White Nationalism and its Leftist Enemies

 White Nationalism and its Leftist Enemies

The regressive left is clearly the undisputed victor of America’s culture wars. Even the mainstream “right”[i] has been co-opted by leftists. Together, both left and “right” constitute the leftist American Establishment. Despite an overwhelming influence over contemporary American society and culture, the Establishment refuses to dismiss White nationalism as a bygone relic, like phonograph cylinders or gramophones. Instead, White nationalism remains an object of intense, burning hatred.

But is the Establishment’s reaction to White nationalism without merit? Surveys of White racial attitudes suggest White nationalists do not exceed 5 percent of the American population; they may even be less than 1 percent. They control no major corporations or political organizations. Given the Establishment’s hatred and persecution of White nationalists, their lack of economic and political clout comes as no surprise.

Since the American Establishment is willing to overlook First Amendment rights, White nationalists find themselves covertly persecuted through a combination of legal and economic measures. These include firing, deplatforming and the suppression of White nationalist literature. In contrast, their leftist rivals Antifa and BLM are not subject to state persecution. They are far more organized, far more well-supported and far more capable of mobilizing large numbers of followers. Antifa and BLM can even tear down American historical monuments and turn 6 blocks of downtown Seattle into a police-free “autonomous zone” with total impunity. Would racial dissidents be similarly treated with kid gloves had they seized downtown Seattle and turned it into a police-free White nationalist enclave? The hypocrisy is disgusting, but not surprising given the source.

How is it possible such a tiny percentage of Whites can command the attention of the entire left Establishment? Almost daily, we hear over-exaggerated and even wholly fabricated stories in the media about White nationalist terrorism and surges in White nationalist violence. The intense preoccupation of leftists with White nationalism is seemingly irrational; but from a strategic perspective, it is quite pragmatic.

It’s no secret racial dissidents are among the most hated people in America. After all, White nationalism and Cultural Marxism are competing ideologies; however, in the marketplace of ideas, it goes without saying not all ideas are created equal. The White nationalist case against diversity, unlike the leftist case for diversity, is an unassailable one. Not since the rise of Cultural Marxism in American politics have leftists been able to mount a successful argument in favor of diversity.

Since leftists hate and fear White racial consciousness, they rarely engage with racial dissidents on TV or in print, except in the most superficial manner. On a subconscious level, leftists fear White nationalism because they believe it will persuade many Whites to abandon their beloved multicultural project. Clearly, we are not dealing with a rational political ideology, but secular theocracy guided by mystical egalitarian creed. In leftism, faith takes the place of reason as supreme arbiter of truth. This is the Achilles’ heel of the left Establishment, one which should be exploited by racial dissidents to maximum advantage.

The evidence contra diversity shows us why the Establishment is pathologically leukophobic. Pace the Establishment, White nationalists argue mass non-White migration, the de facto religion of leftist elites, lowers wages, reduces fertility rates, and raises the cost of housing; in other words, non-White migration is White racial displacement. Year after year, America’s cities look more like those of Africa and Mexico, with large pockets of Asia. Mass migration, especially of the kind America has been blighted with since 1965, is a terrible price to pay for ethnic cuisine or whatever else diversity is supposed to enrich us with.

Beyond the usual shibboleths extolling the virtues of diversity, the Establishment has no serious response to any of the evidence on the existence of race, race differences in IQ, etc. Leftist apologetics only gives faith-based reasons for equality and the supposed benefits of Third World migration. “Diversity is strength,” the most popular of these reasons, is a mystical slogan, no different from the Orwellian “Freedom is slavery” and “Ignorance is strength.” Compared to the string of empty platitudes that is multiculturalism, the White nationalist argument in favor of White self-determination is an iron-clad one. For this reason, White nationalism must be suppressed by the Establishment.

As George Orwell (allegedly) said: “To tell the truth in an age of deceit is a revolutionary act.”

Lessons from Orwell’s 1984?

Leftist hatred and persecution of White nationalism serves the same purpose as the Two Minutes Hate in Orwell’s 1984. Emmanuel Goldstein, who defected from the inner party to become a member of the counter-revolutionary “Brotherhood,” is the inspiration behind the Two Minutes Hate. Whenever Goldstein’s image appears on Oceania’s ubiquitous telescreens, people stop what they are doing to express their collective hatred of Big Brother’s sworn ideological enemy.

The point of the Two Minutes Hate is to take people’s minds off the party and its failings by focusing their hatred on a single target, allowing them to divert whatever hatred they have for their own government toward its perceived enemies. The inner party’s demonization of Goldstein is a warning to the denizens of Oceania. Those who defy party orders will be expelled from its ranks and, in Orwellian Newspeak, unpersonned. Leftist hatred of racial dissidents serves a similar broadly utilitarian purpose, reminding Whites of the necessity of ideological conformity, while simultaneously warning them of the dangers of repudiating the status quo. The possibility of expulsion to the margins of society, a social pariah deprived of the ability to earn a livelihood, is a terrifying prospect for the proletariat.

The left’s version of the Two Minutes Hate also serves as a rallying point, solidifying commitment to leftist ideals and strengthening devotion to the status quo. It is meant to pacify naive and innocent Whites into believing the real cause of all their problems are Klansmen and neo-Nazis, not the elites who import millions of non-Whites into their own countries and outsource high-paying manufacturing jobs to the Third World.

As an object of hatred, White nationalism is a convenient scapegoat, much like 1984’s Goldstein. It is not hard to see why this is so, given that White nationalism is the last bastion of reason and good sense amidst an ocean of leftist irrationality and obscurantism. Everything the racial dissident ultimately stands for is anathema to the left. In his refusal to perish along with his race for the “sins” of African slavery, Amerindian “genocide” and European colonialism, he ultimately repudiates the Christ-like role of sacrificial lamb thrust upon him by the Establishment.

The close correspondence between totalitarian democracy and Orwell’s dystopian vision is striking. Perhaps Orwell understood the psychology of leftist totalitarianism more than most. This may explain why so much of what he predicted has come to fruition, unlike the relatively benign dystopian predictions of his contemporary Aldous Huxley.

Leftist Black and White thinking?

In the Manichean vision of the Establishment, leftism is a force for good and White nationalism a force for evil.  Through condemnation of White racial consciousness, the leftist, motivated partly by ressentiment, denigrates the traditional virtues of Indo-Aryan society—pride, strength, self-mastery, individualism, objectivity—as moral evils, while elevating the virtues of his own Judeo-Christian slave morality—humility, weakness, equality—to a position of supremacy. Through Nietzschean transvaluation of all values, good becomes bad and bad becomes good.

The Establishment’s negative, irrational stereotyping of racial dissidents, a consequence of its Manicheanism, further justifies leftist hatred of White nationalism, not only among leftists, but to the public at large. If the Establishment = good and White nationalism = bad, it is unsurprising to find racial dissidents unfairly caricatured as gap-toothed hillbillies or uncouth neo-Nazis with a propensity for criminal violence, like the walking, talking stereotypes of American History X. The purpose of the left’s irrational stereotyping is to dehumanize and reduce to pathetic insignificance what cannot be refuted through rational argument. It is so effective that Jewish-owned media outlets and civil rights organizations, among them Hollywood and the SPLC, continue to irrationally stereotype racial dissidents as violent neo-Nazis and Klansmen.

This demonization of White racial dissidents reflects an even deeper animus against the traditional right. Racial dissidents threaten the Establishment’s multicultural project at their foundations, if not literally, then ideologically. In the world of leftism, the demographic transformation of the country is what is called an ideological non-negotiable; it cannot be jettisoned without compromising the entire leftist belief-system. As an ideology of all-consuming, overwhelming psychotic White racial self-hatred, leftism loses its raison d’etre when deprived of its need for race replacement, the leftist’s all-purpose solution to the “problem” of Whiteness. Racial self-hatred fuels the White leftist need for mass non-White immigration, or more accurately, the White leftist psychological dependence upon it for their own general well-being, as if it were some very addictive, very potent narcotic.

Given the absolute depths of White racial self-hatred, it seems only a natural catastrophe can derail plans for a majority-minority America by 2040. We have already seen how it took COVID-19 to shut down borders and bring air traffic to a grinding halt. One shudders to think what it would take for America to end her program of mass migration for good. A devastating race war? A severe economic depression that puts most Americans out of work? A plague that kills off half of America’s population?

If not any of these, then what? An asteroid slamming into the earth’s surface? For leftists, diversity is an “All or Nothing” proposition; either the West must be diverse or it must be pulverized into nothingness.

The madness of the left Establishment is apparently without limit.

Will White nationalism survive the American left Establishment?

The decline of the American Empire is unlike that of any other. Rome is a case in point. From the Chaos of the third century to the barbarian invasions of the fifth, the Roman empire endured a series of violent, earth-shattering cataclysms. By the fifth century, she had succumbed to myriad internal and external weaknesses–plague, civil war, debasement of the coinage, barbarian invasion, ethnic diversity, the spread of Christianity across the Mediterranean, depopulation and so on. Yet the pagan Roman elite still believed in Roma Aeterna and were proud of their descent from Aeneas, despite all of the humiliating disasters that had befallen the imperium since the end of the Chaos. Rome had died a violent, but natural death in the winter of its life-cycle.

Unlike Rome, the decline of America has been purposely engineered by hostile elites. The expatriate Jews of the Frankfurt School pathologized White ethnocentrism and leftists converted it into the unforgivable crime of “racism.” “Racism” was then weaponized against racial dissidents who opposed diversity. They were persecuted until they were forced from the mainstream to the margins of society, serving as a permanent reminder to average Whites of what happens to those who refuse to abandon race and nation.

Through social engineering, the left Establishment orchestrated the unilateral surrender of western nations to the incoming colored hordes; most Whites simply obeyed their Judeo-Bolshevik masters like spineless jellyfish. Few Whites fought back. Apparently, Whites have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by the media and education system they have come to embrace the demographic transformation of America as a fait accompli.

We may consider the decline of America an inexorable one for a number of reasons, all of them ultimately endogenous in terms of their etiology:

(1.) the atomization of modern American society,

(2.) the lack of White racial consciousness, and

(3.) White civilizational exhaustion.

The atomization of society is driven by industrial, technological, and socio-political factors. Through the medium of technology, entire communities have been uprooted, severing the individual’s ties with race and nation. People in America are now more mobile than ever before, unlike previous generations. Neoliberal economic policies have increased their alienation from mainstream society by reducing workers to mere cogs; being easily replaceable, the worker is no longer valued for his contributions. His stake in the social order becomes a precarious one, subject to the whims of the “free” market. As a consequence, he no longer has any reason to care for society or the future generations who must unfortunately inherit the mess left behind.

This lack of connectedness in American society means widespread fatalism and nihilistic apathy.  Many Whites have turned to drugs and alcohol to cope with the spiritual emptiness of their lives; the fentanyl crisis sweeping North America is driven, at least in part, by the disintegration of older communal and familial bonds that once existed among previous generations of Whites. In such an environment, it becomes difficult, though not impossible, to maintain a coherent White racial identity.

Secondly, Whites no longer see themselves as White. Until 1965, White racial consciousness was a defining feature of Americanness. Many American Whites saw themselves as Whites pursuing White racial interests. Even though not White nationalist in name, they were nevertheless ipso facto White nationalists. From the colonial period to the end of WWII, American “White nationalism” would have been a redundancy given the close historical connection between White racial consciousness and American ethnic identity.

Since 1965, Western popular culture has promoted diversity at the expense of Whites. For most, articulating a well-defined White racial identity is now beyond the pale. Since White racial identification is considered shameful, Whites have splintered along ethnic lines, returning to the hyphenated Americanism much deplored by Theodore Roosevelt. Whites who choose to defy the new status quo in favor of White self-determination are despised and persecuted.

Besides the atomization of American society, there is another, even deeper reason why the death of America is inevitable. Whites, as a race, have lost their dynamism, their so-called élan vital. The collapse of the great colonial empires in the post-WWII period is explained by White civilizational exhaustion. From once controlling over 84% of the earth’s surface in 1914, Western Whites now risk losing control of their own countries.

White civilizational exhaustion was most evident in places like Rhodesia and South Africa. In these countries, the White man surrendered his hard-earned possessions without even putting up a fight. Race conscious Whites, who believed southern Africa was the White man’s by dint of conquest, were too few in number to mount a successful resistance; not only did they have to fight off Soviet-backed Afro-Marxist guerrillas and their Judeo-Bolshevik allies, they had to resist traitorous elements from within their own ranks. If Whites refused to fight when they had the overwhelming tactical advantage, what will they do when the US becomes Brazil 2.0 by the turn of the century?

