A Racial War That Dares Not Say Its Name

/24 Comments/in /by

 

Politicians are masters of the art of deception.
Martin L. Gross

The roots of the “Hitler-Controlled-Opposition” myth go back to the 1920s and 1930s in the circles of Hitler’s political rivals, namely the German and Soviet Communist Parties, the leftists of the West and the hard left faction of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP).[1] The intention was obviously to prevent Hitler and the NSDAP from being elected, so Hitler sued the socialist newspaper Berlin Vorwaerts that was defaming him with slogans such as “Hitler Got Jewish and Ford Money,” and won his libel case for which he was ironically awarded 6 million marks.[2]

Since then, many other myths about Hitler and how he came to power and why were created for different reasons. Here are a few of the most famous of these straw man fallacies:

– Hitler was a crypto-Jew and a Freemason Zionist, an Illuminati put in place by the Rothschilds in order to destroy Germany and prepare for the Jewish takeover of the world and the foundation of the state of Israel.[3]

– Zionists put Hitler in power and “ordered him to create a Holocaust. They did this to atone for their sins to their god, to create an incentive for Jews to move to Palestine, and to create a pretext for genociding the Palestinians and stealing their land.”[4]

– Nazis who did not lose the war and are now in power in the US and in the West are trying to bring a form of National Socialism to America and the world, creating in essence a new Empire or “Fourth Reich.”[5]

– Hitler was a puppet specifically put in power to start Worle War II in order to enrich the American and German capitalist bankers and corporations that financed him.[6]

Intentionally or not, these myths discredit Hitler and his extraordinary achievements[7] by portraying him as a traitor to his nation, an unscrupulous warmonger, a psychopath who couldn’t care less about his people and the effects of the war he triggered for psychopathological reasons. Nobody comes close to this Darth Vader of humanity except Putin, who is also portrayed in Jewish-owned media across the Western world as the evilest, meanest, and most bloodthirsty dictator of modern history, a Hitler-like maniac intent on conquering the world and imposing his will not only on his own people but also on humanity.

In reality Hitler never had such imperialistic ambitions and neither does Putin. Moreover, Hitler had the support of the vast majority of his people and so does Putin today; both of them raised their country from the gutter; Hitler was neither Jewish nor Jewish-controlled,[8] had both his testicles, was not a homosexual or a pedophile; neither is Putin,[9] and they both resisted war to the very end.[10], [11]

These two giant politicians are in fact considered by most honest and level-headed people the greatest statesmen of their time.[12], [13]

Truth be told, these false accusations are used to confuse and lead the public astray. The protagonists of political or rabbinic Judaism, aka Globalism and its off-shoot Zionism, are the ones who are attempting with their non-Jewish vassals, by various subversive means, to take control of the world and enslave humanity. And they are not doing this for religious or spiritual reasons. This is not, in other words, a war between the Devil and God or between Good and Evil (Satan). As Yale Professor Henry Ashby Turner (1932-2008) stated in his stupendously well-referenced book German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, whose conclusions are now accepted by nearly all specialists in the field,[14]

One of the most basic premises of the professional study of history is that events are not directly caused by abstract concepts, whether those be “the hand of God,” “manifest destiny,” or “monopoly capital.” The concrete events of history occur because of the actions of human beings, who often carry out their will, to be sure, through institutions of their own creation. Unless this proximation form of causation can be convincingly demonstrated, the invocation of more remote levels of causation remains empty speculation, bereft of any foundation in the realities of history.[15]

So, if it’s not a spiritual or a religious war, what is it? This is in fact a racial war that dares not say its name, a racial war, which uses religion and other tricks to fool competitors and to mobilize its supporters of all denominations. Hitler was well aware of this cryptic Darwinism:

One of the most ingenious ruses ever devised was to sail the ship of the Jewish state under the flag of religion, and thus secure the tolerance that Aryans are always ready to grant to different religious beliefs. But the Mosaic Law is nothing other [PS: I would add to the Torah, the Talmud and the Zohar] than the doctrine of the preservation of the Jewish race.[16]

And this is not about a social class struggle either as Karl Marx would have it and more recently, Warren Buffet (who says “it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”[17] The richest people on earth are indeed at the helm of this war on humanity, but many of them, with few exceptions such as Warren Buffet and the Rockefellers, are Jewish.[18] According to revolutionary socialist, Mikhail Bakunin (1814–1876),

Marx completely ignores a most important element in the history of humanity, that is, the temperament and particular character of each “race” and each people, a temperament and character which are themselves the natural product of a multitude of ethnological, climatological, economic, and historic causes, but which exercise, even apart from and independent of the economic condition, a considerable influence on its doctrines and even on the development of its economic forces.[19]

Is it the Benjamins? Money is a means to an end just like liberalism and democracy. It’s race, all the way. The greatest proponent of Zionism, much more important than Theodore Herzl, was Max Nordau, one of the founding fathers of nineteenth century-European racialism, an ideological current that provides an important insight into the true roots of Globalism and its off-shoot, Zionism. Ron Unz, editor in chief and owner of one of America’s leading conservative websites says the following about Nordau:

I suspect that his crucial role in creating Zionism has been carefully airbrushed out of all popular accounts in order to avoid drawing undue attention to the very close ties between those two nineteenth century intellectual movements [racialism and Zionism], which these days are viewed in starkly different terms by the liberal Jews who dominate our academic life and our media outlets. Indeed, although few present-day Westerners might suspect it, European Jews such as Nordau had actually played an absolutely central role in the birth of modern racialism, of which Zionism may be regarded as merely an off-shoot movement.[20],[21]

No one today in our well-meaning woke society where racial reality is staunchly denied would be allowed to admit that racial and not religious considerations, for example, are the Jews’ main motive for waging war on humanity. But truth be told, Benjamin Disraeli (1804–1881), the Jewish prime minister of Queen Victoria from 1874 to 1880, was right:

No one must lightly dismiss the question of race. It is the key to world history, and it is precisely for this reason that written history so often lacks clarity—it is written by people who do not understand [or do not want to understand] the race question and what belongs to it.[22]

Thus, you cannot understand Globalism and its off-shoot, Zionism, if the racial factor is excluded. Race is real[23], [24]; competition between races and individuals is a basic instinct — it’s survival of the fittest — and Jews are exceptionally good at this game. Not because they are more intelligent but because they are better organized and have a higher degree of racial solidarity (hyper-ethnocentrism). As Wilmot Robertson explains in his book The Dispossessed Majority, one of the best contemporary American underground bestsellers ever published,

The truth seems to be that any organized minority with a given amount of intelligence can obtain supremacy over a disorganized majority of equal intelligence. A race-conscious population group is far more effective and successful than in most forms of endeavour than a race-unconscious population group. … To put it in a different perspective, Jewish power may derive as much or more from majority weakness and disorganization as from Jewish strength.[25]

As a minority, always on the defensive, Jews developed by natural selection effective competitive and survival skills. Lacking in brute force, they learned early on that as a minority, money and deception as a group evolutionary survival strategy was the best way not only to protect themselves but to achieve their hegemonic goals by weakening and destabilizing the majority. This is a well-known fact across history and one of the main reasons many Jews are so disliked by everyone that deals with them. Jews have the reputation of being masters of lying and deceit.[26]

Reality Behind the Myths

Let’s get back to the financing of National-Socialism: As conclusively shown by Henry Ashby Turner, big American or German banks and corporations such as J. P. Morgan, I.G. Farben, Flick, Krupp, and Siemens did not, on the whole, support Hitler and his political rise to power:

If the role of big business in the disintegration of the Republic has been exaggerated, such is even more true of its role in the rise of Hitler. While a significant part of the business community contributed materially — if less than wholly voluntarily — to the consolidation of Hitler’s regime after he had become chancellor, he and his party had previously received relatively little support from that quarter. The early growth of the NSDAP took place without any significant aid from the circles of large-scale enterprise.[27]

Big firms and organizations, notes Turner, bestowed the bulk of their funding to Hitler’s opposition, the bourgeois parties who supported President Hindenburg, the hard-left faction of the National Socialist Party itself, and the Jewish-led German Communist Party.[28]

Who then Financed Hitler and the National Socialist Rise to Power?

Emil Kirdof and Fritz Thyssen were the only German captains of big industry who supported the NSDAP. Most of the money came from the German masses. The American writer on economics and business, Peter Drucker, who agrees with Turner, is quoted as follows by journalist Ivor Benson:

The really decisive backing came from sections of the lower middle classes, the farmers and working class, who were hardest hit; as far as the Nazi Party is concerned, there is good reason to believe that at least three quarters of its funds, even after 1930, came from the weekly dues and from the entrance fees to the mass meetings from which members of the upper classes were always conspicuously absent.[29]

In the final analysis, Hitler was an honest man who wanted the best for his people. And so is Putin, although he does not appear to be a racialist and an antisemite like Hitler was.

[1] Henry Ashby Turner, German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler, Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 346.

[2] Hitler wins his libel suit, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, September 4 1923.

[3] Dieter Ruggeberg (for Henry Makow), Adolf Hitler – Agent of Zionism and Freemasonry, HenryMAKOW.com, November 15, 2019.

[4] Christopher Bjerknes, Adolf Hitler Bolshevik and Zionist Volume I, Lulu.com, October 30, 2020.

[5] Jim Marrs, The Rise of the Fourth Reich. The Secret Societies That Threaten to Take Over America, HarperCollins, June 23, 2009.

[6] Anthony Cyril Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler: The Astonishing True Story of the American Financiers Who Bankrolled the Nazis, Claireview Books, 1976 (reprinted in 2022).

[7] Richard Tedor, Hitler’s Revolution, Castle Hill Publishers, 2021.

[8] Was Adolf Hitler of Jewish or Rothschild Origin? Karl’s Substack. Everything about Jews and Judaism, Feb. 26, 2024.

[9] Is Vladimir Putin Jewish? Karl’s Substack. Everything about Jews and Judaism, Feb 02, 2024

[10] David L. Hoggan, The Forced War. When Peaceful Revision Failed, Institute for Historical Review, 2023.

[11] John J. Mearsheimer, The Causes and Consequences of the Ukraine War, The Center for International Relations and Sustainable Development, June 16, 2022. Good video on the subject on Judge Napolitano’s YouTube Chanel – Judging Freedom:

[12] Richard Tedor, book cited.

[13] Mark Galeotti, We Need to Talk About Putin: How the West Gets Him Wrong, Ebury Press, June 1, 2019.

[14] William L. Patch of Washington and Lee University cited in Andrew Hamilton, “Funding a Movement: German Big Business & the Rise of Hitler,” Counter-Currents, December 13, 2013.

[15] Henry Ashby Turner, work cited, p. 358.

[16] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Hurst and Blackett LTD, non-censured edition, 1939, p. 127.

[17] Ben Stein, “In Class Warfare, Guess Which Class Is winning,” New York Times , November 26, 2006.

