Mark Leibler: Powerbroker for Australia’s Jewish Plutocracy – PART 1


Mark Leibler

In writing about the pivotal Jewish role in Australia’s demographic revolution (triggered by the liberalization of immigration laws and institutionalization of multiculturalism), I have had regular occasion to mention the name “Leibler.” Among Jewish leaders in Australia in recent decades, none have enjoyed greater prominence than brothers Isi and Mark Leibler. I had long intended to devote an entire essay to the Leiblers and their impact on Australian politics and society, and was recently prompted to do so by the publication of the book The Powerbroker: Mark Leibler, An Australian Jewish Life by the Jewish journalist Michael Gawenda. After sampling some excerpts, I ordered the book and powered through it in a couple of days. While already familiar with the most of its contents, the biography contains some fascinating (and surprisingly revealing) material.

Gawenda’s stated reason for writing The Powerbroker is strangely paradoxical. He claims to have been impelled to write about Australia’s most powerful and politically well-connected Jewish leader by the rise of anti-Semitism in Australia and elsewhere. “The time was right,” he claims. “Anti-Semitism of the right and the left was on the rise. … For the first time, I had a growing sense of foreboding about the future of the Jews. I wondered whether that time after the Holocaust – the time in which Leibler and I grew up and lived most our lives, when anti-Semitism was totally unacceptable and anti-Semites were given no oxygen, no legitimacy – was over.”[1] Gawenda’s bizarre response to this alleged phenomenon was to pen a work confirming the veracity of various anti-Semitic “tropes” and “canards.” The Powerbroker unashamedly affirms the extraordinary power, wealth and political influence of organized Jewry in Australia – and its most prominent leader. For Gawenda:

Leibler’s life is a story about Jews and power. Making that connection is fraught with risks, for it is one that has been made throughout history by anti-Semites and by those who think Jews somehow have an almost magical ability to influence and change – always for self-interest and for the worst – the course of history. Questions about Jewish power have consumed Jew-haters, and their answers have led to discrimination and hatred and, sometimes, to unspeakable, historically unprecedented violence. But just because anti-Semites believe the Jews have power does not mean it is untrue. Leibler’s story cannot be told without an examination of the way he has developed and used power and influence.[2]

Gawenda’s willingness to openly discuss the extraordinary power and influence of Jews in Australia, despite this endeavor being “fraught with risks,” troubled one reviewer of The Powerbroker, the Jewish academic Phillip Mendes, who warned that “This narrative may excite some conspiracy theorists on the far left and right who believe that Jews per se control finance.”[3] Mendes falsely claimed in his review that 30 percent of Australian Jews live in poverty.

Gawenda’s first interactions with his biographical subject were when, as editor of The Age newspaper in Melbourne in the 1990s, the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), the lobby group then (and still) chaired by Leibler, contacted him “regularly to complain rather robustly about the newspaper’s coverage of the Middle East.”[4] Gawenda did not always need AIJAC’s “robust” advice to sway the newspaper’s coverage of the Middle East in his own ethnic interests. As editor he censored political cartoons critical of Israel, a practice that prompted one observer to demand he openly declare his Jewish ethnicity. Gawenda found this deeply offensive, with its suggestion that “a Jew writing about another Jew was somehow problematic. And it could only be considered problematic if you thought that Jews stuck together, that their first loyalty was always to each other, that Jews, in other words, had dual and even conflicting loyalties. For Jews, this is an association with a long and bloody history, and it has, no doubt, been leveled at Mark Leibler.”[5]

Michael Gawenda

Gawenda identifies as a child of “Holocaust survivors” despite the fact his parents sat out World War Two in the far-east of Russia. They were, he claims, part of “the influx of more than 20,000 Holocaust survivors [to Australia] after the war, more of whom settled in Australia proportionately than in any other country other than Israel.”[6] The father of his biographical subject arrived in Australia just prior to World War Two. An Orthodox religious Zionist and diamond dealer from Antwerp who arrived in 1938 on a business trip, Abraham Leibler was prompted to stay by the situation in Europe, and was joined by his wife Rachel and firstborn son Isi in Melbourne later that year. At that time, there were then no obstacles for Jews leaving Belgium to sell their property and take their wealth with them. Isi Leibler’s younger brother, Mark, was later born in Melbourne in 1943.

Abraham set up his diamond business in Melbourne at the time when, under the influence of the White Australia policy, Australia was one of the Whitest countries in the world with the non-European population, other than Aborigines, being measured at around 0.25 per cent of the total. The population was predominantly of Anglo-Celtic origin and Australians of the other European ethnicities were thoroughly assimilated into the Anglo-Australian mainstream. Apart from the Protestant-Catholic sectarian divide, Australia was a culturally-cohesive nation devoid of significant social tensions. Reflecting on this, Gawenda sourly observes that “In those days the word ‘diversity’ pertained only to plant and animal species, not to human beings, and the word ‘multicultural’ was still many decades away from being a description of Australian society.”[7] Gawenda’s own ethnic group would play a pivotal role in that social transformation.

Abraham Leibler arrived in an Australia that was “was monocultural and before the arrival of hundreds of thousands of migrants from Europe in the 1950s, ethnically homogeneous.”[8] Even this post-War influx of some 200,000 European migrants to Australia did not, however, greatly change things. Northern European migrants were prioritized and expected to assimilate into the general Australia community as quickly as possible (which they did). Moreover, throughout the 1950s more migrants continued to arrive in Australia from Britain than from any other place.

At the time of Abraham Leibler’s arrival in 1938, the Australian Jewish population were predominantly “Anglo Jews” – the descendants of German Jews who arrived in Australia during the gold rushes of the mid to late-nineteenth century. These Jews were well integrated into the political and administrative structure of the colonies and gained social acceptance through adoption of British customs and displays of loyalty to the British Empire. Sir John Monash (1865–1931), for example, became a general in the Australian army and was, according to Goldberg, “the only Jew in the modern era outside Israel (with the exception of Trotsky) to lead an army.”[9] Sir Isaac Isaacs (1855–1948) became Australia’s first native-born Governor-General. In Australia under the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, these highly-assimilated Anglo-Jews were regarded as “White,” while Jews of Middle-Eastern origin were regarded as Asian and therefore barred from entry.

Alongside these culturally-assimilated Anglo Jews was a smaller group of Eastern European Jews noted for their ferocious ethnocentrism and political radicalism. These Jews arrived as refugees from Tsarist Russia from 1880 to 1914, and from Poland after 1918. The numbers arriving with each of these waves were, however, comparatively small and Australian Jewry remained a tiny isolated outpost of world Jewry until the 1930s.[10] In this decade, Australia accepted an influx of 7,000 Jews as refugees under the Australian government’s quota for Jews fleeing National Socialist Germany. Gawenda notes how these new Jews, and the post-war Jewish influx of “Holocaust survivors” from Eastern Europe, “were radically different to the Anglo Jews. They spoke mainly Yiddish and were steeped in Yiddish culture and traditions. Critically, they did not define their Jewishness narrowly, as a matter of religious adherence. Many were Zionists who believed in Jewish nationhood.”[11]

Many were also avowed communists who created and supported a communist front group called the Jewish Council to Combat Fascism and Anti-Semitism. Formed during the war, this organization became a major force in Australian Jewish community politics, with its leaders and members being overwhelmingly “either communists or fellow travelers.”[12] From these politically radical Eastern European Jewish migrants emerged one of the Soviet Union’s most successful spy rings. In his book Traitors and Spies: Espionage and Corruption in Hugh Places in Australia, 1901–-50, former intelligence officer John Fahey describes how “respected Jewish businessmen” Jack Skolnik, Hirsch Munz and Solomon Kosky “established themselves as what I believe is probably the most successful spy ring that’s ever operated in Australia. I have no doubt they stole vast amounts of information.”[13] This trio passed on valuable military and political secrets to Moscow, undetected, from government offices in Melbourne from the late 1920s right through to the 1950s.

The Anglo Jews feared the intense ethnocentrism and political radicalism of these new Jewish arrivals would provoke an increase in anti-Semitism — and their fears were not without foundation. The new migrants had the effect of making the Anglo-Jews more visible as a group through their association with the new European Jews. They also provoked hostility from significant sections of the Australian community, who (correctly) sensed that these psychologically-intense and politically-radical newcomers posed an existential threat. The Anglo-Jewish leadership feared these new Jews, who were “Zionists of the most visceral kind,” would provoke the charge of dual loyalty recurrently made regularly against Jews in Europe: that Jews were only loyal to each other and not to the countries in which they lived. Gawenda observes that:

Sometimes the dual loyalties charge was expressed as an accusation that Jews were a fifth column of traitors hidden in the population. Hitler famously ranted about the Jewish stab-in-the-back of the German people during World War I. It was, however, a relatively new concept in Australia, where, until the arrival of the refugee Jews in the 1930s, Australia’s Anglo Jews had, in the main, done everything they could to avoid being accused of such a terrible thing. After the establishment of Israel, the dual loyalties’ charge morphed into a charge that Jews were more loyal to Israel than to countries where they lived and often had lived for generations.[14]

The battle between the established Anglo-Jewish community and the newcomers from Central and Eastern Europe was essentially a battle between proponents of cultural assimilation and proponents of Jewish separatism. The new Jewish migrants were “not about to ‘complete Hitler’s work,’ as many of them put it, by assimilating.”[15] Even when in Europe they had considered themselves Jews first and foremost. “They were well-versed in Jewish scholarship, often deeply religious and in many cases, passionately Zionist,” notes the Australian-Jewish historian Suzanne Rutland.[16] The new Jews, through the activism of community leaders like Walter Lippmann (who arrived in Australia in 1938), were to be pivotal to entrenching cultural pluralism and “multiculturalism” as official Australian government policy from the 1970s.

Lippmann resented the expectation to assimilate into the Anglo-Australian mainstream. In his advocacy of the multiculturalism in Australia, he tore a page out of the writings of the pioneering Jewish-American multiculturalist Horace Kallen. Lippmann believed Jewish immigrants had left one type of oppression behind only to be subjected to another – the Australian expectation to assimilate. Kallen described the corresponding expectation in the early twentieth-century United States as “the Americanization hysteria” or the “Americanization psychosis.”[17] The multiculturalism espoused by Lippmann, which ultimately became the basis for social policy in Australia, implied “a rejection not only of the attempts to promote an amalgam of cultures but also of any assumptions of Anglo-Saxon superiority and the necessary conformity to English-oriented cultural patterns.”[18]

The Leiblers, as Orthodox Jews and Zionists, openly flouted the expectation to assimilate and lived in a completely Jewish milieu sealed off from the surrounding Australian society. This stance was intensified by their involvement with Mizrachi, a religious Zionist organization that functioned like a self-contained community, with its own synagogues, day schools and youth movement, Bnei Akiva – named after Rabbi Akiva, a rabbinical authority on Judaism’s major texts, who was executed by the Romans after the failed Jewish revolt against Roman rule in AD 66.

