Instead of signalling a self-confident advance, this caravan of American hardware—floodlit in the Iraqi night—would signal a retreat. The column of vehicles was likely heading from al-Asad Air Base in Anbar province in western Iraq to the semiautonomous Kurdistan region in the north. It would be a scene repeated at every US base in the country’s federal region as well as other Gulf states, all of them now ripe targets for Iranian ballistic missiles.

Coming just over twenty years after America’s invasion of Iraq—when the juggernaut of Pax Americana seemed unstoppable—the troop drawdown under the looming shadow of geo-political multipolarity is the latest crack in the edifice of empire. Like all empires before it, Judeo-American is slowly succumbing to the vicissitudes of political entropy, eroded both by challengers without and parasites within.

While the superstructure of American dominance still stands, its slow collapse is becoming an inevitability. Like the empires that preceded it—from the Persian, Greek, and Roman to the British—Judeo-America will one day become history.

While the collapse of each empire differs in its particulars, the trajectory of decline is found to depend on a series of variables that remain constant across time and geography.1 The systemic instability of hegemons tends to increase as challengers reach power parity,2 when subordinate states begin to reject the dominant norms and institutions,3 as material capabilities of oppositional nations shift and the costs of empire spiral,4 and when ideological legitimacy and institutional authority begin to critically erode.5

The decline of Judeo-America can be analysed both through the historical precedent of imperial collapse and the contemporaneous sui generis challenges facing the empire today. Historically, Judeo-American stands shoulder to shoulder with other great imperial powers such as the Persian, Mongol, Roman and British empires. But, like the great hegemonic forces which preceded it, America’s empire is destined to degrade, weaken and die.

When comparing Judeo-America with preceding empires, a major historical inflection point is the Industrial Revolution of the 18th and 19th centuries. Technological empires such as the British, Russian, Japanese and Portuguese tend to be characterised by bureaucratic centralisation and the utilisation of technology such as the telegraph, railroads and modern weapons for territorial expansion. These powers utilised empire-building strategies based primarily on economic and industrial dominance in contrast to the territorial and tributary control exercised by pre-modern empires such as the Mongols and Romans.6

Among modern industrial empires—of which Judeo-America is the apotheosis—common patterns of development and disintegration emerge. Compared to ancient hegemons, these powers tend to be larger in scale, face greater competition, demonstrate sharper decline and be shorter-lived relative to size and economic power.7 The largest non-industrial empires had an average life-span of roughly 236 years with their decline spanning about 70 years from peak power. Industrial empires average roughly 215 years with a 41-year decline period.8

Read more

Having been largely confined to the dark corners of cultural discourse, conspiracy theories were propelled into the political mainstream by QAnon and the Covid 19 pandemic. No longer were conspiracy theorists a kooky and powerless minority—they were now invested with the power to shape America’s political future and did so in 2024 via the re-election of Donald Trump as US President.

The general perception that the public is being misled by our political industrial complex—that maleficent forces are at play under the glistening surface of our democracies—is a perfectly reasonable, and increasingly justified, concern. The Epstein scandal exposed a pulsating core of political corruption, financial fraud and sexual abuse which many suspected but could not comprehend. It has also exposed the very real extent of Jewish power over the American Empire.

However, the psychological architecture of conspiracy theorising is worlds apart from a general cognisance of corruption—and it is one which is increasingly understood and weaponised. Rather than intrepid detectives of shadowy political intrigue, the conspiracy theorist is himself the subject of a conspiracy to exploit his paranoid epistemology for political ends.

The study of conspiracy theorists has tended to explain their behaviour through irrational bias, cognitive error or—at worst—mental deficiency. Research on the personality correlates of conspiracy theorists has found that pseudoscientific beliefs, paranoia, mild schizophrenic traits and religiosity are particularly salient, along with generally lower cognitive ability.1

Conspiracy theorists have been shown to be more prone to cognitive biases such as the conjunction fallacy which describes the probabilistic error of judging a conjunction of two events as more likely than one of its constituent events alone. Conspiracy believers have been found to make significantly more conjunction errors than non‑believers across both conspiracy-themed and neutral domains, implying the salience of general intelligence in conspiracy beliefs.2

Other research has found that a tendency to conspiracy theorising is predicated by hypersensitive agency detection (HAD), the propensity to attribute intentionality, purpose and agency to inanimate objects or events where they are unlikely to exist.3 Conspiracy theorists, it is argued, inherently project purpose, agency and intentionality onto events often when plausible alternative explanations exist. People with HAD bias are more likely to see “someone pulling the strings” behind ambiguous events, making conspiratorial explanations intuitively appealing.

Conspiracy beliefs have been found to be strongly associated with education such that those with higher levels of education are less likely to endorse conspiracy theories.4 Mediating factors in conspiracy belief—such as the tendency toward anthropomorphism in which free will and intentionality are attributed to inanimate objects—tend to be more salient in people with less education.5

That such research is predicated on a liberal bias against the right-wing coded conspiracy theory community has already been remarked upon within academia, with warnings against the othering of those who should be the subjects of objective scientific enquiry.6 There is a growing awareness that conspiracy belief adoption does not simply involve passive knowledge absorption by naive recipients, but a complex cognitive architecture. It is this psychological circuitry which is being hacked in order to propagate a politics stripped of any potential for real-world change.

The ur-example of this cognitive warfare is QAnon. Adherents of the conspiracy theory believe that a cabal of satanic, cannibalistic elites—primarily in government, media and Hollywood—runs a global child sex trafficking ring against which President Donald Trump is waging a secret war, ultimately culminating in a prophesied event known as The Storm in which the cabal would be arrested and executed. The conspiracy—initiated on 4Chan from 2017—was propagated largely through “Qdrops”, cryptic posts from so-called government insiders which were then woven into an overarching narrative by content creators on YouTube and other social media sites. Adherents of the QAnon conspiracy number in the millions, with hundreds of thousands of believers even in non-English speaking countries like Germany.7

What makes QAnon distinct from other conspiracy theories—and what implies high-level US intelligence involvement—is the problem-solving nature underlying it. QAnon created a game-like knowledge environment in which believers are the central character in their own virtual role-play. Instead of passively absorbing information, QAnon believers are encouraged to “do your own research”, to actively decode and encode information within a gamified knowledge matrix.

Read more

Unfortunately, and like many right-wing movements under the aegis of Trumpian plebeianism, much of this nationalism is a political stillbirth. While politics goes global, as the world awakens to the fight against Zionism and Jewish power — nationalists are quietly backing up, Homer Simpson-style, into the hedge of maudlin historical romanticism and mawkish narrative pablum. One of the worst offenders is US-based group Patriot Front.

“Tyrants with delusions of infinite power have declared the American people too weak to revolt” claims the group’s manifesto. “Our tradition is revolution, and our land is where tyrants come to die.” These so-called tyrants go mysteriously unnamed and, in so doing, Patriot Front falls at the first hurdle in the race for political power.

The German legal theorist Carl Schmitt defined politics as fundamentally oriented toward identifying, confronting and, if necessary, fighting an enemy to preserve a political community’s identity and existence. Thus, in order to do politics one must first define a political enemy against whom to fight in order to advance the interests of one’s political in-group. No enemy, no politics.

Oddly, Patriot Front — an organisation clearly seeking some form of political change in America — claims it isn’t actually doing politics after all. They argue:

“Politics have played a large part in destroying this nation, and it will not be politics that will save us. The State that governs us is wholly resistant to the change that is required to save the nation as it convulses and devours itself with unprecedented corruption.”

The “new resistance” against state tyranny that Patriot Front is offering seems to consist of waiting for the state to devour itself before building a new one on the soil of its rotting carcass. Change is not political but psychological, predicated on a return to the bedrock of traditional morality on which the American nation was originally built:

“To form a new and just State, we must first instill a reformed national spirit within our people — a people free from the vices of the modern world and a people with a fervor to see themselves free.”

It is correct to say that political revolution is predicated on a collective psychology; as Ralph Waldo Emerson stated: “Every revolution was first a thought in one man’s mind…”. However, the spirit of revolution must be the prelude to political praxis, not political praxis per se. Change comes from within but is enacted without.

Patriot Front also claims that in order to survive as a culture, heritage and way of being “our nation must learn that its collective interests are fighting against its collective threats of displacement and enslavement.” Exactly how one does this while avoiding the political is left unexplained.

If there is uncertainty over who Patriot Front is fighting against, there is utter bafflement over who they are fighting for. That the term our people refers to White Americans can only be inferred as the group’s nationalist vision fails to include specific references to race. Who, then, is an American?

“To be an American is to be a descendant of conquerors, pioneers, visionaries, and explorers. This unique identity was given to us by our ancestors, and this national spirit remains firmly rooted in our blood.”

An American is then, one assumes, related in some way to the founding stock, a descendent of the pioneers who laid the foundations of the modern republic with their blood, sweat and bones. The status of other White Americans whose ancestors came to the US after its founding is uncertain. The situation becomes even more confused:

“America is truly unique in this pan-European identity which forms the roots of our nationhood. To be an American is to realize this identity and take up the national struggle upon one’s shoulders. Not simply by birth is one granted this title but by the degree to which he works and fulfills the potential of his birth.”

To be a real American is then to embody the spirit of the pioneers who built the nation and to live in accordance with virtue. Real Americans are members of “a family, a community, a nation, and a race beyond that” except when they do not live up to unspecified standards of struggle at which point they presumably stop being Americans and transmogrify into something else. Kafka would have been proud.

Sitting next to the giant Jewish elephant in Patriot Front’s Americana-bedecked room is a slightly less giant but still dangerous Black elephant. For all the problems that American Blacks present, it is difficult to argue against their status as heritage Americans. One assumes that among the virtuous pioneers to whom Patriot Front so lavishly refers, those who brought African slaves to the continent to build America’s wealth are not included.

When the new American state is magically forged from the virtue of its founding descendants, what of the Blacks and other “foreigners” who remain in their tens of millions? Patriot Front answers thus:

“Those of foreign birth may occupy civil status within the lands occupied by the state, and they may even be dutiful citizens, yet they may not be American. Membership within the American nation is inherited through blood, not ink. Even those born in America may yet be foreign. Nationhood cannot be bestowed upon those who are not of the founding stock of our people, and those who do not share the common spirit that permeates our greater civilization, and the European diaspora.”

Those hoping for mass deportations are left disappointed. Patriot Front’s vision for the new America is in essence the old America but administered by a Platonic elite class of virtuous guardians who have traced their genetic lineage back to the founding stock. In this ambitious vision, the novi homines of America — paragons of pioneer spirit — might still get killed by an Indian truck driver or have their throats cut by a schizophrenic Black on the subway. The spirit of America might have changed but not the potential for random violence.

It is not only the material conditions in Patriot Front’s new America which remain unaltered. The rhetorical ecosystem — centred on Americans’ God-given liberties and freedoms — also survives:

“Collective Liberty is the freedom our people must share from the forces which seek nothing less than our binding and unconditional submission.”

Rather than create a sui generis mythos for a new America, Patriot Front is attempting to resuscitate the sclerotic corpse of US democracy and set its toxic brand back on its feet. Not only is the world at large growing weary of American freedom, so are most Americans. For the latter it is the rhetorical cover for an increasingly oppressive state architecture and militarised police force; for the former it is the rhetorical cover for your local girls school being blown up.

If, as Patriot Front argues, “America as we know it is already dead or will not survive” then why seek to clutch desperately at the tattered threads of its myths like a child whose comfort blanket is being blown away in the wind? Central to the American pioneer spirit was the forging of a new nation, not the perpetuation of a dying old one.

If the promises of “an era of rebirth” and “the beginning of a new chapter” are to be realised then what is required is a novel and clearly articulated vision for the future which captures the collective imagination. This is one of the reasons why the Jewish rebranding of America as a nation of immigrants eventually won the day.

Patriot Front’s is the Hellraiser puzzle of political manifestos — a mystery box of ancient allusions and symbols which, if cracked, summons one into the realm of a perpetual American nightmare. The torture method is an eternal reading: a never-ending struggle to untangle the meaning of its twisted syntax and agonised archaism.

The core affliction of Patriot Front’s “grand vision” is the performative nature of the group’s politics — a symbolic gesture towards the political rather than a materialised movement within it. Patriot Front is an embodied contradiction: a group presenting itself as a rugged fighting force for political change whose stated political positions are rooted in a cowardly reticence to offend against the received moral paradigm of American conservatism. Hence, the pretzel logic of avoiding the term White to describe European Americans in order to placate conservatives to whom they appeal for help in realising their pro-White-in-all-but-name national renewal. Surely a pioneer spirit would demand being openly pro-White and expecting cowardly conservatives to fall in line.

Patriot Front’s failure to identify those for whom they seek political power is matched by their failure to identify those from whom they seek to take it. The group argues that “[n]o foreign state waved its banner on the halls of governance.” Yes they did — the flag of Jewish power was raised decades ago and if one seeks the admirable goal of an America run by and for its European peoples then it is from the Jews that power must be taken back.

Patriot Front’s performative nationalism is anti-politics — it is to react to our increasingly hyper-politicised milieu as the turtle does to the threat of a predator: hunker down into the comfortable safety of the familiar.

Securing a future for European nations cannot be, and should not be, achieved unless and until Jewish power has been defeated. National victories can only follow from a global victory — the ultimate victory — against international Zionism. A just European state cannot be built on the bodies of Palestinians who are abandoned to their fate by the so-called new virtuous Americans. Patriot Front would do well to remember that Aryan denotes honour.

Patriot Front’s vision for American — a solipsistic and sepia-toned retrenchment into petty nationalism and received political dogma — is not a bold pioneering step into the political battle but a retreat from it.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

The North Vietnamese recruits drowned in the flames. Disorientated and trying to regroup, they were blown out of their shelters and thrown into nets of bullets. From above, American helicopters rained down fire on the survivors until the blood flowed through the trees like red mud. When the flames finally parted, the diamond-shaped clearing was piled high with bodies — broken, blown apart and vaporised.

The story of this nightmare is told by Bao Ninh1, one of the survivors of the Glorious 27th. It was a scene repeated ad nauseam during the two decades America fought with the North Vietnamese Communists for control of the country. The Vietnam War is significant not only for the victory of a military underdog against a vastly superior power — and the violent horror of the conflict — but also for the lengths that underdog was prepared to go in order to secure that victory.

Fifty years after the end of the Vietnam War, the Judeo-American empire is still on its crusade to spread freedom and democracy around the world, this time in Iran. Understanding how North Vietnam defeated America then is crucial to grasping Iran’s path to victory today — a path that demands an unwavering, even suicidal, will to sacrifice, from which final victory will be won not on the military battlefield but in the political arena.

American military intervention in Vietnam began in 1954 after the defeat of France at Dien Bien Phu, but direct commitment of US troops did not occur until a decade later. In 1965 the populations of America and Vietnam were 194 million and 19 million respectively. America’s armed forces totalled 2.5 million, dwarfing Vietnam’s 256,000. The relative force ratio favoured the Americans 53:1.2 This made the Vietnam War an asymmetric conflict.

An asymmetric war is defined by one side’s material power — measured by a combination of its population and armed forces — being at least five times greater than that of its opponent.3 The principle of international relations since the time of ancient Greece has been that in war, power implies victory. Thus, in asymmetric wars the stronger actor should always win. However, over the last 200 years, weaker actors have been victorious in almost 30% of all asymmetric conflicts and won with increasing diachronic frequency.4

A core component of America’s war on the North Vietnamese was its strategic bombing campaign codenamed Rolling Thunder. Its primary goal was to destroy the will of the North to support the guerrilla war against the South.5 American military and civilian leaders believed that terror bombing would both hamper the North’s ability to wage war and coerce its leadership into giving up when a breaking point had been reached. The underlying assumption was that there was some level of punishment at which the North Vietnamese would break and their morale and resolve to continue fighting crumble.6

General William Westmoreland, Commander of US forces in Vietnam, shared this assumption, arguing that the North Vietnamese, convinced that military victory was impossible, would not be able to endure further punishment.7 He said:

“We’ll just go on bleeding them until Hanoi wakes up to the fact that they have bled their country to the point of national disaster for generations. Then they will have to reassess their position.”8

Writing in 1967, Jewish journalist David Halberstam vividly described America’s win condition:

“You simply grind out a punishing war, year after year, using that immense American firepower, crushing the enemy and a good deal of the population, until finally there has been so much death and destruction that the enemy will stumble out of the forest, as stunned and numb as the rest of the Vietnamese people.”9

The key metric against which the progress of such tactics was to be judged was the notorious body count. This death metric assumed a tipping point of North Vietnamese casualties at which the tide of their willingness to prosecute the war would turn. By the end of the conflict, the North had suffered approximately 950,765 dead compared to 220,357 South Vietnamese and 46,498 Americans.10 More conservative estimates put the number of North Vietnamese deaths at between 500,000 and 600,000 which would mean a loss of 2.5% to 3% of the prewar population in the country. It is believed that the North lost tens of thousands of men in single operations such as the Tet Offensive of 1968 and the Easter Offensive of 1972.11 These levels of battle deaths are unprecedented in military history and matched only by those seen in both world wars. The North was seemingly willing to face extermination levels of losses in order to secure victory.12

The North Vietnamese will was exemplified by General Vo Nguyen Giap. In a response to a question put to him in 1969 regarding how long the war could last, he said:

“It will last as long as necessary — 10, 15, 20, 50 years. Until as our President [Ho Chi Minh] says we have won total victory. Yes, even 20, even 50 years. We aren’t afraid, and we aren’t in a hurry.”13

Such sentiments were echoed by the Communist leader Ho Chi Minh himself. He is quoted as saying:

“We will fight to find victory. Everything depends on the Americans. If we want to make war for 20 years, then we shall make war for 20 years.”14

Such ideological commitment made the Vietnam War a conflict of will and patience. By any metric of warfare, the US defeated the North militarily but despite such overwhelming power could not force the Communists to negotiate a peace. As in a chess game, the North used the clock against their opponents until the American public lost the stomach for continued sacrifice. In contrast, the Communists were able to draw on an increasingly committed Vietnamese public radicalised by the barbarity of the American bombing campaign.

