Bow Before Blackness: Non-Stop Black in Brave New Britain

/8 Comments/in /by

Chuck the Cuck is at it again. Our so-called king Charles III, who lives in luxurious palaces built by Whites and enjoys a millionaire’s life funded by Whites, has once again spurned Whites and sanctified Blacks. The staunchly republican and anti-monarchist Guardian approvingly reported how Chuck has “hailed the pioneers of the Windrush generation.” Seventy-five years ago a ship called the Empire Windrush brought one of the first batches of Caribbean Blacks to Britain. They were unwanted, unneeded, and would prove disastrous for Britain, but what does that matter to Chuck the Cuck? Those Blacks were “indomitable,” he has said, and it was vital for Britain to recognize their “remarkable legacy” and to “celebrate the immeasurable difference that they, their children and their grandchildren have made to this country.”

Indomitable Windrush pioneers: the gerontophile mass-rapist Delroy Grant and rapist-murderer Leroy Campbell

Chuck’s sycophancy was so extreme and his rhetoric so far removed from reality that you could almost suspect him of satire or sarcasm. But no, he was being absolutely sincere about the “Windrush generation,” which is the smarmy name recently devised by leftists for the low-IQ Caribbean Blacks who began enriching Britain with murder, rape, robbery, educational failure, incompetence, welfare-dependency, and anti-social behavior from the late 1940s. Chuck’s son and heir Prince William was also being sincere when he said that “we are forever grateful” to the Windrush generation for making the British “a better people.”

Well, I don’t know whether Chuck will live long enough to be put on trial for treason, but I think William will. One of the questions I’d like to see William asked when he is put in the dock is this: “Who is Delroy Grant, what were his remarkable achievements, and where did he come from?” If William doesn’t have an answer — and he very probably won’t — the prosecuting counsel can tell him that Delroy Grant is a prolific Black sex-criminal who specialized in raping and robbing elderly White women and that he came to Britain from Jamaica in the early 1970s.

Horrible crimes committed by Caribbean Blacks

In other words, Grant is a member of the saintly Windrush generation. After he learns about Grant’s contributions to Britain, William can be asked how he would have felt if his own elderly White grandmother, Queen Elizabeth the Evil, had been one of Grant’s scores or even hundreds of victims and whether he would still have felt “forever grateful” that the Windrush generation had changed Britain for the “better.”

But that won’t be the end of the questions for William and other traitors about the “remarkable legacy” of the Windrush generation. There is an embarras de choix when it comes to horrible crimes committed by Caribbean Blacks against British Whites who would otherwise have lived long and peaceful lives. For example, I’d also like to see William asked to imagine how he would have felt if his mother or wife had taken the place of the White nurse Lisa Skidmore, who was raped and murdered by another member of the Windrush generation, Leroy Campbell, in 2017. And how would William have felt if his daughter had taken the place of Mary-Ann Leneghan, the 15-year-old White schoolgirl who was tortured and raped by a Black gang for hours in 2005, before having her throat cut as she pleaded desperately for her life.

The leader of that Black gang was the son of a probable Windrush “pioneer” called Tony Thomas, who later pretended to the BBC that he was sorry about being a “fringe father” and abandoning his son and other illegitimate children. All of them were brought up at the expense of British Whites, like the many thousands of other illegitimate children fathered and abandoned by Blacks in Britain. How does Prince William feel about that huge expense and about the vastly disproportionate number of violent and acquisitive crimes committed by Blacks here? I suspect he won’t have good answers for any of those questions. Like his father, he is as unremarkable for his intellect as he is remarkable for his treachery. But who needs intellect when it comes to understanding the true nature of Blacks? It is very easy to prove that the Windrush generation and its descendants have been a curse on Britain, not a blessing.

Kings of the curse

It’s also easy to prove that Jews have been central to the imposition of that curse on Britain. After mass migration from the Caribbean began, a predatory Jewish landlord Peter Rachman (1919-62) made big profits in London by renting bad housing at high prices to Blacks who were unpopular as tenants because of their criminality, noise, and anti-social behavior. Indeed, Rachman used violent and noisy Blacks to drive White tenants out of houses he wanted to buy or convert into flats. Decades after Rachman’s heyday, another money-hungry Jew, Alex Langsam, is making more big profits from more non-White invaders. Langsam, who has been nicknamed the “Asylum King,” owns the sardonically named Britannia Hotels, which was “the worst hotel chain for ten years running, according to a survey conducted by consumer group Which” and which rakes in millions from government contracts for housing so-called “asylum seekers” from the corrupt, diseased, and violent Third World.

Two Jews who used Blacks against Whites: Cyril Salmon and Peter Rachman

Langsam’s father was a refugee from the Nazis and Langsam has said: “My father was the most nationalistic person I have ever come across. Britain saved his life and gave him a living and he instilled that in me. I am grateful for what this country has given me.” I bet he is: according to the Daily Mail, he is being given £100,000 a day for housing the next generation of Third-World criminals and tax-eaters. That’s Jewish “nationalism” in Britain; in Israel, Jewish nationalism takes the entirely opposite form of building high-tech fences to keep Third-World enrichers out. As Jews are well aware, Blacks are a curse on any Western nation that accepts them as residents. But that’s precisely why Jews are so determined to keep Blacks out of Israel and keep them flooding into America and Europe. Blacks are the most harmful, unintelligent, and unproductive of all groups. That is, they are the group that least resembles Whites and is most suitable for destroying White civilization.

Better for Blacks, worse for Whites

As a first step towards that tantalizing goal, the hostile Jewish elite worked to transform Blacks into the archetypal saintly victims of White oppression. Kevin MacDonald has documented how the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in America was organized and funded not by Blacks, but by Jews. In Britain, the Jewish lawyer Anthony Lester (1936-2020) boasted of how he used the tactics of his fellow Jews in America to begin taking freedom of speech and association away from Whites in Britain too:

In Search of Something Better: Anthony Lester recalls the creation of the Commission for Racial Equality

In 1964, on my return from witnessing the “Long Hot Summer” of civil rights action in the American South, I helped found CARD (the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination). We campaigned for effective legislation to combat racism in Britain. The first measure — the Race Relations Act 1965 — was hopelessly narrow and lacked teeth, so we fought for something better. When CARD was taken over by militant extremists, in December 1967, Jim Rose [another Jewish lawyer] and I founded the Runnymede Trust to combat racial prejudice and promote policies for overcoming racial discrimination and disadvantage. Labour’s second measure, the Race Relations Act 1968, was broader in scope but still lacked teeth. So again we campaigned for something better. (Catalyst magazine, 20th November 2006)

Anthony Lester, Baron of Bullshit, resigned from the House of Lords because of a sex scandal.

By “something better,” Lester meant “better for Blacks, worse for Whites.” He was praised in his Guardian obituary as “the author of the ground-breaking legislation on racial and gender equality introduced in Britain by Harold Wilson’s Labour government in the 1970s.” The “ground” he was “breaking” was British identity and nationhood. Jews are highly adept at using the mechanisms of White civilization — law, politics, academia, publishing, electronic media — to undermine White civilization. Another Jewish lawyer helped the “Windrush generation” by imposing harsh sentences on Whites who fought back after their unwanted arrival. It’s no coincidence that Whites arrested during the so-called Notting Hill race-riots in 1958 found themselves up before a Jewish judge called Cyril Salmon (1903-99), who sent them off to years in jail for resisting the invasion of their homeland by low-IQ Black criminals and tax-eaters. Salmon was later made into a Baron, rising even higher in the hostile elite that imposed non-White migration on unwilling British Whites.

Stone Cold Cultist

Dr Richard Stone (born 1937) hasn’t risen that high, but he was awarded an OBE (Order of the British Empire) in 2010 for his tireless anti-White agitation and propaganda on behalf of non-Whites. And who is Richard Stone? He’s another Jew who has exploited the Windrush generation to demonize and dispossess British Whites. Stone is a high priest in the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence, the Black who was one of hundreds of young Black men to have been stabbed to death in London. Unlike all the others, Stephen Lawrence has been elevated to sainthood and endlessly commemorated because his killers were highly unusual. As in America, the vast majority of Black murder-victims in Britain are killed by other Blacks. But not the killers of Stephen Lawrence: against all the odds, they were White. So their crime has been used to promote the leftist lie that Blacks are the virtuous victims of White villainy.

More Blacks, more crime against Whites: a gang of violent Black robbers in 2023

Richard Stone has been central to the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence and to the promotion of that lie. He hasn’t been raised to the peerage yet, but his good friend Doreen Lawrence has. She is the martyr’s mother, a member of the Windrush generation who was sent to the House of Lords by the part-Jewish, so-called “Conservative” prime minister David Cameron in 2013. She has endlessly lectured the White British on the failings of their police and legal system. In one way, her lectures are very funny, because Dame Lawrence comes from the extremely violent, corrupt, and badly run Black nation of Jamaica, which has a far smaller population than Britain but more officially recognized murders every year. Many other murders are not officially recognized in Jamaica because they are committed by the Jamaican police in extra-judicial executions of suspected criminals.

