Reframing the Jewish Question: The Weak Claim Paradox

/141 Comments/in /by

Any effective political movement will know its own strengths and weaknesses as well as its enemy’s. Obviously, this helps enable it to attack where the enemy is most vulnerable and to protect itself where it is also most vulnerable. For the Dissident Right and White Nationalists in America—and for all European nationalists in Europe—the principal enemy must be seen as organized Jewry. As I like to call them: Left-wing Diaspora Jews, or LDJs.

The greatest weaknesses of LDJs are, of course, small numbers and a limited martial presence among gentiles. Their greatest strengths, however, include high ethnocentrism and in-group cohesion, high IQs, the ability to acquire and weaponize large amounts of money, a sense of urgency resulting from the cult of their own victimhood, and an overwhelming will to power. An impressive battery of strengths indeed.

The LDJ’s most important strength however is their prodigious ability to control popular opinion among gentiles through various forms of media. This, more than any other, best explains the ascension of Jews to elite status in the West mere decades after their emancipation in Europe in the 1870s. Call it the Pop-Op hypothesis. By propagating different shades of egalitarian ideology (for example, anti-racism in the West and communism in the East), LDJs effectively told gentile majorities what they wanted to hear, thus molding popular opinion to manufacture hostility against the existing gentile elites—for the benefit of the LDJs themselves, who always intended to replace them.

The old guard was wholly unprepared for this since not in centuries had any European aristocracy of note been put in the position of having to persuade the people to follow them. “We lead because we are pre-ordained by God to do so and likewise are better suited for it than you are,” somehow seems less persuasive than “Since everyone is equal, we must overthrow those who impose inequality upon us!” That the former argument resides closer to the truth by reflecting the inegalitarian nature of the human condition makes little difference. Those who were led, didn’t know any better; and those who did lead, knew better and didn’t care.

If this seems like an oversimplification of the rise of Jewish power, that’s because it is. All general explanations of historical events will resort to oversimplification to some extent or another. I will bet, however, that the Pop-Op Hypothesis explains the facts most economically compared to all other hypotheses. Prior to Jewish emancipation, Jews still had their ethnocentrism, high-IQs, financial acumen, and other strengths, but only a fraction of the influence they enjoy over gentiles today. Emancipation, for the first time in modern history, gave Jews a means by which they could directly communicate with and ultimately control the gentile masses—namely with art, academia, music, journalism, propaganda, and literature. It quickly became apparent that Jews far surpassed the gentile elites in this regard.

The Pop-Op Hypothesis dictates that in order to break the LDJ grip on power, a competing movement must challenge the LDJ grip on popular gentile opinion. But if this is where the enemy is strongest, then wouldn’t it be foolish to attack him there? Well, yes and no. Ingroup messaging is where the Dissident Right, with its more-truthful inegalitarianism, is strongest as well. Arguments may be less pleasing at first to the ear of the masses, but they will often be more elegant—and humorous as well—and thus more persuasive. This is why Jews so vigorously censor the Dissident Right. And it’s not like finding arguments to counter the LDJ narrative is difficult. How the egalitarians must torture logic in the face of damning evidence provides fertile ground for counterargument and mockery from dissidents.

The problem arises in where and how to stake a claim. Combating an aspect of the LDJ narrative with a strong opposing narrative succeeds inversely to the time the narrative in question has had to metastasize across gentile populations. The more time a narrative has had, the more difficult it is to argue against it with a strong opposite claim. Paradoxically, weaker claims would serve better against deeply entrenched LDJ narratives. I call this the Weak Claim Paradox.

For example, the LDJ narrative which claims that . . .

  1. Gender is a social construct.
  2. Transgender people by law must be considered to belong to their chosen gender.
  3. Children have a right to sex change operations.

. . . is a relatively recent one. Since the vast majority of adults today remember when this narrative didn’t exist at all, strong counterclaims which would have been perfectly mainstream in 2003 can be made to good effect twenty years later:

  1. No, gender is not socially constructed.
  2. No, transgender people don’t have the right to dictate how people view them.
  3. No, children don’t have a right to transition. Furthermore, anyone who aids in their transition should go to prison.

These are strong counter-claims—and popular since the offending narrative has had such little time to grow roots in the gentile mind.

On the other hand, consider this more-deeply entrenched LDJ narrative:

  1. The Nazis were evil.
  2. The Nazis started the Second World War in order to conquer Europe.
  3. The Nazis murdered six million innocent Jews for the sake of racial purity.

This narrative has had much more time to marinate among gentiles. Since very few are still alive today who remember when this narrative didn’t exist, strong counter-claims which would have been perfectly mainstream in 1943 will likely be dismissed as beyond the limits of civilized discourse eighty years later. Human beings are creatures of habit, after all. A lifetime of being inundated with a particular narrative—false as it may be—simply cannot be overturned over the course of a single conversation no matter how bright or well-intentioned a person is. Thus, the following strong counter-claims are bound to fail.

  1. No, the Nazis were the last, best hope for the white race.
  2. No, English and Jewish elites initiated the Second World War as a means to annihilate Germany.
  3. No, the Jewish Holocaust is wildly exaggerated.

And it does not matter how true these claims actually are! There is simply too much time for such strong counter-claims to overcome.

Observe, however, how much more effective weak claims can be when faced with such a severe time handicap. Note also that such claims should always begin with the words “even if.”

  1. Even if the Nazis were evil, the Jewish-led Soviets were more evil.
  2. Even if the Nazis invaded Poland in order to conquer Europe, so did the Jewish-led Soviets.
  3. Even if the Nazis murdered six million Jews, the Jewish-led Soviets had already murdered tens of millions of whites prior to the Second World War.

Such weak claims are every bit as true as the strong ones above. Of course, they don’t push the dissident envelope very far. They certainly don’t attempt to deliver checkmate as the strong claims do. But that’s okay. Dissidents need to take baby steps when leading people out of Plato’s cave—and back in time, so to speak, to when the existing narratives either didn’t exist or were more easily dealt with.

Such weak claims outperform strong ones in this case because they counter the prevailing narrative without contradicting it. Most gentiles have been brainwashed over generations to strenuously resist contradiction as if it were taboo. For dissidents, direct contradiction should be a non-starter. Yet most gentiles are unaware of how atrocious the Gulag Archipelago, the Great Terror, and the Holodomor actually were. By introducing this information—and by effectively presenting the Nazis as the lesser two evils when compared to the Soviets—dissidents effectively enter the deep water of the LDJ narrative, and then go deeper. This is why the study of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has become so crucial to the Jewish Question. Most gentiles are simply not prepared to refute him. And when presented with solid data on the atrocities committed by so many Soviet Jews—during peacetime, we should add—a new vision of history gradually emerges—not to refute the current LDJ narrative, but to augment it with a more accurate information.

The analogy of the ten-speed bicycle works best to explain the Weak Claim Paradox. Let’s say a hill’s steepness corresponds directly with the amount of time a certain narrative has had to embed itself in a people’s mind. Let’s also say that high gears correspond with strong claims, while low gears correspond with weak claims. When we ride a bike up a steep hill, do we shift into high gear or low gear?

We shift into low gear, of course. This greatly increases the amount of peddling we have to do—and decreases our speed—but at least it keeps us moving. Shifting into tenth gear on a steep incline, however, is a recipe for only standing still.

By incorporating the element of time, the Weak Claim Paradox shows respect for the Pop-Op Hypothesis and the unparalleled ability of LDJs to control popular opinion through various forms of media. If LDJs have had decades with which to embed certain ideas into the minds of ordinary gentiles, then strong arguments will likely fail and only weak ones will stand a chance of succeeding.

Weak claims can be embedded in our very language as well. Note how, in this essay, I often use the term “LDJ” where most dissident authors would simply use the term “Jewish.” This, in itself, is the weaker claim because it limits our focus to a small subset of Jews rather than Jews as a whole. Kevin MacDonald makes this very distinction in the preface to The Culture of Critique when he excludes the scientific work of Albert Einstein and other early-20th-century Jewish theoretical physicists from what he calls “Jewish intellectual movement[s].” Unlike Freudian psychology, Boasian anthropology, or the Frankfurt School, theoretical physics did little to promote Jewish ethnic interests (at least until the late 1930s), despite how a disproportionate number of physicists at that time were Jews.

So people who’ve been brainwashed into anathematizing so-called anti-Semitism may very well plug their ears or run screaming when dissidents speak of “Jews,” as if all Jews think alike and are actively plotting the demise of the White race—which is not true in any event. But when presented with a neologism like “LDJs”—as well as with information on the Soviet gulags and terror famines—they may be prepared to listen. They have not been brainwashed against that.

The Weak Claim Hypothesis has obvious ramifications among those in the Dissident Right who investigate and promote strong claims against the primary LDJ narratives. What to say to those who continue to lionize Adolf Hitler and the Nazis? What to say to those who continue to revise down the Jewish Holocaust? Should they stop? Is what they are doing counterproductive?

Not at all. But if the Pop-Op Hypothesis and the Weak Claim Paradox have any validity, then perhaps such research would best be consumed by those already red-pilled, so to speak. Teasing out what Hitler really meant in a certain speech or determining exactly how many Jewish inmates died of typhus rather than gas chambers in a certain concentration camp surely is appropriate for discourse among dissidents, or for pure scholarly reasons. But when dissidents reach out to non-dissidents to challenge the LDJ grip on popular gentile opinion, perhaps it would be prudent not to ignore how tight that grip really is. Perhaps dissidents should consider a more gentle, weak-claim approach to set their own people free. Then perhaps the gentile masses will join the dissidents more willingly, rather than plugging their ears or running screaming in the opposite direction every time someone says the word “Jew.”

The Conservative Commitment To Color Blindness Is Cowardice, Not Principle

/64 Comments/in , /by

The unremitting conservative commitment to color blindness is not a principled stance anymore. Perhaps it was once upon a time, but it is not today. The mask of universal brotherhood has slipped off the face of the modern left. The modern left is dripping with disdain for everything White—what I call “anti-asperism,” from the Greek άσπρος,  meaning ‘white’. It is not subtle about its hatred whatsoever, and the policies it promotes are all centered around displacing Whitey, replacing Whitey, and sticking it to Whitey in every way imaginable. Indeed, hurting White people seems to be, in many respects, the central purpose and design of modern leftism, and by extension the primary cause of Western governments.

I want to give these people on the right, these naive do-gooders, the benefit of the doubt, but the truth is, they do not deserve it. In light of just how viciously anti-White the culture and the power structure of this country have become, it is impossible for a decent White person not to stand up for White people and White interests in explicitly racial terms. To be a decent person means to stand up for White children who are being shamed and degraded in grade school for being White, by their own government no less, a government which still has the gall to pretend it represents them. Brain-dead, brainwashed government apparatchiks shaming young White children, telling them they are “racist” and “bad” merely for existing, is truly, and I mean this literally, a crime against humanity. It is diabolical. Yet we tolerate it.

