U.S. Neo-Communist-Prop

“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”
-Interview with Theodore Dalrymple by Jamie Glazov, FrontPageMagazine.com, August 31, 2005

Ever since I saw this quote a few years ago, soon after the covid phenomenon began in 2020, it has haunted my perception of the Government/Media/Academia (GMA) Complex (if there exists a Military/Industrial Complex, there exists others, and GMA is one. They all join together in one Meta-Complex we might call the New World Order or Great Reset). This quote is troubling to consider, because it reveals that we in the U.S. live under a Communist GMA mind tyranny. Too few people understand this, believing Communist influence faded in the U.S. after WWII and especially after the “McCarthy Era” ending in the mid-50s.

No. Communism of course only expanded its influence and power after the National Socialists and Fascists lost to Communism in WWII (European Civil War 8B). The U.S. and Britain fought on the Communist side, having been infiltrated by Communists, many of them Jews. Communism expanded further after one of the only checks and limits on Communism in the U.S., Senator Joseph McCarthy through the Senate Sub-Committee on Permanent Investigations (not the House Un-American Activities Committee), was defamed and deposed.

This has led directly to our Neo-Communist domination today, and Dalrymple’s quote reveals it. It is a tremendous struggle for many Americans today to consider that we suffer under a Communist propaganda onslaught. So perhaps it helps to label it Neo-Communism, since it has morphed beyond class warfare into many other divisions, and has incorporated new oppressive technologies (both should be essays of their own). I have studied Communist strategies and influences in a number of books, such as Behind Communism by Frank L. Britton and The Naked Communist by W. Cleon Skousen. Many other sources can be cited addressing Communist propaganda as a culture weapon, but here we will examine Dalyrmple’s for its insights.

First we must examine Dalyrmple. He is half-Jewish through his mother, and his father was a “Communist businessman.” That is a significant tautology! His real name is Anthony Malcolm Daniels. Beware of Jews with Communist businessman fathers who change their names. Daniels/Dalrymple was a prison doctor and psychiatrist, and became a “conservative English cultural critic,” of all things. He is the author of at least 20 books between 2001 and 2015, and is the Dietrich Weismann Fellow at the Manhattan Institute.” (At least two of three “recent content” articles featured at the Manhattan Institute appear to be authored by Jews: Shapiro, and Goldberg & Kaufmann. In an apparent synchronicity, as I wrote this Professor MacDonald posted “Twitter feed from E.P. Kaufmann showing the effectiveness of propaganda on children,” on the very same day, referencing the same essay I saw on the Manhattan Institute site.)

Dietrich Weismann was a “Chairman for the Board of Trustees in the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research,” deceased 2015. Mission statement: “The Manhattan Institute is a think tank whose mission is to develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility.” The Board of Trustees is loaded with high-power Jews, such as Chairman Paul Singer (billionaire vulture fund manager, LGBT philanthropist, etc.), Maurice Greenberg (former executive at bankrupt AIG, friend of Henry Kissinger, former vice chairman of Council on Foreign Relations, member of Rockefeller Trilateral Commission, critic of Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s “holocaust denial,” etc.), Robert Rosenkranz (Chairman Delphi Capital Management, member CFR, etc.), and many other high-power Jews.

Dalrymple’s quote appears to warn us about the dangers of Communist propaganda, but we must consider that it may be part of the strategy of managing both sides of the mainstream political spectrum (like the rest of mainstream conservatives (including all the talking heads at FoxNews) the Manhattan Institute would never stand up for White interests or deal with the role of Jews in our dispossession); or it may be an example of the indoctrination/familiarization influence, what Michael Hoffman calls The Revelation of the Method (pp. 35–6). The latter is a dangerous stage of Communist propaganda where the techniques used against us are shown to us, when we have little power to resist. It instills deeper demoralization and subservience to Communist rule for us to know yet remain impotent. It shows their almost total confidence in their power over us. Orwell’s 1984 should be considered not a cautionary tale or a warning of a near-future Communist dystopia, but perhaps a Revelation of the Method, indoctrinating us to being more likely to passively accept having read Orwell. He was after all embedded in a Trotskyite unit fighting on the Communist side of the Spanish Civil War.

Dalrymple may be the same. He says, “the purpose of Communist propaganda was … to humiliate. … The less it corresponded to reality, the better.” We have many examples to consider today, such as Critical Race Theory demonizing Whites in a campaign of “anti-racism,” “diversity is our strength” as migrant violent crime decimates the White population, gender reassignment surgery for children declared “gender affirming care,” and closing schools, bankrupting businesses, denying right to assemble, and mass injection (often under extreme pressure of loss of employment) of an under-tested experimental high-tech substance that does not meet the legal or medical definition of traditional vaccines will rescue public health and help us “build back better.” Dalrymple’s quote explains a great deal in our society that would be otherwise not just baffling, but maddening.

Jews play an overwhelming role in afflicting this humiliating propaganda upon the U.S. population, just as Jews played an overwhelming role in Communism historically. And they use their very prominent position in the GMA Complex power to impose brutal punishment through public defamation, demonetization, ostracism, prison and even death on any who speak out against these obvious lies.

