The aim of the piece was to demonstrate that moderate reform or centrism (the common sense of ‘normie conservatives/classical liberals) will not save South Africa. Perhaps my readers will be interested.

Recently I found myself in an exchange on X with an editor of the Common Sense.

I had quite vociferously criticised a recent Common Sense post, in the bombastic fashion one finds oneself slipping into on social media.

I was challenged by the editor to write a piece on why and how Common Sense is wrong on just about everything (which he said he would happily publish).

Whilst I would not go that far in my critique, I do believe that the framework within which this publication and its associated thinkers and organisations analyse South Africa is deeply flawed – not only in the sense of misunderstanding contemporary political events but on a deeper philosophical level too.

That said, I do believe the magazine is a valuable addition to the local media landscape. Its reporting on the deep roots of South African crime, for instance, may prove to be one of the constructive pieces of analysis of our day.

Equally, the space it has opened up for serious political conversation is extremely valuable. It also publishes that most perspicacious South African thinker, the jurist Koos Malan.

Nonetheless, its appeal to common sense indicates an appeal to the conventional political thought of the day, as though such conventionalism were not complicit in our unfolding tragedy.

The thinking goes: if the ANC simply adopted the wisdom of the west, liberalised the economy a little bit, was friendlier with Israel, all would be well in our distressed and diseased polity.

There is some truth here, but in the hypothetical sense only.

Almost all South Africans would welcome lower taxes, less regulation, and a pragmatic foreign policy (even if a great number of us are skeptical of the global American order).

But in reality, that will never happen within the current constitutional dispensation.

See the example of Trump. Despite being such an ostensible shock to the system, the Civil Rights regime (in many ways more radical than BEE) remains the law of the land, Middle East wars continue, and roughly 100 million illegal immigrants remain within US borders despite massive public support for deportations and for the abolition of affirmative action.

And even if these South African reforms advocated by both moderate and classical liberals could be implemented, there are deeper problems that can never just be solved technocratically, issues to do with ethnic loyalties that I will explore below.

The problem therefore with the Common Sense is that the common sense animating the global liberal order will never be enough to save the South African Republic.

Thus, the search for a new, safer, more prosperous order must go beyond common sense.

The easiest way to explain why, is by looking at the website’s (and its guiding spirit’s – Frans Cronje) errors with regards to recent events, beginning with the dispute that occasioned this piece. These errors and misapprehensions will show the problem that lurks deeper on the philosophical plane.

First: upon Ramaphosa’s insistence on using all legal means at his disposal to delay and disrupt impeachment proceedings, the Common Sense posted on X that Ramaphosa is betraying the moral vision of the ANC in its struggle for democracy, that he had forsaken the moral high ground of his predecessors.

Now, I can only imagine this was rhetoric adopted by an associate editor of some sort and not reflective of the true belief of the founders of the publication, who know well that the belief in a great moral conscience guiding the ANC is a western media meme and a bad local joke.

The ANC launched a People’s War in the late 1970s, the body count of which somehow managed to put the apartheid security services in the shade. Tyres and matches, as Winnie Mandela urged…

This of a piece with the ANC-run torture camps in exile, their vision of transforming South Africa into an African version of the East German dictatorship, and their open admission in their policy documents that reconciliation and liberal constitutionalism are mere compromises on the way to a complete national democratic revolution in which the party will dominate all of South African society.

But the fact that it was even thinkable for an employee of Common Sense to type and post something like this, is demonstrative of a conventional, liberal belief that all would be well, or at least a great deal better, with South Africa under an ANC ruled by its ‘better angels’ and that such an eventuality is even possible. Motsepe save us! This belief forecloses genuine reform.

Frans Cronje himself vivified this belief in his incredible enthusiasm for the burgeoning GNU following the 2024 elections. Speaking to Alec Hogg as the negotiations were taking place (in a completely amateurish fashion by DA political strategists), he publicly urged the DA and the ANC to form a coalition over the weekend and declare a united front which would inspire a market confidence which could turn the fortunes of the South African economy.

Cronje, two days after the election, was almost euphoric:

‘By Sunday afternoon, [the ANC and the DA] should be able to say to the country and the world, there is a plan! You cannot just leave us hanging. On the way to you [Alec Hogg], I just got off a call with the banks, and the point there very much again, was do not leave us hanging for three weeks. You do not want to see what happens to the rand’s going to look like…

‘Understand why this deal can work. Hell, if we can pull this off, Alec, the rollercoaster from where we were three weeks ago to these results this morning to what the government could look like in two weeks’ time will be an incredible story and it’s totally within our grasp. We can’t let it slip.’

Leaving aside the idea that the South African corporations, who have complied with the ANC to the point of handing millions of dollars’ worth of equity to comrades, should be trusted with our political future, it was obvious to mere amateurs like myself, who perhaps have the advantage of not talking to the banks, that this rushed GNU would accomplish nothing.

The glee with which Ramaphosa chuckled his way into a coalition with Steenhuisen betrayed the predictable result: the ANC was only all too happy to allow their ostensible opponents to implement their policies alongside them, keeping the EFF and MK in their back-pockets as a bargaining chip, whilst denying them the spoils of corruption.

In the blink of an eye Steenhuisen was supporting BEE and legitimising one of the worst governments on earth in terms of socio-political performance, in the Oval Office itself.

I believe that this misjudgment stems from a misapprehension of the nature of the South African polity itself, being an instantiation of an unworkable mass, multicultural, liberal democracy, the likes of which would induce horror and disgust in Aristotle or even John Locke.

This misapprehension is most evident in Cronje’s common refrain that the South African electorate is fundamentally moderate, socially conservative, and wants a pragmatic government that deals with unemployment and crime. He believes that not delivering on these basics is what alienates voters from the ANC and that this could lead to their downfall.

(He also seems to think that the educated, middle-class wing of ANC’s supporters are these moderates par excellence. I don’t have statistics on this, but this is not true at all in my personal experience.)

Well, maybe he is right. But fat good this does anyone. When the ANC loses support, who does the support go to?

It does not move to the centre; it moves to the radical left.

If one compares the 2024 election results to the 1994 election results, one can see that absolutely nothing has changed in terms of the electorate’s support for radical racial leftism.

Under Mandela, the ANC won 63% of the votes, while racial minority support saw the National Party, the Democratic Party, and the Freedom Front win just over 24% combined.

By 2024, the flagbearers of minorities’ support had become largely the Democratic Alliance, with smaller support for the new Patriotic Alliance and the still existent Freedom Front.

What percentage of the popular vote did they win collectively? Just over 25%.

What of the ANC, embattled by the growing disillusionment of the moderate voter?

They were beaten down to a shocking 40%, yes. But add in the votes of their breakaway parties who simply believe in the hastier implementation of the ANC’s National Democratic Revolution… And you get 40% plus Zuma’s MK’s 14.5% plus Malema’s EFF’s 9.5%, equaling…. 64%.

As historian Hermann Giliomee pointed out decades ago, in a multicultural democracy, there is no real floating vote on a national level. Elections become mere ethnic census. The DA received only 500k black votes out of 11 million in 2024... 4.5%.

Equally ignored in conventional, sensible criticism of the ANC was the more realistic view of electoral politics brought to light within an important Yale/Princeton study in 2014 that showed average American citizens have no influence on public policy and legislation. Zero. The country is run by elites, who shape public opinion and not vice versa.

Yet Cronje, the Common Sense, and the Social Research Foundation still map out South Africa’s future using opinion polling.

Yes, the average South African opposes gay marriage, cares far more about jobs and crime than racial redress, but, again, so what? Count the votes.

We need hard-nosed, even tragic thinking, not a common sense based on opinion polls and democratic romanticism.

As I also pointed out on X, this lack of judgment, this enthusiasm for conventional solutions to the failed state that is South Africa (and, yes, despite the well-off segment of the citizenry maintaining breathing room to escape the state, the crime and unemployment rates point to utter, disastrous failure), was not the first example of common sense failing Cronje and the Common Sense eco-system.

A brief online search for Cronje’s position during the Covid Event as it played out in South Africa displayed this same conventionalism which only serves to affirm the legitimacy of the existing, failed order.

Yes, to his great credit, he and the Institute of Race Relations (IRR) consistently condemned the lockdowns as being far too draconian, and that livelihoods should be taken into consideration as well as lives.

But this is the problem. This kind of policy entrepreneurialism was not, and is not, helpful to any effective dissidence. This is classic elite containment of genuine opposition. Because by suggesting that there was any value at all in the measures, any criticism of those measures serves to entrench the narrative.

My proof for this: Cronje ended up arguing for disastrous and inexplicable school closures even as he criticised the wider lockdowns.

He described schools as ‘petri dishes’ and a site for cross-pollination of the virus, which would see too many people restored to social circulation.

This was wildly wrong. And this kind of rhetoric led to the absolutely shocking treatment of children for over two years, where they were effectively denied a childhood: bubbles, masks, cancelled dances and sports fixtures, and constant treatment as germ vectors.

It was a war on youth and joy. And elites never apologized, never had to apologize, for their catastrophic lack of judgment.

Similarly, under Cronje’s leadership, there is no record of IRR opposition to the heinous mask mandates. Opposition to this only begins after his tenure, all the way into 2022, after two years of one of the most irrational, personally oppressive measures in South African history.

At the same time, whilst he was still in the chair of the IRR, he pushed for legal action to force the government to provide mass vaccination of experimental gene therapies. All whilst nothing was said against masks.

The ‘opposition’ to the revolutionary therapeutic state mirrors opposition to the national democratic revolution. The nature of the opposition, and its eagerness to appear mainstream and acceptable to ANC sceptics in the liberal ecosystem, undercuts said opposition completely.

It becomes part of the dialectic and tames itself. We continuously wait for new dawns that never come.

No, what the condition of South Africa calls for, is a radical break with the entire rainbow theology of the system, that recognizes tragic, intractable realities, as long as we pretend there is anything noble or serious in the ANC.

One thinks here of the likes of Nick Hudson and Panda who had no concern with appearing mainstream in their courageous stand against the very notion of a global health crisis separable from an elite attack on freedom.

One thinks of the quixotic Cape Independence movement, who at least see the impossibility of an electoral solution to our failed republic.

One thinks here of Orania, who happily acknowledge and embrace (as Aristotle and Locke did) the futility of any pretense in a stable, mass, multicultural democracy.

These groups are willing to be outside of the mainstream, to be scorned by common sense, and that’s why they have a shot at a chance of making a meaningful long-term impact.

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work.

You will receive access to all posts as well as a free copy of my book, Rage and Love: A Memoir of White South Africa in an Age of Destruction. The book can also be found on Amazon and Takealot.

There is also a new book coming soon…

Subscribe now

Below, I have compiled a series of lists of what I consider to be the best books, works of art, music, and films.

This is my attempt at providing a kind of map for how to put together a decent library, even if it is mental, whilst we all fight our battles in real life. In this way, we might aspire to be that rare thing, ‘a cultured thug’ (to borrow a term from Byron).

Books:

Reading and discussing these 100 books will give you a more rounded education than any university degree.

Sorry, this one’s for paid subscribers… (A subscription is equivalent to going out for a coffee once a month, and you get a free book and access to my entire archive. It’s time.)

Read more

After words were exchanged, this man, Vickrum Digwa, pulled out his traditional 21-cm Sikh sword (not the only blade he was carrying) and stabbed Nowak in the heart and slashed his face.

As Nowak fled and climbed over a fence, he also stabbed him in the legs. As Nowak lay dying, Digwa filmed him and mocked him.

A neighbour called the police to report this, but it was not that call which Hampshire Police responded to.

Digwa’s family had arrived on the scene, and called the police themselves, to report a racial hate crime. His brother told police that he was pinning this racist thug on the ground till they arrived. His family was sick of verbal abuse and the police needed to deal with this bigoted white man. Meanwhile the mother took the murder weapon from the scene.

When the police arrived, this happened:

This is footage recently released by the police under public pressure.

Their first instinct was not to help the man dying on the floor. Remember he had been stabbed in the face, heart and legs.

‘I don’t think you have mate.’

‘Put the hand in the cuff mate.’

‘You are under arrest and that’s for assault.’

Apparently he had hurt his murderer’s eye, his turban, and his feelings.

(Family and friends were at pains to emphasise Nowak was not racist but inclusive. But would he have deserved this death even if he had said some bad words? Maybe, according to our modern state religion?)

He was alive for an hour after being stabbed and died three minutes after he was handcuffed by the cops.

The last thing Nowak heard that night is the police reading him his rights as they arrested him.

The police’s first instinct was to arrest the white man. And yes, because he was white.

How can I possibly say this?

The police department’s own policies, for one.

Who is included and excluded here?

Here are some specifics:

And from the Daily Mail:

The police not treating people the same… What could go wrong?

(And note George Floyd. That other man who said he couldn’t breathe, but not after he had been stabbed in the face and heart. More on him later.)

Britain has been told by its overlords not to politicise a political death.

Farage has been lambasted for questioning why white people should face any governmental or corporate discrimination, for suggesting that the public should feel rage at this injustice. He is being divisive!

(I have long been critical of Farage, but respect must be given to this brave speech, a speech which may just guarantee his future ascent to the premiership. You can watch the full 8 minutes here.)

I myself recall the words of St Thomas Aquinas: ‘He who is not angry when there is just cause for anger is immoral.’

