Definition of Terms: Conservationism and environmentalism have somewhat overlapping meanings. The conservation movement seeks the wise use and/or preservation of natural resources. Environmentalism will be defined here as an ideology advocating the protection and improvement of the environment, both natural and manmade. Ecology, a branch of biology, is the scientific basis for both conservationism and environmentalism. It studies the relationship between organisms and between organisms and their environment. Ecologism is an ideology similar to environmentalism, but with broader more holistic applications.[1] Racialism is the belief in the reality of human biodiversity. It acknowledges that inherent racial differences have a profound influence on social/cultural development. An ethny is an ethnic group. The ethnies of concern in this paper are European and European-American groups.

Introduction

It was not by chance that the modern conservation movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries was founded and led by men such as Theodore Roosevelt and Madison Grant who possessed a strong sense of ethnic identity.[2]

Although the Left took over the environmental movement by the 1960s, an ecological perspective is inconsistent with the Left’s global universalism whether animated by neo-liberalism or neo-Marxism. Instead, there is a natural congruence between ecology and the particularism of the Dissident Right, an ideology that never loses sight of man as a biological entity belonging to a specific ethny or race requiring certain physical and cultural conditions to survive and thrive.

The Dissident Right emerged in opposition to conventional American conservatism that has failed to conserve much of anything. We want to conserve the genetic heritage of our European-American people, the best of our cultural legacy, and the physical environment that promotes our health and wellbeing.

Our environmental concerns include both natural ecosystems and the manmade physical and social environments. Humans, with their comparative lack of instincts, need the support of cultural institutions such as stable families, communities, and states. In lieu of innate behaviors Homo sapiens requires the guidance from these institutions for beneficial socialization.

The Dissident Right’s environmentalism puts people first while affirming that man is in no way separate, above, or autonomous from nature. We believe there is a biological foundation for human culture, thus human bio-diversity is reflected in cultural diversity. Unlike the establishment Right we put quality of life before profits and increases in GDP. Unlike the Deep Greens we do not see man as an evil intruder upon nature. While Homo sapiens is a unique species it remains part of the natural order and must work within that order to flourish. As outlined in this essay we embrace elements of neo-Malthusianism, localism, conservation, preservation, and the new urbanism.

Philosophical Foundations: Ecologism, Monism, et al.

For the Dissident Right environmentalism is not just another policy issue. Rather, what could be called racial ecologism forms an integral part of our weltanschauung.

Such a world view incorporates two of the West’s most positive elements—science and idealism. Our ecologism is both rational and romantic. It is located at the intersection of reason and emotion, combining scientific naturalism with a spiritual aestheticism and a faith in the destiny of our people.

Racial ecologism places the welfare of our enthy as our central concern while putting its wellbeing within a global context where other races have a right to their own niches.

This ideology is in strong opposition to the post-modern Left and the establishment Right, both of which are disconnected from the reality of the natural world and a holistic view of human societies.

Because Homo sapiens is a social animal, humanism, and other hyper-individualistic views, are wanting. The belief that the individual is the paramount unit of society, that each person must find his own meaning and purpose in life is narrow self-absorption that leads to alienation. It also flies in the face of reality. No person, no matter how intelligent or physically and mentally tough, can thrive outside the confines of a nurturing society.

Spiritual elements of racial ecologism can be found in Ernst Haeckel’s Monism, Raymond Cattell’s Beyondism, and William Pierce’s Cosmotheism.[3] As a nature-based ideology, evolution is central to our ecologism. Our spiritualism leads us to a faith in evolutionary progress. Non-conscious nature has produced a world of increasing variety and complexity. For our species, however, it is time for humane social selection to replace the cruel and wasteful mechanism of natural selection.

We believe Homo sapiens is an animal species. Therefore, human beings should be viewed as part of the natural world. The social sciences need to be informed by the life sciences. Humans are wonderfully creative creatures, but even as science continues to produce marvels of technology and engineering there are limits to our ability to manipulate nature. There are also limits to the ability of human nature to adapt to different social and physical environments. Each ethny has a particular social/cultural arrangement and physical environment suited to its wellbeing.

Population and Migration: Neo-Malthusianism, Carrying Capacity, Climate Change, and the Commons[4]

Two hundred years ago Thomas Robert Malthus wrote An Essay on the Principles of Population noting that, if unchecked, human populations will invariably outrun available food supply.[5] The subsequent increased productivity brought about by the Industrial and Green Revolutions might appear to invalidate Malthus’ thesis. Not so. His main argument was that continuing high rates of population growth are a major impediment for social progress. Would not Nigeria be better off today with twenty million rather than 200 million citizens? Technological developments have merely postponed the inevitable. Clearly, in many places in the world, such as Haiti and the Horn of Africa, the ability to produce children outruns the ability to sustain them.

Currently the limits-to-growth argument is out of favor. It is dismissed across the political spectrum from neo-Marxists and religious fundamentalists to libertarian technocrats. Sustainability, however, remains a cardinal principle of environmentalism, and by this measure our country and globe are already overpopulated. Sustainability is a temporal concept—not just what is possible today, but what is possible in an indefinite future. In 1927 the earth supported two billion persons. In 2011 the population surpassed seven billion and is projected to reach 11 billion by the end of the century.

Carrying capacity, a concept used by both field biologists and demographers, is the estimated number of individuals of a species a particular environment can support. Humans’ capacity for technological innovation makes it difficult to precisely determine the carrying capacity for Homo sapiens. If, however, the natural or social environment of a community or country is being degraded the population has probably exceeded the environment’s carrying capacity.

Another perspective on environmental degradation has been called the “tragedy of the commons,” a term popularized by ecologist Garrett Hardin.[6] The traditional commons was the village pasture or woodlot. The productivity of the commons was maintained by a stable population and communal pressure that prevented anyone from abusing the resource. Today the term often refers to the global resources such as the atmosphere and oceans. The commons can also include infrastructure, public education, and other social services that all residents of a community or country can access. To the extent that persons are permitted to settle where ever they wish, the commons—the commonwealth of the West—is at risk from massive Third World migration.

National and international policies regarding migration have greatly exacerbated the population problem. Evidence shows that mass migration from the Third World to the West increases populations in both the receiving and the sending countries. Most of the population growth in the U.S. over the past 40 years has been due to immigrants and their descendants. While increasing population adds to the GDP, does it add to the quality of life? Will the United States of 2050 with over half a billion people, and without a core majority group, be a more pleasant and prosperous place to live?

Mass immigration tends to maintain high birthrates in many Third World countries as emigration is seen as a safety valve for children, while foreign aid and remitted funds from the West to families back home help to keep fertility rates high. Two things are clear: world population growth must be reduced, and permitting mass migration makes this goal more difficult.

Race is the elephant in the room when discussing population policy. The racial dimension is the main reason why the issue of population growth cannot not be dealt with in a rational and objective matter. White populations are declining, thus all increases come from burgeoning non-White peoples. Under these circumstances to view population increases as a problem is to elicit vituperative smears from the establishment.