The Leiblers were far from alone in their determination to resist assimilation and promote Jewish genetic and cultural separation from the general Australian community. A group of businessmen and activists raised money to establish a Jewish day school in 1949, Mount Scopus College, in Melbourne – which eventually grew into the largest Jewish day school in Australia and one of the biggest in the world. Mark Leibler attended the college, which catered to “a wide range of parents, from the Orthodox to those who wanted their children to go to a Jewish school in order to minimize the chances of their ‘marrying out.’” These parents were most concerned about “maximizing the chances of their children getting good Year 12 exam scores and marrying other Jews.”[19] Such was the insularity of the Mark Leibler’s upbringing and early life in Melbourne that he observed: “I don’t think I had any non-Jewish friends. I was basically mixing with Jews all the time.”[20]

Despite this, reflecting back on his time as a student at Mount Scopus, Leibler thought the school had not done enough to foster a “deep sense of their Jewish identity, a knowledge of and love for Judaism as bulwarks against assimilation and intermarriage.” He believed Australian Jewish children needed “schools with clear ideologies that fostered their particular kind of Jewish identity.” He later supported and sent all of his children to Yavneh College – a Zionist and Modern Orthodox school absolutely committed to producing “Jews secure in their Jewishness, knowledgeable about and able to practice Judaism with an unshakable commitment to Israel.”[21]

Mount Scopus College: not doing enough to foster a “deep sense of their Jewish identity, a knowledge of and love for Judaism as bulwarks against assimilation and intermarriage”

Mark Leibler first interacted with non-Jews when he studied law at the University of Melbourne. Even there, he was, however, taught and mentored by several Jewish academics including Zelman Cowen, the Dean of Law who helped get him into the Masters program at Yale. Jewish ethnic networking also played an inevitable role in determining where Leibler launched his legal career: he did his articles at the law firm of Arnold Bloch in 1966, whose eponymous owner was “a family friend and Jewish community leader who had known Mark since he was a boy.”[22] Leibler subsequently joined the firm and was quickly made an associate. Within a decade and a half, many of the firm’s mostly Jewish clients were among Australia’s richest people. One of Bloch’s first clients in the 1950s was John Gandel, the now billionaire property developer and leading funder of Jewish causes.

In the decade to 1957, the Australian Jewish community had almost doubled in size, from about 32,000 to more than 55,000 with the vast majority living in Sydney and Melbourne. By 1957, the new Jewish migrants from Central and Eastern Europe outnumbered the Anglo Jews and had taken over the leadership of all Jewish organizations. It was out of this group that Isi and Mark Leibler emerged as leaders in the 1960s and 1970s. Mark focused his leadership ambitions on the Australian Zionist organizations – the State Zionist Council of Victoria and the national Zionist Federation of Australia, which was affiliated to the World Zionist Organization. His brother Isi had already risen to become president of Victorian Jewish Board of Deputies and an internationally recognized leader of the campaign to allow Soviet Jews to migrate to Israel. His activism is said to have been strongly shaped by “the Holocaust” which was always “uppermost in Isi Leibler’s mind.”[23]

Since the late 1990s, when Isi settled in Israel, Mark Leibler has been recognized as “Australia’s most influential and powerful Jewish leader, and has become increasingly influential in international Jewry.”[24] The Jerusalem Post accorded him the status of one of the world’s 50 most influential Jews – a leader of Jews both in Australia and around the world. Gawenda notes that while Leibler “is not well known to most Australians,” his influence “far exceeds his public profile” and he is “regularly sought out by powerful people in all walks of life.”[25] Ultimately, this power and influence is “built on the strength of the 120,000 in Australia’s Jewish community.”[26] In the subsequent parts of this essay, I explore Mark Leibler’s impact on Australian politics and society.

Brenton Sanderson is the author of Battle Lines: Essays on Western Culture, Jewish Influence and Anti-Semitism, available here and here.

Go to Part 2 of 5.

[1] Michael Gawenda, The Powerbroker: Mark Leibler, An Australian Jewish Life (Melbourne: Monash University Publishing, 2020), 6.

[2] Ibid., 11-12.

[3] Philip Mendes, “The many sides of Mark Leibler,” The Sydney Morning Herald, September 11.

[4] Gawenda, The Powerbroker, 9.

[5] Ibid., 10.

[6] Ibid., 7.

[7] Ibid., 16.

[8] Ibid., 20.

[9] Dan Goldberg “After 9/11: The Psyche of Australian Jews,” In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski (Melbourne: Black Inc., 2006) 140-152, 151.

[10] Suzanne Rutland, The Jews in Australia (Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 22.

[11] Gawenda, The Powerbroker, 18.

[12] Ibid., 24.

[13] Jen Kelly, “How three Melbourne businessmen became one of the Soviets’ most successful spy rings, Herald-Sun, October 9.

[14] Gawenda, The Powerbroker, 21.

[15] Ibid., 36.

[16] Rutland, The Jews in Australia, 77

[17] Horace Kallen, Culture and Democracy in the United States (New York: Arno Press, 1924; reprint 1970), 165; 167.


[19] Gawenda, The Powerbroker, 81.

[20] Ibid., 33.

[21] Ibid., 81.

[22] Ibid., 48.

[23] Ibid., 23.

[24] Ibid., 4.

[25] Ibid., 2.

[26] Ibid., 4.

Hate-Filled Hindu: Priti Patel is Sycophantic to Jews, Psychopathic to Whites

Shakespeare got it wrong. “There’s no art to find the mind’s construction in the face,” says King Duncan in Macbeth (c. 1606), meaning that psychology can’t be read from physiognomy. But Shakespeare never saw Priti Patel, the British-born Indian Hindu who currently serves as Home Secretary. When you look at Patel’, do you see gentleness, humility and good-nature? I doubt it:

The pernicious punim of Priti Patel, high-T fem-pol

No, Priti Patel looks like what she is: a nasty piece of work. As I said in “A Shameless Shabbos-Shiksa,” she’s a high-T fem-pol, that is, a female politician with typically elevated levels of testosterone. She’s aggressive, ambitious and entirely without principle or loyalty to the country of her birth. That makes her an ideal shabbos-shiksa, or gentile servant, for Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), which the Jewish Chronicle described as “the biggest lobbying group in Westminster” (i.e., British politics). Lord Polak, CFI’s very powerful but little-known chief, steered Patel to a long series of secret meetings with important Israeli politicians. That definite conspiracy was finally exposed in 2017 and Patel lost her job as International Development Secretary in Theresa May’s government of grovelling goys.

Working for Jewish interests

What happened at the meetings? Only Patel and her Jewish puppet-masters know, but she certainly wasn’t conspiring with Jews to benefit British Whites. After the scandal broke, she should have been prosecuted as an agent of a foreign power and permanently excluded from politics. But that isn’t how things work in Brave New Britain. Instead, Patel bounced back to a much bigger and better job in Boris Johnson’s government of grovelling goys, in which the very powerful but little-known treasurer is the Israeli plutocrat Ehud Sheleg. Patel is now Home Secretary, supposedly overseeing law, immigration and border security for Britain, in reality working for Jewish interests as she has always done. And now she’s back at the centre of another scandal, this time about her obnoxious behaviour towards White civil servants. An official report found that she had broken the ministerial code of conduct by bullying staff and should therefore resign for the second time from the cabinet.

However, Boris Johnson decided that the rules needn’t apply to his fellow Friend of Israel, and Patel is still there. There are rumours that she’ll lose her post soon for incompetence, but obnoxiousness was not a problem. After all, she’s not been obnoxious to the only people who matter in Brave New Britain: the tiny Jewish minority that funds and controls the Conservative Party and that wields hugely disproportionate influence in the media and academia. Patel has risen to high office by being sycophantic to Jews and psychopathic to Whites.

Death-goddess Kali with White men’s heads

And she may well be a full psychopath, like a disproportionate number of politicians and of the lawyers who are massively over-represented in Western politics. For example, Patel has a psychopathic indifference to truth. She knows from the inside that Jews have controlled the Conservative government under Johnson, May, and Cameron just as they previously controlled the Labour government under Blair and Brown. That’s why she had so many secret meetings with Israeli politicians. But she would instantly condemn anyone who named and opposed the very Jewish control that she has so carefully allied herself with and worked to strengthen. Indeed, she would be happy to imprison anyone telling the truth about Jewish control. Psychopaths don’t care about truth or morality: they care about power. And some psychopaths like to exercise power in sadistic ways, as Patel did when she shouted and swore at her White staff. Which brings me to another image from Brave New Britain:

Death-goddess Kali with White men’s heads

That painting, called Housewives With Steak Knives (1985), is a “self-portrait … as the multi-armed Hindu Goddess Kali” by Sutapa Biswas, another Indian Hindu currently enriching Brave New Britain. Do you think the painting shows hostility towards White men? I do and I would link the psychology of Sutapa Biswas, as revealed in her painting, to the psychology of Priti Patel, as revealed in her behaviour towards White civil servants. Of course, no mainstream commentator in Britain would dare suggest that Patel’s Hinduism and Indian genetics have played any role in her obnoxious behaviour. But here at the Occidental Observer, the Home of Hate, I’m suggesting exactly that.

Pernicious parallels

After all, a very similar scandal has happened before. In 1998, a female Hindu lawyer called Kamlesh Bahl was appointed Deputy Vice President of the Law Society and was expected to rise swiftly to become its President. But Bahl was dismissed in 1999 after accusations that she was a power-crazed bully who terrorized and humiliated her White staff in just the way that Priti Patel is accused of doing.

And just as Patel got her big job despite being known to have bullied staff in her previous ministries, Bahl got her big job despite being known to have bullied staff when she was head of the Equal Opportunities Commission. Like Patel, Bahl had non-White privilege. And to round off the parallels, Bahl denied that she had done anything wrong just as Patel has done. I don’t think these parallels are coincidental. Like Kamlesh Bahl, Priti Patel is a hate-filled alien invader whose genetics and psychology are rooted in India, not in Britain.

Don’t accept immigrants from India

India is a fascinating and complex region in all manner of ways, from religion to genetics (as I acknowledged in my discussion of the Parsi Indian Freddie Mercury). But one thing is certain amid all that complexity: India is a very bad place for any Western nation to accept immigrants from. Its culture is both hugely corrupt and horrendously cruel, as one of England’s greatest writers saw long ago. Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936) was born in India and recorded life there with sharp insight and understanding. Leftists call him a racist; I call him a realist. You can see some of his realism about India in the short-story collection Plain Tales from the Hills (1888). One of the stories, with the ironic title “Beyond the Pale,” begins with these lines: “A man should, whatever happens, keep to his own caste, race and breed. Let the White go to the White and the Black to the Black. Then, whatever trouble falls is in the ordinary course of things — neither sudden, alien, nor unexpected.”

