Whatever Happened to Agnosticism?

The rise of secular society in the West seems undeniable, and although the 1960s may not be the decade which created secularism, it certainly fed it an accelerant. It was not just sexual and social liberation combining with new-found wealth which favored materialism over spiritualism, however, and even the Anglican Church was beginning to have doubts. In 1963, John Robinson, Bishop of Woolwich, published Honest to God, a book which was also the subject of a piece written by the author in the London Observer, and dramatically headlined; “Our Image of God Must Go”. Faith in Christianity was under threat from the forces of Mammon, certainly, but it was also being questioned by its own high-priests.

As materialistic, temporal values gradually replace those of the Church, this would suggest a concomitant decline in religious belief, at least for Christian countries. Put in theological terms, the number of theists is falling, while the number of atheists increases. This certainly seems true in the UK, for example, where church attendance has been in steady decline for half a century. Despite occasional pieces informing us that the youth of Europe are turning back to the Christian religion, this seems fanciful. I doubt Gen Z will find God unless they can download an app making it easy for them to do so.

In 1983, 1.3 million British people attended church regularly, but that was down to a million by the turn of the century. By 2019, there were around 850,000 regular, Anglican churchgoers, and Church statisticians watched anxiously for a return to these figures after an obvious slump during Covid. But, by 2023, the figure had dropped still further to 685,000, and the downward slope is even sharper when adjusted for the rise in population.

So, belief certainly seems to be on the wane, if church usage is any reliable marker. Of the 16,000 Anglican churches in Britain, between 3,000 and 5,000 are currently derelict or used only rarely (and even more rarely for anything to do with actual worship), and none has a resident vicar. It appears, then, that people are increasingly inclined to atheism, although that is not the only theological alternative to a belief in God. It is not true to say that people either believe in God or they do not, and there is a tertium quid, a third way. Whatever happened to agnosticism?

Thomas Huxley, grandfather of Aldous, was the first writer to use the term “agnosticism”. He coined it in private conversation around 1869, although the word would not appear in print until nine years later, when it appeared in an essay by Huxley on David Hume. This is significant, as Hume is part of a long train of philosophical skepticism which is necessarily closely allied with agnosticism. Huxley’s term is an Ancient Greek construction, and comes from the word gnosis.

Gnosis as a philosophical concept starts its life with a pre-Christian sect, the Pyrrhonists, named after the philosopher Pyrrho and exemplified by physician and philosopher Sextus Empiricus. If we can conceive of God, says Sextus, then we can conceive of his properties (what would later be called “attributes”). But there was no consensus among Sextus’ fellows concerning what those properties were. These arguments would last at least until the great Catholic Counter-Reformation Councils which began with the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Did God have a body or was he incorporeal? Was he a temporal being or outside of time? Was he spatial or unextended? In fact, some of Sextus’ questions are far less trivial than those asked at the later Councils in supposedly more enlightened times, where debating points included whether or not Christ owned his clothes.

The later Gnostic school of the first century AD went on to co-exist uneasily with early Christianity before being declared heretical, and was syncretic, combining elements of previous thought (including Platonism) concerning the revelation and conception of knowledge. Gnosis makes its way into the Bible, and comes to mean something along the lines of “revealed knowledge”. The gnostic would be one who knows, or has received knowledge. By the 19th century, Thomas Huxley required a term for conversational usage which could sum up the combination of this initiation – akin to rites such as the Greek Eleusinian Mysteries – with an attendant skepticism which had been present almost as long as the idea of gnosis. What if you cannot obtain gnosis because you doubt? What does that make you?

Huxley’s philosophical salon, the Metaphysical Society, was a group of like-minded, Victorian, Kantian, English gentlemen who met to exchange opinions and papers on various contentious subjects. One of these was, as one might expect, religion, and Huxley felt he needed a new term, if only to use with his fellows, which suited his epistemological requirements when it came to considerations of deity. And so, with the addition of the alpha-privative, “gnostic” becomes “agnostic”, one who has not received knowledge.  (We still use the alpha-privative from time to time in English. Sneezing, for example, is typical of someone suffering from the common cold. The patient presenting red spots, however, is atypical). So, what became of Huxley’s neologism? When the term entered the Oxford English Dictionary, it had a distinct flavor of Kantianism about it:

“Agnostic. One who holds that the evidence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and unknowable”.

Agnosticism has had a strange philosophical ride, and is not the simple cop-out it appears to be, a theological abstention. In Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, the Grand Inquisitor tells Ivan about the ladder of belief, on which true belief is the top rung. But atheism is not at the bottom, it is the second rung from the top, the bottom rung being reserved for agnosticism. There is an echo of this in Chesterton’s famous line that “When a man ceases to believe in God, he doesn’t believe in nothing. He’ll believe in anything”. At least the atheist has belief, and the theist can always change that to suit his own requirements, the Grand Inquisitor implies. He just has to estimate how many people will take Pascal’s Wager.

Pascal’s Wager is a famous philosophical conundrum, and it is aimed squarely at the agnostic. If God either does or does not exist, Pascal suggests, then choosing to be a theist or an atheist is akin to a 50-50 bet, such as that made on a coin-toss. Better to bet on God’s existence, because if he doesn’t exist it makes no difference to you, so why bet on a horse-race with no runners and riders? You die. You just cease to live, and off you go into the eternal night. But if God does exist, and you bet against him, then it’s punishment in the afterlife for you rather than the eternal reward you could have had if you had bet on the deity. It’s good as far as it goes, but roulette is more fun because you can see the wheel. Pascal’s punter is betting not only on God’s existence, but also on the existence (although there isn’t too much of this mentioned in the Bible) of an attendant afterlife with one of two destinations. Three, counting purgatory. If theism is represented by a divine afterlife, and atheism by an infernal one, perhaps purgatory is an analogue for agnosticism, a metaphysical waiting-room for those who just cannot make up their minds.

The criticism of agnosticism from the traditional Church was always that it is not any different from atheism. That was the charge levelled against Hume when he was turned down for the only academic post he ever applied for, that he was an atheist dressing up in the livery of philosophy. Hume hardly mentions God in in A Treatise on Human Nature, written when he was just 25, but whatever he did say must have made the examining board uneasy enough to dismiss his application.

So, as far as the Church was concerned, “agnosticism” had been tried as a concept and was just a different word for the same thing, that thing being atheism. (Things will have changed radically now, the Anglican Church having somewhat shed its metaphysical concerns and dumped them for Pride paraphernalia). Here is the verdict; If you are agnostic, then you don’t believe in God, in which case you are an atheist. It is sound reasoning, but instead of concentrating on the poles of theist/atheist, what of the agnostic as a philosophical position? Albert Camus was reputed to have wished that there were a political party for people who think that they may possibly be wrong. Agnosticism is the theological wing of that party.

The first way in which agnosticism differs from either theism or atheism is that it seeks to answer a question by stating that the question cannot be answered. If the question is, “Is there a God?”, then the theist ticks the “Yes” box, and the atheist ticks “No”.  But the agnostic is wanting to tick a box marked, “Don’t know”. Is this an answer? It is certainly a response. The theist and the atheist believe their argument to be protected by the law of excluded middle – it’s an “either/or” question – but agnosticism is that excluded middle. Classical Aristotelean logic has already been outflanked. The second and more philosophical relationship between the three positions, what William James (who wrote at length on agnosticism) might have termed “varieties of religious experience”, is that neither theism nor atheism have any room for skepticism, Kryptonite for their respective positions (tests of faith for the religious notwithstanding), whereas agnosticism not only involves skepticism, it requires it.

Skepticism is both a school of thought in Ancient Greece and a methodology found consistently throughout Western philosophy. René Descartes most famously uses “universal skepticism” as a staging-post on the way to the indubitability of the cogito in the Discourse on the Method, as indeed St. Augustine did before him in what is called the “proto-cogito argument” in City of God. I can doubt all my experience, claims Descartes, except for this one unassailable thought; I think, therefore I am. The agnostic is also skeptical, not of the veracity of experience, but of the existence of God. It is worthy of note, of course, that he also doubts that there is no God. That is a logical implication which agnosticism has either to face or quit the game, and it is the paradox of agnosticism. The agnostic’s inevitable inability to find firm philosophical ground for his belief (or lack of) is his philosophical ground. The theist and the atheist have already made a metaphysical choice, whether they know it or not. But have they made a properly philosophical choice? Religious belief concerns faith as well as reason, a different rabbit-warren. However, it might be argued that only the agnostic is properly philosophical about the question of God’s existence, and that is precisely because he is a skeptic concerning what is said to be true.

The difference between belief in God and atheism has as its center of gravity truth, which, in philosophical terms, is big-game hunting. But it should be noted that truth is not a one-size-fits-all outfit designed for our convenience. Truth has different functions, and these differing functions effectively make truths true in different ways. It is an unassailable fact that 2 plus 2 is equal to four, and also that there are four horsemen of the Apocalypse. Both are true statements – good luck with being skeptical about either – and even involve a common mathematical denominator in “4”. But they are true in very different ways, they represent veridical modalities which are congruent but not identical, like two equilateral triangles of different sizes. And the truth or falsehood behind belief in God is, potentially, susceptible to skeptical opposition not just as a matter of faith, upbringing, or choice, but as a result of philosophical and linguistic analysis. This is the methodology of the Vienna Circle, for example, for whose members language has no meaning if it cannot be verified from experience – like an epistemological checklist – and therefore God becomes questionable not because atheists say so and march around saying so, but because the internal logic of language says so. “I fear we have not got rid of God”, writes Nietzsche, “because we have not got rid of grammar”.

Skepticism concerning the existence of God can also be expressed philosophically by counter-hypothesis. Bertrand Russell, the English philosopher and mathematician, was famously an atheist, and was also an expert in thought-experiments. There is a rather playful philosophical conundrum concerning the physical world, for example, for which Russell’s answer is as thought-provoking as the question. Waking up one morning, how do you know that everything in the world – yourself included – has not doubled in size? It is deceptive because it privileges the visual sense, but Russell answered it by taking into account physical but invisible forces such as gravity and barometric pressure. Were everything suddenly twice its original size, Russell said, Bumble-bees would be unable to fly, and water would boil at a different temperature. There were other spoilers, too, but the answer shows a prehensile and inquisitory mind loaded with back-up in the form of scientific awareness, and it is worth noting one of Russell’s arguments not against God, but against the likelihood of God.

What if, suggested Russell, I claim that between Earth and Mars there exists a teapot, orbiting elliptically like a planet? It can’t be seen, even by our most powerful optical instruments, because it is too small. Therefore, my postulation cannot be disproved, however unlikely it might seem, and that is not a strong positive argument when applied in support of the existence of God. This surreal scenario seems just that, until you recall that we believe in electrons as building-blocks of the physical world, but we can’t see them either. Not even electron microscopes are designed to see electrons. You can’t do that. They use a stream of electrons – still simply assumed to exist, like the medieval deus absconditus – to see other very small things. So, Russell’s orbiting teapot has as much claim to existence as the electron, simply because he says it does, ex cathedra, and yet we believe in the latter but not the former. Russell claims that proof of God’s existence is just as tenuous.

Philosophers and scientists have something of a track record of believing in things which, although not able to be proved to exist, cannot be disproved. Locke’s primary quality, Riemannian geometry, Kant’s noumenon, Lepton spin, Fermi gases, the Freudian unconscious; all of these are “undisprovables”. You can posit them, and no one can refute you. This is Hegelian synthesis without either thesis or antithesis, the answer to a mathematics question without the workings. The “dark matter” of the cosmologists is a perfect example. Dark matter is just that, matter which cannot be seen. We cannot access it via our “senses five”, just as with the other “undisprovables” noted. But, cosmologists claim, dark matter has to exist because what we can observe is a range of effects inexplicable without the presence of dark matter. It seems a little like Descartes’ ontological proof of God’s existence, a weak argument probably published to deflect the attention of the Catholic Church after Galileo’s imprisonment. God is perfect, writes Descartes, and non-existence is an imperfection. Therefore, God cannot have non-existence as an attribute, and therefore exists. It is begging the question on a cosmological scale.

So, where does that leave today’s agnostic? I have framed this overview of agnosticism (as theological skepticism) in religious terms, and discount (not disprove) neo-philosophical areas such as simulacrum theory, which claims we all live in a Matrix-like simulation, and intelligent design (which just looks to me like deism with a new coat of paint). These are entertaining ideas, like incredibly convincing sci-fi novels, hi-tech Platonism. The Dawkins/Harris school of atheism seem to proselytize every bit as vociferously as the most vulgar American televangelist, but there seems no safe space for the poor agnostic.

What would happen if good old agnosticism made a comeback? Or what if it went the other way? What if the Church Militant made its return, spurning both atheism and agnosticism, or the strange packet-mix that the modern world seems to have made from the two. There is a good, short sketch here by the English comedy duo Mitchell and Webb, in which a sinister vicar berates a pair for their apparent spirituality in the face of old-time (Anglican) religion. When the young lady counters his traditional stance on religion with her “internet assembled philosophy”, this Luther-like priest defends himself:

“I stand with hundreds of years of darkness, bafflement, and hunger behind me!”

Nietzschean comedy, perhaps.

My personal religious beliefs are agnostic because I don’t see any other option. Perhaps I have painted myself into a corner by overdoing the philosophy for half a century. Ultimate truths don’t detain me particularly. I prefer the minutiae and detail of philosophy. I forget where Nietzsche writes that life is not a puzzle to be solved but, if he has a point, God is out of a job. In the end, God may or may not exist, but he is equivalent to the hardest puzzle ever devised.

Anyone who was living in London in 2008 will have seen one of many red buses with a large advertising slogan reading: “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”. The buses appeared in various cities, the campaign having been funded by The British Humanist Association. Richard Dawkins was involved in the promotion. The curious thing is that the media – always in need of a handy catch-phrase – began calling them “atheist buses”. They may not have been aware of what this term implied in terms of theology, but they took the same line the examining board took with David Hume; If you are an agnostic, you are effectively an atheist. The ads read, “There is probably no God”, whereas an “atheist bus” would have carried the slogan, “There is no God”.

As for God himself (even we agnostics will grant him provisional existence for a thought-experiment, something atheists are unable to do lest they convert and become agnostics), does he watch all this conceptual wrangling with great amusement, or perhaps think he had better think things out again? My greatest fear, given the existence of God, would not be that he was a jealous god, or wrathful in his constant smiting, or the most high and mighty and therefore a touch autocratic, but rather that he might just be that great engineer implied by Aristotle’s causa prima. What if he designed, built and started the engine, and now it is running away from him, like a “galloping” diesel engine from which boat engineers run and hide? Or what if he wants to re-design that engine?

A short personal reminiscence. I attended a freedom of speech rally in London years ago which culminated in Trafalgar Square. One of the speakers was the head of the British Secular Society and, as he spoke into the afternoon, huge thounder-clouds began to roll in overhead and from behind him, over the beautiful National Gallery. An electrical storm was clearly imminent. If lightning had struck that man at that moment, you would have seen a nation convert overnight. They would have had to build a lot more churches. You don’t need reason to believe in God. There are no atheists in a foxhole, they say, and I would guess there are no agnostics either.

Dave Allen, a great Irish TV comedian famous in the 1970s, particularly for his jokes about the Catholic Church, used to close his TV show with a signature catchphrase; “Goodnight, and may your god go with you”. But what if you don’t have a god, what if your skepticism won’t allow you to have one? Perhaps we should remember the line from the 1995 movie, The Usual Suspects, and it might be something for agnostics everywhere (including me) to ponder; “I don’t believe in God, but I’m afraid of him”.

The Existential Threat that Miscegenation Poses to the European Genotype and Phenotype

The cover features “Practical Amalgamation: The Wedding by Edward W. Clay, circa 1830s, edited with the caption “Rassenvermischung” in Tannenberg Fett font.

