The Willing Dupes and Traitors of the Flowerman People: The Suicidal White War on Western Civilization

/12 Comments/in , , /by

He who permits himself to tell a lie once,
finds it much easier to do it a second and third time,
till at length it becomes habitual.
Thomas Jefferson

A major Jewish group evolutionary strategy used to weaken the competitiveness of a majority White society and on a larger scale, Western civilization, is cultural Marxism, a core mechanism that reduces anti-Semitism and enhances Jewish competitive success by breaking the collective resistance and viability of the White race, making it easier to control, exploit, or replace.[1], [2]

Its creators insisted on the need to hide the real purpose of their project under the cover of innocent and positive sounding words, respectability, and especially “science,” an indispensable universal method of inquiry, which they have hijacked and corrupted for their own needs.

This racial project is thus forced on the public in a stealth fashion by sophisticated social engineering techniques through education, books, mainstream media, movies, TV series, sitcoms, and government propaganda.

As summarized by archeologist Dr. Timothy Ives, this psychological weapon of mass destruction “was the outgrowth of the anti-empirical Frankfurt school that viewed the role of a scholar as a social critic without the need to validate any of his claims.”[3]

To break the spirit of the White race, in his article Mass Propaganda in the War Against Bigotry (1947),[4] Jewish American psychologist Samuel H. Flowerman recommends, and I quote, the “diminishment of cultural pride and self-esteem” and to do this dirty work, the sponsorship of “willing dupes or traitors.” [5],[6] But don’t be fooled by the intended “war on bigotry.” This is not a noble effort motivated by a sincere concern to fight racism. As shown in a previous article, Moses, the First “Führer” in History: Jewish Racial Consciousness and Supremacism, no one is more bigoted than this subset of Jews, aka the “Flowerman people” in this article.

Schools and universities, which are mostly staffed with White Flowerman-led cultural Marxist ideologues, with some teachers from the Third World, play a huge role in the spreading of this fake war on bigotry.[7] Even pre-school White children are being brainwashed; by the time they finish university, they hate themselves and their race to the point of wanting to destroy their own kind in the following spirit taken from an anonymous meme called “Meanwhile at a Random University.” A “Nazi” in this diatribe is a conservative who doesn’t want the future these ’Babel stooges” are preparing; he prefers meat to crickets, he’s for God, reason, freedom, law and order, family, and nation. On the other hand, leftists are programmed to say things like the following:

I hate Nazis, they can’t think for themselves!!! They’re just brainwashed sheep who follow racist dogmas and do everything their shepherd’s command!!! They’re also insensitive anti-Semites, misogynous, bigots, homophobic, fascists and should be all jailed!!!

Auschwitz, slavery, and colonialism are some of the better-known historical mischiefs that serve this purpose. What willing dupes and traitors are teaching in schools about European civilization and its accomplishments is another lesser-known  evolutionary strategy used to diminish the cultural pride and self-esteem of the Flowerman people’s main competitors.

To break White man’s will for power and weaken his competitiveness, everything about his exceptional civilization is downplayed and demonized while non-Western achievements are elevated to nonsensical levels “in violation of the most basic protocols of scholarly research, evidence, and standards,” notes Dr. Ricardo Duchesne, former Professor of Sociology at the University of New Brunswick, the author of Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age.[8]

A Flowerman Derrida-type of postmodernist rhetoric is routinely used to “confuse, detract from, or avoid facing the overwhelming evidence standing in opposition to their absurd claims,” asserts Dr. Duchesne, “sources are misused, books are misread, the evidence is grossly misinterpreted, facts are concealed, the principles of historical objectivity and respect for scholarship are trashed in order to enhance the imagined merits of multiculturalism inside European created cultures.”[9]

Darwinian theory and evolutionary psychology are erased from the discourse in an effort to prove that there is only one race, the human race.[10] Egalitarianism being the sacred cow of the “Babel stooges,” obviously, they go to great lengths with this abuse of the historical profession in order to prove with their bogus ideas that all civilizations are equal and that European civilization was not exceptional. As noted by Dr. Duchesne,

What is going on here cannot be attributed to mere empirical incompleteness and understandable errors of judgment. Our students today may be said to be the targets of deep-seated educational efforts to impose a multicultural view of Europe’s history, that is heavily infused with fabrications and the mistreatment of scholarly sources.[11]

To do this dirty job of deconstruction and rewriting of world history in accordance with the interests of the Flowerman people, even though existing research does not validate their perspective, the willing dupes and traitors of this trickery are paid handsomely, covered with laurels and gifts, and awarded with generous research grants. In exchange for betraying their own race, they become the prominent  professors at Ivy League universities in the U.S. and at prestigious universities throughout the West; they are given lucrative positions at prestigious think tanks and on the board of large corporations; their books and articles are spread far and wide by the mostly Flowerman-owned publishers and media; these evil dupes of the chosen people are highly praised by their peers who repeat blindly to their students every one of their obvious lies; their opinion is the accepted truth and almost no one dares challenge them without dire consequences for their career and advancement.[12]

Professor Duchesne, for example, a man highly esteemed by his students, the author of several scholarly books, was like all his like-minded colleagues in other universities and in other fields, dragged in the mud and ostracized by his weak and feeble-minded, willing-dupe, traitorous colleagues, and forced into early retirement for criticizing this farce disguised in science.[13]

Pseudoscience is the right term for the kind of science these willing dupes and traitors are professing. They have hijacked science to serve their miscreant needs. True to Lenin’s favourite saying, “The end justifies the means,” these useful idiots forcibly adjust reality to the ideas they want to impose on the world.

So, what is it then about European civilization they want people to believe?

For understandable reasons, from their point of view, they first divided history into two periods, before and after the Western Industrial Revolution of the eighteenth century.

Before the Industrial Revolution

There was nothing exceptional about Europe, so they tell us. It did not possess any cultural attributes that could be contrasted to other world cultures. Many parts of Asia, especially China, had equal if not superior technologies in guns, ships, textiles, metallurgy, and agriculture. The world economy was in fact dominated by China.[14] Moreover, the science of Copernicus, Kepler, Laplace, Descartes, and Bacon had their equivalents in other civilizations — it was a global phenomenon. As for the intellectual movements of Ancient Greece, they originated from Africa and the Near East. In short, according to the “willing dupes and traitors” who profess this fantasy, “the Eurocentric claim that Europe with its exceptional culture and institutions created a higher level of technical and scientific proficiency is no more than a myopic perspective lacking a global vision. … The major transformations of history are due to world connections and two-way cultural influences.”[15]

Everything until then, so they tell us, was therefore fair and square, everyone had his word to say, and every civilization shared equally in the artistic, scientific, technical, economic, philosophical, and moral advances that were made. If any divergence existed, it was primarily due to different competitive and ecological pressures. From this perspective, what spoiled it all, what made the European civilization different than others happened after the Industrial Revolution.

After the Industrial Revolution

After this crucial turning point of history, so they tell us, Europeans, for some unexplainable reason, lost their mind and started exploring the world and forming colonies here and there in order to plunder the natural resources of these newly discovered territories. “Pale faces” killed, raped, and enslaved the peaceful and noble savages of these regions, aka, the Third World. That’s how they got rich and how they managed to get ahead in all aspects of life. They basically pounced on other cultures and stole everything they had.

In short, if today’s Third-World countries are going nowhere, it’s mainly because the White slave nations emptied it of its lifeblood before building their industrial revolutions on the profits of slavery and then plundering them through colonial exploitation. This is, of course, a fantasy as shown in Slavery and Colonialism. Are Whites responsible for the Stagnation of Africa and Blacks in General.

Races, which are cultural constructs, so they tell us, had absolutely nothing to do with it. There are no innate influences on behaviour, in other words, that could give one race an edge on the others. There is only one race, the human race, and we are all equal under the skin and in the head, according to the willing dupes and traitors of the Flowerman people: “This is so because we say so. There is no need to validate any of our claims. Science is what we choose it to be. And if you don’t like it, we’ll shame you, dox you, send our Antifa attack dogs against you, get you fired from your job, call you a racist, a bigot, an anti-Semite, a fascist, a Nazi, and a White supremacist.” This is, of course, fear-mongering, intimidation, and another fantasy.

The Role of Biology

Whites  are endowed with unique characteristics that demoralized and subdued Whites who think of themselves as the scum of the earth should consider before depreciating themselves and bowing down to Third-World invaders and the willing dupes and traitors of the Flowerman people.[16]

Truth be told, Whites “originated and developed all the disciplinary fields of knowledge taught in our universities: archeology, botany, economics, sociology, anthropology, history, biology, chemistry, genetics, physics, geology, philosophy, geography—all of them including theology,” as Dr. Duchesne shows in his most recent book, Greatness and Ruin.[17]

According to Dr. Charles Murray, the author of Human Accomplishments: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC to 1950:

97% of accomplishments in science, whether measured in people or events, occurred in Europe and North America from 800 BC to 1950. The sheer number of significant figures in the arts is higher in the West in comparison to the combined number of the other civilizations. In literature, the number in the West is 835; whereas in India the Arab world, China and Japan combined, the number is 293. In the visual arts, it is 477 for the West as compared to 192 for China and Japan combined (with no significant figures listed for India and the Arab World). In music, the lack of a tradition of named composers in non-Western civilizations means that the Western total of 522 significant figures has no real competition at all.[18]

As Joseph Sobran said in 1997:

Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel no hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And superiority excites envy. Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call “minorities.”[19]

These are facts you are not allowed to state in universities and schools.[20] The willing dupes and traitors of the Flowerman people will not allow it. Why? Stuck on their mantra “race is a social construct,” they cannot admit that the European civilization is the greatest civilization the world has ever known precisely because of one word: biology. Races are real, and they are not equal in aptitudes. As shown in the following articles, some races such as the White race are in fact more intelligent, more adventurous, and more creative than others.[21], [22]

Race is Real

DeepSeek on Race, Egalitarianism, Jews, the Rulers of the World and the Solution to the Problems They Cause.)

“We are indeed,” laments Dr. Duchesne, “in the midst of one of the most paradoxical phenomena ever witnessed: the very civilization that insisted more than any other that truthfulness requires impartial reasoning and a ‘weight of evidence’ approach is now fabricating facts to fit with an ideological agenda.”[23]

In the end, you could say, as Dr. Duchesne states in his book, Greatness and Ruin, that this fabrication of facts is a “deeply embedded expression of the emancipatory project of Western liberalism itself,” [24] and you wouldn’t be wrong either, if you added, as stated by Dr. Kevin MacDonald and others,[25], [26] that the emancipatory project of liberalism, which came to fruition in the 1960s, was deeply imbued with cultural Marxism and decisively promoted by its Jewish overlords as Jews rose to elite status throughout the West. They are the “Flowerman people” as described in this article.

[1] Kerry Bolton, PhD, The Perversion of Normality. From the Marquis de Sade to Cyborgs, Arktos, 2021.

[2] Kevin MacDonald, PhD, The Culture of Critique. An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, 3rd Edition, Antelope Hill Publishing, 2025.

[3] Cited by Bruce Gilley, PhD, The Case for Colonialism, New English Review Press2023, p. 256.

[4] Samuel H. Flowerman, PhD, “Mass Propaganda and the War Against Bigotry,” The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 42 (4), Oct 1977, pp. 429-439.

[5] Andrew Joyce, PhD, “Modify the standards of the in-group: On Jews and Mass Communications,” The Occidental Observer, January 14, 2020/24.

[6] Kevin MacDonald, PhD, “Samuel H. Flowerman: Pathologizing White Ethnocentrism in the Mass Media,” Culture of Critique, work cited, p. 386 to 393.

[7] Kerry Bolton, PhD, Revolution from Above. Manufacturing “Dissent” in the New World Order, Arktos, 2011.

[8] Ricardo Duchesne, PhD, Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age, Arktos, 2019, p. 103.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Kevin MacDonald, PhD, work cited.

[11] Ibid., p.104.

[12] Kerry Bolton, PhD, Revolution from Above. Manufacturing ‘Dissent’ in the New World Order, Arktos, 2011.

[13] Kerry Bolton, PhD,  The Tyranny of Human Rights. From Jacobinism to the United Nations, Antelope Publishers, 2022, p. 379-381.

[14] Ricardo Duchesne, PhD, Faustian Man, work cited, p. 75.

[15] Ibid., p. 105.

[16] Ricardo Duchesne, PhD, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Brill, 2011; see also his latest book, Greatness and Ruin: Self-Reflection and Universalism within European Civilization, Antelope Hill, March 28, 2025.

[17] Ricardo Duchesne, PhD, Greatness and Ruin. Self-Reflexion and Universalism Within European Civilization, Antelope Hill Publishing, 2025, p. 263.

[18] Charles Murray, PhD, Human accomplishments: The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC to 1950, Harper Collins, 2003.

