Featured Articles

Jewish “Anti-Semitism”

Some of the worst atrocities committed against Jews were by other Jews. In particular the Jewish power elite have inflicted heinous violence and death on the Jewish masses, though other infighting and control dramas amounting to pogroms and terrorism are part of Jewish history as well. By no means exhaustive, we will review just some of the “anti-semitism” Jews have committed against their own kind.

The Levite Priests

When the ancient Hebrew patriarch Moses descended from Mt. Sinai, having received the Ten Commandments from the Hebrew tribal god Yahweh, he found his people straying from their faith and worshipping a golden calf under the leadership of Aaron. Such idolatry was not permitted by Yahweh, and Moses was commanded to enact vengeance on the idolators.

Those who were faithful among the Hebrews gathered with Moses and received their instructions. They took up swords and spears and went among the wayward people, slaughtering men, women and children. They even murdered some of their own immediate family members and close clan kin.  3,000 blasphemous Hebrews were slaughtered. These were the Levis, Moses’ own clan, especially zealous vengeful slaughterers.

Afterward, Yahweh through Moses rewarded the Levis for their faith and devotion in carrying out Yahweh’s vengeance, and bestowed on them a spiritual leadership over all the Hebrews. These became the Levite Priests. Their cruelty, deceit, blood-lust and terrorism over the Hebrews and others they encountered went on to become legend. Whether this story is itself legend or contains historical fact, it is undeniably a case of Jewish “anti-semitism”. 

Radicals vs. Moderates. Kevin MacDonald writes: 

Zionism is an example of an important principle in Jewish history: At all the turning points, it is the more ethnocentric elements—one might term them the radicals—who have determined the direction of the Jewish community and eventually won the day.3 As recounted in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, the Jews who returned to Israel after the Babylonian captivity energetically rid the community of those who had intermarried with the racially impure remnant left behind. Later, during the period of Greek dominance, there was a struggle between the pro-Greek assimilationists and the more committed Jews, who came to be known as Maccabeans.

At that time there appeared in Israel a group of renegade Jews, who incited the people. “Let us enter into a covenant with the Gentiles round about,” they said, “because disaster upon disaster has overtaken us since we segregated ourselves from them.”

The people thought this a good argument, and some of them in their enthusiasm went to the king and received authority to introduce non-Jewish laws and customs. They built a sports stadium in the gentile style in Jerusalem. They removed their marks of circumcision and repudiated the holy covenant. They intermarried with Gentiles, and abandoned themselves to evil ways.4 The victory of the Maccabeans reestablished Jewish law and put an end to assimilation.

 The Pharisees and Jesus

It’s hard to know whether this example is mythology or history, though devout Christians would insist it happened literally as described. Either way, Jewish “anti-Semitism” is deeply codified in the Christian religion.

If Jesus truly existed as an historical person, he was most likely a Jew, or more properly a Hebrew or Israelite, descended from King David. Jesus began his ministry at age 30, and it included deposing the ‘money changers’ from the temple, and challenging the authority of the Sanhderin council, a body of Hebrew or Israelite leaders that today we would call Jews. The ‘money changers‘ were certainly what we would call Jews as well.

The Sanhedrin council arranged for Jesus to be apprehended by the Romans. When the Romans gave the crowd—mostly Jews—the option to crucify Barabas or Jesus, Sanhedrin agents in the crowd incited it to condemn Jesus, and so he was crucified and apparently killed by the Romans. This is one of the more flagrant cases of Jewish “anti-semitism”, since certain Jews—the powerful Sanhedrin—oversaw the brutal torture and execution of another Jew, Jesus the Nazarene. Whether this is mythological, historical or some combination is irrelevant to our theme: Jew-on-Jew hate.

Jacob Frank

This son of a Rabbi was one of the most depraved madmen of all time. He declared himself the reincarnation of the Jewish Messiah, and many other Jews were willing to recognize this and follow him. Frank interpreted a verse from the Talmud to mean that if all Jews were to become sinners, the prophecy of the Jewish paradise on Earth would ensue.  Talmud Sanhedrin 98a states “The Son of David (Jewish Messiah) will come only in a generation that is entirely innocent… or in a generation that is entirely guilty…”So Jacob Frank set about enacting evil in the most grotesque ways, engaging in incest, sodomy, polygamy, orgiastic rituals, providing his own wife (or both of them) to his followers for sexual sport, and other depravities in order to create the entirely guilty generation.

 

We have two different accounts of the story from there. One says his perversion and depravity became known to other local Jews, and they excommunicated him and his followers, banishing them from the Polish town. One reason they did this was because the Frankists were burning Talmuds and accusing the other Jews of blood libel, conducting occult rituals by torturing children to death and drinking the blood and anointing their bodies with it.  Another account says that after their excommunication, the Frankists sought refuge with the Catholic Church. In exchange, the Church required the Frankists to denounce their fellow Jews by burning their Talmuds and accusing them of blood libel. Either way, this was a case of vicious Jewish in-fighting. Jewish “anti-semitism” was inflicted in both directions. 

The SS Patria

On November 25, 1940, the SS Patria, a passenger ship operated by the British was prepared to leave Haifa harbor in Palestine enroute to Mauritius. Too many Jewish “refugees” from the beginning of World War II in Europe were coming to Palestine illegally, and the British were trying to prevent Arab unrest due to excessive Jewish illegal immigration into Palestine. The Rothschild bankers and other Jewish Zionist zealots at the time were eager to place more Jewish residents in Palestine in preparation for declaring their new state of Israel. Zionists had even arranged a deportation plan with the National Socialist government of Germany called the Haavara or Transfer Agreement, where Germany could rid itself of troublesome Jews in an orderly fashion, and Zionists could increase their stocking of Palestine with Jews.

However, the British refused to allow the up to 1800 Jewish “refugees” on the Patria to stay in Palestine. but before it could depart for Mauritius, a bomb exploded at the water line, blowing a six-meter hole in the hull and sinking the Patria in the shallow port. About 270 passengers were killed, mostly Jews though including around 50 British crew members.

At first authorities and media blamed Arabs for the bombing, then later declared that the passengers themselves detonated the bomb, so committed were they as Jews to remain in Palestine that they would risk their own lives rather than let the British deport them. Much later, in 1957, the man who actually placed the bomb, Munya Mardor, wrote a confession of his crime, claiming that there was no intention to sink the ship, only to disable it. But obviously, the project entailed severe risks to other Jews that he, as a member of the Zionist terrorist organization Haganah, was willing to take. It also emerged that another Jewish terror group, the Irgun, had tried to place a bomb a few days prior, but failed. Irgun became today’s Likud party in Israel. Mardor eventually became the director general of the Israel Weapons Research and Development Authority. Jewish terrorists and mass murderers are promoted for their service.

Mardor’s Haganah officer in charge was Yitzak Sadeh, who was in turn under the command of the Jewish Agency’s Political Department head Moshe Sharett. Sharett went on to become Israel’s second Prime Minister after David Ben Gurion, who was the official head of the Jewish Agency at the time, but was away in the US on other terrorist business.[1]

This act left hundreds of Jews dead at the hands of other Jews. The death of innocent British crew members doesn’t factor into the analysis. The placement of European Jews into Palestine was a fundamentalist goal of Zionist Jews, and the deaths of hundreds of other Jews was an acceptable sacrifice to ensure it.

Rabinnical “Anti-Semitism”

A great deal can be written on the brutality and cruelty Jewish Rabbis have inflicted on their own Jewish populations, mainly in order to control them, including strict isolation from other liberating influences. Here we will take only a few examples from the iconic insider analysis by Israel Shahak, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, the Weight of 3000 Years:

In the period 1500-1795, one of the most superstition-ridden in the history of Judaism, Polish Jewry was the most superstitious and fanatic of all Jewish communities. The considerable power of the Jewish autonomy was used increasingly to stifle all original or innovative thought, (and) to promote the most shameless exploitation of the Jewish poor by the Jewish rich in alliance with the rabbis…[2]

The Jewish religion Judaism established from the beginning a totalitarian mind control over its adherents/victims resulting in subjection to Rabinnical authority:

According to (Rabbi) Hadas, a crucial feature of the Platonic political system, adopted by Judaism as early as the Maccabean period (142–63 BC), was ‘that every phase of human conduct be subject to religious sanctions which are in fact to be manipulated by the ruler’. Judaism adopted what ‘Plato himself summarized [as] the objectives of his program’, in the following well-known passage:”
‘The principle thing is that no one, man or woman, should ever be without an officer set over him, and that none should get the mental habit of taking any step, whether in earnest or in jest, on his individual responsibility. In peace as in war he must live always with his eyes on his superior officer. … In a word, we must train the mind not to even consider acting as an invidual or know how to do it. (Laws, 942 ab)’
If the word ‘rabbi’ is substituted for ‘an officer’ we will have a perfect image of classical Judaism. The latter is still deeply influencing Israeli-Jewish society and determining to a large extent the Israeli policies.[3]

Rabbis had been in the habit of killing Jews who departed from strict Talmudic doctrine. One wayward Jew was boiled alive in the public baths.

In the late 1830s a ‘Holy Rabbi’ (Tzadik ) in a small Jewish town in the Ukraine ordered the murder of a (Jewish) heretic by throwing him into the boiling water of the town baths.