[18] Michael Collins Piper, “The New Establishment-JEWISH,” The New Babylon. Those Who Reign Supreme. The Rothchild Empire: The Modern-Day Pharisees and the Historical and Economic Origins of the New World Order, American Free Press, 2011, pp. 183 to 191.

[19] Laurent Guyénot, Your god Is our god too, but He Has Chosen Us, 2020, p. 197.

[20] Ron Unz, “Zionism, Antisemitism, and Racialism,” The Unz Review, November 13, 2023.

[21] See also: Kevin MacDonald, Separation and Its Discontents: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Antisemitism, 1stBooks, 2004, Chapter 5.

[22] Ivor Benson, The Zionist Factor. A Study of the Jewish Presence in 20th Century History, Veritas Publishing Company Pty. Ltd. Australia, 1986, p. 158.

[23] Charles Murray, Human Diversity: The Biology of Gender, Race, and Class, Twelve, 2020.

[24] Steven Pinker, Fear of Race Realism and the Denial of Human Differences, Conference on YouTube.com, 2012.

[25] Wilmot Robertson, The Dispossessed Majority, Howard Allen, 1972, p. 188.

[26] David Skrbina, Ph.D, The Jewish Hoax. How Paul’s Cabal Fooled the World for Two thousand Years, Creative Fire Press, 2019, p. 63.

[27] Henry Ashby Turner, work cited, p. 341.

[28] Ibid, p. 346.

[29] Ivor Benson, work cited, p. 178.

Ireland Election Outcome: plus ça change…

/7 Comments/in /by

The Irish general election took place on November 29th, yet government formation talks have only recently concluded whereby the new government will be a Fianna Fail-Fine Gael coalition supported by some independents. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are so close to a majority that they can rely on like-minded independents and will not be reliant on nationalist or conservative independents. Such would have been the only good outcome for nationalists.

The new government will be made up of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael but even if Sinn Féin was in government instead, policy would be largely the same. As mentioned in the preview of the Irish election, most parties are woke. Ireland is a one-ideology State in which a change of government is not meaningfully possible.

Wokeism: Post-modern Fascism

While it is said that Ireland is governed by “the liberal centre” or that it has never had a far-right government, these claims are not true. While Ireland has never had a dictatorship, its nationalism of the 1930s was not dissimilar from fascism, while its current wokeism could be said to be derived from fascism.

Both fascists and wokeists deny that there is a transcendent source of truth and believe that truth is a social construct. Freedom of speech is denied in a fascist regime, while under wokeism it is denied more subtly through speech codes and political correctness. In general, both fascists and wokeists stress the supremacy of group identity and oppose the dignity of the individual, deny the transcendental Judeo-Christian God, and favour natural and New Age religions, and support environmentalism.

Ireland now has three main political parties: Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, and Sinn Féin. It is worth considering how these parties represent the duality of fascism and wokeism by comparing their policies of the 1930s with the present.

Fianna Fáil were initially led by Éamonn de Valera, with the main policies of his Fianna Fáil governments between 1932 and 1948 being the banning of contraception, extending the marriage bar of women in employment, starting a trade war with Britain, and introducing a constitution which banned divorce, recognised a woman’s place in the home, and made irredentist claims on Northern Ireland. De Valera sent condolences to Germany on the death of Hitler.

Fine Gael was founded as a merger between Cumann na nGaedheal, the Blueshirts, and the National Centre Party. The Blueshirts were founded by Eoin O’Duffy, who was also the first leader of Fine Gael. He attended the Montreux fascist conference of 1934, sought a corporatist state that would replace democracy, and led a volunteer brigade in support of the Nationalists in the Spanish Civil War.

The Irish Republican Army (IRA) was then led by Seán Russell, who collaborated with Nazi Germany, was trained by the Abwehr in Germany, and was to land in Ireland as part of Operation Dove, before which he died of a burst stomach ulcer on a U-boat and was buried at sea. He had a statue erected at Fairview Park in Dublin at which modern Sinn Fein leaders attend commemorations.

Nationalised parties, media, NGOs

In the 1930s there was a general uniformity between the parties which was nationalist, conservative, and corporatist. They are nowadays uniform, just woke and globalist. Parties are in favour of, and are branches of, a neo-corporatist State. There now pertains nationalised political parties which are predominantly State-funded with extreme limits on private funding; recent laws made the continuation of State-funding to parties (and therefore viability) based on running at least 40% women candidates.

There also pertains a plethora of Government-Organised Non-Governmental Organisations (GONGOs), which have supplanted civil society. These include various feminist, gay, and transgender activist groups such as the National Womens’ Council of Ireland, the Gay and Lesbian Equality Network, and Trans Equality Network Ireland. These GONGOs operate as quasi-official advisory groups, and were instrumental in introducing same-sex marriage, abortion, and gender self-identification laws.

The extent of State influence in media can be seen in the dominant size of Raidío Telifís Éireann (RTÉ) which is a State-owned company. Figures for 2023 show that it recorded total revenues of €344.0 million; of this, €193.3 million was raised from the television licence fee, which is a flat tax levied on owning a television, while commercial revenue was €150.7 million. This compares to the revenues of commercial media such as The Irish Times (€115 million), Mediahuis – the owner of the Irish Independent and Sunday Independent- (€51.94million); Virgin Media Television (€59.2 million). The Business Post Group had revenues in 2022 of €20.33 million.

These figures demonstrate that the Irish media is dominated by the State-funded RTÉ. Furthermore, it was recently revealed that a government scheme tasked with giving grants to independent required such outlets to cover certain favoured topics.

A development over the last fifteen years has seen legislation sometimes outsourced to “Citizens’ Assemblies” – constitutionally unstipulated, government-created, GONGO-influenced pseudo-consultative bodies; these assemblies invariably recommend woke changes to the law even if such proposals are not supported by the general population. RTÉ plays a critical role in propagandising for these policies which are then supported by the main parties.

It is therefore clear that different State-funded parties, media, and GONGOs are branches of the same woke, corporatist structure. The pertinence of Irish political conformity has not changed, merely the nature of the conformity has changed from nationalism to wokeism.

Tulsi Gabbard on the Israel Lobby’s Role in Fabricating WMD Hoax

/4 Comments/in , /by

I have been keeping fairly close track on the Senate confirmation hearings but never came across any mention of these exchanges. The New York Times, e.g., has nothing to say about them in its article “4 Takeaways from Tulsi Gabbard’s Confirmation Hearing.” Nor is there any mention of these exchanges in a second Times article on her career leading up to the hearings.

One would think that condemning the Iraq war as based on lies from neocons like Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Abram Shulsky’s Office of Special Plans(OSP) would be front page news. As Gabbard noted, it was “a complete falsification of intelligence. This was not a ‘mistake.’ It was a deliberate deception.”

When have you ever seen a U.S. politician make a statement challenging the very basis of U.S. foreign policy and its complete deference to the interests of Israel? Deference that resulted in 4,431 total American deaths (including both killed in action and non-hostile) and 31,994 wounded in action. And cost the U.S. approximately $1.1 trillion.

Slanting the news in favor of promoting and  protecting the Israel Lobby is nothing new for the Times. As I noted in my 2004 paper on neoconservatism as a Jewish movement (now a chapter in my forthcoming revision of The Culture of Critique)

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, The New York Times was deeply involved in spreading deception about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorist organizations. Judith Miller’s front-page articles were based on information from Iraqi defectors well known to be untrustworthy because of their own interest in toppling Saddam.[1] Many of these sources, including Ahmed Chalabi, were also touted by the Office of Special Plans of the Department of Defense, which is associated with many of the most prominent Bush administration neocons (see below). Miller’s indiscretions might be chalked up to incompetence were it not for her close connections to prominent neocon organizations, in particular Daniel Pipes’s Middle East Forum (MEF), which avidly sought the war in Iraq. The MEF lists Miller as an author; she has published articles in MEF media, including the Middle East Quarterly and the MEF Wire. The MEF also threw a launch party for her book on Islamic fundamentalism, God Has Ninety-Nine Names. Miller, whose father is ethnically Jewish, has a strong Jewish consciousness: Her book One by One: Facing the Holocaust “tried to . . . show how each [European] country that I lived and worked in, was suppressing or distorting or politically manipulating the memory of the Holocaust.”[2]

The New York Times has apologized for “coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been” but did not single out Miller’s stories as worthy of special censure.[3] Indeed, the Times’ failure goes well beyond Miller, as noted in 2004 by Daniel Okrent, public editor of the Times:

Some of the Times’s coverage in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq was credulous; much of it was inappropriately italicized by lavish front-page display and heavy-breathing headlines; and several fine articles by David Johnston, James Risen and others that provided perspective or challenged information in the faulty stories were played as quietly as a lullaby. Especially notable among these was Risen’s “C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports,” which was completed several days before the invasion and unaccountably held for a week. It didn’t appear until three days after the war’s start, and even then was interred on Page B10. (Okrent 2004)[4]

As is well known, Times is Jewish-owned and has often been accused of slanting its coverage on issues of importance to Jews.[5] It is perhaps another example of the legacy of Jacob Schiff, the Jewish activist-philanthropist who backed Adolph Ochs’s purchase of the New York Times in 1896 because he believed he “could be of great service to the Jews generally.”[6]

Shulsky and the OSP are illustrative of neocon ethnic networking and their close relationships to Israeli intelligence:

Shulsky was a student of Leo Strauss, a close friend of Paul Wolfowitz both at Cornell and the University of Chicago,[1] and yet another protégé of Richard Perle. He was an aide to neocon Senators Henry Jackson (along with Perle and Elliott Abrams) and Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and worked in the Department of Defense in the Reagan administration. During the George W. Bush administration, he was appointed head of the Office of Special Plans (OSP) under Feith and Wolfowitz. The OSP became more influential on Iraq policy than the CIA or the Defense Intelligence Agency,[2] but is widely viewed by retired intelligence operatives as having manipulated intelligence data on Iraq in order to influence policy.[3] Reports suggest that the OSP worked closely with Israeli intelligence to paint an exaggerated picture of Iraqi capabilities in unconventional weapons.[4] It is tempting to link the actions of the OSP under Shulsky with Strauss’s idea of a “noble lie” carried out by an elite to manipulate the masses, but one doesn’t really need Strauss to understand the importance of lying in order to manipulate public opinion on behalf of Israel.

The OSP included other neocons with no professional qualifications in intelligence but long records of service in neoconservative think tanks and pro-Israel activist organizations, especially WINEP. Examples include Michael Rubin, who is affiliated with AEI and is an adjunct scholar at WINEP, David Schenker, who has written books and articles on Middle East issues published by WINEP and the Middle East Quarterly (published by Daniel Pipes’ MEF, another pro-Israel activist organization), Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, and Michael Ledeen. The OSP relied heavily on Iraqi defectors associated with Ahmed Chalabi, who, as indicated above, had a close personal relationship with Wolfowitz, Perle, and other neocons.[5]

(The numbered citations may be found in the linked article.)