[19] Gregory Hood, “Resentment and Race,” American Renaissance, April 13, 2022.

[20] Ricardo Duchesne, PhD, Greatness and Ruin. Self-reflection and Universalism Within European Civilization, Antelope Hill Publishing, 2024, p. 264.

[21] Charles Murray, PhD, Human Diversity. The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class, TWELVE, 2020, cited by Ricardo Duchesne in Faustian Man, p. 193.

[22] Ricardo Duchesne, PhD, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Brill, 2011; see also his latest book, Greatness and Ruin: Self-Reflection and Universalism within European Civilization, Antelope Hill, March 28, 2025.

[23] Ricardo Duchesne, PhD, Greatness and Ruin. Self-reflection and Universalism Within European Civilization, Antelope Hill Publishing, 2024, p. 264.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Kevin MacDonald, PhD, The Culture of Critique. An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, 3rd Edition, Antelope Hill Publishing, 2025.

[26] Kerry Bolton, PhD, The Perversion of Normality. From the Marquis de Sade to Cyborgs, Arktos, 2021.

Such Skill Beneath the Skull: Celebrating the White Genius of Dutch Art

/14 Comments/in , /by

Thunderclap: A Memoir of Art and Life & Sudden Death
Laura Cumming (Chatto and Windus, 2023)

Reading is richer for racists. That’s on the good side. On the bad side, reading can be more regretful for racists too. You’ll find both the good side and the bad side of racist reading in Laura Cumming’s excellent book Thunderclap. It’s partly a study of art in the Dutch Golden Age and partly a memoir of how the author came to know and love that art. And to base part of her career on it: Cumming has been “chief art critic of the Observer since 1999.” That is, she’s a Guardianista (the Observer is the Sunday edition of the Guardian). And she wrote this book for other Guardianistas. But it isn’t Guardianistas who will get the most out of the book or the art it discusses and displays.

Thunderclap with a skilful skull, Vanitas by the Flemish master Hendrick Andriessen[1] (Wikipedia)

No, it will be racists and sexists like me. This is because Guardianistas won’t notice, or won’t dare to notice, some fascinating and important questions raised by the book. The Netherlands — the Low Countries comprising modern Holland, Belgium et al — is a small region whose population numbered perhaps two million by the Golden Age of the seventeenth century. And yet from the Middle Ages that small population turned out painters of astonishing subtlety and skill. They outcompeted in quality and quantity the far larger and more populous nations of France, Germany and Britain, and were matched or surpassed only by Italy. The Netherlands was the birthplace of Van Eyck and Hieronymus Bosch, Rembrandt and Vermeer, creators of immortal art whom we can justly call geniuses. Yet Cumming never asks why and how this could be so. How could such a small region produce so many world-conquering painters?[2] And such good painting in such quantity?

Holland in the hexagon: We owe “97% of human accomplishment” since the 1300s to White men in this region

If she had asked those questions, she would of course have confined her answers entirely to culture and invention. And yes, culture and invention — glass and lenses, for example — do undoubtedly explain some of the Dutch success in art before and during the Golden Age. But those things alone don’t and can’t explain all of it. Genetics played a central part too, because genetics was involved in all of it: the art, the culture, the invention. Those sublime skills arose within skulls of a particular kind. Dutch genius was a subset of White genius, of the evolved intelligence and inventiveness of White northern Europeans. Holland sits inside a hexagon of achievement identified by Charles Murray in his book Human Accomplishment (2003): “97% of human accomplishment since the 14th century occurred from men born in this region.” Among the men discussed by Murray are Rembrandt and Vermeer, two Dutch masters who are also discussed by Cumming in Thunderclap. But her book centers on a Dutch master whose art is now far better known than his name. Millions of people are familiar with this painting, for example:

The Goldfinch or Het puttertje (1654) (Wikipedia)

But who painted it? I knew the painting when I picked Thunderclap up earlier this year, but I couldn’t have told you the name of the painter. He was Carel Fabritius, born in 1622 and killed thirty-two years later in the huge accidental explosion from which Thunderclap takes its title. The Dutch town of Delft was deafened and part-destroyed in the mid-morning of 12th October 1654, when the carelessness of a government official ignited stocks of gunpowder held in a vault near the center of the town. This is how Cumming describes the disaster:

Trees are torn from their roots, bodies lifted into the air in a torrential uprush. It takes a while for the living to rise up from the ground, stunned and terrified of another blast. Which comes, as 90,000 pounds of black gunpowder stored in barrels in the vault detonate in a rapid bombing pattern of explosions that rip through Delft, exactly as happened in the present century when the port of Beirut exploded, the sound heard as far away as Cyprus. Some citizens are tormented by tinnitus for weeks. Others are permanently deafened. (“Three,” p. 223)

Fabritius was carried severely injured from the ruins of his house and died shortly afterwards. It was the final tragedy of a tragic life, for he had lost his first wife in childbirth and three children to disease by then. Death came early and often in those days, but Cumming understands only the tragedy of that, not the implications for human evolution. Fabritius seems to have left no descendants: he failed genetically. But he triumphed memetically, because one thing survived from his shattered house. As Cumming describes on the final page of Thunderclap, modern scanning has revealed that his most famous painting was there on that thunderous day. But the fragments driven against it by the blast “did not split or shatter” its surface “because it was not dry.” No, “The Goldfinch was still wet, still drying, a work in progress like its maker, a living thing in the studio when Fabritius was dying.” (p. 256)

That’s a memorable image to end a memorable book, a celebration of some of the world’s greatest art and greatest artists in one of the world’s smallest and least geographically fortunate nations. Vermeer is celebrated in Thunderclap, of course, and Cumming casts a skilful and appreciative eye over masterpieces like View of Delft (c. 1660):

Zicht op Delft or View of Delft by Johannes Vermeer (c. 1660) (Wikipedia)

But she centers the book on Fabritius and does her best to give him some of Vermeer’s stature. I don’t think she succeeds. Yes, The Goldfinch is a masterpiece, but not at Vermeer’s level and I wouldn’t apply the same label to the rest of what has survived of Fabritius’s art. Instead, I’d call it strange and interesting. Perhaps if he had lived longer or painted more, his name would be better known today. But he was neither prolific nor fortunate, and it was obviously the tragedy and mystery of his life that drew Cumming to him. He’s a tragic hero, bereaved early and often before dying young and suddenly, having just created what would become a world-conquering piece of avian art. But I think a piece of vegetable art included in the book is greater than almost anything that has survived by Fabritius. It’s Still Life of Asparagus by Adriaen Coorte (c. 1665–c. 1707):

Coorte, Adriaen; Still Life of Asparagus; The Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/still-life-of-asparagus-141862

Still Life of Asparagus or Stilleven met asperges by Adriaen Coorte (version in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford)

To invest a face or a finch or a flower with sublimity is high achievement for an artist. But higher still is to invest vegetables with sublimity. That’s what Coorte did in the still-life above. And in Laura Cumming’s own life, his painting would be a leap to the sublime from the ridiculous. How so? Well, she describes how she was studying literature at Oxford and went to see the “French philosopher Derrida” speak at the Modern Languages Faculty. But Derrida was delivering his “impeccably difficult lecture” in French and she felt ashamed not to follow it well. To console herself afterwards, she visited the Ashmolean Museum next door. It was there that she “saw a small painting glowing in a gallery dim with shadows.” It was her first encounter with the art of Coorte, whom she would come to regard as “the greatest” of “Dutch still-life painters”:

It showed a bunch of asparagus lying on a shelf, perhaps a dozen spears, running from white to silvery-green at the tips. This humble sheaf, tied up with string, is positioned at a curious tilt. But what strikes first and last is the black and white thunderclap — the obliterating darkness from which these stalks stand out in a light so bright it appears to come from within as well as from without. Young asparagus has that pale metallic sheen, as if it had stored up some internal power from growing up out of darkness. But this light was almost supernaturally bright, darting along the edge of the stone shelf like a laser, igniting the nubs and tips and woody root where the blade has sliced right through — such modest vegetables held in such glory. (“Two,” p. 139)

Those seven final words are an excellent summary of the appeal of Dutch art in the Golden Age: “such modest vegetables held in such glory.” The Protestantism of Vermeer and Rembrandt had replaced the Catholicism of Bosch and Van Eyck, the mundane had replaced the Madonna, but Dutch art was still celebrating miracles. Indeed, paintings like Coorte’s still-life make a miracle out of the mundane and the material. In a sense, he sanctified the bunch of asparagus, investing its color and shape and fleeting presence with an awe that escapes any hint of incongruity. Yes, the painting tells you, matter is miraculous and the modesty of Still Life of Asparagus multiplies the miracle.

Flowers in an Ornamental Vase or Bloemen in een siervaas by Maria van Oosterwijck (1670) (Wikipedia)

A couple of pages before that, there’s a fiery and flamboyant still-life of flowers by the female artist Maria van Oosterwijck (1630-93). It’s an excellent painting, full of color, detail and what Cumming rightly calls joie de vivre. But it isn’t full of genius in the way that Coorte’s “modest vegetables” are. And that raises another question that Guardianistas like Cumming do not like to ask or even acknowledge. Why is genius so much a male phenomenon? Why do men invent and innovate on a scale and over a range far beyond women?

More particularly — and more unspeakably still for Guardianistas — why do White men have such a disproportionate share of genius? As Charles Murray said, “97% of human accomplishment since the 14th century occurred from men born” in that north European hexagon with its corners over lowland Scotland, Denmark, central Europe, central Italy, southern France and southern England. It’s a hexagon of White male genius: there has been no female Vermeer just as there has been no female Mozart or female Newton.[3] Guardianistas would of course attribute that over-achievement of White men entirely to culture, contingency and male evil, because their leftist dogmas state that all human groups, men and women, Whites and Blacks, gays and straights, are the same under the skin and should therefore succeed or fail at exactly the same rates.

“A team of brilliant women”

That isn’t true and leftists don’t in fact behave as though it’s true. That’s why they believe that male evil explains male success and White evil explains White success. While leftists preach equality, they practise hierarchy, because they believe in privilege for their pets, like women and Muslims, and punishment for their enemies, like men and Christians. That’s why they’re concerned about unequal outcomes only when their favorites are on the losing side. When their favorites are on the winning side, inequality ceases to matter. You can see that double standard in the book under review. In the acknowledgements, Cumming thanks “a team of brilliant women” at her publisher Chatto & Windus, which is now dominated by women like most big publishers in the English-speaking world. Is that female domination a good thing? Of course it is! Does it represent prejudice against men and self-centered scheming by women? Of course it doesn’t! Unlike men, women dominate on merit, not malevolence. Those are the answers you’d get from leftists. But female domination of modern publishing isn’t a good thing. For a start, women are less adventurous and more censorious than men. I don’t think Thunderclap would have been as lyrical or as emotionally rich if it had written by Edward Dutton, but it would have been far more insightful, far more thought-provoking and far readier to ask uncomfortable questions about the racial, sexual and cultural patterns in the art it addresses.

Brilliant Female Publishing: Europe becomes the Black Continent for these travel-guides by Dorling Kindersley

But Dutton’s iconoclasm and intellectual buccaneering are  precisely why the “team of brilliant women” at Chatto would reject any book by him about any aspect of European art or culture. Dutton is a racist, sexist and homophobe with, for leftists, unspeakably wicked ideas about genetics, psychology and racial difference. He belongs to a thoroughly unfavored group, that of the White Heterosexual Able-bodied Male or WHAM. So we have the irony of a modern publishing world where it’s women deciding what can be said about the work of White male geniuses like Vermeer and Rembrandt. But I need to give Cumming her due: she isn’t hostile to WHAMs in this book. She doesn’t belong to the Culture of Critique and she doesn’t shoehorn slavery or colonialism anywhere into her analysis. She celebrates Dutch culture and the Dutch throughout rather than denigrating or deconstructing them.

No risk of wrath

And the book is, in part, a celebration of the WHAM responsible for her own existence: her father James Cumming (1922-91), a Scottish modernist painter who helped waken her love of art and of Dutch art in particular. I don’t like the paintings by him reproduced here, but I did like the irony of the final image in the book being a detail from his colorful painting Chromosomes II. Cumming muses on the painting and its title earlier in the book:  “Chroma: colour. Soma: body.” (p. 108) But she doesn’t acknowledge and would never admit that real chromosomes underlie what is celebrated in her book: the embodied genius of White men who could capture color and shape so skilfully on canvas.

The color of chromosomes: how race is obvious in genetic geometry

Her father wasn’t a genius, but it’s perfectly understandable that she should seek to celebrate him and make his art more widely known. He’s family and leftists don’t condemn Whites who celebrate and defend their own family. But they do condemn Whites who celebrate and defend their super-family, that is, their race. Cumming runs no risk of leftist wrath in Thunderclap. She doesn’t celebrate her own race or even acknowledge its existence. She presents Dutch artistic genius as though it emerged ex nihilo and owed nothing to genetics or evolution. That’s why she doesn’t write as richly as Dutton might have done. It’s also why her book won’t be read as richly by Guardianistas as it is by racists and sexists like me.