Disbelievers “are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves.” Drastic psychological damage is inflicted when people know something is false, but are inhibited by fear from saying so, or even pressured into mouthing the lies themselves, and even believing them; “they lose once and for all their sense of probity.” The lies are advertised as nothing but aspirations to the highest ideals—integrity and honesty to self and others. This is deeply demoralizing. The goal of neo-communist propaganda is suppression of dissent against it, and forced compliance with it. “To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself.” Neo-Communist Jews in the U.S. today impose their own evil—Jews and Their Lies—upon the goyim, in a process of projection-conversion. When we merely assent to silence, we participate in the evil. We are Judaized.

They say in their own causes: “Silence is violence,” and “See something, say something.” Those who break that silence and say something are rewarded. Yet they make saying something against their propaganda dreadfully costly and even painful. This is why free speech is now very expensive.

Daniels/Dalrymple summarizes: “A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.” Presumably he means “emasculated” as a lack of courage to speak truth to power. We become liars even to ourselves by failing to assert our own truths in the face of such obvious lies. In the Communist societies Dalyrmple and I have studied, everyone knew the official state propaganda was lies. Astonishingly, a significant percentage of people on both sides of the politically bi-partisan lies actually believes them, no matter how deliberately and intentionally it failed to correspond to reality. “Obvious lies,” are adopted as true by many Americans. And passionately. Interpreting Dalrymple, our neo-communist overlords would prefer we know it is all lies, and so they present their blatant absurdities in escalating extremism—but still gullible Americans believe. Ignorance is bliss, and perhaps they paradoxically escape the worst damage suffered among those who see the lies but dare not refute them.

It has been said by Solzhenitsyn that Americans are weak because we have not suffered under Communist domination, to gain perspective and make us strong. We are suffering now under Neo-Communist propaganda evil, and while many succumb to it—they can fool some of the people all of the time, and some of the people part of the time, but they can’t fool all of the people all the time. But the disbelievers  are far too often the ones forced to toe the lies and demoralize themselves, to renounce their probity.

Many have already defied this and spoken truth about power and to power. That is why we speak Taboo Truth. That is why the Occidental Observer presents the great body of knowledge it commands. Many other outlets of lie-busting and truth telling are here and growing. We retain our probity and undermine evil in the culture war for the Good Society founded on Truth. Truth leads to the Good Society. Neo-Communist lies now forced upon the U.S. population lead to ruin, chaos, enslavement and death, a tyranny of Neo-Communist overlords upon the “society of emasculated liars.”

Truth is our weapon in this culture war. Probity is our shield. They are trying to disarm us. Hold fast to the weapon of Truth and defend with the shield of probity. Daniels/Dalrymple as the son of a Jewess and a “Communist businessman” and a Fellow at the very Jewish Manhattan Institute may be showing us his strategy to deepen our demoralization. This should backfire. The more who know, the more we grow. Popular blowback is a growing tide that no Neo-Commie lies can stop. Power will always rise strong among a people of re-masculated truth-tellers.

70 replies
  1. Robert Penman
    Robert Penman says:

    My great concern is with Artificial Intelligence technology, if these forces believe too many are waking up, they will use artificial intelligence technology to fake and invent news, events and “historical events”. This will further isolate those of us awake to them. This is my greatest fear now.

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      01 Excellent, vital point.

      02 All we can do is to increase our vigilance and share any carefully analyzed and explained AI observations as widely as possible. Particularly get our observations and results/conclusions to likeminded podcasters and relevant sites.

      03 Most importantly, don’t fear it: regard it as you would, learning a new language.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      We are the new Samisdat. In Stasi East Germany, citizens would risk printing and passing small info sheets of their own making, countering the Commie Agit-Prop. It was dangerous to be caught in this activity. It is not nearly so dangerous for us today, and so we must increase our Neo-Samisdat.
      Donate to TOO.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      A fully rationalized Bell Curve distribution of middle classes income and the one and only “fair tax” ( called a Flat Rate Income Tax ) would practically eliminate any significant possibility for an AI tyranny by the globalist ILLuminati jewmasterss rulers .

      Further elaboration is beyond the scope of this comment .

      Why finance government with any tax other than a “fair tax” ?

      What kind of government do you have when it is financed by all and only
      [ unfair ] taxes ?

  2. Tim Folke
    Tim Folke says:

    The third paragraph of this excellent article sums it all up.

    As has been pointed out by others, when NS German invaded Poland from the west on 1 September 1939, England and France declared war on Germany.

    But when the (Communist) Soviet Union concurrently invaded Poland from the east, France and England made no such declaration.

      • B. Rockford
        B. Rockford says:

        @ Herr Haemers
        Look up the CPSU publication, “The Jewish People & the War” (1940), by Earl Browder, for information on cause and effect as interesting as the American First Committee’s.

