Featured Articles

Beauty and the Barbarous: From Glorious Gold to Anatoly’s Anglo

What was the greatest artwork of the twentieth century? Some would choose a painting by Picasso or Rothko, a sculpture by Brancusi or Epstein, an installation by Kapoor or Weiwei. Not me. I don’t like any of those artists and I don’t like the ugly art that is so characteristic of the twentieth century. No, I would choose something by General Dynamics. For me, the greatest artwork of the twentieth century was an aircraft called the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

070720-F-5502S-003 .. An F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft from the 18th Fighter Squadron positions itself behind a KC-135 Stratotanker aircraft during exercise Red Flag in Alaska on July 20, 2007. More than 80 aircraft and 1,500 service members from six different countries are flying together to sharpen their combat skills in simulated combat sorties. DoD photo by Capt. Tana R.H. Stevenson, U.S. Air Force. (Released)

The greatest artwork of the 20th century: a General Dynamics F-16 Flying Falcon (Wikipedia)

The defense company General Dynamics didn’t intend the F-16 to be a work of art, but that’s what it turned out to be. It literally embodies something that was driven out of officially approved art during the twentieth century by circles of critics, academics, and art dealers dominated by Jews. What was that something? Simple: it was beauty. The F-16 is an extraordinarily beautiful aircraft. You can see that even when it’s sitting stationary on a runway. But its beauty comes fully alive only when it leaps aloft and flies. The F-16 is very good at flying. Flight is itself a beautiful thing, allowing a privileged few to “slip the surly bonds of earth” and enter a new realm full of new possibilities. Humans must have dreamt of flying since far into prehistory. “Birds do it, bees do it, bats and butterflies do it — why can’t we do it?” That question must have been asked many times in many languages down the millennia. The answer, of course, is that flight is very difficult. Birds, bees, bats, and butterflies all evolved to do. Humans got there indirectly, using their extraordinary brains.

Knights of the air

But it wasn’t all humans who could have done that. You can marvel at the F-16 not just for its mechanical and acrobatic beauty, but also for reasons that must remain unspoken in the modern world. The F-16 is a glorious embodiment of White male genius, a kind of metallic and mechanical flower on the tree of Western civilization. Flowers are beautiful, but they can’t exist in isolation. Nor could the F-16. If you were writing a full history of its creation, you’d have to include not just the team of White men at General Dynamics that designed it and built it and got it into the air, but also the teams of White men and the individual White male geniuses who invented or mastered all the things that went into its creation: metals, fuels, electricity, the mechanics and mathematics of flight, the jet engine, computing, and so on.

And a fighter-plane like the F-16 doesn’t just preserve the beauty that has been driven out of modern art: it also preserves the chivalry that has been driven out of modern warfare. “Chivalry” is related to the French cheval, “horse,” because the code of chivalry was forged by White horsemen acting as individuals, not as a horde. A single knight rode a single horse and relied on his individual skill and courage to triumph in battle. An F-16 pilot is a knight of the air riding a mechanical steed. But what would happen if any mainstream figure today tried to celebrate the F-16 in those terms? “This beautiful aircraft is a glorious embodiment of White male genius and gallantry!” The shrieks of outrage would be deafening and the mainstream figure would immediately cease to be mainstream. Such a person would be driven out of decent society for espousing “white supremacism.”

Slaughtering goyim by the multi-million

In other words, they would be punished for speaking the truth. White men have indeed been supreme in achievement and endeavour during the modern age. Indeed, they created the modern age. Without them, humans would not have perfected flight and there would be no F-16. But I think that White men have achieved so much partly because they’re not obsessed with themselves and with advancing their own interests. Instead, they’re obsessed with what’s out there in reality: everything from sub-atomic particles to protozoa to blue whales to the Universe as a whole. But the exotropism of White men — their orientation outward and away from themselves — is what renders them vulnerable to the endotropism, or inward orientation, of other groups.

That’s why I find it so ironic and appropriate that the F-16, that glorious embodiment of White male genius, is scheduled to enter the Ukraine war, that ugly embodiment of Jewish malevolence and meddling (not to mention a major component of the Israeli Air Force as a result of American largesse). White male genius and the beauty it creates have been co-opted to serve the interests of a group that’s isn’t merely selfish but also actively hostile to White men. Jews are highly endotropic: they’re obsessed with themselves and with advancing their own interests. And with punishing their enemies.

Israeli F-16s

The Ukraine war is part of a much bigger and longer war that Jews have waged against the great White Christian civilization of Russia, which they envy and resent both for its achievements and for its resistance to their predation and parasitism. When Jews came to power in that part of the world after the Bolshevik Revolution, they slaughtered goyim by the multi-million. One not-so-notorious episode of Jewish revenge was the Holodomor, the deliberate slaughter-by-starvation of millions of Ukrainians in the 1930s.

Anatoly’s Anglo: the obviously Jewish Melinda Simmons, British ambassador to Ukraine

I feared that another tragedy was about to be inflicted on Ukraine by Jewish malevolence when I saw a photo in 2021 of Melinda Simmons, the new British ambassador to Ukraine. Sadly, I was right. The great Judeo-Christian transhumanist Anatoly Karlin identified Ms Simmons at the Unz Review as an “Anglo,” but that’s because truth and transhumanism don’t always mix. The photo revealed Melinda Simmons to be ugly, ill-dressed, and unshapely in a characteristically Jewish way. And yes, she’s definitely Jewish: the Jewish Chronicle sardonically called her “Our woman in Kyiv” (a British ambassador is traditionally called “our man in X,” but it’s reasonable to think that the Chronicle meant that Simmons was working for Jewish interests).

Ugly faces in high places

Ukraine is famous for the beauty of its women, so it’s again appropriate and ironic that Clown World chose an ogress like Simmons as one of its ambassadors there. Indeed, Jewish News boasted of how her appointment “completes a unique triumvirate, with Ukraine now having a Jewish ambassador from the UK, Prime Minister and President.” With Jews in such high places, it’s not surprising that Ukraine was about to be brought very low. Russia was finally pushed too far by the repeated provocations of Clown World, as the Jew-dominated West is so well-named, and invaded Ukraine in February 2022.

Ugly faces in high places: British ambassador Melinda Simmons greets Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky

I would call this a triumph of Jewish barbarism in a region that was once proverbial as a land of barbarians. In the classical world, the Scythians were known as savages who lived outside civilization. Modern Ukraine was part of the Scythian homeland. But although the Scythians were barbarians, they weren’t barbarous. They could appreciate and create beauty, as we can see in the gorgeous Scythian jewelry that been dug up by archaeologists. Their craftsmen worked in gold because gold is beautiful, durable, and malleable, taking fine details that would never tarnish or corrode. That’s why we can marvel at the beauty of Scythian art millennia later, when beauty has been driven out of art by the same Jewish tribe that has dragged part of the ancient Scythian homeland into bloody and barbarous war.

Barbarians but not barbarous: some Scythian artwork in glorious gold

 Some repulsive modern art by Jean Dubuffet Dhotel nuance d’abricot (1947

But the war in Ukraine has not gone the way that Jewish neo-cons wanted it to and expected it would. Despite the highly expensive war-tech supplied by Clown World to Ukraine and the repeated predictions of Russian exhaustion or collapse, the evil Christian tyrant Vladimir Putin seems to be in a much better position than the heroic Jewish freedom-fighter Volodymyr Zelensky. Having put his playing-piano-with-his-penis comedy behind him, Zelensky began calling long ago for the West to supply Ukraine with aircraft. Back then, even Joe Biden didn’t think this would be a good idea. Now Clown World changed its minds and F-16s are reported to be on their way (along with other advanced American military technology such as HIMARS artillery and the Patriot missile defense system. If so, some very beautiful White aircraft will be put to some very ugly Jewish ends.

Bond of blood, not mishmash of migrants

It’s a classic case of co-option and coercion. Jews could never have created the F-16 on their own. After all, they could never have created Western civilization and the Industrial Revolution on their own. But who needs to create when you can co-opt and coerce? As Kevin MacDonald has exhaustively documented, the Jews who emigrated to the great White nation of America in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had everything they needed to subvert and subdue their White gentile hosts: ethnocentrism, intelligence, psychological intensity, and aggression. One major triumph of Jewish subversion was the recasting of America as a “nation of immigrants.”

This is a complete contradiction in terms. As its etymology suggests, a nation — from nasci, Latin for “to be born” — is a bond of blood, not a mishmash of migrants. America is no longer a true nation and no longer serves the interests of the Whites who created it. Instead, America serves the interests of Jews. That’s why beautiful F-16s will be sent to Ukraine at the behest of ugly Jews like Melinda Simmons. It’s yet another example of how Clown World can co-opt, coerce, and corrupt, but can’t create. That’s presently its strength. Sooner or later, it will become a fatal weakness.

Appendix: Some Winged Words

I quoted above a little of a famous poem by the American aviator and poet John Gillespie Magee (1922–41). Here’s the rest of the poem, which Magee wrote in the year of his death after flying to 33,000 feet in another beautiful aircraft called the Spitfire:

“High Flight”

Oh! I have slipped the surly bonds of Earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds, — and done a hundred things
You have not dreamed of — wheeled and soared and swung
High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there,
I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung
My eager craft through footless halls of air…
Up, up the long, delirious burning blue
I’ve topped the wind-swept heights with easy grace
Where never lark, or ever eagle flew —
And, while with silent, lifting mind I’ve trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

Jewish Scientist Who Developed New Vaccine “Saved the World”

Dr. Drew Weissman (along with colleague Katalin Kariko) at the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine has been lauded as “Penn Professor (who) ‘Saves the World’ with COVID Vaccine Research.” (Kariko is excluded from the headline in this Jewish Exponent article.)  Weissman and Kariko have been lavishly celebrated for their “breakthrough” with mRNA technology. “Earlier this year, Brandeis University and the Rosenstiel Foundation honored the scientists with the Lewis S. Rosenstiel Award for Distinguished Work in Basic Medical Research.”

What I am about to relate is an interlocking nexus of Jewish wealth, big pharma, and connections to the academic community. This goes back a long way.

Brandeis University “was named for Louis Dembitz Brandeis (1856–1941), the first Jewish justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.” We saw Brandeis in the essay “Jewish Control of U.S. Presidents #1: Woodrow Wilson.” Brandeis was installed as the first Jewish justice of the Supreme Court as part of a deal Wilson made with Samuel Untermeyer, Jewish attorney and Wilson handler through blackmail and bribery. Under “Our Jewish Roots,” Brandeis U states: “At its core, Brandeis is animated by a set of values that are rooted in Jewish history and experience.” It espouses “the Jewish ideal of making the world a better place through one’s actions and talents.” This is reminiscent of the “Science Tikkun” of aggressive Jewish vaccine promoter Peter Hotez.

Lewis S. Rosenstiel was a Jewish organized crime boss who made his first fortune bootlegging illegal liquor during Prohibition. He went on to run child-raping blackmail operations prior to those of Roy Cohn, Jewish mob attorney in New York, and Jeffrey Epstein’s infamous child-rape operations most recently.

Weissman and Kariko also won a Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences from the Breakthrough Prize Foundation. “In July 2012, Yuri and Julia Milner established the Breakthrough Prize, joined the following year by Sergey Brin, Priscilla Chan, Anne Wojcicki and Mark Zuckerberg.” Apart from Chan who is Chinese, all are Jews including Milner, a “Soviet-born Israeli entrepreneur“ whose investment firm DST Global (“The Quiet Conqueror”) invests in Facebook, and who personally invested in 23andMe, whose CEO is Anne Wojcicki. Wojcicki was married to Brin, co-founder of Google and president of parent company Alphabet. Anne’s sister Susan Wojcicki was CEO of Youtube, and Zuckerberg is of course co-founder of the Facebook internet social media platform.

The Perelman Family’s-Funded Medical School—and Much Else

While the interrelationships among so many Jews overseeing the most powerful internet and data companies in the world are noteworthy, here our focus is on Jewish interrelationships in the medical industry. For an analysis of the Jewish role in creating today’s modern pharmaceutical-based medical system, see “The Jewish Origins of the For-Profit Medical Industry.”

Other high-level Jewish crime lords besides Brandeis and Rosenstiel are also funding medical research and development, as discussed in Covert Covid Culprits (review here):

Jewish organized crime oligarch and child-raping blackmail ringleader Leslie Wexner [Epstein’s boss] founded and is funding the Wexner School of Medicine. By November 2020, the Wexner School conducted AstraZeneca covid vaccine trials, on up to 500 victims, with follow-up evaluations for two years.[1]

Jewish organized crime oligarch and child-raping blackmail ringleader Leslie Wexner [Jeffrey Epstein’s boss] founded and is funding the Wexner School of Medicine. By November 2020, the Wexner School conducted AstraZeneca covid vaccine trials, on up to 500 victims, with follow-up evaluations for two years.[1]

More relevant to Weissman, Jewish billionaire oligarch and financial schemer Ronald Perelman (“once touted as America’s richest man.”) is the son of the couple who in 2011 provided the immense grant that gives the Perelman School, where Weissman works, its name. In “Raymond and Ruth Perelman Donate $225 Million to the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Medicine,” the subtitle reads, “Largest Single Naming Gift To A School Of Medicine In U.S. History.” Raymond Perleman’s  (deceased) Wikipedia entry says “He was Jewish.”

Perelman’s entry states: “He was raised in a Jewish family… and is the grandson of Litvak (Jewish Lithuanian) immigrants.” In a Forbes (not to be confused with Perelman’s holding company MacAndrews and Forbes) article titled “Don’t Mess With Me,” we learn that “he is an observant Jew who doesn’t work from sundown Friday to Sunday morning and who, as the Talmud demands, on Saturdays always prays in a group of ten Jewish men, no matter where he is in the world.”

The Forbes article calls Perelman “one of America’s most feared corporate raiders” and a “giddily competitive, 5-foot-7 corporate barbarian.” Also, “Ronald Perelman is a multi-billionaire Jew with a trail of corruption and dirty dealing—what his Wikipedia entry calls ‘controversy.’”[2] Perelman’s name is found in Epstein’s notorious black book on page 43: “…many of these ‘raiders,’ specifically Ron Perelman… dined with Epstein at Epstein’s home throughout the 2000s and whose political fundraiser for Bill Clinton’s re-election campaign was attended by Epstein in the mid-90s…”[3] “Perelman would later be listed as a frequent dinner guest of Epstein’s.”[4]

Ron Perelman… is a veteran of the infamous corporate raiders of Drexel Burnham Lambert during the 1980s. … Perelman’s business tactics were known to be informed by his volcanic temper and his ruthlessness, with former Salomon Brothers CEO John Gutfruend once having remarked that “believing Mr. Perelman has no hostile intentions is like believing the tooth fairy exists.”[5]

The Perelman School of Medicine has over 2,600 full-time faculty members, 781 medical students, more than 1,400 residents and fellows, 967 PhD students, 218 MD-PhD students, 782 post-doctoral fellows, and over 6,800 Perelman School of Medicine employees.

U Penn’s Jewish President

President of the University of Pennsylvania, within which is the Perelman School, was Amy Gutmann, serving from 2004 to 2020 when she resigned to accept the appointment as U.S. Ambassador to Germany. This made her “the longest-serving president in the history of the University of Pennsylvania.” In a Princeton Magazine profile (she was formerly the first Laurance S. Rockefeller University Professor at Princeton, founding director of its University Center for Human Values, and  provost), Gutmann stated:

My father, Kurt, was the youngest of five children in an Orthodox Jewish family living near Nuremberg when Hitler came to power. At a remarkably early age, under incredibly trying conditions, he had the wisdom, foresight and courage to act on the deeply troubling developments and decided to escape. His brave decision profoundly shaped my life and that of my family. I would not be here today had he acted differently.

We are to understand that Amy is another holocaust survivor, because her father was. It is both apropos and an insult that our U.S. Ambassador to Germany today is the Jewish daughter of an alleged holocaust survivor.

Gutmann is co-author of Color Conscious: The Political Morality of Race, and is described as an  “eminent moral and political philosopher.” The publisher’s description states:

Gutmann examines alternative political responses to racial injustice. She argues that American politics cannot be fair to all citizens by being color blind because American society is not color blind. Fairness, not color blindness, is a fundamental principle of justice. Whether policies should be color-conscious, class conscious, or both in particular situations, depends on an open-minded assessment of their fairness. Exploring timely issues of university admissions, corporate hiring, and political representation, Gutmann develops a moral perspective that supports a commitment to constitutional democracy.

Hers is a distinctly Jewish perception of racial justice and “fairness” (i.e., equity whereby all groups achieve the same regardless of talents and abilities in an attempt to raise up Black and Latino socioeconomic profiles). Co-author K. Anthony Appiah “draws on the scholarly consensus that ‘race’ has no legitimate biological basis.”

