Featured Articles

The Iranian attack on Israel, and Prof. John Mearsheimer on Ukraine, Gaza and Israel as an albatross around America’s neck

In the video below, Prof. John Mearsheimer describes Israel as an albatross around America’s neck, as having attempted to get the U.S. into a war with Iran for long time, and as playing “very dangerous game” by bombing the Iranian embassy in Damascus. This was recorded before the Iranian retaliation.

So far at least, the Biden administration is staying away from direct confrontation with Iran, stating, according to the NYTimes, that Israel’s “successful defense against Iranian airstrikes constituted a major strategic victory that might not require another round of retaliation.” But there will be intense pressure to do so:

Emotions were running high among Israeli officials during phone calls with American partners late into the night, and the pressure to fire back was consequently strong. The U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive discussions, stressed that the decision was ultimately up to Israel. Israeli jets early Sunday hit structures in Lebanon controlled by Hezbollah after the Iranian-backed militia sent two explosive drones into Israel, but it was not clear how related that was to the Iranian airstrike.

And it’s no surprise that conservatives will blame Biden for his weakness:

That will generate criticism of Mr. Biden from conservatives, who quickly went public urging a powerful military reprisal against Iran — not only by Israel, but by the United States, as well. “We must move quickly and launch aggressive retaliatory strikes on Iran,” Senator Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, said in a statement posted online.

Iran clearly doesn’t want this to escalate, as noted in my blog yesterday. But again, there can be little doubt that the entire motive for bombing the Iranian embassy is most reasonably interpreted as a desire by Israel to get into a war with Iran because they think they can win and they know that when push comes to shove, the U.S. will be on their side.

Even though Iran did little tangible damage, it signaled after Saturday night’s strike that it was ready to stand down — and clearly hoped to avoid direct engagement with the United States. “The matter can be deemed concluded,” the Iranian mission to the United Nations said in a statement. “However, should the Israeli regime make another mistake, Iran’s response will be considerably more severe. It is a conflict between Iran and the rogue Israeli regime, from which the U.S. MUST STAY AWAY!”

And this, suggesting that Iran had no intention of doing much more than saving face:

While the number of drones and missiles fired at Israel was extraordinary, it did not go unnoticed that Iran telegraphed its intentions to attack for more than a week and announced the launch of the drones hours before they actually reached Israeli territory, giving plenty of notice for defenses. Some analysts interpreted that as meaning that Iran wanted to put on a show of force to save face after the killing of its officers but did not want a full-fledged war with Israel or the United States.

The situation was reminiscent of when in 2020 President Donald J. Trump ordered an airstrike in Iraq to kill Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, who led the powerful Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Iran retaliated by firing missiles at well-defended U.S. bases in Iraq with relatively little damage, though about 100 U.S. military personnel were wounded. It then sent a private message saying it was done. Mr. Trump chose not to retaliate, and fears of a cycle of escalation faded.

But Trump is not at all like the Israelis—he repeatedly advertised his non-interventionist stance during the 2016 campaign and resisted expanding U.S. involvement in Syria and tried to get U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. The Israelis on the other hand are extremely aggressive and would love to take out Iran and at least temporarily end their problems with Iran and the Arab world. As Alan Dershowitz said on Newsmax yesterday, Israel and the U.S. should not let this crisis go to waste but should topple the Iranian government—a result that would be greeted enthusiastically by Iranians. Haven’t we heard that before with Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan?

Judge Napolitano interviews Prof. John Mearsheimer prior to the Iranian attack. The first 15 minutes are on Ukraine and Russia (“Ukraine can’t win’), and at ~15:20 Mearsheimer discusses Israel and Gaza (both Mearsheimer and Napolitano use “genocide” to describe what’s going on there).

Assymetrical Warfare and the Russia-Ukraine War

On March 7, 2024, the United States Embassy in Moscow published a brief security alert warning American citizens to avoid concert halls and large gatherings as a terrorist attack by unnamed extremists in Moscow was at hand. The news release read as follows:

The Embassy is monitoring reports that extremists have imminent plans to target large gatherings in Moscow, to include concerts, and U.S. citizens should be advised to avoid large gatherings over the next 48 hours.

The warning further advised citizens to “avoid crowds”, “monitor local media for updates”, and “be aware of your surroundings”.

Even though nothing untoward happened in the days immediately following the ominous press release, it was eerily prescient nonetheless. On Friday March 22, gunmen stormed the Crocus concert hall in Moscow brandishing automatic weapons. They fired on the crowd. Security camera footage along with recordings captured on mobile phones rapidly found their way onto social media and into breaking news reports. Video showed frantic crowds in the concert venue fleeing, rushing down stairwells in a panic. Clips showed gunmen wielding weapons and firing into the crowd. Other cameras captured the concert venue ablaze with flames lambent throughout the building’s upper floors; dozens of ambulances with flashing lights gathered in the parking lot below. Footage from the attack was also taken by concertgoers on their smart phones from balconies and in the concert hall itself. In so much of the video, rapid fire shots can be heard as people panic, running pell-mell for the exit. It was chaotic.

Footage from the incident has been widely shared by different news agencies around the world. One video, released by Islamic State purported to show “exclusive scenes. . .of the bloody attack on Christians yesterday in the city of Krasnogorsk in Moscow.” It was deemed too violent to be posted in its entirety by the Daily Mail. According to the news story, one of the assailants yelled “Bring the machine gun. Kill them and have no mercy on them” while filming the mayhem. The very same video was shared by Live Leak Private on Telegram, in its uncensored version. The clip shows a gunman from the first-person perspective of a GoPro-type camera admonishing his fellow militant to open fire on victims at close range. The video shows the automatic weapon wielding assailant firing shots from his rifle. It then shows another terrorist slitting the throat of a wounded man.

Initial reports flooded in from dozens of different news outlets that reported Islamic State (IS) otherwise known as ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack. Preliminary casualty reports noted that approximately 60 people had been killed and 145 were injured by bullets, burns, and smoke inhalation. These initial numbers were amended upwards: as of March 27, Russia Today reported that 143 people died. Of the wounded, 83 people were still undergoing treatment and 40 had been released from hospital.

The neoconservatives that control United States foreign policy are attempting to goad Russia into a situation akin to the arms race of the 1980s, an arms race that the Soviet Union could not win. The warmongering neocons want an escalated conflict with Russia and are unabashed about using every means at their disposal to achieve that aim. The attack on the Crocus concert hall was just one of the “asymmetric” means hinted at by Victoria Nuland (who has recently resigned) in one of her recent speeches, which will be discussed below. There is mounting evidence that the terrorists were indeed working on behalf of the United States security apparatus — one of the nasty surprises adumbrated by Nuland. Essentially, they were wound up and set loose. The aforementioned warning published by the United States Embassy in Moscow was our first major hint. The expansionist designs of the heavily Jewish neoconservative movement in the United States have purposefully run headlong into a war with Vladamir Putin’s own imperial ambitions of an expanded Russia. Tragically, White ethnic Ukrainians and White ethnic Russians are caught in the middle of this vicious war of Imperial expansion. It is Empire versus Empire in an increasingly vicious proxy war.

It is very possible that Vladamir Putin allowed the attack to go ahead in order to justify an escalation of the conflict and to justify “mass mobilisation, strengthen domestic support for the Ukraine war, and make opposition to his rule even more difficult.” The Daily Mail reported on April 1, that Moscow was warned by Iran that a terrorist attack was imminent prior to the attack on the concert hall, but Moscow maintains that it received no prior alert. A report in the Kyiv Independent  has reported that the Russians are mobilizing in upwards of 30,000 troops per month. This is in conjunction with the military industrial output of the Russian state that is producing more munitions than Ukraine or the U.S. If anything is clear from this incident, it is that both sides have used it to justify an escalation of hostilities.

The term asymmetrical warfare can refer to conflict between belligerents where “relative military power, strategy, or tactics differ significantly.” The Russo-Ukrainian war is an example of this, as Russia’s military power is far superior to that of Ukraine which must rely heavily on outside support. Asymmetrical war is synonymous with other terms such as guerrilla warfare, insurgency, counterinsurgency, rebellion, terrorism, and counterterrorism. It is irregular warfare waged by combatants that are not conventional military forces. They often use the tactics common among weaker powers or transnational terrorist organizations against powerful militaries or states. By way of example, the ragtag militias of post-war Iraq or the black pajama-clad Vietcong, Taliban thugs or the AK-47 toting warlord gangs of Somalia spring to mind.

Moreover, asymmetrical tactics are often used clandestinely by powerful states to facilitate plausible deniability. Targeted assassinations, improvised explosive devices, bombings, the deliberate killing of civilians in public venues or even cyberattacks all can arguably fall within its purview. For instance the sabotage of Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022, the assassination of Alexander Dugin’s daughter, Darya Dugina, who was killed when her car exploded near Moscow in August 2022; and the assassination of pro-Kremlin blogger Vladlen Tatarsky who was killed in an explosion at a St. Petersburg café that sent 24 people innocent bystanders to the hospital in April 2023.

Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland made a speech in commemoration of the two-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine war and hinted at the future use of underhanded tactics:

With the $60 billion supplemental that the Administration has requested of Congress, we can ensure Ukraine not only survives but thrives. [See Sen. J. D. Vance’s NYTimes op-ed for a rejoinder.]

With this support, in 2024, we can help ensure Ukraine can continue to fight, to build, to recover, and to reform.

With this money, Ukraine will be able to fight back in the East and accelerate the asymmetric warfare that his been most effective on the battlefield. And as I said in Kyiv three weeks ago, this supplemental funding will ensure Putin faces some nasty surprises on the battlefield this year.

Similarly, Pepe Escobar has outlined several points that speak to an American effort to use proxies against Russia. Escobar has provided a detailed timeline of events that point to the use of asymmetric warfare techniques by the United States that masquerade as terrorism.

The ephemeral prestige of empire is imperilled by a state of near constant warfare. The establishment of empires has also invariably cost millions of White lives. The same can be said for Russia’s imperial ambitions: if the Russian empire continues its war on Ukrainian soil, then it too will continue to bleed.

When two opposed great powers are actively seeking ways to escalate conflict — often in the most underhanded and violent ways possible — the results are devastating for the White soldiers and civilians caught in the middle. Ethnonationalism is the best vehicle for peace and stability, not misguided Imperial adventures presided over by a hostile ruling class.

 

The Economic and Social Costs of Direct and Indirect Kleptoparasitism by Blacks and Jews

Nature might abhor a vacuum, but it apparently loves an analogy—at least of the genetic and behavioral kind. That is, no matter how much humans may wish to be above and separate from the workings of the rest of the animal kingdom, they are constantly acting in ways analogous to those creatures they so look down upon. And as academia adores an intellectual vacuum—at least with respect to areas of study that run contrary to its ideology du jour—it is unfortunately up to those such as us on the Dissident Right to fill that empty space with useful work showing the true state of reality.