So let’s hope that Gabbard is confirmed. A truly America First foreign policy is at stake. As Alexis notes:

Gabbard is not perfect. She has made political compromises. But she is the closest thing to an actual dissident the intelligence community has ever seen inside its ranks.

And that’s why the Senate hearings have turned into an all-out war to discredit her.

Because the real criminals—the ones who lied America into war—are still in power.

By Jonas Alexis, in  Veterans Today

As the U.S. Senate holds confirmation hearings for Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence (DNI), the gloves have come off in a brutal confrontation between Gabbard and the very intelligence establishment that lied America into war.

Gabbard’s nomination is shaking the corridors of power—not because of partisan infighting, but because she is directly challenging the deep-seated corruption at the heart of U.S. intelligence: the role of the Israel Lobby in fabricating intelligence, promoting endless war, and leading America into catastrophic interventions that have killed hundreds of thousands.

And no scandal is bigger—or more damning—than the Iraq War’s fake WMD story, a crime that led to the deaths of over 100,000 children.

Gabbard’s Senate Showdown: Calling Out the Iraq War Lies

During the hearing, Democratic war hawks aggressively questioned Gabbard’s foreign policy positions, particularly her outspoken opposition to regime change wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

Senators attacked her for “supporting Assad” and “supporting Gaddafi.”

Her response? A direct, brutal takedown of the U.S. intelligence community’s legacy of lies:

“I have no love for Assad or Gaddafi. I simply hate Al-Qaeda. The U.S. government has repeatedly allied itself with terrorists—people who killed Americans on 9/11 and who are responsible for the deaths of our soldiers. Our policy failures have put them in power, and I refuse to be part of that lie.”

Gabbard then shifted the conversation to the most infamous intelligence failure in U.S. history: the Iraq War’s fraudulent WMD claims.

“We launched the invasion of Iraq based on a complete falsification of intelligence. This was not a ‘mistake.’ It was a deliberate deception.”

And she’s right.

The Iraq War wasn’t an accident. It wasn’t a failure of intelligence.

It was a premeditated crime, orchestrated by the Israel Lobby, with fabricated evidence designed to push the U.S. into an illegal war.

The Israel Lobby’s Hand in the Iraq War: A Manufactured Intelligence Hoax

For years, the Israel Lobby and its network of neoconservatives inside the U.S. intelligence apparatus worked to fabricate a case for war. The infamous ‘WMD’ hoax—the very lie that justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq—was crafted by Israeli-linked operatives and their American allies.

Scott Ritter: The Man Who Exposed the WMD Lies

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter was one of the few officials who publicly exposed the WMD hoax before the war even began.

“Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The intelligence was cooked, deliberately falsified to justify an illegal war. The real architects? The neoconservatives inside the Bush administration, backed by the Israel Lobby.” – Scott Ritter

The key players in the WMD deception included:

  • Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz, Pentagon officials with direct ties to Israel, who led intelligence manipulation efforts.
  • Ahmed Chalabi, a U.S.-backed Iraqi exile who fabricated false intel, working closely with Israeli sources.
  • The Office of Special Plans, a secretive intelligence unit inside the Pentagon that bypassed CIA oversight, feeding false WMD claims directly to policymakers.

This was not a mistake. This was a deliberate, coordinated disinformation campaign designed to drag America into a war that would serve Israeli geopolitical interests.

And it worked.

The result? Over 500,000 Iraqis killed. A destroyed nation. The birth of ISIS. And a generation of American soldiers betrayed and sent to die for a lie.

Yet, to this day, not a single one of these war criminals has faced justice.

Why Gabbard’s Nomination Terrifies the Establishment

Gabbard’s willingness to call out these intelligence failures—and the role of the Israel Lobby in crafting U.S. war policy—has put her in the crosshairs of Washington’s most powerful interest groups.

  • She refuses to push regime change wars.
  • She opposes military alliances with terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda.
  • She has repeatedly denounced the influence of foreign lobbies on U.S. policy.

Her stance on Edward Snowden is equally revealing. In the past, she has said that Snowden was being persecuted for exposing government crimes—a position that enrages the intelligence community.

Now, under Senate pressure, she’s toned down her support, but the underlying truth remains:

The U.S. intelligence apparatus is not about national security. It is about controlling the narrative, manufacturing consent for war, and covering up its own crimes.

The Real Fight: Gabbard vs. the War Machine

Gabbard’s nomination is more than a political appointment.

It’s a direct challenge to the entire foundation of U.S. intelligence—a system built on lies, foreign influence, and perpetual war.

The same forces that manufactured the Iraq War are the same forces that:

  • Destroyed Libya and turned it into a failed state
  • Armed terrorists in Syria to overthrow Assad
  • Back Ukraine while pushing America toward a war with Russia

And now, they fear a Director of National Intelligence who won’t play their game.

Gabbard is not perfect. She has made political compromises. But she is the closest thing to an actual dissident the intelligence community has ever seen inside its ranks.

And that’s why the Senate hearings have turned into an all-out war to discredit her.

Because the real criminals—the ones who lied America into war—are still in power.

 

Tragic Lessons from the Life of Sally McNeil

/8 Comments/in , /by

Ambrose Kane
Jan 26, 2025

I recently watched the 2022 Netflix documentary, Killer Sally, which unfurls the tragic life of Sally McNeil (born Sally Dempsey in 1960) who murdered her husband, Ray McNeil (a black Mr. Olympia competitor), on Valentine’s Day in 1995.

Sally and Ray met while they were in the U.S. Marine Corps, and both had an obsession with bodybuilding. They dated for about two months before getting married in 1987 which was perhaps the first indicator that their marriage would not last. Sally’s first marriage to Anthony Lowden (a black marine she met at Parris Island) lasted about four years, and it produced two children – Shantina, John, and a third from another man. Sally claimed that toward the end of her marriage with Anthony, he became abusive toward her.

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

After marrying Ray, Sally became the main breadwinner in the family. Ray had left the marine corps to pursue full-time his passion for bodybuilding which was not lucrative enough to support either himself or his family.

Sally, then, took up a career performing on wrestling videos with various men for $300 an hour (a rather bizarre proclivity among some men even though no sexual contact occurs), taking on the moniker “Killer Sally.” As was common in the 90s bodybuilding scene, both Ray and Sally began to use steroids which only made their already volatile relationship even more so. Sometimes Sally would drive to Tijuana, Mexico with her two children to score steroids for herself as well as to sell to those at her gym. She conceded in the Netflix documentary that it was “bad parenting” on her part.

Sally’s children from her first marriage were alleged to have been routinely beaten by Ray using his belt. John said he began to hate Ray for the beatings he received, and Shantina was often terrified of him during his explosive outbursts or when she witnessed him brutally beat Sally which was a common occurrence in their home.

The local police were periodically dispatched to their Oceanside (CA) apartment for domestic violence incidents. According to Sally McNeil’s entry in Wikipedia, “Child services frequently visited her for reports of abuse to her children by her neighbors, teachers and family members. The children suffered from malnutrition, the apartment was unlivable, and they were both left alone for multiple days in a row while Sally would go to the gym, out of town, out of the state, and out of the Country.”

The marriage progressively got worse when Ray began seeing other women, and it wasn’t long before he began to make plans to leave Sally. Understandably, this drove Sally a bit off the deep end with jealousy and rage, and she threatened the woman who was dating Ray at the time.

On February 14th, 1995, Ray returned late in the evening to their apartment, and an argument ensued between the couple over his whereabouts. According to the investigative report, Ray “slapped her, pushed her down on the floor, and started choking her. McNeil squirmed away, ran into the bedroom, and took her sawed-off shotgun out of its case in the closet.” She then unloaded twice on Ray, striking him in his abdomen and in his jaw. He later died at the hospital. An autopsy revealed that Ray had five kinds of steroids in his body at the time of his death.

Although Sally argued during her trial that she was a victim of ongoing domestic violence by Ray (known as ‘battered wife syndrome’) and that she was only defending herself, she was convicted in 1996 of second-degree murder and sentenced to the Central California Women’s Facility in Chowchilla. Sally was granted parole on May 29th, 2020, after having served 25 years in prison.

Sally’s competitive nature was evident from a young age. She was both athletic and physically strong. She was also impulsive and had a volatile temper that she seemingly had little control over. This was obvious during her time in the Marine Corps. Sally was demoted from her sergeant’s position because of poor behavioral performance, anger issues and violence. All of this eventually led to her to being discharged from military service.

Upon entering the civilian world, Sally appeared to have learned nothing from the disciplinary measures that were taken against her in the Marine Corps because the same sort of behavior continued: “McNeil was arrested in 1990, for brandishing a firearm at Lowden and smashing the windows of his vehicle with a metal bar. She had been arrested previously for assaulting a mailman who had slapped her son John after he had a fight with the mailman’s son. McNeil attacked one of Ray’s lovers at a bodybuilding show, pinning her to the floor and hitting her repeatedly. This resulted in the National Physique Committee suspending her for a year. It is thought she also physically took her anger out on her husband, pulling a gun on him for the first time before being pepper-sprayed by police officers. In 1993, Sally was confronted by a club bouncer for dancing on the tables. Drunk and not wanting to do what he told her, Sally kicked him in the face three times. When police arrived, she threatened to kill them” (Wikipedia).

In short, Sally McNeil was one crazy lady!

Yet, one of the things that most stood out for me about Sally’s life was how frequently she sought out black men as boyfriends and for marriage. For example, Sally got into trouble with her mother as a teenager when it was discovered that she was dating a black guy. Later, after she joined the military, she married a black man who she alleges had repeatedly abused her. Her second husband, another black man, not only physically beat her on many occasions, but did the same to her children!

You’d think that Sally would have learned by now to avoid black males altogether, especially ones who were violent and criminal. But her many years in a California prison, apparently, did little to sober her up to racial realities. When she was released in 2020, Sally went on to date and eventually marry another black man (Norfleet Stewart). Think about it: Sally literally brought enormous levels of dysfunction and violence upon herself and the lives of her children because she couldn’t stop chasing after black men!

I don’t know if the same pattern of violence will continue in this more recent marriage of hers or not, but for me it underscored yet again just how racially naive and foolish so many white women are to date and marry black men who have a long and documented history of domestic violence, rape, murdering their white spouses and white girlfriends, and of abandoning them and any offspring that’s produced.

It’s not that white men haven’t done the same, but the crime statistics show a hugely disproportionate number of violent and sexual crimes committed by black males.

These same white women utterly devalue themselves by pursuing black men, and they throw away their precious European genes to produce mongrel children who often don’t quite fit into either black society/culture or white society/culture. The threat that miscegenation poses to the future of European whites staggers the mind when one stops to think about it.