Even when confronted with appalling anti-White animus or even heinous anti-White crimes, modern conservatives consistently shy away from the racial element(s) right at the center of the case or the matter. Just as the media hides the racial element(s) when primitive Black sociopaths who [literally] openly articulate hatred for White people, shoot White children because a ball rolled into their yard, conservatives do the same. Instead of speaking up for White people and White interests, conservatives always fall back on the same empty appeals to civic unity and daft arguments about how everyone should be colorblind and unprejudiced. How is it that a people can be so civilized, and have such high standards for itself, even as it gets rubbed out of existence by those who have no standards for themselves at all? That is not ethicality my brethren, but folly born of terror and subjugation.

Whites who refuse to stand up for themselves and their civilization (Western civilization is White civilization) and their interests (like the right to not be systematically racially discriminated against in the name of “anti-racism” (how is that for a laugh?)) are not good people, they are bad people. They are too cowardly to confront the realities that are staring them right in the face, realities about human nature, about biological difference, about the character and “legitimacy” of their own government.

Diversity is an abject failure with few historical rivals. It is epic in the scale of damage it is inflicting on the formerly White West. The left, and by the left I mean Western governments, since our main institutions are the vanguard of Cultural Marxism, which enforces its maxims and values through violence, and which hoists its rainbow banner at every opportunity, abandoning the purported ideals of the 1960s “civil rights” cultural revolution long ago, and there is no way to bring those ideals back. They are dead. Diversity has destroyed them, as it is destroying everything else White Westerners once cherished, from freedom of speech and conscience, to the ideal of blind justice under the law, to meritocracy and fair competition in the market and elsewhere, to objectivity itself.

White cowardice is understandable of course. Whites have every reason to be fearful. People who speak up for Whites are instantly labeled White supremacists. Many lose their businesses or become unemployable. Some are even framed on bogus criminal charges by the government’s perfectly amoral, hired thugs in blue. We are dealing with an extremely pervasive and highly repressive, not to mention very crafty, sophisticated tyranny here. To be clear though, that is just speaking up for Whites. Conservative Whites could do all kinds of other, less purportedly “collectivistic” and “racist” things which would indicate courage, like acknowledging that the Founding Fathers were essentially White supremacists and White nationalists while giving a nuanced history of human conquests and slavery, the underlying causes of Black underachievement, and the history of White attempts to raise up Black people to White levels of academic performance. Or simply acknowledging the obvious truth that the government they live under detests them and does not in any way represent them today, instead of constantly mouthing vapid patriotic slogans and fellating government goons for their so-called “service” (to what exactly?). These are all things conservatives could and would do, if they possessed any courage. And there are many, many more things they could do which would demonstrate that they are not a completely defeated, vassalized people. But they do not do these things.

What we have then, as you can see, is a clear pattern of behavior. Thus, while it is difficult, if not impossible to prove cowardice rather than principle drives conservative preening and groveling and equivocating and babbling about values and ideals long since forsaken by anyone in America with any power or relevance—values like [racial] colorblindness, all the evidence points in this direction. Conservatives, like most all Americans, know precisely where the lines are, and they stay within them. But those lines are the fruit of Cultural Marxist tyranny. They are intolerable lines. They are the lines of a regime which has enserfed our people under the guise of “law and order” and keeping us “safe”.

Yet despite all these overbearing, overbroad criminal laws, and all this wretched, suffocating order, Christian children are not safe from transgender lunatics even at school. And White children are not safe from White-hating Somali immigrants even at the Mall of America in Minnesota (ironically named, eh?). You never know when some non-White animal might just stroll up and throw your innocent White child 40 feet down off a mall balcony. All that “safety” and “order” we were promised must be somewhere out there in the folds of the galaxy with the “progress” our “representatives” keep heralding through the toppling of statues and the renaming of military bases.

Real men, real White men that is, protect themselves. They are not government dependents looking for safety above all else. Just as they do not fight 3 on 1, as Tucker Carlson famously recently claimed. That is true even if anti-White African bigots over at NBC disagree. Jarvis DeBerry, anti-White propagandist for the U.S. power class, thinks this is “exactly how White men fight.” Saying demeaning things about Whites as a collective will get you published in the mainstream media, saying positive things, like Mr. Carlson did, will get you canned.

But that is not how White men fight, is it? It is dishonorable. Our people have always understood this. Those from nearer to the equator do not understand it at all, but we do. You know exactly what I am talking about, if you have read this far. Do you feel that sensation in your chest? You see, we are a people. We have an essence. We have a spirit. We have a shared culture, and shared bonds, and shared interests. You know, deep inside you, exactly what I am referring to! Yet so many conservatives would deny this. They would proclaim that race does not matter, even as their soul shows them it does!

Rage is the only sane response to how criminal and corrupt our government is, and to how it treats its White population, our people. But instead of rage, all conservatives do is pull punches and speak in racially ambiguous terms and wishy-washy ways about [truly] existential matters. That is not principled or moral; it is cowardly and disgusting. Every other race fights ravenously and with no shame or qualms for its group interests. Why stand we here idle?

Whites need to be loud and proud. Frankly, they need to be fierce. Only an awakened, enlightened White race can save America from the precipice at this point. That is the only way we chase wokeshevism back into the abyss from whence it came. At the present, it is chasing us into the abyss. Using metaphors and platitudes and euphemisms for non-White savagery is getting us nowhere except deeper into the abyss. It is time for White Americans to stand up for the White race. Anything less is pusillanimity arrayed in the garb of decency. It is unbefitting our people, a noble people.

If the White race stands for anything, anything at all, let it be plain speaking, even in the face of relentless state terror, wokeshevik hysteria, and systemic bullying by anti-White scum. Apologize for nothing. We are a people, a tribe, a collective. We matter. And we are not going anywhere. If we can’t get a fair shake under the current government, we will form another. We must stand up, be heard, and accept absolutely nothing less.

Say it, over and over and over again, and be not afraid who might hear it. We are a people, and we have a future. Those who mind it, who would attack or accost you for declaring this, are your enemy, and merit nothing but disdain. Those who malign and abuse our people have everything to apologize for. Standing up for your people, on the other hand, is not something anyone has to apologize for. Rest assured moreover, that lurking beneath the many collective denunciations, are millions of White men and women, all over this land, and in foreign lands as well, who are thankful for your words and your bravery, who, even if silent on the surface or on the internet, feel a gratitude deep in their souls. You matter. You are appreciated.

Survival or Suicide: Italy Will Follow Meloni’s Melody, not the Schlein Whine

/80 Comments/in /by

If you want to understand Christianity better, learn Italian. An ancient link is obscured in English, but obvious in Italian. Take the Gospel of John. When you read it in English, you’ll see Jesus calls one of his disciples “a devil” at the end of chapter 6. St John explains that He is referring to Judas, “one of the twelve.” Right after that, at the beginning of chapter 7, St John says that Jesus stayed in Galilee and avoided Judaea, because the Jews were trying to kill Him. Do you get it?

Servants of Satan

Well, no, you don’t get it in English. Now try Italian. At the end of chapter 6, Jesus talks about un diavolo among His disciples, who St John explains is Giuda, “Judas.” Then, at the beginning of chapter 7, St John says that Jesus avoided Giudea, “Judaea,” because i Giudei, “the Jews,” were trying to kill him. Now do you get it? Giuda, Giudea, Giudei — Italian makes plain what English spelling has obscured for centuries. In English, Judas should really be called Jewdas, because St John and the other evangelists were drawing a clear link between Judas and the Jews, between the individual betrayer of Christ and the collective crucifiers of Christ. Or rather, they were drawing a link between Judas and the Judaean form of the Hebrew religion. Like Judas, it had become corrupt and evil, serving not God but Satan. Jesus represented the uncorrupt form of the religion from Galilee, which was regarded as a backward and gentile-infested region by the sophisticated Judaeans of Jerusalem. To understand Christianity even better, you should think of Jesus and His disciples as like Texans in Washington or Yorkshiremen in London or Bretons in Paris.

That’s what it meant to be Galileans in Jerusalem. Jesus and His disciples were contemptible outsiders with uncouth accents, hicks from the sticks, and the Judean elite of Jerusalem first laughed at them, then sought to crush their movement. They crucified Christ, then began to blacken His name in the scriptures of the new religion they created in opposition to His teachings. When the traitorous Catholic church of today calls Jews “older brothers in the Faith,” it’s not merely being sycophantic: it’s lying. Judaism as we know it today is actually younger than Christianity, because the old Hebrew religion was taken over by the Pharisees whom Christ opposed and exposed as hypocrites and “whited sepulchers.” Those Pharisees created the strange, perverted and intensely xenophobic text known as the Talmud, where Jews are exalted, goyim are demonized, and Christ is damned to an eternity of boiling in excrement.

Prayer versus Predation

Bear that Talmudic attitude to Christ in mind the next time you see the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury sucking up to Jews, the inveterate enemies of Christianity. Jews aren’t “older brothers in the Faith”: they’re younger blasphemers against the Faith. They’ve never abandoned their hostility to Christianity and their desire to destroy it. As Bernard M. Smith has explained at the Occidental Observer, Christianity teaches its followers to pray for their enemies. Talmudic Judaism teaches its followers to prey on their enemies. And who are those enemies? All goyim, of course, but Christians in particular. We’re fit for nothing but exploitation or extermination, as it suits the needs of the Jews. That’s why Jews have always led the war against the White Christian West. As the great Catholic writer Hilaire Belloc once explained: Christianity represents Truth, Beauty and Goodness, therefore Jews wage war on the West with lies, ugliness and evil. And in 2023 you can find all the elements of this war, and all the themes I’ve discussed above, on plain display in the great White nation of Italy, which has long been the heart of European civilization. Italy faces a choice between life and death, between right-wing sanity and leftist suicide, between light and darkness in all senses of those words.

Light vs Darkness: Giorgia Meloni vs Elly Schlein (images from Wikipedia)

It’s highly appropriate, then, that the forces of right-wing sanity in Italy are led by an attractive blonde working-class Christian called Giorgia Meloni (born 1977) and the forces of leftist suicide are led by an ugly cosmopolitan Jewish lawyer called Elly Schlein (born 1985). Even their names are apt: Meloni is melodious, Schlein sounds like a cross between “slime” and “whine.”

However, I need to be clear: I don’t trust Giorgia Meloni, the current prime minister of Italy and leader of a party called Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy). Like Donald Trump, she has talked the talk on mass migration and wokism, but it remains to be seen if she will walk the walk. She may prove more important as a symbol than as a savior.

In fact, the number of migrants this year was four times the number in the same period the last two years, but Italy remains a gateway to generous northern European countries:

Italy rejects most of their asylum bids because they are fleeing poverty, not war or persecution. But, since barely a handful of countries have repatriation accords with Italy, the migrants who lose asylum bids often stay on for years in a legal limbo, or try to make their way to northern European countries.

