The Case for Secession

“Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”
Allen West, Chair, Texas GOP

Now that the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris regime and their Jewish entourage are measuring the curtains at the White House, it’s time to consider next steps.  As bad as things are for White America today, they are about to get a lot worse.  Physical, psychological, moral, and political threats hang over all our heads.  We are being dispossessed in our own nation.  The situation is grim but not hopeless.  We have options.

In the continental US, 24 states voted majority for Trump, including some of our most populous ones:  Texas, Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina, among them.  The 10 largest Trump states comprise over 100 million people, and all 24 combined are pushing 150 million.  This is a considerable block of people, with a considerable amount of power—political and otherwise.  If these people wish to retain a modicum of self-determination—not to mention self-respect—they will have to consider the strongest possible actions.  These actions include the possibility of literal secession from the United States.  It’s time to examine that option with all seriousness.

Biden’s Jewish-Diversity Retinue

First, let’s be clear about the threat posed by the incoming administration.  Even at this early point, it is clear that they hold an antipathy toward Whites, especially White males, and that they intend to either do as little as possible to support and represent White interests, or worse, to actively impede and harm those interests.  Of course, we don’t yet know what the actual policies will be, but we can make reasonable inferences based on who Biden has appointed to his Cabinet thus far.

Of his “top 16” picks to date, we find the following:  four White males (Brian Deese, Denis McDonough, Tom Vilsack, and Jake Sullivan); five Blacks, of whom four are women (Lloyd Austin, Marcia Fudge, Susan Rice, Cecilia Rouse, and Linda Thomas-Greenfield); one Indian woman (Neera Tander); one Hispanic man (Xavier Becerra)—and five Jews (Tony Blinken, Avril Haines, Ron Klain, Alejandro Mayorkas, and Janet Yellen).

Here we see a few points of interest.  First, there are no White women at all—given that Jews are not White, at least not in the relevant sense of identifying as part of the traditional White population of America.[1]  Second, Blacks and Jews each have more representation than Whites among the top 16, which is amazing in itself, given that Blacks (12.8%) and Jews (circa 2%) are distinct minorities in this country.  Third, at least one of the White men, Jake Sullivan, has proven himself to be remarkably philo-Semitic; his appointment “drew broad praise from Jewish leaders,” and his wife, Maggie Goodlander, worked extensively with influential Jews like Joe Lieberman, Stephen Breyer, and Merrick Garland (see here).  Fourth, we have an interesting “double-banger” in Mayorkas, who manages to be both Cuban and Jewish, thus checking two important boxes.  Fifth, by placing Yellen in charge of the US Treasury, Biden continues a long, nearly-unbroken line of Jews in charge of the top US financial institution.[2]

Furthermore, Biden has placed yet more Jews in important positions among his second tier.  These include the half-Jewish John Kerry (environmental advisor), Jared Bernstein (council of economic advisors), Rochelle Walensky (head of CDC), and Jeff Zients (Covid czar and “counsellor to the president”).

And then, of course, we have the infamous “family ties” among both Biden and Harris.  Biden’s three adult children all managed to acquire Jewish spouses:  Hunter married “filmmaker” Melissa Cohen in 2019, daughter Ashley married Howard Krein in 2012, and (the now-deceased) Beau married the Jewish dry-cleaning scion Hallie Olivere in 2002.  For her part, Kamala Harris married the Jewish lawyer Doug Emhoff in 2014, so we can be sure where her sympathies lie—as if there was any doubt.  Bottom line:  Look for lots of policies favoring Jews and Israelis, and little in the way of support for the 61% of Americans who are White.  Look for so-called open borders (i.e. very generous immigration and amnesty policies), for promotion of all kinds of ‘racial sensitivity’ awareness and training, and for increased attacks on “hate speech,” that is, on anything that the minority-laden Judeocracy decides that it doesn’t like.

What to do:  Independence!

Given all this, it is difficult to find a path forward for concerned Whites.  Their quality of life, their financial security, and their physical and mental health are all more or less guaranteed to decline over the coming four years.  As more Democratic-leaning minorities enter the country or are granted amnesty, and thus acquire voting rights, liberal-left anti-White policies will become more entrenched and more extreme.  This process will then accelerate over the next 25 years, as Whites become a numerical minority in the US—currently projected for around the year 2042.  Jewish influence will increase proportionately, given that they are by far the leading donors, and thus the leading wire-pullers, among the Democrats.

It is clear, then, that ordinary political means—the ballot box—will no longer suffice to promote White interests.  The political system is irrevocably slanted against Whites, and it will not change in our lifetimes; at least, not in the nation as it now exists.  Unless we consider radical structural change, anything like a present-day America is virtually certain to increasingly pander to Jewish and non-White interests, and therefore to suffer irrecoverable decline—socially, economically, culturally, intellectually, and morally. And it will become a very dangerous place for Whites as the coalition of the aggrieved wreaks vengeance.  Anything like the America that we knew in the 1950s and 1960s is done, over, finished.  The three seeds of its demise were planted many years ago:  in the African slave trade that made Blacks an astonishing 20% minority already in the 1770s; in the “all men are created equal” clause of the Declaration; and most of all, in the flood of Jewish immigrants circa 1900.  At that point, our fate was sealed.  It was only a matter of time.  Our end is now clearer than ever.  And it will not be a happy one for Whites.

As the South recognized long ago, the only hope for long-term salvation lies in political separation.  Had the Confederacy prevailed in the 1860s, the status of Southerners (and Northerners!) would be vastly higher than it is today.  It is one of the great tragedies of history that a power-mad Abraham Lincoln—a man who disliked Blacks and who actually, and correctly, sought to ship them back home to Africa[3]—decided to sacrifice thousands of his fellow countrymen simply to save “the nation.”  In the end, some 650,000 American soldiers on both sides died; this is more than the death toll from WWI, WWII, and the Vietnam War combined.  And this is not counting thousands of innocent civilians and slaves who also died, nor the many thousands left with crippling and debilitating injuries.  Lincoln was, without doubt, the biggest war criminal in American history.  We continue to pay the price to this day.

GOP-Texas leader Allen West, a Black American, was correct, then, in his recent pronouncement that the anti-Biden (I hesitate to call them pro-Trump) states ought to separate from the corrupt morass of Washington DC’s America and form a new, better union.  West considers them to be the Constitution-loving states, which is perhaps correct—although he should be careful there.  In the following I will depict an ideal Constitution for a new White republic — a Constitution that is, to be sure, far beyond the political sensibilities of the great majority of White Americans at the present time.

The core U.S. Constitution is a fairly useful document, but it is notably vague on who can vote and it is infinitely malleable via leftist machinations.  But at that time, in the 1780s, the vast majority of voters were White male landholders—which, tragically, allowed Jewish men to vote.  This problem must be fixed in the new nation that West envisions.  Also at first, as we know, women and Blacks could not vote.  As a new, White-friendly, anti-minority nation, this “new America” must certainly allow White women to vote, but it has no obligation to any minorities of any kind.  In fact, any clear-thinking and brave-hearted new nation would deny citizenship to all non-Whites: all Blacks, all Hispanics, all Asians, and all Jews.  It would end, and revoke existing, birthright citizenship.  All this is essential, if we want to get down to fundamental issues and to address the root causes of our present decay.  A properly-conceived and executed secession movement can address all these issues in a single stroke.

Some Open Questions

But there are many logistical problems here, obviously.  One is the matter of which states, precisely, would compose this new America.  As I mentioned at the outset, there were 24 Trump-voting states, comprising some 150 million people.  Further, with the exception of Alaska, they happen to be geographically contiguous, meaning that, in theory, they could unify and create a connected, single nation—one that would chop the remaining US into three or four separate blocks; but that’s their problem.  Additionally, we can well imagine that portions—perhaps the rural areas—of several nearby states would also like to join this newly-emergent nation.  Eastern and northern California, eastern Oregon and Washington, southern Illinois, Virginia south of the DC metro area, and parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, among others, may well choose to secede from their own state and join the “constitution-lovers.”  We can easily imagine the combined numbers approaching 200 million people in all.

Then there are further issues.  Given that Jews of all types will be violently opposed to this idea, we have to take into consideration the size of the Jewish population in each of these states.  Among the 24, Florida is the outlier; it has a large Jewish population, comprising around 4% of the total.  Of the remaining 23, only two (Ohio and Missouri) are over 1%, and of the rest, many are under 0.5%.  Consequently, Florida is unlikely to go along with a new, constitution-loving, pro-White nation.  Perhaps they will have to go it alone.

Along the same lines, large Hispanic populations, especially in Texas and Florida, will pose problems for a pro-White nation. But with significantly less clout than Jews, and without a Jewish lobby actively defending them, Hispanics will be out of luck.  Perhaps they will find it in their own best interests to return to Mexico or Latin America—places that would welcome their relatively advanced education, skills, and comparative wealth.

There is a third problematic group, and that is Christian Zionists.  If it’s true that up to 25% of American adults consider themselves “evangelical Christians” and that up to 80% of these are some version of Zionist—meaning broadly that they support Jews and Israel for Biblical reasons—then this poses a potentially large issue, especially in the southern states.  But this is a regional issue, one requiring regional solutions.  Secessionists will have to play up the benefits of religion, freedom, and independence, and argue that this outweighs any sanctions against local Jews.

All these issues come to a head in a larger concern:  the problem of size.  It has long been recognized, since ancient times, that overly-large states are in for trouble.  Biologically-speaking, this makes sense.  Humans evolved over 2 million years in small hunter-gatherer bands of perhaps 50 to 100 people; for millennia, this was the size of our ‘state.’  Our emotional and rational psyches evolved to deal with groups of this size, and no more.  Larger groups are both unnatural and unhealthy; in larger societies, systemic corruption inevitably creeps in.