Black saints in anti-White martyr-cults

In another way, Dame Lawrence’s lectures are not funny at all. They’re Satanic, because they represent an inversion  of the truth and a deliberate, malicious attempt to replace White civilization with Black barbarism. I don’t think the stupid and self-righteous Doreen Lawrence fully understands what she is doing, but clever and cunning Jews like Richard Stone certainly do. You can find other clever and cunning Jews in America working in the even more pernicious martyr-cult of St George Floyd. He is America’s Stephen Lawrence and is even more appealing to leftists because, unlike Stephen Lawrence, he wasn’t an innocent victim. Instead, he was a thug and drug-addict whose criminality was directly responsible for his own death. His martyr-cult is therefore an even more outrageous inversion of truth than the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence. What’s not to like for leftists?

George Floyd and Stephen Lawrence, Black saints in anti-White martyr-cults

“Bow before Blackness, Britain!”: A log-in page at the Black Bullshit Corporation (BBC)

The acronym BBC is supposed to stand for “British Broadcasting Corporation,” but people suggested decades ago that “Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation” was much closer to the truth. They were right, but nowadays you can also say that BBC stands for “Black Bullshit Corporation.” Like Britain’s advertising industry, the BBC operates a policy of what I call Non-Stop Negro, constantly broadcasting Black faces and Black voices to the nation and the world. It also worships tirelessly in the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence, proclaiming the virtue of Blacks and the villainy of Whites, inciting Blacks to feel resentment and urging Whites to feel guilt.

They don’t love Blacks: they hate Whites

That has deadly consequences both for the Whites against whom Blacks take daily revenge and for Blacks themselves, because the martyr-cult of Stephen Lawrence, just like the martyr-cult of George Floyd, has discouraged the police from enforcing the law against Blacks. As the rule of law retreats, Black barbarism advances and more Blacks are murdered by other Blacks. In other words, the loudly expressed concern of leftists for Black welfare is bogus. Leftists are not motivated by love of Blacks, but by hatred of Whites. They don’t care that, thanks to their anti-police activism, thousands more young Black men are being killed and wounded by other Blacks in Britain and America. Their aim is not to help Blacks, but to end the rule of law, destroy the West, and rule the ruins. The so-called Windrush generation was a curse on Britain, which is precisely why Jews like Richard Stone and traitors like Chuck the Cuck pretend that it was a blessing.

By their inversions shall ye know them: Richard Stone and Chuck the Cuck are on the side of evil and lies. The stock of both has been vastly increased by the Windrush generation, which has supplied Britain with an endless stream of Black criminals preying on Whites and Black activists preaching against Whites. Like all other Blacks, the gerontophile rapist Delroy Grant and the rapist-murderer Leroy Campbell should never have been allowed to become residents of Britain. You won’t hear those names mentioned by the BBC, but one day I hope to see the traitors who work there stand in the dock next to Prince William, answering for their bullshit about Blacks and their crimes against Whites and the West.

Ron Unz on Meritocracy: Non-Jewish Whites as the Most Underrepresented Group at Elite Universities

/7 Comments/in /by

Editor’s note: I just posted  an Ann Coulter column on the legacy admission issue which has become a big deal in the wake of the SCOTUS affirmative action ruling. It’s an interesting article but doesn’t separate out Jews from non-Jewish Whites. Here Ron Unz fills that void. It was always an interesting question whether Jews would support affirmative action for Blacks and Hispanics, the two underperforming racial categories.

Black-Jewish interests diverged when affirmative action and quotas for Black college admission became a divisive issue in the 1970s.[1] It was not only neoconservatives who worried about affirmative action: The main Jewish activist groups—the AJCommittee, the AJCongress, and the ADL—sided with Allan P. Bakke in a landmark case on racial quota systems in the University of California–Davis medical school, thereby promoting meritocracy and presumably assuming Jews would benefit from such a policy.  However, in recent years mainstream Jewish groups such as the AJCommittee have supported some forms of affirmative action, as in the 2003 University of Michigan case, and in the recent Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action in which Asians were the plaintiffs, the ADL sided with Harvard, claiming there was no evidence of quotas at Harvard.

Therefore it’s interesting that Ron Unz has shown that, although the representation of non-Jewish Whites has declined as a result of affirmative action for Blacks and Latinos, this has not been the case for Jewish representation despite lower academic performance as measured by scores on the National Merit Scholarship exam. Unz’s paper was cited by the plaintiffs in the case.

Unz’s recent article, Affirmative Action and the Jewish Elephant in the Room, quotes from his original 2012 paper:

The evidence of the recent NMS semifinalist lists seems the most conclusive of all, given the huge statistical sample sizes involved. As discussed earlier, these students constitute roughly the highest 0.5 percent in academic ability, the top 16,000 high school seniors who should be enrolling at the Ivy League and America’s other most elite academic universities. In California, white Gentile names outnumber Jewish ones by over 8-to-1; in Texas, over 20-to-1; in Florida and Illinois, around 9-to-1. Even in New York, America’s most heavily Jewish state, there are more than two high-ability white Gentile students for every Jewish one. Based on the overall distribution of America’s population, it appears that approximately 65–70 percent of America’s highest ability students are non-Jewish whites, well over ten times the Jewish total of under 6 percent.

Needless to say, these proportions are considerably different from what we actually find among the admitted students at Harvard and its elite peers, which today serve as a direct funnel to the commanding heights of American academics, law, business, and finance. Based on reported statistics, Jews approximately match or even outnumber non-Jewish whites at Harvard and most of the other Ivy League schools, which seems wildly disproportionate. Indeed, the official statistics indicate that non-Jewish whites at Harvard are America’s most under-represented population group, enrolled at a much lower fraction of their national population than blacks or Hispanics, despite having far higher academic test scores.

When examining statistical evidence, the proper aggregation of data is critical. Consider the ratio of the recent 2007–2011 enrollment of Asian students at Harvard relative to their estimated share of America’s recent NMS semifinalists, a reasonable proxy for the high-ability college-age population, and compare this result to the corresponding figure for whites. The Asian ratio is 63 percent, slightly above the white ratio of 61 percent, with both these figures being considerably below parity due to the substantial presence of under-represented racial minorities such as blacks and Hispanics, foreign students, and students of unreported race. Thus, there appears to be no evidence for racial bias against Asians, even excluding the race-neutral impact of athletic recruitment, legacy admissions, and geographical diversity.

However, if we separate out the Jewish students, their ratio turns out to be 435 percent, while the residual ratio for non-Jewish whites drops to just 28 percent, less than half of even the Asian figure. As a consequence, Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by a factor of seven, while non-Jewish whites are by far the most under-represented group of all, despite any benefits they might receive from athletic, legacy, or geographical distribution factors. The rest of the Ivy League tends to follow a similar pattern, with the overall Jewish ratio being 381 percent, the Asian figure at 62 percent, and the ratio for non-Jewish whites a low 35 percent, all relative to their number of high-ability college-age students.

Just as striking as these wildly disproportionate current numbers have been the longer enrollment trends. In the three decades since I graduated Harvard, the presence of white Gentiles has dropped by as much as 70 percent, despite no remotely comparable decline in the relative size or academic performance of that population; meanwhile, the percentage of Jewish students has actually increased. This period certainly saw a very rapid rise in the number of Asian, Hispanic, and foreign students, as well as some increase in blacks. But it seems rather odd that all of these other gains would have come at the expense of whites of Christian background, and none at the expense of Jews.

Furthermore, the Harvard enrollment changes over the last decade have been even more unusual when we compare them to changes in the underlying demographics. Between 2000 and 2011, the relative percentage of college-age blacks enrolled at Harvard dropped by 18 percent, along with declines of 13 percent for Asians and 11 percent for Hispanics, while only whites increased, expanding their relative enrollment by 16 percent. However, this is merely an optical illusion: in fact, the figure for non-Jewish whites slightly declined, while the relative enrollment of Jews increased by over 35 percent, probably reaching the highest level in Harvard’s entire history. Thus, the relative presence of Jews rose sharply while that of all other groups declined, and this occurred during exactly the period when the once-remarkable academic performance of Jewish high school students seemed to suddenly collapse.

Most of the other Ivy League schools appear to follow a fairly similar trajectory. Between 1980 and 2011, the official figures indicate that non-Jewish white enrollment dropped by 63 percent at Yale, 44 percent at Princeton, 52 percent at Dartmouth, 69 percent at Columbia, 62 percent at Cornell, 66 percent at Penn, and 64 percent at Brown. If we confine our attention to the last decade or so, the relative proportion of college-age non-Jewish whites enrolled at Yale has dropped 23 percent since 2000, with drops of 28 percent at Princeton, 18 percent at Dartmouth, 19 percent at Columbia and Penn, 24 percent at Cornell, and 23 percent at Brown. For most of these universities, non-white groups have followed a mixed pattern, mostly increasing but with some substantial drops. I have only located yearly Jewish enrollment percentages back to 2006, but during the six years since then, there is a uniform pattern of often substantial rises: increases of roughly 25 percent at Yale, 45 percent at Columbia, 10 percent at Cornell, 15 percent at Brown, and no declines anywhere.

[1] Friedman, M. (1995). What Went Wrong? The Creation and Collapse of the Black-Jewish Alliance. New York: Free Press, 72.

 

 

 

The Truth About Legacies

/10 Comments/in /by

After an initial burst of indignation at the Supreme Court for taking on the unpleasant task of informing college admissions offices that race discrimination is unconstitutional, the media’s main focus quickly shifted to their favorite topic: blaming White men.

True, it was going to be difficult to turn a case finally ending 50 years of discrimination against Whites into a story about how Whites are oppressing Blacks, but you don’t know our media. The fact that the plaintiffs in this case were Asian didn’t even slow them down.

