Did He Just Say That? A Review of “Someone Has to Say It: The Hidden History of How America Was Lost” by Tom Kawczynski

Someone Has to Say It: The Hidden History of How America Was Lost
Tom Kawczynski

Do you ever wonder what happened to America? Do you wonder how we went from a stable, prosperous land in the 1950s — a land whose cities were the jewels of the world with neighborhoods where no one locked their doors and an education system that was second-to-none — to a country where it isn’t safe to walk the streets at night, and where huge numbers of people graduate high school unable to read, but fully convinced that White heterosexual men (particularly those of the working class) are StupidEvilRacistSexistNazisWhoWannaKillSixMillionJews? Do you wonder where strident feminism came from? How about the “trans-gender” agenda? Do you wonder who’s behind the rise of militant black racism or open borders? Or why radical red guard-style communists, masquerading as “anti-fascists”, are free to roam our streets attacking any White person, they deem “racist”, or “sexist”, or “homophobic”, etc., with relative impunity? In short, have you wondered how we lost America?

In January of this year, Tom Kawczynski found himself at the epicenter of a manufactured national media firestorm designed to force him out of his position as the town manager of Jackman, a small community in rural northern Maine, for daring to ask these questions. Jackman’s loss was America’s gain. His forced resignation gave him the time to answer these questions and more.

In Someone Has to Say It: The Hidden History of How America Was Lost, Kawczynski weaves a tangle of apparently disparate threads into a sweeping historical account of the consolidation of globalist power that defines the history of the last century in the West; it tells the story of how we’ve become who we are. His slim (238-page), compelling “popular history” offers an expansive vision enhanced by his fluid style and sustained with remarkable clarity. It contains many insights, and touches upon every major issue of our time — from economics to the politics of identity, from the failure of our school system to the shadowy power of the “Deep State.” “This book is about the destruction of beliefs we once held”, Kawczynski writes, “and ideas that were important to us.” The following is a short list of just some of the topics about which our beliefs and ideas have been destroyed:

  • race
  • the battle of the sexes
  • the queer agenda
  • immigration
  • communism
  • socialism
  • World War II
  • hyper-taxation combined with federal mandates to local communities
  • the military-industrial complex
  • the security/police state
  • the controlled media
  • the myth of perpetual growth
  • invade the world/invite the world
  • the drug epidemic
  • the Kennedy assassination
  • respectable conservatives
  • technology
  • and much, much more

Writing from the perspective of a historian with a deep reserve of contextual understanding, Kawczynski begins with the story of how he was forced to resign, and uses that as a launching-pad for the bigger story of how America got to be the way it is. His prologue also provides the reader with some background on Kawczynski and exposes his fundamental views — including his biases. For instance:

My parents taught me to be honest, and always strive for the truth to the very best of my ability and without  fear for the consequences. I’ve written this book with this understanding. My hope is that it will serve as a beacon for others in their own search and help those out there to understand both my own efforts and those of many others who are branded as evil and wicked by the lying media.

While acknowledging that “History is messy because there are many contradictory actors and agendas all at work” and stating that he’s “not going to try to offer . . . a narrative that removes that ambiguity,” Kawczynski argues against the “accidental” view of history that most of us accept (because it is presented as fact by establishment historians and promulgated by the mass media) and presents a strong case for what he calls the “conspiratorial” view.

The accidental view would have us believe that the history of the last hundred years is “a series of coincidences in the search for greater liberty, the proverbial freedom from previous strictures and the happenstance outcome of individual battles pushing the nation in the direction of greater liberalization” and that people don’t organize into groups to gain power and then lie about why they are organizing. Kawczynski suggests that what has happened to America “is no accident, but rather the result of a series of actions spanning the last hundred plus years that saw the deliberate deconstruction of every source of authority and tradition in American life.” However, many are beginning to “see what was done as the concentrated effort of a few actors — whether they be individual or within certain groups — trying to reshape society to amass greater power or advantage for their cause.”

He then goes on to demonstrate the comprehensiveness of Jewish involvement in everything antithetical to the interests of White America and suggests “we should ask why we keep finding them far more than any natural distribution whenever efforts are made to undo our society.” He recounts this Jewish involvement in dozens of issues, great and small, recognizing, for instance, that the Rosenbergs (who sold atomic secrets to the Soviets) were Jews. He notes that “It would have been interesting to hear Oswald’s defense, but he was murdered just two days later by Jack Ruby, a man born Jacob Rubenstein in Chicago and who ran a night club in Texas”; and he comments on “how heavily involved [Jews] were with the creation of the Soviet Union,” not to mention international communism, in general.