Ideological considerations, at times motivated by ethnic animosity, have led environmental organizations to do backflips and handstands on population policy. A case in point is the changing position of the Sierra Club (SC) on immigration and population growth. The SC was founded by John Muir, a European-American with a strong sense of ethnic identity. The organization is one of the oldest and largest environmental groups in the world with a largely White membership. Decades ago, the club opposed mass immigration as leading to unsustainable population growth, resource depletion, and environmental degradation.

Under pressure from the Left, including a donation from David Gelbaum of over $100 million conditioned on supporting a pro-immigration policy, the Sierra Club has betrayed both the environmental cause and the ethnic interests of their membership by supporting amnesty for illegal aliens, continued high levels of “legal” immigration, and opposing border barriers. The club’s position has evolved from advocating population and immigration control to promoting an essentially open-borders policy.

Probably the most widely discussed environmental topic of the day is climate change. This issue also has a population component. First, it needs to be stated that climate change during historic and prehistoric times is an established fact. A bigger story would be that the earth’s climate had achieved stasis. There is evidence that areas of the globe are warming and that an increase in greenhouse gases is a contributing factor. The largest emitters of such pollutants are the industrializing world, especially China and India. International agreements for reducing emissions that disproportionately impact the West miss the mark.

The science of climate change is inexact, the damage from climate change is uncertain, and the best strategies for mitigation and adaptation are not clear. The climate movement has also been hurt by histrionic hysteria and hypocrisy of some of its supporters, as well as leftist political agendas not directly related to climate change (e.g., anti-capitalism).

One huge drawback of nuclear power is that it doesn’t dismantle systems of oppression – it only produces clean energy. This makes it unsuitable for solving the climate crisis, which isn’t just about the environment. https://t.co/tkgWSCWbQK pic.twitter.com/Qjw3O9lm8y

— Zack Kanter (@zackkanter) December 1, 2019

That said, it is usually wise to error on the side of caution when protecting our home planet, so reducing greenhouse gases should be an important goal.

It is evident from the above challenges that overpopulation is not just a future concern; it is a present problem. Obviously environmentalists who support stringent controls on population and migration have an uphill fight. Such controls are opposed by those who for theological or political reasons want to increase certain populations, while their strange bedfellows, global capitalists, want continued growth in population to increase consumption and facilitate the free movement of low-cost labor. No lasting environmental protection can be accomplished without population control, yet it is an issue mainstream environmental groups refuse to address in a meaningful way.

Ecological Thinking: Hybridization, Bio-Diversity, and Biota Transfer

While we wish no people ill, our primary concern is our own ethny—European and European-derived peoples. We believe that bringing an ecological perspective to racial problems will help to clarify our people’s perception of social issues.

We have already noted the importance of population-habitat balance. Now consider the irony of U.S. state and federal governments requiring the integration of human racial groups and promoting miscegenation while they also spend millions of dollars to preserve unique genotypes among mammals and fish.

Hybridization can occur in the wild when a new species or subspecies is introduced to an environment, or when environmental changes bring related species into a new relationship. Wildlife managers are concerned about the genetic integrity of a number of valuable species. For example, state fish and game departments, the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as several sportsmen and conservation groups are working to preserve the genomes of the eastern brook trout and the western cutthroat trout in areas where non-native trout have been introduced.

The problem is twofold. The stocked fish drive out and replace the natives, and they can also interbreed with them, destroying valuable genotypes. Fish and wildlife biologists are interested in genetic conservation, believing it is important to protect rare, unique and naturally occurring gene combinations. While the analogy between trout populations and human populations is not perfect, certain principles apply to both. The introduction of new species or subspecies can result in loss of habitat, genetic integrity, and even extinction of native species.

There is a popular myth that different species cannot interbreed, or if they do, they cannot produce fertile offspring. This is often not true on both counts. A case in point is that iconic symbol of the north woods—the Canada lynx. The lynx is a federally designated threatened species, so the Minnesota Department of National Resources was concerned when they discovered that the rare lynxes were interbreeding with the more common bobcats.  Thus along with the challenge of habitat loss, these cats now face a new problem: hybridization.

Does it seem odd that while U.S. states and the federal government are forcefully implementing programs to mix human subspecies, these same entities work to protect the unique genotypes of mammals and fish? They worry about the erosion of the ancestral lineage of bighorn sheep and the genetic fitness of bison while at the same time pursuing policies that will dilute or destroy the uniqueness of human races. It requires separating man from nature for such policies make sense. But then again, it seems that there is only one human subspecies that is in need of integration and amalgamation. Why do many environmentalists view the great replacement of the indigenous populations of Sweden and England as a positive good?

The environmental threat posed to native species by the addition of exotic flora and fauna is not a new phenomenon. Plants, animals, and microbes have been migrating since the beginning of life on earth, but the scope of the problem has grown since the advent of globalization. The first large-scale biota transfer was the Columbian Exchange beginning in the late fifteenth century when two ecosystems, Europe and America, having evolved separately after the breakup of the super-continent Pangea millions of years ago, collided with profound consequences for both.

Most of the benefits of the Columbian Exchange accrued to Europeans. However, today’s globalization, as a whole, has not benefited the peoples of the West. Leaving aside the critical problem of mass migration, the West has spent billions of dollars on studying, controlling, and treating the SARS, HIV, West Nile, Ebola, and Zika viruses; not to mention the Asian ash borer and Japanese knotweed. The presence of these pests and pathogens are just a few of the unintended consequences of globalization. The resources devoted to containing these diseases, insects, and weeds, as well as migrant peoples all add to the cost of international integration.

The Environment and the Economy: Materialism, Consumerism, Economic Nationalism

The Dissident Right believes that people come before profits. The national economy should serve the needs of the people rather than vice versa. We support private enterprise and free markets as long as economic activity is not socially or environmentally destructive.

Our present economy is out of balance, with the financial and consumer sectors dominating primary production and infrastructure investment. Perhaps it is an aspirational goal, but a change in values where our people appreciate nature and outdoor activities as well as intellectual pursuits more than accumulating possessions or indulging in passive entertainments is greatly desired.

We reject the Left’s claim to being progressive. Today’s Left is neither liberal nor progressive. Products of the Left such as twenty-first-century Detroit and Gay Pride parades are atavistic. Nor should progress be measured in terms of more material goods, more conveniences, or more novel experiences. Consumerism engenders feelings of never having enough. Whatever one has, it could always be more.

Progress should be measured in improvements to the human mind and body, as well as to the physical environment humans inhabit. Future progress may entail having less. The pioneering psychologist Raymond Cattell, a firm believer in the possibility of human progress, wrote that “the more intelligent and spiritual men become, the less they need in the way of costly amusements and expensive material pleasures to live a full and satisfying life.”[7] It is essential to preserve and promote the productive elements of the race that created Western civilization for any true progress to occur.

One major area where the economy impacts the environment and people’s health is agriculture and food processing. The Dissident Right supports diversified, mid-sized family farms.  American agriculture produces a cornucopia of comparatively inexpensive food and fiber, but with hidden social and environmental costs. Global economic forces have compelled farmers to get big or get out.  The result has been the widespread development of gigantic operations requiring tremendous inputs of equipment and fuel, as well as inorganic fertilizers and pesticides that could deplete soil and water resources.

