Immigration as provocation

/24 Comments/in , /by

Sir John Major was Conservative Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1990 to 1997, and only ever an interim premier after Margaret Thatcher was ousted. All he is really remembered for is that he signed the Maastricht Treaty, which began Britain’s entry into the EU, and the fact that his father was a circus trapeze-artist. Major resembled a cricket commentator (and does in fact love the game) who had gone to the wrong job interview and accidentally ended up as PM.

One off-the-cuff remark of his, however, is worth revisiting in the current British climate of simmering anger over uncontrolled and apparently uncontrollable immigration to the UK, 80% of which is from outside the EU. Only around 16% of that figure enter the UK on professional work visas. Many of them are completely undocumented and are not in any way identifiable, having discarded their passports and phones during their crossing from France via the English Channel. All can be confident that these will be replaced with British versions of both. For how much longer will the British people continue to show the tolerance which is demanded of them by the state?

Step on an Englishman’s foot, said the former PM, and he will apologize. Step on his foot again, and he will apologize. Step on his foot a third time and he’ll knock you down. The first is seen as an accident, the second as an unfortunate repetition of that accident which, while it tries the patience, is tolerable. The third, however, is provocation, and demands an appropriate response. That is the position today’s White Englishmen find themselves in. Where are we in Major’s homily? How many times have English feet been stepped on, and when will the third arrive?

There can be little doubt that a main component of Labour’s de facto open borders immigration policy is intended to provoke the British people, and particularly the English. Starmer wants to “wind the English up”, to use the vernacular, and his party’s current immigration policy echoes the infamous phrase used by Labour’s Andrew Neather in 2009 — albeit critically — when he stated that Labour wanted mass immigration “to rub the Right’s noses in diversity”. Today’s Labour Party have more sinister motives than Neather’s revelation, and intend to rub every White, British, indigenous nose in the same ordure.

The United Kingdom is, of course, composed of four nations: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. But in the context of immigration, when “the UK” is mentioned, this invariably means England. Criticism of the British Empire, similarly, is not aimed at the Welsh, but always at the villains of the piece — any piece — the English. Immigrants do not risk their lives and their life savings travelling across Europe and crossing the English Channel in dangerous and unsuitable craft to live in Cardiff or Belfast. They are almost all Muslims, and wish to join the ummah in London or Birmingham, England’s capital and second city respectively, and both well on the way to becoming micro-caliphates. And they serve two purposes for Britain’s deep state: Their role in Renaud Camus’ Great Replacement, and the provocation, and resulting dissident violence, that the same deep state wishes to inflict on the White British. Starmer made good use of the rioting after the murders of three little girls in Southport at the start of his premiership, jailing many first-time “offenders” for social media posts (correctly) stating that the alleged killer was a Muslim.

Examples of this goading are numerous, but we will begin with the leading indicator of immigration, the statistics themselves. Whether or not it was Mark Twain who quipped that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics” is one for the literary historians, but the phrase may as well be wrought in iron over the entrance to the UK’s ONS, or Office for National Statistics.

A novel way in which immigration figures are manipulated is by releasing upwardly revised figures at a later date. Thus, although the net annual immigration figures to June 2023 were originally given by the ONS at 740,000, these have been revised to 906,000, and this reconfiguration allows two things to happen. Firstly, Labour can blame the “error” on the last Conservative government, allowing Starmer to accuse them of conducting an “open borders experiment” as though they themselves were not doing exactly that. This also allows Labour to claim — correctly, given the revised figure — that the same figure to June 2024, 728,000, has dropped by 20%. Thus, Labour can claim to have reduced immigration figures — a promise every incoming government this century has campaigned on — and also to be a credible alternative to the Tories rather than the other side of the same uniparty coin.

The last Conservative government had as its worthless maxim “Stop the boats” but, as the BBC points out, “Labour replaced [former Prime Minister] Rishi Sunak’s ‘stop the boats’ slogan with its own three-word mantra: ‘Smash the gangs’.”  Since the election, Keir Starmer has talked about “smashing the business model of the people-smuggling gangs” working in France, as though talking like the Incredible Hulk proves his resolve. And these are not “people smugglers”. Anything smuggled is hidden, and these migrants are very visible. Strangest of all is the idea of “smashing” a business model. The business model for the migration business is incredibly simple. Migrants pay a great deal of money, in cash, to people who provide inflatable boats in which they travel to the UK. There is no contract, no necessity to offer a guarantee (and therefore no legal protection or insurance for the migrants), and it is unlikely that much business time is wasted filling out tax returns. If there is competition for your business, you shoot them, or they shoot you. The Home Office, like every other branch of British government, is obsessed with models to the extent that they now believe them to be real, and somehow able to be “smashed”.

But the boats remain unstopped and the gangs unsmashed. Where, then, do the British government intend to house these anonymous arrivistes as they join the backlog of unprocessed asylum applications? It shouldn’t be hard to create temporary accommodation. During the early days of the Covid pandemic, the British government quickly built a number of “Nightingale hospitals” at a cost of half a billion pounds, a fraction of the current annual cost of housing immigrants. Now that Covid is in the past, these could surely be decommissioned and used instead to house immigrants.

A report by The King’s Fund in 2021, however, shows that the hospitals were not even considered as migrant housing:

But over summer, 2020, one issue came to define the narrative around the Nightingales – quite simply, they were not seeing many patients. And now, one year after they were built, many of the facilities are either being decommissioned or repurposed as mass vaccination centres or diagnostic centres.

Where, then, are the immigrants to be housed? Presumably, the government would wish to tread carefully and not to show migrants as somehow receiving preferential treatment over, say, Britain’s thousands of homeless people, many of them ex-army. Not so. Let’s take a break and visit a hotel. Depending on what you are used to, the sixteenth-century Madeley Court Hotel in Telford, Shropshire, is both beautiful and luxurious. If you happen not to be an illegal immigrant to Britain, however, you won’t be staying there any time soon, as it is all booked up for the foreseeable future. The “availability” link on its website states that the booking facility is “not accessible” as “some required settings are not defined”. It’s the kind of statement you might expect from HAL, the computer in Kubrick’s 2001.

This report from Britain’s Daily Mail shows the hotel in all its glory, and also informs the reader that it is currently block-booked with immigrants, many of whom have lived there since the time that the Nightingale hospitals were still in existence. One Muslim gentleman interviewed by a citizen journalist had an interesting take on the economic cost of immigration. Speaking from his hotel — which film stars used to do — the man said that, “We don’t know who pays for it. But we don’t need to”. There are other ways of paying, of course. The local people will not be able to enjoy the hotel’s famous Christmas dinner this year, for example, as it has been cancelled.

The Mail’s report is also of interest for what it shows of the media’s collusion with government over what is usually termed the “far Right”. The paper is careful not to show any editorial disapproval of this luxurious accommodation for people who have never paid — and likely never will — into the UK tax system.

Instead, it writes, “The outrage was generated… by a string of right-wing commentators on social media… [and] many social media users have expressed anger” at the arrangement. It is “Right-wing” commentators who are angry, not the newspaper once ridiculed for its levels of outrage.

That there is an immigration industry in the UK has been known for some time, whispered rather than spoken aloud. They have everything one might expect in an industry, those on the front-line, those in the board-room, and those doing the marketing. That would be the media. There has been an interesting incursion recently, a Venn-like overlap between the circle of activism and that of the communicative professions. There are activist journalists now as well as activist university lecturers and public-sector chiefs. The Mail’s piece is more subtly pro-government than the BBC, say, but it is still a part of the immigration industry.

This also shows the importance of alternative media and their role in the government’s provocative use of immigration to rile the indigenous English. Yorkshire Rose are citizen journalists who visit migrant hotels, and below is a video of their visit to Madeley Court. I have watched a number of these videos, and there is a theme. Every video features a confrontation with security staff, and almost all the security guards featured are foreign to the UK. They are often surly and aggressive, and regularly tell those filming that they are on private property. Technically, that is correct, although hotel grounds have public right of access, otherwise it is difficult to see how guests could get from their car to their room. Usually, this type of video would be quickly taken down, but these remain. They are integral to the government’s program of stepping on English toes a third time.

There remains a tendency in the British media, alternative as well as what there is of right-of-center outlets, to attribute increasingly uncontrolled immigration as a sign of government incompetence. Terms such as “crazy”, “insane”, “lack of common sense” are regularly used to describe the influx and government failure to stop it. There is more than an element of the Dunning-Kruger Effect here, in which a person believes themselves far more capable of performing a task or job than they actually are. It simply is not credible to view uncontrolled immigration as government incompetence. It is intentional, malevolent, and designed to cause problems for the indigenous British firstly at a local level, and later at a national one.

I have discussed the British uniparty here at The Occidental Observer, and there is a clear sense that 14 years of nominally Conservative government was intended to prepare for Starmer’s accelerated program of flooding Britain with migrants, like a warm-up act for a rock band. This illusory transfer of power allows the two regimes to work retrospectively in tandem.

What might be termed “malevolent immigration” differs between the US and the UK. For America, the primary physical danger is Latino gangs and the cartels, in the UK it is Islam. The logistics of housing ever-more Muslim immigrants means that, along with the lack of employable skill-sets and low social capital the UK is importing, Muslim immigrants also bring their sectarian differences with them. Finding yet another hotel for 200 ungrateful migrants is difficult enough, but further complicated if 100 of them are Sunni and 100 Shia. And so, the British people have internecine tribal squabbles to look forward to in their city centers as well as the more general threat to their security and that of their children. Diversity is not seen as “our strength” in Arabic countries. And, day by day, the numbers increase.

There are approximately 110,000 British soldiers barracked in the UK. In the year ending September 2024, almost 100,000 immigrants claimed asylum, and there are several times that figure in the country, many unaccounted for, many anonymous and unverifiable. One of the most popular phrases used to describe the new arrivals is “fighting-age men”. How many standing armies comparable to the British Army have already been assembled? And when might they be mobilized?

The final, intolerable stepping on of English feet may be foreseen in Germany’s recent atrocity in Magdeburg, in which a Saudi immigrant mowed down pedestrians at a Christmas market. At the time of writing, five victims are dead and a further 200 injured, many seriously. It is a complicated case — Taleb A is “far right” only in that he doesn’t like Muslim religiosity but his beef was with Germany because they didn’t allow enough people like him to immigrate. Many Germans have taken to the streets to voice their displeasure. Should such an event occur in England — surely an inevitability — the English may feel that their feet have been stepped on for the third and final time.

Indeed, a similar event happened in London on Christmas day, although the police assure us that it was an isolated incident and not terror-related. It will interesting find out his background—if the police are kind enough to release the details.

Regarding Taleb A.:

He was critical of German authorities, saying they had failed to do enough to combat the “Islamism of Europe.” He has also voiced support for the far-right and anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany (AfD) party [then why kill German Christians].

Some described Taleb as an activist who helped Saudi women flee their homeland. Recently, he seemed focused on his theory that German authorities have been targeting Saudi asylum seekers.

