It’s a clever little rule based on a curious linguistic coincidence: “You should eat oysters only in months whose name contains an ‘r.’” The linguistic coincidence is that, in the northern hemisphere, the names with an “r” cover all the cool and cold months when oysters were safest to eat in pre-refrigeration days. A similarly simple rule now governs politics and culture throughout the West. It runs like this: “Whites are full citizens with complete legal and social rights. Except in months whose name contains a vowel.”

Labour betrays its own

That has been the rule operating in Rotherham, Rochdale, Telford and many other British towns and cities as, decade after after decade, Muslim rape-gangs have preyed on White women and girls with not just the complicity of the authorities but sometimes the active assistance: “Police went to a house outside which a father was demanding the release of his daughter, who was inside with a group of British Pakistani adults. Officers found the girl, 14, who had been drugged, under a bed. The father and his daughter were arrested for racial harassment and assault respectively. Police left, leaving three men at the house with two more girls.”

Hateful heresy: Whiteness is wicked, not wonderful (portrait is the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith)

The police were applying the simple rule of “No rights for Whites in months with a vowel.” Yes, under normal circumstances they would have done their duty by rescuing the White girls and arresting the non-White men. But the month had a vowel in it, so they couldn’t. After all, that happened in Rotherham and nobody in the Labour council was going to criticize them for not doing their job. The Labour party was founded to champion the White working-class and claims to be staunchly feminist, but it long ago abandoned its founding principles and adapted its feminism to the modern age. Yes, Pakistani males were — and are — committing horrendous abuse against working-class females, but the males are non-White and the females are White, so a new leftist rule applies. It runs like this: “Preach equality, practise hierarchy.”

The mysticism of minority worship

The Labour party and other mainstream leftists claim to believe in the full equality of all human beings, but in fact they operate a hierarchy where non-Whites are at the top and Whites at the bottom. In the past leftists have justified that hierarchy by claiming that non-Whites are virtuous minorities oppressed by the villainous majority of Whites. However, in future they’ll justify the racial hierarchy by portraying non-Whites as the virtuous majority and Whites as a villainous minority. That’s why leftists now increasingly use the term “global majority” to refer to non-Whites, as I pointed out in my article “Globo-Mojo.” But one thing will not change: the superstition and pseudo-mysticism that are central to the leftist worship of non-Whites. Take a recent article in the Guardian, which treats a minor detail of British history as though it were of huge significance and importance:

Britain’s first black voter was in 1749, 25 years earlier than thought, and ran a pub

It’s a discovery that changes our understanding of British history — and it arises from just one word. Until now, the first black voter in Britain was thought to be the composer Charles Ignatius Sancho, the British abolitionist who, as the owner of property in Mayfair, voted in the 1774 Westminster election.

But a chance discovery at the British Library by Dr Gillian Williamson, a historian researching lodgers in Georgian London, reveals a black man voted in an election 25 years earlier. The revelation that John London, landlord of a pub in the capital, cast a vote in 1749, sheds new light on an era when the black population of London is believed to have been 10,000 strong, and the democratic process was limited but lively. (“Britain’s first black voter was in 1749, 25 years earlier than thought, and ran a pub,” The Guardian, 24th October 2024)

Wow! Blacks lived in London in the eighteenth century! And one of them ran a pub! And voted! Well, my reaction to those earth-shaking revelations can be summed up in two words: “So what?” Did Britain depend in any way on those Blacks? Did Isaac Newton plagiarize the work of an unrecognized Black genius for the Principia Mathematica? Did Christopher Wren rely on the work of unpaid Black architects and engineers to design and build St Paul’s cathedral? Did Robert Hooke steal the Black invention of the microscope to write his revolutionary book Micrographia? Did William Herschel steal the Black invention of the telescope to discover a new planet? In every case the answer is no. Britain did not depend on its Black residents in any way and great White achievers like Newton, Wren, Hooke and Herschel owed nothing to the much less powerful intelligence of Blacks.

