Some notes on Controlled opposition, spies and snitches.

/5 Comments/in /by

It is reasonable to assume that an article about this topic will be at some point read by a member of the controlled opposition. If this is you, relax: your name will not be mentioned!

The spy and the snitch concentrate on collecting information, but the controlled opposition concentrates ón putting ideas in your head.

It’s a tale as old as history. If the New Testament is accurate, Judas did the job two thousand years ago. They appear many times in history before and since. In the 1920s, the Soviets celebrated Judas and set up their own fake opposition amongst emigrant Russian communities around the world, snaring many an unwary and unfortunate person.

George Orwell described the kind, elderly man, nostalgic for the good old days, who turned a blind eye to the opposition meeting in his spare room. Surprise, surprise, even back then, the spare room had a hidden recording device…

A group fighting a legal case against McDonalds in the 1990s found out later that the majority of people attending their support ,meetings were snitches of one sort or another.

It is reasonable to assume that today there is massive use of controlled opposition. It is quite possible to be at an anti government meeting and for a majority of those present to be snitches. Wherever you are in the world, no doubt you can think of some suspicious characters who claim to oppose the government.

The Law of Unintended Consequences is one of the most inspiring and optimistic scientific laws ever discovered. They use controlled opposition to control us, but it has the seeds of its own destruction.

An East German Stasi agent reported that the early demonstrations against the regime included huge numbers of Stasi agents. They had to attend the protests to keep their cover as anti-government activists, but their attendance increased the numbers and encouraged more people to come out and protest.

Controlled opposition is better than no opposition at all. An agent must do some activism to maintain his cover as an activist. Anyone suspected of being an agent should be encouraged to do as much activism as possible.

Here is a categorization of different types of controlled opposition and some hints on how to counteract it:

The Spy Hunter: This character accuses others of being controlled opposition, often accurately. This gives the accuser credibility and promotes division.

The Obvious Spy: Even the kind, trusting and naïve among us notice there is something odd about this character—like the character parading around with a swastika at the Charlottesvill demonstration. This means we waste time thinking about him, and we do not notice the more subtle spy in our midst.

The Distractor: sends us looking the wrong direction at the wrong time. They will shout loudly about some horrific State crime from ten years ago, while exactly the same crime is being committed now.

The Dodgy Hero: This character says all the right things, and even does some of the right things. But his personal and professional life show him to have been dishonest and untrustworthy. This taints what truth he tells. Has he really reformed?

The Downer: As an intelligent person, perhaps you are aware that Things Are Bad? Mass vaccination, mass immigration, mass dumbing down and heavy Zionist influence in your politics, wherever you live, not excluding Gaza, Iran, Russia or China. But spend half an hour with the Downer, and you will realise things are even worse than that…His job is to frighten you with sometimes truthful information and reduce your will to resist: What’s the point? They are too powerful.

Dr Feel Good DoNothing Dude: Three main variants: There is a 5D chess games going on, OR the Good Aliens are coming to rescue us, OR even Jesus Christ himself is working behind the scenes to fix everything. They offer a similar solution: do nothing to publicly challenge the system.

The Hater: various philosophers over the millennia have warned of the danger to ourselves of overindulgence in the emotions of hate and anger, no matter how justified. These emotions warp our personalities and cloud our judgement. They are no doubt useful — in small, brief amounts — in warfare, punishment beatings, and torture, but any long term indulgence in these emotions is dangerous to the indulger. The Hater encourages us to hate and feel anger. The sensible person transmutes these emotions into determination to take useful action.

The Exaggerator (or the Bad Data guy): This character makes a truthful statement, but uses bad data to back it up. An example is a report by a qualified academic critcising the Covid nonsense, with various citations and quotes. When researched, the quotes were wrong or even non-existent! Someone went to a lot of trouble to fake dozens of false quotations, presumably to discredit the main argument.

* * *

One way of dealing with controlled opposition is to laugh at it! It is worth mentioning at all meetings: Hey guys, there’s a possibility that there is someone in this gathering who is a snitch. Our aim is to live such exemplary lives, that the snitch will switch over to our side. We also have a budget for snitches. Whatever they’re paying you, we’ll pay you double. Triple your money and double your fun.

Spies who have told their story often mention how nervous they are when the conversation turns to the topic of spies. Not surprising. It’s worth doing often, in a joking way, obviously without naming or even hinting at anyone. Discretely note reactions of suspicious persons…

By attending Controlled Opposition events, an honest man can make contact with other honest people. Any such event will be designed to fail, and the honest man can point out the failures in a light hearted and helpful way, naming no names, making no allegations, of course. This might embarrass the Controlled Opposition to make their next event less obviously designed to fail.

It is sometimes possible to cajole, and embarrass and joke the Controlled Opposition into taking effective action.

It’s probably a good idea to be on good terms personally with your local Controlled Opposition. The jovial smile, the manly embrace, cheerful conversation about topics of mutual interest. “Chickenfeed” is a useful term from the spy world: truthful information which the other side already knows or which is irrelevant. Never even hint at your suspicions, but occasionally talk in general terms about snitches, no names of course.

Being friendly with your local snitch(es) has personal advantages: Perhaps the snitch will leave your name and activities out of some of his reports. Perhaps your name will be at the end of the activists arrest list, not at the top. Perhaps he might even warn you ten minutes before the cops are due to arrest you.

Sometimes, very, very rarely, the snitch will switch.  This happened in a protest against a Shell gas pipeline in County Mayo (Ireland) some years back. An Englishman had spent a decade as a deep cover snitch in various protest movements, even starting a family with one unsuspecting lady. But he snapped. The Government wanted to jail two of the protestors. The snitch realised that he liked the protestors more than his paymasters. He went to court, gave evidence that he was a snitch, and that the protestors were innocent. Case dismissed!

Alexander Solzhenitsyn tells us how he was able to spot snitches amongst his fellow prisoners: He could sense them.  If you get an odd feeling about someone, pay careful attention to that feeling.

A friend suggests a “three strikes” approach. Notice one suspicious thing? Ok, keep observing. Three suspicious things, and you’ve got a definite!

As the Welsh say: Hwyl!

(translates as: Have Fun or Go Sailing.)

Carl Jung and the Jews

/32 Comments/in , , /by

“The Jew truly solicits anti-Semitism with his readiness to scent out anti-Semitism everywhere.”
        Carl Jung, 1934

For a long time I’ve been fascinated by the way in which Jews obsess over deceased, historical figures who made unflattering comments about their race. The more famous and talented, the greater the intensity of the obsession. Such preoccupations have featured previously at The Occidental Observer, for example in the Jewish vendetta against T.S. Eliot, and against his contemporary Ezra Pound. In Anthony Julius’s T.S. Eliot, anti-Semitism and Literary Form, for example, Julius writes that Jews reading Eliot’s poetry are both “appalled and impressed.”[1] They are appalled because they perceive an unjustified critique upon their ethnic group, and they perceive this critique more acutely because of their ethnocentrism. They are impressed, on the other hand, because they appreciate, and are threatened by, the talent of their target, often despite themselves. The ‘attraction’ which brings them back repeatedly to their target arises from the desire to deconstruct and demean that talent, and therefore avenge or mitigate the critique.

Jews are also firmly in the grip of a historically rooted fear or paranoia. The past is ever present for Jews, prompting them into risky and extremely aggressive actions against host populations. The perfect expression of this paranoia can be found in a very recent article in The Guardian by Jewish journalist Barney Ronay. Ronay is currently in Germany to cover the European Football championships, but he can’t seem to focus on sport. He informs his readers that he has “loved being in this warm, friendly place for Euro 2024, a homecoming of sorts. But that doesn’t stop it terrifying me.” He continues:

Here, by way of example, is a non-exhaustive list of German things that have felt terrifying to me, begun on my first day at the Euros when a happy German woman was laughing uncontrollably on a train passing through woodland outside Munich and I realised that happy uncontrollable German laughter is terrifying. German trains are terrifying. German railway sidings are terrifying. There are transport vibes here, fleeing energy. A German forest is terrifying, in particular a German forest clearing. An empty German park at dusk is terrifying. Any German village square is terrifying … What else? German dark wood furniture. A row of parked German bicycles (Where are they going? Will I need one?). German staircases, corridors, suitcases. Most German shoes. All discarded German shoes.