And of course the left want to ignore any connection to immigration:

“To the AfD, I can only say: Any attempt to exploit such a terrible act and to abuse the suffering of the victims is despicable,” the Social Democrat (SPD) politician told the newspapers of the Funke Media Group in comments published on Wednesday.

She added, “It only shows the character of those who do such things.”

Following the attack on the Magdeburg Christmas market last Friday, the AfD held a rally in the city on Monday, which, according to police reports, was attended by around 3,500 people.

AfD chairwoman Alice Weidel, referring to the perpetrator identified as Taleb A, said that anyone who despises the citizens of the country that grants them asylum “does not belong with us.” During the event, chants of “Deport! Deport! Deport!” were repeatedly heard.

Joyeux Noёl: The Beginnings of WWI and the Christmas Truce of 1914

/40 Comments/in , /by

MerryChristmasfilmPoster3

Editor’s note: Christmas is a special time of year, and over the years TOO has posted some classic articles that bear on the season. This article by F. Roger Devlin was originally posted in December, 2013. It is an important reminder of the disastrous intra-racial wars of the twentieth century—wars that may yet deal a death blow to our people and culture given the processes that they set in motion. 

With the hindsight offered by ninety-nine years, it is obvious that the outbreak of the World War I marked not merely the beginning of the most destructive war in history up to that time, but a fundamental civilizational watershed. While the fighting was going on, nearly all participants assumed they had been forced into the struggle by naked aggression from the other side. It took historians years to unravel what had actually happened.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the German Army was the best in Europe, capable of defeating any individual rival. Yet Germany had no natural borders, and was vulnerable to a joint attack on two fronts: by France and Britain in the West and the Russian Empire in the East. A German defeat was considered virtually inevitable in such a scenario.

The Franco-Russian alliance of 1894, which became the Triple Entente when Britain joined in 1907, realized Germany’s worst fears.

However, there were important differences between Germany’s Western and Eastern rivals: France and Britain were modern, compact, efficiently-organized countries capable of rapid mobilization, while sprawling Russia with its thinly spread population and economic backwardness was expected to require up to 110 days for full mobilization. Taking advantage of this asymmetry, the German High Command developed the Schlieffen plan: upon the outbreak of hostilities, close to ninety percent of Germany’s effective troops would launch a lightning attack in the West; this campaign was to be completed within forty days, while lumbering Russia was still mobilizing. With the Western powers out of the way, massive troop transfers to the Eastern front were expected to arrive in time for Germany to face down Russia. Speed—of mobilization, of offensive operations, and of troop transfer—was critical to the success of this plan.

The assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Arch-Duke by a Serb nationalist in June, 1914, is the perfect example of an event which occasioned events which followed, but did not cause them; the men of Europe’s great powers did not slaughter one another for four years over a political assassination in the Balkans. Rather, the assassination occurred in the context of Russian guarantees to Serbia and German guarantees to Austria, which inevitably brought the Triple Entente into play. A diplomatic game of ‘chicken’ ensued, in which no side was willing to be the first to back down.

When Austria declared war on Serbia on July 28th, the Russian Tsar, conscious of his Empire’s military backwardness, ordered a partial mobilization. This action was intended merely as a precaution in case of a war that still seemed unlikely. But for the Germans, with their Schlieffen plan requiring utmost speed, the Tsar’s order had the effect of an electric shock. Germany felt it had to mobilize as well. Russia responded two days later by ordering full mobilization. Germany gave Russia an ultimatum; and the Tsar, unwilling to knuckle under, allowed the deadline to pass. Within hours, everyone was involved in a war that none of the parties had originally wanted or intended.

German historians call such a series of events a Betriebsunfall: a quasi-mechanical accident such as might occur in the machinery of a factory. Men were drawn into the gear work and crushed when no one was able to throw the emergency switch in time. It was a tragedy in the fullest sense of the word—a disaster brought on by well-intentioned but flawed men acting rationally under conditions of imperfect knowledge. The consequences are well-known: ten million dead, twenty-eight million more wounded or missing, Communism established in Russia, the Balfour Declaration setting the stage for today’s ongoing Middle East conflict, and the whole crowned by a shameful ‘peace’ treaty that all but guaranteed a future war of German revenge.

Yet, as we can see from newsreel footage of August 1st, the popular reaction to the outbreak was war fever on a scale not seen since the crusades. Europe had been enjoying forty-three years of peace and unprecedented material prosperity, and the young greeted the war as a romantic adventure.

The planned rapid German advance through the Low Countries into Northeast France was unexpectedly halted  in early September—the “Miracle of the Marne”—foiling the Schlieffen plan. On the 13th, the German Army responded by attempting a flanking action around the French lines; the French then rapidly extended their own defensive lines in what became known as the “race to the sea.” Since neither side could dislodge the other, and neither was willing to retreat, soldiers began digging themselves in to their positions—the beginning of trench warfare. By the time winter set in, the pattern of the next four years had been clearly established: a war of attrition involving trivial advances and retreats across a few acres of mud.

But as Christmas approached that year, something unexpected began unfolding. On the frontline sector south of Ypres, Belgium, German troops began decorating the area around their trenches for Christmas Eve. As Wikipedia describes it:

The Germans began by placing candles on their trenches and on Christmas trees, then continued the celebration by singing Christmas carols. The British responded by singing carols of their own. The two sides continued by shouting Christmas greetings to each other. Soon thereafter, there were excursions across No Man’s Land, where small gifts were exchanged, such as food, tobacco and alcohol, and souvenirs such as buttons and hats. The artillery in the region fell silent. The truce also allowed a breathing spell where recently killed soldiers could be brought back behind their lines by burial parties. Joint [religious] services were held.

The ceasefire spread to other sectors of the front, with as many as 100,000 men eventually participating. In some areas, soccer games between the belligerents replaced combat.

joyeux-noel

By December 26th, it was over. The authorities got word of the breakdown in discipline and intervened vigorously.

In 2005, an international consortium from France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and Romania produced a film about the Christmas Truce: Joyeux Noёl. The film opens with scenes of children in French, British and German grade schools reciting rhymed curses they had been taught against the opposing side: the British child’s curse calls for the complete extermination of Germans.

The scene switches to Scotland, where an enthusiastic young man, William, rushes into his local Catholic church breathlessly to announce to his younger brother Jonathan that war has been declared; they are to begin basic training in two days. “At last, something’s happening in our lives,” he rejoices. The priest, Fr. Palmer, looks notably less enthusiastic.

At the Berlin Opera, a performance is interrupted by an officer walking on stage to announce that war has been declared. The lead tenor, Sprink, is quickly called up.

In a French trench, Lieutenant Audebert wistfully looks at a photograph of his pregnant wife moments before being called to lead an assault on the German lines. In the ensuing action, Scottish William is mortally wounded; his brother Jonathan is forced to leave him behind, a psychological trauma from which he never recovers. Audebert’s men pour into a German trench, but as they turn a corner, some one-third of them are mown down by a German machine gun.

Meanwhile, Sprink’s lover, the Danish soprano Anna, receives permission to sing before the Crown Prince of Prussia. Sprink is called back from the front to perform with her, and is impressed with the luxurious comfort in which the German commanders are living. When he returns to the front, Anna insists on accompanying him, determined to sing for the ordinary frontline soldiers as well as the officers at headquarters. (The presence of a woman at the front is poetic license on the filmmakers’ part.)

The German soldiers begin setting up Christmas trees along their trenches, to the bewildered suspicion of the French soldiery. After the singers conclude their first number, a cheer goes up from the Scottish trenches. Fr. Palmer plays the first few bars of another Christmas song on the bagpipes, and Sprink responds by performing the song, climbing out into No Man’s Land. Lieutenant Audebert motions to his men to hold fire. Soon, men are pouring out of the trenches on both sides, sharing food and drinks. Fr. Palmer holds a Christmas Eve Mass for all the men.

On Christmas morning, the officers renew the truce and arrange for exchanging their dead. Dozens of men are buried between the lines. A soccer match ensues. The officers realize the situation is untenable and attempt to restore discipline, but by this time the men are refusing to fire upon each other.

A bundle of soldiers’ letters is intercepted by the French authorities, alerting them to the situation. Fearful of having their war spoiled, they dissolve the division and repost its members to various unaffected sectors of the front. The Germans are transferred to the Eastern front to face the Russians. Fr. Palmer is replaced by a Bishop who preaches a sermon urging new recruits to exterminate German men, women and children.

A major theme of the film is music. Sprink’s superior officer begins by telling him that, being a singer, he is useless as a soldier. Then it is the incongruous presence of music that leads to the unplanned ceasefire. At the end, as the Crown Prince of Prussia informs his men of their punishment, he catches sight of a harmonica. He snatches it away and crushes it beneath his boot heel.

The Christmas Truce of 1914 did not change the course of the war very much. In future years, commanders were successful in suppressing similar occurrences. As the war progressed and especially after poison gas was introduced, soldiers gradually came to see their enemies as less than human, as was the intention of the higher officers on all sides. But it has continued to spark the popular imagination in the near-century since it took place. A Canadian historian has written:

It [was] the last expression of that 19th-century world of manners and morals, where the opponent was a gentleman. The ones who survived, who lived to see other Christmases in the war, themselves expressed amazement that this had occurred. The emotions had changed to such a degree that the sort of humanity seen in Christmas 1914 seemed inconceivable.

Joyeux Noёl lost money at the box office, and critics have complained of its “sentimentality.” I suggest seeing it for oneself this Christmas season.

James Edwards and Pat Buchanan Discuss Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War

/23 Comments/in /by
What follows is an edited transcript of an interview conducted by talk radio host James Edwards with Patrick J. Buchanan several years ago about Pat’s book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. This transcript has never before appeared online and is being published now due to the recent interest generated by a Tucker Carlson podcast with historian Darryl Cooper in which similar, politically incorrect opinions about history were discussed.

* * *

James Edwards: Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War might be your most provocative book. What compelled you to write it?

Patrick J. Buchanan: There were several things. First, it is a phenomenal story. What happened to the Western nation that ruled the entire world in 1914? Thirty years later, all of Europe was in ashes or aflame. Communists had half of Europe, and all the great Western empires had been destroyed. I went back to try and locate the historic blunders that were made, and I think we located eight of them.

Secondly, it’s a cautionary tale for the United States. The arrogance and hubris you see of these monarchs and all their retainers just before World War I, we see emulated and copied today, frankly, by some folks in post-Cold War America. So, it was to try and tell a cautionary tale to prevent what happened to Great Britain and the British Empire from happening to us.

Edwards: What are the parallels between the United Kingdom during the years between the world wars and the United States today?

Buchanan: One of the greatest is the British decision to alienate friends like Japan, which had been an old ally in World War I. The Brits broke the treaty with them at the demand of the United States for no good reason whatsoever. Japan was driven into isolation, anger, and rage, and eventually returned to her imperial policy and collided with Great Britain.