The ancient Greeks understood this intrinsically.  Plato said that the maximum, ideal society would consist of 5,040 households, or around 25,000 people—for the entire city-state.[4]  Hippodamus argued for an even smaller state of 10,000 citizens.[5]  Aristotle broadly concurred, saying that the ideal state must be “one and self-sufficing.”  In Book 7 of Politics, he elaborates:

[A] great polis is not to be confounded with a populous one.  Moreover, experience shows that a very populous state can rarely, if ever, be well-governed; since all states that have a reputation for good government have a limit of population. …  To the size of states there is a limit, as there is to other things, plants, animals, implements.  For none of these retain their natural power when they are too large or too small, but they either wholly lose their nature, or are spoiled. …  In like manner, a state when composed of too few is not, as a state ought to be, self-sufficing; when of too many, though self-sufficing in all mere necessaries, as a nation may be, it is not a state, being almost incapable of constitutional government.  For who can be the general of such a vast multitude, or who the herald, unless he has the booming voice of a Stentor? 

               A state, then, only begins to exist when it has attained a population sufficient for a good life in the political community: it may indeed, if it somewhat exceeds this number, be a greater state.  But, as I was saying, there must be a limit.  What should be the limit will be easily ascertained by experience.  For both governors and governed have duties to perform; the special functions of a governor to command and to judge.  But if the citizens of a state are to judge and to distribute offices according to merit, then they must know each other’s characters; where they do not possess this knowledge, both the election to offices and the decision of lawsuits will go wrong.  When the population is very large, they are manifestly settled at haphazard, which clearly ought not to be.  Besides, in an over-populous state, foreigners and aliens will readily acquire the rights of citizens, for who will find them out?  Clearly then the best limit of the population of a state is the largest number which suffices for the purposes of life, and can be taken in at a single view.  (Book 7.4; italics added)

Remarkable insight, and utterly appropriate for the present day.

More recently, social theorists like Leopold Kohr, Ivan Illich, and E. F. Schumacher have also persuasively argued for smaller states.  Kohr suggests that, under modern, technological conditions, the maximum size for a well-governed and rational state is perhaps 10 million people.[6]  Say what you will about the small European nations today, but if nothing else, they are, for the most part, rationally governed; generally speaking, they “work”.[7]  And their smallness and ethnic homogeneity play a large part in their success.

This all helps to explain, first, the insanity of trying to manage a present-day America of 330 million people.  Three hundred million Gandhis would be ungovernable, let alone the present American mish-mash.  Second, it suggests that Allen West’s “new America” of perhaps 150 million is likewise far too big.  Texas alone is 30 million people; it really ought to become its own nation-state.  Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina, all over 10 million, could easily be their own nation-states.  The smaller US states might fruitfully band together.  Ultimately, the 24 “Trump states” could form five or ten independent nations, which might then organize a local American confederation of some sort, to advance their collective interests—but without surrendering local sovereignty.  Five or ten small, independent, pro-White nations would further allow for a fair amount of social and political experimentation, yielding successes that could be transferred to the others.  And diverse states would be harder to undermine by any potentially-resurgent Jewish Lobby—just as a unified European Union is much easier to corrupt than 27 independent nations.

So This Means War!

“Yes,” says the critic, “all fine and good.  But the mighty US military will come in and crush any budding secession movement.  You haven’t a prayer against them.”  Yes and no.  A single movement by a single state might be squelched, but simultaneous movements across the nation would be much harder to address.  We have to understand that our federal government is actually much weaker than it appears, at least when it comes to internal disruption.  We can bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, but a “CHAZ” microstate in downtown Portland carries on for months, run by nothing more than a handful of degenerate anarchists.  Black Lives Matter lunatics managed weeks of looting and burning because they were a diversified, incorrigible, lawless band, working in several locations simultaneously.  “Oh, but BLM and CHAZ had the implicit support of the Democratic power elite.”  Fine—but a multi-state secession effort would have the implicit support of many in the Republican power elite.  For them, there is much to be gained.  Lots of new states mean lots of new presidents, new governments, and new institutions (imagine: new universities not dominated by a Jewish intellectual class!).  Plenty of new opportunities for business, charities, religious groups, academia—the possibilities are immense.

Still, we have to be honest.  It could come down to war, at least in some form, and many in the military would doubtless support the secession.  We need not worry about cruise missiles raining down on Dallas or Columbus, or tanks rolling through the Indiana plains, but we can imagine federal troops being compelled to take some sort of action.  Well, then—defend yourself.  Thus it has always been.  As I’ve argued in the past, if a few thousand low-IQ Afghans can hold the US military at bay for 20 years, then a few million motivated Whites can do much more.  After all, those unwilling to fight are those undeserving to win anything.  We would do well to recall what Nietzsche said about liberalism and the struggle for freedom; I quote him at length:

My conception of freedom.  The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it—what it costs us.  I shall give an example.  Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions.  Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic—every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them.  Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization. …

               For what is freedom?  That one has the will to assume responsibility for oneself.  That one maintains the distance which separates us.  That one becomes more indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privation, even to life itself.  That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one’s cause, not excluding oneself.  Freedom means that the manly instincts that delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of “pleasure.”  The human being who has become free—and how much more the spirit who has become free—spits on the contemptible type of well-being, that dreamt of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, Englishmen, and other democrats.  The free man is a warrior.

How is freedom measured in individuals and peoples?  According to the resistance which must be overcome, according to the exertion required, to remain on top.  The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude.  This is true psychologically if, by “tyrants,” are meant inexorable and fearful instincts that provoke the maximum of authority and discipline against themselves; the most beautiful type: Julius Caesar.  This is true politically too; one need only go through history.  The peoples who had some value, attained some value, never attained it under liberal institutions: it was great danger that made something of them that merits respect.  Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit, and forces us to be strong.  First principle: one must need to be strong—otherwise one will never become strong.

Those large hothouses for the strong—for the strongest kind of human being that has so far been known, the aristocratic commonwealths of the type of Rome or Venice—understood freedom exactly in the sense in which I understand it: as something one has or does not have, something one wants, something one conquers.[8]

Do we really want to be free?  Do we want to be strong?  Do we have the courage to be strong?  I believe we do.  I believe that White Americans—at least, some core segment of this group—will find it in themselves to take the reins, to fight, and consequently “to force the will of millennia upon new tracks” (to quote Nietzsche once again).  Now is the time to act.  We need to hit them where it hurts.  And I can promise you, the American Judeocracy fears nothing more than a widespread, pro-White secession movement; it is their greatest nightmare.  Let’s work to make it come true.

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).  For all his works, see his personal website

[1] As I wrote recently:  “Let me make this as clear as possible:  Jews are not White—not in any relevant sense.  Jews are White like Jessica Krug and Rachel Dolezal are Black; that is, only to the extent that it serves their interests to deceive.  Yes, Jews’ skin tone matches ours, but that is merely an unfortunate and superficial fact of biology.  To further obscure the issue, they use plastic surgery to hide the nose and to minimize the uniquely repulsive effects of Jewish aging.  This allows them to circulate in White society unnoticed.  But they are not White.  Neither are Lebanese, Syrians, Iranians, nor any other light-skinned Arabs or Middle Easterners.  ‘White’ refers only to the indigenous people of Europe, Ukraine, and Western Russia.  Jews are not White.”

[2] The current officeholder is the Jew Steven Mnuchin.  For a brief further discussion, see my book Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019: 140-142).

[3] See “The Great Emancipator and the Issue of Race” (here).  Also, CNN recently reported that the nation of Ghana issued a call to Black Americans to “come home” to Africa—a great idea for all concerned.

[4] See Laws, Book 5 (737c-744e).

[5] As mentioned by Aristotle, in Politics II.8 (1267b).

[6] See his fascinating book The Breakdown of Nations (1957/2012).

[7] Yes, we all know that Greece is a basket case.  There are always exceptions.  But most small European nations provide exceptionally high qualities of life, and in this sense, they work for their people.

[8] Twilight of the Idols, chap. 11, sec. 38.

Demographic Damnation: How Leftism Lies to Open the Borders

If you like books that are both entertaining and intelligent, here’s some advice that’s been good for two centuries and more: read The Monk. Written by a highly gifted teenager called Matthew Lewis and first published in 1796, this greatest of Gothic novels sparkles with wit and wisdom. Among much else, it contains one of the cleverest illustrations of a perennial theme: that evil wins its way by lies. Satan seduces before he strikes, appearing in disguise until he can reveal his true ugly nature.

Enchanted by Evil

The titular monk of the novel, a pious but flawed Spanish abbot called Ambrosio, is seduced by evil to his own damnation. When a false friend summons Satan on Ambrosio’s behalf, the abbot is fooled by a clever disguise. Satan appears as a beautiful seraph with dazzling white limbs and “silken locks.” He is “surrounded by clouds of rose-coloured light” and wafted by delicious perfumes. Ambrosio is “enchanted at a vision so contrary to his expectations” and gazes on “the Spirit with delight and wonder.” (The Monk, vol. 2, ch. 4)

Early edition of The Monk by Matthew Lewis

If Satan had appeared in his true ugly form, Ambrosio would have been repelled and would have left the path to damnation. Instead, Ambrosio is seduced and led further into mortal sin. But when Satan is finally certain of his prey, he casts off all disguise. Summoned by Ambrosio alone, he appears amid “sulphurous whirl-winds” and in “all that ugliness which since his fall from heaven had been his portion.” He is black-skinned, sharp-clawed and menacing, and his hair consists of “living snakes” that writhe with “frightful hissings.” (The Monk, vol. 3, ch. 5)

Rosy visions of racial harmony

Now Ambrosio sees the ugly truth, but it is too late by then. He has been fooled at every step and will shortly be dragged off to damnation. Well, that’s a Gothic novel from 1796, but I can’t help being reminded of modern Western politics. In the recent past, Whites were seduced by the Left with rosy visions of racial harmony and culturally enriched societies. For example, many millions of Whites voted for the well-spoken, mild-mannered Barack Obama in the sincere hope that he would create a post-racial, rainbow America where state-imposed White guilt and state-encouraged Black grievance melted away, and everyone finally “just got along.”

