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

May 10, 2025/10 Comments/in Anti-Semitism, European Nationalism, Featured Articles/by Jose Nino

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As they say, with the Jews you lose.

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

May 10, 2025/6 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Tom Sunic, Ph.D.

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

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

Showcase of the Soviet style Show Trials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May-day Call: For Fear of the Jews

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 9, 2025/10 Comments/in British Politics, Featured Articles/by Tobias Langdon

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

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

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

How to identify crimethink

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

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

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

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

Heretics against leftist orthodoxy

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

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

LEAD Technologies Inc. V1.01

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

Sweden’s elder rape scandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to end Third-World pathologies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

American History’s Grim Future

May 9, 2025/5 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Jesse Poe Holliday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 8, 2025/11 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Richard Parker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interview with Jose Nino: Western Individualism: A Blessing or a Curse?

May 7, 2025/2 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Kevin MacDonald

Western Individualism: A Blessing or a Curse?ñ

On this episode of TBR Radio’s, “The TBR History Hour,” host José Niño sits down with Dr. Kevin MacDonald, retired psychology professor and author of The Culture of Critique, to talk about his most recent work, Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.

MacDonald explores the evolutionary and historical roots of individualism in Western societies, tracing its origins from Indo-European aristocratic traditions to the egalitarian ethos of modern liberal democracies.

Is individualism the key to Western success—or does it carry the seeds of societal decline? Join us for a thought-provoking discussion on the future of Western civilization.

The Irish Psyche: Against Democracy and Republicanism

May 6, 2025/3 Comments/in Featured Articles/by Seaghan Breathnach

Features of Irish Collectivism and Hierarchy

Ethnic groups organise their societies in particular ways according to their group psychological differences. These differences have been outlined by Harry Triandis, who has theorised that societies tend to be Vertical Individualist, Vertical Collectivist, Horizontal Individualist, or Horizontal Collectivist. Certain characteristics tend to correlate such as hierarchical with collectivist. Similarly, egalitarianism and individualism tend to correlate with each other. While these types are relative and comparative, Irish people and society tend to collectivism and hierarchy in comparison to Germanic peoples who are the most egalitarian and individualistic. This article uses observable cultural features as points of comparison.

This Irish tendency can be seen in Celtic mythology with its prominent themes of kingship and kinship, as well as in the Irish language whereby its verb-subject-object structure indicates that the people who created it have a collectivist nature; that the being, doing, or making is of more primacy than the person involved connotes a hive-like social structure. This feature of Celtic languages contrasts with most other European languages which begin with the subject.

This contrasts particularly with German, where verbs are sometimes placed at the end of sentences. Similarly, it was the Germanic peoples who created and generally adhere to Protestantism, with its egalitarian and individualist nature, while Celts, Latins, and Slavs generally follow the more hierarchical Roman Catholicism or Orthodox, respectively.

Republicanism and Monarchy

Another feature of the Irish language is that it traditionally has no equivalent of the word “Republic”—with the modern word that is used ‘Poblacht’ having only been coined in 1916. Poblacht is derived from pobal which means community, nation, or society, but none of these denote an explicitly egalitarian nature.

At the time of the creation of the Irish Free State, the Welsh-speaking British Prime Minister David Lloyd George asked what word the Irish were going to use for Republic, and when told “Saorstat”, which is the literal compound of Free State, he replied “must we not admit that the Celts were never republicans and have no native word for such an idea”. Republicanism was introduced to Ireland by the Ulster Presbyterian-dominated Society of United Irishmen. Independence movements before this time were led by Gaelic nobility, and subsequently by Jacobites.

By contrast, the German word for polity is gemeinwesen, a compound of the words gemein, an adjective from Old High German gimeini, meaning ‘belonging to one another, in common, universal, belonging to the great body’ and wesen from Middle High German wësen, meaning ‘sojourn, domestic affairs, manner of living, quality, situation’. Gemeinwesen connotes an egalitarian mindset in those who created it.