Other Jews were poisoned to death by their Rabbis. Kevin MacDonald notes:

During 1848, when the (Austrian) regime’s power was temporarily weakened, the first thing the leaders of the Jewish community in the Galician city of Lemberg (now Lvov) did with their newly regained freedom was to poison the liberal rabbi of the city, whom the tiny non-Orthodox Jewish group in the city had imported from Germany.[4]

These groups were highly authoritarian—another fundamental feature of Jewish social organization.32 Rabbis and other elite members of the community had extraordinary power over other Jews in traditional societies—literally the power of life and death. Jews who informed the authorities about the illegal activities of other Jews were liquidated on orders of secret rabbinical courts, with no opportunity to defend themselves. Jews accused of heretical religious views were beaten or murdered. Their books were burned or buried in cemeteries. When a heretic died, his body was beaten by a special burial committee, placed in a cart filled with dung, and deposited outside the Jewish cemetery. In places where the authorities were lax, there were often pitched battles between different Jewish sects, often over trivial religious points such as what kind of shoes a person should wear. In 1838 the governor of southwestern Russia issued a directive that the police keep tabs on synagogues because “Very often something happens that leaves dead Jews in its wake.”33 Synagogues had jails near the entrance, and prisoners were physically abused by the congregation as they filed in for services.

Conclusion

Kevin MacDonald describes the basic dynamic of division within the Jewish community:

  • Zionism began among the more ethnocentric, committed segments of the Jewish community (1880s).
  • Then it spread and became mainstream within the Jewish community despite its riskiness (1940s). Supporting Zionism comes to define what being Jewish is.
  • Then the most extreme among the Zionists continued to push the envelop (e.g., the settlement movement on the West Bank; constant pressure on border areas in Israel).
  • Jewish radicalism tends to result in conflicts with non-Jews (e.g., the settlement movement); violence (e.g., Intifadas) and other expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment increase.
  • Jews in general feel threatened and close ranks against what they see as yet another violent, incomprehensible manifestation of the eternally violent hatred of Jews. This reaction is the result of psychological mechanisms of ethnocentrism: Moral particularism, self-deception, and social identity.
  • In the U.S., this effect is accentuated because committed, more intensely ethnocentric Jews dominate Jewish activist groups.
  • Jews who fail to go along with what is now a mainstream position are pushed out of the community, labeled “self-hating Jews” or worse, and relegated to impotence.

We have reviewed only some of the many acts of Jewish “anti-Semitism” in history. Certain Jews, mostly the ruling elite, have inflicted heinous death and torment on other Jews—a testament to their fanaticism, authoritarianism, and powerful sense of collectivism. The Jewish community has often been divided, with the more deeply committed, ethnocentric, and fanatical Jews forcing others to conform to their way of seeing things or separating themselves from the rest. And at all the major turning points in history, the radicals have won the day in conflict with their less ethnocentric brethren, quite likely leading to genetic selection for ethnocentrism within the Jewish community.

In general, in the last few centuries at least, the more ethnocentric White people in Western countries have not been victorious. The West is far more prone to individualism than any other culture area, but there is certainly variation among us for ethnocentrism, although we have not been under centuries of selection for ethnocentrism, as have the Jews. Quite the opposite. But the bottom line is that the Zionists were successful, and we have to think about what that means for us. Israel would not have become a state without a great many deeply ethnocentric Jews willing to engage in any means necessary to bring about their dream: a state that would be a vehicle for their ethnic interests. It would not have come about without the most radical among them—people like Vladimir Jabotinsky, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon, and groups like Haganah and Irgun. And although there have been American Jews, especially in the early decades of the twentieth century, who vigorously rejected Zionism, the vast majority of the organized American Jewish community is now intensely Zionist and doing all they can to support Israel, even as it’s become obvious that Israel is an apartheid state energetically engaged in ethnic cleansing–while at the same time working to accuse the White majority of racism if they resist their dispossession.

The impending dispossession of Europeans will only be avoided if people with the same level of dedication and ethnocentrism as found over the centuries among Jews can be found among the political and activist class of Europeans. Just as the radical Jews have been willing to push their less radical brethren out of the Jewish community, we must be willing to do the same.

_____

[1]     Ryan Dawson, “This day in History Jewish terrorists sank ship full of Jewish refugees”, November 26 2017, Anti NeoCon Report,   https://www.ancreport.com/day-history-jewish-terrorist-sank-ship-full-jewish-refugees/

[2]     Ibid, p. 54

[3]     Ibid, p. 14

[4]     Ibid, p. 18

The Jewish Origins of American Legal Pluralism


“Cohen realised that it was not enough to describe the state as being made up of many political groups. Such a statement did not justify opening American borders to strangers or protecting strangers’ interests. Only a normative argument about the importance of diversity in individual and social life could give the outsider a place in American society.”
Dalia Mitchell, Architect of Justice: Felix S. Cohen and the Founding of American Legal Pluralism[1]

“Cohen’s life work revolved around what currently travels under the trendy buzzword diversity.”
Steve Russell, “Felix Cohen, Anti-Semitism, and American Indian Law.”[2]

Introduction

Contrary to Nathan Cofnas’s claim that modern multiculturalism can be attributed to the idea that “the West was on a liberal trajectory with or without Jews,” Jews have demonstrably been critical in the majority of significant legal developments in the advance of multiculturalism and cultural pluralism, both in Europe and in the United States. Brenton Sanderson has made an exceptionally strong case for the same to be said in relation to Australia. Absent detail of any kind, explaining the current ideological climate on race and immigration as the result of any kind of “trajectory” is really nothing more than a just-so story. It’s an untestable narrative explanation: “Things are the way they are, because that’s the way things were going.” To mention nothing from any period earlier than the twentieth century, this “liberal trajectory” has certainly been a highly anomalous one, featuring among other anti-liberal trends, the advent of radical conservatism, the rise of Fascism, the development of notions of a racial state, and the introduction of racially exclusionary immigration laws. That these laws were quite radically overturned in the United States, and in a very short span of time (1924–1965), would seem to represent a dramatic break from trajectory, rather than a natural flowing from one. What prompted this turn? Laws promoting multicultural understandings of citizenship were introduced from the 1960s, in the United States and elsewhere, which led to the gradual displacement of Whites in their own lands. One can prevaricate on how these destructive laws can be traced to the ideas of Rousseau, or any other Enlightenment philosophe, but it pays a greater scholarly dividend to focus instead on who exactly introduced these laws and what their immediate motivations may have been. These facts can be tested, often with reference to the unambiguous statements and explanations of the actors themselves. And these actors are often Jews.

One of the preoccupations in my writing for this website has been to issue warnings about changes in the law, particularly in relation to speech and censorship. I warned of the imminence of internet censorship, and the gross expansion of hate laws and the concept of terrorism, years before these things came finally to fruition. While I agree with most people that law is often downstream from culture, I find it undeniable that sometimes the two operate simultaneously and in tandem, with law driving and reinforcing cultural change, and sometimes preceding it entirely. Thus, whoever holds legal power influences culture, just as much as they who influence culture can manipulate the law. The group that holds both centers of power is powerful indeed.

The historical relationship of Jews with the legal apparatus of European and Western nations deserves close and special attention. There have been many successive legal as well as philosophical changes across the West over a number of centuries which have cumulatively resulted in the widening of the concept of citizenship, the end point of which has been the dominance of pluralistic understandings of citizenship in the bureaucratic state and the eventual permission of mass migration. The historical record is clear that in terms of these legal changes, Jews have been the dominant cause or instigators of modifications designed to introduce “tolerance” into the law, from the medieval charters establishing the tolerance of Jewish trading settlements in European cities[3] to Moshe Kantor’s contemporary “Secure Tolerance” project. This is to say nothing of overwhelming Jewish influence in the design and implementation of “hate laws” (see here and here) designed to uphold and strengthen the multicultural state.

Kevin MacDonald has explored Jewish activism in the period of White ethnic defense from around 1890 through the 1924 and 1952 immigration laws, and the intense Jewish opposition to those laws. The role of Jewish activism was critical in enacting the 1965 law which revolutionized American immigration legislation and permanently changed America’s demographic destiny. In the following essay I want to build upon MacDonald’s specific illustration of Jewish legal influence in the expansion of pluralistic concepts of citizenship and culture in America by using the example of the Jewish philosopher and lawyer Felix Solomon Cohen (1907–1953). The career of Cohen offers something of a prequel to the 1965 activism, with Cohen emerging as a subtle but important forerunner of many of the ideas and approaches used to create present-day multicultural America.

Networks and Nepotism

For most readers, Felix Cohen will be an unfamiliar personality. This is hardly surprising when even the scholar behind his most substantial biography argues that “for the most part his work was behind the scenes.”[4] And yet Cohen was as stubbornly influential as he was elusive, with the same author stressing that his activism “had a profound influence on the transformation of law in the first half of the twentieth century,”[5] and that his story “is the story of the origins of multiculturalism.”[6] Cohen was born in Manhattan in 1907 and grew up in Yonkers. His father, Morris Raphael Cohen, was a philosopher at the City College of New York and a member of the New School for Social Research. Morris Cohen was extremely keen to promote “a new ideal, a cosmopolitan Jewish identity,”[7] and with it to expand Jewish involvement in American life.

Felix Cohen absorbed many of his father’s ideas, as well as grievances. Morris often complained that he had found it difficult to get a job teaching philosophy because of anti-Semitism[8], an explanation for personal failure that Felix would also eventually employ. Felix Cohen possessed a keen intelligence. He attended the City College of New York, where he rose in 1925 to become editor of The Campus. His early activism provoked such a storm of complaint, including one reader’s letter suggesting that “ungrateful kikes should get the hell out of here and go back to Trotsky’s paradise,” that he was dismissed by the magazine’s board. He left CCNY and later received an M.A. and Ph.D. in philosophy from Harvard University in 1927 and 1929, respectively. Cohen then entered Columbia Law School in 1928 and graduated in 1931. From his earliest days studying law, Cohen was destined to become a dedicated ethnic activist. Biographer Dalia Mitchell points out that Cohen’s generation of young Jewish lawyers “viewed the study of law as providing tool with which they could challenge the authority of the Anglo-Saxon elite in American life.”[9] For Cohen, this involved the “personal hope that American law could remedy wrongs against Jews, specifically forced exclusion.”[10] The primary weapon in this fight would be the promotion of pluralism within American law, both by expanding the concept of citizenship and weakening America’s borders.

