Featured Articles

What I Learned About Race as A Cop

From the time I was young, I had wanted to be a police officer. I grew up watching Adam-12, Police Story, Starsky & Hutch, and other exciting television series that centered on the daily lives of cops. They were the good guys. I admired their sense of honor, their camaraderie, and their desire for justice against criminals. Plus, they looked cool doing it.

I recall one incident during the early 70s when my father and I were leaving a barber shop in Hollywood. We saw two White LAPD officers chase down a fleeing Black man and give him the beating of his life. The Black man was attired in a stereotypical “pimp” outfit with all the accompanying garishness and bling. I don’t know why he was running from the cops, but the notion of a Black man fleeing from or resisting officers wasn’t shocking to me. Even at that age I had a notion that Blacks were not particularly friendly with the police. A good many of the Blacks who were bused into my Junior High and High School from South Central Los Angeles, after all, were thugs and troublemakers.

When I later became a cop in the 1980s, my racial awareness increased greatly. I have worked for four separate police departments throughout my career (now retired). I have patrolled Black ghettos, Mexican barrios, and wealthy White communities. I’ve seen it all and learned many life-lessons.

Like any cop who polices minority communities, you start to get a sense of just how different Blacks and Hispanics are from Whites. I’m not suggesting that Whites don’t commit crime nor that White neighborhoods are crime free. But there is a discernable difference between them, and it became increasingly evident to me after years of working in each of these communities.

Blacks vs. Law Enforcement

One of the first things I noticed was the pace of working in a minority community. The calls were always coming in. Many of them were violent crimes-in-progress such as robberies, gang fights, drive-by shootings, and domestic violence. For young cops right out of the academy, it’s a great opportunity to apply one’s skills and sharpen their street smarts. It’s fun as hell too. But it also leads to burnout because the sheer volume of calls causes fatigue to set in. Most cops get jaded quickly when working in minority neighborhoods, and an us-versus-them mentality soon takes root. White officers working in Black communities are not looked upon as a good thing for obvious reasons, and they make it known how much they don’t like you policing them.

You also discover just how dysfunctional Blacks are. Large numbers of the Black men I encountered on patrol, for instance, were unemployed and were seemingly perfectly content to remain so. At almost any time of the day I would witness both younger and older Black males loitering about at liquor stores with no purpose or direction. Even though they were physically capable of working, many of them simply didn’t. Some of them were selling illegal narcotics, no doubt, while others were engaged in various criminal hustles for a few extra bucks. Many Blacks seemed to view it as acceptable and even normal. There was little if any shame among them because generational welfare is not looked upon as a bad thing.

Due to their volatile and emotional natures, domestic violence among Blacks was a frequent occurrence. They play to the drama of it all, and few people know how difficult it is to calm Blacks once they’re agitated. This is especially so when the responding officers are White. They’ll quickly turn the tables and make it not about domestic violence (or whatever reason necessitated a police response), but about how they’re being racially mistreated by White cops. Racial animus against Whites permeates their entire way of thinking. Many Black children grow up seeing this conflict between the police and parents as a regular thing. When I patrolled through a Black housing project, the children wouldn’t even smile or wave at me.

Even the kind of language and expressions an officer employs when dealing with Blacks is vastly different than how that same officer might speak to others. For example, when I would try to get information from a battered Black female victim of domestic violence, it would have been strange indeed to ask where her husband was at or where the father of her children could be found. This is because most of these Black women were unmarried, and the children do not really have a father in the customary sense. I would, instead, have to ask her: “Where’s baby’s daddy?” because that’s all these Black men were doing — namely, producing babies with single mothers. No marriage. No commitment to the mothers — not to their own children.

You almost can’t believe it at times how incredibly dim-witted they are. For Whites such as myself that grew up in a functional home with stable parents, I was sometimes astounded at how unstable and disordered the lives of Blacks were. Chaos ruled the day for most of the ones I encountered.

You also get a good sense of just how impulsive and temperamental Blacks are. They’ll commit the most violent crimes against others and think little of the consequences of their actions. They don’t seem to care even when it’s one of their own. The whole Black solidarity and brotherhood thing, by the way, is just empty talk. It means nothing to Blacks once you get a grasp of how they treat each other. The popular slogan of “Black Lives Matter” matters little to American Blacks if one looks at their skyrocketing murder rates.

The sort of thought process and pre-cautions that might go through the mind of a White person before engaging in a crime, doesn’t even seem to register with many Blacks. In the 1992 movie White Men Can’t Jump, there’s a scene that illustrates perfectly what I’m referring to. When Raymond (a basketball street hustler) sets up a match against Wesley Snipes and Woody Harrelson, he doesn’t quite have the money he needs for the bet.

So, what does he do? He returns to his car, pulls out a handgun and ski mask from the glove compartment. He then crosses the street and enters a liquor store. Raymond tries to rob the store owner, but the owner recognizes him. The entire robbery failed from the start. For Raymond there was no thought process. No planning. No serious attempt to disguise himself. Our human bio-diversity friends would describe it as evidence of ‘poor future time orientation,’ and indeed it was. All Raymond could think of was raising quick money for his basketball hustle. That’s about all his little brain could handle. When I was cop in Southern California, I saw a thoughtless and impulsive Raymond-type almost daily. Black communities are filled with them.

Interestingly, Black officers would sometimes openly concede how dysfunctional and criminal their own people are. Even they couldn’t deny it. The very racial truths I would get fired for daring to say, Black cops would declare openly at times during our morning briefings. Everyone would laugh because they knew it was true. But good luck to any White officer who might be inclined to say the same things.

In the state I worked in, there were Black, Hispanic, and Asian peace officer associations. They were allowed to freely associate together, raise funds for their group, and even advertise themselves based solely on their racial identity. It was all perfectly acceptable, and Whites were expected to support and celebrate it too. Yet White cops were never allowed to form the same type of associations based on their racial identity and interests. Any attempt on their part of would be instantly condemned and attacked as ‘divisive’ and ‘racist.’

Many years ago, I was called into the captain’s office because I had issued too many traffic tickets to Black and Hispanic motorists in the area. I was warned that it might appear as if I were “racially profiling” them, and that I needed to stop it. I explained to the captain that the community was almost 80% Black and many Hispanics resided in the area too, but it mattered little to him. The mere appearance of racially targeting minorities was enough to stop whatever I was doing. This resulted in making me hypersensitive to the racial makeup of anyone I was stopping. Instead of being concerned about the traffic violation, I was more concerned that I didn’t stop too many minorities on any given day. I would try to find White drivers who committed traffic infractions, which then made me guilty of racially profiling Whites!

Thus, what was intended to prevent me from “racially profiling” minority drivers contributed to it in some way. One’s race now became a factor in whether I was going to pull them over or not, the very thing cops are ordered not to do. That was over twenty years ago, and things have only got crazier since.

I also learned that the media’s portrayal of Blacks as ‘innocent’ and ‘oppressed’ to be so far from the truth that it’s surprising anyone would believe it. This discovery was not theoretical, but practical since I was constantly surrounded by Blacks in my job. Working around Blacks tends to dispel the mythology the media creates about Black oppression and what wonderful contributions they make to society.

Most Whites couldn’t relate to this because they don’t work daily in Black communities. They haven’t had any protracted contact with Blacks. They know nothing about their home lives or what their neighborhoods are like. And the few Blacks they do encounter tend to be the ‘good’ or ‘safe’ Blacks —you know, the educated mulattos who appear less threatening, or the racially-correct television sitcoms they watch where Blacks are portrayed as doctors and scientists.

The notion that White police officers target Blacks because of the color of their skin is also another lie or, at best, a half-truth. Many of these same officers who target Blacks for allegedly “no reason” are Black themselves. If Blacks are targeted, it’s almost always because of outstanding warrants or for crimes they’ve committed. The cops in the area also know who their “frequent flyers” are (local gang members, drug dealers, and thieves), and these are the people they target — but it has nothing to do with their skin pigmentation.

Huge numbers of Blacks are also on parole which includes stipulations that they can be searched by a law enforcement officer at any time. Such searches are a means to keeping parolees in compliance with their parole terms. Many people are not aware of this, and so when they witness officers stopping and frisking Black males on the street, they wrongly assume that they’re being “racially profiled” and “harassed” by the cops.

White cops working in Black communities also discover that the greater number of Blacks will almost always side with their criminal “brothas,” regardless of the crime committed. They have little sense of honor, integrity, nor of justice. Black gangsters in Chicago will murder each other (including many innocent bystanders) in skyrocketing numbers on a weekly basis. And yet when police investigators try to get information on the shooters, it’s like pulling teeth. Blacks refuse to cooperate, and when they do, it’s a rare occasion indeed. They tend to view the entire criminal justice system as the White man’s system that unfairly and disproportionately incarcerates them. When Blacks whine about “injustice,” what they’re really complaining about is having got caught and then given a lengthy sentence for their violent crimes. This is how they think and see the world around them. Our penitentiaries are filled with Black males, but it’s rare to find a Black man who will admit his crimes and agree that he was justly sentenced. This level of honesty and self-awareness is not common among American Blacks.

Chicago, like every other big city in America with a large Black demographic, does not have a gun problem. No, it has a Black problem, but we’re not allowed to say so. As a White cop, you learn to use “code words” when describing criminal Blacks that’s really no different than what the media does when it describes marauding groups of young Black males as “teens.” It’s a “safe” expression, but we all know what it means.

Most cops know that Blacks are the real problem. “Normie” White Americans, would interpret my words as “racist” and fueled by “hatred” for Blacks. Yet cops working cities such as Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Oakland, and Birmingham know all-too-well that these Black-on-Black shootings are not being carried out by the Amish or Swedish tourists, but by Black males. This is what society cannot admit to itself. To do so would cause devastating cracks throughout today’s racial grievance industry. The question of whether Blacks are even suitable for White societies because of their dysfunctional ways and their proclivities toward violent crime would arise. The entire multicultural edifice could come crumbling if such thoughts were seriously entertained. Thus, the deeper questions of why Blacks are so volatile and dangerous must be avoided at all costs.