He goes far beyond merely blaming Jews, however, and makes the case that the beliefs and actions of Whites are a big part of the problem by presenting a panoply of players — from feminist activists to corporatist stooges — and showing how, under the influence of Jewish hegemony, their collaboration enables the destruction of Western nations.

When discussing Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s blockade on Japan’s fuel supply which forced Japan’s hand in attacking Pearl Harbor, he informs us that,

it’s interesting the most valuable assets of the American fleet, the aircraft carriers were all safely away from Oahu. For all the code breaking prowess of the United States, and their own war planning conducted by General Mitchell, they had thought Japan might one day try a first strike attack, but security was strangely lax. Rumors persist to this day the British knew the attack was coming, but the prize of seeing the sleeping giant that was American mobilization brought into the war [was motivation enough].

He examines the creeping power of the state and illustrates how each leftist movement (multiculturalism, corporatism, Marxism, feminism, queerism, etc.) helps to advance it by convincing Whites, particularly heterosexual White men of the working/middle class, to be ever more “atomized” individuals, while simultaneously weaponizing everyone else by not only allowing, but encouraging, them to join with their respective identity collective to act as agents for “change”. These change agents, in turn, act to destroy White nations in an effort to bring about global governance which he calls “globalism 2.0.” The logic behind this is to “force everyone together into one group by whatever means necessary, and watch the differences resolve themselves.”

A major platform of this new globalism is the destruction of local communities, both via demographic change and through economic ruin — a phenomenon Kawcyznski is intimately acquainted with because of his role as town manager. According to Kawczynski, the federal government destroys “the ability of the local community to sustain itself. Sucking all the oxygen out of the room with the massive taxes they collect at the federal level and the administrative mandates which every town, city, and state struggles to comply with.” Hyper-taxation at the federal level steals funds from local governments which the feds then give back, but with restrictions. These restrictions come in the form of mandates which allow the federal government to circumvent Constitutional limitations on federal power. For instance, the Constitution makes it clear that education is a local concern and the federal government has no say. But by taking our taxes away from us and then giving them back, they can demand that local communities comply with federal rules on education.

In his chapter on “The War of the Sexes”, Kawczynski briefly touches upon many of the profound problems of feminism, including the negative economic impact of feminism, which is only rarely discussed. He points out that “where the old system had one person, almost always the man working to make enough money to sustain his wife and family, this new system would have two parents working, each making less as the labor supply swelled with wages dropping accordingly.” Flooding the labor-pool with women reduced wages, making it difficult for most men to earn enough money to support a family, this, combined with racial-flooding, has led to a situation in which — after accounting for inflation — the average man in America now makes less than 60% of what he made in 1971.

Someone Has to Say It captures the dual nature of the essential struggle of White Nationalism: to raise awareness of Jewish power and influence, while simultaneously aiding Whites in recovering a healthy identity which enables them to resist that power and influence. This, in turn, will enable us to reclaim the heritage that rightly belongs to us. Kawczynski is right when he says, “what was done to our country was the work of generations of effort and there will be no quick or easy fix. It will take much pain, effort, and exertion to rediscover what was lost and to build new solutions to our current problems.”

It’s certain true that the fix will not be quick or easy, but it is remarkably simple: just eliminate incentives and subsidies for anti-White groups and re-enable White men to express themselves in a manner that is healthy and natural. In practice this means eliminating all of the various forms of welfare for anti-Whites, including “Affirmative Action,” and allowing White men to think, speak, and behave in ways that are natural for them.

Although long-time readers of The Occidental Observer and other veterans of our struggle will already be familiar with much of the material in the book, there are several informative chapters on topics generally considered side-issues that are nevertheless important to our movement. This reviewer particularly liked Chapter 21 on the Internet, Chapter 23 on climate change, and Chapter 24 on junk food. Further, because of it’s gentle approach to the Jewish Question, it is an excellent introduction for people less informed;  Kawczynski’s approach is unique in that it is suitable as a primer for newbies from both ends of the political spectrum. It explains effectively to those concerned with gun rights and the Muslim Invasion why these things are happening while at the same time demonstrating to “progressives” why they are part of the elitist globalization problem — not the solution. Someone Has to Say It makes an excellent gift for friends and family members who could benefit from a gentle introduction to our concerns, as well as a great donation for a local library.