Although beginning his career with a short stint at an average law firm, Cohen’s big break came thanks to FDR’s momentous decision to nominate Felix Frankfurter to the Supreme Court. Previously reluctant to hire Jews, the legal establishment in Washington was thereafter inundated thanks to a wave of ethnic nepotism ushered in by Frankfurter. Cohen biographer Alice Kehoe remarks that “Frankfurter unabashedly recommended young Jewish lawyers for federal positions to the point that newspapers wrote of the unprecedented number of Jews hired and of fears that a “Jewish cabal” was taking over America.”[11] Frankfurter was a close personal friend of Morris Cohen (the pair were also close friends with Horace Kallen), and when Frankfurter hired the family’s neighbour Nathan Margold to oversee the legal team at Department of the Interior, it was a foregone conclusion that Margold would in turn hire Felix Cohen to join the team. Like the Cohens, Nathan Margold, whose son would later become one of the first major porn barons in America, was an early activist for multiculturalism and author of the 1933 “Margold Report” which called for increased “civil rights” for Blacks.

Legal and Ethnic Warfare

Together at the Interior, Margold and Cohen initially decided to promote pluralism by focusing on the position of Indians/Native Americans in American law. The approach was thought particularly suitable because Cohen’s wife, Lucy Kramer, was an anthropologist working alongside Franz Boas (also a friend of Morris Cohen) at Columbia, where she focussed on promoting culturally relativistic understandings of Native American life. At one point, for example, Kramer wrote a manuscript titled Red Man’s Gifts to Modern America, which was so overblown and unrealistic that it was rejected by her editor with the comment: “Sounds too much as though ballyhooing. Something which she wants to believe.”[12]

Margold’s intention was to bring Cohen, whose ideology was shaped by his Jewish origins and “Franz Boas’s teaching of historical particularism and cultural relativism,”[13] into a leading position in Indian Affairs within the Interior, but the initial move to get Cohen appointed Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs was complicated. Margold’s boss and Secretary of the Interior was the Anglo-Saxon Harold Ickes, who recorded in his private diary “I had decided not to appoint a Jew if I could avoid it.”[14] Ickes initially refused to hire Cohen, but made the mistake of explaining his reasons (suspicion of Jews) to someone else in the department. Legal historian Kevin Washburn comments “Ickes claims he was blackmailed into [hiring Cohen] when word got out that [anti-Semitism] was his reason.”[15] Cohen was thus appointed Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs, and was set to work by Margold on a project that would transform the position of Indians/Native Americans in American law. One scholar has commented that, “though Cohen was still a young lawyer, he had highly sophisticated views of the law’s purpose and was working toward the development of a broader philosophy of cultural and legal pluralism. Indeed, his dissertation had addressed this theme, albeit in a broad theoretical manner.”[16] In one of the most prominent of Cohen’s legal changes in his new role, Indians/Native Americans automatically became United States citizens, whereas previously they could only become citizens via treaty.[17]

It’s interesting that Cohen’s Jewish biographers have been at pains to present Cohen as involving himself in the promotion of “Indian rights” for purely altruistic ends, whereas non-Jewish authors have been much more forthcoming in seeing Cohen as engaging in a kind of proxy legal war against White America and its racially exclusive approach to citizenship and immigration. University of Iowa’s Kevin Washburn has been particularly scathing of Jewish scholar Dalia Tsuk Mitchell’s glowing panegyric to Cohen, Architect of Justice: Felix S. Cohen and the Founding of American Legal Pluralism, and has asked:

Was Cohen’s interest in Indian law and Indian people purely platonic, intellectual, and ideological, as Mitchell implicitly suggests, or was it driven in part or wholly by a sense of shared experience with other oppressed peoples? … Did Cohen’s Jewish identity — and his feelings of being an outsider to the then-ruling elite in the United States — affect his views about Indian tribes?[18]

Washburn is skeptical about Cohen’s selfless altruism to say the least. He points out that Cohen once wrote “The Indian plays much the same role in our American society that the Jews played in Germany.”[19] And while Cohen was, in Mitchell’s phrasing merely “impatient” with Anglo-Saxon America’s “particularism,” he was strident in his insistence that Jews should be able to continue their separate existence within the ‘Melting Pot,” viewing Jewish assimilation as “cultural death,”[20] and telling one colleague that he would “punch … in the nose” anyone who suggested Jews “ought to be beneficially assimilated into the Anglo-Saxon Protestant mainstream of American life.”[21] In Washburn’s view, there was a clear ethnic struggle, and Mitchell’s biography “fails to cast light on the darker aspects of Cohen’s personal experiences as a Jewish-American civil servant in mid-twentieth century America.”[22]

Immigration and Open Borders

The activities of Cohen, Margold, and other Jews within the Department of the Interior, both in relation to the expansion of Indian “rights,” and issues of immigration and citizenship more generally, eventually escalated to the stage where they prompted a reaction from the Anglo-Saxon establishment. In early 1939 Cohen began agitating for immigration reform within Interior, eventually latching onto the idea of “developing Alaska” by settling large numbers of European Jews in the state (the Alaska Development Bill—Kehoe states that the entire bill was written by Cohen[23]). In his Harvard-published FDR and the Jews (2013), Richard Breitman writes that in 1939 “Interior Department official Felix Cohen presented a report indicating that industrious immigrants would boost the Alaskan economy and an expanded population would bolster the nation’s defense.”[24] In a move of crypsis eerily prefiguring attempts to use John F. Kennedy as the face of propaganda intended to pave the way for the 1965 immigration act, Margold and Cohen chose a non-Jewish department figure to act as figurehead for the bill. Breitman writes:

Undersecretary of the Interior Henry Slattery became its official sponsor, rather than Nathan Margold or Cohen, its senior proponents in Interior: for domestic consumption, the “Slattery Plan” sounded better politically than the “Cohen Plan.”[25]

While working on the bill, Cohen also published a lengthy article in the National Lawyer’s Guild Quarterly that essentially made the case for opening America’s borders to immigrants of all backgrounds. Titled “Exclusionary Immigration Laws: Their Social and Economic Consequences,” the essay was a full-frontal attack on Anglo-Saxon nativism. The article, which I have read in full, opens with a list of America’s exclusionary immigration laws, beginning with the 1882 act targeting Chinese migrants. Cohen remarks:

Each of the foregoing statutes was based in part on economic or materialistic grounds, and in part upon theories of racial or cultural superiority. … Tolerance develops as a way of life when people realize that strange faces, strange accents, and strange ideas do not necessarily portend disaster. … The greatest danger to American institutions comes from those who could cut off the living stream [immigration] that has been the source of our national life. … The effect of such a cutting off of immigration as is proposed by various bills now pending in Congress would be to make the entire country more and more like those regions which have been untouched by immigration in the past century. Our standard of living would be lower, our illiteracy rates higher, our prejudice against minority races, minority creeds, and foreigners generally would be more intense. … The human rights of the citizen are safe only when the rights of the foreigner are protected.[26]

Cohen’s article was later published as a pamphlet by the American Jewish Committee, and was essentially the “skeleton” text upon which most of the propaganda for the 1965 Act was based, including “John F. Kennedy’s” (really, an ADL/AJC project) Nation of Immigrants. Cohen was also behind the AJC’s most prominent pro-immigration material. In his Princeton-published Jews and Liberalism, for example, Marc Dollinger points out that the American Jewish Committee’s March 1949 landmark statement on “Americanizing our Immigration Laws” had been written in full by Cohen.[27]

Despite the obvious self-interest of Jews like Cohen and Margold in advocating for such radical changes in American law, the pair maintained the charade even under intense questioning in Congress. David Wyman, in Paper Walls: America and the Refugee Crisis, 1938–1941, writes that during the hearings “witnesses for the bill repeatedly maintained its major objective was development of Alaska and that its refugee features were only incidental.”[28] The two primary objectors to the bill were Robert R. Reynolds (Dem.) of North Carolina and Homer T. Bone (Dem.) of Washington. The pair questioned the given rationale behind the bill and “pressed these witnesses to agree that the legislation was really aimed mainly at helping [Jewish] refugees.” Reynolds was notable for denouncing the bill as “just a smoke screen” for Jews “to get in the back door.”

Cohen was, however, reluctant to give ground and maintained the charade, with Wyman reporting that Cohen “denied that the primary aim of the measure was to help refugees and stated that the immigration features were simply an essential means for carrying out the fundamental purpose of the bill, settlement of Alaska.” He fooled no-one, and the bill was crushed.

The activities of Cohen, Margold, and other Jews within Interior had by the 1940s raised considerable consternation among the Anglo-Saxon establishment. Both Cohen and Margold had developed an “Indian New Deal” that “emphasized the state’s obligation to protect the rights of minority groups” and “advocated constitutional protection for group rights.”[29] The response was rapid, taking Cohen and his clique entirely by surprise. In early 1940, Cohen was removed from the Indian project in front of his own staff by Assistant Attorney General Norman Littell, who explained that Cohen’s ongoing work on Indian affairs was found to have been of “inferior quality.”[30] A few months later, Cohen, now more or less aimless within the department, wrote to a friend that he had in fact fallen victim to an anti-Semitic “purge,” pointing out that all other individuals who had been fired alongside him were also Jewish (Abraham Glasser, Bernard Levinson, Theodore Spector, and Jacob Wasserman).[31] Cohen wrote that the firing was designed “to humiliate me personally before my staff and later to attack my scholarship and my character.”[32] Kevin Washburn suggests that Cohen may not have been wrong in assuming that he was targeted as a Jew, but adds that Cohen’s own activism played a role. In Washburn’s words, “Cohen may have been too pro-Indian” and as a cosmopolitan Jew attempting to chip away at Anglo-Saxon “particularism.” “Cohen was simply ill-matched to the task” of being a cooperative cog in the Interior’s machine.[33] Most interesting of all is the fact that Littell had earlier expressed the opinion that anti-Semitism had some basis in genuine conflicts of interest, and had once highlighted Jews as stronger economic competitors than Anglo-Saxons.[34] In other words, the purge may well have been the retribution of WASPs suddenly aware of what Frankfurter’s “Jewish cabal” was doing. In 1948, the increasingly sidelined Cohen left the department and never returned to government.