Deliberate disaster

But her book won’t be read as regretfully by Guardianistas either. I both relished and regretted the celebration of Dutch artistic genius in Thunderclap. What did I regret? I regretted what I knew lay ahead for the nation of Vermeer, Rembrandt and Fabritius. A much slower and much more insidious disaster awaited Holland than that accidental detonation of gunpowder stocks in 1654. And it wasn’t an accidental disaster. No, it was the deliberate opening of Holland’s borders to the Third World. Laura Cumming can feel the tragedy of Carel Fabritius losing his wife and children in the seventeenth century. Why can she not feel the tragedy of the native White Dutch losing their nation in the twentieth-first century?

And not just losing their nation: losing it to groups of far lower intelligence and far less achievement. Non-White groups like Moroccan Muslims didn’t give the world sublime art when they lived in their homelands and the magic dirt of Holland hasn’t enabled them to do so after they moved there. What they excel at is not art or invention, but violent crime, welfare dependency, fraud and political corruption. Like Britain, Holland has Muslim rape-gangs and, like Britain again, Holland has leftists enabling and excusing the rape-gangs. Cumming discusses and praises female artists like Maria van Oosterwijck and Rachel Ruysch in her book. But what about the female descendants of those Dutch female greats? Those descendants are at risk and under attack in ways that their ancestress-artists could never have foreseen. Because who could have foreseen in the Dutch Golden Age that the civilized Christian Netherlands, newly liberated from Catholic Spain, would open its borders to Muslim barbarians?

Genius and genetic pacification

Cumming regrets vanished art again and again in Thunderclap, like “the treasury of Golden Age art lost [aboard ship] off Finland in 1771 on its way to Catherine the Great in Russia.” (p. 129) She laments that “Dutch painters are always in debt, verging on destitution: Van Goyen, De Hooch, Fabritius, Vermeer, Rembrandt above all.” (p. 191) But she doesn’t regret or lament what is happening to the whole of Holland in the twenty-first century: submersion beneath a mud-flood and the conversion of what could have been a golden future into something quite different. Now Holland’s future, like Britain’s, threatens to be a bloody chaos of civil war and ethnic cleansing.

But perhaps the atrocities of Holland’s future were predictable from the art of Holland’s past. The art discussed and displayed in Thunderclap is sublime, subtle, spiritual. But it could also be described as subdued and even subjugated. It occasionally contains soldiers but it isn’t martial or militant. It has genius but also gentleness, because it expresses the psychology of a genetically pacified people who had lived for many centuries under a strong state that executed criminals and protected the law-abiding. That’s genetic pacification: a strong state removes genes for violence, sensation-seeking and criminality even as it protects genes for self-control, industry and resistance to boredom. So was this painting by Carel Fabritius an unintended prophecy of Holland’s future?

The Sentry or De poort bewaker by Carel Fabritius (1654) (Wikipedia)

What does The Sentry mean? Art-critics are still arguing about that: as Cumming says, it “is the most enigmatic of Fabritius’s scant few works.” (p. 159) But it could be read as an unintentional allegory of Holland asleep as traitors prepared to release the mud-flood of unassimilable and under-achieving tribalists from the non-White regions like Turkey, Morocco and the Moluccas (a former Dutch colony today part of Indonesia). Those non-White homelands have never produced a Vermeer or a Leeuwenhoek, the great Dutch microscopist who also appears in Thunderclap. He’ll remind some readers that Holland has oversized achievements in science and technology too. Holland’s heritage is mighty and worth fighting for.

And it will be fought for, because the true White Dutch are not dead. The genius of Vermeer, Van Eyck, Rembrandt and the rest now has to be seen not as ars gratia artis, “art for the sake of art,” but as ars gratia Martis, “art for the sake of Mars.” If the White Dutch want to retain their nation and the glories of its art, they will have to fight. And I think they will fight. When I read Thunderclap, I found it impossible to believe that a nation capable of such greatness would ever be defeated by enemies of such inferiority. That’s the final of the racist messages in Thunderclap that its Guardianista author never intended to put there.

[1]  This painting doesn’t appear in Thunderclap, but I needed something both skilful and skullful.

[2]  Vermeer was not properly recognized outside the Netherlands until long after his day, but his art has now conquered the world.

[3]  As the provocateur Camille Paglia once put it: “There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.”

Iran – End of the Drought & the Destruction of US Radar Installations in the Middle East

/10 Comments/in /by

Editor’s note: I have long resisted the climate manipulatioin idea but this seems convincing.

Below is an automated translation of an article from the French weekly RIVAROL, one of the last far-right publications in France, which is beset by lawsuits and has lost its press accreditation (and the tax advantages that came with it). It is a paper publication, but it can no longer appear on newsstands, so Rivarol has opted for the PDF format.

The article deals with a subject that we don’t see surfacing much in the American far-right press: drought and climate control as an already existing weapon, discreetly – but intensively – used by the Americans against Iran.

RIVAROL is not a scientific journal, but that being said, the facts are troubling and we must force our opponents to respond:

Why is it that the end of the Iranian drought coincides with the destruction of the ring of American radar installations in the Arabian Peninsula? Doesn’t this confirm what President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had already said long ago about manipulating climate to pursue political interests?

While Iran rains missiles down on its enemies, the rain returns to Iran. Coincidence?

§§§§§

Iran’s first victory against the climate conspiracy

AN ABNORMAL DROUGHT THAT DRAGGED ON

About fifteen years ago, the then-President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, repeatedly claimed that Western powers (under American influence) were “stealing” rain from Persia and much of the Middle East (including Iraq). Naturally, at that time, almost everyone in the West considered the strongman of Tehran a crackpot, a conspiracy theorist who, moreover, had the misfortune, it was assumed, of being a notorious historical revisionist.

Westerners continue to silence or deny what Mahmoud had calmly stated. In 2018, Iran officially accused the United Arab Emirates and Israel of stealing its rains, when the senior official of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Brigadier General Gholam Reza Jalali, declared: “Israel and another country are working together to prevent Iranian clouds from raining.”

The New York Times reported that the country Jalali did not name was the United Arab Emirates, which has launched a cloud seeding program by injecting chemicals into clouds in an attempt to induce rain in its favor, but also to prevent rainfall in Iran.

Today, however, many Middle Eastern elites are talking about the extreme drought and equally abnormal heat that have plagued the region for ages. We also recall that before the war against Iran, the country had suffered for years from a dramatic water shortage that directly endangered the people, especially the nation’s capital, whose inhabitants (and first and foremost the government) were ready to flee rather than become parched or dry out like old stones.

THE RETURN OF THE RAIN 

And then, suddenly, a miracle amidst the misfortunes! In Iran, the clouds finally wept, abundantly and regularly, and temperatures returned to normal (dropping by an average of five degrees Celsius). A few days after the first Iranian strikes against American bases located in the United Arab Emirates and elsewhere on the Arabian Peninsula, the regional climate changed completely.

Initially stunned, the population could observe over the following weeks the gradual filling of natural and reservoir lakes, the return of life to rivers, streams, and springs, the greening and re-greening of meadows, and the return of flora and fauna familiar from the past. In five or six weeks, enormous water reservoirs were filled, and large hydroelectric facilities had to release water to prevent overflows.

The authorities finally called on all Iranian farmers to sow as much wheat as possible and to plant without worry, since water would certainly not be lacking during the summer season. The return of a “normal” spring was not an accident, and this understanding is now shared by everyone in Tehran, Baghdad, and Afghanistan.

According to Iranian officials, including ambassadors (stationed in the greater region), this new rain that has nourished the land is not providential but the result of Iran’s bombings of the gigantic American radars which were simultaneously being used as HAARP systems, tools quite capable of locally modifying the climate.

The Iranian embassy in Kabul posted this unambiguous tweet: “Iran, after destroying a secret cloud seeding and climate manipulation center in the United Arab Emirates, saw everything change overnight. Once this secret center was destroyed, the region’s weather map completely reversed, and now it rains every week in Turkey, Iran, and Iraq, with temperatures dropping by 5 degrees. I don’t know if what they’re saying is true, but there’s a change that everyone is noticing, and temperatures in Iraq haven’t been like this for decades.”

Before the war, and Tehran’s audacious response, two major American activities were likely to alter the climate of the Middle East, not inadvertently but intentionally.

CHEMTRAILS AND WAVES

Until the outbreak of the conflict, military aircraft of the United States and their allies released daily, or several times a week (there are many testimonies on this point), trails which are aptly called chemtrails which covered the sky in a few hours with a milky coating generating a scientifically proven greenhouse effect.

Those with a bit of curiosity observe this same phenomenon in Europe and recall that the contrails left behind by all the planes in the last century lasted no more than a few dozen seconds. Never before had these contrails remained in our atmosphere for more than a minute; never had the sky turned whitish after a flurry of flights. Never.

This has been the case regularly since the 2000s, particularly since the deadly heatwave of 2003. Summers have been hotter, all seasons have suddenly been hotter, sometimes extraordinarily dry, to the point of a telluric change in some regions which has caused the fracturing of tens of thousands of houses built on clay soil.

Most of the hundreds of thousands of daily flights around the world do not produce chemtrails. Just a few hundred aircraft (not commercial airliners, of course) are enough to locally alter the climate, here or there, and cause temperatures to skyrocket. Keen observers will have noticed that these trails crisscross the sky in very calm weather, when their sponsors are certain they won’t be too widely dispersed and therefore ineffective.

As unpleasant as they may be, heat waves, droughts, and mild winters are messages meant for the brainwashed Westerners. They must admit that everything is out of whack because of their own activities, that the Earth is dying because of the carbon dioxide they emit with their diesel cars, their gas boilers, their incessant flatulence, and their horrendous meat-based diet.

The message is crystal clear: you small-time European consumers, you see the damage you’re causing, you careless fools! There are no seasons anymore, you bunch of idiots! The carp have no oxygen in the ponds, the trout have no current in the rivers, the grass is yellow in June, Grandma is suffocating in July, we’re dying of heat in Nantes, everything’s gone to hell. Scrap your gas-powered car, scrap your gas appliances, buy an electric car or a heat pump as soon as you can, install solar panels, demand the energy transition for everyone!

THE IRANIAN TARGET

In the Middle East, there was no message. No one was urging its inhabitants to abandon oil and internal combustion engines. Iran and its surrounding regions were simply a target. A target to be weakened, starved, and destabilized. So that only discontent could flourish, so that hatred against the regime could explode. In addition to the countless economic sanctions imposed upon it, Iran had thus been the target of climate attacks for many years.

For decades, military scientists have known how to dry out and heat entire regions by dusting their airspace with tiny metallic particles (aluminum and others) and water vapor. These particles are agitated by radar waves (which travel at the speed of light) and thus heat up. This temperature increase at the core of the clouds prevents the suspended water from freezing, thus preventing precipitation.

By preventing the movement of crop-dusting aircraft and by neutralizing giant radars (by destroying them), Iran has freed itself (momentarily?) from this “climate” trap.


BETWEEN CONSPIRACY AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES, A TRAP AGAINST IRAN

Tehran, long convinced of the existence of this plot orchestrated by the American-Zionist axis, could not, however, intervene sooner. It would have had to attack both the Americans and the United Arab Emirates first. And no one, apart from the Iranian elite and those in the know, would have believed the motive for its attack: a return to normalcy.

In its self-defense, the Persian regime was able to destroy the massive radar systems in a seemingly, ostensibly, rational move. It was the radars themselves that were eliminated, not radars also used as instruments projecting microwaves to deplete Iran’s resources. The damning accusation of conspiracy could not be leveled against it.

By holding out for so long, by resisting for so long the sanctions and social unrest orchestrated by the enemy, by enduring for so long this extraordinary drought, Iran has won the battle against “conspiracy theories” by avoiding appearing as one of its most obsessive proponents.

We know that Iran quite legitimately believed in this conspiracy, but a war waged to officially combat it would not have been accepted by everyone in a world saturated in the media (even outside the West) and the demonization of “conspiracy theories.” Climate warfare could have brought Iran to its knees, but it was its enemy, who needed this war (which it tried by all means to provoke), who struck first. This is Iran’s greatest success to date.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to believe that the American-Zionist axis has surrendered in this war. Is it trying, or will it try, to rebuild radars designed to manipulate the climate in the same way, or will it use other radars located on other continents? Will it use drones to spray its chemical potion? In short, is the climate war truly over?

If it is not already doing so, Iran now has every interest in communicating on this issue so that it is taken seriously by people around the world. A difficult but vital task.