In that spirit I wish today to point out that the nature of White flight is essentially a case of kleptoparasitism of Whites by Blacks and Jews, with the former engaging in it directly and the latter doing so indirectly through the former. In this way, the relationship between Blacks and Jews in the housing market is what you might call symbioparasitism: that is, a case of different parasites engaged in symbiotic behavior with regard to each other that allows both to parasitize their mutual White host more effectively (and in fact it might be argued that Blacks could not parasitize Whites at all without the Jews, though the opposite is not the case). To be clear, this is not always the case, and there are numerous instances of Jews engaging in parasitic or even predatory behavior toward Blacks (think of the crooked ghetto merchants and payday lenders for an example of the former, and the Jews who engaged in the transatlantic slave trade and slave auctions for the latter); however for today my focus is the effects of White flight on the housing market and how these bring about win-wins for both Blacks and Jews and just plain loss for Whites, at least in the short term.

I say short term because, as we shall see, the White flight induced by the parasites has had the effect, in parallel with the effects that internal parasites from the natural world have on their hosts, of making the economic and social fabric far weaker than it otherwise would be. And as I’ll show in part two of this essay, this is also and even more glaringly the case with regard to the ’08 financial crash, the buildup to it, and its immediate aftermath—an instance of parasitism (both klepto- and otherwise) on a grand scale if ever there were one.

So let’s start with some quick background: what kleptoparasitism is and how White flight is prompted by Blacks and (indirectly) Jews. Kleptoparasitism occurs when an animal rather than outright killing and eating another (predation) or feeding off of it slowly over time (parasitism — think a leech or tick) merely steals all or part of the host’s food and/or shelter. Many otherwise predatory animals, including many apex predators, engage in this behavior: the bald eagle is known to snag prey, especially fish, from other, smaller birds, while lions are equally adept at muscling smaller predators, e.g., cheetahs and (unless they can mob the lions to stop them) hyenas, out of their rightful kills. In the case of cheetahs, even vultures can sometimes klepto a meal from them.

Why? How could a few birds, each smaller than the cat, scare it out of a meal?

Because while the cheetah’s speed is unmatched, it is engineered for it at the cost of strength and any other competitive advantage, so if it sustains even a minor injury it can kiss that speed goodbye and will likely starve to death. In all cases of kleptoparasitism, the victim feels that the costs of fighting the kleptoparasite outweigh the benefits—as with animals, as with humans, and in both cases, the klepto gets to enjoy a greater meal or home than would ordinarily be available to him, period, or one which might be available but only with much greater effort.

Now apply this to Blacks. If you look at an all-Black neighborhood such as virtually all of those making up Detroit proper, you get such an uncannily clear picture of what a postapocalyptic world would look like that you literally have movies of that genre being filmed there. Given that most denizens of such neighborhoods are likely approaching pure sub-Saharan ancestry—and having gone to college in Detroit and driven through such neighborhoods daily (and surprisingly, survived!), I can attest to this from personal experience—it would be surprising if they did not share, generally speaking, the IQ levels and habits of unmixed African natives: think South Africa (average IQ 69[1]) with its once-great infrastructure crumbling slowly to nothing from lack of maintenance. The current state of the fallen last White refuge, such as men living in shanties on the flat land that had housed railroads until the tracks were stolen and melted down for scrap are likely what Detroit would eventually deteriorate to without the non-Black–funded welfare state maintaining it on life support. Needless to say, just as a bear would have virtually no chance of chasing down a fleeing White-tailed deer on its own, most of these people would have no chance on their own of affording—or maintaining, assuming they had the thought to do so—a pleasant middle-class dwelling. But just as the ponderous bear would be able to snatch part of a deer carcass from the wolves that were able to chase it down, so these Blacks have stumbled upon a strategy (one which many of them are likely not consciously aware of) of snatching such homes from Whites able to build and maintain them.

To explain the basic mechanism of Blacks’ kleptoparasitism, just cross-reference Black stereotypes with the genetic similarity theory of J. Philippe Rushton, et al.: basically a few Blacks (very often of mixed race, such as Obama) are able to afford a house in a nice neighborhood; though these first ones are usually not outright criminals, they usually either have or have a much higher tolerance for the Black mannerisms and behaviors that Whites find intolerable (think poor property maintenance, screaming-across-the-street rather than face-to-face conversations, conduct generally cruder and more confrontational than Whites’, etc.), and so while not necessarily acting this way themselves, usually they have friends or relatives over who act this way; this then drives the Whites immediately adjacent out and makes more and more houses in the neighborhood available to be sold to Blacks at reduced prices in a cascading effect that ends only when the neighborhood is either all Black or retains only the few non-Black residents too old and/or too poor to flee. Thus the dark-hued kleptos achieve their middle-class dream which almost invariably deteriorates into the nightmare of their former neighborhoods—which then causes the smarter and more competent Blacks to flee to Whiter locales, and thus the cycle begins all over again.

Why don’t Whites develop strategies to fight this—as hyenas learn to use overwhelming numbers to mob lions that try to steal from them? Well, that’s where Jews come in.

As I said above, the relationship between Blacks and Jews is somewhat complex overall, as there are times that Jews play the part of parasite or predator to Blacks, but there are other instances in which Jews acting as parasites of their host society form a symbiotic relationship with parasitizing Blacks, and the case of White flight is one of them. Basically, Jews enable Black kleptoparasitism and in the process benefit from it by disabling Whites’ means of fighting Black kleptos. The Jews’ ability to do this, in turn, relied and still relies heavily on 1) their influence within the court system and 2) their control of the media and its influence on culture. The first is what allowed them to overcome the primary legal mechanism stopping Black kleptoparasitism: housing covenants, the documents which would bind neighborhood residents together in agreement not to sell their homes to Blacks and sometimes other minorities as well. These would prevent Blacks from gaining a foothold into White neighborhoods and then using their general behavior to drive Whites out. Using their allies—some, such as the Black nationalist Marcus Garvey (who found their offices run almost entirely by Jews with a few Blacks in token positions) would call them puppets—in the NAACP, Jews brought legal action against housing covenants and in the late 1940s they succeeded, rendering them toothless. That Jews were the primary movers and shakers behind the movement which culminated in the famous Supreme Court case Shelley v. Kraemer which held that “although racially restrictive real estate covenants are not void, a court cannot enforce them because this would constitute state action under the Fourteenth Amendment”[2] can be seen even in Wikipedia’s completely politically correct take on the case:

The United States Solicitor General, Philip Perlman, who argued in this case that the restrictive covenants were unconstitutional, had previously in 1925 as the city solicitor of Baltimore acted to support the city government’s segregation efforts. The U.S. Office of the Solicitor General filed, for the first time in a civil rights case, an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the Shelleys. The Solicitor General’s brief filed on behalf of the United States government was written by four Jewish lawyers: Philip Elman, Oscar H. Davis, Hilbert P. Zarky, and Stanley M. Silverberg. However, the Solicitor General’s office chose to omit their names from the brief. Deputy Solicitor General Arnold Raum, who was also Jewish, stated that it was “bad enough that [Solicitor General Philip] Perlman’s name has to be there, to have one Jew’s name on it, but you have also put four more Jewish names on. That makes it look as if a bunch of Jewish lawyers in the Department of Justice put this out.”[3]

That Perlman was such a flip-flopping turncoat on the issue is hardly surprising, given Jews’ general tendency to play outsized roles on both sides of whatever racial or social conflicts they ferment or take part in, while benefitting themselves in all cases; in the case of White flight, this often did and still does involve Jewish use of Blacks as foot soldiers in their battles to acquire desirable real estate at artificially low prices. As Tobias Langdon pointed out in his essay “Bow Before Blackness: Non-Stop Black in Brave New Britain”:

After mass migration from the Caribbean began, a predatory Jewish landlord Peter Rachman (1919–62) made big profits in London by renting bad housing at high prices to Blacks who were unpopular as tenants because of their criminality, noise, and anti-social behavior. Indeed, Rachman used violent and noisy Blacks to drive White tenants out of houses he wanted to buy or convert into flats. Decades after Rachman’s heyday, another money-hungry Jew, Alex Langsam, is making more big profits from more non-White invaders. Langsam, who has been nicknamed the “Asylum King,” owns the sardonically named Britannia Hotels, which was “the worst hotel chain for ten years running, according to a survey conducted by consumer group Which” and which rakes in millions from government contracts for housing so-called “asylum seekers” from the corrupt, diseased, and violent Third World.[4]

Enoch Powell’s famous “Rivers of Blood” speech had made a similar observation fifty-five years earlier:

Eight years ago in a respectable street in Wolverhampton a house was sold to a Negro. Now only one White (a woman old-age pensioner) lives there. This is her story. She lost her husband and both her sons in the war. So she turned her seven-roomed house, her only asset, into a boarding house. She worked hard and did well, paid off her mortgage and began to put something by for her old age. Then the immigrants moved in. With growing fear, she saw one house after another taken over. The quiet street became a place of noise and confusion. Regretfully, her White tenants moved out. . . . Immigrant families have tried to rent rooms in her house, but she always refused. Her little store of money went, and after paying rates, she has less than £2 per week. . . . Immigrants have offered to buy her house — at a price which the prospective landlord would be able to recover from his tenants in weeks, or at most a few months. She is becoming afraid to go out. Windows are broken. She finds excreta pushed through her letter box. When she goes to the shops, she is followed by children, charming, wide-grinning piccaninnies. They cannot speak English, but one word they know. “Racialist,” they chant. When the new Race Relations Bill is passed, this woman is convinced she will go to prison. And is she so wrong? I begin to wonder.[5]

And as many of the writers on TOO have pointed out, Jews were virtually the entire driving force behind the push for hate crime legislation in the U.K. (to say nothing of elsewhere), eventually achieving their desire in the 1986 Public Order Act.

The cycle can even be artificially begun by what’s called blockbusting; more on which, below.

Having grown their Black golem to monstrous proportions and dismantled most of the strongest White-created barriers in its path, elite Jews then moved to unleash it and profit in every possible way from its path of destruction (rather like their Ukraine meddling, during which they funded Zelensky’s campaign plus the neo-Nazi Azov battalion then provoked Russia to war, all while making a mint via weapons sales by the U.S. military industrial complex, and now are preparing, via BlackRock and their other hedge funds, to profit from “rebuilding” it).

First of all, there was the case of William Levitt, the Jewish man often called “the father of suburbia” who became obscenely wealthy pushing mass production of housing in the suburbs to which Whites fled from the Blackening cities. Much is made of his alleged racism, with conventional historians’ main proof of it being his policy of building White-only neighborhoods, but this in all likelihood was done not from any hatred of Blacks or love of Whites but from purely strategic considerations: just as the Mongols knew that an enemy losing was far, far deadlier if it were trapped and forced to fight to the death, and so intentionally opened a phony path of escape (only to cut them down as they fled), so those in the banking sector (in which Jews were and are massively overrepresented) who would be financing Levitt’s building ventures and the loans of fleeing Whites must have known that if Whites knew that their new neighborhoods would be instantly open to those they fled from, they would stand and fight with everything they had; and given that Whites were still the overwhelming majority in the US at the time, in all likelihood they would have prevailed and put an end to the Jewish-Black klepto-alliance, if not pushed back even further against the Jews’ growing power. That they could put up a fight if they felt trapped was shown in 1966 in what became known as the “Chicago White People’s Uprising” in which homeowners forcibly stopped MLK, Jesse Jackson. and others from using their “open housing” protests to forcibly integrate their neighborhoods. While it had no measurable effect in the long run, it did show what Whites would do if provoked enough and felt themselves to have no easy exit (the “uprising” was mostly centered in poorer White neighborhoods which could not easily flee to suburbia). That occurred even before the housing battles that occurred later in 1966; Jews had never attempted to effectively end the suburban whitopias being built by Levitt et al. as they had with housing segregation and covenants. This is strong proof that they were interested in profit and power rather than “racial justice.”

