Epstein Bankrolled British Royalty

Things like this are why the elite in the US and the UK have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent any information about Jeffrey Epstein’s operation from getting out.

Jeffrey Epstein secretly bankrolled Sarah Ferguson for 15 years, astonishing new emails claim. The convicted paedophile complained to friends about the disgraced duchess’s scrounging ways in messages that suggest his financial support went far beyond the £15,000 she admitted taking from him.

In the previously unseen emails, Epstein reveals Fergie was so desperate to cosy up to him that ‘she was the first to celebrate’ his release from jail ‘with her two daughters in tow’. Princess Beatrice would have been 20 at the time and Eugenie 19, the same age as many of his victims.

The shocking claims are contained in a huge tranche of documents under review by the US Congress. They are set to be released once they have been redacted to protect the identity of hundreds of young girls Epstein raped and sexually abused.

I very much doubt that the Duchess of York and the two princesses were the only members of the Royal family on his payroll. But it appears that the information dam is, if not breaking, at least cracking a little.

DISCUSS ON SG

It Actually is Their Land

Ron Unz realizes that the Zionists really held the original claim to the land all along:

America’s tens of millions of Christian Zionists regard themselves as the champions of the Israelis whom they identify with the Israelites of the Bible, and I suspect that many of them may vaguely consider the Palestinians to be the descendants of the accursed Canaanites. But the actual facts seem to be the other way round, with the Israeli Jews having heavy Canaanite ancestry and today’s suffering Palestinians probably being the closest direct descendants of the ancient Israelites.

It would appear Miles Mathis knew what he was doing when he described the primary moving force behind Clown World as “the Phoenician Navy”. And no doubt the shape of the next temple in Jerusalem, will surprise everyone when it is eventually built.

DISCUSS ON SG

When Change is for the Better

When I was in high school and college, it was a regular ritual of fall for the Golden Gophers to get absolutely crushed by the nation’s top college football teams. Particularly memorable was the 84-13 defeat at home in 1983, which was part of a 16-0 run by Nebraska from 1963 to 2012.

Somehow, the Gophers are still in the lead in the series, 38-25-2, a lead to which they added last night by upsetting the #25 Cornhuskers 24-6 thanks to no less than nine (9) sacks by an aggressive, bruising defensive front seven and excellent coverage in the secondary.

In other sports news, I don’t pay much attention to baseball, but the historic performance by Shohei Ohtani merits a mention, considering that it was arguably the greatest baseball game by a single player in the history of the sport. He hit three home runs – including the first leadoff home run as a pitcher in the history of the major leagues – and struck out 10 batters and gave up only two hits while leading the Dodgers to a 5-1 victory over the Brewers to sweep the National League championship series.

We never got the chance to see Babe Ruth or Ted Williams play, but we can watch Shohei Ohtani in action, which may actually, incredibly, be to our advantage.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Art of War in the Middle Ages

The Art of War has been very simply defined as ‘the art which enables any commander to worst the forces opposed to him.’ It is therefore conversant with an enormous variety of subjects: Strategy and Tactics are but two of the more important of its branches. Besides dealing with discipline, organization, and armament, it is bound to investigate every means which can be adapted to increase the physical or moral efficiency of an army. The author who opened his work with a dissertation on ‘the age which is preferable in a generalissimo,’ or ‘the average height which the infantry soldier should attain,’ was dealing with the Art of War, no less than he who confined himself to purely tactical speculations.

Today marks the launch of the new serialization at the Castalia Library substack. The work being serialized is the Oxford edition of Sir Charles Oman’s original 1884 Lothian Prize-winning essay: THE ART OF WAR IN THE MIDDLE AGES A.D. 378–1515.

The essay is the precursor to the work being published by Castalia Library as the Sep-Dec 2025 subscription book, which is an expanded version of the essay that was published in 1898 by Methuen & Co. as A HISTORY OF THE ART OF WAR: The Middle Ages From the Fourth to the Fourteenth Century.

In my humble opinion, this book is a must-have for anyone with an interest in either history or war. If you haven’t subscribed to Castalia History yet, this is a book that should make you seriously considering doing so, because it’s going to be an instant classic and will almost certainly sell out before it’s even available.

DISCUSS ON SG

Immigration is Importing Poverty

The big lie about immigration is that it is “good for the economy” and “necessary to maintain the social security structure”. Because in any advanced economy, immigrants reduce the productivity of labor and impose a tremendous financial burden on the economy that significantly outweigh any benefits they could ever collectively provide.

New data shows that foreigners account for a substantial share of people living in absolute poverty in Italy, even as the poverty rates of families with two Italian parents drops. One director of La Verita newspaper, Maurizio Belpietro, has run an opinion piece in his newspaper lamenting that Italy is “importing poverty.”