Even Benito Mussolini, who loathed Adolf Hitler, was driven into Hitler’s arms by the British/French decision to sanction them over a colonial war in Ethiopia. That was a mistake.

Finally, there is this war guarantee that the British gave to Poland, unsolicited, even though Poland had participated in the rape of Czechoslovakia — at least the regime had.

You see all these decisions replicated with the United States handing out war guarantees in this century to the Baltic republics and Ukraine and elsewhere. I see the same pattern repeating itself again and again. I believe the gentleman who said that people do not learn from history was right.

Edwards: What are some of the myths that hold up Winston Churchill as a hero?

Buchanan: There is no question that Winston Churchill was a heroic figure in 1940 when he took over the premiership in Great Britain, just as the Germans were breaking through in the Ardennes. He defied Hitler. He defied the Germans. He fought on and inspired his people. He was the leader during the Battle of Britain. Americans watched that from across the ocean and there was an indelible impression that there was a defiant bulldog who represented the British people at their best. That’s a true story. That’s not just a myth.

However, there was another Churchill who, in 1942, 1943, and 1944, slipped into Moscow to divide Europe with Josef Stalin and groveled to Stalin in a way that would make Neville Chamberlain look like Davy Crockett. He was writing off the Poles, for whom the British had gone to war. If you go all the way back to 1913 and 1914, he was lusting for war far more than the Kaiser who was trying to avoid war.

These are the myths we have been raised on since we were kids, and this is one reason I wrote the book. At least the new generation coming up, who is not saturated or marinated in these myths, can understand why it was that our grandfathers and fathers destroyed Western Civilization.

Edwards: What is it about World War II that your detractors don’t seem to understand?

Buchanan: The book is dedicated to four of my uncles who were Greatest Generation Americans and fought in Europe, one of whom came back from Anzio with a Silver Star. But I think it’s the idea that this was a good war, a war where pure good fought pure evil, a war that had to be fought and was necessary, and there are no doubts or qualms about it. But that is not true.

And that’s why I, in effect, am dispelling some of the great myths by which Americans live when I say that Chamberlain and Churchill blundered serially, again and again, to bring about a war with Germany. Hitler didn’t want war with the West. He didn’t want war with Poland. He didn’t want a world war. He wasn’t even prepared for a world war.

To say that Hitler did horrible things in wartime is correct, but, as I say, had there been no war, there would have been no Holocaust, and I’m not sure there would have been a war if the British hadn’t issued this insane war guarantee to Poland.

Edwards: History is like a Sunday buffet. People take what they want and leave the rest on the table. Of course, it has been lost to antiquity that most Americans stood with Charles A. Lindbergh and the America First Committee in opposition to our entry into World War II before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Buchanan: Well, good for you. Good for you for bringing up Col. Lindbergh’s name because his reputation has been blackened because of a single speech he made and a couple of paragraphs in it where he mentioned three forces are moving for war.

Of course, one of them is the Roosevelt Administration. The other is the British, which was clearly true. They had a man called “Intrepid,” William Stephenson, who tried to find ways to get the Americans into war by putting out propaganda and, frankly, blackmailing senators.

And then he said the Jewish community was beating the drums for war, but this was going to be a disaster for the Jewish community if we got into war. That was verboten to say, but no one has claimed what he said was palpably untrue. Before December 7, 1941, the America First Committee wanted to put up a resolution in Congress saying, “We declare war on Germany,” and have it voted up or down, but don’t sneak us by a back door into war.

Edwards: Had Divine Providence seen fit for Pearl Harbor to have never occurred, the United States stays home, and Germany proceeds to defeat Stalin, what would have happened to America? Would Hitler have come over here and taken us out?

Buchanan: Hitler did not war in the West. That’s why he didn’t demand the return of Alsace-Lorraine from France whereas he did want the return of Danzig from Poland and the League of Nations. He did not want war with Britain. Never did. He wanted to see the British Empire preserved. He was a great admirer of it. He thought Britain was a natural ally of Germany because they had no conflicts. So, I think, if the British hadn’t given the war guarantee, I don’t know if there would have even been a war with Poland because the German offer was not outrageous when asking for political control of their city, Danzig, with the Poles having economic control.

I don’t even know if there would have been a war with the Soviet Union then because Germany wouldn’t have had a border with the Soviet Union. They would have had to get permission from Romania, Poland, or Hungary to invade the Soviet Union. If Hitler had not declared war on the United States, I still think he might have been stopped in Russia, but the outcome of that war would have been in doubt because all the equipment we gave to Stalin enabled him to sustain his war effort and mount that enormous offensive the Russians had coming into Europe. I do think that if Germany had not gotten into the war by 1943, Stalin would have been on the Rhine.

Edwards: Hopefully a lot of American blood would have been spared.

Buchanan: There was a wonderful thing that the America First people did, and I was criticized for saying it, but they kept us out of war until after Hitler made his fatal blunder of invading Russia. This meant the Russians bore the burden of battle, and hundreds of thousands — if not millions — of American soldiers lived who would not have lived if we had had to fight Germany from the west without the Soviet Union in the war.

Edwards: How did you go about researching for this book? Who did you primarily consult with and reference when writing it?

Buchanan: After I wrote A Republic, Not an Empire, I got that good letter from Geroge Kennan, the great geo-strategist in the Cold War. He agreed with me on a point that I’ve been really torn apart for. I said that, after the Battle of Britain, if the Germans couldn’t get air superiority over the British Isles, they certainly couldn’t get it over the Atlantic. If they couldn’t land in England, they weren’t going to land in the United States.

It’s preposterous. There was no threat. I was attacked for that, and I sort of determined that, at some point, I’m going to expand on this argument because I think it’s true. So, I started reading more and more books. I was going to write a book on the war guarantee, and then you go back and ask, well, how did we get there?

Then you have to keep going back, and I had to cut it off in 1905. But I’ve got about 120 books, ranging from histories to biographies. I must have quoted six of Churchill’s books and six books by Andrew Roberts, a British historian and a friend of mine.

I just kept reading them and decided, here are the key decisions and pivot points that decided the history of the century.

One, of course, was the assassination of the archduke in World War I, Versailles was another, and I decided that the British breaking their treaty with Japan was yet another. Then I discovered that Mussolini allegedly despised Hitler and wanted an alliance with the West, so you had the Stresa Front agreement of 1935.

Then there are the familiar ones: Rhineland, the Anschluss, and Munich, but the key one is the war guarantee. That’s the soul of the book. If people can only read one chapter, read that one because it shows how leaders in panic, haste, and folly, who have been knocked on their heels by being humiliated, can make a horrendous decision that cost them everything. The whole British Empire and the British nation was put on the line in an insane war guarantee that the British could not honor and did not honor.

Edwards: If people want to learn more, they’ll have to buy the book, right, Pat?

Buchanan: Yes, sir.

Edwards: Last question. What might future wars look like?

Buchanan: In the coming world, I think the wars of race, ethnicity, and culture are going to replace the old wars of ideology, dynasty, and empire. I see that coming, and it’s not a pleasant sight. Pat Moynihan sort of saw it coming, and so did Dr. Arthur Schlesinger. I have read a number of columns on this, and you see the divisions in our society increasingly on the lines of race and ethnicity, and I don’t think it’s a pleasant prospect that our kids and grandkids will have to confront.

I am going to try to address it and see if there is any way it can be resolved short of some sort of Balkanization of America.

When not interviewing newsmakers, James Edwards has often found himself in the spotlight as a commentator, including many national television appearances. Over the past 20 years, his radio work has been featured in hundreds of newspapers and magazines worldwide. Media Matters has listed Edwards as a “right-wing media fixture” and Hillary Clinton personally named him as an “extremist” who would shape our country. For more information, please visit www.thepoliticalcesspool.org

A More Beautiful Future The world according to Niall Ferguson

/9 Comments/in /by

When I first wrote about the historians’ reaction to Darryl Cooper’s condemnation of Winston Churchill, I was unaware of Niall Ferguson’s interview with Konstantin Kisin. Ferguson, I knew, particularly objected to Cooper and Carlson’s comments on the present state of Britain, which now contains more than eighteen million occupants of foreign ancestry. In his interview with Kisin, however, Ferguson was at his most fulsome and explicit in his support of the anti-white measures imposed on Western populations over the last century.

Problematising the right

The subject of the interview was ostensibly a response to Cooper and Carlson, but Ferguson eagerly used the occasion to articulate what connects the Second World War to the plight of white people today, which he welcomes. After disputing Cooper’s criticisms of Churchill, Ferguson proceeded to describe “a pretty clear dilemma” that he says has faced the political right in the USA and Europe:
Do you remain true to conservatism as, say, Bill Buckley [and] Churchill defined it… rooted in the rule of law, the idea of a free society … free elections … a free civil society and a free press … or do you go to a dark side [and adopt] ideas of racial hierarchy [or] ideas in which might is more important than right…[?]

I believe in a free society, free elections and a free press, at least insofar as they are consistent with private property. I believe might, in the form of the state, determines legitimacy, but doesn’t make right. As for racial hierarchy, who can watch Olympian athletes and dispute that it exists? As to the ethics, I think it is natural for societies and nation-states to prioritise their own native populations and to do nothing to welcome outsiders; this, if not arrested by universalists, results in varying racial hierarchies worldwide. The Masai are supreme in their domain, the English in theirs, and so on. I see no dilemma here.

Ferguson continues by saying that the right has, since the 19th century, had a “very fundamental problem… who are you getting into bed with?”. He praises Buckley for “solving” this problem by purging and repelling John Birchers and “explicit racists and segregationists” and asserting that “American conservatism cannot be an anti-civil rights movement”. Ferguson omits that Buckley simultaneously ‘got into bed with’ Zionists and recent apostates from revolutionary Marxism. He gives no explanation of the “problem” or what compelled Buckley to do any of what he describes. Why couldn’t American conservatism be an anti-civil rights movement? Likewise with Edward Heath and Enoch Powell, the latter of whose 1968 speech against what became the Race Relations Act was the British “fork in the road”. Ferguson said that Powell’s speech ended his career, eliding that Edward Heath chose to remove Powell from his shadow cabinet post despite the speech being supported by an overwhelming majority of the nation. Heath knew himself to be, in this and in joining the European Community, the leader of a subversive anti-nationalist minority, and of this in particular Ferguson evidently approves. Conservatives, he tells us “believed in free trade, a free society — essentially classical liberalism in the days of Thatcher — and the far right were essentially skinheads and the National Front…” Conservatives believed in classical liberalism? Again, unexplained. The proper function of a leader of the right, for Ferguson, is to be an impostor and a phoney, displacing traditionalists and patriots and supporting and entrenching the achievements of the left, especially in regard to race (hence the endurance of the Civil Rights and Race Relations Acts).