In The Hour of Decision (1934), Oswald Spengler writes ominously of the White man who has let down his racial guard:

The coloured man sees through the White man when he talks about ‘humanity’ and everlasting peace. He scents the other’s unfitness and lack of will to defend himself. …

Danger is knocking at the door. The coloured races are not pacifists. They do not cling to a life whose length is its sole value. They take up the sword when we lay it down. Once they feared the White man; now they despise him. Our judgment stands written in their eyes when men and women comport themselves in their presence as we do, at home or in the lands of colour themselves. Once they were filled with terror at our power—as were the Germanic people before the first Roman legions. Today, when they are themselves a power, their mysterious soul—which we shall never understand—rises up and looks down upon the Whites as on a thing of yesterday.

According to Spengler’s understanding of Western historical development, the “megalopolitan soul”—what Faustian man inevitably becomes in his drive towards the infinite—is a consequence of Western cultural decline or, what I previously termed, “civilizational exhaustion.” The megalopolitan soul is traditionless, religionless, hedonist, with an insatiable appetite for panem et circenses, rootless, but thoroughly materialist in outlook. Since he stands in opposition to the traditional social values of Indo-Aryan society i.e., patriarchal monogamy, hierarchy, warrior ethos or bushido, he is easily manipulated by the negation of these values, i.e., sexual freedom, universal peace, tolerance and equality, values he embraces because they undermine the traditional values he despises. At the same time, the non-Whites pouring into America do not share his leftist belief in “humanity” and “everlasting peace.”

That the White man is so naive he cannot discern his enemy’s ulterior motives is his downfall, but alas, a well-deserved one. His socialist world-feeling, his religionless Christianity (in Spengler’s words, his “dogmaless morale”), has blinded him to his own need for self-preservation. The White man refuses to open his eyes to the functional significance of slogans like “Diversity is strength,” which are used by non-Whites and leftists alike to advance non-White ethnic interests in America. By the time he comes to his senses and realizes America has been racially submerged, it is already too late.

In The Decline of the West, the megalopolitan soul is the creature of the winter phase of the life-cycle of cultures, marking the beginning of the end.

Concluding remarks

America wages wars, topples regimes and installs friendly dictators in non-White nations, even though these affairs are without any important geostrategic ramifications for American national security; she squanders precious resources persecuting racial dissidents, but cannot defend her own territorial integrity from the bands of Third World adventurers menacing her frontiers. It is one of the great ironies of Western history that America rose to global prominence as a White nation, but now crumbles into obscurity as a non-White mud puddle. Having long ago betrayed the aristocratic republican principles upon which she was founded, she ends her days as a decaying totalitarian democracy with imperial pretensions.

America must die because the Whites who once formed her civilizational backbone are deracinated, alienated and milquetoast cosmopolitans. If the destructive policies of the elites are irreversible, it is because there is no longer anything for Whites to rally around, nor is there anything to draw them together. America must die, but that does not mean White nationalism must die along with it. White nations have come and gone, but the White race endures to this day. Unlike the White majority, White racial dissidents at least have a strong sense of White racial identity. If a small number of race conscious Whites can survive the destructive tendencies of the White majority in a crumbling American empire, the White race will still have a future on the North American continent.


[i]      This is not to be confused with the classical or traditionalist right.

Andrew Joyce’s Resurrected Podcast: Talmud and Taboo

Andrew Joyce has reestablished his podcast, this time on BitChute. Let’s hope it lasts longer than his previous venture with Spreaker.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/jrHfJZni7jQX/

“Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish Plan to Permanently Silence the West, Part 3 of 3

Go to Part 1.
Go to Part 2.

20182020: Big Tech/ Big Capital/ Big Jew/ Big Brother

A key step towards making dissident thought unlawful, and ensuring “Secure Tolerance,” is the effort to represent it, in its totality, as culturally illicit. As early as 2015, Brian Marcus, head of the ADL’s Internet Division, had been contacting Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with threats that allowing “hate” material on their service “would be bad for their business.”[1] Backed with reports, policy proposals, and “recommendations” from their own alphabet soup of think tanks and solo Jewish intellectuals like Cohen-Almagor, the ADL and the European Jewish Congress began more widespread intensive lobbying of tech companies in late 2018. The acceleration of lobbying against Big Tech should be seen in the broader context of heightened activism for the implementation of “Secure Tolerance” more generally.

Although the ADL and YouTube had co-operated since at least 2008, intensification of this relationship in early 2019 culminated in YouTube changing its content policy. Jonathan Greenblatt announced the ADL had “been working with technology companies, including YouTube, to aggressively counter hate on their platforms. We were glad to share our expertise on this and look forward to continuing to provide input. While this is an important step forward, this move alone is insufficient and must be followed by many more changes from YouTube and other tech companies to adequately counter the scourge of online hate and extremism.”

The international Jewish strategy to bring the ethos of “secure tolerance” into tech culture again involved the high-level involvement of American Jewish groups in Europe’s “democratic” institutions. For example, in May 2015 the American Jewish Committee’s Transatlantic Institute (note again this constant reliance on a motley of Jewish ‘think tanks’), launched a fervent lobbying campaign at the EU with the aim to “detoxify social media. … Internet Service Providers are free to—and should—exclude raw hate speech.” Just to make sure the message was sent loud and clear, the AJC even hosted its main 2015 “Strategy Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism” in Brussels, during which the “AJC unveiled an action plan for European governments to address the intensifying crisis of anti-Semitism.” This, then, is our “democracy” — unelected, uninvited American Jewish groups presenting “action plans” (lists of demands) to a bloated, corrupt, and unaccountable bureaucracy.

*   *   *

Britain’s Jewish “Community Security Trust” (CST) has, since 2016, been working, again in an unelected and unaccountable capacity, with the European Commission on a “social media illegal hate speech monitoring” project. The CST was able to use the semblance of official authority given to it by this alliance to pressure social media companies by sending them regular performance reports on how well they were doing in removing CST-blacklisted speech from Twitter, Facebook and Google. In yet another stellar example of democracy in action, the unelected and unaccountable CST had earlier claimed the credit for developing “the EU Code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online.” The code was imposed on Facebook, Microsoft, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, Google+, Snapchat, Dailymotion, and Jeuxvideo.com, following the CST’s accusation that they were “not adhering to anti-hate speech laws across Europe.”

The EU Code of Conduct, however, was only ever intended as the first step towards “secure tolerance,” and Moshe Kantor remarked in one 2017 interview that, in his opinion, Big Tech was failing even to meet the basic Jewish expectations of the Code (removal of the majority of designated material within 24 hours). In a 2017 article for Britain’s Independent, Kantor insisted “we must now look to European political leaders to take stronger action, using legislation if necessary, to prove they’re serious about combating this problem once and for all.” [emphasis added] The broader push was always for heightened legal measures that would involve law enforcement, as Kantor had himself spelled out in his 2011 Manifesto. Incessant Jewish lobbying has resulted in Germany being the first nation to take the next step to “secure tolerance.” Recently, Germany adopted Raphael Cohen-Almagor’s proposal that “racism” be treated in the same way as terrorism and child pornography. In February 2020, the German government approved a bill to “force social networks such as Facebook and Twitter to report criminal posts to the police.” The Financial Times reports:

Under the planned new law, which is the toughest of its kind in the world, social media platforms will not only have to delete certain kinds of hate speech but also flag the content to the Office of the Federal Criminal Police (BKA). Posts that companies will be required to report include those indicating preparations for a terrorist attack and the formation of criminal and terrorist groups, as well as those featuring instances of racial incitement and the distribution of child pornography. The networks would also have to give the BKA the last IP address and port number most recently assigned to the user profile. [emphasis added]

Early resistance from Facebook to the legislation, focused specifically on the issue of “Holocaust denial,” prompted the ADL to go into attack mode. Reverting to tactics once used against Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent, the ADL dropped its “Boycott is not a solution” rhetoric that had been employed against the BDS movement, and initiated a “Stop Hate for Profit” advertising boycott in early June by circulating images showing advertisers anti-Jewish (really, often simply anti-George Soros) Facebook posts alongside which their ads were running. The move shaved almost $58 billion from Facebook’s stock value, with over 1,000 major companies leveraged into action. ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt’s series of demands to drop the boycott include the granting of high-level access to “civil rights” (ADL) officials who will perform “regular, independent audits” of “hate” on the platform (which would allow them to engage in intelligence gathering, the collection of IP addresses etc.), immediate removal of “thousands” of White advocacy groups, and the use of Facebook software to “target” “neo-Nazis and White supremacists.” Simultaneously, the ADL and Moshe Kantor have been pushing a Holocaust-narrative marketing campaign on Facebook, Instagram, and elsewhere, with Kantor commenting “The best way to spread any message today is through social media.” Censorship and propaganda thus go hand-in-hand in the effort to gain a monopoly of the public mind.

As the world’s largest and most influential Jewish organizations tighten their hold on Big Tech’s conglomerates, smaller rivals have emerged to fill the dissident demand for platforms. One of the most promising of these is BitChute, a UK-registered technology company with British directors. Slick and easy to navigate, the site is an obvious alternative to those exiled from YouTube, and its growing popularity has frustrated Jews whose goal isn’t simply to remove dissident speech from the larger platforms, but to remove it from the internet, and the public sphere, forever. Two weeks ago, the CST produced a maudlin propaganda video denouncing BitChute and presenting all dissident thought as “incitement to murder.” In the course of the video, CST staff announce they’ve been gathering intelligence at the site and will submit a “report” to their “partners in government, anti-terrorism police, and in think tanks.” [emphasis added] The CST has also been concentrating its efforts on Gab, 4chan, and Telegram, and CST Chief Executive Mark Gardner claims that “contact with the police” has already led to the removal of some content.

The CST recently secured another UK government grant of £14 million ($17.66 million), which it has been receiving annually since 2015. In fact, the group is so financially secure that it is now hiring “social media research analysts” so that it can better put pressure on the government to introduce legislation preventing free speech on the internet. Given that young British people are dying of cancer because the NHS claims to be unable to afford the necessary drugs, it must be a great comfort to their families that at least some Jews, somewhere, are collecting large salaries to browse memes on Twitter and send regular reports to the police about the hate they’ve found on Gab.

While BitChute has very low advertising revenue, and is thus relatively immune to boycott tactics, Jewish groups have nevertheless attempted to attack other parts of the site’s infrastructure. In particular, the site’s reliance on Disqus for video comments has been highlighted as a potential means of weakening the site, with Garner declaring “Disqus is part of this problem.” One presumes that a warning has been sent.

Online payment processors are another element of internet infrastructure that has been relentlessly attacked by organized Jews. Eric Striker’s National Justice recently revealed images from a private PayPal seminar in which audience members were told that “hate content” was referred to the ADL, among other “external partners.” Striker writes:

According to another training slide,1800 accounts belonging to individuals, non-profits and businesses in the last year have been eliminated for political reasons using guidelines provided by their “partners.” 65% were for what they categorize as white nationalist activity, while the next most censored group is people and organizations who advocate for immigration restrictions. A person cannot support Donald Trump’s winning issue from his 2016 campaign and still keep their Paypal, in other words. There is even a category for “prejudiced academic work.” 

PayPal CEO Dan Schulman is himself Jewish, and it’s hard not to conclude that this was a very willing partnership. In fact, Jewish activism in Big Tech collides with another phenomenon — what Aaron Chatterji and Michael Toffel refer to in the Harvard Business Review as “The New CEO Activists.” Chatterji and Toffel cite Schulman’s decision not to locate PayPal infrastructure in Charlotte, North Carolina, as CEO activist economic punishment for the state’s legislation banning the gender-confused from using the bathrooms of the opposite sex. The Associated Press estimated that an ensuing boycott of North Carolina by heavily-Jewish Big Capital cost the state more than $3.76 billion. Salesforce’s Marc Benioff and Goldmans Sachs’s Lloyd Blankfein were similarly listed as “CEO activists” in the cause of advancing homosexuals and their culture.

Financial support to Jewish groups and associated “think tanks” and legal institutions is another crucial aspect of CEO activism. Logan Green, Jewish CEO of car-sharing company Lyft, pledged $1 million to the American Civil Liberties Union when the ACLU was preparing to fight Donald Trump’s early attempt at an immigration ban. The ADL has received huge donations from most of the big names in Big Capital and Big Tech. For all the current theater about Facebook’s insistence on some modicum of free speech, Facebook CEO Sheryl Sandberg last year made a personal donation of $2.5 million to the ADL. This can be added to $1 million from Apple, $1 million from Fox, and $1 million from Jewish Craigslist founder Craig Newmark for the specific purpose of fighting “online hate speech.”

