Will The US Ever Find Racial Unity? Unlikely
And: 'The Great Feminization'; UK Jew Hatred; Anglican Schism; Anti-Trump Movement?
Last week I embedded Part One of conservative talk show host Steven Crowder’s visit to a black barbershop to talk to the guys there about “black fatigue”. It was harsh but important. But it was important, as a sign of how difficult it is to have these conversations in polarized America. It revealed an epistemological chasm.
Well, here is Part Two, and it makes Part One seem like a tea party. This is very difficult to watch, but you need to see it, because it offers quite a dire picture of life in America today. This is what you get when you have an honest cross-racial conversation, as opposed to the performative kind in which black people complain, and white liberals politely sit there and nod along guiltily and affirmatively:
As in the first session — but far more intense — it is really shocking how utterly closed the black guys here are to any facts that get in the way of their deeply held victimization narrative. The lack of even an attempt at empathy is telling.
Crowder is incredibly courageous to say the things he does. He keeps going back to statistics, especially the one that whites are 12 times more likely to be killed by blacks than blacks are by whites. Here’s where Crowder gets that claim (the author quoted below is Ben Shapiro):
In 2019, for example, 3,299 white Americans were murdered; 566, or 17%, were killed by Black perpetrators. That same year, 2,906 Black Americans were murdered; 246, or 8%, were killed by white perpetrators. Adjusted for population size — there are far more whites in America (235 million) than Blacks (47 million) — this means that approximately one out of every million white Americans killed a Black person in 2019, while 12 out of every million Black Americans killed a white person. Such numbers are reflective of a norm: every year from 2001 on, the number of Black-on-white killings has approximately doubled the number of white-on-Black killings. When it comes to violent crime generally, the same sad truth applies. In 2019, there were 562,550 reported violent Black/white incidents. 472,570 were Black on white — 84%.
Granted, the overwhelming amount of violent crime is intraracial — white-on-white-, black-on-black, and so on. To be fair, I’m not sure about Crowder/Shapiro’s math. I ran the claim through through Grok, which said the percentage is much different. Using the latest US government statistics, Grok says that 8 percent of black homicide victims were killed by whites, while 12 percent of white homicide victims were killed by blacks. The bigger number comes when you factor in how small the US black population is, versus the white population. This is how Shapiro (Crowder) can claim that 12 blacks murder a white for every white that murders a black.
That’s not the only statistic Crowder brings up — but whether he is precise on the murder rate or not doesn’t matter. None of these stats matter to the black crowd in the barber shop. They simply don’t believe them. After one of these citations, a black guy named Big Mike says, “There go them numbers! There go them numbers!” Meaning, “Why do you keep bringing up numbers to confuse us?”
The Narrative for these guys is: The bad things you say blacks are doing to whites aren’t happening, and if they are, it’s the fault of whites. I’m not kidding. Watch it for yourself. It’s the damnedest thing. It’s a closed circle.
Another black man responds angrily to Crowder’s attempts to answer their personal anecdotes with statistical evidence: “When you tell us that personal knowledge doesn’t matter, that only stats matter…!” Ah yes, the “lived experience” thing so popular on the Left. Feelings are a more accurate guide to truth than facts. You know this is how Cluster B personality disorders work, right? The emotional dysregulation, including insisting that subjective emotions are a reliable standard for truth. That, and “splitting,” which is the habit of seeing others as either All Good or All Evil.
One black man, Cedric, who is blind, actually says, “The young white male is the real threat to America.”
Crowder responds:
“You know what? I agree. I agree. You’re right about that. Because young white males are going to be the majority with guns, and if you keep telling them that they’re criminals, and they should pay for people’s bad decisions, you don’t want to see them angry.”
“I’m telling you, I’m looking at young men, and they’re way, way more angry than I ever was.”
When the Charlie Kirk assassination comes up, the group turns it around to make the even all about them! It’s wild, I tell you.
One black man tells Crowder that “maybe separation is the answer,” but adds that whites still should be paying blacks reparations. Later, things calm down, and everybody agrees that we need to bring the country together. Then Crowder says all he’s interested in is that they listen and recognize that there are a lot of young white men who have had some hard breaks.
Big Mike blows up. Doesn’t want to hear it. He has decided that no white grievances can ever be legitimate. Around this point in the discussion (48 minutes or so in), one of the black men says that if whites are afraid of blacks, “then stay away from us.”
Crowder: “Stay away, but we have to foot the bill.”
The black guys all agree.
