Featured Articles

Menopausal Academics and the Mothering of Jason Arday

Clearly, Jason Arday – who is now the former Professor of the Sociology of Education at Cambridge University – is a fantasist who was gifted a position for which he was completely unqualified because he was Black and had a tragic back story of autism, which he may have concocted to garner sympathy. Cambridge University has been humiliated, as have all those whose knee-jerk reaction was to defend Arday and to accuse his detractors of “racism.” Students have emerged to highlight Arday’s appalling teaching quality and to demand that their grades be changed. It is widely assumed that he was appointed as a poster-boy for diversity and this is almost certainly true, but the reaction of his boss, department head Hilary Cremin and the fact that much of his selection committee were middle-aged females, highlights another possible reason: unmet maternal instincts.

As I have discussed in my book, Woke Eugenics: How Social Justice is a Mask for Social Darwinism, when you just look at the more intelligent, particularly among women, the big predictor of never having children is that you are liberal; which is overwhelmingly the case with female academics. Inculcated with feminism, they dedicate their most fertile years to their careers and end up childless. Moreover, women were sexually select to pursue stratus and, now that they are more educated than men in many Western countries, there are too few high-status men for them to choose from. The result of these two factors is childlessness, but those maternal instincts have to go somewhere.

Where do they go? Most obviously, they seem to be transferred over to young, male asylum-seekers of the kind that cross illegally from France to the UK every day in small boats. It is as though the fact that they are of different race somehow tricks their minds into seeing them as helpless rather than the aggressive young men whom they turn out to be. This idealisation of the genetically distant appears to be a natural tendency on the Left. Whereas the moral circle of conservatives is a series of concentric circles emanating from self and becoming ever more genetically distant, the Leftist is more likely to identify with a group a few circles removed from self. Hence, a hundred years ago, upper-class leftists would identify with a (de-fanged, idealised) version of the working class. This tendency allows them to signal their “kindness” to a “marginalised” group and, so, play for status covertly via signalling their superior virtue, in a context in which leftists have elevated Neuroticism and, so, fear a fair fight. In a sense, they de-fang the outsider and make them into a kind of over-grown child.

A BBC report on the appointment of Jason Arday in 2023 records this in striking detail and it shows that Arday is, in some ways, particularly easy to treat in this way. Arday is effeminate and has relatively large eyes, like a child. Hilary Cremin, who dons a mini-skirt despite clearly being past the menopause, gushes over Arday and there is a close-up of them not merely shaking hands – as employer and employee much be expected to – but holding hands, for an extended period of time, gripping each other’s wrists in an affectionate way. Beaming at her, Arday asks whether his election as professor is a “tokenistic appointment.” She replies that the board of electors were “absolutely unanimous” and that “we are so lucky to have you. You are the best in the world in terms of the research that you do.”

This was objectively false and Cremin must have known that it was. Even in the world of Woke auto-ethnography, where Black academics discuss their feelings and pass it off as scholarship, Arday had an extremely meagre publication record and those publications were little more than verbose, Woke word salad. It is as though Jason Arday is Cremin’s child and she must tell him white lies in order to encourage him.

It might even be wondered if there is a sexual element here. On the one hand, Arday is de-fanged and rendered childlike but, on the other, he represents raw Black sexuality; something that is both primal and childlike at the same. This seems unlikely, however, when you take into account that Arday is so strikingly effeminate, but may be so with other instances.

The Arday case, then, is indicative of far more than merely the corruption of Cambridge University Woke ideology. It reflects something that happens when the universities are taken over by women, as many of them have been. Clearly, there is a move away from male, confrontational academia in which ideas are dispassionately debated and feelings are the enemy of truth. We shift to something more like a nursery school where we try to ensure that everyone gets along and nobody’s feelings are hurt.

But, in a multicultural context, female leadership means that something else happens. Non-White men are idealised as ersatz children and introduced into the department to research their feelings about being non-White men. Naturally, they appoint more people like themselves and, before long, a once great university becomes an international laughing stock.

When Oxford University allowed women to study there it imposed heavy restrictions on their numbers and then tried to reverse the policy completely because the atmosphere of the university changed to being a far more emotional one. The Jason Arday fiasco is, in part, a consequence of this female atmosphere.

 

From Tel Aviv to Tokyo: Uncovering the Hidden Israel Ties in Japanese Anime

In the fall of 2025, a quiet software switch inside one of the world’s most popular streaming platforms ignited a geopolitical firestorm that few anime fans saw coming. Crunchyroll, the jointly owned Sony Pictures Entertainment and Aniplex platform that delivers Japanese animation to over 100 million registered users worldwide, reportedly transitioned its subtitling workflow away from Aegisub—a popular open-source tool long favored by professional translators and the fansub community—and toward OOONA, a cloud-based localization platform founded in Tel Aviv in 2012. Crunchyroll denied any vendor change, with a spokesperson telling Anime News Network the subtitle disruptions were caused by “internal system problems—not by any change in how we create subtitles, use of new vendors or AI”—without directly addressing whether OOONA was being used or had ever been used.

The controversy that followed exposed something rarely discussed in anime fandom: the quiet but consequential presence of Israeli and Jewish-affiliated entities in the infrastructure, capital, and distribution chains that now power one of the world’s fastest-growing entertainment industries.

To understand why the OOONA story landed with such force, it helps to first understand what anime has become. Anime is a style of animation that originated in Japan, characterized by colorful, stylized art, expressive character designs, and dynamic storytelling that spans every genre imaginable—from science fiction and romance to horror and slice-of-life drama. Its global footprint has grown to a scale that would have been unimaginable two decades ago.

The Association of Japanese Animations, the industry’s own trade body, reported that the global anime market hit a record ¥3.84 trillion (approximately $25.25 billion) in fiscal year 2024—a 14.8% year-over-year increase and an all-time high — with overseas revenue accounting for ¥2.17 trillion ($14.27 billion), or 56% of the total, surpassing domestic revenue for the first time. Overseas sales grew 26% year-over-year, while domestic sales rose just 2.8%. Private market research firms, which apply broader definitions covering merchandise, gaming, and brand extensions, place the 2026 global figure at roughly $34–35 billion, with forecasts ranging from $50 billion to nearly $130 billion by the 2030s depending on methodology and scope.

It is inside this booming, globally contested industry that the OOONA controversy took root. Fansub community insider Daiz was among the first to report in detail that Crunchyroll’s subtitling staff was being compelled to abandon Aegisub in favor of OOONA — a move insiders alleged was tied to a broader push toward AI-assisted subtitling and accompanied by complaints of delayed payments to localization workers. Al Bawaba reported that fans and pro-Palestine activists explicitly cited OOONA’s Israeli origin and the ongoing Gaza conflict— referencing UN Commission of Inquiry findings—as grounds for a boycott, with posts across X calling for subscription cancellations and piracy as protest. The boycott language spread quickly: one user urged fans to “pirate, fansub, steal every thing crunchyrolll does. its no longer about taste or opinion, completely choke it out for this.”

The backlash compounded pre-existing anger over Crunchyroll’s August 2025 mass layoffs and an earlier scandal in which a third-party vendor was found using ChatGPT to generate subtitles in breach of contract. By late November 2025, Daiz posted on X that Crunchyroll executives had internally judged the backlash “small enough” that their “subtitle enshittification & OOONA plans will NOT be cancelled, only slightly delayed.” Discussion of the boycott spread across mainstream anime press including CBR and Screen Rant.

The OOONA episode did not emerge in a vacuum. Israel’s engagement with animation as an industry stretches back at least two decades. The most prominent example is Jerusalem Venture Partners (JVP), the VC fund founded by Erel Margalit, which in 2006 driving the Israeli economy today by demonstrating the same level of influence on the media and entertainment industries.”

The studio targeted feature films and interactive distribution rather than Japanese-style anime specifically, and it folded by around 2013. Beyond JVP, Israel’s animation sector has largely organized itself around advocacy and networking bodies such as Animation Israel, which promotes Israeli studios’ partnerships with companies like Disney, Mattel, and Nickelodeon in international markets.

