The Engine of Compulsory Conformity: The BBC, the Bloomsbury Group, the Comintern and the NKVD in the 1930s

There was, in retrospect, no chance that BBC and its Talks and News output would ever be anything other than left-wing, pro-Jewish and anti-fascist. Since before it began to broadcast opinion pieces and news, the BBC was populated by “fanatics” like Charles Siepmann and Hilda Matheson who posited the myth of the “ultra-conservatism of the culture” and the “old Conservative clique” as needing redress by their own “progressive policies” and “subversive theory of balance”. Such people never willingly yield institutions of which they have taken control, and instead of facing any threat of being turfed out, they were then and are now confronted only by flaccid or traitorous Tories. The BBC, as Tom Mills says, “is part of a cluster of powerful and largely unaccountable institutions which dominate British society—not just ‘a mouthpiece for the Establishment’ as Owen Jones suggests, but an integral part of it.” Neither Mills nor Jones, though, would acknowledge that the Establishment was already by the early 1930s partly, and the BBC almost entirely, controlled by socialists, communists, globalists, homosexuals and Jews. Reith and Chamberlain headed the broadcaster and the government but did not prevent their ‘crusading’ subordinates having their own way. While communists and fellow travellers staffed the Corporation and amplified themselves and their comrades, not only were fascists or nationalists entirely excluded, but even the views of those who supported Chamberlain and peace were barely heard.

The Engine of Compulsory Conformity

The BBC, the Bloomsbury Group, the Comintern and the NKVD in the 1930s

The Company, originally a cartel of radio set manufacturers, had been lucrative for its directors, but the Post Office had sanctioned their privileges for questionable reasons, and after the agreed period of royalties and having established the state enforcement of the licence fee, and under a government less obliging to Marconi and GEC, the Company was reformed into a ‘public corporation’. Reith himself was the leading advocate of the novel concept which, as with David Sarnoff and RCA in the USA, happened to provide him with a personal fief of immense influence. Reith’s “higher conception” consisted in a belief in “democratic aim, not in democratic method”, not aiming to give the public what they wanted, and still less any choice, but rather what he thought best for them.2 The BBC licence fee, originally a device to compel listeners to deliver royalties to the manufacturers’ cartel, served after the BBC’s incorporation to compel them to fund the state broadcaster while all other would-be broadcasters were prohibited.

The Public Corporation

The BBC’s official history describes Reith as desiring an organisation “independent” of the market and of governments.3 This has only ever been the case in the formal sense that the corporation depends directly on the crown instead, but the powers of the crown have for centuries been exercised by the government anyway. As Tom Mills describes, “renewals of the Royal Charter, as well as the appointment of BBC governors and trustees, have formally been made by an Order of the Privy Council” using “the residential powers of the absolutist state which have never been subject to democratic controls” and which are, “in essence, absolutist decrees of the central government, signed-off by the monarch of the day.”4 The government also grants the corporation its licence fee increases.5 The BBC could be deprived of funding or closed by any government that wished to do so, but none ever has; the idea of public corporations was initially embraced by leftists, but the Conservative Party exists to consolidate the gains of their faux-opponents.6

Reith’s BBC consciously strove to present itself as a kind of conglomerated person with whom the public would identify and whom they would trust. In Asa Briggs’ words, early BBC staff wanted “to ensure that people felt—without thinking—that the BBC was theirs.”7 Announcers were soon, by some listeners, “thought of as the BBC, for it was they who mediated between the listeners and the programmes.”8 Announcers were deemed the best placed of all BBC employees “to build up in the public mind a sense of the BBC’s collective personality.” They would represent “[t]he BBC itself” and its own “policy and ideals”.9 An article in the Spectator in 1936 said that “The BBC has a personality of its own, pervasive and unmistakable, and it affects its reactions to public events, to education, to entertainment, and to the arts: it is the foundation of its policy.”10 The Corporation was and is, as with any media organisation, unavoidably biased in whom it recruits, what its editors select to report and omit and how it allocates programme time. However, it developed the ability to appear objective to many viewers while expressing approval or disapproval by the variation of announcers’, presenters’ and newsreaders’ tones of voice and, in documentaries, the use of background music and lighting.11 The more trusting or unthinking elements of the public are subliminally persuaded by such methods.

Reith was chosen by the BBC’s first board of directors, but as they receded in importance, he grew, and standard histories of the corporation speak of ‘Reithianism’ as its founding ideology. This blurs the reality, but Reith was certainly a formative factor. He was a Presbyterian who served in and supported the Great War.12 His diary and memoirs show that he opposed unionisation at the BBC and in his previous job, had “no particular feelings about Communism”, privately sympathised with Adolf Hitler at times and made occasional favourable remarks about Benito Mussolini. Yet in 1939 he described himself as a “Gladstonian liberal”.13 He wrote in October 1942 that Winston Churchill was a “bloody swine” and “the greatest menace we’ve ever had” with “country and Empire sacrificed to his megalomania, to his monstrous obstinacy and wrongheadedness.”14 His insistence on formality, elocution and a privileged position for Christianity are commonly said to characterise the BBC during and long after his tenure, but his own political and cultural views do not appear to have become those of the organisation.

John Reith

Crusading

Reith appears to have concerned himself primarily with broadcasting per se; he did not attempt to control all the BBC’s output or those he began to disagree with in the 1930s—people he had also hired and had come to rely upon. As Asa Briggs says, “The BBC’s philosophy owed an immense amount to one man: the BBC’s programmes were the work of many men of extremely varied experience and outlook.”15 He describes them as “men and women who ‘believed in broadcasting’ almost as a social and cultural crusade.”16 They also, more or less frankly, saw broadcasting as a means of indoctrination and intended to use it as such. As early as 1925, the leading Fabian Beatrice Webb had written that wireless had “a stupendous influence… over the lives of the people” and “might become… a terrible engine of compulsory conformity … in opinion and culture” but asserted that the BBC’s use of its influence was “eminently right”. Hilda Matheson, after six years at the Corporation, wrote in 1933 that “Broadcasting is a huge agency of standardization, the most powerful the world has ever seen.”17 Labour politician Herbert Morrison, later Home Secretary under Winston Churchill, had from the BBC’s earliest days “demanded that broadcasting … should be publicly owned and controlled.”18 In 1946, Morrison described broadcasting as “at least as powerful a vehicle of ideas as the printing press” and acknowledged that “the body which decides what goes into a broadcasting programme has an enormous power for good and evil over the minds of the nation” and averred that “that power must not fall into the wrong hands”, out of the right ones.19

After it began to be allowed to broadcast ‘controversial’ programmes from 1927 and as it became involved in education, nearly all the department heads and editors Reith’s BBC hired ensured that the political and cultural output was routinely leftist.20 An early producer of ‘controversial’ programming, Lionel Fielden, wrote that “[w]e really believed that broadcasting could revolutionize human opinion.”21 Charles Siepmann, the second Head of Talks, was in his own words “fanatically devoted”; he believed that

“broadcasting was the greatest miracle in human history… everything that any man had ever written down on paper, every note of music that had ever been composed was now universally available. This was what you might call ‘the new age of cultural communism’. And I believed that.”

Charles Siepmann

Siepmann referred to his own “progressive outlook” and “the progressive policies that both Hilda and I were pushing very hard indeed”. He lamented that Reith agonised too earnestly over balance and didn’t share Siepmann’s “very, very sensitive social conscience”. Siepmann remarked that his own “sense of balance” was “to redress the ultra-conservatism of the culture of that time… my theory of balance ‘was subversive in the sense that it was disruptive of the old Conservative clique” and the “Conservative Mind”.22

BBC Education and Talks

The BBC founded several publications, of which Radio Times continues today. Its first and formative editor from 1927 was Eric Maschwitz, son of a Jewish immigrant from Lithuania, whose career, like many BBC employees, included spells in broadcasting, the movie and music industries, the intelligence services, and wartime sabotage and terrorism under the Special Operations Executive. The Listener, founded in 1929, was an “educational periodical”, a printer of BBC Talks and a vehicle for the Corporation’s ‘cultural mission’. “By 1935 its circulation had reached 52,000, more than that of the New Statesman and the Spectator combined.”23 Richard Lambert was the first editor, having previously been, with Siepmann, the BBC’s representative on the Council for Adult Education, which the BBC funded to promote socialists including G D H Cole, John Sankey, William Temple and Harold Laski.24 Lambert employed Janet Adam Smith, later of the Fabian New Statesman, and the homosexual Joe Ackerley as assistant editors; his team’s use of The Listener to promote homosexual and communist poets like Cecil Day-Lewis, Wystan Auden, John Lehmann, Stephen Spender and Herbert Read provoked complaints from readers.25 Christopher Isherwood, another favourite poet, was a close associate of the Berlin-based pro-transgender, anti-nationalist activist Magnus Hirschfeld.26

Auden, Isherwood and Spender

Talks were originally a sub-division of BBC Education (which also included religion and early news operations), but “…in January 1927 the Control Board decided that a separate “Talks Section’ should be formed, quite distinct from education, news, and religion, with Miss Matheson in charge. She remained there until January 1932, leaving a very powerful imprint on the BBC.”27 Matheson was hired personally by Reith, first as an assistant in Education, then as the first Director of Talks in 1927. The BBC’s news operations began at the same time, initially merely repeating press agency reports. According to Kate Murphy, Matheson was “part of London’s cultural and intellectual elite” and “[her] approach to Talks reflected her liberal and progressive viewpoint.”28 She was also a feminist, a lesbian and a Soviet sympathiser who used her position to promote the views of her friends, lovers and comrades, especially members of the subversive Bloomsbury group and the socialist Fabian Society.29 Lionel Fielden was her main producer, also homosexual, anti-imperial and a supporter of Mohandas Gandhi, whom he promoted on BBC radio in India.

