God’s Word. So, who are God’s people? The Church. Those who commits themselves to Christ, whether Jew or Gentile, belong to God and are a part of his chosen covenant family called the church. There is no room in the biblical meta-narrative for viewing the modern state of Israel or any ethnic group of people for that matter as God’s chosen people. God made a new covenant in Christ. The old covenant has been fulfilled in him and comes with new terms and conditions. Simply being Jewish does not suffice. As St. Paul writes in Romans 9:8, “In other words, it is not the children by physical descent who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring.” That promise is fulfilled in Christ.

Why the Jews?

However, this still does not answer why God chose Israel from the many peoples of the world to covenant with in the Old Testament. Here is the answer: God’s loving character and desire to save all people, from the worst of all nations and peoples to the best. Would God be God if He only chose the best of humanity? If He chose for Himself a people whom He, in his divine foreknowledge, knew would be the most obedient of all peoples, what kind of hope would that give to the imprisoned, the poor, and all of us who have sinned egregiously against the Lord (and that’s everyone)? What hope would lesser races have, that they too may be forgiven and saved? God chose the Jews, the very worst of humanity, and became one of them through Jesus Christ, that all of humanity, from the worst of us to the best of us might be saved. By taking on Jewish flesh in the incarnation of Christ, he made possible the redemption of those races and peoples even in the very pits of humanity, reconciling anyone who trusts in him to the Father. Referring to the Jews, God tells Moses in Exodus 32:9, “I have seen this people, and behold, it is a stiff-necked people.” But in Christ, God became the lowest form of human, a Jew, so that any one of us may attain salvation in Him and through Him alone. God has made a habit of choosing the worst of us. It is why he chose Paul, a persecutor of Christians to carry the gospel to the gentiles. It is why God chose Peter who denied Christ when asked if he knew him. It is why God chose James though he doubted Christ even while seeing him arisen. God would not be God if only the best had a chance at salvation. He loves the worst of us. But he requires that we repent of our sins and trust in Christ alone.

Conclusion

            Covenant theology is, therefore, the appropriate hermeneutic with which we should approach the biblical narrative. Its merits are easily observed in Scripture. It is believed and practiced in Roman Catholicism, Classical Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, and has been the prevailing method of biblical interpretation for the history of the church. The American public peers into Christianity and observes the rather loud dispensational voices commenting on current events and therefore believes that the church catholic (the whole church) thinks this way. Christianity, therefore, to the alt-right might seem off putting, given its claims concerning Israel. But it’s important to know that most of the church affirms a more reasonable interpretive method, one that severs the destiny of Israel from the church. It is my hope that if the alt-right understands that dispensationalism/Zionism is actually a minority view in the grand scheme of church history, and isn’t a view taken seriously by most theologians, perhaps they’ll give Christianity another look.

Nick Craig has a B.Sc. Religion, Liberty University and an M.A. Theological Studies, Houston Christian University

Bibliography

Elwell, Walter A, ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984.

Hedrick, Gary. “Replacement Theology: Its Origins, Teachings and Errors .” Shema, October 5, 2012. https://shema.com/replacement-theology-its-origins-147/.

Parker, Sandra Hagee. “Peace Through Strength When It Comes To Supporting Israel and Confronting Iran.” Jewish News Syndicate, February 5, 2025. https://www.jns.org/peace-through-strength-when-it-comes-to-supporting-israel-and-confronting-iran/.

Rea, Robert F. Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Live and Learn From the Past. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014.

Svarte, Askr. Polemos: The Dawn of Pagan Traditionalism. Moscow, Russian Federation: Prav, 2020.

[1] Askr Svarte, Polemos: The Dawn of Pagan Traditionalism (Moscow, Russian Federation: Prav, 2020), Kindle location 221.

[2] Sandra Hagee Parker, “Peace Through Strength When It Comes To Supporting Israel and Confronting Iran,” Jewish News Syndicate, February 5, 2025, https://www.jns.org/peace-through-strength-when-it-comes-to-supporting-israel-and-confronting-iran/.

[3] Walter A Elwell, ed., Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1984), 277.

[4] Gary Hedrick, “Replacement Theology: Its Origins, Teachings and Errors ,” Shema, October 5, 2012, https://shema.com/replacement-theology-its-origins-147/.

[5] Robert F Rea, Why Church History Matters: An Invitation to Live and Learn From the Past (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2014), 36.

Freudian slip: psychotherapist speaks too much truth on woke ideology

/2 Comments/in /by

 

The long march through the institutions is almost complete, with no profession untouched by Cultural Marxist subversion. A few brave workers make a stand for the very purpose of their vocation, against such interference.  Police should be policing, teachers should be teaching, midwives should be delivering babies, librarians provide access to books, and therapists conduct therapy. It should be obvious that practitioners, after training, practise their calling.

Not so much nowadays. Midwives attend to ‘pregnant persons’, police do social work, teachers indoctrinate, librarians empty the shelves of books, all for the agenda of transforming society from traditional mores to the revolutionary dogma euphemistically defined as ‘equality, diversity and inclusion’ (EDI). Now it seems that psychotherapists are expected to prioritise identity politics over individualised therapeutic intervention.

Concerned at this wrong turn in her profession, highly skilled and experienced therapist Sue Parker Hall put her hat in the ring for chairperson of the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP). The process has hardly been fair. The organisation’s blandly conformist journal New Psychotherapy has promoted three stances taken by her rival candidate. The UKCP is making clear who they want to win an election that it should be running without favour.

Most troubling for Sue Parker Hall is a letter signed by numerous members of the body, accusing Sue of expressing ‘far-right’ views, conspiracy theories and harmful misinformation.  The petitioners strive to discredit her and ensure that she is not elected. Indeed, the hostility is so intense to suggest that they want to hound her out of the profession.

Four days ago, Parker Hall decided to publicise her fears for psychotherapy and her victimisation in a You Tube video. Stressing the importance of critical thinking, intellectual freedom and ethical integrity, she criticises the political activism that is diverting psychotherapy from its raison d’être. The unjustified attack on her character is corrupting democratic process, yet the UKCP board has remained silent.

The contrast between what psychotherapy should be doing, and what it is doing instead, is stark. This passage in her monologue is worth reciting: –

‘Intersectionality is at odds with the clinical framework because it prioritises group identity over individual experience. It encourages clients to see themselves through the lens of oppression rather than as whole integrated people. It shifts the therapeutic focus to external social forces, which can be disempowering and discourage self-exploration. It also unhelpfully frames relationships as power struggles, fostering division rather than connection, which runs counter to psychotherapy’s aim of healing relational wounds and deepening empathy.’

Imagine being a White heterosexual male on the couch, with a judgmental therapist blaming you not for your own problems but a legacy of social ills caused by your sex and race. Parker Hall comes across as humane but also a therapist who will challenge faulty thinking rather than build that into a model of systematic discrimination. Words like ‘harm’ and ‘safety’ are weaponised by the radical ideologues in a way that deters therapists from confronting the client’s problematic outlook, which may exacerbate their struggle and maintain cycles of distress.

