Was America’s World War II ‘Crusade’ Worthwhile?

/10 Comments/in /by

Was it really worthwhile to fight a destructive war so that Poland might be the victim not of Hitler but of Stalin, so that there might be a Soviet empire, not a German empire, in Eastern Europe, so that we should face not Japan but Stalin’s henchman, Mao Tse-tung, in the Orient? War and postwar emotionalism have inhibited a frank facing of these questions. But the tragic factual record of what happened to Poland, set down in this chapter, surely suggests that there is a case for a negative answer.

—William Henry Chamberlin

If forced to briefly describe America’s Second Crusade, William Henry Chamberlin’s revisionist account of Allied leadership during the Second World War, two words come to mind: sober accounting. In nearly every chapter, the author holds the United States and Britain to the standards they themselves had set for what they hoped to accomplish by defeating the Axis. Did they meet these standards? Were their proclaimed goals achieved? Was the world in a better place after the war than it was before? Surely such questions deserve honest answers.

William Henry Chamberlin

Unfortunately, such questions were considered subversive when this book was first published in 1950, and many today still regard them as heretical. That’s why this dissident book failed to find a mainstream publisher, and why it has never been given the attention it deserves. The sidelining of this important work was part of a broader and largely successful effort to squash all voices that question the prevailing, “official” view of World War II. For any thoughtful and reasonably open-minded reader, this book makes a persuasive case for negative answers to the questions above.

The author begins by assessing how America’s first great “crusade” – in World War I – could have been avoided. It happened because this country’s elites were not honest with the people. In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson summoned Americans to war against Germany with idealistic and noble-sounding slogans and promises about making the world “safe for democracy.” That rhetoric disguised the very tangible goal of bailing out the beleaguered British and French, whose defeat would have meant defaulting on the massive debts they had run up to US banks and corporations.

Chamberlin also notes the tragic irony of how the First World War crusade for democracy, and the vengeful peace later imposed by the US and the other victorious Allied powers, led directly to the two great “undemocratic” political movements of the 1920s and 1930s: Communism and Fascism. He also compares the atrocities and other misdeeds of the Soviets and the Nazis, and concludes that – as millions in Central and Eastern Europe were to learn through bitter experience – conquest by one was hardly better or worse than conquest by the other. As he goes on to explain, this means that the US-Soviet alliance in the second “crusade” – World War II – did not produce a more righteous or benevolent world.

Chamberlin takes the reader from the sordid peace of the imposed Treaty of Versailles following World War I through the 1920s and 1930s to the much acclaimed “Atlantic Charter” of 1941 and the Yalta Conference and Potsdam Agreement of 1945 to support his thesis that America’s role in World War II was tragic and unnecessary. He also traces President Franklin Roosevelt’s underhanded and illegal machinations with British wartime premier Winston Churchill, and explains in detail how the US president had, in the words of writer and politician Clare Boothe Luce, “lied the American people into war because he could not lead them into it.”

Particularly shocking is how the US president matched his single-minded obsession with destroying Hitler’s Germany with a groveling appeasement of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. Stalin’s record of deceit, bad faith, and brutality and oppression, which was much more checkered than Hitler’s, meant nothing to Roosevelt.

Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt at their meeting in Auguest 1941 when they issued the “Atlantic Charter”

Regarding the war in Europe, Chamberlin’s makes these key points:

  1. Hitler, whom Chamberlin refers to as “treacherous, mercurial, unpredictable,” set his sights on expansion eastwards, not toward the west. Without much of a navy, Hitler’s Germany certainly posed no credible threat to the United States.
  2. Diplomatic records reveal that already by the late 1930s, President Roosevelt was committed to waging war against Germany. Furthermore, he lied about his bellicose intentions and found means both legal and illegal to bypass the Neutrality Act and other constraints against getting the US into another overseas war.
  3. With regard to the war in Europe, the US was neutral in name only from 1939 to the December 1941 Pearl Harbor attack. The “Destroyer Deal” with Britain, Lend-Lease aid to Britain and the Soviet Union, Roosevelt’s order to attack German U-boats, and much more, meant that the US was already a belligerent.

Chamberlin also devotes much attention to the looming conflict in the Pacific. With regard to America’s worsening relationship with Japan, the author stresses these points:

  1. From the late 1930s to the Pearl Harbor attack, the United States ever more aggressively bullied Japan, both diplomatically and economically, supposedly on behalf of China, although there was no vital US interest to do so.
  2. The US refused to seriously consider numerous Japanese efforts to reach agreement with Washington.
  3. Considering US conduct in the months and weeks before Pearl Harbor, and especially this country’s increasingly hostile measures against Japan, it is reasonable to conclude that President Roosevelt wanted, or at least expected, the Japanese attack which finally came in December 1941. In the words of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”

Another important feature of this book is the author’s skillful detailing of how the US and the other Allied powers betrayed every one of the their own solemnly proclaimed war aims. The pledges and promises of Roosevelt and Churchill were so meaningless that one cannot help but question their purported motives for entering the war. As Chamberlin writes:

In his message to Congress of January 6 [1941], Roosevelt enunciated the Four Freedoms on which the world should be founded. These were freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from fear, and freedom from want. These were to prevail everywhere in the world. The Four Freedoms, together with the seven points of the Atlantic Charter, announced later in the year, were America’s war aims, the equivalent of [Woodrow] Wilson’s Fourteen Points. They still furnish a mirror by which the success of the Second Crusade may be judged.

The Roosevelt-Churchill Atlantic Charter – the full text of which Chamberlin provides – forbade all nations from ever seeking territorial aggrandizement or expansion, establishing tyranny, obstructing free trade and travel, inhibiting peace, exploiting labor, and resorting to force to get their way. Anyone even superficially familiar with world history since that 1941 pledge can readily appreciate just what a bitter joke the Atlantic Charter and the Four Freedoms turned out to be.

This flagrant betrayal of the principles and goals for which the US fought in World War II, Chamberlin explains, was inevitable given Roosevelt’s abiding trust in the Soviet dictator, and his unwillingness to leverage America’s massive military and economic aid to the Soviets to press for a better postwar world. As former US ambassador to Moscow William Bullitt later put it, Franklin Roosevelt was like a naïve wife who marries a man because she intends to change him – in this case, hoping to “convert Stalin from imperialism to democratic collaboration.” This Roosevelt (and Churchill) planned to accomplish by appeasing Stalin at every turn, even if that meant abandoning their principles as well as their friends and allies. The passages in which Chamberlin forthrightly shows how this was done are some of the book’s most stirring – and disturbing.

Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin at the February 1945 Yalta Conference

Britain declared war against Germany in September 1939 supposedly to defend the independence and freedom of Poland. But as Chamberlin points out, at the end of nearly six years of war, the British government abandoned the Poles to Soviet subjugation. After describing how Roosevelt and Churchill also abandoned anti-Communist forces in China and Yugoslavia, Chamberlin writes incisively that, “the betrayal of Poland was the crudest and most flagrant of the three, if only because Poland was the pretense for the whole crusade.”

Chamberlin provides a clear accounting of the ghastly atrocities committed by the Soviets in Germany and across Eastern Europe during and after the war. Millions were deported, murdered, raped, starved, and enslaved as Stalin expanded his empire. Roosevelt and his irrepressible deputy Harry Hopkins always preferred to overlook the brutal and imperialist polices of their Soviet partner. A factor in the president’s unwillingness or inability to grasp the obvious may have been his very noticeable cognitive decline during the final months of the war in Europe. As Chamberlin notes, Secretary of War Henry Stimson had to remind the doddering president that he had signed off on portions of the genocidal Morgenthau Plan.

Chamberlin devotes little effort to trying to explain just why Franklin Roosevelt thought and acted as he did. He briefly suggests that the president saw war as a way to get the US out of the Great Depression, something his much-hyped New Deal failed to do. Chamberlin also unflatteringly cites Roosevelt’s “jaunty, cocksure, sometimes flippant, self-confidence,” as well as his titanic ambition, his self-serving need for yes-men, and his general lack of concern for the millions of deaths he helped cause. At one point Chamberlin describes the Roosevelt presidency as a “personal dictatorship.”

Chamberlin makes only passing mention of Jews, and none at all about whatever role they may have played, as Jews, in shaping policy. He mentions Jews only as victims of mass slaughter during the war, and, once, with regard to their role in leftist agitation and financial speculation in Germany, which stoked anti-Semitism there after World War I.

All the same, Chamberlin does relate the role played by two Jewish agents for the Soviet Union who held important posts in the Roosevelt administration: Harry Dexter White, the principal author of the Morgenthau Plan, and Nathan Silvermaster, an economist with the War Production Board. Another pro-war, anti-German official close to the president was William Bullitt, a half-Jewish high-ranking diplomat. He helped the president circumvent the Neutrality Act and pull the US into war in Europe.

Particularly influential in Roosevelt’s inner circle was Henry Morgenthau, Jr., his Jewish Secretary of the Treasury, who nurtured a visceral hatred of the “Nazi” German people. Chamberlin relates how the president echoed Morgenthau’s anti-German vindictiveness in a communication to War Secretary Stimson. Secretary of State Cordell Hull complained in his memoirs that Morgenthau often overstepped his authority as Treasury Secretary to pursue his own agenda:

Emotionally upset by Hitler’s rise and his persecution of the Jews, he [Morgenthau] often sought to induce the President to anticipate the State Department or act contrary to our better judgment. We sometimes found him conducting negotiations with foreign governments which were the function of the State Department … Morgenthau’s interference at times misled some portions of the public and seriously impeded the orderly conduct of our foreign policy.

President Roosevelt with Treasury Secretary
Henry Morgenthau, Jr.

The most infamous example of the Treasury Secretary’s interference in US foreign policy was the notorious Morgenthau Plan. It required that Germany be cut up into several impoverished agricultural territories, in which all large-scale industry would be destroyed or seized by the victorious Allies, that Germans would be sent to other countries as forced laborers, and that all German assets outside of Germany would be confiscated. As Chamberlin writes (emphasis, mine):

It is no exaggeration to say that the Morgenthau Plan, if applied in its full rigor, would have been an undiscriminating sentence of death for millions of Germans. The area in which it was proposed to forbid all heavy industries and mining is one of the most urbanized and thickly settled in Europe. It would have been impossible to turn millions of city dwellers, accustomed to earning their living in factories, offices, and shops, into self-supporting farmers, even if land had been available.

After details of the Morgenthau Plan become known to the public, a wave of outrage forced its repudiation. Even Europeans friendly to the US protested that an impoverished Germany would inevitably also mean an impoverished Europe.

In writing America’s Second Crusade, the author benefitted from other important revisionist works that had already appeared shortly after the end of World War II, including George Morgenstern’s Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War (1946), and Charles Beard’s two in-depth studies of Roosevelt’s duplicity in the lead-up to America’s involvement — American Foreign Policy in the Making (1946), and President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War 1941 (1948). The bibliography of America’s Second Crusade is a useful guide to mid-century independent American historiography.

This book does not merely expose liars and hypocrites in the halls of power. It distinguishes itself by challenging the American public to consider that the death, destruction, and trauma of the Second World War may not have been “worth it” in the end. Chamberlin is no sympathizer of or apologist for Nazism. But he is not afraid to measure the stated goals of Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill against the objective historical record by which the question he poses might be answered. The arguments for America’s entry into the war, he concludes, ultimately come up wanting.

Originally post at the Institute for Historical Review.

Sexual Perversity and Misanthropy in the Talmud

/9 Comments/in , /by

What are religious systems if not guides for ethics? Any religion worth its salt must give its followers a concrete notion of the good life—of virtue, justice, and rectitude. It needs to offer a conception of what counts as good in this world; it must explain how a person can be good, and how people collectively can create the best possible existence for themselves. These things will naturally be tied to a specific conception of God (or the gods), but still, concrete and specific ethical norms must be the outcome; otherwise, followers will be largely left in the dark regarding how to conduct a proper life.

Judaism is no exception. The basic outline of this religion is of course found in the Jewish Bible, the Old Testament (the Tanakh). Unfortunately, from an ethical perspective, the Old Testament is an utter fiasco: moral precepts abound, but they are ambiguous, contradictory, vapid, and arbitrary. And worse: they lead to a catastrophic and repulsive set of attitudes, as I will demonstrate.

Let me start, then, with the ethics of the Old Testament. The clearest bit of the mess is the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20), but these are either so obvious as to be pointless (“honor your parents,” “don’t steal,” “don’t kill”), or so abstract as to be meaningless (“no other gods,” “keep Sabbath holy,” “God’s name not in vain”). There is really very little here to live by, and certainly nothing to indicate a divine origin, as would be expected from an omniscient and all-good God.

But it’s worse than this. According to Jewish tradition, there are precisely 613 “commandments” in just the Torah alone! (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.) Every time anyone is told to do something, or not to do something, some rabbi has turned that into a “commandment.” What a mess! And then how many commandments in the entire Old Testament? There must be thousands, surely.

And then there are the many inconsistencies and contradictions. How, for example, does “thou shalt not kill” play against the many calls by God for Jews to slaughter innocents? Just consider the poor Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, and others, whom God commands to “utterly destroy” (Deut 20:17); or the unfortunate Midianites, whom God insists be massacred by the thousands (Num 31).[1] And this is not to mention the call by God for the Jews to “blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven” (Deut 25:19)—which is nothing less than a call for genocide. Amalek, in the form of Palestinians, Iranians, and Lebanese, are certainly suffering a fair degree of “blotting” as we speak. After all, who shall challenge the word of God?