41 replies
  1. Blue Corgi
    Blue Corgi says:

    Thanks for introducing us to Kawczynski’s book. That guy exemplifies, with his courage and good will effort here, what is noble (and thus targetable by the enemy) in western civ. I’ll look for copies of this to give to a few folks in my circles, who might be open enough to consider these ideas (but for whom my heavier-handed verbalizing would be a bit much).

  2. Joey Virgo
    Joey Virgo says:

    Russell James, you sold me on this book by Tom Kawczynski. And I’d like to buy more copies for my relatives as well.

  3. Right man for the job
    Right man for the job says:

    “‘Someone Has to Say It’ makes an excellent gift for friends and family members who could benefit from a GENTILE introduction to our concerns, as well as a great donation for a local library.”

  4. William Gruff
    William Gruff says:

    Only Americans believe their cities were the Jewels of the world. To appeal to a wider audience Americans should, at the least, make credible statements.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Most regrettably, I have to agree with you. And what about its standing in education in the world. Somewhere around 27th today and worse during the post war era and going down; with a vast improvement in holocaust studies and basket-weaving, but without religious instruction or even its minimal replacement by instructions in Ethics.

    • Peter
      Peter says:

      I think most American cities in the 1950’s were probably much nicer than they were today. E Michael Jones discusses this in several videos of his. They may have also been the Jewels of the world in the 1950’s for the same reason GM, Ford and Chrysler were the dominant auto manufacturers of the world. Much of Europe (and Japan) was destroyed and still recovering. Cities were still being rebuilt, and that would continue to a lesser degree for several decades.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Thanks for a thoughtful and very just assessment, Peter.

        In discussing cities, it probably ought to go without saying that true “jewel” status—think diamond, ruby, sapphire, emerald—involves a considerable amount of antiquity, and the problem for Americans is that antiquity is something in short supply in the New World.* But if one is prepared to lower his sights a bit—say, to the semiprecious level of amethyst, carnelian, or jasper—the jewel metaphor acquires pretty sturdy analogical legs.

        The locus classicus of decline, as Peter’s comment hints, is Detroit. As late as the mid-fifties, some of the more farsighted of its leading citizens still thought that it might one day rival the great inland cities of Europe: Prague, Vienna, Berlin. Superior universities and colleges virtually littered southern Michigan’s landscape. Wealthy and upwardly mobile people wanted to move there, not least because summering on the nearby Upper Peninsula was an enviable prospect. World-class conductors vied to serve as its symphony orchestra’s music director, and for touring pianists and violinists, Detroit was, until the seventies, a much more prestigious locale than Washington, LA, St. Louis, or any city in the then still un-Yankee’d South.

        By 1985, of course, the city was an open cesspit. Dystopian nightmares were the stuff of everyday life. Detroit had become what it remains: the template of what the Jews have planned for the rest of the formerly Christian West.
        *For antiquity, Mexico City comes closest, I suppose. But really, would it seem like a jewel to anyone other than a native of Kinshasa or Monrovia?

  5. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    “In politics nothing that happens by accident. If it happens was planned that way.” -Franklin Roosevelt
    “Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” Woodrow Wilson

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Not ” … men’s views confided to me privately “, which resulted in their enumerated reactions: but a PROJECTION of what WW personally experienced at the hands of Jewish Zionist lawyer Untermeyer.

      Namely, Untermeyer proffering the pre-presidential Princeton professor the sum of $ 50,000, way beyond WW’s ability to raise otherwise, to either forestall or satisfy a suit against him for his unwise extra-marital affair with a fellow professor’s wife: who herself may have played the role of a honey trap; wittingly and remunerated, or otherwise.

      The quid pro quo for the eventually forgiven loan ? WW would have to grant Untermeyer the right to nominate/appoint the next Supreme Court Justice. Brother Zionist Brandeis [ University ] was the beneficiary.

      A somewhat less complicated process in those good old days than today.

      The specific number of the Protocol to gain control over personages in power, or likely to be in power, by ” compromising ” them, escapes me.

    • Yeoman Archer (Frey)
      Yeoman Archer (Frey) says:

      Thank you Karen, for highlighting these quotes!
      We should add that Wilson placed us into perpetual economic slavery with his signature enabling the Federal Reserve and along with his socialist buddy, FDR plunged us into not one, but two (2) World Wars, so that Christians would be killed by their fellow Christians.
      And, don’t forget one of FDR’s many good deeds, the Social Security act, whereby the Talmud enforcers can keep track of us.

