Review: Agitprop in America

“Agitprop has been the method for destroying America’s culture and rebuilding it as Cultural Marxism.”
      John Harmon McElroy, Agitprop in America

Agitprop in America
John Harmon McElroy

Arktos, 2020 

“You can live with the loss of certainty, but not of belief.” So begins John Harmon McElroy’s recently-published Agitprop in America, an almost 400-page book on America’s increasing distance from former beliefs, wholesale adoption of new ones, and the methods by which this transformation was brought about. A cultural historian, McElroy is a professor emeritus of the University of Arizona and was a Fulbright scholar at universities in Spain and Brazil. I suspect Agitprop in America is an exercise in catharsis for the author. During the course of the volume McElroy is clearly, to borrow Melville’s famous words, “driving off the spleen,” by which I mean that he is dispensing with many years of excess feelings of irritation, built up over a career in decaying academia. In Agitprop in America, McElroy takes aim at a succession of modern academia’s sacred cows, with chapters covering Marxist history and propaganda techniques, “social justice” activism, mandatory diversity, political correctness, free speech, snowflake culture, government spending, and the dominance of Cultural Marxism in the American education system. One of the book’s more unique features is a 107-page lexicon of 234 terms (from Ableism to Xenophobia) explaining the invention and employment of language as a method of cultural transformation via agitprop. The book is written in a terse, urgent style reminiscent of Hillaire Belloc, and McElroy comes across confident, bullish, and confrontational, all of which contributes character to what is one of the more original and interesting books I’ve read thus far in 2020.

My first impression of Agitprop in America was that it was a kind of throwback to older anti-Communist texts. I mean this in neither a strictly positive nor strictly negative sense, but an understanding and appreciation of the overall intellectual trajectory of the book will demand that this is acknowledged. In the absence of biographical details, I would estimate McElroy to be in his 80s. He comes across as a thoroughly committed Christian and capitalist, and the book itself is dedicated to “Cuba’s Escambray guerrillas who died fighting Fidel Castro’s Marxist tyranny in the 1960s.” As such, the psychology of the book is underpinned by tensions and memories that are either unknown or significantly faded among younger generations, such as McCarthyism, the Bay of Pigs incident, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. That being said, the book is still incredibly contemporary and relevant. This is in large part due to McElroy’s keen ear for contemporary society and politics, as well as the evolving lexicon of Cultural Marxism, which enables him to discuss “woke” culture with the same accuracy and vigor as “class struggle.” I also think that, in an age where it’s becoming commonplace among Rightist millennials to dismiss “Boomers” and throw themselves headlong into a “NazBol” Third Positionism that in some respects rehabilitates or repurposes aspects of Marxism and even the Frankfurt School, it’s beneficial to listen to those with decades of experience in the culture wars. Although I don’t agree with everything McElroy has to say, he is one such individual and he has produced a very useful text.

The book opens with the contention that “since the 1960s Marxists and their sympathizers in America have been using agitprop (an integration of intense agitation and propaganda invented by Lenin) to destroy America’s culture and build Cultural Marxism. To do this, agitprop has changed American speech and manipulated cultural values and beliefs.”  American history has been rewritten “to make it into a Marxian tale of unmitigated oppression.” American contemporary society has been reinterpreted as the story of “one biologically defined ruling class (straight White males) “victimizing” all other biologically defined classes.” These Marxist dogmas “are causing the destruction of America’s exceptional culture.”

Part I of the book consists of a brief sketch of the historical context of agitprop in America. McElroy does a very capable job of following political correctness from its Soviet and Maoist origins, through the campus agitations of the 1960s, to the “woke” culture warriors of today. Early in the chapter he indulges in some of the “antifa are the real fascists” fluff that one unfortunately expects from older anti-Communists, and he makes one positive reference to the tainted writings of the Jewish neoconservative academic Richard Pipes. But these are brief divergences from an otherwise steady and interesting invective against the corruption of language and the introduction of politically correct culture in the United States. McElroy is at his best when he focuses on the methodology of Culture Marxism, writing:

Instead of overturning the U.S government by force and taking comprehensive control of the United States all at once, the Counter Culture/Political Correctness Movement has been engaged for the last fifty years in gradually but relentlessly transforming the United States from within little by little, by co-opting its institutions and destroying existing cultural beliefs slowly and methodically, and replacing them with the dogmas of Marxism. (8)

In our current age of declining optimism and rising nihilism, I found McElroy’s persistent belief in American exceptionalism to be somewhat heartening. Although the America of today has thickened and bubbled into a globalist empire, it was indeed founded, as McElroy reminds us “on belief in man’s unalienable birthright to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and government by consent of the governed.” The author is both saddened and angered to see the promise of the “American Dream” come under sustained attack from both internal and external enemies, and while we can make the argument for a more critical or nuanced interrogation of such concepts as the “American Dream” (Tom Sunic’s excellent Homo Americanus is probably unsurpassed in this area), it’s difficult to argue that something special and precious hasn’t been lost in America since the 1950s. Where Sunic and McElroy might agree, with radically different implications, is in their assessment of the nature of American culture through history. Both assert the European origins of American culture, and both assert that it later became essentially non-European. For McElroy, this transition (c. 1800–1950) represents a triumph, with America defining itself against “the aristocratic cultures of Europe based on belief in ruling classes constituted by “noble” and “royal” blood.” For Sunic, the drift away from European culture resulted in hostility to European traditions, and an obsession with “rights” and individualistic consumerism, that has dogged America for over a century and has contributed heavily to its current cultural malaise. Both scholars would find agreement again in the fact America post-1950 has been in the throes of a cultural catastrophe in which Marxism has been pivotal.

The latter section of the first chapter concerns Marxist dogma from Soviet times to the present. McElroy is quite right to point out that historically Marxists argued that deviation from their worldview could represent a “symptom of mental derangement requiring treatment in a psychiatric clinic,” and he places this alongside commentary on how today’s dissidents are presented as “enemies of humanity.” In each case, agitprop develops an environment in which dissent is viewed and portrayed as “a kind of irrational, anti-science behavior.” The key to the success of Cultural Marxist agitprop is its “intrinsic deceptiveness.” McElroy writes,

Political correctness represents itself as a champion of fundamental American values. That brazen pretense, that Marxism is identical to American liberalism and progressivism, is why the Counter Culture/Political Correctness movement has had so much success in the United States. (22)

Drawing on Saul Alinsky’s infamous Rules for Radicals, McElroy explains how Cultural Marxists provoke their opponents into reacting (e.g. threatening to take down historical monuments, ordering “gay cakes”) and then denounce them as irrational “reactionaries.” Another tactic is to create problems, or interpret problems, in such a manner that permits the proposal of Marxist “solutions.” I thought that an analysis of Alinsky’s works might provoke a deeper reading from McElroy, who writes that Alinsky was “an atheist.” In fact, Alinsky was an agnostic who, when asked specifically about religion, would always reply that he was Jewish. This error is indicative of a broader blind spot in the text — the ethnic component of anti-American activism. This blind spot manifests more subtly throughout the lexicon of Cultural Marxist terms that comprises the middle of the book. Quite frankly, when one actually looks at the individuals who have coined or popularized many of these genuinely novel agitprop terms (e.g. ‘homophobia’ by George Weinberg, ‘deconstructionism’ by Jacques Derrida, ‘racism’ by Magnus Hirschfeld and Leon Trotsky, ‘transgender’ by Magnus Hirschfeld and later Harry Benjamin, ‘sex work” and ‘sex worker’ by Carol Leigh, ‘cultural pluralism’ by Horace Kallen), they emerge almost exclusively as Jews. It’s a simple and unavoidable fact that Jews have been at the forefront of changing “ways of seeing” by first changing “ways of describing.” I agree with McElroy that we shouldn’t call anti-American agitators “liberals,” and that “Leftists” also leaves a lot unsaid. McElroy, however, proposes “PC Marxists,” which I feel doesn’t get any closer to the mark.