In the comments below the video there is plenty of support and gratitude. But puritanical conformity is prominent, Parker Hall having committed heresy: –

‘What you call ideology I call human rights.’

‘Whenever someone is worried about EDI, I can’t help but think of Trump.’

‘Maybe some people should be deplatformed after all.’

Typically lacking insight is a comment by Robert Downes decrying Parker Hall’s argument against ‘critical social justice theory’. This is ‘not a thing’, he says; ‘nobody identifies themselves as a proponent of such theory or practice.’  This despite reams of ‘research’ and ‘clinical guidance’ on such balderdash. And this being the same chap who declares that Parker Hall is a right-wing extremist. Free speech for me but not for thee….

The open letter opposing Parker Hall, addressed to the board of trustees, has been signed by over a thousand UKCP-accredited psychotherapists. It begins by stating that Parker Hall appeared in a video on the ‘far-right platform’ Rumble, in association with the World Council for Health, claiming that the Covid-19 pandemic was orchestrated by the authorities, using ‘cultic thought reform techniques’ for totalitarian ends.

The letter accuses Parker Hall of being willing to be publicly associated with conspiracy theories based on right-wing propaganda and lies, including Covid-19 denial, claims of vaccine harm, climate change denial and anti-LGBT narratives. Furthermore, she runs a support group for ‘differently aware’ therapists who are concerned about ‘globalism, great reset, world banking system, nanotech, Russia, transgender issues Palestine and satanic child abuse’.

Such views, the letter argues, are ‘in direct conflict with the UKCP’s core values of inclusivity and ensuring that policies are informed by data and evidence.’

These therapists (with the diverse middle-class names of Hannah, Tara, Phoebe, Tiffany, Holly, etc) would surely regard themselves as following the motto to ‘be kind’. Yet they are acting like a lynch mob. And what is the relevance of climate change or global bankers to a therapists’ ability to do her professional role, whether practising with clients or chairing the council? Do any of these therapists know the evidence that would differentiate the contrived climate crisis from a scam? Is it not appropriate for Parker Hall, as a member of society, to discuss matters of political import?

The letter ends, somewhat confusingly, by urging the UKCP ‘to ensure that members have the information they need to vote for a candidate who reflects the values and aims of the UK’.

If I needed psychological help I’d be glad to have Sue Parker Hall facing me. But not many of her professional peers, who are exposing themselves as frenzied puritans more suited to Maoist cultural revolution than person-centred therapy.

Dr. Niall McCrae
Dr Niall McCrae is an officer of the Workers of England Union and until recently a senior lecturer in mental health nursing at King’s College London.
He has written several books, including The Moon and Madness (2011), Echoes from the Corridors (with Peter Nolan, 2016), Moralitis: a Cultural Virus (with Robert Oulds, 2020) and Green in Tooth and Claw: the Misanthropic Mission of Climate Alarm (2024).
Niall writes regularly for Unity News Network, Conservative Woman, Country Squire and The Light newspaper. 

What Working at a Retirement Home Taught Me About the Elderly and Today’s Healthcare Racket

/5 Comments/in /by

Since retiring a few years back, I’ve kept myself busy by working as a night attendant for a large retirement facility in the mid-West. The two main advantages of the job are that I get to meet some wonderful people as well as walk about seven miles each night which helps to keep me in generally good shape. Hearing the life stories of folks who have been on earth for the past eighty or ninety years and the insight they’ve learned has, at times, been fascinating and I’ve enjoyed it immensely.

Over the past few years, however, I’ve discovered many truths about our corrupt and broken Heathcare system, including just how badly uninformed enormous numbers of elderly people are about nutrition and the medical industrial complex that has largely taken over their lives.

Thanks for reading Ambrose Kane ! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

The following are my observations and opinions based on numerous conversations with elderly residents. I don’t claim to be novel or innovative in my criticism of the contemporary Healthcare system. Nothing I’ve written here hasn’t also been said or written by someone else in some form. But this doesn’t make it any less true, and I hope some will be encouraged to rethink their opinion of doctors and the corrupt medical system that we’ve been subjected to.

The first thing I’ve learned is just how naively trusting the elderly are of their doctors. They really do view them as their ‘savior,’ almost godlike in a sense. To think their primary care physician may have ulterior motives other than the improvement of their personal health would come as a shock to a good many of them.

This is somewhat understandable, of course, since the doctors might have improved their health or even saved their lives in some instances. There are, indeed, good doctors out there, but even the best ones are caught up in a corrupt medical matrix that far too often places profit above the health of their patients. This is because America’s $4.5 trillion healthcare industry is a business, and their primary motivation is to make large profits for their investors and to raise enormous sums of money to pay staff, employees, maintain tech equipment and facilities.

Having talked to many of the residents, none of them from what I could determine view themselves as being their own health advocates. The notion is completely foreign to almost all of them. They wholly trust their doctors without question. They don’t challenge their physicians even when there are valid reasons for doing so. They don’t seem do any medical research on their ailments, despite there being a plethora of books, internet articles, and social media platforms that might address their particular disease or symptoms. They seem to know nothing about alternative medicine, the benefits of quality supplements, or holistic treatments. They don’t even think in such terms. Again, they completely trust all of what their doctors tell them and place full faith in the medical establishment.

This may be due to the era and culture out of which they have lived for many years, a time in which every institution, including the federal government, was trusted without question. The majority of their lives were spent in a high-trust society which contrasts sharply with our current no-trust society that we live in. Those days, however, are long gone, and there is every reason now to challenge and to question the contemporary medical system that we live under.

Trusting completely in medical doctors might be a good idea if our physicians were infallible, but they’re not. In fact, medical errors, including mistakes in prescriptions, cause a considerable number of deaths each year. Granted, it may not be the third leading cause of death as reported by some publications, but there can be little doubt that much of it is the direct result of human error, wrongful diagnosis, mistakes in pharmaceutical prescriptions, and sheer incompetence.

According to the National Library of Medicine, “Health care is not as safe as it should be. A substantial body of evidence points to medical errors as a leading cause of death and injury. Sizable numbers of Americans are harmed as a result of medical errors. Two studies of large samples of hospital admissions, one in New York using 1984 data and another in Colorado and Utah using 1992 data, found that the proportion of hospital admissions experiencing an adverse event, defined as injuries caused by medical management, were 2.9 and 3.7 percent, respectively. The proportion of adverse events attributable to errors (i.e., preventable adverse events) was 58 percent in New York, and 53 percent in Colorado and Utah. Preventable adverse events are a leading cause of death in the United States. When extrapolated to the over 33.6 million admissions to U.S. hospitals in 1997, the results of these two studies imply that at least 44,000 and perhaps as many as 98,000 Americans die in hospitals each year as a result of medical errors. . . . In terms of lives lost, patient safety is as important an issue as worker safety. Although more than 6,000 Americans die from workplace injuries every year, in 1993 medication errors are estimated to have accounted for about 7,000 deaths. Medication errors account for one out of 131 outpatient deaths and one out of 854 inpatient deaths” (‘To Err is Human: Building a Safer Healthcare System’).