Leftists would call that racist; I call it realist. And I think it applies to the trouble caused by Priti Patel and Kamlesh Bahl. Kipling would have been horrified to see mass immigration from India into the West. And rightly so. His story “Beyond the Pale” is about a love-affair between a White British man called Trejago and a Brown Indian widow called Bisesa. At first Trejago sees some of the beauty and charm of India. Then, following a quarrel with his brown-skinned lover, he sees a little of the horror:

A week, and then three weeks, passed without a sign from Bisesa. Trejago, thinking that the rupture had lasted quite long enough, went down to Amir Nath’s Gully for the fifth time in the three weeks, hoping that his rap at the sill of the shifting grating would be answered. He was not disappointed.

There was a young moon, and one stream of light fell down into Amir Nath’s Gully, and struck the grating, which was drawn away as he knocked. From the black dark, Bisesa held out her arms into the moonlight. Both hands had been cut off at the wrists, and the stumps were nearly healed.

Then, as Bisesa bowed her head between her arms and sobbed, some one in the room grunted like a wild beast, and something sharp — knife, sword or spear — thrust at Trejago in his boorka. The stroke missed his body, but cut into one of the muscles of the groin, and he limped slightly from the wound for the rest of his days. (“Beyond the Pale”)

“Genius” is an over-used word, but I’m happy to apply it to Rudyard Kipling. His ability to understand the multitudinous realities of India was matched by his ability to describe those realities. He didn’t portray Whites as inexcusable sinners or non-Whites as immaculate saints. Instead, he was a realist, which is why he’s now called a racist. But I can see no hate or malice in his stories about brown-skinned Indians. Indeed, “The Story of Muhammad Din,” about the life and death of a tiny Muslim boy, must be one of the most moving and compassionate stories ever written – and without the insincerity and sentimentality that accompany leftist minority-worship.

Leftism mandates blindness to reality

But although Kipling could sympathize with brown-skinned Indians and recognize their full humanity, that did not make him think that Indians and Whites are the same under the skin (or that White Germans and White Brits are the same). Like Charles Dickens, another literary genius, Kipling did not allow his enormous powers of sympathy to blind him to reality. But modern leftism mandates blindness to reality. That’s why the leftist Guardian can report that “India remains the most unsafe country for women in the world, with a woman raped every 20 minutes,” while simultaneously supporting unlimited immigration from India. This would ensure that India’s vibrant rape-culture found new settings, just as Pakistan’s rape-culture has been successfully transplanted to Britain.

In short, the Guardian claims to oppose rape while supporting the non-White immigration that massively increases rape. Its readers and journalists don’t recognize the contradiction. Thanks to minority-worship, leftists apply the Orwellian principle of crimestop, which “means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to [minority-worship], and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.”

Racism is realism

And although British leftists have condemned Priti Patel and her bullying, none of them would acknowledge that she is yet another example of the harm done by mass immigration. As an Indian Hindu and shabbos-shiksa, Priti Patel supports the highly ethnocentric governments of Israel and India while working against the legitimate ethnic interests of Britain’s fast-shrinking White majority. Patel is bad for Britain, like the part-Jewish, part-Turkish prime minister Boris Johnson and like her fellow Indian Hindu Rishi Sunak, who came to the post of Chancellor from Goldman Sachs and the highly Jewish and globalist world of banking.

It is not racist to say that these aliens are bad for Britain: it is realist. Or rather, racism is realism. It is both rational and realistic to understand that race is a valid scientific concept and has huge consequences for politics, culture and criminality. Rudyard Kipling understand those obvious truths and Rudyard Kipling would have been entirely unsurprised by Muslim rape-gangs and the malign behaviour of the Indian Hindus Priti Patel and Kamlesh Bahl. But the West is no longer governed by the thinking of far-sighted White geniuses like Kipling and Dickens. Instead, the West is governed by the thinking of subversive Jewish charlatans like Karl Marx and Franz Boas.

Priti Patel pleads for power at Conservative Friends of Israel

And that’s why Britain has a hate-filled Hindu called Priti Patel at the top of government. Her sadistic behaviour towards her White staff is a portent of what will happen right across the West as Whites lose control to their non-White enrichers. Patel is bad for Britain and doesn’t belong here, which is precisely why, in true psychopathic fashion, she sniffed out and bowed before the hidden centre of power in her party: Conservative Friends of Israel. And Jews were delighted to recruit her as a shabbos-shiksa. They know that outsiders like Patel have no loyalty to or concern for British Whites.

But you won’t see anyone in the mainstream media speak these obvious truths. After all, this is Brave New Britain, where it’s against the law to speak the truth about Jewish control and minority malice. And who oversees the law in Brave New Britain? You’ve seen her pernicious punim already in this article: it’s Priti Patel, Home Secretary, Friend of Israel and Foe of Whites.

Portland Memories

“Miserable distorted block-heads, the generality; ape-faces, imp-faces, angry dog-faces, heavy sullen ox-faces; degraded underfoot perverse creatures, sons of indocility, greedy mutinous darkness, and in one word, of STUPIDITY, which is the general mother of such. Stupidity intellectual and stupidity moral had born this progeny: base-natured beings on whom the Genius of Darkness (called Satan, Devil and other names) had now visibly impressed his seal, and had marked them out as soldiers of Chaos and of him … Him, you could perceive, they would serve; but not easily other than him.
Thomas Carlyle, Latter-Day Pamplets, No.2.

It’s a little over seven years since I last set foot in Portland, Oregon, and I must say that none of the events in the city during the last 12 months have surprised me. Having spent most of my formative years growing up in some of the coldest, wettest, and cloudiest corners of Northwestern Europe, my first introduction to the United States came just as I turned 21. I was an extremely pale young lad with a soft spot for icy landscapes, and my travel history to that point hadn’t taken me any further south in the hemisphere than Paris. It probably wasn’t the best idea, then, for me to choose the South in Summer for my first landing on American soil. Today, I struggle to remember precisely what I did in the first weeks of my arrival in the Carolinas, other than wrestle with periodic bouts of heat exhaustion, puzzling over whether grits were something marvelous or truly monstrous, and wondering if you required special training to be able to reel off the side effects so quickly in these many strange American pharmaceutical ads. After these initial weeks of acclimatisation, however, I must say that I grew to love the South quite deeply, and still do. I travelled the length of both Carolinas, Georgia, some of Tennessee, and into the parts of Florida normally left peacefully undisturbed by tourists. I now regard it, second only to Europe, as my home. I think it was about 10 months into my first spell in the States that it was suggested that I fly “out West” to help the mother of a friend pack furniture and finish the sale of a house so she could relocate permanently back to the South, where she’d been born and raised. There was a small amount of cash to be earned in the process, and some free room and board, as well as the opportunity to see another side of America. “Where out West?”, I asked. “Washington,” my friend replied, “right down by the Columbia River, but we’ll be staying in Portland.”

I’d been living and studying just outside a very genteel Southern college town, where clean, pressed khakis and short-sleeved button down shirts were the almost compulsory attire. Race wasn’t something that was impressed upon me physically where I’d grown up, because non-Whites were rare to non-existent, but I do remember being very aware that the place I now lived was, for all intents and purposes, racially segregated. In this little satellite village orbiting the main college town, I don’t think a single Black person owned or rented a home. In fact, the only non-White I ever saw in my own neighbourhood was the Oriental, and impossibly young, wife of the extremely seedy-looking elderly man who lived next door. In the college town, Blacks clustered in a few blocks thick with poorly maintained homes and trash-strewn streets. My daily commute was through this area, and although it seemed almost deserted during the day, occasional news reports of rape, robbery, and shootings would always bring a sober reminder of the nocturnal danger it posed. Outside such occurrences, Blacks could be expected to staff most of the town’s fast food restaurants, and a few could be spotted as security officers in the local mall, at least before it went bust around 2009. I can’t honestly report any bad experiences with any of them, and, observing and noting all of this, I remember thinking, as a more or less neutral arrival from Europe, that segregation of this nature largely “worked.”

I’m not suggesting that the lives of the Blacks were in some way marvelous, or even implying that they somehow should have been. But I do remember coming to the conclusion that a sense of peace was abroad in my part of the state simply because people were “keeping to their own,” and that things were existing in large part as they were meant to. True, there was occasional violence in the bad part of town, but outside of that, in daylight, there was a unspoken code of lingering tradition, manners, respect, and expectation. Men held doors for women in stores and restaurants, and even when I spent some weekends touring yard sales in remote rural areas in the hopes of finding something interesting in someone’s else’s junk, there was unfailingly a tremendous sense of safety, good-humor, and adventure with everyone I met. From the woman who simply “had” to introduce me to her daughter because the child’s name was Ireland (yes, I know), to the old veteran who gave me binoculars he’d carried through Burma just because I mentioned I came from a military family, the people of the South charmed me just as much as the landscape.

All of this was, in some small sense, surprising. It’s probably a given that Americans are raised with visions of the South as a highly racialized place, rife with injustice and violence. What is probably less understood by Americans is the fact that Europeans (and presumably all Westerners) are indoctrinated by their education systems to see the South in the same way. My childhood and early college education on American history, not to mention what had been absorbed via TV documentaries and movies like Mississippi Burning, had been more or less limited to the Ku Klux Klan, Emmett Till, and the sainthood and martyrdom of a heavily sanitized version of Martin Luther King. The people of the South could also be relied upon to be caricatured or worse by Jewish Hollywood in such shows as The Beverley Hillbillies, or in horror/thrillers like Deliverance or Wrong Turn, which invariably portrayed White rural Southerners to the world as stupid, childish, inbred, dysgenic, animalistic, and murderous. Added to this propaganda is a kind of “tourism block” that only serves to heighten ignorance. When most Europeans travel to America for vacations, especially family vacations, these trips are inevitably to the more global cities of New York, Orlando, Los Angeles, or San Francisco. I don’t have a single European friend who’s spent more than a layover in the South, and all of this only reinforces the general ignorance and propagandized vision. Contrarian by nature, I never expected the South to fit the Hollywood smears, but I do recall feeling a kind of refreshing shock that it was so radically different from the propaganda.

I’ve found it very interesting that, despite the many hundreds of thousands of words in mainstream coverage on America’s recent racial unrest, and despite the relevant and obvious historical contexts, hardly anything has been said on how relatively quiet the South has been. This is not to say that some protests and vandalism haven’t been witnessed, but that they pale in comparison to events seen in Wisconsin, and especially to those seen in Portland and other (often predominantly White) northern cities. Why this disparity exists is surely of some importance, and the silence around it is surely evidence of some mainstream discomfort regarding the conclusions one might reach. For my own part, I’ve engaged in a mixture of objective thought and personal recollection, certainly as regards the woeful Portland.

