Dianne Feinstein: An Exemplar of Our Hostile Elite

Hubert Collins

Occasionally an example of the embodiment of an abstract idea comes along that is so perfect, one almost wonders if it was invented. Senator Dianne Feinstein is such a case. More than just about anyone, she embodies our hostile elite. Should Whites be lucky enough to one day find a new land of our own, the successful career of California’s current octogenarian senator will be sure to inspire particular shock in students.

Mrs. Feinstein (she has been married several times, and held many different titles, so for simplicity’s sake, “Mrs. Feinstein” will be used throughout this piece) first dipped her toes into politics innocuously enough by way of student government when she was at Stanford. After graduating in 1955, she immediately returned to her native San Francisco and married Jack Berman in 1956. Mr. Berman was a young Jewish lawyer with quite a few political ties throughout the city, and no doubt was instrumental in getting his wife her first official political position — an appointment by Pat Brown to the Women’s Board of Parole of California. Mr. Berman would go on to earn quite the reputation: a civil rights activist, even going to the South to fight Jim Crow, and an obsessive gambler who frequented Las Vegas. The marriage did not pass the five-year mark.

While the Berman marriage was crumbling, a young Black lawyer named Willie Brown from Texas was making a name for himself by defending pimps, prostitutes, and other street criminals. Then in 1961, his career pivoted and he began a campaign of agitation to abolish “housing discrimination” throughout San Francisco. This garnered the attention and support of the young Mrs. Feinstein.

While Mr. Brown and Mrs. Feinstein were both working to defend criminals, crime across the nation was increasing exponentially, and both began their rise to greater and greater prominence. In 1964 Mr. Brown became a state assemblyman, and in 1968 Mrs. Feinstein joined the San Francisco Committee on Crime. The next year she was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and soon became its president.

Simultaneously, San Francisco was changing. Haight Ashbury became notorious for its drug-fueled hippie scene and became the destination for runaways, junkies, and vagrants across the nation. Jim Jones and his “People’s Temple” headed to San Francisco as well. Harvey Milk and the “gay rights” agitators of Castro Street were beginning to get organized and achieve political and cultural clout. By the 1970s, the city had a well-deserved reputation for incredibly high crime, immortalized by the Dirty Harry films, the first of which was released in 1971.

Mrs. Feinstein and her cohort represented a kind of Cultural Marxist political vanguard throughout all of this, and helped ensure that every destructive trend was amplified. While anti-West students in Paris were trying to launch a quasi-coup, San Francisco’s own revolutionary ‘68ers had already seized power. In addition to her complete failure to abate the rising tide of crime while in a position to do so, Mrs. Feinstein, Willie Brown, and others of their ilk, like Mayor George Moscone, Governor Jerry Brown, and the aforementioned Harvey Milk, managed to abolish legal segregation and ensure the solidification of a San Francisco culture which would be unrecognizable to Middle America.

Throughout it all, this new elite relied openly on Jim Jones and his cult for support. Mrs. Feinstein lunched with him, Mr. Brown compared him (positively) to Mao, and Moscone and Milk won their elections (mayor and city board of supervisors, respectively) because of the People’s Temple’s bloc voting. Moscone apparently enjoyed the miscegenist sex parties Jones threw, which likely helped convince him to appoint Jones as president of San Francisco’s Housing Authority. Meanwhile, Milk up a kept personal and admiring correspondence with him, once writing, “The first time I heard you, you made a statement: ‘Take one of us, and you must take all of us.’ Please add my name.” The ties between the soon-to-be mass murderer and the rise of San Francisco’s “culture of critique” has always made the left uncomfortable, particularly since the case can be made that none of it would have been possible without the People’s Temple. But it is impossible for them to deny it. This entire paragraph can be fact-checked by way of a book the founder of Salon wrote.

On November 18, 1978, after killing U.S. Congressman Leo Ryan and four others, the Temple drank the legendary Kool-Aid — leading to a death count just shy of a thousand. What could have been a completely delegitimizing moment for the American New Left managed to be completely overshadowed by the media frenzy over Dan White’s assassination of Harvey Milk and George Moscone nine days later. Dianne Feinstein was the one who called the police after hearing the shots. She then announced the news to the press, and was sworn in as mayor — after two failed prior attempts to secure the position through election, once narrowly losing to Moscone himself.

Mrs. Feinstein would go on to win a mayoral election in her own right the next year, and then again in 1983. Her city hosted the 1984 Democratic National Convention, and many thought Walter Mondale would choose her as his running mate — a (dis)honor she lost to Geraldine Ferraro — as a reward for her staunch support of Jimmy Carter four years earlier when Ted Kennedy had tried to snag the Democratic nomination from him.

Her time as mayor came to a close in 1988, but her political career had really just begun. In 1990 she lost her bid to be California’s governor to Pete Wilson, but two years later (in the so called “year of the woman”) she easily won a special election and became a U.S. Senator. After being spared from the 1994 Republican sweep, she achieved the coveted status of “safe” incumbent. In 2000 she won reelection by almost twenty points, in 2006 it was by almost twenty-five points, and in 2012 it was by twenty-five points. At age 84, she is now America’s oldest senator.

Since she first arrived in Washington, California has not done terribly well. It has gone through a shocking demographic change, and maintained high unemployment. Statewide Republican figures now resemble Arnold Schwarzenegger more than Pete Wilson, if they can be found at all. Willie Brown served two terms as mayor of San Francisco and seems to have been trying to become a West Coast version of Marion Barry; and Jerry Brown managed to become governor. Again. Culturally, Jim Jones has been flushed down the memory hole. He is considered a quirk, a sort of “lone gunman” unconnected to progressive politics; and while George Moscone has been forgotten, Harvey Milk has been immortalized as a heroic progressive, tragically shot by a bigot.