That the ADL has been able to mobilize a massive and crushing boycott of Facebook is as much a “show of strength,” an act of intimidation against broader industry, government, and people, as it is a specific act against Facebook’s sluggishness in imposing the full list of measures demanded by Big Jew. So-called CEO activism is so very useful to the ADL because so many of the CEO’s are themselves Jewish and highly supportive of the cause. As Fenek Solere pointed out in a recent article for Britain’s Patriotic Alternative, it is almost impossible to separate Big Tech and Big Capital from Big Jew:

Public broadcasting networks both in the UK and USA are—and have been for many years—effectively owned and dominated by people like Sumner Redstone, Phillipe Dauman, Bernard Delfont, Lew and Leslie Grade and Alan Yentob. … But it is not only in the spheres of global communication, financial services and party political funding where people like Julian A. Brodsky, of Comcast, Michael Dell of Dell, Sandy Lerner, co-founder Cisco systems, Robert A. Altman of ZeniMax Media, Sergey Brin and Larry Page of Google, Susan Wojcicki at YouTube, Sheryl Sandberg, CEO of Facebook, Aaron Swartz of Reddit, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Jeff Weimar at LinkedIn, Max Levchin of PayPal, Charles Schusterman of Samson Investment, Richard and Henry Bloch of the Tax Preparation Company, The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, J Street, The Zionist Organization of America, The Republican Jewish Coalition, and the Christians United for Israel, hold sway. Some other areas in which they are disproportionately over-represented are: retail, governmental bureaucracies, hotel and leisure, theatre and the arts, academia, technology and software, international intelligence services, charities and NGOs, pharmaceuticals, healthcare, professional consultancy and the legal and judicial profession. Representative examples being: Devin Wenig of eBay, … Mark Weinberger CEO/Chairman of Ernst & Young, Samuel Ruben, Duracell Inc, Bernard L. Schwartz, CEO of Loral Space & Communication Inc, Rachel Haurwitz, co-founder of Gene Editing and Caribou Biosciences, Leonard Schleifer, founder of biotechnology Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Beny Alagem, founder of Packard Bell, Amir Ashkenazi, co-founder of Adap. TV and Shopping.com, Jay Cohen of Online Gambling, Talman Marco of Viber, Sean Pad of Tinder, Henry Crown, founder of the Material Service Corporation in Aeronautics, the Mossad run ICTS Europe specialising in international Security, Gumar Agujar and Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum, Arthur Belfer of Belco Petroleum, precursor to the infamous Enron organisation, Louis Blaustien of American Oil, Leon Hess of the Hess Corporation, owners of the NFL’s New York Jets, C, Morris Mirkin of Budget Rent-a-Car, Sheldon Yellen of Belfor Construction, Leonard Abramson of Health Maintenance Organization, Bennett Greenspan of Gene testing, Joel Landau of Allure, Martine Rothblatt of United Therapeutics, Steve Ballmer of Microsoft, Ben Rosen of Compaq Computers, Ivan Seidenberg of Verizon Communications, Ed Savitz owner of Amusement Arcades, and Jonathan Tisch, CEO of Loews Hotels.

The above listing is a mere indication of how prolific these power-brokers are and the degree of control they exert over our lives every single day. … All of them are committed Zionists and all of them are members and supporters of fanatically pro-Israel, Jewish partisan organizations.

And, as I wrote at the conclusion of my 2019 essay “The Necessity of anti-Semitism”:

Today, largely worthless “branded” consumer products are overwhelmingly Jewish, are promoted via Jewish dominance of the advertising industry, and their purchase by consumers is funded by Jewish financiers. Calvin Klein, Levi Strauss, Ralph Lauren, Michael Kors, Kenneth Cole, Max Factor, Estée Lauder, and Marc Jacobs are just some of the Jews whose very names have become synonymous with debt-fueled consumer culture and the subscribing to carefully cultivated fashion fads, while Jewish-owned companies like Starbucks, Macy’s, the Gap, American Apparel, Costco, Staples, Home Depot, Ben & Jerry’s, Timberland, Snapple, Häagen-Dazs, Dunkin’ Donuts, Monster Beverages, Mattel, and Toys “R” Us have come to epitomize the endless and superfluous production of garbage for mass consumption on credit. The consuming temple of debt-fueled consumerism is also linked to the cultures of Critique, Tolerance, and Sterility. So-called anti-racism, support for gender confusion, and the celebration of mass migration and multiculturalism have become mainstays of modern advertising as the Racial Endgame nears its conclusion and the West commences its death rattle. You might ask, when you see rainbow-package Doritos, what tortilla chips have to do with sodomy, but that’s only because you’re suffering from a tolerance deficiency, and the best way to correct that is to admit White privilege, buy a Starbucks, and go try on a new pair of $200 jeans at Macy’s. Critique, Tolerance, Sterility and Usury have converged. This is the necessity of anti-Semitism.

In light of all that has been discussed, we could add that “Secure Tolerance,” Big Tech, Big Capital, Big Brother, and Big Jew have converged. The final result will be the achievement of Jewish censorship across the West, a “permanent and irreversible” cycle of laws and repression, and the theft of our children’s future. Like Milton’s Satan, these groups will declaim in favor of equality and democracy, only to later wield the tyrant’s scepter in Hell.

Conclusion

How to finish such a pessimistic essay? It’s true that the information presented here is disturbing, infuriating, confusing, and heartbreaking. Can any practical lessons be derived from it?

One clear pattern observed in this essay is the overwhelming reliance on “think tanks” and similar bureaucratic vehicles for the intrusion of harmful Jewish influence into our “democracy.” Jews, even with their very significant financial power, rely on the magnification of their rhetoric, interests, and grievances through such bodies in order to accomplish their goals. This is where they can and should be challenged. Who is granting access and power to these groups? Can existing legislation be used to prevent the intrusion of these bodies into the democratic process and, if not, can new legislation be proposed to do so? The closest the dissident right ever came to a think tank was the National Policy Institute (NPI), which despite its name, and while fulfilling an important movement function, didn’t really produce any policies. At the present time, our movement clearly needs talented legal minds and institutions to unpack existing legislation, and develop new legislative proposals that, even if not explicitly racial, can seriously hinder the movement of harmful Jewish groups through the political body of the West. There is a serious lack of infrastructure of even the most basic kind, and we simply aren’t going to make any progress until this problem is addressed.

The second lesson from this survey of developments is that social media is likely to become an increasingly compromised and dangerous place for activists. In Europe, new laws are probably a few years away, but the broader plan will almost certainly eventually envelop Canada, Australia, and, despite apparent belief that the Constitution is invulnerable, even the United States. Already American legal scholars have developed arguments for curtailing the First Amendment in the case of “hate speech” (see, e.g., Jeremy Waldron, The Harm in Hate Speech (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012), and it is widely believed that a liberal Supreme Court majority would adopt such reasoning. The clock is probably already ticking on internet anonymity, and the example of Germany indicates that direct police involvement in “speech crime” is on the horizon. Off-line activist methodologies should be increasingly explored. Failing that, radically alternative modes of using internet networking should be considered. For example, even if someone uses a completely outrageous Twitter handle, complete with comic book avatar, most people still have their entire lives online (job, home town, friends, likes, hobbies, vacations). Don’t forget who ultimately has all of this information, and the organizations that will increasingly be able to access it.

It’s becoming very apparent that social media is itself a form of social control. We now have the ability to identify someone in a crowd simply by cross-referencing a photo of their face with available internet information. In seconds they can be identified, their employer can be contacted, and their loved ones can be harassed. In a strange way, despite the atomized condition of postmodernity, we have social control levels approaching those of the middle ages. We have new forms of social shaming, and new forms of the public pillory. Dissident activists who face overwhelming costs if they are doxxed would be well-advised to reduce their internet presence to the bare minimum, in effect, deliberately fading themselves into obscurity, thus making their life harder for the Zionist-Globalist panopticon to search for and penetrate. Remember who you were before you became an employee number, a Facebook profile, or a Twitter handle, and protect that person like you’d protect your child or other loved ones.

For the time being, however, ongoing online activism should be continued with enthusiasm and without despair. This costs our opponents dearly in terms of effort, money, and worry. Each new platform presents difficulties for them to navigate, and delays other plans they may have. Be proud that you’re still active, and be proud that while so many others in life are merely counting passes, you spotted that gorilla. I’ll leave the final word to Sir Oswald Mosley:

We have believed in our fellow Europeans. And we have believed in the destiny of Europe. My friends, it’s all there, it’s all waiting. Of course it can be done. It depends upon ourselves. You say, “But again, we’re scattered individuals. … Everything’s against us. Governments. Money. Press. Television. All the new forces are used against us. All the great forces, all the material powers of the world, you say are against you. And so they are —you’re quite right to feel that. And I don’t underrate them.

But I don’t despair, and you shouldn’t despair. Because you, like I, have read something of history. You know something of the record of the achievement of Europeans. And dark as this hour is, it’s no darker, it’s not as dark, as some of the hours you’ve known in European history. When everything was cowardice, treachery, and betrayal, and when the Saracen hordes from far outside Europe swept right across that continent, small bands of men came together in resolution, in absolute determination, giving themselves completely, and saying: Europe shall live! And they stood firm, and faced the menace to Europe, its values, its civilisations, the glory of its achievements. And more and more rallied to their standards, and those hordes were thrown back, again and again and again.

My friends it’s an immense responsibility. You’re living in a historic hour — do remember that always. Live in that sense, I beg of you, of history and of destiny. Come together, get going, get working. Inspire other people like yourselves.


[1] R. Cohen-Almagor, Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side, (Cambridge University Press, 2015) 219.

“Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish Plan to Permanently Silence the West, Part 2

Go to Part 1.

20122015: The National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance

Between 2012 and January 2015, Dinstein and three other experts on constitutional law, backed by Kantor’s ECTR developed a draft 12-page pan-European “tolerance law” for adoption by the European Union. The law was intended to “criminalize ‘group libel,’ such as negative stereotyping, target group-to-group intolerance, and ban neo-Nazi and other discriminatory organizations in Europe.” On January 27, the draft legislation debuted at the European Jewish Congress, then meeting in Prague, with Kantor presiding and throwing his “support behind the proposal, which would grant harsher punishments for hate crimes against Jews, Muslims, Roma, women, and LGBQT alike across the continent.” Minor complaints came from Alan Dershowitz and Bernard Henri-Levy, who believed that an educational (indoctrination) strategy would be a more effective (safer for Jews) way of pursuing an end to anti-Semitism. Dinstein (and, one would presume, Kantor), according to Times of Israel, was “undeterred by the criticism, insisting that he would continue to promote the legislation to European governments, in the hopes that like Holocaust denial criminalization, which he said was initially perceived as a “pipe dream,” the tolerance law will ultimately take root.”

Dinstein’s document, innocuously titled “A European Framework National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,” [full text here] but also known by the name “Model National Statute for the Promotion of Tolerance,” was designed to legally implement Kantor’s ideological proposals as outlined in the 2011 Manifesto for Secure Tolerance, and made provision for the explicit criminalization of “overt approval of a totalitarian ideology, xenophobia or anti-Semitism.” It proposes to make “education in tolerance” mandatory from elementary school to college. All governments will be legally obliged to ensure their schools “introduce courses encouraging students to accept diversity. … It is very important to start such courses as early as possible in the educational programme, i.e. in elementary school.” The same measures will have to be imposed in the education of the military and the police, and for the entire professional class within society.

The statute also makes it a legal obligation for every EU country to ensure that public broadcasting “devote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance.” It asserts a legally binding commitment that: “The production of books, plays, newspapers reports, magazine articles, films and television programmes – promoting a climate of tolerance – will be encouraged and, where necessary, subsidized by the Government.” Mass media will be completely given over to the development and dissemination of pro-diversity propaganda:

  • The Government shall ensure that public broadcasting (television and radio) stations will devote a prescribed percentage of their programmes to promoting a climate of tolerance.
  • The Government shall encourage all privately owned mass media (including the printed press) to promote a climate of tolerance.
  • The Government shall encourage all the mass media (public as well as private) to adopt an ethical code of conduct, which will prevent the spreading of intolerance and will be supervised by a mass media complaints commission.