Policing the Barrio

Working in a largely Hispanic community opened my eyes to another set of problems. Although I found Mexicans to be more tolerable than Blacks, they have a strong gang culture, their neighborhoods are infested with illegal narcotics, out-of-wedlock births are common, hit-and-run collisions are routine (mostly because they are unlicensed, uninsured, or drunk!), and alcohol abuse is rampant. Most of the illegal aliens from Mexico are “mestizos” (mixed indigenous natives) and, as a result, alcohol is not metabolized well in their systems. It completely devastates their lives and it effects everyone. Many of these same Hispanics find it nearly impossible to associate alcohol with driving as a bad thing because alcohol consumption is so deeply rooted in their culture. Thus, the number of Hispanics who are arrested while driving intoxicated would stagger the minds of most people. But this is because Mexicans are not generally known to be highly intelligent and law-abiding.

Having worked in Mexican barrios in Southern California, I’m not persuaded by those who argue that Hispanics do not commit high rates of crime. Gang shootings, domestic violence, overdoses, and DUI’s were a daily occurrence. Mexican cartels have also made tremendous inroads in states like California, Arizona, and Texas. Their handiwork of decapitated bodies strewn about the desert is well known. Again, the degree and frequency of crime that Hispanics engage in may not be as high as Blacks, but their communities are still not safe places to live in. Though I have met many decent Mexican people, the original vision of our American founders would have never included them as citizens.

Mexicans are applauded for their “family values” by gullible White conservatives. And while their families are generally more intact than Black families, it’s important to understand what some of those “family values” entail. Few people know that incest and child sexual abuse is rampant in Mexican communities. Over the years, I’ve investigated many such cases. I’ve talked to other investigators who were shocked at the number of child sexual abuses among Hispanics. Most of it is not even reported to the police due to fear of being deported. There is also the fear of bringing shame onto one’s family by speaking out.

The Hispanics in America, like Blacks, soon learn how to use racial grievances against the White man to their advantage. They are instructed and soon emboldened by pro-Mexican organizations such as La Raza that want to take back land from the U.S. — land they believe was stolen from them. The White officer will inevitably encounter them, and they can be just as racially radicalized as any Black person they might encounter.

The Democrats, of course, work to weaponize Hispanics against the greater White majority. They see the millions of Hispanics in America as their new voting base, and it’s no wonder they support illegal immigration and want no border controls. Chamber-of-Commerce Republicans, on the other hand, see these same hordes of Hispanics as cheap laborers for their business and corporation base. Thus, both parties support illegal immigration, but for different reasons. Is it any wonder why Congress after all these years has still not resolved the issue of illegal immigration, and even refuses to secure our southern border?

Policing While White

Policing a mostly upper middle-class White community was a major relief in terms of call volume and the seriousness of the crimes that occurred. Violent crimes did happen now and then, but it was generally rare. Drug usage, vandalism, overdoses, tenant arguments, domestic disputes, credit card fraud, and various White-collar crimes seemed to be what I dealt with the most. On many occasions, there were few calls for service during my shift. This would never happen when working in a Black or Hispanic community. I found Whites to be pretty much law-abiding, although that might not be the case in some poor rural towns in the South. But even then, it would never devolve to the same degree as is typical in almost every lower-class Black community.

Working as a White police officer, especially if you work in a big city, you’ll experience some “reverse racism.” It’s not rare to see less qualified Blacks and Hispanic officers getting promoted over White officers due to affirmative action quotas. This is almost guaranteed to be the case if the command staff is comprised of minorities. Officers or deputies working in more rural areas will likely experience less of this discrimination because fewer minorities are present. In fact, I try to urge White officers to consider transferring out of big-city police departments if they can do so. They will find themselves in a less hostile work environment, and much more appreciated too. Rural communities tend to be more supportive of law enforcement in large part because they are White communities.

I no longer recommend a career in law enforcement for Whites, at least in terms of working for big-city police departments. This is because modern policing has largely gone “woke.” The administrators and command staff for many agencies have been deeply influenced by “progressive,” left-leaning social policies.

Officers today are expected to perform their duties as a mix between psychologist and social workers. While this has always been expected to some limited degree among cops, these expectations and many more are incumbent upon today’s new breed of officers. They are expected to resolve or at least attempt to resolve a myriad of social problems they encounter. They must be everything to everyone. Too much, in my opinion, is placed on their shoulders.

Cops must treat everyone with kid gloves, even the criminals. The slightest off-color or politically incorrect remark can ruin an entire career. Officers must often walk on eggshells with almost everyone they meet. People know it too, and they’re quick to file formal complaints if an officer doesn’t quite meet their expectations.

In my career, I’ve had people complain to my supervisor about something I’ve said or done. These were all relatively minor and determined to be unfounded. However, I’ve had five formal complaints filed against me over the years for the most outlandish claims. In each of these, my body camera saved my bacon and proved that the allegations were mere fabrications.

For example, in 2002 I was accused of beating up a 17-year-old male teenager who was walking to the rear of a grocery store on his way home. This was around 3am in the morning, and it at first appeared suspicious. When I contacted the boy, I asked if I could speak to him. I explained my reason for approaching him and my concerns as to him being out so late at night. He told me he was coming home late from a party and was taking a shortcut to his house. Our conversation was brief but cordial. The teenager left and I resumed patrol. Approximately 30 minutes later I was requested to return to the station and meet with my watch commander. I was then informed that the teen alleged I had “roughed him up” behind the grocery store and his parents were going to file a formal complaint against me.

Yet what the teenage and his parents did not know is that I was equipped with a MAV (Mobile Audio Visual) device. Our conversation was audibly recorded, and my dash camera caught the entire incident on video. Everything I was accused of was false, and I had video to prove it.

One another occasion, I and five other officers were accused of being racially unfair and unprofessional to a Black woman who had assaulted another women during a business dispute. None of the officers at the scene, including one who was Black himself, said or did anything even remotely suggestive of race. Our conduct was completely professional and unbiased. The Black woman was angry because I dared to request her driver’s license which made her “feel” like she was being racially targeted. The result? An Internal Affairs investigation was conducted on each of the officers present, including a thorough review of all our body cameras. After we were each found acquitted of any wrongdoing or policy violations, the case was sent to the District Attorney’s office for their review. They too found that none of the officers engaged in any form of racial profiling or bias. But it didn’t end there. The matter was pursued all the way up to a federal court where it was finally “dismissed with prejudice.” The matter took two full years to resolve.

The general trust that was at one time afforded to officers by county district attorneys and judges are now gone. The prevailing attitude seems to be that if it’s not recorded on the officer’s body camera or caught on video surveillance, it didn’t happen. My experience has led me to believe that officers are generally viewed with suspicion by the criminal justice system. They are no longer trusted as they once were. All of this, of course, comports with what America has morphed into — namely, a no-trust society due in large part to multiracialism which breeds division. Granted, some officers over the years have contributed to this absence of trust. Yet the overwhelming number of officers in the U.S. perform their jobs professionally and ethically. They are dismayed as everyone else is when they hear of officers abusing their authority.

There’s also the belief held by many Americans that cops routinely plant drugs and guns on minorities they stop and frisk. They imagine that White cops drive around looking for Blacks they can gun down, and somehow the entire system is guaranteed to protect them!? Such beliefs about what cops do are so off the mark that it becomes laughable, and it’s gotten worse since the death of George Floyd. Many DA’s, in fact, would be thrilled to prosecute an officer for wrongdoing because it would prove how “impartial” and “non-racist” they are.

No one who is informed denies that cops have at times abused their authority, as well as occasions where an unreasonable use of force was employed. This includes deadly force. But these are very rare occasions when compared to the millions of contacts that cops have daily with people nationwide. When one carefully reviews these officer-involved shootings, it will almost always be found that Blacks escalated things by resisting arrest or not complying with lawful orders. And yet the subject can’t be treated fairly because of all the hysterical voices involved.

The racial grievance industry in America has polluted everything, including the criminal justice system which is supposed to maintain its integrity and objectivity in legal matters. Yet one northern California county that I worked in distributed a letter from its district attorney’s office to all local law enforcement agencies informing them that one’s race and economic status would be considered in any criminal sentencing. This meant that if the convicted offender were a minority and poor, he would be given a lighter sentence. They wouldn’t phrase it as crudely as that, of course, but that’s essentially what was meant. Yet we must ask ourselves: Why should any of that play a role in one’s sentencing? Did the person commit the crime or not? Isn’t justice supposed to be blind?

This same liberal county will not prosecute homeless shoplifters. They reason that if homeless persons are stealing food, they must do so because they are hungry and economically disadvantaged. Truth is, the homeless are pretty much stealing alcohol. If they want food, they can easily get a free meal at any nearby homeless shelter. When homeless persons are arrested for shoplifting (usually they’re issued a ticket with a court date and released), the D.A. refuses to prosecute them “in the interest of justice.” What double talk! Justice is denied to the victims “in the interest of justice”?! And those who should be held to account skirt justice altogether. What a great criminal justice system we have.

Many people in the county are indignant when they discover that the homeless aren’t being prosecuted for such thievery. I made sure to remind them when I could that these were the very bleeding-heart politicians they voted into office.

In 2014, Californians voted to pass Proposition 47 termed “The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act.” It reclassified certain theft and drug possession offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. Possession of and use of methamphetamine, for example, was now deemed a misdemeanor and no longer a felony. A host of other dangerous narcotics were also reclassified as misdemeanors which essentially made using and possessing it no big deal.

Prop 47 also sought to reduce the number of people incarcerated in California’s prisons reclassifying their crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. The result? Black and Hispanic crime exploded in the Golden State. County probation departments were now expected to manage and control thousands of hardened felons released from state prisons. Probation officers were burdened with enormous caseloads which has resulted in poor oversight of these same felons. Californians who voted for the Orwellian “Safe Neighborhoods Act” will once again pay for their foolish decisions.

California’s obsession with “racial equity” can also be seen in that it requires all California peace officers to complete a racial questionnaire after every traffic stop or when detaining anyone. This is referred to as “Stop-Data” which consists of about five separate categories of questions related to one’s race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. The state wants to know the officer’s perceptions of the person prior to the time they stopped him or her. They want to know what race or ethnicity the person was. Was the person gay, transgender, lesbian, non-binary? The state wants also a brief narrative of why the person was stopped and what actions if any the officer may have taken. Since this is required after every single traffic stop and detainment, how likely is it that cops will continue to be proactive and seek out criminals? Police work is already filled with excessive paperwork, and the new “Stop Data” requirements will only give cops another reason to look the other way.