Thirty years ago, the food processing industry provided a middle-class income for thousands of American workers living in towns and small cities throughout the South and Midwest. Today the industry relies on low-cost labor from Guatemala to Somalia.

Globalism has distorted American agriculture and food processing industry while diminishing American manufacturing. The single-minded drive for profits and short-term efficiencies has created a system that uses unsustainable amounts of nonrenewable resources while disrupting communities in the American heartland. Although not advocating state socialism or centralized planning, we are fully cognizant of the power of international capitalism to destroy ethnic communities and the physical environment in the name of false progress. Our present economic model requires continuous growth of population and consumption. This is unsustainable. Perpetual growth is a phenomenon that does not occur within our biosphere.

Wild Places & Public Spaces: Conservation, Preservation, New Urbanism[8]

The Dissident Right believes in protecting and adding to existing public lands. From the Adirondacks to Yellowstone the wisdom of protecting open spaces has been demonstrated time and again. Yet the creation of almost every public park and refuge has been fought by those interested in private gain. That said, we also support multiple uses of the public domain where appropriate. Hunting, fishing, grazing, logging, and recreational development can add value to our public lands. Meanwhile, those rare areas of true wilderness should remain inviolable. We reject criticism from the Left that the character of National Parks and wild areas need to be reassessed because they appeal mainly to middle-class White people.

Our ecologism includes concern for manmade as well as natural environments. And while non-Whites exhibit comparatively little concern for wilderness areas, they attach great importance to access and control of public spaces. Prior to World War II, law and custom restricted access of non-Whites to public spaces in America. Public was defined as White.

After the war, often by federal court rulings, barriers separating the races were removed with profound implications for American society. White flight, privatization of popular culture, and law-and-order politics were manifestations of White America coping with the loss of control over public spaces in a postwar, multiracial society.

All species and subspecies require specific habitats to survive and reproduce. White families require secure and relatively homogeneous areas to raise families, and a social environment that encourages domesticity. Once de jure separation of the races was dismantled, White flight provided a generation of de facto separation permitting the largely White Baby Boom to occur. Obviously, White flight proved ineffective in securing White living space. Today’s demographic change has outpaced White flight as non-Whites stream into formerly White suburbs.

There were also some intrinsic problems with suburbanization. At their best, suburbs create small-town environments while still providing access to the cultural and economic opportunities of the city. Too often, however, suburban communities fostered a shallow materialism and provided an unauthentic, alienating social environment that might have contributed to the youth rebellion of the 1960s and 70s. So without time to form organic communities, and without the authority to exclude outgroups, many suburbs have turned into multiracial urban sprawl, becoming liabilities rather than assets.

Accompanying White flight there has been a general retreat of Whites from public spaces they no longer control. From public transportation to private motor vehicles, from shopping on Main Street to shopping online, and from communal entertainment to TV at home, Whites in particular have withdrawn into the private sphere.

White flight and the privatization of culture has been reflected in political developments. The rise of neo-conservatism during the 1970s and 80s can be seen as a result of the setbacks experienced by middle- and working-class Whites beginning with the Civil Rights era. Unable to express their explicit ethnic interests or protect their communal spaces Whites retreated into a defensive conservatism that deemphasized the public sphere and concentrated on protecting individual property and personal security. The election of 2016 and the rise of the Dissident Right are manifestations that the thin gruel of conventional conservatism is no longer sufficient.

The Dissident Right believes in durable, ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods, and safe walkable communities. We want accessible public spaces. Urban planning should be on a human scale. Traditional Western aesthetics should guide architecture and landscape design.  We strongly encourage civic engagement. We share many of the objectives of the New Urbanists.  Although their movement stresses cultural diversity, in reality their goals are rarely achieved except in relatively homogeneous communities.

Conclusions

The Dissident Right believes that the American political system is ideologically bankrupt. In an age when the significance of race is increasingly apparent, both the Left and the establishment Right make every effort to deny, distort, or ignore the ethno-cultural basis of society.

Humans, as with other animals, have physical manifestations resulting from psychic stress. Many non-domesticated animals, for example, are difficult to breed in captivity. Similarly, human societies are affected by collective problems in morale and self-confidence. For the West today, these psychological problems include narcissism, alienation, gender dysphoria, and racial guilt. The Center for Disease Control has recently reported a decline in life expectancy among White Americans driven largely by self-destructive behaviors. Our people are increasingly alienated from this society. They are even alienated from their own bodies, as the prevalence of substance abuse, obesity, and confused sexual and racial identity can attest.

The Dissident Right considers the health and integrity of our ethny to be the most important part of our nation’s commonwealth. The commonwealth consists of those who contribute to the welfare of society. It excludes parasites and free loaders.

The failure to acknowledge the biological foundations of human existence has divorced mankind from nature. We advocate a new naturalism. A naturalistic view of society has sometimes been portrayed by critics as immoral or amoral. It is seen as advocating for the law of the jungle, a brutal free-for-all where only the strong survive. While nature is at times, “red in tooth and claw,” humans are social animals. Human society benefits greatly from cooperation among its members, and both civic virtue and private morality are required for cooperation.

Humans, of course, are competitive and have a sense of individuality which is a beneficial and necessary part of Western culture. The negatives are greed and selfishness. These faults can be mitigated by feelings of kinship, mutuality, and reciprocity. People help others who have contributed to the community in the past or are likely to contribute in the future. Relations between races and nations should also be governed by enlightened self-interest that includes elements of mutuality and reciprocity.

Most Whites seem unaware of the hostile forces working to destroy our people and culture, oblivious to the tenured professors at prestigious universities advocating White genocide. Many Whites have difficulty comprehending the possibility of White extinction, or why that would even matter. Framing the discussion in ecological terms may clarify these issues. White communities should be cherished as part of the natural order—as worthy of preservation as a pod of orcas or a herd of caribou.

---

[1] The ideology of mainstream ecologism is explored in: Brian Baxter, Ecologism: An Introduction (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1999.

[2] For more on the link between racialism and environmentalism see: Nelson Rosit, “Racial Ecology, Part I: Early Environmentalists, 1843-1937,” The Occidental Quarterly (Winter 2016-2017) 15 no. 4, 43-61.

[3] For a further discussion of these isms, especially Monism, see: Nelson Rosit, “Ernst Haeckel Reconsidered,” The Occidental Quarterly 15 no. 2 (Summer 2015) 81-96.

[4] Much of the material in this section is based on: Virginia Deane Abernethy, The Vanishing American Dream: Immigration, Population, Debt, Scarcity (New Brunswick, NJ: Transactional Publishers, 2016).

[5] Thomas Robert Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population; or, A view of its past and present effects on human happiness, 9^th ed. (London, Reeves & Turner, 1888).

[6] Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Science, 162 no. 3859 (13 Dec. 1968) 1243-1248.

[7] Raymond B. Cattell, A New Morality from Science: Beyondism (New York: Pergamon Press, 1972) 367.