Lest we forget, Jesus Christ himself cleansed the corruption of the temple with a whip. How divisive!

Subscribe now

Farage went off script. He explicitly mentioned white interests. He explicitly criticised multiculturalism and the blatantly undemocratic decision of his country’s bureaucrats to let in 10 million immigrants over the last 20 years. Democracy is only ‘sacred’ when it moves leftward, remember.

He called for political solutions in the face of a blatantly political death. Sikhs are allowed to carry blades and the police responded as they did because of policy, because the police, in the very word itself, enforce the policy of the polis.

But some things are meant to be beyond the political… Because they are sacred.

Recall Tony Blair telling the public not to politicise vaccines.

Recall the aftermath of various terror attacks, where Europeans were told to not look back in anger, and instead of policy changes, police states extended surveillance powers and arrested people for hate speech when they were criticised.

Notice the things that are always meant to be ‘above politics.’ By which is meant - not up for debate, not up for public dissent - in short the political theology of the state.

What is never up for debate?

Public health interventions and issues to do with race and immmigration.

The therapeutic-surveillance-diversity state is a religion, make no mistake. And religion involves ritual.

Farage did not follow the ritual. But the police in Southampton did. So did Starmer:

His thoughts are with the grieving. What a joke. But mentioning the unmentionable is not part of the liturgical rites.

No knee will be taken for Henry Nowak. Why? Is he the wrong colour? What else could possibly be the reason?

The ritual in our global theocracy was made most obvious in that bizarre case of St Floyd (Peace Be Upon Him).

When he died, politicians around the entire world literally kneeled down in homage to the sacredness of his memory. Protestors were allowed to break all the covid protocols (not as sacred as BLM in the modern state’s religious hierarchy) in the face of this divine disruption. Floyd was given multiple funerals even as ordinary people around the world were forbidden to mourn their dead.

In England, the police kneeled down to these protestors, even as they trashed war memorials, and after billions of dollars’ worth of damage and 42 deaths (!) at the hands of BLM footsoldiers in the US.

Look how the English police responded to protestors following Nowak’s murder:

Do you see the religious aspect yet? Do you note the ritual?

The police were carrying out the same sacred rites as they read Nowak his rights - his right to die.

Here are some uncomfortable truths about Floyd that were suppressed because they did not conform with the ritual…

The police did not kill Floyd. Federal prosecutors hid the fact that the official state medical examiner had told them that nothing that happened while he was on the floor led to his death.

The man had taken a lethal dose of fentanyl before his arrest for use of counterfeit money, and he had a serious heart condition to boot.

That medical examiner had changed his mind by the time the trial came. Just as one of the police chiefs of the city chose to forget that the hold the police used on Floyd had been taught by them, and even used by the chief who testified for the prosecution in the case.

(Dozens of officers told authorities this woman was lying but they were ignored.)

Again, because this was a religious ritual and not a trial.

And what is this religion?

I will say it exactly as it is. It is white hatred.

(This will undoubtedly offend many people. But ask yourself, how am I, or Farage, wrong? Admit it - you are just shocked because I am being heretical, and not for any rational reasons.)

We saw this same ritualistic pattern when the British authorities shoved a Netflix TV series down their people’s throat, the show Adolescence.

A fictional story about a white 13-year-old boy knifing a girl because of his radicalisation within the ‘manosphere’ was bizarrely used as a teaching resource.

But what was this story based on, according to the creators?

• A case in which a transgender boy was killed by a teenage girl (with the help of a boy she had recruited; they were all heavily involved in cannabis and other drug usage.)

• Another case in which a black girl was killed by her mentally disturbed black ex-boyfriend. (This case in London led to a muted outcry over a pattern of black and Asian men killing their black girlfriends.)

• And a third case in which a 14-year-old white boy killed a a 12-year-old white girl over a disagreement about a Snapchat recording, while they were drinking in the city centre of Liverpool.

Rather than face the drugs and cultural issues, what did Keir Starmer say then?

He blamed online radicalisation.

They found a cherubic-looking child actor to represent the face of this crime on a Netflix show they blatantly used as state propaganda.

They didn’t use an actor who looked like the 17 year old boy who had knifed 11 children, killing 3 little girls, aged 6, 7, and 9, the year before in Southport.

Why not?

Because the increase in knife crime must be shielded from any political debate on race. Instead it must be blamed on the enemies of the state religion - young white men.

By the way, that killer, Axel Rudakubana (whose parents had arrived in Wales in 2002 from Rwanda) had previously brought a knife to his school. When asked why, he answered, ‘To use it.’

At another school he had broken a student’s wrist with a hockey stick. He had another knife in his school bag at the time. He was back in school six months later…

It gets worse.

From fellow Substacker Millenial Woes:

If little girls have to die to avoid being racist, then so be it. The modern god craves bloody sacrifice of certain types of flesh.

He points out something very similar had happened prior to the Manchester bombing:

Henry Nowak was not the first to face the consequences of a heartless religion, posing as the purest form of empathy and ‘inclusion.’

It’s time to be courageously heretical. The modern state worships a false god that demands blood sacrifice. That god must be toppled.

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work.

You will receive access to all posts as well as a free copy of my book, Rage and Love: A Memoir of White South Africa in an Age of Destruction. The book can also be found on Amazon and Takealot.

There is also a new book coming soon…

Subscribe now

I was inspired to write on Paul and his Letter to the Romans now for two reasons:

1. By recently re-reading the biblical scholarship of the Anglican bishop, NT Wright (whom I appreciate but with whom I have some important disagreements); and,

2. By reflecting once again on just how consequential the Christian faith is for public and political life.

When Jesus is called ‘Lord’, the ‘Son of God’, or even ‘Prince of Peace’, there is within those words an implicit challenge to the political order of his time and all times. Historically, a ‘gospel’ was the announcement of a new emperor. The gospel is the announcement of the eternal emperor, an emperor of a different type, but an emperor, or a ‘king of kings’, nonetheless.

This gospel, the announcement of his death, resurrection and ascension is not only an announcement but also the power to reform the cosmic order and the social-political order of humanity.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s' - yes, but even Caesar and the Romans are called to be God’s servants now.

This means that the urgent questions addressed in the New Testament, questions concerning the connection between human and divine will, between the universal church and the Jewish people, and between church, state and ethnicity, remain live questions for us today.

And these questions are not just of concern to believers or religious scholars, but to the world at large, because how these questions have been answered, or are answered today, continue to influence the course of our lives and the shape of our communities.

We live in a post-Christian world, in secular, multicultural states, precisely because of how these questions were answered by ‘Enlightenment’ thinkers. And these thinkers were in many cases responding to, secularizing, or rejecting the New Testament, as it had been passed onto them by the Christian heritage of Europe.

Overwhelmingly, these thinkers untethered human will from divine will, and untethered the state from anything to do with religion or the sacred.

The untethering went even further than the original cohort of Enlightenment thinkers intended…

Human free will is now seriously disputed, particularly by material determinists who shun any belief in a human mind or soul distinct from the body; and the state is no longer only seen as something distinct from the sacred, but is increasingly seen as a mere economic zone for the management of goods, consumers, employees, welfare beneficiaries, and sub-managers.

(As TS Eliot asked of modern English society, are there ‘any beliefs more essential than a belief in compound interest and the maintenance of dividends?’)

Unlike the liberal nationalism of the 19th and early 20th centuries, nobody really wants to fight and die for their country anymore, and even the erstwhile patriotic nation of France has a president who infamously declared there is no such thing as French culture. (Macron was here unintentionally echoing a very different, British leader who said in the 1980s, ‘There is no such thing as society.’ That was Margaret Thatcher.)

There is, however, a strange exception in this regard for Israel. Leaders of an array of multicultural western countries regularly support a quasi-religious/ethno-state in the Middle East, even though they would abhor the return of confessional or racially-based states in the developed world.

(I am being simplistic here - Israel is not really an equivalent to the old confessional states of Europe for a number of reasons, but that is outside the scope of this essay.)

Again, this feature of modern politics originates from a conversation with the Bible - in this case, Christian Zionism, in support of which many adherents point to the passage from Romans that we will look at below.

All of which goes to say how important it is to not simply judge modern history on its own secular presuppositions, but to look at the beliefs against which those presuppositions arose. And most of these beliefs are biblical (or classically Greco-Roman). More is the pity we live in an age of utter biblical illiteracy, especially in formerly Christian nations.

For this reason, I have decided to share with you thoughts on a biblical passage that explicates such beliefs.

I have chosen Romans 9-11 partly because it is topical in the light of current Christian-Zionistic controversy, and partly because it is a text which continues to address much of what succeeded the Christian faith as governing principles (both politically and philosophically). These two reasons are interwoven to boot.

Equally, Romans 9-11 is a fascinating piece of the Bible because its interpretation is so highly contested, particularly with regard to the doctrine of predestination it ostensibly propounds, a doctrine later highly emphasized by followers of the Genevan Protestant reformer, Jean Calvin. This doctrine is no private religious squabble, but also effects how society is organised.

Finally, the Letter to the Romans in its entirety is devoted to the question of salvation from sin and death. This is worth considering. Not only for the life of the world to come, but also for this life, and for how we live as individuals and peoples in human society.

Before I begin with a brief outline of Paul’s Letter to the Romans as a whole, let me say something about Paul and his relationship to Jesus.

It has long been a meme in criticism of Christianity that Paul’s Christianity is different to the teachings of Jesus. Some, like Nietzsche, have gone so far as to say Paul invented Christianity.

This is simply untrue as a cursory reading of the Gospels and Paul’s letters reveal.

Very briefly, as we look at Romans below, keep in mind what Jesus said of the Roman centurion in Matthew’s Gospel, chapter 8:

“Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

Much of Paul’s writing is implicitly a commentary on this statement. Just this connection, which will be made more evident below, will demonstrate that Paul’s work and thought is firmly within the tradition of Jesus…

The image above of the statue of Paul on St Peter’s Basilica in Rome shows this visually. He is a messenger of Jesus.

Back to Romans:

First of all, Paul, as ‘the Apostle to the Gentiles’, is writing to a church he has not yet visited, and which he did not found. In the Acts of the Apostles, we are told there were visitors from Rome listening to the first sermon of the apostolic age, when Peter spoke to the crowds on the Day of Pentecost.

It seems as though such people, when they returned home, were the beginnings of the Christian community in Rome, which is then established into a local church by Peter at some point, and strengthened by Paul. Peter becomes Rome’s first bishop, and the line of his successors are there still today, governing the college of bishops as Pope.

Both Peter and Paul are executed in Rome, ultimately, and Peter’s bones lie under St Peter’s Basilica today, while Paul’s are buried at the Basilica of St Paul Outside the Walls about 8 kilometres away:

This gives some sense of why this Letter to the Romans, as the Church of Rome is begining, is so important. Paul hints at the importance of Rome himself in 1v8: ‘…your faith is proclaimed throughout the world.’

The early Christians in Rome would have been made up of both Jews and Gentiles, and the theme of the letter is that both Jews and Gentiles are equal partners in the new People of God brought about by the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

Paul declares in Romans 1v16:

‘For I am not ashamed of the gospel, since it is the power of God that offers salvation to everyone who has faith—to Jews first, and then to Gentiles as well.’

Paul says he has been set apart to be an apostle of God for this gospel - the announcement that God is beginning to reign on earth through a new king, Jesus, ‘who according to the flesh was descended from David, and who according to the Spirit of holiness was proclaimed to be the Son of God in power by his resurrection from the dead…’

All nations have been called to a great redemption from sin and death by being baptised into the new life of Christ, who is of the Davidic line, but is also divine and eternal.

This has serious ramifications: faith in Christ is what ‘justifies’ the members of this great ekklesia (Greek for those who have been ‘called out’) and not adherence to the Jewish Law, or torah. It marks out their identity by infusing them with the life of God through faith and baptism, with baptism not being a mere ritual, like circumcision, but a sacrament, the visible means of an invisible grace:

‘Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life?’ [6v3-4]

Paul begins the main body of the letter by pointing out that both Jew and Gentile have wandered from God and are lost in sin and death. The Gentile has ignored the law written in their hearts and the natural knowledge of God while the Jew has ignored the revelation of God given through Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the law of Moses. Both share in the sinfulness of Adam. The world is filled with idolatry, immorality, and violence. And those find their root in the human heart.

Human culture (the outgrowth of its cult, or worship) that ‘suppress[es] the truth’ [1v18] naturally declines in all places into corruption and decadence. The very thought of the culture becomes ‘futile’ and ‘minds are darkened.’ This reaches a final nadir in which evil deeds are not only tolerated, but applauded. This is the moment of civilizational collapse.

Yes, the Jewish people were given the promises of God and from them came the maternal bloodline of Jesus. But they too fell short of the glory of God, to the extent that Paul says there is no advantage for we Jews, because all are under the power of sin. [3v9]

The Jews failed just as the Gentiles did. And, in particular, they failed in the God-given call to be a light to the nations.

Paul quotes Isaiah in 2v23: ‘You that boast in the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”’

(Note here that Paul is implying the existence of a human will, both individual and communal, and a relationship between that will and divine will. This is important when we come to the Calvinist intepretation of Romans 9.)

But in the midst of all this failure, the promises given to them, and through them all people, have now been fulfilled by the Messiah, who has done what nobody could do: overcome the sin of Adam. The Messiah is the True Israel. And now, to be a Jew is precisely to be a Christian.