Enter the Church of the Damned

In return for their good-will, those White Obama-voters got Black Lives Matter and an intensification of anti-White pandering, propaganda and crime. The leftist seduction is ending and leftism has begun to throw off its disguise. Whites are no longer being offered post-racial redemption, but accused of innate depravity. In other words, Satan has stopped wafting perfume and started spewing sulphur. At American Renaissance, Gregory Hood has described the shift from seduction to damnation in an excellent essay called “Anti-Racism: The Church of the Damned.” He writes that “Anti-racism is a church with no salvation. To be white is to be counted among the damned, no matter what you do.” White America is under assault by an anti-White “death cult” whose leftist high-priests are “preaching an eternal white guilt that must be eternally expiated.”

That leftist death-cult has risen on a tide of non-White immigration into America and other Western nations. And when the Left was working to open the borders, it lied about what it was doing. For example, Kevin MacDonald has shown how the 1965 Immigration Act that opened America’s borders to non-Whites was the culmination of a decades-long campaign by ethnocentric Jews to dilute (and eventually destroy) America’s White Christian majority. But, just as Satan did not reveal his true nature or intentions to Ambrosio, the bill’s Jewish sponsors did not reveal their true nature or intentions to White Americans.

“The ethnic mix of America will not be upset”

Instead, they used gentile frontmen to shill for the bill and tell lies about the demographic damnation it would work on America. The Irish-American senator Teddy Kennedy responded to critics of the 1965 bill like this:

I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge … the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage. (See So Much for Promises — Quotes Re 1965 Immigration Act, VDare, 9th August 2006)

Teddy’s brother Senator Robert F. Kennedy issued similar lies, as did a host of other leftists and their right-wing dupes. In 1965 the Left was seducing White America; in 2020, the Left is proclaiming the damnation of White America. Whites are slated for dispossession and persecution as a despised caste by resentful non-Whites with officially approved grudges.

The blatantly sentimental and dishonest graphic novel Illegal (2017)

But seduction and lies are still being used by the Left, as you can see in a recent graphic novel for children called Illegal (2017). The title is ironic and comes from a famous quote by the Jewish activist Elie Wiesel about illegal migrants: “No human being is illegal.” Written by two Irish Whites, Eoin Colfer and Andrew Donkin, and illustrated by the Italian White Giovanni Rigano, Illegal tells “the story of [the Black brothers] Ebo and Kwame and their tortuous journey from North Africa to seek a new life in Europe.” In other words, it’s propaganda for open borders and the demographic damnation of Europe. No wonder it won first prize in the category “Best Books for Kids and Teens” at New York Public Library and in the category “Best Fiction for Older Readers” at Chicago Public Library in 2018. Leftists like to think of themselves as sophisticated thinkers, but Illegal panders to their true nature as reality-denying narcissists. In reality, for example, most of those seeking “refuge” in Europe are arrogant young men of prime crime-committing and rape-gang-forming age.

Big-eyed, button-nosed Ebo wants you to help him

In the fantasy of Illegal, however, the hero is a pre-pubescent boy called Ebo, whose “big eyes, chubby cheeks and button nose” might have been drawn straight from a scientific article entitled “How cute things hijack our brains and drive behaviour” (2016). Yes, Ebo does have a tall, strongly built post-pubescent brother called Kwame, but guess what? Kwame is drowned while crossing the Mediterranean and Ebo has to complete his “torturous journey” alone. In short, the graphic novel is blatantly sentimental and dishonest. And it raises an uncomfortable question. Is it a coincidence that two Irishmen are behind such lying propaganda, just as the two Irish Kennedy brothers shilled for the 1965 immigration bill in America?

“Help me, White Saviours!” Ebo’s big eyes gaze upward

Unfortunately, it’s not. As a resentful, anti-WASP minority, Irish Catholics have been useful allies to the hostile Jewish elite in both America and Britain, paralleling the role of resentful, anti-Russian minorities like Georgians and Latvians in the Jew-controlled Soviet Union. The Bolshevik Revolution and its forerunner in 18th-century France are further examples of how the Left issues seductive lies before revealing its true ugly nature. In both France and Russia, revolutionaries promised “Liberté! Égalité! Fraternité!,” then created mass-murdering tyrannies.

Profiting from hate: The smug, self-righteous Irish authors and Italian illustrator of Illegal want to assure you that they are more moral than you

But leftists have shrunk in intellectual stature and ambition since the days of Robespierre and Lenin. Books like Illegal and Ibram X. Kendi’s Anti-Racist Baby are not serious and minutely reasoned in the fashion of Marx’s Das Kapital (1867). Modern leftists have abandoned intellect for emotion, as you can see in Illegal. The images of cute little Ebo are intended to trigger primitive brain-circuits and by-pass the intellect. A team of psychologists explain it like this in a study of cuteness: “Babies are designed to jump to the front of the queue — our brain-processing queue, that is. They get ahead of everything else going on in our minds, which makes them difficult to ignore. They also grab our attention even before we have time to recognise that they are babies. They do it by being cute[,] with their big eyes, chubby cheeks and button noses.”

Ibram X. Kendi’s Anti-Racist Baby

The distressed faces of women and children are also “designed to jump to the front of the brain-processing queue,” which is why leftists use non-White women and children so often in their dishonest reporting on the migrant flood. But I’ve often thought that leftists’ concern for non-Whites is related to their concern for animals and involves the same emotion circuits in the brain. For example, compare the three images below, taken from leftist propaganda-outlets like the Guardian:

Three distressed female faces from leftist propaganda

The images are intended to appeal to the same irrational leftist sentimentality, which takes a maternalistic, de-haut-en-bas attitude both towards human migrants, seen above, and towards “Xita, a Rondon’s marmoset” hit by a car as it fled forest-fires in Brazil in October 2020. And in fact, the migrant woman on the top right, clutching an overweight baby, was also fleeing a fire, this time in a migrant-camp on the Greek island of Lesbos in September 2020.

Seeking power, feeding narcissism

Britain is many hundreds of miles from Lesbos, but the Guardian approvingly reported that “Pressure is mounting on the UK government to take in some of the thousands of asylum seekers left without shelter following a devastating fire at Europe’s largest migrant camp on the Greek island of Lesbos.” These mostly adult male “asylum seekers” are from the least progressive and most misogynistic and homophobic cultures on Earth, but leftists don’t care. As I’ve often pointed out, leftists are interested in winning power and feeding their own narcissism, not in understanding the world or improving the lives of their supposed objects of concern.

And how do leftists win power and feed their narcissism? They lie, as you can see above. Teddy Kennedy claimed that “the ethnic mix” of America would “not be upset” by the 1965 Immigration Act. He was lying. Eoin Colfer and friends have portrayed migrants as big-eyed, button-nosed poppets in Illegal. They are also lying. And leftist lies are carrying the West towards demographic damnation just as surely as Satan’s lies carried Ambrosio to literal damnation in The Monk.

The Political Theology of White Guilt: Trump as a Threat to the EU’s Post-WWII Narrative

The presidential postelection period unfolding now in the US is having a big impact on the political class in Europe. Historically speaking this is nothing new. Every politician in Europe knows that any major political change in the US is bound to have, the day after, an effect on his own decision-making policy and likely determine the time span of his career. This mode of mandatory pro-American mimicry among European politicians has been playing out in full force since 1945.

Therefore, it should not come as a surprise that the mainstream media in Europe, seconded by EU high officials, with a very timid exception of Poland, Hungary and Slovenia, are piggybacking on US media outlets in a joint effort to unseat Trump and his legacy. The German political class, with Chancellor Merkel at the top of the EU System, is at the forefront of this anti-Trump pro-Biden mimicry.

The good news for some — and probably the bad news for others — is that both in the USA and Europe there is a rising divide between the rulers and the ruled, with a good chance of pitting the one against the other, with civil unrest becoming a highly likely scenario — Trump or Biden notwithstanding.  Not just nationalist parties of all stripes in Europe, but more and more average citizens, due also to bizarre and ever-changing Covid19 confinement regulations, are increasingly becoming suspicious of System decrees, no longer taking at a face value the palaver about tolerance and a multicultural shining future.  Many people in Europe like Trump’s words — more by default, and less by their knowledge of how the American electoral system works.

It must be pointed out that Trump was and still is the American exception to the rule of the post-WWII global liberal System. Predictably, Trump’s lambasting the mainstream media and its mirror image, the Deep State, does not square at all with the post-WWII liberal or communist antifascist and postcolonial narrative which all White Europeans and Americans have been subjected to since 1945.  In contrast to America, however, European nations have a very slim margin of political maneuvering, which is largely due to their former colonial, authoritarian, totalitarian and antiliberal past.  Consequently, European conservative and nationalist-minded politicians can only offset the burden of their past and escape the haunting shut-up word ‘fascism’ through their penitent behavior and through constant self-flagellating sermons on White Man’s Guilt. This self-effacing behavior translates today in a massive import of young non-European migrants with all of Europe rapidly becoming a giant hospice of take-a-knee repentant Whites.

