Student Life and the Alt-Right: Reply to Prof. Griffin

As a relatively new movement—some 10 years old now—the alt-right, like any such movement, must be open to continual refinement and articulation.  Thus it is both to be expected, and welcome, that we get a range of opinions from diverse perspectives.  People have different experiences and different knowledge bases, and they naturally approach such a topic from different angles.  This is especially true here, given that we are dealing with a serious and potent social theory, one that furthermore comes into direct conflict with the prevailing power structures in the West.  In such a case, we need to hear the pros and cons of our various ideas, especially from thoughtful and knowledgeable colleagues.

Thus I was pleased to read Dr. Robert Griffin’s critical reply (here) to my recent piece, “The ABC’s of the Alt-Right” (here).  He shares a common background with me, and has a similar interest in campus life in particular—as do many contributors here, not the least, Prof. MacDonald.  I can’t match Dr. Griffin’s 47 years of teaching, but I have been teaching at universities on and off (mostly on) since the early 1980s, which gives me well over 30 years’ experience.  I have taught at three different American universities, and one foreign, in that time.  Perhaps more to the point, throughout much of that period I have been actively involved with student groups and student activists, often serving as an official or unofficial faculty advisor; this experience helped to inform my previous essay.  Though he does not say so explicitly, I get the impression that Dr. Griffin has perhaps less direct experience in working with student groups.  Be that as it may, I will take a look at his many helpful remarks, to see if I can offer a response or rebuttal.  After all, we share many of the same goals, and so it is certainly worthwhile to examine our different thoughts on how to arrive at them.

To begin with, Dr. Griffin jumps directly to my final section, “How to Organize.”  I take this to mean that he is in broad agreement with the first two sections.  My initial “Preamble” laid out some history and context of the dissident right, and identified the three pillars of alt-right philosophy:  1) biology is destiny, 2) Whites and White culture deserve defense, and 3) Jews pose an overriding threat to White interests.  My short middle section offered a “brief manifesto” of White nationalism, summarizing its nine key points, and emphasizing the scientific, non-violent, and ‘non-hatred’ nature of such a view.  The three pillars seem to be widely recognized, whereas the nine points of White nationalism are my interpretation of this worldview.  Given that he offers no comment at all on these issues, I have to assume that Griffin accepts the general outline that I presented.  This is unsurprising; as an alt-right forum advocating for White interests, any TOO contributor should naturally endorse such an outlook, broadly speaking.

The disagreements come in my final section, where I offer thoughts on how to promote and advance an alt-right view on college campuses.  It goes without saying that there is no one “right way” to do this, and the wide variability in campus cultures, student bodies, local social attitudes, and individual student beliefs necessarily requires much flexibility in how to implement such a program.  My original essay was, indeed, a “guide” in every sense of the word:  guidelines and recommendations, thought-starters and practical advice.  It was never intended to lay down the law on student alt-right activism.

In that section, I gave 31 bullet-point items of brief discussion.  Griffin offers critical commentary on 13 of these; hence I presume that he has little or no objection to the remaining 18 (it’s always good to note points of agreement).  Thus we will focus on the points of contention.

(1)  Students have more power than they think.[1]  Griffin emphasizes the difference between individual and collective power.  Yes, of course, any one student has only a microscopic impact on university finances, as does any one taxpayer with respect to his state or federal government.  My main point was that students are, in large part, funders of the university; they (or yes, their parents) are the paying customers; and as such, they have all the rights of any paying customer.  They have the right to be treated fairly and with respect.  They have the right to complain.  They have the right to point out abuses or incompetence on the part of their “employees.”  And they have no particular obligation to their fellow paying customers, provided that they follow the broad rules of behavior that apply equally to all.  That said, I see no real point of disagreement here.  Yes, it’s more complicated than taking your money elsewhere, but the principle is the same.  You pay (a lot!), and you have rights.  Don’t let your “employees” tell you otherwise.

(2)  Stay within the rules of the university, and they can’t punish you.  Here, we begin to get into more substantive disagreements.  Dr. Griffin seems inordinately sensitive to negative opinions of others.  Or at least, he is imputing such sensitivity to many (most?) students.  I guess it goes without saying that if you are a sensitive flower, don’t become an alt-right activist.  Anyone bothered by “verbal disconfirmation,” “looks of disdain,” or not being called on in class is probably too immature to engage in contentious politics.  Same with anyone affected by “put-downs, smirks, snubs, exclusion” or social media bashing.  The movement needs young people with a thick skin and a strong backbone.

And I don’t know how things work at Vermont, but in my experience, a professor cannot simply dish out “bad grades” to students he doesn’t like.  Sure, some things are subjective, but much is not.  A biased professor is likely to get called out and have to explain himself.  I have had many students whom I found distasteful, but I always gave them fair grades and never considered using grades as a weapon.  Any such individual professor who might do that can usually be safely avoided.

Or is Griffin implying that masses of faculty—all Jewish professors, say, or all liberals—would recognize and collectively retaliate against a specific student?  That’s highly unlikely, in my experience.  But if the whole college is indeed out to get you, then you really are making a mark!

(3)  Create an explicitly alt-right student group or club.  Though I wouldn’t call it “centrist,” I agree that a pro-White movement is not intrinsically left or right on the political spectrum.  As I noted, many liberals hold some conservative views, and many conservatives (even alt-righters) have some traditionally liberal opinions.  If it’s true that many academics avoid self-labeling these days as liberal or left, that doesn’t mean that they are centrists; rather, they are crypto-leftists, which is worse.  Griffin seems to want students to be crypto-rightists.  In fact, he says as much later on, with his recommendation to be like the French underground in WW2, and his call for “secret meetings,” “pseudonyms,” “codes,” and so on.  Certainly this is always an option, but it probably is not the preferred approach.  Alt-right (or dissident right) students should be free—are free—to self-identify as such.  And without penalty.  That should not require defense in an alt-right forum like TOO, but apparently it does.

(4)  Don’t make it a guy’s club.  Dr. Griffin suggests that my brief manifesto would alienate young women.  Sorry about that, but that’s the reality of the situation.  I’m not generally in the business of reworking my philosophical views to please a particular gender or age-group.  I try to tell the truth, straight-up, and I would hope that every thinking person, of all ages and both genders, would accept it as such.  MLK’s ideas and values are not much help for us; nor are the Jewish-inspired techniques of emotional manipulation and pity-mongering.  But here again, Griffin’s sensitivity training comes to the fore; his endorsement of “tugging at our heartstrings,” “making us feel sad,” and “getting us to emphasize” (sic erat scriptum—I presume he means ‘empathize’) are to no avail for the alt-right.  But I agree with his other points here:  yes, be patient about getting out your message; yes, focus on that which is unfair and hurtful to Whites.

(5)  Stay agnostic on religion.  Now we’re getting down to brass tacks.  Based on a quick survey of his writing, I’m guessing that Griffin is a committed Christian.  Unsurprisingly, he objects to my sidelining, and mild disparagement, of his religion.  One might speculate that this, in fact, is at the root of his entire critique of my essay.  This is unfortunate—but serves to prove my point.

I’ll say more about Christianity in a moment, but first I want to address two points he raises here.  He suggests that the anti-Christian crowd is also the anti-White crowd, thereby implying that we Whites can’t trust—and certainly shouldn’t side with—any anti-Christians.  The truth is this:  Part of the anti-Christian crowd are Jews, of both orthodox and secular persuasion.  There’s a lot to unpack here, but in short, the orthodox Jews oppose Christians on a theological basis, and the secular Jews on the basis of scientific materialism and rationalism.  Both mock Christianity, but both are able to find some use in it as well, especially in its Zionist form.  The other main group of anti-Christians are the secular, rationalist, and naturalistic Whites.  These people, I would suggest, are among the toughest and most resolute White nationalists.  Griffin’s ploy to link ‘anti-Christian’ and ‘anti-White’ fails to hold.

His second point is that alt-right students should use Christianity to their advantage.  But he offers no concrete suggestions at all (Hey students, “see what you can come up with”).  What, indeed, could one even plausibly “come up with,” in an alt-right sense, from a Christian point of view?

Given that it’s Christmas time, let’s take a minute to examine this matter a bit more closely.  Consider this question:  What in God’s name (so to speak) is even remotely pro-White about the Bible?  I’ll tell you:  nothing.  The Old Testament was written by Jews, about Jews, and for Jews.  It is resolutely anti-goyim.  It is nothing more than a war manual for the defense of the Jewish race, along with some moronic theological cover.  The New Testament was also written by and about Jews:  Jesus, Mary, Joseph, 12 Apostles, Paul, ‘Mark,’ ‘Luke,’ ‘Matthew,’ ‘John’—all ethnic Jews.  The chronology of events, furthermore, strongly suggests that Paul invented his demi-god Jesus, primarily, it seems, as a stunt to undermine Roman paganism and to draw in the gullible masses, to persuade them to worship the Jewish God and his “son.”  With its emphasis on the presumed afterlife, Paul’s constructed theology was profoundly anti-life, anti-world, and anti-corporeality.  He never believed in it—that artful liar—nor did any of his fellow Hebrews.  Present-day Jews are laughing up their sleeve over the foolish Christians and their “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek”; and of course, they are right there, first in line, ready to exploit that love.

There is no sense, then, in which the Bible is pro-White.  In fact, the New Testament, rightly understood as an anti-Roman manifesto, is profoundly anti-White.  At best, we might say that the Bible is pro-humanity.  But even here, it is cloaked with an insidious Jewish leveling of all peoples, all “equal before God”—all except the Jews, who are first among equals.

The bottom line:  Can anyone who worships a long-dead ethnic Jew as his god and personal savior really be alt-right?  Really?  Time to re-read pillar number three.[2]

(6)  Name names, be specific in your critiques.  Again, I don’t know the faculty culture at Vermont, but to suggest that aggrieved Jewish professors might have you “worked over” because of your alt-right views is rather shocking!  (If so, stay away from Vermont.)  And are they really going to haunt you after graduation?  How in the world will they know which jobs you are applying for, unless they work for the Mossad?  This comes across as little more than scare tactics—ones that the Jewish Lobby would certainly view with favor.