But it doesn’t stop there. Both the State of California and the federal government have another information gathering system called CIBRS (California Incident-Based Reporting System) and NIBRS (National Incident-Based Reporting System) that officers are mandated to complete prior to the end of their shifts. This requires from the officer the same sort of information that “Stop Data” does, except it’s much more detailed, requiring such data as victim information, known offenders, relationships between victims and offenders, the crime committed or attempted, the race or ethnicity of anyone entered into the system, including their sexual orientation, and the list goes on. Such entries in CIBRS and NIBRS must be completed by an officer in all police reports he submits. This is typical of how state and federal authorities waste the time of officers by mandating they complete over and over the same redundant information.

In the same way that the U.S. military is working to purge personnel that might question or resist their “woke” policies (usually politically conservative White males), so the same seems to be occurring in the law enforcement profession. In California, for example, officers will be recertified every two years under new P.O.S.T (Peace Officer Standards and Training) guidelines. Its purpose is to prevent sketchy officers who have engaged in unprofessional and illegal conduct from continuing their employment as peace officers. Officer-involved shootings, uses of force, policy violations, and internal affairs investigations will all be reviewed to determine if an officer is fit for duty. This is not a bad thing per se, and it may help to weed out those who should not have been hired in the first place.

The problem is that the board conducting the recertifications has some political “activists” who are not police friendly. It’s highly questionable whether they can be neutral and objective in their decisions. While there may be one or two persons on the board who have served as officers, most of them have not. I seriously doubt they understand the nature, various nuances, and dynamics of police work. The greater number of them seem to come from the political left, and I suppose a few of them would gladly support today’s “defund the police” movement. I doubt that politically conservative and patriotic White males who happen to also be cops would be looked upon favorably. This kind of politically motivated P.O.S.T. recertification board could over time purge White males from the profession – especially if every officer’s social media account, including former and current ones, must be disclosed to the board. At this point, anything is possible in California under the state’s current governor who has become drunk with power.

There is also another trend developing in California in which officer-involved shootings and other uses of force that in the past were deemed justifiable and within department policy, are now being reviewed by some district attorneys as potential crimes under color of authority. Such incidents are scrutinized with a “post-Floyd” critical eye that interprets all uses of force prior to the death of George Floyd with the newer policies after his death. This is brazenly unfair to the officer, of course, and yet this appears to be the new direction of California’s legal system.

Taken all together, it really does appear as if California legislatures and various authorities don’t want to quell California’s enormous crime problem. They seemingly want to make it as easy as possible for criminals to flourish, and to not experience any real consequences for their actions. California cops, on the other hand, are overly scrutinized, mistrusted, and burdened with mind-numbing questionnaires and racial “busy work.” This results in widespread demoralization among the officers, and, as noted above, they are discouraged from policing their communities in a proactive way (e.g., checking on suspicious persons, traffic stops, trying to stop crimes before they occur, etc.).

The criminal justice system in America, it must be remembered, is simply an arm of the Globo-Homo system. It’s part-and-parcel to it. It reflects its values and fundamental beliefs. At its core, it is anti-White. The system doesn’t take kindly to conservative Whites, particularly Whites who happen to have a strong racial identity. This needs to be kept in mind by any White person considering a career in law enforcement.

What will those same White officers do when the system demands they break their oath? How will they react when the system mandates they arrest Whites who stand up for their racial and cultural interests? When the system requires them to confiscate the firearms of its citizens in violation of the Second Amendment, will they comply with such orders? The system will demand that White officers do their “duty” (however conceived), but if they refuse, they will no longer be employed as peace officers.

Remember when all the officers were ordered to stand down during the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown riots? The same thing occurred when “Black Lives Matter” rioters smashed up, looted, and caused havoc in city after city throughout the Summer of 2020. Think also of how officers were commanded to do nothing and even take the abuse leveled against them during the George Floyd riots. Remember all those cucks in uniform who took a knee to show their solidarity that Floyd’s death was “tragic” and “racially motivated”? Well, that’s likely going to be expected — even required — of all cops in any future riots fueled by racial animus against Whites.

Is this what Whites want to be part of? Do we really want to cooperate with a system bent on our dispossession?

I think we need to face the reality that the law enforcement system in America — along with the courts and federal government — works against the racial interests of Heritage Americans (Whites). It does not have our best interests at heart, and it hasn’t for many decades. In fact, it despises us and there can be little doubt that it’s working day and night to replace us with millions of Third-World immigrants.

The law enforcement system in America, it seems to me, is best suited for minorities, liberal women, homosexuals, transgenders, and White male cucks who have been so deracinated and racially neutered that they will gladly do anything it tells them. Racially conscious Whites, on the other hand, should see the psychotic system for what it is and have nothing to do with it.


“The Jews — The Kings of Our Age,” by Dr. Otto Böckel

“The Jews — The Kings of Our Age”[1]
Dr. Otto Böckel
Translated by Alexander Jacob

Otto Böckel (1859–1923) was a German anti-Semitic politician who was moved by the plight of the German peasants of Hesse to enter politics in 1887 as an independent member of the Reichstag. Like Eugen Dühring — who published a seminal work on the Jewish Question in 1881, Die Judenfrage[2] — Böckel was against all exploitative groups, Jewish or Junker and championed the peasants against their capitalist oppressors. Like Dühring too, Böckel considered the Jews distinct from the Germans in race rather than in religion and maintained that the Jewish Question was an existential question on which hinged the survival of one or the other race.  In the nineties, he formed an anti-Semitic party called Antisemitische Volkspartei, which later merged with Oswald Zimmerman’s Deutsche Reformpartei, in 1893. However, opposition from other anti-Semitic factions, including that of the Lutheran theologian Adolf Stoecker and his Christlich-soziale Partei, led to a weakening of his parliamentary position and he eventually left politics in 1912.

*   *   *

Respected attendees!

In my last talk, which I held on 28 December of last year here in the Bockbrauerei, I explained that the Jewish Question is an existential question for the German nation, that it was about whether the German nation would remain free, prosperous and happy in the future or whether Jewry would, bit by bit, in a slow but certain progression, undermine our national welfare and therewith the foundational pillars of our national existence. The Jewish Question stands above the political parties; it is a national question which affects every German regardless of religion or party affiliation. Whether conservative, liberal, progressive or ultramontane, all are threatened by the Jews. It was a great mistake of the anti-Semitic movement that it allowed itself to be dragged down to the swamp of parties; the decline of the anti-Semitic movement — so often stressed by the Jews — dates from the day that anti-Semitism got roped in by the Conservatives. This mistake we should rectify today, we must preach anti-Semitism free of any party orientation; every German has an interest in the Jewish Question, and only through the cooperation of men of all parties can it be solved in a legitimate manner.

How a solution of the Jewish Question is to be imagined has been the subject of much debate. Of course, such burning questions are not solved in one stroke. But the way to the solution is, nevertheless, quite discoverable. Every solution of the Jewish Question must begin with the fact that it should be recognised legally in the constitution that:

There are in Germany two different nations: Germans and Jews. The former are the masters of the land, the latter are guests, who may indeed possess a right to hospitality but never a right to be masters.

Who then made Germany arable, who cleared the primeval forests, who drove out the bears and wolves? Did our forefathers, the ancient Germans, not do that? If the Jews had had to cut down the primeval forests and shoot the wolves, the primeval forests would still have been standing in Germany and the wolves would have still dwelt in packs in our forests.

What our people developed through the sweat of their brow should also remain their own and no foreign tribe may drive the German from his native soil. Germany for the Germans, that is the slogan of anti-Semitism. We do not want any hatred of Jews but protection of Germans; never should the property of the Germans be expropriated by Jews, never should entire streets, entire cities and villages fall victim to the Jews, as is the case, for example, in Hesse, Alsace, and even here in Berlin. If the land registers — these silent proofs of Jewish power — could speak, they would utter a loud declaration of the Judaization of German land. The exploitation of our rural people has already reached a fabulous height.

Some examples: In the district courts of Gelnhausen and Meerholz, 227 forced auctions of housing properties were pending from 1 January 1880 to the present date. If one adds to this also the public auctions of the district courts of Wächtersbach, Birstein, Bieber and Orb, there must have been, in the Gelnhausen district alone, in this time-period, the really hair-raising number of 450 public auctions. The prosecuting party consisted 99% of Jews, while 1% was made up of public commercial treasuries and German money-lenders. Furthermore, in the Frankenberg district in Hesse, from 1877 to 1882, in 17 communities, 36 auctions have been noted. Of the auctioneers 17 were Jews and only 3 Germans. In addition, it must be observed that, given such a progress of property butchering, in around 15 years in the Frankenberg district there will be only a very small number of peasants left who are not financial slaves of the Jewish butchering of property. So, we have come so far already in the highly civilized nineteenth century that slavery — which has been repealed in Africa and America with streams of blood — can be quite freely introduced again into the middle of the German fatherland by Jews. Is that not a slap in the face of our much-praised civilization? When will the Germans have some of the tolerance that they have had twelve times for the foreign Jews for their own flesh and blood, for the German peasant class ruined by the Jews?

But do not think that it looks pathetic only In Hesse. It looks more or less similar everywhere in Germany. None other than the officious Norddeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung wrote the following in 1880 about the Jews in Posen:

Just as in a factory, the public auction machine works throughout the year allocating the personal possessions of the rural folk to the Jews.

Yes, such an admission on the part of a newspaper that in its time made a stand against the anti-Semites is doubly valuable. In Upper Silesia, the Jews, according to the report of the liberal Kölnische Zeitung of May 1886, rule the entire trade to such an extent that in some places it is very difficult to do any shopping on Saturdays. The Jews have all the liquor bars in their hands there. Under such circumstances one can well understand that hunger typhus and delirium tremens is rampant in Upper Silesia. The Jews are also to blame for the hunger typhus and the misery that are to be found in Spessart, as Father Frank publicly proclaimed in the Bavarian chamber in 1880. How great the debt has grown in the Saar emerges from the well-established fact that a single Jewish firm, the H. Brothers in Saarlouis, as a consequence of the law “On the sale and mortgaging of property within the Rhine law,” in the period from 1 July 1885 to the present date in 1886, earned over 2,000,000 marks purchase price privileges. Consider, gentlemen, that that was done by a single ordinary Jewish firm, and now calculate the debt of our peasant class in relation to thousands of similar Jewish firms!