  3. Harry Warren
    Harry Warren says:

    “It instills deeper demoralisation and subservience to Communist rule for us to know yet remain impotent. It shows their almost total confidence in their power over us.” As do the TV ads (in Britain at least, the country now rebranded as ‘Yu-Keh’) which, since the end of the 20th century, have been increasingly stuffed with sub-Saharan Africans and images of British family life wherein a white, British woman appears as the doting spouse of a sometimes markedly brutish sub-Saharan African. No one ever remarks on the oddness of this except in private conversation – neither members of the government nor the emasculated, bought-and-paid-for news media – because they daren’t.

    • ChilledBee
      ChilledBee says:

      “neither members of the government nor the emasculated, bought-and-paid-for news media – because they daren’t.”

      What has always struck me very odd about frequency of these ads with Black men/White women – is why Black woman do not seem to have a problem with it. There are many, many instances where Black women are exceedingly vocal about racial issues yet they don’t seem to take issue with this. If I was a Black woman I would find this quite offensive as it is really signalling to the public that Black men prefer White women over Black women. Unless I am missing something here?

      • Barbara
        Barbara says:

        Blacks have all civil rights that we do in addition they have PC and affirmative action. What they want is race mixing. They’re not happy with all their rights and freedoms and first world life, they will not stop until they have torn down all white defenses and can mix with whites.

      • Aiden Lake
        Aiden Lake says:

        Some black women have shown concern about this. One consequence is that some make themselves more sexually attractive and available, lowering the moral compass.

        • Karl Haemers
          Karl Haemers says:

          In relation, black women prefer white men, but achieve this far less often than the reverse.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      It is the same in the US. A foreigner watching US TV commercials would believe almost the entirety of US families are made of black man/white woman. This is in fact the smallest percentage of mixed-race couples, at 11% (and rising unfortunately).
      A good treatment of this phenomenon and related is Guillaume Faye’s Sex and Deviance.

  4. Flo
    Flo says:

    Daniels began writing a column — “The Doctor is In” — in The Spectator back when he was a young practicing physician. It was necessary for him to choose a pen name lest any of his patients and colleagues be identifiable. He said he chose “Theodore Dalrymple” because it sounded like a crusty old gent. All of his many admirers know he’s really Anthony Daniels; he doesn’t make any attempt to hide or deny his identity.

  5. Desert Flower
    Desert Flower says:

    I have purchased and read several of Theodore Dalrymple’s books. I always found him interesting, but I also found it perplexing how he would point out (quite rightly) how ugly modern architecture is, the growing lack of decorum and taste in the native English, and the problems with Muslim culture in Britain, but never names the Jews. And Jews obviously have a heavy hand in the chaos and destruction and ugliness. I assumed this omission might have something to do with his background (as a son of a Jew) and his colleagues who publish his works. This nod to decency is understandable but not excusable for someone who presumes to be a “seer” of modern culture.

    I would chuckle when he ridiculed “right-thinking” people (that is, the politically correct/woke people), but the more I read him, I began to get annoyed with “decent-thinking” too (that is, people like him). The house is being burned down and he is standing on the porch, surrounded by flames, decrying the lack of taste and style in architecture!

    He is an excellent essayist, however I do find the omission of the identity of the (majority of) flamethrowers to be dishonest. I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest it is unconscious, but the good doctor is far too intelligent not to know what he is doing. He is a careful writer. And this is what is demoralizing for me.

    That said, the quote by Dalrymple at the top of this essay ignited a light in me when I first read it a few years ago. That, and the quote by Joseph Sobran about the humiliation felt by non-Westerners who see the beauty and achievements of Western Civilization. At least Joe named the Jews from time to time. I read both Dalrymple and Sobran with pleasure and appreciated how each could brilliantly articulate things I sensed but could not articulate myself. But there was always a question mark over Dalrymple’s name in my mind. I think I only continue to read Mr. Dalrymple because I admire his writing style very much.

    Thank you for this essay, Mr. Haemers.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      I appreciate your comment Desert Flower. You have read more of Dalrymple than I.
      I too saw a light come on when I read his statement on “political correctness.” The only other writer I saw coming close was Hoffman.

    • John the First
      John the First says:

      One habit of Jews, is that they are babblecunts who stick their nose into everything, and also everything which is above their heads. They take over the interpretation of all Western ideas, they hijack the thoughts of our best thinkers.
      One of such idiotic attempts by Theodore Dalrymple is his silly cliché criticism of Oscar Wilde’s The Soul of Man under Socialism. What ever you might think of these works, the fact that you are reading Dalrymple, means you are reading Jew interpretations of non Jew thinkers.


    • John the First
      John the First says:

      By being prominently on the forefront, not as Jews, but as writers (and in the background as financiers), Jews hijack all Western ideas, bending them to their (current) needs. So if you find yourself reading a lot of material from Jews, you should best think about taking these ‘middlemen’, these ‘mediators’ out.

  6. Thomas Faber
    Thomas Faber says:

    Orwell, I think, went to Spain as a genuine believer in Socialism/Communism, who changed his mind after his experiences there. That, at least, is the clear impression I got from reading his “Homage to Catalonia”, describing his time in Spain, during the Civil War. At the end of the book, he is still digesting his experiences, but there is a clear sense of disillusionment with both Socialism and Communism – he simply could not believe in the same way after having witnessed firsthand the incredible lies and hypocrisy that came out of the Socialist/Communist organizations (he frankly describes it). The book is very much worth reading – if for nothing else, for his outstanding writing and plain, powerful prose.