Within hours, everybody was talking about “legacies.” The children of alumni are apparently the ne plus ultra of Whiteness. The New York Times called them “White, wealthy and well-connected.” And that’s how “legacy” entered the vocabulary as an epithet for White men, joining “frat boys,” “rich,” “privileged,” “Chads” and “lacrosse players.”

Unfortunately, much like #BlackLivesMatter, this latest orgy of hatred for Whites is going to end up hurting Black people the most.

We have been assured that preferences for the children of alumni are exactly like racial preferences for Blacks and Hispanics — except given to Whites. Thus, Kenny Xu, one of the plaintiffs in the affirmative action case, sneered that preferences for legacies “disproportionately privilege White applicants.” (These aren’t your allies, White people.)

Then, days after the decision was announced, race activists filed a complaint against Harvard for giving preference to the children of alumni, saying that legacy admissions have “nothing to do with an applicant’s merit” and were “an unfair and unearned benefit.”

Let’s look at how big a “benefit” being a legacy actually is.

Comparing three preferences given to college applicants — legacies, athletes and Blacks/Hispanics — the children of alumni got the smallest boost, according to a 2007 Princeton study of 4,000 students entering 28 selective colleges in 1999. A majority of legacy admissions had SATs above their college’s average. Even those below the average were only slightly below it, 47 points out of a possible 1,600.

By contrast, 77% of Blacks and Hispanics had scores below their college’s average, and 70% of athletes did. Combined, their average gap was 108 points.

A 2009 Harvard study found that legacy applicants to the top 30 most selective colleges had a mean score 10 points higher on the reading SAT than non-legacy applicants and six points higher on the math SAT.

About a decade later, Naviance, a college software provider, examined 15,402 legacy applications from 2014-17 and found that 82% of legacy applicants have SAT or ACT scores at or above their colleges’ average for accepted students.

Apparently, the dumb kids of alumni don’t bother applying to their parents’ schools, and the smart kids are pressured into applying, even if their academic qualifications are good enough to get them into a better school.

The Harvard study also found that the legacy preference is strongest for applicants with perfect SAT scores. (In 2007, Harvard rejected more than a thousand applicants with perfect math SAT scores; Princeton rejected thousands of students with perfect GPAs.)

For the past week, the media have bombarded us with data claiming exactly the opposite — that being a legacy confers a huge advantage, comparable to that given to Blacks and Hispanics simply for being Black or Hispanic. You will notice that these claims never refer to the “children of alumni” in isolation. Legacies are invariably thrown in with other, completely different categories, like “whose parents donated money,” “athletes” or “children of university employees.”

E.g.:

“Most colleges have long resisted eliminating a much-criticized admission practice: giving a boost to the children of alumni, donors and faculty.” — The New York Times, June 30, 2023

“[One] analysis found that 43% of Harvard’s white admits in 2019 were legacy students, recruited athletes, children of faculty and staff or were applicants affiliated with donors.” — USA Today Online, July 3, 2023

“The records revealed that 70% of Harvard’s donor-related and legacy applicants are white.” — The Associated Press, July 3, 2023

Grouping dissimilar things together can give you any statistic you want. Dozens of humans are killed every year by grizzly bears and Dachshunds.

The grizzly bear in these lists is “donor-related.”

I hold no brief for legacies, but I do know that I.Q. is heritable, and the kids of alumni are in a wholly different category from the kids of big donors. One is Aage Bohr, who won the Nobel Prize for Physics 53 years after his father, Niels, did. (They are among seven parent/child Nobel winners in the sciences.)

The other is Jared Kushner, whose father bought his kid’s way into Harvard, despite his not being remotely qualified, as a “track 3” high school student. (By the way, Republicans, your outrage at Hunter Biden’s criminality would be more credible if you ever mentioned the $2 billion Jared got from the Saudis.)

If Harvard didn’t discriminate on the basis of race, instead of a student body that is about 43% White, 19% Asian, 11% Black and 10% Hispanic, it would be 43% Asian, 38% White, 0.7% Black, and 2.4% Hispanic, a 2013 study by the university found.

If Harvard didn’t discriminate in favor of legacies, the average SAT score of its undergrads would be lower, as some perfect-scoring alum kids go elsewhere.

As much fun as you’re having bashing Whites, media, the boost given to legacies is not in the same universe as the preferences given to Black and Hispanic students. On the other hand, judging by Jared Kushner, the preference given to the kids of big donors is every bit as humongous as the affirmative action “plus factor,” but it would take the U.S. Marines to get colleges to cough up that information.

Ironically, getting rid of preferences for legacies will hurt Black applicants the most. Recall that colleges have been giving gigantic racial preferences to Black applicants since the 1960s, which means we have more than half a century of Black graduates whose children and grandchildren are … guess what? Legacies!

Children of alums who got in to college on the basis of anything other than merit, as a group, will tend to be less qualified than the children of alums who got in on merit.

Get rid of the legacy preference, and it’s the kids of affirmative action alums who won’t get in.

     COPYRIGHT 2023 ANN COULTER

 

Poland: The nation and its faith

/6 Comments/in /by

“O Holy Maid, who Częstochowa’s shrine
Dost guard and on the Pointed Gateway shine!”

Though it is an obvious remark that not each and every Pole is Catholic, it nonetheless holds true that the equation Polish equals Catholic is as valid as the mental association that Russian means Orthodox Christian (with the same reservations that some Russians are not Orthodox Christians, some are atheists). Even non-Catholic Poles remain mentally Catholic just as atheist Russians remain mentally Christian Orthodox, which fact many of them admit. Russian sociologists, by the way, hold the opinion that though in the Soviet Union Christianity was officially banned, still society at large (including devoted and ardent members of the communist party) lived by the Christian moral code; the same could be observed among Polish communists in the post-war period, among members of the communist party (with many of them having their children covertly christened and religiously raised). Among other things: divorce among party members, be it in Poland, be it in Russia or in any Soviet-dominated country of central Europe was either unthinkable or frowned upon.

Poland emerged from prehistory into history through its christening. The year was 966, which has always been recognized by all political persuasions, beyond any doubt, as the beginning of the Polish state, as the beginning of Polish statehood; more: as the beginning of the Polish nation. In 1966, during the time of the existence of the People’s Republic of Poland, both the officially atheistic or at least a-religious state and the Catholic Church celebrated with pomp, even if separately, the Millennium of Polish statehood. Most citizens would participate both in the festive events held by the government or the party (which for all practical purposes was one and the same thing at that time) and by the Catholic Church.

Though religious matters were constantly suppressed by the authorities, by the party, and though numerous ideological assaults were mounted against the Church and priesthood as such, in films, literature, on the radio, on television and in the press, it was precisely at that time that Polish cinematography produced its greatest motion pictures where patriotism, nationalism and the Catholic faith were given pride of place: you need only to think about the 1960 “The Teutonic Knights/Krzyżacy”[1] (to this day the greatest box office success!) or the 1973 “Deluge/Potop”[2] (taking third place at the box office). They impress the viewer with the solemn performance of “Mother of God/Bogurodzica” — the very first battle hymn of the Polish chivalry (the former) — and the breath-taking kneeling homage of the nation, paid to the icon of the Black Madonna in Częstochowa,[3] the national shrine (the latter). The equally popular 1973 movie “Desert and Wilderness/W pustyni i w puszczy” shows a Polish teenager, adamantly refusing to give up on his Catholic faith under threat of having his head cut off by belligerent Muslims in Africa, while the 1974 “The Promised Land/Ziemia obiecana”[4] contains a dramatic scene in which a sinful Catholic perjures himself, laying his hand on the picture of the Mother of God: the Jewish character who manoeuvres the Pole into swearing the oath takes this act as an honest statement because it would have boggled his mind to think that a Pole could lie face to face with the greatest holiness of his nation.

All these motion pictures were shot during the time of state-sponsored atheism. Remarkably, Aleksander Ford, the director of “The Teutonic Knights” and Jerzy[5] Hoffman, the director of “The Deluge” were non-Catholic, not even Christian: they were Jewish.

The 966 Christianization of Poland predated that of Rus’ (988), but occurred after that of present-day Czechia (known in the Middle Ages as Bohemia). It is of some interest to see how the three related Slavic nations responded to Christianity and how roughly the same creed shaped their history. Poles adopted the new faith via Czechia/Bohemia, i.e., from Rome, while Rus’ (present-day Ukraine, Belarus and Russia — at that time indistinguishable), from Byzantium. That fact marked the first great split between Poles and latter-day Russians/Ukrainians. Till this day Russians consider Poles traitors to the Slavic world, and it was no less a person than Austrian Chancellor Metternich (one of the architects of European continental peace settlement forged at the 1815 Vienna Congress), who famously said: Poland is a wedge that the Western world has driven into the Slavic world. The statement is warranted to a great degree: because of Catholicism Poles have always felt to be a part of the Western world and have always felt opposed to eastern Orthodox Rus’.

Catholicism has not always gone hand in hand with the nation or its rulers. Barely a hundred years had passed from the Christianization of Poland, when a severe conflict between a Polish monarch, King Boleslaus the Bold, and Bishop Stanislaus of Cracow (the then-capital of Poland) erupted: the bishop was killed, in a church (!) by the king’s henchmen, as a result of which the monarch was banished from the country and died in exile. This event (1089) is reminiscent of the conflict between Pope Gregory VII and Emperor Henry IV (1077) or of Thomas Beckett’s death at the hands of King Henry II (1170).