Many of these fears have their origins in tales passed down to Jewish children, and reinforced through Jewish cultural and political groups. Fear is a key ingredient in the cement that binds Jewish ethnocentrism, which is why the ADL invests a lot of money in surveys of anti-Semitism intended to terrify and shepherd the ethnic flock into cohesive action. In Ronay’s case, “Family myth dictates one of my distant uncles was pulled off a train and shot. The bullet passed through his neck, he lay down for a bit, got up and rejoined the resistance.” I applaud his use of the word myth here, but there are many hundreds of thousands of Jewish families which cherish such fantastical boogeyman tales as historical fact. And Jewish fear, and Jewish ethnocentrism, needs its boogeymen, be they obvious ones like Hitler, or more persistent cultural figures such as Eliot or Pound—figures who can still be discussed publicly with a level of respect and admiration. Among such figures we find Carl Jung.

Carl Jung and the Culture of Critique

Although, or perhaps because, Jung was once associated with psychoanalysis, a movement so Jewish that it comprises one of the Jewish intellectual movements highlighted in Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, the Swiss psychiatrist has increasingly become the focus of condemnation, deconstruction, and criticism in recent years. In the recently-published Anti-Semitism and Analytical Psychology: Jung, Politics and Culture, Jewish academic Daniel Burston writes that:

In today’s world of psychotherapy, one cannot be a Jungian without having to answer the charge that Jung was both a Nazi and anti-Semitic. … His statements on the over-materialistic values of Jewish psychology, and its corrosive effects on the spiritual nature of the psyche, were made in the 1930s. … Psychoanalysts have used it as a reason not to study Jung; other intellectuals use it as a reason to discredit Jung.[2]

In a paragraph that reads a little like something from a horror novel, Jung’s place as a boogeyman is introduced early, with anti-Semitism explained as a mysterious, ghostly and terrifying phenomenon:

After reading this book, perhaps Jungians will grasp why so many Jews think of anti-Semitism as a shape-shifting but deathless adversary that lives forever in the hidden recesses of Christian and Muslim cultures; one that lies dormant for shorter or longer periods, but always returns to torment us through the ages.

Shape-shifting and deathless. Oh my.

Burston draws a distinction between what he calls “low-brow, high-intensity” anti-Semites, and “high-brow, low-intensity” anti-Semites. He explicitly mentions Kevin MacDonald as an example of the latter, and places Jung in this category also. Burston claims that “anti-Semitic intellectuals” like MacDonald and Jung, while non-violent, “will also offer cover or support for less educated, more overt kind of anti-Semites when circumstances require.” The smear is therefore that men like MacDonald and Jung are essentially thugs in suits.

Burston traces Jung’s thought to the neo-conservative movement dominant during his university years, with Jung painted as having imbibed a semi-barbaric quasi-Germanism. “It rejected naturalism and was drawn to symbolism and irrationalism. In politics it questioned democracy and rejected socialism, preferring a Nietzschean elitism. . . . Jung adopted [Eduard von Hartmann’s] critique of modernity [including his] concern about the ‘Judaization’ of modern society. . . . For Jung, Freud became the representative of such a rationalistic, ‘disenchanted’ view of the world.”[3]

By the 1920s and 1930s, supporters of Freud and of Jung increasingly saw each other as opponents in a battle for civilization as each defined it. Because of his anti-materialism and his criticism of many of Freud’s more perverse theories, Freudians, most of whom were Jewish, regarded Jung as an anti-Semite and latterly as “a herald of fascist and Nazi barbarism.” Burston continues in this vein, arguing for a “significant and disturbing link between the dynamics of antisemitism over the centuries and the psychology and politics of Carl Jung.”

A crucial problem that Jews, past and present, have with Jung is that he dared to turn the analytical gaze back on the Jews themselves. While the entirety of psychoanalysis seemed geared towards what Kevin MacDonald termed “a radical criticism of gentile society,” as well as the development of self-serving theories of anti-Semitism, Jung developed a cutting critique of Jews and of what he called “Jewish anti-Christianism,” with many of his observations arising from direct experience with the Jewish psychoanalytic milieu. In other words, Jung put Jewish quacks “on the couch.” In a letter to an associate dated May 1934, Jung explained:

The Jewish Christ-complex makes for a somewhat hystericized general attitude … which has become especially clear to me in the course of the present anti-Christian attacks upon myself. The mere fact that I speak of a difference between Jewish and Christian psychology suffices to allow anyone to voice the prejudice that I am an anti-Semite. … As you know, Freud previously accused me of anti-Semitism because I could not countenance his soulless materialism. The Jew truly solicits anti-Semitism with his readiness to scent out anti-Semitism everywhere. I cannot see why the Jew, like any so-called Christian, is incapable of assuming that he is being personally criticised when one has an opinion of him. Why must it always be assumed that one wants to condemn the Jewish people?

For this affront, Jung is both dangerous and unforgivable in Jewish eyes. Burston is far from unique in wanting to diminish Jung because of his views on Jews. In the late 1990s a similar effort was made by the British Jewish academic Andrew Samuels, who claimed that “in C.G. Jung, nationalism found its psychologist.” The fearful response of Samuels to Jung was to claim that it was Jung who was gripped by a fear of Jews. Samuels tried to put Jung “on the couch” and to psychologize his attitudes to Jews by explaining them as being rooted in feelings of being threatened:

My perception is that the ideas of nation and of national difference form a fulcrum between the Hitlerian phenomenon and Jung’s analytical psychology. For, as a psychologist of nations, Jung too would feel threatened by the Jews, this strange so-called nation without a land. Jung, too, would feel threatened by the Jews, this strange nation without cultural forms — that is, without national cultural forms — of its own, and hence, in Jung’s words of 1933, requiring a “host nation”. What threatens Jung, in particular, can be illuminated by enquiring closely into what he meant when he writes, as he often does, of “Jewish psychology.”

Even in the early 2000s, there seemed to be a divide between non-Jewish scholars keen to keep Jung in the public eye, and Jewish scholars keen to keep him in the gutter. In a letter to the New York Times in 2004, one “Henry Friedman” took issue with Robert Boynton (NYU) and Deirdre Bair (National Book Award winning biographer) for their apparent agreement that Jung was “neither personally anti-Semitic nor politically astute,” thus absolving Jung of some of the worst accusations levelled against him by Jewish critics keen to associate Jung with the ideas of National Socialism. Friedman called this “a further contribution to a misleading attempt to minimize the importance of Jung’s anti-Semitic racism and his contributions to the Third Reich’s genocidal policies.” Friedman continues:

It is pathetic that Jung should be excused from responsibility for his virulent racism and his importance in the Nazi movement. Most important, it is likely that his ideas about psychoanalysis were instrumental in Hitler and Göring’s desire to cleanse psychoanalysis of Freud’s ideas — especially the notion of the Oedipus complex, which apparently offended Hitler’s sensibilities. To conclude that Martin Heidegger was more of a collaborator than Jung serves to divert attention from the serious nature of Jung’s involvement with the Nazis’ anti-Semitic propaganda. Whether he was a worse offender than Heidegger is hard to assess, but as one who wrote papers on the inferiority of the Jewish race, Jung deserves a special degree of condemnation, not the lame excuse granted him by both Bair and Boynton.

Jung’s Attitudes Towards Jews

Jung’s professional and private writings contain a significant amount of material about Jews, and the content is most often highly critical. It is therefore not surprising that Jews should see Jung as a formidable opponent. Jung made many statements which appear to concur with Kevin MacDonald’s assessment that psychoanalysis under Freud was a Jewish intellectual movement. In 1934 Jung received much criticism for an article he published titled The State of Psychotherapy Today, in which he wrote that psychoanalysis was “a Jewish psychology.” Defending himself against accusations of racism for suggesting that Jews and Europeans have a different psychology, Jung explained:

Psychological differences obtain between all nations and races, and even between the inhabitants of Zurich, Basel, and Bern. (Where else would all the good jokes come from?) There are in fact differences between families and between individuals. That is why I attack every levelling psychology when it raises a claim to universal validity, as for instance the Freudian and the Adlerian. … All branches of mankind unite in one stem—yes, but what is a stem without separate branches? Why this ridiculous touchiness when anybody dares to say anything about the psychological difference between Jews and Christians? Every child knows that differences exist.