Immediately as U Penn president, Gutmann launched the Penn Compact, which went on “to integrate knowledge across academic disciplines with a strong emphasis on innovation: Penn was named No. 4 in Reuters’ Top 100 World Innovative Universities in 2017.” This entry lists as “Notable Alumni” Ronald Perelman and Donald Trump. It also shows the number of patents which U Penn has been granted (170), with a commercial impact over 50% above the average. This brings us to the profit motive of Dr. Weissman’s current research.

The New Vaccines: Follow the Money


studied biochemistry and enzymology at Brandeis University and earned an MD/PhD in immunology and microbiology from Boston University in 1987. After a residency in Boston, he pursued a fellowship at the National Institutes of Health, where he worked closely with Anthony Fauci (Hon.’18), now director of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, whom (Weissman) describes as “one of the great drivers of my research interest.” [Fauci retired at the end of 2022 — KH]

The above quote is from “How Scientists Drew Weissman… and Katalin Karikó Developed the Revolutionary mRNA Technology inside COVID Vaccines.”

Anthony Fauci as director of NIAID became notorious throughout the promotion of the covid-19 pandemic for his advocacy of the new mRNA vaccines—and no other possible natural health measure or intervention, except masks. We must consider that Fauci may also have directed Weissman in his “research interest,” leading to the immensely profitable covid vaccines.

In February Pfizer announced its 2022 sales of covid vaccines plus its new oral paxlovid covid drug totaled $56 billion, with total profits at $31.4 billion. Moderna’s only commercial product was its covid vaccine, and its gross sales in 2022 were $18.2 billion.

News had emerged announcing that Weissman is pursuing the next fabulously lucrative vaccine product, a “universal vaccine.” ABC’s “Philadelphia scientists on quest to develop universal coronavirus vaccine” which was published in February 2022, quotes Weissman:

There have been three epidemics with coronavirus in the past 20 years. The problem with chasing variants is by the time you’ve made a vaccine the variant is gone and a new variant appears. …

We have two vaccines that work well. We’re making more because, in the end, we might have to mix vaccines together to get the protection possible.

We see how the theory of constantly emerging “variants” (they used to be called “mutations”) provides job security for Weissman, and guarantees ongoing profits for pharmaceutical vaccine makers.

Covid Vaccine Damage

Even without mixing mRNA vaccines, the damage from a single mRNA vaccine (as a result of the many doses needed) has been staggering. The U.S. government’s own Vaccine Adverse Reporting System (VAERS) provides the numbers as of May 5:

  • 35,324 COVID Vaccine Reported Deaths
  • 199,790 Total COVID Vaccine Reported Hospitalizations
  • 1,556,050 COVID Vaccine Adverse Event Reports

 Here the blue bars represent deaths from non-COVID vaccines, leaving the red bars for COVID vaccine deaths. Note that “occasional” reports come from outside the U.S.

Recall that “the Lazarus study… showed that less than 1% of events are reported to VAERS”[6] This study was concluded in 2010, and government health agencies have done nothing since to improve vaccine adverse event reporting, while doing much to improve vaccine promotion. 

Pfizer’s own vaccine damage data was released through a Freedom of Information Act request. It covers the three-month period from 1/12/2020 – 2/28/2021, the very beginning of its covid vaccine deployment. Almost 159,000 events were reported world-wide, the largest number being from the U.S. (almost 35,000). Among these were over 1,200 deaths. In pregnant mothers, 29 out of 270 pregnancies resulted in spontaneous abortion or neo-natal death (p. 12). That is almost 11%. Russian roulette is 17%. For pregnant mothers to accept the covid vaccine would be like playing Russian roulette with their babies’ lives with a 9-chamber revolver. Pfizer was expecting to continue this “pharmacovigilance” program for two years (but don’t expect any of the data to become public), but these reports of death and damage accrued in only the first three months.  

New Vaccines at ‘Breathtaking Speed’

Weissman is not deterred by huge spikes in death and damage from the first mRNA vaccines. The Bostonia (Boston University’s Alumni Magazine) article continues:

[Weissman and Kariko] pioneered the mRNA technology that is fundamentally reshaping the landscape of vaccine development and the future of gene therapies. Not only have the new mRNA vaccines proven to be more effective and safer [!] than traditional vaccines, they can be developed and reengineered to take on emerging pathogens and new variants with breathtaking speed [i.e., Warp Speed-KH]. Using mRNA technology, Pfizer-BioNTech designed its coronavirus vaccine in a matter of hours.

Operation Warp Speed was President Trump’s program to fast-track covid vaccines. It was a public-private partnership including the Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. military. It had a budget of $10 billion and granted $6 billion of that to pharmaceutical companies and other vaccine development firms. OWS used a private company, Advanced Technology International, to award the grants, in order to “bypass the regulatory oversight and transparency of traditional federal contracting mechanisms.”

Weissman’s technology is all about speed, something highly dangerous when applied to vaccine testing and safety.

There were “enormous possibilities,” Weissman says. The scientists believed their technology had the potential to transform medicine, opening the door to countless new vaccines, therapeutic proteins, and gene therapies.

And money, as we have seen.

[Weissman and Kariko’s] discovery caught the attention of two biotech newcomers, Moderna of Cambridge, Mass., and Germany’s BioNTech. Both companies eventually licensed Weissman and Karikó’s patents. (Karikó was hired by BioNTech in 2013, and the company would later partner with US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer on vaccine development. The two companies also now support Weissman’s lab.)

His frustration with how the United States is managing the pandemic has led him to focus on vaccine access for the rest of the world. Weissman is currently working with the governments of Thailand, Malaysia, South Africa, and Rwanda, among others, to develop and test lower-cost COVID vaccines.

‘Immunize the World’

The Bostonia article provides the same Weissman quote as the ABC article, but goes further:

There have been three coronavirus epidemics in the past 20 years,” he explains. “You have to assume there are going to be more. We’re now working on a vaccine that will protect against every variant that will likely appear. Our thinking is that we’ll use it as a way to immunize the world—and prevent the next pandemic from happening in the future.

MERS-CoV, another supposed coronavirus, was said to be spreading from camels to humans primarily in the Middle East. The case fatality rate was said to have been 30-35%, although as with SARV-Cov-2, “Most patients who have died had underlying comorbidities and developed pneumonia or renal failure.” Again, it was health care settings that most caused the symptoms. “45% were healthcare-associated infection.” Some “infections’ were recognized as “asymptomatic.” Though the disease was predicted to possibly spread to the U.S., “no sustained transmission had been reported by late 2014,” and the CDC reported only 2 possible cases. Though no vaccine has been developed, as of 2019 development prospects continue using six different technologies, including DNA and nano-particle vaccines. Profit prospects look promising.

When Weissman says we have had three coronavirus epidemics, and we have to assume we are going to have more, we should believe him. The past three have proven their effectiveness at controlling population behavior and generating pharmaceutical company profits, as well as research funding for Weissman’s efforts to “immunize the world.” .

‘Charging Forward on a Mind-bending Spectrum of Applications’ – “It’s Limitless”

But Weissman is hardly stopping with coronaviruses. He’s working on about 20 other vaccines for diseases from malaria to HIV, with several moving into clinical trials. His lab is also exploring new gene therapies to treat immune deficiencies like cystic fibrosis and genetic liver diseases.

Meanwhile, biotech companies like Moderna and BioNTech are charging forward on a mind-bending spectrum of mRNA applications, including personalized cancer vaccines and autoimmune therapies: “as he looks to the future, he sounds genuinely awed by the staggering potential of the technology he and Karikó invented: ‘It really is exciting. It’s limitless.’”

It appears Weissman’s personal fortunes were only relatively improved by his twenty years of research and development of modified mRNA technology. The patenting of the technology was a complex matter. Basically the patents belong to U Penn and licensing sold to private firms and individuals. Kariko became an executive at BioNTech, and received $2 million two separate times in licensing deals. 

As for Dr. Drew Weissman, MIT Technology Review reported in early 2021:

There are fantastic fortunes to be made in mRNA technology. At least five people connected to Moderna and BioNTech are now billionaires… Weissman is not one of them, though he stands to get patent royalties. He says he prefers academia, where people are less likely to tell him what to research—or, just as important, what not to. He’s always looking for the next great scientific challenge: “It’s not that the vaccine is old news, but it was obvious they were going to work.” Messenger RNA, he says, “has an incredible future.”

In-credible is the word. As we’ve seen, Dr. Anthony Fauci as director of NIAID told Weissman what to research, and his research has reaped enormous profits and stands to reap much more. This financial abundance has come at the cost of more lives than any previous vaccine by far. The death and damage signals in the  VAERS and Pfizer’s own “pharmacovigilance” data are being ignored. By no means was it “obvious” the vaccines “were going to work.” No previous attempt at marketing a coronavirus vaccine had succeeded; the modified mRNA technology Weissman offered had been tried but never been used in any vaccine before, and an objective view of the covid vaccine clinical trials showed it was a failure.

Weissman is moving forward boldly with more modified mRNA medical technology, and no doubt more patent royalties. His Jewish nature and his Jewish network compel him.

[1]Haemers, Karl, Covert Covid Culprits: An Inquest Chronicle, USA, p. 245

[2]Ibid, p. 98

[3]Webb, Whitney, One Nation Under Blackmail, Vol. 2, Trine Day, Walterville OR, 2022, p. 8

[4]Ibid, p. 216

[5]Ibid, p. 215

[6]Haemers, p. 184

Consciousness Raising for White Students

Equal Training: An Analysis of Antiwhite Material and Language Manipulation Tactics Used in American Schools
Student X
Michael Michau, 2023

The simplest definition of education is the transmission of culture, so it is not surprising that schools are on the front lines of the present kulturkampf.  As usual, the Right is reacting to the dynamic cultural changes initiated by the Left whose goal is to replace Western civilization with a globalist multi-ethnic, multi-cultural “civilization.”

A very brief autobiography places author Student X in the belly of the beast. He is a young White man from a working-class family living in a predominately non-White community in Los Angeles County. While attending a local community college X became aware of the anti-White curriculum at his school where “some classes seemed to have more of a prosecutorial atmosphere, instead of an educational one” (8). Not one to suffer in silence while hoping others would challenge this anti-White bias, the author filed an official grievance citing a lack of objectivity and professional manner on the part of some of his instructors.

X received some schooling outside the classroom in his quest for redress. He got the bureaucratic runaround. He met with the president of the department of academic affairs who sent him to the dean of curriculum who referred him to the curriculum committee which met behind closed doors with no input from students or the public. The author also contacted the state’s curriculum committee and the Chancellor’s Office of the California Community College system. The latter entity claimed the issue was outside their authority because “they only have legal requirements to meet on behalf of minorities, not White students” (12).  Incidentally, the author does not like the use of colors White, Black, or Brown as designations for ethnic groups. More on that later.

Not easily discouraged, X realized that the educational bureaucracy was not the vehicle for change, at least not at present. Remedies would have to come at the student/classroom level. White students need to be taught to recognize anti-White bias in curriculum and learn how to counter it. Unfortunately, being aware of the likely consequences in terms of ostracism or worse, few students will have the pluck and determination displayed by the author. And while change may begin with a single person, for a cause to succeed there must be organized collective action. In any case awareness of the problem is a start.

A major message of Equal Training is the power of words and narrative. The Left is skilled in using language for ideological purposes. They know that “the wording of educational literature determines how students are trained to talk and structure their thoughts” (25). When it comes to terminology the Right remains largely tone deaf. For example: much of the Left identifies as progressive and liberal, and the Right obliges them by using their preferred terms. Yet there is very little classical liberalism or progressivism within the contemporary Left. In addition, both these terms have positive connotations outside of ideology. “Yes, we’re making progress on that issue.” “He was liberal with his largesse.” Leftists are globalists, cultural Marxists, maybe anarcho-communists or nihilists. If you need euphemisms: Jacobins or iconoclasts. Using ‘gay’ as a term for homosexuality should also be avoided.

The author believes that the goal of modern education is to subvert White cultural identity by rendering it invalid, eventually replacing it in favor of a globalist, multicultural identity. To resist this indoctrination, it is important for young Whites to establish a strong ethnic, cultural, and sexual identity. It is difficult even for sophisticated adults to navigate the minefield of American identity politics, so knowing who you are is paramount for White youth dealing with a hostile social environment.

A component of a positive ethnic identity is a knowledge of group history. This is why the Left is so keen on erasing and revising American history. One important topic today in American historiography is slavery. X points out that slavery is often taught within what he calls a “cropped narrative.” The institution is given no historical, social, or economic context – simply evil Whites oppressing hapless Blacks. Some students even come away with the impression that slavery was a uniquely American phenomenon. The Holocaust is another topic that lends itself to a cropped narrative.

For X there appears to be a two-step process involved in what might be described as scholastic social engineering. First, efface a positive White identity, then blame, shame, and guilt-trip White students for past transgressions as constructed by the left. War, slavery, oppression: “There’s not one thing you can blame White people for that Brown, Black, and Yellow peoples haven’t also done” (80).

The author points out that if the establishment really wanted to make a multiethnic society work, they would seek a racial reconciliation rather than a racial reckoning. Instead of stoking the flames of resentment they would emphasize a common past. But they will not take this course because much of the Left is more interested in debasing Western peoples and culture than in helping other peoples and cultures. In any case, suppression is the only effective method to govern a multiethnic, multicultural empire. A colorblind meritocracy will not work. Perhaps a strict racial quota system would be the fairest, most transparent way to handle things. X suggests this when he advocates for “proportionate access to all schools, staff positions, government agencies, social services, scholarships, grants, and other opportunities” (184). Of course, it is not our job to make this perverse system work. At the end of the day, race is such an essential human characteristic, both individually and collectively, that a multiracial society will always be problematic.

As mentioned above the author does not like the ethnic designation “White,” though he often uses the term himself. One problem is the way the US government, especially the census bureau, uses the term: “A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East or North Africa, including Hispanic and Latino populations” (47).[1] X proposes using the term “White-Ethnics.” For many people this term would bring to mind so called hyphenated ethnics: Polish-Americans, Irish-Americans, etc. “Ethnic White” might be better, but the most useful and accurate designation would be European American.

If European Americans had sufficient racial consciousness, they would insist that Congress change the government’s definition of White. In the author’s words: “We need to demand formal subgroup recognition by the federal government” (60). For one thing having such recognition would “accurately measure our access to scholarships, jobs, and other opportunities” (64). A proper designation would exclude what X refers to as “part-time Whites.” He never explicitly identifies who this group includes, but they are characterized by identifying as White when it is to their advantage, but otherwise adopting a separate, often antagonistic identity, such as is common in Australia since Aboriginals were given benefits like government scholarships and affirmative action  based on their identity. If one stylistic criticism could be made for Equal Training, it is the tendency of the author to make general statements without offering specific examples.

There is a tremendous amount of alienation in our society, especially among White youth, leading to drug use, sexual confusion, and nihilism. This is largely a product of a weak sense of familial, ethnic, and cultural identity. When society’s highest values are diversity and inclusion, the ironic results are that no one feels included, there is little sense of belonging, little sense of ownership. The author believes that Whites have a birthright to their own society with their own institutions designed to serve their needs. In the past this was assumed—a near universal expectation. Today this view is condemned as racist. X notes that “the term racist [is used] to refer to anyone who resists any of the tactics used to dissolve their race” (165). Under this definition having a White family is racist.

X touches upon several other interesting topics including selective law enforcement which is most likely to impact young, heterosexual White men. He points out the need for “our own legal representation and dedicated legal network” (181), such as TOO contributor Glen Allen’s Free Expression Foundation.[2] The author notes the strange and toxic congruence between globalist billionaires and neo-Marxist street thugs—without mentioning the vast overrepresentation of Jews in the former. And X suggests White students major in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) subjects where curricula are more objective.

I have a couple minor qualms about this work. First, why the title Equal Training. Something catchier and more descriptive might help to promote the book.  Second, while I salute X for having the brass to stand up and confront the educational establishment, that could be a difficult strategy for many students to follow. Even if a student is informed and articulate, instructors usually have arguments to obfuscate a classroom discussion. X concedes that verbally clever academics can deliberately deceive or mislead with a clear consciousness because “they believe their ends justify their means” (59). Then there is the issue of possible grade retaliation. Also, no matter how confident a student might be, a single person representing a position can appear weak and vulnerable. Much more effective in such situations is to have two or more students representing an organization. Of course, organizing is hard and explicitly White groups are prohibited on campuses. Plus, as the author warns, there are sketchy pro-White organizations out there led by people with a propensity for self-destruction. Proxy or surrogate organizations for White students could claim to be groups dedicated to traditional Western culture, either fine arts or folk culture, or they could shield themselves by claiming to be a politically conservative activist group.