  6. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    Thanks to Russell James for writing this review and to KM for electing to publish it here at TOO.

    I am very impressed that Tom Kawczynski knows, with reference to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, that

    … the most valuable assets of the American fleet, the aircraft carriers were all safely away from Oahu …

    This statement leads me to think that he’s someone who might be a major asset to our cause rather than merely another publicity-hungry self-promoter.

    I learned what lies behind the quoted remark only about twenty years ago, and that was thanks to hearing a presentation on the subject by retired Navy Captain Edward L. Beach (1918–2002). Beach (of whose books about undersea warfare I’d been a boyhood fan) was a widely respected authority on naval strategy, especially regarding submarines, which he served in and commanded for most of his career. On that occasion Beach became the first naval expert I ever heard state bluntly that prior to World War II, every strategist in the navy considered carriers the only surface vessels that would have strategic importance in the next war. All others, as relics of earlier naval wars, were useful only as tactical support vessels, and, as such, dispensable.

    Many here at TOO already know that in the first week of December 1941, the naval commander at Pearl, Admiral H. E. Kimmel, was ordered by Washington, contrary to his own expressed recommendations, to keep the bulk of the Pacific fleet at anchor. The carriers alone were to be dispatched on maneuvers, and the course they were ordered to follow took them due east. They were thus out of the picture on the morning of the 7th.

    Not coincidentally, Captain Beach had for decades labored to rehabilitate the reputations of both senior military commanders at Pearl, Admiral Kimmel and General Short. In what is still a largely overlooked aspect of Washington’s perfidy, both officers were kept in the dark beforehand by FDR and George Marshall and afterward relieved of command in disgrace. All of this is documented in Beach’s book “Scapegoat: A Defense of Kimmel and Short.” Nevertheless, as FDR sycophancy and “greatest generation” propaganda are still blue-chip stocks in government, academia, and the media, I was unsurprised not long ago to hear some Jewish “expert” refer offhandedly on C-SPAN to the two officers’ “gross incompetence.”

    Why is Beach’s analysis, which is so widely shared by serious naval historians as to be a commonplace, absent from most standard histories and never mentioned at the thousands of self-delusional commemorations that plague the land every December 7? Ask any amateur or professional keeper of the FDR flame if the answer doesn’t come immediately to mind.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Pierre, little wonder the C-SPAN Jew EXPERT referred to the ” gross incompetence ” of the two CO’s.

      He is thus running interference, among other things, for the relevant and causal fact, that Morgenthau’s man Harry Dexter White [ Weiss ] was run by GRU HQ from Moscow, in whose fatherland’s interest this swine drew up a calculatedly unacceptable ultimatum to the Japanese, that they could not possibly accept.

      Swine Weiss preferred to guard his ideological fatherland against Japanese further expansion westward, destroying or at least endangering this greatest of all human experiments. Weiss hoped, with this ultimatum passed to State, to draw the Japanese south instead.

      Of course the timely withdrawal of the four carriers all but proves foreknowledge. The US also had cracked the Japanese Naval Code. Additionally, four J mini-subs had been destroyed and one captured in tact, with is operator becoming the first POW.

      Even occasional readers or listeners of David Irving know of his disdain for so called academic ” historical research ” based on secondary, even tertiary ” sources “.

      During a private talk in Ottawa and probably elsewhere, he related a primary source interview with Churchill’s butler, who was serving dinner with US Ambassador Kennedy as guest.

      An outside servant apologetically interrupted the butler and urged him to come to the phone. He did so and returned to the table to advise Churchill, that he was urgently required to answer. Churchill did so and shortly returned, without showing even the slightest emotion. As an aside, he told Kennedy, that Japan had just attacked Pearl Harbor.

      Since then things have merely worsened.

  7. jerry Cornelius
    jerry Cornelius says:

    That other Kaczynski Called Ted also write a good essay, his 30,000-word Manifesto. He goes right after ”leftism” a very good read, I also never knew he was duped into an experiment by CIA psychs. Is very much worth reading.
    I hope I will soon be able to buy this book that was reviewed. I am in the UK and cannot believe the changes here as well as America. whilst on the topic of books, I was looking for other works on the Soviet Gulags by Alexander Solzhenitsyn after reading ”A day in the life of Ivan Denisovich” and came across ”200 years with us” about 200 years of the Jews in Russia, I started to investigate and found the book has no translations into English, this appears to be a deliberate suppression. Described as the best writer of the twentieth century, they say ” oh he was getting old and a bit dotty” even though he spent ten years researching and meticulously citing sources (he knew what was coming down on his head).
    The only copy is one put together painstakingly on the net by L.T Kizhe incomplete but a great effort.
    It would be advisable to download it before it may disappear again and one day maybe it can be translated properly.