All of Cohen’s subsequent work is described by Mitchell as involving attempts “to make the American legal system more inclusive,” and until his death he retained “a personal sense of failure at his inability to build a pluralist [multicultural] state.”[35] Despite his individual failure, however, Mitchell insists that Cohen was extremely influential, and that his legacy was taken up by later activists. In Mitchell’s words, “even failed attempts to devise formalistic legal structures to accomplish pluralistic goals create peripheries where pluralism might flourish.”[36] In Cohen’s case, these peripheries were his introduction of Indian legislation and citizenship clauses that undermined the increasingly strong notion of the United States as a state designed to fulfil the destiny of Whites in a new continent. In this sense, Cohen’s activism and “peripheries” reached fulfilment in the 1965 Immigration Act, and in the multicultural America we see today.

Conclusion

Many of the events and tactics from Cohen’s career clearly anticipate later Jewish activism around the 1965 Immigration Act, as well as contemporary Jewish activism promoting immigration and multiculturalism. Of particular interest is the fact Jews like Cohen and Margold appear to have obtained their positions primarily through nepotism, and even blackmail, rather than merit. Interestingly, the possibility that threatening to expose one as an “anti-Semite” for not hiring a Jew could result in severe repercussions even during the 1930s shows that Jews had already made substantial progress in their ascent to elite status. MacDonald discusses this shift in his review of Joseph Bendersky’s The Jewish Threat: ‘Anti-Semitic Politics of the U.S. Army:

It is remarkable that people like Lothrop Stoddard and Charles Lindbergh wrote numerous articles for the popular media, including Collier’s, the Saturday Evening Post and Reader’s Digest between World War I and World War II (p. 23).  In 1920–1921, the Saturday Evening Post ran a series of 19 articles on Eastern European immigration emphasizing Jewish unassimilability and the Jewish association with Bolshevism.  At the time, the Post was the most widely read magazine in the U.S., with a weekly readership of 2,000,000.

The tide against the world view of the officers turned with the election of Roosevelt. ” Jews served prominently in his administration,” (p. 244) including Felix Frankfurter who had long been under scrutiny by MID [Military Intelligence Division] as a “dangerous Jewish radical” (p. 244).  Jews had also won the intellectual debate: “Nazi racial ideology was under attack in the press as pseudo‑science and fanatical bigotry.” (p. 244) Jews also had a powerful position in the media, including ownership of several large, influential newspapers (New York TimesNew York PostWashington PostPhiladelphia InquirerPhiladelphia Record and Pittsburgh Post‑Gazette), radio networks (CBS, the dominant radio network, and NBC, headed by David Sarnoff), and all of the major Hollywood movie studios (see MacDonald 1998/2001).

It is remarkable that the word ‘Nordic’ disappeared by the 1930s although the restrictionists still had racialist views of Jews and themselves (p. 245).  By 1938 eugenics was “shunned in public discourse of the day.” (p. 250) Whereas such ideas were commonplace in the mainstream media in the 1920s, General George van Horn Moseley’s 1938 talk on eugenics and its implications for immigration policy caused a furor when it was reported in the newspapers.  Moseley was charged with anti‑Semitism although he denied referring to Jews in his talk.  The incident blew over, but “henceforth, the military determined to protect itself against charges of anti‑Semitism that might sully its reputation or cause it political problems. …  The army projected itself as an institution that would tolerate neither racism nor anti-Semitism” (p. 252‑253).

Moseley himself continued to attack the New Deal, saying it was manipulated by “the alien element in our midst” (p. 253) — obviously a coded reference to Jews.  This time he was severely reprimanded and the press wouldn’t let it die.  By early 1939, Moseley, who had retired from the army, became explicitly anti-Jewish, asserting that Jews wanted the U.S. to enter the proposed war in Europe and that the war would be waged for Jewish hegemony.  He accused Jews of controlling the media and having a deep influence on the government. In 1939, he testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee on Jewish complicity in Communism and praised the Germans for dealing with the Jews properly (p. 256).  But his testimony was beyond the pale by this time.  As Bendersky notes, Moseley had only articulated the common Darwinian world view of the earlier generation, and he had asserted the common belief of an association of Jews with Communism.  These views remained common in the army and elsewhere on the political right, but they were simply not stated publicly.  And if they were, heads rolled and careers were ended.

The new climate can also be seen in the fact that Lothrop Stoddard stopped referring to Jews completely in his lectures to the Army War College in the late 1930s, but continued to advocate eugenics and was sympathetic to Nazism in the late 1930s because it took the race notion seriously.  By 1940, the tables had turned.  Anti-Jewish attitudes came to be seen as subversive by the government, and the FBI alerted military intelligence that Lothrop Stoddard should be investigated as a security risk in the event of war (p. 280).

Finally, it is also noteworthy that Cohen, Margold and their co-ethnics in government harbored a clear sense of ethnic grievance against Whites which was accompanied by entirely unconvincing denials of self-interest and flamboyant displays of superficial altruism in relation to other minority groups (Blacks for Margold; Indians for Cohen). Of primary importance to these activists was the need to boost the position of non-Whites within the American legal structure, either by manipulating what it meant to be a citizen (and what ‘rights’ and ‘obligations’ that entailed), or by expanding who could become a citizen. These legal manipulations and reversals, and their occurrence in the context of what amounts to a very clear and often explicit clash of ethnic interests between dedicated Jewish activist lawyers and the WASP establishment, raise serious questions about whether America was really on a “liberal trajectory” in which the current multicultural status quo was an inevitability.


[1] D. Mitchell, Architect of Justice: Felix S. Cohen and the Founding of American Legal Pluralism (Itchaca: Cornell University Press, 2007), 5.

[2] S. Russell, “Review Essay: Architect of Justice: Felix S. Cohen and the Founding of American Legal Pluralism,” Wacazo Sa Review, 23:2 (Fall 2008), 112-114 (113).

[3] J. Ray, “The Jew in the Text: What Christian Charters Tell Us About Medieval Jewish Society,” Medieval Encounters 16, 2-4 (2010): 243-267.

[4] Mitchell, 7.

[5] Ibid, 1.

[6] Ibid, 3.

[7] Ibid, 16.

[8] Ibid, 15.

[9] Ibid, 32.

[10] Ibid, 7.

[11] A. B. Kehoe, A Passion for the True and Just: Felix and Lucy Kramer Cohen and the Indian New Deal (Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 2014), 46.

[12] Kehoe, 86-7.

[13] Ibid, 5.

[14] K. K. Washburn, “Felix Cohen, anti-Semitism, and American Indian Law,” American Indian Law Review, 33:2, 583-605 (603).

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid, 586.

[17] N. Pickus, Immigration and Citizenship in the 21st Century (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 1998), 55.

[18] Washburn, 600 & 603.

[19] Ibid, 604.

[20] Ibid, 587.

[21] Ibid, 604.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Kehoe, 5.

[24] R. Breitman, FDR and the Jews (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2013), 159.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Quotes taken from the reprint of the 1939 article which appeared in the Contemporary Jewish Record, 3:2, (March 1 1940), 141.

[27] M. Dollinger, Jews and Liberalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 268.

[28] D. Wyman, Paper Walls: America and the Refugee Crisis, 1938-1941 (Plunkett Lake Press, 2019).

[29] Mitchell, 5.

[30] Washburn, 601.

[31] Ibid, 599 & 601.

[32] Ibid, 601.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid, 602.

[35] Mitchell, 5 & 6.

[36] Ibid, 8.

The Cult of Stupid: Libertarianism, Leftism, and the Murder of Free Speech

It’s one of the great truths of human existence: Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens – “With stupidity the Gods themselves battle in vain.” So said the great German writer Schiller (1759–1805) more than two hundred years ago. A lot has changed since then, but not the power of stupidity in human affairs. You can see stupidity at work 24/7 in Western politics and culture, for example. But occasionally it flares up in what you could call a stupernova — a glorious explosion of jaw-dropping dumb.

Migration to the max!

Stupernovas regularly dazzle the eyes of readers at the libertarian website Spiked Online, which is passionately in favour of both open mouths and open borders. That is, it wants both the maximum possible free speech and the maximum possible migration. “Let them in!” Spiked cries in favour of unlimited immigration from the most anti-libertarian cultures on earth. It then adds: “But don’t let them bring their culture with them!”

German genius Friedrich von Schiller

In other words, Spiked thinks that the West can have Third-World people without Third-World pathologies. All we need do is talk loudly enough and long enough about Enlightenment values, and bingo! The Third-World folk in our midst will suddenly leap forward centuries or even millennia in cultural development. Back in Pakistan, for example, Muslims rape children on an industrial scale, commit massive electoral fraud, and machine-gun politicians for dissing the Prophet Muhammad. In Britain, they’ll embrace the Enlightenment instead. They’ll stop raping children and committing electoral fraud. And in no time at all they’ll be erecting statues to Voltaire and forming reading-clubs to probe the collected works of John Stuart Mill.