That said, I completely trust Elly Schlein, leader of the leftist Partito Democratico, the heir to the Italian Communist party. Schlein is a passionate proponent of open borders to the Third World and is utterly opposed to Meloni’s attempt to raise Italian birth rates instead of importing Africans. Yes, I trust Schlein to work tirelessly for the destruction of Italy and tirelessly against the interests of the working-class Italian Whites who foolishly support her party. Schlein is a Judas like the so-called Democrat Joe Biden in America and the so-called Labourite Keir Starmer in Britain. She betrays her party’s traditional working-class supporters on behalf of woke capitalism and Third-World invaders.

The core of the contrast

Indeed, Schlein polished her treachery with the Democratic party. She worked for the slippery lawyer Barack Obama on his two successful presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012. She’s a slippery lawyer herself, like Biden, Starmer, Blair and countless other Western politicians. She has proudly proclaimed herself to be bisessuale, or “bisexual,” and has three nationalities: Italian, Swiss and American. In other words, she’s perfectly at home among the traitorous Jew-dominated elite of Europe and America, the Pharisees of the present day who smile on non-White migrants and sneer at uncouth working-class Whites like Giorgia Meloni, who comes from a rough district in Rome and couldn’t afford to go to university, despite her academic ability.

Meloni and Schlein are opposites in so many ways, but the core of the contrast is racial: Meloni is a blonde White and Schlein is a big-nosed Jew. The mainstream reporter Nicholas Farrell didn’t of course mention race in his recent article about the two women, but he did provide an excellent summary of their differences:

As so often, it is the down-to-earth poor girl, Meloni, who is right-wing and pro-family, and the head-in-the-clouds posh girl, Schlein, who is left-wing and pro-migrant. Meloni is somewhere, while Schlein is anywhere. In a 2019 speech that brought about a huge rise in her public support, Meloni said: ‘Now they’re talking about getting rid of the words “father” and “mother” on documents. Because the family is an enemy, national identity is an enemy, sexual identity is an enemy. … It’s the old groupthink game: they’ve got to get rid of everything that we are, because when we no longer have an identity and we no longer have any roots, we will be deprived of awareness and incapable of defending our rights.

‘That’s their game. They want us to be Parent 1, Parent 2, gender LGBT, Citizen X: code numbers. But we are not code numbers, we are people and we will defend our identity. I am Giorgia! I am a woman! I am a mother! I am Italian! I am Christian! You will not take that away from me! You will not take that away from me!’

Two DJs took final lines of Meloni’s speech and used it to create a dance track called ‘I Am Giorgia’ to ridicule her, but the song became a huge hit. Those shouted words were music to the ears of millions of Italians — because they understand that if a society depends on mothers, and if we are no longer able to even say what a woman is, what hope does our civilisation have of survival? (Meloni knows that immigration and fertility are linked, The Spectator, 29th April 2023)

When Meloni said “That’s their game” (È il loro gioco in Italian), she could easily have been accused of emitting an anti-Semitic dog-whistle. That’s because wokism and anti-Whiteness are indeed a Jewish game, played for the highest of possible stakes: survival or suicide for Western civilization. That game, with Whites on one side and Jews on the other, is now on plain display in Italy. Symbolically speaking, the antagonists in Italy couldn’t have been better chosen: it’s blonde Christian Meloni versus big-nosed Jewish Schlein. But Meloni’s humble origins are of central importance too. They’re echoed in a book that has long been a favorite among Italian supporters of the far right and proponents of White revival. The book is called Il Signore degli Anelli in Italian and The Lord of the Rings in English. Like Jesus and His disciples in the Gospels, the hobbits in Lord of the Rings were outsiders from a backwater, hicks from the sticks who were regarded with contempt by the powerful forces of evil in Tolkien’s invented universe. And yet the humble hobbits saved Middle-earth from Sauron, just as the humble Jesus saved humanity from Satan.

Meloni’s melody versus the Schlein whine

I don’t think the parallel between hobbits and Galileans was unintentional. Tolkien’s Christian faith taught him that salvation comes from the overlooked and despised. If she is sincere, Giorgia Meloni’s Christian faith teaches her the same thing and may now, be inspiring her in her fight against the evil elite represented by Elly Schlein. But although Meloni proudly announced sono cristiana — “I am Christian” — she has no support from Pope Francis, the supposed leader of the Catholic church. In his pro-migrant and pro-homosexual activism, Francis is on the side of Jewish Schlein, not of Christian Meloni. As in Jesus’ day, the religious and political elite is evil and corrupt, serving Satan, not God, implacably opposed to Truth, Beauty and Goodness.

That’s why, as in Jesus’ day, the elite won’t win. Giorgia Meloni may not be Italy’s savior, but she is certainly an ideal symbol of what will save Italy from Jewish subversion and non-White migration. Italy’s musical traditions extend from the sublime melodies of classical composers like Vivaldi to the ear-assaulting ugliness of noise-musicians like Marco Corbelli of Atrax Morgue. Vivaldi loved wine, women and song; Corbelli committed suicide. That musical contrast will play out in Italian politics too. Meloni’s melody will defeat the Schlein whine.

The Eurofiles: The EU as the Sick Man of Europe

/41 Comments/in /by

April in Europe is what could be called Dark History Month. There are the morose commemorations of The Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Katyn massacre in Poland, the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine and the genocide in Armenia. And several Eastern European countries host their Jewish Holocaust memorials in April. Even the Rwandan genocide is now commemorated, since Macron recognized the “overwhelming responsibility” of France. There is a lot of history on the old continent to go around, alas the editorial privilege lies with compulsive hagiographers who attach barbs of relativity and moral lessons to even the most innocuous milestones of Western tradition. These days there is much competition for which state is The Sick Man of Europe, to the point that public opinion landed on the idea that it is the European Union as a whole. With this much longevity in illness, it’s hard not to think that Europe isn’t already in a glass-house purgatory.

A fortnight ago, on the conspicuous date of April 20, the parliament of the EU voted in favor of a new Migration Pact, which will not only make the process easier for asylum seekers to enter and stay in the EU, it will make migrant relocation quotas mandatory and unlimited for all member states. Ratification by the EU Commission seems guaranteed, since the vetoes of a couple of dissenters like Hungary and Poland will not be enough. There is something ghoulishly kitsch about the parliamentary echo chambers of the EU that manages to disconnect most representatives from the expressed interests of their constituents. With no less than 754 members in an architectural hivemind decked with blue carpet and upholstery, conforming to the bureaucratic cult is almost a matter of subliminal coercion. Blue isn’t the color of the EU because the Smurfs originate in Belgium—although there is a certain pseudo-utopian vibe in synchronicity. The vibe has more to do with the fact that a third of MEPs are designated “friends” of George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, which received funding to the tune of 18 billion euros.

The recent arrest of Vice-President of the European Parliament Eva Kaili indicates that corruption goes right to the top and is in no way isolated. The glamorous Greek MEP is now under house arrest, but her case is not looking strong. Her lawyer argued that the prosecutor’s case was largely symbolic and that Kaili was being kept behind bars as a “trophy.” But Kaili and her human-rights NGO-founding husband were apprehended with €600,000 cash dropped off by Qatari mules as part of the World Cup bribery operation. Though she’s not quite the European Elizabeth Holmes, the case deals another blow to younger women entering politics in the hope of one day getting a cabinet position—only to end up in the trophy cabinet instead.

Eva Kaili

It’s not been a good run for female heads of state, no matter how photogenic, media savvy and establishment-protected they may be. The OnlyFans prime ministership of Finland’s Sanna Marin came to an end after voters decided they’d had enough of her Instagram lifestyle and fake leadership. Marin failed to tackle any of Finland’s domestic problems and took orders from abroad on covid and Russia, which is why she back-flipped on her previous stance of keeping Finland out of NATO. Though she was refreshingly feminine (for a woman raised by lesbians) she was reduced to a puddle of tears a little too easily when the rather milquetoast footage surfaced of her dancing at a party. A month before her April 6 election loss, a puff-piece by America’s 60 Minutes declared that Marin was Finland’s “most popular prime minister in thirty years.” One can get a sense of Marin’s brainless centrism from the question of Europe’s lurch to the right on immigration, in which Oblivion NPC narratives like “ageing population” and “new jobs” pop up like an overworked script.

Sanna Marin’s sojourn in politics to some degree resembles the tenure of her antipodean best friend, Jacinda Arden. Recall that, as Prime Minister of New Zealand, her most profound impacts were donning a hijab in response to the extraordinary Christchurch terrorist event, elbowing a language signer in a fit of jealousy, and having a child during her term in office. Since it wasn’t quite clear why the PM of Finland took a visiting trip to New Zealand to establish bilateral relations, one journalist took one for the team by asking whether it was because the two were of same gender and similar age. Gliding into the gig unelected and treating office like a public relations position while backroom experts and officials do most of the decision making is a luxury of Western democracy that clearly appeals to a certain careerist mindset. What else, other than self-aggrandizement, can be expected from people who both finish studying and enter politics in their mid-twenties? Unfortunately, this same formula appears in the biography of the popular new hope of the European right: Giorgia Meloni.

Active in politics from the age of fifteen and becoming a councilor at twenty-one, Meloni has gone though as many political parties as Berlusconi has social ones. Meloni’s crypto-pivot to the mainstream in recent years may have been a little more sincere than some had hoped—declaring herself to being aligned with Republicans in America and Tories in the UK. Her policies are a blend of paleo- and neocon. She visited Yad Vashem in 2009. The party she co-founded, Brothers of Italy, is perhaps a little antiquated and elicits semantic comparison to the Muslim Brotherhood. Indeed, under her administration Italy has banned artificial meat and the AI bot ChatGPT. Meloni remains steadfastly anti-cannabis, anti-euthanasia and anti-abortion, but none of these are the reason why Meloni was elected. It’s the African flotilla landing on Italian shores that she was tasked with, and far from ameliorating the crisis, the numbers are worsening—37,000 this year by last count. Just how much judicial and extra-legal obstruction she and her deputy Salvini are up against may not entirely be clear, but what is known is that the duo has had plenty of time to devise a strategy. Instead, Meloni has been racking up the frequent flyer miles on various diplomatic missions abroad — India, Algeria, Ethiopia, Britain and of course Ukraine. Domestically, she has been on a constant apology tour for her prior ideological affiliations, and the latest test of resolve came on Liberation Day (April 25) in which she predictably played defense in the standard homily against fascism, in exchange for unrelenting hostility from her detractors. Moderating to respectable center-right politics has been an enlightening transformation for the Sardinian blonde and the role of savior is really starting to grow on her. In perhaps her most melodramatic performance yet, Meloni pinned the problem of African migration on President Macron and French “neocolonialism.”