While many Germanic countries are ostensible monarchies such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Britain, Canada, and Australia; a constitutional monarchy is not a “monarchy” in any meaningful sense, as laws therein are made by a democratically-elected parliament, decisions are taken by an appointed cabinet of ministers, and justice is administered by independent judges. In substance, any of the aforementioned countries are similar to the republics of Germany, Austria, or Iceland. By contrast the Republic of Turkey and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are similar to each other as all powers are concentrated in one person.

Hierarchical Politics and Society

It is no coincidence that it was the first Irish representative political party — the Irish Parliamentary Party (IPP) — that introduced a “party pledge”, essentially the first party whip in modern politics, or that there has been such a heavy use of the whip system for the duration of Irish politics. This demonstrates that formally introducing a “parliamentary democracy” will not substantially achieve one if it is not suited to the nation. Charles Stewart Parnell’s hierarchical, collectivist leadership of the IPP foreshadowed “democratic centralism”, a policy still practiced by Sinn Féin. It is also the case that Ireland has the weakest local government in Europe with minimal powers relative to central government. The powers that they do have are largely exercised by an appointed chief executive.

Other features of collectivism are an increasingly nationalised civil society whereby political parties receive most of their revenue from the taxpayer, the dominant media is RTE, a tax-funded organisation, while very many NGOs receive most of their funding from the State. Ireland is the only country in Europe that mandates the fluoridation of its public water supply, an unethically illiberal attempt at promoting public health, as well as having had among the harshest Covid lockdowns in Europe.

The Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) was founded and continues to be organised on an amateur, community, and co-operative basis which connotes a collectivist mindset. Another feature of Ireland is the prevalence of “one-off” housing, whereby many people are inclined to build their own house in its own field outside of the compact urban fabric. While this could be taken to represent individualism, this practice is predicated on a large fiscal transfer regarding roads, public transport, electricity, and the postal service which therefore entails a form of collectivism albeit one which contains Irish psycho-spatial unfastidiousness.

Religion

Another feature of the Irish psyche is a closeness between church and State often entailing a compact at the top of society. In Gaelic Ireland, the druids’ counsel was sought on matters of governance, druids and kings were mutually dependent, and religion and governance were intertwined with kings taking part in religious ceremonies to legitimise their rule. This nature would again manifest when Charles Stewart Parnell sought an informal alliance with the Catholic Church, and after Irish independence when the Catholic Church was allowed to manage health and education services. It has morphed into the modern practices of leading politicians ingratiating themselves with the LGBTQ+ cult by introducing gender self-identification, attending “gay pride” events, and funding and being advised by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) focused on identity politics.

Democracy

Democracy is a form which will be rendered by the substance of the people who are practicing it. In sub-Saharan Africa, there traditionally existed a tribal social structure whereby the chief had all power without opposition and could only be removed through force of arms. This continues in contemporary ostensibly democratic republics in Africa, where it takes the form of a president-for-life who may only be removed by means of a military coup.

Substantive representative democracy is a product of Germanic psychology and social organisation. Tacitus described the egalitarian nature of Germanic societies two thousand years ago, and how the entire tribe would deliberate in council. This culture was the basis of the “Things”, with the Althing, the earliest extant parliament having been established in Iceland in 930. Ancient Gaelic Ireland had no popular law-making assemblies. The closest equivalent was a gathering of notables who modified laws and made decisions.

It is therefore clear that the naturally occurring form of government of the Irish people is hierarchical and that provision should be made for suitable structures which reflect this. Instead of the pretence of democracy, where there actually pertains a powerful executive who is unduly influenced by certain vested interest groups, a suitable alternative would be a corporatist state where all interest groups would formally meet and consensually compromise on policy, with an additional aristocratic layer whereby Gaelic clans could be restored to land ownership.

This could be comparable to the British system of ownership by the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster. Profits from these lands could be beneficial in regard to patronising education, the arts and crafts, and they would be independent of both commerce and the State. The value of an aristocracy is that they would be permanent, patriotic custodians of land, and be able to influence decision-making; they would have the long-term interests of the country at heart. These forms of government would explicitly accord with the Irish hierarchical and collectivist psyche and would therefore produce governance more suited to the nation.