In short, the proposals aim to make “commitment to tolerance” a total and legally binding principle, bringing about a revolution in culture. In other words, nations will be punished if their TV stations do not produce pro-tolerance propaganda, if they fail to indoctrinate their children in pro-tolerance propaganda, and if they fail to aggressively prosecute and imprison dissidents. In fact, it provides for the establishment of “special administrative units” dedicated to the direct surveillance of all individuals or groups deemed to possess “intolerant” views.” The statute develops a framework of “concrete and enforceable obligations that ensure tolerance and stamp out intolerance.” The proposals were also designed by Kantor and Dinstein to include explicit, special protections for Jews. Dinstein, for example, remarked at a 2012 presentation of an early draft to then-EU President Martin Schulz, that “Whilst current definitions of tolerance would preclude racism and religious-based bigotry, anti-Semitism must be individually stated as a separate definition. Holocaust denial should be a crime.”

Crucially, the statute provides for the legal protection of all standard Jewish historical narratives, not just that of the Holocaust. It asserts, for example, that “It must be understood that the “group libel” may appear to be aimed at members of the group in a different time (another historical era) or place (beyond the borders of the State).” Based on one of his most recent speeches, Kantor’s own interpretation of history leaves a lot to be desired: “Historically, Jews were always among the most loyal citizens of their countries, and did their best to integrate and to become pillars of society in all walks of life.”

Presumably, anything outside such a fantasy would be considered criminal hate speech. In other words, if a modern-day Italian made the claim that Jews were dominant moneylenders in England during the medieval period, and that they contributed to the hostility demonstrated against them during that time, and which resulted in their expulsion in 1290, this individual could be subjected to the same harsh legal penalties as someone who made “anti-Semitic” criticisms of Israel today, or “denied the Holocaust.” And these penalties are harsh. The document argues there is “no need to be tolerant to the intolerant.” Group libel, “Overt approval of a totalitarian ideology,” xenophobia, anti-Semitism, and public approval or denial of the Holocaust, are all to be treated as “aggravated crimes.” Juveniles “guilty of intolerance” will avoid prison, but are to be brainwashed via “a rehabilitation programme designed to instill in them a culture of tolerance.”

Since first presenting a draft to Martin Schulz in 2012, Kantor’s ECTR has presented the Model Statute in a series of meetings and seminars with international organizations, including the Council of Europe and the OSCE, as part of an intensive lobbying effort to have it written into law throughout Europe. There is currently a joint ECTR-European Council task force which is working on its implementation. Kantor has ensured his measures are massively incentivized. He has launched a $1 million “Kantor Prize for Secure Tolerance,” an ECTR annual European Medal of Tolerance, and a research fund offering grants of “20–50 thousand Euro each” for experts who can advance the legal and cultural enforcement of diversity.


Incentivizing treason: Kantor, awarding the European Medal of Tolerance to Prince Albert II of Monaco: “Your Highness’ gesture of supporting historical truth and unveiling a monument commemorating deported Jews in World War II has been such a liberating act of contrition, all the more impressive because it concerned not only your own people, but also because of your own family’s political responsibilities for the course of events.”

20162018: Kantor, the ADL, and the War on “Cyber Hate”

Beginning in late 2015, Kantor began accelerating a more global approach to “Secure Tolerance” by building a more intensive relationships with the ADL and focusing more heavily on internet “intolerance.” In January 2016, Kantor’s European Jewish Congress and the ADL announced “a partnership to cooperate on advocacy work within European Union institutions,” that would involve lobbying for the implementation of the Model Statute and for heightened levels of internet censorship. At a meeting of the EJC’s General Assembly in Brussels, it was announced that the move would “enable the ADL to have a greater impact on E.U. policies and programs,” while providing Kantor’s policies with a pathway to U.S. legislators. ADL Director Jonathan Greenblatt boasted that “Working together, we will leverage our respective strengths to pursue our common goals more effectively.” An enthused Kantor replied, “I am delighted that we are partnering with such an august institution as ADL which has a longstanding record of fighting for greater tolerance and against the scourge of hatred, racism and anti-Semitism.” Ultimately, of course, it meant the further dilution of democracy in Europe, with an unelected and unsolicited gang of American Jews now free to engage in “advocacy work within European institutions such as the European Parliament and the European Commission.”

By 2018, Kantor’s effort at international Jewish co-operation to bring about “secure tolerance” had settled on the internet as a matter of major concern and as a potential springboard for further movement on repressive international legislation. There had been earlier grumblings. In 2015, then ADL Director Abraham Foxman, and also Yoram Dinstein, had called for measures to end internet anonymity and therefore expose the “intolerant” to “the censure of society. … If you want to be bigot you have to take responsibility for it.” But by 2018 this had evolved into the quest for more systematic, legal solutions to online dissent.

Moshe Kantor and the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt

In March 2018, the sixth biennial meeting of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism convened in Israel. Run by the Israeli government, hosted by Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed by former French Prime Minister Manuel Valls, and staffed by a large cast of Jewish academics from around the world, the Global Forum made a priority of “fighting cyber hate.” A modern day meeting of the Elders of Zion, the number of representatives from various Jewish organizations totaled just over one thousand, including leaders from the ADL; Simon Wiesenthal Center; American Jewish Committee; Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France; the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; B’nai B’rith; World Jewish Congress; and the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy.

The Global Forum, in common with so much of what we have seen so far, is essentially a central “think tank” for the campaign to introduce internet censorship throughout the West. It devises intellectual and political strategies styled as “recommendations” for Western governments to restrict the freedoms of their respective populations. The ‘recommendations’ of the 2018 Forum included a demand that all governments adopt “a clear industry standard for defining hate speech and anti-Semitism” the latter being achieved quite quickly since the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism was devised in 2016.

The Global Forum called for the introduction of an international legal ban on “Holocaust denial sites,” and its plan to “eliminate anti-Semitism” is comprehensive. Among its more recent recommendations were proposals to establish national legal units responsible for combating ‘cyber hate’; making stronger use of existing laws to prosecute ‘cyber hate’ and ‘online anti-Semitism,’ and enhancing the legal basis for prosecution where such laws are
absent.

 

Latter-Day Elders of Zion

In much the same way that Kantor’s “secure tolerance” policy proposes that “restrictions are necessary for freedom,” many if not all of the Jewish intellectuals involved in the campaign to end free speech on the internet do so while shamelessly and hypocritically posing as the truest defenders of freedom and liberty. A classic example in this regard is Raphael Cohen-Almagor, author of Confronting the Internet’s Dark Side (2015) and a key figure in the Global Forum as well as perhaps the leading anti-free speech intellectual active today. Cohen-Almagor received his D. Phil. in political theory from Oxford University in 1991, and his B.A. and M.A. from Tel Aviv University. In 1992–1995 he lectured at the Hebrew University Law Faculty. From 1995–2007 he taught at the University of Haifa Law School, Department of Communication, and Library and Information Studies University of Haifa. He is a very strongly-identified Jew, having acted as Chairperson of “The Second Generation to the Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance” Organization in Israel. He also shamelessly but aggressively postures himself as a “defender of democracy,” acting as Founder and Director of Center for Democratic Studies at the University of Haifa. He is currently Chair in Politics at the University of Hull, United Kingdom. As with other aspects of the “think tank” strategy, this is “democracy,” but not as you know it.

Cohen-Almagor’s most recent significant production, titled “Taking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet,” appeared in 2018 in the International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy.[1] Along with an earlier piece from 2016,[2] the article is an excellent sample and summary of Cohen-Almagor’s work to date, and also acts as a remarkable and important example of Jewish manipulation of discussions of free speech and the politics of White advocacy. The article’s basic argument is that American so-called “White supremacist” websites are a hotbed of dangerous hate speech which can be conclusively linked to criminality. Since hate speech “can and does inspire crime,” it is incumbent upon governments to introduce legislation banning such speech under harsh legal penalties.

We will never know how Charlottesville might have been remembered without the incident involving James Fields and Heather Heyer, but there is little doubt that it was perhaps the greatest propaganda coup that Jewish organizations could have hoped for. It therefore comes as no surprise that Cohen-Almagor should open his article with this: “On 12 August 2017, James Alex Fields Jr rammed his car into a crowd of anti-fascist protesters united against a white supremacist rally, Unite the Right, in Charlottesville, Virginia, United States of America (USA).” Despite the extreme rarity of violence from the Alt-Right, and the many singular aspects of this particular episode, Cohen-Almagor employs the most sweeping generalizations to assert the incident “illustrates the danger that the white supremacist movement poses to American society, and the close connection between hate online and hate crimes.”

Cohen-Almagor, along with the 18 Jews from the ADL, SPLC, and similar organizations he interviewed for the paper, are aware of the objections of classical liberalism to restrictions on speech:

[C. Edwin] Baker (1992, 1997), for instance, argues that almost all of the harm inflicted by free speech is eventually mediated by the mental processes of the audience. The audience decides its reaction to speech. The listeners determine their own response. Any consequences of the listeners’ response to hate speech must be attributed, in the end, to the listeners. The result is the right of speakers to present their views even if assimilation by the listeners leads to or constitutes serious harm. Baker (1997, 2012), like many American liberal philosophers and First Amendment scholars, wishes to protect freedom of expression notwithstanding the harm that the speech might inflict on the audience. … Consequently, many of my interviewees argue that American liberals thus tend to underestimate the harm in hate speech.

The key Jewish counter-argument is to assert that speech itself can be harmful and that “the audience” can be harmed merely by exposure to it. In practical terms, Cohen-Almagor contends that James Fields drove his car into a crowd at Charlottesville solely because he was exposed to hate speech — not because of his mental health, situational factors that day and immediately prior to his conduct in the vehicle, or because of catastrophic policing failures. Why everyone else “exposed” to “White supremacist hate speech” didn’t engage in similar conduct is left unexplained. Instead, we are to agree with Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish colleagues that “hate speech should not be dismissed as ‘mere speech.’ … The preferred American liberal approach of fighting ideas with ideas, speech with speech, is insufficient. Hate speech needs to be taken more seriously by the legal authorities than it currently is.”

Just as the James Fields episode is extrapolated exponentially to define an entire movement, so the issue of “hate speech” and censorship is based on an extremely small number of exceptional cases. Cohen-Almagor claims that “internet hate can be found on thousands of websites, file archives, chat rooms, newsgroups and mailing lists,” so one might assume that his methodology and argument would involve a wide range of examples where these thousands of sources are linked to thousands of instances of violence and criminality — particularly since Cohen-Almagor argues that “White supremacist” websites are “like terrorist groups.” The problem, however, is that he does no such thing, because there are no such examples.

In order to present even the most tenuously relevant research, Cohen-Almagor relies purely on unsophisticated comments from a handful of the most extreme and obscure racialist sites on the internet, and even here the author fails to provide a single instance where a White racialist website has suggested any acts of violence. So inconsequential and amateurish were such sites that by the time of writing his article Cohen-Almagor has to concede “quite a few sites discussed here are now defunct.” Having initially made a small directory of such sites, he admits the “vast majority of the web pages in that directory are no longer operative.” It is surely a damning indictment of the state of modern peer-reviewed academic journals that someone could publish an argument against the principle of free speech solely on the basis of the putative content of obscure and minuscule internet sources which are no longer even in existence.

In fact, Cohen-Almagor can’t even come to a fixed and satisfactory definition of “hate speech” or “hate sites.” This is presumably by design, with the intention that the topic is plagued by so many gray areas that any future legislation in the area is, like all existing examples of hate legislation, destined to be rhetorically capacious enough to ensure easy arbitrary interpretation by those in control. Early in his essay he asserts that “Hate speech is intended to injure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimize the targeted groups, and to foment insensitivity and brutality against them.” But he also later endorses a definition of the Alt-Right, which is routinely portrayed by Cohen-Almagor and his Jewish allies as a body of “hate groups,” as merely “critical” of “multiculturalism, feminists, Jews, Muslims, gays, immigrants and other minorities.” Criticism thus becomes conflated with hate. It goes without saying that there is a crucial difference between the two definitions, and it is in the gulf between these two definitions that these activists seek to destroy freedom of speech. Mere criticism may not “injure, dehumanize, harass, intimidate, debase, degrade, and victimize” anyone, but the existence of a legislative framework privileging minority interpretations of such criticism will surely consign it to hate speech categorization.

Cohen-Almagor and his co-ethnic activists are equally vague in explaining exactly how “White supremacist” websites are morally or legally wrong. Despite its initial claims and promises, much of the article is in fact taken up with banal observations. White racialist websites, Cohen-Almagor informs us, often have “forums, discussion groups, photos and videos.” They offer “eye-catching teasers such as symbols and pictures.” Readers of such websites “talk to each other, thereby reinforcing their commonly held views, empowering people who share their beliefs.” A key strategy involves “encouraging interpersonal socialization in the offline world.” Members “use cyberspace as a free space to create and sustain movement culture and coordinate collective action.” Website proprietors can also “make appeals for funding.” Perhaps this is quite terrifying to Jews, but as a philosophical argument for the annihilation of free speech it is catastrophically lacking.