(7)  Insults are a badge of honor.  See my reply to (2) above.  Again, if you are a delicate soul, one who is deeply wounded by name-calling, then by all means, don’t become an alt-right activist.

(8)  Learn something about the real Nazis.  Griffin overstates my point.  I never said, “Cozy up to Hitler.”  I said, learn something about him, his situation, and his movement.  There is much of value to learn from history.

(9)  Be visible.  For starters, I am puzzled by my alleged “last sentence” of this item (“And be prepared to take shots for it”).  Where did that come from?  I didn’t write it, and it’s not in my essay now.  In any case, yes, I agree, intentional visibility is optional.  Word will get around soon enough, no matter what you do.  Griffin, though, recommends the opposite—be invisible.  Perhaps this is good advice.  I leave it to each student, and each group, to chose the most appropriate strategy.  I would prefer to see a confident group working fully above-board, but that may not always be prudent.

(10)  An effective group may get shut down.  Same reply as #9.

(11)  Don’t get stuck on ideological labels.  Griffin seems to generally agree with me here, and so no need to reply.  Labels are vague and discretionary.

(12)  Don’t be ‘woke.’  Griffin apparently views Black culture, and in fact all racial minorities, favorably.  Of course, every ethnicity has a right to its own culture and values—but not here, not in this country.  I certainly want Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and so on to be happy, but in their nations of origin.  Neither they nor we can be truly happy in a multiracial, multicultural mish-mash of a nation.  Research data, evolutionary theory, and common sense all support this view.

(13)  Speak the truth.  …unless it starts to hurt, says Griffin, and then knuckle under.  Just stay quiet, keep your head down, hold it in, “get along – go along,” grin and bear it, “cover your ass.”  Or maybe, “Turn the other cheek,” as a Jew once said.  Sorry, but I can’t do that.  Millions do it, on a daily basis, but some of us have to lead.  My original piece was not intended for the masses; it was meant for those few who are the future leaders of their generation.  A medium-sized college campus may only have five or 10 such individuals.  We need to reach them, and help them become strong, confident leaders.

In sum, Griffin offers as much commentary and elaboration as real criticism of my essay.  In contrast to my piece, his scattered suggestions seem to boil down to (a) stay low key, (b) welcome and even use Christianity, and (c) don’t ruffle too many feathers, either with Jews or other minorities.  So be it.  Perhaps some will follow his advice, and others will take the more assertive approach that I recommend.  God knows (so to speak), we need all the help we can get.


Thomas Dalton, PhD, is the author of Debating the Holocaust (2015), Hitler on the Jews (2019), Goebbels on the Jews (2019), and numerous other books on Jews, Germany, and the Holocaust.  See his website

[1] For sake of brevity, I am summarizing the 13 points from my original wording.

[2] It’s clear that simply being a Christian does not exclude one from being anti-Jewish—Martin Luther being a prime example.  See my newly edited version of his important book, On the Jews and Their Lies (Creative Fire Press, 2020).  Obviously there is more to be said on the relationship between Christianity and the alt-right.  If the TOO editor is willing, I would be more than happy to elaborate.

A Rejoinder to “The ABC’s of the Alt-Right: A Guide for Students” by Thomas Dalton, Ph.D.

I read with interest Professor Thomas Dalton’s article posted here on December 8th, 2019, “The ABC’s of the Alt-Right: A Guide for Students.”  As has Professor Dalton, I have spent many years on American university campuses (I recently retired)—in my case, 42 years as a professor, plus an additional five years at the instructor rank early in my career.  And as has Professor Dalton, I have written extensively on white racial matters.  My experiences and analyses have led me to different conclusions and proposals than Professor Dalton expresses in his article, however.  Different doesn’t necessarily mean better—readers will make that judgment.  I hope what I set out here in response to Professor Dalton’s article will prompt reasoned dialogue and debate.

I’ve decided that the best way to get across my take on things is to comment on the last section of Professor Dalton’s article, which he entitles How to Organize.  In this section, he addresses his university student audience (“I now shift my focus to you, the student reader, and your efforts to make a positive impact on this troubled world.”).

I’ll begin this rejoinder with a quote from my writings that gives a sense of my concept of what white university students are like:

I spent my working life around white university students, and of course I’m generalizing here, but based on my experience with them, their most central motivating impulse is to be characterized, by others and themselves, as decent and fair and just—which, by the way, is why the idea of social justice, prevalent in today’s universities, resonates so well with them.  They don’t want to be great, they want to be good.  And they don’t want to be on one end or the other of a social/political spectrum.  Rather, they want to be secure and accepted and respected in the middle of wherever they are, in the dorm or in the community. They very much want to belong; they fear being marginalized.  In sum, they want to be seen, and to see themselves, as OK people. Political correctness in universities—at least as it is pitched to them, as the way to be OK—is very attractive to them.1  

If you are going to attempt to win over the hearts and minds of white university students, you had best take their basic posture, what they are really like, into account.  Those on the left who have gotten themselves center stage in universities have done that extremely well.  White advocates and activists could learn much from how they went about it.

Now to my comments on quotes (in italics) from the section of Professor Dalton’s article, How to Organize:

You have more power than you think.  In a university, you are the paying customer. 

It’s important to distinguish between collective and individual power.  True, collectively students have power as paying customers, to use that term.  But students don’t live their lives collectively; rather, they live their lives one at a time, as separate individuals.  They live inside and direct the being that looks back at them in the mirror.

From the perspective of an individual student—let’s call her Mary Smith—she’s not a paying customer.  Mary’s application was accepted by the university and she feels really good about that, and her parents are proud of her for getting admitted; they drove her to campus just before classes started and helped her move things into her dorm room, and they met her roommate, who seemed very nice.  Being in the university setting is a big adventure for Mary, and it is a test to see if she can make a go of it on her own for the first time.

Yes, Mary could quit school and take her (or her parents’) tuition money with her.  To the university, the loss of a single tuition wouldn’t matter; it would simply admit somebody on the waiting list, no problem.  But to Mary, dropping out of school and perhaps transferring to another university would be a disruptive and, very possibly, upsetting, experience.   It’s no small matter for her to move out of her dorm room or apartment, say goodbye to her friends, break off her connections with her favorite professors and courses, and to end her school activities.  And what will this mean to her parents?  They’ve been telling all the relatives how well Mary is doing in the university, and now she’s checking out.  Will Mary see herself as letting her parents down?  Will she look upon herself as a failure?  You see where I’m going with this: it’s a more complicated matter than students being paying customers who can take their money elsewhere, and if we are going to do well by students, and by universities as a whole, we need to take that complexity into account. Read more

Ethnos Needs Logos (and Genos)

Dr. E. Michael Jones is a prolific and pugnacious Catholic author. He is a great crusader for Truth and I admire his work tremendously. A man who can spin off a thousand pages on the “Jewish Revolutionary Spirit” is clearly a man with important things to say. He makes unexpected and illuminating connections like few others and has a way of reducing complex cultural or social phenomena down into a single blast furnace of a sentence. Oftentimes the result is breathtaking, as in, “modernity is rationalized sexual misbehavior.” Jones began his career by getting fired from St. Mary’s College in South Bend for being against abortion. (Listen to him tell the story.) A bit nonplussed at being considered too Catholic for a Catholic college, he launched his own magazine, now entitled Culture Wars, and almost forty years and a dozen incisive volumes later, shows no sign of slowing down. Anyone who wishes to understand the hidden forces that shape the modern world will find a trove of insights in his large body of work.

In this short essay, however, I venture to take issue with the great Dr. Jones. The “issue” arises from the fact that he insists that race is not an important focus of identity. Being a militant Catholic (in the best sense), Jones maintains that if everyone just converted to Catholicism most modern ills would take care of themselves. In this, I happen to agree with him. Imagine if the Catholic hierarchy actually converted to Catholicism! Not to mention the Jews and Muslims and the LGBT crowd! A lot of problems would vanish instantly. But alas, that’s not happening anytime soon, and meanwhile, we—the men of the West—have a fight on our hands. In short, I believe that race is much more important than Jones is willing to concede, both as a component of individual humans and as a factor in history and culture.

Aware of his stance on race, I recently bought his two booklets Ethnos Needs Logos and Benedict’s Rule. Idly flipping through the first one, I came across the sentence, “Without the Catholic Church, Europe would resemble Somalia.” Now, I like to think I’m a good son of Holy Mother Church, but that statement made me slightly sick to my stomach (see also Kevin MacDonald’s recent comment on the role of the Church in European history). I decided to read the books carefully and work out exactly where I stand in relation to Jones’ ideas.

The genesis of Ethnos Needs Logos was a conference on national identity conducted in Guadalajara, Mexico, during which Jones privately debated David Duke and Mark Weber (of the Institute for Historical Review) over whether race or religion is more responsible for the creation of nations. Jones vigorously expounds the idea that “Logos,” the rational and divine order of the universe as personified in Christ and now embodied in the Catholic Church, is the only force that can raise ethnic groups to the highest level of human culture. Drawing on Hegel’s Lectures on the Philosophy of World History, Jones describes how this process culminates in nationhood and the Christian state. The end of human progress, which involves the progressive understanding and social implementation of the true idea of “freedom,” is thus the Catholic West. In making his point, Jones ridicules the idea that race, mere matter as he calls it, plays a role in the moral development of mankind.

In Benedict’s Rule, published in 2017, a year before Ethnos Needs Logos, Jones discusses how imperial overreach emptied Roman identity of its meaning. (It also emptied Rome of its founding people: Appendix to Chapter 2 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition—a good example of how changing the people also changes the culture.)