[8] This section is based in part on material from: Nelson Rosit, “Racial Ecology, Part III: Postwar and Contemporary Issues,” The Occidental Quarterly 16 no. 4 (Winter 2016-2017) 3-22.

For me, the most frightening thing in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) isn’t the “men in black uniforms” mercilessly beating Winston Smith in the Ministry of Love with “fists,” “truncheons,” “steel rods,” and “iron-shod boots.” And it isn’t the silent machine that allows the inquisitor O’Brien to “inflict pain on” Winston “at any moment and to whatever degree” he chooses. No, it’s something that Winston doesn’t find painful at all:

Two soft pads, which felt slightly moist, clamped themselves against Winston’s temples. He quailed. There was pain coming, a new kind of pain. O’Brien laid a hand reassuringly, almost kindly, on his.

“This time it will not hurt,” he said. “Keep your eyes fixed on mine.”

At this moment there was a devastating explosion, or what seemed like an explosion, though it was not certain whether there was any noise. There was undoubtedly a blinding flash of light. Winston was not hurt, only prostrated. Although he had already been lying on his back when the thing happened, he had a curious feeling that he had been knocked into that position. A terrific painless blow had flattened him out. Also something had happened inside his head. As his eyes regained their focus he remembered who he was, and where he was, and recognized the face that was gazing into his own; but somewhere or other there was a large patch of emptiness, as though a piece had been taken out of his brain. …

O’Brien held up the fingers of his left hand, with the thumb concealed.

“There are five fingers there. Do you see five fingers?”

“Yes.”

And he did see them, for a fleeting instant, before the scenery of his mind changed. He saw five fingers, and there was no deformity. Then everything was normal again, and the old fear, the hatred, and the bewilderment came crowding back again. But there had been a moment — he did not know how long, thirty seconds, perhaps — of luminous certainty, when each new suggestion of O’Brien’s had filled up a patch of emptiness and become absolute truth, and when two and two could have been three as easily as five, if that were what was needed.

“You see now,” said O’Brien, “that it is at any rate possible.”

“Yes,” said Winston. (Nineteen Eighty-Four, Part 3, ch. 2)

It wasn’t “a new kind of pain,” but it is a new kind of horror: the idea that the state can get inside your head and directly interfere with your mind. When Nineteen Eighty-Four was first published in 1949, that idea was only a literary nightmare. But every year that’s passed since then has brought Orwell’s nightmare closer to reality.

And be in absolutely no doubt: there are totalitarian people in Western countries today who would be delighted to use a mind-alteration machine against thought-criminals like those who write for and read the Occidental Observer. In fact, I came across one of those totalitarian folk just the other day. She’s a social psychologist called Amy R. Krosch, she works at Cornell University, and she’s recently been “designated” a “Rising Star” of the American Psychological Association (ASA).

The sickening souls of wicked Whites

Krosch’s Twitter page announces that she is “Queer” and prefers the pronouns “her or they.” She’s also married, with a “wife and bulldog.” American psychology has come a long way: from classifying lesbianism as a mental disorder to designating a lesbian fanatic as a “Rising Star.”

And Krosch is a fanatic, I’d say. An anti-White fanatic, to be precise, and that’s undoubtedly why the ASA is so proud of her. Krosch doesn’t agree with some famous words attributed to Queen Elizabeth I of England (1533–1603): “I would not make windows into men’s souls.” Amy Krosch does want to make windows into people’s souls. Just so long as they’re White people’s souls, that is, and just so long as Krosch can use what she finds to encourage hatred of Whites:

Discrimination may happen faster than the blink of an eye, especially during periods of economic scarcity, according to a new study from Cornell University. “Scarcity mindsets can really exacerbate discrimination,” said Amy Krosch, assistant professor of psychology at Cornell. “We show that tiny shifts in the processing of minority group faces under scarcity could have downstream consequences for inequality.”

In the first experiment, 71 undergraduate psychology students from a private university — none of which identified as black or African American — were asked to look at pictures of white and black male faces on a screen. Participants then awarded each face up to $10 based on “subtle perceptions of recipients’ deservingness.”

A control group was told $10 was the most each face could receive. But members of the experimental group believed they were randomly assigned only $10 out of a possible $100 to give away each time — a difference that imparted a sense of scarcity.

Scalp electrodes measured the time each study participant took to perceive recipients distinctly as human faces, a subconscious process linked to activity in the fusiform gyrus that is known to take just 170 milliseconds, or less than two-tenths of a second.

Within the control group, test subjects took about the same amount of time to process faces of either race, and distributed money to them evenly. But in the group that perceived resources as scarce, participants took “significantly longer” to process black faces than white faces on average, the study found. The researchers also showed that these perceptual delays related to anti-black bias, in which participants allocated less money to black faces.

“It’s taking them longer to see a black face as a face, and the extent to which that’s happening then predicts how much they discriminate against that black individual,” Krosch said.

Krosch’s team ran a second set of experiments that imaged brain activity to test whether the “impaired” visual processing of black faces was linked to a devaluation of faces and then to biased behavior.

The scans revealed dampened activity in the striatum, a brain region involved in valuation and reward processing. That suggested that test subjects may have devalued black faces they saw as “less face-like” or, in a sense, less human. Dampened fusiform and striatum activity correlated to less money given to black recipients. This study was funded by the National Science Foundation. (When money is scarce, biased behavior happens faster, ScienceDaily, 29th October 2019)

That’s a report on Krosch’s paper “Scarcity disrupts the neural encoding of Black faces: A socioperceptual pathway to discrimination” (written in collaboration with David M. Amodio of New York University). And this is an interesting part of the report: “…undergraduate psychology students from a private university — none of which identified as black or African American…” Krosch didn’t want to find anything untoward in the brains of Blacks, so she excluded them from her study. I think her research was (and is) motivated by hostility towards Whites and intended to encourage more of the same. And note the phrase “none of which,” presumably the wording chosen by Krosch or one of her collaborators. The phrase should be “none of whom,” because the students are human beings, not animals or inanimate objects. Does the use of “which” mean that someone in “Krosch’s team” was “devaluing” the students and seeing them as, “in a sense, less human”? Quite possibly.

Punims on Parade

And if you’d like a look at Krosch’s team, here’s a selection of progressive punims (Yiddish for “face”) posted at Krosch’s Social Perception and Intergroup Inequality Laboratory, or Krosch Lab for short:

Punims on Parade: Members of Krosch Lab

Ms Krosch herself is on the far right (photographically speaking, I hasten to add), but her punim deserves a closer look. Here’s another photo of this fascinating scholar:

Amy Krosch, Rising Star of the American Psychological Association (with Greta Thunberg for comparison)

Krosch has a broad, testosteronized punim like that of the fanatical Swedish climate crusader Greta Thunberg. Now, I was rebuked in the comments to my last article at TOO for “draw[ing] attention to minor deficiencies in [the] physical beauty” of the journalists Stephen Daisley and Tanya Gold, but I don’t think the rebuke was valid. As the great Chateau Heartiste has often pointed out: “Physiognomy is real.” The ugliness of leftism as an ideology is often reflected in the ugliness of leftists as people. I also agree with a fascinating article at National Vanguard arguing that “Jews themselves are an unattractive and, on average, ugly people” and that “Jews, as a group, oppose beauty.” In fact, the Talmud advises Jews not to regard physical beauty as important in marriage: “For ‘false is grace and beauty is vain.’ Pay regard to good breeding, for the object of marriage is to have children” (Taanith 26b and 31a).