  8. Tom Kawczynski
    Tom Kawczynski says:

    I just want to thank Russell for his fair and excellent review, and offer my thanks to everyone who reads and purchases this book. Your support has meant much to me and my family as we struggle to reclaim positive white identity, and I appreciate each of you.

  9. Karen T
    Karen T says:

    IT…beauty, truth, ascendance …mankind’s destiny…retarded by any and every means. Don’t bite the apple!

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      You’re welcome, of course. But the real credit goes to T. J., the first to bring it to the site’s attention.
      NB: It’s Craon; i.e., no “y” in the middle. Originally it was a place-name, not a precursor of the magic marker!

  10. Pierre de Craon
    Pierre de Craon says:

    Good choice, Bill Buckley discussed [Jane Jacobs’s] work in some of his writings.

    Jane Jacobs’s book is very interesting and insightful—ultimately more for its diagnoses than for its prescriptions—despite its having attracted Buckley’s skin-deep journalistic interest, not because of it.

    That said, two things need to be noted about Jacobs.
    (1) All her theories depend on a stable, homegrown population. In other words, what the USA had become prior to the Hart-Celler Act of 1965. Depending upon how gravely one views the present crisis of the white West, Jacobs’s theories are now either the stuff of sentimental historical fiction or a fragment of a landscape on an Atlantis about to sink beneath the waves forever.
    (2) Jacobs and her greatest admirers, most of whom have been rich beyond dreams of avarice and virtually all of whom have been hard-core statists, have lived, sans peur et sans reproche, the doublethink of preaching an “organic” rather than a “planned” (= Robert Moses et al.) urban environment while pressing incessantly for teeth to be put into their “recommendations.” But then, they doubtless know what’s best for us all, n’est-ce pas?

  11. Dante Phillips
    Dante Phillips says:

    ‘Do you ever wonder what happened to America? Do you wonder how we went from a stable, prosperous land in the 1950s — a land whose cities were the jewels of the world with neighborhoods where no one locked their doors and an education system that was second-to-none — to a country where it isn’t safe to walk the streets at night, and where huge numbers of people graduate high school unable to read, but fully convinced that White heterosexual men (particularly those of the working class) are StupidEvilRacistSexistNazisWhoWannaKillSixMillionJews? Do you wonder where strident feminism came from? How about the “trans-gender” agenda? Do you wonder who’s behind the rise of militant black racism or open borders? Or why radical red guard-style communists, masquerading as “anti-fascists”, are free to roam our streets attacking any White person, they deem “racist”, or “sexist”, or “homophobic”, etc., with relative impunity?’

    Actually no I discovered the Jewish question a good ten years ago.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Mr. Phillips: The quoted passage merits more than offhand dismissal. Professor MacDonald doesn’t patronize us, his readers, nor does he engage guest authors who do so. Put otherwise, Russell James knows full well that no one who is likely to comment needs to be taken by the hand and led to the “Jewish question.” So the assumption ought to be that the point of the quoted passage is something other—something more—than the simplistic and reductionist one your dismissal implies it is.

      If you just cut Mr. James a modicum of slack, I am confident you can complete this particular journey under your own steam.

  12. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    I know this is off topic, but is related.
    While the town/village officials of Jackman have fired Kawczynski to show they aren’t “racist”, I wonder how many of the areas residents share his views. The past year has seen a flood of “refugees” crossing the Canada – US border. The first wave came into Quebec not far from the Jackman area. While the MSM narrative presented local Quebecois as welcoming, it didn’t take long for the real story to start coming out. That part of Quebec, tends to be quite conservative in the real, not new political, sense, meaning that they do not draw attention to themselves and are reluctant to voice personal opinions publicly. A political boundary, e.g. a border, does not greatly change the opinions of people who have had a generally harmonious 300+ year history.
    I suspect Kawczynski had a lot more support, in Jackman, than anyone would suspect.

    • Pierre de Craon
      Pierre de Craon says:

      Your comment, my friend, is neither O/T nor of merely peripheral interest.

      Implicit in what you write, I believe, is that no adjective is fitter to characterize a stable society than “harmonious.” Our enemies, who hate any harmony not restricted to (((themselves))), work to replace it with what they call diversity. In their lexicon, alas, “diversity” is an Orwellian substitution for “cacophony.”