    Reading his books about poor people in Britain and France (written before he went to Spain), his goodwill for the downtrodden clearly comes through, and this, I think, was his driving motive for going to Spain.

    After Spain, and after he had digested what he saw there, he wrote 1984. I believe he paid with his life for that book.

    My take is that he was a genuine and sincere man, no matter what he did; but also an independent and critical thinker, courageous and with high integrity, willing and able to change his mind – and speak about it – when reality did not conform to his ideals.

    • Weaver
      Weaver says:

      I dunno if this helps, but I’ve generally believed Orwell was strongly influenced by James Burnham, eg. Managerial Revolution book and Machiavellians book. I’m aware I mention the book(s) in every fifth or so post here.

      • B. Rockford
        B. Rockford says:

        George Orwell’s “Second Thoughts on James Burnham” is online.
        Burnham’s most important books in my view were “Web of Subversion” and “Suicide of the West”.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      Communism is not socialism. The purest for of socialism is anarchy. National Socialism and Fascism were forms of socialism. The biggest hoax perpetrated on (((the West))) today, is that socialism is communism. Many went to fight in Spain because they were “anti” fascism as mush as “pro” socialism, just as hundreds of thousands went to the Eastern Front during WWII because they were “anti”-communism. One thing for sure, Orwell changed his views once Uncle Joe got involved in the fight.

      • Liosnagcat
        Liosnagcat says:

        The only difference between Communism and Socialism is that Communism entails state ownership of the means of production, whereas Socialism is content with the state merely presiding over the redistribution of wealth. They both adhere to the maxim, “To each according to his need; from each according to his ability to provide.” It’s worth noting that Lenin himself said, “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

      • John the First
        John the First says:

        The ideology of National Socialism in Germany was characterized by stressing a very brutal kind of collective discipline, physical fitness, courage, selection of the best (discrimination), bravery and a sense of cultural superiority (promoting the high arts and architecture). Tradition was also ‘supported’ by National Socialists, at least, what could be used. NS was one of the most brutal systems ever on the planet.
        This is very different and totally opposite from social democracy and in general liberal democracy, which promotes and subsidizes disease, what is weak, victimhood, equality (equal stupidity, removal of all differences until complete incapacity of intelligent discrimination), deviance, mixing of everything until degeneration, promotion of ugliness and perversity, and in general what is unfit. Total destruction of tradition is also the goal of liberal democracy, to replace it with primitivism and savagism.
        The other socialisms and communisms lie somewhere in between.

        This is why liberals are hell bent on attacking everything which calls for a return to spiritual health and tradition.
        Both methods of evil have the same goal in mind: the subjugation and puppetization of the whole of society.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      You may be right. Perhaps it was impulsive of me to judge Orwell as I did here. Perhaps his novels were sincere cautionary tales, but may have been presented as RoM by others. I think of the Military/Industrial complex speech by Eisenhower and the Covert not Overt speech by JFK in the same category, not cautionary but Revelation of the Method. Brave New World is another.

    • Reasonablewhiteguy
      Reasonablewhiteguy says:

      Orwell was interviewed on his death bed, where he declared with great sincerity (when asked about 1984), something to the effect that if we are not vigilant, “it could happen to you”.

  7. B. Rockford
    B. Rockford says:

    Dalrymple’s pessimistic material, from Takimag to Salisbury Review, should be a stimulus to activity. I am more interested in what he says than in guessing his motivrs or examining his todger tip.

    • Terry Bull
      Terry Bull says:

      @ Mr Rockford
      See Dalrymple’s “British Left goes Anti-Semitic,” City Journal, July 23, 2002 online.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      I too am interested in examining his content, in particular this understanding of Communist propaganda, since it applies so well to the U.S. today. His identity, credentials and orientation is also something I feel it is interesting to examine, as it informs his material, possibly in a deceitful way.

  8. Anne C
    Anne C says:

    This one belongs in TOO’s hall of fame. Excellent article, Haemers has really hit the nail on the head.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      Thank you. I’m honored by your review. Though we may have a different understanding on certain details, I feel your essays also strike at the truth. An admirable and necessary calling.

  9. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    I like that Taboo Truth.

    Dr. Willard Cantelon has an interesting chapter in his book entitled Man-Made Solutions Communism and the UN. Here is some shocking history:

    It was a beautiful morning June morning in San Francisco in 1945. The flags were flying and a stiff breeze was blowing in from the Pacific. I watched the delegates from 50 nations gather in the world’s most important meeting. Over 50 million had been left dead on the battlefields of the world. With smoke still rising from the ruined cities of Europe and Asia, and tears still wet on the cheeks of widows and orphans, the delegates of the world sat around the peace tables to discuss one more attempt at universal peace.
    One American delegate asked if it would be in order to suggest prayer, asking God’s guidance on the opening with an invocation. His suggestion was immediately brushed aside by those who stated it would be offensive to the atheistic delegates who had congregated for the meeting.

