Featured Articles

On Late Loyalism: Rescuing the Lost Sheep of Greater Britain, Part One

/3 Comments/in , , /by

When asked sometime in the 1970s what impact the French Revolution had on world history, the Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai replied that it was too early to tell.[1]  The historical significance of the American Revolution, on the other hand, is now coming into sharp relief.  Having reached their 250th anniversary, the WASP epigones of the founding fathers have all-but-exhausted the rich reserves of the biocultural capital their revolutionary ancestors inherited (or wrested away) from the King and country of their fellow British subjects.

The people of the newly independent thirteen colonies were overwhelmingly of Anglo-Protestant stock.    Not surprisingly, when the First Amendment mandated the constitutional separation of church and state, the question whether the American republic was a Christian nation had been thrown open to debate. Today both Anglos and Protestants are shrinking minorities of the American population.

Some historians concede, of course, that whatever the founders may have intended, something resembling an Anglo-Protestant nation emerged out of the mid-nineteenth century revival movements.  Even so, a century and a half later it is difficult to deny that the Anglosphere has entered a post-Christian age.  Given the massive demographic changes that have occurred in every once Anglo-Saxon nation in the postwar era, neither political citizenship nor the Christian religion provided effective solutions to the identity crisis plaguing the dispersed British-descended peoples of the Anglosphere.  

Yet, fifteen years after The WASP Question (Arktos, 2011) was published, it now seems possible that the devolution of the Anglosphere into multicultural tribalism might precipitate the resurrection of a postmodern British race patriotism.  Heightened awareness of the friend-enemy distinction in everyday life could produce an unexpected fusion of the modern WASP bioculture with ancient religious sensibilities throughout the Anglosphere.[2]

If so, the idea of “late loyalism” might take on a metapolitical significance far beyond the significance attached to the label in Upper Canada in the early nineteenth century.  Then it referred to the large influx of American settlers seeking cheap land in the newly opened Upper Canadian wilderness.  Even when the War of 1812 brought the threat of an American invasion of Canada, the late loyalists kept their heads down and minded their own business.[3]

In our own future, an altogether unexpected manifestation of late loyalism may reflect the recovery of a shared sense of British identity among all the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant peoples.  Certainly, they share a common experience, outside and apart from the states deliberately promoting their replacement through mass non-White immigration and forced multiculturalism.  This is true everywhere in the Anglosphere, both in the diaspora and in an ever more dystopian “Yookay”.  Indeed, even within the Anglo-Protestant minority in the rapidly browning Rainbow Republic, late loyalism could (and should) become a real possibility.

Nevertheless, the fundamental problem posed in The WASP Question remains unresolved: the founding peoples of the Anglosphere, white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, suffer from collective amnesia. By way of remedy, this book prescribed a deep cultural and spiritual rebirth—palingenesis—among the descendants of those who created Angelcynn Christendom. Restoring the cultural memory of that folkish faith is the precondition for the resurrection of British race patriotism. Only a spiritually reborn Anglosphere can effectively resist dissolution into the multiracialized mélange of mere “populations” managed by corrupt, irresponsible, and soulless corporatist plutocracies. The “invisible race” of WASPs needs a post-creedal, ethnoreligion capable of generating a geopolitical theology of their own making.

No doubt the American Revolution dealt British race patriotism a crippling blow.  But the English ruling elite had already shot itself in the foot more than a century earlier when it provoked a fiery Puritan revolution which denied the divine right of English kingship.  Not surprisingly, the emigré descendants of those English Puritans took the lead in the abolition of kingship, once and for all, in a revolutionary American republic.

Since the creation of the republic, the historic, vestigially sacred character of the British monarchy has withered away, not just in the United Kingdom itself but also, much more visibly in the old white dominions of the Crown in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.  Moreover, Christendom itself has become a constitutional dead letter in the English-speaking world. Eventually, as the American revolutionary process ran its full course, a transnational corporate welfare state displaced the sovereign authority of every ostensibly liberal democratic regime throughout the Anglosphere.  Ironically, the American republic itself is now little more than a polite constitutional fiction.

Karl Jaspers (1883–1969)

In this context, it may be that the current decline of the global American empire holds more than merely historical significance.  The Anglosphere (indeed, Western civilization at large) has passed a turning point of metahistorical significance.  Fundamental assumptions grounding politics, government, and religion for centuries, if not millennia, have been reshaped beyond recognition.  In no more than a single human lifetime, the Axial Age, identified in 1949 by a German-Swiss philosopher of religion, Karl Jaspers, as the metaphysical culmination of human history, now seems to be on its ignominious way out.[4]

The Cosmology of the Original Political Society in an Enchanted Universe

To properly understand what may await us in a future post-Axial Age we must understand what came before it.  In Jasper’s narrative of the Axial “breakthrough” in the history of religious discourse, the new age began circa 500 BC with “a profound transformation of religious presuppositions” which in turn carried major social and political consequences.[5] The myth of the Axial Age held that the transcendent “roots of modernity” lay in the more or less clear apprehension of classical civilizations that “there is but One Truth and One Mankind.”  Christianity emerged as the Jewish/Roman religious apprehension of that transcendent Truth.  “In Jasper’s rather tragic view of universal history,” not all those early Axial “breakthroughs” survived “their later institutionalizations.”   Given that so many of the roots of modernity were ploughed under over the passage of time, modernity appears to be a still “unfinished project.”[6]

In contrast to the proto-modernist pursuit of the transcendent divine, archaic, pre-Axial religious discourse imagined the gods belonging to a multiplicity of tribal cultures as immanent in nature .  In sharp contrast, the universalistic “transcendental visions” of the Axial Age laid “claim to absolute, unconditioned Truth, with a capital ‘T’.”  In other words, “an exclusively Axial concept of transcendence” presupposed “a cosmological chasm between a transcendental and a mundane sphere.”  An “immanentist” understanding of the divine is typically much more conditional and relativistic in the sense that the gods immanent in nature belong to “another” world without being “extra-mundane.”[7]

According to C.A. Bond, the Neolithic cultures associated with the development of agriculture, the domestication of animals, and, thus, the change from a hunter-gatherer lifestyle to settlement were “were not states of anarchy, nor were they sovereign orders.”  It seems that they were “uniformly ritualistic and sacrificial in their organisation,” observing “law as handed down by god, ancestors, or spirits.”  The rituals and sacrifices “seem to have been a means of communication with this other world.”  Law givers in these orders were not presented as giving the laws themselves; rather, they functioned as “conduits of the gods”.  Pre-Neolithic cultures did not have domesticated animals at hand for sacrificial purposes.  Nevertheless, for them, too, hunting likely involved “the killing and butchery of the animal in a precise manner so as to mitigate the risk of alienating the animal’s spirit or any tutelary gods linked to the animal.” In all of these pre-Axial cultures, the “gods and spirits of their systems of belief actually exist and inhabit the world.” Indeed, gods and spirits are as much part of such polytheistic social orders as biological people.[8]  Some scholars try to capture this pre-Axial presupposition of the cosmic immanence of the divine by substituting the term cosmotheism for polytheism.[9]

Marshall Sahlins portrays human society in a “state of immanence” as:

a fractional part of a much larger cosmic society populated by a multiplicity of different kinds of persons, many organized in their own societies, and all more or less empowered, and encompassed by the greatest of them, deities of this cosmic polity—this cosmopoliteia.[10]

Clearly, if such cosmic polities were present within what we understand as a primordial “state of nature,” that realm did not correspond to a state of anarchy as imagined by social contract theorists of seventeenth century such as Hobbes and Locke.  Instead, it was a world filled with other-than-human persons [‘metapersons’] endowed with greater-than-human powers.”[11]  In such “immanentist” cultures, as described by Sahlins:

personhood is virtually everywhere and in almost everything.  The universe is full of persons from whom emanate forces that constitute the world as objectifications of their intentions … animistic spirits, demons, ghosts and ancestors, species and place master, and high gods and others.[12]

Marshall Sahlins (1930–2021)

Sahlins adds that in such “enspirited societies, political relations are metahuman relations, and human political authorities are cosmic persons” insofar as they act as intermediaries between other-than-human metapersons (on whom they modelled their own personhood) and the mundane people groups which they govern.  The heil or charisma emanating from chiefs, kings, amounted to “the human appropriation of divinity,” thereby introducing into human society, as their own, “potencies appropriated from the cosmic host.” [13]

On Marshall Sahlins’ interpretation of immanentist cosmology, the universe is enchanted.  Even in the smallest tribal societies, a cosmic state grounded people’s dependence on the “encompassing life-giving and death-dealing powers, essentially persons like themselves, who rule earthly existence.”  Whatever the social contract theorists of the Enlightenment may have thought, in the prehistoric state of nature, from the very beginning, the cosmic state was the general condition of mankind.[14] What has changed? Or, have things changed?

The Persistence of Immanentist Political Theology

Well, Jaspers might say, the Axial Age came along and with it, the disenchantment of the world.  To our more enlightened, modern minds, it seems obvious that prehistoric, primitive peoples “invented” the spirits, simply creating the gods in their own image, thereby according to them the ultimate power to determine their fate.  But, Sahlins insists, it is a mistake to embrace the “enlightened” and “modern” understanding of political theology.  He flatly asserts that:

People did not create the gods out of thin air; they only hypostasized the forces that were already conditions of their existence. I repeat, humans did not imagine the gods, they only objectified, or more precisely, subjectivized, the extra-human forces by which they themselves lived and died.[15]

One might even say that the religious base of society determined the mundane superstructure, at least “until religion went from an imminent infrastructure to a transcendent superstructure.”[16] Once the idea of transcendence established itself as fundamental Truth, residual traces of immanentism were routinely condemned as pagan heresy.  Axiality entailed significant political and social changes, most importantly perhaps, the desacralization of political domination and a growing separation between ethnicity and religion.[17] It is not impossible, however—should the as-yet unfinished project of axiality finally founder—that the separation of ethnicity and religion could be reversed.  If so, future generations might even experience the resacralization of political authority.

Such a transformation would reverse the triumph of Christianity in the Roman Empire, the quintessentially transcendentalist religion.  In principle, the Christian faith separated the universal (albeit triune) God from ethnicity while drawing bright line distinctions between the spiritual realm of the church and the temporal powers vested in the state.  At its peak, Christendom was effectively a metonym for the Axial Age, especially in the West.[18]

All Roads Led to Rome in the Early  Axial Age (https://ar.inspiredpencil.com)

Even in Western Europe, however, especially during the first millennium (described by one Orthodox priest as the Age of Incarnation) transcendentalism developed in an uneven manner.[19]  Sahlins noted that “a transcendent God abides over a human population on familiar terms with saints, ghosts, witches, and ‘nature spirits,’ including monks who were not technically human since they lived the life of angels.”  Nor was the “spiritual” realm sharply divided from the “secular” administration of justice.  As late as the year 1050, “it was possible to use the same pool of water” in Canterbury Cathedral, “on the same day, to baptize an infant as a Christian and immerse an adult to solicit a divine verdict in a judicial case.”[20] In the subsequent Age of Disincarnation, the fate of ordeals by water, fire, and combat became “emblematic of the displacement of divinity from the earthly city in Latin Christianity.”  Such ordeals were abandoned in the thirteenth century when they “came under heavy clerical criticism as an ancient, vulgar, and lower-class custom” tolerated for centuries only “as a concession by the Church to the hard hearts of the German barbarians.”[21]

The Retrojection of Transcendence

By the time of the American Revolution, the idea of divine transcendence had become so entrenched in political theology that those same “German barbarians” were transmogrified, at least in the minds of the social contract theorists then shaping Anglo-American political discourse.  In their imaginations, violent berserkers (engaging in ritual assemblies where horses and humans were sacrificed to propitiate wrathful gods) were distilled, as if by magic, into well-mannered WASPs attending an orderly town meeting in the enlightened American republic.  For prosperous and enlightened elites “at home” and in the American colonies, the supposedly democratic tribal assemblies of the German peoples in the first century AD were the model from which “the English have borrowed the idea of their political government.  This beautiful system was invented first in the woods.”[22]

In fact, both English social contract theorists, and the American revolutionaries influenced by them, simply retrojected the transcendentalist ideals of the Enlightenment in “the claim that English law rested on an unbroken line of pre-Norman customs” dating back to the forests of Germany.  It was the Roman historian Tacitus who first transcendentalized the ritual tribal assemblies in his brief Germania by omitting “details the Romans would have taken for granted—such as animal sacrifice and accompanying ceremonies.”[23]

But their true nature was suggested in Tacitus’ “note that the assembly was overseen by priests and held on a date judged auspicious.”  As Bond remarks, who knows “what people were thinking in such a situation, or how they would have interpreted the proceedings.”  But one thing seems certain: they were not “engaged in what we would call rational, secular deliberation and casting votes as though at a town hall meeting.”  More likely, chiefs or kings presented their proposals as figures regarded as bearing something akin to the will of the gods, or a force comparable to mana,” much like the cannibalistic Maori tribesmen British traders and colonists encountered in New Zealand in the early nineteenth century.[24]

AI Image of Germanic Tribal Democracy

Endnotes

[1] Zhou may have thought the questioner was referring to the 1968 student rebellion in Paris.

[2] According to Carl Schmitt, the distinction between friend and enemy is the essence of “the political.”  The enemy has traditionally been seen as “the alien other, the racial enemy whose threat came from beyond the borders of the state,”  Today, however:

amid the radical demographic transformation and corresponding civilizational decline unfolding throughout the Western world, driven in large measure by “liberal politics” and by the increasingly zero-sum struggle among rival racial and ideological blocs within multicultural societies, the political enemy emerges from within the state itself. Internal divisions have attained such intensity that rival groups no longer recognize one another as members of the same political community, bringing domestic conflict to the threshold of civil war.

See, Chad Crowley, “Carl Schmitt and the Political: The Friend-Enemy Distinction Explained,” Riding the Tiger, July 30, 2026, https://substack.com/inbox/post/209032821

[3] Alan Taylor, “The Late Loyalists: Northern Reflections of the Early American Republic,” (2007) 27(1) Journal of the Early Republic, 1–34.

[4] Karl Jaspers, Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschicte, 1949; English: The Origin and Goal of History, (Yale University Press, 1953). Cf., Matthew J. Carlisle, A Simple Introduction to the Axial Age: How Humanity Learned to Think Morally, Philosophically, and Spiritually (Independently Published, 2026). On the concept of “metahistory” (i.e., not just what historical narratives are but also how and why they take particular forms), see Hayden White Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973).