In Romans 2, Paul says, ‘He is a Jew who is one inwardly’ [that is, baptised into Christ], and in chapter 9 he will write that ‘not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.’

It does not matter then whether you are circumcised or not, when considering either guilt or redemption. No distinction is made, because all are guilty and the righteousness now offered is apart from the law.

Chapter 3:

‘But now the righteousness of God that is attested by the Law and the Prophets has been manifested apart from law: the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. No distinction has been made. For all have sinned and thereby are deprived of the glory of God, and all are justified by the gift of his grace that is given freely through the redemption in Christ Jesus.’

Paul recounts that the great intervention into human fallenness began with the story of Abraham. Abraham was not Jewish because the ethnos did not yet exist when he was called out of Mesopotamia (the land between two rivers). At this point he was still called ‘Abram’ and he also was not yet circumcised, as he began his pilgrimage to the Promised Land. Equally, he never lived under the torah because Moses only came centuries later.

Yet God reckoned his faith as righteousness anyway, and declared him to be the father of all those who have faith. He comes to receive his new name, ‘Abraham’, meaning ‘father of nations.’

Think of the significance of this. The father of faith is the father of nations. Nations, those sharing the same natus, or birth, are called to share in a great father’s great faith - faith in the one Creator God and his Anointed One.

Embedded in the great plan of cosmic redemption is not only the believer, but also the nation, participating in a universal faith, taking its place in a universal church.

(How different then is the modern conception of the state, as conceived both by a post-enlightened elite and many modernist Christians?)

Abraham’s name itself means that the promise of redemption was from inception that many nations would share his faith, faith in a coming, and now come, Christ (Christo - the anointed one). This then is Abraham’s true family: all the nations that share in his faith.

Therefore Paul writes that it is faith that justifies, that must justify, because all nations are called to God. It cannot be that mere adherence to one nation’s charter, the law given through Moses to Israel, is what justifies.

Paul emphasises this idea further by pointing out that the Mosaic law itself never rescued the Israelites from the Adamic nature they share with every other nation. If anything, ‘the law increased the trespass’ [5v20] because, despite the Law being good and spiritual, it does not issue new life. If anything, human nature, in its depths, tends to recoil against mere moral edict.

Jews and Gentiles alike are no longer to struggle in slavery under the weight of a torah that could not be fulfilled. Instead, the Spirit of God, through Jesus, makes us all children of God called to live in the love, peace and righteousness of God, and to participate in the ongoing redemption of the entire creation.

For the Jew who had not fulfilled the old covenant, and for the Gentile who had abandoned their Creator and their conscience, no matter what nation they were born into, life is no longer to be lived in a shadowy darkness of fear, blindly submitting to pagan or faithless powers. Instead, a People of God have been born to live under the rule of a new king.

Paul makes it clear in his Letter to the Galatians, that to persist with the torah becomes itself a kind of paganism; it is a turning from the God who makes himself known directly via his Son and his Spirit, to ‘weak and beggarly elemental spirits.’

Instead of this slavery, the People of God are to live as sons and heirs.

‘If God is for us, who can be against us?’

Not even death will separate this people from the love of God.

(A brief note: the letter, contra standard Protestant readings, is not primarily about the perils of self-righteousness. It bears on this, yes, but in the context of the wider theme of God’s rescue of all nations. This rescue takes place through the fulfillment of promises given to Israel by means of the Son of God, born from that nation who has risen from the dead and has begun his reign as king of all peoples. Without due attention to this framework, questions of individual justification will not be answered clearly. )

It is at this point that Romans 9 begins. It starts with an implied question: if all these things are true, why has so much of the old Israel rejected the Messiah, rejected the fulfillment of all the promises? Have they then been abandoned? And what does that mean for the unfolding of the remainder of the Abrahamic story?

To emphasize this again, the answers to these questions, addressed in this passage of scripture, have had enormous implications for not only personal faith, but for the governance of communities, nations, and the planet.

Let’s begin…

Read more

Somehow an old pop-punk band popular decades earlier during my teens managed to capture the zeitgeist almost perfectly.

Here’s the video:

Looting and pillaging by paid protestors during the Floyd hoax.

A bizarre American election.

The masking of kids, the invasive and fraudulent PCR tests, and the closing of schools.

The deliberate assault on small businesses and youth, all whilst the stock market ran higher and higher.

And then the great forgetting.

People who had volunteered as foot-soldiers for the therapeutic regime all pretended they had done it for altruistic reasons, that they were not to know that lockdowns (previously reserved for prison riots) and masks did not work.

No, people like me pointed this out over and over again. With the papers published by the same scientific establishment who then pushed these policies under political pressure. And just basic common sense.

Everybody knew. They know today that they knew.

And they’ll do it again next time.

We still live in the shadow of the revolution of 2020.

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work.

You will receive access to all posts as well as a free copy of my book, Rage and Love: A Memoir of White South Africa in an Age of Destruction. The book can also be found on Amazon and Takealot.

There is also a new book coming soon…

Subscribe now

I ended the first part by asking what happens if the petrodollar falls?

Consider this. In 2008, a cash-strapped City of Chicago handed over management of its parking meters for the price of a billion dollars. American cities have not got richer since then…

Who made that investment? The sovereign wealth fund of the United Arab Emirates, using their petrodollars. They run parking in Chicago now.

This is of a piece with massive petrodollar investment in real estate in large American cities and cities like London. (The petrodollar is one reason property prices are so high in capital cities around the world. Good for historic property-owners. Terrible for aspiring owners.)

The Arab states currently hold over $300 billion of American debt. (China holds double that, but has halved their total exposure since 2013.)

Whilst Arab purchases of American debt are relatively modest considering global demand, it is important to note that if Middle Eastern demand for treasury securities declines as China continues to de-dollarize, American inflation would increase, interest rates would go up, and they would need to devote 100s of billions of dollars more annually to increased interest payments.

This, along with some other shocks to the US economy (think an AI bubble bursting, a significant military setback), could tip the American debt problem into crisis mode.

And the biggest global risk may not, in fact, be US economic decline, but an increasingly aggressive effort on their part to shore up their Middle Eastern influence, if the regime believes the petrodollar is threatened.

But before I delve deeper into the consequences of a fading petrodollar (which would not be entirely negative for the US, especially for its workers), we need to continue to go deeper into its history and how it has shaped the modern Middle East. The past dictates the future. To some extent.

The British documentarian Adam Curtis will be our guide, through his landmark film, Bitter Lake, which, while focusing on the chaos of Afghanistan, shows how the perverse emergence and maintenance of the petrodollar, alongside Zionism, has led to such disaster in the Middle East.

First of all, a clip from Curtis in which he reminds us how the fateful meeting between FDR and the Saudi King on the bitter lake of the Suez would lay the foundation of American patronage of radical Sunni Islam:

Read more

Black Economic Empowerment (the country’s systemic affirmative action regime) was designed by corporate South Africa. Chiefly the Oppenheimer mining dynasty.

They believed that handing equity to politically connected comrades would allow them to maintain business as usual in the face of the ANC’s socialist/revolutionary policies as written down in their National Democratic Revolution policy papers.

Let’s see how this is working out for the country at large:

As the X account ‘X Freeze’ accurately points out, this is a form of economic suicide such that one must believe this was planned.

The country was achieving strong growth under a heavy sanction regime and in the midst of an oil crisis in the 1970s. Now economic growth does not keep up with population growth. And unemployment is over 30%.

What has BEE done? 46 ANC comrades captured 60% of BEE mining deals. R1 trillion has been transferred to 100 comrades. Analyst believe it may have cost the country 4 million jobs.

Deliberate destruction. In the face of US pressure, President Cyri Ramaphosa, one of the country’s richest men who gained billions in free equity from banks, says he is doubling down on the policies which are destroying the hopes and aspirations of millions of his own voters.

Why? Because the pillaging of the country is the plan.

Aside from world-historic unemployment rates, the country is also know for war-zone levels of crime.

And research now tells us this is also planned and deliberate, and not simply owing to poverty. (Otherwise why would the rest of Africa not have similar levels of crime.)

Yes, much of the murders are owing to the tearing of social fabric in poorer communities. Most killings are family/community disputes.

But the horrific home invasions and farm attacks which chases many South Africans from the country are not random.

They are the result of ANC policy in the 1980s concerning revolutionary violence which they have chosen not to deal with once in power.

From the online South African journal, the Common Sense:

In the turbulent period that followed [the unbanning of the ANC and the SACP in 1990], competing political factions raced to establish and arm paramilitary units inside the country, each justifying the move as necessary for self-defence against the others. The ANC’s armed wing, uMkhonto weSizwe (MK), recruited, trained, and directed township-based combat formations known as Self-Defence Units (SDUs). The Pan Africanist Congress of Azania (PAC) fielded its own armed wing, the Azanian People’s Liberation Army (APLA). And Inkatha, the Zulu nationalist movement led by Mangosuthu Buthelezi and the ANC’s principal black political rival, was being covertly armed by elements within the apartheid state itself.

The country was soon flooded with illegal guns, with an ever-growing cohort of youth trained in their use and organised into armed bands. The result was a massive surge in political violence. The numbers of murders recorded by the South African Police (SAP) rose from 11 750 in 1989 to 15 109 in 1990 and 19 853 in 1993.

These various paramilitaries often drew from lumpen elements and many soon turned to crime. The PAC’s APLA had an explicit policy of funding its armed struggle through so-called “repossession operations”, which were in effect robberies. Though the ANC denied pursuing a similar policy, many of its SDUs too became notorious for their involvement in predatory criminality. This period also saw a dramatic surge in the number of armed robberies from 30 498 in 1989 to 39 211 in 1990 and 60 089 in 1993.

Whilst much of the chaos subsided after the 1994 elections, predatory crime did not:

The 1994 election brought a dramatic fall in political violence and related killings. But the predatory criminal violence seeded by the low-intensity warfare of the early 1990s did not see a similar dissipation. Tens of thousands of MK, SDU, SPU and APLA combatants who had been recruited, trained, and armed through the transition years did not have a civilian life to go back to.

Thousands of these combatants were absorbed, without vetting, into the new state security services. However, of the 42 000 MK/SDU and APLA members initially listed, 18 000 never reported for integration or demobilisation at all, with many drifting into organised crime. This found its most dramatic expression in the hundreds of cash-in-transit heists executed annually in the mid-1990s.

What was the ANC’s response? To facilitate the escalation of these crimes…

Rather than seeking to strengthen the capacity of the police units best able to respond to this crisis the ANC government actively sought to undermine them. This was done initially by offering voluntary severance packages to many of the most capable and effective police officers. Then, even as the crime crisis continued to escalate, the ANC set about completely dismantling these units. The national police commissioner, Jackie Selebi, the first ANC cadre to head the police, ordered the closure of 200 specialised police units in January 2001, including murder and robbery and anti-hijacking units.

BEE - economic destruction for the sake of leading politicians. Predatory crime - for the sake of footsoldier clients of these politicians.

The first world has run cover for the ANC over and over again.

German politicians meet with the perpetrators:

American authors tell the world that white South Africans lie about their victimisation by state-facilitated predators.

The global media mock Elon Musk’s assertion that farmers are being targeted in the country of his birth.

Meanwhile:

White genocide is fake news. But, given the UN’s definition of genocide below, imagine the majority of farm murders were Romansch people in Europe, or Muslims in the UK. What would the global reaction be?

Below is a picture of the President of the Economic Freedom Fighters and former ANC Youth League President, Julius Malema. He is on the left. To the right of him are Winnie Mandela and the current State President:

These are some of the statement Malema has made in the past:

“We are not calling for the slaughter of white people, at least for now.”

“Kill the Boer, kill the farmer” (Dubul’ ibhunu)

“The only white man you can trust is a dead white man.”

“You must never be scared to kill. A revolution demands that at some point there must be killing.”

“We are at war with white supremacy. We are in a permanent war with white supremacists.”

“Anything that stands in the way of the revolution must be eliminated.”

Malema was recently sentenced for 5 years of imprisonment for firing a rifle owned illegally over the heads of his supporters at a rally.

There is an obvious link here to the song ‘Kill the Boer’ which mimics the sound of a gun.

Malema’s rhetoric is not condemned by the ANC.

After his sentencing, this what the ANC Secretary-General wrote about Afriforum, the civil rights group who persisted in seeing justice done:

Grotesque farm attacks and home invasions continue.

The former pro South African tennis player, Wimbeldon finalist and world number five, Kevin Anderson, recently posted this on X:

The effects of ANC policy can only be understood as their goal.

This a thuggish, murderous regime. Forget the supposed nobility of their past struggle. The warnings about this communist party have all come true.

People are dying and being systematically impoverished. Of all races. I don’t know how it will end.

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work.

You will receive access to all posts as well as a free copy of my book, Rage and Love: A Memoir of White South Africa in an Age of Destruction. The book can also be found on Amazon and Takealot.

There is also a new book coming soon…

Subscribe now

I did not know her well, but our offices were close together and everyday she would greet me with one of the warmest smiles you could ever see.

In true Kenyan style, she asked whether she should address me as ‘doctor’ or ‘daktari.’ I smiled and said of course not.

She managed our printing and she never complained with whatever task you asked of her, just doing it efficently and cheerfully.