I imagine Student X is a member of Gen Z, and Equal Training is aimed at increasing the racial consciousness among his cohort of White high school and college students. Most readers of this journal will be familiar with the issues the author raises. The value of this book for those older readers is that X cuts to the chase emphasizing the basics. For decades a psychological war of unsurpassed sophistication and pervasiveness has been waged against White youth. From pre-school television shows, through the K-12 public education, to academe, they have been subjected to intense propaganda.  To mount a defense in preparation for a counter offensive, students must develop a strong positive ethnic and cultural identity. And a prerequisite for such an identity is a firm grounding in history that will enable students to put past and present events into a historical context. If parents, grandparents, and youth mentors want to know where to begin, it is here.

[1] Actually the US Census Bureau states that Hispanics can be of any race making the term useless as a racial category.

[2] A contributor to The Occidental Observer website, Baltimore attorney Glen Allen, heads an organization, The Free Expression Foundation, which may be able to provide legal assistance to White dissidents.

Marx, Moses and the Pagans in the Secular City, Parts 1 & 2

Intro: Below is my essay published first in 1995 in quarterly CLIO (A Journal of Literature, History, and the Philosophy of History). In view of century-long and still ongoing scholarly disputes about the genesis of totalitarian temptations, intellectual repressions, as well as modern “wokeism” in the EU and US – it may be worthwhile to reexamine the  debate between proponents  of monotheism and polytheism (“mono-poly”!) from a new vantage point. Which is the genuine religious and intellectual homeland of Whites in America and Europe?  Athens or Jerusalem? The Bible or Homer?

* * *

With the conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine to Christianity, the period of pagan Europe began to approach its end. During the next millennium the entire European continent came under the sway of the Gospel — sometimes by peaceful persuasion, frequently by forceful conversion. Those who were yesterday the persecuted of the ancient Rome became, in turn, the persecutors of the Christian Rome. Those who were previously bemoaning their fate at the hands of Nero, Diocletian, or Caligula did not hesitate to apply “creative” violence against infidel pagans. Although violence was nominally prohibited by the Christian texts, it was fully used against those who did not fit into the category of God’s “chosen children.” During the reign of Constantine, the persecution against the pagans took the proportions “in a fashion analogous to that whereby the old faiths had formerly persecuted the new, but in an even fiercer spirit.” By the edict of A.D. 346, followed ten years later by the edict of Milan, pagan temples and the worship of pagan deities came to be stigmatized as magnum crimen. The death penalty was inflicted upon all those found guilty of participating in ancient sacrifices or worshipping pagan idols. “With Theodosius, the administration embarked upon a systematic effort to abolish the various surviving forms of paganism through the disestablishment, disendowment, and proscription of surviving cults.”(1) The period of the dark ages began.

Christian and inter-Christian violence, ad majorem dei gloriam, did not let up until the beginning of the eighteenth century. Along with Gothic spires of breathtaking beauty, the Christian authorities built pyres that swallowed nameless thousands. Seen in hindsight, Christian intolerance against heretics, Jews, and pagans may be compared to the twentieth-century Bolshevik intolerance against class opponents in Russia and Eastern Europe-with one exception: it lasted longer. During the twilight of imperial Rome, Christian fanaticism prompted the pagan philosopher Celsus to write: “They [Christians] will not argue about what they believe-they always bring in their, `Do not examine, but believe’. . .” Obedience, prayer, and the avoidance of critical thinking were held by Christians as the most expedient tools to eternal bliss. Celsus described Christians as individuals prone to factionalism and a primitive way of thinking, who, in addition, demonstrate a remarkable disdain for life.(2) A similar tone against Christians was used in the nineteenth century by Friedrich Nietzsche who, in his virulent style, depicted Christians as individuals capable of displaying both self-hatred and hatred towards others, i.e., “hatred against those who think differently, and the will to persecute.”(3) Undoubtedly, early Christians must have genuinely believed that the end of history loomed large on the horizon and, with their historical optimism, as well as their violence against the “infidels,” they probably deserved the name of the Bolsheviks of antiquity. As suggested by many authors, the break-up of the Roman Empire did not result only from the onslaught of barbarians, but because Rome was already “ruined from within by Christian sects, conscientious objectors, enemies of the official cult, the persecuted, persecutors, criminal elements of all sorts, and total chaos.” Paradoxically, even the Jewish God Yahve was to experience a sinister fate: “he would be converted, he would become Roman, cosmopolitan, ecumenical, gentile, goyim, globalist, and finally anti-Semite. “(!)(4) It is no wonder that, in the following centuries, Christian churches in Europe had difficulties in trying to reconcile their universalist vocation with the rise of nationalist extremism.

Pagan Residues in the Secular City

Although Christianity gradually removed the last vestiges of Roman polytheism, it also substituted itself as the legitimate heir of Rome. Indeed, Christianity did not cancel out paganism in its entirety; it inherited from Rome many features that it had previously scorned as anti-Christian. The official pagan cults were dead but pagan spirit remained indomitable, and for centuries it kept resurfacing in astounding forms and in multiple fashions: during the period of Renaissance, during Romanticism, before the Second World War, and today, when Christian Churches increasingly recognize that their secular sheep are straying away from their lone shepherds. Finally, ethnic folklore seems to be a prime example of the survival of paganism, although in the secular city folklore has been largely reduced to a perishable commodity of culinary or tourist attraction. (5) Over the centuries, ethnic folklore has been subject to transformations, adaptations, and the demands and constraint of its own epoch; yet it has continued to carry its original archetype of a tribal founding myth. Just as paganism has always remained stronger in the villages, so has folklore traditionally been best protected among the peasant classes in Europe. In the early nineteenth century, folklore began to play a decisive role in shaping national consciousness of European peoples, i.e., “in a community anxious to have its own origins and based on a history that is more often reconstructed than real. “(6)

The pagan content was removed, but the pagan structure remained pretty much the same. Under the mantle and aura of Christian saints, Christianity soon created its own pantheon of deities. Moreover, even the message of Christ adopted its special meaning according to place, historical epoch, and genius loci of each European people. In Portugal, Catholicism manifests itself differently than in Mozambique; and rural Poles continue to worship many of the same ancient Slavic deities that are carefully interwoven into the Roman Catholic liturgy. All over contemporary Europe, the erasable imprint of polytheist beliefs continues to surface. The Yule celebration represents one of the most glaring examples of the tenacity of pagan residues. (7) Furthermore, many former pagan temples and sites of worship have been turned into sacred places of the Catholic Church. Lourdes in France, Medjugorje in Croatia, sacred rivers, or mountains, do they not all point to the imprint of pre-Christian pagan Europe? The cult of mother goddess, once upon a time intensely practiced by Celts, particularly near rivers, can be still observed today in France where many small chapels are built near fountains and sources of water. (8) And finally, who could dispute the fact that we are all brain children of pagan Greeks and Latins? Thinkers, such as Virgil, Tacitus, Heraclitus are as modern today as they were during the dawn of European civilization.


1. Charles Norris Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture (New York: Oxford UP, 1957), 254-55, 329.

2. T. R. Glover, The Conflict of Religion in the Early Roman Empire (1909; Boston: Beacon, 1960), 242, 254, passim.

3. Friedrich Nietzsche, Der Antichrist, in Nietzsches Werke (Salzburg/Stuttgart: Verlag “Das Berlgand-Buch,” 1952), 983, para. 21.

4. Pierre Gripari, L’histoire du méchant dieu (Lausanne: L’Age d’Homme, 1987), 101-2.

5. Michel Marmin, “Les Piegès du folklore’,” in La Cause des peuples (Paris: édition Le Labyrinthe, 1982), 39-44.

6. Nicole Belmont, Paroles paiennes (Paris: édition Imago, 1986), 160-61.

7. Alain de Benoist, Noël, Les Cahiers européens (Paris: Institut de documentations et d’études européens, 1988).

8. Jean Markale, et al., “Mythes et lieux christianisés,” L’Europe paienne (Paris: Seghers, 1980), 133.


Marx, Moses and the Pagans in the Secular City (part 2)

Modern Pagan Conservatives

There is ample evidence that pagan sensibility can flourish in the social sciences, literature, and arts, not just as a form of exotic narrative but also as a mental framework and a tool of conceptual analysis. Numerous names come to mind when we discuss the revival of Indo-European polytheism. In the first half of the twentieth century, pagan thinkers usually appeared under the mask of those who styled themselves as “revolutionary conservatives,” “aristocratic nihilist,” “elitists”-in short all those who did not wish to substitute Marx for Jesus, but who rejected both Marx and Jesus.(9) Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger in philosophy, Carl Gustav Jung in psychology, Georges Dumézil and Mircea Eliade in anthropology, Vilfredo Pareto and Oswald Spengler in political science, let alone dozens of poets such as Ezra Pound or Charles Baudelaire-these are just some of the names that can be associated with the legacy of pagan conservatism. All these individuals had in common the will to surpass the legacy of Christian Europe, and all of them yearned to include in their spiritual baggage the world of pre-Christian Celts, Slavs, and Germans.

In the age that is heavily laced with the Biblical message, many modern pagan thinkers, for their criticism of Biblical monotheism, have been attacked and stigmatized either as unrepentant atheists or as spiritual standard-bearers of fascism. Particularly Nietzsche, Heidegger, and more recently Alain de Benoist came under attack for allegedly espousing the philosophy which, for their contemporary detractors, recalled the earlier national socialist attempts to “de-christianize” and “repaganize” Germany. (10) These appear as unwarranted attacks. Jean Markale observes that “Naziism and Stalinism were, in a sense, also religions because of the acts that they triggered. They were also religions insofar as they implied a certain Gospel, in an etymological sense of the word . . . Real paganism, by contrast, is always oriented towards the realm of sublimation. Paganism cannot be in the service of temporal power.”(11) Paganism appears more a form of sensibility than a given political credo, and with the exhaustion of Christianity, one should not rule out its renewed flourishing in Europe.

Paganism Against the Monotheist Desert

Two thousand years of Judeo-Christian monotheism has left its mark on the Western civilization. In view of this, it should not come as a surprise that glorification of paganism, as well as the criticism of the Bible and Judeo-Christian ethics-especially when they come from the right-wing spectrum of society-are unlikely to gain popularity in the secular city. It suffices to look at American society where attacks against Judeo-Christian principles are

frequently looked at with suspicion, and where the Bible and the Biblical myth of god’s “chosen people” still play a significant role in the American constitutional dogma. (12) Although the secular city has by now become indifferent to the Judeo-Christian theology, principles that derive from Judeo-Christian ethics, such as “peace,” “love,” and “universal brotherhood,” are still showing healthy signs of life. In the secular city many liberal and socialist thinkers, while abandoning the belief in Judeo-Christian theology, have not deemed it wise to abandon the ethics taught by the Bible.

Whatever one may think about the seemingly obsolete, dangerous, or even derogatory connotation of the term “European paganism,” it is important to note that this connotation is largely due to the historical and political influence of Christianity. Etymologically, paganism is related to the beliefs and rituals that were in usage in European villages and countryside. But paganism, in its modern version, may connote also a certain sensibility and a “way of life” that remains irreconcilable with Judeo-Christian monotheism. To some extent European peoples continue to be “pagans” because their national memory, their geographic roots, and, above all, their ethnic allegiances-which often contain allusions to ancient myths, fairy tales, and forms of folklore bear peculiar marks of pre-Christian themes. Even the modern resurgence of separatism and regionalism in Europe appears as an offshoot of pagan residues. As Markale observes, “the dictatorship of Christian ideology has not silenced those ancient customs; it has only suppressed them into the shadow of the unconscious” (16). The fact that all of Europe is today swept by growing nationalism bears witness to the permanency of the pagan sense of tribal historical memory.

In European culture, polytheistic beliefs began to dwindle with the consolidation of Christianity. In the centuries to come, the European system of explanation, whether in theology or, later on, in sociology, politics, or history gradually came under the sway of Judeo-Christian outlook of the world. David Miller observes that Judeo-Christian monotheism considerably altered the Europeans’ approach to the social sciences as well as to the overall perception of the world. In view of these changes, who can reassure us about our own objectivity, especially when we try to understand the pagan world with the goggles of the postmodern Judeo-Christian man? It is no wonder that when paganism was removed from Europe the perceptual and epistemological disruptions in sciences also followed suit. Consequently, with the consolidation of the Judeo-Christian belief, the world and the world phenomena came under the sway of the fixed concepts and categories governed by the logic of “either-or,” “true or false,” and “good or evil,” with seldom any shadings in between. The question, however, arises whether in the secular city-a city replete with intricate choices and complex social differences that stubbornly refuse all categorizations-this approach remains desirable. (13) It is doubtful that Judeo-Christian monotheism can continue to offer a valid solution for the understanding of the increasingly complex social reality that modern man faces in the secular city. Moreover, the subsequent export of Judeo-Christian values to the antipodes of the world caused similar disruptions, yielding results opposite from those originally espoused by the Westerners, and triggering virulent hatred among non-Western populations. Some authors have quite persuasively written that Christian ecumenism, often championed as the “white man’s Christian burden,” has been one of the main purveyors of imperialism, colonialism, and racism in the Third World. (14)

In the modern secular city, the century-long and pervasive influence of Christianity has significantly contributed to the view that each glorification of paganism, or, for that matter, the nostalgia of the Greco-Roman order, is outright strange or at best irreconcilable with contemporary society. Recently, however, Thomas Molnar, a Catholic philosopher who seems to be sympathetic to the cultural revival of paganism, noted that modern adherents of neo-paganism are more ambitious than their predecessors. Molnar writes that the aim of pagan revival does not have to mean the return to the worship of ancient European deities; rather, it expresses a need to forge another civilization or, better yet, a modernized version of the “scientific and cultural Hellenism” that was once a common reference for all European peoples. And with visible sympathy for the polytheistic endeavors of some modern pagan conservatives, Molnar adds:

The issue is not how to conquer the planet but rather how to promote an oikumena of the peoples and civilizations that have rediscovered their origins. The assumption goes that the domination of stateless ideologies, notably the ideology of American liberalism and Soviet socialism, would come to an end. One believes in rehabilitated paganism in order to restore to peoples their genuine identity that existed before monotheist corruption. (15)

Such a candid view by a Catholic may also shed some light on the extent of disillusionment among Christians in their secular cities. The secularized world full of affluence and richness does not seem to have stifled the spiritual needs of man. How else to explain that throngs of European and American youngsters prefer to trek to pagan Indian ashrams rather than to their own sacred sites obscured by Judeo-Christian monotheism? Anxious to dispel the myth of pagan “backwardness,” and in an effort to redefine European paganism in the spirit of modern times, the contemporary protagonists of paganism have gone to great lengths to present its meaning in a more attractive and scholarly fashion. One of their most outspoken figures, Alain de Benoist, summarizes the modern meaning of paganism in the following words:

Neo-paganism, if there is such a thing as neo-paganism, is not a phenomenon of a sect, as some of its adversaries, but also some of the groups and chapels, sometimes well-intentioned, sometimes awkward, frequently funny and completely marginal, imagine … [What worries us today, at least according to the idea which we have about it, is less the disappearance of paganism but rather its resurgence under primitive and puerile form, affiliated to that “second religion,” which Spengler justifiably depicted as characteristic of cultures in decline, and of which Julius Evola writes that they “correspond generally to a phenomenon of evasion, alienation, confused compensation, without any serious repercussion on reality. (16)

Paganism, as a profusion of bizarre cults and sects, is not something modern pagan thinkers have in mind. A century ago, pagan philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche had already observed in Der Antichrist that, when a nation becomes too degenerate or too uprooted, it must place its energy into various forms of Oriental cults, and simultaneously “it must change its own God” (979). Today, Nietzsche’s words sound more prophetic than ever. Gripped by decadence and rampant hedonism, the masses from the secular city are looking for the vicarious evasion in the presence of Indian gurus or amidst a host of Oriental prophets. But beyond this Western semblance of transcendence, and behind the Westerners’ self-hatred accompanied by puerile infatuation with Oriental mascots, there is more than just a transitory weariness with Christian monotheism. When modern cults indulge in the discovery of perverted paganism, they also may be in search of the sacred that was driven underground by the dominating Judeo-Christian discourse.

From Monotheist Desert to Communist Anthropology

Has monotheism introduced into Europe an alien “anthropology” responsible for the spread of egalitarian mass society and the rise of totalitarianism, as some pagan thinkers seem to suggest? Some authors appear to support this thesis, arguing that the roots of tyranny do not lie in Athens or Sparta, but are traceable, instead, to Jerusalem. In a dialogue with Molnar, de Benoist suggests that monotheism upholds the idea of only one absolute truth; it is a system where the notion of the enemy is associated with the evil, and where the enemy must be physically exterminated (cf. Deut. 13). In short, observes de Benoist, Judeo-Christian universalism, two thousand years ago, set the stage for the rise of modern egalitarian aberrations and their modern secular offshoots, including communism.

