Everyone complains about the Left, but no one does anything about it. Or so it would seem. Part of the problem, I suspect, is that many in the public have mistaken notions about what “the Left” is and how it operates, and thus they more or less mindlessly support it, or oppose it, as the case may be. Hence it is high time for a hard look at this nefarious political entity, in order to devise better and more appropriate responses to it.
Let’s start with conventional views. A constant theme of right-wing and conservative commentators is that the Left dominates America today. This holds true across nearly the entire spectrum of conservatism, from the dissident- and alt-Right to conventional Republicans, to Pat Buchanan, to Fox News, to the Wall Street Journal, to the pro-Trump crowd. In fact, it’s about the only thing they all agree on. The primary concern seems to focus on media and on politics, the latter via the Democrats and the Biden regime. Many would include academia, Hollywood, and the public schools as well. Furthermore, this is universally seen on the Right as a disaster—and it is a disaster, but for reasons other than they presume—as well as something that poses a fundamental threat to America, to the “American way of life,” and to our very health and well-being. The Left, apparently, is the root of all evil.
But what exactly is “the Left,” and why are they so evil? This is rarely explained, likely because it is a relatively complicated matter that requires more than the usual 10 seconds of thinking. Given the importance of the topic and the seriousness of the threat, however, we need to dive a bit more deeply into it.
To anticipate my main conclusion: I think “the Left” is largely misnamed and misconceived—it is a kind of diversionary concept invented to distract from the real power-brokers and the real conflicts at hand. “The Left” is actually a kind of fake Left, portrayed as opposing “the Right,” which is in reality a fake Right. The net effect is to create a false antagonism and to encourage the unthinking masses to pick sides, even as they ultimately support the same side in the end. Unsurprisingly, the Jewish Lobby plays a large role here, as I will show.
I think many would be surprised to hear that real leftism is not what is commonly portrayed, and that it is actually (gasp!) not so bad. At the risk of being pedantic, let’s look at standard definitions of both “Left” and “liberal,” since these seem to nominally be at the heart of the problem. As I like to say, we need to know what we are talking about, if we hope to make any progress on these vital issues. Here, then, is a typical definition of “Left”:
Left n, cap a: those professing views usually characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established political order, and usually advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man. b: a radical (as distinct from conservative) position.
Thus stated, this is relatively benign. Anyone unhappy with an existing political administration will of necessity seek to reform or replace it, and thus we can all agree with this. However, it is surprising to see the Left defined as striving for increased freedom for the average individual, when today it is more common to decry the “liberty-loathing left.” It is true that those in power are working to diminish or restrict peoples’ freedoms—but this doesn’t make them leftists. In fact it makes them anti-leftists, at least on this definition. More problematically, we can have no doubt that “the Right” in anything like current forms, including neo-con and Judeo-Trumpian conservatism, would certainly (and in some cases did) institute their own forms of liberty restriction; hence ‘liberty-loathing’ is no hallmark of “the Left.”
As to the “radical” aspect, I would argue that this is largely in the eye of the beholder. To be a radical in this sense is simply to press for far-reaching and qualitative change, as opposed to “tinkering around the edges,” which can be considered a conservative approach. Clearly one can be a “radical right-winger” as much as one can be a “radical leftist,” and so part (b) does not offer much illumination.
What about “liberal,” or more generally, “liberalism”? Here’s what we might find:
liberalism n: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of man, and the autonomy of the individual, and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties.
Again, we find woefully little to object to here. I think we all are in favor of “progress,” even though we may have different ideas about what exactly that means. What about “the essential goodness of man”? That’s a strange phrase. It is almost a religious idea, almost like saying we are all “children of God” or something. But that’s nonsense. I guess we can agree that most people, most of the time, are good; but still, there are bad, malevolent, and detestable people out there whom I would never declare to be “essentially good.” That phrase might have been better stated as a general optimism about human nature, perhaps. And I can agree to this. I am generally optimistic about humanity; it is primarily aberrant conditions that cause the worst in people to come out. In a mass technological society, “people” can seem incredibly dull, ignorant, and short-sighted, but this is more a consequence of social structure than anything else. Much more needs to be said on this, but I defer that to another time.
“Autonomy of the individual” and “protecting civil liberties” are again, perhaps, a surprise. But they should not be. Liberalism, like liberal, derives from the Latin liber (free). A liberal is, literally, a free thinker; a key part of the definition of ‘liberal’ is the idea of “one who is open-minded.” Who among us does not claim to be open-minded? Hence a true liberal is a free-thinking, autonomous, civil libertarian. But doesn’t that describe the vast majority of “the Right”? What are we to make of this?