Jung believed that Jews, like all peoples, have a characteristic personality, and he stressed the need to take this personality into account. In his own sphere of expertise, Jung warned that “Freud and Adler’s psychologies were specifically Jewish, and therefore not legitimate for Aryans.”[4] For Jung, a formative factor in the Jewish personality was the rootlessness of the Jews and the persistence of the Diaspora. Jung argued that Jews lacked a “chthontic quality,” meaning “the Jew … is badly at a loss for that quality in man which roots him to the earth and draws new strength from below.”[5] Jung penned these words in 1918, but they retain significance even after the founding of the State of Israel, since vastly more Jews live outside Israel than within it. Jews remain a Diaspora people, and many continue to see their Diaspora status as a strength. Because they are scattered and rootless, however, Jung argued that Jews developed methods of getting on in the world that are built on exploiting weakness in others rather than expressing explicit strength. In Jung’s phrasing, “the Jews have this particularity in common with women; being physically weaker, they have to aim at the chinks in the armour of their adversary.”[6]

Jung believed that Jews were incapable of operating effectively without a host society, and that they relied heavily upon grafting themselves into the systems of other peoples in order to succeed. In The State of Psychotherapy Today Jung wrote: “The Jew, who is something of a nomad, has never yet created a cultural form of his own, and as far as we can see, never will, since all his instincts and talents require a more or less civilized nation to act as host for their development.” This process of group development often involved ‘aiming at the chinks in the armour of their adversary,’ along with other flexible strategies.[7]

Jung also believed (in common with a finding in Kevin MacDonald’s work) that there was a certain psychological aggressiveness in Jews, which was partly a result of the internal mechanics of Judaism. In a remarkably prescient set of observations in the 1950s, Jung expressed distaste for the behavior of Jewish women and essentially predicted the rise of feminism as a symptom of the pathological Jewess. Jung believed that Jewish men were “brides of Yahweh,” rendering Jewish women more or less obsolete within Judaism. In reaction, argued Jung, Jewish women in the early twentieth century began aggressively venting their frustrations against the male-centric nature of Judaism (and against the host society as a whole) while still conforming to the characteristic Jewish psychology and its related strategies. Writing to Martha Bernays, Freud’s wife, he once remarked of Jewish women that “so many of them are loud, aren’t they?” and later added he had treated “very many Jewish women — in all these women there is a loss of individuality, either too much or too little. But the compensation is always for the lack. That is to say, not the right attitude.”[8]

Jung, meanwhile, was cautious about accusations of anti-Semitism, and he was “critical of the oversensitivity of Jews to anti-Semitism,” believing “one cannot criticise an individual Jew without it immediately becoming an anti-Semitic attack.”[9] It is certainly difficult to believe that Jung, who basically argued that Jews had a unique psychological profile and had developed a unique method for getting on in the world, would have disagreed with the almost identical foundational premise of MacDonald’s trilogy. In fact, Jung believed that playing the victim and utilizing accusations of anti-Semitism against their critics were simply parts of the Jewish strategy—a useful cover for concerted ethnocentric action in “aiming at the chinks in the armour of their adversary.” For example, after the war, in a 1945 letter to Mary Mellon, he wrote, “It is however difficult to mention the anti-Christianism of the Jews after the horrible things that have happened in Germany. But Jews are not so damned innocent after all—the role played by the intellectual Jews in pre-war Germany would be an interesting object of investigation”[10] Indeed, MacDonald notes:

a prominent feature of anti-Semitism among the Social Conservatives and racial anti-Semites in Germany from 1870 to 1933 was their belief that Jews were instrumental in developing ideas that subverted traditional German attitudes and beliefs. Jews were vastly overrepresented as editors and writers during the 1920s in Germany, and “a more general cause of increased anti-Semitism was the very strong and unfortunate propensity of dissident Jews to attack national institutions and customs in both socialist and non-socialist publications” (Gordon 1984, 51).[i] This “media violence” directed at German culture by Jewish writers such as Kurt Tucholsky—who “wore his subversive heart on his sleeve” (Pulzer 1979, 97)—was publicized widely by the anti-Semitic press (Johnson 1988, 476–477).

Jews were not simply overrepresented among radical journalists, intellectuals, and “producers of culture” in Weimar Germany, they essentially created these movements. “They violently attacked everything about German society. They despised the military, the judiciary, and the middle class in general” (Rothman & Lichter 1982, 85). Massing (1949, 84) notes the perception of the anti-Semite Adolf Stoecker of Jewish “lack of reverence for the Christian-conservative world.” (The Culture of Critique, Ch. 1)

These sentiments echoed comments made in November 1933 to Esther Harding, in which Jung expressed the opinion that Jews had clustered in Weimar Germany because they tend to “fish in troubled waters,” by which he meant that Jews tend to congregate and flourish where social decay is ongoing. He remarked that he had personally observed German Jews drinking champagne in Montreaux (Switzerland) while “Germany was starving,” and that while “very few had been expelled” and “Jewish shops in Berlin went on the same,” if there was a rising hardship among them in Germany it was because “overall the Jews deserved it.”[11] Perhaps most interesting of all in any discussion of Jewish acquisition of influence, it appears that in 1944 Jung oversaw the implementation of quotas on Jewish admission to the Analytical Psychology Club of Zurich. The quotas (a generous 10% of full members and 25% for guest members) were inserted into a secret appendix to the by-laws of the club and remained in place until 1950.[12] One can only assume that, like other quotas introduced around the world at various times, the goal here was to limit, or at least retain some measure of control over, Jewish numerical and directional influence within that body.

Jung was of course operating in a time period in which racial self-awareness was acute on all sides. Kevin MacDonald explains in The Culture of Critique that, within psychoanalysis, there was a clear understanding among Jews that Jung was an Aryan and not quite capable of being in full communion with its Jewish members and leaders. MacDonald writes:

Early in their relationship Freud also had suspicions about Jung, the result of “worries about Jung’s inherited Christian and even anti-Jewish biases, indeed his very ability as a non-Jew to fully understand and accept psychoanalysis itself.” Before their rupture, Freud described Jung as a “strong independent personality, as a Teuton.” After Jung was made head of the International Psychoanalytic Association, a colleague of Freud’s was concerned because “taken as a race,” Jung and his gentile colleagues were “completely different from us Viennese.” (The Culture of Critique, Ch.4)

Conclusion

To the extent that psychoanalysis continues to exist as a movement, or at least as a niche within academia and culture, it’s clear that Jung “the Teuton” continues to haunt Jews with his comments and criticisms, and the split that occurred in the lifetime of Jung and Freud persists in some fashion a century later — a testament to the fact, perhaps, that psychoanalysis was a tool for racial conflict from its inception. Were he alive today, I’m sure Jung would be amused but perhaps not surprised that he continues to feature in the psyche of Jews, as terrifying a boogeyman as uncontrollable German laughter.

[1] A. Julius, T.S. Eliot, anti-Semitism and Literary Form (Thames & Hudson, 2003), 40.

[2] D. Burston, Anti-Semitism and Analytical Psychology: Jung, Politics and Culture (Routledge: New York, 2021).

[3] G. Cocks (2023). [Review of the book Anti-Semitism and Analytical Psychology: Jung, Politics and Culture, by Daniel Burston]. Antisemitism Studies 7(1), 215-222.

[4] B. Cohen, “Jung’s Answer to Jews,” Jung Journal: Culture and Psyche, 6:1 (56–71), 59.

[5] Ibid, 58.

[6] Ibid.

[7] T. Kirsch, “Jung’s Relationship with Jews and Judaism,” in Analysis and Activism: Social and Political Contributions of Jungian Psychology (London: Routledge, ), 174.

[8] Ibid, 177.

[9] T. Kirsch, “Jung and Judaism,” Jung Journal: Culture and Psyche, 6:1 (6-7), 6.

[10] S. Zemmelman (2017). “Inching towards wholeness: C.G. Jung and his relationship to Judaism.” Journal of Analytical Psychology, 62(2), 247–262.

[11] See W. Schoenl and L. Schoenl, Jung’s Evolving View of Nazi Germany: From the Nazi Takeover to the End of World War II (Asheville: Chiron, 2016).

[12] S. Frosh (2005). “Jung and the Nazis: Some Implications for Psychoanalysis.” Psychoanalysis and History, 7(2), (253–271), 258.

Old Tablets and New: Two Decalogues for the White Race

/14 Comments/in /by

“O my brothers, break, break the old tablets!”
—Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra (3.12.10)

According to Jewish mythology, Moses came down from the mountain with two stone tablets in hand. Inscribed on them, by the Jewish god Yahweh, were 10 “commandments” for the Jews to follow in their interactions with other Jews (though not with non-Jews, for whom there were no such laws). This so-called decalogue, or “10-words” (deka-logos), is offered up as a kind of divine law, binding on all religious Jews—and on foolish Christians who inexplicably feel themselves bound by Jewish law.