The causes of the enmity between the king and bishop are open to a variety of interpretations. During the time of the People’s Republic of Poland, this historical event was a bone of contention as far as its interpretation was concerned: the Polish Catholic Church kept venerating the murdered bishop as a symbol of opposition to the secular (immoral) authorities, while the communist party tried to foist the interpretation of the conflict as an example of a church high-ranking cleric betraying the interests of the state, nay, of the nation.

It was at that post-war time that the communists sought to strip the Church of the influence that it exercised over the nation, so they restricted the clergy as much as they could, prompting the Primate of Poland, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński,[6] to stand up to the authorities with the by now famous vociferous protest addressed to the government, ending with the words:  “We [the Church] must not sacrifice the divine sacrum on the profane altar of Caesar [the state]. Non possumus [we cannot]”

Rather than being killed like his spiritual predecessor Bishop Stanislaus, Cardinal Wyszyński was imprisoned for a few years. It was at that time that the Polish Catholic Church, absent the Polish nobility and gentry who had disappeared as a class and whose members had either fled the country in fear of communists or who been deprived of their economic and political leverage, assumed the role of the Polish nobility, the Polish aristocracy, the Polish gentry. And what an irony of history it was! The priests were for the most part recruited from the peasantry, i.e., the social class that according to Marxist tenets was to be liberated from the influence of the “opium of the people” and at the same time the social class that for centuries had been thought of by the nobility of not being capable of sustaining nationhood!

At that post-war time, irrespective of whether you were a believer or not, so long as you were anti-communist (and most were), you naturally supported the Church, identified with the Church, and used the Church in your resistance against Marxism-Leninism, against atheists in the positions of power, against the party comrades imposed by Moscow, many of whom were Jewish. Religious instruction was banned from schools but was carried out by parishes. The voluntary attendance was nearly 100%; not because all parents were ardent believers: it was a form of protest, a form of expressing national identity, a sign of resistance — a pronounced, if silent, statement of non possumus. (By comparison, in today’s Poland, attendance at religious instruction, which meanwhile has been reintroduced in schools, has significantly dropped and continues to drop.)

Imprisoned — or rather held under house arrest in various monasteries — Cardinal Wyszyński read (not for the first time in his life) Henryk Sienkiewicz’s[7] trilogy (historical novels about 17th-century Poland, whose cultural importance is comparable to those by Walter Scott in the English-speaking world), and while perusing The Deluge (a few years later made into the aforementioned successful film), he came upon the idea of preparing the nation for the millennium of Polish statehood. “The Deluge”, which heavily draws on historical fact, informs or reminds (as the case may be) the reader of the difficult times from Polish history when the country was inundated by a number of invaders while the nation was on the brink of extinction. It was at that time that Polish King John Casimir made a solemn and religious pledge to restore the greatness of Poland, including through a moral rebirth of the nation; it was in this novel that the reader was reminded of the role that the Częstochowa Monastery and especially of the role that the icon of the Black Madonna played at those difficult times (recall the kneeling homage paid to the icon as depicted in The Deluge. So, too, Cardinal Wyszyński came up with an idea of a moral crusade for the whole nation and the idea of making a moral pledge in the Częstochowa Monastery, which was duly performed with the attendance of a few hundred thousand people after Cardinal Wyszyński had been released from confinement due the post-Stalinist political thaw.

“The confessional and the altar of the nation” — that’s how the Częstochowa Monastery was once defined by him, which corresponds to fact. It occupies the same place in the collective psyche of the nation as Santiago de Compostela for the Spanish or Lourdes for the French. Go to the monastery and you will see a bit larger than real-life size monument of Cardinal Wyszyński, kneeling in front of the shrine where the image of the Holy Virgin has been venerated by generations of Poles since 1382. If you get a closer look at the image, you will spot two scars on her right cheek, scars that the image is commonly known for and commonly recognized by. No, they are not part of an artistic design (no less a person than St Luke the Evangelist is said to be the painter): those scars were inflicted during a Hussite raid on the monastery. The Hussites were Czech — let us say — heretics, but the swords that made the scars were wielded by Polish hands! That shows us the many-faceted relationship between the nation and its Catholic faith.

Black Madonna of Częstochowa

Cardinal Wyszyński initiated a programme of moral renewal which he read from the defensive walls of the monastery to a few hundred thousand people gathered there. He repeated what King John Casimir had done in 1657, which in turn was described by Henryk Sienkiewicz in the above-mentioned historical novel, The Deluge. The moral crusade began in 1956 and was designed to end in 1966, the year of the millennium of Polish statehood. As part of that moral renewal, a copy of the Black Madonna was to be moved from parish to parish, nationwide, gathering local communities for prayer, which exasperated the authorities. Helpless, feeling that they were losing the battle for the nation’s collective soul, the communists seized the image. They arrested the icon! How did Cardinal Wyszyński respond? He had the empty frame carried from parish to parish, nationwide. The presence of the Black Madonna was never perceived as more palpable. Do you remember why King Henry VIII wanted to have Thomas More executed even though his erstwhile chancellor kept silent about the king’s antics? Because his silence spoke louder than words. The same here: the empty frame enhanced the presence of the Mother of God and consolidated the nation, while making the communists look ridiculous.

The empty frame, with no image or rather icon inside, for the Black Madonna is an icon. It was brought to Poland from Rus’ (the part that is present-day Ukraine), which was Orthodox Christian. The northern territory between Poland and Rus’ was occupied by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, a pagan political entity, that ruled over vast lands of otherwise Christian Rus’ after the latter had been partly destroyed, partly subjugated by many Tartar invasions. Lithuanian pagan dukes — mainly through dynastic marriages — managed to bring under their control what we know today as Belarus, almost all of Ukraine and huge chunks of today’s Russia. Lithuanian rulers were heathen almost till the end of the 14th century. As such, they were the target of religious-cum-ideological military raids carried out by the Teutonic Knights (a German military order), who had settled on a northern piece of Polish territory at the invitation of a Polish prince and had subjugated Old Baltic Prussians in the land that is today part of north-eastern Poland and makes up the whole of Russia’s Kaliningrad Region.

The Lithuanian rulers also got caught in the ideological-cum-religious cross-hairs of the Polish Kingdom. Since the Teutonic Knights threatened both Poland and Lithuania, it was a good idea to combine the forces of the two states (along with all those vast Rus’ territories under Lithuanian rule!) to fend off the German assaults. By mutual consent, the grand duke of Lithuania became king of Poland (1386) on condition, of course, that he and his heathen subjects let themselves be baptized. A new body politic emerged, powerful enough to defeat the Teutonic Knights in a series of wars, of which the Battle of Grunwald (1410) described by Henryk Sienkiewicz in the novel The Teutonic Knights/Krzyżacy and skilfully shown in the movie under the same title became part of the nation’s collective psyche as iconic.

The union between Poland and Lithuania (i.e., Lithuania and huge parts of Rus’ as mentioned above), which later consolidated in the form of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, meant that Catholicism made a further dent in the east and encroached somewhat on the Orthodox Christianity. With time, Lithuania developed a similar, typically Catholic devotion to the Mother of God, which materialized in the cult of a Marian icon in Vilnius, in the Chapel of Pointed Gateway/Ostra Brama. The cult was almost a one-to-one spiritual copy of the cult surrounding the Black Madonna in Częstochowa. Though the Polish rulers and the nobility were generally tolerant of other Christian denominations, the drive to bring Orthodox Christians to the common Roman fold was strong. A union of the churches (1596) was designed and implemented, by virtue of which Orthodox Christians, while preserving their rites, were to sever their relationship with Eastern churches and recognize the authority of the Pope in Rome. The so called Unite Orthodox Church came to life, which was yet another religious split in the russkiy mir — the Russian world: most of present-day Ukrainian nationalism and national identity derive from that church union or from that split: the Orthodox Church of eastern Rus’ with Moscow as the nascent organising principle of the russkiy mir (Kiev was then a provincial city within the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) was confronted by the orthodox spin-off church, by Orthodox Russian Catholics. To compound the religious and ethnic tensions, constant Jesuit missions operating in eastern territories of the huge Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth along with the numerous Jews operating on behalf of the magnates in their capacity of tax farmers, owners of mills and inns, land-lease holders, etc. brought about many uprisings of the Russian-speaking, Orthodox Ukrainians (though they were not known by that name then) and resulted in bloodbaths, slaughters, massacres and many acts of ethnic cleansing of the Polish colonizers and their Jewish fellow-travellers.

The greatest “Ukrainian” rebellion broke out in 1648; soon, in 1655 Sweden invaded Poland from the north; that same year Russia attacked from the east; while Ukrainians came close to the town of Lublin, the Swedes occupied Cracow and Russians took Vilnius (capital of the Lithuanian part of the Commonwealth). As a result, the Polish state ceased to exist for all practical purposes (which was precisely the period described by Henryk Sienkiewicz and filmed by Jerzy Hofmann in The Deluge, as mentioned above). It was the Częstochowa Monastery that successfully militarily defied the Swedish siege and marked the beginning of, at first, the guerrilla and then regular war against the aggressors. This period strengthened Polish Catholicism enormously. Why?