Large numbers of whites may speak positively about miscegenation in the presence of others, but in their personal lives they are determined never to do it. They know, perhaps instinctively, that it’s wrong or, at least, wrong for them. It would not be unusual for white males to be racially triggered at the sight of a black and white couple. I suspect it happens more often than people think. Our internal defense system, it seems to me, subconsciously recognizes when something is not right, and it would be a natural reaction to view such relationships as contrary to the natural order or perhaps even dangerous – particularly if one looks at the FBI crime statistics!

The 1933 film, King Kong, is considered by many to be one of the most iconic movies of all time. Moviegoers at the time were horrified by the sight of the beastly primate clinging to the Empire State Building while clutching in his swarthy hand a white lady (actress Faye Wray) after his destructive tour of Manhattan before finally being killed. The savage gorilla provided a sharp visual contrast to that of the beautiful white woman. King Kong is aesthetically ugly, violent and primitive. The white woman is aesthetically attractive, innocent, as well as socially and culturally civilized. One did not have to be told that the gorilla was physically abhorrent when compared to the white woman. It was patently obvious. The only ones who might deny it would be the blind, the mentally deficient, or shameless liars and propagandists.

It’s no stretch, then, in the minds of many people who experience a similar revulsion at the sight of a black male romantically involved with a white woman, particularly if any physical affection is displayed. Whites may claim to not be bothered by such unions, but I’m inclined to believe that such opinions are more the result of propaganda and the suppression of what they really think. No westerner wants to look like a bigot to others even though inwardly they may harbor what is considered by society to be bigoted opinions. We are all inclined to restrain ourselves from expressing what we really think or feel about such racial unions because we know the consequences for doing so.

Yet it doesn’t detract from the reality that most whites are not inclined to pursue a racially mixed marriage or relationship unless there is tremendous social and cultural pressure placed on them to do so. It doesn’t come easy, and this may explain why Hollywood and every media outlet does all in its power to glorify race mixing. They’re not content with suggesting it nor speaking in glowing terms of its virtues. No, they must constantly confront whites with it. Every television commercial must portray a racially mixed couple. The benefits of miscegenation must be extolled continually. Black and white unions must be ‘celebrated’ and universally deemed as ‘perfectly normal.’ Whites who choose to do otherwise and prefer those of their own race are labeled ‘xenophobic’ or ‘white supremacist.’ The Left must guilt and shame every last white person who fails to comply.

The push toward miscegenation isn’t a recent thing either. It can be traced to at least the 1967 film, Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, starring Sidney Poitier, Katherine Hepburn, and Spencer Tracy.

Despite the push for unnatural unions, our Bolshevik elites are fighting an uphill battle at every turn. We are not as naturally inclined to date, marry and produce children outside of our own race. Yes, there are many whites who engage in this sort of thing (mostly white women), but it’s not as common as one might be led to believe. The greater number of white women, for instance, are not particularly drawn to Asian men. This could be due to the perception that they are viewed as less masculine than black and white males. I would tend to think their more reserved and seemingly less confident personas may conflict with what many women desire – namely, men who are tall, who possess strong masculine traits, and who exude social confidence. Granted, some Asian men do, but the general perception seems to be that Asian men are much too polite and reserved and this may cause them to be less desirable in the eyes of white women.

White males are not generally attracted to black women. These kinds of unions are comparably rare. I would even say that the greater number of them are repulsed by black females unless they are unusually attractive with light-skinned features (e.g., actress Halle Berry). But even then, it’s rare for white males to marry black women. Black women with very dark pigmentation, in fact, seem to be universally rejected by white males. The black wife of former mayor of NYC, Bill de Blasio, is typical of the kind of black woman I’m referring to. Everything about her is visually repugnant, and most men with good eyesight and sound judgment would not be inclined to produce children with such a beast. De Blasio’s marriage to Chirlane McCray, then, was both unusual and rare.

Many black men find even their own black women to be far less desirable compared to white women – a frequent complaint on the part of many black women. This is mostly the fault of the modern black woman who is often marked by an overly aggressive persona, seemingly high testosterone levels, foul-mouthed, morbidly obese, and often completely deficient of the most basic social graces and femininity. Is it any wonder why so many black men turn to women outside of their own race?

Black women are outclassed in every conceivable way when compared to the infinitely more attractive white woman (assuming they are not obese nor afflicted with same problems as black women in terms of being brutish, loud-mouthed, rude, or lacking femininity) and Asian woman. Russian and eastern European women seem to have what a lot of men want in that they are trim, very feminine, genuinely seek marriage and motherhood, and appear not to have been poisoned by ‘woke’ rhetoric nor the kind of radical feminism that prevails in the West.

The kind of white woman, generally, who seeks out black men tend to be young and racially naïve. White college girls often fall into this trap as they are aggressively pursued by smooth-talking black bucks. For some, it’s a form of rebellion against their conservative father. Most of these white girls engage in dating outside their race for the simple reason that they’ve been endlessly propagandized by racial ‘diversity’ lies and see nothing wrong with it. They have no reason to date or marry only those among their own race. They see no benefit to it. They haven’t the foggiest notion about racial realities nor understand the importance of preserving one’s racial ancestry. They don’t even have a framework in which to make sense of such matters even if it were carefully explained to them.

A good many of these white women who mix with black males are morbidly obese. Walk through any big city in America, and you’ll witness it for yourself. Although they’re generally rejected by white males, they’re gladly welcomed by black men who practically worship their rotund bodies, ginormous buttocks, and all the jiggling cellulite that one could straddle.

Perhaps it may be due to a greater acceptance among American blacks of fat people? Or maybe it’s just a widespread preference among black males for larger women? Although I wouldn’t rule out such possibilities, I’m inclined to think that when black males secure for themselves a white woman – even a repulsive ham-beast as previously described – it’s seen as a step up for them. It improves their lot in life (or so it seems) and increases their status among other black males. Consider, for example, how many black male celebrities and sports stars surround themselves with white women and end up marrying one too. Much of this is due to the superior beauty of white women, no doubt, but there may also be a signaling of one’s wealth and status to others as well.

Yet, for the white woman, it devalues her. It’s a step down, not a step up. She throws away her genes, including her racial heritage. Truth is, it’s a huge turn off when white guys discover that their girlfriend had previously dated or slept with black guys. As the saying goes, “Once you go black, we don’t want you back!” Contrary to current thinking, a normal guy doesn’t want to wife-up a woman who has a high bed notch, especially if those same notches came by way of the typical pants saggin’ black ghetto thug!

White women who date black men place themselves in a precariously dangerous relationship as Sally McNeil discovered. The number of news reports of black men severely beating, disfiguring and even murdering their white girlfriends is at astonishing levels. Mainstream media outlets, as one might expect, do their best to downplay such stories or ignore them altogether. For instance, a simple Google or Duck Duck Go search of “Black man murders White girlfriend” will instead provide page after page documenting occasions where white women killed their black boyfriends or white men who murdered black males because they made sexual advances toward their wives or girlfriends. Rather than finding precise articles about black-on-white female violence, one is instead bombarded with articles on the history of lynching in America, the death of Emmett Till, or stories about ‘Central Park Karen,’ etc. This is not meant to deny that white women have on occasion killed their black boyfriends, but it’s comparatively rare when one considers the staggering number of white females who have been ruthlessly beaten and murdered by their black lovers.

If one wants to find reliable and detailed information on the rising crime statistics of black males who have murdered their white girlfriends, the American Renaissance website edited by Jared Taylor is a good source. Paul Kersey has written a plethora of sobering articles on the skyrocketing levels of violence committed by black men against white females.

The danger that dating black men presents lies in the nature of blacks themselves. Having on average much lower intelligence compared to whites and Asians and coupled with high testosterone levels, including a persistent pattern of neglecting to consider the consequences of their actions (known to those in the human bio-diversity community as ‘poor future time orientation’), far too many black men in America have proven to be emotionally volatile and are easily triggered into violent fits of rage against their white wives or girlfriends when things don’t quite turn the way they want.

Black men also have a long history of abandoning their wives and children. The common notion of the missing black father or black children raised by a single mother with no father in sight is not ‘racist’ mythology as the Left would want us to believe. It’s evident in the astronomical numbers that plague every community or inner city where blacks live in the U.S. In the cities I worked in as a police officer, it was rare indeed to encounter an intact black family with an involved father. Most of the black women were single mothers and they complained constantly at the lack of financial support they receive from their ‘baby Daddies.’

Entire generations of American blacks have been raised on government welfare and absent fathers is nothing new. This explains, at least in part, why a hugely disproportionate amount of the ‘wilding,’ looting, and murders that occurs in our cities is committed by young black males. They have no fathers present in the home to teach them about such things as integrity and basic morality nor to model such qualities before them. The greater number of them are being raised by impoverished single mothers (or grandmothers) who have no real influence or guiding hand on their sons.

This problem is evident even in the animal kingdom, and there are lessons we can learn here as well. Several years ago, for instance, 60 Minutes investigated the serious problem of young male elephant delinquencies in the Pilanesburg National Park (a game reserve in South Africa). The young elephant males and their mothers were separated from their fathers who remained at the Kruger National Park because of a growing population that the park could not sustain. What seemed like a simple solution turned out to be a nightmare.

In a fascinating account of what occurred, Fr. Gordon J. MacRae, writes: “Rangers at Pilanesburg began finding the dead bodies of endangered white rhinoceros. At first, poachers were suspected, but the huge rhinos had not died of gunshot wounds, and their precious horns were left intact. The rhinos appeared to be killed violently, with deep puncture wounds. Not much in the wild can kill a rhino, so rangers set up hidden cameras throughout the park. The result was shocking. The culprits turned out to be marauding bands of aggressive juvenile male elephants, the very elephants relocated from Kruger National Park a few years earlier. The young males were caught on camera chasing down the rhinos, knocking them over, and stomping and goring them to death with their tusks. The juvenile elephants were terrorizing other animals in the park as well. Such behavior was very rare among elephants. Something had gone terribly wrong. Some of the park rangers settled on a theory. What had been missing from the relocated herd was the presence of the large dominant bulls that remained at Kruger. In natural circumstances, the adult bulls provide modeling behaviors for younger elephants, keeping them in line. Juvenile male elephants, Dr. Horn pointed out, experience ‘musth,’ a state of frenzy triggered by mating season and increases in testosterone. Normally, dominant bulls manage and contain the testosterone-induced frenzy in the younger males. Left without elephant modeling, the rangers theorized, the younger elephants were missing the civilizing influence of their elders as nature and pachyderm protocol intended” (“In the Absence of Fathers: A Story of Elephants and Men,” Beyond These Walls, 6/20/2013).