Chop till they drop

But only if we wise Whites guide them out of their backward brown-skinned ways! That’s the implicit (and racist) message behind Spiked’s incessant wailings about how, against all the odds, Third-World people continue to exhibit Third-World pathologies in First-World settings. The latest wail at Spiked – and the latest stupernova – is about a Christian woman called Hatun Tash who was stabbed at Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park in London. What had she done? Well, she’s a member of a group that tries to convert Muslims to Christianity, she was wearing a T-shirt in support of Charlie Hebdo, and she was criticizing Islam. Can you guess who might have attacked her? Indeed, her attacker may even have been trying to enact that fine old Islamic tradition of head-chopping for Muhammad.

Face-slashing for Muhammad: Islam-critic Hatun Tash is stabbed at the home of free speech (note Charlie Hebdo T-shirt)

As you’d expect, Spiked were disturbed and dismayed to see a Third-World pathology once again marring Britain’s march towards multi-racial libertarian Utopia. Their headline came in the form of an incredulous question: “You can be stabbed for criticising Islam?” Yes, fancy that! Britain imports millions of Muslims who believe strongly in Islam, and suddenly people are being stabbed for criticizing Islam. Who could have seen that one coming?

Competing traditions

Not the high-powered intellects at Spiked, it seems. But Brendan O’Neill’s article about the “bloody events in Hyde Park” did get one thing right. It said that Speakers’ Corner in Hyde Park is “traditionally the one place in the UK where you can express pretty much any belief you like.” Indeed. But whose tradition is that, Brendan? It’s a fragile and recently created tradition of the White British. But what about head-chopping for Muhammad? Whose tradition is that? It’s a sturdy and deep-rooted tradition of Third-World Muslims whom you and your comrades at Spiked want to see entering the country in unlimited numbers.

Brendan goes on to blame the “woke” White left for “emboldening … Islamic extremists.” He’s once again plugging the highly racist line that Muslims and other non-Whites have no true agency and must rely on Whites to rescue them from their backward ways. In fact, Muslims are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves to love the Prophet and hate free speech. It isn’t the woke left that emboldens Muslims in Pakistan to machine-gun Muhammad-dissers or sentence innocent people to death on ludicrously vague and unjust charges of blasphemy.

The liberty-loathing left

But it is the woke left that campaigns passionately for maximum migration by Pakistanis and other Third-Worlders. And that should give Spiked a clue about how bad Third-World migration is for all the libertarian causes they claim to care about so deeply. The biggest enemies of free speech, from the Labour party in Britain to the Democratic party in America, have also been the biggest facilitators of mass migration from the Third World. Is that a coincidence? No, of course not. It’s been a coherent and perfectly rational strategy to strengthen the power of the liberty-loathing left.

Third-World people vote overwhelmingly for leftist parties, so more Third-World people means more power for authoritarian leftists. And Third-World pathologies like terrorism justify an ever-stronger security and surveillance state. That’s simple enough to understand, but some people resolutely refuse to understand it.

Here’s another stupernova at Spiked, written in support of the White teacher in Yorkshire who was driven into hiding by Muslim death-threats:

At the heart of our political culture is a commitment to free speech, free expression, freedom of thought, and tolerance of difference. People come here from every corner of the globe to enjoy our liberties and to fit into our peaceful and respectful democratic life. If this is to endure, it is essential that those in authority push back against any effort to undermine these vital norms. If we are to keep the freedoms we’ve enjoyed, we must show solidarity with the teacher and his family. (Freedom is on the line in the Batley by-election, Spiked, 30th June 2021)

No, Third-World people come to the West to exploit the high trust and wealth of societies that they could never have created for themselves. And at the heart of “our political culture” is a commitment not to freedom, but to the service of Jewish interests. Tony Blair was funded by Jewish money and obeyed Jewish orders, appointing a Jewish activist called Barbara Roche to massively (and malignly) increase already high levels of Third-World immigration.

Whites create free speech, Jews destroy it

Now the so-called Conservatives are in power and are doing nothing to slow, let alone end or reverse, the Third-Worlding of Britain. Are you surprised to learn that the current Conservative treasurer is a little-known Israeli Jew called Ehud Sheleg? You shouldn’t be. And you shouldn’t be surprised to see who is behind yet another attack on the free speech bequeathed to America by the White Founding Fathers:

PayPal Holdings Inc is partnering with non-profit organisation the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) [the most powerful and well-funded Jewish organization in America] to investigate how extremist and hate movements in the United States take advantage of financial platforms to fund their criminal activities.

The initiative will be led through ADL’s Center on Extremism, and will focus on uncovering and disrupting the financial flows supporting white supremacist and anti-government organizations. It will also look at networks spreading and profiting from antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism, anti-immigrant, anti-Black, anti-Hispanic and anti-Asian bigotry.

The information collected through the initiatives will be shared with other firms in the financial industry, law enforcement and policymakers, PayPal said. (PayPal to Research Transactions That Fund Hate Groups, Extremists, American Renaissance, 26th July 2021)

If you’ve got Jews, you’ve got implacable enemies of free speech and Western civilization. That’s why Jews have always worked so hard to close mouths and open borders. With Third-World people come Third-World pathologies that justify ever more authoritarianism and ever less freedom for the Whites who built the West. Libertarianism, which supposedly fights for freedom, is in fact another front in the Jewish war on Western civilization. For example, the libertarian fanatics at Spiked are devout disciples of the Jewish sociologist Frank Furedi, who is himself a devout disciple of the tyrants Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky.

Lenin was part-Jewish, Trotsky was fully Jewish. That was a very bad sign for the White Christians over whom they began to rule. And so is the Jewishness of Joe Biden’s government in America and Boris Johnson’s government in Britain. Bad times are ahead, goyim. So brace yourselves. But one thing will surely survive the wreck ahead: stupidity. It can’t be eliminated from human affairs, but we can try our best to minimize it. The stupernovas at Spiked are, by contrast, written by people who want to maximize it.

The Free Expression Foundation Denounces UCLA’s Decision to Bar Michael Miselis from Completing his Ph. D. in Aerospace Engineering

“TO REACH OUT TO VICTIMS OF THE THOUGHT POLICE AND TO LISTEN TO THEM AND THEIR STORIES WITH CARE AND RESPECT.”

Editor’s note: The Free Expression Foundation is an important asset in the battle for free speech for people on the dissident right. We are now inundated daily with examples showing a double standard for justice—Antifa and BLM rioters routinely go free even after attacking and injuring police and causing billions of dollars in property damage, while prosecutors throw the book at defendants associated with the right, even mainstream conservatives and Trump supporters. As described below, Michael Miselis is a paradigmatic example of this double standard.

Atty. Glen Allen has done legal work for FEF. He has a sharp legal mind and, along with a network of sympathetic attorneys, is carrying on the fight with well-reasoned legal briefs in support of deserving defendants. The Free Expression Foundation, a  501C3 nonprofit, is definitely worthy of our support.

Michael Miselis, one of the defendants in the Charlottesville Rise Above Movement prosecution, could make a strong case that he has been the victim of a flagrant miscarriage of justice, and one whose pernicious consequences roll on and on.

Much of Miselis’s ordeal has arisen because of the plea agreement he signed. No fair-minded person, however, who is familiar with the Heaphy Report about the Charlottesville Unite the Right Rally and knew the nature of the charges and ambiguous evidence against Miselis, his harsh conditions while incarcerated, and his dismal prospects for a fair trial would give much weight or credence to that plea agreement. In the agreement, Miselis admitted to participating in violence during the Rally.  But the reality is that, amid a general melee he was involved in, a few minor scuffles with counterprotestors who were at least as aggressive as he was but were never charged with any crimes. These scuffles easily could have been avoided if the Charlottesville police had done their job, as the Heaphy Report makes clear. Miselis did not seriously injure anyone, but nonetheless was sentenced to 26 months in prison, which he has now served.

As an essential condition of his plea agreement, Miselis reserved the right to challenge the  First Amendment constitutionality of the Anti-Riot Act statute under which he was convicted.  That statute, hastily enacted in the context of the civil unrest of the 1960s, had rarely been used before the government dusted it off and invoked it against the Charlottesville pro-monument demonstrators. Its constitutional flaws are many and serious;  it was in fact struck down on First Amendment grounds by Judge Cormac Carney in the California RAM prosecutions. Accordingly, Miselis’s hope to overturn his conviction by the condition in the plea agreement allowing him to  challenge the statute was well-founded.

That hope proved a mirage. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Miselis’s case severed some of the statute’s manifestly unconstitutional language, judicially construed other language in defiance of its apparent meaning, applied the thus judicially truncated and revised statute to Miselis’s  plea agreement, and by this convoluted path upheld his conviction. In essence, Miselis was induced to enter into the plea agreement by the promise he could challenge the constitutionality of the Anti-Riot Act, but the plea agreement itself was then used to defeat his constitutional challenge.

Unfortunately, the Fourth Circuit’s logical wizardry was not the last instance in which Miselis’s  plea agreement has been  unfairly used against him. Before the Charlottesville events, Miselis had been a graduate student in aerospace engineering at UCLA, about a year from completing his Ph. D.  After he had completed his prison sentence, he was initially – for about three months – allowed to resume his studies. But in late May 2021 he was brought before the UCLA Student Conduct Committee to face charges he was a safety threat to persons on the UCLA campus and should therefore be dismissed from the university. About a month later, the committee issued its report recommending dismissal.

The committee’s rationale is as illogical as the Fourth Circuit’s had been.  The committee, relying on Miselis’s admissions in his plea agreement, concluded he is a safety threat even though:  there had been no problems whatever during the three months he had been allowed to resume his doctoral studies;  his remaining months of study could easily be conducted remotely, a practice the university has perfected during the Covid lockdown;  he  lives 300 miles from the UCLA campus and agreed he would never return to it;  and his probation requirements, with which he has scrupulously complied, barred him from leaving the federal Eastern District of California, whose closest boundary lies 100 miles from the UCLA campus. The committee’s conclusion that Miselis is a safety threat is bizarrely irrational.