In the area around Trier, the Jews have already become exuberant to such an extent that they could openly boast that they were killing the Peasants’ Union founded for the protection of the peasants. In West Prussia, the Jews are, as the Secretary General Dr. Demmler testifies, already prevalent, extraordinarily strong, and have become the “fundamental malady of the peasant class.” Faced with such conditions, who does not recall the saying of Prince Bismarck, who in 1847 said in the state parliament during the discussion of the Jewish emancipation:

I know a place where the Jewish population is very numerous in the country, where there are peasants who call nothing on their entire property their own; from their bed to their oven-fork all furniture belongs to the Jew and the peasant pays a daily rent for every single thing. The corn in the field and in the barn belongs to the Jew and the Jew sells bread, seeds, and fodder to the peasant with razor sharpness. Of a similar Christian usury I have never heard, at least in my experience.

Another example, of how it is in southern Germany. In 1835, the Jews in Hohenzollern petitioned for their civil rights. The provincial deputies deliberated on it. In the course of the debate a speaker expressed the following: “The haggling business of the Jews weighs in a corrupting manner on the province. In the village, in the huts of the poor and the simple folk, the work-instrument and cow, the field and the pasture, the pan and the pot, the hood and the jacket, often belong to the Jew and he does not stop making the peasant with his house and field, harrow and plough, wife and child subject to him through interest.” If the Jews are emancipated, said another speaker, “then in a short time the entire princely house of the Hohenzollerns would belong to the Chosen People and the poor goyim be their slaves.” These are sad images of the Judaization of land in Germany.

Where will it end if it continues in this way? From where will the defense troops come to defend the fatherland when our peasant sinks more and more into a day-labourer or emigrates in order to escape from the Jew? The peasantry are the foundational pillar of a healthy state structure; woe to the state that leaves its peasants defenceless to exploitation by the Jews! It is infuriating when one must watch how the Jew, who just 20 years ago peddled goatskins as a poor panhandler, today, as a rich haggler, holds on a Sunday morning a day of hearing for his indebted peasants in order to inform them whether he will just auction them off or whether he will still be merciful. It is infuriating when such scenes occur in the middle of the German fatherland!

Yes, gentlemen, if you would see how the poor victims of the Jew come to the day of hearing of this person, how they bow down their heads, how the Jew shouts at them, how many of them depart therefrom in tears, then your heart will beat in shame and rage at how deep already the German people have sunk into misery. If you wish to study the Jewish Question, you must go to the court house into which the Jew leads his peasants; how often I have seen the poor victims creep to the local court with lowered head next to the grimacing Jew.

Yes, gentlemen, this sight made me an anti-Semite, I then said to myself: ‘How low, how low indeed, our people have fallen! Is there then nobody, nobody who has the courage to intervene on behalf of the poor people who have fallen to the Jew?’ I looked around myself and saw nobody. Some perhaps made fists in their pockets, but the Jews are too powerful, they are feared. Cowardice is a widespread vice.

Then I jumped into the movement, without any consideration of career or future. It was in autumn 1883 when I became acquainted, in a really drastic case, with the misery that the Jews bring upon our people. A formerly well-off peasant was fully impoverished by a Jew; a few days after the auctioning of the peasant’s possessions, the Jew was found murdered. The peasant was brought before the jury in Marburg but acquitted. The proceedings uncovered a frightful image of Jewish usury. I followed the trial with great excitement; on the day on which the verdict was uttered I too was among the expectant crowd. I shall never forget the moment when the acquitted victim of the Jew emerged from the door of the court building. A hundred “Bravos” shook the air, the mass of people were beside themselves with joy. Then, in this thrilling hour, I swore to myself: “This cannot go on further; you must intervene against the activities of the Jews with your whole life. The people are panting for a liberator:” From this moment onwards I have been an anti-Semitic agitator, the image of the poor peasant robbed by the Jew impels me forward; whether the enemy be numerous, whether the dirt and the hatred be so great, I must fight and will fight to the last drop of my blood, to my last breath.

We want to fight, but only on an honest, legal path; we abjure every brutal violence and dissociate ourselves expressly from anyone who undertakes to solve the Jewish Question in an illegal manner. We know only too well that nothing hurts our cause more than illegal riots. That is precisely what the Jews want so that they may obtain a certain semblance of truth for the old meaningless phrase “Jew baiting.” Who knows how many of those abhorrent riots against the possessions of the Jews originated directly or indirectly from paid agents provocateurs of the Jews themselves. We cannot emphasize too often the legality of our agitation.

Equally as often must we emphasize that we seek to solve the Jewish Question totally only as a racial question, never as a religious question. The Jewish Question has nothing to do with the religion of the Jews; what the Jew believes is a matter of indifference; whether he is a Reform Jew, Orthodox or baptised Jew, that is a matter of complete indifference for us anti-Semites. The Jews are a tenacious, ancient race distant from ours that cannot be extirpated from the world either through baptism or miscegenation. Baptism is for the Jew only a passport to enter into the higher classes in order to be able to work so much more energetically for the interests of his race. Through baptism the Jew becomes only more dangerous.

What the Jews themselves think of baptism they express very openly; so, for example, the Jew Singer in Vienna clearly says in his work Should the Jews become Christians?,[3] “The Jew who lets himself be converted is a hypocrite.” More characteristically does the orthodox Israelit appearing in Mainz illustrate the view of the Jews regarding baptism: At the time of the Napoleonic campaign a German Jew came as a soldier to Spain; now, there are in Spain, where the Jewish religion is not tolerated in public, many secret Jews (they are called novos christianos)[4] who say outwardly that they are Christian but secretly celebrate the Jewish rituals, are circumcised, etc. Our Jewish soldier now came accidentally to such a secret Jew in his cantonment. The host was very ill and was dying. They called for a priest. Suddenly, when the priest entered the barrack room with a raised crucifix, the dying man cried out: “Stay away, I am a Jew.” The priest then threw the cross onto the ground and cried out: “I am also a Jew.”  And the Jewish German soldier embraced both his racial comrades and cried out: “I am also a Jew.” And the three Jews (two dishonest and one honest) embraced one another and were glad that they had found one another in such a miraculous way.

That is a little piece that may show us what one may think of the baptism of the Jews. Woe to the people who think that they can get rid of the Jewish Question through baptism; it can then easily happen as in Portugal, where the entire national character has been corrupted and enervated by the creeping Jewry. The Portuguese, once a warlike and seafaring nation, have, in the judgement of competent travellers like Willkomm,[5] etc., become roguish and Jewish, their national character has been corrupted by the admixed Jewry. How far things have gone in Portugal is demonstrated by an anecdote that the elder D’Israeli, [6] the English Jew, narrates in his work Geist des Judenthums (Stuttgart, 1836, 218): The Portuguese nation is seventy five percent made up of Jews. Under the government of Pombal,[7] King Joseph was persuaded to renew that badge of the Jews, the yellow hat, to designate the many novos christianos among his subjects. The edict was prepared; the next morning the minister appeared before His Majesty with three yellow hats, one he offered to the king, the second he gave the Great Inquisitor and the third he intended for his own head. “I follow the orders of His Majesty,” he said, “and give this badge to those whose blood has been stained with Jewish blood.”

That is what happens in countries where one deals with the Jewish Question from a religious standpoint. The Jews are a race, and indeed a very ancient one. On the Egyptian pyramids we find portrayed, among other labourers, also some Jews (the Jews, as is well-known, had to work as laborers in Egypt) and these Jews on the thousand-year old pyramids look exactly like our present-day Jews in Germany. That is perhaps the best proof of the persistence of the Jewish race.

It is a fact recognised by many medical authorities that the bodily structure of the Jews is different from that of the Germans. Dr. G. Schulz, curator of the anatomical museum in St. Petersburg, compiled a report on the measurements of individuals from different nations for the determination of the proportions of the human body. In St. Petersburg, the focal point of the most extensive monarchy on earth, he had excellent opportunity for comparative bodily measurements: he accurately measured Russians, Jews, Circassians,[8] Latvians, negroes and Chuvashians.[9] The result showed, that among these different nations, the Jews represented not just a deviation and distinctiveness in individual proportions, but that they stand at the extreme limit in the chief proportions of height and width, the proportion of the trunk to the limbs, of the head and neck to the rest of the body, and represented an exceptional distinctiveness. Even Professor Virchow,[10] the famous natural scientific researcher, spoke at the grave of Ludwig Löwe of a Jewish race and therewith provided the most valuable endorsement for us anti-Semites.

The key to the Jewish Question lies in the circumstance that the Jews are a foreign race that thinks differently, feels differently, acts differently than us and consequently must quite naturally be placed in another legal category. We cannot confound the concept of race with “humanity”: blood is not water, nations and statesmen who do not deal with the racial conditions rooted in Nature are destroyed by this failure of understanding.

One such failure of understanding was the Jewish emancipation. People thought that they would be able to silently assume that a Jew was, or could become, a German. Statesmanly cleverness and foresight were subordinated to more general observations and created in this way pathetic conditions which a clever politician could have foreseen. Even the very free-thinking tribune Hecker[11] was an opponent of Jewish emancipation and he called it nonsense! Today we have to suffer badly on account of the mistake of the Jewish emancipation. The consequence of that liberal enthusiasm for the Jews plagues the German nation like a rheumatism and it is high time to take care that it does not become a gout. The number of Jews increases in a really abnormal manner. In 1774, in Berlin, there were altogether 3953 Jews, in 1813 there existed there still only 2825, in 1858 there were already 15,491 and in the census of 1 December 1880, 53,949 Jews were counted, that is, 4.81 percent. Today, in 1886, we may suppose around 60,000. The number of Jews has thus increased roughly seventeen times from 1780 to 1880. Consider that, if the present-day Berlin Jewry increases again seventeen times in a century, this would give, in Berlin alone, for 1980, the total sum of 923,132 Jews, thus almost one million Jews in Berlin in 1980. In Köln there were, according to an article of the liberal Kölner Zeitung, in 1833, 60,000 Germans and 356 Jews; fifty years later, in 1882, the civilian population of Köln amounted to 138,614 Germans and Jews; the Christians thus increased in 50 years around twofold, the Jews around fifteen times. We may calculate further on the basis of these figures. If Köln increases further under the same conditions, its population will amount in 50 years to 300,000 Germans and 80,000 Jews and, 50 years after, to 700,000 Germans and 1,200,000 Jews.