How is it that Moses is commanded to “despoil” and plunder the Egyptians (Ex 12:36), when, only a few verses later, he is commanded to “not steal” (Ex 20:15)? How is it that “the sins of the fathers are the sins of the sons” (Ex 20:5, 34:7), but yet Ezekiel informs us that “the son shall not suffer the iniquity of the father” (Ez 18:20)? How is that “you shall not oppress a stranger” (Ex 23:9) and yet “you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you” (Lev 25:44)? Good luck figuring that out.

Actually, a good bit of the confusion disappears when we realize that the Old Testament is the Jewish Bible; it was written by Jews, for Jews, and about Jews. Nothing about it is intended for gentiles. The famous Ten Commandments apply only among Jews; theft, “covetousness,” even killing are allowed when dealing with non-Jews. All those nice sayings about the “brother” or the “neighbor” apply only to “the brother Jew” and “the neighbor Jew.” If you are a non-Jew and you think that anything about the OT applies to you, you need to do some serious rethinking.

In fact, the vast majority of specific references to gentiles in the OT are negative: The slaves? Non-Jews. The slaughtered, the plundered, the “blotted”? Non-Jews. Making honest agreements (“covenants”) with non-Jews? No (Ex 34:12). Having relationships with non-Jews? No (Deut 7:3). Showing mercy or lenience toward non-Jews? No (Ps 106:34). Exploiting non-Jews through usury? Sure! (Deut 23:20) In sum, the gentiles are fit for slavery, usury, exploitation, theft, and murder, but little else. So much for your “holy” bible.

All this is consistent with the generally Jewish supremacist outlook of the Old Testament. Jews, of course are “chosen” by God; they were “given” the Earth and its inhabitants; and they were told by God to dominate and rule. In fact, the two dominant themes of the OT, from a non-Jewish perspective, are (1) a divinely-mandated Jewish dominion over the Earth, and (2) Jewish contempt or hatred toward non-Jews, i.e. misanthropy. These are terribly pernicious qualities in their own right, but when they combine and become the defining characteristics of an entire ethnicity, then serious trouble is sure to follow.

From OT to Mishnah to Talmud

The Old Testament, as far as we know, was composed over many centuries by various individuals, all Jews, and came into something like a modern form by around 350 BC. Much of the OT is history and genealogy, along with a retelling of various incidents and escapades of the Jewish people, but the ethical “commandments,” as noted, are vague and ambiguous. Consequently, Jewish rabbis began debating the actual meaning of the OT for people’s daily lives, especially in the aftermath of their defeat at the hands of the Romans in 70 AD, 115 AD, and 135 AD. Some 100 rabbis went to work, constructing a new document—called the Mishnah—which attempted to translate the many OT stories and dictates into common, daily-life requirements. The Mishnah was composed over several decades, coming to be unified sometime around 250 AD, and containing the equivalent of about 200,000 English words. (The OT, by contrast, is about 600,000 words in English.)

It is worth taking a moment to look at the structure of this document. The Mishnah is organized into six parts (sedarim): 1) Zeraim (‘Seeds’), 2) Moed (‘Festival’), 3) Nashim (‘Women’), 4) Nezikin (‘Damages’), 5) Kodashim (‘Holy items’), and 6) Tahorot (‘Purities’).[2] Each seder is in turn divided into a number of named “tractates,” which are then divided into chapters. The numbers are summarized below:

Zeraim: 11 tractates, 74 total chapters

Moed:  12 tractates, 88 chapters

Nashim:  7 tractates, 71 chapters

Nezikin:  10 tractates, 72 chapters

Kodashim:  11 tractates, 90 chapters

Tahorot:  12 tractates, 126 chapters

As soon as the Mishnah became settled, other rabbis immediately began analyzing and commenting on it. This commentary grew rapidly, coming to include internal debates, speculations, ‘commentary on commentary,’ and so on. Furthermore, the process of analysis caused many rabbis to spin off into tangential discussions, often of considerable length but perhaps not even directly related to the original topic. Over time, we can well imagine how such commentary could grow exponentially.

Worse, there were two centers of analysis, one located in Jerusalem and another in Babylon. Eventually, Jewish scholars collected together the various comments into what was called a “Gemara,” or “completion,” of the original Mishnah. But given the two centers of learning, there emerged two Gemaras—one in Jerusalem and one in Babylon, both around 500 AD. And these are huge: each Gemara contains about 2.5 million words in English, or about 10 times the size of the original Mishnah.

The final and obvious step, then, was to combine the original Mishnah with the Gemara to create a single, gargantuan document containing the most complete embodiment of Jewish learning and theology over the centuries: the Talmud. Since there are two Gemaras, there are, technically, two Talmuds: the more-common Babylonian Talmud, and the less-common Jerusalem Talmud. Both incorporate the same original Mishnah, but they then supplement it with different interpretations and analysis—different Gemara—from their various perspectives.

As such, the Babylonian Talmud (“the” Talmud) is a vast work: some 2.7 million English words equivalent, comparable to around 18 volumes of the standard World Book encyclopedia. (My personal 2003 edition of the World Book runs to 21 volumes, so this is roughly the size of the Talmud.) Truly “encyclopedic” Jewish wisdom.

For those of us non-Hebrews who might attempt to analyze this monstrosity, having a good English translation is essential—preferably, an online one. There are two that I have used: www.sefaria.org (preferred) and www.chabad.org. Unfortunately, and probably deliberately, neither site has a clear and logical breakdown of the various sederim and tractates. Sefaria’s home page lists some 14 “library” subpages, of which two are “Talmud” and “Mishnah.” The Mishnah page lists all six sederim and corresponding tractates. On the Talmud page, we find near the top, the two versions—Babylonian (default) and Jerusalem. Below this, we find the six sederim (“Seder Zeraim,” etc.), and at the end, links to some 15 so-called minor tractates, followed by several separate commentaries, ancient and modern.

But as mentioned, it is still confusing. The Talmud page, at Seder Zeraim, lists only one tractate (Berakhot) when in fact there are 11 in total; these can be found only on the Mishnah page, under the same seder. Yet the Talmud “Berakhot” page is numbered differently than the Mishnah “Berakhot” page, even though the text is (apparently) the same. To further muddy the waters, the Jerusalem Talmud page, at Seder Zeraim, lists all 11 tractates. Confusing indeed. The Jews certainly don’t make it easy on us poor gentiles.

If the reader’s head is spinning at this point, it is totally understandable; they didn’t invent the phrase “Talmudic logic” for nothing.

Some Truly Malicious Content

As one can imagine, much of the Talmud is utterly mundane: trivial and absurdly-detailed commentary and argumentation on all sorts of daily matters, from cooking, trading, farming, interpersonal relations, to more interesting remarks on ethics, sexuality, and interacting with the dreaded ‘goyim,’ the non-Jews.

As I will show below, some of the remarks are truly disgusting; but we need to keep in mind that, like most religious commentary, there is a diversity of views and opinions among the “experts.” They don’t all agree, and they are not all repulsive. Unfortunately, though, they are all documented in the Talmud and therefore are all available to a Jew, any Jew, to draw upon to justify his actions. This point was put well by the German writer Theodore Fritsch back in 1922:

[I]n the Talmud with its commentaries, one finds the most divergent Rabbinic opinions, and its doctrines and expositions frequently contradict one another. This, however, is only equivalent to saying that it is open to every faithful Jew to accept as authentic whatever doctrine and exposition may best suit his purpose for the time being. Thus, when one passage reads: “you must not lie to, deceive, or rob the Goy,” and another Rabbi says: “under certain circumstances, you may do so,” more latitude is allowed to the conscience of the Jew who believes in his Talmud. He can act either in this way or that, and will still find himself in agreement with the law, and will still remain a pious and orthodox Jew.[3]

Hence, even the worst of what we read below is still “Jewish law” and still available to guide Jewish actions, no matter how reprehensible. Fritsch presses this very point: “The most intellectual Rabbinical writings actually prove that, amongst the Jews, the feeling for true morality, and for the ethical consciousness, is entirely lacking. There is no good and evil for them; everything is gauged by momentary advantage” (p. 140). I would further note that it is not just orthodox Jews who feel compelled to follow the Talmud; even secular, non-religious Jews take their moral cues, even if subconsciously, from longstanding Jewish tradition as documented there.

What, then, do we find in the Talmud? All sorts of weird, bizarre, disturbing, shocking, offensive things. They are well-buried, of course, and rarely mentioned in polite company—yet they are there all the same, and they deserve a bit of light, if we are to better understand the Jewish people and their motivations and ethics. Let me walk through some of the six sederim and pull out a few, shall we say, interesting passages.[4]

The first seder, Zeraim, includes a nice passage on “dreaming of shit”:

One who defecates in a dream, it is a good omen for him, as it is stated: “He that is bent down shall speedily be loosed; and he shall not go down dying into the pit, neither shall his bread fail” (Isaiah 51:14). The Gemara notes that this only applies where he does not wipe and get his hands dirty. (Berakhot 57a,14)

So, it is good luck to dream of shitting, because of what it says in Isaiah. Actually, the cited passage in Isaiah is quite cryptic and seems to have nothing to do with defecating; but such is our Talmudic logic. Perhaps we goyim are simply too dull to grasp the deeper meaning here.

Seder Nashim

This seder has a number of interesting comments, beginning with tractate Yevamot, where we learn that it is permissible—or at least, not disqualifying—for women to have sex with animals:

Rabbi Shimi bar Ḥiyya said: A woman who had intercourse with an animal is like one whose hymen was torn accidentally. Consequently, she is not a zona and is fit for the priesthood. This is also taught in a baraita: If a woman had intercourse with one who is not a man, i.e., an animal, although she is liable to stoning if she did so intentionally and in the presence of witnesses who forewarned her of her punishment, she is nevertheless fit for the priesthood. (Yevamot 59b,6)

A “zona” is a woman who, owing to her history of inappropriate sexual activity, such as with a gentile, is disqualified from certain privileges, including marrying into the upper classes. A woman who has sex with animals is not a zona, thus not disqualified, from such privileges. (Just don’t do it “in front of witnesses” or you might get stoned.)

In tractate Nedarim, we find the famous “Kol Nidre,” in which Jews can preemptively negate any vows or promises that they might make in the coming year:

[O]ne who desires that his vows not be upheld for the entire year should stand up on Rosh HaShana and say: “Any vow that I take in the future should be void.” And this statement is effective, provided that he remembers at the time of the vow that his intent at the beginning of the year was to render it void. (Nedarim 23b,1)

This works especially well with the goyim, to whom a Jew can make any sort of promise or commitment, knowing full well that he already negated it!

Then things get truly revolting. In the Ketubot tractate, we learn that sexual intercourse with girls under age three is “nothing”:

Rava said that this is what the Mishnah is saying: An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old has done nothing, as intercourse with a girl less than three years old is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye. In the case of an eye, after a tear falls from it, another tear forms to replace it. Similarly, the ruptured hymen of the girl younger than three is restored [by natural healing]. (Ketubot 11b,6)

Now, I am not a pediatrician, but from what I understand, a torn hymen will never restore itself to its original, un-torn state, no matter how young the girl. But the Jews believe it does, and they use this fact to justify sex with girls under (!) three. It is “nothing”; poking your penis into her is no different than poking a finger into someone’s eye. Unpleasant for the recipient, perhaps, but not a sin.  (And we wonder why Jews, like Jeffrey Epstein, are so often implicated in pedophilia.)

Also in the Nashim, we find the famous statement about the hated Jesus allegedly “boiling in shit” in hell:

Onkelos said to him: “What is the punishment of that man”, a euphemism for Jesus himself, “in the next world?” Jesus said to him: “He is punished with boiling excrement.” As the Master said: “Anyone who mocks the words of the Sages will be sentenced to boiling excrement.” And this was his sin, as he mocked the words of the Sages. The Gemara comments: Come and see the difference between the sinners of Israel and the prophets of the [gentile] nations of the world. As Balaam, who was a prophet, wished Israel harm, whereas Jesus the Nazarene, who was a Jewish sinner, sought their well-being. (Gittin 57a,4)

This is quite strange, because Jesus himself allegedly came to fulfill the Jewish law (Mt 5:17) and to keep the commandments (Mt 19:17). And Paul himself said “Christ’s life of service was on behalf of the Jews” (Rom 15:8). But the orthodox Jews could not accept that this alleged savior died on a cross, so they declared that he merely mocked the prophets—hence the boiling afterlife.

Seder Nezikin

In this next seder, we have several passages of note, beginning with the blatant assertion that Jews are permitted to “trick” and deceive the gentiles:

Rav Ashi said: The Mishnah [on tax collection] issues its ruling with regard to a Gentile tax collector, whom one may deceive: In the case of a Jew and a Gentile who approach the court for judgment in a legal dispute, if you can vindicate the Jew under Jewish law, vindicate him, and say to the Gentile: This is our law. If he can be vindicated under Gentile law, vindicate him, and say to the Gentile: This is your law. And if it is not possible to vindicate him under either system of law, one approaches the case with legal trickery, seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew. … Apparently, it is permitted to deceive a Gentile. (Bava Kamma 113a,21-22)

The implication, of course, is not merely on tax collection issues, but on any circumstance that might involve a “legal dispute.” Jews may refer to “our [Jewish] law” or “your [gentile] law,” as they wish—whichever serves their advantage.