The full spectrum of human diversity

Is Amy Krosch Jewish? I haven’t been able to find proof that she is, but I’ll adapt what I said about the journalist Stephen Daisley in “Jeremy’s Jackboots.” One thing is sure: she behaves as though she’s Jewish, with unfailing anti-White hostility and insistence that White prejudice is to blame for all non-White failure. And Ms Krosch has obviously been recruiting people for Krosch Lab in the same White-hating mould:

Our lab respects and values the full spectrum of human diversity in race, ethnicity, religion, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, body type, socio-economic background, age, disability, and national origin. We strive for inclusion and diversity in achievement and sustained excellence through our research, training, and outreach, and actively seek to promote people underrepresented in psychology. Students of color, women, first generation students, and other underrepresented folks are strongly encouraged to apply to join the lab. (Social Perception and Intergroup Inequality Laboratory / Krosch Lab, November 2019)

No, it is not true that Krosch Lab “respects and values the full spectrum of human diversity”, because it’s clearly hostile towards Whites in its research and towards men in its recruitment. Does anyone look at that photo of “Krosch’s team” and think that the punims belong to sane, objective scholars who are conducting a disinterested search for truth? I hope not, because to me they don’t appear to be objective or truth-seeking at all. I don’t think their punims look particularly intelligent either, but that’s not surprising. This is psychology, after all, and all sensible observers knew long before the current “replication crisis” that large parts of psychology are a crock of shit. Krosch’s field of social psychology is at the heart of the crisis, but psychometrics is notably immune to it.

Exploiting, not understanding

I don’t know whether Ms Krosch’s paper is a crock of shit too, but it’s certainly a crock of Krosch. And she’s trying to tip it all over Whites. This is what Krosch Lab says about its scientific mission:

We aim to understand the persistent and wide-spread inequalities that exist between groups in America. We investigate social and economic factors that amplify discrimination, and the basic social-cognitive, perceptual, and emotional processes through which the goals and motivations of decision makers influence their behavior toward members of their own and other groups. (Social Perception and Intergroup Inequality Laboratory / Krosch Lab, home page, November 2019)

Again, I don’t think Krosch Lab aims “to understand the persistent and wide-spread inequalities that exist between groups in America.” I think it aims to exploit those “inequalities” by blaming them entirely on Whites. I also think that Krosch’s team is recruited, in Vox Day’s words, from “those who hate us, hate America, hate the West, and want to destroy everything that is good, beautiful, and true.”

How psychology works

Krosch’s team would never be able to invent a mind-alteration machine like the one described in Nineteen Eighty-Four, but I think they would be very happy to use one. I also think some of them would be very happy to use the pain-machine described in Nineteen Eighty-Four. I can read their psychology in the age-old way by looking at their faces. Amy Krosch, of course, prefers more up-to-date methods, using “scalp electrodes” to probe activity in the fusiform gyri and striatums of bad-thinking goyim.

Quiet White Cornell vs Vibrant Black-Enriched NYC

Well, let’s adapt Christ’s words and say: “Psychologist, probe thyself!” I think Amy Krosch is full of hostility towards Whites and probably towards Christians too, and that people like her oversaw and staffed the torture-chambers and murder-squads of communist regimes during the twentieth century (see Kevin MacDonald’s “Stalin’s Willing Executioners”). And I would be very interested to know what “scalp-electrodes” might reveal about her attitudes to Whites — and to Blacks too. A study comparing Jews, Blacks and Whites in their reactions to Jews, Blacks, and Whites would be most interesting — but of course, it will never be performed for several reasons, most notably, that Jews may well score quite differently from Whites, and in a not-so-flattering way.

For example, it’s interesting that Krosch says that part of “What most excites [her] about Cornell” is “living in a quiet and beautiful small town (especially salient after 10 years in NYC).” But New York City is much more racially diverse than the town of Ithaca, where Cornell is set and where the population is “84.14% White” but only “2.93% Black or African American.” If you compare New York’s ratio of “44% white (33.3% non-Hispanic white)” to “25.5% black,” you will see that Amy Krosch has followed Tim Wise, Michael Moore and countless other anti-White leftists who attack Whites while living in very White places.

After the porcine Stephen Daisley read my “hit-piece” against him in “Jeremy’s Jackboots,” he announced that “I’m not sure how their description of me as ‘a warm supporter of Muslims and free-speech-hating Muslim organizations like Tell MAMA’ squares with the line ‘he cares only about the welfare of Jews’.” Well, it’s quite simple. People like Daisley support whatever they think “is good for Jews.” And so they are warm supporters of mass migration by Muslims into White nations. But they would hate Pakistanis, Somalis and Moroccans to flood into Israel. And they would hate Tell MAMA to set up a big office in Tel Aviv. That wouldn’t be “good for Jews.” However, people like Daisley needn’t worry: none of that is going to happen. Israel is a sane (if highly corrupt) nation and doesn’t seek its own destruction. And it certainly doesn’t pay psychologists to demonize the Jewish majority. But White nations, in complete contrast, are presently seeking their own destruction and White nations do pay psychologists to demonize their White majorities.

The sickening souls of wicked Whites (again)

The possibly Jewish Amy Krosch is merely one example. The almost certainly Jewish Sheldon Solomon is another. He’s recently appeared in the Guardian explaining how Whites are driven by their “sheer existential dread” and “fear of death” to support Donald Trump and to oppose “[i]mmigrants, including those who practise different religions, such as Muslims and Jews.” Solomon’s research has revealed that “Christians” who were primed with thoughts of their own mortality “had more favourable impressions of other Christians and more negative impressions of Jews.”

The wise punim of Sheldon Solomon

Bad Christians! Blameless Jews! At least, that’s what Professor Solomon of Skidmore University wants you to think. I think he’s an anti-White propagandist, not a objective scientist. Many thousands of his academic colleagues are the same. But social psychology is merely one of many corrupt anti-White disciplines flourishing in Western universities. All the same, it’s one of the most disturbing anti-White disciplines. You should have no doubt: what Orwell described in Nineteen Eighty-Four is what people like Amy Krosch and Sheldon Solomon would like to do. And it’s what they will do if we allow them.

Amidst the on-going saga of the impeachment of Donald Trump, we are incidentally treated to a rare spectacle—a strikingly transparent display of Jewish reach, influence, and power.  Individual bits and pieces of this picture are known, but a comprehensive assessment has yet to be made.  A close look at this situation makes clear, once again, both the dominance and the thorough-going corruption of American Jews and their global network of coreligionists.  It’s worth taking a moment to document this story, “for the record”—and then to draw a few conclusions.

