Os jacarés do Haiti

/in /by

Coitado do cachorro! Dia desses um jacaré matou um cachorro que brincava com o seu dono no Parque das Águas, agradável recanto na capital de Mato Grosso, Estado da Região Centro-Oeste do Brasil. No período chuvoso, as enxurradas levaram o réptil para o lago do Parque. Matar o monstro ou removê-lo dali parece a coisa óbvia a ser feita. “Não!”, dizem os “ecoanjinhos”, para quem deveríamos compartir o mundo com os animais, de igual para igual. Afinal, homens e animais somos todos filhinhos da mamãe-terra, conforme pensam. Foi dado o nome de “César” ao jacaré. Considerada a questão de perspectiva mais aprofundada, fica evidente que não se trata apenas de um problema zoológico. Na verdade, César coloca a questão da presença do outro em nossas vidas. De fato, com o fim das fronteiras estatais por força da globalização, todo imigrante sente-se como um imperador em boa parte do mundo ocidental. Na enxurrada da imigração, milhares de Césares vieram do Haiti. O que fazer com tantos jacarés?
Os corregedores políticos não aceitam a expulsão dos jacarés. Uma brutalidade, forma injusta de discriminação na santa opinião deles. Não faltam advogados para defender jacarés, cobras e lagartos. (Além de seus honorários, claro, porque ninguém é de ferro.) Esses paladinos, amantes da fraternidade universal estão sempre à espreita. Sondam as palavras para identificar as ideologias e notícias falsas, os pareceres errados, os desacordos públicos, os crimes de consciência. Então enredam juridicamente toda desconformidade, extorquem os divergentes, demonizam-nos. E os inconformados passam a ser os “reis do ódio”, o “lixo branco”.
Pesam sobre nós a cultura e a política da submissão total à alteridade. O alterismo significa nova forma de ditadura. A ditadura alteritária é pior do que qualquer regime autoritário, pois os ditadores alteritários acreditam-se legitimados simplesmente por sobrepor o “Alter” ao “Auto”, ou seja, sobrepor os outros a cada um, mesmo quando o outro for um jacaré (literalmente).
Cuiabá deve reagir! Os cuiabanos não podemos esperar nada das autoridades. Ninguém entre aqueles no governo do município tem a coragem de dizer alguma coisa contra jacarés ou imigrantes indesejados. A própria Prefeitura opera contra nossa cidade: ela só contrata empresas que tenham empregados negros, geralmente haitianos. Ali predominam os interesses pessoais, familiares, eleitorais, negociais… Quem ousaria desafiar a Nova Ordem Mundial, opondo-se à invasão imigratória? Quem poderia afrontar sem temor as forças avassaladoras do globalismo? Quem se arriscaria a quebrar a moldura institucional que na mídia, na educação, na Igreja, na Maçonaria, na OAB, no STF como em todo o aparato jurídico do Brasil e de todo o Ocidente cerceia a livre expressão do pensamento, quando não politicamente correta? Como são cretinos os censores! Fomentar a censura a título de defender a democracia é muita cretinice, sem dúvida, a não ser para os próprios cretinos. E por que os violadores da liberdade de expressão calam as vozes da dissidência ideológica, política, cultural e até científica? A resposta é que o fazem para acumular poder. Aqueles que distribuem as raças concentram poder.
Foi preciso uma guerra mundial para que a imigração pudesse destruir a Alemanha, transformando-a numa “jurisdição” internacional de africanos, asiáticos, muçulmanos, todos devidamente obedientes ao poder judaico. Aliás, parece ter havido uma troca: os judeus deram a Europa para os árabes, que deram a Palestina para os judeus. No nosso caso, não será preciso mais uma guerra para a reafricanização de Cuiabá. Os negros são soldados da elite globalista na guerra híbrida. Sob o disfarce de refugiados ou imigrantes, eles cruzam fronteiras sem que precisem disparar nenhum tiro. Os paraguaios não conseguiram tomar Cuiabá, mas os haitianos estão conseguindo, dissimulada e impunemente. A mídia do estabilismo fez dos invasores seres intocáveis. Os intrusos são jacarés que vêm do Haiti, intocáveis como César.
Cuiabá também será deles, nós estamos perdendo Cuiabá. A capital de Mato Grosso foi entregue ao Haiti, como todo o Brasil. A nova lei da imigração faz do Brasil uma terra de ninguém, porque dá a qualquer bangalafumenga do mundo acesso ao que era o nosso território. Não, os legisladores responsáveis por tanta generosidade não são benfeitores da humanidade, não são imitadores de Cristo, embora assim se apresentem, aquando de eleições. Muitos deles, o principal deles inclusive, o mentor dessa lei antinacional, o senador Aloysio Nunes, são do PSDB, o partido de Aécio Neves, que não tem o psicograma exato de um santo. Na verdade, são canalhas, são traidores, são homens de negócio travestidos de políticos. Para esses idiotas, a mão de obra não tem cor. Se barata, se obediente, interessa. A transformação da nossa classe trabalhadora numa casta racial de negros não lhes diria respeito.
O animal humano pode ser pior do que qualquer outro. Quem já teve a propriedade invadida por sem-terras sabe que invasores humanos soem ser mais perigosos e destrutivos do que jacarés. Eis por que devemos controlar as fronteiras do Brasil da forma como controlamos as portas de nossa casa. O verdadeiro e fundamental planejamento é o da população, o qual teve buscar a unidade, não a diversidade. A política que permite o tráfico negreiro para o Brasil em pleno século XXI é suicídio étnico, é crime de lesa-pátria. Seus promotores ainda haverão de balançar na ponta de uma corda como traidores do Brasil. Mais negros significa mais desigualdade, mais conflito, mais racismo, mais criminalidade e mais cotas, muita cota. A solução para o problema do negro é muito simples: assimilação ou extermínio. Agora, na África do Sul, os brancos estão sendo exterminados, como o foram há mais de dois séculos no Haiti. Na República Dominicana, os negros levaram a pior (Massacre da Salsinha).
Quem não quisesse a guerra não deveria estar promovendo a alteridade racial de forma nenhuma. Aqueles que a favorecem fazem-no por ignorância ou ingenuidade. Mas também há, em altas e obscuras esferas do poder internacional, os que agem maliciosamente por interesses políticos inconfessáveis: desagregar sociedades, subverter a coesão social, inviabilizar o desenvolvimento de povos em formação, maquinando sempre a fragmentação étnica, para dividir e dominar. Devemos reagir ou acabaremos devorados pelo monstro da alteridade, que os globalistas criam como seu animal de estimação.
Vereadores tratam de empregar apaniguados na Prefeitura, empresários tacanhos buscam contratos superfaturados com o Município, autoridades da própria Prefeitura repicam o chavão da diversidade como “riqueza”. Inaceitável! Enquanto idiotas e traidores assim procedem, os jacarés continuam a chegar e se multiplicam. Perdemos a paz, mas podemos ganhar a guerra. Não há alternativa: sem luta, acabaremos como aquele pobre cachorro do Parque das Águas.
_____________________
Autoria: Chauke Stephan Filho: mato-grossense nascido em Cuiabá em 1960. Estudou Sociologia e Política na Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (PUC/Rio), Português e Literatura Brasilesa na Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso (UFMT) e cursou também Educação (pós-graduação) na Universidade de Cuiabá (Unic). Dedica-se ao estudo da sociologia do racismo e de conflitos afins como servidor da Prefeitura de Cuiabá. Nesta mesma Prefeitura, presta serviços como revisor de textos.

Preserving the White Majority in the United States: My 10-Point Plan

/14 Comments/in , , /by
From Counter-Currents, with permission.