And often they would not even wait for the process to occur naturally but speed it up in a process called blockbusting, described below by one of those ubiquitous Black online groups:

After intentionally placing an African American homeowner onto a block, speculators solicited White owners with tales of impending depreciation. Fearful residents often sold their homes to these speculators well below market value. As White residents began to flee in great numbers, other White residents sold their homes at even lower prices, thus further depressing housing prices in a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Middle class African Americans, who were otherwise denied access to previously all-White neighborhoods, were now offered admittance at artificially inflated prices set by the speculators.  A 1970 report released by a Baltimore group called “the Activists” concluded that the average markup in neighborhoods experiencing racial change ranged from 80% to 100% higher than in racially homogeneous areas and that these inflated prices comprised a “Black tax” imposed on African American would-be homebuyers.  Given the bleak housing options these buyers faced, many had no other choice and paid the inflated costs.

In keeping with the general intellectual caliber of such sites, much of the article’s argument is economically illiterate nonsense: Since refusing to sell homes to Blacks has been illegal for some time, if Blacks could truly afford to pay an 80% or higher markup on homes in White neighborhoods, they would have swarmed en masse without any real estate market crooks doing anything (or for that matter, they would have simply maintained the existing homes and therefore raised the general safety and home upkeep caliber in their own neighborhoods), therefore, the “racially homogeneous areas” the article uses as a base must be the run-down, crime-ridden Black neighborhoods in which a house that would be worth one-hundred grand in a decent location can be bought for twenty-thousand or less. Such stupidity aside however, the article does manage to convey the truth that there was a conscious push to drive Whites out of their former enclaves using Blacks as foot soldiers. Such discussions of blockbusting of course leave the real estate “speculators” as a shadowy, vague group, but given that these are the current top 8 US real estate investors (which, of course is no different than real estate speculators) . . .

1) Donald Bren (Jewish)

2) Stephen Ross (Jewish)

3) Sun Hongbin (Chinese)

4) Leonard Stern (Jewish)

5) Neil Bluhm (Jewish)

6) Igor Olenicoff (White, in a double sense, Russian)

7) Jeff Greene (Jewish)

8) Sam Zell (Jewish)

. . . and given the racial makeup of the renter class who took over when White homeowners fled (as Dr. Kevin MacDonald pointed out in “Jews Embarrassed by Jews: Slumlords—and Goldman Sachs,” Jews are horrifically overrepresented among big-city slumlords), it’s extremely unlikely that those mysterious speculators from the early days of White flight were all country club, WASP types. (And, of course, once the Blacks had the inner cities mostly to themselves the relationship switched from symbioparasitism to pure, one-sided parasitism as Jews took on the roles of slumlord, ghetto merchant, etc.)

Such was the near-total victory for the Jewish-Black kleptoparasite; but as I’ve said, it was a somewhat Pyrrhic one, as it greatly weakened the host nation at large—the wealth of which fed and continues to feed the parasites—and enervated its military might, which is all that’s standing between the State of Israel and a severe defeat by its Moslem neighbors.

Part of the weakening is socioeconomic: as Robert Putnam pointed out in his book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, lack of social capital leads to both greater social tension and misery and economic inefficiency. And as a 2019 meta-analysis[6] found, “[There is] a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust across all [87] studies.” Hence, the society-wide loss of cohesion (which was, ironically, stronger during mandated separation) — combined with anti-discrimination laws and the workplace tensions and inefficiencies they inevitably lead to — weaken productivity and hence wealth generation across the board, to the detriment of all races.

Then there is the long-term genoeconomic weakening, which is even deadlier. We may sum this one up in a syllogism: A nation’s standard of living (leaving aside natural resources and wealth gained from borrowing or conquest) is dependent upon its capital per capita.

The amount of capital a nation can produce and use per capita is dependent on the percent of the population that’s of STEM-level IQ and has low enough time preference to generate good savings.

Whites have much lower average time preference and much higher average IQ than Blacks.

Therefore, the higher the ratio of Whites to Blacks in a nation (other things being equal), the higher its standard of living will be.

When you force Whites to spend all their money on fleeing from Blacks, you turn them from savers to borrowers; you also ensure that they’ll be able to afford to raise fewer children, meaning fewer STEM types in the future in both an absolute and relative sense—doubly so if you tax them in order to subsidize reproduction by the dumbest, most irresponsible Blacks.

Hence, why if you think the Jewish/Black kleptoparasitism racket is even a zero-sum game, you are unaware of what’s really going on.

(In part two of this series, I examine the events leading up to the ’08 market crash, the crash itself, and its aftermath from this angle. As we’ll see, the whole thing is best understood as a case of Jewish-Black-Mestizo kleptoparasitism on a grand scale.)


[1] 1. “IQ: Intelligence Quotient by Country,” Worlddata.info, accessed April 4, 2024, https://www.worlddata.info/iq-by-country.php.

[2] 1. “Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948),” Justia Law, accessed April 4, 2024, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/334/1/.

[3] 1. “Shelley v. Kraemer,” Wikipedia, February 25, 2024, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kraemer.

[4] 1. Tobias Langdon, “Tobias Langdon,” The Occidental Observer, July 8, 2023, https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2023/07/08/bow-before-Blackness-non-stop-Black-in-brave-new-britain/.

[5] 1. Enoch Powell, “Wordpress,” Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” Speech, accessed April 4, 2024, https://anth1001.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/enoch-powell_speech.pdf.

[6] 1. Peter Thisted Dinesen, Merlin Schaeffer, and Kim Mannemar Sonderskov, (PDF) Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review, accessed April 10, 2024, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335924797_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_A_Narrative_and_Meta-Analytical_Review.


 

We Shouldn’t Call Them “Woke,” We Should Call Them “Mutants”

Have you ever noticed how physically unattractive Woke people tend to be? Both the males and females are relatively ugly and the males are relatively short and physically weak. Both are clearly high in mental illness. It’s almost like there’s something genetically wrong with them.

Well, your eyes don’t deceive you.  Some fascinating new evidence has come to light that left wing people are, to put it bluntly, more likely to be mutants (something which is almost always a bad thing in evolutionary terms) than right-wing people. It has been presented by a young researcher, a computer scientist called Joseph Bronski. He has provided us with compelling new evidence for a point I have been exploring for many years.

Under the harsh Darwinian conditions that were prevalent until the Industrial Revolution, there was a strong selection pressure to be genetically physically and mentally healthy. There was also strong selection pressure to be group-oriented: pro-social, mentally stable and high in impulse control. Groups that were too low in these internally cooperative traits would be destroyed by those that were higher in them. Individuals that were too low in them would be killed by the group. Consequently all of these traits became bundled together. Supporting this, Zakharin and Bates found that 66 percent of the variation in being generally group-oriented results from genetic differences [Testing heritability of moral foundations: Common pathway models support strong heritability for the five moral foundations, By M. Zakharin and T. Bates, European Journal of Personality, 2023].

Moreover, studies have shown that left-wing people value individually-oriented moral foundations such as harm avoidance and equality over the group-oriented foundations of in-group loyalty and obedience to authority that are valued by conservatives. Accordingly, the moral judgments of leftists are self-interested. Their purpose is to help less talented individuals, such as themselves, ascend the hierarchy of the group [Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations, By J. Graham, J. Haidt and B. Nosek, Personality Processes and Individual Differences, 2009]. The above-cited Zakharin and Bates (2023) found that 49 percent of the variation in individualizing morality was due to genetic variation.

So, taken together, we should not be surprised that people who are less group-oriented and more individualizing are higher in “mutational load” than right-wing people. We were selected to be highly group-oriented and they are a movement away from this. They are more likely to be the descendants of those who would have died as children under a harsher evolutionary regime, in which child mortality was as much as 50 percent, as opposed to less than 1 percent in Western countries today [Is Child Death the Crucible of Human Evolution? By T. Volk and J. Atkinson, Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2008].

In my recent book Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, I bring together the growing body of evidence that leftism is associated with elevated genetic sickness. Compared to conservatives, liberals have less attractive and less symmetrical faces, liberal males are physically shorter and liberal males are less muscular. These traits imply a poor immune system, due to high mutational load, which has prevented them from maintaining a symmetrical phenotype, reaching their maximum height or accruing muscle because, with a poor immune system, they must invest disproportionately more of their bio-energetic resources in fighting off disease.

As I also note in the book, leftists are also higher in mental illnesses (such as depression) which are strongly genetic, and they are more likely to be atheists—atheism strongly crosses over with leftism; moreover, they are more likely to be left-handed, which implies a significantly asymmetrical brain. The heritability of political viewpoint, as I have discussed in my book The Past is a Future Country: The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution, can be relatively high, so this strongly implies that leftism is partly a function of mutational load.

However, it is true that an element of these relationships could be environmental. Perhaps having these kinds of traits makes people feel excluded or inferior. This makes them bitter about the world, which makes them want to tear down all of its power structures and traditions, causing them to be attracted to leftism in a kind of a symbiotic relationship. What is needed is hard proof that the relationship is genetically mediated. This is exactly what Joseph Bronski appears to have demonstrated.

In a study in the journal Open Psych entitled “Evidence for a Paternal Age Effect on Leftism,” Bronski achieves something that is both important and beautifully simple. He shows that older fathers are not more likely than younger fathers to be left-wing but that the fathers of left-wing children tend to be older. The correlation between paternal age and leftism was relatively weak but it was highly significant statistically, that is, vanishingly unlikely to be a fluke. This finding is vital because as men age they produce more and more de novo mutations in their sperm, meaning that the older your father is the less genetically healthy you are likely to be, on average. The fact that older fathers are not more likely to be left-wing yet they are more likely to produce offspring who are left-wing effectively demonstrates that being left-wing is a function of mutation; a function of poor genetic fitness.

In another study, as yet unpublished and available on Bronski’s website, he argues something that even I—who tends to be sympathetic to genetic explanations—found surprising: The rise in leftism in the West over the last century can be almost entirely explained by rising mutational load; the rise, in other words, of mutants. In The Past is a Future Country: The Coming Conservative Demographic Revolution, I argue that rising mutational load is part of the explanation. It led to more and more selfish, individually-oriented people until a tipping point was reached, probably around 1963, causing society to rapidly become left-wing. I aver that a big part of this was environmental. Once the shift began to occur, the more intelligent—i.e., those better at sensing the general mood and better able to conform to it and see the benefits of so-doing—began competitively signalling leftism, causing a kind of runway individualism.