François-Xavier ROCHETTE.

Francis Goumain Adaptation.

Contact Rivarol : Éditions des Tuileries, 19 avenue d’Italie, 75013 Paris.

 

Catherine the not Great: Has the Chabad cat got the Irish president’s tongue? (1)

/10 Comments/in /by

Catherine Connolly was elected President of Ireland in October. One in ten of us spoiled our votes, possibly the highest spoiled vote in any European election ever. Many wrote anti-migration and anti-Jewish slogans. Irish Times writer Fintan O’Toole damned her victory with the words “a hollow crown”.

Up to her election she was a passionate friend of the Palestinians. She said that Hamas was part of the fabric of the Palestinian people and even accused the Israelis of financing Hamas.

She has previously voted to boycott Israeli goods. In April 2025, she said in the Dáil “I challenge all of us to stand up and stop the genocide taking place in our name, because we are complicit”

She has visited Syria under Assad and was accused of consorting with terrorists. She had a Muslim Imam, the useless Dr Qadri, at her inauguration.

The Palestinians are pitied and admired in Ireland. Pity that the Jews insist on stealing more of their land every year and massacring them when they object. Admired because despite the tremendous odds they have not yet surrendered. Praising Palestinians and bitching about the Jews is a way to gain votes.

Launching her presidential campaign she stressed Palestinian advocacy and Irish neutrality.

Since the election in October, she has said very little. Her time as president included the various Israeli massacres during the Gaza ceasefire. Many hundreds were killed over the months. Not a peep out of her. Israelis have killed several UN troops in Lebanon and threatened Irish peacekeepers. Despite her role as commander-in-chief of the Irish Defence Forces, she has not said a word about this. Even the attacks on Iran have not tempted her to break her silence.

Oddly, when 14 Jews and an Irishman named Peter Meagher were gunned down on Bondi beach, she issued a statement commiserating with the Jewish people on their loss. Although Peter Meagher is obviously an ethnic Gael, the President of Ireland did not waste one word commiserating with Irish Australians. Bizarre

She also issued an statement on the transgender shooting in Canada. But no statement on the repeated Israeli shootings, tortures, rapes, etc. Dead Jews and dead Canadians deserve a statement, but not dead Palestinians or even dead Irish.

Orwell said it: “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”

It is strange that Connolly is so silent on Palestine. The Irish government has already said the Israelis are doing genocide, so there cannot be any problem with her repeating that. Palestine is popular and Jews are unpopular – half the country does not even believe in the full six-million-died-in-gas-chambers Holocaust.

A few carefully chosen supportive words for Palestinians would not damage Catherine Connolly in the eyes of Irish electors. But perhaps it would damage Catherine’s popularity with Jewish selectors?

In fairness, she has very briefly mentioned Palestine occasionally.

In November she mentioned that deceased activist Margaretta D’Arcy was a loyal supporter of the Palestinian people.

In her Christmas message, she said “In particular, we think of the people of Palestine, Ukraine and Sudan.” (She was careful to avoid any mention of Jesus, even though our constitution is explicitly Christian. She is probably aware that religious Jews are offended by the mention of his name…)

She attended an exhibition “Return to Palestine” in December. She met with the group “Run for Palestine” in January. She did not bother to issue any statement.

She went to a high profile “In Defence of Democracy” conference in Barcelona, attended by politicians who have actually banned military supplies to Israel. Even there, she could not mention Palestine, though she mentioned Sudan. Meanwhile, Irish skies are filled with genocide supply flights to Israel.

In April, in a speech to alumni she said: “I know that staff and students of the University of Galway have raised serious concerns over ties between the university and educational institutions in Israel. These concerns cannot be ignored, given our obligations under national and international law.”

It seems that since her election, these are the only full sentences about the Israeli/Palestine conflict she has uttered.

Her own sister is currently on a flotilla to Gaza.

“Twenty-two of the 57 ships were attacked, 180 people detained, including seven Irish citizens. On board the Israeli warship, there was massive violence: activists were bound, dragged across the floor, beaten, kicked, and shot at,” reports communist lecturer Jenny Farrell.

“Please ask that Shannon Airport stop being used by the U.S. military to bomb the hell out of Gaza and Palestine, 95% of the military aid comes from the U.S. and Germany. We totally object to our airspace being used to commit genocide,” said her sister from the flotilla.

Not a whisper of criticism from Connolly about the mistreatment of Irish citizens or even the threat to her own sister. Is blood not thicker than water?

Perhaps the President should take her own advice, or risk being labelled an Israeli collaborator. “I challenge all of us to stand up and stop the genocide taking place in our name, because we are complicit”.

Speak for yourself, Ms President!

Note (1) There is no direct written evidence that Connolly has any links to Chabad, but she makes weird hand signals in photos.

 

Why Wealthy Jews like Google Co-Founder Sergey Brin Are Rethinking Their Political Alliances with the Left

/19 Comments/in /by

The post-October 7 landscape has triggered a profound “vibe shift” across the Jewish diaspora, forcing a long-standing alliance with progressive institutions into sudden, irreparable decay. As the gentile Left have turned against their Jewish patrons on the issue of Palestine, many prominent Jewish figures are finding themselves in an ethnic “awakening” of sorts, leading them to abandon their Democratic comfort zones and explore new, sometimes tactical, overtures to the Right. Nowhere is this realignment more striking than in the changing political trajectory of Google co-founder Sergey Brin, whose recent shift from loyal Democratic donor to anti-tax crusader and outspoken critic of liberal institutions mirrors a broader trend of Jewish elite departure from the Left.

Facing California’s proposed billionaire wealth tax, which could have cost him an estimated $13 billion, Brin relocated his primary residence from California to a $42 million mansion on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe. He then donated $57 million to fight the proposed tax, bankrolling a group called “Building a Better California,” according to The New York Times. In a rare public statement, Brin explicitly invoked his Soviet upbringing to frame his opposition. “I fled socialism with my family in 1979 and know the devastating, oppressive society it created in the Soviet Union. I don’t want California to end up in the same place.”

That public stand represented a significant shift for a figure long known for political reticence. Brin has historically maintained a low public profile on political matters, preferring to let his philanthropy and his work speak for themselves. But the wealth tax fight and his subsequent donations to Republican candidates suggest a billionaire whose political identity is evolving in ways that reflect both his origins and his anxieties about the present moment in a post-October 7 world where many Jews worldwide have experienced an ethnic “awakening” of sorts.

To understand this shift in his political alignment, one must look back at the origins of his worldview. The seeds were sown decades earlier in a very different political climate. Sergey Mikhailovich Brin was born on August 21, 1973, in Moscow, Soviet Union, to Michael Brin, a mathematician and economist, and Eugenia Brin, a NASA research scientist. His family’s decision to emigrate was driven directly by institutionalized anti-Semitism. As his father recounted, a pivotal moment came in 1977 when he returned from a mathematics conference in Warsaw and resolved that the family must leave the Soviet Union. They applied for their exit visa in September 1978 and were granted it in May 1979, spending time in Vienna and then Paris before arriving in the United States on October 25, 1979, when Sergey was six years old.

The Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society played a critical role in helping the Brin family resettle in America. Decades later, Brin repaid that debt. In 2009, on the 30th anniversary of his family’s arrival, Brin gave $1 million to HIAS as a token of appreciation for HIAS helping his family flee anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union and build a life in America. “I would have never had the kinds of opportunities I’ve had here in the Soviet Union, or even in Russia today,” Brin said to the New York Times in an interview. “I would like to see anyone be able to achieve their dreams, and that’s what this organization does.”

Brin’s Jewish identity is primarily ethnic and cultural rather than religious, a pattern consistent with many Soviet Jewish émigré families. His father Michael described the family’s Jewish experience to Moment Magazine in cultural terms: “We felt our Jewishness in different ways, not by keeping kosher or going to synagogue. It is genetic.” Brin has not been publicly affiliated with a synagogue or religious denomination.

This lack of traditional religious practice has not precluded investment in Jewish national survival. Brin has visited Israel multiple times. A particularly notable visit came in 2008 for Israel’s 60th anniversary celebrations, during which he gave an interview to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. In that interview, he praised Israel’s technological achievements, stating: “It’s just incredible. I was generally familiar with the history of Israel, but really seeing… what’s been really accomplished… out of nothing, just dirt.” Through Google, Brin has also contributed to Israel’s technology ecosystem. Google operates offices in Tel Aviv and Haifa and has made extensive investments in Israeli startups.

In July 2025, Brin made his most direct and public comment on Israel and antisemitism. In an internal Google DeepMind employee forum, he weighed in on a debate over a United Nations report authored by Francesca Albanese, the UN’s special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, which alleged that tech companies including Google and Alphabet had aided what she called “the genocide carried out by Israel” in Gaza through cloud and AI services.

Brin wrote in response: “With all due respect, throwing around the term genocide in relation to Gaza is deeply offensive to many Jewish people who have suffered actual genocides. I would also be careful citing transparently antisemitic organizations like the UN in relation to these issues.” When screenshots of the exchange leaked, Brin told The Washington Post: “My comments came in response to an internal discussion that was citing a plainly biased and misleading report.”

This forceful public stance marked a striking contrast with the political profile Brin had cultivated for most of his career. For most of his public life, Brin’s political donations placed him firmly in the Democratic-aligned camp of Silicon Valley philanthropy. He donated $5,000 to Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and $30,800 to the Democratic National Committee, per OpenSecrets. A 2016 all-hands meeting at Google — footage of which leaked in September 2018 — showed Brin and Larry Page expressing distress at Donald Trump’s election victory in front of employees.

In early 2026, Brin donated to Steve Hilton, a Republican candidate for California governor, and separately contributed to an independent committee supporting centrist Democrat Matt Mahan, the mayor of San Jose. He also contributed $20 million to “Building a Better California” focused on affordable housing and pro-business policies.

Brin’s pivot is not a sudden ideological conversion, but a calculated realignment driven by a newly awakened racial collective consciousness that came about after Hamas’ attack against Israel on October 7, 2023. October 7 shattered the sense of security held by Jews worldwide, but it was the radical and hostile reaction of leftist organizations that proved to be the deeper wound.

For many in organized Jewry, the sight of their golems cheering on, or justifying, the campaign against Israel served as a jarring wake-up call to the fragility of their supposed political alliances. These “October 8 Jews” have simply reached a threshold where the progressive skinsuit no longer fits their survival needs. Recognizing that the institutional Left has become a liability, they are now steering their influence toward the Trump movement, the most explicitly philosemitic force in recent memory.

It is a masterclass in strategic flexibility: when one political vehicle begins to threaten the interests of the tribe, it is discarded in favor of a new one. For Jewish oligarchs like Sergey Brin, ideologies are not sacred commitments but tools to be wielded, swapped, and abandoned as the requirements of ethno-political survival dictate. Interests, not principles.

Peter Beinart on Tucker Carlson

/26 Comments/in /by

Tucker Carlson has been getting a lot of attention in The New York Times, none of it good (including Michelle Goldberg’s “The Conspiracy Theory Behind Tucker Carlson’s Apology” (April 24). but I’ll leave that for another time). Peter Beinart’s op-ed is based on the idea that Carlson thinks that Israel’s behavior has something to do with its Jewishness. Obviously way out there.

Like other prominent figures on the anti-Israel right, [Carlson] still sees the West as menaced by alien civilizations bent on its destruction. He has just turned his attention to what he sees as the alien civilization that populates the Jewish state. And he’s done so with the same penchant for conspiracy theories that has long marked his public commentary. Now he is using a destructive, ill-defined and unpopular war to give those theories even greater reach. … [Carlson] is at the forefront of a cohort of right-wing commentators who don’t merely condemn Israel’s manifold crimes against the Palestinians and others in the Middle East. They also suggest something far more troubling: that Israel’s crimes stem from its Jewishness, which they claim threatens the Christian West. …

Now Americans across the ideological spectrum are growing more critical of Israel. But young conservatives are more likely than their lefty counterparts to link Israel’s transgressions to its religious identity. Last fall, a Yale survey asked Americans ages 18-34 how they felt about claims that American Jews enjoy too much power, are more loyal to Israel than America and should have their businesses boycotted to protest the war in Gaza. Almost two-thirds of respondents ages 18 to 34 who defined themselves as “extremely conservative” agreed with at least one of those statements. Among people in that same age group who defined themselves as “extremely liberal,” less than one-third did.

Candace Owens, one of America’s most popular podcasters, has endorsed Mr. Carlson’s claim that the ultra-Orthodox Jewish group Chabad is using the Iran war to try to rebuild the Temple. She has also claimed that the Talmud tells Jews “that we’re animals, that they have a right to own us, that they have a right to make us worship them.” In 2024 she accused Israel of giving refuge to pedophiles and linked that behavior to the ritual murder of Christians in Europe during Passover. Nick Fuentes, an avowed racist and misogynist who Mr. Carlson recently hosted for a friendly interview, has insisted that “If you read anything about the Israeli government, anything even about Talmudic Judaism, what they say is, we don’t love our enemies. They say that the non-Jews, we don’t even consider them human.”