– Swedes as Lutherans found support among Lutheran, Calvinistic and other Protestant minorities in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. To put it bluntly: the religious minorities committed high treason. Some of them were expelled after the war.

– Orthodox Christian “Ukrainians” became to be hated for their massacres;

– Orthodox Christian Russians were disliked for their treacherous cooperation with the Swedes and support that they lent to “Ukrainians”; eventually huge chunks of eastern Polish territories (with Kiev) were surrendered by “Ukrainians” to Moscow;

– Jews showed little to no loyalty to the Polish monarch: they enjoyed huge autonomy anyway, having their own parliament, and at any one time usually remained loyal to the current occupier.

Thus Polishness came to mean Catholicism; Catholicism served Polishness best while external enemies and internal traitors were predominantly non-Catholic.

In the following century, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth could barely recover from the “deluge,” which gradually made it possible for its neighbours, especially Orthodox Russia and Lutheran/Calvinist Prussia to use the religious minorities inside the Commonwealth against the Commonwealth itself. Religious freedom was yesterday’s political trump card comparable to today’s interventions in the name of democracy or human rights. Those interventions from the neighbours carried out in the name of defending the rights of religious dissenters, too, consolidated the Catholic majority which began to perceive Orthodox Christians, Lutherans, Calvinists and Jews as alien and hostile bodies, always ready to cooperate with the external enemy.

In a historically unprecedented chain of three consecutive events occurring between 1772 and 1795 (roughly concurrently with the time of the wars for American independence, and the French Revolution), the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was methodically annihilated by Protestant Prussia, Orthodox Russia and the Catholic Hapsburg Empire, something reminiscent of the three hits that eventually liquidated Carthage, with this exception, however, that Carthage was conquered basically by one foreign entity. National uprisings filled the whole of the 19th century, directed now against Russia, now against Prussia, now against the Hapsburg Empire: all unsuccessful. Yet, they all consolidated the nation around Catholicism. Catholic priests were among the insurrectionists, often without the blessing of the official church; Catholic priests frequently acted as commanders of guerrilla units, and they often got killed at battle or were executed in public, as the case might be. The re-emergence of Polish statehood on a smaller territory as a result of the defeat of the three powers that had held a tight grip on Poland at the end of the First World War saw a reborn Polish state with a very large Jewish and Ukrainian minorities. The majority of the former did not even speak good Polish or did not speak Polish at all; the majority of the latter were intensely hostile towards the Polish state. Many — too many — of the former were members of subversive political organizations, especially of the “Polish” Communist Party (‘Polish’ in scare quotes since in reality it was more Jewish); many — too many —  of the latter participated in terrorist organizations that carried out terrorist attacks, of which the assassination of a minister of internal affairs in Warsaw in broad daylight (1935) was the most notorious. When the Second World War erupted, Ukrainians would shoot at the back of Polish soldiers; during the years of German occupation, Ukrainians revelled in annihilating whole towns and villages inhabited by Poles — especially in Volhynia — with their cruelty shocking the battle-hardened, death-inflicting German SS-troopers.

The end of the Second World War meant redrawing of state borders and ethnic resettlements, which rendered Poland to be almost a 100% Polish and 100% Catholic, ruled by a tiny minority of communists, partly Polish, partly Jewish, both groups atheistic, foisted on the nation by Stalinist Soviet Russia. With almost no religious minorities to speak of, with the lack of a national nobility, in the face of the Russian-cum-Jewish hostile takeover of the state, with no real legal political opposition, Catholicism found itself at its strongest. Let us say it again: it acted as the nation’s nobility, it acted as political opposition, it acted as a store of national values, it acted as a moral guide, it acted as a haven of spiritual comfort, it acted as a reminder of Poland’s glorious past. The election of the Polish pope and his first visit to Poland made people raise their heads; it also sparked a spiritual positive ferment. As it is said today, hundreds of thousands turned up at open-air holy masses in the few cities that the pope visited: people saw that they were the majority; individuals saw that they were not isolated; individuals saw that there were millions of like-minded people, that there were millions who were fed up with Marxism-Leninism. Naturally, the Solidarity Movement that broke out only a year later (1980, and eventually brought about the fall of communism) acted hand in hand with the Polish Catholic Church, with the clergy brokering many deals between the opposition and the government or the communist party. The top echelons of the Solidarity Movement contained many former communist Jewish activists and they, too, sought protection within the Church.

In the four decades after the Second World War Poland may have been communist, and despite that fact it did not lose its collective Catholic soul. Christmas and Easter were solemnly celebrated while the radio and television dared not broadcast frivolous programmes or music during the Easter Triduum (which is not to say that there was anything remotely religious on offer). “Pan Tadeusz”, the national epic poem by the premier national bard, Adam Mickiewicz, was always mandatory reading. Children in state-run schools were required to learn by heart the several introductory lines to this poem, two of which read like this:

“O Holy Maid, who Częstochowa’s shrine
Dost guard and on the Pointed Gateway shine!”
(translated by Kenneth Mackenzie)

One might say, in today’s Poland Catholicism is dwindling. Yes, it is. The most shocking events occurred quite recently when, following the U.S. Supreme Court decision leaving abortion legislation to the states, thousands of young rabidly angry women in an act of protest stormed into churches, disrupting Holy Mass, because they held the church responsible for the very restrictive anti-abortion legislation. Yet, it is not without a reason that I mentioned the killing of Bishop Stanislaus at the behest of the Polish monarch or the scarring of the face of the Black Madonna by Polish hands. Such things have happened, happen and will continue to happen. Polish Catholics have been big sinners, adulterers, fornicators, murderers, blasphemers, you name it. If you take a close look, you might run away with wild conclusions. The moment you take a broad picture, you see the trend. Growing up, I remember thinking that atheism in the Soviet Union was as eternal as eternal the Soviet Union seemed to be. All of a sudden the Soviet Union was gone while the Russian Orthodox Christianity is seeing its revival. So, the broad picture remains: just as Russia’s spirit is Orthodox Christian (even if at times religion is suppressed or rejected) so Poland’s spirit is Catholic (with the same reservations).

And Catholicism is not simply a Jewish plot to destroy the White race.

[1] DVD with English subtitles.

[2] DVD with English subtitles.

[3] Częstochowa /chen-staw-KHAW-vah/

[4] DVD with English subtitles.

[5] Jerzy /YEH-zhy/

[6] Wyszyński /vysh-IN-skee/

[7] Sienkiewicz /shyenk-YEH-veech/

Transgenderism as a PC ideology

/4 Comments/in /by

Introduction

Transgenderism can be seen as a politically correct ideology along with feminism, anti-racism and the others. The main things it has in common with them are a hatred and denial of nature and an impertinent urge to overcome it.

Feminism against nature

Feminists’ hatred and denial of nature are seen in their refusal to accept that the sexes are simply different. On the contrary, they say, they are essentially the same. Anything a man can do, a woman can, and so on. They back this up not by pointing to facts but with a taboo against saying the opposite. Like the exponents of every politically correct ideology, they have a special attack word for dissenters. In fact, they have two. Should you have the temerity to ignore the taboo, you will be called a sexist or a misogynist.

For some reason these techniques persuade many that what feminists say is true. Equally importantly, they silence those who are not persuaded, leaving feminists a clear field.

With no dissent to be heard, feminists proceed to ask why the sexes are in different circumstances. Why are women rarely found in leadership positions, they wonder, when the idea that men are more likely to compete for such positions and more suited to them is just a myth? Men must be keeping women down.

Feminists reason that to undo this injustice society must be reshaped to look as it would have done had they been correct, with women in half of all leadership positions. If the principle of equal treatment must be disregarded to achieve this, so be it. Thus, having denied nature, they seek to overcome it, or to give the appearance of having overcome it, at no matter what cost to society.

But then, having filled half the leadership positions in a certain field with women, they ask themselves why they should stop there. Why leave the other half to the oppressor? So they carry on, resulting in a fact such as that in 2018 almost every top position concerning the British police was occupied by a woman. This included London’s senior officer (Cressida Dick), the Director General of the National Crime Agency (Lynne Owens), the head of the National Police Chiefs’ Council (Sarah Thornton), the chair of the College of Policing (Shirley Pearce), the president of the Police Superintendents Association (Irene Curtis) and the chair of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (Anne Owers).[1]

About the only exceptions were the chief constables outside London, of whom by 2020 still only two out of 46 were female. Yet just eighteen months later there were fifteen female chief constables.[2] It is surprising even that as many as thirteen chief constables retired in so short a period. For them all to have been succeeded by women was proof indeed that women can not only do anything men can do but are likely to be able to do it considerably better. Or perhaps it just proved that if no man is on the shortlist, a woman will get the job.

Anti-racism against nature

Anti-racism proceeds just like feminism except that this time it is the races that are supposedly the same. The doctrine of essential racial equality might not appear to be true, but we must assent to it for it too is protected by a taboo. Point to a difference between the races, however evident, and anti-racism’s attack word will be attached to you: you will be called a racist. Again, with any dissent from its basic proposition stifled, we are asked to explain the fact that the races are in different circumstances, the only available explanation being that Whites have been oppressing Blacks. And again, the solution is not the removal of the discrimination but its reversal. Blacks must be favoured over Whites.

Thus feminism and anti-racism use the same playbook. They both employ the idea of essential equality to deny nature before seeking to reshape it to fit their Procrustean bed. Is it too tall? Chop its feet off! Too short? Put it on the rack!