Do you perhaps understand now that the Jewish Question is an existential question for us Germans? The Kölner Volkszeitung recently wrote the following: “I am not an anti-Semite and would gladly let every Jew live; but if the influence of the Jews increases in the same way as in the last ninety years, I don’t know what will become of Köln.”

In Hesse there are cities and towns which have 10–20 percent Jews, for example, Niedenstein (Fritzlar district) with 21.71 percent Jews, Felsberg (Melsungen district) with 17.50 percent Jews, Schlüchtern with 13.98 percent Jews, etc. As striking is the multiplicative capacity of the Jews abroad. Thus the Jewish population of Vienna has, in comparison to the Christian, increased similarly strongly, 7 times in eleven years, and in Prague 8 times. In Bucharest, the Romanian population was represented in terms of births up to 20 percent, the Catholic up to 16 percent, and the Jewish 47 percent.

Parallel to the capacity of physical multiplication of the Jews runs the rapid growth of Jewish wealth. So we have, for example, according to the official tax registers in Frankfurt am Rhein, a city in which, among 150,000 inhabitants there are around 16,000 Jews, altogether 53 Jewish millionaires and only 48 German millionaires.

In the hands of the Jewish millionaires there are 235 million marks, whereas the Germans represent only 88 million. Given such figures, perhaps nobody asks any more, “Where has our money gone?” but “Whence do those Jewish millions come if not from the sweat of the German people?” They were not earned by the sweat of the hands, no Jewish millionaire saved his millions as a manual labourer or acquired them as a peasant with a plough; all this infinite wealth was taken from the mouths of the working German people. Everybody knows about the wealth of Rothschild. Rothschild possesses in Bohemia alone seven times as much land as the entire imperial family. All sixty aristocratic families of Bohemia taken together have only four times as much land in Bohemia as Rothschild alone, and all that only since 37 years ago. If one adds to that the possessions of Rothschild in Lower Austria, Moravia, Silesia, Hungary, etc., and, further, those in France, Germany, Spain, Italy, America, etc., then one must ask oneself: “Are the Jew not the kings of our age?”

The Ferrières Castle in France, which belongs to Rothschild, and excels in splendour and opulence all royal castles in the world, is surrounded by a complex of 100,000 joch, all of which belongs to Rothschild. The entire lands belonging to this single castle of Rothschild are twice as much as the entire land possessions of all the religious orders of all of France. But, apart from Rothschild, there are further, in France, a number of Jewish bankers each of whom possesses more than 50,000 joch of land. Similarly, all the significant vineyards of France belong to Rothschild. Alongside Rothschild, Baron Hirsch, especially, shines in Paris as a financial magnate. This financier became a millionaire especially through the lotteries. The high society of Paris frequent this Croesus. When Baron Hirsch once stood at the top of his famous stairway and saw the counts, princes and marquis climbing up, he said to his son: “Look at all these people, in twenty years they will all be our sons-in-law, or our gatekeepers.”

The wealth of the Jews constantly increases. In Hungary, where not a single Jew possessed land before 1862, half of the Nyitra County belongs to the Jew Popper, and the former owners of this land have mostly emigrated. This Popper, who began as a poor Jew, died as the patron of 54 Catholic churches. Recently, a Jew called Deutsch bought near Fünfkirchen an estate of 200,000 joch. The other big Jews, Königswarter, Wodianer, Springer, Tedesko, etc., have in the 27 years in which they have been allowed to acquire landed property, bought up so much land in Hungary that they have a quarter of the electorate in their lands. In Galicia, 80 percent of the entire land, thus 4/5, belongs to the Jews and only a fifth to the local people. In Romania, 2/3 of the land is in debt to the Jews; the Jews there are just waiting for their emancipation to take possession of the entire land in a short time. So far have they already come, the poor “persecuted Jews.” Informed people claim that the wealth of the Rothschild house is 20,000 million [marks]; at 5 percent interest this produces in interest in one year of 1,000,000,000 guilders, in one day more than 2,500,000 guilders. So, if Rothschild wishes to consume just the interests, he has every day 2,500,000 guilders to spend.

A bureaucrat who has a yearly salary of 1000 florins must therefore live and work 2500 years long if he wished to earn as much salary as the Rothschild house has to consume daily just in interest. The wealth of the Rothschilds grows rapidly. Each of the two Frankfurt Rothschilds has a yearly income of around 10 million; of this each spends 11/2 million and sets aside thus 81/2 million again as capital. Where should such a hoarding of Jewish millions lead? Shouldn’t universal impoverishment be the natural consequence?

The financial power of the Rotschilds is assertive. When, recently, bankrupt Egypt took a loan from Rothschild, 6 great powers had to vouch for bankrupt Egypt; among these powers was also Germany! Out of this Egyptian loan the Rothschild house soon, as may be proven, earned within a short time 6,100,000 marks, thus a net gain of at least 3 million marks. The power of this Jewish international house already makes itself felt in world history. The Parisian Rothschilds are, as is well-known, the closest friends of the Orléans; the Baroness Alphonse de Rothschild held as recently as 2 July 1886 a glamorous dinner in honour of the Duke of Chartres. It is an open secret that the Parisian Rothschild protects the Orléans. But the Orléans are, for Germany, war. But there are Rothschilds not only in Paris, they have seats also in London and Vienna. The imperial Austrian state is in debt to the Rothschild house. Now imagine the political constellations in the case of a war between France and Russia on the one side and Germany and Austria on the other. The result is therefore very simple; the Finanz und Handelsblatt, certainly a competent, non-partisan organ, describes the consequences in this way:

Supposing the case that France were to find that the time had come to declare war against Germany, then it lies in the powerful hands of the Rothschilds to drive the Austrian state allied with us immediately into bankruptcy and to destroy it financially if it did not comply with the political dictates of the Rothschilds. Nothing else is required for such a catastrophe than to quickly place on the market the Rothschilds’ possession of Austrian credit stocks, bring them down from 500 to half or less, and add to it a couple of hundred million Austrian and Hungarian annuities. Now imagine the effect of such an operation, which is simple in itself. For, even the unpaid billions in other annuities and other funds, industrial shares, bonds, etc. follow forthwith thereupon, and the howling and the fury of the all-shattering countermine will take care of the rest. This business with these credit shares and their all-powerful influence has already been allowed to go too far. We have already long ago pointed to this quite uniquely forged Rothschild weapon and it is apparent, rather late, to everybody’s eyes upon what a dangerous mine Europe stands and who has the fuse for its ignition in his hands.

Now, who has the fuse in his hands? The Jew Rothschild has in his hands the fuse for the ignition of the mine dug under the ground of Europe by the stock-exchange Jews!

Yes, gentlemen, that is how serious the Jewish Question is. These innocent persecuted Jews vilely hounded by us anti-Semites, they rule world-history, they have the fate of entire nations already in their hands. Is it not touching when these Jews who have entire states in their hands play out the old farce of Tolerance against anti-Semitism? We poor anti-Semites “hound” the Jewish people, to whom it is a matter of indifference to smash entire states through stock-exchange manoeuvres. If it should come to war with France and Russia and Germany is isolated through the Rothschilds’ maneuver and squeezed between two buffers, then we will indeed see if the Berlin stock-exchange Jews will be as patriotic as in 1870 when they received the North German war loan with contemptuous laughter. Then perhaps the damage that the Jewish foundations have effected on our national well-being will make itself felt and only then will the German people notice what a hole the Jewish butchers have made in their defensive power.

In 1862, the French Jew Crémieux[12] — the same man who set a price on the head of the German Kaiser in 1870 and whose death was honoured by the Jews of Berlin in the big synagogue — issued an appeal for the founding of the Alliance Israélite.[13] In this appeal it says:

Our nationality is the religion of our fathers; we recognize no other.
The Jewish doctrine must one day fill the entire world.
The work is great and sacred, success is certain.
Catholicism, our hundred-year old enemy, is defeated, struck on the head.
The net that Israel throws over the earth will extend every day and the sublime prophecies of our holy books will be fulfilled.
The day approaches when Jerusalem will become the house of prayer for our united peoples, where the flag of Jewish monotheism blows on the most distance coasts.
Let us use all opportunities. Our power is great, let us learn to use it. What do we have to fear? The day is not far off when the wealth of the earth will belong exclusively to the Jews.

This Jewish union, which was founded with this appeal, numbers today 30,000 members, it has at its disposal every year over hundred thousand marks. Here in Berlin walk thousands of members of that union that seeks to use every opportunity. Yes, we have thrown out the Jesuits, but the Jewish Jesuits, who are thousand times worse, they grow and prosper among us like sands on the shore. Where should that lead to if a stop is not put to it finally? If I go through the most populated streets of Berlin, for example, Friedrichstraße, Leipzigstraße, etc., where almost 90% of all houses have fallen to the Jews, if I see entire stretches of land and villages in the province in bondage to the Jews, if I glance at our influential press, our literature, under the Jewish influence, if I see our grammar schools overflowing with Jews, if I consider the enormous influence of Jewish money on the stock-exchange, I can say only one thing: Germany is to be saved from the Jews either today or never. Consider, Germans, that you stand in the eleventh hour; confronted with the Jewish Question, all party discord must cease. Men of all parties must coalesce into a large German national party, as we have done in Hesse, especially in order to enter parliament.

In parliament, the Jewish Question must be discussed repeatedly until the German people learn to view the repeal of the Jewish emancipation no longer as “intolerance,” as “persecution delirium,” but as a pressing necessity for our own rescue. We in Hesse will show the way, in the parliamentary elections of autumn 1887 we will place pure and genuine anti-Semites in seven electoral districts. We must, and shall, break through in some districts. Support us in Berlin in this difficult battle for the whole of Germany. When we have won in Hesse, then the liberation of Berlin from the Jewish yoke will follow. In conclusion, let me shout out to you the assurance that we will not falter in Hesse and will hold the flag high. You too must stand united in Berlin, our cause is not yet lost, just be united, united, united!

[1] Talk held at the public meeting of the German Anti-Semitic Union in the Bockbrauerei, Berlin, on 4 October 1886.

[2] See my English edition of this work, Eugen Dühring, The Jewish Question as a racial, moral and cultural question, with a world-historical answer, London: Ostara Publications, 2017.

[3] Isidore Singer, Sollen die Juden Christen werden? (Hansebooks, 2016; orig. pub.: 1884). [All footnotes are by the translator.]