What’s going on here is that Beinart assumes he is safe in saying these things because, by not allowing his readers to evaluate the evidence, they likely seem so outrageous and over the top to NYTimes readers that they will automatically reject them without being able to actually look at the evidence. For example, there can be little doubt that a great many Israelis, especially religious fanatics, believe that ultimately their victory will be crowned with destruction of the Al-Aqsa mosque and the reinstitution of the Jewish temple, complete with animal sacrifices. Haaretz from 2024:

It arrived last week, right on schedule – a yearly flier advertising “a live rehearsal of the Passover sacrifice.” One might assume that the men featured on the brochure dressed in what appears to be ancient religious garments are the AI-generated result of someone’s search for “modern-day high priests,” but they’re completely real.

Hailing from the most extreme factions of the Temple Movement, the umbrella term for the various groups that share the goal of reclaiming Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the men in the photo have spent years studying the biblical instructions for preparing the special Passover offering at the Holy Temple – which last existed in the year 70.

They’re sticklers down to the length of the knife cuts and the procedure for the blood that will be collected after the baby lamb has been ritually slaughtered. Their rehearsal is intended as a dry run, should their dream of rebuilding the Temple ever come to fruition.

The event advertised in the flier promised to take place outside of Jerusalem, in Mitzpeh Yericho, an ultra-religious settlement in the West Bank, and not on Temple Mount. But another group of Temple activists stuck to a more ambitious plan, and were arrested on Monday for trying to sacrifice a goat on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. When they were released shortly after the arrest, they gloated about Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir intervening on their behalf.

In other words, these “extremists” are well connected to the current government, especially National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Itamar Ben-Gvir heading for the Temple Mount in 2022.

Temple Movement activists in the government

For almost its entire existence, Temple Movement activists have viewed the Israeli government as an obstacle on their path toward Jewish sovereignty on the Temple Mount.

But that changed in 2022 when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu formed the most far-right government in Israel’s history, including several ministers who were, at the very least, Temple Movement-adjacent if not full members. No one fits this description more than National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, whose wife Ayala is an active member of the Temple Movement.

Since coming to power, Ben-Gvir has relentlessly pursued a pro-Jewish agenda regarding the Mount, visiting the site several times and calling for sweeping changes to the status quo, with only Netanyahu standing in his way.

On the one hand, as Hasson has reported, Netanyahu has, perhaps surprisingly, done a fairly good job of keeping Ben-Gvir and other Temple fundamentalists in check. “He actually has a long history of keeping things calm,” Hasson says. “And this year, all eyes were on Netanyahu on Ramadan.”

Ben-Gvir wanted to impose limits on which Muslims would be allowed to pray at Al-Aqsa during the Muslim holy month, which security officials warned would lead to disaster. “Ultimately, Netanyahu didn’t give in to Ben-Gvir’s demands and we had one of the quietest Ramadans in years,” Hasson says.

But these small gains have been swallowed up by the security minister’s larger mission. Ben-Gvir is “an agent of chaos,” as Tzidkiyahu puts it. “He thrives on creating as much drama as possible.”

Ben-Gvir doesn’t just go quietly up to the Temple Mount, a point raised by all three experts interviewed for this article. “He loudly announces it with the most racist, incendiary statements possible,” Tzidkiyahu says. “And with the control he has over the police, he’s directly responsible for the leniency that Jews who try to pray on the Temple Mount are afforded.”

And so, emboldened by broad support among not necessarily religious Israelis, the increasing number of Jews visiting the Mount – 30,000 last year alone – political endorsements and security officials allowing brazen violations of the rules, the gap between the murky status quo and actual events on the Mount is widening. And Temple Movement extremists don’t seem to be letting up.

“My real fear is something we’ve seen before,” Persico says. “I worry that if a new peace process makes headway, either with Palestinians becoming citizens of Israel or a two-state solution, extremists in the Temple Movement will do what they have always done any time there is a step toward peace: attempt to derail it by any means necessary.”

Getting back to the Beinart op-ed:

Last fall, a Yale survey asked Americans ages 18-34 how they felt about claims that American Jews enjoy too much power, are more loyal to Israel than America and should have their businesses boycotted to protest the war in Gaza. Almost two-thirds of respondents ages 18 to 34 who defined themselves as “extremely conservative” agreed with at least one of those statements. Among people in that same age group who defined themselves as “extremely liberal,” less than one-third did.

It’s certainly encouraging that a significant subset of young conservatives agreed with a least one of those statements, along with a substantial number of liberals. I should think that it’s obvious that American Jews enjoy too much power, given that we are at war with Iran because of the power of the Israel Lobby even though polls indicate that the war is not popular. And it’s obvious that at least some Jews are more loyal to Israel than America—Mark Levin being a case in point (see below), not to mention the entire Jewish activist community (ADL, AIPAC, JINSA, etc.) centered around supporting Israel no matter what, including the genocide in Gaza  and the apartheid and ethnic cleansing that have been going on in the West Bank for decades.

Beinart continues:

That’s not surprising given the rhetoric of some of America’s most influential far-right commentators. Candace Owens, one of America’s most popular podcasters, has endorsed Mr. Carlson’s claim that the ultra-Orthodox Jewish group Chabad is using the Iran war to try to rebuild the Temple. She has also claimed that the Talmud tells Jews “that we’re animals, that they have a right to own us, that they have a right to make us worship them.” In 2024 she accused Israel of giving refuge to pedophiles and linked that behavior to the ritual murder of Christians in Europe during Passover. Nick Fuentes, an avowed racist and misogynist who Mr. Carlson recently hosted for a friendly interview, has insisted that “If you read anything about the Israeli government, anything even about Talmudic Judaism, what they say is, we don’t love our enemies. They say that the non-Jews, we don’t even consider them human.”

The good thing about being a supporter of Israel in The New York Times is that you don’t have to actually support what you write. Carlson in fact supported his claim by noting that IDF soldiers have been seen wearing patches depicting the Third Temple, and he quotes a soldier saying “But what are we really fighting for? We’re fighting for the right of the Jewish people to exist. Be Jewish, practice the religion, and be free. And one day, our true leader will come and will be united as a whole Jewish nation so we can rebuild the Beit HaMikdash [the Third Temple].” And he discusses the Hasidic group Chabad, noting “Chabad has been pushing in a pretty subtle way, unless you look carefully, for the reconstruction of the third temple. And it seems like from the reading we did recently, that those patches actually came from Chabad. In any case, Chabad is pushing for the building of the Third Temple.” Chabad is quite connected to American elites. President Reagan was close to Chabad leader Menachem Schneerson, and really the only time Trump can be seen expressing religious piety (he released a famously profane statement on Iran on Easter morning) is in Jewish contexts, as when he visited Schneerson’s grave in 2024:

Standing alongside the grave next to Chabad representatives, Trump engaged in a series of traditional Jewish mourning practices. He donned a kippah, read a chapter of Psalms that is quoted in the daily Jewish penitential prayer, placed a note on the grave and then laid a small stone on the headstone. He also lit a yahrzeit memorial candle, something President Joe Biden also did in commemoration of Oct. 7.

Trump, along with Ben Shapiro, honoring Rebbe Schneerson

I can see why Beinart would not provide any information on why the statements by Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes are wrong. Too much evidence to support them. Par for the course. Beinart joins the tradition of fact-free defences of traditional Jewish attitudes and religious writing.

Beinart continues:

Mr. Carlson is more subtle. But he, too, often attributes Israel’s behavior to what he sees as its anti-Western religion. Last October, he claimed that “the Israeli position is ‘everyone who lives in Gaza is a terrorist because of how they were born, including the women and the children.’ That’s not a Western view. That’s an Eastern view. That’s a non-Christian — that’s totally incompatible with Christianity and Western civilization.” Earlier this year Mr. Carlson said that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel had tried to punish members of Mr. Carlson’s family because Mr. Netanyahu “believes in blood guilt, Amalek. You know, when someone commits a crime against you, you punish not just him but his family, his bloodline. There’s no idea that’s less Western than that, more anti-Christian than that. Christians reject that.”

Mr. Carlson is implying that Israel’s punishment of the Palestinian people stems from something particularly Jewish — or “non-Christian” — about its misdeeds. Such civilizational generalizations are false; many Christian and Western leaders practice collective punishment. The United States was founded on the same kind of land theft that Israel is committing against Palestinians.

Carlson is pointing to the well-founded reality that the West is individualist—and uniquely so, whereas Jewish culture is profoundly collectivist to the core. Thus Israel believes in collective punishment, as Carlson has noted. This can be seen in the pattern where Israelis demolish the houses of Palestinians they regard as terrorists—a trivial example compared to the complete disregard for Palestinian life in the Gaza genocide (the life of all Palestinians—men, women, and children, no matter what their behavior or beliefs). In November 2023 Ben-Gvir declared that “when they say that Hamas needs to be eliminated, it also means those who sing, those who support and those who distribute candy, all of these are terrorists.”[97][98] In Western legal systems, individuals would be prosecuted for suspected crimes, but whatever they had done would not make their family members prosecutable, much less the entire population of men, women, and children.

Mark Levin, who is often critiqued by Carlson, epitomizes this mindset:

Unsurprisingly, Ben Gvir has also made statements implying the collective guilt of all Palestinians. From his Wikipedia page:

Having defended the perpetrators of the 2015 Duma arson attack in which vigilante settlers firebombed the home of a family in a Palestinian village, resulting in the deaths of a 18 month baby and its parents,[68] it was controversial that Ben-Gvir, along with Bentzi Gopstein, were seen attending the wedding of a couple related to the perpetrators, which became known as the wedding of hate, in which the weddinggoers could be seen waving rifles, guns and firebombs and even stabbing a photograph of the Palestinian toddler who was killed.[69][70]

On 25 February 2019, Ben-Gvir said that Arab citizens of Israel who were not loyal to Israel “must be expelled”.[71] 

Prior to entering office Ben-Gvir was known to have a portrait in his living room of Israeli-American mass murderer Baruch Goldstein, who massacred 29 Palestinian Muslim worshipers and wounded 125 others in Hebron, in the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre;[72][73] he removed the portrait in preparation for the 2020 Israeli legislative election in hope of being allowed to run on the unified right list headed by Naftali Bennett.[74]

Continues with more examples….

Beinart continues:

Combating the anti-Israel right’s conflation of Israel and Jewishness is made harder by pro-Israel American Jewish organizations that have conflated those two things as well.

No kidding! It’s good to see Beinart mentioning this rather glaring fact although it is indeed a one-line mention rather than a real examination of its importance. There was a time when Jewish activists made fine distinctions between criticizing Israel and criticizing Jews, but those days are long gone. Now anyone who criticizes Israel can expect to be considered an “anti-Semite”—a reality that is quite obvious  in the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. A rather glaring example is provided by Caitlin Johnstone:

Australia’s “antisemitism envoy” Jillian Segal has published a handbook which unequivocally clarifies that her office exists not to protect Australian Jews from discrimination, but to stomp out criticism of the state of Israel.

However bad you’re imagining it is, it’s worse. The handbook, set to be formally launched later this week under the title “Understanding Antisemitism in Australia,” explicitly conflates antisemitism and antizionism with statements like “Antisemitism and antizionism are both expressions of hatred towards Jews” and asserting that it is antisemitic to accuse Israel of “apartheid, oppression, racism and genocide.”

It is therefore unambiguously the official position of the Australian government’s appointed authority on antisemitism that it is hateful and abusive toward Jews and their religion to oppose the racist political ideology underpinning the modern state of Israel.

So when Australians hear Jillian Segal and government officials talking about how there’s been an increase in “antisemitism” in our country and saying extreme measures must be taken to stop it, it’s important to be clear that this is the “antisemitism” they are talking about. They are talking about criticism of Israel.

Beinart again:

But progressives must not blur the distinction between viewing Israel as a state, which practices forms of oppression and aggression that can occur in states of every ethnic and religious type, and viewing Israel as the product of a peculiarly Jewish pathology. It is understandable that some progressives, who are rightly eager to end America’s support for Israel’s human rights abuses, might be tempted to see figures like Mr. Carlson as allies. But the struggle for Palestinian freedom should not indulge bigotry of any kind. That includes the bigotry of figures like Tucker Carlson, who blame Israel’s crimes on its Jewishness so they can pretend that America and Christianity are morally pure.