The second thing I’ve learned is that almost every resident is on a plethora of pharmaceutical drugs. One elderly gentleman proudly told me that’s he on fifteen separate medications each day, including four different blood pressure pills! Another woman told me that her doctor prescribed her nineteen separate pills that’s she’s required to take with her breakfast each morning. To many of these elderly folks, swallowing large numbers of pills each day is seen as perfectly normal which is a clear indicator of just how insane things have become in the Healthcare world.

In my opinion, some physicians intentionally load their elderly patients with more medications than they actually need as a way of meeting the prescription quotas required by their hospital. This is another way that big bucks are brought into the system. How about the flu shot? Ever notice how pushy nurses and doctors get or even annoyed when you refuse a flu shot? They take it so personally. I doubt that it’s because they care so much for your health. The real answer probably lies in the loss of revenue that occurs when patients refuse it.

According to a PBS News article,

In the Byzantine world of health care pricing, most people wouldn’t expect that the ubiquitous flu shot could be a prime example of how the system’s lack of transparency can lead to disparate costs. The Affordable Care Act requires health insurers to cover all federally recommended vaccines at no charge to patients, including flu immunizations. Although people with insurance pay nothing when they get their shot, many don’t realize that their insurers foot the bill — and that those companies will recoup their costs eventually. In just one small sample from one insurer, Kaiser Health News found dramatic differences among the costs for its own employees. At a Sacramento, Calif., facility, the insurer paid $85, but just a little more than half that at a clinic in Long Beach. A drugstore in Washington, D.C., was paid $32. The wide discrepancy in what insurers pay for the same flu shot illustrates what’s wrong with America’s health system, said Glenn Melnick, a health economist at the University of Southern California. (‘The Hidden Costs of “Free” Flu Shots,’ by Phil Galewitz, 11/19/2019)

Primary care physicians get angered when they’re accused of being legalized pill pushers, but what else are we to think when so much of what they do each day involves writing endless prescriptions? And to think that most doctors are going to carefully sift through any possible contraindications for the medications they prescribe is laughable. The doctors are too busy, and they have very precise time limits they are allowed for each patient.

Are there exceptions to what I have written here? Of course! But the few exceptions only serve to prove the general rule.

Dr. Uma Pisharody, in a recent article, concedes that this model of care has not been effective for either the patient or the doctors’ captive to it. She has urged her colleagues to move away from this ineffectual and outdated framework:

Infants are now prescribed strong medications for spitting up, equating their regurgitations with adult heartburn and reflux. Older children are being diagnosed with hypertension, ADHD, sleep disorders, anxiety at alarming rates and then suffering the consequences of the side effects of the polypharmacy that we prescribe. Kids are medicated more than ever before. If one drug doesn’t work, we suggest trying another. If a pill fails, we try an injection, and if that fails, we try invasive procedures and surgeries followed by even stronger medications. Let’s face it, most doctors are trained to be pill-pushers. Tell us your symptoms — we will medicate you. We love prescribing medications, which essentially work like applying band-aids to external symptoms because we don’t understand how to prevent, treat, or reverse chronic disease. We simply don’t understand diet and lifestyle intervention. We were never taught this in medical school. (KevinMD.Com., ‘A Call to Action for My Medical Colleagues,’ 5/10/2022).

The doctors, as noted above, largely treat their patients in terms of symptoms only, and do not think in terms of the root cause of their ailments. Thus, modern physicians are locked into a system of treatment as health management or pain management rather than one that actually seeks to cure or end the problem. This works out beautifully for the medical industrial complex because it maintains a steady stream of lifelong patients whose medical complications are forever managed, but which never go away.

This creates enormously staggering profits for the hospitals, and the corporations that own them, including the pharmaceutical companies they are wed to. As the old saying goes, “A patient healed is a customer lost.”

It’s also important to understand the mindset of today’s doctors. There is little doubt that they are intelligent because completing the academic rigors of medical school requires an IQ well above average, at least until DEI took over. Many of them are well-meaning and genuinely want what is best for their patients. However, they tend to also be compliant types which means few of them are going to challenge the system nor rethink what they’ve been taught since medical school. Some of them, as others have noted, are arrogant and unteachable. The entire way that society looks at medical doctors only serves to reinforce the ‘god complex’ of far too many of them.

These same doctors know that if they deviate from mandated protocols regardless of how ineffective they may prove to be, they will be penalized and may lose their medical license as a result. Few physicians, understandably, are willing to fight the medical system and jeopardize their salary, status and medical license. Thus, they are caught up in a system that inevitably burns them out and leaves them disillusioned.

The third thing I’ve noticed is that few, if any, of the residents that I’ve talked to seem to know anything about what constitutes a healthy and balanced diet. They actually believe their dining hall feeds them good meals because it’s required by government guidelines from the sorely outdated food pyramid. What is not known by the residents is just how many chemicals and harmful additives are included in their meals. From what I could gather, the food is mostly cheap and highly processed as it likely is in every other Independent and Assisted Living facility. I very much doubt that the corporations who own such retirement centers scattered throughout the nation dictate that only organic and non-GMO ingredients are used in their food. This would be enormously costly, and I know of no corporation involved in elder care that does it.

The retirement facility that I work in provides a bakery and cookie store for the residents. The residents, of course, love it and I can understand why. Yet, I’m inclined to think that our well-intentioned sweet shop has only exacerbated the rates of dementia and Alzheimer among our residents. And believe me, almost every person living at our facility has some form of serious memory decline which sugar and grains only make worse when they are metabolized in the body. Not only are desserts offered on the lunch and dinner menus, but any resident entering or leaving the facility must pass by the bakery and cookie store. Few can resist the temptation to stop in and buy something sweet. In other words, the very thing that contributes to and exacerbates memory loss is constantly offered to the elderly residents. I doubt that any of them have been told by their physicians that completely eliminating sugar, high fructose corn syrup and grains from one’s diet has, in many reported cases, gradually caused their memories to improve over time. This is why some have referred to Alzheimer’s as Type-3 diabetes. It all depends, of course, on just how bad one’s dementia is but studies have shown marked improvement in memory when sugar is totally eliminated.

It’s not just the residents who are uninformed as to proper nutrition, but so are the greater numbers of doctors. Doctors in medical school are usually given one or two courses on nutrition, and that’s about it. And what little they do teach to their students is based on what the nutritional establishment thinks is a healthy diet which is largely wrong and outdated. This is government advice, the kind we probably don’t want or need.

The medical establishment places little importance on one’s diet as the source of so many health complications. This explains why most doctors during a routine checkup rarely inquire as to what their patients eat on a regular basis. The doctor has not been trained to think in this way, and so he assumes that diet plays little role in one’s overall health. It’s completely irrational and unscientific, and yet this is the way they think. Their entire paradigm is out of whack. It’s like bringing your car to a mechanic because the engine stalls and sputters and him telling you not to worry about what you put into the gas tank because fuel doesn’t really matter in the overall health of one’s car!?

Strangely, humans are the only species on earth that’s confused about what they should eat. One doesn’t find this in the animal world. Much of this confusion in the U.S. is the direct result of decades-long propaganda by the food corporations. They have manipulated us to consume highly refined franken-foods that are not really foods at all. These same food manufacturers have bribed government officials to look the other way when harmful ingredients are added to their products. They also contribute huge sums of money to hospitals and medical schools which, in turn, influences how these same institutions address the subject of processed carbohydrates, refined sugars, and seed oils.