Those who sought the temperature of morale in North Vietnam during the war were reminded of the do-or-die spirit of the Irish rebellion or the 19th century Russian zealots.15 On visiting the country in 1966, New York Times reporter Harrison Salisbury observed:

“I seldom talked to any North Vietnamese without some reference coming into the conversation of the people’s preparedness to fight ten, fifteen, even twenty years in order to achieve victory. At first I thought such expressions might reflect government propaganda…but…I began to realize that this was a national psychology.”16

Studies on North Vietnamese and Viet Cong prisoners of war found a steadfast morale not equalled by German National Socialist soldiers in The Second World War or Chinese soldiers in the Korean War.17 These men held an unshakable faith in the final victory despite military setbacks and being told the war would be long and fierce.18 The most prominent sources of strength were not a fanatic commitment to Communism but rather “an astonishing uniform…belief in their cause”, “a firm belief that they cannot…lose the war”, and a “deep personal hatred, a true abhorrence of their enemy, the United States”.19

Such was the potency of Vietnamese spirit that American military and political leaders had to concede that their capitulation would still not be brought about even via a full-scale invasion of the North or the use of a nuclear weapon.20 Instead of America breaking the will of the North Vietnamese, it was the North Vietnamese who broke the will of America.

Crucial to the conflict in Vietnam was not either side’s military capability to wage war, but rather their political capability.21 The experience of the first and second world wars reinforced the notion that the key criterion in military victory was military superiority. The Vietnamese — who first defeated a 2,000-strong French force and then a 500,000-strong American force — destroyed this notion. In both cases Vietnam did not defeat their opponents militarily, but rather via progressive attrition of their political capability to continue fighting.

In such asymmetric warfare, political victories can be gained from stalemate or even outright defeats. Although the 1968 Tet Offensive was a victory for America on the ground, it marked a strategic defeat and a turning point in the war. The impact of the Tet Offensive led to a congressional review of US policy in Vietnam, the replacement of Westmoreland and the reduction of American troops in theatre.

It had been an entrenched military belief up until Vietnam that an enemy’s will to continue fighting is irrelevant if his military capabilities have been destroyed. The Vietnamese inverted such logic and leveraged political pressure against the US where democratic freedoms guarantee the right to protest. Unable to compete technologically with America’s military industrial complex, they aimed to destroy the US’s political capacity wherein if the popular will to fight is destroyed then technological superiority is rendered mute.

The ability of America to mobilise its forces is a matter of politics, not material. The US war in Vietnam has had arguably the greatest political impact on both international and American domestic politics since The Second World War despite the fact that the peak of the conflict in 1968 saw no more than one quarter of one per cent of the American public serving as military personnel.22 In the aftermath of the Tet Offensive, a request for 200,000 more troops was denied not because of a lack of resources but a lack of political will.

A major problem for America in such asymmetrical warfare is the nation’s geographic safety. Countries like Vietnam or Iran can pose no direct threat to the US homeland while, conversely, America threatens either occupation or extermination for them. For the smaller power, war with the US is total while for the US it is necessarily limited.23 Thus, full mobilisation of American military resources — and the inevitable casualties that would be incurred — can never be politically justified. As a rhetorical workaround to this problem, wild claims of their lesser opponents’ ability to strike America are spun up to manufacture some kind of political justification. While such asymmetrical conflicts cause the US domestic polity to fracture, the lesser power can draw on renewed nationalist sentiment with disparate factions united in the face of an external enemy. Resistance is not only seen as a viable alternative to surrender but a patriotic duty.

Asymmetrical conflicts can be contrasted with the Clausewitzian war of “pure form” when a “grand and powerful purpose” is at stake.24 Only in such conditions can full mobilisation of national resources be justified and those disparate factions unified in a common cause: “the overthrow of the enemy”. In such symmetrical conflicts — like that between Germany and Russia in The Second World War — where the survival of both sides is at stake can total war be a political reality. In such totalistic scenarios the propensity to question the morality of the means of war is attenuated given the stakes of the conflict.

Attrition of the greater power’s political capability is not necessarily a result of battlefield losses or errors but a function of the conflictual relationship between belligerents.25 When a greater power perceives a war as limited because their opponent is weaker and poses no domestic threat, the prosecution of the conflict does not take primacy over other governmental or bureaucratic goals or the interests of divergent political factions. Empty threats of the opponents’ abilities to threaten domestically are for public consumption and not taken seriously among political decision-makers.

To avoid defeat, the lesser power needs to maintain a basic level of protection from total destruction. To achieve victory, they must be capable of steadily inflicting “costs” on their more powerful opponent. It is not enough for them to remain undefeated, they must also be seen to be undefeated. As part of the attritional process, the lesser power should provoke the greater power into escalating its ground forces, since such escalation generates economic and political costs domestically. Such a pattern of escalation was seen not only in the Vietnam but also in Algeria, Portuguese Africa and Northern Ireland.26

The direct costs that the lesser power imposes on the greater power are the usual costs of war: casualties and destroyed matériel. However, the strategy is not to destroy the enemy’s military capability — an unrealistic goal — but to impose indirect psychological and political costs on the enemy by exposing and deepening political contradictions within their domestic polity. Direct military costs imposed are only of real value when they translate into indirect political damage. Provided that the lesser power can maintain a steady attrition of their opponent’s political will, the balance of political forces within the greater power will eventually assume an oppositional posture toward the conflict.27

The lesser power does not underestimate the material resources of the greater power and their devastating potential. Rather, the lesser power maintains an awareness of the political constraints placed on those resources’ maximal deployment. Such political constraints are real and become more salient the longer the war escalates. When the Vietnamese talked of the war with America stretching on for 50 years or more, such was the calculus.

Thus in 1969 did America’s national security adviser Henry Kissinger sum up the Vietnam War:

“We fought a military war; our opponents fought a political one. We sought physical attrition; our opponents aimed for psychological exhaustion. In the process, we lost sight of one of the cardinal maxims of guerrilla warfare: the guerrilla wins if he does not lose. The conventional army loses if it does not win.”28

A similar dynamic is at play today between the Judeo-American empire and Iran but this time with a rogue variable: Israel. The Iranians have already demonstrated their political will to fight a war of attrition with America and win — for Iran this conflict is existential.

Conversely, the US finds itself in another conflict with an opponent who cannot threaten the American homeland. The difference between the Vietnam War and the latest conflict with Iran is the complete capture of American politics by Jews and the occupation of the White House by a Jewish supremacist President. What complicates the application of the political capability theory to the current conflict is that the American political and military complex’s raison d’être is the interests of Israel, not America. Unlike the Vietnam War, there is no political bloc in America powerful enough, or even willing, to pressure the government to back down. Zionist politicians cannot oppose a Zionist war.

A breaking point for America implies a breaking point for its relationship with Israel. The strength of the American political system will be measured by its ability to withstand growing anti-Israel sentiment and widespread knowledge that the war with Iran is being fought for Jews alone. If such a political breaking point for the US does not materialise, then, as with Vietnam, endurance may ultimately be exhausted by the imposition of a military draft. In its latest war, American streets may become the most crucial front.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

Such conditions would test the most robust of peoples. For Jews — who already suffer from elevated levels of anxiety and neuroticism — war with Iran is very likely pushing their psychological well-being to breaking point.

Jewish mental health in Israel was already in crisis prior to the latest conflict. The Hamas military operation on October 7th, 2023, triggered a wave of trauma among the Jewish population with rates of probable Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) doubling from 16% prior to the attack to 30% one month following.1 Probable depression rose from 31% to 45%, and generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) increased from 25% to 43%. Jews directly exposed to the attack had significantly higher odds of PTSD and depression.

The October 7th attacks are described as a “mass national trauma” event which affected all Jews in Israel either directly or indirectly.2 Nearly one in five Israelis (19%) report that a close friend or family member was murdered, kidnapped or injured by Hamas implying a wide network of association with the event. The most robust indicator of post-attack PTSD, depression and GAD was pre-existing symptoms meaning that the effect of traumatic events compounds over time.

Other studies suggest that 3.5% of Israeli Jews suffer from chronic PTSD.3 Roughly 17% suffered low-to-moderate symptoms prior to October 7th which rose sharply following the attack. One epidemiological model predicts that just over half-a-million Israelis will develop PTSD following October 7th, some 5.3% of the population.4

Other sources suggest that the number of Jews in Israel suffering some form of PTSD could be as high as 35%.5 One of the key predictors of PTSD symptoms is subjective traumatic outlook (STO), the extent people subjectively evaluate their inner condition as traumatised after exposure to traumatic events. STO is not related to direct experience per se but reflects how a person interprets their psychological state. Jewish subjective self-perception of trauma is thus a key driver of mental health outcomes. It is argued that PTSD during the Israel–Hamas war was shaped not only by past traumatic exposure but by anticipatory cognition (expectations about future danger) and a subjective sense of ongoing threat.

Jews who have been forced to evacuate their homes due to Hamas’s military operations are among the worst affected.6 Roughly 46% of Jewish evacuees met criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Symptoms (PTSS) compared to non-evacuees (32%) which highlights the profound psychological impact of both direct trauma and displacement. The evacuated Jews also reported higher levels of trauma exposure, lower life functioning and lower trust in Israeli authorities. It is argued that the failure of the Israeli state to protect Jews on October 7th has led to a significant erosion of trust in state authorities, particularly among evacuees.7 Female evacuees were more vulnerable to PTSS due potentially to exposure to “narratives of sexual violence” associated with October 7th. Israeli propaganda about rape and sexual mutilation of Jewish women by Hamas fighters thus fed back into Jewish psychologising of the event.

Israeli adolescents have also been hit hard. Some 42% of Israeli adolescents met the threshold for probable PTSD one year after the October 7th attack, substantially higher than typical benchmarks (~10% to 16% in prior trauma studies).8 The strongest predictors of PTSD symptoms included poor physical health and overwhelming news consumption. The latter predicted PTSD more strongly than mere exposure to graphic content emanating from the conflict. It is suggested that Israeli adolescents are experiencing exceptionally high levels of trauma-related distress under conditions of prolonged, ongoing conflict. PTSD is not simply an acute response but reflects exposure to continuous threat and instability.

Another group affected is the ex-ultra-orthodox community.9 These individuals have left the ultra-orthodox milieu and are now members of Israel Hillel, a non-profit organisation that provides support services for such people. Nearly half of the 755 ex-ultra-orthodox Jews studied had a major depressive disorder and/or PTSD. Some 34% reported experiencing suicidal thoughts within the past 12 months. One key factor contributing to higher levels of trauma included having to leave the ultra-orthodox community to escape abuse and rejection.

The Israeli mental health system is ill-equipped to handle the “tsunami of war-related psychiatric illness”.10 Mental health provision in the country is underfunded and its workforce untrained in evidence-based practices, leading to a reliance on “treatment as usual” which is often ineffective for trauma-related disorders. It is claimed that without immediate and decisive action, the long-term mental health consequences for Jews in Israel will worsen.

Those tasked with treating victims of psychological trauma are themselves suffering. A study of 60 trauma therapists working at the Sderot Resilience Center near the Gaza border in Israel found that therapists who reported secondary trauma symptoms like having intrusive thoughts about clients’ trauma, sleep disturbances or emotional numbness also reported higher levels of general stress.11 Elevated levels of hope were significantly associated with reduced stress, implying that anxiety among Jewish medical workers will increase as their hope for Israel’s future diminishes. There is a significant positive correlation between personal trauma exposure (triggered by clients’ narratives) and the severity of PTSD symptoms in Jewish therapists.12

Jewish soldiers are also suffering from severe mental health issues. The Israeli Defence Ministry reports that there has been a 40% increase in PTSD cases among its soldiers since October 7th. Some 60% of the 22,300 injured troops suffer from some form of trauma. Israel’s second largest healthcare provider Maccabi also reported that almost 40% of Jewish military personnel it was treating had sought mental health support.

Suicide among Jewish troops is a growing problem with an Israeli parliamentary committee finding that 279 soldiers had attempted to kill themselves between January 2024 and July 2025. Combat soldiers comprise 78% of all Israeli suicide victims. Among Jewish soldiers, PTSD symptoms are the most powerful predictor of suicidal ideation.13

Even before Iranian missiles began to fall once again on Israel, Jewish mental health was reaching a nadir. If the latest conflict with Iran is prolonged into months — even years — then conditions of continuous bombardment may well spark some kind of psychological collapse. Diminishing hope for the future survival of the Israeli state will exacerbate such conditions.

In the struggle against Zionism, psychological warfare may prove decisive.

If you appreciate my work you can support it here or with Bitcoin at this address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

When the posthumous story of America is written, the same answer might be given to the question: “How did Jewish power in the US die?” The superstructure of Jewish hegemony over the politics and culture of America — meticulously built over centuries like a reverse termite infection — is seemingly coming apart at a rapid velocity. The latest Epstein files release has confirmed what many suspected and some (anti-semites) already knew: that America is ruled by a cabal of Jews. Epstein’s island was not Little St James, but the entire United States.

The fact that many of these Jews, including Epstein himself, are sex perverts abusing White women and girls is of course horrifying but largely auxiliary. Jeffrey Epstein was tasked — like his predecessor Robert Maxwell — with running Jewish mafia operations on behalf of Israel, particularly in respect to science, technology and financial investment. His operations likely involved child abuse and trafficking because of his own Judaic proclivities rather than via direct remit, as was the case with figures like Maxwell and Harvey Weinstein. With Jewish rule, child abuse comes pre-bundled along with open borders and cultural degeneration.

That underage sex was used to blackmail politicians seems plausible but the more likely explanation is that such grotesqueries are part and parcel of the Jewish elite milieu: sexual abuse is what Jews do qua Jews. Allegations that Epstein was a pedophile attracted to girls were circling ever since he was fired from the Dalton School in New York in the 1970s. Getting politicians to do what you want requires paying them, and Epstein had nigh on unlimited funds to lavish on this end.

What the new tranche of comically typo-ridden emails and messages lays bare is the anarcho-tyrannic nature of Jewish rule. It is a Janus-like edifice, looking in two directions simultaneously before the befuddled goyim herd. In private correspondence with other Jews, Epstein is a race realist sharing articles on human biodiversity; in public correspondence with the goyim, Epstein is an egalitarian who believes Black intelligence is on par with Whites.

That Noam Chomsky — the intellectual darling of the left and pied piper of American imperialism — is best pals with an arch “financier” like Epstein is prima facie unintelligible to most people, even those who consider themselves politically engaged. That Chomsky would offer advice to Epstein about how he could weather the storm of bad publicity following child sexual abuse convictions will short-circuit the frontal cortex of many leftists who remain naive to the Jewish Problem. However, for those with the correct theory on power it is easily predictable. The correct theory is not that of conspiracy, but of anti-semitism.

A sound theory is defined1 as an integrated system of general hypotheses or laws, formulated partly in theoretical terms that do not directly refer to observable entities, but whose empirical significance is secured through correspondence principles linking them to observation. Such a system does not merely summarise data but provides explanatory and predictive power by subsuming diverse phenomena under a unified set of laws. A theory must therefore yield testable implications so that observational and experimental findings can confirm and disconfirm hypotheses. Most importantly, a sound theory must also be open to falsification based on emerging evidence.

That the US is run by satanic pedophiles is an observation, not a theory — it has no explanatory or predictive power. The theory of Jewish power states that the US empire is run by Jews who act solely in their own interests. It predicts that any political position Jews adopt, whether coded as left- or right-wing, is a position taken in the furtherance of Jewish interests. It predicts that Jews are flexible strategists who will adopt any political vehicle as their Trojan Horse, up to and including faux National Socialist groups like the Azov Battalion in Ukraine which has largely been wiped out fighting on behalf of their Jewish president. It explains why the US empire expends every last resource in service of Israel.

Among Jews, political debate is dialogue over which strategy best serves their interests. Such debates are often fraught and give the impression that Jews swim in the same political waters as gentiles who are perpetually engaged in the theatre of left/right kosher dialectic. For Jews, mainstream politics are a means to preserve and expand their power. If Jews are at each other’s throats over politics, it is because a wrong step could see them back in forced labour camps. This explains why prominent anti-Trump Jews like Ben Shapiro jumped on the MAGA train when finally convinced that the Orange One was fully committed to Zionism and Jewish supremacy.

In contrast, conspiracy theorising is a mode of explanation in which events are attributed to the deliberate, covert coordination of a small group of powerful actors. Because conspiracy theorists fail to delineate who these actors are — using vague terms such as satanic pedophiles, the deep state or the globalists — their theories are unfalsifiable, treating the absence of evidence as further confirmation of the conspiracy. A theory that cannot, even in principle, be shown false by any conceivable observation has no explanatory power.

The logic of the conspiracy theorist is weighed down by a totalising global scepticism. Presupposed in conspiracy reasoning is the premise that authorities are lying. If evidence is presented by authorities which contradicts the conspiracy, that is rejected a priori as a lie. Such a circular epistemology shields the conspiracy theorist from any real-world praxis, locking them into a feedback loop of perpetual Pyrrhonian cynicism.

The anti-semitic worldview weighs evidence and comes to concrete but flexible conclusions that invite real-world praxis. It is not a refutation to point out that not all powerful people are Jewish — this is true. However, when the richest man in the world, the goy Elon Musk, is told to take the Auschwitz tour he does it. If Musk called the Jewish CEO of Blackrock, Larry Fink, and told him to be in his office 9am sharp tomorrow morning he would get laughed at and hung up on.