So in Beinart’s view Israel’s crimes have nothing to do with its being a Jewish state. All states may do it. But the reality is when Jews have gotten power over non-Jews, the results have been catastrophic for the latter. Exhibit A is the intensive Jewish involvement in mass murder of Russians and Ukrainians in the early decades of the USSR at a time when they had become an elite group.  Since Christians are a small minority in Israel, it is not surprising that they have come under attack. The Jewish hatred of Christianity is “an ancient Jewish custom,” as Ben-Givr noted in October 2023, following the arrest of five Haredi Jews for spitting at Christians outside churches. There are many examples, many quite recent (the following is a machine translation of a French article). 

Walking alone on a nearly empty street, the nun, a researcher at the French Biblical and Archaeological School of Jerusalem (EBAF), was attacked from behind. The assailant left and then returned to kick her repeatedly in front of the few passersby who appeared. Some were indifferent. He is 36 years old. It is known that this type of attack is usually perpetrated by minors who can evade justice. (See  video here).

A European diplomatic source asserts that the attack “is part of a context of anti-Christian acts that have become commonplace, with insults and spitting by extremists targeting religious figures in their robes on a daily basis.”

The Faculty of Arts and Humanities at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem also confirmed that this is not “an isolated incident [but] is part of a worrying trend of increasing hostility against the Christian community and its symbols.”

The same brutal violence was evident on April 20th in the attack on the head of the Christ statue in the southern Lebanese Maronite village of Debel. An Israeli soldier vandalized the statue while his comrade photographed it for media attention. They were sentenced to one month in prison and barred from participating in combat. Lebanese media reported that it was the Italian contingent of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) that donated the new statue, not the occupying army, which had claimed to have replaced the damaged one.

In July 2025, the Christian town of Taybeh in the occupied West Bank was subjected to constant harassment by Israeli settlers, who engaged in incursions, land destruction, intimidation tactics, and the burning of places of worship, such as the Byzantine Church of St. George. The Patriarchs and heads of the churches in Jerusalem warned against “the current climate of impunity.”

The situation of Christians in occupied Palestine, particularly in Jerusalem and the West Bank, is marked by a worrying increase in acts of violence, harassment and vandalism, mainly perpetrated by Israeli extremist elements.

More than 111 anti-Christian acts were recorded in Jerusalem in 2024, or about one every 3.3 days, according to local churches.

The incidents include spitting at priests and pilgrims, hate graffiti, desecration of cemeteries and churches, as well as physical attacks.

According to the Holy Land website, more than Christians themselves, it is the visible signs of Christianity that are targeted: crosses, statues, monasteries, religious clothing…

“As a minority, they are the first to suffer the consequences of geopolitical contractions,” analyzes Father David Neuhaus, a Jesuit with extensive knowledge of interreligious dynamics in the Holy Land.

But the Vatican City’s L’Osservatore Romano website accuses Christians of a constant threat from extremist elements, particularly ultra-Orthodox Judaism. This illustrates a doctrinal ideological perspective.

“The Land of Jesus, in particular, where our faith was born, has an additional reason to fear this phenomenon and to try to stop it. The absence of a Christian presence would risk reducing the places of preaching and passion of Our Lord to mere archaeological or tourist sites,” the site warned.

Neither the intervention of the Israeli police nor the statements of some rabbis who denounced acts “contrary to the Jewish religion” have contributed to eradicating this phenomenon.

According to the website of the Belgian-Palestinian association, other rabbis encourage these acts.

Rabbi Benzion Gopstein, a member of Ben-Gvir’s party, a Kahanist from the extremist settlement of Kiryat Arba, calls Christians “blood-sucking vampires”, declares that Christmas has no place in the Holy Land, advocates the expulsion of Christians from Israel and the burning of churches.

In their book, The Torah of Kings, Rabbis Elitzur and Yitzhak Shapira of the settlement of Yitzhar, near Nablus, state, among other things, that “wherever the influence of goyim (non-Jews) constitutes a threat to the life of Israel, it is permitted to kill them, even if they are Righteous Among the Nations.” This includes both Christians and Muslims.

Since 2005, the website notes, Christian celebrations during Holy Week have been met with military roadblocks and violence perpetrated jointly by police and settlers. The number of worshippers allowed to enter the Church of the Holy Sepulchre has been drastically reduced, from 11,000 historically during the Holy Fire ceremony to 1,800 since 2016, with authorities citing “security reasons.” This year, in addition to this restriction and police violence against worshippers and even priests (evident videos of this are circulating online), dozens of Jewish extremists attacked foreign believers, shouting, “Jerusalem is ours. Get out of here!” The mayor of Jerusalem, Aryeh King, has openly stated that he has recruited dozens of Jews to fight against Christian missionaries.

These attacks have been exacerbated by the religious far-right component of the government in place since 2022.    

Now I suppose one can say that religious Jews who attack Christians are “extremists” and don’t represent Judaism as a religion. But these “extremists” are well represented in the government and there is a trend at least since Begin was Prime Minister for succeeding governments to be more on the right and more supportive of settlers. And of course having anti-Christian sentiments is not restricted to religious Jews. Besides the Jews carrying out massacres in the Soviet Union, Max West reminds us that the same phenomenon could happen in the U.S.:

It is important to remember the extent to which the Jewish-dominated Weather Underground leadership sanctioned genocidal levels of violence, when the time came. Larry Grathwohl, an FBI informant who infiltrated the highest ranks of the Weather Underground, reported how the group’s leadership estimated that, once the Revolution had succeeded in the United States, they would need to kill 25 million people. Grathwohl writes: “I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of whom have graduate degrees from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people. … And they were dead serious” (Kengor, 2013).

They were indeed dead serious and one can only be horrified that 50 years later they are closer than ever to the violent destruction of White America. These attitudes were also apparent in my experience with Jewish radicals at the University of Wisconsin in the 1960s, as recounted Ch. 3 of The Culture of Critique:

There was also a great deal of hostility to Western cultural institutions as politically and sexually oppressive combined with an ever-present sense of danger and imminent destruction by the forces of repression—an ingroup bunker mentality discussed in A People That Shall Dwell Alone Chapter 7 that I now believe is a fundamental characteristic of Jewish social forms. There was an attitude of moral and intellectual superiority and even contempt toward traditional American culture, particularly rural America and most particularly the South—attitudes that are hallmarks of several of the intellectual movements reviewed here (e.g., the attitudes of Polish-Jewish communists toward traditional Polish culture; see also Chs. 6 and 7 on Jewish attitudes toward populism). There was also a strong desire for bloody, apocalyptic revenge against the entire social structure viewed as having victimized not only Jews but non-elite gentiles as well—reflecting the revenge theme of many commenters on Jewish motivation.

It’s that “bloody, apocalyptic revenge” that we have to prevent at all costs.

“One Battle After Another” (2025): Radical Politics & Fetishized Miscegenation, Part 2 of 2

/8 Comments/in , /by

6075 words

Go to Part 1

VI.             Christmas Adventurers Club

The Christmas Adventurers Club is a fictional, far-right, Christian Nationalist secret society composed of elite, White supremacist business and political leaders. The club uses its wholesome-sounding name, and suburban “southwest headquarters” access point, to mask sinister and xenophobic goals while aiming to control American society. (There is no such group in Pynchon’s Vineland, so this dramatic concept is entirely Anderson’s). We have the loaded connotations of Christ inherent in the word ‘Christmas’.

Lockjaw is being considered for membership in the Christmas Adventurers Club and is interviewed by them in a fancy hotel suite. Being a White supremacist himself, Lockjaw is of course eager to be accepted as a member of this exclusive group. Club member Sandy Irvine (played by Norm Macdonald’s old writing partner and SNL veteran Jim Downey) says to Lockjaw:

Steve, we have, in the past, offered membership to certain members of the military. We found their tactical battlefield expertise to be quite useful. Now, our aim and your aim is the same. To find dangerous lunatics, haters, and punk trash and stop them.

Then another, higher-ranking society member with the absurdly WASP name of Virgil Throckmorton (Tony Goldwyn) says to Lockjaw:

You’re doing great work. … Each and every day is hand-to-hand combat in the spread of uncontrolled migration, isn’t it?…

I don’t think I’m being immodest when I say that joining the Christmas Adventurers Club means that you are a superior man. No, not the best man, not the most intelligent, the most sophisticated, or the wisest. It just means that you are superior to other human beings, and you shall never want for riches or the greatest of friends.

Now, we report to ourselves with a freedom to be creative and cut through layers of bureaucracy. We live by the Golden Rule, in a network of like-minded men and women dedicated to making the world safe and pure.

What would you say to someone who believes that you have been soft in your duty to racial purification?

Lockjaw answers: “I would say they are a liar who has no business in society. Or on the planet, for that matter.” This impresses the Club members.

As part of the Club’s uber-thorough “Double Yankee White Inquisitions Completum” background check on Lockjaw, they ask him a series of questions that, as only a White liberal screenwriter can conjure, serve to signify conservative White males’ assumed aversion to psychotherapy, as well as the secret society’s anti-Semitism and organizing principle of White Gentile racial purity:

Throckmorton: Have you ever consulted with a mental health professional?

Lockjaw: No, sir…

Throckmorton: Have you ever engaged in an interracial relationship?

Lockjaw: No, sir.

Throckmorton: And you are American-born by Gentile?

Lockjaw: Yes, sir.

Later in the film, as the leaders of the Christmas Adventurers Club discover that Lockjaw has fathered a mixed-race child, they decide to take drastic measures to clean up the mess. We see a proper-looking White male drive a blue Mustang to an upscale home in an exclusive neighborhood that is the southwest headquarters of the secret society. In Pynchon’s Vineland, which Pynchon set in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan’s Presidential election is an all-important backdrop to the events of the novel. As a nod to this, Anderson uses Reagan’s posh home in East Sacramento – which he occupied during his stint as California governor from 1967 to 1975 – to represent the exteriors of the Christmas Adventurers Club’s southwest headquarters.

As the man is driving to this house, the soundtrack plays an excerpt of the eighteenth-century English Christmas carol “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing” to further ridicule Christianity and associate it with White supremacism and murderousness:

Hark, the herald angels sing
Glory to the newborn King
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinners reconciled
Joyful, all ye nations, rise…
Hail the Sun of Righteousness
Light and life to all he brings

Risen with healing in his wings
Mild he lays his glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark, the herald angels sing
Glory to the newborn King

The man knocks on the door and is instantly recognized and let in by a genteel elderly woman. She asks if he is hungry and offers to make him her “famous Alice banana pancakes.” The man politely declines, saying he’s about to be running late and that he “better get down there.” We then see the man enter the door to the basement which then leads to a vast, lighted, concrete corridor with numerous rooms off the corridor, finally arriving at the room to which he’s been summoned. Awaiting him are the elite leaders of the Christmas Adventurers Club. (In this setting, we have the tired liberal trope of wealthy WASP enclaves — and White suburbs in general — secretly harboring White supremacist viewpoints). The room is replete with hunting motifs (because to urban liberals, that’s what White racists in the suburbs do).

The man, despite his unassuming demeanor, is actually a hitman for the Christmas Adventurers Club. He is instructed to kill both Lockjaw and Willa. As the Club members adjourn, they say “All hail Saint Nick” in unison.

The attempt to kill Lockjaw and Willa fails. Due to his own effort to dispose of Willa having gone awry, as well as the Christmas Adventurers Club attempt to murder both Willa and Lockjaw having gone awry, Lockjaw’s face has become horribly disfigured (get it?). In the end, however, Lockjaw is lured back to meet with the Christmas Adventurers Club under false pretenses. They lead him to believe he’s been accepted as a member. “Congratulations, Steve, you’re a Christmas Adventurer.” Lockjaw is jubilant. “Oh, Mommy. Thank you, sir!” he says back.

Sandy Irvine leads Lockjaw to a corner office in an empty high-rise office building which offers an amazing view of the city, telling him:

Lockjaw, we’re lucky to have you. Now, obviously, goes without saying, this is just one place where you can hang your hat, take meetings, stow a few personal items. We like our members to feel they have a home away from home, any time, day or night. Now, it’s empty right now, but we’ll let you personalize it. A man’s taste defines him, doesn’t it?

Lockjaw asks if he can sit at the desk in the office, to which Sandy says “Absolutely.” As Lockjaw sits down, Sandy says “Damn it. I forgot your keys. Wait here, I’ll just grab ‘em from my office.” As he leaves (closing the door behind him), Lockjaw puts his feet up on the desk, basking in the glow of his personal moment of triumph. We then hear the sound of some sort of gas being pumped into the room from the ceiling air vent. In just moments, Lockjaw is dead — seemingly frozen into place — and two men in full hazmat suits arrive, carry his body out, and place it into an incinerator.

The Holocaust analogy here is so glaringly obvious and forced as to be embarrassing. Both the poison gas and the subsequent disposal of a body into a furnace is, of course, a twist on the Holocaust trope of telling Jews they’re just getting a shower (and not Zyklon B) and then their bodies being incinerated. Why this trope here? Because, according to the modern liberal mind, ‘White people’ are responsible for the Holocaust, an event which apparently began on June 6, 1944.