If the same problem of fatherless boys exists in America’s Black communities – a significantly deeper and wider problem than that of rogue elephants on a game reserve in South Africa – how likely is it that racially naïve white women will choose a black man as their mate who isn’t also a criminal thug or who hasn’t been previously incarcerated? If a healthy marriage was never modeled before him by his own parents, what are the chances of having a functional marriage with such a person? Since character and personal integrity plays no meaningful role in the lives of a hugely disproportionate number of American blacks as is evident in their crime statistics and incarceration rates, what sense does it make for any white woman to look to them for a potential life partner?

Black males become particularly volatile when it dawns on them that they are about to lose their white princess, especially so if he realizes that he will never again snag such a pretty white woman. This reality provokes many of them to savagely beat and in some not-so-rare instances to brutally murder their white lovers. Why any white woman would want to take such risks in dating a black man is beyond me. But most of them know little or nothing about racial differences nor the unstable and eruptive nature of black men in America. Modern ‘diversity’ lies, then, help to keep our women blind to the real and ever-present danger that black males in America pose.

Finally, there is an entire set of unique problems that producing racially mixed children brings. Offspring from a black and white couple tend to be racially confused as they grow older, especially in their later teens as they try to figure out just who they are. As mulattos, they don’t quite fit into either a black or white racial paradigm. Often, they feel inferior or inauthentic. Though they tend to favor their ‘black side’ in terms of culture, music or personal identity, they are not always seen as ‘truly black’ by their black peers. This often results in a mission to prove their ‘blackness’ which may explain why mulattos are seemingly always out to show to their racial kin that they’re ‘down for the cause.’ Many of them turn out to be radically pro-black and determined to prove that they’re the ‘blackest’ of the blacks. I’m not a psychologist, but it sure smacks of some kind of identity crisis that they’re undergoing.

Finally, there’s evidence that mixed-race people have higher rates of mental health issues, including that of substance abuse. For instance, a multi-authored article published in the Journal of Youth and Adolescence concluded that “multiracial youth were found to have higher levels of mental health issues than their monoracial minority and majority peers. Specifically, multiracial youth had higher levels of depressive symptoms than their African American and Caucasian counterparts. Multiracial and Caucasian youth had similar levels of anxiety, but these levels were significantly higher than African Americans” (“Examining Multiracial Youth in Context: Ethnic Identity Development and Mental Health Outcomes,” 8/7/2014).

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

Kingdom Scum: Let’s Contrast Unimportant Southport and Rotherham with All-Important Auschwitz

/8 Comments/in /by

“Utter scum.” That is how the libertarian Tom Slater has described the Southport killer Axel Rudakubana. Slater is blustering and evading the consequences of his own ideology. He’s doing the same when he calls Rudakubana an “eighteen-year-old Brit.” Rudakubana is obviously not British, but that’s precisely why Slater calls him that. Like all his comrades in the Spiked collective, Slater has always believed in what the leading hate-thinker Vox Day calls “magic dirt,” namely, that birth on the territory of a Western nation has the magical power to transform Third-World folk into fully authentic Westerners. Because they believe in magic dirt, Slater and his comrades cannot admit the obvious: that importing Third-World people inevitably means importing Third-World pathologies. No, Slater has to pretend that pathological non-Whites like Rudakubana are somehow “Kingdom scum,” that is, people who truly belong in the United Kingdom but wilfully act as though they’re living in Rwanda or Libya.

Betraying his Jewish mentors

I mention Libya because there’s an obvious parallel between what Axel Rudakubana did with a knife in Southport in 2024 and what Salman Abedi did with a suicide-bomb in Manchester in 2017. Rudakubana’s parents were granted “asylum” in Britain from Rwanda before their British-born son slaughtered White children in horrific fashion. Abedi’s parents were granted “asylum” in Britain from Libya before their British-born son slaughtered White children in horrific fashion. The magic dirt didn’t work, just as it didn’t work for the many other British-born non-Whites who have inflicted grossly disproportionate harm on Whites down the decades. Tom Slater calls those malefactors “utter scum.” I would call them entirely predictable products of Third-World immigration.

But Slater is doing more than blustering and evading in his polemic against Rudakubana. He’s also betraying the proud intellectual tradition established by his Jewish mentors, the Hungary-born sociologist Frank Furedi and the Ukraine-born revolutionary Leon Trotsky. “Utter scum” is not a scientific term in any sense. It’s a wilfully anti-intellectual refusal to face reality. Slater really must find time to sit down and have a talk with Frank Furedi about Frank’s birthplace of Hungary, which does not suffer from any of the pathologies regularly condemned by Frank’s disciples at the Spiked website. There have been no Rwandan stabbers slaughtering White schoolgirls in Hungary. And no Libyan suicide-bombers blowing up White schoolgirls. No Pakistani rape-gangs preying on White schoolgirls. No Jamaican rapists preying on elderly White women. No Arabs machine-gunning White cartoonists for blasphemy in Hungary either. No Chechens beheading White schoolteachers for blasphemy. No Afghans licking blood-stained knives after slaughtering White women. And no Afghans throwing flesh-eating alkali into women’s faces.

Hungary’s secret sauce

But how on Earth has Hungary escaped the pathologies that plague Britain, France and other Western nations? Well, as Frank will surely explain to Tom, it’s because Hungary has stumbled on an amazingly effective way of preventing Rwandans, Libyans, Pakistanis, Jamaicans, Arabs, Chechens, and Afghans from reproducing the vibrant traditions of their ancestral lands on Hungarian soil. Tom will gasp in amazement as Frank gives him the jaw-dropping recipe for Hungary’s secret sauce:

  1. Take a proud and peaceful White nation.
  2. Do not add Third-World people or Muslims.
  3. Continue to be a proud and peaceful White nation.

Yes! It really is that simple! If you don’t let Third-World people in, you won’t suffer from Third-World pathologies. Frank will no doubt remind Tom of a potent piece of folk-wisdom: Prevention is better than cure. Indeed, Frank will tell Tom there is only one cure for Third-World pathologies in a White nation, namely, the expulsion of Third-World people from that White nation.

After that eye-opening chat with Frank Furedi, Tom Slater will understand how wrong he is to use phrases like “utter scum” and how foolish he is to write words like these:

[Very Online right-wingers are] trying to make [the Southport killings] all about immigration, gesturing to Rudakubana’s Rwandan heritage, to the Dark Continent, blithely ignoring that he was born and raised in Britain and that white British kids — from James Bulger’s killers to 19-year-old Cameron Finnigan, the neo-Nazi Satanist who was jailed just last week for encouraging young girls to commit suicide online and possessing terror materials — are well represented among Britain’s most depraved and sadistic inmates. (“The monster of Southport — and his enablers,” Spiked Online, 23rd January 2025)

In fact, “white British kids” are clearly under-represented among “Britain’s most depraved and sadistic inmates.” Non-Whites like Axel Rudakubana punch far above their demographic weight in depravity and sadism. And contra Slater, nobody is “ignoring” that Rudakubana “was born and raised in Britain.” On the contrary, “Very Online right-wingers” have made that fact central to their mockery of migration-enthusiasts like Slater. They’ve responded very effectively to claims that Rudakubana is “British” because he was born in the Welsh city of Cardiff. They’ve simply repeated a saying that was first used in the 1960s (or earlier): “If a dog is born in a stable, that doesn’t make it a horse.” Elsewhere, the Very Online right-wingers at Gates of Vienna have adapted a famous meme to salute Rudakubana’s handiness with a knife:

How Gates of Vienna “ignored” Axel Rudakubana’s birth in Cardiff

As I mentioned at the beginning, Vox Day created the term “magic dirt” to satirize the idiotic and irrational belief that merely being born on the territory of a Western nation somehow has the power to transform non-Whites into fully authentic Westerners. And I myself was being sarcastic when I said that Frank Furedi would give Tom Slater the recipe for Hungary’s secret sauce. As you would expect, the mentor Furedi is as dishonest and evasive about Third-World migration as the mentee Slater. When Furedi was defending Viktor Orbán and the Hungarian government against the regular accusations of “anti-Semitism” and “fascism” made against them by the European Union, he contrasted the threats to Jews in Western Europe with the peace that Jews enjoy in Hungary:

If the prevalence of anti-Semitism in a nation is going to be the criterion by which we [condemn] a government, then Hungary should come way behind France, Britain, Germany, Belgium and Sweden. In France and Belgium, Jewish restaurants are often guarded by the police; there is no need for that in Budapest. In Berlin, Jews wearing kippahs face threats and even violence. Not in Budapest. (“The EU’s shameful crusade against Hungary,” Spiked Online, 12th September 2018)

But Furedi didn’t point out the obvious reason for this contrast: that France, Britain, Germany, Belgium and Sweden are heavily enriched with Muslims and Hungary isn’t. Thanks to his refusal to discuss Third-World migration, Furedi failed to make the best possible case for Hungary. He said that “Hungary is no less democratic and no less free than other European nation states.” In fact, Hungary is much more democratic on a fundamental question of national sovereignty and survival. In Hungary, the government obeys the will of the people on Third-World migration. Hungarians don’t want it and don’t get it. In all the other nations he named, the people haven’t wanted it but have nevertheless got it, decade after decade after decade.

“Roma rights campaigner” steals millions

Furedi also got it wrong when he said: “Roma people face considerable socioeconomic problems in Hungary, but their position is far better than it was under the previous Socialist regime.” In fact, Roma don’t “face” but create “considerable socioeconomic problems” in Hungary, thanks to their low average IQ and high average criminality. However, they do much better in Britain, because the welfare system in Britain is much more generous and much more easily defrauded — for one example among many of Roma doing well in Britain, see the story at the BBC of a “Roma rights campaigner jailed for £2.9m benefits scam.” Furedi did not point out that Roma are non-Whites who have been notorious for their criminality and failure to integrate ever since they first reached Europe from India in the 1300s. In other words, the magic dirt hasn’t worked in seven centuries. Roma set the lamentable precedent for the much larger numbers of non-Whites who followed them in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Why does Frank Furedi not discuss or condemn non-White immigration? It’s simple: because he has a typically Jewish enthusiasm for what one of his disciples coyly calls “a liberal migration policy.” Another of his disciples, the Indian Muslim intellectual Kenan Malik, has joined Tom Slater in being evasive and dishonest about the Southport killings. But Malik was more sophisticated than Slater. He didn’t condemn Axel Rudakubana as “utter scum.” Instead, he followed his usual tactic of blowing smoke and sorrowfully intoning that it is all very complicated. He lamented how the “fraying of social bonds has been compounded by the paralysis of state institutions.” He wrung his hands over “a nihilistic desire to cause carnage and mayhem, distress and pain.” He shook his head sadly at how the “catastrophic failure” of “state institutions” is a “recurring theme” and pointed to “Salman Abedi, the Manchester Arena bomber, who again in a horror attack targeted young girls idolising a pop star — in this case, Ariana Grande — was known to the authorities, family, friends and community leaders having all contacted the police.” Alas, alas! “No action was taken.”