The White genius Isaac Newton magically turns racially ambiguous for leftist TV

In other words, that breathless article in the Guardian is as ludicrous as it’s anti-historical. But it contains a very interesting and revealing statement by the leftist female historian who made that unimportant discovery. Gillian Williamson gushes about the Black pub-owner John London like this:

“I think it’s interesting that he’s the first-known black voter — in some ways unexceptional, in some ways exceptional. It shows that black people don’t just serve in low-level gig economy work, that it’s not extraordinary to be black in Georgian London. You can see black people as always there. If you are a pub landlord, people know who you are. Keeping good order, stopping fights, you have to do all these things in Georgian London. [This discovery] helps us see someone in a more rounded way, as someone with status.” (“Britain’s first black voter was in 1749, 25 years earlier than thought, and ran a pub,” The Guardian, 24th October 2024)

Leftists are celebrating a “status” for John London that depended on sexism and classism. No woman could vote in those days and neither could most men. If the Black John London was fully and authentically British, does this mean that he bore some responsibility for that sexism and classism? And for the even more appalling and abominable sins of slavery and colonialism enacted by Britain in those days? Of course not. John London was Black and therefore virtuous, not villainous. Blacks and other non-Whites have the same ontological status within leftism as the Son of God does within Christianity. According to Christians, Jesus was fully and authentically human, yet remained spotless of the sins committed by all other humans. According to leftists, non-Whites can be fully and authentically British or American or French or German, yet remain spotless of the sins committed by Whites who belong to those nations.

Righteous reversal of repulsive rule

Note further how Williamson claims that John London being a “pub landlord” in Georgian Britain means that “You can see black people as always there.” This is a pseudo-mystical claim that grants magical status to Black existence. The bounty of Blackness overturns the tyranny of time. The presence of any Black at any time means that Blacks must be seen as “always there” in British history. It’s a righteous reversal of a repulsive rule: the “one-drop rule” of racist White America, which stated that even the smallest trace of Black ancestry meant that someone was Black rather than White. Leftism now applies a one-second rule, which states that any time spent by Blacks in a Western nation, no matter how fleeting and unimportant, turns Western history into Black history.

As for me, I don’t care about the first Black to vote in Britain. What I’d like leftists to give me is something they’d be very reluctant to supply: the name of the first Black to commit murder in Britain. I’d also like them to give me the name of the first Black to commit rape in Britain. But perhaps it was the same Black. Although all races are capable of committing rape and murder, some races commit — and combine — those crimes at much higher rates. Blacks are at the top of the real-world moral hierarchy of villainy just as they’re at the top of the fake leftist hierarchy of virtue. In other words, leftism inverts the truth and turns reality on its head. In stark reality, Blacks commit crime and suffer from psychosis at much higher rates than Whites. In leftist fantasy, Blacks are victims, not villains, and psychosis is characteristic of Whites, not Blacks. That’s why the Black academic Kehinde Andrews is a woke hero in Britain for his book The Psychosis of Whiteness (2023), which implicitly argues for the slaughter and subjugation of Whites. After all, Kehinde believes that rational argument is useless against the wickedness of Whiteness, as he explains here:

Critical Whiteness studies has emerged as an academic discipline that has produced a lot of work and garnered attention in the last two decades. Central to this project is the idea that if the processes of Whiteness can be uncovered, then they can be reasoned with and overcome, through rationale dialogue. This article will argue, however, that Whiteness is a process rooted in the social structure, one that induces a form of psychosis framed by its irrationality, which is beyond any rational engagement. (“The Psychosis of Whiteness: The Celluloid Hallucinations of Amazing Grace and Belle,” Journal of Black Studies, Volume 47, Issue 5, July 2016)

What do wokesters like Kehinde really mean by “Whiteness”? In the final analysis, they can only mean “white existence” and “white autonomy.” According to Kehinde’s logic, those things lead ineluctably to “psychosis” and are “beyond any rational engagement” that might mitigate the horrors they visit on virtuous Blacks such as himself. This being so, there can be only two solutions to the “Psychosis of Whiteness”: Whites must be either exterminated or enslaved. If Whites are exterminated, their psychosis will never manifest itself again. If Whites are enslaved, their psychosis will still manifest itself, but it will no longer be able to harm the virtuous global majority of non-Whites.

Leftist logic in action: Whites can never feel pride, only shame

For obvious reasons, wokesters like Kehinde don’t mention slaughter and subjugation in their critiques of “Whiteness.” They don’t want to warn Whites of what they’re secretly or subconsciously planning. But the leftist logic is clear: if Whites are innately villainous and non-Whites innately virtuous, the only way to rescue the virtuous from the villainous is to strip the villainous either of existence or of autonomy. Dead Whites won’t bite and enslaved Whites won’t blight. That’s the lethal logic of lunatic leftism.

Ireland has voted more than 90% for parties that support mass migration. If you believe the election results. Turnout was 59.%, the lowest since 1923.

If the non-voters could be persuaded to vote, they would be the biggest party. At least some people don’t vote because they think the elections are rigged, or because all candidates are crooks.