As a senator, Mrs. Feinstein has proved to be as bad as they get. The labels “liberal” and “progressive” do not even begin to cover it, and even “Cultural Marxist” is at best incomplete. But let’s start with the obvious. The immigration group Numbers USA has given her a “C-” grade for her entire career, but an “F” for her current term, and another “F” under “Recent” (i.e. 2011–present). Given that she arrived in the senate by way of a fluke election, then saw Newt Gingrich and his acolytes seize Congress the same year as Governor Wilson galvanized his base with Proposition 187, it is unsurprising that Mrs. Feinstein thought it wise to feign a somewhat restrictionist stance. Once the 1990s came to a close, however, and the aforementioned Proposition 187 was declared unconstitutional, those Numbers USA grades plummet. One could make the case that she was just “going with the flow” of the state’s demographic change. But given her background, I believe it’s driven by something deeper than that. After all, liberal attitudes on immigration are a fundamental aspect of the mainstream Jewish community.

Mrs. Feinstein also authored the loathsome 1994 federal ban on so-called assault weapons and large magazines that thankfully was not renewed ten years later. In 2013, she pushed hard for a renewed ban that went nowhere. No one would be surprised to see another attempt at this on her part given the recent tragedy in Las Vegas. Keeping citizens unarmed is clearly an issue close to her heart, stretching all the way back to her time as mayor of San Francisco when she banned handguns.

I know what you’re saying. So far, so Democrat. Equally unsurprising, given her ties, is her enthusiastic support for everything that advances the march of gay, women’s, and non-White “rights.” Her uniqueness stems from how, unlike so many other dyed-in-the-wool cultural leftists, she is a staunch and proud advocate of American empire.

Under President Clinton she voted “yes” for air strikes in Kosovo and “yes” again to give the president approval to “use all necessary forces and other means” against the Serbians. Under President Bush II she supported the Iraq War early and often, and then kept on supporting and funding it. Even after the anti-war fervor that led to the Democratic sweep in 2006, Mrs. Feinstein was happily approving hundreds of billions of dollars for Iraq. Of course, she voted to condemn anti-Muslim bigotry in the name of anti-terrorism, too, just in case anybody was worried her militarism and her agreement with the policies advocated by the Israel Lobby was motivated by anything so deplorable as prejudice or perceived ethnic interest. Mrs. Feinstein was even so hawkish as to side with the Bush Administration in their attempt to smear MoveOn.org as unpatriotic after that group launched a particularly hard-hitting anti-war ad.

By extension of her love for war, she loves the surveillance state as well. She has been a long-time supporter of the over-reaching FISA courts, and has done her best to make them even more powerful. Naturally, she is also a big fan of the PATRIOT Act as well. More recently she has expressed fear that laws designed to protect journalists from having to reveal, or testify against, their sources might define “journalist” too broadly. On the senate floor she commented, “Should this privilege apply to anyone? To a 17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for $5, and starts a blog.” The remark was a thinly veiled reference to whistleblower Julian Assange, who Mrs. Feinstein loathes. Perhaps this should come as no surprise though, because back when she was Mayor of San Francisco she expressed a preference for Chinese journalists to American ones: “They just write down what we say.” Maybe that’s another reason why she loves immigration so much. Of course, when news came of the CIA using some of their more clandestine surveillance techniques on the Senate, Mrs. Feinstein was quite miffed.

Like almost everyone of political prominence and nearly all Jews, she is fanatically pro-Israel. But what make her Zionism interesting are her attempts to address the issue of Israeli spying on the US, as opposed to just dodging the issue like most everyone else. Last spring, after a surprisingly honest story from Newsweek on the hushed up matter of Israel’s less than satisfactory behavior as an “ally,” an Israeli official vociferously denied that there was any truth to it After meeting with him, Mrs. Feinstein said, “I accept him at face value.”

Pro-empire, pro-Israel, pro-Big Brother, anti-gun, anti-White, and anti-Tradition — a very mainstream Jewish agenda in a nutshell. They don’t come much worse than Dianne Feinstein. If Alt Rightists need to point to one figure to demonstrate the existence of a hostile elite, or one figure to demonstrate the failures of conservatism, she is it. A product of Californian progressivism, she has risen to higher and higher respectability, bucking three supposed “conservative triumphs” in 1994, 2010, and 2014, and in her ascent, has left her old conservative rivals like H.L. Richardson in history’s dustbin as California became solidly blue (in part because of the failure of Prop. 187). She and George W. Bush disagreed on little, but while he managed to sully his party’s name so thoroughly that Barack Obama was elected President, Mrs. Feinstein emerged from the Bush II presidency more powerful than ever.

An opposition that has failed to remove, delegitimize, or even meaningfully slow down a figure like Dianne Feinstein is not an opposition worth having. In short: it’s her country, we just live here in our dispossession.

As the T.S. Elliot quote Wilmot Robertson was so fond of goes:

In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

53 Comments to "Dianne Feinstein: An Exemplar of Our Hostile Elite"

  1. October 6, 2017 - 4:28 am | Permalink

    Virtually all US commentators after 50 years STILL fail to understand US genocide in Vietnam. Jews love profitable wars, and got a very long one associated with Lyndon Johnson, Kissinger and other Jews. And yet Hubert Collins regards the aborted attempts at protest as though they were the problem, until Sharon Tate etc was faked as yet another false flag, though Mr Collins hasn’t yet noticed it. I do wish Americans would grow up and face facts. There just isn’t that much time left. Sweeping US war crimes under the carpet, and the associated Jew management, suits Jews and certain times of militaristic evil. It’s infinitely disappointing to see MacDonald’s outfit hugging its little corner, not expanding to look at the world.

    • Weaver's Gravatar Weaver
      October 7, 2017 - 3:39 pm | Permalink

      Hi. Perhaps someone could defend US intervention for Pinochet, but there are few others that could be defended.