That there are totalitarian regimes “without God,” is quite obvious, the Soviet Union for example. These regimes, nonetheless, are the “inheritors” of the Christian thought in the sense as Carl Schmitt demonstrated that the majority of modern political principles are secularized theological principles. They bring down to earth a structure of exclusion; the police of the soul yield its place to the police of the state; the ideological wars follow up to the religious wars. (17)

Similar observations were echoed earlier by the philosopher Louis Rougier as well as by the political scientist Vilfredo Pareto, both of whom represented the “old guard” of pagan thinkers and whose philosophical researches were directed toward the rehabilitation of European political polytheism. Both Rougier and Pareto are in agreement that Judaism and its perverted form, Christianity, introduced into the European conceptual framework an alien type of reasoning that leads to wishful thinking, utopianism, and the ravings about the static future.(18) Similar to Latter-day Marxists, early Christian belief in egalitarianism must have had a tremendous impact on the deprived masses of northern Africa and Rome, insofar as it promised equality for the “wretched of the earth,” for odium generis humani, and all the proles of the world. Commenting on Christian proto-communists, Rougier recalls that Christianity came very early under the influence of both the Iranian dualism and the eschatological visions of the Jewish apocalypses. Accordingly, Jews and, later on, Christians adopted the belief that the good who presently suffer would be rewarded in the future. In the secular city, the same theme was later interwoven into modern socialist doctrines that promised secular paradise. “There are two empires juxtaposed in the space,” writes Rougier, “one governed by God and his angels, the other by Satan and Belial.” The consequences of this largely dualistic vision of the world resulted, over a period of time, in Christian-Marxist projection of their political enemies as always wrong, as opposed to Christian-Marxist attitude considered right. For Rougier, the Greco-Roman intolerance could never assume such total and absolute proportions of religious exclusion; the intolerance towards Christians, Jews, and other sects was sporadic, aiming at certain religious customs deemed contrary to Roman customary law (such as circumcision, human sacrifices, sexual and religious orgies). (19)

By cutting themselves from European polytheistic roots, and by accepting Christianity, Europeans gradually began to adhere to the vision of the world that emphasized the equality of souls, and the importance of spreading God’s gospel to all peoples, regardless of creed, race, or language (Paul, Galatians 3:28). In the centuries to come, these egalitarian cycles, in secularized forms, entered first the consciousness of Western man and, after that, entire humankind. Alain de Benoist writes:

According to the classical process of the development and degra-dation of cycles, the egalitarian theme has entered our culture from the stage of the myth (equality before God), to the stage of ideology (equality before people); after that, it has passed to the stage of “scientific pretension” (affirmation of the egalitarian fact). In short, from Christianity to democracy, and after that to socialism and Marxism. The most serious reproach which one can formulate against Christianity is that it has inaugurated this egalitarian cycle by introducing into European thought a revolutionary anthropology, with universalist and totalitarian character. (20) One could probably argue that Judeo-Christian monotheism, as much as it implies universalism and egalitarianism, also suggests religious exclusiveness that directly emanates from the belief in one undisputed truth. The consequence of the Christian belief in theological oneness-e.g., that there is only one God, and therefore only one truth-has naturally led, over the centuries, to Christian temptation to obliterate or downplay all other truths and values. One can argue that when one sect proclaims its religion as the key to the riddle of the universe and if, in addition, this sect claims to have universal aspirations, the belief in equality and the suppression of all human differences will follow suit. Accordingly, Christian intolerance toward “infidels” could always be justified as a legitimate response against those who departed from the belief in Yahve’s truth. Hence, the concept of Christian “false humility” toward other confessions, a concept that is particularly obvious in regard to Christian attitude toward Jews. Although almost identical in their worship of one god, Christians could never quite reconcile themselves to the fact that they also had to worship the deity of those whom they abhorred in the first place as a deicide people. Moreover, whereas Christianity always has been a universalist religion, accessible to everybody in all corners of the world, Judaism has remained an ethnic religion of only the Jewish people. (21) As de Benoist writes, Judaism sanctions its own nationalism, as opposed to nationalism of the Christians which is constantly belied by the Christian universalist principles. In view of this, “Christian anti-Semitism,” writes de Benoist, “can justifiably be described as a neurosis.” Might it be that the definite disappearance of anti-Semitism, as well as virulent inter-ethnic hatred, presupposes first the recantation of the Christian belief in universalism?

Notes :

9. About European revolutionary conservatives, see the seminal work by Armin Mohler, Die Konservative Revolution in Deutschland, 1919-1933 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972). See also Tomislav Sunic, Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right, prefaced by Alain de Benoist(Arktos: 2011).

10. See notably the works by Alfred Rosenberg, Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts (München: Hoheneichen Verlag, 1933). Also worth noting is the name of Wilhelm Hauer, Deutscher Gottschau (Stuttgart: Karl Gutbrod, 1934), who significantly popularized Indo-European mythology among National Socialists; on pages 240-54 Hauer discusses the difference between Judeo-Christian Semitic beliefs and European paganism.

11. Jean Markale, “Aujourd’hui, l’esprit païen?” in L’Europe paienne (Paris: Seghers, 1980), 15. The book contains pieces on Slavic, Celtic, Latin, and Greco-Roman paganism.

12. Milton Konvitz, Judaism and the American Idea (Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1978), 71. Jerol S. Auerbach, “Liberalism and the Hebrew Prophets,” in Commentary 84:2 (1987):58. Compare with Ben Zion Bokser in “Democratic Aspirations in Talmudic Judaism,” in Judaism and Human Rights, ed. Milton Konvitz (New York: Norton, 1972): “The Talmud ordained with great emphasis that every person charged with the violation of some law be given a fair trial and before the law all were to be scrupulously equal, whether a king or a pauper” (146). Ernst Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen and Gruppen (1922; Aalen: Scientia Verlag, 1965), 768; also the passage “Naturrechtlicher and liberaler Character des freikirchlichen Neucalvinismus,” (762-72). Compare with Georg Jellinek, Die Erklärung der Menschen-und Bürgerrechte (Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot, 1904): “(t)he idea to establish legally the unalienable, inherent and sacred rights of individuals, is not of political, but religious origins” (46). Also Werner Sombart, Die Juden and das Wirtschaftsleben (Leipzig: Verlag Duncker and Humblot, 1911): “Americanism is to a great extent distilled Judaism (“geronnenes Judentum”)” (44).

13. David Miller, The New Polytheism (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), 7, passim.

14. Serge Latouche, L’occidentalisation du monde (Paris: La Découverte, 1988).

15. Thomas Molnar, “La tentation paienne,” Contrepoint, 38 (1981):53.

16. Alain de Benoist, Comment peut-on etre païen? (Paris: Albin Michel, 1981), 25.

17. Alain de Benoist, L’éclipse du sacré (Paris: La Table ronde, 1986), 233; see also the chapter, “De la sécularisation,” 198-207. Also Carl Schmitt, Die politische Theologie (München and Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot, 1922), 35-46: “(a)ll salient concepts in modern political science are secularized theological concepts” (36).

18. Gerard Walter, Les origines du communisme (Paris: Payot, 1931): “Les sources judaiques de la doctrine communiste chrétienne” (13-65). Compare with Vilfredo Pareto, Les systèmes socialistes (Paris: Marcel Girard, 1926): “Les systèmes métaphy-siques-communistes” (2:2-45). Louis Rougier, La mystique démocratique, ses origines ses illusions (Paris: éd. Albatros, 1983), 184. See in its entirety the passage, “Le judaisme et la révolution sociale,” 184-187.

19. Louis Rougier, Celse contre les chrétiens (Paris: Copernic, 1977), 67, 89. Also, Sanford Lakoff, “Christianity and Equality,” in Equality, ed. J. Roland Pennock and John W. Chapaman (New York: Atherton, 1967), 128-30.

20. Alain de Benoist, “L’Eglise, L’Europe et le Sacré,” in Pour une renaissance culturelle (Paris: Copernic, 1979), 202.

21. Louis Rougier, Celse, 88.

Gender, “identifying as” and identity

According to Helen Joyce, her bestseller Trans is about gender self-identification: the idea that “people should count as men or women according to how they feel and what they declare, instead of their biology”. But she doesn’t say what gender is.[1] When people have these feelings or make these declarations, what are they feeling and declaring? And what does it mean to identify as something? She points out that national laws, company policies, school curricula, medical protocols, academic research and media style guides are all being “rewritten to privilege self-declared gender identity over biological sex”, but she doesn’t say what a gender identity is, or, come to that, what an identity is.[2]

Let us look at these questions to see if we can gain some clarity. In a previous article I argued that the basic term of transgender ideology, namely “gender”, is only an obfuscating euphemism for sex. If it doesn’t mean sex itself but is taken to refer to clusters of features that tend to go with one sex or the other, these are simply clusters of features that tend to go with one sex or the other. To think of them as amounting to separate things called genders that we “have” in the way that we have a sex is mistaken.

A better way of looking at this is in terms of Carl Jung’s archetypes of the animus and anima, each of which, as I understand it, he thought were present in different degrees in both sexes. Moreover, they might co-exist in different degrees in two members of the same sex. So I imagine that he would have said that in a woman like Margaret Thatcher, who was a leader and a firm one, the animus was stronger than in most women while the anima was weaker, whereas someone like Theresa May, a subsequent British prime minister, was more womanish. What he would not have said is anything so trite as that Mrs. Thatcher had the “gender” of a man.

In my own case, as a boy I was never very interested in soccer or military history; I preferred art and cooking. I drew incessantly on the blackboard my father had fitted over an unused fireplace and baked my first loaf of bread at the age of about nine. No one suggested that I had the “gender” of a girl or saw my art or cooking as a problem. As it happened, I also enjoyed going on adventures with a home-made spear and coming back looking as if I had been dragged through a hedge backwards. The idea that people have a gender, unless by this is meant their sex, is a silly oversimplification of a reality that, although variegated, anyone can grasp, nor does the fact that one boy likes one thing while another likes another raise any question about their sex.

When we ask what it means to say that someone identifies as something, we confront a difference between American and British English, for in British English, properly spoken, one cannot say that someone identifies as something but must say that they identify themselves as something. In other words, in British English the verb “identify” is transitive. Since it is a little easier to explain the answer to our question in British English, I will use this to start with and switch to American English later.

What it means to say that someone identifies themselves as something is that they call themselves that thing or describe themselves that way. Thus a man approaching the scene of an accident might identify himself as a doctor. But it is not only oneself that one might identify as something; it could be anything. One might identify that woman over there as French, a bird as belonging to a certain species or a precious stone as an emerald. So we can say that in the sex context, a man who identifies himself as a woman calls himself one. Now, clearly identifications are not necessarily correct. The man who identifies himself as a doctor might not be one; the woman might not be French, and so on. A man who identifies himself as a woman mis-identifies himself.

Whereas what one identifies oneself as is what one calls oneself, one’s identity is what one is. It is an attribute one has. Everyone has many attributes, therefore everyone has many identities, three in the case of an actress with two children, for example, being those of actress, woman and mother. But in today’s political usage the word “identity” has a narrower meaning. Only a few political identities are available, which are defined by reference to a person’s politically salient features, such as their race or sex. Thus one might have the political identity of being Black or White or of being a man or a woman.

Any political identity contrasts with one or more other political identities, and in certain pairs people with one political identity are conventionally described as being oppressed by people with the other. Thus Black people are conventionally described as being oppressed by Whites, and women are conventionally described as being oppressed by men. This comes straight from cultural Marxism and has nothing to do with whether anyone is actually oppressed. It is just theory. But the theory is applied so that “oppressed” groups are favoured over their “oppressors”, making them feel entitled to social goods such as pity, power and preferential treatment. The struggle of favoured “identify groups” to obtain such goods at the expense of their opposite groups is known as identity politics.

Switching to American English now, the sort of people who say that they identify as something also tend to talk about their “identities”, and they generally conflate the two. Thus a man who says that he identifies as a woman will say that being a woman is his identity. It is “who he is”. But in saying this he adds one mistake to another. Not only does he call himself a woman when he is not one; he insists that he really is one. It is as though someone who calls himself Napoleon were to insist that he actually is Napoleon. Both mistakes must be undone before we can see that he is really just Fred Bloggs.

After gender, transgender ideology’s most important concept is that of gender identity, which it defines as a person’s deep, inner sense of their gender, meaning their deep, inner sense of their sex. A transgender person’s “gender identity” is not, however, their identity but a contradiction of it.[3] A man who calls himself a woman still has the identity of a man because he is still a man. Thus the term “gender identity” refers neither to a gender nor to an identity; it refers to a person’s idea of what sex they are. Thus when we hear that someone is “questioning their gender identity”, this is only someone who is wondering whether they are male or female.

As Helen Joyce points out, transgender ideology asserts that we all have a “gender identity”, which in most cases lines up with our sex but in the case of transgenders happens not to. But is it true to say that we all have a deep, inner sense of our sex? I suspect that most people no more have such a thing than they have a deep, inner sense of how many arms they have. For most people, their sex is such an obvious and familiar part of them that they never think about it, still less do they see it as the sort of thing about which they might have opinions. If this is correct, the only people who have “gender identities” are transgenders, whose deep, inner sense of their sex deceives them.

These people’s “gender identities” may be deep and inner, but if they identify as members of the opposite sex, this is something outer, for to call oneself something is an act that requires an audience. If they go so far as to present themselves as members of the opposite sex, in what transgender ideology calls their gender expression, this is a decidedly public act.

People who present themselves as members of the opposite sex run into trouble if they expect others to identify them as they identify themselves. Just as Fred Bloggs, presenting himself as Napoleon, is more likely to be seen as the deluded Fred Bloggs than as Napoleon, so a man presenting himself as a woman is more likely to be seen as a man presenting himself as a woman than as a woman, nor is he much more likely to be treated as a woman than is Fred Bloggs to be treated as an emperor. But whereas Fred Bloggs knows that he must put up with other people failing to endorse his idea of himself, this is more than transgenders can do. At least, it is more than they can do if they follow the example of their activists, who cannot tolerate anyone failing to endorse their self-descriptions.

Years ago, when transgender activists asked themselves what could be done about these unco-operative people, an idea came to them. Why not force them to endorse their self-descriptions? So they set about gaining influence over policy-makers and getting them to bring in rules banning references to anything they didn’t want mentioned. This would mean that when people saw a man presenting himself as a woman, they would have to call him a woman, or at least a “trans woman”. Note that they could not call him a “trans man”. As a term for a transgender man, the term would have been too descriptive. The idea was to conceal the fact that these were men, not disclose it. “Trans men” were therefore women, namely ones who presented themselves as men.

People would also have to refer to transgender men as “she”. If they wanted to refer specifically to such people’s sex, as when talking about their participation in women’s sports, they could not call them men but would have to come up with locutions such as Piers Morgan’s “people born to male biological bodies”. Why not require people to make fools of themselves and waste everyone’s time by using twelve syllables instead of one?

Come to that, why not get policy makers to stop people using the words “mum” and “dad” and “husband” and “wife” as well, as Qantas told its cabin crew to stop doing in 2018?[4] Why not ban the term “expectant mother”, as the British Medical Association did the year before, requiring such women to be called pregnant people?[5] Why not ban the term “breast feeding” into the bargain? Why not get all references to sex, sex roles and family relationships expunged from the language on the grounds that they might “make groups of people invisible” (Qantas), or “offend transgender people” (BMA)? With no reference to basic natural facts permitted, people might eventually forget that they were basic natural facts.

Policy-makers thought that this was such an excellent idea that they couldn’t understand why they hadn’t thought of it themselves, and so it came about that in 2015 two Texan day-care workers could be fired for refusing to call a six-year-old girl “John” after her “two male parents” complained.[6] The fact that the women, as one of them explained, had been “concerned about confusing the little girl” was neither here nor there. In 2016 a British man was convicted of a hate crime for greeting a man he knew by sight with the words “All right, geezer?” after the latter, a veteran of Afghanistan, turned out to identify as a woman.[7] During the appeal hearing the following year the complainant reportedly sobbed as he told the court that he had found the greeting “very upsetting”. It had “denied his humanity”.[8]

In 2018 an American teacher lost his job when he called out to his class of seven-year-olds: “Don’t let her walk into the wall!”,[9] forgetting that the girl in question now called herself a boy. A woman representing the school district illustrated the mental calibre of those applying the rules when she stated: “That was in fact discriminatory because all the other students were being used pronouns and this student was not being used pronouns”.