Jones goes on to claim that the void after the fall of the Empire was filled by religion and the growth of ethnic groups (“ethnogenesis”). He describes how the ensuing reign of chaotic tribalism was eventually tamed and civilized by the monastic Order of St. Benedict and the Catholic Church. He then switches to modern times to describe how the Church in America “controlled” ethnogenesis by creating cohesive ethnic parishes in northern cities. Jones holds that the Church constituted a powerful “ethnic group” defined by religion. Jones is an adherent of the “triple melting pot” theory, which claims that, in America, religion replaced national origin as the main bond of unity, in consequence of which there were three “ethnic groups” in America: Catholics, Protestants, and Jews. Unfortunately, the Church fell into the trap of joining the “civil rights” movement (and defining justice in racial terms) instead of defending the integrity of its ethnic parishes, and, coincidentally, its own power. Interestingly, Jones says the Catholic parishes in the northern cities should have resisted being broken up by the influx of Blacks into their neighborhoods, although elsewhere he states that “any race-based defense was either illicit or ineffectual.” (Ethnos, 40) The collapse of Catholic power in the 1960s and 1970s permitted the conservative movement to organize disaffected White Catholics, who resented the liberal turn of their Church, into a new “ethnic group.” Jones ends by predicting that globalism will soon usher in a new era of rampant tribalism, and that Islam will be the big winner if the Catholic Church does not return to its traditions.

Jones does not define “ethnic group,” but he uses the term to denote any effective social group, including tribes, religious groups, nations, and even political parties.

All in all, two very interesting booklets that support each other’s arguments with a wealth of trenchant analysis. I found myself agreeing with practically all of it, and was pleasantly intrigued half a dozen times. There is much I would like to discuss—perhaps at a later time—but at present I will confine myself to just two of Dr. Jones’ ideas.

The first statement that caught my attention is that Whites in America embrace White identity only because they are deracinated; they have lost the more important communal bonds of ethnicity and religion and have seized upon an ersatz identity:

The term “white” or “European,” . . . is the infallible sign that we are dealing with advanced deracination. White people are people who lack an identity, and so the only identity they can come up with is a negative one, namely, the opposite of black. (Ethnos, 40)

In fact, White identity in America is as old as the nation itself, especially in the South, given that the racial division between Blacks and Whites has existed since before the founding. Moreover, during the period of ethnic defense culminating in the 1924 immigration law, it was common for White Americans to have a sense racial identity and to feel threatened by immigration, especially immigration of Eastern European Jews. Such ideas, often influenced by Darwinism, were published in prominent media and by publishing houses with excellent establishment reputations. (See Chapter 6 of Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition.)

I agree that many White Americans are deracinated in the current situation, but this is after the rise of a new (fundamentally Jewish) elite and decades of propaganda from the mainstream media, activist organizations, and academia fostering White guilt and the idea that White racial identity (and only White racial identity) is a psychopathology and has no scientific basis—the latter an idea that Jones evidently approves.

The same is true of other identities. Christianity has gone by the wayside; so has identity based on national origins, and even old-style patriotism has been ridiculed and outlawed. Whites are desperately looking for community. (I firmly believe that this loss of identity is the real cause of the high White suicide rate.) Some are looking back to the White heritage of “the West” and trying to develop a focus of attachment and action based on that. If these people can mobilize others to defend White people and Western Culture, then I support their efforts. Along with Dr. Jones, I hope that the West returns to the old Faith, but the question of bare survival is now looming, and I prefer the survival of pagan White culture to the death of all White culture.

Jones denigrates racial identity as materialist and artificial—not simply a lesser choice among various possibilities, but one completely in error. However, the enemies of Western Man and Christianity have grouped heritage Americans into the category of “White,” and are waging war on them—us—on that basis. If we are not interested in seeing ourselves as White, our enemies are. Even more urgently, the demographic situation in America is grinding inexorably onward, precisely against Whites as Whites. Therefore, it seems we will have little choice but to fight under that flag. The longer the enemy wages war against “Whites,” the more defenders will take up the banner thrust into their hands.

I certainly do not regard White identity as negative or artificial. However, if one takes it as a catch-all term, then, yes, it is a very thin concept, because it encompasses so many groups across the world that differ on all points except race. What unites all those Whites in the various nations? Precious little. On what basis could they be united for common action? It is White identity within the various nations that could provide some traction, for there it could draw upon common history and traditions. That is the key: race by itself probably cannot provide a basis for unity and action, but fused with religion, national feeling, and anything else that helps bond society together, it could give rise to a powerful ethnos. Therefore, Whites should seek to reactivate their traditional identities based on religion, nation, or region, as well as on race.

The next fifty years is going to be a riveting lesson in the dynamics of imperial disintegration and ethnogenesis. Seeking solidarity in Whiteness, if it does nothing more than facilitate strong bonds between groups of Whites caught in a civil war fought along racial lines, will have served a vital purpose.

The second point that demands explication is Jones’ denial that race is anything more than mere matter, without importance in relation to the faculties of the soul, human behavior, or society at large. He cuts the ground away completely from any attempt to invest race with meaning for individuals or society:

Race . . . is a creation of the biological materialism which found its most prominent spokesman in Charles Darwin. Materialism is based on the primacy of matter, and matter, as everyone trained in Thomistic philosophy knows, is the principle of differentiation. Matter, therefore, cannot lead to unity.” (Ethnos, 12)

He insists that men are inclined to race pride “because we are all by fallen nature carnal and are always ready to choose material goods over spiritual goods.” (Ethnos, 22)

But why should unity be an overriding goal? This pre-judges the question of whether race exists and whether race a primary dividing line in the contemporary world, resulting in a situation where anti-White hatred is increasingly prominent in the mainstream media and on social media. This utopian ideal of a harmonious humanity united by spiritual ideals ignores the reality of what is happening all around us.

Moreover, the good doctor, it seems to me, is denying heredity and race any role in the mental and moral make-up of men. First, heredity influences human behavior. Genes or other biological factors don’t determine human behavior, because every normal human possesses free will in his actions. However, there is a cascade of modern research that shows how genetic factors predispose people to this behavior or that. Ignoring these data results in a philosophical idealism dedicated to the spiritual unity of mankind in which the mind is completely separate from the body. Jones is quite aware of Jewish influence on the culture of West, but does anyone seriously believe that a philosophical idealism based on the unity of mankind will ever appeal to Jews? Will it ever appeal to the (now virtually hegemonic) cultural left and its addiction to the racial and gender identity politics of division?

Genes can make some people more inclined to alcoholism and violence, among other behaviors. I should stress that no gene or complex of genes can make a person an alcoholic. That would represent the destruction of free will and reduce men to genetic robots. A person repeatedly chooses to drink—that makes an alcoholic. The genes nudge a person in that direction, or incline a person to that behavior, but only the will, seated in the soul, directly pulls the trigger on the action. Thus, genetic factors may sway the will, but do not impel it.

In addition to genetic influence on behavior, there appears in Catholic teaching the idea that heredity contributes to the moral make-up of man.

First, some background. In Catholic teaching, the human is a perfect union of two distinct elements, the body and the soul. The human soul is both the animating principle of the body, and an immortal spirit. (The souls of animals are not spirits and go out of existence with the death of the animal.) The souls of men have spiritual faculties or powers called the intellect and the will. The intellect has its seat in the soul, but it is dependent upon the senses to provide it with material for its operations. How and to what extent the intellect is dependent upon the physical brain is a problem that has long fascinated not only me but also centuries of Catholic theologians and psychologists. As to why intelligence is so variable in humans, there are two possibilities. The first is the idea that the physical quality of the brain, if excellent, permits greater reach and power to the operations of the intellect; however, if it is inferior, it can limit mental performance. The second possibility is that God fashions the soul and its intellect according to the constitution of the body and the brain. Both of these cases permit the conclusion that the material body has an impact on the soul and its capabilities.

The idea of heredity is surprisingly prominent in Catholic teaching. It was with intense interest that I recently read the following passages from the pen of the great German-born Thomist, Abbot Vonier, in his classic 1913 work The Human Soul:

There seems to be no contradiction in supposing that spiritual souls may differ widely in qualities, God forming them according to the differences of hereditary dispositions. . . . Saint Thomas Aquinas distinctly inclines towards the view that Almighty God fashions the soul He creates according to the body into which He infuses it. As long as the soul’s spirituality is safeguarded, there is no reason why the body, with its qualities, should not be to God the occasion for creating a soul with corresponding qualities. (Vonier, 45-46)

[Man’s physical make-up] has its qualities and its defects, which the soul cannot change

. . . the soul’s office is . . . to tune all the strings of nature to the highest pitch; but all the tuning in the world will never change the make of the instrument. (Vonier, 47)

These are explosive ideas. They support the proposition that humans have varying capacities (including moral capacities) that follow the dispositions of heredity. Similar statements appear in the work of other theologians. The Jesuit Ernest R. Hull, in The Formation of Character, says

The bodily gifts of nature are . . . unequally distributed; and hence a huge difference of quality in the composition of the brain, nerves, sensitive organs and the rest. And since all our functionings in life have to be carried on through this conjoint instrument called the body, it follows that men come into existence with an immense initial difference of mental and even moral capacity, according to the qualities of these different organs. … Hence there is no difficulty in acknowledging the fact that some people are born stupid, others clever, some weak and others strong, some sluggish . . . others vivacious and active. . . . Even in the moral order there are some who are almost literally born angels in the flesh, while others are painfully prone to anger, sloth, gluttony. (Hull, 113; emphasis added)

Further support comes from the 1908 Catholic Encyclopedia:

Character is the expression of the personality of a human being. . . . A man’s character is the resultant of two distinct classes of factors: the original or inherited elements of his being, and those which he has acquired. On the one hand, every human being starts with a certain nature or disposition—a native endowment of capacities for knowledge, and feelings, and tendencies towards volitions and action—which varies with each individual. This disposition is dependent in part on the structure of the bodily organism and especially of the nervous system which he has inherited; in part, perhaps, also on his soul which has been created. . . . The transmission from parent to offspring of hereditary dispositions, therefore, involves no conflict with the doctrine of the creation of each human soul. (Catholic Encyclopedia, “Character”)

There is nothing more central to man than his character. Character is the truest manifestation of who a man is, a direct expression of his moral temper. And, character is partly derived from heredity. It is based on temperament and formed by the habitual action of the will, which decides between courses of action. (Temperament can be thought of as the natural inclinations of a person, manifested especially in his personality, with a strong hereditary component.) Character is the “group of internal dispositions, issuing from heredity, environment, education, or deliberately formed habits, which preside over one’s habitual conduct.” (Attwater, A Catholic Dictionary, 96; emphasis added)

Within mainstream Catholic theology, the body becomes more than dumb “matter” when it is united to a soul. The soul does not spiritualize or divinize the body, but it does raise it to full partnership with an immortal spirit, all of whose functions are performed through and with the body and its natural endowment. The passages above show us that the physical, hereditary qualities of the body impart to the human being a not-inconsiderable part of his moral constitution.