[5] Hans Joas, “The Axial Age Debate as Religious Discourse,” in Robert N. Bellah & Hans Joas, eds. The Axial Age and its Consequences (Belknap Press, 2012), 12.

[6] Jan Assmann, “Cultural Memory and the Myth of the Axial Age,” in Ibid., 367.In my first book, I examined the sacrifice of classical republican traditions in service to the “unfinished project” of modernity; see, Andrew Fraser, The Spirit of the Laws: Republicanism and the Unfinished Project of Modernity (University of Toronto Press, 1990).

[7] Assmann, “Cultural Memory,” 367, 371.

[8] C.A. Bond, Themis: A Science of Human Orders (Imperium Press, 2025), 10-12, 15, 26.

[9] Assmann, “Cultural Memory,” 371.

[10] Marshall Sahlins, The New Science of the Enchanted Universe: An Anthropology of Most of Humanity (Princeton University Press, 2022), 124.

[11] Ibid., 70.

[12] Ibid., 72–73.

[13] Ibid., 120, 123 (emphasis in original); Bond, Themis, 29, 70.

[14] Sahlins, Enchanted Universe, 137.

[15] Ibid., 174 (emphasis in original).

[16] Ibid., 175.

[17] Joas, “Axial Age Debate,” 11–12.

[18] The birth of Christianity was made possible by the Roman imperial order imposed upon the Mediterranean world by Augustus. “Augustus revolutionised conceptions of space and time. He created a new image of the world centred on Rome, and on his person. … This powerful sense of a unified, centred world stimulated ways of imagining the interconnectedness of humankind—a message that came out in the earliest Christian texts’ vision of a universal alliance in Christ.” Tim Whitmarsh, Rome’s Age of Revolution: Augustus, Empire and the Making of Christianity (The Bodley Head, 2026), 228.

[19] Fr. Andrew Phillips, Orthodox Christianity and the English Tradition (English Orthodox Trust, 1995), 281–284.

[20] Sahlins, Enchanted Universe, 9.

[21] Peter Brown, “Society and the Supernatural: A Medieval Change,” Daedelus 104, no. 2 (1975) 135–36.

[22] Charles Montesquieu, quoted in Bond, Themis, 48–9.

[23] Ibid., 49–50.

[24] Ibid., 51–52; cf., Paul Moon, This Horrid Practice: The Myth and Reality of Traditional Maori Cannibalism (Penguin, 2008).

A Commentary on the Life of Daniel Berrigan

/10 Comments/in /by

It was a little after noon on a warm, sunny spring day on May 17th, 1968 in Catonsville, Maryland, a quiet suburb of Baltimore, when three cars pulled into the parking lot of the Knights of Columbus Hall.   A casual passerby wouldn’t have imagined that a draft board was located on the upper floor of the aging clapboard structure.  Nine passengers emerged from the cars, two women and seven men, one of them wearing a Roman collar.

The group made their way up the stairs to cabinets containing military draft records—the Vietnam war was raging—and began emptying files into two wire-mesh waste baskets they had brought with them. “My files, my files!” shouted Mary Murphy, one of the clerks, as she tried to take charge of one of the wastebaskets.  There was a brief tussle, but one of the men in the group gently subdued her.   Another clerk, Phyllis Morseberger, threw a telephone out the window hoping a passerby would notice and intervene, but there was no response.

The group proceeded to the parking lot with the filled waste paper baskets.   One of them lit a match and a roar of flames engulfed the paper.  Each of the remaining eight struck a match and added it to the blaze.  As the fire burned, the nine stood side by side and recited the Our Father.  The police soon arrived, and all of them were arrested and handcuffed and put in a van bound for processing and arraignment.   According to testimony at the later trial, 378 draft files had been destroyed.

Several reporters, a photographer, and a TV cameraman recorded it all.  They had been tipped off that “a remarkable news event” would occur at Knights of Columbus Hall shortly after noon on that day; exactly what was to happen, they had no idea.

A member of the group, a Jesuit priest named Daniel Berrigan, had prepared a statement about the event that gained wide circulation as a manifesto of resistance to the Vietnam War, which included:

Our apologies, good friends, for the fracture of good order, the burning of paper instead of children, the angering of the orderlies in the front parlor of the charnel house.  We could not, so help us God, do otherwise.  For we are sick at heart.  Our hearts give us no rest for thinking of the Land of Burning Children and for thinking of that other Child of whom the poet Luke speaks.  The infant was taken up in the arms of an old man whose tongue grew resonant and vatic at the touch of that beauty.  Small consolation, a child born to make trouble and to die for it—the First Jew (not the last) to be subject of a “definitive solution.”  All of us who act against the law turn to the poor of the world, to the Vietnamese, to the victims, to the soldiers who kill and die for the wrong reasons, or for no reason at all, because they were so ordered by the authorities of that public order which is in effect a massive institutionalized disorder.  We say: Killing is disorder.  Life and gentleness and community and unselfishness are the only order we recognize.  For the sake of that order we risk our liberty, our good name. The time is past when good men may be silent, when obedience can segregate men from public risk, when the poor can die without defense. How many indeed must die before our voices are heard?  How many must be tortured, dislocated, starved, maddened?  How long must the world’s resources be raped in the service of legalized murder?  When at what point will you say no to this war?  We have chosen to say, with the gift of our liberty, and if necessary our lives: the violence stops here, the death stops here, the suppression of the truth stops here, this war stops here.

*   *   *

Daniel Berrigan (1919–2016) was a priest of the Society of Jesus and a poet, writer, university chaplain, teacher, and, most prominently, social activist.  The opening paragraphs above were taken from pages 25–30 in Jim Forrest’s 2017 biography of him, At Play in the Lion’s Den: A Biography and Memoir of Daniel Berrigan (Orbis Books).  This writing is my response to that book.  It isn’t a review of its merits, though I think enough of it to recommend it to you.  Rather, it is a report of what the book brought up for me as I read through its pages—about Berrigan, about ideas and people, about my own life (page numbers in parentheses).  I haven’t tried to tie things together, paint a complete picture of Berrigan, assess him or put him into perspective, anything like that, though I believe a basic sense of who he was and what he was about emerges in these next paragraphs.

If what’s here piques your interest in Berrigan, you could do what I did, read the Forrest biography and see what it brings up for you.  Another possibility is Berrigan’s autobiography, To Dwell in Peace: An Autobiography (Wipf and Stock, 2007).  A third possibility is to watch the 1982 film directed by Emile de Antonio, “In the King of Prussia,” which is on YouTube.  I saw it on The Criterion Channel, a collection of old films and a smattering of recent ones, around a $100 subscription charge a year, which I highly recommend if you are a film buff.

“In the King of Prussia” is a dramatization of the trial of anti-war activists, which included Berrigan, who on September 9th, 1980 broke into a General Electric weapons plant in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania (odd name for a town) armed with hammers to protest nuclear proliferation.   They shattered parts of two Mark 12-A missile shields with the hammers and poured their own blood onto blueprints and equipment before kneeling in a circle holding hands and singing hymns. Police arrived 45 minutes later to arrest them.

The eight protestors were charged with ten felony and misdemeanor counts.  During the trial they came to be known as the “Plowshares Eight,” plowshares in reference to the book of Isaiah in the Bible: “And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.”

In the film, Martin Sheen plays Judge Salus and the Plowshares Eight play themselves.  During filming, Sheen became friends with Berrigan and often visited him in the years that followed and several times was arrested with him. “Mother Teresa,” Sheen has said, “brought me back into the Church and Dan Berrigan kept me there.”

I found it fascinating to see Berrigan in person in the film.  Dan (I’ll call him Dan, everybody did) was around sixty at this time and greying.  He was smallish, trim, quite handsome, a bit effete but strong, confident, and vital; his was a compelling public presence.

In his testimony on the witness stand in the film, Dan described what inspired the Plowshares’ actions:

The question of why we did our action takes me back to those years when my conscience was being formed, back to a family that was poor, and to a father and mother who taught, quite simply, by living what they taught.  And if I could put their message very shortly, it would go something like this:  You do what is right because it is right, that your conscience is a matter between you and God, that nobody owns you. If I have a precious memory of my mother and father that lasts to this day, it is simply that they lived as though nobody owned them.  They cheated no one. They worked hard for a living.  They were poor, and perhaps most precious of all, they shared what they had. And that was enough, because in the life of a young child, the first steps of conscience are as important as the first steps of one’s feet. They set the direction where life will go.  And I feel that direction was set for my brothers and myself. There is a direct line between the way my parents turned our steps and this action.  (p. 237)

All eight were found guilty.  Dan received a three-to ten-year sentence.  He served 23 months of it before being released, which is just about the same amount of time he spent in prison for the Catonsville, Maryland protest.

A note about what drew me to read about Daniel Berrigan.  While my take on Christianity is generally favorable, I am not a Christian, nor am I religious or even spiritual, so it wasn’t that.  I was drawn to Berrigan because of my impression that he was a good, decent, thoughtful, evolved human being and that I might learn something from his ideas and the way he lived his life and be inspired by his example.  In particular, I was attracted to what I knew about his anti-war posture.   I’ve totally had it with destruction and killing as a way to resolve disputes, I don’t care who’s doing it.

*   *   *

Dan was particularly close to his younger brother Phil, who also became a priest and peace activist.   Phil was in World War II (Dan wasn’t in the military) and spent time in blitzed cities in England.  He wrote of confronting the brutal reality of modern warfare, “children suffocated in the rubble, old people burned to death in firestorms, survivors crippled for life.” (p 36)

My much-older brother Walter was in the famous Battle of the Bulge in Belgium near the end of World War II.  I remember him recalling his horror extracting a headless body from a destroyed tank.

Dan’s father subscribed to The Catholic Worker, an eight-page tabloid edited by Dorothy Day (1897-1980) which focused on social issues and the creation of a society “in which it would be easier for people to be good.”  Dan’s contacts with Dorothy Day as an adult were among the most formative experiences of his life: “She taught me more than all the theologians.  She awakened me to connections I had not thought of nor been instructed in, including the equation of human misery and poverty with war making. She had a basic hope that God created the world with enough for everyone, but that there was not enough for everyone and war making.”  Day’s radical rejection of war had a profound impact on him.  Dan became in large measure the spiritual child of Dorothy Day, committed to a world that excluded no one, from the child in the womb to the prisoner on death row. (p.65)

As I read about Berrigan and Dorothy Day, I asked myself, who influenced me when I was a kid.  What popped up in my mind was Chip Hilton.  Chip Hilton was the central character in a series of novels for adolescent boys written by a former college basketball coach, Clair Bee.  Chip was the star of his high school baseball, basketball, and football teams.  What a guy Chip was: the model of the exemplary, clean cut, morally upright, teenage athletic hero.  And Chip was handsome too; he didn’t have a bulbous nose, bad case of acne, and skinny bowed legs like some people.  The message that came through to me from the Chip Hilton books loud and clear: become Chip Hilton, the dream athlete; that was how I was going to make it in the world.   It’ll really be something.   All the guys will look up to me and the cheerleaders will give me a side glance like they do and my father will acknowledge my presence.  I’ll be a central character in the drama of teenage life like Chip is rather than a nobody over in the corner by myself eating potato chips and drinking Cokes and watching television.

I actually tried to be Chip Hilton, put my all into it, went out for the teams, practiced dribbling a basketball with my left hand, viewed the sport teams and athletes as the main action in my high school, and tried to come on aw-shucks humble and selfless like Chip did so well even as he was hitting home runs to win games in the bottom of the ninth.  Oh, I’ll cut this short, you know where it’s going.  Dead end.  Dorothy Day’s tabloid did infinitely better by young Dan Berrigan than Clair Bee’s Chip Hilton books did by young me.

I’ve never read anything by Dorothy Day or a biography of her.  I just now checked Amazon and see a book that looks promising edited by Robert Ellsburg, Dorothy Day: Selected Writings (Orbis Books, 2004).  I’ll give it a try.

*   *   *

Another person Berrigan admired greatly was Thomas Merton (1915-1968), an American Trappist monk whose 1948 autobiography The Seven Storey Mountain (another book on my reading list) brought him acclaim.   The two began a correspondence that lasted from 1961 until Merton’s death.  They spent time together in retreats on Merton’s property in Kentucky.

Merton wrote of Berrigan, “Father Dan Berrigan is an altogether winning and warm intelligence and a man who, I think, has more than anyone I have ever met the true wide-ranging and simple heart of the Jesuit: zeal, compassion, understanding, and uninhibited religious freedom.  Just seeing him restores one’s hope in the church.” (p.120)

One of Berrigan’s letters prompted Merton to author an essay called “The Root of War Is Fear” in which he declared that the duty of the Christian in a world gearing itself for nuclear war is to

strive with all his power and intelligence, with his faith, his hope in Christ, and love for God and man, to do the one task which God has imposed upon us in the world today. That task is to work for the total abolition of war.

Berrigan asserted that Merton was trying to “clear the rubble, awaken people to the truth, save what could be salvaged of lives and dignity, show that atrophied human parts could indeed be turned on, a very space of anger, indignation, joy, ecstasy, that these were the proper functions of the soul awake.” (p. 118)

On the first day of retreats on his property, Merton shared a prayer.

Domine ut videam—Lord, that I might see: these three words, from St. Jerome’s Latin translation of Mark’s Gospel, were the appeal that Bartimaeus made to Jesus to open his blind eyes.

For Merton, peacemaking begins with seeing, seeing what is really going on around us, seeing ourselves in relation to the world we are part of, seeing our lives in the light of the kingdom of God, seeing those who suffer, and seeing the image of God not only in friends but in enemies. What we see and what we fail to see define who we are and how we live our lives. (152, 153)

Merton, Berrigan wrote,

forced us to consider that protest, if it is to have any hope of constructive impact on others, has to be undertaken not only with great care but with a genuine sympathy and compassion for those who don’t understand or who object to one’s protest, who feel threatened and angered by it, who even regard the protester as a traitor. After all, what protest, at its best, aims at is not just to make a dissenting noise but to help others think freshly about our social order and the direction in which we are going. The protester needs to remember that no one is converted by rage, self-righteousness, contempt, or hatred.  (p. 99)

Reading about Berrigan and Day and Merton, all of them to the left ideologically and whose ideas I had not engaged until now with this Berrigan biography, reminded me to shuck any self-labeling that keeps me from people of their sort and what they might contribute to me.  I’m thinking of categories like, in my case, conservative or dissident right or white advocate, which could make people like Berrigan “other,” “over there,” “not me,” and lead me to think I should only be taking my cues from Russell Kirk and Jared Taylor and such.  In whatever time I have left, I’m going to view myself as Walter and Helen Griffin’s son, nothing else, and see where that takes me, which this past couple of weeks—to my benefit, I believe—has opened me up to Daniel Berrigan and some people he connected to.   I underscore that in putting this forth I’m only speaking for myself.  Others need to do what works for them around self-definition.