Let’s start at the top.  All recent American presidents have been steeped in Jewish entanglements, but few as personally as Trump, given that his daughter Ivanka converted to Judaism upon marriage to Jared Kushner, an Orthodox Jew.  The only closer personal connection would have been with our presidents who were, themselves, likely part-Jewish:  Teddy and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and perhaps Lyndon Johnson.[1]  Apart from this family connection, we have Trump’s cohort of major Jewish donors:   Lew Eisenberg, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, Mel Sembler, Ron Weiser, Steve Wynn, Elliott Brody, Laurie Perlmutter, and Carl Icahn,[2] not to mention Bernie Marcus.  Then we have his many Jewish personal and professional associates, who include, among others, Avi Berkowitz, (the now-incarcerated) Michael Cohen, Gary Cohn, Reed Cordish, Boris Epshteyn, David Friedman, Jason Greenblatt, Larry Kudlow, Stephen Miller, Steven Mnuchin, Jay Sekulow, David Shulkin, and Allen Weisselberg.  All those Trump-defenders out there in America should be dismayed at his vast linkage to the people of Israel.

But let’s set all these individuals aside for now.  The current impeachment process is deeply involved with developments in, of all places, Ukraine.  Jewish Ukrainians have come to play a surprisingly prominent role in the proceedings.  That nation has a long and tragic history of Jewish residency, reaching back over 1,000 years.  Their numbers grew through the centuries, peaking at around 3,000,000 in the early twentieth century.   Present-day estimates vary between 200,000 and 400,000 Jews, representing less than 1 percent of the current Ukrainian population of 42 million.  And yet, as elsewhere around the world, Jews exercise remarkable and disproportionate influence in that nation—as in ours.

As we know, current events were largely triggered by a July phone call between Trump and the newly-elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky.  Zelensky, 41, was born in the Ukraine “to Jewish parents,” as they say, and proceeded to make a name for himself in the entertainment business, as a comedian.  Becoming famous for playing president in a Saturday Night Live-like television show, he, on a whim, decided to actually run for the office—and won, in March 2019.  Notably, it was reported that “Zelensky has not mentioned his Jewish identity in interviews before or during the campaign, which critics say is purposefully vague.”[3]  This was certainly a good strategy, given the Ukraine’s historic problems with Jews; as a modern-day crypto-Jew, Zelensky learned his lesson well.

The key issue at hand began with the placement of Joe Biden’s son Hunter on the Board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma in April 2014, a post he held for five years.  The leading figure at Burisma, incidentally, is Mykola (Nikolay) Zlochevsky—a man who, with a Jewish surname, is almost certainly a member of the Hebrew tribe.  Hunter received upwards of $500,000 a year for his services, and the Ukrainians got indirect access to VP Biden and President Obama.  Trump’s call was one event in a chain that apparently attempted to expose corruption and abuse of power on the part of the two Bidens, allegedly for his own personal political gain.

The proceedings

On September 24, Nancy Pelosi announced the start of the impeachment process with the formation of six House committees, each of which would have a role in the proceedings.  Of the six chairmen or these committees, three are Jews:  Adam Schiff (Intelligence committee), Jerry Nadler (Judiciary), and Eliot Engel (Foreign Affairs).  Closed-door depositions would begin October 11, and the public hearings on November 13.  To date, Schiff and his committee have garnered all the attention, as it was his committee that led the public testimony phase, with Schiff himself in a starring role.[4]  Nadler’s committee will apparently draw up the actual articles of impeachment, and Engel’s group will provide unspecified assistance.  The three non-Jewish committees will most likely serve only perfunctory and ceremonial roles.

But even before the initial, closed-door phase could begin, Ukrainian Jews made another appearance.  On October 9, news broke that two associates of Trump’s lawyer Rudi Giuliani were arrested at Dulles airport on their way out of the country—two Jewish Ukrainians—and US citizens—by the names of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman.  They were hit with unspecified charges relating to “a complex web of financial and political interactions linking diplomacy to alleged violations of campaign finance law,” according to the Washington Post.  Their connection to Giuliani goes back at least two years; they initially hired him, apparently, as a sort of consultant, and then later the tables turned and they came to work for him, as the pressure grew to investigate the Bidens and Burisma.  Parnas and Fruman evidently had the right Ukrainian (and Jewish) connections to get the job done.  But the details of their criminal activities have yet to come to light.

Public testimony began, as stated, on November 13.  As the master of ceremonies and chief wire-puller, Schiff oversaw the entire two-week public process and himself conducted much of the questioning.  But much was also directed by the Jewish lead lawyer for the Intelligence committee, Daniel Sachs Goldman.  Goldman has family ties to the (Jewish) Levi Strauss corporate empire, providing him with considerable personal wealth.

It was decided that 12 individuals would offer public testimony.  Among them were two more Jews:  Alexander Vindman and Gordon Sondland.  In Vindman, Ukraine makes yet another appearance.  He and his identical twin brother were born there in 1975, came to the US in 1979, and became naturalized US citizens.  He rose steadily through the US intelligence community, coming to work for the National Security Council in 2018.  Vindman was in on the now-infamous July phone call; he objected to the presumed quid pro quo, and hence was summoned to testify.

Sondland is a 62-year-old Jew from Washington State who made a considerable fortune in the hotel business.  Through a handful of privately-run companies, he donated around $1 million to Trump’s campaign, and as a result, was appointed US ambassador to the EU in March 2018.  Sondland thus joined a host of Jewish US ambassadors, including the likes of Philip Goldberg (Columbia), Robin Bernstein (Dominican Republic), Jonathan Cohen (Egypt), David Cornstein (Hungary), David Friedman (Israel), Lewis Eisenberg (Italy), Lawrence Silverman (Kuwait), and Daniel Rosenblum (Uzbekistan).

As those two came to testify, we were treated to quite a spectacle:  A Jew (Schiff) presiding over the questioning of a Jew (Vindman/Sondland) by another Jew (Goldman).  It was a remarkable scene; one could be excused for mistaking events as some random hearing in the Knesset rather than in the US Congress.

As things proceeded with the other witnesses, numerous references were made not only to Zelensky but also to a mysterious and nebulous group of people, the so-called “Ukrainian oligarchs.”  It turns out that this elite group, like their counterparts in Russia, are mostly Jewish.  Of the five richest and most influential Ukrainian billionaires, four are Jews:  Rinat Akhmetov, Viktor Pinchuk, Ihor Kolomoysky, and Gennadiy Bogolyubov.  Right behind them in the hierarchy are such Jewish-Ukrainian multi-millionaires as Oleksandr Feldman and Hennadiy Korban.  These individuals exercise considerable power in the Ukraine, often outstripping official governmental agencies; they are effectively a government unto themselves.[5]

Unsurprisingly, the new Jewish president Zelensky has very close ties to one of the Jewish oligarchs, Kolomoysky.  It turns out that Kolomoysky owns the TV station “1+1” that was responsible for Zelensky’s rise to nationwide fame.  It was also reported that “Kolomoysky’s media outlet provided security and logistical backup for the comedian’s campaign.”[6]  The same article mentioned that Zelensky traveled 14 times in two years to Kolomoysky’s two foreign homes in Geneva and Tel Aviv.  As might be expected, Kolomoysky himself is caught up in a variety of corruption allegations and lawsuits.  He had been the owner of Ukraine’s largest bank, Privatbank, until its forced nationalization in 2016.  During his ownership, it was reported that “97% of its corporate loans had gone to ‘related parties’ of Kolomoysky and [his Jewish partner and fellow oligarch] Bogolyubov.”[7]  An independent audit found that Privatbank had been subjected to “a large-scale and coordinated fraud over at least a 10-year period ending in December 2016.”  Kolomoysky is also charged with embezzling more than $5 billion from the bank.  And he and his “right-hand man,” the above-mentioned Korban, have been implicated in numerous other crimes, including murder, kidnapping, arson, and bribery.  A fine bunch indeed.

