I had an interesting encounter the other day. It was with my own brain. More precisely, it was with subconscious mechanisms in my own brain. I was scanning the shelves in the non-fiction section of a library when a title-and-author caught my eye: The Ruin of All Witches by Malcolm Gladwell. He’s a Black Canadian author who’s both a lightweight and a leftist. But I find his books easy and enjoyable to read and I hadn’t heard of this one, so I took it down and looked at the back cover. It told me the book was “the story of a single witchcraft case in a remote New England settlement in 1651.�

Explaining the error

But that was puzzling. It seemed an odd (and oddly limited) choice of topic for Gladwell, so I looked at the front cover. This time I saw that the author was in fact someone called Malcolm Gaskill. But I’d distinctly seen “Malcolm Gladwell� on the spine when I was scanning the shelves. Primed by the context of “Non-Fiction,� the forename Malcolm and a surname beginning with G- and ending with -ll, my brain had imposed a kind of auto-complete on me and made me see what wasn’t there. But then our brains are always doing that. A lot of what we seem to see in front of us is stitched together inside our heads. We auto-complete, jump to conclusions, turn parts into wholes. And most of the time it works fine. Or it seems to, anyway. But occasionally we realize that our brains are leading us astray, as I did in that library. Only the dead never err. And that kind of error is innocent and unavoidable. Our brains sometimes betray us. That’s life as a limited, fallible human.

But my innocent error got me wondering about other errors I’ve made — ones that can’t be described as innocent and unavoidable. Take my article “Murder and Misogyny,� where I contrasted the Norman invasion of England in the eleventh century with the Soviet invasion of Poland in the twentieth. I argued that the Katyn Massacre, in which 22,000 of the Polish elite were shot by the invaders, wasn’t paralleled in England because the Normans were “a closely related racial group who practised exactly the same religion as the English.� The Norman Conquest wasn’t “like the conquest of Catholic Poland by atheist, anti-Catholic communists who were disproportionately drawn from non-Slavic minorities like Jews, Balts and Georgians.� That’s why, I concluded, that the British have never suffered “anything like the Katyn Massacre … because we have never had the conditions for it: occupation by hostile outsiders who despise our culture and want to subjugate us for ever.�

Ideology trumps honesty

But even as I wrote that, I knew that Britain had experienced something comparable to the Katyn Massacre. It’s called the Harrying of the North, a campaign of slaughter and starvation waged by William the Conqueror after rebellion against his rule in Yorkshire and other parts of northern England. Perhaps as many as 150,000 people were killed or starved to death, and the local elite was replaced by Normans. As I was writing about Poland and the Katyn Massacre, I thought to myself that I needed to discuss the Harrying of the North. But it would have complicated things and marred the simple contrast I was drawing between the communist conquest of Poland and the Norman conquest of England. So I found it easy to simply leave the topic unmentioned.

That wasn’t my brain erring, that was me erring. In other words, it wasn’t subconscious mechanisms in my brain making me misread an author’s name, it was my conscious self declining to be fully honest for ideological reasons. And I erred again when I claimed in “The Value of Victimhood� that the politics of Liverpool “have always been left-wing — sometimes very left-wing.� That was a lazy assumption helpfully corrected by a native Liverpudlian at the Unz Review, who noted that “up until the early 1970’s the city very often had a Conservative Party run council.� And a commenter at the Occidental Observer corrected another of my lazy assumptions after I waxed lyrical in “The Power of Pudenda� about a painting of the naked goddess Venus being worshipped on bended knee by heroes like Lancelot and Achilles. The commenter pointed out that “Every one of the men depicted was notorious for having cheated with someone else’s wife.� Yes, I was wrong about the painting: it wasn’t celebratory of sex, but satirical of sexual transgressors.

