50 years on, Enoch Powell was right

This is the full text of Enoch Powell’s so-called ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, which was delivered to a Conservative Association meeting in Birmingham on April 20 1968.

The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils. In seeking to do so, it encounters obstacles which are deeply rooted in human nature.

One is that by the very order of things such evils are not demonstrable until they have occurred: at each stage in their onset there is room for doubt and for dispute whether they be real or imaginary. By the same token, they attract little attention in comparison with current troubles, which are both indisputable and pressing: whence the besetting temptation of all politics to concern itself with the immediate present at the expense of the future.

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”

Perhaps this habit goes back to the primitive belief that the word and the thing, the name and the object, are identical.

At all events, the discussion of future grave but, with effort now, avoidable evils is the most unpopular and at the same time the most necessary occupation for the politician. Those who knowingly shirk it deserve, and not infrequently receive, the curses of those who come after.

A week or two ago I fell into conversation with a constituent, a middle-aged, quite ordinary working man employed in one of our nationalised industries.

After a sentence or two about the weather, he suddenly said: “If I had the money to go, I wouldn’t stay in this country.” I made some deprecatory reply to the effect that even this government wouldn’t last for ever; but he took no notice, and continued: “I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan’t be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas. In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.”

I can already hear the chorus of execration. How dare I say such a horrible thing? How dare I stir up trouble and inflame feelings by repeating such a conversation?

The answer is that I do not have the right not to do so. Here is a decent, ordinary fellow Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that his country will not be worth living in for his children.

I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

In 15 or 20 years, on present trends, there will be in this country three and a half million Commonwealth immigrants and their descendants. That is not my figure. That is the official figure given to parliament by the spokesman of the Registrar General’s Office.

There is no comparable official figure for the year 2000, but it must be in the region of five to seven million, approximately one-tenth of the whole population, and approaching that of Greater London. Of course, it will not be evenly distributed from Margate to Aberystwyth and from Penzance to Aberdeen. Whole areas, towns and parts of towns across England will be occupied by sections of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

As time goes on, the proportion of this total who are immigrant descendants, those born in England, who arrived here by exactly the same route as the rest of us, will rapidly increase. Already by 1985 the native-born would constitute the majority. It is this fact which creates the extreme urgency of action now, of just that kind of action which is hardest for politicians to take, action where the difficulties lie in the present but the evils to be prevented or minimised lie several parliaments ahead.

The natural and rational first question with a nation confronted by such a prospect is to ask: “How can its dimensions be reduced?” Granted it be not wholly preventable, can it be limited, bearing in mind that numbers are of the essence: the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

The answers to the simple and rational question are equally simple and rational: by stopping, or virtually stopping, further inflow, and by promoting the maximum outflow. Both answers are part of the official policy of the Conservative Party.

It almost passes belief that at this moment 20 or 30 additional immigrant children are arriving from overseas in Wolverhampton alone every week – and that means 15 or 20 additional families a decade or two hence. Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancés whom they have never seen.

Let no one suppose that the flow of dependants will automatically tail off. On the contrary, even at the present admission rate of only 5,000 a year by voucher, there is sufficient for a further 25,000 dependants per annum ad infinitum, without taking into account the huge reservoir of existing relations in this country – and I am making no allowance at all for fraudulent entry. In these circumstances nothing will suffice but that the total inflow for settlement should be reduced at once to negligible proportions, and that the necessary legislative and administrative measures be taken without delay.

I stress the words “for settlement.” This has nothing to do with the entry of Commonwealth citizens, any more than of aliens, into this country, for the purposes of study or of improving their qualifications, like (for instance) the Commonwealth doctors who, to the advantage of their own countries, have enabled our hospital service to be expanded faster than would otherwise have been possible. They are not, and never have been, immigrants.

I turn to re-emigration. If all immigration ended tomorrow, the rate of growth of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population would be substantially reduced, but the prospective size of this element in the population would still leave the basic character of the national danger unaffected. This can only be tackled while a considerable proportion of the total still comprises persons who entered this country during the last ten years or so.

Hence the urgency of implementing now the second element of the Conservative Party’s policy: the encouragement of re-emigration.

Nobody can make an estimate of the numbers which, with generous assistance, would choose either to return to their countries of origin or to go to other countries anxious to receive the manpower and the skills they represent.

Nobody knows, because no such policy has yet been attempted. I can only say that, even at present, immigrants in my own constituency from time to time come to me, asking if I can find them assistance to return home. If such a policy were adopted and pursued with the determination which the gravity of the alternative justifies, the resultant outflow could appreciably alter the prospects.

The third element of the Conservative Party’s policy is that all who are in this country as citizens should be equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination or difference made between them by public authority. As Mr Heath has put it we will have no “first-class citizens” and “second-class citizens.” This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendent should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to imposition as to his reasons and motive for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

There could be no grosser misconception of the realities than is entertained by those who vociferously demand legislation as they call it “against discrimination”, whether they be leader-writers of the same kidney and sometimes on the same newspapers which year after year in the 1930s tried to blind this country to the rising peril which confronted it, or archbishops who live in palaces, faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads. They have got it exactly and diametrically wrong.

The discrimination and the deprivation, the sense of alarm and of resentment, lies not with the immigrant population but with those among whom they have come and are still coming.

This is why to enact legislation of the kind before parliament at this moment is to risk throwing a match on to gunpowder. The kindest thing that can be said about those who propose and support it is that they know not what they do.

Nothing is more misleading than comparison between the Commonwealth immigrant in Britain and the American Negro. The Negro population of the United States, which was already in existence before the United States became a nation, started literally as slaves and were later given the franchise and other rights of citizenship, to the exercise of which they have only gradually and still incompletely come. The Commonwealth immigrant came to Britain as a full citizen, to a country which knew no discrimination between one citizen and another, and he entered instantly into the possession of the rights of every citizen, from the vote to free treatment under the National Health Service.

Whatever drawbacks attended the immigrants arose not from the law or from public policy or from administration, but from those personal circumstances and accidents which cause, and always will cause, the fortunes and experience of one man to be different from another’s.

But while, to the immigrant, entry to this country was admission to privileges and opportunities eagerly sought, the impact upon the existing population was very different. For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.

They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. They now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by act of parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent-provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

In the hundreds upon hundreds of letters I received when I last spoke on this subject two or three months ago, there was one striking feature which was largely new and which I find ominous. All Members of Parliament are used to the typical anonymous correspondent; but what surprised and alarmed me was the high proportion of ordinary, decent, sensible people, writing a rational and often well-educated letter, who believed that they had to omit their address because it was dangerous to have committed themselves to paper to a Member of Parliament agreeing with the views I had expressed, and that they would risk penalties or reprisals if they were known to have done so. The sense of being a persecuted minority which is growing among ordinary English people in the areas of the country which are affected is something that those without direct experience can hardly imagine.

I am going to allow just one of those hundreds of people to speak for me:

“Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one white (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her white tenants moved out.

“The day after the last one left, she was awakened at 7am by two Negroes who wanted to use her ‘phone to contact their employer. When she refused, as she would have refused any stranger at such an hour, she was abused and feared she would have been attacked but for the chain on her door. Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. “She went to apply for a rate reduction and was seen by a young girl, who on hearing she had a seven-roomed house, suggested she should let part of it. When she said the only people she could get were Negroes, the girl said, “Racial prejudice won’t get you anywhere in this country.” So she went home.

“The telephone is her lifeline. Her family pay the bill, and help her out as best they can. Immigrants have offered to buy her house – at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.”

The other dangerous delusion from which those who are wilfully or otherwise blind to realities suffer, is summed up in the word “integration.” To be integrated into a population means to become for all practical purposes indistinguishable from its other members.

Now, at all times, where there are marked physical differences, especially of colour, integration is difficult though, over a period, not impossible. There are among the Commonwealth immigrants who have come to live here in the last fifteen years or so, many thousands whose wish and purpose is to be integrated and whose every thought and endeavour is bent in that direction.

But to imagine that such a thing enters the heads of a great and growing majority of immigrants and their descendants is a ludicrous misconception, and a dangerous one.

We are on the verge here of a change. Hitherto it has been force of circumstance and of background which has rendered the very idea of integration inaccessible to the greater part of the immigrant population – that they never conceived or intended such a thing, and that their numbers and physical concentration meant the pressures towards integration which normally bear upon any small minority did not operate.