Objectively, it seems to me that the disruption of the Civil Rights movement between the 1950s and 1980s in the South led to a solidified state of unspoken, uneasy, but for the most part peaceful racial compromise. Segregation is certainly publicly and officially prohibited, but in my experience the Southerners more than any other people in America have perfected, if not White flight, then a kind of White entrenchment. For those Whites unfortunate enough to be poor, the Southern public schools have undoubtedly been catastrophically ruined by integration. A little over a decade ago, I got to know a North Carolina family with three sons. The older two had been through the public school system and emerged as rap-loving delinquents who spoke in an Africanized dialect quite distinct from that of their Carolina-born father and New Jersey-born mother. Both boys had been subjected to violence and theft from their predominantly Black fellow students, their subsequent changes in personality and behaviour being an obvious example of conscious or unconscious adaptation in order to survive. The experience of these unfortunate boys was sufficiently heartbreaking for the parents to make it their over-arching goal that, no matter the financial sacrifices, the youngest lad would get a private, and of course overwhelmingly White, education. Their frankness in regards to matters of race, especially to a complete stranger like myself, was refreshing and rather emblematic of the Southern experience as a whole. In my view, at least, there is a realism to Southern approaches to race that persists, although it dare not speak its name. Whites in the South seemed to me to be instinctively informed by race in a very natural and subtle manner, while Southern Blacks for the most part seemed to carry a healthy imprint of history and an awareness that while Jim Crow has been rendered toothless it’s best not to poke him too hard.

Contrast this deft sense of cultural equilibrium with the chaos of Portland, something that’s hardly surprising to anyone who’s been to the city. My own introduction to Portland was rather abrupt. My friend and I, being cheap college students, had flown out of Raleigh, NC, and landed at Portland’s PDX after two lengthy layovers in Houston and San Francisco. I’d already been told to “dress down” (and warmer!) for my time in Portland, and decided to travel in comfort with some jeans and a hooded Led Zeppelin sweatshirt I’d bought about a week before. I didn’t think anything more about my clothing until I was going to collect my suitcase in PDX, when a fat middle-aged woman wearing sweatpants barged towards me shouting “Name me two fucking Zeppelin songs!” In retrospect she was probably some kind of old groupie who resented the historicized commercialism that bands like Zeppelin and Black Sabbath had fallen into — not to mention the youngsters who wore merchandise without having “lived” 70s hedonism in the way she had. Stunned into silence by her utter boorishness, however, I couldn’t even verbalise the song titles that popped into my head. I just stared at her and in an instant she was gone. “Welcome to Portland!,” laughed my friend.

It wasn’t long before I realized I’d stumbled down a social and cultural rabbit hole. My friend’s mother, it emerged that first evening, was a (modest) donor to the SPLC, something I learned when looking for something to read, only to be handed, in what is surely now an irony of ironies, a copy of Intelligence Report. One of three daughters born into a conservative Republican Carolina family, this woman had rebelled in the early 70s, moving out West to become what her father would later describe as “a damn Oregon hippy.” It struck me very quickly that if anyone wanted to be a damn hippy, Portland was probably the right place to be. She’d arrived in Portland to fulfil her ambition of being a counsellor or therapist, falling in love with one of her clients, a recovering heroin addict who would go on to establish a very successful Portland business before dying of Hepatitis C, contracted during his former needle use, in his early 50s. Now, with her parents ailing, this ageing, “anti-racist” Portland hippy and widow was returning to the South and I — a young European with a hardening Far Right worldview — was helping with the big move.

Also helping with the move, I’d been briefly told, were a couple from central Portland, long-time friends of the widow. From their names nothing seemed amiss, but as we met for breakfast I was rather stunned to see that the individual with the male name was in fact an overweight lesbian in her 50s, wearing on her hands what appeared to be pink gloves for washing dishes. In fact, the peculiar couple were almost identical, both in their physical make-up and in the wearing of the incongruous gloves, which remained, much to my perplexed fascination, on their hands for the duration of the breakfast and for the rest of the three days it took to pack most belongings and sell the rest via a yard sale (where I was told to “eat shit and die” by an anorexic goth for refusing to haggle lower than a few dollars for an item that now escapes my memory). Things got progressively stranger as I took time to explore Portland. As the days passed by, it seemed to me that all of Hollywood’s characterizations of the Southern people as stupid, childish, and dysgenic would have been more appropriately applied to many of the denizens of Portland, whose physiognomy was as startling to me then as it now is to anyone following Andy Ngo’s Twitter account (or who clicks on #portlandmugshots), and whose lives resembled something from a Bukowski poem but without the latter’s redeeming pathos.

One thing I noted early in my stay in the city was the quite radical attachment of the city’s young to a need for some sense of superficial or aesthetic differentiation. In contrast to my experience in the South, in Portland a motley of exotic hair dyes, piercings, tattoos, clothing, and make-up were widely employed by goths, transvestites, and numerous unheard of, and possibly un-named, subcultures. On Day Two or Three of my stay, my friend and I heard that a young female relative of his was about to undergo scarification, a process where shapes or designs are carved into the skin with a surgical knife in such a way that the resulting scar will resemble a kind of morbid tattoo. We arranged to meet with the girl in question, who proceeded to show me a tattoo of a “nebula” on her calf that made the otherwise attractive young woman look like she’d survived some tragic accident. Even aside from my new pink-gloved associates, the city appeared replete with all manner of sexual identities. Scar Girl was, she proudly announced, a bisexual, and had also attached herself to the city’s underground burlesque scene, where the morbidly obese and the handicapped would parade their abundant or mortified flesh in the name of “body positivity.” My friend and I politely declined an offer to attend one of these events, but were happy to take up her offer to take us on a brief tour of the city, which consisted, at its lowest point, of a tour of the various stores selling drug-taking paraphernalia, and yet also of such highlights as the magnificent Japanese garden.

I asked myself — had the city ruined the people, or had people ruined the city? A long-time resident would be better placed to answer that than me. In either case, there’s an argument to be made that once a city establishes a certain reputation, that reputation can be hard to escape from. Decent people can be deterred from moving to the area, while untold numbers of misfits come in their floods in expectation of human acceptance and cultural chaos. Judging from Andy Ngo’s revelations about the city’s Antifa arrestees, the city is now a kind of Satanic black hole, drawing in via demonic gravity every pedophile, sodomite, transvestite, meth-head, and revolutionary Jew in its vicinity (incidentally, the city’s Jewish population doubled between 2001 and 2011).

Portland, for whatever reason, and for however long, had gradually come to see itself, and be seen, as a city proud of progressivism and difference for the sake of progressivism and difference. Almost 80% White, with a Black population of less than 6% and falling, Portland is the “Whitest big city in America.” In fact, the only significant number of Blacks I ever saw in Portland were inside the Lloyd Center movie theater, where, with only a handful of Whites at one particular showing, they chattered and hooted with stereotypical animation all the way through the film I was unsuccessfully attempting to watch. In the absence of significant numbers of Blacks and other exemplars of diversity, the city’s unaccountable and unhinged drive for “difference” has thus long been internalized into myriad pathologies — predominantly sexual, psychological, and political. I vividly remember one day going to Goodwill to look for old blankets that could be used for covering furniture and packing goods. As I neared the appropriate section of the store, I saw a young White, very Nordic, but hippyish-looking couple with the arms filled with almost every blanket the store had. I thought they might have a similar use in mind until a passerby asked them “Sweat lodge?” They nodded and smiled. It was only later, when recounting the story to my friend’s mother, that I was told that the city and its surroundings had a not insignificant subculture that involved Whites engaging with Native American spiritualities, participating in sweat lodges, Sun Dances, and even adopting new, and in my view hilariously pretentious, names like Ghost Horse and Running Wind. Just another symptom, I thought, of the inability of Portland to be content with itself and its authentic past.

An excellent test case for theories of “White pathology,” Portland now distinguishes itself in its role as America’s most politically violent city. About seven years ago I wrote an article for The Occidental Quarterly on Jamaica’s 1865 Morant Bay Rebellion. In the aftermath of the rebellion, which saw Whites massacred wholesale in the most brutal fashion imaginable, London’s Exeter Hall-based anti-slavery society issued numerous proclamations blaming the White inhabitants for the fact they were now having their eyes gouged out. Charles Dickens would later condemn Exeter Hall for their ill-informed and delusional “platform sympathy with the Black—or the Native, or the Devil—afar off, and that platform indifference to our own countrymen at enormous odds in the midst of bloodshed and savagery.” I wrote the essay shortly after an unrelated later trip to Portland, and the city was certainly in my mind when I wrote it. Like many Portlanders, the members of Exeter Hall had little to no meaningful experience with Black or non-White populations, and were thus free to entertain all manner of fantasies about human universalism and human rights, as well as self-aggrandising notions of moral superiority. These fantasies, stewing the minds of the deranged, are now driving chronic violence.

At last some of this can be interpreted as a backfiring of the ambition of the Oregon founders to create a White utopia. When the state entered the union in 1859, it became the only state to prohibit Blacks from living in its borders, and by the 1920s Portland, and Oregon as a whole, was an important northwestern hub for the Ku Klux Klan. It worked extremely well for a considerable time, but, unlike the South where racial realities remained ever present, as generations passed in the predominantly White northwest, memory of the founders’ rationale slowly dissolved, and the same fantasies that occupied Exeter Hall were able to incubate and metastasise. Combined with the insidious intellectual movements of the 1960s counter-culture, Portland gradually produced a witches’ brew of mental pathology, sexual deviance, cultural amnesia, nihilistic anarchism, and acute social decay. In short, my foremost recollection of Portland is of a city that forgot itself.

Ashland, Oregon, 1920s

If there is a moral to Portland’s story, it’s the importance of retaining and reviving the history of one’s people. We live in an age where cultural amnesia is encouraged, and where we are told that it is a moral necessity to forget a shameful past and race headlong into the “progressive” future. Portland shows where this amnesia and “progressive” future actually leads — degeneration, degradation, and swift collapse. The city is a kaleidoscope of the macabre; an asylum run by the inmates. It attracts the demonic and repels the decent, who must shake sinister dust from their feet on leaving. The South, meanwhile, “remembers,” which is why, infused with vast numbers of Blacks, it continues to produce White populations worthy of the name. The South may well rise again — certainly before Portland does.

Far Left Center for American Progress Hosts Netanyahu, Leader of the Israeli Ethnonationalist Right

Editor’s note: This was originally posted on November 15, 2015, but since Neera Tanden is in the news again as Biden’s choice to head the Office of Management and Budget, I thought it would be of interest. The Israel Lobby has nothing to fear from a Biden Administration. As the article by Glenn Greenwald (linked below notes), 

For years, CAP has exerted massive influence in Washington through its ties to the Democratic Party and its founder, John Podesta, one of Washington’s most powerful political operatives. The group is likely to become even more influential due to its deep and countless ties to the Clintons. As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent put it earlier this year: CAP “is poised to exert outsized influence over the 2016 president race and — should Hillary Clinton win it — the policies and agenda of the 45th President of the United States. CAP founder John Podesta is set to run Clinton’s presidential campaign, and current CAP president Neera Tanden is a longtime Clinton confidante and adviser.

When Israeli PM Netanyahu visited the US at the invitation of then House Speaker John Boehner in March, the take-home message was that support for Israel had become a partisan issue, with strong Republican support and relatively weak, dwindling Democrat support. Indeed, the Democrats have an analogous split between the donor class and it base that we  see among the Republicans, but for different reasons.

