Featured Articles

Blond Hair, Blue Eyes:  Some Thoughts on the Aryan Ideal

What is beauty?  Specifically, what is it to be a beautiful person?  This has long been considered one of those imponderable questions, akin to asking about the meaning of life.  But this does not mean that we cannot have a valuable and substantive discussion.  Beauty, of course, is partly subjective, but it is also partly universal.  There are good reasons, biological reasons, for this.  Hence we can make a meaningful inquiry into the matter.  This, despite the fact that discussing beauty in the context of the White race is politically incorrect in the extreme.  Western political elites are currently doing all they can to push the supposed virtues of dark-skin aesthetics, and to offset or displace any visible presence of White beauty.  Despite this, they will fail—for good biological reasons.

When we observe peoples all around the world, we find at least one thing in common:  people everywhere value lightness.  People want light-skinned partners, light-skinned children, and they do everything possible to lighten their own skin.  Skin-whitening is big business globally, growing from around $8 billion to nearly $12 billion within the next few years.  (I set aside for the moment the desire of Whites for a tanned-body look; this is a special case that I will examine later.)  Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians all seek light skin, either of their own races or of the truly White-skinned north Europeans.  Along with this come ancillary values:  blond hair and blue eyes.  People of dark-skinned races frequently dye or lighten their hair, wear blond wigs or hairpieces, and otherwise employ various tactics to appear light-haired or blondish.  Blond hair is indeed rare; only around 5% of White adults are naturally blond.  And yet, some 60% to 70% of White women dye their hair blond at some point.

Blue eyes are more common, existing in something like a quarter of White Americans and perhaps half of White Britons.  And they do appear in many other racial groups; approximately 10% of all humans globally have some shade of blue eyes.  The percentage is highest, unsurprisingly, in the Scandinavian countries, where up to 90% are blue.  As with blond hair, blue eyes are almost universally seen as attractive.  We can rest assured, if there was some way to change eye color as there is with hair, millions would do it.

It is striking, then, that these universally-accepted qualities of beauty derive from, and primarily reside in, Whites of northern Europe.  The White race, it seems, contains within itself the global standard of beauty.  Whites could indeed be justifiably seen as the most beautiful race in the world.  This fact should be a source of pride for Whites everywhere, something they should never want to hide or diminish.

And yet, in our PC world of today, we are not allowed to speak this way.  It sounds far too “supremacist,” far too “racist,” for sensitive ears.  Our media and academic elites are far more concerned that the races and ethnicities lacking such qualities—virtually all blacks, and the vast majority of Arabs, Hispanics, Asians, and Jews—might “feel bad” if we highlight or praise White beauty, so they do everything conceivable to accentuate black, dark brown, and mulatto characteristics.  The result is that White beauty is disparaged, and the world everywhere becomes that much uglier.

One might ask:  Why is this even important?  Why the emphasis on blueness of eye color?  Or on blond hair?  Are such things just “pretty”?  And even if they are, why do so many people find blue eyes and blond hair attractive—as they undeniably do?  These are pregnant questions.  I will argue here that such features are not “just” appealing; or rather, they are appealing for very real and consequential reasons.  In this essay, I want to examine a number of diverse but related aspects of the blond-haired, blue-eyed ideal—an ideal that also goes by such names as ‘Nordic,’ ‘Scandinavian,’ and more controversially, ‘Aryan.’  Let’s first start by taking a look at the physiology of the Aryan people.

The Science of ‘Aryanism’

The Aryans have an interesting history, no doubt.  Consider the basic etymology involved here.  The root of the word, arya, is Sanskrit.  Originally, circa 2000 BC, it meant simply speakers of Sanskrit language; later it became associated with the lighter-skinned peoples of central Asia.  Due to their superior abilities and intelligence, and capacity for culture-building, the term ‘Aryan’ became synonymous with ‘the best’ or ‘the noble.’  As they expanded southward and eastward, they became the dominant ruling people.  In this sense, the Aryans are indeed rulers or masters of others; but it was by dint of their superior skills, intelligence, and morality.  In a way, it was a justly-earned dominance.

Scientists today almost uniformly avoid all talk of Aryans, preferring to reserve that term for linguistic and perhaps cultural groups of people.  And of course, the Nazi association makes the term largely taboo, in any case.  But science, thankfully, has the power to overcome taboos.  Recent scientific research has shed new light on the biological and historical origins of the light-skinned people of the north.

Let’s take the long view for a moment.  The human legacy goes back at least 7 million years, to the earliest appearance of the genera Australopithecus and Ardipithecus.  These were not yet of the genus Homo—‘human’—which would appear only around 2.5 million years ago.  But they were proto-humans, and were our common link to chimpanzees, who are our closest genetic relatives.  These proto-humans were, like modern chimps, fully hair-covered, with silky black hair.  Their skin, though, was light—even white.  Even today, if we were to shave bare a chimpanzee, he would be white.  The biological reasons for this are clear:  dark skin, like dark hair, is an evolved characteristic to protect from strong sun.  The dark pigmentation comes from melanin, which exists in two forms:  eumelanin and pheomelanin.  The former has a dark brown tone, the latter reddish.  The amount and combination of these two determine the actual color of one’s skin, hair, and eyes.  Functionally, melanin protects the body, the eyes, and specifically the DNA from damage by intense ultraviolet solar radiation.  It can be produced in a short-term and temporary manner, as in tanning, but over millennia, it can come to be a genetically-heritable, and thus “permanent,” change in skin tone or hair or eye color.

Melanin production, though, is biologically costly.  It takes effort and energy for the body to produce and maintain melanin, something it would rather not do, so to speak.  Having evolved in the equatorial regions of central Africa, proto-humans would have needed to incur the cost of heavy melanin production in their hair and eyes—but not their skin, being fully hair-covered.  Hence they, like modern chimps, would have had white skin, black hair, and dark brown eyes.

By around 2 million years ago, the first humans began to appear, in the form of Homo habilis and Homo ergaster.  They started to walk upright and to run, and perhaps as result, began to lose body hair—when the thermal cost became too high.  (Rather like wearing a fur coat in summer.)  But shedding hair exposed the skin.  Thus, melanin production increased, and our skin became black.

Black-skinned early humans migrated into Eurasia around 1.8 million years ago, and as they moved north, likely experienced a lightening of their skin.  They would have first travelled through the Middle East, at about 30 or 35 degrees north latitude, and then on into Europe, at 45 or 50 degrees north.  There is a substantially weaker sun at such latitudes, and thus within a few thousand years, humans would have gradually lost melanin—in skin, in hair, and in eyes.  In a sense, human skin began to revert to its evolutionary natural tone—white.

In the North, something else happened:  humans first experienced winter.  That is, cold weather, ice, and snow.  As black Africans, we had no evolutionary experience with such things; but now, these intrepid northerners needed to adapt:  to stay warm, to cook and preserve food, and to build suitable shelters.  The intellectual and cognitive burden increased, and undoubtedly this new evolutionary pressure pushed us to think more, to think in more sophisticated ways, and thus to have more-evolved brain functions.  It also increased the need to cooperate, to trust one’s neighbors, and to create reliable and durable social networks.  In short, the northerners became more sociable, and they became smarter.[1]

Today we have evidence of light-skinned, ‘white’ people that lived in the Middle East around 25,000 years ago.  (Undoubtedly they existed long before that, but we lack the evidence to prove it.)  A separate group of humans apparently entered Europe via Spain around 19,000 years ago, and we have evidence that they had bluish eyes; this is our earliest indication that eye color had begun to lighten, upon reaching 40 degrees latitude or so.  (I note here that hominid eyes are “naturally” blue, that is, when lacking the protective melanin.  Blue is not a pigment or color per se, not like a ‘dye,’ but rather simply the absence of the darkening melanin.)

As people pressed further north into central Eurasia—say, above 50 degrees north latitude—skin and eyes would have naturally continued to lighten, and eventually the hair as well.  About the same time as bluish eyes appeared in Spain, blondish hair began to appear in north-central Asia.  By 8,000 BC, the ‘westerners’ that had come up through Spain, and the ‘easterners’ that came via the Middle East, met and began to interbreed in north-central Europe.  These people, now called Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherers, would have had all-white skin and a predominance of blue eyes and blond hair.  A final wave of immigrants, the Yamnaya, arrived around 3,000 BC; as they blended into the existing hunter-gatherers and began to settle into fixed agricultural communities, they formed the core of modern-day north Europeans.  These people, circa 3,000 BC, would have been the first true Aryans.  Over the next 2,000 years, they would come to dominate the scene in all of north-central Europe.

The result is striking, even today, and especially in the Nordic countries—those that lie above 55 or 60 degrees latitude.  I have spent some time in these countries in recent years, and the predominance of very blond people, especially blond women, is obvious.  (Women tend to have lighter blond hair than men, and children more than adults due to relative lack of testosterone.)  In my travels, it was not uncommon to see groups of three or four college-aged women, all of whom had long, flowing, pure blond hair.  I have seen young children with astonishingly blond hair—so depigmented as to be almost white.  They almost appear as albinos, but of course they are not.  The effect of the sun on human appearance and human genetics is truly amazing.[2]

Divine Northerners

For all of recorded history, people have told myths and stories of others living in the far-off lands of the north.  These would have been based on actual experience with these mysterious and striking people, some of whom would have traveled south.  Hardened to the rigorous climate, intrepid, smart, and able to construct civilizations and cultures, it is no wonder that such people took on a mythic quality.  And their striking physical appearance came to be the visible sign of such a noble personage.  In this way, blue eyes, blondness, and very white skin came to be seen as good, rare, desirable, and beautiful—perhaps divinely-inspired, perhaps godly.[3]

When it came to formalizing the official gods and myths of the various European cultures, then, it is unsurprising to find that the southern Europeans, in particular, would construct their gods and heroes in the image of these divine northerners.  This is reflected, very explicitly, in their writings.  Consider, for example, the incomparably important writings of Homer—the Iliad and the Odyssey, circa 800 BC.[4]

When we review the Iliad for relevant references, we find around 15 mentions of light-colored hair.  Most of these are applied to the Spartan king Menelaus, but also to the gods Apollo and Demeter, to the demigod hero Achilles, and to the figures of Meleager and the woman Agamede.  In all cases, Homer uses the same Greek word: xanthos.  Formally, xanthos means ‘yellow’ or ‘bright’, as in our English word ‘xanthic’ (“of, or relating to, a yellow color”).  Technically, every usage by Homer of xanthos should be translated as ‘blond.’  But, for poetic effect, the various translators of Homer have chosen a variety of related terms and phrases.  Thus, for example, we find reference to the “fiery hair” of Apollo (1.235), the “golden hair” of Meleager (2.737), the “red-haired Menelaus” (3.338), “blond Demeter” (5.575), “blond Agamede” (11.880), and the “red-gold” hair of Achilles (23.162)—all xanthos.  And this, in a single translator’s edition![5]

One also finds other translated references to “fair hair,” which we might presume to mean ‘blond.’  But in these instances, Homer uses the word eukomos, which literally means “good hair.”  This, of course, need not be blond, so we are left with an uncertain picture in mind.

Regarding light-colored or blue eyes, we find in the Iliad a single reference:  in Chapter One, Homer refers to the goddess Athena and her “clear grey eyes.”  In Greek, the word is glaukopis—literally, blue or blue-green (glaukon) eyes.  More often today we might refer to someone with “steel-blue” eyes, which is more flattering than “grey”—but the point is the same.

In the Odyssey, we find fewer references to xanthos hair (e.g., the “yellow locks” or “russet curls” of Odysseus [13.455]), but more to the glaukopis of Athena (e.g. 2.424, 2.475, 13.325).  In all there are about half as many such references as in the Iliad.  But notably, in both works, the characteristic features belong to gods, goddesses, and heroes.  They are clearly marks of distinction and noble birth.

Homer’s contemporary, Hesiod, makes a handful of similar references in his much-shorter Theogony.  There we find four mentions of the glaukopis of Athena (lines 10, 575, 890, and 924), and he also writes of the “xanthos Ariadne” (line 950), presumably meaning her hair.  He then adds one new term:  khrusokomes, or ‘golden-haired.’  This is applied to the god Dionysus (line 950).

Other such ‘Aryan’ references would follow in subsequent centuries.  Around 525 BC, the philosopher Xenophanes examined the customs of the Thracian people—modern-day Bulgarians, roughly.  He wrote that “their gods are blue-eyed (glaukos) and red-haired (pyrros)”.[6]  The use of the word pyrros—from pyr, ‘fire’—is interesting; the gods no doubt had “fiery-red hair.”

Into the 400s BC, two great lyric poets of the ancient world, Pindar and Bacchylides, made several relevant references.  In Pindar we find mention of the xanthos Graces, xanthos Achilles, xanthos Danaans, khrusokomes Apollo, xanthos Menelaus, and for the first time ever, xanthos Athena—blond gods and heroes all.[7]  Regarding blue eyes, Pindar makes only three such mentions, all of the glaukopis of Athena.[8]  For his part, Bacchylides writes of xanthos Briseis, xanthos Athena, khrusokomes Apollo, khrusean Aphrodite, the surprisingly xanthai Spartans, and more generally of “the mortal men who crown their golden (xanthan) hair.”[9]  Bacchylides makes no reference to the blueness or greyness of anyone’s eyes.

Pindar, furthermore, was among the first to give the mysterious blond and blue-eyed northerners a name; he called them Hyperboreans.  This name means, literally, those dwelling beyond (hyper) the north winds (boreas).  His first and oldest ode (Pythian 10), circa 498 BC, provides an extended and fascinating account of these people:

Neither by ship nor on foot could you find the marvelous road to the meeting-place of the Hyperboreans.  Once Perseus, the leader of his people, entered their homes and feasted among them, when he found them sacrificing glorious hecatombs of donkeys to the god.  In the festivities of those people and in their praises, Apollo rejoices most, and he laughs when he sees the outright arrogance of the beasts.  The Muse is not absent from their customs; all around swirl the dances of girls, the lyre’s loud chords, and the cries of flutes.  They wreathe their hair with golden laurel branches and revel joyfully.  No sickness or ruinous old age is mixed into that sacred race; without toil or battles, they live without fear of strict Nemesis.  Breathing boldness of spirit, the son of Danae [Perseus] once went to that gathering of blessed men, and Athena led him there.  (lines 29-46)[10]

The Hyperboreans are thus beloved by the gods, happy and joyful, full of life, and free from pain and strife.  They are, indeed, a “sacred race” (hiera genea).

Sometime around 425 BC, the great historian Herodotus issued his classic text, Histories.  There he discusses the characteristics of many peoples and nations across the known world, including those of the Budinians, who were marked by their glaukos eyes and pyrron hair (4.108).  The specific location of these people is unclear, but they apparently hailed from just north of the Black Sea, in the southern part of modern-day Ukraine, an area identified as the original staging ground for the Indo-Europeans/Aryans on the basis of recent population genetic research.