According to Asa Briggs, “[t]he early members of the Talks Department introduced to broadcasting some of its most brilliant performers—Harold Nicolson, Vernon Bartlett, Ernest Newman, Stephen King-Hall, Raymond Gram Swing, and John Hilton.”30 Simon Potter adds that “Matheson invited influential and pugnacious figures from the world of politics to speak on air, including Winston Churchill and Harold Nicolson, as well as cultural figures like HG Wells and George Bernard Shaw.”31 John Hilton was “an ardent trade unionist” admired by communists including Guy Burgess with whom he later collaborated at the BBC; both were recruited into the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6).32 Nicolson, King-Hall, Bartlett and Churchill were all vociferous proponents of an anti-German foreign policy.33 Socialists were consultants as well as guests. “‘I remember best the trinity of EM Forster, Desmond McCarthy and HG Wells,’ Lionel Fielden has written, ‘who all gave us freely of their time and wise counsels, and would sit round our gas fires at Savoy Hill, talking of the problems and possibilities of broadcasting.’” 34 Nicolson was not only a guest but the husband of Matheson’s lover, Vita Sackville-West. Beatrice and Sidney Webb were central members of the Fabian Society and apologists for the Soviet Union during its most tyrannical period. George Bernard Shaw, also a Fabian socialist and Soviet sympathiser, was a proponent of racial mixing who cursed and derided ‘anti-Semites’ with the same canards used by The Times in 1882: “Anti-Semitism is the hatred of the lazy, ignorant, fat-headed Gentile for the pertinacious Jew who, schooled by adversity to use his brains to the utmost, outdoes him in business.”35 HG Wells, another defender of the Soviets, was given BBC airtime by Matheson to advocate for a world state and the end of nations.36 Matheson’s “pugnacious figures” also included the Marxist and Zionist Harold Laski, the Soviet agent EF Wise, the ‘Red Countess’ of Warwick, the Quaker and socialist Philip Noel-Baker, Ernest Bevin, the militant feminist Viscountess Rhondda and the pro-Soviet ‘pacifist’ and Focus member Norman Angell, as well as John Maynard Keynes, Leonard Woolf, EM Forster and others of the Bloomsbury circle. William Beveridge, a Liberal by party though a Fabian socialist in deed, “gave six talks on unemployment in 1931, following on a general series on the same subject.”37

Hilda Matheson

Asa Briggs writes that “[u]nder Hilda Matheson the BBC employed speakers of every persuasion, but this did not save it from charges of ‘leftwing bias’.”38 Briggs, a pro-BBC historian, was perhaps merely re-wording Matheson’s own statement in 1933 that “[a]n impression of left-wing bias is always liable to be created by any agency which voices unfamiliar views. … It does not always follow that the ideas themselves are of the left. In practice, they usually hail from every point of the compass.”39 As Ronald Coase said in 1950, “The fact that the Corporation has been criticised by the Right and the Left hardly proves, as many of its supporters contend, that it is impartial; of itself it merely shows that the Corporation has not been consistently at one of the extremes.”40 The Corporation leaned strongly to the left as soon as it began to broadcast opinionated content and was merely occasionally told to cancel one talk or disinvite a particularly aggravating speaker. I find no record of any nationalist or fascist being invited to give talks, and there were not even many Tories. All figures ‘of the right’ invited to speak on the BBC appear to have been anti-German.41 Ian McIntyre refers to Churchill as one of the “mavericks of the right”, a true if understated description in the sense that Churchill’s affectations and associations were vaguely right-wing but his deeds and legacy were the opposite.42 Lord Lloyd, first head of the British Council, an anti-fascist cultural propaganda body spun out of the Foreign Office, who spent the latter half of the 1930s agitating for war against Germany, was regarded within the BBC as of the “extreme right”.43 The BBC ‘balanced’ anti-German Soviet sympathisers with anti-German Soviet collaborators. The war, or the wars, against Germany, both of which Lloyd and Churchill supported, did more than any other events in history to empower the left and socialism, as Neville Chamberlain had predicted and striven to avoid.

Marxists and communists

Matheson’s contumacy toward Reith, especially in regard to criticism from the Daily Mail of her promotion of her comrades, resulted in her resignation. The New Statesman predictably blamed “official and orthodox pressure” which kept out “the expression of new ideas”, though “paid a tribute to the BBC as a whole” which, after all, was still a state monopoly and thus a castle to be held.44 Matheson was succeeded as Director of Talks by another leftist, the “like-minded” Charles Siepmann, of whose spell Briggs writes that “the same charges” of left-wing bias “were frequently repeated, and the Corporation found it desirable to seek ‘rightwing speakers’ who would offset criticism.”45 The dearth of such speakers actually broadcasting suggests that the Corporation went no further than ‘finding them desirable’. Instead, the socialist JB Priestley was given space for a “personal comment”, Winston Churchill warned about the ‘threat’ of Germany, and “An excellent series called Whither Britain? … was broadcast in 1934 (with Wells, Bevin, Shaw, and Lloyd George among the speakers) and this was followed later in the year by a series on The Causes of War (with, among others, Lord Beaverbrook, Norman Angell, Major Douglas—of Social Credit fame—and Aldous Huxley).”46

Eventually Siepmann, like Matheson, was, as Kate Murphy describes, “censured for being too radical”, i.e., “transferred to the role of Director of Regional Relations” in 1935.47 Hilda Matheson objected in the Observer, seeing him as her continuation.48 In Siepmann’s new remit, the largest of the BBC’s regions was BBC North, for which the Programme Director, EAF Harding, on his appointment in 1933, had “raided the Manchester Guardian” for its journalists “and with the full co-operation of WP Crozier, the editor” had drawn upon “the services of a number of the Guardian’s leaderwriters and reporters as North Regional broadcasters.”49 The strongly left-wing Guardian is the newspaper most read at the BBC today, vastly out of proportion to its sales to the public, and the BBC long sought to recruit to the greatest extent possible from among Guardian readers. Under Siepmann, John Coatman had been “deliberately brought in” by Reith for the role of the BBC’s Chief News Editor “as ‘right wing offset’ to ‘balance’ the direction of talks and news” but “showed no sign of doing so”; Coatman “insisted on his own independence as a maker of policy”.50 Richard Maconachie, “a man of conservative views” became Head of Talks in 1936, formally senior to the Director of Talks. According to Ben Harker, “His Director of Talks, Norman Luker, was by contrast a liberal intrigued by the far left” who “was keen to create a platform for a Marxist analysis of the issue” of class and wanted to reorient talks to appeal to the same audience as the anti-fascist Picture Post, edited by Istvan Reich, a Jewish political exile from Hungary, and the Left Book Club run by the Jewish communist publisher Victor Gollancz. Luker was a long-standing friend of the Cambridge Apostle, homosexual, Soviet spy and producer at the BBC, Guy Burgess. The robustness of the “right-wing offset” was evident in the rejection of Luker’s preferred Marxist lecturer, the Cambridge communist don Maurice Dobb; instead Luker had to settle for Arthur Horner, a member of the Communist Party’s central committee and a trade unionist. Dobb had, at any rate, already appeared “periodically” on the BBC earlier in the decade. Horner, in his broadcast in November 1938,

ranged freely from Marx’s theory of class struggle as the engine of history, through to an explication of the Communist Party’s line on fascism, to a description of the Spanish Civil War as militarized class struggle, and into a justification of the Moscow Trials as revolutionary justice against counter-revolution. His talk, which was published unedited in the BBC’s in-house magazine The Listener, concluded with a familiar Popular Front appeal for what he called ‘the cultural, clerical and professional classes’ – generally the assumed audience for National Programme Talks – to come over to the working class in the struggle against capital and fascism”51

BBC North

The BBC also issued Marxist propaganda via other avenues. As Ben Harker describes, communists coveted the BBC’s “growing cultural and political influence in the 1930s” which drew upon “its increasing significance in the construction of British identity, notably in its power to fashion the national narrative.”52 Fortunately for them, when the Corporation began to establish regional divisions in 1933, BBC North, the largest, became a “cauldron of Marxist and left-wing mischief” under its first Programme Director, the avowed Marxist EAF Harding.53 The producer Olive Shapley, the folk singer AL Lloyd, the thespian and director Joan Littlewood and her husband the singer and actor Ewan McColl (born Jimmie Miller) were central figures and all were members of the Communist Party of Great Britain. According to Shapley, Harding was also a “comrade”.54 The North producer Geoffrey Bridson was merely a close friend and a sympathiser who didn’t join the party but was introduced to Harding by the Comintern propagandist Claud Cockburn, inventor of the myth of the Cliveden Set.55 Shapley, though she left the party after university (as did Guy Burgess), continued as an agent of the cause, moved to New York in 1941, and interviewed guests like the subversive Eleanor Roosevelt and the singer Paul Robeson, later winner of the Stalin Prize, for the BBC’s Children’s Hour. According to Harker, “It was Harding’s view that all radio was propaganda: broadcasts which failed to give voice to the working class silenced it, those which failed to address structural inequalities shored up the status quo.”56 Harding broadcast propaganda without subtlety. Documentaries like May Day by Bridson simply issued a communist reading of history, one which led inexorably toward The Revolution.57 The North team produced programmes about Chartism that coaxed the listener toward the same conclusion: working Britons had not yet completed their revolution. The Classic Soil, proudly memorialised by the BBC today, was an overt vindication of the 19th-century writings of Friedrich Engels, co-author of the Communist Manifesto and Capital, read by Ernst Hoffman, an anti-fascist immigrant from Germany.58 Shapley, the producer, later described her own work as “probably the most unfair and biased programme ever put out by the BBC”.59