The two big government parties lost some votes but gained seats: Fianna Fail up 10 seats to 48, Fine Gael up 3 to 38. It’s quite hard to find anyone who will publicly admit to voting for them, but the results say that 40% of us did.

The magic number for a majority is 87: FF and FG have 86 between them. All they need is two or three independents and they can spend five more years importing millions of foreigners and planning the next pandemic lockdowns.

The good news is that the Green Party lost 11 of its 12 seats. The bad news is that the worst of them all, Minister for Children and Refugees Roderick O’Gorman, has been re-elected. It doesn’t make sense: If people voted the rest of them out, why wouldn’t they vote out the worst of them?

The multi-cultural enthusiasts in Sinn Fein gained two seats to 39, though their vote is 5% down from the last election.. They have aggressively supported mass migration, but have started to mutter occasionally about deporting. An article in the Burkean.ie claims an unnamed senior Sinn Fein TD is disgusted at the mass migration and predicts they will start to oppose it. When the man is brave enough to say it in public we can believe it.

Although their vote is down from the last general election, it is strongly up from their 12% in the local elections a few months back. It’s hard to explain, except to say that they were not in government and have benefitted from dislike of the government. (Or that it was part of the scripted election… ) Sinn Fein have lost a dozen members in the last few months. Some were involved in sleazy under-18 gay sex scenarios, and the party tried to protect them. Others have resigned because of pressure to bow to the party’s pro-refugee stance.

One Sinn Fein TD alleges he was the victim of sexual blackmail by a female Sinn Fein member, after spending a night in a hotel room with her. She wanted 60,000, in three separate envelopes, to keep her from making a complaint. She’s still a member of Sinn Fein and the heterosexual Brian Stanley was re-elected in Laois as an independent, free from the pro-refugee restrictions he had as a party member, and with his marriage still intact. There’s a man who might put a spoke in the wheel of the woke agenda.

The various socialists and the one remaining Green have 27 seats.

The various independents and the Aontú party have 19 seats. Some in this group are migration critical. But there is almost nobody who is an open Remigration enthusiast.

There are 174 TDs, and close to 164 of them support more refugees and more work permits for foreigners.

The Aontú (unity) party are no longer a one man band: They got one extra TD..They can be called a “soft Remigration” party: they welcome more foreigners, whether refugees or work permits, and they don’t like ethno-nationalism but they do object to criminals and liars being granted permission to stay. They also raise objections to the location of specific refugee camps. The question is if they would actually implement this change if they got into Government.

Many of the independents are originally from Fianna Fail or Fine Gael, and will vote with them, even on mass migration. The big parties have long had a policy, when they notice they are unpopular, of getting one of their members to run as an independent. If elected, he will vote with the party. Some have suggested that supposed Independents are being financed to run by the big parties, purely with a view to dividing the vote and confusing voters.

Even the most unscrupulous Independent is more vulnerable to pressure from voters than the Party man. The party man can always blame the party leadership for voting the wrong way. The independent, if suitably pressured and if an election is near, can sometimes be persuaded to vote the right way. Marion Harkin, Sligo-Leitrim, gave a great example of this at the Family Referendum, a woke nonsense vote which was heavily defeated. Before the vote, she supported it, but when the result was announced, she jumped into her car and drove 200km to Dublin so she could join the celebrations when it was defeated.

The election result is suspicious for two reasons: One is that this enthusiasm for mass migration is contradicted by evidence that shows Paddy has had more than enough of playing Good Samaritan to people who don’t even have the courtesy to be thankful to us.

1.Opinion polls that say between 60% and 80% of us Irish think that “enough is enough.” It’s true that there is a more recent series of polls which reassure us that only 5% of us think immigration is an important issue.

2.Dozens of burnt out empty properties destined for refugee accommodation, certainly far more than any other Western country.

3.Hundreds of mostly peaceful protests all over the country, with a combined attendance in the hundreds of thousands. The most recent was an attendance of over a thousand in Athlone, where the protestors overwhelmed the small Garda presence and climbed over the barricades protecting the building site. You will not find much information about this protest on the MSM.

The other reason for suspicion is some irregularities in management of the votes, and some bizarrely aggressive and arrogant behaviour by supposedly impartial cops and election staff. If everything is kosher, why are some election workers so cranky?

For example, in the polling station in Killlanummery in north Leitrim, an official complaint has been made about the irregular transport of the ballot box to the count centre in Sligo.

This writer witnessed the presiding officer put the ballot box in her own private car, refuse to say where she was going and zoom off at high speed. There was no Garda escort and there was nobody else in the car with her. An hour and a half later, and the ballot box had still not arrived at the count centre in the Clayton Hotel in Sligo. Allowing a ballot box to be under the supervision of just one person is not best practice.