Preserving the White Majority in the United States: My 10-Point Plan

Since Donald Trump was re-elected in November, many things that were rarely said in the mainstream are now being floated in public and taken seriously. Great examples include mass deportations, the US buying Greenland, Facebook ending its fact-checking algorithms, the phasing out of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, flipping New Jersey red, and restricting immigration from India. Three months ago, who in the mainstream was discussing, let along debating, such topics? Whatever faults Trump has—and he has many—being wholly part of the Washington uniparty elite is not one of them. And that is a good thing. This reminds me of the Khrushchev Thaw period following the death of Josef Stalin in 1953. For a time, ordinary people and Soviet elite alike were let out on a longer leash, and could engage in discourse that had previously been frowned upon or forbidden. Yes, it was more of a Thermidorian reaction than anything real, but it still opened the door for at least some changes and improvements to the Soviet Union.

Of course, it didn’t last. Mostly likely Trump’s thaw won’t either (they never do, do they?). This is why white advocates should take advantage of this period of greater openness while we can. In other words, it’s time to push the envelope, even if that means getting the enveloped shoved back into our faces by a president who might identify more as orange than white.

My suggestion, beyond what David Zsutty has given us in his excellent three-part series “What White Nationalists Want From the Trump Administration,” is to propose a bill in Congress which would, on paper at least, protect the US white majority in perpetuity through selective immigration bans, mass deportations, and pro-natalist policies. Outlandish, I know. A white US minority is the very thing the Left craves and the mainstream Right is too afraid to talk about—a political third rail indeed. However, there are upsides to attempting to sell such legislation to US congressmen during the second Trump term—aside from it actually succeeding, of course.

For one, whites these days are waking up to anti-whiteism, and so a proposed bill to protect the dwindling white majority at least won’t be unpopular among whites in red areas of the country. Such a proposition in 2025 would certainly not come out of left field, and would make sense to many. Trump has recently spoken against anti-white racism, and so have conservative mainstream pundits such as Charlie Kirk, Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, Laura Loomer, Michelle Malkin, Matt Walsh, and Mark Dice. The Hodge Twins as well as former MMA world champion Jake Shields recently featured longtime white advocate David Duke on their podcasts. Jared Taylor had his Twitter/X account restored and has garnered tens of thousands of followers. Patrick Bet David recently hosted Patriot Front leader Thomas Rousseau. And here’s a report from February 2024 about a Michigan lawmaker Steve Carra who led a sit in outside the Michigan House Speaker’s office to protest his state’s anti-white spending policies.

So if there ever was a good time to go public with a pro-white initiative like this one, it’s now.

Secondly, even in defeat, such a proposal will provide a surfeit of rhetorical victories for the Dissident Right and pro-white camps. Any congressman who ignores or opposes such a bill can be fairly branded as anti-white. Not only this, they can be accused of not just wanting a white minority, but actually contriving to attain one. If you are not in favor of a white majority then you are in favor of a white minority. There is no middle ground. Yes, most Democrats would reject such a bill out of hand, gladly admitting that they look forward to the day that whites dip below 50 percent in America. Joe Biden did just that back in February 2015. With today’s whites being less likely to tolerate anti-whiteism than ever before, record of such a refusal would certainly help damage a Democrat ticket during a general election.

But the main use of such a bill would be to hector, bog down, or at best replace weak-minded Republican lawmakers who would also reject the bill. How much would it cost, really, to primary a Republican congressman who refuses to consider a pro-white bill because the mainstream narrative tells him it’s racist? How hard would it be for even mainstream Republicans with a little pluck to ding an incumbent over his purported hostility towards whites? Remember, we are in the Trump Thaw at the moment. So what seemed beyond the pale of public discourse three months ago, may no longer be. With enough energetic, well-funded, aspiring politicians beating the white majority drum, establishment Republicans would have to at least give lip service before rejecting the bill. And the more people talking about it, the better—even if much of that talk is negative. And for all we know it could even work well enough to reach a vote on the House floor.

You can buy Greg Johnson’s White Identity Politics here.

Finally, there is the metapolitical change that such a bill promises to make. They say the process is the punishment, but in this case the process would also the reward. The goal here should not necessarily be to get the bill passed (although that would be great). The goal should be to introduce the bill into the long and arduous lawmaking process in order to make it its own news item. The goal should be to get people talking about it in the way the Soviet public began discussing the gulags after the publication of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich during the Khrushchev Thaw. The goal should be to get ordinary, everyday whites to begin to want or even expect a white majority in this country. They should consider it their birthright, given how the Founding Fathers were all white and the vast majority of people who have fought and died in America’s wars have also been white. And why not? Is there anything in the US Constitution preventing this country’s founding race from legislating its perpetual majority? Can that even be called racist? In the Trump 2.0 era, what really is preventing a critical mass of whites from adopting such a perspective? Nothing, I’d say. As I’ve pointed out above, all the signs are actually quite encouraging.

If you are reading this because you have white identity—even a secret one—and you’re not a researcher from the Anti-Defamation League or Southern Poverty Law Center looking to squeeze the vitality out of the entire white race, then ask yourself, why not? Why can’t whites discuss these things? Why can’t we expect such things? Are our jobs and incomes and social standings worth so much to us that we cannot at least throw a few shekels at politicians and pundits willing to buck the anti-white system and stand up for ourselves? Do we really want to live in a world in which we are outnumbered by hostile non-whites in our own hometowns? Is this the kind of world we’d wish upon our children and grandchildren?

If not, then . . . what are we doing?

Assuming that we all understand that we need to do something, is there a better idea than crafting some sort of incipient law and presenting it to prospective lawmakers who are willing to promote it while running for office? Now, I am not an attorney, and have little influence irrespective of that. But maybe somebody reading this does have influence and can make a difference? If so, then I offer a rough 10-point plan as a starting point. And before I get outraged comments about how my plan is some cucked Magna Carta, please remember that this is not a White Nationalist wish list, but a proposal for a real-world document to effect real-world changes in the here and now that even non-whites in America today could abide. It will basically be a promise from whites to non-whites to share the United States with them in good faith as long as the current racial proportions remain the same. It will be an effort to halt the white demographic decline, not to turn back the clock or start a race war. Thus, there will be compromises in it which many white advocates (myself included) will find odious. Please don’t let these get in the way of seeing the overall value of the plan.

Such a plan can go two ways: it can work or it can fail. In the former case, great. We won’t be back to 1960, but it won’t be 2020 either. Let’s split the difference and call it 1990, not exactly a terrible year in the life of white people. In the latter case however—which is much more likely—the heightened racial awareness of whites will necessarily increase friction with American non-whites, and will lead to one of two things: red state secession, which is the first step towards a white ethnostate, or (God help us) Civil War 2.0. Again, in the former case, great. And in the latter, we would at least have a fighting chance. This means that of the three possible outcomes of a bill like this, two and a half are positive. Not bad, right?

Anyway, here are my 10 points, and if someone thinks they can do better and still be realistic, I’m all ears:

BILL TO ENSURE THE PERPETUAL WHITE MAJORITY IN THE UNITED STATES

  1. Require bi-yearly censuses.
  2. Define white by “one-half not black” rule (at least one white parent, and no fully-black parent). For the sake of this bill, “whites” would include people of white European descent, Jews originating in Europe, and Caucasians from Central Asia.
  3. Employ self-identification to determine race, and agreed-upon genetic markers to determine race in case of appeals.
  4. Establish African Americans and Indigenous Americans as “demographically exempt” populations. (This means that their populations can fluctuate naturally and are not counted when calculating the proportion of whites to the general population. This would be a good thing for both populations and should be promoted as such.)
  5. Require that the white majority remain no lower than 80% of the US population minus the exempt populations. (Using rough estimates taken from Wikipedia, the United States currently has 48 million blacks and 7 million Indigenous Americans, making 55 million demographically exempt citizens. Subtract this from the 340 million total population to get a denominator of 285 million. Divide the 205 million whites in America by that to get around 72 percent. If such a bill were to be signed into law, the main focus of government would be to push that number up to 80 percent as soon as possible.)
  6. Require that, among non-exempt non-whites, no more than 10 percent of the US population be of Mexican, Central American, or South American descent. All immigration from these places will stop if this proportion grows above this percentage.
  7. Require that, among non-exempt non-whites, no more than 10 percent of the US population be of Asian or Middle Eastern descent. All immigration from these places will stop if this proportion grows above this percentage.
  8. Require that pro-white immigration and pro-white natalist policies be put in place until whites reach 80 percent of the total non-exempt US population.
  9. Require that all illegal immigrants as well as legal immigrants with a history of violent or serious crimes be deported.
  10. Ban all immigration from places of origin of racially exempt populations (i.e., Indigenous peoples from the Americas or blacks from Sub-Saharan Africa).