The question presenting itself is: Does this blind spot hinder the usefulness of the text? I don’t think so. Agitprop in America can be read by the well-informed, such as readers of this website, who can fill in certain blanks (as I have above) from their own extensive reading and derive a great deal of knowledge and pleasure from the book. McElroy opines that the two greatest identifying attitudinal markers of “PC Marxism” are hypocrisy and paranoia. He writes that they vigorously enforce “separation of church and state,” and fully embrace “crony capitalism.” Rather than being genuine Americans, they merely “go about in the guise” of the everyday man, while looking down on those who dissent from their thinking in the belief they’re “stupid.” They “relentlessly insist on social justice.” Who does this sound like? And, so you see, specifics of nomenclature aside, the book lends itself to an open and usable reading.

The second chapter of the book contains some interesting autobiographical material on McElroy’s early academic career. In 1966, the same year our own Kevin MacDonald graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, McElroy, a newly minted PhD, arrived at the college. McElroy writes, “Without knowing it, I was going to one of the two epicenters of the Counter Culture movement in the Midwest, the other being the University of Michigan.” McElroy became especially fascinated with the chants of student protestors, seeing in their uniformity certain indications of “planning for a nationwide campaign of agitation and propaganda against U.S. military involvement in Vietnam and against America’s cultural beliefs.” The chapter proceeds with a discussion of the mindset and tactics of this early agitprop campaign, with McElroy commenting:

Normal minds of course find it difficult to believe in a “culture war” that has gone on for half a century and that aims to transform the world’s oldest, most successful republic into a center for Cultural Marxism. Because the project is so audacious, it has taken many middle-class Americans a long time to believe such a movement exists; and many middle-class Americans apparently still refuse to believe a systematic assault is underway on American culture and has been going on in America for fifty years. But whether you believe it or not, a culture war is in progress in America, as evidenced by the fact that many Americans now prefer the dogmas of Marxism to the beliefs of American culture.

The second part of the book consists of the above-mentioned 107-page lexicon of 234 terms explaining the invention and employment of language as a method of cultural transformation via agitprop. The lexicon itself is preceded by two brief explanatory chapters on “Politically Correct Language as a Means of Revolution,” and “Terms Related to and Used by the Counter Culture/Political Correctness Movement.” The first of these chapters is very heavily focused on McElroy’s belief that we should once more refer to Blacks as “Negroes” or “Negro Americans.” For McElroy, the term “African-American” is an “agitprop substitute” designed to make Whites and Blacks constantly aware “that most Negro Americans have remote ancestors brought to America from Africa in chains as slaves.” The author spends several pages thrashing out this issue, which left me quite unsure that this particular issue would be the metaphorical hill I’d personally choose to die on. McElroy comes from a generation in which the term “Negro” probably retained a semblance of tradition and even charm about it, whereas it’s now fallen so completely out of use that a resurrection of the term could only be perceived by all sides as something negative. Again, I actually do sympathize with the central thrust of McElroy’s meaning here. I’m just not convinced I’d base my war on agitprop so strongly in this particular issue.

My misgivings on this point carried through somewhat to the lexicon itself, which is overwhelmingly good but contains some dubious entries. McElroy must first be commended for compiling such an extension list of terms, which is, as far as I’m aware, the only ‘Rightist” lexicon of Cultural Marxist agitprop in existence. Each term comes with commentary, with some only a few sentences in length and others a few pages. A few examples should suffice in order to give a flavor of the style:

A faux bias cooked up by PC agitprop, ableism is an alleged prejudice against a person with a disability as, for instance, refusing to hire someone with a stutter or substandard comprehension of spoken English as an office receptionist. Not hiring a person with a patently disqualifying deficiency constitutes the prejudice of “ableism,” according to PC Marxists. See entry on “Sizeism.”

Person of Size
Someone who is extremely obese is a “person of size” in PC talk. The euphemism was invented as part of agitprop’s insistence on the need for sensitive, inoffensive diction.

The expression “having a relationship” means in PC parlance having sex with the same partner for a significant length of time without getting married. To a PC Marxist, “having a relationship” is preferable to having a marriage because it forestalls family formation.

Right-Wing Extremism
“Right-wing extremism” is one of the labels PC Marxists use to criticize their opponents, whom they regard as “extreme” because they put the interests of their nation above the revolutionary dogmas of global Marxism.

Sexual Orientation
This is the PC euphemism for homosexuality. The euphemism was coined to avoid the use of the words “homosexual” and “homosexuality.” The phrase “sexual orientation” allows persons who are politically correct to praise and promote homosexual behavior without having to use the terms “homosexual” or “homosexuality,” which are loaded with a historical burden of moral disapproval. The term “sexual orientation,” however, has a scientific ring to it implying that homosexuality is merely one of various “orientations” toward sexual activity, so that no one should object to it. Homosexual practices ought to be considered as any other erotic activity. This is the argument agitprop in America is making in its revolutionary assault.

With over 230 terms covered, many of them very current in contemporary internet culture, McElroy is to be applauded for his effort in both compiling the list and keeping his finger on the agitprop pulse. The few dubious entries emerge from McElroy’s apparently fundamentalist Christian beliefs, which lead him to a few scathing remarks on evolution, the Big Bang theory, etc. This is McElroy’s book, and it’s his right to wax lyrical on some matters that are clearly close to his heart. I’m certainly not disparaging his approach, but I do think that this might alienate readers who are of a more scientific and less spiritual mindset. That being said, he has produced a great piece of work in this lexicon.