In the same tractate, we learn that Jews may keep anything that a gentile has “lost”—whether literally or figuratively:

It is permitted to retain the Gentile’s lost item … “From where is it derived that it is permitted to retain the lost item of a Gentile? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: ‘With every lost thing of your brother’s’ (Deut 22:3), indicating that it is only to your brother [Jew] that you return a lost item, but you do not return a lost item to a Gentile.” […] Samuel says that it is permitted to financially benefit from a business error of a Gentile… (Bava Kamma 113b,8-10)

Thus, if a gentile loses something because it fell out of his pocket, or because he left something lying around, or because he was not quite clever and shifty enough—well then, all to the Jews’ benefit.

Given such things, it’s almost as if the Jews are to treat gentiles like beasts, like animals. And in fact, this is true:

Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says that the graves of gentiles do not render one impure, as it is stated: “And you, My sheep, the sheep of My pasture, are man” (Ezekiel 34:31), which teaches that you, i.e., the Jewish people, are called “man,” but gentiles are not called “man.” (Bava Metzia 114b,2)

Only Jews are human (‘man’), whereas gentiles, since not human, are perforce animals. This is explicit Jewish supremacism of the crudest sort, in black and white. And it certainly helps to explain the malicious treatment directed toward gentiles.

In the Bava Batra, we read again that gentile property—whether “lost” or not—is effectively owned by the Jews: “Shmuel says that the property of a gentile is like a desert, and anyone who takes possession of it has acquired it” (Bava Batra 54b,5).

Next, the tractate Avodah Zarah contains more highly-troubling passages on sex with infants and children:

With regard to a male gentile child, from when, i.e., from what age, does he impart ritual impurity as one who experiences ziva [menstruation]? And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to me: From when he is one day old. And when I came to Rabbi Ḥiyya, he said to me: From when he is nine years and one day old. …

The Gemara explains the reason for this opinion: Since a nine-year-old boy is fit to engage in intercourse, he also imparts ritual impurity as one who experienced ziva. Ravina said: Therefore, with regard to a female gentile child who is three years and one day old, since she is fit to engage in intercourse at that age, she also imparts impurity as one who experienced ziva. (Avodah Zarah 36b,19 – 37a,1)

One who “experiences ziva/menstruation” is one who is sexually mature and thus ready for intercourse. Apparently, for Jews, a nine-year-old boy (or maybe a one-day-old infant?!) is like this, as is a three-year-old girl. Less than three, as we saw above, is “nothing” of note, and over three, is equivalent to a ziva-woman: ready for sex. If we are unclear about this, we need only glance at a later tractate, Sanhedrin: “All concede, regarding a boy nine years and one day old, that his intercourse is regarded as intercourse…” (Sanhedrin 69b,6). Mothers, keep your children close.

The just-mentioned tractate of Sanhedrin also permits a number of explicit abuses of the hated gentiles. For example, a Jew can withhold his pay (“It is necessary only to teach the halakha of one who withholds the wages of a hired laborer; for a gentile to do so to another gentile and for a gentile to do so to a Jew is prohibited, but for a Jew to do so to a gentile is permitted”; 57a,22). A Jew can rob the gentile (“With regard to robbery, the term permitted is relevant, as it is permitted for a Jew to rob a gentile”; 57a,17). And a Jew can even kill a gentile (“With regard to bloodshed, if a gentile murders another gentile, or a gentile murders a Jew, he is liable. If a Jew murders a gentile, he is exempt”; 57a,16). Again, more proof that “thou shalt not kill” applies only to the fellow Jew; gentiles are like animals, fit for slaughter.

Seder Tahorot and Mishnah

Two further Talmudic passages are of interest, the first from the sixth seder, Tahorot. In the Niddah tractate, we find a reconfirmation that sex with a girl under age three is like nothing at all:

If the girl is less than that age, younger than three years and one day, the status of intercourse with her is not that of intercourse in all halakhic senses; rather, it is like placing a finger into the eye. Just as in that case, the eye constricts, sheds tears, and then returns to its original state, so too, in a girl younger than three years and one day old, the hymen returns to its original state. (Niddah 44b,12)

And in Makshirin (of the Mishnah) we are shocked to find that eating or drinking of blood is allowed:

There are seven liquids: dew, water, wine, oil, blood, milk and bees’ honey. Hornets’ honey does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness and may be eaten. // Derivatives of water are: the liquids that come from the eye, from the ear, from the nose and from the mouth, and urine, whether of adults or of children, whether [its flow is] conscious or unconscious. Derivatives of blood are: blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are clean, and blood from bloodletting [of gentiles?] for drinking.  (Makshirin 6,4-5)

This flies in the face of the infamous prohibition on the eating of blood in the Torah. In Genesis 9:4, we read that God gives Noah and his family every living thing as food, except “you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood.”  Then in Leviticus, God says to Moses, “you shall eat no blood whatever, whether of fowl or of animal, in any of your dwellings” (7:26). This prohibition is also found in Lev 17:10 (“No person among you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger who sojourns among you eat blood”) and again in Lev 19:26 (“You shall not eat any flesh with the blood in it”). It is unclear how the rabbis of the Mishnah justify their blood consumption; perhaps “derivatives of blood,” whatever those are, are not the same as “fresh blood”—it is hard to say.

But if the permitted blood consumption includes human blood—and the Torah prohibitions seem to apply only to animals—then this gives a Talmudic basis for the notorious “blood libel” or “ritual sacrifice” charge in which Jews are alleged to have killed gentiles, usually children, and then used or consumed their blood. This is another long and sad story that I won’t recount here, except to say that recent research by Jewish scholar Ariel Toaff persuasively argues that Jews did in fact consume human blood in the past, and may still be doing so today; see his book Passovers of Blood.

“Kill the Best”

Finally, I can’t conclude this essay without mentioning one of the most infamous charges, namely, that Jews have a Talmudic dictate “to kill the best of the gentiles.” This is often quoted in anti-Jewish literature, but usually without appropriate citation—unsurprising, because it’s hard to find.

For one thing, it is not, to my knowledge, in the Babylonian Talmud; it can only be found in the Jerusalem Talmud. Here it is, from Seder Nashim, tractate Kiddushin:

Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Kill the best of Gentiles, smash the head of the best of snakes. (Kiddushin 4:11)

Unfortunately, this sentence has very little context, and it is thus difficult to grasp the deeper meaning, if any. The prior sentence talks about incompetent doctors going to hell, and butchers as professional killers, but these seem to have no relation to the above sentence. (This situation occurs often in the Talmud—be warned.) In any case, the straightforward reading is clear enough: Gentiles are enemies of a sort, and the best of them—the bravest, the smartest, the most talented—pose the greatest threat to Jews, therefore, they ought to be killed. Gentiles are like snakes (beasts, again), and the way you deal with a poisonous snake is to smash its head. The troubling inference, of course, is that such Gentiles have done nothing to warrant this death sentence. The Rebbi doesn’t say, “Kill the criminal Gentiles” or “Kill the Gentiles that have harmed us.” No—the unstated implication is that all Gentiles are dangerous, and the best are the most dangerous, therefore, for that reason alone, they ought to be killed.

Were this the only occurrence, we might dismiss it as an aberration. But the same passage appears at least three more times in authoritative, but non-Talmudic, texts. For example, we find the following version in the “minor tractate” Soferim:

  1. Simeon b. Yoḥai taught: Kill the best of the heathens in time of war; crush the brain of the best of serpents. (Soferim 15,10)

Some have argued that the qualifying phrase “in time of war” was added later, so as to not suggest that Jews should always, at all times, strive to kill the best of the heathens/gentiles. (In fact, the footnote in the Sefaria translation says exactly this.) So that phrase might well have been a little effort at covering the Jewish ‘behind.’

Secondly, in the Midrash Tanchuma, chapter titled “Beschalach,” we find another variant amidst a longer passage:

Whose beasts drew the chariots? If you should say they belonged to the Egyptians, has it not already been said: “And all the cattle of Egypt died” (Ex. 9:6)? If you should contend that they belonged to Pharaoh, has it not already been stated: “Behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle” (Ex. 9:3)? If you should assert that they belonged to Israel, has it not already been written: “Our cattle also shall go with us, there shall not a hoof be left behind” (Ex. 10:26)? To whom, then, did they belong? They belonged to the slaves of Pharaoh who feared the word of the Lord. Hence we learn that even those who feared the word of the Lord were a stumbling block to Israel. Because of this verse, they say: “The best among the Egyptians, kill; the best among serpents, crush its brain.” (Tanchuma, Beschalach 8,1)

A “midrash” is a commentary or exegesis, and in this case, the Tanchuma (or ‘Tanhuma’) Midrash is a late, post-Talmudic commentary—again, taken as authoritative, but technically not part of the Talmud. But the argumentation here is obscure, to say the least. In Exodus, God punishes the Egyptians for holding Jews captive by killing the Egyptians’ cattle. And somehow, because of this, the rabbi infers that Jews may (must?) kill the Egyptians themselves—and not the least, but the best. A bizarre inference.

A third supplemental text, “Rashi on Exodus,” has this variation:

  1. Simeon said: The best amongst the Egyptians—kill him (otherwise he will afterwards devise evil against you); the best amongst the serpents—crush its brains. (Rashi on Exodus 14:7,2)

The apparent source of these remarks, Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai (or Yohai)—known also as Shimon bar Yochai (90-160 AD)—was an influential figure in Judaism, one who lived during the last two Roman revolts. He clearly hated the Romans, the Egyptians, and in fact virtually all non-Jews; the above-linked Wikipedia entry refers to his “animosity toward the Gentiles generally,” which is exactly in line with traditional Jewish misanthropy. There seems to be no doubt that his aim was “to kill the best of the gentiles,” and the fact that this appears at least four times in official, authoritative Jewish texts, including the Jerusalem Talmud, is highly damning.

Whither the Jews?

These, then, are some of the more striking passages that I have encountered in my research. Obviously there must be many more; I don’t claim to have read the entire, encyclopedic Talmud, but knowing what I do, there are surely many, many objectionable, insulting, and degrading dictates sprinkled throughout that work.

If one were to attempt to defend Jewish interests here, I can think of three potential objections: First, that such comments as these are “taken out of context,” and that the “true meaning” has been overlooked or distorted (by the “anti-Semites,” of course). This is always possible, but I think generally unlikely in these cases. The wording and intention seem to come through loud and clear. And the context is not just the textual context of the seder, but the whole background of the OT and the long, documented history of Jewish supremacism and Jewish misanthropy. This is the real context that we need to keep in mind. And in any case, I have provided the links for each passage, should the reader desire to read the full section or chapter directly; in fact, I encourage each reader to do so, and to determine the context for himself.

A second possible objection might be that this relative handful of rather nasty words constitutes only a minute fraction of the over 2 million words in the Talmud (and more, if we include the ancillary texts). This of course is true, but it does not negate the fact that they exist, they are documented, and they stand as justification for Jewish action. God only needs to give a commandment once for it to hold, and likewise, Jews only need a single malicious passage to justify malicious action.

A third and final objection could be that all this Talmudic literature only applies to religious Jews (conservative, orthodox, ultra-orthodox), and not to the secular, non-religious Jews—just as Christian precepts apply only to avowed Christians and not to other gentiles. Technically, yes, but here we are dealing less with a formal religion than with a mindset, a worldview, and a racial value system.

Consider for a moment Judaism as a religion. American Jews fall into different categories. The two largest groups—secular/atheist/nonreligious (32%) and reform (37%)—are generally considered liberal progressive Jews who are either non-religious or only “liberally” religious. These two combined constitute 2/3 of American Jews. The other third is divided among conservative (17%), orthodox (9%), and other (4%); these are generally strongly religious Jews who can be expected to closely follow the Talmud and related documents.

Therefore, one could say that the above Talmudic injunctions apply only to the religious one-third of Jews, and not to the majority. Well, if even one-third of Jews believe in such nastiness, that still covers over 2 million of them. One wonders, in fact, why such malevolent Jews are allowed to stay in this country; what other government in the world would tolerate a two-million-strong minority who hates the majority of its citizens? It is an absurd policy, and yet we do it, and have done so for well over a century.

But even those two-thirds of “enlightened” and “progressive” Jews still harbor similar feelings, I would argue, simply because of their ethnic and racial background. We have to recall that, for virtually all of Jewish history, all Jews were religious Jews. Liberal reform Judaism didn’t even exist until the late 1800s, and didn’t become widespread until perhaps 100 years ago. This is an eye-blink in the history of the Jewish people. Such a tight-knit ethnic group cannot change its fundamental outlook so quickly. The reality of the situation is that such negative attitudes and values as shown above are embedded or built-in to the psyche of virtually all Jews today, both in the US and abroad. Secular or religious, reform or conservative—most every Jew embodies these values, to a greater or lesser degree. And this is the heart of the problem.

One need only observe Jewish speech and behavior to confirm this. Look at Israeli Jews. There, about half the population is liberal/secular and half is conservative/orthodox. But the leadership, including Netanyahu, are mostly religious fundamentalists who are inclined to follow Jewish law—the Talmud—very closely. The Israeli slaughter of Gazans—of whom at least 70,000 have been killed since October 2023, and perhaps three or four times that many—reflects precisely a malicious, genocidal, Talmudic attitude toward non-Jews. Naturally there are disagreements among Israeli Jews, many of whom do not like Netanyahu, but apparently they are nearly all in agreement regarding brutal treatment of the Palestinians. Early in the Gaza war, 90% of Israeli Jews opposed a pause in fighting to exchange hostages, and only 2% believed that Israel was using too much firepower. More recently, a poll in mid-2025 showed that at least 70% of Israeli Jews believe “there are no innocent people in Gaza,” and in another such poll, we discover that 82% of Jews there support ethnic cleansing, i.e. expelling all Gazans. Brutality there is pervasive.