Mother Mona vs Grotesque Grunberg

I’ve made lots of other errors in my articles for the Occidental Observer, some inadvertent, some less so. Indeed, I must have made lots more errors than I’m aware of. I’m human, therefore I’m fallible. That’s why I question myself and my ideas about Western politics and culture. For example, am I right to say that Jews have a disproportionate negative influence on those things? Well, I think I am. Among other things, that belief helps me make accurate predictions. I made one of those recently when I read something at the anti-Islamist site Gates of Vienna:

The following video is excerpted from a panel discussion on Dutch TV featuring [Mona] Keijzer. The deputy prime minister made the mistake of referencing the Jew-hatred of Muslims, and got herself into a heap o’ trouble as a result. The other panelists employed several logical fallacies in their attacks on her, the main one being the claim that identifying a trait that is characteristic of a group implies that every member of the group possesses the trait. (“You Must Not Generalize About Muslims!,� Gates of Vienna, 19th December 2024)

When I read that, I hadn’t seen the video or read the transcript. But I immediately thought: “I bet one of Mona Keijzer’s pro-Muslim opponents was Jewish!� And I was right. Her chief opponent was Jewish. It was the prominent Dutch intellectual Arnon Grunberg, whom I’ve already discussed at the Occidental Observer. As I pointed out in “Atrocity in Amsterdam,� he’s one of many Jews who have claimed that Muslims and Jews are “natural allies� (natuurlijke bondgenoten in Dutch). Those pro-Muslim Jews don’t say against whom the Judeo-Muslim alliance is directed, but the answer is obvious: Muslims and Jews are natural allies against the wicked White Christians who oppress them both.

But some Jews disagree with Grunberg. They have a different answer to the all-important question of “What’s best for Jews?� They think that Muslims in the West are now a threat to Jewish power, so they’re not uncritically supportive of Muslims like Grunberg and other leftist Jews. Ironically enough, Mona Keijzer (born 1968) serves those Islamo-skeptic Jews, because she’s from a pro-Zionist government headed by the notoriously philo-Semitic Geert Wilders. That’s why she was criticizing Muslims for being harmful to Jews, not for being harmful to Whites. That debate between her and Grunberg was in effect a debate between two sides of Jewish opinion about what’s best for Jews in Holland, not about what’s best for the only true Dutch, namely, the White Dutch.

Ugly Jewish man and attractive White woman: Arnon Grunberg and Mona Keijzer

But I had nevertheless made an accurate prediction: that an Islamo-skeptic White politician would be opposed by a Islamophilic Jew. And the video supported my ideas in another way. I’ve argued that ugliness is characteristic of Jews and Jewish ideologies, which express an envy and hatred of White beauty. The Dutch video contains a literal embodiment of White beauty and Jewish ugliness, because Mona Keijzer is attractive and Arnon Grunberg is ugly. She’s an intelligent, attractive White woman who has done what too many White women like her have failed to do. That is, she’s become a mother and had children — five of them, in fact.

I hope that Mona Keijzer is pro-White and was doing her best for Whites within the boundaries of discourse set by Jewish influence on Dutch politics. In that debate, she couldn’t argue directly for White interests, so perhaps she did so indirectly by arguing for Jewish interests. But the taboo against direct support for White interests is weakening across the West. That’s why discussion of Pakistani rape-gangs is all over the British media at the beginning of 2025. Furthermore, mainstream politicians are using the accurate term “rape-gangs� rather the euphemistic “grooming-gangs.� The rabidly pro-Zionist Robert Jenrick, a prominent Conservative who has a Jewish wife and unswervingly supports Israel, has blasphemed against minority worship like this:

The scandal started with the onset of mass migration. Importing hundreds of thousands of people from alien cultures, who possess medieval attitudes towards women, brought us here. And after 30 years of this disastrous experiment, we now have entrenched sectarian voting blocs that make it electoral suicide for some MPs to confront this. This scandal shows why we must end it. (Tweet by Robert Jenrick, 4th January 2025)

Let’s be clear: Jenrick is trying to serve Jewish interests, not White interests. The “sectarian voting blocs� he refers to are pro-Palestinian and found in Muslims districts. The war in Gaza and pro-Palestinian activism by Muslims in the West have forced more of the Jewish elite to decide that Muslims and Jews are not natural allies and never will be. I’m even beginning to see truth in the conspiracy theory that says Jews like Benjamin Netanyahu have deliberately engineered Muslim migration in the confident expectation that the pathologies spawned by it would sooner or later create a backlash against Muslims. This backlash would provide cover for the creation of “Greater Israel,� the vastly expanded territory that some Zionists want to carve out from Israel’s Arab neighbors.

The much expanded “Greater Israel� dreamed of by Theodor Herzl, founder of modern Zionism

But that’s speculation. What isn’t speculation is that minority worship is being challenged across the West. Zionists like Mona Keijzer and Robert Jenrick are trying to serve Jewish interests when they criticize Muslims, but they’re opening a wider and wider space for White nationalism as they do so.