The other great hope of European nationalists has been Eastern Europe, a beacon that has never truly been tested until now. The signs are not good. It’s no secret that the appeal of life in Slovakia, Bulgaria or Romania is not high on the list of Third-World asylum shoppers. Even so, by sheer backlog, significant clusters of foreigners from non-European countries are starting to amalgamate. Fortress Hungary saw its first inter-ethnic mass brawl in a Budapest shopping mall, involving Syrian and Jordanian clans. Whatever advantages eastern Europeans may have from a stronger sense of ethnic identity and a heightened allergy toward leftist doctrines, it seems that these will be insufficient to compensate for the greater incompetency, corruption and kleptomania that plague this region. This applies to the highest levels of government down to the common citizen who might stand to make a bit of money from letting out a spare room. Eastern Europe is a place of trolley buses and ubiquitous graffiti. A startling number of cities can’t even solve their stray dog problem, let alone marshal migrants with policemen who often can’t speak basic English. The East is plagued with brain-drain, economic emigration and low birth rates. The most prominent success stories of human capital are from individuals primarily based in Western Europe, but who maintain links with their homeland. Athletes and models are perhaps the region’s most notable exports. And for those who might be wondering how Emily Ratajkowski managed to become the world’s highest paid model, you should know that she was in fact born in London not Warsaw, and has incredible agents.

If bullied countries like those of the Visegrad Four (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia) have not left by now, then it seems likely they will stay in the abusive relationship with the EU to the end. New kid on the bloc Croatia has little to show a decade after joining, other than the perfunctory progressions to the euro currency and Schengen Area membership. These are pitiful perks that have been exchanged for accelerated brain drain, heightened inflation, property and assets being sold off, and, worst of all, the relinquishing of sovereignty. Croatia has been one of the most ethnically homogeneous countries in Europe since independence but is now being flooded with cheap labor, particularly from South Asia. One is most likely to see such individuals in the employment of Wolt and Glovo, the European equivalents of Uber Eats, as they ferry hamburgers on their bicycles and Vespas to people apparently too lazy to leave their building and purchase food from the wide range of vendors located on every corner. This tuk-tuk culture of street butlers is a scourge continent wide, but it is a particular blight for Croatia as the most overweight country in Europe. As for the ethnic street food takeaways that seem to enchant so many—be it Greek, Lebanese or Mexican—they are neither owned nor staffed with representative minorities but rather by Indians and Filipinos. Europe in 2023 is where 1990s multiculturalism arguments come to die.

Croatia is led by president Zoran Milanović and prime minister Andrej Plenković—who are at constant odds with one another but are united by the fact that both were draft-dodgers during the war. The PM is the one with the policymaking power, which is a shame since Plenković is a 6’5 poodle of Brussels. His bookwormish demeanor even translates into his overly clerical pursuit of superficial accolades and delegated benchmarks that only look good on paper. In a recent scandal involving the attempted smuggling of children from a Congolese orphanage to Croatian couples, Plenković sided with the smugglers and declared the children to be Croatian citizens in spite of them having never left Africa, on the rationalization that corrupt Croatian officials had provided legal paperwork through an illegal process. Mimicry of Western vices among Eastern Europeans has become a vice in itself. Croatia had one of the best records for free speech in the world, but that all changed last week as the parliament led by Plenković voted to make the World War II slogan “For homeland ready” illegal, thereby copying the Western model of policing speech and thought. The gesture of atonement was not coincidental in its timing, since it coincided with their Holocaust Memorial Day. What’s more, 2023 is the year that Croatia presides over the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance—an intergovernmental organization that most Jews have never heard of, let alone gentiles. It’s no wonder Plenković is the favorite to succeed Jens Stoltenberg and become the next Secretary General of NATO, which is not bad for the caretaker of a meals-on-wheels economy.

Thirty years after Croatia fought for independence, its victory is looking increasingly Pyrrhic. It may not be the Croats’ fault, but in place of the absconded Serbs they are now acquiring people from South Asia with a far different character. The Croats have a right to be skeptical of people from such a heavily populated area as the Indian-subcontinent, but who have less achievement in sports than themselves. Based on news coverage alone, one could be forgiven for thinking that the Indian male population comprises spelling bee champions and gang rapists with few in between—a harmful stereotype that the media ought to answer for. Years of such news items would normally be enough for people to draw at least tentative conclusions, while others, in the words of Trump, still prefer to monitor the situation. But Indians are the new Chinese and are migrating to the West in large numbers, rather than curtailing their population growth. In 2015, only 44% of the population used toilets—in a country that was pursuing a space program. And that is the handiwork of the world’s largest democracy. Last week, Der Spiegel encapsulated the sentiment perfectly, with a cartoon lampooning India’s pride and preference for quantity over quality.

Only those on the lower rungs of Hindustani society care to migrate to the realms of their fellow Satem speakers in Eurasia. The upper echelons naturally cast their lures on either side of the Atlantic, which of course includes their former colonizer, the United Kingdom. The number of Brits who have ethnic origins on the subcontinent currently stands at four million—and their influence is being felt. The UK now surely leads the world on the spicy food to mild weather index, which isn’t without its drawbacks. Indians in particular are flourishing: 14% of households bring in more than £2000/week, compared to 6% for White British. Between the House of Commons and the House of Lords there are enough subcontinentals to field seven cricket teams. And yet somehow, at a time when the English PM, Scottish FM, Mayor of London and even Irish Taoiseach have origins between the Indus and the Ganges—a week cannot pass without a mewling PSA on the menace of institutional racism.

Muslims like Sadiq Khan have no greater public figure for an ally than King Charles, whose dapper brand of wokeness and racial progressivism is already well documented. The level of pandering includes Ramadan/Eid well-wishing, something his counterparts in the Gulf States would never do. But as the Gods would have it, this year on Eid his long-time friend Barry Humphries died, meaning Charles was committed to honoring a man famous for dressing in drag as Dame Edna Everage. Irony and awareness gel about as well as oil and water in the mainstream of modern Britain. Over the weekend, the largest Eid event in the UK took place on Trafalgar Square—the very monument that honors the battle that prevented the invasion of Britain. Others may be succeeding where Napoleon failed.

White-on-White imperialism in Europe is a bit like Black-on-Black crime in America — awkwardly ignored or poorly fig-leafed phenomena that don’t align well with Marxist grift or critical race theory pretense. Which brings us to the issue of Northern Ireland. It’s almost certainly the case that, had the Irish been Black, the six counties still part of the UK would have been returned long ago. This makes the current plight of the Irish Republic all the more tragic. Engaging in a long and bloody struggle to kick out the English, only to open the floodgates of immigration to the Third World seems a lot like cutting off your nose to spite your race. The Irish, with their squeaky-clean history free of imperialism are embracing those whose tendencies for grievance-aggression will be simply based on present frivolities rather than invoking a past. One of the most draconian legislations against free speech has already passed the first house of parliament and if made law will enable prosecution of anyone in possession of material deemed offensive to minorities—presumably including articles from TOO. Ireland survived the Great Famine and The Troubles, but may not survive their current jig on the edge of madness.

Americans are largely oblivious to just how small and demographically fragile Ireland is, which is an ignorance borne from the unusually large numbers of Irish descendants in America. Few Americans shy away from claiming and emphasizing Irish ancestry, whereas the same cannot be said for English or German ancestry. Namedropping Irish ancestry has become a rather craven form of underdog-signaling among Whites. The Elizabeth Warren-style Flight from White may be discredited, but the Split from Brit is in season. This trend has no greater poster boy than President Biden, who has both English and Irish ancestry, but is vitriolically pro-Irish and anti-English. His April visit to Belfast was well received on account of his American identity, not to mention him being the mascot of useful senility. In a roundabout kind of way, perhaps the Irish are imperial after all. Ireland only has six million Irish, compared to the United States’ 36 million Irish-Americans—with the President of the American Empire being one of their own. Whether Biden is the emperor with no clothes or the emperor with no marbles is a question that doesn’t appear to concern most Europeans, who are still fed a steady diet of bread and circuses.

As for the Sick Man of Europe, its ailment is clearly far more spiritual than physical. The stewarding elites are in a confused stupor, extending the hand of charity to intercontinental interlopers rather than their own vulnerable souls. And they choose to militarize Chernobyl, forsaking Grenoble. Migrants only have to swim across water, while the patriotic sons of Europe must struggle in virtual quicksand, in which greater effort only results in hastened punishment. Perhaps the old European remedial practice of blood-letting to rid the body of malaise has been misunderstood all along.

Thoughts on Tucker

/179 Comments/in /by

I think Tucker was cancelled because of what he was emphasizing on his show (see also TOO writer Karl Haemers’ Substack piece). To wit:

  • condemning the Ukraine war as not in U.S. interests; Ukraine is not a democracy, etc.;
  • how the war feeds into the emerging alliance among Russia and China, along with Brazil, India, Iran, Arab countries and likely Africa—and what that will mean for the dollar as the world’s reserve currency as well as U.S. prosperity and power;
  • making what are considered White nationalist talking points by the rest of the media and never mentioned by the vast majority of conservatives (the Great Replacement, immigration diluting White  votes, Democrats’ desire to have a permanent government of the left by importing a dependent, low-IQ, easily controllable non-White population that requires government financial assistance and affirmative action, and can easily see the benefits of blaming all their problems on White racism, whereas mainstream conservatives emphasize migrant suffering and death trying to get to the U.S.; his sympathetic interview with Hungarian nationalist Viktor Orban);
  • talking about George Soros’s influence, particularly in electing far-left activist prosecutors, despite the ADL pushing the idea that any mention of him is anti-Semitic;
  • condemning the World Economic Forum and globalism generally—likely related to his opposition to the Ukraine war;
  • opposing the woke ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) agenda of corporate giants like BlackRock able to use shareholder muscle to force companies to conform to their woke policy preferences; BlackRock is a major investor in Fox;
  • angering the ADL and the powers-that-be in general with all of the above; and he often condemns globalist, pro-immigration Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell who support those same issues;
  • opposing climate extremism, like cutbacks in the Netherlands’ agricultural sector and his recent “Let Them Eat Bugs” special on Fox Nation;
  • being a vaccine skeptic and having people like Alex Berenson on to criticize the vaccines, lockdowns, effects on schoolchildren, etc.;
  • repeatedly dissenting on the J6 narrative—showing the video indicating that it was far less violent than depicted and that Merrick Garland’s DOJ is hellbent on outrageous prosecutions, infringing on free speech and civil rights (locking up citizens for long periods without trial;
  • condemning social media censorship (as revealed in the Twitter files) and the outrageous Garland DOJ, FBI, etc.;
  • going off on transgenderism (sterilizing children is civilizational suicide and “evil”)—and wokeness generally;
  • talking about big media bias in the 2020 election, including Google searches and Twitter shadow banning.

The Ukraine War Is a Globalist Crusade

Tucker also presented standard conservative talking points, like illegal immigration, guns, crime in the cities, Biden’s corruption and senility, etc. But my impression is  that he was all alone on many of the above issues among Fox personalities, or he phrased his comments on them in an edgier way. And in general, his commentary was much more incisive and intellectually sophisticated. All of this terrified the globalist, multicultural establishment throughout the West.