There are many evils emblematic of American society. In the wake of almost a century of American hegemony, such evils necessarily extend to the constellation of satellite, puppet states under the heel of the American Empire. Facilitated by America’s status as a lone super power, waning though that position may be, American Unkultur produces and exports these evils to Europe most particularly and the world generally. Rampant promiscuity, coupled with successive waves of feminism, which in turn has led to the ubiquity of rampant divorce and single motherhood, are two of the most prominent. The birth of the pornography menace in the 70s and 80s, which then exploded with the advent of unregulated Internet, is another: a vice this legal system and this form of government has proven utterly incapable of addressing in any meaningful way. Degenerate music that is just as offensive for its lack of musical or artistic value as much as its subversive messagimg abounds, most particularly rap “music,” but also various manifestations of gyno-centric pop music, from Madonna, to Katy Perry, from the Spice Girls to Cardi B, to name just a small few among legion. These are the portents of an utter shit culture, best described not as culture at all, but Unkultur, replete with junk fast-food as well as generations of mindless, mind-rotting mass entertainment, from the sitcoms of both yesteryear and today and idiotic gameshows, to most all fare offered from streaming services like Hulu and Netflix, to the ultimate poison to any attention span beyond that of a humming bird: TikTok. Some, although not nearly enough, perceive these evils for what they are. These among many other societal harms, including illicit drug use which, if not yet condoned outright, is tolerated more and more, with full legalization on the horizon. There is one evil in particular, however, that is the focus of this essay, the nature of which perhaps defies precise, succinct articulation as to the nature of the harms and threats it poses to European peoples and their posterity. That evil is the specter of miscegenation, of race-mixing

A still from the 1944 epic Henry V, an image featured in an interesting montage in 28 Years Later drawing on various of images of the English at war, from the long bowmen at Agincourt to her misguided and tragic role in the brothers’ wars that were both world wars. A highlight of a very uneven, flawed, imperfect film, and a subject that should have been discussed at greater length in this review.

The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

There are several considerations which implore intolerance of this scourge of the modern world, shaped and defined by American hegemony. First and foremost is how race is a defining feature of a people and its civilization. This immutable axiom is revealed whenever one considers the great peoples and civilizations of the world and how those civilizations—those peoples—are defined by their racial phenotypes. The Face of Britain has long been a touchstone of British art and culture throughout British political and cultural history; as such, that face, a small selection of Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse phenotypes, stands as the very avatar of what it means to be British and part of the Anglosphere. Consider the pale visage of the King’s Guard (formerly Queen’s Guard) stationed at various royal residences from London Tower and Buckingham Castle to Windsor Castle. Or consider any worthy depiction of King Henry V, from Lawrence Olivier to Kenneth Branagh in the excellent 1989 production. One might argue that even pop and alternative music from British artists in the 80s and 90s serve a similar role, although this assertion is fraught with peril given how the period was often characterized by androgyny and the beginnings of multiracialism.1

These are 19th Century depictions of Brittania and Germania, respectively, portraying both nations and peoples with a woman exemplifying their racial and ethnic phenotype. – The latter painting is by Lorenz Classen. Germania auf der Wacht am Rhein (Germania on the Rhine Watch) (1860),

This same principle applies to Germany and the German People as well as other nations and peoples of Europe. As explicated in “The Inherent Right of Race, Blood, and Soil” various Germanic phenotypes are inextricably bound to both German culture and identity:

One discerns this self-evident truth by simply beholding a lovely, buxom, blonde Brunhilde-type beer maid at a Volksfest or Gastwirtschaft, or for that matter the German phenotypes of German soldiers and officers (or the female auxiliaries or other women of the Third Reich) in war time footage as well as Hollywood movies or of World War II documentaries of equally dubious veracity.[9] Other examples that are far less sensitive to the neuroses of the modern German consciousness range from the Opera of Richard Wagner to German art from Albrecht Dürer to Lucas Cranach the Elder and beyond, to any decent, faithful production of Goethe’s Faust. The same applies to the character Werther himself, an overly dramatic blonde poet destroyed by his obsessive longing for Charlotte.

The essay even notes how “the paintings of Caspar David Friedrich [are] bound up in race,” a relevant consideration given the meteoric rise in popularity the once neglected artist has enjoyed over the past couple of decades, and nowhere more than in modern Germany, despite all her tribulations as she falters on the precipice of racial and national suicide. As explicated further in “The Inherent Right of Race, Blood, and Soil:”

Even without seeing the facial features of the Germanic individuals in his paintings depicting the Rückenfigur, the elements of race and blood are indelibly intertwined in his works, particularly as the most prominent figure of German Romantic painting. Indeed, as German Romanticism writ large was inextricably linked with German nationalism and the desire for national liberation and German reunification, the element of the German phenotype as part and parcel of this expression of German culture and identity is undeniable.

Huttens Grab (Hutten’s Grave) by Caspar David Friedrich depicts a German nationalist overlooking the grave of Ulrich von Hutten. The nationalist overtones are overt and unmistakable. The figure in the painting, although dimunitve, as is typical of Friedrich’s work, is unmistakably German.

As blatantly obvious as this proposition is, it eludes far too many in a society characterized by what is best described as ethno-masochism among a critical mass of white European peoples. Going well beyond bias, malice and outright contempt increasingly pervade common attitudes about the British in particular and all European peoples generally, even among British and other European peoples themselves. As Joe Rogan explained during a recent appearance of MartyrMade, the masses, so indoctrinated by propaganda of the age, reflexively wince at the very notion that white European countries should be as they have been for centuries. Such irrational objections are easily overcome when one simply considers, as just one example, how Japanese culture and society is indelibly linked with the Japanese racial phenotype. The kimono, a traditional Japanese garment, is inseparable from the Japanese phenotype, just as the Japanese phenotype cannot be separated from other auspices of Japanese culture and civilization, from the samurai warrior to the sumo wrestler. Japan would no longer be Japanese if it were not populated almost exclusively by Japanese people, just as Germany cannot be German if not populated by actual Germans in a true racial, völkisch sense. The very notion of what it means to be Japanese is indelibly bound up with Japanese racial properties and features. And just as any round eye is an immediate imposter in traditional Japanese garb, the same principle applies to Britain, Germany, all the peoples and nations of Europe; a Kenyan or East Indian is no less an eternal imposter in a Scottish kilt and regimental dress as he is in Bavarian Lederhosen, Janker, und Tracht.

Precisely because race is a defining element and feature of any great civilization and culture, it is also a signifier of that culture—a symbol synonymous with and inseparable from that culture. The individual sees himself in that divine, indispensable signifier, and identifies and communes with others belonging to his race, people, and culture, as the collective is in turn formed and bolstered by that common, shared identity.

Community and identity through race is further augmented through a fundamental principle about the nature of posterity. Just as our ancestors live through us, we live through our posterity, provided our posterity look as we do, belong to the same people that our ancestors did. This concept, only crudely described with the word “people,” is best signified by the German word Volk, which carries a distinct racial connotation lost in translation. Those not of a religious persuasion, from atheists and agnostics, to adeistic and atheistic pagans who embrace Odinism for its philosophy of religion and as an expression of Norse and Germanic ancestral heritage in contravention to some of the pathologies of Christianity and its universalism, have a unique understanding of how securing and advancing the future of our posterity is a key strategy to defeat death in the unlikelihood of any afterlife promised by more conventional religions.

Issues of Race and Race-Mixing in Modern Mass Media.

These and other phenomena about race, culture, and identity explain why Hollywood and various hostile institutions of culture and power are so persistent in “race-swapping.” They seek to negate or at the very least obfuscate what it means to be British, or German, or even European. These insidious efforts take many forms. One example includes the cinematic travesty Cruella2which depicted English rose Anita Radcliffe not as a lovely strawberry blonde, but as an African woman with an aggressive afro, a black-as-tar darkie, indeed; notably, the film supplanted Anita’s utterly English surname with the goofy moniker “Darling.”

A juxtaposition of Helene Stanley, the real life actress that inspired this and other female characters in classic Disney animations, and an animated depiction of Anita Radcliffe, exemplifying the English phenotype.
No “darling” of ours. On the left, Anita race-swapped as Anita Darling. On the right, another depiction of the true Anita, Anita Radcliffe. The powers that be are all too brazen in their insidious bid to replace the Face of Britain particularly and the Faces of Europe more generally.

The Great Replacement that is taking place also facilitates these efforts, as the national soccer teams of European countries are becoming less and less European. This is particularly disconcerting with Germany, a country and society where displaying the German flag is looked askance at, with international soccer (or football, if one prefers) being one important exception. When the national team was still largely if not exclusively racially and ethnically German, as the term is properly understood, some naïvely hoped the (anticipated) successes of the German national team might act as a conduit to restoke nationalist flames. As the team becomes increasingly less German, and as players seem more preoccupied with leftist virtue signaling than actually winning, the German national team and its successes and more particularly embarrassing failures are rendered unsuitable as a catalyst for reigniting nationalist fervor and a national awakening

A notable graphic from Germany’s glorious obliteration of the perennially obnoxious and arrogant Brazil squad. with the infamous final score of 7-1. The Mineiraço was not that long ago, although it did occur just before Angela Merkel, the bane of Germany and Europe, did the unthinkable. Note the red, white, and black of the away kit and its resemblance to the Reichskriegsflagge, a matter of some controversy at the time. The author owns this very garment. Germany finally won the world cup after a number of disappointing failures, and yet the Wiedererwachung has not yet come to flourish.
Abstoßend und abscheulich. The German national team about a decade later, protesting the World Cup’s prohibition against demonstrations pushing LGBTQ-Yuck, in order to conform to the host nation’s Islamic moral system. Of particular note is how many fewer members of die Nationalmannschaft are actually German. In a recent Euro Cup tournament, Hungarian fans taunted with the chant “Deutschland, Deutschland, homosexuell.” An irrefutable indictment and one that makes it impossible to support this team.

The concerted push for race-mixing and mongrelization is so overt, so on the nose that a brief survey of these most disconcerting trends can only bolster credibility of sharp commentary, found on more cavalier venues on the Internet, hypothesizing the push for miscegenation is done intentionally for nefarious purposes, in concert with the bid to render whites a minority everywhere, both in Europe and the Anglosphere in the New World, namely the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Such evil intentions have been stated explicitly, such as when Anthony Bordain stated that the only way to overcome the supposed racism plaguing society is for future generalizations to be completely and irretrievably miscegenated. But such intentions are also inferred from the actions themselves, as a basic principle of criminal law is to establish the Mens Rea (intent) requirement by discerning that actions demonstrate intent for the results and consequences that naturally and predictably arise from such actions.

“Typical German.” The migrant crises is coupled with an ever more intense, brazen effort to deconstruct race as a defining element of European culture and identity.

Mongrelized, miscegenated offspring cannot relate or be rallied by racially defined avatars or symbols of culture or civilization, just as they cannot belong to that people or civilization. A Briton—an actual Briton of exclusively European descent—can contemplate images or stories of King Henry V or Richard the Lionheart, see himself and his posterity in these images and stories, and discern thereby the evils of the modern world, of “globohomo” as it is known in Internet parlance. A miscegenated mongrel most emphatically cannot.

The war guilt complex that has been installed in the German consciousness throughout the post-war era renders precious few Germans likely to relate with the heroic Landser or Panzer commander or allow such figures to resonate with them. Other cultural expressions that are distinctly and unmistakably German have also been tainted by the National Socialist period, most particularly the work of Richard Wagner. Notwithstanding that, Germans may nonetheless discern how race is inextricably linked and intertwined with German culture and identity in other, less controversial expressions. As explicated earlier, this, quite notably, includes the paintings of Caspar David Friedrich and other figures in the German Romantic movement, of which nationalism was a defining feature. There are myriad others.

Conversely, a cadre of international elites who want to dismantle racial and national identity while also seeking to sabotage any chance for ethno-nationalism to achieve prominence also have a vested interest in cultivating a nondescript polyglot of disjointed, unrelated peoples from different parts of the world, as the rise of such a morass of genetic mishmash of varied hues of brown makes it increasingly less likely for the populist, ethno-nationalist right to ever seize power, particularly in a democracy (unless of course democracy is overthrown). In America, such a polyglot, mongrelized people with some contingent of European descent but large components of black, mestizo, Asian, and even East Indian ancestry would have no fidelity to or interest in preserving the European peoples which give those of European descent meaning and purpose through cultural and racial identity. Destroying the peoples of the world through race mixing might destroy real diversity, but it would, in turn, create stability for the ruling class who simply desire fidelity to modernity and all its unspeakable ugliness, with no other purpose than to consume and be good little serfs in the terrible new order that is to come. Obviously, these efforts do not seem directed at destroying all the peoples of the world, but only Europeans, as well as Japanese and Koreans to some lesser extent.

These critical precepts are fundamental to understanding the evils of miscegenation, and why it must not be tolerated, or at the very least not be celebrated and encouraged as it has been in the modern world for far too long. And just as these and other considerations reveal miscegenation as a great evil and existential threat to our civilization and posterity, they in turn evoke preservation—racial preservation—as an overriding moral imperative. The moral imperative of preserving biodiversity, indeed every conceivable subspecies of any animal is apparent. But as we rightly conclude that a particular fish, bird, or even particular breed of dog (pit bulls likely excepted) must be preserved, why should the various faces and phenotypes of Europe not be infinitely more worthy of preservation?3

Kirsten Dunst, Sophia Loren, and Diane (Heid)Kruger,pictured, left, center and right.

While Hollywood and modern entertainment has been, overall, a monstrously destructive force in culture and society, one positive attribute of mass media is how it has demonstrated the striking beauty of certain phenotypes that are emphatically and unmistakably European. Kirsten Dunst is approaching fifty, but was a timeless beauty in her day. She exemplifies blonde, Nordic features bar none, and even stated as much in an interview, boasting that she is essentially “Aryan,” a “Swedish milkmaid.” Gillian Anderson is another exemplar of the beauty and sexual allure of white womanhood, the pre-Raphaelite sex goddess of the modern age and, arguably, for all time. Catherine Bach, who was only ever known for role as Daisy Duke and more particularly Sophia Loren are exemplars of the brunette variant of the beauty and sexual allure wielded by white, European womanhood. Lamentably, Diane (Heid)kruger is another example—her real surname is Heidkrüger, changed to Kruger without the umlaut to appeal to Anglo and International audiences that disfavor all but the most common Germanic surnames. Cast in 2004 as Helen of Troy herself, this blonde beauty is of particular note given her collaboration in one of the more egregious instances of defamation on her nation’s history and character perpetrated by Hollywood: Inglorius Basterds. Her role as Bridget von Hammersmark, a German actress who commits treason by collaborating with the Allies, has far too many parallels to the actress in real life. Even as the film and her collaboration in that production seek to abnegate and deconstruct the Germanic ideal she exemplifies, she nonetheless personifies that ideal, just as her beauty and sexual allure are a draw to audiences.

Gillian Anderson in her prime. Yes, please.

Most recently Sydney Sweeney4 has become a subject of controversy for how she exemplifies this very phenomenon. This controversy stems from an American Eagle advertising campaign, in which she states she has good genes, which then is replaced by the word “jeans.” Leftists have been outraged by a perceived allusion to eugenics and Nazi era propaganda. Consider however that such allusions would be well-grounded in facts and reason, as well as something profoundly instinctual, primal even. No matter the cost, no matter the bloodshed, people, both men and women, with these features must continue to populate the sacred continent of Europe until the end of time. In relation to male figures complementing their female counterparts, Christian Bale comes to this author’s mind first and foremost, as does Rutger Hauer, made immortal in his role as Roy Batty in Blade Runner. Chris Hemsworth came to prominence long after Hollywood became creatively bankrupt, and has not been featured in some of the great films featuring Bale, who is also an underrated actor, but Hemsworth’s phenotype nonetheless illustrates this essential principle, even if all or most of his films hardly qualify as cinema at all, as the term is properly understood.