The masochistic White Man mindset can be directly traced to the post-WWII Auschwitz political theology designated not just as deterrent for the defeated Germany, but also as a warning sign for former US and UK victors. Having this in mind, any tentative endorsement at this stage of Trump-like policies by a putative high EU politician means his/her running the risk of being accused of fascist or revisionist sympathies. It is a kiss of death in his/her career.

In order to grasp the fawning conduct of European leaders toward the System, or let’s call it the Deep State embedded in the East Coast of the US, one must always put things into a larger historical perspective. With his critical remarks about the mainstream media and his anti-immigration rhetoric, Trump seriously damaged the System narrative and along the way raised, without even realizing it, some disturbing questions about the legitimacy of the World Order established in the aftermath of WWII.

In Europe the System — i.e., the Deep State — has its major outlet in Germany. Being the heartland of Europe, Germany after 1945 was preordained to serve as a role model for all future EU member states. Today the German government functions therefore as the loudest mouthpiece of anti-Trump and pro-Biden rhetoric. Given Germany’s neurotic process of post-WWII nation-state building, such penitent behavior is comprehensible.  Germany was designed as a Europe’s new shining example of a successful Allied-Antifa social and racial multicultural engineering, which has spawned by now hundreds of thousands of self-censored, servile and atoning politicians and academics across the board, all of them deadly afraid that any minor dissident voice of theirs could result in their removal from the public scene. In day-to-day contemporary politics, German politicians and academics must be therefore constantly on a high alert and they must endeavor, metaphorically speaking, to be more Catholic than the Pope, i.e., more the American Biden lookalikes than Biden and his crew themselves. The same goes for all non-German European politicians, albeit to a lesser extent.

The toxic words fascism and racism serve today as an ideal tool of self-censorship in Germany, also explaining why Germany has been over recent decades, and particularly over the last decade, the  most fervent advocate of its self-destructive multicultural policy manifesting itself in its constantly importing non-European migrants.

Another example of Germany’s self-denial: Just recently the German minister of foreign affairs Heiko Maas, in typical German preemptive atonement mode, and in in order to counter any speculations that Germany might someday depart from the embedded post-WWII New World Order, issued the following statement: “I will proceed against the extreme right-wing venom for our democracy. “  (Ich will gegen rechtsextremes Gift für unsere Demokratie vorgehen).

Such a show of German and European atonement is a natural and logical outcome of the Allied brainwashing process that has been going on in the media and higher education, not just in the East, but also in the West since 1945.   Hence, if Trump keeps accusing the mainstream media and the Deep State of political dishonesty in slanting coverage and covering up a stolen election, it inevitably raises the question as to how truthful, or rather how fake the whole System and its historical narrative have been over the last seventy years. Trump was a threat to the entire post-WWII narrative of the West.

The former Russian anticommunist dissident and writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote long ago that we “should not live the Communist Lie.”  Well, time seems to be ripe to raise the same question about the Lie of the Liberal System.

The Never-ending Story

“I command the Jews not to agitate for anything beyond that which they have hitherto enjoyed, and not from henceforth, as if they lived in two cities, to send two embassies — a thing which never occurred before now – nor to intrude themselves into games and elections, but to profit by what they possess and to enjoy in a city not their own an abundance of all good things, and not to introduce or invite Jews who make voyages to Alexandria from Syria or Egypt, thus compelling me to conceive the worst suspicions; otherwise I will by all means take vengeance upon them, as fomenting a general plague upon the whole world.”
Emperor Claudius, Letter to the Jews at Alexandria, A.D. 41.[1]

The above proclamation from Claudius, in response to riots between Greeks and Jews in Alexandria almost two thousand years ago, illustrates the profound lack of mystery in anti-Semitism. For Claudius, peace in the city would be restored if the Jews ceased certain negative behaviours: agitating for heightened and special privileges (“to agitate for anything beyond that which they have hitherto enjoyed”); attempting to circumvent established practices of representative politics (“to send two embassies — a thing which never occurred before now”); attempting to intrude into, and disrupt, the cultural life of the Alexandrians (“to intrude themselves into games and elections”); attempting to manipulate the demographic context of the city (“to introduce or invite Jews who make voyages to Alexandria from Syria or Egypt”); and finally, abusing and exploiting the advantage of their diaspora condition to cause problems internationally (“fomenting a general plague upon the whole world”). These basic premises of Jewish financial and political acquisitiveness, cultural intrusion, disregard for political norms, propensity to demographic warfare, and exploitation of being essentially rootless, have been mainstays of ethnic conflict involving Jews for over two millennia, with extraordinarily little variation in themes. Imagine my annoyance and amusement then, on seeing Variety’s recent announcement that we are to be treated to yet another documentary, titled “The Conspiracy,” exploring the putative mystery of anti-Semitism.

Variety reports:

An array of high-profile documentarians have come on board “The Conspiracy,” exploring the history of anti-Semitism and archaic conspiracies against the Jewish people. “The Conspiracy” will explore various myths and inaccuracies that have plagued Jewish people and the Jewish religion through the centuries, and which have given rise to a unique prejudice that persists to this day. This documentary seeks to showcase the manner in which one of the most pervasive deceptions about Judaism of all time — that a dangerous group of powerful Jewish people equipped with mysterious powers control the world — can be traced through cataclysmic and violent events toward Jewish people throughout history and into the present. This film includes a mixture of animation and archival footage as it shows the evolution of these lies via the stories of different Jewish families throughout history.

For an apparently self-evident calumny, the Variety report mirrors ADL literature in utilizing a ridiculous array of persuasive adjectives and descriptive terminology when discussing the subject. Like some kind of inoculation for the reader, across just four sentences we are repeatedly reassured we are dealing with something “archaic,” “mythic,” “inaccurate,” “unique,” “deceptive,” involving beliefs in “mysterious powers,” and above all, riddled with “lies.” The documentary will presumably employ much the same rhetorical tactics. Maxim Pozdorovkin, a Russian-Armenian leftist, will direct the film, which is being produced by Jews Caroline Hirsch, Allison Maher Stern, Liz Garbus, Dan Cogan, and Jon Bardin — a gang that has already produced such propaganda as “Why We Hate,” and “All in: The Fight for Democracy.” Pozdorovkin, who presumably sees the project as a means to ingratiate himself with influential elites on the path to fame and fortune, has ignorantly parroted the usual non-sequiturs: “In times of anxiety and disorientation, anti-Semitism reappears with lethal force. Living through such a time now, it feels of utmost importance to make a film that grapples with the historical forces that have perpetrated the lie that Jews are somehow dangerous.”

Since the world is, and always has been, in periods of “anxiety and disorientation,” it would appear that we have to endure the perpetual justification that the time has come for yet more books, documentaries, museums, remembrance days, speeches, initiatives, and laws reminding us that Jews are blameless, powerless victims of a mysterious and esoteric hatred that has absolutely nothing to do with anything they might have done. In fact, this process is so obviously mysterious that we need endless propaganda reminders that anti-Semitism is mysterious, and that we require Jews to explain it to us. Hirsch and Stern add that

There is no better time than this exact moment in our shared human history to expose to the world the many historical lies, myths and incidents that have festered and evolved into the explosive Antisemitism we see today. Now is the time to put a spotlight on where and how it all began and bring greater awareness through this powerful and unique film. [emphasis added]

I’ve read the first sentence several times and it still doesn’t make any sense to me. Imagine considering the last two thousand years of ethnic conflict and deciding that “this exact moment” is witness to “explosive anti-Semitism” (have we finally graduated beyond the “virulent” kind?) and that “there is no better moment” in this history to produce such a film. Cogan remarks that the film will be “a landmark in storytelling about the Jews,” which I take to mean that we should brace ourselves for a veritable tsunami of bullshit.

Rather telling is the fact the documentary is based primarily on Phyllis Goldstein’s 2011 A Convenient Hatred: The History of Antisemitism. Goldstein, too, also played her part in perpetuating the never-ending story by promising that 2011 was the right time to finally unveil the mystery of anti-Semitism by writing “a book that would trace the history of anti-Semitism from ancient times to the present … and deepen our understanding of this pernicious hatred.” A year earlier, however, it had been decided that 2010 was the right time to finally unveil the mystery of anti-Semitism, when Robert Wistrich published his A Lethal Obsession: Anti-Semitism from Antiquity to the Global Jihad. This happened to be the same year Albert Lindemann and Richard Levy published their Antisemitism: A History. These publications followed the 2003 decision that the time had finally arrived to expose the irrational mystery of anti-Semitism in Marvin Perry and Frederick Schweitzer’s Anti-Semitism: Myth and Hate from Antiquity to the Present. The pair were apparently unaware that the mystery had already been uncovered in Dan Cohn-Sherbok’s 1992 The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism, with Sherbok in turn apparently unaware that the mystery of anti-Semitism had already been explained by Robert Wistrich (yes, the same) in his 1991 Anti-Semitism: The Longest Hatred. All the above were presumably unaware that anti-Semitism had already been explained in Shmuel Almog’s 1988 Antisemitism Through the Ages and Jacob Katz’s 1982 Anti-Semitism: From Prejudice to Destruction. Having read them all, I can assert that these texts are more or less identical, and I could continue with others, but the point is that the repetitive, dubiously-written, and poorly referenced grand narrative of sensationalized historical anti-Semitism has become a genre in its own right, with Amazon returning over 4,000 results for books on the subject, all of which invariably claim to once and for all expose, explain, or radically reinterpret anti-Semitism and its history.