Often when I entered her workspace to do my own printing, she would be working quietly at her desk listening to her favourite gospel music.

She loved her job so much she named one of her sons after the name of the building in which we worked: Dempsey.

Today, a document was found on her desk entitled, ‘Angels are preparing me for eternity.’

Yesterday morning, the first psalm of the morning prayers of the Divine Liturgy was Psalm 63:

You, God, are my God,
 earnestly I seek you;
I thirst for you,
 my whole being longs for you,
in a dry and parched land
 where there is no water.

I have seen you in the sanctuary
 and beheld your power and your glory.
Because your love is better than life,
 my lips will glorify you.

There was also a brief memorial service yesterday that my wife and I attended.

The gospel reading was from John 14, where Jesus tells the apostles at the Last Supper:

“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me. My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.”

Jackie knew the way.

We sang the hymn ‘Abide with me,’ which was also sung at my mother’s requiem mass in South Africa last year:

Hold thou thy cross before my closing eyes.
Shine through the gloom and point me to the skies.
Heaven's morning breaks and earth's vain shadows flee;
in life, in death, O Lord, abide with me.

The priest then reflected on Psalm 23. The Lord is my shepherd, even in the valley of the shadow of death. He is our shepherd in life, but also in death, and beyond. He is the Lord of both life and death.

Because of this, we may dwell in the House of the Lord forever.

As the priest spoke, I contemplated the print of a famous painting which hangs near the sanctuary of the church, Rembrandt’s ‘Return of the Prodigal Son.’

Art historian Kenneth Clark describes this as “a picture which those who have seen the original in St. Petersburg may be forgiven for claiming as the greatest picture ever painted.”

Why?

Because it depicts the destiny which awaits us all if we, like the prodigal son, remember our Father is waiting to welcome us home, and we turn our faces toward his house.

This is the house with many rooms, where Jesus prepares a place for us.

“Eternal rest grant unto her, O Lord,
and let perpetual light shine upon her.”

Part One: Reading time 6 minutes.

150 years after Julius Caesar and his heir Octavian (later Augustus) established the Roman Empire, Roman emperors began to devalue their currency.

Faced with the massive costs of wars abroad and welfare spending at home—both to maintain social cohesion and imperial dominance—the silver content of their coins was progressively diluted.

The denarius was roughly 94% silver under Nero (around AD 64) and remained relatively high-purity into the early 2nd century, but by the late 3rd century, its silver content had plummeted to under 5% with coins consisting of bronze or copper with only a thin silver layer.

This may sound familiar to modern readers. There is indeed an analogy between Rome’s currency debasement and the money creation practiced by the United States and other modern states.

But there is a crucial difference that has so far staved off a full-scale collapse, especially for the US: the petrodollar.

Before examining the petrodollar—and its links to the modern Middle East—we need to first look at the plain old dollar.

Paper and Gold

Since the 1930s, the US dollar has lost 99% of its purchasing power versus gold.

Events that accelerated this erosion include:

1. World War I, the creation of the Federal Reserve (1913), and the beginnings of large-scale deficit spending and central bank management of the currency.

2. The expansion of deficit spending as governments adopted Keynesian policies after the Great Depression and during World War II.

3. The Nixon Shock of 1971, when the US ended dollar convertibility to gold, enabling faster money creation to finance a rapidly expanding welfare state and other priorities.

4. The Middle East oil embargos of the early 1970s, in retaliation for US military support of Israel.

5. Unprecedented stimulus spending first in 2008 after the Great Recession and then in 2020 and 2021 after lockdowns.

6. Oil embargo 2026?

These policy choices have generally inflated asset prices—benefiting owners of stocks, real estate, and other financial assets—while making life more expensive for middle- and working-class wage earners whose real incomes have often lagged.

Note how the stock market did really well during lockdown whilst millions plunged into poverty, unemployment, and under-employment around the world.

If the result of a policy is defined as its goal, it is obvious that lockdowns were not designed for any health benefits (quite the contrary) but as a global exercise in wealth transfer from the masses to the global elites.

Equally, note how Trump said recently he did not want to make housing too affordable because that would hurt the Boomer Generation whose properties have made so many of them rich, along with their pension funds which have ridden massive growth in equities as they rode the money-printing wave of the last few decades.

Yes, items like cars and TVs have gotten cheaper, but healthcare and education and housing has generally ballooned in many parts of the world. In Britain and the US, the majority has never really caught up after 2008. The unemployment figures are lies, discounting those who have given up and counting Uber-style ‘gig’ jobs as worth the same as steady wages.

Through all of this, the tacit ‘social agreement,’ certainly in the first world, has been: accept higher taxes and inflation; accept open borders to suck up some of the inflation and suppress wages; and in exchange, some of you will get welfare benefits. Meanwhile, the stock market and GDP will go up.

Catholic writer, Hilaire Belloc, writing in 1912, foresaw this new polity and named it ‘the servile state.’

The Petrodollar

You might think this would lead to a Zimbabwe-like state of affairs in the first world. You might wonder how this has been avoided.

Surely, by now, with nearly $40 trillion of debt, the US should have fallen, closed their bases, and shuttered the welfare spending which takes up around half of their annual expenditure.

The reason why this has not happened is the petrodollar. And this, along with the Israeli influence I wrote about at the outset of the Iranian War, is the reason the US is obsessed with the Middle East.

No, they don’t hate radical Islam. They love it. They arm radical Sunnis in Syria, Saudi Arabia, parts of Russia, and formerly in the Balkans. Because they help them sell their greatest export: cash.

The oil, as I will explain, is primarily the means to export the dollar. Remember the US is a net energy exporter.

This, along with Israeli state capture of the US, is why you have all those military bases surrounding Iran in Sunni authoritarian territory, because the petrodollar is what is staving off a Roman-like collapse of the Global American Empire (the GAE)...

The deep foundations of the petrodollar first begun to be laid when the House of Saud began their conquest of Arabia. Britain was the major foreign power involved in the region at this time.

Britain was the dominant foreign power in the region during World War I, initially supporting the Hashemite dynasty (via promises made by T.E. Lawrence). However, the British ultimately stood aside as the House of Saud conquered key territories. Ibn Saud completed the unification of much of Arabia, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was formally proclaimed in 1932.

The Saudis then cemented their radical, violent form of Sunni Islam called Wahhabism in the Arabian Peninsula, before it exporting it around the world. This directly led to 9/11 and the rise of ISIS.

An informal US-Saudi alignment began in the 1930s over oil concessions. It deepened under President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who met King Ibn Saud aboard the USS Quincy in the Suez Canal in February 1945, establishing a security-for-oil framework.

This relationship meant that when Nixon collapsed the modern gold standard in 1971, and the Arab states embargoed oil in 1973, there was a kind of escape valve for the modern US dollar, even as the printing accelerated.

By 1974, Nixon’s Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, would sign an agreement with the Saudis that oil would always be traded in dollars. Surplus dollars would then be reinvested in US bonds and assets.

By 1975, all of Opec (The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) was selling their oil in dollars.

In exchange, the US placed these states under their security umbrella. This would, of course, become quite complicated when Iran became an anatagonist state after their 1979 Revolution, followed by Venezuela when they swung dramatically to the left after the election of Hugo Chavez in 1999. Both Iran and Venezuela are founding states of Opec.

What did this mean for the US economy?

A lot.

Oil producing countries invest their dollars in American assets. Oil purchasing countries require dollar reserves to buy oil. These are so-called petrodollars.

Because of this global demand for dollars, the US can print money at Zimbabwe-like levels, without Zimbabwe-like inflation at home.

The dollars don’t sit inside the country, instead they are absorbed by countries all around the world, meaning the dollar remains the global reserve currency, and inflation is ‘shared’ with the planet and thus diluted.

Furthermore, when oil producing countries invest in US bonds, they lower the borrowing costs of the US government, and provide the money the US uses to fund their welfare state and their military.

(Many petrodollars also end up joining dollar deposits in Europe to become so-called ‘eurodollars.’)

The welfare state satiates the masses at home: particularly elderly Republican voters and poorer black Democrat voters. The military, aside from extending global influence, enforces the continuation of the petrodollar.

The money-printer stays ‘oiled’ and the debt racks up, inflating assets, yes, but not disastrously so. The Empire abides. The Pride flags go up in NATO countries and BLM and LGBT is taught in Africa and England.

All because the number one American export is dollars.

But what happens if this global demand for dollars begins to dry up… ?

All over the media we hear how the Iranian regime is an oppressive theocracy, the great sponsor of radical Islam.

Maybe, but please disabuse yourself of any notion that this is why Israel and the US have attacked Iran.

In the above photo, you see Trump standing with the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Syria, Mohammed Bin Salman and Abu Mohammad al-Julani.

Christianity is effectively banned in Saudi Arabia. No churches, no Bibles, no evangelism. In Iran, whilst Christianity operates under heavy restrictions and is persecuted, the faith is recognised as a permitted minority religion and the faithful can attend church in public.

Back to the Saudis. The US and the UK give them weapons. The vast majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi, and the censored pages of the 9/11 Commission Report pointed fingers at Saudi government officials assisting them. 9/11 victims’ families are trying to sue the country, although Obama attempted to stop them. Saudi Arabia is also the chief incubator of radical Sunni Islam (Wahhabism) and builds mosques devoted to this sectarianism around the world.

But the leader is welcomed into the White House.

Meanwhile, the Syrian leader seen above with Trump and MBS fought for Al Qaeda against the US in Iraq, and then led the ISIS-adjacent Al Nusra Front in toppling the former Syrian President, Bashir al-Assad.

By the way, both Iran and Hezbollah, like Assad and the Russians, fought against ISIS. The Saudis and Israel did not.

Here is Assad with his wife, visiting a church near Damascus on Easter, four years ago:

25 years after 9/11, the USA has largely destroyed Syria, Libya, and Iraq, and supported regimes who, unlike the aforementioned countries, actively promote the Sunni radicalism of Osama Bin Laden, all while seeing Christians decimated and exiled from their ancient communities.

There was even reporting after 9/11 that Israel had forewarning of 9/11 and was tracking the hijackers! Not from fringe bloggers, but from Fox News!

But now the US has the audacity to proclaim they are on some kind of Christian mission, somehow on behalf a nation that explicitly rejects Christ, Israel.

One US commander told American troops that Trump has been “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth.”

Part of this signal fire was a missile strike on an Iranian girls’ school on Saturday. Close to 200 girls died.

(For context, 40 children died in Hamas’ attack on Israel during the October 7 raid. This action, and the unprecedented killing of a head of state during war, almost guarantees that no new Iranian regime that is not hateful towards the West can ever be established as a result of these hostilities.)

Would you want to be the group carrying out these strikes just before Jesus returned to judge the living and the dead?

This echoes old comments by the current Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, in which he advocated the building of a Third Temple in Jerusalem. (On the ruins of the temple which Jesus promised would be destroyed, as it is his body and the church which is the true temple.)

Hegseth has also openly stated that the US will continue to rain down upon Iran “death and destruction from the sky all day long.”

When the anti-Christian Roman Emperor Julian attempted to rebuild it in the fourth century as part of his war on the faith that had been adopted by his predecessors, he quickly died and an earthquake and a fire halted the reconstruction.

Some bizarre Christian Zionists believe a third temple would usher in the Second Coming. However, it has long been Christian (particularly Catholic and Orthodox) tradition that a third temple would see the rise of the Antichrist.

Some would argue that the US and Israel had no choice but to make a move on an enemy that wants to destroy them.

But why does Iran and the wider region harbour hatred for the US?

Does it have something to do with the British toppling of the original ruling dynasty in 1921, and their promotion of a military officer to become the Shah?

Does it have something to do with the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran during World War II?

The government putsch organised by the US and the British in the 1950s?

Does it have something to do with the Shia Muslim community being invaded by the Israelis in the 1980s?

Or the US shooting down an Iranian passenger flight by mistake, in 1988, killing 290 civilians?

Could it be the chemical weapons the US gave to Iraq in the 1980s which killed thousands of Iranians?

Could it be the sanctions then later placed on Iraq, which the Americans themselves admitted killed thousands of Iraqi children?

Watch Clinton Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, state that the deaths of 500 000 children is worth it, in order to pressure Hussein:

Leave the question for now. Is current American action going to solve the problem and bring an advantageous peace?

The track record is not good.

We also know now that the US strikes began not at a time of their choosing, but of Israel’s.

Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, has admitted this:

“We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t pre-emptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

So Israel, who receives billions of aid from the US, gets to choose…

And does Israel even want peace? No, actions in Syria and Gaza suggest they want to bomb their enemies to a point that their territories are in chaos and anarchy and that they can then continue to bomb at will without any threat of reprisals.

What could go wrong here?

A previous Trump admitted that a lot could go wrong:

The missiles rain down on Iran. Hospitals and schools and suburbs are being hit. The weapons continue to flow to Ukraine. Not because they can bring peace, but because they guarantee continued war.

Because the ‘conspiracy theorists’ are right. Israel wags the American dog. Trump gave in.

The dark irony is that Trump gave in knowing this will very possibly destroy MAGA. Voters hate these wars. This is why Trump won in the first place. Something like 80% of Americans opposed getting involved in Iran.