We have all heard the stories. In 2018 a teacher in Indiana was forced to resign after refusing to go along with his school’s policy of addressing transgender children by their self-chosen first names.[10] At first the school let him use their surnames, then changed its mind without explanation. At the meeting where the new decision was conveyed to him, he found the school administration “very threatening and bullying”. The character of transgender activists seems to have a way of transmitting itself to their proxies. In 2021 a Canadian man was sent to prison for calling his fourteen-year-old daughter his daughter and referring to her as “her”.[11] He was in contempt of court, having already been told to stop doing this.

Just the other day, in Britain a teacher was banned from the profession for “misgendering” a pupil by saying “Well done girls!” His class contained a girl who identified as a boy. He was also alleged to have shown the class a video that referred to men taking responsibility. He denied that he had done this, but the allegation was enough.[12]

Showing that it is now unacceptable to refer to the sexes themselves and not merely to the qualities generally associated with them, on the same day it was reported that an American student was given zero marks for an assignment in which she had used the term “biological women”.[13] Her professor described her work as “solid” but deemed the “exclusionary” expression so offensive that her assignment could not be recognised as having any merit.

And so we see the logical continuation of bans on words like “chairman” and “fireman”, brought in at the behest of feminists decades ago. These were followed by such things as Cardiff Metropolitan University’s 2017 ban on expressions like “man-made”, “right-hand man” and “gentleman’s agreement”.[14] The words “forefathers” and “sportsmanship” were also ruled out. “Manpower” was not to be used, suggested alternatives being “staff” or “human resources”, meaning that students writing about the battle of Agincourt would have to say that the English won when the French ran out of staff or human resources. Many other universities have introduced similar rules.[15]

All this applies the theory behind George Orwell’s Newspeak, that if we lack the word we will lack the concept, and without the concept we will act as if the thing does not exist. The concept mainly slated for deletion is that of men, as in all the examples in the previous paragraph, but as we have seen, our linguistic engineers have it in for the concept of women too. What is really under attack is any awareness of the fact that there are two sexes. As in Newspeak, our vocabulary is constantly reduced so as to “diminish the range of thought”, and it is this most basic fact of life that we must not think about or, ideally, be able to think about.[16]

This takes us some way from the questions we started with, of what genders are, what identities are and what it means to identify as something, but to repeat the answers: gender as a property of a human being does not exist unless by this is just meant their sex; a person’s identity is something about them; and when someone identifies as something, they call themselves that thing, which they might very well not be.

We got from this to the unhappy situation of today by way of the megalomaniac urge of transgender activists, given in to we know not why by policy makers, to control the speech of others so that their delusions would be supported and never questioned. But it turned out that their agenda extended far beyond stopping anyone upsetting them to include reshaping the language so as to rule out any reference to the sexes or their roles in society or reproduction. Thus what Shulamith Firestone specified in 1970 as the end goal of feminist revolution, namely the elimination of the sex distinction itself, approaches fulfilment.[17]

[1] Helen Joyce, 2022 (2021), Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, London: Oneworld, p. 1.

[2] Ibid., p. 2.

[3] The present article uses the terms “transgender person” and “transgender” (as a noun) to denote someone who calls themselves a member of the opposite sex. To keep things simple, it does not consider people with other “gender identities”, such as those who call themselves members of both sexes or of neither.

[4] New Daily, March 5th 2018, “Qantas bans staff from using ‘gender-inappropriate’ words”, https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/travel/2018/03/05/qantas-ban-gender-inappropriate-words/.

[5] Telegraph, Jan. 29th 2017, “Don’t call pregnant women ‘expectant mothers’ as it might offend transgender people, BMA says”, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/dont-call-pregnant-women-expectant-mothers-might-offend-transgender/.

[6] WND, Nov. 6th 2015, “Daycare workers fired for refusing transgender demands”, http://www.wnd.com/2015/11/daycare-workers-fired-for-refusing-transgender-demands/.

[7] MailOnline, Feb. 4th 2017, “Entrepreneur hauled into court for hate crimes after saying ‘all right geezer’ to a transgender war veteran”, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4190064/Entrepreneur-hauled-court-hate-crimes.html.

[8] The conviction was overturned.

[9] Kevin’s Corner, Dec. 15th 2018, “Teacher fired 4 using wrong pronoun”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQbjNPjizY0&t=0s.

[10] Conservative Daily Post, unknown date in 2018, “Teacher forced to resign after transgender demands ordered by school”, https://conservativedailypost.com/teacher-forced-to-resign-after-transgender-demands-ordered-by-school/ (page no longer there).

[11] Breitbart, March 18th 2021, “Canadian Man Jailed After ‘Misgendering’ His Daughter”, https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/03/18/canadian-man-jailed-after-misgendering-his-daughter/.

[12] Christian Concern, May 23rd 2023, “Heartbroken teacher banned from profession for ‘misgendering’ pupil”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tm3dKtjN6SQ. The teacher was Joshua Sutcliffe, who said: “Well done girls!” in 2017. A bible study club he had started had already been closed down. The Teaching Regulation Agency backed the punishment (Christian Concern, May 26th 2023, “Teacher banned for ‘misgendering’ | Round The Table”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-53JYC1Pgg&t=130s). See also Telegraph, May 23rd 2023, “Joshua Sutcliffe interview: I was told ‘call her a him’. I couldn’t go along with it”, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/23/teacher-sacked-misgendering-pupil/?utmsource=email.

[13] Anthony Brian Logan, May 23rd 2023, “College Student Gets ZERO On Project Over The Term Biological Women!”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9I57tp_9JWQ.

[14] Independent, March 3rd 2017, “University bans phrases such as ‘mankind’ and ‘gentleman’s agreement’ in favour of gender-neutral terms”, https://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/university-cardiff-metropolitan-bans-phrases-mankind-gentleman-s-agreement-genderneutral-terms-free-speech-a7609521.html.

[15] For other examples see BirminghamLive, July 7th 2022, “University bans terms ‘mankind’ and ‘manpower’ over fears of offending”, https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/university-bans-terms-mankind-manpower-24421851.

[16] George Orwell, 1989 (1949), Nineteen Eighty-Four, London: Penguin, p. 313 (from the Appendix: “The principles of Newspeak).

[17] Shulamith Firestone’s The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution is quoted by Ryan T. Anderson, 2019 (2018), When Harry Became Sally, New York: Encounter Books, p. 151.

VDARE Facing Mortal Threat

NY Attorney General Letitia James Mugs Us (As Well As Donald Trump, NRA etc.).
Print Friendly and PDF
President Donald J. Trump’s indictment by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg (as with impeachment, it was always obvious that if emoting Democrats didn’t charge Trump with this, they’d charge him with that) had one great redeeming feature for us here at VDARE.com: as with the concurrent Douglass Mackey / Ricky Vaughn lynching, it brings home, to at least the half of America that voted for Trump, that what Anglosphere independent media phenom Mark Steyn has judiciously described in a recent interview with Conrad Black as “America’s Dirty Stinking Rotten Corrupt ‘Justice’ System” is now hopelessly politicized, weaponized, and increasingly subordinated, exactly like Soviet law, to a totalitarian ideological faction.

Which makes it easier for us to explain why VDARE.com’s advocacy of immigration patriotism is now facing the most serious threat in its 24-year existence.

And that’s saying a lot in this era, unparalleled in U.S. history, of intensifying shadow-banningdeplatformingdemonetizationdoxing and ongoing Chinese Communist Social Credit–style stealth deprivation of professional and commercial services.

VDARE.com is the main project of our tax-exempt 501(c)(3) VDARE Foundation. And the VDARE Foundation has been mugged—targeted for lawfare by New York State Attorney General Letitia James , yet another of those childless female Black Supremacists who so much enrich our political life.

[New York AG Letitia James hosts ’Drag Story Hour’ for children: ’Celebration of love, joy and family fun,’ by Lindsay Kornick, Fox News, March 19, 2023]

It has become unmistakably clear that NYAG James aims to suppress our VDARE.com website, seize control of the VDARE Foundation and even expropriate our Berkeley Springs Castle, WV headquarters (which she probably intends to fill with Third World “asylum seekers”).

Of course, we share this badge of honor with more prominent targets of NYAG James—notably Trump, but also the National Rifle Association [New York AG sues to dissolve the NRA, alleging widespread fraud, Politico, August 6, 2020], Project Veritas [N.Y. attorney general warns Project Veritas its fundraising license is at risk, by Shawn Boburg, Washington Post, November 30, 2017] and other patriots unfortunate enough to be technically in reach of her lawless politically motivated rampage.

But President Trump and the NRA (five million members, total assets over $200 million) can, arguably, afford it.

VDARE.com, which is a tiny organization (revenues typically $600k-$800k range, no endowment), absolutely cannot.

Note also that NYAG Letitia James has not yet even accused us of any infraction—much less have we been convicted. We are merely being “investigated”—at deliberately destructive expense.

In other words, we are being battered to death by subpoena.

It really is true that as Mark Steyn has also said, “the process is the punishment.” This is the regulatory version of the prosecutorial abuse epidemic identified more than twenty years ago (to the great dismay of his allies in the naive law-and-order Reagan Era conservative movement) by my old friend Paul Craig Roberts.

It is only because of the extraordinary generosity of our donors that we have been able to finance our defense against NYAG Letitia James’ mugging thus far.

Most tiny organizations like ours would already have been forced to capitulate—which is probably what NYAG Letitia James was counting on.

I am sure she is astounded by our supporters’ loyalty.

But now this effort has brought us to financial crisis. Our general funds have been drained, and we are right at the point of being unable to pay our writers and our technical support staff, with no end in sight to this harassment.

Which is why I must beg you to help us—now.

Trump (Love Him Or Hate Him) Was Right About NYAG Letitia James

As single-issue immigration patriots, we at VDARE.com regarded presidential candidate Donald J. Trump’s historic August 15, 2015 immigration statement as a triumphant vindication of our long struggle to get the immigration issue into politics.

Since then, of course, we have occasionally voiced disappointment with President Trump’s achievements in office (although we did accurately anticipate that a Biden Regime would be infinitely worse).

Nevertheless, let the record show that, in an August 10, 2022 deposition in NYAG Letitia James ’s lawfare attack on Trump (quite separate from Manhattan DA Melvin Bragg’s lawfare attack—there are a lot of them), Trump opened with a statement that was a definitive takedown of her thuggery.

Trump described James as “a renegade and out-of-control prosecutor” engaged in “an unfounded, politically motivated witch hunt.”


As Trump pointed out, James ran for New York State Attorney General in 2018 explicitly promising to sue himbefore she could have known any of the actual facts. She did the same with the NRA. (Trump also noted that in her campaign she called him “an illegitimate president,” something which, if said about Joe Biden, is now apparently a hanging offense).

Trump then proceeded to refuse to answer any questions on Fifth Amendment grounds (at 12:12 below).

Quite right too.

<iframe “allow-same-origin=”” allow-scripts=”” allow-forms”=”” height=”350″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/p26ZcSAAK3Q” frameborder=”0″ allow=”autoplay; encrypted-media” allowfullscreen=””>

(Transcript here.)

Subsequently, Trump wrote on his Truth Social outlet:

I don’t expect that President Trump will Truth Social any time soon about how our tiny VDARE.com should also be supported.

But the fact is that we are, all of us, in the same fight—against a Totalitarian Woke weaponized justice system.

And so is America.

A Point Of Personal Privilege

And I must rise here on a point of personal privilege, as they say in the U.S. Senate.

I began writing about America’s post-1965 immigration disaster with my 1992 National Review cover story that has been credited with starting the modern debate. I did this despite the fact that my then-employer, Steve Forbes, was gearing up for a Presidential run featuring bone-headed Wall Street Journal Editorial Page–type immigration enthusiasm. I kept on writing about the immigration disaster despite the savage Regime Media backlash, my completely unexpected betrayal by National Review founder William F. Buckley and by Conservatism Inc. in general, the increasingly ominous threat to my ability to feed my family even in the obscure briar patch of financial journalism, abandonment by cowardly former friendsunbridled abuse and physical threats.

And now, at the age of 75, I am still working on the immigration issue in my office in the Berkeley Springs Castle every day.

I regret nothing—Non, je ne regrette rienas the French Foreign Legionnaires famously sang as they were taken prisoner after their attempt to save French Algeria failed in 1961.

<iframe “allow-same-origin=”” allow-scripts=”” allow-forms”=”” height=”350″ src=”https://www.youtube.com/embed/CkZcjkF3Evw” frameborder=”0″ allow=”autoplay; encrypted-media” allowfullscreen=””>

Maybe that’s not the most hopeful analogy. But I like it.

Nevertheless, nothing has infuriated me as much as the lying insinuation by NYAG James that I, and my wife Lydia, bought the Castle to benefit ourselves personally.

Exactly the opposite is true. Because Lydia and I knew no commercial bank could be trusted not to cave to political pressure and pull a mortgage in the most inconvenient way—as happened to Rebel Media’s Ezra Levant in Canada [Canadian media outlet says bank denied it a commercial mortgage over conservative political leanings, by Yael Halon, Fox News, December 30, 2021]—we had to gamble on pouring all of an unprecedented and wonderfully generous 2019 gift to the VDARE Foundation into buying the Castle for cash. (The prudent and self-interested course would have been to invest it and live off the proceeds.) We sold our much-loved home in the beautiful Connecticut Berkshires. We uprooted our little daughters and moved to a small rental cottage on the Castle grounds here in Appalachia. We were forced to do this because, in the three years before COVID, our proposed conferences had been canceled because of political pressure more than a dozen times (see e.g., herehereherehere). We concluded that, for a persecuted organization like ours to hold conferences, it ultimately must own its own venue.

The net effect: The Brimelow family no longer owns a home. But its shelter dollars now go to support the Berkeley Springs Castle complex. What NYAG Letitia James is insinuating here adds insult to injury—in fact, it adds injury (in the form of her deliberately ruinous subpoena harassment) to insult (see above) to the professional injury I have already, I may say unflinchingly, sustained.

Of course, this could never happen if the U.S. were still the Land of the Free. But the fact is that what we all now face is a communist coup. And America’s corrupted legal and regulatory institutions are complicit.

So I say: to hell with NYAG Letitia James!—and to hell with those e.g., the supposedly libertarian Reason commenters cheering her on.

And to hell with everyone else enabling this new Soviet America.

Why was the VDARE.com Foundation registered in New York State, and thus vulnerable to thugs like NYAG Letitia James, anyway?

The VDARE Foundation was set up in 1999 by a heroic volunteer lawyer who at that time did a great deal of pro bono work for the immigration patriot movement. He happened to be admitted to the bar in New York State, so he set it up there.

(However, contrary to NYAG Letitia James’ insinuations in her filings, the foundation was subsequently dormant for several years because we were working through another foundation registered in a different state. This is why we made no further filings: they were not necessary.)

It is perfectly normal for 501(3) charities to be registered in states other than those in which they have a physical presence.

And at the time, of course, with the West’s concurrent victory in the Cold War, no one had any idea of the communist Reign of Terror that was subsequently to sweep through American institutions, above all after the apparently unauthorized election of Donald J. Trump in 2016.

Thus our heroic volunteer lawyer was later forced by his white-shoe law firm, to its great discredit, to abandon his pro bono work for immigration patriots. This an example of the stealth “Chinese Communist Social Credit–style deprivation of professional and commercial services” (see above) that is a key part of America’s ongoing communist coup.

Why didn’t VDARE leave New York State?

New York State has to give its consent for a 501©(3) to leave.

Because our unusually good fundraising year pushed us over a N.Y. regulatory threshold, we initiated an exhaustive financial audit (i.e., a qualified third party had to look over our accounts). Our aim was to be fully compliant before we even considered raising our heads above the parapet with a request to exit.

This audit was very much hampered by the fact that our Connecticut accountants suddenly abandoned us and refused to suggest referrals (see “Chinese Communist Social Credit–style stealth deprivation of professional services” above).

The trivial, very common, easily corrected, and anyway generally obviated by the statute of limitations regulatory missteps that NYAG Letitia James is now hyperventilating about (see below) arose in the resulting chaos because we had so much trouble finding a replacement. In fact, at one point we had to turn to VDARE.com accountant reader, who had kindly offered his services.

The audit was completed—triumphantly. But of course NYAG Letitia James has ignored it anyway.

However, once the VDARE Foundation was forced into the real estate business in order to own its conference venue, we had to reorganize legally, at considerable expense, in a way that is more typical of commercial operations, to protect ourselves against predatory lawsuits (whether politically motivated or not), e.g., slip-and-fall. Thus the VDARE Foundation now owns a for-profit LLC (Limited Liability Corporation) that holds the property surrounding the Castle and leases it back to VDARE. And the Berkeley Springs Castle itself is now owned by the Berkeley Springs Castle Foundation, a 501(c)(3) supporting organization of the VDARE Foundation that is registered in West Virginia. NYAG Letitia James has made numerous lying references to this reorganization (see below).