The Epstein scandal is not a sex scandal — it is a Jew scandal. The latest email releases evidence a clear bifurcation between Jews and non-Jews (goyim), as described by victim Maria Farmer who spoke of the abhorrent Jewish supremacism among Epstein and his associates. Private messages clearly demonstrate the heightened state of awareness that Jews had to the gentiles in their midsts, with even shabbos servant par excellence Steve Bannon described as “the goy”.

All those most closely associated with Epstein were Jews, including Maxwell’s daughter Ghislaine. Epstein got his start in finance as a consultant for Towers Financial Corporation, run by Steven Hoffenberg, for which he was paid $25,000 per month. In 1988, Epstein’s firm J. Epstein & Company took on its only client Leslie Wexner, the billionaire CEO of lingerie giant Victoria’s Secret over whose fortune he was granted full power of attorney. In 2015, Epstein invested in Reporty Homeland Security, a company led by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak. The firm’s CEO Amir Elihai and director Pinchas Bukhris were both associated with the Israeli military. Epstein’s Jewish publicist Peggy Siegal is quoted as having said that Epstein’s “two big charitable causes are science and Israel.”

Ehud Barak was one of many names of prominent Jews who featured on Epstein’s private calendar with others including Woody Allen, Noam Chomsky and Bard College president Leon Botstein. Epstein also met frequently with Ariane de Rothschild of the Jewish banking family.

It is alleged that Epstein was funded by the Mega Group — a clique of Jewish financiers including Wexner, Charles Bronfman, Haim Saban, Sheldon Adelson, Paul Singer and Ronald Lauder. Another Mega Group member Max Fisher founded the pro-Israel neoconservative lobbying group the Republican Jewish Coalition. In 2008, just before being sentenced for the solicitation of a minor in Florida, Epstein fled to Israel before later returning to sign a plea deal.

The Epstein scandal does not confirm Pizzagate, Sandy Hook or graphene nanobots in the COVID vaccine — it confirms the National Socialist anti-semitic worldview. Right-wing conspiracy theorists are not vindicated by Epstein, Hitler is. It was National Socialism that warned the world about Jewish power and took concrete actions to mitigate against its eventual domination over the gentile world. Now, following the defeat of the Third Reich, Jews sit atop a global empire against which only a few honourable rebels — the Palestinians, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis — are fighting with their lives.

That empire, however, is collapsing under its own weight of corruption, nepotism and perversion. If we wish to hasten its demise we must follow the path of anti-semitism laid out for us, not the dead end of conspiracy theorising.

If you appreciate my work you can support it here or with Bitcoin at this address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

While the defeat of the left and the Jewish Weimar regime in Germany heralded a political revolution, the defeat of the right before and during the seizure of power heralded a class-based psychological revolution over the suffocating lifestyle and values of the Bürgertum (the bourgeoisie) — the entrenched conservative bureaucracy represented by the National Socialists’ coalition partner, the DNVP (German National People’s Party).

National Socialist attacks against conservatives were common in the 1920s but intensified during the Machtergreifung (seizure of power) from early March to late June 1933, after which time political opposition parties were largely outlawed.1 With the political revolution won, the class revolution required a rhetorical deconstruction of traditional German conservatism — pejoratively labelled Reaktion — whose cowardice was to blame for the country’s defeat in the First World War.

The National Socialists did not attack the Bürgertum as a socioeconomic group per se, but in terms of its cultural values and corrosive effect on German society.2 The main targets were the “class-ridden education system, the exclusion of the working classes from the political mainstream [and] the alleged lack of moral fiber, toughness, and fighting spirit that were called for if the nation were to survive and thrive in a world full of enemies.”3 Other accusations included corruption, embezzlement and opportunism.4 The conservative establishment in Germany was well-known for engaging in special-interest politics and nepotism when it came to commissions and contracts.

As coalition partners, conservatives were the stirrup by which Hitler’s revolutionary NSDAP rose to power in Germany. After the elections of March 5th, 1933, and the Enabling Act of March 23rd, the old guard were left in no doubt as to who the new masters were. Up until this point, both National Socialists and conservatives were united on many issues including their hatred for the Versailles Treaty and the democratic party politics of the Weimar Republic, and their wish to see a German resurgence under a more authoritarian form of government.

The German Bürgertum enjoyed their zenith between 1800 and 1914, after which they were severely weakened by the destruction wrought by the First World War and the rampant inflation which followed in its wake. The Bürgertum of this time largely consisted of industrialists, businessmen, bankers and professionals including teachers, lawyers, doctors and civil servants. It was distinct from the broad proletariat and nobility, and delineated predominantly by its norms, attitudes and ways of living.5 It stressed a positive attitude to work, family values and the sanctity of one’s private life.

The groundwork for the National Socialists’ critique of the German bourgeoisie was laid in the decades prior to their election to power. Its attacks on the Bürgertum were often interwoven with those of the Weimar regime more generally including its decadence, corruption and compromise.6 The bourgeois Weltanschauung, it was argued, enfeebled the German nation and made it unfit for political battle.

In November 1929, the Völkischer Beobachter published an article by Hitler in which he criticised the Bürgertum for their “political unreliability, half-heartedness, cowardliness, opportunism, and inertia”, saying that he sympathised with Social Democrats and Communists in their “inner abhorrence of bourgeois parties.”7 In reaction, readers were warned not to vote for Hitler because he stood outside of respectable “bourgeois society”.8 Other National Socialists like Wilhelm Karpenstein asserted that the Bürgertum “refuses to recognize the right of existence of the German worker” and was “to blame for the rise of an internationally minded proletariat in Germany.”9

During the Second World War, this critique of bourgeois ideology shifted focus to the Allied powers — particularly England and America — who were characterised as superficial and incapable of understanding the élan of Germany under National Socialism. If Germany was victorious, their plutocratic cultures would be killed off and the “old capitalist form of the bourgeois state would not survive.”10 The editor-in-chief of the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung Otmar Best accused the bourgeois world outside of Germany of blindness toward the threat of Soviet Bolshevism in the same vein as the German Bürgertum.

Hitler himself levelled consistent attacks against the Bürgertum, particularly in Mein Kampf in which he vilified traditional conservatism as cowardly, compromised, materialistic and spiritless. A common theme in Hitler’s attacks was the arrogance of the Bürgertum whom he accused of having no social conscience.11 Their status consciousness had led them to neglect the interests of the so-called “plebians” who had then been driven into the arms of the Social Democrats. The failure of their social policies had also led to the rise of Marxist workers’ parties — a critique common across Europe at the time, particularly in France where Georges Valois accused the bourgeoisie of allowing the worker “to wallow in ignorance, filth, and misery.”12

Hitler would repeat such criticisms in later pronouncements in which he accused the Bürgertum of “wretched arrogance, abominable conceit, and an unjustified superiority that never actually existed.”13 In a 1938 speech, he laid the blame for Germany’s class divisions at the feet of the Bürgertum arguing that “arrogance and class conceit had so dominated on one side, it was no wonder that class consciousness emerged as a reaction on the other.”14 In this sense, Marxist class consciousness was seen as a natural reaction to bourgeois arrogance and indifference.

Hitler also charged the Bürgertum with an unwillingness to sacrifice for the greater good, conveniently equating its own class and material interests with national interests. Therefore, when the Bürgertum invoked nationalism, he was referring only to his own socioeconomic interests which led the working classes to associate nationalism with bourgeois anti-social convictions.15 Conversely argued Hitler, National Socialism had nothing to do with “cries of ‘Hurray!’ for a passé monarchy” or “the greatness of a caste or class” — instead the “greatness of the whole people is what matters to us.”16

Hitler affirmed that the Bürgertum was incapable of defeating Marxism because it had no values outside of its own narrow interests. The conservatives fought for petty political spoils rather than for a grand narrative and as a consequence could not rouse their supporters for the ultimate battle. Hitler attacked the Bürgertum’s “inner half-heartedness and worthlessness” due to its utilitarian outlook and claimed it had no other goals outside of the restoration of the past.17

Being a propertied class, the Bürgertum were concerned ultimately with preserving their possessions and, consequently, had too much to lose in the life-or-death political battle facing Europe. This was why, Hitler argued, the Marxists had more active “human material” since material wealth once acquired becomes intrinsically interwoven with one’s life purpose. It was because of being rooted in materialism that the Bürgertum did not possess the ability to govern and failed Germany so badly in the crisis of 1918.18

The materialism of the Bürgertum would be its downfall during the financial depression and hyperinflation of the 1920s. As bourgeois culture germinates only in the soil of material comfort, the financial nightmare Germany faced eroded the norms and values which had bound society together. Voters were also driven away from the bourgeois parties like the DNVP because of perceptions that they were representatives of big business interests.

This materialism would be a common theme among National Socialist critics of the Bürgertum, including Graf Ernst von Reventlow who accused German conservatism of abandoning its origins in political liberalism and drifting to the right where bourgeois sentiment had set in.19 Reventlow was adamant that the Bürgertum and its ideology had to be eradicated, arguing:

“The Bürger and the Bürgertum in its past and present form must not be allowed to return. May both disappear as quickly as possible, [to be] ruined by their false god, money, their irresoluteness, frailty, and their dull, self-satisfied philosophy of life.”20

Goebbels echoed this, arguing that National Socialism stood resolutely opposed to bourgeois sentiment:

“The three-class franchise classifying voters along property lines, the social ‘pittance’ legislation, the limited comprehension of the subject, the ‘lord-of-the manor’ way of thinking, the industrial capitalist firebrands, all of these are typical fabrications of conservative reactionaries.”21

Hitler would also be outraged at the Bürgertum’s instinctual sympathies towards Jews during their deportation from Germany, despite their indifference to the forced emigration of Germans during the Second World War. He said:

“This sniveling in which some of the bourgeois are indulging nowadays, on the pretext that the Jews have to clear out of Germany, is just typical of these holier-than-thou’s.”22

In both National Socialist and fascist rhetoric, the bourgeoisie would be associated with Jews in the sense of being — as Mussolini claimed — “self-interested and parasitic”.23 Thusly, the bourgeois spirit became conflated with the Jewish spirit as bound to an old, decadent and corrupting order.

It was from this corrupted order the National Socialists hoped to forge the new German Mensch (man) based on the principle of German socialism. To this end, argued Walther Schmitt in a 1933 article in National Socialism Monthly, the ideology of the Bürger — snobbery, conceit and class hatred — had to be overcome.24 Even if the last vestiges of the old conservative order would seek to attach themselves to the National Socialist cause, new blood would eventually supplant them:

“Even today this new German generation finds itself in a struggle for survival since it must also fight against those members of the bourgeoisie that have chosen the NSDAP as their political mouthpiece. In the revolutionary conflict between generations, it is inevitable that people of the old order seek to make the new age serve their own purposes to safeguard their own position. Temporarily, they may even attain leadership positions, but the dynamic strength of the movement’s young warriors will soon sweep them away.”25

Core to the National Socialist vision for Germany was the dismantling of the stultifying hierarchies of the bourgeois order which drove deep exclusionary fissures into the German body politic. The interior minister Wilhelm Frick argued strongly for incorporating German workers into the state with equal rights in order to dismantle class differences.26 In transcending the Bürger, the new German man — free of status-consciousness and class hatred — would ensure the continuation of the National Socialist revolution. The revolution would only truly succeed when every German “felt responsible for fulfilling its ideals and embodied the new worldview as a New Man both for himself personally and for his fellow men.”27 The old order of bourgeois self-interest would be fought by imposing “severe penalties on fraud, usury, enrichment at the expense of others, and mercilessly rooting out everything that endangers the probity of public life.”28 Under the aegis of the new man, people will be judged according to their human value rather than their birth, material possessions, rank or title as “the classification of humanity according to professional status, taxes paid, and class rankings is unworthy of a genuinely civilized people.”29 In contradistinction to bourgeois conservatism, the new German man would sacrifice himself for the greater good rather than for personal advantage.

It was the goal of National Socialism then to collapse the conservative class barriers in Germany which only people of the necessary birth, education and property had the means to overcome. The conceited world of the Bürgertum had placed too much emphasis on “specialised expertise and outward appearances” and in Hitler’s German workers’ state it is “of no consequence whether someone is a street cleaner or a chief executive.”30

When in power, Hitler’s National Socialist regime rigorously pursued anti-bourgeois policies of social levelling via the legal system. Judges were instructed to punish white-collar crime more severely than petty working-class crime, with newspapers such as Das Schwarze Korps scrutinising judges’ verdicts. The concept of private property was also re-conceptualised in order to weaken the propertied conservative classes. Private property was no longer a means to enrich oneself on the market but a social commodity tied to the obligation of its owner towards the community.31 Legal ownership was still guaranteed as long as the owner fulfilled those obligations.

The Strength Through Joy (Kraft durch Freude) programme — which had tens of millions of participants — also aimed to raze class barriers by exposing normal Germans to high culture including opera and theatre performances. Cultural events once the exclusive domain of the Bürgertum were now open to everyone at affordable costs. Cabin classes on Germany’s cruise ships were also abolished and replaced with single-class passenger berths.32

Mainstream historians are now forced to admit that in Hitler’s Germany “[e]quality of status, if not of wealth, property, and income, was thus consistently promulgated by the policies of the regime…”.33 Jewish historian David Schoenbaum writes of Hitler’s Germany:

“Interpreted social reality reflected a society united like no other in recent German history, a society of opportunities for young and old, classes and masses, a society that was New Deal and good old days at the same time.”34

Others have shown that Hitler’s “sustained and conscious effort” to make Germany more egalitarian had real-world effects. After 1933, men in their twenties enjoyed higher rates of upward mobility than older generations and high-ranking members of the NSDAP bureaucracy were on average ten years younger with lower educational qualifications and social origins compared to officials in the Weimar Republic.35

The same self-interested conservative ideology that plagued Germany prior to 1933 is very much alive in the contemporary West today. This right-wing bourgeois creed is in many respects a greater barrier to a national-socialist style resurgence in Europe and America than the left which is broadly sympathetic to egalitarian social policies and class levelling. When it comes to race, there is now no greater opponent to pro-White policies than the conservative establishment.

Hitler’s core critique of bourgeois conservatism still stands: it is anti-revolutionary. For those seeking to overturn Judeo-America, the ideology of the right is an enemy to be overcome.

If you appreciate my work you can support it here or with Bitcoin at this address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

Having strangely avoided prosecution for his role in inciting the January 6th riots, Fuentes is enjoying his ninth life as chief fluffer of the Judeo-American project for which every foreign intervention — including kidnapping the democratically elected leaders of other nations — is somehow transmuted into a domestic victory for Team US Empire.

Fuentes’ political ideology is as nebulous and protean as one would expect, a hodgepodge of some-of-my-best-friends-are-Jewish anti-semitic multi-racial White Christian nationalism inspired interchangeably by both Hitler and Stalin. Two tenets of Fuentism can be more clearly delineated: Catholicism and inceldom.

For Fuentes, the only path to redemption for the West is via Christ — a strange ideological bedfellow to his other core credo of anti-women incelism. The incel culture — of which Fuentes is chief evangelist — is becoming so prevalent that hundreds of research papers have been published examining its damaging psychological impact.

Incelism is “marked by the language of violence and extremism, appearance-based hierarchies, and fueled by distorted perceptions of women and their sexuality.”1 Although inceldom (involuntary celibacy) is commonly defined as “a loose collection of individuals who are experiencing sexlessness despite their desire to be active”2 the sexual withdrawal of the modern incel is increasingly coded as an active choice.

Despite there being no academic consensus on a definitive incel personality profile, a number of key traits emerge.3 Incels tend to be high in neuroticism with elevated levels of insecurity, self-doubt, anxiety and emotional instability. Low levels of extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness are common, reflecting difficulties in social interactions, low empathy and poor relationship stability. Core traits in incel communities include loneliness, romantic rejection, social isolation and negative body image, with members viewing themselves as forced into celibacy against their will due to external and biological factors rather than personal agency. Incels also tend to be overrepresented in Autism Spectrum Disorder diagnoses.

Core to incel ideology is the belief that society is organised in a looks-based hierarchy that dictates social and sexual relations.4 The most highly attractive men and women are at the top of this hierarchy, with the incels ranking themselves at the bottom. Incels will often cite academic research to support this conceptualisation, including studies on the favourability of male facial symmetry and wealth to women. Many proposed solutions to this gynocracy include “some form of coercion, rape, or a complete return to enforced monogamy under strict patriarchal rule.”5

Research on incels’ interactions with the dating market suggests that such anti-women sentiments are largely a self-fulfilling prophecy. One study analysed more than 321 million tweets between 2012 and 2018 and found that there was a higher volume of incel-related posts in spaces with higher male-to-female sex ratios (i.e. spaces with greater mating competition).6 Despite being more liberal in their parameters on dating apps, incels report matching with only 4.5% of women compared with one-third for non-incel men.7 When successfully matched, incels reported not receiving a response to messages 75% of the time, double the rate of non-incels. In terms of positive dating app outcomes, incels reported prevalence rates in respect to relationship formation and sexual encounters as 0% and 13% respectively compared with non-incel rates of 29% and 58%.

Compounding these relationship problems — or possibly their primary cause — is that incels report being more sensitive to rejection than their male counterparts.(7) They also report experiencing greater fear of being single, and that their relationship status is a core driver of their self-esteem. Other studies have found self-esteem to be central to the matrix of psychological issues facing incels, exerting a strong negative influence on well-being and the ability to effectively address challenges and solve problems.8

It is reported that the prevalence rates for depression and anxiety among incels are 95% and 93% respectively compared with national US figures of 28% and 36%.9 Social isolation is also a key characteristic of incel culture.10

The incel lifestyle has disastrous effects on relationship formation. Incels have been found to have a lower sense of self-perceived mate-value and greater external locus of control in respect to their singlehood.11 Incels tend to overestimate the importance women place on physical attractiveness, and underestimate the importance of emotional traits such as kindness and humour. The unwanted celibacy which follows from failure in the dating market is associated with elevated misogynistic attitudes,12 thereby causing a vicious cycle which can result in aggression, violence and crime.13 The loneliness felt by incels who fail to form relationships is amplified in online communities, becoming part of a shared identity of suffering.14

Incelism is clearly anathema to family formation and — by extension — to Christianity which relies heavily on propagation via marriage.