Olive Shapley and Eleanor Roosevelt on Children’s Hour

Soviet espionage

From its founding in 1917, the Soviet Union had engaged in ceaseless attempts to dissolve and undermine Britain and the empire, using the Comintern, espionage, front groups and the assistance of sympathisers.60 As John Costello says, referring to the late 1920s and early 1930s, “Stalin’s lust for obtaining secret intelligence endowed [the] OGPU and its “organs” with unrivaled power, and he stepped up the pressure to expand the penetration of foreign governments. The primary target was Britain—the main adversary, in Stalin’s eyes[.]”61 The OGPU was the successor of the Cheka and predecessor of the NKVD and KGB. The Soviet penetration strategy came to centre upon upper-class students at Cambridge and Oxford who were best-placed to enter the civil service; the infamous ‘Cambridge Five’ and others better concealed, were thus recruited. With some awareness of the threat, the most conservative elements at the Security Service (MI5) held meetings with the BBC in 1935 which “set in motion a system of political vetting” to cover new BBC employees which was “formalised with a written agreement in 1937.”62 The vetting was insufficient; in any case, MI5 itself had employed subversives like Hilda Matheson during the Great War and since.63 The Soviet spy Guy Burgess was appointed as a producer of BBC Talks in June 1936 and was recruited to work for MI6 during his time there.

The intelligence services contained genuine opponents of the left, but the social worlds of their agents, Foreign Office employees and other civil servants, Cambridge Apostles, overt and covert communists, the Bloomsbury group, and upper class homosexuals all appear to have blended together, as is exemplified by Burgess himself. Burgess later made Anthony Blunt, a fellow Apostle, homosexual and Soviet spy, a frequent guest on the BBC, and elevated the already-high status of the bisexual anti-fascist Harold Nicolson at the corporation. Jews were prominent in the same circles. Burgess met the philosophers AJ Ayer and Isaiah Berlin, both later to work in MI6, at a dinner party hosted by Felix Frankfurter.64 Victor Rothschild, the third Baron Rothschild, was another Apostle; according to Victor’s sister Miriam, Burgess was one of “the many people” whom her mother Rózsika, “assisted or supported by periodic and regular payments” for unclear reasons. Another was the Comintern agent Rudolph Katz.65 Victor Rothschild joined MI5 in 1939 (or before); the following year, Anthony Blunt was recruited on Rothschild’s recommendation.66

Victor Rothschild, the third Baron Rothschild

The suitability of Cambridge University as the prime location for Soviet recruitment owed much to the concentration of homosexuals among teaching staff and students. The Apostles, who included the amoralist philosopher GE Moore and others of the Bloomsbury group, had in earlier decades become “obsessed by homosexuality”, and several members “pursued what they called ‘the higher sodomy.’”67 “Higher” referred to their disdain for romantic love as well as their general sense of superiority. The Apostles were already a secret society, and homosexuality was actively prohibited in Britain until the 1960s. Some of those who practiced it formed “extensive underground ‘old boy networks’” which “reached out like a cobweb across the pinnacles of the British Establishment, with connections in Whitehall ministries, the universities, the foreign service, the church, and the armed services”; “several of the lines of this web of homosexual influence were spun by Apostles who, by the twenties, had anchored themselves firmly in the upper reaches of Whitehall” and “offered great opportunities to any blackmailer—or spy—who gained admission.” Jack Hewit, a lover of Burgess, first met him at a homosexual party in the War Office in 1936 at which Rudolph Katz was a guest.68 Burgess was extremely promiscuous and engaged in exchanges of love letters with ‘conquests’ to use as compromising material.

John Costello identifies Edward Marsh as “the leading behind-the-scenes string-puller in the interwar years” who “ascended the senior ranks of the civil service while pursuing his avocation as one of London’s leading literary impresarios”. Marsh

was always ready to pull strings and arrange favors for eligible Cambridge men of intellect, talent, and good looks. Successive generations of Apostles, including Blunt and later Guy Burgess, discovered this to their advantage. The Marsh network included bureaucrats, publishers, parliamentarians, and prominent members of London society. Marsh was longtime personal secretary to Winston Churchill, to whom ‘dear Eddie’ would attach himself like a faithful hound whenever Churchill had a ministry.69

Edward Marsh and Winston Churchill

Much of the same was true at Oxford University, where prominent dons like Maurice Bowra, aware of their closeness to Soviet intelligence agents, referred to themselves as being in the ‘homintern’; Bowra referred to Wadham, his college, as Sodom. During the Second World War he became a frequent guest on the BBC. Marxist members of the homosexual networks based in Cambridge, Oxford and London, including Roger Fulford and Kemball Johnston, attained positions in MI5 where they were able to influence their superiors in favour of members of the Communist Party.70

Popular Front

Though some communists may have been excluded from working at the BBC by MI5’s vetting, the corporation’s programmes were already used to support an effectively pro-Soviet foreign policy long before 1937. Winston Churchill is cited as one of a few right-wing speakers who disprove that the corporation was left-wing, but he exceeded the BBC in its fervour for the anti-German cause. In November 1934, Churchill was invited by the BBC to broadcast a speech in which he forebode the “destruction of the British Empire” and “Teutonic domination” of “our people” unless Britain sought allies to achieve “[p]eace… founded upon preponderance” by “mak[ing] ourselves at least the strongest Air Power in the European world.”71 This was, not by chance, the same demand as that of the civil service faction headed by Robert Vansittart and Warren Fisher that furtively supplied Churchill with false estimates of Britain and Germany’s military strengths.

The week after Churchill’s radio speech, the British arm of Samuel Untermyer’s Anti-Nazi Council was founded, and the following October it held a large demonstration in Hyde Park; the BBC broadcast the speeches by Eleanor Rathbone, Clement Attlee, Walter Citrine, JBS Haldane and Sylvia Pankhurst, all socialists or communists. There was no BBC Talk given by Oswald Mosley to ‘balance’ Churchill and no coverage of demonstrations against communism or hostility toward Germany. The BBC covered the events of the largest such demonstrations, those of the British Union of Fascists, by spotlighting the blackshirts’ eviction of hecklers and invaders. The BUF’s Olympia rally in 1934 occurred at the same time the BBC began to be allowed to create its own news reports. The ludicrous myth of the BUF intentionally causing violent disruption of its own events has endured.

Oswald Mosley and BUF members

From 1936, BBC Television broadcast selected newsreels from Gaumont and Movietone, the latter being a subsidiary of Wilhelm Fuchs’ Fox Corporation and the former owned by Isidore Ostrer. Ostrer was, according to Nicholas Pronay and Philip Taylor, “the most skilful and clear-minded manipulator of the propaganda potential of the newsreel”; as Gaumont also produced films and owned many cinemas, the effect of his skills was amplified greatly.72 Fuchs and Ostrer were both descended of Jewish immigrants from the Russian Empire. The British film industry and cinemas were largely Jewish-owned through the 1920s and 30s.73 Burgess, before being hired by the BBC, was recruited to work for the Soviet NKVD probably by Arnold Deutsch, a cousin of Oscar Deutsch, the founder and owner of Odeon Cinemas and a referee for Arnold’s immigration application.74

The BBC, especially the North division, effectively joined the Popular Front, a Soviet anti-fascist initiative, and thereby aligned with the aims of the international Jewish alliance agitating for regime change in Germany and with organised Jewry in Britain, whose activists secured special privileges. According to Geoffrey Alderman, “An agreement … was reached with the BBC which undertook to submit” to the Board of Deputies of British Jews “the scripts of any programme “of Jewish interest” before the programme was broadcast.” The agreement was part of the Board of Deputies’ Defence Committee’s anti-fascist strategy which also included “intelligence-gathering, media-monitoring and co-operation with the Special Branch.”75 In the spring of 1938, recalling 1881, “a Mansion House Fund and innumerable appeals on behalf of refugees from Austria, Germany and Czecho-Slovakia were broadcast from the BBC and in the British Press.”76

Guy Burgess

Propaganda and black operations

As the BBC aligned with Jewish and Soviet policy, it applied its “power to fashion the national narrative” in accordance with the propaganda bodies of the British state, staffed and governed increasingly by anti-fascists, which were used to counter Italian and German (not Soviet) propaganda. The most overt, the British Council, was an initiative of Rex Leeper, head of the Foreign Office’s News Department and payee of the Soviet-aligned Czech government; he introduced Churchill to the Anti-Nazi Council, which Churchill renamed the Focus, in April 1936. The BBC’s Empire Service and foreign language broadcasting were launched to work to the same purpose as the Council. Britain declared war on Germany in September 1939, but the propaganda war was underway at least two years earlier when the Focus member Lord Lloyd, another figure of the “extreme right” who sided with the extreme left in foreign policy, became chairman of the Council.83 Anti-fascism and sympathy for the Soviet Union were already embedded institutionally in Britain long before the Anschluss, ‘Munich’ or Kristallnacht.