What has NYAG Letitia James done?

Last summer, we learned from Facebook that NYAG Letitia James had hit it with two overlapping subpoenas regarding its transactions with us:

  • Meta May 13 2022—PDF
  • June 14 to Facebook Payments Inc PDF

This was a flagrant violation of procedure. The Stored Communications Act, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2703(b)(1)(b), permits a government agency to obtain third-party information from Facebook or other internet services—provided that there is ”prior notice from the governmental entity to the subscriber or customer” [viz., the third party, here VDARE].

But NYAG Letitia James never provided VDARE.com with that notice. An email from Facebook was the first we heard about it.

She simply disregarded the law.

This has turned out to be a pattern.

Significantly, in both cases, the Facebook subpoenas were issued on NYAG Letitia James’ behalf by someone called Rick Sawyer, who is described as “Special Counsel for Hate Crimes.” (In his email signature, Sawyer advertises his pronouns as “he/him”—for now.)

Needless to say, VDARE.com has not committed, or has even (yet) been accused of, a crime of any kind—let alone a “Hate Crime” (which we have anyway consistently argued is an unconstitutional concept).

But Commissar Sawyer’s role betrays what is really motivating NYAG Letitia James: not some technical issue arising from her role of overseer of charities, but the suppression of political opinion she dislikes (aka “Hate”). She apparently thinks she can do this by claiming that such political opinion results in “Hate Crimes” (unlike, of course, Black Lives Matter rhetoric).

Needless to say, this is a direct assault on our First Amendment rights.

NYAG’s James’ move against Facebook was especially bizarre because Facebook had, without warning to us, deleted VDARE.com’s page some two years earlier, all too obviously as part of its Woke campaign to defeat President Trump in that fall’s Presidential election [The 2020 Election Wasn’t Stolen, It Was Bought By Mark Zuckerberg, by William Doyle, The Federalist, October 12, 2021].

(With characteristic leftist vindictiveness, Facebook also deleted our own personal pages, which in Lydia’s case was entirely non-political—she had used it, as all student Millennials were encouraged to do, as a diary, family resource and baby book, showing our children’s first steps, etc.—and has refused to return her data, although we understand it is legally her property.)

And we never raised much money through Facebook anyway, or spent much money on promotion there, partly because I had quickly concluded it was shadow-banning us.

So why was NYAG Letitia James targeting Facebook at all? One theory: She or her minions might actually have been crazy enough to think our Social Media Manager really was a Russian agent. (He is an American, albeit a Southerner, i.e., nearly as bad.)

Facebook, not a friend, informed us that it would comply with these subpoenas—no easy task—unless we contested them.

And we did indeed consider contesting James’ subsequent subpoena against the VDARE Foundation, because it was plainly harassment aimed at suppressing our First Amendment rights (see below).

But eventually, very reluctantly, we took the hard decision to comply, without prejudice, with NYAG Letitia James’ demands as much as possible—to demonstrate good faith to the court.

Facebook thereupon apparently met her demands.

At least, we think it did. Typical of the relentlessly hostile environment in which patriots now operate, Facebook will not tell us what data it supplied. And neither will NYAG Letitia James.

IMPORTANT NOTEBecause our relationship with Facebook was so minimal, we believe and hope that none of our readers, or even the commenters on our late lamented Facebook page—and certainly not our donors—are significantly at risk here.

But THEY COULD HAVE BEEN. This whole episode is disgraceful in a supposedly free society.

Significantly, NYAG Letitia James’ targeting of VDARE.com followed her creation of a ”Hate Crimes Unit,” which she claimed would “strengthen oversight, because we see how much hate is being fueled by content on the internet” [’Hate Has Been Unleashed’ | New York’s AG Lays Out Her Plan to Solve the State’s anti-Semitism Crisis, by Amir Tibon and Danielle Ziri, Haaretz, January 8, 2020].

“Hate” is, of course, an offense unknown to the U.S. Constitution. “Hate speech” is in effect simply something with which NYAG Letitia James disagrees.

For example, in August, during the run-up to the 2020 Presidential Election, NYAG Letitia James joined in a letter to Facebook demanding that it increase censorship against ”hate speech and hate organizations,” aka suppress pro-Trump Facebook pages. [PDF] [AG Racine Leads 20-State Coalition Urging Facebook to Aggressively Combat the Spread of Hate and Disinformation Online, Office of Attorney General for the District of Columbia, August 20, 2020].

Similarly, in August 2022 James took the extraordinary step of trying to intimidate the tiny Cornerstone Church in Batavia, NY out of hosting an event featuring President Trump’s son Eric and former National Security Advisor General Michael Flynn [ReAwaken Tour host feels harassed by NY attorney general , oleantimesherald.com, August 11, 2022].

The Cornerstone Church has (good for them!) now filed an action under the Civil Rights Act against NYAG Letitia James. It points out that the original venue had cancelled the event after pressure from Democrat elected officials, notably Monroe County Legislature President Sabrina LaMar, and also that the Church’s hosting of the ReAwaken Tour was a legitimate exercise of their First Amendment Rights.

Free Speech Foe Sabrina LaMar

Especially significant from VDARE.com’s point of view: The Cornerstone Church has argued that NYAG James’ behavior violated provisions of the New York State Bar Association’s Rules Of Professional Conduct—because she abused her office for political purposes and lied about the nature of their meeting:

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that the Defendants negligently, wantonly, recklessly, intentionally, and knowingly sought to and did deprive them of their constitutional and civil rights, pursuant to the above-named statutes and causes of action by committing acts to deprive Plaintiffs of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States and the State of New York,” the suit states. “Further, Defendant James negligently, wantonly, recklessly, intentionally, and knowingly published multiple false statements to multiple media outlets to mar the reputations of Pastor Doyle and Clay Clark, to provoke objectionable opinions in the minds of members of the community to expose plaintiffs to hatred, contempt, and aversion.”

[ReAwaken organizers, host fight back on what they call ’intimidation,’ ’libel,’ from AG, by Joanne Beck, The Batavian, January 23, 2023]

More on this interesting idea, as it relates to VDARE.com, below.

Then we learned that NYAG Letitia James had issued a subpoena to the VDARE Foundation itself.

See the Subpoena, PDF

NYAG Letitia James’ subpoena made a staggering 44 separate demands for documents. Most of them were of no possible relevance to any oversight function that the New York Attorney General’s office could conceivably claim to exercise over charities registered in New York State.

For example:

We sued the New York Times because it described me, the Editor of VDARE.com, as an “open white nationalist.” Needless to say, this allegation is lethal in the current political climate. However, it is not an opinion, but a matter of fact—I have repeatedly said I’m a Civic Nationalist, i.e., I’m not “open” about being a white nationalist. The Southern District of New York Court recognized this when it acknowledged the issue was “actionable,” although absurdly claiming I had been made whole by the New York Times’ subsequent guilty stealth-edit of its website, even though correction was unacknowledged in the print edition despite its publicly stated ethics code.

At the time, a prominent First Amendment lawyer told us, “The Supreme Court is going to revisit SULLIVAN”—its disastrous 1964 decision that effectively deprived public figures of Common Law libel protection—”but not for you.”

So much for Equality Before The Law.

To SCOTUS’ great discredit, he turned out to be right.

But what does our New York Times litigation have to do with New York State’s charitable oversight role?

And why not subpoena our Colorado Springs litigation?

Significantly, NYAG Letitia James did not attempt to subpoena any documents regarding our litigation against the city of Colorado Springs for its refusal to protect our proposed 2017 conference there.

We believe this is because our suppression by Colorado Springs was so flagrantly unconstitutional, as even one Reason commenter acknowledged. To quote Judge Harris L. Hartz’ magisterial dissent from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision:

A government effort to punish or deter disfavored speech is what VDARE adequately alleges. And the City accomplished its purpose. The complaint plausibly alleges that the Mayor’s statement caused the Resort to cancel the VDARE conference.

This atrocity is simply not something to which our new communist overlords want to draw attention.


Looking over all three (3!) subpoenas, to Facebook and to the VDARE Foundation, it appeared to us that, of 68 separate demands, fully 53 were improper, with most violations landing squarely on First Amendment grounds.

For example, Item 4 of NYAG Letitia James’ subpoena to the VDARE Foundation:

Quite apart from the extraordinary, and utterly unnecessary, compliance burden that this demand imposes on the VDARE Foundation, it also aims to expose everyone who has ever been involved with us to doxing and harassment by Antifa thugs.

Above all, it aims to expose our writers, who have careers and families to support, and who therefore now operate under pseudonyms because of the Reign Of Terror.

There is simply no need for NYAG Letitia James to know who they are.

Moreover, 40 gigabytes of email could amount to a million individual items or more. Redacting them is an enormous and obviously very tricky task (because of the risk of accidentally exposing donors and supporters).

And we absolutely do not want to tell NYAG Letitia James who our writers arebecause we know that she cannot be trusted with confidential information.

Just look at this MSM story about a leak from NYAG Letitia James’ office last year:

Like other nonprofits, Stand For America files an annual tax return with the IRS. While the agency and the nonprofit must make those filings available to the public, including the amounts of contributions to the group, such nonprofits do not have to disclose the identities of their donors.

However, the organization Documented, which describes itself as a nonpartisan government watchdog that investigates money in politics, obtained an unredacted copy of Stand For America’s 2019 filings, which it then shared with POLITICO. The group did not share the original source of the filing, but it bears a stamp from the charity office of the New York state attorney general. [Emphasis added]

[Document reveals identity of donors who secretly funded Nikki Haley’s political nonprofitby Alex Isenstadt, Politico, August 26, 2022]

Needless to say, giving money to GOP Establishment catspaw Nikki Haley is not really a hanging offense (except possibly in James’ crazed New York Democrat bubble).

But giving money to, or writing for, VDARE.com most certainly is a hanging offense right now—given the current Reign Of Terror. (Consider the fate of blogger Razib Khan, fired after less than 24 hours as a New York Times contributor just because he had some years earlier written a letter to VDARE.com opposing something we had published.)

So James’ incentive to leak the identities of our writers and donors is exponentially greater.

Six House Republicans from New York State wrote Attorney General Merrick Garland demanding that he launch an investigation into the leak [NY GOPers ask DOJ to probe AG James over leaked Nikki Haley donors list, by Mark Moore, New York Post, October 13, 2022].

But significantly, Gulag Garland appears to have not responded to the GOP demand at all—further evidence that the Regime is now completely lawless.

(I might also note that Nikki Haley’s Stand For America appears effortlessly to have raised some $7 million in 2019. Obviously, this far outmatches any VDARE Foundation fundraising, even though donations to us are tax-deductible, whereas donations to Stand For America are not. It’s simply amazing how much money professional politicians can raise, as opposed to political truth-tellers like us. With that much money, we could cause a Cultural Revolution.)

Of course, in this sort of regulatory situation, courts do typically operate on the assumption that the government is acting in good faith.

But NYAG Letitia James subpoenas’ fail rate—53 out of 68 demands turn out to be First Amendment violations—simply is not the record of a government acting in good faith. Whatever statutory presumption NYAG Letitia James might be accorded, it is rebutted by this pattern.

Initially, we replied to NYAG Letitia James making these points.

See our letter, PDF.

Our subsequent response—an exhaustive (and exhausting) effort to demonstrate good faith.

I must stipulate here that the VDARE Foundation really is a tiny organization— “lean,” in our auditor’s words. And apart from editorial and tech support contractors, VDARE.com generally has only two full-time employees—Lydia and myself, home-schooling parents of three small children. And, importantly, we have no in-house lawyers.

Nevertheless, unlike many of the trusting January 6 martyrs, we knew better than to deal with the government without legal counsel [Why some alleged Capitol rioters are acting as their own attorneysNPROctober 27, 2021].

But it simply took us time to organize our legal response to James’ massive onslaught.

This was particularly true because we have increasingly serious difficulty procuring any legal services at all—all this stuff about John Adams representing the British soldiers accused in the Boston Massacre although himself a Patriot, once the pride of the American legal profession, has gone down the toilet in this new Soviet America. (See “Chinese Communist Social Credit–style stealth deprivation of professional and commercial services” above.)

As discussed above, we elected not to fight NYAG Letitia James’ subpoena on First Amendment grounds, despite its flagrant political motivation, but instead to begin more cautiously, by demonstrating good faith and complying with the subpoena as far as was compatible with our contractors’ and donors’ security.

But the cost of this good-faith effort has been enormous—see “the process is the punishment” above. This is how what Paul Gottfried calls “the Managerial State” enforces obedience.

Our legal fees already amount to over $300,000—and, remember, we have not yet even been accused of any wrongdoing at all.

Even worse are the opportunity costs. Lydia and I just don’t have that much bandwidth. We have already been forced to suspend the hard-copy VDARE QUARTERLY. And when did you last see a National Data column?

Moreover, VDARE.com event-planning and fundraising has been completely crippled since the summer of 2022. (We will have our second invitation-only Annual Conference in June—contact Lydia for more details.)

If you’re a donor and you haven’t heard Lydia’s delicious alto on your voicemail thanking you for your donation, this is the reason: She was physically digging through the Foundation’s records, which reside in a cargo container on the Castle grounds.

She’s a tall, strong girl (6’ 1”). But this is still a huge pain.

The VDARE Foundation archives after our chaotic move from Connecticut during COVID, on Berkeley Springs Castle grounds, 2022

By December 2022, the VDARE Foundation had produced over 7,000 pages of documents to AG NYAG Letitia James. We had engaged a third-party custodian to sort through our 40 gigabytes of emails, the equivalent of perhaps millions of pages, because we needed to protect the identities of our vendors, writers, volunteers and donors. And our lawyers’ review of those emails was well under way.

(Significantly, in the course of this production, our lawyers protested NYAG Letitia James’ demand that we produce the names of vendors, e.g., our webmaster, and were told the NRA had been forced to do so. This turned out to be a lie, and another ethical violation. Specifically, it is a violation of Rules 4.1 (”Truthfulness in Statements to Others”) and Rules 8.4 (“Misconduct“) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct.

Despite all this, in early December, we received a peremptory email from NYAG Letitia James’ office demanding that the VDARE Foundation, within ten days, disclose its constitutionally protected information, reveal previously redacted (because we want to protect donors, writers and correspondents) information in the first 7,000 pages of production; complete review of the 40 gigabytes of emails (ditto); and produce a complete redaction log for the entirety of its production.

Again, the VDARE Foundation is a tiny entity in the world of New York State charities, not at all worthy of this massive regulatory overkill. And in the normal course of events, NYAG Letitia James’ underlings would have simply discussed any concerns about the status of the production with a phone call or a meeting.

But of course her persecution of us is not normal. It is purely political.

So, at this point, with NYAG Letitia James’ bad faith irrefutably evident, we filed a complaint in federal court for declaratory and injunctive relief. In other words, we want an official declaration that James has violated the First Amendment, and we want the Court to halt her attempt to enforce the subpoenas.

Complaint as filed, Northern District of New York

NYAG James’ shocking reaction: Ignore protocol, file in state court.

Normally, the fact that we filed first should have meant that our First Amendment argument would have been heard in federal court.

But, in an extremely aggressive move that shocked our lawyers, NYAG Letitia James subsequently filed against us in New York State Court anyway.

See her filing here: PDF.

In doing so, she violated procedural norms yet again—it’s a pattern.

As our lawyers subsequently told the Northern District of New York Federal Court:

Especially revealing is the OAG [Office of the Attorney General]’s unseemly subterfuge in secretly rushing to state court to secure a favorable order before this Court hears and rules on its motion to dismiss.

VDARE filed its complaint in this Court on December 12, 2022, simultaneously emailing a courtesy copy of its papers to the OAG in advance of formal service, which provided the OAG with three weeks (until January 4, 2023) to respond. [Citations omitted] On December 21, 2022, a full two weeks before the OAG’s response was due on January 4, 2023, the OAG requested and secured VDARE’s consent to an extension of its deadline to respond in federal court, from January 4 to 18, 2023. In so doing, the OAG claimed (in an email) that the extension was necessary because of the holidays and an attorney who had taken ill:

Because of the holidays and a member of our team who has COVID, we would appreciate an extension until Jan 18 to respond to VDARE’s complaint in the NDNY. Can you please confirm your consent? [Citation omitted]

Unbeknownst to VDARE when it consented to the extension on December 21, 2022, however, the OAG had already initiated its special proceeding in state court the week before (on December 16, 2022) with a proposed order to show cause. [Citation omitted]

See our Memorandum of Law: PDF.

In other words, NYAG Letitia James lied to us, at least by omission, in order to get her state filing heard first.