*   *   *

Berrigan:

In order to kill and call the killing politics, you must justify the killing.  And the best way to justify killing is to deny that one kills at all.  The hand signs the death warrant, the mind rips it up, denies it exists.  And someone dies—always, inevitably, the children, the old, the defenseless.  Such denials and lies always lay at the root of state creation.  The guns have an altogether uncanny tendency to take over. Eventually they rule the gunmen. One kills, after a while, with a high and even euphoric detachment. As though when a body thuds to earth, and the smoking gun is lowered once more, one sees with elation a cleared space, an obstacle removed. A mirage, no doubt, a utopia, but how seductive! The gunman breathes easier, salvation is at hand. (p.215)

*   *   *

Berrigan:

How are the unborn to live? Have we ever heard of Buddhist abortionists?  In the past five years, it is said, some two million nearly born people in our midst have been so disposed of.  Perhaps someday soon people who did get born may invade centers, where doctors relieve women of the unwelcome burden named You or I (all of us are fetuses before we are Jim, Laura, Daniel) and burn their files or pour blood and thereby draw a line.  Everyone should live.  (p.219)

*   *   *

Berrigan: “I have concluded after 50 years of trying vainly to synchronize with other people’s planets, it is simply no go. I shall have to lose, win or at least run the race on my own.” (p. 359)

I especially related to this quote.  I too was about fifty when I came to this same conclusion and it has resulted in a major boost to the level of integrity and honor in my life and to my peace of mind.

*   *   *

I hadn’t expected to read Berrigan’s criticisms of Jews and Israel in the Forest book.  And it wasn’t subtle.  He took no prisoners.  An example of his rhetoric, Berrigan charged that Jews

have arisen from the dark night of the Holocaust only to turn into warriors armed to the teeth.  They took possession of Palestine.  They exiled and destroyed Arab communities.  They made outsiders of those who were the majority of its citizens.  It is a tragedy beyond calculating that the state of Israel should become the repository, and finally the tomb, of the Jewish soul.  That in place of Jewish compassion are armaments and more armaments. That in place of Jewish concern for the poor and forgotten, Israel should evict, uproot, imprison, and terrorize. That in place of Jewish peacefulness, Israel should expand violence.  That in place of Jewish prophetic wisdom, Israel should launch an Orwellian nightmare of double talk, racism, and fifth-rate sociological jargon aimed at proving its racial superiority to the people it has crushed. (p. 358)

This was in the ‘90s and I don’t remember reading anything of this sort back then.  Though this was pre-internet and public discourse was limited to what CBS, NBC, and ABC, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Time and Newsweek magazines, eight Hollywood movie studios, and a few New York publishers saw fit to let me know about.  They reported Berrigan’s antiwar activities, I remember reading about those, but they kept his views on Jews and Israel to themselves.  It strikes me how different the information and argumentation and imagery flow is now: Joe Rogan, Tucker, YouTubes, websites, podcasts, social media.  A public figure’s views on Jews and Israel are out there now. No hiding what’s going on in Gaza now.   For that matter, to the extent I exist at all as a public being, including this post you’re reading, is due to the changes in modes of communication in recent decades.

*   *   *

Another person Berrigan was drawn to was the English Catholic priest, scholar, and biblical translator Ronald Knox, whose book God and the Atom raised troubling questions for Dan.  Like nearly every American, Dan had seen the atomic bomb shortening the war and saving tens of thousands of American lives.  Knox argued that dropping the atomic bomb on two Japanese cities incinerating their mainly noncombatant populations was a morally atrocious event and made religious faith more difficult, undermined hope, and threatened love among the peoples of the world. What a pity, Knox wrote, that America had not exploded the bomb on an uninhabited island to demonstrate its power without killing the innocent.  For Knox the very existence of such a world-endangering weapon is not only a political challenge but an urgent call to holiness.  (p. 42)

*   *   *

The Forest biography is organized chronologically and Daniel Berrigan turns 80 and then 90.

Time was running out for Dan as it is for me at 86.  I’ve decided that the only currency that really matters in life is time.   Each of us is allocated a certain amount of this currency and we spend it as we do, and when it runs out, it’s over for us, for eternity.  Life comes down to how we spend our time.  Berrigan believed death isn’t the end and I wish I could get there, but I just can’t.

One of Dan’s most enduring friendships was with the Buddhist monk and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh (1926–2022).   I recommend his book to you, You Are Here: Discovering the Magic of the Present Moment (Shambhala, 2010). Nhat Hanh suggested that Dan’s calmness when confronting death came in good part from his understanding that life and death are interconnected.  One cannot exist apart from the other; they are as joined together as two sides of a coin. “That is why,” he wrote, “when one has seen the real nature of things, he will acquire a kind of fearlessness—an attitude of calm—because he knows his death will bring no end to life.  His existing does not depend on his ‘being alive’ now.”  (p. 359)

Dan recalled his last visit with Thomas Merton not long before Merton’s death.    Merton spoke “with joy” as if anticipating his death.  He said the only thing that relieved the life of a monk from absolute absurdity is that his life is a joyful conquest of death.  The monk lives apart from a world—racist, violent, militaristic—that pays death such tribute, a taxation exacted on people by death itself.  Dan said he learned from Merton what a great privilege it is to live a life of faith in which the possibility of the conquest of death is in our midst every day.  “Most of us are driven by fear-centered idolatries.  Our real shrines are nuclear installations and the Pentagon and war research installations.  This is where we worship, allowing ourselves to hear the command that we kill or be killed, a command which seems to me is anti-Christ.”  (p. 206)

I’ll add that for me old age has been a time of taking stock in a certain way.  I sit on this couch where I spend my life these days–my various health issues have rendered me essentially homebound—and my life from earliest memories to the present time runs through my mind like a movie.   In response to the various “scenes,” I experience gratitude and despair, satisfaction and regret, peace and upset, happiness and sadness.  Basically, I feel good about my movie in its entirety.  Basically, I’ve been responsible to the incredible gift of life I was given.  But the operative word is “basically.”  Especially, there are scenes in my movie with a young woman and two little boys I would re-shoot if I could.

*   *   *

It’s 2016 and Daniel Berrigan is 94 and the end is imminent.  His friends report that in the last days Dan’s most notable quality was his immense compassion, which guided him when it was a challenge just getting out of bed in the Jesuit infirmary at Fordham University that had become his last home.

His friend Maureen McCafferty, one of the frequent visitors at Dan’s bedside, describes his last day, April 30th, 2016.  (p.572)

When I walked into his room about noon, the minute I saw Dan lying in bed, eyes looking upward, breath coming with difficulty, I knew this was it.  I texted Joe Cosgrove that if he wanted to be with Dan, now was the time to come.  Joe Towle called the family—Liz, Frida, Jerry, and Kate who were all doing a retreat together.  They hopped in their car. That these four family members were together was a miracle.  Liz was usually in Baltimore, Jerry in Michigan, Kate in California, and Frida in Connecticut.  Carla and Marc came down from Syracuse. As Patrick, Joe, and I were sitting vigil, I talked to Dan.  I understood that hearing is the last sense to go in a dying person.  I told him his family was on the way.  He would soon be meeting his mother, Frida, his brother Phil, and his other brothers.  I told him that he had led a very good life and that we all loved him and would miss him a lot.   Joe left the room.  Patrick and I were sitting there and I said to Patrick, “I think he has stopped breathing.”  An aide came in, took his blood pressure, and shook her head.  Dan had died.

The Assisted Suicide of the White Race

/11 Comments/in /by

It’s not “hate” to object to extinction

Years ago, Howard Stern used to have a Grand Wizard of the KKK on his show as a regular guest. They loved to share his signature, “Wake up, Watt people!” This was when Howard was entertaining. I hate referencing a Grand Wizard of the KKK, but White people really do need to wake up. They’ve been turned into the Walking Dead.

  Picture background  

If you’ve read my work, you know that I always champion the underdog. I will always be on the side of the weak and the vulnerable. Regardless of color, creed, religion, or gender. I would surely have felt differently during the time of lynching and cross burning. Today, however, the most obvious underdogs are those same Watt people the Grand Wizard tried to awaken in vain. Collectively, we are going extinct. Whites meet every qualification for an endangered species. No one is concerned about that, least of all Watt people. Young White women today are opting out of marriage and childbirth, to such an extent that for the first time in recorded history, more thirty year old females are single rather than married. Corporations are funding special baseball clinics to bring more Blacks back into Major League Baseball. No corporation is funding any program to bring more Whites back into anything. Affirmative Action, DEI, mass self-hatred- the total package. The influence of Whites is disappearing.

The new movie The Odyssey illustrates the woeful state of the formerly White West. Director Christopher Nolan utilized every “Woke” element possible. There are Asian soldiers in this ancient Greece. A real life Black rapper, wearing the dreadlocks that all Greeks of that era were noted for, was cast, as was former cute and plucky actress Ellen Page. Who has transitioned into a very angry and sad little “man” named Elliott Page. He/she/they/them is cast as a warrior. A really small warrior. And Helen of Troy, with such a beautiful face that it could launch a thousand ships, is now a very dark African. Those of us who noticed all this (an astonishing percentage of Whites literally don’t notice it), have been counseled by “Woke” keyboard warriors, that there were Africans in ancient Greece. Yes, and I’m sure they were in leadership roles as well. Launching ships and all that. I’m surprised that they didn’t have the real life rapper rapping onscreen. It’s well known that there were rappers in ancient Greece.

We all know this cultural appropriation only works one way. The simple equation is: less Whites. Whites are being replaced, in the real world, and in the culture. There are countless Black “celebrities” I’ve never heard of. There has to be more famous Black people than White people at this point. Which is hard to happen organically when Blacks are only 12-13 percent of the population. They’ve kind of become a special underclass, disproportionately poor and prone to violent crime, but also featuring a disproportionate number of wealthy athletes, entertainers, and “influencers.” I suffer from Black Fatigue, but I’m especially fatigued with famous Black people I’ve never heard of. Black Fatigue is at the heart of the Great Replacement. I’m Fatigued with endless videos, providing clear cut evidence of the ghetto pathological behavior that is largely unknown in any other racial group. They feel “disrespected.” Well, I feel disrespected, too. Whites as a whole didn’t do anything to warrant being replaced.

Canada, as you may know, has this especially Orwellian law whereby a depressed person can simply call a hotline, and someone from the government will come to their home and suicide them. The kind of ghoulish house calls that doctors stopped making decades ago. If it can be believed, suicide is now the leading cause of death among young Canadians. Talk about a successful government program! This Medically Assisted Dying program has the support of as much as 90 percent of Canadians. This meshes nicely with those who actually use this program being 95.6 percent White. Who, you know, kill themselves. As of 2024, White males in America commit the most suicides, at 26.4 percent, with White females at 6.5 percent. There is also a category for “non-Hispanic Latinos,” which I’m guessing are Whites, at 15.9 percent. So, we seem to be pretty far ahead in the suicide sweepstakes. And judging by the poll numbers, public support for assisted suicide assures even more aborted White lives.

  Picture background  

Considering the level of self-hatred we see in so many Whites, especially White females, it’s not surprising that many would feel suicidal. After all, if you’re part of this horrific cancer on the overall population, whether you include yourself or not (they rarely do), then I imagine it would be hard to go on. And with an assisted suicide hotline, you don’t need to think about it too much. Just do it, as Nike used to say. Is your chronic pain especially bad today? There’s a solution only a phone call away. Did you just get dumped by someone you loved? Fired from your job? I can relate to artistic types, whose work was just rejected in some particularly nasty way. Someone close to you die? The bereavement process can easily turn suicidal. The possibilities go on and on. Now, if you’re having a bad day, you can make it your last day. With ease and convenience. No messy cleanup for others, from that gunshot to the mouth. No terrifying hanging figure for loved ones to discover. It’s clean, quick, and paid for.

The cultural conditioning we each experience everyday, and have experienced all our lives, is primarily directed at White people. Especially White females. Don’t have children until you can afford them. Or until you’re “ready,” whatever that means. An unexpected pregnancy is an unwanted pregnancy. My body, my choice (except for vaccines). Unless the birth is scrupulously planned, every White pregnancy is cause for worry, not joy. Compare that to the Hispanic community, which largely considers every pregnancy a blessing, regardless of the circumstances. When you cease to value the miracle of birth, you start to dwindle as a population. Whites are dwindling. In 1900, 36 percent of the world’s population was White. Today, it is 8 percent. That would be cause for alarm if we were talking about the White rhino, or the White tiger. But not for the White human being. The dreaded Caucasion. Whites actually cheer when a Jimmy Fallon announces they’ll be a minority soon. Wake up Watt people.

I would feel the same way if any other racial group was on the way towards extinction. I still feel sad over the loss of the Dodo bird. All life is precious. And yet, because of nonstop propaganda doled out to the last several generations, Whites have devolved into largely weak, cucked males, and angry, aggressive females. The hardest thing for young White people to do nowadays is form a romantic relationship. Unless they’re both “transitioned” to some new imaginary gender. In which case, they can’t have biological children. And that’s the goal. The goal of the eugenicists who loom large in this story. Yes, the hand of the non-Irish is front and center, too. How many quotes do we have to read from rabbis about eliminating the White race? I’ve yet to read a quote from a Catholic priest, fantasizing about ridding the world of a particular race or religion. Our leaders are like the distasteful half non-Irish “comedian” Bill Maher, who once proudly proclaimed that he was pro-death. Pro-death of Whites, that is.

No less an establishment source than Bloomberg News reported, in a September 25, 2023 article, that of the 300,000 jobs added by the S & P 100 after the BLM protests, 94 percent went to nonwhites. Just six percent to White workers? And this was announced gleefully by the state controlled media. You know, what pretty much every Black person calls the “racist” media. Run by invisible White Supremacists. Who are so bad at Supremacing that they can’t stop themselves from hiring those they supposedly hate. I find that to be an incomprehensible, frightening statistic. DEI gone wild. But I suspect most Watt people wouldn’t agree. As long as they had jobs, I guess. If you can curtail Whites from reproducing, and don’t hire them for whatever rare employment opportunities are left in this rigged economy, you’re orchestrating a soft genocide. Yes, I know the non-Irish invented that term, and claim ownership of it. They’d undoubtedly condemn me as “anti-Semitic” for saying such a thing. So be it.