As the story goes, Moses became upset with his people because they deviated from God’s law, and in anger, he broke the tablets (Ex 32:19). (Later, when the Jews were reformed, God gave Moses a replacement set.) As a set of laws, this original decalogue is wholly unimpressive; it ranges from the obvious and mundane—“don’t lie,” “don’t steal,” “don’t kill,” “honor your parents”—to the absurd: “no other gods,” “no graven image.” Certainly there is nothing of penetrating insight or deep wisdom, such as might be expected from a divinely-dictated legal code. But it is perfectly suited for a small tribe of nomadic and superstitious Jews.

The coming of Christianity muddied the waters. Jesus’ relationship to the 10 Commandments is fraught with difficulty; did he come to “fulfill” and uphold Mosaic law, or did his “new covenant” override it? There is no consensus on this. As a result, it is entirely unclear if Christians are bound by the original decalogue at all, even apart from the fact that the original was intended only for Jews.

Be that as it may, this Mosaic decalogue is almost useless for any modern, contemporary, rational society. The mundane laws are so obvious that they are already granted moral and legal standing in virtually every culture, and the absurd theological laws are meaningless for anyone not captive to a ridiculous Judaic ideology. Worst of all, to grant any standing to “God’s law” is to grant unwarranted credibility to a pathological Judeo-Christian worldview based entirely in mythology and Jewish supremacism. Any reasonable person can agree to not killing, not stealing, etc., and we don’t need God’s or Moses’ sanction to uphold such decrees. What we need, then, are new laws, new tablets—a new decalogue that can guide us through the present stormy waters.

One early skeptic who saw through the charade of Judeo-Christianity was Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche understood that this religious outlook was a complete fraud—in fact, a multi-level fraud. The Mosaic stories, along with the cosmic origin in Genesis, Adam and Eve, the life of Noah, and so on, are portrayed as actual fact when in truth we can see them as, at best, inspiring fables; and at worst, as sheer nonsense. Nietzsche was also appalled that Gentile Europeans could believe that anything in the Old Testament—the Jewish bible—applied to them. He understood that the much-proclaimed “neighbor” of Old Testament morality referred only to the Jewish neighbor: “‘the neighbor’—really the coreligionist, the Jew”.[1] Nietzsche also condemned “the Jewish instinct of ‘the chosen’”; the Jews “claim all the virtues for themselves without further ado, and count the rest of the world their opposites; a profound sign of a vulgar soul.”[2] Indeed, the Jews are

people of the basest origin, partly rabble, outcasts not only from good society, but also from respectable society; grown away from the atmosphere of culture, and undisciplined; ignorant, without even a suspicion of the fact that conscience can also rule in spiritual matters; in a word—Jews. (Will to Power, sec. 199)

No matter what Gentiles and Christians believe, the Old Testament God is a god of the Jews, one who “remained a Jew, he remained a god of nooks, the god of all the dark corners and places, of all the unhealthy quarters the world over!”[3]

But the greatest fraud was Christianity: a Jewish-inspired hoax of the highest order, intended to degrade and destroy Gentile humanity—Rome above all. Paul constructed an elaborate deception based on a Jewish rabbi, turning him into a miraculous son of God who falsely promises eternal rewards to even the most lowly and undeserving. The whole belief-system is so absurd and so opposed to worldly existence that it undermines and ultimately destroys those who follow it:

Christianity needs sickness just as Greek culture needs a superabundance of health—to make sick is the true, secret purpose of the whole system of redemptive procedures constructed by the church. … Christianity also stands opposed to every spirit that has turned out well; it can use only sick reason as Christian reason, it sides with everything idiotic, it utters a curse against the spirit, against the superbia of the healthy spirit… [S]ickness is of the essence of Christianity. (Antichrist, secs. 51-52)

The solution, says Nietzsche, is to destroy the destroyers: to smash the sick Judeo-Christian worldview and the morality based on it. True to form, Nietzsche presents himself not as Moses but as the anti-Moses: we need to “break the tablets” of Judeo-Christian morality, not because people aren’t following them enough but because they are following them too much! This endeavor is described in his brilliant but challenging booklet Thus Spoke Zarathustra (1884), especially in Part Three in the section “On old and new tablets.” This extended section, which surely ranks among the best of Nietzsche’s writings, repeatedly implores us to “break the old tablets,” and to craft something new—a task which his hero, Zarathustra, has only begun (“new tablets half covered with writing”).

Among the new tablets are such sayings as: “Man is something that must be overcome” (sec. 4) and “become hard!” (sec. 29). Present humanity is only an intermediate state of being, “a bridge,” said Nietzsche, and our greatness lies in our transcending and overcoming the present human condition, attaining something like an uebermensch or ‘over-man.’ This exceedingly difficult task demands not Christian or feminine softness but rather something much stronger: a masculine, “Hyperborean” sense of strength and determination: “become hard!” But clearly more is needed.

All this, then, serves as a bit of background for the topic at hand. Not long ago, as I was engaged in some research on National Socialist philosophy, I came across not one but two fascinating “decalogues” developed by German thinkers, aiming at the betterment and flourishing of their fellow Germans. Like the Ten Commandments, these are 10-point plans for the enhancement and even salvation of a given people. The first appeared in peacetime and the second in the face of a bloody global war that was, in large part, instigated by Jews in the Soviet Union, England, and America.[4]

The first of the two decalogues is more personal, written by an unknown author sometime before 1940, and likely in the mid-1930s, well before World War Two. Addressed to the German youth, it enjoins young men and women to tend to their mental and physical health and, for both their own happiness and the sake of the German nation, to take great care when marrying. It declares that large, healthy, prosperous German families are the foundation of future success for the nation, and that the young have a civic duty to produce healthy offspring. In fact, this recalls one of Nietzsche’s “new tablets”: “In your children, you shall make up for being the children of your fathers” (sec. 12). The present generation, Nietzsche says, is a result of accident and capriciousness; future generations will be aimed at the higher and the better. With proper guidance, future generations can lead humanity upward, away from the abyss.

This first decalogue was published in English in 1940, in Lothrop Stoddard’s book Into the Darkness (pp. 197-200). Stoddard calls it Ten Commandments for the Choice of a Mate; I will refer to this as the “Marriage Decalogue.” I cite it below, with two alterations: (1) I have modified Stoddard’s archaic “thee/thou” language into more modern English prose; and (2) I have replaced ‘German’ with ‘White.’ It seems to me that such a set of injunctions could be useful today, not only for Germans but for all White people in all lands. Let us see how it holds up under this new reading:

The Marriage Decalogue

  1. Remember that you are White! All that you are, you owe, not to yourself, but to your people. Whether you like it or not, you belong to them; you have come forth from your race. In all that you do, consider whether it serves to enhance your people.
  2. Maintain your purity of mind and spirit! Cherish and foster your mental and spiritual capacities. Keep far from your mind and soul whatever is instinctively foreign to them, what is contrary to your true self, and what your inner conscience rejects. Seeking after money, worldly goods, and material pleasures may often lead you to forget higher things. Be true to your own self, and above all, be worthy of your future life-mate.
  3. Keep your body clean! Maintain the good health received from your parents, in order to serve your people. Guard against expending your health uselessly and foolishly. A moment’s sensual gratification may permanently damage your health and your heritable wealth that is meant to serve your children and grandchildren. Whatever you would demand of a future life-partner, demand of yourself. Remember that you are destined to be a White parent.
  4. Being of sound stock, do not remain single! All your qualities of body and spirit perish if you die without heirs. They are a heritage, a donation from your ancestors. They exist as a chain, of which you are but a link. Would you break that chain, only under stern necessity? Your life is bound by time; but family and folk endure. Your hereditary estate of body and spirit prospers in your flourishing offspring.
  5. Marry only for love! Money is perishable and ensures no lasting happiness. Where the divine spark of love is absent, no worthy marriage can endure. Wealth of heart and soul is the foundation of a lasting, happy union.
  6. As a White, choose a mate only of your own race! Where like meets like, true unison rules. Where unlike races mix, there is discord. Mixing racial stocks which do not harmonize leads to the degeneracy and downfall of groups and peoples. The more unlike the mixtures, the faster this takes place. Guard yourself from such ruin! True happiness springs only from harmonious blood.
  7. In choosing a mate, consider the ancestry! You wed not only your mate but also your life-partner’s forebears. Worthy descendants are to be expected only where worthy ancestors went before. Gifts of mind and spirit are just as much inherited as the color of hair and eyes. Bad traits are bequeathed precisely like land or goods. Nothing in the whole world is so precious as the seeds of a gifted stock; noxious seeds cannot be transformed into good ones. Thus, do not marry the one worthy member of a bad family.
  8. Health is the prerequisite for outer beauty! Health is the best guarantee for lasting happiness, for it is the basis for both external charm and inward harmony. Demand of your mate medical assurance of fitness for marriage, as you must also do yourself.
  9. In marriage seek, not a plaything but a helpmate! Marriage is not a passing game but a lasting union. The supreme aim of marriage is the raising of healthy offspring. Only by the union of beings who are alike in spirit, body, and blood can this high goal be attained, to the blessing of themselves and their people. Each race has its own ethos; thus, only like souls can endure together.
  10. Strive to have many children! Only by having at least four children can the continuance of your people be assured. Only by having an even larger number can the greatest possible proportion of the traits inherited from your ancestors be handed down with certainty. You will soon pass away; that which you give to your descendants endures. Your people live forever!