We are beginning to see the nature of the problem. Many of us, based on these definitions, would be forced to call ourselves “leftists” and “liberals.” And yet, many would never do this, even on pain of death. Somehow, politics has either become detached from reality, or it has altered the basic meaning of words so much that we, collectively, and quite literally, do not know what we are talking about. Or perhaps a bit of both.
If nothing else, all this suggests that the stereotypical right-left distinction has become almost meaningless, likely as part of a deliberate strategy of obfuscation. Clearly a more precise analysis is called for.
The Structure of the Fake American Left
The Left as commonly portrayed—the fake Left—is in reality a two-tiered system, composed of a small number of ideological leaders and propagators, and a large mass of people who generally self-identify as “Democrats” or “liberals.” In America today, ‘Democrat’ and ‘Left’ are virtually coextensive; nearly all Democrats are leftists, and nearly all leftists are Democrats. The terms are almost interchangeable. But here, I will focus on ‘Left’ and ‘leftism’ since that terminology has a broader international meaning than the American-only party of Democrats.
More revealing is who these people are. The elite leftists today are almost exclusively either Jews (of political, corporate, or academic stripe) or Gentiles, mostly White, working for and on behalf of Jews. (Whether these Gentile lackeys are aware of their subservient status or not, and whether they care, are good questions that I can’t address here.) In other words, the elite Left are either Jews or people beholden to Jews. Either way, Jewish interests and Jewish issues predominate.
We know this because, firstly, so many of the Democratic elite are themselves Jews (Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, George Soros, Jerry Nadler, Dianne Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Janet Yellen, Tony Blinken, Rochelle Walensky…) or have Jewish family members (Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, the Cuomo family). The pervasive Jewish presence in the Democratic Party is a fact never mentioned in the MSM, and rarely discussed even by their strongest right-wing opponents. This should tell us something.
Secondly, we know that a large majority of Democratic campaign money comes from Jewish sources. Over the past few decades, reported percentages of Democratic totals range from “about half,” to 50%, to “as much as 60%,” to “over 60%,” to as much as 2/3, to “70% of large contributions,” to 80-90%. A recent study, “The Jewish Vote 2020,” cites a number of relevant statistics, including these:
Late in 2020, in the run-up to the presidential election, it was reported that 15 of the top 25 donors (for both parties combined), or 60%, were Jews. Top Democratic donors were Steyer ($54 million), Don Sussman ($22 million), James Simons ($21 million), Michael Bloomberg ($19 million), Deborah Simon ($12 million), Henry Laufer ($12 million), Josh Bekenstein ($11 million), Stephen Mandel ($9 million), Soros ($8 million—although he funnels many other donations through various nonprofits), and Steve Ballmer ($8 million). These days, anything less than $10 million barely warrants mention.
So much for politics. What about leftist media? We know the main culprits: CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post. Unsurprisingly, Jews fill top spots at all these organizations or their parent companies. CNN’s president is Jeff Zucker, and is owned by Warner Media, with Jason Kilar as CEO. MSNBC is owned by NBC Universal, with CEO Jeff Shell, and top execs Robert Greenblatt, Bonnie Hammer, Noah Oppenheim, and Ron Meyer. The NYT has been Jewish-owned and -operated since 1896; the current owner and publisher is Arthur Sulzberger. The Washington Post has been Jewish-owned and -operated since 1933, with the possible exception of current owner Jeff Bezos (status unknown), who acquired it from the Jewish Graham family in 2013 (“at the suggestion of his friend, Don Graham”). We could include various other media entities, such as NPR Radio; elsewhere (note 10) I have shown that its on-air staff is over half Jewish.
In support of political and media Jews are the leftist “Big Tech” Jews, who include the likes of Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook), Larry Page and Sergei Brin (Google), Larry Ellison and Safra Catz (Oracle), Susan Wojcicki (YouTube), Steve Ballmer, Andy Jassy (Amazon), Marc Benioff, and Michael Dell (Dell computers). Thus, between money, power, media, and technology, the leftist elite—Jews and their sycophants—have a near monopoly on discourse in America and much of the West.
What about the base of the fake Left? This is a large group of individuals, mostly White, who have been deluded as to the true nature of that ideology. We can get a rough idea of numbers by considering the fact that Biden received about 80 million votes, of which some 72% were Whites; thus, there are about 55 million Whites who presumably identify with or favor the leftist Democrats. To this number we can add the 15 million Blacks and 10 million Latinos who also voted for Biden. The leftist base is thus about 80 million people. This is a large number, though not overwhelming in a nation of 330 million.