Cohen-Almagor provides no evidence suggesting a link between even the most incendiary racial commentary on the internet and acts of violence. The only two examples he attempts to provide are almost two decades old, and concern individuals with clearly unsound mental health — spree-shooter Benjamin Nathaniel Smith having exhibited all the signs of conduct disorder and psychopathy in adolescence prior to his 1999 rampage, and Buford O. Furrow having been hospitalized a number of times due to psychiatric instability and suicidal tendencies prior to his shooting spree at a Jewish community center, also in 1999. Even the most basic critique of such a proposed link would ask why, given the proliferation of the internet and social media between 1999 and 2018, there has been a decrease in violence from the far right. Indeed, if one can excuse the continued use of the “racist” and “hate” buzzwords, it’s difficult to disagree with one University of California, Berkeley study that pointed out: “Although White racist groups have proliferated on the Internet in recent years, there appears to have been no corresponding increase in membership in these groups or in hate crime rates. In fact, one might argue that the prevalence of racist groups on the Internet works to reduce hate crime, perhaps by providing less physical, more rhetorical outlets for hate.”[3] The entire foundation of Cohen-Almagor’s argument — that there is a link between internet activity and White racialist violence — is a total fabrication.

It is a fabrication that is being used in conjunction with some of the biggest international Jewish organizations and, via the Global Forum, the State of Israel, to blackmail and deceive Western populations via a specious sense of morality (i.e., a “morality” that denies the legitimate interests of White populations in maintaining political, cultural, and demographic control) coupled with activism in the media and financial pressure on politicians. Christopher Wolf, Chair of the Internet Task Force of the ADL, argues shamelessly in an interview with Cohen-Almagor: ‘The evidence is clear that hate online inspires hate crimes.’ Cohen-Almagor writes:

Overly permissive and tolerant attitudes towards hate speech is a form of akrasia, whereby people act against their better judgment. Not just those who post but also those who allow such postings on their servers are culpable for their akratic conduct. Whether through ignorance, indifference or insistence on clinging to freedom of speech without caring about dangerous consequences, these are unjustifiable. Internet service providers are expected to abide by a basic code of conduct, one that objects to rather than celebrates violence and its promotion. When it comes to hate speech on the Internet, society and its regulators cannot continue to remain akratic and avoid responsibility for the harm that is inflicted.

Go to Part 3.


[1] R. Cohen-Almagor, ‘Taking North American White Supremacist Groups Seriously: The Scope and the Challenge of Hate Speech on the Internet,’ International Journal of Crime, Justice, and Social Democracy, Vol. 7, No. 2 (2018), pp.38-57.

[2] . Cohen-Almagor, ‘Hate and Racist Speech in the United States: A critique,’ Philosophy and Public Issues, Vol. 6, No.1, pp.77-123.

[3] J. Glaser, J. Dixit & D. Green, ’Studying Hate Crime with the Internet: What Makes Racists Advocate Racial Violence?’ Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 58, No. 1, 2002, pp. 177–193 (p.189)

“Secure Tolerance”: The Jewish Plan to Permanently Silence the West, Part 1


“The promotion of secure tolerance will be permanent and irreversible.”
Moshe Kantor,
Manifesto on Secure Tolerance, 2011.

In 2010, Harvard duo Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons published The Invisible Gorilla, which detailed their study of the human capacity to overlook even the most obvious things. In one of their experiments, Chabris and Simons created a video in which students wearing white and black t-shirts pass a basketball between themselves. Viewers were asked to count the number of times the players with the white shirts passed the ball, and many were later very satisfied to find that they were accurate in their counting. This satisfaction was tainted, however, when they were asked if they had spotted “the gorilla.” Amidst considerable confusion, the video would then be replayed for the puzzled viewers, who were stunned to see a man in a gorilla suit walk among the students and balls, take up a position in the center of the screen, and wave at the camera. They’d missed him entirely in their initial viewing. The study highlighted the capacity for humans to become fixated on set tasks, events, or other distractions, and miss even the most elaborate and remarkable of occurrences.

When it comes to Jewish activism, and especially Jewish activism in the area of censorship and mass migration, I fear that the same dynamics are at work. Panicked by this or that website or YouTube channel being defunded or banned, we miss the ‘Invisible Gorilla’ — a plan of action far more horrifying and deadly in its implications than any single act of censorship.

There are essentially two forms of censorship. The hard kind we are very familiar with. It consists in the banning or removal of websites, videos, books, podcasts, and social media accounts. It extends to defunding and deplatforming, and it reaches its apogee in the banning of activists from entering certain countries, in the arrest of activists on spurious grounds, and in the development of new laws with harsh criminal penalties for speech. These methods are dangerous and rampant, and I myself have fallen victim to several of them.

I think, however, that softer, more diffuse methods of censorship are even more insidious and perhaps even more catastrophic. We could consider, for example, the manipulation of culture so that even if certain speech is not illegal and carries no legal repercussions, it nevertheless leads to the loss of employment, the destruction of education opportunities, and the dissolving of one’s relationships. This is a form of cultural self-censorship, involving the modification of in-group standards, that has demonstrable Jewish origins. “Soft” censorship can also take the form of socio-cultural prophylaxis. Take, for example, the recent initiative of the U.S. State Department to initiate a drive to engage in the global promotion of philo-Semitic (pro-Jewish) attitudes. I really don’t believe that this will play out in the manner the State Department hopes, and I watch with interest to see precisely what the methodologies of this policy will be. I sincerely doubt its prospects for success. But what other way can this be interpreted than as a preventative measure, obstructing the growth of organic attitudes that, let’s face it, are more likely to skew to the anti-Jewish? Finally, isn’t it in the nature of contemporary culture, with its emphasis on entertainment, consumption, and sex, to be the perfect environment in which to hide many “Invisible Gorillas”? Isn’t it a whirlwind of fixations and distractions, replete with untold numbers of “woke” viewers happy to report that they’ve been enthusiastically counting passes and have the accurate number? Isn’t it rather the axiom of our time that, from the idiotic Left to the idiotic Right, Invisible Gorillas stroll freely and unhindered, laughing and waving as they go, hidden in plain sight? 

Moshe Kantor: Oligarch Activist

If I could single out one point in time at which a process was set in motion that culminated in the heightened censorship that we see today, it wouldn’t be the recent banning of the NPI/Radix YouTube channel, or the removal of the Daily Stormer from the internet after Charlottesville. No answers will be found in the banning of Alex Jones, of Stefan Molyneaux, the European travel ban on Richard Spencer, the eviction of NPI from Hungary, or recent revelations about PayPal’s selective banning process. These are all symptoms that possess no answers in themselves. I do believe, however, that we can locate the immediate intellectual and political beginnings of our present situation in 2011, in the publication of a document titled Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. The document was written by Moshe Kantor, a Russian billionaire, pernicious oligarch, and president of no less than the European Jewish Congress, the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR, which we will return to), the World Holocaust Forum Foundation, the European Jewish Fund, and the Policy Council of the World Jewish Congress. In short, this Jewish billionaire is the quintessential strongly-identified leading Jewish activist, fully committed to the advancement of the interests of his ethnic group.

As leader of so many groups, and mover in so many high circles, Kantor fulfils the qualifications of the early modern stadtlans, Court Jews who boasted of significant wealth and intensive relationships with non-Jewish elites. And he exemplifies many of the same qualities, acting always in un-elected but highly-influential intercessory roles, seeking to improve the tactical and material advantages of his tribe. When not crossing the continent bleating about ‘tolerance,’ Kantor also advances Jewish interests in his capacity as the President of Moscow’s Museum of Avant-Garde Mastery — a dubious establishment dedicated to extolling the disgusting and poisonous art of co-ethnics like Marc Chagall, Chaim Soutine, and Mark Rothko (Rothko is the subject of a 3-part series of TOO articles by Brenton Sanderson).

Although masquerading as a world-renowned “peace activist,” Kantor is in fact a devoted practitioner of international Zionism. A citizen of Russia, the United Kingdom, and Israel, this world parasite wages unconventional warfare by means of backstage diplomacy, policy development, and ceaseless lobbying for repressive legislation to be imposed on Europeans everywhere.

Let’s start with his Manifesto for Secure Tolerance. Its ethos can be summed up in its slogan: “Restrictions are necessary for the freedom to live a secure life.” The instinct is to describe such as phrase as Orwellian, but surely the time has come to describe such concoctions more accurately and plainly as “Judaic.” Surely only the Judaic mind has both the shamelessness, arrogance, and spiteful aggression required to present the removal of freedoms as the key to freedom?


Moshe Kantor: Dedicated Zionist

Kantor argues that “tolerance,” which in his definition basically means acquiescence to globalism (promoted by Kantor as a universal good) and mass migration, is an essential aspect of a successful society. He argues that in order to protect “tolerance,” we should therefore impose “security requirements” (oppressive laws) that focus on “racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism.” Thus, Kantor’s creation of the idea of “Secure Tolerance,” which will see the gradual expansion of cultural and legislative repressions on Whites/nativists, first in the European Union, and then throughout the rest of the West. In Kantor’s own words:

Secure tolerance must be promoted in the public mind and practised in the most democratic way, that is, through law-making. In this way alone will the promotion of secure tolerance be permanent and irreversible. There is no better field in which to implement this project than the European Union because that in itself is a product of tolerance shown by twenty-seven nations for each other and because it is fully exposed to all the challenges of the day. The crucial factors, among others, however, determine the promotion of secure tolerance:

Education, above all primary education (we may be too late forever if we start to teach this difficult new language of communication to children over five years of age).

Secure tolerance is inseparable from the need to develop techniques or practices of Reconciliation in society, which, in turn, are based on the legal recognition of the historical truth of the Holocaust.

And, last but not least, secure tolerance and Reconciliation techniques should be formalized in a code of laws, both national and supra-national, the making of which, once started, is never to stop.

There is a lot to unpack here, but we should start with Kantor’s over-arching expressed goal, the one that opens and closes this section of his Manifesto: the imposition of supranational legislation imposing “tolerance” and outlawing dissent. Kantor’s appeal here to law-making being “the most democratic way,” is pure theater. As we will see, there is nothing democratic about the later course of Kantor’s proposals into becoming law. The Western public has never heard of Kantor’s manifesto or its later incarnations (honestly, have you?), and certainly never had an opportunity to vote on it. Kantor wants repressive laws, “permanent and irreversible,” the “making of which, once started, is never to stop,” in order to deal with, in his words, the “neo-Fascist politicians and organizations, radical nationalists and militarised racists who, in their turn are jeopardising European democratic accomplishments” and therefore represent “destructive manifestations of anti-globalism.”

Further theater is observed in Kantor’s choosing the European Union as a starting point because it “is a product of tolerance.” Of course, I’m sure it had nothing to do with the tactical advantage offered by the opportunity to give his legislative proposals a running head start by ensuring their adoption in twenty-seven countries in one swoop. Jews, of course, have much love for European unity in its current, bureaucratic incarnation. The EU is useful to Jews, who believe that Europe must be compelled to undergo its demographic death as a Continent and sooner rather than later. Supranational government in the form of the EU is seen as the most efficient means to this end. Why go to the effort of separately promoting mass migration in Germany, Britain, France, Spain etc., and navigating speech laws through each of their legal systems and parliaments, when the EU is the purse seine that can reap them all? It’s the same in the U.S. where Jews have always championed a strong central government rather than states’ rights. Jews have always perceived the capabilities of the EU as an engine of mass immigration. When Brexit happened, Ari Paul, writing in The Forward, argued in terror that a reversion to the nation-state government across Europe would be a “return to the state of affairs that gave us two world wars and the Holocaust.” His proposed remedy is the suggestion that the populations of the E.U. should be more tightly controlled through speech and hate laws, and the final solution “is to make the E.U.’s policy more favorable to multiculturalism and migration. … Jews are certainly going to play a role in which direction Europe goes.”

Moshe Kantor is one of those Jews. His insidious education proposals, designed to brainwash our children as early as possible, are mere copies of the tactics of the ADL and countless Jewish activists within psychiatry. And his call for the international legal protection of the Jewish historical narrative of the Holocaust is simply the worldwide criminalization of “Holocaust denial.” He is making speedy progress on all fronts. 

ECTR and the Jewish “Think Tank” Strategy for Increasing Non-White Migration in Britain

Kantor’s 2011 manifesto was the product of an existing diplomatic trajectory to achieve the same goals. In 2008, Kantor had founded the European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR), as a:

non-partisan and non-governmental institution. It is envisaged to be an opinion-making and advisory body on international tolerance promotion, reconciliation and education. It fosters understanding and tolerance among peoples of various ethnic origin; educates on techniques of reconciliation; facilitates post-conflict social apprehensions; monitors chauvinistic behaviors, proposes pro-tolerance initiatives and legal solutions.