Notably, Herodotus too elaborated on the Hyperboreans.  In his same work, he details a story of two Hyperborean girls who travelled south bearing gifts for the Greeks, only to end up dead in Delos—accident or murder, we are not sure.  A portion of his tale is as follows:

Concerning the Hyperborean people, neither the Scythians nor any other inhabitants of these lands tell us anything, except perhaps the Issedones. …  But Hesiod speaks of Hyperboreans, and Homer too in his poem The Heroes’ Sons, if that is truly the work of Homer.[11]

But the Delians say much more about them than any others do.  They say that offerings wrapped in straw are brought from the Hyperboreans to Scythia; when these have passed Scythia, each nation in turn receives them from its neighbors until they are carried to the Adriatic Sea, which is the most westerly limit of their journey; from there, they are brought on to the south, the people of Dodona being the first Greeks to receive them.  From Dodona they come down to the Melian gulf, and [ultimately] to Delos.  Thus, they say, these offerings come to Delos.

But on the first journey, the Hyperboreans sent two maidens bearing the offerings, to whom the Delians give the names Hyperoche and Laodice, and five men of their people with them as escort for safe conduct. …  But when those whom they sent never returned, they took it amiss that they should be condemned always to be sending people and not getting them back, and so they carry the offerings, wrapped in straw, to their borders, and tell their neighbors to send them on from their own country to the next. …  I know that they do this.  The Delian girls and boys cut their hair in honor of these Hyperborean maidens, who died at Delos…  In this way, then, these maidens are honored by the inhabitants of Delos. …

I have said enough of the Hyperboreans.  I won’t tell the story of Abaris, alleged to be a Hyperborean, who carried an arrow over the whole world, fasting all the while.  But if there are men beyond the north wind, then there are others beyond the south.  (4.32–36)

Not quite the “sacred race” of Pindar, but still a people portrayed as generous, noble, and exceptional.[12]

By the late BC and early AD period, Roman writers were making note of the same distinctive qualities.  Horace (23 BC) describes one Pyrrha in terms of her flavam comae—blond hair.  And he speaks of a Phyllis as having similarly flavae hair.[13]  In 100 AD, the great Roman historian Tacitus, in his highly consequential discussion of the Germanic people, refers to their caerulei oculi (“fiery blue eyes”) and their rutilae comae (“red hair”).  Two decades later, in his Satire 13, and speaking of the same people, Juvenal deployed the terms caerula and flavam to refer to the Germans’ blue eyes and (now) blond hair.  These were the first explicit historical connections between Germanism and Aryanism.

Such were the views of the ancient world.  Little changed, biologically, over the next two millennia, given that there were no major waves of migrations, nor yet any high-speed transport that would have enabled rapid population movement.  During this time, the superior Europeans set about creating Western civilization, advancing technology, and creating art and culture on an unprecedented scale.  Into the mid-nineteenth century, Aryanism had gained scientific credibility, and was taken mainstream by such men as Arthur de Gobineau, most notably in his Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races (1853).  Some decades later, Houston Chamberlain’s influential work Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (1899) further advanced the Aryan thesis.  Chamberlain placed particular emphasis on the Aryan-Germanic peoples who, he argued, had been responsible for the most significant advances in Western culture.  It was this belief in German superiority that led him to join the National Socialist party early on; Chamberlain was in fact a great supporter and advocate of Hitler, until his death in 1927.

It was via such men as Chamberlain and, later, Hitler and Alfred Rosenberg, that the concept of ‘Aryan’ became so closely associated with ‘Nazism.’  Thus it was that both the culture-building, idealistic Aryan and the Nordic-Scandinavian blue-eyed blond aesthetic were blended into the overall National Socialist worldview—for good or bad.  From then on, the Aryan ideal of beauty was stained with the supposed Nazi conception of a master race.  I will address this whole topic in a follow-up essay.

Closing Thoughts

What is the legacy of all this today?  Firstly, I think it shows that the Nordic/Aryan aesthetic is not just a matter of “good looks.”  It is a reflection of a long genetic history in northern climates, and is a parallel marker with several positive human qualities:  creative, trusting, culture-building, sociable, intelligent.  The same evolutionary forces that gave people blond hair, blue eyes, and white skin also gave them a number of salutary virtues.

Second, it marks a sharp contrast with the popular, Jewish/Hollywood image of mixed races, Blacks, Asians, mulattos, and generally “people of color.”  Jewish Hollywood wants to foist on Americans—and the whole world—an ideal of random race-mixing.  They do this via many images and storylines that simultaneously promote racial mixing and disparage White ideals, especially the classic Aryan/Nordic aesthetic.

For example, Hollywood loves to play up the “dumb blonde” stereotype.  Blondes are ok, but they have to be stupid, or naïve, or superficial.  But as a factual matter, this seems to be untrue.  In fact, there is some data for the contrary.  In an interesting paper from 2016 titled “Are Blondes Really Dumb?,” author Jay Zagorsky draws from a large national database to show that “blonde women have a higher mean IQ than women with brown, red, and black hair.”  Furthermore, blondes “are more likely classified as geniuses” than people of other hair colors.  The differences were more pronounced among women than men.[14]

Additionally, there is an old study—from almost 100 years ago—that argues for a similar result.  Professor G. Estabrooks compiled data on nearly 1,000 boys and girls, ranging in age from 9 to 16.  Based on a coarse sorting between “light” and “dark” hair, the light-haired children had an average IQ of 109, versus 106 for the dark-haired.  He also looked at correlation with eye color, and by this measure, the blue-eyed group had an average of 109, versus 105 for the brown-eyed.[15]  Obviously we would need further data to draw firm conclusions, but indications are that the ancient Aryan advantage has carried down, in some degree, to the present day.

And then we can look at entire nations.  Not long ago, Lynn and Meisenberg (2010) calculated average IQs for 108 countries.  Looking just within Europe, we find a significant difference between the four Nordic nations (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark) and, for example, four south-European nations (Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal); the former average 99, and latter 95.  Not a huge difference, but still significant.[16]  Once again, this is in line with our expectations.

Thus is my brief study of Aryan beauty.  I have no grand and glorious conclusions to offer, other than the simple observation that beauty matters.  Physical appearance is an expression of one’s genetic inheritance, and thus reflects the kind of person one is.  The same genes that give a certain physical appearance also give a certain state of mind, certain behavioral tendencies, and certain motivations and values.  Beauty is not just “skin deep,” as our PC crowd like to say.  Beauty matters.

Classic markers of White, Aryan beauty have been valued for millennia, and this likely was for very real, very objective, and very evolutionary reasons.  The blue-eyed blonds were smarter, more skilled, more industrious, and more robust.  They were more creative.  They were idealistic and altruistic.  They knew how to build and sustain civilizations.  They were, in short, better people.

Jews and leftist liberals don’t want to hear any of this—especially Jews, who are notably lacking in blond hair, blue eyes, and Aryan personality traits.  For leftists and Jews, everyone is “equal.”  For them, skin tone is little more than a biological paint, laid over a physical body that is otherwise identical in all humans.  This is sheer nonsense.  Privately, Jews know this, of course; but outwardly they all maintain a façade of egalitarianism because this significantly aids their cause among the Gentile majority.  When you are a Jewish supremacist, it is best to make outward proclamations of equality even as you project supremacist thinking onto your primary opponents, Aryans and Whites.

Whites everywhere need to relearn about their own glorious legacy and to regain an appreciation for their outstanding physical and intellectual virtues.  As a whole, Whites are the most beautiful, most productive, and most virtuous race on the planet.  This is acknowledged, directly and indirectly, in a million different ways, by people all across the Earth.  We are indeed “children of the gods,” as Plato proclaimed.  We are indeed a “sacred race,” as Pindar recognized.  We need to cast off those who would denigrate and debase us, reestablish our long-lost sense of self-confidence, and reclaim our rightful place in the world community.

===================================

Thomas Dalton, PhD, has authored or edited several books and articles on politics, history, and religion, with a special focus on National Socialism in Germany.  His works include a new translation series of Mein Kampf, and the books Eternal Strangers (2020), The Jewish Hand in the World Wars (2019), and Debating the Holocaust (4th ed, 2020).  Most recently he has edited a new edition of Rosenberg’s classic work Myth of the 20th Century and a new book of political cartoons, Pan-Judah!.  All these are available at www.clemensandblair.com.  See also his personal website www.thomasdaltonphd.com.


[1] Today this is known as the ‘Cold Winters Thesis’.  See, for example, “Only in America: Cold Winters Theory, race, IQ, and well-being” (B. Pesta and P. Poznanski, 2014), Intelligence 46; and R. Lynn, Race Differences in Intelligence (2015).  This idea is sometimes viewed as a modern reactionary theory, but in fact it goes back at least to Arthur Schopenhauer.  In 1851, he said

Only after man propagated his stock during a long period of time outside his natural [African] habitat between the tropics and extended it…into the more frigid zones, did he become fair and finally white. …  The highest civilization and culture, apart from the ancient Hindus and Egyptians, are found exclusively among the white races. …  All this is due to the fact that necessity is the mother of invention because those tribes that emigrated early to the north, and there gradually became white, had to develop all their intellectual powers and invent and perfect all the arts in their struggle with need, want, and misery, which in their many forms were brought about by the climate.  This they had to do in order to make up for the parsimony of nature, and out of it all came their high civilization. (Parerga and Paralipomena, vol. 2, Oxford University Press, pp. 157-159).

[2] In notable contrast to the native Scandinavians are the imported black African and Middle-Eastern “refugees” that are now quite visible in all major cities there.  One cannot help but feel that there is something profoundly anti-natural about this situation, that somehow these recent immigrants simply do not belong there.  It feels like a crime against nature.

[3] This, in fact, was exactly Plato’s view.  In his Republic we find a passage in which he is discussing various physical attributes of boys and young men, including skin tone.  Some boys are swarthy and dark-toned, but “the pale ones are children of the gods (leukous de theōn paidas einai)” (474d).

[4] We believe that Homer lived sometime around 800 BC in the region called Ionia, comprising the far west coast of modern-day Turkey.  This area had been part of the Greek proto-empire since at least the 1000s BC.

[5] Robert Fagles’ translation (1990).  The line numberings of Fagles are slightly different than other translations, unfortunately.

[6] Fragment 3, from Clement, Miscellanies.

[7] Source information:  xanthos Graces (Nem 5.55), xanthos Achilles (Nem 3.45), xanthos Danaans (Nem 9.15), khrusokomes Apollo (Olym 6.42; Pyth 2.15; Olym 7.34; Isth 7.49), xanthos Menelaus (Nem 7.30), and, xanthos Athena (Nem 10.8).

[8] Source information: Nem 7.30; Olym 7.34; Nem 10.8.  Note:  If Athena is now both blond-haired and blue-eyed, she is surely the definitive Aryan goddess.

[9] Source information:  xanthos Briseis (Ode 13.135), xanthos Athena (Ode 5.90), khrusokomes Apollo (Ode 4.1), khrusean Aphrodite (Ode 9.70), xanthai Spartans (Ode 20.1), and “the mortal men who crown their golden (xanthan) hair” (Ode 9.20).

[10] Further brief references to Hyperboreans occur in Isthmian 6 (circa 484 BC) and Olympian 3 (circa 476 BC).

[11] Any such references by Hesiod or Homer are lost to history.

[12] I note in passing that no less a figure than Nietzsche was evidently inspired by this same northern people.  At the very beginning of his landmark essay Antichrist, he states “We are Hyperboreans.”  “We”—Nietzsche and his followers—intellectually dwell among the ice and snow, far away from the comfortable, complacent, so-called civilized people; “we know very well how far off we live,” he says.

[13] In Odes 1.5 and 2.4, respectively.

[14] In Economics Bulletin, 36(1): 401-410 (2016).

[15] “Intelligence and pigmentation of hair and eyes in elementary school children,” American Journal of Psychology 41(1): 106-108 (1929).

[16] “National IQs calculated and validated for 108 nations,” Intelligence 38:353-360 (2010).  Particularly striking is a comparison of ‘light-skinned nations’ with ‘dark-skinned nations.’  But I will leave this for another time.

Jewface and the Under-Race: Inferior Whites Cannot Play Roles Belonging to their Racial Superiors

If you want to understand the leftists of the twenty-first century, you won’t find a better guide than a writer who died more than seventy years ago. George Orwell (1903–50) exposed the psychology and tactics of leftism in his two greatest books. In Nineteen Eighty-Four (1948), he satirized the way leftists practise the opposite of what they preach: “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation.”

Preaching equality, practising hierarchy

And in Animal Farm (1945), he satirized the dishonesty and deceit of leftist rhetoric: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In other words, Orwell saw that leftists are not serious about the sacred leftist principle of equality. It is merely a slogan, a rhetorical smoke-screen beneath which they advance towards their real aims: privilege for their favoured groups, enslavement for their enemies. In 2022 a leftist children’s writer called Jacqueline Wilson has adapted Orwell’s joke from Animal Farm. But Wilson is perfectly serious when she makes one of her female characters say: “In the modern world girls are just as clever as boys, and sometimes cleverer.”

In other words, men and women are equal, but women are more equal than men. The same applies to Whites and non-Whites. In leftism, all races are equal, but some races are more equal than others. That is, some races are superior to others. Or rather, all races are superior except one. Whites are now cast in the role of under-race and portrayed as the greatest villains, thieves and exploiters in history, sickeningly and supremely responsible for the horrors of racism, slavery and genocide. That’s why White actors are now banned from taking any non-White role, while non-Whites are free to take any White role they please. It’s a question of racial privilege, something that leftists claim to oppose but in fact wish to re-create and reinforce. This time, however, Whites are on the bottom of the racial hierarchy.

Transgenderism is good, transracialism is bad

That’s why it’s very interesting that some Jews are now calling for an end to “Jewface,” or the casting of White actors in Jewish roles. The term “Jewface” is an adaptation of “blackface,” which referred to the way White actors blackened their faces to play Black characters. For example, the British actor Laurence Olivier (1907-89) used blackface in his acclaimed performance as the traditionally Black protagonist of Shakespeare’s play Othello (c. 1603). Olivier triumphed in many Shakespearean roles and is still widely regarded as the greatest actor of modern times. But none of that—his prodigious talent, his praeternatural charisma, his passionate devotion to Shakespeare—matters any more. Olivier’s blackface Othello is now regarded as an abomination that must never be repeated.

But leftists don’t explain exactly why White actors are now banned from Black roles, just as they don’t explain why transgenderism is good, while transracialism is bad. For leftists, men can literally become women by proclaiming that they are so, but Whites cannot become Blacks by proclaiming that they are so. Why the difference? I think I’ve explained it in articles like “Power to the Perverts!” and “The Tyranny of Translunacy.” It’s a question of higher and lower status within leftism. Those belonging to a group with higher status can invade the territory of a group with lower status, but not vice versa. Transwomen—the variously disturbed and perverted men who claim to be women—have cleverly marketed themselves as a persecuted and vulnerable minority akin to homosexuals. They therefore have higher status in leftism than the ordinary women whose territory they want to invade.

Disassociating Jews from the “white under-race”

But “transblacks”—those Whites who claim to be Black—cannot market themselves as of higher status than Blacks. They’re White and therefore belong to an under-race with the lowest status of all. That’s why leftists anathematize White-to-Black transracialism. Whites cannot invade Black territory, because Whites are inferior to Blacks. However, Blacks can invade White territory whenever they please, therefore Black actors can take any White role. A Black actress has played the White queen Anne Boleyn; Black actors have played White heroes like Achilles and Galahad; and the heavily promoted Netflix series Bridgerton has filled early nineteenth-century England with elegant and intelligent Black aristocrats. What’s forbidden for Whites is celebrated for Blacks. Leftists don’t openly explain why this double-standard exists, because they don’t want to admit that they’re creating a racial hierarchy with Whites at the bottom. If they admitted that, they would alert ordinary Whites to the worse things that lie ahead. Leftists want to enslave ordinary Whites and leave them completely at the mercy of increasingly vicious and resentful non-White criminals.