The Democratic Party establishment and donor class are strongly supportive of the Jewish state and are seeking to find new ways to increase U.S. military aid for Israel following the Iran deal. But recent polling shows that support for Israel among rank-and-file Democrats has fallen by 10 points in one year. A Gallup poll released this year found that fewer than half of Democrats, 48 percent, report sympathizing more with Israelis than with Palestinians as it relates to the Middle East conflict, while 83 percent of Republicans sympathize more with Israel. (John Hudson, Foreign Policy: Netanyahu Visit Sparks Internal Backlash at Powerhouse D.C. Think Tank

The White Republican base is more supportive of Israel (at least partly because of a large, terribly misguided Evangelical component) and thus more in tune with the donors on that issue. But it is famously out of step with the donors on social issues—immigration, gay marriage, abortion, etc. On the other hand, the Democrat base is far less supportive of Israel than the donors but, as a coalition of the ascendant non-White majority, it is entirely in step with them on social issues.

The common denominator is that in both parties the donors are substantially Jewish, and these wealthy Jews are pursuing a Jewish diaspora strategy of favoring Israel and leftist stances on social issues.

So in his recent trip to the US, in addition to dunning the Obama administration for a hefty increase in military aid in return for the US not bombing Iran (at least until the Republicans are back in charge), Netanyahu was invited to give a speech at the Center for American Progress, a powerful left-wing lobbying group. The result was that Netanyahu, dedicated to ethnonationalist policies of apartheid and ethnic cleansing vis-á-vis the Palestinians and expelling African migrants in Israel, spoke at CAP which is dedicated to the dispossession of White America via immigration and multiculturalism in the name of universal human rights and empathy for the oppressed. There were some tensions, but in the end, the strength of the Israel Lobby on the left in the US was reaffirmed — and CAP bigwigs burnished their credentials for high-level positions in a putative Hillary Clinton administration.

The tensions among CAP staffers were real—after all, not everyone on the left is dedicated to double standards and hypocrisy. A dissenting statement that received broad support at a staff meeting included comments on the 2014 Gaza bombing that resulted in the deaths “over 2000 people — many of them children” and the incongruity of supporting Ferguson protesters while turning a blind eye to Israel’s treatment of peaceful protests by Palestinians. (Ali Gharib and Clifton, The Nation, Dissent breaks out at CAP“).

CAP had already been under pressure for some time from neoconservatives and AIPAC for whom controlling the media narrative via censorship and intimidation is standard procedure.

The internal dissent at CAP comes after a report by Glenn Greenwald at the Intercept that exposed CAP’s conduct following a smear campaign against several of its staffers in 2011 and 2012, including us (Gharib was quoted in Greenwald’s report). After being attacked by Israel lobby groups and neoconservatives for critical writing about Israel, [CAP president Neera] Tanden implemented a protocol to monitor our writing, including setting certain subjects—such as criticism of AIPAC—off limits and, in one instance, censoring our work after publication. According to the Intercept, CAP imposed the measures as a means of currying favor with right-leaning pro-Israel groups and figures.

It’s therefore no surprise that the decision to invite Netanyahu required some intellectual gymnastics. Winnie Stachelberg, CAP’s Executive Vice-President for External Affairs, justified the decision by stating that Netanyahu would be subjected to hard questioning, and

she noted that as a think tank, “we believe we need to be open in engaging with people we don’t agree with.”

“Had we said no [to Netanyahu], there would be no public forum where he would’ve been asked tough questions, and quite frankly, we would’ve been hypocritical,” she said. She noted that the Israelis reached out to CAP in the first place and that in the past, CAP has been “highly critical of the prime minister for only dealing with the right.” (John Hudson, Foreign Policy: Netanyahu Visit Sparks Internal Backlash at Powerhouse D.C. Think Tank

So I guess CAP will be inviting me soon to discuss immigration policy and White ethnic interests.

CAP officials may well be motivated by the possibility of high positions in a new Clinton administration—yet another example of how Jewish lobbying groups are able to provide very tangible, career-making rewards for being on board with their agenda. All you have to do is sell your soul. The anti-White revolution is massively incentivized.

The controversy at CAP has gained attention given the organization’s close affiliations with the Clinton family. CAP’s first president and founder, John Podesta, was Bill Clinton’s chief of staff and is Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign chairman. CAP‘s current president, Tanden, served as policy director for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2008. If Clinton manages to win her bid for the White House, a number of CAP staffers are well positioned for plum jobs in the next U.S. administration. In Clinton’s bid for the White House, the Democratic front-runner has delicately sought to convince Jewish voters that she would be better for Israel than Obama. She has expressed this to wealthy pro-Israel donors in a number of closed-door discussions, with varying levels of success. Some Obama administration officials and left-leaning activists resent such overtures. (Hudson, linked above)

But besides personal ambition of CAP officials, Philip Weiss correctly blames the power of the Jewish establishment in the US:

The answer is not a conspiracy of donors. Though, yes, donors matter. The answer is the importance of Zionism inside the US establishment. It is the sincere belief among empowered Jews like Dana Milbank, Alan Dershowitz, and Matt Dorf that the establishment of Israel was the redemptive end point of a tragic European Jewish history, and that American Jews are equal partners in the fulfillment of that redemption. This is a sincere, core belief on the part of countless Jewish politicians, journalists, donors and thinktank officials, many of them liberals.

In the event, it was a cake walk for Netanyahu:

Yesterday was a display of the Israel lobby’s strength in the Democratic Party. Netanyahu’s audience was obtained by the American Israel Political Affairs Committee — AIPAC — and the room was rigged, the questions were rigged, every moment from start to finish was scripted to make Netanyahu seem acceptable in Democratic circles. The crowd in the room looked like it was drugged. [In fact, the crowd was by invitation-only, guaranteed to be supportive of Netanyahu.] There was no animation, little audible response, no effervescence. The room was stocked with pro-Israel Jews. The only questions from the audience were from stalwarts of the Israel lobby: Morton Halperin of J Street, David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Greg Rosenbaum of the National Jewish Democratic Council. The arrangement of these three questions, two of them putatively adversarial (a Jewish publication quotes J Street saying it was the first time that J Street had ever had a direct encounter with the PM), was straight out of the history of the Soviet Union.

Max Blumenthal said Tanden was auditioning for her job in the forthcoming Clinton administration, and nailing it. Adam Horowitz said, It’s not entirely surprising that Tanden was unimpressive, given that it’s not her area of expertise, but she cowered and Netanyahu loved it. And by the way, the awkward chairs displayed the Prime Minister’s sizeable gut. (James North and Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, Nov. 11)

North and Weiss conclude, a bit optimistically:

Yesterday was also a display of the downfall of the Israel lobby. This is what it’s reduced to: show-conversations, with a rigged room, inside the Democratic Party. Just about everyone in that room was old and just about everyone was Jewish too. It’s not American democracy on display; it’s the dead hand of an old order.

The entirely Jewish audience at an event hosted by an organization avowedly committed to a rainbow vision of America reminds us that this is all about narrow Jewish ethnic interests, and not at all about what’s good for the US.

Actually, the claim that the meeting was nothing more than “the dead hand of an old order” is a bit optimistic. Netanyahu also spoke at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, with the likes of Dick Cheney and Richard Perle in attendance. The neocons are still “the dominant foreign policy force in the Republican party,” and when it comes to donors, it’s not possible for any but the wealthiest Republicans to even think about running for president unless they receive the support of Sheldon Adelson and the Republican Jewish Coalition.

Jewish power is not going away soon in either party, despite the gaps between the donor classes and their bases, because, after all, the really big money provided by the donor class is essential to the success of any political party, and politically motivated Jewish money is not going away any time soon. Philip Weiss notes that “it’s been estimated that on the Democratic side at the congressional level on up, Jews account for half to two-thirds of the funding,” and it’s doubtless at least that high for presidential elections. On the Republican side, it may be slightly less overall, but it’s obvious that Sheldon Adelson’s $100 million for the GOP in 2012 and the other billionaires in the Republican Jewish Coalition simply can’t be ignored.


From Vox

As Norman Podhoretz noted, Jews fund the left in America. As I have noted several times, Jewish wealth would be unimportant except that Jews are very effective at using their wealth in ways that promote issues in both major parties that oppose the interests of the traditional American White majority, whether on Israel or on the social agenda of the left (immigration, multiculturalism). Indeed, it’s hard to imagine any candidate for president being successful without the support of pro-Israel Jews who are liberal on social issues—right now their favored candidates are Hillary Clinton and Marco Rubio. Unless they have their own money.

And that is a major attraction of Donald Trump.

The Great Kosher Seal Comparison: Is it Just Chutzpah?

It’s 1986, and J. Robert Thomas is excited as he awaits the approval from the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America to kosher certify Bickel’s Potato Chips. Thomas is Bickel’s General Manager, and in a small newspaper from Lancaster, PA, he tells the reporter “We feel there are a lot of people who look for that stamp of approval. It is a rather strict inspection and people know that the product is kosher.”[1] In perusing the article, it is amusing to read “Most chips fried in lard cannot be approved as kosher, because lard is usually a pork by-product and pork is forbidden to Jews.” Having reported on kosher certification for four years now, we have heard many tales of removing lard from the traditional recipes in American cooking, only to be replaced with vegetable oils to accommodate Kashrus law. This, alone, is a fascinating subject, probing how an entire food industry can transform its tastes and production for the demands of a religious diet and whether the added vegetable oils affect our health. But lard removal is not the topic of our piece today. Thomas continues “It lets people know we have a kind of Good Housekeeping seal.” And so 1986 was one of the earliest mentions we could find in our research comparing the kosher seal to that of Good Housekeeping.

This 1986 example is far from the only one. In fact, for over 30 years the kosher-certifying industry has been telling us  that their seal is like a Good Housekeeping seal—basically certifying that the product meets high standards. If that’s true, one would think that  companies would want to display their kosher seals prominently and clearly label them. First, here’s some more examples.

  • Ann Wainright, Manager of Public Relations for Pepperidge Farms, Inc. tells New York Times journalist Joan Nathan that “The decision to kosher-certify our products was a logical one. Kosher consumers appreciate the quality that goes into our products. We don’t think it offends anyone, and the kosher symbol is like a Good Housekeeping endorsement.”[2] [emphasis added] That was 1989.
  • Sheila Lebovitz, owner of the kosher restaurant Sheila’s Café in San Diego, was interviewed in 2001 for The Californian[3], a Temecula, CA newspaper, and in it she proclaimed that “Having a kosher mark is like giving it the Good Housekeeping Seal.”
  • Four years later in 2005: Elizabeth LeSure of the Associated Press wrote an article titled Medications start getting kosher certification[4]. She quotes Rabbi Eliyahu Safran as saying “Consumers are more sophisticated today,” and  she went on to say that “[Safran] likened the symbol of kosher certification to a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.”
  • In the same year the Orthodox Union got into the act and began marketing its kosher certification online by comparing it to that famous seal found in America since 1909: “The OU kosher symbol has come to be as universally recognized and respected as the Good Housekeeping Seal.”[5] Then in 2006 the OU claimed it was “the world’s largest kosher certification agency, certifying over 275,000 products produced in nearly 6,000 plants located in 68 countries around the world (now it’s up to 8000 plants in 104 countries).  This vast array includes consumer items, industrial ingredients, and food services. Like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, the logo, one of the world’s best-known trademarks, instills confidence in the purchaser that the product has passed inspection and meets high quality standards.”[6]  

They have continued to make such claims ever since, including a 2008 OU Kosher article article  in which Jeremy Fingerman, the CEO of of the R.A.B. Food Group (which owns Manischewitz and several other leading kosher brands), claims “Our research says that kosher certification is perceived like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.” Was he sincere in this statement, praising OU Kosher repute, or was this interview more or less arranged as a continuation of a four-year marketing ploy to hang their eminence on the coat tails of Good Housekeeping?