In the end, Lockjaw was sentenced to death for the sin of miscegenation, particularly the most egregious form of this sin: producing a child with someone who is Black.

VII.            Racialized Sexuality as Revolutionary Political Activism

One Battle has been a pet project of Anderson’s since the early 1990s when he first read Pynchon’s Vineland and became obsessed with it, and he then worked on the eventual adapted screenplay for over 20 years. In a very significant way, the film can be seen as an extended therapy session for Anderson. He seems to be expressing his apparent fetishization of Black women in much the same way that Quentin Tarantino expresses his fetishization with women’s feet. Anderson also seems to be expunging a weird misplaced sense of guilt over his own Whiteness, maleness and heterosexuality in general, and addressing anxiety over the racial identity crises his miscegenated children have experienced, or will likely experience in their lives, to some degree. Anderson also seems to be trying to elevate his own mixed-race domestic situation as itself some sort of revolutionary act, which if true is a perfect example of elite, armchair LARP-ing, the sort of “revolutionary action” that doesn’t require getting one’s hands dirty.

There is a conspicuous amount of interracialized sexuality (of the White-with-Black variety) on display in One Battle, and it’s worth considering the possible autobiographical reasons why Anderson placed so much of this element into his film. How else to explain the random, disparate, and otherwise pointless displays of miscegenated eroticism in One Battle?

For example, in the aforementioned opening sequence of the film we see Bob kissing passionately with his Perfidia while they are escaping from their successful operation to liberate illegal aliens from a migrant detention center. (It is she who irrationally and recklessly initiates this moment of passion, which briefly confuses Bob). Later in the film, after Bob has detonated various explosives against other domestic targets, we see the two kissing passionately again as they are fleeing (and with her also wanting to stop to have sex). Then later we see Alana Haim (her Jewish physiognomy unmistakable), in a role so minor as to be almost pointless, as French 75 member “Mae West” who kisses a Black male French 75 member just before both of them participate in an organized bank robbery. During this robbery, another loud Black female member of the French 75 named “Junglepussy”, with gun in hand, jumps on top of a desk and shouts to the bank employees: “I am what Black Power looks like!”

The script never provides a satisfactory and internally coherent reason as to why Perfidia, the radical Black leader of a revolutionary Leftwing terrorist group, would decide she wants to have sex with a White man as odious as Lockjaw (and bear his child), let alone settle down with Bob, another White man. In fact, this has been a subject of contention among some liberal reviewers of the film. Regarding the ways in which Perfidia is sexualized by two White men, one critic for The Guardian trots out Cultural Marxism’s notion of the “White male gaze” as well as the “lived experience” idiom, writing:

And while I understand the context and meaning behind the villain’s sexual obsession as a—reflection of racist and rightwing viewpoints, it also reflects hyper-sexualization of Black women in cinema. Taking on the form of a thing in order to critique and satirize it requires careful and—informed perspective. Intentions can result in the opposite of what’s intended, and that’s why our—intentions with other people’s lived experiences need to be handled so carefully.

One Battle After Another portrays these themes and reflects these questions and issues in ways—that mostly point it out and train all of its satire and disdain for the white men guilty of that gaze,—attitude, and behavior. But in going so far into being the thing in order to mock it, sometimes the—line gets awfully blurry, and it starts to feel like the film isn’t so much pointing at racist/sexist—stereotypes and male gaze as becoming those things in order to provoke us to react. (Hughes, 2025).[1]

The anger rises with Ellen E. Jones, a mixed-race Black female critic for The Guardian, who bemoans the film’s “fetishised depiction of interracial relationships” and Perfidia’s “hyper-sexualized” nature. “Dear revered PTA,” she writes, “what is up with you and Black women?”

… Anderson went for extreme horniness instead. This is a choice. Just like it was a choice to name another of his Black female revolutionary characters “Junglepussy” — inspired by the performer’s real stage name, a sexualised spin on the old racist slur “jungle bunny”. Or to have Perfidia express her principled defiance of the fascistic state with the phrase “this pussy don’t pop for you”. (Note to white male screenwriters: not every Black woman talks like Cardi B. And even Cardi B doesn’t sound like a Cardi B record all the time) (Jones, 2025).

Of the scene where Lockjaw says to Bob: “Do you like Black girls? I love ‘em!”, Jones writes:

This is intended to demonstrate the character’s repellence, but would be much more effective as such, if we hadn’t just seen lovable Bob describe his attraction to Perfidia in pretty much the same terms, moments earlier. Or Avon Barksdale from The Wire (aka actor Wood Harris) fondly describing his girlfriend Alana Haim as “an ordinary, working white girl”. In the OBAA worldview, all interracial relationships are apparently founded on a race kink. (Jones, 2025).

I would contend that the two White men on either side of Perfidia — Bob and Lockjaw — represent Anderson’s own conflicted psyche about the very idea of White men being with Black women and producing mixed-race children, and his own family life within that context. Bob is the ‘good’ well-intentioned side of this struggle, and Lockjaw is the malevolent and repressed Shadow figure of this struggle. When the Christmas Adventurers Club asks Lockjaw point blank if he knows who Perfidia Beverly Hills is and whether he’s had a romantic relationship with her, Lockjaw lies to them, and the choice of words in Anderson’s script is quite interesting:

Gentlemen, I have engaged the enemy face-to-face in battle. And in the dark alleys and shadows of espionage, I was once raped in reverse. The enemy employed deception. I was drugged. And while unconscious. … I believe [my power] was taken advantage of. I believe she was a sperm thief. They saw the power of my mind and body. They desired it.

Teyana Taylor (who plays Perfidia), when asked about this mini-controversy being discussed within the Left’s media bubble, exudes the Harlem ghetto mindset she grew up in, telling an interviewer:

Is that not what Black women go through? We are fetishized, especially by creepy motherfuckers. And we are, unfortunately, the least protected people. Showing what Black women go through, that’s a hard reality to accept (O’Connell, 2025).

It never crosses Taylor’s mind that perhaps the creepy motherfucker doing the fetishizing might be Anderson himself. In fact, the awkward and incongruous placement of mixed-race sexualization in One Battle begins to make more sense if we see it as a reflection of Anderson’s personal proclivities and very odd conception of miscegenation as a revolutionary act.

Whichever way one cuts it, however, a consistent theme does emerge in One Battle: miscegenation is depicted by Anderson as a revolutionary act. The intertwining and association of sexual arousal with violent revolutionary action is most odd, and the intimate merging of an idealized Marxist political utopia with a racialized sexual utopia is something Frantz Fanon might have dreamt up. It’s important to note that in Pynchon’s Vineland, both the Bob character and the Perfidia-character are White, which therefore makes their daughter White. Thus, it is entirely Anderson who makes the Perfidia character Black, injecting the storyline with layers of miscegenation and a bizarre racialized-sexuality-cum-revolutionary-politics angle. In a kind of auteurist poetic gesture, sexual transgression is symbolically aligned with political rebellion. All of this seems to be towards Anderson’s goal of rendering interracialized sexuality as, at a minimum, a form of political activism, and possibly also a proper and useful ingredient for revolutionary politics. To better understand this, and why Anderson may have infused One Battle with so much of this theme, we need to briefly turn to his own domestic family life.

***

At the time of One Battle’s release, Anderson stands as a 55-year-old father to four mixed-race children, ranging from 12 to 19 — three of them daughters – whom he shares with Maya Rudolph, the former SNL cast member he’s been in an unmarried relationship with since 2001. Rudolph is herself mixed-race (her mother was Black and her father is Jewish). The theme of mixed-race individuals (particularly Black-White biracial) feeling like outsiders in both White and Black communities has been a topic discussed extensively in sociology, psychology, personal memoirs, literature, and online discourse. Never feeling fully at home or accepted in the White community nor in the Black community, mixed-race Blacks often have the biggest racial chip on their shoulders. There is a heightened racial resentment that is almost always targeted at the White aspect of their identity. Following the ‘one drop’ rule, such mixed-race individuals overcompensate by identifying as Black and implicitly or explicitly rejecting the White aspect of their identity. The anger from their conflicted psyches is channeled primarily through publicly avowed ideology rather than violence. They often lean into their ‘Blackness’ and espouse anti-White rhetoric as a way to prove their ‘authenticity’ to full-blooded Blacks. In essence, this public aspect, largely performative, functions as a virtue signal to prove and establish their ‘Blackness’. (Barack Obama is a prime example).[2]

Many of Anderson’s films feature fractured and dysfunctional family arrangements, and it may be the case that Anderson imparts autobiographical elements from his own domestic life into his films, namely the more trying times of his rather unusual family dynamics. It is not much of a stretch to imagine that the life of a successful, critically-acclaimed, auteur writer/director such as Anderson is fraught with domestic problems and emotional sacrifices. As we often see with many of the greatest artists, writers, and poets over the ages, dedication to their craft is their life, and everything else — family included — is a distant second. For instance, in There Will Be Blood (2007), Daniel Plainview’s (Daniel Day Lewis) ego and blind ambition are temporarily brought to their knees when a paster cajoles him to confess his sins, leading him to cry out “I have abandoned my child!” Similarly, in One Battle, Perfidia the dedicated Black female revolutionary essentially abandons her child, not so much for the revolutionary cause but to save her ass from federal prosecution and likely prison time.

In One Battle, Perfidia’s mother is called “Gramma Minnie,” a reference to Maya Rudolph’s mother Minnie Riperton, a renowned soul singer who died of cancer at 31.[3] In an essay about Maya Rudolph’s influence on One Battle, Desiree Bowie writes:

That sense of absence runs deep. Willa loses both grandmother and mother in infancy, and Perfidia parts from her own mom too soon. Each woman is marked by the loss of the one before her.

Teyana Taylor, who plays Perfidia, even said she immersed herself in Riperton’s discography to find the character’s pulse during the film’s long shoot (Bowie, 2025).

In terms of casting the role of Willa, and what led to his choice of Chase Infiniti for the role, Anderson told an interviewer “She reminded me of my daughters. She felt like a person who would be friends with my daughters, and I just connected to her as a human being” (Fear, 2025). In a sequence in the movie where Bob and Sergio are frantically trying to find Willa (whom Lockjaw has kidnapped), Bob laments to Sensei Sergio that after Perfidia left all those years ago, he still struggles with how to be a father to Willa, brushing up against World War Hair in the process:

Just never thought this fucker would come back for us, you know? I got lazy, man. I wasn’t paying attention. I thought the person coming through that door one day was gonna be her mom, not this fucking asshole. See her daughter, you know? She’d teach her girl stuff. She’d do her hair, she’d … be a mom. I can’t do her hair, man. You know that? I don’t know how to do her hair right.

Of this bit of screenplay dialogue, Anderson says in the same interview:

[It’s] no secret that Maya [Rudolph, Paul’s partner] lost her mother [the singer Minnie Riperton] when she was very young. And Maya’s father really struggled, as a single dad, to do her hair. Because, you know, I can tell you: As a father of mixed-race girls, it’s nearly impossible for me to do their hair as a white man. That was something that struck me as a father, and that I really knew was a challenge for her and for him. That’s a very personal line for me. (Fear, 2025)

In many ways, one can see DiCaprio’s hapless Bob character as a surrogate for Anderson himself. With the racially complicated nature of Anderson’s family, one senses a latent White Savior Complex in One Battle, albeit one that Anderson is simultaneously aware of but conflicted about, and so tries to mitigate.[4]

***

Through the repeated inter-racialized displays in One Battle, Anderson seems to be leaning heavily towards a Frankfurt School interpretation of sorts. The legacy of Freudian pseudoscience (and its inherent hostility to the prevailing Christian sexual norms of heritage America) looms large vis-à-vis the idea of sexual energy as a political force.[5] One need not believe that any of the associated theories capture anything objectively true — most are patently absurd — but it is important to note how these theories inform the Leftist and animate his political art and activism. The theories operate less as working empirical models but more as instruction manuals for activism. The notion of sexual energy as a political force can, of course, be traced back to the profound influence of Sigmund Freud, the Jewish father of psychoanalysis, particularly his theoretical framework of Eros and Thanatos as discussed in Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920). In revolutionary contexts, so the argument goes, Eros (the drive toward union, pleasure, life) and Thanatos (the drive toward destruction and death) collapse into each other. Destruction becomes pleasurable; killing and dying are eroticized as forms of fusion and transcendence. Revolutionary violence thus becomes a Thanatotic act experienced through Eros.

This ‘dual-drive’ theory of Freud’s underlies several other influential Freudian-Marxists. In The Mass Psychology of Fascism (1933), the Jewish psychoanalyst Wilhelm Reich argued that sexual repression creates authoritarian character structures. Libido that cannot be discharged erotically is redirected into aggression, discipline, and ecstatic submission; mass political movements offer a quasi-erotic release through violence, spectacle, and collective action.