      America’s unique geographical position and (formerly) demographic homogeneity makes war all but unnecessary. The Vietnam War was anti-white. And US war crimes shouldn’t be blamed on whites. They should be blamed on this evil empire that holds whites hostage.

      • Paul Rain's Gravatar Paul Rain
        October 7, 2017 - 9:43 pm | Permalink

        The Vietnam War would not have ever involved more than a few thousand US advisors if the bad Kennedy had not let fag Republican Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. induce the Vietnamese generals to overthrow Diem. Because Diem was not ‘religiously tolerant’ of Buddhist priests subverted by Communists, and he didn’t kow-tow to the commie-loving American press.

        Lodge was also a big booster of Eisenhower, one of the top suspects for the murder of George Patton, and a staunch opponent of real anti-Communist Goldwater.

        • October 8, 2017 - 5:42 pm | Permalink

          I was trying to point out that the idea that whites are not just altruistic, but ‘pathologically altruistic’, is not supported by evidence. But the Jewish press suppresses all comment on US war crimes.

  2. Charlie's Gravatar Charlie
    October 6, 2017 - 4:54 am | Permalink

    With Jews, You Lose!

  3. October 6, 2017 - 5:31 am | Permalink

    “Pro-empire, pro-Israel, pro-Big Brother, anti-gun, anti-White, and anti-Tradition — a very mainstream Jewish agenda in a nutshell”. That’s true but more than 90% of Christian lawmakers also support the same especially being pro-Israel.

    Since the assassination of JFK, Malcolm X, and Rev. Martin Luther King – organized Jewry has lead the gun control campaign. Almost every piece of anti-gun legislation in the US Congress has been introduced or sponsored by Jewish lawmakers such as Emanuel Cellar, Howard Metzenbaum, Herbert Kohl, Howard Metzenbaum, Charles Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, Arlen Specter, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer, Herbert Kohl, etc.

    Why the organized Jewry favors gun control? The former White House staffer Elliott Abrams spilled the beans in his 1999 book, Faith or Fear: How Jews can survive in Christian America. Abrams wrote that the mainstream Jewish community in America clings to a dark vision of America – a land permeated with antisemitism and always on the verge of antisemtic outbursts. Abrams also admits that due to this dark vision, Jews have taken the lead to secularize United States and support non-White immigration to divert Whites attention from Jews.


    • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
      October 7, 2017 - 1:38 pm | Permalink

      “…but more than 90% of Christian lawmakers also support the same especially being pro-Israel.”
      1) They may call themselves Christians, but they aren’t; and
      2) They aren’t lawmakers in any way a Westerner would understand the word, they are political prostitutes performing the act for which the “John” has paid.

    • gjjd's Gravatar gjjd
      October 9, 2017 - 7:02 pm | Permalink

      “That’s true but more than 90% of Christian lawmakers also support the same especially being pro-Israel.”

      I don’t think that is true, especially with regards to being pro-gay, anti-tradition, and anti-gun. On immigration, I expect they are still far less radical.

  4. Vehmgericht's Gravatar Vehmgericht
    October 6, 2017 - 8:46 am | Permalink

    I don’t buy these ‘Zionist conspiracies’ to overrun Europe and the US with Afro-islamic types for two reasons:

    First of all the politicians opening borders, admitting hundereds of thousands of ‘Refugees’, are by a huge majority not even Jewish.

    Secondly why should ‘Zionists’ wish to ‘punish’ the West by islamfying it — how is that of any conceivable benefit to Jews living there?

    Ah you say, they can all flee to Israel. True, but that is actually a huge upheaval for them, starting over in a new land — not something they want to happen just to spite ‘us’. Also how will it benefit Israel to have its foreign allies become neutral or overtly hostile?

    There is no conspiracy, just a combination of sentimentality, short-termism, and failure to have children! And that affects Diaspora Jews as well as non- Jews in the West.

    Reversing the decline in fertility and putting some backbone into the struggle against decadence and egalitarianism will achieve more than the tired old tactic of blaming ‘the Jews’.

    One often hears on these nationalist blogs the plaint that ‘blacks’ blame their woes on ‘whites’. Is this not the kettle calling the pan black?

    • Michael Adkins's Gravatar Michael Adkins
      October 6, 2017 - 12:10 pm | Permalink

      The solution is for European males to stand up for themselves and stop listening to the Abrahamics.

    • Livonia's Gravatar Livonia
      October 6, 2017 - 1:39 pm | Permalink

      ,,I don’t buy these ‘Zionist conspiracies’ to overrun Europe and the US with Afro-islamic types for two reasons:”
      All you have to buy is some history books, not written by Jews.
      Just 100 years ago the Jewish kabbala overthrew the lawful government of Russia, murdering the Emperor, Empress Alexandra, their daughters and crown prince. They murdered the Emperors family, brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, children etc. Then they confiscated guns, and then the gold, silver, pressure stones, and the rest of the riches of Russia. Then they proceeded to murdering, sending to the slave death camps, killing 90 million White Christian people in Russia. Starving to death 18 million in Ukraine, on the lands which had the richest soil on the Earth. I totally despise your ignorance, your disregard for truth, Vehmgericht.

      • October 7, 2017 - 12:51 pm | Permalink

        You missed it. The conspiracy declared:

        “As David Petegorsky, executive director of the American Jewish Congress, stated in an address to the biennial convention of the American Jewish Congress in 1948: “We are profoundly convinced that Jewish survival will depend on Jewish statehood in Palestine, on the one hand, and on the existence of a creative, conscious and well adjusted community in this country on the other. Such a creative community can exist only within the framework of a progressive and expanding democratic society, which through its institutions and public policies gives full expression to the concept of cultural pluralism.”
        From KMac, C of C

        • Weaver's Gravatar Weaver
          October 7, 2017 - 5:50 pm | Permalink

          Jews made a mistake with that strategy. Elements of the “Left” do not like Jews, especially Muslims.