Christian Bale, left, and Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty, right, together prove that all men are not created equal. More importantly, without an abrupt change in course, these phenotypes may soon be lost forever,”like tears in rain.”

This is not to suggest that every white woman looks like Margot Robbie and that every white man is as handsome as Christian Bale, or even that most do. But just as it has been stated that every Englishman has, to some varying degree, the tongue of Shakespeare, a hallmark of European phenotypes are exemplified by the most attractive white men and women who ever lived: the sons and daughters of Mother Europa as both Freyja and Venus incarnate. Such representations also exist in less vulgar cultural expressions, including fine classical art and literature. The image of English beauties depicted in the paintings of the pre-Raphaelite school come to mind first and foremost, but there are many other examples throughout the body of classical art and literature alike.

Just as resolution against miscegenation is necessary to ensure the planet—Europe and the Anglosphere in the New World in particular—continue to be populated by European peoples with these phenotypes, the inverse is also true, namely that miscegenation will, if left unabated, eradicate such peoples and their very phenotypes, replacing it with an ugly, non-descript brown polyglot. This is particularly egregious in relation to the white and black variety of mongrelization. While there are always exceptions and outliers, most specimens of such spawn are, much more often than not, an abomination. It is of course true those of mixed-race ancestry are often if not invariably alienated from both groups.5 As explained earlier, they are people with no identity, have no fidelity to what they are the very abnegation of. This makes such people rootless, more pliable, ideal for dystopic modernity that offers little more than naked consumerism, but it also afflicts a toll of alienation and estrangement on those individuals.

Much propaganda in mass media will present the likes of Mariah Carey as the avatar for those born from black and white miscegenation. This author submits this meme is far more typical of such loathsome breeding.

Grappling With a More Nebulous Evil: What If Everybody Does That?

“No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible”

– Widely but falsely attributed to Voltaire

As with some other existential threats facing Europe and the West in the modern world, one facet of race-mixing that makes it different than other evils is how innocuous it may seem in the individual instance, or at least some individual instances. An example illustrating this, that comes to my mind at least, is Yasser Seirawan, a chess prodigy and grand master. Aside from being a brilliant mind who reached the apex of his calling, he is, by all accounts, a decent and kind human being. Yasser Seirawan is half Syrian and half British, his father a Syrian man and his mother British. Born in 1960, he was conceived when race mixing was not something promoted in the “culture,” and still carried some stigma, although not enough to dissuade his mother, an English woman from Nottingham whose maiden name was Margaret Elvin, from having children with a man from Syria.

GM Yasser Seirawan.

In considering Yasser Seirawan as a case study, there are other important caveats. One, he was not raised in Britain, but quite famously in Seattle, although his family moved there from Virginia where he spent most of his childhood before taking up chess at a café called The Last Exit Before Brooklyn. Beyond that, there was not then, nor does there appear to be now, a fetishization of English women copulating with and even marrying Middle Eastern men. This is a fundamental distinction from the problem of race mixing as it exists as a phenomenon now. It is not only tolerated, but celebrated, advertised even throughout both mass media and social media. In this way, his parents were a singular anomaly, not a cultural and sociological phenomenon. Compare and contrast with how modern media, that is both social media and mass media, both now and before the advent and ubiquity of the Internet and smartphones, push race mixing in media and advertising, including a fusillade of advertisements depicting interracial couples, most particularly white women and black men. As discussed at further length below, the ubiquity of interracial relationships in advertising is joined with similar efforts in film and television, both broadcast and streaming services alike.

These considerations reveal miscegenation to be a different sort of evil than something like murder which is wrong in the singular instance as well as the collective.6 An imperfect analogy that should nonetheless suffice for illustrative purposes is pouring foreign substances in a lake. Pouring a bottle of Coca-Cola or other soft drink, by itself, in that limited, isolated instance, will not really harm the water purity of the lake or other body of water. But if lots of people start pouring Coke, or even more nefarious substances in the lake, so that it happens on a large enough scale, then the body of the lake is endangered. Once such activity has reached a critical mass, each individual instance then needs to be strongly sanctioned in a way that was not necessary when it was an isolated, seemingly innocuous instance. Stated more precisely, just as water and air quality require a baseline equilibrium, so it is with racial demographics. In this way, there is a fundamental distinction to be discerned: two people of different racial backgrounds who, without any cultural influence, indoctrination, or programming, happen to meet, fall in love and marry, and constitute nothing more than a most unusual anomaly, one in tens or even hundreds of thousands, is fundamentally different than a recurring trend that is a reflection of fetishization and propagation of race-mixing in mass media.

A Sociological and Cultural Phenomenon and the Role of Mass Media

This consideration in turn illustrates how miscegenation is often not an individual choice at all, but is a cultural and sociological phenomenon. This cultural and sociological phenomenon is not only augmented but made possible by a concerted propaganda campaign through mass media as well as social media. Consider the AMC zombie series The Walking Dead (which was incidentally panned by George A Romero, director of The Night of the Living Dead and its successor films and godfather of the zombie horror genre). The series eventually came to a point where all romantic love interests were interracial. This is typical of mass media as it is increasingly characterized by a deliberate effort to represent interracial couples, sex, and romance, often in ways that are out of place, as the frequency and pervasiveness of such representations far outweigh the occurrence of such unions in real life. The first season of The Last of Us7 included a flashback episode revealing when and how the protagonist, Ellie Williams, was initially exposed to the Cordyceps virus, and thus revealed to have a natural immunity that could save humanity; she was exposed during an interracial lesbian teen romance that culminates as the two explore an abandoned mall that still has electrical power, set to a cover of The Cure’ Just Like Heaven as a children’s lullaby, played with harp, glockenspiel, and the like; by the end of the episode, a dormant infected attacks them, killing her mystery meat, brown “love,” while also biting her, which she, having rare immunity, survives.

Perhaps the worst offender to this author’s limited knowledge of popular “culture” is the Netflix series Bridgerton8, which imagines the regency period of Britain as “multicultural” and multiracial. This allows the sordid band of harridans, harpies, and viragos that doubtlessly comprise most of the audience to delude themselves into thinking they are cultured and intellectual by indulging in such a cheap knock-off of Sense and Sensibility—on television, not the printed word, as the latter is not suited for either their very limited intellect or stunted attention span. While they indulge such silly and preposterous pretensions, derived from stilted mimicry of classic literature in the genre of streaming media conducive to binge watching, the principal allure of this dreck is that it allows them to do so without feeling guilty about how utterly and emphatically British—in its proper, ethnic and racial sense—such cultural expressions like actual classic literature really are.

There is a wonderful and timely poem about when the Anglo-Saxon finally began to hate. And yet provocations and outrages like these have not yet activated this most necessary response.

The indoctrination and programming run deep, as interracial relationships have become ubiquitous, and yet still jarringly conspicuous, through ever larger swathes of advertising in particular. Some time ago Cheerios cereal ran an advertisement with a mixed breed child, along with her white mother and black father. Oreo cookies pushed lesbianism as well as miscegenation by depicting a mongrel woman from a white father and black woman, presenting the viewer with a full house of the “diversity stack.” The only thing missing would be so-called transgender representation. A long since defunct blog “Goodbye, America, in a Photo” offers an excellent record of many of the most ugly and vile portents of the modern world, including, in particular, how interracial relationships are promoted and encouraged in mass media, most particularly through advertising.

The phenomenon is so widespread it was featured in a famous Stonetoss cartoon.

The significance of this trend cannot be overstated. The intent and motive behind these advertising campaigns is best understood not as selling a product with interracial sex, but using the goodwill, brand name recognition and status to sell race mixing, miscegenation, and so-called diversity to the populace. This of course may change as interracial sex and race swapping become more and more normalized and mainstream, which is the prime directive of these campaigns. These advertisements do normalize it, and break down collective resistance to it. It is yet another instance of defining deviancy down.9 And, as has been articulated before, as deviancy is defined ever further downward, what was formerly mainstream and acceptable soon becomes deviant, in this instance opposition to or even hesitance about miscegenation.

The programming takes other forms as well, including the deliberate and conspicuous pairing of black men with white women in various other media. The morning talk show with Kelly Ripa and Michael Strahan was one example. As recounted in “The Psychic Toll,” Amy Robach was paired with TJ Holmes as cohosts of Good Morning, America. This not only normalized the idea of white women being with black men, but converted to an actual cuckolding, as the former Miss Georgia beauty contestant—and finalist—left her husband to philander with the darkie. Other instances abound, including a modern resuscitation of the insipid, mindless gameshow “Let’s Make a Deal,” in which Tiffany Coyne shares cohosting duties with Wayne Brady, who is black, and Jonathan Magnum, who is white. A brief perusal of the various sports talk productions on ESPN as well as the NFL Network routinely present a statuesque, highly desirable blonde woman with a black man, or even several black men.

Above, TJ Holmes and Amy Robach as cohosts of Good Morning America. Such pairings subtly normalize the idea of inter-racial pairings. This instance led to actual cuckolding, as Robach cheated on her husband, before leaving him altogether. Below, an alluring picture of her at about 50. Alas, even in middle age, Amy Robach is a very attractive woman, and that matters not just in terms of how she is not partnered with a suitable, white husband or lover, but because, particularly as a celebrity newscaster, other women take cues from women who are—correctly—perceived as both highly desirable and having high status. Same principle applies to Heidi Klum, Elin Nordegren, Lindsey Vonn….

As has been expounded on at length in various essays on this publication10, such cultural programming, indeed such indoctrination, defines and predetermines what is naïvely conceived as “individual choice.” As a result, a certain sort of white woman with more than a predilection for race mixing has arisen in the form of various archetypes that are, sadly, readily observable in this sick society. Such instances are hardly individual choices at all, but observable sociological phenomena that can sadly be observed at a macro, societal level. Private correspondence has informed this author that white women are describing themselves as “snow bunnies,” either in their profiles on sex and dating applications, or as handles on various social media platforms, from TikTok to snapchat, and everything in between. This author also regrets to inform readers that “Queen of Spades”11 is also a cultural and sociological phenomenon, replete with a logo featured on garments as well as tattoos. In this sordid context, a “queen of spades” is a woman who has sex exclusively with other black men, often as group sex or rapid exchange of sexual partners. It also seems to pertain to a “hot wife” cuckolding fetish, in which a white husband or boyfriend watches his wife (or girlfriend) have sex with other black men. Somewhat humorously, right-winger Devon Stack included images of the Queen of Spades logo in a video presentation denouncing QAnon,12 the faction of delusional Trump supporters who believed there was a conspiracy that allowed Biden to win so as to create an opportunity for some sort of coup or takeover of the government, and that allowing Biden to steal the election was all part of some grand plan.

Two examples demonstrating the “Queen of Spades” phenomenon. Such images should only engender white-hot flashes of anger and hatred.

These and other examples are the bitter harvest that inevitably result from the advertising, mass media, and social media that normalize and indeed promote miscegenation. And just as these campaigns create such phenomena, the increasing prevalence of such behavior and these elements in the “culture” dull our resistance to these outrages the longer these circumstances are allowed to continue. A steady barrage of anything, no matter how shocking or reprobate it may be intrinsically, desensitizes the audience, and forces the audience to necessarily acclimate themselves to it over time. Furthermore, as argued in both “Culture and the Sexual Marketplace” and “On the Indoctrination of Frau Löwenherz,” what is perceived as individual choice is derived not from individual imagination or initiative but programming and indoctrination installed in the minds of the masses by cultural centers of power and mass media conglomerates. Understanding and embracing this fundamental principle is the hidden key that reveals the true nature of so many of the existential threats facing Europe.

A National Socialist propaganda poster foretelling the dark fate of Europe that awaits without a change in course. The heading translates as “The Negrification of France in 100 Years.” The caption reads “The last white (nicht farbigen) French are the great attraction of the Parisian zoo.” Jeder weiß, daß die Guten verloren haben.

These insidious sociological and cultural phenomena—driven by cultural institutions and those powerful, nefarious interests that wield them at present—is demonstrated both in fiction and real life, as life imitates art and vice versa. In the movie Thirteen, a white adolescent girl, Tracy, played by Evan Rachel Wood in her debut role at 15, deliberately seeks out black males to copulate with, all while engaging in all sorts of criminal activity from shoplifting, to stealing, to drug use. After sucking off some thuggish blackie, Tracy tries to place some veneer of feigned virtue on her degeneracy by stating to her friend after the fact that “if everybody married someone from a different race, then in one generation there would be no prejudice.”

Compare and contrast with the documentary The Lost Children of Rockdale County, which concerns the outbreak of syphilis in Rockdale County among teens and preteens as young as twelve, which was linked to hyper promiscuity not just with white male peers, but a conspicuous contingent of young black males as well. As Claire Sterk expounded in the documentary—not, it must be stressed, with anything close to an admonitory tone—there was an overt interracial aspect to the sexual profligacy leading to the outbreak of sexually transmitted diseases. The ugly hag described it thusly, even using the word “challenging,” a word with distinctly positive connotations:

There is a taboo that has not disappeared regarding sexual activity between African-American men and white women. Here we’re talking about white adolescents. So in many ways, what was happening here was that the girls not only were challenging community norms by being sexually active, but were challenging those even further by engaging, at least part of the time, in sexual activity with African-American males.

Alas, the strong contingent of various sorts of white women involved in the George Floyd protests and riots, replete with Black Lives Matter banners and slogans, necessarily entails a more disconcerting conclusion that these disturbing trends have only exacerbated with the passage of time.

Race-Mixing and Women

Readers will doubtlessly note a focus on miscegenation as it pertains to women. This is not without good reason, as race mixing carries far weightier implications for woman than men, as men and women are, in fact, different, for so many reasons, stemming from the hard, immutable truth that humans are a sexually dimorphic species. Granting or denying sexual congress with women matters the most because of the cost and value that sexual access with women carries. This is quantified by the number of sperm a man produces during child rearing years versus the number of eggs a woman will produce during her child-rearing years. Whereas Genghis Khan is believed to have sired many thousands of offspring, a woman’s potential for child rearing is far more limited, and thus infinitely more valuable, both from an evolutionary psychology and practical perspective. It is further quantified by the cost associated with pregnancy, from the time and resources it requires, as well as how, until the advent of modern medicine, pregnancy entailed the risk of death. This consideration concerning the premium that access to females sexually necessarily commands explains, to a large degree, why much of the race-mixing has been targeted at women; every woman who has been so indoctrinated and acts on such indoctrination is one less woman available to rear white, European offspring, and thus contributes, in an immediate way, to white dispossession and white replacement. This is compounded sharply by how limited the capacity for procreation women are.

This in turn reveals that the long-term viability of a people and civilization can be assessed by how men respond to outsiders usurping their women. Island peoples and other primitives that allowed European colonial powers to have a free hand with their women were generally vanquished and subjugated quite quickly. Compare and contrast with how Toyotomi Hideyoshi responded to the threat of the European powers in the wake of the San Felipe incident.13 Japan expelled all European missionaries and forbade any foreign interlopers from entering Japan. Japan was the only civilization to withstand European colonization, and to this day Japan has demonstrated remarkable resilience against many of the trends destroying Europe through the Great Replacement and cultural and racial deracination and dispossession. In this way, Toyotomi Hideyoshi’s brutal vision likely reveals the one and only path of salvation for Mother Europa.

Toyotomi Hideyoshi. After unifying Japan, he saved his nation and his people from European colonialism by forcibly ousting all foreign imposters.