In other words, it’s something between a think tank and a lobbying group. This “think tank” strategy is absolutely crucial to the Jewish ability to bypass or exploit democratic institutions, and has been devastating in its effectiveness. As I remarked in my study of the use of this tactic in destroying free speech in Britain, Jews had been unable to get speech-restricting legislation through Parliament by relying solely on Jewish M.P.s until the Jew Frank Soskice designed and “piloted the first Race Relations Act, 1965, through Parliament.”[1] The Act approached the problem of White British resistance to mass migration from a different angle and “aimed to outlaw racial discrimination in public places.” Crucially, the 1965 Act created the ‘Race Relations Board’ and equipped it with the power to sponsor research for the purposes of monitoring race relations in Britain and, if necessary, extending legislation on the basis of the ‘findings’ of such research:

It was a clever tactic. The Board soon began sponsoring research from ‘independent’ bodies staffed by, and often explicitly created by, Jews.[2] One of the best examples of such bodies, and certainly the most influential, was ‘Political and Economic Planning’ (PEP) a supposedly “independent research organization whose philosophy and methodology are based on the principles and values of sociology.”[3] Ray Honeyford states that although PEP dabbled in other areas, “its most influential work has been in the field of race. It is no exaggeration to say that its work in this field is far and away the biggest source of information, ideas, and opinions about the state of race relations in Britain and the experience of discrimination by ethnic minorities.”[4] One of its 1977 publications has been called “the bible of the race relations lobby in Britain.”[5]

But PEP was never ‘independent.’ From its inception it was closely linked to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants (NCCI), a body which worked to advance the cause (and demographics) of Blacks and South-East Asians in Britain, but which was run by a group of decidedly pale, not to mention Hebraic, British-born lawyers. In one of those little instances of lack of accountability in our modern ‘democracy,’ in 1965 the NCCI had been inexplicably appointed to “advise the British government on matters relating to the integration of Commonwealth immigrants.”[6] From its early days of operation, the NCCI, which became the Community Relations Commission in 1968, was staffed with Jewish lawyers like Anthony Lester (1936–). Although never elected to any public office his own Wikipedia entry states that Lester was “directly involved with the drafting of race relations legislation in Britain.” In 1968 Lester founded the Runnymede Trust, described on its website as “the UKs leading independent race equality think tank.” Indicative of the ethnic composition of the Trust, and its deeper origins and goals, Lester had founded the organization with his fellow Jew, Jim Rose. Rose is described in the Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History as the “Director of the Survey of Race Relations in Britain. … The Race Relations Act owed much to him.”[7] So basically, if you see a ‘think tank’ described as ‘independent,’ you can be sure its board reads like a Bar Mitzvah invitation list.

One of the ways in which Lester developed and imposed his influence on the drafting of race legislation was in his capacity as ‘special adviser’ to Roy Jenkins, the far-Left successor at the Home Office of the Frank Soskice who, as mentioned above, is Jewish. With Lester behind Jenkins, Britain had essentially gone from having a Jewish Home Office Minister, to having a Jewish-influenced puppet in the same office. In Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda (1998), Lester himself writes about his involvement (though he is often ‘economical’ with the truth) in the drafting and implementation of race laws in Britain. Of course, Lester downplays his role and that of Soskice, writing that “the arrival, in December 1965, of a liberal and receptive Minister, Roy Jenkins, at the Home Office was of decisive importance in making the Race Relations Act. … When Labour came to power in 1974 I abandoned my practice at the Bar to help Roy Jenkins secure the enactment of effective legislation tackling race and sex discrimination.”[8] He further writes that “every democratic society should be concerned with promoting what Roy Jenkins memorably defined thirty years ago as a national goal: equal opportunity, accompanied by cultural diversity, in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance.”[9]

But Lester wasn’t giving anywhere near an accurate portrayal of his own interest and unceasing activism in the field of race and multiculturalism. For a start, we know that it was Lester himself who penned the influential speech he now attributes exclusively to Jenkins.[10] Further, scholar Peter Dorey notes that Lester was “the leading campaigner on race relations” for the Society of Labour Party Lawyers and that Lester had been at the forefront of the Society’s Race Relations Committee when it put pressure on the government for harsher legislation in 1966.[11] Illustrating the true nature of the relationship between Lester and Jenkins, Dorey cites correspondence between the two in which Lester castigated the 1965 law  as a “shoddy job” and in which Lester presents Jenkins with a “shopping-list of discontents: the Government should commit itself to extending the race relations legislation to cover all public places, as well as employment, housing, credit and insurance services, and it should strengthen the Race Relations Board.”[12] Dorey notes that it was in response to pressure from Lester, channeled through Jenkins, that “the Government began to reconsider its race relations policy.”[13]

In truth, Lester was one of the chief architects of modern multicultural Britain and its accompanying repressive bureaucracy. It was Lester who by his own admission, in 1975, set out “coherent principles for new legislation in the White Paper on Racial Discrimination.”[14] The principles were that: “The overwhelming majority of the colored population is here to stay, that a substantial and increasing proportion of that population belongs to this country, and that the time has come for a determined effort by Government, by industry and unions, and by ordinary men and women to ensure fair and equal treatment for all our people, regardless of their race, color, or national origin.”[15]

The point of reiterating this particular process (and Brenton Sanderson has pointed to clear and well-documented parallels in Canada, Australia and elsewhere) is that this is what is meant by Kantor’s “most democratic” way of “law-making.” This process has the appearance of democracy in that legislation is eventually moved through a Parliament or Congress, but beneath this appearance is a sequence of events mired in ethnic activism, obscured methodologies, background lobbying, false representation, and ultimately, the passing of legislation entirely at odds with the wider democratic will. We were never asked, and, in Kantor’s political philosophy, we never will be asked. These laws will continue to be developed and imposed in this manner, and, as Kantor prescribes, they will “never stop.”

The European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation was Kantor’s first “think tank” vehicle for achieving “Secure Tolerance” legislation. Keen for the ECTR to have a “goy” face, he stayed in the background while initially handing the Presidency of the group to former Communist and President of Poland Aleksander Kwaśniewski. Kwaśniewski had a useful history of neglecting and belittling the Catholic-National character of his people, and made himself known as an ally of Jews by formally apologizing for a 1941 killing of Jews at Jedwabne by Poles, and restoring citizenship to Jews stripped of it by the communist government in 1968. Since 2015, the Presidency of the ECTR has been held by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, a dedicated globalist and arch-traitor of Satanic proportions. Beneath the Gentile faces, however, Kantor has always pulled the strings. This is his project, based on his manifesto, and his history of activism. The group’s board is stacked with honorary roles for non-Jewish politicians, but its legal direction is entirely dictated by Kantor and Prof. Yoram Dinstein, a retired Italian supreme court justice and former President and Dean of Law at Tel Aviv University. Dinstein’s area of expertise is mainly in war legislation, and his co-operation with Kantor is not really a departure from this since it amounts to a declaration of war on Whites everywhere.

Go to Part 2 of 3.


[1] M. Donnelly, Sixties Britain: Culture, Society and Politics (115), & R. Honeyford, The Commission for Racial Equality: British Bureaucracy Confronts the Multicultural Society, 95.

[2] Donnelly, 115.

[3] Honeyford, 93.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid, 94.

[6] I. Solanke, Making Anti-Racial Discrimination Law: A Comparative History of Social Action and Anti-Racial Discrimination Law, 85.

[7] W. Rubinstein (ed), The Palgrave Dictionary of Anglo-Jewish History, 566, 810.

[8] T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 24.

[9] Ibid, 22.

[10] C Williams (ed), Race and Ethnicity in a Welfare Society, 38.

[11] P. Dorey, The Labour Governments 1964-1970, 322.

[12] Ibid, 323.

[13] Ibid.

[14] T. Blackstone (ed), Race Relations in Britain: A Developing Agenda, 22.

[15] Ibid.

Competing with the Negative Story About Whites, Part 2

Part One of this article dealt with the prevailing negative narrative, or story, about white people—what it is, why it is, how it works, and its consequences.  Bottom line, it’s very hurtful to white people: it legitimizes abuse and diminution by those who resent and despise them; and it fosters self-destructive behaviors among whites who internalize its demonic conception of them.  Part Two explores what can be done about that problem.   I hope what’s here prompts your own best thinking.

*   *   *

To begin, a sobering reality.  The wicked-whites story tellers dominate the main stage in America (and throughout the West, but America is the focus of this writing).  With very few exceptions—Pat Buchanan? Tucker Carlson? who else?—everybody doing the talking, broadly defined, front and center in this country is to one extent or another pushing the negative narrative about whites.  I’m referring to mainstream news and entertainment personalities, educators at all levels, politicians in the middle of the spectrum (which means both the Democrats and Republicans), the clergy, the publishing industry, and every reputable interest group.  All of them are shooting paint balls at whites—splat!  Unless it can be done very discretely, breaking into that that action—at least in the short run—looks really tough to me.

As I wrote the “Unless it can be done very discretely” lead-in to the last sentence, I thought of something William Pierce, a prominent white advocate who was shut out of mainstream discourse, said to me. “How does Tom Wolfe [the novelist, The Bonfire of the Vanities, A Man in Full, Back to Blood] get away with it?  He’s worse [more pro-white] than I am.”  I was writing a book about Pierce and didn’t think it was my place to say it, but I thought, “Because Wolfe’s slicker than you are.  If you are going to be heard by anybody besides fringe types, you are going to have to be really slick like Wolfe.”

In this same sentence, note the other qualifying phrase: at least in the short run.”   That underscores that there is a long run, and that it is a very important reality to take into account.

Decades ago—forty, even fifty, years ago—young people on the political left who wanted to change this country in directions they favored took it upon themselves to get in positions where they’d be able to do it.   I’m thinking of Bill and Hillary Clinton and student activist Todd Gitlin and scholar Stephen Jay Gould and filmmaker Steven Spielberg and countless others like them who over time—it took the span of their careers—gained control of the core institutions in American life: politics, universities, the media, publishing.   They ran for public office.  They became university professors.  They shaped the news and commentary in both print and electronic media.  They created and produced television shows and movies and published books and magazines.

They came to control entry into their fields.  Don’t expect to get hired as a university professor unless these people, or those they brought on board, approve of your ideas (at least what they know about them—back to the need to be slick).  Don’t expect to make a movie or television show they don’t like, or get a book or article in print if it runs up against their commitments (I can speak from personal experience about this one).

Decade after decade, they indoctrinated and politicized the young people who enrolled in their classes and watched their shows and listened to their speeches (re: Bernie Sanders), until it came to a point that Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson became villains in society’s drama.

It should be noted that not every one of these left-leaning young people of the ‘60s and ‘70s stayed left throughout the course of their career.  I’m thinking in particular of one young person from Wisconsin who forty years ago embarked on an academic career who didn’t.

Some context before continuing with his story:  Books by university faculty rarely make any difference to anybody but the person who writes one—namely, they pave the way to his permanent status in the university (tenure) and promotion up the ranks to full professor.   The book gets published, university libraries buy a copy for their collection (the profit to the publisher), the author’s mother buys one (and puts in her bookcase unread), and that’s it.  You could put twenty-dollar bills in academic books and be very sure you’d be able to retrieve them from the pristine books five years later.

Every once in a great while, however, there’s an exception to that pattern. A prime example, in the 1980s, a book about university education, Closing of the American Mind, by a philosophy professor at the University of Chicago, Allan Bloom, became a surprise best-seller.  Stephen Jay Gould, mentioned above, a university professor who argued (he has passed on) a nurture-over-nature take on human evolution, wrote books that were read by the general public.

Back to the story of the young left-leaning person from Wisconsin.  He got his Ph.D in psychology and embarked on a career as a professor at the California State University, Long Beach, rising to the highest rank of full professor.   Between 1994 and 1998, he wrote three books about the impact throughout history of Jewish individuals and organizations on gentile life.7  The experience of writing the books changed his outlook; he shifted to the right politically.  His three books had the formidable look of the usual academic book: lots of pages, small print, and voluminous footnotes.  It would have been understandable if his mother had bought the first one and taken a pass on the last two.

But the darnedest thing happened: the three books hit big, especially the last one, The Culture of Critique.  All three asserted that Jews have been adversarial and detrimental to gentile cultures, societies, and political arrangements.  That message ran head on into the party line of the academics who do the talking about Jews, and they were highly put out and let that be known.   His university colleagues came after him as an anti-Semite, which he wasn’t.  Witch hunters from the Jewish-dominated Southern Poverty Law Center descended on his campus.  If his adversaries had had their way, he would have been fired from the university.