  Picture background  

No one with a large public platform will touch this issue. Tucker Carlson has nibbled around the edges, as have some successful podcasters in our alt media world. But they never go as far as I do. Every White is afraid to grieve for the potential loss of the White race. Why? Can you imagine the Chinese being afraid to address, or even acknowledge, being an endangered species? Species has become yet another controversial word recently. Controversial as in “racist.” WNBA mediocre “influencer” Angel Reese accused a White coach, who comes from Australia, of calling her a “protected species.” Which she most assuredly is. As the hapless coach explained, this is a common term in Australia, and has nothing to do with race. Doesn’t matter. An angry Black complained about something a White said, and the White issued the obligatory apology. As they always do. Apologizing their way towards extinction. Have you ever heard a famous Black apologize to a White person?

Apologizing, like cuckoldry, is a White thing. I think of White people the way Homer Simpson thought of beer, in an early classic Simpsons episode: the cause of, and solution to, all of life’s problems. I’ve certainly spent a lot of time writing about, and talking about, the corruption and criminality of famous White people. Rich, greedy White people. But I don’t think we should be allowed to go extinct. When a species of animal is endangered, zoos forcefully couple them, in an attempt to increase the numbers. If only some zoo would couple young White people, and force them to procreate, we might be able to save the race. Those who look like us. That’s not a bad thing to want to do. I won’t apologize for advocating the preservation of a race that produced Shakespeare, and Michelangelo, and Da Vinci, and Thomas Jefferson. A race responsible for the Enlightenment. For the great inventions like the light bulb and the computer chip. But these accomplishments are scorned, not celebrated.

The 1965 Immigration Reform Act flipped our immigration policy on its ear, as we went from mandating 90 percent of immigrants to be from Europe, to mandating 90 percent come from places other than Europe. A very blatant darkening of the population, which subsequently spread to England, France, Australia, and other majority White nations. Nonwhite migrants and immigrants inserted into White societies. But never nonwhite societies. No migrants for China. Or India. Or Saudi Arabia. Not exactly subtle. It’s so obvious they might as well be hitting you over the head with it. And yet there has been little resistance to what is by any definition a Great Replacement. The protests in Ireland provide a little hope. But the hour is late. There’s a reason London has become Londonistan. Most Whites still won’t admit that this is a problem. For the very survival of their race. And too many approve of it.

How many Whites have been murdered by Black criminals in this country, and now in England and other nations undergoing the joys of diversity? To the near silence of the state controlled media. To such an extent that we are now learning that the police and justice department are rigging the numbers on race and crime. They are literally categorizing obvious Blacks and other nonwhites as “White” on official criminal reports. Look at the photo below. How overt does this agenda have to be? Again, conservatives; the police are not your friends. Despite this rigging of reality, the FBI claims Blacks- at just 12-13 percent of the population- commit some 38 percent of all murders. Some sources list a higher figure. As for interracial crimes, Blacks commit 90 percent of them. Yet in every Hollywood production, the situation is reversed, with evil White criminals, and innocent Black victims. This is the definition of indoctrination. Why do they want you to believe such lies? And the lies are working.

  Picture background  

I shouldn’t be the one to have to defend the right of White people to exist. Don’t they have the same right to exist that Israel is always telling us they have? And yet, who is defending this right to exist? The Great Replacement extends back into history. Retroactive virtue signaling. If they did ever make that big budget film about the fight for American independence, you know Sally Hemings would be heavily featured. They’d probably have her coming up with key phrases in the Declaration, which Jefferson just culturally appropriated from her. George Washington would have some hip Black aide, who was his real second in command. To advise him and correct him, just like so many magical Black actors do in all those commercials. There would be Asians at Valley Forge. And Hispanics. Perhaps Abigail Adams would have a clandestine lesbian affair. Overall, the Founders would be depicted as racist dunces, fortunate just to have nonwhites and gender fluids there to guide them.

Our society is not now, and never has been color blind. I don’t know if that is even possible. But if you create a society where the majority race is castigated as incompetent yet “supremacist,” and those within it discouraged from even mentioning their skin color unless it is to apologize for it, you’ll eventually wind up on the road to extinction. You can’t have all other groups encouraged to be proud of their skin color, and wildly exaggerate their accomplishments, while forcing the majority race to apologize on cue for things it never did, and expect racial harmony. We are either all free to speak our mind, or no one is. The word “racist” has lost all meaning and become beyond redundant. If you value your ancestors, you’ll want descendants. If you value life, you’ll want to bring new life into the world. All men/women/they/thems are created equal. We all have the same inalienable rights that come from God, not any government. That includes Watt people.

Cécile Tormay’s “An Outlaw’s Diary”

/30 Comments/in , , /by

An Outlaw’s Diary
Cécile Tormay

3163 Words

Cécile Tormay’s An Outlaw’s Diary (published in two volumes in 1923 and 1924) provides an impressionistic firsthand account of the Bolshevik rebellion and takeover in Hungary in the years following the First World War. Although it has all the trappings of a diary—with chapters comprised of dated journal entries and long passages detailing the author’s experiences, dreams, and feelings—it often reads more like a chronicle wherein the author relays the sheer catastrophe of a great civilization collapsing day by day. Softening this in places are lovely and memorable descriptions of nature, city life, and human interaction which belie a novelist’s artistry. Yet Tormay never relinquishes her own identity as a person trapped in the very conflagration she is attempting to depict.

Several pages in, one realizes that Tormay is an iron-willed Hungarian patriot and aristocrat. She is a conservative reactionary who identifies wholly with her nation, for better or for worse. Unfortunately for her, she gets more of the latter than the former in An Outlaw’s Diary, where we find many passages like this one: “My heart was wounded and bleeding, and the blood that was flowing was the blood of all my ancestors who were Hungarian.”

While her attitude toward Christianity remains deferential, her sense of nationalism supersedes it and never ceases to throb with racial awareness and solidarity:

“I’m already negotiating with the various Catholic women’s institutions,” the Countess said, “and I hope to bring about their unity.”

“I don’t want the unity of creeds,” said I; “I want the unity of Hungarians. The forces of Destruction have united in one camp. All its apostles work together. Why shouldn’t the forces of regeneration unite as well?”

This is what gives An Outlaw’s Diary its staying power a century later, when mass Third World migration into Europe, North America, and the Antipodes is threatening the very existence of Western civilization. Through her racial identity, Cécile Tormay offers an eloquent voice for White majorities everywhere. Only, in Tormay’s case, the alien races are the Czechs and the Romanians, and, most importantly, the Jews. Never for a moment does she take her eyes off the Jews.

But she is a woman. This means that there is little she can do other than observe, seethe, and hide. There is not much of a plot in An Outlaw’s Diary besides all the history unraveling around her. This does not make it any less engrossing.

Tormay begins her narrative on October 31st, 1918, in the midst of the Chrysanthemum Revolution in which Count Michael Károlyi and his National Council usurped control from Prime Minister János Hadik. She narrates the heart-wrenching moment when former Prime Minister Stephen Tisza is assassinated in his home. Károlyi has popular support, and his influence at that moment is buoyed by the Hungarian people who are sick of the war and sick of watching Entente forces pick apart Hungarian territory like vultures upon carrion. Angry men are now causing trouble in the streets of Budapest and looking for people to blame for the catastrophe. Shots are being fired in the night. Theft is rampant. Through it all, Tormay knows who’s really behind Károlyi’s takeover.

Who proclaims himself the saviour of Hungary in the hour of her greatest peril? Count Michael Károlyi and Rosa Schwimmer? Martin Lovaszy, Baron Louis Hatvany-Deutsch, John Hock, Sigmund Kunfi-Kunstatter, Ladislaus Fenyes, William Bohm, Count Theodor Batthyany and Louis Biro-Blau? Dezso Abraham, Alexander Garbai and Ernest Garami-Grunfeld? Oscar Jaszi-Jakobovics, Paul Szende-Schwarz and Mrs. Ernest Muller? Zoltan Janosi, Louis Purjesz and Jacob Weltner?

Eleven Jews and eight bad Hungarians!

My soul is racked with indescribable pain. Good God, where is the King? Where is Count Hadik and his government, the officers, the still faithful troops? Are there no longer any fists? Is there nobody to strike at all?

This passage underscores two important themes for Tormay—naming the Jew and suffering on behalf of her people. Quite often she anthropomorphizes Hungary and views communism as an infectious disease. With all the anguish she endures, it’s as if she’s the patient herself. At one point she likens the red flags of communism to “a gaping wound inflicted with a giant axe.”

As for the Jews, her enmity is boundless. She sees them quite clearly as an enemy race which lacks the virtue of honest conquest. Instead it skulks about in the shadows doing its “silent, clandestine work of undermining” while reeking with “foreign money.” An Outlaw’s Diary is filled with photographs exposing revolutionary Jews by their real names—and it’s amazing how hideous some of these people are:

If echo signaling had existed in Cécile Tormay’s day, it seems she would have made great use of it.

Tormay finds particularly galling the Jewish practice of either pretending to be Hungarian while speaking for Hungarians or denying that Hungarians exist at all. She includes this fascinating exchange with a Jew:

“I see things differently,” said the man. “That is just the trouble in Hungary. They always talk of the country, the nation. There is no such thing as a country and a nation. It is the same to me where I live, in Moscow, in Munich or in Belgrade. It is all the same to me as long as I live well. That is the thing we have to drive at, and it is only through socialism that it can be attained”

“The ultimate end being communism?”

“Later, sometime, some day, yes,” the man answered in a low voice.

“And the Russian example? Do you think that what is going on there is the realisation of human happiness?”

“That is only the stage of transition.”

“Transition which may mean annihilation.”

Károlyi’s reign does not last long, only several months. Tormay contemptuously dismisses him as a feebleminded megalomaniac. He is not the enemy so much as the tool of the enemy. In several places throughout Volume One, we hear the name Bela Kun whispered in both fear and awe. We witness the man’s mastery over the disaffected masses, his urgent, violent rhetoric, and his thuggish ways.

Volume Two opens as Volume One ends, with a Bolshevik in the street shrieking, “LONG LIVE THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT!”

In quick succession, Karolyi is forced out by the Jewish cabal which empowered him, who then install the Jew Kun as leader of the Soviet Republic of Hungary. After this Tormay invites her readers to witness the hunger, the incompetence, and the demoralization which result. All around her are spies and stool pigeons for the government. People’s lives depend on food tickets. There are “meatless weeks” in Budapest. Those who are not issued food tickets literally starve—Tormay describes it as “executions merely by the use of coloured scraps of paper.” Further, the classification of head of household applies to an entire household. So if a man is deemed unworthy of food tickets, his entire family starves as well.

Fuel is scarce, and the winter is cold. Homes are requisitioned; clothing, furniture, valuables are simply stolen—either by the government or by bandits; people are losing hope. Those who can, flee; those who can’t or choose not to—like Tormay—hide. In her case, she must part with her elderly mother. Most of Volume Two depicts Tormay either in hiding or on the run between safe houses, while beyond their borders the Czechs and Romanians continue to seize Hungarian territory in the face of the dithering Entente. The loss of thousand-year-old territory galls her more than the warrant out for her arrest. Her crime was merely to write an essay giving hope to Hungarians.

One of the first things the Bolshevik Jews do is close churches and replace them with movie theaters. Simultaneously they promote free love and divorce. They take over the education of children as well. Here are some of their innovations, which modern readers should find sickeningly familiar:

The mass appointment of Jewish masonic professors and teachers; the Bolshevik reform of school books; the destruction of the souls of the children; the degradation of parental authority; the systematic destruction of patriotic principles; the revelation of sexual matters . . .

And then there’s the terror. Kun’s terrorist underlings, leather-coated Jewish killers called “the Lenin Boys,” are always on the hunt for counter-revolutionaries. Leading them is an utterly ruthless Jew named Tibor Számuelly. Torture and murder are but trifles for these people, and if you’re even suspected of counter-revolution, they’ll come get you.

Tormay relates how Számuelly would go on punishment tours across Hungary in order to commit atrocities.

He arrested three men at random, Kérner, a mill-owner, Joseph Tokay a police officer, and Ladislaus Fekete the mayor, and had them hanged on trees in front of a chemist’s shop. Be quick!” he said, and cleaned his nails while the execution was being carried out. Then he boarded his train again and went on. In Kaba he had the curate, the notary and the magistrate hurriedly tortured, and moved on again, because the Rumanians were coming. Thence he went to Szolnok, where he took hostages and had them hanged. One hundred and fifty were executed. They were all Hungarians—and Christians. . . .

Just as in the Soviet Union, the Hungarian Bolsheviks had supported workers when they went on strike against Aristocratic employers. But when these same workers strike against Bela Kun’s regime, Kun threatens to “hang a few railwaymen in every station.”

In the end, the red center cannot hold. There is too much pressure from the Romanians and the Czechs, and—belatedly—the Entente. There is too much suffering, too much discontent. After months of defeat, counter-insurgencies gain steam, win battles, and put the communists on the run. Just under a year after they lost it, the Hungarians regain their country. Eventually, Tormay becomes reunited with her mother.

It’s a sweet ending, but I am not spoiling anything by sharing it. I don’t think readers even in her day were turning to An Outlaw’s Diary for suspense. They turned to her for a clear-eyed, ethnocentric view of the Bolshevik takeover of Hungary as rendered through the adroit and evocative prose of a novelist—a truly singular literary experience. Tormay’s depiction of the ghost of Stephen Tisza haunting the street outside the House of Parliament is chilling. So is the scene at the end of Volume One in which the national poet of Hungary, Sándor Petőfi (who died in 1849) rises from the dead and scours the streets of Budapest like an avenging angel:

“What have you done to my flags?”

“What have you done with my free press?”

“What have you done with my songs?”

“To whom have you given my grave?”

Not only this, but Tormay has genuine insight into the human condition, which elevates her work even further. Toward the end of the second volume, she channels Oswald Spengler as she cycles through the stages of civilization: Birth, Youth, Manhood, Degeneracy, and Senility. She notes the stark difference between martial and civic courage, and bemoans how Hungarian men have a surfeit of the former and almost none of the latter. She engages a proletarian in an argument and concedes that the aristocracy is partly to blame for their current troubles for not interacting more with the working classes. She also notes how the World War had weakened Hungary such that “[t]hose who might have saved us to-day are dead.” In one touching moment, she searches the canon of Western literature for consolation and finds nothing—until she strikes upon fairy tales.

My favorite moment appears immediately after the takeover:

The bright, clean streets, policemen, protection, security of the past — where have they all gone?