The profound differences between the sexes are relevant in other ways as well, most particularly how women, collectively, are influenced and even programmed by dominant narratives in culture and society, and how that in turn profoundly affects male behavior as they compete in the sexual marketplace. One of the axioms of human nature is that women police conformity, and yield to whatever the prevailing consensus is. In history this was seen when French women were proven all too willing with German conscripts and officers alike during German occupation, just as German women yielded themselves to their American conquerors in particular just a few short years later. Propping up black men as having status and saturating this “culture” with images of interracial couples, particularly white women with black men, sends an unmistakable message, handed down by cultural and financial elites, that there is a consensus approving of it. Women, as stated, are guided by consensus, far more so than their male counterparts.14 This is compounded by how, when race-mixing is mainstream and part of polite, acceptable society, it deters white men from speaking out against it, as it also makes it harder for white men to even perceive it as the evil it is.15

Addressing and Refuting the Continuum Fallacy as Rhetorical Tactic

Another tactic of obfuscation lodged by our ideological enemies is one that is a familiar one with most if not all matters touching upon race: instigating the continuum fallacy. In its most basic, essential form, this blithe assertion posits that, because there are some people who are more racially ambiguous, the very idea of race itself is a “social construct” and is to be dismissed outright. Such sleight of hand is particularly salient in regards to the misnomer of so-called Hispanics, a term that was, according to Richard Hanania, invented by the United States government. It runs the gamut from white Castilians and Portuguese, that is Europeans, to mestizos of the darkest hue.

One actress that typifies such obfuscation is Ana de Armas. Most if not all sources denote her as “Hispanic.” She was even used as an avatar for white dispossession in Knives Out, a cinematic abomination that sadly performed well at the box office and was nothing more than naked contempt for white people. Indeed, Jamie Lee Curtis stated as much, asserting that “white privilege gets a good comeuppance,” as if the depiction of white people as being insufferable trust fund babies is anything other than the most absurd caricature. The film concerns a wealthy mystery-novel writer, the patriarch of the Thrombley family, who suddenly dies at the end of the first act, creating intrigue both as to who killed him and the disposition of his estate. The film is a thinly veiled allegory of white dispossession, with the father disowning his rich spoiled family, and leaving everything to his Guatemalan maid. That “Guatemalan” maid, Marta Cabrera, is played by de Armas. Few if any Guatemalans look like de Armas. This is because de Armas is largely if not exclusively of European descent, despite her label as Hispanic. Her maternal grandparents migrated from Spain after Franco prevailed in the Spanish War. This author could not locate any information about her paternal grandparents, but her coloring and physiognomy are strikingly European.

A particularly titillating image of Ana de Armas. The accusation this image was selected because it may entice readers with a salacious thought, or several, is nigh impossible to deny. But it also displays her intrinsically European features, thus illustrating de Armas as part of a racial and ethnic continuum that exists among racially compatible phenotypes.

Some more zealous, firebrand sorts may object that de Armas is not “white.” that history of racial admixture in the Iberian Peninsula or for that matter southern Italy (Sicily in particular) render such persons “not white,” to say nothing of how little is known about her paternal grandparents. Such controversies are merely part of the continuum fallacy mentioned earlier. Various hues of red with tinges of orange may invite reasonable differences of opinion as to when and how such hues of red cease to be red and become orange, or orange red. But such quibbles, solche Kleinigkeiten, cannot fairly be used to advance the absurd proposition that red therefore does not exist, or that red is a social construct, or that because there are differences of opinion as to when red with hues of orange become “orange red” or even orange, that there is therefore no meaningful distinction between red and red orange on one hand and red and green on the other. As explicated in “The Inherent Right of Race, Blood, and Soil” such sophistry invoking this very continuum fallacy is used to advance The Great Replacement via mass third world immigration and to deconstruct the very notion of racial identity as it pertains to these weighty issues:

One example of such sophistry is equivocating the Norman Invasion—which happened almost a thousand years ago and consisted of hostile Norman invaders who nonetheless had some racial and geographic affinity and proximity to the Anglo-Saxons and others who populated the British Isles—and using that as a vehicle to suggest that millions of black, Muslim, and other migrants that have arrived by boat, plane, or other conveyance are really no different. The multiculti mousketeers also like to mention that there used to be a contingent of “Blackamoors” in London in the 16th Century, until Queen Elizabeth rightly expelled them.

It must be conceded if an infusion of millions of people with the de Armas phenotype were infused into Britain or Germany, certain phenotypes of these peoples might be altered to some degree. This invokes, in this author’s mind at least, a strange suggestion overheard many years ago; “while we are all vaguely aware that there are a billion Chinese on the planet [and now a billion Indians], humanity would have had to look for a different planet if there were a billion Germans.“ A dubious proposition given the state of affairs under American hegemony. But such a silly quip does invoke an important mental exercise. Consider an alternate set of circumstances where Germans were still fertile, with a birth-rate far in excess of the death rate, such that there were mass migrations of Germans, as there were to the United States in much of the 19th Century. Consider a scenario where millions of German migrants descended on Ireland, to the point where English is no longer heard in certain quarters of Dublin town, and many wait for the crosswalk signal to turn green, even with no incoming traffic for a couple hundred yards or more, this among many quirks that define the German national character. A much more benign invasion than the one Ireland and the rest of Europe is afflicted with, but one that would fundamentally change Ireland and Irish society in short order. Irish and Germans often look alike, but have somewhat different national characters. If a hypothetical infusion of millions of Germans would drastically and permanently alter Irish society, it follows that racially alien and incompatible peoples will necessarily transform Irish society and culture in far more drastic ways. Indeed, they will destroy Irish society in particular and all of Europe more generally.

This hypothetical demonstrates that while race-mixing is just the most immediate threat to cultural identity, different peoples must nonetheless regulate and temper, to some smaller degree, infusion of racially and culturally related peoples who share close geographical proximity and racial affinity. Such considerations are of course an indictment of experiments like the European Union, even if that body were not guilty of these criminal designs to infuse tens of millions of African and Middle Eastern migrants who have no right to set foot on the sacred continent of Europe. This hypothetical migration into Dublin town by Germans actually procreating brings to mind infusions of large numbers of Eastern Europeans in Britain and Scotland in particular, and how that infusion has upset the cultural and even ethnic equilibrium of the United Kingdom. It follows, a priori, that infusions of wholly alien and racially incongruous peoples will destroy that equilibrium much more quickly, even if in fewer numbers. This is precisely why the importation of wholly alien peoples and races must not be tolerated at all.

A Clear and Obvious Moral Imperative, Despite Nigh Impossible Odds

As is the case with so many other existential threats facing European peoples throughout the world, both on the sacred continent and in the new world, the nature of the problem is fairly clear. The solution to these problems is far more daunting. If cultural and institutional power were obtained by the populist right, along with the political capital and popular mandate to seize such power, is the best policy a more radical vision that will not countenance much more than a drop of miscegenant blood, or should limited numbers of miscegenated offspring, such as those of Yasser Seirawan be “grandfathered in,” but with a thus-far-and-no farther reformation of social mores as well as laws? Whatever the final disposition may ultimately be, there must be resolve that, going forward, the sons and daughters of Britain particularly and Europe generally must not be allowed to do as Margaret Elvin did.

Going forward, this can be the only acceptable standard.

However one answers these questions, the road ahead is perilous and discouraging, with odds for redemption approaching impossibility. In the United States, miscegenation has been discerned, somehow, as a “constitutional right,” since Loving v Virginia struck down anti-miscegenation laws some sixty years ago. Decades of neglect of culture by fuddy-duddy, mainstream conservatism, as well as widespread cowardice to grapple with matters of race with any fortitude or insight, has allowed nefarious and powerful interests to consolidate their hold on the culture. Over the decades, the cultural programming and indoctrination on these matters has only been more brazen. This implores the need for stringent censorship of depictions of interracial sex and relationships if and when the populist, ethno-nationalist right ever obtains political and cultural power. Rather than simply banning what some do not like, such censorship would be based on first principles.16

Some are apt to point out that white women are least apt to enter into interracial marriages, but marriages are not the same as sexual relationships or even just the sort of rampant promiscuity that defines so-called “hook-up” culture. Even five to ten percent adds up over the generations (between 20 and 40 percent will be lost in just four generations, and that is only if the supposedly low numbers hold steady, which they most certainly will not as miscegenation is promoted more and more aggressively). But as with these other existential threats that have brought European peoples to the precipice of oblivion, the solution to the problem begins with an understanding of that problem and the unwavering resolve that blossoms from clearly discerning these threats and their nature. Just as burning embers can be fanned into flames that ultimately grow into an all-consuming inferno, the seemingly impossible feats before us begin with a clear discernment of the nature of the problem at hand.

The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

  1. Readers may be excited to learn this will be the subject of a shorter, ancillary essay: “Living in the 80s: A Brief Reactionary Retrospective on 80s Music and the 80s Music Video.”
2 For those unaware, this Disney rehash proffered an origin story of the villainess from 101 Dalmations, Cruella de Vil. It is difficult to summon words in the English language sufficient to condemn this utter garbage with the scorn and contempt this abomination so richly deserves. The constant needle drops, including of numbers not even from the era in which the film was set, was by itself an absolute affront, this among many other things. Lest there be any confusion, the source material of the original hardly suffices as high art of even good cinema, but it has proven popular among successive generations. Many, including this author, doubtlessly remember watching this and other Disney animations as a child. It is for this reason that race-swapping Anita Radcliffe and other characters matter, and matter a great deal, even if these cultural expressions hardly rise to the level of Hamlet or even Breaking Bad. As explained in relation to other instances of shit culture, this author was obliged to see the film for the purposes of “resistant viewing.” No monetary contribution was made in this effort.
3 It is of note that race as avatar of culture, civilization, and identity is reminiscent of how certain animals are emblematic of a people, race, and civilization. Consider how the Raven is emblematic of Norse culture, as well as its role in the Anglo-British tradition.
4 As an aside, this author does not share the enthusiasm for this young woman expressed by many. Her manner of speech suffers from vocal fry, a most grating and insufferable mannerism. Beyond that, I have been informed that she, too, has been featured in depictions of race-mixing, the very thing this essay denounces. Finally, that American Eagle attire looks cheap, like something a person would have bought at K-Mart.
5 One question of interest, that is beyond the scope of this essay and this author’s expertise, is the degree to which mixed race offspring suffer from increased medical problems derived solely from their physiology. Increased likelihood of drug addiction, homelessness, any number of social problems can always be explained by the sordid band of multi-culti mousketeers as caused by racism and intolerance. There does seem to be chatter indicating mongrels derived from black and white miscegenation in particular suffer from even greater difficulty in obtaining bone marrow transplants. I also seem to recall murmurings about difficulties in obtaining organ transplants. Even if these and other phenomena were proven false, the resolution against race-mixing must be resolute and unwavering, because the real evil is threat it poses to European identity and our posterity.
6 It will be discretely stipulated that, perhaps in certain circumstances warranting personal justice, murder may not be so wrong if only one could get away with it. Consider a grown adult who exacts vengeance against an abusive step-parent. Or a man whose best friend seduces his own wife.
7 Yes, dear readers, this author grudgingly watched the first season. Rest assured it was in the spirit of “resistant viewing,” in order to understand and know the enemy better. No monetary contribution was made in this effort.
8 This has not required any such bit of resistant viewing. One can know what a dish of monkey brains is and that it is not palatable without partaking in such fare. Second-hand accounts more than suffice, just as reviews and analysis, particularly from YouTube personality Critical Drinker, inform viewers as to how awful the second season of The Last of Us was.
9 Readers familiar with this author’s work will also be familiar with this critically important concept that remains little understood by far too many. Defining deviancy down is closely related with the Durkheim Constant, which posits that any society, no matter how virtuous or profligate, will have the same quotient of what that society regards as deviant, even as each society has vastly different moral standards and mores. As a result, if deviant behavior is not properly sanctioned and deterred, society slowly loses its ability to regard such behavior as deviant, and that formerly deviant behavior then becomes mainstream. More outlandish, extreme behavior then moves up on the periphery of social behavior that is deviant, but not inconceivable. A crucial phenomenon associated with this process is that as society defines deviancy ever further downward, eventually what was once mainstream and uncontroversial becomes deviant. This is because any society and civilization must have some behavior it regards as deviant, to fill the quotient of deviant behavior envisaged by the Durkheim Constant. This is seen today insofar as opposition to interracial sex and relationships, even opposition to so-called gay marriage is now deemed as socially and morally unacceptable in much of mainstream society today. In addition to other essays discussing this vital concept, see Slouching Towards Gomorrah by Robert Bork, most particularly the introduction.
10 See most particularly “Thrust Into It All: The Individual Defined by Culture and Circumstance.” Also see “On the Indoctrination of Frau Löwenherz: A Case Study of Culture as Programming.” Finally, Culture and the Sexual Marketplace” is also highly relevant. These essays have been hyperlinked in the body of the work, but in case readers missed them, this footnote serves to direct them to these works.
11 Readers with a morbid curiosity or who prefer not to flinch from the ugliness and degeneration of the modern age may be interested in perusing this link, featuring “Queen of Spades” related attire and other accoutrements available on Etsy. Not for the faint of heart, reader discretion is advised: https://www.etsy.com/market/queen_spade_clothing?ref=pagination
12 Alas, after more than brief perusal of his catalog on oydsee.com, I am unable to locate the video in which this occurred. Any readers who can be of assistance are encouraged to provide these details, either in the comments or private correspondence.
13 This important event is discussed in detail in both “The Inherent Right of Race, Blood, and Soil” as well as “Neither Inherent nor Self-Evident: Reflections on the Chimera of Human Rights.”
14 Another related development concerns reports and private correspondence documenting how women are “virtue signaling” leftist platitudes not just on dating profiles, but even hook-up sites of more dubious repute. These include admonitions such as “No Trump supporters,” “No MAGA,” “Do not contact me if you do did not vote for Kamala (or Biden before her). Other instances concern overt and seemingly out of place statements expressing solidarity for LGBTQ-Yuck. To be sure, many of these women would swoon after a certain sort of right wing male impales her so much like a pin through a butterfly, and even more so if he confides right-wing leanings after the deed is done. These considerations notwithstanding, readers currently single and “on the hunt” are strongly advised to feign acquiescence until things are consummated.
15 Readers should be reminded that women are the gate-keepers of sexual access. Men are somewhat less susceptible to groupthink, social proof and pre-selection, and the like, but are still subject to phenomena such as peer pressure, social contagion, and so on. Far more critically, men will tailor their strategy in the sexual marketplace according to what desirable women want. The extent to which men will go to gain favor of the most desirable women cannot be overstated. This ranges from fisticuffs to life threatening behavior, to adopting the most obnoxious manner of dress and listening to the very worst music because that is what “hot chicks” favor.
16 The call for outright censorship may shock those readers of a more mainstream persuasion. But if there is a consensus supporting censorship of tobacco products in the name of public health, censorship promoting miscegenation is surely just as tenable, if not more so, particularly if the right to common race, blood, and soil is correctly discerned as, if not an inalienable right (because nothing is truly an inalienable right), then a right of first principle, something that is not negotiable.

Common objections include the assertion that censorship never works, citing for example the Streisand Effect. This objection is addressed in “American Degeneracy Laid Bare,” as well as “Pornography and the Failure of the Constitution,” noting that censorship works in Germany because it is backed by moral consensus and because they are not so stupid as to sensationalize what they censor. Finally, the case United States vs Phillips further informs this author’s increasing aversion to so-called “First Amendment Principles.” Citing legal doctrines of vagueness and the chilling effect, the Supreme Court struck down a law criminalizing the production and sale of dog-fighting videos, even though dog-fighting is illegal in all 50 states. As explicated in “Pornography and the Failure of the Constitution,” the law was revised, limiting its scope to so-called sexual crush videos. Consider the assertion that any material, even written word material, espousing the supposed “advantages” of torturing and killing cats, either gratuitously or out of perverse sadism of the lowest sort, has no redeeming value whatsoever and should just not be tolerated. And, if power is ever seized and consolidated, such intolerance should be punctuated by strong-arm, jackboot, and other more lethal instruments, utilized by the state in a new, anti-democratic form of government capable of forging a new order properly envisaging the salvation and revitalization of European civilization and culture, and her peoples.