[4] New Christians

[5] Heinz Moritz Willkomm (1821–1895) was a German botanist who wrote a work on his travels in Iberia, Zwei Jahre in Spanien und Portugal, 1847.

[6] Isaac D’Israeli (1766–1848) was a writer and father of Benjamin Disraeli. His book Genius of Judaism was published in 1833.

[7] Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo, Marquis of Pombal (1699–1782) was a Portuguese liberal statesman who served as the powerful chief minister of King Joseph I.

[8] People of the region of Circassia, in the North Caucasus.

[9] A Turkic ethnic group of Russia.

[10] Rudolf Virchow (1821–1902) was a celebrated German physician and pathologist.

[11] Friedrich Hecker (1811–1881) was a German lawyer and one of the principal Liberal agitators during the 1848 Revolution.

[12] Adolphe Crémieux (1796–1880) was a French Jewish lawyer and politician who served as Minister of Justice during the Second Republic and the Third Republic. He was a Freemason and fervent defender of the Jews. He served as president of the Alliance Israélite Universelle from 1863 to 1867 and from 1868 to 1880.

[13] The Alliance Israélite Universelle was established in Paris in 1860 as an international organization for the promotion of the rights and welfare of Jews around the world.

Honor Him — In Memory of Chris Roberts  

Shortly after I met him a year ago, Chris Roberts came to my house to help me write a fundraising appeal. He breezed through its 900 words before handing my laptop back. Then he gave a speech revising the entire article from memory.

This spectacle had me laughing up tears. Chris is known for his sense of humor, but my hysterics couldn’t distract him. He fell into a trance like an Olympic athlete in the zone. When we finished, I shouted, “You’re a genius, man!” Looking off into the distance with a playful grin, he slowly exhaled his cigarette smoke in silence.

We have no shortage of brilliant writers. But none surpasses Chris’s talent. At 28, he’d already published over 700 articles. His creative prolificacy was dumbfounding.

Chris wrote many significant articles, and “Grace and Grit in Southern West Virginia” is one of his finest. I treasure it in particular because we were best friends at the time. He traveled through that region as a journalist, listened to those people’s stories, and weaved them into an uplifting nationalist message.

Chris admired the resilience of West Virginians, and those patriotic people enjoyed his company. At long last, here was a reporter without a plan to write them off as “white trash.” Those who remained hopeful through terrible suffering inspired Chris most. It took him a single night to form 9,000 words into one perfect essay. I know because he showed up to my place for coffee in the morning.

I’ll never have a better friend than Chris. I relied heavily on his advice and support over the past year. Even with opportunities to do so, he never let me down. Loyalty like his is rare in this corrupt world. I fear it may be irreplaceable in my world.

We should celebrate Chris for who he was and for who he’d have become. My thoughts and prayers go to Mr. Sam Dickson and everyone at American Renaissance.

Chris Roberts spent his life honoring the forgotten and forsaken people of America. He spent his life honoring our people. It’s time for us to honor him.

Until we meet in Elysium, brother. I believe in you more than ever.

Dr. Ricardo Duchesne’s Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age  

Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age
Ricardo Duchesne
Arktos, 2017, 239 pages    

Since at least the 1960s, American progressive public educators have made revising or eliminating accurate accounts of the scientific and cultural advancements that enabled the West to dominate the planet and replaced them with moral indictments. While some ideas may be subject to careful modification as a result of critical thought, wholesale changes in the interpretations of historical events and the rejection of longstanding scholarly norms of research are simply efforts by progressive educators to promote personal political or cultural biases to fit within a history that simply did not exist.

The Western Civilization course requirements are among several focused disciplines in American universities that ended abruptly in the 1960s. By the time of the campus protests, professors gave up on the importance of courses on Western Civilization because they felt that the courses had been fashioned to support the eras of two world wars—a time when Americans saw themselves as leaders of a great Atlantic civilization, were proud of their relative affluence and the history of Western expansion, and were comfortable with what came to be labeled “white supremacy.” The cultural Marxists also claimed that Western Civilization studies were obsolete because of new commitments to the critical importance of China, Africa, Vietnam, and other parts of the world; in other words they became globalists. Others considered the subject old-fashioned at a time when politicized students called for a liberal arts education without required courses. For professional historians eager to produce “original” ideas in their increasingly fragmented fields, the concept of an all-inclusive course with a common purpose seemed dated.

The question, however, is how did the World History programs of study that superseded the required Western Civilization courses of the 1980s and 1990s ultimately come to be embedded within a multicultural ideology that emphatically weakened the critical role of Western culture itself?

The answer is postmodernism.

In his Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age, Ricardo Duchesne convincingly reminds us that postmodern thought has become the dominant philosophy in modern public classrooms. In order to make postmodernism work, historical truths have to either be altered beyond recognition or eliminated. Fact: 79 percent of the world’s most important inventions, including political institutions, modern technological innovations in medicine, agriculture and industrial technologies, and a moral order based on reason, moral universalism, and the rule of law came from Britain, France, Germany, Italy and/or the United States. These facts are irrefutable, and any attempt to reject them as false is an attempt to rewrite what had been the settled historical record. However, most leftist students view these realities as nothing more than White, self-congratulatory back-patting.

Duchesne’s recent book, Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age, is a continuation of his seminal 2011 book, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization (reviewed here). In that research and subsequent book Duchesne argued that Western Civilization is responsible for the world’s greatest innovations, technologies, and ideas as a result of not only the West’s ability to create something of intrinsic value from nothing, due, in large part, to the tenets of certain native Western philosophies, but, more importantly, the West’s burn-the-candle-at-both-ends work ethic, never-say-die character, their commitment to rational thinking, their inquisitiveness and willingness to explore. The West’s success is deeply rooted in its history; it was not a result of luck, or fortunate access to colonial resources, as the academic left wants us to believe.

In the break between Uniqueness and Faustian Man, Duchesne, it seems, had moments of additional clarity and insight. In Faustian Man, Duchesne relies on ideas that he has pondered since childhood—ideas that developed over time and that he visited and re-visited as he became acquainted with various intellectual perspectives—important ideas that, once unbound from suppression, influenced his thinking and the subsequent research which obviously influenced his remarkable academic journey.

The rise and fall of superpowers is cyclical; and, as it turns out, race matters. The opening chapter of Faustian Man is replete with the idea that White, Western men made the greatest leaps in human history—the leaps also Duchesne discussed in Uniqueness.  Duchesne looks at Polybius, Vico, and Oswald Spengler, three historians who tracked the decline of the West through their own cycles of change: the ancient’s cycle of birth, growth, zenith and decay; Vico’s cycle of anarchy and savagery, order and civilization, and decay and a new anarchic barbarism; and Spengler’s cycle that relied on geographically based identity and a culture that thrives and dies similar to the life cycle of a human being—childhood, youth, maturation, old age, and death. However, none of these theories concluded that civilizations completely die-out, nor did any of the theorists include race as an important factor in the rise, fall, and renewal of a civilization. In Faustian Man, Duchesne incorporates this cyclical view within his theory of the West as a continually advancing civilization, while arguing that if current immigration replacement trends continue, and the White race is utterly marginalized, Western civilization will die out completely.

Duchesne revealed the pseudo-scholarship that postmodern academics have promoted as their sworn duty to rewrite history according to the idea that the greatness of the West was not possible without the “indispensable” influences of the African slave trade, or the Islamic preservation of classical knowledge, or “geographical good luck.” In other words, they portray the West as a civilization lacking a dynamic of its own, always enmeshed within a global network of nonwestern influences, culture-mixing and lucky acquisition of colonies. For example, ancient Greece, according to the late postmodern political scientist, Martin Bernal, was not founded, developed, and advanced by Aryan settlers; it was developed by Egyptians and other Semitics. Greece, it turned out, was settled and developed by “Afroasiatics.” What none of these historians ponder about is why the West was the site of most achievements if all cultures are interconnected?

In fact, the entire history of European accomplishment from ancient times to the twentieth century, should be suspected, according to the academic left, as inherently “Eurocentric” and “racist.” How could anyone seriously credit, in our increasingly multiracial societies, Europeans living in a comparatively small landmass with thousands of years of achievements at levels higher than the rest of the world combined? “The racist privileging of Europe should not be allowed,” mused John M. Hobson. The “downgrading of Europe (on Mercator-derived maps) should be encouraged among the students,” he wrote. Consequently, not only should the ideas of Western greatness be banished, the landmass should get the same treatment.

A contrast between Faustian Man and Uniqueness is the stronger emphasis Duchesne assigns to race in the identity of the West and in its preservations. Duchesne cites Samuel P. Huntington’s mega-popular, often vilified but sometimes lauded work on Western Civilization, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. “By 2013,” Duchesne writes, “I found myself agreeing with Huntington’s thesis that the very success of modernization in non-Western countries was encouraging indigenization and ethnic confidence, rather than Westernization” (11). However, Duchesne submits that Huntington was too careful—that he skirted a nation’s ethnic backdrop as a key issue in state identity. Huntington rightfully proclaimed that “Western values were particular to the West and alien to other cultures” (12). However, Huntington could not come to terms with the idea that the West, like other civilizations, had an ethnic identity.  In other words, while Huntington argued that Western ideas of liberalism, citizenship, and democratization were universal regardless of the West’s ethnic ties to White Europe, Huntington had no problem identifying other civilizations in terms of their ethnic identities, rather than focusing only, as he did for the West, on their “cultural attributes” (12). While the ideas we associate with liberalism are framed in a universalist language, Duchesne argues that we should not ignore the fact that they developed in a civilization with a particular ethnic identity.

Faustian Man’s promotion of the relationship between White ethnic Europe and Western thought prompted waves of backlash from leftist students, fellow academics, local newspapers, and other media that read Duchesne’s research. The President of the university that employed him received many complaints: One must never question mass immigration in the name of ethnic interests of Europeans was the thrust of their arguments. Still Duchesne persevered in his quest to answer the questions that intrigued him since Uniqueness: where was the historical West, and was it possible to identify it in a definite racial way—a way that seemed to be declining due to mass immigration and demographic colonization?

Faustian Man in a Multicultural Age was previously reviewed by F. Roger Devlin for TOO.