Civilisation was only a scaffolding which was covered with paper posters so that we should not see that there was no building behind it, and it has collapsed at a single blow. It is a wreck, and wolves prowl over the abandoned ground. The town has slipped suddenly back to the times when nobody who started on an errand at night knew if he would ever see home again.

An Outlaw’s Diary can be uneven at times, and it has its faults. Tormay is so locked in on the Jews that her prose sometimes grows purple as she strains to find new ways to express her loathing for them. Here are some examples:

“The Wandering Jew paints his face young, and indulges in orgies on the edge of the grave.”

“I know their poor little villages, pounced upon by the army of leeches in gabardines, bloodthirsty, insatiable, on its westward march.”

“Unkempt, fat women stood in the doorways, silk dresses rustled on the pathway, and the smell of filth mingled with that of cheap scent.”

Insults like these pop off the pages almost regularly in An Outlaw’s Diary. Her depictions of Jews are unsparing in their odium, and rarely does she report an interaction with a Jew which isn’t wholly negative. She is also not above publishing rumor as fact, and sometimes ascribes a near supernatural quality to the Jews as if they were Sauron in JRR Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings:

They scatter without order, under the influence of that terrible eastern eye, which hypnotises our people and lures the unhappy nation to disgrace.

Unlike Sauron, however, the Jews are a corporate evil:

The demon of the Revolution is not an individual, not a party, but a race among the races.

So sometimes, her objectivity becomes questionable. In some ways, one could look at her diary as time capsule of classic anti-Semitism:

How is it that his racial interests are identical in a Ruthenian village and in the heart of New York? He praises one individual, and the praise rings over the globe. He condemns another, and that man’s ruin begins wherever he be. Orders are given in mysterious secrecy. What the Jew finds ridiculous in other people he keeps fanatically alive in himself. He teaches anarchy and rebellion only to the gentiles, he himself obeys blindly the directions of his invisible leaders.

Mirabeau was led towards the Revolution by Moses Mendelssohn and the influence of beautiful Jewesses. They were there, in Paris, behind every revolution, and they appear in history among the leading spirits of the Commune of 1871. But they are only visible during the hours of incitement and success; they are not to be found among the martyrs and the sufferers. When the returning powers of order proceeded to take revenge on the Commune, Marx and Leo Frankel had fled.

It was during the days of the Turkish Revolution that a Jew said proudly to my father: “We made that: the Young Turks are Jews.”

How to pick apart such a salad of truth, conspiracy, and lies? Yes, Jews wield disproportionate power behind the scenes, often for nefarious purposes. Yes, the Jews were the group most responsible not only for what happened in Hungary, but for the establishing the degenerate age we live in today. Yes, left-wing, diaspora Jews have proven to be the greatest enemy of patriotic, race-conscious whites everywhere. But blaming the French Revolution and its consequent bloodbath on Moses Mendelssohn is a wild stretch. It is true Mendelssohn was an Enlightenment liberal who pushed for greater civic freedoms for Jews, and it is true that the revolutionaries (after rancorous debate) gave it to them. Like Voltaire and other Enlightenment thinkers, Mendelssohn’s rationalism and humanism had impacted the Revolution. But Albert Lindemann in his insightful 1997 work Esau’s Tears has a section in chapter two entitled “The French Revolution and the Jews” wherein Mendelssohn does not get a mention. Plus, Mendelssohn died in 1786; it’s hard to pin the horrors of the guillotine and the Vendée Uprising on him. And who exactly are these “beautiful Jewesses” Tormay mentions?

And the claim that the Young Turks were Jews is simply false. In 2025 I wrote a three-part review of They Can Live in the Desert but Nowhere Else, Ronald Suny’s 2015 history of the Armenian genocide, and nowhere in that lengthy tome does Suny claim that the Young Turks were Jewish. The Young Turks did start out as multi-ethnic, secular, and progressive, and they did include some Jews in their ranks along with Armenians, Albanians, Greeks, and many others. But the men who seized power from the Sultan in 1908 grew into staunch Turkish ethnonationalists during the First World War. The three main architects of the genocide, Talat Bey, Enver Bey, and Cemal Bey were all at least part-Turkish and were anything but Jews.

I understand that this line of criticism might not be entirely fair. Even with several years separating her from the events she describes, Tormay may not have had access to the wealth of information we have today about many of these events. Also, this was a time of existential threat for her and her people, so we should grant her some charity in this regard. But if one takes an anti-Semitic perspective, one should do it right; and reporting something an unnamed Jew said to a family member years earlier just isn’t going to cut it.

Nonetheless, in the vast majority of cases, Tormay remains within the bounds of fair play vis-à-vis the Jews, regardless of her personal animosity for them. She is correct to identify the hostile takeover of Hungary as the act of predatory opportunism on the part of one race against another, weakened by the First World War as it was. What she describes in An Outlaw’s Diary is demographic warfare, and in war it is appropriate to dehumanize the enemy—especially when one’s survival is at stake. And if Jews and their allies complain today about Cécile Tormay’s anti-Semitism, we should invite them to compare and contrast Miss Tormay’s words with those of modern Israeli politicians when discussing the Palestinians. Tormay will come across as mild in comparison.

More than a diary and more than a chronicle, An Outlaw’s Diary has worth as great literature. Cécile Tormay was a novelist as well as a diarist, and even in translation, one can sense her refined taste and sensitivity to language. Sentences are not merely building blocks of language; for her, they are molecules of elegance and meaning—precious in and of themselves, and doubly elegant for the direct truths they convey. And the mind which produced them was bolstered by millennia of Western thought, art, and tradition—and was proud of it. What else could have conceived such a powerful and unforgettable passage as this?

In front of the county hall Comrade Singer pronounced the valedictory discourse:

“We take leave of you with the promise that we will fight with merciless hatred against the bourgeoisie, and, should we perish, the very blades of grass will continue the fight, animated by our hatred.”

In the cemetery the minister spoke:

“My brethren in the Lord, standing at these open graves, let your last word be that of love.…”

In these two speeches Christ and those who had crucified him met.

Indeed.

A Big-Breasted Blue-Eyed Blonde: Reflections on the Rocket-Like Rise of Sweet Shiksa Sydney Sweeney

/15 Comments/in , , , /by

“The three most useless things in the world are you and the Pope’s balls.” That’s a typically inventive and obscene Australian insult. But it raises an interesting question: What are the three most useful things in the world? I’d say good candidates would be Sydney Sweeney’s blonde hair and big breasts.[1] Those three things have proved very useful in boosting sales and subscriptions for American Eagle and Novig, the Jewish-owned clothing and sports-gambling companies whose Sweeney adverts have cashed in by creating controversy.

Blonde, blue-eyed S.S.: the Jew-approved shiksa Sydney Sweeney (image from Wikipedia)

The blonde hair and big breasts have also been very useful for Sydney Sweeney herself, of course. They’ve made her famous around the world at a speed and scale that don’t seem natural to me. The big-breasted blue-eyed blonde is being boosted very hard. And it doesn’t seem natural. Or should I say “doesn’t seem organic”? No, I don’t think I should. I don’t like the trend for saying “organic” when “natural” is the more natural word. And Sydney Sweeney’s rise to fame is definitely organic in one sense, because it’s her organs that make her so appealing. Her big breasts, obviously, and her blue eyes, but less obviously her uterus and other internal organs whose good health is signalled by her glossy hair, glowing skin, plump lips, and curve-creating body-fat. In other words, Sydney Sweeney’s organic appeal is that she is a fertile young woman. More precisely, she’s a fertile young White woman.

Big-breasted blonde shiksa in the 1950s, big-breasted blonde shiksa in the 2020s: Marilyn Monroe and Sydney Sweeney (Images from Wikipedia and MovieWeb)

And that interests me a lot, because one thing is certain about the rise of this big-breasted blue-eyed blonde to world-wide fame. It wouldn’t be happening if Jews didn’t like it. She must be jew-seful — “useful to Jews” — in significant ways. And that’s very interesting, because Sydney Sweeney is a paradigmatic shiksa, which is the Yiddish word for “gentile female,” particularly one whom Jewish men lust after. Sweeney is blonde, busty and beautiful, but not obviously overburdened with brains. Her appeal is organic, not intellectual. She’s a lot like that earlier busty blonde shiksa Marilyn Monroe, who reportedly greeted her rise to fame with these relieved words: “I’ll never have to suck another Jewish cock again!” (See “Marilyn and the Jews.”) Then as now, Hollywood was controlled by Jews and those Jews preyed on shiksas. As she sought acting jobs and fame, Monroe had to give sexual favors to Jewish gatekeepers.

Blonde beauty, Black bloat

Then she became the supreme exemplar of a “blonde bombshell.” That’s a very old-fashioned term nowadays, because nowadays we’re not supposed to celebrate the beauty and power of blondeness. No, it’s Black and Brown that are beautiful now: blonde bombshells like Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield should be things of the ever-more distant past. But they aren’t: Sydney Sweeney is a blonde bombshell of the twenty-first century. She isn’t called that, but that’s what she is. She also demonstrates that there’s a shift in popular culture from the pygocentric back to the mastocentric: from the Black preference for buttocks back to the White preference for breasts.[2] Blonde and big-breasted Sydney Sweeney has eclipsed the dark-haired and big-buttocked Kardashians.

“My jeans are blue”: Why did Jews not object to Sydney Sweeney’s blonde blugenics?

This shift towards blondeness and breastiness wouldn’t be happening if Jews didn’t like it, so I’m interested in why Jews aren’t objecting. The question gets particularly interesting when you consider the big bang created by Sweeney last year in her advert for the clothing-company American Eagle, whose owner is a Jew called Jay Schottenstein. The punning tag-line of the advert was “Sydney Sweeney has good jeans,” which was a deliberately ambiguous reference to not just her blue jeans but also her blue-eyed beauty. It was obviously designed to stoke controversy and boost profits. Controversy duly arrived as leftists complained about “white supremacy,” “Nazi symbolism,” “racism,” and the promotion of “eugenics.” But no-one was more helpful to Gap’s bottom-line than a big-bottomed Black female “influencer” called Ivernon2000. She provided the perfect contrast between blonde beauty and Black bloat by photographing herself flipping off a giant poster of Sweeney in Times Square. Ivernon2000’s sub-Saharan steatopygia was on full display. She also provided this commentary:

Black bloat versus Blonde beauty: Ivernon2000 flips off a giant poster of Sydney Sweeney

Look what I found in Times Square. A double middle finger to American Eagle’s ‘Good Jeans’ ad. Sydney Sweeney ain’t the blueprint *tongue pop.*”

Let me tell you who has amazing genes. Black people have great genes.

Indigenous humans have amazing genes. Queer folks have the best genes.

Humans who have disabilities have boomin’ genes. Womxn have super-de-duper genes! […]

Black womxn have good genes. We’re the blueprint. Remember that, you ash filled buckets [!! and finishing with a bit of anti-White hate]. (“Influencer Slammed For Flipping Off Sydney Sweeney Ad, Making “Racist” Commentary In Viral Post,” AOL.com, 7th August 2025)

Black baldness versus Blonde beauty: Another jealous and ugly Black, Cynthia Erivo, objects to Sweeney’s “good jeans” advert

That was very good publicity for American Eagle and its owner Jay Schottenstein (born c. 1954), who is Jewish. But why would a Jew like Schottenstein want to celebrate the “good jeans” of a blue-eyed blonde beauty whose initials are S.S.? Why would the heavily Jewish advertising industry want to design a campaign like that? And to follow it up with a campaign for the sports-gambling company Novig, whose owner is the Jew Jacob Fortinsky, that is again based on the blue-eyed blonde beauty whose initials are S.S.? If Jews had wanted to crush that “good jeans” campaign and cancel Sydney Sweeney’s career, they could easily have done so. They didn’t. Instead, they allowed the campaign to make Sweeney even richer and even more famous. And she had risen to fame on Jewish lechery: the Jew Sam Levinson oversaw the TV-show Euphoria, based on an Israeli mini-series and featuring Sweeney as a fetish-performer infantilizing on the porn-site Only Fans. Later, she became the shiksa fiancée of a wealthy Jewish media mogul called Scooter Braun, just as Marilyn Monroe became the shiksa wife of a famous Jewish playwright called Arthur Miller.

Sweeney Bod

Monroe divorced Miller in 1961 and was dead the following year at the age of 36. Probably she committed suicide, possibly she was murdered. Either way, I hope Sydney Sweeney isn’t killed by fame so young. I’m happy to say I don’t think she will be, because she seems much more level-headed and much less fragile than Monroe. But she doesn’t seem more beautiful than Monroe (or than Monroe with her make-up on, at least). In fact, I don’t think Sweeney is beautiful at all. She has an attractive body and breasts, yes, but her face is not beautiful or perhaps even pretty. She’s slightly crossed-eyed, for one thing. She isn’t a goddess, she’s a girl next-door. And that adds to the interest of the way her blondness and big breasts have been boosted to world-wide fame. This hasn’t merely happened without Jewish objections: it must have happened with Jewish approval. Indeed, it may even have happened under direct Jewish orders.

Red hair and pale skin are also “white-coded”: the American actress Sadie Sink in another White-boosting advert for a Jewish company (image from theImpression)

So why? Why has a fertile blue-eyed blonde shiksa been allowed to become world-famous as a paradigm of sexual appeal? I’d suggest it’s part of something I’ve written about before at the Occidental Observer: a significant shift among some powerful Jews since the Hamas attacks on Israel in October 2023. As they watched non-Whites flood the streets of New York, London and Paris in solidarity with Palestinians, not with Israelis, those powerful Jews belatedly realized that the mud-flood — mass migration by non-Whites from the Third World into the West — is not so good for Jews after all. Non-White migrants have caused huge harm to Whites, as intended, but they haven’t become staunch allies of Jews, as also intended. Accordingly, a significant number of powerful Jews have turned against the promotion of non-Whites and begun to support “far right” parties like Reform in Britain and the National Rally in France.