Given how the Trump Thaw has already allowed whites more leeway to discuss their own racial interests (and Trump hasn’t even taken office yet), I think my 10-point plan might push the envelope far enough but too far in order to get white people to act their own racial interests as well.

Oh, What a Lovely War!

/17 Comments/in , /by

It is important not to be romanticise war. Most people my age (I was born in 1980) had at least one grandfather who fought in World War II. When I was a child, I relished my grandfather telling me “war stories” of his time in Libya, Greece and Italy. But these were obviously highly sanitised. Once, when I was about 16 and we were watching a very realistic war film about the Normandy Landings, I looked over to him. His eyes were lachrymose and he was completely hypnotised by it. Obviously, there was a terrible side to the War which he had never discussed with me.

So, I do not say it lightly when I repeat the cliché that “What we need is a good war.” We need a good war because evolutionary psychology — in essence, the study of humans as an advanced form of ape with in-built adaptive drives — predicts that we need a good war. We are, I suggest, adapted to have a serious war every one hundred years or so. If we don’t have one, then we reach the situation that the West has now reached: polarisation, ethno-suicide, supreme decadence (including an invincibility complex with regard to war), maladaptive behaviour, and a general sense of dysphoria and ennui.

Before looking at the broader evolutionary mechanisms behind why we are adapted to have a massive war every century, let us look at what a war achieves.

In the absence of harsh selection pressures to be group-oriented, we can expect people to deviate more and more from the evolutionarily adaptive norm which, as I have shown in my book Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism, is to be conservative and traditionally religious: These strongly genetic traits are correlated with strongly genetic mental and physical health. As this deviation increases, you will get a society that is more and more genetically and mentally diverse, more and more polarised and, generally, less and less cooperative. After a certain tipping point, the deviants may even hijack the culture — as they now have — and push people along a maladaptive roadmap of life. A war forces us to unite or die, it pushes us down Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, it makes us less concerned about decadent things (like feelings and being validated); it halts the descent into insanity.

It is also an example of mortality salience; of closeness to death. This is our “evolutionary match” — we are adapted to an ecology where child mortality was as high as 50% — so death induces our instincts, which tend to be adaptive. These include religiosity, which gives us a sense of eternal meaning and tends to sanctify that which is adaptive as the will of God, and group-orientation, essentially conservatism. In other words, we become higher in positive and negative ethnocentrism when we are exposed to mortality. It also increases our desire to have children; hence the documented post-War baby-booms. A war reverses the slide towards leftism which seems to be inevitable, as conservatives are concerned with all 5 moral foundations — in-group loyalty, obedience to authority and sanctity (group-oriented) and equality and harm avoidance (individually-oriented) — whereas the left only care about the individually-oriented ones. This asymmetric empathy means that conservatives continuously cede ground to liberals. A war means that balance is restored.

According to the book Fourth Turning, such a massive war and economic collapse seems to happen every four generations; approximately every eighty years. It may be that there is a sense in which mortality salience remains vivid for as long as there is a generation alive that knew serious mortality salience: they pass on stories about it and behave in response to it. Once this generation dies out — as has the War generation in the West — then mortality salience has completely collapsed. Thus, the reset it required or we are overwhelmed by decadence and dysphoria

That reset should’ve occurred in about 2007, with the economic collapse akin to that of 1929. But we were so wealthy, our resources so abundant, that were able to avoid, or at least postpone, the normal consequences of such a massive economic bust. Multiple lines of research indicate that a war should’ve occurred at this point. Peter Turchin’s 2016 book, Ages of Discord, predicts, based on various markers such as “elite-over-promotion” (too many qualified people for too few places), that there should have been a war around 2020. Finnish scholar Jani Miettinen has advanced a model whereby humans, like animals, change in the average presence of certain hormones — such as testosterone and oxytocin — across four generations. This renders them slightly different in behaviour and size across generations, making them less easily predictable from the perspective of predator and prey, meaning the process is adaptive. When the high testosterone generation gets into power, we have a collapse, a war and a reset. This should already have taken place but it hasn’t, presumably due to our unprecedented resources.

This has two consequences: runaway individualism, until men can be women because they say they are and you can’t disagree as it might hurt their feelings, and a growing portion of the population who have a sense that everything is meaningless. And, of course, society is increasingly polarised and unpleasant.

Hence, it may be that, at the group level, humans are literally evolved to have a massive war every four generations. It is this that keeps them group-oriented, and thus adaptive (as computer-models show that ethnocentric groups defeat and dominate their rivals on average), across time. The attendant economic collapse, under harsher conditions, is also likely to ensure genetic health across time. Over four generations without war, genetic mutations will have accrued, with genetic poor health being associated with liberalism. With a collapse into harsher conditions, these mutants will be purged and group mental and physical health will be restored.

Generation Z do not have grandfathers who fought in a War. When they were born, the country was run by Boomers who had never known any serious mortality salience. This wouldn’t have mattered if the economy had collapsed in 2007, resulting in war a decade later. But it didn’t. This is why we have reached the dysphoria and insanity that we have. The children need some new war stories and for that we need a new war.

Strength in numbers, power or truth?

/15 Comments/in , , /by

In his Christmas speech, recorded in the secular space of the former chapel of the Middlesex Hospital, King Charles lauded the ‘great religions’. Although he quoted Gospel, the monarch is not the ‘defender of the faith’ as claimed in the past, but ‘defender of faith’.

Charles III is a leading proponent of a one-world religion, although he is careful not to use such terminology. More work must be done in schools to prepare upcoming generations for such incongruence. And of course the status of the ‘chosen people’ will not be undermined.

The abominations following the alleged Hamas terrorist act of 7th October 2023, with the massacre of civilians in Gaza by Israeli forces, supported by the UK, USA and other Western governments, have stirred another awakening. Writers like me, previously immersed in the Left versus Right paradigm, had seen through the establishment defiance of the Brexit vote, the climate scam, and the contrived pandemic, to realise that all politicians (whatever their colours)  are following the same agenda. But whose agenda?

In my book Moralitis: a Cultural Virus (with Robert Oulds, 2020) I described how the psychosocial affliction known as Woke’ spreads like a contagious disease. I traced this back to the subversive ideology of the Frankfurt School. For using the term ‘Cultural Marxism’ the book was vilified by online news media such as Vice for peddling anti-Semitic tropes.

Of course I was aware that the Marxist professors were Jewish – that’s why they fled Germany in the 1930s. But I regarded this as coincidental; I was naïve to the International Jews’ role in the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, and to the targeting of Germany by an element that obsessed Adolf Hitler. Until a few years ago, I would not have doubted official history of the Second World War.

I have no animosity to individual people who are Jewish, any more than to people who are Muslim. But as a Christian I have found the last fifteen months revelatory about the relations between the Abrahamic religions. First, it became undeniable to me that Zionists are bent on destroying Christianity.

The 35% Christian population of Gaza has been ignored by Western media.  It is abhorrent for any nation or community to be subjected to genocide, but would you not expect the likes of the Daily Telegraph or the Church of England to be more concerned with the blitzing of Christians and their places of worship? An uninformed Westerner could be forgiven for thinking that Palestine is a ghetto of extreme Islamists. Israeli government ministers have overtly described the people of Gaza as subhuman and exhorted their annihilation.