The third section of the book is probably my favorite, and McElroy demonstrates the best of his reading and understanding here. The section consists of commentaries/chapters covering “seven related revolutionary concepts that PC agitprop has imposed on America.” These are “Biological Class Consciousness,” “Social Justice,” “Mandatory Diversity,” a politics of double standards, mass indoctrination on “sensitivity,” censorship and the policing of speech, and the promotion of a sterile and self-obsessed atheism. Of these, the first is one of the best, with McElroy remarking:

Now, after five decades of relentless Marxist agitation and propaganda promoting biological class consciousness in America, courses on U.S. history and Western civilization have dwindled and all but disappeared at American colleges and universities while courses on biological class consciousness have proliferated. Everywhere today in U.S. institutions of higher education, one finds courses and degree programs in Women’s Studies, African-American Studies, Mexican-American Studies, and LGBT studies. And as college and university faculties have become more uniform in their Political Correctness, the courses on U.S. history and Western civilization which remain in the curriculum are almost invariably taught from the point of view of Marxian class struggle, which is to say from the standpoint that straight “Euro-American” males (SEAMs) comprise a ruling class which has “victimized” women, negro Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, homosexuals, and other biologically defined classes. College students today are being taught to hate SEAMs as a class for the “victimisation” they have allegedly inflicted on all other biological classes in America.(180)

McElroy is equally on point when it comes to “social justice,” suggesting that the term really refers to “the idea of preferential treatment for members of allegedly oppressed classes. It is justice dispensed according to class history … “Social justice” is political justice. It expresses political favoritism that will advance the revolution.” The author is also good on the subject of “Mandatory Diversity,” pointing out just how incentivized this has become in our culture and economy:

A reputation for being “diverse” is something institutions throughout America today are eager to acquire. Being “diverse” has become a political, economic, and academic requirement, a much-coveted accolade, a shibboleth attesting to one’s Political Correctness. (220)

On “sensitivity” agitprop, McElroy observes that “the real purpose of the sensitivity game is intimidation.” Enforced “soft language” for protected groups creates an atmosphere in which deviation into normal speech can be chastized as hateful, unfair, and bigoted. The wider the sensitivity net (e.g. embracing the fat, the ugly, etc.) then the more successful will be the broader cultural strategy. It is an offensive built on “not offending.” The same themes are evident in censorship and the policing of speech.

The final section of the book consists of five short chapters on differing subjects. The first is a commentary on “The Failure of Marxism in the USSR and Successes of PC Marxism in America” which combines an interesting historical overview with a quite strident attack on the Obama years. The next chapter is a brief but lucid essay on how agitprop and PC Marxism has influenced U.S. government spending. The third, and shortest chapter in this section is an attempted rebuttal of the idea that America has become an imperialist nation. I tend to disagree with McElroy somewhat here, not because I believe America has an empire in the conventional sense, but because I believe it’s self-evident that elements of the U.S. government, most notably the neocons, have increasingly steered the country into a foreign interventionist position built around the idea of sustaining global finance capitalism and the state of Israel. Since McElroy’s musings on this topic are limited to a few pages, I was, however, spared any lasting distaste.

—The book then nears its end with a very good chapter on “PC Marxist Dominance in U.S. Public Schools,” before closing with a very pro-Trump chapter on “The Significance of the 2016 Presidential Election.” I was ambivalent about this last chapter because it lacks the nuanced and qualified approach to Trump’s 2016 win that is surely now, in light of a succession of policy failures and absences, much-deserved. Part of me wishes I could share McElroy’s optimism, and I laud any man of his advanced age for avoiding the temptation of observing it all with jaded distance. But I cannot, having considered all available evidence and precedence, share his persistent belief in the MAGA phenomenon.

Final Reflection on Agitprop in America

John Harmon McElroy’s work of catharsis is a worthy addition to the Arktos library, and offers an original and multifaceted new approach to the subject of America’s undeniable and ongoing decay. At almost 400 pages of commentaries on numerous subjects, including a large lexicon of Cultural Marxist terms, the book certainly represents value for money and will consume many hours of study. Of course, it doesn’t have “all the answers,” something it has in common with the vast majority of political texts on the market, but it does approach a normally pessimistic subject with intellectual vigor, aggression, confidence, and even optimism. It’s a book worthy of being “balanced out” by the later reading of another text like Sunic’s Homo Americanus, and I think readers can gain much from such an exercise. Readers could also benefit by conducting some of their own research into the origins of certain agitprop terms. McElroy includes several blank pages at the end of his book for “notes,” which could be put to use in this manner. As hinted at earlier in this review, I guarantee that readers will find some predictable but useful information in the process.

45 replies
  1. Loren
    Loren says:

    Oh joy!! Another book that describes the problem. Just what we needed. More books and talk show hosts and Twitter.
    I am just an average American joe and I knew the universities had been taken over by Communists over 30 years ago. The only thing I didn’t know was who the Communists were and that they were tied to our greatest ally.
    Professor MacDonald’s book explained everything to me. Now I am waiting for everybody on the dissident right to stop sniping at each other so we can give them the old American what for.
    I am not reading another book, or donating anymore money until we stop fighting amongst ourselves and start being smart and resourceful like our ancestors were. We know the problem, we know the answer. Time for action.
    Time for an immigration moratorium! Hahahahahahaha…

    • James Clayton
      James Clayton says:

      Get your news/current events via For those my age, there a shorter link: You don’t have to donate, support, whatever you want to call it: but pay-as-you-go– a dollar-a-week is suggested– covers some of the cost of aggregating such material for you. Visit it right now and see if that isn’t exactly what you’re asking-for here, which is not the focus of Dr. MacDonald’s organization.

      Mark Weber’s is another good site which has an e-mail newsletter but it is different from National Vanguard. The National Alliance is what, it sounds like to me, that you claim to want to participate: it is a war zone. There are opinion pieces– essays, which are easily avoided.

      You’ll find what you want but there is no substitute for at least recruiting those willing to at least put “postage” where their mouth-is.

    • Rerevisionist
      Rerevisionist says:

      Loren, no offence. But “smart and resourceful like our ancestors were”. Really? They didn’t begin to understand the roots of wars or anyhting else. Please.

    • Anthony Kimball
      Anthony Kimball says:

      Well said. The time for words is long past. Our people will either act now in their own interests, or be rendered extinct. Forget “immigration moratorium”…what is urgently required now is “reverse immigration” aka forced expulsion.

      • Loren R.
        Loren R. says:

        Hey Anthony, absolutely agree. I am trying to get some stats here on how many Mexicans and Hondurans etc. have self deported recently. My home county has been completely overrun in the last 15 years and now that the work has dried up I wonder how many have left. Of course you can’t get good data from anybody and the legacy media distorts anything to do with stats about immigrants. What I am looking at most closely is the rental market. Already have seen some opening up and lower pricing.
        Our crazy governor is calling for more shutdown so that might keep the ball rolling.

        • James Clayton
          James Clayton says:

          A couple of cardiologists I’ve known for some time built homes in Mexico because their “money” goes further there. Previously, they left the South Africa their forefathers built because “apartheid is wrong.”

          Mestizos and mulattoes, facilitated by “literally” bleeding-heart Catholics, wade to get to the promised land, where the streets are paved with gold, there’s “free” healthcare, and a job for cash is as close as hanging-around with a cardboard sign and peeing in the bushes by THE HOME DEPOT. We tolerate their being resettled in Maine and Minnesota.

          The volume of roadside trash in California is breathtaking and bank-breaking. Throwing things “away”– mattresses, recliners, and fast food debris was a way-of-life South of the Border and, once again, it is the way of life as the “Southwest is subsumed by Atzlan.” You have to see it first and “Americans” don’t see it yet.

          The County Health Department and Public Utilities are staffed by those whose people have different standards in their nations of origin where, for example, my whole life I was cautioned, “Don’t drink the water.” They are wont to enforce commonsense law that was passed by those to whom we pay a fortune for such “service”– the kind of service bulls provide cows.