However, in his paper “On Evolutionary Pressure and General Leftism,” Bronski argues that the rise in leftism can be mainly, not just partly, explained by genetic changes in the population. In effect, he notes that there are two competing pressures: conservatives tending to have more children and a rise a mutation, which can be quantified. As Bronski summarises:

Using a narrow-sense heritability estimate of 0.6, we find a selection pressure of 0.076 SDs per generation in the conservative direction. We . . .  compute the mutational pressure as 0.22 SDs in the leftist direction. We find that the sum of these two pressures adequately explains the change in general leftism per generation over that last 70 years (0.15 SD per generation in the leftist direction), indicating that Western political change is solely due to evolutionary pressure. Per Bayesian analysis, there is a 95% chance, given this data, that 70% or more of the observed shift in leftism is due solely to evolutionary pressure, namely mutational pressure.

If this seems extreme, Bronski attempts to allay such a reaction in his Open Psych study, discussed earlier:

It is theoretically plausible that mutational pressure could produce some or all of the leftward shift of the last several generations in the US and other Western nations . . . If the mutational pressure on leftism were 1 in 20, and leftism were treated as binary, then mutational pressure would convert 5% of would-be non-leftists each generation.

If Bronski is right, and his data appears to be sound, the implication is clear: growing leftism is overwhelmingly a function the growth of genetically unfit mutants. You will not fight its growth by critiquing illogical Woke arguments.

 

The Jewish Security Shakedown

“Chase after money and security, and your heart will never unclench.”
Tao Te Ching

“The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America (Orthodox Union), the nation’s largest Orthodox Jewish umbrella organization, applauded Senator Chuck Schumer’s ambitious proposal to allocate $1 billion to Jewish community security through the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP).”
Orthodox Union Advocacy Center, November 6 2023

Jewish activism throughout the West follows very similar broad patterns, including a noticeable over-representation in pro-immigration and pro-diversity movements, and in other areas which can be classed as demographically and culturally aggressive and harmful to the interests of the native population. An ancillary pattern to this activism is a strident defensiveness that borders on paranoia, resulting in Jews taking leading roles in the restriction of free speech, the introduction of “hate” laws and, finally, a strident and insatiable demand that the host population, the very subject of Jewish aggression, provide funds for the physical security of Jews.

The Security Shakedown in Historical Context

The Jewish demand for special protection is witnessed throughout the history of their settlement among Europeans. In the Middle Ages, European elites were aware of the hostility aroused by Jewish exploitation of the peasantry but, because they also benefited from this exploitation via special taxes on Jews, numerous measures were taken to increase security for Jewish usurers and their families. The now infamous “identifying badge,” normally a yellow star, originates from the thirteenth century, when it was first introduced to better facilitate the recognition of Jews by their official bodyguards.[1] Writing in The Jews in 1922, Hilaire Belloc pointed out that after the Enlightenment and the decline of absolute monarchies, Jews seized upon ‘citizenship’ as a replacement for the security and protection offered by the now redundant symbiotic relationship with the older, weakened elites of yesterday. ‘Equality under the law,’ or rather the unequal application of this principle, was the path to the security and special treatment which, as Belloc argued, ‘the Jew’ feels “to be his due.” Belloc wrote:

Without it [the Jew] feels handicapped. He is, in his own view, only saved from the disadvantage of a latent hostility when he is thus protected, and he is therefore convinced that the world owes him this singular privilege of full citizenship in any community where he happens for the moment to be, while at the same time retaining full citizenship of his own nation. … What the Jew wanted was not the proud privilege of being called an Englishman, a Frenchman, an Italian, or a Dutchman. To this he was completely indifferent. What the Jew wanted was not the feeling that he was just like the others — that would have been odious to him — what he wanted was security. (The Jews, p. 26).

Andrew Joyce, reviewing Belloc’s work, comments:

Belloc raises an interesting point: the incessant search of Jews for security remains a stark but often overlooked reality in the present. The rise of the National Socialists, and the wave of pent-up exasperation which swept through Europe during World War II, revealed to Jews the weakness of citizenship, in and of itself, to maintain the fiction of equality and to offer the deep level of security they crave. Confronted with a mass expression of European ethnocentrism, the Jew could find no appropriate mask. Not one of religion, for the guise of ‘Christian’ no longer offered protection and the opportunity of crypsis. The state now comprised a citizenry of racial brothers rather than ‘fellow citizens’ of the Jews. For the first time in the long game of musical chairs they had played since arriving in Europe, the music had stopped playing — and the Jews were left without a chair. From the rubble of World War II, a new world was to be fashioned. No longer was citizenship for the Jews enough — now Jewish security was to be sought by regulating non-Jews and imposing limits on the exercise of their citizenship. Since World War II this has taken the form of everything from engineering the demographic profile of Western nations, to ‘hate speech’ laws and lobbying for gun control.

A New Protection Racket

Administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) is currently one of the most significant legal methods for wealth and resource transfer from non-Jews to Jews in the United States. Originally proposed by the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA) in December 2001, the NSGP has given over $1.1 billion in taxpayers’ money to Jewish groups, with the stated goal of protecting synagogues and schools.

The almost exclusively Jewish destination of NSGP funds is only very lightly disguised. FEMA state that “the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) provides funding support for target hardening and other physical security enhancements and activities to nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of terrorist attack. The intent is to integrate nonprofit preparedness activities with broader state and local preparedness efforts. It is also designed to promote coordination and collaboration in emergency preparedness activities among public and private community representatives, as well as state and local government agencies. [emphasis added]” Publicly available financial disclosures have shown that the Jewish share of distributed funds is so large as to surely demand special mention. In 2009, Jewish groups received 60% of funds, in 2007 73%, by 2011 this had increased to 81%, 97% in 2012, 90% in 2013, and Jews received $11 million of the $13.8 million distributed in 2014. NSGP is a program devised by Jews to benefit Jews.

Realizing that they’d hit a rich vein of lucrative funds, in 2020 Jewish groups began to corral other minority religious groups, especially Muslims, along with a few token churches in an effort to lobby for vastly increased funds under a more superficially diverse umbrella.  But the involvement of other groups was purely tactical. According to Jewish Currents,

the security grant program had never been designed with the particular needs of Muslim communities in mind. The program was created in 2005, largely as a result of lobbying by Jewish groups, including the Jewish Federations of North America (JFNA)—then known as the United Jewish Communities—and the Orthodox Union. Thanks to consistent Jewish lobbying efforts and a robust Jewish infrastructure for coaching organizations on applying for grants, the majority of funds have always been funneled toward synagogues and Jewish community organizations.

A Wikipedia entry on the NSGP contains the warning that “the program has become a popular topic among antisemitic and conspiracy-oriented bloggers, who point to information on award sizes to argue that Jewish interests have undue effect upon the American government.” This seems redundant given that Jews themselves have celebrated the NSGP as a product of their outsized power and influence in America. In 2010, the Forward published an op-ed specifically on how “the grants program provides a window into Jewish organizational and political power. It is this power that allowed a small community to create and maintain a government program tailored specifically for its needs and catering almost exclusively to its members.” At a time when the number of White victims of multiculturalism is spiraling, the Forward describes

The Akiba-Schechter Jewish Day School, in Chicago, put in new lights around its building and parking lot and now has a state-of-the-art video surveillance system with 12 cameras. Congregation Brith Shalom, in Bellaire, Texas, now has blast-proof doors and windows. In Baltimore, the Bais Hamedrash & Mesivta school installed a new gate to the parking lot and placed cameras throughout the building. Earlier this month, Congregation B’nai Israel of Staten Island put new shatterproof windows into its 40-year-old building. All thanks to the United States taxpayer.

Analysis of fund recipients revealed that the stronger the Jewish identification, the more money they consumed. For example, “Lubavitch Jews received more grants than the entire Reform movement, the largest denomination in the country. Overall, Orthodox institutions were dramatically overrepresented, receiving about 45% of the grants that went to all Jewish institutions from 2007 to 2010. … A grant was even awarded to the American Israel Education Fund, which is an offshoot of the America Israel Public Affairs Committee and holds net assets, according to its latest tax filings, of $38 million.”

The Magic Formula

The Forward points out the disproportionate benefit given to Jews “is no accident,” and that Jewish groups were involved in designing the formula for awards — a formula that will always inevitably benefit them over other groups:

The legislation and the rules defining eligibility make no mention of preferring Jewish institutions, but in practice the program could easily be viewed as a Jewish earmark. First, religious institutions are preferred over other not-for-profits. This policy is tucked into DHS’s official rules for evaluating grant applications. Each organization applying receives a score based on the merits of its request. Then the score of a “non-profit organization with religious affiliation” is multiplied by three, giving it a significant advantage over other applicants. Second, high-risk metropolitan areas are given top priority in the grant process, and those “tier 1” cities — New York, Washington, Houston, Chicago and Los Angeles — have a heavy concentration of Jews. A second tier consists of cities that face less of a risk of terror attacks, including Miami, Boston and Dallas. Philadelphia had been in that second group, but was moved to tier 1 in 2010. Lobbyists are now working for the inclusion of Rockland County, N.Y., because it is home to a dense ultra-Orthodox population. Third, an ambiguous definition of what constitutes a terror threat has enabled many Jewish institutions to make a stronger case than non-Jewish counterparts. The criteria established by Congress and DHS requires not-for-profits to demonstrate that they “or closely related organizations (within or outside the U.S.)” have been subjected to prior threats or attacks by a terrorist network. Taking into account incidents overseas allows Jewish groups to describe their threat level regardless of what is happening in their own communities. Several Chabad synagogues contacted by the Forward mentioned the November 2008 attack against the Chabad house in Mumbai, India, as proof of their vulnerability. Other applicants pointed to terror attacks against Jewish targets in Israel as justification for the government funding. … Since September 11, 2001, the United States has foiled nearly three dozen credible terror plots, and more than 170 terror suspects have been arrested. The Jewish community was targeted directly in only a handful of these attempts. … Jewish groups, however, have a different count. They include the July 2006 shooting rampage at the Jewish federation building in Seattle, which left one person dead, and the July 2010 attack on Washington’s United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which took the life of a security guard. Both of these incidents were described by law enforcement authorities as hate crimes, not terror attacks. The perpetrators — one a Muslim, the other a white Christian — were not affiliated with a terror network and did not carry out the attacks as part of a broader agenda. … Yet, Beth Jacob Congregation, in Beverly Hills, cited the Seattle incident as the reason that it needed federal funding for security.

You read that correctly. An attack on Jews anywhere in the world, like India or Israel (!), will result in them getting more funds in the U.S. And these funds are being used simply to make Jewish lives more comfortable, like insulating them from multicultural crime or improving their properties. The Forward article explains:

In conversations with leaders of dozens of synagogues and other Jewish organizations around the country, the Forward found that combating crime, not preventing terrorism, was the prime motivation to apply for the federal money. “We had been thinking for a long time about upgrading our security, not really because of any particular issue,” said Rabbi Adam Zeff of the Germantown Jewish Centre, in Philadelphia. “There were some incidents that we found that we were unable to deal with — people getting into the building, vandalism on our playground. The homeland security grant was important to us because it expanded our vision of what we could do.” A similar view was expressed by Hanna Belsky, administrator of Chicago’s Hanna Sacks Bais Yaakov High School. “There have been incidents like a broken window, somebody getting in the school,” she said. “Our parking lot is open to the street, and now with the money, it’s a private parking lot. … This was our dream.”