Maureen Lipman plays an oppressed minority

I think that’s why some Jews are now campaigning against “Jewface.” They want to disassociate Jews from the White under-race and establish Jews openly as a privileged non-White minority, allied with the other minorities whom, in Jewish-leftist propaganda, Whites have oppressed so cruelly for so long. In the UK, the Jewish actress Maureen Lipman has complained that the gentile actress Helen Mirren should not have played the role of the Jewish prime minister Golda Meir (1898–1978) in the forthcoming film Golda. Lipman says that Jewishness is “integral” to the role of Meir, therefore a gentile actress cannot authentically perform as Meir. What Lipman really means is that Jewishness is superior to goyishness, therefore an inferior goy should not take on the role of a superior Jew. The unfunny and physically repulsive Jewish comedian David Baddiel has supported Lipman in the Guardian, but he too has not admitted the real reason for his opposition to “Jewface”:

The deep truth of any marginalised identity is only available to those who live that identity. Casting a non-minority actor to mimic that identity feels, to the progressive eye, like impersonation, and impersonation may carry with it an element of mockery—or at least seem reductive, reducing the complexity of that experience by channelling it through an actor who hasn’t lived it.…

Jewish is the minority that you can cast with actors not of that minority, and hardly, until very recently, hear a whisper of concern. … [This issue is] about the idea that minority experience should be expressed by those who truly know it, rather than caricatured by those who don’t. It would be an interesting conclusion, given 2,000 years of persecution, that the representation of Jewish identity doesn’t deserve this complexity. …

In all the aggressive tweeting about Lipman, I saw many photos posted triumphantly of when she once played a vicar in a TV show. Social media loves of course an Aha! meme, and those who hated Lipman for saying her Golda Meir thing posted it luxuriously, as if it proved her bang-to-rights wrong. But minority casting is not a two-way street. Dev Patel can play, obviously, all the south Asian parts he gets offered, and he can also now play [the white role of] David Copperfield. (‘Why don’t Jews play Jews?’—David Baddiel on the row over Helen Mirren as Golda Meir, The Guardian, 12th January 2022)

Note that Baddiel thinks Jews have suffered “2,000 years of persecution.” His anti-Christian bigotry is showing, because “persecution” of Jews—that is, justified gentile responses to Jewish misbehavior—is far older than Christianity, as Andrew Joyce has described in articles like “Exodus Redux: Jewish Identity and the Shaping of History.” Now look at Baddiel’s argument for banning Whites from non-White roles: “The deep truth of any marginalised identity is only available to those who live that identity.” He claims that when a profane White plays a sacred non-White, the performance is “reductive, reducing the complexity of [non-white] experience by channelling it through an actor who hasn’t lived it.” There is no “deep truth” or “complexity” to White identity and experience, you see. Whites are one-dimensional, banal and boring compared to complex, highly intelligent and endlessly creative Blacks and other non-Whites.

“Color-blind” means “anti-white”

But we Whites have pretended otherwise in our literature and theatre, creating some very flattering and interesting characters and roles for ourselves. Now it’s time for those juicy roles to go where they really belong: to non-Whites. That’s why, as Baddiel described, the South Asian actor Dev Patel can play the Dickens character David Copperfield, but no White actor can play a South Asian role. Patel himself has said that “Dickens is a truly universal story” and that no-one should object to his “color-blind” casting in the role, because “It’s just people playing people, like actors are meant to do.”

But Patel would not say that a White actor could be chosen to play a brown Indian character like Buddha or the Emperor Ashoka. Color-blind casting works only one way: actors from superior races can take the roles of characters from the inferior White under-race, but not vice versa. And David Baddiel, Maureen Lipman, Sarah Silverman and some other Jews want Jews to be added to the list of roles forbidden to Whites. They can see where cultural trends are heading and want to disassociate Jews from the White under-race. Interestingly, Golda Meir’s own grandson, Shaul Rahabi, doesn’t agree with them. He has said that “I have no issue with Helen Mirren being Jewish or not Jewish playing my grandmother. It doesn’t matter at all. I’m sure Helen Mirren is great.”

Meir’s grandson is an Israeli and lives in Israel, where “whiteness” is prized among Ashkenazi Jews because it separates them not just from Arabs but also from dark-skinned Mizrahi Jews, whom the Israeli prime minister David Ben Gurion (1886-1973) “didn’t want” in the country. As I described in my article “Efface the Facts,” Jewish advertisements sometimes represent Ashkenazim with pale skin, blue eyes and goyish features.

Anti-White hate will worsen

As ever, it comes down to that simple question of “What’s best for Jews?” In Israel, it’s good for Jews to claim “whiteness,” because there’s no competition from genuine Whites. In the West, it’s good for Jews to denigrate Whites, deny White achievements and cast Whites as history’s greatest and most incorrigible villains. This anti-White campaign has incited non-Whites to attack Whites even as those non-Whites are given special privileges in employment and law. Acting is one small but culturally significant part of this White dispossession. All White roles are now open to non-Whites, but Whites are banned from non-White roles.

It’s a blatant double-standard based on an implicit racial hierarchy that contradicts the explicit leftist principle of racial equality. Leftist Jews like Maureen Lipman and David Baddiel now want Jews to get the advantage of the double-standard too. They can see that the campaign of anti-White hate will only get worse. But as anti-White hate worsens, more and more White eyes will open. And among the things those eyes will see is the leading role of Jews in the ongoing war on Whites and Western civilization.

Éric Zemmour on the Great Replacement and Civic Nationalism

The conservative French-Jewish pundit Éric Zemmour may well become France’s next president. The centerpiece of his campaign is opposition to the Great Replacement. The latter means the ongoing trend of substitution of the indigenous populations of France and Europe by non-European immigrants, in particular by Africans and Muslims.

In his most recent book, Zemmour writes the following on the Great Replacement:

I have the impression that no politician rightly apprehends what is at stake: the death of France as we knew her. . . . One simply needs to look at the films of [the 1960s and 70s] to realize this. The “great replacement” is not a myth, nor a conspiracy, but an implacable process. This vital identitarian question renders all other questions subsidiary, even the most essential such as education, industry, social protection, or the place of France in the world. I am sure that no candidate – not even Marine Le Pen – will dare to impose this identitarian and civilizational quarrel in the campaign. . . . Only [the far-left] Jean-Luc Mélenchon dares to mention the subject, but only to glorify the future of a mixed-race, “creolized” France …[1]

Zemmour’s central campaign promise is “zero immigration” to France (presumably not including immigration from the European Union). In addition, he would deport foreign criminals and would deprive criminal dual nationals of French citizenship (a suitable prelude to deportation). Significantly, French citizens of Turkish or Arab origin typically are dual nationals by default.

The key measures on immigration would be submitted to a national referendum. If successful, this clear expression of the people’s will would enable the government to punch through the predictable opposition of globalist elites in the media and judiciary. Great Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, despite the kicking and screaming of globalist elites, shows that referenda can lead to concrete results going against Establishment preferences.

In addition to his opposition to the Great Replacement, Zemmour is a forthright civic nationalist. He wants migrants to “assimilate,” by which he means to become culturally indistinguishable from Frenchmen. He is opposed to Islam as a “totalitarian” religion and wants Muslims to have a purely interiorized private spirituality, like Christianity, with no role in French public life. Zemmour’s assimilationist zeal goes so far as to propose restoring an old law mandating that children born in France be given only traditional French names.

Clearly there are serious contradictions here. The French “assimilationist” model has already failed, producing about the same results that we see in the United States or Great Britain: a society marked by ethnic stratification, clustering, and conflict. Today, around a third of newborns in France are African or Muslim, simply making assimilation obsolete. No doubt Zemmour can see this. His clinging to assimilation may be due to a combination of personal reasons (his own position as a proudly assimilated French Jew) and political ones (electoral palatability). Significantly, Zemmour has previously said that he understands why young French whites no longer believe in assimilation and that his attachment to it is due to his belonging to an older generation.

The Great Replacement in Practice: Kosovo and Seine-Saint-Denis

A typical street scene in Seine-Saint-Denis

In his book, Zemmour goes into vivid detail on the existential threat that the Great Replacement poses for France. He often compares the emerging new France to Kosovo or Lebanon, where besieged Christian minorities live at the mercy of the new Muslim majorities. He notes that in Kosovo, a highly important province in the history of Serbia, Muslim Albanians became the majority by the early twentieth century. With the 1999 NATO bombings the Muslim Albanians became the rulers over the Serb minority:

[I]n the 1970s, Orthodox Serbs represented only 13% of the population. Today they are only 5%, expulsed from the capital, Pristina, confined to enclaves, as ostracized second-class citizens, when they are not persecuted, martyrized, chased out of the land of their ancestors. The ethnic cleansing is accompanied of course by a religious and cultural great replacement. Medieval churches are burned down by ecstatic Muslim crowds, mosques dripping with gold-leaf are built in their place, financed by the nabobs of Saudi Arabia and Qatar: the inexorable and cruel reality of a great replacement that does not exist![2]

Zemmour often sarcastically remarks on the alleged “non existence” of these demographic and civilizational changes. He denounces the academic “sophists” who claim no significant change has occurred, falsely arguing that populations have always been in complete flux. The mainstream media-political establishment in France claims the Great Replacement is a mere “conspiracy theory.”

On the contrary, the demographic Great Replacement is prepared by a symbolic replacement in the cultural sphere. France, we are told, has “always” been a diverse land of immigration and thus there is nothing novel at all about the Afro-Islamization of the country. A museum of immigration celebrating these changes was installed precisely in … the building of the 1931 colonial expo celebrating France’s intercontinental empire in Africa and Indochina! Zemmour observes: “In the museums of France, too, it is the hour of the great replacement.”[3]

In France, the shape of things to come is announced by the département (county) of Seine-Saint-Denis, which makes up the northeast suburb of greater Paris, a significant place in French history as the resting place of our kings. For Zemmour, “Seine-Saint-Denis is the symbol of this great replacement which does not exist.”[4] Over two thirds of newborns have at least one foreign parent. Over 60% of youths are of foreign origin. But these figures are merely indicative: the administration simply doesn’t know how big the population is or how many illegal immigrants there are (estimated between 8 and 20% of the population).

While President Emmanuel Macron may hold up Seine-Saint-Denis as “California without the sea” [sic!], the territory is an economic basket case. National civil servants flee postings there after 2.7 years on average, despite a €10,000 bonus, whereas they last 7 years in the more comfortable département of Essonne. Huge urban renewal projects lead to no lasting change and even the corporate offices set up there (taking advantage of special tax breaks) fail to attract local workers: they are unqualified. Zemmour argues the issue is one of human capital, not infrastructure: “the problem is the content, not the container.”

Zemmour sees the State’s efforts in Seine-Saint-Denis as useless, akin to the myth of Sisyphus. Furthermore, the territory’s mosques have been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood, as documented by the sociologist Gilles Keppel. No wonder François Hollande told journalists that France’s multicultural situation will “end with a partition.”[5] For Zemmour, “Kosovo is the future of Seine-Saint-Denis; Seine-Saint-Denis is the future of France.”

Zemmour on the Limits of Civic Nationalism

While an ardent advocate of assimilation, Zemmour can also be quite frank on the failures and weaknesses of civic nationalism. He is critical of the many French Jews who, at the time of the 1967 Six Day War between Israel and the Arabs, suddenly rediscovered their Jewish identity and began publicly agitating in favor of Israel.

For Zemmour, this acting on behalf of one’s sectarian community, as opposed to the national community, is a dangerous faux pas for anyone who claims to be a citizen. However, he is cognizant that it is difficult, even a constant effort, to override ethnic reflexes for the sake of the political community:

Assimilation is a mode of integration which demands cerebral control of one’s most archaic reflexes; a rational detachment which the supreme intelligence of [the Jewish anthropologist Claude] Lévi-Strauss pushed very far when he declared that if Hitler had completed his project of exterminating the Jews, the Earth would not have stopped going round, nor humanity have stopped living, just as it has digested the disappearance of other peoples, in particular the Indians of America.[6]

During the Six Day War, Lévi-Strauss was able to remain a detached French citizen, but not so his fellow citizen and fellow Jew, the normally unflappably dispassionate Raymond Aron. Once scratched, the normally supremely rational and composed Aron discovered wellsprings of ethnic feeling for his fellow Jews. On Aron’s unconscious Jewish identity, Zemmour’s assessment is very similar to my own.

Zemmour draws an interesting parallel between Lévi-Strauss and Jean Raspail: two men who had an intimate knowledge and real appreciation for indigenous peoples across the world, something which contributed to their realization that the peoples of Europe were also worth preserving.[7]

Zemmour’s Jewish identity

Zemmour defines himself as “a Jew of Algeria raised in the Parisian suburbs whose family heritage and readings have transformed into a Frenchman of the land and of the dead.”[8] He contrasts himself with politicians like François Bayrou, a native Frenchmen from rural southeast France, who have enthusiastically embraced globalism.

Zemmour has one interesting argument in favor of his membership of the French nation: he is not an immigrant but his people were granted citizenship after his native Algeria was conquered by the French![9] Thus he considers himself as French as an Alsatian or a Corsican.

Jewish community leaders have unequivocally condemned Zemmour. The chief rabbi of France has called Zemmour an “anti-Semite,” while the official Jewish lobby of France (the CRIF) has called for “not one single Jewish vote” to be cast for him. Zemmour considers the CRIF to be a baleful “State within the State,” influencing policy towards sectarian ends.

The journalist Léa Salamé once criticized Zemmour on television for being an “ashamed Jew” who wanted to be “more goyish than the goy.”[10] Zemmour could only laugh at Salamé’s inconsequence: as a Christian Lebanese, her parents had fled her home country precisely because of the Islamization and resulting civil war that he is precisely trying to prevent in France.

France: death or renewal?

Zemmour says he has seen civil war coming in France since October 1989, when three Moroccan girls in the city of Creil, north of Paris, refused to remove their Islamic headscarves at school.[11] The girls only backed down not when this became a French national scandal, but when the king of Morocco, Hassan II, told them to.[12] With or without Zemmour, I cannot say if and when France will experience violent ethno-religious civil war à la Lebanon or a more gradual decline into third-world violence and social dysfunction à la Brazil.

If elected, Zemmour will not be able to restore the old France. Remigration on that scale is simply not on the cards today, nor can the tremendous social and technological changes of the past decades be wound back. However, Zemmour may well be able to significantly stem the flow of Afro-Islamic immigration. That alone would be a worthy goal: the French would be infinitely more secure as a two-thirds majority in their own country, rather than a minority like the Christians of Kosovo and Lebanon.