The picture for American Christianity is already looking bleak. The percentage of those who identify as Christian in the US has fallen to 62% — down from 78% two decades ago — while those who claim no religious affiliation have risen from 6% to 30%. In the 1960s, roughly 90% of Americans claimed to be Christians.

The propagation of religion has been found to be strongly reliant on intergenerational socialisation. Studies attest to strong parental predictive influence on adult religiosity, religious service attendance and strength of current religious affiliation.15 It is commonly found that the religious practice of a person’s mother is a markedly powerful predictor of the religious practices of children.

Other evidence shows that both religious salience (the importance of religion in one’s life) and religious behaviour increase following the formation of nuclear families.16 Married couples are more likely to attend religious services and participate in religious organisations, unlike simply cohabiting couples. Parenthood is associated with substantial and largely long-lasting increases in religiosity. This tracks with data in the US which shows that 74% of married adults report sharing the same religion as their partner (religious homogamy). Some 48% of parents with children under the age of 18 report that their children attend religious services at least monthly and 22% say they are raising their children in very religious households.

Additionally, women in the US are more likely to identify as Christian (66%) than men (59%). Christian women generally report higher levels of religious service attendance and daily prayer than Christian men across many countries. They also constitute a numerical and institutional backbone of many US churches.

Women in religiously homogamous marriages also tend to have significantly more children than those in heterogamous marriages.17 The positive association between religious homogamy and reproduction becomes stronger with higher levels of women’s education. Religious homogamy is also linked to a lower likelihood of remaining childless.

It follows that men who opt out of relationships — and by extension marriage — break the central link in the chain of religious transmission. Men not marrying contributes to weaker family structures that undermine the intergenerational transmission of Christianity.

Fuentes’ attitude towards women is in stark contrast to that of National Socialism which conceptualised the relationship between the sexes as an interdependent organism serving the interests of the nation. While the role of men is of greater import, the role of women is to provide the foundation on which the great national edifice can be built. Under the Third Reich, antagonism and competition between the sexes was replaced with mutual respect for the sacrifices both men and women make on behalf of a greater cause.

In a speech to the National Socialist Women’s League on September 8, 1934, Hitler said:

“Every child that a woman brings into the world is a battle, a battle waged for the existence of her people. And both [man and woman] must therefore mutually value and respect each other when they see that each performs the task that Nature and Providence have ordained. And this mutual respect will necessarily result from this separation of the functions of each.”

Fuentes’ toxic ideological cocktail is utterly incoherent when set against the policies of a normal state run in the interests of its own folk. Set against the policies of Judeo-America, it is utterly fitting.

If you appreciate my work you can support it here or with Bitcoin at this address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

Judeo-America is facing a date with demographic destiny, not only as its White population is reduced to minority status, but as the last true believers in Project America go gentle into that good night. The Boomers — the last custodians of the post-war American liberal faith — are being replaced by new generations of militant atheists.

Some might cite declining levels of Christianity in the US and elsewhere as pivotal to the fate of the Judeo-American Empire. According to the 2023–24 Religious Landscape Study, 62% of US adults now identify as Christian, down from 78% in 2007.

It is not, however, Christian belief per se that is the central pillar of Judeo-America, but belief in the civil religion of liberalism, the empire’s ideological operating system. The Boomers are the last generation to be ideologically, emotionally and economically bought into this ideology with newer generations having increasingly little material or mythic stake in it. We are soon to discover what happens to a politico-religious system when its most devout adherents disappear.

America’s 34th president Dwight D. Eisenhower is alleged to have said: “Our government makes no sense unless it is founded in a deeply felt religious faith — and I don’t care what it is…”. Similarly, John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address on January 20th, 1961, concluded:

“With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”

If one of the founding principles of America is separation of church and state, then in what cause is this deus ex machina invoked? Kennedy intoned that the trumpets were summoning Americans “not as a call to battle…but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle…against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.”

Despite the disparate religious makeup of the US, the shared godly dimension to its foreign policy has imbued its empire building with a teleology of transcendence. Americans are called to follow in the footsteps of the founding fathers and enact God’s will on earth. In a majority Protestant nation where one’s relationship to God is a private affair, the American deity stands superordinate to Christianity — one God to rule them all, the God of Judeo-American liberalism. Every single American president — from Washington to Obama — has made reference to God but never to Christ.

The God of Judeo-America is interventionist, concerned with guiding the empire to victory over evil in the name of good. His active concern with the fate of his people is grounded in the equivalence of America with Israel: “American Israel” [1].

The seeds of this association were planted in the virgin soil of the new republic. Thomas Jefferson in his second inaugural address on March 4th, 1805, proclaimed:

“I shall need too the favour of that being in whose hands we are: who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land; and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries & comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with his providence, & our riper years with his wisdom & power…”.

Similarly, Abiel Abbot, the pastor of the First Church in Haverhill, Massachusetts, proclaimed in his 1799 Thanksgiving sermon:

“It has been often remarked that the people of the United States come nearer to a parallel with Ancient Israel, than any other nation upon the globe. Hence our American Israel is a term frequently used…” (in Kohn [2], p. 665)

Some of America’s founders were as explicit in their support for a Jewish homeland for Jews as they were for an American homeland for Americans. In 1819, America’s second president John Adams, in a letter to Mordecai Manuel Noah, wrote: “I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation.” His rationale was that a Jewish homeland would eventuate the Jews’ conversion to Christianity as “your Jehovah is our Jehovah & your God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is our God.”

In his 1850 novel White-Jacket, the great American novelist Herman Melville wrote:

“We Americans are the peculiar, chosen people — the Israel of our time; we bear the ark of the liberties of the world…Long enough have we been skeptics with regard to ourselves, and doubted whether, indeed, the political Messiah had come. But he has come in us, if we would but give utterance to his promptings.”

Thus, “Europe is Egypt; America, the promised land. God has led his people to establish a new sort of social order that shall be a light unto all nations” (Bellah [1], p. 8). The plight of America was intrinsically bound to the fate of the Jews in realising their scriptural claims to Palestine. The fulfilment of the Zionist dream, the restoration of the Jews, “would further enlightenment and progress — and this, clearly, would be good for the United States as well as for the Jews” (Mead [3], p. 31).

Through the Reformation and the development of Calvinist theology, Americans became the modern incarnation of the ancient Hebrews, America itself the new Canaan flowing with milk and honey. The American Revolution was the final act of the Exodus, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution the divine scriptures, and George Washington the new Moses leading his people out of tyranny [1]. The early symbolism of the American civil religion was “Hebraic without being in any specific sense Jewish” (Bellah [1], p. 10). Following the American Civil War, Lincoln would be cast as Jesus — a chosen martyr who died for the sins of slavery and for the blood of the fallen.

With its fields of headstones, Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and eternal flame, Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia became America’s hallowed monument of the nation’s civil religion, with the Memorial Day observance serving to integrate the community into the “national cult” [1].

In the push for civil rights for American Blacks in the 1960s, President Lyndon B. Johnson would once again invoke the US’s religious mandate, ensuring that America would carry out God’s will through racial equality.

It was in this milieu that the Boomer generation were born and raised, their ideological indoctrination supplemented with the mythology of The Second World War and the ‘Holocaust’. America’s divine mandate was vindicated by the victory of “freedom” over the despotism of Nazism and Communism. The Boomers were also material beneficiaries of the post-war settlement: broad middle-class prosperity, strong unions, expanding home ownership, and a stable world order over which America stood uncontested.

Support for Israel in its early decades post-1948 was embedded within the dogma of the Judeo-American religion. The newly established state was a plucky underdog fulfilling its divine mandate against the Communist-aligned Muslim nations: David versus Goliath. A new adjunct to the catechism of America’s civil religion was post-‘Holocaust’ moral guilt, an original sin forged in the crematory fires of Auschwitz. Support for Israel was both a geopolitical stratagem and a moral obligation.

The Six-Day War in 1967 realigned support for Israel among Americans. Since the Jews’ decisive victory, liberal support for Israel has waned and conservative support has grown [3]. The war intensified support for Israel among evangelical Christians, and inspired evangelical revivalist and prophetic Zionist movements. It was the Six-Day War that truly catalysed the politico-religious identity of the Zio-Boomer.

Millennials and Gen Z inherit a radically different economic and geopolitical environment: declining real wages, mountainous student debt, exclusion from home ownership, precarious labour markets, and systemic anti-White discrimination. While Boomers were given both material and moral justification for membership of Judeo-America’s civil religion, new generations are given every reason for apostasy. The American Empire has grown a god-shaped hole.

The Boomers came of age in the wake of The Second World War in which a centralised mass media was able to shape a post facto moral legitimacy for the Allies’ slaughter. Newer generations have experienced Judeo-America’s subsequent warfare in real time, ingesting raw the horrors of 9/11 (and the dancing Israelis), Iraq and Abu Ghraib. A decentralised media complex meant the empire could no longer assert narrative control.

If America’s religious raison d’être is bound inexorably to Israel’s then the Gaza genocide was its teleological fulfilment. At America’s founding, Biblical prophecy existed only in the abstract; since the founding of Israel, the concrete manifestation of Jewish claims to Palestine has revealed itself not in a glorious rebuilding of the temple but in a blood-thirsty ethnic cleansing and genocide.

If this wasn’t enough, the Epstein scandal has driven in the final nail. The curtains of Judeo-America’s Holy of Holies have parted to reveal a cabal of genocidal Jewish billionaire paedophiles.

The last true believers in the God of Judeo-America — the Zio-Boomers — are slowly on their way out. Just as the Roman Empire came to rely on paid mercenaries to fill out its army, Judeo-America will increasingly turn to paid shills to proselytise its necrotic ideology. As young Whites become more revolutionary, ersatz support for the civil religion will wear the clothes of radical politics. National Socialism and Hitler will become the Trojan Horse for continued racial replacement and genocidal Zionism. We will also see Jews becoming more prominent as puppet masters of the kosher movements on both the right and left.

There are some — like the German sociologist Werner Sombart — who argue that America was Jewish in spirit from its very inception. The nature of America’s civil religion — a reimagining of Hebraic scripture coupled with a deracinated pseudo-Christian liberalism — tends to support this view. Whether or not Jewish hands directly shaped America’s faith, there is no question of Jews’ current supremacy over the fate of its empire.

Jews have fulfilled their “divine mandate” by committing an act of genocide in front of a disbelieving world. The Judeo-American religion — coupled as it is with Judaic claims to ancient lands and the total destruction of the Jews’ racial enemies — contains the seeds of its own destruction.

The God of Judeo-America is dead, and Jews have killed him.

If you appreciate my work you can support it here or with Bitcoin at this address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

[1] Bellah, R.N. (1967). Civil religion in America. Daedalus, 96(1), 1-21.

[2] Kohn, H. (1961). The idea of nationalism: a study in its origins and background. New York: Macmillan.

[3] Mead, W.R. (2008). The new Israel and the old: why Gentile Americans back the Jewish state. Foreign Affairs, 87(4), 28-46.

The rightoid is the canary in the coal mine of the West’s traditional right-wing, signalling as he does the death throes of conservatism as a serious political, philosophical and cultural force. This invites both celebration and lamentation as a new Plebeian populism takes power in White countries — a last stand against an inevitable anti-Jewish, anti-capitalist and anti-American revolution.

As a counter-measure, the Judeo-American empire is attempting to turn the mass of right-leaning Whites into a human wave of retardation to be thrown against a genuine resistance seeking to transcend the left/right kosher dialectic to forge a new political movement in service of a new political future — a future in which Europeans have at least a fighting chance of survival.

A rightoid is defined as someone “who leans right on the political spectrum and is exceptionally stupid, dishonest, or both.” Only an analysis of the psychology of the rightoid within the current socio-political complex of Judeo-American capitalism can help us truly understand the phenomenon.

The defining characteristic of the rightoid is that he operates entirely within the current political, social and economic paradigm — an agent of counter-revolution and counter-transcendence. The rightoid is wholly ensconced on the plantation of kosher party politics: right vs. left/Republican vs. Democrat. All political machinations are viewed through the prism of the contemporary political zeitgeist and the terminus of every political issue is ultimately to vote Republican/populist right and support Israel. Such is the telos of the rightoid no matter how much he protests otherwise. The rightoid is the Agent Smith of the Matrix, except less sentient.

This level of conformity to a system so clearly aligned against his racial and economic interests requires a significant lack of cognitive dissonance. Hence, the rightoid can shape-shift effortlessly between oppressed dissident and empowered Caesar without any disequilibrium. The political system is rigged against us except when Donald Trump wins at which point we can bask in our entirely unrigged victory. We’re oppressed freedom fighters under the boot heel of the globalists except when Donald Trump pulls out a chair for Benjamin Netanyahu demonstrating our dominance in the 5D geopolitical chess game. The rightoid’s psychological tenor bears the emotional volatility of a hormonal woman.

The political temperament of the rightoid is reactionary — image and emotion predominate over system and theory. Political “victories” quench his thirst for abstract feelings of victory rather than concrete gain. The truth of mass deportations of millions of illegal immigrants is secondary to the feeling associated with such a thing invoked by a kaleidoscope of images and memes coalescing in the mind’s eye as lived reality. To feel as though one is winning is enough to satiate the hunger for victory — the nothing-burger pill invoking a banquet.

Politically, the rightoid engages in hyper-real aesthetics rather than kinetic praxis — his political vision lit by Plato’s cave fire whose shadows materialise as social media feeds and television news shows. He sees, and is satisfied by, only the surface reflection of political events, not the complex currents beneath. To dive too deeply might mean one is carried away by the undertow of political realism. Why plumb the depths when one can float supine on the surface?

Hence, when Republican operative Charlie Kirk is assassinated, a man who openly opposed pro-White politics while simultaneously advocating for Jewish racial supremacy is venerated as a bastion of White Christian America. The image of Kirk — the projection of his mediated representation — is more real than the physical instantiation, more real than real.

The beatification of Kirk reveals the superficiality of rightoid epistemology. Lacking the patience for critical analysis, his understanding of the world is a collage of video fragments and headlines — an out-of-context clip sufficing to justify his emotionally charged instincts despite masses of contradictory evidence.

The rightoid is ontologically embedded within the consumer/entertainment superstructure of hyper capitalism. Thus, political victories manifest within taxonomies of economy as in the “go woke, go broke” mantra accompanying controversies around corporate progressivism. The answer to Bud Light featuring a tranny in its advertising is not systemic change but a product boycott. The rightoid places the enjoyment of consuming the content of political victory above real-world change. The idea that a corporation is in some sense suffering is sufficient, a kind of performative spectatorship as a substitute for political engagement.

Winning is not institutional and legislative, but rhetorical and aesthetic — an emotional moment of triumph bereft of any ideological or tactical symmetry. The rightoid will celebrate when illegal immigrants are bused to New York, displaying a complete disregard for the city’s welfare, and then complain bitterly over the election of a “Muslim Communist” as Mayor of New York who, on his first day, will impose Sharia law and massive tax hikes.

The rightoid trades in the currency of emotion, spending lavishly for short-term dopamine hits as his balance of ideological consistency is drained away to nothing. He will unironically claim membership of a multi-racial MAGA movement, cheering on non-White Republican candidates, while simultaneously branding support for Palestine as “Brown-coded”. An acute deficit in metacognitive capacity and reflective awareness cushions the rightoid from any intellectual discordance.

A core component of rightoid psychology is conspiracy theorising. He is ontologically skeptical, but this skepticism is delimited to the content of the political system — faked videos, doctored images — rather than the political system itself. The rightoid’s is a performative skepticism, an enjoyment of the sensation of conspiracy and the dissident status this affords as a substitute for the intellectual effort required to diagnose real power. This explains the amorphous nature of actors within his conspiracy construct — “the globalists”, “the Islamo-fascists”, “the satanic paedophiles”. Conspiracy theorising is another form of content to be enjoyed, a warm bath of mediated pseudo-dissidence from which the rightoid is reluctant to rise.

The test of any theory is its predictive power. The theory of Jewish power over the West is testable and evidence-based, allowing its adherents to explain why the American empire acts as it does. Rightoid conspiracy theories are marked by their complete lack of explanatory power — false trails leading nowhere, a closed circuit of paranoid suspicion. In a world of powerlessness and dispossession, conspiracy theorising is a political palliative, a narrative methadone that numbs the pain instead of offering a painful cure.

Rightoid thinking is personality driven. His imagination is captured by the political shell game of identity, repeating mantra-like pre-packed phrases such as “Joe Biden’s America” or “Sadiq Khan’s London”. It matters little to the rightoid that democratic leaders are figureheads with little power to change the direction of the state or reconfigure the political superstructure. That the mayor of London has no power over immigration matters little — he is the democracy piñata that the rightoid is invited to whack away at hopelessly while the real power remains untouched.

Having little capacity for independent thought, the rightoid is highly susceptible to the kosher narratives of dissent he is invited to engage in. This explains the success in Europe of the counter-jihad movement, a dialectical construct designed to corral right-wingers into Zionism. The staff sergeant of this Jewish fraud is Tommy Robinson, the Platonic form of rightoidism.

It seemingly never occurs to the rightoid that in his single-minded campaign against Muslims he finds himself entirely aligned with, and in the service of, Jewish interests rather than his own. Pointing out that it is race rather than religion that is the key variable, and that Blacks are far more prone to criminality than Muslims, the rightoid will often react angrily as if you have spoiled the ending of a TV drama he was emotionally engaged in. This is the politics of performative belonging as a proxy for critical participation.