In 2021 the drive to add a superficial diversity to the grant program profile was successful in prompting gullible lawmakers to double the annual funding to the program. In 2023 it ballooned to $305 million (when the program opened, the annual budget was $15 million). Jewish groups were thrown into a panic in March of this year, however, when the Biden administration revised the funding down by 10% to $274.5 million. Although the final amount is still extravagant, Jewish groups are probably most disturbed that there was any reduction at all. The ambition is clearly to keep expanding this lucrative gravy train, with Chuck Schumer demanding that it be increased to $1 billion annually. After all, a world in which Jewish car parks are open to the street would be simply intolerable.

Jewish groups are apparently not consoled by the fact Biden’s FY2025 budget, released on March 11, proposes a record $385 million for the NSGP. Even a temporary drop is unacceptable. In a joint statement, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Jewish Federations of North America and the Orthodox Union said “these funds are not just grants; they are lifelines that have fortified vital institutions against hate and violence. The security measures these funds have supported at Jewish facilities across the country have saved lives and prevented tragedy. Together, we urge Congress to prioritize additional funding to make the NSGP program whole. Any national security supplemental must include funding for NSGP and there must be increased funding for NSGP in the FY2025 appropriations bill.” Jonathan Greenblatt was keen to maintain the ruse that the NSGP isn’t a Jewish earmark, stating that “these grants are critical to the safety and security of not only the Jewish community, but nonprofits and religious institutions around the country.”

The Security Shakedown Goes International

The tremendous success of the NSGP scam has led to its replication elsewhere. In Britain, they don’t even bother with the ruse that it’s a generalized grant for nonprofits. Just a few months ago, the UK government announced that the Jewish Community Security Trust would be allocated “more than £70 million over the next 4 years, as part of the Jewish Community Protective Security Grant.”  While crime has increased 15% across Britain’s multicultural schools, Jewish schools will benefit from more security guards, improved fencing, and other measures designed to make Jews more protected and comfortable. In France, 80% of the Jewish community’s “security” needs are financially supported by taxpayers through the Délégation aux Coopérations de Sécurité. Last year, the German government increased its funding for the largest national Jewish umbrella body, Central Council of Jews in Germany, by 70%, to include “creating a nationwide training program for security personnel at Jewish institutions.”

*****

The overall picture, therefore, is that Jews will continue to disproportionately lobby for the demographic marginalization of Whites while obtaining funds from the governments of these same nations that make their lives easier, safer, and shield them from the worst effects of multiculturalism. Jews can lobby for mass migration, safe in the knowledge that even in the big cities they can live, study, and worship behind electric fencing, dozens of cameras, and 24/7 security guards — at no cost to themselves. They can park their cars in private car parks, and get more money to do so every year because someone might bump into a Jew in Mumbai, or a Palestinian might throw a rock at an IDF soldier. There is surely no greater indicator that Jews are an elite than the fact that, just as in medieval times, an assault on a Jew is viewed as something symbolic, something more than the sum of its parts. In the Middle Ages, to compromise the security of a Jew was to attack the monarchy itself. Today, to compromise the security of the Jews is to attack democracy, to abuse human rights, or some other useful abstraction. In the quote from the Tao Te Ching opening this essay, Lao Tse comments on the total lack of peace found within the soul of the person who chases money. In other translations, it is expressed as “He who hoards gold and jade will never find peace.” Jewish outsized influence brings with it an abundance of insecurity, but it’s you who picks up the tab.


[1] “The Jews of England in the Thirteenth Century,” Jewish Quarterly Review, 15:1 (1902), 5-22 (p.14).

When Conspiracies Are True … What Can We Do?

With the ongoing destruction of America and Western Civilization, this year is the most important of our lives!  Most Americans sense it, but readers of this publication know and understand it.  But what do we do now that the most important battle of our lives is at hand?

We must unite behind well-coordinated plans, and take action to defeat the organized forces of evil — which are clearly aligned against us.  Let us stand up tall to make a difference, and support our fellow patriots!

The MAGA movement has been the most viable attempt to address the myriad of problems we face.  We are in a spiritual war and must fight for the hearts, minds, and souls of the American people.  We are now being attacked at every level, as President Trump has been since 2015.  Like him or dislike him, he is our best hope to save America and restore a future of peace, prosperity, and freedom — rather than the tyranny and enslavement which is planned for us.  But, as we all know, Trump is not perfect — his first term was disappointing to say the least, but he has fundamentally changed the Republican Party — liberals like Nikki Haley have no future there, nor do the socially left neocons. And that’s all to the good.

But he cannot do it alone, especially with so many hyenas (radical Democrats, RINOs and Neocons) nipping at his heels.  Most are politicians owned by special interests, along with a controlled mainstream media, and a corrupt judiciary.  They are in lockstep with virtually all of the destructive Marxist/Globalist policies, which are eating away at our life’s blood.

However, there are many great individuals and organizations, which are in the fight to defeat these “global elite” deceivers and destroyers.  Several are listed below, which I hope you’ll consider joining or supporting, especially with the most critical election in America’s history upcoming:

  1. “Our Country, Our Choice” (OurCountryOurChoice.com). This rapidly growing organization is led by America’s most brilliant and honest, military and foreign relations strategist, Col. Douglas MacGregor.  His incredible insights and analyses, through many non-mainstream interviews (Tucker Carlson, Judge Napolitano, et al.), reveals studied and common-sense perspectives that are desperately needed.  They include; Securing Our Borders, Ending the Wars, Promoting US Production, and Defending our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Also, removing the power of self-serving Oligarchs, Lobbies, International Bankers, NGOs, and government agencies.  Power must be restored to “We the People.”  OCOC is a conservative,  patriotic, but non-partisan organization – with actions focused on those issues most critical to our Republic’s survival and future.
  2. OCOC’s leadership and broadening reach can be exemplified by member Mike Zarzano, who heads a noble effort to form legal common-law Grand Juries as an effective weapon to investigate institutional crime and judicial corruption (countycongress.com). Florida is making great progress with this and it will hopefully be employed increasingly across the nation.
  3. Consider supporting the “Foundation to Defend the First Amendment” (www.FDFA.us), and the Free Expression Foundation (FreeExpressionFoundation.org) (often featured on TOO).   Both are fighting against an increasingly corrupt judicial system to protect the constitutional rights of Americans, including legal defense efforts for victimized patriots.
  4. If you are a Veteran, consider Veterans for America First (VeteransforAmericaFirst.org) or Veterans for Trump (www.VeteransforTrump.us). Headed by Chad Caton and an army of incredible patriots, they have a wide reach with growing impact.
  5. Also, Brad Miller has courageously helped build an organization for military accountability (militaryaccountability.com). Brad, a West Point graduate, resigned one-year short of retiring from the Army over the DOD’s unconstitutional vaccine mandates.  He is fighting against military incompetence, “Woke” policies, and other unethical actions.
  6. Consider joining stellar groups such as “Moms for America” (momsforamerica.us) and “Moms for Liberty” (www.momsforliberty.org) which are organizing across the country at the county level, to combat the Woke/DEI attacks on traditional families and our very identity. They employ successful plans with support strategies to take back School Boards, and challenge local political and judicial corruption.
  7. Red Pill Expo (redpilluniversity.org) is an offshoot of G. Edward Griffin’s patriot and health network. They are creating county campuses and have a vast library of critical information.  He also has news feeds through (www.needtoknow.news).
  8. Participate in organized campaign rallies and support Independent or MAGA Republican Party (not RINO) efforts. Educate and encourage friends, relatives and associates to get politically active, and to vote.  Volunteer to help and monitor at election polling stations — so critical to stopping the fraud and intimidation.
  9. The Hollow is a relatively new organizing effort developing in the Sarasota area of Florida on behalf of family values, community cohesion and preparedness. Headed by a former Marine, Victor Mellor, it is a gathering place for traditionally valued Americans, young and old, to learn about our Constitution and develop the skills required to challenge the ongoing Marxist campaign to destroy America.  They are also developing partnerships, such as “We the People Health and Wellness Center” (wtphealthcare.com), as options to the increasingly corrupt medical and pharmaceutical companies.
  10. Sep 17th is Constitution Day. The 917 Society (the917society.org) is distributing copies to thousands of schools across the nation to help educate young people about our Constitution. Tulsi Gabbard, keynote speaker at their recent annual fundraiser is a former Democrat, who has rejected their destructive, anti-Constitutional policies.  She would make a very interesting VP choice for MAGA Trump.

These are just some possibilities to consider supporting or joining — or develop your own unique ideas.  We must all do what we can…no effort is too small if we are to restore the American Dream and preserve the unique legacy of our Founders.

Behind most of the interconnected conspiracies, currently in play, sits an “elephant in the room”, which we are not to notice or ever challenge…the international banking network.  This extensive group of power brokers are rooted in monetary manipulations and political leveraging.  Many have historically been part of the Jewish community but are often atheists or satanists.  Through their money power they have ruthlessly gained control over the political arena and media, and are behind our forever wars.  They are the New World Order and our enslavers!  I urge Christians to reevaluate their support for Israel (created by Jewish financial and media power via influence on Western governments) and instead promote peace.  I highly recommend the 46-minute speech by Benjamin Freedman given in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in DC (at Rumble or YouTube).  He was friends with JFK and reveals truths about World Wars I and II and what the modern-day state of Israel is really about. Fortunately, many Jewish people are now awakening to how they have been deceived, and Christian Zionists should, as well.

As people continue to wake up, they will increasingly abandon the major media outlets (which are already on life support) to seek out truth at freedom-based alternatives.  This includes not only the news outlets, but commercial entertainment and social networking, as well.  Quality alternatives may soon become the new mainstream media.

Tucker Carlson is courageously leading the way and I encourage everyone  to subscribe to Tucker Carlson Network (TCN) at (www.TuckerCarlson.com), or seek out his explosive interviews and revelations which may be posted at Rumble, or wherever free expression is not being censored.

Patriot TV (www.patriot.tv) is a new live stream service which will soon challenge cable and other markets.  General Michael Flynn is associated with it and his incredible and shocking true story, Flynn will soon be released as a feature documentary (www.FlynnMovie.com).  Unfortunately, he was an American hero unethically targeted for removal at the outset of the first Trump administration.  This reflects the growing desperation of our satanic overlords.  But I’ve no doubt that, just like Flynn, other victimized patriots will rise to lead America’s restoration.

Candace Owens is a brilliant and well-spoken truth-seeker who uniquely represents critical, yet often avoided, social issues from a fair and rational perspective.  Until she explicitly criticized Jews, she had her own column/program at the Daily Wire, run by pro-Israel fanatic Ben Shapiro, and also tours with Charlie Kirk’s youth-oriented Turning Point USA (www.tpusa.com).  There are now so many great Podcasts, Blogs, and alternative channels/outlets challenging the deceitful mainstream narrative that the information control battle may soon end.

In partnership with other patriots and veterans, I am in the process of forming the “Veterans League of Honor”, and a production company, “Americana Pictures”.  We seek to develop, produce, and market quality motion pictures as an alternative to Hollywood.  We need a new moral compass and our stories will promote positive ideals and be respectful of traditional American and Christian values.  Fortunately, new distribution alternatives, such as Angel Studios, are having great success (“Sound of Freedom”, “The Chosen”, et al.) and we look to partner with such independents.