To make the obvious connection, if heredity is important and if the races differ significantly in their genetic endowment, then race is real.

Thus, the body—heredity—race—contributes to the formation of the psychological and moral human being. Man is a union of the physical and the spiritual worlds, each with a sphere of influence over the other. Yes, the soul is much more important, but the body is more than a cipher, much more than “mere matter.”

Lastly, I would like to address the preposterous claim that “Without the Catholic Church, Europe would resemble Somalia.” Without in any way downplaying the tremendous civilizing work of the Catholic Church, I present for your meditation two numbers:

Average IQ of Europe: 100.
Average IQ of Somalia: 68.

From Human Rights Watch:

If a person scores below 70 on a properly administered and scored I.Q. test, he or she is in the bottom 2 percent of the American population and meets the first condition necessary to be defined as having mental retardation. . . . An I.Q. in the 60 to 70 range is approximately the scholastic equivalent to the third grade.

I know that Dr. Jones often resorts to hyperbole, but no White society would ever resemble Somalia.

As important as it is, the spiritual cannot provide a complete explanation for society and history, because man has a physical body and lives in a physical world. True Catholic teaching does not despise matter, but rather exalts it because it was made by God. Indeed, the highest form of matter in the universe is the human body, animated by a soul. Catholics should not despise the concept of race either, because it too was created by God. Catholic teaching is (or was) very comfortable with the idea of individual human inequality in talent and character, as well as with the idea of talent-based hierarchies in society and state. There is likewise no reason to deny the obvious differences between races, other than a misguided concern to give false charity greater importance than truth. There is no profit in that.

Whether race will ever become a powerful and effective focus of identity in the beleaguered West is an open question, but it is painfully clear that the war against “Whites” is intensifying dramatically. I say we should mobilize all the forces we can lay hold of, whether spiritual or racial, and bring them to the fight.


Attwater, Donald. A Catholic Dictionary. New York: MacMillan Company, 1943.

Hull, Ernest R., S.J. The Formation of Character. St. Louis: Herder Books, no date.

Jones, E. Michael. Benedict’s Rule: The Rise of Ethnicity and the Fall of Rome. South Bend, Indiana: Fidelity Press, 2017.

Jones, E. Michael. Ethnos Needs Logos: Why I Spent Three Days in Guadalajara Trying to Persuade David Duke to Become a Catholic. South Bend, Indiana: Fidelity Press, 2018.

Maher, Michael. “Character.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 3. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 26 Nov. 2019 <>.

Vonier, Abbot. The Human Soul. Bethesda, Maryland: Zacheus Press, 2010.



The ABC’s of the Alt-Right: A Guide for Students

Preamble:  As a long-time professor on a number of American campuses, I have seen how universities work from the inside.  And for years before that, as an undergrad and then graduate student, I have seen how student life develops and evolves, and how important it can be for shaping future views and attitudes.  Now is the time to bring together these diverse sets of experiences and offer some insight and advice for current university students who seek to get more out of college than merely a degree.

Let’s start with the politics of right and left.  There has long been a “liberal bias” on campus, but for many years it was relatively benign; it consisted primarily of an openness to new ideas, an escape from dogmatic religion, a willingness to challenge traditional power structures, and an ethical idealism—all good things.  A liberal was a forward-thinking individual, selfless and civic-minded, and a participant in the global community.  In short: an enlightened person.

But then sometime in the 1980s, things began to change.  Campuses stayed liberal while national politics went ‘conservative’—but it was a conservatism with a twist.  Beginning with the presidency of Ronald Reagan in 1981, American conservatives made some significant shifts in policy, as compared to their traditional views: (a) they became more militarily activist around the world, anxious to project American power and to “bring democracy” to others; (b) religion—in the form of fundamentalist Christianity—became more important to civic and social life; (c) complex ideological issues got reduced to simplistic black-and-white, “us or them” terminology; and (d) Jews supporting Reagan became increasingly prominent and influential.  These new tenets came to compose a new brand of conservatism: “neoconservatism,” or neocon, for short.

Liberal college professors and administrators were generally appalled at these developments, and reacted accordingly.  They became more liberal, and more militantly liberal.  They grew determined to tackle the problem at its roots: at the level of college-educated youth, who would henceforth become increasingly indoctrinated in the key concepts of liberalism:  intrinsic human equality, intrinsic equal rights, over-socialization, radical feminism, excessive pity for the underprivileged, and the corresponding determination to impose such values on all Americans, and indeed on the world.  Such ideas took certain concrete forms:  anti-racism; advocacy for minority and immigrant rights; an inordinate celebration of multiculturalism and multiracialism; denigration of White culture, ‘White privilege,’ and White European civilization; functionally anti-male policies; attacks on the nuclear family; gay rights; and defense of gender and sexual-orientation ‘flexibility.’  But the militant liberals had one thing in common with the hated neocons: a prominent Jewish presence.  Hence anti-Semitism began appearing on the right (mainly concerned about mass non-White immigration and socially conservative) and the left (mainly concerned about the U.S. Jewish community’s support for Israel’s brutal treatment of the Palestinians).

Meanwhile, caught in the vice between neoconservatism and radical liberalism, traditional “old” (“paleo”) conservativism struggled for its very existence.  The most prominent advocate was probably Pat Buchanan, a former candidate for president who opposed much of the neocon agenda.  Buchanan and other paleocons argued for a strong form of nationalism, and generally opposed much of the globalist agenda of the neocons and liberals.  They also opposed military intervention around the world; argued for protectionist economic policies; defended core concepts of classic Western civilization; advocated for “states’ rights” policies (i.e., that individual states should have considerable authority to establish their own laws); supported traditional but not fundamentalist religion; and generally opposed gay and minority rights.  As a consequence, they also frequently came into conflict with Jews on both the neocon right and the liberal left; as such, they have often been slandered as anti-Semitic.

Through the 1990s and 2000s, up to the present, militant liberalism has only increased on college campuses—dramatically so, with the election of Donald Trump in late 2016.  In that election, radical liberals were convinced that “their man”—Hillary Clinton—would win.  Bill Clinton was good, Obama was better, but Hillary was going to be the best.  Feminists were elated that they were finally getting a woman president: one who was ultra-liberal, pro-Israel, pro-Jewish, pro-immigration, anti-racist, pro-big-government, and more than willing to project US military power around the world to enforce these “enlightened” values.  They could scarcely contain their champagne corks.

But it didn’t turn out that way.  With Trump’s upset victory, many academic liberals ‘snapped.’  They were in shock and denial.  They simply couldn’t believe that a “misogynistic racist” could have won the presidency, especially over their beloved Hillary.  So they redoubled their efforts.  They vowed to drive out all remnants of conservative thinking; to harass any faculty that failed to demonstrate fealty to radical leftism; to hire only the most militant—preferably female, preferably of color—faculty; and to punish right-leaning students.  They created “safe spaces” for fragile egos.  They condemned “hate speech” and instituted “speech codes.”  They hired yet more “diversity officers” and promised to step up efforts to cater to any offended minorities or protected classes of individuals.  Everyone, it now seems, had their protectors and defenders—everyone except White males.

Enter the alt-right, otherwise known as the dissident right.  In one sense, it is the natural outgrowth of paleo-conservatism: a kind of return to classical ideas of nationalism and political self-sufficiency.  But it adds new angles as well:  an emphasis on biological realism, in which evolution and genetics are seen as strongly influential in determining human characteristics; an explicit defense of White interests and White European civilization; and an explicit and active critique of Jews and Judeocentric policies.  And indeed, these can be seen as the three main pillars of the alt-right:

(1) Biology is destiny,

(2) Whites and White culture deserve to be protected and defended, and

(3) Jews pose an overriding threat to White interests. 

(Jews, incidentally, like all Latinos, are not White—not in any relevant sense given genetic differences and, more importantly, their lack of identifying with White European civilization.)  Among the wide-ranging dissident right, we see additional points of concern and variations on these themes, but in general, we can roughly define the alt-right movement as centered on these three concepts.  The first, on biology, is proven more and more true by the day; new studies repeatedly show that, to a very large degree, biology and genetics determine what we loosely call ‘human nature,’ and that these phenomena have a corresponding effect on society and culture.  The second is straightforward and obvious:  if Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, and so on each have a right to their cultures and ethnic integrity, so do Whites.  The third becomes clear whenever one takes a look at the objective data regarding Jewish presence and Jewish influence in academia, government, media, Hollywood, and high tech.  Jews are massively over-represented in all these fields, and constitute a force in themselves; with their highly-effective ingroup strategy, they manage to reinforce their own wealth and power.  In fact, this becomes their overriding priority: an increase in Jewish wealth and power.