Given this, we ought not be surprised in the least at the current Israeli barbarity against Iran and Lebanon. It is still early in this latest Jewish war, but reports claim that some 1,300 Iranians and 200 Lebanese have died so far, at the combined hands of the Israelis and the Israeli-dominated Americans. Also unsurprisingly, Jews worldwide seem more than happy to continue the killing. As noted in recent papers, “Netanyahu’s latest war has few critics in Israel,” even among those who hate him, and the Jewish-Israeli public has fully “embraced militarism.” It’s no different in the US, especially among the rich and powerful. Of the hundreds of wealthy and powerful American Jews, virtually none criticize Israeli actions in Iran or Gaza, none call it genocide, none issue real demands for it to stop, and none insist on punishment for the perpetrators. One searches in vain for prominent voices; at best, we find a now-discredited Noam Chomsky opposing the Gaza genocide, or a closet Zionist like Norm Finkelstein, or Jerry Greenfield of “Ben & Jerry’s”—and that’s about it. The most influential Jews—Chuck Schumer, Stephen Miller, Josh Shapiro, Larry Ellison, Michael Bloomberg—are apparently untroubled by the ongoing mass killing. And as if on cue, we also read that major Jewish groups have “thrown support behind the US-Israeli operation against Iran.” All this is as expected, given the brutal Talmudic mindset that holds sway in the vast majority of all Jews.

How much of all this cruelty and malevolence is attributable to the Talmud is hard to say. Perhaps the best explanation is not that the Talmud causes such behavior, but rather that the mindset and values that allow such perversity and misanthropy to be written into their religious documents are the same ones that justify and support mass killing in the Middle East, not to mention the routine, day-to-day abuse and hatred heaped upon all non-Jews everywhere.

The Talmud is thus the Jewish mindset in print; it is there for all to see. Be not surprised at the consequences.

David Skrbina, PhD, is a former professor of philosophy from the University of Michigan, Dearborn. He is the author or editor of a dozen books, including The Jesus Hoax (2nd ed., 2024), The Metaphysics of Technology (Routledge, 2015), and Panpsychism in the West (MIT Press, 2017).

[1] While keeping 32,000 virgins for themselves, of course.

[2] I will generally use the spelling as found at www.sefaria.org. But there are many variations: ‘Tahorot’ is often spelled ‘Tohorot,’ for example.

[3] From The Riddle of the Jews’ Success (1922/2023), p. 139.

[4] I have added italics at various points, for emphasis.

Poll Finds American Jews Support Iran War at Rates Far Higher Than General Public

/7 Comments/in , /by

While mainstream America polls in opposition to the war in Iran, a powerful faction of the Jewish community is pushing for exactly what they have wanted since the neoconservative era began: total regional dominance at the expense of American lives

The Jewish People Policy Institute conducted a flash survey on March 5, 2026, polling 692 American Jews registered with their respondent panel. According to the findings, 68% of connected American Jews support the U.S. decision to go to war against Iran, with 26% opposing and 7% undecided.

The JPPI survey revealed sharp ideological divisions within the Jewish community mirroring broader American polarization. Among strong liberal Jews, only 28% support the war while 62% oppose it. Support rises to 100% among strong conservative Jews. Trump voters among American Jews support the war at 99%, while Harris voters are split 47% to 42%. Despite broadly supporting the war, 52% of Jews in America expect the conflict will increase antisemitism in the United States, and 45% believe it will harm Israel’s image in America.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency noted that connected American Jews aligned far more closely with Israeli Jewish opinion, where 93% supported the military operations according to an Israel Democracy Institute poll. By contrast, the gentile American public has largely opposed the current conflict in Iran.

Multiple major polls conducted since the February 28, 2026 conflict began reveal substantial American opposition to the U.S. military action in Iran. Pew Research found that 59% of Americans said the U.S. made the wrong decision in using military force and 61% disapprove of Trump’s handling of the conflict. An AP-NORC poll discovered that 59% of Americans believe U.S. military action has gone “too far,” while a Quinnipiac survey showed 74% oppose sending U.S. ground troops into Iran. Additional polling from CNN and NPR/PBS/Marist confirmed similarly high disapproval levels. The partisan divide remains stark, with approximately 90% of Democrats opposing the action while roughly 75% to 85% of Republicans support it.

The JPPI polling numbers, however striking, obscure a deeper question: why this war, and why now. The answer lies not in recent events but in planning documents drafted a generation ago that treated Middle East military dominance as a long-term Jewish project. After all, nothing in the post-World II environment we live in happens by chance. It is the often the consequence of the persistent efforts pursued by Jewish figures who prioritize the expansion of their collective power above all else.

The Project for the New American Century was a neoconservative think tank founded in 1997 by Jewish intellectuals such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan to promote “American global leadership” through military strength. Its 1997 Statement of Principles was signed by 25 people, 10 of whom went on to serve in the George W. Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. Its defining document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” published in September 2000, called for global military preeminence, a permanent U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf regardless of who ran Iraq, and the ability to fight multiple major wars simultaneously.

The Clean Break memo, titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” was produced in 1996 by a study group for newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Led by Richard Perle and including Douglas Feith and David Wurmser among its authors, it proposed Israel abandon the “comprehensive peace” approach and instead reshape the Middle East through force, beginning with the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq as a way to destabilize Syria and weaken Iran’s regional position.

The overlap in personnel between these documents and subsequent policy is significant. Perle, Feith, and Wurmser, who participated in the Clean Break study group, subsequently joined the Bush administration and helped drive the case for the 2003 Iraq invasion. PNAC signatories— a mix of Jews and servile gentiles—Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and  Elliott Abrams occupied senior U.S. national security positions.

These recent poll findings are not surprising. For the American people, a war with Iran is not only fundamentally immoral but serves no national interest, as Iran poses no threat to the security of the country. However, for a powerful faction of organized Jewry, Iran represents a direct obstacle to Israel’s hegemonic ambitions in the Middle East. This war is the grim culmination of a multi-decade project by elites who have insinuated themselves into the commanding heights of high finance, media, and the political process to ensure the world is made safe for their own interests. Having cleared out any credible opposition within foreign policy circles and secured a compliant administration, organized Jewry has finally achieved its goal.

Ultimately, this conflict serves as yet another catastrophic foreign blunder for our nation, placing tens of thousands of our young men—largely of European extraction—at grave risk for a cause that is not their own. Make no mistake about it: this is a war for the benefit of Israel, and no amount of political obfuscation can hide the fact that American blood is being spent to secure Jewish supremacy abroad.

How a Desire for Peace May Label Tucker Carlson a Foreign Agent

/15 Comments/in , /by
Joseph McGraw of the Free Expression Foundation

Introduction

The dormant capabilities and vulnerabilities of the First Amendment face their greatest test in wartime. Recently, Tucker Carlson revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency intends to refer him to the Department of Justice to be charged for failing to register in accordance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). In a number of his latest broadcasts, the pundit warned that free speech may soon become a casualty of the war with Iran. According to Carlson, the threatened criminal referral arises out of his contact with a number of Iranian nationals in the leadup to the present conflict. While the exact nature of his contact is unknown, the government may allege that he acted on the request of these foreign principals to advocate against the war. The action, in all likelihood, serves as a pretense for quashing his criticism and threatening other commentators to stay in line.

In close parallel, Laura Loomer, prominent Carlson detractor and close advisor to President Donald Trump, alleges that the pundit took money from a variety of Middle Eastern countries including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In any case, Loomer has been pushing for his criminal investigation since at least February 1, a full month before the strikes. On March 14 she bragged, “If Tucker Qatarlson (sic) gets charged for violating FARA…I’m taking credit,” and “You have no idea how relentless I have been in speaking to GOP reps and even reporting Tucker to law enforcement and the DoJ.”

At long last, it appears her badgering of administration officials manifested into concrete action to silence speech amid the worsening war with Iran. While the criminal referral is a shot across Carlson’s bow regarding his anti-war speech, the government retains several pathways to materialize the threat. His legal footing hinges on three questions: 1) Is mere contact with citizens of another country with whom the United States is contemplating war enough to trigger mandatory registration under the FARA? 2) Did Carlson act on the request of a foreign principal to lobby for peace with Iran? or 3) If Loomer’s allegations are true, would taking money from foreign governments trigger mandatory registration?

The Statute

Signed into law in 1938, the FARA originated under the auspices of curtailing the influence of National Socialist Germany among American citizens. In its present form, the law requires that individuals falling into the category of “foreign agent” make a registration statement pursuant to 22 U.S.C. § 612 and disclose their activities. Foreign agents are defined in § 611(c)(1) of the statute as:

1) Any person who acts as an agent, employee, or under the control of a foreign principal and 2) advocates in some way in the interests of the foreign principal. Alternatively, one who holds himself out to be a foreign agent need not actually engage in advocacy to require registration. In both categories, an express contractual relationship between the individual and the foreign principal is not required to trigger the FARA. A foreign principal can include the government of another country, a “person outside the United States,” or an organization established under the laws of a foreign country. Notably, the FARA does not prohibit the advancement of foreign interests. In this way, the government argues free speech is not infringed though a chilling effect may result. Rather, the law requires that one disclose the agency behind the advocacy. To fulfill the advocacy requirement, one need only engage in political activity, act as a public relations agent, solicit donations, or represent the interests of the foreign principal to the U.S. government.

Does the FARA Violate the First Amendment?

While the Act does not explicitly limit speech, others have argued that the FARA chills First Amendment liberties by attaching negative labelling. In Meese v. Keene, the Supreme Court found this argument unconvincing for three reasons: First, Justice John Paul Stevens opined that the labels set up by congress in the FARA are meant to enhance truthful discourse by ensuring an informed public. Second, he contended that the labels in the Act have been law for so long that negative misinterpretation by the public should be a rare occurrence. Third, Stevens noted that the Court owes a level of respect to Congress in deciding to use terms like “political propaganda” as defined in the FARA. Consequently, the majority in Meese declined to find a chilling effect on free speech because the Act does not directly intervene in protected expression. Justice Harry Blackmun’s dissent, however, argued that the FARA’s labels are far from neutral. He elaborated, “The Court’s error on neutrality leads it to ignore the practical effects of the classification, which create an indirect burden on expression.” While the existing precedent holds that the FARA does not infringe on free speech, an enterprising advocate could petition the Supreme Court to overturn the holding in Meese.

Is Mere Contact with a Foreign Principal Enough?

Without more facts as to the relationship Carlson had with the Iranian nationals in question, one can only tentatively conclude he had some kind of communication with them. As defined in the Act, these individuals meet the definition of a foreign principal because they are persons outside the United States. The agency requirement of the FARA, however, is a much higher standard than mere contact. While an express contract is not required, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted in United States v. German-American Vocational League, Inc. that there must be mutual consent between the two parties as explained in the Restatement (1st) of Agency § 1. In other words, the agent must agree to act on behalf of and be subject to control by the foreign principal, and the foreign principal must agree that the agent so act. The FARA’s agency requirement, however, need not meet the Restatement (2d) of Agency’s more strict focus on control.

In Carlson’s case, the limited known facts do not lend themselves to his categorization as a foreign agent by contact alone. Surely the DoJ does not expect a journalist of national and international affairs to avoid speaking to citizens of another country for fear of triggering a FARA designation. Unless Carlson’s intercepted text messages contain some manifestation of consent to enter into an agency arrangement, the DoJ will have an extraordinarily uphill battle proving Carlson’s categorization under the Act. Even if these Iranian contacts were officials inside the Iranian government or members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the foreign principal’s proximity to state power does not lower the requirement that agency be established by mutual consent.

What If Iranian Nationals Requested that Carlson Lobby for Peace?

Some commentators like Loomer allege that Carlson, at the request of these Iranian nationals, lobbied the President to avoid war with Iran. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Irish Northern Aid Committee explained that FARA triggering requests must be analyzed according to the following factors: 1) If the request specifically named the would-be agent, 2) and the specificity of the action requested. Without more facts, Carlson’s agency under these allegations is unknown. Assuming the allegation’s truth, the DoJ may have a better case than using only Carlson’s contact with Iranian nationals. If one such Iranian individual, a foreign principal, requested that Carlson utilize his connections to gain audience with the President and lobby against the war, his actions may have been enough to establish agency under the Irish Northern Aid Committee standard. If the requester only asked Carlson to think about options to avoid war, agency may fail for lack of specificity. Without knowing the exact facts of the situation, it is difficult to predict where his actions fall on this spectrum.

Perhaps Carlson could argue that peace is in the interest of all nations, not just Iran. Nevertheless, the Act does not require that the interest in question be exclusive to the foreign principal. The statute explains that if one “represents the interests of such foreign principal before any agency or official of the Government of the United States,” he fulfills the advocacy requirement. If it can be shown that Carlson acted on a specific request to lobby the President by his Iranian contact, the DoJ may successfully argue that he represented the interests of Iran to the government. This is irrespective if that interest is shared by other countries or even the United States itself.

Does Taking Money from a Foreign Principal Make One a Foreign Agent?