 India’s Ganges River Now Filthier Than Ever, New STUDY Says
          September 22 2016 10:45 AM EDT

          India Released 25,000 Flesh-Eating Turtles into the Ganges …… In the late 1980s, India’s government announced a plan to release specially-bred flesh-eating turtles into the Ganges river.

          India To Use Flesh Eating Turtles To Rid The Ganges of Decomposing Bodies …

          Published on Jan 21, 2019 India’s Ganges river is the main source of water [beginning as the purest glacial melt] for half-a-billion people. It’s also holy to the country’s almost 1 billion Hindus, who bathe in the river to be cleansed of their sins and believe that if a body is cremated and released into the water at Varanasi it can escape the cycle of reincarnation.

          My Scots-Irish (and British) forefathers from the Pioneers to the Earps would be ashamed that we can’t– make that won’t hold what they won the old-fashioned way. Hell, I’m ashamed.

          Bring back public hangings to get the hospitality industry back on its feet with pay-per-view for those unable to find a room at the inn. Don’t allow politicians to commute sentences or borrow play-money into existence to allow creative usurers to bind-down our posterity and sell the mortgage paper to gullible but nuclear-armed Chinese. And quit infringing on the right of men to keep and bear arms– period– as a token of appreciation to any you can still locate rather than making-an-example of them to intimidate those with less backbone.

    • Kathy
      Kathy says:

      Thank you, Loren! I agree with every word you wrote. I’ve known something was going on way back in the early 80s, if not before. I’m 76 years old and I’ve been seeing little “nudges” since the 60s but didn’t know what they were at the time.
      And I’ve been wishing some of the extremists would settle down and let us all join together to fight this takeover! We don’t need to give the communists any more fuel for their attacks.
      Where is that old American “what for”? I hope it didn’t die with the last of the WWII vets.

      • Loren R
        Loren R says:

        Hi Kathy,
        Thank you for the kind words. Right now I am looking to Professor MacDonald and Nick Fuentes as leaders and hoping we can all rally around immigration restriction, stopping foreign war/ interference and trade protectionism.
        Of course this would mean all out war with globalist bankers/tech monsters but I think we can do it.
        That plaque needs to go ASAP.
        And one bright spot in this latest disaster, legacy media is failing at a rapid rate.
        There is hope.

  2. Robert Keith
    Robert Keith says:

    Coincidental to Mr. Joyce’s recommendation regarding “Homo Americanus”, I have just finished reading that very book, and I am looking forward to dong the same to “Agitprop in America”. As respects the former, it’s been out for a while, but, for someone who has spent a number of years abroad, it’s a real door-opener, not-only for its comments by a former “victim” of Communism on America, but also his comments thereon as a long-time resident of both Western Europe and America, itself. In other words, we have a unique brew of all these points of view in one place. Talk about “holistic”!

  3. Surtr
    Surtr says:

    Professor MacDonald, the authors here, and this site are wonderful. I use this site constantly, but my career was obliterated and I could not salvage it. When (if…) I get on my feet financially I will surely donate to put my money where my mouth is. Going to buy all of Kevin’s books too.

    • James Clayton
      James Clayton says:

      Too bad one has to buy Dr. MacDonald’s book via a mainstream merchant, arguably supporting– albeit to a small extent– the monopoly mainstream media of so-called news and entertainment. A former associate self-published via an outfit known as Shop Foreman (or something to that effect).

    • Anne
      Anne says:

      Good to see you commenting again, Surtr. I can relate to the need to be frugal… Just recently, I finally bit the bullet and bought The Culture of Critique after years of reading TOO. If I can make a suggestion when you make your own purchase – go for the paperback published in 2002. It has a 120 page preface that wasn’t included in the 1998 edition that is full of extremely valuable information.

      • James Clayton
        James Clayton says:

        Willis and Elizabeth Carto had that edition on their coffee table and said it ushered-in a new era of well-documented, scientific understanding of the “Jewish problem.”

        Last time I looked, Mark Weber had a few copies that may not be listed for-sale on his web site, of another classic, Copyright 2004, hardcover, Defensive Racism by Edgar J. Steele. Speculation is that White attorney “Mister Anti-Semite” Steele was Epsteined.
        Straight Talk About Zionism
        Mark Weber – Podcast
        A critical look at Zionism as an ideology and as a social-political movement. The IHR director reviews its origins and history, including the little-known story of Zionist collaboration with Third Reich Germany during the 1930s. Citing statements by Jewish and Israeli leaders, Weber notes that the essence of Zionism is its view of Jews as a distinct people or nationality, with interests separate from those of non-Jews. Zionists, he explains, insist that Jews everywhere owe a primary loyalty to Israel and the world Jewish community.

  4. Panadechi
    Panadechi says:

    A more specific definition of this article, of the Judeo-Marxist techniques to achieve power, could be defined as “Dissipated Molecular Revolution (Micro-revolutions)”, in all psycho-socio-ethno-cultural-territorial spheres. Nothing is gained by regretting, the main thing is how to face the problem, since the time for the whites plays against.

  5. Rob Bottom
    Rob Bottom says:

    >Drawing on Saul Alinsky’s infamous Rules for Radicals, McElroy explains how Cultural Marxists provoke their opponents into reacting (e.g. threatening to take down historical monuments, ordering “gay cakes”) and then denounce them as irrational “reactionaries.”

    This is why the “It’s okay to be white” poster campaign was so successful. More of that sort of thing can turn the tables.

        • James Clayton
          James Clayton says:

          CARTOONS | Steve Kelley

          View Cartoon
          1) Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. Boycotts have fallen out of favor on the Right because the Left has used that tactic to target conservative radio. This is a mistake. That’s because there are a lot more conservatives than there are liberals and we’re much more capable of using the tactic effectively. There are roughly 120 million people who identify with conservatism in this country and almost twice as many Christians. When there are threats that Christians and conservatives will refuse to go see movies, stop buying products, or cancel subscriptions, it will scare some people straight. That threat should be used and carried out much more often.
          2) Never go outside the experience of your people. Want to know why Republicans are so terrible at reaching out to minorities? Because identity politics works really, really well and conservatives tend to oppose it on principle. So, white Republicans are constantly trying to go outside of their experience and reach out to minorities who are generally disinclined to listen to them because they have the wrong skin color. When the GOP accepts reality, adopts the tactics of the Democratic Party, and starts paying off our own Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons to reach out to minority groups and call Democrats racists, we’ll start making inroads with minorities for the first time in decades.

          3) Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. The GOP often foolishly retreats from social issues. This is a huge mistake in an era when 76% of the country is Christian and most liberals find sincere Christian beliefs to be repellent. We don’t have to preach at anyone, wag our fingers, or turn into legions of Ned Flanders, but we shouldn’t be afraid to talk about our Christian beliefs, stick up for Christians who are under attack, and hammer the Left for its anti-Christian bigotry. Conservatism is a pro-Christian ideology and liberalism is an anti-Christian ideology. We should never be afraid to drive that point home.
          4) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. This is something conservatives have gotten much better at in the last few years, but we seldom take it far enough. If we did, a tax cheat who advocates higher taxes could certainly never be our Treasury Secretary, Barack Obama would be afraid to associate with race hustlers like Al Sharpton or one percenters like Warren Buffet, and Al Gore would have either given up his mansion or his status as the leader of the cult of global warming.