Now we are seeing the growth of positive forces acting against integration, of vested interests in the preservation and sharpening of racial and religious differences, with a view to the exercise of actual domination, first over fellow-immigrants and then over the rest of the population. The cloud no bigger than a man’s hand, that can so rapidly overcast the sky, has been visible recently in Wolverhampton and has shown signs of spreading quickly. The words I am about to use, verbatim as they appeared in the local press on 17 February, are not mine, but those of a Labour Member of Parliament who is a minister in the present government:

‘The Sikh communities’ campaign to maintain customs inappropriate in Britain is much to be regretted. Working in Britain, particularly in the public services, they should be prepared to accept the terms and conditions of their employment. To claim special communal rights (or should one say rites?) leads to a dangerous fragmentation within society. This communalism is a canker; whether practised by one colour or another it is to be strongly condemned.’

All credit to John Stonehouse for having had the insight to perceive that, and the courage to say it.

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century.

Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.

Show some faith

I understand that there can be utility in holding someone accountable. But doesn’t the God-Emperor come in for enough criticism already that he doesn’t need to hear it all the time from both sides?

Prominent supporters of President Trump are expressing skepticism over his decision to launch airstrikes against Syria, slamming the move as overly aggressive and unnecessary.

Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham both questioned Trump’s decision Friday to launch strikes in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack last weekend that the U.S. has attributed to the Syrian government.

Carlson noted the move was inconsistent with the president’s message during his 2016 campaign, and Ingraham said she found that intervention in other countries could be risky, as shown in the Iraq War, according to the Daily Beast.

Michael Savage, a prominent conservative radio host and author, tweeted that “sad warmongers hijacking our nation” following news of the strike.

Michael Savage@ASavageNation
 We lost. War machine  bombs syria. No evidence Assad did it. Sad warmongers hijacking our nation

Infowars’s Alex Jones broke down in tears while speaking out against the military action. “If he had been a piece of crap from the beginning, it wouldn’t be so bad,” Jones said of Trump. “We’ve made so many sacrifices and now he’s crapping all over us. It makes me sick.”

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter also shared her opposition to the strike, retweeting a series of other conservative or right-wing figures who condemned the move and resurfacing Trump’s own past tweets against military action in Syria.

And far-right figures Mike Cernovich and Laura Loomer also ripped Trump over the military strike in Syria.

Mike Cernovich@Cernovich
At least I won’t feel bad when he gets impeached.

The ironic thing is that I am probably more anti-war, and have been for much longer, than any of these right-wing figures. I’m not bothered by a few missile strikes. I don’t believe they will lead to boots on the ground, any more than all the previous missile strikes did.

Everything I have seen about the situation indicates that Trump is resisting the neocons and their war machine, not giving into it. I really don’t understand why none of these folks, of whom most I generally think well, aren’t able to do the same.

Be patient. Don’t react. And don’t assume you necessarily know what the President is doing.

False flag proven

The double poisoning in the UK was not the Russians nor was the toxin utilized the one originally claimed by the British foreign office, according to a top Swiss lab:

The substance used on Sergei Skripal was an agent called BZ, according to Swiss state Spiez lab, the Russian foreign minister said. The toxin was never produced in Russia, but was in service in the US, UK, and other NATO states.

Sergei Skripal, a former Russian double agent, and his daughter Yulia were poisoned with an incapacitating toxin known as 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate or BZ, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, citing the results of the examination conducted by a Swiss chemical lab that worked with the samples that London handed over to the Organisation for the Prohibition of the Chemical Weapons (OPCW).

The Swiss center sent the results to the OPCW. However, the UN chemical watchdog limited itself only to confirming the formula of the substance used to poison the Skripals in its final report without mentioning anything about the other facts presented in the Swiss document, the Russian foreign minister added. He went on to say that Moscow would ask the OPCW about its decision to not include any other information provided by the Swiss in its report.

The Swiss center mentioned by Lavrov is the Spiez Laboratory controlled by the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Protection and ultimately by the country’s defense minister. The lab is also an internationally recognized center of excellence in the field of the nuclear, biological, and chemical protection and is one of the five centers permanently authorized by the OPCW.

The Russian foreign minister said that London refused to answer dozens of “very specific” questions asked by Moscow about the Salisbury case, as well as to provide any substantial evidence that could shed light on the incident. Instead, the UK accused Russia of failing to answer its own questions, he said, adding that, in fact, London did not ask any questions but wanted Moscow to admit that it was responsible for the delivery of the chemical agent to the UK.

Now, why would the British government be lying about this and why would it want to provoke a confrontation with Russia on a false basis in the first place?

Join the club

I have to admit, I find it more than a little amusing when another right-wing figure gets banned by Twitter and acts genuinely surprised about it.

Conservative street artist Sabo has been permanently suspended from Twitter. Sabo, who ran the @UnsavoryAgents account, was banned from the platform on Friday.

“Was not told why or for how long. I just saw I no longer have my 32,000 followers and I’m no longer following anybody,” claimed Sabo in an email to Breitbart Tech. “They want nothing less than to completely destroy us on the Right.”

Really. You don’t say…. It’s always fascinating how so few on the Right believe there is a problem or is willing to actually lift a finger to do anything about it until they are personally affected.

Please to paint target on your chest

The sports media is getting frustrated about the way in which NFL teams have learned not to hand them the hammer with which to hit them:

Let’s get it all out in the open. Regardless of how you feel about a player’s right to kneel during the national anthem, two men have peacefully risked their livelihood and dreams to prove a point they feel is vital. It’s time for the coaches and general managers who have enjoyed playing both sides of the issue to throw their cards on the table, too. Don’t leave an amateur psychologist like me to guess, because here are my notes:

• You might be scared that a billionaire owner will fire you if you press them too hard on signing Reid or Kaepernick and, like them you will be unemployed.

• You might feel like signing and supporting players unafraid of speaking their mind will lead to you losing command inside the facility, and you will no longer be able to walk around pretending you are George S Patton in Nike khakis.

• You might resist having your opinion out there because you don’t want good players who care about social justice issues but only speak about them in societally approved ways to not come to your team in free agency.

Don’t leave it to your favorite reporter to clean it up on television via “sources,” either.

We might not like the answers, but what about this flimsy, hollow middle ground feels good to anyone right now?

No, let’s not. If the sports media wanted honest answers, it should have it should never have started prosecuting and calling for the disemployment of those whose answers it didn’t like. They destroyed the very information flows upon which they relied; if you bite the hand that feeds you, you probably shouldn’t expect dinner tomorrow.

The minute any team official admitted that they will not sign Kaepernick or Reid due to the fact that they are known troublemakers who put politics ahead of their jobs, the entire sports media will tee off on them and sic the social media mob on them. Which is why no team official who cares about keeping his job will ever admit that.

The symbolic strike option

It appears that my expectations were more or less correct. But now that the US has opted for the symbolic strike, what are the implications? The Saker discussed this very possibility three days ago, even as he worried about mutual escalation:

The truth is that Russia would never be a credible threat to the AngloZionist Hegemony if it was not for the innumerable self-inflicted disasters the Empire has been absorbing year after year after year. In reality, Russia is no threat to anybody at all. And even China would not be a threat to the Empire if the latter was not so arrogant, so over-stretched, so ignorant, reckless and incompetent in its actions.

Let me just give one simple, but stark, example: not only does the US not have anything remotely resembling a consistent foreign policy, it does not even have any ministry of foreign affairs. The Department of State does not deal with diplomacy simply because the US leaders don’t believe in diplomacy as a concept. All the DoS does is issue threats, sanctions, ultimatums, make demands, deliver score-cards (on human rights and the like, of all things!) and explain to the public why the US is almost constantly at war with somebody. That is not “diplomacy” and the likes of Nikki Haley are not diplomats. In fact, the US has no use for International Law either, hence the self-same Nikki Haley openly declaring at a UNSC meeting that the US is willing to ignore the decisions of the UNSC and act in complete violation of the UN Charter. Simply put: thugs have no need for any diplomacy. They don’t understand the concept.

Just like their Israeli masters and mentors, the Americans have convinced themselves that all they need to be successful on the international scene is to either threaten the use of force or actually use force. This works great (or so it seems) in Gaza or Grenada, but when dealing with China, Russia or Iran, this monomaniacal approach rapidly shows its limitations, especially when your force is really limited to shooting missiles from afar or murdering civilians (neither the US nor Israel nor, for that matter, the KSA has a credible “boots on the ground” capability, hence their reliance on proxies).