The ADL was thrilled that Fox cancelled his show:

To the Anti-Defamation League, the firing was long overdue. The group’s leader called for Fox to fire Carlson in 2021, after the host first promoted the white-supremacist Great Replacement theory on air.

“It’s about time,” tweeted the group’s CEO, Jonathan Greenblatt, on Monday. “For far too long, Tucker Carlson has used his primetime show to spew antisemitic, racist, xenophobic & anti-LGBTQ hate to millions.”

At the time, Fox rebuffed the ADL’s petition weeks later. The network said that Carlson had actually been talking about voting rights when he outlined the Great Replacement theory, a far-right belief that attributes a diversifying electorate to a shadowy conspiracy, typically engineered by Jews, to replace white voters with immigrants and minority groups.

“A full review of the guest interview indicates that Mr. Carlson decried and rejected replacement theory,” Lachlan Murdoch, CEO of the Fox Corporation, said at the time.

The ADL’s public stance on Carlson’s employment led to criticism from the right, with Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz calling the group “racist.” Carlson also went after them on his program by parroting other white supremacist-adjacent beliefs about Israel. Last year, he gave an extended interview to Kanye West after the rapper donned a “White Lives Matter” shirt at Paris Fashion Week, but before West’s many public antisemitic rants; producers reportedly edited out antisemitic comments West had made during the interview.

The reference to “parroting other white supremacist-adjacent beliefs about Israel” refers to Tucker’s publicizing the ADL’s stance on immigration to Israel in an item that was soon expunged from their website.

The ADL recently condemned Tucker Carlson, an American media personality, because he mentioned that American voters were being replaced by immigrants, terming it “a White supremacist tenet that the White race is in danger by a rising tide of non-Whites. It is antisemitic, racist and toxic.” In response, Carlson highlighted the different attitudes of the ADL regarding demographic displacement of the native European-derived population of the U.S. with their attitudes on a one-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Regarding Israel, the ADL has quite reasonably stated that a one-state solution is

unworkable given current realities and historic animosities. With historically high birth rates among the Palestinians, and a possible influx of Palestinian refugees and their descendants now living around the world, Jews would quickly be a minority within a binational state, thus likely ending any semblance of equal representation and protections. In this situation, the Jewish population would be increasingly politically – and potentially physically – vulnerable. It is unrealistic and unacceptable to expect the State of Israel tovoluntarily subvert its own sovereign existence and nationalist identity and become a vulnerable minority within what was once its own territory.

Regarding the ADL statement that concern with demographic changes in the U.S. is “antisemitic, racist and toxic,” given the long history of racial conflict in America, the recent upsurge in race-based violence, and the contemporary prominence of movements, such as Critical Race Theory that essentially pathologize White Americans in the media and educational system, it is reasonable to suppose that the White population would also be increasingly vulnerable if they become a minority.
“The Default Hypothesis Fails to Explain Jewish Influence“

This New York Times article indicates Fox’s concerns about his ideas, starting with a text in which he claimed that “It’s Not How White Men Fight,” which was part of his reaction to a group of White men ganging up an an antifa protester, which of course the Times interpreted as yet another indication that Tucker was a “White supremacist.”

Though Mr. Carlson’s show, “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” was only a small factor in the Dominion suit, his personal texts were drawing outsize scrutiny.

The text about the fight came on top of a damaging chain of messages that had been revealed publicly ahead of trial, and that were shocking in their own right. Writing to one of his producers after the assault on the Capitol, Mr. Carlson describes the president he championed on his show as a “demonic force” and a “destroyer.”

A recurring theme of his show during the six years that it ran in prime time on Fox News was the displacement of white Americans by people of color. Mr. Carlson often framed topics in the news as part of a larger struggle between “us” and “them,” with immigrants and other marginalized groups steadily and surely taking from whites what had long been theirs: political and cultural power in the United States.

He attacked Black social justice activists and portrayed immigrants from Central America as a blight on the nation. He said in 2018 that immigrants make the country “dirtier.”

In the aftermath of a mass shooting in El Paso at the hands of a gunman who cited white supremacist beliefs in his manifesto, Mr. Carlson declared on his show that white supremacy was “not a real problem,” likening it to a conspiracy theory.

So there was plenty of reason to get rid of him. Recently, Megyn Kelly has claimed that Fox is leaking  videos of Tucker that would produce negative impressions in many views in order to render him so toxic that he wouldn’t be employable. (The above-cited article from the NYTimes was apparently leaked by people connected to Fox.) Kelly also claims that Carlson’s exit is still to be negotiated and he can’t start another show because he is still under contract. Breitbart claims that Fox will prevent him from getting a new show until the 2024 elections are safely in the rear view mirror.  Looks like it’s devolved into an all-out war.

The other plausible explanation mentioned by some is that getting rid of Carlson and generally moving toward a blander, more traditional type of conservatism like that of Paul Ryan (who is on the Fox Board of Directors) would attract the big-name advertisers back to Fox’s prime time lineup. The boycotts initiated by the left in recent years have left his show with direct marketing advertisers like Mike Lindell, the Pillow Guy. And as mentioned above, Tucker has vigorously opposed the ESG agenda of major Fox investors such as the left-activist BlackRock headed by Larry Fink.

So there’s likely a number of factors that influenced the decision.

What can we expect if Tucker reincarnates somewhere in the media universe? It’s quite possible that he will become even edgier if he is not tied to a corporate giant mainly concerned about the bottom line and eager to stay within the currently allowable boundaries of public debate. As someone who is intimately acquainted with how politics works in Washington, he is undoubtedly aware of Jewish influence, but I rather doubt that he will say anything to suggest Jews are responsible in any way for any of the issues he is concerned about. He will often mention Jewish villains like Victoria Nuland, Alejandro Mayorkas, Merrick Garland, or George Soros without saying they are Jewish. And he will likely continue to invite Jews on his show—Jews such as Michael Shellenberger on the left’s destruction of San Francisco, Darren Beattie of Revolver News on J6, or vaccine skeptic Alex Berenson. And if the ADL calls him out again, I’m sure he will respond as he has previously.

It’s interesting that unlike so many conservatives, he is not slavishly pro-Israel (as is, e.g., Sean Hannity). Anyone with the faintest knowledge of how things work in Washington understands the power of the Israel Lobby, but he just ignores the issue. I can’t recall him even discussing Israel or the Israel Lobby. Haaretz mentions his “lack of enthusiasm for the Jewish state”—likely another reason why ADL hates him.

Tucker’s approach to Jewish issues is not what people on this site would like,  but I think he has woken up a lot of people and will continue to do so if and when he reemerges. That’s why he has a huge audience. And it’s entirely plausible that he understands Jewish involvement but believes (reasonably) that it cannot be a good strategy to win political power any time soon. That’s for writers at TOO and like-minded venues playing the long game—putting ideas out there so that intelligent observers who are now in the mainstream understand what is going on, even if they don’t say anything publicly.

My default position is that the easiest explanation is often the best. The view presented here doesn’t require thinking he is controlled by Jews until there is better evidence. Sometimes Jews make mistakes—as I think they did when they went after him on the Great Replacement without at least scrubbing their concern about replacement of Jews in Israel off their website. Jews are not omniscient.
So my prediction—assuming he doesn’t have a contract problem with Fox—is that he will reemerge soon, perhaps on NewsMax or OAN, and fairly soon. And with a fat contract. He will get a  big audience and will do what he has been doing, as summarized in the bullet points above. We should be happy. A half loaf is way better than none.
His comments after being cancelled are optimistic:

Our current orthodoxies won’t last. They’re brain-dead. Nobody actually believes them. Hardly anyone’s life is improved by them. This moment is too inherently ridiculous to continue, and so it won’t.

The people in charge know this, that’s why they’re hysterical and aggressive. They’re afraid. They’ve given up persuasion – they’re resorting to force. But it won’t work. When honest people say what’s true, calmly and without embarrassment, they become powerful. At the same time, the liars who’ve been trying to silence them shrink – and they become weaker. That’s the iron-law of the universe; true things prevail.”

“Where can you still find Americans saying true things? There aren’t many places left, but there are some – and that’s enough. As long as you can hear the words, there is hope. See you soon.

 

The Extreme Center: How the Neocons Went Woke

/64 Comments/in , /by

No lessens, no consequences

The Iraq war was spearheaded by a remarkably small group of people. It has become politically untenable to justify that overt disaster and some of the key architects of that war have, much belatedly, come to acknowledge as much. As late as 2013 Max Boot was still arguing there was No Need to Repent for the Iraq War. He had changed his tune by 2018, writing in his book The Corrosion of Conservatism: Why I Left the Right, “I regret advocating the invasion and feel guilty about all the lives lost.” Boot claims, “It was a chastening lesson in the limits of American power,” yet in the same book complains that the modern conservative movement is “permeated with” racism, extremism and isolationism.

David Frum now describes the invasion as “a grave and costly error” and gives a thoroughly equivocal mea culpa. Robert Kagan says that the war “didn’t go exactly the way we wanted it to” and that “many aspects of the war” were “unfortunate.” Bill Kristol acknowledges that Iraq was “very difficult” and that “many things were done badly,” but concludes, “I’m inclined not to think it was [a mistake].” Since the inauguration of Trump, Kristol has changed his mind on trans rights, on gays, on abortion — but not on the catastrophe that led to over a hundred thousand civilian deaths. He told Jewish Insider: “Ironically, I’d say I’ve changed or rethought my views more on domestic policy issues… Foreign policy, I haven’t really changed my views. And I’ve been critical of Biden for the withdrawal from Afghanistan.”

Despite the repeated disasters in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere, these figures remain as combative as ever. In 2018 Kristol told Vox, “the fact that the public is, quote, “war-weary”… those instincts have be challenged.” He told the Al Franken podcast that the Iraq intervention “didn’t destabilize the entire Middle East, I wish it had destabilized some of those places more.”

The neocons have been consistently wrong about foreign policy, and not just wrong, but wrong in the loudest, most doctrinaire and most uncompromising way possible. You’d think they might face some career blowback…

What actually happened?

Liberal adulation

On his MSNBC show, Ari Melber referred to 2018 as the year when “many people began referring to ‘woke Bill Kristol’.” According to Melber, this was “A tribute to the idea that people do evolve and that Trumpism can create strange bedfellows.”

Joy Reid, perhaps the most noxious personality on MSNBC, was positively glowing with praise:

One of the most amazing outcomes of the Trump administration is the number of neo-conservatives that are now my friends and I am aligned with. I found myself agreeing on a panel with Bill Kristol. I agree more with Jennifer Rubin, David Frum, and Max Boot than I do with some people on the far left. I am shocked at the way that Donald Trump has brought people together.