Section D of MI6 was created in March or April of 1938 “to provide lines of communication for covert anti-Nazi propaganda in neutral countries”, to “organise and equip resistance units, support anti-Nazi groups” and enact “sabotage, covert operations, and subversive propaganda.” Guy Burgess was employed by Section D, the first of a chain of propaganda bodies established by the British state which presented Jewish emigrants from Central Europe as friends of and spokesmen for Britain. Vansittart, Claude Dansey of MI6, Churchill and the Focus had been using the same people for (often fabricated) intelligence and propaganda for some years. As Andrew Lownie describes, “Section D used a series of front organisations, such as the news agency United Correspondents, which produced innocuous but anti-Nazi articles for circulation to newspapers around the world, and Burgess worked with writers such as the Swiss journalist Eugen Lennhof and the Austrian writer Berthe Zuckerkandl-Szeps.”84 In Section D, John Costello says, “Burgess appears to have been the main fount of ideas and principal producer of clandestine programming. In compiling the careful assembly of propaganda talks, variety shows, and hit records, he was assisted by Paul Frischauer, an Austrian refugee, and his wife, who were members of an anti-Hitler group in London.”85 The “radio war” consisted initially of illegally broadcasting Chamberlain speeches into Germany on Radio Luxembourg, owned by Isidore Ostrer and run by Eva Siewert, a Jewish lesbian and Soviet sympathiser.86

The covert counterpart of the British Council and an adjunct of MI6 and the BBC was the Joint Broadcasting Committee, which operated in sufficient secrecy as to be unknown to MI5. According to Lownie, “The JBC was very much a BBC operation. It was run by Hilda Matheson… assisted by Isa Morley, the foreign director of the BBC from 1933 to 1937. Burgess was number three and represented Section D’s interests. In March 1939 Harold Nicolson joined the Board.” Angus Hambro, a Tory MP from an established Jewish banking family, was also a member. “JBC staff were authorised to use BBC studios”, and though “scripts were prepared by JBC staff, many were read by prominent exiles such as the writer Thomas Mann, or later by well-known actors such as Conrad Veidt”, both married to women of Jewish ancestry. Burgess also recruited John Bernal, a Jewish communist and a science don at Cambridge, as well as Edvard Benes, the former Czech Prime Minister and a friend and ally of Stalin, to record speeches for the JBC.87

Conclusion

There was, in retrospect, no chance that BBC and its Talks and News output would ever be anything other than left-wing, pro-Jewish and anti-fascist. Since before it began to broadcast opinion pieces and news, the BBC was populated by “fanatics” like Charles Siepmann and Hilda Matheson who posited the myth of the “ultra-conservatism of the culture” and the “old Conservative clique” as needing redress by their own “progressive policies” and “subversive theory of balance”. Such people never willingly yield institutions of which they have taken control, and instead of facing any threat of being turfed out, they were then and are now confronted only by flaccid or traitorous Tories. The BBC, as Tom Mills says, “is part of a cluster of powerful and largely unaccountable institutions which dominate British society – not just ‘a mouthpiece for the Establishment’ as Owen Jones suggests, but an integral part of it.” Neither Mills nor Jones, though, would acknowledge that the Establishment was already by the early 1930s partly, and the BBC almost entirely, controlled by socialists, communists, globalists, homosexuals and Jews. Reith and Chamberlain headed the broadcaster and the government but did not prevent their ‘crusading’ subordinates having their own way. While communists and fellow travellers staffed the Corporation and amplified themselves and their comrades, not only were fascists or nationalists entirely excluded, but even the views of those who supported Chamberlain and peace were barely heard. The weakest period for the anti-fascists was in 1938, as Chamberlain’s Cabinet Office actively subdued them; Guy Burgess resigned from the corporation in frustration. Yet after Lord Halifax joined the war party, Chamberlain was isolated in the Cabinet and Parliament and cornered into adopting anti-German policies. The ensuing war enabled Churchill to form not only a government in May 1940, but a new anti-fascist regime which has ever since imposed a false version of history via the BBC and the education system. The ‘maverick of the right’ was the best friend the left have ever had.

Horus is the pen name of a British historian. He posts his essays on Substack. Please subscribe.


1

The Birth of Broadcasting, Asa Briggs, 1961, p180-2. Reith sought to apply the “brute force of monopoly” beyond Britain, as British law alone could not prevent commercial stations broadcasting into Britain from transmitters abroad, which they did through the 1930s. The BBC lobbied via the International Broadcasting Union for the greatest possible restrictions on Radio Luxembourg, Radio Normandie and others, and did so with the support of the Newspaper Proprietors’ Association, but Radio Luxembourg exceeded the BBC’s listening figures at times and only ceased operations when its facilities were effectively nationalised after Britain and France declared war on Germany in September 1939. Under Reith, the BBC had only broadcast for a few hours on Sundays and the content was mostly religious while Radio Luxembourg played more dance music. See The Golden Age of Wireless, Asa Briggs, 1965, p92, 360.

2

The Golden Age of Wireless, Asa Briggs, 1965, p433. Briggs is paraphrasing the Labour politician and BBC governor Mary Agnes Hamilton.

4

The BBC: Myth of a Public Service, Tom Mills, p21. See also p5, 23

5

Mills, p25

6

Briggs, Golden Age, p419.

7

Briggs, Birth, p246

8

The BBC, Asa Briggs, 1985, p72. My emphasis.

9

Briggs, Birth, p292

10

British Broadcasting – A Study in Monopoly, Ronald Coase, 1950, p188-9

11

Dolphins are discussed with an approving voice and jolly music; the ‘far right’ is mentioned in an alarming tone with sinister music.

12

The Expense of Glory, Ian McIntyre, 1993, p70

13

McIntyre, p99, 217, 250. ‘The Trumpet of the Night’: Interwar Communists on BBC Radio, Ben Harker, History Workshop Journal, Volume 75, Issue 1, Spring 2013, p82

14

McIntyre, p270

15

Briggs, Golden Age, p57

16

Briggs, Golden Age, p13. Briggs is quoting Hilda Matheson.

17

Briggs, Golden Age, p39

18

Briggs, BBC, p53

19

Coase, Study, p163

20

About lifting the ban on controversial broadcasting, see Coase, Study, p62

21

Briggs, Golden Age, p13. One early element of the “social and cultural crusade” was to expose the public to subversive artists, writers and musicians. In music, as Asa Briggs describes, the BBC chose “the hazardous enterprise of introducing to the British listener Schönberg and Webern as well as Bartok and Stravinsky. In music it was always among the avant-garde…” Briggs, Golden Age, p171-2

22

Charles Siepmann interviewed by Harman Grisewood in 1978. Siepmann was later paid to move to the USA by the Rockefeller Foundation and wrote a paper for the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.

23

Briggs, BBC, p115

24

Briggs, Golden Age, p219. Harold Laski was the brother of the head of the Board of Deputies of British Jews from 1933 and son of the man who “enlisted” Winston Churchill to campaign for open borders in 1904.

25

McIntyre, p190

26

Glamour Boys, Chris Bryant, 2020, introduction

27

Briggs, Golden Age, p124. “The place of adult education in the BBC’s central organization was never secure. In February 1931 it hived off from the Talks Department and became a separate department under the direction of Siepmann; in February 1932 it became a department of a new Talks Branch when Siepmann replaced Hilda Matheson as Director of Talks; in September 1934 it was fully merged in the Talks Branch, losing its departmental identity. Behind these vicissitudes there were not only personal differences but deeper uncertainties about what exactly was the relationship between Talks and organized adult education.” Briggs, Golden Age, p222

28

Behind the Wireless, Kate Murphy, 2016, chapter on Hilda Matheson

29

Harker, p87

30

Briggs, Golden Age, p126

32

The Mask of Treachery, John Costello, 1988, p317-8 and p590

33

Harold Nicolson was the son of Arthur Nicolson, a diplomatic protégé of King Edward VII. Stephen King-Hall was a future Labour MP and publisher of the anti-German London Newsletter which shared an audience with publications of the Focus and the Comintern; he was “a frequent broadcaster”. Briggs, BBC, p119

34

Briggs, Golden Age, p127

35

Bernard Shaw, Michael Holroyd, 1998, chapter 2, 3. Shaw “was to define fascism as ‘State financed private enterprise’ or ‘Socialism for the benefit of exploiters’. From the 1930s onwards Shaw chose to call himself a communist: ‘that is, I advocate national control of land, capital, and industry for the benefit of us all. Fascists advocate it equally for the benefit of the landlords, capitalists and industrialists.’”

36

Briggs, Golden Age, p126-7. Wells speaking on BBC radioThe Listener praised Wells as a man “who can see the future”; presumably the producers who chose him were prescient too.

37

Briggs, Golden Age, p41

38

Briggs, Golden Age, p141

39

Briggs, Golden Age, p43. Matheson continued: “How is the inevitable fear they provoke to be reconciled with the spirit of open-minded enquiry which is inseparable from all education, from any search after truth?’”

40

Coase, Study, p188-9

41

I have not found any counter-examples.

42

McIntyre, p188

43

Briggs, Golden Age, p470-1

44

Briggs, Golden Age, p43

45

Briggs, Golden Age, p141; Harker, p87

46

Briggs, Golden Age, p143-4. Beaverbrook, the most ‘right-wing’ of these, often dined with the Soviet ambassador Ivan Maisky, employed the anti-fascist cartoonist David Low and joined the wartime government in May 1940 after Churchill became Prime Minister. He also served in the wartime Cabinet in 1918.

47

Murphy, chapter on Hilda Matheson

48

Mills, p40

49

Briggs, Golden Age, p330

50

Briggs, Golden Age, p118, 147

51

Harker, p87-8

52

Harker, p92

53

Audio Drama Modernism, Tim Crook, 2020, p264

54

Interview with Olive Shapley, 1984, p3-4 and Broadcasting a Life, Olive Shapley, 1996, p37. From the latter, referring to her first meeting with Harding where he asked her to stay behind: “‘When the room was empty apart from the two of us, he extended his hand and said, ‘Welcome, comrade.’ I was never a very devout communist, but I could tell that I was among friends.’”