“Do you realize they are going to hate you?” Crowder says, nonplussed.
Crowder: “Do you believe that young black men commit wanton violence against black men more than white men against black men?”
A chorus of NO goes up.
“Then we’ll never going to find common ground or improve, because it’s a reality,” says Crowder.
Crowder brings up the twelve-times statistic again.
Cedric, the blind man, says: “I think that if that were true, Steve, we’d have a national outcry, and the government would bring all —”
“You’re about to get one, and that’s what I’m here to warn you about,” Crowder interjects. “You’re about to get one, and I don’t think you guys see it coming.”
They part as friends, but man, I tell you, this is mighty depressing to watch. How can you have any kind of unity when one side refuses to believe any facts that contradict the Eternal Victim narrative that they wish to believe? It’s like arguing with my relative, who cannot imagine a scenario in which she is not the victim, and if you corner her with facts or logic, she accuses you of hating her. So everybody in the family has learned just to kind of stay away from her, or not to engage her in anything but trivial conversation, because she lives in an alternative reality.
Here’s a link to the sources of Crowder’s statistics.
As you know, I deeply hate the open racism that is becoming popular among young white men. Racism really is a sin, no matter what the color of the person holding the racist views. But watching these two Crowder videos, in which he actually goes out and has the “hard conversation” that we’re always told we need to be having, I can see where the anger comes from.
‘The Great Feminization’
The conservative writer Helen Andrews gave a speech at the most recent NatCon, in which she put forth a theory that what she calls “the Great Feminization” of American society is destroying us. The clip became hugely popular; she’s turned it into a Compact essay now. Excerpts:
The essay [about Larry Summers’s cancellation] argued that it wasn’t just that women had cancelled the president of Harvard; it was that they’d cancelled him in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather than logical arguments. “When he started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women, I just couldn’t breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” said Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT. Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another, and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time. Experts chimed in to declare that everything Summers had said about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria.
This cancellation was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. That is the Great Feminization thesis, which the same author later elaborated upon at book length: Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.
The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It really did unlock the secrets of the era we are living in. Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently. How did I not see it before?
More:
Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.
Bari Weiss, in her letter of resignation from The New York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal Slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot and—this is the most feminine part—“colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.” Weiss once asked a colleague at the Times opinion desk to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial woman who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This was a failure to meet the standards of basic professionalism, obviously. It was also very feminine.
Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women, and wokeness was in many ways a society-wide failure to compartmentalize.
Why does this matter? More Andrews:
The threat posed by wokeness can be large or small depending on the industry. It’s sad that English departments are all feminized now, but most people’s daily lives are unaffected by it. Other fields matter more. You might not be a journalist, but you live in a country where what gets written in The New York Times determines what is publicly accepted as the truth. If the Times becomes a place where in-group consensus can suppress unpopular facts (more so than it already does), that affects every citizen.
The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tug at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.
… The Great Feminization is truly unprecedented. Other civilizations have given women the vote, granted them property rights, or let them inherit the thrones of empires. No civilization in human history has ever experimented with letting women control so many vital institutions of our society, from political parties to universities to our largest businesses. Even where women do not hold the top spots, women set the tone in these organizations, such that a male CEO must operate within the limits set by his human resources VP. We assume that these institutions will continue to function under these completely novel circumstances. But what are our grounds for that assumption?
Why does Helen Andrews, as a woman, want to reverse the Great Feminization?
Because, after all, I am not just a woman. I am also someone with a lot of disagreeable opinions, who will find it hard to flourish if society becomes more conflict-averse and consensus-driven. I am the mother of sons, who will never reach their full potential if they have to grow up in a feminized world. I am—we all are—dependent on institutions like the legal system, scientific research, and democratic politics that support the American way of life, and we will all suffer if they cease to perform the tasks they were designed to do.
Read the whole thing. It’s a blockbuster. Basically, she says that wokeness will never end unless the Great Feminization does first.
Anti-Semitism On The Catholic Right
I heard last night from a conservative British Catholic friend who said that he is extremely averse to anti-Semitism. Visiting Auschwitz, and seeing what evil humanity is capable of, was one of the most important points in his faith journey. He said he is deeply concerned over how Jew-hatred is becoming mainstreamed among his fellow conservative Catholics.