Independent of the allegations of having contact with Iranian nationals, Loomer contends Carlson took money from various Middle Eastern governments.  The simple act of receiving funds from a foreign government, however, is not enough to establish agency. In the 1966 amended text of the statute, the drafters noted, “mere receipt of a bona fide subsidy not subjecting the recipient to the direction or control of the donor does not require the recipient of the subsidy to register as an agent of the donor.” Illustratively, the court in Attorney General of the United States v. Irish People, Inc. agreed that even significant and repeated donations by a foreign principal do not decisively create agency unless there is an aspect of control. Loomer claims Carlson received funds to compensate him for his team’s travels. Unless this payment came with conditions that he report a certain way or shift his coverage on behalf of the interests of the subsidizing state, agency is not established.

The Defense of Selective Prosecution

Given the present American mediascape and scarce examples of enforcement of the FARA, Carlson could contend that the DoJ is selectively cracking down on those critical of the Iran War. The defense originates in the equal protection aspect of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. In Carlson’s case, he must show that the decision to prosecute arose out of “the desire to penalize the exercise of constitutional rights.” The constitutional right in this case would be his protected free speech. He must also show that the DoJ declined to prosecute similarly situated individuals on the other side of the issue.

But courts are likely to be hesitant to accept a selective prosecution defense because Carlson’s First Amendment rights may not actually be infringed. As the Irish People court elucidated, enforcement of the FARA does not criminalize the speech in question. The D.C. Court of Appeals explained that the government’s motive in that case was only “insuring that the people of the United States may appraise their statements in light of their source.” This is likely to be the same rebuttal the DoJ will take with regards to Carlson if he raises the defense of selective prosecution. They will argue that they do not seek to quash his protected speech, but only to apprise the American people  of his concealed motivations.

Conclusion

If the DoJ finds that Carlson should have registered under the FARA, the most likely vector would be the Irish Northern Aid Commission request standard. They will attempt to establish that the pundit’s lobbying against the war was in response to a foreign principal’s request. The consequences of registration for an individual who makes his living on communication could be devastating. The DoJ could seek an injunction against any further broadcasting or video content until Carlson registers. If he complies with their demands, his content would likely need to carry disclaimers detailing his foreign alignment. The result would likely be a loss of credibility and reputation with his audience, a disastrous blow for an independent media figure. Moreover, using the FARA to chill constitutionally protected speech amid a new war would set a dangerous precedent for American political discourse. While the true facts of Carlson’s case are unknown, one may surmise that the government’s version of events paints a highly unfavorable view of his communications with foreign nationals. As the Iran conflagration spreads out of control, the appetite for harassing dissenters at home like Carlson is likely to grow in direct proportion.

Footnotes/Citations

  1. Loomer, Laura (@LauraLoomer). “Tucker Carlson needs to be investigated for possible FARA violations. Take a look at this video.” X (formerly Twitter), Feb. 1, 2026, https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/2018054665099719041
  2. Loomer, Laura (@LauraLoomer). “If Tucker Qatarlson gets charged for violating FARA and or leaking information to Russia, …” X (formerly Twitter), March 14, 2026, 1:23 p.m., https://x.com/LauraLoomer/status/2032976193461633048
  3. U.S. Congress, Special Committee on Un-American Activities, Investigation of Nazi and Other Propaganda, 74th Cong., 1st sess., February 15, H.Rept. 153 (Washington: GPO, 1935), p. 2.
  4. 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(2).
  5. Id.
  6. Id. § 611(b).
  7. 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1).
  8. Meese v. Keene, 481 U.S. 465, 479 (1987).
  9. Id. at 480.
  10. Id. at 483.
  11. Id. at 484.
  12. Id. at 486.
  13. Id. at 490.
  14. United States v. German‑Am. Vocational League, Inc., 153 F.2d 860, 864 (3d Cir. 1946).
  15. Attorney Gen. of the U.S. v. Irish N. Aid Comm., 668 F.2d 159, 161 (2d Cir. 1982).
  16. Id.
  17. 22 U.S.C. § 611(c)(1).
  18. H.R. Rep. No. 1470, 89th Cong. 2d Sess. 5-6 (1966)
  19. Attorney Gen. of the U.S. v. Irish People, Inc. 796 F.2d 520, 524 (D.C. Cir. 1986).
  20. United States v. Swanson, 509 F.2d 1205, 1208 (8th Cir. 1975); United States v. Berrios, 501 F.2d 1207 (2d Cir. 1974).
  21. Irish People, Inc. 796 F.2d 520, 525.
  22. Id. at 526.

Why are Jews exempt from being called to account for the crimes of the Bolsheviks?

/10 Comments/in , /by

Ron Asher
Who was Behind the Bolshevik Revolution?
Tross Publishing, P O Box 22-143, Khandallah, Wellington 6441, New Zealand. $30 pp within NZ.
Prices for Foreign Buyers: Aust $30, UK £15, USA $20, Can. $25, Euros €15. https://trosspublishing.com/contact/

Tross Publishing has been around for several years, during which time it has attracted numerous smears and complaints from mediocre and agenda-driven academics, and other Europhobes, resulting in some of its books being removed and banned from bookshops and libraries. Tross, owned by John McLean, focuses on reconsidering the colonial and pre-colonial histories of New Zealand, challenging the dominance of Europhobic narratives. The authors garnered by Tross are often of scholarly background, including Dr John Robinson and Dr David Round. This has not dissuaded those of lesser scholarly pedigree from denouncing the books, with titles such as The Benefits of Colonisation, and The British Empire: A Force for Good.

From a traditional Rightist position, there is a doctrinal gulf in some of the premises of Tross authors, such as the promotion of the assimilationist, “one New Zealand” outlook,[i] where we are all raceless individuals bonded by a social contract (in this case, the Treaty of Waitangi, Tross authors dissenting from the modern interpretation enforced by the dominant narrative). This leaves such neoliberals, regarded as “conservative” or “right-wing,” in the odd position of condemning apartheid[ii] in their opposition to “Māori separatism,” due to a lack of doctrinal and historical coherence.[iii]

However, the “one New Zealand” concept has come from the political fringes to being endorsed to varying degrees by the Act, NZ First and National parties, which form the present coalition Government.

Awaited Reaction: Hysteria, Indifference, Boycott?

The publication of Asher’s Who was Behind the Bolshevik Revolution? marks a radical and surprising turn. Moreso, since it deals with issues that have not been widely discussed in New Zealand since the 1930s, with lingering traces of the topic among the old guard of the Social Credit movement up until the 1950s, and the presence of the relatively large New Zealand League of Rights during the 1970s.

The subject under examination is the alleged disproportionate presence of Jews in the 1917 Russian Bolshevik coup and Soviet government. In publishing this book, one might wonder whether McLean has signed a (figurative) death warrant for Tross? While the repudiation of implicitly anti-White pseudohistory in most of Tross’s inventory has caused Tross various problems it has also gained the type of public attention that has increased book sales.[iv] However, the subject of Jews that is the focus of Who was Behind the Bolshevik Revolution? is so beyond the ken of New Zealanders that McLean is likely to undergo not only pressure and smears that are far more intense than anything hitherto experienced on questions of New Zealand’s history, but also a lack of comprehension from the public.

Whatever smears and prosecutions McLean might face are liable to bring not sympathy, as hitherto, but indifference at best. Conversely, it could be that he will instead be faced with “the silent treatment” rather than histrionics, but that has not tended to be the reaction of bodies such as the Jewish Council et al. The cry of “anti-Semitism” is just as likely to be exclaimed in New Zealand as in the USA, Australia or Europe.[v]

First Review: An Indicator?

The first review of the book comes from Peter Cresswell, apparently a libertarian blogger, claiming to be “politically incorrect,” but not to the extent of giving Asher’s book a balanced review let alone a positive one.[vi] Rather, Cresswell goes “over the top” in his eagerness to repudiate Asher’s book, to the extent that one might conclude that, to paraphrase the great bard, he “protests too much.” Is this because Cresswell has been a contributor to at least three Tross books, two on Maori issues and one on “free speech”?[vii] The irony of this is pointed out by McLean in his retort to Cresswell’s review,[viii] where Cresswell wants the book “withdrawn.” It might be concluded that the reason for Cresswell’s lengthy and vitriolic review is to undertake some personal damage control, before he gets tarred with the “anti-Semitism” brush, because of his previous writings for Tross.

So eager is Cresswell to be seen on the side of the pure and the righteous that he includes two paragraphs on this reviewer, with the claim that I am the primary current source for the long-held allegation that Jacob Schiff was the main bankroller of the Bolshevik revolution. Cresswell refers to a peer-reviewed paper I had written for The International Journal of Russian Studies, entitled “Responses of International Capital to the Russian Revolutions.”[ix] However, the focus of my paper is not on Jews, Schiff, nor solely on Bolshevism.

Yet, as pointed out by McLean in his response to Cresswell, I am not mentioned, cited or in any way connected with the Asher book, which makes Cresswell’s two paragraph diatribe against me rather odd. Of this McLean retorts:

Unable to help himself in his rage, the reviewer wrote of the “Recrudescence of Anti-Semitic feeling of which Mr. Asher’s book is an ongoing part” the usual standard smear of “anti-Semitism” and further misinformation. His barely concealed anger even resulted in him devoting two paragraphs in lashing out at Kerry Bolton, a writer who was neither mentioned nor cited in the book. Why this irrelevance?

However, Mr. Bolton was not alone in being the victim of the smear. In fact, virtually every person and authority quoted in the book has suffered the same fate. Some examples. Belloc – “the noted anti-Semite” (again, the standard smear), Denis Fahey – “a fascist, would-be theocrat”…[x]

Toing and Froing over Data

The crux of Cresswell’s critique is to argue points over the percentages of Jews in the Soviet Government. Cresswell brings forth statistics on the percentage of Jews in the Soviet apparatus that conflict with those cited by Asher, from Father Denis Fahey, Robert Wilton, et al. However, what is more significant is that the chief luminaries of Bolshevism were overwhelmingly Jewish. For example, the postcard by Moisei Nappelbaum issued in 1918 to depict the “leaders of the proletarian revolution” shows Lenin, Zinoviev, Lunacharsky, Trotsky, Kamenev and Sverdlov. Lenin was of mixed parentage, with a Jewish component, Lunacharsky a Russia. The rest…?

As McLean states, the other premise of Cresswell’s review is to offhandedly dismiss all of Asher’s sources. Father Denis Fahey, from whose book The Rulers of Russia (1938), Asher proceeds, is reduced by Cresswell to being no more than a “a fascist, would-be theocrat.” Gaining two doctorates, Fahey served as a professor of theology and Church history. His criticism of Jews, of course, was based on traditional Catholic theology. Others include Robert Wilton, Petrograd correspondent for The London Times, a careful observer who does not thoughtlessly throw about the word “Jew;”[xi] and Winston Churchill, who wrote in 1920 of Bolshevism being a “worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation” among Jews.[xii] New Zealander A N Field, whose books were best-sellers during the Depression era, is dismissed without ado, although he was widely recognized as an authority on banking issues. One gets the impression that Cresswell has done nothing more than run the names through Wikipedia.

Jewish Communists and Jewish Bankers

At the time of the revolution, Jewish involvement was widely discussed in diplomatic, military and intelligence circles. M. Oudendyke, representative of The Netherlands in Petrograd, also representing British interests, wrote a report, cited by Asher (p. 45), in which he states that Bolshevism, “is organised and worked by Jews.”[xiii] It is notable that the original British White Paper on Bolshevism was withdrawn and Oudendyke’s report in the subsequent edition had been removed. This gave rise to a myth that “anti-Semites” had falsified the Oydendyke comments. For example, in a 1950 book on the USA between the world wars, in a chapter attacking Father Charles Coughlin, Wallace Stegner writes that Coughlin and his newspaper Social Justice lost credibility for supposedly false claims about “a British White Paper” and “an American Secret Service report”. According to Stegner there never was such a Secret Service report, and the White Paper did not state what Coughlin claimed. The material had been taken from a “Nazi propaganda agency.”[xiv] If the British Government succumbed to pressure to redact the Oudendyke comments, and perhaps others of a similar nature, then maybe McLean is correct in his retort to Cresswell that the Soviet government was also eager to obscure the disproportionate involvement of Jews when releasing its statistics?