A blue-eyed Jew

I’d suggest that the boosting of the blue-eyed blonde Sydney Sweeney is part of this ostensibly pro-White movement by powerful Jews. But in a sense Jews have never ceased to be “pro-White.” As I pointed out in my article “Efface the Facts,” you could regard elite Ashkenazi Jews as “white supremacists,” because they clearly accept pale skin and goyish features as the ideal both in Israel and in the Jewish Diaspora. In Israel, dark-skinned Mizrahi Jews from Arab countries still complain that David Ben-Gurion, the Ashkenazi who was Israel’s founder and first prime minister, “didn’t want them” in the country. Ben-Gurion worried that Mizrahi children would “descend to the level of Arab children” and claimed that “in the past few hundred of years the Jews of Europe have led the nation [i.e., Jewish people], in both quantity and quality.” In Britain, a very interesting advert once appeared in the Jewish Chronicle and other Jewish newspapers. It was specifically created for “Jewish Child’s Day” and used an animated image of a boy with pale skin and blue eyes whose face is progressively disfigured by dark bruises. That is why the advert was powerful (if ironic given the Israeli murder, rape and torture [including sexual torture] of Palestinian children): it showed light assailed by darkness. If you changed the words accompanying the images, you could run exactly the same image for “Aryan Child’s Day,” because the boy does not look Jewish.

Blue-eyed purity assailed by evil darkness: an Aryan-esque advert for Jewish Child’s Day in the Jewish Chronicle} (see “Efface the Facts”)

I called that Jewish “glorification of goyification,” borrowing the term goyification from David Cole, the Jewish writer who has discussed the Jewish envy of, and preference for, White features in articles like “Ruth-Bader Ginsburg… Shiksa?.” In my own article, I reached this conclusion:

[T]his [Jewish] glorification and envy of White features can also be accompanied by hatred and a desire to harm Whites. Jews promote mass immigration and race-mixing in part because they feel safer in atomized, culturally and ethnically chaotic societies. But I would also suggest that they promote these things because they like the idea of destroying Whiteness. From the Jewish point of view, it would be a delicious irony if Jews acquired and retained White faces even as Whites lost them thanks to race-mixing. (“Efface the Facts: White Supremacism in the Jewish Community,” The Occidental Observer, 4th January 2019)

That desire to acquire White genes is part of what attracts Jews to shiksas like Sydney Sweeney and Marilyn Monroe. But October 7 may have added another motive to the Jewish promotion of Sweeney. Some Jews are backing Blonde and bucking Black, because they no longer see non-Whites as “natural allies.” But Blaxxing — Black-maxxing — isn’t going away any time soon, as we can see from the Blue Lady of Trafalgar Square in London. Not that any healthy and racially sane White would want to see the Blue Lady, a grotesque statue by the appropriately named Black female sculptor Tschabalala Self. The statue shows a Black woman with giant buttocks performing a sub-Saharan strut in a once-White space. The statue is both pygocentric and Afro-centric. But I think that is all to the good, because I think it emphasizes the ugliness and arrogance of Black supremacism. Set beside sweet Sydney Sweeney’s assets, that bloated Black backside is excellent propaganda for the White cause.

Blue-eyed blonde beauty versus blue-buttocked Black bloat: Sydney Sweeney and the Blue Lady of Trafalgar Square

[1]  Appropriately enough, “candidate” comes from Latin candidatus, meaning “clothed in white,” from candidus, “shining white.”

[2]  Pygé and mastos are Greek for “buttocks” and “breast,” respectively, so pygocentric means “buttock-centered” and mastocentric means “breast-centered.” Preference for the buttocks is also correlated with lower IQ, preference for the breasts with higher IQ.

Johann von Leers: ‘The legal regulation of the Jewish Question’ (1933)

/19 Comments/in , /by

Translated by Alexander Jacob

Johann von Leers (1902–1965) was a National Socialist party member from 1929 and was invited by Goebbels in 1933 to work in the Propaganda Ministry, where he produced several books and booklets until 1945. These works included a study of the Weimar Republic,  14 Jahre Judenrepublik: Die Geschichte eines Rassenkampfes  (14 Years of the Jewish Republic: The History of a Racial Struggle, 1933) and Oswald Spenglers Weltpolitische System und der Nationalsozialismus (1934),[1] as well as books on National Socialism, Adolf Hitler (1933), Entwicklung des Nationalsozialismus von seinem Anfang bis zur Gegenwart (The development of National Socialism from its beginning to the present,1936) and on Jewry, Judentum und Gaunertum (Jewry and the Underworld, 1940), Juden hinter Stalin (Jews behind Stalin, 1941), Die Verbrechernatur der Juden (The criminal nature of the Jews,1944), etc.

14 Jahre Judenrepublik: Die Geschichte eines Rassenkampfes, in two volumes, was one of the first works that Leers wrote while at the Propaganda Ministry. The first volume of Leers’ account of the Jewish Weimar Republic begins with a contrast of the racial ethos of the Indo-Europeans with that of the Semitic Jews. It continues with an account of the rise to power in Germany of the Jewish Marxists. The second volume contains a more detailed record of the corrupt course of the Weimar government from 1919 to 1932. This is followed by the present chapter explaining the laws adopted against Jewry in 1933 by the National Socialist Reich and further chapters outlining the new state structure instituted by the National Socialists and Leers’ counsel to Jewry to cultivate a state of their own instead of exploiting other nations through their international networks.

After the war, Leers fled from Germany to Italy, where he lived for five years. In 1950, he emigrated to Argentina, where he edited a journal called Der Weg. Later, in 1956, Leers emigrated to Egypt accepting an invitation by Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, the Palestinian mufti who had been supportive of the Third Reich. Under al-Husseini’s influence Leers converted to Islam and called himself Omar Amin.[2] During the last years of his life Leers served as adviser to the Arab League and head of Nasser’s Israeli propaganda unit in Egypt.

*   *   *

Leers’ explanations of the laws adopted in 1933 by the Reich reveal the considerable generosity of the Reich towards Jewry in the early years. Those Jews who had fought for the German Reich, in particular, were spared from the exclusions decreed by these laws. Later in 1933 Jews were barred from owning agricultural land or farming by the Hereditary Farm Law of  September 29, 1933. Shortly after, they were prohibited from joining the Reich Chamber of Culture, and were thus banned from artistic, musical, literary and theatrical activity. The Nuremberg Laws of September 1935 then deprived Jews of German citizenship and prohibited sexual contact between Jews and Germans. In 1936 and 1937 Jews were excluded from all academic and public positions. In April 1938 Jewish assets and businesses were confiscated and ‘Aryanised’. In 1938, shortly after the Anschluss, Adolf Eichmann was put in charge of the Viennese office for expediting Jewish emigration out of the Reich, and he continued these procedures in Prague and Berlin until 1941 — when all Jewish emigration was stopped.[3]

*   *   *

The Laws Adopted against Jewry in 1933 by the National Socialist Reich

After the National Socialist victory, the legal status of the Jews in Germany also had necessarily to be changed. The positions of political power in the administration that the Jews, as the bearers of the Weimar state, had acquired could no longer be left to them and the overrepresentation of the academic professions by Jews — demonstrated in the statistics attached to this book[4] —  could no longer be tolerated, especially since a great part of Jewish doctors and dentists had been in every way preferred by the health insurance systems under Social Democratic directorship. Furthermore, the intolerable proliferation of eastern Jewry in Germany had, in particular, to be stopped. In most cases it was possible to expel the eastern Jews who were living in the country without permits or with expired permits.[5] Many thousands of other eastern Jews, who were personally unreliable, were at first forbidden to do business so that, quite apart from the eastern Jews guilty of numerous crimes and treated all too gently by the old system who could now be imprisoned, quite generally a movement outwards of these harmful and therefore undesirable elements ensued. It was much more difficult in such cases where it was not a question of stateless Jews or those wrongly granted German citizenship by the previous governments but of Jews of Polish, Romanian or Hungarian citizenship. Here, unfortunately, any undertaking was impossible since it was forbidden by international conventions. The statistics attached show how numerous these —  in so many ways —  morally inferior Jews of foreign citizenship are in Berlin alone, where they proliferated to the detriment of the German inhabitants in a really intrusive manner.

The Marxist Jews, who were in the directorship of the press or of the defeated Marxist parties, and in addition the repulsive ‘intelligentsia’ with long hair, horn-rimmed glasses, and blue shaved cheeks that frequented the Berlin Communist cafés and had, from there, railed for years against everything that is German, fled abroad like a swarm of sparrows that had been driven off, in order to continue their ranting from there. Unfortunately, these refugees could not for the most part be caught since, at first, the concerned positions in the Prussian Ministry of the Interior were not yet in the hands of a ‘sharp coachman’ but of a weak German nationalist deputy. In this way both the newspaper Jews Theodor Wolff,[6] Alfred Kerr[7] and Georg Bernhard[8] and the nasty Tucholsky[9] and the Jewish agitator Toller[10] were able to escape abroad. It is also quite particularly lamentable that Bernhard Weiß,[11] the diabolical tormentor of imprisoned SA men in Berlin, was able to flee. If the revenge of the rage of the people had been justified in any case it was in the case of this wicked sadist.

But those who could still be caught in Germany have been, and one tries to conduct them towards useful work even though they may seem incapable of improvement.

At the same time, obviously, all Marxist officials, and among them also Marxist Jews, have been removed from political and communal service, all Marxist teachers from teaching positions, and all Marxist students from the universities and high schools.[12] For the general regulation of the positions of Jews in the bureaucracy —  following the stipulations of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service of 7 April 1933 (Reich Legal Gazette I, p.175) and the three implementation decrees of 11 April, 4 May and 6 May (Reich Legal Gazette I, pp.195, 233, 245) —  the following conditions were essentially established that have been supplemented by a ‘Law Amending Regulations in the Area of ​​General Civil Service, Salary, and Pension Law’ of 30 June 1933:

Officials of non-Aryan origin are to be retired, but not such non-Aryan officials who have been regular officials since 1 August 1914. Those could be considered regular officials who, according to the evaluation of the authorities, have, since 1 August 1914, fulfilled all the preconditions for the acquisition of their first regular position, have successfully finished the last required test for this, and also worked in an outstanding manner during their official career.

Further, those non-Aryan officials are not to be retired who fought during the world war on the front for the German Reich or its allies. Here one is considered a front solider who in the world war took part along with the fighting troops in a battle, combat, static battle, or a siege. Here, consequently, those are not considered who, without facing the enemy, remained during the war for service in the war zone, that is, the people in comfortable positions remain unconsidered whereas everyone who was at the front, according to the registrations in the war muster, is considered a front soldier.

This condition has been interpreted on many occasions by Jews as something humiliating as if the Jews who participated in the war went to the battlefield only for the sake of certain advantages and in order to remain bureaucrats later whereas they too wished only to defend the country. This interpretation is erroneous. The regulation in favour of front soldiers takes into account the debt of gratitude that the German nation has towards all those who bore arms and stood at the front for the defence of Germany. In view of this moral obligation of the German nation — which is sacred to it — the principle of the clear separation of Jews from the bureaucracy has also appeared. The experience of the world war is so significant for the German nation that such an exception on account of respect for a comrade who stood in the same uniform at the front seemed compulsory and necessary.

Further, those non-Aryan officials are not retired whose fathers or sons fell in the war. This condition arises from the same reason as the maintenance of Jewish front soldiers in their official positions.

The Central Verein Zeitung (organ of the central association of German citizens of Jewish faith) observes about this law: ‘Jewish war widows who have become professionals (for example, teachers, social welfare workers, etc.) must therefore be retired if the legislator does not exert special consideration in these cases’ (CV Zeitung, 11 May 1933). Here one can safely agree for reasons of justice that Jewish war widows who have in their husbands sacrificed that which they loved most in this world are treated the same way as Jewish front soldiers, thus may remain in their professional positions. A regulation of the legislation in this sense would be harmless and is to be heartily recommended.

On the other hand, there is, regarding such Aryan officials who have on many occasions married Jews for the really worthless motive of money or of relations to the Weimar state, only Art.4, which provides for retirement due to ‘political unreliability’ on the basis of the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service, a definite leverage point. Here perhaps a preliminary evaluation that justifies the retirement of such officials would be a necessary recommendation.

On the basis of the Law Amending Regulations in the Area of ​​General Civil Service, Salary, and Pension Law of 30 June 1933 (Reich Legal Gazette I, p.433), for the new appointment of officials it is established fundamentally that one who is of non-Aryan origin or has married a person of non-Aryan origin cannot be appointed as a Reich official. Reich officials of Aryan origin who enter into marriage with a person of non-Aryan origin are to be dismissed.

Therewith the state administration is fully reacquired by Germans, especially since the same provisions are valid for the civil service law of the provinces, communities, communal associations and other foundations, institutions and corporations of the public law. In this way an idea of Bismarck’s is realized that he expressed in the united state parliament on 15 June 1847:

If, as the representative of the sacred majesty of the King, I think of a Jew whom I should obey, I must confess that I would feel deeply humiliated and oppressed so that the joy and the righteous sense of honour with which I am now concerned to fulfil my duties with regard to the state would abandon me. I share this feeling with the mass of the lower strata of the population and am not ashamed of their company.

The German state in all its branches is an Aryan racial state; it could perhaps include non-German but Aryan racial groups originating from the same Nordic source but can, after its transformation from a liberal state of citizens into an Aryan racial state, no longer make any Jews officials. Thus there lies no unreasonable harshness against Jewry in the total exclusion of any new appointment of Jewish officials but only a consequence of the concept of the state realized by National Socialism.

The regulation of the legal relations of the employees and workers of the public authorities has been ordered in a way similar to the regulation of the legal  relations of the non-Aryan officials. Even here the front soldiers and those non-Aryans whose fathers or sons have fallen in the world war remain in service. Furthermore, in the case of economic enterprises, exceptions can be made when urgent reasons are present. The remaining contracts with non-Aryans are cancelled whereby the existing salaries will be paid to the non-Aryans for three more months. In addition, they will receive three-fourths of the other actionable payments which include, naturally, work income from service-, factory-, or company-contracts.

In the case of lawyers (in Berlin more than 50% Jewish!), likewise, the front soldiers and also those who have lost fathers or sons in the battlefield and those permitted until 1 August 1914 remain permitted. The others lose their powers of representation. Besides, office partnership, and partnership with these excluded lawyers, is forbidden to non-Aryan lawyers.

Important here is again the regulation of the youth, that is, the fact that in the universities it is determined through the Law against overrepresentation in German universities and high schools of 25 April 1933 (Reich Legal Gazette, pp.225,226) that new admissions can include non-Aryans to the limit of only 1.5% of the totality of attendees in every school and for the non-Aryans already in university or high school a numerus clausus[13] of 5 percent is set. The following are not counted as non-Aryans and are also not considered in the calculation of allotments and ratios: ‘Reich Germans of non-Aryan origin whose fathers have fought in the world war at the front for the German Reich or its allies as well as children from marriages that were entered into before this law came into effect if one parent or two grandparents are of Aryan origin. They also remain out of consideration in the calculation of allotments and ratios.’