Zemmour often remarks on the fundamental asymmetry between atomized post-68 liberal Whites and Muslims who still have a strong sense of religion and clan:

For forty years, the [French] community of citizens has been disintegrating under the blows of a society of individuals who only want to know their rights, and not their duties, and see in the State only a distributor of services and laws to satisfy their smallest caprices. Individuals without roots and without history, who dream of themselves as “citizens of the world” detached from any national mooring. … They call a “republic” this society of individuals which no longer has anything to do with the Republic of citizens. It is in this abyssal void that Islamic diasporas have taken root, increasingly numerous, bound together by the archaic notions of family, clan, and religion, and who import these archaisms into a blind postmodernity which sees in them only isolated individuals. The most skilful representatives of these diasporas have well understood how to use this liberalism to explode what remains of the Nation-State and of the Republic, to emancipate themselves from its now-feeble tutelage, and impose in its place, in foreign enclaves, the archaic law of Allah.[13]

The mass sexual abuse of White girls by Pakistani gangs in Rotherham and other English cities or the 2015–16 New Year’s Eve sexual assaults on White women by Muslims in Cologne[14] are early examples of this clash between clannish Third-World cultures and isolated Western individuals.

Significantly, Zemmour also promises to dismantle at least parts of the legislative and media apparatus persecuting French patriots. In particular, “hate speech” laws are to be abolished and litigious “anti-racists” starved of their generous subsidies at taxpayer expense.

No one can say how stable or effective a nationalist regime in France—under Zemmour or anyone else—would be. However, we can say that such a government might be able to prevent France’s final submersion and eliminate many of the boundaries of discourse imposed on French patriots and defenders of indigenous Europeans. And, if successful, no doubt this example from a founding nation of the European Union would reverberate across the continent.


[1]Ériz Zemmour, La France n’a pas dit son dernier mot (Rubempré, 2021), p. 24.

[2]Ibid., p. 72.

[3]Ibid., p. 67.

[4]Ibid., p. 73.

[5]Ibid., p. 77.

[6]Ibid., p. 105.

[7]Ibid., p. 106.

[8]Ibid., p. 49.

[9]Ibid., p. 148.

[10]Ibid., p. 190.

[11]Ibid., p. 139.

[12]Ibid., p. 190.

[13]Ibid., p. 73.

[14]Also denounced by Zemmour, ibid., p. 32.

Conservatism and The Illusion of Exclusion

In 1950, while being driven from contested Korean territory by the overwhelming force of the invading Chinese, the U.S. Army’s Major General Oliver Prince Smith Jr. told a journalist from Time magazine “We are not retreating. We are advancing in a different direction.” Depending on your perspective, the quote, which has since become almost universally attributed to Smith’s superior, General Douglas MacArthur, is either a masterpiece of positive thinking or a piss-poor method of deception or burying one’s head in the sand. I’ve always viewed it in the latter sense, and it’s a useful shorthand for the unending stream of failures by the mainstream Right. From immigration to gay marriage and the “war on Woke,” the conservative bloc has an innate talent not only for giving ground in its various culture wars, but for somehow reinterpreting or dissembling concession as an advance in a different direction. At the heart of “the conservative problem” is the issue of inclusion versus exclusion, and the fact the conservative bloc, wherever in the West it is found, leads its voter base on the same merry dance to defeat by endlessly hinting at the promise of exclusionary politics while bringing only an expansion to the “inclusive” state. This overwhelmingly takes the form of attracting votes by promising exclusionary action on immigration; retreating from this promise; then playing sleight of hand by trumpeting an advance in the direction of an “inclusive” economy.

“Culture Wars”

Even a brief look at the cultural career of conservatism from around the 1960s reveals a kind of political Attention Deficit Disorder. I can’t think of any single cause, with the possible exceptions of gun control and abortion (in America alone), that has held the attention of the conservative movement enough for consistent opposition or action. Just look at the current fixation on “woke” language and cancel culture. Historian Stephen Prothero wrote back in 2016 that “conservatives almost always lose, because they lash themselves to lost causes.” Despite the ideological rectitude of opposing woke nonsense, it’s essentially true that the issue is already a lost cause. The appropriate time to suffocate the rise of wokeness was years ago, when it was still in its infancy as a niche of left-wing academic nomenclature. In the same way, prior to the advent of woke, when conservatives offered tepid opposition to the eruption of transsexualism into public life, especially in the ridiculous use of pronouns and the question of restrooms and so on, they were at a loss to offer a meaningful challenge because of concessions already made on homosexuals years earlier. And on the homosexuals, conservatives were incapable of serious opposition because of concessions they’d already made around abortion, marriage, and the family, which had in turn created a childless, promiscuous sexual culture more tolerant of the sexually deviant. The conservative is someone who tries to prop up a domino that has many thousands of toppled ones behind it.

Endlessly distracted by new salvoes from the Left, conservatives always arrive too late to the fight, and they combine this with a particularly perverse kind of amnesia on prior defeats. The fundamental strategic difference between Left and Right is that the Left is aware that it is weaving a cultural tapestry, linking one threadlike advance to the next in an endless but coherent chain of social change, while the Right is engaged in political whack-a-mole, seeing everything it disagrees with as an isolated trend or event that can be defeated on its own terms or least milked for votes in the promise of such. The Right sees a series of independent “culture wars” when in fact, as the Left is aware, there is only one war for culture fought on numerous, related, and sequential battlefields. As Prothero points out, the results are conclusive: “In almost every arena where the contemporary culture wars have been fought, liberals now control the agenda.”

The link between gay marriage and the sudden rise of transsexualism to public prominence is an excellent example of the Right’s addiction to last-minute grandstanding on battles that have already been lost. It’s ironic, to say the least, that conservatives often appeal to the idea of a “slippery slope” when opposing a certain trend but are the first to forget they’re on a slope when it comes to the next challenge from the Left. When conservatives opposed gay marriage, part of their reasoning was that it was a slippery slope that would lead to further dilutions in identity, and that it would lead to a quest for “liberation” for the next putatively downtrodden sexual minority. They were right. Almost as soon as the “gay cakes” were finally baked and gay marriage was signed into law, trannies seemed to start walking into female restrooms around the country. And yet the slope was forgotten about as soon as gay marriage was written into law, and while a justified unease about transsexuals ensued there was no mention at all of how, in legislative or cultural terms, we’d arrived at that point. Quite the opposite in fact. Conservatives, consumed with political ADD, had no sooner given up on opposing gay marriage than they were literally championing Trump for advancing the ‘rights’ of homosexuals. Republicans hadn’t lost, they might say, but “advanced in
another direction.”

The Left often portrays the conservative Right as Draconian or heavily Christian on sexual aspects of the culture wars, but this is hardly accurate. In reality, the conservative Right is extremely erratic and divided on the sexual aspect of the culture wars because, with its commitment to visions of the primacy (and privacy) of the individual and the consumer rather that the folk or the nation, it has no solid ideological basis on which in could develop a robust, adaptive notion of the family. The difference is that the individual will always be boiled down to a mere atom of a global community while the family, with its additional obligations, responsibilities and immediate sense of heritage, is the basic unit of a nation. Although the Republican National Committee still technically calls for a ban on gay marriage and transsexuals in the military, this is mere lip service to the idea of sexual normality given the prominence of LGBT platitudes in the Republican top tier. There is currently no conservative political party anywhere in Western Europe, North America, or Australia that proposes the rolling back of protected status for sexual minorities, or even the tightening of laws around divorce and reduction in state provision of welfare that would curb the fracturing of families and rein in the culture of promiscuity and sterility. Without such measures, which conservatism is inherently incapable of introducing and imposing, endlessly debating these issues really is lashing oneself to a lost cause. David Brooks described Trump as “a culture-war president with almost no policy arm attached,” a description that is applicable to almost every conservative government.

Related to the ideological insistence on the individual is the conservative commitment to the fundamental principle of inclusion — a bias that taints all conservative political activity. In an interesting Newsweek piece titled “Why Conservatives Keep Losing the Culture Wars,” Marcus Johnson writes:

Winning the Civil War and World War II against deeply exclusionary societies created a cultural preference for inclusion in the U.S. This preference has become embedded in institutions and has become self perpetuating. It is this cultural preference for inclusion that prevents conservatives from winning the culture wars in this country. To win the culture wars, conservatives would have to fundamentally shift U.S. political culture away from inclusion toward exclusion. But this is extremely difficult to do in practice. It would require rejecting the cultural narratives that the U.S. has long told itself about its past conflicts and reorienting how its political institutions work.

As stated above, conservatives are inherently incapable of doing the difficult but necessary work of introducing exclusionary policies, and their reluctance to even debate or discuss even the potential of such policies keeps the option of exclusion from the public eye; thus ensuring certain defeat in any culture war. It goes without saying that the inclusionary bias of conservatism isn’t entirely autochthonous, even if it is extremely popular in the conservative elite, but has been heavily cultivated both within conservatism and, much more significantly, in the culture as a whole, by hostile, often Jewish, intellectuals and their colleagues operating in society and politics. These aggressive actors have been shaping “ways of seeing” for decades, and “the cultural narratives that the U.S. has long told itself,” referred to by Marcus Johnson, are linked more to pluralist and multicultural propaganda than to the events of history as they actually happened.

Despite the overwhelming tendency to inclusionary politics, even among conservatives, there is clearly an appetite for exclusionary laws among sections of the White population, even if this hasn’t been acted upon in recent decades by a compromised political establishment. Prior to World War II, most Western countries pursued exclusionary politics of some kind, from Britain’s Aliens Act (1905) which targeted Jews, through to the White Australia policy (1901̶–1949) and the Immigration Act of 1924. It’s interesting that two of the most popular and resonant proposals from Donald Trump’s original platform were essentially exclusionary, which is probably why they came to naught. The proposal to build a wall along the US-Mexico border to try to stop illegal immigration was supported by 86% of Republicans, while the attempt to stop immigration from Muslim countries, Executive Order 13769, was supported by the majority (55%) of the American population. Such statistics suggest that conservative avoidance of exclusionary policies is an elite-driven phenomenon not only strategically flawed, but which actually runs counter to the intuitions of their natural voting base — White America.

“Everyone I don’t like is Hitler”

Conservatism has drunk as heavily from the well of hostile “inclusive” propaganda as any other entity within contemporary politics, with the result that it can’t comprehend the existence of any enemy that is not in some way “Nazi” or “fascist.” Conservatives not only live in mortal terror of being branded “Nazis” but fully engage in the use of the ‘Nazi’ pejorative. Their disavowals, coupled with rampant accusations from the Left, create a rhetorical-ideological maze. A staid and tired conservative bloc fights the Left’s almost recreational allegations of Fascism by asserting that it opposes the “real Fascists”—cancel culture types, ‘woke’ protestors, the Democrats, Antifa, pronoun enforcers etc.

The various enemies of majoritarian culture can’t be viewed as opponents on their own terms (neo-Marxist, postmodernist, ethnically alien, Foucaultian, deconstructionist, etc.), which would require developing a full understanding of their myriad and complex behaviors and ideologies, but must be refracted through a single facile lens — that of World War II. Only then, with laughable visions of a latter-day D-Day landing against simplified purple-haired Hitlers, can conservatism conjure enough moral strength to wage a pathetic and doomed war against shadowy left-wing “fascisms” on cultural and legislative battlegrounds long since ceded to the enemy. Meanwhile, at the first accusation of racism, “nationalist” conservatives frantically defend and enunciate their doctrine as meaning there is nothing special about their nation beyond a set of abstract values rooted in individualism — values that are, in Steve King’s words, “attainable by everyone … people of all races, religions, and creeds.” Our contemporary political context is thus one in which the real Fascists are anti-Fascists who call the real anti-Fascists Fascists. The only thing we can sure about these days, it seems, is that everyone is a Nazi.

A fascinating example of this process in action is Brian Reynolds Myers’s 2010 The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters. I bought the book some months ago because I was led to believe it was a sober exploration of morality-based racial ethnocentrism and, in the context of Kevin MacDonald’s work on the formation of moral in-groups among Whites, I was keen to compare and contrast his findings with another ethnic group. Myers’s thesis is that, rather than being the last bastion of Stalinism, North Korea is in fact home to a race-based nationalism and far-right politics derived from Japanese fascism. Myers argues that North Koreans believe that they constitute a childlike innocent race and, being innocent and pure, the Korean race is morally superior to everyone else. Supporting his thesis he offers some statistics on Korean aversion to intermarriage, and a wealth of propaganda from North Korea that seems to be race-specific and ethnocentric. The book was lavishly praised by the neoliberal and neoconservative establishment (Christopher Hitchens embraced it as “electrifying”), which found it much easier to mobilize against a modern Hitler than a modern Stalin, as well as finding a warm welcome with the Obama administration. Myers’s text was even naively welcomed by some on the Dissident Right who saw the book as a kind of blueprint for an ethnostate. The problem, as I learned from both the text itself and criticism I subsequently consulted, was that the book featured a laundry list of exaggeration, omission, psychoanalysis, and ignorance of Korean culture, history, and politics, all of which combined to suppress the Communist footprint everywhere in North Korean politics in order to present the strange little nation of Kim Jong-un as an Oriental Nazi Germany. The book is a caricature.

A bigger concern for me than the bogus nature of much of The Cleanest Race was its lavish welcome. It should be considered an axiom that any thesis that enables the “Nazification” of an opposing movement, ideology, or nation will be warmly embraced by the conservative establishment. One of the recent trends on conservative Twitter is the hashtag #nuremberg2, which called for pro-vaccine politicians and medical officials to be put on trial and, presumably, executed. Regardless of one’s position on the vaccine question, the Nuremberg framing is symptomatic of a psychological fixation. Conservatives will never win if they believe their only true enemies are “Nazis.” Whether it’s the fear of antisemitic “Islamofascism,” North Korean “Nazism,” purple-haired “woke Hitlers,” or vaccine-toting Görings, it’s clear that conservatism is psychologically stuck on the beaches of Normandy while the country passes without struggle into the hands of enemies conservatives are totally incapable of understanding.

“Christ is King”

American conservatism’s commitment to a tactically disastrous emphasis on individualism is undoubtedly connected in some form to the peculiar trajectory and position of American Christianity, or rather, varieties of American Post-Protestantism. Demographically, conservatism remains overwhelmingly (85%) Christian. As scholars of religion have noted (e.g., Nathan Hatch’s 1989 The Democratization of American Christianity), American Christianity is significantly different from the classic European form, being much more democratic as well as essentially Gnostic and millenarian (these features are also extremely prominent in the indigenous sects of the United States: Mormonism, Christian Science, Seventh-Day Adventism, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Pentecostalism, leading several academics to speak of an underlying ‘American religion’). American religion has long been preoccupied with the idea of a God who loves the individual, and the salvation of the American Christian, especially the Protestant, does not arrive communally via the congregation but via direct confrontation with a very personal Jesus.