In Essays in Economic and Business History (2003) we find a great deal presented on the Good Housekeeping Seal: “The full extent of consumer awareness of the Seal in its mature years can be seen in the findings of Parkinson’s 1975 study. Working with a sample in Delaware, he found that the Good Housekeeping Seal had a consumer recognition rate of 98 percent, higher than any other seal or certification mark, including “U.S.D.A. Choice” and “Underwriters’ Laboratory.”[9] It adds regarding younger consumers: “Another study from the same time period (1980) found 60.4 percent of high school graduates and 48.2 percent of college graduates reported looking for seals before buying a product.” A 1997 reference from this history indicates that “a recent study showed 92 percent of [American Women] were familiar with the Good Housekeeping seal of Approval.”

These are certainly percentages that a worldwide kosher agency like New York City-based OU Kosher would strive for, especially after being in the food certification business since 1923.[10] And so it is understandable that they attempt to make this claim for similarity of brand recognition, as it probably helps this religious, tax-exempt, financial-disclosure-exempt non-profit grow its supremacy[11] over the secular marketplace. But the team behind Koschertfied found quite a different story after several surveys and a research study on the industry. In fact, in a survey[12] screening in particular for big-box retail members of Costco, we found that only 10% of these savvy consumers recognized the OU Kosher Seal (shown below). And this comes from a store where it is challenging to find any food products free from kosher certification.

Another survey of ours gauged the general familiarity of various symbols found on package labels, and here we discovered only 14% recognizing the OU kosher seal, while 88% recognized the recyclable symbol, 69% recognized the Gluten-Free seal (only in existence since 2005), and 73% recognized the Registered Trademark symbol properly.

Keep in mind that this Gluten-Free certification seal is always accompanied by descriptive text “Gluten-Free Certified”, although we didn’t include that in our survey. But it should provoke the reader to ask why “Kosher Certified” or “Kosher” text does not accompany the OU symbol in most cases[13].

And so the largest kosher agency in the world, in existence for 97 years now, has been for decades building its reputation and selling its religious intervention services by comparing its trademarked symbol with the iconic Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, while realistically only getting 10-14% recognition at best from the general consumer. 

There’s only 14 years separating the age of the two certification seals, but the differences are astounding, and they should alert the reader to ulterior motives on the side of the kosher agency. We summed it up in our Quantitative Study On Kosher Certification, and it’s all about transparency: No text descriptors; small seal areas averaging just 10% the size of other same package seals; segregation of seals from others on label; mono-colored as the norm, sometimes even camouflaged. In fact, we couldn’t help but conclude from that study that there was a systemic deceptive trade practice in play — highly secretive within the food and kitchen product industry, and purposely driven to keep consumers from becoming aware of the ubiquitous nature of kosher certification. In fact, in the process of researching for this article we discovered that even the Gluten-Free Certification is performed by Jewish OU inspectors through GFCO. But while the non-religious Gluten-Free non-profit[14] is a separate 501(c)3, they apparently care to have their trademarked symbol be easily noticed, no matter what package it falls on.

There are few products found in the supermarket that bare both seals, OU Kosher and Good Housekeeping. But allow us to use the most popular dishwashing detergent on the market as our prime example: Cascade.

The kosher seal here measures just 3.33mmin area while the Good Housekeeping comes in at 317.94 mm2 – for an area ratio of 95.5 times as large in favor of Good Housekeeping! The kosher seal is the same size as the registered trademark symbol found below and to the right of the “e” in “Cascade”, and many consumers likely confuse the kosher seal for that, and it literally is so small that many adults might require a magnifying glass to identify it.

Every word and number on the Good Housekeeping seal is legible, and the distinctive oval shape is large enough to be easily noticed, drawing the consumer to appreciating the quality and dependability that the seal represents. While the kosher seal is located on the front label, the Good Housekeeping seal (found on the side) still appears more like a true marketing feature for this product. The two seals are dissimilar in shape, size and legibility. And despite all the stipulations that probably are written into the contract arranging the kosher seal display, the low transparency must not bother either party. Indeed, the Cascade Team replied to our inquiry on the small size of their kosher seal by stating “The way it’s currently displayed is in-line with the guidance for use of the symbol.” When challenging them for specific details in the cost for this religious certification, they responded “[W]e pay a standard annual fee for each of our manufacturing plants”. Well, that explains it all!

The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval is an honest marketing symbol recognized by a majority of consumers, even 111 years after its inception. It is in a category completely separate from the equally aged OU Kosher seal. And to see a large company like Procter & Gamble display the diminutive kosher seal as if hoping that nobody would notice it, it should give cause to infer suspicious motives underlying the entire kosher certification affair. In fact, Cascade’s OU kosher seal is one of the smallest we have found in four years of research, while their Good Housekeeping seal is the largest certification we’ve come across.

In conclusion, we find a religious organization, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, successfully parlaying its Kashrus dietary laws on an unsuspecting consumer populace in the secular marketplace – and reaping millions of dollars of disclosure-free revenue in the process. About one tenth of the public may recognize their symbol on products, but that does not automatically convey that all of them seek to purchase items because of its kosher representation. The Cascade example and their vague response to our inquiries suggests that they do not want consumers to discover their religious intervention complicity, and maybe they are even embarrassed for kosherizing an inedible product, especially as there is much pilpul[15] required in justifying this[16]. This is obviously much different as to how they proudly display the Good Housekeeping seal. And so is there a realistic comparison? Our opinion: Not a chance!

[1] “Bickel’s Potato Chips Will Get New Kosher Stamp of Approval”, Intelligencer Journal, p.39, 4/30/86, by Michael J. Olimpi

[2] “Kosher Foods are Gaining a Much Broader Audience”, The Sheboygan Press, p.9, 1/17/89, by Joan Nathan

[3] “Kosher seen as healthier choice”, The Californian, p.25, 4/27/2001 by Jeri Westerson,

[4] “Medications start getting kosher certification”, The Ithaca Journal, p.8,  2/23/2005 by Elizabeth LeSure





[9] “The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval From Innovative Consumer Protection to Popular Badge of Quality”, Essays in Economic and Business History (2003) by Lauren Strach and Malcolm Russell of Andrews University, file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/118-Article%20Text-237-1-10-20200329.pdf

[10] Heinz Vegetarian Beans were first mass kosher certified in 1923

[11] “Consider the following scenario. A large pastry manufacturer, using hundreds of ingredients, applies for kosher certification. Ten of its regular suppliers lack adequate kosher supervision. The pastry company informs them that they either go kosher or it can no longer use their services. Each time another manufacturer attains kosher status, this domino effect accelerates and the kosher food market rapidly expands further.”

“Once, the OU had to inform an ice cream manufacturer that due to a lack of cooperation, supervision would be discontinued. The OU distributed notices to that effect. The owner of the company wasted no time phoning the OU’s main office (in an obvious state of panic). “Rabbi, I just purchased this company for $30 million,” he said. “Without the OU, it won’t be worth two cents. Almost all our business is private label supermarket brands, and if we lose your symbol, we will lose most of these accounts.”


[13] It often does in products produced strictly for the Kosher marketplace

[14] Gluten Intolerance Group of North America featuring “Certified Gluten-Free” seal

[15] Hebrew for Talmudic rationalizing


Was “Eyes Wide Shut” a Cultural Watershed?

“Eyes Wide Shut,” released in 1999, was the last film of the legendary director Stanley Kubrick. He died of a heart attack six days after he submitted the final cut of the film to the film studio.  Kubrick’s other films include “The Killing” (1956), “Paths of Glory” (1957), “Spartacus” (1960), “Lolita” (1962); “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb” (1964), “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968), “A Clockwork Orange” (1971), “Barry Lyndon” (1975), “The Shining” (1980), and “Full Metal Jacket” (1987).  A most impressive list.   While I’m sure “Eyes Wide Shut” was a seriously intended expression, and by all accounts Kubrick gave it his best effort, it doesn’t contribute positively to his oeuvre.

At least ostensibly, “Eyes Wide Shut” is an erotic drama Kubrick produced, directed, and co-wrote with American-born British resident Frederick Raphael, starring Tom Cruise and his wife at the time, Nicole Kidman.   It is based on the 1926 novella Traumnoville (Dream Story) by Arthur Schnitzler.  Kubrick and Raphael changed the setting of the story from early twentieth-century Vienna to contemporary New York City.   The film follows the—again, ostensibly–sexually charged night of medical doctor Bill Harford (Cruise).  It includes his infiltrating a masked orgy by a secret society and the apparent murder of a woman attendee.  The film grossed $162M world-wide, a very good return.  “Eyes Wide Shut” is widely available now for purchase and streaming.  It has its admirers and has become something of a cult film in recent years.

In the late ‘90s, “Eyes Wide Shut” received a great deal of attention in the media, both while in production and after its release, because of Kubrick’s excellent reputation and Cruise and Kidman’s association with the film. The pre-release media coverage was extended—the 400-day shooting schedule is the longest in film history.   Kubrick was known for his multiple takes—up to a hundred for a scene.  Harford’s encounter with a prostitute early in his roaming night—incidentally, the one good thing in the film—about seven minutes of screen time, took Kubrick two weeks to shoot.

Critics’ responses to the film at the time were mixed, though none of them was as scathingly negative as I’ll be here.  I saw “Eyes Wide Shut” when it came out and remember being disappointed after all the hype and almost completely unaffected by it; it stayed “over there,” it didn’t engage me.  I saw it again about ten days ago and this time, indeed, it was “right here” and not in a good way; I found it stunningly bad.  Words that come to mind include artless, coarse, contrived, sophomoric, undisciplined, and vulgar.  For all its sex talk, sexual situations, and nudity and couplings, this film curiously lacks eroticism.  While I found its merits wanting to say the least, “Eyes Wide Shut” intrigued me enough in my second viewing to spend a good a deal of time thinking about it, reading about it online—reviews, analyses and such–and going through co-writer Raphael’s memoir about his experience with Kubrick during the development of the screenplay (Eyes Wide Open, Ballantine Books, 1999).

Why all this attention from me to this bad film?  Because I speculate that “Eyes Wide Shut” may have been a watershed in our collective life, a turning point, an historical moment in the core culture.   It may have set the stage for, paved the way to, pointed the direction to, legitimized, what is going on now in center-stage mass entertainment taken seriously by critics and the informed—or perhaps better, pseudo-informed—public.  I’ll give over the next paragraphs to fleshing out that assertion and invite you to add your own best thinking to what I offer.  To orient you to what’s coming up, the last word in “Eyes Wide Shut,” and thus the last word in Kubrick’s directing career, is “fuck.”