As for the U.S. Secret Service report, which specifically identifies Bolshevism with Jews and Jewish bankers, this too really exists, and is cited by Asher (p. 42) in regard to Schiff and other bankers funding the Bolsheviks. Asher identifies the report as U.S. State Dept. Decimal File (861-00/5339). This is identified by Stanford university and Hoover Institute research specialist Professor Antony Sutton, in his Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution.[xv] Sutton sought to repudiate the allegations of the Jewishness of Bolshevism, while documenting the myriad links between international banking, industrial corporations and Bolshevik Russia. The document, which Sutton states was composed by an anonymous member of the U.S. War Trade Board,[xvi] includes some accurate information such as the role of Max Warburg and of Olof Aschberg of the Nye Banken in transferring funds to the Bolsheviks. The document also alludes to Jivotovsky (Abram Zhivotovsky), a banker, as Trotsky’s “father -in-law,” whom Sutton fails to identify. This mysterious banker with international connections was identified by Dr Richard B Spence, whose book Wall Street and the Russian Revolution 1905–1928 supersedes Sutton’s research,[xvii] as Trotsky’s uncle, who was involved with funding the Bolsheviks. He and his brothers acted for the Bolshevik state in financial dealings with the West. The identity of Zhivotovsky can now be readily found.[xviii]

Wartime Manoeuvres

Cresswell attempts to repudiate the role of Jewish bankers by citing the German High Command being partly responsible for the Bolshevik coup, having funded and facilitated Lenin’s return to Russia. While reproducing a page from The Life of Lenin by Louis Fischer (1964) on German involvement, no mention is made of the central role of Parvus (Alexander Israel Helphand),[xix] who combined prominence in Marxism with war-profiteering and speculation, whom Pearson calls “a millionaire Marxist,” who, although still having “socialist ambitions” “had become a caricature tycoon with an enormous car, a string of blondes, thick cigars, and a passion for champagne…”[xx] The German funds (from Warburg?) were transmitted via Aschberg’s Nye Banken in Stockholm.[xxi]

While the German High Command was attempting to manipulate Lenin, the British War Cabinet sought to cultivate Trotsky, and with assistance from the USA facilitated Trotsky’s return to Russia from New York, securing his release from detention in Nova Scotia, where he had been waylaid by British Naval Intelligence. British intelligence officer Sir William Wiseman, a banker by profession, was the principal character in this, liaising between the British and U.S. governments. After the war he entered partnership with Kuhn, Loeb & Co. [xxii] Once in Russia, Trotsky’s support for the continuation of the war with Germany, in contrast to the position of Lenin, resulted in association with the British agent, R H Bruce Lockhart, whose memoirs describe the situation.[xxiii]

Unfortunately, the question of the funding of the revolutionary movements in Russia, one of the most interesting aspects of the subject, is the weakest of Asher’s documentation, mainly relying on alleged hearsay from Jacob Schiff’s grandson, John, via a gossip columnist, that Jacob had funded the Bolsheviks with $20,000,000. Cresswell understandably challenges this source. The actual role of Schiff, which is not primarily with the Bolsheviks, but rather with the groundwork for revolt as early as 1905, has been documented by Spence in Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolutions; and by this reviewer,[xxiv] Cresswell not citing the latter, despite his gratuitous personal quip.

Here we see various interests, Jewish, German, British, converging to topple the Czar. Above the wartime rivalries, finance-capitalism showed an innate “rootless cosmopolitanism” (to paraphrase Stalin) that is often identified with its Jewish input, one might say a global nomadism of trade. Here too one might theorise on this persistent nomadism as explaining why there is disproportionate Jewish involvement in both capitalism[xxv] and its supposed antithesis on the Left. This, I suggest, is more a matter of sociohistorical analysis[xxvi] than “conspiracy theory,” although this is not to say that “conspiracy theory” should be dismissed as a symptom of a more complex cause.

Why no accountability?

For Asher the issue is straightforward: one of Jewish conspiracy, and it is understandable that he should keep to a basic premise when trying to write for a New Zealand readership.

His purpose is limited: asking why Jews are exempt from being called to account for the crimes of the Bolsheviks when so many participated in those crimes? There has been a collective, hereditary guilt complex imposed on others, particularly generations of Germans,[xxvii] extended to the Vatican,[xxviii] Christendom[xxix] and the entirety of Western civilization.

If Christianity was responsible for the Holocaust, then might it not also be alleged that the pathological paranoia against Christians imbued by Judaism into Jewish youngsters, has contributed to the character of Bolshevist atrocities against Christians, regardless of whether Jewish Bolshevists were acting as “atheists”? Might not the messianic element in Judaism also have been transferred to Bolshevism?

Messianic Bolshevism

In this respect, regarding the bolshevization of the messianic complex, although not mentioned by Asher, a chapter might have well been included on its expression in the Bolshevik state’s League of the Godless, responsible for the anti-Christian measures under the leadership of Yemelyan Yaroslavsky (born Minei Izrailevich Gubelman). In an interesting paper on Soviet Jewry, Robert Weinberg writes on this:

Many radical Jews embraced the Bolshevik cause and spearheaded efforts to spread revolution within the Jewish community. Iaroslavskii, for example, the head of the League of the Godless, was a Jew born Minei Israilovich Gubel’man. Many of these activists came from religiously observant families, and notwithstanding their break from the world of their parents and grandparents, these Jewish Bolsheviks undoubtedly possessed first-hand experience with Jewish religious life that they could pass on to gentile colleagues.[xxx]

For every rabbi such as my grandfather who sought refuge in the United States in 1923, there was another Soviet Jew, such as my grandfather’s brother-in-law, who stayed behind and took advantage of the opportunities the Soviet regime offered to nonreligious Jews.[xxxi]

If collective, hereditary guilt is to be foisted upon different nations and ethnicities, then why not Jews for involvement in Bolshevism? On the other hand, one might urge that the entire concept of collective hereditary guilt should be repudiated as a travesty against civilized behaviour regardless of who it is aimed at. It has something of the Old Testament at its core.

While Cresswell points out that the first head of the Cheka was a Pole, Felix Dzerzhinsky, which is supposed to repudiate Asher’s comments about the disproportionate presence of Jews in the Soviet secret police, Jewish scholars have no qualms about commenting on such involvement. For example, Prof. Leonard Schapiro in his introduction to The Jews in Soviet Russia since 1917, writes:

After the Revolution, the prevalence up to the mid-thirties of Jews at all levels of the dominant, often unpopular, communist machine, and particularly in the police – the Cheka, the GPU, and the NKVD – often led to the identification of anticommunism with antisemitism.[xxxii]

Note that Schapiro alludes to “the prevalence … of Jews at all levels …” He states that until the 1930s the Soviet regime was rigorous in suppressing antisemitism; so sensitive were the Bolsheviks to the widespread perception of the character of the state. McLean’s retort to Cresswell that the Soviets skewered the numbers therefore seems credible.

The eminent Jewish Muscovite writer Arkady Vaksberg wrote of the Jews in the Red Terror, beginning with their role in the murder of the Czar and his family, “But there is no getting around the fact that the first violins in the orchestra of death of the tsar and his family were four Jews – Yanker Yurovsky, Shaia Goloshchekin, Lev Sosnovsky, and Pinkus Vainer. The concert master was Yakov Sverdlov.”[xxxiii] Vaksberg states that while Dzerzhinsky focused his attention on being head of the Higher Council on Agriculture, “Yagoda was the real chief.”[xxxiv] Yagoda assumed leadership of the OGPU during 1934-36.

Israel Protected Wanted Murderers

Although not mentioned by Asher, what could have bolstered his argument about lack of accountability is the role of Israel in providing asylum for former Soviet secret police officers wanted for atrocities after World War II, including Solomon Morel from Poland; and Nachman Dushansky and Semion Berkis-Burkov, whose extraditions from Israel were sought by the Lithuanian Prosecutor-General’s Office. Naturally, Israel refused to co-operate.

In Latvia when the Soviets invaded in 1940, Jewish secret police officers were notable in the Red Terror, including Semion Shustin as State Security commissar; Alfons Noviks, Interior Commissar NKVD; Berei Shivoshinsky, head of the concentration camps; Izak Bucinskis; organizer of the People’s Militia (Communist police), and Moses Citrons, director of the NKVD at Daugavopils. When some of these, such as Noviks, were tried, the reaction of Jewish organizations was that of outrage.[xxxv] This callous disregard by Jewish organizations for the victims of Bolshevism when Jews were the perpetrators, suggests that Asher has a valid point in questioning the lack of accountability.

Conclusion

As for how one might interpret the data presented by Asher, there are various perspectives. A Catholic traditionalist might contend that the Jewish involvement in Bolshevism is the result of their rejection of Christ and hence their fall from divine grace (e.g. Father Fahey), possessed of a satanic “revolutionary spirit,” (e.g. Dr E Michael Jones)[xxxvi]  insofar that Satan is the spirit of negation; while the evolutionary psychologist Dr Kevin McDonald explains Jewish involvement in Bolshevism and other dissolutive movements, as part of an evolutionary defence mechanism.

Asher does not aim to present an interpretative analysis, but only to present data on Jewish involvement in Bolshevism, and to pose the question as to why Jews are not held accountable? Unfortunately, he overlooked a key factor that could bolster his contention: namely that Israel adamantly refused to turn over Jewish NKVD murderers when called on to do so, and indeed Jewish organizations expressed outrage at the very suggestion. Nonetheless, Asher has boldly (some will say foolishly) examined a subject that has not been considered in New Zealand since A N Field’s Depression-era best-sellers such as All These Things (1936). Whatever the shortcomings of the book, it is a brave effort that merits support.

[i] Andy Oakley, Once we were One: The Fraud of Modern Separatism (Wellington, Tross Publishing, 2017).

[ii] J McLean, “Apartheid in the 21st Century,” Tross blog, https://trosspublishing.com/tag/bumiputra/

[iii] For a dissenting pro-apartheid opinion see: Bolton, “Contra ‘One nation, one people,’” The European New Zealander, April 9, 2022; https://theeuropeannewzealander.net/2022/04/09/contra-one-nation-one-people/

[iv] “Company accused of anti-Maori publishing promoting books at schools,” TV1 News, December 12, 2021, https://www.1news.co.nz/2021/12/12/company-accused-of-anti-maori-publishing-promoting-books-at-schools/

“Racist propaganda: the undercover campaign to infiltrate school libraries,” Stuff, July 2, 2023, https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/300899633/racist-propaganda-the-undercover-campaign-to-infiltrate-school-libraries

[v] K R Bolton, “Anti-Semitism Downunder: Left, Right or… Imaginary?,” The European New Zealander, August 28, 2022, https://theeuropeannewzealander.net/2022/08/28/anti-semitism-downunder-left-right-or-imaginary/

[vi] P Cresswell, Book review, Not PC, https://pc.blogspot.com/2026/03/book-review-who-was-behind-bolshevik.html

[vii] Tross Publishing, https://trosspublishing.com/?s=Cresswell

[viii] J McLean, “The Smear of Anti-Semitism,” https://trosspublishing.com/blog/

[ix] K R Bolton, “Responses of International Capital to the Russian Revolutions,” The International Journal of Russian Studies, Issue 1, 2012, https://www.ijors.net/issue1_1_2012/articles/bolton.html

[x] McLean, op. cit.

[xi] Robert Wilton, Russia’s Agony (New York: Dutton & Co., 1919); online: https://archive.org/details/russiasagony02wilt/page/n9/mode/2up

R Wilton and G Telberg, The Last Days of the Romanovs (New York: Doran Co., 1920); online: https://archive.org/details/lastdaysromanov00sokogoog/page/n9/mode/2up

[xii] W Churchill, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: a Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish

People,” Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920, p. 5.

[xiii] A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia, Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty, April 1919 No. 1 (1919), [with] A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia.

[xiv] W Stegner, “The Radio Priest and his Flock,” in I Leighton (ed.) The Aspirin Age 1919 to 1941 (London: The Bodley Head, 1950), p. 251.

[xv] A Sutton, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (New Rochelle: Arlington House Publishers, 1974), “The Jewish Conspiracy Theory of the Bolshevik Revolution,” pp. 186-187.

[xvi] This would seem likely to have been Boris Brasol, a prominent Russian jurist, who served on the board on behalf of Czarist Russia, and who regarded Bolshevism as Jewish.

[xvii] Richard B Spence, Wall Street and the Russian Revolution 1905-1928 (Or.: Trine Day, 2017).

[xviii] “Abram Lvovich Zhivatovsky,” https://www.geni.com/people/Abram-Zhivatovsky/6000000003209123273

[xix] Sutton, p. 41.

[xx] Michael Pearson, The Sealed Train (London: Macmillan, 1975), p. 58.

[xxi] Sutton, p. 59.

[xxii] Spence, pp. 161, 178.

[xxiii] R H Bruce Lockhart, Memoirs of a British Agent (London: Putnam, 1934), inter alia.

[xxiv] K R Bolton, “Responses of International Capital to the Russian Revolution.”

[xxv] Werner Sombart, The Jews and Modern Capitalism (London: Unwin, 1913).; online:  https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.152143/page/n1/mode/1up

[xxvi] Kevin McDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (Antelope Hill, 2026), https://antelopehillpublishing.com/product/the-culture-of-critique-by-dr-kevin-macdonald/

[xxvii] Daniel Goldhagen, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (Alfred A Knopf, 1996).

[xxviii] John Cornwall, Hitler’s Pope (Viking, 1999).

Susan Zuccotti, Under His Very Windows: the Vatican and the Holocaust in Italy (Yale University Press, 2000).

[xxix] Simon Ponsonby, “The Shocking Truth About Christianity and the Holocaust,” Premier Christianity, https://www.premierchristianity.com/features/the-shocking-truth-about-christianity-and-the-holocaust/3934.article

[xxx] Robert Weinberg, “Demonizing Judaism in the Soviet Union During The 1920s,” Slavic Review. Volume 67, Issue 1, 2008, p. 146; https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-history/88

[xxxi] Robert Weinberg, p. 121.

[xxxii] Schapiro in L Kochan (ed.) The Jews in Soviet Russia since 1917 (London: Inst. of Jewish Affairs, Oxford University Press, 19070), p. 9.

[xxxiii] A Vaksberg ,Stalin Against the Jews (New York: Knopf, 1994), p. 37.

[xxxiv] Vaksberg, p. 35.

[xxxv] “Around the Jewish World: Latvian Jews Troubled by ‘Genocide’ Conviction of a Former Soviet Official,” JTA, 11 October 1999, https://www.jta.org/archive/around-the-jewish-world-latvian-jews-troubled-by-genocide-conviction-of-a-former-soviet-official-2

[xxxvi] E Michael Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit and Its Impact on World History (Fidelity Press, 2008).