I’m reminded of how this same kind of thing went on from the opposite angle in German universities in the ‘30s dominated by National Socialist ideology, and how German academics in fear of losing their jobs—including the great philosopher Martin Heidegger—caved and told the inquisitors what they wanted to hear.8  But to his great credit, this quiet, proud man from Wisconsin didn’t cave: he stood tall and strong, and the notoriety of the attacks against him encouraged still more people, including me, to read his books.

Many of the readers of The Occidental Observer know I’m referring to its founder and editor, Kevin MacDonald.  Kevin’s trilogy, as well as his books and articles since, and his editorial work—imagine keeping this complex site going day after day, week after week, month after month—have made the world a different place than it would have been if he hadn’t embarked on his life-long journey so many years ago.

The point here is that if you are young, you can choose to do the same kind of thing Kevin did.  The same kind of thing, not the same thing.   Kevin is Kevin and you are you.  He lived in his time; you will live in yours.  But you can be inspired by Kevin—and yes, by the Clintons and Todd Gitlin and Stephen Jay Gould and all the rest of the people who changed the world, including the narrative about white people (unfortunately, they took it in a negative direction).

As the ancient Chinese philosopher Lao Tzu put it, the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.  The challenge is to comprehend how today’s small step will someday get you a thousand miles.  And keep in mind the destination doesn’t have to be a university professorship or a powerful political or media slot.  Any reputable position on the inside in public life—a doctor, a business owner, a skilled tradesman—can be the base for influencing the thoughts and actions that define your time and set the stage for the times ahead.  The school board takes you more seriously, you have money to give to political campaigns—little things add up.

*   *   *

That’s the long range.  What can be done in the short range—today, tomorrow, this year—to change the anti-white narrative?  Two things come to mind:

First, don’t yourself get sucked into the negative story about whites. Earlier, I alluded to the problem of white people—particularly young—buying the villainy attributed to their race.  It’s understandable because it is the only story they hear, and they hear it over and over and over and over again from grade school through graduate school and beyond.  I worked in a university and know how relentless the indoctrination is—every class in the social sciences, humanities, education, and social services—bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.  It stands to reason that many if not most students would take it in as gospel truth.

Practice critically analyzing the stories coming at you.  In my last post on this site, I referred to developing what the novelist Ernest Hemingway called “a built-in, shockproof, shit detector.”  Put a shit detector filter between you and the racial vitriol.

How do you do that?  By doing two things they don’t want you to do:

Look hard at the facts, or lack of them, behind the story.  What are three concrete examples of systemic racism?  Name them.  Did that knee on Floyd’s neck really asphyxiate him? Why haven’t they demonstrated with a volunteer that it cuts off air supply?

Employ reason and logic.  Why is it you can predict with a very high level of certainty, anywhere in the world, what a place will be like if there is a critical mass of blacks there—a school, a community, a business, anything?

Come up with your own, positive, story to compete with the horror story you’re being told: “My people are artists and poets and pioneers and architects and composers and filmmakers and novelists and philosophers and scientists and business owners and internet designers and farmers and construction workers and mountain climbers and Little League coaches and loyal and loving parents and spouses, and I’m a good person and so are my parents and grandparents.”

And second, become a regular consumer of a positive white narrative.  There was a time, and not all that long ago, when pro-white voices couldn’t be heard at all.  There were only the three television networks—CBS, NBC, and ABC—and eight Hollywood movie studios, and a few New York publishing houses, and all of them were antagonistic toward white people.  Now there is the internet, independent filmmaking, cable, and social media, and white advocates are readily accessible, and many of them are top of the line.

Here are some internet examples of special note.  I’m not a social media and podcast person, and I’m sure there are equally impressive things going on in those areas:

  • Kevin and this site. Among TOO’s fine contributors is Andrew Joyce, nobody better.
  • Jared Taylor, a marvelous thinker and writer, and his American Renaissance site and the writers on his staff, including Gregory Hood. Jared has been at it for twenty years, an inspiration to us all.
  • Greg Johnson, dedicated, and courageous—he’s taken shots—and his site Counter-Currents.
  • Peter Brimelow and his VDARE.com site. Peter has been at it for many years and prevailed amid numerous attempts to discredit and silence him, including one that’s going on now.
  • The Taki’s Magazine site has first rate contributors, including Steve Sailer and Jim Goad. Goad is arguably the best prose stylist of any social/political commentator in America.
  • Ron Unz at his Unz Review is doing great work.
  • Andrew Anglin on his site The Daily Stormer crosses the line at times, but he is an exceedingly bright, perceptive, and entertaining young writer. Old as I am, I’m not in his target audience, but I’m a regular with him and better for it.

The quality of writing in this list is so high, the arguments so compelling, I have to believe that it is having, or in the near future will have, a significant impact on the dialogue and debate in this country.  And to think that little of it existed just a few years ago.   It is a very encouraging phenomenon.

Ideally, every white person would know about the sites and people I’ve just listed, as well as, I’m sure, others I’m not familiar with.  Absolutely, the most informed, persuasive, and articulate voices are on our side. Those skilled in getting the word out about their existence—through social media, however it is done, it’s not a skill I possess—would do a great service if they took on that challenge.

I’d like to think that in the coming years the Republican Party in particular will pick up on the white advocacy message and popularize it.  And that whites will leave the Democratic Party that despises them and join up with the Republicans.  With all the talk of whites becoming a minority in this country, whites will continue to be by far the largest voting bloc, and frankly, the most capable.  Coalesced, whites can be the dominant political force in the coming years.

The challenge for white advocates is to present their case in a way that mainstream politicians, academics, and others can make use of it without being shot down as white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and the rest of the litany of epithets.  As I see it, the argument for white interests should not be framed in radical, extremist, rhetoric and imagery, as historically it has been.  The argument for white people can, and should, be grounded in the core values, ideals, of America—freedom, fairness, and self-determination.  There’s nothing inherently extremist about white advocacy.

*   *   *

What can be done to counteract the negative racial message young people are getting from the schools and media?   They need to hear the other side.  One possibility is an internet site aimed at and operated by young white people that offers a counterbalance to the current indoctrination.  I’m hopeful that it will appeal to whites from all social backgrounds.

That theme with me, the site I have in mind would not be a neo-Nazi repository.  Selling Hitler and Himmler to the masses and equating white concerns with National Socialism in particular and the far right in general has a long and painful history of setting us up to be written off as wacko losers and cancelled hard and fast.  White advocacy should be positioned as a centrist effort and presented as non-controversially as possible.  That is what is going to appeal to the most people, make entry into the mainstream of American life an easier row to hoe, and make us a more elusive target.

What’s the content of the kind of site I’m talking about?  I’m thinking of short biographies—Mozart, Lindbergh, Knut Hamsun, Rudyard Kipling.   Accounts of events—the Alamo, Charles Martel, the Vikings.  Excerpts from great fiction and nonfiction.  Critiques of the diversity and multicultural propaganda.  People to network with.  Self-strengthening tips. Videos.  Podcasts.  Events.  Suggestions of good books to read.  Discussion forums.  People of all ages could submit things to be approved by the young people who operate the site.

There will be the challenge to get the word out to every white high school and college student, that this site (or whatever it turns out to be) exists.   But I am sure there are people who know how to do that effectively.

*   *   *

I’ve been attending to the nature and fate of white people for nearly twenty-five years.  I’ve come to the conclusion that when all is said and done, white people come out on top.  And that goes for those from working class backgrounds, who these days are having some issues with despair and drugs; I have faith that they’ll come through, especially if they can be given a way to ascribe a positive meaning to their lives.

I go back to the years of the Black Panthers in the 1960s.   They were much like today’s Black Lives Matter activists—good at calling attention to themselves, posturing, threatening, media darlings.  The problem for the Panthers, and I suspect it is true of the Black Lives Matters bunch, is they were incompetent (which is perhaps why they were so enamored with socialism, as is BLM).  The Panthers were good at finger-pointing, but very bad at making anything productive happen.  Businesses they set up failed.  They failed in their personal lives.

The Antifa crowd is no better.  Pull back the curtain and they are Wizards of Oz.  I’ve read dire warnings that they are going to take their looting and burning act to the suburbs—oh, the menace!  I publicly invite them to try that stunt.  Those people in the suburbs are armed and bad-asses.  The Antifa will scurry back to the basements of their parents’ houses and not come out for days except to reheat some chili.

The true story favors us, and we’re up against screw-ups and fakes.  We’ve got work to do, but we’ll be fine.


Endnotes

  1. Robert S. Griffin, “A Message in the In-Box,” 2009, in the writings section of www.robertsgriffin.com.
  2. Neil Postman, The End of Education (Vintage, 1996) pp. 5-6.
  3. See, Herbert Kohl, The Discipline of Hope, (Simon & Schuster) pp. 319-20.
  4. Robert Griffin, One Sheaf, One Vine (1stBooks Library, 2004).
  5. Edward McNeil Burns, David Starr Jordan: Prophet of Freedom (Stanford University Press, 1953).
  6. See, Glen Jeansonne, Women of the Far Right: The Mothers’ Movement and World War II (University of Chicago Press, 1997).
  7. The three Kevin Mcdonald books, all published by Praeger: A People That Dwell Alone (1994); Separation and Its Discontents (1998); and The Culture of Critique (1998).
  8. See, Adam Knowles, Heidegger’s Fascist Affinities: A Politics of Silence (Stanford University Press, 2019.)

Competing with the Negative Story About Whites, Part 1

An attack against whites is raging full bore these days (it’s July of 2020).  Hoards are roaming about desecrating and toppling statues of white heroes.  Every center-stage talking head and computer key tapper and every school teacher and administrator from grade school to graduate school is steadily piling on—racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism, racism . . . and racism.   Seriously, I’m wondering whether Goebbels with the Jews and the Turks with the Armenians had worse things to say about their prey than what I’m hearing about my people—who, by the way, as far back as I can trace, worked a small peanut farm, went deaf tending a roaring-loud machine in a factory, stood arms and hands in the air with shoulders throbbing cutting people’s hair, rang up a cash register all day at Schuneman’s Department Store in downtown Saint Paul, Minnesota, came up with the money (just barely) to pay the rent for the second-floor rooms in Mr. Jensen’s house we were living in, bought me corduroy pants to wear to Davis Grade School, and oppressed absolutely nobody on the face of this earth.

I’m not up on history enough to know to what extent, if any, the Jews and Armenians bought the horror story being told about them, but it’s scary how many white people these days, particularly the young, are, in self-flagellating fervor, beating their heads against cement walls.  I go all the way back to Adlai Stevenson, who ran as the Democrat candidate for president in 1952.  Dignified, urbane, quick-witted.  I’m comparing him to the current presumptive Democratic nominee—a shaky, nursing home apparition—putting down an entire race of people and offering slurred promises, scout’s honor, not to select one of them to be on his ticket as vice-president.   It takes my breath away.

The Black Lives Matter thugs, Antifa marauders, and establishment bad-mouthers didn’t spring up from nowhere.  What we are so painfully experiencing is a continuation, and escalation, of what’s been going on for decades.  In 2009, eleven years ago—and it could have been written years before that—with a focus on elementary and secondary schooling, I wrote this (I’ve added some present-day parenthetical inserts):1

We need to put forth a positive narrative of the white race to counter the negative one being imposed on our children.  The late scholar Neil Postman wrote that a narrative 

tells of origins and envisions a future; it is a story that constructs ideals, prescribes rules of conduct, provides a source of authority, and, above all, gives a sense of continuity and purpose.2

The narrative, the story, of whites being preached to our children these years is one in which the themes are not the truly remarkable accomplishments of whites but rather repression and injustice: racism, sexism, economic and political exploitation, arrogance, and exclusion.  The late critic and novelist Susan Sontag, honored far and wide and a regular on the commencement speech circuit, proclaimed, “The white race is the cancer of human history.”  Especially villainous in the story are white men, or, in the parlance of the day, white males—insensitive, boorish, authoritarian, violent.

The challenge facing humankind, the current narrative has it, is to put whites in their proper place, which, depending on the version of story being told, is either on a par and mixed in with everybody else or chastened and deferential at the back of the line.  Absurdly, whites are being charged with bringing themselves down; and even more absurdly, many are taking on the task.  Is there any other group of people—blacks, Jews, anybody—you could con into self-abnegation and turning on their kinsmen?