55

Harker, p89

56

Harker, p90. How exactly the middle-class Shapley interviewing the wealthy Roosevelt gave voice to the working class is unclear.

57

Harker, p92

58

Harker p93. Marx only completed the first volume of Capital by himself.

59

Shapley, Broadcasting, p54. The BBC’s programme index lists Engels as a contributor to the programme.

60

Though they had small resources and were about to engage in war on several fronts, the Bolsheviks commenced espionage against Britain immediately after the coup. Chapter 5, ‘Exporting the Revolution’, of John Costello’s book The Mask of Treachery gives a summary. See also chapters 1-5 of Giles Udy, Labour and the Gulag.

61

Costello, p182

62

Mills, p42. “The practice was maintained for fifty years, abandoned only in 1985 after being exposed by a team of investigative journalists. Much of what is known about political vetting, stems from the revelations at that time and the declassified BBC files that have become available since.”

63

MI5 now names Hilda Matheson as a “lesbian role model”.

64

Stalin’s Englishman, Andrew Lownie, 2015, chapter 5

65

Costello, p299-300. Costello suggests that Burgess worked for the Rothschilds’ own intelligence network as well as MI6 and the NKVD:

“Since private intelligence was an essential element of the Rothschild business operation, what better cover could they give their latest recruit in 1935 than to characterize Burgess as an investment counselor and dispatch him as their private spy to monitor the Anglo-German Fellowship? Information about threats to the House of Rothschild resulting from secret deals between British sympathizers and the Third Reich would more than justify the hundred guineas a month paid to Guy Burgess.

Victor Rothschild had implicit faith in his Cambridge friend because he, like Blunt, knew of Burgess’s true loyalties. But Burgess’s volatile enthusiasms would help persuade his right-wing friends that he had recanted his earlier Marxism. His homosexual appetite would prove an exploitable talent when it came to sharing the bed of a pro-German Tory well placed to pull strings and advance an ambitious young man’s career. Nor should it be forgotten that Rudolph Katz, with his own extensive network of homosexual and Comintern contacts, also contributed to Rothschild’s private intelligence network that, at the time, shared with Stalin a common enemy: Hitler.” Costello, p303-5

66

Lownie, chapter 17; Costello, p369-71

67

Costello, p143

68

Costello, p307-8

69

Costello, p65, 150-1. See also Churchill’s War, volume one, David Irving, 2003, p26-7

70

Costello, p427-30

71

Winston Churchill – the Greatest Briton, Parliament Archives. Churchill – “After he had given his talk in the 1934 Causes of War series there were complaints that he had delivered a ‘gratuitous attack on Germany’, and one writer said that it was ‘in need of far more censorship than Professor Haldane’s’, a talk on the extreme left.’” Briggs, Golden Age, p146

72

‘An Improper Use of Broadcasting…’, Nicholas Pronay and Philip Taylor, Journal of Contemporary History, Volume 19, Number 3, July 1984, p368

73

Edward Marshall in New Directions in Anglo-Jewish History, edited by Geoffrey Alderman, 2010, p163-8

74

The Defence of the Realm, Christopher Andrew, 2009, p171

76

The Czech Conspiracy, George Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers, 2003. Rothschild used a speech at Mansion House to invoke “the slow murder of 600,000 people” (German Jewry). It is not clear that even one thousand had yet been murdered in the nearly six years of Hitler’s regime.

77

Truth Betrayed, WJ West, 1989, p40. Burgess’ friend Kim Philby, who worked for MI6 and the NKVD simultaneously, was The Times’ correspondent during the civil war and MI6’s head of undercover operations in Spain and Portugal during the world war. Burgess and Philby both worked for MI6’s propaganda-focused Section D and, like Eric Maschwitz, the sabotage-focused Special Operations Executive in 1939 and 1940. In 1934 Philby had married Litzi Friedmann, a communist from Vienna and an associate of the Soviet spy Edith Tudor-Hart. By 1941, when Burgess rejoined BBC Talks, the corporation was under the control of Churchill’s government and hired Burgess precisely because he was pro-Soviet.

78

West, p138-40

79

West, p54-7. Burgess recorded his recollection of visiting Churchill’s mansion Chartwell.

80

West, p106

81

According to Chris Bryant, Vansittart was “married but predominantly homosexual”, though Bryant does not give a source. Bryant, chapter 11

82

In November 1938, according to the ambassador to Italy, Eric Drummond, the 7th Earl of Perth, BBC presenters used tone of voice to mock Chamberlain and praise Anthony Eden. West also says that “There had been a number of concerted attacks on Chamberlain by the BBC, usually in the form of selective reporting of speeches and debates.” See West, p166, including note 101.

83

Briggs, BBC, p141; Briggs, Golden Age, p397 to 408

84

Lownie, chapter 13

85

Costello, p331

86

Alderman, New Directions, p165. See also West, p111. Reith had been the leading advocate of the International Broadcasting Union, in the violation of which the BBC now collaborated.

87

Lownie, chapter 13. The JBC had a “strong focus” on “securing British propaganda broadcasts on the American networks.” American networks also had their own plans. “The covert side, where Burgess largely worked, produced programmes for distribution in enemy countries, working with Electra House. Burgess was responsible for a variety of programmes that were recorded on large shellac discs and then smuggled in the diplomatic bag or by agents into Sweden, Liechtenstein and Germany, and broadcast as if they were part of regular transmissions from the German stations themselves.” The ‘Chaos of the Ether’ had gone from a myth to a tactic. About the JBC, see also Murphy, Behind the Wireless, chapter on Hilda Matheson, and West p118, 140.

Jerusalem Post: New survey finds French views of antisemitism and French Jews in 2024

MATHILDA HELLER

Almost 1 in 5 young French people think Jews leaving country would be good, CRIF finds

“Young people are more receptive to antisemitic, Islamist and conspiracy theories, which are invading social networks,” said Jonathan Arfi.

In terms of harbored prejudices against Jews, a majority of respondents felt Jews were more attached to Israel than to France.

The next highest-held anti-Jewish stereotypes were: Jews have very powerful lobbies that operate at high levels; Jews use the Holocaust to achieve their interests; Jews are richer than the average French person; and Jews are too present in the banking sector.

Almost 1 in 5 young people in France think it would be a good thing if Jews left the country, according to a recently commissioned survey by CRIF (the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France) and carried out by Ipsos.

The survey – named “The French View of antisemitism and the Situation of French Jews in 2024” – was published for the first time in weekly magazine Le Point on Thursday.

“There has been an upheaval in the types of French people who express anti-Jewish opinions,” Brice Teinturier, deputy CEO of Ipsos, told Le Point.

“It’s a historical reversal of the political map,” added Brice Teinturier. “LFI [far Left La France Insoumise Party] is now competing with the far Right for leadership in antisemitism.”

Views of Jews in France

Among the key revelations are that 12% of the general population in France believe Jews leaving the country is a good thing, compared to 6% in 2020. As mentioned, 17% of under-35s believe this would be a good thing.

‘All the security is not a normal life,’ Rabbi Moshe Sebbag told The Jerusalem Post as French Jews face an uncertain future. (credit: ALAIN AZRIA)“It is very violent, and contrary to the historical trend,” said president of CRIF Jonathan Arfi. “Young people are more receptive to antisemitic, Islamist, and conspiracy theories, which are invading social networks.”

Only 53% of French people between the ages of 18-24 felt that Jews were integrated into French society.However, 68% of respondents felt they had positive or very positive relations with Jewish people, whereas only 55% felt they had positive relations with Muslims.

One question asked what the reactions would be to seeing certain types of people on the street. Most respondents were indifferent to seeing men in traditional Jewish garb, and Jews wearing a kippah. Only 5% of people said they felt nervous seeing this.

Some 40% felt nervous or annoyed seeing people wearing a keffiyeh, and 3/4 had adverse reactions to seeing women in a full burka.

Views on antisemitism

In terms of harbored prejudices against Jews, a majority of respondents felt Jews were more attached to Israel than to France.

The next highest-held anti-Jewish stereotypes were: Jews have very powerful lobbies that operate at high levels; Jews use the Holocaust to achieve their interests; Jews are richer than the average French person; and Jews are too present in the banking sector.

Less commonly held stereotypes included that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus, Jews had too much power, and Jews controlled the media.

When asked if they agreed with 16 different antisemitic opinions on Jews, 27% of respondents agreed with 3-5 of them.

There were 46% or respondents who held six or more antisemitic opinions – an increase from 37% in 2020.

ONLY 3% of French people held none of the listed stereotypes.

Regarding demographics, the age bracket with the highest antisemitic views was 25-34. In general, the people who held such views had a lower level of education.

Politically, 55% of those holding such views were supported by those from La France Insoumise.

In positive terms, 89% of respondents said there was no excuse for antisemitic words or actions, and 85% said that Jews are French just like anyone else.

Some 79% said antisemitism was widespread in France, and only 2% felt it wasn’t. Also, 70% felt antisemitism was increasing.

There was a general understanding among respondents that if Jews left to go to Israel or other countries, it was because of rising antisemitism (63%).

Interestingly, 16% felt that Jews were responsible for rising antisemitism.

Nearly a third, 30%, felt too much importance was given to Holocaust remembrance. This as seen highest among those voting LFI.

“LFI has given antisemitism a political legitimacy,” Jonathan Arfi told Le Point.

“We observe this toxic porosity between criticism of Israel and the ostracizing of French Jews. The Palestinian cause becomes a license to hate,” he said.