No “recurring theme” in Hungary

But Malik didn’t point out the other parallels between Rudakubana and Abedi: that both were the British-born sons of parents granted asylum from violent Third-World nations riven by “a nihilistic desire to cause carnage and mayhem, distress and pain.” He didn’t mention the “distress and pain” caused by non-White rape-gangs in Britain. And he failed to note that his “recurring theme” is found in all White nations enriched by Muslims and other non-Whites. But rape-gangs and “recurring themes” of nihilistic violence don’t exist in the White nation of Hungary. Why not? Like Frank Furedi and Tom Slater, Kenan Malik knows perfectly well why not: because Hungary hasn’t been enriched by Third-World immigration. Hungary doesn’t have to endure Third-World pathologies because the Hungarian elite has never allowed Third-World people to invade its territory.

The United Kingdom is entirely different. The political elite here allowed the Third-World people to begin invading British territory soon after the Second World War. And our symbolic elite in the British royal family did nothing to defend the true British — namely, the White British — against invasion. Instead, Queen Elizabeth II and her successor Charles III have utterly betrayed their White subjects, as I’ve pointed out in my articles “Elizabeth the Evil” and “Chuck the Cuck.” The Lord’s Prayer, the most important prayer in Christianity, was first set out in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It asks that God’s “kingdom come.” But our supposedly Christian monarchs have worked night and day against God’s kingdom. In her coronation oath of 1953 Elizabeth II made a simple reply to a simple question. She was asked: “Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel?” She replied before God: “[This] I promise to do.”

Same reply, same betrayal

She then proceeded to utterly betray the oath she had made before God. At the beginning of her long reign, murder-and-rape-friendly Blacks and Gospel-rejecting Muslims began immigrating in large numbers into the United Kingdom. She did and said nothing in defence of her people and of the Christian religion. Towards the end of her long reign, it was widely reported that rape-gangs of Gospel-rejecting Muslims had been preying on large numbers of White girls for decades, ignored by the authorities. Again, she did and said nothing.

Elizabeth the Evil then died and was succeeded by her son Chuck the Cuck, who made the same reply to the same question in his coronation oath. Chuck then carried on betraying his people and his supposed religion as he had done all his previous life. But in January 2025 he made his betrayal even clearer. He gave a speech in which he asked us all to “recall the depths to which humanity can sink when evil is allowed to flourish, ignored for too long by the world.” He also shed tears for the victims of the evil of which he spoke. Now, did he make that speech in Rotherham or in any other part of his own kingdom where evil has been “allowed to flourish, ignored for too long by the world”? Did he shed tears for raped, tortured and murdered girls from his own White and historically Christian people?

Chuck the Cuck sheds tears for Christ-hating Jews in far-off Poland

Of course he didn’t. He’s Chuck the Cuck — he doesn’t serve Christ and the White people of his own kingdom, he betrays them. He made his evil-excoriating speech in the foreign nation of Poland, hundreds of miles from his own kingdom, and he shed tears for what happened to Christ-hating Jews eighty years ago in the Holocaust. Chuck the Cuck is not an intelligent or insightful man, but even he can understand that “the true profession of the Gospel” is not upheld by performing the goy-grovel before Jews, whose religion teaches that Jesus Christ is boiling in excrement for all eternity. By making that speech and shedding those tears, Chuck the Cuck has made his betrayal plain to the entire world. For our supposedly Christian King, Jewish suffering at Auschwitz is all-important and White suffering in Southport and Rotherham doesn’t matter at all. Tom Slater was wrong when he said that Axel Rudakubana is “utter scum.” But I’m right when I say that Charles III is a prime example of Kingdom scum, that is, of the treacherous elite which, like foul scum on clean water, lies at the top of society in the United Kingdom.

Trahison des clercs: civil servants waging class war on White Britons

/3 Comments/in , /by

In the aftermath of the jailing of Axell Rudakabana, the son of Rwandan asylum-seekers who massacred young girls outside a dance class in Southport, the authorities are doing their usual tactic of obfuscating and generalising. Society is being encouraged to attribute the horrific incident to ‘knife crime’ and harmful content online. Meanwhile, the vague but selective concept of ‘hate’ is used, more in reference to those reacting to the killings than to the killer himself.

How does a political establishment, which never tires of reminding us of the murder of Black teenager Stephen Lawrence three decades ago, manage to make White Britons the focus of criminal intervention, when this was clearly a case of anti-White racism? To the professional-managerial class, with its progressive (or rather subversive) values, racism is only perpetrated by White people. So a Black murderer found to have expressed motives of White genocide (and following an Islamist terror manual) was not racist – how could he be?

The only image presented in mainstream media of the suspect was a school photograph, depicting a smartly-dressed 12-year-old angelic choirboy. Not just a normal kid, Rudakabana had performed on a BBC television series. He was identified as the son of a Rwandan couple, given sanctuary in this country on fleeing the civil war (nothing was mentioned about his father’s role in this conflict).

Axell Rudakabana, Then and Now

In August last year, around the time of the Southport carnage, Yvette Cooper, appointed as home secretary in the newly-elected Labour government, ordered a review towards development of a new counter-extremism strategy.  The report was leaked to the Policy Exchange think-tank, who divulged its disturbing contents.

According to the official narrative, the Southport incident unleashed a wave of racist rioting across the land. The protests were certainly about more than the latest cause of outrage: the long-running scandal of Pakistani rape gangs preying on White working-class girls, previous random killings by migrants, as at Nottingham, instances of terrorism such as the Manchester Arena bombing, and the grossly insulting and expensive housing of illegal immigrants in four-star hotels. But the establishment view was summarised by a magistrate who jailed someone with the remark: ‘I have no idea what you were protesting about’.

The report referred to ‘alleged’ ‘grooming gangs’. The inverted commas around this term were not for the same reason that I use them. From my perspective, this is a shady euphemism to mask the truth of mass racially-motivated gang rape. From the institutional perspective, it’s because the existence of the gangs is exploited by the ‘far right’, so it must be doubted, if not invalidated. This is extremely offensive to the thousands of victims, who don’t feel ‘allegedly’ traumatised. And it defies fact: hundreds of Pakistani-origin men were convicted and jailed for abusing these girls. In some instances the rapists had referred to their prey as ’White trash’.

The concept of ‘two-tier policing’ is dismissed by the report as ‘right-wing extremist narrative’. White working-class people are not permitted to complain about the destruction of their culture and livelihood by institutionally-favoured immigrants. Indeed, the report focused on boosting existing protection for minorities under the Equality Act. Furthermore, it opposed the outgoing Conservative government’s policy to abolish police recording of ‘non-crime hate incidents’. Labour ministers want to curb expression of allegedly Islamophobic and anti-Semitic ideas, whether lawful or not. Denigrating White people is fine, to the extent of barring them from jobs or services, or blaming them for being stabbed, raped or murdered.

A new offence of ‘harmful communication’ likely to cause psychological harm is recommended by the report. The scope of extremism is to be broadened to include misogyny and conspiracy theories.  The establishment is determined to shift the focus from the racially-motivated Black and Muslim violence to make the White working class the biggest threat to a multicultural society.

A few days ago Unity News Network revealed that a hotel in Loughborough owned by a senior civil servant has been repurposed for housing illegal immigrants. Irfan Hemani, a deputy director for cyber security, is profiting from the huge taxpayers’ burden of this relentless influx.  But it would be a mistake to see this primarily as a problem of Muslims abusing positions of power to support an Islamic takeover of Britain.

The real problem is that the civil service is run by the White progressive class, whose treachery to their country and fellow citizens is boundless. They despise the White people below them on the socio-economic hierarchy. They would probably regard Axel Rudakabana as a victim of his upbringing in a racist country. The worst crime, in their eyes, was not the stabbing of eleven innocent primary-school girls, but the ordinary White folk who dared to complain. This is truly le traison des clercs.

Destination 1982: Wilmot Robertson’s “Ventilations” Then and Now — Part 2 of 2

/5 Comments/in , /by

Go to Part 1.

4598 words

Reshaping and Reordering a Decadent United States

Clearly, “Kosher conservatism” is what we today call neoconservatism (and neocons). “Militant liberalism” certainly foreshadowed the feminism, DEI, LGBTQ+, illegal immigration, BLM, critical race theory, global warming and ESG (environmental, social, governance) movements that have divided (and conquered?) this country’s people. Robertson was on to something! While all these movements probably could be called “Kosher” or “Kosher certified,” we probably won’t hear that description from the Trump GOP party as it postures now with a reactionary pushback to the Left. You can, though, find the collaborations from author Scott Howard, who Robertson surely would have supported in the hypotheses of his two books, The Transgender-Industrial Complex and The Open Society Play-Book.

Before the convenience or the computer information age, Robertson’s Ventilations made a valiant effort at connecting the dots of the previous decade and expanding his TDM critique of Jewish power and influence. Before leaving this first chapter, here are some of his interesting takes:

  • The alliance of liberalism, equalitarianism and social Christianity has done more to weaken America in the last thirty years than all the machinations of all the Communist spy rings since 1917.

  • “If [old-line anti-Communists] want to see something Jewish and really conspiratorial all they have to do is turn on their TV sets.”

  • The low standard of living in Russia has also prevented any fanatic emphasis on the ‘good life’ and the soul-dampening materialism that automatically goes with such a philosophy. … In Short, the Russians are the modern Barbarians at the Gate, and we are somewhat in the position of the Romans. Rome [was] not destroyed by Germanic incursions until the internal rot had made resistance all but impossible.

  • We must attempt to root out the infection [i.e., the “disease that now grips America”] before it spreads throughout the American social organism.

  • The Soviet leadership … does not wish a showdown with world Jewry. Whenever Jewish propaganda gets too ruthless and overwhelming, Russia makes a few concessions. Whenever Jewish racial fury provokes some new outrage against Lebanon or some other Middle Eastern country, Russia supports the Arabs, but not to the point of brinksmanship. (my emphasis; consider Russia’s latest yielding on Syria as avoiding brinksmanship)

  • Meanwhile, to prepare the Soviet masses for a stronger line against the Israelis, the state-owned publishing houses release a series of books whose anti-Zionism can hardly be distinguished from czarist anti-Semitism.

Ventilations hit hard on the geopolitical events of the sixties, seventies, and early eighties. It gave a strong, condescending update to his conservative followers on the role of Jewry in Soviet Russia, and reported on the beginnings of American domestic agitation and cultural degeneracy. The final wisdom of this first chapter harks eerily close to today’s shaky predicaments and the warmongering towards World War III:

[If] Americans can be talked into pouring billions of dollars a year into armaments for Israel and cutting themselves off from Arab oil by fostering Jewish racism in the Near East, if Americans continue to act as the moral lepers of modern history by furnishing the weapons for the destruction of Egyptian cities (in the 1967 war), Lebanese villages and Iraqi reactors, then half of Russia’s military problem will be solved. Then Dostoyevsky’s farfetched dream of a Russian colossus astride the four corners of the earth will become less farfetched with every passing day.