The more consequential thread runs through the Jewish American executives and dealmakers who shaped how anime reached Western audiences in the first place. Alfred R. Kahn, who served as chairman and CEO of 4Kids Entertainment from 1991 to 2011, was arguably the single most influential American gatekeeper for anime licensing during the 2000s. His company controlled the U.S. rights to Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh!—two of the biggest anime-adjacent franchises of the era—and oversaw the heavy Americanization and editing of both series that became a defining, and deeply controversial, feature of early anime localization in the United States.

Fans and critics accused 4Kids of censoring Yu-Gi-Oh! and Shaman King to the point of distortion, prompting the company to briefly release unedited versions in the fall of 2004 before terminating them in spring 2005. Kahn himself drew industry criticism in early 2006 when, at a manga industry conference in New York, he declared that “kids today don’t read, they read less today” — a remark that drew an immediate rebuke from librarians, publishers, and Viz Media’s Liza Coppola, who countered that “manga is a great medium to bring kids back to reading.” The comment reinforced a perception that 4Kids viewed anime as a product to be reshaped for American consumption rather than a cultural form to be respected on its own terms.

Where 4Kids defined the early era of anime in America, it was Peter Chernin’s Chernin Group that shaped its streaming future. In December 2013, the Chernin Group—the media company headed by former News Corp. president Peter Chernin—acquired a majority stake in Crunchyroll, valuing the platform at less than $100 million at the time. Chernin announced the acquisition with a clear strategic vision: “Our plan is to continue to grow the anime vertical as well as launch new channels in different genres. Online video is growing faster than any other sector within media, and we feel that with Crunchyroll, we have a fantastic, anchor platform.” The Chernin Group and AT&T then formed Otter Media as a joint venture in 2014, which invested a further $22 million in Crunchyroll’s parent company Ellation. AT&T bought out Chernin’s stake entirely in August 2018. Sony’s Funimation Global Group then completed its acquisition of Crunchyroll from AT&T on August 9, 2021 for $1.175 billion, cementing the platform’s place inside one of the world’s largest entertainment conglomerates.

Crunchyroll’s Sony-linked ownership was constantly under the microscope for several labor-related tensions. Under its Chernin and Sony-era ownership lineage, Crunchyroll faced accusations of union-busting in its English dubbing operations—including the September 2022 firing of SAG-AFTRA voice actor Kyle McCarley from Mob Psycho 100 after he requested good-faith contract negotiations—an October 2024 mail-theft controversy in which voice actor David Wald accused the company of opening his private fan mail and distributing its contents to staff for five years, the 2025 AI-subtitle backlash over the OOONA switch, and an April 2026 class action lawsuit alleging the company failed to protect consumer data in a March 2026 breach that exposed the personal information of 6.8 million users.

From the executive suites of investment firms to the technical backends of our favorite platforms, the fingerprints of a distinct group are omnipresent, ensuring that Japanese storytelling is increasingly mediated, sanitized, and re-oriented to align with the priorities of international Jewry. We are witnessing the slow but steady appropriation of a vibrant art form by those who have already dismantled the traditional values and unique cultural expressions of the West. Now, Jewish groups and capital are shifting their gaze toward the Orient.

Jewish influence knows no borders. Left unchecked, any country, industry, and cultural forum will be penetrated by Jewry in some shape or other. The anime sector is no different. Just like rational polities need strong borders, the anime scene needs stronger gatekeeping against Jewry’s shenanigans, lest it want to be another cultural avenue subverted by Jewry.

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to his “Substack” newsletter by visiting “José Niño Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

Croatia for Rent

Dubrovnik, Croatia

Hailed as Europe’s safest tourist spot, Croatia isn’t just a relocation dream for many White nationalists; it’s also a haven for hundreds of thousands of lowlife Whites in search of unbridled holiday fun—a seasoned spot for seasonal drug consumption and high-decibel rock ’n’ roll. Recently, it also served as a privileged port of call for the LGBTQ+ cruise ship The Scarlet Lady, which docked in Dubrovnik after being denied entry to Turkey and Egypt.

Famed for its multiple sun-drenched nudist beaches and an easygoing Catholic populace that couldn’t care less about anyone’s lifestyle, Croatia prides itself on being a rare European White enclave. It successfully draws hundreds of thousands of aged tourists away from the claustrophobic, migrant-plagued coastal cities of the UK, France and Spain. Yet it also evokes the dystopian world of eternal youth seen in the movie Logan’s Run, starkly contrasted by the sight of decrepit British vacationers baking in the heat—the kind of people waiting out the twilight of their lives on Spain’s Costa Brava.  Despite its natural splendor and a legal climate allowing all sorts of political and historical revisionism, Croatia evokes a darker capitalist underside reminiscent of The Lovin’ Spoonful’s 1960s hit, “Summer in the City”: “All around, people looking half-dead / Walking on the sidewalk, hotter than a match head.”

But the beauty of nature and free-speech latitude come at a price. According to the Ministry of the Interior, the number of legal non-European migrants in Croatia currently stands at 70,000–85,000, mostly construction and service-sector workers, coming mainly from Nepal, the Philippines, India, Egypt, Uzbekistan, and Bangladesh. In a country of less than 4 million citizens, this represents a staggering surge since its entry into the open-borders Schengen system. Most of these foreign non-White workers keep a low profile and, unlike rowdy testosterone-fueled North African youths in France or the UK, seem for the time being not to worry much about racial jokes made about them by local Croats. …

Balkan braggadocio

The obsession with making a quick buck has spiraled into a mania across Eastern Europe, and Croatia has dutifully followed suit. It is wrong to blame everything solely on migrants, as many young Croats simply refuse to work low-wage jobs. Ever since the breakup of communist Yugoslavia in 1991—which mainstream Croatian media still treats as the scapegoat for all the nation’s ills—a newborn capitalist Croatia has found itself in a different mess. How does one reconcile the petty graft and nepotism bleeding into every corner of society while loudly singing hymns to the glory of a free Croatia? The daily news of embezzlement scandals raises an awkward question: what exactly was the point of the military Operation Storm in August 1995 that launched the modern Croatian state into the world headlines? During the so-called Homeland War of 1991–1995, every inconvenient fact was brushed aside with the patriotic refrain that the real problems were the proverbial neighboring Serbs and the baggage of communism.

Today, however, the capitalist “free market” is showing a far more lethal face. The logic of imported capitalism dictates that the only way to get ahead is to outsmart and exploit one’s  neighbors—and, on top of that, rent out property to tourists at exorbitant rates. One frequently hears Croats mouthing hollow slogans about national heritage and sacred historical memory, yet even the loudest among them are all too eager to cash out and sell their piece of the Dalmatian coast. If one steps into any restaurant or coffee shop in the coastal cities of Zadar, Šibenik, or Dubrovnik, one will likely spot a Croatian flag or a portrait of nationalist heroes on the walls, framed by an inescapable crucifix above the bar. The Croat owner, however, has figured out that it’s far more profitable to pocket the earnings by hiring underpaid Filipino or Nepali women than by paying a fair wage to a local Croat nationalist. Lurking behind the counter are tiny Filipina women serving cocktails and espressos, their heads barely reaching the edge of the bar. There are also thousands of low-key Serbian service workers waiting on patrons, pretending to forget the recent past or lingering resentments between them and their Croat hosts. But money talks—especially given that wages in non-Schengen Serbia are lower than in Croatia. The raw deal of supply and demand makes both sides momentarily forget their cherished victimhood narratives. Serb service workers keep their mouths shut and bend over backward to be extra polite, knowing that their different accent could result in a dangerous brawl. Gone is the balkanesque braggadocio that once characterized their behavior in the former Yugoslavia…

The free-market dogma serves the lie that everyone has an equal start—which naturally encourages the average Croat Ivan to try making some easy money, too. After all, if Ivan Six-Pack next door is scheming, why shouldn’t Nikola do the same? If neighboring Nikola managed to put up a mansion overnight for free or score a nice BMW, why shouldn’t Ivan give it a try? The greed for profit is tearing Croatia apart far more successfully than bygone communist Yugoslavia ever did. Refrains of the common good and solidarity have become laughable fairy tales for naive Croats. And if half the country is involved in murky financial wheeling and dealing, and if that kind of shady hustle has turned into national folklore, why shouldn’t Ivan or Nikola join in?