          4A) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. Conservatives have a tendency to try to win every debate with logic and recitations of facts which, all too often, fail to get the job done because emotions and mockery are often just as effective as reason. The good news is that liberals almost never have logic on their side; so they’re incapable of rationally making the case for their policies while conservatives can become considerably more effective debaters by simply adding some emotion-based arguments and sheer scorn to their discourse. This has certainly worked on Twitter, where conservatives keep making the Obama campaign look like buffoons by taking over its hashtags.

          6) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. Sometimes Republicans get too serious about politics. Why not hold a fund raiser at the gun range? What’s wrong with having Kid Rock or a bunch of popular country musicians play at a massive voter registration drive? How about building some giant puppet heads of our own, featuring Nancy Pelosi injecting botox into her face or Barack Obama punching the Pope in the stomach? A little controversy and fun draw in the eyeballs and gets people excited.
          7) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. This one seems self-explanatory, but in practice, it can be tough to keep things on a timeline. This is what happened to the Occupy Movement, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Republican race for the presidency, too. If it goes on too long, people sour on it whether it’s a war, an election, or a tactic.
          8) Keep the pressure on. Conservatives fall down on this one all the time. Just when Obama’s SuperPac was starting to feel real pressure over taking a million dollar donation from Bill Maher, conservatives eased up. This is also why liberal film stars feel so comfortable trashing conservatives, Christians, and Americans — even right before their film comes out. It’s because we get offended, shrug our shoulders, and then almost immediately let it go. Sometimes, an apology doesn’t fix everything. How often do liberals accept an apology at face value and let an issue go?
          9) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. How about we treat the Left to some of its own medicine? Libs throw a pie at a conservative author on campus; then we promise to shower every liberal speaker on the same campus with garbage. They post a conservative address online; we post two liberal addresses online. They hold a protest at someone’s house; then we hold a protest at someone’s house. They hit one of our politicians with glitter; we hit one of their politicians with coal dust. Liberals have a mentality that says, “Everything we do is harmless, but everything conservatives do is potentially dangerous.” Yet, we’re usually too well behaved to copy their tactics. Mimic those tactics once or twice and the Libs will freak out so hard that they’ll start declaring it to be off limits for everyone, including their own activists.
          10) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. When you launch an attack, tie it in as part of a theme and never stop hammering the theme as long as it’s true and it works. John Kerry is a flip-flopper, Bill Clinton is a liar, Barack Obama is bankrupting the country and wrecking the economy — tie your attacks into themes that can be picked up on social media, talk radio, cable TV, and in the blogosphere over the long haul. Why does McDonald’s keep running ads? Because it may be that 50th ad or 100th ad you see that gets you to go buy a Big Mac, just as it may be the 50th or 100th time someone hears that Obama is bankrupting the country and wrecking the economy before it sticks.
          11) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside. The winner in politics is almost always whoever is on offense. Liberals understand this in an intuitive way that most conservatives don’t. We think because we have this wonderful, honest, logical response to a charge that we’re scoring major points — but, except in rare cases, it’s not true. If you’re spending all of your time refuting the charges that you’re extreme, racist, hate women, and despise the poor — you’re losing. That’s because some people will assume where there’s smoke, there’s fire, and disbelieve you no matter how good your explanation may be. Additionally, if you’re busy defending yourself, you can’t go after the other side. Defend when you absolutely have to, but make sure most of your time is spent attacking relentlessly attacking.
          12) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Honestly, this is more of a liberal problem than a conservative one, since liberals always seem to be clamoring to rip out some functional necessity of American society so they can replace it with an ill-defined hodgepodge of ideas that they think will shift power their way or be less “mean.” Our ideas work; so coming up with a constructive alternative is seldom a problem.
          13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Conservatives tend to do well with this one until they get to the last part. Polarization is at the core of the Left’s strategy. According to liberals, if you’re conservative, you hate blacks, Hispanics, gays, Jews, Muslims, women, the poor, the middle class, the environment, and probably a half dozen other groups I’ve forgotten. Even when something is in front of our face, conservatives shy away from polarization. What’s wrong with pointing out how hostile the Democratic Party has become to Christianity? Why not point out the truth: that most white liberals are racists who think black Americas are too stupid and incompetent to compete with white Americans, which is why they push Affirmative Action and racial set asides? Why not note that liberals want poor Americans to stay poor and dependent, because as long as they do, they’ll keep voting for the Democrat Party? There’s a reason Barack Obama bows to foreign leaders, is constantly apologizing for America, attended an anti-white, anti-American church for 20 years, and it’s why his wife was proud of the country for the FIRST TIME because she thought it was going to elect her husband. The sad truth is that these are people who hate and despise this country. Why do you think “hope and change” appealed so much to Obama that he made it his theme? When you look at America as an evil, racist, unfair, horrible place to live inhabited by ignorant trash and “bitter clingers,” what else would you do other than hope for change? If you love this country and the values it represents, the people in the White House not only don’t share your values, they hold people like you in utter contempt.

  6. Richard B
    Richard B says:

    I can’t remember ever reading anything from Andrew Joyce I didn’t like. And I really liked this one. Great book review.

    Regarding the review, I was reminded once again of one of the reasons for the extraordinary success of Cultural Marxism.

    Not because of Cultural Marxism, not at all.

    The reminder came when I started reading Ortega’s The Revolt Of The Masses. A short book I’ve read a number of times over the last 30 years. It’s still a classic. Still solid as a rock. Maybe now more than ever.

    Anyone living now who’s read it can pretty much fill in the blanks.

    So, here’s a few of mine.

    The population explosion of the 19th century was a kind of internal mass migration. And “explosion” is the right word.

    It was like a people bomb that the accidents of history dropped on the Western world.

    Ortega talks about how the population of Europe from 1800 to 1900 grew 4 to 1.

    The figure I recall from another source regarding The USA (Ortega’s focus is on Europe) was 16 to 1.

    But, apparently, though Europe quadrupled, the literate population was something like 32 to 1. And The USA? I shudder to imagine. And I’d have to since I don’t have the numbers handy. Let’s just say it probably wasn’t 32 to 1.

    But anyway, that’s just basic literacy.

    What about the advancing cutting edge of the culture?

    Forget about it.

    For centuries the West managed to live at “the height of the times” in terms of the vital system of ideas that was directing the culture.

    But now it’s obviously drowning in stupid people. I don’t like using that word because it’s very strong and should be used cautiously.

    Unfortuantely however, I AM using it cautiously.

    A kind of Gresham’s Law took over. Inferior culture drove out superior culture. Publishing followed suit.

    To give but one example, Alexander Pope amassed a small fortune from his poetry. But Wallace Stevens, as great and maybe greater a poet, worked as a lawyer at an insurance company.

    Long story short, The King and Queen of Ortega’s Mass Man was Nietzsche’s Last Man.