A Brief Manifesto.  The dissident right, then, advocates for White culture and White interests, and does so in a way that is aligned with science, history, and rationality.  When it veers into the realm of politics, it effectively becomes a form of White nationalism:  the idea that Whites should be self-governing and self-determining, and that, like all ethnicities, they have a fundamental right to do so.  As with ‘alt-right,’ there are varying definitions in the literature.  But there seems to be a broad consensus that White nationalism accords with the following ideas:

  • The White race is of inherent value to humanity, has created the lion’s share of Western civilization, science, and technology which have benefited all peoples; the White race therefore deserves protection and defense.
  • Whites globally are under threat, due to (a) declining numbers, (b) declining physical, mental, and moral health, and (c) loss of political autonomy and self-government.
  • Some of the threats are sociological, economic, or environmental in nature, but others arise from deliberate and intentional actions by anti-White parties.
  • The global Jewish lobby has an intrinsic interest in seeing a general decline in White well-being and a loss in White political power. They and their non-Jewish supporters pose the primary direct threat.
  • Racial and cultural diversity has a net negative effect on human societies.
  • All humans are, by nature, best suited to live in social and environmental settings from which they evolved—societies that are broadly racially homogeneous and monocultural. Humans have little or no evolutionary experience living with diverse races or ethnicities, and doing so causes inevitable problems.
  • From the early Industrial Revolution, modern society has enabled the mass movement of people from indigenous to foreign lands. Left to their own initiative, people will always attempt to move from ‘worse’ to ‘better’ societies, but if this happens en masse, it will contribute to the decay of the very societies that they seek out.  Such movement must therefore be stopped.
  • The only long-term solution for many present-day problems is to restore human society to its natural and original conditions—racially homogeneous and monocultural, broadly speaking. This entails political separation and/or repatriation of minority peoples to their native lands.
  • The above goal can only be achieved, in the present world, by confronting and undermining Jewish power.

These are eminently practical and realistic issues.  Nothing here entails violence, hatred, misogyny, or other such evils.  These are simple statements of fact; and they lay out a roadmap for any White society that hopes to survive and flourish in the long run.

How to Organize.  I now shift my focus to you, the student reader, and your efforts to make a positive impact on this troubled world.  So much of college life is pointless or trivial, but you now have an opportunity to create a truly transformative college experience.  In a very real sense, the future of our society lies in your hands.  You can act now, to make a real difference.

Here are some key points to keep mind, and some specific suggestions on how to move forward.  Readings cited here are included in the list at the end of this essay.

  • You have more power than you think. In a university, you are the paying customer.  Your tuition money pays a large share of your professors’ and administrators’ salaries.  Let them know that.  You are the future, they are the status quo.  You have ethics and high principles; they are just trying to keep their jobs.  Even a very small group, intelligently run, can have a huge impact.
  • Know your rights. You have the right to speak up and make yourself heard.  As long as you stay within the broad rules of the university, they can’t punish you.  Don’t let faculty or staff intimidate you.  It’s like dealing with a spider or mouse:  they are more afraid of you than you should be of them.  Be assertive but not obnoxious.
  • Organize. Create a student group or club that explicitly advocates for alt-right views.  Pick a good name.  It can be relatively innocuous, like “Campus Republicans” or “Campus Conservatives,” or it can be more confrontational: “The New Right,” “Dissident Conservatives,” “White and Right,” and so on.  Be creative.
  • Have concrete goals. Your group should, at a minimum, hold regular meetings.  Simply talking through things among yourselves and sharing ideas has value.  But you will likely want to do more:  bring in speakers; hold debates; organize panel discussions; “table” your group in a visible spot on campus; do fundraisers; write for your student newspaper.  Visibility and success breed more success.
  • Don’t let egos get in the way. This is not about who is president, or who has key roles.  It’s about the ideas and the mission:  to develop and communicate alt-right ideas on campus.  Leaders need to be self-confident, but if it becomes more about self-glorification, time to get another leader.
  • Plan for the future. There is constant turnover in student groups; some people lose interest, some graduate, some have personal issues, others just get too busy.  To sustain and build membership, you need to be constantly planning ahead.  Get to the younger students and recruit them.  They’re not “just freshman”; your group needs them, and every new class presents new opportunities.  Also, plan for post-graduation.  You need to sustain activity after you move on to your career.  This again presents new opportunities for action.  Stay in touch with fellow grads—and not just on-line.  Meet face-to-face.
  • Don’t make it a “guy’s club.” Alt-right groups tend to be heavily male.  Acknowledge this, accept it, but be welcoming to female participation.  As long as they buy into the main principles cited above, there is no reason not to welcome women.  You want members—and they represent half (actually, considerably more than half) of your student population.  Be respectful, and allow them full participation.  Listen to their ideas; they know better how to reach other women than you do as males.  They are smart and motivated.  They have as much equity in the future as you do.  Women are also good networkers, and may make connections that the guys tend to overlook. And besides, most all of us want partners in life, and this is a great chance for both genders to meet like-minded friends.
  • Have high standards. Try to avoid crude polemics, name-calling, dirty tricks.  Be mature.  You are a role model; try to act like one.  Intelligent commentary and well-organized events are much more effective than some graffiti sprayed on a dorm wall.
  • Be knowledgeable, be smart. There is much to learn about alt-right and dissident ideas.  Take the time to study, like a serious and intelligent person.  And not only online blogs, and not just Youtube videos.  Get actual books and read them.  The list below offers several good sources to start with.  And then be a good detective: follow up on interesting leads, hunt for clues.  Learn how to sift out the bullshitters and the nonsense.  There is a lot of bogus information out there, especially on the Internet; some of it is there to deliberately mislead you.  Be skeptical, and do background research.
  • Stay agnostic on religion. Conservatives tend to be more religious than average, and so you may well attract religious people.  Accept them, but don’t let theology rule the discussion.  Keep religious ideas safely to the side.  Be particularly wary of fundamentalists, who tend to be too irrational to be much good.  The same holds for so-called Christian Zionists.  Beyond this, there are good reasons to believe that Jesus, for example, is a Jewish construction, and serves Jewish purposes (read Nietzsche).  And in truth, all Christians (and all Muslims) worship the Jewish God, albeit with a different name.  In sum, best to let that dog lie.
  • Get political (1). Yours’ is a movement of major political importance.  You need to acknowledge this, and engage in political debates.  There are many local, regional, and national policy implications for the dissident right.  Engage at every level.  Make well-reasoned recommendations, and defend them against critics.
  • Get political (2). There are good reasons to think that the situation may be hopeless at the national level; the corruption may simply be too deep to be redeemed.  Rather than ‘fixing’ Washington, we may need to abandon it.  Consider a strong “states’ rights” position, even to the point of secession.  In a practical sense, White nationalism may only be realized in smaller political units than that of the monstrous, multiracial mish-mash of an American nation.  Start by reading Kohr.
  • Know your opponents. As an alt-righter, your main opponents are non-Whites, Jews, and liberal Whites (among both students and faculty).  Even some mainstream Republicans may oppose you.  Learn how they think, and what their ‘hot button’ issues are.  A calculated incitement of your opponent can be very useful.  Non-Whites, for example, typically get excited by talk of limiting immigration or of mass deportations of illegal aliens.  Jews get excited by talk of boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against the state of Israel.  They also hate when prominent Jews are outed.  And they hate when someone questions the highly-dubious Holocaust story—see sources below.  Don’t be afraid to use these issues to your advantage.
  • Name names (1). In other words, be specific and detailed in your critiques.  Use facts, and check your facts.  Instead of saying “the Jews in the Sociology department are complaining about us…” say “Jewish faculty like Bob Greenberg and Joel Baumgarten in Sociology are complaining…”  Instead of railing against “media Jews,” rail against “Jewish media execs like Noah Oppenheim and Andrew Lack at NBC.”  Specificity shows that you know what you are talking about.
  • Name names (2). Here’s an interesting project:  Conduct your own ‘faculty diversity survey,’ to determine rough numbers of Whites, non-Whites, and Jews.  They are certainly pro-diversity, so they can hardly object.  Note:  you are looking for Jews as an ethnicity, not a religion (‘Jew’ can be either).  Print up a simple survey with a few specific categories:  White (non-Hispanic, non-Jewish), black, Asian, Jewish, Hispanic/Latino, mixed/other.  Responses will be very instructive.
  • Watch out for moles. Any moderately visible or successful group will very quickly attract attention, from both friends and enemies.  A well-worn tactic of the other side is to infiltrate successful groups and manipulate them from within—ideally, even take on leadership roles.  It is amazing how many Jews, for example, have taken positions of influence within nominally alt-right or dissident right groups; think of Andrew Breitbart, Larry Solov, Milo Yiannopolous, Alex Marlow, Ben Shapiro, and Joel Pollack, all associated with Breitbart News; or Stephen Miller, the alleged “White nationalist” in the Trump administration; or Michael Savage; or Matt Drudge.  Know your members, and look for signs of less-than-honest opinions. If Jews are admitted to the group, they must acknowledge the role of Jews in our current malaise.
  • Watch out for spies. In line with above, successful groups often attract quiet members who are just “taking notes”—and perhaps reporting out.  There’s not much you can do about this, but be aware that someone in your group may be looking for dirt.  Keep things above-board, and don’t give them anything to report.
  • Don’t demonize the masses. In general, it’s not good strategy to refer to your fellow students as idiots, morons, dupes, etc.  For the most part, you need them.  You are trying to win them over—even if they are idiots or dupes.  Educate them.  Be patient.  Be tolerant.  Figure out what is stopping them from accepting the truth, and slowly bring them around.
  • Insults are a badge of honor. Don’t take it personally when your enemies start calling you names.  In fact, welcome it; it’s a sign that you are succeeding.  And have no doubt, they will call you every name in the book: Nazi, racist, bigot, fascist, anti-Semite, Klansman, White supremacist, and so on.  Show poise; just let it roll off your back.  Point out that they don’t really know what they are talking about; most of them cannot even define ‘Nazi’, or ‘bigot,’ or ‘fascism,’ etc.  Be smarter than them, and use your knowledge to upstage them.  Show them to be the fools that they are.
  • Learn about the real Nazis. Since it’s inevitable that you will be called this, you might as well learn something.  ‘Nazi’ is short for National Socialist, and there is nothing inherently evil about either nationalism or socialism.  Adolf Hitler was arguably the first major alt-righter of the twentieth century.  He spent his youth in a social environment not so different from our own.  As a young man, he faced many of the same problems that we do.  His story is instructive; see the list below for some good sources.
  • Stay healthy in body and mind. Again, be a role model.  Be better than the average slacker.  Watch your weight, and stay in shape.  Work out.  Get strong.  Cut down on meat, sugar, and junk food.  Avoid recreational drugs and heavy drinking—these things can destroy your focus and motivation.  Avoid mindless Internet surfing, and stupid TV reruns, and moronic Hollywood trash.  Get the airpods out of your ears, shut off the insidious Black rap “music,” cut down on texting and Instagramming.  You have a mission in life, and you need all your faculties to succeed.  Jews and liberals would like nothing more than for you to spend nights smoking pot and binge-watching their garbage on your laptop or phone.  Don’t give in to them.
  • Don’t get sucked into the technology. Along the same line as above, be very cautious about getting sucked into technology day and night.  Excessive gaming, Internet addiction, on-line porn, too much social media…these things pose real psychological and physical risks to your wellbeing—seriously.  Keep them all to a bare minimum.  And then get informed on the many risks of high-tech (read Kaczynski, for starters).
  • Be visible. Take some time to get organized, but once you are up and running, get the word out.  Put articles or ads in the school newspaper.  Post flyers around campus, or leave them loose on desks in random classrooms.  Scribble messages on blackboards/Whiteboards.  Go on the school radio.  Talk to local media.
  • Don’t get too stuck on ideological labels. ‘Right’ and ‘left,’ like ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative,’ are vague terms, and arguably are more harmful than helpful.  In reality, they don’t allow for much subtlety of definition.  Yes, you are alt-right, but don’t hang everything on this one label.  Many liberals have some conservative opinions, and many alt-righters hold some traditionally liberal views.  This is not a major problem, and don’t be pushing ideological purity tests on anyone.  Views shift over time, especially for college students.  Any student who thinks he has it all figured out has a lot to learn.  It’s not a weakness to change your opinions—it’s a sign of growth.
  • Don’t be “woke.” ‘Woke’ is one of those truly stupid labels that you should avoid.  It comes from Black slang (appropriately), and refers to a heighted sensitivity to racism, black interests, oppressed minorities—in other words, all those traditional leftist views.  It represents political-correctness run amok.  What you do want is people to “awake”—wake up to the false and distorted reality they have been living in.  But that’s entirely different.
  • Be persistent, take notes, follow up. This is just good organizational technique.  Write things down, because everyone forgets.  Get people to commit to tasks, and hold them accountable.  Acknowledge and reward those who follow through and get results.  It’s a long war, and nothing of value is won overnight.  Pace yourselves.  Don’t burn out.  Be in it for the long haul.
  • Use publicity to your advantage. Universities hate two things:  money problems and bad press.  Your group is a constant threat for the latter.  This is one of your few pieces of leverage over them.  Use it appropriately.  If you are succeeding, get the word out, not only on campus but among the public at large.  If you are under attack, publicize the implicit assault on your rights of free speech and association.
  • If they disband your group, go underground. An effective group will get attention, and a really effective group will get a lot of attention.  At some point, they—the university bureaucracy—may well concoct some reason to shut you down, even if you’ve broken no rules.  If they do this, publicize how unjustified they are.  Let your fellow students know that free speech and free expression are not welcome on your campus.  Then go underground.  Most universities are public institutions, and they cannot forbid your group from meeting—they can only withhold funding and institutional support.  If that happens, so be it.  Meet in the library, in the student union, or at a local café.  They can’t stop you from posting flyers, doing stuff on-line, renting small spaces, organizing events.  This can even have its advantages; underground groups have a lot more freedom than ones reliant on university funding.  Put this to good use.
  • Stay in touch, and network. Work with other student groups and other campuses, where possible.  Build alliances where you can.
  • Document your work. Write, publish blogs or hardcopy essays.  If you’re up to it, publish a small book (we can help you).  Keep track of successes and failures.  We all can learn from each other, and we should try to avoid repeating each other’s mistakes.  You are working not just for the present, but for the future.  Those to come will benefit from your hard work.
  • Speak the truth. Sometimes these days, just saying the truth out loud is a revolutionary act, one that calls for real courage.  The truth is on your side.  Be strong, be confident, and speak the truth.