William Buckley, the libertarian totalitarian
More than once, Konstantin Kisin raises the issue of native Europeans being on course to become minorities in their homelands. Ferguson cites his marriage to a Somali woman as both a sufficient answer to Kisin’s question and a self-evident justification for immigration in general. Even if a few people form loving mixed-race families, Ferguson does not say why politicians in Britain, France or Germany should also import millions of complete strangers. He does inform us that

in the 19th century, there was a disastrous backlash against large scale immigration, disastrous because it went from observing the social problems that always arise… to a theory of racial difference… [which] crossed the Atlantic and was adopted by the far right all over Europe including by Hitler… If you start to believe this stuff… [that] they’re fundamentally incompatible with our society… the path to genocide is the path you’re choosing. That’s the lesson of history.

Thus any doubt as to the benefits of mixing populations is precluded: such doubt leads to genocide and we are obliged to contradict it regardless of rationality or experience. Ferguson does not specify whether the same applies in regard to Israel, where racial hierarchy with Jews at the apex is both a theory and a law; Kisin doesn’t ask.

Ferguson’s wife is Somali, therefore British politicians should import millions of Congolese and Namibians

Ferguson proceeds to assert that “the ideas and institutions of a free society”, which he identifies with Britain and North America, “are open source technology” which “can be enjoyed, adopted and embraced by anybody” regardless of race. There was, he says, “no particularity of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants that made them more successful economically than anyone else”. Why else that success occurred is unsaid. Ferguson’s concern is to establish that Whites, especially WASPs, are dispensable. This all goes unchallenged.

Asked by Kisin’s assistant whether people have a predilection for authoritarian rule, Ferguson resumed the eternal panegyric on the necessity and genius of Churchill, who “was as much an anti-Bolshevik and anti-Stalinist as he was an anti-Nazi and anti-Hitlerist” and saw that “fighting with Stalin on your side against Hitler, which of course Britain did after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, was literally a pact with the Devil”. Like Andrew Roberts, Ferguson credits Churchill’s prescience in foreseeing, in addition to the world wars, the Cold War: the Soviets

were the lesser evil strategically in 1941–5, but as soon as Hitler’s dead, you have to recognise that it’s an evil too and you must prepare to defend Western civilisation against that enemy. This is what’s so good about Churchill — he’s consistent. He makes this choice of evils because it’s forced upon him by Hitler.

This is simply false, as I have shown. Churchill began to side with the Soviets and an international alliance of leftists and wealthy, influential Jews against Germany shortly after Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933. The German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 did not force Churchill’s hand as much as it answered his prayers, finally providing the pretext to formalise the alliance he had personally fostered; he did not regretfully ally with the Soviets in the face of a common menace but willingly assisted the Soviet ascendance from 1933 until Yalta.

Ferguson proceeds seamlessly from his laudation of Churchill’s “pact with the Devil” into an unbidden paean to racial mixing, laying out his own “theory of racial hierarchy”:

God bless all the children who are produced by mixed unions… they’re the future, and it’s a beautiful future. They actually look better on the whole than people of pure race (with no disrespect to my white children by my first marriage who are also very beautiful)… This is the future. We can’t avoid this future unless we want to go extinct as a species. Why? Because population collapse is a reality for a whole bunch of ethnic sub-groups.

Some people’s growing disinclination to procreate presents, to Ferguson, a thrilling opportunity. The likes of Anglo-Saxons, who originated the best “ideas and institutions” in the world (purely by chance), can pass them onto more beautiful people as they retire from existence. Ferguson projects that mankind will diminish to about 2 billion people by 2100 and says that only Africans will continue to proliferate during that time. Preventing African immigration into the rest of the world is thus an absurdity. “You’ve got to explain how that’s going to work economically,” we are told. Ferguson accuses elderly voters of wanting to have no immigration and no inflation, which he suggests we should regard as paradoxical. If we had had, or have in future, lower immigration, there would have been, or will be, much higher inflation because the labour force would be much smaller, he says. The number of people potentially available as labourers is, apparently, the main determinant of inflation. Ferguson presumably refers, without wanting to put a fine point on it, to the effect of immigration most valued by its proponents: with open borders, employers can always find a cheaper employee or found a cheaper plant instead of negotiating with British workers over pay and conditions or satisfying customers who want British-made products and services. At any rate, such arguments are moot for Ferguson, as he knows the future:

There will be mass migration. There will be miscegenation. There will be more brown people. … Keeping Africans out of the rest of the world is a doomed enterprise. The only question that interests me is how do you make the assimilation process as successful for every African as it has been for my wife. That must be possible.

He doesn’t say why that must be possible; nor does he address the likely difficulties of assimilating every African into the culture and conventions originated (by chance) by what will become, in his vision, the small and dwindling (and less beautiful) minority of the population who are of native European ancestry.

Assimilation

Ferguson shows particular disdain for Hungary under the government of Viktor Orban, whom he associates with Vladimir Putin. He falsely implies that Hungary has stopped immigration and says it is “aging out” and “doesn’t have a future”. Instead, for Ferguson,

The question is what do we do to make assimilation work so that the multi-racial societies we’ve already created, that we can’t uncreate, are harmonious, productive and committed to the ideals of freedom.

Putting aside the tactical pretence of inevitability, it is not clear what Ferguson is referring to. There are no “multi-racial societies” to uncreate. That there are currently millions of foreigners occupying our homelands is a fact, but one which beckons to a single, obvious solution: mass repatriation to their own lands. When this occurs, few social bonds will be severed, as few have been formed between the different races and cultures. Ferguson’s own family may exemplify what he wants for the world, but it remains unusual and unrepresentative.

Ferguson’s portrayal of history is misleading on other counts. He asserts that Poles, Irish and Jews caused nativist fears but all assimilated quickly into America. Of Poles and Irish this may be true, but Jews, in America as everywhere, are assertively identitarian, typically referring to themselves as American Jews, or just Jews, rather than as Americans. A large majority of them are openly, proudly loyal to a foreign state on ethnic/tribal grounds. In no sense are such people assimilated, and they don’t want to be. America is merely their base of operations. Ferguson, though, names only one foreign group incompatible with his vision for Western countries: the Muslim Brotherhood (which happens to be a major opponent of Israel), as it propounds Islamic fundamentalism, which contradicts the aforementioned institutions of a free society. Even then, he condones no restrictions on Muslim immigration. The only restrictions he does support are on illegal immigration, and only because the illegality angers ordinary people and provokes them to adopt more nationalist positions.

American Jews

Replacement

Near the end of the interview, Kisin tries again to raise the interests of native Europeans, and puts to Ferguson that they are being replaced with immigrants, apparently attempting to steel-man the nativist case. Yet Ferguson is determined not to give a serious answer and chides Kisin that there aren’t “bands of asylum seekers” hunting down British natives. He scoffs that “replacement” is a “buzzword” of “the transgressive right” and “has no validity”. Historically, he says, “mass migration is the name of the game” and “civilisations don’t clash” but are “much more likely to fuse”. He then reminds us that our low fertility rates require us to be replaced by others. The formulation, for anyone wishing to emulate Sir Niall, is as follows: replacement is inevitable, continuous throughout history and beneficial, and those who oppose it must be defeated, but it isn’t happening.

Ferguson is a long-standing supporter of Kemi Badenoch, whom he posits as an ideal manager of the decommissioning of the White race. She and others of the “new generation” can make the arguments he’s making but better, as can his wife, he says. “I’m just a dead white male. What do I know?” asks the ‘anti-woke’ professor. I have never heard Ferguson’s wife make such arguments, and to my knowledge she is nowhere near as anti-White as he is. His fervour is sufficiently embarrassing for none other than Konstantin Kisin to try to mitigate it, though to no avail.

Is this Churchill’s legacy? Is Britain now as Churchill intended? Did he save his nation, the West or the world in order to see White people supplanted by Africans? If not, why does Ferguson identify Churchill with Buckley, Heath, Sohrab Amari, Victor Davis Hanson, Christopher Hitchens, Bari Weiss and himself in the fight against the “transgressive right”? Are other Churchillians not embarrassed by Ferguson? Why not?

Why Did Churchill Have Britain Fight On After Summer 1940? It’s Bad News.

/15 Comments/in /by

C’est magnifique, mais ce n’est pas la guerre. (It is magnificent, but it is not war)
     French General Pierre Bosquet, observing the charge of the Light Brigade, Crimean War October 28, 1854.

In the high summer of 1940, the politicians who comprised the British Government faced a terrible and momentous problem.

So, on a personal level, did the new British Prime Minister from May 10th, Winston Churchill. More on this later.

At the time, the British Empire is often said to have ruled a quarter of the land surface of the world and upon which the sun never set. It had an appropriate navy. The white Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were expected to follow Britain’s lead, and indeed did.

It was a world power.

To everyone’s astonishment, the outbreak of war with Germany in September 1939 had not deadlocked in the static trench warfare of the Western Front in World War I (1914–1918).

Instead, the Germans, starting in April 1940, conquered Norway and Denmark, and then went on to conquer the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Most of the British Army was extricated from France via Dunkirk, but without much heavy equipment.

This admittedly was a stunning emotional blow to Britain’s elite, quite a few of whom (unlike their American counterparts) had fought on the Western Front in World War I and where many of whom had lost relatives.

Britain by the middle of the twentieth Century had had tremendous experience in fighting wars, in an astonishing number of countries (Wikipedia reckons 171). Quite a few of these had been unsuccessful. sometimes humiliatingly so — most notably of course the American War of Independence.

War, to the British, was a business. They were not Crusades. Sometimes you won, sometimes you lost. Then you moved on.

What was so different about 1940?

Operation Sea Lion (the German sea crossing to England) was of course in planning. But it was pro forma. It is clear from the literature that the German Navy — the Kriegsmarine — always said it could not protect cross channel transports from devastating attacks from the then enormous Royal Navy. The Luftwaffe was also not optimistic.

This must also have been the assessment of the British military (never, as far as I know, ever disclosed).

Paradoxically, Britain was probably in a less dangerous position in 1940 than during the several years in the early nineteenth century during which Napoleon controlled the Continent and threatened invasion .

The internal combustion engine had allowed air raids on England, distressing — but with no possibility of being decisive. However it also eliminated the ghastly chance that unfavorable winds would prevent the Royal Navy attacking vulnerable invading vessels. Wind had been a critical element of risk in previous crises. The two most significant successful invasions — William the Conqueror’s in 1066 and William III’s in 1688 — had been able to avoid defending warships because of the chance of wind.

What the British Government had to consider in 1940 was: Why fight on?

Britain had always been against an excessively powerful Continental entity. But this had now happened.

Britain had also in recent centuries become extremely concerned to protect its extensive overseas assets — the British Empire. France had usually been the threat to this — and so, around the turn of the twentieth century, had been Imperial Germany.

But Hitler’s Germany was not a threat. Archival evidence proves that Hitler was absolutely opposed to destroying the British Empire which he saw as a congenial component of an ideal world order. Instead, he was completely focused on the geopolitical threat from the Soviet Russia. This was known at the time.