While he might agree that all foreigners should be removed from White countries, suggesting that Jews be among them will cause a cognitive short-circuit. The rightoid feels the heat of the flames as he is drawn towards the fire of genuine dissidence. He does not wish to give up his comfy seat at the shadow wall.

Another rightoid trait is an obsession with aesthetics. For him, the aesthetic is not a means to an end of political representation — as in the high fashion of National Socialism — but an end in itself. The rightoid posits an entirely chimeric correlation between physical appearance and power, arrogating to himself the right to critique any incongruity arising when a powerful figure does not meet his culturally mediated standard of appearance. That his political hero Donald Trump is an overweight pensioner with an orange-tan face matters little. From his position of powerlessness, the rightoid critique of aesthetics is akin to a person laughing at the choice of boots being worn by a mob kicking him to death.

Ultimately, the rightoid functions as a pressure-release valve for systemic discontent among Whites as they are gradually (and then suddenly) turned into a minority in their own countries. The rightoid is an anti-establishment-coded crusader against the system but whose political instantiation is delineated entirely by the very powers he imagines he opposes. He is the skunk spray ejected by Judeo-America in the midst of an existential crisis of legitimacy, a political immune response to a growing and palpable discontent with the political status quo.

For the rightoid, engaging in political reality comes with a cost he is ultimately unwilling to pay. Instead, he bites on the bait dangled in front of him, choosing instead an ersatz politics of memes and bloviation which serves only to legitimise the very system destroying him. The rightoid’s psychological universe is a tempting one: politics as content, as slop feed. It is to perform politics as the central character in a role-play video game as your race, nation and culture are destroyed.

Rightoid politics is performance art in a burning theatre.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

America’s victory over the USSR in the Cold War was arguably its greatest geo-strategic triumph despite the two superpowers never entering into direct kinetic conflict. In that battle, the image proved more powerful than the bomb.

Key to America’s soft power then and now is its ability to project and impose representations of itself onto the world’s consciousness. In its conflict with the Soviet Union, the US achieved this via television shows like Dallas which rendered the US as a sky-scraper adorned modern and prosperous nation. The USSR’s communist ideation wilted in the shadow of American capitalist luxury.

Soft power is the “ability to attract others by the legitimacy of…policies and the values that underlie them” (Nye [1], p. 16). Among the major vectors of soft power are finance (monetary aid), culture (film, music) and education (scholarships, universities). The weakening of soft power reduces the ability of superpowers to achieve their goals without “coercion or payment” [1].

Soft power for America is not simply a matter of popularity. It is:

“[A] means of obtaining outcomes the United States wants. When Washington discounts the importance of its attractiveness abroad, it pays a steep price. When the United States becomes so unpopular that being pro-American is a kiss of death in other countries’ domestic politics, foreign political leaders are unlikely to make helpful concessions…” (Nye [1], p. 17).

Warnings over anti-Americanism and the diminution of US soft power have been sounded for decades [1]. In the early 2000s, fears over Islamic fundamentalism led to uncomfortable self-criticism over the US-led Western order. In the eyes of autocratic Middle Eastern regimes liberal democracy “is full of corruption, sex, and violence—an impression reinforced by American movies and television and often exacerbated by the extreme statements of some especially virulent Christian preachers” (Nye [1], p. 17).

Some twenty years on, America has done nothing to repudiate such critiques — its championing of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza a fitting terminus to the logic of Zionist-controlled neo-liberalism.

In rankings of global soft power, the US remains dominant, although significant cracks are beginning to show. Brand Finance’s Global Soft Power Index ranks the US in first place among the 193 members of the United Nations, with the country earning top scores in terms of familiarity and influence. However, America’s brand is being undermined by domestic problems and involvement in foreign conflicts as evidenced by declining scores in international relations, domestic safety and security, and the US’s popularity as a tourist destination. As the US falters, China continues its rise in the rankings from 5th to 3rd thanks to perceptions of its business, trade, science and education.

The US losing ground to China as the most influential geopolitical power is a trend replicating itself across the globe. In Africa, the US was the only world power not to see an improvement in its image in recent years. China’s approval rating increased from 52% in 2022 to 58% in 2023, two points ahead of the US at 56%. Russia’s approval rating in Africa has rebounded to 42% since its invasion of Ukraine. China now has a larger diplomatic footprint than the US based on the number of global diplomatic positions.

Other rankings paint a bleaker picture for the US. Morning Consult Soft Power Rankings — calculating global average net favourability of nations — show America’s reputation at an all-time low since 2020. The country’s favourability has declined in all global regions, especially in the Americas. The US’s standing is predicted to fall further based on Trump’s tariffs, with American brands suffering abroad due to the country’s worsening reputation.

America’s most important soft power weapon is culture and here too the US’s strength is diminishing. A UNESCO report found that between 2004 and 2013, trade in films fell by 88% even as streaming services grew. This drop signals both a move away from U.S. film exports in favour of local content and the shift toward digital platforms not fully captured by traditional box‐office figures.

The US is no longer the lead exporter of cultural goods, being supplanted by China whose total value of cultural exports topped $60 billion — more than double the US’s $28 billion total.

In Japan, figures show that total box-office receipts in 2024 slumped by 6.5% to ¥207 billion driven by a large drop in takings from US features. While box-office revenue for Japanese films rose 5.1%, revenue for foreign films fell 30% to ¥51 billion. The Disney film Inside Out 2 was the best-performing US film but its revenue was dwarfed by Japanese productions.

In China, box-office revenues have been on the rise with the majority of takings coming from homemade films. Before the Covid pandemic in 2019, domestic films made up 64% of a total box-office take of RMB64 billion, with Hollywood productions totalling 36%. Of the top ten films of that year, eight were Chinese productions. Avengers: Endgame is the only US production to feature in the top ten highest grossing films of all time in China.

Increasing anti-US sentiment abroad is mirrored on the home front. The percentage of Americans who think the country should be playing a major role in international affairs has been falling over recent decades. In 2025, the number of Americans who think the US should be playing both a leading or major role is 66%, down from 80% in the early 2000s. The percentage of Americans favouring a minor role has increased by 9% to 19%. Only 26% of Americans polled considered the US to have the world’s leading economy, down from about 40% in 2000.

Almost 60% of Americans said they were dissatisfied with the US’s position in the world, a constant since the Vietnam War. Only 44% of those polled believed leaders of other countries respect the current US President Donald Trump. Some 54% believed the US as a whole was viewed unfavourably.

Increasing domestic political polarisation is further eroding America’s ability to project soft power abroad [2]. Polarisation is defined as “a state in which the opinions, feelings, behaviours, or interests of a group or society become more bimodal and the two modes move further apart” (Borg [2], p. 24).

Research suggests that ideological differences among the US populace have accelerated in respect to both foreign and domestic issues such as immigration, arms control and climate change. In Congress, Republicans and Democrats now have sharply opposing visions of America’s foreign affairs [3]. By 2020, polarisation over foreign policy had become as severe as ideological polarisation more generally [3]. Foreign policy is “largely domestic politics by other means” [3].

It is argued that ideological unity is vital to maintaining America’s ability to enact its “liberal international grand strategy” which has held since the end of the Second World War [4]. Domestic polarisation threatens the credibility of the American empire, with foreign governments asking why they should enter into agreements with the US only for them to be torn up after a new President moves into the White House [4].

A further problem is that the internet has eroded America’s ability to control its narrative image. The dominance of television in earlier decades meant there were no counterveiling visual forces to challenge the Dallas representational superstructure which supported US cultural power. Now, anyone around the world can watch viral videos of zombified opioid addicts littering American streets or gangs of Black rioters burning down city blocks. The whole world is now rubbernecking America’s domestic car crash.

If soft power is predicated on the legitimacy of a nation’s policies, then Israel’s genocidal war on Palestinians in Gaza threatens not only to destroy America’s international credibility but drag its entire empire below the waterline. Jewish capture of the US’s political, financial and media apparatus means the country will remain shackled to the Zionist project and culpable for its atrocities in the eyes of a disbelieving world. America’s mantras of freedom, democracy and the rules-based international order are ringing increasing hollow, drowned out by the harrowing peal of dead and starving Palestinian children.

During America’s “war on terror” and the invasion of Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of people, US policy experts opined on the importance of the America’s democratic branding. It was argued at the time that:

“The charge that U.S. policies are indifferent to the destruction of Muslim lives, for example, can be countered by pointing to U.S. interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo that saved Muslim lives, and to assistance to Muslim countries for fostering development and combating AIDS” (Nye [1], p. 19).

It was argued that democratic change must be embedded in “a wider positive agenda for the [Middle East] region, alongside rebuilding Iraq, achieving the president's two-state vision for Israelis and Palestinians, and modernizing Arab economies” (Nye [1], p. 19). On the charge that the US is indifferent to the destruction of Muslim lives — or anyone’s lives — global opinion increasingly finds them guilty.

Public support for Israel is cratering across the world. In Europe, a 2025 YouGov poll found net favourability ratings of Israel had dropped into deep negatives — Germany (–44), France (–48), Denmark (–54), Italy (–52), Spain (–55), and the UK (–46) — reflecting widespread disapproval of Jewish actions in Gaza. In each of these countries, only 6-16% believed Israel’s military response in Gaza has been proportionate and a majority now sympathises more with Palestinians than Israelis.

Across the Arab world, no more than 13% of respondents in any single Arab country surveyed supports normalisation with Israel. A 2024 survey found that 84% of Arabs reported boycotting companies that support Israel, 62% donated to Gazans, 40% shared pro-Palestinian messages online, and 22% attended pro-Palestinian solidarity actions. Positive sentiment toward normalisation with Israel across Muslim countries has declined by anywhere from 1 to 18 percentage points since 2022.

According to some polls, support for Israel in the US has plummeted following October 7th from 50% to 25%. Only 18% of Americans support increasing military aid to Israel. A 2025 Pew survey found that 53% of US adults now hold an unfavourable opinion of Israel, up from 42% in 2022.

Jewish elites are openly expressing their angst over the parlous state of the US empire’s global status and, by extension, that of their Judeo-liberal project. Daniel Drezner, a Jewish professor of international politics, argues that the current crisis of viability that the US-led global empire is undergoing is worse than that experienced during the Cold War, Bretton Woods or the oil shocks of the 1970s. This time “really is different” and it is not all down to Trump:

“Just when many of the sources of American power are ebbing, many of the guardrails that have kept U.S. foreign policy on track have been worn down. It is tempting to pin this degradation on Trump and his retrograde foreign policy views, but the erosion predated him by a good long while… Foreign policy discourse was the last preserve of bipartisanship, but political polarization has irradiated that marketplace of ideas. Although future presidents will try to restore the classical version of U.S. foreign policy, in all likelihood, it cannot be revived” (Drezner [5], 10).

Having spent decades undermining the foundations of White, Christian America, Jews like Drezner now lament that “American foundations undergirding the liberal international order are in grave danger, and it is no longer possible to take the pillars of that order for granted” (Drezner [5], p. 10). America is a Jenga tower with some of its supporting blocks removed, listing dangerously but still standing. While Drezner advocates for keeping the Judeo-liberal order upright, “it is also time to start thinking about what comes next” (Drezner [5], p. 10-11).

The fracturing of ideological consensus in the US has undermined any possibility of a grand strategy in foreign affairs which can survive the disruption of domestic election cycles. In the past, American global hegemony was supported by a political equilibrium in which the US political system was capable of course correction; an overreach by military hawks was followed by the retrenchment and realignment of doves, with both sides sharing a common commitment to the American project. Today “there is no more equilibrium, and the structural pillars of American power are starting to buckle” (Drezner [5], p. 13).

The market place for ideas has crumbled and growing public distrust in experts has allowed harebrained foreign policy schemes to poison US global diplomacy [5]. This, coupled with Trump’s social media outbursts and recalcitrant attacks on the US’s global governance structures like the EU and NATO, has turned “the foreign policy equivalent of a Ferrari” into a rusty tin can on wheels [5].

Trump has eviscerated the idea that US presidents should govern from the centre and has set America’s political pendulum swinging so wildly that it is in danger of coming off its axis [5]. Instead of leaders emerging from the political centre, increasing political polarisation will draw them from the fringes and “whipsaw U.S. foreign policy between “America first” and a new Second International” (Drezner [5], p. 16).

The CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, Halie Soifer, is equally concerned. She laments Donald Trump’s neutering of the US Agency for International Development (USAID), writing:

“When it comes to Jewish values, one cannot pursue the goal of tikkun olam — healing the world — without soft power, which for decades has been operationalized by the development and humanitarian efforts of [USAID] and diplomatic efforts of the Department of State. This may sound theoretical, but I can attest that the work of State and USAID has been essential for defending America’s national security, standing with our allies, including Israel, preventing costly and lengthy wars, and saving tens of millions of lives.”

According to Soifer, these core Jewish values include global women’s issues, refugees and Afghan resettlement.

If anti-Americanism had been a steadily growing stream before October 7th it is now a raging torrent. Global sentiment is moving beyond a general ennui with American culture and towards a visceral disgust at the images of Gaza invading the representational landscape.

The America of the Cold War is no more. The intervening decades have seen the ascension of Jews to full control over the empire, including its means of cultural production. But ultimately, it will not be Jewish Hollywood that destroys America’s soft power but Jewish Zionism.

When the dominant global image is that of an emaciated Palestinian baby slowly starving to death, the hyper-capitalist superpower is losing the soft-power war.

Support my work

[1] Nye, J.S. (2004). The decline of America’s soft power: why Washington should worry. Foreign Affairs, 83(3), 16-20.

[2] Borg, S. (2024). “A battle for the soul of this nation”: how domestic polarization affects US foreign policy in post-Trump America. International Journal, 79(1), 22-39.

[3] Jeong, G-H., & Quirk, P.J. (2019). Division at the water’s edge: The polarization of foreign policy. American Politics Research, 47(1), 58-87.

[4] Friedrichs, G.M. (2022). Conceptualizing the effects of polarization for US foreign policy behavior in international negotiations: revisiting the two-level game. International Studies Review, 24(1), 1-29.

[5] Drezner, D.W. (2019). This time is different. Foreign Affairs, 98(3), 10-17.

Much scholarly effort has been expended mapping the features of this phenomenon, most notably that of French social psychologist Gustave Le Bon in his 1895 work The Crowd: a Study of the Popular Mind.

At the time his book was published, the ideas of Communism had been spreading through the European consciousness ever since the release of Marx’s Communist Manifesto in 1848 and Das Kapital roughly 20 years later.

Le Bon’s work is even more prescient in our modern era of mass media and the internet, particularly with the rise of Trumpian right-wing populism. It is this movement above all which reifies Le Bon’s analysis, some 130 years after it was first presented.

What defines the crowd is the psychological characteristic of people gathered for action — a characteristic not present in the individual. Crowd psychology entails the substitution of the conscious activity of individuals for the unconscious activity of the mass [1]. Although the actions of the crowd can be both positive and negative, they are driven in large part by unconscious powers. These actions “appear to be guided by the mysterious forces which the ancients denominated destiny, nature, or providence…” (Le Bon [1], p. 3). Despite our modern reverence for science, the unconscious is still a more powerful force than the rational.

Despite the great leaders of men who have emerged to alter the course of their nations — Hitler, Napoleon — it is ideas which ultimately dominate, existing as they do beyond spatiotemporal boundaries. When a tipping point has been reached, nothing can hold back their tidal force:

“The only important changes whence the renewal of civilisations results, affect ideas, conceptions, and beliefs. The memorable events in history are the visible effects of the invisible changes of human thought” (Le Bon [1], p. 3).

When Le Bon was writing, these tectonic shifts involved the diminution of religion and the growth of science and industrialism, a shift famously captured by Friedrich Nietzsche some years prior in the death of God — the triumph of the material over the metaphysical, of the Enlightenment over faith [2].

What remains when the old ideologies have crumbled around us and new ones emerge in their stead is the crowd:

“While all our ancient beliefs are tottering and disappearing, while the old pillars of society are giving way one by one, the power of the crowd is the only force that nothing menaces, and of which the prestige is continually on the increase. The age we are about to enter will in truth be the era of the crowd” (Le Bon [1], p. 6).

The dogmas are dead, long live the new dogmas: “The divine right of the masses is about to replace the divine right of kings” (Le Bon [1], p. 7). For Le Bon, this change signalled the end of Western (European) civilisation. The crowd is therefore the barbarian horde at the gates of the religious citadel. As civilisational creation and direction is a power solely in the hands of the intellectual aristocracy, civilisational destruction is an act of which only the crowd is capable.

In the crowd, the individual and his personal sentiments are subsumed and transformed into a collective will, his intellect lowered to that of the common denominator. Like a death spiral of ants, a crowd becomes a thing unto itself far removed from the individuals who constitute it. In the group, the individual accrues a sense of power without responsibility [1]. In crowds, “it is stupidity and not mother-wit that is accumulated” (Le Bon [1], p. 15).

The crowd cannot be reasoned with and is not moved by laws and institutions but by emotion. The masses are as Hitler remarked decades later, “feminine in character and outlook” and “ruled by sentiment, rather than sober reasoning” (Hitler [3], p. 241). The crowd is led by “what produces an impression on them and seduces them” (Le Bon [1], p. 10). Given to exaggeration in its feelings, a crowd “is only impressed by excessive sentiment” (Le Bon [1], p. 31).

The crowd is intuitively in search of a leader, a hero. The type of hero dear to crowds “will always have the semblance of a Caesar. His insignia attracts them, his authority overawes them, and his sword instils them with fear” (Le Bon [1], p. 33).

Messaging is vital to capturing the mind of the crowd — affirmations assuming the form of simple phrases which are repeated ad nauseum: “The catchier the affirmation is, the more destitute of every appearance of proof and demonstration, the more weight it carries” (Le Bon [1], p. 78). The thing affirmed “comes by repetition to fix itself in the minds in such a way that it is accepted in the end as a demonstrated truth” (Le Bon [1], p. 78). This repetition will ensure the images invoked spread like contagion through the crowd which “like animals, has a natural tendency to imitation” (Le Bon [1], p. 79). The opinions of crowds are propagated by contagion, never reasoning.