By contrast, Trump earned about 50 million White votes; another 50 million or so Whites did not vote. Hence, in rough terms, the (fake) Left has a grip on only about one-third of Whites; two-thirds elude their grasp. This is a good sign—perhaps the best news among a raft of bad omens. Something like 100 million Whites are either opposed, or potentially opposed, to leftist ideology. There is much to build on here.
In sum, the nominal Left is a fake Left, adhering to virtually nothing of the meaning of a true leftism. Rather, it is influenced and run, directly and indirectly, by wealthy and influential Jews. This fake Left is a Jewish Left, ideologically speaking, and it operates largely by and for Jewish interests. Likewise with liberalism, which today is a fake liberalism: an ideology that is fully aligned with Jewish interests. In fact, the marriage of convenience between Jews and liberalism has long been known. Consider this revealing passage:
Throughout the nineteenth century and later, the fate of the Jews would be linked inextricably with that of liberalism itself. Their loyalty to liberalism would be intense and abiding, nurtured on gratitude for rights received and determination to establish a permanent place for the Jews in the modern European world. Liberals, although scarcely ecstatic over persistent Jewish religious and social particularism, would reciprocate with toleration and increasing measures of equality before the law. Both parties, but especially the Jews, would be acutely aware that Jewish emancipation stood or fell with the fortunes of liberalism.
For well over a century, a majority of Jews have allied themselves with liberalism and leftism solely because it served their interests—the welfare of native populations be damned. In a sense, they hijacked an otherwise virtuous ideology and perverted it to their own benefit.
The Real Right
Now that we have done some preliminary analysis of the Left, let’s turn to the Right. In a popular sense, the Right has some stereotypical characterizations. We know the catchphrases: “Guns, God, and country”; “Don’t tread on me”; “Liberty or death”; and various takes on the notion of freedom. Again, these are constant themes across the conservative spectrum.
But how do these conventional ideas match up with the formal notion of “the Right”? Earlier I cited standard definitions of ‘Left’ and ‘liberal,’ and to be fair, I need to do the same for their nominal counterparts, ‘Right’ and ‘conservatism’. Here they are:
Right n, cap (1) individuals favoring traditional attitudes and practices, and sometimes advocating the forced establishment of an authoritarian political order. (2) a group or party that favors conservative, traditional, or sometimes authoritarian attitudes and policies.
conservatism n: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change.
As before, there are some surprises—mostly in what is not here. On the one hand, we find an emphasis on tradition and stability, gradual change (“reform”), and potentially anti-democratic policy, if this is how we may interpret ‘forced authoritarianism’ in this context. On the other, we notice what is missing: God, religion, rights, liberty, freedom. Nothing on “small government.” Even terms like ‘nation’ and ‘country’ are absent. What are we to make of this?
It would seem that, as with the Left, that the Right has also been distorted from its formal and definitional meaning into a kind of caricature. The current obsession with religion, freedom, patriotism, and formal democracy have been introduced by those who would like to divert people away from the true ruling entities in the US—Jewish money and power, Judeophilic lackeys, the ultra-rich, and a techno-industrial system that is spinning out of control—in order to confuse and distract the masses.
A true Right, composed of true conservatives, would do the following:
Incidentally, one troubling fact of the January 6 “insurrection” is that most of the people there were pro-America and pro-democracy (or so it is claimed). But true conservatives would not hold these views. True conservatives realize that “America,” in both practice and theory, is anti-conservative and unsustainable. America needs to be replaced with something else—something new, something different, something that will protect and defend the social well-being of the American majority and the ecological basis for it. Sadly, very few of the “insurrectionists” seem to have had any conception of the Judeocracy that rules over them and which dictates much of what Trump does and says; this strongly suggests that they severely misread the real basis of American power politics. Most of those people, I would suggest, are members of the “fake Right”—a manipulated and distorted ideology that serves the purposes of the ruling Jewish elite.
The True Problems with “the Left”
Returning to the main theme, the fake Left is a heavily Jewish enterprise. But most people, Left and Right, don’t know this or don’t acknowledge it, and they therefore don’t object to that fact. When those on the Right object to the Left, it is usually to more concrete (but secondary) issues. We can make a short list: leftists are for “big government”; they support “open borders”; they want to take our guns; they stifle our freedom of speech (or freedom generally); they are authoritarian; they conduct “cancel culture”; they demonize Whites; they are anti-Christian; they tyrannize the public, as via their over-hyped Covid panic; they “tax and spend.” Maybe even “they hate America” (if we listen to Tucker Carlson). Doubtless we could add more, but I think this covers the main concerns for most on the Right.
I cannot argue with these points; I think all of them are basically true. But there are deeper factors at work that help to explain this collective phenomenon, which is why we need to press a bit harder to really understand the process at work here.