The Empire is failing, fast, and for all the talk about “Animal Assad” or “Rocket Man” being in need of AngloZionist punishment, the stakes are the survival of Hegemony imposed upon mankind at the end of WWII and, again, at the end of the Cold War, and the future of our planet. There cannot be one World Hegemon and a multipolar world order regulated by international law. It’s an either-or situation. And in that sense, this is all much bigger than Syria or even Russia.

There is still a chance that the AngloZionists will decide to strike Syria symbolically, as they did last year following the previous chemical false flag in Khan Sheikhoun (Trump has now probably tweeted himself into a corner which makes some kind of attack almost inevitable). Should that happen though, we should not celebrate too soon as this will just be a minor course change, the 21st-century anti-Russia Crusade will continue, most likely in the form of a Ukronazi attack on the Donbass.

While I think the Saker misses the point that Trump is not a creature of the Empire and is probably the primary target of its attempts to wield its influence, I suspect that he is correct that the neocons’ anti-Russian campaign will continue, although I expect its focus to shift to Iran next, rather than Ukraine.

And this commenter has it right: In its essence, U.S. foreign policy boils down to someone’s attempt to establish Satan’s kingdom on earth as per Isaiah 14:13,14.

But not just U.S. foreign policy. As another commenter observed, Russia appears to be placing the blame for both recent false flags squarely on Britain. And Britain was also involved in the attacks, which may indicate that any Russian retaliation is going to be directed at British interests.

Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld has a more regional and historical take on the situation:

With so many interests, native and foreign, involved, a way out does not seem in sight. Nor can the outcome be foreseen any more than that of the Thirty Years’ War could be four years after the beginning of the conflict, i.e. 1622. In fact there is good reason to believe that the hostilities have just begun. Additional players such as Lebanon and Jordan may well be drawn in. That in turn will almost certainly bring in Israel as well. Some right-wing Israelis, including several ministers, actually dream of such a scenario. They hope that the fall of the Hashemite Dynasty and the disintegration of Jordan will provide them with an opportunity to repeat the events of 1948 by throwing the Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Jordan.

That, however, is Zukunftmusik, future music as the Germans say. As of the present, the greatest losers are going to be Syria and Iraq. Neither really exists any longer as organized entities, and neither seems to have a future as such an entity. The greatest winner is going to be Iran. Playing the role once reserved for Richelieu, the great 17th century French statesman, the Mullahs are watching the entire vast area from the Persian Gulf to Latakia on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean turn into a maelstrom of conflicting interests they can play with. Nor are they at all sorry to see Turks and Kurds kill each other to their hearts’ contents.

What is most interesting, to me, is that despite their very different perspectives, both the Saker and van Creveld recognize that the “liberal factions” in Syria were false fronts for ISIS.

UPDATE: Russia Insider called it correctly ahead of time.

The latest news is that now the Russian and American militaries are frantically talking, helped by Israelis (Netanyahu himself!), and the Turks (NATO members after all, but de facto Russian allies), trying to figure a way out of this Mexican standoff. Some experts are saying that it will go down like last time: the Americans will notify the Russians in advance of the targets, the Russians (and most Syrians whom the Russians will inform) will leave them, the strikes will be all for show, and the Russians and Syrians will get on with pulverizing Al Qaeda. The Syrians have already moved their planes to Russian bases, so, no, Syria will not lose its air force. Everyone saves face, and the world moves on.

Interesting, though not surprising, that Mad Dog Mattis is credited as being the voice of reason responsible for the “de-conflicting” on the US side. And I note that he does have blue eyes.

Flirting with WWIII

President Trump has ordered “precision missile strikes” in order to let Assad know that the US will not tolerate the false flags of its proxies. Or something.

President Donald Trump said he had approved military strikes on Syria in retaliation for an apparent chemical attack by the regime of Bashar al-Assad on a rebel town.

“A short time ago I ordered the United States armed forces to launch precision strikes” on targets associated with Syria chemical weapons, Trump said in remarks Friday night.

Trump said the strikes would be carried out in coordination with France and the U.K.

Trump’s statement on U.S. policy toward Syria came after days of speculation that the U.S. would launch a strike against Syria in retaliation for an apparent chemical weapons attack last weekend that killed scores of civilians.

Idiocy, of course. But it strikes me as Trump trying to look like he’s doing something without provoking a serious response.

The problem is this: The Russian military said on 13 March it would respond to any US strike on Syria, targeting any missiles and launchers involved in such an attack.

UPDATE: Syria’s capital has been rocked by loud explosions that lit up the sky with heavy smoke as U.S. President Donald Trump announced airstrikes in retaliation for the country’s alleged use of chemical weapons. Associated Press reporters in Damascus saw smoke rising from east Damascus early Saturday morning local time. Syrian state TV says the attack has begun on the capital, though it wasn’t immediately clear what was targeted.

This all looks insanely stupid and totally pointless. I hope this is all some sort of kabuki allowing the God-Emperor to declare martial law and drain the swamp. Consider:

  1. Dumbest, most unnecessary, and most poorly timed “chemical attack” ever.
  2. Bizarre overreaction on the part of the President.
  3. Uncharacteristically strong and public pre-reaction on the part of the ordinarily patient Russians.
I’m not saying this is the case, I’m just saying that I won’t be very surprised if after some missile strikes and the sinking of one or two of the US Navy’s older ships, martial law is declared, all of the God-Emperor’s domestic enemies are arrested, and last-minute personal negotiations between Trump and Putin save the day and avert World War III.

And, as always, I advise patience before reaching any conclusions. Remember, this is not the first time. It won’t be the last time. Relax.

The McCabe report

Andrew McCabe did what he could to get out in front of the DOJ Inspector General’s report. It does not appear to have done him much good:

Andrew McCabe, onetime acting FBI director, leaked a self-serving story to the press and later lied about it to his boss and federal investigators, prompting a stunning fall from grace that ended in his firing last month, says a bombshell report released Friday by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz, appointed by President Barack Obama, had been reviewing FBI and DOJ actions leading up to the 2016 presidential election.

The report, handed over to Congress on Friday and obtained by Fox News, looked at a leak to The Wall Street Journal about an FBI probe of the Clinton Foundation.

The report says that McCabe authorized the leak and then misled investigators about it, leaking in a way that did not fall under a “public interest” exception.

And where will the trail lead? Where will it end?

Mensch vs Day: Anti-Semitism Debate

Alt-Right Anti-Semitism Debate: Vox Day vs Louise Mensch
By Vox Day and Louise Mensch
11:43 am, May 28, 2016

Louise Mensch: This may surprise the people that have been following our debate thus far, but, I feel like those were all small, little, light-hearted warm up debates, because now we’re going to get into it. Because we’re going to debate anti-Semitism.

I want to get a bit granular, because I was surprised and disappointed to see you flaming a very good friend of mine, Cathy Young – who is an equity-based feminist, for those of you that don’t know her, reading this debate – and a long time ally of Gamergate and has worked extremely hard to separate genuine feminism from the kind of “fauxminism” that bullies men for no good reason.

I can’t remember the exact tweet so you can correct me if I’ve got this wrong, but: “…as she would know if she were a real American,” as though she were not an American, or she were less American that you are, which I think is a) racist; b) completely ridiculous; c) unbecoming of an alpha-male who ought to show some loyalty to a tried and tested ally.

What I don’t like about this, apart from racism in general, and I say it with reverence, because you of all people know that I’ve been #notyourshield forever, is that it seems to give quite a lot of comfort to those fauxminist harridans, who’ve always said that Gamergate is just about abuse etc … This is a woman who stood strongly with movement forever, and the first sign of disagreement on anti-Semitism and you guys throw her under the bus. So I’ll let you come back, what do you have to say?

Vox Day: Well, I’m perfectly prepared for things to get hardcore, I’ve been listening to Ministry all afternoon in preparation for this. By the way, I did not know Cathy’s work on Gamergate. We are loyal; until now I did not know.

Louise Mensch: (Laughs) OK, now I’m scared. Go on.

Vox Day: First of all, let me point out that, in terms of feminism, Cathy Young committed something that is, in the eyes of the alt-right a significant error of the sort that removes any right to avoid criticism. She, very very publicly, and very very vehemently, attacked Ann Coulter. The response that she got was a direct result of that, from me and from others. You can even, if you wish to, portray it as the alt-right white knighting for Ann Coulter. I don’t think that would be accurate but you certainly could do that if you wanted to.