“We are importing poor people. Of the total immigrant population, 35.6 percent live in absolute poverty. This rate is five times higher than that of Italians,” writes Belpietro, who is an influential voice in Italian politics with 360,000 followers on X.

He further notes that although foreigners make up a small percentage of the population, they represent a huge share of the number of people living in poverty.

“Of the 2.2 million households living in poverty, i.e., do not have enough income to support a minimum standard of living, 1.5 million are Italian and 733,000 are foreigners. This means that, despite being less than a tenth of the population, poor non-EU citizens are one third of the total,” he wrote. The data, from the Italian government’s Istat, shows that for those families with one Italian and one foreign parent, the absolute poverty rate is only slightly lower, at 30.4 percent.

Claims that mass immigration would “save” European pension systems are increasingly running into reality.

Citing the article, Italian commentator Francesca Totolo wrote on X: “No, immigrants do not pay pensions to Italians. The absolute poverty rate among families of only foreigners is 35.2%, while among families of only Italians it is 6.2%. This means that it is and will be Italians who have to pay for assistance, subsidies, housing, and pensions to foreigners without resources.”

This finding has been replicated in many other countries, which shows that the left’s promise that foreigners would feed into the pension system falters when confronted with the data. Notably, there are substantial differences between EU and non-EU foreigners, with EU foreigners often boosting GDP and contributing to the tax base, in particular those from certain EU countries.

According to a landmark study from the Netherlands, the report found that migrants had cost the state €400 billion between 1995 and 2019. In Germany, the estimated cost of migrants is currently at €50 billion a year, including social benefits, housing, integration, education, and child allowances.

In 2021, French author and academic Jean-Paul Gourévitch said in an interview with Radio Sud that employment data show that it is a myth that immigration to France has economic benefits.

“I have studied this topic extensively and today everyone in France, from the left to the right agrees that immigration costs more than it brings in,” Gourévitch said. “There is a major difference between left and right (oriented) economists regarding the costs: the leftist economists say the deficit is six to ten billion [euros per year], while those on the right say it is 40 to 44 billion. My own scientific research shows that the deficit is 20 to 25 billion [euros],” he said.

There is absolutely no positive economic argument for permitting mass immigration except for the appeal to debt-funded GDP growth that could be much less expensively provided by simply having the government distribute more spending money directly to the native population to boost consumer spending.

Mass immigration is an economic disaster as well as a societal disaster. There are only three solutions: mass repatriations, mass violence and ethnic cleansings, and total societal collapse. And no amount of magic-wording, word-spelling, and name-calling is going to create a viable fourth option.

The mass importation of foreigners is almost unprecedented in history. And extreme policies such as we have suffered will inevitably result in extreme consequences.

Consider that Great Britain has been invaded by 10x more foreigners than have invaded Ukraine. How can anyone expect the consequences for Great Britain to be less significant over time than the consequences of defeat for Ukraine? A military invasion is often less significant over time, because in the case of a military invasion, most of the foreigners eventually return home.

DISCUSS ON SG

We Are Not Conservatives

Andrew Torba has really been on fire lately. And he says it much better than I ever have:

Let us be clear so there is no confusion and no room for misinterpretation: we are not conservatives.

That word has become a mark of surrender, a synonym for the managed decline of a nation we refuse to abandon. Our allegiance is not to a decaying set of liberal principles, to a faltering democracy that serves global interests, to “lower taxes” or to a “rules-based international order” that has bled our people dry. We will not conserve the hollowed-out institutions of a dying empire.

Our allegiance is sworn to something real, something eternal: to our God, our people, and our homeland. It is the soil beneath our feet, the blood in our veins, and the spirit that calls us to greatness.

We have no interest in conserving a political system mired in bipartisan decay, where two heads of the same beast promise change and deliver only ruin. We will not perpetuate a cycle of foreign wars and endless aid to distant nations while our own communities crumble into dust and despair. We refuse to uphold an economic order that leaves our own citizens struggling, indentured to a global market that despises our traditions, our faith, and our very existence.

Our mission is to build something new. Not a fragile imitation of the past, but an order of strength, clarity, and purpose, dedicated first, last, and always to the national interest. We don’t want to turn back the clock. We want to forge a future worthy of our nation’s legacy.

For over a century now the liberal and conservative establishment have captained this ship. They inherited a vessel of unmatched power and prestige, and with a toxic blend of incompetence, arrogance, and malice, they steered it directly into an iceberg of globalism, demographic decline, and cultural erosion. The steel of the ship groans, the ice grinds against the hull, and still, they toast their success in the captain’s lounge, blind to the icy water rising around their ankles.

We are done begging for a seat at their table.

Those who stand for the Good, the Beautiful, and the True are not conservatives. We cannot be conservatives, because conservatives defend nothing, conservatives conserve nothing, and conservatives stand for nothing.