When I consider the many objectionable features of what is called the Left, I compile a different sort of list. For what it’s worth, I find it to have the following negative qualities:
A desire to impose their beliefs and values on others. This is the “controlling,” “authoritarian,” and “liberty-loathing” aspect. Leftist liberals seem to have an inordinate need to compel others to follow their belief-system. They are the antithesis of “live and let live.” They have little or no tolerance for dissenting views, especially those that threaten their own positions. They know that rational dissent will severely undermine their credibility, and so they suppress it.
They are blind to the realities of race, biology, and genetics. For the Left, most all of human nature is a “social construction”—something pliable and malleable, something that can be defined and redefined almost at will. Humans are merely a plastic biology; the many races are rather like different colors of Playdough, all equally moldable into new shapes and forms. This results in an over-inclusive and naïve egalitarianism.
But this is not reality. The fact is that there are profound and unalterable differences between human beings, both between and within races. These are manifest in physical, mental, emotional, psychological, and cultural ways. They are rooted in genetics, and cannot be wished away. But leftists have deeply imbibed the fallacy of human equality. Many are also functional relativists who cannot bear to make value distinctions. (I should note here the difference between the leftist elite, who espouse views that they don’t really believe, and the naïve leftist masses, who generally do seem to believe them.) As a result, leftists say incredibly stupid things and make incredibly stupid policy proposals.
No concept of a noble humanity. When one swallows the myth of human equality, one condemns the human race to a miserable mediocrity. If all are equal, then none are better, and in fact no one can be better. Equality denies the existence of superior individuals, who are the very ones that drive society forward. When such superior individuals do appear—as they inevitably do—they are suppressed, censored, attacked, perhaps jailed, perhaps killed. Superior individuals put the lie to the myth of equality, which is one reason why they are so dangerous to the Left. Because leftists have repudiated the whole concept of a noble humanity, they represent a profound threat to human well-being. They effectively destroy the future of our race.
A pathology of pity. Leftists are pity-mongers in the extreme. They wallow in pity. They praise pity. And they sell pity. Great individuals and great societies do not wallow in pity. They accept pain, hardship, and loss, and then they move on. They give a fair respect to all of humanity, but they don’t elevate the lesser or the weak. They don’t allow the lesser to dominate or even to consume inordinate time or resources. The lesser of one’s own race are cared for, quietly, and the lesser of other races are excluded. Such an approach can seem harsh, but such is life.
Dangerous and possibly fatal naiveté. By accepting false but comforting myths, by failing to address the real threats to society, by adopting a de facto philo-Semitism, and by wallowing in an over-socialized and misdirected form of pity, leftists dodge the hard reality of the modern world. In doing so, they doom society to inevitable suffering and decay. Life is hard, evolution can be brutal, and choices are painful. Leftists, though, prefer the easy way out; they seek to avoid all conflict and confrontation, and are happy to surrender control of their lives to, for example, a Jewish elite who would like nothing more than to use them, exploit them, and utterly crush them in the end.
Only by addressing these deeper failings of the Left can we get to the root of the problem.
Where Is the Opposition?
As I mentioned above, all sectors of the Right oppose leftism, but most are half-hearted—or worse. Let’s take a specific example. Perhaps the most visible and vocal critic of the Left is Tucker Carlson of Fox News. In my essay Dissecting Tucker Carlson, I have critiqued his modus operandi, but here I want to emphasize his deeper alignment with the Left.
Let’s compare Carlson’s worldview to that of the typical leftist. (A) The leftist, being a naïve egalitarian, is an anti-racist. He believes deeply in human equality. He is pro-democracy (at least verbally) and he supports “America.” He is materialistic; he strives for a thriving economy, economic growth, and material prosperity. Most importantly, he is philosemitic; he supports Israel, defends Jewish interests, promotes Jewish ideology, and gives free reign to Jewish voices. The leftist never ‘outs’ Jews, never really criticizes Israel, never seeks to limit Jewish dominance in government, finance, media, or academia, and never calls to restrict their activities. In this way, the leftist maintains his status and material well-being.
(B) Tucker Carlson, being a naïve egalitarian, is an anti-racist. He believes deeply in human equality. He is pro-democracy (at least verbally) and he supports “America.” He is materialistic; he strives for a thriving economy, economic growth, and material prosperity. Most importantly, he is philosemitic; he supports Israel, defends Jewish interests, promotes Jewish ideology, and gives free reign to Jewish voices. Carlson never ‘outs’ Jews, never really criticizes Israel, never seeks to limit Jewish dominance in government, finance, media, or academia, and never calls to restrict their activities. In this way, Carlson maintains his status and material well-being.