Far from being novel, despite the almost annual and much-lauded appearance of a new volume (see the fascism genre for an equally lucrative and bastardized treatment), these texts merely shuffle what is now a standard deck of alternative and Jewish-friendly explanations of anti-Semitism. Christopher Browning, in his critical foreword to the 2020 edition of George L. Mosse’s Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism, mentions Jewish academics who draw

a straight line from early Christianity’s “teaching of contempt” and “Christ-killer” accusation to the Holocaust. Some looked to psychological abnormality, social-psychological pathology, the “authoritarian personality,” and the dynamics of prejudice. Marxists had portrayed anti-Semitism as a manipulated distraction into false consciousness to obscure realisation of the true nature of capitalist oppression and class conflict. Other scholars emphasised economic factors: envy and resentment of Jewish economic success and inordinate domination of particular professions in the wake of emancipation and the industrial revolution. Hannah Arendt added a further twist, arguing that resentment over Jewish visibility increased after actual Jewish wealth and power had peaked and were in decline.[2]

These excuses are in fact the leitmotifs of Jewish historiography, with all hints of common-sense approaches to the problem of European-Jewish ethnic conflict relegated to an almost comical periphery. An excellent example is the treatment of Claudius and his Letter to the Jews in Simon Schama’s lavishly-praised 2013 The Story of the Jews: Finding the Words 1000 BCE1492 CE, which devotes a single sentence to the Emperor, with the middling comment that he was “astute and not inhuman” and tried “to make peace between the now warring Egyptian and Jewish communities in Alexandria.” A single sentence for an Emperor who intervened decisively in one of the most intense inter-ethnic conflicts of the first-century Empire, and who was reported by Suetonius to have taken the related and hardly insignificant later action of expelling the Jews from Rome.[3] Remarkably, the same minimal level of attention to Claudius is found in Goldstein and Almog, while Wistrich, Lindemann, Levy, Perry, Schweitzer, Cohn-Sherbok, and many others dining out on the sensationalist anti-Semitism literary genre are unanimous in acting like he never existed.

One of the most astonishing features of this genre is that, despite their claims to vast sweeps of history, they remain stubbornly narrow in their chosen points of discussion, omitting much that contradicts the above shopping list of alternative interpretations of anti-Semitism. On a personal level, I find it rather compelling that, outside the Old Testament, some of our oldest protestations of ethnic hatred are found in relation to Jews. In a Hellenistic papyrus dated to the first half of the first century B.C., for example, we find the letter of a man named Heracles in which he writes, “You know that they detest the Jews.”[4] The intricacies of socio-economic inter-ethnic rivalry are significantly under-discussed in relation to the Jews and anti-Semitism, with much greater focus placed on events, trends, personalities or texts that lend themselves more easily to narratives of irrational hate, conspiracy theory, and esotericism in general.

After my recent discussion with Frodi Midjord on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, it dawned on me that today’s Jews must really rather appreciate the Protocols, not necessarily for the content but for the extremely neat way they can used as a byword for anti-Jewish conspiracy thinking among Europeans. Why analyse Claudius, with all the uncomfortable attending context, when you can point to a sensational account of Jews meeting in graveyards at midnight to discuss global domination? Small wonder then, that the first detailed information on the origins of the Protocols, in a plagiarism of Hermann Goedsche and Maurice Joly, was given to the Irish Times journalist Phillip Graves by an anti-Semitic Russian nationalist concerned that the text, intended originally as an artistic riff on well-established political commentary, was going to backfire in a tactical sense. This individual, whoever he was, was probably correct. One need only look at texts like Stephen Eric Bronner’s 2000 A Rumor About the Jews: Antisemitism, Conspiracy, and the Protocols of Zion, to see how, in Jewish hands, the Protocols is a useful tool for discrediting anti-Semitism in toto. For Bronner, the Protocols, a niche and stylistically outlandish document but for its startling popularity, is nothing less than “part of a broader assault on the civilising impulse, and the liberal, secular, egalitarian heritage of the Enlightenment. … This infamous forgery fashioned the Jew as the quintessential “other” of European civilization, how the self-absolving bigot sees himself, and the peculiar appeal of anti-Semitism to the “losers” in the struggle over modernity.” The history of anti-Semitism according to the Jews is therefore the history of the Protocols, with equally sensational sprinklings of Martin Luther, some expulsions of moneylenders, and the narrative goldmine of the medieval ritual murder accusations.

A curious feature of the history of anti-Semitism is of course the prominent role that Jewish converts have played in producing some of the more sensational and outlandish content and accusations. In fact, but for its obviously plagiarised content, I think I would have suspected a Jewish authorship of the Protocols. In one of the earliest examples, from the early sixteenth century, the German-Jewish converts to Christianity Victor von Carben and the former thief Johannes Pfefferkorn produced a series of quasi-esoteric and highly inflammatory (not to mention financially lucrative) pamphlets calling for the burning of all copies of the Talmud and, in Pfefferkorn’s case, the expulsion or enslavement of all Jews.[5] Pfefferkorn, who was a major promoter of the host desecration idea, was in turn denounced even by many contemporary anti-Jewish agitators, who, despite their support for the burning of insulting passages in the Talmud, accused him of subversive activity and heresy regardless of his superficial fanaticism (Pfefferkorn oscillated between extreme suggestions of physical harm and appeals for no physical harm). A public debate between Pfefferkorn and his accusers ensued, in which Pfefferkorn was defeated, a later pamphlet on the affair bearing a woodcut depicting “Pfefferkorn in the hands of two executioners, one of whom punctures his leg with a sharp-edged sword, while the other beats him repeatedly on the head, whence issues a fetid blood, which is lapped up by a dog.”[6]

In the 1860s, a similar figure emerged in the form of Jacob Brafman, a Russian-Jewish professor of Hebrew, and convert to Christianity. In the late 1860s Brafman published The Book of the Kahal and Local and Universal Jewish Brotherhoods in the course of which, as one contemporary explained:

We learn that each Christian landowner is sold by the Kahal to a Jew. Yes, sold like an investment, both in his person and in his property. It is not just a way of speaking, but a legal term because the transaction is sealed by a special sales contract. Similarly, villages, whole sections with their inhabitants (Christians of course) are bought and sold. Under the cover of our civil laws there exists a radically different legal code, secret and negative, that rules over and subjects to the jurisdiction of the Jews not only the Jews but also the Russians, without their knowledge. … The brotherhoods are the major arteries of Jewish society. … They link all the Jews scattered over the globe into one powerful and invincible body [allegedly then based in France].

Brafman’s work, of course, laid some of the groundwork for the production of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion a few decades later, and thus the entrenchment of the caricature of a coherent and intensely political, and corporately organized, international Jewish conspiracy with a single leading council. This aspect of Brafman’s work stands somewhat apart from the genuine issues his work occasionally touched upon, such as the clear practice of ethnically-exploitative monopoly capitalism by the kahals and the trade in debts within the Russian Pale’s vast Jewish communities. A book strictly on such themes would have been a bombshell then, and a bombshell today. As it happened, however, the effect of Brafman’s intervention was, like Pfefferkorn’s, to add certain mysterious or esoteric airs to what had been for the most part a straightforward matter of material and cultural conflicts of ethnic interest, with the result that both texts became in time a matter of embarrassment to certain nationalist circles, and a useful old horse for the Jews to flog.

The irony in all of this is that, if anything, Jewish interpretations of anti-Semitism are considerably more esoteric than the phenomenon itself. Ideas about Christianity, that anti-Semitism is a “virus,” that anti-Semites inevitably have authoritarian personalities, or that ethnic conflict can be abstracted into myriad impersonal systems are all mere flights from reality and the universal principle of cause and effect. The Jews propose an effect without direct cause, a negative miracle if you will. As a result, this endless production of documentaries, books, and “revelations” to uncover this “pernicious hatred” — none of which addresses or mollifies the inevitable antagonism, prompting the Jews to assert that the only way to deal with Europeans is to introduce laws punishing them if they deviate from the given message. Thus we return, in a way, to Claudius, who warned Jews against an overreach in places “not their own” that would arouse “the worst suspicions.” Why have the Jews always aroused the worst suspicions? Claudius gave us the answer almost two thousand years ago. Jewish financial and political acquisitiveness, cultural intrusion, disregard for political norms, propensity to demographic warfare, and rootless activism. There’s no mystery here. But, with Claudius relegated to a mere footnote in history, the Never-ending Story will continue, as will the proliferation of weird and esoteric theories like the Protocols that are useful to Jewish propagandists. And I’m sure that next year we will have a few more books and films promising to lift the veil at last.

[1]Translation found in H. Stewart Jones, “Claudius and the Jewish Question at Alexandria,” Journal of Roman Studies, Vol. XVI, Part I (1926), pp.17-35.

[2] G. L. Mosse, Toward the Final Solution: A History of European Racism (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2020), xiii.

[3] Suetonius, Lives of the Caesars: The Deified Claudius, (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004), 171.

[4] Quoted in Almog (ed), Antisemitism Through the Ages, 16.

[5] For more on Pfefferkorn’s remarkable career see J. Adams (ed) Revealing the Secrets of the Jews: Johannes Pfefferkorn and Christian Writings about Jewish Life and Literature in Early Modern Europe (De Gruyter, 2017).

[6] J.M. Vincent, History of the Life, Writings, and Doctrines of Luther, Vol. I, 68.

The Occidental Observer Year-End Fundraiser — Including Observations on the Current Political Scene

ChristmasFrame-199x300rTHANK YOU to those who have contributed during 2020. I’m not sure you really realize your support is critical to our success and our ability to fulfill our unique niche of providing fact-based, well-written articles on White identity and White interests.