On Religion and Social Sciences

Wilmot Robertson dishes out his attacks on Christianity, religion, and the social sciences in the second chapter of Ventilations. It is chock full of his personal insights and frank opinions — what he probably deemed as simple wisdom:

  • The few religionists who have an honest interest in our spiritual welfare offer us a god who is a mirror of our best instincts. The religionists who have more concern for ideas than people or more concern for their people than our people offer us gods who are likely to be mirror images of our worst instincts. (emphasis in the original)

  • It might be better for everyone — everyone, that is, except the religious professionals — if our faith came from the heart. But that isn’t the way religion works. … When it comes to the moral law, we prefer to lend our ear to otherworldly teachers.

  • [The] Moral Majority’s support of Zionist aggression in the Middle East, including massive attacks on civilians in Beirut, belies its name by putting  [the U.S.] on the side of immorality.

  • There is such a multitude of Christian denominations in America, such a strong tradition of church-state separation, that it would be difficult, if not impossible to obtain Christian unity for any cause. For this reason any realistic political movement should leave religious matters strictly to the private conscience.

Robertson clearly finds our Majority religion to be problematic in the way it’s been exploited to work against us in recent years. His boldest comments are found here after a short introduction that backs his hierarchical thoughts on Christianity; he notes that there are both higher and lower religions, “just as there are higher and lower civilizations and higher and lower men”:

Historians tell us that Jews were the greatest religionists. But the historians are wrong. Jews were not great religionists. They were great religious fanatics. Who else could have dreamed up such tribal deities as the genocidal Jehovah, the apocalyptic Marx and the totemistic Freud. Jews may or may not have founded the Christian sect — according the Pharisees, Jesus was a Gentile from Galilee —  but Indo-Europeans most certainly developed the higher religion known as Christianity. The composers of the greatest Christian music, the builders of the greatest Christian churches, the painters of the greatest Christian art, the expounders of the greatest Christian philosophy were not Jews. There were Indo-Europeans.

Christ may have preached to all men, but only men of the West gave him their minds as well as their hearts and remained true to him for more than fifteen hundred years. Jews anathematized him, Moslems unchurched him, Hindus ignored him, Chinese outlawed him, mestizos indigenized him, blacks syncopated him and the Soviet Union in 1917 abandoned and ridiculed him.

There is a wealth of suggestions here from Robertson on the Religion Question:

The perceptive Majority Christian who wants to preserve his religion should have only one response to the question, ‘What do we do about Christianity?’ … He must recognize that the West has provided the only biological framework in which Christianity has both prospered and endured. He must understand that, when a people’s culture is teetering on the edge of a precipice, race must be put before religion in order to save race and religion. (emphasis in the original)

He also lashes out on the social sciences working together with religious sects (“operated by minority and liberal shamans”) for “the purpose of imposing their own particular political, economic and social creeds on the Majority:

Drugs, pornography, the soaring crime rate and corruption at all levels are clear proof of the near-total failure of social scientists to spread anything more than moral nihilism, not only among their brainwashed student congregations, but among the population at large.

Robertson hopes that “the best Majority minds could recapture the social sciences and apply them to the improvement of human behavior … [thus providing] a chance of building a viable morality on empirical as well as metaphysical foundations.” But when the best of Majority minds cannot be easily discovered like Uncomfortable Conversations With A Jew can, Robertson’s third chapter gives us glimpse as to why: “The Censorship of Silence.”

Censorship In Action

Before former Louisiana State Legislature Representative Dr. David Duke had his book My Awakening banned from Amazon, before California State University-Long Beach Professor Emeritus of Psychology Dr. Kevin MacDonald, author of the famous trilogy on Jewish Group Evolutionary Strategy was banned from Twitter/X (see bottom of TOO website for individual books) and most of his books banned on Amazon, before the shadow-banning of 911Pilots.org founder and bona fide whistleblower Captain Dan Hanley (on X as handle @DanHanley4) or the de-platforming of countless right wing activists from their very own YouTube channels, Wilmot Robertson experienced tremendous difficulties promoting and selling the newly published TDM because of censorship. He begins this chapter with enlightening perspective:

In the past several decades the pro and con ratio of books written about minorities has been approximately 1,000 to 1. Two prominent additions to the bulging pro-minority library, the heavily promoted The Decline of the Wasp by Peter Schrag and The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics by Michael Novak, have amounted to little more than book-length racial slurs against the Majority.

Well, while it seems in 2024 that the entire American society (mainstream media, academia and corporate world) has mainstreamed anti-White racial slurs (or at least its implicit equivalent), today’s “Conservatism Inc.” resistance is still meek and ineffective due to the average person’s lack of exposure to well-written content like Wilmot Robertson’s. He talks a great deal about the trouble he had getting reviews, and “[s]ince reviews are the life blood of the book trade, there is little or no possibility at all of an un-reviewed book coming to the attention of the general reading public without a long, laborious, year-in, year-out promotional campaign that would consume more money and time than any small publisher could possibly afford.”

Robertson explains the various pitfalls that created the literary blockade against his masterpiece. His diligent efforts to engage library officials and book critics, to place TDM on consignment at book stores, to use paid advertising in newspapers, magazines and college publications, and his attempts to get the book listed in the Literary Market Place were extremely challenging and disappointing. His pain is felt in the myriad details conveyed in this chapter, and he concludes that this marketing failure

does not prove the abrogation of freedom of thought in this country. After all, the book did get published. But in the final analysis, what good is the freedom to write, if there is very limited freedom to publicize what one has written? If America’s largest population group is to be defended effectively against a torrent of minority racist propaganda, the rights defined in the First Amendment must apply to the dissemination of ideas as well as their expression.

His moving plea here is today suppressed by the ease in which the Jewish interpretation of this right is spread and enforced: “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom of reach,”[1] says Jonathan Greenblatt of the ADL.

No doubt, Robertson would not have been surprised to find this coming from the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. And although he did not specifically cite Jewish influence behind the campaign to silence his book, he did include one typewritten comment from the wife of a Jewish department store owner who returned her copy of TDM to Robertson. And he does state that her comment “does help to prove that at least some Jews take pride in the fact this censorship is so effective.” She wrote:

My pride in being an American Jew was never greater nor more profound than now, since I see where bookstores and decent Americans refuse to put your trashy literature (???) on their shelves. When you crack up, which you must eventually, maybe a Jewish psychiatrist will take pity on you and help you deal with your insanity. Too bad you’re so insanely jealous of those who have proven you less than adequate.

As is often the case, Jews take pride in their accomplishments but are utterly blind to the idea that their interests conflict with those of the Majority. Robertson adds his erudite comment on to her stinging comment:

There are many sources of pride in the human spirit, but this is surely one of the strangest, particularly in a country supposed to be a democracy and in a member of a race which is so overwhelmingly ‘liberal’.

And he finishes this chapter on censorship thus:

Members of the Cosa Nostra get away with homicide by the traditional practice of omerta. They never talk, and they see to it that witnesses never talk. The same code of silence is used very effectively by members of the publishing Mafia to murder ideas.

Forty years after Robertson published Ventilations, the Museum of Jewish Heritage—A Living Memorial to the Holocaust, hosted an event featuring Jewish historian Robert Rockaway titled “Kosher Nostra: The Life and Times of Jewish Gangsters in the United States.” One can wonder what the fallout would be if Robertson would have substituted the  term “Kosher Nostra” for “Cosa Nostra” as found in his book. One can only imagine the additional flak he would have received! We can say that we will never know, but that would be a lie. The presentation linked above is likely Jewish history intended for a Jewish audience, and goyim (i.e., non-Jews) are off-limits from making critiques on how odd it might be that a Jewish heritage site would celebrate ethnic gangsterism. But the included video presentation actually supports Robertson’s ethnic concerns when within the first seven minutes the speakers are stressing the point that large scale organized crime in America began with Jews and Italians. Of course, most Americans today only associate the Italians with the Mafia, since Jews have been the predominant producers of Hollywood’s movies and kept these details hushed.[2]  In the end, it was more than just “ideas” that were murdered in the lust for money, territory and power. During the same period that organized crime exploited the American prohibition on alcohol, Palestine and Russia were both being overtaken by the same ethnic cabal. See my articles “Destination 1922” and “Destination 1933” on these conflicts.

Other Topics Covered

A lot of ground had been covered in these first three chapters. The next ten were titled as follows: “The Loony Bin or the Great Watergate Purge,” “The High Grading of Henry Kissinger,” “Harsh Advice for Young Majority Activists,” “Productive Activity for Majority Undergraduates,” “A Search for Mental Coordinates,” “Why, for the Time Being, Nothing Much Can Be Done,” “Homage to Kemal Ataturk,” “A Second Life for Women,” and “The Utopian States of America.”

The gist of Ventilations is jointly a history lesson on the complex ways our enemies operate coupled with the guidance and advice of a guru who wishes the Majority to learn from its failings and have a fighting chance in its struggle. It is too late to ignore the mistakes of our past. And if there were ever a time to read this book, the time is now while right-leaning politics takes power in Washington, D.C. It’s  a time not to rest on one’s laurels. Robertson critiques the Majority:

We think individually when we should think collectively. We react when we should act. We whine when we should be positive and assertive. In short, we do everything but the right thing.” Incredibly, we are still immobilized by the story line the media feed us in ever larger doses. Because it says so in print, we actually believe that we are the oppressors, not the oppressed.” (my emphasis in both)

The fact is, the Majority no longer is the establishment, but the disestablishment. It no longer is an ascendant race, but a rootless agglomerate of the mentally and morally disarmed. Worst of all, it actively participates in its own downgrading.

Thinking Morally for Solutions

Robertson brings many solid points to his “search for mental coordinates,” and with his pragmatic nature he prescribes that “the Majority must begin to devise programs to put a stop to its dispossession.” Yes, a lot of today’s internet warriors might be thinking, “Easier said than done!” The opposition has over 10,000 non-profits and billions of dollars, while the racially conscious Majority has one hand’s full of charity groups, maybe a few hundred thousand dollars, and difficulty putting together a conference or hosting a dinner without getting attacked! Then again, maybe the time to attract new adherents and start up new programs really is today, after the 2024 election, where enough good people have had it with woke politics and its negative impact on traditional family life. Can today’s Majority heed Robertson’s admonitions and change for its future survival? Can they finally tolerate the scholarly writing of authors published in The Occidental Quarterly or the alternative narratives found on The Unz Review?

We must acquire the proper frame of mind…to direct the slow and difficult process of recovery.  We squirm at accusations of bigotry while refusing to identify our accusers as the authentic bigots. We retreat before allegations of racism by opponents who are the real racists.  We are deathly afraid to talk about racial solidarity, although it is the racial solidarity of others that has performed the miracle of our dispossession.