Our universities and medical schools have in their own way contributed to the obesity epidemic in America by the sin of omission, and by publishing studies that were observational in nature and not based on rigorous scientific inquiry. This is the problem when food corporations are allowed to donate large sums of money to medical schools because it essentially guarantees that they will tread lightly when it comes to warning the American consumer about the health dangers of certain foods and ingredients. The concluding data might also be doctored in order to fit prior assumptions, or to not upset the lucrative gravy train that large corporate donors provide (see Dr. Malcolm Kendrik, Doctoring the Data [Columbus Publishing Ltd, 2015]).

The elderly that I’ve had discussions with seemed to have no awareness that part of the reason they’re required to take so many prescriptions is because of decades of a poor diet — namely, the standard American diet that’s heavy on highly processed food that’s been enriched with chemicals most people can’t pronounce, additives, artificial coloring, emulsifiers, preservatives, excessive carbohydrates and seed oils, refined sugars, and ingredients that cause inflammation and weight gain. Decades of eating such chemically laden slop invariably creates a host of health problems, such as diabetes, chronic kidney disease, heart disease, and different metabolic and autoimmune issues, including various forms of cancer.

The elderly who have shared with me their health concerns have been shocked when I’ve told them that Type-2 diabetes can be reversed and that life-long medication for it is unnecessary because diet alone can rectify the problem. Others have told me that they’re content with receiving medication for insulin resistance because it allows them to continue eating sweets. This is the kind of thing only an addict would say. How strange it is that many persons have little interest in ending their ailments when lifestyle and dietary changes are required.

The common assumption seems to be that taking multiple prescriptions is all part of getting older. Yet, I’m not so sure that this is true or has to be the case. There are, in fact, many people who have avoided medication in their older years by simply watching what they eat, consuming only nutrient dense foods, avoiding sugar, and engaging in regular exercise.

Lastly, almost all of the residents faithfully line up to receive their seasonal flu immunizations, including their Covid shot and boosters. This too, in my view, is a reflection of their complete trust in the medical establishment and by extension the federal government itself. I doubt any of them would believe me if I told them that the Covid pandemic was largely a scam and a diabolical effort by our government to gain total control over the American people. They would probably scoff at the idea that the Covid ‘vaccine’ was foolishly rushed and did not go through the rigorous testing procedures and allotted time that all other vaccines are required to endure. The ‘vaccine’ also proved to be ineffective and even dangerous for many people who mindlessly took the jab thinking the pharmaceutical companies could be trusted.

Moreover, there seems to be little awareness or suspicion among most people, elderly or not, that allowing oneself to be injected with vaccines containing strange concoctions of chemicals might not be all that healthy as we’re repeatedly told by Big Pharma. I can only hope that the following generations of Americans will not be so trusting of their physicians and of the medical industrial complex.

Mentally Unstable Democrat Politician Sterilises Herself to Gain Attention and Praise

/7 Comments/in , /by

Someone got in touch with me last week to tell me that every prediction I’d made in my book Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism had come true. The reason? A fertile, female, Democrat member of the Michigan House of Representatives had announced that she had sterilised herself in response to Donald Trump being re-elected as president.

The Narcissistic Laurie Pohutsky Posing with Her Favourite Colors

‘My argument in Woke Eugenics was that mutants have taken over Western culture and duly push people in a maladaptive direction. This acts as selection pressure in favour of those who are genetically conservative, meaning that they, and their healthy genes, will be the future. However, the death cult of Woke — where you must resign from the gene pool for the sake of the environment, for example — will also suck in certain psychological types who may be only slightly mutated.

This is what we are seeing with Laurie Pohutsky, the Michigan House of Representatives’ member for the 17th District. Her sterilisation in itself, however, is not an example of “Woke Eugenics” in action. That is exemplified in the fact that, despite being married, she is childless at 36. The sterilisation is indicative, instead, of the kind of personality type that gets sucked into extreme Wokeness.

Laurie Pohutsky, who has strongly campaigned in favour of “Trans Rights” including that the school shouldn’t have to tell parents if their child changes its “gender identity,” announced at a rally on the steps of Michigan state capitol that: “I underwent surgery to ensure that I never have to navigate a pregnancy in Donald Trump’s America.” She claimed to have done this because Trump’s election meant that she was, consequently, uncertain about whether she’d be able to access contraception in the future. I don’t think there’s any question of Republicans banning condoms, the coil or the pill, so we can only assume that “contraception” is a euphemism for “abortion.” It, perhaps, says rather a lot about Pohusky’s attitude to human life that she should, on some level, regard abortion as a form of contraception.

It’s also rather hysterical. When the federal right to abortion was over-turned, the State of Michigan immediately passed a law guaranteeing access to abortion. Pohutsky seems to hold to the paranoid belief that Trump will somehow pass a nationwide ban on abortion. I find it hard to accept that she genuinely believes this. Moreover, Trump will only be president for four years, so why get sterilised at all? The implication is that she is convinced that Trump will institute some kind of, from her perspective, “extreme right-wing dictatorship.”

But, in a sense, this is all irrelevant. Pohutsky is married and is 36 years-old. Realistically, if she was going to have children, if she wanted to have children, she’d have had them by now. Her husband, who is also a political activist, has publicly supported what she’s done. Clearly, he’s not too fussed about having children either. Laurie Pohutsky is also openly bisexual. Indeed, she told reporters that she and her husband, who are both extremely busy with all manner of left-wing campaigning, had decided against having children.

Pohutsky’s Husband, Nathan Triplett, President of the Michigan ACLU.
[Pohutsky:] “I said, ‘I’m sorry, I guess maybe I should have not said this.’”
[Triplett:] “He stopped me, and he said, ‘No, you said exactly what you needed to say. I know why you said it.’”

It is this decision, therefore, that is the example of “Woke Eugenics,” not Pohutsky’s actual sterilisation. Having imbibed the feminist idea that males and females are somehow equal and must both work, she has placed her career well above passing on her genes. Having absorbed the Woke idea that conservatives will destroy the various “marginalised” minorities with whom she identifies, she has put political campaigning above replicating herself. Being hyper-individualistic and self-centred, as we will see, she probably lacks the desire to nurture a baby. They do, after all, make you think about somebody other than yourself. Being highly mentally unstable and so regarding herself as “marginalised,” she identifies with other “marginalised” groups and puts fighting for them above passing on her genes.

Why? Studies have indicated that the moral circle of leftists is very different from that of conservatives. On average, conservatives are group-oriented — they care about the genetic groups to which they belong — so the world becomes a series of circles around self. You love your family more than your kin, your kin more than your ethny, your ethny more than your race, your race more than species, and so on.

And Pohutsky is not alone:

While Republican colleagues of Ms Pohutsky’s in the Michigan legislature have posted snarky comments about her online, several women have reached out in the past 24 hours “sort of relieved to hear somebody else say what they had felt… and what had led them to make their decision around, you know, a surgical option.”