As we move through this monumental year, let us not only clean the swamp (DC, State, and Local), but let us, with God’s blessing and guidance, make America not just great, but good again.

Merlin Miller is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and is the author of Eagles Are Gathering, which connects military, media and political intrigues.  It reveals the Globalist/Deep State agenda, who is behind it, and why, and what we must do to stop it.

Review of Scott Howard’s “The Open Society Playbook”

The so-called “open society” is one that will by design eventually descend into chaos, for eventually the New World Order will use this to their advantage: ordo ab chao (“order out of chaos”). Every wedge is used to break apart the solid social structures from social cohesion to the family — consider “diversity,” “radical individualism,” transgenderism, et cetera. These are all designed to create a singular entity, both individualistic in all the wrong ways and collectivist in the same (or right ways from their perspective), totally reliant on the state/mega-corporation(s) to be molded however the “elites” see fit. They want wet clay for their golems, and that is what they are getting. They “open up” to lock down. They want total control, and they are playing for keeps.

….

All is not lost, however. These are, in fact, only the opening salvos in the coming struggle for humanity. … The way I see it, we’ve only just begun to take back our sovereignty and our souls. … I ask you: Will you struggle to be truly free, or will you resign yourself to ignominious slavery?

The Open Society Playbook
Scott Howard
Antelope Hill, 2023

It always, always comes back to the Jews.

*         *         *         *

The world is falling apart. The United States, which was once a very pleasant country to live in even in my lifetime, is fracturing at breakneck speed. Europe’s extreme rupturing and dissolution is a preview of what we can expect here in due time. The pace of social destruction is so profound — so fast as to both disorient and depress. We are living in a state of cultural anarchy — a toxic mix of disturbed and unhinged individualism coupled with a growing totalitarian and collectivist regime governed by big government, big media, and large corporations. And we — and I use “we” to describe the historic European stock of the United States — have become virtual lemmings. Nothing typifies the juxtaposition of a deranged and atomized individualism co-existing with a totalitarian collectivism more than the simultaneous explosion of demonic “transgenderism” and the COVID-19 pandemic health despotism. That we could, at the same time, be unhinged and depraved individualists and meek and subservient conformists to the state is proof positive that we are living in the nightmarish realm of dystopic fiction — except, of course, we are living in it.

There is no point belaboring the various “-isms” — transgenderism, environmentalism, socialism, pluralism, feminism, liberalism, etc. — that animate this decaying society that is plunging into criminality and anarchic disorder. And then there is demographic crisis — we are disappearing simultaneously as our leaders engineer a seismic migration from the Third World into the United States and Europe. Not only are we awash in open pornography, homosexuality, abortion, divorce, fornication, and drug addiction — we are also seeing our very society transformed into a Third World country in terms of its population and all of the other negative attributes of corruption, inefficiencies, and disorder that mark the Third World. And this says nothing of the bankrupt fiscal policies we pursue that cast prudence and thrift to the wayside. We are hedonists in the true sense of the word — we think not of yesterday (the traditions of our fathers) or tomorrow (and the legacy we will leave our children) but live only within the present moment of deracinated time. Life is simply a series of ephemeral distractions, gross materialism, and pleasure-seeking. Truly, a reckoning is upon us.

The manic push to “brown” the West has not been without its cost. Just look at our urban areas — they are filthy and crime-ridden — they are practically uninhabitable. One hundred years ago, we were a functioning, relatively homogenous society that has now descended into social chaos. For traditional Catholics, the dire situation has been doubled: not only has society crumbled around them but the Church herself has mirrored the larger society by becoming unmoored and led by a homosexual cabal of heretics and misanthropes who ape the very political and cultural figures that are destroying our home. For people like me, and we are a profoundly disorganized and meager resistance, the situation is dire. Assuming for the sake of the argument the reality of the social descent, which I take as self-evident, the question becomes one of how and why? What brought us here? Why do our leaders pursue policies that are both immoral and socially destructive? And why have we let them? For the bewildered American of historic European stock (i.e., Whites), how did we become social lepers who are the last acceptable group to mock and deride? And how were these profound changes wrought not over our objection but with our seeming applause? Truly, people like us are happily committing social, moral, and demographic suicide.

None of this captures the spiritual dimension of our collapse. How long will God tolerate perhaps the most insolent human societies in history? How long will His hand be stayed in response to a tsunami of public and private sin? It is a maxim worth considering that righteous men feel that their generation is the worst and therefore ought to be the last. And while generations continue to pass, the sober reality is that eventually and inevitably there will be a last. Far be it from me to speculate on whether this generation is the worst, but it certainly seems to be evil in unprecedented ways. Coupled with the feckless leadership of the Church — an episcopate who fiddles while Rome burns — the conclusion that we are rapidly approaching the end of it all seems so tempting. We must resist the temptation to despair that we are at the end. Only God knows the time when He will make the final accounting of the world, and we ought to remember that often. That said, whether it is a natural or supernatural terminus, things as they are cannot go much longer. Something has to give.

Conventional politics no longer — not by a long shot — suffices to address the underlying rot and disorder of the American system. Taking a step back from the kabuki theater that is American political rancor, what we have is a political duopoly that essentially sings from the same hymnal albeit in different keys. The conventional party wings of American liberals and conservatives are really the same. Politically anyway, it is better to vote Republican inasmuch as they are, at the very least, burning down America more slowly but we should never lose sight of the fact that they are simply the less deplorable option — and far from optimal. No, the fact, for example, that to merely articulate publicly opposition to the weighty demographic change of the country that is designed to disempower the shrinking White majority of the United States is tantamount to an admission of public racism (and something that Republican Party, more or less, tacitly agrees) is proof positive that conventional politics will not only not save us, but conventional politics will be our ruin. When the political discourse silences those who call out root causes — when big media censors the same discussion — when big corporations economically blackmail those who object, we are indeed in a position when the truth itself has become seditious.

Welcome to 1984 — we are living in one giant prison.

*         *         *         *

Coming to terms with our situation is an unnerving process — it is not unlike the stages of grief. Denial, anger, and resignation of the first inklings that the conventional explanation for our situation is wanting. Empowerment — spiritually or politically — only comes from communing with the truth. And that truth must be pursued ruthlessly even if — and especially if — it is uncomfortable. The last five years in my life have been a revelation — an opening of a mind that was still cowardly ensconced in denial. I have written extensively on this psychological and philosophical migration elsewhere but suffice it to say here that the social unrest and chaotic descent we have witnessed in recent years pried my eyes open to realities that I see now, in retrospect, that I was desperate to avoid. I started to read and consider ideas that are beyond the pale of acceptable discourse. I became socially seditious in my mind — at least if sedition is a rebellion against the prevailing ideological bounds of acceptable opinions.

There are two parts to that awakening — I finally came to terms with my racial and ethnic people. I am of Northwestern European stock — I am White. My lifelong refusal to countenance race as a meaningful category of my identity ended, and I crossed the Rubicon towards identifying myself as more than an individual — and de-racialized individual at that — but as a member of a racial/ethnic group that is different from other groups. More than that, I realized that racial homogeneity is far preferrable to racial heterogeneity in terms of the functioning of a society. It goes without saying that I wish that fact were not true. Alas, diversity, as it were, is not only not our strength; diversity is a social liability that increases in proportion to the heterogeneity of a given community. Perhaps it would be better if it were not, but an aspiration is not a substitute for a reality. This racial reckoning in my own life blew up my previous ideas that diversity was net positive or neutral. No, I now see it as a recipe for social disorder. As I have written before, this racial realization, both in terms of my own identity and the preference for racial homogeneity, was unwelcome. I had to unlearn — and disavow — my alliance with the Americanist view that race is irrelevant. I had to give up my conventional conservativism that had always held that if we could merely return to the vision of the Founders of the American Republic, we (no matter who we were) would enjoy a relatively harmonious political existence. That view was wrong on political grounds as much as it was wrong on religious grounds, but, then again, my own Church taught me to embrace Americanism in the wake of Vatican II.

The second is more nuanced — notwithstanding my affinity for the vast majority of Jews with whom I have known — I have concluded that the Jews are largely responsible as the primary agent for the demoralization, deracination, and destruction of Western (read: European-based) societies. Of course, the Jews are not monolithic, but they are the vanguard of catastrophic change that is despoiling the West. Every political organization, NGO, media and entertainment company, tech company, and financial company that are collectively pushing these disastrous policies and social aims are largely run, financed, underwritten, or supported by world Jewry. Simply stated, Jews have become far too powerful in our politics, business, academia, and the media as drivers of thought and opinion. The overrepresentation of Jews in these circles of power was made possible by the assumption that Jews and Western European gentiles were malleable enough with one another, but that assumption is false. Not only are they not us, but they are also not even like us. Essentially, our collective empathy and good will — and projection of that empathy and good will onto others — without qualification was an unqualified disaster as it relates to the Jews, who jointly lack both good will and empathy as it relates to our collective and natural aspirations as a people. There is an agenda (or unconscious groupthink) among most Jews in power to destroy the social moorings of a homogeneous and functioning European-peopled society. There is an obvious revolutionary ferment in the Jewish people which is devastatingly destructive when empowered. The various and deleterious “-isms” that plague the West are largely creations of the Jewish mind. It has reached the point that the White man who merely wants to preserve the land of his fathers as it was handed down to him — the man who has no animosity towards other men — is branded the worst of racist villains. This deracination and branding is a Jewish project. While it has been fabulously successful in obtaining silence, the Jewish project has yet to coerce the private thoughts of many Whites (even if they lack the courage or vocabulary to articulate their opposition). Trump’s popularity is, at least in my opinion, driven by the unarticulated sense of his mostly White supporters that their country is being stolen from them by an enemy from within. Trump has many detractors, but none are more psychotic than the Jewish powerbrokers who seem understand what his appeal means and might yet portend. Indeed, what they fear, more than all else, is that Whites might actually wake up to what they are doing.

Thus, two themes that are vital to understanding the Western crisis of disintegration: (i) the corporate reality of races and ethnicities and the problematic nature of the unfettered race-mixing; and (ii) the over-empowerment of revolutionary Jews over the levers of power and communication are absolutely verboten in political discourse. I will be economically and socially banished for saying either publicly — and even the mere hinting of either will result in an ideological inquisition in which the potential offender is “reeducated” in “diversity, equity, and social justice.” To therefore establish my politically incorrect bona fides, I believe first that we, that is, European people, need our own community in which we make up the bulk of the population of that same community. That people, coincidentally, should be Catholic as well, as Catholicism is the rightful, true, and historic religion of our European forefathers. Parenthetically, if the Church would preach to them — as she did before the advent of the Second Vatican Council, we would see a mass conversion of people to their historic faith. And this community needs sovereignty in the form of a country. Second, Jews, who are slippery in terms of their own racial identification, need to be relatively disempowered within that European-based sovereign community such that the ideas and views of that same society are not shaped by Jews who necessarily have a different agenda from us, and are, in any event, not our friends.