That figure will get even worse if the conflict drags on and goes south. It is possible that happens, especially if the US runs out of missile interceptors used to protect their multiple bases surrounding Iran, as well as the Saudis and Israel. Already there are reports of the Pentagon looking to buy these interceptors from Ukraine!

Iran has no capacity to hit the American mainland. During the negotations that proved to be an Israeli ruse, they had gone further in their concessions than when they previously had a nuclear deal a decade ago with the US.

Their Foreign Minister had openly stated they would never develop nuclear weapons. They had promised to back this up by reducing uranium enrichment to below 3.67%, stopping any further accumulation of uranium and allowing observers in to monitor this.

Remember here that Israel itself has nuclear weapons it has never admitted to having, nukes which can reach Europe and the US, and nukes which it possesses outside of any international treaties.

Trump could have taken this deal, boasted he had got a better deal than Obama, and gone back to being the Trump he had campaigned to be.

Instead, he chose the very wars he spent years denouncing. If you understand why, you understand a great deal of modern geopolitics…

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work.

You will receive access to all posts as well as a free copy of my book, Rage and Love: A Memoir of White South Africa in an Age of Destruction. The book can also be found on Amazon and Takealot.

There is also a new book coming soon…

Subscribe now

First hypothetical:

Every year, 50 journalists are murdered, brutally, in South Africa. At the same time, major political figures, civil society leaders, and the Constitutional Court all support the singing of songs about killing them.

Would the media call this a genocide, a crime against humanity? How would the world react?

Second hypothetical:

Every year, 50 members of the ‘travelling community’ in Britain are murdered. The Prime Minister and the King refuse to condemn the public call for their killing, maintaining the chants and songs should be understood metaphorically.

Would the media call this a genocide, a crime against humanity? How would the world react?

Historical case study:

In 1998, the Kosova Liberation Army, backed by heroin traders and elements of Al Qaeda, claimed they were victims of genocide in Serbia. These claims were dubious at best, despite the rampant lies told by the likes of CNN and Tony Blair. Bill Clinton responded by bombing Belgrade, thus ruining Russian relations possibly for good. This, according to NATO, was a genocide, a crime against humanity.

(The search for Blair’s estimate of 100 000 ethnically cleansed and killed would lead to the discovery of 670 bodies of military aged men.)

Farm murders in South Africa:

Every year, around 50 farmers are murdered in South Africa. Considering their low numbers, their profession is twice as dangerous as being a policeman in the country.

Remember, the South African crime rate is among the highest in the world. More civilians have been killed in SA than in Ukraine, over the entire duration of the war there.

As I have written before, to put this into perspective, you are 3000 times more likely to be brutally killed than to be shot by police as a black American.

The South African President has never condemned the singing of the infamous struggle song, ‘Kill the Boer, Kill the Farmer.’ The Constitutional Court has defended it, ruling it not to be hate speech. This in a country where elderly white women are imprisoned for saying naughty words.

Farm murders often involve torture with blades and boiling water. They often include the killing of children, the elderly, and rape. They are not normal crimes.

They likely emerged from the pattern laid down by the ANC during their Struggle, where they told their supporters to attack farmers, who were their chief enemies, and steal their weapons.

The ANC has not done much to change this pattern to this day.

In the trade impasse with the US, one of Trump’s demands was for the President to condemn the song and establish rural safety units, which would protect both black and white farmers. The President refused.

And now, instead of NATO ‘coming to the rescue,’ the liberal US establishment has sent journalists to the country, not with the intention of shedding light on the issue, but with the intention of ‘debunking’ it as a non-issue.

60 Minutes posted these statements on X when their story was released:

White supremacists have made false claims of genocide in South Africa for decades. That narrative entered the mainstream in 2018. However, Afrikaner journalist Max du Preez says, “There is no such thing.”

In May, Pres. Trump said “over a thousand” White farmers have been murdered in South Africa. He showed a video of what he said were crosses marking their burial sites. But when 60 Minutes traveled to the site, the crosses were gone. Anderson Cooper tracked down the farmer who placed them there.

But watch a segment of this ‘debunking.’ You will soon understand why it has backfired so badly online:

(By the way, I lived for 7 years in this region. As I described in my book, just in my limited circle I knew of a woman being decapitated on her farm, a man being macheted to death down the road, and a couple being strangled with wire and dumped in a nearby river.)

Some debunking. The crosses were not graves, as Trump said. But they represented a 1000 murders all the same. Does this make the slightest difference?

White South Africans hear all the time that the claim of ‘genocide’ is false.

Two points:

First, the leading Afrikaner groups in the country have never claimed it was a genocide.

Second, take a closer look at the UN’s legal definition of genocide:

Legally, the crime of genocide need not refer to the entire destruction of a group. Killing members, because they are members, of the group, or even causing serious harm, are considered acts of genocide.

You might not agree with these definitions, but the liberal intelligentsia would certainly apply them strictly in the hypotheticals I wrote of above.

Why don’t they apply them to people I know, former neighbours of mine? Why do they call people like me a white supremacist when we bring the issue to light?

The logic is inescapable.

They want us dead.

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work.

You will receive access to all posts as well as a free copy of my book, Rage and Love: A Memoir of White South Africa in an Age of Destruction. The book can also be found on Amazon and Takealot.

There is also a new book coming soon…

Subscribe now

Attentive readers of the Old Testament would know of the Canaanite god, Moloch. Moloch was notorious for demanding human, particularly children, sacrifice.

From Leviticus:

Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Moloch, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord… Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants.

Centuries later, we are told of the reign of one of the final kings of Judah, Manasseh, in the Second Book of Chronicles:

But he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, like unto the abominations of the heathen, whom the Lord had cast out before the children of Israel… And he caused his children to pass through the fire in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the Lord, to provoke him to anger.

Within a generation, the temple is burnt to the ground and the Jewish people are exiled into Babylon, to allow the land ‘a sabbath rest.’ What had happened to the Canaanites, had happened to the Jews. The sacrifice of children marked their apocalypse.

Note also that straight after the birth of Jesus, we read of a slaughter of children in Bethlehem in a bid to stamp out the imminent Messianic threat.

The 2006 film Apocalypto depicted a similar theme, not in the Middle East but in the Central American Mayan kingdom, where human sacrifice at the behest of a corrupt priestly aristocracy foreshadows the destruction of their civilization.

The final scenes symbolize this destruction when the protagonist, Jaguar Paw, escapes from the ‘sacrifice-hunters’ and is able to rescue his hidden wife and children, after the Spanish arrive with the Cross:

The episode in history was also immortalized by in meme-form:

The final line of the film: ‘I seek a new beginning.’

But we live in an enlightened age now, don’t we? Our rulers and elites are rational, guided by scientific experts, and have put away all the superstitious depravity of past ages?

One can answer this question very simply, with a set of other questions:

How many people in the Epstein files have been arrested?

Why is the name redacted on the email that suggests Epstein impersonate Jesus as he has sexual relations with an unnamed woman, who had been previously known to pray?

Why is there no serious investigation as to why a purported founder of an adoption agency told Epstein she was sending him fresh muffins and asked him if he needed any fresh steaks?

Why are names connected with strange codewords like pizza, grape soda, cream cheese, and beef jerky redacted?

The temptation is to believe this is all just fringe. It really isn’t.

Trump’s Commerce Secretary owned a business with Epstein. Bill Gates apparently admitted to treating his wife secretly for STDs he caught from Epstein’s ‘Russian girls.’ New Age guru, Deepak Chopra wrote to Epstein, ‘God does not exist. Sweet girls do.’ Elon Musk begged for an invitation to the island. Epstein introduced a girl to his brother.

Epstein funded the first comprehensive transgender surgery programme in the US. He was involved in attempts at human cloning.

He had multiple meetings and meals with one of the most powerful men in the world, founder of Palantir and PayPal, surveillance capitalist par excellence, Peter Thiel. 9Who has some very damning skeletons in his own closet.)

Epstein was closely associated with the so-called ‘New Atheists’ - men such as Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss. He hosted and funded other important intellectuals like Steven Pinker (who supported him in his legal defence) and Stephen Hawking.

He was friends with former Bush treasury secretary, World Bank chief economist, Harvard President, and Obama economic advisor, Larry Summers. He hosted journalists and media figures at his New York penthouse.

He ran money for the likes of arms dealer Adnan Kashoggi and Jewish mogul Les Wexner. He had very close ties with intelligence, notably Israel’s Mossad. (Ghislaine Maxwell’s father had been a notorious Mossad asset in Britain.)

He received lenient treatment from US legal authorities because prosecutors were told he ‘belonged to intelligence.’ He collaborated closely with former Israeli PM, Ehud Barak on business and security details.

JP Morgan handled his blackmail and trafficking payments for him, before Deutsche Bank took over. He was a close advisor and friend to Ariane de Rothschild.

This man was like a spider, dancing in a depraved web of elites from banking, intelligence, and government.

Subscribe now

He was at the heart of all respectable opinion-making, be it Zionism, modern banking, climate, vaccines.

His associates are and remain our rulers.

They are no different in essence to the old wickedness we associate with ostensibly ‘darker ages.’

Of course, this should not be surprising. As somebody who came to readers’ notice writing about covid, many of you will be aware that it is in the open that Moderna trials killed children, but this was covered up, so children could be mass vaccinated with a therapeutic they did not need, but which the powers-that-be knew would be lethal to a proportion of them.

The Atlantic magazine (whose owner, Steve Jobs’s widow, was close friend with Ghislaine Maxwell) had to run cover of sorts when this all became too obvious:

Meanwhile, Canada is creeping closer to euthanising children in its MAiD programme.

In Britain, children are being paid to participate in puberty-blocking drug experiments, with associated risks of infertility and brain development.

Britain is also witnessing a massive rise in abortion rates. One in three pregnancies are terminated. Not to mention the ‘grooming gang’ scandals which their media only feebly reports. One recent testimony estimated that one woman was raped by over 500 immigrants. In one town, Rotherham, an official inquiry estimated 1500 girls and women had effectively been kidnapped as sex slaves, in plain sight. There are accounts of cannibalism too.

Of course, their current Prime Minister famously declined to prosecute the King’s friend, Jimmy Saville, when it had become an open secret the man was desecrating corpses and attacking sick boys and girls in hospitals.

Are we so enlightened then? Are our technocratic elites, those who ‘benignly’ tell us to reduce our carbon footprint, wear masks, go vegan, watch ‘Adolescence’ on Netflix, get our injections, and open our borders motivated by a modern, rational altruism?

Somebody once said, ‘If the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness!’

It’s an apocolapytic age. We live in Canaan.

Prepare, and pray, for a new beginning.

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work.

You will receive access to all posts as well as a free copy of my book, Rage and Love: A Memoir of White South Africa in an Age of Destruction. The book can also be found on Amazon and Takealot.

There is also a new book coming soon…

Subscribe now

The US is about to become a white-minority country. The UK has a few more decades till then. Many states and cities in both countries are already there.

For many people, the use of the term ‘white’ above is triggering.

Why would you want white majorities? Isn’t that white supremacy? What’s the problem with complete multiculturalism, where all the colours bleed into one?

But explore some hypotheticals. Remove the word ‘white.’

If Zululand in South Africa had an influx of Afrikaners such that Zululand would no longer be majority Zulu, would Zulus be right to be concerned?

The Japanese, Chinese, and the Middle East have strict immigration rules to maintain their culture. Is that ‘racist’?

Or remove race somewhat.

The left-wing Danish government are deporting and blocking immigrants. They have stated that they owe their loyalty to their own citizens, and that with continued influx, their generous welfare state would collapse. They are for the Danish.

Are all these countries somehow ‘on the wrong side of history?’

Here is an additional problem.

Multiculturalism, at least not in a functional sense, just doesn’t exist. You will never find a functioning state where all races and culture are just scattered throughout the territory.

First of all, people don’t live like that. They gather with people of their own backgrounds with their own interests. Think Greeks, Lebanese, Muslims, Indians in South Africa. Or Somalis in Minnesota…

Or look at this photograph of England during a recent election season:

Secondly, when ethnos is disintegrated so is ethos. When cultural norms are deliberately fragmented, all that remains to maintain order is the power of the bureaucratic state. And most bureaucratic states are incompetent and corrupt.

Be honest with yourself. The most diverse cities in the West are all the most dysfunctional. Not even massive state intervention can make those places functional.

Tragic? Yes. True? Yes.

Of course, some diversity works. The kind that happens organically, slowly, and transparently. But mass NGO-facilitated movement of peoples? No.

And yes, modern immigration is not organic.

The only prior time in history where majority ethnicities and native-born populations become minorities in their own territory is as a result of war and ethnic cleansing.

No, people are facilitating the levels of immigration we see today, where native-born populations have gone from 90% of the population to close to half.

Under Boris Johnson around 4 million people arrived in Britain over three years. That means around 1 in 15 people in Britain today arrived just a few years ago.

The US has the same statistic for the Biden years. 12 million people flocked to the US, unvetted, after he declared he would not be enforcing the law he had sworn to uphold before God. The US probably has something like 40 million people there without papers.

Do you think the countries these people come from are ‘sending their best?’ If they are, the first-world is hurting the third-world by taking them. If they are not, first-world governments are hurting their citizens, and lying about it

What does this all do to infrastructure? To wages? To social cohesion? To national debt?

It is madness.

And it was only a few seconds ago, historically speaking, that normal liberal-type leaders knew this.