It is objectively true that Jews run the world. They control the banking system, academe, the media and Hollywood. They have incredible power over US politics. The UK is no different: both major political parties have close links to Israel, and soon a Holocaust museum and memorial will be built next to the Houses of Parliament. Schoolchildren are taught that the Second World War was all about saving Jews from the Nazis (when I was at school, the Holocaust was hardly mentioned; I heard that one-and-a-half million Jews perished; this was later increased to four million, and now six million).

If Jews are so powerful, what is their goal? Is it just greed? Most Jewish citizens are not unfathomably rich. But undeniably the upper rungs of institutions and corporations are disproportionately occupied by members of a religion that comprises merely 0.2% of the global populace. Or is it a strategy of world domination? Ordinary Jews have no designs on a New World Order with them as masters and all gentiles as servants. But an emerging technocracy, as propounded by the World Economic Forum, will surely be led by people who are already rich and powerful — many of whom are nominally Jewish.

More sinister is the perceived onslaught on Christianity. Again, I doubt whether ordinary Jews harbour murderous hostility to their Christian neighbours.  But powerful Jewish interests are behind the various means of the fall of Western civilisation: mass immigration using Muslims as storm-troopers, imposition of transgender ideology, the audacious Black Lives Matter campaign and ‘decolonisation’ agenda, the contrived climate crisis and Net Zero puritanism, and exploitation of health and safety fears to build a surveillance society.

My understanding, until recently, was that the Jews are distinct from Zionists and the nasty government of Israel. And for most people who actually practise Jewish relgion, that certainly holds. But the Jewish faith, with its identity as God’s special people, has been manipulated by malign agents into something more akin to the Synagogue of Satan.

Last year I came across a highly controversial speculation on Islam. The Koran is known for its many verses hostile to the Jews. Yet globalist NGOs and oligarchs such as George Soros keenly promote migration of Muslims to the West, and seem as concerned by Islamophobia as anti-Semitism.  The state of Israel draws widespread support from right-wing Christians, because it is apparently surrounded by nations of Islamic hotheads who would like to wipe it off the map. Shouldn’t Jews be less supportive of sworn enemies?

The aforementioned conjecture is this: Islam was a Jewish invention. That would understandably be deeply offensive to Muslims, and it would also be too far-fetched to be taken seriously by any mainstream commentator (or indeed most of the independent media). I shall leave readers to look into this more (don’t rely on Google), with the historical indicators. However, while I cannot say that I believe it, it makes some sense to me. In my journey from having no interest in the Jews, to viewing this group as architects of multiculturalism, I can see that Christians are foolish to think of Israel or Zionists as their friends.

Having crucified Jesus Christ, Jewish leaders were troubled by the propagation of Christianity in the following centuries. In the seventh century the Arabian merchant Mohammed was divine conduit for a new religion that would be spread by the sword. Its blatant hostility to Judaism is perhaps a cover for the real source and purpose of Islam.

The three Abrahamic faiths co-exist, mostly in mundane harmony, but sometimes in conflict. While Muslims recognise Jesus as a prophet, to the Jews he was nothing but a criminal and impostor.  Christians, who are taught tolerance to the nonsensical extent that they are not allowed to fight for their survival, are the butt of Talmudic disgust. Is it too much to believe that the Jews would create a massive army of outsiders to destroy the faith that they thought was extinguished on Calvary?

No religion is more dangerous than Christianity for its followers. That has always been the plight, but in the secularised world of today, the defences are so weakened  that the Jews may finally claim victory. But while the Jewish religion has the privilege of power, and Islam strength in number and zeal, Christianity has the trump card of truth.

Mother Mona Maligns Muslims: From My Egregious Errors to the Conspiracy for Greater Israel

/13 Comments/in /by

I had an interesting encounter the other day. It was with my own brain. More precisely, it was with subconscious mechanisms in my own brain. I was scanning the shelves in the non-fiction section of a library when a title-and-author caught my eye: The Ruin of All Witches by Malcolm Gladwell. He’s a Black Canadian author who’s both a lightweight and a leftist. But I find his books easy and enjoyable to read and I hadn’t heard of this one, so I took it down and looked at the back cover. It told me the book was “the story of a single witchcraft case in a remote New England settlement in 1651.”

Explaining the error

But that was puzzling. It seemed an odd (and oddly limited) choice of topic for Gladwell, so I looked at the front cover. This time I saw that the author was in fact someone called Malcolm Gaskill. But I’d distinctly seen “Malcolm Gladwell” on the spine when I was scanning the shelves. Primed by the context of “Non-Fiction,” the forename Malcolm and a surname beginning with G- and ending with -ll, my brain had imposed a kind of auto-complete on me and made me see what wasn’t there. But then our brains are always doing that. A lot of what we seem to see in front of us is stitched together inside our heads. We auto-complete, jump to conclusions, turn parts into wholes. And most of the time it works fine. Or it seems to, anyway. But occasionally we realize that our brains are leading us astray, as I did in that library. Only the dead never err. And that kind of error is innocent and unavoidable. Our brains sometimes betray us. That’s life as a limited, fallible human.

But my innocent error got me wondering about other errors I’ve made — ones that can’t be described as innocent and unavoidable. Take my article “Murder and Misogyny,” where I contrasted the Norman invasion of England in the eleventh century with the Soviet invasion of Poland in the twentieth. I argued that the Katyn Massacre, in which  22,000 of the Polish elite were shot by the invaders, wasn’t paralleled in England because the Normans were “a closely related racial group who practised exactly the same religion as the English.” The Norman Conquest wasn’t “like the conquest of Catholic Poland by atheist, anti-Catholic communists who were disproportionately drawn from non-Slavic minorities like Jews, Balts and Georgians.” That’s why, I concluded, that the British have never suffered “anything like the Katyn Massacre … because we have never had the conditions for it: occupation by hostile outsiders who despise our culture and want to subjugate us for ever.”

Ideology trumps honesty

But even as I wrote that, I knew that Britain had experienced something comparable to the Katyn Massacre. It’s called the Harrying of the North, a campaign of slaughter and starvation waged by William the Conqueror after rebellion against his rule in Yorkshire and other parts of northern England. Perhaps as many as 150,000 people were killed or starved to death, and the local elite was replaced by Normans. As I was writing about Poland and the Katyn Massacre, I thought to myself that I needed to discuss the Harrying of the North. But it would have complicated things and marred the simple contrast I was drawing between the communist conquest of Poland and the Norman conquest of England. So I found it easy to simply leave the topic unmentioned.

That wasn’t my brain erring, that was me erring. In other words, it wasn’t subconscious mechanisms in my brain making me misread an author’s name, it was my conscious self declining to be fully honest for ideological reasons. And I erred again when I claimed in “The Value of Victimhood” that the politics of Liverpool “have always been left-wing — sometimes very left-wing.” That was a lazy assumption helpfully corrected by a native Liverpudlian at the Unz Review, who noted that “up until the early 1970’s the city very often had a Conservative Party run council.” And a commenter at the Occidental Observer corrected another of my lazy assumptions after I waxed lyrical in “The Power of Pudenda” about a painting of the naked goddess Venus being worshipped on bended knee by heroes like Lancelot and Achilles. The commenter pointed out that “Every one of the men depicted was notorious for having cheated with someone else’s wife.” Yes, I was wrong about the painting: it wasn’t celebratory of sex, but satirical of sexual transgressors.