The Capitalist Fraud

It is high time to drop the long-standing myth that liberal democracy is the gold standard of governance. Liberal methods of surveillance are far more effective than old communist ones. In France and Germany, the ruling class is working overtime to keep sovereignist parties—like France’s National Rally (RN) and Germany’s AfD—from coming anywhere near power. Liberal democracy, that is, capitalism, prefers not to use the crude force of communism; instead, it simply neutralizes opponents with shut-up labels such as “fascists,” “right-wing radicals,” “ustasha,” or “neo-Nazis.” Old-style communist censorship has been replaced by a smoother, far more effective brand of total liberal control combined with creeping self-censorship.

In the shadow of much-vaunted party pluralism, elections are just another Western-imported joke in Croatia, echoing an EU script where every politician is paid to play dumb. Voting parties in and out is merely a rerun of the old-fashioned parliamentary scam. The difference between the largest opposition party in Croatia—the so-called leftist SDP—and the ruling, so-called rightist HDZ comes down only to the color of their ties and the brand of their shoes. Of course, the EU and its Croatian proconsuls like to stage the occasional chase after small-time grifters—such as recently indicted figures in the Croatian Olympic Committee—so the illusion of the rule of law can be upheld. Meanwhile, real, legalized, large-scale misappropriation of government funds is neatly packaged in patriotic slogans, “strategic investments,” and a fake concern for the people. Croatia has already been largely sold off to foreigners—from the banks to the energy sector.

Capitalism, just like communism, brings out the worst in people. More than a century ago, numerous writers thoroughly analyzed the destructive nature of the liberal system. Servility toward the EU, nepotism, and general thievery mixed with an obsession for equality are not just a Croatian oddity; they prevail all over the liberal West. Before lambasting figures like New York’s mayor Mamdani, or Michigan senatorial hopeful El-Sayed, or the popular communist mayor Elke Kahr of Graz (Austria), one must face a haunting question: why are communist ideas, in all their various shapes and forms, making such a comeback? What has the right wing actually done to combat this successful egalitarian pathology of rebranded homo sovieticus?

After the catastrophe of 1945, the fear of being taken for a ride by the government became deeply ingrained not only among most Croats, but also across the increasingly balkanized USA and Europe. An opportunistic mentality—namely, being more papal than the pope—has traditionally shadowed Croatian history, from Croatian royal cavalrymen and their killing sprees in Protestant town of Magdeburg in 1631 during the Thirty Years’ War, through the disaster of Croatian Wehrmacht volunteer units at Stalingrad in 1943, all the way to today’s obedient Croatian EU yes-men. Any honorable and honest Croat who refuses to take part in this liberal-capitalist game of thrones is publicly laughed at as a man of low IQ. As the old Croat saying goes: “Ki je benast, taj je naš” (“Our dimwit belongs to us”).

No wonder the loudest voices against corruption in Croatia today can be mostly heard among the progeny of people who built their careers in communist Yugoslavia through plunder, mass killings, and the eviction of “class enemies.” That is why the call to fight systemic thievery in Croatia—as well as across the EU and the US—remains pure fantasy. Which EU or US politician would be crazy enough to cut off the branch the entire capitalist system including his monthly pay sits on? Fighting communism without uprooting its liberal roots is a nonstarter.

Once, the popular sign along the Croatian coast was a hand-lettered placard reading “Rooms for Rent.” Today, at the border crossings, the time has come for the real one: “Croatia for Rent.”

Villains of Judea: Emanuel Celler

The man who turned America into a real-life Mos Eisley Cantina.

On October 3, 1965, Lyndon Johnson sat at a table at the base of the Statue of Liberty and signed the Hart-Celler Act, formally known as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, erasing the national origins quota system from American law. Standing near him was a 77-year-old Brooklyn Democrat watching the end of a fight he had started as a freshman congressman when Calvin Coolidge occupied the White House.

Emanuel Celler had lost that fight the first time. He would spend the next four decades refusing to accept the verdict.

The Immigration Act of 1924, known as Johnson-Reed, set quotas at 2 percent of each nationality’s presence in the United States as counted by the 1890 census—a formula specifically designed to throttle migration from southern and eastern Europe. Celler, who had entered Congress in 1923 and made his first major House floor speech opposing the bill, lost badly. The measure sailed through Congress with a Senate vote of 62 to 6. In defeat, Celler had found his cause, and for the next four decades he spoke out relentlessly against national origin quotas.

He came to that cause by inheritance. Born in Brooklyn on May 6, 1888 to Jewish immigrants from Germany, Celler graduated from Boys High School and went on to earn both his undergraduate degree and his law degree from Columbia University. During World War I, he served on a draft board, where he watched immigrant men report for duty.

In 1922, a political acquaintance convinced Celler to run as a Tammany Hall Democrat in a district that had never once sent a Democrat to Washington. He ran against Republican incumbent Lester D. Volk, campaigning against Prohibition and for American entry into the League of Nations, and won by just over 3,111 votes—becoming the first Democrat the district had ever elected. When both his parents died during his college years, he had kept the household afloat by working in the family wine and whiskey business while finishing his degree. During the First World War he served as a government appeal agent on a draft board. He took his House seat on March 4, 1923.

The 1930s brought the fight Celler would be remembered for by those who study Jewish power closely. After the National Socialists took power in Germany, the Jewish congressman pushed for an American boycott of the 1936 Berlin Olympics and introduced legislation to restrict German goods in the American market.

The pre-war boycotts Celler enthusiastically pushed for gave way to a wartime fury aimed squarely at Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s State Department. Addressing the New York County Council of the Jewish War Veterans of America on April 5, 1943, he flayed the administration in language no loyal Democrat used about FDR. “The State Department must revise its modus operandi with reference to passing upon admission of refugees,” he said. “The present method is both cold and cruel. It lacks color and humanity. Even though reputable agencies endorse an applicant, it still carries no weight. I intend to fight this until I break it wide open.” He demanded an end to what he called the “glacier-like attitude of the State Department” and insisted the Americas establish temporary havens for individuals fleeing from parts of Europe under German control.

The administration answered that winning the war was the only rescue available. Celler took exception, proclaiming: “Victory, the spokesmen say, is the only solution…After victory, the disembodied spirits will not present so difficult a problem; the dead no longer need food, drink and asylum.” Colleagues told him he was too harsh. His reply ended the conversation: “I do not measure my words because the hangmen do not tarry.”

He went further than rhetoric. In December 1943, Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long testified against a Bergson Group-initiated refugee rescue resolution. Celler led the charge to expose Long’s false statements about the number of refugees actually admitted, leaking incriminating sections of the testimony to reporters and denouncing Long publicly in speeches and interviews. He dismissed Long’s professed sympathy as “crocodile tears” and warned that “If men of the temperament and philosophy of Long continue in control of immigration admission, we might as well take down that plaque from the Statue of Liberty…”

The pressure worked. In January 1944, Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau brought the case to Roosevelt, who signed an executive order establishing the War Refugee Board. In the war’s final 15 months the Board assisted roughly 200,000 Jews and 20,000 non-Jews, financing among other operations Raoul Wallenberg’s rescue work in Budapest.

Celler spent the post-war years dismantling the European roots of U.S. political culture one statute at a time. His most underappreciated immigration expansion victory arrived in 1946 alongside an unlikely partner, Republican Clare Boothe Luce of Connecticut.

Asian immigrants had been barred almost entirely since the 1917 Immigration Act established the Asiatic Barred Zone, and the Supreme Court had ruled in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind in 1923 that Indians could not naturalize. The Luce-Celler Act, signed by Harry Truman on July 2, 1946, admitted 100 Indians and 100 Filipinos annually and, far more consequentially, allowed both groups to become citizens. New citizens could then own property in their own names and petition for immediate family. Although a small opening of the United States’ immigration system, Celler used this victory to build momentum toward his greater ambition of radically transforming the country’s immigration policy.