The mass mind is fuelled by representation, accepting as real “the images evoked in its mind, though they most often have only a very distant relation with the observed fact” (Le Bon [1], p. 24). Regardless of the ideas suggested to crowds, “[T]hey can only exercise effective influence on condition that they assume a very absolute, uncompromising, and simple shape. They present themselves then in the guise of images, and are only accessible to the masses under this form” (Le Bon [1], p. 37). To know the art of moving the imagination of crowds is to know the art of governing them.

No other political movement of our time has traded in the currency of image more than the right-wing MAGA populist movement led by Donald Trump. Although all democratic politics is largely theatre, the MAGA movement is the first to fully embrace the psychological techniques of sports entertainment — pro-wrestling — to win the engagement and emotional investment of the electorate.

Donald Trump is the only occupant of the White House to be an inductee into the World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) Hall of Fame following a 30-year relationship with the organisation and its chairman Vince McMahon whose wife Linda McMahon has also been a key member of Trump’s political team [4].

As pro-wrestling is a simulacrum of interpersonal relationships and their violent manifestations, MAGA populism is a simulacrum of right-wing politics. Observing both simulacra are audiences which are aware (at least on some level) that the drama playing out is not real. For the MAGA populists, “spectacle trumps truth” [5].

Central to this politics of image is the wrestling concept of kayfabe which refers to “the performance of staged and ‘faked’ events as actual and spontaneous” (Chow & Laine [6], p. 46) or “the illusion that everything is utterly sincere and authentic when it is all just an act” (O’Brien [7], p. vii). When wrestling was meant to be real, kayfabe was a tactic used to obfuscate the fact that the sport was a work in which wrestlers would take on personas as either heels (bad guys) or faces (good guys) so that promoters could generate audience investment and increase profits [4].

The worked nature of pro-wrestling is now acknowledged not only by promoters but also audiences who are willing to suspend their disbelief in order to play along in the drama. In doing so, “fans do not simply pretend to be fooled by the ‘game’; rather, in the new kayfabe, everyone is invested and involved in the playing of the game itself” (Moon [4], p. 52). The political machinations over QAnon exemplified how the blurring of the lines between the real and unreal shifted from the arena of wrestling to that of politics.

This shift has been described as kayfabe creep — a growing realisation among the public that politics operates within the same dramatic paradigm as professional wrestling [8]. Instead of the uncanny valley applying only to the unnerving difference between human and android, it now operates at multiple levels of consumptive experience from technology-enhanced pop songs to contrived and focus-grouped political speeches. Kayfabe creep describes a public which has moved through political disengagement into performative cynicism in which it accepts the premise that politics is fake but chooses to play the game regardless.

In this sense, the liberal or conservative unironically reifies the rhetoric of Martin Luther King and his central role in American politics while being fully aware that those speeches, and King himself, were heavily curated by puppet masters like the Jewish civil rights activist Stanley Levison. King is a character in the match but he’s our character. Here the political audience engages in an “active suspension of disbelief and simultaneous production of belief” (Moon [4], p. 53).

Pro-wrestling fans are “divided, in their own minds, into smarts [fans who know pro-wrestling is a ‘work’] and marks [who do not], but the marks are always other people” (Nevitt [9], p. 324). Hence the common refrain from MAGA supporters that Trump’s every move is part of an elaborate game of 5D chess in which his hapless opponents face inevitable zugzwang. When the kayfabe kicks in and MAGA supporters fail to get Hillary Clinton locked up, the swamp drained or the Epstein files released, that is all part of the show, part of the struggle. The struggle is “perceived not because it is “real”, but because it is communicated to the audience” (Chow [10], p. 73).

The fakeness of MAGA populism is baked in and if you didn’t realise that then you are a mark. The implication is that:

“[A]udience members learn to interpret within a narrow framework of ‘rules’, which structure their subsequent reception of any information, while simultaneously focusing said interpretation upon uncovering the intention of a performance (the hidden logic behind that choice being made) rather than critically questioning the substantive content of the performance” (Moon [4], p. 55).

Even the political diplomacy of MAGA populism takes a performative shape. Trump’s social media posts and increasingly bellicose public pronouncements are the performance art of professional wrestling playing out on the stage of real-world global politics — a simulated public diplomacy “wherein engagements with foreign publics are performed within the setting of a spectacular agonism that enhances the president’s persona as an alpha deal-maker and fêted ‘face’ for the purposes of national electioneering” (Surowiec & Miles [11], p. 26).

This “violent incursion of cultural codes alien to public diplomacy” is predicted to have disastrous consequences for American soft power:

“The intensity of kayfabe-inspired simulation implodes public diplomacy from within as it destroys meanings. This implosion swallows all energy as foreign publics struggle to make sense of Trump’s discourse on foreign affairs…” (Surowiec & Miles [11], pp. 26-27)

Despite the fact that framing politics as nothing other than a tactical game can increase public cynicism and decrease political participation [12], MAGA supporters have kept up the kayfabe and twice elected Donald Trump as President of the United States. This phenomenon is described as marking out — the desire of the smart fan to be psychologically absorbed into the con and revel in being a mark [4]. To mark out is to be so swept up in the performance that the smart loses himself in the liminal space between the real and unreal.

Trump has mastered the art of political performance and created safe spaces (both physical and rhetorical) in which his followers can submit themselves to the emotional contagion of his movement, a space in which “even the most cynical of voters might lose themselves in the moment and ‘mark out’, becoming not ‘the believing sports fan’, but ‘the believing voter’” (Moon [4], p. 57).

An emotionally pliable MAGA crowd is then satiated not with real-world political victories but with the images thereof. A video of ICE agents deporting illegal immigrants stands for mass deportations, despite the fact that Trump’s deportation numbers trail those of Obama; Trump’s strikes on Iran are the strategic moves of a grandmaster of geopolitics, despite the fact that Jewish propaganda has been pushing for such attacks for decades. The MAGA images are signs without signifiers but that is all part of the game, only a dumb mark would fail to understand that.

In the end, MAGA is just another religion after which, according to Le Bon, the masses always seek: “The crowd demands a god before anything else” (Le Bon [1], p. 46). Ultimately, “all political, divine, and social creeds only take root among [the mass] on the condition of always assuming the religious shape…” (Le Bon [1], p. 47).

The iconoclasts of every generation — the apostates of the mass religion — will always receive a hostile reception: “Whoever can supply the [the crowd] with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim” (Le Bon [1], p. 69).

MAGA and Trumpism will be transitory waves on the surface of the vast ocean, the volume of which represents the fundamental ideas that actually move history. Every epoch will bear the fruit of its own destruction — the destroyers of illusions and the sowers of new ones. In Rome, it was the early Christians establishing the religion that would eventually colonise the European mind; in the 17th and 18th centuries it was the free-thinkers of the Enlightenment who were seeking intellectual emancipation from that same faith grown sclerotic and suffocating.

Establishing these fundamental ideas takes great time and effort. The philosophical concepts which inspired the French Revolution took centuries to take root in the mind of the European masses. Although the bearers of epoch-changing ideas must face down the ire of the crowd — and the violence of the state — when these ideas have flourished in the unconscious of the masses there is no stopping them.

Imbuing the mind of crowds with transitory and shallow opinions is easy, implanting lasting beliefs is a gargantuan task. But revolutions start somewhere and “the beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief” (Le Bon [1], p. 89).

For those seeking an end to Judeo-liberal democracy and its bread and circuses, its hall of mirrors — an end to rule by image and idiots — we may turn to Le Bon’s for solace:

“The precise moment at which a great belief is doomed is easily recognisable, it is the moment when its value begins to be called into question. Every general belief being little else than a fiction, it can only survive on the condition that it not be subject to examination” (Le Bon [1], p. 89)

Support my work

[1] Le Bon, G. (2019). The crowd: a study of the popular mind. Guomei English Library. (Originally published 1895)

[2] Nietzsche, F. (2022). The gay science. New York: Dover Books. (Originally published 1882)

[3] Hitler, A. (2021). Mein kampf. Redpill Action Publications. (Originally published 1925)

[4] Moon, D.S. (2022). Kayfabe, smartdom and marking out: can pro-wrestling help us understand Donald Trump? Political Studies Review, 20(1), 47-61.

[5] Mazer, S. (2018). Donald Trump shoots the match. TDR: The Drama Review, 62(2), 175-200.

[6] Chow, B., & Laine, E. (2014). Audience affirmation and the labour of professional wrestling. Performance Research, 19(2), 44-53.

[7] O’Brien, S.B. (2020). Donald Trump and the kayfabe presidency: professional wrestling rhetoric in the White House. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

[8] Mazer, S. (2017). The game of life. In B. Chow, E. Laine & C. Warden (Eds.), Performance and professional wrestling (pp. 196-204). Abingdon: Routledge.

[9] Nevitt, L (2010). The spirit of America lives here: US pro-wrestling and the Post-9/11 ‘war on terror’. Journal of War and Culture Studies, 3(3), 319-334.

[10] Chow, B.D.V. (2014). Work and shoot: professional wrestling and embodied politics. TDR: The Drama Review, 58(2), 72-86.

[11] Surowiec, P., & Miles, C. (2021). The populist style and public diplomacy: kayfabe as performative agonism in Trump’s Twitter posts. Public Relations Inquiry, 10(1), 5-30.

[12] Young, D.G., Hoffman, L.H., and Roth, D. (2019). “Showdowns”, “duels”, and “nail-biters”. In R.G. Boatright, T.J. Shaffe, S. Sobieraj et al. (Eds), A crisis of civility? Political discourse and its discontents (pp. 83-94). New York: Routledge.

As the rising tide of White replacement laps at the shores of the European consciousness, there is a general awakening not only to the results of mass immigration but also to systemic anti-White discrimination. Although the negative effects of anti-White policies manifest in visceral ways — gangs of foreign men, crime and degeneration — understanding that these policies amount to a deliberate genocide of Europeans is for many a Rubicon which is difficult to cross.

The evidence for such a claim is clear for those with eyes to see.

The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, article II defines a genocide as:

“…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group; (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Article III of the same Convention states that:

“The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.”

According to this Convention, a genocide is deemed to have occurred if any of the five conditions in article II have been met and that those conditions were imposed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the national, ethnic, racial or religious group targeted.

(a) Killing Members of the Group

Mass, non-White immigration into Western nations is the result of deliberate policy. High levels of immigration have put the founding and native European populations of nations such as the US, UK, Canada, Germany, Ireland and New Zealand on course to become minorities within the coming decades.

The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that the governments of Western states can control their borders if conditions demand it. For example, in 2020 the US government enforced the closure of its usually porous southern border in order to control coronavirus spread. A Title 42 order authorised the immediate expulsion of migrants, including asylum seekers, to protect public health. The Trump administration also barred foreign nationals from entering the US if they had travelled to mainland China within a certain period.

President Trump was also able to shut down legal immigration from a number of Muslim-majority countries for supposed reasons of national security. Executive Order 13769 barred citizens from seven nations — including Iran, Iraq and Yemen — from entering the US.

Mass immigration is not the result of a lack of will or systemic failure — a fact that Western leaders have made explicit. In 2015, then Vice-President Joe Biden told a meeting on countering violent extremism that America was subject to:

“An unrelenting stream of immigration. Nonstop. Nonstop. Folks like me who are Caucasian, of European descent, for the first time in 2017 will be in an absolute minority in the United States of America. Absolute minority. Fewer than 50% of the people in America from then and on will be white European stock. That’s not a bad thing. That’s a source of our strength.”

He added:

“We are a melting pot. It is the ultimate source of our strength. It is the ultimate source of who we are, what we’ve become. And it started all the way back in the late 1700s. There’s been a constant unrelenting stream of immigration — not in little trickles, but in large numbers.”

More recently, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer described his predecessor Boris Johnson’s “Boriswave” immigration surge — in which net immigration into the UK reached 1 million per year — as a calculated act. He stated:

“This happened by design, not accident. Policies were reformed, deliberately, to liberalise immigration. Brexit was used for that purpose to turn Britain into a one-nation experiment in open borders. Global Britain — remember that slogan, that is what they meant. A policy with no support…”.

US Vice President JD Vance also highlighted the deliberate nature of immigration in a speech at the Munich security conference in early 2025. He said:

“[O]f all the pressing challenges that the nations represented here face, I believe there is nothing more urgent than mass migration. […] And we know the situation. It didn’t materialise in a vacuum. It’s the result of a series of conscious decisions made by politicians all over the continent, and others across the world, over the span of a decade.”

The relative propensity of non-White races to violence and crime is a long-understood fact. In the UK, the first convictions of Pakistani men for the sexual grooming and rape of British girls occurred in 2010. However, subsequent investigations have revealed that in places like Telford these crimes have been going on since the 1970s.

In Rotherham alone it is estimated that 1,400 girls fell victim to these gangs, with the national victim number likely in the tens of thousands if not more.

Statistics on murder rates by country show certain demographics — particularly Africans and Caribbeans — to be highly prone to violence. Jamaica and South Africa have the highest murder rates in the world at 52 and 42 homicides per 100,000 people respectively. The South American countries Mexico, Colombia, Guatemala and Venezuela have homicide rates ranging between 28 and 18 per 100,000 people. Entry of both Jamaicans into the UK and South Americans into the US has been a feature of immigration policies for decades.

Jamaica and South Africa also feature in the top ten most crime-ridden nations alongside Haiti, Afghanistan and Syria.

It is also well understood that Black populations suffer disproportionately from mental health problems, including schizophrenia. In the US, schizophrenia is more prevalent among immigrants than the native population, especially among Blacks. Increased risk of schizophrenia was also observed among the children of immigrants.

If these facts are now known to the public at large then one can safely assume they were known to state actors when mass immigration into White nations was initiated, and remain known today. The effects of flooding White nations with non-White races with lower average intelligence and higher proclivity to crime and mental health problems were predictable at the time and remain predictable based on extensive data.

Given its scale, it is almost impossible to present an authoritative list of White people who have died as a direct result of non-White immigration (legal and illegal) into their nations. The most recent example is the killing of three White girls at a dance class in Southport, England by Axel Rubakubana. The stabbing murders of Alice da Silva Aguiar (9), Bebe King (6) and Elsie Dot Stancombe (6) sparked protests in working-class White communities enraged at decades of non-White violence and abuse at the hands of foreigners.

In the US, there have been a number of high-profile murders of White people by non-White immigrants, many of them in the country illegally. One such case was that of Mollie Tibbetts, a 20-year-old student from Iowa who was abducted and stabbed to death by illegal migrant Cristhian Bahena Rivera in 2018.

Jupiter Paulsen, 14, was stabbed and then strangled to death in 2021 by Haitian immigrant Arthur Prince Kollie. Paulsen, of Fargo, North Dakota, was skateboarding to her mother’s house when she was attacked and killed by Kollie who was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

In the UK, the 2004 killing of 15-year-old Kris Donald by three men of Pakistani descent is one example of many such anti-White murders. Donald was abducted, stabbed and then set on fire by three men of Pakistani background Imran Shahid, his brothers Zeeshan and Mohammed Mushtaq, and friend Daanish Zahid.

The US, UK and Europe have also been subjected to numerous terrorist attacks by non-Whites which have claimed scores of lives. The Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 by ethnic Chechens Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev killed three and injured over 200. In 2017, eight were killed in the New York truck attack carried out by Uzbek national Sayfullo Saipov.

The 7/7 suicide bombings in London in 2005 killed 52 people. The four bombers — Mohammad Sidique Khan, Shehzad Tanweer, Germaine Lindsay and Hasib Hussain — were of Pakistani and Jamaican descent. In 2013, British soldier Lee Rigby was murdered in broad daylight by Nigerian Muslims Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale. A further 22 people were killed in the 2017 Manchester Arena suicide bombing carried out by 22-year-old Libyan Salman Abedi.

Dwarfing these deaths in terms of raw numbers are those caused by the US opioid epidemic. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), between 1999 and 2022 about 727,000 Americans — mostly rural Whites — died from both prescription and illegal opioid overdose. A central role in these deaths was played by the Jewish Sackler family who owned Purdue Pharma, makers of the painkiller OxyContin. The Sacklers falsely marketed OxyContin as being less addictive than other opioids, based on misrepresented scientific claims. They targeted doctors across the US, especially in rural and working-class White areas. In 2007, Purdue and top executives pleaded guilty to criminal charges of misbranding OxyContin. The Sacklers agreed to pay $6 billion in settlements.

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part

Mass immigration in the West has put White people on a path to both demographic displacement and eventual replacement. In the US, White Americans are already close to 50% of the overall population due to decades of both legal and illegal immigration.

White people in other Western nations have been set on course for minority status within the next fifty years. Demographic experts in the UK project the native British people becoming a minority by 2060, or even 2050 if current levels of mass immigration continue. According to some sources, White pupils are now a minority in 1 in 4 English schools.

UN reports on replacement migration cite the need for mass immigration into Western nations to maintain the working age population in the face of falling birth rates. One such report states that in respect to the UK:

“In absence of migration, the figures show that it would be necessary to raise the upper limit of the working-age to about 72 years in order to obtain in 2050 the same potential support ratio observed in 1995 in the United Kingdom, i.e. 4.1 persons of working-age per each older person past working-age.”

However, in Western nations like the UK, which will see growing automation in coming decades via AI and other technologies, the vast majority of immigrants are from non-White third- and second-world populations in Africa, India and Pakistan. According to the UK Government’s own statistics, these populations are less productive economically than the native population. In 2021 the employment rate among White British and White people aged 16 to 64 was 76%. For the White Other category that figure was 82%. While Indians had a similar employment rate of 78%, the rates for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis were 58%, for Blacks 67% and for Asians 69%.