    When Woodrow Wilson, supported by many young intellectuals of America, had sought to influence the U.S.government in 1920 to support the League of Nations, he failed. Why, then, 26 years later, were American people ready to join the United Nations, which, in a sense, was
    the tree that grew from the roots of the League of Nations?

    Men pointed out that the two obstacles which prevented America from joining the League of Nations were old fashioned ideas pertaining to patriotism and religion. Inthe book entitled Grectt Ideas Today: 1971, published by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Joseph Clark says,

    Old fashioned patriotism is surely an obstacle to world government.

    But the so-called old-fashioned ideas of patriotism and religion seemed to be waning in America. By a vote of eight to one, the Supreme Court expressed their disfavor toward compulsory prayer in the public schools, and with a vote of six to one denied students public Bible reading in the classroom.

    When a survey was made of 1,150 high school students, only one in 39 could name three books written by Saint Paul. Only one student in 38 could name three Old Testament prophets. Only one in 8 could name three of the Ten Commandments. A survey made in the colleges showed 60% could not name one parable that was delivered by Jesus, and 53% of Americans were unable to name even one of the Four Gospels.

    Russia was spending more than a billion dollars on literature and propaganda outside of the USSR each year. The doctrines of socialism were not only being taught in the classrooms of the colleges, but were also being heard from the pulpits of many churches, and from the pens of religious leaders.

    I wonder, I said to myself, how many Americans have studied the charter of the UN sufficiently to realize that it commits each member nation to a program of total socialism for itself and for all other nations. Alger Hiss was a major architect of the UN charter and served as the secretary general of the San Francisco conference for the organization of the United Nations. Twenty-flve years later, U Thant was quoted praising Lenin as a political leader whose ideas were reflected in the United Nations’ charter.

    Wealth and Poverty

    Why, I asked myself repeatedly, did so many American leaders, both in church and in the classroom of the college, speak strongly in favor of world socialism? E. Stanley Jones, in his The Choice Before Us, declared,

    God reached out and put his hand on the Russian Communist. Communism is the only political position that really holds the Christian position.

    In one sense, I found it very difficult to comprehend a man like E. Stanley Jones writing lines that seemed to endorse Communism. On the other hand, I reminded myself of the years that he had spent in India. In 1953, ,speaking for many days on the club grounds of Lucknow, I saw the results of this man’s work in that city of north central India. Undoubtedly Jones was moved by the scenes of squalor and poverty that plagued the masses of that great nation. He must have contrasted the poor and the hungry with the abnormal wealth of such men as the Nizam of Hyderabad, a descendant of the Mogul emperors, who ruled over l5 million poverty stricken subjects for decades. Reputedly, he had more wealth than any other man in the world, with a net income of $ 15 million annually. Much of his wealth came from the fabulous valley of Golconda, one of the world’s richest diamond mines.

    The Nizam had 500 wives, and he gave his favorite one a gold Rolls Royce. He ate all of his meals off golden plates, and boasted that the English displayed 24 golden plates in London, while he had golden place settings for150 guests. One of his favorite diamonds was the 182 .5 oz. carat diamond that he used for a paperweight. He sat in chairs and relaxed on couches of solid gold, and had a carriage of gold built that was not usable because of its weight. pgs. 101-103

    and then there’s this morsel of history:

    On March 26, 1959, Peter Chu Pong, former Minister of Nanking, China, appeared before the house Committee on UN-American Activities, and testified:

    We were placed in classes for brainwashing. From morning till night, they taught Communism. They wanted me to reject Christ and give up the church and admit that the only God was Mao-Tse-tung, head of the Communistic Government.

    A former Communist said,

    They asked me to forget Katyn Forest. Forget the slave labor camps, forget the genocide of the captive nations, forget the butchery of Budapest, forget the annihilation of 30 million people, forget their anti-God, anti-Christ, anti-church, and anti-home doctrines, and
    to forget all that is dear and place our faith in them.

    With amazing courage some of Russia’s finest writers have dared to express the true feelings of their hearts. Alex Solzhenitsyn, considered by many to be Russia’s greatest author writes,

    The USSR is guilty of committing spiritual murder, a variant of the gas chamber but more cruel.

    In an edition of the Los Angeles Times in April, 1973, Murray Seeger tells how the government leaders in Russia seek to control men’s minds and spirits. He describes the heavy volume of anti-religious action and propaganda which have been continued in all parts of Russia against many different faiths ever since the Bolshevik Revolution took place 55 years ago.

    In light of the Communist attitude toward Christians and Jews, are men not justifled in asking why this government should receive favored treatment?

    Why should American taxpayers pay $300 million in taxes to subsidize cheap wheat for the USSR? Or why should Russia get 200,000 tons of butter from The European Common Market for 20 cents per pound, when the British pay 60 cents for the same butter? Perhaps some of the international bankers might shed some light on this. They might tell us how the Communist banks were able to borrow 40 billion Eurodollars six months before the dollar was devalued 10% on February 6th, of 1 973 and comment on the extraordinary good
    fortune of their timing. For when this debt repaid, it will be repaid with dollars valued at 90 cents which means a net profit of $4 billion for the borrowers.