    It was this clown who fell through the cracks which had by this time become a big gap.

    The Age of Dunning-Kruger was under way well before the term came along.

    Add to that the very unpleasant fact that Whites as Whites seem to have a self-preservation chip missing.

    I’ve come to the unsettling conclusion that getting Whites to organize on the behalf of themselves and thier children would be like teaching a hampster astronomy, or an Argentinian ethics.

    And that’s worth mentioning. Because if Whites cared about themselves and the culture they inherited enough to support those who truly understood it and wanted to use it reasonably and responsably, for the benefit of their group, whether in education, business, or government, none of what we’re going through would ever happen. Ever.

    But it is happening.

    Oh, I’m not sure if anyone else has had this experience. But I certainly have. If you know of any White person on the Left you might have noticed that some of them seem to be waking up to the fact that they could go to the left of Karl Marx and it won’t help them. And it cetainly won’t help their children.

    Not anymore. Not now.

    So, there is that.

    • Richard B
      Richard B says:

      The important point above is that most Whites today (including myself) come from this population explosion. And most of us have not been acculturated into the civlization we inherited.

      No wonder so many clueless Americans and Europeans believe in Magic Dirt. Because they think it applies to them too.

      A better example of what is meant by the term “adult-children” would be impossible to imagine.

      In any event, there have been a handful of us who were able to figure out their cultural situation and did something about. But most simply do not know what’s happened to them.

      Such Whites are in an analogous position to those from the Third World who adopt the ideas and institutions of the West without being able to adapt to them.

      I lived in South America for many years and watched this up close. They simply can not internalize rules, norms and moral codes. But you can at least talk to them about it and many of them know and even have a sense of humor about it.

      Try doing that with PC preferred groups in the USA.

      But it’s none the less true. In fact, it’s especially true.

      Barring a miracle, and it would take one, Dunning-Kruger can only be continuously reinforced.

      An example of this can be seen even in what passes for higher education today and it goes all the way back to Marx himself in the form of this little fun fact.

      It has to do with Marxism’s use of the word “science.”

      Until about 1840 the word “science” was still being applied to theological explanation. Expressions like “the science of theology” or “theological science” were culturally conventionalized and validated.

      Any explanation held together by culturally validated procedural rules, or logic, was considered to be a science.

      Marx’s claim that his theories were scientific was under the cultural control of this use of the word.

      He was using it in a pre-Whewellian sense. And Marxists are still using it in a pre-Whewellian sense. Hence their intellectual confusion.

      We should never stop making fun of them for their historical ignorance and intellectual pretentiousness.

      From this perspective their obnoxious self-righteous anger and psychotic violence can be as the defensiveness of a people who know they’re frauds from head to toe, front to back, side to side, but don’t want you to know it or point it out to them.

      But we should.

      I mean, do we really want to live out the rest of our lives being harrassed, nagged and bullied by a bunch of pious frauds?

  7. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    Don’t forget that the ‘Institut für Sozialforschung’ (Frankfurt School) landed fully armed on American shores in 1933, where it quickly became affiliated to Columbia University. The infection started long before the 60s.

  8. ChilledBee
    ChilledBee says:

    “Normal minds, of course, find it difficult to believe in a “culture war” that has gone on for half a century and that aims to transform the world’s oldest, most successful republic into a center for Cultural Marxism”

    And therein lies the rub. How many “normal minds” will actually get to read this – or any other noteworthy books illustrating the enormous problem we have? Will books like these have the power to effect any change in the future of America? I believe the only way that America can halt its rapid decline is when those in authority have the courage to communicate to the American people what and who has caused its demise.

    • Kathy
      Kathy says:

      We need Trump to stand up to this shut down! This is just unbelievable to me, yet it’s not a surprise with the way things have been going starting with Obama actually being elected as president after insulting our country around the world, and his love of communists
      I feel like I can’t breathe and it’s not from the masks we’re being forced to wear. It’s the freedoms being taken away and I don’t have much time left to do anything about it.
      Why have we continued to allow this government to spend our taxpayer’s hard earned money on universities that are indoctrinating our young people? On legal and illegal immigrants coming to this country with no money? And then pay for their children to go to school and take jobs away from our children?
      And why support so many countries and so many agencies, such as W.H.O.?
      Can you imagine how wonderful Americans lives would be if we could rewind to the 60 and do it differently? One big thing would be we wouldn’t need two incomes to buy a home!

      You think the reason our money went for so many ridiculous things has anything to do with the career politicians? Especially the ones that somehow have become millionaires? And now they’re so desperate that they won’t allow a drug be used to save Americans because it makes Trump look good. And they are lying about the dangers of that drug.

      They’re despicable and they need to be stopped.

        • ChilledBee
          ChilledBee says:

          Again, therein lies the rub. Until we have a president that refuses to do Israel’s bidding – to the abject detriment to American citizens- then we are literally doomed as a nation.

        • Junghans
          Junghans says:

          Bingo on that !!
          Trump flagrantly front runs exclusively for the Jews and billionaires, while he buffoonishly misleads his gullible base. Most of us initially gave him the benefit of the doubt, (compared to Hillary), but it should be obvious by now that he is a double talking dud. Trump still talks populism for political advantage, while his ridiculous, Pyrrhic love affair with Jewry trumps everything else. It’s quite simply, Trump and the Jews, his mistake and his undoing, as well as ours.

  9. Bob Klinck
    Bob Klinck says:

    Hasn’t this author ever heard of the Fabian Society program to install socialism (centralized planning of society), which dates back to the 19th century and has been a vehicle for the top financial elite (who also want centralized control of society) throughout the world?

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Centralization is a very obvious solution for accumulating requisite political power . Centralization per se is not the problem . The excessive accumulation of power ( via centralization ) has always been and still is the actual problem which pertains to the distribution of political power which in turn pertains to the distribution of life-sustaining resources ; where people are included as a resource among many others such as oil , food , water , land , money , information , systems and organizations , corporations , institutions , political parties , and so on . To reiterate , the problem is not usually centralization per se ; it is the excessive accumulation of political power — the monopolization of power ( via centralization ) — which in turn is a power distribution problem which in turn is a resource distribution issue .

  10. Milan
    Milan says:

    For McElroy, this transition (c. 1800–1950) represents a triumph, with America defining itself against “the aristocratic cultures of Europe based on belief in ruling classes constituted by “noble” and “royal” blood.”

    I remember watching a video biography of a marriage between the daughter of a wealthy American industrialist family to a broke British Lord who had no means to repair or maintain his lands and castles. The poor daughter Consuela I believe her name is was forced into the marriage by her mother who wanted a British peerage? The marriage was loveless but the Mother got what she wanted marriage into the British bloodline and the Lord the vast wealth to rebuild.

    After watching the biography I was left with a sour taste because America now had her own Aristocratic British Bloodline and for an America that fought the War of Independence to rid itself from this kind of government and lo and behold who betrays the memory of all her fallen soldiers and her political ideals? A woman and a Mother of extreme wealth and power from America?

    Yeah, I say too myself true are those words “Be faithful even unto death and I will give you the Crown of Eternal Life.”