Mother Mona vs Grotesque Grunberg

I’ve made lots of other errors in my articles for the Occidental Observer, some inadvertent, some less so. Indeed, I must have made lots more errors than I’m aware of. I’m human, therefore I’m fallible. That’s why I question myself and my ideas about Western politics and culture. For example, am I right to say that Jews have a disproportionate negative influence on those things? Well, I think I am. Among other things, that belief helps me make accurate predictions. I made one of those recently when I read something at the anti-Islamist site Gates of Vienna:

The following video is excerpted from a panel discussion on Dutch TV featuring [Mona] Keijzer. The deputy prime minister made the mistake of referencing the Jew-hatred of Muslims, and got herself into a heap o’ trouble as a result. The other panelists employed several logical fallacies in their attacks on her, the main one being the claim that identifying a trait that is characteristic of a group implies that every member of the group possesses the trait. (“You Must Not Generalize About Muslims!,” Gates of Vienna, 19th December 2024)

When I read that, I hadn’t seen the video or read the transcript. But I immediately thought: “I bet one of Mona Keijzer’s pro-Muslim opponents was Jewish!” And I was right. Her chief opponent was Jewish. It was the prominent Dutch intellectual Arnon Grunberg, whom I’ve already discussed at the Occidental Observer. As I pointed out in “Atrocity in Amsterdam,” he’s one of many Jews who have claimed that Muslims and Jews are “natural allies” (natuurlijke bondgenoten in Dutch). Those pro-Muslim Jews don’t say against whom the Judeo-Muslim alliance is directed, but the answer is obvious: Muslims and Jews are natural allies against the wicked White Christians who oppress them both.

But some Jews disagree with Grunberg. They have a different answer to the all-important question of “What’s best for Jews?” They think that Muslims in the West are now a threat to Jewish power, so they’re not uncritically supportive of Muslims like Grunberg and other leftist Jews. Ironically enough, Mona Keijzer (born 1968) serves those Islamo-skeptic Jews, because she’s from a pro-Zionist government headed by the notoriously philo-Semitic Geert Wilders. That’s why she was criticizing Muslims for being harmful to Jews, not for being harmful to Whites. That debate between her and Grunberg was in effect a debate between two sides of Jewish opinion about what’s best for Jews in Holland, not about what’s best for the only true Dutch, namely, the White Dutch.

Ugly Jewish man and attractive White woman: Arnon Grunberg and Mona Keijzer

But I had nevertheless made an accurate prediction: that an Islamo-skeptic White politician would be opposed by a Islamophilic Jew. And the video supported my ideas in another way. I’ve argued that ugliness is characteristic of Jews and Jewish ideologies, which express an envy and hatred of White beauty. The Dutch video contains a literal embodiment of White beauty and Jewish ugliness, because Mona Keijzer is attractive and Arnon Grunberg is ugly. She’s an intelligent, attractive White woman who has done what too many White women like her have failed to do. That is, she’s become a mother and had children — five of them, in fact.

I hope that Mona Keijzer is pro-White and was doing her best for Whites within the boundaries of discourse set by Jewish influence on Dutch politics. In that debate, she couldn’t argue directly for White interests, so perhaps she did so indirectly by arguing for Jewish interests. But the taboo against direct support for White interests is weakening across the West. That’s why discussion of Pakistani rape-gangs is all over the British media at the beginning of 2025. Furthermore, mainstream politicians are using the accurate term “rape-gangs” rather the euphemistic “grooming-gangs.” The rabidly pro-Zionist Robert Jenrick, a prominent Conservative who has a Jewish wife and unswervingly supports Israel, has blasphemed against minority worship like this:

The scandal started with the onset of mass migration. Importing hundreds of thousands of people from alien cultures, who possess medieval attitudes towards women, brought us here. And after 30 years of this disastrous experiment, we now have entrenched sectarian voting blocs that make it electoral suicide for some MPs to confront this. This scandal shows why we must end it. (Tweet by Robert Jenrick, 4th January 2025)

Let’s be clear: Jenrick is trying to serve Jewish interests, not White interests. The “sectarian voting blocs” he refers to are pro-Palestinian and found in Muslims districts. The war in Gaza and pro-Palestinian activism by Muslims in the West have forced more of the Jewish elite to decide that Muslims and Jews are not natural allies and never will be. I’m even beginning to see truth in the conspiracy theory that says Jews like Benjamin Netanyahu have deliberately engineered Muslim migration in the confident expectation that the pathologies spawned by it would sooner or later create a backlash against Muslims. This backlash would provide cover for the creation of “Greater Israel,” the vastly expanded territory that some Zionists want to carve out from Israel’s Arab neighbors.

The much expanded “Greater Israel” dreamed of by Theodor Herzl, founder of modern Zionism

But that’s speculation. What isn’t speculation is that minority worship is being challenged across the West. Zionists like Mona Keijzer and Robert Jenrick are trying to serve Jewish interests when they criticize Muslims, but they’re opening a wider and wider space for White nationalism as they do so.

The Possible Reasons Donald Trump’s Administration Is Recognizing Somaliland

/1 Comment/in /by

It all comes down to serving Israeli interests.

José Alberto Niño
Jan 06, 2025
In a move straight out of left field, the incoming Trump administration is slated to recognize Somaliland as an independent state, according to a report by Semafor.

Somaliland is a former British colony bordering Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Somalia that declared independence from Somalia in 1991 without receiving international recognition. Under international law, Somaliland is currently deemed an autonomous district of Somalia.

If media reports turn out to be true, why is the Trump administration moving to recognize Somaliland’s independence? It boils down to advancing Israeli interests.

Due to its proximity to the Arabian Peninsula, an independent Somaliland would give Israel and the United States a forward base of operations to counter plucky Houthi militants in the Red Sea.

After Israel responded to Hamas’ attack on Oct, 7, 2023 with a vicious military assault on Gaza, the Yemen-based Houthis joined the conflict by launching drones and missiles against Israeli and Western vessels traversing the Red Sea. The world faced the Houthis’ wrath in December 2023 when they announced their blockade of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait. The Bab el-Mandeb Strait is one of the world’s most important maritime chokepoints, where a substantial portion of global maritime cargo passes through.

Somaliland’s strategic location close to the Bab al-Mandab Strait makes it an important choke point on the grand chessboard, thus making it a valuable piece of geopolitical real estate the Israeli-American axis for the use to exploit.

Houthi attacks have bottled up the Red Sea, leading to major disruptions in international trade at a time when the world is still adjusting to supply-chain disruptions brought about during the COVID-19 era.

The Houthis are battle-hardened as they come. For well over a decade, Houthi militants have endured years of attacks from Saudi Arabia’s coalition of Arab states that have attempted to prop up the internationally recognized government in Yemen. Since the Houthi’s attacks on US and Israeli shipping in the Red Sea in November 2023, American and British military forces have launched military strikes on the Houthis with the aim of keeping shipping lanes open.

In January 2024, the Houthis launched an anti-ship missile from Hodeidah towards an American destroyer that ended up being shot down by American missile defense systems. This exchange came on the heels of American forces assaulting the port in order to restore regular maritime activity in the area. Despite being at a marked disadvantage in terms of fire power and technology, the Houthis have not backed down against the technologically superior military powers of the United States and Israel. The Houthis upped the ante by launching missiles against Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and multiple Israeli military bases.

Map of Somalia and Somaliland

In July 2024, the Red Sea conflict took an interesting twist when a Houthi-manned drone flew into an apartment complex in Tel Aviv and killed one man, while wounding several other individuals. The United States, United Kingdom, and Israel shortly responded with a joint assault on the critical port city of Hodeidah. The Anglo-American partners struck Hodeidah’s international airport, with the Israeli Air Force attacking Hodeidah’s port a few days afterward.

The aim of the Anglo-American-Israel axis’ attacks in this instance is to shore up Saudi Arabia’s diminishing position in the Red Sea conflict, where shocking Houthi gains have raised fears about Iran—a supplier of Houthi munitions—gaining a stronger foothold in the Red Sea region.

The Relentless Houthis

Even after Israel dealt major blows to the leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah, while Turkish and US-backed assets in Syria toppled the regime of Bashar al-Assad—a fortuitous development for broader Israeli ambitions in the region— the Houthis have not relented one bit in their attacks against Israel.

