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

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 (editor@occidentalobserver.com) and I can assist as well (thomasdaltonphd@yahoo.com).  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 (3^rd 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:

www.theoccidentalobserver.com

www.thomasdaltonphd.com

www.davidduke.com

www.unz.com

www.holocausthandbooks.com

www.vdare.com

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:

@TuckerCarlson links Purdue Pharma's opioid epidemic to the American Enterprise Institute, a neocon outfit. No surprise really. An excellent example of the corruption of Conservatism Inc. https://t.co/Z9LPSDA9zi

— Kevin MacDonald (@TOOEdit) December 6, 2019

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.