He brought up the case of Father James Mawdsley, a young ultra-trad priest who is a Holocaust denier. He appeared on the popular Catholic Unscripted podcast a few months ago, and blathered about the evil of the Jews, calling the Holocaust “the biggest lie in history.” He went on to say:
I think that the Jews have basically infiltrated the church, destroyed her liturgy, her dogma, her morals, and unless we call that out and overcome that and be honest about the governance in our Catholic faith then things are only going to get worse.
I’m pretty sure that had something to do with Gavin Ashenden quitting his role as co-host on the program.
On a white nationalist podcast, Fr. Mawdsley says that Hitler didn’t start World War II, the Jews did. This foul priest was suspended from public ministry in 2022 after leaving the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter without permission, but as far as I can tell, he has not been excommunicated. My British Catholic friend tells me that it is alarming how many fans Mawdsley has among UK traditionalists, and how deeply anti-Semitism is spreading on the Catholic Right in his country.
Jews Can’t Go To Football Matches In Starmerstan
One of the things I hate most about wokeness is how cowardly US universities have routinely cancelled conservative speakers over safety concerns. It’s not that the concerns aren’t valid; leftists really will riot and try to hurt the speakers. It’s that by giving in to the mob, they grant an effective veto to conservative speakers appearing on university campuses. This is one reason why Charlie Kirk was so brave. He paid for it with his life.
Now comes news that UK officials have banned fans of an Israeli soccer team from attending a match scheduled there on November 6. To his credit, PM Keir Starmer criticized the decision. But what will he do to reverse it? It is simply unacceptable that there should be any place that Jews cannot go in a free country.
Ayoub Khan, an independent MP representing a constituency in Birmingham, welcomed the decision. This is what happens when your country becomes Islamized. This football match is a red line for the British government. Surely it will not allow Muslim and anti-Semitic thugs to prevent Jews and supporters of an Israeli football team from simply coming out to support the players. Surely not.
At some point, European authorities must — must! — take a stand, and back that up with all the force necessary to protect civilization from these barbarians. I stand with Renaud Camus, who said he hopes it doesn’t come to this choice, but if one has to choose “between submission and war, then it is war, war, war.”
Anglican Global Schism Is Here
Massive news from the global Anglican Communion, following the naming of Sarah Mullaly, the Bishop of London, as the next Archbishop of Canterbury. Gafcon, a coalition of conservative Anglicans who represent now declares itself in schism from Canterbury. From the statement by The Most Reverend Dr Laurent Mbanda Anglican Primate of Rwanda, Gafcon’s leader:
4. Therefore, Gafcon has re-ordered the Anglican Communion by restoring its original structure as a fellowship of autonomous provinces bound together by the Formularies of the Reformation, as reflected at the first Lambeth Conference in 1867, and we are now the Global Anglican Communion.
5. Provinces of the Global Anglican Communion shall not participate in meetings called by the Archbishop of Canterbury, including the ACC, and shall not make any monetary contribution to the ACC, nor receive any monetary contribution from the ACC or its networks.
6. Provinces, which have yet to do so, are encouraged to amend their constitution to remove any reference to being in communion with the See of Canterbury and the Church of England.
He continues:
Today, Gafcon is leading the Global Anglican Communion.
As has been the case from the very beginning, we have not left the Anglican Communion; we are the Anglican Communion.
Gafcon represents around 70 percent of the world’s Anglicans. The Church of England has been reduced to a liberal rump within world Anglicanism.
In related news about liberal state churches, the state Evangelical Lutheran Church of Norway has now apologized to LGBT people for everything. What took them so long? The church counts 62 percent of Norwegians as members, but only 1.3 percent go to church on any given Sunday.
Budapest’s Big Day
It has been announced that Trump and Putin will meet in Budapest soon to discuss peace in Ukraine. I’m thrilled, and so proud that my adopted city will be the showcase. Get ready for lots of chin-pulling pieces from the US and UK mainstream media about “authoritarian” Hungary. Now I need to think about whether or not I should participate in them. When reporters call me up, I always struggle over whether or not to cooperate. Sometimes when I’ve done it, it’s been part of a hit piece. Other times, the pieces were balanced (which is all I really care about).
I don’t have any inside knowledge, but I’d bet this would not be happening if both Trump and Putin didn’t like and trust PM Viktor Orban. Think about how disappointed so many journalists will be if Orban, Trump, and Putin — and who knows, maybe Zelensky — can negotiate and end to this war!
What If They Gave A Movement, But Nobody Came?