We also present honest discussions of the critical importance of Jewish influence in the decline of the West and on Jewish and Israeli influence on the disastrous US foreign policy in the Middle East. The topic of Jewish influence is more or less missing from many sites that emphasize White identity and interests.

Your gifts of any amount are welcome. The best (and easiest) way of giving is to subscribe for a recurring monthly amount that fits for you. The page with information on donations is here. (We now accept Bitcoin, Monero, Z-Cash and DASH.)

Your support is important for many of our writers, and it’s safe to say that we are now competitive with other Alt Right websites in paying them. As always, the financial base for projects like TOO is dwarfed by the financial resources of our enemies. Nobody is getting rich here, or even making a living by writing for TOO, but your support is a huge psychological and financial boost for many.

We are living in very dangerous times. The looming Biden-Harris presidency could very well be a disaster for the dissident right. The left is now completely dedicated to eradicating free speech on issues related to race, immigration, and anti-Semitism. Just recently the journal Personality and Individual Differences retracted a paper co-authored by J. Philippe Rushton linking skin color to aggression, not because it was factually wrong, but because it was “harmful.” There’s no doubt in my mind that websites like TOO will be in their crosshairs if they ever manage to abrogate the First Amendment. I don’t think such laws could pass SCOTUS muster now, but they have already promised to pack SCOTUS, and the legal infrastructure rationalizing such actions is well in place via liberal-left law professors.

Christmas-bell-36ccThere’s little doubt that the left is determined that a populist with Trump’s rhetoric will never become president again. They aim to do this by massively increasing immigration, by adding D.C. and Puerto Rico as states, and by institutionalizing their ability to commit fraud in elections. Like millions of other Americans, I firmly believe that the election was stolen but obviously the courts are unwilling to do anything about it. If the courts reversed the election, there would be massive violence and media outrage like no one’s ever seen, and the courts simply have no stomach for such a scenario. The fact is that, with the exception of a few conservatives on FoxNews, the entire establishment opposed Trump, including all the legacy media, the big newspapers, and the social media companies, Wall St, Silicon Valley, and academia. Web searches were biased, and negative stories about Trump were censored, most notably the well-documented Hunter Biden scandal that clearly compromises Joe Biden and makes the president of the United States beholden to Chinese interests via lucrative financial ties and the possibility of blackmail. So after four years of hatred and investigations and impeachment attempts that went nowhere, Trump is finally out.

And for what? Trump really didn’t manage to change much of anything despite all the bleating about him destroying democracy (how?? by allowing the Democrats to steal the election?). His administration slowed down immigration and the refugee industry, but that’s very temporary given Democrats are back in power. Whatever Trump’s intentions — and we might have seen some very beneficial effects on domestic policy if he got a second term, his administration didn’t manage to accomplish many of the promises that attracted the dissident right.

But his anti-globalist rhetoric and promises terrified the establishment while attracting tremendous enthusiasm from a very large swath of Americans. His stump speeches while campaigning terrified the establishment, not only because of his rhetoric and promises, but because of his charisma — the fact that his demeanor and his slogans had vast crowd appeal. For our hostile elite, this is a stark reminder of 1930s’ Germany when a spell-binding orator managed to get a very modern, well-educated populace to be enthusiastic followers.

With their power in the media, the academic world, and as political donors, Jews from the far left to the neoconservative right were central to the continuous vilification of Trump from the moment he announced his intentions to run for president — the negative comments on Mexican immigrants and Europe not being Europe any longer because of immigration infuriated them.  This is now the end game that began with the Immigration Act of 1965, accompanied by incessant propaganda about the benefits of multiculturalism and, in recent decades, the evils of White America. I always thought that they would just let it happen gradually. GOP candidates and presidents like the Bushes were just fine—gradual was okay, like upping the temperature little by little while cooking the proverbial frog until it’s too late. But Trump gave a glimmer of hope that all this could be reversed. It had to be stamped out and prevented from ever happening again. That’s the game, and I’m not at all sure we or our civilization are going to survive this.

And the surest way to ensure that something like Trump never happens again is to ensure a permanent Democrat majority, as has already happened in states like California. But I also believe that they will ramp up the security state via the possibilities of technology for control. Covid is providing a golden opportunity to impose authoritarian restrictions and increased invasions of privacy. Websites that offend establishment sensibilities continue to be deplatformed from financial companies — lately VDARE has joined sites like TOO in being victimized in this manner. And there are proposals to limit air travel if people refuse vaccinations. The great reset is upon us.

Again, the page with how to donate is here. This page has been updated to provide greater clarity. There are two sections, the top section for tax deductible donations and the bottom section for non-tax deductible donations respectively.

Let me know if any of the instructions are unclear. Another (painless) way to contribute is to shop at Amazon using this link. We get a small percentage of your purchase, and it doesn’t cost you anything.Donate to TOO

Thanks for thinking of TOO.
and Merry Christmas!

Kevin MacDonald


Academic Hysteria, Part I

I am a faculty member at an American academic institution; for the sake of argument, the school is a fairly prominent blue state university, with predominantly undergraduate students but also, as befits a university, post-graduate education as well. The institution, like virtually all others in the USA, has a far-left radical administration, leftist faculty, and social justice-obsessed students; since late spring 2020, all of these unfortunate specimens have become hysterical beyond all imagining. In Part I of my essay, presented here, I comment on aspects of some of the initial anti-White “training, workshop, seminar” activity that has been foisted on us as a result of the latest moral posturing outrage with Black Lives Matter, George Floyd, etc. More to the point, and more broadly, I will comment on the overall racial atmosphere here and how different sections of our academic community contribute to it.

The latest  “social justice” barrage started with outrageously juvenile and bigoted sociopolitical pontifications from our overpaid and underworked administration, and promises to the students for all sorts of “social justice” activity and “rigorous reflection” and “training”— mandatory of course — for everyone at the institution, to eliminate the deadly scourge of “White racism.” I would like to also point out that promises were also made to change student admission and faculty hiring practices to favor “diversity” — that is, discriminating against qualified White candidates. As well, non-White students were specifically promised race-specific student benefits (e.g., counseling for “victims of racism” specifically for “students of color”); please note that providing student services based strictly on race is of course against federal law and also is in violation of official institutional policy that states that all activities that affect students will be applied in a manner independent of “race, color, ethnic origin, sex, religion, etc.”

Let’s briefly consider some low points of the “training” (i.e., indoctrination) so far. There were online webinars from angry Black women about the health crisis of “racism” — complete with pointed references to the “racism” of the 2016 election outcome. I suppose now we will hear complaints about all those nasty White racists who voted for Donald “Platinum Plan” Trump in 2020; after all, voting for a man who completely ignored his White base for four years, while promising a half-trillion-dollar handout to people who don’t vote for him and who in fact elected Joe Biden, is evidence of unrepentant bigotry. Other webinars told of the agonies of the Holocaust (while omitting mention of any historical episodes of White Christian suffering), isolated cases of medical malpractice involving Blacks, and, of course, the ever-present nonsense of “race is only a social construct” (tell that to Rachel Dolezal and Jessica Krug). Live “workshops” often also featured Black women (who seem to specialize in this activity), typically using ghetto slang and vulgar language to a captive audience of highly educated White and Asian faculty.

Another accusation faculty hear in such “training” is that the institution is “White-centered.” How that could be is a mystery, since our academic institution (like all others) celebrates the identities and accomplishments of every group except for Whites. One observes multiple celebrations and exhibits for Black History Month, Asian History Month, “Latinx” History Month, Native American History Month, etc. During such celebrations, one can find non-White students wearing racial pride and racial nationalist t-shirts of an extreme nature; if White students wore anything analogous, they would likely be labeled as “racist” and expelled. In the midst of all of this “inclusion,” one can look in vain for anything positive for Whites, Europeans, etc. The only mention of Whites, as a group, is always in a purely negative sense. So, the idea that this is all “White-centered” when it is precisely the opposite is something only deranged ideologues could claim.

What do I believe is the attitude of students and institutional employees to all of this? The students are close to 100% supportive; indeed, much of the impetus for hysterical “training” and the other manifestations of non-White identity politics and anti-White hatred originates with the students. The non-White students are essentially 100% on board. The vast majority of the White students — I’d estimate at least 90% — are strongly supportive of the anti-White agenda as well. No student openly speaks out against it; even if they were offended, they would, rightly, fear retaliation from fellow students, from faculty, and from the administration. Rarely, a White student will quietly complain, in private and in confidence, to the few sympathetic faculty that exist about mistreatment based on race. Typically, after “White Privilege training” what would happen is that White students would be verbally racially harassed by non-White students; most of the Whites would masochistically revel in the abuse but a few would complain behind closed doors. Staff also verbally abuse, in racial terms, those few White students who are insufficiently anti-White and insufficiently “woke” on these matters.

Administration are virtually all on the extreme left, whether these individuals are White, Jewish, non-White; they speak with one voice, without the slightest hint of dissension or debate. For the most part, I suspect this is sincere ideological fervor, but in some cases, I suspect there may be some characterless White sociopaths among our institutional leadership who mouth the dogma merely for career advancement.