The Gardai have acknowledged receipt of this complaint, but the Sligo-Leitrim returning officer has not yet admitted receiving the complaint. Some complaints are more equal than others.

This writer, a candidate, was physically pushed out of the back door of the count centre in Sligo by a security guard who used vulgar language. A formal complaint has been made, but it is unlikely to result in a prosecution.

A lot of Our Guys object strongly to any talk of the elections being rigged. This is a little surprising. None of the “Honest Election Crew” were there at the polling station in the dark at 10:00pm when the ballot boxes were transported. None of them were at the counting centres at midnight to observe how the incoming ballots were handled. This writer was and what he saw was suspicious and culturally inappropriate. In a honest Irish election, you would expect smiles (cops, counters and drivers are all on juicy overtime rates) and good natured barbed banter, not snarls, curses, pushing and threats to arrest…

Some journalists, like Brendan O’Connor on RTÉ, openly boast that they played a role in ignoring public concern about immigration. They brag that Ireland is the only country in the Western world without an elected anti-migration rep at national level, though this is not really true.

One of the most symbolic events of the election was the exposure given to Fine Gael candidate Senator John McGahon. He escaped conviction for assault in the criminal courts, but in a civil case he was ordered to pay 39,000 in compensation to a man and wife. The facts of the case are that he saw a pretty married woman when he was at a bar. He approached the woman and her husband, and vulgarly suggested that he wanted to have sex with the woman. Both husband and wife refused. The politician then became aggressive and attacked the man. The video footage shows the man lying ón the ground and the Fine Gael senator thumping him in the head. Since when has it become acceptable to hit a man lying on the ground?

If the election results are to be believed, 4,000 people in County Louth felt he was their best choice, and gave him their number one vote. There were other Fine Gael candidates, and other Government candidates, so why would anyone give him a vote? Are there really that many stupid people in County Louth?

Another incident from the election campaign was an interaction between our handsome young Taoiseach, Simon “the Nose” Harris and a Cork woman named Charlotte Fallon. The incident has been viewed 2 million times online, about half the population.

Simon is moving fast through a shop, being filmed. He flashes a smile at her, extends his hand for shaking and mumbles, “Lovely to meet you.” Charlotte refuses to shake his hand and Simon moves on at speed. She calls him back and questions him about his lack of concern for people like her working as caregivers. He defends his government. She says to him: “Keep shaking hands and pretending you’re a good person”. Simon’s mask slips, and his dismay is visible in the video.

Any election rigging needs a good script.

One part of the script is the possibly rigged local election results this summer. Out of 949 Council seats, only five were filled by openly pro-Remigration candidates. The journalists use this result as an explanation for why migration is no longer an issue.

The journalists never stop telling us that immigration is no longer an issue, and that the heat has gone out of the migration issue. They tell us that the new number one issue is housing. They blandly assure us that the arrival of close to 400,000 people to our shores since Covid has nothing to do with the housing crisis. Some people, including our Minister for Justice, Helen McEntee, have the brass neck to tell us that we need to import more foreigners to build houses for the two million foreigners who are here already. Is this some kind of joke?

Two big stories dominated the headlines during the election. Conor MacGregor and his buddy were in a civil court case where they were accused of sexual assault. (The jury believed the woman that Conor raped her, but they didn’t believe her when she said his friend raped her…) Conor has had some of the snappiest one-liners in the migration debate: Evaporate the buildings…This is war., etc. He has not been charged with any of his statements, although they could be construed as incitement to violence. There is also no evidence that he has ever personally burnt a refugee centre or thrown a punch at a foreign security guard.

The timing of the court case was perfect to associate Remigration candidates with cocaine-fueled sex and ugly, gold digging groupies. Was it planned?

The other big story was the anniversary of the Dublin Stabbing Riots. An Algerian man has been accused of stabbing a teacher and some children in Parnell Square. Spectacular riots and looting followed. The looters included Blacks and Asians, according to MSM reports.

In the middle of the election campaign, the Gardai issued photos of 100 people they wished to interview. Why did they wait so long?

A number of people have already been charged and convicted of the riots. One chap got six years jail. He was not accused of hurting any person, just of burning an empty police car.