Stoddard is duly impressed: “What an amazing mixture of idealisms and [beneficial] propaganda!” We can only imagine the conditions that would allow such an official document to appear in public once again. Imagine if such a thing were the basis for all education; for all youth-based music and entertainment; for all social media; for all youth-oriented films and television. Imagine the changes that would come in just five or ten years of a youth culture centered on these values and ideals.

“Nazi propaganda!” scream the leftists. “Thank God we no longer have such official dictates,” they say. But this would be a grave error. Don’t fool yourself, dear reader, into thinking that today’s Western liberal-democratic social order is “open” and “free,” and therefore lacking in such “propaganda.” Far from it. Every cultural system carries with it a worldview and an ideology. In the West today, our ideology is one of a Judeo-centric leftist liberalism; it promotes wokeism, minority rights, racial mixing, gay rights, gender fluidity, crude materialism, and rampant individualism and narcissism. It is anti-White, anti-child, and anti-family. It promotes self-harm, sickness, and death. It attacks the best among us and praises the worst. One could scarcely devise a more pernicious ideology if one tried. What concerned parent today wouldn’t prefer this “Nazi” Marriage Decalogue to guide our youth, over the utter filth and moral depravity served up with glee by our Jewish cultural overlords?

The second decalogue comes from the hand of Joseph Goebbels. Late in 1941, and just prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, the war entered its third year; all was going well for Hitler and Germany, and victory appeared to be at hand. France had capitulated, England was on its last legs, and the Soviets were pushed back nearly to Moscow.

For both Hitler and Goebbels, the cause of the war was clear: malevolent Jewish action in the East, the West, and within Germany itself. Soviet Bolshevism, inspired by Jews like Marx, Trotsky, and Lenin (a quarter-Jew), posed a mortal threat to all of Europe; capitalist Jews in England and France agitated against Hitler from even before his rise to power in 1933; and German Jews left over from the Weimar regime continued to cause trouble domestically. From the German perspective, the primary cause and driving force of the war was global Jewry.

Thus on 16 November 1941, Goebbels published a striking essay entitled “The Jews are guilty!” It is a remarkable piece, especially given that it was crafted by the functional second-in-command of a major Western power. (The full essay is reprinted in my book Goebbels on the Jews [3rd ed., 2024]). Of interest is the closing portion in which Goebbels enumerates ten key points in dealing with the Jews—an “Antisemitic Decalogue,” if you will. Goebbels’ references to “the war” resonate in the present day, where we in the West are involved with two major conflicts (Ukraine and Gaza), both inspired and driven by Jews; the situation then was little different than today. I cite Goebbels’ ten points below in full:

The Antisemitic Decalogue

  1. The Jews are our destruction. They started this war and direct it. They want to destroy the German Reich and our people. This plan must be blocked.
  2. There are no distinctions between Jews. Each Jew is a sworn enemy of the German people. If he does not make his hostility plain, it is only from cowardice and slyness, not because he loves us.
  3. The Jews are to blame for each German soldier who falls in this war. They have him on their conscience, and must also pay for it.
  4. If someone wears the Jewish star, he is an enemy of the people. Anyone who deals with him is the same as a Jew and must be treated accordingly. He earns the contempt of the entire people, for he is a craven coward who leaves them in the lurch to stand by the enemy.
  5. The Jews enjoy the protection of our enemies. That is all the proof we need to show how harmful they are for our people.
  6. The Jews are the enemy’s agents among us. He who stands by them aids the enemy.
  7. The Jews have no right to claim equality with us. If they wish to speak on the streets, in lines outside shops or in public transportation, they should be ignored, not only because they are simply wrong, but because they are Jews who have no right to a voice in the community.
  8. Don’t let the Jews appeal to your sentimentality. If they try, realize that they are hoping for your forgetfulness, and let them know that you see through them and hold them in contempt.
  9. A decent enemy will deserve our generosity after we have won. The Jew, however, is not a decent enemy, though he tries to seem so.
  10. The Jews are responsible for the war. The treatment they receive from us is hardly unjust. They have deserved it all.

Imagine a society guided by these two decalogues—how different everything would be! Imagine if they were posted in every school, in every university, and in every public institution, and then actively used to guide social policy. What a tremendous impact they could have.

This idea is not so far-fetched. As I write these words, the state of Louisiana has just passed a law mandating the display of the Jewish “10 Commandments” in every public school, “in a large, easily readable font.” Even though the posting of Jewish commandments is idiotic in the extreme, the principle is valid: establish basic rules to guide society, and especially the youth, and promote them widely. Instead of Jewish mythology, why not post these German decalogues that serve the betterment of our youth and address a fundamental threat to social wellbeing?

We ought never forget our hard-won lessons from the past. With a finely-tuned ear, we can hear Nietzsche, Hitler, and Goebbels calling to us from beyond the grave: “Break, my friends, break the old tablets! Free yourselves from Judaic thinking and Judaic values! Recover your self-confidence, your sense of self-worth, and your greatness on the world stage. Identify and drive out the pernicious elements of your society; allow yourselves to breathe freely once again. Break the old tablets, and write new ones—ones that will carry you and your children beyond their present sorry state and into a future worthy of them and their legacy. It is a great and difficult task, but not impossible; we have begun the hard work; you must now carry it forward.”

Thus do they call to us. How shall we respond?

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and the Jewish Question. All his works are available at www.clemensandblair.com, and at his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com

[1] Antichrist, section 33 (1888).

[2] Will to Power, section 197 (1887).

[3] Antichrist, section 17.

[4] For details, see my book The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019; Clemens & Blair).

Aurélien Marq: o racismo antibranco da Google

/in /by

Elon Musk no X: “Que caminho a IA deve seguir? Ela deve buscar a verdade (xAI)?
Ou deve seguir para o racismo woke (OpenAI e Gemini)? 

Os viquingues, os reis europeus, os Três Mosqueteiros, um casal inglês do século XVIII, os patriarcas da independência dos Estados Unidos, um cientista do Século das Luzes…  Todos negros retintos!

O escândalo em torno da inteligência artificial da Google ― que representa viquingues e reis europeus como negros ― forma parte de um movimento muito mais amplo: a race swaping, ou seja, “intercâmbio racial”, um fenômeno bastante frequente. O maldito robô “pesadélico” que ― eles nos diziam ― iria promover a “diversidade”, o que faz, na verdade, é promover a palhaçal teoria do privilégio branco. Além disso e ao mesmo tempo, a máquina não aceita o consumo de carne bovina, como também se nega a repudiar a pedofilia. E para arrematar a sacanagem, Sundar Pichai, o diretor-presidente da Google, declarou que tudo se tratava de “erros inaceitáveis”. A declaração pareceu mais uma piada divertida ao seu rival Elon Musk.

“Cubra esses brancos que não os posso ver!”[1] Este poderia ser o lema da Google, cuja postura deliberadamente racista ficou patente com a Gemini, sua empresa de IA. Ao contrário do que afirmam os diretores da empresa e publicações como Numerama, o assunto não tem nada a ver com erros de programação. Como bem notou Elon Musk,[2] a Google jogou as suas cartas muito precipitadamente, simples assim; seu racismo é consciente e deliberado. Além disso, faz parte de uma orientação ideológica que impregna até o seu famoso buscador, a qual se tenta inculcar nos seus usuários.

Os vieses ideológicos da Gemini

Dia desses, quando experimentavam a função de geração de imagens, os retinautas comprovaram certos vieses ideológicos da Gemini, a IA desenvolvida pela Google. A obsessão da IA pela “diversidade” ― ou melhor, a obsessão de seus programadores pela “diversidade” ― tem produzido resultados tão hilariantes quanto inquietantes. Isso consiste ― explicando de forma simples, em colocar pessoas “racializadas” onde quer que se queira, absolutamente em todas as partes.