    “Only one thing is clear,” wrote one economist from Europe, “and that is the mystery that surrounds these strange actions.”

    Communism eh? The puzzling part in all of this though is monarchy? Russia lost hers so is the question then question mark?

    • B. Rockford
      B. Rockford says:

      A good book on the UN was “The Fearful Master” by G. Edward Griffin, the ablest and oldest researcher of the John Birch Society.
      Israel is none too happy about the organisation today, despite its resolutions on the Holocaust and plans to outlaw Hate Speech.

      • Karl Haemers
        Karl Haemers says:

        Another great researcher at JBS was Revilo P. Oliver. He quit in protest when JBS caved to semitophobia and stopped presenting the Jewish Issue.

        • What’s up Skip
          What’s up Skip says:

          According to Prof. Oliver’s account he quit the JBS when he discovered that the founder Robert Welch was being bankrolled by jews, the organisation having always strictly forbidden any discussion of the jewish role in communism and other subversive activities.

        • Archibald Bunker
          Archibald Bunker says:

          @ Karl Haemers.
          Semitophilia, not semitophobia.
          RPO started them off with references to Nesta Webster, and hints about the Insiders were strongly made by JBS supporters like Frank Capell and Gary Allen. However, as the JBS was “neo-conned” like other patriotic groups, so RPO lost his grip on reality, and this great analyst of classical literature, and master of elegant (albeit recognisable) prose was so blinded by Jew-hatred (in the normal, not ADL, sense) that his later writings fell below his original standards. Antisemitic paranoia does get some people in the brain.

  10. Gerry
    Gerry says:

    By the way my take on communism/socialism? A family is a family no matter how big a nation is. It is why we find these words:

    Now the company of believers was of one heart and soul, and not one [of them] claimed that anything belonging to him was [exclusively] his own, but everything was common property and for the use of all. Acts 4:32

    I guess something like that only works within Judaism as again a family is a family no matter how big a nation is? Yet if we stop and consider things from God’s perspective well Adam and Eve didn’t have a belly button!!!.Perhaps that is why Jesus said:

    While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”

    48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” Matt. 12:46-50

    Christ did indeed start a revolution with one word which one will find in song here:


  11. John Thurloe
    John Thurloe says:

    Yeah, I’m OK with the drift. But this ‘Communist Propaganda’ line is an eye roller. Bub. None of yer target lot knows shit about Marx or Lenin. We’re not dealing with socialism here. This here’s a large-scale full-throated liberal racketet underway. Covid partisans say, don’t actually believe the shit they shovel. So long as doing so makes money.

    If this was old-style Stalinist rules, business could be done. There were rules. Now, rightfully, the Russians will trust to nothing. They will have to acquire victory. And they will achieve this. The fragile west.

  12. Breeze
    Breeze says:

    An arresting piece. Yet, no mention of Herbert Marcuse and Cultural Marxism, or How to destroy a place from within, via control of Media, Education, Government and Corporate elites. All,a product of of Marcuse and The Frankfort School in Germany. Hitler threw them out in early
    1930 something. Hence their move to New Yawk and Columbia University. Obviously, they have succeeded! Yet, not signaled out in article! Any insights? Curious!

    • B. Rockford
      B. Rockford says:

      A useful introduction to the problem is “The Genesis of Political Correctness” (2016) by Michael William, especially for British readers. The “race, gender, class revolution” of the US six decades ago has become the official “diversity, inclusion, equity” regime of the UK. He has some effective follow-up publications, and is not alone.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      Thank you for your inquiry Breeze. I agree with you, any thorough examination of cultural Marxism in America would have to include and perhaps even start with the Frankfurt School at Columbia. In this essay my focus is on Dalrymple and the Manhattan Institute, making no attempt to achieve a full chronicle. That would be an entire book. I don’t recall my word count here, but under 3000, and I wanted to devote most of it to the narrow topics mentioned.
      Point well taken though: many other organizations, individuals and venues contribute to the Neo-Commie Agit-Prop.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        You took the right approach, I believe, in striving to maintain a narrow focus. The article profited from your doing so.

        My long-standing impression is that very few readers take advantage of TOO’s searchable archives, which extend back more than fifteen years. With respect to the Frankfurt School, TOO has published multipart articles by Kevin McDonald and Andrew Joyce, as well as less exhaustive examinations of the school and its adherents by other writers, all of these articles being easy to find via the Search box.

  13. Lord Snooty
    Lord Snooty says:

    I first came across Michael A. Hoffman II’s “Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare” in the 1990s, when you’d only have encountered it in new-age bookshops. But the internet loves conspiracy theories, so – long after I’d forgotten about the book – I was amused to come across on-line comments referencing “The Revelation of the Method” whenever our lords and masters made an announcement about, say, the inevitability of further mass Third World migration to Europe.