This is Obama in 2010:

This is Bill Clinton in 1995:

In many ways, Trump is to the left of these positions. Trump has said he wants to let illegal workers on farms and in hotels stay!

What is interesting to me, is that nice people today consider politicians who echo Obama and Clinton a few decades ago, to be fascist or deeply racist.

And yes, under Obama and Clinton ICE did some rough business too. (All without the increased danger of mass rioting and obstruction.)

During the Obama years, 56 people died. Under Biden’s four years, 26. In five years of Trump, around 84 have died. Which is more, but not more per person detained. Many more died around 2020 because of social distancing rules too in medical facilities, etc.

(It is also not irrelevant to note that this past year, the US experienced a 20% drop in murders compared to Biden’s final year of presidency. The country is generally much more peaceful.)

Obama even had the same head of border control as Trump, Tom Homan. Here he is giving Homan a medal:

Let me say here: I have seen the video from Minneapolis, videos not of immigrants, but American protestors, being shot. I found both of them to be brutal. Probably legal according to American law. But brutal and highly avoidable. Americans cops seemingly escalate at the drop of the hat.

(For context, I thought George Floyd’s death was entirely self-induced. He was resisting arrest. He refused to get in the car. He was high on a lot of drugs. And the cop was using a standard hold to detain a suspected, very large, criminal in the midst of some kind of psychotic break.)

However, those people would never have been there, protesting, if this madness over normal policy had not been instigated by the media. The man who died rocked up with a gun to protest cops! He was spitting on them and swearing at them. Dumb.

Nonetheless, these violent confrontations don’t make much sense politically, considering Trump is letting so many illegals stay.

Many don’t realise this, but mass immigration was never a huge problem, even in the days before passports and hard border controls. Corporations had not yet developed an addiction to cheap, illegal labour, and there were no welfare states to be gamed.

Sorting those two things out are the most important ways to solve illegal immigration and would be relatively frictionless. Maybe. Hard to predict the mood of those who have become so radicalised at the thought of a people protecting their demographics.

This madness over enforcing border and residency laws is of a piece with recent fanaticism about sex changes, mandated masks, lockdowns, and vaccinations.

We have lived through the great intensification of a revolution that has been underway since at least 1950: the revolution of the mass-therapeutic state.

This state both creates and feeds on the kind of chaos unleashed by inorganic multiculturalism and the erosion of natural social bonds. Its solutions to crime cause crime. Its health policies cause sickness. It seeks peace through war. Its freedom is tyranny.

Yet the hystericism of the acolytes of the therapeutic regime does, in some way, bode well. The thing is dying. Its time is almost up.

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work.

You will receive access to all posts as well as a free copy of my book, Rage and Love: A Memoir of White South Africa in an Age of Destruction. The book can also be found on Amazon and Takealot.

Subscribe now

Obama beat Clinton and McCain in 2008 largely because he was on record as having opposed the Iraq War, making him seem far more interested in domestic affairs.

The same thing happened in 2016 when Trump beat Clinton. Trump went into pro-Bush states and slammed neocon policies and the Bushes:

Despite all the cheers in the audience, Jeb Bush got smashed in the primary elections.

Note also Trump’s statement that he is a self-funder. He would go on to mock Marco Rubio (his current foreign secretary), standing next to him above, for taking donations from the highly Zionist Adelson family.

The Adelsons would later become the second biggest donor of his 2024 campaign, second only to Musk.

In 2016, Trump was echoing another Republican who had campaigned against the Bushes on a platform of ‘America First’ and ‘A Republic not an Empire,’ Pat Buchanan. Buchanan ran for President in the 90s, opposing both parties for disastrous trade deals which sent jobs to Asian sweatshops, open borders, and disastrous wars in the Middle East. In short, an imperialism for the benefit of a global elite of moneychangers over and against citizens. He would be called a traitor by George Bush’s speechwriter when he opposed the Iraqi invasion.

In one famous speech, he described a poignant scene from his campaign:

There were those workers at the James River Paper Mill, in Northern New Hampshire in a town called Groveton – tough, hearty men. None of them would say a word to me as I came down the line, shaking their hands one by one. They were under a threat of losing their jobs at Christmas. And as I moved down the line, one tough fellow about my age just looked up and said to me, “Save our jobs.”

Another person who could be said to have been influential in 2016 was the writer Steve Sailer, who had been cancelled before being cancelled was a thing. Nonetheless, influential people still read his work on mailing lists and offbeat blogs.

Sailer was a conservative critic of Bush and the ‘neocons’ who agitated for regime change and American policing over the entire planet. His critique was memorably put in a simple pejorative slogan describing both parties’ policies: ‘Invade the world; invite the world.’ (He also propounded the ‘Sailer strategy.’ Looking at election numbers, he pointed out that Republicans could win majorities again simply by turning out low-propensity white voters.)

Followers of Sailer and Buchanan were the reason Trump won. He managed to attract people who would never vote for a Bush or a Mitt Romney, and had, in fact, previously voted for Obama, because they believed he cared about those left behind. (Despite Obama mocking working-class voters for clinging to guns and religion while waiting for jobs that would never come back, and before becoming the ultimate Wall Street candidate.)

Left-wing film-maker, Michael Moore, despite hating Trump, predicted his upset win, and put this all so perfectly that a speech he made was used in a Trump campaign ad:

Was the system described above overturned?

In some cases, maybe.

In his first term, he did prioritize American energy sources; he did nominate judges who would overturn the bizarre abortion ruling that guaranteed abortion till birth as some previously unwritten constitutional right; he did re-negotiate trade deals; he didn’t start any wars; he did escalate the deportation of illegal immigrants already begun by Obama; and wages of the working class increased faster than the upper classes for the first time in decades.

But, he armed Ukraine, unlike Obama. He did bomb Assad, to the cheers of all his erstwhile detractors, and, come 2020, he succumbed a great deal to the covid madness, and rolled out and boasted of a disastrous, military-led vaccine operation. Somehow, because he seemed to be on the saner side of masks and mandates, he was still able to foster a ‘MAHA’ movement within the ‘MAGA’ tent.

His second term was supposed to be even more ‘Trumpian.’ He and Musk were going to revolutionize big government and go to Mars. He was going to end the Ukraine War on Day One. He had Bobby Kennedy onboard to fight against Big Pharma, and Tulsi Gabbard to fight against the security state that had thwarted him in his first term. He was going to release the JFK files and the Epstein files. Most of all, he was going to deport the tens of millions of people who had surged the border after Biden had assured the world that he would no longer fulfil the basic function of any executive: protect the borders and national integrity of the country.

It has been a year since he was sworn in. What’s happened?

Something interesting to note. At the beginning of last year, his approval rating, according to pollsters who had accurately predicted the election, was at an all-time high, particularly as Musk focused on auditing the government and players like Gabbard and Kennedy were confirmed to cabinet. Zelensky and South African President, Ramaphosa, were rebuked in the Oval Office in front of the world. Overwhelming majorities favour an end to mass immigration, and even Biden’s son would come to acknowledge they had fumbled the issue badly.

But then things took a turn…

Israel became the focus. Trump bombed Iran, despite the protestations of the late Charlie Kirk. He even tweeted out Make Iran Great Again.

He fell out with Musk (mostly as a result of Musk’s political naivety it must be said) and then he mocked the issue of the ‘Epstein files’ which had previously been a symbol of global elite depravity, at the encouragement of ‘MAGA.’

His support amongst young men who had overwhelmingly backed him cratered. To be frank, young people are sick of hearing about Israel and having to give them military aid. Weapons continue to flow to the Saudis. Aid is still pumped out to the Egyptians at the behest of Israel.

Notably, this falling of support is not because of deportations, tariffs etc. His voters are saying he is not doing enough of what he promised.

Meanwhile, he made deals with the CEO of Pfizer in the Oval Office…

… He hosted the new President of Syria, a literal Al Qaeda militant, who the US and Israel had helped to topple Assad, a brutal leader who had nonetheless protected the Christians in his country. (This should put to paid the notion that the Saudi-loving US and Israel are truly troubled by jihadi Islam. Including in Iran, who opposed ISIS.)

The bizarre war in Ukraine continues. Trump complains that Zelensky won’t acknowledge his losses in the field but the fact is Zelensky would negotiate a deal the moment Trump declares an end to the supply of American arms. America provoked the war, from the 2014 US-backed putsch, in order not to help Ukraine, but to bring NATO forces closer to Moscow and to bleed Russia as they did in the 1980s when they armed the mujahideen in the decade-long Soviet-Afghan War. Trump, despite his rhetoric, seems to share the goals here of the American deep state. Not good news for normal Ukrainian citizens, Russia, or Europe.

And now we come to Venezuela, Greenland, and Iran. What is happening there? While we tentatively try to flesh out some answers, bear in mind that everytime a ‘foreign adventure,’ seemingly not strictly related to the clear national interest of the Republic, Trump’s support takes further hits.

First of all, Venezuela.

The rationale for the arrest and rendition of Maduro is odd. It has been claimed it is for drugs charges. This makes no sense. Venezuela is not a mass producer of cocaine (opioids sold by US companies and Chinese fentanyl brought in via Canada/Mexico are the chief problems anyway). The claim that Maduro heads up some drug cartel has also been dropped from the charges he faces in New York.

This is also not regime change, because his deputy, who was probably conspiring against him herself, is equally a ‘Chavista’ - a Venezuelan leftist.

What about oil? Exxon has already said the oil-fields there are ‘uninvestable’ and the cost of doing business there, combined with low oil prices, means they are not really interested. Equally, when Trump said the US would take the oil at market prices, the irony was not lost on many, as Venezuela has been desperate to sell oil at market prices to the US because currently they are heavily sanctioned and consequently suffering from a battered economy (their socialism doesn’t help).

However, Trump is pressing Exxon and others to go in anyway. Perhaps it also helps that a major Trump donor, hedge fund Elliott Management, is about to get its hands on a major Venezuelan state-owned oil company Citgo. I can’t get into the weeds of how a Venezuelan state company could be sold to an American company but it concerns sanctions and international courts.

Here is where it gets even more interesting. Elliott is owned by one Paul Singer. Despite supporting Trump now, Singer actually funded the dossier that kicked off ‘Russia-gate’ - the debunked theory that Putin ‘owns’ Trump and interfered in the election. Hillary Clinton and Obama just ran with the disinformation Singer paid for.

What else does Singer fund? Pro-LGBT charities, Christian lobby groups for Israel, and anti-Iran lobby groups in Washington DC. The man is a caricature.

Tucker Carlson exposed how he made his wealth a few years ago:

America first? An end to imperial adventures?

Latin America is also seeing a wave of new alliances with Israel entitled ‘The Isaac Accord.’ And Venezuela is notoriously pro-Palestine. Was that a motive?

Of course, it’s also likely that Trump is marking a return to the old Monroe Doctrine where access to the western hemisphere is barred to any other great power - in this case that would be China, Iran, and Russia, who have all invested in Venezuela.

The Monroe Doctrine is, of course, highly hypocritical, as the US regularly involves itself in other hemispheres. But when you are the most powerful country on earth, they let you do it…

However, it is again important to note that Trump did not topple the ‘Chavist’ regime in Venezuela. What gives, then? Will the Doctrine be enforced simply by US command?

Maybe. Let’s see.

Next, Greenland.

Why the push to invade/purchase Greenland, a territory belonging to Denmark, a member of the US-dominated military alliance NATO?

The US occupied Greenland during World War II, and afterwards signed an agreement with Denmark that allowed for it to maintain a military presence on the island (which it still has to this day despite voluntary downsizing). There is nothing stopping the US, according to the agreement, extending its presence on the island. After all, Denmark is within the NATO umbrella and the US has many bases throughout NATO countries.

There is nothing stopping asking for drilling rights, and the US has already been allowed in to conduct geological surveys.

What’s the motivation then?

Could it simply be a kind of flex? Maybe that’s what Venezuela was too. A signal that despite Afghanistan and Iraq, the US can still decapitate other states.

Word is going around, however, that one man gave Trump the idea, Ronald Lauder, the heir to the Estee-Lauder make-up fortune.

Lauder is a not entirely dissimilar figure to Singer. He did support Trump in 2016, but soured on him and backed Nikki Haley in the Republican primary. His philanthropy focuses on Israel. He has contributed to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Jewish National Fund, the World Jewish Congress, the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Theological Seminary, Rabbinical College of America, Brandeis University, and the Abraham Fund. He has stakes in Israeli media too.

Records now show he has bought major stakes in Greenland firms.

Trump is saying Greenland is needed to keep China and Russia out of the hemisphere, but Greenland is already part of NATO via Denmark.

Regardless of the motives, the effect has been to alienate Europe. It has given eurocrats the chance to pose as great European patriots, to the detriment of pro-Trump figures who oppose mass immigration into the continent and ‘woke’ dominance of the EU.

Trump’s actions might indeed have a similar effect to what happened in Canada, after he talked of Canada becoming the 51st state. The Liberal party of Trudeau was set for a demolition but then became great patriotic defenders of the country. The radically pro-LGBT, pro-open borders regime somehow remianed in power in a kneejerk reaction to Trump.

Third, Iran.

What is actually going on in Iran?

I am going to seem like a stuck record but I did notice something that was actually first reported live on Israeli TV:

Of course, if news channels outside of Israel said this, it would be considered ‘anti-semitic’.