A recent trend appearing on the t-shirts of young conservatives is the slogan “Christ is King.” The phrase is rapidly lapsing away from any hint of piety and into the role of a platitude, and carries with it a sense of escapism from disturbing political realities into comforting visions of higher but invisible authority. It also, however, recalls the more vulgar “Cash is King,” and both phrases meld into the pervasive and, in theological terms quite heretical, “Christian capitalism” that typifies the American conservative movement today. One of the more interesting texts published on this subject in recent years is Kevin Kruse’s 2015 One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. The book explores the links between corporate executives, religious celebrities, and major politicians, all of whom, in contesting Roosevelt’s New Deal, were engaged in a range of organizations designed to spread a new gospel of inclusive prosperity and Christian capitalism. It was in the period 1930–1960 that “In God We Trust” was adopted as the official motto of the United States and printed on every dollar bill, and it was in the same period that “under God” was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. In the words of one reviewer of Kruse’s text, corporate America sought to

mobilize religious leaders and sentiments for a movement opposing New Deal labor rights, social policies, regulation, and tax laws. Second, they intended to restore the reputation of American business after the ravages of the Great Depression by combining the sanctification of American capitalism with a new gospel of prosperity. And third, they promoted “Christian libertarianism” as a political agenda to transcend denominational and theological divisions, thus paving the way for the Christian Right of the late 1970s.[1]

Contrary to much Left-wing bleating, Christian libertarianism, along with the gospel of prosperity, is not the strength but the weak bedrock of modern conservatism. Since the birth of the Christian libertarian Right, it can claim involvement in only one significant conservative legislative success, maintaining the basic right of Americans to own firearms (though this success is more attributable to significant lobbying and other cultural factors). On the Christian Right’s other major concern, abortion, success has been elusive, fleeting, or localized. Much of this ambiguity is probably due to the conservative Right’s habit of trying to meet the Left on its own terms — the question of ‘rights.’ The conservative Right, faced with the “right to privacy,” does not assert a vision of the destiny of a people, an elevated ideal of womanhood, or even a basic religious fanaticism, but offers instead the rejoinder of the “rights of the unborn” that the Leftist establishment is fully prepared to parry. As with gay marriage and the war on woke, I believe there is a moral and ideological rectitude in opposing abortion. I believe there are unfortunate circumstances when it can be a medical necessity, but I personally object to it as an automatic and universal “right” purely on matters of taste, decency, and demographics, since the universalizing of abortion contributes to a deadening atmosphere of cultural sterility and is, like widespread tolerance of sexual deviance, an apathetic and depressing hallmark of a society in steep decline. Such arguments, however, are entirely absent from the current “pro-Life” debate, which relies solely on the twin pillars of Jesus and Thomas Paine.

The clinging to rights-based “inclusive” argumentation is the reason why the Christian conservative Right has been utterly incapable of offering resistance to the advance of legislative special status for sexual minorities. By arguing on “rights,” Christian conservatives bake themselves into the GloboHomo cake. Just as Christians flee from being called anti-abortion into the more inclusive-sounding “Pro-Life,” so they flee from being anti-gay or anti-transsexual into faltering assertions that they are simply “pro” the sanctity of marriage. And yet without a broader and more honest exclusionary focus, in which they dispense entirely with the arguments that simultaneously acknowledge and strengthen their opponents, their legislative goals will always remain elusive.

“Cash is King”

Conservatism is, perhaps more than any other contemporary political ideology, wedded to a personal and national savior that absorbs constant, fervid, and attentive devotion. This savior isn’t Jesus Christ, but Gross Domestic Product, and it’s worshipped by conservatives everywhere. In Britain, news has emerged that Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party is about to celebrate Brexit, the most significant British conservative victory in decades, by signing a trade deal with India that will allow thousands of Indians to work and settle in the country. An unnamed “government figure” told India’s Economic Times “The tech and digital space in India is still hugely protectionist and if we could open up even a slither of access it would put us ahead of the game.” The last major survey of Conservative voters showed that “immigration is the most pressing concern,” with the economy in second place. We find ourselves, therefore, in a scenario in which a conservative establishment will again avoid the exclusionary imperative of its voting base and will instead present itself as not retreating (on immigration) because they are “advancing in another direction” (for the economy).

There is not, nor has there ever been, a debate or referendum on whether a given population is willing to purchase a higher GDP by turning several of its major towns or cities into outposts of Mumbai and Bangalore. No people has ever been asked if such a trade would really “put us ahead of the game.” The cheap labor of the Indian migrants certainly won’t put the native tech workers of England ahead of the game. Nor will it put those who will find themselves waiting even longer for public services ahead of the game. It will, of course, put a small elite of businessmen of multiple ethnic backgrounds ahead of the game, and this, presumably, is what matters most to Conservative Inc. wherever in the West it coheres politically. International finance, in its ceaseless search for cheaper labor and the transformation of peoples into mere markets, is inseparable from inclusive politics. Radical socialism insists that money can be the great equalizer. International finance capital makes the same argument, but from above rather than from below. When cash has rendered the peoples of the world into blank slate consumers, each with the same potential to buy, then we have truly become its subjects and it has truly become our king.

Conservatism thrives on offering the “illusion of exclusion” to its voter base while simultaneously doing nothing about immigration so that it can squat in power and suck profit from decay at home and international trade abroad. No-one has encapsulated this phenomenon more succinctly than Sir Oswald Mosley:

Every one of us in this hall was old enough to see before the war — every one of you know what happened — how the financial forces in the thirties went into these backward countries, into India within the Empire, into Hong Kong, into Japan, into China, and exploited these peoples, to produce cheap sweated goods which ruined the great industries of Britain and of Europe, which put Lancashire out of business in the cotton trade, Yorkshire out of business in the woollen trade, and these poor devils of coolies were exploited for a wage of a few shillings a week. For what purpose? To enable the City of London and Wall Street New York to make fatter profits! … Is that worthy of Britain? Is that to be the future of Europe? … It is childish nonsense to say that a British government rules Britain. It’s nothing to do with British government or the British people. The government of the world is the financial government; the power of money; and of money alone.

Concluding Remarks

Conservatism has a knack for superficially reinventing itself when it senses it’s getting perilously close to being found out. The litmus test for every astute observer should be an assessment of the extent and sincerity of the politics of exclusion espoused by any new manifestation of the conservative movement. I recently spent some time reading speeches from the 2021 “National Conservative” conference, which was organized by a couple of Zionists and is supposedly representative of a new departure in American conservatism and a new front in the culture wars. A single line from one of the speeches was enough for me to conclude my assessment: “We must strive to transcend racial particularism and stress universality and commonality as Americans.” National Conservatism is, in the final estimation, an inclusive doctrine. Anyone who supports it will find themselves both “in retreat” and advancing in a direction they never intended.

Genuine efforts to redress the deep problems of contemporary society will always be marked by their willingness to at least countenance the option of exclusion. This is one of the reasons for the intense backlash against the work of Kevin MacDonald, who, in the concluding chapter of Culture of Critique suggested (pp.308–9) that

Achieving parity between Jews and other ethnic groups would entail a high level of discrimination against individual Jews for admission to universities or access to employment opportunities and even entail a large taxation on Jews to counter the Jewish advantage in the possession of wealth, since at present Jews are vastly overrepresented among the wealthy and the successful in the United States.

This is an honest and necessary discussion of the potential of exclusionary politics, framed in the context of a persuasive argument that such measures might be required if an eventual overt ethnic conflict is to be avoided. Conservatism, inasmuch as it remains wedded to inclusive doctrines and unchecked individualism, is as much an arm of globalism as any segment of the Left it claims to do battle with. We should finish by returning to MacDonald:

The present tendencies lead one to predict that unless the ideology of individualism is abandoned not only by the multicultural minorities but also by the European-derived peoples of Europe, North America, New Zealand, and Australia, the end result will be a substantial diminution of the genetic, political, and cultural influence of these peoples. It would be an unprecedented unilateral abdication of such power and certainly an evolutionist would expect no such abdication without at least a phase of resistance by a significant segment of the population. … The prediction is that segments of the European-derived peoples of the world will eventually realize that they have been ill-served and are being ill-served both by the ideology of multiculturalism and by the ideology of de-ethnicized individualism.


[1] Schäfer, A. R. (2018). Kevin M. Kruse. One Nation under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America. The American Historical Review, 123 (4), 1340–1341.

The Open Society Foundations and The Soros Network: Chapter 1 of Scott Howard’s The Open Society Playbook

Editor’s note: This is the first chapter of Scott Howard’s new book, The Open Society Playbook, available at Antelope Hill Publishing. Howard is also author of The Transgender Industrial Complex, also published by Antelope Hill and reviewed in TOO  by John Q. Publius.

No one follows the money as well as Scott Howard does. And remember, Soros’s money goes a lot further and is likely very motivating to people living in relatively economically depressed areas like much of Eastern Europe.

The transformation of a closed society into an open one is a systematic transformation. Practically everything has to change…What the foundations have done is to change the way the transformation is brought about.

George Soros 

Since its inception, the Open Society Foundations have officially dispensed nearly $17 billion over tens of thousands of grants. But to what purpose? Is this charity and good works for their own sake? Of course not. George Soros admits in his 1997 piece for The Atlantic entitled “The Capitalist Threat” that the function of his foundation network active in countries under communism was designed to be “subversive,” and that, “For five or six years following the fall of the Berlin Wall, I devoted practically all of my energies to the transformation of the formerly Communist world.” He hasn’t stopped, and neither was this the beginning of his endeavors.

Soros’s “philanthropic work” began in the late 1970s by funding scholarships for black university students in South Africa during apartheid to ultimately weaponize them against whites, particularly the Boer and the system of self-preservation they had in place. In 1979, according to the Open Soceity Foundations’ website, Soros said, “[South Africa] was a closed society with all the institutions of a first world country, but they were off-limits to the majority of the population on racial grounds. Where could I find a better opportunity for opening up a closed society?” Indeed, and the sad fate of the Rainbow Nation reminds us precisely what the future holds.

The Open Society Foundations have, as highlighted, been particularly active in the former Eastern Bloc countries, owing in no small part to the Jewish Soros’ upbringing in Hungary.

In 1986, at the same time Mikhail Gorbachev launched new policies of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring) in the USSR, George Soros was allowed to open a private foundation in Poland, which was followed the year after by one in Moscow. On June 17th, 1991, George Soros and Ante Marković, the Prime Minister of Yugoslavia, signed an agreement founding the Soros Yugoslavia Foundation, which would undertake projects in all six of the country’s republics. In 1992, Soros and the Open Society Foundations established separate foundations in Croatia and Slovenia, followed by Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the Soros Yugoslavia Foundation operating in Serbia (including its provinces Vojvodina and Kosovo) and Montenegro. Also in 1992, Soros launched Central European University, which has “offered young people across the region a new, international, and pluralist perspective” (read: that of open borders activism and neoliberalism). Over 14,000 students have graduated from Central European University, including Giorgi Margvelashvili (president of Georgia from 2013-18), two former justice ministers (one from Croatia and one from Romania), a Hungarian Member of Parliament, and a number of other prominent figures, including many functionaries in the Open Society Foundations itself.

In a glowing Soros feature from The New Yorker in 1995, titled “The World According to Geroge Soros,” his influence over the political process in several Eastern European countries is framed as a positive for democracy, but in what way is the following democratic, other than that “liberal” and “democratic” have been taken to be synonymous:

Ljupčo Georgievski, the right-wing head of the opposition V.M.R.O. (International Macedonian Revolutionary Organization) Party, charges that the Soros foundation is “a support machine to the government.” Virtually all foundation grants, he says, go to those associated in some way with the ruling party. Referring to a television station, A1, that receives Soros support, Georgievski said, “It is truly an alternative in its cultural programming; however, in politics…you see ministers of the present Macedonian government more often than on state TV.”… Contrasting the Soros foundation in Ukraine with its counterparts in other countries, [Bohdan Krawchenko, a Ukrainian-Canadian historian who returned to Ukraine in 1991 and was recruited by Dr. Bohdan Hawrylyshyn and Soros to work for the foundation] told me, “There is no other place where the Soros foundation is so plugged in at the top…The deputy minister of finance sat with George and me in a basement almost four years ago and we tried to figure out what to do about monetary reform.” That deputy minister of finance, Olech Havrylyshyn (a nephew of Bohdan), was on the payroll of the Soros foundation—as was the deputy governor of the National Bank (George Yurchyshyn, a Ukrainian-American who had previously been a vice-president at the Bank of Boston)…Soros had placed his own agents in key positions… What Soros undoubtedly did do was enable the successful Kuchma to win for Ukraine a commitment for a crucial, I.M.F.-administered loan program of nearly four billion dollars. The loan had been strongly recommended by the United States at a Group of Seven economics meeting just before Kuchma’s victory, but it was contingent on Ukraine’s instituting economic reforms… Soros was galvanized. He got in touch with Anders Åslund, of the Carnegie Institute, who has worked on economic reform in Russia, and asked him to come with him and John Fox to Ukraine…After meeting with President Kuchma, Soros directed Åslund to organize a team to work with the Ukrainians on their negotiations with the I.M.F. And he fired off a memo, distributed to the White House, the Treasury, the State Department, the I.M.F., and the World Bank, in which he argued that this was the moment, and this was the group.…The day the agreement was announced, Soros was attending a conference in Kiev sponsored by the American-Ukrainian Advisory Committee, a group organized by Zbigniew Brzezinski; Henry Kissinger was there as well….Roman Shpek, the Minister of the Economy, who is leading the reforms, is a graduate of Soros’ Management Training Institute. The Institute for Public Administration, which Krawchenko heads, has also produced significant players…During Soros’ late-September visit a task force—including people from the World Bank, the Ukrainian government, and the Soros foundation—was created to wage a media campaign for the reforms.

“Reform” here is yet another shining example of newspeak.

Also of crucial importance, the 1995 feature ominously foreshadows the fate of Slobodan Milošević and resistance to the “open society,” as “the Belgrade foundation…is repeatedly threatened with being closed down by the government of Slobodan Milošević.” We all know how that turned out. Be it NATO bombs or subversive propaganda—in the case of Yugoslavia, both—all resistance must be dealt with. Though Soros claims that “We are not running McDonald’s. Open Society is a different story,” it does seem like the Open Society Foundations are intent on knocking down every barrier and every unique structure to make way for a McDonald’s instead.

While remaining fixed in a capitalist-communist binary remains advantageous to the ruling class, the reality is that neoliberalism is in its own right a fusion of the two, though with communism mutating into the social sphere in the form of Cultural Marxism. It is mutating, however, with the fusion of superficially-separate entities into one Leviathan. In effect, it does not matter if it’s Microsoft or the state that’s imposing social reengineering and demographic transformation on the terrestrial square it lays claim to, irrespective of ethnic and generational ties to it. Whether ostensibly Blue or Red, they’re all on the same team. Governments are more accountable to the shareholders than the voters in the much-vaunted “democracy” of the modern world, one where outside forces shape elections all the time, but only fictitious Russian scandals are blared over virtually every corporate media channel in America. Tellingly, as the article continues:

The broadcast stations of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty continue to be funded by the United States government,[1] but in early 1994 Soros entered a joint venture to acquire the organization’s research institute and, under a fifty-year lease, its archives. Both operations are now subsumed under a new entity, the Open Media Research Institute (OMRI). Based in Prague, it has a seven-member board: Soros and two others from his staff; two people from the Board for International Broadcasting (the government agency that oversees Radio Free Europe); and two “independents” (one chosen by Soros and one by the B.I.B.). It should be noted that if the independents were to side with their selectors, the lineup would, predictably, be 4–3, Soros.

Today, RFE/RL remains very active, funded by a grant from the US Congress through the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) as a private grantee; its budget for fiscal year 2021 was $637.3 million. The USAGM provides “oversight” and according to their website:

…serves as a firewall to protect the professional independence and integrity of all U.S. international public service media, including Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, and the non-profit corporations that are BBG grantees: Radio Free Asia, RFE/RL, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN). USAGM also provides oversight of the work of the Open Technology Fund, which finances the development and distribution of cutting edge technologies and techniques to counter efforts by repressive regimes and closed societies to block access to objective news and information.