There is also the question of whether the university singled out Miselis for such draconian treatment. A basic internet search supports an affirmative answer, for it reveals that UCLA:

  • has welcomed into the university many persons with criminal records, including persons with violent convictions such as murder and attempted murder and gang affiliations;
  • has welcomed many other students who had been arrested for activities relating to protests, including violence;
  • has proclaimed in various mission statements the desire to remain accessible to those formerly convicted;
  • has accepted state funding earmarked for promoting formerly incarcerated students;
  • has approved student political organizations presently engaged in criminal behavior, including “The Revolutionary Club,” whose parent group had been involved in violence at several events including the Charlottesville rally;  and
  • has staff and students  signatory to criminal and /or terrorist groups such as Antifa.

The Fourth Circuit’s labyrinthine opinion and the Student Conduct Committee’s surreal report raise a strong suspicion that these decisions were motivated by hostility to Miselis’s protected First Amendment activities.  All Americans deserve more principled and transparent decisions than these.

FEF has offered its resources to Mr. Miselis for possible redress in federal court.

Glen K. Allen, Esq. is attorney for The Free Expression Foundation, Inc., a 501c3 nonprofit.  Contact:  Freeexpressionfoundation.org; 800-979-8891.

When the Only Choice is Kosher-Certified, and You Object: A Layman’s Glance at Legal Recourse

Introduction

Seanna Fenner, aka Odinia, is an Odinist gyðja (priestess), a völva, and the founder of the native European religious organization, Odinia International. She resides in the United States, and she is a fervent follower of the ancient European religion of Odinism.[1] Unlike most Americans today, especially the Christian majority, Ms. Fenner can probably pick out a “hekhsher” (kosher seal) or two on a packaging label. Her spiritual and religious faith likely finds these kosher seals offensive, if not reprehensible.  But if she had to buy food from an American supermarket today to survive, she’d have little choice but to submit to Talmudic and Torah laws that keep her under alien religious bondage.

In the course of investigating the kosher certification industry, I have learned of an American history riddled with crime-tainted rackets and kosher price gouging from the earliest decades of the twentieth century. Protests and riots led to the formation of organizations defending Jewish rights and their dietary laws, Kashruth.[2] Thenceforth, the movement to reform and regulate the kosher meat market gained strength, state laws were adopted that would give the kosher keeper robust legal protection.

But what if you’re the simple consumer who does not keep kosher, or wishes to avoid products and companies that are patronizing the religious kosher agencies for their certification services? Our surveys indicate that almost 40% of consumers object to this religious intrusion in food manufacturing. If you are a Christian, a Hindu, an Odinist, an agnostic, are there any protections in American society that help you avoid an unwitting donation to Jewish interests if that’s not your cup of kosher tea?

When Daughters of the American Revolution member Marian Strack boldly gave a speech renouncing the burgeoning practice in 1954, her peers scolded her and instructed her to just go buy products that are “not kosher certified” (henceforth, “NKC”). While that may have been possible sixty-seven years ago, the now colossal worldwide industry includes over 600 American kosher agencies certifying well over one million products, and for many categories of food and kitchen products there are no choices other than “kosher certified.” After a perusal of most supermarket aisles, one could easily conclude that kosher certification has been imposed on us by the system.

So with the preceding being the background in a nutshell, let’s examine the problem and potential avenues of protection. Are there any existing laws that may be applicable? Keep in mind that, as a layman in the subject-matter of our Constitution and the law, our discussion here is merely to introduce the issue and invite our true experts from our audience to help develop strategies that may protect the rights of consumers who wish to refrain from buying “kosher,” avoid the ubiquitous kosher seal, or have fair access to products free from this rabbinical intervention. Because even the most apolitical citizen should know that the largest kosher agency in the world, based in New York City, was a staunch supporter of spy Jonathan Pollard, who caused untold damage to our nation.[3]

Typical situation: a consumer walks into a supermarket and wishes to buy a few needed items, including milk and eggs (for breakfast), peanut butter (for the kid’s lunch), and dry spaghetti (for the family dinner). Our experience has shown that if the shopper’s supermarket was a Costco big box store, this would yield no option other than kosher certified goods. The same goes for other national supermarket chains, including federally funded military commissaries: a great many product categories that fail to offer any NKC brand options—NOT Kosher Certified.

So does a consumer have any religious rights to avoid “kosher” when they walk in to a general retail store under such circumstances, just as the kosher keeper certainly has laws protecting him/her when shopping at a kosher retail market? Or better phrased, does the retailer, the distributor that supplies the store, or the food manufacturers have a duty not to discriminate in favor of the religion of Judaism, for the privilege of Jewish consumers, when presenting their selection of diverse edible and inedible offerings to the general marketplace? Note: there are countless inedible products certified kosher that we buy every day, including aluminum foil, food storage bags, dish soap, food wrap, laundry detergent, and dishwashing detergent to name a few.

The Civil Rights Act

When I approached this problem by inquiring into laws regarding fair access and consumer and religious rights for the kosher-avoiding consumer, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 came to mind. Title II of this law is titled “Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodations.” Well, the supermarket is a place that accommodates the public when they shop for groceries, so maybe there’s something that will help here. Section 201 states:

All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. [my emphasis]

Okay, the supermarket or retail store is selling food products, which are goods. But then there’s this on what constitutes a place of public accommodation:

(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action: …

(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

It was clear that retail stores like supermarkets, whose primary business is selling food to be consumed at home, did not fall under part (2)’s definition. One might argue that most supermarket chains have deli style lunch counters, but these ready-to-eat sandwiches or meals are not typically eaten on premises, as is required for qualification in this law. More searching needed.

My search turned up numerous articles covering Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Upon reading many of these, it was clear that, while this section focused on “contracts” (and retail transactions are considered a contract), this law was clearly all about race, and provided no protections under religious freedom. On further examination, we read

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

Section 1981’s primary goal was to protect non-Whites. Even hypothetically in a far-out scenario, if Whites were institutionally discriminated against by a systemic Kosher Supremacy racket that wanted to ethnically suppress them and extract their wealth as insidious vengeance for European pogroms of centuries past, it appears that this law works in support of any ethnicity but Whites, given the legal text. We move on…

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) begins with Congressional Findings that

(1) the framers of the Constitution, recognizing free exercise of religion as an unalienable right, secured its protection in the First Amendment to the Constitution, and (2) laws “neutral” toward religion may burden religious exercise as surely as laws intended to interfere with religious exercise, and (3) governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.

This Act restores a “compelling interest test” that grants exceptions for government interests, and “it provides a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.” Many states have adopted their own RFRAs—this law has brought legal relief to Native American Indians, Sikhs, Muslims, Christians, and even the Floridian Orthodox Jewish prisoner, Bruce Rich, who demanded kosher food.[4] Our first potential angle here might be supermarkets that are operated and controlled by the government. This, obviously, would not include your private grocery chain, but rather the hundreds of military commissaries found on Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine bases. Since the company founder behind www.TheKosherQuestion.com is a retired veteran, I can attest that when grocery shopping on these military installations, one finds that they eschew the very small food companies that might be NKC and free from kosher certification in favor of major national brands.

While at one of these commissaries, I searched for dry pasta and found one brand named “Freedom’s Choice,” produced by The Defense Commissary Agency, which was strictly kosher certified. Is it too much of a burden for Freedom’s Choice to produce dry pasta without rabbinical supervision? Does this preferential bias favoring the laws of just one religion, Judaism, constitute religious discrimination when there are no similar products sold neutral of religion—NKC? Where’s the freedom from contributing to a religious organization for which you may not belong? Perhaps this is the ideal case for RFRA; perhaps just the First Amendment alone might suffice if a Navy sailor filed suit in Federal court claiming that his religious freedom was infringed due to the single choice of this or that product, all strictly kosher certified. This might be worth further investigation.

Freedom’s Choice Macaroni Products – All kosher-certified by Orthodox Union

Even in a military commissary, all this dry pasta was exclusively kosher-certified

The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act

But what about laws that are “neutral” to religion? How about the law behind the two government agencies which are supposed to protect the American consumer—the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)? These are two large government bureaucracies that fall under the supposedly religiously neutral Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1967 (FPLA). Besides its role in regulating labels for consumer commodities, disclosing net contents, identifying name and place of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor, this Act further authorizes regulations where necessary to “prevent unfair or deceptive packaging and labeling.” Finally, I may have a law that will work for the kosher-avoiding consumer!

After performing our own research study on kosher seals, the statistical analysis suggested that there was a deceptive trade practice in play industry-wide, and it involves low transparency. I submitted not just one, but two FTC complaints that point towards labeling practices that keep consumers from easily recognizing a product’s kosher certification seal for what it is. Many are so small—averaging just 10% the size of most other food certification seals—that people simply don’t see them, mistake what they are, or overlook their meaning. Others, like the circled “U” of OU Kosher or the “CRC” symbol of Chicago Rabbinical Council are just symbolically too obscure. Certainly a complaint as well researched and explained as ours might pique the interests of the FTC, and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act should have proceeded to grant us religious justice! But instead, the government agency message I received back was one of indifference, a boiler plate email instructing us how to avoid fraud!

In reviewing the purpose of FPLA, it does seem that it is the most viable legal option to force companies into displaying very large, easily understood kosher symbols with the text “KOSHER CERTIFIED” stamped beside alongside, a transparency that might cause food companies one way or another into producing NKC options on their own for many products. Such a strategy might create a natural market-driven track towards religious freedom from kosher intrusion as the general consumer base becomes kosher aware.