But the alleged Algerian stabber has not yet had his trial. Over at Freepress.ie and on Gemma O’Doherty’s site, you will see some very perplexing questions about the stabbing and the riots. The photos show a remarkable lack of blood on the ground. The apparently random strangers on the scene appear to be wearing colour-coordinated clothes. A bossy English woman is strutting around. Various journalists and politicians were on the scene remarkably quickly. One politician (then Senator Marie Sherlock of the Labour Party) seems to be actually smirking as she records her piece to camera. Is it a case of Duper’s Delight?

The brown-skinned Brazilian hero, Caio Benecio is also suspicious. He supposedly used his motorbike helmet to batter the Algerian into a three week coma. He made hundreds of thousands in spontaneous donations from the public. He got a private meeting with our then Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Leo Varadkar. He even returned from Brazil to run in the local elections in Dublin at the personal invitation of Fianna Fail leader Michael “the Nose” Martin.

This contrasts with the treatment of two other men who helped restrain the Algerian. Wayne “the belly” and the little Frenchman. Both say – and nobody has contradicted them – that they played their part in restraining the Algerian and removing the knife, as any decent Dubliner or Frenchman would do. No publicity, no hundreds of thousands in donations, no invites to tea with Leo or invites to run in the election. Is it because they are White?

These two stories reflect poorly on the Remigration movement. Is it entirely a coincidence that they were reported on so widely during the election campaign, or was this carefully planned months ago?

Some good news: Alan Shatter, a former Minister for Justice who boasts of his role in mass migration and just happens to be Jewish, polled poorly – just 3.6% in Dublin Rathdown. His leaflet says he is for Truth, Integrity and Wisdom, against racism and anti-Semitism and apparently he is even against justifying atrocities committed abroad. He himself enthusiastically supports the Israeli killings in Gaza and everywhere else.

Bizarrely huge votes for the worst of the politicians:

Simon Harris topped the poll in Wicklow with almost 17,000 votes (29.5%). He only got 12% in the 2020 election. What did he do to double his popularity: his role in Covid or his role in mass migration? It doesn’t make sense.

Health Minister, Stephen Donnelly, lost his seat in Wicklow, but officially he got 6% of the vote. If you like conspiracies, check out Freepress.ie and what they say about his previous career as a management consultant. They call him the Manchurian Candidate.

Meanwhile, Helen McEntee, who is as bad a Justice Minister as Donnelly was Health, gets rewarded with 20% and 10,000 votes.

Candidates who had a realistic chance but didn’t make it:

In Dublin Central, former criminal – but never a drug dealer – Gerard “The Monk” Hutch narrowly missed election. Remigration activist, former Workers Party man and lawyer Malachi Steenson says that Hutch was encouraged to run by State forces, to take votes away from him. Steenson has been prominent in ongoing refugee protests in Dublin’s East Wall district.

It is certainly true that Hutch made some some pro-migration statements, but he also criticised freeloading refugees and said: “Migrants must come ready to work.” The Internet tells us that he owns some properties that are rented for migrant accommodation. He says himself that he was in contact with a pro-refugee Social Democrat politician before deciding to run as an independent.

The one thing that was always said about Hutch was that he never dirtied his hands with the drugs trade, unlike other criminals, businessmen and even politicians. He grew up in the inner city and saw the damage heroin did. He has accused the authorities of being involved in the illegal drugs trade. As recently as last year, while he was enjoying the State’s hospitality in Cloverhill Prison, he publicly expressed surprise and annoyance that the prison authorities were allowing drugs to be smuggled into the prison. It’s widely known in Dublin, that there is many a man who went to prison clean, and came out as a raging junkie.

If he had been elected and if he spoke out, he might have been able to do what no Minister for Justice could do until now: stop drugs coming into prisons.

It’s hard to believe that Mary Lou MacDonald, Sinn Fein leader, actually topped the poll in this area.

In Kildare, Tom McDonnell was elected the Council in the summer. According to media reports he admires the beauty of Black women, urges White Irish women to have more babies so we don’t die out and bitches about Khazarian Jews. That sounds like a popular platform to me, but not if we believe the vote. Getting elected to the council gives you a decent chance at the Dail, but not this time: he lost a couple of votes from his council run. Sitting TD Patricia Ryan left Sinn Fein after she criticised the Ukrainian refugees. She had previously criticised the official version of 9.11. It’s surprising that she only got 600 votes when she ran as an independent.

In Dublin West, Patrick Quinlan, the National Party’s first ever councillor, polled a decent 1,149 votes and another Remigration enthusiast Suzanne Delaney got 816. If those votes were added to Aontú’s 2,453, they would have been a thousand votes ahead of Roderick O’Gorman and he would have lost his seat. In quite a few areas, the combined Aontú and Remigration vote would have been close to taking a seat.