According to their 2018 Annual Report, they signed an agreement with Plex, a multi-platform video streaming company, to place USAGM content on its Plex News app, which has 14 million users. USAGM programming will now slot alongside other propaganda outlets like CNN and the BBC. A recent project saw the establishment of a 24/7 Russian-language TV and digital channel with a “specialized web and social media team that counters Kremlin disinformation.” No propaganda campaign for “open societies” would be complete without the incessant promotion of the LGBTQ agenda, either: in 2018, RFE/RL’s Radio Mashaal publicized a “sports festival for transgender individuals” in Pakistan and Radio Martí launched Arcoiris (Rainbow), to “explore LGBTQ life in Cuba, the United States and around the world, including the social and cultural status of that community as well as their civil and human rights.” Speaking of Cuba, in late 2014 it emerged that USAID was employing the “urban youths” strategy the US State Department prefers in France by using rappers in Cuba “to break the information blockade” and foment unrest through “activism,” agitating for “social change.”

The nine-member USAGM Broadcasting Board of Governors includes: the Jewish Leon Rabinovich Aron, who immigrated to the United States from Moscow in 1978 as a refugee and is a resident scholar and the director of Russian studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI);[2] the Jewish Michael Kempner, Hillary Clinton mega-donor and Barack Obama “bundler,” Obama-appointee to the White House Council for Community Solutions (a council that works to “reengage disenfranchised youth”), and whose PR firm was hired by Israel’s Ministry of Tourism (“the firm will also seek to reach out to the LGBT community”);[3] the Jewish Karen Kornbluh, Senior Fellow and Director of German Marshall Fund’s Technology Policy program “which works to help shape a future in which technology strengthens rather than undermines democratic values,” former Senior Fellow for Digital Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, former Executive Vice President of External Affairs for Nielsen, former US Ambassador in Paris to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), former Policy Director for then-Senator Barack Obama as well as serving as deputy chief of staff at the US Treasury Department, and former Director of the Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs at the Federal Communications Commission in the Clinton administration; the Jewish Jeff Shell, CEO of NBCUniversal; and the Jewish Kenneth Weinstein, Chairman of the Board and President and CEO of the Hudson Institute.

From sustained effort financing projects that actively undermined the regime of Slobodan Milošević in Serbia, after the neoliberal Establishment toppled Milošević and held him captive, as Mirko Klarin writes in the Open Society Foundations’ Building Open Society in the Western Balkans report:

The fact that these protribunal [sic] media and NGOs were supported by the Open Society Foundations did not go unnoticed by Slobodan Milošević and Vojislav Šešelj, a Serbian nationalist politician also indicted for war crimes by the tribunal. They both, on more than one occasion, described the ICTY as “Soros’ Court.”

For Milena Dragićević-Šešić, from the same report:

Open Society–backed activism in the arts and other cultural institutions in Serbia began with a radio station: Belgrade’s B92. Its music and information programs challenged the state media’s nationalistic worldview…The idea was not to underwrite art for art’s sake. The aim was to use targeted funding…B92 blazed a path for other artists ready to challenge xenophobia, patriarchal values, hate speech, and ethnic stereotypes…In September 1994, Radio B92’s cultural center, Rex, opened in an abandoned building of Belgrade’s Jewish community center… “Worried September! Wilhelm Reich in Belgrade – Lust for Life” was a project devoted to the common individual—of Belgrade and the world— who, in despair, withdraws from life and cedes responsibility for his or her being and future. “Lust for Life” had multiple dimensions, including publication of a translation of Listen, Little Man!, a book by Wilhelm Reich, a highly controversial psychoanalyst who studied under Freud…In Zagreb, Croatia, ZCCE3000 undertook conferences, art festivals, exhibitions, workshops, lectures, presentations, publications, and media productions. A crucial component of the project was to reform the institutional settings of independent culture, increasing its influence and strengthening its resources. One of its collaborators, What, How and For Whom, organized a complex exhibition on the 152nd anniversary of the Communist Manifesto’s publication, returning Marx to the public sphere in Belgrade for the first time since 1989.

Returning to the January 1995 profile of Soros from The New Yorker:

Soros funds are involved as co-investors in certain projects in developing countries with the International Finance Corporation, the private-sector arm of the World Bank Group…With the Clinton Administration, Soros, a newly turned Democrat, has made the kind of inroads that he was unable to make before…He has cultivated excellent relationships with high-ranking officials in the State Department and at Treasury. He has opened a Washington office, which, as one Soros associate told me, will function as “his State Department.” While intense lobbying efforts he has made on behalf of Macedonia over the past year or so have not really succeeded, in the last several months he has thrown the weight of his influence and his resources behind achieving Western aid for Ukraine, and there he has won at least a preliminary victory. Recently, too, he said that he intends to focus increasingly on the West, concentrating on finding ways of making “our own open society more viable.”…Morton Abramowitz, the former United States Ambassador to Turkey, who is now the president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and has participated in a Soros-funded advocacy group on the Balkans, [said,] “He’s now become a player.”… György Jaksity, an analyst at Concorde Securities, in Budapest, told me, “The first book on business that I read that was written not from a Marxist but from a free-market standpoint said, ‘Sponsored by the Soros Foundation.’ . . . People like me know that the book they are reading, the teacher who teaches them, were sponsored by Soros.”

Abramowitz and Michele Dunne are both Carnegie Endowment for International Peace alumni as well as former Board members of the National Endowment for Democracy. Other names you might recognize as former NED Board members include Madeleine Albright, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Wesley Clark, Paula Dobriansky, Kenneth Duberstein, Francis Fukuyama, Orrin Hatch, Richard Holbrooke, Walter Mondale, Henry Kissinger, Robert Zoellick, Paul Wolfowitz, and Anne-Marie Slaughter, plus other figures such as Instagram CEO Marne Levine and Princeton Lyman (ambassador, USAID, Aspen Institute, Harvard, Council on Foreign Relations, Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies). This is how these things go.

Joining with the economic “impetus” has increasingly been the “humanitarian” angle, with Soros but one figure, albeit a central one. Looking once to the January 1995 profile of Soros from The New Yorker:

In philanthropy…which Soros began in earnest about ten years ago—when he started a foundation in Budapest which aimed to foster the democratic values of an “open society” as defined by the philosopher Sir Karl Popper, and which supported dissidents living under the Communist regime—he kept a relatively low profile. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, however, he began to reposition himself. He turned over the day-to-day management of the fund to an exemplary trader, Stanley Druckenmiller, and he immersed himself in the world of his foundations—by then, there were four—multiplying their number in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and dramatically accelerating the level of his giving. At the same time, he began to advocate that the West follow his lead, providing aid, in what he often referred to as an updated Marshall Plan, to the countries of the former Communist bloc.

We see here the fusion of ideology, economics, and extreme in-group favoritism that defines neoliberalism almost perfectly reflected in the figure of Soros, and as the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the COVID-19 lockdowns usher in the Great Reset, the next mutation will be completely fused.

According to Žarko Papić, the Open Society Foundations endeavored to use the ethnic conflicts in the Balkans as proof that their “liberalizing” projects had not gone far enough, much like the neoliberals do with the failure of diversity (or success from their perspective, though they won’t let that out):

Published under the title Developing New International Support Policies – Lessons (Not) Learned in Bosnia-Herzegovina, the analysis was widely distributed to international organizations, including departments of the United Nations and bilateral donors, as well as government bodies and other stakeholders in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As always, the “lessons” are at odds with the reality and excuse the culpability of the worst actors in fomenting crisis in the first place, such as the neoliberal Establishment’s backing of the Kosovo Liberation Army, which was basically a collection of criminals, traffickers, drug dealers, and jihadi terrorists responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Serbs; and yet, like the Crusades, it is the defensive response to the provocation that is misrepresented as evidence of “unprovoked hostility,” totally divorced from context in the narrative that has been constructed to always paint one side—white, Christian—as the villains and the other as the perpetual victims, regardless of the truth of the matter.

Additionally, for the Yugoslavian conflicts of the 1990s particularly as regards Kosovo, there was a large Albanian-Muslim population to weaponize, as NATO and the globalist Establishment did against Serbia. The United States has been waging a war against its ostensible allies in Europe for generations; within the last few decades this has ranged from working with George Soros to destabilize and undermine the conservative government in North Macedonia to NATO’s plans for Greater Albania, where drug-runners and Islamist terrorists trained by the CIA in Afghanistan were a key part of the astroturfed “insurgency” in the break-down of Yugoslavia during the 1990s, a Yugoslavia which had actually developed a successfully managed economic counterpoint to neoliberalism. That was, as the college professors say, “problematic.”

The Balkans have long been a target of Soros—the Open Society Foundation in Croatia supported the establishment of the Croatian Law Center and ZAMIR, Croatia’s first independent internet service provider, and the Open Society Index was developed to “measure the level of openness of Croatian society through criteria in education, media, entrepreneurship and economic freedom, transparency of political processes, rule of law, and marginalized groups and minorities.” In North Macedonia, the Open Society Foundation expanded the Step by Step preschool program to 60 schools and “sponsored seminars to improve school curricula, teaching methods, and management” (read: neoliberal indoctrination). In the province of Kosovo, the Open Society Foundation in Serbia provided a $2 million grant to support a “parallel education system.”

Next door, the Open Society Foundations have spent nearly $100 million (that we know about) in North Macedonia since 1992, and have partnered with the US government, Switzerland, France, and the European Union for “development work” in the Balkan country. Between February 27th, 2012, and August 31st, 2016, nearly $5 million in US taxpayer money went to the Open Society Foundation – Macedonia (FOSM), in partnership with four local “civil society” organizations. USAID says on their website the project trained hundreds of young Macedonians “on topics such as freedom of association,[4] youth policies, citizen initiatives, persuasive argumentation and use of new media.” USAID has earmarked at least $9.5 million to intervene in North Macedonia’s governmental affairs for 2016-2021; as Tom Fitton writes for Judicial Watch:

Here’s how the clandestine operation functions, according to high-level sources in Macedonia and the U.S. that have provided Judicial Watch with records as part of an ongoing investigation. The Open Society Foundation has established and funded dozens of leftwing, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Macedonia to overthrow the conservative government. One Macedonian government official interviewed by Judicial Watch in Washington D.C. recently, calls it the “Soros infantry.” The groups organize youth movements, create influential media outlets and organize violent protests to undermine the institutions and policies implemented by the government. One of the Soros’ groups funded the translation and publication of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” into Macedonian. The book is a tactical manual of subversion, provides direct advice for radical street protests and proclaims Lucifer to be the first radical.

In case you had any illusions that this was just a political struggle.

Naturally Foreign Policy jumped to the rescue, publishing a piece by Goran Buldioski calling these allegations—what else?—“conspiracy theories,” despite the fact that much of this information is readily available from the sources themselves. Sure, they’ll whitewash what their activities are to cast them in the best light possible, and why wouldn’t they? It’s the tried-and-true tactic of the neoliberal regime: frame subversion as “democratizing,” fostering “inclusion,” focusing on “human rights,” and the like. We know what that actually looks like.

Buldioski, by the way, is the director of the Open Society Foundations’ Berlin office and the Open Society Initiative for Europe. No conflict of interest there. The push-back was in response to the January 2017 formation of the Stop Soros Movement—SOS—in North Macedonia. It was founded by editor-in-chief of the state-run news agency MIA, Cvetin Cilimanov; editor-in-chief of the Republika news portal, Nenad Mircevski; and Nikola Srbov, a columnist for news portal, Kurir. As Balkan Insights reports:

NGOs backed by the Soros Foundation have long been a target of nationalist governments in Russia, Hungary, Macedonia and elsewhere, where authorities are deeply suspicious of their politically and socially liberal agenda…Russia more or less outlawed Soros-affiliated organisations in 2015. This January, authorities in Hungary said they would use “all the tools at its disposal” to “sweep out” NGOs funded by the Hungarian-born financier, which “serve global capitalists and back political correctness over national governments.” Hungarian Leader Viktor Orban last year accused Soros of destabilizing Europe by encouraging mass immigration to Europe from Middle Eastern war zones.

Those are very legitimate accusations.

Metamorphosis is one such group that receives funding from the Open Society Foundations, as well as the US Embassy, USAID, and the National Endowment for Democracy; despite claiming to stand for “liberal values,” they and other Soros/US government projects have worked to foment unrest under the guise of “democratic” protests. From The American Spectator:

Last March [2016], the Macedonian government boldly closed its border to prevent the tsunami of economic migrants and refugees surging from Greece toward Western Europe, allowing restricted numbers to enter. Open borders is one of George Soros’ most keenly felt priorities. How did his Team respond? Activism! With an admixture of violence and vandalism. The fertilized grassroots…broke into the president’s office, vandalized property, and burned office furniture. Three policemen were injured. Filip Stojanovski, Metamorphosis’ program director and main man, maintains a Twitter profile pic (@razvigor) obscured by bright paint splats — an overt reference to his glory days during last summer’s “Colorful Revolution,” as it is known. “I heard Soros and SDSM activists chanting, ‘No Justice, No Peace,’ which isn’t even a meaningful slogan in Skopje,” recalled Cvetin Chilimanov. “The transfer of tactics from U.S. Left-wing groups funded by Soros to Macedonia is striking.” Simultaneously, the government had to defend its southern border with Greece, while diverting security forces 100 miles away from Skopje, to defend property against political agitators. The traveling MP remembers, “It was a nightmare. The Soros army threw rocks at police guarding VMRO headquarters. Meanwhile, they were handing scissors out on the border to help people cut fences. Chaos.” Information Service editor Chilimanov considers last summer’s melee to signal George Soros’ deepest objectives: “By controlling Macedonia, he can open or close the flow of migrants. The far Left Greek government has accepted no end of migrants. [Soros is close to the Greek Prime Minister, Alexis Tsipras.] It was our government that stopped the flow so his grand objective is to control this situation.”

In the same article, Jason Miko stated that with North Macedonia:

Low-level State Department bureaucrats are calling the shots because the President hasn’t been able to fill key jobs on the seventh floor…This directly contradicts what President Trump said in his Inaugural address, that we want to let other nations put their own interests first. Instead, in Macedonia, we have an activist ambassador, Jess Baily, working with and funding the Soros organizations saying that no, you don’t have a right to put your own interests first.

Naturally Baily is an alumnus of Columbia University, which readers of The Transgender-Industrial Complex will recognize for the cancerous tumor that it is. For Chris Deliso: “[North Macedonia] is a simple, conservative society of people who know who they are.” For Soros and company, this is intolerable. Instead, they should be getting sex changes and welcoming thousands of unassimilable people from parts unknown to demographically swamp, displace, and eventually replace them. This is liberalism!

According to the Open Society Foundations’ Building Open Society in the Western Balkans report, in Slovenia:

Approximately 100 journalists received grants to visit media organizations abroad, to carry out projects abroad, or to participate in conferences and seminars. The foundation also funded more than 500 civil society projects concerned with ecology, human rights, volunteer work, ethnic minorities, women’s rights, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights.

One of the major priorities in Montenegro in the Open Society Foundations’ own words is to “promote diversity.” Further, the Open Society Foundations have indeed been working with the United Nations since at least 1992, when under the guidance of a five-member committee of individuals connected to the Open Society Foundations, $36 million was given to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). The activist-ambassador to North Macedonia, Jess Baily, coordinated US policy on political issues before the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly as Director of the Office of UN Political Affairs from 2008 to 2010.