“I was hoping that if there were people who were concerned or sort of on the fence or, you know, just hadn’t heard anybody say, yes, ‘I’ve been there too. This is okay for you to make this decision.’”

Some of those women said they were now calling their doctors to book their own sterilisation.

“So I guess in that regard, it did what I wanted it to do.”

But even for those who do decide to permanently render themselves infertile, finding an appointment may not be easy.

One woman told her that she was unable to book a consultation as “so many people are trying” after Mr Trump’s victory.

Liberals combine being mentally unstable with being individualists; they are adapted to an unpredictable environment in which they are out for themselves. Being Neurotic (high in negative feelings), they fear a fair fight, so they virtue-signal their supposed kindness in order to manipulate their way into power over their group, which they wish to control because they are paranoid. They identify, in terms of their moral circle, with people who are genetically distant from self. This identification allows them to collaborate with outsiders in order to attain power over their own group. Thus, Democrat Whites will care more about Blacks than about other Whites.

It is this underlying mental instability which gives us the real insight into Pohutsky’s psychology. One of the ways you deal with being Neurotic is to adopt a Narcissistic “false self” in which tell yourself that you are perfect, unique and, of course, you are entitled. This latter trait reflects the low Agreeableness that is found in both Narcissism and leftism. In an unstable ecology, you could be wiped out at any time; co-operation may not be repaid.  Studies that I explore in Woke Eugenics have shown that Narcissism is correlated with being Woke. You crave Narcissistic supply — being told that you really are wonderful. How do you get this? In a leftist culture, you competitively signal how left-wing you are and people praise you accordingly. This runaway Wokeness can reach a point, naturally, where you declare your commitment in very extreme ways, such as stating, “I will leave America” or “I will sterilise myself.” This Woke ostentatiousness also reassures you, to yourself, that you really are morally superior and just plain perfect.

Of course, if one digs beneath the surface, such declarations are often hollow. The Hollywood actress does not actually move abroad, or, if she does, it’s not very difficult for her because she’s extremely rich and likely has property around the world. The Democrat politician, who has presumably been successfully using contraception throughout her marriage, likely has more money stashed away than if she had children, and she had decided not to have children anyway, so the sterilisation is purely symbolic. In reality, with Pohutsky, what we are seeing is something closely related to Narcissism; Histrionic Personality Disorder. Such people, usually women (80% of sufferers are female), are theatrical, flirtatious, have an excessive need for attention and have a profound desire for approval.

The headline about Pohutsky in the UK’s Daily Telegraph was “I’m a Democrat politician. This is why I sterilised myself after Trump’s election.” Such a headline simply plays into her Histrionic Narcissism. A more accurate headline would be “Histrionic Narcissistic Democrat, Who Doesn’t Want Children Anyway, Sterilises Herself to Gain Attention and Narcissistic Reinforcement.” But, certainly, her resignation from the gene pool, quite independent of the vain sterilisation, would be a prime example of “Woke Eugenics.” Liberals are born traitors and are (relative to conservatives) mentally and physically ill, liberalism is significantly genetic, and liberals are gradually removing themselves from the gene pool. . . . Let us not stand in their way.

On the Possibility of a New Elite

/32 Comments/in , /by

I am perhaps best known for documenting a hostile, highly influential Jewish elite in the U.S. and really throughout the West. But I think things are changing in a good direction. With some important exceptions.

Jews ascended to the heights of American society in several stages. In the early twentieth century they were important enough to get on Henry Ford’s radar. Ford noted their prominence in a variety of fields and their hostility to Christianity — see  my discussion of Henry Ford’s The International Jew published from1920 to 1922. Jews also had prominent roles in FDR’s administration, but it wasn’t until after World War II that anti-Jewish attitudes basically disappeared and they really entered the mainstream. Jews then led the 1960s counter-cultural revolution and became a dominant elite in the 1960s, deeply involved in the passage of the 1965 immigration law that eventually radically transformed the country, as well as civil rights legislation and the general ascent of the left to a position of dominance in American culture. Jewish ascendency was accompanied by the decline and eventual eclipse of the previously dominant WASP east-coast establishment.

The main sources of Jewish power since the 1960s have been: 1.) their ownership of media and their creation of media content as writers and producers; 2) their wealth and willingness to contribute to political causes—funding political candidates and establishing nonprofit organizations and lobbying groups able to influence public policy; 3.) their domination of academic culture, ultimately due to their influence in elite universities and trickling down to lower-tier universities and eventually the K-12 educational system.

Is this Jewish power structure still in place? Yes, but there appear to be important changes.

Media. When I was growing up (a VERY long time ago), there were three TV networks, all owned by Jews (CBS, ABC, NBC). These networks are still owned by Jews and the New York Times is still Jewish and reflects of the mainstream liberal-left Jewish community. But fewer and fewer people care.

If the 2024 election shows anything, it’s that the legacy mainstream media is distrusted more than ever and has been effectively replaced among wide swaths of voters, especially young voters, by alternative media, particularly podcasts and social media. Joe Rogan, a former liberal (wasn’t everyone?) has become increasingly conservative and Tucker Carlson has pushed the boundaries of conservative thinking, such as his interview with Darryl Cooper questioning the sacrosanct World War II narrative and his interview with Curt Mills that touches on the neocons and America’s disastrous wars in the Middle East. Another former liberal, Elon Musk, is gleefully taking a sledge hammer to the entrenched, overwhelmingly Democrat-leaning federal bureaucracy.

Just recently, Trump’s Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth evicted The New York Times, NPR, NBC, and Politico from their Pentagon offices to make room for One America News Network, The New York Post, Breitbart News Network, and HuffPo (which did not ask for representation). All of the ones replaced are decidedly on the left and replacements are conservative except HuffPo. None can be considered legacy media.

Thomas Edsall in the NYTimes has noted that “While both Democrats and Republicans have abandoned newspapers in growing numbers, … the drop among Republicans accelerated much faster than it did for Democrats in 2016, the year Trump first ran for president.”

Bottom line: Newspapers are a key source of information for Democrats but not Republicans.

Of course, a problem is that conservative media is slavishly pro-Israel even as they typically oppose liberal-left domestic political policies favored by the mainstream Jewish community, such as:

  1. promoting high levels of legal non-White immigration, enabling illegal immigration, and stopping deporting illegals because they see them as future voters for the liberal left and diluting the power of White Americans;
  2. promoting so-called hate speech laws and other attempts to rein in free speech on racial/ethnic issues, including especially criticisms of Israel;
  3. advocating easy access to abortion, transgenderism, gay rights, etc.

Jews typically vote overwhelmingly Democrat and basically fund the Democratic Party. In the 2024 election they voted 71–79 percent for Harris, thus supporting the liberal-far left policies favored by the Harris campaign. Even though there was some shift to more conservative voting among groups of Jews, they are still on the left when it comes to domestic issues.

Jewish neocons were a long-time fixture in the GOP but bailed with the rise of Trump because of his professed distaste for foreign wars and likely because of Trump’s stated views on immigration and multiculturalism. Predictably, the neocons seamlessly defected to the Democrats where their liberal-left views on domestic policy fit right in. While in the GOP, they moved the party to the left on social issues while promoting pro-Israel wars in the Middle East and now the Ukraine war against Russia. Conservative media by and large support Trump (he “just keeps on winning”), and are thus anathema to most Jews.