Another key finding was that, in general, more people had a positive view of Israel than of Palestine, with 21% viewing Israel positively, as opposed to 18% for Palestine.

While the majority of people (75%) viewed Israelis positively, only 26% viewed the Israeli government positively. Slightly over a majority, 51%, viewed the state of Israel negatively.

A strong number, 88% of those who voted for LFI, felt the state of Israel was aggressive.

Of those who were aware of the BDS movement, 62% felt it was in place as a way of damaging the image of Israel. Only 38% felt it was legitimate.

More people held sympathy for Israel (47%) over Palestine (40%) in the conflict. Two-thirds viewed Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Among LFI voters, 25% expressed sympathy for Hamas.

Three-fourths (75%) felt the war in Israel-Gaza was responsible for the rise in antisemitism in France. CRIF is set to hold its 14th convention on Sunday in the presence of Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau, former Prime Minister Bernard Cazeneuve, and Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo.

Biden’s Attempt to Create a Neocon-Approved Legacy

A Brave Woman Has Passed: Ursula Haverbeck

Ursula Haverbeck (11/8/1928 – 11/20/2024) recently passed at the ripe old age of ninety-six. She was known or “notorious” in Germany because she dared to challenge the Jewish Holocaust ‘narrative’ of six million. Time after time, she got into trouble with the German authorities for ‘Holocaust denial’ and ‘incitement to hatred,’ a crime that often results in either an exorbitant fine or imprisonment. The poor woman’s offense was that she dared to believe that Auschwitz was a work camp (which it was) and not a death camp. In a speech that Ursula gave in 2016 in the southern Berlin district of Lichtenrade, she described the Holocaust as one of the greatest lies in history. She also stated that the gas chambers of Auschwitz were not real.

Ursula’s imprisonments, however, reveals something deeply maniacal about our enemies. It shows not only how desperate they are to maintain at all costs the Holocaust propaganda they’ve spoon-fed us for the past 60 years, but how foundationally weak it is that they feel it necessary to imprison a woman in her 90s simply because she thinks differently about Auschwitz. Ursula’s crimes were essentially thought crimes; she happened to think differently than what the German authorities thought about that historic period of time from 1939–1945. And as a result, she was arrested, fined, sentenced, and imprisoned.

Ursula might have been allowed to keep such ‘heretical’ thoughts and never suffer a day in court if she had just kept it to herself. But she dared to share her ‘heresy’ with others and to align herself with Germany’s ‘far right’ political dissidents. Tyrannical governments, such as Germany’s, can’t allow their citizenry to ‘notice’ or even publicly question Jewish dogma about what happened at Auschwitz. All of it must be believed. To do otherwise is to invite inquiry, differing opinions, or even disbelief in the entire Holocaust story itself. Thus, it’s better to stamp out a dissenting whisper or even the mildest objection lest the entire house of cards crumble to the ground.

Would Ursula have been fined and imprisoned had she dared to challenge or question whether the Cambodian genocide (1976-1980) by the Khmer Rouge actually occurred? Would she have been arrested for ‘incitement to hatred’ if she professed not to believe certain parts of the Holodomor genocide (1932-1933) that led to the deaths of millions of Ukrainians? Or what would have happened to Ursula if she refused to believe the Armenian genocide by the Turks (1915-1923) in which approximately one million Armenians were brutally slaughtered? Or what if Ursula had thought differently about the Rwandan genocide (1994) which led to the mass murder of nearly one million Tutsis? Would Ursula have been arrested or fined if she declared Joseph Stalin’s mass murder of approximately 50 million people (1929-1953) never occurred or that his regime had nothing to do with the Great Purge which targeted political dissenters? If Ursula were to tell her German countrymen that Mao Zedong’s regime (1949-1976) never led to the mass murder of an estimated 40 to 70 million people, how likely is it that she would have been summoned to the authorities for questioning?

Truth is, nothing would have happened to Ursula. No German court would have criminally convicted her for believing differently about such human genocides, nor for sharing her thoughts to others. The subject of the Holocaust, however, in their minds is an entirely different matter and that not because of its overwhelming historical and numerical veracity when examined carefully, but because of the power, money and influence that Jewish power wields throughout Europe. Jews will not permit any deviation on whether the Holocaust death count was six million or something far less. They will not agree to anything less than Auschwitz being a death camp for the sole purpose of exterminating Jewish prisoners. And they have placed enormous pressure on the German authorities to never allow even the slightest departure from the received narrative.

In a way I understand this because every aggrieved group or ethnicity that feels it has been wronged view themselves as history’s ultimate victims. Jews, then, are only doing what other groups who feel they have been wrongly persecuted have done.

But there is an important difference.

Jews use lawfare and criminal indictments to enforce their beliefs that pressure non-Jews to comply lest they be summoned by the authorities. As it currently stands, there are 17 European countries, including Israel and Canada, that make Holocaust denial a punishable offense. Jews often publicly malign those who refuse to go along with the narrative via their media outlets. They do all in their power to portray any and all dissenters in the worst possible light. This is something no other ethnic group on the planet does.

The Armenian people, in contrast to Jews, will not engage in a holy crusade against anyone who happens to think differently about the details of the Armenian genocide. They may argue against such notions as individuals, but not in some collective public campaign to force everyone to agree on every conceivable detail over those events. The same may be said of any other ethnic group that has experienced wholesale slaughter at the hands of their enemies. Neither do Armenians erect sympathy museums throughout Europe and America that visually dramatize their sufferings by the Turks as Jews have done in their Holocaust museums. Armenians have not sought exorbitant amounts of reparations from other countries either nor have they instituted policies of perpetual reparations to each new generation of their people as Jews have. Only Jews could create such devious financial scams and trickery and manage to get away with it. Rightly did Norman Finkelstein title his 2000 book, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering.

The Israeli government, interestingly, has refused to formally acknowledge the Armenian genocide (see Yossi Melman, “Israel’s Refusal to Recognize the Armenian Genocide is Indefensible,” Foreign Policy, 4/29/2019). Jews have tended to either deny or downplay the horrors of the Armenian genocide because anything that detracts from the centrality of Jewish suffering is seen as a threat to their power, to their very existence as a people.

The Jewish obsession to marginalize and criminally prosecute those who refuse to believe the Holocaust reflects a strongly religious character. Like the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages that persecuted ‘heretics’ for their thought transgressions, so also today’s Jewish power system that has infiltrated the West fanatically believes it must attack and, if possible, criminally prosecute anyone who renounces Holocaust dogma and makes it known to others.

Many Jews cannot even accept that one might reject the Holocaust story because of problems that make it appear questionable or greatly exaggerated and still have positive feelings for the Jewish people. In their minds, an unwillingness to fully accept what Jews have suffered is clear proof that they are ‘anti-Semites.’ No reasonable nuances are accepted. For the Jews, the Holocaust is an all or nothing proposition that again reveals its overly dogmatic and religious nature.

All of this on the part of Jews stems from an inflated and grandiose view of themselves. Nothing in the world even matters except how it impacts the Jewish people, and this includes the suffering of other groups. Jews may claim to care about non-Jews, poor migrants and the impoverished in their efforts to ‘repair the world.’ But what it almost always amounts to is burdening White western governments with more non-White immigrants at tax-payer expense and less social cohesion.

There is a popular phrase among Jews taken from the Talmud: “Whoever destroys a single life is considered as if he destroyed an entire world; and whoever saves a life is considered as if he saved an entire world” (Sanhedrin 37a). I was at first bewildered by what it meant until I realized that what it’s really saying is that saving one Jewish life has so much intrinsic value and worth that it’s equivalent to saving the entire world, all of humanity! Granted, modern Jews try to argue that it applies universally to everyone, Jews as well as non-Jews. But this is not the dominant opinion among the ancient rabbis, especially when one considers how painfully derogatory Jews routinely spoke of gentiles evident in their Talmudic writings.

One understands, then, why Jews are unwilling to see the genocidal suffering of other groups as equivalent or greater than that of their own. This is one of several reasons why Jews seek to punish all forms of Holocaust denial. The same will occur here in the U.S. if the First Amendment is ever neutered or abolished altogether. Jews in America are currently working on doing that very thing since the First Amendment stands in the way of their efforts to outlawing all speech deemed ‘anti-Semitic.’

What Jews seem to fear most are words. As Abe Foxman, the former national director of the ADL, reminds us: “The Holocaust didn’t start with gas chambers or Auschwitz. It started with words.” Is it any wonder, then, why they do so much in their power to both control the thoughts and words of others? Jews only want free speech when it benefits them. What they really want is controlled speech.

Our opponents try to justify prosecuting dissenters to the Holocaust story by arguing that the atrocities committed by the Nazis were unique in all of history. It’s necessary, therefore, to maintain the historical integrity of what occurred, including Germany’s complicity in the deaths of millions of Jews which must never be forgotten. Thus, it’s incumbent upon the German government to fine and even imprison those who ‘incite hatred’ against Jews lest the same events be repeated.

But such thinking is wrongheaded from the outset. The Holocaust is not a unique event in all of history if one is talking about genocides or human death tolls. Aside from serious questions about where the notion of ‘six million’ originated, including its symbolic usage among Jews many years prior to WW2, the Holocaust story is replete with a multiplicity of historical problems that have caused a growing number of people to question its veracity.

Moreover, a host of truly bizarre and outright silly Nazi death stories surround the Holocaust narrative that only serve to cast even more doubt on what we’ve been told about it (e.g., death by masturbation machines; soap made from the skin of Jews; and the silliest accounts of surviving the gas chambers).