In Mayo, Stephen Kerr narrowly missed a council seat in the summer. He got almost 3,300 votes this time, but Aontú’s Paul Lawless took the last seat. Will Paul Lawless speak out against the mass migration?

In Galway West. Noel Thomas very narrowly missed election. He is a former Fianna Fail member. A refugee property in his area, owned by a charming Irish-American couple, was destroyed in a fire. His house was raided by Gardai and he was taken away for questioning. He was released without charge.

One piece of good news: It looks like all the TDs elected are White, barring a few crypto-Jews. No more Hazel Chu, no more Leo Varadkar. The bad news for readers in the US, is that they will probably move stateside and get big jobs there.

If any reader does come across Leo, here is the way to shut him up: Ask him to name Boy A and Boy B. Two young ethnic Irish thugs from wealthy families, part of a devil worship cult, raped and murdered poor Anastasia Kriegel, not far from Leo’s home base. Because they were under 18, it is a criminal offence to name them, under Irish law. But if you meet Leo in the US, he will not have that excuse… If you’re looking for Leo, try the gay bars, especially those with a bondage or S/M theme.

A final piece of good news is the re-election of Carol Nolan, the former Sinn Fein TD who was kicked out because of her pro-life views. She has spoken out against the Covid and the mass migration nonsense and the MSM very rarely even mention her. That’s usually a good sign. She topped the poll with 22% of the vote. It must be lonely, and a bit scary, to be an honest person in Dáil Éireann…

Beir Bua!

 

Dugin explores the importance of Trump’s re-election as signaling a turning point in Western history.

The decline of liberalism signals the emergence of an alternative ideology, a new world order, and a different set of values. Liberalism has proven not to be destiny, not the end of history, nor an irreversible and universal paradigm, but merely an episode — an era with clear temporal and spatial boundaries. Liberalism is intrinsically tied to the Western model of modernity. While it won ideological battles against other forms of modernity — nationalism and communism — it has ultimately reached its conclusion. …

Humanity is now entering a post-liberal era. However, this era diverges sharply from the Marxist-communist expectations of the past. First, the global socialist movement has largely faded, and its primary strongholds — the Soviet Union and China — abandoned their orthodox forms, adopting aspects of the liberal model to varying degrees. Second, the primary forces responsible for liberalism’s collapse are traditional values and deep civilizational identities.

Liberalism did indeed win the battle with a particular example of nationalism in 1945—an explicitly stated racial nationalism. But racial nationalism lives on in many countries, at least implicitly, and often with an ideology that the territory belongs to a particular people. Hungary’s Viktor Orban:

A recent speech outside Parliament epitomised his approach. On March 15th [2018]—a national holiday commemorating the failed 1848 uprising against the Habsburgs who ruled Hungary for centuries—Mr Orban … issued a rousing battle-cry to defend the Magyar homeland from waves of migrants; militant Islam; plans in Brussels for enforced migrant quotas; and a United States of Europe. In today’s Europe, thundered Mr Orban, “it is forbidden to speak the truth”: that immigration brings crime and terrorism and “endangers our way of life, our culture, our customs and our Christian traditions”.

Indeed, I would argue that racial nationalism, at least implicit racial nationalism, is the rule around the world except for the West, with its individualist tradition and beset as it is with a substantially Jewish elite that is hostile to the people and culture they rule.

[In his Unguarded Gates: A History of  America’s Immigration Crisis, Otis] Graham notes that the Jewish lobby on immigration “was aimed not just at open doors for Jews, but also for a diversification of the immigration stream sufficient to eliminate the majority status of western Europeans so that a fascist regime in America would be more unlikely.” The motivating role of fear and insecurity on the part of the activist Jewish community was thus unique and differed from other groups and individuals promoting an end to the national origins’ provisions of the 1924 and 1952 laws; such a view entailed changing the ethnic balance of the U.S. (Quoted here, p. 37)