It turned out that in the throes of Trump Derangement Syndrome, being vehemently against Trump was enough to garner liberal adulation. During Donald Trump’s four years in office we saw the wholesale rehabilitation of the most discredited propagandists of the war on terror. After Trump called the Iraq war a “big fat mistake” in the 2016 Republican presidential debate ,the neocons rebranded themselves as the ‘moderate’ voice against the danger of a Trump presidency. They went on to find lucrative positions in the liberal messaging apparatus. Frum became a senior editor for The Atlantic. Boot is now a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a CNN analyst, a columnist at The Washington Post, and a contributor to the New York Times op-ed pages. Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and an editor at large for The Washington Post. Kristol is a frequent commentator on CNN and MSNBC.

In the liberal imagination, the Neocons shifted from being war criminals to sensible moderate centrists, and, after the 2020 election and January 6th, brave and principled defenders of democracy.

How did this happen?

Hawks for Hillary

In 2014 Jacob Heilbrunn, author of They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons, predicted “the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return to the driver’s seat of American foreign policy.” Attending a Foreign-Policy-Professionals-for-Hillary fundraiser, Robert Kagan was quoted as saying, “I would say all Republican foreign policy professionals are anti-Trump. I would say that a majority of people in my circle will vote for Hillary.” Hillary won the endorsement of almost every high-profile Neoconservative you could name. Eliot Cohen, co-founder of the Project for the New American Century; John McCain speechwriter Mark Salter; think tank goon James Kirchick. Boot said he would “sooner vote for Josef Stalin than[he] would vote for Donald Trump.” The Wall Street Journal’s most hawkish columnist, neocon Bret Stephens, penned an op-ed titled Hillary: The Conservative Hope. But no one else went as far as Bill Kristol, who, when, after running a rival candidate in 2016 proved a fool’s errand, tweeted that he would “prefer the deep state to the Trump state.”

This wholesale coalition between Bush-era neocons and hawkish Democrats started before Trump and it continued after he left the White House. In 2008 The Weekly Standard celebrated Hillary Clinton as “the great right hope” of foreign policy, hailing her transformation from “First Feminist” to “Warrior Queen.” In 2013 John McCain described Hillary Clinton as a foreign policy “rock star.” In a 2014 profile of Robert Kagan in The New York Times, Kagan mentions that he served on Hillary’s “bipartisan group of foreign-policy heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.” He said of Clinton’s foreign policy, “it’s something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that.”

This was more than a temporary marriage of convenience to stop Donald Trump. This is more than a pragmatic alliance. It’s an ideological convergence. The Neocons have cast off any pretence to conservatism while the Democrat Party has become uniformly pro-war. David Frum explained the realignment:

Trump pushed Never Trump Republicans into partnership with moderate Democrats — and prodded even formerly conservative minded people — to see power in ideas like Me Too and Black Lives Matter. … Old patterns are dissolving into something new.

The neocons had lost access to power in the GOP and needed to find a new constituency. Robert Kagan co-authored an article in 2019 attacking “America First” foreign policy with Antony Blinken, who is now Joe Biden’s Secretary of State. Kagan’s wife is Victoria Nuland. The two fell in love “talking about democracy and the role of America in the world.” Nuland is the ultimate example of the continuity (only interrupted briefly by Donald Trump) of personnel regardless of the administration. Nuland was a foreign policy adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, a State Department spokesperson under Obama, and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs in the Biden administration. Her worldview is identical to that of her husband.

The Alliance for Securing Democracy,  the national security advocacy group responsible for the Hamilton 68 scam of Russian pro-Trump influence, is governed by a board that includes Michael Chertoff, former secretary of homeland security under George W. Bush; Michael McFaul, former ambassador to Russia under Barack Obama; Bill Kristol; John Podesta; and, at one time, Jake Sullivan, now national-security adviser to President Biden. If there were ever a meaningful distinction between the liberal interventionists and the Neoconservatives, the two are now fully merged.

Invade the world, invite the world: Imperialism + Immigration

High-profile neoconservative figures have radically changed their positions on a whole range of issues to appeal to their new liberal followers but they’ve always been remarkably consistent on two policies: never ending war and unrestrained immigration. Preventing the migration of Muslims from such terror-prone countries as Afghanistan is beyond the pale, bombing those same people is seen as just fine.

Bill Kristol wants “new Americans” to replace a population he brands “lazy” and “spoilt” — “luckily you have these waves of people coming in.” Kristol has mourned the “insanity and cruelty” of ICE raids. “I’d take in a heartbeat a group of newly naturalized American citizens over the spoiled native-born know-nothings of CPAC” he tweeted in 2018. Kristol made open borders a litmus test of respectability. Asked about his previous endorsement of the brain-dead Sarah Palin he said: “I regret that. … To be fair, if you look at what she said in 2008, apart from some of the silliness, she was not anti-immigration. She was not xenophobic. She was not isolationist. … So, in a funny way, if we could have co-opted some of the populism and given them a place in a McCain-nominated Republican Party, maybe that would have been a good outcome.”

He told Vox: “I will say, you know, the Weekly Standard was pretty unapologetically anti-Buchanan. … Pretty liberal on immigration.”

As documented by the repentant former neocon Scott McConnell in a 2003 article in the American Conservative, and more extensively in the book The Great Purge: The Deformation of the Conservative Movement, the neocons were instrumental in the cancellation of any Conservative that expressed reservations about immigration.

Boot expressed the ultimate synthesis of imperialism abroad and multicultural colonisation at home. Bemoaning the size of the America’s fighting force, he noted, “there is a pretty big pool of manpower that’s not being tapped: everyone on the planet who is not a U.S. citizen.” He floated the idea of simply paying Afghans to occupy their own country: “The most efficient way to expand the government’s corps of Pashto or Arabic speakers isn’t to send native-born Americans to language schools; it’s to recruit native speakers of those languages.”

Historically the imperial project enabled the successful militarily power to attain new territory for its people to settle. Under the new imperialist framework, America invades countries only to welcome the waves of refugees that war inevitably creates. So the return on the blood and treasure expended in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya is ever more Iraqi’s, Afghan’s and Libyan’s finding living space in the USA. According to the New York Times, in 2005, just a few years after 9/11, “more people from Muslim countries became legal permanent United States residents—nearly 96,000—than in any year in the previous two decades.”

Invade/invite are both formed by a similar panglossian view of diversity. For all the celebration of diversity, there’s a blindness to it, a belief that that deep down we’re all basically Americans, yearning for secular democracy and ‘freedom’ (in the form of unrestrained liberal hedonism and free markets). If diversity is a strength, there’s no reason to think that forcing democracy on a deeply sectarian country like Iraq might not work out. Here’s Kristol on Iraq: “I think there’s been a certain amount of, frankly, a kind of pop sociology in America that, you know, somehow the Shia can’t get along with the Sunni.”

In reality the Shia didn’t get along with the Sunni and horrific bloodshed between the two groups followed Saddam’s ouster.

In 2016 Robert Kagan wrote an article about Trump titled This is how Fascism comes to America:

His public discourse consists of attacking or ridiculing a wide range of “others” — Muslims, Hispanics, women, Chinese, Mexicans, Europeans, Arabs, immigrants, refugees — whom he depicts either as threats or as objects of derision. His program, such as it is, consists chiefly of promises to get tough with foreigners and people of nonwhite complexion. He will deport them, bar them, get them to knuckle under, make them pay up or make them shut up.

But he won’t bomb them. Therein lies the problem.

Anarchy at home, military occupation abroad

In 2020 over 130 senior Republican national security officials signed a statement that condemned Donald Trump because he “stokes fears that ‘angry mobs’ and ‘anarchists’ are destroying our country” and violated America’s “legacy as a nation of immigrants.” America’s foreign policy elite would like to wage non-stop war to “keep America safe,” yet when America’s urban centers themselves resemble war zones, the establishment either shrugs or cheers on the rioters (at least25 people died during the BLM riots, including a Trump supporter assassinated in the middle of the street in Portland).

Kori Schake, Director of Foreign and Defense Policy at the American Enterprise Institute, writes: “Recent protests in Amsterdam, London, and elsewhere show that what happens in America matters for the advance of human rights and civil liberties elsewhere. … Our struggles are the world’s struggles, because the values that form our republic are universal values.” Schake was a foreign policy adviser to the McCain-Palin 2008 presidential campaign and served as director for Defense Strategy on the National Security Council under George W. Bush. In an article titled “This Upheaval Is How America Gets Better,” Schake celebrated the violent riots of 2020: “We are now seeing America becoming better than it was. This churning, disputatious, and even sometimes violent dynamic is what social change in America looks like.” She praised the military for “modeling how to amplify black voices” while linking to a video of Dave Goldfein, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, talking about turning the force into a “safe space.”

“I used to be a smart-alecky conservative who scoffed at ‘political correctness,’” wrote Max Boot, but 2017 was “the Year I Learned About My White Privilege.” “The Trump era has opened my eyes. … I have had my consciousness raised. Seriously.” He has referred to increasing support for BLM as “a reason for optimism.” This is the man who, a month after 9/11, penned an essay for the Weekly Standard titled “The Case for American Empire” where he called for America to “embrace its imperial role.”

David Frum, the man who coined the infamously ludicrous “axis of evil” phrase as a speechwriter for George W. Bush, is a senior editor for The Atlantic, a magazine that marries Black radicalism with rabid militarism. During the wildly destructive Black Lives Matter riots it published articles with titles like “Anger Can Build a Better World” and “How Rage Can Battle Racism.” I’ve previously written that “The hegemonic ideology of America is now a mutant symbiosis of the thought of Dick Cheney and Ibram X. Kendi.” On theatlantic.com articles by Kendi and David Frum (albeit not Cheney himself) are but a click apart (Joe Biden’s Special Representative for Racial Equity and Justice at the State Department recently met with Kendi and had a discussion about “the ongoing, global impact of white supremacy & the importance of collective effort across sectors to build a world where racial & ethnic equity & social justice prevail”). The New York Times, the ultimate vector of elite consensus-forming, became a home for Max Boot and Bret Stephens to call for America to act as the world police while also publishing articles like Yes, We Mean Literally Abolish the Police – but not, of course, the military.

Jennifer Rubin, another former neocon and a deeply unserious blogger who specialises in emotion-laden hyper-partisan bluster, has performed a remarkable political one-eighty, but continues to be one of the nation’s most rabid warmongers. Rubin went from being an anti-abortion zealot to worrying “if women cannot get abortions, will the military have trouble recruiting women?” In 2011 she criticised Newt Gingrich for being insufficiently enthusiastic about the Iraq war. She wrote a blog post that called out John McCain for opposing “enhanced interrogation techniques.” More recently, Rubin has become the Biden White House’s favorite pundit.