There have also been numerous genocides throughout human history that were greater in number and sheer horror than the alleged Holocaust. Any attempt to make the Holocaust the greatest human atrocity one could imagine is absurd and flies in the face of the historical record.

Finally, when has outlawing speech and free inquiry ever benefitted the progress of Truth? If the Holocaust narrative is factually true, why is it necessary to surround it with legal penalties and punishments if one dares to think and speak otherwise? Why can’t the proponents of the Holocaust story defend their position in the arena of ideas and open inquiry rather than so often resorting to threats of criminal punishment and costly fines? Is the conduct of Jews in this realm the mark of a people devoted to Truth, or a people so desperate to maintain lies that they will gladly resort to imprisoning a 96-year-old elderly woman because she dared to have a contrarian viewpoint?

Ursula Haverbeck was a brave woman who stood by her convictions. She was willing to pay the price for it too. I hope more Whites will be as steadfast in their convictions as she was.

This is from Ambrose Kane’s Substack. Please subscribe.

The Trump Factor and Our Victory in Ukraine

Alexander Dugin asserts that Russia’s survival depends on victory in Ukraine and navigating the geopolitical shifts under Trump amid globalist and neoconservative challenges.

Russia’s entire future hinges on victory in Ukraine. Whether Russia will continue to exist at all depends on this outcome. Thus, no topic is more important than this war. It is sacred.

The arrival of Trump in the White House, the same Trump who indirectly unleashed this war against us, carries immense significance. His leadership represents a significant shift in the image of our primary adversary, who remains our chief opponent to this day. We are fighting the collective West, NATO, and the globalist elite that directs both. And now Trump rises to lead the United States, declaring, “I am also fighting the globalist elite.” Yet the U.S. remains the core pillar of the collective West and NATO — with or without Trump. This creates a unique tension.

Our heightened interest in Trump is entirely justified, as this represents a change in leadership in the camp of our main adversary. Much depends on this shift.

We cannot predict what to expect from Trump and his administration. However, certain trends are evident. Trump clearly distances himself from left-liberal globalism, rendering attempts to engage with Washington through organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations or other left-liberal structures entirely counterproductive. As for the neoconservatives, there is no point in talking to them — they are not interested.

It seems that Trump’s strategists will represent a hybrid of neoconservatives (right-wing globalists) and realists. Trump himself leans toward the realists, but this school of thought in international relations has been largely dismantled over recent decades. Realists would be the ideal partners for us since Ukraine in NATO — and especially a war with Russia — has no real value for U.S. national interests, which realists prioritize. However, we are not dealing with pure realists but with a hybrid — right-wing globalist realism. This is a complex configuration, and much of our path to victory will now depend on it.

With Biden’s globalists (both right and left), we came dangerously close to nuclear war and total mutual annihilation. Even now, we are balancing on this perilous edge. How relations will evolve under right-wing globalist realism remains uncertain.

It is crucial not to overestimate Trump’s significance for us. That would be a mistake — he is not a gift, and the fight will be long and arduous. Nothing will end or halt quickly. But it is equally important not to underestimate Trump and the changes associated with him. That too would be an error. Certain dynamics between Washington and Kiev, and between Washington and Brussels, will shift. We must clearly and promptly understand exactly how.

Negotiations about freezing the conflict along the line of contact, creating interim demilitarized zones, or guaranteeing Ukraine’s non-entry into NATO are no longer on the table. We have irreversibly moved past these possibilities. Now, only the full capitulation of the Kiev regime and Ukraine’s transition under our control will suffice — whether as part of Russia (as it has been historically) or as a friendly and guaranteed loyal entity. That’s it. All negotiations begin and end with this premise. Everything else will be decided on the battlefield. The only question is when we will win — not if. Either we win, or humanity ceases to exist (let alone Ukraine). Russia’s complete and absolute victory in Ukraine is the guarantee of peace and the survival of humanity. A defeated Russia is a deadly threat, whereas a victorious Russia is friendly and harmless. This is a realism axiom in international relations.

The globalists see the situation differently. Their overarching idea is total control over humanity, and any pole of sovereignty — especially one as large and active as Russia — is an enemy to be destroyed at any cost. Their ultimate goal is our annihilation. Our ultimate goal is to preserve ourselves as a state-civilization. The two objectives are diametrically opposed.

American realists, however, have a different ultimate goal: to make America great again — an independent, sovereign, and prosperous state-civilization. For this goal, Russia is not an obstacle. By all means, make America great again — that is your right. And we will make Russia great again. Together, we could better eradicate the evil of globalism, which brings harm to all. This is our approach. In theory, MAGA adherents should agree. However, the neocons — right-wing globalists — complicate matters, interpreting America’s restored greatness as a new wave of hegemony and imperialism. In this scenario, even a non-threatening Russia once again becomes a stumbling block.

This is the complex geopolitical dilemma we must resolve with the new Washington administration.

Unfortunately, most of our international relations experts, shaped by globalism and liberalism, are entirely unprepared for this challenge and lack the necessary competence. Our goal is to preserve sovereignty and multipolarity. Our goal is victory in Ukraine. This demands profound patriotism, not the current superficiality. On the other side, we encounter traditionalists and Christian (sometimes Judeo-Christian) conservatives, unfamiliar and alien to our experts.

Thus, relations with Trump’s America pose a serious challenge. We must respond to it with dignity.

(Translated from the Russian)

Huckabee: Changing Iran’s Regime Needs to Be World’s Goal

One can only hope that Huckabee will have little, if any, influence in Trump 2.0. The other people around Trump are dead set against such regime-change insanity. Notice: “Huckabee added that the Iranian people would be pleased if the regime changed and that if he becomes Ambassador, it’s not going to be him setting policy.” Fortunately, because  I very  much  doubt that regime change could happen without American troops on the ground.

On Friday’s broadcast of NewsNation’s “On Balance,” Mike Huckabee, President-Elect Donald Trump’s nominee to be U.S. Ambassador to Israel, who was speaking in his personal capacity since he hasn’t been confirmed, praised the maximum pressure campaign under the first Trump administration, stated that things in the Middle East can’t go back to the way they were pre-October 7, and “the world needs to look to” regime change in Iran as the goal.

Huckabee said that the Middle East needs “A good dose of reality, for one thing, and that reality means that there’s got to be an understanding that it’s the Iranians who are funding the terrorism of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. The attacks that have happened on Israel in the last 400-plus days since October the 7th are largely funded because Joe Biden took his foot off the brake, put it on the gas pedal, and basically made it possible for the Iranians to have money that Donald Trump had shut off because of the maximum pressure sanctions. Donald Trump never bombed Iran. He didn’t have to. He was bankrupting them, which is far more effective and a lot less lethal for innocent people. The result, however, of what changed in that policy was the bloody mess that was created when Hamas went and massacred innocent Jewish civilians in Israel. And it’s changed the dynamics without any way to go back to thinking that it’s all going to be like it once was, it can’t be.”

Host Leland Vittert then asked, “Benjamin Netanyahu has been clear, especially in the past couple of weeks or months, that the regime in Tehran needs to change, not just sanctions, not just pressure. Should the United States look to that end goal as well?”

Huckabee responded, “I think the world needs to look to it. Quite frankly, let’s face it, Leland, every Gulf state in the Middle East would be delighted if there was regime change. I don’t think they’re probably going to say it publicly. But don’t you think there would be celebrations in Saudi Arabia, in the UAE, perhaps even in Qatar? I can’t think of any Muslim-led nation that wouldn’t be better off if there was a regime change, because the Iranians are not really interested in building a neighborhood where everyone can kind of get along and create diplomatic relationships and share tourism and trade. They’ve never been into that. They are for annihilating Israel, and, ultimately, the U.S. And one of the stupid things that happens in this country is when Americans think that all of this is just going to be contained there, that the Iranians have no intention beyond Israel, if they can just get them from the river to the sea, it’s over. They’ve repeatedly said, Israel is the little Satan, we’re the great Satan. So, their goal is not to end their conquest with Israel. It’s just the warm-up for the real fight, which they think is us.”

Huckabee added that the Iranian people would be pleased if the regime changed and that if he becomes Ambassador, it’s not going to be him setting policy.

A PIERDE NU ESTE UN MOTIV DE A NU LUPTA

de Gregory Conte – https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2024/11/22/losing-is-no-reason-not-to-fight

Totul este pierdut. Civilizația occidentală s-a terminat. Nu are rost să lupți împotriva ei. Îmbrățișează înfrângerea.

Aceasta a fost teza unui articol publicat aici pe The Occidental Observer în acest weekend. Scriitorul a susținut că lupta pentru viitorul rasei noastre nu are rost, pentru că nu va realiza nimic și nu va duce decât la tragedie personală.

„Nu ține seama de nimeni care îți spune să lupți. Nu este nicio luptă de avut, deja am pierdut… Dacă începi să lupți, vei fi pur și simplu închis, îți vei pierde locul de muncă și, probabil, familia și sănătatea ta mintală.”

Nu sunt de acord. Am făcut acele lucruri și mă simt grozav.

Mi-am pierdut slujba, familia, o mulțime, o mulțime de bani. Am fost crescut cu o acuzație motivată politic, care mi-a luat aproape patru ani să o depășesc. Am fost atacat în stradă, trădat și mințit de autorități, investigat, percheziționat ilegal și așa mai departe.

Mulți oameni au suferit mult mai rău. Au trecut pe vreme grea de închisoare. Au pierdut mai mulți bani, au pierdut mai mult timp în instanță. Mulți dintre scriitorii de la această publicație au sacrificat mai mult decât mine.