    If your going to fight and lay down your life for something make it for someone who will be thankful and reward you accordingly!

  11. Nick Dean
    Nick Dean says:

    Nothing signals future agitprop like an obviously false claim such as, “You can live with the loss of certainty, but not of belief.”

    And that was the first sentence of the book on agitprop?


    “McElroy must first be commended for compiling such an extension list of terms, which is, as far as I’m aware, the only ‘Rightist” lexicon of Cultural Marxist agitprop in existence.”

    It’s years since I read it but I do seem to recall Russell Lewis, a British Conservative MP – and Mrs Thatcher’s senior stepnfetchit and early hagiorapher might have included exactly such a thing in his book, ANTI-RACISM: A MANIA EXPOSED, one non-relevant excerpt here:

  12. Armoric
    Armoric says:

    McElroy: ” a culture war is in progress in America, as evidenced by the fact that many Americans now prefer the dogmas of Marxism to the beliefs of American culture ”

    It’s not really a culture war. A war is being waged on White people and their culture, but it is not a war of ideas between Marxism and traditional American culture. What’s happened is that the institutions created by White people have been hijacked by the Jews, who disguise as White people while they turn Western countries into dictatorships. They rely on force, deception, lies and calumny, manipulation, secret networking, bribery, censorship, intimidation, not on cultural and political persuasion.

    McElroy himself says so. He talks about “censorship and the policing of speech”. He mentions the “politics of double standards”. He says “the real purpose of the sensitivity game is intimidation.” So, he should stop talking about a culture war and recognize there has been a takeover of the institutions by the enemies of normal White people. In other words, there has been a drawn-out jew-coup against Western civilization.

    I think the conversion of part of the population to the dogmas of Marxism and anti-Whitism is mainly a result of conformism under a hardening dictatorship. It is not as if White people were converting to Marxism and becoming indistinguishable from their Marxist tormentors. The brainwashing is only skin-deep. I think there has been a degradation in the moral and intellectual quality of White people, but there is still a huge chasm between the majority and the anti-White camp. The moral degradation is due to the destruction of traditional society by economic modernization and Jewish power. The population is now atomized, exposed to destructive propaganda, and can no longer be guided by its natural elites.

    Western governments have been enforcing the race-replacement policy since the 1960s. It’s amazing how government politicians have been going along with it even though most of them were not anti-White. Jewish activists have used their usual dirty tactics to push through their agenda.

    Likewise, the government response to the current virus epidemic is crucially influenced by the Jews and the Jewish-controlled far-left. Just like they intimidate politicians who argue against immigration, they have been intimidating and silencing politicians and intellectuals who criticize the idea of shutting down the economy. This is not a culture war!

    Concerning the virus epidemic, I don’t think the Jews even know what they are doing. They just have a taste for sabotage and dictatorship.

  13. James Clayton
    James Clayton says:

    For example, links from Mark Weber’s INSTITUTE OF HISTORICAL REVIEW, via e-mail, on April 25, 2020

    ‘Never in My Country’: COVID-19 and American Exceptionalism
    Jeanne Morefield – Responsible Statecraft

    .. The U.S.’s military hegemony is comprised of 800 bases in over 70 nations – more bases than any other nation or empire in history. The U.S. maintains drone bases, listening posts, “black sites,” aircraft carriers, a massive nuclear stockpile, and military personnel working in approximately 160 countries … This apparatus is built not for deterrence, but for primacy. The U.S.’s global primacy emerged from the wreckage of World War II … Since then, the United States has overthrown or attempted to overthrow the governments of approximately 50 countries … In fiscal terms, maintaining American hegemony requires spending more on “defense” than the next seven largest countries combined … Foreign policy is routinely the last issue Americans consider when they vote for presidents …
    Universities Breed Anger, Ignorance, and Ingratitude
    Victor Davis Hanson – National Review

    … An entire generation of Americans has costly degrees; many cannot use them to find well-paying jobs, and they increasingly forgo or delay marriage, child-rearing, and buying a car or home until their mid-twenties or thirties … Colleges are turning out woke and broke graduates. They are not up to ensuring the country that they will pass on to the next generation an America that’s as prosperous, secure, and ethical as what they inherited and have so often faulted. Ignorance, arrogance, and ingratitude are now the brands of the undergraduate experience. No wonder a once duly honored institution, higher education, is now either the butt of jokes or cynically seen as a credentialing factory.
    How Tyranny Came to America
    Joseph Sobran

    One of the great goals of education is to initiate the young into the conversation of their ancestors; to enable them to understand the language of that conversation, in all its subtlety, and maybe even, in their maturity, to add to it some wisdom of their own. The modern American educational system no longer teaches us the political language of our ancestors. In fact our schooling helps widen the gulf of time between our ancestors and ourselves, because much of what we are taught in the name of civics, political science, or American history is really modern liberal propaganda.
    China’s Diplomats Show Teeth in Defending Virus Response
    Associated Press

    From Asia to Africa, London to Berlin, Chinese envoys have set off diplomatic firestorms with a combative defense whenever their country is accused of not acting quickly enough to stem the spread of the coronavirus pandemic. They belong to a new generation of “Wolf Warrior” diplomats, named after patriotic blockbuster films starring a muscle-bound Chinese commando killing American bad guys in Africa and Southeast Asia with his bare hands. The tougher approach has been building for several years under President Xi Jinping … His government has urged its diplomats to pursue “major-country diplomacy with Chinese characteristics” – a call for China to reassert its historic status as a global power.
    China’s Immense Modern Highway Network

    China had no freeways at all in 1988, notes narrator Jeremy Clarkson while driving on a Chinese highway. Now the country has 84,000 miles of freeways, more than any other in the world. This vast, modern road network, he says, is fast becoming the “Eighth Wonder of the World.” And the dramatic building pace continues. Since 2011 China has been adding 6,000 miles of freeway each year. Clarkson, an English journalist, writer and world traveler, also cites the stunning bridges built in China in recent years, including one that is 34 miles long. He concludes the video with a gloomy comparison with his homeland. “In Britain, we’re doomed,” he says. Runtime: 1:47 mins.
    China’s Vast High-Speed Railway Network
    Xinhua (China)

    China’s vast and still growing high-speed rail network is not only the world’s largest, it’s larger than the networks of the rest of the world combined. The country’s high-speed rail service opened in 2008. Now (2020) it’s more than 30,000 kilometers (18,640 miles) in length. The network’s fastest trains are capable of speeds of 350 km/h (217 mph). Europe and Japan also have high-speed rail networks. The US has none. Runtime: 1:36 mins.
    Where Does the Six Million Figure Come From?
    Haaretz (Israel)

    One of the most well-known, if not iconic, facts known about the Holocaust is the number of Jewish victims killed by Nazi Germany up through the end of World War II. Perhaps not surprisingly, it is also this number – six million – that Holocaust deniers aim at when trying to discredit the essential nature of the Holocaust. Where did the number six million come from? … The number seems to have first been mentioned by Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl, an Austrian-born official in the Third Reich and a trained historian who served in a number of senior positions in the SS. In November 1945, Hoettl testified for the prosecution in the Nuremberg trials of accused Nazi war criminals … “Six million” is not, and was never intended to be, a precise accounting.
    Nazis Boasted About Six Million Holocaust Victims. But It Was a Jew Who First Cited That Figure
    O. Aderet – Haaretz (Israel)