*    *    *


I’ll begin by recounting how I came to watch “Eyes Wide Shut.”  I had streamed the 1967 French film “Belle de Jour” starring Catherine Deneuve and really liked it and was looking for a next film with that same theme.  “Belle de Jour” deals with sexuality and is about a young woman who spends afternoons as a high-class prostitute while her medical doctor husband is at work.  It was directed by the renowned director Luis Buñuel (“Un Chien Andalou,” “The Exterminating Angel,” and “The Obscure Object of Desire”), who co-wrote the screenplay with French writer Jean-Claude Carriere.   I found “Belle de Jour” the opposite of what I later found objectionable about “Eyes Wide Shut”: it is artful, refined, true, mature, meticulous, and tasteful.  Without any nudity at all, it was highly, and appropriately, erotic.

Looking around for a “next film” after “Belle de Jour, I read reviews of “Eyes Wide Shut,” and it seemed to be a good choice.   The late Roger Ebert in his review when the film came out in 1999 wrote:

Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman star as Dr. Bill and Alice Harford, a married couple who move in rich Manhattan society. In a long, languorous opening sequence, they attend a society ball where a tall Hungarian, a parody of a suave seducer, tries to honey-talk Alice (“Did you ever read the Latin poet Ovid on the art of love?”). Meanwhile, Bill gets a come-on from two aggressive women, before being called to the upstairs bathroom, where Victor (Sydney Pollack), the millionaire who is giving the party, has an overdosed hooker who needs a doctor’s help.

At the party, Bill meets an old friend from medical school, now a pianist. The next night, at home, Alice and Bill get stoned on pot (apparently very good pot, considering about a young naval officer she saw last summer while she and Bill were vacationing on Cape Cod: “At no time was he ever out of my mind. And I thought if he wanted me, only for one night, I was ready to give up everything.” There is a fight. Bill leaves the house and wanders the streets, his mind inflamed by images of Alice making love with the officer. And now begins his long adventure, which has parallels with Joyce’s Ulysses in Nighttown and Scorsese’s “After Hours,” as one sexual situation after another swims into view.

New York Times reviewer Janet Maslin concluded: 

This is a dead-serious film about sexual yearnings, one that flirts with ridicule yet sustains its fundamental eeriness and gravity throughout. The dreamlike intensity of previous Kubrick visions is in full force here, in an adaptation of a 1926 Viennese novella that is stark and haunting in its own right.  In Arthur Schnitzler’s ”Dream Story,” which the film follows with such surprising ease that its New York has a grandly Viennese flavor, a doctor and his wife are teased apart by sexual jealousy as the husband is drawn into ”a wild, shadowlike succession of gloomy and lascivious adventures, all without an end.”  Step by step, this languorous yet precise film glides into a similarly mysterious realm.

Seeing “Belle de Jour” and “Eyes Wide Shut” back-to-back as I did, prompted me to compare Bunuel and Carriere as people with Kubrick and Raphael under the assumption that the art we create grows out of who we are and where we’ve come from.  Raphael’s memoir made much of his and Kubrick’s Jewishness and the Jewishness of Schnitzler’s novella, the source material of what came to be called “Eyes Wide Shut.”  Examples: “Jews are often real Jews only with each other.  Gentiles never suspect this.”  “SK [Kubrick] has said more than once, ‘What do we know about how Gentiles feel?’  Yet he wants to suppress any overt allusion to Jewishness in our story.  He takes joy in the surreptitious.”  A notable exception to this assertion is the character of Victor Ziegler, who at the end of the film informs Bill Harford (the Cruise character) “how it is.”  The Ziegler name is often Jewish, and he is played by Jewish actor Sydney Pollack, who had replaced another Jewish actor, Harvey Keitel.  This kind of thing, which pervades Raphael’s book, got me thinking about whether the fact that Kubrick and Raphael were Jewish and Buñuel and Carriere were Gentiles contributes to an understanding of the differences between “Belle de Jour” and “Eyes Wide Shut.”  Does a Jewish sensibility infuse “Eyes Wide Shut”?   Raphael’s memoir seems to be saying yes, it does.  I’ll leave it to people who are more ethnically astute than I am to take this angle farther than I am able to.

In any case, it is important to look at who is producing art and entertainment for mass public consumption.  They are teaching us what to attend to and what to make of it and how to be.  In her New York Times review at the time, Michiko Kakutani notes that “Eyes Wide Shut”

 underscores Kubrick’s deeply cynical view of the world, his unaccommodated view of mankind as a species driven to distraction by greed and violence and its own delusions.

Later in her review, she points out that in his films Kubrick has portrayed sex

as an all-consuming obsession (Humbert’s compulsive pursuit of a pubescent girl in ”Lolita”), an uproarious sight-gag (the scene of two planes copulating in ”Dr. Strangelove”) and a brutal violation (the rape scene in ”A Clockwork Orange”), but it has never been depicted as a complex, emotional involvement encompassing love.

Who is depicting the world to us?

*   *   *

I’ve decided that the best way to get across my take on “Eyes Wide Shut” is through the dialogue of its climactic scene, an exchange between millionaire Victor and Dr. Bill. At Victor’s party, Bill’s piano-playing medical school classmate Nick tells him about an upcoming engagement where invitees to secret gatherings wear costumes and masks and must provide a password, which he gives Bill.  Bill rents a costume and mask and takes a taxi to the country mansion location.  He provides the password and enters and discovers a sexual ritual is taking place involving fifteen or twenty masked women, nude except for thongs.  They are virtually identical and resemble large-breasted store manikins.  One of the women warns Bill that he is in terrible danger.

Bill is unmasked by the master of ceremonies and it seems that he is in dire straits; perhaps he will be killed. The woman who warned Bill intervenes and declares she will volunteer to take his undisclosed punishment.  Bill is let off with a warning not to tell anyone about what happened.  The next day, Bill reads an article in the newspaper, “Ex-beauty Queen Dies in Hotel Drug Overdose.”  Could it be?  He goes to the morgue and views the body and is sure that it is the woman who warned him and then took his punishment. It wasn’t drugs; she was murdered, he concludes.  He is then summoned to the lavish residence of Victor; what about, he isn’t told.  This sets up an exchange between Bill and Victor in Victor’s billiards room that provides the denouement of the film.

Before getting into the dialogue between Victor and Bill, a couple of quotes that I deem revealing from Raphael’s memoir.  “Kubrick wanted to show, not tell.  He preferred to leave motive and ‘psychology’ to be divined by the spectator.”  Kubrick disparaging exposition in another film: “Know what they did?  They explained everything.  They told you what everything means.  Killed it.  You tell people what things mean, they don’t mean anything anymore.”  These quotes exemplify what Kubrick and Rafael did throughout their collaboration on the screenplay for “Eyes Wide Shut”—talk a good game and then produce commonplace, even contradictory, results.   See what you think, but to me this scene coming up is the longest, most heavy-handed, meandering, tell-not-show, drama-killing exposition movie scene of all time.  After all the references to Harold Pinter and the eighteenth-century letters of Junius, Kubrick and Raphael produce this rubbish—you and I could write better dialogue than this.   This scene is crude enough that after I typed it up, I went to brush my teeth.

So, millionaire Victor and Doctor Bill in Victor’s billiards room, the big climactic scene.

VICTOR.  Bill, I appreciate you coming.

BILL.  Sure.

VICTOR.  Sorry to drag you out here tonight.  Let me take your coat.

BILL.  No, no.  You know, I was out anyway.  Thank you.

VICTOR.  How about a drink?

BILL.  Are you having one?  Sure.

VICTOR.  OK.  What would you like?

BILL.   Just a little scotch.

VICTOR.  Good.  How do you like it?  Neat?

BILL.  Please.  That was a terrific party the other night.  Alice and I had a wonderful time.

VICTOR.  Well, good, good.  It was great seeing you both.   Cheers.

BILL.  Cheers.  Were you playing [referring to billiards]?

VICTOR.  No, I was just knocking a few balls around.

BILL.  Beautiful scotch.

VICTOR.   That’s a 25-year-old.   I’ll send you a case.  No, please.

BILL.   Sure.  No.

VICTOR.   Why not?

BILL.  No, no, no.

VICTOR.  You, uh, feel like playing?

BILL   No, thanks.  You go ahead.  I’ll watch.

VICTOR.  I enjoyed, uh . . . listen.   Bill, the reason I, uh, asked you to come over tonight is I—I need to talk to you about something,

BILL.  Sure.

VICTOR.  It’s a little bit awkward.  And I have to be completely frank.

BILL.  What kind of problem are you having?

VICTOR.  It isn’t a medical problem.  Actually, it concerns you.  Bill, I –I know what happened last night.  And I know what’s been going on since then.   And I think you just might have a wrong idea about one or two things.

BILL.  I’m sorry, Victor, I, uh . . . what in the hell are you talking about?

VICTOR. Please, Bill, no games.  I was there at the house.  I saw everything that went on.  Bill, what the hell did you think you were doing?  I couldn’t—I couldn’t even imagine how you, how you even heard about it, let alone got yourself in the door.  Then I remembered seeing you with that—that—that prick piano player Nick whatever the fuck his name is at my party.  And it didn’t take much to figure out the rest.

BILL.  It wasn’t Nick’s fault, it was mine.

VICTOR.  Of course it was Nick’s fault.   If he hadn’t mentioned it to you in the first place, none of this would never have happened.  I recommended that little cocksucker to those people and he’s made me look like a complete asshole.

BILL.  Victor, what can I say?  I had absolutely no idea you were involved in any way,

VICTOR.  I know you didn’t, Bill.  But I also know that you went to Nick’s hotel the next morning and talked to the desk clerk.

BILL.  How did you know that?

VICTOR.  Because I had you followed.

BILL.  You had me followed?

VICTOR.  OK, OK.  I’m sorry.  All right?  I owe you an apology.  This was for your own good, believe me.  Now, look, I know what the desk clerk told you. But what he didn’t tell you is all they did was put Nick on a plane to Seattle.  By now, he’s—he’s probably back with his family, you know, banging Mrs. Nick.

BILL.  The clerk said he had a bruise on his face.

VICTOR. OK, he had a bruise on his face.  That’s a hell of a lot less than he deserves.  Listen, Bill, I don’t think you realize the kind of trouble you were in last night.   Who do you think those people were?  Those were not just ordinary people there.  If I told you their names—I’m not gonna tell you their names, but if I did, I don’t think you’d sleep so well.

BILL.  Was it the second password?  [He was asked for a second password and didn’t know it.]

VICTOR.  Yes, finally.  But not because you didn’t know it.  It’s because there was no second password.  Of course, it didn’t help a whole lot that those people arrived in limos and you showed up in a taxi, or that when they took your coat, they found the receipt from the rental house in your pocket made out to you know who.