The National Endowment for Democracy (NDI) is involved in dozens of countries, including Soros pet project North Macedonia where, in the NDI’s own words from their website, they are focused on:

Reconfiguring political discourse to be more inclusive…NDI’s programming in the country reflects those needs. With technical support from the U.S. Congress’ House Democracy Partnership…NDI also works with political parties, supporting pluralism and the promotion of women and youth leadership; with civil society organizations, conducting public opinion research, voter education and election observation; and with the country’s historically marginalized groups, including Roma and LGBTI citizens.

To the south, Greece is targeted and even its attempts to quarantine corona-positive migrants were decried as “xenophobic” and the like by Balkan Insight, in an article sponsored by the Resonant Voices Initiative in the EU, funded by the European Union’s Internal Security Fund. Interesting. Really, the Establishment has used COVID-19 as a justification for the most draconian totalitarianism most Westerners have ever experienced, and it is positioned to get a whole lot worse. Notice, as well, that it’s always “far-right,” as though preventing the spread of what appeared to be at the time a serious pandemic is some kind of extreme position. We do know Soros has dialogued with the EU and at his behest has increased the funding for “refugees” significantly in the last decade, especially since the onset of the “migrant crisis.”

The Open Society’s International Migration Initiative “has worked with governments [in Ireland, Spain, and the UK] on the development of refugee resettlement schemes based on a successful Canadian model for helping newly arrived families adjust to their new homes.” Its Advisory Committee includes former Ford Foundation fellow Arturo Sarukhan and Imelda Nicolas, IOM Migration Advisory Board member and consultant for the UN’s Institute of Training and Research focusing on international migration, gender, and development. Staff members include Colleen Thouez (Chair to the capacity-building portfolio of the World Bank’s knowledge partnership on migration); Maria Teresa Rojas (member of the Advisory Committee of the Andrew and Renata Kaldor Center for International Refugee Law at the University of New South Wales); and Elizabeth Frantz (“a researcher for one of the UK’s leading charities giving legal advice and representation to immigrants and asylum seekers”).

The Open Society European Policy Institute, based out of Brussels, “works to place human rights and open society values at the heart of what the European Union does.” Not that the EU needs any prompting: its motto is the Orwellian “United in Diversity.” The Open Society European Policy Institute’s staff includes Natacha Kazatchkine (former senior executive officer at the European Office of Amnesty International) and Marta Martinelli (“responsible for work on gender, democratization, security governance, and development issues in Africa”).

The Open Society Initiative for Europe works to “support groups that combat discrimination and xenophobia, and ensure the protection and well-being of refugees and migrants.” Its staff includes: Brandee Butler (“specialized in international justice as a program officer at the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation…Earlier in her career, Butler received the Yale Law School Bernstein Fellowship for International Human Rights”); Goran Buldioski (“Before joining the Open Society Foundations, he worked for the Council of Europe, the Macedonian Center for International Cooperation, and the National Youth Council of Macedonia”); Magdalena Majkowska-Tomkin (“Prior to joining the Open Society Foundations in 2016, Majkowska-Tomkin served as the chief of mission for the International Organization for Migration offices in Hungary and Slovenia”); and Beka Vučo (“joined the Open Society Foundations in 1991, working as a regional director in the New York office where she helped establish Open Society foundations in the Western Balkans”).

In 2007, the Open Society Foundations spent $440 million on its various initiatives. Among its targeted areas included Albania ($1.791 million), Bosnia ($3.11 million), Estonia ($1.769 million), Czech Republic ($1.739 million), Hungary ($289,000), Bulgaria ($2.142 million), Kosovo ($2.438 million), Lithuania ($1.546 million), Moldova ($4.149 million), Montenegro ($1.657 million), Macedonia ($7.229 million), Latvia ($1.853 million), South Africa ($7.452 million), Slovakia ($1.985 million), Poland ($5.699 million through the Stefan Batory Foundation), Romania ($3.555 million), Russia ($6.472 million), Serbia ($4.212 million), Belarus ($1.377 million through OSI-Paris Belarus support), and the Ukraine ($7.809 million through the International Renaissance Foundation). Targeting Central and Eastern Europe as well as the Caucasus and Central Asia have been long-standing priorities for Soros, although his activities have been by no means confined to these regions, with 2007 grants ranging from $4.282 million to the Baltimore, Maryland-based Open Society Institute to $4.287 million to Fundación Soros in Guatemala to the $13.991 million to the Open Society Initiative for West Africa.

In 2006, the Open Society Foundations spent over $415 million on its various initiatives. Disbursals were similar to the year following, although in Europe, $395,000-worth of efforts in Croatia were underwritten by the Soros Network. Soros’ Central European University, which also has its own press established in 1992, has been an instrumental hub for these subversive activities and ideas at the meeting-point of Central and Eastern Europe. As the 2002 Open Society Foundations report brags:

Evidence of CEU’s influence in the world can be found in graduates who have gone on to serve as ministers for education, minorities, and energy, and to represent their countries as senior officials in the UN, EU, Council of Europe, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank.

The Open Society Foundations were represented at the World Bank and IMF’s annual meeting in 2019 along with the Council on Foreign Relations, the IMF, the UN, Freedom House, USAID, Goldman Sachs, Rothschild & Co., and a slew of other major organizations and institutions that essentially define the neoliberal Establishment.

For reference, observing organizations at the World Bank’s annual meeting in 2019 included: The World Trade Organization (WTO); United Nations Development Program (UNDP); European Commission; OPEC; United Nations Populations Fund; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); European Central Bank; Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); United Nations Capital Development Fund; European Bank for Reconstruction and Development; Green Climate Fund; European Investment Bank Group; ASEAN+3 Macroeconomic Research Office; Council of Europe Development Bank; World Health Organization; Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS. There are essentially no limits to the subversive and destructive reach of Soros and the Establishment.


Bibliography

Andreou, Aggelos. “Europe’s Far-Right Exploits COVID-19 for Anti-Refugee Propaganda.” Balkan Insight. June 4, 2020. https://balkaninsight.com/2020/06/04/europes-far-right-exploits-covid-19-for-anti-refugee-propaganda/

Aron, Leon. “Russia’s Revolution.” Commentary. November 2002. https://www.commentary.org/articles/leon-aron/russias-revolution/

Bruck, Connie. “The World According to George Soros,” The New Yorker, January 15, 1995. newyorker.com/magazine/1995/01/23/the-world-according-to-soros

Buldioski, Goran. “Balkan Conspiracy Theories Come to Capitol Hill.” Foreign Policy. March 28, 2017. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/28/soros-gop-letter-open-society-macedonia-albania/

Fitton, Tom. “US Gives Soros Groups Millions to Destabilize Macedonia’s Conservative Government.” Judicial Watch. February 28, 2017. https://www.judicialwatch.org/corruption-chronicles/u-s-gives-soros-groups-millions-destabilize-macedonias-conservative-govt/

Gaetan, Victor. “Macedonia to George Soros and USAID: Go Away.” The American Spectator. March 24, 2017. https://spectator.org/macedonia-to-george-soros-and-usaid-go-away/

Klarin, Mirko. “Never Again: Judgments on a Decade of Bestiality.” In Open Society Foundations, Building Open Society.

Marusic, Sinisa Jakov. “New ‘Stop Soros’ Movement Unveiled in Macedonia.” Balkan Insight. January 18, 2017. https://balkaninsight.com/2017/01/18/macedonia-forms-anti-soros-movement-01-18-2017/

Open Society Foundations. Building Open Society in the Western Balkans: 1991-2011. New York: 2011. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/b52ff050-5ec4-4df7-b078-e02cf5374bd9/open-society-western-balkans-20111004.pdf

Open Society Initiative. Soros Foundations Network 2002 Report. New York: 2002. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/569ceb5a-5a08-472e-ac5f-00b0c0595cf2/a_complete_report_0.pdf

Open Society Initiative. Soros Foundations Network 2006 Report. New York: 2006. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/cbdbf3ce-5497-4a41-adbc-7160c825817e/a_complete_3.pdf

Open Society Initiative. Soros Foundations Network 2007 Report. New York: 2007. https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/3d4ebf2b-918b-4621-a226-dc7a886d8faf/a_complete_4.pdf

Palmer, Joanne. “Stronger Than the Storm.” Jewish Standard. December 20, 2013. https://jewishstandard.timesofisrael.com/stronger-than-the-storm/

Papić, Žarko. The Aid Dilemma: Lessons (Not) Learned in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In Open Society Foundations, Building Open Society.

Soros, George. “The Capitalist Threat.” The Atlantic, February 1997. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1997/02/the-capitalist-threat/376773/

The United States Agency for Global Media. USAGM 2018 Annual Report. 2018. https://www.usagm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/USAGM-AR-2018-final.pdf

 

[1] From the Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the US Senate (92nd Congress) running June 6th and 7th, 1972, we learn that from 1949 to the hearings, $553 million in US government funding went to these projects in addition to $46 million from private sources. The West European Advisory Committee to Radio Free Europe at that time included: a pair of Danish Parliamentarians; Paul van Zeeland (NATO, Bilderberg Group, former Belgian Prime Minister); numerous prominent figures within NATO; several German Federal Parliamentarians; Samuel Schweizer (Chairman of the Board, Swiss Bank Corporation); Karl Birnbaum (Director of the Swedish Institute of International Affairs); and the list goes on.

[2] From Aron. “Russian Revolution”: “Russian Jews…were among the first to profit from the arrival of economic liberty in their country. Among the no more than twelve Russian ‘oligarchs’—the owners or majority stockholders of the largest industrial and financial groups—five are Jews, and the top managerial level of the Russian oil industry is heavily Jewish as well.”

[3] From Palmer. “Stronger than the Storm”: “The first significant Jewish leaders to support him were Morton and Marian Steinberg, the founders of UJA in Bergen County [and his wife’s parents]… Mr. Kempner is a member of Temple Emanu-El of Closter, and although he is not particularly observant, he feels deeply Jewish, he said. ‘I don’t think that you can be a Jew without having a worldview. Religion has a lot to do with my progressive politics.’”

[4] This is a sick joke if you know anything about the way “civil rights” have been weaponized in the United States.

Free to Cheat: “Jewish Emancipation” and the Anglo-Jewish Cousinhood, Part 1

Editor’s note: This is a repost of a classic Andrew Joyce article from 2012. Never forget!

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
     Charles Mackay, 1841[1]

Shortly after his election to Parliament in 1830, Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–1859), a famous historian and one of Britain’s leading men of letters, took up the cause of removing Jewish “civil disabilities” in Britain. In a succession of speeches, Macaulay was instrumental in pushing the case for permitting Jews to sit in the legislature, and his January 1831 article Civil Disabilities of the Jews had a “significant effect on public opinion.”[2] Professing Jews residing in Britain at that time were unable to take seats in the House of Commons, because prior to sitting in the legislature one was required to declare a Christian oath. In addition, Jews were “excluded from Crown office, from corporations, and from most of the professions, the entrance to which bristled with religious oaths, tests, and declarations.”[3] Even the 1753 Naturalization Act which had granted citizenship to foreign-born Jews had been repealed following widespread popular agitation, and a pervading atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust of Jews generally, and foreign Jews especially.[4] Ursula Henriques states that because of the resolute opposition of the British people to the involvement of Jews in British political life, since their readmission in the 17th century “the Jews had remained quiet.”[5]

However, buoyed by the granting of political emancipation to Protestant Dissenters and Catholics in 1828 and 1829, British Jews began to agitate for their own “emancipation,” and this agitation was augmented and spearheaded to a great extent by Thomas Macauley. Within thirty years the British elite had capitulated; not only had all Christian oaths been abandoned, but six unconverted Jews sat in the House of Commons. Within fifty years, Britain had sixteen Jewish Members of Parliament, and a Jewish Prime Minister who espoused a doctrine of Jewish racial superiority — Benjamin Disraeli; and under Disraeli Britain would pursue a foreign policy dictated to a large extent by what future Prime Minister William Gladstone called “Judaic sympathies.”[6] This foreign policy would include support for the Ottomans who were friendly to Jews and were massacring Christians in Bulgaria. And it would include waging of war on the Boers in a move highly beneficial to Jewish mining operations in South Africa.[7] How and why did such a dramatic change in circumstances occur? And how did the Anglo-Jewish elite repay Britain for its act of ‘justice’?

Let us first return momentarily to Macaulay. An in-depth survey of his life reveals no Jewish ancestry and no clear links to Jews. Son of a Scottish colonial governor and abolitionist, Macaulay seems at first glance to be something of a weak-kneed liberal idealist, and in addition he appears to have had very little knowledge of Jewish history or culture. He saw the Jewish agitation for entry into government as being primarily a religious issue, and perceived Jews as being, in his own words, “victims of intolerance.”[8] Macaulay prided himself on his knowledge of Greek literature,[9] and yet we can but wish he’d spent more time on his Greek philosophy, particularly that of Plato who condemned ” those who practise justice through timidity or stupidity,” and opined that “if justice is not good for the just man, moralists who recommend it as a virtue are perpetrating a fraud.”[10]

However, a complete reading of his 1831 article on Civil Disabilities of the Jews would leave us feeling slightly less antagonistic towards this would-be emancipator, and his article reveals much about the extent and nature of Jewish power and influence in Britain at that time. Macaulay, it seems, viewed emancipation as a means of ‘keeping the Jews in check.’ For example, he insisted that “Jews are not now excluded from political power. They possess it; and as long as they are allowed to accumulate property, they must possess it. The distinction which is sometimes made between civil privileges and political power, is a distinction without a difference. Privileges are power.”[11] Macaulay was also aware of the role of finance as the primary force of Jewish power in Britain. He asked: “What power in civilised society is so great as that of creditor over the debtor? If we take this away from the Jew, we take away from him the security of his property. If we leave it to him, we leave to him a power more despotic by far, than that of the King and all his cabinet.”[12] Macaulay further responds to Christian claims that “it would be impious to let a Jew sit in Parliament” by stating bluntly that “a Jew may make money, and money may make members of Parliament. … [T]he Jew may govern the money market, and the money market may govern the world. … The scrawl of the Jew on the back of a piece of paper may be worth more than the word of three kings, or the national faith of three new American republics.”[13]

Macaulay’s insights into the nature of Jewish power at that time, and his assertions that Jews had already accumulated political power without the aid of the statute books, are quite profound. Yet his reasoning — that permitting Jews into the legislature would somehow offset this power, or make it accountable — seems pitifully naive and poorly thought out. Nonetheless, I wish to take Macaulay’s article as a starting point. What was it in the nature of British Jewry at that time that so alarmed Macaulay, and provoked such a rash response on his part?

The Cousinhood.