However, our realistic view from this agency’s response to our complaints and the ubiquity of kosher certification suggests that the FTC has a bias in favor of the kosher industry. Otherwise, I don’t believe kosher labeling could have ever become so absurdly obfuscated with the FPLA in place for fifty-four years. I invite interested parties to press harder with this law. Perhaps the government’s continued disregard and purposeful inaction will trigger rights under the RFRA!

State Laws

One of our company’s own goals is to enact state-wide protectionist laws for consumers who refrain from keeping kosher, equal in power to the numerous existing laws protecting kosher keepers. Since only minute percentage of the shopping public is even aware of ubiquitous kosher certification, it is the low transparency that produces this lack of awareness; state laws could perhaps help. Interestingly, the Jewish community insists on mandated high transparency for themselves, as is evident in this California Penal Code 383b[5]:

Every person…who sells or exposes for sale in the same place of business both kosher and nonkosher meat or meat preparations, either raw or prepared for human consumption, who fails to indicate on his [sic!] window signs in all display advertising in block letters at least four inches in height ‘kosher and nonkosher meats sold here’” (my emphasis).

Just for comparison sake, with no laws protecting the general consumer from deception or mandating four-inch block letters, see the kosher-certified dishwashing detergent below. If you didn’t notice the registered trademark symbol beside the “e” in Cascade, you might have thought the OU Kosher seal was just that, a registered trademark symbol.

Yellow arrow points to OU Kosher Seal

Writing laws that would be fair to the kosher-refraining consumer might be fairly simple, and this would definitely be a strategy to promote kosher awareness while respecting religious freedom for all. However, getting such laws passed by the state legislatures would likely be difficult, requiring considerable time, effort, money and human resources—i.e., a movement. Furthermore, the largest kosher agency, OU, financially supports numerous programs for Jewish interests, and OU Advocacy is one of them. One could expect firm resistance as lobby groups like this, the ADL, and other Jewish organizations would presumably attempt to smear any legislative campaign that would disrupt the current kosher money spigot; they would likely label such a proposed law as “anti-Semitic.” One need only look at the media after the Dutch banned kosher slaughter as an example.[6] An interesting statement from this footnoted article by the ADL is this:

We call upon the Dutch Senate to prevent this action from leading to a clear violation of religious freedom that has a disproportionate impact on the Jewish community.

Only approximately 22% of the American Jewish Community strictly follow the kosher laws—about 0.3% of our entire population. And yet the food industry is almost completely kosher certified. So where are the organizations clamoring on behalf of religious freedom for the 99.7%, disproportionately impacted, disproportionately subsidizing the costs of the entire affair? Maybe The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty will go to bat for our cause!

Fair and Non-Discriminatory Access in the General Marketplace

There is a need for new laws to protect the religious rights of those outside the Jewish faith when they shop for food and kitchen supplies, their first source for sustenance. It is our view that beyond the transparency in labeling, prime importance should be given to regulating “access” to NKC products in the general marketplace (i.e., not specializing in Kosher). Our best example of “access” legislation would be the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).[7] Here we find a robust set of regulations protecting a particular minority in America, those with disabilities, from discrimination and prejudice so that they may enjoy the fruits of society like all others:

Congress finds that the Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals.

With all due respect to helping minorities that are harmed by the system, we implore Congress to find once…just once…from the goodness in their heart, the motivation to protect the majority when a minority religion has immeasurable and possibly detrimental institutional power. We would ask them to write into law the framework to regulate “NKC access” for the great majority, an access unavailable to hard-working men and women of many faiths and identities, most of whom are not kosher keepers. It took over two hundred years for the disabled to get fair access, giving them legal recourse if discriminated against. And their time has come. Let us now move to address American religious freedom vs. the kosher industry, an industry that even in holy Jerusalem has problems with under-the-table bribery payments and requirements for businesses to buy from specific suppliers.[8]

Conclusion

An orthodox Christian—one who believes that Jesus abrogated the laws of Kashrus for his sect—goes to his grocery store to buy garlic salt to flavor his meal for the evening. He is presented three choices: McCormick, Lawry’s and It’s Delish. All three are kosher-certified.[9] Similar findings would occur at any of the other local stores in his town. The man needs his salt, but to purchase any of these would impact his religious belief. He even thinks “What would Jesus do?,” and recalls John 2:16 where Jesus said in anger “Stop turning my father’s house into a marketplace!” But today, the marketplace is almost completely supervised by the rabbis. They control the ingredients, oversee the production, make surprise inspections, often install Machgichim (kosher supervisors) on plant sites, close production lines down for 24 hours for Talmud-prescribed cleaning, they even issue kosher alerts and “take corrective action” when companies miss a step. Finally, they collect tax-exempt fees for their services and travel, revenue that is unaccountable to the public. This particular Christian man wants none of this, but he is left no choice if his meat is to be flavored tonight. He could protest, like those many disabled in wheel chairs seeking ramp access, only to be rudely offered stairs to contend with. The ADA bureaucracy and an army of lawyers are prepared to help them. Instead, this lonely man prays to God and asks forgiveness for having to contribute to this growing menace, an infringement on his religious freedom.

Will there ever be legal recourse that mandates NKC access, kosher seal and kosher cost transparency, or reasonable reform on restricting the intersectional religious-secular industry in so much that they impact our liberty?  We must realistically frame such possibilities in this current system with the old saying “Cum Grano Salis.”[10]


[1] Traditional beliefs and practices associated with the Germanic peoples, from before their conversion to Christianity. Since the 1960s, there has been a revival. Different groups use different terms such as Ásatrú, Forn Sed, Fyrnsidu, Irminism, Odalism, Odinism, Theodism, Vanatrú, Wodenism, and Wotanism.

[2] Also “Kashrus”, depending which Jewish denomination is using the term

[3] https://twitter.com/KosChertified/status/1294319305954177025?s=20

[4] Prisoner Bruce Rich actually had his appeal filed by the non-profit organization Becket (whose slogan is “Religious Liberty for All”), which was filed under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), a landmark civil rights law similar to the RFRA. See Rich’s case here: https://www.becketlaw.org/case/rich-v-buss/

[5] https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-383b.html

[6] https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-condemns-dutch-vote-against-kosher-slaughter

[7] Keep in mind that Halal certification is, today, the burgeoning religious industry following in the footsteps of the Kosher agencies. In fact, in the book “From Kosher to Halal: When greed, politics, and the sneaky destruction of Western Civilization intertwine” by author Suzanne Bousquet, she reports on how a leader in a European kosher agency helped start up a halal certifying company. https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/from-kosher-to-halal-suzanne-bousquet/1136379404

[8] https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4891347,00.html

[9] https://twitter.com/KosChertified/status/1417625038824431617?s=20

[10] “Cum Grano Salis”: Latin for “[taken] with a grain of salt”; with skepticism or reservation

Racist Redneck Rapists: Mia’s Macho Murderer and a Clue for Kurt Cobain

If I could’ve offered Kurt Cobain of Nirvana a word of advice before he got himself a Jewish girlfriend in the shape of Courtney Love, it would of course have been: “Don’t!” He was probably doomed anyway, but he might have lasted longer and been much happier without her. Cobain was a fragile soul; Love had all the fragility of a titanium cockroach.

“Psycho hose-beast”

Which is why she’s still here and Cobain has been dead a quarter-century and counting. But Courtney Love wasn’t the only Jew in Cobain’s life or the only Jew benefiting from his goy talent and blond, blue-eyed goy looks. There were also David Geffen at his label DGC and his manager Danny Goldberg, to name but two. Perhaps this helps explain why the legendary producer Steve Albini said: “Every other person involved in the enterprise that is Nirvana, besides the band itself, are pure pieces of shit.” Albini also said that Courtney Love was a “psycho hose-beast” and turned down the chance to earn millions from producer royalties on Nirvana’s In Utero (1993).

Goyishe kop! Cobain himself was what you might call a goy gallimaufry. He had ancestors all over north-Western Europe: Dutch, English, French, German, Irish, and Scottish. But the trouble for goy Cobain wasn’t just that he had lots of Jews around him. He also had lots of Jew inside him — inside his head, to be exact. His rebellious punk politics were standard-issue cultural Marxism, anti-White, anti-male, and anti-Western. After he got successful and won a mass audience, he fretted that unclean ears were listening to his music. And so he scolded crime-thinkers thus in the liner notes of Incesticide (1992): “If any of you in any way hate homosexuals, people of different color, or women, please do this one favor for us — leave us the fuck alone! Don’t come to our shows and don’t buy our records.”

And who were those homo-hating racist misogynists, those central figures in Cobain’s Jew-curated demonology? Rednecks, of course! That’s why he dedicated one live performance of the song “Rape Me” to “hairy, sweaty, macho, redneck men [portentous pause] who rape.”

The redneck raison d’être

Yes, rednecks are racists who rape. Indeed, racism and rape are their raison d’être, as White Leftists like Cobain had learned from films like The Accused (1988), in which blonde, blue-eyed Jodie Foster is gang-raped by three White men. That film was based on a real gang-rape of a White woman, but Jewish Hollywood White-washed (sic) the rapists. In reality, they were dark-skinned Hispanics; on film, they became White. Kurt Cobain probably never knew that and certainly wouldn’t have re-thought his politics if he had. Rednecks are the problem, not “people of different color.” Rednecks are racists who rape. Kurt Cobain knew that and so did his fellow musician Mia Zapata of the Seattle band The Gits.

And Cobain went on knowing it after Zapata was raped and murdered in Seattle on July 7, 1993. Cobain must have thought the still-at-large rapist was a redneck. Who else could it have been? And that racist redneck needed to be caught before he raped-and-murdered again. So Cobain’s band Nirvana played a benefit concert with other anti-redneck bands to raise money for a private investigator. Cobain was dead himself before the money ran out, but I assume that he would have been happy to donate more to the investigation if he’d stayed alive. After all, that hairy redneck was still out there, sweating, raping, and being racist.