BILL.  There was a woman there who, uh, tried to warn me.

VICTOR.  I know.

BILL.  Do you know who she was?

VICTOR.   Yes.  She was a hooker.   Sorry, but that’s what she was.

BILL.  A hooker?

VICTOR.  Bill, suppose I told you that everything that happened there, the threats, the—the girl’s warnings, her last-minute intervention—suppose I told you that was all staged.  That it was a kind of charade.  That it was false.

BILL.   False?

VICTOR.  Yes.  False.

BILL.   Why would she do that?

VICTOR.  Why?  In plain words?  To scare the living shit out of you.  To keep you quiet about where you’d been and what you’d seen.

BILL.  Have you seen this? [The newspaper clipping about the hotel death,]

VICTOR.   Yes, I have.

BILL.   I saw her body in the morgue.  Was she the girl at the party?


BILL.  Well, Victor, maybe I’m missing something here.   You called it a fake, a charade.   Do you mind telling me what kind of fucking charade ends with somebody turning up dead?

VICTOR.   OK, Bill, let’s cut the bullshit, all right?  You’ve been way out of your depth for the last twenty-four hours.  You want to know what kind of charade?   I’ll tell you exactly what kind.  That play-acted “take me” phony sacrifice that you’ve been jerking yourself off with had absolutely nothing to do with her death.  Nothing happened to her after you left that party that hadn’t happened to her before.  She got her brains fucked out, period.   When they took her home, she was just fine.  And the rest of it is right there in the paper.  She was a junkie.  She OD’d.   There was nothing suspicious.   Her door was locked from the inside.  The police are happy.   End of story.   Come on.  It was always going to be just a matter of time with her.   You remember?   The one with the great tits who OD’d in my bathroom.  Listen, Bill, nobody killed anybody.   Someone died.   It happens all the time.   But life goes on.   It always does.   Until it doesn’t.  But you know that, don’t you?

*   *   *

Legendary film director Stanley Kubrick’s contribution to the culture.  I’ll leave it here and turn it over to you.  I won’t get into the part about the father prostituting his thirteen-or-fourteen-year-old daughter to two eager middle-aged Asians which made me hit pause.  What do you make of this?  I’m thinking that “Eyes Wide Shut” was a watershed, a harbinger, it set a tone, portended the future, marked a cultural shift, validated a mindset, passed the baton onto a new set of tastemakers, however best to put it.   Is there any validity to this idea, do you think?   How about taking it further than I have, either with this film or some other artistic (or “artistic”) expression, a film or television show, whatever it is.  Really, the only thing that’s come out of this consideration for me is a commitment to do my best to stay clear of creations as base as “Eyes Wide Shut.”  If nothing else, I’ll save on tooth paste, and mouthwash too.

Now or Never: A Call to White Resistance

I harbored no illusions about Donald “Platinum Plan” Trump, and did not plan on voting at all in this election. I knew that this election was almost wholly irrelevant to the American prospect, to the fate of White America. It isn’t that the “breathing room” argument is unsound, but rather that President Trump has never once shown the will or capacity to match his rhetoric with action. It’s the fact that the Republican Party is just as compromised by Satanic Jews as the Democrats, and the fact that Republicans have presided over the ruin of our nation without presenting any more than token opposition to the increasingly totalitarian Left. My feeling, put simply, was that the Judeocracy already had the reins of our nation firmly in its grasp, whether they permitted Donald Trump to be reelected or not.

And yet: I still voted for President Trump. I went to vote with the intention of only voting for the local and State elections, given that these are the people who most directly affect our lives, but, while I stood at the machine, I could not bring myself not to vote for Donald Trump. Despite the incalculable lost opportunities of the Trump Administration, despite my hard-nosed calculation that Whites were accelerating toward genocide either way, despite it all, in the end I clung to the hope that maybe another Trump Administration could in fact give us time, if only a little, to prepare to resist the Great Reset. More significantly, though, I saw it not as casting my vote for the man, but for the character that others had made him: the avatar of White America. My vote for Trump was a vote for decent, red-blooded Trump supporters.

I have spent the past three weeks ravenously consuming the daily revelations of what is, without a doubt, the most massive electoral fraud in American history. The evidence is too immense to recount here, and has been amply documented elsewhere, thanks in large part to the heroism of attorneys Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as websites like The Gateway Pundit.

I would like to be optimistic regarding the President’s odds of emerging victorious from the stolen election, but this seems foolish given the totally corrupt nature of our occupied government. To those of us who would argue that the enormity of fraud that took place to steal this election doesn’t matter, that we need to “move on,” I would say that it does matter. In fact, nothing matters more right now. The moment we “move on,” we concede; this concession, mind you, would be no ordinary concession, but rather a concession of our nation, our civilization, and our very lives.

We saw the color revolution as it was set into motion; in this respect, it was not surprising in the least. Watching the coup d’état in real time, however, is a different matter entirely. As Kevin MacDonald wrote in his preface to my book, this is the endgame in the Jewish conquest of White America. They are not hiding it now—it’s all in the open, plain for any thinking White to see. This election was not stolen from Donald Trump. It was stolen from White America.

There is one silver lining to the nigh impenetrably dark storm that now looms directly overhead: The System has been completely delegitimized for tens of millions of Whites in one fell swoop. This delegitimization will be irreparable if, after all of his efforts are exhausted, the American system of government fails to deliver the White House to President Trump. The President’s legal efforts will ultimately end in the Supreme Court, where there is only one reliably conservative Justice—ironically, Clarence Thomas, a Black man.

Even if those legal efforts fail, Republican State legislatures could simply choose not to certify their Electors for the Electoral College and instead send their own competing slate of Electors to vote for President Trump. Can Republican legislatures be relied upon to do the right thing? Unfortunately, they almost certainly cannot, although Pennsylvania is making moves in that direction.

So, if the President limits his options within legal means, he is likely—though not guaranteed—to fail. Too many compromised demons in human skin stand in the way. If he really does lose this, if a senile pedophile controlled by International Jewry is really allowed to steal this election, that’s it. Tens of millions of Whites will know, as the vanguard of White Nationalists have for decades, that the System is a sick, nihilistic sham. This Great Disillusionment is a tinderbox that, paired with the gleeful acceleration of the Great Replacement, provides us with all of the preconditions for civil war.

The Great Disillusionment promises to be a great boon for our cause. With each new betrayal by the Republican Party—the party that White America emphatically defeated and spat upon by voting for Donald Trump in 2016, more normie Republicans look to the solutions that we offer. Fox News committed suicide this month, and its tens of millions of viewers crave the answers that only we can give them. With every single new instance of anarcho-tyranny, average Americans understand that we are on our own. The Jewish Sackler family, solely responsible for initiating the opioid epidemic which has killed almost one million Americans, were just “punished” with a penalty that doesn’t even rise to the standard of a slap on the wrist. They deserve to be condemned to a lingering death as they watch their own loved ones waste away in thralldom to the poison they intentionally pushed on Whites for twenty years. Whites are awakening to realize that electoral politics is a will-o’-the-wisp leading them astray into a dark cul-de-sac, not the path to salvation.

There has already been at least one opportunity for civil war. President Trump’s base of support is emotionally invested in him; again, not as himself, but as the avatar of themselves, their families, and, somewhere deep down inside, their race. They will follow him if he calls them. In the immediate aftermath of the stolen election, the President should have called his followers—all seventy million of them—into the streets. At the Million MAGA March, he should have gotten out of his motorcade and led an impromptu rally. Instead, he allegedly played golf. Later that night, his supporters, who have gone unprotected by the State for four years, were beaten and harassed by Negroid monsters, Jewish black bloc militants, and deluded Whites. All it would take is one word from the President to conjure violent White resistance. We know it is a fantasy to expect him to do this, but White resistance is no fantasy. Far from it.

It truly is now or never. The Jewish Enemy is poised to irrevocably destroy America and annihilate the White race from the face of the earth. Consider what they are publicly planning for us; I will not recount the litany of policy proposals that the parties behind the potential “Biden Administration” have unveiled, as you’ve seen then by now. This is nothing short of extermination. But before then, humiliation. They state, openly now, that the Allied occupation and remaking of postwar Germany was too lenient, that Southern Reconstruction was far too kind to the White South. They look to South Africa as a shining beacon. White genocide is real, and it’s here. The fact that they feel no need to hide, explain, or justify it says everything. This is it. This is the end.

Will it be with a whimper, or shall it be with a bang? Are we men, or are we whores to Jewish money-power? Are we sons of the West, or whipped, besotted curs? We have run out of time. The United States of America might be a walking corpse, a rotting husk, but its people and our heritage are not. Our long slumber must not be mistaken for death.

The Enemy is the Jew. It has always been the Jew, and, until we act once and for all time, it will always be the Jew. We have no place anymore for anyone in our movement who does not accept this plain truth. Certainly, to enter into enlightenment on the Jewish Question, a learning curve is par for the course; yet once the truth has been illuminated for them, they must accept it. If they will not, they are not with us, and if they are not with us, they are against us. We care nothing for inclusion, but rather exclusion, for we cannot defeat that which we cannot name.

Speak now and spread the word among family, friends, and potentially sympathetic colleagues. Give them Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, give Christians my own book, send them to The Occidental Observer—before it’s too late. You have far more to lose than your social standing in a world where sodomy and pedophilia are celebrated as virtues.

Any mainstream Trump supporter already possesses extreme, unadulterated animus toward Jewish figures like George Soros. Many are aware of the role of the media in bringing about the torrent of hatred that has rained down on Trump from the beginning, and, if they are unaware of exactly who owns the media and whose views it expresses, they are aware that it is the enemy and that it must be completely tuned out. The increasingly paleoconservative-oriented base of Trump’s support, and particularly the younger generation that comprises the “Groypers,” is deeply and rightfully suspicious of Israel and its neoconservative agents, who have become clearly identified as the instigators of the “War on Terror.” This passed without much mention in the news, but Trump supporters will not be quick to forget Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s congratulatory message to “President-Elect” Biden, especially given that Netanyahu was one of the first foreign leaders to do so. President Trump unfollowed the Jew on Twitter; this was not coupled with any corresponding action, but it is something to work with. The millions of Whites who believe in the QAnon theory are well aware of the Satanic ritual pedophilia that suffuses the “Western” ruling class, and the case of the Jews Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell will not leave their minds anytime soon. It would be no stretch to suggest to these open-minded citizens that this is a modern manifestation of Jewish ritual murder.

Jews do not possess unlimited power; directed by their father in Hell, there is seemingly no end to the heinous depredations which they have perpetrated against our people and our nation. But this aura of invincibility is simply a smokescreen, based upon the simple fact that they have faced no meaningful White resistance since Charles Lindbergh and the America First Committee, and no White resistance at all in recent decades. It cannot be overstated: The Enemy seems to possess unlimited power, but he does not. This is only because he has operated unchallenged for at least eighty years.

Steel yourselves and fulfill the destiny of your forefathers. Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg? The Enemy certainly is. Nun, Volk, steh auf und Sturm brich los!