Conservatives are the rear guard of the godless, globalist, satanic Left. The only function that conservatives serve is their gatekeeping function, and attempting to plant themselves at the head of the parade in order to subvert it and redirect it to harmless directions.

As has been observed many times before, a conservative is simply a liberal of 20 years ago and a progressive radical of 40 years ago. Whereas the things the true Right stands for are either material – blood, land, family, and gold – or timeless – God, Jesus Christ, nation, and truth.

We are not conservatives. We have never been conservatives. And we will never be conservatives.

UPDATE: An apt summary of conservatism on SG:

  1. Posture
  2. Compromise
  3. Surrender
  4. Retreat
  5. Whine
  6. Repeat

UPDATE: A cogent observation about how conservatives are not even our allies, as they are all too happy to join forces with the likes of Stalin and the literal grandchildren of the Trotskyites now known as the neocons.

The same conservatives saying things like “I’ll never ally with THOSE people on the Right” will also claim it was a moral imperative for America to ally with literally Joseph Stalin himself in World War II. They’re not above the Friend/Enemy distinction. They just have different enemies than you do.

DISCUSS ON SG

Rediscovering Van Creveld

But there is more to social justice and social justice convergence than simple feminization:

Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition. Other writers who have proposed their own versions of the Great Feminization thesis, such as Noah Carl or Bo Winegard and Cory Clark, who looked at feminization’s effects on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences in political values. One survey, for example, found that 71 percent of men said protecting free speech was more important than preserving a cohesive society, and 59 percent of women said the opposite.

The most relevant differences are not about individuals but about groups. In my experience, individuals are unique and you come across outliers who defy stereotypes every day, but groups of men and women display consistent differences. Which makes sense, if you think about it statistically. A random woman might be taller than a random man, but a group of ten random women is very unlikely to have an average height greater than that of a group of ten men. The larger the group of people, the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.

Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies…

he Great Feminization is truly unprecedented. Other civilizations have given women the vote, granted them property rights, or let them inherit the thrones of empires. No civilization in human history has ever experimented with letting women control so many vital institutions of our society, from political parties to universities to our largest businesses. Even where women do not hold the top spots, women set the tone in these organizations, such that a male CEO must operate within the limits set by his human resources VP. We assume that these institutions will continue to function under these completely novel circumstances. But what are our grounds for that assumption?

The problem is not that women are less talented than men or even that female modes of interaction are inferior in any objective sense. The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions. You can have an academia that is majority female, but it will be (as majority-female departments in today’s universities already are) oriented toward other goals than open debate and the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn’t pursue truth, what good is it? If your journalists aren’t prickly individualists who don’t mind alienating people, what good are they? If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit and becomes a feminized, inward-focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?

If the Great Feminization poses a threat to civilization, the question becomes whether there is anything we can do about it. The answer depends on why you think it occurred in the first place.

The author is entirely correct to be concerned about the consequences for every industry in which women become the majority, because all of those industries will cease to be able to perform their primary functions. We’ve already seen that, for example, in elementary education, where predominantly female teachers working under female principles and female-majority schoolboards cannot teach schoolchildren how to read, write, or do arithmetic.

As we are observing in real time, female-dominated politics are not compatible with civilization because women have different priorities and perspectives than those required for its construction and maintenance. A feminist society, if left unchecked to its own devices, will look very similar to the average African society before European contact. The episode of Survivor in which the two tribes were divided by the sexes is a very vivid example of this.

But the author is confusing the symptom for the disease. Women are more akin to the vector of the disease than the disease itself, as can be observed from the way in which men who are social justice warriors are every bit as incompetent and even more insane than the women are. The disease is ultimately spiritual and eventually ends in either societal collapse, pyramids dedicated to child sacrifice, or both.

The good news is that a) converged societies will inevitably fail, b) women’s commitment to feminism and social justice will vanish as soon as the government funding fails, and c) men stop supporting female influence over them.

This is a unique moment of history, and it is already observably coming to an end.

The lesson, as always, is this: women ruin everything.
—Bill Simmons

DISCUSS ON SG

On Facing Age

Even after a man’s fifty or sixty, he can still know happiness, even do useful work.
—Eiji Yoshikawa, Musashi

As a man moving from middle age into old age, that’s certainly good to know. Personally, I’m hoping for eight more years of soccer and at least 23 more years of active writing. AI has been a real godsend with regards to the latter.

And apparently, I’m just hitting the peak of my mental powers now. So I should be able to produce one or two more original thoughts in the next few years.

Scientists in Australia say that overall mental functioning in the brain actually peaks between the ages of 55 and 60. People in this age range may be at their best for complex problem–solving tasks and high–ranking leadership roles in the workforce.

DISCUSS ON SG