          White protestants are the best worker class ever. We’re culturally individualistic and thus easy to manipulate and otherwise conquer. Jews should have just enjoyed their position at the top.

          • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
            October 9, 2017 - 4:54 pm | Permalink

            Please consider spending more time, a lot more time, reading this site’s archives. If you did, I am certain that before long, you would come to see that Jews and Muslims get along just fine at every level where getting along matters. Brain-dead soi-disant activists, thuggish Muslim hotheads, and cranky old Jews muttering “there goes the neighborhood” are mere window dressing or, in a more contemporary idiom, street theater. Their sole purpose—to support the Establishment’s premise that the Jew is always victim, never oppressor—has misled many more than just you.

          • October 9, 2017 - 7:29 pm | Permalink

            If one study European history from some objective source – he will find that it were Christians who hated Jews and vise versa – but collaborated with each other against Muslims.

            Israel’s former president Moshe Katsav and former UNHRC’s special envoy for Palestine, Dr. Richard Falk are on record that antisemitism concept was brought to Muslim world by the European Jews now occupying Palestine.

            In Canada until the late 1930s, top hotels in Toronto, Calgary and Montreal used to signs posted at the entrance, reading, “No Dog, No Jew Allowed”.

            But since the creation of state of Israel – almost every Western government is fighting Zionist proxy wars in the Muslim world.

            During the world powers negotiations in Istanbul in 2012, according to Wikileaks, US secretary of state (2009-2013) Hillary Clinton sent an e-mail, saying: “The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.”


          • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
            October 10, 2017 - 6:53 am | Permalink

            “In Canada until the late 1930s, top hotels in Toronto, Calgary and Montreal used to signs posted at the entrance, reading, “No Dog, No Jew Allowed”.”
            Really? Which hotels were those? In 1939, Calgary had a population of about 85,000 people and only one “top hotel” Canadian Pacific’s “The Palliser”, one of it grand railway hotels, which included Toronto’s top hotel, the Royal York and Montreal’s top hotel Place Viger (until 1935). Are you suggesting that Canadian Pacific Railways didn’t allow Jews in their Hotels? Curious that my Jew-wise relatives living in Toronto, from the mid 1920s until the 70s and 80s never mentioned hotels with such signs.

          • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
            October 10, 2017 - 1:12 pm | Permalink


            Did not that large park, Christie Pits, on Toronto’s Bloor
            Street West, reclaimed from a huge excavation pit, have such signs, even into the post-war era, as claimed by the formerly named CJC ?.

            Or what of the rehash some years ago, of the renowned earlier exclusive lodge Bigwin Inn in Muskoka ?

            The WASP only Granite Club, then on St. Clair Ave. West forbade Jewish membership, which occasioned the establishment of the Jew only Primrose Club down the Avenue: where a former friend’s father was the only tolerated goy because he owned Toronto’s third largest paper, The Telegram ? [Long defunct ].

            Of course we were talking of actual signs, but what of the erstwhile policy of Palm Beach’s Bath and Racket Club, its Colony Hotel or any number of houses in London ?

            I am not sticking up for their habitual because profitable jammer, but will not allow myself to select facts; neither am I accusing you of doing that.

    • October 6, 2017 - 1:52 pm | Permalink

      Your “Zionist conspiracy theorists” reminds me Rabbi Baruch Efrati, a teacher at Yishva community school in the West Bank, who claims that Jews around the world should be happy at turning Europe into a Muslim majority region.

      “With the help of G-d, the Gentile (non-Jewish) will adopt a healthier life with a lot of modesty and integrity, and not like the hypocritical Christianity which appears pure but is fundamentally corrupt,”said rabbi – reported by Israeli daily YNet News on November 11, 2012.

      “Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for hundreds of years we were in exile there,” said Rabbi Efrati quoting the Rishonim literature written by leading rabbis who lived in Europe during 11th to 15th centuries about pogroms and mass murders committed by Christians against Jews.

      “We will never forgive Europe’s Christians for slaughtering millions of our children, women and elderly. Not just in the recent Holocaust, but throughout the generations, in a consistent manner which characterizes all factions of hypocritical Christianity,” added the rabbi.


    • Peter J's Gravatar Peter J
      October 7, 2017 - 7:20 am | Permalink

      Playing off the parties and acting as a middleman seems pretty profitable to me. The “Zionists” can use the goy to attack their enemies in the Middle East and use Muslims to suppress the goys in their home.
      Whether Jews are middlemen for Leftists or vice versa is pretty academic.

    • Sam J.'s Gravatar Sam J.
      October 7, 2017 - 1:08 pm | Permalink

      “…I don’t buy these ‘Zionist conspiracies’ to overrun Europe and the US with Afro-islamic type…”

      That’s because you think of Jews as normal rational people when in fact they are a tribe of psychopaths. They think that they can rule over the Afro-islamic types, which after all is not completely unrealistic as they rule over us now. The less power Whites the less their ability to stop their total control. They don’t think in terms that do not end in total control. That being said I expect you’re paif by (((them))) to muddy the waters with some stupid voodoo word games of some sort or another.

    • Andy's Gravatar Andy
      October 7, 2017 - 4:03 pm | Permalink

      You say “I don’t buy these ‘Zionist conspiracies’ to overrun Europe and the US with Afro-islamic types for two reasons:.”

      Thank you for your interesting post. I gather that organisations which lobby for jewish interests have been consistenly supportive of mass immigration from non-white regions, and have supported legislation against so called ‘hate-speech’ which puts the breaks on public discussion on the issues arising therefrom.