The sporadic volley of missile and drone incursions towards Israel were soon followed up with ballistic missile attacks from the Houthis by December 2024. The Houthis are steadfast in their demand that their attacks won’t stop until the war in Gaza ends.

The Israelis responded to the Houthi escalation on Dec. 26 by launching air strikes against the international airport in the capital city of Sanaa and the strategic port city of Hodeidah. These strikes were the fourth round of punitive actions the Jewish state has taken against Houthi targets in Yemen.

The Houthis have put on a clinic on the power asymmetrical warfare against the Saudis and the Israeli-American axis in the last year. The Houthis are rumored to have one the largest drone stockpiles on the planet and have used this technology to give their rivals headaches.

According to Defense Security Asia, the Houthis were able to shoot down 13 MQ-9 Reaper drones from the start of the Oct. 7 conflict up until the end of December. The loss of these aircrafts totaled $390 million.

Sending Israeli fighter jets on expensive air campaigns to attack Houthi targets in response to cheap Houthi drones—roughly valued at $20,000— blowing up inside the Jewish state has become unviable in the long-term. This has forced the Israelis to find more creative cost-effective alternatives to tackling the Houthi dilemma. Unlike countries such as Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, where Israeli intelligence operatives have deeply penetrated, Yemen has given the Israeli intelligence community fits. Security experts note that the Israelis don’t have sufficient intelligence to pinpoint the location of Houthi leaders and weapons caches.

“We have a problem,” admitted Zohar Palti, a former head of Mossad’s intelligence directorate. Israel, on its own, does not have a “patent” for solving the problem, he added. Palti believes that Yemen has not been a priority for the Israeli national security state.

He claims that Israel has “too many balls in the air”, with it dedicating most of its attention towards Hamas militants in Gaza, Hezbollah fighters in Lebanon, and Iran’s activity in the Middle East and the development of its nuclear program.

Because of the Houthi dilemma and Israel’s principal security guarantor in the United States shifting its geopolitical gaze to the Far East, Israel has had to get creative with its statecraft.

Adding an independent Somaliland as an ally would go a long way in shoring up Israel security interests in an increasingly chaotic international system.

Israel’s Somaliland Play

Somaliland has stood out as an oasis of prosperity in contrast to Somalia proper. Somalia has gained international notoriety for being mired in civil wars and Islamist militancy from the likes of fundamentalist groups such as Al-Shabaab.

Israel’s relationship with Somaliland is one of the least discussed facets of the Jewish state’s foreign policy endeavors. In 1960, a time when Somaliland was briefly independent, Israel was one of 35 countries to recognize its independence. Fast forward to Feb. 2010, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesperson Yigal Palmor revealed that the government of Benjamin Netanyahu was prepared to recognize Somaliland again, though it did not come to pass at the time due to concerns this decision would alienate other countries in the region.

However, the changing world order has resuscitated plans to recognize Somaliland — an endeavor that would kill multiple birds with one stone for the Israeli-American set. China’s growing footprint in Africa has worried US strategists. When China opened its first overseas military base in Djibouti — a nation bordering Somaliland — in 2017, American fears only grew more palpable. To make things spicier, the Djibouti has allegedly allowed Iranian spy vessels to dock at China’s military base.

Chinese military presence in Djibouti

US foreign policy decision makers, who remain fixated with maintaining primacy at all costs, are looking for ways to make up for their faltering position in Djibouti. Recognizing Somaliland would do the trick. The much pilloried Project 2025, a policy blueprint for the Trump administration, actually advocated for “the recognition of Somaliland statehood as a hedge against the U.S.’s deteriorating position in Djibouti.”

According to a Middle East Monitor report last October, Israel was in discussions with Somaliland officials to set up a military base in the East African territory. This agreement would allow Israel to use the Somaliland base to launch attacks and deter Houthi assets. In exchange, Israel would officially recognize Somaliland and make investments into its agriculture and energy sectors.

And Then Came The UAE

The United Arab Emirates has played a crucial role in mediating these discussions and has pledged to finance the construction of the Israeli military base. Emirati-Israeli ties have strengthened in the past 5 years thanks to the 2020 Abraham Accords that facilitated the normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and Arab states such as Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan, and the UAE.

Simply put, UAE and Israel have mutual interests in containing the Houthis. Originally, the UAE was part of the Saudi-coalition to prop up the government of Yemeni President Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi in 2015 who was forced to step down due to a combination of widespread protests and constant militant activity from the Houthis. The Houthi movement and defectors from the Yemeni armed forces subsequently took over the capital of Sanaa.

When it became clear the Houthis were in firm control of Yemeni capital and the rest of North Yemen, the Emiratis pivoted towards a strategy of supporting the separatist Southern Transitional Council (STC) in South Yemen.

There was ulterior motive behind the Emirati’s change in strategy, namely a desire to establish a “maritime empire” that spans the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea. A key part of this geopolitical venture has been the UAE’s pursuit of strategic partners in the Horn of Africa. Chief among these partners has been Somaliland, who entered a $442 million agreement with the UAE to construct a port in the Somaliland city of Berbera, which is slightly over 160 miles away from the Yemeni city of Aden — a key port for the embattled Arab state.

Socotra Island

A key victory for the Emiratis on the world stage was their seizure of the strategic Socotra archipelago in the Gulf of Aden in June 2020. Shortly thereafter, the Abraham Accords to normalize relations between the UAE and Israel were signed. With the UAE and Israel publicly on good terms, reports of Israeli military advisors visiting Socotra soon surfaced. These visits were assumed to be part of a plan to establish secret intelligence bases in the archipelago. These facilities would let both the Israelis and Emiratis keep tabs on activity across the Gulf of Aden and Bab el-Mandeb Strait.

Adding an independent Somaliland into the mix would strengthen the Emirati’s and Israel’s positions in the Red Sea and give them more latitude to keep disruptive actors in the Horn of Africa at bay.

Potential Pitfalls with The Somaliland Project

In the world of geopolitics, nothing exists in a vacuum.

Bold maneuvers on the world stage will invariably provoke reactions. In the United States’ case, its potential gambit of recognizing Somaliland could strain relations with its fellow NATO member Turkey.

Turkey has bolstered ties with Somalia in the last two decades as part of its efforts to increase its footprint in Africa, above all, in the Red Sea region. Ankara’s growing partnership with Somalia has consisted of signing agreements to deepen oil and gas cooperation, where Turkey would have greater ability to explore, exploit, develop, and produce oil on Somali onshore and offshore territory.

On defense matters, Somalia has gradually forged an intimate military partnership with Turkey. 2017 was a turning point in Turko-Somali relations after Turkey built a military base in Mogadishu with the intention of training members of Somalia’s fragile military.

Relations between the two Muslim countries have only grown more vigorous. In a defense agreement signed in Feb. 2024, Turkey ( NATO’s second largest military with over 350,000 active personnel) pledged to support Somalia’s maritime assets. In recent months, the Turks have been in discussions with the Somali government to install a long-range missile test site on Somalia soil. Such a move is definitely causing concerns in rival Arab states and African states such as Ethiopia.

Turkish military base in Somalia

The Turks have proven to be a wildcard on the world stage, and no one can ever know what their intentions are.

Should the United States recognize Somaliland, the Turks could take it as another affront to their geopolitical goals. The Turks are already on the verge of coming to blows with US-backed Kurdish forces in Syria. Recognizing Somaliland could prompt the Turks to stick it to the Judeo-American axis by not only dialing up support to Sunni militants such as Hamas but also cutting off Israel from receiving critical steel exports.

Dawn of the Post-Liberal Order

Due to Israel’s lack of strategic depth, having a base in Somaliland would help it project power against the Houthis in Yemen and throw a wrench in Iran’s ability to deliver arms shipments in the region. Since its foundation in 1948, Israel has had very few allies in its backyard. The Oct. 7 attack and the resulting fallout serves as the latest reminder that Israel needs to grow its geopolitical portfolio.