Cabbages and Kingfishers: An Appreciation of a Jewish Literary Giant

/1 Comment/in , /by

The book I remembered; the author I forgot. Not that I ever read the book. I just read about it in Anthony Burgess’s Ninety-Nine Novels: The Best in English since 1939 – A Personal Choice (1984). One of the choices was called Riddley Walker and Burgess lavished praise on it. He described how it used a kind of mutated future English, being set two thousand years ahead after a civilization-smashing nuclear war. I liked the idea of the mutant English but wasn’t enticed by the execution, to judge by the quotes Burgess chose.[1] So I never sought the novel out and I forgot the author’s name, although I did remember the title and the praise Burgess lavished on it.

Tuning in to beauty

Decades later it’s March 2026 and I’m in a second-hand bookshop. I come across two slim books in the Penguin Modern Classics series. I vaguely recognize the author’s name: Russell Hoban. And I like the unusual titles: The Medusa Frequency and Mr Rinyo-Clacton’s Offer. Each has blurbs for more of Hoban’s books at the back and one of these is Riddley Walker, with a snatch of the mutant English. Ah, I think, this is the author praised so highly by Anthony Burgess. Then I see how Hoban was described by the London Times after his death in 2011: “perhaps the most consistently strange writer of the late 20th century.” That sounds good. So I buy the books and take them home to try.

Open for enchantment: the covers of The Medusa Frequency and Mr Rinyo-Clacton’s Offer}

And what happened next? Well, at first I was disappointed with my new purchases, trying the early pages of The Medusa Frequency (1987), then switching to Mr Rinyo-Clacton’s Offer (1998), then switching back. Yes, the writing was strange but also seemed shapeless, disjointed, arbitrary and unfocused. Then all at once I tuned in, as it were. I was suddenly struck by the beauty of the sentences in The Medusa Frequency, their lucidity, their luminance. They suddenly seemed like long brushstrokes in enchanted paint, glowing in the mind as the eye passed over them, fading in the memory as the eye passed on. Or like streaks of phosphorescence excited in a night-dark, blood-warm tropical sea by the sleek form of a speeding dolphin, surfacing and submerging and surfacing. It was as though I had been twiddling the knob of an old-fashioned radio and had suddenly passed from hissing, buzzing static to an ear-blessing of Mozart or Vivaldi, clear and calm and beautiful.[2] That’s what it was like tuning into the beauty of Hoban’s sentences, of his prose as a whole.

Slithe & Tovey

And the prose itself was acutely aware of natural, artistic and female beauty. Try this: “The flight of the kingfisher opened in the air above the river a blue-green iridescent stillness in which a dragonfly, immense and transparent, repeated itself with every wingstroke.” And this: “Looking down into the water I saw rising a vast and ivory nakedness and a woman’s face of terrifying beauty.” The prose was indeed as strange as the Times had promised, and seeded with humor, and self-knowing, sometimes self-mocking. Here’s another quote from The Medusa Frequency: “I came to [my new job] via an advertising agency called Slithe & Tovey where I used to write copy for Orpheus Men’s Toiletries, Hermes Foot Powder, Pluto Drain Magic, and several non-classical accounts.”[3] Here’s a longer quote:

My desk is a clutter of stones written upon and not; sea-shells, acorns and oak leaves, china mermaids from long-gone aquaria, postcards of medieval carven lions, clockwork frogs and photographs of distant moments. It’s a good desk, there’s a lot of action even when I’m not there. Propped up amongst the stones and clutter are two books open at colour plates of Vermeer’s Head of a Young Girl; there are also a postcard of it stuck on the edge of the monitor screen and a large print over the fireplace. Night and day in all weathers she looks out at me from her hereness and her goneness. Even the ageing of the painting seems organic to it; one can see in the reproductions how the reticulation of fine cracks follows lovingly from light into shadow the curve of her cheek, the softness of her mouth, the glisten of her eyes, the fineness of brow and nose, the delicacy of her chin. (“The Vermeer Girl,” chapter 3 of The Medusa Frequency)

After I’d tuned in and read on, Hoban seemed not only like my kind of writer – “The reality that interests me is strange and flickering and haunting” – but also like my kind of man. I’ve had desks with the same eclectic clutter of art and nature. And I love Vermeer, just as I love kingfishers and dragonflies. I love a lot of the other things Hoban crams into The Medusa Frequency. But without seeming to cram them, because his writing is as light and effortless as Mozart or Vivaldi, yet full of meaning and mind-meat in a way that music isn’t. The Medusa Frequency bubbles and burgeons with poetry and Greek myth and nature and the sea and lucid dreaming and word-play and London-as-it-used-to-be. That is, White London, properly English London, before it was submerged by the mud flood of mass migration from the Third World. Yes, Hoban seemed to me not just a beautiful writer and a highly intelligent and deeply learned writer, but a very White writer too. He seemed in love not just with London and England, but with Europe as a whole, with her civilization, her literature, art, music and myth. And I was right: he was a Europhile. When I went online to look for more information about him, I discovered that he once said this: “It is art and the creation of art that sustains me. Things like Conrad’s Nostromo or Schubert’s Winterreise or Haydn’s Creation or paintings by Daumier make me feel it is a good thing to be part of the human race.”

American, not British

So he loved White European art and artists. But one of the reasons I went to look for more information is that a question had occurred to me after I had tuned in to the beauty of his prose and decided that he was a very White writer. I suddenly asked myself: Was he Jewish? I don’t associate beauty and Europhilia with Jews, but I do associate high intelligence and deep learning. I also associate sleaziness and subversion with Jews. True, I haven’t come across anything yet in Hoban’s writing that I would call sleazy or subversive, but I didn’t like the way the narrator of Mr Rinyo-Clacton’s Offer is buggered by the biblionym within the first few pages.

Russell Hoban with some of his books in 2005 (image from the Guardian)

Amid the narrator’s loving descriptions of women and female beauty, that came as an unpleasant surprise. And although the descriptions of women were loving, there was lust in the writing too and a certain sexual explicitness. All of that made me suddenly ask myself: Was he Jewish? Yes, it turned out, he was. He was also American rather than British, as I’d assumed from his easy command of British English. Russell Hoban was born in Pennsylvania in 1925 to Yiddish-speaking parents from what is now Ukraine. I assume the experience of hearing one language at home and another outside fed into the logomania and logophilia that are so evident in The Medusa Frequency.

Two gentile gents

I also assume that Hoban’s mother-tongue must have been Yiddish and not English. There’s no trace of that in his writing. Yes, it’s strange writing but not with the strangeness of someone using a second language, instead it’s the strangeness of someone completely at home in English and completely in love with English. The strangeness is that of someone playing with English, turning it one way and another, juggling with words, setting words spinning like tops so that they whirr and jingle and glitter. And it was two very gentile Anglophones that The Medusa Frequency most reminded me of. There’s joy in the writing there and I felt happy as I read it. So I thought of P.G. Wodehouse. And there’s enchantment in the writing there, as though the words were conjuring deep things beneath the page. So I thought of Robert Aickman.

Hoban is a lot more cerebral than Wodehouse and a lot more light-hearted than Aickman, but those are the two comparisons that first came to me. Aickman in particular, because, like him, Hoban was a word-magician, blessed with the ability to conjure far more in the mind than seems possible with what’s there on the page. After all, what is on the page? Just black ink on white paper. How can that conjure a world in the head? Yet it does even in the work of bad writers. In the work of word-magicians like Aickman and Hoban, the world conjured by ink-on-paper makes the real world fade around you as you read. And I come back to that word enchantment. It’s what the great German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) felt had been banished from life by the industrial revolution, by commerce and the rise of modern science. He called this die Entzauberung der Welt – “the disenchantment of the world.”

“Their song of distance”

Part of what Hoban was trying to do in books like The Medusa Frequency was to re-enchant the world. And not by a kind of literary Luddism, not by ignoring or minimizing disenchanting things like technology, electricity and electronics. No, even computer monitors and streetlights are enchanted in The Medusa Frequency. So are a cabbage and a soccer-ball, both of which serve as the severed head of Orpheus at one time or another (as one website puts it: “the Head of Orpheus manifests before him as a talking cabbage in his fridge”). As for an older product of the Industrial Revolution, here’s another of Hoban’s beautiful sentences: “The train wheels, now authorized to take up their song of distance, clacked and clattered their traditional shanty of miles.” And here’s more from Hoban’s description of that mere mundane train-journey:

An ordinary mirror is silvered at the back but the window of a night train has darkness behind the glass. My face and the faces of other travellers were now mirrored on this darkness in a succession of stillnesses. Consider this, said the darkness: any motion at any speed is a succession of stillnesses; any section through an action will show just such a plane of stillness as this dark window in which your seeking face is mirrored. And in each plane of stillness is the moment of clarity that makes you responsible for what you do. (Chapter 13, “The Hague”)

If that seems to slide into the sententious, well, in context it doesn’t. And I’ll never travel on a night train again without thinking of it. In the book, the narrator’s night train carries him to a ferry from England to Holland, where he tries to see the original of his reproductions of Vermeer’s Head of a Young Girl. But the painting is on loan to America and instead of seeing the girl, he converses with Gösta Kraken. That’s the pretentious director of an avant-garde film about “the head of Orpheus swimming up the Thames.” The narrator isn’t impressed by Kraken’s jargon: “I’m not taking that from you, nor ‘self-consuming antistrophe’ either. Don’t you come the deconstructionist with me, you ponce.”

Life-enchanter and life-enhancer

Reading that, I did what I often did with The Medusa Frequency. I laughed. Hoban is not only an enchanted writer, he’s a very funny one. But there’s awe and sublimity in his writing too. Gösta Kraken is a joke, but the Kraken itself isn’t. It’s a character in the story just as the Head of Orpheus is. Although there’s humor in Hoban’s descriptions, the Kraken retains the majesty and mystery of the poem by Tennyson that was one of the book’s inspirations:

Below the thunders of the upper deep,
Far, far beneath in the abysmal sea,
His ancient, dreamless, uninvaded sleep
The Kraken sleepeth: faintest sunlights flee
About his shadowy sides; above him swell
Huge sponges of millennial growth and height;
And far away into the sickly light,
From many a wondrous grot and secret cell
Unnumbered and enormous polypi
Winnow with giant arms the slumbering green.
There hath he lain for ages, and will lie
Battening upon huge sea worms in his sleep,
Until the latter fire shall heat the deep;
Then once by man and angels to be seen,
In roaring he shall rise and on the surface die.

Tennyson was an enchanted writer too, conjuring far more in the mind than seems possible with what lies on the page. Hoban’s love of his poetry is further proof of Hoban’s Europhilia. Russell Hoban was Jewish but he wasn’t an ugly, disenchanting kvetcher in the Culture of Critique. No, he was a Jewish giant of the strange and surreal, a life-enchanter and life-enhancer, re-magicking the everyday with all the riches and richness of White European art, culture and history. I’m very glad to have learnt what a good writer he is and very happy to acknowledge him as one of the individual Jews who love the West and have contributed great things to the West. But alas! Hoban and his beautiful, enchanted prose don’t alter the fact that Jews as a tribe are ancient enemies of the West and are still doing their best to wreck the West.

[1] Inter alia, the English didn’t seem altered enough in two millennia: “Stoans want to be lissent to. Them big brown stoans in the formers feal they want to stan up and talk like men.”

[2] I was trying to write like Hoban himself in those three sentences. And failing miserably.

[3] “Slithe & Tovey” is a nod to Lewis Carroll’s poem “Jabberwocky.” The title of this article, “Cabbages and Kingfishers,” is a nod to Carroll’s poem “The Walrus and the Carpenter.”

Britain’s Islamic Coup

/20 Comments/in , /by

The hippies of the 1960s had many colorful phrases to express their minimalist grasp of politics. Some of these gnomic one-liners, however, held a grain of truth. “Whoever you vote for, the government always gets in” describes today’s British uniparty to a nicety, even if that is on the way out, at least in its current form. With the Conservatives going the way of the Whigs in the nineteenth century, and Labour continuing to collapse in the polls, Britons can only hope Nigel Farage’s Reform UK, and even Rupert Lowe’s Restore Britain, are not part of the same machinery, the deep state, the system.

Speaking of which, back in the Sixties, Timothy Leary’s exhortation to “turn on, tune in, drop out”, was more than just an invitation to a decade-long drug party. This imperative was telling the listener to grasp what it means to live inside “the system” and then think about getting out. Anyone who has ever gone “off the grid” will understand, and this escapist, naturally defensive impulse is once again catching on as the malevolence of the globalist system becomes ever more apparent to ever more people. But one phrase from the 1960s (a decade which has caused us untold trouble ever since), with a couple of minor adjustments to fit our modern world, might serve today; “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” This line is attributed to a pacifist poet of the day, Carl Wittman, during the anti-Vietnam War movement. But applying it today (with some modification) to Britain and its increasing Islamic presence, we might re-phrase it thus: “What if they staged a coup and nobody noticed?”