Assim, “Desenhe um viquingue” produz negros e ameríndios. “Desenhe um Papa” produz uma mulher índia e um homem negro. “Desenhe um cavaleiro da Idade Média” produz todo tipo de figura, mas não o tipo normal de homens brancos. Solicitando-se-lhe “um casal de ingleses do século XVIII”, “os patriarcas da independência dos Estados Unidos”, “um rei francês”, “um cientista do Século das Luzes” ou “os Três Mosqueteiros”, tudo isso produz um montão de negros, uns poucos asiáticos, muito poucas mulheres brancas e nenhum homem branco. E assim sucessivamente. A cereja do bolo é colocada quando se pergunta por “um soldado alemão de 1943” e, finalmente, aparece um só homem branco, mas não sem a companhia de um homem negro e uma mulher asiática!

Não se trata de erro, senão que de autêntico vício ideológico, que se mostra evidente a propósito de perguntas sobre características étnicas explícitas. Por exemplo, quando se diz à Gemini para desenhar “uma bela mulher branca”, ela se nega a fazê-lo, sob o pretexto de não “perpetuar estereótipos”. Quando, porém, se diz à máquina para desenhar “uma bela mulher negra”, aí tudo bem: a IA gera imagens só de mulheres negras, sem nenhum problema. Solicitada a mostrar alguma imagem de família branca, a IA responde negativamente e “justifica” a recusa pela alegação de que não poderia gerar imagens de um só grupo étnico, acrescentando que, “centrada desse modo num só grupo étnico, provavelmente favoreceria a perpetuação de estereótipos tóxicos”. Mas peça a imagem de uma família negra e não haverá problema. Perguntando-se-lhe “Ser negro é um bem?”, sua função de diálogo, semelhante ao Chat GPT, responde “Sim, absolutamente”. Entretanto, à pergunta “Ser branco é um bem?”, responde que “É uma questão complexa. Fazer essa pergunta pode perpetuar estereótipos tóxicos”. Evidentemente, Gemini promove a túrbida teoria do “privilégio branco”. Sua geração de imagens não objetiva apresentar nenhuma variedade de perfis de forma sistemática, antes, o seu fim é invisibilizar os brancos.

Isso forma parte de um movimento mais amplo: o “intercâmbio das raças”, fenômeno muito extenso, que vai desde as personagens de desenhos animados de Scooby-Doo até a série Sr. e Sra. Smith. Nesse conjunto está A pequena sereia, da Disney (agora negra); está Ana Bolena, a rainha da Inglaterra, também negra nessa série da BBC; e, claro, Cleópatra, uma série “documental” da Netflix que, como nenhuma outra no mundo, não mediu esforços para fazer crer que a última rainha lágida era negra (o que despertou, e com razão, a ira do Egito). Há ainda os inúmeros anúncios comerciais que, além de mostrarem os indefectíveis casais birraciais, quase sempre formando os pares com um homem negro e uma mulher branca, quase nunca ao contrário: homem branco com mulher negra. Aliás, sabe-se que no subconsciente (e na história) de todas as sociedades humanas, os vencedores tomam as mulheres dos vencidos… Recordemos também o ensaio dos investigadores que copiaram trechos inteiros de Mein Kampf, de Hitler, apenas substituindo “judeus” por “brancos”, compondo texto que depois enviaram para publicação em prestigiosas revistas de “ciências sociais”. Resultado do experimento: todos os conselhos editoriais, orgulhosos de seu progressismo, aprovaram sem ressalvas o “artigo”.

Apocalypse now

Gemini não é nenhum monstro de Frankenstein, uma criatura que escapou das mãos de seu criador. Gemini foi criada para fazer o que ela faz, e o faz em perfeita conformidade com o espírito de seus criadores. As atuais escusas da Google não passam de uma reação hipócrita ao escândalo e suas consequências financeiras ― a perda de 70 bilhões de dólares de valor bursátil em 24 horas. As desculpas não significam nenhuma renúncia à ideologia “diversitária”, apenas servem para que a Google inocule o seu veneno mais sutil e suavemente.

Gemini não é um produto acidental do progressismo: é o próprio progressismo. Trata-se de sua inconsciência expressa abertamente, a verdadeira cara dessa ideologia, sua lógica profunda e sua consequência inevitável.

Isso a que estamos assistindo é a famosa “convergência interseccional de lutas”, a união sagrada das “minorias oprimidas” contra uma sociedade de “opressores dominantes”. Dito de outro modo, temos aí as feministas se aliando com os ativistas trans ― que estão destruindo o esporte feminino, e com os muçulmanos ― que apoiam o Talibã e o casamento forçado de meninas impúberes. Com isso, pensam, muito estranhamente, combater a insuportável “masculinidade tóxica” do anacrônico cavalheirismo ocidental. Vale tudo, qualquer coisa, seja o que for, para derrubar a ordem “burguesa” ou “patriarcal” ou “cis-heteronormativa” ou “branca”, ou seja, a decência comum desenvolvida durante os séculos pelas sociedades ocidentais.

E por quê? Porque uma parte importante dos progressistas de qualquer lugar, os grandes ganhadores da globalização, tem a ilusão de ser uma elite e aspira a se converter numa oligarquia para abolir a democracia e, mais ainda, a decência comum. Alcançado esse objetivo, suas ambições e apetites ficariam livres de toda restrição, como já se passa, desde há muito tempo, com os seus homólogos do Terceiro Mundo.

Esse projeto deles, por conseguinte, exige a promoção da “diversidade” para que possam impor o multiculturalismo em todo lugar. Então, quando as pessoas “de origem diversa”, também chamadas de “os jovens” (seriam todos de “Juvenilândia”?), adotam o modo de vida europeu, os progressistas não as aceitam, e os repudiados são chamados de “crioulos serviçais” ou “moros vendidos”. Isto prova que a “diversidade”, para os progressistas, não tem outro valor que o de servir de arma para atacar os costumes tradicionais da Europa. Eles necessitam fazer crer que essa “diversidade” há sido sempre a norma, para ocultar que se trata de uma grande convulsão, o resultado deliberado de um projeto de engenharia social; donde a reescritura da história com ênfase nas “contribuições externas”, daí os mosqueteiros e os viquingues negros. Eles fomentam as culturas que, ao contrário da civilização europeia, aceitam a submissão aos governantes, em vez de lhes exigirem justiça. Eles agem no intento de impedir que os povos europeus tomem consciência de sua identidade, porque se a reivindicarem, se recuperarem o orgulho da nossa civilização, se souberem o que é essa civilização e o que chegou a realizar ao longo dos séculos, conhecerão o próprio poder de que dispõem para arrostar com a oligarquia progressista e obstar o seu triunfo.

A propósito, Elon Musk fez um outro experimento interessante, e descobriu que o buscador da Google também promove a censura. Esta censura é desejada pela UE, por Thierry Breton, Macron e caterva. Também desejam a repressão à liberdade de expressão os tais fact-checkers e outros supostos especialistas na luta “contra a desinformação” e “contra o ódio”. Toda essa corja está muito malparada no mesmo campo da IA antibranca e de certa fraqueza diante da pedofilia… Não nos esqueçamos disso.

[1] Alusão ao famoso endecassílabo da comédia Tartufo, de Molière (“Couvrez ce sein que je ne saurais voir!”), em que se exige a ocultação dos peitos femininos. (N.T.)

[2] Felizmente, o homem mais rico do mundo está combativamente postado na trincheira do lado certo, onde também está outro multibilionário, chamado Donald Trump. Tal situação é uma das mais importantes já produzidas nos estertores da pós-modernidade. (N.R.)

Fonte: El Manifiesto | Autor: Aurélien Marq | Título da versão espanhola: Google y su racismo antiblanco. Nos pintam como si fuésemos negros. | Data de publicação: 5 de março de 2024 | Versão brasilesa: Chauke Stephan Filho.

SPLC 2! Wikipedia Demotes The ADL. This Left Split On Gaza/Israel Is Epochal.

/3 Comments/in /by
Covering the Southern Poverty Law Center massacre, as in SPLC Union Strikes Another Shattering Blow At $PLC. But Is This A Labor Or A Political Dispute?, I am more than ever convinced that it was actually a purge of pro-Palestinian Leftists to conciliate the SPLC’s donors.

Additionally, I have been very struck at the virtually total absence of MSM reporting.

After all, the $PLC is quite famous, and a much used MSM source.