If this seems horribly racist, consider the following: the principles I just laid out fit precisely the political and social reality of the state of Israel. If almost all Jews are rabid supporters of a virulently ethnocentric and religiously exclusive sovereign state in the form of Israel, then it is rank hypocrisy for any Jew to deny other people the opportunity to live and rule themselves in a similar way. One need not be a genius to see that Jews militantly demand that we (read: Whites) abjure any particularist or nationalist desires and embrace an amalgamated and atomized universalism while they simultaneously allow themselves to practice a similar militant and open form of tribalism and nationalism. Gross hypocrisy — or, better yet, chutzpah — is the defining element of so much of world Jewry when it comes to what they expect for themselves and what they expect for us.

The best argument in ignoring this “stuff” is one that I find appealing but ultimately wanting. To focus too heavily on Jewish machinations and misdeeds is to potentially find ourselves filled with enmity towards them in a way that is spiritually disquieting and ultimately injurious to the exercise of our faith in perfect equanimity. I understand that point all too well — the revelation of the Jewish complicity and direction of the destruction of my civilization is enough, at least at times, to make my blood boil. And sometimes it takes a herculean effort to compartmentalize that righteous anger. That said, the truth is never ultimately at variance from the Truth. If this is the reality of who they are, then we can no more ignore it because it is uncomfortable than we can ignore other hard and difficult truths. I think, however, the cost of knowing and processing this type of information is a personal dedication to pray for them as much as we note the nefarious stuff that they are up to.

*         *         *         *

Scott Howard’s recent book, The Open Society Playbook, is a detailed and forensic accounting of both the social chaos that I describe above and the agents of that social chaos. Howard, to his credit, refuses to work by implication — he names organizations and individuals, and he never fails to identify when those individuals are Jews (which most of them are). Succinctly he writes his mandate as follows: “noticing that the world is falling apart around you? This is largely by design, and this book will chart exactly that has happened through the embrace by the ruling class of the so-called ‘open society.’” While I was generally aware of some of the characters and organizations that Howard discusses — some of which I was acutely aware, the whole of the book has a cumulative effect on the reader: the depth and breadth of the subverting elements within the West are depressing. As it true that we contend with demons in the spiritual world who are intent on our eternal destruction, we too contend with a demonic element in the form of people and organizations that are focused on our destruction — both as Christians and Europeans. Far from the stuff of conspiracy theories, what Howard does is let this other side speak for themselves — and they are never shy to tell exactly what their endgame is: the “browning” of nations once peopled by Europeans; the elimination of national borders; the radical emancipation of the individual from traditional social structures and family bonds that once served as the glue of our communities and nations; the destruction of the role of Christianity and its values in public and eventually in private; the growth of a technocratic, stateless, elitist, collectivist government that is all-powerful and total; and the crushing of dissent by any and all means (whether militarily, socially, or economically). There really is a war on the historic White man and his historic religion — and this is a book that details in mind-numbing detail who they are and how they are doing it.

This type of book is difficult for some to process — it is a bridge too far. I find it ironic that the vast majority of American conservatives, and here I speak anecdotally but broadly, as I have known seemingly hundreds upon hundreds of them over the course of a lifetime, will find the material is this book is simply too hot to handle. They will universally admit that the world is rapidly becoming unmoored, and they will further admit in unison that there is a globalist elite that is fashioning that societal degeneration, but they will recoil if that degenerative elite is fixed upon, in any measure, “the Jews.” Even if they acknowledge that most Jews — the notorious ones who are famous and the work-a-day ones that they may know — are almost all liberal and hold political and social views that are discordant with their own, they will resist the idea that “the Jews” are responsible for our problems. Part of the resistance stems from an Americanist ethos in which casting aspersions against groups is, if not strictly verboten, unsavory, and best left unsaid. Because most American conservatives are “Red, White, and Blue” in their political leanings, they may lament the destruction of the United States politically and culturally, but their aspiration is modestly limited to returning the United States to a “kinder and gentler” period of American history. If we could just turn back the clock and live by the Framers’ original design, everything would be hunky-dory.

Part of the resistance too stems from these same Americanist conservatives having imbibed and accepted the Jewish narrative of nearly universal victimhood, which is, by and large, contrived, and false. Most of them do not know that Jews — in their interactions with us and our forefathers — have almost occupied odious roles as slavers, usurers, and tax farmers. Most of them also do not know that there is a strong evidence to believe the so-called “Blood Libel” that Jews ritually kidnapped, tortured and murdered Christian children during the Middle Ages was true. Most of them do not know that the Jews often colluded with Muslims in the various conquests of previously Christian lands. And most of them do not appreciate the level of animosity that Jews have held towards Christianity. More toxically, most of them do not appreciate that the Jews-as-victim narratives (mostly prominently, the Holocaust and the Russian pogroms) are a combination of embellishment, propaganda, or outright fabrication. None of these facts obviously excuse, in any way, present-day harm towards Jews nor does it justify anti-Semitism as if all Jews should be loathed for the sins of their fathers. That is not the point in noting it; rather, we are naïve to ignore that the Jews have, more often than not, been vicious competitors and antagonists to Christians in trade, commerce, war, slavery, and religion — ergo, they have a very long history of antagonism towards us that did not magically disappear with either the “emancipation” of the beginning in the late eighteenth century with the advent of democratic republicanism. No, not only are Jews not historical victims, but they have also often been the villains and oppressors just as often. Nonetheless, ignorant as they are, most American conservatives instinctively oppose any suggestion of corporate Jewish culpability as something inherently anti-Semitic and ugly — even if they are presented with evidence of that corporate culpability, they refuse to connect the dots because they have a preternatural fear of being labeled ant-Semitic. Another factor of discomfiture, especially for Catholics, is the spiritual view is that we are all responsible for the sin and destruction in the world. This view, which is a subtler evasion, takes the spiritual principle that I should look to my own sin before focusing on the sin of another, is misapplied to geopolitical and cultural considerations such that they refuse to see the reality that stares them straight in the face. This view is a variant of Americanism inasmuch as they are the same people who have no difficulty in making negative group associations in other contexts (whether it be Democrats, socialists, globalists, feminists, etc.). But they cannot live with a negative group association as it relates the Jews. This resistance then is less about religion than it is about political and cultural education, wanting to fit in, sociopathic ambition, etc.

There are also American conservatives who are Evangelical Christians. Obviously, these people have a highly defective theology, but we can and should make common cause on a variety of issues with them. One especially egregious part of that defective theology — one that has snuck into the Catholic Church — is the conflation of the present-day Jewish people and the political state of Israel with the ancient Chosen People of God. While it is beyond the remit of this book review to discuss the full scope of supersessionism, the Catholic Church has superseded the ancient Israelites as the rightful people of God; ergo, there is no worship that the Jews offer that pleases God, and their election as the people of God has been forfeited in the rejection of the Messiah. To still refer to them as the “Chosen People” or as specially favored of God is to ignore their historic and collective rejection of Christ, which, in many ways, has come to define them by negation. They are now not unlike the many Israelite characters in the Old Testament who challenged God and his human delegates and were thereafter cut off from the people of God. There is therefore nothing special about the Jews spiritually anymore — they may not be cursed by God, but they are the descendants (or later converts of) of those Israelites who rejected Christ. Not only do we need not “bless them” for their historical apostasy from God, but they are also damning themselves anew in every generation by persisting in their blindness towards Christ. We see this variant in the American conservatives’ embrace of Israel, which, even if simply judged on American values of democracy and openness, is a xenophobic state that rivals the German National Socialist agenda for ethnic purity. This standard fare of blind support by American conservatives of the state of Israel, which is in fact an ugly, oppressive, and illegitimate political sovereign, is a humungous stumbling block to seeing the broader Jewish culpability for the world’s degeneration.

There is, of course, an irony in all of this — that is, White or European resistance to seeing the Jewish culpability and machinations in our social, religious, and cultural dispossession. It is our collective goodness to seek the good in others matched with their collective nature to resist and do harm to the “other.” They have convinced decent people to hate themselves and their fathers for the sins that they in fact have committed. While “gaslighting” is a concept that has become clichéd in recent years, American conservatives have been gaslighted — they ignore the reality that is beyond question because they cannot go where that reality will lead them. If only we were led in the Church by shepherds that would speak the Truth and protect the faithful sheep from those who would harm them. Unfortunately for us, much of the Church’s leadership has been bought and sold by this same Jewish collective — they are, at least for the Jews, new Judases or useful idiots. Strangely enough, the Church’s leaders, not unlike their secular Gentile European counterparts, are cheering the destruction of the very people (us) that they should be protecting by acclaiming the very people (the Jews) who despise them and are agents of that same destruction.

Howard’s book proceeds in eight chapters; each is worthy of a comment. The first chapter is essentially a recapitulation of George Soros’s career as “progressive” nation-destroyer. Howard focuses upon how Soros and his Open Society Foundation — often with private donors or U.S. State Department sponsorship — wreaked havoc upon the countries in central and eastern Europe following the demise of the Soviet Union. It is a story of orchestrated blackmail for Western aid, political and media interference, and the relentless push to destroy the nascent return of traditional and national values to those newly freed peoples. Ukraine, which has dominated the news, was a special pet project of Soros and his public/private minions — and his work there was to decouple Ukrainians from their ethnic cousins in Russia and place them firmly in the Western camp (which means homosexuality, abortion, pornography, immigration, etc.). It is not a stretch to conclude that the Russia-Ukraine War that is still ongoing is a consequence of, among other things, the machinations of George Soros.

If Soros is a personal and stateless boogeyman for globalization, Howard’s next chapter focuses upon the long tentacles of the U.S. State Department and the various satellite NGOs it sponsors to destabilize regimes that oppose “Western values.” If Soros is an invisible Wizard of Oz, State operates like a battering ram with real money and real influence. What Howard exposes is how anti-American the State Department in its foreign policy aims. He sums up the nature of the meddling as follows:

“Democracy,” “Pluralism,” and “Human Rights” are all straight out of the doublespeak playbook, directly at odds with the actual reality of the situation, which is that the ruling class is doing everything in its power to pry open “closed” or otherwise traditional and ethnically-homogeneous societies in order to exploit them make them, more amenable to neoliberalism and then enfold them in the globalized system. …. Today’s national sovereignty is the obstacle to global capitalism and its mutating neo-feudalist form, all particularist regimes which protect the interests of their people, whether left or right, from Cuba to Iran to Venezuela to Russia must be washed away in this awesome septic tide of neoliberalism which most certainly encompasses neoconservatism.

Anyone who knows anything knows that Foggy Bottom is the repository of the most revolutionary group of Federal employees in the entire American government. These people have been virtual communists (or at least socialists) since the days of FDR — and little has changed. These are people that literally despise the great unwashed of American people — the same American people for whom they are supposed to be faithfully executing a foreign policy based on American interests. If Soros’s power is soft and manipulative, State is hard and coercive. Between Soros and his affiliated groups and State and its affiliated groups — as well as their friends in the European Union and similar Western European-based groups, Howard recites a globalist “who’s who,” and there is an incestuous feel to all of it — these people, many of them Jews, move seamlessly between high government positions, think tanks, lobbying firms, media outlets, and NGOs. What this influence-incest amounts to is a network loop of recycled foreign policy talking points that mirror a globalist echo chamber. If you pay close attention to the mainstream media, you will see the underlying and subliminal globalist view mediated in almost everything that is reported. It operates like a hidden axiom that is the ultimate angle in every story, big or small. Taken together, these revolutionaries have almost nothing in common with the ordinary American, yet they are creating havoc throughout the world. What’s more, there is a fair share of “conservatives” among them — neo-cons and never-Trumpers mostly — but people who still write for the National Review and other fraudulent “conservative” outlets.