      If organised Jewry has supported multi-culturalism and has not expressed any sympathy for those who have reservations about the demographic changes going on in the West, then it is reasonable to argue against them for doing this, and to ask what their response is to mass immigration and why they think as they do. From there answers it will become clear that their concerns are different from ours. Our concerns are legitimate. I’d expect ‘group differences’ would come up in the discussion, and possibly charges of racism, but these are easy to counter. Are the Jews a self-regarding group and are they concerned for their collective future? They must be since they are concerned about anti-semitism. There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve your nation or ethnic group, after all organised Jewry – understandably – wants to preserve their Jewish culture and their communities. Whites, by and large, rightly don’t want their countries to swamped by outsiders, many of whom – certainly not all – have little regard for the indigenous culture, or its people, or who actively dislike it.

      Yes, I agree that to say that it’s all the the fault of the Jews is wrong, for the simple reason if whites – especially their governing elites – had shown a bit more foresight, and rejected the lobbying for mass immigration, and, later on, the restrictions on free-speech, then things would have worked out differently. Having said that organised Jewry does not like nationalism as it associates it with Nazism, and prefers consumerism and individualism to be dominant as a preventative to a strong national identity, which it regards with suspicion. A country with a strong national/ethnic identity would have an elite which would be talking about what cultural influences which are in play, and what these imply for the future of that society. In the West if such an elite had existed then a lot of the destructive ‘ologies’ and ‘isms’ would not have been so influential in that they would have been critiqued from within a broadly Christian humanistic framework; any valuable insights would have been digested before the production of new works relating to those insights. The new work would have been critical without being actively detrimental to the development of our white European culture.

      In the light of the above one can see how people or groups value getting into key positions of influence in academia, media, and government, in that they then have the opportunity to promote ways of living and thinking which are less likely to be problematic to their own group-interests, and moreover they gain the opportunity to censure values and beliefs which are judged to have been detrimental their own group’s interests in the past. The desire to do this may be overwhelming as one is not only helping one’s own co-ethnics but is also appealing to universal values which, on the face of it, make nationalists look narrow, and lacking in humane thinking, that is to say lacking in ‘inclusiveness’ and engaging in ‘discrimination’. This quest for influence is of course grist to the mill of conspiracy theorists. The fact is a strong body-politic can recognise the dangers of becoming over-reliant on those who don’t identify with the indigenous culture, and who may not think much of it.

      It is interesting that universal and humane values are put in opposition to the interests of the West as understood by white nationalists. If out of ‘humane values’ we allow continued mass-immigration from non-European countries, the demographics of the West will change beyond recognition within a few generations, and with that change will come a substantial dissolution of the European culture which for so long has preserved those humane values. In the decades ahead I see very little room for freedom of conscience emerging from living under either a government which despises our European heritage, or under an athiestic managerial socialism, and I think it will be harder to think and learn independently due to the quarantining, or obfuscation, of inconvenient information and the controlling/monitoring of access to extant material.

      For my part all I can do is learn to talk about these issues and highlight what’s at stake in ways which address all the concerns of listeners what ever these may be. I have not yet had any experience communicating with left-wingers. I would ask them – for starters – what their concerns are, and why, who they see themselves as against and why, what they’ve read and where they get their understanding from. I’d be doing this so that I could have a really good sense of how they see the world, how they are orientated in it, and what’s at stake in their own minds.

      I expect they would talk about rights and ~phobias and eventually talk about the rights being ‘self-evident’. They would go on to talk about ‘inclusiveness’, and ‘discrimination’ being unjust. I expect that the individual I’d be talking to would have quite a bit of empathy. I’d point out that some people have far less empathy than they do, and take it from there, carefully pulling out the implications, and risks, of their thinking. I think that the Left are big on conditioning and on showing how societal structures impact on individuals, but are less able to give weighting to our capacity for self-chosen action and for setting our own course (though they are right that so-called conservatives are often glib in their talk about individual responsibility and agency). Thankfully white nationalists have the sense to realise it’s not all about the individual, or the society, but about both and the culture which enables the formation and preservation of each. I’d make the point that their ‘rights’ and ‘~phobia’ concerns,at their core, reflect valuing the individual person even if they are very different from one’s self. I’d point out that not all cultures share this concern for individuals, particularly if their behaviour does not align well with the norms of that culture. I’d make the larger point that if the society and culture actively hate various deviations from its norms then the self-evident ‘rights’ and ‘values’ will not find much room for expression in that society. I expect at that point that my white-nationalist understanding and the left-wing understanding of the significance of society in influencing behaviour would coincide. And I would build out from there. I might prompt them to think about ways of addressing their humanitarian concerns which don’t put at risk the future of a Western culture, a culture which had enough concern for ‘the other’ to push long and hard in Britain for the abolition of slavery. And I might ask them if they know about how some cultures – which are coming into Europe, and North America – regard ‘the other’.

      I’ve had experience of talking to a non-white colleague who shares a lot of the same concerns as a typical white nationalist.

      Unfortunately I don’t know any Jews to hear of their understanding of what is going on in the West.

      I think I’ll stop now as the post is quite long enough!

      [Dear Editor. I hope this adds something. If you want me to modify please let me know, and I can take out bits, but hopefully not the whole lot! LOL. Kind regards, Andy]

    • Bennis Mardens's Gravatar Bennis Mardens
      October 7, 2017 - 5:57 pm | Permalink

      Wrong on every point.
      Organized Jewry is the main reason for the muslim invasion, and their money is behind it. In fact, muslim terrorism is good for the Jews;
      Terrorism wrecks western nations.
      Terrorism provides sympathy for Israel,
      and justifies wars for Israel.
      Terrorism justifies the police state and attacks
      on both free speech and gun rights.
      Terrorism is good for the Jews.