We should first bring the Anglo-Jewish elite, referred to by Macaulay, into sharper focus. From the early 19th century until the First World War, English Jewry was ruled by a tightly connected oligarchy. Daniel Gutwein states that this Anglo-Jewish elite comprised some twenty inter-related Ashkenazi and Sephardic families including the houses of Goldsmith, Montagu, Nathan, Cohen, Isaacs, Abrahams, Samuel, and Montefiore.[14] At its head “stood the House of Rothschild.”[15] This network of families had an “exceptionally high degree of consanguinity,” leading to it being termed “The Cousinhood,” and among them “conversion and intermarriage [with non-Jews] was rare.”[16] Todd Endelmann attributes the lack of conversion to the fact that “conversion was not as useful, in general, to English Jews as it was to Jews in Central and Eastern Europe.”[17] The Cousinhood exercised control over the Jewish community through its leadership of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, an organization which would later become one of the chief engines of the move for Jewish emancipation.[18]

The other means through which the Cousinhood maintained control over English Jews was its practice of “systematized philanthropy.” The Cousinhood largely refrained from involvement in Jewish religious life but heavily devoted itself to founding and leading the Anglo-Jewish Association — “the principle arm of Anglo-Jewish political and education aid” to global Jewry.[19] Endelmann notes that these communal institutions “determined the tenor and the agenda of the public side of Jewish life in London.”[20]

To illustrate the extent of blood and financial ties of this network of families, let us consider the following: in 1870, the treasurer of the London Jewish Board of Guardians was Viennese-born Ferdinand de Rothschild (1838–1898). Ferdinand had married his cousin Elvina, who was a niece of the President of the London United Synagogue, Sir Anthony de Rothschild (1810–1876). Meanwhile, the Board of Deputies was at that time headed by Moses Montefiore, whose wife, a daughter of Levi Barent Cohen, was related to Nathan Meyer Rothschild. Nathan Meyer Rothschild’s wife was also a daughter of Levi Barent Cohen, and thus Montefiore was uncle to the aforementioned Anthony de Rothschild. In addition, Anthony was married to a niece of Montefiore, the daughter of Abraham Montefiore and Henrietta Rothschild[21]…et cetera, et cetera. In financial terms, the houses of Rothschild and Montefiore had united in 1824 to form the Alliance Insurance Company, and most of the families were involved in each other’s stock-brokering and banking concerns. Endelmann notes that in these firms “new recruits were drawn exclusively from the ranks of the family.”[22]

Working tightly within this ethnic and familial network, the Cousinhood amassed huge fortunes, and in the years before World War I, despite comprising less than three tenths of 1% of the population, Jews constituted over 20% of non-landed British millionaires.[23] William Rubinstein notes that of these millionaires, all belonged to the Cousinhood.[24] It is worth noting that this wealth was derived exclusively from the fields of “banking, finance, the stock markets and bullion trading.”[25]

By virtue of this incredible level of wealth, the Cousinhood enjoyed a certain degree of political influence. Endelmann provides evidence that the group had “used its economic power to insinuate itself into the different sectors of the political establishment: the political parties, both Houses of Parliament, and even the government.”[26] Endelmann further states that the  Cousinhood’s influence was wielded in the pursuit of “ethnic sympathies, family tradition, and group self-interest,” and it was this influence that so alarmed Thomas Macaulay.[27]

The Move Into Parliament.

By the mid-1830s, English Jews led by the Cousinhood began to press for the removal of Christian oaths in Parliament and this for their ability to enter the legislature. Between 1830 and 1836 no fewer than four Bills were tabled for the removal of Jewish ‘disabilities,’ and all failed to win the support of elected officials. Frustrated that their influence was proving ineffectual, the Cousinhood decided to directly confront Parliament by putting Lionel de Rothschild up as a Liberal candidate for the City of London constituency, and funding him to an extent that almost ensured victory before the campaign even began. Although the Cousinhood had, as Endelmann noted, backed all parties when it was in their interests, they settled on the Liberals because they were broadly supportive of religious liberty. By framing Jewish interests in a religious context, de Rothschild sought to “bring the issue of Jewish emancipation into the broader Liberal agenda of civil and religious liberty, and he was determined that Liberals should adopt Jewish emancipation as a cause.”[28]

De Rothschild came third in the 1847 General Election but won enough votes to take a seat in Parliament. Lord John Russell, then Whig Prime Minister, immediately set about introducing a Jewish Disabilities Bill which would do away with the Christian oath. The Bill was passed in the House of Commons, but resistance proved strong, and it was thrown out by the Lords twice in 1848, and again in 1849. A remarkable but quite unsurprising detail about this time concerns the complicity of Benjamin Disraeli in lobbying members of the opposition party for support of the Bill. The quintessential ‘damp Jew’, Disraeli had been baptized a Christian at age twelve but never ceased to support Jewish ethnic interests, and became notorious for espousing a repugnant Jewish supremacism in his novels Coningsby (1844), Sybil (1845), and Tancred (1847). Although a member of the Tory party since 1837 — a party which was ostensibly dedicated to supporting Christianity in the form of the Established Church of England — correspondence in the official Rothschild Archive reveals that Disraeli was actively working “behind the scenes” to generate Tory support for the removal of the Christian oath.[29] Even taking into account Barbara Kaplan’s dubious and ill-evidenced claim that while Disraeli “lauded the Jewish people” (an understatement to say the least) he “claimed that Christianity was the superior religion,”[30] we can only conclude that in acting to undermine the Christian oath, for Disraeli Jewish ethnicity trumped any feeling he may have had towards Christianity. In a letter marked “Private”, Disraeli wrote to de Rothschild in December 1847:

My dear Lionel,

I find that 18 men, now Peers, voted against the Jews in the Commons 1833, & only 11 in their favor! I agree with you, therefore, that we must be cautious in publishing the lists of the divisions, & rather give a précis of them, calling attention only to what is in your favor….Writing to Lord John Manners today, I particularly mentioned the anxiety of the Court that the bill should pass, as this will be conveyed to the Duke of Rutland who is a great Courtier….My friend thinks that a good petition from King’s Lynn would nail Jocelyn’s vote for the second reading.

Ever yours faithfully

D

The diaries of Louise de Rothschild, sister-in-law to Lionel, further reveal that Disraeli had become a regular dining companion with members of the Cousinhood, and that during one evening with the Rothschilds in November 1847, Disraeli had argued that “we [my italics] must ask for our rights and privileges, not for concessions.”[31] This bravado proved ineffectual in the House of Lords, where hereditary, non-elected nobles continued to reject the Jewish Disabilities Bills for another decade. This obstruction was only ended in 1858, when a change in government allowed Disraeli himself to become Leader of the House of Commons, a position which allowed him to secure a measure “allowing each House to make its own rules about the form of oath” — thereby side-stepping the second chamber as well as established British democratic precedent altogether.[32] Lionel took his seat at the end of 1858, and was joined by his brother a year later. By 1865 his son also had a seat in the Commons, and numerous relatives began to follow. Just as in business, politics was a family affair.

Go to Part 2.


[1] C. Mackay, Extradordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (London: Bentley, 1841), p.xv.

[2] P. Mendes-Flohr (ed), The Jew in the Modern World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980), p.136.

[3] U. Henriques, “The Jewish Emancipation Controversy in Nineteenth-Century Britain” Past and Present (1968) 40 (1): 126-146 (p.126).

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] R. Quinault, “Gladstone and Disraeli: A Reappraisal of their Relationship” History (2006) 91 (304): 557-576.

[7] C. Hirschfield, “The Anglo-Boer War and Jewish Culpability” Journal of Contemporary History (1980) 15 (4): 619-631 and A. Saab, “Disraeli, Judaism, and the Eastern Question,” The International History Review (1988) 10 (4): 559-578.

[8] M. Cross (ed) Selections from the Edinburgh Review (London: Longman, 1833), vol. 3 ,pp. 667-75.

[9]  W. Williams (1993). “Reading Greek Like a Man of the World: Macaulay and the Classical Languages” Greece and Rome, 40 (2) , pp 201-216

[10] P. Foot (ed) Theories of Ethics: Oxford Readings in Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967), p.99.

[11] T. Macaulay, “Civil Disabilities of the Jews” in M. Cross (ed) Selections from the Edinburgh Review (London: Longman, 1833), vol. 3, pp. 667-75.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] D. Gutwein, The Divided Elite: Politics and Anglo-Jewry, 1882-1917 (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p.5.

[15] Ibid.

[16] T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), pp.491-526, p.491 & 495.

[17] Ibid, p.514.

[18] Ibid, p.494.

[19] K. Macdonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (Lincoln: Writers Club Press, 2002), p.151 & T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), p. 495.

[20]Ibid, p.495.

[21] T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), p.496.

[22] T. Endelmann, “Communal Solidarity and Family Loyalty Among the Jewish Elite of Victorian London,” Victorian Studies, 28 (3), p.519.

[23] Ibid, p. 519.

[24] W. Rubinstein, “The Jewish Economic Elite in Britain, 1808-1909,” Jewish Historical Society of England. Available at: http://www.jhse.org/book/export/article/21930.

[25] D. Gutwein, The Divided Elite: Economics, Politics, and Anglo-Jewry, 1882-1917, (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1992), p.8.

[26] Quoted in Gutwein, The Divided Elite, p.8.

[27] Ibid, p.10.

[28] The Rothschild Archive: Available at: http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/BW2aJourney.

[29] http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/BW2bDisraeli

[30] B. Kaplan “Disraeli on Jewish Disabilities: Another Look,” Central States Speech Journal, 30 (2), pp.156-163, (p.158).

[31] Lady de Rothschilds Diary: http://www.rothschildarchive.org/ib/?doc=/ib/articles/BW2bLoudiary.

[32] R. Blake, Disraeli (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1966), p.261.

 

High Hope and Damnable Despair: Some Words of Wisdom from Vox Day and Bruce Charlton

I don’t believe in God or Satan, but I increasingly wonder whether I should. I greatly admire and regularly learn from the writers Vox Day and Bruce Charlton, so perhaps I should adopt the Christianity that they make central to their work. At the same time, I can separate the ontics from the pragmatics in the epistemics of theistics. That is, I understand that believing in God can be useful whether or not God literally exists. Indeed, I know for myself that merely imagining a God can be useful. The concept of God clarifies and consolidates some valuable techniques of mental, moral and spiritual hygiene.

Crucial question

Even if you’re an atheist (and adiabolist) like me, you might find it useful to ask yourself of your own thoughts and deeds: Would God be pleased with these or would the Devil be cheering you on? By definition, God is the embodiment of Truth, Beauty and Goodness. He wants what’s best for you, me and every other human. Satan, by contrast, is the absolute and eternal enemy of Truth, Beauty and Goodness. He wants what’s worst for you, me and every other human. So it’s a very effective shorthand to ask who would be pleased by what one is doing or thinking: God or Satan? I’ve killed negative trains of thought by asking myself that question. And thereby snapped out of self-pity, bitterness and recrimination.   Those are bad things to have in your head – Satanic things, a Christian would say, so it’s no wonder that leftism encourages thoughts like that.

Yes, the same “God or Satan?” question applies just as much to the political as the personal. Indeed, the political is the personal, because the politics you espouse reflect what kind of person you are. Is someone interested in power rather than Truth, Beauty and Goodness? Then they will espouse leftism. And that gives leftists some big advantages. It is easier to pursue power when you don’t have to worry about truth, morality and aesthetics. This is related to the fact that it’s easier to destroy than to create. Leftism is the ideology of destruction, not creation, and that again gives leftists an advantage. They are energized and encouraged by destruction, decay and degradation – by ugliness and evil in the arts and entertainment, by the elevation of thuggish Black criminals like George Floyd to sainthood, and by the flooding of White Christian nations with unattractive, unproductive and unintelligent non-Whites.

Hope creates morale, morale wins wars

Those of us who oppose leftism are not encouraged and energized by those things. Quite the opposite. And so it’s easy to be dismayed and demoralized by them – in short, to slip into despair. But that’s where the “God or Satan?” question proves useful once again. Christianity has always taught that hope is virtuous and despair is damnable. As Vox Day puts it: “The choice is between the hope of Jesus Christ and the despair of Satan.” Despair is what our enemies want us to feel, because it does their fighting for them. As Vox Day has also said: “Hope is what generates morale, and morale is what wins wars and every other form of conflict that requires endurance.” Here are some excellent blog-posts by Day on the subject of hope and despair:

Always watch your tongue

No despair nancies

Despair will not be tolerated

The filth-pigs of San Francisco

The journey sans ticket

Biggest sting-op in US history

As he says in the first blog-post above: “Words not only describe reality, they shape reality by influencing thoughts.” Feeling despair yourself is bad enough; seeking to infect others with despair is worse still. That’s why defeatism has often – and rightly, in my opinion – been a capital offence in times of war. It’s exactly what the enemy wants you to practise. If you oppose the enemy and his ideology, why do you do his work for him?

Despair is always wrong

And if you understand the world, why do you feel despair in the first place? That’s because one essential part of understanding the world is the recognition that you don’t and can’t fully understand the world and its future course. That is, the world is too complex and you know too little of it to warrant a firm belief in one outcome or another. Despair isn’t just stupid and self-defeating: it’s egotistical. By indulging in it or encouraging it in others, we set ourselves up as something we are not and cannot be: infallible prophets and prognosticators. And if you want to understand better this aspect of the wrongness of despair, I strongly recommend a blog-post by Bruce Charlton entitled “Palantir problems… Tolkien on the evil of despair.” Here’s an extract from the post:

And – simply put – despair is always wrong because we never have conclusive reasons to give-up hope.

Despair is not based on probability, but certainty – and that certainty is always false. A high probability of a bad outcome should be called pessimism. It is not despair because it is a best guess, and estimate; and we realise that even the very improbable sometimes happens.

Note: It is vital to distinguish between despair and pessimism; and between hope and optimism.

Despair is a sin, and is always-wrong; hope is a virtue and (for a Christian) always-right. Optimism and pessimism are merely conjectural judgments about the likely future – constrained by individual ability, information and honesty…

But more fundamentally, despair is not even about strict probabilities of the future of a known situation; since we are very unlikely to be framing, to be understanding accurately, the real nature of the situation.

Even if we know a lot about a situation, we never know every-thing about it; and some specific thing (some ‘fact’) that we do Not know, may have the capacity to transform our understanding. (“Palantir problems…  Tolkien on the evil of despair,” Bruce Charlton at The Notion Club Papers, 5th January 2021)

Bruce Charlton is writing about what he calls “Tolkien’s frequent theme that it is always wrong to despair” [his emphasis]. And that theme is another of the many ways in which Tolkien’s great work Lord of the Rings (1954-5) is invaluable for White nationalists. We can do more than refresh our souls and rejoice our spirits by reading Tolkien: we can learn how to conduct ourselves in the war between the friends and the enemies of Truth, Beauty and Goodness. In one section of Lord of the Rings, one great and noble character is driven to despair by what he learns from a palantír, a crystal ball that allows the skilled and strong-minded to learn of distant events.

The character learns much, but he misinterprets what he sees, because despite his wisdom he fails to understand his own limitations. As Bruce Charlton says: “Even if we know a lot about a situation, we never know every-thing about it; and some specific thing (some ‘fact’) that we do Not know, may have the capacity to transform our understanding.”

“Westward, look, the land is bright!”

This has long been a theme of literature. In the ancient myth of Theseus and the Minotaur, Theseus’ father Aegeus, King of Athens, casts himself in despair into the sea when he sees the black sails of an approaching ship. Theseus has been successful in his fight with the Minotaur, but has forgotten to hoist the white sails that he promised his father would signal victory. So Aegeus despaired and died, misinterpreting what he saw and failing to wait for the truth. And here to end is the Victorian poet Arthur Clough (1819-61) using the power of verse to compress into a few lines what Tolkien, in his different genre, takes many thousands of words to say:

Say Not the Struggle Availeth Naught

Say not the struggle nought availeth,
The labour and the wounds are vain,
The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
And as things have been they remain.

If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
It may be, in yon smoke concealed,
Your comrades chase e’en now the fliers,
And, but for you, possess the field.

For while the tired waves, vainly breaking
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back through creeks and inlets making,
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light,
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly,
But westward, look, the land is bright!