Obviously, at least some materials promoting miscegenation do fit under the paradigm of “the exposition of ideas” articulated in Chaplinsky vs New Hampshire. There are, or rather should be, distinctions between commercial advertising and speech uttered by private individuals. Whereas I articulated, I believe persuasively, that the First Amendment ought not be interpreted and administered so as to create a constitutional right to produce, sell. and consume pornography, I am unable to argue that the First Amendment was never intended or envisaged to allow for materials promoting miscegenation, at least as they pertain to more cognitive expressions that articulate and advocate for such ideas in an intelligible, coherent way. A case can be made to exempt what is decried as vulgar, emotive, expression as well as what is obviously and blatantly commercial speech, advertising most particularly. Were it possible, however, any contemplated ban and censoring of speech advocating race mixing should also extend to more cerebral types of speech that facilitate the “exposition of ideas,” the hallmark of “high value” speech that receives the most robust protections under the First Amendment. This just bolsters my position that both the Constitution and the democratic form government more generally must be jettisoned, if and when the means to do so are made reasonably available.

Bob Carr on the Australian Jewish Lobby

The following are excerpts from an interview with Bob Carr, former Australian premier for New South Wales—the largest state in Australia and home of that nation’s largest city, Sydney. Carr, 77, served as premier from 1995 to 2005, and then later as Foreign Minister (2012–2013). He is a member of the Labor Party, which leans center-left in politics.  When in office, he supported efforts to reduce immigration into Australia; he was also a defender of Julian Assange.  Early in his career, Carr supported Israel but his views shifted over time as he learned more about the situation in Palestine.  Recently, he took part in the pro-Palestine “March for Humanity” in Sydney (August 3), in which between 100,000 and 300,000 people took to the streets to protest the genocide in Gaza.

The Islamic news channel OnePath Network interviewed Carr, which aired August 22.  The discussion focused primarily on the situation in Gaza, the Australian Jewish Lobby, and the practical politics of dealing with a potent political adversary.  It is a strikingly honest discussion by Carr, perhaps the most open and explicit by any major Australian leader.

The following are highlights from the 40-minute interview (in full here).  The Islamic interviewer is unnamed, apparently by intention.  I note here that I used an auto-transcription process to generate the following text, and so there are some slight deviations in wording (but not meaning) from the actual video.  Notable in Carr’s language is the use of ‘Jewish’ rather than simply ‘Israeli’; it is a small but significant shift in emphasis that gets closer to the heart of the problem.

*****

OnePath:  Today, we are joined by one of the most experienced figures in Australian politics, former Australian Foreign Minister, and the longest-serving Premier of New South Wales, the honorable Bob Carr. Thank you for being with us, Bob.

Carr:  It is my pleasure to be with you and talk to the community.

OnePathToday, Bob, you are recognized as one of the strongest critics of Israel in Australia and an advocate for Palestinian rights. You have been famously photographed among those who led the historic march, the March for Humanity across the iconic Sydney Harbor Bridge. Early in your career in 1977, you co-founded Friends of Israel in the Labor Party with Bob Hawke, earning you a reputation, as you know, as a respected friend and ally of Israel. What was the specific moment in your career when your perspective changed?

Carr:  I think it was gradual, reflecting me getting to know Palestinians and their stories. Because none of us in the seventies knew a Palestinian, or knew the story of a Palestinian family, or knew what the massacres that were part of the establishment of the State of Israel were. We didn’t know that back then. That was not on anyone’s mind, not even the educated person in the Western world. We were blind to that story. And one of the simmering concerns that undermined any faith I had in the State of Israel was the spread of settlements.

About the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was pretty clear that the settlements were serious. And they would, at least, hinder the establishment of the Palestinian state, and it appears they were intent on preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state, despite all the assurances we received from the spokespeople of Israel. And today, even as we speak, this is being confirmed through explicit statements from members of the Israeli cabinet that these settlements will prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.

OnePath (3:10): Yes, that is interesting. I want to take you back to the time when you were the Foreign Minister of Australia [in 2013], when the United Nations wanted to hold a vote to upgrade Palestine’s status to a non-member observer state. The Prime Minister at that time, Julia Gillard, wanted to follow the United States and Israel, but you objected and succeeded in securing an abstention from the vote.  In your memoirs, you later asked whether the Labor Party’s reliance on donations from the Jewish community had shaped its stance. How significant was that moment for you in obtaining the abstention, and what did that experience teach you about Australian politics?

Carr:  The big thing it taught me is that promoting Palestinian rights at a time when it was considered a dangerous opinion was really like pushing against a half-open door.  Because when I tested my opinion with the Parliamentary Labor Party, after Julia Gillard made it clear in the Cabinet that she would not change to alter our vote in the General Assembly [to upgrade Palestine’s status], when I tested it in the party caucus, I found that they feel the same way as I do toward Israel and toward its contempt, its almost hidden contempt, for the two-state solution.

The majority of the Cabinet agreed with me that Australia should not oppose this resolution in the General Assembly to upgrade the status of the Palestinian delegation. It was interesting what was said around the cabinet table, when they were saying, instead of abstaining from voting, why don’t we vote Yes? Why don’t we vote Yes? But this was considered a risky opinion when I was arguing against the Prime Minister’s wishes, who was my boss; but the big lesson from that is that the ordinary members of parliament, whom I hadn’t yet asked for their opinions, had reached the same position I had. The support for Israel was very shallow, and people like me started questioning the entire settlement expansion process.

OnePath (5:47):  As you know, in the United States, lobbying groups like AIPAC hold big sway over politicians through donations and funded trips to Israel. You have previously spoken about a similar influence of the Israeli lobby here in Australia. Based on your experience and knowledge, how deep is this influence, and should Australians be concerned?

Carr:  I think Australians should be concerned.  I have said, and I am recorded as having said, that the Israeli lobby—I believe the [term] ‘Jewish-Israeli Lobby’ is more accurate, because that is the term used by AIJAC [Australia Israel and Jewish Affairs Council]—the Jewish-Israeli Lobby in Australia is a foreign influence operation.  It is designed to place Israel’s interests above Australia’s in its foreign policy.  No one else has such a well-funded operation. No one else, no other country, has an operation with offices in every Australian capital city.  No one else organizes donations to try to raise their influence, like the Jewish Lobby in Australia does.

Now, this is simply a fact of life, and I recorded it in my diary as Foreign Minister, and it has never been contradicted.  …

And the model for the Jewish Lobby is what happens in the United States.  If any member of Congress or the Senate expresses a view criticizing Israel or sympathizing with the Palestinian cause, you can guarantee that someone will receive funding from pro-Israel supporters to run against them in the next primary  And the person they find to run against the incumbent, he might be someone who has never expressed a view about Israel and Palestine, but there will be a well-funded opponent.

Now, I remember years ago, I had a meeting with someone from the Jewish Lobby in Washington who spelled this out to us.  He explained to us… For a group of us, who were considered supporters of Israel, as we were at that time, this is how they operate.  And if there is anyone, even in a remote Rocky Mountain state, or in a state with an insignificant population like Montana, any member of Congress who departs from the pro-Israel line can be guaranteed of having a well-funded opponent in the primary elections.

OnePath (8:45):  In the Australian context, how does this affect democracy?

Carr:  Oh, it’s a distortion of democracy because instead of considering the priorities and interests of our foreign policy, we are swayed by taking the desires of the Jewish community into account.  And they are very explicit that they… I mean, if there is the slightest departure, they will immediately seek a meeting with the Prime Minister to present their case. The prime ministers from the Liberal side—Malcolm Fraser was one of them—have confirmed this. Certainly Kevin Rudd confirms that. When he made the decision to kick out two Mossad agents in the Israeli embassy in Canberra, because Mossad, in an operation in the Gulf states, used someone holding an Australian passport to complete its mission, Rudd protested.  And he was completely justified in doing so, and he expelled a couple of Mossad agents.  There was an immediate request from the leadership of the Jewish community in Australia to speak to the Prime Minister.

So the Lobby conflates their desires as a community with the making of Australia’s foreign policy, and I think people have only now just woken up to the sheer bravado and arrogance [of this]. They say, “Hang on, how dare you?”

I mean, I used to get this response all the time as Foreign Minister.  For example, and I like to be specific, here is a concrete example. As the Foreign Minister in New York for a meeting with the General Assembly, I issued a statement expressing opposition to the latest surge in Israeli settlements. And I got a request relayed thru Bruce Wolpe, advisor to Julia Gillard, to meet “the community,” to discuss this, referring to the leadership of the Jewish community.

And I told him, “No.” The opposition to the expansion of settlements is based on the fact that they are plainly illegal under international law. We oppose them in line with the policy of our like-minded allies, our partners—except for the United States, which does not use the word ‘illegal’, but at that time, used the word ‘illegitimate.’

So, I thought it was simply impertinent of the Jewish community to say, “Oh my goodness, the Australian Foreign Minister has expressed opposition to the expansion of settlements. We need to get him on line.”

OnePath (11:47):  Have you received any criticism for expressing this particular opinion?

Carr:  […]  I will not be silenced. I was not silenced when, as a premier, I agreed to a request to present a peace prize. It was not awarded by me, but by the University of Sydney, to the esteemed and respected Palestinian speaker—Hanan Ashrawi. And suddenly, there was a bullying campaign by the Jewish Lobby to force me, as the Premier of New South Wales, to pull out from the event.

Now, I had given my word that I would do it. I thought it was something that would support Israel’s interests, because it would be an award and acknowledgement for a Palestinian who supports a peaceful road toward Palestinian statehood.

It wasn’t good enough for them. That wasn’t enough. So they launched a campaign of petitions and lobbying. I received a phone call from a prominent figure in the business world asking me why I was doing this—as if talking to representatives of the Palestinian people was abnormal behavior.  She was able to have conversations with left-leaning Israeli politicians, but somehow it was considered out of bonds for me, as the Premier of New South Wales, to speak with [Ashrawi] and present an award, an award that was not given by me, but by the University of Sydney.

And they got Catherine Greiner, who was a member of the committee that awarded the prize, to pull out from the function. And Lucy Turnbull, who was then, I believe, the Deputy Mayor of the city, pulled out.

And I just said, “I will not pull out.” I gave my word that I would present this peace prize. My commitment is taken seriously by a large Arab-background community, in New South Wales, indeed in Australia. And also by a small Palestinian community. How would it be if, after giving my word, I succumbed to lobbying from another community and turned my back? It would have been appalling. I stood firm. …

OnePath (14:28):  You are also a man of integrity. You have been very outspoken about Gaza, even comparing the scenes to Holocaust-like scenarios. In response to your comments, Alex Ryvchin from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry described your views, and I quote, as “shameful and utterly despicable.” He said that you show deep contempt for members of the Jewish community. [Ryvchin in a video clip:] “Look, it’s shameful and utterly despicable, showing his deep contempt for members of the Jewish community, especially its leadership.” How do you respond to comments like these? And do you still stand by your statements?

Carr:  I stand by them absolutely, and they have grown stronger since I said them.  Evidence of war crimes has accumulated, especially the use of famine against civilians. The analogy I used was a reference to the Warsaw Ghetto. The starvation of men, women, and children, the starvation of civilians, has been confirmed, has been confirmed. …

OnePath (16:28):  Are you saying it’s genocide?

Carr:  Yes. Yes. If you destroy eighty percent of the people’s housing, if you cut off their supplies of food and medicine, if you increase the targeting of civilians, you will allow and live with it and consider it collateral damage.  If you do not allow drinking water, if you flood the camps with polluted water, causing the spread of diseases, if you do not allow access to medicine and food even for children or pregnant women in the hospital, what other word can you use?

What other word does the dictionary give us? What is another word you can find in the thesaurus, beside the planned murder of a people?

It is what the Convention against Genocide means, genocide, which was drafted and lobbied for by a very determined survivor of the Holocaust in Poland [the Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, in 1944].  This is directed against civilians, destroying their homes, and making them live in unsanitary conditions in tents. I can’t believe what additional evidence would be required for people to say, “If you do this to a people, to a population of two and a half million, it can only be described in terms of genocide.”

OnePath (18:20):  You previously said that the Israeli Lobby was able to stop even routine criticisms of settlement expansion, and I mentioned the settlements. From your perspective and understanding of the situation, how damaging do you think Israeli settlement policies are to the freedom and future of the Palestinian people, and what do you think the public needs to understand about this issue?

Carr:  […]  I started to worry about this type of settlement a quarter of a century ago. Australian Jews, who support Israel, reassured me, saying: “Don’t worry. Don’t worry, Bob. If there is a peace settlement, those settlements in the West Bank will be dismantled quickly. The Israeli people urgently want a peace deal.”

But now we know we were being lied to, when Netanyahu told me when I was in his office as Foreign Minister, that he wants a two-state solution.  And he had just given a speech a few days earlier supporting it.  He was lying. The plan all along was to use the settlements to block the possibility of establishing Palestinian sovereignty with the support of the world community in the West Bank. […]

With reports circulating that they [Gazans] will be offered the option to live in Libya or South Sudan, I ask the Israeli Lobby, I ask the supporters of Israel, can you put yourselves in the minds of [a Palestinian] family?  Their house was blown up. They left most of their belongings behind. They are embarking on a journey, perhaps on foot, because they cannot afford to rent a truck, toward a future in a tent.  Imagine how that would be. Where is the humanity of the people in the Jewish Lobby in Australia? They haven’t uttered a word of criticism about the behavior of the Israeli Defense Forces, not a word.

OneStep (23:18):  Recently, Australia took a bold step in its desire to recognize a Palestinian state. Despite the many conditions surrounding this recognition, it represents a major shift in Australia’s official stance.  Netanyahu came out to criticize Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for his decision, and directed criticism at him on platform X, quoting: “History will remember Albanese for what he is; a weak politician who betrayed Israel and abandoned the Jews of Australia.”  You have met Netanyahu in person. What do you think of his comments?

Carr:  Well, even the Israeli Lobby, even the Jewish Lobby in Australia, say they have not been abandoned by Prime Minister Albanese. It’s an absurd smear, without any basis of evidence. And it’s shocking to say that, as it says everything about Netanyahu and nothing about Anthony Albanese…

Albanese should be granted the status of a hero, and I believe the Australian people will grant him that for standing up and branding this as wrong.  I think the reaction of Australians, including, interestingly, some Australian Jews, is that saying this about our Prime Minister is simply wrong. Even the Jewish Lobby in Australia does not support what Netanyahu did. […]

OneStep (29:40):  You are a former journalist, and we have seen some media outlets harshly criticize the Labor Party’s recognition of Palestine. Some of the headlines we’ve seen recently from The Australian, “A shameful day for Australia.” The Daily Telegraph says, “It’s a slap in the face.” Is the Australian media partially responsible for fanning division in the face of genocide accusations in Gaza?

Carr:  Yes. Well, the one thing I can say with confidence is that those media campaigns to defend Israel are not working. This doesn’t work. Public opinion has shifted. The majority of opinions support Albanese.  The same media sources that are trying to rally support for Netanyahu over our government, over our Prime Minister, were defending Peter Dutton and supporting his election as Prime Minister in the May elections. It had no effect. There are unified shifts in favor of the Labor Party in every state, in every electoral district across the country. […]

OneStep (37:22): Given the international arrest warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu due to the alleged war crimes he committed in Gaza, should he come to Australia, do you think Australia should seek to arrest him if he comes here?

Carr:  We have no alternative but to arrest him. It is our obligation as a signatory to the treaty. And look at America, America did not sign the treaty. America does not believe in an international criminal justice system. We do. We have signed. We will be obligated to arrest him.

OneStep (37:55):  Do you think it’s time for Australia to impose some sanctions on Israel in response to what you and others have described as genocide in Gaza? And if so, what form should these sanctions take?