      • October 8, 2017 - 4:58 am | Permalink

        A more cynical person might conclude that Jewish support for the spread of Islam is due to a pact between the two to leave Israel alone in exchange for the rest of the world.

    • Weaver's Gravatar Weaver
      October 7, 2017 - 9:29 pm | Permalink


      there’s much truth to Jews leading left-wing causes. But there are other problems as well, yes.

      Examples of Jewish dominated areas: Banking, Hollywood, other mass cultural institutions, foreign policy, the mass media (and not-so-mass media). If you can find Sam Francis’s article “Power Trip” (around 2005, a review of Gottfried’s Therapeutic State book), it has a very good list of Jewish leaders. It notably leaves out Frank Meyers (Jewish Fusionism) and other examples I’m sure. One example he mentions is feminism. I can’t recall the rest of the list.

      But there are other issues as well, yes. Western Civ has core structural and cultural problems, and most whites are still attached to these things. Also, if Jews could exploit us, then others (maybe East Asians or a white subgroup) could have as well.

      I believe in moving forward, learning from past mistakes. Man might struggle with reason, but we can at least advance with trial and error. So, I hope the current plight of the West will ultimately lead to an adaptation by the West.

    • October 9, 2017 - 1:09 pm | Permalink

      China will be the next destination for the Jews. That’s what the flood of articles comparing Jews and Chinese has been about. And the Chinese like the Jews have purchased enough of USA to do about as they please. Our politicians have been selling the future to all buyers for over 80 years; the future is now, and others own it and us.

    • October 14, 2017 - 8:37 pm | Permalink

      From a UK point of view, I can only report numerous instances of strenuous advocacy or non-white and non-Christian immigration (or refugees as they are mostly termed) by politicians and high-ranking clerics of the Jewish persuasion. I cannot but conclude they know exactly what they are doing, and are well aware of the inevitable results. Perhaps these elites are prepared, like our white elites, to sacrifice their less exalted brethren to the ‘big project’.

  5. Ben Rolph's Gravatar Ben Rolph
    October 6, 2017 - 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Feinstein like most Jews today is a subscriber of saabateanism which is particularly evil form of Judaism .

  6. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    October 6, 2017 - 7:01 pm | Permalink
    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      October 6, 2017 - 7:05 pm | Permalink

      (Though it’s not at all certain that the weapons were bump stocks at all. But that’s the MSM story, so suspend disbelief).

      • October 8, 2017 - 5:49 pm | Permalink

        I think you meant “suspend belief” – but with Jews it gets hard to tell…

  7. Elizabeth's Gravatar Elizabeth
    October 7, 2017 - 6:00 am | Permalink

    It is the general unspoken belief of organized Jewry that they are inflicting genocide upon white Gentiles as retaliation for the ‘genocide’ that was visited upon their people. Doesn’t genocide mean elimination? Can’t we ask if a genocide was inflicted upon the Jewish people why are there so many remaining who have emerged in positions of power and who are now attempting to inflict the conditions of genocide upon white Gentiles? In other words, if the event that they say happened had really happened, they would not be in the position to punish white Gentiles as they are doing.

    • October 7, 2017 - 9:25 am | Permalink

      Despite organized Jewry’s genocide of White Christians in Armenia, Ukraine, Russia, Poland, etc. it’s using its White Gentile victims to wage non-stop Israeli wars against Muslims in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Sudan, Nigeria, etc.

      In 2013, Daniel Howden, the first western journalist to visit South Sudan, has blamed Hollywood stars for speaking from a flawed script about the newest nation. He also points a finger at those who have failed to grasp the awful reality. He has high-lighted the anti-Muslim, anti-Sudan activities of Hollywood, the pro-Israel actors George Clooney (Jewish), Matt Dillon and Don Cheadle (Jewish).

      “When violence erupted two weeks ago in the world’s youngest country, one of the first voices to speak out, before the US president or the head of the United Nations, was that of the Hollywood actor George Clooney. There was nothing particularly objectionable about his counsel, which in any case was more likely authored by the American activist John Prendergast, with whom he shared a byline. It spoke of the need for a robust UN response and, even as tens of thousands of civilians fled ethnically motivated death squads, of the “opportunities” present in South Sudan,” wrote Howden.


      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        October 7, 2017 - 11:45 am | Permalink

        George Clooney is Jewish? Really? Does he attend your synagogue, Rehmat?

        • October 9, 2017 - 10:07 am | Permalink

          Yes darling – George Clooney is as much Jewish as Abraham Foxman of ADL. Even Clooney’s first wife Talia Balsam was Jewish. He has srong ties with Israeli Mossad and transferred US$50 million from SAVE DARFUR to build new illegal Jew settlements in the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem.


          • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
            October 9, 2017 - 12:41 pm | Permalink

            As nothing on earth would induce me to take your word for anything more serious than the time of day, Rehmat, you are going to have to provide hard evidence that Clooney is Jewish before your claim to that effect ascends above the level of risibility.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      October 7, 2017 - 11:24 am | Permalink

      When you or I, Elizabeth, say that something really happened or that such-and-such means something, we are declaring our belief in and regard for objective truth, a truth that stands apart from human likes or preferences. But does the great mass of Jews have this mind-set, or do Jews look at objectivity as yet another potential enemy of “what’s good for us”? I think that even Rehmat’s camel knows the correct answer to that question.

      Many frequenters of TOO will have heard of Herman Rosenblat, a self-proclaimed survivor of an “extermination camp.” About ten years ago Rosenblat wrote a memoir, An Angel at the Fence, that within months of its publication was shown to be so patently false and deceit-filled that the publisher, Penguin, pulped its entire press run and tried to retrieve every copy already sold. Rosenblat’s response to the scandale, on national television no less, was to teach the nations what chutzpah meant in practice: he insisted that every falsehood he wrote was still true because “it was true to me.”