Transgenderism against nature

That transgenderism hates nature and refuses to submit to it is obvious. It finds the most basic fact of life — that nature makes us male or female — too much to bear. What if I didn’t want to be male? Did nature think of that? It is time it learned that if I choose to become a woman I will jolly well do it.

How? Well, first I am going to adopt a philosophy that tells me that whatever I say is true: the philosophy of word magic. I will call myself a woman, which will make me one. Just in case, I will then embark on a lifelong course of cross-sex hormones and undergo innumerable surgical procedures that will make me resemble a woman or at least make me look a lot more like one than I do now.

What is more, I will get my medical insurance to pay for all this on the basis that my dissatisfaction with my sex is a psychiatric condition. At the same time, I will insist that I have no psychiatric condition but am simply an example of normal human variation. Then everyone will see that I am as much a woman as any woman and that there is nothing wrong with me. It was nature that got it wrong. As I might put it: “I was born with the wrong genitals. … I had a birth defect that I got sorted with surgery and medication”.[3] How incompetent of nature to give me that birth defect! How wrong nature was if it didn’t think I could get it sorted with surgery and medication! It must be feeling pretty silly now.

Punishments for thinkers

No politically correct ideology can tolerate considered thought, as we see in the case of transgenderism in some events from the last few years. In 2019 the contract of a woman named Maya Forstater was not renewed after she tweeted that “transgender women” were men.[4] When she contested what was in effect her sacking, the judge ruled against her, finding that her opinion was not compatible with human dignity.[5]

In the midst of this, J.K. Rowling spoke up for her, saying that biological sex existed. For this she received a “barrage of criticism”, yet she refused to apologise, said the news outlet RT in wonderment.[6] Six months later she mocked an NGO for using the phrase “people who menstruate”, asking whether there had not once been a single word for such people, which she seemed to remember had begun with “w”. This brought another “avalanche” of denunciation down on her, with someone tweeting that her words were “causing unimaginable pain”. Well, of course they were! How can a transgender person be expected to encounter a cryptic reference to the word “woman” without suffering unimaginable pain? Another commenter called J.K. Rowling a hate-filled weirdo.

In October 2021 Cambridge University’s Students Union issued a guide to spotting “Terfs”, these being feminists who think that there are two sexes and that one cannot switch from one to the other.[7] Predictably, the guide indulged in projection, referring to “Terf ideology” as though it were the views of Terfs that were  ideological rather than its own. It stated that Terfs had a “deep hatred for trans women”, when it was the guide that was spreading hatred, of Terfs. It alleged that Terfs had links to the far right, when there is nothing political about their position, in contrast to the far-left position of the guide.[8]

The same week, activists at Sussex University launched a campaign to get a philosophy professor fired. Kathleen Stock had asked whether a person’s gender identity could have more social significance than their sex and had doubted whether men should be allowed in women’s changing rooms. Students put up posters saying “IT’S NOT A DEBATE. IT’S NOT FEMINISM. … IT’S JUST TRANSPHOBIA … FIRE KATHLEEN STOCK.” She received death threats and was advised not to go on campus without bodyguards. Her union offered her no support but expressed “solidarity” with “trans and nonbinary communities”. Two weeks later she resigned.

What was noticeable about her defenders was their feebleness. The commentator Paul Embery said that she had merely defended the principle of biological sex and women’s right to single-sex spaces. Women’s concerns about having men in their changing rooms were perfectly legitimate. Transgender activists were trying to get everyone to take their view, he said. But biological sex is not a principle to which one might adhere or not; it is a basic fact of life, and women’s right to women-only changing rooms should be beyond dispute. Instead of saying that transgender activists were trying to get others to take their view, as though it were a view that could deserve respect, Paul Embery should have said that they were trying to get people to affirm a lie.[9] A philosopher named Arif Ahmed stated that Kathleen Stock’s persecution was making it impossible for “one side of a very important public policy debate” to speak. Apparently we had reached the point where the efforts of men to get into women’s changing rooms counted as a contribution to an important debate.

Transgender language rules

No PC ideology can leave the language alone, for unless interfered with, it has a way of reflecting reality. A previous article gave some examples of linguistic engineering aimed at abolishing sex–related words and the associated concepts with them. To give a few more examples, in 2023 Oxfam published an Inclusive Language Guide that illustrated its “commitment to gender justice”, defined as “full equality between women and men (including trans men and women) as well as non-binary people”.[10]

According to the guide, we must not speak of husbands or wives but must call them partners or spouses, nor must we use the words “mother” or “father”, which would assume “the adoption of gendered roles by transgender parents”. We must be aware that patriarchal systems perpetuate sexist and hierarchical power relations and legitimise “discrimination against and exclusion of women and gender non-conforming people”. Moreover, we must be aware that the word “people” itself, although it might not seem to specify a sex, can still express a bias because “in the context of a world based on patriarchal systems, ‘people’ is often misunderstood as only referring to men”. If we must talk about “people”, therefore, we should do it in a way that makes the word “as inclusive as possible”.

When it comes to personal pronouns, the guide tells us not to assume that it is correct to “describe someone as ‘he’ or ‘she’ based on their name or physical appearance”. The person might prefer to be called “they” or “ze”.

Like the British Medical Association (referred to in the previous article), Oxfam advises against using the term “expectant mother”. Not only does the expression “reinforce gender stereotypes”; the woman might not wish to continue her pregnancy. It does allow that pregnant people are women, however, although if we stress this fact we might be excluding “gender non-binary, trans men, or gender non-conforming people”.

The words “transgendered” and “transsexual” must be avoided in case someone referred to in this way doesn’t like it. “In a society that upholds the human rights to equality, freedom of expression, privacy and self-determination, we must respect how people wish to be referred to.” We must take an approach that “actively includes transgender people”. Ideally, “a trans-inclusive approach will identify the ways that trans people are specifically impacted by discrimination”. Presumably, then, rather than calling transgender people transgender, we should call them victims of discrimination in various ways that we will proceed to specify, who might be mistakenly referred to as transgender by the unenlightened.

Transgenderism against science

From the postmodern philosophy that gives it its belief in word magic, transgenderism also gets its belief in the priority of subjectivity over objectivity. But since it exists in a society that values science, it must do as other politically correct ideologies do and pretend that its dogmas are scientific, as when claiming that the evidence “strongly suggests” that gender identity is “usually established … by the age of two to three”;[11] that “the expression of transgender identity … is a healthy, appropriate and typical aspect of human development”;[12] or that “From a medical perspective, the appropriate determinant of sex is gender identity”. The last comment was made by a professor at Duke University School of Medicine, who meant that the best way for a doctor to establish a person’s sex is by asking them. “It is counter to medical science”, she continued, “to use chromosomes, hormones, internal reproductive organs, external genitalia, or secondary sex characteristics to override gender identity for purposes of classifying someone as male or female”.[13]

Of course, deception itself is characteristic of political correctness, on which subject it might be worth pointing out that a politically correct statement is necessarily untrue. This is because true statements, meaning empirically correct ones, can look after themselves. Only statements that are empirically incorrect need to be made correct politically.

Transgenderism and childism

A little-mentioned ideology of political correctness is childism, which transgenderism does not so much resemble as incorporate. Childism inverts the natural order by transferring the authority of adults to children, as seen one day in 1998 when BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour looked at the question of what to do with the children in the summer holidays. It didn’t ask parents for their ideas but asked a panel of children. Already in the 1970s Kahlil Gibran’s book The Prophet (1923) was popular, mainly for its advice to parents: “You may strive to be like [your children], but seek not to make them like you”. This gave rise to the idea that adults have more to learn from children than children have to learn from adults.

The children’s author Cressida Cowell expressed her childism when she wrote in 2020 that children “are the most creative people in the world”, raising the question of why Pope Julius II commissioned Michelangelo to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel when he could have got a better result by commissioning a child. Cressida Cowell hoped that children’s “magical powers of creativity, intelligence and empathy” would make them “come up with solutions to the political and scientific challenges facing the world” — not as adults, mark you, when they would have lost their magical powers, but now, as children.

But childism had reached its apogee the year before, when an assembly of world leaders asked a child to tell them what to do. This was at the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York, which Greta Thunberg, aged sixteen, was invited to address. Rising to her role as leader of leaders, the pigtailed adolescent expressed her advice by asking her audience how they dared to do this or that.

The natural complement of treating children like adults is to treat adults like children. This is the essence of “dumbing down”, which first appeared in the 1990s. Many adults responded by starting not only to talk and think like children but also to dress like them, going about in track suits that resembled romper suits. The infantilisation of adults has continued ever since.

Transgenderism incorporates childism by telling teachers not to talk to transgender children but to listen to them, and not to lead them but to follow. Thus in 2014, East Sussex County Council Children’s Services issued the following guidance to teachers: “Listen to the [transgender] child … and wherever possible follow their lead and preferences”.[14] Similarly, an American campaigning organisation says that “the most important thing we can do is listen to what our [transgender] children are telling us”.[15] Adults should learn from children, thinks Diane Ehrensaft, director of mental health at the Child and Adolescent Gender Center at Benioff Children’s Hospital at the University of California, San Francisco. Children are “our best teachers”.[16] The logical conclusion of this will see groups of grown-ups filing into the classroom to be instructed by infants wearing mortarboards.