Responding to census data, Rubin tweeted, “a more diverse, more inclusive society. this is fabulous news. now we need to prevent minority White rule.” During the widespread riots and looting of 2020, Rubin tweeted “BLM is peaceful.” “White Christian nationalism”, by contrast, “will inevitably lead to violence, cruelty and lawlessness.” She blamed the violence of 2020 on “white agitators.” Combining both her neocon and woke credentials in a single sentence, upon the death of civil rights agitator John Lewis she claimed it “is easy to be despondent — as many were after the passing of John McCain.” Lewis’s courage, she tweeted, was “honored and echoed in the actions of BLM protesters.”

Speaking on MSNBC’s AM Joy of Trump supporters, Rubin said of the Republican Party (that she’d been a member of just a few years earlier):

What we should be doing is shunning these people. Shunning, shaming these people is a statement of moral indignation that these people are not fit for polite society.… We have to collectively, in essence, burn down the Republican Party. We have to level them because if there are survivors, if there are people who weather this storm, they will do it again.

Rubin has shown herself more than willing to support the actual physical levelling of ideological enemies abroad, so perhaps this isn’t hyperbolic rhetoric so much as a literal policy prescription.

When the official GOP Twitter account accurately pointed out that Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson supported critical race theory, Bill Kristol shot back “No more dog whistles. Just unabashed bigotry.”

Conclusion

In “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” David Frum managed to accuse those conservatives sceptical of the Iraq war of being both nativists and unpatriotic. The neocons managed to instrumentalize and exploit a redefined version of American nationalism that entangled American identity and nationalism itself with their own ideological proclivities. In that essay Frum accuses the great conservative intellectual Sam Francis of pursuing “a politics devoted to the protection of the interests of what he called the ‘Euro-American cultural core’ of the American nation,” and he condemns White advocates like Kevin MacDonald. That, in the minds of Neocons, is the very definition of unpatriotic.

Many conservatives still reflexively venerate the military. This increasingly resembles a case of battered-wife syndrome. Enoch Powell once told Margaret Thatcher that if Britain were to become communist, he would still fight for his country in war. I always regarded that as a moronic sentiment. One wonders how long Toby Keith-style nationalism can be instrumentalized for a political project that is fundamentally at odds with the interests of those actually doing the fighting and the dying. For all his faults, Trump was correct when he told Tucker Carlson that the biggest threat to the United States is no external enemy: “Who’s the biggest problem? Is it China? Could it be Russia? Could it be North Korea? No. The biggest problem is from within. It’s these sick, radical people from within.”

In a campaign video Trump reiterates, “The greatest threat to Western civilization today is not Russia. It’s ourselves.”

America won the Cold War against the Evil Empire only to one day resemble a gay, trans, racialized version of it — a woke Leviathan straddling the globe. Michael Ledeen, perhaps the most overtly deranged of all the Neoconservatives, wrote in his book War Against the Terror Masters:

We tear down the old order every day. … Our enemies have always hated this whirlwind of energy and creativity, which menaces their traditions (whatever they may be) and shames them for their inability to keep pace. Seeing America undo traditional societies, they fear us, for they do not wish to be undone. They cannot feel secure so long as we are there, for our very existence—our existence, not our politics—threatens their legitimacy. They must attack us in order to survive, just as we must destroy them to advance our historic mission.

Increasingly, that historic mission is the global spread of critical race theory and radical gender ideology. If ever it had any moral claim to police the world or export its way of life, that claim was burnt to the ground in 2020. It’s when the woke mob stops burning the American flag and starts waving it that the world really has a problem. When the moral certitude of social justice meets the impervious militarism of Neoconservatism, it will make for the most noxious and destructive brand of imperialism the world has ever seen.

The Inevitable Republic: Should White Australia Ditch The Monarchy?

/23 Comments/in /by

As the vote on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum looms, Australian dissidents and other supporters of White Australia should also begin casting their eyes to the next item on the left-wing constitutional amendment agenda: a second referendum on whether Australia’s constitutional ties to the British monarchy should be severed. Prime Minister Albanese publicly poured cold water on a republic move in the days after the death of Queens Elizabeth II, stating that the federal Labor government has no plan to pursue a referendum on the monarchy within the current term of office. Behind the scenes however, moves are being made to prepare the groundwork for another referendum push. The result of the failed referendum in 1999 has shown once again that a democratic vote in support of a change desired by progressives is binding, but a democratic vote against is merely a temporary setback to be overcome at a later date.

In June 2022, just months before the death of the Queen, Federal MP Matt Thistlethwaite was appointed to the newly created position of Assistant Minister for the Republic, a role dedicated to officially campaigning for an Australian republic on behalf of the government. The Reserve Bank of Australia decided, without much outcry, that King Charles III would not replace Elizabeth II on future Australian $5 banknotes. Then in October 2022, the Australian Republican Movement (ARM), a nationwide campaign group first formed in 1991, elected a fresh group of directors, led by former soccer player and refugee activist Craig Foster.[1] The stalwarts of the ARM appear invigorated by the scandals of Princes Harry and Andrew and the passing of Elizabeth (and with her the weakening of the popularity of the institution she represented for 70 years), which has presented the perfect opportunity to renew the fight.

How should patriotic Australians approach the question of a republic? Certainly the debate is older than the formation of the country itself and there are no hard or fast rules on whether a defender of White Australia must necessarily be a Republican or a Monarchist. The recurrent split down the centre of pro-White activism in Australia over the years has always been between two broad camps. On the one side are those who favour a nativist republic and look towards an Australian ethnogenesis and a new national identity that has, with geographical distance and the arrival of non-British White migrants, evolved away from its strict Anglo-Celtic origins. On the other are those who side with the monarchy and highlight the “necessity of Britishness” and British race patriotism in the construction and maintenance of Australia’s identity, that Australia is but an extension of the history and culture of the British Isles.[2] Lest it get side-tracked by the above ethnicity debate, this essay contends only with how the broad racial principle or ideal of a White Australia (one that sits above questions of ethnicity) relates to a position on the republic question.

Delving into Australia’s pre-Federation history, in the latter days of the colonies it was republicanism which once found strong association with the burgeoning cause for White Australia. The first large swell of fervour for an Australian republic came in tandem with the workers strikes and the economic upheaval of the late nineteenth century that spurred the growth of a radical nationalist and socialist movement, one ultimately leading to the formation of the Australian Labor Party. Republicanism swam with a political current that clamoured for national manhood through some form of independence from the Crown, and was resolutely opposed to Chinese immigration and the importation of cheap Pacific Islander labourers. The fear that British imperial policy, in particular in matters affecting immigration, was no longer wholly in-line with the interests of native Australians was a common refrain.

Cartoon from The Bulletin, 1888: “The Imperial Connection” providing the access point for the Chinese migrant[3]

A series of republican riots hit Sydney in 1887 in the leadup to celebrations of Queens Victoria’s Golden Jubilee and the radical nationalist magazine The Bulletin raised the cry on July 2, 1887 with its editorial “Australia for the Australians!”, a credo that would soon appear on the masthead of the magazine until replaced with “Australia for the White Man” in 1908:

…all men who leave the tyrant-ridden lands of Europe for freedom of speech and right of personal liberty are Australians before they set foot on the ship which brings them hither. Those who fly from an odious military conscription; those who leave their fatherland because they cannot swallow the worm-eaten lie of the divine right of kings to murder peasants, are Australians by instinct—Australian and Republican are synonymous. No nigger, no Chinaman, no lascar, no kanaka, no purveyor of cheap coloured labour, is an Australian.[4]

A string of republican magazines and associations cropped up across the country proclaiming the inevitable arrival of a republic (a tradition continued to this day[5]), and among those enthralled by the fervour in Sydney was the young poet Henry Lawson, whose famous poem Song of the Republic appeared a few months later in The Bulletin:

Sons of the South, make choice between
(Sons of the South, choose true),
The Land of Morn and the Land of E’en,
The Old Dead Tree and the Young Tree Green,
The Land that belongs to the lord and the Queen,
And the Land that belongs to you.

A strong republican sentiment reared its head again in 1972 with the election of the Whitlam Labor government and reached a crescendo in the aftermath of the constitutional crisis known as the Dismissal. On November 11, 1975, the Governor-General Sir John Kerr, the Queen’s representative in Australia, had taken the drastic step of using his reserve powers to dismiss the Whitlam Labor government from office, in order to resolve a parliamentary deadlock that had created a loss of supply. The exact role played by the British royal family in the constitutional crisis is still up for debate, but the Dismissal invigorated a generation of Labor leaders, leading to Prime Minister Paul Keating’s unsuccessful republic push in the 1990s.

What I seek to sketch out in this essay is that, given the current state of the country, defenders of White Australia — whether they be Anglo or Nativist — would be wise to hold to the side of constitutional monarchy, irrespective of any historical alignment republicanism has had with White Australia. Many Australian nationalists who considered the issue in the leadup to the 1999 referendum came to similar conclusions, but the situation has devolved further over the last quarter-century and calls for another stocktake of the nation of sorts.

This conclusion is not derived from any particular sentiment in favour of the British Monarchy itself or any delusional belief that the royal family is somehow a supporter of White Australia. Instead, it comes from the recognition of the fact that the current republic alterative on offer will leave the country worse off and is not being pursed on terms that are acceptable to the maintenance of the principle of White Australia. Should the political conditions of Australia change, it may well be that republicanism can, as it did in the nineteenth century, find co-existence with White Australia. Furthermore, should the monarchy itself expire in the UK, a republic may simply become an administrative necessity devoid of any symbolic change. But as it stands now, with the monarchy still firmly in place in the UK, an Australian republic is a poisoned chalice that should be spurned.

The Republic as Political Asset

Two key questions provide us the framework for making this decision. The first question to ask is a more technical one; will becoming a republic improve the Australian political system and/or make the defence of White Australia an easier task politically?

As modern-day monarchists often point out, history shows us that there is nothing axiomatically beneficial about casting aside a constitutional monarch and becoming a republic. It does not overnight turn your country into a more successful or cohesive nation, and there is strong reason to suggest that a constitutional monarchy is a more politically stable arrangement. In such countries, wilder democratic passions can find an outlet only in the legislature — a place where parliamentary convention, the need for compromise, and the presence of an opposition tends to temper the intensity of the demands of  voters — and ultimate power or the trappings of royal pomp and presidential status are always out of reach of an upstart despot or demagogue.

List the names of some of the most highly developed, peaceful and politically stable countries in the world — Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Australia itself — and you will find they are all constitutional monarchies. Likewise, if you had to pick the most politicly divided and chaotically multi-racial countries in the West right now, you would have to pick the USA and France, the birthplaces of modern republicanism. Historical and modern-day tyrannies also tend to bear the name republic: the USSR, the German Democratic Republic, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the People’s Republic of China. Of course, republics exist amongst the ranks of the highly developed, such as Iceland or Finland, though these tend to be parliamentary republics — recent converts to republicanism after long histories of monarchy, where the president is as ceremonial as a constitutional monarch and there is no real possibility of him or her coming into conflict with the legislature.