      I was reminded of this incident a few weeks ago by an issue of Bishop Richard Williamson’s newsletter that cited the Rosenblat travesty and an important Jewish response to it as emblematic of the very grave danger posed to us—specifically, to our temporal and eternal survival—by those who refuse to accept the objective nature of truth as the sole legitimate standard. The audacious assertion by the defender of Rosenblat, one Seymour Zak, that literally “every Holocaust story is true, 100 per cent true, whether it happened or not” makes for chilling reading. The expression “read it and weep” has hardly ever had more relevance.

      • Franklin Ryckaert's Gravatar Franklin Ryckaert
        October 7, 2017 - 12:39 pm | Permalink

        For Jews “truth” is “what is good for Jews”. Therefore the O.T. is full of stories that are “good for Jews”. Holocaust stories are also “good for Jews”, therefore they are true. Non-Jews who ask critical questions about the Holocaust are not “good for Jews”, therefore they must be persecuted. Combine Jewish ethnocentrism with Jewish subjectivism and you get an idea what the Jewish idea about “truth” is all about.

      • October 7, 2017 - 3:37 pm | Permalink

        The position that “everything I have written is 100% true, whether it happened or not” is the position taken by Elie Wiesel from the 1950’s on. In spite of this, Wiesel is regarded with the highest esteem all over the world – probably has more awards than any other Jew.

        I have written about this a number of times (here is just one: http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/elie-admits-his-true-stories-never-happened/). But most people don’t or won’t grasp this, that the meaning of truth can be seen differently, and leave that person with a clear conscience.

      • Dave Bowman's Gravatar Dave Bowman
        October 9, 2017 - 4:44 pm | Permalink

        Not to be forgottten either in this context is the immortal line from the worthless, lying, rat-faced scoundrel Eli Wiesel about his own “death-camp” memoirs, when faced with uncomfortable questions about hard facts: “Some things are true which never happened”.

        That single, brutally sub-human line tells any sane person everything they need to know about Jews. After that, no White person on earth should ever be able to consider a single word any Jew says or writes about any subject under the sun as worth anything more than a dead rat in a Tel Aviv gutter.

      • Charles Frey's Gravatar Charles Frey
        October 10, 2017 - 4:39 am | Permalink

        Pierre, I remember the exposure of ” Rosepetal ” well. I could sketch his wife’s face, a veritable caricature, from memory.

        Obvious, quintessentially Jewish features, which gave me pause as to what she was doing outside of the fence since they were all incarcerated.

        Of course she had to be nine at the time, to satisfy Penguin’s marketing and the movie rights: titillating, Talmud-approved, suggestive pedophilia, preponderant in those circles; whether in Brooklyn or that Jewish child sex island in the Caribbean with its well-known elite, lawyerly, princely and of necessity Presidential visitors; ” enjoying ” underage girls flown in especially from Paris as personal Christmas presents. For normals, an incomprehensible contempt for fellow beings; and of course a crime.

        Penguin deserved every penny it lost: its editors were undoubtedly complicit or historically illiterate.

        Around the same time a young woman, wrongly claiming Jewish ethnicity in an effort to lend her submitted book credence and magic holocaust appeal, wrote of her escape from a German camp and wandering in the deep forests of central Europe, [ WITHOUT APPARENTLY RUNNING INTO HANSEL AND GRETEL ], UNTIL TAKEN IN BY A WOLF, [ WITH AN OBVIOUS JEWISH NAME ] WHICH SUCKLED AND RAISED HER WITH HER OWN BROOD UNTIL THE END OF THE WAR.
        It also sold well.

        Others sponsored with Shekels visit American and Canadian schools to tell impressionable young, future tax-payers, contributing to Obama’s 38 billion, of their harrowing ordeals and explain away an absent tattoo, by stating that Mengele personally removed it as one of his human experiments.

        Every reader here should read the excellent, brief explanation of what constitutes truth to Jews, suggested by your linked NEWSLETTER.

        [ Little wonder people seek them out as lawyers and lawyers nominate them for judgeships; at least here in the tundra ].

        • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
          October 11, 2017 - 8:41 am | Permalink

          Charles, Re: Hotels above
          To the best of my knowledge the riot at Christie Park was a one off local thing. If there were signs posted, they were put up by locals, not the City of Toronto. My uncle, who was a long time member of the Granite Club, always jokingly referred to Jews as “the chosen people”, and when Forrest Hills was becoming an enclave for them, snidely referred to it being a sign of their oppression.
          To be sure there were unwritten and unspoken restrictions, which invariably have led to the Jews forming their own organizations mirroring our own. In fact, today there are more Jewish clubs/organizations being formed (including unwritten restrictions) than there ever existed for Whites. The restrictions were seldom, if ever in large commercial enterprises, like hotels.

          • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
            October 15, 2017 - 10:04 am | Permalink

            Dear Curmudgeon,

            Apropos your uncle: I think, my friend, that you are to be commended for your choice of elders!

    • Curmudgeon's Gravatar Curmudgeon
      October 7, 2017 - 1:57 pm | Permalink

      Americans may be able to ask questions about events, but most of the “West” cannot as it lives under the thumb of those, whose name must not be spoken, where opinions can be criminalized. Thank God for your (ever shrinking) First Amendment rights.
      Take Canadian Arthur Topham, for example. His website published a parody of Theodore Kaufman’s “Germany Must Perish!” by changing Germany to Israel, and German to Jew. He was found guilty of promoting “hate”. It didn’t matter that: “Germany Must Perish!” was not considered hate; Topham’s wife was Jewish; and that Gilad Atzmon testified on his behalf. It is the same story everywhere, and the repression is needed to keep the official narrative of pogroms and genocides alive.
      Many of us, outside the US must, of necessity be more circumspect. Rehmat has it easy, he only needs to cry out “Islamophobia”.