Carr:  If a state knowingly commits genocide, uproots civilians, sends them on death marches, reduces the population to walking corpses, expresses satisfaction with the death of Palestinian babies, and allows the IDF to shoot children, then how do we deal with that? Do we deal with the perpetrators of this like a normal nation with normal diplomatic contacts? I don’t think we can.

And I believe it is better to start by evaluating diplomatic options, including sanctions, and discussing with like-minded countries how to revise our relations with Israel, given Israel’s pursuit of an open, unabashed, and arguably proud policy of genocide against this exposed, vulnerable, and wretchedly weakened civilian people.  […]

OneStepMr. Bob Carr, thank you very much for your time.

*****

All in all, a remarkable interview, one not likely to get much coverage in the US or Europe.  Carr comes across as a man who, after decades of trying to understand and compromise with the Jewish community, finally figured out, at age 77, that they are largely incorrigible liars, manipulators, and exploiters of human suffering for their own benefit.  Those of us who have spent years studying the Jewish Question are not surprised in the least, but it is encouraging to see that at least one major political figure is now willing to speak some words of truth.

Naturally, I take this as good news.  It certainly seems as if, for the Jews, the wheels are coming off the buggy.  And not just in one nation, but rather, for the first time in history, in the whole world—at once.  This could spell a radical, large-scale shift in non-Jewish and White attitudes toward Jews in general.  There is reason for hope.

Remember, if there is one lesson from history, it is this: It’s not “the Zionists,” not “the Israelis,” not “the globalists”…it’s the Jews.  And their time is quickly coming to an end.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, is the author or editor of some three dozen books on the Jews, Judaism, and the Jewish Question.  All his books can be found at www.clemensandblair.com.  See also his personal website, www.thomasdaltonphd.com.

 

Review of Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad

Gideon’s Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad
Gordon Thomas
St. Martin’s Griffin, 1999

3460 Words

I am wholly unqualified to assess Gordon Thomas’ 1999 work Gideon’s Spies as a history of Israel’s intelligence agency Mossad. Not only did I know little about the topic going in, but, given the murky and sensitive nature of the subject matter, I must assume that Thomas could publish only what the Mossad allowed him to publish—leaving out information that could harm or embarrass the agency or Israel itself. Further, given that people who work for intelligence agencies are by definition professional liars and conspirators, there is no way of telling how much of Thomas’ reporting is true. Sure, he does due diligence with his research and often reports events that can be verified through multiple sources. But when he secures interviews with Mossad agents, active and retired, or when he relates events that only this or that particular Mossad agent could have experienced, was he always given the whole truth? Who knows?

What I am qualified to assess, however, is the book’s readability and its value as non-fiction. In both cases, Gideon’s Spies succeeds well enough for an endorsement. It’s tightly written, suspenseful, evocative, and in parts utterly fascinating. Unless you possess secret information because you are A) a Mossad insider, B) an intelligence community expert, or C) an enemy of Israel that Israel hasn’t managed to kill yet, you will learn a lot from this book and walk away with a more realistic understanding of human nature. At least that was the case for me. As for a discourse on the just or unjust nature of Israel’s occupation of Arab lands or of Zionism itself, that is beyond the scope of this review. So is assessing the justice or lack thereof behind the Palestinian cause against Israel. My goals for this review are not so noble, nor so grand. Instead, I wish to summarize the main points of the book, retell some of the juicier bits for your enjoyment, and describe in detail newspaper magnate Robert Maxwell’s relationship with Mossad, which Thomas covers extensively. Maxwell, as most of us know, was a Mossad operative and the father of Ghislaine Maxwell, the former associate of the late Jeffrey Epstein, whose ghost has been in the news a lot recently.

Wanting to give us a feel for a typical Mossad operation, Thomas begins by relating the agency’s connection with the accidental deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and her lover Dodi Al-Fayed in 1997. Mossad had been grooming one Henri Paul, the assistant chief of the Paris Ritz Hotel, as a potential informant since many notorious individuals passed through his hotel. Surveillance had shown him to be quite venal in his interactions with the Paparazzi, often violating hotel policy by allowing them to photograph celebrity guests. He also had a drinking problem and a tendency to pop pills when stressed. In short, he was corrupt and vulnerable, which, according to Mossad psychologists, would make him an ideal mabuah, or gentile informer. A Mossad katsa, or field agent, could easily use this damaging information to persuade Paul to let them keep tabs on whatever foreign dignitary, international terrorist, or arms dealer happened to stay at the Ritz on any given night. Thomas suspects that nonstop pressure from the Mossad spooked Paul and caused him to spiral deeper into pills and alcoholism. Whether this led to Paul’s driving drunk in the wee hours of August 31, 1997, slamming his hotel’s Mercedes into a concrete pillar in a Paris underpass, and killing himself and his famous passengers is anyone’s guess.

But, as with almost everything about the shadowy Mossad, it’s within the realm of possibility.

What follows in Gideon’s Spies is episode after episode which reveal beyond all else the ruthlessness, duplicity, and meticulousness of the Mossad. Explosions, assassinations, kidnappings, political intrigue, sexual entrapments, false identities, tapped telephones, dangerous undercover missions in the dead of night—it’s all there. This is real “spy vs. spy” territory, but the Mossad gives it its own sociopathic dimension. It’s basically Machiavelli meets the Old Testament. For instance, Mossad often incited disturbances or planted black propaganda in Arab countries not to fend off a certain threat but simply to sow distrust among the Arabs. They would also “kill both sides,” an expression coined by senior Mossad spymaster David Kimche. In the 1980s, the Mossad aided the Kurds in revolting against the Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iranian regime, while simultaneously supplying arms to Tehran. Did they have good reasons to do all this? Or were they simply getting bored in Tel Aviv? When TWA flight 800 crashed in 1996, killing 230 people, Mossad’s division of psychological warfare (Hebrew acronym: LAP) blamed it falsely on Iran or Iraq. The FBI wasted many man-hours sussing that one out.

And remember Richard Jewell, who in the same year saved lives during a bomb attack at the Atlanta Olympics and then was labeled a terrorist? Right away LAP planted the lie that he had learned his bomb-making skills in Lebanon, thus piling on the poor man’s persecution. “Divided, we rule,” was the philosophy of 1960s Mossad director Meir Amit. His people did not spurn opportunities to divide their perceived enemies, which according to Thomas could be anyone at any time.

Former CIA director William Casey once compared his agency to the Mossad thusly:

A nation creates the intelligence community it needs. America relies on technical expertise because we are concerned to discover rather than secretly rule. The Israelis operate differently. Mossad, in particular, equates its actions with the country’s survival.

More colorfully, Casey referred to 1980s Mossad general director Nahum Admoni as “a Jew who’d want to win a pissing contest on a rainy night in Gdansk.” Of course, this is the same CIA which was responsible for Operation Mockingbird, MK Ultra, and selling crack cocaine in America’s inner cities in the 1990s. So we should take Casey’s words with a big grain of salt.

Thomas doesn’t exhaustively compare the Mossad with intelligence agencies from other countries, so it remains unclear whether Mossad was or still is more ruthless or duplicitous than its competition. Probably not. But according to Thomas, the Mossad may be the world champion of meticulousness. Its operations tend to be extremely well rehearsed, its agents extremely well prepared, and its eyes everywhere.

In the run-up to the Six Day War in 1967, there was either a Mossad katsa or an informer inside every Egyptian air base and military headquarters. There were no fewer than three in the General High Command headquarters in Cairo, staff officers who had been persuaded by Meir Amit. How he had done so had remained his closely guarded secret.

Thanks to the Mossad, Israel knew exactly where and when to strike the Egyptians. Amit was assured of the war’s outcome before the first shots were even fired.

Here Thomas describes how a katsa had to prepare for a secret mission inside Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 1990:

A dialect coach sat with him for hours, listening to him repeat the Sufi’s patois. Already fluent in Farsi and Arabic, Shalom quickly grasped the dialect of the tribesmen. Every night he was driven to a different part of the Negev to sleep, never more than dozing, then move to another place to avoid the instructors he knew were hunting him. Discovery would almost certainly mean his mission would be either postponed for further training, or assigned to another katsa.

As would be expected, Thomas gives us the blow-by-blow of Mossad’s 1960 kidnapping of Adolf Eichmann in Argentina. It was masterminded by Mossad’s longtime deputy director and Nazi hunter Rafi Eitan, whose cutthroat attitude was apparently still legend at Mossad headquarters when Gideon’s Spies was published. This was the man who hunted down and executed the Palestinian terrorists who murdered Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich Olympics. John le Carre based the central character of his novel The Little Drummer Girl on Eitan.

Eitan also greenlit the treachery of US-born Jewish traitor Jonathan Pollard, who, as a naval intelligence officer, handed over more than a thousand classified documents to Israel in the mid-1980s. Pollard was arrested and given a life sentence in 1985, but was released in November 2020. After the Gaza War began on October 7, 2023, Pollard took to the internet to passionately report on the Israeli forces’ suspiciously slow response to the attacks, which allowed over a thousand Israelis to be killed or taken hostage. It’s almost as if they knew of the attack in advance and then let it go on for hours in order to drum up a casus belli for a war which has now taken between 50,000 and 80,000 Palestinian lives and ethnically cleansed nearly 2 million people from Gaza.  Would the Mossad be cold-blooded enough to do such a thing? Based on my reading of Thomas and my assumption that the worst of the agency had been kept from him, I would have to say, again, it is within the realm of possibility.

Another telling episode was the 1961 spat President John F. Kennedy had with Israeli president David Ben-Gurion. Kennedy was naturally opposed to Israel acquiring nuclear weapons since he wanted good relations with the oil exporting countries in the Middle East. Thus he insisted that the International Atomic Energy Agency regularly inspect Israel’s nuclear facility at the Dimona settlement in the Negev Desert. This infuriated Ben-Gurian, who instructed a Democratic fundraiser named Abraham Feinberg to turn the screws on Kennedy. “Make the putz understand the reality of life,” he told Feinberg. This Feinberg did, and not for the first time. When Kennedy was running for office, Feinberg had offered him half a million dollars, telling him that, “We are willing to pay your bills if you will let us have control of your Middle East policy.” This time around he warned that an inspection at Dimona would cost him Jewish financial support in the next election. Nevertheless, Kennedy stuck to his guns.

Even more galling, when inspectors came to Dimona with weeks’ prior notice, the Israelis had rigged the place to look like it wasn’t producing nuclear bombs. And the inspectors, who could not speak Hebrew, fell for it. Rafi Eitan was behind this sleight of hand, as well the smuggling of fissionable material out of a nuclear material processing company in Apollo, Pennsylvania, whose owner and chief executive were, predictably enough, also Jewish.

(Recently unredacted files reveal that this brazen theft happened under the nose of CIA counterintelligence chief James Angleton, who may very well have the Mossad’s mole in the agency. Thomas, of course, had no way of knowing this when he wrote Gideon’s Spies, and mentions Angleton only sparingly.)

So does this add up to the Mossad assassinating John F. Kennedy? To say that they would have been cold-blooded enough is no great shakes because any intelligence agency would have been had they found Kennedy sufficiently annoying. How many times did the CIA try to assassinate Fidel Castro? But did the Mossad have the wherewithal at the time to do it? I would say yes. They had katsas everywhere in the United States, with at least one monitoring the White House. Finding some ideologically damaged radical (or radicals) to pump out long-range shots at the President’s motorcade in Dallas doesn’t seem like a stretch for a perspicacious reptile like Rafi Eitan.

Yes, but did they do it? Unfortunately, Gordan Thomas doesn’t give us enough information one way or the other. You will have to go to other sources to answer that question. The evidence may be circumstantial, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility.

As for Robert Maxwell, it went down like this. In 1984, Maxwell (born Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch), who owned the English Mirror newspapers, became the Mossad’s most well-connected sayan, or Jewish volunteer, in England. He was overbearing, impetuous, arrogant, bombastic, abrasive, and accustomed to high living. Yet he was a schmoozing genius and had access to some of the most influential men on the planet. Unsurprisingly given his daughter’s future behavior, he was obsessed with sex and was described by one of his senior reporters as “a sexual monster with a voracious appetite for seducing secretaries on his staff.” He also laundered his papers’ pension funds to a Mossad bank account so adroitly that he left “fraud investigators awed by his skilled duplicity.” Such skills enabled him to broker a deal between the Mossad and the KGB which laundered the profits of an Israeli company called ORA during the Iran-Contra affair. When Eitan needed someone to sell rigged surveillance software to intelligence services across the globe, he went to Maxwell. Maxwell also doxed Mordechai Vanunu, the whistleblower technician who revealed Israel’s nuclear weapons facility at Dimona. Vanunu was in hiding when the Mirror published a large photograph of him and smeared him as a fraud. This led to sayanim and katsas in England finding him, sexually entrapping him, and taking his drugged body back to Israel where he was questioned, tried in secret, and imprisoned for 18 years. 11 of those he spent in solitary.

Despite treating Maxwell like a king in Israel, the Mossad made sure to bug his hotel rooms and keep him well supplied with food, drink, and prostitutes. They obtained video footage of him in all sorts of sexually compromising positions. Things got frosty as Maxwell’s financial difficulties increased. Not only was he unable to pay back loans from Israeli investors which allowed him to purchase his newspapers, but it was revealed that he had skimmed some of ORA’s profits for himself. With characteristic chutzpah, Maxwell then demanded the Mossad not only pay back his pension fraud money, but also that they free Vanunu so Maxwell can publish an exclusive interview with him in his struggling newspaper. If the Mossad refused, who knew what damaging secrets this big-mouthed newspaper magnate could spill? Yes, he stupidly made that threat to Mossad director Nahum Admoni. It was allegedly at that point when the Mossad had decided that Robert Maxwell had to go.

According to Thomas, in November 1991, they had a katsa lure Maxwell to Spain and then to the Canary Islands via his yacht, the Lady Ghislaine. While at sea, two men in a dinghy boarded the vessel, overpowered Maxwell, and injected an air bubble into his jugular, killing him almost instantly. (You will read about none of this on Maxwell’s Wikipedia page.) Despite his ignominious demise, the Israelis gave him highest honors at his funeral at the Mount of Olives. While Thomas mentions neither Ghislaine Maxwell nor Jeffrey Epstein in Gideon’s Spies, the notion that either or both could have worked for the Mossad in some capacity is, again, not beyond the realm of possibility.

Believe it or not, I am leaving out some of the best parts of Gideon’s Spies. These include Mossad’s connection to the 1981 attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II (no, they didn’t do it), the idealistic young Arab mabuah that they so coldly betrayed, the raid on Entebbe affair, the Mossad’s collaboration with BOSS, the security apparatus of Apartheid South Africa, as well as the agency’s numerous high-profile failures and embarrassments. One particularly ghoulish contretemps occurred in 1984 when the Mossad attempted to smuggle ousted Nigerian minister Umaru Dikko out of England. The man was discovered in an airport hangar unconscious in a crate. Cooped up beside him was an Israeli physician with “a syringe in his hand ready to increase Dikko’s drug intake. There was an endotracheal tube in Dikko’s throat to stop him from choking on his own vomit.” Furthermore, the spy-vs-spy wrangling in Africa became, shall we say, spicy during the latter part of the Cold War. The Mossad’s rivalry with CSIS, the Chinese intelligence agency, was especially vicious.

Thomas reports:

For three years, Mossad waged its deadly war of attrition against the CSIS over the length and breadth of Africa. There was no mercy on either side. When a CSIS hit team ambushed a Mossad katsa in the Congo, they fed him to crocodiles, filming his last moments in the water and sending the footage to the local Mossad station chief. He retaliated by personally firing a rocket into the building from where the CSIS operated. Three Chinese were killed.