I know y’all give me grief for always going to David Brooks, but I really like the guy, and he’s trying hard here, but just can’t read the room. In his latest in The Atlantic, he says that we’d better come up with a Movement to stop Trumpism, or America is lost. He’s panicking over the lack of a mass anti-Trump movement arising now. Excerpts:
I am not one of those who believe that Donald Trump has already turned America into a dictatorship. Yet the crossing-over from freedom into authoritarianism may be marked not by a single dramatic event but by the slow corrosion of our ruling institutions—and that corrosion is well under way. For 250 years, the essence of America’s democratic system, drawing on thinkers going back to Cicero and Cato, has been that no one is above the law. … Trumpism can also be seen as a multipronged effort to amputate the higher elements of the human spirit—learning, compassion, science, the pursuit of justice—and supplant those virtues with greed, retribution, ego, appetite. Trumpism is an attempt to make the world a playground for the rich and ruthless, so it seeks to dissolve the sinews of moral and legal restraint that make civilization decent.
More:
We all understand the first reason many people and institutions have remained quiet: intimidation. Leaders say, If I speak out, it will cost my organization millions. Acquiescence to the government begins to seem prudent. So instead of a mass movement, we have separate institutions each drawing up a self-preservation strategy. In the absence of a broad social movement to support and protect them, leaders all face the same collective-action problem: If I stand alone, I’ll be crushed.
The problem with this strategy is that it allows dominance to become a habit. Bullies who go unresisted keep on dominating. Submission becomes a habit too. One way to tell if you’re living in an autocracy is by asking this question: Do people feel free to express their dissent? All around me, I see civic leaders not saying what’s really on their mind. And over time, self-censorship can lead to internal spiritual and moral collapse.
I quote these passages because it reveals the utter blindness of a certain kind of Establishment figure. Almost every conservative reader of this newsletter, upon reading those two passages, is thinking the same thing: What the hell do you think the Great Awokening was?!
Say what you like about Donald Trump, but we would likely not have had the Trumpening if the Left had not driven the systematic degradation of American institutions in the name of what we used to call “social justice,” but now call wokeness, and if the Establishment had not capitulated to it. That, and the systematic dispossession of the middle class by globalism, as well as crusading wars to impose neoliberalism on the world. (The most important thing to read about the role the old-guard GOP played in this is Tucker Carlson’s insightful 2016 essay, which appeared in Politico at the start of that year’s GOP primary season.)
And to read that graf about institutions and their leaders being “intimidated” into silence by Trump — good grief, man, what do you think the era between 2013 and 2024 was about, but from the Left?! David is a genuinely intelligent, sincere and big-hearted man, yet he cannot see it. Go back to that Steven Crowder barbershop video above, and understand that the fact that it even exists in 2025 is a sign of how much things have changed. The illiberal views of those black guys was the overwhelmingly dominant position of elites of all races during the Great Awokening. Identity politics (race, sex, sexuality, gender) drove soft totalitarianism. Mike Benz explained to a genuinely shocking degree at NatCon how the Blob used government institutions to control the Narrative.
This is the world that gave us Donald Trump! Brooks wonders where the “Movement” to save America is coming from. I dunno, man, maybe MAGA is that Movement.
Do I wish Trump did things differently at times? Of course. But I doubt that anything short of his bull-in-the-China-shop methods would have changed anything, so entrenched was power among the American elites, and so conventional was their thinking, on both Left and Right. Here’s Columbia student Nikos Mohammadi, writing today in UnHerd, on how Trump restored normalcy to his campus:
The Columbia Intifada, it seems, has died down — thanks to President Trump. His campus measures are unquestionably illiberal. But they’ve paradoxically helped to preserve reasonable discourse on campus.
Funny how that happens. Sometimes you have to be illiberal to protect actual liberalism, not the Frankenstein monster calling itself liberalism. They call Viktor Orban illiberal, and he is, if by “liberalism” you mean the way the European elites govern their countries. Well, guess what? Hungary has problems, but it doesn’t have the most destabilizing problem of all: mass migration, which is carrying western Europe, including the UK, to the brink of civil war. And Hungarian children have not been propagandized by gender ideology.
(A member of the European Parliament told me last week that they’re preparing to face an order from the European Commission to compel every EU member state to grant the right to change gender legally to every European, even minors, at will — and if a country doesn’t go along with it, they’ll have their EU funding withheld. Remember that when the media complains about the rise of “far right” parties in Europe. The ruling class, both in government and the private sector — including media — simply cannot imagine that any reasonable, decent person would dissent.)