As far as I am able to tell, Iranian street merchants, generally supportive of the Ayatollah, took to the streets recently to protest a new tax. This protest gathered force because the whole country is suffering under massive inflation and government debt, as oil prices have declined and the US sanctions have become more and more draconian.

It seems, however, that these protests were then infiltrated by foreign actors. Mosques began to be burnt. Violence began to break out. The Iranian security forces responded with force, and are back in control.

The news that they have killed over 12 000 protestors is baseless, though. That figure came from an Israeli/Saudi backed website. Many of the photos and video going around online were also not from Iran, but scenes from the US.

Whilst US bombing and perhaps even regime change seemed on the cards a few days ago, it seems as though Iran has heeded calls to release, or at least not execute, some protestors and given Trump a kind of ‘out’. Apparently Vance remains a dove in the White House too. Nonetheless, US ships are now offshore…

It is unclear what the US wants, however. The Iranian economy is so bad that protests will probably begin again at some point. That gives the US leverage in terms of sanctions and also possible windows for further military strikes.

Iran is dominated by its Revolutionary Guards who are armed, powerful, and consist of 125 000 men. They also have a navy. Most Iranians are not pro-America. Any puppet regime would lack credibility, including the Shah whom most locals apparently hate. Regime change would thus be very, very messy and make Iraq, Libya, and Syria look small-fry.

But regime change may not be the goal. Israeli strategy has long been simply the destabilisation of its neighbours into rump states at constant low-grade civil war between constituent ethnicities. That is happening right now as the Syrian regime, now an ally of the US, bombs other erstwhile US allies, the Kurds. Recall Henry Kissinger’s famous words: ‘It is dangerous to be America’s enemy. It is deadly to be America’s friend.’

Iran has been on the cards for a long, long time. Former NATO Commander, US General Wesley Clark, famously laid out the ‘7 countries plan’ after 9/11:

The Global American Empire (The GAE)

In other words, the long-term policy, across Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden regimes, remains largely consistent across the Trump era.

People often assume Trump to be vengeful and vindictive. The reality has been that he is incredibly gracious to his enemies.

When journalists leaked news from the Obama White House, he relentlessly tapped their phones and spied on them. Trump maybe says some mean things. When a 75-year-old man threatened Biden on Facebook to a handful of followers, the FBI showed up at his house and killed him. A figure like Paul Singer destroyed Trump’s first term. Trump’s Venezuelan adventure is probably going to make him even richer.

He is gracious, in a political sense, to a fault. He brings his enemies back into the tent to such an extent that they dominate the platform upon which he ran against their policies.

One way to interpret this is that Trump, at least on foreign policy, serves as containment for the enduring regime. Trump is a pressure valve for disgruntled Americans, and perhaps even people around the globe.

Trump’s election gives people the feeling the system is being challenged, aggressively, giving the deep state political cover to just carry on as normal.

Of course, this is simplistic. Trump has massively reversed some immigration policy. And I think, or hope, that under him total war is less likely than under a Kamala Harris.

There are some further troubling signs, though.

It looks as though in the next American budget, Republicans will vote not to defund the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), who function as ‘the color revolution’ wing of the US security state. In other words, neconservative ‘Trotskyism’ and the imposition of rainbow flags around the world at the barrel of a gun. These are the people who repeatedly opposed Trump in his first term and push the foreign policy agenda his supporters hate.

Then, since the assassination of Charlie Kirk, there has been no crackdown on the George Soros-funded NGOs which train antifa shock troops, fund public prosecutors who are soft on crime and guarantee no-cash bail for criminals etc. Apparently donors have pressured Trump to avoid these confronatations, which, while popular with majority, would be deeply unpopular with elites.

And, of course, he just appointed Tony Blair, the Dark Lord of vaccine mandates, enforced multiculturalism, and ‘humanitarian’ interventionism, to the executive of the new Gaza ‘Peace Board.’

In other words, despite Trump, the US would remain an antifa global imperium, enforcing a multiculturalism that acts as an acid for all cultures, a continued financialisation of the European and American economies, to the detriment of the middle class, and thus a continued global chaos enjoyed by Big Tech and bankers, welfare recipients, and few others. In other words, as I have written about before, anarcho-tyranny.

It seems nothing stops the GAE train but some future American collapse, probably owing to demographics and debt.

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work.

You will receive access to all posts as well as a free copy of my book, Rage and Love: A Memoir of White South Africa in an Age of Destruction. The book can also be found on Amazon and Takealot.

Subscribe now

Today is the Feast of the Epiphany of the Lord - the end of the 12 days of Christmas. The word ‘epiphany’ means ‘revealing.’ Here this refers to the revealing of the Christ to the nations of the world, as represented by the Magi (the three kings or wise men), who had travelled from the East.

They, of course, were guided by the stars, by some eastern prophecy outside of the Old Testament, which foretold that a king would come from Judea. (Similar stories circulated Rome at the time too.)

The Jewish leaders did not recognize their Christ. In the Christmas narratives, the epiphany is first of all granted to Mary, then Joseph, and then shepherds outside of Bethlehem, and finally to wealthy travellers from a foreign land.

This epiphany was a foretaste of what was to come - a universal church for all nations, specifically for the humble in heart.

As I thought about this all today, I also realised that this Epiphany is a kind of close to the first quarter of the 21st century. I wondered, what has been revealed in our day over these past 25 years? What will be remembered in our times, in the years to come?

Some obvious things come to mind: 9/11, the Middle Eastern wars, Obama, Trump, the covid event, and, for South Africans in particular, the continued unravelling of the once-celebrated ‘rainbow nation.’

But something perhaps more important surrounds all these events, contains them. And that frame is the most significant happening of our time. By ‘frame’ I refer to the revolution in how we perceive the world around us, a revolution whose roots may be found in the printing press, later in radio and television, and now in the internet and social media.

Today we woke to news of military action in Venezuela. Quite bizarrely, American forces entered the capital city to arrest their President and extradite him and his wife to New York City to stand trial for drug trafficking charges. Something similar happened under Bush Sr in 1989 when the President of Panama was seized.

Going online to read more about it, one enters a hall of mirrors: of denunciations, of militant approval, of strange stories of Biden having placed a huge bounty on Maduro’s during his own Presidency.

I thought of the famous claim of the French postmodernist, Jean Baudrillard, in a 1991 collection of essays entitled ‘The Gulf War Did Not Take Place.’ Because of how this first televised war existed entirely through the prism of live recordings of it, particularly the broadcastz on CNN, Baudrillard argued that the war, as it existed in public consciousness, was a mere simulacrum: a copy whose original is lost.

My first instinct to anything postmodern was long one of dismissal. Of course, the Gulf War happened, when the US threw Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. If it didn’t happen, what could we say has happened? Wouldn’t we find ourselves in a whirlpool of scepticism, eventually descending to the thought experiment of Descartes, who famously doubted whether he could know for certain that he himself existed.

But now I wonder…

Swap the Gulf War with covid. Swap iDoes Baudrillard make more sense now?

Where did covid happen?

Was it happening when those fake videos from China spread around social media like wildfire? They were, and are, so obviously fake, yet one is still not really ‘allowed’ to point this out. Lockdown only started after 17 covid deaths in Wuhan. How did they notice this in a city where over 20 000 die everyday?

Did it happen when people were arrested for taking videos of empty hospitals during lockdown?

When reports of the futility of masks were suddenly memory-holed?

When Britain had its 12th lowest year of mortality ever?

When friends and families were barred from hospitals as apparent live death curves showed something like bombs going off in New York and Italy (bombs synchronised with lockdowns)?

There was something mythological about the whole thing. Chinese wet markets and virology labs. Andrew Cuomo on TV each night. Boris Johnson in ICU. Trump shaking it off like a common cold.

I have written about this sense of the simulated before. Mass delusion is part of scientific literature, as surely as the placebo effect is.

It was the stars of heaven which guided the Magi to their Epiphany, which has become ours.

Our generation can barely see the stars anymore. We look down, not up. And what do we look down to? An algorithmic, electric network specifically designed to hold captive our attention, confirm the biases of the ‘global village’, and prevent any kind of transcendent epiphanies happening again.

Canadian philosopher of media, Marshall McLuhan, was famous for coining the terms ‘the global village’ and ‘the medium is the message.’ Priot to the rise of the internet and social media, he wrote:

Electromagnetic technology requires utter human docility and quiescence of meditation such as befits an organism that now wears its brain outside its skull… The electric is total and inclusive. An external consensus or conscience is now as necessary as private consciousness.

He also had a term for these ‘electric information environments.’ He called them a ‘blatant manifestation of the Anti-Christ.’

This Anti-Christ is a mystical body of its own, governed by the tribal drums beaten in a dark global village.

Yes, we lived through a pandemic. The virus was informational. We downloaded it electronically, via servers and cables, electric signals of the air, until it reached our own nervous system and made us sick.

We thus live in a time of ‘anti-epiphany.’ The minds of the nations are darkened. We cannot see the stars, let alone understand what they mean.

Nothing but grace will save us. A grace that calls us on a journey through dark deserts, in order to see what was seen 2025 years ago: a light shining in the darkness.

Let him who has ears, hear. Let him who has eyes, see.

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work.

You will receive access to all posts as well as a free copy of my book, Rage and Love: A Memoir of White South Africa in an Age of Destruction. The book can also be found on Amazon and Takealot.

Subscribe now

This past month, I had the pleasure of talking with Nick Hudson on the ‘demons’ in modern democracy.

From the description on Panda’s Rumble channel:

Since the covid phenomenon began, many have perceived that democracy is illusory, and that the system operating under its banner is set upon a trajectory that citizens neither aspire to nor expect. But were we naïve to expect anything else?

We paid special attention to the wisdom that we can glean today from the vital political thinker, Joseph de Maistre, who lived and wrote in ths shadow of Revolutionary France.

Watch Part One here.

Part Two to follow.

Enjoy.

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work.

You will receive access to all posts as well as a free copy of my book, Rage and Love: A Memoir of White South Africa in an Age of Destruction. The book can also be found on Amazon and Takealot.

Subscribe now

I have been writing for years that the mythology surrounding the European wars of the first half of the twentieth century is pernicious.

The notion that these wars were fought for ‘freedom’ and ‘peace’, and thus that the global institutions and the global Americanism left in their wake are good and necessary to modern civilization, is simply false.

This past week as we drew closer to the 107th anniversay of Armistice Day, it has been poignant to hear similar sentiments from actual veterans of these wars.

First, in Britain:

From the US:

Great writers, mostly ignored by the modern intelligentsia, have been trying to say this for years.

Ezra Pound wrote of World War I in his epic poem, Hugh Selwyn Mauberley:

Died some, pro patria,
                            non “dulce” non “et decor”. . .
walked eye-deep in hell
believing in old men’s lies, then unbelieving
came home, home to a lie,
home to many deceits,
home to old lies and new infamy;
usury age-old and age-thick
and liars in public places.

Many pay lip service to this idea, of fighting for a lie, but few reckon with the ramifications:

There was no ‘good war’ of the twentieth century. Britain, her colonies, and the US fought a filthy brother-war from 1914-1918, fought for money interests and deceitful politicians.

And from 1939 to 1945 a war was fought whose chief beneficiary was Josef Stalin, a man whose body-count and systematic ethnic cleansing, particularly of Christians, was never even approximately matched by Adolf Hitler.

Two other fine English writers have refused to propagate the mythology.

In his war epic, Sword of Honour, Evelyn Waugh’s protagonist, Guy Crouchback, leaves his self-imposed exile in Italy to attempt to join the British war effort, on the day Hitler and Stalin announce their Non-Aggression Pact. Here was a chance to find some kind of heroism, by taking up the sword against both communism and fascism, in homage to the crusaders of old.

He is quickly very disillusioned when he wonders why Russia is so quickly given a pass by Britain:

Russia invaded Poland. Guy found no sympathy among these old soldiers for his own hot indignation.

‘My dear fellow, we’ve quite enough on our hands as it is. We can’t go to war with the whole world.’

‘Then why go to war at all? If all we want is prosperity, the hardest bargain Hitler made would be preferable to victory. If we are concerned with justice the Russians are as guilty as the Germans.’

‘Justice?’ said the old soldiers. ‘Justice?’

‘Besides,’ said Box-Bender when Guy spoke to him of the matter which seemed in no one’s mind but his, ‘the country would never stand for it. The socialists have been crying blue murder against the Nazis for five years but they are all pacifists at heart. So far as they have any feeling of patriotism it’s for Russia. You’d have a general strike and the whole country in collapse if you set up to be just.’

‘Then what are we fighting for?’

‘Oh we had to do that, you know. The socialists always thought we were pro-Hitler, God knows why. It was quite a job keeping neutral over Spain. You missed all that excitement living abroad. It was quite ticklish, I assure you. If we sat tight now there’d be chaos. What we have to do now is to limit and localize the war, not extend it.’

Is Waugh suggesting that the war effort had nothing to do with justice, but rather some kind of internal communist sympathy?

Yes, he is.