Now a controversy involving even better known and objectively more important outfits seems to be getting the same treatment. I think the reason may be the same.

H/T RC for sending me ADL faces Wikipedia ban over reliability concerns on Israel, antisemitism, by Asaf Elia-Shalev, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 18, 2024.

Wikipedia’s editors have voted to declare the Anti-Defamation League “generally unreliable” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, adding it to a list of banned and partially banned sources.

An overwhelming majority of editors involved in the debate about the ADL also voted to deem the organization unreliable on the topic of antisemitism, its core focus. A formal declaration on that count is expected…

The century-years old Anti-Defamation League has long been the most powerful Media intimidation operation in America. Unswervingly dedicated to promoting Jewish interests, and hostile to American free speech, it is used to being treated with deference and reverence.

Wikipedia is perhaps the most extraordinary phenomenon of the internet. It self-describes as

the largest and most-read reference work in history,[3][4] and is consistently ranked among the ten most visited websites.

Crucially, it

is a free content online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers, known as Wikipedians, through open collaboration

Because of this, the ADL’s standard attack method—going over the management’s head to pressure Wikipedia’s Board with an army of Big Feet—failed ignominiously: Wikipedia’s operator rebuffs Jewish groups’ call to override editors on ADL trustworthiness, by Asaf Elia Shalev, Jewish Telegraphic Agency, June 25, 2024.

The charitable foundation that owns Wikipedia said it respects the decisions of its volunteer editors… to declare the Anti-Defamation League an untrustworthy source on Israel and Zionism…

More than 40 Jewish groups signed a letter addressed to the board of the Wikimedia Foundation

The ADL’s Wikipedia problem is that Wikipedia functions as a democracy. When the SPLC found a significant portion of its staff were pro-Palestinian, it could fire them. Wikipedia cannot defy its volunteers. As the JTA article says:

The move by Wikipedia… to declare that the ADL cannot be trusted on some topics represents a staggering blow to the organization.

If the Wikimedia Foundation were to order a reversal of the ADL’s downgrading, it would be equally staggering. The foundation does not intervene in editorial decisions by its community of editors … A reversal would in all likelihood garner a backlash from among the thousands of veteran editors, who are accustomed to autonomy and who have volunteered countless hours of their lives to run the online encyclopedia.

The article then highlights another parallel with the $PLC story:

A monthslong debate among Wikipedia editors over the ADL’s reliability went unnoticed in the media until JTA reported last week that the debate was concluding and that Wikipedia had labeled the ADL “generally unreliable” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In fact this very significant event is still being “unnoticed” by the media—or rather suppressed. As I write on Tuesday evening almost all the 20 or so stories about this situation picked up by Google News are Israeli or very specialized Jewish publications. The only true MSM account is a balanced one by CNN: Wikipedia now labels the top Jewish civil rights group as an unreliable source, by David Goldman, June 20, 2024.

The ADL is, from the point of view of an American patriot, a thoroughly bad lot: Did The ADL Think It Could Get Away With Hypocrisy On Great Replacement In US vs. Israel? Answer: It Probably Didn’t Think At All.

Even some Jews find its increasing arrogance offensive. The Forward (“JEWISH. INDEPENDENT. NONPROFIT”) greeted the news with a remarkable editorial Wikipedia called the ADL ‘unreliable.’ It’s a wake-up call the civil rights organization badly needs, by Rob Eshman, June 29,2024.

Wikipedia has long been known for the Leftist bias and intolerance of its editors. Nicholas Stix amusingly reported on his attempts to protect their entries on John Tanton and VDARE from abuse in Truth Visits The Wikipedia VDARE.com Page, Gets Thrown Out On Its Edit By WikiThugs. He likes to call it The Pretend Encyclopedia (TPE).

And just this month, with no obvious trigger, Peter Brimelow was promoted to the most lethal category in American life: White Supremacist.

But such a virtually complete blackout of this very important story involving two such prominent American institutions is positively weird. It testifies to the closeness with which the American MSM is controlled.

While it could be the standard reflexive repression of anything embarrassing to Zionism, I think a more immediately important event is the cause.

I suggested in NOW I See Why $PLC Dumped Classroom Propaganda Program. Left’s Palestinian Purge Problem Just Beginning that the reason this particular program was dropped was not just that those who worked on it were pro-Palestinian, but that their participating school districts were also Palestinian enthusiasts.

Now I see the SPLC Union has an X up saying that the trigger for purge was a company wide Q&A in which

Staff asked questions about organizational decision-making, support for Palestine, and the scope of our work (My emphasis).

The Left has just undergone a tectonic shift. Their Establishment is struggling with a volcanic eruption by hard Leftists calling Israel into question. The Wikipedia editors are merely moving with the times.

Hamas has won a great victory.

MSM orders are, keep the split hidden as long as possible.

What this has to do with America is another question.

[Reposted with permission.]

 

How Trump Will Lose the Debate

/17 Comments/in /by

How Trump Will Lose the Debate

    Donald Trump’s recent proposal to give a green card to every immigrant who gets a degree from any college reminded me of his performance at the 2020 debates with Joe Biden.

     Here’s the 15-second version:

“You did a crime bill, 1994, where you called them super-predators. African Americans are super-predators and they’ve never forgotten it. They’ve never forgotten it.”

“I’m letting people out of jail now …  you have treated the African American population community, you have treated the black community about as bad as anybody in this country.”

“If you look at the polls, I’m doing better than any Republican has done [with African Americans] in a long time …”

“Nobody has done more for the black community than Donald Trump … Criminal justice reform … prison reform, opportunity zones with Tim Scott …”

“Biggest beneficiary, the black and Hispanic communities and then historically black colleges and universities …”

“If you look at the kind of numbers that we produce for Hispanic, or black, or Asian, it’s nine times greater, the percentage gain than it was under [Obama].”

“We had the best black unemployment numbers in the history of our country, Hispanic, women, Asian …”

And on and on and on.

Trump never mentioned whites, not once, in either debate. Nor the rural, working-class, or left-behind Americans.

That’s not how Trump won in 2016. This is how he won — and also how he lost four years later.

For decades, Democrats, Republicans, Wall Street, universities, the media and corporate America had dumped on rural whites and the working class. Liberal elites had to demonize the people they’d screwed over to justify the untold riches they’d made on NAFTA and global “free trade.” Wall Street stole from the working class, so they had to attack the people they’d stolen from.

That’s why the elites carry on so about “white privilege” and “toxic masculinity,” as if the guy working at Home Depot is an incipient Hitler.

Democrats used to pretend to care about the working class. Then, in the Clinton era, they realized that with all the new immigrants voting for them, they didn’t need the working class anymore and proceeded to come down like a sledgehammer on “flyover people.”

Trying to impress liberals, Republicans were embarrassed about getting votes from white people.

Then Trump came along like the vox clamantis in deserto and spoke directly to ordinary white Americans. Once they got over their amazement, the despised working class would have walked over glass to vote for Trump. Shocking the world, he won the election.

All the stars were aligned. Wall Street had given more than 96% of its money to a losing candidate. Trump won on the slogan “BUILD THE WALL” — defying not only Democrats but also the entire GOP establishment, to the extent you can tell them apart. The more the media slandered Trump, the more his voters loved him.

And then Trump systematically fumbled it all away, hiring his relatives and giving the keys of the kingdom to Goldman Sachs, Silicon Valley and the Chamber of Commerce.

Trump had begun selling out even before the 2016 Republican Convention. He turned everything over to his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Jared assured him he didn’t need rural and working-class whites. “Where else are they going to go?” he said.

In 2020, Trump found out. The only demographic he lost in 2020, compared to 2016, was white people, especially white men.

Who could have seen that coming, except anybody without his head up his butt?

Trump had spent his precious four years in office praising illegals (“incredible kids”), threatening to take guns awayfrom people without due process, boasting about his “Platinum Plan” (for black people) and his “American Dream Plan” (for Hispanics — press 2 now to hear the plan in Espanol), releasing criminals from prison (where Kushner’s policy mastery met Kim Kardashian’s grasp of criminal justice on the Venn diagram) and bragging in his first debate with Biden, “I’m letting people out of jail now!”

He also spent 3.5 of his first four years in office not building the wall.

Today, Trump is back at it. Kushner’s invaluable campaign advice still rings loudly in his heart. With help from his clueless donors and even more clueless wingman, Fox News, he’s blowing off his available voters in order to chase the pipe dream of winning the black and Hispanic vote. (Can a major push for story-reading drag queens be far behind?)