What about the (non-faculty) staff? All of the women are “social justice” types, with White women “allies to people of color” being particularly extreme and unpleasant. White-collar men among the staff also are mostly leftist; however, I suspect that some of the blue-collar White maintenance staff include a few with more healthy instincts, although they stay silent. Faculty are among the most extreme leftists, with obvious exceptions such as myself; the majority of the far-left White faculty are hypocrites who live as far away from minorities as possible. And, amusingly, even some of these White progressives sometimes complain about non-White administrators who (and this is an exact quote) “cannot get along with White people.” By and large, however, the faculty stand with the administration and students, and most of the staff, in their adherence to radical leftism. It is interesting how these people obsess over the accidental death of George Floyd, a Black ex-convict who, according to the autopsy, died of a drug overdose while resisting arrest, but completely ignore the death of Cannon Hinnant, a five-year-old White boy shot to death, “allegedly” by his Black neighbor. Some lives matter more than others, I suppose.

We must understand what the real purpose of all of this “diversity training” is. Multiple studies have shown that such training is ineffective and indeed often increases bias. That is old news, and yet, despite these findings, the training continues to occur. But, you see, the ultimate purpose of the training is to abuse and humiliate White people and it is indeed very effective at that. And, if the training has the side effect of actually increasing bias and exacerbating racial tensions, well, that’s a side-benefit, since more bias and more tension is used to justify more training, leading to more of the desired abuse and humiliation and also to more problems requiring yet more training. Of course, as well, some people make good money from this nonsense, and the institutions that host the training use it as “liability insurance” to safeguard against “discrimination” lawsuits by non-Whites (they don’t worry about Whites in that regard). So, many people benefit, but, again, the main objective is to “stick it to Whitey.” Therefore, that White students end up getting racially bullied after such training is considered a feature and not a bug. That White employees are ritually humiliated by such training is also a feature and not a bug.

I would like to finish with comments about the overall racial and cultural climate in American academia, based on direct observation, my own institution being a perfect example. Are admission committees biased against Whites, particularly White men? Yes they are. After all, there are a limited number of admission slots and there are more candidates than slots. Therefore, it is inevitable that altered criteria for admissions that favor minorities and/or women will result in other candidates being rejected. This discrimination is often hidden behind the euphemism of “a holistic admissions policy.”

I read about the grading system changes in the San Diego school district with grim amusement. Readers should understand that the situation is no different in higher education. Not only have general standards fallen to accommodate low-performing students, grade inflation and easy exams being just two examples, but, specifically, non-Whites are accommodated in other ways. Cheating scandals? If most or all of the cheaters are non-White then you can forget about any real discipline being meted out. Faculty are simply told to “change the test questions” as if the new questions are not going to be targeted for cheating as were the old ones.

And these manipulations are not only for undergraduate institutions, but also for graduate and medical schools as well. The Step One exam for medical students is now pass/fail. Who knows? Perhaps it will eventually be dispensed with completely. We can’t have “disparate outcomes,” now, can we? Why have the MCAT? SAT? GRE? Maybe we should dispense with grading altogether and evaluate students solely on the basis of their commitment to “social justice.” What about student misconduct other than test cheating?  Are investigations into potential student misconduct biased against Whites, particularly White men? Yes they are. Interestingly, it seems that the group most favored are Asian-American women. No matter what they have done, no matter what terrible things they are accused of doing, they are considered to be “nice and sweet” and therefore must always be “given a second chance.” In contrast, the most mild, nitpicking infraction by a White male student is met with “he’s arrogant and we need to make an example of him.”

Finally, are academic institutions hypocritical in how they address alleged cases of “offensive comments and microagressions?” You bet they are. It’s “anything goes” with respect to hate toward Whites in general, specific White ethnic groups, Christian religious belief, men, etc. I do not want to get into real-life specifics here, as some specific incidents may very well be the target of future discrimination claims against the institution, but I can provide hypothetical examples that convey the essence of what typically occurs. For example, it would be considered perfectly acceptable to, openly and publicly in front of witnesses, tell an Irish-American that they “look like a drunken leprechaun” or to ask a Polish-American “how many of your family members does it take to screw in a light bulb?” or to comment that an Italian-American “looks like a Mafioso” and “talks like Vito Corleone.” But if one were to, for a microsecond, make a facial expression of distaste in response to the harsh smell of some sort of exotic and malodorous non-White food, or to, completely innocently, mispronounce a non-White surname, then that is considered a serious racial offense, a microaggression, and will lead to investigations, meetings, and “sensitivity training” for the entire institution. If you think I’m joking, I assure you I am not. It is also perfectly acceptable to openly disparage Whites in general in the most extreme and derogatory terms, mock men for alleged biological inferiority to women, and to ridicule Christian religious practices. That is all considered to be “inclusion” and a “commitment to eliminate discrimination.” Complaints about such overt anti-White and anti-male bigotry are of course completely ignored. Things can only be expected to get worse; after the Trump interregnum, these types are out for blood.

After the first round of our required “training” is concluded, I will conclude with Part II of this essay, summarizing what has occurred in that time and its effects on the institution. Who knows whether a Part III will be necessary, but it is entirely possible.

The Vietnam War and China: Was Walt Rostow Right? — With an Endnote on the linkage to US-Israel relations

The intelligence is clear: Beijing intends to dominate the U.S. and the rest of the planet economically, militarily and technologically. Many of China’s major public initiatives and prominent companies offer only a layer of camouflage to the activities of the Chinese Communist Party. I call its approach of economic espionage “rob, replicate and replace.” China robs U.S. companies of their intellectual property, replicates the technology, and then replaces the U.S. firms in the global marketplace.
     John Ratcliffe, U.S. Director of National Intelligence, “China is National Security Threat No. 1,” The Wall Street Journal, December 3, 2020

In the [hermeneutic] circle is hidden a positive possibility of the most primordial kind of knowing.  To be sure, we genuinely take hold of this possibility only when, in our interpretation, we have understood that our first, last, and constant task is never to allow our fore-having, fore-sight, and fore-conception to be presented to us by fancies and popular conceptions, but rather to make the scientific theme secure by working out these fore-structures in terms of the things themselves.
     Martin Heidegger, Being and Time (Sein und Zeit, 1927)

In Fall of 1981, I was a newly arrived young undergraduate at the University of Texas at Austin.  The former White House National Security Advisor to U.S. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson was a professor at the Johnson School of Public Affairs, and the Rex Baker Professor of Political Economy.  His name was W.W. “Walt” Rostow.  I had heard of him through my readings in economic history, and thought I would see if he would let me into his graduate seminar in economics that he had otherwise made famous while at M.I.T.  He not only let me in with enthusiasm, but proceeded to load me up with a stack of his books to read in preparation.  One was titled The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto.

This book became famous, eagerly embraced among the Washington, D.C. establishment as a political manifesto, and in the corridors of the Pentagon as a call to arms, as it was a clarion call for the defense of U.S. interests and its methods of free markets.  It was also perfectly timed to coincide with a post-war obsession against communism, especially the Soviet kind, and the threats emanating from Cuba, and later, Southeast Asia.  Much has been written about the men who championed the Vietnam War, the so-called “brain trust” or, as author David Halberstam called them in his best-selling book, The Best and the Brightest.  Rostow was among a group of middle-aged intellectuals and academics, most also World War II veterans and, as in Rostow’s case, who had also served in the OSS (Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor to the CIA).  From that experience, and the ideology it reinforced, the advisors surrounding America’s post-war presidents were Hawks; even what today would be called “Neo-cons” and far-right advocates for U.S military intervention (or pre-emption).  But as the Vietnam war dragged on, their reputations were dragged through the mud.  In Rostow’s case—one of the last holdouts for U.S. victory—he constantly pushed LBJ (president Johnson) to commit more troops, more planes, more bombs, and more money.  To most in opposition however, it was only more blood.  And so it ended, with hundreds of thousands of casualties, billions spent in taxpayer money, and at best an exit finally under Nixon and Kissinger (not without still highly critical accusations of political opportunism) that had the appearance of a negotiated truce.

Rostow was vilified by the northeastern establishment, and effectively black-listed among the university ivy-league for his role in that war and in US foreign policy generally—until Johnson built his new graduate school on the Austin, Texas campus, and gave Rostow a permanent position, effectively its titular head, from its founding in 1970, until his passing in 2003.  In 2002, British historian David Milne came to Austin and chronicled Rostow’s tenure as a wartime advisor, and consistent with his general reputation even today, characterized Rostow (and named his book) America’s Rasputin.  In a more normal, “globalized” international order, Rostow does seem an anachronism; an outdated older generation of “communist hunters” that saw Red everywhere, and overstated its danger.  Indeed, much of communism’s threatening posture seemed to fade under a triumphant Reagan foreign policy that saw “glasnost” and “perestroika” (openness and rebuilding) under former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, collapse into utter ruin with the Soviet Union broken up, and America, seemly triumphant.  China was still a distant, if unsophisticated developing country beginning to be known more for making all the consumer goods that the U.S. had divested in favor of “high-tech” and Wall Street.

But the international order is no longer normal (indeed, some have called for the CCP to be officially declared a transnational criminal organization).

Rostow believed early on that communist China, if it continued to advance through the “stages of growth” into a high-tech, modern mass society, would be a profound regional, and if consolidated, a global competitive threat to nearly everything America stood for.  Rostow advanced the thesis that the United States had actually “won” the Vietnam war; he believed the war had “bought time” for the rest of South-east Asia to economically advance and escape Chinese Communism. Today, China’s growing economic, financial, technical and political influence isn’t through those regional proxies, and mere regional hegemony, but directly through China itself, and its increasing global reach, including in the new space race.  It is even seen by many as a model for a socially flat, “fair,” controlled, regulated society.