In 1949 Celler took the gavel of the House Judiciary Committee, holding it for 11 terms—the longest chairmanship in that committee’s history—surrendering it only during the brief Republican majority of 1953 to 1955. From that chair he moved the legislation that radically transformed American law. He drove the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 through the House. In 1964 he introduced H.R. 7152 and steered it past Southern resistance in partnership with Ohio Republican William McCulloch, a working alliance across party lines that made the Civil Rights Act possible.

Two days after Johnson’s Selma address on March 15, 1965, Celler introduced the administration’s voting rights bill as H.R. 6400. He said the men blocking African Americans from the ballot “must be smashed and banished” and called any obstruction “inexcusable.” Rules Committee chairman Howard Smith of Virginia buried the bill; Celler moved to discharge it and forced it loose. The House passed it 333 to 85, then approved the conference report 328 to 74. Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act on August 6, 1965. Celler added the Civil Rights Act of 1968 three years later.

Another fateful piece of legislation bearing Celler’s name was signed into law that same October. Celler introduced H.R. 2580 in January 1965 as the only member of that Congress who had sat in the chamber in 1924 and voted against Johnson-Reed. Senator Philip Hart of Michigan carried the companion bill in the Senate. As early as 1963 he had introduced bipartisan immigration reform legislation with Prescott Bush, Jacob Javits, and other prominent Republicans as original co-sponsors, and he supplied the per-country cap mechanism that replaced the quota system. Their bill scrapped the national origins formula, allotted 170,000 visas to the Eastern Hemisphere with a ceiling of 20,000 per country, imposed the first numerical ceiling ever placed on the Western Hemisphere, and reserved most remaining slots for relatives of citizens. The House passed it 318 to 95. Johnson signed it at Liberty Island on October 3, 1965, calling it “not a revolutionary bill.”

Celler had promised the same. Speaking on the floor before the vote, he predicted the law would barely register: “There will not be, comparatively, many Asians or Africans entering this country,” he told the chamber, adding that immigrants from Asia and Africa “will have to compete and qualify in order to get in, quantitatively and qualitatively, which, itself will hold the numbers down.” He was wrong. The House passed the bill 318 to 25. The foreign-born population climbed from 9.6 million to 45 million across the next half century, and Pew Research Center counted nearly 59 million arrivals between 1965 and 2015, with the white share of the population falling from 84 percent to 62 percent. The irony cuts deeper. Family preference, the engine of that growth, entered the bill at the insistence of restrictionists who assumed it would keep the country European and who dramatically underestimated how few people it took to create an extensive network of relatives eligible to follow.

Beyond his efforts to fundamentally alter America’s demographic landscape, Celler aggressively targeted the very Second Amendment rights that had been safely and peacefully exercised by Americans for generations. That same year, Celler steered what became the Gun Control Act of 1968 through the House as H.R. 17735. The law was the most sweeping federal firearms legislation since the National Firearms Act of 1934, banning mail-order sales of rifles and shotguns, prohibiting interstate firearms transfers to private individuals, barring felons, fugitives, drug users, and requiring federal licensing for all firearms dealers. It passed as a standalone measure on October 22, 1968.

The same seniority that let Celler reshape the republic let him bottle up what he disliked. For more than 30 years he refused to allow the Equal Rights Amendment out of his committee, declining to hold a single hearing on it despite its introduction in every session of Congress since 1923. When Representative Martha Griffiths and Shirley Chisholm pressed to make it a legislative priority in 1970, Celler opposed their discharge petition from the floor, declaring that “ever since Adam gave up his rib to make a woman, throughout the ages we have learned that physical, emotional, psychological and social differences exist and dare not be disregarded,” and warning that the ERA was “a blunderbuss amendment” that “would erase existing protective female legislation with the most disastrous consequences.”

His resistance reflected his strong ties to organized labor, which opposed the ERA throughout this period on the grounds that it would invalidate state laws providing special workplace protections for women. The discharge petition passed anyway. He lost that battle when Congress sent the ERA to the states in March 1972, and it cost him everything else.

That June, a 31-year-old attorney named Elizabeth Holtzman challenged him in the Democratic primary and beat him—ending 50 years of uninterrupted service and making him the most senior member ever to lose a primary. He had not campaigned seriously in decades and was traveling in Europe when Holtzman launched her effort. Months later the Judiciary Committee he had chaired for a generation opened the Watergate impeachment hearings under Peter Rodino. Celler watched from television studios, dispensing commentary on proceedings he would have run.

For the congressman who reshaped an entire nation’s demographic destiny, watching from a television studio was a strange comedown.

Celler spent his long tenure systematically dismantling the traditional barriers of the gentile establishment, creating a political infrastructure designed to elevate Jewish influence. Paradoxically, this transformation proved so successful that it empowered a younger, more aggressive wing of the tribe to seize the levers of power for themselves. Ultimately, he was discarded by one of his own—a classic case of Jewish fratricide where the architect was consumed by the very dynamic he had spent his life engineering.

He died on January 15, 1981, at 92.

The legacy of Emanuel Celler is written in the landscape of a vanishing America. What he promised would be a minor adjustment was, in truth, an act of demographic warfare that has turned our cities into a modern Tower of Babel. By stripping the founding stock of their legal, social, and cultural defenses, he ensured that future generations would be strangers in their own land, reduced to cattle within a system that prizes the interests of their Jewish exploiters over the survival of their own people.

Nathan Knows Nothing: More on Blackademic Bullshit, Semitic Subversion and the Cluster-Cuck at Cambridge

Subtle symmetry. I like that in a work of art. And I was delighted to spot it in “Jason and the Arday-Nauts.” This is a hilarious live-action farce that’s been running in the Yookay for years. A blatant Blackademic bullshitter called Jason Arday has been feted and fawned over by British leftists. The leftists believed Arday’s ever more extravagant fables and he rose ever higher in academia, eventually securing a prestigious professorship at Cambridge University.

Vibrant villain, heretical hero

And then a scorned Semitic scholar called Nathan Cofnas launched a hypersonic missile at Arday from Ghent University, whither he had been driven into exile from Cambridge because of his heretical ideas about Black IQ. Cofnas analyzed Arday’s work and found extensive plagiarism from multiple sources. Arday’s impostures began to collapse and in August 2026 he was forced to resign from his prestigious post, still denying any wrongdoing even as he confirmed what Cofnas says about Blackademic inadequacy. Arday’s resignation letter was obviously written by AI.

Mirror-Mensches #1: vibrant villain Jason Arday and heretical hero Nathan Cofnas

So what’s the subtle symmetry in “Jason and the Arday-Nauts”? It’s this: the vibrant villain, Jason Arday, and the heretical hero, Nathan Cofnas, mirrored each other’s behavior. That is, each did the opposite of what the other did. In the farce, Arday pretended to be much more intelligent than he really is. But Cofnas pretended to be much less intelligent than he really is. You see, in the farce Arday has had the firm support of Professor Sir Simon Baron-Cohen, a distinguished Jewish academic at Cambridge. When early rumblings about Arday’s villainy shook the academic world in 2025, Baron-Cohen rushed to the Blackademic bullshitter’s defense with a letter entitled “URGENT: PLEASE SIGN ANTI-RACISM LETTER FOR JASON ARDAY.” In 2026 Baron-Cohen signed a ludicrous petition in support of Arday at the self-aggrandizing Good Law Project. That was when Nathan Cofnas pretended to be much less intelligent than he really is. Cofnas tweeted his bafflement at Baron-Cohen’s continued support for the sub-Saharan pseudo-scholar Arday:

Simon Baron-Cohen signed this crazy woman’s Arday plagiarism denial petition! The other signatories are idiots, so no explanation needed. But I don’t get Baron-Cohen. He needs to study his own brain. (Disingenuous tweet by Nathan Cofnas, 29th July 2026)

Simon Baron-Cohen is the second pale-punim’d petitioner, and only non-idiot, among Jason’s Arday-Nauts at the Good Law Project

Cofnas is perfectly correct that the other signatories to the letter are “idiots.” But he is being disingenuous when he says “I don’t get Baron-Cohen” and suggests that Baron-Cohen’s involvement could only be due to mental aberration. Cofnas knows perfectly why the highly intelligent Jew Baron-Cohen has supported the lowly intelligent Black Jason Arday. As I said in my own review of “Jason and the Arday-Nauts”:

Baron-Cohen supports Jason Arday not because he thinks over-promoting Black non-entities is good for Blacks but because he thinks it’s good for Jews and, conversely, bad for Whites. However, don’t expect Nathan Cofnas to explore this very important Jewish aspect of the Arday scandal and of wider minority-worship. I’ve said before at the Occidental Observer that I admire Cofnas’s moral courage and his willingness to address the dangerous topic of racial difference. But I don’t admire his intellectual honesty. How could I admire something that disappears whenever Jewish interests are at stake? […] Jews [like] to see a Black on top not because they love Blacks but because they loathe Whites. Over-promoting Blacks means under-promoting Whites. Every dollar devoted to undeserving Blacks is a dollar diverted from deserving Whites. In their activism on behalf of non-Whites, Jews and the leftists controlled by Jewish ideology are not, at bottom, motivated by the desire to help non-Whites but by the desire to harm Whites. That’s why the highly intelligent Jewish academic Baron-Cohen is supporting Jason Arday in the face of such overwhelming evidence that Arday is guilty of serious academic malfeasance. (“Blatant Blackademic Bullshit: Cofnas on a Cluster-Cuck at Cambridge,” The Occidental Observer, 1st August 2026)

Cofnas’s pretended bafflement about Baron-Cohen is a paradigmatic example of how Cofnas’s intellectual honesty “disappears whenever Jewish interests are at stake.” Cofnas himself believes that “the number of black students at Harvard would fall below 1% if admissions were meritocratic.” He’s right to believe that. But he doesn’t want to admit the central Jewish role in the anti-meritocracy that currently prevails, whereby Harvard admits Black students based on melanin, not on merit, and whereby Cambridge feted the blatant bullshitter Jason Arday because he was Black, not because he was brainy.

The Dark Shvarts

However, I don’t blame Nathan Cofnas for pretending to be baffled by Baron-Cohen. If I were lucky enough to be Jewish myself, I think my intelligence would surge and my honesty would plummet. If I were a Jewish race-realist like Cofnas, I too would be embarrassed to see a Jew like Simon Baron-Cohen supporting a blatant Blackademic bullshitter like Jason Arday. And I too would selectively suspend my race-realism and pretend not to know why Baron-Cohen is supporting a sub-Saharan pseudo-scholar. Cofnas grew up in New York and knows perfectly well that in private Jews often hold “shvartses” and “shvoogies” in contempt. Shvartse, literally “black person,” is the Yiddish equivalent of “n*gg*r”; shvoogie seems to be a clever blend of shvartse and “boogie.” That’s Jewish ethnocentrism. But it’s also Jewish ethnocentrism when, in public, Jews express solidarity with those same shvartses and shvoogies. As Franklin Foer put it at the Atlantic:

In the old Jewish theory of American politics, the best defense against the anti-Semitism of the right was a united left: minorities and liberal activists locking arms. When I was young, rabbis and elders reverently told us about the earnest young Jews in chunky glasses who had jumped aboard the Freedom Rides; about Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, in his unmissable kippah, marching right next to Martin Luther King Jr.; and about the martyrdom of Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, two Jews who had been murdered alongside James Chaney, a Black Mississippian, for their work registering Black Americans to vote. A coalition of the tolerant pressed the country to live up to its ideals. (“The Golden Age of American Jews Is Ending,” The Atlantic, 4th March 2024)

So Jewish support for Blacks in America isn’t genuinely pro-Black but self-servingly pro-Jewish: it’s “the best defense against the anti-Semitism of the right.” Simon Baron-Cohen thinks the same in Britain, but Nathan Cofnas can’t admit it. That’s why Cofnas has followed the lead of another highly intelligent Jew in another classic farce. I don’t like television, but I can’t deny that it has produced some genuine works of art. One of them is a comedy series called Fawlty Towers (1975), written by and starring John Cleese of Monty-Python fame and his then-wife Connie Booth. Cleese’s role as the irascible hotel-owner Basil Fawlty was one of the two best performances in the farce of Fawlty Towers. The other best performance was by the Jewish actor Andrew Sachs, who played a bumbling and barely Anglophone Spanish waiter called Manuel. In one episode, “Communication Problems,” Basil is anxious to conceal a big win on the horses from his battle-ax of a wife, Sybil Fawlty, who has banned him from gambling. Basil carefully coaches Manuel in pretend ignorance about the win and Manuel dutifully complies, practising the phrase “I know notheeng.” Of course, there is a plot-twist (no spoilers) and Basil needs Manuel to abandon his ignorance and admit the truth. But Manuel continues to repeat “I know notheeng.”

Mirror-Mensches #2: Manuel and Nathan both “know notheeng”

In the farce of Fawlty Towers, Manuel was stupid. In real life Andrew Sachs, the Jewish actor playing Manuel, was anything but stupid. The same is true of Nathan Cofnas. In the farce of “Jason and the Arday-Nauts,” Nathan knows “notheeng” about why Simon Baron-Cohen supports Jason Arday. In real life, Cofnas knows perfectly why an intelligent Jew supports a stupid Black. This doesn’t alter how Arday is the villain of the farce and Cofnas is the hero. But it does mean that Arday and Cofnas have both been dishonest. Arday was dishonest in a blatant Black way and Cofnas was dishonest in a sly Semitic way. As the old and implicitly race-realist Black saying goes: “It’s diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks.” Of course, if Nathan Cofnas wants to deny that he was dishonest about Baron-Cohen’s support for Jason Arday, he’s more than welcome to do so in the comments here at the Occidental Observer.

So over to you, Nescient Nathan: I’d be very interested to see you explain why you “don’t get Baron-Cohen” and how you, as a highly intelligent and politically aware American Jew, have never learned the “old Jewish theory of American politics,” that “the best defense against the anti-Semitism of the right was a united left: minorities and liberal activists locking arms.” But somehow I don’t think Cofnas will explain, because I don’t think Cofnas is really baffled at all. I think he’ll ignore this lowly goy’s request and continue to “know notheeng.” Cofnas has moral courage in spades, as it were, but his intellectual honesty disappears whenever Jewish interests are at stake.

In Praise of North Germanic Man: Introduction to Julius Langbehn’s ‘Rembrandt as Educator‘ (Virtus Editions, 2026)

Julius Langbehn was born in 1851 in northern Schleswig. He studied natural science and philology at the University of Kiel, but his studies were interrupted by the Franco-Prussian War, in which he fought as a volunteer. After the war, in 1873, he travelled to Italy and, on his return to Germany, continued his studies at the University of Munich, where he obtained a doctorate in art and archaeology. His dissertation was written on the early Greek statues of Nike, the goddess of victory. After further travels and a short stay in Vienna, he settled down in 1885 in Dresden. In the winter of 1889 Langbehn visited Nietzsche, whom he considered a kindred soul, in his psychiatric asylum in Jena and requested that the philosopher be removed from the care of doctors whom he considered incompetent and that he be placed under his own psychological care. He did not succeed in his objective and returned regretfully to work on his Rembrandt book. The book was published in 1890 anonymously, ‘von einem Deutschen’ (by a German), and met with great success. It went through 40 printings in its first two years.

The title of Langbehn’s book was inspired by Nietzsche’s essay Schopenhauer als Erzieher (1874). Langbehn’s preference for the philo-Semitic Nietzsche over the anti-Semitic Schopenhauer may betray his own philo-Semitism, a trait that was detected by Theodor Fritsch, who indicated that, up to its 7th edition, Langbehn’s work was indeed quite philo-Semitic, and it was his own correspondence with Langbehn pointing out the necessity of anti-Semitism in such a worldview as Langbehn’s that prompted the latter to render his later editions more starkly anti-Semitic.  At the same time the work became more pro-Catholic in its later editions and, in 1900, Langbehn even converted to Catholicism.