The geopolitical threat from the Soviet Union was also — or should have been — as great a concern to the British. They had actually borne the brunt of Soviet subversion efforts in their Empire during the interwar years. National Socialism had little intrinsic appeal to the British people, oblivious as they were to the threats and problems which engendered it. But this was far from true with Communism and Socialism. Varieties of these had struck deep roots in British society. The scandalous post-war espionage revelations of the ‘Cambridge Five’ were probably just a hint of the reality.

In August 1940, Britain simply had no path to military victory. During World War I there was always the hope that the next offensive would break through (which indeed did happen in late 1918). France was never knocked out of the war. Fighting on in World War I may not have been sensible, but it was not irrational.

In 1940 this hope was gone. The idea that Britain by itself had any chance of subduing Germany in a continental land war was clearly ridiculous.

There was the alternative of seducing other countries into the war, as with America in 1917.

Experience had proved this was a highly unattractive option. America had brought much strength but little wisdom into World War I, insisting on imposing an unstable redrawing of the European map and creating dangerous problems. Furthermore she had proved a merciless and irresponsible creditor for much of the next two decades.

The fact was that the American elite was endemically Anglophobic and anti-imperialist. They were jealous of the British Empire. Confusingly this was disguised somewhat by often very pleasant interpersonal relationships. And this was before one considered the increasing influence of the tedious Irish and the newly arrived Russian Jews.

On the other hand, the Soviet Union was a flat-out proven danger. Beyond their incessant promotion of their antithetical and blood-soaked doctrines between the wars, the Russians under Stalin’s highly enterprising leadership had made war certain in 1939. By concluding the Ribbentrop Molotov Pact on August 23, 1939, they freed Hitler’s hand in Western Europe. They went on to bolster Germany by supplying large new quantities of raw materials. Even worse, the Soviet seizure of the Baltic States, a large slice of Poland, part of Romania, and a (dearly-bought) fragment of Finland removed all doubt that the USSR was additionally an aggressive predatory power in the old style.

Putting Britain at the mercy of these dangerous parties was not obviously more attractive than coming to an agreement with Germany.

However, before Winston Churchill who became Prime Minister on May 10, 1940, could think about this problem, he had a more pressing crisis to weather.

He was about to become insolvent, which would have forced his retirement from Parliament.

Churchill’s return to office in September 1939 had destabilized his always precarious finances. He could no longer hope to complete various lucrative writing deals on which he had counted. Income taxes, interest on bank loans and many personal debts were falling due at the month end. He did not have the cash to pay them.

As recounted in the extraordinary 2015 book “No More Champagne: Churchill and His Money” by David Lough, Churchill was rescued by a GBP 5,000 check from Sir Henry Strakosch, arranged by Churchill’s ‘fixer’ Brendan Bracken. At the time Bracken was co-owner with Strakosch of the famous magazine “The Economist”. (Derived from Lough’s figures, this would be about GBP 347,000 or some $410,000 today).

Lough drily comments

The amount reached Churchill’s account on 21 June. Thus fortified, he paid a clutch of overdue bills from shirt-makers, watch repairers and wine merchants before he turned his attention back to the war.[i][1]

This was not the first time nor the most desperate crisis from which Sir Henry Strakosch had rescued Churchill. In March of 1938 a collapse in the American stock market, in which he habitually speculated aggressively, brought Churchill margin calls he could not meet. He faced bankruptcy, which as noted above would have forced him out of Parliament. Both his London and Kent homes were briefly put up for sale.

But Brendan Bracken approached Sir Henry Strakosch, who paid the broker off for GBP18,000 (about GBP1.518 million or $1.765 million today). Strakosch entered into a curious and apparently unwritten agreement with Churchill for Strakosch to hold and manage the portfolio for at least 3 years, with Churchill paying GBP 800 a year in interest. There seems to have been no explicit arrangement about repayment.[2]

This rescue enabled Churchill to continue leading the anti-German faction in Parliament and the country.

So who was this Sir Henry Strakosch, whose generosity quite likely altered the course of British and World history?

Henry Strakosch, according to Wikipedia (at present), was born in “Hohenau, Austria” on May 9, 1871. Actually, Hohenau is in Germany. His parents were Jewish, a fact that Wikipedia sometimes stipulates but at this writing is repressing. (David Irving, who appears to be the first historian to realize the significance of Strakosch, thought he was born in Moravia.[3] This is now the southeastern part of the Czech Republic. If so, he was born a subject of the Hapsburg Austrian-Hungarian Empire).

Strakosch was clearly part of the highly sophisticated and cultured German-Jewish community the American manifestation of which was memorialized by Stephen Birmingham in his book “Our Crowd”.

At an early age, the decision seems to have been made to migrate Strakosch into the Anglosphere. Wikipedia says he completed his education in England and was working in the London financial district by 1891 at the age of 20. By 1895 he was employed by an entity called the Anglo-Austrian Bank of South Africa.

This involved Strakosch in the extraordinary South African gold mining boom, which had started in about a decade earlier.

To a remarkable degree, this phenomenal cornucopia of wealth was facilitated by stock market activities. To an equally remarkable degree, these quickly became dominated by emigre German Jews.

Individual mines were incubated by investment firms which became known as ‘Mining Finance Houses’. When operational, mines were introduced to the stock market with the remit to exhaust the property and maximize dividends. The whole process, unlike the otherwise analogous Silicon Valley phenomenon, was driven by dividends, frequently of enormous size.

This meant that the ‘Randlords’ were not just rich on paper. They rapidly started swimming in cash.

Strakosch became involved in the Mining Finance House of A Goerz & Co, which was renamed Union Corporation in 1918. He was Chairman from 1924 to his death in 1943. He became a British citizen in 1907 and was knighted in 1921.

In the interwar years, which he spent primarily in London, Strakosch displayed strong interest in public affairs and in political influence. Writing on the Gold Standard in the early 1920s, he became heavily involved in the affairs of India (then of course the Crown Jewel of the British Empire) from the mid ‘20s. From 1929 to 1943 he was Chairman of The Economist magazine and, as mentioned, a part owner.

At some point in the mid 30’s Strakosch began supplying Churchill with data purporting to evidence the size of the German military buildup. Where Strakosch obtained this material from is not clear. As noted, he himself had been absent from Germany all his adult life. Lough suggests his knowledge of South African trade with Germany in strategic metals may have been involved, but South Africa’s activity in these areas only really became substantial after World War II.[4]

Most likely Strakosch was the conduit for intelligence collected by anti-Nazis in Germany, very probably many themselves Jewish.

Whether this information was accurate or alarmist is also a cloudy question. In 1934–5 Churchill utilized very high claims about the rate of German aircraft production to participate in a Kennedy Missile Gap-like scare. This destroyed the political career of the Air Minister, his second cousin, the 7th Marquess of Londonderry. While British Intelligence had (probably justified) confidence in its own lower assessments, Londonderry’s ability to use espionage sources in his own defense was obviously limited.

This was the pattern of the latter 30s. Heavily armed with information from a wide range of sources, by no means all Jewish, Churchill continued as undisputed leader of the anti-German element in British public opinion. In this he was helped of course by the craven and irresponsible pacifistic line of the moderate British Left, exemplified by the Labour party.

Generally, Churchill biographers have treated this situation of financial dependence with great circumspection and conspicuous lack of interest.

In Churchill: The End of Glory  John Charmley, the harshest of Churchill’s biographers on the appropriateness of the Strakosch arrangement, displays most penetration:

So was Churchill “hired help” for a Jewish lobby, which, regarding Jewish interests as superior to those of the British Empire, was determined to embroil that Empire in a war on their behalf?[5]

Excusing himself from answering this question on the grounds that it is too dangerous, Charmley then sidesteps the issue by arguing that an anti-German stance was congruent with Churchill’s world view. It was lucrative for him to do what he wanted to do.

Recently this question of Churchill’s financial dependence on Jewish money came into the limelight by being mentioned in the Tucker Carlson/Darryl Cooper interview discussed here in The Free Press Versus Darryl Cooper for deviating from the WWII narrative by Horus Nov 13, 2024 and at greater length by Ron Unz.

Cooper actually endorsed Charmley’s assessment that Churchill’s hostility to Germany was sincere and not just a mercenary decision. Nevertheless, the Political Police were outraged, Court Historian and all-round Big Foot Niall Ferguson was ordered into action.

Fergusson’s petulant tantrum “History and Anti-History“ (The Free Press, or WWSG, September 5, 2024) reveals a very deficient character. He makes a fool of himself. I think he may have been drinking while writing. But the essay does indicate something very significant about the Churchill/Strakosch discussion.

Ferguson’s caption: According to Cooper, the “official story” about the rise of Hitler is as follows. Once upon a time, Germany was a “sophisticated, cultural superpower.” But then, after the First World War and the Weimar Republic “they all turned into demons for a few years, and now they’re fine again.” But that’s not what really happened.

Ferguson sneers that Cooper reads.

David Irving, whose remaining reputation as an historian was destroyed in 2000 when he was exposed as Holocaust denier in a libel case that he himself brought against Deborah Lipstadt …

and

Ah yes, of course. Churchill, the puppet of the financiers. Now why does that seem familiar? Well, because it was one of the leitmotifs of Joseph Goebbels’s wartime propaganda.

Not an argument, of course. And having lived through the Biden years, we are now well aware what politically motivated lawfare looks like.

On David Irving as an Historian, I commend Ron Unz’ definitive exculpation: The Pyrrhic Attack on David Irving

But the suspicion arises that Fergusson has to smear his way out of the Churchill financial issue because he has no other defense.

“Certainly it is more than possible that Ferguson has never heard of or read David Lough’s definitive discussion of Churchill’s finances No More Champagne. After all, Lough is not an ordained Academic! He did win an open history scholarship to Oxford where he achieved a first class degree, but then degraded to a lowly City of London career in squalid finance.”

But the facts of the Churchill/Strakosch relationship have been known for decades. For instance, William Manchester’s The Last Lion, volume 2, which lays out the matter clearly[6] (but with no analysis) was published in 1988.

Throughout his political life, Churchill seems to have been a surfer in search of the Perfect Wave. He was elected to Parliament in 1901 as a Conservative during a surge of patriotism as the Boer (South African) War 1899–1902, in which he had become a celebrity, was successfully concluding. In 1904, sensing massive socialistic reform was in vogue, he crossed the floor and joined the Liberals. He appears to have been an enthusiast for war in 1914. When the Liberals imploded after World War I, he managed to rejoin the Conservatives. In the 1930s he experimented with resisting the decision of the British Establishment to withdraw from ruling India and then with dissuading Edward VIII from abdicating. Finally, with characteristic opportunism, he fixed on leading the anti-German lobby.

In my view, the process by which Britain found itself in the terrible crisis of Summer 1940 is best discussed in Patrick Buchanan’s great book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War

All of this is beside the point. The question is: why did Churchill push Britain to fight on in 1940?