Today, China’s growing economic, financial, technical, and political influence isn’t through regional proxies, but by China itself: A giant high-tech, authoritarian machine with a population over 1.5 billion and growing; a military to rival the U.S. and Russia; aggressive ambitions in space travel, and abundant natural resources, infrastructure, and businesses with global reach.  Indeed, Rostow’s belief that Chinese influence could spread to Vietnam and act with a domino effect across greater South Asia (even Austral-Asia) may have understated the effect, and the danger, because the country most at risk now isn’t Vietnam or Cambodia; Thailand, Korea or Taiwan even, but the United States itself.  That is, China is no longer an ideological opponent for geopolitical control or regional hegemony within the context of competitive ‘empires” seeking regional dominion, but instead a direct, frontal threat to the integrity of the United States itself, as a sovereign nation. The CCP is the new “USSR”).

Indeed, was the U.S. the ultimate prize that China has had its disciplined eye on, especially for the last 20 years?   Was Rostow right?  I believe he was, and more: he was not only right about the threat communism posed to Western freedoms and liberty, but about the dislocations and distortions in scientific and technological development: China’s culture is imitative and assimilative; it is the like the “Borg.”  Resistance is futile.  And therein is the ideological danger: China has become a role model of conformity, conditioning and control to the progressive Left that sees the U.S. as a mistake; a selfish White beast of capitalism that pollutes and ravages; consumes and oppresses; the “Anglosphere” that is pitted now against the “Sino-sphere,” the Indo-spere; the Afro-sphere, and the Zio-sphere.

Indeed, the entire far Left “woke” culture of identitarian-based (racial) coercive moralism, rests on an effective spiteful lust for vengeance that naturally sees China as a solution for a flat, “fair,” controlled, and highly regulated society, but especially, as a model of absolute power.  The CCP is the new cult-hero of the radical Left globalist, who views the U.S. as a dying establishment society of privilege.  Except the Left doesn’t actually despise privilege; it despises being denied privilege for itself—and now, it wants it all for itself, with an objective of a unitarian, consolidated American political monism that destroys its opposition and consolidates its hegemony over all aspects of society in ways completely foreign to American traditions of individual freedom — economic and religious liberty, with a government subordinated to the civil public, and the civil public in control of its military, its property, currency, and most of its natural resources.  Communism upends all of that (but there is more: China has been waging an “irregular” war against the U.S. since at least 2000, and in the current environment, has been cited as responsible for the SARS-coV-2 virus, including recent accusations as the actual sponsor of what is called “Operation Warp Speed” and cited as a CCP assault proxy).

China — and emulation of China — threaten to dismantle most if not all American routines and traditions, and in an insidious way that slowly but consistently encroaches on every aspect of American culture and custom.  China has laid down the economic, geopolitical and military gauntlet, and with a renewed confidence, reinforced by eager if naive encouragement by America’s Left progressives who are overwhelmingly non-White, and largely Jewish in its most senior leadership, financial and media roles.

China’s ancient philosopher of war, Sun Tzu, said that the victors of a war can win without even fighting, by subduing the enemy through his own self-defeat and surrender.  Rostow’s Cold War hawkish stance of defiance was right: It is modern, strong, sober and confident, in the face of another U.S. political world view that is anarchic, compliant, hysterical and weak.

Endnote on U.S.-Israel Relations

It is important to appreciate a few things about Rostow that inform my full opinion of him.  There is much to admire about his aggressive, fighting spirit, even though there is much that causes me some reservation. That fighting spirit, however, was not always, or strictly, in service to readily identifiable, domestic, institutional or otherwise transparent causes, interests or objectives.  Rostow’s family were Jewish immigrants from Russia — a fairly traditional immigrant story of a family with modest means, working in traditional labor markets, and with the ambition to see their children attend college.  Walt Rostow and his brother Eugene both went to college and graduate school at Yale, where Walt received his Ph.D. from Yale, and his brother his law degree from Yale Law.  Both served in public administration and became deeply embedded in high-level state policy circles.  Walt also served in the U.S. military, the OSS, and that pedigree formed much of his persona and modus operandi.   However, many people, including myself, felt that he was inordinately ambitious and that this fueled a complex mix of motivations and professional and personal alignments.  He became usually candid with me concerning the complexity of competing interests in the U.S. government during the 1960’s and how those led to the rise of LBJ, and the further deepening of American military activity in Vietnam and bordering countries, along with a radical escalation of the intelligence agencies and their conversion to “black” or irregular warfare outside the normal chains of civilian, even military control.

It is my view that Rostow was a central, principal actor in the elimination of the legacy of JFK and the supersession of LBJ who had a set of policies almost entirely written and controlled by Rostow.  And while his hawk posture in Vietnam—possibly including preemptive tactical nuclear options—was indeed a bulwark, notionally, against China, he had an equal measure, along with his brother (the central author and advocate for the narrative deployed in the Warren report) of commitment to Israel, to Israel’s nuclear development, and to U.S. foreign aid becoming a normal feature of annual transfer payments to Israel.  Moreover, his naïve idealism about U.S. domestic social programs—he authored the “Great Society” strategy—led some to even go so far as to label him a “bourgeois Marxist” for his championing of government involvement, or even control, of many key industries.  His idealism also led to an aggressive platform of controlling wages and prices in order to “tame” inflation.

Rostow was a social engineer at heart, and in his inherent intellectual extremism, not unlike the radical Left today.  His ultimate loyalties are uncertain, and he was indeed a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” who could justify any degree of violence in order to realize his academic theories and Weltanshauung.  This view has a particularly fascinating, if disturbing, similarity with a trend in academia among certain Jewish legal scholars in the immediate pre-war and post-war period.  A poignant example involves Harvard Law’s notorious and historically revered Felix Frankfurter.  Working in the Wilson administration in the then War Department (like Rostow in the Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson offices), Frankfurter was assigned to Europe where he became actively, and officially involved in the Zionist cause, working with Dr. Chaim Weizman.  After the War, Frankfurter attended the Paris Peace conference, supporting the Balfour Declaration that the British sponsored to establish a “permanent home for the Jews in Palestine.”  As with Rostow, the co-mingling of American and British cultural influence, combined with Zionist interests, may have created a logic in Frankfurter’s mind that Anglo-Saxon culture, and the larger dynamic of the British Empire (and, later, the American Empire) could be integrated with the ambitions of Zionism.  Like Frankfurter, Rostow (and his brother) may have held out a broad front of US defiance and patriotism against communism, and an aggressive militancy in combating it. But they also had a passionate obsession with Israel, and a personal conviction that Americanism and Zionism were an effective identity.

Indeed, one of Rostow’s obsessions was Russian (Soviet) communism, and I believe he saw Vietnam not only as a proxy war with China, Chinese communism and the larger communist bloc including the then-dominant Soviet Union, but also a “shield” over Israel, and a Israel-US cultural, economic, financial and military duplex.  The extent of Johnson’s lobbying, commitment and favor on behalf of Israel was immediately apparent after he assumed office, and Rostow had a central role as a national security advisor in articulating, planning and directing these activities.  LBJ and his Rostow-headed national security team, declared that Israel had “no better friend,” and Johnson was the first U.S. president to formally align U.S. policy with Israel. Thus Rostow may very well have been as asset — an agent or working in some agency capacity — on behalf of Israel.

The United States may now be considered caught in a vise, between a perpetual irregular war of Zionist contours that systematically infiltrates U.S. institutions, including government, media, and key commercial sectors (central and commercial banking), combined with a regular, direct force (not without its irregular components, especially within our top-level research universities) prepared for direct physical confrontation — a new “Sino-Bolshevism” that combines a systematic assault on America’s Western cultural foundations and emulation of a massive Sino empire that has stolen U.S. technology and military secrets (often with our own political cooperation) and been able to create a first-rate military, reinforced with a fighting population five times the size of America’s and with a reserve population that is equally outsized.

American technology transfer to China was also facilitated directly by Israeli actors.  Israel has also appropriated U.S. technology through systematic, on-going industrial-military espionage, while reselling it, often to China, or Chinese surrogates. It is not surprising therefore that the current China-originated virus combined with Jewish media and Silicon Valley election engineering, speech suppression, and on-going public relations psy-ops, are together creating an effective constitutional “crucible.”  Indeed, is China in some regards, the alter ego of Israel?  Is a theocratic-ethnic, hegemonic, nuclear armed and technologically advanced social monism, the ambition of Israel as well? In both cases—China and Israel—the real battle is cultural, and culturally determined.  This puts Western culture in an especially fascinating position of necessary assertion across all regular and irregular dimensions.

Moreover, not only the United States, but the “Five Eyes” of Canada, the UK, New Zealand, and Australia are, along with the U.S. and Western Europe under cultural assault — a highly systematic, programmatic “invasion.”  Indeed, these countries have surrendered in several dimensions; they are more easily captured politically, institutionally and economically because they have less of a tradition of individual liberty and because their multiethnic social infrastructure is significantly more porous and vulnerable. Because of its strong tradition of individual liberty, the United States required a much more complex invasion strategy in order to gain operative control of U.S. systems.

Is Israel finally “done” with the U.S. in a bi-lateral mode, and changing its posture to a new phase of an attempted complete acquisition?  In historical terms, this makes actors such as Rostow (and his brother) into archetypes. They combine an American “immigrant” narrative with academic achievement, military service and senior national security roles—all reinforced with a lengthy university pedigree and authorship—that ultimately disguise their ethnic motivations that work against U.S. interests, and in fact actively damage its sovereignty.  Some call this the profile of traitorous behavior, and in Rostow’s case there is a constellation of associations and actions that reinforce this view.  His model of culturally and institutionally embedded special interests that are ultimately ethnically based has multiplied radically since the 1960s, and has become almost institutionalized itself in several key American institutions.