The point being that even though conservative media is obsessively pro-Israel, it opposes the attitudes and policies of the mainstream liberal-left Jewish community on domestic policy. The legacy media, a main power bases of the mainstream liberal-left Jewish community, appears to be in terminal decline.

The rise of alternative media is critical. Under Elon Musk, X is clearly open to conservative  views, and indeed, when I go on there, all I see are conservative and even anti-Jewish posts (e.g., by @NickJFuentes and Ye, although I notice Ye’s recent posts appear to have been removed or limited). I recently returned to X under my real name (@realKevinMacDonald) and so far, nothing has happened. X has become a right-leaning media outlet that attracts young people and many others who reject the legacy media—during the run-up to the election it was great entertainment to see the replies to posts by the Harris campaign.

Funding the Left. What about funding the left? Jewish financial clout is certainly still in place, but we are seeing the rise of a very wealthy class of non-Jewish billionaires, prototypically Elon Musk (who reportedly gave Trump’s campaign north of $290 million). Wealthy non-Jews are thus quite willing and able to finance a competitive campaign like Trump’s. In a previous article I cited a survey showing that as of August, 2024, 21 of the top 25 donors to Trump were not Jews—not including Musk. Overall, Democrats ($880 million) spent about twice as much as Republicans ($445 million) on the 2024 presidential election, showing the Jews remain ready and willing to fund the left. But the Trump campaign certainly had enough money to run a credible campaign and even win despite the deluge of hate emanating from the legacy media.

Jewish money is thus not necessary to win, especially if the richest man in the world is on board. Even if Musk gave $300 million, it’s less than 1 percent of his wealth. Indeed, Musk could finance a presidential campaign all by himself—$1 billion would be more than even the Democrats spent on the 2024 presidential campaign, but Musk could easily afford that. As the Jews have known forever, money is power.

All this wealth supporting Trump 2.0  was apparent at Trump’s inauguration:

Here were America’s tech tycoons, members of his court, in a pantheon at his second Inaugural Address, directly across from the former presidents and in front of Trump’s presumptive cabinet. Many members of Congress, the actual elected government, were relegated to the cheaper seats.

The men who control Americans’, eyeballs and, often, emotions got the choicest seats; several have scarfed up big mansions in Washington to be closer to the Oval.

Elon Musk sat behind the vice president’s mother, pumping his arms and giving two thumbs-up when Trump said he’d put an American flag on Mars, where Musk wants to die (just not on impact).

Google’s Sundar Pichai was near Don Jr. and next to Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, who were near Ivanka and Jared. Shou Zi Chew, the TikTok C.E.O., sat next to Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s intended director of national intelligence. Tim Cook of Apple was close to Barron Trump. Sam Altman, the head of OpenAI, was also at the inaugural but — perhaps because of his legal duel with Elon — was in the overflow room with Ron DeSantis, Eric Adams and Conor McGregor.

Most of these tycoons are likely just following the power, but this is a huge change from the 2017 inauguration and suggests that they are quite comfortable with the sea changes the Trump is pursuing.

Academia. And then there’s the university—definitely the hardest nut to crack because hiring is rigorously policed to make sure that new faculty and administrators are on the left. Academics who get out of line can expect a lifetime of harassment and hostility, and if they don’t have tenure, they will certainly be fired no matter how good their teaching and scholarship are.

As in other areas, Jews ascended the heights of the academic world after World War II and especially during the 1960s. Once they achieved prominence, they promoted the expansion of departments essentially composed of activists of the left, such as gender studies and various ethnic studies departments for Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Jews, etc., thus expanding the liberal arts faculty and creating a critical mass of leftist activists. This structure is still in place.

Since the Israeli war in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria, there have been a great many protests on campus, but Jewish power has put a rather quick end to that (see “Massive Decline in Protests from Spring to Fall, 2024”): “The policies ranged from banning the erection of tents on campus grounds to limiting the times and places where students are allowed to hold demonstrations. While free speech experts agree that some time, place and manner restrictions are acceptable, they have branded some policy changes unconstitutional.” At UCLA, pro-Israel thugs were allowed to run amok among protesters while the police stood by. Ron Unz:

Even worse scenes took place at UCLA as an encampment of peaceful protesters was violently attacked and beaten by a mob of pro-Israel thugs having no university connection but armed with bars, clubs, and fireworks, resulting in some serious injuries. A professor of History described her outrage as the nearby police stood aside and did nothing while UCLA students were attacked by outsiders, then arrested some 200 of the former. According to local journalists, the violent mob had been organized and paid by pro-Israel billionaire Bill Ackman.

Obviously, these restrictions are a far cry from university responses to the BLM riots.

As Unz noted,

I’d think that most of these students were absolutely stunned at such reactions. For decades, they and their predecessors had freely protested on a wide range of political causes without ever encountering even a sliver of such vicious retaliation, let alone an organized campaign that quickly forced the resignation of two of the Ivy League presidents who had allowed their protests. Some of their student organizations were immediately banned and the future careers of the protesters were harshly threatened, but the horrifying images from Gaza continued to reach their smartphones. As Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL had previously explained in a leaked phone call, “We have a major TikTok problem.”

So, yes, Jewish power in academia is alive and well.

The Trump administration is pushing back on the academic left but not against Jewish power in the universities, proposing to deport foreign students and professors involved in anti-Israel protests: “The new attorney general, Pam Bondi, created a task force to prosecute antisemitic acts, including on college campuses. The president’s order singles out last year’s university protests against Israel’s war in Gaza, which it says unleashed a barrage of discrimination against Jewish students. The order targets international students who participated in those protests with deportation.”

There is also a campaign to end DEI at universities. Christopher Rufo, interviewed by Jewish activist and New York Times columnist Michelle Goldberg,  stated: “‘If you have the full weight of the White House, the full weight of the Department of Education and a platoon of right-wing lawyers trying to use all of the statutory and executive authority that they have to reshape higher education, I think it could be a thing of tremendous beauty.’ Rufo wants to get rid of DEI in higher education and stop the practice the “‘rampant’ discrimination against white, Jewish and Asian students and faculty members, particularly through D.E.I. programs, which aim to boost the representation of groups deemed underprivileged.”

Trump’s attitude on foreign student protesters will put a further chill into what has already been happening with anti-Israel protests. But fighting DEI at universities will be an uphill struggle against an academic establishment that has devoted huge amounts of money and hired thousands of bureaucrats to administer DEI programs and will likely find ways to continue it even if it is legally prohibited, as they have with affirmative action admissions.

However, of the three main sources of Jewish power, academic influence is least important. Students will notice that DEI jobs are drying up and that spouting and living the old leftist political clichés is not a good route to social and career success. Women in particular are likely to shift political preferences when they see a shift in the status hierarchy, but men will also change their attitudes as they try to advance in the new hierarchy.