    … Who was the first to mention the number 6 million, even before the historical studies were conducted and before the Pages of Testimony were collected by Yad Vashem … Yes, a year and a half before the end of World War II – and before hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were murdered – it was a Jewish Zionist and not a Nazi officer who mentioned the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust, which later became a symbol … About 15 years later, during Eichmann’s trial, chief prosecutor Gideon Hausner said that “In the consciousness of the nation the number 6 million has become sanctified.” But he added: “It’s not so simple to prove that. We did not use this number in any official document, but it became sanctified.”
    The Elusive ‘Six Million’
    Mark Weber

    … The Six Million figure is hammered into the public consciousness, not only in newspapers, magazines, motion pictures, and television, but also routinely in our schools … Just what is the basis for this familiar figure? … This figure was not the result of any careful investigation, research, or calculation. The only specific evidence presented for it to the Nuremberg Tribunal was the hearsay testimony of former SS officer Wilhelm Höttl (sometimes spelled Hoettl), who said that he recalled it from a remark by Adolf Eichmann, the wartime head of the Jewish affairs section of Himmler’s Reich Security Main Office (RSHA).
    How Many People Were Killed by China’s Great Famine?
    Mao Yushi – The Washington Post

    There’s a mystery in China that’s decades old: how many people died during the Great Famine [1958-1961]? It’s almost impossible to say. Some historians call it the worst man-made disaster in human history, killing one out of every eight people in some places. But much about the time period is actively suppressed in China … It’s also important to understand because the Great Famine was caused by avoidable human mistakes, not inescapable natural disasters … Researchers debate the number of people killed, estimating it’s anywhere from 18 million to more than 42 million. The official Chinese government estimate hovers around 20 million … If this is right, the Great Famine killed about as many people as the Second World War.

    The IHR is an independent educational, research and publishing center that works to promote peace, understanding and justice through greater public awareness of the past. It is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) public interest, not-for-profit, tax exempt enterprise. Donations to the IHR are tax-deductible.

    What we accomplish — through meetings, interviews, lectures, online outreach, websites, distribution of books, discs and flyers — depends on support from men and women like you. To make a secure online donation, click here.

    Visit us on Facebook:
    To subscribe to this newsletter, send an e-mail message to, with SUBSCRIBE ME in the subject line.

  14. Anti-Termite!!!
    Anti-Termite!!! says:

    Dr. Joyce:

    You quoted this excerpt from Dr, McElroy’s book:

    And as college and university faculties have become more uniform in their Political Correctness, the courses on U.S. history and Western civilization which remain in the curriculum are almost invariably taught from the point of view of Marxian class struggle, which is to say from the standpoint that straight “Euro-American” males (SEAMs) comprise a ruling class which has “victimized” women, negro Americans, Hispanics, Asian-Americans, homosexuals, and other biologically defined classes. College students today are being taught to hate SEAMs as a class for the “victimisation” they have allegedly inflicted on all other biological classes in America.

    It is obviously true that mandating hate of the normal white male and particularly the white Christian family man is basic to the Jews’ subversion program.

    Because the majority of your recent articles here have been carried by which is great for the wider edification of all, I want to share here a comment I attempted to post three times to an article earlier this month on that site which for some reason was rejected each time unlike almost all my other commenting attempts there.

    Attempting to respond to this comment:

    I submitted the following:

    “And the Globalist Elite need criminal non-whites to make it work best for them.”

    Reality over the last 60 years in the USA has proven this statement to be unequivocally true to the grave detriment of both blacks and whites but all to the benefit of the “Globalist Elite”=Jews who seek to enslave all of us.

    The black militant murders of the 1960s silenced whites by engendering permanent mortal fear in them. That’s the only way Jews could have ever gotten whites to conform to the ridiculous Jew imposed speech code they have in their diabolical cleverness downplayed by giving it the soft name inferring voluntary compliance “Political Correctness”.

    In the short term it appeared those young black guys who did all those race murders were even more effective at precipitating change than was MLK and the non-violent civil rights movement because out of mortal fear whitey conceded to / eagerly cooperated in things like Affirmative Action, ADC, elimination of laws criminalizing fornication and adultery, Jew-Fault Divorce statutes, abortion. But while some of these changes were originally greeted with approval by many blacks, time has shown the devastation visited upon the black community by the lowering of standards legal, moral and functional applicable to blacks, not to mention the destruction to white society as intended by this entire Jew$4whiteGENOCIDE initiative.

    Jews by instigating ’60s black militancy resumed their exploitation and practical enslavement of blacks which had been interrupted by the white Christian abolitionists of the Nineteenth Century. The historical ethnic best friend of the descendants of black Africa has been the white descendants of Christendom as remains true to present. So Jew$4whiteGENOCIDE by destroying whitey devastates blacks simultaneously in the Jew quest to enslave or eliminate all of us whom Jews collectively call “the goyim”.

    This was rejected the three times I tried.

    As beneficial a mechanism for spreading truth as has been, any goy would be foolish not to remain leery of the possibility Mr. Unz might be operating some form of controlled opposition because of how effectively his fellow ethnics have done so to our grave detriment seemingly forever.

    As stated in my attempted comment, I believe the single most potently effective tactic Jews have used against the white man in America has been weaponization of black violence against him for the behavioral modification effect it has had on whites, specifically getting them to passively accept their own destruction and even getting them to proactively aid in it.

    The normal white man is the kindest, fairest, most charitable, most unselfish, noblest, most peace-loving, most universally nurturing, etc, human and has done yeomen’s work to aid and uplift blacks including being this world’s sole historical abolitionists.

    So my concern is that this unusual for censorship of this attempted comment might be because it expresses a truth controlled opposition can not tolerate.

    I had a parallel experience courtesy of one of Dr MacDonald’s profound insights at where I had been a long time daily reader and oft comment maker. Dr MacD wrote a 2011 (as i recal) article stating that Jewish push for Muslim immigration into the West reflected a value judgment by Jews showing that Jews are willing to accept the danger Muslims pose to them in the West because Jews value the benefits that can inure to them by the Muslim destruction of the West more than Jews fear the danger Muslim presence visits upon Jews. The reaction revealed as controlled opposition funded by the disgusting Bolshevik-apologist Jew Horowitz to make all believe that Jihad is more dangerous to Israel than to the West when in reality, as we now know historically, Jews have always used Muslims to attack Jews’ targets be it historically in Constantinople and Spain, or today in Syria.

    Speaking of of which I am overall greatly appreciative, I cherish your use in this article of the term “finance capitalism” which you have used in maybe your last half dozen postings here. Your use of that term offers great hope that you have learned as I have from an unsurpassed financial mind who regularly posts there unique insights which are necessary for the West to overthrow Jew tyranny which is powered by #JewUsury:

    All of us including Dr. MacDonald need to heed this guy, follow him closely, and not relent until his insights are baked into public policy throughout the West.

Comments are closed.