Louise Mensch: Well Ann Coulter’s been … I mean, you know, please, she attacks herself. She’s been attacked by me and others. She’s said some rabidly anti-Semitic things, about the Jews etc.

Vox Day: I don’t think Ann Coulter’s said anything that can reasonably be considered anti-Semitic.

Louise Mensch: How many goddamn Jews do they think there are in America, that kind of thing.

Vox Day: There’s a difference between … Anti-Semitism, in its historic form, means hatred of Jews.

Louise Mensch: Yes.

Vox Day: And there’s a huge difference between hating Jews and wondering why the hell everyone is babbling about them, again, when the subject really has nothing to do with them.

Louise Mensch: Well in this case Ann Coulter used the words “Jews.” “How many goddamn Jews does he think there are in America,” quote unquote.

Vox Day: Well yeah, because polls show Americans think that 33{5d01cb5ba07024ac0de3b9d1fbf6cc8231453f95977a82b19bad56561434ea06} of Americans are gay, and certainly there … I don’t know what the exact figure is, I don’t recall a similar study being performed with regards to what percentage of Americans other Americans believe are Jews. I don’t know. But I would guess that the perceived percentage is seriously overestimated, due to the constant discussion of Jews, by American Jews, in the media, because American Jews in the media are prone to navel-gazing.

Louise Mensch: Vox, Vox, this was Ann Coulter who brought it up herself, who made the remark, herself. Really, as an “Ayn Randian radical,” don’t you recognize this is entirely Ann Coulter’s own fault? She brought it up, nobody else did, she ranted on about the Jews. She outed herself! Nobody else was talking to her about the Jews. On the left it’s people like Ken Livingston in London. He doesn’t seem to be able to go into any interview in London without mentioning the word ‘Hitler’ five times a second. And it was Coulter’s own fault. No one was talking to her about the Jews in Israel. She was commenting on the first Republican debate, and she brought it up, herself, entirely herself, unprompted.

Vox Day: Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t she discussing the fact that the candidates were discussing Israel, or Jews or something like that?

Louise Mensch: They aren’t the same, are they?

Vox Day: They’re not the same but it’s certainly related. I’ll be the first to point out that they’re not the same at all.

Louise Mensch: Because you said basically you owe no loyalty to Cathy Young despite an extraordinarily long time defending Gamergate in general, or Gamergate in particular I should say and men in general from the false persecution of the bating fauxminist movement. Now she insulted your girl Coulter – by the way, I consider Coulter as something lower than the stuff I find to scrape off my shoes – and all of a sudden, you more or less said that she deserves all the anti-Semitism that she gets.

Vox Day: No, what I’m saying is that Cathy Young has made it necessary for people to choose between her and Ann Coulter, and people like Milo and I made it very clear that we choose Ann. That’s all.


Louise Mensch: So basically, I’m looking at it here now, so this is the tweet, it’s 17th of September 2015.  And Coulter says, “How many fucking Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” That’s on her. There’s really nobody who’s brought it up except her, that’s her.

Vox Day: But that sounds like a response to something, to me, and I don’t know what it’s a response to.

Louise Mensch: The debate.

Vox Day: Yeah, I didn’t watch the debate. (Laughs)

Louise Mensch: Well they were talking about Israel … and she says, “How many effing Jews do people think there are in America?”

Vox Day: Well, right, and I think she thinks that there’s … I guess what I don’t understand is … I don’t think that using the term “fucking Jews” indicates that you hate them. I think that it sounds to me very exasperated, like why are we … For example, you read the New York Times, right?

Louise Mensch: Not really. Well, my husband reads it because he’s a liberal, so occasionally it’s lying around the house and I have nothing else to read …

Vox Day: Every time I forget that your background being British, you wouldn’t have grown up reading it. Anyhow, the thing is that for the average American, who doesn’t live in New York City, we simply do not understand why the media is constantly discussing Jews. It makes no sense to us. When I was growing up in Minnesota, I did not know a single Jewish person. Obviously I still read the Bible and that sort of thing, and when I went to school on the East Coast and then … Now I know, I wouldn’t say a lot, but I know a fair number, I’m quite good friends with a few. But, if I did not understand the makeup of the media, I would still personally be very confused about why the media is constantly talking about them, for good or for ill. For example, I’m Native American. How often do you see newspaper articles – other than something to do with the Redskins, these days – how often do you see articles about what we Native Americans think? You don’t.

Louise Mensch: Mostly because people aren’t going around Twitter, your Donald Trump’s fans, and you re-tweeted again – I was sorry to see it – you re-tweeted at a troll that goes by the name – who I really should hunt down – a troll that goes by the name of Ricky Vaughn, who came up with such epic classics as … Cathy wrote about his tweets for us … you know, Negroes, Jews, the Holocaust, you’re going to get what you deserve, threats of the Holocaust, etc. He used the term Negroes. This is a guy that you re-tweet.

Now, I have you on a higher plane, I believe you to be an intelligent man. You are factually an intelligent man, whether I believe it or not, that’s quite clear, in the way that you conduct your arguments. One doesn’t want to sonorously shake one’s head and say “You’re better than this,” but I must say I was surprised. When you get somebody using base racial abuse like the troll behind the Ricky Vaughn account and you’re re-tweeting him, giving him air … Difficult, because it kind of makes – I really don’t want Zoe Quinn to be able to go, “Told you so,” and I see the sort of “alt-right takeover” – and of course I don’t want to suggest in any way that Gamergate is alt-right, that would be terrible …

Vox Day: No.

Louise Mensch: I mean it is not, it is not. To my mind, you’re giving them points, when you re-tweet a guy like that. You come back at me while I go to look up tweets from this guy. Of course there’s too many to talk about because he’s so unbelievably racist, but I will pick out a couple.

Vox Day: Well there’s a couple things. First of all, I overtly reject the concept of guilt-by-association, and I don’t shy away from it. I get called … I’ve been getting called racist and anti-Semitic and white supremacist and homophobic and everything, for literally fifteen years.

Louise Mensch: Are you? Are you? But Vox, are you any of those things?

Vox Day: No. I’m not. In fact I’m probably one of the very few people who can say that the Jewish Defense League has actually talked to me and concluded that I’m not anti-Semitic. Certainly, you know, Martin van Creveld, the illustrious Israeli military historian, would not be terribly inclined to choose me as his editor and his publisher if I had any hatred for Jews, and I don’t. That’s quite simple.

On the other hand, I point out that I’m not one of those conservatives that somehow feels that the Jewish people are any more virtuous or anything else that anyone else. I’m just not terribly concerned … First of all, I grew up in the American Midwest and I’ve lived in Europe for most of my adult life. It has no personal relevance to me one way or the other, with the exception of some of my personal friends and some of my authors. Obviously, I would not wish to personally offend any of them in any way that I would wish to personally offend any of my other friends. But on the other hand, I don’t really care about what some alt-right flamethrower … They’re not upset about him … why should I be?

Louise Mensch: You’re re-tweeting this guy Ricky Vaughn, frequently, so I want to read you three tweets that Cathy singled out for her piece on the anti-Semitism of Trump alt-right supporters.

Vox Day: Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Louise Mensch: Here’s the first one: “Germany had two choices: genocide by Bolshevik Jews, or Hitler. If Trump isn’t elected, we will face a similar situation.” There Vaughn says that Communist Jews will kill everyone in America, if Trump isn’t elected. He also appears to be favorably comparing Trump to Hitler in that tweet.

Here’s another one: “Hitler said the Jews wanted to bring Negroes [sic: I apologize to our readers] Hitler said that the jews wanted to bring negroes into the Rhineland, and history has vindicated him on this point.”

Three: “The jews fear that Donald Trump is Hitler because they know that they have done great evil in America. They fear justice will be done.”

Again now on those few things he is a) comparing Trump favorably to Hitler; b) saying that the Jews are going to kill everybody; and c) denigrating not only the Jewish people but African-Americans for he only uses a really disgusting racial slur.

How can you? It’s not really guilt-by-association, I think guilt-by-association is when for example somebody says to me, “Well Louise Mensch, you’re followed by such-and-such a person.” You and I have got tens of thousands of followers, we cannot possibly vet all our followers.

Vox Day: Right.

Louise Mensch: And by the way, once in awhile I will re-tweet somebody, I have re-tweeted a far right person by mistake, you know, not having checked that person’s entire TL. But I’m going to assume that you know who Ricky Vaughn is. You re-tweet him enough times, I’m going to assume you know exactly who he is …

Vox Day: Yes, of course.