*   *   *

Conclusion: There is a real possibility of the rise of an essentially non-Jewish elite centered outside the traditional legacy media and with the financial resources able to mount successful political campaigns and fund compatible NGOs. Whether this could develop into an anti-Jewish elite is a completely different question—unlikely for the foreseeable future because of the deep personal ties and business relationships among elite Jews and non-Jews. Nevertheless, as noted, the domestic policies of the Trump administration for the most part depart dramatically from policies long favored by the mainstream liberal-left Jewish community. Already we see numerous Jewish organizations protesting any end to DEI or the deportations.

Although the present situation is in flux, it is quite possible that in the future the new elite described here could become far more than a possibility. This new elite may realize that Jewish support and Jewish power in American politics is not what it was and that there is no real need to support the policies favored by the mainstream Jewish community. Indeed, this may have already happened—with the important exception of pro-Israel attitudes that also appeal to some sections of the Republican base (e.g., knee-jerk support of Israel by mainstream conservatives and Evangelicals). Some parts of this new elite may be well aware of the role Jews have played in erecting the multicultural disaster that America has become—a position that was common on the American right for decades, at least until neocons pushed out traditional conservatives during the Reagan administration (here,  pp. 16 and 26) and William Buckley purged the conservative movement of critics of Jewish influence. And they may be well aware that the slavish support that America has  given Israel has been enormously costly in terms of lives and treasure without really serving American interests.

Musk is a good example. From a November 1, 2024 article:

Musk is increasingly off the reservation in his tweets: “The damage was done,” [holocaust activist] Deborah Lipstadt remarked about a Musk post on X. “The endorsement of the Great Replacement theory was very harmful.” Lipstadt added that she disapproved of what she saw as any attempt to “mitigate” Musk’s earlier tweet, without criticizing ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt directly. “You can try to mitigate, but once you open the pillow, it’s like chasing the feathers,” she said.

Musk was replying to a user who wrote, “Jewish communities have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them. I’m deeply disinterested in giving the tiniest s— now about western Jewish populations coming to the disturbing realization that those hordes of minorities [they] support flooding their country don’t exactly like them too much.”

Musk responded, “You have said the actual truth.”

Greenblatt joined a loud chorus in condemning that post. Other Jewish groups, including the American Jewish Committee, harshly condemned it. Later in the same thread, Musk went after the ADL itself, saying the group “push[es] de facto anti-white racism.” He apologized for a lot of this and made the mandatory visits to Auschwitz and Israel, but it’s hard to believe that he now rejects these ideas.

As always, I am an optimist. I think that a lot of the figures on the right are quite aware of the deleterious effects of Jewish power and influence on the formerly dominant White America. And as I noted, “it’s hard to believe that [Musk] now rejects these ideas.”

And it’s hard to believe that Jews are able to retain their position as paragons of tolerance and virtue in view of Israeli actions in Gaza and the support these actions have received by the American Jewish community.

We can take our country back.

Piranha Patel and the Highway to Hell: Why More and More Jews Support Donald Trump’s Politics of Hate

/10 Comments/in , /by

“Pretty Vacant” is a song by the Sex Pistols. It inspired the Guardian columnist John Crace to invent the nickname “Priti Vacant” for the politician Priti Patel (born 1972), an Indian Hindu woman who’s high in the British Conservative party. Crace thinks she’s stupid. Apart from our shared passion for the mighty Spurs, I don’t agree on much with John Crace. But he’s right about Priti Patel. She is indeed stupid. You can see her stupidity very clearly in a video that has — we must all hope — hammered a further nail into the electoral coffin of the Tory party.

Priti Vacant on Never Mind the Ballots

On a right-wing podcast called Never Mind the Ballots, Patel was asked to apologize for the way the Tories promised again and again to reduce immigration, then proceeded to massively increase it. She refused to do so, despite the glaring fact of Tory betrayal. In 2019 the part-Jewish Friend of Israel Boris Johnson won a landslide majority with the votes of working-class Whites, former Labour supporters who naïvely believed his promises about lowering immigration. Johnson rewarded those Whites for their trust not by doubling or tripling immigration, but by quadrupling it. If justice is done, he will one day be hanged or receive a life-sentence for that brazen betrayal.

Piranha Patel tells stupid lies on migration to right-wing voters

So will the other traitors in his government, prominent amongst them a certain vacant dindu Hindu. As Patrick Flynn pointed out in the Spectator: “Johnson’s chief lieutenant in creating the highest immigration levels ever was Priti Patel, his loyal home secretary who ushered in a series of liberalising measures in direct contravention of the manifesto promise and broader commitments made during the 2016 EU referendum campaign.” But Patel didn’t merely refuse to apologize for the way the Tories sent Britain zooming down the highway towards a Third-World Hell of crime, corruption and chaos. No, she managed to suggest that it was the Tories who were owed an apology for being criticized. She claimed that, under her guidance, Britain had imported “the brightest and the best.” In fact, Britain had imported masses of unskilled workers from the corrupt, violent and disease-ridden Third World.

Third-World Flood: how fake Labour and fake Conservatives betrayed White voters on immigration

Until they are deported, those workers — and their even more numerous dependants, whom the Tories also welcomed in — will be a permanent burden on Britain’s economy and public services, never a benefit to them. But Patel’s claim about “the brightest and the best” was worse than simply a lie: it was a blatant and easily refuted lie. Unlike a typical Western politician, Patel didn’t train as a lawyer and so she can’t slime and slither her way successfully through a difficult interview.

Hormonal Harpies: Priti Patel and three other high-T Western fem-pols (Nancy Faeser, Julia Klöckner and Mary Butler)

As John Crace says: she’s stupid. So how did she rise to join the elite of the Tory party? John Crace could never explain that, because he would have to discuss two heretical topics, namely, HBD (Human Biological Diversity) and Jewish control of British politics. First of all, although Patel is an atypical politician in not being a lawyer, she is a typical politician in another way. Or she’s a typical female politician at least. Her brain and personality have been shaped by elevated levels of testosterone, as her massive, masculinized face clearly reveals. Accordingly, she has lots of ambition and aggression. Particularly aggression. Her own husband calls her “my personal piranha.” As Home Secretary, she was very good at two things: betraying White voters and bullying White civil servants.

Never Mind the Polaks

After all, White welfare doesn’t matter in British politics. Quite the opposite: politicians are rewarded for harming White welfare. But Patel’s very harsh and unpleasant personality melts most becomingly into servility and sycophancy when she deals with a group whose welfare most certainly does matter in British politics. And which group is that? You won’t need any guesses. As I described in “A Shameless Shabbos Shiksa” back in 2017, Patel did something remarkable when she served as International Development Secretary. She performed the goy grovel so gauchely and grotesquely that she had to resign from a government of grovelling goys. Serving Jewish interests is essential for any British gentile who wants to make it to the top of politics, but Patel made her servility too obvious. Accompanied by the very creepy-looking Lord Polak, a veteran director of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), she repeatedly had unauthorized and unrecorded meetings with important Israeli officials like Benjamin Netanyahu.