    • October 9, 2017 - 1:15 pm | Permalink

      It’s like the evils of Amrican slavery: as slaves, blacks doubled and tripled their numbers; as former slaves, they’ve also doubled and tripled their numbers. If slavery had been as bad as claimed, their numbers would have shrunk; if the Legacy of Slavery were as terrible and crippling as we’re told continuously, their numbers would have diminished–but they grow faster than even those of immigrants.

  8. Weaver's Gravatar Weaver
    October 7, 2017 - 3:33 pm | Permalink

    That’s an excellent Eliot quote. And Feinstein makes for an excellent opponent, in addition to Soros.

    Hubert Collins is correct that a legitimate opposition is needed, but I would say what we have is more of a controlled opposition that successfully manipulates the GOP base into taking the wrong stands, valuing the wrong things. So, it’s worse than a weak opposition. And I’m sure Mr. Collins would agree, as would most anyone else.

    As a result of misdirection though, if I dare to speak certain positions, I’m accused of being a “Marxist”, though I wholly reject the welfare state. My political interest is in seeing whites endure until whites are once again competent and educated. So, I don’t blindly take “Republican” positions in compliance with a false opposition that has defined such positions as “right-wing”. I take whatever position appears best, or least damaging, at a given moment and within a given political balance.

    Jews have been very anti-white, but it’s also important of course to highlight how whites can grow stronger, to enable us to win our freedom. For example, we can be less vulnerable to culture war… So, blaming Jews alone isn’t productive I think. It’s important to focus on how whites can one day win a slave revolt, one day breath freedom. And while we shouldn’t beg others for sympathy, it is of course important that we highlight our good moral cause. To win one’s freedom, a polity of one’s own, is a noble venture.

    • Bennis Mardens's Gravatar Bennis Mardens
      October 7, 2017 - 6:00 pm | Permalink

      You might want to read “The Culture of Critique.”

      • Andy's Gravatar Andy
        October 8, 2017 - 8:32 am | Permalink

        You might also like to look at “Masters of Discourse” by Israel Shamir. This author converted from Judaism to the Orthodox Church, he writes about how organised Jewry is bent on, as he puts it ‘world hegemony’. The book shows just how well we are cognitively managed. I think it will show just how effective they’ve been at forefurthering their interests and what these interests are.


  9. Bennis Mardens's Gravatar Bennis Mardens
    October 7, 2017 - 5:59 pm | Permalink

    Feinstein is a deeply evil human being, and she should not be allowed to hold public office. She hates America and she hates the American people. She’s a despicable old witch and one day she will surely burn in hell.
    Ask me how I really feel about Diane Feinstein.

  10. October 8, 2017 - 5:03 am | Permalink

    The author could have mentioned Feinstein’s habit of profiting financially from her senate actions, by way of having her husband invest using the insider information she provides him. It’s also noteworthy that a construction firm associated with Feinstein’s husband won the “Crazy Train” contract even after being ruled not capable of doing the work, at the expense of two qualified construction companies.

  11. October 8, 2017 - 6:42 am | Permalink

    The People’s Temple was a CIA operation, Jones being recruited by a high school friend who had joined the agency. It was, in a sense, a precursor to the “Color Revolutions” of Eastern Europe. CIA wanted to create and steer political movements, and political movements of the “left” were of particular interest to them because they were in competition with the USSR for control of the left. San Francisco and Stanford University were hotbeds of CIA activity at the time.

    By the time they moved to South America, the People’s Temple had evolved into a large scale pharmaceutical experiment, the members being given large doses of experimental drugs daily in the context of forced labor and Jones’ voice being broadcast via loudspeakers 24 hours a day. In the parlance of the time, it was a “mind control program” and related to the now well known MK-Ultra program. When word of the experiments got out, someone, presumably CIA station chief Richard Dwyer, apparently gave the order to “pull the plug” and the entire cult was murdered. The story of the “Kool Aide” is completely false, most were shot, others were given lethal injection; only the children were given poisoned drinks.

    Leo Ryan’s Chief of Staff Joseph Holsinger’s testimony to Congress is quite revealing:


    CIA was running a similar experiment in the Guatemalan mental hospital that was bombed by US forces after leftists guerrillas staged a coup during the Reagan administration. In fact, the entire purpose of the Guatemalan invasion was to destroy the hospital so the records of the CIA experiment would not fall into the hands of USSR aligned governments.

    What is so surprising is how well documented this all is, although no one on the right or the left wants to remember it. The left doesn’t want to acknowledge how much of their movement has been astro-turf by the same liberal capitalists they pretend to oppose, and the right simply wants to smear the left.

    But the real history is far more interesting and far more illuminating.

  12. October 11, 2017 - 9:19 pm | Permalink

    To the author of this hypercritical article against Senator Feinstein: 1. She is only part Jewish, not actually Jewish according to Jewish law; 2. Being solidly pro-immigration is NOT a Jewish attribute, many Jews (such as myself) think that immigration to the US has gone way too far; 3. If you think that she has done a poor job as senator, then by all means you should advocate for California voters to oppose her in the next election (that is, IF she even runs again.).

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      October 15, 2017 - 10:18 am | Permalink

      She is only part Jewish, not actually Jewish according to Jewish law …

      What a relief to learn that her Christophobia and her hatred of the white people of this nation, the people who made her career possible and whom she has exploited, disfranchised, and robbed blind for decades, can’t be put down to her nonexistent Jewishness! Yet I am left to wonder how much more intense those charming characteristics of hers would be were she fully and certifiably kosher.

      I pass over in silence the rudimentary observation that determining how “Jewish law” differs from “whatever serves my present purposes” is a labor best left to Heracles.

Comments are closed.