Nevertheless, I think Dugin is right: the non-Western peoples and cultures that are invading the West are ultimately incompatible with the West, as we are seeing throughout the West as the attempt to integrate different races and religions into Western countries is widely acknowledged to be a complete failure, leading to the rise of “far right” parties, political hyperpolarization, increased crime, no-go zones, and increasing hatred toward and marginalization of the founding White populations. I propose that the “deep civilizational identities” referred to by Dugin ultimately come down to different evolutionary trajectories. The idea that one ideology will ultimately fit all of humanity — much beloved by globalists — is a non-starter to an evolutionist. For example, Muslim peoples and cultures from the Middle East will never assimilate into Western societies in any meaningful sense any more than Jews as a group have assimilated to the West over the last two millennia (as indicated, among other things, by the simple fact that the United States and really the rest of the West are now client states of Israel as a result of Jewish activism on behalf of Israel). Instead, while maintaining their own brand of genocidal, ethnic cleansing ethnonationalism in Israel, Jews have assumed an adversarial stance toward the West and its traditional Christian culture, as indicated by their outsize role in promoting multiculturalism and non-European, non-Christian immigration to the West. Some Jews, Muslims and Africans can indeed assimilate to the West and truly identify with its founding people and its traditional culture and values, but that is simply not the case for the great majority. And, taking the example of Jews,

These civilizational fissures are deep and unbridgeable; ultimately they are based on very different genetic substrates. Despite the current elite hostility to the idea that genetics has anything to do with the proclivities and talents of different peoples, the West is finally waking up to that reality.

The idea that Trump with his considerably multiethnic coalition — which is absolutely necessary in the  American political context where the traditional White majority is too splintered to win a national electoral majority — could be a pivotal figure in this transformation is problematic but not completely without any basis.  He has often expressed the right ideas (“Paris isn’t Paris any more”) and some of his top officials are certainly willing to move things in the right direction (mass deportation would be a great start). But we are a very long way from a Reconquista.

The collapse of the liberal-globalist ideal seems inevitable. And when it happens, a racially and culturally divided and hyperpolarized West will look out at other more genetically homogeneous civilizations and find that are more unified and free of strife. The West would then realize that multiethnic multiculturalism — the ideology promoted by our hostile, Jewish-dominated elite since the 1960s — must be replaced. Then things will get truly interesting. As noted previously, it is conceivable that a non-Jewish elite is forming around Trump. The money is there. The only question is whether enough wealthy, politically based non-Jews will get on board.

*   *   *

The Liberal Moment – by Alexander Dugin – Arktos Journal:

[Long Intro] …

Trump as a Factor in World History

The very possibility of applying the term “moment” to the era of the global triumph of capitalism, even from within the Western intellectual sphere (as Krauthammer did), opens up a unique perspective that has yet to be fully explored and understood. Could the current, evident collapse of Western leadership and the inability of the West to serve as a universal arbiter of legitimate authority also carry an ideological dimension? Could the end of unipolarity and Western hegemony signal the end of liberalism itself?

This idea is supported by a critical political event: the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States for two terms. Trump’s presidency represented a striking repudiation of globalism and liberalism, reflecting the emergence of a critical mass of dissatisfaction with the ideological and geopolitical direction of the liberal elites, even at the heart of unipolarity. Moreover, Trump’s chosen Vice President for his second term, JD Vance, openly identifies as a proponent of “post-liberal conservatism.” During Trump’s campaigns, liberalism was consistently invoked as a negative term, specifically targeting the “left-wing liberalism” of the Democratic Party. However, among broader circles of Trump supporters, liberalism became a byword for degeneration, decay, and the moral corruption of the ruling elite.

For the second time in recent history, a political figure overtly critical of liberalism triumphed in the very citadel of liberal ideology, the United States. Among Trump’s supporters, liberalism has come to be demonized outright, reflecting its association with moral and political decline. Thus, it is increasingly plausible to speak of the end of the “liberal moment.” Liberalism, once thought to be the ultimate victor in historical progression, now appears as merely one stage in the broader course of history, a phase with a beginning and an end, constrained by its geographic and historical context.

The decline of liberalism signals the emergence of an alternative ideology, a new world order, and a different set of values. Liberalism has proven not to be destiny, not the end of history, nor an irreversible and universal paradigm, but merely an episode — an era with clear temporal and spatial boundaries. Liberalism is intrinsically tied to the Western model of modernity. While it won ideological battles against other forms of modernity — nationalism and communism — it has ultimately reached its conclusion. Along with it, the “unipolar moment” described by Krauthammer and the broader cycle of singular Western colonial domination over the globe, which began with the age of great geographical discoveries, has also ended.

The Post-Liberal Era

Humanity is now entering a post-liberal era. However, this era diverges sharply from the Marxist-communist expectations of the past. First, the global socialist movement has largely faded, and its primary strongholds — the Soviet Union and China — abandoned their orthodox forms, adopting aspects of the liberal model to varying degrees. Second, the primary forces responsible for liberalism’s collapse are traditional values and deep civilizational identities.