Powerful Polak’s pernicious punim: the official portrait of Stuart Polak, veteran director of Conservative Friends of Israel

The full extent of these meetings is still unknown. What was discussed at them isn’t known at all. But Patel wanted to become prime minister and knew that she couldn’t do it without being certified as kompletely kosher. Now, you can be sure that other Tories have done the same as Patel for the same reason. The difference is that she made her goy-grovel too obvious and had to resign. Compare the more intelligent Suella Braverman (born 1980), another Indian in the Tory elite who wanted to become prime minister. Unlike Patel but like the current Labour prime minister, Braverman trained as a lawyer and, like Keir Starmer again, is much better than Patel at being sly and slippery. This undoubtedly explains another parallel between Starmer and Braverman: they’ve both married Jews. So has Robert Jenrick (born 1982), another lawyer and another wannabe PM in the Shadow Cabinet of the Nigerian Kemi Badenoch, yet another energetic practitioner of the goy-grovel.

Kemi Badenoch performs the goy-grovel at Holocaust Central, Yad Vashem in Israel (image from Jewish News)

Unlike Piranha Patel, Jenrick refuses to defend the Tories’ record on immigration. Indeed, he resigned from Rishi Sunak’s government because, he claimed, Sunak wasn’t doing enough to defend Britain’s borders. The resignation was very interesting, because it showed that Jenrick has aligned himself with a key shift in Jewish thinking on Third-World migration. Whether or not he is Jewish or part-Jewish himself, as I strongly suspect, Jenrick is certainly married to a Jew and is obviously dedicated above all else to serving Jewish interests. He is funded by the Israeli billionaire Idan Ofer and has said that “the Star of David should be displayed at every point of entry to the UK to show” that “we stand with Israel.” That’s why Jews swarmed like wasps to his defence when a hate-thinker criticized his Semito-servility:

Jewish organisations have expressed outrage that a complaint made to the Conservative Party over the language used by a “repeat offender” former minister has been dismissed. Sir Alan Duncan, who served as foreign minister under Theresa May, had been the subject of an official complaint to the party after he said that Robert Jenrick, whose wife is Jewish and was born in Israel, took his “script” from “the Israelis”. …

In April this year [2024], Duncan was suspended by the Conservative Party for telling broadcaster Nick Ferrari on LBC that that pro-Israel group Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) “has been doing the bidding of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu, bypassing all proper processes of government to exercise undue influence at the top of government”. In July, the JC revealed that he had his membership restored.

Reacting to the latest dismissal of the complaint against Duncan, the Jewish Leadership Council’s chief executive Claudia Mendoza revealed that the organisation had written to the party’s chairman to express concern about his language. She added: “We are deeply disturbed that yet another unacceptable remark has been made by Sir Alan without rebuke by the Conservative Party. His comments lean into centuries-old antisemitic tropes and should not be tolerated.” (“Outrage as Tories ignore Alan Duncan’s remarks on Israel,” The Jewish Chronicle, 18th December 2024)

Claudia Mendoza is using the fascinating new syllogism I explored in “Reality is Racist: Fighting Hate-Logic with Stereotype Denial.” The syllogism runs like this: If reality is racist, all decent people must reject reality. In this case, because the obvious reality of Jewish behavior conforms to negative stereotypes about Jewish behavior, we must reject the reality rather than accept confirmation of the stereotype. Jews want Alan Duncan punished and expelled from the Conservative party not because he is lying about CFI and Jenrick, but because he is speaking the truth. So why hasn’t he been punished and expelled? I’d suggest that the Tories don’t want to make Duncan into a martyr and shed even more unwelcome light on Jewish control of the party.

Hamas is a Gas

Be that as it may, Duncan is absolutely right to say that Robert Jenrick takes his “script” from “the Israelis” and is a slavish servant of Jewish interests. And yet Jenrick has also become an opponent of Third-World immigration. The shabbos goyim Boris Johnson and Priti Patel opened the borders even wider to the Third World under Jewish orders and with full Jewish approval. After all, Jews have long regarded non-Whites, and Muslims in particular, as “natural allies” against the traditionally Christian Whites whom they blame for millennia of unjustified persecution. But that was before the attack on Israel by Hamas in October 2023, which was loudly celebrated by Muslims and other non-Whites currently residing in the West. After watching Hamas-fans marching in cities like New York, London and Paris, some important Jews concluded that Jews need to end their traditional support for non-White immigration and for anti-White ideologies like Critical Race Theory (CRT) and Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI). That’s why the very philo-Semitic Donald Trump is actually trying to fulfil his election promises in his second term as president. He isn’t defending the welfare of Whites, he’s defending the welfare of Jews.

Robert Jenrick is a British representative of the same shift in Jewish thinking. Yes, it’s axiomatically good to harm Whites, but not if Jews are harmed too. As I pointed out at the Occidental Observer in 2019, the problem is that Muslims and other non-Whites regard Jews as “Hyper-Whites with Hyper-Privilege” and not as a fellow persecuted minority. Some leftist Jews, like the repulsive pseudo-comedian David Baddiel, think that the solution to this problem is to shriek ever louder that Jews are too a persecuted minority. But such shrieks aren’t convincing from rich and successful Jews like Baddiel. So other Jews have decided that the solution is to embrace hyper-whiteness and curtail uppity non-Whites by bringing hate-politicians like Donald Trump to power. That also explains the support given by Trump’s ally Elon Musk to the hate-politician Alice Weidel, the leader of Alternativ für Deutschland (AfD) in Germany.

“Badenoch Out, Jenrick In”

The very ambitious Robert Jenrick wants to ride the same Jewish support for hate-politics in Britain. I predicted at the Occidental Observer in October 2024 that, thanks to her energetic goy-grovelling, the Nigerian Kemi Badenoch would become leader of the Conservative party. I was right. Now I predict that Jenrick will sooner or later replace Badenoch as leader. After all, he’s convincing as an opponent of open borders. Badenoch isn’t. Like Piranha Patel, she whooped with glee as the Tories stamped pedal to the metal on the Highway to Third-World Hell. And she’s proving useless as Tory leader. Yes, she’s more intelligent than Piranha Patel, but it’s not difficult to be more intelligent than Patel. Unfortunately for her, she has more than high testosterone in common with the Piranha. Like Patel she didn’t train as a lawyer and so she’s been no match for the slippery lawyer Keir Starmer. All of this is why I predict “Badenoch Out, Jenrick In.”

Robert Jenrick performs the goy-grovel at Conservative Friends of Israel (image from CFI)

But even with Jenrick as leader, the Tories may not be able to overcome Nigel Farage and Reform, the British equivalents of Trump and MAGA in America or Weidel and the AfD in Germany. I think Farage is likelier to be Britain’s next prime minister than Jenrick. And much likelier than Badenoch. Hate-politicians like Trump, Weidel and Farage are rising all over the West. It would be very naïve to think that Trump and Company are rising despite Jewish power in Western politics and media, rather than because of it. But as Kevin MacDonald has pointed out: White nationalists should agree that a shabbos goy like Donald Trump is vastly preferable to a shabbos shiksa like Kamala Harris (also a lawyer and also married to a Jew). Yes, Jews would still prefer that Western nations were zooming down the Highway to Third-World Hell. It’s just that they’ve realized that Jews will be even less welcome there than Whites will be.