White young people are taught the contradictory beliefs that 1) race doesn’t exist—it is a social fiction, 2) race does exist but doesn’t matter, and 3) race exists and matters, and for them their race is something to feel guilty about and atone.   Decades of teaching college students and I never heard one of them point out the irrationality of that package of assertions.  Though I don’t want to conclude that it got by all of them; white students know to keep their mouths shut, even with someone like me who has the appearance at least of being on their side.  In any case, they got the basic idea, and I believe great numbers took it to heart: they have no business feeling one iota of positive connection with their race, their European heritage, or one another.

What’s going on in our schools is nothing less than a subtle genocidal attack against a race of people.  The first step in this pogrom is to get white children and only them—no one else is taught this—to reject, even disdain, their racial identity.

Prominent educator Herbert Kohl reflects widely held views in the field of education when he writes about a university class he instructed in which he sought to “level the playing field” by teaching white students that their culture is “no more permanent or special that other cultures.”3

Kohl says he discouraged whites from seeing themselves as separate and distinct or feeling pride in being white.  His lessons—coming after years of similar ones in many other classrooms and in countless movie theaters and on countless television screens—bore fruit: he reports with obvious satisfaction that his white students said they “hated being called white” and were “annoyed” and “angry” that they are white.    Kohl is Jewish; would he have been as proud of getting Jewish students to say they were annoyed and angry that they are Jewish?

White students need to hear another story, another narrative, about their race.  They need to hear of their adventurous and visionary and daring and spiritual ancestors—farmers, warriors, philosophers, poets, scientists, architects, civilization builders.  To be sure, white history isn’t an unblemished record, but the main thrust of the white race isn’t the tale of oppression being imposed on us.

Last weekend, I was sitting with a friend at the lake front in Burlington, Vermont.  There were hundreds of people around where we were— parents and children, young couples, older people.  There was a gentility, a peaceful flow, a grace, to the people and the setting.  It was safe where we were.  I remarked to my friend how impressed I was with the architecture in the lake front area and in the downtown stores and offices just behind us, and how everything was kept up so well.  After a time of silence, she said, “You know what I’m thinking?  Everybody here is white.  This is what they built, this is what they created; this is how they live when they are among their own.”

Young white people—all white people—have a right to acknowledge the worth as their race, and to be proud of it, and to feel connected to it, and to feel responsible for continuing and extending its best aspects.  A white narrative needs to include the reality that this way of life is threatened.  There are fewer and fewer Burlingtons now days (and how long will Burlington be Burlington?) and more and more Detroits and Londons and Cincinnatis.  My hometown of Minneapolis, a lovely, safe city of lakes when I was growing up, has gone through drastic demographic changes and, predictably, much of it isn’t lovely and safe any longer.  It has come to be called—I find this so sad—“Murderapolis.” [Unemployed, ex-con, drug-using, bad-check-passing, arrest-resisting, and future-mural-idol George Floyd graced the city with his presence after leaving his young daughter and her mother in Houston.] It goes unreported, but white people everywhere are under siege and fleeing—it’s disdainfully called “white flight” by people who live in gated communities.

My book One Sheaf, One Vine is made up of the personal statements about race from seventeen everyday white Americans, who if it hadn’t been for my book would be publicly silent [just as, to a remarkable degree, everyday white Americans have been publicly silent throughout this recent post-Floyd rampage].4  Those who control the public discourse don’t want us to hear from them, and anyone, like me, who makes them visible is subject to attack.  Hear from two of the white people who speak out in my book:

The first is a forty-year-old man from the northeastern part of the United States.

People who think of themselves as enlightened and on the moral high ground in matters of race write off people like me as ignorant racists.  Unlike them, so it goes, we pre-judge people.  If only we were exposed to racial and ethnic diversity we would learn to value different kinds of people—etcetera, etcetera, you’ve heard the line.  You’ll notice that most of these people doing the pontificating and finger pointing about racial equality and harmony and the virtues of integration and multi-racialism do it from the far distance of the leafy suburbs or a university campus somewhere.  The fact of the matter is that, unlike practically all of them, I have lived up close with the reality of race in America.  And regardless of what they might like to think, I am not stupid or unenlightened or their moral inferior.  Those who look down their noses at people like me should come live for a year or two or three where my family and millions of other white families live.   Let their children grow up and go to school in this pigsty and be threatened and attacked and robbed and raped.  Then they can talk. 

The second is a twenty-eight-year-old woman who is leaving southern California for Washington State or Oregon, or perhaps Canada, she’s not sure, in the face of the non-white infusion of the area in which she lives:

I just want to live a normal life, preferably with a family, but if I can’t have that, a life with good friends in a community where I feel safe and I’m free to walk down the street without looking over my shoulder.  I want to be able to express pride in my people and admiration for our white ancestors and continue their traditions without minority harassment and interference.  When I am really old, I want to live in peace instead of like the old people in the neighborhood where I live who are eighty-ninety years old without the energy or the money to escape. 

This is going on, and our children are hearing their race and heritage denigrated in schools, and they are being deluged with crude and vulgar messages and images from the lowest rung of black culture, and they are the victims of racial discrimination when they apply for college or a job, and demographically their race is steadily disappearing from the face of the earth.

I received an e-mail yesterday from a father who told me that his daughter, who had worked incredibly hard in school and had graduated at the top of her high school class, had been rejected by all the Ivy League schools she had applied to while many of her black classmates with far lower academic achievements and test scores had been admitted.  He said his daughter “cried and cried.”

After reading what this father wrote, I cried and cried.  A new narrative should include this white girl, along the invitation to white people to expel their sense of isolation, their feeling of separation from one another, their atomization, and join with their racial kinsmen to put a stop to this injustice and cruelty.  Doing that isn’t about being against anyone or hurting anyone.  Rather, it is about racial self-love and self-preservation and self-determination, which are the rights of every race of people.

*   *   *

The campaign against whites sets up a demonic category—white—and puts every last white person in it, whether they be from Silicon Valley or rural West Virginia, are a janitor or corporate head, old or young, liberal or conservative, or from the distant past or alive now.  They are all the same, and they are all bad, bad, bad.

What does that accomplish?

It replaces reality with a narrative.   What white people actually did, or do, or are—the incredible complexity of that—becomes a simple, and negative, story.  Now, the basis of truth isn’t facts or logical inference; it is the story.  All you need to keep the story going is a single instance that seems to affirm it.  A police-related death in Minneapolis—ah yes, the story is true.

It makes the grievances of blacks, thirteen percent of America’s population, the national agenda.  It makes a group of people all-important who on their merits deserve little or no attention until they get their acts together.  It gives people unearned respect.  It relieves blacks of personal responsibility, a basic tenant of this culture and society,

And frighteningly, ominously, as it did with the Jews and the Albanians, it sets whites up for being debased, abused, taken down, robbed, assaulted, and killed.  Narratives are deadly serious business.

*   *   *

Part of exploiting, injuring, and displacing people is to keep them from thinking about what you don’t want them thinking about.  Stories keep concerns, questions, issues, and possibilities out of peoples’ minds.  To illustrate, here are a couple of white people who at one time were prominent in American life who have been excised from the past—David Starr Jordan and Lyrl Clark Van Hyning.   Those currently in power don’t want us to know about Dr. Jordan and Ms. Van Hyning because if we did, we might be prompted to think about things they don’t want us getting into.  As you read through these accounts of the lives of these two people, think about what that might be.

*   *   *

David Starr Jordan (1851–1931) was a distinguished naturalist and social philosopher, published poet, and the first president of Stanford University. He was described by his biographer as “one of the most versatile men America has produced, winning distinction not only as an educator, philosopher, and scientist but also as an explorer, crusader for peace, advisor to presidents, and statesman.”5

Jordan was openly and proudly racially conscious.  He used the term “Aryan” and asserted that the “whole body of the ‘blond race'” constituted a brotherhood.  He held that race was “the blood of a nation” and the primary determinant in its history.

Jordan’s believed white racial superiority to be the observation of every intelligent person.  Jordan asserted that northern European peoples have the highest level of the qualities needed to produce a superior society and culture.  Very important to Jordan, Nordics didn’t have what was most detrimental to civilization building: a high percentage of dissolute and disorganized.  He cautioned that even the most favorable surroundings “can never change a bad breed into a good one.”

Jordan saw America as a Nordic nation:  “Its freedom was won and its integrity maintained by Nordic methods,” he wrote.  “Who gave them this chance?” he asked.  “Did they not take it for themselves?  They have had liberty, education, and self-government because they wanted these things and wanted them badly enough to put forth the effort to get them.”

Jordan despaired of the introduction of Africans into the country and the prospect of racial intermixing.  He decried the immigration of “weaker groups” being fostered during his time by industrialists in search of cheap labor.

He prophesized that unless Jewish power in the world was held in check the result would be “nothing less than Armageddon.”

Jordan opposed war as an instrument of public policy.  He pointed out that in the American Civil War half of the best young men in the South were killed or died of disease, and that forty percent of them did not leave descendants.   Jordan noted that wars breed hatred, resentment, grievance, and the desire for revenge, which lead to future wars and even more slaughter and devastation.  He repudiated the contention you must fight fire with fire. “Fire will not put out fire,” he warned.

Along with many prominent people of his time—among them, John Harvey Kellogg of breakfast cereal fame, naturalist Luther Burbank, and Harvard president, Charles Eliot—Jordan was a eugenicist. “A race of men or a herd of cattle are governed by the same laws of selection,” he wrote.  He condemned social policies impelled by paternalism and charity that result in racial deterioration by encouraging “weakness to mate with weakness.”

*   *   *

Lyrl Clark Van Hyning (1892–1973) was a leader of a women’s movement in the late 1930s and early ’40s that centered its efforts on opposing America’s involvement in the war in Europe.6  At its peak, the confederation of women’s groups that conducted this campaign had six million members.  Although Van Hyning saw herself as a champion of women, she stood in stark contrast to today’s feminists.  Her politics were right-of-center.  She was highly nationalistic, patriotic, anti-communist, and critical of Jewish influence, and pro-free-enterprise.  Her orientation was, in the first instance, maternal: she saw herself as a mother and approached things from that perspective.  Only mothers, she believed, could save their sons from the war that was impending and then waged.  She upheld the traditional family, which included a strong and vital patriarchal presence. She didn’t set herself off against men: her husband and son and other men, weren’t “them” to her but rather “us.”  She didn’t portray men as competitors or adversaries, or see them as needing to be held in check or reconditioned.  Last, she was a strong Christian.  A few weeks before the invasion of Europe that everyone knew was coming soon, she declared: “Those boys who will be forced to throw their young flesh against the impregnable wall of steel are the same babies mothers cherished and comforted and brought to manhood.  Mother’s kiss healed all hurts of childhood.  But on invasion day no kiss can heal the terrible hurts and mother won’t be there.  Mothers have betrayed their sons to the butchers.”

*   *   *

What might these two lives bring up among white people, particularly young whites, that those in power want to suppress?

  • The possibility of white racial consciousness and commitment. That’s for other people—in fact, all other people—but not for whites.
  • The possibility that, in fact, there are qualitative differences among the races. What if instead of looking down our noses and blotting out figures like Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson as ignorant racists, case closed, we said, “We would do well to look into why people as capable and accomplished as these men thought about race as they did.”
  • That America was founded as a Nordic nation and would have been better off staying that way. And that now, Nordic people should have the right to live their way among their own.
  • That everybody concerned about Jewish impact isn’t a lunatic bent on exterminating them. That there is the possibility of considering this issue rationally, dispassionately, and objectively.
  • That woman’s issues are not the sole province of the political left and its perspective. There was a women’s movement—with six million members!—that demonstrated that.
  • That war isn’t simply a necessary evil, including the beloved World War II, which resulted in 50 million deaths in Europe alone. Those in power back then loved it when Iowa farm boys set down their plows and sailed across the ocean to anonymously kill European boys who looked just like them.   And they loved it that the boys’ mothers went along with it.  As a very small child in the early ‘40s, I remember seeing small stars on pieces of cloth tacked on to front doors of houses.  I have since learned that a blue star represented a family member in the military and a gold star a family member who had been killed in the war.  The Sullivan family made the news for having five gold stars for the five Sullivan brothers who lost their lives in the war.  I don’t know how the mother of the Sullivan boys thought about the war, but Lyrl Clark Van Hyning, the mother of a boy, wasn’t having any part of that government program of destruction and slaughter.  The thought of Lyrl Clark Van Hyning’s example crossing the minds of mothers sends shivers down the spine of those who want a ready supply of young bodies for the next killing spree in the Middle East.

What can be done to compete with the prevailing negative narrative about white people? In Part 2, I’ll offer some thoughts in response to that question.

Go to Part 2 of 2.