Transgenderism requires doctors to accept not only a transgender child’s self-diagnosis but also its prescribed course of treatment. Medical professionals do as they are told for fear of their patients declaring themselves unsatisfied with the service they have received or accusing them of “transphobia”.[17]

Conclusion

If one views political correctness as a collection of ideologies, then transgenderism is just one of these. All tend to the destruction of our societies and culture; most pit themselves against nature. This suggests that their originators are conducting a war against God, for to say that something is as it is by nature is only to say that that is the way God made it. The rebels’ chosen battlefield is the West, where political correctness is mainly found. White people are their particular enemies on earth. If they can defeat us here, they will take themselves to have defeated God. At least, that is one way of looking at the situation.

[1] The Director of Public Prosecutions was also a woman: Alison Saunders, who was found to have been suppressing evidence of men’s innocence in rape cases.

[2] History Debunked, July 8th 2021, “Women in command; female leaders in the police and army”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1i6pBj6dYMw. Including Wales, after another six months there were 19 out 49 (Telegraph, Jan. 9th 2023, “Record 40 per cent of chief constables are now women amid anti-misogyny drive”, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/09/record-40-per-cent-chief-constables-now-women-amid-anti-misogyny/).

[3] This was a man calling himself Bethany Black in conversation with Helen Lewis (New Statesman, Sept. 13th 2013, “What makes you a man or a woman anyway?” https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2013/09/battle-over-gender-what-makes-you-man-or-woman-anyway).

[4] Maya Forstater made her comments, not while at work, during a discussion of possible reforms to the Gender Recognition Act.

[5] Her appeal, heard in 2021, found that her position was “worthy of respect in a democratic society”.

[6] RT.  Jun 7th 2020. “‘There used to be a word for people who menstruate’: JK Rowling gets denounced as transphobe AGAIN”. https://www.rt.com/news/491077-rowling-trans-women-row/.

[7] Telegraph, Oct. 13th 2021, “Cambridge University ‘Terf-spotting’ guide condemned as a ‘witch-finder’s charter’”, reproduced at https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/45570/cambridge-university-terf-spotting-guide-condemned-as-a-witch-finders-charter.

[8] MailOnline, “Cambridge Students’ Union publishes pro-trans guide claiming that being a woman is not just down to ‘biological sex’ — and accuses feminists opposing such views as being linked to ‘far right’”, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10087849/Cambridge-SU-publishes-pro-trans-guide-claiming-woman-not-just-biological-sex.html.

[9] GB News, Oct. 17th 2021, “Kathleen Stock: Paul Embery says abuse of academic after alleged ‘transphobic’ remark is ‘appalling’”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY4b1atncaY.

[10] For an overview of the guide, see Oxfam, March 2023, “Inclusive Language Guide”, https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/inclusive-language-guide-621487/. For the guide itself see https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/621487/tk-inclusive-language-guide-130323-en.pdf?sequence=4.

[11] Ryan T. Anderson, 2019 (2018), When Harry Became Sally, New York: Encounter Books. 2019, ibid., pp. 32-33.

[12] Ryan Anderson 2019, ibid., p. 38.

[13] Ryan Anderson 2019, ibid., p. 30.

[14] East Sussex County Council Children’s Services, Oct. 2014, “Trans* Inclusion Schools Toolkit”, https://czone.eastsussex.gov.uk/media/2480/trans-toolkit.pdf (file no longer there).

[15] PFLAG, quoted by Ryan Anderson 2019, op. cit., p. 35.

[16] Quoted by Ryan Anderson 2019, ibid., pp 35-36.

[17] The Heritage Foundation, March 28th 2019, “The Medical Harms of Hormonal and Surgical Interventions for Gender Dysphoric Children”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnP_WoeNuwA.

The Forced War, a Review, Part 3 of 3

/3 Comments/in /by

Go to Part 1
Go to Part 2 

The Optimism of Adolf Hitler

The common thread linking most if not all of Adolf Hitler’s actions and statements throughout The Forced War is ethnocentrism. He harbored a deep identification with the German people, and, to a lesser extent, an appreciation of distinct, non-German (or non-Aryan) European peoples. From the beginning, Hitler sought to undo the injustices to the German people committed by the framers of the Treaty of Versailles. This meant that in 1933 over ten million ethnic Germans in the political nation-states of Czechoslovakia, Austria, Poland, and Lithuania had been robbed of self-determination and were made to suffer foreign rule. Aside from shepherding Germany’s economic recovery during the Great Depression and reestablishing Germany’s status as a great power, bringing these people back into the Reich where they belonged (and in most cases wanted to be) was of paramount importance to Hitler.

But Hitler sought to do this peacefully and by stepping on as few toes as possible. In The Forced War, Hoggan allows for the historical record to speak for itself in order to exonerate Hitler from the charge that he wished to conquer the world. The Sudeten Germans, the Germans in Austria and Poland, and in Memel, which was seized by Lithuania in 1920 in violation of the League of Nations, did suffer oppression and indignities as second-class citizens under hostile rule. Hitler was addressing a pressing problem for his people, and had no interest in incorporating outgroup members such as Poles, Czech, and Slovaks under his rule. He said this numerous times. Is this what a power-mad conqueror would say?

Further, in January 1937, Hitler had instructed Marshal Hermann Göring to insist to Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs Beck that Germany had no designs on the Polish Corridor or any other part of Poland for that matter, and would not form an alliance with the Soviet Union as Germany had done in 1922 in Rapallo, Italy. In return he had hoped for similar concessions from the Poles (such as Danzig, which was not even officially part of Poland). Now, either this was a wise move or it wasn’t, given how the Poles were not being honest and were abusing their German minority. Either way, it makes the reader ask if Hitler’s behavior was consistent with that of a modern-day Genghis Khan.

Nearly every time Hitler’s name appears on the page (which is often), Hoggan forces us to ask such questions. And every time, it gets harder and harder to answer in a manner harmonious with the accepted narrative, which paints Hitler as evil and insane.

If there are any criticisms of Hitler lurking in The Forced War, they are exceedingly mild—praise by faint damnation, if you will. Yes, Hitler underestimated the military capabilities of the Soviet Union. Then again, so did almost everybody in Western and Central Europe. After all the bloody purges and terror famines of the 1930s, who could have envisioned the Red Army as the colossus it turned out to be? Hoggan has a few choice things to say about some of Hitler’s diplomats as well, especially Hans Moltke, German ambassador to Poland.

Hoggan’s most consistent criticism, however, deals with Hitler’s character. Der Führer was optimistic almost to the point of naïveté. He didn’t realize until it was too late that Lord Halifax was a snake in the grass intent upon encircling Germany. He also didn’t realize that Józef Beck had been an enemy all along and never once negotiated in good faith over Danzig. Hitler, in Hoggan’s view, simply assumed that everyone wanted peace as much as he did. This is why he instructed Göring not to haggle with the Poles over Teschen. This is why he renounced German claims to territory in France, Denmark, Italy, and Poland. This is why he continually suppressed stories of Polish anti-German atrocities in the German press. This is why he made the Poles a very generous offer in return for Danzig. This is why he instructed Danzig Senate President Artur Greiser to capitulate to the August 4 Polish ultimatum, which threatened to starve the city. This is why mere days before the invasion of Poland, he halted all military operations when there appeared a glimmer of hope that the Poles might negotiate after all. This is why he never stopped trying until the moment Poland made her belligerent intentions clear by fully mobilizing.

Here are the terms Hitler offered the Poles:

Germany would request Poland to permit her to annex Danzig. She would ask permission to construct a superhighway and a railroad to East Prussia. Lipski was assured that these carefully circumscribed suggestions represented the total of German requests from Poland.

It was clear that there had to be a quid pro quo basis for negotiation and Germany was prepared to offer many concessions. Poland would be granted a permanent free port in Danzig and the right to build her own highway and railroad to the port. The entire Danzig area would be a permanent free market for Polish goods on which no German customs duties would be levied. Germany would take the unprecedented step of recognizing and guaranteeing the existing German-Polish frontier, including the 1922 boundary in Upper Silesia.

Sadly, Beck preferred subterfuge, inflated national prestige, and a disastrous war over solving the Danzig crisis and acquiring a steadfast ally against the Soviet Union, of whom the Poles were rightfully wary. He also unwittingly preferred being a pawn in Lord Halifax’s grand scheme for crushing Germany, and being ruthlessly sacrificed in the process. Not realizing this caused Hitler and his government to waste time and resources being more conciliatory towards Poland than they should have been. With 20/20 hindsight, Hoggan avers that Hitler’s diplomatic efforts in the days leading up to the invasion, earnest as they were, “left very little to be desired.”

Hoggan assesses this melancholy situation quite well:

Hitler had stressed with unerring aim the importance of the British attitude toward Germany. His optimism about avoiding an Anglo-German war would have been justified to a greater extent had German-Polish relations been as solid and friendly as Hitler had indicated. Hitler was not aware of the extent to which Great Britain had fostered an anti-German policy in Poland, and he had been misled by the friendly attitude of Beck at Berchtesgaden. Hitler was disappointed by the failure of the Ribbentrop mission to Warsaw, but he remained confident that the Poles could be induced to cooperate, if they were handled with tact and patience. Hitler had made a formidable attempt to convince the foreign groups hostile toward Germany that another World War would be a disaster. It is surprising that it was necessary, after the experience of World War I, to expend so much eloquence to make such an obvious point, and it is depressing to note that the war enthusiasts of Great Britain were impervious to every such eloquent argument.