The political successes of Prussia at the time of the unification of Germany in 1871 threatened to engulf Germany with its militarism, industrialisation, and rationalist tendencies in science and art. Marxists responded to this threat with essentially economic projects based on the principle of ‘class struggle’. Idealists on the other hand proposed a cultural revolution through the renewal of German culture itself. The latter effort led to what is generally called the ‘Conservative Revolution’, as constituted in works such as Oswald Spengler’s Preußentum und Sozialismus (Prussianism and Socialism) (1919), Arthur Moeller van den Bruck’s Das dritte Reich (The Third Reich) (1923) and Edgar Julius Jung’s Die Herrschaft der Minderwertigen (The Rule of the Inferior) (1930). Julius Langbehn’s call for a social aristocracy also found an echo in Stefan George’s influential poetical work Das neue Reich (The New Reich) (1929), which outlined a spiritual aristocracy as the ideal German society. Langbehn’s Rembrandt als Erzieher (Rembrandt as Educator) may be considered an early representative of the Conservative Revolution, since it sought to combat the evils of democratic culture at the turn of the century—established by parvenu cosmopolitan elites that promoted foreign, especially French artistic fashions—with a return to the natural aristocratic ethos of the strongest element in the German population, the North Germans. According to Langbehn, only a reversion of Germany to its North German character could effectively neutralise the materialistic scientific spirit that had begun to disintegrate its culture at the end of the nineteenth century.

At the same time, Langbehn’s work is also a major contribution to the series of works on the Nordic ideal that began with Arthur, Count Gobineau’s Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines (An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races) (1855) and continued with Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts (Foundations of the Nineteenth Century) (1899), Alfred Rosenberg’s Mythus des 20ten Jahrhunderts (The Myth of the Twentieth Century) (1930) and Hans Günther’s Frömmigkeit nordischer Artung (Piety of a Nordic Character) (1934). These works formed the intellectual background of the German National Socialist racialist ideology that was sought to be practically implemented by Heinrich Himmler and the Rasse- und Siedlungshauptamt (Race- and Settlement Head Office), which Himmler established in 1931. However, Langbehn’s study is indeed a serious psychological one since it is based on his own origin in, and familiarity with, the Lower (= North) German culture of Schleswig-Holstein, as well as on his extensive studies in art history. Langbehn’s subtle and detailed analysis of the North German character aims at demonstrating its suitability to lead the newly formed German Reich, and to serve as a model for mankind in general.

Although Langbehn’s work was not a direct forerunner of the National Socialist movement, it was reprinted throughout the Third Reich. Indeed, many of the Heimatkunst (Homeland Art) items on display in the Great German Art Exhibition in Munich in 1937 corresponded to Langbehn’s exhortations to a patriotic style of German painting. Langbehn’s emphasis on the preservation and cultivation of the German physique as the outward manifestation of the ethical personality of the Germans also found practical application in the several youth movements that arose at the turn of the century, such as (and principally) the Wandervogel movement (a German youth organization founded by Hermann Hoffmann-Fölkersamb and Karl Fischer at the end of the nineteenth century for the promotion of outdoor activities and folk culture . Many of these movements, however, were banned in 1933 by the National Socialists, who created their own Hitlerjugend movement in order to deter any opposition from within other youth groupings.

Langbehn begins his work by identifying the increasing devotion to recording and registering activity, rather than to an organic vision of reality, as the principal threat to German culture. Specialisation has led to a microscopic worldview that must be replaced by an artistic, macroscopic one. The glaring light of critical reason in science should be replaced by the light-and-shade that informs artistic creativity. The increasing sterility of modern science can be countered only by a regeneration of the psychological sources of creativity within the German character. These are, principally, the German’s sense of individuality and his developed personality. The modern Germans should learn from the best individuals and personalities of their historic past, and to facilitate this exercise Langbehn chooses the Lower German painter Rembrandt as the symbolic exemplar of the quintessential German spirit. Germanic character is based essentially on loyalty and is naturally opposed to all forms of frivolity.  Tranquillity and depth are the marked qualities of this character, and both are reflected particularly in the light-and-shade effects of Rembrandt’s chiaroscuro. Rembrandt was indeed not classical but mysterious in his connection to the Dutch soil and peasantry as well as to the natural aristocratic ethos of the Lower Germans.

These sterling aspects of the Germans and their newly formed empire should be protected from foreign influences, especially Gallic and Roman ones. In art, the trend of following foreign, especially French, fashions is particularly deleterious since French painting is either excessively restless or excessively academic and rigid. The French preference for scientific realism, symbolised by Émile Zola’s Naturalist novels, should be countered by a return to German folkloric traditions. Architecture must eschew ornateness in order to express the spirit of the German people and must focus on the manly monumental style that is characteristic of it. Langbehn’s artistic ideals are, however, not only local but also moral. Thus Rembrandt is considered as representing a Protestant view of the world and his Christian figures are often drawn from lowly life. This simplicity of character may be encountered mostly in the country rather than in the metropolises. The latter have, through their modern ‘scientific’ specialisations, lost the sense of the whole that artistic culture should express. Thus, for example, the increased construction of museums in Berlin and other cities only obscures the lack of any true devotion to the Muses themselves in modern German cultural life.

In science, specialisation has resulted in a preoccupation with details that are not informed by any subjective apprehension of their true significance. Science should be infused with an artistic spirit in order to acquire a synthetic, multi-faceted view of the world—a philosophical worldview. Such a worldview would necessarily be a hierarchical one since objects have to be considered according to the degree of their innate human value and not as being of equal objective significance. Against the Darwinian worldview Langbehn proposes the organic and artistic one of Johannes Kepler, who viewed Nature as a unified organism. Historiography too has become cold in its neglect of values in favour of details. This is the result of Roman methods of historical writing, which the Germans would do well to discard in favour of more Germanic ones. Naturally, Langbehn is opposed to Roman Law as well, as an alien legal system that is unsuited for the Germans.

Medicine too must become more holistic focusing on the entire man rather than on individual illnesses. Langbehn even recommends doubtful experiments of the time in craniology, physiognomy, hypnotism, and spiritism as examples of a psychology that is more integral than current scientific approaches to the study of man. Generally, the external world studied objectively does not yield an adequate understanding of the organic natural universe. Only a philosophical science can do this. One of Langbehn’s models of an organic scientific worldview is the ‘Theory of Colours’ of Goethe, which, unlike Newton’s, is subjective and, unlike that of Emil du Bois-Reymond, the leading physiologist of his day, organic. The correspondences between macrocosm and microcosm should be studied meticulously in order to develop a ‘mathematical-tectonic’ system of Nature. Indeed if such a system were to be perfected, the laws of planetary motions could even be applied to the colouration of an insect’s wings.

In politics, the most popular form of government is a monarchy. The peasantry on their land already constitute an aristocratic order that is close to Nature and, like it, hierarchical. Between the ‘noble’ peasants and their king stand the formative artists, who represent the noble creative aspect of what is called the middle class. These three orders together constitute the fatherland. Now that Germany has acquired political unity it must attempt to achieve its spiritual and intellectual unification through a consolidation of these three orders. While Prussia was in a major way responsible for the political unification of Germany, it is rather too rigid in its predominantly military spirit. It should be made more German so that it may acquire a warmer patriotic appeal for all Germans and not remain a merely political model for the newly formed state. Further, Prussia should be represented by its provinces rather than by the ossified capital Berlin. Langbehn suggests that here again Prussia would do well to ally itself with Holland since the Dutch possess that ‘rhythm’ which can complement Prussia’s ‘symmetry’. In fact, Prussia itself was originally settled extensively by Dutch immigrants. More infusion of the Dutch strain into Prussia will therefore be salutary.

The Dutch are considered by Langbehn as the embodiment of the spirit of freedom that was expressed most strikingly in their war of independence against the Spanish Hapsburgs in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Langbehn interestingly maintains that a truly conservative nation, that is, a nation that is strongly rooted in its traditions, is ‘liberal’ or devoted to freedom, whereas a liberally disposed people, on the other hand, need the discipline of conservatism. Other Lower German sources of the psychological quickening of the German spirit are Denmark/Sweden and England. Langbehn takes care to point out that his own homeland Schleswig-Holstein may be considered the historical centre of the Lower German lands, since the aristocratic Oldenburg family there provided kings and queens for the thrones of half the world. From this same source must the rule of modern Germany extend.