    In the genre of mythopoesis, Hoffman has created an evocative work for dissidents.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      Yes, Hoffman is the best I have found at exposing RoM, though I am learning of others here in this commentary. I first read Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare around 2016. Hoffman now has a companion book out in recent years titled Twilight Language. It is a worthy update, with the same haunting associations he makes of news events with occult symbolism and references. I recommend Twilight Language to assist understanding of this obscure but necessary topic.

      • Lord Snooty
        Lord Snooty says:

        Thanks for the recommendation. Will check out Michael Hoffman’s “Twilight Language”. (I see he’s now dropped the “II”.)

  14. John D. Alder
    John D. Alder says:

    We need to wake up more lions than sheep. More people must muster up the courage to shout out that the emperor is indeed naked !

  15. ariadna
    ariadna says:

    “He is half-Jewish through his mother”
    No. If his mother was Jewish he is not “half-Jewish.” He is a Jew. He can get Israeli citizenship upon applying for it.

    • Aiden Lake
      Aiden Lake says:

      @ ariadna
      Only by their own rabbinical rules. It does not necessarily determine the individual’s activity. Some Jews have opposed Judaism, Communism, Zionism and Wokeism.

      • Pierre de Craon
        Pierre de Craon says:

        Only by their own rabbinical rules.

        As if any other standard matters to the Jews!

        Some Jews have opposed Judaism, Communism, Zionism and Wokeism.

        And sometimes a machine gun jams, but only a fool assumes that there is no particular urgency in getting out of the way when someone points one of those things at him.

        • Aiden Lake
          Aiden Lake says:

          @ “Pierre de Craon” (pseud?)
          Only a fool imagines that all halacha-compliant Jews are ipso facto engaged in a omnipotent collective conspiracy, and that one cannot usefully quote anything from (say) Otto Weininger, Karl Marx or Sam Harris against Judaism; Raymond Aron, Leopold Schwarzschild or Oscar Levy against Communism; Arthur Koestler, Hajo Meyer or Gilad Atzmon against Zionism; and Samuel Abrams, Michael Levin or Zoe Strimpel against Wokeism.

          “Ne mesurez jamais un cheval-cadeau par une seule narine”, as your presumed peasant ancestors used to say in medieval Mayenne.

        • Another "fool"
          Another "fool" says:

          Does pertinacious Pierre also regard Jesus, Mary and Joseph, James and John, Peter and Paul, as Jews and/or deceivers? Does he worship or pray to any of these circumcised personages when he attends Mass? TOO “half-wits” he attacks de haut en bas would like to know.

          • John Alder
            John Alder says:

            Doesn’t the Catholic church celebrate the Feast of the Circumcision? Any excuse for a party I guess.

          • Pierre de Craon
            Pierre de Craon says:

            Don’t you ever tire of ankle-biting? Or are you really so afraid of being disagreed with?

          • Aiden Lake
            Aiden Lake says:

            We are waiting to know if our RC nom-de-plumed contributor believes that Mary the Mother of God and Queen of Heaven was Jewish like her maternal ancestors, her husband, and therefore her circumcised Baby.
            Should they be worshipped?

        • Aiden Lake
          Aiden Lake says:

          Poor old Pierrot de Nos Jours, whose spray gun never jams when projecting verbal vomit on supposedly hidden hasbaras or presumed intellectual inferiors.

          • Terry Bull
            Terry Bull says:

            How can anyone be “afraid” of “disagreement” devoid of appropriate answers or actual argument, but consisting of smart alec quips or ad hominem abuse?
            The ADL at any rate certainly won’t be running scared over comments whose irrational bigotry is beyond satire, more likely grinning in satisfaction.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      Good point. A notable correction. I do distinguish between a 100% Jew with both parents, but technically Dalrymple/Daniels is a full-blown Jew.

      • B. Rockford
        B. Rockford says:

        We need to judge and if necessary effectively oppose individuals or groups because of what they do, say and think. We cannot simply attack them for what they are born or even how they are raised. In the case of Jews, and indeed others, it is of course essential also to under their psychology and motivations, good or bad, as accurately and insightfully as possible.
        One point to note is the powerful Zionist factor in bringing down the “evil empire” in Moscow, and its preliminary incursion against Polish Communist “antisemitism”. It is all on record. The samizdat of Ukrainians, Baptists and Socialists was closely accompanied by “prisoners of Zion” and “refusenik” propaganda, generally documented by the IJA, LICRA, USIA, AFL-CIO, Keston Institute, &c.
        The joke has been that the “People” who set the Bolsheviks up are the “People” that eventually brought them down and stole their assets.
        Jews do not act in lockstep unless they feel existentially threatened, and if I had been a Jew who read “Mein Kampf” very carefully and later watched the movie “Der ewige Jude”, which opens by comparing Jews to a pestilential rat swarm and closes with a reference to their extermination, I would be somewhat apprehensive.

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          We need to judge and if necessary effectively oppose individuals or groups because of what they do, say and think. We cannot simply attack them for what they are born or even how they are raised. … One point to note is the powerful Zionist factor in bringing down the “evil empire” in Moscow, and its preliminary incursion against Polish Communist “antisemitism”. It is all on record.