In a security environment where the United States is pivoting to Asia, Israel has already taken steps towards normalizing diplomatic and economic relations with the Arab world. A Saudi-Israeli normalization plan was originally on deck, but it appears to be on the ropes due to Israel’s brutal ethnic cleansing expedition in Gaza.

Giving the green light to Somaliland’s independence and subsequently amplifying military activity with it, would be in line with the Israeli strategy of engaging more with Muslim states who desire to balance against Turkish and Iranian influence in the MENA region. At its core, an Israeli military presence in Somaliland grants it more latitude to directly attack the Houthis and other rivals in the Red Sea during a time when it’s uncertain the United States and its NATO allies will come to Israel’s defense.

Furthermore, Somaliland independence would mark another blow to the liberal international order.

The holy sacrament of territorial integrity is increasingly becoming a dead letter. It’s no longer abstract principles or following international law that’s shaping the actions of states. Instead, the dictum of The Melian Dialogue will be the guide of international affairs in the foreseeable future: “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”

Is Somaliland Recognition a Done Deal?

In his first term in office, Donald Trump showcased a devotion to Israel that is unmatched compared to previous Republican administrations. Former President Ronald Reagan surprisingly halted the delivery of advanced F-16 fighter aircraft to Israel after its controversial bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility in 1981.

The following year, Reagan gave then-Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin a tongue-lashing for carrying out an indiscriminate bombing campaign against the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in Beirut, Lebanon.

Arch neoconservative George W. Bush backed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s plan to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza in 2005 and even encouraged parliamentary elections in the Palestinian territories the following year. It was in these elections that saw Hamas come to power in 2006.

Trump’s time in office saw him break numerous taboos with respect to Israeli-American relations. The 45th president moved the US embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognized the Israeli’s annexation of the Golan Heights, brokered the aforementioned normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and other Arab nations such as Bahrain, Morocco, and the UAE, scrapped the Iran Nuclear Deal, and assassinated Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani.

Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Indeed, Trump stopped short of fulfilling Israel’s wish of toppling the Iranian regime. Though his rabidly pro-Zionist cabinet appointments from Pete Hegseth as Defense Secretary to Mike Huckabee underscore his steadfast devotion to advancing Israeli interests. Moreover, Zionist billionaire Miriam Adelson’s $100 million donation to Trump’s presidential run will likely come with the expectation of Trump giving his blessing to Israel’s plans of eventually annexing the much-coveted West Bank (Judea & Samaria as the Israelis view this territory) and the war-torn Gaza strip.

While Trump talks a big game about doing away with never-ending wars, it remains to be seen if he will keep his word. But if his track record on Israel is an indicator, Trump will likely follow through with recognizing Somaliland. If there’s one constant about Trump’s political record, it’s his responsiveness to pressure from the Israel lobby.

If Trump won’t give the Israelis their war with the Iranians, he will meet them halfway by creating a geopolitical environment favorable to its interests via diplomatic maneuvers. Recognizing Somaliland as an independent state will likely do the trick.

James Edwards Interviews Pat Buchanan on the Death of the West

/3 Comments/in , , /by

What follows is a transcript of an interview conducted by talk radio host James Edwards with Patrick J. Buchanan upon the initial release of his book Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?  We revisit this conversation because the year in question has now arrived, and many of the concerns raised during the discussion still remain. This transcript has never before appeared online and has been edited for brevity.

* * *

James Edwards: Pat, thanks for being back with me again, and congratulations on the early success of your latest title. Writing a book is like printing money. Everybody loves you!

Patrick J. Buchanan: No, James. They give me an advance and then I go out and try to sell as many as I can to help the publisher get it back.

Edwards: I saw someone buying it at Target last night, of all places. Maybe you should run for president.

Buchanan: Been there, done that!

Edwards: Well, let’s jump right into the thick of it. Do we currently have front-row seats to the end of Western Civilization and culture as we know it?

Buchanan: I believe the answer is yes, from a variety of standpoints. In one chapter, I discuss the “Demographic Winter” of the West. Currently, no Western country has a birth rate among its native-born population that is sufficient for it to sustain itself in any recognizable form by the end of this century.

It is my argument that when Christianity, which was the faith that created the West, when the faith dies, the culture dies, the civilization dies, and then the people die. And I think that’s true down through history. And we certainly see that in Europe, for example, which is well advanced ahead of us, where something like one in ten people go to church in Great Britain, I believe. More people attend Muslim mosques on holy days of the week than go to Anglican churches.

So, I think the West was created by this great religion, and that created the magnificent culture of the Middle Ages, out of which came all these great countries, which really dominated the world through the twentieth century, with empires basically dominating every country on earth almost, except for Japan. And now look at where they are. I think you see a civilization basically in retreat. As Toynbee said, “Civilizations die by suicide, not by murder.”

Edwards: I’m glad you brought up our faith in your book. It is dying in America and that precedes the death of a nation. In Russia, however, there seems to be at least somewhat of a revival of Christianity. I have read reports that the Russian government has even tried to encourage its citizens to have more children. Is Russia coming to its senses in a way that we in the West are not?

Buchanan: Well, I think the Russians went through hell for 70 years under Bolshevism.  They were a deeply religious and patriotic people who were Orthodox Christians. And when Lenin and Stalin came in, the church was literally murdered. I was over there in 1971, I guess, and we went down to this museum of Atheism in Leningrad, which was a gigantic cathedral. They turned it into that, and everything had been emptied out.

So, they went through 70 years of hell. And it’s very true that when they were liberated from Bolshevism and Communism, many returned to the faith. But frankly, James, if you look at the numbers there, Russia’s current birthrate may lead to a loss of approximately 25 million people by 2050. I have the statistics in my book.

Suicide of a Superpower also deals with what’s happening in Russia and these other countries. They’ve already lost 8 million in the last two decades ever since they became free, and the women are not having children. I think the median death age of Russian men is now something like 60. It has not only to do with the lack of births but apparently, the health system is terrible. There’s alcoholism. I think the average woman has seven abortions. I’ve had that in an earlier book.

Edwards: I once said during an appearance on CNN that you can’t have a first-world nation with a third-world population. Moving on to another aspect of your excellent new book, which I have a review copy of right here on my desk, you write that “White America is an endangered species.”  Pat, what is America going to look like if Whites go extinct?

Buchanan: I don’t think Whites are going to go extinct — I mean, certainly not in the near future.  But what is happening, as you see in California, is that Americans of European descent are already a minority, and that is true in Texas, and it is true, I believe, in New Mexico and Hawaii.  And in this decade, I think six more states will pass the tipping point where Whites become a minority. I think the best way to understand what America will look like is to look at California today. The Hispanic population will be immense, 135,000,000, according to the Census Bureau of Statistics.

California was once the Golden Land. Everybody went there. It was paradise. The soldiers who went out to the Pacific came home and then made their homes there.

But what is happening out there, James, is that the bond rating is the lowest in the country. The taxes are enormously heavy on the well-to-do and the successful, and these folks are leaving the state while one-third of poor, illegal immigrants head for California. You’ve got a Black/brown war of the underclass going on in Los Angeles, according to Sheriff Lee Baca, in the gangs and in the prisons. The welfare state is bankrupting California, and they have some of the highest taxes in the nation.

So, I think this is what the country is going to look like. And I quote the famous Harvard sociologist, Robert Putnam. He did a study of all the major cities of the United States and some others throughout the world. He found that social capital, that disposition of people to work together and live together and join together for common causes and good causes and political and social causes, is at its lowest in the city of Los Angeles.  He said he had never seen social capital so low anywhere and that diversity brings about people moving into their own enclaves, segregating themselves, separating themselves, and really cooperating in very little.