Therewith even children of Jewish parents, even when both parents are Jewish but not both grandparents, are not to be considered non-Aryans according to this law. This very accommodating regulation — which practically almost overrules the racial principle — has been made, once again, with consideration for the Jews who have been long resident in the country.

In the case of doctors, to whom private practice is generally permitted, an exclusion of Jewish doctors is decreed only for government doctors (Decree of the Reich Labour Minister of 24 April 1933). Only those non-Aryans remain permitted as government doctors who were permitted already before 1 August 1914 or those who have fought at the front in the world war for the German Reich or for its allies or have been active as doctors at the front or in a military hospital at the front. Regarding service as doctors at the front, one will doubtless have to reckon also service in field hospitals and other medical establishments as service at the front where danger through enemy weapons was present but not service in non-dangerous staging hospitals or domestic military hospitals where are present only the customary dangers of the medical profession.

The basic features of the legal concept developed in this legislation, namely, to exclude Jews in general from political and semi-political institutions, while, on the other hand, to protect from exclusion such Jews who were either front soldiers or licensed or were active in their profession before 1 August 1914, or who lost fathers or sons on the battlefield, can be seen as the basic principle of the Jewish legislation in the area of political and semi-political institutions. De lege ferenda,[14] one may also reasonably suggest the same treatment as in the case of those who have lost fathers or sons on the battlefield for Jewish war widows who have lost their husbands on the battlefield.

In the field of scientific education, the law regarding the numerus clausus (Law against the overrepresentation in German universities and high schools) provides a regulation that can be used generally.

The relations are much more difficult in the economic field. Here one thing must be considered: the German state has become an Aryan state. Its basic principle was always German and the acceptance of Jews into its administrative body only a consequence of the erroneous acceptance of Liberalism and the equalization of Germans and Jews as state citizens conditioned by that.

The economic order — if one may indeed talk of one — that National Socialism has taken over is a capitalistic one. Its intellectual source in the Jewish mind and the ghetto of the Middle Ages has been demonstrated here. It has — until a totally National Socialist order supersedes it — been manipulated with the same skill by non-Jews as by Jews. As an economic method it can be wielded by any nation. One therefore does not change anything in it when one merely replaces Jewish bearers of the same with German ones. In the transformation of the position of Jews in this economy it can therefore be a question only of placing certain economic positions important for life under reliable National Socialist leadership but not of replacing ‘black Jews’ with ‘white Jews’, such as misinterpretation motivated by competitive interests would like. In the economy, economic capacity as such should be valid. Thus the Jewish economist, so long as he does not act in a hostile way towards the state or does not finance activity hostile to the state, is to be tolerated. That the National Socialist press does not yield to advertising for Jewish enterprises follows from historical experience and the orientation of the National Socialist movement. But attempts to exclude small Jewish businessmen, the self-employed and such are senseless from the standpoint of wise political considerations. They do not change anything in the real situation and are mostly only pointless severities.

In this question two points of view are to be ascertained. The state is a National Socialist state in which new Jewish immigrants are not tolerated. That is why no new Jewish officials are appointed. In this question steadfast adherence to the principle is ordered.

In the economy, only the ‘senior leaders’  have been brought, or are still being brought, under National Socialist control. A replacement of bearers of the capitalistic mentality of Jewish origin by bearers of the same mentality of non-Jewish origin is essentially absurd. Quite generally the economic activity that is not harmful to the state is not to be kept from Jewry. Since an expulsion of Jews settled for long in Germany, who also in many cases feel historically bound to this country, cannot be considered in practical terms, there is no reason to deprive them of means of subsistence.

On the other hand, with the defeat of the Marxist parties and the fleeing of their Marxist leaders and intelligentsia as well as with the expulsion of a great part of the immigrant eastern Jews, the most unpleasant part of Jewry has been rendered harmless, as it were.

As an old anti-Semite one will not come under the suspicion of a sudden ardent philo-Semitism if one expresses the truism that the Jewish small businessman Rosenbaum or Aron, that the old medical consultant Lewi, that the small Jewish family in some German city have also felt, and still feel, from the separation that has become necessary of Germans from Jews, in many cases, severe emotional suffering that does not serve the new political transformation in any way. The regulation of the Jewish Question has been legally enforced by the highest Führer and will be implemented further where it is still necessary, and the education of the German people about the ‘Hyksos[15] leadership’ that we have overcome has been realized so generally that any attempts of any sort for the renewal of a Jewish rule will meet among the people themselves the most robust resistance (this book too serves the purpose of this education). But it would be pointless and petty to treat the remaining Jews, in personal intercourse, with particular hostility or injurious hatred. That they themselves have acted in this way towards National Socialism is no reason that, after the victory, we as individuals should adopt their methods. The defeated enemy must certainly be prevented to set himself on the offensive once again but to deride him and to wound quite insignificant Jews personally for political purposes would not be commensurate with the greatness of the victory that has been won. Petty resentment, petty hatreds of individuals only smear the image of the great historical racial debate, they are not only harmful but also stupid.

The position of the Jews in Germany can best be compared to the position of the ‘metoikos’[16] in ancient Athens. They have civil rights but absolutely no rights to participation in the conduct of the state (excluding the exceptions for front soldiers, etc.). So long as there is no possibility of a widespread resettlement of Jewry in their own homeland as an international solution to the Jewish problem, a solution that does not come into question for the old Jewish generation in Germany, there is no reason to harass them uselessly in their metoikos position. That is true especially for those Germans who, after the strenuously fought victory of the National Socialist movement, think of bestowing on themselves the reputation of ‘old fighters’[17] through extreme harshness in the matter of the Jewish Question. These people do not see the international significance of the battle of the two races; often they would merely like to do Mr. Cohn’s business themselves! But we did not make the revolution for such people!

Much more important is the task of enabling the German nation in all its life-forms to find its path to its fine instincts in its own way after it had, through its own bad and inferior instincts, sunk so low that it ended up under Jewish leadership. Only when these bad and wicked German instincts – envy, avarice, lack of faith in one’s own worth, the disgraceful lack of ‘civil courage’ – have been overcome would the infiltration of a foreign mentality be eliminated. That the petty businessman Rosenbaum still sells hosiery or is otherwise economically occupied does not improve or worsen anything in this matter. The National Socialist party programme therefore demands also that we fight not only the Jews amongst us but especially the Jewish mentality within us. This is where the great ‘reconstruction of Germany’ under Adolf Hitler has started. But the worst example of a foreign mentality among Germans we find represented quite equally in the Marxist and in the capitalistic mentality. And this mentality continues to exist today in a great part of our people.

[1] See my English edition, Oswald Spengler’s Geopolitical system and National Socialism, Virtus Editions, 2025.

[2] See also my translation of Leers’ article ‘Judaism and Islam as opposites’ (1942) in the Occidental Observer, Sep. 24, 2024.

[3] See my editions of Adolf Eichmann’s Argentine and Jerusalem memoirs, The Eichmann Tapes: My Role in the Final Solution, Black House Publishing, 2015, and False Gods: The Jerusalem Memoirs, Black House Publishing, 2015.

[4] The last seven sections of the second volume of 14 Jahre provide statistics related to Jews in various professions in Germany as well as a catalogue of Socialist Jews in the country.

[5] In July 1933, the Denaturalisation Law (Gesetz über den Widerruf von Einbürgerungen und die Aberkennung der deutschen Staatsangehörigkeit) revoked the citizenship of ‘naturalised’ Jews and undesirables. (In the same month was passed the ‘Law for the prevention of offspring with hereditary diseases’ that decreed the sterilization of parents bearing such hereditarily diseases.)

[6] Theodor Wolff (1868-1943) was an influential Jewish journalist who edited the Berliner Tageblatt from 1906 to 1933.

[7] Alfred Kerr (1867-1948) was a Jewish theatre critic and essayist.

[8] Georg Bernhard (1875-1944) was a Jewish journalist who worked in editorial positions at the Berliner Zeitung and the Vossische Zeitung.

[9] Kurt Tucholsky (1890-1935) was a Jewish satirist whose articles in the theatre magazine Die Weltbühne made him a notable figure in the culture of the Weimar Republic.

[10] Ernst Toller (1893-1939) was a Jewish expressionist playwright who served in 1919 as president of the short-lived Bavarian Socialist Republic and head of its army.

[11] Bernhard Weiß (1880-1951) was vice-president of the Berlin police during the Weimar Republic. Cf. my translation of “Joseph Goebbels’ Battle for Berlin: The Beginning (1934)” in the Occidental Observer, June 12, 2022.

[12] See below.

[13] quota

[14] (Lt.) ‘Regarding future legislation’

[15] The Hyksos were foreign rulers of Egypt in the Fifteenth Dynasty (ca.1600 B.C.). They were of Levantine origin.

[16] A metoikos, or metic, in ancient Greece, was a citizen of a polis other than Athens who was granted residency in Athens but no political rights.

[17] One who had joined the National Socialist party during its early years and fought for its eventual success in 1933.