This last point bears repeating:  You have justice and truth on your side.  Your cause is just.  You have the weight of history behind you.  Many great thinkers of the past and present stand at your side, ready to help.  Don’t give up, don’t apologize, don’t surrender.

There are people around who can help with questions, problems, or advice.  The TOO editor is available ( and I can assist as well (  We both know how to get articles and books published, if interested.  Don’t hesitate to reach out.  Good luck; we’re counting on you.

Suggested readings:

Dalton, T.  2015.  Debating the Holocaust (3rd ed.).  Castle Hill.

Dalton, T.  2016.  The Holocaust: An Introduction.  Castle Hill.

Dalton, T.  2019.  The Jewish Hand in the World Wars.  Castle Hill.

Dalton, T.  2020.  Eternal Strangers: Critical Views of Jews and Judaism through the Ages.  Castle Hill.

Duke, D.  1998.  My Awakening.  Free Speech Press.

Goebbels, J.  2019.  Goebbels on the Jews.  Castle Hill.

Hitler, A.  2019.  The Essential Mein Kampf.  Clemens & Blair.

Hitler, A.  2019.  Hitler on the Jews.  Castle Hill.

Johnson, G.  2018.  The White Nationalist Manifesto.  Counter-Currents.

Kaczynski, T.  2019.  Technological Slavery (vol. 1).  Fitch and Madison.

Kohr, L.  1955.  Breakdown of Nations.  Dutton.

MacDonald, K.  1994.  A People That Shall Dwell Alone.  Praeger.

MacDonald, K.  1998.  Separation and its Discontents.  Praeger.

MacDonald, K.  1998.  The Culture of Critique.  Praeger.

Nietzsche, F.  1887.  On the Genealogy of Morals.  Vintage.

Nietzsche, F.  1888.  “Antichrist.”  In The Portable Nietzsche.  Penguin.

Plato.  1997.  “Republic.”  In Plato: Complete Works.  Hackett.

Shaw, G. (ed.).  2018.  A Fair Hearing: The Alt-Right in the Words of its Members and Leaders.  Arktos.

Suggested websites:

A Dissident’s Guide to Cryptocurrency

With various tech and financial companies cracking down on dissident voices, it is becoming more important than ever to support the leaders and organizations who are working to save our people. They are making the necessary personal sacrifices that the rest of us cannot afford to make. They need our financial support.

Although there are many ways to donate, many of them face privacy hurdles, which is an important concern if you have a job and family to support. Thankfully, such giving does not require you to give up your anonymity. In this guide, I will explain one way to do so safely—by using cryptocurrency.

Alternative Ways of Giving

Before discussing cryptocurrency, it is worth mentioning other, simpler ways to give. The most obvious is to write a check and send it via regular mail or to use the bill paying feature from your bank. The downside is that this is not entirely anonymous, which is an important concern for many people.

Some old-school alternatives that can protect anonymity include money orders and cashier’s checks, which you can purchase with cash at a bank or the post office. Click here to learn more about the difference between the two. It is also legal to send cash through the mail, although that is risky. Patreon and Paypal are additional options, but both are hostile to Dissident Right organizations and leaders. Neither is recommended.

Obtaining Cryptocurrency

How do you use cryptocurrency? For most people, the first step is to create an account at an established cryptocurrency exchange. There are hundreds of exchanges to choose from, but since you will be sharing personal and bank information with them, you will want to use one that is established and trusted (here is a review of some of that are well known).

The largest exchange is Coinbase. Other established exchanges include Gemini, Kraken, and Coinmama.  I do not recommend Coinbase because they have a track record of blocking Dissident Right organizations (including TOO). Those blocking efforts are easy to avoid, which I explain below, but why give your personal and banking information to a hostile organization?

Exchanges must comply with a variety of regulatory requirements intended to minimize the use of cryptocurrencies for money laundering and terrorism purposes. That means they will collect information on your real identity (often confirmed by taking a photo of your ID with your mobile phone) and a phone number. They will also collect bank information to purchase cryptocurrency. It does not take long to provide this information, but it may take a few days for them to review and approve your account and any bank deposits. Like foreign currency exchanges, they will take a small percentage when you convert money from cash to crypto.

There are other, more anonymous ways to buy cryptocurrency than using an exchange. These include using Bitcoin ATMs and prepaid credit cards that you can purchase at a convenience store. Lean more about those options here and here.

Bitcoin (ticker BTC or XBT) is the most widely used cryptocurrency, but there are others. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is a widely used alternative that reportedly has lower fees (don’t confuse it with bitcoin itself). Privacy-focused cryptocurrencies include Monero, Dash, and Zcash. I recommend these privacy-oriented alternatives over bitcoin for reasons that are discussed below.

If you want to use an alternative currency, first check the “Donate” page of the organization you want to give to so you can be sure that they take it. If you do not see your preferred cryptocurrency, try emailing them to see if they can accommodate you. Often they can.


Once you have purchased bitcoin or another cryptocurrency, you are free to transfer it to others. If you use an exchange, you could make donations directly from there, but I advise against doing this. In some cases (like Coinbase), they have blocked certain Dissident Right bitcoin addresses. Moreover, if you give money directly from the exchange, you will be doing so in an environment where they already have your personal and banking information, which is hardly an ideal choice if you value privacy and anonymity.

Fortunately, it is easy to get around these privacy concerns by setting up a “wallet” off site. Wallets are a mechanism for storing cryptocurrency and they come in various forms, including online platforms that can be accessed via the web or your mobile phone. Here is a review of some that are widely used.

I prefer desktop wallets because they allow you to avoid going through a third-party web site, which might track your activity. One of the most widely used for bitcoin is Electrum. I prefer Exodus because it has a nicer interface and can handle multiple currencies, including privacy coins. Both are free and easy to use. Here is a review of some desktop alternatives.