Louise Mensch: … and what he says, and when you re-tweet him it isn’t by accident, so in this case, I don’t think it’s mere association, because the acts of tweeting him often and amplifying a voice that is as racist and and sick as that, isn’t just as a mere association, it’s a serious act.

Vox Day: Well I think that it would be a serious act that you could criticize me for if I was re-tweeting those specific things. Let me give you an example: There’s a gentleman by the name of Popehat …

Louise Mensch: Yeah.

Vox Day: He’s actually two people and  I don’t think it would be too …

Louise Mensch: I’m a big fan.

Vox Day: … too much of an exaggeration to say that he absolutely loathes me. And I have been exceedingly cruel to him by repeatedly pointing out that the guy’s a nutcase.

Louise Mensch: Well, you just said he’s two people, why aren’t you using the plural?

Vox Day: Popehat is actually two individuals.

Louise Mensch: Yeah, so why didn’t you say “them”? It’s confusing, you say “he hates me,” do you mean “they hate me”?

Vox Day: What’s that?

Louise Mensch: You’re saying “he hates me” but do you not mean “they hate me”?

Vox Day: Actually I’m pretty sure they both do.

Louise Mensch: Right.

Vox Day: But the Ken White part, particularly dislikes me. But that’s OK, that’s fine, that’s his prerogative. I re-tweet him on occasion, simply because, despite the fact that he hates me, he occasionally says something that’s funny and perspicacious. And so, Ricky Vaughn, I don’t agree with him on everything, but I certainly agree with him on some things. He’s a Trump supporter, he’s been an important Trump supporter, and so … I’ve no qualms whatsoever about … I’m not responsible for … I’m responsible for what I say and for what I do. You might say or do something reprehensible at some point, and that wouldn’t stop me from re-tweeting you either.

Louise Mensch: So you’re saying that your re-tweeting of a guy who is racist is OK as long as you don’t re-tweet specifically racist things that he says?

Vox Day: I wouldn’t say OK, I would say that it is not racist to re-tweet non-racist things from a racist. I’ll go further. I’ll give you some more information. I think that people have an absolute right to be racist. Or to be anti-Semitic, or to be anti-German, or to be anti-Native American for that matter. Not that anyone is anymore, but that’s part of what the freedom of thought … I think that’s Martin Luther but … the development’s inside, thoughts are free. We can’t simply tell people to not hate people, or not dislike people. Maybe their reasons are good, maybe their reasons are stupid. But clearly they feel what they feel, they think what the think. For example, there are some Jews that I know that are, overtly, anti-German. Now, I understand that. I don’t blame them at all for refusing to buy Mercedes because of what happened seventy years ago, that’s fine. But I don’t think that’s logical. I don’t think that that really makes a whole lot of sense, but that’s how they feel and I respect that. In the same way…

Louise Mensch: There’s no reason to respect feelings that are stupid. And I think there’s a difference between … Would you not agree that the idea of free speech – we both support free speech, I’m perhaps not as absolutist as you – but free speech has always has the “get-outs” of the “fire in a crowded theater” clause. You know, free speech doesn’t mean I can tell everybody your bank account, your social security number, or give them nuclear launch codes, or shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, so there’s always some pragmatic limits to the idea of free speech.

Now in this case if you’re right, and Ricky Vaughn is one person, he has not just said “I hate the Jews,” which is social discourse within the range of protected free public expression. But he has said things that are going to incite people to hurt the Jews, and he’s threatened them, saying “You’re going to kill everybody, you’re going to get the punishment that’s coming to you.” Cathy Young has had tweeted to her something the alt-right have as a macro,  a themed anti-Semitic cartoon from Nazi Germany of a hook-nosed Jew, rubbing his hands in some sort of a Shylockian pose. She’s been tweeted pictures of a smiling Donald Trump pushing the button on the gas chambers as he ushered Jews into it, and so have a bunch of other Jews. In fact I’m going to do a bit of work on this, because I don’t know that there’s all that many of them, I’m pretty sure I recognize … I’m quite quite good at Twitter, I recognize a bot when I see one.

Vox Day: What?

Louise Mensch: One of these guys runs a bot, it’s really quite obvious, and I’ve seen the bots at work, so I’d love to know how many of them there actually are. But the similarity of the anti-Semitism and the images, these are grossly upsetting, in some cases, like the journalist who interviewed Melania Trump. Melania Trump said the anti-Semitism against that Jewish woman was provoked, they took it off social media –  calls to her house, other threats, etc. Now I have to assume that if somebody called your wife and threatened to kill her, you wouldn’t be OK with that, and you’d be on the phone to the police.

Vox Day: I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t, because we’ve gotten tons of death threats over the years. I mean, to be honest, I don’t really … It’s not like I enjoy the various death threats and death wishes and all that sort of thing, but I don’t them very seriously either. I’ve literally never … I’ve gotten hundreds and possibly thousands of death threats, if you count death wishes as well, and I’ve never called the police about it.

Louise Mensch: Well these are death threats and these are death threats against their women.

Vox Day: But it’s not … First of all there’s two things: Number one, what I call Holocaustianity, is a secular religion in the United States, is preached by the media. And, we’ve all been … Every kid who’s grown up in the US has been subjected to it. And, what you’re seeing, with a lot of the various anti-Semitic themes and memes and all that sort of thing, is basically a rebellion against that.

Louise Mensch: Why, why would you rebel against being taught about one of history’s most appalling massacres, which happened in the modern age and for which rarely therefore, as opposed to in historic massacres, we have photographic evidence?

Vox Day: Because it happened seventy years ago and nobody under forty gives a damn. I mean that was part of what Milo …

Louise Mensch: You’ve got to be kidding me. You think nobody under forty gives a damn? you are way out of touch man, yes they do. You think nobody under forty gives a damn …ask somebody whose grandparents are survivors.

Vox Day: I know they don’t. I know they don’t. I went around as asked a bunch of teenagers, and on a scale of one to ten, they rated the Holocaust a one.

Louise Mensch: That’s a symptom … Well you must have some terrible teachers in your area, some really terrible teachers.

Vox Day: The thing that people are forgetting, is that that was seventy years ago.

Louise Mensch: So what?

Vox Day: And nobody cares seventy years after the Taiping Rebellion, that an estimated thirty to fifty million people died, nobody cared about the Taiping Rebellion. We are now as far from the Holocaust – and I don’t deny it, I believe it happened, I think it’s absurd to pretend that it didn’t happen – but, for example … Let me give you an example from my own history: Obviously the American Indians were mistreated in a variety of ways, right? But, nobody cares about them anymore because it happened … Even we American Indians don’t really get that upset about it anymore because it happened so long ago. Now, obviously the Holocaust is more recent than the Trail of Tears, but that same process that has rendered the Trail of Tears an indifferent, ancient history to young people today, that process is now happening … There’s going to come a time, whether it’s tomorrow or in a hundred years, there’s going to come a time when nobody gives a damn.

Louise Mensch: Yeah but that’s not now Vox, because people’s grandparents, it happened to people’s grandparents that are still living today. If you think that people don’t care, young people don’t care, I would say that anecdote is not evidence, and it just is that the young people that you spoke to have zero compassion or zero education. My children care, they all care very much. They’ve been educated about the Holocaust and none of them are Jewish …

Vox Day: But you live in an area that is heavily Jewish, I’d expect them to care, of course they care.

Louise Mensch: By the way, they cared in Britain too, where the area in which I lived was not Jewish at all.

Vox Day: How much do you care about what happened in Cambodia for example? Or, The Great Leap Forward killed considerably more people than the Holocaust did, it happened more recently, and yet I don’t see people being very upset about that either.

Louise Mensch: As I said to you before, the Holocaust, amongst the great massacres of history, is distinguished partly by the tortures, the specifically sadistic tortures, not just the straight up killing, which accompanied it. Generally exquisite tortures, medical experiments – I won’t go into them because I don’t want to – the utter lack of compassion, and barbarity, but mostly, because, as I said, photographic, and towards the end of it, even some film evidence exists so that it is made emotionally real. As someone said, a hundred thousand dead is a statistic, three dead is a tragedy  – because you can relate to three, whereas you can’t to, as an example, millions starved to death in Stalin’s Russia. But I have an awful lot more videographic evidence and photographic evidence of the suffering of the Jewish people, in front of me, and therefore our natural humanity is excited by that. Is there not something odious, really odious about going “This bad thing happens, so your bad thing doesn’t count?” I mean, what is the point?