Still, Hitler never wanted war, and in an April 1939 Reichstag speech declared that despite his deep admiration for Britain, “love cannot be provided from one side if it is not received from the other.” On the eve of the invasion, he wrote to the Duke of Windsor, who was living in France at the time, “you may rest assured that my attitude toward Britain and my desire to avoid another war between our peoples remain unchanged.”

Astonishing things for a German patriot like Hitler to say a mere 20 years after Britain had helped starve to death 800,000 German children and old people during the Allied Hunger Blockade of the First World War. Even after the invasion, Hitler stated he would stop all military action if only the Poles would finally negotiate.

If only.

The Absence of Jews

There are many fascinating aspects of this crucial history not discussed at length in this review—most notably, Hoggan’s evaluation of the historical and ideological backdrop to the events of the late 1930s, his thorough coverage of the Czech crisis, his biting appraisal of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s ignorance and cynicism, his tart dismissals of rival mainstream historians such as Martin Gilbert, Richard Gott, and William Shirer, and his moving depiction of French Foreign Minister Bonnet and his government’s slow, tragic, and entirely unnecessary capitulation to Lord Halifax.

But one curious aspect of The Forced War must be discussed to make this review complete for today’s dissidents and revisionists: Hoggan pretty much kept the Jews of out of it. On balance, there is barely a whiff of counter-Semitism in the entire book. Yes, he characterizes William Bullitt as a warmonger, but he ignores his Jewish roots and at best construes him as a junior partner to Lord Halifax. Nor does he mention that Gilbert and Gott were Jewish, while he does mention the Jewish roots of historians Lewis B. Namier and T.L. Jarman whom he finds more able and honest. There are also a small number of Jews or half-Jews who turn up from time to time to enflame the war hysteria in Britain and the United States, such as “tory warmonger” Leopold Amery. But one must go to Wikipedia and not David Hoggan to discover this.

The closest Hoggan gets to taking a stand regarding the Jews is his evenhanded (some would say approving) estimation of Hitler’s Jewish policy, as exemplified by the following two passages:

Hitler believed that the policy of granting full legal and political equality to the Jews, which had been adopted in Germany and Great Britain during the previous century, had been a great mistake for Germany. He believed that inter-marriage between Germans and Jews harmed the German people and should be discontinued. He shared the conviction of Roman Dmowski in Poland that the Jews were harmful in the economic and cultural spheres. He also believed that the Jewish influence on German politics had weakened Germany. Hitler worked for the day when there would be no more Jewish subjects in Germany, just as Abraham Lincoln in his last years had worked for an exodus of Negroes from America.

. . . and . . .

He charged that the Jews had monopolized the leading positions in German life, but he wanted his own people in those positions. He desired German civilization to remain German and not to become Jewish. Foreign spokesmen often claimed that Germany was driving away her most valuable cultural asset, and Hitler hoped that they were sufficiently grateful that Germany was making this asset available to them. He knew that there was ample room in the world for Jewish settlement, but he believed that it was time to discard the idea that the Jews had the right to exploit every other nation in the world. He urged the Jewish people to form a balanced community of their own, or to face an unpredictable crisis.

Of course, I am not in a position to challenge Hoggan’s neutrality on this issue. According to two Jewish sources I have read, Benjamin Ginsburg’s How the Jews Defeated Hitler and Edwin Black’s The Transfer Agreement, influential anti-German Jews did warmonger throughout the 1930s and did have a tremendous impact upon the events leading up to the war. Yet this makes almost no appearance in The Forced War. For one thing, Hoggan outclasses both Ginsburg and Black as a historian. For breadth and depth of information as well as scholarly objectivity there really is no comparison. So that must be taken into consideration.

Secondly, I spotted some glaring inconsistencies between The Forced War and these two other sources. In The Transfer Agreement Black strongly implies that the outrage of Polish Jews over Hitler’s ascension to power is what drove Polish intransigence when dealing with Germany. Hoggan, on the other hand, stresses Polish “cruel and audacious” anti-Semitism—which was stronger than Hitler’s—and lays this intransigence squarely at the feet of Beck and his subordinates. The Jews, according to Hoggan, had nothing to do with it. Ginsburg, on the other hand, paints Roosevelt as a great ally and benefactor of the Jews who was greatly influenced by Jews in his administration such as Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau, and Samuel Cohen. Yet Hoggan insists that Jews had little to no influence on Roosevelt’s anti-German belligerence, and that FDR had “no strong pro-Jewish feelings.” Germany’s Jewish policies never amounted to more than a pretext for FDR; as evidence, Hoggan demonstrates how Jews were treated worse in Poland than in Germany.

Considerable attention was given to the problem of encouraging Jewish emigration from Germany in the years from 1933 to 1938, but far more Jews departed from Poland than from Germany during these years. An average 100,000 Jews were emigrating from Poland each year compared to 25–28,000 Jews leaving Germany annually. From September 1933 to November 1938 a special economic agreement (Havarah agreement) enabled German Jews to transfer their assets to Palestine, and the German authorities were far more liberal in this respect than Poland. There were also special arrangements for wealthy Jews in Germany to contribute to the emigration of others by capital transfers to various places. 170,000 Jews had left Germany by November 9, 1938, compared to approximately 575,000 who had departed from Poland during the same years. It was noted that thousands of Jews who left Germany in 1933 returned to the country after 1934, and that scarcely any of the Polish Jews returned to Poland during the same period.

If it was all about the Jews for FDR, then why not support war against Poland, or stay out of the fight altogether?

I don’t know who is correct about this, but I suspect there are elements of truth on both sides. History, as we all as know, can be quite messy, and historians have been known to grind axes. While Ginsburg and Black can be criticized for their anti-German biases, the same can be said for Hoggan’s apparent pro-German bias. In any case, Hoggan’s work is valuable in that he discusses the devastating harm that White gentiles can undoubtedly do to themselves. Such analysis can help prevent or limit future blunders as well as understanding the Jewish Question can.

There is, however, one personage in The Forced War who does challenge Hoggan, and Hoggan, to his credit, gives him ample airtime—even as he dismisses him outright. It seems that nearly every time Polish Ambassador Jerzy Potocki’s name appears on the page, he’s blaming the Jews for something:

Potocki overestimated the Jewish question because of his own intense prejudices against the Jews, which were shared by the entire Polish leadership. He was highly critical of the American Jews. He believed that Jewish influence on American culture and public opinion, which he regarded as unquestionably preponderant, was producing a rapid decline of intellectual standards in the United States. He reported to Warsaw again and again that American public opinion was merely the product of Jewish machinations.

Hoggan states further that . . .

Potocki continued to exaggerate the importance of the Jews in American policy, and he ridiculed prominent American Jews, who claimed that they were “desirous of being representative of ‘true Americanism’,” but were, “in point of fact, linked with international Jewry by ties incapable of being torn asunder.” He complained that the Jews hid their Jewish internationalism in a false nationalism, and “succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps.”

Far be it for this reviewer to give greater weight to Potocki’s position on the Jews than Hoggan’s. But considering all the scholarship and revelations of the post-Soviet period, which include the crucial works of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Kevin MacDonald, Andrew Joyce, Ron Unz, Brenton Sanderson, and Igor Shafarevich (among others), as well as the fact that Potocki’s analysis accords very closely with those of Jewish writers like Ginsburg and Black, one cannot help but suspect that David Hoggan may have had a bit of a blind spot when it came to the Jews.

Conclusion

David Hoggan’s The Forced War is an invaluable work of history and a crucial touchstone for modern dissidents. Appreciating the justice and truth behind the German perspective during the Second World War is the first step we all must take to have a balanced and accurate understanding, not only of history, but of the crippling ideological conformity of our own times—which springs directly from the smoldering ruins of 1945 Berlin and the Nuremburg Trials which followed.

But the book’s own story is fascinating as well.

First published in West Germany in 1961 under the title Der erzwungene Krieg, the book engendered much hostility in the press and from establishment scholars, who dubbed it a work of “right-wing extremism.” According to historian Kurt Glaser, this was due less to the few errors Hoggan had committed and more to his “heresy against the creed of historical orthodoxy.” Naturally, patriotic German citizens, especially those who had lived through the war, praised Hoggan. His popularity was such that the German edition of The Forced War went through over a dozen printings of more than 50,000 copies.

Efforts to publish an English-language edition stalled due to disputes between Hoggan and publisher Devin-Adair. Eventually, the Institute for Historical Review obtained the rights to the book. But disaster struck in 1984. As IHR director Mark Weber explains in his Foreword to the 2023 edition:

But a devastating arson attack on the IHR’s offices in July 1984, which destroyed the book’s layout and proof sheets, art work and other key files, delayed publication several more years. (No one was ever arrested for the crime. Only years later did law enforcement authorities reveal that the perpetrators had been activists of the “Jewish Defense League,” an organization identified by the FBI as a major terrorist group.)

Fortunately, IHR persevered with The Forced War. This book should be read carefully and with great urgency by as wide an audience as possible. As pure history, it is as entertaining as it is enlightening. The sheer breadth of Hoggan’s scholarship makes us ask important questions and inspires high confidence in his thesis. Any atrocities, actual or purported, committed by the Germans during the Second World War must be counterbalanced by the wealth of exonerating evidence found in The Forced War. And none of this diminishes the irony that a work which scrupulously shielded Jews from blame had nearly been done in by them forty years later.