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        A reply to both you and Curmudgeon: re ” cacophony ” and likely public support.

        I most strongly recommend to everyone here, that they have a very attentive look at the entries for KIRYAS JOEL, a Hasidic village in upstate NY: 45 miles from you and their brethren in Williamsburg, Brooklyn.

        These Hasidic Jews are under the absolutist control of a Satmar rabbi and the bought and paid for City Council of Monroe, in Orange County.

        Their quickly growing village of Kiryas Joel annexed 164 acres for its growth, from Monroe, after a public referendum opposed it, but was overridden by a few bought votes from Council. Supporting the Satmas were three extremely belligerent and mouthy, probably hired, Mau-Mau types.

        These people ” study ” Tora all day, leaving no time to earn a wage. They have 9 children per family; the mean age is 14. Their rent is Albany subsidized, as is their bill for education and health care. Cuomo sided with them ” not for their sake, but for the sake of their children “, steering clear of the separation of Church and State, as reiterated by a Supreme Court decision between them and a citizen.

        I could go on, but better invest your time in viewing this abomination: along with peripheral links. This group, since its inception in Hungary, is anti-Zionist and even protested Trump’s relocation of your Embassy.

        What happened to TK is not unexpected but shrinks by comparison. I couldn’t agree more with your two assessments. Their MO in this geographically circumscribed matter is identical to their national, indeed international MO : in every detail


  13. Johnny Rottenborough
    Johnny Rottenborough says:

    *a stable, prosperous land in the 1950s*

    On page 50 of his book ‘Reflections on the Revolution in Europe’, Christopher Caldwell gives a 19th century example of immigration gone wrong:

    ‘…the arrival of the Irish in Boston destroyed the Protestant culture of one of the most important cities in the history of Protestantism. The destruction occurred not only because the Irish arrived but because New England Yankees chose not to live in an Irish-run city that was increasingly violent and corrupt. As Oscar Handlin noted, only half the descendants of the Bostonians of 1820 still lived in the city thirty years later.’

    • George Kocan
      George Kocan says:

      I am not a fan of Protestant culture, but I do think that this book confirms my own observations and readings concerning Irish immigration.

    • Thundertoad
      Thundertoad says:

      But they brought Halloween and Step-Dancing.

      Those stuck-up Yankees should have hung around. Even the abolitionists would have learned a sense of humour from the Irish, and quit all that self-righteous virtue signalling they were famous for, and would have just gone to the pub with the lads.

      No Irishman (or woman) would have written that abomination, “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

      “In the Kali Yuga, the Thundertoad shall belch forth hideous ichors.”

  14. Rerevisionist
    Rerevisionist says:

    I’m watching with great concern Kevin MacDonald’s talk on ‘The Puritan Intellectual Tradition in America’. He talks of a new book, but judging by his comments he’s working on something which will be seen as outdated and incorrect. He doesn’t mention–
    [1] English Civil War as Cromwell paid to introduce Jews into England, to form the ‘Bank of England’
    [2] Bank of England as controlling the US – MacDonald doesn’t seem to realise that money was used to invade north America, and set up land ownership etc.
    [3] MacDonald’s enthusiasm for individualistic whites seems a huge overstatement. Everything they used, took to America, wore, ate, etc etc was not individualistic, probably it was a bit of fake praise to get them to spend their lives in the wilderness.
    [4] MacDonald seems to have no idea of the way churches are funded. He’s like someone who’s been told:- you must NOT talk about money. He doesn’t see the force of Mathis’s work on Fox and the Quakers.
    [5] He doesn’t seem to know that many writers have their agendas, often to get money for their church or farm. It’s painfully silly to call them all ‘intellectuals’.
    [6] He doesn’t mention 1913; the ‘Fed’ must be one of the most important legal/money organisations and led the way straight to both world wars, in which Jews played huge parts, unfortunately.
    [7] He mentions slavery, with no discussion of the then-new machines; there must have been Jewish movements to dodge their way out of slavery.
    [8] The US ‘Civil War’ ….
    [9] The idea that moral fervour is part of whites isn’t convincing. Ask Germans who were bombed, etc
    [10] Please, please get out of the Jew slang – ‘left’ ‘right’ etc. Please!
    I’m pleading with KM to update his thinking to include facts about money power, instead of just quoting texts and writings as though they had no motive for saying what they did.

Comments are closed.