Am realizat ceva în politică? Am slăbit puterea evreiască? A avut vreun efect asupra sănătății rasei noastre? Nu știu.

Ce știu este că sănătatea mea mintală nu a fost niciodată mai bună. Mă simt minunat. Îmi place să lupt împotriva puterii evreiești! Dacă ar trebui să am o slujbă normală și să nu spun niciodată ceea ce cred cu adevărat… atunci aș fi deprimat. Cunosc mulți alții care simt la fel. Ce valorează viața dacă nu poți lupta pentru ceva?

Deci scriitorul s-a înșelat total în privința asta. Dacă mai mulți oameni ar lua lupta împotriva puterii evreiești, sănătatea lor mintală s-ar îmbunătăți cu siguranță. Și dacă toți albii ar lua atitudine, puterea evreiască s-ar prăbuși chiar în ziua aceea.

În ceea ce privește noțiunea autorului că „am pierdut deja” și, prin urmare, nu ar trebui să facem nimic. Nu numai că concluzia este greșită, dar și premisa este greșită.

Nu am pierdut. Nu s-a terminat. Nu se termină niciodată până când tu și toată lumea ca tine vei muri. Istoria merge mai departe. Mai mulți oameni de luptat, mai multe imperii de construit și de distrus, mai multă artă și literatură de creat și de uitat, mai multe mai multe.

Faptul că oamenii pot cădea în astfel de argumente simpliste și care neagă istoria îmi spune că nu au educație în științe umaniste. Aceasta este o mare problemă în civilizația noastră în general, cu mult prea mult accent pe subiectele tehnice și statistici. Oamenii au devenit orbi față de „elementul uman”, adică moralul și voința. Ei văd un grafic al unei tendințe demografice și se gândesc „oh, linia albă este în jos, linia non-albă crește, prin urmare acest lucru va continua la nesfârșit până când vom muri cu toții”.

Ar ști mai bine dacă ar înțelege diferența dintre disciplinele tehnice și cele umaniste. Istoria se preocupă de ceea ce fac bărbații și de ce fac asta.

În fizică, puteți prezice cu acuratețe totală accelerația unui obiect în cădere, având în vedere gravitația Pământului și nicio rezistență. În istorie, știi ce s-a întâmplat numai după ce s-a întâmplat. Nu poți prezice viitorul cu acuratețe totală, pentru că trebuie să ții cont de intenția bărbaților.

Chiar dacă ai ști ce intenționează să facă toți actorii istorici, cunoașterea intențiilor altor actori i-ar determina pe alți actori să-și schimbe comportamentul și, prin urmare, rezultatul.

Americanii în special par să cadă în genul de defetism al scriitorului. Acest defect al caracterului nostru național este atribuit faptului că (cu excepția cazului în care ești sudic) țara noastră nu a luptat cu un inamic mai puternic din 1812.

Nu avem nicio memorie istorică de a fi pe partea mai slabă în vreo luptă. Excepțiile – Alamo, Bataan, Bastogne – sunt toate fie în afara memoriei vii și au apărut doar pentru că un inamic mai slab a atins pentru scurt timp superioritatea temporară. În ultimii optzeci de ani, tot ce au cunoscut americanii este superioritatea materială masivă în orice luptă.

Puțini dintre noi au suficientă experiență în sporturile de echipă pentru a ști cum este (și ce este nevoie) pentru a câștiga împotriva șanselor. Acesta este ceva ce trebuie să reparăm.

Primul pas este să înțelegi că nimic nu este niciodată fără speranță. Dacă doar lucrurile materiale ar conta – banii, armatele, resursele naturale, aparatele guvernamentale și media – istoria s-ar fi „încheiat” cu mult timp în urmă.

Sumeria sau Egiptul ar fi cucerit lumea și am fi sub călcâiele lor și acum. Nu s-a întâmplat asta, pentru că marile imperii se pot prăbuși și se prăbușesc, iar grupurile mai mici și mai slabe – dar mai motivate – le pot învinge pe cele mai mari și mai puternice.

Ar trebui să fie evident, dar pare necesar să o repet. Albii trebuie să țină lucrurile în perspectivă.

Ce german din vremea lui Cezar și-ar fi putut imagina anihilarea a trei legiuni doar o generație mai târziu sau cucerirea întregului imperiu în cinci secole?

Următorul pas este să identifici și să analizezi punctele slabe ale adversarului tău, apoi să le exploatezi în același mod în care ne-au exploatat punctele slabe. Am putea face asta. Majoritatea albilor pur și simplu nu încearcă.

Toată lumea are fie ceva bani de dat, fie ceva timp pentru a se oferi voluntari. Deoarece rezistența albilor împotriva puterii evreiești nu este bine organizată, sarcina este a fiecăruia dintre noi să ne dăm seama cum să-și pună contribuția să conteze. Aud în mod constant cât de buni suntem noi americanii în a lua inițiativa și ce individualiști suntem. Ei bine, demonstrează!

Deci nu. Nu s-a terminat. Evreii pot avea toți banii, toate agențiile guvernamentale, toate mass-media și tot vor pierde. Trăsătura care i-a adus la putere va fi distrugerea lor – aroganța lor monumentală. Pentru că pot fi orbți de puterea morală ascunsă a adversarilor lor.

Presupun că autorul viziunii distopice nu este un evreu sau un inamic politic care încearcă să ne coase defetismul în inimile noastre. Presupun că acţionează cu bună-credinţă. Dacă da, măcar a avut voința de a scrie un articol, indiferent cât de greșit ar fi și cât de dăunătoare este atitudinea lui pentru cauza noastră. Dacă ar fi crezut cu adevărat că totul este fără speranță, nu s-ar fi obosit să ridice stiloul.

El subliniază, pe bună dreptate, că sunt mulți șarlatani care încearcă să profite de durerea rasei noastre. „Există o industrie care vinde hopium [speranță folosită ca drog] omului alb”.

Într-adevăr. Se numește conservatorism. Conservatorii vor încerca să vă spună că „De data aceasta va fi diferit”, Trump va expulza pe toți ilegalii din Honduras, va pune oameni adevărați la conducerea ministerelor guvernamentale cruciale, va restabili ordinea în armată, va elimina mincinoși și hoți din mediul academic și alte o mie de lucruri.

Știm cu toții că Trump nu va face nimic din toate astea. Scriitorul are dreptate în acest sens. Nu există nicio speranță pentru conservatorism. Mii de scriitori, editori, manageri de fonduri, oameni de pe Twitter și agenții lor vând speranțe false oamenilor albi disperați. O fac de zeci de ani. Nu poți avea încredere în nimic din ceea ce spun ei, pentru că ei echilibrează întotdeauna adevărul cu ceea ce îi face plătiți.

Conservatorismul este o amăgire jalnică. Nu ne putem mulțumi cu nimic mai puțin decât răsturnarea completă a puterii evreiești în America și Occident. Nu are sens să speri la obiective mai mici, mai ușor de atins. Evreii ne văd pe noi, albii, ca pe o amenințare îngrozitoare și nu doresc să ne ofere concesii.

Suntem fie noi, fie ei în mintea lor. Singura opțiune pe care o avem este să le distrugem puterea puțin câte puțin. Și din moment ce ei au toată puterea materială, trebuie să avem voință mai puternică. Trebuie să ne dorim mai mult, indiferent de cost.

După cum a subliniat Adolf Hitler: “Când interesul propriu amenință să înlocuiască idealismul, observăm o slăbire imediată a forței care menține comunitatea. Când comunitatea se rupe, la fel cade civilizația. Odată ce lăsăm ca interesul propriu să devină conducătorul unui popor, legăturile ordinii sociale sunt rupte. Când omul se concentrează pe urmărirea propriei fericiri, el cade din Rai direct în Iad. (Mein Kampf, vol. 1, capitolul 11. Tradus de Ford)

Desigur, va fi o luptă îngrozitoare și istovitoare. Cu toții va trebui să ne confruntăm cu lucruri mult mai rele decât să ne pierdem locurile de muncă sau să mergem la închisoare. Va trebui să ne pregătim pentru durere și pierdere. „Îmbrățișează nebunia.” Va trebui să învățăm să iubim această luptă nedreaptă și inegală. Aceasta este singura speranță adevărată.

În cele din urmă, sunt aici pentru că îmi place să lupt. Chiar dacă nu este corect. Chiar dacă nu putem avea niciodată o luptă a unui alb cinstit și trebuie să luptăm cu evreii pe teren propriu, ca avocați sau manevre retorice ciudate. Este mult mai multă gândire și mai puțin efort fizic. Dar tot se luptă, pentru că ai un adversar care te urăște și te vrea sărac, închis sau mort.

Există un pericol real. Și nu un pericol stupid fără scop, cum ar fi săritul de pe clădiri sau supradozajul cu Benadryl. Aceasta nu este o simplă căutare a senzațiilor tari.

Lupta împotriva puterii evreiești este un pericol semnificativ și intenționat în urmărirea unor scopuri nobile. Îmi place și nu voi renunța niciodată la el.

Îi mulțumim doctorului MacDonald pentru tot ceea ce face. Au trecut 10 ani în această lună de când am ajuns să înțeleg chestiunea evreiască, mulțumesc în mare măsură acestui site web. Mulțumim tuturor scriitorilor și donatorilor The Occidental Observer. Mi-ai schimbat viața în bine.

Dacă înțelegeți problema puterii evreiești și starea lamentabilă a rasei albe, aveți de ales:

Alăturați-vă nouă în luptă. Sau nu ne sta in cale.

Traducerea: CD