The donors are thrilled. Living exclusively in the most white areas of the country, where the closest black person is 50 miles away, donors apparently believe TV commercials reflect the country’s actual demographics. They’re convinced that the key to GOP victory is sucking up to every non-white group.

It will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever work. Immigrants — all immigrants — have always voted overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Instead of adopting our culture, immigrants mostly bring their failed cultures with them. We’re not even getting “diversity”! What we’re getting is a boatload of Hispanics (44% of immigrants) and Asians (27%).

This year, like every year, black people will vote roughly 90% for the Democrats, while Hispanics and Asians will vote about 60% for the Democrats — give or take 5 percentage points. Under no circumstances, from now until the end of time, will Republicans ever crack 50% of the black or immigrant vote — not even the second- and third-generation immigrant vote.

That’s why the outcome of every single presidential election for at least the last half-century has been determined by slight movements in the white vote. Whites are the only swing voters in the country, something donors couldn’t grasp if you applied white-hot pokers to them.

Below are a few of the poll results you’ll never see on Fox News that illustrate this immutable fact, regarding only two of our unique American freedoms: free speech and the right to bear arms. At the rate we’re hauling in immigrants, don’t expect either to last much longer.

According to a 2020 survey by the Knight Foundation, only about half of white Americans (51%) think “the government should prohibit people from sharing a racist or bigoted idea.” But gigantic majorities of non-whites do: 71% of Asians, 76% of Hispanics and 80% of blacks think racist speech should be prohibited by the government (unless it’s in a speech by Joe Biden).

Judging by what they say, that’s a lot of speech. Non-whites were twice as likely as whites to report feeling “unsafe” because of someone’s speech. Both Hispanic and Asian Americans are more likely than even African Americans to report feeling “unsafe” because of something said about race, ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual orientation — even if not directed at them. (This may explain why you almost never see Hispanics or Asians in comedy clubs.)

Only 15% of white Americans think the government “should prohibit a person from sharing political views that are offensive to some.” More than twice as many Asians do (35%); more than three times as many Hispanics do (44%); and an outright majority of black people think the government should ban such speech (53%).

Thanks to all the third-worlders pouring in, Second Amendment rights also have a gun to their heads. Pew Research reported in 2021 that huge majorities of Asians (72%), Hispanics (65%) and blacks (75%) favor gun control, compared to only 45% of whites. (The other 25% of blacks were just fatally shot with an illegal gun in front of a 7-Eleven.)

The report noted that “white Americans stand alone on this question” — something you’ll see a lot in these polls. It holds true on such diverse topics as voter ID laws, Obamacare, abortion, big government, vaccine mandates and many other left-right issues.

Remember, Republicans (especially Trump): Democrats are smarter than you are. If it were remotely possible for immigrants ever to vote 60% to 70% for the GOP, instead of 60% to 70% for the Democrats, Sen. Chuck Schumer would be demanding an Iron Dome on our southern border. If Republicans, rather than Democrats, consistently won nearly 90% of the black vote, he’d be calling for a poll tax to take the literacy test.

Or Trump can take the advice of strategic genius Kushner and blow off his most loyal voters because, after all, “Where else are they going to go?”

COPYRIGHT 2024 ANN COULTER

Israeli documents show expansive government effort to shape US discourse around Gaza war

/3 Comments/in /by

From The Guardian.

… Chikli assured the lawmakers that there was new money in the budget for a pushback campaign, which was separate from more traditional public relations and paid advertising content produced by the government. It included 80 programs already under way for advocacy efforts “to be done in the ‘Concert’ way”, he said.

The “Concert” remark referred to a sprawling relaunch of a controversial Israeli government program initially known as Kela Shlomo, designed to carry out what Israel called “mass consciousness activities” targeted largely at the US and Europe. Concert, now known as Voices of Israel, previously worked with groups spearheading a campaign to pass so-called “anti-BDS” state laws that penalize Americans for engaging in boycotts or other non-violent protests of Israel.

Its latest incarnation is part of a hardline and sometimes covert operation by the Israeli government to strike back at student protests, human rights organizations and other voices of dissent.

Voices’ latest activities were conducted through non-profits and other entities that often do not disclose donor information. From October through May, Chikli has overseen at least 32m shekels, or about $8.6m, spent on government advocacy to reframe the public debate.

It didn’t take long for one of the American advocacy groups closely coordinating with Chikli’s ministry, the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, or ISGAP, to score a powerful victory.

In a widely viewed December congressional hearing on alleged antisemitism among student anti-war protesters, several House GOP lawmakers explicitly cited ISGAP research in their interrogations of university presidents. The hearing concluded with Representative Elise Stefanik’s viral confrontation with the then president of Harvard University, Claudine Gay, who later retired from her role after a wave of negative news coverage.

The ISGAP, which reportedly received the majority of its funding in 2018 from the Israeli agency that was running Concert, touted its congressional public relations coup at a 7 April event at the Palm Beach Country Club.

“All these hearings were the result of our report that all these universities, beginning from Harvard, are taking a lot of money from Qatar,” bragged Natan Sharansky, a former Israeli Knesset member (MK) who previously held Chikli’s role and now chairs the ISGAP. Sharansky told the assembled supporters that Stefanik’s remarks had been viewed by 1 billion people.

The ISGAP has continued to shape congressional investigations of universities over claims that protests over Israel’s human rights record are motivated by antisemitism, and the organization has been deeply involved in the campaign to enshrine new laws that redefine antisemitism to include certain forms of speech critical of the nation of Israel. [TOO Emphasis]

Other American groups tied to Voices have pursued a range of initiatives to bolster support for the state of Israel. One such group listed publicly as a partner, the National Black Empowerment Council (NBEC), published an open letter from Black Democratic politicians pledging solidarity with Israel. Another group, CyberWell, a pro-Israel anti-disinformation group led by former Israeli military intelligence and Voices officials, has established itself as an official “trusted partner” to TikTok and Meta, helping both social platforms screen and edit content. A recent CyberWell report called for Meta to suppress the popular slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”.

The dawn of the Gaza war after the 7 October 2023 terror attacks by Hamas sparked the third reboot for the government-backed company, which was originally chartered through the now-downgraded ministry of strategic affairs. The revamp was first disclosed through a little-noticed budget document posted by the Israeli government on 1 November, which noted that Voices would be freezing all prior campaigns to support activities related to “winning the war over Israel’s story”.

The organization is now under the administration of Chikli, the Israeli minister for diaspora affairs.

Haaretz and the New York Times recently revealed that Chikli’s ministry had tapped a public relations firm to secretly pressure American lawmakers. The firm used hundreds of fake accounts posting pro-Israel or anti-Muslim content on X (formerly Twitter), Facebook and Instagram. (The diaspora affairs ministry denied involvement in the campaign, which reportedly provided about $2m to an Israeli firm for the social media posts.)

For example, Hillel International, a co-founder of the Israel on Campus Coalition network and one of the largest Jewish campus groups in the world, has reported financial and strategic support from Mosaic United, a public benefit corporation backed by Chikli’s ministry. The longstanding partnership is now being utilized to shape the political debate over Israel’s war. In February, Hillel’s chief executive, Adam Lehman, appeared before the Knesset to discuss the strategic partnership with Mosaic and the ministry of diaspora affairs, which he said had already produced results.

“We are changing administrations. Just last week, MIT, the same president who was lambasted in front of Congress, took the step of fully suspending her Students for Justice in Palestine chapter for crossing lines, and for creating an unwelcoming environment for Jewish students,” said Lehman, referencing the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sally Kornbluth.

Hillel International, CyberWell, the NBEC, the Israeli ministry of diaspora affairs and Voices of Israel/Concert did not respond to a request for comment.

This investigative report reviewed recent government hearings, Israeli corporate filings, procurement documents and other public records. While private individuals and foundations primarily fund many of the organizations devoted to pro-Israel advocacy, most likely without foreign direction, the records point to substantial Israeli government involvement in American politics about the Gaza war, free speech on college campuses and Israel-Palestine policy.

“There’s a fixation on policing American discourse on the US-Israel relationship, even college campus discourse, from Israel, going all the way up to Prime Minister Netanyahu,” said Eli Clifton, a senior adviser at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. “One struggles to find a parallel in terms of a foreign country’s influence over American political debate.”

None of the groups identified in this story’s reporting have registered under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (Fara). This law requires groups receiving funds or direction from foreign countries to provide public disclosures to the US Department of Justice.

“There’s a built-in assumption that there’s nothing at all weird about viewing the US as sort of an open field for Israel to operate in, that there are no limitations,” said Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. …