The consequences were totally disastrous. The Americans ruthlessly plundered the British Empire. At the 1943 Tehran Conference Roosevelt privately invited Stalin to take over and Sovietize India — with American help! [7] Britain was quickly forced to abandon plans to make the British Empire an economic bloc (“Imperial Preference”). It was rapidly stripped of its enormous financial overseas assets, many acquired at fire sale prices by Americans . Henry Morgenthau and Harry Dexter White (both Jewish and the latter also a Soviet Asset) also engineered the Allies into adopting the Morgenthau Plan which proposed to deindustrialize and agrarianize Germany, rendering it unable to feed its people. (Churchill, to his credit, reflexively denounced the plan as “Unnatural, unchristian and unnecessary” — but he was quickly bullied into going along).[8] This stiffened German resistance in the West, conveniently for Stalin, but in any case, it would have been a catastrophe for the European economy.

Worse, the Soviet Union was able to tyrannize Eastern Europe for half a century, causing huge suffering and inflicting much anxiety and massive expense on the West.

Too easily it can be forgotten that without nuclear weapons there is every reason to expect that the USSR would at some point have started another conventional ground war. With its enormous forces, it would very likely have conquered the rest of the Continent. Britain’s leaders in 1940 could have had no inkling such a Guardian Angel stood in the future.

Another highly predictable consequence was that the social stresses and resentments of war precipitated the election of the socialist Labour Government in 1945. Labour’s price for participating in the wartime Coalition Government had already been the imposition of many of its policy nostrums in domestic affairs. By the time the 1945–51 Labour Government ended, Britain was tightly bound in a socialistic straight jacket which crippled the economy until Mrs. Thatcher’s Administration in the 1980s.

Labour of course was only too happy to start the collapse of the British Empire with the blood-stained scuttle out of India in 1947.

All these deplorable events flowed from the decision, made in August 1940 and maintained thereafter, not to settle with Hitler.

The simple fact is that Sir Henry Strakosch had Churchill by his financial throat. Had he wished, he could probably have ruined Churchill financially and certainly have shattered his public reputation. This was not simply a matter of being a hired hand: Churchill could not easily have resigned.

That Churchill was uneasy about this relationship emerges from two events.

Not normally notably quick to pay off debts, he did repay the GBP 5,000 June 1940 Strakosch loan in the first half of 1941, as steeply rising enthusiasm for his literary properties improved his liquidity.[9] This despite it seemingly not having had any particular due date. Probably he felt it just looked too bad.

Even more dramatic is the situation revealed by the only Strakosch reference in Andrew Robert’s widely praised 1,152-page 2018 biography Churchill Walking with Destiny.

On 30 October 1943, Churchill was bequeathed GBP 20,000 … on the death of his friend the South African miner and financier Sir Henry Strakosch. The next day Marion Holmes’ diary records that Churchill was understandably ‘in high spirits. He began, but did not finish, the jingle “There was a young lady of Crewe.’ [10]

In addition, Strakosch forgave the GBP 18,000 amount of the 1938 loan.

Strakosch had died that day, so Churchill must have known of the will’s provisions in advance.

At first glance, Robert’s treatment of the Strakosch/Churchill relationship (providing no context) appears professionally negligent. And it certainly is timid. But to those who know, what Roberts did is to unpin and roll in a grenade.

What we are invited to contemplate is that the leader of the British Empire, almost two-thirds through the world war, was so riven with anxiety about what his creditor might do that he exploded with emotion when the Damoclean sword was removed.

(GBP 20,000 is about GBP 1.143 million or $1.486 million today. So the total gift from Strakosch was worth some $2.8 million. Puny by the standards of what, say, the Biden family appears to have raked in, but financial assets had gone through a 14-year deflation, not a 40-year inflation.)

David Irving, in his masterly second volume on Churchill Triumph in Adversity  discloses that two other cabinet ministers (whom he does not name) had received loans from Strakosch. This he discovered by reading the Strakosch Will, which expunged them.[11]

The depressing thing about this sorry story is that Churchill, of all men, had the wide knowledge, erudition and vision that would have enabled him to exert what might be called statesmanship. Relapsing into emotional war hysteria was for lesser beings.

This stands out in stark relief in his magisterial and colossal biography of his great ancestor John Churchill, first Duke of Marlborough: Marlborough: His Life and Times

(In my view this book is the most valuable component of his legacy to his country.)

In this study, Churchill astutely analyzes the shifting motives of the numerous participants in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–13) which was in effect a World War in the West. It is a triumph of perceptiveness and judgment.

Even more impressive is his treatment of the squalid end of this war. In 1710 the leaders of the Tory party in Britain, who gained the ear of Queen Anne, evicted Marlborough’s political allies in London, and exploited national war-weariness and jealousy of Marlborough to force through a peace with France.

This abandoned the glittering prospect visible earlier in 1710, when, in large part due to Marlborough’s military and political genius, it seemed likely that the war would produce a smashing victory for Great Britain and her Allies. There was a real chance that France’s preeminent position in Europe could permanently undermined. Instead Britain spent the next 150 years struggling to block French ambitions.

Churchill might have been expected to have joined the many subsequent historians in denouncing the unwisdom and turpitude of this action, particularly since it was so damaging to his beloved ancestor.

Instead he accurately notes that the War Party in Britain had succumbed to mission creep. The unexpected death of the Austrian Emperor in April 1711 meant that his brother and heir, the Allies’ candidate for King of Spain, would if victorious rule a European Colossus not much preferable to the possible combination of France and Spain which had triggered the conflict. He also gives due weight to the war-weariness in Britain, which had largely financed the conflict.

In his own career, Churchill several times displayed remarkable far-sightedness. In 1919, he tried hard to persuade the Cabinet to intervene effectively in the Russian Revolution on the side of the White Russians. His coalition colleagues, led by the Liberal Prime Minister Lloyd George did not take the Communist threat seriously enough. Probably reflexive anti-Czarism and Leftist romanticism was at work, besides war weariness, ignorance and timidity.

Obviously if the White Russians could have been sustained, the next seventy years would have been much pleasanter. Ironically Lloyd George fell in 1922 because of his aggressive anti-Turkish stance in defense of Greece in the Chanak crisis. Risking war over the fate of bits of the Greek and Turkish coastline while rejecting the possibility of stopping Communism in Russia is curious.

Churchill displayed similar vision over India. By the 1930s the British political establishment had tacitly decided to yield India to local nationalist forces. The Imperial British-Indian relationship was very subtle and complex, as Churchill, who had spent years there, well knew. So was India itself. Whether skillful management of the different forces at play could have sustained British influence there, as it had for the previous centuries, is a deeply unfashionable subject. But Churchill was unquestionably right to see that the quick termination of British rule would be the death blow to the British Empire, both in a material sense and morally. That is why the post-war Labour Government was so eager to do it.

Another example is seen in Churchill’s famous article ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM. A STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE. This was first published, strangely, in London’s Illustrated Sunday Herald on February 8, 1920.

Notoriously in this essay Churchill stipulated a fact which increasingly became unmentionable in the following decades:

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by … Jews. It is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. … In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses.

Most Churchill enthusiasts hurry past this essay with averted eyes and tight lips. This causes them to miss the astounding prescience he displayed.

In the article Churchill suggested that Zionism could become the antidote to Communism in the Jewish community, greatly to the benefit of everyone else.

Zionism has already become … a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists. … The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes … are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal.

… [i]n building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine … a task is presented on which many blessings rest.

The younger generation knows and dislikes the neoConservatives as the enforcers of the invidious “Invade The World, Invite The World” doctrine, seducing America into questionable wars and hindering the reversal of the nation-destroying 1965 Immigration Act.

But, especially now we see how difficult stopping these mistakes is. It has to be recognized that the energetic anti-Communism the neoconservatives adopted in the ‘70s and ‘80s was crucial. Without their forcefulness, the Reagan Administration might well have been unable to overcome the GOP establishment’s détente fixation and to overthrow the pro-Communism of the Democratic Party Left which had produced the Viet Nam disaster.

Of course, the NeoCons did this for Israel. But Churchill was right to see that in some circumstances Zionism could produce a general benefit.

More recently it has become apparent that Churchill’s vision, if acted upon, could have saved not only the British Empire but Britain itself.

Colored immigration into Britain started as a trickle in the late 1940s. By 1954 according to Andrew Roberts, non-Whites were only 0.16% of England’s population. But Churchill was alarmed.

Roberts reports:

‘Problems will arise if many coloured people settle here’ Churchill told the Cabinet on 3 February 1954. ‘Are we to saddle ourselves with colour problems in the United Kingdom? They are attracted by the Welfare State. Public opinion in the United Kingdom won’t tolerate once it gets beyond certain limits’ …

On the issue of West Indian immigration, on another occasion he told the Cabinet that a good slogan was ‘Keep England white’ “[12]

Unsurprisingly, since the British Conservative Party was firmly under the control, then as now, of social liberals, Churchill found no supporting interest. His colleagues were no doubt already under the influence of “Hitler’s revenge” and unwilling to consider political matters from a racial perspective. And doubtless they were complacent that any difficulties would be endured by the lower classes and not their own families.

But of course, Churchill was right. Britain has faced huge costs arising from excessive colored immigration, financially and in terms of criminality.

And even more horrifying, Britain’s political elite has moved to repress the nation’s response that Churchill predicted by abrogating the country’s ancient right to freedom of speech. The current Labour Government’s punishment of the protests following the Southport murders has proved that a police state machinery has quietly been established as onerous, if not (yet) as bloody as that of Nazi Germany or the USSR. Such punishment certainly severely limits public discussion of immigration.

This is almost precisely the reverse of what the British thought they were fighting for in World War II.

So how did it come about that this sophisticated analyst of world affairs, who, for better or worse, had striven all his career for the advantage not only of Britain but also the British Empire, should suddenly lose his will and acquiesce in steering the country into such a shattering disaster?

Could it be that at the end of his career the aging actor put aside his concerns for his nation and countrymen to grasp this one great role? Notwithstanding reservations he might have felt about the style of the production and character of its backers?

This was what his victim Lord Londonderry thought. In 1947 he wrote

[W]e need never have had this war with its ghastly results as the price for Winston gaining an everlasting historical name as a war-leader.[13]

The more one reads of the actions of rulers, particularly in war, the more one sees that rank ego on their part does indeed play a distressingly large role.

Sadly, I think this is too charitable an interpretation for Churchill. In the summer of 1940 he was only 65. He went on to display powerful mental acuity and energy for well over another decade, running and energizing the British war machine with great competence including an exhausting travel itinerary far exceeding that of Roosevelt and Stalin. (He was also involved in regular combat with enemies on the floor of the House of Commons, a harsh test that American leaders are spared. A President Biden or Wilson situation of hidden decrepitude cannot survive in the British Parliamentary system.)