JRR Tolkien was often asked if Lord of the Rings was an allegory of the heroism of hobbit-like Britain during the darkest days of World War II. He flatly rejected the idea:

The real war does not resemble the legendary war in its process or its conclusion. If it had inspired or directed the development of the legend, then certainly the Ring would have been seized and used against Sauron; he would not have been annihilated but enslaved, and Barad-Dûr would not have been destroyed but occupied. Saruman, failing to get possession of the Ring, would in the confusion and treacheries of the time have found in Mordor the missing links in his own researches into Ring-lore, and before long he would have made a Great Ring of his own with which to challenge the self-styled Ruler of Middle-earth. In that conflict both sides would have held hobbits in hatred and contempt: they would not long have survived even as slaves.

Is Tolkien suggesting that everyday men and women, represented by hobbits, are held in contempt and hatred in today’s world, following World War II?

Yes, he is.

I am not sure I can express myself on this matter better than the eccentric Jonathan Bowden:

The truth is that those men who stormed Normandy, who went up over the trenches, all had political views and beliefs that would have them denounced for ‘hate speech’ were they still alive today.

If they were told that ‘anti-fascism’ meant open borders, same-sex marriage, off-shoring of basic jobs, the ceding of half the globe to Communism, how many of them would still have signed up, how many of them would have walked brother-in-arm to violent death and danger of the highest order?

I think the veterans above have stated the case.

And people of my generation need to pick up that baton,

We need to see through this mythology.

To this day, we are constantly warned by Boomers and their spiritual allies, former hippies and trendy technocrats, that ‘fascism’ is on the rise, that opposing rainbowism, reading the harder parts of the Bible, et al, is all Nazi-stuff.

Remember, you were a Nazi if you opposed masking kids and locking people up like criminals!

If this is the case, World War II was then a civil war of National Socialists because I can tell you with absolute certainty that the men who fought and died in those wars were all ‘far-right’ maniacs by today’s standards, apart, maybe, from the actual Communists who did the bulk of the fighting.

Fascism and German National Socialism, two distinct militant movements in opposition to capitalism, democracy, and communism in the wake of World War I and the Great Depression, are both as dead as Marxist-Leninism.

This mythological spectre of ‘fascism’ is therefore entirely an ideological weapon used to maintain regime legitimacy.

‘Democracy’ today means nothing but the pre-determined outcomes as decided by modern elites. DEI, health and safety, multiculturalism - none of these are ever threatened by the actual wishes of ‘voters’. Because to oppose these outcomes is to be ‘fascist’ and thus, somehow, ‘anti-democratic’. The only thing that cannot be tolerated is intolerance. (And preference for your own culture and faith is always intolerant and discriminatory.)

As Herbert Marcuse, the postwar CIA-funded philosopher of the Frankfurt School, taught, “The realization of the objective of tolerance [requires] intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions..”

And by prevailing, he meant the policies, attitudes, opinions of the men who had just fought the war on the side of the Allies.

It is time we truly honour those men, by dismantling the lies that cost them so much.

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work.

You will receive access to all posts as well as a free copy of my book, Rage and Love: A Memoir of White South Africa in an Age of Destruction. The book can also be found on Amazon and Takealot.

Subscribe now

Jesus bar Sirach (or Joshua son of Sira) was a Hellenistic Jewish scribe and sage who wrote the biblical text Ecclesiasticus in Alexandria, Egypt circa 180 BC. (Not to be confused with a far superior namesake.)

Ecclesiasticus (‘church book’) appears in the early Greek Old Testament (the ‘Septuagint’) as well as Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, but is not regarded as canonical scripture by Jews or Protestants. It is also known as the Book of Sirach.

It begins with the words, ‘All wisdom comes from the Lord and is with him forever.’

It is the longest of the biblical wisdom (or ‘sapiential’) texts and its theme is similar to that of Proverbs: the universe is held together by divine wisdom. This wisdom can be seen in nature and also in the lives of holy men and women:

The Lord himself created wisdom;
he saw her and apportioned her,
he poured her out upon all his works.
She dwells with all flesh according to his gift,
and he supplied her to those who love him.

The third chapter tells us that honouring one’s father atones for sins, that glorifying one’s mother lays up treasure for oneself, and that giving to the poor covers sins as ‘water extinguishes a blazing fire.’

The fourth chapter continues relating the duties of the godly man in relation to others in his society.

We are told to bow to great men but equally to incline our ears to the poor; to deliver those who have been wronged by their enemies; to be a father to the orphan and a husband to the widow, so that we will be like ‘a son of the Most High.’

This is no servile life of faith. There is to be both recognition and stewardship of greatness. We are to bow—and to incline, to condescend. There is meant to be a kind of order to a society (great ones, fathers, mothers, guided by true Wisdom), and that is ranked order is to be tempered by mercy.

This struck me as existing in contradistinction with much of modern ‘western’ life, which often maintains the appearances of a Christian tradition within a kind of revolutionary spirit.

In our secular, ‘welfare’ societies, there is to be no greatness or hierarchy, and care for the poor should come from massive state bureaucracies or bloated NGOs. All too often, churches empty themselves of any kind of spiritual identity or authority to become mere adjuncts to this thoroughly earthly and disenchanted kingdom: a vision of the Christian faith as mere social democracy.

(In this regard, I often think of lines from a Johnny Cash song: ‘I stopped outside a church house, where the citizens like to sit/ They say they want the kingdom, but they don’t want God in it.’)

And the wisdom of the ages, the wisdom of those anointed by God, is thus neglected as anti-scientific superstition, to be superseded by technocratic expertise (or perhaps non-Christian pseudo-spirituality):

‘It is too dangerous to pray for the dying; you cannot gather to share the Eucharist; you must be vaccinated with serums containing human fetal DNA, chicken embryo protein, proteins from worm ovaries, and monkey kidney DNA fragments.’

This is for the sacred causes of health and safety.

The chapter continues on to the theme of God-given wisdom:

Whoever holds Wisdom fast will obtain glory,
and the Lord will bless the place he enters.
Those who serve her will minister to the Holy One;
the Lord loves those who love her.
He who obeys her will judge the nations,
and whoever gives heed to her will dwell secure.
If he has faith in her he will obtain her;
and his descendants will remain in possession of her.

We are encouraged to listen to divine Wisdom, to hold it within ourselves, so that we may obtain glory, that our homes are blessed, and that we may judge nations and pass this possession of wisdom onwards to our descendants.

We are here far beyond the realm of the exercise of faith as mere adherence to moral platitudes concerning social egalitarianism and tolerance. This kind of Wisdom has fire. It is aristocratic insofar as it concerns human affairs, and monarchical in its cosmic outlook.

Achieving ‘aristos’ and glory by embracing wisdom is not easy, however. One must walk with wisdom, according to the ancient writer, ‘on torturous paths’ upon which you will be ‘stricken with fear’ and ‘tormented by her discipline.’

We have here hints of the Cross… But after persevering, ‘Wisdom will come straight back to him and gladden him, and will reveal her secrets to him.’ Tranfiguration follows suffering.

How then should this hardened, gladdened life of Wisdom carry itself in this world of shadows?

Do not show partiality, to your own harm,
or deference, to your downfall.
Do not refrain from speaking at the crucial time,
and do not hide your wisdom.

There is a deference that leads to downfall; there is a crucial time to speak.

Do not be ashamed to confess your sins,
and do not try to stop the current of a river.
Do not subject yourself to a foolish fellow,
nor show partiality to a ruler.
Strive even to death for the truth
and the Lord God will fight for you.

How many of us strive even to death for the truth?

Is it any wonder this ancient scripture is so neglected in our own time, or how few of us are true lovers of Wisdom, and thus true philosophers?

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work.

You will receive access to all posts as well as a free copy of my book, Rage and Love: A Memoir of White South Africa in an Age of Destruction.

Subscribe now

The saintly Iron Age war-lord, King David, described the sun in the following way in the nineteenth psalm:

The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork…

In them he has set a tent for the sun,
which comes forth like a bridegroom leaving his chamber,
and like a strong man runs its course with joy.
Its rising is from the end of the heavens,
and its circuit to the end of them;
and there is nothing hid from its heat.

This sun is a symbol of divine glory, metaphor for God’s word, and ultimately his Son, the Eternal Word.

Recently, I have been tracing another sun-metaphor, not from the Bible, but from Shakespeare, who has his Macbeth, after losing his soul, his friends, his wife because of his ambition, says, ‘I begin to be weary of the sun…’

The sun, here, represents life and being, because, it is in fact the source of life and being on our planet. Positioned at the perfect distance from us, this burning sphere is the source of the energy which drives all life.

Becoming weary of the sun is a fitting epigraph for our times, thus, in a series of essays I explored how modern technocrats, often influenced by ancient ideas like Kabbalah and Tikkun Olam, reject nature in favour of a defiant form of modern technology and centralized planning, including insane ideas such as dimming the sun to save us from global warming.

(Ask yourself, honestly, does it feel any hotter now than when you were a child? It is almost as though global warming is as distant from our everyday lives as mass deaths from covid were…)

To my mind, it is no coincidence that these same health and safety czars have persuaded vast swathes of people that the sun is literally bad for them, a kind of cosmic enemy from which you must hide.

For years, I have instinctively railed against this great fear, against the obsessive hiding, the obsessive slathering of an objectionable cream onto countless bodies around the world.

What is in that cream? What are all those mysterious ingredients seeping into your body? Nobody seemed to care in the face of our great foe, the sun. We must be safe!

Think for a moment of the claim that trace amounts of sunscreen in the oceans causes decay of living coral reefs, yet we ply the stuff directly onto one of our most critical organs, our skin.

But what is the truth about this great panic, which was, in many ways, a pre-cursor to the great panic about the virus which causes the common cold? Why in our age of sunscreen and sun-avoidance have melanoma rates not gone down?

The pseudonymous ‘Midwestern Doctor’ has taken a hard look at what we really know about sunscreen.

Subscribe now

He makes the following two arguments:

1. Avoiding the sun, on average, doubles one’s chances of death and leads to a myriad of other cancers.

(For all of the below points, he provides links to studies, examples of evidence in the essay itself.)

Sunlight drives bio-rhythms such as the circadian rhythm (which governs sleep and hormonal cycles), and without we face mood and circulation disorders. Think here of a plant that has no access to sunlight.

Exposure to sunlight, particularly morning sunlight, improves other systems’ functioning, without which human beings can face impaired fertility, increased aggression and susceptibility to cancers and chronic conditions like arthritis. Studies have shown that increased exposure to sunlight leads to massive decline in the incidence of breast cancer for women and prostrate cancer for men.

Furthermore, a 20-year study in Southern Sweden showed that non-smokers who avoided the sun had the same risk of dying as smokers who embraced the sun.

The same goes for infectious disease. Sun-bathing was proven to be the best treatment during the Spanish flu (when doctors were not overdosing their patients on insane amounts of aspirin and other experimental drugs).

2. Sunscreen does indeed prevent some types of skin cancer, but not the lethal ones.

How many times have you heard of an acquaintance getting a melanoma on a part of the body thats gets no sun? Or an acquaintance getting a melanoma who is never in the sun without layers of sunscreen?

This has something to do with the different types of skin cancer. The most common type is basal cell carcinoma, which represents 80% of all skin cancers. BCC is definitely caused by the sun. However, it has effectively a 0% fatality rate.

Then you have squamous cell carcinoma. SCC, unlike BCC, can metastasize, if it is not removed timeously. But because less than 10% SCC cancers metastasize within two years, they are mostly removed before serious cancer is caused. Survival rate is above 95%.

The third type which is the most dangerous is the infamous melanoma. Melanomas make up around 1% of all skin cancers. These are the black and brown marks that turn assymetrical and increase in size, indicating their danger. Depending on how soon it is treated, survival rate can range from 35% to 99%. But there are aggressive cases that lead to higher death rates.

But this is the important thing to know about melanomas. The most common type of skin cancer, BCC, is over 80% of the time found on parts of the body exposed to the sun, particularly the face. The reverse is true of melanomas. The vast majority, 78%, occur in areas that receive barely any sunlight.

In other words, the skin cancers which kill you are not related to sun exposure!

There is more evidence for this. Studies have shown that outdoor workers get melanomas at a lower rate than indoor workers.

In addition, there is also strong evidence that sunscreen use has either no preventative effect for melanomas, or, at worst, it possibly increases the risk.

Subscribe now

Where does this leave us?

We know instinctively that sunlight is good for us. The sun is the source of life.

Equally, we know instinctively too much sun is bad for us. According to our skin types, we should all have basic awareness of when it is time to get out of the sun, particularly in the middle of the day, which is why many sunny countries have the cultural habit of siesta.

And that is where we should leave it.

If you are prone to benign cancer linked to sunburn, wear a hat or even apply some sunscreen that you trust and is not just some store-bought concoction of which a tiny dilution can bleach the Great Barrier Reef. But be aware that enjoying sunlight is linked to overall health and happiness.

Finally, we must resist this bizarre conspiracy against the sun. Hiding away indoors, from the sun, from a virus, is no way to live, not simply because it is counter-productive to your health, but because it is a kind of anti-life.

This great fear induced by incessant propaganda is a symptom of something quite insidious in modern life - the idea that humanity can, and should, be guided by priestly class of technocrats who can not only repair the world for us, but function as guardian-gods for ourselves and our families.

Like the Sun, like the Son, run the course of your life with joy.

Consider becoming a paid subscriber to support this work.

You will receive access to all posts as well as a free copy of my book, Rage and Love: A Memoir of White South Africa in an Age of Destruction.

Subscribe now