Edwards: Pat, we were talking about the demographic decline of European stock around the world and here in America. As you know, every minority group in this country has numerous organizations and representatives seeking to protect and advance their unique group interests. I find that to be quite natural and healthy, and, of course, it’s not only allowed when they do it; it is encouraged and applauded.  You discuss this tribalism in Suicide of a Superpower. Clearly, tribalism has empowered minorities in America and Europe. What happened to the tribal instincts of European Americans?

Buchanan: Frankly, it’s almost impermissible for folks of European descent to organize around their race. But you have a point, and in the book, I do talk about the Black caucus in Congress, which organizes and operates on Capitol Hill on government property, and it does not admit White members and several Whites who’ve tried to get in — Jonathan Bingham, I believe, and Pete Stark — have been denied admission because they were not African American.  And then there was your congressman in Memphis, they basically slammed the door in Steve Cohen’s face.

Edwards: It is one of the greatest hypocrisies that exists. African Americans voted 95 plus percent for Barack Obama, and people just shrug and say, “Well, of course they did. Why wouldn’t they?”  You have the Black congressional caucus, as you just mentioned. You have organizations like the NAACP. However, if White people express similar ethnocentric tendencies, they face harsh denunciations and condemnation.

Buchanan: That’s right. The African American community voted 95 to 4, which is 24 to 1, for Barack Obama, which is astounding.  Even prominent Republicans like General Powell turned against his fellow Vietnam vet to vote for Obama and Powell admitted that race had something to do with it, even though Obama ran denouncing the war that Powell sold to the country.

But you know, 85 percent of White folks in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama voted against Obama. There is this fellow for the New Yorker who wrote that he sees a new people emerging in the White community and that people who are constantly under attack and discriminated against by affirmative action will eventually unite around what it is that is being attacked and what they have in their own identity.

And frankly, this is something that somewhat concerns me. If you have no ethno-national poor in a country, such as they didn’t have in Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, and Czechoslovakia, as soon as they lifted off that repression, those things flew apart into something like 24 or 25 countries, whereas Poland stayed together, and Germany reunited on ethnic grounds.

And so, I feel that this power of ethnonationalism and religious fundamentalism is really the coming force in the world and you can see these things tearing countries apart.

Edwards: This is a follow-up to my previous question. It seems to me that many White politicians in Washington often work against their own group interests, which stands in stark contrast to the actions of their minority counterparts. Your chapter titled “The Diversity Cult,” begs me to ask this question: Why do so many Whites remain entranced by diversity when the social and cultural effects of diversity are almost entirely negative for themselves and their children and grandchildren?

Buchanan: I’ve been asked by people why it won’t be a really good thing when Whites become a minority nationwide. I mean, real problems are attendant to this.

If you go with the average American, let’s take the fellow who does the anti-affirmative action and civil rights initiative things. He conducted those ballot initiatives that abolished affirmative action in Michigan by referendum, in California by referendum, and in Washington by referendum, in three states that normally vote Democratic.

So, there is a growing majority of American people, even among the young, who feel that racial preferences and affirmative action are simply unjust. There’s a great belief that everybody should have a shot at getting on the team or getting in the band, or whatever. But the prize should go to those who are the best and work the hardest. And the idea that people should be discriminated against because of the color of their skin or where their ancestors come from, I think they find that profoundly offensive.

I think the further we go down the road with this affirmative action, especially now when you have women who qualify for affirmative action, Hispanics do, although there was no slavery of Hispanics. African Americans do. Then you’ve got 30 percent of the country, White males, who are really the ones who are the victims of affirmative action, not the beneficiaries. White males are 30 percent of the country, but they’re 75 percent of the dead and wounded coming back from Afghanistan. That’s not a formula for social peace.

Edwards: No, it’s not. But if these disenfranchised White males tried to come together politically to assert themselves, they would be shouted down as racists, supremacists, and so on and so forth.

Buchanan: Well, you know Shelby Steele wrote a piece in the Wall Street Journal several years ago.  He’s an African American intellectual and scholar. And he said this type of racial identity politics is simply denied to Whites. I don’t know if he was saying this was a good thing or not. But clearly, if this type of organization took place it would be denounced. But I remember several years ago they had a meeting over in Leesburg of the Asian American caucus, the African American caucus, and the Hispanic caucus to decide how they can get more benefits out of the Congress for their own communities.  And you would say, “Wait a minute. At whose expense are these going to come?” I think, regrettably, that’s where America is headed.

Edwards: Let’s talk about the end game. Where do all the liberal, multi-racial, multi-cultural utopian fantasies that are destroying American pride and prosperity end?  You have written that we don’t share the same heroes, faith, or even the same language anymore.

Buchanan: Well, this is it. What are the basics of a nation?  It is a common language, common borders, a common faith, moral consensus, and moral code. Certainly, a common history, heroes, holidays, and literature are things that make up the culture. But you’re right. When I grew up in Washington DC, even though we were a segregated town, Blacks and Whites shared a lot of those things in common, and now we have very little in common that we share. And in addition to that, our politics and ideology are dividing us. If all these things go and we no longer have something like the Cold War to unite us where we could all stand together against Communism, then what do we have left?

Edwards: So where are we twenty years from now?

Buchanan: James, what I believe is that the United States will be a legal and political entity in 2041 when there is no majority anymore, and we’re all minorities. But I’m afraid the things that hold us together seem to be weakening, and the centrifugal force that is pulling us apart, as Lee Hamilton said, is strengthening. I think we will be a legal nation, but I don’t think we will be one nation under God, indivisible, and one people again. We will be a Balkanized country, sort of a tower of Babel, and we will be at war with each other over our differences in culture, language, politics, ideology, and religion.

We already see it happening now. I mean, the atmosphere, especially up here in Washington, is just poisonous. And I hear the term “racist” thrown out there. It’s a constant on cable television these days. Just disagreeing with somebody and calling them a racist. Those were horrendous terms 50 years ago, even when you had the civil rights struggle going on.

Edwards: I love God. I love my family, Pat. I want to see our destiny and traditional cultural heritage reclaimed for the benefit of all Americans. I don’t want that to come at the expense of anyone, but I also don’t want to be forced to trade down.

Buchanan: James, my hope is certainly that we’re going to be free to do that. But what I think is going to happen is the folks who believe as you do are going to basically, I think, retreat into enclaves of their own kind.

You know, all over the world, as I write in the chapter, “The Triumph of Tribalism,” ethnonationalism, and religious beliefs are driving peoples to separate from each other and to set up their own small nation-states where their own religion is predominant, and their own culture is predominant, and they themselves rule to the exclusion of all others.

Arthur Schlesinger and Pat Moynihan, both of whom I knew and who came to be my friends, wrote in the 1990s that these are the forces that will shape the future. It will not be Democracy versus Communism, Democracy versus Fascism, or ideology at all.  But these fundamental forces.

Edwards: We know a lot of the problems, but what can we do?  I don’t think it’s ever going to be 1950 again, though that certainly looks like an oasis by comparison.

Buchanan: You were born in 1980. I go back a long way before that. But you know, I’ve talked about the 1960s transition from Eisenhower to Kennedy. And the 1950s were really a wonderful time in America. I thought we were one people. We had won the World War. We were united. Ike was in charge. We were challenging the Soviet Union. The young president was coming in. He was going to the moon. And you know, I just don’t know if we’re ever going to be anything like that again. I think we are going to be utterly different than that in the future.

And I saw a review of my book that quoted Russell Kirk asking what a conservative’s duty is. And Kirk had said it is to preserve a particular people in a particular place at a particular time. And I think that’s what I’ve been trying to do with little success, and we have to look at things realistically. We can preserve this, but it’s not going to be dominant in the country anymore as it was. It’s not going to be the view of all. It will be the view of some, and others will have ideas, beliefs, and cultures that are in utter conflict.

And so, I see, as I said, sort of a Balkanization and a separation of peoples coming in this country over these most fundamental beliefs.

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