          In short, two sentences of truism followed by two sentences of misdirection.

          For several years and under a dozen different screen names, Ned has pushed one message: Don’t forget about all the good Jews! Yet seldom if ever is the message accompanied by anything but empty generalities, such as the one quoted above about the “powerful Zionist factor” that led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Could Ned be referring to the (((oligarchs)))? Is one expected to look at (or look for) their bright side? Seriously?

          More striking and even less appealing are Ned’s apologetic allusions to the Jews’ sense of an “existential threat” because someone (presumably someone overly observant) has noted a pattern of Jewish hostility to others—specifically, white Gentiles. Why is one always expected to think of the Jews in terms of the Princess and the Pea? The Apostle to the Gentiles looked upon them far more squarely: “They are enemies of the whole human race” (1 Thess 2:15).

          Besides, shouldn’t Ned be telling readers to remember “The Culture of Critique,” especially chapters 4 through 7?

          Moreover, it isn’t unreasonable to suggest that, aside from such rare and admirable exceptions as Gerard Menuhin and Ariel Toaff (at least before he was put on the rack and forced to recant), the evidence for the existence of a community of “good Jews” doesn’t precisely lie thick on the ground. Most of those Jews whom Ned has named at one time or another are no more than fair-weather friends—Jews whose apparent occasional support masks a desire to further their own aims, often via deceit and well-poisoning at a deep level.

          Whatever Ned’s battalion of screen personae may say, surely the time has come to stop making excuses for Jewish misconduct, no matter how much it may distress the nearly null set of “good Jews.” Those who think otherwise are welcome to continue courting the Jews’ favor to their hearts’ content.

  16. charles frey
    charles frey says:

    01 None of the innumerable blabbermouth, intellectual, professional historians I was obliged to study for too many years on two continents, ever solved a problem.

    02 The majority of them were lifted to heaven by their ignorant readers for totally inverting historical facts for funding.

    03 It took a practical graduate electrician from a trade school, of humble family, AS A FIRST to kick Soviet Communism’s ass out of Poland,

    04 Lech Walesa was harassed, bugged, surveilled and repeatedly jailed, before he became Poland’s Head: giving the kickstart to the ensuing freedom avalanche.

    05 If you are too young to remember, look him up, along with his SOLIDARITY Movement.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      Thank you. I will review this. I followed Jon Rappaport (J) daily during the scamdemic. He too presented the illusion of a virus. As did Thomas Cowan and Andrew Kauffman (J).

  17. just_another
    just_another says:

    So a communist Jew is bad.

    And a Jew that tells you that communism is bad is just a lying Jew that is trying to humiliate you because blah, blah, blah.

    Let’s summarize, shall we?

    There can be no “good Jews” Only some Jews that are worse than others. But all bad.

    We clearly have a “Jewish problem” here.

    And no doubt we all agree that then we need a “final solution” to our “Jewish problem”

    I see.

    Well, now that we got that out of the way we can all raise our right hand in Aryan rigidness and with one voice shout to the world:

    “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
    über alles in der Welt”

    You know how it goes.

    • Karl Haemers
      Karl Haemers says:

      We do know how it goes, and it is vastly different than how so many have been told how it goes. It goes far beyond a Jewish Problem with a Final Solution, into a Jewish Issue with an ongoing Resolution.
      For an understanding that some Jews are good, please read Not All Jews! by this author, found under the Author tab by first name alphabetical.
      The National Socialist Germans did indeed enact an effective self-defense against the Jewish Power Elite and Zionist Banksters, with their Nuremberg Laws, deportation program (with full cooperation of Zionist Jews in the Transfer Agreement), rejection of Rothschild loans and issuing of their own currency without interest, placing their media back in the control of ethnic Germans, and all the rest (we will note however that mass extermination was never attempted nor contemplated). Obviously we need to adapt these effective measures to our times and circumstances, amounting to an ongoing Resolution, probably a gestalt of all methods. Your cartoonish summary will not serve.

      • moneytalks
        moneytalks says:

        ” It goes far beyond a Jewish Problem with a Final Solution, into a Jewish Issue with an ongoing Resolution.”

        Superb observation .

        • Barbara
          Barbara says:

          Of course it doesn’t have to be all Jews. If that were the standard we had to meet then we may as well quit now and throw in the towel. It is a fact that they are a parasitic, cancerous plague upon every Gentile on the planet. Shouldn’t the Jew be forced to live in their own state and forbidden on pain of death from every living in any Gentile homeland again based upon their history and on what they are doing today? It may already be too late given their control of technology.

          Could we not be talking in terms of dissolving this government and instituting another one and all because of the presence and control of the Jew? Are we not tired after all these centuries of putting up with them? What might have been and what might the USA have accomplished for the good of the entire world if not for the Jew?

          • Ted Butler
            Ted Butler says:

            @ Barbaric
            Madagascar – non-starter 1940.
            How implement a similar final solution by 2050?

Comments are closed.