The colonising spirit of the Lower Germans is best illustrated by the flowering of the aristocratic Venetian Republic during the Renaissance, for, according to Langbehn, much of the ruling class was constituted of Lower Germans (Lombards) and Slavs (Croats). Langbehn describes the old Venetian culture as one based on a healthy combination of trade and art. It was also more Greek (i.e., Byzantine) than Roman in its style and, according to Langbehn, its cathedral, the San Marco, is similar to the Temple of Solomon as depicted by Rembrandt. Langbehn even goes so far as to infer from these artistic affinities that the way from Amsterdam to Jerusalem lies through Venice.

On the other hand, when Langbehn compares Venice to North America, which also was settled and developed by Lower Germans, he notes the marked contrast between the aristocratic nature of the former and the democratic one of the latter. Langbehn’s contempt for North American democracy is a counterpart of his aversion to French fashions in art and literature. However, he hopes that the natural aristocratism of the German Lower Germans will eventually inform the New World.  In this he shows himself to be, sociologically, rather naive since the economic emphases of the Puritan founders of America, coupled with the increasing infiltration of the Jewish financial spirit in America, have now made the spiritual fertilisation of American culture by Germanic Europe an impossibility. Further, the very quality of individualism that Langbehn identifies in this work as the distinguishing mark of the Lower Germans has itself turned into the uncontrollable vice of present-day American society.

At any rate, Langbehn maintains that, like the Venetians, the modern Germans should develop a social aristocracy to oppose the increasingly popular movement of social democracy. The better elements of society must always rule the lower and a social aristocracy will be guaranteed only

if the morally and materially better placed classes of its inhabitants seriously act as the born advocates and guardians of the morally and materially worse placed classes and if this relationship finds its lasting constitutional expression [p. 262].

People should be judged not according to their wealth but also according to their moral, intellectual, social, and historical values. And the common man must always be protected by the noble:

To take care of the weak against the strong, of justice against injustice, the people against their oppressors is knightly: in this active sense should knighthood be reborn [p. 263].

In fact the rabble must be turned into a people by giving them higher wages and landed property. The aristocratic rule of Germany will be represented essentially by the Prussian officer and the Christian, particularly the Catholic, priest. For both belong to naturally aristocratic orders and symbolise the throne and altar. Both these orders rest on the agrarian order of the peasants, whose society, as indicated earlier, is also aristocratically ranked.

German politics should finally become a kind of artistic politics. Prussia, which had hitherto focused on scientific development, should now turn to artistic development. The childlike aspect of the German character that is represented by the German artists should be joined to the political aspect, which is represented by the German warriors, beginning with Siegfried. The artistic politician must draw out and develop the individuality and naturalness of the people. A nation’s culture cannot be revived by professors and museum directors. For, while the farmer and artist produce, the specialist scholar, like the businessman, merely markets intellectual goods. Just as all the arts must be considered together as a creative complex, so too all the different divisions of politics must be united in the goal of national development, which may then be extended even to international culture—so long as a nation takes care to absorb only the noble elements of another nation into itself and not the degenerate ones. Like the artist, the politician must be formed in old traditions, but be able to absorb new ones into his fully formed personality.

In considering German culture in greater detail, Langbehn points first to the defect of rationalism in writers like Gottfried Lessing (1729–81), who was detached from the German people, and was more universalist in his opinions than specifically German. His sort of Prussianism is too cold, too cosmopolitan. Similarly, the classical scholar and historian, Theodor Mommsen (1817–1903) was more interested in the Roman ethos than in the Greek or German and therefore alien to the German national spirit. The excessively rational and mechanical aspect of modern German culture is embodied most strikingly in its present cultural centre: Berlin. Berlin has a Jewish complexion, which Langbehn describes as a degeneration of the earlier healthy Jewishness that it contained in the salons of Rahel Varnhagen (1771–1833). Short-sighted focus on current events has led to the transient fashions of novelistic and other trivial salon literature. Love of triviality and hatred of genius are indeed the typical characteristics of philistinism, which Langbehn’s artistic politics vigorously opposes. The remedy for Berlin is the absorption of more diverse influences from outside it. Berlin represents only the petty officer spirit of Prussia, whereas the Prussian provinces contain more of the aristocratic officer spirit. This martially disciplined and hierarchical Prussia must be harnessed for the regeneration of German culture and in turn be enriched, ‘civilised’ by the humanity of the rest of the German population.

Another fault of present German culture is its overestimation of the importance of academia. Professors in fact represent a democratic multiplication of opinions that obscure through their narrow specialisations the genuine voice of the people. The ‘sense for the essential’ which is the mark of the genius, is quite lost. The French writer Émile Zola’s attempt to write scientifically ‘Naturalist’ novels is an example of the petty plebeian spirit of democratic culture.  Art historians too, like the classicist Johann Winckelmann (1717–68), are not sufficiently German in their academic interests. Even Goethe flirted with classical style unsuccessfully, as in his drama Iphigenie. Its was only in the second part of his Faust that he discovered a German subject and a German style. This style was indeed perfected by the outstanding Lower Germans, Shakespeare and Rembrandt, the former through the breadth of his vision, the latter through his depth. Culture should be subjective, organic and artistic, not rational, objective, mechanical or materialistic. Germany should not classicise but create a classical culture of its own.  Langbehn links classical art etymologically to the army and navy, and stresses that the classical virtues of the Prussian military spirit should now be formulated in an artistic manner in order to create a new classical German culture.

German culture is pre-eminently musical but, while the works of Richard Wagner established a sort of musical German imperium, his style is actually a loud Celto-Roman one, which is not simple as German music must be. German culture must be heroic, and Langbehn interestingly considers the mediaeval Nibelungenlied, in this context, as a more authentic expression of Germanic heroism than the Nordic sagas, which contain many foreign influences in their composition. Langbehn points to the Low German language itself as a model of simplicity and heroism that would serve well as a vehicle of great, even heroic poetry—if only it could find suitable poets for this purpose. At the same time, while German culture must be focused on the heroic, it must highlight also the ‘gentle’ quality of the hero. This quality is indeed consummated in the supremely gentle figure of Christ.

Finally, when considering the development of culture in Germany, Langbehn stresses the importance of corporeal culture so that the bodies of Germans may remain pure and healthy in form. Clothing should be natural and colourful, rather than dark and dreary as it currently is. The education of the youth should be relaxed from its present rigid discipline so that students are not frightened but free in their learning. The curriculum should be directed away from Roman studies to Greek and Germanic. Education should be restricted to a noble minority that is suited for it, and not made universal in a democratic manner.

In the final part of the work, on the universal significance of German man, Langbehn eulogises the German as a model of noble simplicity possessing a healthy balance of passion and reasonableness. Particularly interesting is his repeated reference to the ‘childlike’ nature of the Lower German as that which raises him above others. Indeed, Christ too had a childlike nature and he combined it with an artistic one insofar as he made his whole life a work of art by pouring out his blood for our souls. Artistic nobility and political nobility must go together since they seek to realise the same higher spiritual potential of mankind.

The highest goal of human development is morality. Germanic culture is based on the concept of honour and must be opposed to the greedy parvenu ethos of today. Thus it must conduct ‘a moral battle against money’. As he declares, ‘the modern Siegfried—the reborn German—should kill this glistening dragon’ (p. 169). Aristocratic intellectual circles like those which existed in Weimar during the days of Goethe and Schiller must be recreated in Germany in order to ennoble its culture. The ideal political ruler, the ‘secret Kaiser’ of German lore, must also be humble and selfless, like Christ. He must lose his individual personality in that of the nation and always seek to defend the intellectually weak in the same manner that a real Kaiser defends the economically weak. In order to reform the Reich, he should be an intellectually powerful leader. Indeed, the people always expect a strong genius to lead them. Langbehn’s descriptions of his ideal Kaiser are thus rather prophetic of the Führer principle that was actually realised in Germany thirty years after the publication of this book.

As in National Socialism, Langbehn stresses that German culture should be made popular, that is, based on local and not foreign, especially Gallic, fashions. At present, literature and the theatre are dominated by mercantile Jews who import foreign Gallic fashions into Germany. At this point, Langbehn undertakes a discussion of the crucial Jewish question, but first makes clear his distinction between those whom he considers authentic, noble Jews and the false, degenerate stock-exchange Jews. He insists that anti-Semitism should not become plebeian itself, but be able to separate the good Jews from the bad, though the bad should necessarily be removed from their positions of power.