Vox Day: No, I think it’s totally normal, and I think that the Holocaust has been an outlier, in that people, in the United States particularly, did care about it for a much longer period of time than is normal.

Louise Mensch: And they still do.

Vox Day: But I think there’s two things that you need to keep in mind here: Number one, the passage of time, so, the more time that passes, the less people care about what happened, in general. Secondly: The demographic changes to the United States means that there are considerably more Americans that don’t give a damn, one way or the other, about World War Two, about Germany, about the Holocaust, about any of it. It has nothing to do with … Hispanics. It has nothing to do with Asians. It has nothing to do with Africans.

Louise Mensch: Sure it does.

Vox Day: And they just don’t care.

Louise Mensch: Yes it does, you know why? Yes it has to do with all three of those groups, and you know why? Because they’re all Americans. And for a man who, in our last debate, when we were talking about history, was giving reference to culture throughout history and seemed to have a great reverence for history, I think you underestimate the American people insofar as you think that they cannot derive a large part of the their identity – as well they should – from the heroism of the greatest generation of Americans, who along with the British, saved the world in World Wars One and Two, and particularly in World War Two from the intense evil of the Nazis. If you think that I cannot take pride, for example because I was born in 1971, take great pride in knowing the fact that both my grandfather’s served and my maternal grandfather was a gunner on a naval ship. It gives me immense pride. For that matter, I take an awful lot of pride in the victories of Henry the Fifth at Agincourt. The history of a nation is what makes up its warp and weft, its fabric. You don’t have to have been there to care. What an amazing failure of imagination, from a man that appears to reverence history.

Vox Day: It’s not a history of imagination, it’s the fact that I know perfectly well that most of the generations probably couldn’t tell you who we went to war with in World War Two, that’s why I say that they don’t give a damn, because they don’t even know.

Louise Mensch: That’s an argument for better education. I think they know about the Germans, it’s an argument for better education.

Vox Day: But it doesn’t. First of all, that’s a whole other can of worms, there are significant problems with the American education system and I’m sure we both agree with that, but …

Louise Mensch: Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Vox Day: What I’m saying is that whether you can explain why it is or not, it doesn’t change the fact that the more time passes and the more that the American population demographic changes, the less interest those various populations are going to have in the Holocaust narrative and the American obsession with World War Two and everything surrounding it and all that sort of thing.

Louise Mensch: I don’t agree with you because as population become American, they will take pride in the history of America and the history of America is the history of liberation.

Vox Day: I’ve written a bestseller, Cuckservative, which addresses those very points and indicates that’s not the case, it’s just not the case anymore.

Louise Mensch: Let’s get onto whether or not the youth of America can relate or take pride in any part of American history. You’d better hope so, because the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, to whom you referred in your last debate, were around considerably earlier than any part of World War Two, including the horrors of the Holocaust.

Now let me get back at you with one more thing before we … You know, you can come at me if you like and then we can wrap it up. As always, I enjoy these debates with you and when I look down at my phone we’ve been on the phone for half an hour even though it seems like five minutes.
Obviously, what you’re arguing there is that you’re making an argument for indifference. You’re saying that the younger generation, because they are far removed in time, and also because they don’t come from traditional white American backgrounds, you’re saying two things about them: Both that they don’t care because it was so long ago and b) they don’t care because they are more into their own ethnic groups than they are into being Americans, so they have no pride in the shared history of the nation. It’s an argument for indifference. I don’t believe it, as I’ve just said. However, the anti-Semitism that is getting tweeted at Cathy Young, and John Podhoretz and often at myself – because of my surname, they assume that I have the honor to be Jewish, although I do not – is not indifference to the Holocaust, it is using the specific tortures against the Jewish people and specific anti-Semitic slurs used by Hitler, re-employing them to make points for Donald Trump, who of course welcomed his Jewish grandchild into the world just recently, his daughter of course is converted to Judaism. It’s clearly they’re not indifferent about the Holocaust, and in a way, although as shameful as that would be, that would be better than what we are faced with. They are cheerleading for the Holocaust, like Ricky Vaughn. Ricky Vaughn is cheerleading for the Holocaust.  They’re sending African-Americans photographs of black men being lynched and hung from trees. This is not something that the alt-right should be proud of, Vox, it’s something the alt-right should be ashamed of, and they do care about the Holocaust very much, because they use the horrors of it and its hatred as weapons against Jews.

Vox Day: First, I agree with you that those two things are totally separate. They are totally separate. But what I think that you’re failing to recognize is that the alt-right rejects shame. And the alt-right will never be ashamed of anything and the alt-right will never back down from anything, because we have learned from the example of the left, which is, you always, you never disavow your extremists, because they’re the ones who will clear the way.

Louise Mensch: Clear the way how? What does that mean? How is somebody tweeting a picture of African-Americans being hung, as slaves, to a black person, or how is somebody tweeting to a Jew a picture of children being shoved into a gas oven, how is that clearing the way for anything? How do they help you? How are they your fore-soldiers?

Vox Day: Because it’s rhetoric. Rhetoric is designed to manipulate emotions, it persuades by manipulating emotions, and so the same way that … What it does is that it demoralizes those who have relied for decades on pointing and shrieking “racist,” pointing and shrieking “anti-Semitic” etc. Whatever …

Louise Mensch: So what a minute, it demoralizes people that believe in racism and anti-Semitism, by being racists and anti-Semitic to the nth degree, and almost everybody reading this blog who might consider voting for Donald Trump, would consider it to be beneath contempt.

Vox Day: No they won’t.

Louise Mensch: They won’t?

Vox Day: It’s a very straightforward … It’s actually a game technique, called agree and amplify, and so basically what they are doing … And this is why Milo was careful to distinguish between what he called the “meme police” and what he called the “1488ers.” The “1488ers” are the actual male neo-Nazis, etc. etc. The “meme police,” I suspect, – I don’t know, because I have no way of knowing – but I suspect that the most offensive stuff that you see out there, is almost certainly the “meme police” who could not possibly … Who really don’t care, they probably don’t have any position whatsoever on racism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, whatever. What they know, is that that is a emotional trigger point for the other side, and so they are pushing it and they are going to keep pushing it as long as people react to it.

Louise Mensch: Yeah, but you know what, really saying “I’ve got a bunch of trolls …” I mean, is that a strategy, Vox? I mean come on. This is not alpha, it’s totally gamma, and may I say …

Vox Day: No no no

Louise Mensch: … evidence, by the use of the alt-right’s word, what could be more telling about such a desperately gamma strategy, as a use of the alt-right’s word, “cuckservatives?” Why are the alt-right so obsessed with being cuckolded? Have all their girlfriends cheated on them?

Vox Day: No, actually, again it’s the exact opposite. The alt-right is not sensitive to it, the people that are very sensitive to it are the people that called that because they recognize the analogy and they’re sensitive to it. The way that it works … You need to look at it in context. For decades, the left managed to manipulate the right very effectively by sowing the various labels – racist, sexist, whatever – and they managed to manipulate and control the conservative movement by using those terms. And so, the big difference between the conservative movement and the alt-right movement is that the alt-right has adopted, in general, a number of … I wouldn’t call them principles, I would call them more tactics, and they have adopted things basically so, no shame, we don’t care and we have no leaders.  That’s where you see the similarity with Gamergate, because Gamergate used similar tactics.

Louise Mensch: No they didn’t.

Vox Day: They were extremely effective.

Louise Mensch: Hold on, they didn’t. Gamergate, for example, Gamergate – I want to draw a really clear distinction, in order to defend, as I always have done, the Gamergate movement – Gamergate would not dream of sending an African American person pictures of a terrified man being hung by a bunch of whites. That’s a real person in the photograph, it’s not a meme.

Vox Day: Of course, no of course.