Aleksandr Dugin on the Alien, Substantially Jewish Elite in the U.S. and Its War Against Traditional American Individualism

A translated version of an article by Aleksandr Dugin has appeared on KATEHON, an anti-globalist, pro-Russian website. (When I tried to post a link to the article on Twitter, they said that “the link has been identified by Twitter and its partners as harmful” and they blocked it.) Dugin’s article indicates that he has a solid grasp of politics in the U.S., and for the first time that I am aware of, he points to Jewish influence. Since Dugin is reputedly close to Vladimir Putin (“Putin’s brain” and of course, a “fascist,” as the neoliberal Washington Post phrased it) and because he has supported the Ukrainian war, it indicates that the Russian political establishment understands the upheaval going on in the United States.

Excerpts from Alexander Dugin: “The United States Court Against the Ideology of Progress.”

The fact is that there is not just one American state, but two countries and two nations with this name and this is becoming more and more evident. It is not even a question of Republicans and Democrats, whose conflict is becoming increasingly bitter. It is the fact that there is a deeper division in American society.

Half of the US population is an advocate of pragmatism. This means that for them there is only one yardstick: it works or it doesn’t work, it works/it doesn’t work. That is all. And no dogma either about the subject or the object. Everyone can see himself as whatever he wants, including Elvis Presley or Father Christmas, and if it works, no one dares to object. It is the same with the outside world: there are no inviolable laws, do what you want with the outside world, but if it responds harshly, that is your problem. There are no entities, only interactions. This is the basis of Native American identity, it is the way Americans themselves have traditionally understood liberalism: as freedom to think what you want, to believe what you want, and to behave as you want. Of course, if it comes to conflict, the freedom of one is limited by the freedom of the other, but without trying you cannot know where the fine line is. Try it, maybe it will work.

That is how American society has been up to a certain point. Here, banning abortion, allowing abortion, sex change, punishing sex change, gay parades or neo-Nazi parades were all possible, nothing was turned away at the door, the decision could be anything, and the courts, relying on a multitude of unpredictable criteria, precedents and considerations, were the last resort to decide, in problematic cases, what worked/didn’t work. This is the mysterious side of the Americans, completely misunderstood by Europeans, and also the key to their success: they have no boundaries, which means they go where they want until someone stops them, and that is exactly what works.

Dugin is describing traditional American political values based on individualism and personal freedom. But traditional American political values have been in conflict with the values of a new, substantially Jewish elite with strong authoritarian tendencies.

But in the American elite, which is made up of people from a wide variety of backgrounds, at some point a critically large number of non-Americans have accumulated. They are predominantly Europeans, often from Russia. Many are ethnically Jewish but imbued with European or Russian-Soviet principles and cultural codes. They brought a different culture and philosophy to the United States. They did not understand or accept American pragmatism at all, seeing it only as a backdrop for their own advancement. That is, they took advantage of American opportunities, but did not intend to adopt a libertarian logic unrelated to any hint of totalitarianism. In reality, it was these alien elites who hijacked the old American democracy. It was they who took the helm of globalist structures and gradually seized power in the United States.

This is exactly what we have emphasized at TOO. There are people with a variety of backgrounds that make up our new elite, but there is a substantial Jewish core with “alien” values, and in general, this elite speaks with one voice and dissent on important issues is not tolerated. This new elite largely emigrated to the United States in late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and the Marxist commitments of many of them were an important aspect of the enactment of the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution. In subsequent decades Jews became the backbone (p. 68ff) of the American Old Left and New Left. Indeed,  as noted in my review of Amy Weingarten’s Jewish Organizations’ Response to Communism and Senator McCarthy, “a major problem that the organized Jewish community was forced to confront—a problem stemming from the long involvement of the mainstream Jewish community in communism and the far left, at least until the end of World War II, and among a substantial number of Jews even after this period. … Weingarten points to a “hard core of Jews” (p. 6) who continued to support the Communist Party into the 1950s and continued to have a “decisive role” in shaping the policies of the American Communist Party (CPUSA) (p. 9). These leftist Jews were welcomed into the Jewish organizations during the early post-war, particularly the American Jewish Congress, the largest American Jewish organization, but they were gradually made unwelcome due to the anti-communist fervor of the period.

Notice that Dugin emphasizes that the new alien elite has exploited American individualism to advance these alien values—they “took advantage of American opportunities, but did not intend to adopt a libertarian logic unrelated to any hint of totalitarianism.” When they achieved power, they rejected the libertarian ethos in favor of top-down, centralized, authoritarian control that is antithetical to traditional American political culture.

This is precisely the thesis of my 2019 book Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future where I document the rise of the substantially Jewish elite (Ch. 6; see also here) and describe how this new elite is shaping attitudes via domination of the media, the educational system, and political culture. Rejecting the libertarian framework, the new elite favors censoring ideas that conflict with these messages (Ch. 8), and it has established a two-tier justice system in which dissidents from the established orthodoxy are treated far more harshly than those favored by the new elite. In Chapter 9 I argue that traditional Western individualism is under dire threat from this assault. I would add that our new elite is not only alien to traditional Western values, it is also a hostile elite—hostile to the traditional people and culture of America, and that their desired multicultural future in which Whites would be a much-hated minority is very dangerous for Whites.

And I agree entirely that Jews “took advantage of American opportunities.” Because of their intelligence, their ethnic networking, and their long experience as merchants and in  financial matters, Jews  have certainly shown that they are quite successful in an individualist economic system (capitalism) and they have taken advantage of the relatively low ethnocentrism that is an integral aspect of individualism. As I noted in Chapter 8 of Individualism,

as emphasized throughout this book, White people tend to be more individualistic than other peoples, implying that they are less likely than other peoples to make invidious distinctions between ingroups and outgroups and they are more likely to be open to strangers and people who don’t look like them. Because Whites are low in ethnocentrism and high in conscientiousness, controlling ethnocentrism is easier for them. Their subcortical mechanisms responsible for ethnocentrism are weaker to start with and hence easier to control [via messages from the media and educational system enabled by top-down inhibitory control over the modular processing typical of the lower brain].

As a result,  this new elite encountered only minimal resistance from the old American elite which was under intense pressure during the 1950s and capitulated entirely in the 1960s and 70s—the era that resulted in Roe v. Wade (1973), civil rights legislation, affirmative action, replacement-level non-White immigration, etc.

Critically relevant is that Dugin notes parallels of the new elite with Bolshevik attitudes of authoritarian control, including “destruction” of those seen as having the wrong attitudes: “If you are not a progressive, you are a Nazi and “must be destroyed.”

These elites, often left-liberal, sometimes openly Trotskyist, have brought with them a position that is deeply alien to the American spirit: the belief in linear progress [as in Marxism]. …

However, the emigrants from the Old World brought with them very different attitudes. For them, progress was a dogma. All history was seen as continuous improvement, as a continuous process of emancipation, improvement, development and accumulation of knowledge [presumably a reference to Marxism]. Progress was a philosophy and a religion. In the name of progress, which included a continuous increase in individual freedoms, technical development and the abolition of traditions and taboos, everything was possible and necessary, and it no longer mattered whether it worked or not. What mattered was progress.

This, however, represented a completely new interpretation of liberalism for the American tradition. The old liberalism argued: no one can ever impose anything on me. The new liberalism responded: a culture of abolition, shaming, total elimination of old habits, sex change, freedom to dispose of the human foetus (pro-choice), equal rights for women and races is not just a possibility, it is a necessity. The old liberalism said: be what you want, as long as it works. The new one replied: you have no right not to be a liberal. If you are not a progressive, you are a Nazi and must be destroyed. Everything must be sacrificed in the name of freedom, LGBT+, transgender and artificial intelligence.

We often hear the phrase “on the right side of history” from progressives, the idea being that history is going in only one direction and change in that direction is inevitable. At this time, being on the right side of history means believing that you believe in a future in which White “racism” is abolished and all peoples will live together in peace and harmony, ethnic conflicts will be abolished, and all groups—freed from the scourge of White racism—will have the same average level of income and achievement. Such a utopian view flies in the face of the long history of ethnic/racial conflict and the reality of biologically based race differences. But believing it is progressive dogma and, as Dugin would say, “If you are not a progressive, you are a Nazi and must be destroyed.”

Dugin is quite aware of the opposition of our hostile elite to Donald Trump:

The conflict between the two societies — the old libertarian, pragmatic one and the new neoliberal, progressive one — has steadily escalated over the past decades and culminated in the Trump presidency. Trump has embodied one America and his globalist democratic opponents the other. The civil war of philosophies has reached a critical point.

As I have written before, Trump made many mistakes and often fumbled the ball on  his appointments (although the pool of mainstream Republicans from which he chose was completely corrupt, and he saddled himself with Jared and Ivanka as central players). However, his campaign pronouncements were clearly anti-globalist—opposing immigration (not just illegal), building the wall, wanting better relations with Russia, removing U.S. troops from the Middle East, complaining about the effects of immigration (“Paris isn’t Paris any more”), etc. These pronouncements engendered an unprecedented uproar from our hostile elite (now being reenacted as a result of the recent SCOTUS rulings—blamed on Trump because of his choices in SCOTUS nominations) and the Washington bureaucracy—the deep state (including the FBI). Media articles during the 2016 campaign were replete with messages that Trump was the reincarnation of Hitler, etc. This hostility continued throughout Trump’s presidency resulting in the prolonged Mueller investigation (based on the Russia collusion hoax) and two impeachments by the Democrat-controlled House (with the help of some Republicans). For the entire four years, there was an atmosphere of crisis surrounding Trump’s presidency, and this has continued now with the January 6 Committee hearings (which are mainly aimed at preventing Trump from running again).

Dugin repeats his emphasis on the totalitarian and violent tendencies of the new elite:

New America … insists that freedom requires violence against those who do not understand it well enough. Which means that freedom must have a normative interpretation and it is up to the neo-liberals themselves to determine how and to whom they use it and how they interpret it. The old liberalism is libertarian. The new is blatantly totalitarian. The Supreme Court is now overturning the totalitarian dictatorial strategy of the neo-liberal globalist elites, who act — a bit like the Bolsheviks in Russia — in the name of the future.

Yes, but I’d say it’s more than “a bit like the Bolsheviks.” Moreover, it’s tempting to think that Dugin is here linking Bolshevik-type authoritarian attitudes to the Jewish overrepresentation in the new American elite, given that he noted the obvious role of Jews in the new globalist elite dominating America, and his likely awareness of the well known outsized Jewish role in the murderous, intensely authoritarian early decades of the USSR with its utopian promises of creating the New Soviet Man. This very large role of Jews in the early decades of the USSR has also been noted by Putin and is presumably common knowledge among Russian intellectuals.