The influence and chaos that these people and groups cause is hardly academic. Howard goes into great detail on how they engineered “color revolutions” throughout the liberated Soviet bloc — a process that continues to this day. Howard also demonstrates how these puppet-masters have trained a generation of young leaders (often from the countries to be infiltrated) and shock troops in the form of something like international “community organizers” who provide the disorder on the ground by sowing discord and revolution in otherwise fragile democratic states. From the bombing of Serbia to the Arab Spring, from the Velvet Revolution to the Orange Revolution (that was an engineered pro-Western coup in Ukraine), the globalists have destroyed any homegrown opposition to the imposition of Western “values.” What we have done recently in the Middle East and eastern Europe makes what the CIA did to help Augustus Pinochet in Chile during the early 1970s look like clumsy child’s play.

For Howard, the story of the twentieth century and beyond and the wars and conflicts that have marked it is the battle between globalists and nationalists. He even goes so far as to find that globalists finally gained the upper hand when they destroyed Germany in 1945 — through a capitalist-Bolshevik vice grip. It is seldom that you read — at least in print and available on Amazon no less — a book that puts Nazi Germany in a positive light as compared with the West and the Soviet Union. But it is hard to argue with this point that he makes:

From at least World War I, the root of most global conflagrations has been at heart a struggle between globalists on one hand and nationalists and or particularists on the other. … Prior to World War II, in the 1930s, in a Germany under NSDAP direction, employers were discouraged from treating women as workplace-widgets and wage suppressors, and instead the building of families was centralized by the state with a set percentage of loan forgiveness with the birth of each new child among other monetary benefits. Under the NSDAP, loans were issued for a set price. Marriage loans up to 1,000 marks were implemented and were repayable in interest-free installments; a quarter of the loan was forgiven at the birth of each child. Unless it could not be produced domestically, imports were banned with the express goal of making the German economy self-sufficient. This was highly problematic for the proto-neoliberal Establishment, for the dumping of cheap goods in the domestic markets is central to their project which helps create displacement and unemployed workers (think of the effects of NAFTA on both American and Mexican farmers), and the interconnected payment system of war reparations was key in keeping Germany weak and subservient. A prone Germany was also open to large scale immigration from the east and social subversion. With the new German economy forming, the center of a central European trading bloc largely independent of the globalist system of foreign capital and —this is key — foreign banking predicated on the centrality of interest, the economic miracle of Germany took place. Adolf Hitler was heavily influenced by the writings of Gottfried Feder who conceived of an economy free from interest, with labor as the most valuable commodity, for only labor, not capital, is productive — an idea that has been present in Western thought dating to classical antiquity … . In light of Feder’s prescient comments on the international collaboration of the great money-powers, the collusion of big capital and the Bolsheviks and the ultimate smashing of Germany at the hands of the unholy alliance of capitalists and communists in World War II, these historical events and their aftermath in which we are living make much more sense. The unholy alliance persists in the present day within ANTIFA and Black Lives Matters fomenters torching cities unmolested while average people are subject to draconian laws and speech curtailment. Many of the worst excesses of communism are drawn upon to strengthen the Golden International stranglehold on the population.

From my perspective, this alternative statement of history — devoid of Americanist (read: Jewish) propaganda — makes eminent sense. Obviously, I am not justifying the excesses of the Nazi regime or its anti-Catholic sentiment, but the broader point is Hitler was the last leader within the First World to try to stem the tide of the globalists and he was utterly destroyed in the effort. We are living through, perhaps, yet another such leader in Vladmir Putin who is also hated by the Jews and their fellow travelers.

If the globalists despise regimes that are national in orientation and pro-natalist as they relate to their own people, it is not hard to figure out what they support for us. Howard, in a chapter called “Demographic Warfare,” shows how the globalists among us what us to stop having children (birth control and abortion are essentially Jewish inventions), while, at the same, they swamp us in Third World migration. And this phenomenon is only happening in countries that were once European-peopled. This part is especially depressing to me because the demographic changes have both social and political consequences — they open the borders, mint alien voters, create conditions for heterogenous social tumult, steal elections, and repeat. And to oppose these demographic trends, even in the most milquetoast terms, is tantamount to the Orwellian charge of “anti-woman” and gutter racism. Truly, we live in Alice’s wonderland albeit in more starkly frightening qualities.

To put a coda on the Jewish influence in all of this, Howard has a chapter entitled, bravely I might add, “Zionist Occupied Government”. This chapter, which is audaciously politically incorrect is saying out loud what anyone who pays the slightest attention already knows — the American government has become colonized by Israeli and Jewish powerbrokers. He notes the connection forcefully:

At what point does it become a mission of malice rather than in-group favoritism, understanding the Jews, unique among ethnicities, function better in “open” societies, with multiculturalism, looser mores, etc. At worst, they have found success as intermediaries between a subjugated population and its conquerors such as in the Ottoman Empire and Muslim Spain, but global capital and industrialization in the eventual rise of mass media and “connective” technologies has enabled particular, Jewish group strengths to be put to use in crafting an internationalism that disproportionately benefits them. It is also molded it in the Jewish image, as it is subject to Jewish pathology and hysteria, a probable consequence of significant and sustained inbreeding among Ashkenazim especially.

He goes on:

Today even with an explicitly-Jewish state, the majority of global Jewry chooses to live abroad, the vast majority of them in European and European-settled societies. Most have fled the South Africa they helped dismantle, … the few remaining are dramatically overrepresented among the country’s millionaires but even from abroad weaponized blacks are treated as pawns by certain power brokers. … In their Western environs, approximately 80 percent of Jews hew Leftward, and the remaining 20 percent, most seem to fall in the Sheldon Adelson camp, i.e., “conservatism,” as supportive of mass immigration, free trade, amnesty and the like. Where does this leave the Europeans whose homelands are being detonated by Jewish interest groups, ideological and economic, public and private, religious and secular, when all they seem to horseshoe eventually? The only difference is the question of Israel, the rest seems to be settled. It is especially telling that in the same January 2020 speech in which he implied Christians are not “people of faith” and condemned nativists, Michael Bloomberg vowed that as president he would “always have Israel’s back” and would never “impose conditions on our military aid — including missile defense — no matter who is Prime Minister.

The book ends with a final chapter on the “Dark Underbelly,” which is Howard’s attempt to connect wide swaths of criminality and gangsterism, the drug and organ trade, and organized crime to international Jewry. Given their reputation (deserved or not) in the United States as relative law-abiding people, the accusation of widespread criminality is stinging. That said, the final chapter fits within the general narrative of the book that the Jews are malicious as it relates to the “other” — and malicious in proportion to the threat that they see in the other. Europeans have been historically strong competitors with the Jews (we too have our super-talented elite), so it is not surprising that the Jews wish to destroy the host societies of Europeans to weaken their competitors.

*         *         *         *

While I could not have written in as much detail as Howard did when he wrote Open Society Playbook, there was next to nothing, at least thematically, that I did not know already before I picked up the book. That said, his almost-forensic approach to disentangling the web of organizations, state actors, billionaires, media moguls, and tech titans is worth the price of admission. Unfortunately for us, I think the only people willing to read this type of work are exactly the type who already understand the outlines of the game and the participants. Nonetheless, this type of work — especially in its cumulative shock value — is a needed and courageous submission to identifying the problem. As things deteriorate more — and surely they will — more and more conservative men of the West will go beyond the staid conventional answers that are so obviously wanting.More and more will consider what many of us have known for some time. Howard’s book — for the vaguely curious then — is a hammer and an anvil when it comes to Jewish intrigue in domestic and foreign affairs.

If I have a criticism of the book, it is found in the lack of a satisfactory attempt to explain the “why” of our situation. It is, mind you, a fantastic book on the “who” and the “how” but his speculation on why the Jews, are doing this is pedestrian at best. Indeed, the most he can says is that Jews like pluralistic and weakened societies and their pathological enmity towards us is driven by in-breeding. While why the Jews do what they do is not perhaps the signal concern — after all, our response to them ought to be — it is worthwhile to understand. In this, I find E. Michael Jones and Kevin MacDonald far more satisfying in identifying the underlying misanthropic pathology of the Jews as it relates to the “other.” For Jones, it always comes back to their continuing status as deniers of Christ; for MacDonald, it is indeed a type of in-breeding that placed extreme group value on conformity and heightened ethnocentric values. The truth is probably in the middle, but Jones appears, at least to me, to touch upon why they are actively seeking to destroy and dispossess us in our own countries. It seems to me the incomprehensible malice that Howard points to is bound up in the long, collective memory of the Jews of the mostly fabricated abuses they think their forefathers suffered at our hands. Jews, as anyone knows, have a very different sense of forgiveness than do Christians. Simply put, they don’t forgive. Setting aside that they have clinical collective amnesia when it comes to their own misdeeds, they harvest historical grievances with all the care of a vigilant genealogist, and even though we are admonished not to hold the sins of the father against the son, they do exactly that when it comes to our alleged sins against them. I find therefore Jones’ approach to understanding them as essentially bitter and revolutionary elements of society animated by an anti-Logos spirit to be the best possible explanation for why their malice runs so deep and unremitting.

*         *         *         *

Howard paints a bleak picture — indeed, how do you fix a monumental problem and confront a jackal-like enemy when you are not allowed to even notice, let alone mention, the problem? From a natural point of view, our proverbial goose is cooked, and we have lost. That said, we cannot give in to despair. We must do what we can to resist — and the chief form of resistance is Traditional Catholicism. Let our European cousins get back to Mass, let them get back to Confession, let them hear good preaching, let them see the ancient liturgy of the forefathers, let them see the good and natural beauty of the Civilization that their forebears created. Western man has no reason whatsoever to besmirch his civilization — and he has no reason to be embarrassed of who he is, or who his ancestors were. As much as humility and prudence will permit, we ought to be proud to hail from the Mother Continent of Europe. We ought to treasure the traditions of our people. It was through our people that God choose the missionary work in the age of the Church to be accomplished — that is something we should be intensely grateful for, and that fact ought to fill us with fraternal charity for our kin.

Speaking of kin, while we ought never turn our people into an idol (that is what Jews do after all), we can take pride in them in much the same way we take pride in our immediate family. Moreover, as Catholics, we are never permitted to allow our sense of kin to treat Catholics from other groups and races as somehow beneath us — and that goes without saying. But this is not a complicated proposition — I love my wife and children and I am intensely proud of them as they are my own. My love for them does not mean, and has never meant, that I cannot appreciate my friends and their families and take an equal share of happiness when they practice virtue or excel in the world. This is what it means to be an authentic and organic community — the only difference as applied to my European kin is that I can still love them as my own while still loving my non-European Catholic co-religionists. In any event, I repudiate the Jewish idea that I am not also a member of a tribe in my own right. I am, and I pray that my “tribe,” for the lack of a better word, wakes up to their corporate reality before it is too late.

*         *         *         *

Saint Paul, Pray for the Jews. May they turn away from their perfidious blindness and prostrate themselves before the Living God.