Humanity is overcoming liberalism not through a socialist, materialist, or technological phase but by reviving cultural and civilizational layers that Western modernity deemed obsolete and eradicated. This return to the pre-modern, rather than a continuation of the postmodern trajectory rooted in Western modernity, defines the essence of post-liberalism. Contrary to the expectations of left-wing progressive thought, post-liberalism is emerging as a rejection of the universal claims of the Western modern order. Instead, it views the modern era as a temporary phenomenon, an episode driven by one specific culture’s reliance on brute force and aggressive technological exploitation.

The post-liberal world envisions not a continuation of Western hegemony but a return to civilizational diversity, akin to the era before the West’s sharp rise. Liberalism, as the last form of Western global imperialism, absorbed all the key principles of European modernity and pushed them to their logical extremes: gender politics, woke culture, cancel culture, critical race theory, transhumanism, and postmodernist frameworks. The end of the liberal moment marks not only the collapse of liberalism but also the conclusion of the West’s singular dominance in world history. It is the end of the West.

The Liberal Moment in Hegel

The concept of the “end of history” has surfaced repeatedly in this discussion. It is now necessary to revisit the theory itself. The term originated with Hegel, and its meaning is rooted in Hegel’s philosophy. Both Marx and Fukuyama adopted this concept (via the Russo-French Hegelian Alexander Kojève), but they stripped it of its theological and metaphysical foundations.

In Hegel’s model, the end of history is inseparable from its beginning. At history’s start lies God, hidden within Himself. Through self-negation, God transitions into Nature. In Nature, God’s presence is latent but active, and this latent presence drives the emergence of history. History, in turn, represents the unfolding of the Spirit. Societies of different types emerge over time: traditional monarchies, democracies, and civil societies. Finally, history culminates in the great Empire of Spirit, where God becomes most fully manifest in the State — not just any state, but a philosophical state guided by Spirit.

In this framework, liberalism is but a moment. It follows the dissolution of older states and precedes the establishment of a new, true state that marks the culmination of history. Both Marxists and liberals, rejecting Hegel’s theological basis, reduced his theory to materialist terms. They began with Nature, disregarding Hegel’s conception of God, and ended with civil society — liberalism — as the culmination of history. For liberals like Fukuyama, history ends when all of humanity becomes a global civil society. Marxists, meanwhile, envisioned history ending with a classless communist society, although it remained within the framework of civil society.

By restoring Hegel’s full philosophical model, it becomes evident that liberalism is only a transitional phase — what Hegel would term a “moment.” Its conclusion paves the way for the ultimate realization of Spirit, which Hegel envisioned as an Empire of Spirit.

Postmodernism and Monarchy

In this context, the idea of monarchy acquires renewed significance — not as a relic of the past but as a potential model for the future. The global era of liberal democracy and republicanism has exhausted itself. Efforts to establish a global republic have failed. By January 2025, this failure will be definitively acknowledged.

What comes next? The parameters of the post-liberal epoch remain undefined. Yet the recognition that all of European modernity — its science, culture, politics, technology, society, and values — was merely an episode, culminating in a dismal and inglorious conclusion, suggests that the post-liberal future will be radically unexpected.

Hegel offers a clue: the post-liberal era will be an era of monarchies. Contemporary Russia, while still formally a liberal democracy, already exhibits the characteristics of a monarchy: a popular leader, the permanence of supreme authority, and an emphasis on spiritual values, identity, and tradition. These are the foundations for a monarchical transition — not in form, but in essence.

Other civilizations are moving in a similar direction. India under Narendra Modi increasingly reflects the archetype of a sacred monarch, a chakravartin, akin to the tenth avatar Kalkin, who ushers in the end of a dark age. China under Xi Jinping demonstrates the traits of a Confucian Empire, with Xi embodying the archetype of the Yellow Emperor. Even the Islamic world may find integration through a modernized Caliphate.

In this post-liberal world, even the United States could see a monarchical turn. Influential thinkers like Curtis Yarvin have long advocated monarchy in America. Figures like Donald Trump, with his dynastic connections, might symbolize this shift.

An Open Future

The term “liberal moment” holds revolutionary implications for political thought. What was once considered an inevitable destiny is revealed as merely a fleeting pattern in history’s broader tapestry. This realization opens the door to boundless political imagination. The post-liberal world is one of infinite possibility — where past, future, and even forgotten traditions may be rediscovered or reimagined.

Thus, the deterministic dictates of history are overturned, heralding an era of plural timeframes. Beyond the liberal moment lies a new freedom, with diverse civilizations charting their paths toward the unknown horizons of a post-liberal future.

(Translated from the Russian)