Once it became clear in the latter part of 1940 that Germany was not going to attempt an invasion, interesting possibilities for Britain arose. A settlement with Germany could have meant that he Italian threat in North Africa would have died on the vine. It would certainly not have prevented Hitler’s attack on Russia, which, to use Churchill’s phrase above, would have been “… a task…on which many blessings rest.”

If, as is not unlikely, a German-Soviet War would have still have caused dubious elements in America to provoke war with Japan to help the USSR, Britain would have been is a much stronger position to defend her interests. And having Britain as a non-belligerent might have prevented Hitler making his supreme blunder of gratuitously declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor.

Indeed had the pro-war faction in America managed to make war with Germany a possibility, Britain might even have had the pleasant experience of having the U.S. as a supplicant!

The concept that Churchill in 1940 or for years thereafter was merely an exhausted Thespian, grasping gratefully at a glorious role albeit in an uncongenial production is destroyed by considering the circumstances of his great Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri on March 5 1946:

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in some cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow …

I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines.

From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness.

This was delivered only 10 months after the German surrender. The full extent of the brutal and sinister character of the Soviet tyranny in Eastern Europe was not yet widely known or indeed implemented. Czechoslovakia was not taken over fully until February 1948, and as Anne Applebaum documents in Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, imposing full totalitarianism took quite some years. George Kennan’s verbose (8,000 word) “Long Telegram’, credited with alerting the US Foreign Policy Establishment to Soviet expansionism had only been sent 13 days earlier, on February 22, 1946, and so cannot have been fully digested. A public version was only published in the Foreign Affairs magazine’s July 1947 issue.

Cold War legend holds that the Fulton speech catalyzed US opinion to immediately accept the responsibility for leading the West against Soviet ambitions for the next 45 years. In reality, it was highly controversial, and the Truman Administration, which seems to have encouraged Churchill, promptly distanced itself.

A considerable element of the US elite was actually actively pro-Communist. Knowledge of the full extent of this requires the completion of the suspended Venona Project decoding. But the continued influence of this faction even under Truman was demonstrated by the rapid abandonment of the Chinese Nationalists to the Chinese Communists after World War II.[14]

Beyond that, large swathes of the Americans were still under the influence of the pro-Soviet and dishonest media coverage of the war years — and even more were war weary. They had not yet realized that, unlike the countries the Allies had liberated in the west, eastern European nations were not going to be allowed to reclaim their independence and govern themselves. And all too many of them put a childish faith in the potency of the new United Nations.

Churchill knowingly accepted the price of stimulating Anglophobia and accusations of war mongering. The fury of his opponents is well documented in Fraser J Harbutt’s The Iron Curtain: Churchill, America, and the Origins of the Cold War, Chapter 7

Churchill did not have to do this. He too had been the beneficiary of American media lionization and he could have basked in ample adulation indefinitely.

Instead a strongly held opinion led him to plunge into the maelstrom of controversy to achieve a crucial national objective: rallying the US to protect the West from the Soviets. Not the action of an exhausted and selfish politician.

Churchill, as noted above, was extremely well-read in the history of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century European diplomacy, packed as it is with betrayals and startling reversals of alliances. And he had the stomach for this cold-blooded process. Sean McMeekin reveals that right after VE day (May 8th, 1945) he ordered his Chiefs of Staff to plan an attack on the Soviet Union to improve the deal given to Poland. His appalled Generals named it “Operational Unthinkable” (freedom of speech still then existed in the UK). Whatever the merits of this idea, it demonstrates that Churchill still possessed the reptilian emotions of a real statesman.[15]

So what happened in the high summer of 1940? (Churchill’s behavior in the run up to war in 1939 is a different issue: probably he shared the common view that the war would deadlock as in 1914 and so might not be existential).

Why did Churchill refuse to face facts, and not navigate his country away from the waterfall? Surely with his charisma and perhaps after a suitable period for the Dunkirk evacuation and the Battle of Britain to have been formulated into soothing national legends, something could have been done?

There is no evidence he even tried — rather the reverse.

Clearly, Churchill’s behavior in 1940–41 was wooden and anomalous. Some unusual, powerful, and exogenous force appears to have been acting upon him.

It was. And of course the financial and hence political chokehold Sir Henry Strakosch had achieved was only the visible demonstration.

Throwing British war policy into reverse would have provoked lethal fury on the Left and in the Jewish community. John Charmley’s cautiously floated trial balloon cited above deserves repeating:

So was Churchill “hired help” for a Jewish lobby, which, regarding Jewish interests as superior to those of the British Empire, was determined to embroil that Empire in a war on their behalf?

This was a factor of which Churchill, as demonstrated by his 1920 article, was acutely aware.

In my view, Churchill’s long-standing hostility to Germany, very normal in his generation (b. 1874) which grew up alarmed by Germany’s industrial surge and the histrionics of Kaiser Wilhelm, may partially exonerate his actions in the run up to 1939.

But not after the events of early summer 1940, which created a profoundly different situation.

On the morning of May 25, 1940, the commander of the British Expeditionary Force in France, Viscount Gort, woke up and abruptly reversed his orders of the night before. Rather than moving south with the French Army, the British were to move north to Dunkirk and try to evacuate. This saved them from being captured when the French surrendered.

Abandoning his French allies on the battlefield must have been emotionally and morally devastating for Gort, a straightforward man who had served alongside the French on the Western Front throughout World War I (in which he won the Victoria Cross).

Considering this action after the War, Field Marshall Viscount Montgomery, who had a low opinion of Gort professionally and who was generally uncharitable, wrote:

For this I give him full marks, and I hope history will do the same. He saved the men of the BEF…when all said and done, it must never be forgotten that in the supreme crisis of his military life, in May 1940, he acted with courage and decision – doing the right thing for Britain.

If he had failed at that moment, disaster might well have overtaken British arms.

He did not fail.[16]

Sadly for Britain, Winston Churchill did fail.

Patrick Cleburne wrote for many years for VDARE.com.

Bibliography

No More Champagne: Churchill and His Money David Lough

Churchill’s War  David irving

Churchill: The End of Glory  John Charmley

The Last Lion William Manchester

Stalin’s War A New History of World War II Sean McMeekin

The Iron Curtain: Churchill, America, and the Origins of the Cold War Fraser J Harbutt

Churchill: Walking with Destiny Andrew Roberts

Making Friends with Hitler Ian Kershaw

Monty: The Making of a General Nigel Hamilton

References

[1] David Lough, No More Champagne, 288-9.

[2] Ibid., 263-4.

[3] David Irving, Churchill’s War, vol 1, 104.

[4] No More Champagne, 235.

[5] John Charmley, Churchill: The End of Glory, 336-7..

[6] William Manchester, The Last Lion, vol 2, 302-3.

[7] Sean McMeekin, Stalin’s War, 497.

[8] Fraser J Harbutt, The Iron Curtain: Churchill, America, and the Origins of the Cold War, 72.

[9] No More Champagne, 294.

[10] Andrew Roberts, Churchill: Walking with Destiny, 122.

[11] David Irvine, Churchill’s War, vol. II Triumph in Adversity, 145 footnote

[12] Roberts, Churchill: Walking with Destiny, 943-4.

[13] Ian Kershaw, Making Friends with Hitler, 334.

[14] Sean McMeekin, Stalin’s War,  Epilogue.

[15] Ibid., 655.

[16] Nigel Hamilton, Monty The Making of a General, 377.

What is the Psychology of the Murderess?

/12 Comments/in /by

There has been yet another devastating school shooting in America; this time at the Abundant Life Christian School in Madison, Wisconsin. They seem to occur with such numbing regularity that in 2018 South Park captured the response with cutting accuracy in the episode “Dead Kids.” Shootings keep taking place at South Park Elementary, nobody cares any more, and when one mother does, it is assumed she has Pre-Menstrual Tension. However, there is a key difference when it comes to the Madison shooting, in which three people, including the shooter, were killed. The perpetrator was a natal female: 15 year-old Natalie “Samantha” Rupnow.

School shooters are overwhelmingly male, as are murderers and suicides. In the US, according to Bureau of Justice, the male-female murderer rate is 9:1, the suicide rate is 3:1 and the mass murderer rate is 20:1. For a female to behave like this is astonishingly unlikely. This begs a crucial question: What makes a murderess? How is a female murderer psychologically different from a male murderer, in particular when it involves killing in an extremely violent fashion?

According to the available research, such as the review “Risk of Homicide and Major Mental Disorders,” male murderers tend to have Psychopathic Personality Disorder. This is characterised, among other traits, by lack of empathy, a Narcissistic sense of entitlement and grandeur, and a high level of aggressiveness and impulsivity. Such killers will feel an overwhelmingly sense of rage against a society or an individual, which they believe has been impertinent enough to fail to recognize their importance. These feelings overwhelm them to such an extent — the negative feelings will be so potent — that they will kill. Further, their self-importance will be such that they’d rather kill themselves than allow others to have power of them. These traits will stay in populations because when they come together with other traits — such as optimal intelligence, social skill or even with forms of depression — they can result in extremely high social status; demonstrated by Felix Post in his British Journal of Psychiatry study “Creativity and Psychopathology.” David Buss explains in The Evolution of Desire that females are evolved to find status highly sexually attractive. This is because if a male has the genes which permit him to survive and flourish then so will the offspring and, also, because such men will have resources which they can invest in the mother and child, aiding survival.

The murderess is psychologically very different, as noted in the Walden University PhD thesis “Examining Psychosocial Characteristics of Female Serial Murderers.” They display evidence of Borderline Personality Disorder, its close relative Post-Traumatic Stress, and what is known as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. Fascinatingly, Natalie Rupnow appears to make sense, in terms of these conditions, to an extraordinary degree.

As I have explained in my book Woke Eugenics, Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is characterised by highly unstable and extreme moods, poor emotional regulation, a fundamental fear of abandonment and of being alone, pronounced feelings of shame, intense and unstable relationships (including sexual risk-taking, perhaps due to a feeling that “love” may not come again) and unstable goals and even sense of identity, due to being plagued by intense negative feelings (such as shame, anxiety, self-loathing and self-doubt), and a weak sense of self. They may swing from overtly loving to psychopathic; from grandiose to victim; from histrionic to schizoid and avoidant.

In that sufferers from BPD cannot regulate their emotions, they cannot regulate their self-esteem; so they may swing between grandiose Narcissism (believing one is perfect, superior and being entitled) and self-loathing in an attempt to suppress their fears and feelings of abject worthlessness. For the same reason, their identity and goals can radically change in accordance with these swings in self-esteem and in mood.

Due to their fear of abandonment, such people will tend to idealise those with whom they have relationships. This is a way of suppressing their anxiety about potential problems in the relationship that may cause it to end. It evidences their relatively immature way of seeing the world and their desire for someone to fill the void of emptiness and meaninglessness which they often feel. In other words, they cannot cope with their extreme negative feelings, so they create a fantasy world which produces positive feelings; this perfect person being their rescuer. However, due to their instability, they can easily de-idealise them, regard them as evil and in consequence become psychopathic and degenerate into paranoid psychosis, similar to paranoid schizophrenia, in which everyone wants to destroy you. Hence, paranoid schizophrenia crosses over with BPD.