For as long as I can remember — I’m talking about going back to the 1990s, when I first started paying attention — both Democrats and Republicans have been wringing their hands over the impossible-to-solve problem of illegal migration. Then boom, along comes Trump and he just … solves it. Again: funny how that happened.
You have a similar dynamic here in Hungary, regarding Viktor Orban. Orban faces a very tough re-election campaign, because the economy is in the doldrums. But there’s a reason why he has been so popular for so long. Here’s a graf from a story in today’s Wall Street Journal:
Ever since the 2022 full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, Orbán’s Hungary has been at odds with the rest of the European Union and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, blocking tougher sanctions against Moscow and hobbling military assistance to Kyiv. A frustrated Polish prime minister quipped this month that Orbán has joined Russia’s side in the conflict with the West. Orbán retorted that he is on the side of Hungary.
That’s actually true. Remember, I was here in 2022, when the Russia-Ukraine war started. I assumed as an outsider that the Hungarian people would be on the side of Ukraine, given their awful history with the Russians. It wasn’t so. Almost everyone I talked to at the beginning was desperate for Hungary to stay out of the war. After the calamitous 20th century Hungary had, they did not want to lose everything again over a war, especially one they did not see as having anything to do with them. Orban came out fiercely on the campaign trail with a promise to keep Hungary out of a war that was not in its national interest. Though Orban defied the overwhelming consensus of European globalist elites about the war, and though he faced an electorate that was weary to some degree from his twelve years in power, Orban won re-election in a landslide bigger than the one his pollsters expected. They trusted him to keep his country out of the war.
If Orban pulls off a win in next year’s national election — his toughest yet, given the dismal state of the economy — it will likely be because Hungarians don’t trust his challenger, Peter Magyar, not to sell out the national interest to Brussels. The point I’m trying to make here is that Orban has held on to power in large part because his opposition to corrupted illiberal-liberal institutions strikes a resonant chord with voters. I’m not saying there aren’t corruption problems here — sadly, this is standard for the postcommunist countries — but I’m telling you that foreign media find it incapable of imagining that Orban retains popularity because he actually represents the views of most Hungarians, even if that puts him at odds with establishment elites.
So, with regard to Trump, and why the American people have not joined up in a David Brooks fantasy movement to stop his supposed authoritarianism, let me borrow the headlines from Tucker’s 2016 piece, and reframe them as an answer to the Brooks essay:
Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar, And Right
And, my dear establishment types, he’s all your fault
Have a good autumn weekend, y’all. Posting will be on a strange schedule next week. I’m leaving on Monday to spend the week in Austria at a private meeting with a group of prominent US and European intellectuals, gathering to discuss the Apocalypse. The discussions are strictly off-the-record, but I’m going to try to get some separate interviews with some of the participants, and share them with you. Some really interesting names on the list, though I can’t share them here. I’m lucky to have been invited.
I go to a weekly men's meeting pastored by a black pastor who has an exceptionally racially mixed congregation. This is in Nashville and when the BLM riots broke out his son asked him what he was going to do. He evaded answering saying the riots hadn't happened in Nashville so there was nothing for him to do. But one day they came, and his son asked him again, what are you going to do dad? He didn't know, but he knew enough to go down early the next morning to the state capitol and pray. There were state police out and they asked him what he was doing, and he told them he had come to pray. All the state troopers bowed their heads in prayer, and so he prayed with them.
Later, he says God spoke to him to get the state troopers food, so he went to a BBQ place and got the food. His son asked, why are we getting all this food, but he said you'll see. The food opened a door with the police and soon they had called out the governor out of the capitol building to meet this black pastor. And that started a daily prayer walk which soon hundreds of people were joining in with. The church put up billboards with two hands in prayer - one black and one white.
My point here is that it only takes one brave pastor to make a real difference.
I guess Brooks wasn’t concerned about rising totalitarianism when the Biden administration was threatening and coercing social media companies to limit free speech and distort the information that was acceptable and therefore permitted on these platforms. And I guess Brooks wasn’t concerned when the legal system was weaponized to “get Trump.” Everyone who reads this newsletter recognizes that Trump is a rough tool. And I daresay that no one who reads this newsletter agrees with everything Trump does or how he does it (I don’t). But given the policies that have been adopted over many years to undermine our political, cultural and educational institutions, and the conditions we now face, Trump, and, shall we say, his “unique” and unconventional approach to governance, may be what is needed to change direction and improve our deteriorating society. Let’s hope so. But whatever happens, I won’t be whining about rising totalitarianism given what occurred under the Obama and Biden administrations.