Control over your wallet is maintained with a secret code called a private key.  All wallets will give you this information and ask you to write it down somewhere. This is only a worry if you plan to keep money in your wallet for any length of time, which I advise against.  Do not transfer crypto from the exchange to your wallet until you are ready to make the donation. Send the donation from the wallet to your intended recipient the same day. If you somehow lose your private key and lose access to your wallet, it will matter less if there is no money in it.

Before you send money to anyone else, try sending a tiny amount of crypto back and forth between the exchange and your wallet to get the hang of it. As you will see, transfers take several minutes to be confirmed and there is a small financial charge. You cannot reverse these transactions, so double check the address before you send anything.

Once you feel comfortable and are ready to send a real donation, you can find the relevant cryptocurrency address by going to the web site of the recipient organization and checking their “Donate” or “Cryptocurrency” page. There will be a different address listed for each cryptocurrency, so make sure you choose the correct address for the currency you are using.

Privacy Coins

Up to this point, this guide has focused primarily on bitcoin, which is the most common form of cryptocurrency. Bitcoin has some important limitations, however, the most important of which is that it is not entirely anonymous. Although bitcoin transactions are not tied to any particular individual identity (they are just numbers), they are transparent and can be easily viewed by anyone who knows how to use a blockchain explorer. For example, look here to see the bitcoin donations to the TOR privacy browser project. Organizations like the SPLC have been known to monitor the bitcoin addresses of Dissident Right organizations.

In theory, if you are careful to never tie your real world identity to a given cryptocurrency address, bitcoin’s anonymity is probably still safe enough. This includes never posting your cryptocurrency address on the Internet or using it to purchase goods or services, where you give your real name or real-world address to some vendor. You can further reduce the danger by using a privacy-oriented wallet like Wasabi (here is a review).

Fortunately, there are safer alternatives, called privacy coins, that go a step further and conceal such transaction information (here is a primer). These include Monero (XMR), Dash (DASH), and Zcash (ZEC). Monero is the most commonly used. It can be purchased from a variety of vendors, including the Kraken exchange (here is a how-to guide). After you purchase Monero, you can then transfer it offsite to a Monero-enabled wallet (Exodus is one; here are others) and make donations from there. As always, check first to make sure the recipient organization takes your chosen currency.

Donation Acknowledgments

When I make a donation, I usually finish by asking for a confirmation of receipt from the recipient organization by email. For larger donations, I often start with a smaller donation of perhaps $20 and wait for a confirmation before sending the rest. (If you don’t have an anonymous email address, you should create one. I recommend Protonmail over services like Google’s Gmail, which has been overrun by SJWs.)

Asking for a confirmation may create a minor administrative headache at the other end, but: (a) it ensures that your donation got through to the intended recipient; and (b) it gives them a way to stay in touch with you via anonymous email. It may also give you access to member-only benefits, like a newsletter or access to private portions of a web site.

Tax exempt organizations may offer to give you a receipt, which allows you to write off a donation on your taxes. This may affect your anonymity, however. Since I do not itemize my taxes, I never ask for a receipt.

Unfortunately, Dissident Right organizations are not always good at responding to confirmation requests, even when you are making a significant financial donation. I understand that they are busy, but good donor relations should be one of their top priorities. If they will not confirm receipt of a donation within a few days after you have asked politely, send your money to someone else.

Do Your Part

Undoubtedly, there will be some readers who have additional advice. Please share those thoughts in the comments below.

For the rest of you, don’t let complacency get in the way of donating to your favorite leaders or organizations. Start today by setting up an account at one of the exchanges. If you can afford it, you should consider giving at least one percent of your income every year to dissident organizations (something that I try to do).

We all have a duty to do our part. Don’t forget to do yours.

The AEI, a Major Neocon Thinktank, Implicated in the Sackler Family’s Opioid Crisis

My 2017 article on the Sackler family and the unfolding opioid disaster (“Opioids and the Crisis of the White Working Class”) emphasized the corruption of the academic and medical establishment:

As in The Culture of Critique, this was a top-down movement based ultimately on fake science created at the highest levels of the academic medical establishment, motivated by payoffs to a whole host of people ranging from the highest levels of the academic-medical establishment down to sales reps and general practitioner physicians.

Now Tucker Carlson has uncovered another angle intimately tied to our new Jewish elite: the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). The AEI figured prominently in my article “Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement,” published in 2004:

Jewish intellectual and political movements also have typically had ready access to prestigious mainstream media outlets, and this is certainly true for the neocons. Most notable are the Wall Street Journal, Commentary, The Public Interest, Basic Books (book publishing), and the media empires of Conrad Black and Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch owns the Fox News Channel and the New York Post, and is the main source of funding for Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard—all major neocon outlets.

A good example illustrating these connections is Richard Perle. Perle is listed as a Resident Fellow of the AEI, and he is on the boards of directors of the Jerusalem Post and the Hollinger Corporation, a media company controlled by Conrad Black. Hollinger owns major media properties in the US (Chicago Sun-Times), England (the Daily Telegraph), Israel (Jerusalem Post), and Canada (the National Post; fifty percent ownership with CanWest Global Communications, which is controlled by Israel Asper and his family; CanWest has aggressively clamped down on its journalists for any deviation from its strong pro-Israel editorial policies. Hollinger also owns dozens of smaller publications in the US, Canada, and England. All of these media outlets reflect the vigorously pro-Israel stance espoused by Perle. Perle has written op-ed columns for Hollinger newspapers as well as for the New York Times.

Neoconservatives such as Jonah Goldberg and David Frum also have a very large influence on National Review, formerly a bastion of traditional conservative thought in the US. Neocon think tanks such as the AEI have a great deal of cross-membership with Jewish activist organizations such as AIPAC, the main pro-Israel lobbying organization in Washington, and the Washington Institute for Near East Policy [which produces pro-Israel propaganda]. (When President George W. Bush addressed the AEI on Iraq policy, the event was fittingly held in the Albert Wohlstetter Conference Center.) A major goal of the AEI is to maintain a high profile as pundits in the mainstream media. A short list would include AEI fellow Michael Ledeen, who is extreme even among the neocons in his lust for war against all Muslim countries in the Middle East, is “resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the AEI,” writes op-ed articles for The Scripps Howard News Service and the Wall Street Journal, and appears on the Fox News Channel. Michael Rubin, visiting scholar at AEI, writes for the New Republic (controlled by staunchly pro-Israel Martin Peretz), the New York Times, and the Daily Telegraph. Reuel Marc Gerecht, a resident fellow at the AEI and director of the Middle East Initiative at the Project for a New American Century [a neocon group], writes for the Weekly Standard and the New York Times. Another prominent AEI member is David Wurmser who formerly headed the Middle East Studies Program at the AEI until assuming a major role in providing intelligence disinformation in the lead up to the war in Iraq. His position at the AEI was funded by Irving Moscowitz, a wealthy supporter of the settler movement in Israel and neocon activism in the US.[2] At the AEI Wurmser wrote op-ed pieces for the Washington Times, the Weekly Standard, and the Wall Street Journal. His book, Tyranny’s Ally: America’s Failure to Defeat Saddam Hussein, advocated that the United States should use military force to achieve regime change in Iraq. The book was published by the AEI in 1999 with a Foreword by Richard Perle.

Given this history—and understanding the Sacklers’ modus operandi—I should not have been surprised that AEI has been involved in promoting false, Purdue-funded research that doubtless had a prominent role in creating the crisis. Here’s Tucker’s segment:

In my 2017 article I described how Purdue funded research that found that Oxycontin was not significantly addictive.

Purdue essentially created a very large community of people who benefited financially from prescribing opioids. They set up and funded organizations that lobbied for more aggressive treatment of pain by treatment with opioids. Millions were funneled into organizations like the American Pain Society and the American Academy of Pain Medicine and Purdue’s own advocacy group, Partners Against Pain, as well as to medical professionals willing to provide data supporting the movement. Purdue hired an army of sales reps to promote opioids to all medical personnel, from doctors to physician assistants. A consistent part of the pitch was to minimize addiction rates. Purdue claimed addiction rates were less than 1% by cherry picking studies that did not examine the effects of long-term use. Other studies often showed much higher rates, as high as 50%. This misrepresentation was at the root of the $600M judgement against Purdue obtained by the US government.

The AEI could have been included in this assessment It received $50,000/year from Purdue from 2003 “until recently”—~$800,000 total—pocket change for a family that walked away with at least $11 billion. The original “research” touting the non-addictive properties of Oxycontin and based on 38 subjects was performed by R. K. Portnoy of the Metropolitan Jewish Health System. But there were others:

Scott Fishman and Perry Fine [were] prominently associated with the American Pain Foundation which got 88% of its budget from Purdue and other pharmaceutical companies. Fine has been funded by at least a dozen drug companies and Fishman has had relationships with at least eight companies, including Purdue, for which he was a consultant, paid speaker and recipient of research support. They claim that all this financial remuneration did not affect their opinions. And if you believe that, you are an idiot.

As Tucker notes, in 2004 the New York Times published an article by AEI writer Sally Satel, presumably Jewish, opposing jail sentences for doctors who over-prescribed opioids after running it past a Purdue lobbyist. And in 2007 the Wall Street Journal, a major neocon media outlet, published another article by Satel in which she called Oxycontin a “godsend” and lamented that it not being prescribed enough.

Satel is intimately associated with the AEI as a Resident Fellow. She is typical of our new elite and its involvement in elite institutions and media. Wiki:

Sally L. Satel(born January 9, 1956) is an American psychiatrist based in Washington, D.C. She is a lecturer at Yale University School of Medicine, the W.H. Brady Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and author.

She has continued writing on the topic with, e.g., an article in Politico from 2018 in which she argues that physician-prescribed opiates are not the problem:

I have studied multiple surveys and reviews of the data, which show that only a minority of people who are prescribed opioids for pain become addicted to them, and those who do become addicted and who die from painkiller overdoses tend to obtain these medications from sources other than their own physicians. 