If Islam is not gradually taking control of British governance both at a local level and in “the mother of all Parliaments”, then it is doing an excellent impersonation of doing just that. Up at the top of the political ladder, Britain has a Muslim Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood, who says that Islam is at the forefront of everything she does, and London’s Muslim Mayor has said pretty much the same thing throughout his almost 10-year tenure. A few rungs down, the Labour MP for Dewsbury and Batley, Iqbal Mohamed, recently said in the House of Commons that there should be sanctions against British MPs who exhibit “Islamophobia”, an ill-defined phrase that means approximately the same as “anti-Semitism”. That is, anything Jews and Muslims don’t want to hear spoken out loud concerning their respective tribes (and these people are tribal at heart). Ten of the UK’s major cities have Muslim mayors. There are Muslim enclaves in the Civil Service, the Home Office, and the Police Force (or “Police Service”, as it has been pacifically re-branded). The National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) represents a sub-section of the British police along the lines of the Association of Black Police Officers. This sectarianism is rife in the British public sector, and any ethnic grouping will find representatives in their chosen field. Unless, it goes without saying, you are White. As for the new political opposition in the House, Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has a Muslim Chair, Zia Yusuf, and their next London Mayoral candidate, Laila Cunningham, is a Muslima. Farage has no choice but to cozy up to Islam, despite his occasional bluster about increasing Muslim influence politically and culturally. He told an interviewer last year that to alienate the Muslim vote would be electoral suicide, and he is right. Muslims vote in far higher numbers per capita than the native population. Ballot day is even a rare day out for the wives. The local imam tells the head of the house which box to put their X in, and the husbands tell the wives. This is line-management, Islamic style. The Greens, another party doing increasingly well in the polls, are clearly being used as a Trojan horse for Islam. At a recent by-election victory, the victorious Green Party candidate, a Muslim, yelled “Allahu Akhbar!” during his acceptance speech, and dedicated his victory to Gaza.

The first supposed rebuttal of the idea that Britain is being Islamized with the complicity of the British Government is that it is a “conspiracy theory”, that weary old trope. So why not ask an expert? Edmund Fitton-Brown, a man with a superbly British name, worked from 1984 to 2017 for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (the UK equivalent to the US Foreign Ministry). In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Mr. Fitton-Brown claimed that “Islamist entryism… [can be seen] throughout the Civil Service”, adding that this venerable body “reflects society”.

“Entryism” is now becoming an in-vogue word among the dissident Right (such as it is), and is associated with Britain’s Fabian Society, a long-established group of Socialist 5th-columnists. Muslims are metaphysically equipped to play the same long game as the Fabians, but things are accelerating.

The increasing presence of Islam in British life is not confined to politics and the infrastructure of government, however. In March, London’s iconic Trafalgar Square was occupied in a manner of which Hitler could only have dreamt. Trafalgar Square, with its famous Nelson’s Column, was often used as a visual establisher in old, black-and-white movies, telling the audience that the film’s action was moving to London, in the same way the Eiffel Tower showed the movie-watcher that we were now in Paris. Trafalgar Square is famously home to flocks of pigeons, but in March it was taken over by a different flock: Muslims.

Led by Sadiq — now Sir Sadiq — Khan, the London Mayor, thousands of Muslims took to their knees to pray in the open air, despite mosques springing up in London like morning mushrooms. They completely occupied this most famous of public spaces. They were celebrating iftar, the end of Ramadan, and Khan claimed this was the largest such celebration of its kind in the world. Nick Tomothy, the Conservative Shadow Justice Minister, called this an “act of domination”, and was predictably vilified for talking out of class about this absurd ritual. Ramadan is portrayed as noble and virtuous, one of many wonderful things from the Islamic world. In reality, it just means skipping lunch, something any of us could do without inconvenience. I’m no dietician, but skipping lunch would not be a bad idea for many Muslims, given the size of some of the men present in their absurd mix of pajamas and black leisure-wear. But the prayer-meeting was clearly a visible sign of dominance, and it was not confined to Trafalgar Square.

Football — or “soccer”, for American readers — is something like a replacement for religion in the UK. The two teams currently tussling for the Premier League title are Arsenal and Manchester City, who used to play at stadiums named for parts of their respective cities: Highbury and Maine Road. As both teams needed larger, higher-capacity grounds, they were duly built and named after their sponsors. So it is that the two leading teams in the land now play at the Emirates Stadium and the Etihad Stadium respectively. During Ramadan, the call to prayer rang out at many stadiums.

At the end of Ramadan, when Muslims are allowed to eat during daylight hours, football games across the country were stopped for Muslims to get some refreshment. Fans of Leeds United — notorious for their violence in the heyday of British football hooliganism in the 1970s — booed the fact that the game they had paid a lot of money to watch had to be stopped for a religious observance. There will undoubtedly be ongoing police investigations, perhaps with a detail from the National Association  of Muslim Police taking the lead.

So, that is the state of play in Britain. How about the international stage? In terms of policy influence, Islam has a strong gravitational pull in some areas. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s refusal to allow the U.S. to use its airbases to strike Iran infuriated President Trump, and was almost certainly done to placate the Islamic lobby. Similarly, the vote against the “grooming gang” enquiry was entirely engineered to protect vulnerable, high-profile Labour seats, such as that of Jess Philips, in Muslim wards. Philips is the Minister for the Protection of Women, but voted against an inquiry into one of the UK’s darkest chapters against women. In the last election, her winning margin in an overtly Islamic electoral ward was cut from thousands of votes to hundreds, hence her voting against something Muslims do not want investigated. She too is quick to stress to Muslims that the UK was not involved in offensive strikes against Iran. It is a curious thing that many Muslims angered by potential British involvement in military action against Iran are Sunni, while Iran is 90% Shia. When it suits Islam, it becomes the monolith it often claims it is not.

Harry Cole, Editor-at-Large at The Sun newspaper, got an exclusive interview with Donald Trump shortly after Starmer’s announcement of non-co-operation in the Iran offensive. Now, even the MSM can’t ignore Muslim influence over policy, because Trump noticed and said so. He told Cole that it looked as though the Prime Minister was pandering to his Muslim voting bloc, and he was right. The nature of that bloc, however, is changing both its allegiances and its tactics at local level.

And, like all good parasites, Islam has found a host nation whose king may even be a convert. Internet rumors are the modern version of village gossip, the difference being that the chattering wives of yesteryear had no way to confirm their beliefs. That is no longer the case, and the latest suspicion raging through the UK is that King Charles has secretly converted to Islam. He certainly can’t do enough to promote Islam, and he describes himself as “defender of the faiths” rather than the traditional “defender of the faith”. King Charles III is certainly not to be found rallying to the flag, and the British and English flags are themselves an endangered species. On the anniversary of Pakistan’s independence, that nation’s flags could be seen flying in streets across Britain. Britain’s famous Union flag, however, as well as the English Cross of St. George, have been turned into signs of allegiance to a mythical “far Right, and arrests have been made for carrying it at demonstrations and hanging it in British streets. Visible expressions of nationhood are increasingly being demonized, and outward displays of patriotism bullied out of existence. The British flag, says a Government policy statement, is now a “tool of hatred”.

Flags, of course, are supposed to be exactly that. The Scottish Saltire, with its diagonal white cross over a blue background, was the flag under which William Wallace marched against the hated English, back in a time when hatred of the other was the dynamo behind national pride rather than something you could go to jail for.

Have I cherry-picked these instances of Islamic takeover? Certainly. But there are an awful lot of cherries to pick from, and each day seems to bring a new incursion into the British people’s belief that their country is theirs in any meaningful sense. To give a full account of accelerating Islamization, this piece would need to be novella-length. Britain is heading towards being a de facto caliphate.

Children are a natural target for indoctrination, and there are reports of White, non-Muslim children in northern schools being allowed only sips of water during Ramadan so as not to make their Muslim classmates feel “excluded”, another word of power. The schools call this coercion of children “sharing the journey”. While a schoolteacher from Batley, North Yorkshire, remains in hiding with his family for displaying pictures of Mohammed (explicitly haram), the man who supposedly transcribed the Koran is not the only prophet who may not be depicted. New “Islamophobia” laws may criminalize certain images in children’s pictures. This includes Jesus, one of the Islamic prophets, so any child drawing a Nativity scene — or any traditional Nativity scene in a school — could soon fall afoul of the law.

With increasing and apparently unstoppable Muslim immigration comes an increase in the crime rate. Despite the authorities doing all they can to hide crime statistics broken down by ethnicity, sexual assaults are on the rise, and the UK is now threatening Sweden’s position as the “rape capital of Europe”. My brother moved from our native London to Sweden at the start of the 1990s. In 1975, there were 421 reported rapes in Sweden. In 2024, there were 10,167. In half a century, this represents a rise of 2,300%. When my brother first moved there, and I visited him along with his twin brother, he proudly told us that any rape in Sweden made the front pages of the newspapers because they were so rare. Sweden is now only a few percentage points behind South Africa in terms of reported rape. And it is not just sexual assault that is turning Sweden from the “Socialist paradise” once lauded by the Left into a chaotic caliphate. The only country which now has more grenade and bomb attacks worldwide than Sweden is Mexico, home of the fun-loving drug cartels.

There is an interesting, albeit unwelcome, form of cultural exchange going on at present between the U.S. and the U.K. The British population is around 5% Black, compared with America at around 13%, but the respective Muslim populations are approaching the same level in reverse. The epicenter of American Islam, as American readers will know, is Dearborn, Michigan, but the recent Somalian fraud in Minneapolis shows the type of cultural enrichment the U.S. is increasingly experiencing countrywide. Senator Chip Roy recently confirmed that there are now 300 mosques in Texas, alarming in the year of the 25th anniversary of 9/11.

Back in the U.K., Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer recently called Muslims “the face of modern Britain”, and he appears at each and every Muslim event he can sign up for. The few minor attacks there have been on mosques look very much like false flags, but they were still sufficient to release tranches of government money (aka “tax revenue which actually belongs to those who pay it”) for mosque protection. Muslims are perfectly capable of protecting themselves, however, as the sight of Muslim men patrolling the streets of Manchester on horseback recently confirmed. The police watched this bizarre spectacle as these new Saladins rode through the streets threatening people, but did nothing.

Islam has all the weaponry it needs to conquer Britain, and there is not a scimitar to be seen. All the caliphate requires is its enemies’ tolerance, which it can manipulate, and accusations of Islamophobia translated into legislation is the most powerful weapon in the Islamic arsenal. If I had to predict Britain’s future with relation to Islam, I would say two things: Balkanization and Submission. Whites will move out of the cities and take over counties in an attempt to rebuild the Shire. Submission is in italics because I am not referring to the literal translation of “Islam”. I am sure we all remember being told throughout this century that Islam means “peace”, but it does not. It means “submission”. Submission is also the title of a 2015 novel by Michel Houellebecq in which France is partly taken over by Islam. What transpires is a sort of power-sharing deal between Islamic and French politicians. Britain looks to be making this fiction a reality.

By the end of this century, the United Kingdom could be ruled by Islam, with the White, kufr Shires providing both the jizya (the tax imposed on native people in a country under Islamic rule) and the expertise to do what low-IQ Muslims never could. This is not the seventh century, but it doesn’t mean seventh-century people can’t run it. Nietzsche wrote very little about Islam, but notes in The Antichrist; “At least Islam assumes it is dealing with men”. Now, that is a currency currently in short supply in the U.K.

Birmingham is England’s “second city” and has been in the grip of a strike by waste-disposal workers for two years. Footage from its streets look like a war-torn, Third-World country, and many other cities are not far behind as their Muslim population increases and the rubbish bags and other detritus pile ever higher. The local Muslim communities, of course, instead of going to the mosque every 20 minutes, could perhaps forego one visit a week and get together to work out how to solve the problem. Call the local council, for a start. If you are Muslims representing a particular mosque, say, they will listen to you because they would probably be out of a job should they not. Find out where the municipal rubbish-tips are. Organize vehicle-runs to transport the trash-bags to where they belong. Instead of paying for another new prayer-room, perhaps hire a vermin-control company to advise and take action on the growing pest problem. Make sure you protect your children from the diseases that inevitably spread wherever there are rats. None of this, it goes without saying, is happening, and residents increasingly live in their own filth.

Annalee Newitz wrote an interesting book in 2013 called Scatter, Adapt, Remember. It is a history of mankind’s ability to survive extinctions, but, mutatis mutandis, it has much to say about how Whites will react to their current plight. One of Ms. Newitz’s recommendations, however, is optimistic in modern-day Britain:

In the near term, we need to improve one of humanity’s greatest inventions, the city, to make urban life healthier and more environmentally sustainable. Essentially, we need to adapt the metropolis to Earth’s current ecosystems so that we can maintain our food supplies and a habitable climate.

As you will gather, the book has a Green slant to it, but the city as a locus of stability in a threatened society is an idea which is fading fast. Islamization is hardly going to improve city life.

And the Islamization of Britain relies on a concomitant “de-Christianization”. Churches are increasingly closing down, being turned into mosques, or mysteriously burning down. Local authorities are starting to talk about “re-purposing” graveyards. Christmas is rarely mentioned in the MSM, and the shops are currently full, not of traditional Easter eggs, but “Gesture eggs”. Christianity is very much last millennium’s religion in Britain.

The “new British” continue to pour in, and the government cannot do enough to accommodate them in the style they demand. By 2030, the government intends to give 40% of new-build homes to immigrants. Whites, of course, are leaving in ever-greater numbers, and the demographic seeds of Islamic dominance are already being sown. The British, like all White countries, are reproducing at well below the replacement rate, Muslims well above it. In the end, the deep state and its operatives in government will have given away what was once the most powerful nation in the world, and its people will have failed to stop them. Perhaps Islam is to be admired for its success in not losing its instinct to conquer, as the British have.