And then there’s George Soros.  The Jewish-Hungarian billionaire (and US citizen) has been indirectly linked to the impeachment scandal, with roots going back years; much of this derives from his longstanding penchant for influencing governments of Eastern Europe.  He has long had an interest in Ukraine, and apparently had regular meetings with the former Ukrainian prime minister—and Jew—Volodymyr Groysman.  Soros is also a key investor in the Anti-Corruption Action Centre (AntAC), a group founded in 2012 in Ukraine, ostensibly to “fight corruption” but almost certainly acting to manipulate governmental policy.  Most recently, it has emerged that Soros’ “Open Society Foundation” had spent years in contact with key people at the State Department relating to Ukraine policy, most notably including (Jewess) Victoria Nuland and (can we say it?) alleged whistleblower Eric Ciaramella.  Other alleged connections are hard to assess.  Alex Jones and others have accused impeachment testifier Fiona Hill of being a “Soros mole,” which she, naturally, vehemently rejected in her private testimony.  The exact nature of that connection remains to be seen.

Media coverage, media bias

With this remarkable convergence of diverse members of single small ethnicity, one might expect an objective and independent media to highlight and examine this fact.  Unless of course your media were also dominated by that single small ethnicity—in which case, you would expect no discussion at all.  And in fact, that’s exactly what we have:  no discussion at all.  Yes, there is passing mention of Sondland as the “son of Holocaust survivors”—leaving viewers to make the identification with his Jewishness—and passing references to anti-Semitism regarding critics of, say, Vindman.  But that’s it.  Certainly nothing on Schiff, Nadler, Goldman, Zelensky, et al.  Even Joe DiGenova’s attack on Soros as “running the State Department” included no mention of Soros’ Jewishness—that would be a bridge too far. Since it’s well known that Soros is Jewish, mentioning that he is influential is now officially considered anti-Semitism.

But we cannot simply charge our mass media with a pro-Jewish bias unless we provide the facts—in this case, the names.  So, consider the following list of media journalists and program hosts.  Let’s focus for the moment on the three main ‘opinion-news’ channels:  CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.  Start with MSNBC—a network owned and operated by NBC Universal, which in turn is owned by Comcast.  Both parent companies have a notable Jewish presence in upper management:  Brian Roberts and David Cohen at Comcast, and Robert Greenblatt, Bonnie Hammer, Noah Oppenheim, Andrew Lack, Mark Lazarus, and Ron Meyer at NBC Universal.  As for the more visible, on-air personalities, we see on MSNBC such individuals as Rachel Maddow, Chuck Todd, Katy Tur, Andrea Mitchell, and Ari Melber—all Jewish.[8]

Trump’s beloved Fox News has its own Jewish presence, in the figures of Howard Kurtz, Mark Levin, Geraldo Rivera, and Chris Wallace.  But perhaps more indicative is Fox’s perennial pro-Israel stance, voiced by the likes of (non-Jew) Sean Hannity—and driven, presumably, by Fox’s rabidly Zionist corporate owners, the Murdoch family.

Most striking of all, though, is CNN, whose on-air staff is remarkably slanted in the Jewish direction.  For one quick indication, we can check the Wikipedia entry “List of CNN personnel,” where we find a section on “Political and legal analysts.”  Of 26 names listed, at least 16 (61%) are Jews:  Dana Bash, Richard Ben-Veniste, Rebecca Buck, Carl Bernstein, Wolf Blitzer, Gloria Borger, Harry Enten, Jamie Gangel, David Gergen, David Gregory, Maggie Haberman, John King (converted), Josh Rogin, Jake Tapper, Jeff Toobin, and Samantha Vinograd.  The following two sections reveal additional Jewish names, such as David Axelrod, David Frum, Peter Beinart, Steve Israel, Jason Kander, Sally Kohn, Catherine Rampell, Hilary Rosen, Aaron Miller, Tony Blinken, and Michael Weiss.  And this is not to mention others like anchor John Berman; frequent guests like Bianna Golodryga, Max Boot, or Alan Dershowitz; converts like Kate Bolduan; and non-Jews with Jewish spouses, like Christiane Amanpour.  All of this is undoubtedly supported by CNN chief Jeff Zucker, who in turn answers to his corporate bosses at Warner Media—namely, Richard Pepler and David Levy.

Given this situation, it is unsurprising that the Jewish parade during the impeachment process gets little or no attention.  In fact, it’s to be expected.  Anything less would be astonishing.

A few conclusions

This rare insight into the American Judeocracy affords us the opportunity to draw a few plausible conclusions.  First is the power of money.  Jews attain positions of influence and power, not because they are so talented, smart, noble, or well-liked, but rather because they effectively buy their way into power.  They are adept at using cash donations, personal connections, and ‘sharp elbows’ to maneuver themselves into key positions in government and media, and then to use those positions to further enhance their wealth and personal network.  It is a self-reinforcing cycle of the most malicious sort:  of using wealth to create wealth, of using power to grow more powerful.  And they do this in what, for most persons, would be considered highly unethical (when not outright illegal) ways.  Everyone accepts that ‘money corrupts politics,’ but they never acknowledge that the bulk of the political money—roughly 25% to 50%, depending on race and party—comes from one source: the Jewish Lobby.  Once in their pocket, politicians then readily write or alter laws to further enhance Jewish power.  Again, it’s a self-serving process of the highest order.  The ultimate goal of all action is, simply put, Jewish wealth and power; not justice, not fairness, not equity, not efficiency, not compassion.  Hence all such things are lacking from our government.

Second, we see how Jews have come to control both major political parties.  There is no opposing view, no real third alternative.  Even the microscopic threat posed by such groups as the Green Party must be controlled—such as through the Jewess Jill Stein.  Our two dominant parties, who fight to the death on nearly every issue, and agree on virtually nothing, find common cause in just one thing:  Jewish/Israeli interests.  Jewish judicial and cabinet nominees get immediate bipartisan approval.  So too does aid to Israel, amounting to in the neighborhood of $6 billion a year, every year.[see Note A below]  Hate speech laws are passed, and ‘white supremacy,’ ‘white nationalism,’ ‘anti-Semitism,’ and ‘racism,’ are routinely and mindlessly denounced by both sides.  Reasonable and nonviolent protests against Israeli crimes, such as actions related to boycotts, divestment, and sanctions (BDS), are automatically condemned and even outlawed.  Even otherwise-sacred First Amendment rights of free expression are trampled and abused whenever such things threaten Jewish interests.