The faces of rape #1: Mia Zapata and her rapist-killer Jesus Mezquia

Well, the redneck rapist was finally caught in 2003, thanks to the DNA analysis developed by White scientists who shared ancestry with Kurt Cobain. But the rapist’s neck turned out not to be so red after all. In fact, he was a very dark-skinned Cuban called Jesus Mezquia — exactly the kind of person Kurt Cobain of Nirvana and Mia Zapata of The Gits were so enthusiastic about welcoming into America. Mezquia looks to have had substantial Black ancestry, especially when he’s set beside Mia Zapata. But as a Cuban he was probably entered into the rape and murder statistics as “white” or “Hispanic.”

Vibrant pathology

Even with mislabeling like that, Blacks are undisputed champions of both rape and murder in every Western nation privileged to host them. Various groups of non-Black Muslim also punch well above their demographic weight in such criminal endeavors. And while White-on-vibrant rape is almost non-existent, vibrant-on-White rape is a serious but ignored pathology everywhere from America and Australia to France and Sweden.

Did Mia Zapata finally “git” that unpleasant truth on the last night of her life? Perhaps she didn’t. She tried to walk home alone late at night from a bar in Seattle, caught the eye of the blackneck Jesus Mezquia, and was probably listening to a music-player when he struck from behind. So she may never have realized that her rapist-killer was a non-White victim of racism, not a redneck inflicter of racism.

The faces of rape #2: Morgan Harrington and her rapist-killer Jesse Matthew

If she did realize the truth, I doubt that she had time to reflect that racism would have kept her rapist out of America. The same goes for Morgan Harrington, another young White women who tried to make it home alone in a racially enriched city. She attended a Metallica concert in Charlottesville, VA, on October 17, 2009, and somehow found herself outside the arena. She wasn’t allowed back in (I wonder what color the unsympathetic security guard or guards were?) and tried to get home alone. She caught the eye of a Black called Jesse Matthew and her remains were discovered three months later.

Repairing the World

Morgan Harrington was a lot more attractive than Mia Zapata and her horrible ending was more unjust. Although she was probably misled and manipulated by the anti-White Jewsmedia just like Zapata, she was just an ordinary white woman, not a politically active White musician collaborating with the great Jewish project of Tikkun Olam, or “Repairing the World” by allowing non-Whites to flood into the West.

Whatever her politics, Morgan Harrington became yet another example of how White nations face a simple choice. We can have racism or rapism. That is, we can have pro-White governments that end mass immigration and begin to repatriate non-Whites. Or we can have more of what we’ve already had for decades: non-Whites raping us, murdering us, and eating our taxes.

Enemies, not amigos

Kurt Cobain didn’t “git” the simple choice of racism or rapism. And even if he’d lived to see the true face of Mia Zapata’s killer, I doubt he ever would have got it. Jesus Mezquia wasn’t a hairy, sweaty, racist redneck. And the odds were never good that he would be. But he was definitely macho. It’s a Hispanic word, after all, and that should have given Kurt Cobain a clue.

And if he’d thought a little more, he might even have realized that the many Jews in his life were his enemies, not his amigos.

William H. Regnery II: In Memoriam

Bill Regnery died on July 2 of this year at the age of 80. He was a morally upright man, proud of his family with its long history of involvement in conservative politics going back to his grandfather, who was a founding member of the America First Committee that attempted to keep America out of World War II and whose spokesman was Charles Lindbergh. Lindbergh was seen as an anti-Semite for (truthfully) calling attention to Jewish involvement in promoting the war and for noting Jewish influence on the media, most famously in a speech on September 11, 1941 (discussed here, p. viii ff). I never discussed with Bill how his forebears viewed Jewish influence, but Bill was definitely aware of its importance in understanding politics and culture in America.

Perhaps his most lasting contribution was founding in 2001 the Charles Martel Society, named after the Frankish king who defeated a Muslim army at the Battle of Tours in 732, likely saving Western civilization and its unique genetic and cultural profile. The name of the society is a good indication of Bill’s attitudes on the central issue of preserving the West. The CMS has never shied away from discussing Jewish influence, and Bill was a regular attendee and sometime speaker at their annual conferences, until attendance became impossible because of declining health. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversations at these meetings. He was very intelligent, well read, and deeply committed to the cause of preserving White America and the West in general.

The CMS is the publisher of The Occidental Quarterly: Western Perspectives on Man, Culture, and Politics, which I edit. The journal is now in its twentieth year of continuous publication of scholarly articles. The best way to honor Bill’s memory would be to subscribe to TOQ if you haven’t already. It comes as no surprise that TOQ has been de-platformed from credit card processing, which has resulted in problems with recurrent subscriptions. But we are absolutely determined to keep TOQ going. It’s the least we can do for Bill and for the cause generally.

Bill’s passing makes us once again aware of the importance of money in activism of any kind. Perhaps the biggest problem we have is that the mega-rich billionaires are mainly on the left, with some few on the mainstream (worthless, often counter-productive) conservative right. The political contributions of the very wealthy Jewish community are legendary, and none will ever go to the causes Bill supported. Bill understood the importance of money in creating a movement, and he did what he could. One can only hope that someone will step up into the vacuum created by his passing.

On July 17, James Edwards devoted an hour of his regular Saturday night Political Cesspool program to remembering Bill, along with Sam Dickson, Jared Taylor, and me. It’s well worth listening to.

Bill’s last bit of writing appeared on TOO on August 30, 2020. He was already in declining health — I guess we all knew it wouldn’t be long. He did all he could do for the cause—which we should all hope is said about each of us after we die. He will be missed.


Surviving the Contemporary Black Racial and White Intra-Racial Conflict: Anti-Millenarian Whites Must Seek Political Separation

In 1946 Winston Churchill delivered a speech at a small college in Fulton Missouri that offered this prescient analysis: “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an ‘iron curtain’ has descended across the continent.” This Soviet invasion made a prison out of the entire area for half a century. Dissenters were severely punished.

Without notice or debate, a similar regimen of speech control is descending on North America, from Bar Harbor, Maine on the Bay of Fundy to Nome, Alaska on the Arctic Ocean, and south to the Rio Grande and the Straits of Florida.

Political correctness, a phrase used almost playfully in the 1990s, has morphed into the viciousness and moral smugness of our current cancel culture, replacing the spirit of the First Amendment. By way of example, I offer the following observation from an early victim of cancel culture, my friend the late Sam Francis.

“The civilization that we as whites created in Europe and America could not have developed apart from the genetic endowments of the creating people, nor is there any reason to believe that the civilization can be successfully transmitted to a different people.”

Comments like this led to Francis being fired from his position as columnist for the Washington Times in 1995 and put him into media purgatory and economic distress until his premature death 10 years later.

Sam’s proposition makes no moral distinctions and is not much more than a paean to what in reality is his extended family. In the same context the creating people of Great Zimbabwe were Bantus, the creating people of China were Han, and the creating people of the Inca Empire were Quechuas. If, instead of making a claim about the racial origins of Europe and America, Sam had instead substituted any of these other peoples into his statement, it would have been equally plausible but would not have resulted in Sam’s discharge.

The frenzy to stigmatize any mention of genetics especially as playing a role in the development of White civilization began early in the twentieth century, essentially eradicating what had been a robust intellectual exchange based on the reality of race and the idea that there are important racial differences in behavior around the world. This anti-biologism came to dominate academic thinking after World War II and has become a bedrock attitude among those who are now labeled progressives. Such thinking is woven into contemporary intellectual tapestry; it is taught throughout the school system from elementary school through the university, and it characterizes  entire mainstream media landscape. Among its White adherents, it has assumed a millenarian vision of a utopian future free from all racial conflict—the same sort of millenarianism that has characterized the moral crusades of the past, from the Civil War to World War II, to our contemporary regime-change wars in the Middle East.

Susan Sontag proclaimed “The white race is the cancer of human history.” If we limit her universe to the U.S., I’d say that she was about 40% right as this was the Hillary Clinton fraction of the White vote in the 2016 presidential election. This means that the remaining 60% of White voters represent our side of the family—at least potentially.

One birthday short of becoming an octogenarian, I charge the dissident right with the mission to  begin the intergenerational process of founding an independent political jurisdiction in which anti-millenarian whites can gather, regroup and flourish. Along the way we will support other races with  the same aspiration.

To this end,  we must extract our side of the family from the embrace of the “White millenarians” who are yet intent on imposing their heretical notion of equality on Earth as it art in Heaven —even though the misery from such tampering with human nature abounds in history and has been particularly evident in the recent past.

Our goal must be a Bohemian Divorce of mutual self determination as deliberate and bloodless as the split between the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 1993. To this end there is long standing precedent which stretches back to the founding of the Republic when separation was recognized as a humane means  of resolving ethnic and racial conflicts and sovereign tracts of land were ceded to indigenes.

Once separation is established, the internal political arrangements are less important than the maintenance of a unifying ethos by enforcing a variant of the Amish practice of Rumpspringa. This exercise encourages youthful apostates to leave the commonwealth before achieving citizenship.  So that a mistake of inclusion is not immutable, I recommend making exile a part of the criminal and civil code, directed at those who are in fundamental disagreement with the ideal of a separate White community. Such a provision could also be used to correct immigration blunders.

We have entered very dangerous times for Whites in America. The  summer riots of 2020 carried out with the blessing of much of the Establishment and the entire left is a clear indication that the American racial experiment is careening toward disaster. Whites need a separate political jurisdiction.

William H. Regnery II is the founder of the Charles Martel Society.