Robertson understood that the solution to our demise requires a revolutionary behavioral change towards unabashed courage. “If we are to win this war [against Western Civilization], we must conquer not only our enemies, but ourselves.”  And maybe that change demands a re-thinking of our past ideals:

We were once idealistic enough to believe that, at least on paper, all men were equal. Now we know better. Now we know that those who honestly believe in equality are likely to become the servants of those who pretend to believe in it.

That certainly sounds like the summary of George Orwell’s Animal Farm, doesn’t it? If only more of our people would read and draw lessons from masterful writings like that! Instead, we know that since the dawn of the movies, advancing to TV, then personal computer bringing us Facebook, Twitter/X, and TikTok, our people have demanded more from less of our time-space, and on smaller screens. While the internet and PCs were not even available to the public when Ventilations was published, Wilmot Robertson delivered a profound message that makes even writing this simple book review seem so very worthwhile. It’s the spirit at the heart of  this article, the patience that precedes glory:

The written word does not bring with it the immediate satisfaction of the spoken word. Nevertheless, it is the authentic seed of action. Your successors, the second — and third-echelon movers and shakers of future generations, will harvest the crop you have sown in your loneliness and tragic isolation. But instead of being depressed by such a thought, you should be aware that very few humans have ever had the priceless opportunity to be in at the start of a fateful attempt to save a great people from suicide. Your reward, although delayed, will be the greatest of all rewards, a niche in history. (emphasis in original)

I believe Francis Parker Yockey would have approved those words! And an inspiration like that could help multiple generations of our still-current Majority start playing the long game, just as our adversaries have, if Robertson’s wisdom and message spread.

Indeed, the dispossession of the European White race from America, its European Homeland and Western colonies — The Great Replacement — has been played out for many generations, and well over a century. Robertson ends his book urging us to use “morality as a weapon,” much like Dr. Kevin MacDonald always stresses how our opposition routinely conquers us by claiming the “moral high ground.”

What Would Wilmot Do Today?

While I write this book review, two of the most striking examples challenging our European-derived principles today are right before our very eyes, and Robertson’s spirit is surely wondering what’s taking the Majority so long to stake out the moral high ground. Most of the general American public that watches network news, CNN or Fox News, is inundated with one particular commercial so much that they probably could sing the accompanying jingle without a hitch. I’m talking about “1-877- Kars-4-Kids, donate your car today!” This charity is so successful that it’s likely that very few have not heard of it — but how many know whose kids receive the donations?  It’s not surprising that this non-profit spells “cars” with the letter “K,” since the organization is through and through Kosher in its focus, with donations funding (exclusively?) Jewish children’s organizations. And it’s no longer just cars that the charity takes on, but also boats, airplanes and real estate!

Along with that jingle, the American public has their heartstrings pulled multiple times per day to help these poor young innocent souls. The amount of advertising from this organization alone hints that they are a successful money-maker, and it would be no surprise to find that the ever-altruistic European-Americans are the predominant group rushing to open their wallets to help the “kids.”[3] Actually, it might move them more if they knew it was strictly Jewish children the charity was helping since Jewish victimhood has been drilled so well into the minds of Americans. One can only behold how well the drumbeating jingle works, and “pathological altruism” kicks in (as Dr. MacDonald might claim).[4]

But at the same time, 2024 and beyond saw the Jewish community’s majority both tacitly and overtly sanctioning the Israeli slaughter of innocent non-combatant Palestinian kids (because they’ll grow up to be Hamas combatants?), and any American protesting these disgusting war crimes is singled out as an “anti-Semite” and has their career or livelihood destroyed one way or the other by Jewish elites and their supporting organizations. Then, the same Jewish community sneakily takes your money to support their children from a charity goliath that uses kids to draw your sympathy. The cognitive dissonance could rattle the heads of anyone clued in to today’s real world, and it’s time somebody call them out on it. A reading of Ventilations might inspire the strong, intelligent and courageous of the Majority today to meme this hypocrisy into a truth movement supporting our children’s future. For some day, Majority children may be a despised minority just as Palestinian children today are being found under concrete rubble by the thousands.

Here’s another folly of “justice” foisted upon our minds that wasn’t quite at a mature state when Ventilations was published: The Israeli lobby approves the ongoing Palestinian genocide based on the October 7th Israeli hostage crisis and the 1200 allegedly killed in action. But for decades now the American people have been forced to accept hundreds of thousands, if not millions over time, of murdered citizens caused by the illegal drug trade brought in across our southern border as well as violent illegal immigrants and cartel networks growing in our Homeland.[5] Based on today’s Jewish logic we are forced to hear every day from the mainstream media (“all Palestinians are Amalek,” “destroy all of Gaza including non-combatant citizens”), Robertson might assert that Americans should have annexed Mexico or Central America over a decade ago when fentanyl deaths began to creep up. American government support for Israeli military actions certainly places our people’s lives and security into second place compared to foreign interests, and it’s now up to our people to speak intelligently on this delusional madness — wherever their voice can be heard.

Speaking up with what we have remaining in our First Amendment is one of our greatest challenges facing us when billionaire Elon Musk’s “X” social media platform obeys the wishes of a non-profit, the ADL. And that’s why if Elon wants to make a difference for the world, he too should invest a few hours in Ventilations and heed the important lessons taught in this collection of essays.

This direct mail fundraising letter received by the author at time of writing; Same organization inundates TV with lengthy infomercials targeting Christians; Is there any equivalent showing poor Christian widows or starving Palestinian children seeking money from the wealthiest ethnicity in the world?

 

Inside Ventilations the reader will find “An important message for Christians,” non-Christians, and in fact all Gentile Americans wishing to reverse the accelerating dispossession of White European-Americans from their Homeland.  Until we find the boldness to aggressively raise funds and build an organized-Majority explicitly for their interests, or until money and finances no longer are a factor in the big picture, Ventilations and TDM should be required reading for understanding the grave dilemma we face and brainstorming multiple paths towards our sanctuary. For the Millennials and Gen Z, just call it Diversity Training!

Final Thoughts Inspired by Wilmot

I’ll conclude my review of Ventilations by returning to the start of this article where I was surprised at the opening words of an older Jewish woman asking me straight off about holocaust movies: There hasn’t been a day since October 7, 2023, where “the [Israeli] hostages” haven’t been mentioned in the news. But in the paradigm I would like to see more widely known, I see the sailors and marines who survived the 1967 attack on the USS Liberty as the greatest hostages in our recent American history — hostages to our government’s lies and betrayals for 58 years now, whose PTSD must be unthinkable. Those military men were likely not all Majority members, but the suppression of their story by The System we live under today clearly shows that American civic nationalism is dead — a foreign nation matters more than American patriots serving our own country. We constantly admonished to “never forget” the Israeli hostages, but we are forced to forget the dead sailors who were left in a flooded gaping hole of a Navy ship attacked by Israeli military, or the dead servicemen shot up on the deck or murdered with napalm. So the next time I meet someone worth influencing at first greeting, I will follow the strong collective advocacy approach and say, “Have you visited USSLiberty.org?” instead of “Hi, my name is Sigurd!”

Until the USS Liberty survivors, such as author Phil Tourney, are given a standing ovation in congress greater than Netanyahu received, I encourage our readers to blindside others with a retort on “hostages” such as “Which hostages?” to grow a back bone for even stronger challenges against our demise — challenges that could help create a new word for Chutzpah, but exclusively reserved for European-Americans. Make USSLiberty.org a household name and charity that will bring reflection and perspective on what kind of collective will best suit our Majority interests now that sacrificed military men have been disgraced in favor of a hostile nation advertised as “our greatest ally.” With that moral compass redefined and polished, we can begin our own ventilations to guide us in our struggle.[6] Perhaps then “Hostages” will always be published with a capital “H” like the “Holocaust” is today in journalism, but it will signify even greater meaning for the European Man. It will serve as a memory that Westernkind was held Hostage in their own nation-states for well over a century while it fought massively destructive and fratricidal wars — later termed the Zionist Wars by our newly awakened people — until European humanity at last spoke.

Wilmot Robertson put it this way in Ventilations:

But one day, perhaps in five years, perhaps in fifty, the Majority’s decline will be pushed a little too far and a little too fast. Something will finally snap in the neuron network of some talented Majority politician. For the first time a Majority member with brains, character and ambition will divert his life-supporting drives to his race rather than to his career. From then on, the Majority curve will point up. The termite will then have to think seriously about moving to another mound and the fungus to another tree.

Clearly, that “Majority politician” will have to have protection from blackmail or assassination, the enemy’s favorite tactics when bribery via campaign contributions or ostracizing fails.

January 21, 2025 post script: President Donald Trump, who took office yesterday, probably is not that man. But maybe he will fertilize the soil that will create him!

[1] https://x.com/JGreenblattADL/status/1511331730594095107

[2] See An Empire of their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, Neal Gabler, (1988) https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/118657.An_Empire_of_Their_Own

[3] Their mission statement as filed on their 2021 IRS form 990 stated:
“KARS 4 KIDS FUNDS EDUCATIONAL, DEVELOPMENTAL, AND RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS FOR JEWISH YOUTH AND THEIR FAMILIES. OUR GOAL IS TO FOSTER A GENERATION OF WELL-BALANCED, PRODUCTIVE ADULTS. OUR MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL IS TO PROVIDE CHILDREN AND THEIR FAMILIES WITH A STRONG NETWORK OF PERSONAL GUIDANCE AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES, INDIVIDUALIZED TO THEIR NEEDS. OUR WIDE ARRAY OF SERVICES IS DESIGNED TO MAXIMIZE EACH FACET OF A CHILD’S DEVELOPMENT — ACADEMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL.KARS 4 KIDS’S OVERALL AREAS OF ACTIVITY CONSIST OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING, SCHOOL PLACEMENT, TUITION ASSISTANCE, MENTORSHIP PROGRAMS, CULTURAL ACTIVITIES, WEEKEND RETREATS, RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION, SUMMER CAMPS, RECREATION AND GUIDANCE COUNSELING.”

The “Gross Receipts” on this form indicate $234,009,826.

[4] See “The Personality System of Empathy,” Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition. Dr. Kevin MacDonald, p. 318, and “The Role of Empathy in Moral Communities: Altruism — And Pathological Altruism,” p. 381–391

[5] Please see and consider supporting the 501(c)3 non-profit “The Homeland Institute” for polling and surveys that better serve the Majority’s opinions and interests. It’s one of only a handful of such IRS-sanctioned organizations. See https://nida.nih.gov/research-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates#Fig3 for government stats on overdose deaths in America.

[6] Ventilate: to examine, discuss, or investigate freely and openly: expose (definition 2.a. Merriam-Webster dictionary)