German culture must be both artistic and warlike, since the latter aspect is necessary to defend the former. However, it should also be Christian since Germany’s traditions are in the main Christian ones. It is interesting to note that, unlike Nietzsche, who considered Christianity as an expression of a ‘slave morality’, Langbehn considers Christianity as an aristocratic spiritual religion that arose in conflict with the democratic rationalism of the Pharisees of the time. Langbehn points particularly to the excellence of Catholicism as a vehicle of spiritual culture compared to Protestantism, for it is indeed more artistic than the latter. Much was lost in German culture through the iconoclastic tendencies of many of the Protestant reformers. The creative spirit of Catholicism should therefore be revived now and to such a degree that Luther will eventually take a secondary place in the history of the Germanic peoples. It is through a return to original Christianity that the Germans will be able to recover the original aristocratic spirit that informed their culture when they were not yet Christian. Thus Langbehn advocates a return

back to the gentle, poetic, German aristocratic intellectual life of the Middle Ages, back to the deep motherly instincts of the earliest Christian-Germanic period, back to the strong, brave, childlike, pictorial and pictorially educated life of the most ancient German, to Germanness in its purest form [p. 451].

This revival of true Germanic culture, according to Langbehn, is of vital importance, not only for Germany, but for the whole of mankind, since the Germans, as the most childlike and vigorous of nations, will be able through such a revival to extend their benefits to other nations in much the same way that the Christians once spread their religion.

 

The Fall of Cambridge University’s DEI Professor Confirms Every “Racist Stereotype” His Appointment Tried to Refute

In 2023, to much fanfare and delight, 37-year-old Jason Arday was appointed Professor of the Sociology of Education at Cambridge University. The Woke fanfare occurred because Arday was Black and he seemed to embody disproof of all the evidence of low average IQ and high anti-social personality and mental illness among Blacks. More than merely Black, he was, so he said, diagnosed with autism when he was three, couldn’t speak until he was 11, couldn’t write until he was 18, ran 30 marathons in 35 days while doing his PhD full time, overcame a brain tumour and a stroke while doing so, raised millions of pounds for charity, and did aid work in developing countries.

Arday was exactly what Wokeness needed to provide; a Black man that could be academically brilliant if only the environmental conditions were right . . . except it was all a lie.

If anything, Jason Arday has confirmed every empirically accurate stereotype about Black people and, in so doing, has left Cambridge University and some very high profile academics who leapt to defend him, such as psychologist Prof. Sir Simon Baron-Cohen who insisted people stop interrogating him because Arday is “autistic,” besmirched and humiliated. How can one trust the integrity of Cambridge University which, at the point of writing, continues to defend Arday?

Already, in 2025, there was an investigation by Arday’s alma mater, the Community College-level Liverpool John Moores University, into whether Arday had plagiarised parts of his PhD thesis. He was cleared, but it seems fairly obvious that he was cleared because he was Black and high profile and the academics involved were Woke. In July, “race realist” philosopher Nathan Cofnas, who had been fired by Cambridge University for his “racist” research, proved, using plagiarism detection software, that Arday had stolen over 100 pages in his 2015 thesis from a Brunel University thesis that was passed in 2009 . . . and then the entire “Emperor Has No Clothes” farce, about which the Woke Establishment had been in denial to the extent of covering it up, fell apart at breakneck speed.

Arday’s thesis was nothing more than Woke word salad, with a punctuation error in its title. He had plagiarised quotes from the trainee teachers whom he had supposedly interviewed as part of his thesis. The same fraud had been committed in various papers he had published in academic journals. This future brilliant Cambridge professor had had serious trouble getting articles published in academic journals — via anonymous peer-review, such that his first academic publication was 3 years after he got his PhD. In addition, Arday was a complete Walter Mitty. He had been a high-level footballer aged 10, before he could speak, apparently. Arday had managed to pass GCSEs (school-leaving qualifications) supposedly before he could write. He’d attained a top degree in Sports Education only a few years after he’d learnt to write . . .

Arday employed the services of a notorious libel lawyers to intimidate people and even released the police on a Times journalist, accusing him of harassment, but the dam had broken. There was no evidence that Arday had run the marathons he’d claimed to have run while doing his PhD, which, anyway, meant he wouldn’t have slept, and he claimed to have been seriously injured while running them. Arday’s claim that he was sent a pig’s head as a racist gesture was disputed by the police and the local butcher from whom it was supposedly obtained. Arday claimed to have been part of a TV program called Seven Up, which followed people throughout their lives, but this began in 1964 and Arday was only born in 1985. Various universities where he claimed to be a “Visiting Professor” or “Honorary Professor” — Glasgow, Durham, Ohio State — all chimed in to assert that this was untrue. Arday hadn’t raised millions for charity at all, at least not solo, and he hadn’t done relief work abroad, according to the charity cited.

The Good Law Project set up an open letter in which various Woke types claimed that Arday was being targeted because of his race, held to higher standards than most academics, and that this pile on had to stop. Sir Simon Baron-Cohen intervened to manipulatively state how damaging this media coverage was to a fragile, autistic man. As we all know, leftists, but not conservatives, engage in a competence shift, using simpler language when they talk to Black people, betraying what they truly believe. This avuncular attitude embodies the deceit behind the case of Jason Arday. He confirms key racial stereotypes about Blacks.

Firstly, Arday is not very intelligent, hence obtaining his degree in Education, whose graduates have the lowest IQs according to studies, and only ever attending universities that aren’t very good: St Mary’s, Twickenham, cannot even validate its own degrees; this is done by the University of Surrey and Liverpool John Moores (rather than Liverpool University). The fact that he had to plagiarise others’ writings extensively and had tremendous trouble getting journal articles published only underscores this point. The Woke have leapt upon him as the cleverest of Black men — deserving a Cambridge Professorship — and he likely only has an IQ of about 110, if that. And he’s the best? That is what Woke academics seem to realise deep down. The intelligence stereotype seems to be confirmed.

As for personality, Richard Lynn published a book, shortly before he died, entitled Race Differences in Psychopathic Personality. There are consistent race differences in this regard, with Blacks being more psychopathic than Whites. One of the symptoms of psychopathic personality is lying. Jason Arday is clearly a liar and a fraud. Worse than this, he is a pathological liar. He seems to impulsively tell quite ridiculous lies, such as having been on Seven Up, which began in 1964. Impulsive lying is associated with poor impulse control, another marker of psychopathic personality, but also with dissociation (switching off from reality) and psychosis, the core symptom of schizophrenia. This condition is notoriously elevated among Blacks. Mythomania is also associated with Narcissism — grandiose fantasies of importance, and entitlement — which crosses over with psychopathy as part of the “Dark Triad” of personality disorders.

So, what has actually happened here? A relatively stereotypical Black man — implicitly not very bright and high in psychopathy and possibly traits related to schizophrenia — has, via being a fantasist and a fraud, blagged his way into academia. For all we know, the “autism” diagnosis is nonsense and is a way of victim-signalling, something that Dark Triad people often do in order to elicit sympathy. Arday is then leapt upon by Woke scholars, as he is everything they could possibly want: he’s Black, he’s struggled so much, he’s academic and he researches Woke topics such as the nature of “whiteness.” They are taken in by him, enamoured by him as you would be by a successful conman, so they overlook the obvious problems — implausible stories, appalling scholarship — and make him their King.

And then, when it all falls apart, they realise what has happened, and they descend into denial and insist that he’s somehow both King and a fragile little peasant girl at the same time. It reminds me of the presidency of Joe Biden — he’s both a brilliant president and a forgetful old man, depending on the circumstances. Making the clearly senile Biden president was elder abuse by his backers and it went to Biden’s head, meaning he tried to run for a second term. Making Arday an academic at all was the abuse of a not very bright, slightly Dark Triad Black man, and it went to Arday’s head, as he realised how much he could take at advantage.

Becoming a Cambridge Professor, he flew too close to the sun. He was duly revealed not to confound “harmful, racist stereotypes,” but to be a data point in their favour.