Despite being a thrilling read, Gideon’s Spies sheds little light on some of the burning mysteries of today. Aside from the Mossad’s potential connection to the Kennedy Assassination or Jeffrey Epstein, many of us would also like to know whether they were behind 9-11, as Wyatt Peterson recently claimed. I also explored the Israel-9-11 connection a couple years ago at Counter-Currents, as well as transcribed Carl Cameron’s banned Fox News coverage of it from December 2001. Unfortunately, none of this circumstantial evidence can be found in Gideon’s Spies. Given its publication date, it’s unlikely that it would be.

Throughout, Thomas maintains a measured respect for the Mossad that does not jeopardize his journalistic integrity. He’s not anti-Semitic, but nor is he servile to Israel or Jews. He may betray a slight pro-Israeli bias, but it’s nothing beyond the pale for a mainstream journalist in 1999. He’s also perfectly willing to expose all that is ugly, cruel, dishonest, and frankly sleazy about the Mossad. He would have to, being their biographer, despite what respect for them he may hold. In the 1990s, former Mossad operatives Ari Ben-Manashe and Victor Ostrovsky had each published books revealing insider details which severely damaged the agency. For example, Ostrovsky alleged that the Mossad had actually plotted to assassinate President George H. W. Bush in 1991. Could Gideon’s Spies have been a Mossad attempt at damage control? Who knows? Again, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility—especially considering that Thomas weirdly ends his book not with a proper conclusion but with the prediction that with all its failures, the Mossad is always one SNAFU away from having a new director general appointed. Was this uncharacteristically soft landing a way of humanizing the Mossad?

My reading of Thomas however leads me to one rock solid conclusion—that Israel is not and never was an ally of the United States. From the very beginning, it was monitoring Americans and stealing from Americans. Thomas reports:

In a report to the Senate Intelligence Committee, the CIA had identified Israel as one of six foreign countries with “a government-directed, orchestrated, clandestine effort to collect US economic secrets.”

And not just economic secrets. Military secrets, computer secrets, nuclear secrets, sexual secrets, any secrets, really—all of it was on the table. Perhaps the most telling evidence of Israel’s perfidy—worse in my opinion than the attack on the USS Liberty—was how the Mossad knew damn well that the 1983 attack on American marines in Beirut was going to happen. They were supposed to inform the CIA and didn’t. Even worse, they were live monitoring the bomb-laden vehicle as it plowed full speed into Marine headquarters, killing 241 service members. According to Victor Ostrovsky, a Mossad officer callously said afterward of the Americans: “They wanted to stick their nose into this Lebanon thing, let them pay the price.”

Now, to be fair, no one should resent the Israelis because the Mossad is good at what they do. Gordon Thomas certainly doesn’t, and good on him for that. I am sure the CIA has done some nasty things to Israel as well. I have no doubt the CIA bugs and monitors Israelis every chance they get—in the US and abroad, in embassies, and in Israel itself. Of course, they should. Further, if the Israelis ever have something worth stealing, I sincerely hope the CIA would filch it as remorselessly as Israel has filched from the United States. I’m sure that law and ethics are little more than fanciful luxuries in the cutthroat world of spy vs. spy. Therefore I am willing to give wide latitude to the Mossad. But when billions of dollars move in only one direction in the relationship between America and Israel, that’s when we should start resenting the Israelis. It’s one thing to lose your secret stuff to talented spies; that comes with the territory when you run a country. It’s something else entirely to lose your secret stuff, while getting your pocket picked, while listening to your pocket-picker whisper sweet nothings about how he’s your greatest ally, while this same pocket-picker wants you fight his battles for him, while this selfsame pocket-picker is willing to smear you as a Nazi if you dare run your mouth about any of this.

It doesn’t take a hardened anti-Semite or anti-Zionist to see how abusive and one-sided this relationship is. And although I’m sure this wasn’t Gordon Thomas’ intention, this is the conclusion one cannot help but draw after reading Gideon’s Spies.

A Jewish Oligarch’s Plot to Control Spanish Populism

In the shadowy corridors of Spanish politics, few figures wield as much soft power as David Hatchwell Altaras. The Madrid-based businessman has worked systematically to infiltrate the Spanish right. As the liberal international order buckles under the weight of its own contradictions, Jewish elites like Hatchwell are working tirelessly to ensure that the emerging nationalist movements remain firmly within the Zionist orbit—a process that threatens to water down genuine European nationalism while preserving Israel’s strategic position in a multipolar world.

The Making of a Zionist Operative

David Hatchwell’s rise to prominence in Spanish politics was no accident, but the product of generations of careful planning. Born into a family that had dedicated itself to the rehabilitation of Jewish influence in Spain, Hatchwell inherited both the financial resources and institutional networks necessary to shape the Spanish political scene. His father, Mauricio Hatchwell Toledano (1940-2011), laid the groundwork for this transformation through decades of patient work in normalizing Spanish-Jewish relations after the death of Francisco Franco in 1975.

The elder Hatchwell arrived in Spain in 1964, just as Franco’s regime was entering its final phase. Rather than simply establishing a Jewish community, Mauricio understood that a lasting Jewish influence in the Iberian Peninsula required constant engagement with Spanish institutions and the cultivation of pro-Jewish sentiment among the broader population. His founding of EXCEM Grupo in 1971 provided the financial foundation for what would become a multi-generational project of political infiltration.

More significantly, Mauricio Hatchwell spearheaded the historic Sepharad ’92 initiative that helped repair tense relations between Spaniards and international Jewry. In 1992, on the 500th anniversary of the Jewish expulsion from Spain, Mauricio Hatchwell commissioned what he called “the most beautiful facsimile ever produced, no more, no less” of the medieval Alba Bible. This 15th-century manuscript, created through Jewish-Christian collaboration, became a powerful symbol of a rapprochement between the two faiths.

On March 31, 1992, at the Pardo Palace in Madrid, Hatchwell presented copies of the Alba Bible facsimile to King Juan Carlos I of Spain and Israeli President Chaim Herzog. This ceremony marked the moment when King Juan Carlos formally revoked the 1492 Expulsion Edict and welcomed Jews back to Spain.

Hatchwell’s Use of Corporate Power to Advance Jewish Causes

David Hatchwell has continued in his father’s footsteps by using his current position as President of EXCEM Grupo by leveraging vast financial resources and international connections to influence Spanish politics. His business portfolio, spanning real estate investment trusts, venture capital operations, and international consulting, has created multiple vectors for political engagement. As Chairman of OurCrowd Iberia, Hatchwell has facilitated Spanish investment in Israeli startups while also looking for opportunities to “invest in Spanish tech companies seeking to bring additional leaders from the local ecosystem onto the OurCrowd platform.”

Hatchwell also chairs Fundaciòn Hispanojudía, a non-profit organization focused on raising awareness about Jewish heritage and cultural traditions in Spain. He finalized a $40 million project to house the Museo Hispanojudío in Madrid by securing a 30-year lease on a historic building for $20 million up front to cover rent and taxes, while allocating another $20 million for interior remodeling. This deal has paved the way for the establishment of the “first major Jewish museum in Spain and the Iberian Peninsula,” according to The Times of Israel.

Instead of relying on state funding, Hatchwell tapped into an international pool of private donors to fund the initiative, which is designed to celebrate Jewish history and Sephardic heritage, foster cultural dialogue, and serve as a global center for Jewish identity within the Spanish-speaking world.

Hatchwell’s Outreach to the Spanish Right

Hatchwell’s most notable achievement has been his concerted efforts to project Jewish influence within Spain’s right-wing scene. In doing so, he has transformed what could have been genuinely nationalist parties into reliable instruments of Zionist foreign policy. His public defense of the populist right VOX party in 2019 exemplifies this strategy. When accusations of antisemitism were launched against VOX, Hatchwell provided crucial cover by personally vouching for party leaders Santiago Abascal, Iván Espinosa de los Monteros, and Rocío Monasterio in a post he published on the website of Action and Communication on the Middle East (ACOM)—a pro-Israel organization based in Spain.

Hatchwell co-founded ACOM in 2007. For its part, ACOM has achieved a remarkable 85 legal victories against the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in Spanish courts. ACOM’s most significant triumph came in September 2022 when Spain’s Supreme Court ruled for the first time that BDS is discriminatory and illegal for public institutions to support.

Hatchwell has made it a point to co-opt the burgeoning populist movement in Spain and make sure that it does not take an antisemitic turn. ​​“I have the pleasure of knowing Santiago Abascal, Iván Espinosa de los Monteros and Rocío Monasterio of VOX personally, and I want to say loud and clear as a Spanish Jew that VOX is NOT an antisemitic political party,” Hatchwell affirmed in his defense of VOX on ACOM’s website.

Hatchwell praised the party’s “unwavering support for Israel” and their willingness to confront “true far-rightists and neo-Nazis.” The intervention proved crucial in convincing international Jewish circles of VOX’s philosemitic credentials, where doubts lingered because of Spain’s long-standing association with antisemitism.

The transformation of VOX under Hatchwell’s influence is particularly striking given Spain’s historically strained relationship with Israel. VOX leaders have since made pilgrimages to Israel, meeting with Likud party officials and strengthening ties with Netanyahu’s government. In December 2023, VOX representatives visited Israel amid the Gaza conflict, with party leader Santiago Abascal posting on social media that VOX had “strengthened its close ties” with Likud. The visit focused on “stopping radical Islam” and defending “European values”—kosher populist rhetoric that perfectly dovetails with Israeli strategic objectives.

Hatchwell’s Zionist Protégé in Madrid

One of Hatchwell’s most significant alliances is with Isabel Díaz Ayuso, the rising conservative star of the establishment Partido Popular (People’s Party) and current President of the Community of Madrid. Díaz Ayuso is an unapologetic defender of the Jewish state. Earlier this year, during an event commemorating the Holocaust, she proclaimed that Israel is “the first and most important frontier of the free world” and “the only democracy in the Middle East.”  Díaz Ayuso went even further, declaring “if Israel is not safe, none of us will be.”

The partnership between Hatchwell and Díaz Ayuso has proven both strategic and enduring, spanning cultural initiatives and international business forums. Their most visible collaboration, the 2022 Madrid and The New Middle East Summit—organized by Hatchwell and inaugurated by Ayuso—positioned Madrid as a central platform for investment and as a bridge connecting Israeli and UAE investors with the Spanish-speaking world.

Under Hatchwell’s influence, Díaz Ayuso has positioned Madrid as a pro-Israel alternative to Barcelona, a city known for supporting the BDS movement. In February 2023, Barcelona Mayor Ada Colau announced the suspension of all relations with Israel, including ending the city’s 25-year twinning agreement with Tel Aviv. Colau alluded to what she described as Israel’s “systematic violation of Palestinian human rights.”

At the time of Colau’s attempt to rupture ties, Díaz Ayuso was in Israel. She used her visit to directly contradict Barcelona’s position. “Barcelona did something that is a big mistake and that doesn’t represent the whole of Spain and it does not represent Madrid,” Díaz Ayuso asserted. During her meeting with Israeli President Isaac Herzog, Ayuso specifically told him that “Ada Colau’s decision to break with Israel does not represent either Catalonia or Spain.” The president of the Community of Madrid added, “Our country is a welcoming country and, in particular, the Community of Madrid is a welcoming country.”

From Francisco Franco’s Rejection to Zionist Embrace

The transformation Hatchwell has achieved becomes even more remarkable when viewed against the backdrop of Spain’s historical relationship with Israel. Francisco Franco’s regime consistently refused to recognize Israel, viewing Jewish influence as connected to Freemasonry and communism. Spain only established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1986, as a condition for joining the European Economic Community, and even then maintained strong support for the Palestinian cause.

This historical antipathy stemmed partly from the legacy of the 1492 expulsion, when Ferdinand and Isabella’s Alhambra Decree forced Spain’s estimated hundreds of thousands of Jews to convert to Christianity or face exile.

Ironically, Franco attempted to establish diplomatic relations with Israel in 1948. However, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion rebuffed Franco’s diplomatic overtures due to Spain’s previous ties with National Socialist Germany. Thanks to the activism by Hatchwell and other key actors in the Spanish Jewish community, Spain has been quickly moving in a pro-Israel direction in recent decades.

The main obstacle in the way of the Zionization of Spain is the current government of Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, which officially recognized Palestinian statehood in coordination with Ireland and Norway in 2024 and has taken steps to implement a comprehensive arms embargo against Israel.

Hatchwell’s Spanish operation must be understood as part of a broader European phenomenon that this author has previously detailed. The rise of Zio-populism—an Israel-friendly form of nationalism—is affecting all European nations, Spain included. While many short-sighted political activists will make the proverbial Faustian bargain with Zionist forces under the assumption that they will be granted leeway to implement nationalist policies at home, such unholy deals come with many unforeseen consequences. For one, such arrangements are primarily designed to advance Israeli interests, namely, the imposition of measures to restrict immigration from Islamic countries and other polities with migrants who tend to be hostile to Israel and the broader Jewish community.

That said, other non-White migrant groups hailing from countries sympathetic or at least indifferent to Israel—India, Nigeria, and Kenya—will be allowed to migrate with ease, much to the detriment of Western countries’ demographic core. Therein lies the problem of forging such pacts. Jewish oligarchs don’t care about maintaining homogeneous native populations the way nationalists do. In fact, they enjoy multiculturalism, so long as the golems they import don’t end up turning against their masters.

Broadly speaking, Hatchwell’s political project reflects a broader recognition among Jewish elites that the liberal international order that served their interests so well in the post-war period is beginning to fracture. As American hegemony weakens and multipolar alternatives emerge, maintaining Jewish influence requires adapting to new political realities and cultivating relationships with and eventually subverting rising political movements such as right-wing populism.

Hatchwell and many of his fellow Jewish compatriots are catching on to this trend and quickly insinuating themselves into the budding nationalist reaction to the failed globalist consensus. The primary task of nationalists on both sides of the pond is to reject the infiltration of Hatchwell and his ilk and make populism the sole domain of the Aryan man.

Tiers of a Clown-World: From Threats of Throat-Slitting to Lucy in the Sty

I have hope for Tom. I have no hope for Brendan. They’re both puppets of Frank, but Tom’s strings seem much looser than Brendan’s. That’s why I hope he’ll break free one day. Who am I talking about? I’m talking about the Trotskyist libertarians Tom Slater and Brendan O’Neill, who are both puppets of the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi. As Trotskyists and libertarians, Tom and Brendan have always thought and written with a mixture of delusion, dishonesty and deceit. But Tom shows worrying signs of beginning to see the truth.

Open Borders = Closed Mouths

For example, Tom has written about the very significant and disturbing murder of Asad Shah, which Brendan and Frank have always studiously ignored. Asad Shah was a heterodox Muslim who was engaged in theological debate by an orthodox Muslim called Tanveer Ahmed in Glasgow in 2016. Tanveer said that Asad had committed blasphemy. Asad said that he hadn’t. The debate was resolved in decisive — and typically Islamic — fashion when Tanveer stabbed and stomped Asad to death. It was what I call a meteor murder, one of those that flash through the headlines and then disappear for ever from the leftist media. Meteor murders disappear like that because they reveal the toxic truth rather than reinforce leftist lies. The toxic truth revealed by Asad Shah’s murder was that Muslim immigration is very bad for free speech in the West.

The hero and the heretic: Tanveer Ahmed is celebrated by British-based Muslims for murdering Asad Shah (ghazi = hero, kazzab = liar)

As libertarians, Frank Furedi, Tom Slater and Brendan O’Neill are passionate supporters of both free speech and open borders, so they can’t admit that open borders inevitably result in closed mouths. Instead, they dishonestly pretend that Muslims and other non-Whites would adore free speech if only Western governments abandoned “multiculturalism” and championed the glorious values of the Enlightenment. The murder of Asad Shah explodes this libertarian pretence and dishonesty, which is why Frank Furedi and Brendan O’Neill have always completely ignored it. To his great credit, Tom Slater broke that silence and wrote a long article about the murder. He emphasized its ominous significance and deplored the lack of attention it has received. But he still refused to admit that the murder was a direct product of Muslim immigration, not of “multiculturalism.”