Therefore, mass immigration into the UK or other White nations does not serve the ends of economic productivity — a fact that our elites well understand. A number of studies across Europe have found that immigration from poorer countries (i.e. non-White countries) has negative economic effects. One such study in Denmark found that non-Western immigration left the country with a €2.2 billion deficit for 2014. It concluded that:

“[D]espite a clear improvement in integration over the past 15-20 years and a strong shift in the pattern of immigration towards immigration for work and study purposes, there is still no prospect of non-Western immigration generating a surplus for the public purse.”

A similar fate awaits the White populations of other nations such as Canada, Germany, the Republic of Ireland and New Zealand. In Australia, the lifting of restrictions on non-White immigration into the country have meant the founding European stock has declined from over 90% in the 1970s to about 70% today.

While Whites remain an overall majority, they have been made minorities in many of their cities and towns. In the UK, the native British are now a minority in the cities of London, Leicester and Birmingham, as well as towns such as Luton, Slough and Peterborough.

In the Birmingham ward of Alum Rock, non-Whites now make up 93.6% of the total population of 28,000. Only 49.8% of 16 to 64-year-olds in Alum Rock are employed, compared to 65% in Birmingham and 71% in England as a whole. Some 37% of the population aged over 16 have no qualifications, and 15.6% cannot speak English.

For White Americans, being a demographic minority in their own cities and towns has been the norm for decades. One potent example of White replacement on the local level has been South Pasadena. Like much of suburban Southern California, South Pasadena was more than 90% White in the 1960s and 1970s. Although not legally enforced, housing discrimination and restrictive covenants limited access for non-White residents, especially Blacks. The city developed a reputation as a quiet, affluent and family-oriented suburb with strong (i.e White) public schools.

The Fair Housing Act of 1968 criminalised housing discrimination based on race and sounded the death knell for this White utopia. Gradually, Latinos and Asians began to move to the area, attracted by the schools and proximity to areas like Alhambra and San Marino. Today, the non-Hispanic White population has declined to around 35%, with Asian Americans making up around 34%, Latinos 21% and Blacks 3%.

A core driver of mass immigration into White nations has been Jewish activism, particularly since the founding of Israel in 1948. One vector of Zionism has been the destabilisation of Israel’s Arab neighbours in order to create waves of refugees which are then funnelled into Europe by Jewish NGOs. Archival Israeli documents have revealed that this has been a covert aim of Jewish leaders since the 1950s.

The central role that Jewish groups such as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) have played has been well documented. The Israeli refugee agency IsraAID has provided direct relief and integration support services to over 100,000 refugees — particularly in Greece and Germany — since 2015.

Jewish activists have not hidden their intentions. One such individual is Barbara Lerner Spectre, the founder of Paideia — The European Institute for Jewish Studies in Sweden. Her organisation was launched in 2000 with the aim of “strengthening Jewish culture in Europe”. Spectre admitted that:

“I think there is a resurgence of anti-Semitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. And I think we are going to be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the centre of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.”

The goal of Jewish activism has been to turn White nations into the multi-racial “melting-pot”, an idea ceded into our discourse by Jewish writer Israel Zangwill in the early 20th century.

Zangwill’s play The Melting Pot, which premiered in Washington, DC, in 1908, is a love story between a Jew and a Gentile which propagates the conception of America as “God’s Crucible…where all the races of Europe are melting and re-forming”. Zangwill was inspired to write the play by his role in The Galveston Movement which aimed to resettle 10,000 Russian Jews in the US state of Texas.

The case against Western elites is solid. The policies of mass immigration in White nations amount to a deliberate genocide of European people. The results of such policies are clear for all to see — death of White individuals and the eventual destruction of the White race. At the heart of this genocide lies Jewish racial hatred of the European peoples, facilitated by treasonous Western elites.

White genocide needs to be stopped and reversed, and the elites who perpetrated this crime brought to justice. The current Judeo-liberal system needs to be dismantled and a new political paradigm built in its stead, one in which the European people declare as one: if you are not pro-White, you are pro-White genocide.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

This hard truth looks set to shape the future of politics in the US and the West more broadly in the decades to come. As the US and European regimes continue to execute White replacement migration policies, race and IQ will become increasingly salient in political calculus.

This issue is of particular import to right-wing politics in the US. As conditions worsen, populism will likely become the only viable political vehicle for right-wing electoral success. Following the brash, Americana-spangled Trump movement with a return to low-tax, small-government grey Republican fare will not only fail to energise the conservative base but risks being outflanked by the left’s own populist energy. The Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement surviving Trump’s inevitable exit from the political stage is existential.

Right-wing populism in the US is increasingly a diverse, multi-racial movement. Although the majority of the MAGA constituency is White, it is racially inclusive both in rhetoric and practice. This is the result of deliberate policy initiatives on the part of institutional conservatism. The Republican National Congressional Committee has invested heavily in recruiting Blacks and Latinos, opening 38 minority community centres in 19 states during the 2022 midterm elections.

In the 2024 US election, support for President Trump among Hispanic and Black voters increased markedly. Trump’s support among Hispanic voters rose to 45%, marking a 13-percentage-point increase from 2020. This surge was especially pronounced among Hispanic men, who favoured Trump over Kamala Harris by a margin of 54% to 44%.

Backing from Black voters increased to 13% — up from 8% in 2020 — while in key swing states the growth was even more significant. In Wisconsin, Trump’s support among Black voters more than doubled to 20%, compared to 8% in 2020.

In the highly unlikely event of a pro-White faction taking control of the MAGA movement given strong Jewish control, it seems certain that right-wing populism will continue as a multi-racial coalition of the disaffected.

As much as inclusive political movements such as MAGA wish to ignore the hard truth of race and intelligence, it is nevertheless highly operative. The evidence for race-based differences in average IQ remains strong despite hundreds of billions of dollars being spent to reduce gaps in educational attainment. The US government has spent more than $500 billion dollars alone on Title I elementary and secondary education for minority students since 1965 — only one of many such programs.

A microcosm of America’s intelligence problem is the Advanced Placement Program (AP). The AP program began in 1952 as a scheme to allow gifted high school pupils a chance to engage in college-level coursework. In response to accusations of elitism, from the 1970s the programme widened its purpose to help all students but with an explicit focus on those from historically disadvantaged groups [1]. The exams essentially came to be viewed as a mechanism for helping racial minority students (i.e. Blacks and Hispanics) to enter higher education with the College Board even establishing an Equity and Excellence Award [1].

In the US today, nearly 3 million students sit for more than 5 million AP exams every year [1]. Participation in AP exams has increased for all racial groups, with growth most pronounced among Hispanic students [1]. Between 1997 and 2017, the growth rate for AP exam-taking increased more sharply for Black and Hispanic students than for White students [2].

Despite rates of increased participation, the racial gap in exam performance has increased. One study showed that from 1997 to 2012, the rate of qualifying scores was fairly constant for White and Asian students at 65% [3]. However, for Hispanic students the rate of qualifying scores dropped from 67% to 32% and for Black students from 36% to 29% [2].

The study also showed that 22% of Asian students and 14% of White students’ exams were in the highest score bracket, while this was the case for only 3% of Black students’ exams [2]. Some 31% of Hispanic students’ exams and 42% of Black students’ exams were given the lowest scores [2]. Research suggests that the likelihood of achieving a qualifying score on the AP exams is predicted by student IQ [4].

In 2022, after billions of dollars of investment over decades, some 50% of Hispanic students had the lowest scores in macroeconomics, history and physics [1]. In the same year, 50% of Black students had the lowest scores in eight exams [1].

AP exam score gaps between Whites and Hispanics/Blacks correlated most strongly with general intelligence as measured by the PSAT test of cognitive ability [5]. In other words, these disparities in AP exam performance reflect population-level racial differences in general intelligence (g) [5]. It is argued that:

“One of the oldest and most consistent findings in intelligence research is the existence of mean score differences among racial and ethnic groups. Generally speaking, examinees descended from East Asians outscore examinees from European populations. These groups’ mean scores, in turn, exceed those of populations originating from Latin America, and examinees descended from Sub-Saharan Africans score lowest of all major racial groups […] [N]o scholars in the field of human intelligence deny the existence of these score gaps” (Warne [5], p. 87).

Other research demonstrates a decline in certain cognitive abilities among the American population more broadly [6]. One study found that between 2006 and 2018, there had been a decline in Americans’ abilities in verbal reasoning (logic, vocabulary), matrix reasoning (visual problem solving, analogies), and letter and number series (computational/mathematical) [6]. Although the authors do not mention race, it is safe to assume that the growing percentage of non-Whites in the American population contribute to such declines.

Another phenomenon is a decrease in IQ test scores, known as the negative Flynn Effect [7]. The original (positive) Flynn Effect was noted through the 1980s and 2000s as an increase in IQ test scores. However, more recent research has shown a reversal of this trend in the latter decades of the twentieth century [7].

A negative Flynn Effect has been demonstrated in many European countries since the 1990s, including France, Norway, Finland, Sweden and the UK. Additionally, other studies have evidenced a decline in proxies for IQ such as slower reaction times and reduced colour discrimination ability [7]. Thus:

“These sets of findings…seem to indicate that approximately a century ago, a decline in the latent factor of genuine intelligence began, which until now has largely been cloaked by an increase in scores on IQ tests. Yet, with the increase in IQ scores slowing down…or even going into reverse, the decline in g may start to become apparent on IQ tests” (Dutton [7], 164).

These results may indicate a decline in European IQ due to dysgenic fertility, but may also be a consequence of increasing racial diversity. Regardless, national IQ is associated with both economic prosperity and scientific achievement [8] and a population-level fall could have serious repercussions.

Intelligence is a key indicator of political beliefs [9]. Higher intelligence has been found to correlate with more left-wing proclivities such as liberalism, anti-racism, tolerance and anti-authoritarianism [9]. Other studies have shown that intelligence increases the tendency toward liberalism and atheism [10].

As intelligence declines, media consumption will become an increasingly important vector in political partisanship. The general public tends to consume news information that aligns with their pre-existing political ideologies, shunning engagement with content that might challenge their fundamental worldview [11]. Critically, however, news programming constitutes only a fraction of the public’s media consumption compared to entertainment-based content [12]. There is some indication that partisan consumption of entertainment media is increasing [12].

It is a sad truth of our modern age that entertainment media plays a significant role in shaping the public’s political reality. It has been understood for decades that long-term exposure to television media strongly influences viewers’ political attitudes and beliefs [13]. Even the consumption of non-political content can affect political opinions via subtle messaging [14, 15].

Popular culture is a key site where ideologies are produced and contested [16]. Former US President Joe Biden was correct in stating that the television series Will & Grace “probably did more to educate the American public [on gay acceptance] than almost anything anybody has ever done so far.” As IQ declines, the public’s susceptibility to entertainment media-driven political messaging is likely to increase.

Given the reality of race and intelligence, what might be the implications for Western politics over the coming decades? Assuming that democratic systems in the US and Europe survive, we are likely to see IQ play a significant role.

The success of Donald Trump’s MAGA movement is a testament to this. As the institutional right-wing in America is in direct opposition to any pro-White political insurgency, it will increasingly look to build a multi-racial coalition as a bulwark. The lower average intelligence of such a group will necessitate a largely plebeian and intellectually shallow movement as leaders are forced to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Zionism and opposition to anti-semitism will be central to any such project, supported by bombastic American patriotism designed to boost military recruitment and bring disaffected Whites back onto the conservative reservation.

Any common ground between an ideological, pro-White right-wing movement and MAGA will likely disappear entirely. In fact, pro-White nationalists might be wise to distance themselves from the mass of right-wing populism as any appeal to it will most likely lead to ideological dilution.

Israel and Jewish power look set to become a major fault line in US politics. Younger cohorts in the West are not only overwhelmingly opposed to Israel but are also increasingly aware of Jewish influence more broadly. A nationalist movement associating itself with Zionism or even extending a sympathetic hand to “right-wing Jews” runs the risk of rendering itself toxic to potential recruits.

The ascendancy of the far-right Likudnik Jews under the banner of MAGA will result in a draining of Jewish money from the left as punishment for their entrenched support of Palestine. Free of the retarding nature of Jewish political influence, the ideological left may see a renaissance.

Rather than appealing to MAGA populists and Fox News conservatives, pro-White nationalists might be better served by finding common intellectual ground with the ideological, authoritarian left. This would necessitate prioritising long-term and deep intellectual goals over short-term and shallow wins on social media.

There is growing recognition of ideological convergence between the extremes of the political spectrum with research suggesting that the far-right and far-left increasingly share a psychological core [17]. That is:

“[S]everal core markers of authoritarianism, including dogmatism, cognitive rigidity, prejudice, and lethal partisanship are reasonably symmetrical across the left and right” (Costello et al. [17], p. 137).

Research shows that left-wing authoritarianism strongly correlates with anti-hierarchical aggression, top-down censorship and anti-conventionalism [17]. Anti-hierarchical aggression “reflects motivations to forcefully overthrow the established hierarchy and punish those in power” (Costello et al. [17], p. 162).

Both left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism share a constellation of traits including a preference for social uniformity, prejudice toward different others, punitiveness toward perceived enemies, and moral absolutism [17].

One important point of conversion is disillusionment with democracy. Studies now find record levels of dissatisfaction with Western democratic systems, particularly among those aged 18 to 34 in the US, UK and Australia. In the United States, youth satisfaction with democracy dropped from over 50% in 2005 to less than 30% by the late 2010s. While the right and left diverge over solutions, there is a shared cynicism towards political elites, finance, media, democratic responsiveness and globalism.

There is a shared feeling that democracy has been corrupted by wealth and lobbying, skepticism toward legacy media and its role in shaping public opinion, and greater openness to radical systemic change, including non-democratic models.

It is usually the case that anti-democratic tendencies on the right are associated with “protection and enforcement of social norms” while such tendencies on the left prioritise “superordinate ideological values over established societal norms” that are yoked to progressive, system-challenging ideologies (Nilsson [18], p. 701).

However, the victory of liberalism and the embedding of its values in virtually all Western institutions means young, right-wing White people are now the genuine radicals in direct opposition to the democratic power structure. The main point of contention between the radical fringes of right and left is race.

While left-wing tendencies generally manifest as direct opposition to their perennial enemy “the fascists”, the far-right has considerably more in common ideologically with the far-left than with MAGA conservatives in respect to a systemic critique of — and motivation to upend — the current political order. While many on the radical left will never be talked out of their anti-White ideological framework, a not insignificant number might.

As young political ideologues converge on anti-democracy, anti-globalism, anti-capitalism and anti-semitism, there may be opportunities for the far-right to recruit ideologues from the far-left who are motivated to convert ideology into praxis.

In an anti-White system, pro-Whites are the revolutionaries. The success of any revolutionary movement is founded on an intellectual vanguard who are willing to put their ideological money where their mouth is. As the political mainstream sinks into a morass of populist idiocracy, pro-Whites need to prioritise quality over quantity.

Vos exemplaria Graeca nocturna versate manu, versate diurna.

Donate

Share

[1] Bleske-Rechek, A. (2025). The pursuit of equity and excellence: advanced placement exam participation and performance by sex and by race/ethnicity, 1996–2022. Intelligence, 108, 101894.

[2] Finn, C.E., & Scanlan, A.E. (2019). Learning in the fast lane: the past, present, and future of advanced placement. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

[3] Judson, E., & Hobson, A. (2015). Growth and achievement trends of advanced placement (AP) exams in American high schools. American Secondary Education, 43(2), 59–76.

[4] Ewing, M., Camara, W.J., & Millsap, R.E. (2006). The relationship between PSAT/NMSQT scores and AP examination grades: a follow-up study. College Board Research Report, 2006–1.

[5] Warne, R.T. (2016). Testing Spearman’s hypothesis with advanced placement examination data. Intelligence, 57, 87-95.

[6] Dworak, E.M., Ravelle, W., & Condon, D.M. (2023). Looking for Flynn effects in a recent online U.S. adult sample: examining shifts within the SAPA Project. Intelligence, 98, 101734.

[7] Dutton, E., van der Linden, D., Lynn, R. (2016). The negative Flynn effect: a systematic literature review. Intelligence, 59, 162-169.

[8] Lynn, R., & Vanhanen, T. (2012). Intelligence: a unifying construct for the social sciences. London: Ulster Institute for Social Research.

[9] Edwards, T., Giannelis, A., Willoughby, E.A., & Lee, J.J. (2024). Predicting political beliefs with polygenic scores for cognitive performance and educational attainment. Intelligence, 104, 101831.

[10] Kanazawa, S. (2010). Why liberals and atheists are more intelligent. Social Psychology Quarterly, 73(1), 33-57.

[11] Stroud, N.J. (2011). Niche news: the politics of news choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[12] Fioroni, S.B., Lotz, A.D., Soroka, S., Hiaeshutter-Rice, D. (2021). Political sorting in US entertainment media. Popular Communication, 20(2), 117-132.

[13] Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television: the violence profile. Journal of Communication, 26(2), 172–199.

[14] Holbert, R.L. (2005). A typology for the study of entertainment television and politics. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(3), 436–453.

[15] Holbrook, R.A., & Hill, T.G. (2005). Agenda-setting and priming in prime time television: crime dramas as political cues. Political Communication, 22(3), 277–295.

[16] Kellner, D., & Durham, M.G. (Eds.). (2001). Media and cultural studies: keyworks. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

[17] Costello, T.H., Bowes, S.M., Stevens, S.T., Waldman, I.D., Tasimi, A., & Lilienfeld, S.O. (2021). Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 122(1), 135-170.

[18] Nilsson, A. (2024). Antidemocratic tendencies on the left, the right, and beyond: a critical review of the theory and measurement of left-wing authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 45, 693-708.