I trust that we can see the similarities here. And yet Carlson is supposedly an exemplary member of “the Right.” Sadly, he is not alone; the above description applies to a large majority of the nominal Right. This is precisely why the alleged Right is a fake Right, and why so many populist conservatives are fake conservatives.
If Carlson and others were true right-wingers, and true conservatives, they would display the characteristics I cited above. They would be openly and explicitly anti-minority, anti-egalitarian, explicitly “racist” (or “racialist”), anti-Semitic, pro-environment, anti-technology (and not just anti-Big Tech), and perhaps even anti-democratic. They might be anti-capitalist, knowing the disruption caused by unrestrained free-market capitalism. God forbid, they might even be a little socialist! They would be not so much patriotic—which implies a kind of naïve acceptance of the ruling class and the existing political order—but rather truly nationalist, in the sense of defending the interests one’s own race and ethnicity, which is, after all, the true basis of a “nation.”
Where, then, are the true conservatives? Where lies the true Right? It is almost impossible to find, even in the big wide world of the Internet. Thank God for organizations like The Occidental Observer, The Unz Review, and National Vanguard, who are willing to call a spade a spade. Thank God for individuals like Kevin MacDonald and Andrew Anglin, William White Williams and David Duke, who are willing to speak openly and intelligently about the Jewish Question. Thank God for the small circle of leading Holocaust revisionists, who work relentlessly to undermine the keystone of Jewish mendacity. Without such individuals, we would be lost. With them, we have hope.
The Way Forward
In sum, the popular Left-Right divide in American politics is a fake dichotomy, constructed by and serving the interests of a Jewish elite and their well-paid Gentile lackeys. When people focus all their attention and energy on this contrived distinction, they are distracted from, and thus overlook, the true and deeper causes of social crisis in this country. The fake Right and the fake Left both serve their Jewish masters. Only by moving beyond this superficial divide can we get to the root of things.
There are positive aspects of both real leftism and real conservatism. We should indeed be open-minded, free-thinking, non-dogmatic, and progress-oriented. We should indeed defend individual autonomy, and political and civil liberty, while promoting the better instincts of humanity. At the same time, we should be truly nationalist: that is, defending the integrity and well-being of White Americans. We should work toward a relatively homogenous, monocultural, mono-ethnic nation, which is the only type of nation proven to be stable and sustainable. We should be ardent environmentalists, preserving wild nature, expanding wilderness, and protecting indigenous species; without this, we cannot hope for a flourishing society. We should put sharp limits on free-marketeers, finance capitalists, and financial speculators; if this means moving toward a limited socialism, so be it.
Above all, we should end the constant clamor over the bogus Left-Right confrontation, and focus on what really matters: subverting the dominant Judeocracy, creating a manageable and ethnically-uniform nation (or nations), and getting down to the hard work of restoring a sane society. I fear that we haven’t much time to spare.
Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany. His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020). Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!. All these works are available at www.clemensandblair.com. For all his writings, see his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.
 It will be a cold day in hell before Tucker Carlson or Sean Hannity ever speak explicitly about the Jews on the Left.
 Jewish Power, by J. J. Goldberg (1996), p. 277.
 Jerusalem Post (27 Sep 2016).
 Washington Post (13 Mar 2003), p. A1.
 Jewish Power in America, by B. Feingold (2008), p. 4.
 Jewish Telegraphic Agency (7 Jun 2011).
 The Hill (30 Mar 2004), p. 1.
 Passionate Attachment, by Ball and Ball (1992), p. 218.
 This fact alone is damning; I know of no instance in which Jews have sold a major media company to a non-Jew. And the fact that Bezos turned over operations of Amazon to another Jew, Andy Jassy, is a further indication.
 The Jews in Weimar Germany, by Don Niewyk (1980), p. 1.
 More needs to be said on this, which I will address in a subsequent essay.
 Again, the Left has no monopoly on this issue. The Right can be just as imposing.
 One need only watch any episode of popular television shows, especially so-called reality TV. Shows like “American Idol” or “Dancing with the Stars” or “America’s Got Talent” are endless parades of sob stories. Crying contestants are de rigueur.
 There are, of course, differences: Carlson is anti-immigration, pro-Christian, Covid-skeptical, and withering in his critique of the Biden regime. But the similarities are more significant and more consequential than the differences.
 ‘Nation’ comes from Latin natus or natio, that is, those who are “born together,” or of similar birth.
 Among whom I would include Germar Rudolf, Carlo Mattogno, and Jürgen Graf. Any discussion of Holocaust revisionism that does not mention these men is not worth its salt.