Similarly, the influential Jewish intellectual Herbert Marcuse explicitly links libidinal energy with political rebellion. He deploys a Freudian-Marxist concept of ‘liberation’ that promises a return of pleasure, intensity, and bodily freedom. In Eros and Civilization (1955), Marcuse argues that capitalist society represses Eros, and that when ‘sexual liberation’ is incomplete, revolutionary politics will absorb this repressed erotic longing. Later, in Counterrevolution and Revolt (1972), Marcuse suggests that radical politics often becomes aestheticized and eroticized, but that violence can function as a substitute gratification. It is why, he argues, some revolutionary movements become theatrical and performative, intoxicating even when futile.

It is also worth pointing out the undue influence that The Authoritarian Personality (1950) has had on Cultural Marxism. Theodor Adorno and his co-authors sought to frame traditional Christian norms — such as conventional moral values, respect for established religious authority, traditional gender roles, and adherence to conventional family and sexual ethics — as symptomatic of an underlying authoritarian personality syndrome. On the “F-scale” (fascism scale) personality test that the authors designed, high scorers were pathologized as psychologically rigid, prejudiced, and predisposed to ethnocentrism and fascism, effectively recasting ordinary Christian conservatism as a form of mental maladjustment rooted in repressed aggression and weak ego strength.

It is important also to note that the Weather Underground, who operated between 1969 and 1977, explicitly embraced sexual liberation as a revolutionary act and bought into the Neo-Freudian rhetoric of political violence (and even the outright murder of White civilians) as frenzied ecstatic transgression, all in service of the revolution. For instance, Bernardine Dohrn infamously praised the Manson murders as “wild.” Mark Rudd, the aforementioned Weather Underground leader, writes:

There were crazy discussions at Flint over whether killing white babies was inherently revolutionary, since all white people are the enemy. Out of this bizarre thinking came Bernardine’s infamous speech praising Charles Manson and his gang’s murder of actress Sharon Tate, her unborn child, and the LaBiancas. “Dig it!” she exclaimed. “First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!” We instantly adopted as Weather’s salute four fingers held up in the air, invoking the fork left in Sharon Tate’s belly (Rudd, 2009).

That Bernardine Dohrn was not instantly disqualified from a faculty position at Northwestern University’s Law School speaks volumes about the Left’s continued grip on academia. As with other militant 1960s radicals — Bill Ayers, Angela Davis, Kathy Boudin, Kathleen Cleaver, etc. — the disturbing pattern here is in how their terrorist activities were not socially punished but social rewarded: academic appointments and other comfortable sinecures bestowed where one might have expected lasting disgrace.

VIII.          Conclusion

One Battle is a thoroughly Californian film. Its setting takes place entirely in California. It’s director and lead actor, both ardent progressives, have lived there for their entire lives. Thomas Pynchon spent formative decades living in California and his novel that One Battle is loosely based upon is set in California. “As California goes, so goes the nation” is an old political maxim that rings truer every day, and the madness that is California politics plays like satire itself. In a piece of trivia worthy of The Babylon Bee, prior to scenes being shot for One Battle in downtown Sacramento, authorities removed homeless tents — from ‘Cesar Chavez Park’ no less – presumably at the production’s request: ‘The Sacramento Homeless Union says tents were tagged with notices of filming Thursday and those living in the tents were forced to leave the area. “This permit should have never been given,” said Crystal Sanchez, President of the Sacramento Homeless Union’ (Trubey, 2024).

In the epilogue of One Battle, while Bob embraces a quiet life and is adapting to modern technology (Willa shows him how to take a selfie on his new iPhone), we hear a police scanner/radio announce that there is a new protest in Oakland. The radio acts as a link between the past French 75 era of Leftist political activism and the present, showing that the “battle” is never truly over but has passed on to a new generation. The present marks an era of female-dominated, Gen Z, Leftist activism. (Gen Z men are moving decisively towards conservatism). Willa immediately prepares to leave to join the rally, and Bob tries meekly to dissuade her. “You know, Oakland’s a three-and-a-half-hour drive from here,” he says to her, “It’s raining out.” We see unmistakably that this has absolutely no effect on Willa’s determination to go. “Be careful,” Bob says to her as she walks out the door. “I won’t” Willa replies, in the film’s last line of dialogue, before Tom Petty’s “American Girl” needle-drops onto the film’s closing credits, signaling Willa as a continuation of her mother’s activist legacy and the future of America.

One Battle is clearly a celebration of female leadership and an endorsement of the continued feminization of culture. The perceived “battles” that Anderson entertains as reality — the “eternal struggle” theme of the film’s title — comes from Anderson’s liberal White sensibility of what Black and Brown existence in America is comprised of. As one liberal reviewer of the film notes: “The terms of One Battle are not success and failure but action and inaction, and the belligerent, no-nonsense swagger Willa accrues as her own battles pile on suggests that the radical tradition of her parents’ generation will survive through her own” (Goi, 2025).

The more that one scrutinizes One Battle, the more apparent it becomes that Bob is Paul Thomas Anderson and that Willa is his daughters. “Like Bob,” one reviewer notes, “Anderson is an aging rebel reckoning with the nature of time” (LeBeau, 2025). Anderson himself, in an interview, frames the film’s message as one of persistence and stoicism:

Whether you’re talking about big things, finding one battle after another for the state of our world, or you’re talking about daily battles, from getting up in the morning and just getting your coat and getting your kids to school and brushing your teeth and stubbing your toe. I mean, that’s the job. Yes, fight these daily battles. Be nice. Keep your head down. Get on to the next fight, but don’t give up. (Fear, 2025)

In a Rolling Stone interview with both Anderson and DiCaprio, the interviewer tees them up with a loaded (and leading) assertion posing as a question:

So many people are asking, what can we do to fight back against this weird, fucked-up moment in American history. And One Battle After Another does kind of have an answer to that, which is: Look after your community and take care of your own.

DiCaprio agrees and then Anderson adds:

I think I what I’ve been noticing over the past two weeks since we’ve started showing the movie is, you know, maybe it’s not fashionable to make an optimistic movie right now. That was a risk. It’s fashionable to be cranky or something. But there’s a streak of optimism in the film. I hope there is, at least, I because I feel that way. I mean, I have four kids. I’d better be fucking optimistic. (Fear, 2025)

These sentiments aptly reflect where progressive culture is at the moment. Domestic politics is not seen as a slow and relatively boring, procedural endeavor with compromises being an often-necessary way station towards progress. Rather, it is a grand opera of mythic proportions, where each of us is either good or evil. (The moral absolutism inherent in this Manichaean worldview helps explain the performative aspect of Leftist activism today).

To this point, DiCaprio has compared One Battle to the film Star Wars (1977), something Anderson does not disagree with, noting that Willa can be seen as ‘the Chosen One’ (ala siblings Luke Skwalker and Princess Leia), Sergio/Sensei as Obi Wan Kenobi, Lockjaw as Darth Vader (relentlessly searching for Rebellion members, and secretly the father of the ‘Chosen One’), and the Christmas Adventurers Club hitman as bounty hunter Boba Fett. To this we can add Bob as comic relief ala R2D2/C3PO but with a father-daughter dynamic in play. In terms of making sense of the Left’s paranoid mindset today, of capturing the zeitgeist of their worldview, One Battle After Another in many ways is the Star Wars of today’s Left.[6]

In a rare moment where he steps outside of his usual, milquetoast NYT-acceptable ‘conservatism’, Ross Douthat fittingly contextualizes One Battle as a failure of vision:

In keeping with the current liberal mood, it feels trapped in a Boomer time warp, trying to speak to the Trump era but constantly pulled backward toward the America of 50 years ago. … Again, all this anachronism works fine in a story about futility and repetition. But Anderson wants to nod to those forces while still offering some sort of call to arms. And the trumpet is too tinny, a thin sound echoing down a long corridor from the Boomer past. History will not stop for this.

One can easily see a film like One Battle not aging well. In the unlikely chance that, in the decades to come, conservative common sense prevails in the culture wars, and race relations temper to a more rational level, it’s easy to imagine all sides retroactively deeming One Battle as itself borne of progressivism’s own ironic racist assumptions, that is, of White liberals continually perceiving the social reality of Blacks to be one of victimhood, and fostering this sensibility amongst themselves to a manic degree, of treating Blacks as near-sacred beings perpetually trapped in a system that is ‘against’ them, perpetually in need of assistance from Whites. In this way, and over time, One Battle After Another will stand as a cinematic manifestation of the heightened White Savior Complex that characterizes our current era.

REFERENCES

[1] There is a parallel here with the longstanding criticism by some Blacks of Quentin Tarantino’s use of the word “nigger” in his screenplays, a critique that is but another front in the “only we are allowed to say the magic word” culture war. Anderson and Tarantino, who both grew up in the L.A. area, are good friends. Amidst his praise for Tarantino’s Jackie Brown (1997), Anderson describes an intimate scene that brings him to tears between Pam Grier (who is Black) and Robert Forster (who is White) as being “so cool and so breezy … about middle-aged people that feel the clock ticking, … I consider Tarantino a peer, but that is a watermark for how to shoot and film a scene with delicacy and compassion.” See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VSACkqh9a4.

[2] Regarding the psychological toll mixed-race adolescents experience, see Green (2025). Regarding Obama, see Steve Sailer’s America’s Half-Blood Prince: Barack Obama’s “Story of Race and Inheritance” (2009). Autobiographical aspects of One Battle have been touched upon by liberal writers: with respect to One Battle, see LeBeau (2025), and for autobiographical aspects of Phantom Thread, see Anderson’s own words in Radish (2018).

[3] Minnie Riperton is best known for the hit single “Lovin’ You” (1974), where her overall vocal style and rare falsetto range sounds very ‘White’, to the extent that club owners who booked her after only hearing (and not seeing) her, would be shocked that she was Black. Emily J. Lordi’s book The Meaning of Soul: Black Music and Resilience Since the 1960s (2020), which features Riperton on the front cover, places her in a broader Black musical-intellectual tradition related to the era’s ideas of Black resilience and, indirectly, the historical world around Black Power. Lordi writes: “Born in 1947 in the Bronzeville district of Chicago, Riperton was the youngest of eight children and the daughter of a homemaker and a Pullman porter. As I have noted, she studied opera for years. Although she knew well that opportunities for black classical singers were extremely limited, she did not, like Nina Simone, narrate her detour from concert music as a racial trauma. This might have been a matter of temperament or a strategic omission. Or it might have been due to the fact that Riperton had always had another place to land: she had grown up near Chess Records, the crucible of Chicago soul” (116-7). Of Riperton’s cover of Aretha Franklin’s “Respect”, Lordi writes that Riperton “recast Franklin’s signature song as an eerie exploration of interracial love” in a “seductive interracial duet” with White bassist Mitch Aliotta (62). Lordi later adds that Riperton’s “falsetto marked a refusal to shout and an embrace of an expansive, often buoyant interior life for which Riperton sought both musical and social space. Her quest was especially resonant in an era of black feminist emergence… Through her falsetto, as well as her often self-composed lyrics, Riperton contributed to these feminist efforts to make more space for black women’s interiority, both its pleasures and demands” (116).

[4] An important footnote in this regard, and one that amplifies the penchant of both Anderson and DiCaprio to romanticize the Other (and in the process espouse anti-White sentiment), is the fact that both were involved in substantially changing the storyline of Martin Scorsese’s 2023 film Killers of the Flower Moon (Ruimy, 2025). DiCaprio was originally slated to play FBI agent Tom White (ultimately played by Jesse Plemons), a character that was to be the lead role of the film, but was concerned that Eric Roth’s original script was too much of a ‘great White hope story’. Upon critical feedback from members of Oklahoma’s Osage tribe about portraying White men as heroic saviors of the Osage, Scorsese and DiCaprio decided to change the movie’s focus from the FBI’s point of view (as they investigated the Osage murders) to a focus on the interracial marriage between the villainous Ernest Burkhart (DiCaprio) and an Osage woman named Mollie (Lily Gladstone). One can see parallels between Ernest’s slow poisoning of his own wife with Lockjaw’s “poisoning” of Perfidia.

[5] An almost exclusively Jewish field, psychoanalysis was borne in a rigidly enforced, cult-like atmosphere, propagated by loyal sycophants to Freud. (Freud’s infamous break with Carl Jung, a Gentile, is instructive in this regard). Psychoanalysis has attempted to maintain a veneer of scientific respectability over the years but has since become thoroughly discredited and can now be seen largely as a Jewish attempt to pathologize Christian European norms. See Cuddihy (1974) and MacDonald (1998/2002/2025).

[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8WW4jJ59d4.