The claim is that:

“The mythos of WW2 that established the post-Nuremberg world order was always going to have a lifespan, and is now dying to apathy and ignorance as Hitler becomes just another historical figure like Napoleon or Genghis Khan to a generation with little sense of connection to the period.”

Such claims, however, run counter to studies of online discourse which demonstrate a growing conversation surrounding Hitler, National Socialism and the ‘Holocaust’.

The Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) has tracked a “burgeoning trend of pro-Hitler content emerging online” in the wake of the October 7th Hamas military operation against Israel and media events such as Tucker Carlson’s interview with revisionist historian Darryl Cooper which has garnered tens of millions of views.

The ISD warns that “content that is specifically pro-Hitler and offering a revisionist history of the Holocaust seems to be a more distinct and growing trend.” ISD analysis found that neo-Nazi content glorifying Hitler and questioning his intent, or English audio versions of his speeches, received more than 50 million views across social media platforms such as X (formally Twitter), YouTube, TikTok and Instagram in 2024.

Analysis of seven AI-generated videos of Hitler speeches on YouTube in 2024 revealed that they received 6.9 million views during the study period. Posts glorifying Hitler or promoting National Socialist iconography received 24.8 million views across X, TikTok and Instagram.

Their analysis found that such content proliferated most readily on X, with 11 posts garnering 11.2 million views in only one week. The ISD found that the X algorithm would promote such content even if only a few pro-Hitler posts were accessed.

The ISD highlights an X post by Nick Fuentes saying that “people are still afraid to question the big narrative regarding Hitler because they know they will be punished with a vengeance by the Jews” which was viewed by 1.4 million users. In August alone, two clips of Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu claiming that Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, encouraged Hitler to kill Jews received 5.2 million views. Some posts including images of Hitler and National Socialist iconography received 676,000 views over a single weekend. One read:

“There’s a reason why they didn’t translate Hitler’s speeches. They didn’t want you to see that he was right.”

The majority of pro-National Socialist content on TikTok consisted of short video clips of AI-generated English-language Hitler speeches. One clip featuring a silhouette of Hitler with the message “Growing up is realizing who the villain really was” received 548,000 views before being taken down. Similar content was found on Instagram with one video garnering 4.9 million views and 229,000 likes. ISD analysts identified more than 140 such clips on the site.

Such Hitler content was also popular on X with one AI-translated audio clip of Hitler’s Krupp Factory speech from 1935 receiving 7.9 million views. Many X and TikTok posts directed users to YouTube videos featuring longer-form versions of the speeches. One video of a 1922 Hitler speech had 1.2 million views and more than 16,000 comments.

The ISD research shows that TikTok was a key vector for the proliferation of Nation Socialist ideology. Analysts found 50 accounts spreading pro-Hitler and ‘Holocaust’ denial content with more than 6.2 million views collectively. Analysts also found numerous accounts promoting the pro-Hitler documentary Europa: The Last Battle, with several clips with more than 100,000 views. This documentary has since been the subject of ‘debunking’ by one prominent nationalist.

One TikTok account promoting antisemitic claims that the Jewish Rothschild family control the media and handpick presidents had almost 900,000 views. One new account promoting National Socialist propaganda took only three days to reach 100,000 views across five videos.

It has been argued that use of the terms ‘Nazi’ or ‘Hitler’ is a conversation killer at which normal people baulk. Godwin’s Law states that “as a discussion on the Internet grows longer, the likelihood of a person being compared to Hitler, or another Nazi reference, increases.” A corollary of this law states that “the invocation of Godwin’s Law is usually done by an individual that is losing the argument” which implies that such terms will end a discussion.

However, research seeking to test this hypothesis shows that injection of the terms ‘Nazi’ or ‘Hitler’ actually correlate with longer online conversations [1]. By analysing 199-million Reddit posts, researchers observed a marked increase in conversation length with the interjection of these terms [1]. The probability of observing the terms ‘Nazi’ or ‘Hitler’ significantly decreases in relation to conversation length [1]. Such results suggest that rather than being conversation killers, the terms ‘Nazi’ or ‘Hitler’ inspire greater depth of discussion. Other studies have found that roughly 20% of online comments reported by Internet users to national monitoring organisations contained references to Hitler and the ‘Holocaust’ [2].

One real-world exemplar of this trend would be the rise of the National Socialist-coded Golden Dawn party in Greece. From 1996 to 2015 the party went from achieving 0.1% of the vote in national parliamentary elections to 7%. In European Parliament elections the party had even greater success, going from 0.1% of the vote in 1994 to 9.4% in 2014. Golden Dawn’s success was brought to an end when the Greek state jailed many of its most prominent leaders.

With the rise in discourse around Hitler and National Socialism has come an increase in discussion of the ‘Holocaust’. A 2022 report by the United Nations Department for Global Communications and UNESCO found that “Holocaust denial and distortion” was a serious concern.

The study collected 4,000 pieces of content related to the ‘Holocaust’ between June and July 2021 from Facebook, X, Telegram, TikTok and Instagram. Analysts found that nearly 10% of Facebook posts and 15% of X posts which discussed the ‘Holocaust’ featured “denial or distortion content”.

On platforms allowing greater freedom of speech, ‘Holocaust’ denial was even more prevalent. The study found that almost 50% of ‘Holocaust’ posts on Telegram in English and French were oppositional to the mainstream narrative. Some 80% of ‘Holocaust’ posts in German featured denial. Analysts also found that 19% of ‘Holocaust’-related posts on X, 17% on TikTok and 8% on Facebook contained denial.

The claim that the myths of the Second World War are fading from the collective memory is not supported by data. In fact, discussion of Hitler, National Socialism and the ‘Holocaust’ — long restricted to niche publications and online forums — is breaking through into the mainstream. This is in large part due to the work of ideologues who have for decades kept these ideas alive, often in the face of severe state persecution and even murder.

That some nominally pro-White nationalists are attempting to temper this resurgence may lead to questions about their motivation.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

[1] Fariello, G., Jemielniak, D., & Sulkowski, A. (2024). Does Godwin’s law (rule of Nazi analogies) apply in observable reality? An empirical study of selected words in 199 million Reddit posts. New Media and Society, 26(1), 389-404.

[2] Šori, I., & Vehovar, V. (2022). Reported user-generated online hate speech: the ‘ecosystem’, frames, and ideologies. Social Sciences, 11, 375.

In Europe, some of the most egregious crimes of multiculturalism have been committed against White women and girls who have been victims not only of terror attacks and anti-White stabbing sprees but also rape gangs populated mostly by Pakistani men.

Older White women who wish to maintain a functioning society are now branded as “Karens”. While hectoring and harpy-like female behaviour is often rightly criticised in White women, this meme grew in the main from a fecund soil of anti-White animus.

While the faults of White women can — and should — be the subject of good-natured dialogue, so should their positive traits.

Much is made of miscegenation among White women, with epithets like “mud shark” and “coal burner” directed at those who choose partners outside their race. However, White women are the most racially loyal when it comes to choosing a partner.

According to US data, mixed-race pairings now account for roughly 15% of all marriages in the country — up from 6.7% in 1980. However, White women are the least likely of all women in the US to miscegenate. Only 9% of White newlyweds marry outside their race compared to 17% of Blacks, 26% of Hispanics and 28% of Asians. Asian females are the most likely of all women to marry outside their race with 36.1% choosing a non-Asian partner. Interracial marriages involving a White female and a non-White male are most vulnerable to divorce after ten years [1].

Research on the preferences of internet daters shows that White women are less willing than White men to select a partner outside of their race [2]. Among White daters who express racial preferences, 64% of White women prefer to date only other Whites, compared to 29% of White men. White women are more likely than White men to exclude non-White racial groups, particularly Asians, Middle Easterners, and East Indians. White women overwhelmingly exclude Asian men as potential dates, a trait most likely due to their preference for masculinity in a male partner.

One common criticism of White women’s increasing participation in higher education is that this results in them choosing careers over marriage. However, some data show that from their mid-20s, White women with a bachelor's degree have higher marriage rates than White women with lower levels of education [3]. By their late 20s and early 30s, college-educated White women have the highest marriage rates, surpassing those of less-educated White women at any age. College-educated White women are now more likely to marry and stay married, while less-educated White women are experiencing declining marriage rates.

The data also show that among ever-married White women in their early 40s, those with the least education had a much lower likelihood of still being married compared to those with higher education (65.5% vs. 82.7%). This trend is relatively recent and reflects growing socioeconomic differences in divorce risk.

Other studies demonstrate that White women have relatively low levels of divorce. White women have a first divorce rate of 16.3 per 1,000, which is lower than that of African-American women (30.4 per 1,000) and of Hispanic women (18.1 per 1,000). Asian women had the lowest rate at 10 divorces per 1,000 women in a first marriage.

In respect to birth rates, although the total fertility rate for White women in the US remains below replacement, at 1.6 it is not significantly lower than that for Hispanic women (1.9) or Black women (1.7).

Birthrates for White women are closely associated with religiosity. One study found that White women who report that religion is “very important” in their daily lives have higher fertility rates than those who consider religion “somewhat important” or “not important” [4]. The total fertility rate for women who say religion is “very important” is 2.3 children per woman, compared to 2.1 for those who say religion is “somewhat important” and 1.8 for those who say religion is “not important”. This fertility differential is primarily driven by higher fertility intentions rather than factors like unwanted fertility or differences in fertility timing.

Women who consider religion “very important” intend to have 0.69 more children than non-religious women, and those who say religion is “somewhat important” intend 0.31 more children (controlling for other factors). The study attributes much of this fertility gap to more traditional gender and family attitudes among religious women. However, even after accounting for these attitudes, religiosity remains a strong predictor of higher intended fertility among White women.

White women who attend religious services tend to have higher fertility. Data show that monthly church attendance was associated with a 4% increase in total fertility and weekly attendance with a 7% increase [5]. Additionally, the study found that aid from co-religionists (alloparenting) was positively associated with fertility. White women who attended church weekly and received aid from co-religionists were expected to have 2.64 children over 10 years, compared to 2.36 children for women who did not receive such aid. In contrast, general social network support (not specific to religious groups) was negatively associated with fertility.

White women also have one of the lowest rates of infant mortality at 4.5 deaths per 1,000 live births. The rate for Black women is 10.6 and for Hispanic women 4.9.

Of course there are problems with White women — no one would deny that. But those who seek to scapegoat them for the ills of liberal democracy are falling for an anti-White trope.

Like White men, White women are victims of the current political system in Europe and America — victims both in flesh and in spirit. Instead of enforcing the dogmas of liberalism, the “cat ladies” and “wine aunts” would be enforcing pro-social and nationalist dogmas if these represented the dominant political paradigm. But they do not — a fault which should be laid at the feet of White men for allowing our society’s subversion by forces hostile to our existence.

The loss of religious community has been a disaster for European women and, consequently, our societies. A return to tradition is required — one in which men lead from the front and provide the conditions in which our women, and thus our race, can thrive.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch

[1] Bramlett, M.D., & Mosher, W.D. (2002). Cohabitation, marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the United States. Vital Health Statistics Series, 22, 1-93.

[2] Feliciano, C., Robnett, B., & Komaie, G. (2009). Gendered racial exclusion among white internet daters. Social Science Research, 38, 39-54.

[3] Raley, R.K., Sweeney, M.M., & Wondra, D. (2015). The growing racial and ethnic divide in U.S. marriage patterns. The Future of Children, 25(2), 89–109

[4] Hayford, S.R., & Morgan, S.P. (2008). Religiosity and fertility in the united states: the role of fertility intentions. Social Forces, 86(3), 1163–1188.

[5] Shaver, J.H., Power, E.A., Purzycki, B.G., Watts, J., Sear, R., Shenk, M. K., Sosis, R., & Bulbulia, J.A. (2020). Church attendance and alloparenting: an analysis of fertility, social support and child development among English mothers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1805), 20190428.

Evidence for such discrimination against native Europeans abounds — in universities, the military, the police, the media and the private sector. The disparate treatment of White and non-White rioters before and after the Southport murders in 2024 exemplified the UK’s two-tier system.

When Black teens like Stephen Lawrence are allegedly murdered by Whites, memorials are erected and an annual day of remembrance established. When White teens like Kris Donald are murdered by aliens who were explicitly motivated by anti-White hate, the story is buried.

In Britain, the Equality Act 2010 enshrines the second-class status of native British people through its positive discrimination provision which allows for the exclusion of White people in favour of non-Whites. This positive discrimination via DEI is justified only when helping disadvantaged or underrepresented groups of which Whites will never be considered a part. Diversity is White replacement.

Pro-White nationalist policies would not be a sea change. They would simply involve the reorientation of our laws towards the promotion of the native European people rather than the promotion of aliens. Such changes would end the post-war liberal status quo which has inverted both national values and natural law by putting the interests of foreigners above those of native Europeans. The moral case for such a nationalist reorientation is clear.

The Safety of White Women and Girls

The number one priority of a nation must be the protection of its women from foreign aggression. A nation unable to do this forfeits its right to exist. Nowhere is this issue more stark than in Britain which has seen the grooming and rape of thousands of White working class girls by gangs of predominantly Pakistani men. Scores of girls were killed at the Manchester Arena bombing in 2017 carried out by Libyan Salman Abedi. And recently three girls were stabbed to death in Southport by Axel Rudakubana, a son of Rwandan immigrants.

Sexual crimes against women in Western nations are rising rapidly with one offence reported every hour in London. In Denmark, foreigners — who account for 7.2% of the population — account for 20.4% of convictions for crimes such as rape, indecent exposure and molestation. In Sweden, foreign-born individuals are more likely to be registered as suspected sex offenders compared to those born in Sweden to two native-born parents.

Liberal democracy prioritises anti-racism and multiculturalism over the safety of White women and girls. The atrocities committed against them by foreigners is part and parcel of living under such conditions.

Nationalist ideology puts the safety of our women and girls first. This means taking proactive measures to ensure their safety such as the repatriation of foreigners — criminals or not — back to their ancestral homelands.

Demanding the deportation of foreigners convicted of sex crimes — as Reform MP Rupert Lowe has done — is not good enough. We cannot wait until the rapes have been committed and the lives of the victims ruined before taking action. Preemptive racial policies are necessary in order to secure the safety of our women and girls — this means remigration.

Protective policies must also include the promotion of pro-feminine ideals: marriage, motherhood and chasteness. The banning of pornography is a must.

Protection of Indigenous and Founding Peoples

Another moral precedent that has been established under liberal democracy is the valorisation of indigenous peoples. Under the current paradigm, indigenous peoples are deliberately defined so as to exclude people of European descent.

The Maori of New Zealand are considered to be indigenous peoples whose culture has been fully integrated into that of the White majority. The Maori people are believed to have settled in what is now New Zealand between approximately 1250 and 1300 AD. Contrast this with Anglo Saxons — the ancestors of the English people — who settled what is now England in the 5th century AD. Anglo-Saxons have been in England some 750 years longer than the Maori have been in New Zealand, yet Anglo-Saxons are not considered to be indigenous people — because they are White. In countries like America and Australia, Whites can be celebrated as the founding peoples whose ancestors’ blood and toil built their nations from the ground up.

Europeans are a people who are naturally outward looking and receptive to other cultures and traditions. This healthy instinct has been weaponised against Whites who are propagandised to lionise other peoples at the expense of their own. European-centric racial policy makes White people the main character in their own story while maintaining a healthy respect for others.

Demographic Sovereignty

Nationalism respects the rights of racial groups to live as majorities on their native land. A nation is predicated on its people, its blood. The word nation is derived from the Latin term natio which refers to a group of people of common descent, a tribe or a race. Natio is itself derived from nasci meaning “to be born”.

Race is central to national ideology, and nationalist racial policy gives primacy to the interests of its people, conceptualising them as an extended family. As a family denies access to its dwelling in order to preserve the safety of its members, so a nation denies access to foreigners. The rights of the folk — and their safety — take precedence over the rights of the individual.

In the West, the Great Replacement of the Europeans is well advanced. Native British people are set to become a minority by 2066 and native White school children even sooner. Racial policies must aim to reverse this demographic trend and restore White supermajorities. Immigration must end, remigration must begin.

Any European racial nationalism must reject Zionism as antithetical to its interests. Since the founding of Israel in 1948, Jews have proven that they will not respect the rights of Palestinians against whom they are carrying out a project of ethnic cleansing. The Zionist project is global and entirely reliant on the Jewish subversion of White countries. It deliberately seeks to destabilise Israel’s neighbours and funnel Muslim refugees into Europe. The White settlers of America showed that native peoples could be treated with magnanimity and respect, given their own land, rights and self-determination.

Racial demographic policies must make explicit the natural right of White people to be sovereign in their own lands.

National Service and Security

Restoring the demographic sovereignty of White nations will not only help to make Europe more secure but will encourage greater national participation. When the opportunities and honour of White men are restored they will be empowered to serve their nation. You cannot have National Service without a nation, and restoring our nations will reinvigorate the notion of sacrifice for the greater good.

National Service will be the exclusive domain of White man — not a multiracial United Nations bootcamp. The modern word folk means a people but its Old Norse derivation also described an army. The Old English folcstede meant both a dwelling place and a battlefield. The Russian polk means a regiment.

Europeans are a warrior people. Restoring our sense of racial unity will reinvigorate our martial spirit and sense of brotherhood.

Pro-White nationalist policies involve explicit discrimination against those of other races. This discrimination is not motivated by hate for others — as the current anti-White paradigm is — but for a love of one’s own. White nationalist ideology centres European people, not foreigners. Nations under such a regime will privilege our people at the expense of others but in the spirit of good will and respect for other races and cultures where deserved.

This was a norm for the West up until the disaster of The Second World War. If it is to survive, Europe must go back to the future.

If you would like to support my work you can donate at Ko-Fi, Buy Me a Coffee or with Bitcoin:

BTC address: bc1qqrthd6es2uckxhgsa2qmx2mmww22vtmw92w4ch