Rémi Tremblay Interviews Publisher Paul Angel

/4 Comments/in /by
What follows is an interview conducted by French-Canadian journalist Rémi Tremblay with Paul Angel, an author, graphic designer, amateur historian, pianist, fine artist, and the managing editor of the populist and nationalist American Free Press newspaper based in Maryland, just outside Washington, D.C. This year, AFP is celebrating its 25th birthday, which is a major milestone for this or any independent, politically incorrect newspaper, especially considering its anti-establishment bent.
* * *
Rémi Tremblay: American Free Press is celebrating its 25th anniversary. Could you introduce AFP to our French readers and tell us a little about its history?
Paul Angel: American Free Press, or AFP, as we call it, is a completely independent newspaper founded in 2001. Many media outlets try to pretend they are “independent.” Generally, that is a lie. Take Fox News, for instance. They are constantly touting themselves as an alternative to the “mainstream news.” It’s a joke. They are right-wing, pro-Zionist shills and entrenched in the mainstream media complex. In truth, all the cable news outlets and the overwhelming majority of print media in America are just mouthpieces for our two pathetic political parties, and the corporations, advertisers, and special interest groups that own them. They pour billions into the mockingbird media, and for good reason. The media controls how you think about people and issues.
I mention this because there are great examples of how this happens. Years ago, the Disney theme parks were found to have a pedophile problem. To keep things quiet, they started having their own internal security handle any complaints. Generally, as long as the abuse was no more than stalking or minor groping, parents would be satisfied with a monetary payoff. The “police” were Disney’s own theme park security staff.
At the time, Disney owned ABC News. Do you think Disney would ever cover that story on any of its outlets? Of course not. Or would Westinghouse, once the owner of CBS (also a large defense and missile contractor), ever admit on their broadcasts that one of their “smart bombs” went off track and blew up a building packed with schoolchildren?
Or do you think any mainstream news outlet would run a story about the dangers inherent in a pharmaceutical product if the maker of that product were spending millions advertising it with your news outlet? You get the point: You simply cannot trust any of the big media outlets. It’s not just what they say, it’s also what they don’t say. It is their business to make a profit, not tell the truth. They have no integrity.
Tremblay: Is AFP an exception within the dissident media landscape?
Angel: Yes, as most independent outlets cannot manage to keep a print newspaper alive. We are not affiliated with either the “left’ or “right.” AFP is unique because we are only interested in the truth. Being wholly independent, we do not have to kowtow to rigid ideologues, big-name advertisers or well-heeled special interest groups. All of our funding comes from grassroots Americans—and we would not survive without it. I am not even sure how many truly independent dissident newspapers are left in America. Not many. They have fallen like flies. But that is one thing readers respect the most about our news organization. We tell it like it is without concern for political correctness or party politics.
The very fact that AFP is still alive after 25 years means we are doing something right. Even multi-billionaires like Jeff Bezos are having a hard time keeping their newspapers afloat. Bezos recently fired a massive number of the Post’s staff, closing the entire sports department. (That’s a shame, because you could always count on the Post to get the sports scores right. Everything else, not so much.)
AFP is not a cookie-cutter publication. And we are not beholden to any major political party. We are equal-opportunity critics of our political parties here in America. Why? Because they no longer represent average Americans and, frankly, they are mostly in the hip pockets of the big corporations.
If you want to get rich in America, run for and win a political office. But don’t you dare try to help people or solve any problems, or they’ll kick you out of the club. Without problems, politicians don’t have anything to run their campaigns on. Hence, solving problems is bad for an American politician’s future.
The point? We can say what we please about anything, and nobody can stop us.
Tremblay: AFP describes itself as a populist publication rather than one of the right or the left. How would you define its editorial line?
Angel: When people tell me they love Democrats and hate Republicans, or the reverse, I have to ask: “Can you name an American politician who has solved even a single problem in the last 75 years?” Usually, they stare at me with their mouths open, unable to name much of anything of import. That’s the truth. It is their slavish devotion to one or another of the political parties that closes their mind to the reality that both stink.
So, if you want sugar-coated news, lavishly praising one particular political party or the other, don’t subscribe.
We are a populist and nationalist publication, believing that every decision made by our leaders should be for the direct benefit of the American middle class. It is the middle class that pays the exorbitant bills racked up by our elected buffoonish political figures.
We are not as concerned about the rich for obvious reasons. They can take care of themselves. And, frankly, even the “poor” in America have access to decent housing, help with medical bills, food stamps, automobiles, nice clothes, flat-screen TVs, cell phones, and the like. They are afforded all this through taxpayer largesse.
To keep that socialist part of our system going, the American middle class must be thriving, because we know that the uber-rich have a way of masking their true incomes by receiving stock options intead of salaries and other tax tricks. So, it is the middle class that really pays America’s bills. If the middle class suffers too much, the system will collapse.
And not one party or the other can be solely blamed for America’s staggering $40 trillion debt. Both major parties have shown a shocking disregard for fiscal responsibility. Getting America into more debt might be the only thing they have accomplished in a bipartisan fashion.
So, when a political or business figure does something “right” (helps the middle class), we are eager to praise them. This can be confusing for readers because AFP is a “gray area” paper, in other words, we do not see things in black and white, right and wrong, Democrat and Republican. It is much more complicated than that.
For instance, we have praised Donald Trump for securing our border. The Joe Biden era of immigration was a disaster. We watched as millions of unvetted people streamed into the country. Thanks to Trump for that.
But then he turns around and does the dumbest thing any president has done in recent memory: He gets conned into attacking Iran by the Israelis.
We are not too pleased that he has insulted and bullied good allies such as Canada. There is no need for it. But Trump is very good at getting people to hate America. It’s a shame, because the world is moving toward a multipolar world and the United States could very well be aced out of that future if we keep behaving so poorly as a nation.
I should mention that AFP is not just a political newspaper. It also covers international events, financial happenings, technology news, alternative health issues, high-level crime and corruption, the latest political and intelligence intrigues, and much more.
Tremblay: Tell us about AFP’s beginning.
Angel: Seeing the need to continue the work we were doing at The Spotlight—which had nearly 400,000 subscribers at its peak in the 1980s—we started American Free Press in August 2011, just before the attacks of Sept. 11.
Unfortunately, The Spotlight had been bankrupted by lawsuits, all of which were, in our opinion, completely frivolous. The founder, Willis Carto (1926–2015), had been in the crosshairs of the ADL, Southern Poverty Law Center, and the FBI for decades. Those nearly 400,000 subscribers would make The Spotlight one of America’s largest paid-circulation newspaper in America today. (The Wall Street Journal distributes anywhere from 388,000–500,000 daily print copies, ranking first in physical print circulation in America today.)
Carto had exposed a lot of dirt about U.S. politicians, crimes of our CIA and FBI, and especially the despicable actions of the state of Israel. Carto and The Spotlight were considered threats to the U.S. government’s fake news machine. If you ever get the chance, request FOIA documents on Willis Carto. You will get reams of paper. They were infatuated with his efforts to bypass the mainstream media and reach out directly to the American people with a truthful (but ominous) version of reality they had never seen before: a non-partisan news source that was not scared to tell the truth and was willing to face the consequences.
At any rate, the judge did not agree that the suit against us was frivolous and closed us down. *
So, without a penny to our names (we did not even have a bank account), a group of writers, editors, designers, and staff decided to make a go of it and start a new newspaper.
We sent out a promotion for the paper—paid for out of our own pockets—and got enough subscribers to continue putting out truthful, provocative, unbiased news.
A few weeks after that, 9/11 happened, and we jumped on it. For instance, AFP was the first and only media outlet in the world to interview the police officer who arrested the infamous “Dancing Israelis.”
Of course, YouTube pulled that interview down after the Anti-Defamation League complained we were “anti-Semites” for even daring to report to readers the exact text of that interview, which was basically a straight recitation of the police report. Reporting on the crimes of Israeli is always a risky business here in the States. Covering that and related issues honestly—the actions of Israel and the power of the Zionist lobby—has garnered AFP the eternal ire of all who adore them.
Along that same line, it was our reporters who first told the truth about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty. We broke that story in The Spotlight in 1975—eight years after the event but decades before anyone would admit it actually happened. Once again, we were branded anti-Semites.
And it was one of our most popular reporters, Michael Collins Piper, whose book Final Judgment proved the Mossad was the missing link in the JFK assassination. People said we were crazy (and anti-Semites) but, in one of the recent JFK assassination document dumps, memos revealed the CIA’s James Jesus Angleton was working with the Mossad at the time on an “off-the-books secret program” many now are convinced was the JFK killing.
If you want to find out why Israel wanted so badly to kill Kennedy, you will have to read Final Judgment because it is very detailed—750 pages.
We were also the only news outlet in the world—and I kid you not—that tracked down the meetings of the Bilderberg group every year until finally the mockingbird global news outlets admitted these meetings actually were taking place. For years, the mainstream news had denied that, calling the Bilderberg meetings a “fantasy” and condemning us for putting pout “fake news.”
Once again, we broke a major story and got nothing but crucified for it. Today, reports on Bilderberg make the mainstream news every year. You can thank us for that, even though you may never have even heard of American Free Press or The Spotlight.
AFP was also the first outlet to logically start questioning the government’s official version of the events of 9/11. According to many 9/11 truthers, it was AFP that spawned the entire 9/11 truth movement.
And, of course, in our early days, we were about the only American newspaper to expose Israeli crimes in Palestine. People think the recent genocide in Gaza is a new thing. It is not. It has been going on since 1948, and the Jews were no less brazen about slaughtering Muslim and Christian Arabs back then.
Today, many left-wing politicians are criticizing Israel; it’s a badge of honor. Too bad it took them so long to jump on the truth bandwagon.
For talking about this unending genocide in the Holy Land, the numerous massacres of Palestinians, the rabid ultra-Orthodox, Jewish-supremacist settlers, the Palestinian victims, the machinations of the Israel lobby and our politicians to hide all this from the American people and portray Israel as an innocent victim, we were called—you guessed it—anti-Semites.
Nowadays, everyone knows about the Liberty attack, the Lavon Affair, the Dancing Israelis, the JFK assassination conspiracy, Bilderberg, etc., but nobody realizes who broke these stories. Truth is, AFP has been “shadow-banned” since the day we started!
Here is the good news. Despite having had economic and propaganda warfare waged against for the last 25 years (and before that at The Spotlight), AFP is still here and still publishing every two weeks, and we really see no need to stop.
Tremblay: While much of the media is either Trump-phobic or Trump-friendly, AFP has generally taken a more balanced view of President Trump. How would you describe your position on him?
Angel: We had great hopes for Donald Trump. He could have been a great president, and I mean that. But we did not realize that his slogans “Make America Great Again” and “America first” were actually diametrically opposed concepts. They are not the same thing.
Trump’s idea of making America great again is to bomb the enemies of Israel. That is not America first.
Besides his border successes, starting the Space Force, and his codification of some tax breaks, he has done exactly the opposite of any true “America-first” politician. Warring on other nations is not America first. Punishing people for speaking out about injustice on a college campus in not America first. Naming performing arts centers and aircraft carriers after yourself is not America first.
His infatuation with himself is a personality flaw I do not think he can overcome. And, I am sorry to say, even we underestimated the severity of his narcissism and psychopathy.
So that readers know where I am coming from currently, I would say Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) is probably the closest thing to a truly populist politician in the Republican Party right now. Unfortunately, Massie had the guts to criticize America’s unwavering support for the Israeli genociders, and to speak out about Israel’s sabotage of America in the past. He also, along with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Ca.) demanded that Trump release all of the sordid documents in the Epstein Files. For that, Trump ran Massie out of office, helped by gobs of Zionist money.
I will say this about Trump’s biggest critics: We cannot support them either. The strangeness of today’s left is disturbing. The instant Democratic politicians, administration officials in the Joe Biden administration, and even Supreme Court justices could not clearly discern the differences between a man and a woman, I knew that the brains of these 21st-century neo-Bolsheviks were seriously diseased. The ideas that many leftist politicians hold today make me believe that the Democrats are no longer a serious political party.
Strange, right? One side wants to silence us for not embracing their communistic financial, gender, and racial ideology, and the other wants to lock us up for refusing to salute the Israeli flag. America is in serious trouble!
We cannot support racial quota programs, mandatory health treatments, the erasure of white heroes in print works and public statuary, the rewriting of history to conform to a politically correct viewpoint, the terribly destructive transgender movement, and so many more of the fringe (and frankly quite weird) issues the Democrats have glammed onto to separate themselves ideologically from conservatives.
Sorry to say, the Democrats are even more pathetic than our Republican politicians who seem to spend a majority of their time figuring out how to make Israel great again and line their pockets.
Tremblay: What do you see as the most important issues facing the American people today?
Angel: I think those issues are the same as for all people, regardless of race, religion, or political persuasion:
• Stop wasting money and lives on unnecessary wars. America has not fought a necessary war since 1812. We should have avoided participation in all the rest. Our own Civil War (1861–1865) was a disaster for the white race in North America. World War I and World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran—all could have been avoided, and all were demographic disasters for the white race.
• Make healthcare affordable. The insurance companies are rapacious. CEOs make tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars and spend millions more figuring out how to deny claims. I am not sure it is possible, but you need to figure out how we can bypass the insurance companies. They are the ones making all of this so unaffordable. I am interested in hearing opinions from Canadians about Canada’s healthcare system. It seems better than ours in many ways.)
• Stop adding to the national debt. Americans seem to have become desensitized to the terms “billions” and “trillions.” Do you realize that if someone gave your company a trillion dollars and it lost $50 million a year, your company could still survive for the next 20,000 years? Where is all that tax money going? Too much of it is going to the mudrer of people overseas.
• Slash spending. The first place to start would be to cut the military budget in half and make peace and mutually beneficial trade agreements, not war.
• Ferret out corruption. Why does every U.S. politician exit Congress as a multi-millionaire? What are U.S. taxpayers paying for crazy transgender education programs for Africans or studying the mating habits of a bisexual frog? Instead, we need to find out: How $50 billion in Medicare claims was fraudulently submitted and paid. Why America spent $22 billion to resettle illegal “migrants” into America’s heartland. How we were scammed out of $40 billion in phony Covid pandemic payments. Why nobody questions $50 billion in Medicaid fraud, etc. Is anybody minding the store?
• Keep working to reverse the health decline of Americans. Way too many Americans are obese and out of shape. We are a nation of fatties. A more concerted national push for better physical and mental health is something AFP has always supported, as well as natural remedies, not more pharmaceuticals, to treat illness. It is distressing to find out that 20% of Americans are on Big Pharma’s psychoactive drugs. Too many Americans pass their day in a stupor—fat, brainwashed, drugged-up zombies, eager to run home and scroll through TikTok for hours on their cell phones.
• Make housing more affordable. How? Reward builders who make smaller homes. After WWII, the United States built millions of affordable houses. If we could do it then, we can do it now. But maybe not. We can’t even get a high-speed rail system or a petroleum refinery built. Unfortunately, we are good at erecting data centers, solar farms, and storage units, so Americans can pay to pack away all the useless garbage we buy every day from China but can’t fit in their homes.
• Keep that border closed. Nations rise and fall on their racial demographics. This is a vital effort, and one that Trump deserves high praise for. Unfortunately, one day soon America will be like Japan: too few children being born to sustain the Ponzi Scheme Social Security system.
• Continue our quest to the Moon and Mars. The minerals to be found on those celestial bodies could give America some of the rare-earth minerals needed to continue developing cutting-edge technology. From what I gather, humans will not be going much further due to our physical limitations. Currently, we can’t figure out how to shield ourselves from the radiation encountered in space. Our bodies don’t handle weightlessness too well, either. Currently, those break-dancing Chinese robots I saw in a video recently might be the only ones who can replace human astronauts and withstand the many limitations of human-manned space flights. Unfortunately, I do not see any dancing robots dressed in red, white and blue.
• Stop making enemies. The United States under Trump has become an embarrassing bully. Restore “diplomacy” to our lexicon.
• Encourage families who contribute to society lucrative benefits for having children. If you can address the above problems, I believe white people will begin having children again. If we do not, our race is gone and the United States with it. Racial dissolution of the founding stock of a nation is, of course, the main factor for the fall of nearly all civilizations.
Tremblay: That leads us to our final question: What are your predictions for post-Trump America?
Angel: I hate predictions and I do try to avoid them whenever possible because predicting the future is very difficult, unless you word your answers like Nostradmus. In this case, however, I will tell you what I believe will happen to America.
Eventually the world will stop buying our debt. The wars in Ukraine and Iran have shown us that technology can level the playing field. Who would have thought, 15 years ago, that Iran or Ukraine could stand up to such powers as Russia and the United States? Drone technology, advanced radar systems, ballistic missile tech, targeting systems, satellite networks and strategic geographical location have all shown that smaller nations can ward off larger ones.
Although Uncle Sam has been strutting around the globe like a mad bully over the past seven decades, he is now being seen as more of a paper tiger.
The days of the United States beating up on smaller nations are, I hope, over.
As I pray no human is stupid enough or cruel enough to use nuclear weapons, I believe this means nukes are no longer a real deterrent because no nation will use them. Thus, any nation with sophisticated drone and missile technology can no longer be pushed around. They don’t have to fear being nuked; the world won’t put up with it.
Eventually, the kids in the schoolyard have had enough and stand up to the bully. That is what will happen, and that is a good thing. And it is happening now.
It is also a good thing that Iran wiped out—and I mean obliterated—most of the U.S. military bases in the Mideast. We mourn the loss of U.S. lives, but we needed to get our nose bloodied. The simple fact is that America should not have military bases in nearly every nation around the globe. It is ridiculous.
Unfortunately, we will continue to decline as a nation. The founding stock will disappear from lack of childbearing or be absorbed by other races. Immigrants will have to be brought in to do jobs because we will need someone to pay into the Social Security system to keep it afloat.
The U.S. dollar will eventually lose its reserve currency status. Inflation will skyrocket. The world will see America as it truly is—a financially and morally bankrupt nation more concerned about playing video games and living in artificial, computer-generated realities. Education will continue to devolve into experimental social programming.
America will go through its own Weimar period. When that finally ends, there will be hell to pay for those behind the ruination of this country.
What an American of the 22nd century will look like, I cannot even venture to guess, but my prediction is that you might not recognize him—or perhaps I should say they/them. (I’d better check my pronouns before I say that; it could be someone who is not sure if they are male or female.)
Now that is all very downbeat (I told you I did not like making predictions), but I do not see America returning to the glory and affordability of the 1950s. Those days are gone and never returning.
If we had a benevolent and intelligent leader (and I honestly do not see one amongst our pool of elected officials), I?believe this nation could be turned around. Unfortunately, our politicians are more worried about using their insider trading tips to make a killing on Wall Street or figuring out how to meet with a Chinese spy for a moonlight tryst.
In America today, if you did not guess already, our pathetic politicians are the biggest problem we face. And things ain’t getting any better.
Tremblay: Tell readers how they can get a sample issue of American Free Press.
Angel: For those interested, we have a PDF version of AFP that is only $35 a year for 26 issues. I would tell Canadian subscribers to request a print copy, but the cost to send mail to Canada these days has skyrocketed. This is one of the reasons we also have a PDF version of the paper.
Those interested in getting a sample PDF of AFP for free, should email Angel@AmericanFreePress.net, and I will email you one. If you would like to see more about AFP first, go to AmericanFreePress.net.
* At the time, The Spotlight’s attorney was the great Mark Lane (1927–2016), bestselling author of Rush to Judgment, a devastating critique of the Warren Commission’s bogus inquiry into the murders of John F. Kennedy, and Lee Harvey Oswald in a 1963. The CIA and FBI never forgave Lane for writing that book, as he clearly showed there was a vast conspiracy against the president and that the murder of Oswald was part of an effort to tie up the loose ends. In the future, Lane would represent James Earl Ray, the alleged killer of Martin Luther King. When Lane had the bullets tested—one from King’s body and one from the gun that was found on a sidewalk and tied to Ray—the ballistics did not match. In short, Ray was not the killer of King. He, like Oswald, was a patsy.