As regarding republicanism specifically in the defence of White Australia, the benefits also remain elusive. Historically, the racially conscious republicanism of the late nineteenth century quickly dissipated in favour of the realisation that national pride could peacefully co-exist with British imperial pride, and that White Australia was safer from Japan and the “rising tide of colour” within the Empire than without. Constitutional monarchy and the Westminster System of government turned out to be no significant impediment on the adoption of the White Australia Policy in 1901. The Policy was assented to over protests from the British government, and with the right government in charge again, it can be re-adopted by parliament just the same.

Nor is it possible to envisage how a republic could have succeeded in saving White Australia in the 1960s and 1970s where possession of a strong presidential republic failed to avert a similar outcome in America. Neither multiculturalism nor multiracialism were implemented in Australia via a democratic process that could have been opposed democratically. Instead, both outcomes were accomplished by stealth, in a form of elite (substantially Jewish) conspiracy carried out in the depths of the Australian bureaucracy, using “salami-slice” or “thin-edge-of-the-wedge” tactics that would have left voters in a hypothetical Australian republic just as much in the dark.

Furthermore, if the minimalist republican model presented to voters in 1999 had been implemented, a ceremonial position whereby a candidate would be exclusively chosen by the Prime Minister of the day, the Australian president would have no more power to arrest the current demographic situation than the Governor-General currently does. The new Australia Choice Model of a republic developed by the ARM for use in a new referendum would fare no better. Even if given significant executive powers, a president elected by the Australian people with a popular mandate to end multiculturalism would still be impotent against an oppositional legislature, or cause political chaos at best. Ultimately, in the Australian political system, power to affect Australia’s cultural and racial makeup lies with the legislature and hopes for a political revival of White Australia must be focused on that body alone.

The Republic as Symbolic Act

This leads us to the second and far more important question. If becoming a republic does not benefit White Australia in the sense of the country’s political structure, then benefits of its adoption lie solely in rhetoric or symbolism, with a cultural argument that puts forth a statement of Australia’s destiny. In that case, what is the current symbolic positioning for the creation of an Australian republic?

For the longest time, mainstream supporters of a republic defended it as an egalitarian patriotic cause allied with nationalism, and believed it symbolised a positive identity for Australia’s future, not a violent break with its British past. To them, a republic was the pronouncement of an Australia that wanted to show the world it was an independent nation-state that could now go along without the ties to the motherland. The direct British connection was seen as a colonial leftover, an obstacle to the development of a truly Australian national identity, and once cast aside, the country could pursue its own place in the world with a born-and-bred Australian, not a foreign monarch, occupying the role of head of state. The popular imagery of republican arguments was one of filial affection, a mutually beneficial departure from the home by a child that had now reached adulthood and wanted to function on its own terms, and the parent that knew at some point it had to let the child leave the nest in order to grow. Republicanism of this type is perfectly consistent with the principle of White Australia and offers no barrier, in symbolic terms, to its conservation and continuance.

This twentieth-century republican sentiment, prefigured by the writings of nationalist P.R. Stephensen in the 1930s and moulded later by prominent voices such as Donald Horne and Geoffrey Dutton[6], still held true for the majority of republic-supporting voters in the 1999 referendum, and was the main symbolic argument presented to the voting public by the campaign, but there was another type of sentiment at play then too. This alternative sentiment had germinated amongst the cultural revolutionaries in the 1960s but was still hidden in the background in the leadup to the referendum for fear of needlessly jeopardising the Yes vote. Though subtle, both nationalists and monarchists identified the link between Keating’s republicanism and the ascendant multiculturalist ideology which sought greater enmeshment in Asia and indigenous reconciliation.

In the years since, the “multicultural republic” sentiment has mutated beyond even the worst fears of patriots and has come to the fore to be the dominant positioning of republican sentiment in the country, the one publicly held by the leaders of the ARM and espoused by the media, academic and political elite who speak for the republican case. If the republic campaign is launched today, it is this sentiment, not the old one, that will drive the debate and animate the discussions of its supporters, and be the one that would ultimately carry a victory.

This is the republicanism borne not out of love for Australia, but out of hatred. A republicanism that, whilst retaining its original egalitarianism and desire for a local-born head of state, has almost nothing to do with national unity, patriotism, or a sense of pride in Australia and its unique history as a European country on the other side of the planet. Instead, it is driven by a destructive anti-White impulse, one that seeks to sever the ties with Britain as a way of immunising the country from the moral contagion of colonialism and slavery and all the other racial ills lain now at the foot of the British Empire and Western Civilisation as a whole. It is a republicanism borne out of rejection of Australia’s racial, political and cultural origins in Britain and wider Europe; articulated in the loathing of the fact that Australia’s head of state is an “old white man,” and the aggrieved realisation that unless multiple royals in the line of succession die early deaths, it will continue to be an old White man for at least the next 70 years.

Scenes from anti-monarchy protests held around the country in September 2022.  Republicanism has also become an intimate companion to the “indigenous sovereignty” dogma, which claims that the scattered nomadic tribes somehow possessed legal sovereignty over the Australian landmass prior to 1788.

In this form of self-flagellating republicanism, Australia’s inheritance from Britain is not something to cherish and value, but something to scorn or destroy. References are always made to the supposedly detrimental impact of the monarchy and the British connection on “first nations people”, and the words “modern” and “multicultural” are always present on the lips of these types of republicans, as it was when Minister for the Republic Matt Thistlethwaite recently appeared on the television program QandA:

But over the longer term, we see Australia as a mature, independent nation, making its own way in the world, reflecting our true multiculturalism, our unique culture and identity by having one of our own as our head of state in the future.[7]

Craig Foster, the leader of the ARM, appearing on the same program a few months earlier, went a step further and made the case that the push for the republic is an integral part of the “decolonisation” of Australia:

The answer for Australia is yes, and it has been for some time. And so, overwhelmingly, the research says that Australians are in favour of…decolonisation, really, and this is one part of it. That’s another part of it, right? Decolonisation of thinking and moving and walking together [8]

For academics and leading public intellectuals who speak on the debate[9], the issue has become overwhelmingly enmeshed with the ‘Black Armband’ view of history, arguing that a republic has no moral or symbolic weight unless it is combined with the push for indigenous reconciliation. For prominent republican scholar Mark Mckenna, this means that a republic has to be based on “an entirely different conception of Australian independence”, one that re-writes Australia’s history and grounds it not on British settlement but on “thousands of generations of Indigenous occupation”.[10] Another republican, Dennis Altman, contends that:

A republican movement that begins with the Uluru Statement from the Heart[11], rather than concerns about the symbolic links to the British crown, is a project more likely to capture the imagination of Australians.[12]

Elsewhere, Federal Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi, a Pakistani-born migrant, has no fear in publicly declaring the British Monarchy to be a “racist, colonial institution”[13] and that the death of the Queen is a reminder for Australians of the urgency of becoming a republic and of carrying out reconciliation.

If the Australian republic is to be pursued for symbolic reasons, then the first act of symbolism that would be pursed under a new “decolonised” and “indigenously reconciled” Australian republic should be now clear to us — the first Australian president (or whichever title it ends up being) must not be an “old white man.” The person chosen will almost certainly be some sort of intersectionality concoction; perhaps a disabled Aboriginal woman, a transgender Asian man, or a Jewish Lesbian.

Whatever the eventual combination, this new president will be hailed as a symbol to the world that White Australia is on its way out and that the new multi-racial Australian republic has succeeded it. His or her speeches will surely be replete with references to the success of multiculturalism and a racially diverse Australia with 60,000 years of history, and the need to correct the alleged genocidal dispossession of First Nations people by Australia’s illegitimate founders. Would-be migrants from around the world will take it as a sign of a conquered nation where the White man is no longer in control of his destiny.

So long as Australia remains a constitutional monarchy and it is King Charles III, King William V, or King George VII that sit on the throne as Australia’s Head of State, White Australia is spared this indignity and this symbolic vanquishment. If Australia is to become a republic, it must be done on terms that are acceptable to and compatible with the nation’s foundational principle of White Australia, even if this means the “inevitable” republic must wait for another century.

[1] Also on the new executive board is long-time multicultural activist Vic Alhadeff, the former CEO of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies.

[2] See the article “Revolt of the Anglophiles” by Australia First Party leader Jim Saleam, where Alan James and The Occidental Observer contributor Andrew Fraser intervene in the comments section. A similar dynamic could be seen between Australia’s two most prominent patriotic historians, the republican Manning Clark and the constitutional monarchist Geoffrey Blainey — J. Saleam 2013, ‘The Revolt of the Anglophiles: The New Political Anglos & Frank Salter’s Deconstruction of Australianity’, Counter Currents, December 26, retrieved from: https://counter-currents.com/2013/12/the-revolt-of-the-anglophiles

[3] The Bulletin 1888, The Imperial Connection, Saturday 14 April, p.10, retrieved from: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-706788911/view?partId=nla.obj-706792675

[4] The Bulletin 1887, Australia for the Australians, Saturday 2 July, p.4, retrieved: from https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-693332894/view?partId=nla.obj-746241180

[5] The notion of “inevitability” has ironically enough long since been a detriment to the republican case, with successive republicans citing the inevitability of an Australian republic as a reason why it is a change that should not be vigorously or urgently pursued – See: M. Mckenna 1996, The Captive Republic: A History of Republicanism in Australia 1788–1996, Cambridge University Press, New York.

[6] Anti-racist undertones were present in the writings of both Horne and Dutton, though its impact on their republican arguments was limited.

[7] QandA – Words That Offend and Referendums 2023, television broadcast, 6 March, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney, Australia, transcript retrieved from: https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/2023-06-03/102019930

[8] QandA – The Year of the Voice 2023, television broadcast, 30 January, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney, Australia, transcript retrieved from: https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/2023-30-01/101868690

[9] See Jones. B T & McKenna. M 2013, Project republic: plans and arguments for a new Australia, (B. T. Jones & M. McKenna, Eds.), Black Incorporated, Collingwood, Australia.

[10] M. McKenna 2021, ‘The Stunted Country’, The Monthly, Dec 2021-Jan 2022 Issue, retrieved from: https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2021/december/1638277200/mark-mckenna/stunted-country#mtr

[11] A statement of principles derived from the Final Report of the Referendum Council in 2015, which recommended a constitutional amendment to enshrine an ‘Indigenous Voice to Parliament. ‘ The referendum council was co-chaired by Australia’s leading Jewish activist Mark Leibler.

[12] D. Altman 2022, ‘The republic debate is back (again) but we need more than a model to capture Australians’ imagination’, The Conversation, January 19, retrieved from: https://theconversation.com/the-republic-debate-is-back-again-but-we-need-more-than-a-model-to-capture-australians-imagination-175058

[13] M. Faruqi 2022, ‘There’s nothing to celebrate about the British Monarchy, The Greens Magazine, 25 March, retrieved from: https://greens.org.au/magazine/theres-nothing-celebrate-about-british-monarchy