Louise Mensch: It’s not a meme, that’s somebody’s great-great-grandfather. Now, Gamergate, to the contrary, Gamergate had a harassment patrol. They wanted to show that they were being lied about – which they were – by fauxminist trolls and as a result, if there was somebody who was being genuinely harassed, as the alt-right now do with African Americans and Jewish people, then Gamergate would get on that person, report that person. As a bloc, they had the harassment patrol and they took care of it, which really, as noted in several mainstream publications, gave the lie to the idea that they just existed to harass women. They took care of business, Gamergate. This bunch of trolls is … It’s, I don’t know … If somebody were to … There was not so many photographs around, but I think that if they showed you, or your children, or sent to you and your children and your wife, pictures of Native Americans being gang-raped, women being gang-raped, children being tortured by white settlers, you would find it pretty disgusting, and in the case of the Holocaust of course, and the anti-Semitic memes that these people throw around. Donald Trump should really disassociate himself – and in the long run I suppose it’s good in that it’ll keep him out of the White House, but the fact is, to my mind, in a way it goes right back to Gamergate because Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian sitting on the Trust and Safety Council, and Twitter has done absolutely nothing about Ricky Vaughn – I’m going to pursue this next week – about Ricky Vaughn and about the meme Bot Army, being run by the alt-right guy who calls himself Mike. I’m going to be all over this, it’s pretty obvious.

If Twitter had a real Trust and Safety concern, and it wasn’t just about being anti-men, they would do something about this, but they allow this hook-nosed cartoon of a Jew and Jews being chucked into the ovens to proliferate on Twitter. Even when people write about it, they just do nothing about it. So much for the Trust and Safety Council. Now we can see it was not really about Trust and Safety on Twitter, it was just about anti-gaming. If your strategy is we have no shame, well you know, shame is good, shame is excellent, shame is the opposite of pride. People should be ashamed. When people are weak, they should be ashamed. You are asking cucks, as you say it, to be ashamed.

Vox Day: I think you’re looking at this at such a basic level. I think that first of all you need to … it’s useful to understand that the various myths that we talked about – the racist, sexist, whatever – that has been an effective rhetorical weapon of the left for decades if not generations, right? And what you’re seeing, whether you find it disgusting or not, whether you find it horrifying or not, what you are seeing is a reaction, and what you’re seeing is a rhetorical … You could call it rhetorical counter-terrorism if you wanted. Or rhetorical terrorism, if you preferred. But the point is that what it has done is it had completely de-fanged the effective use of the terms racist, sexist, anti-Semitic etc.

Louise Mensch: How do you figure? How do you figure? On the contrary, everybody is now writing about Trump’s anti-Semitic supporters. Not only has it not de-fanged it, it’s made it into a campaign issue again. When Melania Trump said that the reporter provoked the anti-Semitism she got from these trolls, it was covered everywhere. Even CNN that normally couldn’t give a damn about this. Even CNN covered it, so no, you haven’t, you’re going in exactly the opposite direction.

Vox Day: And what’s going to happen when Trump’s polls continue to go up?

Louise Mensch: I don’t know. I don’t think personally I don’t think Trump’s polls will continue to go up, but perhaps Trump’s Jewish daughter will come out with her Jewish child and lead the fight against the anti-Semitism of some of these trolls.

Now listen, we mustn’t put all of Trump’s supporters with these alt-right people. These alt-right people are just scumbags. And I want to be clear that, whilst I myself may not like Donald Trump, in no way whatsoever would I try to taint his support with this kind of racist – and anti-Semitism is just a subspecies of racism – but this overall racist crap. He was very very keen to welcome his Jewish grandchild, I don’t think he’s going to be in favor of Holocaust cartoons,so you’ve got to be careful about that. But it will be despite and not because of you guys, who are an absolute gift to Hillary. If you think you’re de-fanging racism and sexism, you’re not, you’re proving the point. You’re making these people right. All these people that you said were liars, you’re making them right. So you don’t care that the left was correct about your racism and sexism?

Vox Day: We don’t care what they say or what they think, at all.

Louise Mensch: You obviously do care because you’re employing tactics against this, you’ve just described.

Vox Day: No, we don’t care what they do or what they think, but we are certainly engaged in a cultural rhetorical war against them, but we don’t care what they think about us. We’re their enemy, they’re our enemy, and that’s fine.

Louise Mensch: But you’re not employing this against the enemy. I never see these memes employed against the left, ever. I only see them employed against people on the right. John Podhoretz, Ben Shapiro, Cathy Young, people who are 100{5d01cb5ba07024ac0de3b9d1fbf6cc8231453f95977a82b19bad56561434ea06} on the right. You don’t seem to bother with anyone of the left. Not that … By the way, God forbid that should be taken as an encouragement to go off to burn Hillary supporters with this stuff, but it’s red on red fire.

Vox Day: I’m pretty sure they get sent to anyone who attacks them.

Louise Mensch: You’ve put Ann Coulter in a difficult position, because she has said, not convincingly at all, that she isn’t anti-Semitic. And you’ve just described how …

Vox Day: I don’t believe she is anti-Semitic.

Louise Mensch: Right …

Vox Day: She’s not anti-Semitic.

Louise Mensch: … but then a whole bunch of anti-Semites are running to her defense by tweeting Holocaust cartoons at Jews?

Vox Day: That’s what you’re not understanding is that the fact that one is not anti-Semitic does not mean that you have any obligation whatsoever to disavow anyone.

Louise Mensch: Ann Coulter though, is being defended by a bunch of anti-Semites who as their weapon use anti-Semitism. In order to try and prove she’s not anti-Semitic, that’s not very helpful, is it?

Vox Day: Well, but again I don’t think that that’s the objective or the concern.

Louise Mensch: Do you guys even have an objective?

Vox Day: Absolutely.

Louise Mensch: What is it?

Vox Day: The chief objective…. I don’t speak for the entire alt-right because the alt-right doesn’t have leaders, but I am alt-right, and my objective is the preservation of Western civilization.

Louise Mensch: How? How do you think you’re going to preserve Western civilization by tweeting out memes of African Americans getting hung?

Vox Day: Because right now we are subject to the largest invasion in human history, since post-1965.

Louise Mensch: What’s that got to do with African Americans getting hung?

Vox Day: (Laughs) We’d have to trace back through all the rhetoric, but what that has to do with it is the myth of America as a proposition nation, and the myth of a melting pot, is absolutely false. America is now a multi-ethnic empire, which is headed for the fate of all multi-ethnic empires, and the only way that Western civilization is going to survive, is if it gives up the multiculturalism, globalism and anti-nationalism that has been dominant for the past … fifty, sixty years.

Louise Mensch: Well, since the founding of the United States shall we say? You were founded with help from the French. You yourself are Native American. You were multicultural as soon as the first pilgrims landed from Plymouth. You’ve never been uni-cultural except when your people held the land and there was nobody else here. After that time you guys were messed up, you know? As soon as the English came along, on the Mayflower, you were multicultural.

Vox Day: No, but with the exception of admitting the existence of people who were already there, the Naturalization Act of 1790 made it very clear that the only people who could become American citizens were white people of good character. Now America was specifically a white country. That’s what it was.

Louise Mensch: So then you’re not an American.

Vox Day: What’s that?

Louise Mensch: You’re not white.

Vox Day: No, but, if it weren’t for the exception that was made for slaves and Native Americans, you’d be correct.

Louise Mensch: You’re saying that it’s so … Let’s get into it. First of all, I don’t know why you would privilege one Act over a later Act that reforms it, but, you’re saying that you can be white, Native American, or black.

Vox Day: I believe that was the intention. Certainly the language was very clear. You could only become American if you were white.

Louise Mensch: But that Act has been superseded, has it not?

Vox Day: Oh yeah, eventually, I think it was finally completely overturned … I don’t know exactly when it was overturned but certainly by 1965.

Louise Mensch: Why is a law that has long since been overturned of any particular interest or relevance?

Vox Day: Because it indicates to us what the choice of the historical foundation was, and it proves the lie of America as a proposition nation, and it proves the lie of the melting pot, which is completely absurd. The melting pot was from a poem written by somebody who was … I believe it was a Russian Jew who lived in Britain, so it had nothing to do with America whatsoever, so …

Louise Mensch: What of it?

Vox Day: The fact that we have historical facts demonstrating that America was, at one point in time, founded and intended to be a predominantly white nation. With this idea of the proposition nation and this idea of the melting pot – both of which are fictional –

Louise Mensch: But they’re not fictional. Give me your tired, your poor, you huddled masses, they’re just literally not fictional. Americans themselves brought in African Americans, as slaves, and later fought a war to emancipate them. Native Americans, who are not “white” by your light, existed on your continent before the white settlers came. And then there were plenty of immigrants, coming from the South, coming from the North, coming from everywhere. So there have always been. After all, take Louisiana, you have the Creole, you have people who’s second language for a long long time was French. There’s been a melting pot literally forever, and indeed your country is named after a bloody Spaniard, so what’s your problem?