Third, we see the time-honored Jewish strategy of distraction from the real underlying issues.  Fake, superficial political battles mask a subterranean congruence of interests.  Jews will fight among themselves for degrees of power, but when threatened as a group, they circle the wagons.  Against perceived enemies, they employ the most brutal pack-hunting techniques.  Only the toughest and most principled opponents survive.

Fourth is the astonishing compliance and subservience of non-Jews, in evident contrast to their own long-term interests.  We cannot believe that they do this blindly, and hence we must assume that they are fully aware of their actions and their consequences.  Media goyim like Sean Hannity, Anderson Cooper, Chris Cuomo, Laura Ingraham, David Muir, Lester Holt, and others, are guilty of the most appalling and treacherous of crimes:  of selling out one’s nation and one’s race for personal gain.  The same holds for the traitors in corporate leadership and government.  Political leaders like Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, Devin Nunes, Chuck Grassley, Mitch McConnell, etc. are criminal traitors to this nation; they cover for and defend the hidden ruling power—the true ‘deep state’—and thus subject us all, and the whole planet, to uncounted miseries.  In a truly just world, they would all be called to account, and pay for their sins.

The gravest betrayal, of course, is that of Donald Trump.  Due to his erratic and infantile behavior, it can be hard to assess his thinking here.  But some things are relatively clear.  By any reasonable accounting, Trump is little more than an unprincipled, semi-literate, egomaniac.  But owing to his extremely thin margin of public support, he is compelled—indeed, forced—to appeal to true conservatives, the working class, and the dissident right.  Clearly he has no intrinsic desire to help such groups, and he has no sympathy for their plight.  Trump is the epitome of a privileged, wealthy, out-of-touch elite.  But to stay in power, he must occasionally throw us a bone.  We on the dissident right can take it and make some hay with it; but we mustn’t expect much more.  Trump’s actual policies and decisions will certainly favor his wealthy compatriots and the Jewish power-brokers he works with.

But it’s worse than this.  Trump is such a fool, degenerate, and race-traitor that he would marry off his own beautiful daughter to the Judeocracy, possibly simply for the money and power that it would bring.  (It obviously says little about her judgement that she would comply.)  The Clintons did the same with their (much more homely) daughter Chelsea—and at nearly the same time, in 2009–2010.  It is perhaps no coincidence that once Hillary and Trump cemented their respective family ties to the Tribe, they both later rose to the height of influence in their corresponding political parties.  If the Jewish Lobby can’t have a Jew directly in power, a family-connected goy is the next best thing.  Hence the presidential battle of 2016 is best seen as a struggle between the two wings of the Lobby; each had their favored candidate, and the Lobby was guaranteed to win, no matter the outcome.  Nothing like stacking the deck.

A fifth conclusion is that things are unlikely to get any better in the near future.  Consider the upcoming 2020 presidential election.  Democrats have a fair chance of winning the presidency, but unfortunately their party is even more saturated by the Jewish milieu than the Republicans.  They receive a higher percentage of campaign money from the Lobby, and their liberal Jewish supporters in the media outnumber their neo-con counterparts (who are all Never-Trumpers).  And then take a look at the current field of presidential contenders.  At the moment there are 18 active contestants—among whom we find no less than five Jews:  Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer, Marianne Williamson, Michael Bennett, and most recently, Michael Bloomberg.  God help us if we end up with a Jewish president.  All the other contenders, though, are nearly as bad:  pro-Israel, anti-White, anti-‘racist’, pro-military, etc.—with the sole exception of Tulsi Gabbard, whose enduring presence in the race is something of a minor miracle.  She alone seems willing and able to confront the Jewish power structure behind the Democrats.  (Alt-righters: take notice!)  But Gabbard has almost no chance of winning the nomination, and thus we will inevitably have yet another pro-Israel Democrat running against a pro-Israel Trump whose most recent sign of fealty to Israel was declaring the West Bank settlements legal, in contravention to long-standing US lip service to their illegality.

Sixth and finally, the dominance of the Judeocracy is so overarching that all other causes fade into insignificance.  Therefore every American, no matter your cause, should first of all oppose Jewish power, because until it is exposed and undermined, your cause will certainly fail—, unless it coincides with Jewish interests.  The Lobby effectively subjugates every other political priority to its own needs, and therefore everyone should, above all, combat that power directly, if we are to have any hope of resolving our many grievances.  Environmentalists, Medicare-for-all advocates, anti-abortionists, small government defenders, tax resisters, liberals, conservatives, socialists, libertarians…your cause is doomed, unless you can recruit significant Jewish support, and that is impossible if you challenge any of the interests promoted by the Lobby.  It’s as simple—and as challenging—as that.

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 www.thomasdaltonphd.com

---

[A] Note:  The $6 billion is a rough estimate of total direct and indirect aid.  Explicit foreign aid for this year, signed by Trump in early 2019, was $3.3 billion.  But then there was another $500 million in military aid funded separately under the DoD budget.  “Another $500 million for Israeli missile defense was apportioned in a defense appropriations bill passed last fall, making American aid to Israel total $3.8 billion.”  This maneuver of hiding aid has been known for some time: “Much of the money the US gives Israel is buried in the budgets of other government agencies, primarily the Defense Department. Other subsidies come in a form that isn’t easily quantifiable, such as the early disbursement of aid, which allows Israel to gain (and the U.S. taxpayer to lose) the interest on the unspent money.”  Counting all relevant aid, including loan guarantees, aid to Israeli lackeys in Egypt and Jordan, and the financial value of free PR, the total annual benefit approaches or exceeds $6 billion.

[1] For evidence on these three individuals, see my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (Castle Hill, 2019), 32, 95-99, 162-163.  Also, Bill Clinton of course has close personal connections as well, given his daughter Chelsea’s marriage to Jew Marc Mezvinsky; but that was in 2010, long after Clinton had left office.

[2] “7 big-bucks Jewish donors,” Forward, 17 Nov 2016.

[3] “Jewish comic who play Ukrainian president on TV lead Ukraine’s presidential race,” Times of Israel (13 Mar 2019).

[4] Among Schiff’s fellow committee members is the Jewess Jackie Speier (D-Cal.).

[5] The complaint about a Jewish “state within the state” goes back many years, at least to Johann Fichte in the late 18^th century:  “Do you not remember the state within the State?  Does the thought not occur to you that if you give to the Jews, who are citizens of a state more solid and more powerful than any of yours, civil rights in your states, they will utterly crush the remainder of your citizens?”

[6] “The comedian and the oligarch,” Politico.com (14 Apr 2019).

[7] “A bank scandal, an oligarch, and the IMF,” CNBC.com (20 Sep 2019).

[8] For purposes of expediency, I include here individuals who are half-Jewish.