Of course, in a just world, even apart from NYAG Letitia James’ obvious malfeasance here, the New York State Court should have stayed or even dismissed NYAG Letitia James’ petition to compel enforcement of the subpoena, pending resolution of our First Amendment case in Federal Court, which would normally have had priority.

But to our lawyers’ shock (again), and with unprecedented speed—as in, the next business day after filings were completed—New York State Judge Sabrina Kraus ruled against us, uncritically accepting NYAG Letitia James’ lying and stupid assertions as to why she had cause to want disclosure.

Kraus even endorsed NYAG James’ demand that we provide the names of writers.

This is particularly telling because NYAG James had ostentatiously eschewed asking for the names of writers in her response to our Federal suit—presumably because of its obvious First Amendment implications.

As our lawyers subsequently told the Federal Court:

…the OAG represented to this Court in its motion to dismiss this case that its subpoena to VDARE does “not seek any information regarding the development or publication of VDARE’s online content.” [Citation omitted]

Simultaneously, the OAG took the contrary and constitutionally offensive position in state court that “the identities of contractors—including writers who contribute to the website—these are precisely the records the OAG must examine in its investigation of VDARE’s organizational misconduct.”

Apart from taking contradictory positions in two different courts, the OAG’s purported rationale for the demanded disclosure does not fit its rationale: a vendor’s provision of services to VDARE and a writer’s provision of content to VDARE’s website have no automatic connection to any legitimate investigative need.

Memorandum Of Law In Opposition To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, February 22 2023

Arguing contradictory things in different courts is flatly unethical. It violates the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which explicitly precludes litigants from making contradictory claims in different courts.

VDARE.com’s response to NYAG James’ aggression

Of course we appealed Judge Kraus’ ruling—but only because our heroic donors had provided the money to do it. And we were granted a stay of her decision pending a full hearing.

But again, with unprecedented speed, the Appeals Court then rejected our stay pending appeal. Significantly, they even passed the matter on to their clerk for a summary order, indicating that they did not think it worth their time to be bothered with our First Amendment rights. We were granted no relief at all, not even the protection of our writers’ identities, which NYAG Letitia James of course had lyingly assured the Federal court she did not want.

See ruling here.

From our point of view, this nightmare is like watching water cascade uphill—the case should never have been heard in New York State Court; it should not have been rejected; and our stay should never have been rejected on appeal.

But rules just don’t seem to apply to immigration patriots.

Note the net effect of NYAG Letitia James’ aggression: We are now forced to fight this ruinously expensive war on TWO fronts—in Federal Court and in New York State Court.

In fact, THREE fronts—because Lydia is still being forced to prepare production to comply with NYAG Letitia James’ demands in case we lose. See below.

The downside of VDARE Foundation’s good faith effort to comply

The downside of VDARE.com’s good faith effort to comply: NYAG Letitia James was able to find and trump up (excuse the term!) various trivial alleged infractions.

“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” This principle, supposedly enunciated by Stalin’s secret police chief Lavrentiy Beria, is of course why Americans today are terrified of audits by the Internal Revenue Service.

And it’s why President Trump, in the video we linked to above (at 12:05), forcefully asserted his right to take the Fifth Amendment in his deposition, although specifically pointing out (at 10:36) that he had once thought that innocence was a sufficient defense.

Among alleged VDARE Foundation infractions that NYAG Letitia James is trumping up:

  • Lydia (“Secretary, Treasurer and Publisher”) of VDARE and I (“Director/CEO/Chairman”) did not specify in filings that we are married.

Even if this technicality were true, Lydia and I obviously USE THE SAME LAST NAMES! We file joint taxes with the same IRS where we file our 990s!! And, critically, NO BENEFIT WAS GAINED by the supposed failure to report!!!

And we have repeatedly, perhaps boringly, celebrated on VDARE.com the fact that we are married. For example, here in 2007, announcing our marriage, Another Personal Message From Peter Brimelow:

Manifestly, we had no intent to deceive.

And NYAG Letitia James knows this—because she admits elsewhere that she is stalking VDARE.com: She cites VDARE.com posts in her filings to support her lie that we were living at the Castle rent-free.

So NYAG Letitia James’ lie here is not merely malicious. It is stupid.

  • NYAG Letitia James claims, without evidence, that our Berkeley Springs Castle purchase is suspect

The Berkeley Springs Castle is a beautiful charismatic property and only two hours from the U.S. Capitol. (This is probably what alarms NYAG James—as Southern Poverty Law Center enforcer Michael Edison Hayden quite accurately complained in 2020: “[t]he castle gives them greater proximity to Washington D.C. and a place to hold conferences without fear of being shut down”).

But this is in West Virginia, and therefore actually surprisingly cheap—we got the Castle, 55 acres of mountain and three somewhat dilapidated cottages for $1.4 million.

For comparison, that’s less than a two-bedroom apartment in NW Washington DC.)

(WE URGE PATRIOTS TO JOIN US HERE IN AFFORDABLE, D.C.-ADJACENT, WEST VIRGINIA! Its demographics “Look Like America” before the disaster of the 1965 Immigration Act, it has no big city to outweigh the rural vote, and it went for Trump 68.62% in 2020.)

But the serious point: It’s obviously a total waste of New York taxpayer money for NYAG Letitia James to spend so much time on this tiny transaction.

Furthermore, it is absolutely standard for 501(c)(3) charities like the VDARE Foundation to own their own headquarters, office space, meeting rooms etc. Here, for example, is the Southern Poverty Law Center’s headquarters in Montgomery AL—the notorious “Poverty Palace”:


And here’s the SPLC’s audited financial statement, which says that, combining their operating fund and suspiciously large endowment fund, they have access to $727 million. [SPLC Consolidated Financial Statement, (PDF) October 31, 2022]

And, as outlined above and confirmed by SPLC thug Michael Edison Hayden, we bought the Berkeley Springs Castle only because we discovered we could not rely on the corporate/ Ruling Class complex to defend our right to hold conferences—and the holding of conferences is critical to our role in advancing Patriotic Immigration Reform.

This is a problem that the SPLC and other communist groups absolutely do not have, for reasons that invite analysis, in the current political climate.

FOR THE RECORD: every step of the Berkeley Springs Castle transaction was carefully monitored by expensive lawyers—because we were well aware that we were susceptible to scrutiny by a malicious and unscrupulous politically motivated regulator.


  1. NYAG Letitia James is lying, and stupidly lying, when she claims that the Castle purchase was illegitimate because VDARE Foundation’s board was “overseen exclusively by the Brimelow family.”

In fact, despite NYAG James’ insinuation, there is absolutely no reason the VDARE Foundation board should not have been made up of Brimelow family members: this is common for small, family-run foundations.

But again, James’ claim is still a lie, and a stupid lie. Our board has always had at least one, and at various times at many as three, non-family members, as is perfectly obvious from our filings.

  1. NYAG Letitia James is similarly lying, and stupidly lying, by claiming that the Brimelow family’s temporary residence in the castle, and subsequently in a refurbished cottage on the castle grounds, was somehow illegitimate.

But in fact at every step, again carefully monitored by our lawyers, we paid independently determined fair market rent.

NYAG Letitia James knows this because we insisted on disclosing it to her at an early point when we were told it was allegedly the matter of concern.

But she refused to meet with our lawyers to discuss this disclosure. And her subpoena harassment rolled on.

  1. NYAG Letitia James is lying, and stupidly lying, when she claims that we transferred assets purchased by the VDARE Foundation to a for-profit corporation that Lydia controls.

But this for-profit corporation, part of the aforementioned restructuring after we were forced into the real estate business, is in fact owned by the VDARE Foundation—NOT by Lydia personally.

NYAG Letitia James knows this because it was disclosed, e.g.,on our 2020 Form 990, which we provided (and she has access to anyway).

Again, NYAG Letitia James is simply lying, and stupidly lying.

  • Facebook Expenditures

NYAG Letitia James asserts that Facebook Cancelled VDARE.com in early 2020 because it determined we engaged in “coordinated inauthentic behavior” by creating a botfarm and that “these expenditures could constitute a waste of charitable assets and breach of the Brimelows’ fiduciary duties as VDARE officers and directors.”

But, as she perfectly well knows, we categorically deny that we were involved in “coordinated inauthentic behavior” and in fact sued Facebook for libel on this exact point—see “They Want Us In Gulags” (That Includes Trump). Why VDARE.com Is Suing Facebook For Defamation.

Facebook, probably because it has testified before Congress to the contrary, seems not to want to admit that it is engaging in political censorship. But of course it is absolutely obvious to everyone that it is—e.g., completely independent third-party Facebook users who wish to share VDARE.com items are now libelously informed ”this URL goes against our community standards on spam.”

And in any case, VDARE.com is a charitable/educational organization that is in the business of spreading its message.

Paying to promote our message is unimpeachably legitimate.

Furthermore, most of the monies that NYAG Letitia James instances were actually paid, not by the VDARE Foundation, but separately by our Social Media consultant, to promote his own private business, helping us and his other clients.

NYAG Letitia James knows this—because the expenditures appear nowhere in our accounts.

By not acknowledging this she is, again, stupidly lying about material facts.

  • Payments

NYAG Letitia James asserts:

In 2019, VDARE reported a six-fold increase in revenue, from $700,000 in 2018 to approximately $4.3 million in 2019 […] Also in 2019, VDARE doubled the salary of its Chairman, Peter Brimelow, to approximately $345,000,

The VDARE Foundation had a great year in 2019, thanks to our wonderful donors. In previous years, in a way that is typical of small business owners, Lydia and I had often eschewed income to pay bills, depending on financial circumstances. So in 2019, the VDARE Foundation Board formally approved a payment for the year to me of $349,500. (N.b. Lydia was paid some $10,000.)

But in contrast, in 2020, with no major donor, Lydia and I together were paid only some $270,000.

And, for what it’s worth, in 2023 to date, basically because of the cost of NY AG James’ regulatory onslaught, we have not taken any salary at all.

BTW in 2023, NYAG Letitia James is the highest-paid State Attorney General in the U.S. according to Wikipedia, which puts her salary at $210,000 per annum (and she is allowed to get speaking fees, which I am effectively prevented from receiving by the Reign of Terror).

Personally, I think that Lydia and I deserve to earn much more. In 2021, National Cuckview’s Rich Lowry was paid apparently paid $400,000.

Who is doing more for the Historic American Nation?

  • Compliance

NYAG Letitia James asserts about our purchase of the Berkeley Springs Castle and subsequent reorganization transactions:

[u]nder New York law each required approval and written documentation of that approval by disinterested members of the VDARE Board of Director [CITATION OMITTED] and should have been submitted for review and approval to OAG or to Supreme Court [CITATION OMITTED]. Transfer of charitable assets to a for profit entity without fair consideration to disqualified persons is a violation of both New York and federal law.

But this would only be true if the purchase and transfer were to a non-profit entity independent of, and not controlled by, the VDARE Foundation.

NYAG Letitia James knows that this is not the case with the VDARE Foundation’s purchase of the Berkeley Springs Castle and its subsequent creation of a for-profit entity that the Foundation controls.

She is again lying to the Court—stupidly, because the facts are readily ascertainable, for example in our lawyers’ briefs.

Why now?

When I’m in an optimistic mood, I think this lying Deep State assault, along with so many others, is happening now because the Ruling Class is panicking. It has simply never recovered from the shock of Trump’s 2016 victory and the realization that the Democrat stealth strategy of Electing A New People could be halted (as it actually was for a time under Trump) and even reversed.

That’s why Biden has risked impeachment by opening the borders to rush in the Great Replacement in a plainly treasonous way, to finish the job as quickly as possible.

Now there are signs that, with the 2024 election coming up, the Regime is getting alarmed by polls showing even Democrats and independents are turning against immigration.

Which means that, now more than ever, the Regime must keep the immigration issue out of public debate—until America’s demographic transformation is complete.

Dissent on immigration must be utterly crushed—even polite dissent from a tiny operation like VDARE.com.

What happens now?

Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., the senior judge in the federal District Court for the Northern District of New York, will rule on two of the competing motions that are pending before him:

  1. On NYAG Letitia James’s motion to dismiss the entire case, which he will either grant or deny and
  2. The VDARE Foundation’s motion to enjoin any attempt to enforce the subpoena by the AG.

We don’t know how long this will take. Federal judges are supposed to rule within six months, but often don’t. However, we are told this is not likely to be the case here.

But a footnote: Lies have consequences—we intend to move to sanction and disbar lying NYAG Letitia James

In journalism, and of course in politics, you get used to opponents lying all the time.

But NYAG Letitia James is not just a journalist and not just a politician: she is also the head of a state agency, and a lawyer.

That means that, as a lawyer, she is what is known as an “Officer of the Court.” As Law.com says

As officers of the court lawyers have an absolute ethical duty to tell judges the truth… [Emphasis added]

You can see why this is necessary. The system simply cannot function if all factual assertions have to be checked all the time. Truthfulness “cuts down on transaction costs,” as the great Nobel Laureate economist Milton Friedman once pointed out to me.

NYAG Letitia James, however, has consistently lied in court filings.

And it has worked—until now.

Thus, for example, New York State Judge Sabrina Kraus, in her ruling all too obviously cut-and-pasted from NYAG James’ brief, stated:

Public postings by Respondent Chairman Peter Brimelow and others indicate that he and his family have used the castle as their primary residence since at least March 2020. [A lie. As stated above, we lived only briefly in the Castle before moving to the cottage, AND WE PAID INDEPENDENTLY DETERMINED RENT THROUGHOUT. Moreover, Judge Kraus nowhere acknowledges that the Castle was purchased for an unimpeachable purpose: providing a venue for meetings that, because of communist threats that U.S. law enforcement authorities seem unable to counter, we cannot hold elsewhere.] During this same period, Respondent also substantially increased payments to Brimelow and to third-party, for-profit companies he controls… [A (confused, see “payments” above) lie. The West Virginia for-profit company—there’s only one—is OWNED BY THE VDARE FOUNDATION.]

Respondent separately reported spending tens of thousands of dollars on office expenses in 2019 [this is because at that time we operated from a home office in our home in Litchfield CT, a completely standard procedure] as well as paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to a third-party LLC controlled by Brimelow that was based at Brimelow’s residential home address. [This was simply an employee leasing company that paid the salaries of all VDARE employees, including Lydia and myself. One of its purposes was to protect our employees from being doxxed.]

In December 2020, Respondent conveyed the entirety of the Berkeley Springs Castle property to two West Virginia corporations incorporated by Lydia Brimelow, Peter’s wife and a Respondent director, five months earlier. Respondent conveyed the castle itself and the land that it sits on to the Berkeley Castle Foundation (BCF), a non-profit corporation. Respondent conveyed the remaining land, consisting of eight parcels, to BBB, LLC, a for-profit corporation. [Misleading at best. Judge Kraus nowhere acknowledges that the West Virginia corporations are ALL controlled by the VDARE Foundation.]

Of course, Judge Kraus could have avoided these stupid errors simply by reading our lawyers’ brief.

But apparently New York State judges don’t have to do that kind of thing.

Nevertheless, and this is a critical distinction: Attorney General NYAG Letitia James absolutely does have to tell the truth to Judge Kraus, and to all courts involved in our lynching.

Instead, she has systematically lied to them.

This implicates several New York Rules of Professional Conduct:

RULE 3.3:


(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer…

(3) offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false…

The official comments, which are designed to elucidate the rule, provide the gloss:

This Rule sets forth the special duties of lawyers as officers of the court to avoid conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process…although a lawyer in an adversary proceeding is not required to present an impartial exposition of the law and may not vouch for the evidence submitted in a cause, the lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statements of law or fact or by evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. [Comment 2 to Rule 3.3]


…an assertion purporting to be based on the lawyer’s own knowledge, as in an affidavit or declaration by the lawyer or in a statement in open court, may properly be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry. There are circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative misrepresentation. [Comment 3 to Rule 3.3]

Comment 5 states:

Paragraph (a)(3) requires that the lawyer refuse to offer or use evidence that the lawyer knows to be false, regardless of the client’s wishes. This duty is premised on the lawyer’s obligation as an officer of the court to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence.

Comment 12 provides:

Lawyers have a special obligation as officers of the court to protect a tribunal against criminal or fraudulent conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process.

Accordingly, paragraph (b) requires a lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding to take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure if necessary, whenever the lawyer knows that a person, including the lawyer’s client, intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding.

Such conduct includes, among other things… unlawfully destroying or concealing documents or other evidence related to the proceeding; and failing to disclose information to the tribunal when required by law to do so. For example, under some circumstances a person’s omission of a material fact may constitute a crime or fraud on the tribunal.”

In our case, New York Attorney General NYAG Letitia James has committed every one of these violations.