In females in particular, BPD correlates with autism (poor social skills, anxiety, imbibing too much information, a need for order), possibly because autistics are more likely to be abused. BPD symptoms also manifest as a result of Post-Traumatic Stress and though BPD is about 50% genetic, the key environmental component appears to be abuse: an unstable childhood in which parents are unpredictable, love is capricious, and the world is impossibly frightening.

Now, in her manifesto, War Against Humanity, what do we discover about Rupnow? She describes her parents as “scum” who “didn’t love her” and made her feel she was the “wrong child.” They have both been divorced multiple times, something which implies high psychopathic traits and high levels of mental instability, both of which cross-over with BPD and both of which have a significant genetic component. They are also substance abusers, further implying anti-social traits. In other words, they have created precisely the kind of unstable childhood which would cause BPD.

Her manifesto also reveals evidence of autistic traits, most obviously that she is obsessed with school serial killers, has researched everything about them, has concluded that they are morally good, and identifies with them, even noting that her birthday is the same as the date of one of their killing sprees. Those with BPD are plagued by self-doubt due to a world where they haven’t found the stability to see who they are in relation to others. They search for a sense of identity and then create a very pronounced (though unstable) one when they seem to find it. This is what Rupnow has done.

There is also a degree to which she sees herself as a victim; a component of “Vulnerable Narcissism,” in which you are the world’s most misunderstood victim but you are brilliant and you look for a man upon whom you can be a parasite. Munchausen Syndrome relates to this: you pretend to be ill so that others will look after you and give you attention. Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy involves projecting the “illness” onto your child; something which also provides you with care and attention. Female murderers can kill via this motivation, persuading themselves that it’s morally good that the person must die. Rupnow argues, in essence, most people are vermin so it is “better for evolution” that she kill some of them.

Rupnow, then, clearly conforms to the available studies on female murderers. We should be no more shocked that Rupnow has committed murder than we should be that there has been yet another school shooting in the US. The question now is: How can we identify females like this and keep them away from society? One marker is that 80% of females with BPD have self-harmed, and will have scars from cutting or burning accordingly.

The Reason for the Season: Following the Followers But Failing the Faith

/19 Comments/in , /by

Secretary to an anti-Pope. I’m not among the very few people on earth who can claim to be one. But I am among the few who can claim to have corresponded with one. It was by email around the turn of the century, after I came across the website for a tiny schismatic Catholic sect in Montana. As I’ve said before at the Occidental Observer, I’m fascinated by islands, both real ones and metaphorical ones. An anti-Pope, or rival to the generally accepted Pope, is like an island of self-assertion in a sea of hostility, ridicule and indifference.

Core to Christianity

The anti-Pope for the sect in question was Lucian Pulvermacher (1918–2009), who was elected as Pope Pius XIII by the True Catholic Church in 1998. I can’t remember the name of his secretary, but I can remember that I was impressed by that secretary. He genuinely seemed to possess something that is supposedly central to Christianity but seems rarely practised by Christians. What is it? Humility. Christ urged it on His followers, but my experience is that they often turn a deaf ear to that and much else urged upon them by their Lord. The anti-Pope’s humble secretary gave me a good example of Christians ignoring Christ when he told me that he used to get mocking emails from staff at the Vatican. They found him and his master supremely ridiculous. After all, they were working for a continent-spanning colossus at Rome, where all roads lead, and he was working for a tiny schismatic sect in Kalispell, Mt. And yet he had the spirit of the Christ-child and they didn’t.

The Virgin of the Lilies (1899) by William-Adolphe Bouguereau (image from Wikipedia)

The Christ-child is, of course, the reason for the season of Christmas. He was born of a virgin after a miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost. According to true Christians, that is, but I’m not one of them. Like Hell, the Resurrection and Transubstantiation, the Virgin Birth of Christ is one of the scandals that prevent me from becoming a Christian. Skandalon, σκάνδαλον, is a New Testament word and literally means “stumbling-block.” I stumble and fall when I try to believe that Christ was born of a virgin and rose from the dead. And yet I once believed in something far more supernaturally extravagant than those two doctrines in Christianity. That is, I once believed in the Psychic Unity of Mankind, namely, that all races, from Swedes to Somalis, from Tibetans to Tongans, have the same fundamental psychology and cognitive potential. According to leftists, it’s nurture, not nature, that explains why, for centuries, tiny numbers of Jews have effortlessly outperformed vast numbers of Blacks in cognitively demanding fields like science, mathematics and chess.

A risible superstition

The same leftists will usually reject the Virgin Birth of Christ with scorn. And yet accepting the Virgin Birth of Christ demands belief only in the miraculous conception of a single child in Palestine two thousand years ago. Accepting the Psychic Unity of Mankind demands belief in the miraculous conception of billions of children for thousands of years in places as wildly different in climate and geography as the icy, oxygen-starved plateau of Tibet and the sea-clasped, sun-kissed island of Tonga. In other words, those who believe that all races are cognitively equal must believe that the human brain was miraculously exempt from the evolutionary forces that have shaped all other aspects of human physiology, from skin-color to blood-chemistry to lung-function to bone-structure.

The brain isn’t exempt from evolution, of course, and the Psychic Unity of Mankind is a risible superstition. But my brain was once one of the millions that housed that risible superstition, while rejecting the Virgin Birth of Christ and being thoroughly hostile to Christianity. Fortunately, my brain was also capable in time of recognizing the contradictions and absurdities of leftism. And of becoming much less hostile to true Christianity. I sometimes feel as though my small feet are treading in the giant prints of C.S. Lewis, who wrote this in his spiritual autobiography Surprised by Joy (1955):

Then I read Chesterton’s Everlasting Man and for the first time saw the whole Christian outline of history set out in a form that seemed to me to make sense. Somehow I contrived not to be too badly shaken. You will remember that I already thought Chesterton the most sensible man alive “apart from his Christianity”. Now, I veritably believe, I thought — I didn’t of course say; words would have revealed the nonsense — that Christianity itself was very sensible “apart from its Christianity”. (Surprised by Joy, chapter XIV)

I feel about Lewis what Lewis felt about Chesterton: that he is a very wise and insightful writer “apart from his Christianity.” But what if his wisdom and insight had brought him to Christianity and been nourished and strengthened by his Christianity? I ask the same question about the more forbidding figure of Hilaire Belloc (1870–1953), the great Catholic writer who published these powerful words in 1938:

[T]here is (as the greatest of the ancient Greeks discovered) a certain indissoluble Trinity of Truth, Beauty and Goodness. You cannot deny or attack one of these three without at the same time denying or attacking both the others. Therefore with the advance of this new and terrible enemy against the Faith and all that civilization which the Faith produces, there is coming not only a contempt for beauty but a hatred of it; and immediately upon the heels of this there appears a contempt and hatred for virtue. (The Great Heresies, chapter 6, “The Modern Phase”)

Belloc was right. Christianity in the true sense welcomes, nurtures and creates Truth, Beauty and Goodness. Leftism — and Christianity when corrupted by leftism — hates all of those things. Among the beauties nurtured by Christianity is the poetry of John Betjeman (1906–84). He didn’t create anything to rival the music of Bach or the architecture of the Gothic masters, but he did — and does — move the heart with verses like these:

And is it true? And is it true,
This most tremendous tale of all,
Seen in a stained-glass window’s hue,
A Baby in an ox’s stall?
The Maker of the stars and sea
Become a Child on earth for me?
And is it true? For if it is,
No loving fingers tying strings
Around those tissued fripperies,
The sweet and silly Christmas things,
Bath salts and inexpensive scent
And hideous tie so kindly meant,
No love that in a family dwells,
No carolling in frosty air,
Nor all the steeple-shaking bells
Can with this single Truth compare —
That God was man in Palestine
And lives today in Bread and Wine. (“Christmas,” 1954)

Betjeman believed but had doubts. I have doubts and can’t believe. The doctrines are too much for me. I can’t believe in the Virgin Birth and I can’t believe that the flesh and blood of Christ are literally, but undetectably, the bread and wine taken by Christians at Eucharist. But again I can see that the Christian belief in transubstantiation is much less irrational and superstitious than the leftist belief in transgenderism. Christians believe that Christ becomes bread and wine because God so wills it. Leftists believe that men become women because the men in question so will it. The men might have beards and balls and ten-inch todgers, but they’re fully female all the same. Only heretical haters deny this great and glorious truth.

“A slender elf-woman”

Okay, leftists don’t call the deniers “heretics” or “witches” or “blasphemers.” But it’s clear that religious psychology is at work in leftism, which is an ugly parody of Christianity rather as transgenderism is an ugly parody of transubstantiation. Tolkien put it like this: “The Shadow … can only mock, it cannot make: not real new things of its own.” Tolkien is another great Christian writer whom I revere but can’t follow into Christianity. The Virgin Mary appears in Tolkien’s masterpiece, The Lord of the Rings (1954–5), but under another name: Galadriel. She’s the awe-inspiring Elven lady who nevertheless has the humility to resist the golden temptation of supreme power:

She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad.

“I pass the test,” she said. “I will diminish, and go into the West and remain Galadriel.” (The Fellowship of the Ring, 1954, Book II, chapter 7)

That is Tolkien’s portrayal of the Virgin Mary, who bore God but did not aspire to godhead herself. The Star of Bethlehem appears in Lord of the Rings too. I think so anyway. I think it’s the hope-lifter and heart-raiser seen by the humble hobbit Sam from the ash-choked death-land of the Dark Lord Sauron:

Far above the Ephel Dúath in the West the night-sky was still dim and pale. There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach. (The Return of the King, 1955, Book VI, chapter 3)

But where is the Christ-child in Tolkien’s masterpiece? Nowhere and everywhere, I would say. Tolkien could not have created the Truth, Beauty and Goodness of his trilogy without believing in the Christ-child and the Virgin Birth. But beliefs can do good, can inspire great art and literature, without being true. And I think one thing is more certain about Christianity than the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection. In its highest, best, and most inspiring forms, Christianity is a White religion, indissolubly bound to the pale-skinned folk of Europe and her diaspora. Whites created Christianity and Christianity created Whites by influencing their evolution. Belloc put it like this, perhaps with deeper meaning than he intended: “Europe is the Faith and the Faith is Europe.” That’s why the enemies of Whites, like Jews and leftists, are also the enemies of Christ. And why there’s a war on Christmas. In this war, we should side with Belloc, Tolkien, Lewis and Betjeman. And they all followed the Christ-child, Maker of the stars and sea.

True Christianity is beautifully White: Madonna of the Magnificat (c. 1483) by Sandro Botticelli (image from Wikipedia)