Importing Pakistani pathologies

If he’d set the murder in its full context, he would have found it much harder to do that. So he didn’t. Asad Shah belonged to the small Ahmadiyya sect, which is regarded as blasphemous by mainstream Muslims like Tanveer Ahmed. That’s why Ahmadiyya are persecuted in Muslim countries like Pakistan, whose government has banned Ahmadiyya from even calling themselves “Muslim” and whose mainstream Islamic sects literally preach murder against the Ahmadiyya.

Astonishingly, when Pakistanis come to  Britain, they bring Pakistani culture and ideas with them. Fancy that! Yes, Pakistani Muslims retain their devotion to the Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) rather than embracing the Enlightenment (Piss Be Upon It). In Pakistan, which literally means “The Land of the Pure,” you demonstrate your devotion to Muhammad by killing anyone who disrespects him. That’s why Pakistani Muslims built shrines for two martyr-murderers, Ilm Ud-Din from the 1920s and Mumtaz Qadri from the 2010s, who killed blasphemers and then nobly submitted to execution by the authorities. In Britain, the Pakistani Muslim Tanveer Ahmed saw no reason to abandon this venerable tradition of killing blasphemers. As the snappy saying goes in Urdu: Gustakh-e-Rasūl kī ek hī sazā, sar tan se judā! — “For insult to the Prophet, there is only one punishment: cut the head from the body!” That’s why Tanveer Ahmed stabbed and stomped Asad Shah to death, then calmly accepted arrest, trial, and life imprisonment. Now that he’s in jail, he basks in the adulation and respect of other British-based Muslims who share his perfectly orthodox and respectable views about the need to slaughter blasphemers.

Handy Hindi head-chopping hints: a mainstream Muslim maxes the mojo of Mohammadism (image from OpIndia)

Who could have seen that coming? Anyone with any understanding of Islam and Third-World migration, that’s who. There are also deep-rooted traditions of child-rape and political corruption in Pakistan, so — surprise, surprise! — Pakistanis in Britain effortlessly out-perform the White natives in raping children and rigging elections. Third-World immigration is very bad for the West and for free speech, which is why Frank Furedi and Brendan O’Neill have said nothing about the horrific murder of Asad Shah. To his credit, Tom Slater said a lot about the murder of Asad Shah but failed to admit the truth: that Muslim migration, not multiculturalism, was to blame.

Rapturous applause for violent threats

And now Tom Slater has done it again. He’s written about another highly significant free-speech case and has again failed to admit the truth. Indeed, I don’t think he even sees the truth, because his libertarianism warps both his perceptions and his judgment. Here is some of what he wrote:

What a difference a jury makes. The acquittal today [15th August 2025] of Labour councillor and trade unionist Ricky Jones, after he called for far-right protesters’ throats to be slit at an ‘anti-racist’ demonstration in north-east London last year, reminds us why 12 ordinary men and women are an infinitely superior defence against illiberalism and overly harsh punishment than any ‘enlightened’ judge.

Last August, at a Stand Up To Racism rally in Walthamstow, in the wake of the anti-migrant Southport riots, Jones picked up the mic to denounce ‘disgusting Nazi fascists’, adding ‘we need to cut their throats and get rid of them’. He ran a finger across his neck for dramatic effect. A clip of his speech, which naturally received rapturous applause from the crowd, went viral, and he was charged with encouraging violent disorder.

To say that people were locked up for saying much less after Southport is an understatement. Racist memes landed some people in prison. But there was no serious prospect of Jones’s violent rhetoric being acted upon. There were no fascists in attendance to knife: the Walthamstow protest was called in response to rumours of a far-right demo that mysteriously never materialised. He also argued, apparently successfully, that he never intended those words to be taken literally and even edited them out of a clip he later posted. Unless you believe that rash, stupid words should result in a lengthy spell in prison, then this can surely be the only correct, proportionate, liberty-protecting decision. If only we’d seen more of them amid the post-Southport mania.

The reason we didn’t is that, unlike Jones, many of those nabbed for speech-related crimes last summer pleaded guilty. Had Northampton childminder Lucy Connolly — convicted of ‘stirring up racial hatred’ and sentenced to 31 months for posting on X, ‘Set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care’ — pleaded not guilty, she may well have been spared prison, too. That she remains inside while Jones has just walked free isn’t so much two-tier justice as it is two-tier legal advice. Not to mention two different offences — Jones’s charge of encouraging violent disorder, notes free-speech lawyer Preston Byrne, is a ‘narrower conduct offence that’s harder to prove’. Still, whether it was wise counsel or sheer bloody mindedness on his part, Jones’s decision to leave his fate in the hands of a jury of his peers, rather than some jaundiced, imperious beak, may well have made all the difference here.

This raises uncomfortable questions about the Southport speech criminals, many of whom pleaded guilty under the not-so-wise guidance of their duty solicitors. Hoping for leniency, many have ended up doing longer stretches than even violent criminals. Connolly received a heftier sentence than one Philip Prescot, an actual Southport rioter. He was part of the mob that menaced the town’s mosque. We might also ask why Jones, while remanded in custody at first, was later granted bail, while Connolly was not, piling yet more pressure on the defendant. (“The Ricky Jones acquittal shows us the wisdom of juries,” Spiked, 15th August 2025)

Leftist judge Rosa Dean, a Diversity and Community Relations Judge (DCRJ) who promotes “diversity and community engagement in the judicial system”

Slater talks about “uncomfortable questions” but fails to ask one very obvious “uncomfortable” question. What would have happened if Lucy Connolly or any of the other White “Southport speech criminals” had pleaded “Not Guilty” and appeared before the same judge and jury that acquitted the Black leftist Ricky Jones? The question is obvious and so is the answer: Connolly and Co would have been found guilty by the same jury that acquitted Jones. The judge would then have taken great relish in sentencing her or them to a long stretch in jail. We know for certain that the judge, Rosa Dean, is a partisan leftist and there are entirely credible estimates that the jury was at least half non-White. Slater praises the jury for its “wisdom” and for making the “correct, proportionate, liberty-protecting decision.” Contra Slater, the overwhelming likelihood is the jury had no interest at all in “liberty” or free speech. Instead, it was merely protecting one of its own. If someone not of its own, like the White right-winger Lucy Connolly, had appeared before it, then it would have delivered the opposite verdict: “Guilty!” rather than “Not Guilty.”

The Dumbfounded and da Delighted

Do Slater and other libertarians disagree? Then I simply ask them to consider this obvious scenario. Suppose that Salman Rushdie goes on trial after a future British government introduces a law protecting Muslims from blasphemy and offence. Suppose further that the trial takes place in Bradford or some other heavily enriched city and that, by the vagaries of jury selection, Rushdie faces a jury composed entirely of orthodox Pakistani Muslims. What would the jury’s verdict be? It would certainly be “Guilty.”

Black murderer, White victim: the acquitted O.J. Simpson and his wife Nicole Simpson (image from Netflix)

And what would the verdict be if the jury happened to be entirely White instead? It would probably — but not certainly — be “Not guilty” (we can’t be certain because many White leftists pander to Muslim hatred of free speech). The law has never been perfect and never will be. But the law is much less reliable and objective in racially and religiously mixed societies. We saw that very clearly way back in 1995, when the Black O.J. Simpson had a mostly Black jury and was wrongly found not guilty of murdering his White wife Nicole Simpson. In the wider society, the verdict dumbfounded Whites and delighted Blacks. We saw it again in America when the White Derek Chauvin was wrongly found guilty of murdering the Black George Floyd. Whatever the racial make-up of the jury in that case, the jurors had no doubt that Blacks would react with fury and violence if Chauvin was acquitted.

Lucy in the Sty with Crime ’Uns

In Britain, something similar has happened: the Black Ricky Jones has been given an easy ride and found not guilty; the White Lucy Connolly has been strong-armed into pleading guilty and given a harsh sentence. Yes, the toxic truth about the acquittal of Ricky Jones and the imprisonment of Lucy Connolly is that they reveal the two tiers of a Clown-World. There is two-tier justice in Britain, because the leftist Clowns who are currently in charge treat non-Whites with maximal lenience and Whites with maximal harshness. The current Attorney General, Lord Hermer, is an “anti-fascist” Jew who loudly proclaims his devotion to the “rule of law.” In other words, he’s an anti-White authoritarian who believes in the rule of leftist lawyers like himself, not the genuine and impartial rule of law. Hermer and the shabbos-goy Keir Starmer personally oversaw the destruction of fair trials after the Southport riots in 2024, encouraging the courts to treat White defendants with maximal harshness and minimal delay. Accordingly, the non-criminal Lucy Connolly was quickly condemned to the pig-sty of jail not because her words posed any threat of inciting violence, but because she’s White and leftists like Hermer disagree with her politics. In 2025, Ricky Jones has belatedly avoided the pig-sty of jail not because his words were any less intemperate or unacceptable than Connolly’s, but because he’s Black and leftists like Hermer agree with his politics.

The Black and the White: acquitted Ricky Jones and imprisoned Lucy Connolly

It’s as simple — and as septic — as that. Clown-World believes in free speech only for its pets, not for its pests. Libertarians like Tom Slater and Brendan O’Neill claim to believe in free speech for everyone. That’s why libertarians like Slater and O’Neill should ask themselves why Clown-World is so much in favor of non-White immigration. Are the Clowns blindly and blunderingly undermining their own power by importing vibrant Third-World folk? Or do the blindness and the blunders happen elsewhere? The answer is obvious. The acquittal of Ricky Jones has just bawled that answer again. Like Tom Slater, I’m pleased by the acquittal. Unlike Tom Slater, I’m pleased because I understand the acquittal means. It was another glaring example of two-tier justice and will be another boost for White nationalism.

Britain has witnessed harsh punishment for a White mother who issued a swiftly deleted cry of anger and easy acquittal for a Black barbarian who issued threats of throat-slitting. And more Whites have woken to the truth: that Britain’s traitorous elite hates Whites and loves injustice. This being so, one conclusion follows swiftly and surely: that traitorous elite needs to be toppled and its ethnic pets need to return to the Third World.

Are the English Finally Fighting Back Against the Invasion?

English people don’t generally fly their national flag. Flying the national flag shows a need to assert yourself; it implies that you are under threat in some way and that you must mark your territory and rally the troops. Twenty years ago, when I was at university in Scotland, you’d see Scottish flags everywhere. Scotland is a small, relatively poor nation that was long ago subsumed into an England-dominated union. Of course Scotland must assert itself. England, by contrast, was secure in its own importance as the dominant nation in an empire that once ruled a quarter of the globe. You relatively rarely saw the Union Jack (the British flag) in England, let alone the St George’s flag of England.

But since the British government has deliberately allowed England to be invaded since New Labour began a de facto left-wing revolution in 1997, you have started to see more and more England flags dotted about. (The government allowed the invasion because it wishes to signal its adherence to the “marginalised” and push down the wages of English workers who decreasingly vote Labour.) The English, understandably, feel under threat: their territory is being invaded, entire areas of large cities such as London or Birmingham are, in essence, Pakistani enclaves, traditional English liberties are crushed with anti-free-speech laws to protect the Black and Muslim clients of the Labour Party, at least 25% of people in England are not White let alone ethnically English and the capital is now majority foreign. England has fallen, just as it once did to the Danes.

The Empire is long behind them and the English are realising that they, like the Scottish, must rally the troops around the flag and assert themselves if they are to survive at all. The Anti-British government of Keir Starmer is, as far as I can see, an accelerationist regime. Since 1997, the destruction of the traditional England has involved clever salami tactics, for the traitor Tony Blair was nothing if not a political genius. The transformation was too slow and too subtle for there to ever be a serious reaction.

Starmer is far less intelligent than Blair, as are those that surround him. He has made it clear to the working-class English, those who still believe in the nation, that he hates them. For getting upset about the massacre of three little girls by an ethnic-Rwandan in 2024, they are nothing more than “far right thugs” who must be jailed for their emotive tweets, even if they are immediately deleted. But if, during the process, a Black Labour councillor incites the murder of the rioters to a crowd then he is given bail (unlike Lucy Connolly, who posted an anti-immigrant tweet) and then found not guilty after the jury are directed by an openly Woke and pro-diversity female judge.

Two-tier Keir has given us two-tier justice; the Labour government despises the English people. But to continue the acceleration, “migrants” (young South Asian and African men) are permitted — hundreds of them a day — to cross from France and be processed for asylum even though France is a safe country; akin to the US accepting refugees from Canada. With nowhere else to put them, they are placed it hotels; often quite nice ones. This has meant that, very suddenly, scores of completely White towns in the shires have experienced the joys of diversity: young migrants hanging around schools and raping teenage girls; they’re not veiled, after all.

This has led to protests and riots outside “migrant hotels” with the state making this much worse by having police chaperone far-left “counter-protestors” — assorted Woke mutants with purple hair brought in to scream about how “racist” everyone is. In Nuneaton, in the Midlands, where a schoolgirl was raped, the crowd was so infuriated by them that they were literally run out of town, with the police — now widely seen as an anti-British enforcers anyway — desperately trying to protect them.

The St George’s flag was a common sight at these protests, one of which has worked: the migrant hotel in Epping (north of London, teenager raped) has been shut down. However, it appears that this set off, on about 16th August, “Operation Raise the Colours,” an idea which spread via Twitter and social contagion.

To assert that it’s England, a group of men started putting up English and British flags on lampposts in Birmingham, specifically in the White area of Northfield. This spread to Tower Hamlets in London, which is overwhelmingly Bangladeshi and where you’ll frequently see Palestine and Bangladeshi flags. To make things worse, and to make it absolutely clear that, for the authorities, England is conquered and its ideology is Woke (as symbolised by the rainbow flag, allowed to fly everywhere), Birmingham Council, which is bankrupt and can’t collect the rubbish, promptly sent in workers to remove flags, while leaving Palestine flags well alone, naturally. Tower Hamlets Council, making it clear that they are a Bangladeshi enclave, made it plain any flags (actually only British ones, though) would be immediately removed, and they were.

But, naturally, this only galvanised the campaign and underscored the point it was making; parts of England are held by foreigners and the White traitors who collaborate with them (Labour and pretty much all of the political class) to dictate to the true English. And the English must fight back. Elsewhere in Birmingham, a mini-roundabout was painted with the St George’s Flag. This was promptly removed with the anti-British BBC referring to it as “vandalised,” which it doesn’t when rainbow flags are painted in public. This led to online jokes about how potholes will be filled in if you paint them with the St George’s flag and bin bags will be collected if they are marked with the same.

Now, however, there was little stopping this outbreak of English patriotism; this mass-marking of territory. Lines of lampposts all over the country suddenly had the St George’s or Union flags flying from them. Farmers sprayed their sheep with red crosses, to be seen from motorways and country roads.

The left were put in an impossible situation. English patriotism is sufficiently popular that they can’t admit that they hate it and fear it. They want to control it; it’s allowed, occasionally, if there’s football. But spontaneous and uncontrolled, it is deeply frightening to a paranoid, authoritarian, internationalist state that despises everything about England, including the average English working man (he is a “far right thug”). Some were moved, aggressively, to say it represented an aggressive act by the “far right;” they were presumably aggressive due to the cognitive dissonance: “I hate the English even though I am one; I mustn’t but I do.” All of this is happening in a context in which serious people, such as the independent Member of Parliament Rupert Lowe, are discussing the forced remigration of immigrants.

Could England be waking up before it’s too late? I hope so. Has Starmer caused this by bringing about “too much, too soon” and openly showing his contempt for ordinary English people? Yes, he has. We can only hope that, as the summer passes and it gets colder, this “reaction” by the ordinary English against thirty years of psychological abuse by their government and its purple-haired, Karen Stasi does not fizzle out.