And these violations can have consequences. Thus Harvard Law School emeritus professor Alan Dershowitz, author of the best-selling book Get Trump, has argued that Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg could be disbarred for indicting President Trump while knowing that the key witness, former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen, is lying [Alan Dershowitz slams Alvin Bragg’s potential Trump arrest: ’One of the most dangerous precedents’, Fox News, March 26, 2023].

And, remember, despite Politically Correct feeding frenzies in this age of the Great Awokening, sanctions have actually been successfully applied to culpable leftist Officers of the Court—for example against Soros Prosecutor Kim Gardner in the McCloskey case, and against Duke Rape Hoax prosecutor Mike Nifong [Judge Sentences Ex-Durham County District Attorney Nifong to Jail for a Day, Fox News, January 13, 2015].

Accordingly, we intend to file a grievance with the Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department asking that Letitia James be sanctioned, and hopefully disbarred.

Needless to say, we don’t have any particular expectation, in the current Unequal Justice environment, that justice will be served.

But we think that President Trump, if he notices us, will agree.

Remember, miracles happen quite often in politics. BUT VDARE.COM NEEDS A MIRACLE RIGHT NOW.

NYAG Letitia James’ regulatory harassment has driven us to the wall.

We are now right at the point where we cannot continue to pay our writers and our technical support staff—let alone defend their pseudonymity.

So, again, we must ask you to help us continue to fight for immigration patriotism—and for America.

We—and all of our posterity—will be profoundly grateful.

Peter Brimelow

Donate to VDARE.com here.

Peter Brimelow [Email him] is the editor of VDARE.com. His best-selling book, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disasteris now available in Kindle format.

Reposted with permission from VDARE.

Review of The Jewish Onslaught: Dispatches from the Wellesley Battlefront, Part 2

Tony Martin   

Go to Part 1.

Martin’s story is simple enough—in 1993, he assigned The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews as one of the texts to his class on American slavery. Someone noticed the book in the Wellesley College bookstore and took note. “Observers” were sent from the College Hillel (or Jewish college organization) to Martin’s class and an intervention by the College Hillel was ordered. Eventually, tremendous local and institutional pressure were brought to bear on Martin to recant his use of the book. He refused. The pressure then moved from within to without as the national media—including The New York Times, The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and major television news program personalities such as David Brinkley and Ted Koppel picked up the story to shower abuse and name-calling on Professor Martin. Other Black academics were enlisted (including Henry Louis Gates and a Black colleague from Wellesley) to excoriate Martin. Martin became synonymous with two things: he was an anti-Semite himself and his discipline, Africana Studies, was a worthless academic endeavor. He was likewise amazed at the refusal of the media—the same one tarnishing his name—to entertain fairness in allowing him to tell his side of the story. He was shellshocked by the patent double-standard. The same national papers that afforded his critics ample space to tear him apart refused to allow him to defend himself.

The Jewish Onslaught is three topics in one—first, it is a poignant account of what it means to go from relative anonymity to a national punching bag because one has the temerity to buck the Jews. He titled it correctly when he labeled it an “onslaught”. Tony Martin was a living, breathing human being who was destroyed for the relatively innocuous decision to assign a book to his undergraduate students and then refuse to buckle under when his masters demanded his recantation. The entirety of the book drips with the personal hurt that this human being endured at seeing his name and reputation sullied by very powerful forces. But again, this individual, for whatever reason, refused to “play ball” and apologize for his meager part in rehabilitating The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews as a piece of scholarship.

Second, the book is a very concise look at the power dynamics of the people and organizations that were seeking to destroy him in real-time as a critique of Jewish power politics. In that sense, it reads like a book that is quite critical of outsized Jewish power. In short, I sense that if Tony Martin was an anti-Semite, the Jews have only themselves to blame for his views. I am certain that Martin never set out to tangle with the Jews—his academic interests were African-related, and his interest in the Jews was tertiary at best. Only after being set upon like a pack of wild dogs did he connect the dots of Jewish viciousness—and only thereafter did he attempt, in a modest way, to describe it. Third, it is a history of the attack itself—Martin reproduces the correspondence he received (both favorable and negative) as well as the various news accounts, contemporaneous writings, and reporting. In this, his training as a lawyer comes through (he was a U.K. barrister before becoming an academic).

The Jewish Onslaught is a book that Martin never intended to—and did not want to—write. He would have contented himself writing about his areas of academic interest for the rest of his quiet career but for an inconvenient student assignment and the backlash it generated. He, therefore, became an unlikely warrior in the exposition of Jewish power politics and control. But I am glad that he did. His essay on Jewish control, manipulation, and skullduggery reads with sincerity and authenticity partly because he was a reluctant expositor of the problem. As for the writing, he is a first-class writer and logician—and he comes back, incredulously at times, to the simple question that no one should be surprised that Jews took part in the African Atlantic slave trade so why am I being professionally and personally crucified for teaching it?  His answer to that question opened his eyes to the reality that the relationship between the Jews and Blacks has never been one of reciprocity and respect—it has been qualified support for Blacks to do the things that the Jews want—and any deviation from that program requires a public and professional flogging.

What is more, once Martin dug a bit deeper into the Jewish-Black relationship, he discovered much more than merely the outsized Jewish role in African chattel slavery. He discovered that the Hamitic myth (that Africans are associated particularly with the Curse of Noah) was a creation of Talmudic sages more than a thousand years ago. He attributes that myth with softening the ground for later Christian views of African inferiority that itself was used in justifying the slave trade. And the Hamitic myth is overlaid by what he calls the myth of Jewish supremacy. His hate mail, mostly from Jews, demonstrated an almost unhinged and secret hatred by Jews for the “schvartze.” But be that as it may, hate mail comes from the most unhinged members of a community so there is no proof that it represented Jewish attitudes in general. That said, Martin, if he is to be believed, was surprised by the vitriol of anti-Blackness he received for his part in the affair.

*        *        *

There are six themes of The Jewish Onslaught that are worthy of highlighting. Again, I assume that if “they” had left Professor Anthony Martin alone, he never would have been inclined to research and make these claims. First, he observes that “the very least that can be said in the present case is that Jewish ability to influence the major media is very impressive indeed.” Martin witnessed it first-hand, and, because of it, he researched that which should be known to those who have undertaken only a cursory glance at who runs the media in this country. Yes, the Jews have an overwhelming stranglehold over the information in the United States, and this control necessarily has implications on what constitutes “news” and what does not. That, for example, the American public is barraged with information regarding the Iranian nuclear program while not one American presidential candidate has ever been asked their opinion of Israel’s clandestine nuclear program—even though Israel, as the pariah nation that it is, is a recalcitrant non-signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Or more to the point, why are the American people continuously fed the lie that Israel is our “greatest ally.” Who says? Especially as it pertains to Israel, the American media carries water like a lackey for Israeli misdeeds. But for the Jewish stranglehold on media and information, the American public would undoubtedly have a very different take on our “greatest ally.” Martin simply caught a glimpse of the power of the Jewish media machine to grind down the opposition—even if the opposition itself is of little value or importance. Martin never connected that control to other Jewish initiatives and agendas but the mere fact that he observed it—in a chapter entitled “Major Media”—is enough.

Second, Martin makes the more pained point that some of his Black brethren fomented the attack on him. He uses that reality as a springboard for describing how Jews have co-opted and infiltrated Black leadership and organization for their ends. He recounts how the Jews have insisted, for example, that Louis Farrakhan be excluded from major Black summits or events, or their support (and money) would be withdrawn. As it relates to Farrakhan and his views, the question isn’t whether we agree with him (and, more to the point, as Whites, what business is it of ours to tell the Black community who can or cannot have a voice within their community), the point rather is that Farrakhan is no more beyond the pale in terms of other Black voices save for his lifelong critique of Jewish involvement in what he considers to be “intra-Black” debates. For that reason, and not his vitriol generally, Farrakhan must not only be purged from general American audiences, but he must also, if possible, be purged from Black audiences as well.

The gist of Martin’s critique is that the Jews, wholly supportive of the integrationist wing of Black America, do everything that they can to squelch the normalization and voice of Black separatists. Martin sees, correctly I might add, that Jews have a thumb on the scale of what should be an intra-Black dispute about leadership and direction. Integration serves the needs of the Jews—it makes Blacks vote in a way that mirrors the Jews and in support of politicians chosen by the Jews. It is no small thing that control over Black leadership is of enormous consequence to the Jews—they multiply their power electorally in the United States by adding ten percent of the population to their side. Black intellectuals that would question that relationship—or the Jews generally—must be crushed. Sometimes, one cannot resist the query: who do these people think that they are to manipulate anyone and everything?

Third, Martin offers a chapter entitled “Jewish Racism.” In it, he connects the dots that Jews are generally racist towards Blacks—questioning their abilities and their African Studies Departments. Martin observed first-hand, in the mail he received and the professional criticism he endured, that Jewish toleration of him (as a Black professional) and his discipline (African Studies) was contingent on his ability to leave well enough alone. He was on the receiving end of critics who called him a fraud—that his teaching was a fraud—and probably an affirmative action fraud as well. In addition to the Hamitic myth, discussed above, Martin appeared generally shocked by the bilious language used by his detractors to describe him and the debate.

Fourth, Martin makes an interesting point about the logic of “some Jews.” When Jews are forced to admit some collective failing, they insist that blame cannot be assigned to “the Jews,” but only that “some Jews” did this or that. He also writes how this “some Jews” mantra is shared by, ironically enough, all Jews. He observes:

The campus ultra-Zionist who is usually in a state of war with the campus Jewish power elite, the power elite themselves, the liberals (like the one who for years had regaled me with stories of her civil rights involvement), the former infantile left-wing communist now turned pseudo-liberal Jewish nationalist—all spoke as with one voice on this issue.  “It’s a lie,” they sang in choral unison. “Jews were not an important part of the slave trade. ‘Some Jews,’ maybe, but that’s all. The book is anti-Semitic, and you are hateful for using it.”

To which he replies, cleverly enough, “and I am yet to meet the Jewish historian who will tell you that ‘some Englishmen’ established an empire on which the sun never set.” What the Jews have established, at least in terms of acceptable historiography of the Jews themselves, is that when we speak of laudable characteristics, we may speak of “the Jews”; yet when we speak of not-so-laudable characteristics or activities that are deplorable, we must speak only of “some Jews.” Only the good sticks to all, the bad is relegated to a few bad apples. Ask yourself a question, what other people demands such historiography? Martin’s insight here is alone worth the price of admission.

In a chapter entitled “Black Solidarity,” Martin recounts the overwhelming support he received from the Black community minus a few public Black detractors. But what Martin spends his time deconstructing is the infiltration of Black (and other ethnic groups) by Jewish organizations. He recounts information that was not familiar to me—the Anti-Defamation League ran illegal spying operations across the country in the 1990s—some “12,000 or more individuals and 950 organizations were said to have been the objects of the ADL’s unwelcome attention.” This was a matter of public record and reported, if briefly, in the mainstream news. From this, Martin observes that “ethnic associations” seem to fascinate the ADL, and the ADL sidestepped the controversy of its spying by sanctimoniously claiming it had an obligation to “expose extremist, racist and anti-Semitic organizations and groups.” Martin was therefore lumped into the same category as the Klan for purposes of the ADL’s watchful eye. To which Martin replies, “who will spy on the real bigots while they spy on the alleged bigots?”

The last theme that Martin touches upon is “Afrocentrism,” which he defines as, “assert[ing] that African people must interpret their own reality and see the world from their own perspective. [It] rejects both the claims of the racist and the efforts of friendly but paternalistic representatives of other races to speak for the African.” Again, this language hearkens back to the discussion above about the Black separatist wing of thought that, even if it does not call for political separation, casts a wary eye towards the liberal non-Blacks lining up to “do good” for the Black community. Martin believes that “Afrocentrism,” so defined, is considered by Jews to be their natural enemy. He views this to be so because Jews are now well-ensconced in the upper echelons of White society and wish to protect their privileged position. In this, he notes that the Jews have become “White,” and now serve to protect “Whiteness.” One area of this debate, which is something I knew only a little about, is the question of Greece, Egypt, and the role of Africa. He says that Jews are the academic leaders of the “whitenizing” or “de-Africanizing” of Egypt. He sees that the Jews have been vocal advocates for the ideas that ancient Egyptians—the civilization-builders anyway—were not “Africans” but dark-skinned Greeks or hybrid Greeks. He makes the further point that the Greeks were much closer in culture and geography to the Ethiopians than they were to the peoples of Northern Europe who now claim the ancient Greeks as their own. He offers, in a few pages, why he believes that Greece is indebted to Egypt for its culture, and why Egypt, in turn, must be considered an African power.

This is an interesting side question—it is undoubtedly true that Northern and Western Europeans see themselves in continuity with the Hellenistic world—and that Western Civilization, with ancient Greece being its anchor, is unique. Homer, Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle are “our” people, and their ideas on philosophy, governance and ethics are “our” collective civilizational idea. Indeed, we see those Greeks as “White” and one needs only a cursory review of ancient Greek art and statuary shows to realize that while Ethiopia may be closer to Helles than Norway, the people of Greece were more racially similar to the people of Norway than they were the people of Ethiopia. For my part, I do take ownership of a meta-culture and people best embodied by “Western Civilization” that includes the Greeks and that is, racially anyway, White. Martin would like to do one of two things: cut ancient Greece down to size as something like a cultural interloper concerning Africa; or cut loose ancient Greece from Europe and “Western Civilization” and reorient it into a North African orbit. From what I have read of ancient Greece and the Hellenistic world, it formed a semi-circumference around the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and stretched from Sparta along the coast to Alexandria and even more Western points. Ethiopia, while not directly a part of the Hellenistic world (not unlike Persia), was an impressive culture and civilization, which cannot be denied; but it was not a progenitor of the West.

It seems to me that the reason that Martin and his fellow Afro-centrists are so desperate to untether or delegitimize ancient Greece and tie it, in one way or another, to “Africa” is because the reality of sub-Saharan Africa has been so abysmal and backward. He is right on one point—as a crow flies, the ancient Greeks that I count as “fathers” were further from my people on the West Coast of Ireland than they were from the dark-skinned Ethiopians. But geography and cartography are what they are: Greece is in Europe, so defined, and the peoples of Europe claim her as their own and recent genetic evidence confirms the relationship of Europe with ancient Greece. The reality is that in language, culture, mannerisms, and opinions, Northern and Western Europeans (whether we lived in caves during Homer’s time or not) are the chief inheritors and children of ancient Greece.

*        *        *

To prove that a controversy involving Professor Martin, now dead for ten years, is far from history—consider the following that involves the Biden Administration’s nomination of one Kristin Clark:

Kristen Clarke, President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee to head the civil rights division at the Justice Department, said it was a mistake to have invited the author of an anti-Semitic screed to speak at Harvard when she headed a black student group there. In 1994, Clarke as the leader of a Black Student Association invited Tony Martin, author of a book called “The Jewish Onslaught,” to speak and defended him afterward. Jews on campus at the time were appalled by the invitation.

“Giving someone like him a platform, it’s not something I would do again,” she told the Forward on Thursday. Clarke, the president of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, has worked closely in recent years with Jewish groups in combatting white supremacists. Biden announced his choice of Clarke on Monday, which earned praise from the Anti-Defamation League. The following day Tucker Carlson, a Fox News Channel host, uncovered 1994 stories in the Harvard Crimson about the Martin controversy. Subsequently, statements from liberal Jewish groups backing Clarke were more pointed in rejecting the bid to stigmatize her with actions she took as a student.

“This week, Kristen Clarke acknowledged she made a mistake when, as a student at Harvard, she gave a professor who promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories a platform,” Bend the Arc: Jewish Action said Thursday on Twitter. “She unequivocally denounces anti-Semitism — and acts upon that commitment in fighting religious discrimination.” Also praising Clarke on Thursday for her work combatting anti-Semitism were the National Council of Jewish Women, the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Joel Rubin, the American Jewish Congress executive director.

Rabbi Jill Jacobs, who directs T’ruah, a rabbinical human rights group, said in an interview that Clarke’s statement this week was a “model of teshuvah,” or repentance, and derided those on the right who would stigmatize someone for something they said as a teenager. Some of Carlson’s attacks on Clarke include remarks by Clarke, ripped from context, about white supremacy during her Harvard years, when she contrasted it with black supremacy. “It’s not accidental that people on the right are specifically going after women of color and trying to dig up anything from their past even if it’s something that happened when they’re 19,” Jacobs said.

How pathetic indeed is the need for teshnuvah from these people? I suppose that selling Professor Anthony Martin out posthumously—and sacrificing her convictions—was a small price to pay for Ms. Clarke’s sinecure at the Justice Department.

Well, at least the Jews are happy.  Aggressive, manic, paranoid, and neurotic; but happy.

*        *        *

Saint Paul, Pray for Us.