The two studies linked above do not actually support her conclusions. There is no reason to trust any of the conclusions of the first study. It reviewed 17 studies with “extremely heterogeneous results”—not surprising given that “all the present data derived from studies with weak designs, e.g. uncontrolled case series and cross-sectional surveys. These studies suffer from low-quality reporting, with little information on the characteristics of patients, type of opioids administered and route of administration.” One wonders how many of the studies were funded by drug companies like Purdue. This review only used studies with patients with chronic pain in supervised settings, and did not address opioid prescription in the public at large, especially for non-chronic pain. Recall that the entire focus of Purdue’s propaganda was to prescribe Oxycontin for non-chronic pain in order to widen the use of the drug. The previous practice of prescribing opioids only for serious chronic pain was labeled cruel. Hospitals were pressured to administer opioids for fear that they would have lower rankings after Purdue provided data to regulatory agencies, resulting in a “dramatic increase” in prescriptions. Moreover, neither study cited by Satel addressed the issue of people who had been prescribed opioids going to the black market for drugs like heroin after treatment.

The second concluded, contrary to her assertions, notes that

The extended prescription of opioids (>8 weeks) for the treatment of chronic pain has questionable benefits for individual patients and presents substantial public health risks. The risks of overdose and addiction from this prescribing practice — both among patients with chronic pain and the public at large — increase with higher doses (>100 MME), longer duration of prescribing, and perhaps the use of long-acting opioids. Despite these facts, a Medicaid study showed that more than 50% of opioid prescriptions were for doses higher than 90 MME and for periods of more than 6 months. Better results can be obtained by using the most contemporary guidelines for pain management.

Contemporary guidelines are much more restrictive, really a return to previous practice before Purdue began its promotional campaign. Other studies are quite clear that “Misuse or abuse of prescription drugs, including opioid-analgesic pain relievers, is responsible for much of the recent increase in drug-poisoning deaths” (here).

The entire episode is an excellent example of how our new elite works. I concluded in my paper on the opioid disaster:

The opioid phenomenon reflects aspects of Jewish activism in general. These are top-down movements that are well-funded,  they have access to the most prestigious institutions of the society, and, because of this prestige, they are able to propagate fake science. In the case of the Jewish drive to enact the 1965 immigration law, pro-immigration committees were funded, fraudulent academic studies were created on the benefits of immigration, prominent people were recruited (like JFK, recruited to put his name on a book titled A Nation of Immigrants written by Myer Feldman and published by the ADL), positive articles about immigration appeared in the media, lobbyists and politicians were paid. The main fake scientists discussed in The Culture of Critique were the Boasians with their fake race science (utilized in the debates over the immigration law of 1965), psychoanalysis with its fake sex science, and the Frankfurt School with its fake theory that ethnocentric Whites have a psychiatric disorder resulting from poor parenting. Like the fake scientists who participated in promoting the opioid epidemic, these activists had access to prestigious academic institutions and, in the case of the Frankfurt School and other activist academic research in the 1950s and 1960s, their research was funded by the organized Jewish community, such as the American Jewish Committee, and promoted by Jewish academics.

Or consider the neoconservative infrastructure, with think tanks funded, prominent spokesmen at prestigious universities, and a very large media presence. Neocons can bet that if they are forced out of a job in the Departments of State or Defense that they will have many options to fall back on. Despite promoting disastrous policies, such as the war in Iraq, and despite their obvious ethnic loyalties to Israel, they are still a very powerful component of the U.S. foreign policy establishment.

Jews are an incredibly successful and influential group. We can’t win unless we understand that.

In my 2004 article I included AEI as part of the neoconservative infrastructure of our new elite. Now we know that the AEI—an exemplar of Conservatism Inc.—is deeply involved in the greatest public health crisis of our time. As many have noted, Conservatism Inc. has utterly failed to conserve anything of importance. The AEI, along with the mainstream Jewish community, favors the immigration tsunami which is displacing the traditional White majority of America.  For example, I notice that an AEI writer, James Pethokoukis, takes seriously Bryan Caplan’s proposal for open borders, giving Caplan softball questions and never raising the interests of White America. Could there be a greater indictment of Conservatism Inc.?

States’ attorneys general and many other jurisdictions are suing not only Purdue Pharma, but also individual Sackler family members. The outcome, however, remains in doubt. The most recent development (November 6) is that a federal judge, Robert Drain of the Southern District of New York, has extended protection from lawsuits against Purdue. An issue was whether Richard Sackler himself was liable. The answer, of course, is a resounding yes, although his attorney claims that “was not involved in the marketing of opioid OxyContin.”

Sackler was a key figure in the development of Oxycontin being the moving force behind Purdue Pharma’s research around 1990 that pushed Oxycontin to replace MS contin that was about to have generic competition. Sackler also worked to enlist Russell Portenoy and J. David Haddox into working within the medical community to push a new narrative claiming that opioids were not highly addictive. In pushing Oxycontin through to FDA approval in 1995 Sackler managed to get the FDA to approve a claim that Oxycontin was less addictive than other pain killers, although no studies on how addictive it was or how likely it was to be abused had been conducted as part of the approval process. The addictive nature of opiates had been known for thousands of years.

Sackler became president in 1999. In 2001 he issued an email to employees of the company urging them to push a narrative that addiction to Oxycontin was caused by the “criminal” addicts who had the addiction, and not caused by anything in the drug itself. Sackler also urged pharmaceutical representatives to urge doctors to prescribe as high doses as possible to increase the company profits.

He was made co-chairman in 2003. Sackler was in charge of the research department that developed OxyContin. As president, he approved the targeted marketing schemes to promote sales of OxyContin to doctors, pharmacists, nurses, academics, and others. Shelby Sherman, an ex-Purdue sales rep, has called these marketing schemes “graft”.

In 2008, Sackler, with the apparent knowledge of Mortimer Sackler and Jonathan Sackler, made Purdue Pharma measure its “performance” in proportion to not only the number but also the strength of the doses it sold, despite allegedly knowing that sustained high doses of OxyContin risked serious side effects, including addiction. (Wiki)

The judicial system is a central part of our corrupt new elite, so I’ll be very surprised if any of the Sackler family give up much of their ill-gotten gains—much less spend the rest of their lives in prison. Even life in prison, the best that could possibly be hoped for, is far too lenient for a family that is ultimately responsible for over 200,000 deaths.

Jews, White Guilt, and the Death of the Church of England

“Wrong theology in this area has been bound up with wrong action, giving legitimation for Christian support for persecution and discrimination of Jewish communities and eroding the recognition of Jewish people as neighbours whom Christians are bound to love … Christian communities may wish to consider whether there could be suitable opportunities in their public worship to focus and express repentance for Christian involvement in fostering antisemitism.”
“God’s Unfailing Word,” Church of England Faith and Order Commission, 2019

If it can be said that Europeans are today largely blind to Jewish aggressions, then Christians are among those fumbling around in deepest darkness. Historian Jonas Alexis once remarked that, contrary to older Christian anger at depictions of Jesus and Christianity in the Talmud, no such reactions are evident in relation to the modern Jewish comedy in which “Jesus, Christians and the cross are routinely mocked, even obscenely treated.”[1]

Jewish aggression against Christianity is, of course, nothing new. In the fifth century, edicts had to be pronounced banning Jews from burning and desecrating crosses, and Socrates Scholasticus reported in Historia Ecclesiastica that Jews had taken a Christian boy during Purim and crucified him.[2] In his Princeton-published Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (2006), Elliott Horowitz pointed out multiple cases of Jews urinating on, and otherwise exposing their genitals to, crosses from 12th-century Germany and 13th-century England.[3] Even today, Daniel Rossing, a former advisor on Christian affairs to Israel’s religious Affairs Ministry, has commented on anti-Christian violence in Israel, which peaks during Purim. “I know Christians who lock themselves indoors during the entire Purim holiday,” he says. And yet, while Christians are spat upon and assaulted in Israel, and mocked and obscenely treated in the Diaspora, the majority of Christians remain among the most guilt-ridden and philosemitic of Europeans, applauding Zionist wars that kill their sons, and lauding a people that has done more than any other to overturn traditional Christian moral values. It is one of the most glaring contradictions in this age of contradictions.

The latest chapter in this sorry state of affairs is that the Church of England has, in its latest official treatise, decided to announce formal repentance to the Jews for centuries of putative injustices, as well as the Church’s unconditional adoption of Zionism. The Guardian explains:

Christians must repent for centuries of antisemitism which ultimately led to the Holocaust, the Church of England has said in a document that seeks to promote a new Christian-Jewish relationship. … The document, God’s Unfailing Word, is the first authoritative statement by the C of E on the part played by Christians in the stereotyping and persecution of Jews. Attitudes towards Judaism over centuries had provided a “fertile seed-bed for murderous antisemitism”, it said. Theological teachings had helped spread antisemitism, and Anglicans and other Christians must not only repent for the “sins of the past” but actively challenge such attitudes or stereotypes.

I must confess to an overwhelming fatigue when reading statements like this. They blend a profound historical ignorance with the most septic obsequiousness. The first instinct is simply to protest, and then to try to provide a litany of factual correctives. But I have carried out this Sisyphean task so many times, and in so many prior articles. I now find myself asking only why we should even offer explanations or responses to such accusations as “the part played by Christians in the stereotyping and persecution of Jews.” We owe nothing to the Jews. Any Christian intellectually and morally weak enough to be convinced that he does, probably isn’t worth the effort of convincing otherwise.

But how is it that yet another major Western institution has collapsed into White Guilt, in the process rendering itself pathetically pliable to Jewish manipulations? Having read God’s Unfailing Word, I argue that total Jewish dominance in the academic production of histories of the Jews and anti-Semitism has played a major role in shifting opinion in philosemitic directions. This has been amplified by Jewish activity in so-called “interfaith” dialogue, which has been ongoing internationally for over a century and has served Jewish interests exclusively while undermining Christian theology, especially those elements that made Christianity beneficial to Europeans in the past. This poisonous combination possesses lethal power because the Church of England is already in its death throes. Read more