And the almost desperate old Americans, pragmatists and libertarians rejoice [at overturning Roe v. Wade]: the freedom to do what you want, not what the progressives and technocrats say, to go in any direction, not just where the globalists are forcibly sending us, has triumphed again, and Missouri’s brave attorney general has already shown what can be done. Bravo! It is a pragmatic revolution, an American-style conservative revolution.
Of course, all the globalist progressive crap is about to go down the drain. The old America has in a way counter-attacked the new America. “If the kingdom of law is divided in itself, it will surely become desolate”. Matthew 12:25 Better sooner than later…

“Better sooner than later.” I couldn’t agree more. While the White population still has political and demographic clout.

Dugin’s comments on the alien American elite and his strong support for the Ukrainian war make clear the dominant Russian perspective on this conflict. They see it correctly as a conflict between Russian sovereignty and neoliberal globalist elites based in the West that are aiming for a unipolar world with themselves dominating a subservient, relatively powerless Russia. It is the world dreamed of in the 1990s during the Yeltsin administration and abruptly snuffed out by the rise of Putin. Neoconservatives have targeted Russia ever since.

Make no mistake. It is critical for Russia to win this war. But it’s quite clear that the neoconservatives (Blinken, Nuland, Sherman) dominating the Biden administration’s foreign policy also see this as a critically important struggle, and they have continued to increase the U.S. commitment—willing to fight to the last Ukrainian. And, I suspect that ultimately they will be willing to use U.S. troops in the conflict to prevent a Russian victory.

Martin Christopher Rojas, RIP

Martin Christopher Rojas has died unexpectedly at age 29. Jared Taylor has written a beautiful, deeply felt tribute to him. Martin wrote a very interesting account of life in rural West Virginia for TOO under one of his many pseudonyms, Christopher Martin. I met him a couple times. Great guy, and reading Jared’s obituary, one realizes what great talent he had. As Taylor notes:

Rojas never lost sympathy for the working-class people he knew growing up. He took unpaid leave from AmRen to spend a week in one of the poorest towns in West Virginia, where he got to know whites who were barely scraping by. They had been studied so many times, they were suspicious of yet another outsider from whom they expected yet another sneering exposé. He won their confidence and wrote a portrait of the town that is one of his best pieces.

I am very proud to have posted “Grace and Grit in Southern West Virginia.” His conclusion is a good illustration of his sympathy for the working class:, his erudition, and his graceful writing style:

At the end of the week, I drive home and there’s everything to think about alone in my car for hours and hours. It’s as if I can’t even remember what I was expecting to find now that I’ve seen so much. Southern West Virginia is poor, and the stories of its heartbreak could fill the Library of Congress a hundred times over. But I knew all that before I got there— you probably did, too. However, it’s not some kind of “big White ghetto” in the midst of a Hobbesian war of all against all. I’ve really never met kinder people. I’ve also never met a people more determined to withstand it all and persevere. The place enlightened me— but only after it humbled me. All of us really do have a lot to learn from these people. Marcus Aurelius wrote that, “Nothing can happen to any man that nature has not fitted him to endure. Your neighbor’s experiences are no different from your own; yet he, being either less aware of what has happened or more eager to show his mettle, stands steady and undaunted. For shame, that ignorance and vanity should prove stronger than wisdom!” My Christian friends assure me that Christ agrees. I couldn’t tell you if God is real, but after a week in Welch, I do know for certain that God smiles upon southern West Virginia— and on the rest of us as well.

A Fascist Fun-Day: Enrichment for Whites, Ethnocentrism for Jews

“Hideously white.” That was what a righteous White leftist called Greg Dyke called the BBC in 2001. Dyke was actually the Chief Commissar of the BBC at the time. And did he then resign in protest at his own “hideous whiteness”? Or did he vow that, henceforth, he would donate at least half of his huge salary to pro-Black causes and anti-racist charities?

Wiping out Whiteness

No, of course he didn’t do that. Leftists believe in posturing, not in payment. They pose and posture; ordinary Whites then pay the price. And Dyke followed another leftist rule in his attack on his own organization: he didn’t speak the truth. The BBC wasn’t “hideously white,” because Whites weren’t over-represented there. He said, for example, that “the management of the BBC” was “almost entirely white.” In fact, the management of the BBC has been disproportionately Jewish for many decades and Jews do not regard themselves as White. Dyke himself doesn’t appear to be Jewish, but he knows from the inside how successful Jews have been at the BBC: Alan Yentob, Danny Cohen, Jenny Abramsky, Mark Damazer, and more have all held positions of great power and influence.

Genuine British Whites were actually under-represented at the BBC in 2001, particularly in management, and they’ve only become more so since then. The BBC reflects Britain as a whole: hideous whiteness has fallen, ethnic enrichment has soared. Britain’s tiny but very powerful and influential Jewish community has played a central role in wiping out Whiteness. Barbara Roche, the Jewish immigration minister under traitorous Tony Blair, told the Guardian in 2001 that she “entered politics — she still emphasises this today — to combat anti-semitism and xenophobia in general.” In 2003, while urging her party “to promote the benefits of legal migration,” she told the Independent that “My being Jewish informs me totally, informs my politics.”

Britain is a Judeocracy, not a democracy

That’s why Roche opened Britain’s borders to the Third World with great enthusiasm but little fanfare. After all, the Labour party didn’t want to alert its traditional supporters in the White working-class. But those supporters noticed what was happening and didn’t like it. They wanted much less migration and much more control of the borders. That’s why they turned away from Labour and gave their votes to the Conservatives. Their switch has had no effect. The Tories entered government loudly promising to control migration and have completely failed to fulfil their promises. This failure has been explained by the part-Jewish George Osborne, former Chancellor in the Conservative government: in 2017 he “revealed that, despite having pledged to reduce immigration in both its 2010 and 2015 general election manifestos, the Tory leadership secretly abandoned this ambition long ago.”

Well, it was “secret” to the ordinary Whites who voted Tory, but not to the Jews who finance the Tory party and are heavily over-represented in its senior ranks. If Jews didn’t want open borders, Britain wouldn’t have them. But Jews do want open borders and that’s why Britain has them. The same applies in the US, where righteous Jews in the Democratic government keep the borders open and crack down on White supremacism. Ethnic enrichment is good for Jews, as Barbara Roche herself pointed out in 2011:

Friday rush hour. Euston station [in London]. Who’s here? Who isn’t. A kaleidoscope of skin colours. The world in one terminus. Barbara Roche can see it over the rim of her cup of Americano coffee. “I love the diversity of London,” she tells me. “I just feel comfortable.” (Hideously Diverse Britain: The immigration ‘conspiracy’, The Guardian, 2nd March 2011)

Roche felt “comfortable” because, amid that “kaleidoscope of skin colours,” she didn’t stand out as a Jew. But she would have felt exceedingly uncomfortable if she’d been at Aldenham Country Park in Hertfordshire on 12th June this year. There was no “kaleidoscope of color” at the park, just a sea of staleness and paleness. What was happening? Well, a group of white supremacists were celebrating what they dishonestly called a “Family Fun-Day.” In fact, it was a Fascist Fun-Day. Why else were communities of color so conspicuously and horrifically absent from the festivities? Photographs of the Fun-Day reveal that it was “hideously white.”

But that Fascist Fun-Day was even worse than it appeared, because a large group of Jews were there at the same time: the charity Jewish Care had booked Aldenham Country Park for a genuine “Family Fun-Day” on the exact same day. I can only conclude that the Jewish families turned up, saw the hideous whiteness of the fascists at the park, and fled for their lives. Jews “love diversity,” remember. They “just feel comfortable” amid a “kaleidoscope of skin colours.” So while the fascist fun-day was a sea of hideous whiteness, the Family Fun-Day organized by Jewish Care would have been a kaleidoscope of color. It’s no coincidence that a Jew called Enver Solomon heads the Refugee Council, which works night and day to enrich Britain with Blacks, Muslims and other vibrant folk from the Third World.

Enver Solomon, anti-White head of the Refugee Council

When the so-called Conservative government pretended it was going to get “tough” on illegal migrants by sending them to Rwanda (see Andrew Joyce’s “Thoughts on Britain’s Rwanda Plan” at TOO), Solomon wrote a stern article for the Guardian entitled: “UK asylum seekers sent to Rwanda? That takes punishment of fellow humans to a new level.” He’s following that age-old Jewish injunction to “Welcome the Stranger,” as set forth in the Jewish Bible. And so Jewish Care would surely have invited their “natural allies” in the Muslim and Black communities to join the Family Fun-Day at Aldenham Country Park.

A hideously white advert for Jewish Care’s Family Fun-Day 2022

Well, sarcasm over. Jewish Care didn’t invite Muslims and Blacks to join the festivities, of course. The photographs aren’t of a Fascist Fun-Day but of a genuine Jewish Family Fun-Day. That’s why the photos are “hideously white.” Ashkenazi Jews flocked to Hertfordshire to enjoy what they assiduously deny to White British goyim: the exclusive company of their own kind. Jewish Care’s Family Fun-Day wasn’t enriched with Blacks or Muslims, which is why it wasn’t enriched with crime or obnoxious behavior either. While working tirelessly to turn Britain and other Western countries into Third-World swamps, Jews are careful to maintain ethnocentric islands amid the chaos and crime. If those islands are ever threatened with submersion by vibrancy, Jews have a secure place to flee: the ethnocentric enclave of Israel, where that age-old Jewish injunction to “Welcome the Stranger” is completely ignored. Israel doesn’t welcome black and brown strangers: it keeps them out with high-tech fences.

The creation of Fortress Israel — the Hebrew text, running right-left, reads “Likud: Israel-Egypt Fence”

But what’s good for Jews — ethnocentrism and exclusion — isn’t good for goyim. Or rather, it is good for goyim, but that’s precisely why Jews want to deny it to goyim. Jews don’t want what’s best for Whites: they want what’s worst for Whites. That’s why both America and Britain have open borders and endless ethnic enrichment. Jews are in control of politics on both sides of the Atlantic, so governments pursue what’s worst for Whites, not what’s best. But I think Jews should remember a warning from their own Bible: “Whoso diggeth a pit shall fall therein: and he that rolleth a stone, it will return upon him.” (Proverbs 26:27)