Vox Day: The problem is that the small minorities and exceptions are very very different than turning the entire system into a giant tribal power, a tribal political spoils game. And that is the problem that the United States is facing, that is the problem that some countries in Europe are going to be facing in the next fifty years or so. I think that what has happened is arguably going to be as historically traumatic as some of the awful examples that we were talking about before. And to me that’s the lesson.

Louise Mensch: Sorry, can I just talk for a second?
Vox Day: Of course.

Louise Mensch: You said to Cathy that if she were an American, of course she’s as American as you are, and as American as I hope to become next year, is she … Do you regard the Jewish people as somehow not white? I am married to a Jew and honestly, if you had to pick the two of us out of a lineup, I may be a little paler than most because I’m a fair-skinned Anglo-Saxon Englishwoman of undiluted ancestry, but in general, there is no way  that you could tell the difference. The skin is white, the skin is pale. What are these imaginary racial differences that you see?

Vox Day: But they’re not imaginary. First of all, there are two primary types of differences that matter. Number one is obviously the DNA differences. However, in the case of Jews that doesn’t even apply, because frankly, most Jews are not really even that different in terms of intelligence. If I recall correctly, the latest DNA evidence indicates that they’re about 80{5d01cb5ba07024ac0de3b9d1fbf6cc8231453f95977a82b19bad56561434ea06} Italian. Second, that’s just the Ashkenazi Jews. Obviously the Mizrahi and the Sephardi are considerably more Near Eastern in descent. I think that the entire context of the … I think that genetic science is going to completely revolutionize the way that the Jewish people are regarded, including by themselves. It’s possible that they’re considerably more white than I am.

Louise Mensch: Going by your bell curve, that you believe in, that we talked about last time, as you said, Jewish intelligence is in a high median, I’m quoting you now, above white intelligence. According to you therefore-

Vox Day: But wait a minute, let me back up though. That’s Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. I went and did a little bit more homework and I ran the numbers and actually overall Jewish intelligence is not that spectacular. If you put the three populations together, Sephardic, Mizrahi and Ashkenazi, their average IQ is only 105.

Louise Mensch: Where’s your source data from?

Vox Day: What’s that?

Louise Mensch: You said you ran the numbers, where did you run them from?

Vox Day: I got the three main population numbers from Wikipedia, and the intelligence numbers were from … I don’t remember the source, exactly, but if you Google the information, it all comes out pretty much the same. The Ashkenazi at 115, the Sephardi at 94, and the Mizrahi at 91. So if you simply factor in …

Louise Mensch: I won’t give the impression that I subscribe to any of these theories, but start with this, the Ashkenazi Jews as the benchmark. By your guess 115, that’s higher than the white population …

Vox Day: Absolutely.

Louise Mensch: By your bell curve rule, they should be in positions of power and dominance over whites, according to your theories of race intelligence.

Vox Day: No.

Louise Mensch: Because they are more intelligent than whites. And therefore, you should be trying to attract them to the country.

Vox Day: But you’re forgetting something.

Louise Mensch: What’s that?

Vox Day: There’s not very many of them. And so despite the fact that they’ve got …

Louise Mensch: So we should advertise in Israel for more.

Vox Day: What’s that?

Louise Mensch: I said, we should try and get some more then, by your light. We should try and attract as many as we can.

Vox Day: First of all, there’s two things. Number one: The fact that they’re such a small percentage of the US population means that there are considerably more very highly intelligent European whites than there are Ashkenazi Jews. That’s just the math. Secondly, with the new DNA evidence that is coming out, the Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence advantage is actually the result of their admixture with European populations under the selection process that some of the Jewish intelligence theorists have proposed.

Louise Mensch: Whatever the result of it, whatever the cause of it – the putative cause of it, I don’t want to be seen to be agreeing – whatever the putative cause of it, that’s where we are, that’s where we are on the stats, so by your light, we should be trying to attract as many Ashkenazi Jews as we possibly can to come in and save a country of more stupid white people.

Vox Day: No, because first of all there aren’t anymore, and secondly … Let’s get back to anti-Semitism here, because here’s where it starts to get very interesting. I would argue – keeping in mind that I’m coming at this from an abstract point of view, not a personal one – I would argue that the biggest single danger to the Jewish population in America, is actually insufficient anti-Semitism.

Louise Mensch: Oh, that’s a new one. Go on.

Vox Day: Because, if you look at the numbers and you look at the population, the fastest way to eliminate the Jewish population in America is intermarriage. You talk about, for example, Ivanka Trump and Trump’s Jewish granddaughter …

Louise Mensch: Mm-hmm (affirmative).

Vox Day: The reality is that despite the conversion and all that sort of thing, his granddaughter’s only, at most, could only be 50{5d01cb5ba07024ac0de3b9d1fbf6cc8231453f95977a82b19bad56561434ea06} Jewish.

Louise Mensch: His granddaughter’s 100{5d01cb5ba07024ac0de3b9d1fbf6cc8231453f95977a82b19bad56561434ea06} Jewish because her mother has converted. The Jews are both, uniquely, in the United Nations, both a racial and a religious group. Her mother has converted to Judaism, therefore by the Orthodox Jewish light, the children are all Jews. They’re children born to a Jewish mother, all of them. They’re 100{5d01cb5ba07024ac0de3b9d1fbf6cc8231453f95977a82b19bad56561434ea06} Jewish. The Jewish people has not been diluted, but strengthened by Ivanka Trump’s conversion to Judaism.

Vox Day: And that’s very true, when it comes to Jewish law, but it has nothing to do with science, it has nothing to do with genetics. For example, my Native Americanness is diluted. I’m not as Native American as my mother.

Louise Mensch: Everything is diluted. That’s the whole point I don’t get about the alt-right. Apart from outliers like me – and I am an outlier – but apart from outliers like me, almost everybody’s ancestry is mixed race, don’t you guys get that? There’s nobody pure, hardly anybody has a pure anything, anymore. Everybody has mixed-race ancestry and … I just find it so childish. Apart from the hatred, it’s just so childish.

Vox Day: Well I do think it’s pointless to hate people for it, but the fact of the matter is that genes are genes and if you’re looking at the …

Louise Mensch: The President’s mother was a white woman.

Vox Day: Maybe Jews don’t care if their genetics go extinct as long as their religion and culture survive. That’s a legitimate point of view. I don’t know what their perspective is on that. I simply think that it’s very interesting that a lot of the debates and argument on hatred between Europeans and Jews almost appears to be …

Louise Mensch: You make a false distinction.

Vox Day: … completely groundless if it does turn out in fact that Ashkenazi Jews are more Italian than anything else.

Louise Mensch: You make a completely false distinction. There is no distinction between Europeans and Jews. The house of Rothschild – and I thank them for it – financed Britain’s wars against Napoleon, for example, in the eighteenth century. There were Jews in Britain as early as the 1100s. They’re mentioned in the Canterbury Tales, they’ve always been a part of European life. There is no contradiction between being European and being Jewish or being American and being Jewish. Absolutely no contradiction.

Vox Day: There goes their claim to Israel then.

Louise Mensch: No. It doesn’t.

Vox Day: Well, if they’re European, then they have no more claim on Israel than the British did.

Louise Mensch: Well, we had the same claim that the Americans have over America. Right of conquest. The Palestinians or whoever drove the Israelis from their ancestral home and they were replaced in their ancestral home. I think that you must be careful by the way, I don’t really want to get into a discussion about Israel because I think it is noxious to bring in discussions about Israel and Israel’s position in the world into discussions about anti-Semitism, and it’s straight up anti-Semitism that the alt-right has failed itself completely as a force by dragging out these kinds of cartoons that make them, as Jane Austen would say, “the contempt of the world.”

Vox Day: What I would encourage you to consider is that rather than look at the alt-right as an outburst that needs to be dealt with in itself, I would encourage you to look at it as something more akin to the canary in the coal mine, because I think that we are at a very important nexus. I think that it is potentially an existential nexus for Western civilization and I think that the context, the conventional context that you are viewing this from, may be outdated and irrelevant.

Louise Mensch: Well, you know, they say, “Cry some more,” and I say to them, “I’ll say cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.” Because the only thing I’m interested in is hunting them all down like dogs.

Vox Day: That’s one of the things I like about you.

Destroying the evidence

Sources have reported that infamous billionaire and registered sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s private island located in the Caribbean has recently caught on fire.

If this is genuine, do you still doubt that The Storm is coming? Or do you think Epstein torched his own island for the insurance money?